Nevertheless, still irrelevant at the end of it all.
In order for the pointing out of "with ink" to be an idiom, we're gonna have to find evidence somewhere that isn't 8 centuries apart

I see no signs that this is an idiom. You’re right about questioning it.S_Walch wrote:In order for the pointing out of "with ink" to be an idiom, we're gonna have to find evidence somewhere that isn't 8 centuries apart
I think Karl meant "his message" as a meaning of בדיו, not "book"Galena wrote:But I fail to see the link between this and the masculine plural in order to arrive at a destination where ink is removed and book is placed there in its stead? Sorry.
You’re quite right, the word ספר “book” is already in the verse.S_Walch wrote:I think Karl meant "his message" as a meaning of בדיו, not "book"Galena wrote:But I fail to see the link between this and the masculine plural in order to arrive at a destination where ink is removed and book is placed there in its stead? Sorry.
Your suggestion is possible, but without any evidence that that’s what actually happened. Even though it’s sometimes more difficult, I prefer to go with what is actually there, then try to make “corrections”. This is also why I reject many of the Masoretic Qere readings.S_Walch wrote:Karl:
This would be a similar proposal to mine regarding בדיו being a possible scribal mistake for דבריו "his words". Do we however not need to have it read
ואני כתב על הספר את בדיו
?
The word איך as an indicator of a question is sometimes used in the sense of “how is it that …” e.g. Genesis 26:9 and Exodus 6:30. In this context, the question is a bit foolish, and a simple answer shows it.Galena wrote:… I say this because the context lies quite obviously in the question in verse 17, " how did you write all these things from his mouth"? Is there any possible conceivable idea that Baruch might have been sarcastic?