Dear Rolf, I'm aware that there are a number of responses to your argument by others, so I'll try and keep this brief.
1. It is true that the text is unpointed (as was my Hebrew). And I agree that your reading is only "possible," as you said. However, when used in phrases strongly reminiscent of biblical phrases which employ Yhwh, it is more likely that it is being used as a substitute for Yhwh. 2. You fail to deal with the details of my previous point: context and intertextuality both lend support to the notion that ×××× × serves to replace ×××× in some (perhaps many) places in the DSS. Your objections are just as applicable to your assertion that only ×× serves as a substitute. I don't recall that you've offered parallels to biblical texts which demonstrate the substitution. 3. You're use of "many" is unwarranted and skews your evidence. For one, while there are texts which include both ×××× × and ××××, there are also many which include both ×× and ×××× (i.e. 1Q14, 1QpHab, 1QS, 4Q161, 4Q163, 4Q171, 4Q173, 4Q174, 4Q175, 4Q176, 4Q177, 4Q183, 4Q219, 4Q221, 4Q222, 4Q223_224, 4Q225, 4Q248, 4Q258, 4Q265, 4Q364, 4Q368, 4Q370, 4Q372, 4Q379, 4Q381, 4Q393, 4Q408, 4Q429, 4Q522, 5Q10, 11Q11, 11Q12, 11Q19, 11Q5). A few also include the two terms in juxtaposition. Of the examples you cite, only 4Q163 is certain to include an expression like ×××× × ×××× where it is clear that ×××× × is not being used to replace ××××, so your "five fragments" claim does not accurately represent the evidence. Given that both ×× and ×××× both appear in many fragments/manuscripts, and if we apply your argument consistently, then ×× cannot be being used as a substitute for Yhwh. A consistent application of your arguments does not make your claim stronger than the claim that ×××× × is used as a substitute for ××××. Consequently the better evidence is those manuscripts which do not use ×××× at all (if the authors were happy to use ×××× then it is not clear why we should expect there to be ANY terms functioning as substitutes for ×××× in those manuscripts). I've cited those examples previously and there are good reasons to believe that ×××× × is being used to replace ×××× in a number of places based on parallels with biblical phrases. Thus I believe your assessment of my argument is not cogent: RF: a) It is possible that 'adonai does not occur in the DSS at all, and that only 'adoni occurs. MAS: I agree, in fact the former may be a Masoretic construct. It has no bearing on the use of ×××× × as a substitute for ××××. My distinction was between ×××× and ×××× ×. RF: b) In the five fragments where )DNY and YHWH are used together, )DNY is used as a title )DNY YHWH MAS: There are not five fragments where these appear together in juxtaposition, there is only one. Similarly, there are many fragments which have both ×× and ×××× as I cited above. The better evidence is manuscripts that DO NOT use ×××× at all (as I've noted repeatedly). RF: c) The use of IDNY one time does not tell us much about the function of the word. MAS: I have never said it does. I have always made reference to multiple uses in phrases that echo biblical phrases which use ××××. RF: d) You have not demonstrated that )DNY in any of the thirteen remaining documents is used as a substitute for YHWH MAS: I have done more than you have to demonstrate that ×× is used in this way. You simply dismiss the evidence which appeals to parallels with biblical usage. Finally, I'll agree with everyone else, your point that "the normal procedure would have been for Jesus to pronounce YHWH when he read aloud from the Tanakh, and for the NT writers to use YHWH in quotes" is what you have to prove, not what you must assert! There are very good indications that this was most certainly NOT the "normal procedure." Regards, Martin Shields.
_______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
