Mask

Purchase at alibris.com
( 4.7/5.0 ★ | 429 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
530794043810824&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0794043810824
Mask

ISBN: 0794043810824
Category: Media > DVDs & Movies
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 13.6 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Good 2005 Run time: 97. Providing great media since
1972. All used discs are inspected and guaranteed. Digital copy/codes
may be expired or not included. We ship orders daily and Customer
Service is our top priority!

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26530794043810824&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0794043810824
 Mask

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653079404381082

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
KAwza(s?) is ΞΟΠ, still less how P. Feine, Der Jakobusbrief,
Hisenach, 1893, p. 16, can maintain that it is ‘‘ elsewhere
recognised” that KAwmas is Greek, and = KAcomas) ; similarly
Σιλουανός seems to be a substitute for the Semitic Σιλας. 3 BU, ix.,
p. 274, No: 277 2.
 316 BIBLE STUDIES. [184, 185 the case of the Tarsian Σ᾽
αοὐὔλ, when he received a nonSemitic second name (we do not
know the exact time, but it must have been before Acts 13°) the
choice of Παῦλος may have been determined by nothing more than
the fact that Παῦλος had a sound somewhat similar to the name
made venerable by association with his fellow-tribesman of old. So
far as we know, there has hitherto been no evidence to show that
the name Π͵Ἂ.αῦλος was adopted by any other Jew; it is therefore
of interest that the recentlypublished Papyrus fragments relating to
the Jewish war of Trajan * several times mention an Alexandrian Jew
called Παῦλος, who seems to have been the leader of a deputation
which negotiated with the emperor. The question why the narrator
calls the Apostle Σαῦλος previous to Acts 13°, and Παῦλος
afterwards, has nothing to do with the science of names, or with the
history of Paul; it is altogether a question of literary history. The
most satisfactory solution 1The frequently-noted circumstance that
in the accounts of Paul’s conversion, Acts 94:17, 227-15, 261}, he is
addressed by Jesus and Ananias as Σαούλ may be explained by the
historian’s sense of liturgical rhythm ;—compare the way in which he
puts the name Συμεών (for Peter, whom he elsewhere calls Σίμων
and Πέτρος) in the mouth of James in a solemn speech, 154,
Similarly, the early Christians did not Graecise, e.g., the venerable
name of the patriarch Jacob: Ἰακώβ had a ‘‘ biblical,’ Ἰάκωβος a
modern, sound. In the same way Paul appears to have made a
distinction between the ancient theocratic form Ἱερουσαλήμ and the
modern political name Ἵεροσόλυμα: when he uses the former, there
is ever a solemn emphasis upon the word, especially noticeable in
Gal. 4 39.325 (cf. Hebr. 12”, Rev. 31%, 21% 1%); but also as the
dwelling-place of the saints, Jerusalem is more to him than a mere
geographical term: hence in 1 Cor. 16°, Rom. 15” f., he lovingly and
reverently marks a distinction by writing Ἱερουσαλήμ; lastly, in Rom.
15% this form again best suits the subject, viz., an enthusiastic
retrospect of the diffusion of the gospel. We must also bear in mind
that the Gospels preserve many of our Lord’s sayings in Aramaic; see
p. 76 above. The assertion of A. Buttmann, Gramm. des neutest.
Sprachgebr., p. 6, that, when Paul is addressed, the “‘ popular” (??—
for the readers of the Greek Book of Acts ?) form Σαούλ is regularly
employed, is contradicted by Acts 26%, 27%. 2 Cf. Acts 18 31, and
also Rom. 11! and Phil. 3°. 3 See p. 68 above. 4The name, indeed,
is mutilated in almost all the passages, so that the restoration
Σαῦλος would also be possible, but in Col. vii. of the edition of
Wilcken, Hermes, xxvii. (1892), p. 470, Παῦλος can be distinctly
made out.
 185, 186] SAULUS PAULUS. 317 so far (unless we are
willing to go back to a difference in the sources) is the supposition!
that the historian uses the one or the other name according to the
field of his hero’s labours; from chap. 131 the Jewish disciple Σ᾽
αῦλος is an apostle to the whole world: it is high time, then, that he
should be presented to the Greeks under a name about which there
was nothing barbaric, and which, even before this, was really his
own. Σαῦλος ὁ καὶ Παῦλος: only as such perhaps did many of his
brethren of the same race understand him; from his own confessions
we know that he was rather a Παῦλος ὁ καὶ Σαῦλος--ἃ man who
laboured for the future and for humanity, though as a son of
Benjamin and a contemporary of the Cesars. Christians in later times
would often have fain called him Saul only; but on this account it is
the name Paul alone which in history is graven above the narrow
gate at which Augustine and Luther entered in? 1 The following
phenomenon is perhaps instructive on this point. In several passages
of Acts mention is made of a Ιωάννης ὁ ἐπικαλούμενος Μάρκος,
either by this double name or by his Jewish name Ἰωάννης ; in 13) it
is particularly evident that Ἰωάννης has been used purposely: the
man had forsaken the Apostle Paul and had returned to Jerusalem.
Quite differently in 1539. he now goes with Barnabas to Cyprus, and
this is the only passage in Acts where the Greek name Μάρκος,
standing alone, is applied to him. This may, of course, be purely
accidental. 2 With this should be compared Professor W. M.
Ramsay’s brilliant section on the same subject, St. Paul the Traveller
and the Roman Citiizen?, London, 1896, pp. 81-88.—Tr.
 Wak: GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE
TETRAGRAMMATON.
καὶ φοβηθήσονται τὰ ἔθνη τὸ ὄνομά σου κύριε.
 GREEK TRANSCRIPTIONS OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON. In
a notice of Professor W. Dindorf’s edition of Clement, Professor P. de
Lagarde’ reproaches the editor, in reference to the passage Strom. v.
63 (Dindorf, i. p. 2725), with having ‘‘no idea whatever of the deep
significance of his author’s words, or of the great attention which he
must pay to them in this very passage’. Dindorf reads there the form
᾿Ιαού as τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα TO μυστικόν. But in various
manuscripts and in the Turin Catena to the Pentateuch? we find the
variants "Ia οὐαί or “Ia ové.* Tagarde holds that the latter reading
‘“‘might have been unhesitatingly set in the text ; in theological
books nowadays nothing is a matter of course’. The reading *Iaové
certainly appears to be the original; the e was subsequently left out
because, naturally enough, the name designated as the
Tetragrammaton must have no more than four letters.‘ The form
’Iaové is one of the most important Greek transcriptions of the
Tetragrammaton usually referred to in seeking to ascertain the
original pronunciation. Β΄. Dietrich in a letter of February, 1866,° to
Franz Delitzsch, makes the following collection of these
transcriptions :— 1 GGA. 1870, part 21, p. 801 ff. Cf. Symmikta, i.,
Gottingen, 1877, p. 14 f. 2 Cf. upon this H. W. Hengstenberg, Die
Authentie des Pentateuchs, i., Berlin, 1836, p. 226 f. ’ With reference
to the itacistic variation of the termination, cf. the quite similar
variants of the termination of the transcription Εἰμαλκουαί 1 Mace.
11°. Ἰμαλκουέ, Σινμαλκουή, etc., and on these C. L. W. Grimm,
HApAT. iii., Leipzig, 1853, p. 177. 4 Hengstenberg, p. 227. 5 ZAW. iii.
(1883), p. 298. 21
 BIBLE STUDIES. [4,5 my. m7 ὯΝ Cent. 2. Irenaeus -- Ιαοθ
(2): = ,, 2-38. Clement (Iaove) ” Ιαου = » 9. Origen = law (law Ia)
Ia—IAH »» 4. Jerome --- Jaho = » — Epiphanius laBe -- Ια » ὅ.
Theodoret laBe law Aia (cod. Aug. (Sam.) Ia) » ¥. Isidore a -- Ja. Ja
It is an important fact that nearly all the transcriptions which have
thus come down from the Christian Fathers are likewise
substantiated by ‘‘ heathen’ sources. In the recently-discovered
Egyptian Magic Papyri there is a whole series of passages which—
even if in part they are not to be conceived of as transcriptions of
the Tetragrammaton—merit our attention in this connection. As early
as 1876 W. W. Graf Baudissin,® in his investigation of the form ‘Ido,
had referred to passages relating to it in the Magic Papyri in Leiden’
and Berlin.’ Since that time the edition of the Leiden Papyri by C.
Leemans,® and that of the Paris and London Papyri by C. Wessely,’
the new edition of the Leiden Papyri by A. Dieterich,* the latest
publications of the British 1 Wrongly questioned by Εἰ. Dietrich; cf. p.
327 below. 2 F. Dietrich reads Iaov. 3 Studien zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte, Heft i., Leipzig, 1876, Da) ΤΟΥ ἢ 4 At that time
there were only the preliminary notes of C. J. C. Reuvens: Lettres ἃ
M. Letronne sur les papyrus bilingues et grecs . . . du musée
dantiquités de Vuniversité de Leide, Leiden, 1830. 5 Kdited by G.
Parthey, AAB., 1865, philol. und histor. Abhh., 109 fi. 6In his
publication, Papyri Graeci muset antiquarti publicd LugduntBatavi,
vol. ii., Leiden, 1885. 7 DAW. philos.-histor. Classe, xxxvi. (1888), 2
Abt. p. 27 ff. and xlii. (1893), 2 Abt. p. 1 ff. ® Papyrus magica musei
Lugdunensis Batavi, Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. Suppl. xvi. (1888), p. 749 ff.
(=the edition of Papyrus J 384 of Leiden). Dieterich, Abraxas,
Studien zur Religions-Geschichte des spiéteren Altertums, Leipzig,
1891, p. 167 ff. (= edition of Papyrus J 395 of Leiden), The author
has to thank his colleague and friend the editor (now in Giessen) for
divers information and stimulating opposition. ie
 5, 6] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 323 Museum,! and other
works, have rendered still more possible the knowledge of this
strange literature, and an investigation of these would be worth the
trouble, both for the historian of Christianity * and for the Semitic
philologist.* The Papyri in their extant form were written about the
end of the third and beginning of the fourth century a.p. ; their
composition may be dated some hundred years before —in the time
of Tertullian.* But there would be no risk of error in supposing that
many elements in this literature belong to a still earlier period. It is
even probable, in view of the obstinate persistence of the forms of
popular belief and superstition, that, e.g., the books of the Jewish
exorcists at Ephesus, which, according to Acts 19°, were committed
to the flames in consequence of the appearance of the Apostle Paul,
had essentially the same contents as the Magic Papyri from Egypt
which we now possess.” In the formule of incantation and adjuration
found in this literature an important part is played by the Divine
names. very possible and impossible designation of deities, 1F. G.
Kenyon, Greek Papyri im the British Museum, London, 1893, p. 62 ff.
2 Cf. A. Jilicher, 7AG. xiv. (1893), p. 149. 3 Cf. EH. Schiirer,
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 8.5, Leipzig
(1898), p. 294 ff., and especially L. Blau, Das altjiidische
Zauberwesen (Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest,
1897-98), Budapest, 1898. 4 Wessely, i., p. 36 ff. Though A.
Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Husebvus, i.,
Leipzig, 1893, p. ix., maintains that the age of the Magic Literature is
as yet quite undetermined, this must so far be limited as that at
least a termuvus ad quem can be established on paleographical and
internal grounds for a not inconsiderable part of this literature. 5 The
Book of Acts—if we may insert this observation here—manifests in
this passage an acquaintance with the terminology of magic. Thus
the expression τὰ περίεργα, used in 19 1", is a terminus technicus
for magic ; cf., in addition to the examples given by Wetstein, ad
loc., Pap. Lugd., J 384, xii. 19 and 21, περιεργία and περιεργάζομαι
(Fleck. Jalrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 816: cf. Leemans, ii., p. 73). So also
πρᾶξις, 19 15, a terminus technicus for a particular spell, of which
the indexes of Parthey, Wessely and Kenyon afford numerous
examples. The ordinary translation artifice (Rinke) obliterates the
peculiar meaning of the word in this connection. [English A.V. and
R.V. deeds even more completely].
 924 BIBLE STUDIES. (6, 7 Greek, Egyptian and Semitic, is
found in profuse variety, just as, in general, this whole class of
literature is characterised by a peculiar syncretism of Greek,
Egyptian and Semitic ideas. But what interests us at present are the
forms which can in any way be considered to be transcriptions of the
Tetragrammaton. For the forms which are handed down by the
Fathers, in part still questioned, are all verified by the Papyri, with
the sole possible exception of Clement’s Iaove. Tao. To the examples
given by Baudissin there is to be added such a large number from
the Papyri since deciphered, that a detailed enumeration 15
unnecessary.! The palindromic form tama.” is also frequently found,
and, still more frequently, forms that seem to the author to be
combinations of it, such as αρβαθιαω. The divine name Jaw became
so familar that it even underwent declension: εἰμὶ θεὸς θεῶν
ἁπάντων tawy σαβαωθ adwvat al Spaklas (Pap. Lugd. J 384, 11. 1).
Ta. Likewise not infrequent. Without claiming exhaustiveness we cite
the following :— ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνάγκης τεταγμένος ιακουβ ta taw
σαβαωθ adwvat [αἸβρασαξἕξ (Pap. Lond. ΟΧΧΙ. 648, 649),4 with
which compare the gem-inscription ta ta taw adwvar σαβαωθ," the
combinations wand (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56,6 Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat. 1 Cf.
the indexes of Leemans, Wessely and Kenyon. 2 Tn the form ιαοαι in
Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 996 (Wessely, i., p. 69). Itis to be regretted that
the editor does not give the library number of this Papyrus. 3 Fleck.
Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 798; Leemans, ii., p. 15. K. Buresch,
ATIOAAQN KAAPIOS, Untersuchungen zum Orakelwesen des
spdteren Altertwms, Leipzig, 1889, p. 52, unnecessarily brackets the
ν of ιαων. 4 Kenyon, p. 105; Wessely, ii., p.44. We do not give
Wessely’s numbering of the lines, which is different from Kenyon’s.
In line 327 of the same Papyrus we are not quite certain whether ia
is meant for a Divine name or not. 5 Ὁ. Β΄. Kopp, Palaeographia
critica, iv., Mannheim, 1829, p. 226. 6 Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, i., p.
128.
 7. 8] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 325 961 and 3033'), and
vawr (Pap. Paris. Lowvre 2391 151),? as also a whole mass of other
combinations. Tamia :? (read) ἐπὶ tod μετώπου iawia (Pap. Paris.
Bibl. nat. 3257).4 Ian occurs more frequently; in particular, in the
significant passage :— ὁρκίζω σε κατὰ Tov θεοῦ τῶν ᾿Εβραίων
᾿Ιησοῦ" ιαβα" tan’ αβραωθ’ aia’ θωθ' ede ἐλω αηω" cov’ μιβαεχ᾽
αβαρμας" ἴαβα paov' αβελβελ' Nova’ aBpa’ μαροια᾿ βρακιων (Pap.
Paris. Bibl. nat. 3019 α. ;° again, in the same Papyrus, 1222 8° κύριε
LAW ALN LWN WLN WLN LN ALWAL ALOVMW ANW NAL LEW HUW
ANnLAW awa aen. vw aev can εἰ. One might surmise that the form
van in the latter passage should be assigned to the other
meaningless permutations of the vowels.’ But against this is to be set
the fact that the form is authenticated as a Divine name by Origen,
that in this passage it stands at the end of the series (the εἰ of the
Papyrus should likely be accented εἶ), and thus seems to correspond
to the well-known form caw at the beginning. Nevertheless, too
great stress should not be laid upon the occurrence, in similar vowel-
series, of purely vocalic transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton.
Further, in the same Papyrus, 156° and 19s6°; also in Pap. Lond.
xlvi. 23.!° 1 Wessely, i., pp. 68 and 121. 2 Thid., p. 144. 5 Combined
from law and Ia (cf. Baudissin, p. 183 f., and F. Dietrich, p. 294). 4
Wessely, i., 126. 5 Ibid., p. 120. This passage, so far as regards the
history of religion, is one of the most interesting: Jesus is named as
the God of the Hebrews ; observe the Divine names combined with
a8 (in reference to αβελβελ, Cf. Baudissin, p. 25, the name of the
King of Berytus ᾿ΑβέλβαλοΞ) ; on aia and iaBa see below, pp. 326
and 333 f.; with reference to θωθ (Egyptian deity) in the Papyri, cf.
A. Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 70. 8 Tbid., p. 75. 7 Cf. upon these, p. 329
below. 8 Wessely, i., p. 84. 9 Tbid., p. 94. 10 Kenyon, p. 66; Wessely,
i., p. 127.
 926 BIBLE STUDIES. [8, 9 This form is also found in W.
Frohner’s' issue of the bronze tablet in the Museum at Avignon : the
last two lines should not be read καὶ σὺ συνέργει ᾿Αβρασάξ wry
᾿Ιαώ, as Frohner reads them, but καὶ σὺ συνέργει αβρασαξ van”
caw. The reverse combination caw .an is found in a leaden tablet
from Carthage, CID. viii. Suppl. i., No. 12509. We may, finally, at
least refer to the passage ὅτι δισύλAaBos εἶ an (Pap. Paris. Bibl. nat.
944).3 According to A. Dieterich,! an is “‘ simply a mystical Divine
name,” and “‘ it is possible that it should be read aw”. We consider
this alteration quite unnecessary. Either a7 is an indistinct
reminiscence of our van, or else we must definitely conclude that the
« of san coming after εἰ has fallen out by hemieraphy.° Aia.
Theodoret’s form Aia, for which the Augsburg Codex and the ed.
princ. of Picus read Ia,° is found not only in the above-cited
passage, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3019 πι, but also in Pap. Lugd. J 395,
xvii.s,’ as—a fact of special interest— the correction of the a:pa
which originally stood in the MS. Jaoth. The Latin codices of Ireneus
yield the form Jaoth.® Ireneus distinguishes one pronunciation with
a long, and another with a short, o (ii. 353, Massuet: Jawth, extensa
cum aspiratione novissima syllaba, menswram praefinitam
manifestat ; cum autem per o graecam corripitur ut puta Jaoth, eum
— qui dat fugam malorum significat). 1 Philologus, Suppl. v. (1889),
p. 44 f. 2 That is, A instead of A; tacitly corrected by Wessely,
Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 182. 3 Wessely, i., p. 68. 4 Abraxas,
p. 97. 5 The . of way must, in that case, on account of the metre
and the δισύλλαβος, be pronounced as a consonant (cf. on this
point, Kiihner-Blass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der griechischen
Sprache, i. 1, Hanover, 1890, p. 50). 6 Hengstenberg, p. 227; F.
Dietrich, p. 287. 7 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 196; Leemans, ii., p. 141. ®
Cf., in particular, Baudissin, p. 194 f.
 9, 10] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 327 F. Dietrich has
erroneously questioned this form.! The following should be added to
the citations given by Baudissin :— Pap. Lond. xlvi. 142 (vawT),” as,
5, Xlvi. 479 (tawd),° Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3268 (vaw8),* Pap. Lugd. J
395, xxi.14 (aBpatiaw8),® Pap. Lond. xlvi. 56 (αρβαθεαω θ)," Pap.
Berol. 2125 (auBptOtaw6)." With reference to the agglutination of a
T-sound to taw, cf. the literature cited by Baudissin.* The Papyri
yield a large number of examples of similar forms in -#@. Similar
forms with Greek terminations (e.g., Φαραώθης), in Josephus and
others.° Taove. Regarding Clement’s form Iaove, the author calls
attention to the following passages :— θεὸς θεῶν, ὁ κύριος τῶν
πνευμάτων Oo ἀπλάνητος αἰὼν Lawounl, εἰσάκουσόν μου τῆς φωνῆς
- ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε τὸν δυνάστην τῶν θεῶν, ὑψιβρεμέτα Ζεῦ, Ζεῦ
τύραννε, αδαιναι “ἷ κύριε LAWOUNE* ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐπικαλούμενός σε
συριστὶ θεὸν μέγαν ζααλαηριφφου καὶ σὺ μὴ παρακούσῃς τῆς φωνῆς
ἑβραϊστὶ αβλαναθαναλβα αβρασίλωα " ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι σίλθαχωουχ
λαίλαμ βαασαλωθ taw tew νεβουθ σαβιοθαρβωθ apBabiaw ιαωθ
σαBaw@ πατουρὴ ζαγουρὴ βαρουχ αδωναι εἐλωαι ιαβρααμ
βαρβαραυω ναυσιφ ὑψηλόφρονε. . . (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 466-482).}}
1p, 294. 2 Kenyon, p. 69; Wessely, i., p. 130. 3 Kenyon, p. 80;
Wessely, i., p. 139. 4 Wessely, i., p. 126. > A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 201.
6 Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, i., p. 128. 7 Parthey, p. 154. We begin the
word with a, and affix the @ to the previous word ; cf. Kenyon, p.
111, line 849, αμβριθηρα. ΒΒ 105: 9" Cf., for example, the
Φαρεθώθης of Artapanus (Eusebius, Praep. ev. ix. 18), and, upon
this, J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, Heft 1 and 2, Breslau,
1875, p. 169. 10 With this expression, also common in the Book of
Enoch, compare LXX Num. 16”, 27 16, 11 Kenyon, p. 80; Wessely, i.,
139. We have given the passage 1m extenso because it is
particularly instructive in respect to the Syncretism of this literature.
 928 BIBLE STUDIES. (10, 11 ἀκουσάτω μοι" πᾶσα γλῶσσα
καὶ πᾶσα φωνή, ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι TepTaw [uny Yay] μνηχ σακμηφ
LAWOVEN WNW WNW LEoOVwWNL nuana [corrupt] enwvoe! ...
(Pap. Lugd. J 384, vi. 12-14).? σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀγαθοδαίμων ὁ γεννῶν ἀγαθὰ
καὶ τροφῶν τὴν οἰκουμένην, σοῦ δὲ τὸ ἀένναον κομαστήριον, ἐν ᾧ
καθίδρυταί σου τὸ ἑπταγράμματον ὄνομα πρὸς τὴν ἁρμονίαν τῶν ζ΄
φθόγγῶν ἐχόντων φωνὰς πρὸς τὰ κη΄ φῶτα τῆς σελήνης,
σαραφαρα apap ata βρααρμαραφα αβρααχ περταωμὴχ akuny
Lawoven tawove εἰου anw enov aw... . (Pap. Lugd. J 395, xvii. 25-
32).3 OTL προσείλημμαι THY δύναμιν τοῦ ᾿Αβραὰμ ᾿Ισὰκ καὶ τοῦ
᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ δαίμονος tam αβλαναθαναλβα
σιαβραθίλαω λαμψτηρ int ww. θεέ, ποίησον, κύριε, περταωμὴχ χαχ
μὴχ ιαωουὴε LawouneE Leovanw enoviaw (Pap. Lugd., J 395, XVII1.,
21-26).4 It might appear at first sight very natural to assume that
these forms are related to Clement’s Iaove. In consideration of the
great freedom with which the Hebrew vowels were transcribed in
Greek, it need not seem strange that the H-sound at the end of
words is rendered by mz, ne and en in the Papyri; in point of fact
the strengthening or lengthening of the e by the addition of ἡ would
give a more distinct rendering of the ΓΙ. than the bare ε of Clement.
The coming of w before ov is the only strange feature. Still, even
this peculiarity might be explained by the preference for Iaw, the
most popular transcription, which it was desired should have a place
also here. For these reasons Kenyon maintains that the form
Iawovne is actually the Divine name, and, indeed, that it is an
expansion of the form Iaw.° Notwithstanding, we must not trust
entirely to plausi1 Considered by A. Dieterich to be a palindrome of
the τεονωηι. 2 A. Dieterich, Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl. xvi., p. 804;
Leemans, ii., p. 23. 3 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 195 f.; Leemans, ii., p. 141
f. 4 A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 197; Leemans, ii., p. 145. 5 P. 63: “The
exact pronunciation of that name . . was preserved a profound
secret, but several approximations were made to it; among which
the commonest is the word Iaw . ., which was sometimes expanded,
so as to employ all the vowels, into Iawoune”’.
 11, 19] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 329 bility. We must first
of all investigate whether the said forms do not belong to the
manifold permutations of the seven vowels,’ which are all but
universally considered to be capricious and meaningless, mocking
every possible attempt at explanation, and which can therefore, now
less than ever, yield a basis for etymological conjectures. An
instructive collection of these permutations and combinations of the
seven vowels for magical purposes is found in Wessely’s treatise,
Hphesia Grammata.? That writer elsewhere® passes judgment upon
them as follows: ‘“ other [names] again appear to have no special
meaning, for, just as magical formule are formed from the seven
vowels aenuovw and their permutations and combinations . . ., so in
all probability there were magic formule formed from the consonants
also, now Hebraising, now Egyptianising, now Grecising, and without
any definite meaning”. We are unable to decide whether this
assertion concerning the consonantal formule is correct. But
certainly when the chaos of the vocalic formations is surveyed, the
possibility of accounting for the great majority of the cases may be
doubted.* If, then, it were established that the forms cited above
should also be assigned to this class, they could, of course, no
longer be mentioned in the present discussion. We should otherwise
repeat the mistake of old J. M. Gesner,* who believed that he had
discovered the Divine name Jehovah in the vowel series IEHQOTA.
But in the present instance the matter is somewhat different, and
the conjecture of Kenyon cannot be summarily rejected. To begin
with, the form sawoune or tawovnt, 1 Cf. on this point Baudissin, p.
245 fi.; Parthey, p.116f.; A. Dieterich, Ἀγ... Ρ. 291. 2 The 12th
Jahresb. iiber das K. K. Franz-Josephs-Gymn. in Wren, 1886. 3
Wiener Studien, viii. (1886), p. 183. ‘Let one example suffice: Pap.
Lugd. J 395, xx.ift, (A. Dieterich, Abr., p. 200; Leemans, i., p. 149 f.):
ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε wevo waeniaw aenarenan LOVWEU ιεουαηωηι
WHLLAN ιωουηαυὴ VINA ιωιωαι ιωαι WH EE OV ιωι aw τὸ μέγα
ὄνομα. > De laude dei per septem vocales in the Commentationes
Soc. Reg. δοϊοννέ, Gotting., i. (1751), p. 245 fi.
 990 BIBLE STUDIES. [12, 13 in the first passage quoted,
does not stand among other vowel-series ; on the contrary, it 15
enclosed on both sides by a number of indubitable Divine names.
Further, the same form with insignificant modifications is found in
various passages of various Papyri; from this we may conclude that
it is at least no merely hap-hazard, accidental form. Finally, its
similarity with Clement’s Iaove is to be noted. At the same time,
wider conclusions should not be drawn from these forms—none, in
particular, as to the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: for
the fact that in three of the quoted passages the form in question is
followed by vocalic combinations in part meaningless, constitutes an
objection that is at all events possible. The value of the vocalic
transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton for the determination of its
true pronunciation appears to us, by reason of the diffuse and
capricious usage of the vowels which we find throughout the Magic
Interature, to be at most very small. The very great uncertainty of
the traditional texts must also be urged as an objection to its being
so employed. Nowhere could copyists’ errors! be more easily made,
nowhere are errors in reading by editors more possible, than in
these texts. Let any one but attempt to copy half a page of such
magic formule for himself: the eye will be continually losing its way
because there is no fixed point amidst the confusion of meaningless
vowels by which it can right itself. TaBe. It is thus all the more
valuable a fact that the important consonantal transcription of the
Tetragram, Jae, given by Epiphanius and Theodoret, is attested
likewise by the Magic Literature, both directly and indirectly. The
author has found it four times in the collocation saBe ἕεβυθ :—
ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς TO ἅγιον ὄνομ[ α ἐερηκισθαρηαραραραχαραραηφθισ..
... 1 Cf. Wessely, ii., p. 42, on the ‘frivolity ” (Leichtfertigkeit) with
which the copyists treated the magic formule. The state of the text
generally with regard to Semitic names in Greek manuscripts, biblical
and extra-biblical, is instructive.
 13, 14] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 331 taw taBe Se BvO@
rNavaBicadrav........ εκτυπαμμουποφδηντιναξο ὁ τῶν ὅλων βασιλεὺς
εξεγέρθητι (leaden tablet of cent. 2 or 3 from a Cumean tomb, C/G.
111., No. 5858 5). J. Franz! has correctly explained this form: habes
in ea formula IAQ Judaicum satis notum illud ex monumentis
Abraxeis, deinde IABE, quo nomine Samaritanos summum numen
invocasse refert Theodoretus Quaest. in Hxod. xv. On ζεβυθ see
below. Wessely? conjectures that law SABAwG appears in the third
line. But f8v@ is vouched for by the two following passages which
give the same magic precept as a precept, which is actually put in
practice in the Cumean tablet :— On a tablet of tin shall be written
before sunrise among other words the λόγος εἰ... σιφθη taBe ζεβυθ
(Pap. Lond. CXX1. 419),° On a chalice one shall write besides other
words epyκισιθφη λόγον taBe ζεβυθ (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 2000),*
Similarly ἐπικαλοῦμαί σου... τῷ μεγώλῳ σου ὀνόματι . ερηκισιθφη
αραραχαρ apa ηφθισικηρε ιαβε ζεβυθ ἴωβυθιε (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat.
1734 α.).ὃ How are we to explain the form f«8v@° which thus
occurs four times in union with vaBe? F. Lenormant’ maintains that it
is the names Beelzebuth and Jao which are found on the tablet. He
reads law ia βεζεβὺθ OravaBi σαφλαν... “ὃ Leaving aside the fact
that the form Beelzebuth can be no* CURE τ} {os 151}- 2 Wiener
Studien, viii. (1886), p. 182. * Kenyon, p. 98; Wessely, ii., p. 34. 4
Wessely, i., p. 95. 5 Ibid., p. 89. This passage renders it possible to
restore the text of the Inscription CJG. iii., No. 5858 ὁ, and of the
quotation from Pap. Lond. exxi. 419, with certainty ; observe the
palindrome ερηκισιθφη apapax, etc. δ Cf. also κύριε apxavdapa
φωταζα mupipwra ζαβυθ. . . (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 631-632; Wessely,
i., p. 60). 7 De tabulis devotionis plumbeis Alexandrinis, Rhein. Mus.
fiir Philologie, N. F., ix. (1854), p. 375. 8 Ibid., p. 374.
 332 BIBLE STUDIES. [14, 15 where authenticated,! it is
very precarious to see it in the βεζεβυθ of the Inscription. The mere
absence of the X, indeed, would not be decisive 2 against
Lenormant’s idea, but certainly the v, which cannot be read as τ," is
decisive, and above all the great improbability of the assumption
that the names of God and the Devil stand thus closely together. We
consider it to be much less objectionable to explain ‘ ζεβυθ as a
corruption of NINA, and to see in wae ζεβυθ the familiar NINE mm.
With reference to this identification, the author’s colleague, Herr P.
Behnke, Pastor and Repetent at Marburg, has kindly given him the
following additional information : ° “v = Heb. ὃ is frequently found.
The examples, however, in which this vowel-correspondence appears
before p should not be taken into account (WO = μύῤῥα, WZ =
Τύρος, MAM = ᾿Ιταβύριον, ᾿Αταϑύριον, wid = Κῦρος, "33 = κινύρα.
Tn τ, wis, ian [92] the 5 is a lengthened ἅ, and the ordinary
transcription ‘of Sem..% is v.: But a diferente ‘The French scholar’s
assertion is only to be explained by the fact that the form of Satan’s
name is, in French, Belzébuth or Belsébuth. We have not been able
to ascertain when this form can be first vouched for, or how it is to
be explained. Should we find in the variant belzebud of (Vulgate)
Codex mm, Matt. 10 35 (Tischendorf), authority for saying that the
T-sound has supplanted the original ending ὁ or / in later Latin, and
so in French also? What form is found in the ‘‘ Romance ” Bibles ? ἢ
Cod. B., occasionally also δῷ» of the N. T. yield the form βεεξεβουλ;
cf. on this Winer-Schmiedel, ἃ 5, 31 (p. 65). > Viva-voce information
by W. Schulze. Cf. Winer-Schmiedel, § 5, 21 ὁ (p. 51), on
κολλούριον. * Cf. Franz, p. 757. Franz, in his explanation of the
syllable βυθ, recalls the βυθός of the Valentinians. It is more correct
to point to the frequently occurring (Egyptian ?) termination in -v@
—the 8 is got from (cBawd. Cf. the name of deities and months
θωυθ, the formations βιενυθ (Kopp, iv., p. 158), wevyv@v0 taw
(Pap. Lond. οχχὶ. 80; Kenyon, p. 110; Wessely, ii., p. 49), ἴωβυθιε
(Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1799; Wessely, i., p. 89). Cf. on Egyptian female
names in -υθ, A. Boeckh, AAB., hist.-phil. Klasse, 1820-1821, p. 19.
> Cf. also H. Lewy, Die semitischen Fremdwirter im Griechischem
Berlin, 1895, pp. 38, 42 f., 225.
 15, 16] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 333 appears in 935,
which goes back to an original kanndr ; here therefore the v
corresponds to an 6 which has been derived from ὦ, as would be
the case with -υθ = N\-). But it seems to me to be of greater
consequence that the Pheenician pronunciation of Heb. 6 (and 6) is
y. Thus we have in the Poenulus of Plautus (ed. Ritschl) [chyl = by =
kull], Seale) (= maiisdi) given as mysehi; DS (sign, original form ath)
as yth, DN as syth. Moreover, Movers (Phéniz., ii, 1, p. 110) has
identified Berytos with ΓΛ ΝΞ, and Lagarde (Mitteil., i., p. 226) has
acknowledged the identification. It is thus quite possible that MINTY
could have become ζεβυθ in the mouth of a Phoenician juggler. Still,
the omission of the ἃ before oth in the pronunciation remains a
difficulty.”’ Perhaps IaSe is also contained in the word cepiaBeBow
(Pap. Lond. xlvi.s)!; but the text is uncertain and the composition of
the word doubtful. Reference must finally be made to a number of
forms, in respect of which the author is again unable to allow
himself a certain conclusion, but which appear to him to be
corruptions of the form taPe, and therefore in any case to merit our
attention :— taBoe, Pap. Lond. xlvi. 63 ;? taBa® is frequently found:
ὁρκίζω σε κατὰ Tod θεοῦ τῶν ‘“EBpaiwy Ἰησοῦ taBa* tan........
αβαρμας" taBa paov. aBerPer... (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 3019 α.),}
ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε Tov péeyav εὐ ovpavwm........ βαθαβαθι tatpwv’ ade’
taBa GaBaw0® σαβαωθ᾽ adwvar ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας ορσενοφρη (Pap.
Par. 1 Kenyon, p. 65; Wessely, i., p. 127. 2 Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, p.
128. 2 F. Dietrich, p. 282: ‘The principal thing is, however, that the
pronunciation Jahavd has no historic authority whatever. If
Theodoret had intended to signify that, while ΓΤ ΓΤ was pronounced
Ἰαβέ by the Samaritans, the Jews pronounced this full form of the
name with ὦ at the end, then he would have written Ἰουδαῖοι δὲ
Ἰαβά, which is warranted by none of the variants.” But ‘historic
authority” for this form has now been shown as above. 4 Wessely, i.,
p. 120. 5 With the form θαβαωθ cf. ταβαωθ, Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 113
(Wessely,
 994 BIBLE STUDIES. (17 Bibl. nat. 1621 «.),! ὑμᾶς ἐξορκίζω
κατὰ τοῦ iaw Kai τοῦ σαβαωθ καὶ abavat a" BartaBa (Pap. Par. Bibl.
nat. 1484 «),? taBa εδδ caw (a gem-inscription) ὅ; taBaw8!: ιαωθ
ιαβαωθ (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 323), διὰ τὸ μέγα ἔνδοξον ὄνομα αβρααμ
εμεινααεουβαωθ βαιθωβ εσια ιαβαωθ (Pap. Lond, ΟΧΧΙ. 8141.) ;
ιαβας: σὺ εἶ ιαβας σὺ εἶ ιαπως (Pap. Lond. xlvi. 104). A. Dieterich®
thinks it superfluous ‘‘to seek ἃ ᾿Ιάβης or similar name” in this; it is
but ‘‘ mystical play-work set down at random”. But the supposition
that cvaBas and taTws are not mere capricious forms, but rather
corrupt Grecisings of IaBe, is supported by the context of the whole
passage, which belongs to those that are most strongly permeated
by Jewish conceptions. There may also be mentioned another series
of forms, chiefly verbal combinations, in which this transcription
appears, in part at ieast, to be contained. We mention only the
examples: saB8w (Geoponica, ed. Niclas, i., 425) ;° ιαβουνη (Pap.
Lond, xlvi.sw);'° the names of angels βαθιαβηλ and αβραθιαβρι (Pap.
Lond. ¢xxi. 9+) ;" further, taSovx and vaBwy (Pap. Par. Bibl. nat.
2204).™ Even putting aside the last-quoted series of forms, we
consider it to have nevertheless been made plain that IaBe must
have enjoyed an extraordinary popularity in the Magic Literature.
Now this may appear strange if we remember the observation given
by the Fathers that it was the Samaritan pronunciation of the
Tetragram: how did it get to Egypt and the land of the Cumean
Sybil? The question, i, p. 80), Pap. Lond. xlvi. 62, 63, in which the
form :aBoe follows (Kenyon, p. 67; Wessely, i., p. 128), Pap. Lugd. J
384, iii. 7 (Fleck. Jahrbb. Suppl., xvi., p. 798; Leemans, ii., p. 15). 1
Wessely, i., p. 85. 2 Thid., p. 82. 3 Kopp, iv., p. 159 f. 4 Cf. above on
ιαωθ. 5 Wessely, i., p. 126. 6 Kenyon, p. 94; Wessely, ii., p. 31. 7
Kenyon, p. 68; Wessely, i., p. 129. 8 Abr., p. 68. 9In R. Heim’s
Incantamenta magica Graeca Latina; Fleck., Jahrbb. Suppl. xix.
(1893), 523. ” Kenyon, p. 76, cf. the note to line 857; Wessely, i., pp.
138, 136. 11 Kenyon, p. 113; Wessely, ii., p. 52. 12 Wessely, i., p.
100.
 18] THE TETRAGRAMMATON. 335 however, does not
appear to the writer to be unanswerable. We must not of course so
conceive of the dissemination of the form as if it had been
consciously employed, in such various localities, as the true name of
the Mighty God of the Jews ; the writer of the Cumezan tablet
simply copied it along with other enigmatic and, of course,
unintelligible magic formule from one of the numerous books of
Magic, all of which, very probably—to judge from those still extant—
point to Egypt as their native region. But Egypt was just the country
which, because of the ethnological conditions, was most ready to
transfer Jewish conceptions into its Magic. One may therefore not
unjustifiably suppose that here especially the Tetragrammaton was
used by the magicians as a particularly efficacious Name in its
correct pronunciation, which was, of course, still known to the Jews,
though they shrank from using it, up to and into the Christian era.
Thus we have been using the Ia8e not necessarily for the purpose of
indicating the specifically Samaritan pronunciation as such, but
rather as an evidence for the correct pronunciation. But we consider
it quite possible to account for the occurrence of IaSe in Egyptian
Papyri by ‘‘Samaritan’’ influence. Besides the Jews proper’ there
were also Samaritans in Egypt. “Ptolemy I. Lagi in his conquest of
Palestine had taken with him many prisoners-of-war not only from
Judea and Jerusalem but also ‘from Samaria and those who dwelt in
Mount Gerizim,’ and settled them in Egypt [Joseph. Antt. xi. 1]. In
the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor, the Jews and Samaritans are
reported to have taken their dispute concerning the true centre of
worship (Jerusalem or Gerizim) to the judgment-seat of the king
[Joseph. Antt. xi, 34].”’? Some Papyri of the Ptolemaic period
confirm the relatively early residence of Samaritans in Egypt. As
early as the time of the second Ptolemy we find (Pap. Flind Petr. 11.
iv. 1Cf. on the Jewish diaspora in Egypt, Hugo Willrich, Juden und
Griechen vor der makkabdischen Hrhebung, Gottingen, 1895, p. 126
ff.; and, against Willrich, Schiirer, TiLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 35. Cf. also
Wilcken, Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift, xvi. (1896), p. 1492 ff. 2 EK.
Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes vm Zevtalter Jesu Christi,
ii., Leipzig, 1886, p. 502 (= *iii., p. 24). [Emng. Trans., ii., ii., p. 230.]
 336 BIBLE STUDIES. [19, 20 11)1 mention of a place
Samaria in the Fayytim, and two inhabitants of this Samaria,
Θεόφιλος and Πυῤῥίας, are named in Pap. Flind. Petr. ii. xxviui.2
Even more important, in this connection, than such general
information, is a passage in the supposed letter of Hadrian to
Servianus, in which it is said that the Samaritans in Egypt, together
with the Jews and Christians dwelling in that country, are all
Astrologers, Aruspices and Quacksalvers* This is of course an
exaggeration ; but still the remark, even if the letter is spurious, is
direct evidence of the fact that magic and its allied arts were
common among the Egyptian Samaritans. We may also refer here to
Acts vii.: Simon the magian was altogether successful among the
Samaritans: “to him they all gave heed, from the least to the
greatest, saying, This man 15 that power of God which is called
Great”.’ As the Divine name played a great part in the adjurations,
we may conclude that the Samaritan magicians used it too—
naturally in the form familiar to them. From them it was transferred,
along with other Palestinian matter, to the Magic Literature, and thus
it is explained why we should find it in a remote region, scratched by
some one unknown, full of superstitious dread, upon the lead of the
minatory magical tablet. 1In J. P. Mahaffy, The Flinders Petrie Papyri,
ii., Dublin, 1893 [14]. The paging of the text is always given in
brackets [ ] in Mahaffy. Vol. i. was published in Dublin, 1891. 2
Mahaffy, ii. [97], conjectures that these are translations of Hidad and
Esau. With this he makes the further conjecture that the name
Θεόφιλος, common in the imperial period, occurs here for the first
time. But the name is found earlier, and Mahaffy’s question whether
it is perhaps a ‘‘ Jewish invention” must be answered in the negative.
—The author has made further observations on Samaria in the
Fayyim in ThLZ. xxi. (1896), p. 611. 3 Mahaftfy, ii. [87] ff. 4 Vopisc.,
vita Saturnini, c. 81 (Scriptores historiae Augustae, ed. Peter, vol. ii.,
p. 225): nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorum, nemo Samarites,
nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus, non haruspex,
non aliptes. Schiirer refers to this passage, ii., p. 502 (= iii., p. 24).
[HEng. Trans., IT., ii., p. 230.] Cf. also c. 74. > Compare with the
expression 7 δύναμις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη, Pap. Par. Bibl.
nat. 1275 tt. (Wessely, i., 76), ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε Thy μεγίστην δύναμιν
τὴν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ (ἄλλοι: Thy ἐν τῇ ἄρκτῳ) ὑπὸ κυρίου θεοῦ
τεταγμένην. See also Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und der
Apokalypse des Petrus (TU. ix. 2), 2 Aufl., Leipzig, 1893, p. 65 f.
NEE: SPICILEGIUM.
Lee , 3 / ἵνα μή τι ἀπόληται.
 1, THE CHRONOLOGICAL STATEMENT IN THE PROLOGUE
TO JESUS SIRACH. Ἔν yap τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ
᾿Ενυεργέτου βασιλέως παραγενηθεὶς εἰς Αἴγυπτον καὶ συγχρονίσας
εὗρον οὐ μικρᾶς παιδείας ἀφόμοιον : of this chronological statement
of the grandson of the son of Sirach, which is of the highest
importance not only as regards the date of the book itself, but also,
on account of the other contents of the prologue, for the history of
the Old Testament canon, various interpretations are given.! If it be
‘‘a matter of course” that the writer of the Prologue wishes to
indicate, not the year of his own life, but the thirty-eighth year of
King Kuergetes,? no doubt can exist as to the year in which the
writer came to Egypt; of the two Ptolemies who bore the surname of
Huergetes, the reign of the second only, Ptolemy VII. Physcon,
extended to thirty-eight years, and hence the date given in the
Prologue would signify the year 132 B.c. But when we find a writer
like L. Hug preferring the other interpretation,’ we cannot but feel
that there must be a difficulty somewhere. The chief support of
those who interpret the date as the year of the prologue-writer’s
age, and, at the same time, the chief difficulty of the other
interpretation, lie in the ἐπί which stands between the number and
the name of the king. ‘ La préposition ἐπί parait ici tout ἃ fait
superflwe, puisque toujours le mot ἔτους est swivi d'un gémitif
direct. On ne dit jamais ἔτους πρώτου, δευτέρου. . . ἐπὶ τινός, en
parlant d'un roi, mais bien ἔτους... τινός OW τῆς βασιλείας τινός.
Cette locution serait donc sans exemple”: the difficulty in question
may be formulated in these words of 1See O. F. Fritzsche, HApAT. v.
(1859), p. xiii. ff. 2 Schiirer, ii., p. 595 (= 7iii., p. 159). [Hng. Trans.,
ii., ili., Ὁ. 26.] 3 Cf. HApAT. v. (1859), p. xv.