@Davïd I was fixing up this and was wondering re. Psalm 110: מִ֫זְמ֥וֹר נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה ׀ לַֽאדֹנִ֗י

My impression (from somewhere?) Is that the qere doesn’t repeat ʾăd̲ōnāy when it’s like that, so it’s ĕlōhîm lad̲ōnî? But the LXX doesn’t differentiate (ὁ κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου) as if they were translating the ketiv with tetragram = κύριος regardless. But I thought the reason that tetragram = κύριος is because they were translating the qere...?

If so maybe I would expect: εἶπεν ὁ θεός τῷ κυρίῳ μου. As it is, only familiar with the Greek/English I didn’t even realize they were different words until now when that answer pointed it out.

@Susan Not so sure - the intervening lamed is probably sufficient to dump that.

@Davïd ʾăd̲ōnāy lad̲ōnî?

The scenario is a bit more nuanced than that answer lets on. The nəʾūm YHWH bit is clearly a prophetic oracular introduction: "Oracle of YHWH to my lord..."

@Susan Yeah....

But that's just a "reading" tradition, of course, and I have no idea what its antiquity is.

(The accepted answer at the other Q&A you linked to should be DV'ed into oblivion, btw.)

@Davïd Is there a commentary on the Greek psalms somewhere?

@Susan Baethgen does a good job on the Greek, though it's a commentary on the Hebrew.

@Davïd “other Q&A?"

@Davïd Thanks but....German doesn’t really help me.

@Susan Other Q&A.

@Davïd Oh “you linked to” in the question, not in chat. Got it. Already has my DV. That (absence of an answer) was part of why I didn’t want to close this one as a dupe. Definitely deserves more discussion.

@Davïd A sense that is long lost in my reading of both the Greek and the English.

@Susan I don't think Psalms is out in La Bible d'Alexandrie -- French, obviously.

@Susan Yes, certainly.

@Susan Pietersma worked a lot on the Greek Psalter, but I'm not aware of a commentary on it -- yet.

@Davïd Yeah, not much help to me either. :-( Too bad there’s not more available. I love the introductions to the NETS, but that’s about all the information I can find of the sort. There’s so much more to know. I guess it could be dug out of journals somewhere.

@Davïd Yeah, he translated those himself for NETS, right? He wrote that intro I think.

@Susan Yep. He's put a lot of stuff on his staffpage, though whether it will scratch your itch is another question.

And this series is in preparation/production, but I don't know who's doing Psalms.

@Davïd English at least!

@Davïd Oh, good idea. Forgot about that.

@Susan And more here.

@Davïd That’s what I want.

@Susan It is a commentary on Vaticanus, strictly speaking. But that's OK. :)

@Davïd Oh, duh, that’s a totally different situation than where it’s all one name. Even without cases.

@Susan ? Missed the connection - which situation?

@Davïd YHVH next to ăd̲ōnāy.

@Susan Oh right! The lamed - had floated off my screen.

@Davïd Not even just that. It refers to two different individuals (well, the lamed forces that I guess.) Unlike the shema or, I think, most other situations when those two words show up next to each other. (And there’s the paseq, whatever that does.) I was just saying it should have been obvious to me that it doesn’t fall under the same qere perpetuum rule. If that’s indeed what it is. (Is that right that they don’t say 2x ăd̲ōnāy?)

Actually never mind, the shema isn’t one of those (ăd̲ōnāy ʾĕlōhênû is fine). But it happens.

@Susan Gotcha. Yes indeed. "Azla ləgarmeh" as a compound in the poetical accentuation. | Ps 140:8 is what you're looking for: יְהֹוִ֣ה אֲ֭דֹנָי => would be read "elohim adonay".

(...e.g., and another one in Psalm 141:8, etc. ...)

@Susan Far more common in the other order, of course (e.g., Genesis 15:2, I think the first occurrence in the HB).

@Davïd The Greek translator doesn’t seem to have been too concerned about the redundancy - κύριε κύριε.

(Back to my original confusion about that - since I imagined he chose that word based on the qere, but there he’s not following the qere rules. The ones we know at least.)

@Susan So too in Deut 3:24, but not in the two occurrences in Gen 15:2, 8 - translator choice? If you have access to Wevers' Notes on the Greek text of Genesis, and the rest of the Pentateuch, he might have some comment on this.

@Susan Yeivin (Introduction to Tiberian Masorah) has brief comment in para. 103, pp. 58-59, but nothing illuminating date of origin.

+ see Khan, p. 464a (near bottom of column) with a couple cross-references. HTH.

(And now for something completely different...) @ScottS - Thanks for Matt 28:17 reply! You haven't convinced me :) but I'm grateful for the reply. Hope we get some more contributions.

@Davïd I'm not sure I've convinced myself, either :-). I was looking up information to give an answer, and came across that info in Wallace that I felt could not be ignored since it matched up so well grammatically and fit contextually. It was enough to convince me of a "probable" understanding--whether or not that is the best reading of the text or not I have yet to convince myself of entirely.

^^^ Is it a glass door?

@PaulVargas An admirable degree of caution, I'd say!

Anybody else have a sense that this is too broad?

Entire book(shelves) and all that....

But we probably have a lot of questions that would qualify under that metric.

@Davïd I think I had checked for that one a month or so ago when you brought it up (about Isaac?). My library still says the same thing it did then: "Checked out: due 09/10/15 05:00 PM”. Who loans books for 6 months?? It appears to be nearly impossible to find elsewhere.

@Davïd Oh, I didn’t even realize the vowels were written differently when the qere varied. Interesting. I think I just ignore the vowels on that word, but I thought they were always from adonay. Except I think usually it’s missing the holem, right? It’s interesting that shewa-qamets (sans holem) isn’t one of the options mentioned there, since I think it’s most common. ?

And in Genesis 15:2 where it’s elohim, I’m seeing a hateph vowel under the yod, which he says would be written as a simple shewa. Are we looking at a different text? or I’m just misreading that totally.

And I guess you agree about that DH question. (Thanks, @JackDouglas for the comments feed!)

@Susan Besides its breadth, my hunch is that you would have found it parenthetically compromised.