evei inda IN EZEKIEL AND ITS COUNTERPART IN THE OLD GREEK
A recent survey and discussion of the problems concerning the divine names in Ezekiel, and especially the double Name ’dny YHWH, has been provided by L.J. McGregor1. He first turns to the studies of the Hebrew text and notes the dominance of the theories suggesting the spuriousness of the word ’dny in Ezekiel2. Secondly, he observes the seemingly strong support for the view that the Greek text of Ezekiel originally read single kúriov where MT has the double Name ’dny YHWH. It follows from this second point that the double readings for the divine name in the Greek manuscripts are the result of later revisions of the Greek towards the MT. Going against this communis opinio his own thesis main- tains that: (1) ’dny YHWH occurred in the original Ezekiel text in a distribution similar to that of the present MT; (2) The LXX translator(s) met the ’dny YHWH form in the Vorlage, but rendered it by a form which has been almost totally lost; the present distribution of the nomina sacra in the Greek witnesses is not due to fully recensional treatment but is the result of early scribal activity. In the present contribution we intend to give some additional information and comments to these positions.
1. Originality of ’dny YHWH
McGregor correctly observes that the theories suggesting the spuriousness of ’dny in Ezekiel do not have total support: “Zimmerli, Lust and Skehan show varying degrees of reluctance to expel ’dny from the Hebrew text”. In a paper written in 1968, I strongly defended the authenticity of the double Name3. A re-examination of the context and use of the divine name in Ezekiel led to the observation that there is a clear difference in this respect between the forms ’dny YHWH and YHWH4. Almost all of the occurrences of the double Name are to be found in stereotyped expressions, such as “thus says ’dny YHWH”, and “oracle of ’dny YHWH”, put in the mouth of the prophet, or in prayers of the prophet addressed to the Lord. In all these cases the context suggests that, originally, the final yod in ’dny was to be understood as a suffixed personal pronoun. I con- cluded that the meaning of the double Name was “My Lord YHWH”, and that only the prophet was entitled to employ it. With reference to that article, W. Zimmerli,
1. L.J. MCGREGOR, The Greek Text of Ezekiel: An Examination of Its Homogeneity (SCS, 18), Atlanta, GA, 1985, esp. pp. 75-93 (“Chapter iv: Divine Names”); see also V. SPOTTORNO Y DÍAZ CARO, The Divine Name in Ezekiel Papyrus 967, in N. FERNANDEZ MARCOS, La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporanea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros”), Madrid, 1985. 2. These suggestions are accepted by BHK, which tells the reader that ’dny is to be deleted, and BHS, which seems to alternate the remarks additum est and delendum. 3. “Mon Seigneur Jahweh” dans le texte hébreu d'Ézéchiel, in ETL 44 (1968) 482-488. 4. Clear tables listing the evidence can be found in an appendix of McGregor's mono- graph (pp. 213-221). evei inda IN EZEKIEL 139 who in the original version of his major commentary on Ezekiel consistently bracketed ’dny, revised his views in an appendix on the divine name in the Book of Ezekiel5. Skehan hesitantly followed this lead and called for a new investiga- tion of the divine names in papyrus 9676. When McGregor conducted his research he did not possess much manuscript evidence from the Dead Sea area of the text of Ezekiel. In an appendix to his monograph he gives the transcription of the photographs of a fragment of 4QEza presented on the inner cover of both volumes of the English edition of Zimmerli's commentary. Unfortunately, this fragment does not preserve any passage in which the double Name would be expected, nor does any of the other fragments published up to that date. The same was true for the remaining fragments of the Ezekiel Mss a and b from Qumran cave 4, of which I provided a preliminary pub- lication in 19867. The excavation of Masada by the late Y. Yadin, changed this situation drastically. Among other items, the findings yielded about 50 fragments of an Ezekiel manuscript dated to the second half of the first century B.C. When Yadin died, the fragments were entrusted for publication to S. Talmon8, who recently sent me a draft of a paper in which he describes the manuscript and offers its preliminary publication. The four columns to which the fragments belong, cover the text of Ez 35,11–37,14. In general the text accords with MT. In several instances the double Name, or traces of it, are preserved: 35,14; 36,2.3.7.22.23; 37,3.5.9.12. All of these instances display full agreement with MT. This does not finally prove beyond any doubt that the double Name was attested in the original Hebrew text. It certainly offers more support to the view that ’dny was already in the Ezekiel text by the time that the book was translated into Greek. In this context it should perhaps be noted that all the texts in which the double Name occurs belong to the Bible. This observation applies equally well to the cases in which YHWH is preceded by ’dny as in those in which it is followed by it. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew9 audaciously pretends to find it in 1QpMic, a biblical commentary from Qumran. It quotes Micah 1,2 in a version
5. Ezekiel, vol. 2 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, PA, 1985, pp. 556-562 (original German version: Neukirchen, 1969, pp. 1250-1258 and 1265). 6. P. SKEHAN, The Divine Name at Qumran, in the Masada Scroll and in the Septuagint, in Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 13 (1980) 14-44, esp. p. 35. 7. Ezekiel Manuscripts in Qumran. Preliminary Edition of 4QEz a and b, in J. LUST (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book (BETL, 74), Leuven, 1986, pp. 90-100 (including the second fragment of Ms a published photographically in Zimmerli's commentary). 8. Y. Yadin published himself the fragments of a Ben Sirach scroll which he found in Masada: The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada, Jerusalem, 1965. He also published fragments of the Songs of the Sabbath: The Masada Fragments of the Qumran Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, in Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984) 77-88. A preliminary publication of the remaining non-biblical fragments, with the exception of some unidentified pieces, has been taken care of by S. TALMON, Fragments of Scrolls from Masada, in Eretz Israel (Y. Yadin Volume) 20 (1989) 278-286 (Hebrew); ID., Fragments of an Apocryphal Book of Joshua from Masada, in FS C. Rabin, Jerusalem, 1991, pp. 147-157 (Hebrew). He further pub- lished some biblical fragments: Fragments of a Psalms Scroll from Masada, Mpsb (Masada 1103-1742), in Fs M. Sarna (JSOTS, 154), Sheffield, 1993, pp. 318-327; ID., Fragments of Two Scrolls of the Book of Leviticus from Masada, in Eretz Israel (A. Mala- mat Volume) 24 (1993) 99-110 (Hebrew). 9. Vol. 1, Sheffield, 1993, p. 135. 140 J. LUST slightly differing from that of the MT. The fragment is very lacunose and breaks off where ’dny is supposed to occur. The double Name is there only in the recon- struction of Milik10. Although it is a biblical quotation, the fact that the preserved parts differ from MT, and the fact that the double Name cannot be found else- where in the documents of the Qumran community, raise doubts about the valid- ity of this reconstruction. The reference to three more Qumran texts at the end of the dictionary entry is slightly misleading. It should have been mentioned that in two of them ’dny is a plausible, but still hypothetical, reconstruction. The three texts are very fragmentary. They may be witnesses to ’dny, but none of them allows us to detect in them the use of the double Name. The single name or title ’dny can be found repeatedly in the non-biblical Qumran texts, not as a surrogate for the tetragrammaton in contexts speaking about the Lord, but exclusively in prayers addressing the Lord11.
2. The Earliest Greek Witnesses and the Tetragrammaton
The only strong argument in favour of the spurious character of ’dny in the double Name in Ezekiel has been the witness of the Greek text. The pre-hexa- plaric manuscript B and papyrus 967, dating to the second or third century A.D., seem to support the view that the LXX text of Ezekiel originally had sin- gle kúriov throughout. It should be clear, however, that these manuscripts are Christian. Having a preference for the title kúriov, they may not have pre- served the original version with respect to the Name. In these matters an inves- tigation of the pre-Christian Greek biblical manuscripts and their rendition of the Name should be important. In many of them the Name was written in Hebrew characters. In recent times, several studies have been devoted to that phenomenon12. Unfortunately no pre-Christian Ezekiel fragments have been found, nor any other fragment in which a rendition of the double Name was to be expected. Following the order of the biblical books, the preserved manu- scripts can be listed as follows:
10. In the dictionary, the reference is given twice: once in the first part of the article and once in the second. In the first part it is listed under the rubric
p942 or pFouad266: fragments of Gn 7 and 38; see p847 (Deuteronomy) p805 or 7QLXX Ex: Ex 28,4-7 (second/first century BC)13 p801 or 4Q119 or 4QLXX Leva: Lev 26,2-16 (second/first century BC)14 p802 or 4Q120 or 4QLXX Levb: Lev 2–5 (first century BC)15 p803 or 4Q121 or 4QLXX Num: Num 3,30–4,14 (first century BC)16 p819 or 4Q122 or 4QLXX Deut: Dt 11,4 (second century BC)17 p847 or pFouad266: fragments of Dt 11 and 31–33 (first century BC) p848 or pFouad266: fragments of Dt 17–33 (first century BC)18 p957 or pRyl.Gk.458: Dt 23–28 (second century BC)19 p804 or 7QLXX EpJer: EpJer 43–44 (second/first century BC)20 p943 or 8HevXIIgr: Minor Prophets scroll (probably first century BC21. Two of these Mss (p943, p848) are characterized by the use of the tetragram- maton YHWH. Where it was to occur the original scribe left a blank equal to 5-6 letters (i.e., about the seize of kúriov written in full) and marked it by a high dot at its beginning. A second scribe filled in the Hebrew letters. They covered only 1 the middle of the blank, usually the space of 2 ⁄2-3 letters. Thus L. Koenen in the introduction to the publication of p84822. A third manuscript, p802, renders the tetragram by the Greek trigram IAW. The remaining eight are not relevant in these matters because they do not preserve any passage in which an equivalent of the tetragrammaton is to be expected. Several scholars deduced from these data that, in the original pre-Christian ver- sion of the Septuagint, the divine name YHWH was not rendered by kúriov, as so
13. DJD 3, pp. 142-143. 14. A preliminary publication was provided by the late P.W. SKEHAN, The Qum- ran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, in VTSup 4 (1957) 148-160, esp. pp. 149- 160; and E. ULRICH, The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran: Includ- ing Newly-identified Fragments of Deuteronomy, in FS J.W. Wevers (n. 12, above), Mississauga, 1988, pp. 78-79; official publication by ULRICH, in DJD 9 (1992) 162- 165. 15. Very fragmentary; see SKEHAN, 1957, pp. 157-158, and E.ULRICH, 1988, pp. 79-80; official publication: ULRICH, in DJD 9 (1992) 167-186. 16. Very fragmentary; see SKEHAN, 1957, pp. 155-157, and ID., 4QLXX Num: A Pre- Christian Reworking of the Septuagint, in HTR 70 (1977) 39-50; ULRICH 1988, pp. 80-81. Official publication: ULRICH, in DJD 9 (1992) 187-194. 17. For the publication of these minor fragments, see ULRICH, 1988, pp. 71-82, esp. 74- 75. Official publication: ULRICH, in DJD 9 (1992) 195-197. 18. None of these fragments overlap with the Rylands papyri (p957). The preserved portions of p848 are more substantial than the others. A recent photographic edition has been taken care of by Z. ALY – L. KOENEN, Three Scrolls of the Early Septuagint (Papy- rologische Texte und Abhandlungen, 27) Bonn, 1980. 19. The fragment has been published by C.H. ROBERTS, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, 1936; = BJRL 20 (1936) 219-245. 20. Published in DJD 3, p. 143. 21. Preliminary publications by B. LIFSHITZ, The Greek Documents of the Cave of Horror, in Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962) 201-207; Yedi‘ot 26 (1962) 183-190; D. BARTHÉLEMY, Les devanciers d'Aquila (VTSup, 10), Leiden, Brill, 1963; official publi- cation: E. TOV, in DJD 8 (1990). 22. Z. ALI – L. KOENEN, 1980, pp. 5-6. Examples can be found in the papyrus version of Dt 18,5.14.16; 20,13; 21,1; 24,4; 26,7.8.14; 27,2.3.10.26; 28,1.7.8.9.20.61.64; 29,1.20; 30,9.20; 31,26.27.29; 32,3.6.19. 142 J. LUST often has been thought since the works of W. Graf Baudissin23, but in Hebrew let- ters of some sort24. McGregor follows this trend, applying it to Ezekiel. In addi- tion to the pre-Christian materials he adduces quite some patristic and hexaplaric information. A new exploration of the available data led A. Pietersma to different conclu- sions reverting to those of Baudissin25. In his view, the tetragrammaton is not original but a replacement of the original kúriov. His first reason is that in p848 the tetragram is filled out in a space exactly equal to the length of the word kúriov. A second reason is the doublet in the version of Dt 31,27 in the same manuscript. By mistake a scribe inserted YHWH after próv in the expression pròv tòn ‡eón, rendering ’dny YHWH, which resulted in pròv evei tòn ‡eón. A third reason is to be found in the observation that the Minor Prophets Scroll (p943) is the product of a recension bringing the text closer to MT. In this manuscript, the tetragrammaton written in paleohebrew characters, is obviously a recensional element. According to Pietersma, these and other observations lead to the con- clusion that the tetragram in the Greek witnesses is evidence of a secondary stage in the tradition. An archaizing tendency was responsible for introducing the tetra- gram, first in square characters and later in paleohebrew script. In general we tend to agree with Pietersma. Perhaps some questions and remarks should be added to his short notes on p802 or 4QLXXLevb. He writes that the genuinely Septuagintal credentials of the manuscript are well-nigh impec- cable, but that “in spite of its apparent excellence as a representative of the LXX, it contains the Hebrew tetragram in the form of the Greek trigram IAW”. The “inspite of” in this sentence probably conceals a reaction against Skehan who attaches much importance to p802 (4QLXXLevb) and its trigram IAW. According to Skehan, this manuscript preserved the earliest form of the rendition of the tetragram in the Septuagint. Without further developing his argumentation, Pietersma concludes that he “naturally” cannot agree with IAW as the first form. He should admit that the trigram can hardly be a symptom of an early archaizing recension. Its spelling seems to imply that the translator or copyist knew, or thought he knew, the vocalisation of the tetragram, and was probably not opposed to pronouncing it. This is hardly in line with the archaizing tendency which cer- tainly avoided the pronunciation of the Name. Is it not more likely that the tri- gram is an original transcription of the vocalised Name, dating from a time in which the pronunciation was not yet forbidden or unusual? It is tempting to think
23. W. Graf BAUDISSIN, Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum und seine Stelle in der Religionsgeschichte, Gießen, 1929. 24. See especially P. SKEHAN, The Divine Name at Qumran, in BIOSCS 13 (1980) 14- 44. See also W.G. WADDELL, The Tetragrammaton in the LXX, in JTS 45 (1944) 158-161; H. CONZELMANN, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (New Testament Library), London, 1969, p. 83-84; German original: Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, München, 1967, p. 102-103; STEGEMANN, 1978, p. 210; G. HOWARD, The Tetragram and the New Testament, in JBL 96 (1977) 63-68; J.A. FITZMYER, The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios-Title, in ID., A Wandering Aramean (SBL MS, 25), Missoula, MT, 1979, pp. 115-142, a somewhat revised and expanded edition of the original German version Der semitische Hintergrund des neutestamentlichen Kyriostitels, in FS H. Conzelmann, Tübingen, 1975, pp. 267-298. 25. Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX, in FS J.W. Wevers, Mississauga, 1988, pp. 85-101. evei inda IN EZEKIEL 143 so. A closer look at the photographs, however, makes one hesitate. The fragments are written in uncial script, without blanks between the words. The trigram is an exception. It is preceded and followed by a small blank space. This suggests that it may be a later insert. The original writer probably followed a procedure simi- lar to that detected in p288 (pFouad266). Where the Hebrew had the tetragram- maton, he left an open space larger than that due for the trigram. This does not necessarily imply that he had kúriov in mind. The space hardly suffices for the six characters of kúriov. It may simply signify that the Hebrew Vorlage did also have a blank where the Name was to occur, as in 4QpIse quoting Is 32,6, or that it had four dots, as in several instances in the Qumran Mss26.
3. The Earliest Greek Renditions of ’dny and ’dny YHWH
According to Pietersma, there is no shadow of a doubt that ’dny and YHWH were taken to be equivalent to kúriov and that this equivalency was expressed in writ- ten form27. The examples on which this assumption is based are not taken from the pre-Christian manuscripts. In how far do these provide us with instances in which a rendition of ’dwn or ’dny is to be expected? In the reconstructed parts of the Twelve Prophets Scroll from Qumran, E.Tov as a rule writes kúriov where MT has ’dny. This seems to be in contradiction with the only preserved instance of the Ms in which MT has ’dny YHWH. There the Greek scroll writes the tetra- grammaton in the paleohebrew characters used elsewhere as a rendition of ’dny YHWH28. The absence of other instances in which the earliest rendition of ’dny can be checked is perhaps not all that important. Indeed, it is clear that in the days of the Qumran scribes, YHWH and ’dny could be used indiscriminately, at least in the biblical texts. The large Isaiah scroll gives ample proof of this phenomenon. The origin of this practice most likely is to be sought in the pronunciation of YHWH as ’dny. Given these data it should be clear that we have no pre-Christian evidence of the Greek equivalent of ’dny YHWH. The earliest evidence is perhaps to be found in p967 of Ezekiel. Most often this papyrus, together with Ms B, renders ’dny YHWH by a single kúriov. In 15 instances, however, it reads kuriov o ‡eov, which is the equivalent of the qere ’dny ’lhym. According to Pietersma, this same translation is found in 9 out of the 23 occur- rences of ’dny YHWH in the Minor Prophets. He is convinced that there is not much of a reason to doubt that this is the original translation of the expression29. This might be an overstatement. It is true that the occurrences of kúriov ö ‡eóv in Ezekiel are not spread at random. The 15 instances in which the double title renders ’dny YHWH occur in the expressions “thus says ’dny YHWH” and “oracle of ’dny YHWH”, put in the mouth of the prophet. It is also true that the same transla- tion is used repeatedly in the Twelve Prophets. Pietersma does not mention, how- ever, that his figures for the Twelve Prophets are taken from the edition of
26. See 1QS 8,14; 4Q175,1 and 19; 4Q176 passim. The four dots repeatedly found under or above the tetragrammaton in 1QIsa may have had the same function. 27. PIETERSMA, 1984, p. 96. 28. It should be noted here that many Hebrew Mss have YHWH instead of ’dny. 29. PIETERSMA, 1984, p. 97. 144 J. LUST
Ziegler, and not from a manuscript that can be dated to the same early period as p967. In many of the relevant passages in the Greek Twelve Prophets the read- ings of the Mss are very divergent and Ziegler's choices are not always immedi- ately transparent. When the double name occurs in the messenger formula “thus says ’dny YHWH” or in the concluding formula “oracle of ’dny YHWH” he usually prefers to render it by a single kúriov30, even when many of the Mss, including the important uncials B and V, have the double name31. In other instances, such as Am 3,11.13; 4,5, he opts in favour of kúriov ö ‡eóv. In addition to this it should perhaps also be noted that kúriov ö ‡eóv, both in the ancient and in the later Mss of the Septuagint, is the standard rendition of Hebrew ’dny ’lhym32, which means that it certainly was not an exclusive equivalent of ’dny YHWH. Fur- thermore, one should not forget that one of the earliest renditions of ’dny YHWH, in p905 (pOxyrh.656 Gen 15,833), is déspota followed by a blank, in which a later hand wrote kúrie. How is this to be interpreted? Several solutions are pos- sible. In Pietersma's hypothesis that kúriov was the original rendition both of YHWH and of ’dny, one must assume that the translator wished to avoid repeating kúriov and therefore chose another term as a translation of ’dny. However, this does not explain the blank in the original writing of the Ms. It is perhaps more likely that the original translator left a blank where the Hebrew had the tetra- grammaton. His Hebrew Vorlage may already have replaced the tetragrammaton by four dots or by a blank. In this hypothesis the translator had to find an equiv- alent for ’dny only. In this context he chose despótjv. In both options the supposition is that, since this is the first instance in which ’dny occurs in the Bible, no generally accepted translation of this title had as yet evolved when the translator started work on this passage. One must admit that his solution did not become the generally accepted one34.
Conclusion
The Ezekiel fragments found in Masada give further support to the authentic- ity of the double Name ’dny YHWH in the Hebrew text. The earliest Greek Mss preserved to us suggest that in the period in which they were written, the tetragrammaton was rendered by a blank. This may have been due to the fact that the Hebrew text from which they were copied already had replaced the Name by four dots, or by a similar symbol, or by a blank. It is not excluded that, at an earlier stage, the Septuagint rendered the Name by kúriov. The pre-Christian Mss, however, do not leave us any trace of this practice. The earliest Greek Mss offering evidence of the translation of the double Name are to be dated to the third century of the Christian era. They do not offer a uni-
30. See, e.g., Am 5,3; 7,6; 8,3.9 etc. 31. See, e.g., Am 8,3.32. For Ezekiel, see 20,5.7.19.20; 28,26; 34,30; 39,22.28; 44,2. In all the instances there is a unanimity among the Greek Mss, including p967. The same unanimity can be found in 35,11 where the double name is probably to be restored in the Hebrew; cp. RÖSEL, 1991, p. 364. 33. The fragment (recto) contains Gen 15,5-9, which implies that it did not preserve 15,2 where ’dny YHWH occurs for the first time in the Bible. 34. Nowhere else in the Pentateuch the title ’dny seems to have been rendered by despotjv. See, however, DanLXX 9,8.15.16.17 and Jer 1,6; 4,10; (14,13). evei inda IN EZEKIEL 145 form picture. The Oxyrhynchus fragment of Genesis 15 seems to have opted in favour of despótjv as a rendition of ’dny and of a blank for the tetragrammaton. The ancient papyrus 967 of Ezekiel as a rule renders the double name by a single kúriov. The exceptions may be due to occasional recensional activity.
J. LUST