Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Hi Dave,

What's more, we don't know that we are looking at bedeq at all.  The
infinitive bedoq is also attested and means "a repairing."  I have not
understood why bedoq has not been considered except that analysts begin with
assumption of fake.  (I can understand the "need" for a piece without a
clear custody record to be assumed a fake.  I have no problem with that.)

Shalom,
Bryan

You wrote:

> On Friday 27 February 2004 12:02, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
> > The latest edition of Biblical Archaeological Review has an article
> > by David Noel Freedman discussing the Hebrew of the so-called
> > Jehoash Inscription.  For one of his points, he writes: ""It would seem
> > that `asah alone is the verb used in the inscription to mean 'repair,'
> > not bedeq, which most likely carries its Biblical meaning 'crack'."
> > He states this interpretation is "unusual, but not unimaginable," and
> > cites Deut 21:12 and 2 Sam 19:25 [24 in some Bibles] for comparison.
> >
> > However, the use of this verb in these verses involves body parts,
> > not inanimate materials or defects, so I'm not really convinced that
> > the examples are to the point.  Can anyone tell me what's going on
> > here?
>
> He wasn't just referring to `asah, but to `asah plus the entire chain of
noun
> objects.  The biggest complaint about the inscription has been its
supposed
> use of `asah bedeq to mean "make repairs" per modern Hebrew, but this
> complaint takes the phrase out of its context in the inscription. `asah
> apparently takes not only bedeq as its object, but all the other nouns
> (walls, stairs, lattices, etc.) as well.  Even if we don't give it a
specific
> meaning like "repair," `asah in this context appears to mean "I did the
> cracks, the stairs, the walls, the this, the that, and so on."  It looks
to
> me as though Cross and Greenstein, in their criticism based on the`asah
bedeq
> phrase, are themselves unduly influenced by modern Hebrew idiom, in that
they
> see it where it may not apparently be.
>
> What's going is that there are those who rushed to judgment on this
artifact,
> and now other scholars are saying "wait a minute.  Let's take another
look."
> I have no stake at all in whether the inscription is genuine or not; I
really
> don't care.  For me it's an interesting curiosity, nothing more.  But to
> date, I haven't found the linguistic arguments against it convincing.
Now,
> it's nice to know I'm in the company of such as Freedman!
>
> -- 
> Dave Washburn
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
> Learning about Christianity from a non-Christian
> is like getting a kiss over the telephone.
>


B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766