Biblical Hebrew Forum

[furuli AT online.no]

Dear Dave,

See my comments below,


> 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.


Thank you for clearing up the question regarding the two editions of 
Wurthwein. As to the text of the Isaiah scroll, I do not of course 
dispute its reading.  However, my advice to students and to list 
members is this: Do not trust the words of the experts, but look at 
their assumptions, and above all, look for data! There is so much 
traditional thinking, where conclusions are repeated over and over 
again and never are checked.

I will give one example from my own research. I am on the point of 
completing a book on ancient chronology. The basic reason for 
starting my research was the fact that what the Tanach says about the 
Babylonian exile of the Jews cannot be harmonized with modern 
history/chronology. The chronological work that is accepted by all is 
that of Parker and Dubberstein (1956). I looked at all the cuneiform 
tablets which are the basis of their list of intercalary months and 
gathered information from several thousand other tablets. What I 
found was that the authors were selective and did not use data which 
argued against their theory, and that 51 % of their intercalary 
months of the Persian empire are unfounded. This means that we cannot 
trust the traditional Persian and New Babylonian chronologies. It 
seems to me that nobody has bothered to collect all the data 
contradicting the traditional view, but that view has simply been 
repeated over and over again. Similar situations are found all over 
the line. So don't trust the authorities!

Then back to Wurthwein.  When he wrote his comments on the Isaiah 
scroll, just a part of the DSS had been published, so a study of 
substitutes for the tetragrammaton would be hampered. In addition, it 
was generally believed (and it still is) that the substitution of 
YHWH by )DNY went back to the last centuries B.C.E.  Wurthwein's 
mentioned interpretation of the Isaiah scroll was based on these two 
premises. This is of course one possible interpretation, but on the 
basis of *all* the DSS which now are published, it is very unlikely. 
It is much more likely that the material can be explained as textual 
variation. In the 470 verses of the Tanach which are doublettes, 
there are at least 58 differences (WAYYIQTOL in one and YIQTOL in the 
other vice versa, c.f. Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22). There is no 
particular system in the differences, so they are simply variants. 
The same would be the case in other instances. In order to bolster 
Wurthwein's interpretation of the isaiah scroll, one has to do the 
following: Study all the examples of )DNY in extra-biblical 
manuscripts of the DSS and point out a few examples where )DNY 
clearly is a substitute for YHWH  (as )L clearly is in many other 
manuscripts). I have found none clear examples, and if such are not 
present, Wurthwein's interpretation is weak.


> 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


> I do not take issue with Wurthwein's interpretation of the Isaiah 
> scroll, particularly not when i see his assumptions. But I take 
> issue of the words of his book which flatly state "Thus, the 
> tetragrammaton
>  >appears to have been an archaizing and hebraizing revision of the 
> earlier translation kurios." This is a fine example that indicates 
> that we should not trust the authorities.

A Pietersma has argued along the same lines as I argue for the place 
of the tetragrammaton in the NT (on the basis of indirect evidence) 
in favor of the place of KURIOS in the original Septuagint. This is 
done in a fine scholarly way, although the publication of all the DSS 
show that his basic arguments are not valid (in my view).( See 
"Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint" in 
De Septuaginta Studies in Honor of John william Wevers on his 
sixty-fifth Birthday, eds: A. Pietersma, C. Cox (1984).). To present 
data and arguments is legitimate, to state something where positive 
data are lacking is misleading.


So everything boils down to two points:
1) How can we explain the few occurrences of )DNY in the DSS compared 
with the extensive use of )L, if )DNY was used as a substitute for 
YHWH?
2) Give a few clear examples from the DSS of )DNY used as a 
substitute for YHWH.




Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> From furuli AT online.no  Thu Feb 13 03:57:44 2003
Return-Path: <furuli AT online.no>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail59.fg.online.no (mail59-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.59])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F5120032
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Thu, 13 Feb 2003 03:57:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [80.213.38.189] (ti200710a080-1725.bb.online.no
        [80.213.38.189])
        by mail59.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA24701
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:58:50 +0100 (MET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <a05111b00ba71054329ed@[80.213.38.189]>
In-Reply-To: <BA708666.3AF9%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
References: <BA708666.3AF9%rdehoop AT keyaccess.nl>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:57:04 +0100
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
From: furuli AT online.no
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/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-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:57:44 -0000

Dear Raymond,



>  >
> >  That is exactly my point, the group at Qumran used a substitute for
> >  YHWH - not )DNY but )L.  So this could not be the antecedent of the
> >  later Masoretic pointing of YHWH with the vowels of  )DNY, nor a use
> >  of    KURIOS for YHWH in the NT.
>
> So, you agree that there is a tendency to substitute the Name. That is the
> main issue, the substitute could have differed in groups, regionally etc.
> But it also could have differed depending on the context: commentary on a
> text, or the reading of a text (cf. Yigal's argument). So, what you have
> demonstrated is that there was a tendency to substitute. Only, the
> substitute in biblical texts and liturgical contexts is not known.
>
> > > >  I would also like to point to an example which indicates that YHWH
> > > >  was *not* pronounced as KURIOS by the Greek translator of 8HevXIIgr.
> > > >  In Micah 1:2 the Hebrew text has )DNY YHWH, and YHWH as expected is
> > > >  pointed by the Masoretes as )LHYM. the reason is of course that the
> > > >  readers should  not read )DNY )DNY. However in the Greek text of the
> > > >  mentioned manuscript we find KURIOS + the tetragrammaton in old
> > > >  Hebrew characters. This suggests that the tetragrammaton was *not*
> > > >  pronounced by KURIOS; otherwise one would read KURIOS KURIOS (See E.
> > > >  Tov "The Greek Minor prophets from Nahal Hever, p. 85.) The
> > > >  tetragrammaton also occurs with KURIOS in Micah 4:4 and 5.3 and Jonah
> > > >  2:2. However, in Nahum 1:9 we find QEOS instead of the
> > > >  tetragrammaton, which does not suggest substitution but rather
> > > >  textual variation.
> > >
> > >  This is absolutely not an indication as you suggest. It illustrates the
> > >  Ketib/Qere of MT, but now with regard to the Greek text. If Kurios is found
> > >  before YHWH, you have to read THEOS? Otherwise the MT is the prove that the
>  >> Masoretes did not substitute YHWH with )Adonai.

I do not know if you have read my first posts in this thread, but 
from the beginning I have said that at Qumran there was a 
substitution.  However, the general view is that substitution was 
universal  at the same time, and my point has been that we only have 
evidence from Qumran.

>  >
>  > You must leave out the Masoretes, who worked 700-1000 years later,
>  > from the discussion.
>
> Why? It illustrates the point that in case you have the combination of
> substitute followed by the to-be-substituted-name [Adonai followed by YHWH;
> Kurios by YHWH), you have to look for another substitute. But okay, no
> Masoretes: You suggest that in Qumran the substitute was/might have been
> )ELOHIM, what happened if they found YHWH )ELOHIM? In the line of your
> argueing above, this is the proof they did not substitute YHWH by )ELOHIM!

The evidence is that the substituted YHWH with )L.

> >  E. Tov draws the same conclusion as I do
> >  regarding Mica 1.2, that the manuscript probably distinguished
> >  between the tetragrammaton and )DNY.  I think it can mislead some to
> >  use the technical term Ketib/Qere in connection with Qumran. There is
> >  nothing like the Masoretic Ketib/Qere in Qumran, but different
> >  "families" of manuscripts existed side by side.
>
> I agree Ketib/Qere is somewhat misleading, I will use "substitute" for the
> Qere.
>
> >  I do not see any reason to read QEOS instead of YHWH. If you don't
> >  presume  that the Greek writers had stopped pronouncing the name, I
>  > see no reason why they should not read KURIOS, and then pronounce
> >  YHWH.
>
> Two points:
> 1.   Supposing that the text from Nahal Hever has some relationship with
> Qumran, you just have argued that in Qumran they did substitute YHWH by
> )ELOHIM. As far as I am aware, THEOS is the Greek word for the Hebr.
> )ELOHIM. So, my argument is completely in line with your argument.
>
> 2.   The question was whether your example demonstrates they did not use
> KURIOS as a substitute. My answer is that your example does not demonstrate
> it. I did not argue that they did substitute, but I do not exclude it and I
> gave you some good arguments for it. So, where you try to prove they did not
> substitute, I just say you did not prove it.
>
> > >  I do have my doubts with regard to the use of the NT in this discussion,
> > >  unless the NT would use the tetragrammaton throughout with vocalisation.
> > >  Yet, a few points:
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
> >  The only real evidence of a substitution in B.C.E. comes from Qumran.
> >  The basic arguments for its non-use in the NT, have been shown to be
> >  unfounded.  So again, when Jesus read from Isaiah where YHWH is found
> >  (Luke 4:18), why in the world should he refrain from pronouncing it?
>
> The only thing we have as evidence here, is a Greek text, which reads
> KURIOS. You have no text, which has YHWH there. So, prove to me that
> (assuming it is historical) Jesus did pronounce YHWH.

If you look at the literature regarding substitution from the start 
of the 20th century, you find two principal arguments in favor of 
Jesus and his disciples using a substitute, 1) the LXX rendered YHWH 
as KURIOS, and 2) the name was no longer pronounced in the 1st 
century C.E.  Both are wrong according to the manuscript evidence we 
have. When a person reads from a text, s/he tends to read correctly, 
and my point was that when the two wrong views no longer can be 
upheld, there simply is no reason why Jesus should not pronounce the 
name. Corroborating this is the fact that in the 2nd century C.E., 
divine designations were changed both in LXX and NT manuscripts.


> SNIP



>  > If we accept that paleo-Hebrew characters indicate non-pronunciation,
> >  Aramaic letters should indicate pronunciation, and definitely so the
> >  phonetic transcription IAW.  In my view the paleo-Hebrew letters may
> >  argue both for and against pronunciation. Would anybody argue that
> >  whole texts in paleo-Hebrew characters were not read aloud?
>
> You are ridiculing my argument; just offer us good arguments.


I am not ridiculing your argument, but I try to reason with people. I 
never want to ridicule any person or to question his or her knowledge 
or background. I believe that we should differentiate between person 
and  subject, but I am in favor of calling a spade a spade.

> <<SNIP>>
>
> Snip
>
> As I wrote before the evidence might be interpreted in different ways. It
> appears to me, however, that you do want to prove that YHWH was not
> substituted by )ADONAI at the beginning of the C.E. I am not interested to
> prove it happened, but I would suggest that you leave both possibilities
> open, the facts are not decisive. Now I will leave the discussion.


If you have not realized that I keep both possibilities open, I have 
stated my case rather poorly.  I am not aware that I have used the 
word "prove" in this thread, because I believe that history cannot be 
proven. What I have tried to do, is to show that much of the 
traditional thinking regarding the substitution of the name, should 
be abandoned due to manuscript evidence. So I have been out, not to 
prove what *is*, but rather to demonstrate what *is not* -manuscript 
evidence that the LXX substitutet YHWH with KURIOS and that the name 
was not pronounced by the public in the 1st century C.E.

For my part I have given my principal arguments, so I think it is time to 
stop.



> Kol tuv,
> Raymond


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
> From dwashbur AT nyx.net  Thu Feb 13 12:01:44 2003
Return-Path: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from scanmail3.cableone.net (scanmail3.cableone.net [24.116.0.123])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F0C20090
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:01:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scanmail3.cableone.net ([10.116.0.123]) by
        scanmail3.cableone.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68);
        Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:54:06 -0700
Received: from scanmail3.cableone.net [24.116.0.123] by scanmail3.cableone.net
 (SMTPD32-7.04) id ADAE2FC01D8; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:54:06 -0700
Received: from daddy (24-117-116-81.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.116.81]) by
        mail.cableone.net with SMTP (MailShield v2.04 - WIN32 Jul 17 2001 
17:12:42);
        Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:54:05 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] LORD
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:36:25 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <002201c2d2d2$3afb2d60$c872c541@Default>
        <200302121432.38099.dwashbur AT nyx.net> 
<a05111b00ba70830bed04@[80.213.38.180]>
In-Reply-To: <a05111b00ba70830bed04@[80.213.38.180]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200302130936.25035.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-SMTP-HELO: daddy
X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: dwashbur AT nyx.net
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: 24-117-116-81.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.116.81]
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
        <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/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-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:01:44 -0000

On Thursday 13 February 2003 01:17, furuli AT online.no wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
> See my comments below,
>
> >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 perhap=
s
> >>  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 pla=
ces,
> > 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 revisi=
on
> > 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 edi=
tion
> > of the Isaiah scroll, and Wurthwein is right about 3:17.  It does rea=
d
> > `adonai.  The scribe has put dots (indicating erasure) under the lett=
ers
> > 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=
?=20
> > It tells us that the scribe was reading along and copying his exempla=
r,
> > 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 mi=
nd
> > substituted YHWH.  This combination of factors indicates that YHWH wa=
s
> > vocalized as `adonai by this scribe.  And it's really doubtful that t=
his
> > was an isolated practice.
>
> Thank you for clearing up the question regarding the two editions of
> Wurthwein. As to the text of the Isaiah scroll, I do not of course
> dispute its reading.  However, my advice to students and to list
> members is this: Do not trust the words of the experts, but look at
> their assumptions, and above all, look for data! There is so much
> traditional thinking, where conclusions are repeated over and over
> again and never are checked.

I don't trust experts: including you.  I know your assumptions and how th=
ey=20
tend to color your data.  I'm not going to get into the date of the exile=
=20
with you because it's too far afield from the purposes of this list. =20
However, see below the snip.

[snip]
> Then back to Wurthwein.  When he wrote his comments on the Isaiah
> scroll, just a part of the DSS had been published, so a study of
> substitutes for the tetragrammaton would be hampered. In addition, it
> was generally believed (and it still is) that the substitution of
> YHWH by )DNY went back to the last centuries B.C.E.  Wurthwein's
> mentioned interpretation of the Isaiah scroll was based on these two
> premises. This is of course one possible interpretation, but on the
> basis of *all* the DSS which now are published, it is very unlikely.
> It is much more likely that the material can be explained as textual
> variation. In the 470 verses of the Tanach which are doublettes,
> there are at least 58 differences (WAYYIQTOL in one and YIQTOL in the
> other vice versa, c.f. Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22). There is no
> particular system in the differences, so they are simply variants.

Having just spent the last 20 years studying textual variants in all the=20
scrolls and having just published a book on the subject, I can tell you t=
hat=20
your scenario is far too simplistic.  In particular, the YHWH/`DNY=20
substitutions in the Isaiah scroll that have already been mentioned are b=
est=20
explained on the basis of a sound substitution, not a textual one, as I=20
already explained.

> The same would be the case in other instances. In order to bolster
> Wurthwein's interpretation of the isaiah scroll, one has to do the
> following: Study all the examples of )DNY in extra-biblical
> manuscripts of the DSS and point out a few examples where )DNY
> clearly is a substitute for YHWH  (as )L clearly is in many other
> manuscripts). I have found none clear examples, and if such are not
> present, Wurthwein's interpretation is weak.

Rolf, I have seen you repeat this statement many times over the past few=20
weeks, and it's simply not accurate.  You keep saying that 'el is the mos=
t=20
common substitution for YHWH in the scrolls, but I haven't seen a shred o=
f=20
actual evidence, such as citations of scrolls (especially biblical ones).=
=20
Again, I just came from there, and it's wrong.  There is no "most common"=
=20
substitution, and in reality 'el is in the minority.  The most common rea=
ding=20
for YHWH in the scrolls is, oddly enough, YHWH.  Sometimes it's in archai=
c=20
script.  Sometimes there are 4 dots.  A couple of Leviticus fragments fro=
m=20
Cave 4 leave it out altogether.  In one biblical scroll there is a readin=
g=20
'elohim for YHWH, which led the fellow who published it in JBL to conclud=
e=20
that the DSS now "prove" that passage belongs with E rather than with J. =
=20
It's amazing what one can prove with selective evidence, especially since=
=20
that particular fragment is far too small to tell whether this was the=20
scribe's consistent practice or not.  I also find it fascinating that you=
can=20
explain away substitutions of `adonai as mere textual variants, but don't=
do=20
the same with 'el.  Yet, it is clear from the Isaiah examples that we are=
in=20
fact dealing with instances of substitution there, as I showed, and you=20
haven't answered that; you simply said "oh, no, those are just textual=20
variants."  As I said, I don't trust experts.  I expect them to defend th=
eir=20
statements.  That includes you.  You keep making statements like these:

> So everything boils down to two points:
> 1) How can we explain the few occurrences of )DNY in the DSS compared
> with the extensive use of )L, if )DNY was used as a substitute for
> YHWH?

Yet you haven't given any evidence to support the "extensive" statement. =
And=20
you keep making challenges like this:

> 2) Give a few clear examples from the DSS of )DNY used as a
> substitute for YHWH.

But you don't give any examples to support your own contention.  It is wi=
dely=20
known that (DNY (get the parenthesis right) is and was a common substitut=
ion=20
for YHWH both in and out of the scrolls, and the evidence has been presen=
ted=20
in print many times over.  You're challenging that, claiming that )L is m=
ore=20
common, so the burden of proof is on you.  How about it?

--=20
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur