Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)]

Excuse me David but for 5, the demonstration entirely lacks. If as you state:


> 5) A way to "test" the DH is quite simple. Take the story of Noah.  Take 
> the portions that use the name Elohim, pull them out, and line them up.  
> Take the remaining portions, which will only have the name Yahweh in them, 
> pull them out, and line them up. What you will get is two entirely complete 
> but different versions of the same story.  How many other stories in world 
> literature can you do something like that?  

this is still no demonstration that a break must run along the using of both 
the names YHWH and Elohim. This meant if at all that there is redundant 
material in the story and one could if at all tear the redundant material in 
two separate masses. However the choice where the one formulation or other 
pertains is free and has not to happen according to the usage of YHWH and 
Elohim names.

Only the demonstration that these names have, whenever indeed, made a real 
difference would allow to make the choice to tear along their usage.

Otherwise would also mixed stories using alternately both names make sense. 

So there is nothing "demonstrated" by the DH, but just suggested to have been 
demonstrated. One calls something like this in german "Taschenspielertrick".

Perhaps an other organisation of the text in two heaps of texts - not along 
the usage of the divine names- is less "interesting". But leaving out other 
options of creating groups of the redundancies (if they indeed are 
redundancies caused by something like this and not because of the archaic 
style to which redundancies are typical) is oversymplifying the case.


Best regards

Bányai Michael
Stuttgart