NOTES TO THE SEPTUAGINT EZEKIEL 6 Thematically chapter 6 continues chapters 4–5 with its threatening predictions. From a dramatized condemnation of Jerusalem the prophet turns now to address the mountains of the surrounding land of Israel, the sites of the high places with their idolatric worship. The Septuagint (LXX) is shorter than the Masoretic Text (MT). LXX lacks the conflations of MT and of its maximizing text into which vari- ants have been incorporated. On the other hand, the trimmer text of LXX sometimes suggests it has been contracted1. Whereas in MT verses 8-9 seem to ring a hopeful note, in LXX they further develop the threatening message of the forgoing verses. The Double Name Twice in a role in verse 3, and once in v. 11, the critical editions of LXX have single kúriov where MT reads the double Name evei inda. In earlier contributions we already dealt with this phenomenon2. Here it may suffice to briefly summarise the data, adding remarks on the treatment of the topic in some newer commen- taries, and on L.J. McGregor's evaluation of the Greek evidence. In MT the double Name evei inda occurs 301 times3. It is typical for the book of Ezekiel were it is attested 217 times. In these instances, the critical editions of the Hebrew text, BHK and BHS, characterise inîda∏ as a secondary intrusion, either by commanding the reader to delete (dl) it, or by saying that it is an addition (add). The basis for this correction is the Greek text, and the suggestion that inîda∏ was inserted into the text as a help for the reader, to remind him of the fact that the “tetragram” could not be pronounced and was to be replaced by Adonay. The Ezekiel fragments from Qumran Cave 4, first published in 19864 do not preserve any passage in which the double Name would be expected, nor does any * Contuation of ETL 75 (1999) 5-51 and 315-331. 1. M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (AB), vol. I, 1983, pp. 138-139. 2. J. LUST, Monseigneur Jahweh, in ETL 44 (1968) 482-488; ID., evei inda in Ezekiel and Its Counterpart in the Old Greek, in ETL 72 (1996) 138-145. See also W. ZIMMERLI, Ezechiel (BKAT), Neukirchen, 1969, pp. 1250-1258: “Appendix 1175”, and p. 1265: “Nachtrag”; O. EISSFELDT, inîda∏, in TWAT 1 (1970) 66-78; 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”); V. SPOTTORNO Y DÍAZ CARO, The Divine Name in Ezekiel Papyrus 967, in N. FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporanea. V Congreso de la IOSCS (Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros”), Madrid, 1985, pp. 213-218. 3. This figure is given by the computer search programmes Gramcord (Bible Compan- ion), Bible Works and Logos; TWAT (Eissfeldt) has 310 times. The double name in reverse order (inda evei) occurs 7 times. 4. J. LUST, Ezekiel Manuscripts in Qumran. Preliminary Edition of 4QEza and 4QEzb, in ID. (ed.), Ezekiel and His Book (BETL, 74), Leuven, Peeters, 1986, pp. 90-100; S. TAL- MON, Fragments of an Ezekiel Scroll from Masada (Ezek 35:11–38:14), in Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 27 (1996) 29-49. EZEKIEL 6 397 of the other fragments published up to that date. The excavation of Masada by the late Y. Yadin, changed this situation drastically. The findings yielded about 50 fragments of an Ezekiel manuscript dated to the second half of the first cen- tury B.C. When Yadin died, the fragments were entrusted for publication to S. Talmon5. The four columns to which the fragments belong, cover the text of Ez 35,11–38,14. In general the text accords with MT. In several instances the double Name, or traces of it, are preserved6. 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 inda was already in the Ezekiel text by the time of its translation into Greek. After this brief survey of the new Mss discoveries, we turn to a more system- atic presentation of the data in the Hebrew text. In Ezekiel, the Name YHWH occurs 434 times. In exactly half of these instances (217), it figures in the expanded form evei inda. This is almost exclusively the case in the messenger formula at the beginning of the oracles: evei inda rma ek “Thus says my Lord YHWH”7, and in the concluding formula: evei inda jan “word of my Lord YHWH”8. Four of the remaining fourteen occurrences are attested in the prophetic formulaic prayer “Ahah my Lord YHWH”. In all these cases, inda was most likely originally vocalised inæda· «my Lord”. Indeed, in the 207 formulaic passages referred to thus far, the double Name is never put in the mouth of the Lord, nor of the enemy, nor even of the Israelites, but only in the mouth of the prophet, when he speaks in the name of his Lord. The reason appears to be that he only is sent by YHWH and is entitled to call him “my Lord”. A confirmation can be found in four additional, less formulaic, contexts. Thus in 37,3 the prophet addresses his Lord: “My Lord YHWH, you know”; in 8,1 he speaks about the hand of his Lord, in 6,3; 25,3; 36,4 he draws attention to the word of his Lord, always using the suffixed double Name evei inda. Note that this double Name is not employed in the word-event formula, “The word of YHWH came to me saying”, although this is one of the framing formulae, put in the mouth of the prophet. The reason is most likely that the prophet uses the double Name only when he is speaking about his Lord to a third party, in a direct address. The vocalisation ‘Adonî “my Lord” also explains why the title was, as a rule, not put in the mouth of the Lord in formulae such as: “you will know that I am YHWH”. The Lord can hardly call himself “my Lord”. Put in a more positive way, one may state that the double Name expresses the privileged relation between the prophet and “his” Lord. He, and only he, is entitled to call YHWH “my Lord”. His call as an ambassador of the heavenly king gave him that right9. The only exceptions in the strict sense are to be found in: 13,9; 23,49; 24,24; 28,24; 29,16. In these five cases the Lord is saying: “they (or you) shall know 5. See note 3. 6. Ez 35,12.5; 36,2.3.4.7.22.23; 37,3.5.9.12. 7. 122 times, first in 2,4. 8. 81 times, first in 5,11. 9. Compare G.H. DALMAN, Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte, Berlin, 1889; L. CERFAUX, Le titre Kyrios, in Receuil Lucien Cerfaux (BETL, 6-7), Leuven, Ducu- lot, 1954, pp. 4-188, esp. 113-136 (Le nom divin Kyrios dans la Bible grecque) and 137- 172 (“Adonai” et “Kyrios”) (first published in RSPT 20 [1931] 27-51 and 417-472). 398 J. LUST – K. HAUSPIE – A. TERNIER that I am evei inda». We already noted that, as a rule (50 times), the double Name is not attested in this formula. In 13,9 the ancient codex Petropolitanus, inda is omitted by the first hand, and added in between the lines by a second hand. This probably implies that the title was inserted in order to adapt the text to the other Mss. The other exceptions may be due to the work of late glossators or copyists who did not understand the system anymore. Further exceptional cases, such as 11,5; 21,8; 30,6, where evei is used without preceding inda in the messenger for- mula, are less directly in conflict with the general rule. The strongest argument in favour of the spurious character of inda in the dou- ble Name in Ezekiel has been the witness of the Greek text. According to many commentators, the pre-hexaplaric manuscript B and especially papyrus 967, dat- ing to the second or third century A.D., seem to support the view that the LXX text of Ezekiel originally had single kúriov throughout. Do these pre-hexaplaric Greek Mss allow us to reach a judgment in the con- troversial question concerning the originality of the double Name evei inda? According to the influential view of W. Baudissin10 the original translator(s) obviously worked with a Hebrew Vorlage in which the divine name was a single evei throughout; they translated it by single kúriov. The double Name was exclusively used as a vocative, in the prophet's prayers. More recently, H. Stege- mann and others hold that the LXX is essentially irrelevant in these matters11. Going against this new communis opinio, McGregor suggests that LXX rather sup- ports MT. The Greek witnesses show very little sign of having double divine names outside the pattern set by MT. The early p967, supported by the Vetus Latina, has single kúriov in most of the instances in which MT has the double Name. Yet one also finds in this early Greek Ms a series of readings reflecting evei inda. They are not random in that they follow the pattern of MT. If these were the result of a revision, then the question arises as to why the revision was so spo- radic.