here. What he does quite well here is to isolate very similar passages between Kings and Chronicles, and looks at how care over usage of God's Name may have affected its usage over the period of time separating the redaction of the two historical accounts. Here are the two most important statements from his abstract:
...the unique value of the double title אדני יהוה [Adonai Yahweh = "Lord LORD"] is established in tracing the euphemism in question, and the replacement of אדני יהוה of 2 Samuel with יהוה אלהים [Yahweh Elohim = "LORD God"] in Chronicles is presented as early evidence of the euphemism. Thus the reading Adonai for the Tetragrammaton appears to have begun considerably earlier than is commonly thought.
- highlights an interesting discrepency between Samuel and Chronicles in Divine Name appellation
- introduces the notion of "euphemism" as a tool to understand the substitution mechanisms in place over the centuries
- usefully surveys the lack of earliest extant textual evidence for the written usage of kyrios
- highlights that there is strong evidence for a distinction between written and spoken practice of the Divine Name,
- asserts the alleged purpose of Yahweh-Elohim is not usually invocational (I can check this out soon with the tool I am developing),
- Some strands of Judaism later continued in the Adonai -> Yahweh direction.
- Insufficient connection with the controversy around the originality of the Greek kyrios translation,
- Unclear as to why an Adonai -> Yahweh euphemism would help clear up the issues created around the ineffability of the divine Name of Yahweh
- The narrow evidence provided in Chronicles fails to account for any other ancient practice in the direction Hong assumes and fails to integrate the overall concentration differences in the Hebrew Bible between Adonai and Yahweh, the latter dwarfing the former massively and Adonai being generally so very rare in the earlier compositional periods.