A deity of the Hebrew people was called by more than one name and referred to using various terms: אלהים is one such a term, which occurs in 2248 verses and is used 2601 times, with אל used only 235 times spread over 225 verses. These figures are dwarfed by the 6828 occurrences of יהוה spread over 5790 verses. The term אלוה occurs in 56 verses and is used 57 times, of which 39 occur in Job. The term שד’ occurs 48 times, spread over 48 verses, used 22 times in close textual proximity to אל,¹ thrice with יהוה,² twice with עליון ³ and thrice with אלוה.⁴ These statistics are not to be taken too seriously, although they are helpful to understand overall about how frequently these terms were used, at least deduced from the Masoretic Text (MT). In addition to these statistics, the Old Greek version will most probably reflect a different overall, and with that simplistic, picture. To be more precise, in general the Old Greek version limits itself to the term κύριος and θεός when reference is made to a Hebrew deity; in many instances, it will opt for either one of these terms and use only the one throughout, as illustrated in Lamentations and Job. The interest of this investigation, however, is not to analyse, compare and discuss statistics; it is rather interested in what terms Lamentees used when reference was made to a Hebrew deity. More specifically, how the Lamentees as accounted for in Lamentations reference a Hebrew deity in both its Hebrew and Greek frame of reference. The aim is therefore to identify, discuss and determine the extent to which the genre of ‘lamenting’ impacts how reference is made to a Hebrew deity and to do so comparing the Hebrew and Greek versions of Lamentations. The terms that dominate Lamentations when reference is made to a Hebrew deity are יהוה and אדני, which makes for a fascinating reading of Lamentations in this respect.

In terms of referencing a Hebrew deity, what is striking about the Lamentations text is the frequent use of the term אדני in close literary and, one might add, conceptual proximity to the term יהוה; this is unparalleled in the Hebrew Scriptures. Equally noteworthy is the absence of the term אלהים ,אל or any other term within the category of referencing a Hebrew deity, with a single exception where the term אל is found in Lamentations 3:41.⁵ The Hebrew version of Lamentations alternates between the terms יהוה and אדני, whilst its Greek counterpart consistently uses the term κύριος (cf. Lm 2:7, 18, 19, 20b; 3:31, 36, 37, 58). What is of interest is whether the theology underpinning the act of ‘lamenting’ in relation to a Hebrew deity has any significant impact on the terms used for such an entity when being in a state of either mourning or lamenting (O’Connor 2008:27). An appropriate place to start is Lamentations 1:12–18, as it attests to the use of three אדני terms in close concession and the alternating use of the term יהוה. According to the MT, the subject responsible for inflicting pain and sorrow is Yahweh (Lm 1:12).⁶ It is, however, Adonaj who is responsible for handing one over to one’s adversaries (Lm 1:14); in 4QLam this act is ascribed to Yahweh.⁷ The subject responsible for submission to one’s adversaries remains unchanged in the MT, with Adonaj tossing aside the weak (Lm 1:15a) and treading the virgin daughter Judah (Lm 1:15b).⁸ The 4QLamentations text is less ‘consistent’ because it is Adonaj (line 6) who tosses, but Yahweh the one who tramples (line 7).⁹ The alternating use of the term יהוה and אדני is further illustrated in Lamentations 1:17.

In Lamentations 1:17a^MT, Zion spreads her hands but finds no comfort; the inferred reason for this is that Yahweh commanded against Jacob (Lm 1:17b). As for 4QLam, Zion remains without comfort, but the text reads that Yahweh will watch over all those who love righteousness. It is, however, Adonaj who ‘watches’ over Jacob if both the terms יהוה and אדוני take the verb צפה. De Waard (2004:58) explained that 4QLam is composed of two elements: מכול אוהביה (a quotation from Lm 1:2) and the second element צדיק אתה יהוה (which appears to be a variant of the beginning of v. 18).¹⁰ In reference to DJD XVI, 237, he suggests that צוה is an ‘extremely awkward, if not impossible reading’.¹¹ To this end, de Waard holds the view that 4QLam presents the original Hebrew text.¹² The Masoretic scribe continues by confirming in Lamentations 1:18 that it is just for Yahweh to act this way because the Lamentee rebelled against the word of Yahweh, but for 4QLam (line 10) it is the word of Adonaj.¹³

The prominence of the term אדני in the Masoretic version of Lamentations is amplified in chapter 2; in Lamentations 2:1 and 2:2, the anger of Adonaj and his humiliation of the daughter of Zion and destruction of the dwellings of Jacob without mercy is a striking revelation of Adonaj’s character. It therefore comes as no surprise that these actions are interpreted as Adonaj having become the enemy of Israel (Lm 2:5), who even went as far as to scorn his altar and disown his sanctuary (Lm 2:7a). The dwelling of a Hebrew deity, however, remains the house of Yahweh (Lm 2:7b), who also determines the ruins of the wall of daughter Zion (Lm 2:8). To this end, Yahweh offers no resolve as he ‘ignores’ providing ‘insight’ by way of the prophets (Lm 2:9). The remarks in Lamentations 2:17 are of particular interest because they offer a collation of actions performed by a Hebrew deity; Lamentations 2:17 captures the essence of what this deity has done. The scribe thought it appropriate to use the term יהוה as opposed to אדנ’, who had dominated the scene up until this point. The scribe states that Yahweh has done what he planned to do, that he gave effect to the threats he made (Lm 2:17).¹⁴ The scribe then reverts back to using the term אדני in Lamentations 2:18 and 2:29, which negates any impression that the scribe ‘prefers’ the term יהוה over אדני. In Lamentations 2:18 and 2:29, Adonaj is the recipient of ‘calling upon’, ‘crying out’, ‘submitting before’; the scribe then reverts back to Yahweh with a plea to consider what he is doing to whom (Lm 2:20a), but an immediate question that derives from such a plea is put to Adonaj in Lamentations 2:20b. The question is whether priests and prophets should be killed in his sanctuary followed by the day of anger ascribed to Yahweh in Lamentations 2:22. This raises the question of why the scribe unproblematically substitutes the term יהוה and אדני with one another, as if he embraces a fluid manner by which he references a Hebrew deity.¹⁵ One possible reason for this is the elastic cognitive space produced by the act of lamenting. It allows the lamentee to express more ‘openly’, ‘freely’ and ‘honestly’, ignoring the proverbial ‘red tape’ when it comes to critically engaging a Hebrew deity on matters that are existentially threatening.¹⁶ To add to this appropriation, the unhindered fluctuation between the terms יהוה and אדני signals conceptual integration and blending; being less concerned about the different conceptual qualities these terms present, but to cognitively bridge the conceptual variety they offer. There is no evidence to deny such a probability, but equally true is that the data do not explicitly suggest such a postulation. There is, however, no uncertainty that the scribe is lamenting a dismal situation and is referencing a Hebrew deity; whilst doing so his adverse tone and sentiment continue in Lamentations 3:18, where he writes that all hope in Yahweh has been lost, but he makes an abrupt turn in Lamentations 3:22–25, with the scribe praising Yahweh for his steadfast love (Lm 3:22),¹⁷ that he is the one who shares in the soul (Lm 3:24), and for Yahweh’s goodness to those who wait (Lm 3:25), for salvation comes from Yahweh (Lm 3:26) and Adonaj will not reject forever (Lm 3:31). The scribe proceeds with rhetorical questions all directed at Adonaj (Lm 3:36, 37). But before the study moves on to the unique use of the term אל, it should acknowledge the significance of the term עליון, translated by the Old Greek as ὕψιστος, issued in Lamentations 3:35 and 38.¹⁸ These references reveal the mental state and transitional tone of the scribe as he moves to the next phase of lamenting, a phase characterised as self-reflection; the scribe encourages the readers to do just that and turn towards Yahweh (Lm 3:40). The scribe continues effortlessly to address deep-seated lamentations going back and forth between Adonaj and Yahweh. But the reference to אל in Lamentations 3:41 in close conceptual proximity to יהוה in Lamentations 3:50 interrupts this conceptual going back-and-forth between יהוה and אדני, revealing another facet of his conceptualisation of a Hebrew deity and how he relates it to lamenting, at least insofar as the concept of locality goes. As for the scribe, the referent of both אל and יהוה reside in שמים.¹⁹ The conceptual overlap and blend between El and Yahweh is masterfully demonstrated with a call to return to Yahweh (Lm 3:40), to lift hearts and hands to El, who is up in heaven, and then to have Yahweh look down and see their tear-filled eyes. The locality they share, שמים, and the actions they perform from this location effectively construct a conceptual bridge between El and Yahweh to the degree that one has no option but to consider an equation El = Yahweh. However, such an equation is not only premature but also creates a cognitive conundrum: if El = Yahweh and Yahweh = Adonaj then El = Adonaj. The latter is somewhat problematic from a Judean perspective,²⁰ therefore the blending of El and Yahweh is acknowledged, but the evidence is far too limited to conclusively draw any inference other than in the context of Lamentations 3:40–41 they share a locality.

Another insightful reference to a Hebrew deity is found in Lamentations 3:55; the phrase קראתי שמך יהוח ‘I call your name Yahweh’ suggests that the ‘sacred name’ Yahweh is reserved for a Hebrew deity. This conceptual potentiality of the term יהוה does, notwithstanding the consistency by which the scribe alternates between these terms, distinguish itself from the term אדני and strengthens the argument that Adonaj can never conceptually equate to Yahweh. To be sure, the term אדני is never used as a name for a Hebrew deity; in fact, from the third-century BCE, it is used more often than not as a ‘substitute’ to avoid the pronunciation of the sacred name, יהוה (see Rösel 2000, 2011). Whilst the conceptual blending between Yahweh and Adonaj cannot be denied, there is most certainly a literary conceptual turning point in Lamentations 3:59–66; here the term יהוה is exclusively used for a Hebrew deity, and it remains the dominant term when reference is made to the divine subject until the end of Lamentations (cf. Lm 5:19, 21). An exception is the reference to Adonaj in Lamentations 3:58²¹; here it is affirmed that Adonaj takes up the cause of the lamenter.²² The fluctuation between terms יהוה and אדני up until Lamentations 3:55 is so consistent that it becomes prescriptive to the reader, to such an extent that it becomes impossible for the reader to draw any meaningful and clear distinction between Yahweh and Adonaj. To be sure, the steady alternation between these terms in close succession conceptually forces the reader to blend the concept Yahweh and Adonaj whilst lamenting. The ‘out-of-sync’ and unexpected use of the term אל in Lamentations 3:41 has an impact on the Yahweh and Adonaj conceptual integration. It is something the Lamentation text does not recover from, as it hones in on the term יהוה from Lamentations 3:55 onwards.²³ To further elaborate on the conceptual blending of the term יהוה and אדני, two diagrams (Figures 1 and 2) are added to illustrate the mental nodes of both these terms. To this end, a few remarks as a way of illustrating the blend should be in order.

The concept of ‘rejection’ is limited to Adonaj; he is the only one with the ability to reject (Lm 1:15a; 2:7a; cf. 4QLam 1:15a) and to embrace (Lm 3:31). ‘Eyesight’ and the concept of ‘seeing’ is dominated by Yahweh (Lm 1:9, 11, 20; 2:20a; 3:50, 59), but interestingly the negation of ‘seeing’ is ascribed to Adonaj (Lm 3:36). If one includes the conceptual domain of ‘watching’ over, then Adonaj is preferred in 4QLam 1:17b, whilst 5QLam A 4:16 prefers Yahweh. The ‘dwelling’ in a sanctuary concept is associated with Adonaj (Lm 2:20b), but a ‘house’ is dedicated to Yahweh (Lm 2:7b). ‘Verbal expression’ – as a concept of ‘calling out to’ is directed at Adonaj (Lm 2:18, 19),²⁴ whereas to ‘direct | align oneself’ – to submit to, or to direct oneself is associated with both Adonaj (Lm 1:14) and Yahweh (Lm 3:40, 64; 5:21). ‘Destruction’ – the concept of having power to destroy – lies with both Adonaj (Lm 2:2) and Yahweh (Lm 4:11). If this includes an act of ‘treading’ or ‘trampling’, it again applies to both Adonaj (Lm 1:15b) and Yahweh (4QLam 1:15b). The Masoretes, however, do not ascribe the act of treading and trampling to Yahweh, but for them the concept of ‘salvation’ is exclusive to Yahweh. Inferred from these mental or conceptual frameworks, it will be difficult not to accept that both Yahweh and Adonaj are equally capable of operating within the earthly domain and that they are conceptually integrated for the most part.

The Greek version of Lamentations²⁵ simplifies matters to a large degree; the term κύριος is read irrespective of whether its Hebrew counterpart reads יהוה and אדני. To be sure, the old Greek of Lamentation does not see the need to distinguish between lament and praise, lament and hope, lament and salvation with respect to a Hebrew deity. Therefore, it is not necessary to use a ‘distinctly’ different term, such as θεός, when the lamenting moves from one phase to another; the translators kept it monotonous by exclusively using the term κύριος when referencing a Hebrew deity. This raises the question of whether the term θεός is avoided because of the nature of lamenting or if it is a matter of a different Vorlage.²⁶ The study will return to this question, but first the study wants to address some of the textual variants relating to the term κύριος.²⁷

In Lamentations 1:11, the term κύριε is ‘omitted’ by Codex Alexandrinus (codex A), and the Arabic translation does not attest to any equivalent. The reverse is also true: codex A attests to a plus κυριος reading after ἀπέστρεψέ με in Lamentations 1:13.²⁸ At the first occurrence of the term κύριος in Lamentations 1:18, a Codex Sinaiticus (codex S) redactor proposes to read it with a definite article,²⁹ suggesting that the scribe wanted to accentuate the ‘absolute’ form of the term.³⁰ Another interesting case is found in Lamentations 1:17; here, an ‘original’ scribe of ms 86 suggests reading ει κυριε in addition to Δίκαιός. The occurrence of the term κύριος in Lamentations 2:1 is not without its own set of alternatives; mss 231 and 233 transpose the term, whilst Didymus Caecus (p. 1512), Origines, Hieronymus and others attest to κυριε as a plus reading resulting in a κυριος κυριε reading.³¹ Codex A, however, ‘omits’ the term altogether.³² In fact, both the minus³³ and the plus³⁴ readings of the term κύριος occur often. Furthermore, in Lamentations 2:7b, the genitive form of the term κύριος in both codex B and S omit the term, whilst the Boharian translation ‘adds’ an equivalent for dei.³⁵ The Ethiopian translation, however, duplicates the term κύριος (dative form followed by a genitive form). The ‘omission’ of the term κύριος is again attested in Lamentations 2:8 by codex B and S, including the Ethiopian and Armenian translations. Codex A and the Arabic version present the direct oppositive by ‘adding’ a term κύριος. Interestingly, ms 46 reads θεου as an alternative for κυρίου in Lamentations 2:9, with the Boharian translation attesting to another plus term dei (cf. Lm 2:7).³⁶ Not all Greek text witnesses were comfortable with reading the term κύριος in Lamentations 3:50–66; the term is ‘omitted’ by ms 534 in Lamentations 3:50, with Latin, Ethopian and Armenian translations attesting to a minus reading of κύριε in Lamentations 3:66. However, the Syrio-hexapla (Origines recension) and Codex Marchalianus attest to a plus κυριε reading in Lamentations 3:61. In some instances in chapter 5, the term κύριος is omitted (cf. Lm 5:1, 21), whilst others attest to a plus reading (cf. Lm 5:19).³⁷

To return to the question of whether there is any reason to suspect a different Hebrew Vorlage as constructed by the Qumran text fragments and the Masoretic text, the answer is that there is no evidence to support such a proposition. What the textual evidence does suggest is that there is no alternative term to reference a Hebrew deity other than the term κύριος. Notwithstanding the fact that there is absolutely no consistency amongst the scribes with regard to when to read, duplicate, include or exclude the term κύριος.

A reasonable inference from the Hebrew version of Lamentations is that the nature, character and tone of the first phase in lamenting (Lm 1:1–3:54) created the necessary conceptual space to use alternating terms, יהוה and אדני, and by doing so, blending the concepts represented by these terms whilst referencing a Hebrew deity. Both the terms and the concepts they represent reveal a fluid, accommodating approach in ‘calling upon’ a Hebrew deity in the midst of turmoil. The scribe did not apply any literary or linguistic legalities with the use of either יהוה or אדני. It therefore seems that he allowed the process of lamenting to dictate, at least in the phase in which the desperation and vulnerable state is made explicit, which terms should be used when reference is made to a Hebrew deity. To this end, as soon as the lament reached a second phase, that of potential outcome, salvation and liberation, the term יהוה took prominence and was placed alongside the term אל. But even before the term יהוה took centre stage, the scribe deployed the term עליון ‘most High’ (cf. Lm 3:35, 38) to transition from lament to self-reflection and salvation and the prominence of the term יהוה in relation to אל. One possible reason for the alternating use of the terms יהוה and אדני is that it is used to accommodate those constructing a ‘theology from below’, an anthropocentric theology. But liberation and salvation can only come from ‘above’, a theocentric theology, aptly exemplified by the term עליון followed by ‘calling upon יהוה’ in association with אל in the dominion of the heavenly abode.

The fact that the term אל is used only once, and with this single occurrence blending with Yahweh was made possible, causes one to simultaneously draw a distinction between El and Yahweh, and to blend the characteristics of these concepts. It should be reiterated that associating El with Yahweh does not necessitate or automate the blending of El and Adonaj. In fact, even though the concepts Yahweh and Adonaj are blended, they are not assimilated, which makes an automatic blending with El inappropriate. The blending of these concepts as references to a Hebrew deity solidified the conceptual integration of these terms into the term κύριος. The Lamentations text allows for a combination of a more fluid and blending concept of a Hebrew deity, determined and informed, on the one hand, by the terms יהוה and אדני during the first phase of lamenting, and on the other hand, opting for a close association between Yahweh and El whilst making Yahweh prominent as the Hebrew deity who will liberate the lamentee. There is, therefore, conceptually no significant distinction drawn between Yahweh and El, but most certainly between Adonaj and El, notwithstanding the alternating use of Yahweh and Adonaj in Lamentations 1:1–3:54. This signals a more fragmented, fluid and complex concept of a Hebrew deity in the Hebrew frame of reference.

For the Greek version, the reference to a Hebrew deity during the process of lamenting and salvation is far more simplistic and minimalistic, almost to the point of being stale and giving off a monotone vibration. The fluidity of referencing a Hebrew deity, created by lamenting a desperate situation, got lost. The only instance where reference to a Hebrew deity was amplified is in Lamentations 3:35 and 38 with the use of the term ὕψιστος. In the Greek frame of reference, a Hebrew deity was referenced using a single term by the Lamentee, that of the term κύριος; the term used to refer to a Hebrew deity at the peak of lamenting, the same term used to address the deity responsible for deliverance. This signals a static, monotone and simplistic concept of a Hebrew deity, that is, Kyrios.