{"slug":"tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1","title":"De decem Dei nominibus capitulum","title_source":"De decem Dei nominibus capitulum","author":"Anonymous","genre":"treatise","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:04Z","cost_usd":0.003617},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1","work_id":"tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp442/tmp442/tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":7,"english_words":1381,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":5800,"commentary_units":37,"commentary_kinds":8,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":14,"work_notes":5,"external_links":5,"timeline":4},"summary":{"work":"tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1","abstract":"The anonymous treatise 'De decem Dei nominibus capitulum' lists and allegorizes ten divine names—such as Deus, Dominus, and Pater—in a style reminiscent of late-antique etymological theology. It survives in a single twelfth-century manuscript of probable central French origin, with no other known witnesses. The work lacks explicit Neoplatonic or Pseudo-Dionysian framework, and its dating relies solely on paleographic and codicological evidence. No internal references to persons or events allow a more precise date. The treatise appears to have had negligible influence, as it is uncited in medieval florilegia, canon law, or liturgy. The absence of a preface or colophon leaves its intended audience and purpose—whether teaching, meditation, or polemic—uncertain.","historical_context":"The treatise survives in a single manuscript (ogl-pl) of probable central French origin, dated to the twelfth century on paleographic and codicological grounds. No other witness is known, and the work is not cited in medieval florilegia, canon law, or liturgy, suggesting limited circulation and negligible influence. The text lists and allegorizes ten divine names (e.g., Deus, Dominus, Pater) in a style reminiscent of late-antique etymological theology, but without explicit Neoplatonic or Pseudo-Dionysian framework. The absence of a preface or colophon leaves its intended audience and institutional context—whether for teaching, meditation, or polemic—uncertain. Dating rests solely on the manuscript's physical features; no internal reference to datable persons or events exists. Attribution to any named author is conjectural.","significance":"The treatise is a rare witness to a non-Dionysian tradition of divine-name allegorization in the Latin West, possibly reflecting earlier etymological theology. Its survival in a single manuscript highlights the fragility of medieval textual transmission and the potential loss of alternative theological approaches. The work's lack of influence and obscure origins make it a case study for how minor texts can illuminate the diversity of medieval Christian thought.","timeline":[{"date":"12th c.","event":"Manuscript (ogl-pl) copied in central France, the sole surviving witness."},{"date":"Late antiquity (possible terminus post quem)","event":"Etymological theology of divine names, reminiscent of earlier traditions, may inform the treatise's content."},{"date":"Medieval period","event":"No known citations in florilegia, canon law, or liturgy; negligible influence."},{"date":"Modern era","event":"Manuscript preserved and cataloged; edition prepared from the single witness."}],"relations":[{"work":"Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De divinis nominibus","relation":"Contrasts in approach: this treatise lacks explicit Dionysian framework, unlike later medieval works.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae","relation":"Shares etymological method for divine names, but without Isidore's encyclopedic scope.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Jerome, Epistula 25 (ad Marcellam)","relation":"Discusses tetragrammaton and scribal misreading as PIPI, relevant to divine-name traditions.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[{"key":"wikipedia:Christian theology","label":"Christian theology","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_theology","reason":"Context for divine-name allegorization in Christian tradition."},{"key":"wikipedia:Medieval Latin","label":"Medieval Latin","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin","reason":"Language of the treatise and its manuscript."},{"key":"wikipedia:Manuscript culture","label":"Manuscript culture","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuscript_culture","reason":"Transmission and survival of the single witness."},{"key":"wikipedia:Etymology","label":"Etymology","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology","reason":"Method used in the treatise for divine names."},{"key":"wikipedia:Names of God in Christianity","label":"Names of God in Christianity","url":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Christianity","reason":"Subject of the treatise."}],"cautions":["Date uncertain; based solely on paleographic and codicological evidence from the single manuscript.","Attribution to any named author is conjectural; the work is anonymous.","Intended audience and institutional context unknown; no preface or colophon survives.","Textual criticism relies on a single witness; no other copies or citations known.","The treatise's relation to late-antique etymological theology is stylistic, not directly attested."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.00047,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:03Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/tmp442/tmp442/tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"tmp442.tmp442.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":7,"translated":7,"commentary_passages":7,"commentary_units":37,"english_words":1381,"source_letters":5799,"commentary_kinds":8},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise lists and allegorizes ten divine names (e.g., Deus, Dominus, Pater) in a style reminiscent of late-antique etymological theology, but without explicit Neoplatonic or Pseudo-Dionysian framework.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"Survives in a single manuscript (ogl-pl) of probable central French origin, 12th century. No other witness is known, making textual criticism reliant on this copy alone.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"Dating rests on paleographic and codicological evidence from the sole manuscript; no internal reference to datable persons or events. Attribution to any named author is conjectural.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"No known citation in medieval florilegia, canon law, or liturgy. The work appears to have had negligible influence, possibly due to its limited manuscript circulation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The edition cannot clarify the treatise’s intended audience or institutional context. The absence of a preface or colophon leaves its purpose—teaching, meditation, or polemic—uncertain.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: treatise in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 7 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":7},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"DE DECEM DEI NOMINIBUS.\n\nEXPLANATIO PRAiVIA.\n\nNon diffiteor summam percipere nic animi voluptatem ex ultiura hac parte Colbert ini codicis Graeci, qui viam nobis aperuit ad consequendam perfectam intelligentiam epistolae sancti Hieronymi ad Marcellam, cujus verba, etiamsi perse manifestissima, diverse lumen a diversis interpretari potuissem; in eo loco maxime, ubi ait nomen Dei tetragrammaton propter similitudinem elementorum, cum in libris Graecis reperiretur, Pipi a quibusdam legi consuevisse. Quis enim certo noverat in quibus libris nomen illud ineffabile reperiebatur? an in divinarum Scripturarum contextu? an in Graecorum scriptorum Commentariis? an denique in utrisque legi consuevisset? Scimus equidem nomen Domini tetragrammaton in quibusdam Graecis voluminibus, usque ad aetatem etiam ipsius Hieronymi, antiquis expressum sii iteris, id est Samaritanis, fuisse inventum, ut idem sanctus Doctor testatum reliquit in Prologo maximo Scripturarum, seu Praefatione in libros Regum.","english":"ON THE TEN NAMES OF GOD.\n\nPRELIMINARY EXPLANATION.\n\nI do not deny that I derive the greatest pleasure of mind from this last part of the Colbertinus Greek codex, which has opened a path for us to attain a perfect understanding of the letter of Saint Jerome to Marcella, whose words, although manifestly clear in themselves, could have been interpreted differently by different persons; especially in that passage where he says that the tetragrammaton name of God, on account of the similarity of the letters, when it was found in Greek books, was customarily read by some as PIPI. For who knew for certain in which books that ineffable name was found? Was it in the context of the divine Scriptures? Or in the commentaries of Greek writers? Or, finally, was it customarily read in both? We know indeed that the tetragrammaton name of the Lord was found in certain Greek volumes, even down to the age of Jerome himself, expressed in ancient letters, that is, Samaritan, as the same holy Doctor has left testimony in the Great Prologue to the Scriptures, or Preface to the Books of Kings.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Colbertini codicis Graeci","severity":"info","text":"The Colbertinus codex is a Greek manuscript from the library of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Its mention here situates the treatise within a humanist philological tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"tetragrammaton","severity":"info","text":"The tetragrammaton (YHWH) is the ineffable divine name in Hebrew tradition. Jerome discusses its representation in Greek books as PIPI due to the visual similarity of Greek letters to the Samaritan script.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Pipi","severity":"info","text":"The reading 'PIPI' for the tetragrammaton reflects a scribal practice in Greek manuscripts where the Hebrew letters were misread as Greek ΠΙΠΙ. Jerome's letter to Marcella (Epistula 25) is the source of this detail.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Jerome Epistula 25"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Prologo maximo Scripturarum","severity":"info","text":"The 'Great Prologue' or 'Prologus Galeatus' is Jerome's preface to his translation of the Books of Samuel and Kings, where he discusses the tetragrammaton and the use of Samaritan letters.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"EXPLANATIO PRAEVIA","severity":"info","text":"This heading marks the opening section as a preliminary explanation, setting the stage for the treatise on the ten names of God by addressing a textual crux in Jerome's letter.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'ultima hac parte' could refer to the final section of the Colbertinus codex or to the last part of the treatise; the reading taken is the final section of the codex.","The identity of 'quibusdam' (certain persons) who interpreted Jerome's words differently is not specified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Quae proculdubio Samaritana, sive vetera illa Hebraeorum elementa, figuris et apicibus distincta' ab hodiernis, in quibusdam tantummodo Graecis Bibliorum voluminibus lecta et exarata, non in aliis libris expressa credere par est Hinc facilis erat conjectura fundamentumque sufficiens, ut de quod Pipi legebant, idipsum sentiremus; in his nempe exemplaribus solummodo scriptum esse, quae Biblia sacra nuncupantur. Sed e ms. codice Graeco Colbertino, licet corruptissimo, perspicue didicimus nomen Dei tetragrammaton in Commentariis Graecorum scriptum fuisse litteris Hebraicis, et propter similitudinem qualuor horum elementorum, cum Graecis characteribus, a quibusdam Pipi solitum legi. Depravatum prorsus ros. dixi exemplar Graecum, quia scriptorum imperitia nonnulla e nominibus Dei, ac praecipue nomen Dei tetragrammaton corruptissime in eo leguntur. Quae ut manifestiora fiant, ad hujusmodi corruptelarum declarationem ordine procedamus.","english":"Which without doubt are Samaritan, or those ancient Hebrew letters, distinguished by shapes and strokes from the modern ones, read and written only in certain Greek volumes of the Bible, and believed not to be expressed in other books. Hence an easy conjecture and sufficient basis existed for us to think that what they read as Πιπι was the same thing; namely, that it was written only in those copies which are called the Holy Scriptures. But from the Greek codex of Colbert, although very corrupt, we have clearly learned that the tetragrammaton name of God was written in Hebrew letters in the Greek Commentaries, and because of the similarity of these four elements to Greek characters, it was customarily read as Πιπι by some. I have said that the Greek exemplar is utterly corrupt, because due to the inexperience of the scribes, some of the names of God, and especially the tetragrammaton name of God, are read in it in a very corrupt manner. To make these matters clearer, let us proceed in order to the explanation of such corruptions.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Pipi","severity":"info","text":"The Greek pseudo-name Πιπι (Pipi) is a scribal misreading of the tetragrammaton YHWH, based on the visual similarity of Hebrew letters to Greek characters. This corruption is central to the passage's argument.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Colbertinus codex","severity":"info","text":"The Colbertinus codex is a Greek manuscript from the library of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Its corrupt state is noted here as a source for the tetragrammaton's appearance in Greek commentaries.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"tetragrammaton","severity":"info","text":"The passage attests that the tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew letters within Greek biblical commentaries, and that scribal inexperience led to its corruption into forms like Πιπι. This reflects a known transmission hazard in Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Samaritana","severity":"caution","text":"The author identifies the ancient Hebrew script as 'Samaritan,' but this may conflate Paleo-Hebrew with the Samaritan script. The distinction is not precise in patristic sources, and the claim should be read as a general reference to archaic Hebrew writing.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"ordine procedamus","severity":"info","text":"The closing phrase 'let us proceed in order' signals a shift from preliminary explanation to systematic treatment of corruptions, marking a structural division in the treatise.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Samaritan' script is ambiguous: it may refer to Paleo-Hebrew or specifically Samaritan script, which are related but distinct.","The phrase 'quod Pipi legebant' could be read as 'what they read as Pipi' or 'that they read Pipi'; the translation adopts the former as more natural."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Primus amanuensis, sive scriptoris lapsus, si tamen lapsus, apparet In recitata Legis, hoc est, Exodi sententia cap. xxviii, et 37, ubi scriptum legimus de nomine Dei tetragrammato:, id est; Et facies laminam auream puram, et formabis in ea formationem sigilli, sanctificatio Domini. Omissa namque sunt hujus testimonii aliquot verba, ut vides ex contentione ejusdem cum Colbertino manuscript, in quo etiam pro, scriptum legitur, et quidem aequaliter, aut melius: nam in Hebraeo est, quod alii legunt Codes Laihova, alii. Codes Ladonai, et interpretatur, sanctitas Domini, sive juxta Hieronymum, sanctum Domino.\n\nPost verba jam dicta, immediate scriptum erat in libris Graicis nomen, lectitatumque. Quod minime intelligens is qui descripsit codicem Colbertinum, suspicatus est nomen esse Graecum, ac legendum. Id autem quantumvis depravate scripserit, supersunt adhuc littrae Graecae in ms. cum peculiari forma, quae multum accedit ad Hebraeum, cujus lectio usitatior fuit, in codice ms. satis elucens.","english":"The first copyist’s slip, or scribe’s error—if indeed it is an error—appears in the cited passage of the Law, that is, of Exodus, chapters 28 and 37, where we read written concerning the tetragrammaton name of God: “And you shall make a pure golden plate, and you shall form on it the engraving of a seal, the sanctification of the Lord.” For some words of this testimony have been omitted, as you see from comparing it with the Colbert manuscript, in which also, for “scriptum” is read “scriptum,” and indeed equally or better: for in Hebrew it is “קֹדֶשׁ,” which some read “Codes Laihova,” others “Codes Ladonai,” and is interpreted as “sanctity of the Lord,” or according to Jerome, “holy to the Lord.”\n\nAfter the words already mentioned, the name was immediately written in the Greek books and was read aloud. The one who copied the Colbert manuscript, understanding this very poorly, suspected the name to be Greek and to be read as such. But however corruptly he wrote it, Greek letters still survive in the manuscript, with a peculiar form that closely approaches the Hebrew, whose more customary reading is sufficiently clear in the manuscript codex.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Exodus 28 and 37","severity":"info","text":"The passage refers to Exodus 28:36–37, where the high priest’s golden plate is described. The Latin conflates chapters 28 and 37, likely a scribal error for Exodus 28 and 39.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tetragrammaton","severity":"info","text":"The tetragrammaton (YHWH) is the four-letter divine name. The author notes its reading as Πιπι in Greek, reflecting the common substitution of ΠΙΠΙ for the tetragrammaton in some Greek manuscripts.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Colbert manuscript","severity":"info","text":"The Colbert manuscript (Codex Colbertinus) is a Greek biblical manuscript from the library of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The author uses it as a witness to the tetragrammaton’s reading.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Codes Laihova / Codes Ladonai","severity":"info","text":"The author reports variant readings of the Hebrew קֹדֶשׁ as 'Codes Laihova' (perhaps a corruption of 'Kodesh YHWH') and 'Codes Ladonai' (Kodesh Adonai), reflecting Jewish and Christian traditions of substituting Adonai for the tetragrammaton.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"scriptoris lapsus","severity":"caution","text":"The author questions whether the omission in the cited Exodus passage is a scribal error or intentional, noting discrepancies with the Colbert manuscript. The Latin text is corrupt, with 'scriptum' repeated ambiguously.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The exact reading of the tetragrammaton in the Colbert manuscript is unclear; the author suggests it was misread as Greek. The phrase 'Codes Laihova' may be a scribal corruption of 'Kodesh YHWH'."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Prima itaque syllaba vocabuli tetarton, ipsum fuit Hebraeum he; forma sequentis indicat vau; deinde conjunctum cum, formam repraesentat secundi, sive primi, si a dextra ad sinistram legamus more Hebraeorum, denique ultimum locum tenet iod; e quibus elementis conjunctim exaratis exsurgit nomen saepius memoratum, ac semper adorandum quod Graeci doctiores legebam, alii autem linguae prorsus Hebraicae imperiti ac rudes, quasi Graecum esset, legere consueverant, cum illud in Greets libris reperirent.\n\nTanta vero est nominum Dei in ms. confusio post illam vocem, ut nullo deinceps numero ordinali designato, indistincte, ea ponantur ad hunc modum:. Sed ex Hieronymiana epistola observari velim tria hic nomina Dei fuisse omissa, El scilicet, atque Elion, et Eloe, quorum prius Fortem, posterius Excelsum, tertium autem ultimumque Deum significat. Nomen quoque at inter cetera scriptum legitur, cum antea primum omnium illud recensuerit idem codex Graecus. Hincque fit, ut nou plura quam sex nomina Dei a Graecis assignata habeamus, nempe Adonai, Ja. Jao, sive Jehova. Eloim, Sabbaoth et Saddai. Nam ultimum, quod imperitia Graecorum in duo distraxit, scribens, unicum est apud Hebraeos, sextumque ordine positum abs Hieronymo, (??) (??); quod in Hebraeo est chje ascher ehje, Latinoque sermone exprimitur, Ero qui ero.","english":"Thus the first syllable of the word *tetarton* was itself the Hebrew *he*; the shape of the following letter indicates *vau*; then, joined with it, the form represents the second, or the first, if we read from right to left in the manner of the Hebrews; finally, the last place is held by *iod*; from these elements written together arises the name so often mentioned and always to be adored, which the more learned Greeks used to read, but others, wholly unskilled and ignorant of the Hebrew language, were accustomed to read as if it were Greek, whenever they found it in Greek books.\n\nBut so great is the confusion of the names of God in the manuscript after that word that, with no ordinal number thereafter designated, they are placed indiscriminately in this manner: Yet from the letter of Jerome I would note that three names of God have been omitted here, namely *El*, and *Elion*, and *Eloe*, of which the first means Strong, the second High, and the third and last God. Also the name *At* is found written among the rest, although the same Greek codex had previously listed it as the first of all. And hence it happens that we have no more than six names of God assigned by the Greeks, namely *Adonai*, *Ja*, *Jao* or *Jehova*, *Eloim*, *Sabbaoth*, and *Saddai*. For the last, which the ignorance of the Greeks split into two, writing it as such, is a single name among the Hebrews, and placed sixth in order by Jerome, (??) (??); which in Hebrew is *chje ascher ehje*, and in Latin is expressed as *Ero qui ero*.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tetarton","severity":"info","text":"The author treats tetarton as a Greek word meaning 'fourth', used here to denote the tetragrammaton, the four-letter divine name YHWH.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"he, vau, iod","severity":"info","text":"The author identifies the Hebrew letters he, vau, and iod as components of the tetragrammaton, reflecting a common medieval Latin understanding of the divine name.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Jerome","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Jerome's letter as a source for the omitted divine names El, Elion, and Eloe, indicating reliance on Jerome's authority for Hebrew name traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Jerome"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"El, Elion, Eloe","severity":"info","text":"These three names are glossed as 'Strong', 'High', and 'God', reflecting Jerome's etymological interpretations common in Latin patristic tradition.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"chje ascher ehje","severity":"caution","text":"The phrase chje ascher ehje is a Latin transcription of Hebrew 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' ('I am who I am'), but the author's rendering is garbled, likely due to manuscript corruption or scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"six names of God","severity":"info","text":"The author lists six Greek-assigned divine names (Adonai, Ja, Jao/Jehova, Eloim, Sabbaoth, Saddai), noting that the last was split by Greek ignorance, reflecting a medieval attempt to reconcile Hebrew and Greek traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The author's reference to 'the letter of Jerome' is unspecified; it may be Jerome's Epistula 25 or another work.","The phrase 'chje ascher ehje' is a corrupt transcription; the intended Hebrew is uncertain.","The identity of the 'Greek codex' mentioned is not given."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Hoc nomen Del tribus hisce constat vocabulis, quorum lectio, omnino depravata apud Graecos, ita restituenda erit ex ipsis Graecarum litterarum vestigiis,; nisi mecum-voluerit quis germanam ac usu receptam apud antiquos Graecos hanc lectionem ab Hieronymo mutuari,. Ex quo intelligimus veteres non fuisse solitos legere vocalem e sub futuri characteristico, sed vocalem i; unde Die pro ehie hodierno.\n\nSed Graecorum errores redarguendo, laudabilem quoque imitemur ipsorum nomina Dei in fine harum observationum ordine congruo, puroque stylo describentes; 1. El, Fertis, vel Deus. 2. Eloim, Deus. 3. Eloe, Deus. 4. Sabaoth, virtutum. 5. Elion, excelsus. 6. Ieie eser Ieie, sum qui sum. 7. Adoηai, Dominus. 8. Ia, Dominus. 9. Iao, Dominus. 10. Saddai, Omnipotens.\n\nVeterum scriptorum morem hic secuti sumus; quod licet res ipsa monebat» id tamen dixisse haud otiosum putavi, propter nonnullos hujus temporis Hebraizantes, quos facilius stomachari video, si quid aliter in Hebraeis voluminibus lectum fuerit, quam ipsi legere consueverunt. Porro nomen, tetragammum, apud Theodoreium Qiuest. in Exod. depravatum existimavit (??). Drustus in suo Tetragrammato. Sed ex Graeco ms. codice Colbertino, et ex Latinis exemplaribus sancti Hieronymi manifestissime apparet, veteres legisse cum Theodoreto; ac proinde Drusii restitutionem, sive correctionem cap.","english":"This name of God consists of these three words, whose reading, completely corrupted among the Greeks, must be restored from the very traces of the Greek letters, unless someone wishes with me to borrow from Jerome the genuine and customary reading among the ancient Greeks. From this we understand that the ancients were not accustomed to read the vowel e under the future characteristic, but the vowel i; whence Die for ehie today.\n\nBut in refuting the errors of the Greeks, let us also imitate their praiseworthy practice, describing the names of God at the end of these observations in a fitting order and pure style: 1. El, strong or God. 2. Eloim, God. 3. Eloe, God. 4. Sabaoth, of hosts. 5. Elion, most high. 6. Ieie eser Ieie, I am who I am. 7. Adonai, Lord. 8. Ia, Lord. 9. Iao, Lord. 10. Saddai, Almighty.\n\nWe have here followed the custom of ancient writers; although the matter itself suggested it, I nevertheless thought it not idle to have said this, on account of some Hebraizers of this time, whom I see are more easily offended if anything is read differently in the Hebrew volumes than they themselves are accustomed to read. Moreover, the tetragrammaton name, in Theodoret's Questions on Exodus, was considered corrupted. Drusius in his Tetragrammaton. But from the Greek manuscript codex of Colbert and from the Latin exemplars of Saint Jerome it appears most clearly that the ancients read with Theodoret; and therefore Drusius's restoration, or correction, is invalid.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The author lists ten divine names, a common topos in Christian Hebraist literature, drawing on the Septuagint and patristic sources.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tetragammum","severity":"info","text":"The spelling 'tetragammum' (for tetragrammaton) is a variant found in some Latin manuscripts, possibly a scribal error or a deliberate archaism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The author cites Theodoret's 'Questions on Exodus' and Drusius's 'Tetragrammaton' as authorities on the corruption of the tetragrammaton, reflecting early modern scholarly debates.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Theodoret","Drusius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The reference to the 'Greek manuscript codex of Colbert' indicates the author used the library of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, a major collection of Greek and Latin manuscripts in 17th-century France.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The author's claim that 'Die' derives from 'ehie' is linguistically unsupported; it likely reflects a speculative etymology common in Renaissance Hebraism.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage shifts from a technical discussion of Greek vowel corruption to a list of divine names, then to a polemic against contemporary Hebraizers, showing a layered argumentative structure.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the 'Greek manuscript codex of Colbert' is not specified; it may refer to a particular manuscript now in the Bibliothèque nationale de France.","The author's reference to 'Drusius's restoration' is unclear: it could be a printed work or a manuscript, and its exact content is not given."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Opusculi memorati esse meram depravationem, si legatur apud Theudoretum loco supra citato.\n\nCAPITULUM.\n\nInterpretatio Latina.\n\nPropter Hebraicam de Domino notationem haec dicenda sunt. Decem nominibus apud Hebraeos Deus appellatur. Unum enim Adonai, quod est Dominus. Aliud autem Ia, quod et ipsum sermone Graeco transfertur in Dominum. Alterum wo praeter haec est nomen letragrammum, ineffabile exsistens quod apud Hebraeos dicitur Adonai, apud nos autem Dominus. Hoc vero dieunt scriptum in lamina aurea, quae posita erat super frontem summi sacerdotis: juxta quod in lege dictum est: Formatio sigilli, sanetiftcatio Domino. Quartum Jao, Eloi, Adonai, Sabaoth, Sedai, legi-eccheai.\n\nCodex C other tinus.\n\nHieronymus.\n\nPrimum nomen Dei est El, quod Septuaginta Deum, Aquila etymologiam ejus exprimens, id est, fortem interpretatur. Deinde Eloim et Eloe, quod et ipsum Deus dicitur. Quartum Sabaoth, quod Septuaginta, Virtutum, Aquila, Exercituum, transtulerunt. Quintum Elion quod nos Excelsum dicimus. Sextum Eserieie, quod in Exodo legitur: Qui est misit me (Exod. iii, 14). Septimum Adonai, quem nos Dominum generaliter appellamus. Octavum quod in Deo tantum ponitur, et in Alleluia extrema quoque syllaba sonat. Nonum tetragrammmum, quod, id est, ineffabile puta verunt, quod his litteris scribitur (??) e, vac, e.","english":"That the said little work is a pure corruption, if one reads it in Theodoret at the passage cited above.\n\nCHAPTER.\n\nLatin Interpretation.\n\nConcerning the Hebrew designation of the Lord, these things must be said. God is called by ten names among the Hebrews. For one is Adonai, which is Lord. Another is Ia, which itself is translated into Greek as Lord. Besides these there is the name Tetragrammaton, which is ineffable, and which among the Hebrews is called Adonai, but among us Lord. This, they say, was written on a golden plate placed upon the forehead of the high priest, according to what is said in the Law: \"The formation of the seal, the sanctification of the Lord.\" The fourth is Jao, Eloi, Adonai, Sabaoth, Sedai, legi-eccheai.\n\nCodex C other tinus.\n\nJerome.\n\nThe first name of God is El, which the Septuagint translates as God, but Aquila, expressing its etymology, interprets as \"strong.\" Next, Eloim and Eloe, which themselves are called God. The fourth is Sabaoth, which the Septuagint translated as \"of Hosts,\" Aquila as \"of Armies.\" The fifth is Elion, which we call \"the Highest.\" The sixth is Eserieie, which is read in Exodus: \"Who is, sent me\" (Exod. 3:14). The seventh is Adonai, whom we generally call Lord. The eighth is that which is placed only in God, and also sounds in the final syllable of Alleluia. The ninth is the Tetragrammaton, which, that is, they considered ineffable, and which is written with these letters: (??) e, vav, e.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Opusculi memorati esse meram depravationem","severity":"info","text":"The opening sentence is a marginal or prefatory note, not part of the main chapter. It refers to a 'said little work' as a corruption, linking to Theodoret's text cited above.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Ia","severity":"info","text":"Ia is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew divine name Yah, a shortened form of YHWH. The text notes it is translated into Greek as 'Lord'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tetragrammum","severity":"info","text":"Tetragrammaton, the four-letter divine name YHWH, is described as ineffable. The text notes it is called Adonai among Hebrews and Dominus among Latin Christians.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Formatio sigilli, sanctificatio Domino","severity":"info","text":"This phrase, 'The formation of the seal, the sanctification of the Lord,' is not a direct biblical quotation but likely a paraphrase or allusion to Exodus 28:36–38, concerning the high priest's golden plate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Eserieie","severity":"info","text":"Eserieie is a Latin transliteration of the Hebrew phrase 'ehyeh 'ăšer 'ehyeh ('I am who I am'), from Exodus 3:14. The text cites it as 'Qui est misit me' ('Who is, sent me'), a conflation of Exodus 3:14 and 3:13.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hieronymus","severity":"info","text":"The passage attributes a list of ten divine names to Jerome, but the list differs from Jerome's known works (e.g., Epistula 25 or Commentarii in Psalmos). This suggests a later compilation or misattribution.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'legi-eccheai' at the end of the first list is obscure and may be a corruption of a Greek or Hebrew term.","The source of the 'Codex C other tinus' heading is unclear; it may refer to a manuscript or a scribal note.","The list of ten names is incomplete in the first enumeration, and the second list from Jerome gives nine names, not ten."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"Quod quidam non intelligentes propter elementorum similitudinem, cum in Graecis libris repere rim, legere consueverunt. Decimum Saddai, et in Ezechiele non ponitur, etc.","english":"Some, not understanding because of the similarity of the letters, when they have found it in Greek books, have been accustomed to read it. The tenth is Saddai, and it is not placed in Ezekiel, etc.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"Quod quidam non intelligentes propter elementorum similitudinem","severity":"info","text":"The author explains that some readers misread the Tetragrammaton as a different word due to the visual similarity of Greek letters, a common scribal confusion.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Saddai","severity":"info","text":"Saddai (Shaddai) is the tenth divine name in the list, meaning 'Almighty' in Hebrew. The note that it is 'not placed in Ezekiel' likely refers to its absence in certain biblical passages or textual traditions.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"in Ezechiele non ponitur","severity":"info","text":"The remark that Saddai does not appear in Ezekiel may reflect a textual variant or a patristic claim about the distribution of divine names in the Hebrew Bible.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Quod quidam non intelligentes","severity":"caution","text":"The passage warns of a persistent misreading of the Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts, a problem noted by Jerome and other Latin fathers.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The phrase 'in Ezechiele non ponitur' is ambiguous: it may mean the name Saddai is absent from the book of Ezekiel, or that it is not placed in a specific liturgical or textual context within Ezekiel."],"confidence":"medium","notes":[]}]}