Biblical Hebrew Forum

[bhebrew AT shields-online.net]

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 יהוה in some (perhaps many) places in the DSS. Your objections 
are just as applicable to your assertion that only אל 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 יהוה, there are 
also many which include both אל and יהוה (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 
××“×•× ×™ יהוה where it is clear that ××“×•× ×™ is not being used to 
replace יהוה, so your "five fragments" claim does not accurately 
represent the evidence. Given that both אל and יהוה both appear in many 
fragments/manuscripts, and if we apply your argument consistently, then אל 
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 ××“×•× 
י is used as a substitute for יהוה.

Consequently the better evidence is those manuscripts which do not use 
יהוה at all (if the authors were happy to use יהוה then it is not 
clear why we should expect there to be ANY terms functioning as substitutes 
for יהוה in those manuscripts). I've cited those examples previously and 
there are good reasons to believe that ××“×•× ×™ is being used to replace 
יהוה 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 יהוה. My distinction 
was between אדון 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 אל and יהוה as I cited above. The better evidence is 
manuscripts that DO NOT use יהוה 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 יהוה.

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 אל 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.