"Exploring Greek Jewish Scribal Practices: The Evidence from the Earliest LXX/OG Fragments" (25 min)

Hellenistic Judaism Section (S 23-9), Sunday morning, MM-Picard
Theme: The Greek Bible and the History of Hellenistic Judaism

An attempt to create "social history" from the evidence of technical practices!

We have a range of Greek texts that probably originated in Jewish contexts, from the 3rd century BCE to perhaps at least the 6th CE. I say "probably" because we really don't know whether the person who copied any given text can be identified with the same person or group with which the text is logically associated. Does a letter or contract that represents a Jewish author or interest necessarily emanate from a Jewish scribe? Did Jews have their own network for copying Jewish (and other) literature, and their own bookstalls in which to sell it? Most of the extant early Jewish literary texts are "biblical," and if we can assume that they were copied in specifically Jewish contexts, they may provide information of value, or at least of interest, about Jewish scribal practices in discussions concerning "hellenistic" (i.e. Greek speaking) Judaism.

I will mention only in passing that the oldest extant Greek materials of possible Jewish provenance are documentary (not "literary"), from the official correspondence of one of the Palestinian Tobiads in the Zenon archive. This includes a neatly inscribed communication to the administrator Apollonios dating to 257 bce. Whether it can tell us anything about specifically Jewish writing practices is problematic, but it is surely "professionally" prepared and has some features that, perhaps only coincidentally, resemble aspects of the presumably Jewish biblical scrolls of the following three centuries. And there are other such examples with Jewish connections among the surviving papyri from Egypt -- details may be found in Tchericover and Fuchs, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (CPJ).

On the "literary" side of things, we now know of about 20 different Greek manuscripts that come from Jewish contexts in pre-Christian times, or on other grounds are most likely to be of Jewish origin. About half of these are copies of portions of the Pentateuch, on both papyrus and parchment::

05a. Qumran cave 7 EpJer (2nd/1st bce, papyrus roll),
05b. Qumran cave 7 frgs 4, 8, 12 [Epistle of Enoch? = "1 Enoch" 103] (1st bce[?], papyrus roll) -- see also reconstruction notes and frg 8 alone
05c. Qumran cave 7 frg 5 (unidentified controversial "Mark" frg, turn of the era[?], papyrus roll),
10. Qumran cave 4 paraphrase of Exod(?) (late 1st bce, papyrus roll),
11. Qumran cave 4 unidentified Greek [4Q126] (late 1st bce, parchment roll; possible KURIOS),
13. Nahal Hever Minor Prophets (hand A), with example of paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton and hand B (turn of the era, parchment roll, two different forms of the paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton!),
14. POxy3522 of Job 42 (1st ce, papyrus roll; paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton),
15. POxy4443 of Esther (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll),
16. PFouad 203 prayer/amulet? (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll) [no image yet]

There are numerous candidates from subsequent times for which the possibility of Jewish origin cannot be ruled out with complete confidence. We will examine the sorts of arguments that are used to assess the possibilities in such instances, but to fill out the picture, here are some of the most ambiguous cases, in two groupings, first scrolls (sometimes suspected of being Jewish for that very reason) and secondly codices (often assumed to be Christian because they are in codex form):

Now it may be that these are all of non-Jewish Christian composition, but I am arguing that the mere use of the codex format should not be the sole evidence on which such an assessment rests. Similarly, the presence of scroll fragments with biblical and related materials from the same period (mainly 2nd through 4th centuries) does not guarantee that they are of Jewish origin. For example:

22. PVindobGr 29828+29456 Jannes and Jambres (early 3rd ce, papyrus roll [reused], nomina sacra uncontracted) [vh1068]
23. PMich 4925 Jannes and Jambres (early 3rd ce, papyrus roll [reused]) [BASP 16 (1979) 114]
25. POxy1166 of Gen 16 (3rd ce, papyrus roll column),
27. POxy1075 of Exod (3rd ce, papyrus roll; end of book, problematic tetragrammaton),
36. PWien Rainer 18 of Pss (3rd/4th ce, parchment roll; Symmachus?) [no image yet]
37. PAlex 203 of Isa 48 (3rd/4th ce, papyrus roll?),
38. PHarris 31 of Ps 43 (3rd/4th ce, papyrus roll/amulet?),
39. POxy2745 Onomasticon of Hebrew Names (3/4th ce, papyrus roll; IAW represents Hebrew YW/YA names) [vh1158]
39a. PHeid1359 Onomasticon of Hebrew Names (3/4th ce, papyrus roll/sheet; IW and IAW represent Hebrew YW/YA names) [vh1136]
40. POxy1225 of Lev 16 (early 4th ce, papyrus roll),
41. PLitLond 211 of Dan 1 "Theodotion" (early 4th ce, vellum roll)
42. POxy2068 (4th ce, papyrus liturgical roll) [vh966]
46. PRanier 4.5 Psalm 9 (5th ce, papyrus amulet?) [#2086 = vh105].

Early codices that for various reasons call for closer attention in this context include:

17. PYale1 of Gen 14, recto, and verso (2nd ce, papyrus codex; number 318 abbreviated),
18. PBodl5 of Pss 48-49 (2nd ce, parchment codex),
19. POxy656 of Gen (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, problematic tetragrammaton),
20. Goettingen # 967 Ezekiel-Daniel-Esther (about 200 ce, papyrus codex); subscriptio and end of Daniel/Susanna (PKoeln Theol 37v, p.196); images of Ezekiel; images of Daniel, etc.
21. POxy4442 Exodus [first side] (early 3rd ce, papyrus codex); [other side]
24. POxy1007 of Gen with its unusual tetragrammaton representation (3rd ce, parchment codex)
26. PBerlin 17213 of Gen (3rd ce) [no image yet; problematic tetragrammaton]
28. POxy1173+1356+2158++ Philo (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [vh696]
29. PAntin 8 Prov-Wisd-Eccl (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#928 = vh254]
30. PAntin 9 Prov (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#987 = vh252]
31. Freer Minor Prophets (late 3rd ce, papyrus codex) [vh284];
32. Berlin Genesis (late 3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#911 = vh004];
34. PLond Christ 5 (3-5th ce, liturgical codex) [vh921],
35. PLitLond 202 of Gen (3rd/4th ce, papyrus codex)
43. PChBeat 16 Jannes and Jambres (4th ce, papyrus codex, odd nomina sacra) [Pietersma]
44. PAntin 10 Ezek (4th ce, papyrus codex) [#988 = vh316]
45. POxy 4444 Wisdom of Solomon (4th ce, parchment codex)
45. PSorbonne 2250 Jer 17f & 46 (late 4th ce, papyrus codex; aberrent text) [#817 = vh308];
47. PBerlin 17035 Gen 36 Symmachus? (5/6th ce, parchment codex) [vh022];
48. PGiessen 13+19+22+26 [side 1] Deut 24-29 (5/6th ce; parchment codex; possibly non-Christian provenance; contracted divine names) [side 2]
++. Cambridge University Taylor-Schechter 12.184 + 20.50 1-2 Kings Aquila (5/6th ce; parchment codex palimpsest with paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton and also abbreviated KY, ISL)
++. Cambridge University Taylor-Schechter 12.186-188 + 78.412 Psalms 90-103 Aquila (5/6 ce; parchment codex palimpsest with paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton)
++. Cambridge University Taylor-Schechter 12.182 Hexapla Psalm 21(22) (6/7th ce; parchment codex palimpsest with Greek PIPI tetragrammaton and possibly an abbreviated KS)

The primary criteria that have been used for determining whether a text is Jewish or Christian are two: (1) codices must be Christian, and (2) use of nomina sacra indicates Christian origin. A corollary of the nomina sacra argument is that if a MS contains the tetragrammaton in a semitic form (especially in paleo-Hebrew or square-Aramaic/Hebrew letters) it is probably of Jewish origin.

The tetragrammaton argument is perhaps the weakest link in such an approach, and indeed can help to open other doors for our purposes. There is no question that some Jewish scribes and copyists gave special treatment to the tetragrammaton, including not only representation in semitic letters but also abbreviated formulations in Greek transliteration (a "smoking gun" here is the use of "IAW" in 4QLXXLev\b). What is especially striking about these practices is the diversity of representation among our small surviving set. Although in several other regards, surviving evidence of Jewish Greek "scribal practice" tends to show it to be quite routinely professional and sophisticated (see the presentations in my ...), with reference to the tetragrammaton it is anything but "standardized."

So what? What else can we learn from this phenomenon? What does it mean when even professional copyists of Jewish Greek scriptural materials understand themselves to have some degree of calligraphic freedom when it came to the tetragrammaton? Or if these were not actually tradition-minded Jewish copyists, who give them instructions as to how to proceed when the tetragrammaton was encountered? Who actually wrote the letters when non-Greek forms of the name were used?

These are rather thin skates to travel on in our desparate quest for better understanding of ancient Judaism in its Greek garb, but let's try to make the best of the situation. My study of the earliest Jewish fragments has led me to the following probable conclusions: (1) there were some highly trained scribes who produced Greek copies of Jewish literature, generally consistent with normal Greek calligraphic standards of the time; (2) some micro-formatting features in these copies of Jewish literature may have been slightly unusual, in comparison to other known kinds of Greek literature -- here I have in mind the use of spacing and other special indicators (e.g. enlarged letters, marginal markers) to break the consecutive text into smaller sections -- although the mega-format of scroll (for literature) seems universal up to the late first century ce; (3) the fact that special treatments are applied to the tetragrammaton is a unique feature of these preserved fragments of Jewish literature.

Explanations, or perhaps contextualizations, of these generalized phenomena could produce the following picture: (1) on the one hand, scribal activity with reference to surviving Greek Jewish literature suggests a high level of respectability in practice and in production, within the context of contemporary hellenistic literature -- thus there must have been appropriate training of scribes/copyists, and there also must have been sufficient economic prosperity to support the preparation and distribution of quality copies; (2) on the other hand, certain unusual but characteristic features of these copies also suggests that there was a special sort of continuity of practice among these presumably Jewish scribes as well -- thus a sort of Jewish scribal "school tradition" in some ways distinct from general hellenistic scribal formatting practices. The formatting peculiarities in the Jewish literature have sometimes been explained as due to non-literary influences (this is especially true for the discussion of the same features in early Christian manuscripts!), with the implication that the Jewish scribes were less well trained, or even less well off, but even if this might have been true at the origins (I would doubt even that claim), it had become routinized and part of a sophisticated ongoing tradition by the time we encounter it in the surviving fragments. And there are more convincing ways to explain the characteristic features, tracing them back to practices in vogue in the surrounding cultures at an early point of development, not directly related to what came to be viewed as "standard" hellenistic literary practice.

But what about the tetragrammaton? If we have a relatively standardized Jewish literary tradition within hellenistic literary activity at large, why has it not also standardized treatment of the tetragrammaton? Since the same sort of question must also be asked of the one major collection of Hebrew and Aramaic literature that has survived from this period -- the Dead Sea Scrolls -- the answers may be related. Apparently within the ranks of transmitters of Jewish literature there was disagreement, or at least discussion, that supported diversity of approach, as to how to handle this very special type of reference to the special deity of the Jewish tradition. If this problem came into clear focus only after certain general Greek scribal conventions had been established, it could produce the situation described above. [See also Pietersma, who on other grounds argues for the priority in LXX/OG textual tradition of KURIOS, which then became controversial.] Within the context of our present knowledge of the history of Judaism in the hellenistic period, an excellent candidate for producing such a disruptive influence could be the civil strife that contributed to the Maccabean uprising and the results of that "quasi-conservative" development. But as I suggested, we are on very thin ice at this point. Something must have happened to encourage, or at least permit, multiple approaches to representing the tetragrammaton in Greek (and other) texts. Exactly what happened remains a mystery.

Incidentally, our modern world is not without analagous developments. The Authorized "King James" Version [AV or KJV] of the Protestant English Bible from 1611 standardized the then traditional practice of representing the tetragrammaton in the four upper case English letters LORD, despite the fact that those letters had no phonetic or semantic relationship to the Hebrew text being translated. Not everyone agreed with this procedure, although it was not until the 1881 Revised Version [RV] appeared that the challenge to the old KJV practice received wide circulation -- LORD was replaced by "Jehovah"! Whether this disruption was enough in itself to doom general acceptance of the RV, and its American counterpart of 1901, the American Standard Version [ASV], I cannot say, but it is clear that treatments of the tetragrammaton even in subsequent English Bibles that claimed some paternity with the old KJV became diverse -- RSV (1952) and NRSV (1989) rejected their immediate parentage and reverted to LORD (so also NKJV, NLT, ESV, CEV, KJ21,NIV+NIV-UK,JPS). Only the Young's Literal Transaltion [already in 1862] and the Darby versions systematically printed Jehovah, while in certain passages the newer Jerusalem Bible has "Yahweh," while the Amplified Bible [AMP] prints Lord (not upper case) and "The Message" version generalizes to GOD (uppercase). [The problems raised by the New World Translation from the Jehovah's Witnesses perspective add another dimension, of course, but the situation exists even without it.] These quick samplings are largely taken from the "Bible Gateway" resource -- see also the following from the Realms of Faith site (bold type added):

In consideration of the traditional Jewish reticence, most versions translate Yahweh as Lord (GEN,
AMP, LB, NCV)–or more commonly LORD to distinguish from 'adonai (KJV, RV, AAT, Lasma,
RSV, NEB, NKJV, NIV, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, KJ21, NASB, GW, NLT, NIrV, NET, ESV). Since the MSG avoids the word Lord altogether, it uses GOD in all capitals. A few translations use
Jehovah: Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, and LITV. Only the JB and NJB use Yahweh. The NWT also
translates the Greek kyrios as Jehovah in the New Testament when the translators judge it to refer to
the Father. (But never when it refers to Jesus.)

/end/

NOTES and for FURTHER EXPLORATION:

Check details of Albert Pietersma "Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXX," in De
Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox (Mississauga, Ontario: Benben Publications, 1984), 85-101. [email 19no03 from AP:]

<quote>Sorry to say I don't have an electronic version. As to the circumstances that led to the semiticizing reaction, no I have not gone beyond the nationalism of the Maccabean period. As for pertinent evidence of the semitizing/achaizing reaction I appeal essentially to three pieces: 1) the use of paleo-hebrew at Qumran, 2) the specific interest in the tetragram (-note for example its (secondary insertion) in 11QPs(a)) and 3) the polemics of Aristeas against the hebraica veritas. The appearance of the tetragam in early Greek fragment in three forms I see as confirming 2). Most important for original Kurios is, in my view, the internal evidence of the LXX (Pent) itself.</quote>

On the tetragrammaton more generally, see http://www.ccs-hk.org/DM/JW-YHVH.html (followup on use of IABE, and on KURIOS in Aquila MSS, as well as general Hexapla situation)

[some web excerpts]

Paul Skehan has to say on this issue after reviewing the available evidence:
> "Evidence strongly suggest that the divine name usage in question goes back for some books at least to the beginnings of the Septuagint rendering and antedates .....Later Greek witnesses" (The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism by P.W. Skehan. Harvard Theological Review, 1977, p.157

> The noted textual critic Dr. Paul Kahle (Skehan's mentor) stated much the same thing some 18 years before:
>"We know that the the Greek Bible text [the Septuagint] as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine Name by Kyrios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by Kyrios, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore". (Dr. P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, Oxford, 1959, p.222)

>George Howard (1977, The Tetragram in the New Testament, JBL 63-84) has argued convincingly that the tetragrammaton even occurred in the NT. Albert Pietersma (1984, Kyrios or Tetragram. A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint, in De Septuaginta Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday, eds A Pietersma and C Cox.) also argued convincingly that the tetragrammaton was sunbstituted by KURIOS in the
ORIGINAL LXX manuscripts. He took as his point of departure late manuscripts of the LXX with KURIOS and pointed out that hundreds of times in the Hebrew text we find LYHWH (preposition le (=to)+ tetragrammaton). In the late LXX manuscripts we find KURIWi (dative) in these instances. If KURIOS was a later substitution how would those writing it know when the Hebrew text had le, to the effect that it should be written in the dative case?

In 4QLXXLevb we find IAW with the dative TWi preceding in LEV 3:11,14; 4:3; and in 8HevXIIgr we find TWi before the tetragrammaton in Zech 9:1. The publication of these manuscripts have shown Pietersma's argument
to be wrong because KURIWi could be a substitution for either IAW or the tetragrammaton with TWi.

In the fourth century BC Aramaic-speaking Jews lived in the Nile delta. There is manuscript evidence that they pronounced the tetragrammaton as IAHU or IAHO (See Elephantine Papyrii in The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible). So one century before the translation of the LXX started, in the same area we find something similar to IAW.

BTW, there is absolutely no evidence proving that the tetragrammaton was not pronounced by some or many in the days of Jesus. The Essenes at Qumran did not pronounce it in the first century BC, but they did not use `adonai
(equivalent to KURIOS) in its stead but `el (equivalent to theos).The Pharesees and other groups at the same time pronounced it.

[[But note in CD the references to using "the alef lamed" and "the alef dalet" -- apparently abbreviated forms for Eli/Elohim and Adonai!! -- not preserved in any DSS fragment]]

Regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
[from http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-08/20277.html ]

[and a couple of posts earlier in that thread, from ...??]

For when Apollo of Claros was asked who among the gods was to be regarded as the god called Iao {perhaps a form of Jah; cf. Diodorus Siculus 1.94}, he replied: [20] Those who have learned the mysteries should hide the
unsearchable secrets, but, if the understanding is small and the mind weak, then ponder this: that Iao is the supreme god of all gods; in winter, Hades; at spring's beginning Zeus; the Sun in summer; and in autumn, the
splendid Iao -Book 1, 18.19-20 Macrobius, The Saturnalia, tr. P. V. Davies (NY: Columbia U. Press, 1969), p. 131.

The one who is first from the Mother is Ialdabaoth; the next, Iao; the next, Sabaoth; the fourth, Adonaios [Adonai]; the fifth Eloeus [Elohim]; the sixth, Oreus; the seventh and most recent of all, Astaphaeus. These heavens and excellences and powers and angels have places in heaven according to their generation, and they invisibly reign over things celestial and terrestrial. -ÒThe Sethian-Ophites,Ó Other Bible, p. 61.

Clement of Alexandria transliterated the name {Yahweh} into Greek in the form Iaoue. - ÒSpelling the Sacred Name: V or W?Ó (Kingdom City, MO: YahwehÕs New Covenant Assembly, 1992), p. 6.

[Valentinian Sys. of Ptolemaeus]
Then the Limit which was hindering her [Sophia seeking the light] in her forward striving said, ÒIao.Ó This is the origin of the name Iao. -ÒValentinus and the Valentinian System of Ptolemaeus,Ó Other Bible, p. 614.

And Iao, the supposed sun-god, was early represented as a golden calf.
-Cook, Zeus, a Study in Ancient Rel., vol. 1, p. 236.

And as Horos thus obstructed her further progress, he exclaimed, IAO, whence they say, this name Iao derived its origin. Iren¾us -ÒIren¾us Against Heresies,Ó The Ante-Nicene Fathers,vol. 2, Ed. A. Roberts, James Donaldson (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ., 1967), p. 321

Archons of Archons of Apocryphon of John Ophites (Origen) Planet Powers
Iaoth Astaphaios (Horaios) Moon Pronoia
Eloaios Horaios (Eloaios) Mercury Divinity
Astaphaios Eloaios (Astaphaios) Venus Goodness
Iao Adonaios [JHWH] Sun Fire
Sabaoth Sabaoth Mars Kingship
Adoni Iao Jupiter Synesis
Sabbataios Ialdabaoth Saturn Sophia
-R. Van Den Broek, ÒThe Creation of AdamÕs Psychic Body in the Apocryphon of John,Ó Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions,Eds. R. Van Den Broek, M.J. Vermaseren (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), combination of tables on pp. 39, 48.

dunameis - functions, force, powers, mathematical powers, properties, characteristics, effects, capacities. Gnostic: dunameis, e.g. Iaoth, Iao. [dunavmei"]

YHW - the God of the fathers; Iao. [Heb. why]

On the Cairo Geniza palimpsests:

M. Sokoloff and J.Yahalom, "Christian palimpsests from the Cairo Geniza", Revue d'Histoire des Textes 8 (1978), pp. 109-132 [Z/4/R48]: note unidentified Greek underwriting in T-S F 17.4 fol. 1-2.

For more facsimiles, get N.Alloni [in Heb] Geniza Fragments of Rabbinic Literature (1973)

[1] Aquila on Kings (codex, 6 pages, 5-6 century) ed F. C. 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 S. John's College and S.Schechter M.A. University Reader in Talmudic Literature, Edited for the Syndics of the University Press by F.Crawford Burkitt M.A. with a Preface by C. Taylor D.D. (Cambridge, at the University Press, 1897) [BS 1334.5 A6 B8]
1. Is it a Jewish codex (so Burkitt)? Not necessarily; probably came through Christian hands, at least.
1.1 Found in Jewish setting, Jewish overwriting, uses paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton (overlined at least once 4 Kg 23.12), from a period compatible with Justinian's Novella.
1.2 But why would a pious Jew overwrite tetragrammaton? Would a Greek MS be considered sufficiently profane? Or a Christian (Greek) MS? Did he/they just not notice? Other palimpsests (about 41 total) in the Geniza seem to be Christian, including Hexaplaric fragments -- see Sokoloff and Yahalom, "Christian Palimpsests from the Cairo Geniza" in Revue d'Historie des Textes 8 (1978), 109-132..
1.3 Ambiguities: size ("nearly 12 in.[tall] x 9 in.[wide]" = 30+ x 22.8 cm; see Turner 27 for grouping), double columned (23-24 lines per col), parchment, large majuscules (for public use?)
But also appearence of ISL (Israel, 3 times), KU (KURIOU once), IOUSALM (Jerusalem ?where?) at line ends -- but note that the copyist does not avoid dividing all proper names (e.g. MO'/AB at 4 Kg 23.14 and IE/ROUSALHM at 23.12).
And, some 'punctuation' marks(after proper names 3 Ki 21.9 ADAD, 12 AAB & ISRAHL, 15 ISL, 16 ADAD; 4 Kg 23.12 OUAAZ, 13 ISRAHL & MW'/AB, 15 BHQHL, 17 BHQHL, 19 ISL & IW/SIAOU & BHQHL, 20 IE/ROUSALHM, 22 ISRAHL [twice], 26 MENASSE [end of verse]; also 4 Kg 23.11 at verse end, 18 after ANHR in mid line, ),
some indentation (3 Kg 21.15; 4 Kg 23.15, 17, 27)
and other spacing (3 Kg 21.8, 9b, 12, 13/14, 17; 4 Kg 23.14b [with end line]),
overline in place of final N (frequently),
dieresis & possible breathing marks,
but mostly scriptio continuo.
2. The overwriting (11th c?) is not continuous in relation to the underwriting. It is upside down to the Aquila text in 3 Kg (one folio), but rightside up in the 4 Kg material (2 folia), indicatting that the reused MS was already dismantled -- further details in Sokoloff and Yahalom..

[Taylor's Preface, on the tetragrammaton (vi): "Questioning the statement of Origen and St Jerome that in the Old Testament in Greek the Name YHWH was sometimes written in archaic Hebrew characters, Gesenius in his Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift (1815) gave persuasive reasons for thinking that Origen, "ein mittelmässiger Sprachkenner und whol noch schlechterer Paläograph," and after him "der gelehrtere Hieronymus" mistook pipi in Greek capitals for letters of the Samaritan alphabet; but a Cairo palimpsest now shews the Tetragrammaton written as they had said. It is a result at oncew interesting and not unimportant that a word from the mouth of two such witnesses, which lacked verification, should at length have been established."]

[Burkitt, 15f: The unpronounced Sacred Name is regularly written YHWH [[paleo]] in the Cairo MS; that is to say, YHWH [[square]] is transcribed in Old Hebrew letters similar to those used in the Siloam Inscription and on Jewish coins. This quite unexpected feature is however in full accord with Origen's express statements, who says in the course of his comments on Ps 2.2 (Bened. 2.539 = Lommatzsch 11.36):-- [[Greek text here -- And let's not be unaware about how the name KURIOS is pronounced by the Greeks but by the Hebrews ADONAI ... Now a certain tetragram is unpronounced among them which is even written on the golden petalos of the high priest, but is spoken as ADONAI -- not that this is written for the tetragram -- but among Greeks KURIOS is pronounced. And in the most accurate manuscripts, the name is represented in Hebrew characters, but not in those currently employed but in the archaic Hebrew ones.]]

Can there be any doubt that by "the mosre accurate copies" Origan here means MSS of Aquila's Version, such as our palimpsest?

This passage of Origen is the source of most of the statements of the Christian Fathers concerning the Tetragrammaton. It is also extant in a slightly different form edited by Montfaucon, Hex 1.86 (quoted in Driver's Samuel, p. x), and it reappears in Evagrius and S. Jerome\1/. [[note 1: E.g. at the beginning of the Prologus Galeatus, speaking of the Hebrew Alphabet, he says: Nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam graecis voluminibus usque hodie antiquis expressum litteris invenimus.]] But until the discovery of this MS of Aquila it had lacked confirmation, for our Hexaplar authorities transcribe the Name by PIPI [[Gk]], i.e. YHWH [[square Heb]] in the Square Character, therein following very probably the usage of Theodotion and Symmachus.

Next to the fact of the Tetragrammaton being in the Old Hebrew characters at all, the most remarkable circumstance connected with its appearance in our MS is that the letters yod and waw are generally identical\2/. [[note 2: The reader is referred in the Photograph especially to fol. 1v, col.a, last line but two; fol. 2r, col. b, line 2. At first I was inclined to read [[paleo]] for [[paleo]], but wrongly. In a good light the extra stroke can be seen even in fol. 1r, col.a, line 11.]] Hitherto confusions between [[yod]] and [[waw]] have been universally assigned to the employment of the Square Character, in which these letters differ only in length, but we now have evidence that confusions were also possible with some forms of the older Alphabet. It must be confessed that [[paleo]] is a corrupted type, both for yod and for waw. As a yod it has lost the characteristic tail at the foot of the right-hand stroke ([[image]]), and in other known forms of the Old Hebrew waw the upper strokes radiate from the top of the main storke (e.g. [[image]]), not as here from the side ([[paleo]]). But it would be idle to expect palaeographical accuracy in our MS. Even in Origen's time, as we learn from the quotation given above, the Old Hebrew character had gone out of use, and the Cairo Palimpsest is some 250 years later still. To the scribe of our MS the Tetragrammaton must have been a mere symbol, blindly copied from the [[16]] model. Yet such as it is, it is the only written specimen that is known to survive of the Old Hebrew script.

The confusion between [[YHWH]] and [[YHYH]] is not by any means confined to our MS. Jacob of Edessa and MSS of the Syro-Hexaplar Version give [[syr]] and IEHIEH as the Sacred Name\1/. [[note 1: See Nestle, ZDMG 32. 466-508; Ceriani, Mon. Sacr. et Prof. 2.110.]] Similar mistakes also occur in the LXX, notably in the last two words of Ezekiel.

The Tetragrammaton in our MS was undoubtedly intended to be pronounced KU/RIOS. Not only does Origen distinctly say [[gk]] but a palaeographical accident has put a piece of direct evidence before us. Contractions are extremely infrequent in our MS. [[etc. (to be continued)]]

[2] Hebrew-Greek Cairo genizah palimpsests from the Taylor-Schechter collection : including a fragment of the twenty-second psalm according to Origen's Hexapla / edited ... by C. Taylor.
Cambridge [Eng.] : University Press, 1900. vi, 96 p., 11 leaves of plates : ill. ; 37 cm.
CAJS BS64 .C36 1900
1. A Hexaplar Fragment of Psalm 22 (pp. 1-50) [PIPI is clear in 2 cols][Rahlfs 2005, 7th c]
2 = Appendix 1. Parts of Some of the Psalms 90-103 in the Greek of Aquila (pp. 51-85)[5-6th c]
3 = Appendix 2. The New Testament --
   1. Gospel Lexctionary? Matt 10.2-4 (with superscription)
   2. John 20.11-15
   3. Acts 24.22-26 (XN IN abbrev), 24.27ff (very difficult to decipher)
   4. 1 Peter 2.22-3.7 (contiguous with Acts??) -- no plate [see Alloni 121-124, 143-144?]
4. Plates 1-11

[3] J.H.A.Hart, "The New Septuagint Fragment," JTS 4 (1903) 215-217 [6th c, Geniza palimpsest, Ps 143.1-12, 143.12-144.6 no facsimiles listed in Sokoloff-Yahalom]

[from web site http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/GF/6/] That the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection contains a smattering of Christian texts has long been known. Written mainly in Christian Palestinian Aramaic but also in Coptic, Georgian, Greek, Latin and Syriac, these are all to be found in manuscripts technically known as palimpsests. Such manuscripts consist of parchment leaves whose original writing (in this case containing the Christian texts) was at some stage erased so that the writing material could be re-cycled and used for copying out new texts. [Sebastian Brock: then describes new Christian Syriac Genizah paper discoveries dated 13-14 c, not palimpsests; conjectures that it was scrap paper acquired for book bindings]

[from http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/GF/4/] As he himself has mentioned in this issue, Dr Erwin Rosenthal has been associated with Genizah researchers for many years. It is therefore fitting that the Cambridge Genizah Collection and its Research Unit should have figured prominently in the volume of essays presented to him in August by his friends and colleagues and entitled Interpreting the Hebrew Bible [1982, BS1188 .I57 ].

Professor John Emerton, Honorary Keeper of the Taylor-Schechter (Genizah) Collection, and Dr Stefan Reif, Director of the Research Unit, have edited the fifteen contributions and prepared a bibliography of Dr Rosenthal's many books and articles. Professor Emerton's own study is of the translation and interpretation of Isaiah 6:13.

Two of the essays deal directly with Cambridge Genizah fragments. Dr N. R. M. de Lange makes available for the first time two interesting mediaeval manuscripts containing Greek translations and interpretations of the Biblical books Ecclesiastes and Kings, written in Hebrew characters.

[notes by M. Beit-Arie]
An entire codex dating most likely before the tenth century is Ms Vatican Ebr. 66 of the Sifra with Babylonian vocalization (cf. my Hebrew Codicology, p. 72, n. 135 on its vertical pricking rows which are very close to the written space, and are sometimes concealed in it as in Latin codices prior to 800); on the various opinions concerning its dating and other old manuscripts, particularly literary Geniza fragments, as well as a survey of texts in Hebrew script which have been, or may be ascribed to the first millennium A.D., in addition to my survey in Kirjath Sepher, XLIII (1967-68), pp. 411-413 (in Hebrew) and in Hebrew Codicology, pp. 9-10, see S. Hopkins, "The Oldest Documents in the Geniza?", in Studies in Judaism and Islam Presented to Shelomo Dov Goitein, Jerusalem 1981, pp. 83-98. Findings not in codex form written in the Oriental type of Hebrew script make it possible to follow the evolution and development of this script in a quite consecutive manner from the book hand and documentary script of the Judean Desert up to the tenth century (Edna Engel of the Hebrew Palaeography Project's team in Jerusalem is now completing a doctoral dissertation on this subject). The fragments of literary and documentary texts surviving from the period between the Judean Desert texts and the earliest codices, mostly papyri, have been assembled by the Hebrew Palaeography Project; see C. Sirat (avec la contribution de M. Beit-Arie, M. Dukan et al), Les papyrus en caracteres hebraiques trouves en Egypte, Paris 1985. Seventeen papyri in Judeo-Arabic included there have meanwhile been published; cf. J. Blau and S. Hopkins, "Judeo-Arabic Papyri - Collected, Edited and Analysed", Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, IX (1987), pp. 87-160 [= J. Blau, Studies in Middle Arabic and its Judeo-Arabic Variety, Jerusalem 1988, pp. 401-474]. Among the literary papyri there is not a single fragment which can be proved to have derived from a codex, except for the Cambridge papyrus codex found in the Cairo Geniza, which is constructed from one multi-sheet quire (cf. Les papyrus en caracteres hebraiques, pp. 69-80). It seems that the codex form was adopted for books written in Hebrew much later than for those written in Greek, Latin, Coptic or Syriac. In the Talmudic and Midrashic literature all books are in scroll form, as Rashi already observed in his commentary to TB, Megilla 19a (on the physical form of pinkes in this literature, wrongly seen by S. Lieberman as evidence for an earlier employment of the codex form among the Jews, followed by the early Christians, who adopted and spread this book form, see M. Haran, "The Codex, the Pinax and the Wooden Slats", Tarbiz, [1988], pp. 151-164 [in Hebrew]). Indeed, the earliest occurrence of a specific term for a codex in Hebrew literature dates from late eighth century; see M. Beit-Arie, "How Hebrew Manuscripts Are Made", in A Sign and a Witness: 2000 Years of Hebrew Books and Illuminated Manuscripts (ed. L.S. Gold), New York and Oxford 1988, pp. 35-36; M. Glatzer, Appendix to the study mentioned above, n. 17, pp. 260-261. Therefore, the findings as well as literary testimonies indicate that it is doubtful whether the first Jewish employment of the codex occurred before the eighth century.

//end of notes//