It is appropriate for this journal to start with a question regarding a text critical rule and an exception. Why is it that in almost all cases of textual variants the most difficult reading is given priority and in case of the Name of God the easiest reading, namely Adonai, the Lord, is preferred?

I. The name of God

1. The standard editions

Most students and scholars of the Hebrew Bible, use Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (= BHS), the famous one volume (larger or small) of the Hebrew Bible edited by a team of scholars under the leadership of Rudolph Kittel and Paul Kahle and produced by the Stuttgart Bible Society, the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Currently, a group of scholars is preparing a new edition of this text; the project is called BHQ, Q standing for Quinta[2]. In this project, the old Kahle edition is considered the first edition (1905), then, come three editions from the Kittel/Kahle text (1937, 1972-77, 1983); the new edition is, hence, the fifth in its kind. The first fascicle of BHQ has been published

In this edition, the Name of God, more specifically the Tetragrammaton (that is literally, the four consonants) is written without the vowels that it should have had.

Figure 1:

יהוה	Yahweh
אֲדֹנָי	Adonai

This one can see on almost every page of BHS (and BHQ – though the name of God does not appear in the Book of Esther).

See image 1: page of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (edited by Karl Elliger and others. Stuttgart 1990), containing Deuteronomy 6:4-22.

Most scholars acknowledge that the Tetragrammaton was probably pronounced as Yahweh. Bruce M. Metzger writes: “While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced ‘Yahweh,’ this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sound to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached the vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning ‘Lord’ (or Elohim meaning ‘God’).”[3] He then continues and writes: “Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios (‘Lord’) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus (‘Lord’).”[4] This argument suffices for the rendering of the Tetragrammaton in the English translation, NRSV, with “the LORD”. Metzger states in his introduction: “Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word LORD (or in certain cases GOD) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the “Tetragrammaton” (see the notes on Exodus 3.14,15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue.”[5]

Many introductions to the Hebrew grammar will explain the phenomenon that the Name of God is not to be read as it is written in the text, but as it is supposed to have been written in the margins.[6] Indeed, in the Hebrew Bible, more precisely in the Masoretic text, the consonants of the Name of God are written (Ketib, יהוה), but not pointed with its presumed vowels (יְהוֹהָ). The vowels that are added to the consonants of the Tetragrammaton are the vowels of the word “Adonai” (אֲדֹנָי). When the Masoretes wanted the readers to read a word differently from the one written in the text (the Ketib), they notified the readers of the different reading by attaching a circellus (a little circle) on top of the Ketib, and by writing the related word, which should be read instead of the Ketib, in the margin. The word in the margin is indicated with a Qof, which is the first letter of the word Qere. Qere stands for “what ought to be read”. As the Name of God, however, occurs on almost every page, the Masoretes did not add little circelli on every occurrence of the Tetragrammaton, and they did not provide its alternative reading – Adonai: alef, daleth, nun, yod – in the margin. The Name of God, however, is supposed to be read for eternity using the word Adonai.

The most decisive argument for the replacement of the Tetragrammaton by the alternative Adonai stems from the double expression Adonai and the Tetragrammaton (אֲדֹנָי יהוה, Adonai plus the Tetragrammaton, see for instance Amos 7:1; 8:1, etc.). In case of these double expressions, the vowels of the Qere are not the vowels of Adonai, but of Elohim (אֶלוֹהיִם), turning the double expression into Adonai Elohim (אֲדֹנָי יֶהוֹה, Adonai Elohim) instead of Adonai Adonai. According to some scholars, the Masoretes wanted to avoid the repetition of Adonai after the title Adonai, thus avoid the reading Adonai Adonai. They instead filled out the vowels of the Tetragrammaton with the vowels of the word Elohim, creating the reading Adonai Elohim instead of Adonai Adonai. This accordingly proves that the Tetragrammaton was normally read as Adonai.

A small operation, however, is needed in order to read this alternative substitute of the Name of God, namely Elohim. Indeed, in order to come to Elohim one has to first turn the hatef segol into a sewa and second delete the holem – for non-Hebraist readers, this means turning the e-vowel into a non-vowel and dropping the o-vowel. The only vowels that are actually in all the manuscripts – and thus the only vowel that reminds the reader of the alternative Elohim – is the hireq – the i-vowel.[7] This small operation takes me to the vocalization of Adonai in the manuscripts.

2. What does one read in old codices, such as Codex Leningrad and Codex Aleppo?

Most of the printed Hebrew Bibles are based on Codex Leningrad, a codex dated to 1008/1009, located at the library of St. Petersburg. This Codex is the oldest complete Hebrew bible. Most scholarly editions of the Bible are based on this Codex.[8] The usual form of the Name of God, however, in Codex Leningrad is יְהוָה and not יְהוֹהָ.

See image 2: page of Codex Leningradensis. A Facsimile Edition (edited by David Noel Freedman and others. Grand Rapids and Leiden 1998) containing Deuteronomy 5:31b-6:22a.

In other words, there is a holem, an o-sound, missing in the printed form of the Tetragrammaton. The first form, יְהוָה can be read as the Aramaic noun שְמָא, the name, i.e. the Divine Name[9]. The Masoretes, thus, wanted the readers to read the Tetragrammaton as “ha-shema”, in Hebrew “ha-shem”, the Name.

Figure 2:

יְהוָה	not יְהוֹהָ
יְהוָה	is the Aramaic word שְמָא the Name

Indeed, like many Jewish readers of the Bible today do, God is referred to in the margins of the Masoretic Bible as “ha-shema”, the Jewish Aramaic word for the Name. The oldest complete copy of the Hebrew Bible does hence, not render the Tetragrammaton with “the Lord,” but with “the Name”! Similarly, Codex Aleppo and the editions of the rabbinic Bible have “the Name” instead of “Adonai”.[10] I acknowledge that there are a couple exceptions to this rule, namely a couple of places where Codex L indeed has Adonai as Qere, instead of The Name (see for instance, Ex 3:2).[11] I am also aware that there are scholars who try to explain the vowels under the Tetragrammaton as a derivative from Adonai. They claim that the holem (‘o’) was deliberately omitted from the vowels of Adonai as to make the reading and thus pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton completely impossible.[12] It is, however, much easier to explain the vowels under the Tetragrammaton as referring to the word “the Name”. When the Tetragrammaton is, however, preceded by the title Adonai, it is read as Elohim.

3. Was the Name pronounced or not?

There is no explanation as to why the Tetragrammaton was no longer pronounced. Moreover, all hypotheses regarding the origins of the Ketib/Qere phenomenon are speculative.[13] In the Jewish tradition, there are plenty of statements regarding the non-pronunciation of the Name of God. In the Mishna Tractacte Sanhedrin X,1, for instance, it is clearly stated that the Name of God can not be pronounced.[14] Only the High Priest, more specifically on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, can utter the Name of God. All the other Jews are not supposed to pronounce the Name of God.

From a difference between the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible and its Greek (Septuagint) translation, Martin Rösel deduces that only by the time of the Greek translation of the Book of Leviticus the Tetragrammaton was no longer pronounced.[15] According to most scholars this was somewhere at the end of the third century BCE.[16] The Septuagint of Leviticus reads: “And he that names the name of God, let him die the death”, whereas the Hebrew text can be read as “he who uses the name of God in vain, ....”.[17] There is also the Isaiah Qumran scroll (1QIsa) that reads Adonai in 3,7 where the Masoretic text has the Tetragrammaton.[18] This means that by the late second century BCE, the presumed date of the Isaiah Scroll, the Tetragrammaton might have been read as Adonai.[19]

The “Qumranites” were vehemently opposing the pronunciation of the name of God. 1QS – the Rule of the Community – reads in vi, 27-vii,1-2: “Whoever enunciates the Name (which is) honoured above all … […] whether blaspheming, or suddenly overtaken by misfortune or for any reason, {…} or reading a book, or blessing, will be excluded and shall not go back ever to the Community council”.[20] Thus, beginning in the second century BCE, there seems to have been the beginning of the establishment of the tradition of the non-pronunciation of the Name of God. Consequently, it can be said that up till the second century BCE, the Name of God was pronounced. The Masoretes further propagated the non-pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton and promoted the use of the alternatives such as “the Name” and/or “Adonai”.

II. The Names of God

There are two important collections of data that one has to take into account when dealing with the name of God: The Elephantine Papyri and the Samaritan Papyri from the Wadi Daliyeh. They show that the following names of God were in use.

Figure 3:

YHWH	Yahveh
YHW (or: YHH)	Yaho (or Yahu)
YH	Ya

The Elephantine papyri date to the fifth century BCE, the Wadi Daliyeh papyri stem from the fourth century BCE The Elephantine papyri contain the correspondence from the Jewish officials of the Elephantine community to the officials in Samaria and Jerusalem regarding the rebuilding of their recently destroyed temple.[21] Unfortunately, the responses to these letters were never found. The Wadi Daliyeh papyri are official documents that were taken into the caves along the river by a group of Samaritans who tried to escape from the revenge of Alexander the Great. Most of these documents are legal papers.[22] In both collections, one can read the name of God as Yaho (or Yahu) and Ya.[23] For the name of God written with three consonants, see for instance, The Elephantine Papyri (= EP) B19, English translation, recto, line 11 (= p. 140, line 9): ... the Temple of YHW...[24] and the Wadi Daliyeh Samaria Papyri (= WDSP) 8, p. 88, line 7: ... to Mikayahu... , the last part of the person’s name is the three-letter name of God ‘yahu’(YHW).[25]

See image 3: map of Egypt,[26] Elephantine is located at the first cataract of the Nile.

See image 4: Porten, Bezalel: The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of cross-cultural continuity and change. Leiden 1996, B19, p. 140, line 9

See image 5: map of Israel, Persian times.[27]

See image 6: Wadi Daliyeh Samaritan Papyri 8, p. 88, line 7.

The Wadi Daliyeh papyri offer also evidence for a two-letter form of the Name of God. See, for instance, WDSP 15, p. 104, line 2: Deliyah, the last part is the two-letter name of God, written YH.[28]

See image 7: Wadi Daliyeh Samaritan Papyri 15, p. 104, line 2

The shorter forms of the name of God seem also to be pronounced independently of personal names. The Samaritans thus seem to have pronounced the Name of God as Jaho or Ja. That the shorter names of God were pronounced is also mentioned by Theodoretus. In his work on Exodus, more precisely in Questio 15, he speaks about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. He states that the Samaritans pronounced it λαβὲ, whereas the Jews pronounced it λά.[29] The shorter name of God is also used in the Bible. An obvious example is the short phrase “Allelujah” (praise to Jah).

Looking at the data, I do not see evidence anywhere in the manuscripts that the different forms of the Name of God were not to be pronounced. There are neither special signs that were attached to the grammata indicating its non-pronunciation nor special remarks made about the different names of God, nor special scripts used. To the contrary, short phrases like Allelujah and the personal names, with the two and three-letter names of God seem to suggest the use and the pronunciation of the three- and two-letter, if not also of the four-letter names of God[30] from the fifth century BCE to at least the third century BCE, both in Egypt and in Palestine (Samaria). Now, one could object to this view and state that the people of Elephantine and Samaria are not “true” Jews and thus not represent Jewish practice in Judah. Instead of going into this discussion, I will move to what could be labeled “more or typical Jewish” documents and ask the question whether or not and how the Name of God was pronounced in Jewish circles of the second century BCE and following.

III. Qumran Ways of Indicating the Names of God

1. Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran

Most of the Jewish witnesses from the second century BCE to the first century CE stem from the Qumran community. As not all the texts were written by members of the community, but brought into the community, they can function to a certain extent as witnesses to the practices of Jews in Palestine in general. There are, however, also documents that can be characterized as typical Qumran community, such as the Community Rule. In the Community Rule, there was a prohibition on pronouncing the Name of God. But, if the Name was not to be pronounced, how were the readers informed about this non-pronunciation?

First, in many scrolls from the Judean Desert the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew script. According to Emanuel Tov, writing the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script is characteristic of the Qumran community. [31] Tov links the use of the Tetragrammaton with the sacred character bestowed on paleo-Hebrew letters. The sacred character of the letters reflects in a sense the sacredness that embodies the divine name itself.[32] See for instance the Habakuk scroll.

See image 8: 1QpHab, plate XI, line 10 (as the permission for publication of this image did not include electronic publishing, I have enclosed a drawing of it based on John C. Trever, Scrolls from Qumran Cave I: The Great Isaiah Scroll, The Order of the Community, The Pesher of Habakkuk, Jerusalem: The Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Shrine of the Book, 1974, p. 81, Plate XI).[33]

Moreover, the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script appears in different sorts of texts, such as: Biblical texts, rewritten Biblical texts, and non-biblical sectarian compositions.[34] This means that writing in paleo-Hebrew script is a very familiar and common way of writing the Name of God in the Qumran community and outside of it. Tov also points to the fact that not only the Tetragrammaton, but also the names El(ohim) and Sabaoth, with or without prefixes and suffixes, are often written in paleo-Hebrew script.

See image 9: 1QH, fragment 35, drawing by Kristin De Troyer, based on the edition: Dominique Barthélemy and Jozef Tadeusz Milik, Qumran Cave 1 (Discoveries of the Judean Desert, 1), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955, Plate XXXI, fragment 35.

This is an important element, for it shows that not only the Tetragrammaton, but also the other names of God were in use and considered special.

Moreover, there are among the Dead Sea Scrolls, many different ways of providing for an alternative for the Tetragrammaton. There are for instance, the Tetrapuncta: the Name of God, most likely the Tetragrammaton, is indicated with four dots. This system is used in eight texts that Tov identifies as belonging to the Qumran scribal school and three additional non-Qumran scribal school system-scrolls.[35] Although Tov stresses the link between writing the divine names in paleo-Hebrew characters and the Qumran community, he also points to the fact that thirty-three texts do not use any special system for the writing of the divine names. These texts simply write the Tetragrammaton in square Hebrew characters.[36]

2. The Jewish Greek Scrolls of Qumran

The Greek Scrolls of Qumran confront the reader with a complex issue: Are these texts the Old Greek texts of what we now call the Septuagint? Or do they represent a recension of the Old Greek text, that is a revision of the Old Greek text to bring it closer to the Hebrew text of the Bible as it existed in ca. 2nd-1st century BCE The Minor Prophets Ṇahal Ḥever scroll, dated between 50 BCE to 50 CE, is such a recension. It contains the kaige-recension of the Septuagint.[37] In this scroll, the Tetragrammaton is written in paleo-Hebrew script.[38]

See image 10: Ṇahal Ḥever, Minor Prophets Scroll, col. 28-29 [= Plate XVI, fragment b], PAM 40.561[530], drawing by Kristin De Troyer, based on the edition: see Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft and a contribution of P.J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I) (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, VIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, Plate XVI, fragment b.

The problem with a recension is that one does not know what is the original form and what the recension. Hence, is the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton secondary – a part of the recension – or proof of the Old Greek text? This debate has not yet been solved.

In Qumran, among the Greek texts, is however also the 4QpapLXXLev^b.[39]

See image 11: 4QpapLXXLevb = PAM 43.559; fragment 20, line 4, drawing by Kristin De Troyer, based on the edition, see: Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, Judith E. Sanderson, with a contribution by P.J. Parsons, Qumran Cave 4. IV. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (Discoveries of the Judaean Desert, IX), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992, p. 174 and Plate XL, fragment 20).

In this Old Greek text of the Book of Leviticus, the name of God is written IAW. Skehan, the editor of the text, suggests that the reading IAW is more original than kurios: “This new evidence strongly suggests that the usage in question goes back for some books at least to the beginnings of the Septuagint rendering”.[40] That the name of God was simply written IAO in the Leviticus scroll is very telling, for it is precisely in the Greek Leviticus scroll that one reads about the prohibition of naming the Name of God! IAO can be seen as a transliteration of YAHU, the three-letter form of the Name of God. This tradition seems to have been known by Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) who states that the Jews pronounced the Name of God as IAW.[41] The appearance of IAO in the Leviticus scroll has left many scholars baffled. Is it proof that the Tetragrammaton was still pronounced in the first century BCE?

3. A Note about the scrolls written in paleo-Hebrew script

In the paleo-Hebrew manuscripts of Qumran, the Name of God is simply written in paleo-Hebrew characters.

IV. Data from the Greek, non-Qumranic, tradition[42]

1. A Dominant (late) Rendering

The Septuagint is often characterized as a Christian Bible. The Old Greek Bible is, however, a product by and for the Jewish community. It was only in the apologetic period that the Septuaginta did indeed become the Christian Bible.[43] The Septuaginta, as it was published by Alfred Rahlfs (that is the big blue linen volumes of old days and the more recent one blue small hardcover Septuaginta),[44] is based on especially the following codices: Codex Vaticanus (4th century CE),[45] Codex Alexandrinus (5th century CE),[46] and finally, Codex Sinaiticus (4th century CE).[47]

In Codex Vaticanus, as well as in the other two most important codices, the Tetragrammaton is rendered by Kurios,[48] more precisely by a truncated form of Kurios, written ΚΞ. Indeed the word Kurios is not spelled out, but truncated.[49] Kurios, in its truncated form, seems to be the dominant name of God in at least the documents from the fourth century onwards, although already in use at the end of the second, beginning of the third century. One can consult the facsimile edition of Codex Vaticanus to see the truncated form of the Name of God. For this contribution, I have made use of the Schøyen Joshua papyrus, dated towards the end of the second and beginning of the third century CE[50]

See image 12: Old Greek Joshua Codex, from the Martin Schøyen Collection, MS 2648, Plate XVIII, leaf 2, recto, line 7, 17, and 19.[51]

It is often argued that the contracted forms of Kurios are a Christian invention. In the Fragments of the Book of Kings according to the translation of Aquila, the name of God, however, is on one occasion not written in paleo-Hebrew characters, but also truncated ΚΥ.[52]

See image 13: the reconstruction of fol. 2 v, line 15.[53]

2. Early Exceptions

I already referred to the reading of IAO in the Greek Leviticus papyrus of Qumran.[54]

There is also the Septuagint of the Twelve Minor Prophets where God is labeled ‘pantokrator’ whereas the MT has the Tetragrammaton. See for instance LXX Za 9:14.[55] Moreover, there are other texts, which did not originate in Qumran, that use the Tetragrammaton. There is, for instance, the famous Fouad papyrus (P. Fouad 266 = Ra 848).[56] This papyrus has the Tetragrammaton in Aramaic square Hebrew script. There is however also a discussion about this manuscript: is it a recension or not? Emanuel Tov notes: “In PFouad 266, the original Greek scribe left open large spaces for the Tetragrammaton indicated by a raised dot on each side of the space. Then, at a later time, the Tetragrammaton was added, possibly by another scribe, in the indicated spaces.”[57] Pietersma, in his plea for regarding Kurios as the oldest Name of God in the Old Greek text, states that there is plenty of room for the reading Kurios, but that the second scribe filled out the Tetragrammaton in small Aramaic square Hebrew letters. Pietersma follows Hanhart who claims that Fouad already contains some pre-hexaplaric corrections towards a Hebrew text (which would have had the Tetragrammaton).[58]

More important for this contribution is, however, the existence of several manuscripts that have Theos and not Kurios. These manuscripts are rather important, especially as (Jewish) pre-hexaplaric corrections seem less probable – though some scholars have pointed to a possible influence of the Jewish tradition on the Greek texts of the Oxyrhynchus area.[59] There is, for instance, the Genesis papyrus from the Oxyrhynchus area, (P.Oxy 656),[60] dated to the third century. In four places of the Genesis text, the word Kurios has not been used,[61] whereas the Hebrew text clearly has the Tetragrammaton. In one out of the four places, the scribe left an empty space, which a second later scribe filled out with Kurios.[62] Twice, the second scribe also inserted at the end of the line the word Kurios, where there was no space left for the Name of God in the Greek text.[63] Finally, in one place the first scribe simply wrote Theos.[64] In this passage, the MT text reads the Tetragrammaton (Gen 24,40). The first and the second scribe both did not use a contracted form of the Name of God or of Theos, but simply wrote out Theos or – the second hand – Kurios.[65]

Theos, in a non-contracted form, also appears in PFouad 266a, the Genesis fragment (dated to the first century BCE),[66] in PFouad 266c, the Deuteronomy fragment, dated to the late first century BCE,[67] and in POxy 4443, the LXX Esther text from the 1st-2nd century CE[68] Theos, albeit in a contracted form, also appears in P.Amh.1, n.3, an Aquila text of Genesis from the third century CE[69]

Another alternative can be seen in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Job (POxy 3522, LXX Job 42:11-12). It has the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-hebrew script.[70]

See image 14 (link to The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project, Oxford): POxy 3522, LXX Job 42:11-12. column 1, line 2 and 5, the image is produced by Dr. Dirk Obbink and The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Project, Oxford. This papyrus is dated to the first century CE.

Another Oxyrhynchus papyrus, POxy 1007 with text from Genesis 2-3 (late third century), does not have the Tetragrammaton, but a double Yod, with a horizontal stroke through the letters making it look like a double Greek Zeta, followed by a contracted Theos. Indicating the Name of God with a double yod has become standard in the later rabbinic tradition. Still today, when dealing about God, Jews write “yod yod.”[71] Here, I would also like to draw the attention to the use of four dods surmounted by four yods in the Qumran manuscript 1QS col.8.[72]

See image 15: MS 1630, 1QS col. 8, mid column left leaf, line 7 from below.

There are, thus, many exceptions to the use of Kurios in the Old Greek papyri and texts. What seems to have been an important exception, or maybe a trail of an older tradition, is the use of Theos, and this in a non-contracted form, as the oldest rendering of the Tetragrammaton. This has consequences for the debate about the Nomina Sacra.[73]

As a conclusion, it suffices to say that in old Hebrew and Greek witnesses, God has many names. Most if not all were pronounced till about the second century BCE As slowly onwards there developed a tradition of non-pronunciation, alternatives for the Tetragrammaton appeared. The reading Adonai was one of them. Finally, before Kurios became a standard rendering Adonai, the Name of God was rendered with Theos.

Liste of images

[1] I would like to thank Ms Mariko Yakiyama, from the scholarly services at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont for finding and scanning many of the images. Unfortunately, the present author never received an answer from the Israel Antiquities Authority to reproduce some of the images, and hence, had to go back to the drawing board and draw images of the Hodayot, the Ṇahal Ḥever Scroll, and the Greek Leviticus papyrus.

[2] See Biblia Hebraica Quinta: General Introduction and Megilloth, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004. For a commercial, good description of the different Bibles, including the first fascicle of the BHQ, see www.scholarly-bibles.com. For a good comparison between the older versions of the BHS, the BHQ and some other projects, see Richard D. Weis’ electronic article in the electronic journal: Textual Criticism: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Weis2002.html

[3] See The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New Revised Standard Version. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, p. xv.

[4] Ibidem.

[5] Ibidem.

[6] See for instance, Paul Joüon – Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Part One: Orthography and Phonetics, Part Two: Morphology (Subsidia biblica, 14/I), Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993, § 16f.

[7] I acknowledge that in the Second Rabbinic Bible, the holem is printed.

[8] The Bible of the Hebrew Bible University Project is based on the Codex Aleppo, a codex that is older than the Leningrad Codes, but unfortunately incomplete. See below.

[9] Cf. Paul Joüon – Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Part One: Orthography and Phonetics, Part Two: Morphology (Subsidia biblica, 14/I), Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993, § 16f, note 1.

[10] The Second Rabbinic Bible is more clear when it comes to the double expressions, more precisely to the Qere: Elohim: it offers the hatef segol, the holem, and the hireq.

[11] With thanks to Martin Rösel for providing me with the list of exceptions.

[12] Cf. Martin Rösel, Adonaj – warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 29), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, p. 2-3.

[13] Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, translated by Ernest J. Revell (Masoretic Studies, 5), Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980, p. 61.

[14] Samuel Krauß, Die Mischna. Text, Übersetzung und ausführliche Erklärung. Mit eingehenden geschichtlichen und sprachlichen Einleitungen und textkritischen Anhängen. IV. Seder Neziqin 4. Traktat Sanhedrin, Gießen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933, p. 267-271, spec. p. 270-271. See also Bavli Sanhedrin XI:1 [90a] in: Jacob Neusner (translator), The Talmud of Babylonia. An American Translation. XXIIIC: Tractate Sanhedrin, chapters 9-11 (Brown Judaic Studies, 87), Chico: Scholars Press, p. 91ff.

[15] Martin Rösel, Adonaj – warum Gott “Herr” genannt wird (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 29), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, p. 4.

[16] John William Wevers, the LXX (Leviticus) expert, writes regarding the possible date of the Old Greek text of Leviticus: “... it reflects the understanding of the Biblical text by diaspora Jewry in Alexandria in the third century BCE”, see John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (Septuagint and cognate studies series, 44), Atlanta: Scholars Press, p. XXV.

[17] C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation; and with various readings and critical notes, London, 1851, reprint: Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1978, p. 162. In the 1985 English translation of the Tanakh, however, the Hebrew text of Lev 24:16 is rendered as “If he also pronounces the Name LORD, he shall be put to death”. This indicates that the Jewish Biblical translators interpreted the “LORD” from Leviticus 24:16 as pointing to the non-pronunciation of the Name of God. See Tanakh. The Holy Scriptures. The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, Philadelphia/Jerusalem: JPS, 1985.

[18] Ernst Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952, 21988, p. 160.

[19] For the dating of the manuscript, see Arie van der Kooij, The Old Greek of Isaiah in Relation to the Qumran Texts of Isaiah: Some General Comments, in: George J. Brooke & Barnabas Lindars (editors), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 33), Atlanta: SBL, pp. 195-213, spec. 195.

[20] Tov only mentions the “exclusion,” and not the following sentence: “and shall not go ever back to the Community council.” I wonder how this second sentence ought to be interpreted. For the text and the translation, see: Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead See Scrolls. Study Edition, Volume 1 (1Q1-4Q273), Leiden/Grand Rapids: Brill/Eerdmans, 1997, p. 84-87.

[21] Bezalel Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui. Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and Civilisation, XXII), Leiden: Brill, 1996.

[22] Douglas M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II. The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXVIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001.

[23] The latter one mostly as part of a personal name.

[24] Bezalel Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English. Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui. Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and Civilisation, XXII), Leiden: Brill, 1996, B.19 (= TAD A4.7 Cowley 30 [Sachau Plates 1-2]) = p. 139-144. See also p. 142, line 4: ... to YHW the Lord of Heaven ...; p. 143, line 10: ... the Temple of YHW the God ...; p. 144, line 2-3: ... before YHW the God Heaven ... . This document is dated 25 November 407 BCE, and was found in Elephantine. It is a request for a letter of recommendation by Jedaniah and his colleagues the priests, written to Bagavahya, the governor of Judah and deals with the reconstruction of the Temple. According to Porten, this is (historically) the most significant of all the Elephantine Aramaic texts (Porten, p. 139).

[25] Douglas M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II. The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXVIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, p. 88. WDSP 8 is a slave-sale deed.

[26] Silvia Schroer, Othmar Keel, Die ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient. Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern, Bd. 1. Vom ausgehenden Mesolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. Freiburg/CH 2005, S. 2

[27] J. Maxwell Miller, John H. Hayes: A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. London 1986, 461.

[28] Douglas M. Gropp, Wadi Daliyeh II. The Samaria Papyri from Wadi Daliyeh (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, XXVIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), p. 104. WDSP 15 is not a slave-sale deed, but a deed of a house sale. The name of God again is part of a personal name.

[29] Natalio Fernández Marcos & Angel Sáenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensis. Quaestiones in Octateuchum. Edito Critica (Textuos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” de la Biblia Poligota Matritense, 17), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1979, p. 112.

[30] Porten also states that these shorter forms were pronounced. He writes: “the triliteral form of the divine name found in pre-exilic personal names, dominant in Elephantine, and popularly known in the Hellenistic-Roman period, was confined to the vernacular.” See Bezalel Porten, Archives from Elephantine. The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968, p. 106.

[31] Emanuel Tov, Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School, in: Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Vanderkam (editors) and Galen Marquis (executive editor), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1997, p. 199-216, esp. 204ff.

[32] Emanuel Tov, Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School, in: Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Vanderkam (editors) and Galen Marquis (executive editor), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1997, p. 199-216, spec. p. 208.

[33] See for the image: Kristin De Troyer, The Pronunciation of the Names of God, in: Ingolf U. Dalferth, Konrad Schmid, and Philipp Stoellger (editors), Der Name Gottes (Religion in Philosophy and Theology), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006 (forthcoming).

[34] Emanuel Tov, Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School, in: Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Vanderkam (editors) and Galen Marquis (executive editor), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1997, p. 199-216, spec. p. 208.

[35] Emanuel Tov, Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School, in: Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Vanderkam (editors) and Galen Marquis (executive editor), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1997, p. 199-216, spec. p. 208. For an exhaustive survey of special writings of divine names, see Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, 54), Leiden: Brill, 2004, p. 218-221. See also Emanuel Tov, Scribal Features of Early Witnesses of Greek Scripture, in: Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry, The Old Greek Psalter. Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 332), Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, p. 125-148.

[36] Emanuel Tov, Further Evidence for the Existence of a Qumran Scribal School, in: Lawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov, and James C. Vanderkam (editors) and Galen Marquis (executive editor), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Fifty Years after their Discovery. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20-25, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society in cooperation with The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 1997, p. 199-216, spec. p. 206.

[37] For the editio maior, see Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft and a contribution of P.J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I) (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, VIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. See also the study of Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila (Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series 10), Leiden: Brill, 1963.

[38] Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft and a contribution of P.J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I) (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, VIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 12.

[39] I would like to thank the Israel Antiquities Authority, and especially Mrs. Yael Barschak, for giving permission to reproduce this image. I would also like to thank Ms Mariko Yakiyama, from the scholarly services at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont for finding and scanning the image. For a preliminary description of Pap4QLXXLevb, Patrick W. Skehan, The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, XXX (Vetus Testamentum Supplement, 4), Leiden: Brill, 1957, p. 148-160, esp. 157. For the final edition, see: Patrick W. Skehan, Eugene Ulrich, Judith E. Sanderson, with a contribution by P.J. Parsons, Qumran Cave 4. IV. Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (Discoveries of the Judaean Desert, IX), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992, p. 174 and Plate XL, fragment 20, line 4. See also Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. An Introduction to Greek Paleography, New York/Oxford, 1981, p. 35.

[40] P.W. Skehan, The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, XXX (Vetus Testamentum Supplement, 4), Leiden: Brill, 1957, p. 157. See also Emanuel Tov who interprets the use of IAW as proof that the “papyrus represents an early version of Greek scripture” “antedating the text of the main manuscript tradition of the Septuagint (LXX)”, see Emanuel Tov, The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert, in: Scott McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan (editors), The Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text. London, New Castle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003, pp. 97-122, spec. p. 102.

[41] Handout provided by Frank Shaw, on Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca 1.94.2 at a meeting of the Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, Münster, 2001.

[42] For a great survey of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments, see Robert A. Kraft, The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments, in: Scott McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan (editors), The Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text. London, New Castle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003, pp. 51-72.

[43] See my review of Martin Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture. Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. With an Introduction by Robert Hanhart, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004, in: Revue of Biblical Literature 2005 http://www.bookreviews.org/BookDetail.asp?TitleId=4388.

[44] See Kristin De Troyer, Die Septuaginta und die Endgestalt des Alten Testaments. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte alttestamentlicher Texte (Uni-Taschenbücher, 2599), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, p. 9-25.

[45] For a description, see A. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 2), Göttingen, 1914, p. 258-260. See for the new edition: Alfred Rahlfs, bearbeitet von Detlef Fränkel, Supplement. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Bd. I.1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum, acutoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Vol. I,1), Göttingen, 2004, p. 337-343.

[46] Ibidem, p. 114-116; new edition, p. 221-226.

[47] Ibidem, p. 226-229; new edition, p. 359-361.

[48] Note that in these codices, the Greek characters are all capitals; the use of a capital at the beginning of the word kurios is thus a non-issue.

[49] See Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. An Introduction to Greek Paleography, New York/Oxford, 1981, p. 36-37.

[50] See Kristin De Troyer, Joshua (Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen I, editor Rosario Pintaudi, Papyrologica Florentina, XXXV/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, V), Firenze: Gonnelli, pp. 79-145 and Plates XVI-XXVII; see p. 102-103 for the edition and Plate XVIII.

[51] Note that the image provided has the pages in a reversed order, leaf 2 recto is thus on the image right, while it should be positioned left.

[52] See F. Crawford Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, now in the possession of C. Taylor, D.D., Master of St. John’s College, and S. Schechter, M.A., University Reader in Talmudic Literature, Cambridge: University Press, 1897. See also Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. An Introduction to Greek Paleography, New York/Oxford, 1981, p. 35.

[53] See F. Crawford Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila From a Ms. Formerly in the Geniza at Cairo, now in the possession of C. Taylor, D.D., Master of St. John’s College, and S. Schechter, M.A., University Reader in Talmudic Literature, Cambridge: University Press, 1897, p. 8. Note that in this Greek text, the Tetragrammaton is normally written in paleo-Hebrew characters. See for instance, 4 Kingdoms 23:24-27 (= fol. 2v), left column, line 20, right column, line 8 and 16.

[54] See section II.2. of this contribution.

[55] See Cécile Dogniez, Le Dieu des armées dans le Dodekapropheton: quelques remarques sur une initiative de traduction, in: Bernard A. Taylor (editor), Proceedings of the IX Congress of the IOSCS, Cambridge 1995 (SCS, 45), Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997, p. 19-36, esp. 24, n. 12.

[56] Robert A. Kraft, The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments, in: Scott McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan (editors), The Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text. London, New Castle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003, pp. 51-72, spec. p. 57.

[57] Tov also points to one error made by the second scribe, namely where h/she forgot to fill out the space. See Emanuel Tov, with the collaboration of Robert A. Kraft and a contribution of P.J. Parsons, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I) (Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, VIII), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 12. The scribe of POxy 656 (a Genesis fragment) followed a similar procedure but in this papyrus, not the Tetragrammaton, but the word Kurios was added by the second scribe, see below.

[58] See Robert Hanhart, review of F. Dunand, Papyrus grecs bibliques (Papyrus F.Inv. 266), in: Orientalische Literaturzeitung 73 (1978) cols. 39-45. A witness to an Old Greek text that contains Kurios is Papyrus Chester Beatty P967. This text, however, is according to some scholars also a revised text, and thus, the question is whether Kurios is the original reading or the secondary reading. See Ernst Würthwein, Der Text des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1952, 21988, p. 196-197. See also p. 192.

[59] See C.H. Roberts, Nomina Sacra: Origins and Significance, in: C.H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (The Schweiz Lectures 1977), London: Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 26-48. Treu also “considers the text to be of Jewish origin”, see Robert A. Kraft, The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments, in: Scott McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan (editors), The Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text. London, New Castle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003, pp. 51-72, spec. p. 61. In the discussion regarding the possible Jewish origins of some of the Oxyrhynchus papyri the nomina sacra are used in order to determine whether or not a document has a Jewish background. The absence, for instance, of a contracted form of u9ioi\ 0Israh/l in POxy 1075 is according to some scholars, proof that the document has a Jewish origin. I think it is not possible to argue on the basis of nomina sacra whether or not a document has a Jewish or “pure” Christian background. See for a brief survey Alfred Rahlfs, bearbeitet von Detlef Fränkel, Supplement. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments. Bd. I.1: Die Überlieferung bis zum VIII. Jahrhundert (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum graecum, acutoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Vol. I,1), Göttingen, 2004, p. 295.

[60] Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part IV, London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904, pp. 28-36

[61] “A peculiar feature is the tendency to omit the word ku/rioj when applied to the Deity...” Ibidem, p. 30. I agree with Grenfell and Hunt that this is a peculiar feature, but I disagree that this was a way of avoiding the term Kurios. I see the use of the uncontracted form of Theos as proof of its originality.

[62] Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part IV, London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904, pp. 28-36, p. 32: Recto XV. 5-9, line 17-literally, the inserted word is the vocative: kurie.

[63] Ibidem, p. 30: POxy 656. Recto XXIV. 28-37, line 122 – literally kurioj – and verso XXIV. 38-47, line 165-166 – again the vocative kurie.

[64] Ibidem, p. 32. verso XXIV. 38-47, line 155 – with the article.

[65] See Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthur S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part IV, London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904, pp. 28-36; see also Robert A. Kraft, The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments, in: Scott McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan (editors), The Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text. London, New Castle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003, pp. 51-72, spec. p. 60-61.

[66] Robert A. Kraft, The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments, in: Scott McKendrick and Orlaith A. O’Sullivan (editors), The Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text. London, New Castle and Grand Haven: The British Library, Oak Knoll Press, and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities, 2003, pp. 51-72, spec. p. 56.

[67] Ibidem, spec. p. 57-58.

[68] Ibidem, spec. p. 59.

[69] Emanuel Tov, Scribal Features of Early Witnesses of Greek Scripture, in: Robert J.V. Hiebert, Claude E. Cox, and Peter J. Gentry, The Old Greek Psalter. Studies in Honour of Albert Pietersma (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 332), p. 125-148, spec. Table 1, p. 34.

[70] Alan Keir Bowman, i.a., The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part L, London: The British Academy & the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1983, pp. 1-3.

[71] Arthur Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part VII, London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1910, pp. 1-3.

[72] I would like to thank Mr. Martin Schøyen and Ms Elizabeth Gano Sørenssen, librarian of the Martin Schøyen Collection, for drawing my attention to this use of the nomen sacrum and for giving me permission to reproduce the image that they kindly provided. The manuscript also uses four dods without yods.

[73] I have elaborated the complex issue of the Nomina Sacra in my contribution entitled: The Pronunciation of the Names of God, in: Ingolf U. Dalferth, Konrad Schmid, and Philipp Stoellger (editors), Der Name Gottes (Religion in Philosophy and Theology), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006 (forthcoming).