The Euphemism for the Ineffable Name of God and Its Early Evidence in Chronicles

Abstract

When the Tetragrammaton began to be read as Adonai is the subject of significant debate. While κύριoς in the Old Greek may be important evidence for this euphemism, many continue to doubt whether κύριoς is original to the Old Greek. In this article, the unique value of the double title ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ is established in tracing the euphemism in question, and the replacement of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of 2 Samuel with ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Chronicles is presented as early evidence of the euphemism. Thus the reading Adonai for the Tetragrammaton appears to have begun considerably earlier than is commonly thought.

Keywords

Tetragrammaton Chronicles euphemism

1. Introduction

When did Jews begin to read the Tetragrammaton as Adonai? Scholars have long debated when this particular euphemism for the ineffable name of God began.¹ The most notable evidence for the Adonai euphemism is probably κύριoς, a Greek rendition of the Tetragrammaton found in most Old Greek manuscripts, which might date this euphemism as far back as the third century bce. However, it is heavily debated whether κύριoς in fact was original to the Old Greek. In this article, instead, the Chronicler's replacement of Samuel's ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ with ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ is presented as early evidence of the use of Adonai as a surrogate for the Tetragrammaton.

2. Review of Evidence

Let me begin my discussion by briefly reviewing known evidence of the euphemism. In Jewish sources, the official prohibition against pronouncing the name ‭הוהי‬ is found in the Babylonian Talmud, thus no earlier than the sixth century CE: ‘Not as I am written am I pronounced. I am written yod he vav he, and I am pronounced alef dalet’ (b. Kid. 71a; b. Pes. 50a). But this of course does not mean that the name ‭הוהי‬ was freely pronounced before this. The Mishnah informs us that the practice goes back to the second century bce. Kohler summarizes:

From Sifre to Num. vi. 27, Mishnah Tamid, vii. 2, and Soṭah, vii. 6 it appears that the priests were allowed to pronounce the Name at the benediction only in the Temple; elsewhere they were obliged to use the appellative name (kinnuy) ‘Adonai’… Pronunciation of the Name by the Temple priests also gradually fell into disuse. Tosef., Soṭah, xiii. 8, quoted Menaḥot, 109b, and Yoma, 39b, relates that ‘from the time Simon the Just died, the priests refrained from blessing the people with the Name’… Subsequently also the solemn utterance of the Name by the high priest on the Day of Atonement, that ought to have been heard by the priests and the people, according to the Mishnah Yoma, vi. 2, became inaudible or indistinct.²

Evidence from Qumran appears to back up this general tendency for the reverence given to the solemn name. The Tetragrammaton was frequently replaced by a more generic divine title³ or received special treatment. A piece of evidence directly related to the Adonai euphemism is found in the great Isaiah scroll (1QIsa^a), dated from the first century bce.⁴ There, one finds a phenomenon that appears to reveal scribal confusion between ‭ינדא‬ and ‭הוהי‬.⁵ Where the mt reads either ‭ינדא‬ or ‭הוהי‬, this scroll frequently deviates from the mt, causing numerous subsequent corrections.⁶ The confusion between ‭ינדא‬ and ‭הוהי‬ is further illustrated by two notable cases in which the scribe, initially having written a yod, indicative of ‭הוהי‬, then wrote over it with ‭ינדא‬ (6.1; 7.20).⁷ Had the scribes not read the Tetragrammaton as Adonai, such confusion is hardly explicable.⁸

Above all, κύριoς, the Greek translation of the Tetragrammaton, if proven as the Old Greek translation of ‭ינדא‬, ‘my Lord’, is potentially the most important and earliest evidence for the Adonai euphemism. Scholars have debated, however, whether κύριoς is original to the Old Greek. Text critics as early as Origen⁹ have taken notice of the fact that some early Greek manuscripts do not employ κύριoς. The first use of κύριoς, according to Tov's list, occurs only with P. Baden 56b, dated to the second century CE.¹⁰ Instead, most early Greek manuscripts employ some other special renditions of the Tetragrammaton.¹¹ Famous examples include the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square script by the second hand (P. Fouad 266b¹²), the Tetragrammaton written in paleo-Hebrew script found in the Minor Prophets scroll of Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr¹³), IAΩ, the Greek transliteration of ‭הוהי‬ (4QLXXLev^b¹⁴), and the blank space (P. Fouad 266b¹⁵) or four dots (1QIsa^a¹⁶) written in place of the sacred name. With the sensational display of these special treatments, coupled with the startling lack of evidence of the use of κύριoς in early Greek manuscripts, specialists now tend to see κύριoς as the result of later standardization rather than as the original translation of the Old Greek.¹⁷

Recently, however, Pietersma has challenged this view and argued afresh for the originality of κύριoς.¹⁸ His argument is that the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew was a later development, influenced by an archaizing and Hebraizing tendency during the second century bce. He first examines the evidence for special treatment and concludes that most of the evidence cited is recensional and has little right to represent the Old Greek.¹⁹ Then he surveys the Greek Pentateuch and cites two cases in which ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ was translated δέσπoτα κύρι∊ (Gen 15.2, 8). This is significant for Pietersma because the translator hardly needs to employ the unusual δέσπoτα for ‭ינדא‬ which is usually rendered as κύριoς.²⁰ This makes sense only if ‭הוהי‬ were already translated as κύριoς/κύρι∊, which would render this double title redundant. To be sure, Pietersma made an impressive case for the originality of κύριoς, but his claim must be taken with reservation insofar as only the Pentateuch is surveyed. Not surprisingly, a few years later John Wevers wrote a response and demonstrated that Pietersma's observation regarding the Greek Pentateuch is not matched in the Greek Psalter.²¹

Citing Wevers, De Troyer also rejected Pietersma's contention and instead argued that θ∊ός was the original Old Greek rendering of the Tetragrammaton and that κύριoς became standard only after Adonai was used more extensively.²² De Troyer's argument is based on evidence from actual manuscripts, and her main case rests on P. Fouad 266a and 266c, dated to the first century bce, which boast the use of θ∊ός as the rendition of the Tetragrammaton. This is important since there is no earlier Greek manuscript that preserves κύριoς.²³ Therefore, De Troyer seems justified in claiming that these are ‘maybe a trail of an older tradition’.²⁴

Recently in this journal, Rösel defended the originality of κύριoς by means of an exegetical observation in the Greek Pentateuch.²⁵ He demonstrated that the Greek translators made a careful choice between κύριoς and θ∊ός out of theological considerations, and the carefully refined manner in which they chose the appropriate translation undermines the claim that κύριoς is a product of a mechanical redaction.²⁶ Yet he had to leave the enigmatic use of IAΩ in 4QLXXLev^b a ‘mystery’.²⁷

The foregoing survey demonstrates that the use of κύριoς itself cannot provide definitive ground for the Adonai euphemism. While some circumstantial evidence suggests the originality of κύριoς (such as δέσπoτα κύρι∊ cited by Pietersma), early Greek manuscripts point in another direction. At the same time, the lack of evidence from earlier witnesses does not categorically disprove the possibility of an original κύριoς, because all the extant witnesses are anyhow much later than the supposed date of the Old Greek. Thus, responsible text critics must acknowledge the tentative nature of the present state of information available to us.

Above all, most of these arguments are based, albeit implicitly, on an unstated assumption that there was one original Greek rendition of the Tetragrammaton. In my judgment, it is equally plausible and more practical to posit that there were multiple, competing renditions—of course including κύριoς, θ∊ός, and other special forms—among which κύριoς later happened to emerge as a dominant rendition.

Rather than trying to prove the elusive originality of κύριoς, I here present a piece of evidence that has not been included in the current debate, a case from Chronicles that would predate the κύριoς of the Old Greek. With this, what I claim is, again, not an ultimate vindication for the originality of κύριoς. I intend simply to add one more piece of evidence to the already complex picture and to suggest that the Adonai euphemism, regardless of the originality of κύριoς to the Old Greek, might have a long history.

3. The Case of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬

The double title ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ affords a unique opportunity in the tracing of the practice of replacing ‭הוהי‬ with Adonai. As soon as ‭הוהי‬ is read as Adonai, this double title causes an awkward reading: Adonai Adonai. Ways of avoiding the redundancy have been devised, and the one that eventually became part of the Masoretic tradition, the perpetual Qere, was to read it as Adonai Elohim, which is evinced in the Qere vowel pointing ‭הִוהֱייָנידֲא‬ in the mt.²⁸ True, this Qere belongs to the Masoretic tradition and is thereby quite late in itself, but one cannot neglect the possibility that this preserves an ancient practice that is much older than the Masoretes; in fact, this article is an attempt to prove that. Now, one can theorize that when the Tetragrammaton was still pronounced, ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ would have caused no problem in its transmission, whereas when the solemn name began to be read as Adonai, the transmission of this double title would have become a problem. If so, the Adonai euphemism can be traced by examining how ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ is rendered in textual transmission—that is, whether it is faithfully retained or altered to a form that reflects an attempt to avoid the putative redundancy. ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬, ‘my Lord YHWH’, is a straightforward title. Were it not for the redundancy, this title in itself presents no need for any modification in its oral and written transmission.²⁹

What we need in order to prove a practice of the Adonai euphemism are, then, traces of such in early Hebrew manuscripts or translations. Indeed, one need not search long to find such evidence in ancient witnesses. In the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel³⁰—as represented in Codex Vaticanus, one of the best representations of the Old Greek—‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of the mt is rendered in intriguing fashion: as either κύριoς,³¹ κύριoς κύριoς,³² or κύριoς ὁ θ∊ός.³³ While the peculiar way in which these three titles are distributed in Codex Vaticanus invites text critics into a serious debate,³⁴ what matters most to us is κύριoς (ὁ) θ∊ός, an apparent reflection of the perpetual Qere of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬, Adonai Elohim. Since the practice of the perpetual Qere is caused by, and dependent upon, the euphemism for the Tetragrammaton, some of the translators of the Septuagint were probably under the influence of the euphemism.

1QIsa^a also shows a similar sign of scribal uncertainty in rendering ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of the mt. While this scroll usually follows the double name of the mt, it often deviates to renditions that are quite similar to what we witnessed above in the Greek Ezekiel text. First, 1QIsa^a has the single ‭הוהי‬ in place of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of the mt; this appears six times, three of which are emended later by what appears to be a correction toward the mt. (The correction is made in the form of a superscript in between the line: ‭הוהי‬^{‭ינודא‬}.)³⁵ Second, and more importantly, an apparent trace of the perpetual Qere of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ is observed—namely, ‭םיהולא‬ ‭ינודא‬ in 50.5 and ‭םיהולא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in 61.11. Both of these unequivocally represent the Qere, Adonai Elohim.³⁶ ‭םיהולא‬ ‭ינודא‬ is a literal representation of the aural value of the Qere, whereas ‭םיהולא‬ ‭הוהי‬ reflects a more developed scribal custom in which the scribes habitually substitute the phonetic value of Adonai with the written form, ‭הוהי‬.³⁷

The above discussion demonstrates the value of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ in tracing the Adonai euphemism. 1QIsa^a and the Old Greek text of Ezekiel provide hints of an early euphemistic practice. While the availability of even earlier witnesses is limited, the mt itself provides some, to which I will now turn.

4. ‭םיהולא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Chronicles, a Written Variant of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬

The consonantal text of Chronicles shows a similar phenomenon when it renders the ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of Samuel-Kings. In Samuel-Kings, ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ appears nine times—seven of them in David's Prayer in 2 Samuel 7, which has its parallel in 1 Chronicles 17. The following chart demonstrates how these seven occurrences of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ are rendered in Chronicles.

‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of Samuel-Kings and Its Parallels in Chronicles

As we see, ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ in Samuel is never retained in Chronicles. It is either replaced with the single title ‭הוהי‬/‭םיהולא‬ or rendered in the double title ‭םיהולא‬ ‭הוהי‬. Here, one cannot miss the conspicuous parallel with the aforementioned cases of the Greek Ezekiel and 1QIsa^a in that the title ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ is either shortened or replaced by a form that reflects its perpetual Qere. Concerning the shortened forms, why and how exactly the double title is shortened shall continue to be debated, but one is hard pressed to deny that ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬, whether it belongs to the Chronicler or his Vorlage,³⁸ reflects the perpetual Qere. It is most logical to think that behind all three of these lies a common problem—namely, the supposed redundancy of reading the double title ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬. Indeed, several scholars have already hinted at this possibility.³⁹

Furthermore, there is no other way to account for this unusual replacement. Some have proposed that ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ was the Chronicler's preferred title, over ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬, in the setting of invoking the deity.⁴⁰ But this is hardly justifiable. If one title were to replace another, one would expect some kind of connection, either semantic or functional, between the two. Yet ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ and ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ are completely different titles in nature and function. While ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ is the title that is commonly used for invoking God,⁴¹ that function is hardly attested for ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ outside Chronicles. ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ is a rare title whose meaning has little to do with invocation.⁴² Utterly contrasting is the fact that in Chronicles every single instance of ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ is employed in the setting of prayer as a means of invoking the deity. This applies either to those used as a variant of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of 2 Samuel (1 Chron. 17.16, 17) or those used independently without the parallel (2 Chron. 1.9; 6.41, 42). The only way to account for this unusual use of ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Chronicles is to posit that, for Chronicles, ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ became a written variant of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬, influenced by the practice of the perpetual Qere.

Interestingly, as time passed and the practice of the Adonai euphemism was firmly established, using ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ as a written variant of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ became a rather usual scribal practice. In Targum Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, for instance, ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ of the mt was completely replaced with ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬. Even the single title ‭ינדא‬ was replaced by ‭הוהי‬. The result is the complete loss of the distinction between ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ and ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in the Targumim. Also, when making quotations from biblical texts, Jewish medieval commentators employed ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ more frequently than ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬.⁴³ Given that the written language is subject to the influence of the spoken language, this change perhaps was inescapable when the Tetragrammaton was always read as Adonai. If so, this means that what we saw in the text of Chronicles is nothing but the first instance of what later became an ordinary scribal custom. Using ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ as a written variant for ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬, whether by the scribe of Targumim or by the Chronicler, probably happened because they used Adonai as a surrogate for the solemn name.

5. Conclusion

The use of ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Chronicles as a written variant for ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ in 2 Samuel serves as one of the early attestations of the Adonai euphemism, that is, the use of Adonai as a surrogate for the Tetragrammaton. Of course, this does not mean that the pronunciation of the name was officially prohibited by that time or that such practice was well established. I simply suggest that the Adonai euphemism may have a longer life than commonly thought. This does not definitively prove the originality of κύριoς in the Old Greek translation, but it raises that probability. There is therefore no reason to consider all the usages of κύριoς late. When the issue of the euphemism for the Tetragrammaton is dealt with, ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Chronicles should be treated as early biblical evidence of this distinct Jewish treatment of the ineffable name of God.

Footnotes

1.

For a brief review of this phenomenon, see Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 14–19.

2.

Kaufmann Kohler, ‘Adonai’, The Jewish Encyclopedia, I (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901), pp. 201–203, <>.

3.

For instance, in 1QpHab, dated to the last half of the first century bce, the scribes would replace the Tetragrammaton with a generic title ‭לא‬ in their commentaries, whereas in the biblical quotation the Tetragrammaton in the text is retained in paleo-Hebrew scripts. Cf. Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St Mark's Monastery (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950); William Hugh Brownlee, The Text of Habakkuk in the Ancient Commentary from Qumran (SBLMS, 11; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1959). For an electronic publication of the text, see <>.

4.

For the dating, see A. van der Kooij, ‘The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah: Some General Comments’, in G.J. Brooke and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (SBLSCS, 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), p. 195.

5.

It is not surprising, however, to see the scribal confusion between ‭ינדא‬ and ‭הוהי‬’ in Isaiah, since the mt of Isaiah itself shows frequent interchanges between ‭ינדא‬ and ‭הוהי‬ (Isaiah uses the single word ‭ינדא‬ 24 times: 3.17, 18; 4.4; 6.1, 8, 11; 7.14, 20; 8.7; 9.7, 16; 10.12; 11.11; 21.6, 8, 16; 29.13; 30.20; 36.8, 9, 12; 37.24; 38.14, 16).

6.

Concerning ‭הוהי‬ of the mt, 1QIsa^a differs from the mt six times. Twice it is omitted (52.5b; 59.21) and it is replaced by ‭ינודא‬ (3.17b), four dots (probably placed over the original blank space 42.6), ‭םיהולא‬(ה) (42.5), and ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינודא‬ (49.7). On the other hand, for the ‭ינודא‬ of the mt, eight times 1QIsa^a goes with ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינץדא‬. Five times (6.11, 7.14; 9.7; 21.16; 28.2) it is simply replaced by ‭הוהי‬. Once (8.7) ‭ינודא‬ is later inserted before it, resulting in ‭הוהי‬^{‭ינודא‬}. Once (3.18) it is corrected back to ‭ינודא‬ by putting four dots under it and writing ‭ינודא‬ over it. Once (3.17a), ‭ינודא‬ is originally retained but afterwards deleted by five dots and corrected to ‭הוהי‬ by writing it over the original ‭ינודא‬. For a more detailed description, see n. 14 in Patrick William Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll, and in the Septuagint’, BIOSCS 13 (1980), pp. 14–44 (40–41); Millar Burrows, ‘Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript’ (Part 2), BASOR 113 (1949), pp. 24–32 (31). Steven T. Byington, ‘‭הוהי‬’ and ‭ינודא‬’, JBL 76 (1957), pp. 58–59, concludes, ‘some passages indicate that ‭הוהי‬ was pronounced ‭ינדא‬ at the time and place of the writing of 1QIsa^a; no passage indicates the contrary’.

7.

See Donald W. Parry and Elisha Qimron (eds.), The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa^a): A New Edition (STDJ, 32; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999), pp. 11, 15. For the digital image, see <http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#6:1 and >.

8.

Not surprisingly, some scholars dated the avoidance of pronouncing the name ‭הוהי‬ based on 1QIsa^a, though their dating of this scroll differs somewhat. See George Howard, ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’, JBL 96 (1977), pp. 63–83 (69); Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran’, p. 36; Byington, ‘‭הוהי‬ and ‭ינודא‬’, p. 59.

9.

See Migne, Patrologia graeca, XII, 1104(B), cited by Albert Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original lxx’, in Albert Pietersma and C.E. Cox (eds.), De Septuaginta (Mississauga: Benben Publications, 1984), pp. 85–101 (87).

10.

Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ, 54; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004), p. 289.

11.

For a general description, see Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran’; Howard, ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’; Martin Rösel, ‘The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch’, JSOT 31 (2007), pp. 411–28 (414–16). For the digital images of these, see Kristin De Troyer, ‘The Names of God, their Pronunciation and their Translation: A Digital Tour of Some of the Main Witnesses’, Lectio Difficilior 2 (2005), <http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/05_2/troyer_names_of_god.htm>. In addition, one might want to consult Robert Kraft's online article, ‘Format Features in the Earliest Jewish Greek Literary Papyri and Related Materials’, available from his website: <>.

12.

W.G. Waddell, ‘The Tetragrammaton in the lxx’, JTS 45 (1944), pp. 158–61. The complete text was published in Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint, Genesis and Deuteronomy (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 27; Bonn: Habelt, 1980).

13.

This became well known as a witness of the Kaige recension, as Barthélemy claimed. Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila; première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda (VTSup, 10; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963). The complete text was published in Emanuel Tov and Robert A. Kraft, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (DJD, 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).

14.

This fragment has just one clear instance of IAΩ (see Plate XL, fragment 20). See Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Charles Ulrich and Judith E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4 IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD, 9; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 174.

15.

Koenen, Three Rolls, pp. 5–6.

16.

See n. 6, above.

17.

See, e.g., Waddell, ‘The Tetragrammaton’, p. 159; Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd edn, 1959), p. 222; Howard, ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’, p. 65.

18.

Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragram’, pp. 99–101.

19.

Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragram’, pp. 88–92.

20.

Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragram’, pp. 93–97.

21.

John William Wevers, ‘The Rendering of the Tetragram in the Psalter and Pentateuch: A Comparative Study’, in Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox and Peter John Gentry (eds.), The Old Greek Psalter: Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (JSOTSup, 332; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 21–35.

22.

Kristin De Troyer, ‘The Pronunciation of the Names of God: With Some Notes Regarding nomina sacra’, in Ingolf U. Dalferth and Philipp Stoellger (eds.), Gott nennen: Gottes Namen und Gott als Name (Religion in Philosophy and Theology, 35; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), p. 161.

23.

It is possible that the origin of the perpetual Qere of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ lies in the reading of ‭הוהי‬ as ‭םיהולא‬ or (ὁ)θ∊ός. That a great deal of ‭הוהי‬ in Samuel-Kings are read ‭םיהולא‬ in Chronicles might support the case that Elohim (or θ∊ός) was used as a replacement of the Tetragrammaton. The thesis of early use of θ∊ός is attractive because it goes with the Greek rendition of the double reading ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ with κύριoς (ὁ) θ∊ός. Note ‭הוהי‬ is read (ὁ) κύριoς, most notably in P967 (dated to the second century ce). But it is also likely that to read ‭הוהי‬ as θ∊ός was only a second option—i.e., due to redundancy.

24.

De Troyer, ‘The Pronunciation’, p. 159. Her subsequent claim that ‘the original rendering of the Tetragrammaton in Greek was Theos, not Kurios’ (p. 164) is probably overstated. What she proved was not the originality of θ∊ός but simply that the earliest attested Greek rendition of the Tetragrammaton is θ∊ός.

25.

Rösel, ‘Divine Name’.

26.

Rösel, ‘Divine Name’, pp. 416–25.

27.

Rösel, ‘Divine Name’, p. 425.

28.

This particular Qere is often called the ‘Palestinian Qere’. See Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran’, 36; Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragram’, p. 95.

29.

Rösel, ‘Divine Name’, pp. 412–13.

30.

Ezekiel is chosen because approximately three quarters of the occurrences of ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ in the Hebrew appear in this single book. In contrast, the translator(s) of the Deuteronomistic History has/have little problem with ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ because he/they distinguish(es) ‭ינדא‬ from ‭הוהי‬ by rendering the former as κύριέ μou; hence, κύριέ μou κύρι∊ (e.g. 2 Sam. 7.18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 28, 29; Judg. 6.22).

31.

It is highly debated whether this single κύριoς represents the reading shortened—whether by the translator or already in the Hebrew Vorlage—from the original double reading or whether the single κύριoς represents the authentic Old Greek reading (derived from its Hebrew Vorlage), of which the mt's double reading represents a later expansion.

32.

This awkward double rendering was once called ‘Barbarism’. See Pietersma, ‘Kyrios or Tetragram’, p. 98.

33.

See, e.g., Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran’, p. 36.

34.

The single title κύριoς is employed mostly in the first twenty chapters (1–20), the double title κύριoς κύριoς is used in the middle part of the book (21–39), and κύριoς ὁ θ∊ός is employed mainly in the last nine chapters (40–48). Text critics traditionally accounted for this variance by positing three translators. For a succinct discussion of the history of the discussion, see Leslie John McGregor, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity (Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, 18; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 5–19; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48 (trans. James D. Martin; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 559–62.

35.

These occur in Ezek. 49.22; 52.4; 28.16*; 30.15*; 61.1; 65.13* (the three references marked with an asterisk are the ones that are later corrected).

36.

See Burrows, ‘Variant Readings’, p. 31; Byington, ‘‭הוהי‬ and ‭ינודא‬’; Howard, ‘The Tetragram and the New Testament’, p. 69; Skehan, ‘The Divine Name at Qumran’, pp. 36, 40–41. This type of change may occur primarily when text is dictated to another scribe, but one may not rule out a direct copying. When copying directly from a written text, the words are read and temporally stored in the mind, often with an aural value, rather than as graphic images. In such cases, it is not uncommon that the aural value introduces errors into the graphic form that is recorded on the page. Such errors are similar to those scribal errors frequently experienced through phonetic similarity. For the latter, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), pp. 251–52.

37.

If a scribe were accustomed to reading ‭הוהי‬ as Adonai, it becomes natural that he would habitually write ‭הוהי‬ for the oral value of Adonai. To illustrate, suppose we are in a Biblical Hebrew class and are taking a dictation test. The instructor is reading sentences, and she has just read Adonai. An inexperienced student would at first write it at face value, ‭ינדא‬. But after a while, students will figure out that it is better to write ‭הוהי‬ because of the Qere. Suppose the instructor reads Adonai Elohim. For this, logically speaking, there are a number of different possibilities. Some would write ‭םיהלא‬ ‭ינדא‬, at its face value. But many others would go with ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ because they just learned how to deal with the Qere of ‭הוהי‬. But if there were students well informed of the Masoretic tradition, they would recall the perpetual Qere and proudly write ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬.

38.

Even if this rendition originates with the Chronicler's Vorlage, our question on the dating of such changes still remains valid because the Chronicler's Vorlage also predates the time of the Septuagint. Whoever is responsible for this change, the Chronicler or his Vorlage, the fact that it originated from the supposed redundancy of the double title does not change.

39.

See, e.g., Eberhard Bengel Nestle, Marginalien und Materialen (Tübingen: Heckenhauer, 1893), pp. 16–17; B. Jacob, Im Namen Gottes (Berlin: Calvary, 1903), p. 166; Sara Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ, 9; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989), pp. 20–41; Martin Rösel, Adonaj, warum Gott ‘Herr’ genannt wird (FAT, 29; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 184–85. Sara Japhet has suggested that ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ came to replace ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ under the influence of ‘the pronunciation tradition’ (p. 39). But Japhet mistakenly surmises the very factor that caused these changes was reluctance of writing ‭ינדא‬, not ‭הוהי‬, insisting that the written form ‭ינדא‬ was deliberately expunged by the Chronicler out of reluctance to write the spoken form of the Tetragrammaton. If it was forbidden to write ‭ינדא‬, as a spoken form of the Tetragrammaton, it is difficult to understand the scribes feeling no qualms writing the Tetragrammaton itself.

40.

Japhet, Ideology, pp. 40–41; Wolf Wilhelm and Graf von Baudissin, Kyrios, als Gottesname in Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte: 2 Teil. Die Herkunft des Gottesnamens Kyrios in Septuaginta (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1929), pp. 62–63.

41.

For instance, when Abraham encountered God, he called ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ (Gen. 15.2, 8) and ‭ינדא‬ (18.3, 27, 31); Abimelech called ‭ינדא‬ (20.4); Moses called ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ (Deut. 3.24; 9.26), ‭ינדא‬ (Exod. 4.10, 13; 5.22; 15.17; 34.9; Num. 14.17). Joshua cried to God ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ (Josh. 7.7), ‭ינדא‬ (7.8). Gideon called God ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ (6.15), ‭ינדא‬ (6.22). Samson called God ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ (16.28).

42.

It seems plausible that ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ is a shortened form of its longer forms, which are much more frequent: ‭לארשי‬ ‭יהלאהוהי‬, ‭ךיהלאהוהי‬, ‭םכיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬, ‭וניהלאהוהי, and the like. Unlike ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬, these longer forms not only make good sense in context but also occur as frequently as 900 times in the Hebrew Bible. ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬, however, occurs only 24 times outside Chronicles and Samuel, with twenty of them concentrated in the non-P creation narrative (Gen. 2.4b–3.24), where the character of ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ has been severely debated. See, e.g., S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen Books, 10th edn, 1916), p. 15; John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd edn, 1930), pp. 52–53; E.A. Speiser, Genesis (AB, 1; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), pp. 15–16. Other than these, we have only four occurrences of ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in the Hebrew Bible: Exod. 9.30; Ps. 84.12; Jon. 4.6; and 2 Kgs 19.19. None of these shows a hint of invocation, which contrasts greatly with the use of this double title in Chronicles.

43.

For instance, Rashi employs ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Isa. 48.16 and Ezek. 3.27; 45.18; and ‭הוהי‬ ‭ינדא‬ in Amos 7.2. Nahmanides (Ramban) uses ‭םיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ in Gen. 15.2 and Deut. 3.24.