Both Pietersma and Jannes Smith agree that P. Oxy 5101 retains the OG character with the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton being its only recensional trait. This suggests that the original translation used κύριος and that the insertion of the Tetragrammaton reflects a later editorial effort. Smith’s suggestion that the Psalter emulated the Pentateuch’s supposed use of κύριος further strengthens Pietersma’s hypothesis. The presence of the Tetragrammaton here is not evidence of originality but of revision, likely motivated by Jewish liturgical preferences to preserve the divine name in its Hebrew form. The insertion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script is consistent with recensional trends observed in other MSS, such as P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr. These texts were revised to align with Hebrew traditions, likely to counteract Christian readings of the LXX that consistently used κύριος. Meyer dismisses the correlation between recensional activity and the Tetragrammaton, but the evidence from the broader MS tradition (e.g., the Kaige recension) overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Tetragrammaton was reintroduced during later revisions, not as part of the OG.
While 4Q120 contains ΙΑΩ as a transliteration of YHWH, this does not indicate a uniform practice across all LXX MSS. Other Qumran texts, such as 4Q122, are too fragmentary to analyze definitively, and the majority of Greek MSS from this period (e.g., 4Q119 and 4Q121) do not provide clear evidence of widespread use of ΙΑΩ. As numerous scholars have pointed out, the diversity in Qumran texts reflects regional or sectarian preferences rather than a standardized practice in the OG. The use of ΙΑΩ appears to be a transliteration rather than a translation of YHWH, which aligns with the observation that it was a secondary feature introduced by specific communities. This is consistent with the broader trend of paleo-Hebrew insertions as a means of preserving the sanctity of the divine name in Jewish contexts. The lack of ΙΑΩ in the majority of extant LXX MSS, especially Christian copies, strongly suggests that it was not the original rendering.
The Jewish practice of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH during oral readings naturally influenced the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The translators of the LXX rendered YHWH as κύριος to reflect this tradition, ensuring that the text could be read aloud in Jewish liturgical contexts without pronouncing the divine name. This practice is corroborated by the consistent use of κύριος in the majority of LXX MSS, as well as in NT quotations of the OT. If the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ were original to the LXX, we would expect to find transitional MSS showing a gradual replacement with κύριος. However, no such evidence exists. Instead, the uniformity of κύριος in both Jewish and Christian MSS points to its primacy. The insertion of the Tetragrammaton in later MSS, such as P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, reflects a revisionist effort to reintroduce the divine name rather than evidence of its original use.
Meyer criticizes Pietersma for allegedly using circular reasoning to support the originality of κύριος. However, Meyer himself engages in circular reasoning by presuming the originality of the Tetragrammaton and interpreting the evidence to fit this conclusion. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in a handful of fragmentary MSS, such as P. Oxy 5101 and 4Q120, does not outweigh the overwhelming textual evidence for κύριος. These exceptions are better understood as reflecting specific editorial choices rather than the original translation practice.
Thanks for the reference, Edgar. Based on the pages you've provided it appears that the author takes a dispassionate approach, which I appreciate. Based on a Google search, it appears that this was originally the author's thesis, later presented in book form.
Sean, you're welcome. I think Meyer is dispassionate and he's carefully analyzed the LXX manuscripts. If you type in Meyer on my blog, you will find a link I posted for his dissertation.
Nincsnevem, you speak of P. Oxy 5101 having a rescensional trait, but there's no way that you can know YHWH is rescensional there with absolute certainty. Meyer explains this point well. The fact that Pietersma's claim is a hypothesis should tell you that one can't be dogmatic about his position.
Meyer himself acknowledges the fragmentary nature of P. Oxy 5101, stating, "the evidence... is too fragmentary to give decisive evidence for the procedure of writing the Tetragrammaton." While Meyer critiques the criteria for identifying the Tetragrammaton as a recensional trait, he does not provide conclusive proof that the Tetra was part of the OG. In fact, he explicitly states that there is "no proof" linking the presence of the Tetragrammaton to the textual character of early OG revisions. This leaves open the possibility that its presence reflects a later insertion or specific scribal practice, not the original reading. Pietersma and Jannes Smith argue that the Tetra is a secondary, archaizing development, consistent with recensional tendencies, which suggests it was introduced later in the MS tradition to align with Hebrew exemplars.
While P. Oxy 5101 has been described as a genuine OG witness, this characterization pertains to its overall Septuagintal character, not the presence of the Tetragrammaton, which remains debated. Meyer himself states that "scholars agree that Greek texts with the Tetra contain evidence of revision towards a Hebrew exemplar," highlighting that the Tetra is typically associated with attempts to harmonize Greek texts with the Hebrew Bible. Kristin De Troyer emphasizes the uncertainty of distinguishing between original forms and recensions, especially in cases like the Nahal Hever scrolls, where the Tetra is considered part of a Kaige recension. This caution applies equally to P. Oxy 5101.
The presence of the Tetragrammaton in some second-century texts does not establish its originality in the OG. The survival of texts containing the Tetragrammaton may simply reflect localized practices among Jewish scribes who sought to preserve the Divine Name in paleo-Hebrew or Greek transliteration (e.g., ΙΑΩ). Early Christian MSS, such as the NT texts, universally use κύριος rather than the Tetra. This strongly suggests that the early Church inherited and transmitted the OG tradition with κύριος as the replacement for the Tetra, consistent with the Septuagintal tradition seen in other OG MSS. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in early Christian texts supports Pietersma's hypothesis that κύριος was the original rendering in the OG and that the Tetragrammaton represents a later development in specific MS traditions.
The textual variation between κύριος and Χριστός in 1 Cor. 2:16 does not support the claim that the Tetragrammaton was original in the OG or NT. Instead, it reflects a scribal effort to harmonize the text with existing theological interpretations. As Meyer and others note, Paul frequently uses κύριος to refer to Jesus, integrating him into the divine identity as seen in the rearticulation of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6. This usage aligns with the OG tradition of rendering the Divine Name as κύριος. There is no textual evidence from the NT MSS that Paul or any other NT writer used the Tetra. This absence is decisive, as the NT authors relied heavily on the OG for their scriptural citations.
While Meyer critiques the methodology for identifying the Tetra as recensional, he does not claim the Tetra is definitively original. In fact, he states that the presence of the Tetragrammaton "does not decisively answer the question of the earliest OG rendering." Meyer’s acknowledgment of the complexity of the issue reinforces the uncertainty surrounding the Tetra’s status in the OG, aligning with the cautious conclusions of Pietersma and others.
The majority of OG MSS, including early Psalters and other LXX texts, consistently use κύριος for the Divine Name. The use of the Tetragrammaton in some MSS likely reflects a revisionary trend, not an original feature. Theological considerations, such as the adoption of the OG by early Christians, further support κύριος as the original reading. The Christian community’s widespread and exclusive use of κύριος aligns with a longstanding tradition in the OG, predating any recensional developments involving the Tetra.
I agree that 1 Cor. 2:16 strongly suggests that the divine name appeared in the original NT writings. Also, the argument is a cumulative case, and this is just one datum that informs that argument.
The text of the NA28 uses the Greek term Κυρίου (Lord) rather than inserting the Tetragrammaton in any form, including Paleo-Hebrew or transliterations such as ΙΑΩ. The consistent manuscript tradition does not suggest any earlier version of this passage with the Tetragrammaton. Instead, it reflects the Septuagintal usage, where Κύριος substitutes for YHWH in OT quotations. Paul's citation in 1 Cor. 2:16 is derived from Isa. 40:13, where the LXX already uses νοῦν Κυρίου ("mind of the Lord") instead of explicitly retaining the Tetragrammaton. The consistency between Paul's quotation and the LXX reinforces the view that Paul followed the prevailing Jewish Greek textual tradition, which rendered YHWH as Κύριος. The LXX's substitution of Κύριος for the Tetragrammaton aligns with the Hellenistic Jewish practice of reverence for God's name. Early Christians adopted this tradition when using the Greek Scriptures.
Several scholars, including Meyer and others, highlight the importance of the LXX tradition in shaping the NT's use of the OT. While Meyer critiques some assumptions regarding recension theories, his observations about the limited evidence for the Tetragrammaton's presence in the Greek manuscripts do not provide conclusive support for its originality in the NT. Kristin De Troyer and others argue that while some Greek manuscripts of the LXX (like P. Oxy 5101) include the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew script, these cases are exceptional and do not reflect a universal or original practice. Instead, they represent later revisions or variations.
The claim of a "cumulative case" for the Tetragrammaton in the NT faces several challenges. No extant Greek NT manuscript includes the Tetragrammaton in any form. The consistent use of "Κύριος" across manuscripts argues against the hypothesis of YHWH's inclusion in the originals. Suggesting the Tetragrammaton based on limited and fragmentary LXX evidence does not constitute proof. Even P. Oxy 5101's use of the Tetragrammaton in the Psalms is debated and does not provide a precedent for NT usage.
The text of 1 Cor. 2:16 juxtaposes the "mind of the Lord" with the "mind of Christ." This parallelism is a deliberate theological assertion by Paul of Christ's divine identity. Introducing the Tetragrammaton into this passage would obscure Paul's intended identification of Κύριος (Lord) with Jesus Christ, consistent with early Christian Christological monotheism.
You've already said that you reject my view of 1 Cor. 2:16, so there was no need to repeat yourself.
I disagree with you. I think it likely that a form of the divine name appeared there originally, and then when the surrogation took place, someone replaced the divine name with "Lord," which created a nonsense sentence, and so subsequent scribes changed "Lord" to "Christ".
As I said, it's a cumulative case argument, and this is just one datum.
"There is no proof that the reason for the Tetragrammaton is caused by or inherent to the textual character of early revisions of the Old Greek" (page 243).
That sounds like a criticism of Pietersma's view, not an endorsement.
See also https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111326511-005/pdf?licenseType=open-access
Meyer also writes:
"Stegemann, Skehan, and others have long noted that regardless of what was written in Greek biblical manuscripts, most likely κύριος was pronounced in reading. This would clearly pertain to the evidence of Greek biblical scrolls using the Tetragrammaton, but the implications of manuscripts with ιαω are less clear. This casts some doubt on the view that at least in speech κύριος would have gone back to the original translation" (243).
The majority of MSS, including early witnesses like 𝔓46, Vaticanus, and many Byzantine MSS, read Χριστοῦ. This reflects Paul’s deliberate theological assertion of Christ’s identity and his role in salvation history. A minority of MSS (e.g., Claromontanus) read Κυρίου. The presence of Κυρίου is better understood as a harmonization with the first part of the verse, where Isa. 40:13 is quoted with Κυρίου as the translation of YHWH. The LXX consistently uses Κύριος to translate YHWH in the OT. When Paul cites Isa. 40:13, he follows this convention:
"Τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου, ὃς συμβιβάσει αὐτόν;" ("For who has understood the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?")
The LXX’s use of Κύριος here reflects Jewish reverence for the divine name. There is no evidence in any extant LXX MSS or early NT MSS that ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton was used in this passage. The textual variants of 1 Cor. 2:16 can be explained without resorting to speculative theories about the Tetragrammaton. Scribes may have introduced Κυρίου in the second clause to harmonize it with the first clause, which quotes Isa. 40:13. This is a common scribal tendency seen throughout the textual tradition of the NT. Other scribes may have changed Κυρίου to Χριστοῦ to clarify Paul’s theological point: that Christians possess the "mind of Christ," which aligns with Pauline Christology. This reading avoids ambiguity and emphasizes the unity between Christ and God. Paul intentionally juxtaposes Κυρίου in the quotation from Isa. 40:13 with Χριστοῦ in the following clause. This highlights Christ's divine identity, consistent with Paul's Christological monotheism (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6).
The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original NT texts lacks empirical support. All extant NT MSS consistently use Κύριος or Θεός in place of the Tetragrammaton. If the divine name were original, we would expect to find at least transitional evidence, but none exists. The writings of the early Church Fathers, who extensively quoted and commented on the NT, show no awareness of the Tetragrammaton in the NT text. Instead, they consistently affirm the use of Κύριος. Paul regularly uses Κύριος to refer both to God (the Father) and to Jesus Christ, integrating Jesus into the divine identity. Introducing the Tetragrammaton into this passage would undermine Paul’s theological argument and disrupt the continuity between his Jewish and Christian audiences.
The first instance of Κύριος in 1 Cor. 2:16 refers to God, following Isa. 40:13. The second instance (in the variant Χριστοῦ) refers to Christ. Paul frequently uses Κύριος in this dual sense, as seen in passages like Phil. 2:9-11 and Rom. 10:9-13. The juxtaposition of Κύριος and Χριστοῦ emphasizes the shared divine identity of God and Christ, a key theme in Pauline theology.
This is an argument like saying that because four witnesses at trial testified that the defendant was wearing a white shirt at the time of the crime, while one witness said he was wearing a blue one, it follows that he was actually dressed as Ronald McDonald.
The question becomes: how that one* scribe would fail to see the obvious contradiction in "We don't have the mind of the Lord" and "We have the mind of the Lord" (paraphrasing) We have to assume in this case the scribe was stupid... especially since in the examples of manuscripts I have access to both "Christ" and "Lord" are written as nomina sacra, indicated likely the "Lord" for the B (non quotation section) would also have been in nomina sacra (infact the one "double Lord" variant I do have access too has both in nomina sacra)
This is not harmonising this is creating a contradiction considering this is not an instance like Psalm 110:1 where the "Lords" are clearly separated by the use of a pronoun - restricting the sense of the noun.
Harmonising cannot be used as an excuse to justify ones belief, there needs to be substantial evidence that this was actually harmonising. & simply there is no evidence to indicate this was as such - I could understand if the quote was changed, perhaps... but to say the B section is harmonised - I find that unlikely unless the scribe was completely dense and didn't do what other writers did back then.
"it reflects a scribal effort to harmonize the text with existing theological interpretations." - without making a clear line as to who was who? like psalms 110:1 Where the quotes retain the pronoun for the distinction. Which does not exist in the variant.. Where both are nomina sacra.. again harmonizing with what? this variant is rather early and later changed back to "Christ" "harmonization" isnt a get out of jail free card sorry Ninc.. you cant just use that as an excuse without actaul evidence. (which has not been provided) There are variants that I would say, yes you are 110% correct and it is likely the case - These two and some others I am in doubt - It is not unknown for later "trinitarian" motiavted people to change writings Jerome v Rufinus - Where Jerome states explicitly something alone the lines "Origen's texts were full of references to Christ as a creation" (citation available on request, since I would have to dig it out) The only remaining evidence of this is 1(I believe) use of "ktisma"
until I get a substantial answer for this (specifically from Ninc) I will assume the Tetra was in the ORIGINAL writings. (again without the Tetra the trinity thrives - with the tetra, The trinity is debuked - as "Lord" and "Yaho" would be separated) and the sense of "Lord" is made clear. (to trinitarians)
Rev 3:14 also has a fourth century variant where Christ is not "The beginning of creation of God" but rather "The beginning of the ecclesia of God" Its funny that this variant is listed as fourth century because this rules Christ out completely from being a "creation" Jude 1:4 has a similar variant with "Theon"
Meyer’s critique is aimed at methodological overreach in certain arguments, not at disproving Pietersma’s hypothesis outright. Pietersma and Jannes Smith maintain that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew is a secondary feature, consistent with recensional tendencies. Meyer himself acknowledges:
"P. Oxy 5101... is a genuine OG witness of the Psalter, but it also contains the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton... Pietersma states that '[o]n balance nothing impresses me more about 5101 than its early date and its thoroughly Septuagintal character notwithstanding its sole recensional trait, namely, the replacement of Κύριος by the tetragram in palaeo-Hebrew script.'"
This aligns with the broader consensus that the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton was reintroduced in certain Greek texts as part of later revisions, reflecting Jewish liturgical practices aimed at preserving the divine name in its original form. Meyer’s comment about the lack of definitive proof concerns the difficulty of ascribing specific revisions to all cases, but it does not negate the overall evidence for Κύριος as the original OG rendering.
While Meyer notes that the pronunciation of Κύριος in liturgical contexts is not definitive proof of its originality, this does not undermine the textual evidence for Κύριος as the standard Greek rendering in the majority of OG MSS. The uniformity of Κύριος in both Christian and Jewish LXX MSS, especially in NT citations of the OT, supports its primacy. Meyer himself acknowledges the fragmentary nature of P. Oxy 5101, stating:
"The evidence... is too fragmentary to give decisive evidence for the procedure of writing the Tetragrammaton."
Thus, P. Oxy 5101 cannot be used to assert the originality of the Tetragrammaton in the OG.
Your response implies that ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton may have been original in the OG. However, the broader MS tradition does not support this claim. For example, while 4Q120 uses ΙΑΩ to transliterate the Tetragrammaton, it represents a localized practice rather than a universal standard. As numerous scholars have pointed out, ΙΑΩ reflects transliteration rather than translation, and its presence in a limited number of texts suggests sectarian preferences rather than an original feature of the OG. De Troyer emphasizes the difficulty of distinguishing between original forms and later recensions. The Kaige recension, which sought to align the Greek text with Hebrew exemplars, often introduced the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script as a revisionary feature. This aligns with the evidence from P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, where the Tetragrammaton appears as a recensional addition. The consistent use of Κύριος in Christian LXX MSS and in NT quotations reflects its established role as the standard rendering of YHWH. This practice was inherited from Jewish scribal traditions, where "Adonai" was substituted for the Tetragrammaton during oral readings, and Κύριος became the natural Greek equivalent.
The overwhelming textual evidence in favor of Κύριος, combined with the absence of transitional MSS showing a shift from the Tetragrammaton to Κύριος, strongly supports its primacy. If the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ had been original, we would expect to find transitional MSS with mixed usage of Κύριος and the Tetragrammaton, and NT citations of the OT using the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ. Instead, the consistent use of Κύριος across Jewish and Christian texts suggests it was the original rendering, with the Tetragrammaton reintroduced in specific cases to reflect Hebrew liturgical preferences.
The Jokiranta article highlights that the Tetragrammaton was not universally used or avoided in the DSS. Instead, the DSS exhibit varied practices depending on the textual and liturgical context. For instance, Sectarian Scrolls (e.g., the Community Rule and Damascus Document) often avoid the Tetragrammaton, favoring "El" or "Elohim" instead. Apotropaic or exorcistic texts sometimes retain the Tetragrammaton for its perceived ritual power. However, such usage is context-specific and reflects the DSS community's unique theological and liturgical concerns, not a universal norm for Jewish usage of the divine name. This diversity undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton’s presence in some DSS texts implies a universal or normative practice for early Christians. The Tetragrammaton was not ubiquitous even among Jewish sects like the Qumran community.
The article highlights mixed evidence regarding the use of the Tetragrammaton in early Greek translations, Some Greek MSS retain the divine name in Paleo-Hebrew or transliterations like ΙΑΩ; others use substitutes like Κύριος, particularly in liturgical or public contexts. This mixture indicates that Κύριος was already an established substitution for YHWH in Greek-speaking Jewish communities by the Second Temple period. The NT writers, predominantly using the LXX, naturally adopted this convention.
The DSS reveal that avoidance of the Tetragrammaton was often due to theological, ritual, or scribal concerns. In the Community Rule (1QS) and Damascus Document (CD), misuse of divine names in oaths was banned, reflecting a concern for reverence rather than a universal avoidance of the name itself. The frequent substitution of "El" or "Elohim" aligns with the Qumran sect’s preference for emphasizing God’s transcendence rather than directly invoking YHWH. The avoidance of YHWH in the DSS does not support the claim that the Tetragrammaton should have appeared in the NT. Instead, it highlights that early Jewish practices varied widely, often favoring substitutes like "El" or Κύριος.
The article briefly mentions that some scholars trace the use of Κύριος to pre-Christian Jewish practices. This is corroborated by the LXX’s substitution of Κύριος for YHWH, and Jewish liturgical traditions emphasizing reverence through substitutes. Early Christians, many of whom were Hellenistic Jews, inherited the tradition of using Κύριος in place of YHWH. This usage aligns with Jewish scribal conventions and reflects their reverence for the divine name.
You implicitly assume that practices found in sectarian DSS texts reflect universal Jewish norms during the Second Temple period. However, the Qumran community was highly sectarian and isolated, emphasizing distinct practices not shared by mainstream Judaism or early Christians. The DSS themselves reveal a diversity of practices, even within the Qumran corpus, with no consistent pattern regarding the Tetragrammaton. Early Christian use of Κύριος in the NT reflects mainstream Jewish practices as seen in the LXX, not the idiosyncratic practices of the Qumran sect.
The suggestion that a scribe would need to be "stupid" to harmonize the text misrepresents the nature of scribal practices in antiquity. Scribal harmonization is a well-documented phenomenon in textual criticism, and it was not always driven by deep theological concerns but rather by a desire for internal consistency or stylistic smoothing. The variant readings in 1 Cor. 2:16 likely reflect such tendencies. As noted in Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, scribes frequently altered texts to align them with other familiar passages or to resolve perceived inconsistencies. The change from Χριστοῦ to Κυρίου in the second clause aligns the passage with the quotation from Isa. 40:13 in the first clause. This does not require ignorance or carelessness; it reflects an attempt to bring coherence to the text, even if that coherence was based on a misunderstanding of Paul's theological intent. The use of nomina sacra (e.g., ΚΣ for Κυρίου and ΧΣ for Χριστοῦ) does not inherently prevent harmonization. The shorthand nature of nomina sacra might have even facilitated such alterations, as scribes could easily conflate abbreviations when copying a passage. Other examples of harmonization exist where scribes made changes that introduced ambiguities or contradictions. The fact that such changes occurred demonstrates that scribes were not always focused on theological precision. Thus, claiming that a scribe would need to be "stupid" to harmonize the text overlooks the historical evidence for scribal tendencies.
Harmonization does not require extraordinary evidence; it is a recognized scribal phenomenon. In the case of 1 Cor. 2:16, the dominant textual tradition reads Χριστοῦ, but a minority of MSS read Κυρίου. This minority reading aligns with the quotation from Isa. 40:13 in the first clause. The parallelism suggests that a scribe may have harmonized the second clause with the first. Theologically, "Christ" fits better in the second clause because Paul is contrasting the incomprehensible "mind of the Lord" (YHWH) with the believer's possession of the "mind of Christ." The substitution of "Lord" in the second clause disrupts this theological flow, making it more likely that "Lord" is a secondary, harmonizing alteration. Textual critics often favor the "harder reading"—the one that scribes would be less likely to create. In this case, "Christ" is the harder reading because it introduces a contrast between the "Lord" (YHWH) and "Christ," whereas "Lord" would create a simpler parallelism. These points collectively provide substantial evidence for harmonization. The claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the NT is purely speculative. No MS evidence supports the idea that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was ever present in the original Greek texts. Instead, the consistent use of Κύριος across all extant MSS reflects the textual tradition inherited from the LXX.
The textual variants in Rev. 3:14 and Jude 1:4 do not support a broader claim of systematic theological tampering: The variant reading "the ARCHĒ of the ecclesia of God" is found in a single late MS and is not representative of the broader textual tradition. The overwhelming MS evidence supports the reading "the ARCHĒ of the creation of God," which aligns with the Christological themes of Revelation. If you look at the patristic sources, Rev. 3:14 was not at all a topic of debate during the Christological controversies, neither side cited it in support or denial. In Jude 1:4 the variant "Theon" is similarly isolated and does not reflect a systematic effort to alter the text. Variants like these are common in textual transmission and often result from scribal errors or regional preferences. The overall integrity of the NT text is well-established. Thousands of MSS, including early papyri like P46 and P52, demonstrate a remarkable consistency in the transmission of the text. The few isolated variants do not undermine this integrity.
You wrote: "Until I get a substantial answer, I will assume the Tetragrammaton was in the original writings."
This position is based on an argument from silence. The absence of evidence for the Tetragrammaton in the NT cannot be used as evidence for its original presence. Instead, the consistent use of Κύριος in all extant MSS supports the conclusion that this was the original reading. The LXX consistently uses Κύριος as the equivalent of YHWH. Early Christians, including Paul, inherited this tradition and used it in their writings. There is no evidence that the Tetragrammaton was ever included in the Greek NT. If the Tetragrammaton had been present in the original writings, we would expect to find at least some MSS that retain it. The absence of such evidence across thousands of MSS is a strong argument against its original inclusion.
All in all, your argument rests on pure speculation and lacks MS evidence. The textual tradition of the NT consistently uses Κύριος, reflecting its inheritance from the LXX. Variants like "Christ" and "Lord" in 1 Cor. 2:16 can be explained by well-documented scribal tendencies, such as harmonization and clarification. There is no evidence of a systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton, and the use of Κύριος aligns with early Christian theology, which affirmed Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH. The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton was present in the original writings remains unsubstantiated and is contradicted by the overwhelming MS evidence.
Nincsnevem, I've got other things going today, but you wrote: "This aligns with the evidence from P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, where the Tetragrammaton appears as a recensional addition."
Firstly, the evidence from pre-Christian LXX copies overwhelmingly favors any reading but kurios. Now someone can say YHWH is there because of rescension or that it was there originally but it's there and to claim that it's in the text because of rescension is a hypothesis or suggestion, not a fact. I'll wait until more evidence is available before agreeing with Pietersma. After all, the arguably greatest living textual critic in OT studies takes issue with him. I contend that there is no way you can know with 100% certainty that kurios was the original reading of pre-LXX texts. As others have pointed out, both Origen and Jerome say otherwise.
Pietersma's hypothesis, supported by scholars like Sean M. McDonough, Jannes Smith, Natalio Fernández Marcos, Larry Perkins and Martin Rösel argues convincingly that the reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew reflects recension rather than original translation. This position is based on:
1. The fragmentary nature of the evidence for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX.
2. The broader manuscript tradition, where κύριος dominates.
3. Recensional trends in Second Temple Judaism, such as the Kaige recension, which sought to harmonize the LXX with the Hebrew text.
While you dismiss this as a hypothesis, it is a hypothesis built on robust textual and historical analysis.
You cite Origen and Jerome as evidence that κύριος was not the original rendering. However, their statements must be interpreted in context. Origen's Hexapla included multiple columns of the Hebrew and Greek texts. In places where the Hebrew text had the Tetragrammaton, Origen preserved it in paleo-Hebrew script in his Greek column. This decision reflects Origen's scholarly and theological interest in preserving the Hebrew tradition, not necessarily the original practice of the LXX translators. The Hexapla’s inclusion of the Tetragrammaton does not prove its originality in the OG but reflects Origen’s effort to align his Greek text with the Hebrew exemplar. Jerome observed that Jewish traditions used the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or substituted it with Adonai. His Vulgate translation adhered to these traditions in specific ways. However, Jerome’s comments primarily reflect his awareness of Jewish liturgical practices rather than a definitive statement about the OG rendering.
The claim that pre-Christian LXX copies overwhelmingly favor readings other than κύριος (e.g., YHWH or ΙΑΩ) is exaggerated. The handful of fragmentary texts containing the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ, such as P. Fouad 266 and 4Q120, represent localized or sectarian practices. They do not reflect the majority tradition of the OG.Manuscripts with the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ are exceptions, not the rule. While these exceptions are valuable for understanding textual diversity, they do not override the dominant pattern of κύριος in the manuscript tradition. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in specific texts like 8HevXIIgr reflects later editorial efforts to align Greek texts with Hebrew liturgical traditions. These are examples of recension, not original translation practice.
The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton was inserted during later recensions is well-supported by the broader textual tradition. As Kristin De Troyer emphasizes, distinguishing between original and recensional forms is challenging, but the consistency of κύριος in most OG manuscripts strongly suggests its primacy. Pietersma argues that the Tetragrammaton’s appearance in paleo-Hebrew in specific texts is a secondary, archaizing development. This aligns with the broader trend of recension in Second Temple Judaism.
Meyer accuses Pietersma of circular reasoning but falls into the same trap by presuming the originality of the Tetragrammaton and interpreting the evidence accordingly. For example, Meyer acknowledges that there is no proof linking the Tetragrammaton to the earliest OG texts, and he also concedes that the evidence for the Tetragrammaton is too fragmentary to provide definitive conclusions. Pietersma’s position aligns with a broad consensus among textual scholars that κύριος was the original rendering in the OG. The critiques highlight methodological challenges but do not invalidate the dominant position.
" However, their statements must be interpreted in context." - what context is that? the actaul context? or yours? I think what your trying to do is impose your beliefs in a system that simply doesn't agree with your claims.. a square peg in a round hole if you will. We have scholars who agree with Jehovah's Witnesses on the subject of the Tetra - I remember when people said there was no way the Tetra was in the LXX either... they got proven wrong didn't they. Turns out every pre-christian manuscript contains some form or another of it.
"Origen's scholarly and theological interest in preserving the Hebrew tradition, not necessarily the original practice of the LXX translators." - Origen also said somewhere that the Tetragrammaton in the LXX was the "most accurate" or "most original" (these are paraphrases, but he said something similar).. I'm inclined to believe "the most honest scholar in history" (I believe Britannica says this) Ill post the quote later, hopefully before Edgar shuts down the blog
"Pietersma’s position aligns with a broad consensus among textual scholars that κύριος was the original rendering in the OG." - broad consensus? really? - I don't think so.. I don't even think Pietersma would agree with you there.
The context in which Origen and Jerome discussed the Tetragrammaton is not subjective or invented but grounded in their own writings and historical circumstances. Origen's Hexapla and Jerome's Vulgate reflect a deep engagement with Hebrew texts and Jewish traditions, rather than an "original" rendering of the LXX. Specifically, Origen’s use of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew in his Hexapla does not prove that it was part of the original Greek translation of the LXX. Instead, it was a recensional choice to align the Greek text with Hebrew traditions. As Pietersma and De Troyer argue, the appearance of the Tetragrammaton in certain MSS represents later editorial insertions, not the original translation practice of the LXX. Similarly, Jerome explicitly acknowledges that Jewish scribes replaced the Tetragrammaton with “Adonai” in their liturgical readings and MSS. His observation aligns with the broader practice of substituting Κύριος for YHWH in Greek texts, which reflects the theological and linguistic norms of Second Temple Judaism. By contrast, your claim that these historical figures affirm the originality of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX lacks substantive evidence and misrepresents their intent. Origen and Jerome's statements are better understood as reflecting recensional efforts, not the OG.
While some fragmentary pre-Christian MSS do feature the Tetragrammaton (e.g., P. Fouad 266, 4Q120), these examples are localized and exceptional rather than representative of the broader LXX tradition. The vast majority of LXX MSS, including later witnesses like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, consistently use Κύριος as the rendering of YHWH. This overwhelming textual tradition strongly supports the conclusion that Κύριος was the original rendering in the LXX, rather than the Tetragrammaton. MSS like 8HevXIIgr, which include the Tetragrammaton, represent recensional trends aimed at harmonizing Greek texts with Hebrew liturgical practices. As Pietersma notes, such examples are indicative of secondary editorial activities, not original translation practices. Even Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary Jewish philosopher, consistently uses Κύριος in his biblical citations, confirming that Κύριος was the normative Greek rendering of the Divine Name during his time. Thus, the claim that "every pre-Christian MS contains some form of the Tetragrammaton" is not supported by the broader MS tradition.
While Origen did describe certain MSS that preserved the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew as "accurate," this does not mean he regarded such MSS as representative of the original LXX. Wilkinson says (https://t.ly/iqy9N ) one might assume that Origen refers specifically to the version of Aquila of Sinope, which follows the Hebrew text very closely, but he may perhaps refer to Greek versions in general. Origen’s Hexapla was an academic tool designed to compare the Hebrew text with various Greek translations. His inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew reflects his desire to preserve the Hebrew tradition, not necessarily the practices of the original LXX translators. Origen’s broader corpus demonstrates his use of Κύριος in citations of the LXX, which aligns with the standard textual tradition. For example, his writings frequently equate the Divine Name with Κύριος, indicating that he regarded this as the normative rendering. The notion that Origen considered the Tetragrammaton "most original" is therefore speculative and unsupported by his actual writings.
The statement that Κύριος represents a "broad consensus" among textual scholars is well-documented and accurate. Scholars like Pietersma, De Troyer, and Rösel have extensively argued for the originality of Κύριος based on both textual and historical evidence. The predominance of Κύριος across the LXX MS tradition underscores its originality. The few examples of the Tetragrammaton are anomalies that reflect later recensional activity. The substitution of Κύριος for YHWH aligns with the linguistic and theological practices of Hellenistic Judaism, which sought to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name. This practice is further corroborated by Philo and the NT, both of which consistently use Κύριος when referencing the Hebrew Scriptures. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in certain MSS (e.g., P. Fouad 266) is better understood as a recensional attempt to "re-Hebraize" the Greek text, rather than evidence of original translation practices. While some scholars (e.g., Meyer, Howard) have argued for the originality of the Tetragrammaton, their conclusions are speculative and often rely on fragmentary evidence that does not represent the broader MS tradition.
All in all, you arguments lack historical and textual substantiation. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports the conclusion that Κύριος was the original rendering of YHWH in the LXX, and the limited examples of the Tetragrammaton reflect later recensional trends rather than original translation practices. Scholarly consensus, MS tradition, and the internal evidence of the LXX itself all affirm the primacy of Κύριος as the surrogate for the Divine Name in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
23 comments:
Both Pietersma and Jannes Smith agree that P. Oxy 5101 retains the OG character with the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton being its only recensional trait. This suggests that the original translation used κύριος and that the insertion of the Tetragrammaton reflects a later editorial effort. Smith’s suggestion that the Psalter emulated the Pentateuch’s supposed use of κύριος further strengthens Pietersma’s hypothesis. The presence of the Tetragrammaton here is not evidence of originality but of revision, likely motivated by Jewish liturgical preferences to preserve the divine name in its Hebrew form. The insertion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script is consistent with recensional trends observed in other MSS, such as P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr. These texts were revised to align with Hebrew traditions, likely to counteract Christian readings of the LXX that consistently used κύριος. Meyer dismisses the correlation between recensional activity and the Tetragrammaton, but the evidence from the broader MS tradition (e.g., the Kaige recension) overwhelmingly supports the idea that the Tetragrammaton was reintroduced during later revisions, not as part of the OG.
While 4Q120 contains ΙΑΩ as a transliteration of YHWH, this does not indicate a uniform practice across all LXX MSS. Other Qumran texts, such as 4Q122, are too fragmentary to analyze definitively, and the majority of Greek MSS from this period (e.g., 4Q119 and 4Q121) do not provide clear evidence of widespread use of ΙΑΩ. As numerous scholars have pointed out, the diversity in Qumran texts reflects regional or sectarian preferences rather than a standardized practice in the OG. The use of ΙΑΩ appears to be a transliteration rather than a translation of YHWH, which aligns with the observation that it was a secondary feature introduced by specific communities. This is consistent with the broader trend of paleo-Hebrew insertions as a means of preserving the sanctity of the divine name in Jewish contexts. The lack of ΙΑΩ in the majority of extant LXX MSS, especially Christian copies, strongly suggests that it was not the original rendering.
The Jewish practice of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH during oral readings naturally influenced the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The translators of the LXX rendered YHWH as κύριος to reflect this tradition, ensuring that the text could be read aloud in Jewish liturgical contexts without pronouncing the divine name. This practice is corroborated by the consistent use of κύριος in the majority of LXX MSS, as well as in NT quotations of the OT. If the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ were original to the LXX, we would expect to find transitional MSS showing a gradual replacement with κύριος. However, no such evidence exists. Instead, the uniformity of κύριος in both Jewish and Christian MSS points to its primacy. The insertion of the Tetragrammaton in later MSS, such as P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, reflects a revisionist effort to reintroduce the divine name rather than evidence of its original use.
Meyer criticizes Pietersma for allegedly using circular reasoning to support the originality of κύριος. However, Meyer himself engages in circular reasoning by presuming the originality of the Tetragrammaton and interpreting the evidence to fit this conclusion. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in a handful of fragmentary MSS, such as P. Oxy 5101 and 4Q120, does not outweigh the overwhelming textual evidence for κύριος. These exceptions are better understood as reflecting specific editorial choices rather than the original translation practice.
Thanks for the reference, Edgar. Based on the pages you've provided it appears that the author takes a dispassionate approach, which I appreciate. Based on a Google search, it appears that this was originally the author's thesis, later presented in book form.
Sean, you're welcome. I think Meyer is dispassionate and he's carefully analyzed the LXX manuscripts. If you type in Meyer on my blog, you will find a link I posted for his dissertation.
Nincsnevem, you speak of P. Oxy 5101 having a rescensional trait, but there's no way that you can know YHWH is rescensional there with absolute certainty. Meyer explains this point well. The fact that Pietersma's claim is a hypothesis should tell you that one can't be dogmatic about his position.
I do not think that Meyer assumes the originality of the Tetra. Where does he say that?
Doing some further reserach it is HIGHLY likely that atleast till the early second century the Tetra (in some form was used)
coupling this with the variant in 1 corin 2:16, and me not getting a substantial explanation - I would say the Tetra is orignla in atleast one case
Meyer himself acknowledges the fragmentary nature of P. Oxy 5101, stating, "the evidence... is too fragmentary to give decisive evidence for the procedure of writing the Tetragrammaton." While Meyer critiques the criteria for identifying the Tetragrammaton as a recensional trait, he does not provide conclusive proof that the Tetra was part of the OG. In fact, he explicitly states that there is "no proof" linking the presence of the Tetragrammaton to the textual character of early OG revisions. This leaves open the possibility that its presence reflects a later insertion or specific scribal practice, not the original reading. Pietersma and Jannes Smith argue that the Tetra is a secondary, archaizing development, consistent with recensional tendencies, which suggests it was introduced later in the MS tradition to align with Hebrew exemplars.
While P. Oxy 5101 has been described as a genuine OG witness, this characterization pertains to its overall Septuagintal character, not the presence of the Tetragrammaton, which remains debated. Meyer himself states that "scholars agree that Greek texts with the Tetra contain evidence of revision towards a Hebrew exemplar," highlighting that the Tetra is typically associated with attempts to harmonize Greek texts with the Hebrew Bible. Kristin De Troyer emphasizes the uncertainty of distinguishing between original forms and recensions, especially in cases like the Nahal Hever scrolls, where the Tetra is considered part of a Kaige recension. This caution applies equally to P. Oxy 5101.
The presence of the Tetragrammaton in some second-century texts does not establish its originality in the OG. The survival of texts containing the Tetragrammaton may simply reflect localized practices among Jewish scribes who sought to preserve the Divine Name in paleo-Hebrew or Greek transliteration (e.g., ΙΑΩ). Early Christian MSS, such as the NT texts, universally use κύριος rather than the Tetra. This strongly suggests that the early Church inherited and transmitted the OG tradition with κύριος as the replacement for the Tetra, consistent with the Septuagintal tradition seen in other OG MSS. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in early Christian texts supports Pietersma's hypothesis that κύριος was the original rendering in the OG and that the Tetragrammaton represents a later development in specific MS traditions.
The textual variation between κύριος and Χριστός in 1 Cor. 2:16 does not support the claim that the Tetragrammaton was original in the OG or NT. Instead, it reflects a scribal effort to harmonize the text with existing theological interpretations. As Meyer and others note, Paul frequently uses κύριος to refer to Jesus, integrating him into the divine identity as seen in the rearticulation of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6. This usage aligns with the OG tradition of rendering the Divine Name as κύριος. There is no textual evidence from the NT MSS that Paul or any other NT writer used the Tetra. This absence is decisive, as the NT authors relied heavily on the OG for their scriptural citations.
While Meyer critiques the methodology for identifying the Tetra as recensional, he does not claim the Tetra is definitively original. In fact, he states that the presence of the Tetragrammaton "does not decisively answer the question of the earliest OG rendering." Meyer’s acknowledgment of the complexity of the issue reinforces the uncertainty surrounding the Tetra’s status in the OG, aligning with the cautious conclusions of Pietersma and others.
The majority of OG MSS, including early Psalters and other LXX texts, consistently use κύριος for the Divine Name. The use of the Tetragrammaton in some MSS likely reflects a revisionary trend, not an original feature. Theological considerations, such as the adoption of the OG by early Christians, further support κύριος as the original reading. The Christian community’s widespread and exclusive use of κύριος aligns with a longstanding tradition in the OG, predating any recensional developments involving the Tetra.
@Anon
I agree that 1 Cor. 2:16 strongly suggests that the divine name appeared in the original NT writings. Also, the argument is a cumulative case, and this is just one datum that informs that argument.
@Sean Kasabuske
The text of the NA28 uses the Greek term Κυρίου (Lord) rather than inserting the Tetragrammaton in any form, including Paleo-Hebrew or transliterations such as ΙΑΩ. The consistent manuscript tradition does not suggest any earlier version of this passage with the Tetragrammaton. Instead, it reflects the Septuagintal usage, where Κύριος substitutes for YHWH in OT quotations. Paul's citation in 1 Cor. 2:16 is derived from Isa. 40:13, where the LXX already uses νοῦν Κυρίου ("mind of the Lord") instead of explicitly retaining the Tetragrammaton. The consistency between Paul's quotation and the LXX reinforces the view that Paul followed the prevailing Jewish Greek textual tradition, which rendered YHWH as Κύριος. The LXX's substitution of Κύριος for the Tetragrammaton aligns with the Hellenistic Jewish practice of reverence for God's name. Early Christians adopted this tradition when using the Greek Scriptures.
Several scholars, including Meyer and others, highlight the importance of the LXX tradition in shaping the NT's use of the OT. While Meyer critiques some assumptions regarding recension theories, his observations about the limited evidence for the Tetragrammaton's presence in the Greek manuscripts do not provide conclusive support for its originality in the NT. Kristin De Troyer and others argue that while some Greek manuscripts of the LXX (like P. Oxy 5101) include the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew script, these cases are exceptional and do not reflect a universal or original practice. Instead, they represent later revisions or variations.
The claim of a "cumulative case" for the Tetragrammaton in the NT faces several challenges. No extant Greek NT manuscript includes the Tetragrammaton in any form. The consistent use of "Κύριος" across manuscripts argues against the hypothesis of YHWH's inclusion in the originals. Suggesting the Tetragrammaton based on limited and fragmentary LXX evidence does not constitute proof. Even P. Oxy 5101's use of the Tetragrammaton in the Psalms is debated and does not provide a precedent for NT usage.
The text of 1 Cor. 2:16 juxtaposes the "mind of the Lord" with the "mind of Christ." This parallelism is a deliberate theological assertion by Paul of Christ's divine identity. Introducing the Tetragrammaton into this passage would obscure Paul's intended identification of Κύριος (Lord) with Jesus Christ, consistent with early Christian Christological monotheism.
@Ninc,
You've already said that you reject my view of 1 Cor. 2:16, so there was no need to repeat yourself.
I disagree with you. I think it likely that a form of the divine name appeared there originally, and then when the surrogation took place, someone replaced the divine name with "Lord," which created a nonsense sentence, and so subsequent scribes changed "Lord" to "Christ".
As I said, it's a cumulative case argument, and this is just one datum.
Nincsnevem, lets quote Meyer verbatim:
"There is no proof that the reason for the Tetragrammaton
is caused by or inherent to the textual character of early revisions of the Old Greek" (page 243).
That sounds like a criticism of Pietersma's view, not an endorsement.
See also https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111326511-005/pdf?licenseType=open-access
Meyer also writes:
"Stegemann, Skehan, and others have long noted that regardless of what was written in Greek biblical manuscripts, most likely κύριος was pronounced in reading. This would clearly pertain to the evidence of Greek biblical scrolls using the Tetragrammaton, but the implications of manuscripts with ιαω are less clear. This casts some doubt on the view that at least in speech κύριος would have gone back to the original translation" (243).
@Sean Kasabuske
The majority of MSS, including early witnesses like 𝔓46, Vaticanus, and many Byzantine MSS, read Χριστοῦ. This reflects Paul’s deliberate theological assertion of Christ’s identity and his role in salvation history. A minority of MSS (e.g., Claromontanus) read Κυρίου. The presence of Κυρίου is better understood as a harmonization with the first part of the verse, where Isa. 40:13 is quoted with Κυρίου as the translation of YHWH. The LXX consistently uses Κύριος to translate YHWH in the OT. When Paul cites Isa. 40:13, he follows this convention:
"Τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου, ὃς συμβιβάσει αὐτόν;"
("For who has understood the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?")
The LXX’s use of Κύριος here reflects Jewish reverence for the divine name. There is no evidence in any extant LXX MSS or early NT MSS that ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton was used in this passage. The textual variants of 1 Cor. 2:16 can be explained without resorting to speculative theories about the Tetragrammaton. Scribes may have introduced Κυρίου in the second clause to harmonize it with the first clause, which quotes Isa. 40:13. This is a common scribal tendency seen throughout the textual tradition of the NT. Other scribes may have changed Κυρίου to Χριστοῦ to clarify Paul’s theological point: that Christians possess the "mind of Christ," which aligns with Pauline Christology. This reading avoids ambiguity and emphasizes the unity between Christ and God. Paul intentionally juxtaposes Κυρίου in the quotation from Isa. 40:13 with Χριστοῦ in the following clause. This highlights Christ's divine identity, consistent with Paul's Christological monotheism (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6).
The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton appeared in the original NT texts lacks empirical support. All extant NT MSS consistently use Κύριος or Θεός in place of the Tetragrammaton. If the divine name were original, we would expect to find at least transitional evidence, but none exists. The writings of the early Church Fathers, who extensively quoted and commented on the NT, show no awareness of the Tetragrammaton in the NT text. Instead, they consistently affirm the use of Κύριος. Paul regularly uses Κύριος to refer both to God (the Father) and to Jesus Christ, integrating Jesus into the divine identity. Introducing the Tetragrammaton into this passage would undermine Paul’s theological argument and disrupt the continuity between his Jewish and Christian audiences.
The first instance of Κύριος in 1 Cor. 2:16 refers to God, following Isa. 40:13. The second instance (in the variant Χριστοῦ) refers to Christ. Paul frequently uses Κύριος in this dual sense, as seen in passages like Phil. 2:9-11 and Rom. 10:9-13. The juxtaposition of Κύριος and Χριστοῦ emphasizes the shared divine identity of God and Christ, a key theme in Pauline theology.
This is an argument like saying that because four witnesses at trial testified that the defendant was wearing a white shirt at the time of the crime, while one witness said he was wearing a blue one, it follows that he was actually dressed as Ronald McDonald.
The question becomes: how that one* scribe would fail to see the obvious contradiction in "We don't have the mind of the Lord" and "We have the mind of the Lord" (paraphrasing)
We have to assume in this case the scribe was stupid... especially since in the examples of manuscripts I have access to both "Christ" and "Lord" are written as nomina sacra, indicated likely the "Lord" for the B (non quotation section) would also have been in nomina sacra (infact the one "double Lord" variant I do have access too has both in nomina sacra)
This is not harmonising this is creating a contradiction considering this is not an instance like Psalm 110:1 where the "Lords" are clearly separated by the use of a pronoun - restricting the sense of the noun.
Harmonising cannot be used as an excuse to justify ones belief, there needs to be substantial evidence that this was actually harmonising. & simply there is no evidence to indicate this was as such - I could understand if the quote was changed, perhaps... but to say the B section is harmonised - I find that unlikely unless the scribe was completely dense and didn't do what other writers did back then.
"it reflects a scribal effort to harmonize the text with existing theological interpretations." - without making a clear line as to who was who? like psalms 110:1 Where the quotes retain the pronoun for the distinction. Which does not exist in the variant.. Where both are nomina sacra..
again harmonizing with what? this variant is rather early and later changed back to "Christ"
"harmonization" isnt a get out of jail free card sorry Ninc.. you cant just use that as an excuse without actaul evidence. (which has not been provided)
There are variants that I would say, yes you are 110% correct and it is likely the case - These two and some others I am in doubt - It is not unknown for later "trinitarian" motiavted people to change writings Jerome v Rufinus - Where Jerome states explicitly something alone the lines "Origen's texts were full of references to Christ as a creation" (citation available on request, since I would have to dig it out)
The only remaining evidence of this is 1(I believe) use of "ktisma"
until I get a substantial answer for this (specifically from Ninc) I will assume the Tetra was in the ORIGINAL writings.
(again without the Tetra the trinity thrives - with the tetra, The trinity is debuked - as "Lord" and "Yaho" would be separated)
and the sense of "Lord" is made clear. (to trinitarians)
Rev 3:14 also has a fourth century variant where Christ is not "The beginning of creation of God" but rather "The beginning of the ecclesia of God"
Its funny that this variant is listed as fourth century because this rules Christ out completely from being a "creation"
Jude 1:4 has a similar variant with "Theon"
* Im assuming "one" for this argument.
@Edgar Foster
Meyer’s critique is aimed at methodological overreach in certain arguments, not at disproving Pietersma’s hypothesis outright. Pietersma and Jannes Smith maintain that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew is a secondary feature, consistent with recensional tendencies. Meyer himself acknowledges:
"P. Oxy 5101... is a genuine OG witness of the Psalter, but it also contains the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton... Pietersma states that '[o]n balance nothing impresses me more about 5101 than its early date and its thoroughly Septuagintal character notwithstanding its sole recensional trait, namely, the replacement of Κύριος by the tetragram in palaeo-Hebrew script.'"
This aligns with the broader consensus that the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton was reintroduced in certain Greek texts as part of later revisions, reflecting Jewish liturgical practices aimed at preserving the divine name in its original form. Meyer’s comment about the lack of definitive proof concerns the difficulty of ascribing specific revisions to all cases, but it does not negate the overall evidence for Κύριος as the original OG rendering.
While Meyer notes that the pronunciation of Κύριος in liturgical contexts is not definitive proof of its originality, this does not undermine the textual evidence for Κύριος as the standard Greek rendering in the majority of OG MSS. The uniformity of Κύριος in both Christian and Jewish LXX MSS, especially in NT citations of the OT, supports its primacy. Meyer himself acknowledges the fragmentary nature of P. Oxy 5101, stating:
"The evidence... is too fragmentary to give decisive evidence for the procedure of writing the Tetragrammaton."
Thus, P. Oxy 5101 cannot be used to assert the originality of the Tetragrammaton in the OG.
Your response implies that ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton may have been original in the OG. However, the broader MS tradition does not support this claim. For example, while 4Q120 uses ΙΑΩ to transliterate the Tetragrammaton, it represents a localized practice rather than a universal standard. As numerous scholars have pointed out, ΙΑΩ reflects transliteration rather than translation, and its presence in a limited number of texts suggests sectarian preferences rather than an original feature of the OG. De Troyer emphasizes the difficulty of distinguishing between original forms and later recensions. The Kaige recension, which sought to align the Greek text with Hebrew exemplars, often introduced the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script as a revisionary feature. This aligns with the evidence from P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, where the Tetragrammaton appears as a recensional addition. The consistent use of Κύριος in Christian LXX MSS and in NT quotations reflects its established role as the standard rendering of YHWH. This practice was inherited from Jewish scribal traditions, where "Adonai" was substituted for the Tetragrammaton during oral readings, and Κύριος became the natural Greek equivalent.
The overwhelming textual evidence in favor of Κύριος, combined with the absence of transitional MSS showing a shift from the Tetragrammaton to Κύριος, strongly supports its primacy. If the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ had been original, we would expect to find transitional MSS with mixed usage of Κύριος and the Tetragrammaton, and NT citations of the OT using the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ. Instead, the consistent use of Κύριος across Jewish and Christian texts suggests it was the original rendering, with the Tetragrammaton reintroduced in specific cases to reflect Hebrew liturgical preferences.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The Jokiranta article highlights that the Tetragrammaton was not universally used or avoided in the DSS. Instead, the DSS exhibit varied practices depending on the textual and liturgical context. For instance, Sectarian Scrolls (e.g., the Community Rule and Damascus Document) often avoid the Tetragrammaton, favoring "El" or "Elohim" instead. Apotropaic or exorcistic texts sometimes retain the Tetragrammaton for its perceived ritual power. However, such usage is context-specific and reflects the DSS community's unique theological and liturgical concerns, not a universal norm for Jewish usage of the divine name. This diversity undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton’s presence in some DSS texts implies a universal or normative practice for early Christians. The Tetragrammaton was not ubiquitous even among Jewish sects like the Qumran community.
The article highlights mixed evidence regarding the use of the Tetragrammaton in early Greek translations, Some Greek MSS retain the divine name in Paleo-Hebrew or transliterations like ΙΑΩ; others use substitutes like Κύριος, particularly in liturgical or public contexts. This mixture indicates that Κύριος was already an established substitution for YHWH in Greek-speaking Jewish communities by the Second Temple period. The NT writers, predominantly using the LXX, naturally adopted this convention.
The DSS reveal that avoidance of the Tetragrammaton was often due to theological, ritual, or scribal concerns. In the Community Rule (1QS) and Damascus Document (CD), misuse of divine names in oaths was banned, reflecting a concern for reverence rather than a universal avoidance of the name itself. The frequent substitution of "El" or "Elohim" aligns with the Qumran sect’s preference for emphasizing God’s transcendence rather than directly invoking YHWH. The avoidance of YHWH in the DSS does not support the claim that the Tetragrammaton should have appeared in the NT. Instead, it highlights that early Jewish practices varied widely, often favoring substitutes like "El" or Κύριος.
The article briefly mentions that some scholars trace the use of Κύριος to pre-Christian Jewish practices. This is corroborated by the LXX’s substitution of Κύριος for YHWH, and Jewish liturgical traditions emphasizing reverence through substitutes. Early Christians, many of whom were Hellenistic Jews, inherited the tradition of using Κύριος in place of YHWH. This usage aligns with Jewish scribal conventions and reflects their reverence for the divine name.
You implicitly assume that practices found in sectarian DSS texts reflect universal Jewish norms during the Second Temple period. However, the Qumran community was highly sectarian and isolated, emphasizing distinct practices not shared by mainstream Judaism or early Christians. The DSS themselves reveal a diversity of practices, even within the Qumran corpus, with no consistent pattern regarding the Tetragrammaton. Early Christian use of Κύριος in the NT reflects mainstream Jewish practices as seen in the LXX, not the idiosyncratic practices of the Qumran sect.
@Anonymous
The suggestion that a scribe would need to be "stupid" to harmonize the text misrepresents the nature of scribal practices in antiquity. Scribal harmonization is a well-documented phenomenon in textual criticism, and it was not always driven by deep theological concerns but rather by a desire for internal consistency or stylistic smoothing. The variant readings in 1 Cor. 2:16 likely reflect such tendencies. As noted in Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, scribes frequently altered texts to align them with other familiar passages or to resolve perceived inconsistencies. The change from Χριστοῦ to Κυρίου in the second clause aligns the passage with the quotation from Isa. 40:13 in the first clause. This does not require ignorance or carelessness; it reflects an attempt to bring coherence to the text, even if that coherence was based on a misunderstanding of Paul's theological intent. The use of nomina sacra (e.g., ΚΣ for Κυρίου and ΧΣ for Χριστοῦ) does not inherently prevent harmonization. The shorthand nature of nomina sacra might have even facilitated such alterations, as scribes could easily conflate abbreviations when copying a passage. Other examples of harmonization exist where scribes made changes that introduced ambiguities or contradictions. The fact that such changes occurred demonstrates that scribes were not always focused on theological precision. Thus, claiming that a scribe would need to be "stupid" to harmonize the text overlooks the historical evidence for scribal tendencies.
Harmonization does not require extraordinary evidence; it is a recognized scribal phenomenon. In the case of 1 Cor. 2:16, the dominant textual tradition reads Χριστοῦ, but a minority of MSS read Κυρίου. This minority reading aligns with the quotation from Isa. 40:13 in the first clause. The parallelism suggests that a scribe may have harmonized the second clause with the first. Theologically, "Christ" fits better in the second clause because Paul is contrasting the incomprehensible "mind of the Lord" (YHWH) with the believer's possession of the "mind of Christ." The substitution of "Lord" in the second clause disrupts this theological flow, making it more likely that "Lord" is a secondary, harmonizing alteration. Textual critics often favor the "harder reading"—the one that scribes would be less likely to create. In this case, "Christ" is the harder reading because it introduces a contrast between the "Lord" (YHWH) and "Christ," whereas "Lord" would create a simpler parallelism. These points collectively provide substantial evidence for harmonization. The claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the NT is purely speculative. No MS evidence supports the idea that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was ever present in the original Greek texts. Instead, the consistent use of Κύριος across all extant MSS reflects the textual tradition inherited from the LXX.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The textual variants in Rev. 3:14 and Jude 1:4 do not support a broader claim of systematic theological tampering: The variant reading "the ARCHĒ of the ecclesia of God" is found in a single late MS and is not representative of the broader textual tradition. The overwhelming MS evidence supports the reading "the ARCHĒ of the creation of God," which aligns with the Christological themes of Revelation. If you look at the patristic sources, Rev. 3:14 was not at all a topic of debate during the Christological controversies, neither side cited it in support or denial. In Jude 1:4 the variant "Theon" is similarly isolated and does not reflect a systematic effort to alter the text. Variants like these are common in textual transmission and often result from scribal errors or regional preferences. The overall integrity of the NT text is well-established. Thousands of MSS, including early papyri like P46 and P52, demonstrate a remarkable consistency in the transmission of the text. The few isolated variants do not undermine this integrity.
You wrote: "Until I get a substantial answer, I will assume the Tetragrammaton was in the original writings."
This position is based on an argument from silence. The absence of evidence for the Tetragrammaton in the NT cannot be used as evidence for its original presence. Instead, the consistent use of Κύριος in all extant MSS supports the conclusion that this was the original reading. The LXX consistently uses Κύριος as the equivalent of YHWH. Early Christians, including Paul, inherited this tradition and used it in their writings. There is no evidence that the Tetragrammaton was ever included in the Greek NT. If the Tetragrammaton had been present in the original writings, we would expect to find at least some MSS that retain it. The absence of such evidence across thousands of MSS is a strong argument against its original inclusion.
All in all, your argument rests on pure speculation and lacks MS evidence. The textual tradition of the NT consistently uses Κύριος, reflecting its inheritance from the LXX. Variants like "Christ" and "Lord" in 1 Cor. 2:16 can be explained by well-documented scribal tendencies, such as harmonization and clarification. There is no evidence of a systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton, and the use of Κύριος aligns with early Christian theology, which affirmed Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH. The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton was present in the original writings remains unsubstantiated and is contradicted by the overwhelming MS evidence.
Nincsnevem, I've got other things going today, but you wrote: "This aligns with the evidence from P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, where the Tetragrammaton appears as a recensional addition."
Firstly, the evidence from pre-Christian LXX copies overwhelmingly favors any reading but kurios. Now someone can say YHWH is there because of rescension or that it was there originally but it's there and to claim that it's in the text because of rescension is a hypothesis or suggestion, not a fact. I'll wait until more evidence is available before agreeing with Pietersma. After all, the arguably greatest living textual critic in OT studies takes issue with him. I contend that there is no way you can know with 100% certainty that kurios was the original reading of pre-LXX texts. As others have pointed out, both Origen and Jerome say otherwise.
I treat Pietersma's suggestion the same way that I treat Q advocates: a hypothesis is not a theory, much less is it a fact.
@Edgar Foster
Pietersma's hypothesis, supported by scholars like Sean M. McDonough, Jannes Smith, Natalio Fernández Marcos, Larry Perkins and Martin Rösel argues convincingly that the reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew reflects recension rather than original translation. This position is based on:
1. The fragmentary nature of the evidence for the Tetragrammaton in the LXX.
2. The broader manuscript tradition, where κύριος dominates.
3. Recensional trends in Second Temple Judaism, such as the Kaige recension, which sought to harmonize the LXX with the Hebrew text.
While you dismiss this as a hypothesis, it is a hypothesis built on robust textual and historical analysis.
You cite Origen and Jerome as evidence that κύριος was not the original rendering. However, their statements must be interpreted in context. Origen's Hexapla included multiple columns of the Hebrew and Greek texts. In places where the Hebrew text had the Tetragrammaton, Origen preserved it in paleo-Hebrew script in his Greek column. This decision reflects Origen's scholarly and theological interest in preserving the Hebrew tradition, not necessarily the original practice of the LXX translators. The Hexapla’s inclusion of the Tetragrammaton does not prove its originality in the OG but reflects Origen’s effort to align his Greek text with the Hebrew exemplar. Jerome observed that Jewish traditions used the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or substituted it with Adonai. His Vulgate translation adhered to these traditions in specific ways. However, Jerome’s comments primarily reflect his awareness of Jewish liturgical practices rather than a definitive statement about the OG rendering.
The claim that pre-Christian LXX copies overwhelmingly favor readings other than κύριος (e.g., YHWH or ΙΑΩ) is exaggerated. The handful of fragmentary texts containing the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ, such as P. Fouad 266 and 4Q120, represent localized or sectarian practices. They do not reflect the majority tradition of the OG.Manuscripts with the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ are exceptions, not the rule. While these exceptions are valuable for understanding textual diversity, they do not override the dominant pattern of κύριος in the manuscript tradition. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in specific texts like 8HevXIIgr reflects later editorial efforts to align Greek texts with Hebrew liturgical traditions. These are examples of recension, not original translation practice.
The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton was inserted during later recensions is well-supported by the broader textual tradition. As Kristin De Troyer emphasizes, distinguishing between original and recensional forms is challenging, but the consistency of κύριος in most OG manuscripts strongly suggests its primacy. Pietersma argues that the Tetragrammaton’s appearance in paleo-Hebrew in specific texts is a secondary, archaizing development. This aligns with the broader trend of recension in Second Temple Judaism.
Meyer accuses Pietersma of circular reasoning but falls into the same trap by presuming the originality of the Tetragrammaton and interpreting the evidence accordingly. For example, Meyer acknowledges that there is no proof linking the Tetragrammaton to the earliest OG texts, and he also concedes that the evidence for the Tetragrammaton is too fragmentary to provide definitive conclusions. Pietersma’s position aligns with a broad consensus among textual scholars that κύριος was the original rendering in the OG. The critiques highlight methodological challenges but do not invalidate the dominant position.
" However, their statements must be interpreted in context." - what context is that? the actaul context? or yours?
I think what your trying to do is impose your beliefs in a system that simply doesn't agree with your claims.. a square peg in a round hole if you will.
We have scholars who agree with Jehovah's Witnesses on the subject of the Tetra - I remember when people said there was no way the Tetra was in the LXX either... they got proven wrong didn't they. Turns out every pre-christian manuscript contains some form or another of it.
"Origen's scholarly and theological interest in preserving the Hebrew tradition, not necessarily the original practice of the LXX translators." - Origen also said somewhere that the Tetragrammaton in the LXX was the "most accurate" or "most original" (these are paraphrases, but he said something similar).. I'm inclined to believe "the most honest scholar in history" (I believe Britannica says this)
Ill post the quote later, hopefully before Edgar shuts down the blog
"Pietersma’s position aligns with a broad consensus among textual scholars that κύριος was the original rendering in the OG." - broad consensus? really? - I don't think so.. I don't even think Pietersma would agree with you there.
@Anonymous
The context in which Origen and Jerome discussed the Tetragrammaton is not subjective or invented but grounded in their own writings and historical circumstances. Origen's Hexapla and Jerome's Vulgate reflect a deep engagement with Hebrew texts and Jewish traditions, rather than an "original" rendering of the LXX. Specifically, Origen’s use of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew in his Hexapla does not prove that it was part of the original Greek translation of the LXX. Instead, it was a recensional choice to align the Greek text with Hebrew traditions. As Pietersma and De Troyer argue, the appearance of the Tetragrammaton in certain MSS represents later editorial insertions, not the original translation practice of the LXX. Similarly, Jerome explicitly acknowledges that Jewish scribes replaced the Tetragrammaton with “Adonai” in their liturgical readings and MSS. His observation aligns with the broader practice of substituting Κύριος for YHWH in Greek texts, which reflects the theological and linguistic norms of Second Temple Judaism. By contrast, your claim that these historical figures affirm the originality of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX lacks substantive evidence and misrepresents their intent. Origen and Jerome's statements are better understood as reflecting recensional efforts, not the OG.
While some fragmentary pre-Christian MSS do feature the Tetragrammaton (e.g., P. Fouad 266, 4Q120), these examples are localized and exceptional rather than representative of the broader LXX tradition. The vast majority of LXX MSS, including later witnesses like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, consistently use Κύριος as the rendering of YHWH. This overwhelming textual tradition strongly supports the conclusion that Κύριος was the original rendering in the LXX, rather than the Tetragrammaton. MSS like 8HevXIIgr, which include the Tetragrammaton, represent recensional trends aimed at harmonizing Greek texts with Hebrew liturgical practices. As Pietersma notes, such examples are indicative of secondary editorial activities, not original translation practices. Even Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary Jewish philosopher, consistently uses Κύριος in his biblical citations, confirming that Κύριος was the normative Greek rendering of the Divine Name during his time. Thus, the claim that "every pre-Christian MS contains some form of the Tetragrammaton" is not supported by the broader MS tradition.
(1/2)
(2/2)
While Origen did describe certain MSS that preserved the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew as "accurate," this does not mean he regarded such MSS as representative of the original LXX. Wilkinson says (https://t.ly/iqy9N ) one might assume that Origen refers specifically to the version of Aquila of Sinope, which follows the Hebrew text very closely, but he may perhaps refer to Greek versions in general. Origen’s Hexapla was an academic tool designed to compare the Hebrew text with various Greek translations. His inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew reflects his desire to preserve the Hebrew tradition, not necessarily the practices of the original LXX translators. Origen’s broader corpus demonstrates his use of Κύριος in citations of the LXX, which aligns with the standard textual tradition. For example, his writings frequently equate the Divine Name with Κύριος, indicating that he regarded this as the normative rendering. The notion that Origen considered the Tetragrammaton "most original" is therefore speculative and unsupported by his actual writings.
The statement that Κύριος represents a "broad consensus" among textual scholars is well-documented and accurate. Scholars like Pietersma, De Troyer, and Rösel have extensively argued for the originality of Κύριος based on both textual and historical evidence. The predominance of Κύριος across the LXX MS tradition underscores its originality. The few examples of the Tetragrammaton are anomalies that reflect later recensional activity. The substitution of Κύριος for YHWH aligns with the linguistic and theological practices of Hellenistic Judaism, which sought to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name. This practice is further corroborated by Philo and the NT, both of which consistently use Κύριος when referencing the Hebrew Scriptures. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in certain MSS (e.g., P. Fouad 266) is better understood as a recensional attempt to "re-Hebraize" the Greek text, rather than evidence of original translation practices. While some scholars (e.g., Meyer, Howard) have argued for the originality of the Tetragrammaton, their conclusions are speculative and often rely on fragmentary evidence that does not represent the broader MS tradition.
All in all, you arguments lack historical and textual substantiation. The overwhelming weight of evidence supports the conclusion that Κύριος was the original rendering of YHWH in the LXX, and the limited examples of the Tetragrammaton reflect later recensional trends rather than original translation practices. Scholarly consensus, MS tradition, and the internal evidence of the LXX itself all affirm the primacy of Κύριος as the surrogate for the Divine Name in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Post a Comment