Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>]

The last word, "Hashem", is just an abbreviated repetition of the first two 
-word phrase, and was neeedlessly included here.
 
The phrase, nowadays better and more correctly known as  "hashem hamephorash" 
is understood as 'the explicit name', though originally it may have meant the 
distinct or the declared name, an appellation of  they deity's personal name.
 
BTW, there was some discussion here on 'the evil inclination'. Here, too, the 
more correct usage is "hayyetzer hara' ", with the article H before the first 
word. The form discussed, "yetzer hara"' , while found in literature, has a 
totally different meaning, namely: ' the inclination of (the) evil', which be 
would hard to understand by those who do not accept evil as an existing, 
independent entity with its own various inclinations. 
 
Uri

Jeremy Lupton <torah_neophyte AT hotmail.com> wrote:
Philip,
Maybe "shem hamephorash hashem" could be understood if "shem" is understood 
as "name of".

Then maybe it means "(the) name of the mephorash HaShem" (the adjective 
mephorash being used as a substantive), or else "the mephorash name of 
HaShem". Don't be surprised if I'm wrong, I only know a little Hebrew.


Philip Engmann wrote:
"Whenever, therefore, this nomen tetragrammaton occurred in the sacred
text, (shem hameporash hashem)[1] they were accustomed to substitute
for it Adonai."[2]

The above is a quote from Gesenius's OT lexicon.[3]

I find it difficult to translate and interpret the phrase, shem
hameporash hashem.

The best I can do is literally, "name, the distinct name", or "name, the
holy name".

Philip




_____

[1] Hameporash means the distinct or the holy and it is a pual singular
masculine participle derived from the verb, wr!po. [Benjamin Davidson,
The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House), 1970. Pages 507 and 635].

[2] H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius's Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979). Page 337.

[3] H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius's Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979). Page 337.








>From: b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org Reply-To: 
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org Subject: b-hebrew 
>Digest, Vol 15, Issue 13 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 02:17:48 -0500 (EST)
>
>Send b-hebrew mailing list submissions to b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew or, via email, send a 
>message with subject or body 'help' to b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at 
>b-hebrew-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than 
>"Re: Contents of b-hebrew digest..." Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Birah (Karl Randolph) 2. RE: Birah (Lisbeth S. Fried) 3. 
>Re: Fw: Aramaic to them? (Dave Washburn) 4. Re: Fw: WAYYIQTOL (Karl 
>Randolph) 5. Re: Birah (Deborah Millier) 6. Re: Fw: WAYYIQTOL (Karl 
>Randolph) 7. Re: Fw: WAYYIQTOL (Uri Hurwitz) 8. Re: Fw: WAYYIQTOL 
>(Peter Kirk) 9. Re: Birah (Yigal Levin) 10. Re: Fw: WAYYIQTOL (George 
>Athas) 11. Evil Impulses of the Heart (George Athas) 12. Re: Birah 
>(George Athas) 13. nomen tetragrammaton (Philip Engmann) << message5.txt 
> >> << message8.txt >> << message10.txt >> << message13.txt >> << 
>message16.txt >> << message18.txt >> << message21.txt >> << message23.txt 
> >> << message26.txt >> << message28.txt >> << message30.txt >> << 
>message32.txt >> << message34.txt >> 
>_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list 
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

_________________________________________________________________
Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months 
FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.
>From scarlson AT mindspring.com  Thu Mar 11 21:16:02 2004
Return-Path: <scarlson AT mindspring.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from lakemtao04.cox.net (lakemtao04.cox.net [68.1.17.241])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A2820033
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:16:02 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [68.100.184.114] by lakemtao04.cox.net
        (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with SMTP
        id <20040312021600.MHOQ5813.lakemtao04.cox.net@[68.100.184.114]>
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:16:00 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20040311212021.00912210 AT mindspring.com>
X-Sender: scarlson AT mindspring.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:20:21 -0500
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson AT mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Hebrew of the Jehoash Inscription
In-Reply-To: <20040311170218.115E020085 AT happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:16:02 -0000

At Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:11:09 -0700, Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> 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."

For it not to be the modern idiom, wouldn't this have to mean "I made
the cracks, the stairs, the walls, etc."?  Is there any evidence outside
of the Jehoash inscription of `asah being applied to inanimate materials
or defects in the sense of repairing rather than making?

Jim Davila has made his analysis at: 
http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004_02_29_paleojudaica_archive.html#107848320504673411

>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.

However, a modern idiom should be a cause for suspicion, especially on
an artifact that not only lacks an archaeological provenance but also
comes from the same channel as other known fakes.

>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!

The linguistic arguments do not exist in a vacuum.

Freedman basically admits that they are anomalies and questions whether
there exist a method for evaluating whether his conjectures are sufficient
to explain them away: "In other words, if anomalies exist both in authentic
inscriptions and (presumably) in the fakes, at what point in the evaluation
do we know how to tip the scale?  How many anomalies are required to prove
that an inscription is a fake?"

I'd say answer depends, at least in part, on its provenance.  Because
of the prevalence of fakes, the more we can rule out fakery, the more
its linguistic anomalies are tolerable.

Stephen Carlson
-- 
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson AT mindspring.com
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35