Dear Rolf, Thanks for your reply. There are a few points which need to be considered.
1. A distinction should be made between ×××× and ×××× ×. The latter is used primarily of Yhwh and it is thus apparent that there is a graphic distinction between the use of a simple title and the term associated with Yhwh. 2. Your assessment that ×××× × is always a title in the DSS seems overly subjective. If you were to substitute ××× × for ×××× in many places in the Tanak it would also make sense as a title in spite of the fact that it substituted for a nameâthe clauses make just as much sense either way. However, there are good grounds for doubting your dismissal of the validity of this substitution (I'll expand in the points below). You seem only willing to concede the substitution if the DSS employ an extensive quotation from the Tanak, but scholars widely acknowledge a far broader range of intertextual relationships exist beyond extensive verbatim quotation. At the very leastâwere you seeking to be more objectiveâyou would need to claim that the evidence could be fairly interpreted either way. Beyond this, however, there is more evidence which I think swings things in favour of the notion that ×××× × is used in place of ×××× in at least some of the DSS. 3. Your assessment of the use of ×× as a substitute for ×××× could easily be applied with similar results to ×××× ×. How do you decide that a particular use of ×× is replacing ××××? Only instances where there are quotations or allusions to biblical passages would provide adequate basis for drawing the conclusion that ×× is functioning as a substitute. 4. The situation in most of the references I cited previously is that the books never use the tetragrammaton yet use ×××× × in contexts which are strongly reminiscent of phrases in the Tanak which do use it, and where the Tanak does not use ××× ×. 5. Of the texts I cited, a number do not use ×× or similar forms at all (specifically, 4Q521, 4Q507, 4Q435, 4Q508, 1Q34bis, 4Q434, 4Q577, 4Q527, 4Q526, 4Q384). These are clearly not using ×× as a substitute for ××××. 6. You seem to assume that the texts are consistent in their use of alternate forms as graphical substitutes for ××××. In the end, then, I think there are clear idications that ×××× × is used in a number of places among the DSS sectarian literature as a substitute for ××××. Regards, Martin Shields.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
