Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Wednesday 12 February 2003 13:42, furuli AT online.no wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> Nobody would deny that some persons of the Qumran people, or perhaps
> all of them used a subatitute for the tetragrammaton. But this does
> not prove that other groups did the same in B.C.E.

Actually, since it has long been established that many if not most of the 
scrolls were not produced at Qumran but were brought in from other places, it 
does strongly suggest that the practice was quite widespread.

> The words you quote from Wurthwein are not found in my 1979-edition
> of his work. If you quote correctly, this is a blatant example of a
> misleading statement in a book by a fine scholar. Or rather, before
> it is verified that Wurthwein himself wrote these words, I am
> inclined to think that a misinformed translator or editor added the
> words.

Rolf,
In the 1979 edition, see page 146.  Michael's 1995 edition is a revision and 
hence the page numbers are different.  The statement in question is opposite 
the photo of the Habakkuk commentary, which in "our" edition (I also have the 
1979) is on p. 147.  And I checked the photographic edition of the Isaiah 
scroll, and Wurthwein is right about 3:17.  It does read `adonai.  The scribe 
has put dots (indicating erasure) under the letters of `adonai and written 
YHWH above the line.  I haven't checked all of the references about the 
converse, but I have no doubt they're accurate: 1QIsa reads YHWH for `adonai 
in those places.  What does this tell us?  It tells us that the scribe was 
reading along and copying his exemplar, when he came to YHWH.  He pronounced 
it `adonai in his mind and just automatically wrote it that way, then 
realized what he had done and corrected it to YHWH.  In the other places, he 
saw `adonai and his mind substituted YHWH.  This combination of factors 
indicates that YHWH was vocalized as `adonai by this scribe.  And it's really 
doubtful that this was an isolated practice.

Regarding your repeated statement that the DSS substitute El rather than 
`adonai, Wurthwein addresses that as well, on the same page: "In the text of 
the commentary itself [the Habakkuk commentary] the tetragrammaton is avoided 
and 'el is used in its place."  The pHab seems to be unusual among the DSS in 
this regard, especially in light of the evidence from the Isaiah scroll.  So 
it's a bit of an overstatement, at the very least, to say that this was the 
most common practice among the DSS.

> >I have not studied very much of the DSS so I hope someone will
> >correct me if I am giving misleading information.  The question was
> >raised whether or not there is any preChristian evidence that
> >Hebrews replaced the tetragrammaton with Lord- either in Hebrew or
> >Greek.  I have in front of me a couple of pages copied from Ernst
> >Wurthein, The Text of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: W. B.
> >Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
> >Commenting on the Habakkuk Commentary, he says, "In the period of
> >these manuscripts it is evident that 'adonai was read for the
> >tetragrammaton because the first Isaiah scroll, for example, reads
> >)DNY where M [can't reproduce the symbol he uses] has YHWH (3:17),
> >and conversely (6:11; 7:14; 9:7; 21:16; 28:2." (page 158).
> >On the Papyrus Fouad Wurthein comments, "Thus, the tetragrammaton
> >appears to have been an archaizing and hebraizing revision of the
> >earlier translation kurios." (page 29).
> >Sincerly Yours,
> >Michael Abernathy
> >_______________________________________________
> >b-hebrew mailing list
> >b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur