Anyone who reads the ancient manuscripts of the Greek New Testament is struck by the phenomenon: the names kurios (Lord), Iesous (Jesus), Christos (Christ), and theos (God) are written in this unique fashion. These four titles are the primary and most primitive divine names to be written in a special way; they can be seen in all the earliest Greek manuscripts.1 Another early divine name written in a special way is pneuma (Spirit); it may be as early as the other four or it could have been developed slightly later. These specially written names are called nomina sacra, meaning “sacred names” (the singular is nomen sacrum). The inventor of the term nomina sacra was L. Traube. After his study on the nomina sacra, the most thorough study was done by A. H. R. E. Paap.
Comfort, Phillip. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism (Kindle Locations 4989-4995). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
104 comments:
Fourthly, the so-called nomina sacra word group, most likely marked off in Irenaeus’ Scriptures (in small caps be-low),45 provides a common textual pattern for Christian Scripture and the Rule of Faith; that is, the special demarcation by abbreviation (contraction or suspension with a horizontal stroke drawn abo-ve the abbreviation) of the Greek words for GOD (ΘΕΟΣ; ΘΣ), LORD (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ; ΚΣ), JESUS (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ; ΙΗ, ΙΗΣ, ΙΣ), CHRIST (ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ; ΧΡ, ΧΡΣ, ΧΣ), FATHER (ΠΑΤΗΡ; ΠΗΡ), SON (ΥΙΟΣ; ΥΣ) and SPIRIT (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ; ΠΝΑ). These, and few additional specially written Greek short forms,46 are found in contemporary OT manu-scripts, e.g. P. Chester Beatty VI (second/ third century AD),47 and NT manuscripts, such as P46 and P66 (both ca. AD 200).48 We also know that Irenaeus himself (or his scribe) most likely made use of these ”sacred names,” or nomina-sacra demarcations, in his own works, in line with Christian writing practice of the day (see P.Oxy. 405).49 Both the nomina sacra convention and the regula fidei pattern place a limited number of theologically significant names and words centre stage: GOD, FATHER, LORD, JESUS and CHRIST (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6; John 20:28); GOD/FATHER, JESUS/SON/ CHRIST/LORD and SPIRIT (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 Clem. 46.6); JESUS, CHRIST and SON of GOD (cf. Matt. 16:16; John 20:31). As we will see below, the resemblance between these (dyadic/ triadic) nomina sacra demarcations and the major names being part of the (dyadic/triadic) regula fidei formulary in Against Heresies I, 10.1 (one GOD the FATHER, one CHRIST JESUS; FATHER, SON and SPIRIT; the beloved CHRIST JESUS our LORD) is conspicuous. In the following, I shall attempt to de-monstrate the close link between certain features of Irenaeus’ classic formulation of the Rule of Faith (Against Heresies I, 8.1-10.1 and elsewhere)50 and an emergent biblical theology. I will discuss in brief: 1) the catechetical and ritual con-text of the regula fidei; 2) the creedal context of the regula fidei; and 3) the regula’s textual–scriptural contextuali-zation associated with the scribal nomina sacra demarcations.
As Comfort points out, the earliest Greek manuscripts consistently use nomina sacra to designate divine titles like kurios (Lord), theos (God), Iesous (Jesus), Christos (Christ), and eventually pneuma (Spirit). These abbreviated forms were a unique scribal convention within the Christian textual tradition, demonstrating reverence for sacred names. However, there is no evidence that YHWH or the Tetragrammaton was part of this practice in the New Testament manuscripts.
Despite the use of nomina sacra to denote divine names, there is no manuscript evidence that the Tetragrammaton (in Hebrew or Greek transliteration) was ever used in the Greek New Testament. Instead, kurios (Lord) consistently appears in quotations of Old Testament passages where YHWH would have been present in the Hebrew text. This reflects a continuation of the Jewish practice of substituting Adonai or its Greek equivalent (kurios) for the divine name in both reading and writing, as seen in the Septuagint.
The use of nomina sacra indicates that early Christian scribes were creating a distinct textual tradition, but it also shows their fidelity to the textual conventions they inherited. If the Tetragrammaton had been in the original manuscripts, it is unlikely that it would disappear entirely from every extant manuscript, especially given the widespread adoption of the nomina sacra system. The fact that the Tetragrammaton is absent from all Greek New Testament manuscripts supports the conclusion that the New Testament authors did not include it.
The New Testament authors were writing for a predominantly Greek-speaking audience, many of whom were Gentiles unfamiliar with Hebrew traditions. Using kurios (Lord) was a practical and theologically rich choice that emphasized Jesus' divinity and aligned with the Septuagint's treatment of YHWH. There is no compelling historical or theological reason why the New Testament authors would have included the Tetragrammaton in their writings when they were following the precedent set by the Septuagint.
Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was originally present in the original New Testament manuscripts, but was later removed. The nomina sacra do not include any form of the Tetragrammaton. Instead, they consistently abbreviate kurios (Lord) and theos (God) when referring to divine names. This reflects the established Christian practice of substituting kurios for YHWH in line with the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament widely used in early Christianity. If the Tetragrammaton had been part of the original Greek New Testament, it would be expected to show up in the nomina sacra system, given that this system was designed to emphasize sacred names. Its complete absence demonstrates that the New Testament writers did not include the Tetragrammaton but followed the Septuagint tradition.
The nomina sacra are found in both Old Testament manuscripts (e.g., P. Chester Beatty VI) and New Testament manuscripts (e.g., P46, P66). This continuity underscores the early Christian reliance on the Septuagint. The Septuagint consistently uses kurios (Lord) to represent YHWH. The nomina sacra abbreviation of kurios (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ → ΚΣ) aligns with this tradition, showing that early Christians adopted and carried forward this textual practice. If early Christians, including Irenaeus, were comfortable using kurios as a substitute for YHWH in their texts and theology, the idea that they would reintroduce the Tetragrammaton into the New Testament lacks historical and textual basis.
The regula fidei (rule of faith), as articulated by Irenaeus, explicitly highlights the triadic formulation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The sacred names demarcated in the nomina sacra system reflect this theological focus. The regula fidei demonstrates a clear theological framework emphasizing the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit), with no mention of YHWH or the Tetragrammaton. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument that the divine name (Jehovah/YHWH) is essential to Christian theology is undermined by the fact that neither the regula fidei nor the nomina sacra includes YHWH. Instead, the focus is on the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit within the Christian understanding of God.
Jehovah's Witnesses often argue that the absence of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament is due to deliberate erasure by later "apostate" Christians. However, this claim is implausible for several reasons. The nomina sacra system emerged very early, as evidenced by second- and third-century manuscripts like P46 and P66. If the Tetragrammaton had been removed, this change would have had to occur universally across all Christian manuscripts almost immediately after their composition—an implausible scenario given the decentralized nature of early Christianity. Irenaeus and other early Church Fathers, who were vocally opposed to heresies, would have mentioned or protested such a significant alteration if it had occurred. Instead, Irenaeus’ writings align with the use of kurios and theos as seen in the nomina sacra tradition.
Jehovah's Witnesses may attempt to co-opt the nomina sacra tradition to support their theology, but this strategy is flawed. The nomina sacra emphasize the centrality of Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit in early Christian worship and theology. This contradicts the Jehovah's Witnesses' subordinationist view of Jesus as a created being (Michael the Archangel) and their rejection of the Holy Spirit as a person. The focus on triadic formulations (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6) in both the regula fidei and the nomina sacra underscores the early Christian belief in the Trinity, hich Jehovah's Witnesses reject.
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11368&start=80
nincsnevem, granted that we don't have any New Testament MSS with YHWH in them, note what Google AI generated concerning YHWH in the LXX, which I've read elsewhere:
Yes, the Tetragrammaton appears in early copies of the Septuagint:
4QpapLXXLevb
A 1st century BCE fragment of Leviticus that contains the Tetragrammaton in Greek ΙΑΩ in two verses.
Papyrus Fouad 266b
A 1st century BCE fragment of Deuteronomy that contains the Tetragrammaton in square Hebrew/Aramaic script.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3522
A 1st century CE fragment of Job that contains the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew letters.
Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever
A scroll that contains the Tetragrammaton in multiple places, including 24 places in 8HevXII a and 4 places in 8HevXII b.
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 5101
A 1st to 2nd century fragment of Psalms that contains YHWH in Paleo-Hebrew script.
The Septuagint is an ancient translation of the Hebrew Torah into Koine Greek that was originally compiled around 280 BC. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Septuagint are fragments from the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/68680242/VASILEIADIS_GORDON_TransmissionOfTheTetragrammaton_3_-libre.pdf?1628589630=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DTransmission_of_the_Tetragrammaton_in_J.pdf&Expires=1734026251&Signature=czXosvWD1LlZ7KzlQRtVEolrP4ov7lURwJIe5bwPNkkOJilQACTPSoYpLDSCknAGmqRGhoIR7U1WgBOabBIbRSFA74gwNdOx3u8JeiutJLqLWfeinBMFVfxZEh9FA2diWixTEAZLbkapA2Hmydivcu6hcRUDCaHg6BiB0xcuUoYWfdQzwH5vU9QeaKrrJ1UrdI5wRGbR31qNNEqriImv06LKI6bg2BlIsGktUYYFggEzhgwD1-q4jbgj7j2XNzAra6hVWvd5kPh8roMbhlN44CpzQS981Z8RzMwYU1KvMn1o-7nHRPiTz4v2bQ0CAQRtZajhEURYmlNQv1RJWFu2vg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-8128?d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780199381135.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780199381135-e-8128&p=emailA2hSGQIvkf4sk
The fact that *certain* Greek Septuagint manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton does not establish that the New Testament autographs also included it. Scholars such as Albert Pietersma, Martin Rösel, and Larry Perkins have extensively analyzed the context and significance of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX, and their findings highlight key distinctions. Albert Pietersma emphasizes that the Tetragrammaton’s inclusion in some LXX manuscripts reflects Jewish scribal practices specific to the Hebrew Scriptures. These practices were not universally adopted by early Christians, whose textual traditions often followed the nomina sacra convention (abbreviating Kyrios for "Lord" and theos for "God"). The New Testament manuscripts do not exhibit any trace of the Tetragrammaton, but consistently use Kyrios to refer to God. Martin Rösel explains that the Septuagint translators adopted diverse practices when handling the divine name, sometimes rendering it as Kyrios and other times leaving it untranslated (e.g., as ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew YHWH). The variations in Jewish Greek texts were not carried forward by the early Christians, who adopted the widespread use of Kyrios. Larry Perkins highlights that early Christian theology focused on Christ as Kyrios, a title that explicitly linked Jesus with the Lord of the Old Testament. This theological emphasis would have been undermined if the Tetragrammaton had been retained in the New Testament, as it would create ambiguity regarding Jesus' divine status. The use of Kyrios was thus both a theological and textual choice.
Not a single New Testament manuscript, whether early or late, contains the Tetragrammaton. All extant manuscripts, even the earliest ones (e.g., P46, P66, and P75), use Kyrios where references to YHWH might be expected. This is significant because if the Tetragrammaton had been part of the New Testament autographs, we would expect at least some manuscripts to preserve it, especially given the early Christian tendency to carefully copy and transmit sacred texts. The consistent use of Kyrios across all manuscript traditions—Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine—indicates that this was the original reading of the New Testament texts, not a later substitution. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in some Septuagint manuscripts reflects Jewish scribal traditions, not Christian ones. Early Christians were not concerned with maintaining the Tetragrammaton because their theological focus was on Christ as Lord, in fulfillment of the Old Testament.
The Christian adoption of the nomina sacra system, which abbreviated sacred names like Kyrios and theos, demonstrates a deliberate theological and scribal choice. The nomina sacra system unified Christian manuscripts under a distinct textual tradition, setting them apart from Jewish practices, and emphasized titles like "Lord" and "God" as central to Christian worship and theology, aligning with New Testament teachings that identify Jesus as Kyrios (e.g., Philippians 2:11). The adoption of Kyrios in the New Testament was not a later corruption but a deliberate and theologically coherent choice rooted in the earliest Christian beliefs. Retaining the Tetragrammaton would have been inconsistent with the New Testament's Christological focus.
The LXX was a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in some manuscripts reflects Jewish reverence for the divine name. Early Christians, however, adapted the LXX for their own use, often substituting Kyrios for YHWH in accordance with their theological emphasis on Christ as Lord. The LXX manuscripts that contain the Tetragrammaton (e.g., Papyrus Fouad 266b, 8HevXII) are fragmentary and represent isolated scribal practices, not a universal standard. Even within the Jewish tradition, many LXX manuscripts use Kyrios instead of the Tetragrammaton. If the New Testament autographs originally contained YHWH and it was later replaced with Kyrios, we would expect to find transitional evidence—manuscripts showing both forms or marginal notes indicating a change. No such evidence exists.
Scholars like Albert Pietersma and Larry Perkins argue that the use of the Tetragrammaton in some LXX manuscripts is a reflection of Jewish scribal traditions, not evidence of its presence in the New Testament. The consistent use of Kyrios in the New Testament manuscripts and the nomina sacra system demonstrates that the earliest Christians were not concerned with preserving the Tetragrammaton. Jehovah's Witnesses misinterpret or overstate scholarly positions to support their claims, ignoring the overwhelming manuscript evidence and historical context.
While *certain* early fragments of the Septuagint (e.g., Papyrus Fouad 266 and the Nahal Hever Scrolls) include the Tetragrammaton, this does not prove that the New Testament autographs contained it. Scholars like Albert Pietersma and Martin Rösel emphasize that these fragments reflect Jewish scribal practices, not Christian ones. The replacement of YHWH with Kyrios in Christian manuscripts is consistent with early Christian theology, which emphasized Jesus as Kyrios (Lord). Early Christian scribes developed the practice of abbreviating sacred terms like Kyrios and Theos into the nomina sacra. This indicates a clear and early Christian textual tradition distinct from Jewish practices, where YHWH was not retained. Despite thousands of extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, none contain the Tetragrammaton. Instead, they uniformly use Kyrios. If the Tetragrammaton had been removed from the New Testament, we would expect to find transitional manuscripts or marginal notes indicating such a change. No such evidence exists. Thus, the argument that the Tetragrammaton in the LXX implies its presence in the New Testament is speculative and unsupported by manuscript evidence.
Vasileiadis claims that the use of Kyrios instead of YHWH created “divine ambiguity,” “conflating” God the Father and Jesus Christ, and is a result of early Christian “suppression” of the Tetragrammaton. The use of Kyrios is not a result of suppression but reflects the theological convictions of the New Testament authors and the early Church. The New Testament explicitly identifies Jesus as Kyrios, the Greek equivalent of the divine name, to emphasize His divinity and role as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 10:9-13). This deliberate use aligns with early Christian Christology. Far from creating "divine ambiguity," the use of Kyrios underscores the unity between God the Father and Jesus Christ in Trinitarian theology. For example, Paul’s use of Kyrios for both God (YHWH) and Jesus in passages like 1 Corinthians 8:6 reflects a cohesive theological framework, not a confused one. This argument assumes that the early Christians were uncomfortable with Jesus’ divinity and sought to obscure it, which contradicts the theological clarity seen in the New Testament.
While it is true that Origen included the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew columns of the Hexapla, this does not prove its use in Christian liturgical or theological contexts. The Hexapla was a scholarly work comparing different textual traditions of the Hebrew Bible, including Jewish versions. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in these columns reflects Jewish practices, not Christian ones. There is no evidence that Origen advocated for the use of the Tetragrammaton in Christian contexts. In his theological writings, he consistently used Kyrios, aligning with the broader Christian tradition. Origen’s Hexapla reflects his scholarly interest in textual criticism, not a normative Christian practice.
Vasileiadis claims that Jesus and His disciples may have pronounced the Tetragrammaton, and the New Testament originally reflected this usage, but this claim is speculative and lacks evidence. As noted earlier, no New Testament manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton. The consistent use of Kyrios demonstrates that the New Testament authors followed the Jewish practice of substituting Adonai or Kyrios when reading the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus frequently addressed God as "Father" and taught His disciples to do the same (e.g., Matthew 6:9). There is no record of Him emphasizing the pronunciation of the divine name, which aligns with Jewish reverence for YHWH. The assertion that Jesus used the Tetragrammaton is conjectural and unsupported by the textual or historical record.
The reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton in *later* translations reflects theological decisions by translators, not evidence of its presence in the original texts. Hebrew translations of the New Testament were often produced by Jewish Christians or missionaries seeking to contextualize the text for Jewish audiences. The inclusion of the Tetragrammaton reflects their theological choices, not the original New Testament readings. The use of “Marya” in Syriac translations as a substitute for YHWH parallels the Greek use of Kyrios and demonstrates a consistent tradition of reverence for the divine name without retaining its Hebrew form. These later translations do not provide evidence for the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the Greek autographs of the New Testament.
1 Corin 2:16
Why the scribal change to “Lord” in the second instance if the divine name wasn’t originally used in the first instance?
P46 being the earliest example of this…
Game over!
When the Watchtower Society claims that the New Testament originally included the name “Jehovah” but that it was later systematically altered to “Kyrios” (Lord) through deliberate textual corruption, they inadvertently echo the Islamic doctrine of “Taḥrīf”. “Taḥrīf”, as held by many Muslims, alleges that the Bible has been corrupted, with key elements of God’s original revelations altered or removed. Jehovah’s Witnesses, while professing to be Christians, align themselves with this Islamic accusation by asserting that the New Testament text has undergone similar corruptions. This curious alignment raises theological and historical questions, not least about the credibility of such claims in light of early Christian history and the integrity of scriptural transmission.
The claim that “Jehovah” was systematically removed from the New Testament is historically untenable. Early Christians displayed a remarkable attachment to their sacred texts, as evidenced by the “cucurbita” controversy between St. Jerome and St. Augustine during the translation of the Vulgate. Jerome’s decision to translate the Hebrew word “qîqāyôn” in Jonah 4:6 as “hedera” (ivy) instead of the familiar “cucurbita” (gourd) caused an uproar among Christians, with some congregations reacting so strongly that it nearly led to riots.
This controversy, over a word with no theological significance, underscores the sensitivity of early Christians to textual changes. If such a minor alteration could provoke widespread protest, how plausible is it that the systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton—if it had originally been in the New Testament—occurred without any recorded resistance? It is inconceivable that the Christian community, known for its vigilance over the integrity of scripture, would have passively accepted the erasure of God’s personal name without protest or documentation.
There is no historical evidence that the inclusion or exclusion of the Tetragrammaton was ever an issue for pre-Nicene Christians. Early Church Fathers wrote extensively on theological matters, engaging in fierce debates over doctrines such as Christ’s divinity, the Trinity, and the nature of salvation. Yet, there is a deafening silence regarding any controversy over the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament text.
Had such a significant alteration taken place, it would have been a central issue of contention, especially among groups like the Arians, who engaged in theological battles with Trinitarians in the fourth century. The absence of any Arian argument alleging textual corruption of the New Testament to erase the Tetragrammaton further discredits the Watchtower’s claim. If such an accusation had been available, it would have been a potent weapon in their theological arsenal, yet it is entirely absent from the historical record.
By asserting systematic corruption of the New Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses adopt a position strikingly similar to the Islamic doctrine of “Taḥrīf”. This alignment is paradoxical for a group that identifies as Christian. The implication of their claim is that the early Christian community, supposedly guided by God’s Spirit, not only failed to preserve the name of God but also actively colluded in its erasure. This narrative undermines the credibility of early Christianity as the authentic continuation of God’s covenant people.
In contrast, the Qur'an itself affirms the authority of the Torah and the Gospel, referring to them as divine revelations (Surah 5:46-48). Early Islamic commentators like Ibn Abbas and Al-Tabari viewed “Taḥrīf” primarily as a misinterpretation of scripture rather than textual corruption. The Watchtower Society, however, adopts an extreme position, asserting a level of corruption that even many early Muslim scholars would find excessive.
The Watchtower’s claim fails to account for the theological coherence and historical consistency of the New Testament. The early Church did not operate as a centralized institution capable of enforcing such widespread alterations to scripture. The New Testament manuscripts were rapidly copied and disseminated across diverse linguistic and cultural communities. Any attempt to systematically remove the Tetragrammaton would have left traces in the manuscript tradition, yet no such evidence exists. In fact, the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, along with quotations from early Church Fathers, consistently use terms like “Kyrios” (Lord) and “Theos” (God) in places where the Watchtower alleges “Jehovah” was removed.
Moreover, the emergence of the nomina sacra—a scribal convention that abbreviated sacred names like “Kyrios” and “Theos”—in early Christian manuscripts demonstrates a reverence for these terms rather than an effort to obscure or replace the Tetragrammaton. This practice, which predates the second century, further undermines the claim that the divine name was systematically erased.
The Watchtower Society’s assertion that “Jehovah” was removed from the New Testament aligns it with the Islamic accusation of “Taḥrīf”, placing it in opposition to the historical and textual evidence of early Christianity. The “cucurbita” controversy highlights the implausibility of such a claim, given the early Christian community’s resistance to even minor textual changes. The absence of any historical debate over the Tetragrammaton, even among heretical groups like the Arians, further discredits this theory.
Far from undermining the reliability of the New Testament, the manuscript tradition affirms its textual integrity and the faithfulness of its transmission. The Watchtower’s position, by echoing Islamic polemics against the Bible, inadvertently calls into question its own claim to represent authentic Christianity. Instead of leveling unfounded accusations against the New Testament, Jehovah’s Witnesses would do well to recognize the rich manuscript evidence that underscores the trustworthiness of scripture and the faithfulness of the early Christian community in preserving God’s word.
@Anonymous
In 1 Corinthians 2:16 Paul quotes Isaiah 40:13, where the Septuagint uses Kyrios to translate the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew text. The argument for a "scribal change" is based on the assumption that Paul originally used the Tetragrammaton but that it was replaced with Kyrios. However, this claim does not align with the evidence. P46, one of the earliest extant New Testament manuscripts (ca. AD 175-225), contains Kyrios in both instances in 1 Corinthians 2:16. There is no evidence in P46 or any other manuscript that the Tetragrammaton was ever present in this verse. If there were a supposed "scribal change," we would expect to find at least some manuscripts that retain the Tetragrammaton or show textual variants reflecting such a change. Instead, the textual tradition is consistent in using Kyrios.
Paul consistently quotes the Septuagint (LXX) when referencing the Old Testament. In Isaiah 40:13, the Septuagint already translates the Tetragrammaton as Kyrios. Therefore, when Paul quotes this verse in 1 Corinthians 2:16, it is natural for him to use Kyrios, as this aligns with the Greek text of his day. There is no evidence that Paul reverted to using the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in his writings, especially when addressing a predominantly Greek-speaking audience.
Paul's use of Kyrios in both instances of 1 Corinthians 2:16 underscores his Christological focus. By equating the "mind of the Lord" with the "mind of Christ," Paul emphasizes the unity between the Lord (YHWH) and Christ, which fits within his broader theology. Replacing "Lord" with the Tetragrammaton in the first instance would disrupt this theological flow.
The claim of a systematic replacement of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament is unsupported by historical or textual evidence. There are no extant New Testament manuscripts that contain the Tetragrammaton. All manuscripts consistently use Kyrios or Theos where the divine name is referenced. As previously noted with the cucurbita controversy, early Christians were deeply sensitive to textual changes. If the Tetragrammaton had been removed, we would expect to see protests or debates recorded in early Christian writings. None exist. The assertion that the Tetragrammaton was removed from 1 Corinthians 2:16 is a circular argument. It assumes what it seeks to prove: that the Tetragrammaton was originally present. Without any manuscript evidence or early testimony to support this claim, it remains speculative and unsubstantiated.
But doesn't your cucurbita work against itself? Augustine himself was defending the authority of the Septuagint in his arguments against Jerome. The same Septuagint that has already been demonstrated to have the divine name in the first century, only to have been removed by the days of Augustine and Jerome. If Augustine was so concerned and consumed with accuracy in 'all things,' he didn't demonstrate that same attitude toward the Tetragrammaton.
And you are also pushing boundaries in your attempts to smear your opponents. Anyone with a brain can read the NWT appendix for all the justifications for the divine name in the NT. You, and many others, don't agree. Fine. But comparing those to the teachings of ibn Hazm and others is an atrocious and inaccurate reflection of the facts of the argument. An apology and retraction would be appropriate in this case for such trollish behavior.
-NC
@Anonymous -NC
You claim that Augustine defended the Septuagint and that this somehow contradicts the example of the “cucurbita” incident because the Septuagint originally contained the divine name, which was later removed. While SOME fragments of the Septuagint contain the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew or paleo-Hebrew script (e.g., Papyrus Fouad 266), this was not universal practice. By the time of Augustine and Jerome, the widespread convention was to translate the Tetragrammaton as “Kyrios”. Importantly, this convention predated the early Christian era and was already established among Greek-speaking Jews by the first century BCE. The assertion that the Tetragrammaton was “removed” during Augustine’s time is historically inaccurate because the practice of using “Kyrios” in the Septuagint was already well-entrenched. Augustine's defense of the Septuagint did not hinge on its textual correspondence to the Hebrew original but on its role in the life of the Church and its liturgical utility. He argued that the Septuagint, as the text widely used by Christians, carried divine authority due to its inspired translation, even if it diverged in some details from the Hebrew text. Augustine was not defending a specific translational tradition of the divine name but rather the overarching legitimacy of the Septuagint in the context of Christian worship. The “cucurbita” incident highlights the Christian community’s attachment to their received texts and their resistance to change. This example is relevant because it underscores the unlikelihood of widespread, unopposed textual tampering, such as the systematic removal of the Tetragrammaton. If a minor issue like the translation of “qîqāyôn” could provoke such controversy, a wholesale alteration of the divine name across the New Testament would have generated massive opposition. Augustine’s defense of the Septuagint does not conflict with this argument; in fact, it strengthens it by showing the reverence Christians had for their scriptures. The reverence early Christians had for their scriptures, as demonstrated by the “cucurbita” controversy, makes such a claim implausible.
The claim that the Tetragrammaton was systematically removed from the New Testament is simply unsupported by historical evidence. No extant New Testament manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton. This absence is not the result of later textual corruption but reflects the consistent practice of using “Kyrios” to refer to God. This practice aligns with the usage in the Septuagint, which was the primary scriptural source for New Testament writers. The Church Fathers, who extensively quoted and commented on the New Testament, never mention any controversy over the removal of the divine name. If such a significant alteration had occurred, it would have been a central point of contention, especially during the Arian controversy when debates about the nature of Christ and his relationship to God were at their peak. The silence on this issue is telling and undermines the claim of systematic textual tampering. The scribal practice of using nomina sacra for words like “Kyrios” and “Theos” demonstrates a consistent reverence for divine references in Christian texts. This convention further illustrates that early Christians did not feel compelled to include the Tetragrammaton in their writings but instead adhered to established traditions of reverence and abbreviation.
@Anonymous -NC
You accuse critics of the New World Translation of engaging in “unfair” comparisons by likening the Watchtower Society’s claims to Islamic doctrines like “tahrif”. The comparison to “tahrif” is not a baseless smear but a logical parallel. Both the Watchtower Society and Islamic scholars who advocate “tahrif” assert that the Bible has been systematically corrupted, particularly in ways that obscure fundamental truths about God. While the motivations and specific claims differ, the underlying assertion of widespread textual tampering is the same. Highlighting this similarity is not an insult but a valid observation that underscores the inconsistency of the Watchtower Society’s position as a group claiming to uphold Christian scripture. The New World Translation’s appendix provides explanations for inserting “Jehovah” into the New Testament, but these arguments rely on conjecture rather than evidence. The claim that the divine name was intentionally “removed” from the NT is not substantiated by any manuscript, patristic writing, or historical record. Criticizing the NWT’s insertion of “Jehovah” is not a smear but a reasoned objection to a practice that lacks scholarly support.
The absence of the Tetragrammaton in Arian arguments is particularly significant. The Arians, who emphasized the (ontological) subordination of the Son to the Father, would have benefited greatly from pointing to New Testament passages containing the divine name to support their theology. Yet, they never did so. This silence is powerful evidence that the New Testament never included the Tetragrammaton in the first place. If it had, the Arians would undoubtedly have used it to their advantage in theological debates.
There is no evidence of Paul specifically - but why the scribal change?
From Lord to Christ
Scribes were not as dense as we are today- they could tell the apparent contridiction
“We do not have the mind of Lord.. but we have the mind of Lord
Multiple scholars agree with me?
Shall I cite them?
Your word to me is that of a “dung beetle”
@Anonymous
“There is no evidence of Paul specifically – but why the scribal change?” - This question assumes that there WAS a scribal change from “Kyrios” to “Christos” in Paul's writings, but it provides no actual evidence to support this assertion. There is no textual evidence from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Paul’s letters that demonstrates a systematic scribal alteration replacing “Kyrios” with “Christos”. The claim of a "change" is speculative and lacks any basis in the manuscript tradition. In fact, the textual history of Paul’s writings shows remarkable consistency, with no evidence of such a substitution. Paul frequently uses “Kyrios” to refer to Jesus in a way that aligns with Old Testament usage of “Kyrios” for Yahweh. This reflects the early Christian belief in Jesus’ divine status. Substituting “Kyrios” with Christos would undermine this theological point. Additionally, “Kyrios” and “Christos” have distinct meanings—“Lord” conveys authority and deity, while “Christ” refers to Jesus’ role as the Messiah. There is no evidence that scribes conflated these terms.
“Scribes were not as dense as we are today – they could tell the apparent contradiction.” - This argument is both unclear and unfounded. It appears to suggest that scribes recognized a contradiction in the text and altered it, but this assertion fails on several fronts. The example provided, “We do not have the mind of Lord... but we have the mind of Lord,” is a misrepresentation of 1 Corinthians 2:16, where Paul says, “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.” This verse does not present a contradiction. Paul is contrasting the unattainable knowledge of God (apart from revelation) with the understanding believers have through the Spirit of Christ. The text flows logically and coherently as it stands, without needing any scribal intervention. Early Christian scribes were deeply reverent of scripture and highly reluctant to alter the text. Any suggestion that they made changes to resolve supposed “contradictions” would need to be supported by textual variants in manuscripts, yet none exist here.
“Multiple scholars agree with me? Shall I cite them?” - Do you have any scholarly sources that claim it once stood "Jehovah"? The appeal to unnamed scholars without any citations is not an argument; it’s an empty claim. In academic discussion, evidence and sources are essential. Without providing the names of scholars or their specific arguments, this assertion has no weight. Furthermore the overwhelming consensus among New Testament textual critics and scholars is that the New Testament manuscripts are reliable and show no evidence of systematic theological tampering. Scholars such as Bruce Metzger, Philip Comfort, and others affirm the textual integrity of the Pauline epistles. If credible scholars were to support the claim of a scribal change from “Kyrios” to Christos, their arguments would need to be documented and backed by manuscript evidence. The text as it stands in 1 Corinthians 2:16 is well-supported by all known manuscripts. No credible scholar has argued that there was a scribal change from “Lord” to “Christ” here or anywhere else in Paul’s writings. Any claim to the contrary must be substantiated with evidence.
Check the list for yourself to see the variants of this verse:
https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp@version=LXX@reference=1Cor.2&options=GVNHU&display=INTERLEAVED
Then answer WHY the variant? If we have "Lord" in both positions it becomes a really obvious contradiction in terms - self evident.
The problem remains why was “lord” changed to “Christ”
Why is “Christ” in a couple of manuscripts?
Your argument fails to address my reasoning because we both know there is at least 1 variant that has “lord” in the second position as well as in the original quote.. which to any scribe who you ADMIT change wording to clear meaning up or “link” scriptures
Otherwise we can play the same game with Rev 3:14 and it’s fourth century variant
Where is is NO chance of this being a scribal error but rather to remove the connotation of Christ being a creation..
Yes I omitted the bit that says “who can instruct him” to save myself time with typing… and this part of the scripture isn’t important to my argument so was omitted.. you can easily g and read the verse in its context in 1 Corin 2
My omission is self evident.. not dishonest
You says “scholars” all the time without giving proper examples - shall I cite these aswell?
Greg Stafford for starters… let’s start with him.
@Anonymous
The cited list of variants of 1 Corinthians 2:16 is indeed accurate and reflects the manuscript evidence, but the conclusions drawn are flawed. The vast majority of manuscripts, including key witnesses like p46, א, A, C, D, and the Byzantine tradition, read “Christou” in the second clause of 1 Corinthians 2:16. This includes nearly all major textual families. The variant reading “Kyriou” is found in a very limited number of manuscripts (B, D*, F, G, and a few Latin texts). The overwhelming consensus of both external manuscript evidence and internal consistency favors “Christou” as the original reading. The reading “Kyriou” in some manuscripts likely reflects a scribal attempt to harmonize the second clause with the first, which quotes Isaiah 40:13 (“Who has known the mind of the Lord?”). This harmonization tendency is well-documented in scribal practices. On the other hand, the overwhelming attestation of “Christou” suggests it was not a late addition but the original reading, reflecting Paul’s theological focus on the believer’s relationship with Christ. Paul is making a clear contrast: the incomprehensibility of God’s mind (Kyriou) versus the believer’s possession of the mind of “Christou”. This contrast is central to Paul’s theology and fits perfectly with his use of “Christ” throughout his letters to emphasize the believer’s union with Christ. A scribe changing “Christ” to “Lord” would be attempting to resolve this theological tension, not the other way around.
The question of why there is a variant is straightforward when viewed through the lens of scribal practices. The variant reading “Kyriou” aligns the second clause with the quote from Isaiah in the first clause. This kind of harmonization is a common scribal tendency, especially in cases where scripture is being quoted or referenced. Scribes often smoothed out perceived inconsistencies between the New Testament and the Old Testament. On the other hand, “Christou” is a more theologically difficult reading because it creates a contrast that might not have been immediately clear to scribes. As textual critics often note, the harder reading is more likely original because scribes were prone to simplifying and clarifying difficult texts. The sheer dominance of “Christou” in the manuscript tradition suggests it is original. The presence of “Kyriou” in a small number of manuscripts is best explained as a harmonizing variant, not evidence of a deliberate theological alteration.
(1/2)
(2/2)
We acknowledge the existence of the variant with “Kyriou” in the second position, but this does not support the claim of *systematic* AND/OR intentional scribal alteration. Variants like this one reflect isolated scribal tendencies, not a coordinated effort to alter theology. If there were a systematic effort to change “Lord” to “Christ,” we would expect to see this consistently across many passages, yet no such pattern exists. The alleged “obvious contradiction” between using “Lord” in both positions is not a contradiction at all. The first clause quotes Isaiah 40:13 about God’s incomprehensibility, while the second clause asserts the believer’s possession of Christ’s mind. These are distinct theological points, not a contradiction. The presence of “Lord” in both positions in some manuscripts likely reflects a scribe’s misunderstanding of this nuance, not evidence of a deliberate or systematic change.
The claim about Revelation 3:14 is unrelated to the discussion of 1 Corinthians 2:16 and is based on a misunderstanding of textual criticism. The textual variant in Revelation 3:14 (“the beginning of the creation of God”) does not suggest systematic alteration but reflects the theological diversity and debates in the early church. It is a highly debated passage, but it cannot be used to support a broader claim of theological tampering. Neither Revelation 3:14 nor 1 Corinthians 2:16 provides evidence of systematic changes to eliminate supposed “contradictions” or obscure theological ideas. The transmission of the New Testament shows remarkable consistency and integrity, as evidenced by the thousands of manuscripts available for comparison.
The admission of omitting part of the verse to “save time” undermines the credibility of the argument. Omitting “who can instruct him” removes the connection between the two clauses and distorts the meaning of the passage. This selective citation changes the perceived context and weakens the argument. Paul’s full argument in 1 Corinthians 2:16 hinges on the contrast between the human inability to comprehend God’s mind and the believer’s participation in Christ’s mind through the Spirit. Omitting part of the verse creates a false impression and is a poor basis for serious textual criticism.
Nincs,
My comment on the Septuagint stands. As you say, by Augustine’s time the use of Kyrios “in the Septuagint was already well-entrenched.” In other words, the Tetragrammaton was once in the Septuagint and by the time of Augustine it wasn’t. It was clear the Christian community had less attachment to the divine name than to a gourd by that time in history. Such negative reflection is on the community, not on the argument of whether the divine name belonged.
However, I object to your justification for your tahrif argument. It is the very definition of a straw man argument, useful only for rhetoric, not for serious discussion. You have taken a valid concern regarding the reasons for the divine name to be found in the NT, and compared it to teachings of a man who declared the “jackass wiser” then the author of the Pentateuch that existed. He rejected the account of the resurrection as an addition to the Gospels. Such prominent teachings have no similarities to what is being discussed.
Compare that to the hundreds of articles defending the accuracy of the Bible that have been written in the Watchtower publications and a consistent, unwavering defense of the Bible we have today as the genuine word of God. How you manage to dishonestly conflate that with principles of translation is stretching beyond what is proper and reasonable.
Is your devotion to accuracy so apparent regarding a discussion of 1Jo 5:7? Would you be similarly spiteful in your comments about the Catholic’s defense of these verses? While I have expressed appreciation for some of your perspectives in the past, this is not a defensible path, nor one that you should continue on.
-NC
At James 1:10 we have these words. "Take brothers as an example the suffering of evil and exercising of patience the prophets who spoke in the name of... Whose name certainly not Jesus, the spoke in the name of their God Jehovah, it is definitely not wrong to say that and it is more incorrect to say in the name of the Lord. This "the Lord" is a substitute for Jehovah and that is certain, for there is no other name for them to speak in other than Jehovah and that is the word (name) that would be correctly used here.
As for the absence of names, most modern translations refuse to use the tetragrammaton as it appeared over 6900 times in the Hebrew bible from Genesis to Malachi. Yes they use a substitute. Lord or God. Interestingly the KJV use the name at Psalms 83:18 which reads this way. "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. For the most high his name alone is Jehovah no acceptions and certainly not Jesus. So says KJV bible. So most of these Bible translations are wrong over 6900 times. bibles translations full of errors.
@Anonymous -NC
You reiterate that the claim Tetragrammaton was “once in *the Septuagint* and by Augustine’s time it wasn’t,” concluding that this reflects poorly on the Christian community’s attachment to the divine name. However, this argument assumes facts not in evidence and oversimplifies a complex historical issue. While *some* fragments of the LXX (e.g., Papyrus Fouad 266) contain the Tetragrammaton, these examples are limited, fragmented and localized. They do not establish that the Tetragrammaton was *universally* included in the LXX, even in pre-Christian times. As scholars like Emanuel Tov and Albert Pietersma have noted, the presence of the Tetragrammaton in a few manuscripts likely reflects specific Jewish scribal traditions rather than a universal norm. By the first century BCE, many Greek-speaking Jews were already using “Kyrios” as a substitute for the divine name in the LXX. This is evidenced by texts like Philo’s writings and the New Testament, which consistently use “Kyrios” in quotations of the LXX. This usage predates Christianity and undermines the claim that Christians were responsible for systematically removing the Tetragrammaton. If the divine name had been systematically removed from the LXX, we would expect to see transitional manuscripts or textual variants reflecting this change. Instead, the manuscript tradition shows a consistent use of “Kyrios” in later LXX copies, suggesting continuity rather than alteration.
The argument that Christians valued a gourd more than the divine name is a rhetorical exaggeration that fails to account for the historical context. The “cucurbita” incident arose because Jerome’s translation diverged from the familiar Latin tradition, which was already deeply ingrained in Christian liturgical use. It had no bearing on the Hebrew original or broader textual tradition. The absence of controversy over the Tetragrammaton does not reflect indifference but indicates that “Kyrios” was already the standard and accepted rendering in the LXX by the time of early Christianity. Unlike the “cucurbita” incident, which involved a visible change in the text, there is no evidence of a sudden or controversial replacement of the divine name.
Your suggestion that Christians were less attached to the divine name than to a gourd is misleading, and deeply offensive. I understand that you have a very low opinion of Catholic Christians, but if you can really believe that they were able to insist on a translation of plant name more than on a biblical question concerning the identity of God, then reconsider whether my Islamic parallel is really so offensive. Christians demonstrated profound reverence for God’s name, as seen in the development of nomina sacra—a scribal convention that abbreviated sacred words like “Kyrios” and “Theos” to distinguish them as holy. This practice highlights the early Church’s respect for the divine name and its representation in scripture. The use of “Kyrios” in place of the Tetragrammaton reflects continuity with Jewish traditions, where the divine name was often substituted with “Adonai” or “Hashem” in spoken contexts. This practice was not a rejection of the divine name but a way to show reverence for its sanctity.
(1/2)
(2/2)
You objects to the comparison between the Watchtower Society’s claims about textual corruption and the Islamic doctrine of “tahrif”, calling it a “straw man argument.” However, this objection misrepresents the nature of the comparison. Both “tahrif” and the Watchtower Society’s claims assert systematic corruption of the Bible to obscure key truths about God. While the motivations and specifics differ, the underlying premise—that the original text of scripture was deliberately altered—is strikingly similar. Highlighting this parallel is not a “smear” but a valid critique of the logical and theological implications of the Watchtower’s position. If the Bible was so thoroughly corrupted as to remove the divine name, this calls into question the reliability of scripture as a whole—a conclusion that aligns more closely with Islamic theology than with traditional Christian beliefs.
You dismiss the comparison to Islamic scholars like Ibn Hazm, arguing that his radical views (e.g., calling the Pentateuch’s author a “jackass”) are irrelevant to the discussion. However the critique is not about specific individuals like Ibn Hazm but about the broader doctrine of “tahrif”. Islamic scholars, including mainstream commentators like Ibn Abbas, Al-Tabari, and Al-Qurtubi, have argued that the Bible was altered to obscure its “original” message. This aligns with the Watchtower’s claim that the divine name was systematically removed from the New Testament. The Watchtower Society’s defense of the Bible in general does not negate the inconsistency of asserting that one part of the Bible (the New Testament) was corrupted at least in this regard, while maintaining the overall reliability of scripture. This selective approach mirrors Islamic arguments about “tahrif”, which similarly affirm the divine origin of certain biblical texts while accusing others of corruption. A Muslim apologist might rightly retort that if God did not protect the Bible's textual integrity on such an important issue, then how do we know that there weren't many other things (e.g. reincarnation, prophecies about Muhammad, aliens, whatever) that were different in the original version, only to be removed by later “apostate copyists”?
The Watchtower’s argument for inserting “Jehovah” into the New Testament relies on conjecture rather than manuscript evidence. No extant New Testament manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton, and the early Church Fathers—who extensively commented on scripture—never mention its removal. The claim that the divine name was deliberately removed is not supported by any historical or textual evidence. By contrast, the manuscript tradition overwhelmingly supports the use of "Kyrios" in the New Testament.
Your attempt to draw a false equivalence between the Watchtower’s claims and the defense of 1 John 5:7 (the Johannine Comma) in Catholic tradition. This comparison fails for several reasons. The inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus and later Catholic Bibles is acknowledged as a late scribal interpolation. Its presence is limited to specific manuscript traditions, and its absence from earlier Greek manuscripts is well-documented. The Catholic Church does not claim that 1 John 5:7 was part of the original text in a textual critical sense, the aim simply was to defend the authority of the Clementine Vulgate from a disciplinary point of view. The Watchtower’s argument is that the Tetragrammaton was systematically removed from the New Testament—a claim that implicates the entire early Christian community in a coordinated act of textual tampering. This is a far more serious and historically implausible claim than the isolated addition of 1 John 5:7. The defense of 1 John 5:7 is primarily theological, while the Watchtower’s insertion of “Jehovah” into the New Testament is presented as a historical “restoration”. These are fundamentally different types of claims.
@Philip Fletcher
You claim about James 1:10 that "the prophets spoke in the name of Jehovah, not Jesus" and "the use of 'the Lord' is a substitute for Jehovah and is incorrect." First, James 1:10 does not mention the prophets or the name of God. The actual verse reads: "But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wildflower." You appear to confuse this with James 5:10, which does reference the prophets: "Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord (Kyriou)." The Greek text for "the Lord" here is: ὀνόματι Κυρίου (onomati Kyriou). The word “Kyrios” (Lord) in the Greek New Testament is the consistent term used when referencing God, whether the Father or Jesus. The New Testament writers, including James, frequently used “Kyrios” to quote the Old Testament passages where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) appeared in the Hebrew text. This does NOT mean they “substituted” the divine name with “Kyrios” deliberately. Instead, they followed the established Jewish practice of reading “Adonai” (Lord) in place of YHWH when reciting the scriptures, a tradition that predated Christianity by several centuries.
Did the Prophets Speak Only in the Name of Jehovah? The prophets indeed spoke in the name of God as revealed to them in the Old Testament. However in the New Testament, the name of Jesus is revealed as the fulfillment of God’s promises. Jesus is the divine Son who came to make the Father known (John 1:18). In Acts 4:12, Peter declares: "There is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." Thus, Christians speak “in the name of Jesus,” not as a rejection of the Father’s name, but because Jesus is the visible revelation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; John 14:9).
There is no manuscript evidence to suggest that the New Testament originally contained the Tetragrammaton and that it was systematically removed. The earliest Greek manuscripts (e.g., P52, P46, Codex Sinaiticus) consistently use “Kyrios”. The Jewish practice of reading “Adonai” for YHWH was well-established before Christianity. It is historically inaccurate to claim that early Christians invented this substitution.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The divine name YHWH appears over 6,900 times in the Hebrew Bible. However the vocalization of YHWH was lost because ancient Jews stopped pronouncing the name out of reverence, substituting “Adonai” (Lord) in spoken readings. This practice is confirmed by the Masoretic Text, where the vowels of Adonai were inserted into the Tetragrammaton. The exact pronunciation of YHWH remains uncertain. “Jehovah” is an artificial construct combining the consonants YHWH with the vowels of “Adonai”. Scholars agree that “Yahweh” is closer to the original pronunciation.
The King James Version does use “Jehovah” in a few verses (e.g., Psalm 83:18, Exodus 6:3, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4). However the KJV translators chose to render YHWH as “LORD” (in all caps) in most instances, following the Jewish tradition. Modern translations like the ESV, NIV, and NASB continue this practice for the same reason: to honor the ancient Jewish reverence for the divine name.
While Psalm 83:18 uses “Jehovah,” it does not imply that “Jehovah” is the only acceptable name for God. Scripture uses many names and titles for God, including El Shaddai (God Almighty, Genesis 17:1), El Elyon (Most High God, Psalm 7:17), Adonai (Lord, Exodus 34:23), and Kyrios (Lord, in the Greek LXX and NT). The focus in Psalm 83:18 is not on restricting God’s name to “Jehovah” but on His supremacy as the Most High.
The New Testament consistently uses Kyrios (Lord) to refer to God and Jesus. For example Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one”) using “Kyrios” in Mark 12:29. Paul writes in Philippians 2:11: "Every tongue [will] acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Kyrios (Lord), to the glory of God the Father." This demonstrates that the New Testament writers identified Jesus with Kyrios, the very title used for God in the Greek Septuagint.
The claim that modern translations are “full of errors” because they do not use “Jehovah” is false and misleading. Modern translations are based on older and more reliable manuscripts than the KJV translators had access to in 1611. The decision to use “LORD” instead of “Jehovah” respects both Jewish tradition and the limitations of reconstructing the original pronunciation of YHWH.
The New Testament focuses on Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God. Thus, the argument that “the most high name alone is Jehovah” excludes the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ, which is central to Christian theology.
As I state on my blog, whether or not one will conclude that the divine name was included in the original New Testament writings really comes down to four fundamental questions:
1. Is the New Testament inspired by the same God who inspired the Old Testament?
2. Which is true: (a) God preserved his word while humans failed to in one important respect or (b) humans preserved God’s word but God failed to in one important respect?
3. Is God capricious?
4. Should our commitment be (a) to the manuscript copies that have been preserved, most of which are late and unquestionably reveal modifications and tampering, or (b) to the God who inspired the originals?
Anyone who answers “Yes” to 1, “a” to 2, “No” to 3, and “b” to 4, should join JWs in our commitment to the restoration of the divine name to the New Testament.
@Sean Kasabuske
This reasoning relies on speculative assumptions, false dilemmas, and theological missteps.
1. "Is the New Testament inspired by the same God who inspired the Old Testament?"
Yes, Christians affirm that the same God inspired both the Old and New Testaments. However, this does not necessitate that the Tetragrammaton must appear in the New Testament. By the same logic, since there were dietary and other ritual laws in the Old Testament, the same must appear in the New Testament, otherwise the same God could not be the author. The name Yahweh was closely tied to First Temple Judaism theologically, and its role was to remind and reinforce the Israelites of monotheism. My own notes regarding this issue: https://justpaste.it/b9fiu
The New Testament writers, inspired by the same God, made a significant theological decision under divine guidance: they consistently used Kyrios and Theos when referring to the divine name. The term Kyrios was already well established in the Greek-speaking Jewish community as the standard substitution for the Tetragrammaton. The use of Kyrios serves a profound purpose in the New Testament: it equates Jesus with Kyrios of the Old Testament (e.g., Romans 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32). This fulfills the revelation of Jesus' divine identity and Lordship. Thus, the absence of the Tetragrammaton is not a "failure" but a theologically deliberate and inspired choice.
God inspires scripture, but He also uses human language and cultural conventions. By the time of the New Testament, the Jewish custom of using Kyrios had already been well established. To insist that God "must" have included the Tetragrammaton in the NT is to impose a human expectation on divine revelation.
And if the presence of the Tetragrammaton is an essential criterion for a book to be inspired by the same God, then what about the fact that the Book of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs also do not contain the Tetragrammaton? Were they removed from there by some "apostate" copyists?
2. "Which is true: (a) God preserved his word while humans failed to in one important respect, or (b) humans preserved God’s word but God failed to in one important respect?"
This question is a false dichotomy. It assumes that if the Tetragrammaton is absent from the NT, either God failed to preserve His word or humans corrupted it, both options are flawed. God did not "fail" in preserving His word, nor did humans "fail" to transmit it. The inspired New Testament consistently uses Kyrios and Theos under divine guidance. This choice was not a corruption but a faithful continuation of Jewish practice and a fulfillment of God's progressive revelation in Jesus Christ. The integrity of the NT manuscripts demonstrates remarkable preservation, confirmed by thousands of copies with overwhelming consistency. If God inspired the NT to use Kyrios to emphasize Christ's divinity and unity with the Father, then the absence of the Tetragrammaton is not a failure—it is a reflection of God's will.
(1/2)
(2/2)
3. "Is God capricious?"
No, God is not capricious (cf. impassibility), however, the argument misapplies this concept. The use of Kyrios instead of the Tetragrammaton is not "capricious" but deliberate and purposeful. God chose to reveal Himself through Jesus Christ, and the New Testament writers emphasized this revelation by identifying Jesus with Kyrios—the same title used for God in the Old Testament LXX. Far from inconsistency, this reflects divine intentionality and fulfills the messianic prophecies about Christ's identity. By the time of the NT, Greek-speaking Jews commonly used Kyrios as a reverent substitute for YHWH. God's revelation operates within historical and cultural realities, and the NT writers followed this practice under inspiration.
4. "Should our commitment be (a) to the manuscript copies that have been preserved, most of which are late and unquestionably reveal modifications and tampering, or (b) to the God who inspired the originals?"
This question sets up another false dilemma. While textual variants exist in NT manuscripts, these do not affect core doctrines or the absence of the Tetragrammaton. There is no manuscript evidence—early or late—that supports the inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. To claim that God's name was systematically removed requires extraordinary evidence, yet none exists. If our commitment is to the God who inspired the originals, then we must respect what God chose to inspire. The consistent NT use of Kyrios demonstrates that this was God's intended form. To "restore" the Tetragrammaton is not to honor God but to impose an unsubstantiated conjecture on His inspired word.
Still just can't control yourself, Ninc.
Not sure if this has ever occurred to you, but just because you assert something doesn't make it true. My fundamental questions stand, despite your attempts to counter their force.
Also, the entire premise that God chose to inspire folks to replace his own name with a generic title as a bizarre means of supporting later Christological ideas is untenable. If he wanted to reveal that Jesus is YHWH, then he could have inspired the NT writers to simply call him YHWH.
It's far more likely that, if the divine name didn't appear in the original NT writings, then this would more likely have been inspired for the purpose of avoiding the identification of the Son as YHWH. This opened up the possibility of applying YHWH texts to Jesus without identifying him as YHWH.
Finally, we know with absolute certainty that the Son is not "Lord" in the same sense that the Father is Lord, because of what is said in Acts and in the Pauline and Peterine salutations.
Acts 2:36 - “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.”
No one makes YHWH be YHWH.
Then the salutations include the words:
"the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
If the early Jewish Christians who read the NT writings thought that "Lord" was a surrogate for the divine name when used of Jesus, then verses like this would have been like shards of glass swimming around in their brains until blood poured from their ears. In short, such texts would have been intolerable to them, and disputes would have arisen that would have been severe enough for us to learn of them. The fact that no such disputes are addressed in Paul's own writings speaks against that view.
There's absolutely no question that Jesus isn't "Lord" as in YHWH; rather, he's Lord in a special conferred sense that reveals his authority under God but over the church.
Except we know tampering has occurred…
God said he would preserve his word…. He never said he would stop tampering only punish it.
His word has been preserved accurately..
Nincs,
“While *some* fragments of the LXX (e.g., Papyrus Fouad 266) contain the Tetragrammaton, these examples are limited, fragmented and localized.”
Now that we have a few fragments of the Septuagint dated to prior to ~150CE, I wonder how many substitute the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios? Hmm.
“The Catholic Church does not claim that 1 John 5:7 was part of the original text in a textual critical sense, the aim simply was to defend the authority of the Clementine Vulgate from a disciplinary point of view.”
I see, so because the church says the comma can’t be “denied or called into doubt,” that’s okay. The Holy Office said so. Just don’t put the divine name in the NT. It’s more appropriate to remove it 6,000+ times from the OT. C’mon.
“I understand that you have a very low opinion of Catholic Christians, but if you can really believe that they were able to insist on a translation of plant name more than on a biblical question concerning the identity of God, then reconsider whether my Islamic parallel is really so offensive.”
I have a very high opinion of many Catholics. Many in the past and many today. Don’t read intent into my words. You’re the one who brought an attack of a church into this. I’ve outlined above why your Islamic parallel is ridiculous. We have the accurate Word of God and have the privilege of being free to discuss translation principles and manuscript evidence as a free people. No one is burning us for the attempt. But the unifying fact of most that I see commenting here is that we trust the Bible we have is the genuine Word of God. And the publications you are railing against have done tremendous good in reinforcing that conviction in millions of people.
So while you insist on attempting to whitewash and minimize the references made above by others, there are legitimate questions regarding the Tetragrammaton in the NT.
-NC
@Sean Kasabuske
1. Claim: "God inspiring the replacement of His name with a generic title to support Christological ideas is untenable."
The idea that God “replaced” His name with Kyrios is a misunderstanding of how God reveals Himself through salvation history. Divine revelation unfolds progressively, culminating in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The use of Kyrios in the New Testament is not a replacement but a theologically deliberate continuation of how God’s name was revered and understood by Jews at the time.
The Tetragrammaton was revealed in the Old Testament as a pedagogical tool: it emphasized that Israel’s God was the one true God, distinguishing Him from false deities in a polytheistic world. As Jewish monotheism became firmly established after the Babylonian Exile, pronouncing the divine name was avoided out of reverence, replacing it with Adonai (Lord). By the time of the New Testament, this tradition was so deeply ingrained that the Septuagint, used by Jews and Christians, substituted Kyrios for YHWH. Jesus and the apostles respected this tradition. Their use of Kyrios reflects continuity, not capriciousness.
The New Testament’s use of Kyrios serves a profound Christological purpose: it identifies Jesus with YHWH. When the NT writers quote Old Testament passages referring to YHWH and apply them to Jesus, they reveal His divine identity. Romans 10:13 quotes Joel 2:32, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Kyrios] will be saved”, here, Kyrios clearly refers to Jesus, equating Him with YHWH. Philippians 2:9-11 says that Jesus is given “The Name above every name,” and that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” This echoes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares that every knee will bow to Him alone. If God had intended Jesus to be called YHWH explicitly, it would undermine the very purpose of the incarnation. Jesus became fully human to reveal God’s presence among us, without overwhelming humanity with a direct and ineffable confrontation of God’s divine essence (cf. Exodus 33:20).
So God is not "replacing" His name but fulfilling its meaning in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus perfectly reveals the Father (John 14:9). The use of Kyrios achieves this without compromising reverence for God’s transcendence.
(1/2)
(2/2)
2. Claim: "If the divine name didn’t appear in the NT, it was to avoid identifying the Son as YHWH."
Your argument assumes that the NT avoids equating Jesus with YHWH. However, the opposite is true: the NT writers deliberately identify Jesus with YHWH by applying Old Testament texts about YHWH to Christ. This is done through the title Kyrios, which had become the standard substitute (Adonai) for the divine name among Jews. In John 8:58 Jesus directly uses the language of Exodus 3:14, where God reveals Himself as “I AM WHO I AM.” This is an explicit claim to divinity, which is why His audience reacts by attempting to stone Him for blasphemy. In Hebrews 1:10-12 the author applies Psalm 102:25-27 (a passage about YHWH as Creator) to Jesus. In Revelation 1:8 Jesus refers to Himself as “the Alpha and the Omega,” a title uniquely ascribed to YHWH (Isaiah 44:6).
Acts 2:36 refers to Jesus’ human nature being glorified through the resurrection and ascension. The statement “God has made Him Lord” does not deny Christ’s eternal divine nature. Rather, it emphasizes that Jesus, as fully human, has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father. This is consistent with Philippians 2:9-11, which describes Jesus’ exaltation following His humility and obedience to death. The title Kyrios is given to Jesus as the culmination of His salvific work, not as something newly conferred upon Him in essence. Jesus has always been Lord by virtue of His divine nature. What is “made” or conferred is the manifestation of His Lordship in His human nature after the resurrection. This does not conflict with His eternal divine identity as the Son.
Early Jewish Christians did not see a conflict between Kyrios as a reference to YHWH and its application to Jesus. Paul’s writings consistently use Kyrios to affirm Jesus’ divinity and role in salvation. The absence of recorded disputes about this indicates that the apostolic teaching was clear: Jesus is Lord in the fullest sense, sharing in the divine identity of the Father.
3. Claim: "Jesus is Lord in a special conferred sense, not as YHWH."
Actually Jesus is Lord in BOTH a divine AND messianic sense: the title Kyrios as applied to Jesus operates on two levels:
A) Divine Lordship: The NT writers use Kyrios to directly identify Jesus with YHWH. This is evident in OT quotations where Kyrios (YHWH) is applied to Jesus. For example Romans 10:9-13 connects confessing Jesus as Kyrios with calling on the name of YHWH (Joel 2:32).
B) Messianic Lordship: As Messiah, Jesus is also “Lord” in the sense of being the promised Davidic King who reigns with divine authority (cf. Psalm 110:1). This does not exclude His divine nature but fulfills God’s promise to establish a ruler whose kingdom will have no end (Luke 1:32-33).
Jesus’ divine Lordship is eternal, whereas His messianic Lordship is revealed and recognized in time through the Incarnation and Resurrection.
So your claim that “either Jesus is Lord in a conferred sense or He cannot be YHWH” is false dichotomy: Jesus is Lord in both senses. The NT identifies Him as the eternal Kyrios (=YHWH) and as the exalted Messiah who fulfills God’s promises. Early Christians, steeped in Jewish traditions, did not see Kyrios as a lesser title. They understood its dual significance and applied it to Jesus in a way that affirmed His divine identity. To insist that Jesus must be explicitly called YHWH in the NT misunderstands how God progressively revealed Himself. The NT fulfills and transcends the OT revelation, identifying Jesus as the full and final disclosure of God (John 1:18).
@Anonymous -NC
The use of Kyrios in place of the Tetragrammaton was an established Jewish practice that predated Christianity. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in a handful of pre-Christian LXX fragments, such as Fouad 266 and 4Q120, reflects ISOLATED scribal traditions rather than a universal practice. These examples are localized, limited, and do not represent a dominant trend. The majority of pre-Christian LXX manuscripts do not survive, so it is speculative to assume the Tetragrammaton was universally used. By the first century BCE, many Greek-speaking Jews had already adopted the practice of substituting Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton when reading or writing scripture. This substitution was consistent with the oral tradition of saying Adonai in Hebrew, which shows reverence for the divine name. Philo of Alexandria provides clear evidence of this practice. Philo extensively quoted the LXX and explicitly equated Kyrios with the divine name, suggesting this usage predated Christianity.The New Testament writers inherited and continued this practice, consistently quoting from LXX versions that use Kyrios rather than the Tetragrammaton.
I once argued with a JW about the hypothesis that IF they found one single 2-3rd century NT manuscript fragment which would contain some form of the Tetragrammaton (e.g. IAO). Well, what would that prove? That this was the original apostolic variant? That the JW emphasis on the "use" of the Tetragrammaton was the original understanding in the apostolic age? Not even remotely! This would prove only that there was ALSO such a thing, we would not really know anything about who made it, what group it belonged to, what theological background represented. So we wouldn’t really know *anything* specific about this issue. For example, according to Pietersma, the Greek OT editions with the forms of the Tetragrammaton are the result of a later rehabraizing recension, so the hypothetical NT manuscript I suggested could also be the own product of a Judaizing heterodox sect (e.g. Ebionites), so we wouldn't really know anything specific, it's all just speculation, but let's not doubt it, the Watchtower would immediately start promoting that their claim regarding this has been “proven”.
If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton and substituted Kyrios, we would expect to see clear textual and historical evidence of this shift (e.g., transitional manuscripts or early polemics). However, no such evidence exists. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in all extant NT manuscripts—including the earliest papyri—demonstrates that Kyrios was already the standard rendering for the divine name in the LXX texts used by the NT authors.
The evidence from pre-Christian Jewish tradition, Philo, and the NT demonstrates that Kyrios was not a Christian innovation but a continuation of a Jewish practice. The limited examples of the Tetragrammaton in early LXX fragments reflect isolated, not universal, scribal traditions.
(2/2)
The Johannine Comma was a late addition to the Latin Vulgate and is absent from all early Greek manuscripts. Catholic scholars, including those at the Council of Trent, defended its inclusion for disciplinary reasons—specifically to preserve the received text used in the liturgy, not to assert its textual originality. The Church never claimed that the Johannine Comma was part of the original NT text in a critical sense. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the juridical authority of the Vulgate for liturgical and doctrinal purposes and the textual critical evidence of the original manuscripts (cf. “Divino afflante Spiritu” 20-22). The Watchtower Society, by contrast, asserts that "Jehovah" was originally in the NT text and was systematically removed—without any manuscript evidence to support this claim. This is a far more serious assertion because it accuses the early Christian community of deliberate textual corruption. Unlike the Johannine Comma, the insertion of "Jehovah" into the NT has no basis in the textual tradition. All extant NT manuscripts use Kyrios or Theos where the Watchtower inserts "Jehovah". The Catholic Church allows scholarly investigation into the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 and has not dogmatically (ex cathedra/de fide) declared it part of the original text. This approach contrasts sharply with the Watchtower’s insistence on restoring "Jehovah" without any supporting manuscript evidence.
The scribal convention of using nomina sacra (abbreviations for sacred words like Kyrios and Theos) emerged in the second century and reflects profound reverence for divine references in Christian texts. As Larry Hurtado argues, the use of nomina sacra was likely a theological innovation that highlighted divine names, including those used for Christ. This innovation underscores the early Christian belief in Jesus' divine identity. The substitution of the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios reflects continuity with Jewish practices of saying Adonai or HaShem instead of pronouncing YHWH. Far from being an erasure, the use of Kyrios maintained the reverence associated with the divine name while emphasizing Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. If the Tetragrammaton had been systematically removed from the NT, this would have caused massive controversy in the early Church. Yet no such controversy is recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers, even during periods of intense theological debate (e.g., the Arian controversy).
Both the Watchtower Society and Islamic scholars assert that the Bible was systematically corrupted to obscure fundamental truths about God. This claim undermines the reliability of scripture as a whole. If the divine name was removed from the NT, as the Watchtower asserts, then how can Christians trust any part of the NT to be authentic? The Catholic position upholds the textual integrity of scripture, affirming that the NT has been faithfully preserved. By contrast, the Watchtower’s claims align with Islamic accusations of taḥrīf, not with historical Christianity. So the Islamic parallel remains valid because both the Watchtower and taḥrīf assert deliberate textual corruption.
The consistent use of Kyrios in the NT and LXX reflects the established practice of Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in all NT manuscripts and patristic writings demonstrates that the NT authors did not include it. Highlighting these facts is not whitewashing but upholding the historical and textual evidence.
@Anonymous
The existence of textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts does not equate to systematic tampering. Variants arise naturally due to the human process of copying texts by hand over centuries. The vast majority of these are minor (e.g., spelling differences, word order changes) and have no theological impact. The New Testament is the most well-attested ancient text, with over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and thousands of early translations (e.g., Latin, Coptic, Syriac). The sheer quantity of manuscripts allows textual critics to identify and correct scribal errors with remarkable accuracy. This abundance demonstrates God’s providence in preserving His Word despite human limitations. Claims of “tampering” regarding the removal of the Tetragrammaton are unsupported. If such a systematic alteration had occurred: Transitional Manuscripts would exist showing the shift from the Tetragrammaton to Kyrios. None have been found. Early Church Fathers would have protested such a significant change. Yet, there is absolute silence on this issue in their writings. Heretical Groups like the Arians would have exploited the divine name in their Christological debates. They never did, because the New Testament manuscripts never included the Tetragrammaton.
The doctrine of preservation does not imply that God dictated perfect manuscript copies across all ages. Instead, God preserved His Word through the faithful transmission of scripture over time, ensuring that His message remained intact and reliable. Psalm 12:6-7 and similar verses affirm that God’s words are "pure" and "preserved forever." This promise applies to the substance and message of scripture, not necessarily to the absence of every scribal error. The consistency of core doctrines across thousands of manuscripts is evidence of this preservation.
Claims of tampering are serious and require extraordinary evidence. The Watchtower Society asserts that the Tetragrammaton was systematically removed, yet they produce no manuscript evidence to support this assertion. All extant New Testament manuscripts—from the earliest papyri to later copies—consistently use Kyrios or Theos where the Watchtower inserts "Jehovah." Alleging tampering without evidence contradicts the overwhelming historical and textual data affirming the reliability of the New Testament.
The consistent use of Kyrios in the New Testament is not evidence of tampering but a theologically inspired choice under divine guidance. This choice reflects:
A) The fulfillment of Old Testament revelation: By applying Kyrios (Lord) to Jesus, the NT writers equated Him with the Lord (YHWH) of the Old Testament (e.g., Romans 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32).
B) Continuity with Jewish practice: Greek-speaking Jews were already substituting Kyrios for YHWH in the Septuagint long before Christianity.
C) Early Christians’ high Christology: Identifying Jesus as Kyrios was a deliberate and inspired declaration of His divinity and unity with the Father.
The New Testament consistently conveys God’s name and nature through titles like Kyrios (Lord) and Theos (God). These terms reflect the Jewish reverence for God’s name and the early Christians’ belief in Jesus’ divine identity. The absence of the Tetragrammaton is not a failure but an intentional reflection of God’s progressive revelation through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). The presence of God’s Word is not dependent on a specific rendering of His name but on the faithfulness of His message. The NT authors, under divine inspiration, used Kyrios to proclaim the Lordship of Jesus without compromising the truth of God’s Word.
Books like Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs do not contain the Tetragrammaton. Are we to believe these texts were “tampered with”? Of course not. Their inclusion in the canon demonstrates that a book’s inspiration does not depend on the frequent use of God’s personal name. God’s Word remains inspired and authoritative, regardless of whether the Tetragrammaton appears in a particular text.
The Decree of the Holy Office, January 13, 1897:
To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into doubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which reads as follows: 'And there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?' "
The answer given was that one could not safely deny the JC.
However on June 2, 1927, another reply was given by the same authoritative office:
"This decree was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the authenticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that and temperance which the gravity of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully."
Talk about things that need to be proved or demonstrated. I've seen Pietersma's suggestion argued and defended but never proved to a satisfactory degree, much less demonstrated apodictically. I don't see how it can be proved without more evidence.
@Edgar Foster
Your citation of the Decree of the Holy Office (1897) and the follow-up clarification in 1927 is significant but must be carefully contextualized within Catholic teaching and the development of biblical studies.
The 1897 Holy Office decree regarding the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) was disciplinary, not dogmatic. The decree was aimed at combating the growing rejection of the text in certain circles, which threatened the Church's authoritative role in safeguarding Scripture. At the time, the Comma was part of the Clementine Vulgate, the Latin Bible declared "authentic" for use in the liturgy and teaching at the Council of Trent (1546). The Council of Trent did not declare the Vulgate to be free of every textual imperfection but instead affirmed its reliability in matters of faith and morals (Divino Afflante Spiritu, §21). The 1897 decree was an act of prudence to protect the received text from arbitrary rejection at a time when textual criticism was still in its infancy.
The Holy Office clarified in 1927 that the earlier decree did not preclude scholarly investigation into the authenticity of the Johannine Comma. Catholic scholars were permitted to weigh arguments both for and against its inclusion, provided they remained obedient to the Church's magisterium. This reflects the Church's balanced approach to Scripture, where juridical authority (Trent) and critical scholarship (modern exegesis) are harmonized. As Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) later reaffirmed, the Church encourages biblical scholars to investigate Scripture using the original texts, critical tools, and historical methods, always within the bounds of faith and respect for tradition.
Trent's affirmation of the Vulgate as “authentic” applies to its use in the liturgical and doctrinal life of the Church (juridical authority), not as a definitive critical edition superior to the Hebrew and Greek originals. Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu explicitly clarified this point:
“The special authority or authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries...” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, §21).
The Johannine Comma is an isolated textual interpolation with limited manuscript support, and the Church never claimed it was part of the original Greek text. Catholic scholars acknowledge its late addition and have long debated its authenticity within the bounds of Church authority. In contrast, the Watchtower Society’s assertion that the Tetragrammaton was systematically removed from the New Testament implies a universal conspiracy among early Christians and scribes—a claim with no manuscript or historical evidence. Unlike the Johannine Comma, which appears sporadically in some Latin texts, no New Testament manuscript includes YHWH. All evidence points to the inspired use of Kyrios and Theos as substitutes for the divine name, consistent with the Jewish custom in the Septuagint.
Divino Afflante Spiritu marked a major development in Catholic biblical scholarship by encouraging the use of textual criticism and the study of original languages. This approach does not diminish the juridical authority of the Vulgate but seeks to provide a clearer understanding of Scripture's meaning: "Exegetes should base their interpretation on the original text, 'for this, being the actual work of the sacred writer himself, has greater authority and weight than any translation, however excellent'...” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, §21).
In short, the two cases are fundamentally different:
1) The Johannine Comma was defended juridically, not as part of the original text.
2) The Watchtower claims a systematic corruption of the New Testament text, which is historically and critically untenable.
Catholic teaching embraces both tradition and critical scholarship, allowing for a more faithful and informed understanding of God’s Word.
"A) The fulfillment of Old Testament revelation: By applying Kyrios (Lord) to Jesus, the NT writers equated Him with the Lord (YHWH) of the Old Testament (e.g., Romans 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32)."
Or just maybe the removal of the divine name from the OT allows you to blur the lines enough to fool people into believing sharing a title can prove the Trinity.
"B) Continuity with Jewish practice: Greek-speaking Jews were already substituting Kyrios for YHWH in the Septuagint long before Christianity."
You mean the same Jewish nation that Jesus rejected and opened the way for people of all nations to experience salvation. They rejected him as the Messiah. Glad to know their practices were so important for the church to continue.
"C) Early Christians’ high Christology: Identifying Jesus as Kyrios was a deliberate and inspired declaration of His divinity and unity with the Father."
Just keep saying it. Repetition might convince some.
But the climax you get to here:
"The consistent use of Kyrios in the New Testament is not evidence of tampering but a theologically inspired choice under divine guidance."
Now we get to the root of your argument. You proclaim your divine authority under the guidance of God and pronounce all other posits false. We keep getting back to the same problem. You argue from a pulpit, and until someone else possesses the pulpit, you can't be wrong. Maybe Machiavelli kept his fingers in the church more than I thought.
-NC
@Edgar Foster
https://web.archive.org/web/20110810225812fw_/http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm/Kyrios%20or%20Tetragram.pdf
Your objection to Pietersma’s thesis is understandable, as any reconstruction of ancient scribal practice requires careful evidence and cannot be “proved” in an apodictic sense. However, Pietersma’s argument is supported by both textual and contextual considerations, and while absolute certainty is elusive in textual criticism, the coherence of his proposal has garnered support from other scholars like Sean M. McDonough, Natalio Fernández Marcos, Larry Perkins and Martin Rösel.
Pietersma proposes that the inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in SOME Septuagint manuscripts is the result of rehabraizing recensions—attempts by certain Jewish communities to “re-Hebraize” their Greek texts. He bases this on the translation technique employed by the LXX translators. The translators systematically rendered the Hebrew YHWH as Kyrios in many cases. The presence of the Tetragrammaton in some Greek manuscripts (e.g., Papyrus Fouad 266) reflects localized or later scribal preferences rather than the original translation. This argument aligns with the evidence that Greek-speaking Jews by the second century BCE were already substituting Adonai for the Tetragrammaton when reading aloud. Pietersma’s reasoning is not that the Tetragrammaton never appeared in early Greek texts, but rather that its usage in some manuscripts represents a *later* attempt to align the LXX with Hebrew traditions.
The overwhelming majority of Septuagint manuscripts, including those most representative of early Greek scribal practice, use Kyrios instead of the Tetragrammaton. As noted in Mundhenk's study, some manuscripts employed substitutes like ΙΑΩ or blank spaces instead of YHWH, reflecting a lack of uniformity. This variety suggests that efforts to retain the Tetragrammaton were not original but arose as isolated or regional attempts. By the time of the New Testament and Philo of Alexandria, the use of Kyrios had become a standard practice among Greek-speaking Jews for reverence. Philo, for instance, uses Kyrios consistently without any suggestion of controversy.
Pietersma’s argument also considers the cultural and theological context. The LXX was created for Greek-speaking Jews who already avoided pronouncing YHWH, substituting Adonai. Translating YHWH as Kyrios reflected this practice and avoided offense. The NT writers, who quoted extensively from the LXX, demonstrate their acceptance of Kyrios. For example, Paul applies passages from Isaiah containing YHWH to Jesus (e.g., Romans 10:13 quoting Joel 2:32, cf. https://t.ly/B_08c ). Mundhenk reinforces this point: NT writers intentionally applied Kyrios passages referring to YHWH to Jesus, signifying continuity between OT and NT theology. If YHWH had been widespread in the LXX, its absence from NT quotations would be unexplainable. Thus, Kyrios was already entrenched.
So the presence of YHWH in some LXX fragments, such as Papyrus Fouad 266, does not overturn the weight of the evidence. Instead these instances likely reflect localized Hebraizing revisions aimed at reintroducing the Tetragrammaton into Greek texts used within specific communities. Pietersma’s hypothesis explains the observed evidence without requiring an implausible scenario where YHWH was universally replaced with Kyrios across all manuscripts at a later date.
Therefore, while Pietersma’s thesis may not be provable to a degree of absolute certainty, it remains the most coherent explanation, fitting both textual data and historical context. The support of scholars like Rösel and Perkins further underscores its scholarly legitimacy. If you wish to challenge this, you would need to demonstrate why such localized revisions (Hebraizing tendencies) should be preferred over the broadly attested use of Kyrios as the original translation choice.
Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaige_revision
Just briefly, as all are busy with more important tasks:
1. Do you feel Pietersma would have drawn the same conclusions post-1990's, as more of the Dead Sea discoveries came to the surface?
2. Why didn't Origen's perspective hold more weight in his analysis? In fact, he seems rather dismissive of his comments in regards to the subject.
If no time for your comments, I understand completely. But it stands out to me in his research on the subject.
-NC
And there is another important difference between the Johannine Comma and the NT Tetragrammaton issue
The Johannine Comma is not the result of intentional text forgery, but according to the most likely hypothesis, it originated in Spain, and that is because Cyprian's allegorical commentary on this biblical text was written as an appendage next to the main biblical text, and the copyist, not being sure whether it was part of the biblical text itself, copied it into the main text to avoid text loss, and from then on this was copied further.
And since the number of biblical codices in the Middle Ages was limited, it is entirely probable that there was simply no way to compare the received text with other codices, and so it was copied further due to a simple well-intentioned error. This example also shows that the copyists had a tendency to remove extra texts rather than delete things in order to avoid text loss. It is also important to note that this could have happened no earlier than the 6th-7th century (neither the Codex Fuldensis nor the Codex Amiatinus contain it), i.e. long after the Arian controversy had ended, so it is not some kind of deliberate Trinitarian conspiracy.
A deliberate and perfect textual forgery of the type that the JWs claim about the NT Tetragrammaton would have been physically possible only if the Church had implemented a standardization like that implemented by Uthman ibn Affan on the Quran. However, this - even if there had been such an intention - would not have been physically possible before the Constantine shift, given that, unlike Islam, which was quickly gaining a position of power, Christianity was a small and persecuted community in its first three centuries, without capability to carry out such centralized textual purge.
A helpful survey of the data for YHWH: de/archiv/kristin-de-troyer-the-names-of-god-their-pronunciation-and-their-translation-a-digital-tour-of-some-of-the-main-witnesses.html
@Anonymous -NC
Your assertion presupposes that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) was “removed” from the Old Testament and that this alleged removal allowed Christians to “blur the lines” and attribute divinity to Jesus. However, this claim lacks historical and textual support. By the second century BCE, the Greek-speaking Jewish community was already substituting Kyrios for YHWH in their scriptures. This substitution occurred long before Christianity and was not a product of Christian tampering. Jewish practice itself established Kyrios as the reverential title for YHWH. Philo of Alexandria demonstrates this in his writings where he consistently uses Kyrios when referring to God, never the Tetragrammaton. The Dead Sea Scrolls also show textual variation, while SOME Greek manuscripts of the LXX retain the Tetragrammaton, others substitute it with Kyrios, indicating a diversity of Jewish scribal practice before Christianity. The New Testament quotes the Septuagint extensively, and in every single case where a passage referencing YHWH is cited, the NT authors use Kyrios. Paul applies this OT text about YHWH to Jesus, clearly identifying Him with the Lord of the Old Testament.
Your suggestion that Christians deliberately removed the Tetragrammaton to fabricate the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the textual evidence, there is no NT manuscript, early or late, that contains the Tetragrammaton. If this alleged “removal” had occurred, we would expect significant manuscript evidence or complaints from early Christians or heretical sects who opposed such tampering. Yet no such evidence exists. Even groups like the Arians, who denied Christ’s full divinity, never argued for a “lost divine name” to counter Trinitarian claims. Their silence is telling. If there had been such an early NT manuscript with the Tetragrammaton anywhere, it would have been the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima, where the Hexapla was also kept. This question should have arisen during the Arian disputes. The NT writers’ consistent use of Kyrios reflects their inspired interpretation of Scripture—not tampering. They saw in Jesus the fulfillment of YHWH’s self-revelation.
(1/2)
(2/2)
“Why follow Jewish practices if the Jews rejected Jesus?”
This argument is a red herring. The fact that many Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah does not invalidate their preservation of scripture and liturgical practices. In fact Jesus Himself affirmed Jewish scriptures (cf. Matthew 5:17-18) and quoted the Septuagint, which used Kyrios. The NT authors, including the Jewish apostles Peter, Paul, and John, all operated within the Jewish tradition of reverencing God’s name while recognizing Jesus as Lord (Kyrios). The early Church was not abandoning Judaism but recognizing its fulfillment in Christ (cf. Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:27). In fact, neither Christ nor the apostles rejected ALL Jewish customs or traditions; the theological environment of the New Testament is based on, builds upon, and develops Pharisaic theology (Matthew 23:2-3, Acts 23:6). Moreover, if Jewish practices such as substituting Kyrios for YHWH were invalid simply because “Jews rejected Jesus,” then by the same logic, you would have to reject the entire Old Testament, which was preserved by the Jewish community.
“Repetition doesn’t prove Jesus’ divinity”
This statement dismisses the evidence rather than engaging with it. The NT writers’ identification of Jesus with Kyrios is not mere “repetition”—it is a theologically profound and deliberate act. Consider the following examples: Philippians 2:9-11 echoes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH declares that every knee will bow and every tongue swear allegiance to Him, and Paul attributes this to Jesus, identifying Him as the Lord of Isaiah. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul deliberately parallels the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, affirming Jesus’ unity with God while maintaining monotheism. The NT writers consistently elevated Jesus to the position of Kyrios, applying to Him OT passages about YHWH. This was not casual repetition but an inspired declaration of Christ’s divinity.
“You argue from a pulpit and can’t be wrong”
This accusation is an ad hominem that does not address the evidence. My argument is not based on “divine authority” but on the textual, historical, and theological evidence:
1. The substitution of Kyrios for YHWH in the LXX pre-dates Christianity.
2. The NT consistently uses Kyrios in citations of OT passages about YHWH.
3. Early Christians deliberately identified Jesus as Kyrios to affirm His divine Lordship, not to fabricate the Trinity.
4. There is no manuscript evidence to suggest the Tetragrammaton was ever included in the NT.
If you wish to refute these points, you must provide:
• Manuscript evidence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT.
• Historical evidence of an alleged removal of the divine name.
• A coherent explanation for the NT’s consistent use of Kyrios, even in passages where OT context clearly refers to YHWH.
I wrote this earlier:
“A deliberate and perfect textual forgery of the type that the JWs claim about the NT Tetragrammaton would have been physically possible only if the Church had implemented a standardization like that implemented by Uthman ibn Affan on the Quran.”
I would add to this line of thought that consider that even the Uthmanic standardization of the Qur'an was not perfect, and evidence remains that other textual versions existed prior to Uthman's efforts. Capih Uthman ordered the burning of all other manuscripts that differed from the standardized version to suppress existing variations. This very act implies that multiple Qur'anic versions circulated before his standardization.
Prominent companions of Muhammad, such as Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b, had their own codices that differed from Uthman's version. Ibn Mas’ud’s codex excluded Surahs 1, 113, and 114, Ubayy ibn Ka’b’s codex included additional surahs, such as the “Surah of the Two Lights,” not found in the current Qur'an. Islamic traditions themselves confirm these differences, showing that Uthman did not erase all evidence of alternative readings.
Early Qur'anic manuscripts, such as the Sana’a Palimpsest, reveal textual variants when compared to the Uthmanic text. These manuscripts contain differences in wording, order, and even omitted or added verses, proving that diverse versions existed.
The existence of multiple qira’at (canonical recitation styles), such as those of Hafs and Warsh, demonstrates that variations persisted even after Uthman’s standardization. These differences include changes in vowels, diacritical marks, and sometimes even words, which alter meanings.
So despite Uthman’s efforts to enforce a single Qur'anic text, the historical testimonies, manuscript discoveries (e.g., the Sana'a Palimpsest), and surviving variant recitations demonstrate that multiple versions of the Qur'an existed. Uthman’s standardization was not able to completely erase the evidence of these earlier textual differences.
In light of this, I ask, how was the "evil" Catholic Church able to remove the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament without leaving any direct or indirect trace of it?
@Anonymous -NC
The core of Pietersma's argument likely remains intact even after the 1990s. While it is true that additional Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) fragments have been discovered, these findings do not overturn the critical distinction Pietersma made: that the Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts reflects a later, hebraizing recension, rather than the original Septuagint tradition.
Additional DSS fragments, such as those containing the Tetragrammaton written in paleo-Hebrew or Greek transliterations like IAO, reinforce the fact that some Jewish scribes intentionally preserved the divine name. However, these examples remain localized recensional changes rather than evidence for the original translation. Pietersma already acknowledged this trend, describing it as a secondary stage of textual revision influenced by Hebrew traditions. Notably, 4QLXXLevb (dated to the 1st century BCE), which uses IAO, was already considered in Pietersma’s study. New findings have not provided stronger evidence of an earlier Tetragrammaton in the original LXX.
No pre-Christian Greek manuscript of the LXX has yet surfaced that unambiguously proves the Tetragrammaton was the original reading throughout the Septuagint tradition. The overwhelming majority of textual evidence—whether internal (e.g., translation consistency) or external (e.g., Jewish Greek texts like Philo)—still favors Kyrios as the primary reading in the LXX.
Therefore, while the discoveries post-1990s are valuable for understanding Jewish reverence for the divine name in various contexts, they continue to align with Pietersma's thesis: the Tetragrammaton reflects later efforts to “re-Hebraize” the Greek text, not the initial Alexandrian translation.
Pietersma’s treatment of Origen is not dismissive in a superficial sense; rather, it reflects a critical engagement with Origen’s methodology and historical context. Origen was an ardent proponent of the Hebraica Veritas—the idea that the Hebrew text preserved the purest form of Scripture. In his monumental Hexapla, Origen meticulously compared Hebrew and Greek texts, often favoring Hebrew readings when textual differences arose. Given this bias, Origen’s preference for manuscripts with the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters reflects his theological commitment rather than evidence for the original LXX text.
When Origen describes the “more accurate” Greek copies containing the Tetragrammaton, he is referencing manuscripts available in his time (3rd century CE). By then, hebraizing revisions had already influenced parts of the Greek textual tradition, especially in Palestine. Pietersma rightly notes that Origen's view proves only that some Jewish communities reintroduced the Tetragrammaton into Greek texts. It does not establish that these forms were original to the Alexandrian LXX.
The Hexapla was not a simple collation of pristine manuscripts; it was a reconstructive project aimed at reconciling Greek versions (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) with the Hebrew text. His insertion of the Tetragrammaton aligns with this goal but does not prove originality. Pietersma applies rigorous text-critical principles, examining both internal evidence (translation consistency of Kyrios in the Pentateuch and beyond), and external evidence (manuscripts predating Origen, such as P. Fouad 266, which reflect lat e insertions of the Tetragrammaton). Pietersma’s conclusion that Kyrios is original aligns better with this broader evidence than Origen’s subjective preference for manuscripts he considered “accurate.” So Origen’s perspective is historically significant but not definitive because it reflects a 3rd-century corrective agenda, not the original Alexandrian translation process.
If we focus on the totality of evidence—translation techniques, manuscript traditions, and the broader cultural context—it remains clear that Kyrios was deliberately chosen by the LXX translators as the surrogate for the Tetragrammaton.
Pietersma’s argument gains further strength when considered alongside the textual phenomena of the kaige revision, a group of revisions aimed at aligning the Septuagint more closely with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. This directly ties into the discussion on the appearance of the Tetragrammaton in certain manuscripts and its implications for the original LXX text.
The kaige recension reflects a systematic attempt to re-Hebraize the LXX by introducing linguistic and textual changes. Notably, kaige often uses the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton instead of Kyrios. This aligns with what is observed in 8HevXII gr, a scroll that reflects revisions to an earlier Greek text. Kristin De Troyer aptly points out the crux of the debate: Is the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in kaige texts secondary (a revision) or evidence of the Old Greek? Pietersma’s thesis resolves this question by placing the introduction of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX squarely in the context of re-Hebraizing revisions. His analysis of the translation technique reveals that Kyrios was the original choice of the LXX translators. The appearance of YHWH in paleo-Hebrew reflects a later recension driven by the influence of Palestinian Judaism.
Both 8HevXII gr and P. Fouad 266 are revisions that reflect re-Hebraizing tendencies. These revisions Replace Kyrios with the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton, and Demonstrate a secondary stage of textual development, as Pietersma and scholars like Hanhart emphasize. Emanuel Tov and others note that the kaige revision coincides with a time when Palestinian Judaism began to reject the LXX in favor of the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. As such, re-Hebraizing tendencies, including the reintroduction of YHWH, likely stemmed from these efforts. Pietersma suggests that this trend spread to the Diaspora, influencing manuscripts like P. Fouad 266 and the scrolls from Qumran.
Scholars such as Tuukka Kauhanen and Martin Hengel suggest that the New Testament authors may have been familiar with kaige-type texts that reflect Hebraizing revisions. However, the New Testament’s consistent use of Kyrios aligns with the original LXX tradition rather than the secondary, re-Hebraized revisions.
The kaige revision proves that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in pre-Christian manuscripts is not evidence of its originality but rather a product of deliberate revision. The translators of the Old Greek chose Kyrios as the surrogate for YHWH, not as a textual corruption, but as a faithful Greek equivalent in line with Jewish reverence for the divine name.
@Edgar Foster
De Troyer states: "The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures which the early Christians used, contained God's name in either Greek or Hebrew form, and that this was replaced by the Greek form of 'Lord' sometime after the first century."
Pietersma challenges this by asserting that Kyrios was the original rendering of the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint, rather than a later Christian substitution. The presence of Kyrios in major Greek codices (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus) reflects an older tradition rather than a deliberate, later Christian revision.
De Troyer points out that P. Fouad 266, a pre-Christian manuscript, contains the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew script. However, Emanuel Tov argues that the original Greek scribe left spaces where the divine name was *later* inserted in Hebrew characters. Pietersma argues that this indicates Kyrios could have been part of the original Old Greek tradition, and the Hebrew insertion reflects a later Jewish recension toward the proto-Masoretic text. If the Hebrew Tetragrammaton was inserted later, it does not conclusively prove that all early Greek manuscripts originally used the divine name instead of Kyrios. The presence of Kyrios in Greek witnesses like the Codex Vaticanus may indicate an early Greek translational choice.
De Troyer acknowledges that Greek manuscripts exhibit considerable diversity, with occurrences of IAO (a transliteration of the divine name), Theos, and the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew script. The variability demonstrates that while paleo-Hebrew forms exist, they are not universal or definitive proof that Kyrios was absent in all early versions of the Septuagint. Given the diversity of renderings (IAO, Tetragrammaton, Theos, and Kyrios), Kyrios cannot simply be dismissed as a post-first-century Christian innovation. Pietersma’s hypothesis aligns with the notion that Kyrios was already a normative translation of YHWH in many Septuagint texts.
While Christians adopted and circulated the LXX widely, the notion that they "hijacked" the text and universally replaced the divine name lacks textual evidence. Pietersma’s hypothesis accounts for the use of Kyrios as part of the Septuagint tradition before Christian involvement.
The assertion that Kyrios universally replaced the divine name in the LXX after the first century lacks conclusive evidence. The Pietersma Hypothesis argues persuasively that Kyrios was part of the original Greek translation process. Variations like IAO or the Hebrew Tetragrammaton are exceptions or recensions, not the primary tradition of the Septuagint. De Troyer’s observations support the hypothesis of an evolving, complex textual tradition, but they do not overturn Pietersma’s conclusion that Kyrios was already present in the Old Greek. This challenges the claim that Christians alone were responsible for substituting Kyrios in the LXX and suggests a more nuanced history of the text.
Respecting Pietersma
Emanuel Tov, a giant in the field of OT textual criticism, rejected Pietersma's thesis, and favors the view that the original LXX writings employed Iaw and not Kurios. About the internal evidence upon which Pietersma relies, Tov observed that:
“However, the internal LXX evidence offered in support of this assumption is not convincing, as all the irregularities pertaining to the anarthrous use of kurios can also be explained as having been created by a mechanical replacement of Iaw with kurios by Christian scribes. On the other hand, according to Stegemann and Skehan, Iaw reflects the earliest attested stage in the history of the LXX translation, when the name of God was represented by its transliteration, just like any other personal name in the LXX.”
See: http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/papers/23.Greek.2008.pdf
I certainly find Tov's case more compelling than Pietersma's.
The fact is that all pre-Christian LXX mss. that have been discovered include a form of the divine name, and it seems safe to assume that it is such mss. from which the NT writers would have quoted. The thesis that the earliest form of the LXX had surrogates instead of the divine name is not convincing.
From an historical/text-critical standpoint:
a. All pre-Christian LXX manuscripts that have been discovered have a form of the Divine Name used instead of a surrogate like “Lord.” It’s worth pointing out that it is the pre-Christian LXX documents that the New Testament writers would have quoted from, not the later Christian documents with the Divine Name removed.
b. Yet the Divine Name is not found in any Christian copy of the LXX. There is therefore little question that the Divine Name was replaced with surrogates by professed Christians when it comes to the LXX. This is not a “conspiracy theory”; it’s part of the historical record.
c. In light of #b, it is quite plausible to infer that had the Divine Name appeared in the original New Testament writings, then the post-Apostolic Christians may very well have removed it from those documents, just as they did with the LXX.
d. We know that some Divine Name was included in Christian writings, because the Jewish Encyclopedia online tells us that fanatics would destroy such writings and even sometimes cut out the Divine Names before destroying them, so sacred was the name to the Jews. The fact that they stipulated cutting out the Divine Names from Christian writings tells us that the at least some Divine Name was included in such writings, otherwise there would be no point to the stipulation. It is not certain that YHWH was one of the names that was removed, but it's certainly plausible to assume that it was.
To quote the referenced encyclopedia under GILYONIM ( = Gospels):
“The ‘Gilyon[im]’ and the [Biblical] books of the Judæo-Christians [‘Minim’] are not saved [on the Sabbath] from fire; but one lets them burn together with the names of God written upon them.’ R. Jose the Galilean says: ‘On week-days the names of God are cut out and hidden while the rest is burned.’ R. Tarphon says: ‘I swear by the life of my children that if they fall into my hands I shall burn them together with the names of God upon them.’ R. Ishmael says: ‘If God has said, ‘My name that has been written in holiness [i.e., in the ‘jealousy roll’ mentioned in Num. v. 21 et seq.] shall be wiped out by water, in order to make peace between husband and wife,’ then all the more should the books of the Judæo-Christians, that cause enmity, jealousy, and contention between Israel and its heavenly Father. . . . As they are not saved from fire, so they are not saved when they are in danger of decaying, or when they have fallen into water, or when any other mishap has befallen them”
https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6677-gilyonim
It’s worth noting that Rabbi Tarfon lived from 70 CE to 135 CE, which places him right in the middle of the window period during which the divine name would likely have been removed if it was in fact included in the original New Testament writings, as I believe it was. I find this more than a little suggestive, and it informs my own hypothesis about how the divine name came to be removed.
2. From a faith standpoint:
a. It is unlikely that God would emphasize the importance of his name to the extent that he does in the Hebrew Bible, and then turn around and decide, “Never mind, I’ve decided that my name just doesn’t matter after all.”
b. In light of #a, if we grant that the Christian God does exist and that the Bible is his word, then it is probable that Jesus and the Apostles gave his name the honor it deserves, as can be clearly understood from the Hebrew Bible.
c. Jesus explicitly stated that he made God’s name known.
Interestingly, 1 Cor. 2:16 provides evidence that the divine name was in the New Testament. Two variants suggest this strongly, namely, “Christ” in one group of manuscripts and “Lord” in another.
It’s difficult to imagine why “Christ” would be changed to “Lord,” so that the text would read:
“‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of the Lord.”
On the other hand, it’s easy to see why someone would change the second occurrence of “Lord” to “Christ,” resulting in:
“‘For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.”
The question is, how was the ambiguity introduced in the first place so that a scribe felt compelled to replace the second instance of Κυρίου with Χριστοῦ? It may very well be the case that the original text by Paul read something like this:
“‘For who has understood the mind of [divine name, e.g. Ιαω] so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of the Lord [Κυρίου].”
Then, when the divine name was replaced with surrogates, the ambiguity was introduced, which was later corrected by replacing the second instance of “Lord” with “Christ.”
I think that assuming that the divine name occurred there originally is the best explanation for the textual variants. Otherwise we have to assume that Paul didn’t realize the ambiguity that the presence of “Lord” in both verses presents.
@Sean Kasabuske
Emanuel Tov proposes that the irregularities in the use of Kyrios in the LXX *can* be explained by Christian scribes mechanically replacing ΙΑΩ (or other forms of the Tetragrammaton) with Kyrios. Tov assumes that ΙΑΩ was the original form, and therefore attributes the irregularities to Christian replacement. This is a circular argument. Pietersma challenges this presupposition by analyzing translation technique, arguing that the translators themselves originally employed Kyrios rather than ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton. Pietersma demonstrates that the use of Kyrios is highly consistent in contexts where the Hebrew text uses the Tetragrammaton. The idea that Christian scribes, through mere "mechanical replacement," would achieve this level of consistency is implausible. This degree of uniformity suggests that Kyrios was part of the original translation process, not a later corruption. Texts like 8HevXII gr and P. Fouad 266, which include paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic forms of the Tetragrammaton, exhibit clear signs of revision. These revisions, as Pietersma and Skehan point out, reflect later re-Hebraizing tendencies rather than original LXX practice.
Tov, Stegemann, and Skehan argue that ΙΑΩ reflects the "earliest stage" of the LXX, based on its transliteration of the divine name. However the use of ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton forms in early manuscripts is limited and does not represent the entire textual tradition of the LXX. These texts—like 4QLXXLevb—are isolated witnesses that cannot overturn the broader internal evidence of the Greek Pentateuch. Pietersma’s analysis demonstrates that the introduction of ΙΑΩ or paleo-Hebrew forms into Greek manuscripts aligns with later stages of textual revision. This corresponds to the rise of re-Hebraizing recensions, such as the Kaige recension, where revisions sought to align the LXX more closely with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. As Pietersma and others have noted, Philo consistently uses Kyrios when quoting the Pentateuch, which indicates that this was the form in Greek texts available to him in the first century AD. If ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton were original and widespread, it is unlikely Philo would have used Kyrios so consistently.
The claim that “all” pre-Christian LXX manuscripts include the divine name in some form is inaccurate and overlooks key points. The evidence comes from a small handful of manuscripts (e.g., P. Fouad 266, 8HevXII gr, 4QLXXLevb), which reflect local textual traditions that were subjected to re-Hebraizing corrections. These texts do not represent the original LXX but are revised versions influenced by Palestinian Jewish practice. Pietersma’s identification of these manuscripts as part of a secondary textual stage aligns with the broader historical context. Re-Hebraizing tendencies intensified in the second century BC, as Palestinian Judaism began to assert the supremacy of the Hebrew text over the LXX. The internal consistency of Kyrios in the Greek Pentateuch, coupled with its widespread attestation in non-Hebraized manuscripts, demonstrates that Kyrios was the original Greek surrogate for the Tetragrammaton.
(1/4)
(2/4)
The argument that the NT writers “must” have quoted from manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. All extant NT manuscripts use Kyrios to refer to the divine name, aligning with the dominant LXX tradition rather than re-Hebraized revisions. The NT’s consistent use of Kyrios also serves an important theological purpose: it identifies Jesus Christ with the Kyrios of the Old Testament, fulfilling passages like Joel 2:32. If the NT authors had used manuscripts with the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton, there would be textual remnants or patristic evidence to support this claim. However, no such evidence exists.
So the misleading emphasis that “all” pre-Christian LXX manuscripts include a form of the divine name and that the NT writers quoted from such manuscripts is flawed, because this triumphant “all” actually means a handful of pre-Christian Greek fragments—such as P. Fouad 266 and 4QLXXLevb. These texts represent localized, revised traditions of the Septuagint rather than the broader Greek textual tradition. The overwhelming majority of the extant LXX manuscripts replace YHWH with Kyrios. The presence of the divine name in these manuscripts is not evidence that the original LXX universally used YHWH. These fragments reflect later re-Hebraizing revisions (e.g., Kaige recension) that sought to align the LXX with the Hebrew Masoretic text. The NT writers predominantly quoted the LXX as it existed in their time—which, as textual evidence shows, did not universally include the Tetragrammaton. If YHWH were standard in the LXX, we would expect more extensive manuscript evidence, which does not exist.
The claim that Christians removed the Tetragrammaton from the LXX is speculative and unsupported by evidence. There is no documented evidence—no church council decree, no patristic writing, or external historical record—of Christians deliberately removing YHWH and replacing it with Kyrios. Such a drastic change would require coordination across the Roman Empire, which is historically implausible. The use of Kyrios aligns with the theological understanding of God’s sovereignty. The Jewish practice of reading Adonai instead of YHWH predates Christianity, and Christians adopted Kyrios naturally as a reverent surrogate. The NT authors, writing in Greek, followed Jewish practice by using Kyrios. They did not view the use of Kyrios as a suppression of the divine name but as an appropriate way to refer to YHWH.
The Talmud passage cited (Shabbat 116a) about destroying writings containing “the nameS of God” (plural!) does not prove that early NT manuscripts included the Tetragrammaton. The Talmudic term minim refers to heretics, which could include various groups: Judaizing Christians like Ebionites, Gnostics, or non-mainstream Jewish sects. In Rabbinic and contemporary Israeli modern Hebrew, the term Notzrim is the general official term for Christians, the term Minim rather denotes heretical/heterodox Jews, not Christians. The Talmudic text mentions “the names of God” in plural, not “the Name of God”, and the Rabbinical term for the Tetragrammaton would be Shem HaMephorash. Judaism has different names given to God, which are considered sacred: YHWH, Adonai, El, Elohim, Shaddai, Tzevaoth. It does not specifically identify NT manuscripts, cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilyonim
The passage reflects Jewish hostility toward some unspecified heretical texts, but this does not prove the inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in NT writings at all. The Talmud does not state that NT documents contained the Tetragrammaton.
(2/4)
(3/4)
The idea that the NT originally contained YHWH and that Christians later "removed" it is simply unfounded. No NT manuscript—whether Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Coptic—contains YHWH or the paleo-Hebrew form of the divine name. If YHWH had been in the original NT writings, we would expect at least one fragment to preserve it. The NT consistently uses Kyrios to refer to both God the Father and Jesus, underscoring Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:9-13). Replacing Kyrios with YHWH disrupts the theological argument of passages like Romans 10:13, which applies Joel 2:32 to Christ. If Christians allegedly removed YHWH to "promote" the Trinity, why would they retain OT quotations where God’s name clearly refers to Jesus (e.g., Hebrews 1:10-12 citing Psalm 102:25-27)? This undermines the conspiracy theory of removal.
The argument that Jesus and the Apostles emphasized the divine name misunderstands the phrase "made your name known" (John 17:6). This obviously does not refer to the Tetragrammaton, since it was not Jesus who revealed it to the people, but Moses, and the Jews obviously already knew this, and heard from the mouth of the high priest on Yom Kippur. In Hebrew thought, a "name" represents a person’s character, authority, and presence (cf. Exodus 34:5-7). Jesus did not simply reveal a sound or word (YHWH), but manifested God’s nature and will through his life, ministry, and teaching. Jesus revealed the Father (John 14:9). His use of “name” emphasizes the relationship and revelation of God’s character, not the restoration of a specific term. So this passage in John 17:6 simply means, "I have revealed YOU”.
The argument that God would not allow his name to be "lost" misses the point. The Scriptures emphasize that God’s word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 24:35). The NT’s consistent use of Kyrios does not diminish God’s name; it fulfills its meaning by honoring God’s sovereign Lordship. Jesus and the Apostles prioritized God’s kingdom, character, and redemption rather than focusing on phonetics or specific terms.
(3/4)
(4/4)
You claim that the textual variants in 1 Corinthians 2:16—“Christ” (Χριστοῦ) and “Lord” (Κυρίου)—indicate that the Tetragrammaton (e.g., YHWH or ΙΑΩ) was originally in the text but later "replaced" with surrogates. The claim hinges on two variants of 1 Corinthians 2:16:
A) Variant A: Κυρίου (Kyriou, "Lord") – the more widely attested reading.
B) Variant B: Χριστοῦ (Christou, "Christ") – a minor variant.
The proposed theory that these differences stem from replacing the divine name (YHWH) is baseless for several reasons. No manuscript of the New Testament contains the divine name (e.g., ΙΑΩ, יהוה) at this or any other location. Textual variants showing Κυρίου and Χριστοῦ can easily be explained within the scribal tradition without invoking the Tetragrammaton hypothesis. Scribes sometimes harmonized passages to clarify meanings or to align them with broader theological usage. The shift from Κυρίου to Χριστοῦ likely reflects an attempt to align the text with the surrounding Christological context. The argument assumes Paul would have avoided ambiguity. However, Paul frequently uses Κυριος to refer to both God and Christ, with context determining the referent (e.g., Romans 10:9-13; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18). The presence of Κυρίου in both clauses aligns with Paul’s theological framework: Christ is the “Lord” in the sense of sharing YHWH’s divine identity and authority. Paul saw no need to “clarify” this usage.
To understand why Κυρίου makes sense in this passage, we must examine the context and Paul’s theology. Paul quotes the Septuagint of Isaiah 40:13: "Who has known the mind of the Lord (Kyriou) so as to instruct Him?" In the LXX, Κυριος consistently replaces YHWH, and Paul follows this established Jewish textual tradition. In the second clause, Paul applies the concept of the “mind of the Lord” to Christ: “But we have the mind of Christ (Christou).” This shift is intentional and reflects Paul’s understanding of Christ’s divine role. Far from being ambiguous, the use of Κυριος in the quotation and Χριστος in application reinforces Paul’s theological point: Christ shares in the divine wisdom of God (YHWH). Paul equates having the “mind of Christ” with knowing the “mind of the Lord” (God/YHWH). For Paul, Christ is the fullest revelation of God’s wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24), so the terms Κυριος and Χριστος can be used interchangeably without ambiguity.
Textual variants arise from natural scribal processes, not because of a conspiracy to remove the divine name. Some scribes likely replaced Κυρίου ("Lord") with Χριστοῦ ("Christ") in the second clause to emphasize Christ’s role as the one whose mind Christians possess. This harmonization avoids perceived redundancy and aligns with the immediate focus on Christ. The argument claims that scribes would not replace Χριστοῦ with Κυρίου because it introduces ambiguity. However Κυρίου appears in the majority of manuscripts, which suggests it is the original reading. Replacing Κυρίου with Χριστοῦ clarifies the referent to Christ, which reflects later Christological focus. The reverse process (changing Χριστοῦ to Κυρίου) would have no logical motivation.
The theory that the Tetragrammaton (YHWH or ΙΑΩ) existed in Paul’s writings is unfounded. Despite thousands of NT manuscripts and fragments, not one contains the divine name in any form. This absence undermines claims that YHWH was systematically removed. Early Christian writers and church fathers—such as Clement, Origen, and Irenaeus—quoted this passage with Κυριος or Χριστος, never suggesting a missing divine name. Throughout his letters, Paul applies Κυριος to both God and Christ without confusion (e.g., Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32 but applies Κυριος to Jesus). Paul saw no conflict in this usage because of his high Christology.
It's hard to believe that people, even scholars, read Pietersma without questioning his assertions. But see https://e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/2011/09/g-kilpatricks-review-of-pietersma.html?m=1
The Jews were not afraid of the superstitious utterance of the Name but of its unnecessary invocation, frivolous, meaningless, purposeless, or malicious mention (in Exodus 20:7, the term “in vain” refers to this). Understandably, based on their awe-inspiring experiences with God, they avoided the "vain" use of God's Name. The Jews meticulously copied the Scriptures letter by letter, yet certain errors still occurred. Scribes addressed these with marginal notes, distinguishing between the ketiv ("written") and the qere ("to be read") text. However, they did not mark God's Name with a specific qere, expecting everyone to know that when they saw YHWH, they should pronounce it as "Adonai" ("the Lord"). To this day, Jews often refer to God simply as “the Name” (Ha-Shem).
If Jesus, while reading Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21), had pronounced the Name, wouldn’t the "superstitious" Jews have immediately been scandalized and attacked Him? Instead, we read that they attentively listened to His reading (4:20), and for a while even received His words positively (4:22). While it is true that Jesus “did not teach like the scribes,” it wasn’t merely because He opposed traditions contradicting the Law. Unlike the scribes, who referred to Scripture and each other, Jesus made statements “as one who had authority,” as someone who could refer to Himself (see Matthew 7:29 at the end of the Sermon on the Mount).
Some fragments of the Septuagint include the four Hebrew letters of the Name within the Greek text. However, this does not mean it was later omitted out of "superstition." The replacement of YHWH with Kyrios in the Septuagint was not a translation of YHWH but rather of Adonai, thus drawing attention to the correct reading (the qere). This adjustment was obviously not for the benefit of the Jews but for the Gentiles who read the Septuagint. Gentiles would not have understood the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text and would have misinterpreted them, necessitating the use of Kyrios. During the era of self-deified emperors who demanded the title "Kyrios" (Lord), it was a testament of faith for Jews to declare that their God was "the Lord" (ho Kyrios), not Caesar. The apostles quoted the Old Testament either from the Hebrew text (from memory or possibly scrolls they owned) or from the commonly used first-century editions of the Greek LXX.
There is no extant Greek New Testament fragment that includes even one Hebrew letter or a Greek transliteration of YHWH. There is no historical record that such a New Testament text ever existed or that anyone ever claimed to have seen such a text. Is there any factual basis for the Watchtower's claim that the New Testament writers inserted the Hebrew YHWH into the Greek text? If not, why present this as fact, contradicting well-known historical evidence?
There is no written record within Christianity indicating that the Church ever instructed copyists or translators to eliminate YHWH. Such a decision would have required at least an ecumenical council decree, incited significant internal resistance, and could not have been carried out in secret. No external record from non-Christian sources supports this claim either—something that, for example, Jews could have used as a strong argument during theological debates.
The Watchtower's claim of Bible tampering is thus an unfounded assumption, a hypothesis. Nevertheless, it accuses 2nd- and 3rd-century Christianity of Bible tampering—a grave charge—alleging that because of their supposed sin, people could have believed until the 20th century that YHWH walked among us in Jesus. This calls into question whether God’s revelation succeeded and whether His Word endured; it contradicts Jesus, who said His words would never pass away (Matthew 24:35).
God’s providence preserved the written revelation; through hundreds of extant manuscripts, thousands of fragments, references, and ancient translations, the sacred text has been almost entirely reconstructed, with only a few disputed details. The Aramaic speaker (except Luke) NT writers did not use the Hebrew letters of YHWH, nor did they attempt a Greek phonetic rendering. In Old Testament quotations, YHWH was consistently rendered as "the Lord" (Kyrios). The same word was used to refer to Jesus ("the Lord," Kyrios) and even the Holy Spirit (e.g., 2 Corinthians 3:17). There is no rule or reference in the New Testament suggesting that Kyrios had one meaning for YHWH and a separate meaning for Jesus. Based on these facts, we have only three options:
1. If the New Testament writers did not consider the possibility that readers might “confuse” YHWH with Jesus, they wrote with a level of carelessness that fundamentally undermines the inspiration and sacredness of their writings.
2. If the New Testament writers aimed to deceive intentionally, then the entire issue would be meaningless.
3. If the New Testament writers wrote carefully and conscientiously without intending to mislead, the logical conclusion based on the evidence is that they also affirmed Jesus' deity.
If the writers adhered to Watchtower theology, why were they not concerned about someone "confusing" Jesus with the Lord? Here are two examples:
• Luke 13:15: What is a reader of Luke’s Gospel to think: Who is “the Lord,” and who is “the Lord’s Christ” (Luke 1:43, 2:11, 13:15)? The NWT footnote at 13:15 claims that Kyrios here means “Master,” as if the original text used Rabbi or Didaskalos (“teacher”), but the Greek text uses Kyrios, which cannot mean “master” and exclusively means “lord” / “Lord.”
• Romans 10:13: What is a reader of Paul’s letter to the Romans to think: Who is “the Lord” (Romans 1:4, 4:24, 5:1, 5:11, 5:21, 7:25, 10:9-13, 13:14, 15:6, 15:30, 16:18), and whose Name must one call upon to be saved? How could Paul, a knowledgeable scribe, have quoted the Old Testament so ambiguously?
Are the Watchtower Society's claims based on facts when they assert that:
• Jews avoided pronouncing God’s Name “out of superstitious fear?”
• Unlike the Jews, Jesus freely spoke God’s Name?
• The New Testament writers inserted the Hebrew Name of God into the Greek text?
• 2nd- and 3rd-century Christians “removed” God’s Hebrew Name from the Greek texts?
Is the Watchtower Society justified in concluding that:
• 2nd- and 3rd-century or modern Christians hate God’s Name?
• The Jehovah name needs to be inserted into the New Testament 237 times?
• The teaching that YHWH became incarnate in Jesus is a consequence of Bible tampering?
• God’s judgment is upon other Bible translators?
"From a faith standpoint it is unlikely that God would emphasize the importance of observance of the Mosaic Law (prohibition of eating pork, obligation of circumcision, offering sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, etc.) to the extent that he does in the Hebrew Bible, and then turn around and decide, “Never mind, I’ve decided that these just doesn’t matter after all.”
Have you heard of the Ebionites? Their argumentation technique was the same: "It can't be any different now than it was in the Old Testament!"
I can only encourage you to read this:
https://justpaste.it/b9fiu
"Despite thousands of NT manuscripts and fragments, not one contains the divine name in any form."
This is exactly what one should expect if the divine name was removed early in the transmission of the NT writings, which is what I believe occurred, so this isn't a valid counterargument.
Ninc needs to bear in mind that not all of us have time to interact with his/her endless tedious outpourings.
I come to Edgar's blog to read and interact with Edgar's thoughts, not to be inundated with endless partisan responses from an obsessed JW opposer.
Sadly, scholars are often guilty of being uncritical. The Colwell blunder lasted as long as it did precisely because people trusted Colwell and failed to subject his assertions to rigorous critical scrutiny.
Decades ago I was reading a book by an academic, and found an interesting quote by Thomas Jefferson. So I contacted the author of the book wherein the quote was presented, and the author said that he never saw the original reference, but took it from another author's writing. So he gave me the name of that author, and I contacted him, only to find that he too never saw the original, but took it from yet another second-hand source. The problem wasn't just that neither author verified the quote, but neither of them provided the second-hand reference to show that they didn't verify the quote. That really rammed home how scholars often fail in their due diligence!
Nic,
You are right it is a mis type it is supposed to be 5:10 like you say.
There is a lot of scolarly debate about that, the Jew at the early time of the second century said they would remove the name of God from the christian writings they found and would burn them. No reason to do that if it isn't the divine name.
I'm going to lock this thread by Tuesday night. Thank you.
Critics argue that evidence of the Tetragrammaton in MSS like 8HevXII gr and P. Fouad 266 shows an intrusion from a Hebrew text during the transmission of the LXX. Pietersma rightly observes that these MSS may not represent the original LXX text but rather later corrections or revisions to bring the Greek text into closer alignment with the proto-MT Hebrew. This aligns with what we know of the Kaige revision, a well-documented attempt to re-Hebraize the LXX. The Kaige Revision was a movement where the Greek text was systematically revised to better reflect the Hebrew original. Its widespread use of και γε to render Hebrew conjunctions proves that fidelity to the Hebrew text was a key concern. In such a context, the reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton in some MSS fits naturally as part of this revisionist effort, not as evidence of the LXX’s original form. These texts, discovered in the Judaean Desert, reflect the corrections typical of Kaige recension. The use of the Tetragrammaton here may be an artifact of these efforts rather than a reflection of the original LXX. These corrections prove that the Hebrew tradition influenced the Greek text over time, not that the Tetragrammaton was original. Corrections postdate the initial translation.
Kilpatrick argues that P.Oxy.656 may have been copied from a text with the Tetragrammaton, as spaces were left for its insertion. However the practice of leaving spaces in Greek texts does not prove the existence of the Tetragrammaton. Greek scribes often left spaces for divine titles (nomina sacra) or other abbreviations that would be filled in later. Spaces are not unique to MSS with the divine name. The fact that Kyrios was inserted later in P.Oxy.656 indicates that Kyrios was the established reading in the transmission process. The absence of the Tetragrammaton and the eventual replacement with Kyrios in such MSS reflects the gradual dominance of Kyrios as the standard rendering of YHWH in Greek, not evidence of its removal.
Origen himself states that the Greek translation used Kyrios as the rendering for YHWH. His testimony remains significant because he had access to multiple textual traditions and explicitly noted the presence of Kyrios. The distinction between “official” MSS containing the Tetragrammaton and “unofficial” Christian texts using Kyrios is speculative. No substantial evidence confirms this division. Early Hellenistic Jewish communities used the LXX, and they read Kyrios aloud when encountering the Tetragrammaton. This practice predates Christianity and explains why Kyrios appears consistently in NT quotations of the LXX.
Kilpatrick acknowledges the overwhelming evidence of Kyrios in the Christian tradition but argues that this reflects a departure from Jewish practice. Pietersma’s arguments remain stronger because the NT authors consistently quote the LXX with Kyrios for the divine name. This usage reflects the established Greek Jewish practice in the 1st century. If the Tetragrammaton had originally appeared in the LXX, it is implausible that all NT MSS and patristic citations would uniformly omit it. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in all extant NT texts points to its absence in the LXX used by the NT writers. The use of Kyrios aligns with the NT’s Christological emphasis. By identifying Jesus as Kyrios, the NT writers made an explicit theological statement that Jesus shares the divine identity of YHWH.
Pietersma’s thesis remains more plausible due to its alignment with historical evidence. Hellenistic Jews had already adopted Kyrios as a reverent circumlocution for YHWH in the LXX. The replacement of the Tetragrammaton with Kyrios reflects a longstanding linguistic and theological practice. Claims that Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton lack MS or historical evidence. The consistent presence of Kyrios in Christian texts reflects continuity rather than corruption. The reintroduction of Hebrew features, including the Tetragrammaton, in specific texts demonstrates a post-original revision, not the original form of the LXX.
@Sean Kasabuske
You attempt to infer that the Tetragrammaton was present in the NT by citing Talmudic references to "the nameS of God" being removed or destroyed. However, this claim fails to establish its conclusion due to several critical flaws in interpretation, historical context, and evidence. The passage cited from the Talmud (Shabbat 116a) mentions “the nameS of God” (plural: שמות), not "the Name of God", or Shem HaMephorash. In Judaism, multiple names of God—Adonai, Elohim, El Shaddai, Tzevaoth—are considered sacred and would merit reverent treatment. If the Talmud had referred specifically to the Tetragrammaton, it would have used Shem HaMephorash, the precise Rabbinic term for it. The destruction of writings containing the “names of God” could include references to Elohim or other divine titles. This is a crucial distinction that invalidates the assumption that the Tetragrammaton was the name being removed.
The Talmudic term “minim” (heretics) has a broader meaning in Rabbinic literature, it applies to heretical Jewish sects, heterodox Jews, as well as the Ebionites, Gnostics, or other Judaizing groups. “Notzrim” is the standard term generally used in Rabbinic sources for Christians. The use of term “Minim” reflects broader Jewish polemics against heterodox groups rather than apostolic Christianity. Therefore, the writings mentioned in Shabbat 116a may not even refer to Christian texts, let alone the New Testament.
The term “gilyonim” in the Talmud is often misunderstood or misrepresented. The word gilyon (singular) refers to a "margin" or "empty scroll," and the term does not necessarily apply to Christian gospels. Rabbi Tarfon’s statement to burn these writings with “the names of God” upon them reflects a general hostility toward heretical writings—not an indication of the content being canonical NT texts. Scholars argue that “gilyonim” could refer to Jewish texts with heretical annotations, not Christian gospels. This interpretation aligns with the Rabbinic context of combating heterodox Jewish movements.
The destruction of texts containing “the nameS of God” arose from Jewish reverence for divine names and fear of misuse, not specific proof of NT manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton. Jewish scribal tradition avoided pronouncing or writing the divine name and instead substituted Adonai or Kyrios when reading or translating. By the first century, this tradition influenced Jewish scribes of the Septuagint. The argument that Jews removed the divine name from Christian writings assumes that Christians used the Tetragrammaton—a claim unsupported by manuscript evidence.
Besides, it wouldn't hurt to finally decide who ultimately removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT? The so-called “apostate” (=proto-orthodox) Christians, or the Jews? Or the Christians, so that the Jews wouldn't burn them? You can see that all this is just speculation, for which there is no direct or indirect data. Pliny the Younger writes about the Christians: “carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere.” Why doesn't he write that they call upon some “Iehovah”, thereby causing great scandal to the Jews?
The JW argument is self-defeating because it fails to identify a plausible or consistent agent for the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the NT. If Jews were responsible, the argument collapses under its own weight. The Jewish authorities, already hostile toward Christianity, would not have had control over Christian manuscripts. More importantly, if Christians were using the Tetragrammaton to call upon the God of Israel, it would have caused massive controversy. Instead, Jewish criticism of Christians focused on their worship of Jesus as God (e.g., Pliny and Talmudic polemics). As you noted, Pliny the Younger, in his famous letter (ca. 112 CE), writes that Christians sang hymns “to Christ as God”. If Christians were proclaiming the divine name “YHWH” in this context, it would have been a far greater scandal to Jewish ears and Roman authorities alike—yet there is no evidence of such accusations.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Was It the Christians? If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton, why did they replace it with Kyrios—a term already used for Jesus throughout the NT? This substitution only reinforces the NT’s high Christology, where Jesus is identified with the Lord of the OT (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32). Furthermore, early Christian manuscripts are overwhelmingly consistent in using Kyrios or Theos in OT quotations. If a theological conspiracy to remove the Tetragrammaton occurred, we would expect transitional manuscripts showing inconsistency or remnants of the divine name—but no such evidence exists.
Fear of Jewish Retaliation? The idea that Christians removed the Tetragrammaton to avoid persecution from Jews is weak and ahistorical. By the late 1st and early 2nd centuries, Jewish-Christian relations had already fractured significantly (e.g., the Birkat ha-Minim curse). Christians were being persecuted for proclaiming Jesus as divine, not for misusing the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish rejection of the Septuagint itself (ca. 2nd century) demonstrates that it was not Christians but Jews who distanced themselves from the LXX because Christians were using it to argue for Jesus’ Messiahship and divinity. If anything, the Christian use of Kyrios solidified the LXX as a distinctly Christian scripture.
Who made the decision on this? Where is the “smoking gun?”
The core issue is that no extant NT manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton (YHWH or ΙΑΩ). Thousands of NT manuscripts and fragments exist, dating from the second century onward, yet none include the divine name. Hypothetical removal of the Tetragrammaton lacks corroborating evidence. There is no transitional manuscript showing traces of the divine name being replaced by Kyrios. The claim that the divine name was removed early in the transmission process is speculative and assumes a historical event that cannot be verified.
The passage in the Talmud reflects Jewish hostility toward Christian or heretical texts but cannot be used to prove the inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in early NT manuscripts. Rabbinic discussions of Christian writings occurred in a later period, and these polemics often reflect the tensions between Judaism and Christianity. The destruction of Christian texts containing “names of God” does not necessarily mean those texts contained the Tetragrammaton. It could refer to titles like Kyrios (Lord) or Theos (God), which Christians applied to Jesus.
The claim that the Talmud proves early NT manuscripts contained the Tetragrammaton is unfounded. The following points refute the argument:
1. The Talmud refers to “the names of God” (plural), not the Tetragrammaton specifically.
2. The term "minim" applies to heretical Jewish groups, not Christians.
3. "Gilyonim" does not refer to canonical NT writings but likely to annotated or heterodox Jewish texts.
4. The absence of NT manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton undermines the claim of early usage.
5. Claims of a systematic “removal” of the Tetragrammaton lack historical and textual support. There is no evidence of transitional manuscripts or sectarian disputes over its use.
6. The NT’s consistent use of Κυριος reinforces its high Christology, where Jesus is identified as the Lord (YHWH) of the OT.
7. LXX manuscripts containing the Tetragrammaton reflect re-Hebraizing Kaige recensions, not the original normative practice.
8. Rabbinic hostility toward unspecified texts of the “Minim” does not prove that the Tetragrammaton was ever used in the NT.
The hypothesis that the Tetragrammaton was removed from NT writings remains speculative and is contradicted by both textual and historical evidence. The consistent use of Kyrios in NT manuscripts aligns with the broader Jewish practice of reverently substituting the divine name.
Pietersma's hypothesis is being treated like it's a fact, but hypotheses are not facts and they're not even at the level of theories. Another work I found that reveals this point is Angelini, Anna. "Divine Names, Heavenly Bodies, and Human Visions: The Septuagint and the Transformation of Ancient Israelite Religion."
@Edgar Foster
"Pietersma's hypothesis is being treated like it's a fact, but hypotheses are not facts"
Is this also valid for George Howard's hypothesis? Compared to this:
"We concur with the above, with this exception: We do not consider this view a “theory,” rather, a presentation of the *facts* of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060076
While Howard writes: "Although they [the JWs] quote me in support of their theory, my research does not support them, nor do I support them. Finally, my articles report only on a theory of mine that is not yet proven."
"my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief."
From Angelini's piece:
Albert Pietersma advanced the hypothesis that the form κύριος goes back to the Old Greek as a standard equivalent for Yhwh, while variations on this pattern were introduced by later scribes.7 Some scholars also tried to detect a theological significance behind the use of one attribute or another
in the Septuagint. Thus, while κύριος would represent the accessible and benevolent side of God’s piety, θεός would have been used to insist on the powerful aspects of his action.8
However, these hypotheses have been challenged by papyrological witnesses that attest to other forms for rendering the tetragram and show a much greater diversity of usages
than the direct equivalence of ’Elohim with θεός and of Yhwh with κύριος.9 Such forms, which include the Greek form IAO, paleo-Hebrew writing, dots, etc., point to a more diverse and less systematic use of equivalents for the tetragram by the Greek translators than has usually been recognized.10 In fact, the Greek witnesses reveal a situation that does not differ much from the variety of renderings for the divine name attested among Dead Sea Scrolls. More generally, while no consensus has yet emerged to explain the presence of κύριος within the textual history of the Septuagint, the evidence at our disposal from both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls raises the issue of the coexistence of different strategies for treating the divine name during the Hellenistic period.
https://t.ly/riWtS
Pietersma’s position is not arbitrarily stated but is grounded in rigorous textual analysis of the oldest LXX manuscripts and their transmission history. Key pre-Christian papyri, like P. Fouad 266 and 8HevXIIgr, do preserve the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew or other forms. However, Pietersma and others have argued convincingly that these manuscripts reflect later revisions of the LXX text to align it more closely with Jewish Hebrew traditions and do not represent the original translation practice. The space left in some manuscripts (e.g., P. Rylands 458) strongly suggests that κύριος was in the translator's mind originally, even if later scribes reintroduced the Hebrew form. Regarding Papyrus Fouad 266, Würthwein also judges that "the tetragrammaton appears to have been an archaizing and hebraizing revision of the earlier translation κύριος". Pietersma’s hypothesis aligns with the consistent Christian manuscript tradition of the LXX. By the 2nd century BCE, κύριος became fully dominant, reflecting what scholars call the kaige recension period, where Jewish scribes sought to “correct” the Greek text toward a Hebrew Vorlage. The preservation of Hebrew forms like ΙΑΩ likely resulted from this recension period, not from the original translation.
The opposing argument claims that the diversity of renderings for the divine name in the LXX, such as ΙΑΩ or dots, mirrors the variety in the Dead Sea Scrolls and undermines the idea of a systematic use of κύριος. While there is indeed diversity in how the Tetragrammaton was handled in Jewish texts (both Hebrew and Greek), this does not refute Pietersma’s hypothesis. Instead, it highlights a later period of textual adjustment. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that different Jewish sects (e.g., Essenes) employed unique ways to treat the divine name: use of Paleo-Hebrew script for the Tetragrammaton, substitution with dots or empty spaces. This diversity in textual practice reflects the ongoing Jewish debate and evolution regarding the divine name’s treatment in Greek texts. However, the Old Greek translators likely had one clear strategy: to use κύριος as a theological and respectful equivalent for YHWH. The subsequent use of alternative forms (ΙΑΩ, Paleo-Hebrew, etc.) arose during a later period when Jewish sensitivities to the divine name intensified, likely influenced by the growing Christian use of κύριος for Christ.
The Kaige recension, a revision of the Greek text to align it more closely with the Hebrew Masoretic Text, plays a significant role in the debate. It accounts for many of the variations seen in Greek manuscripts. Scholars like Pietersma and Tov argue that these revisions reintroduced Hebrew forms for the divine name in certain texts. For example in 8HevXIIgr, the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew aligns with the Jewish revisional tendencies of the period. The same applies to P. Fouad 266, where Hebrew YHWH was likely inserted as part of an early Jewish revision. This recensional activity highlights the Jewish community's later reaction to the Greek term κύριος rather than evidence that κύριος was never used originally. The Christian transmission of the LXX uniformly retained κύριος, reinforcing that it was likely the original translation strategy before Jewish revisers modified the text.
The claim that κύριος and θεός reflect distinct theological attributes of God (benevolence vs. power) lacks concrete textual support. Pietersma and other scholars emphasize that κύριος was chosen not for its theological nuance but as a linguistic equivalent for YHWH in Greek. It was a reverential title appropriate for Greek-speaking Jews and aligned with the emerging Jewish reluctance to pronounce the divine name. The substitution of κύριος is consistent with Jewish practices: in Hebrew, Adonai replaced YHWH in spoken recitation, Kyrios served as the functional equivalent of Adonai in Greek. Claims of theological distinctions between κύριος and θεός are speculative and do not negate the original practice of rendering YHWH as κύριος.
Claims keep getting repeated dogmatically, but that doesn't make them true. Until more archaeological discoveries are made or more historical evidence is forthcoming, Pietersma's hypothesis will remain such. It is not a necessary truth.
Here's another question. Are there any pre-Christian copies of the LXX that do not have YHWH?
Peter Nagel:
These assumptions are problematic for primarily three reasons; firstly, there is no manuscript evidence of an uncontracted κύριος term as an equivalent representation of יהוה from the third century BCE to second century CE. Certainly, the evidence only reveals an abbreviated form of the term κύριος, a practise known as the nomina sacra.4 Secondly, there are numerous manuscript evidence suggesting alternatives to the nomina sacra as Greek equivalents for Yhwh. Thirdly, it is difficult to determine whether the term κύριος applied to Jesus was understood to be in the 'Yhwh' sense of the word. These 'so-called' Jesus-Yhwh equated occurrences are riddled with ambiguity, to say the least. Two theories will be put to test in this regard: (1) whether the term κύριος as an equivalent for יהוה is a theological rendering designating 'master of the universe,' (cf. Baudissen 2016:128; Tov 2020:49) and (2) if the articulated κύριος, the absolute form is understood to be Yhwh and ascribed to Jesus. As was stated before, the issue is a complex one; it forms part of an interconnected web of textual problems.
https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222020000400044
I see no evidence for prechristian lxx copies having kurios.
@Edgar Foster
In fact, we don’t have pre-Christian copies of “the LXX,” the ones we have are acttually Kaige recensions (not copies of the normative standard of “the LXX”) and/or fragments from which no conclusions can be drawn.
Pre-Christian LXX manuscripts are scant; surviving copies like Papyrus Fouad 266 (1st century BCE) and 8HevXIIgr (Naḥal Ḥever, 1st century CE) do indeed preserve YHWH in Hebrew script or Paleo-Hebrew. However, this reflects later revisions of the Greek text to reintegrate the Hebrew name for liturgical or theological reasons. As Pietersma and Emanuel Tov argue, these manuscripts likely represent a Jewish reactionary correction to an earlier tradition where YHWH had been translated as κύριος. Tov explicitly notes that the reinsertion of the Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts shows that some Jewish scribes were uncomfortable with κύριος being used as the substitute for YHWH. The nomina sacra practice (e.g., abbreviated κύριος as ΚΣ) developed later in Christian manuscripts (2nd century CE onward). This does not undermine the likelihood that κύριος existed uncontracted in earlier Greek translations. The absence of uncontracted κύριος forms in the fragmentary pre-Christian evidence is due to the limited preservation of Greek OT texts before the Christian era. Later scribal practices that contracted κύριος for reverence, a practice unrelated to its original translation usage. By the time Christians began copying the LXX, κύριος is uniformly used for YHWH, which strongly suggests it was the original Greek translation. Revising the text to systematically replace a Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton with κύριος in every known Christian manuscript would be improbable without widespread textual evidence for κύριος's early use. In conclusion, we have strong circumstantial and textual evidence for κύριος as the original translation.
You emphasize that there is manuscript evidence for alternatives to κύριος (e.g., ΙΑΩ, Paleo-Hebrew, dots, etc.), which suggests no standardized use of κύριος for YHWH, but these alternatives do not disprove Pietersma's hypothesis; instead, they reflect later textual developments. The diversity of renderings of YHWH in Greek manuscripts—such as ΙΑΩ (a Greek transliteration), Paleo-Hebrew script, or dots—reflects a reaction to the use of κύριος by Hellenistic Jewish communities seeking to preserve the divine name during a later period, and liturgical or theological concerns among Jewish scribes, especially as the use of κύριος became associated with Christianity. Scholars like Pietersma and Tov argue that these renderings were part of a recensional effort (e.g., the Kaige recension) to correct the LXX back toward its Hebrew Vorlage. The use of alternatives does not predate the translation of the Old Greek but arose in reaction to it. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide insight into Jewish textual diversity, but the coexistence of these renderings does not negate the possibility of an earlier, consistent use of κύριος in the Old Greek translation. As Pietersma states, κύριος would have been a "translator’s choice" that reflected the spoken Adonai, a well-attested Jewish substitution for YHWH. So the Kaige recension and the diversity of renderings arose LATER as a reaction to the early substitution of YHWH with κύριος.
(1/2)
(2/2)
While pre-Christian LXX manuscripts are fragmentary and limited, the claim that κύριος is absent is unfounded for several reasons. The absence of unambiguous pre-Christian manuscripts with κύριος does not mean κύριος was not used. The limited survival of early LXX manuscripts creates a gap in evidence that cannot be filled by speculative alternatives. The consistent presence of κύριος in all post-Christian manuscripts suggests it was part of the LXX tradition before the emergence of Christianity. It is implausible to suggest that Christians universally inserted κύριος into the text if earlier Jewish manuscripts had a standardized alternative. Christian use of κύριος for Jesus indicates continuity with Jewish Greek translations, because early Christians adopted the LXX as their scriptural authority, and Κύριος applied to Jesus (e.g., in Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23) directly parallels the LXX’s use of κύριος for YHWH.
The application of κύριος to Jesus by early Christians was deliberate and theologically profound. It reflects a continuation of the LXX tradition where κύριος functioned as the Greek equivalent of YHWH. Passages like Philippians 2:11 explicitly equate Jesus with the "Lord" of Isaiah 45:23. Paul and other NT writers use κύριος to emphasize Jesus’ divine status, consistent with the LXX’s usage for YHWH. The so-called “ambiguity” cited by critics arises from the scholarly debate about whether early Christians meant "master" or "YHWH" when applying κύριος to Jesus. However the context of LXX quotations in the NT makes it clear that κύριος carried the divine connotation of YHWH. Jewish audiences familiar with the LXX would have recognized this association. Christian use of κύριος for Jesus supports the continuity of this term as the standard equivalent for YHWH.
Pietersma hypothesizes that the earliest Greek translators used κύριος to render YHWH as a standard translation, primarily due to linguistic and religious constraints. The translators were adapting the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jewish communities. This aligns with Jewish avoidance of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton and substituting it orally with "Adonai" (Lord)—a practice which naturally influenced written translations. While fragments of pre-Christian LXX manuscripts (e.g., from Qumran or Naḥal Ḥever) show variations in how the Tetragrammaton is rendered (e.g., ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew script), there is no conclusive evidence that the use of κύριος was entirely absent. The Dead Sea Scrolls show a variety of practices, including the use of ΙΑΩ and paleo-Hebrew YHWH, indicating diversity rather than uniformity in rendering the divine name. The Kaige Recension is critical here. Anneli Aejmelaeus highlights that revisions such as Kaige aimed for extreme literalism and fidelity to the proto-Masoretic text. This revision likely replaced or revised earlier Greek renderings, including where κύριος had been standard. Therefore, the absence of κύριος in select texts does not prove it was never used; it merely points to alternative strategies of transmission.
Critics often argue that the development of contracted forms (κύριος → ΚΣ) is a distinct Christian phenomenon. However, this does not imply that κύριος was not the original Greek rendering. The transition to the contracted forms was a later scribal practice designed to reverence sacred terms, building on earlier traditions. The absence of an "uncontracted κύριος" from specific third to second-century BCE manuscripts is an argument from silence. Such a conclusion does not negate the plausible use of κύριος in the earliest Septuagint traditions. A critical point is that the Greek Old Testament tradition as we have it overwhelmingly uses κύριος. As Martin Rösel notes, the Septuagint translators appear to have adopted κύριος to denote the unique sovereignty of God over all creation, distinguishing Him from pagan gods.
The claim that the Septuagint did not originally use κύριος oversimplifies the situation. The textual history of the Greek Bible reveals diverse strategies for handling the divine name. The Kaige recension, highlighted in Anneli Aejmelaeus' analysis, was an effort to revise Greek translations to align more closely with the Hebrew proto-Masoretic text. This revision evidences a deliberate attempt to "correct" earlier renderings. As Angelini and Nagel note, manuscripts display ΙΑΩ, paleo-Hebrew YHWH, and dots or blanks. This diversity supports the conclusion that there was no single strategy across all Jewish communities during the pre-Christian period. However, this does not disprove the early adoption of κύριος by certain Jewish translators in Alexandria. Later revisions, including Theodotion’s work, retained and standardized κύριος where older Greek texts may have exhibited alternatives. Traces of this standardization appear even in New Testament quotations, suggesting a pre-Christian precedent for using κύριος.
Theological objections to equating Jesus with YHWH (κύριος) appear to influence modern critiques. However the Septuagint translators' use of κύριος reflected Jewish reverence for YHWH, avoiding its direct pronunciation. This theological choice aligns with the oral practice of substituting "Adonai." The New Testament authors' identification of Jesus as κύριος draws on this pre-existing LXX tradition. The deliberate choice to attribute YHWH's titles to Jesus demonstrates the continuity of κύριος as a divine title rooted in Greek translations. Rösel highlights that the LXX's use of κύριος reflects a theological universalism, portraying God as the Κύριος tēs oikoumenēs (Lord of the whole world). This broader significance aligns with the emerging universalistic monotheism of Hellenistic Judaism.
https://research.rug.nl/files/9858411/2006_-_Moses_Musaeus_Mochos.pdf
You say it may not but that doesn't make it a truth. There is some evidence until around 130/35 ce christians writers began to substitue the divine name. We surprisingly do not have evidence one way or the other of use or nonuse of the divine name in the autographs, because we do not have the autographs. Both for and against have their reasons for saying one way or the other, but the fact remains outside of the Praise Jah in Rev.19 there is no evidence. Regardless if you use Hallelujah as the equivalent. You can still see the Jah the expression means praise Jah. Jah is the shorten form for Jehovah, not Jesus. No Jew will say otherwise. Nor will any scholar.
Ok dear readers, I think the Pietersma hypothesis/claim has been repeated enough in this thread. I will only now allow rebuttal of the claim, but will not permit yet another repetition of the same hypothesis, which has been challenged in scholarly literature.
The fact of the matter is that we really don't know if copies of the LXX with YHWH were revised or not.
For convenience, I'm going to quote Wikipedia:
The Papyrus Fouad 266 (three fragments listed as Rahlfs 847, 848 and 942) are fragments, part of a papyrus manuscript in scroll form containing the Greek translation, known as the Septuagint, of the Pentateuch. They have been assigned palaeographically to the 1st century BCE. There is discussion about whether the text is original or a later recension of the Septuagint.
If Tov, Skehan, and others are correct that Iaw is original, then the whole question about the mss. with Hebrew characters would be relevant primarily in demonstrating the Jewish faithfulness to the preservation of the divine name. Their attitude stands out in stark contrast to the contempt shown the name by modern translators, who hypocritically criticize the NWT for using the name in the NT, yet they have no problem removing it in their translations of the OT.
I like to think that the NT writers would also have employed a Greek form of the name in their writings rather than inserting Hebrew characters in an otherwise all-Greek text.
@Philip Fletcher
You assert that we cannot know whether the Tetragrammaton was used in the NT autographs because the original manuscripts no longer exist. While it is true that we do not possess the NT autographs, we do have an unbroken chain of manuscript evidence beginning with the earliest Christian texts. None of these manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton or a direct equivalent like ΙΑΩ. The earliest NT papyri (e.g., P52, P46, P66, P75, dating from the late 2nd to early 3rd centuries CE) uniformly use κύριος and θεός where the Hebrew Scriptures would have had YHWH. This consistency suggests that the NT authors, like the Septuagint (LXX) translators before them, used κύριος as the standard Greek rendering for YHWH. If the divine name had originally appeared in the NT, it is inexplicable why no surviving NT manuscript—not even those preserved in Jewish-Christian communities—retains it. Scribal transmission does not typically involve systematic alteration across all textual traditions. So the absence of the Tetragrammaton in all extant NT manuscripts strongly suggests that it was never used in the autographs, in keeping with the LXX tradition.
You refer to Hallelujah in Revelation 19 as evidence that the NT preserves "Jah," a shortened form of YHWH, and argue that "Jah" refers to Jehovah, not Jesus. The term Hallelujah is indeed a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase "Praise Yah", where Yah is a poetic abbreviation of YHWH. This term occurs frequently in the Psalms and reflects liturgical usage among Jews. However, the presence of Hallelujah in Revelation 19 does not imply that the NT authors were restoring the divine name into their text. Instead Hallelujah is a liturgical expression borrowed directly from the Jewish Scriptures. It was already a recognized formula of praise among Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. The NT authors adopted this term in its transliterated form, not as an effort to restore YHWH but as a continuation of Jewish worship practices. The argument that Jah in Hallelujah refers to Jehovah "and not Jesus" overlooks the broader theological context of Revelation 19. The praise in Revelation 19 is directed toward God and the Lamb (Jesus Christ), as seen throughout the book of Revelation (e.g., Rev. 5:13, Rev. 7:10, Rev. 22:3). The NT authors explicitly equate Jesus with YHWH by applying OT texts about YHWH to Him, such as in Philippians 2:11, where every tongue confesses that "Jesus Christ is Kyrios" (Lord), quoting Isaiah 45:23. So Hallelujah reflects a liturgical tradition, not a restoration of the divine name. By the way, this argument is self-defeating, so those "apostate copyists" weren't vigilant enough to purge this as well?
You suggest that Christians began substituting the Tetragrammaton with κύριος around 130/135 CE, but this practice actually predates Christianity and was already standard in the Septuagint, which was widely used by Hellenistic Jews. Greek-speaking Jews orally substituted Adonai for YHWH, and the LXX translators rendered this practice into writing by using κύριος. Early Christians adopted the LXX as their Scripture and naturally continued the use of κύριος. The earliest NT writings, including those of Paul (e.g., Romans, Philippians), consistently use κύριος in quotations from the OT where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. This practice demonstrates continuity with Jewish translation and liturgical traditions. The argument that Christians substituted YHWH around 130/135 CE lacks evidence and is implausible for the following reasons. As noted earlier, no NT manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ. The use of κύριος is consistent and universal. The NT authors repeatedly apply OT texts about YHWH to Jesus, identifying Him as the Lord (Kyrios) in the fullest sense. This identification aligns with the LXX rendering of YHWH as κύριος and emphasizes Jesus' divine identity. So the use of κύριος predates Christianity, and the NT authors adopted this term in continuity with Jewish practice. There is no evidence that Christians replaced YHWH with κύριος in the 2nd century CE.
Yes it was the apostate Christians who removed the name. Instead of relying on the holy spirit, they became fearful of persecution and began to make changes as early as 101C.E. Even Clements of Rome said there are madmen already among the congregation. It was so rough that he said that they had been Tardy in replying to the congregation in Corinth.
But the apostle John uses the term Hallejah, praise Jah shorten form of Jehovah in english. Why would the closest disciple of Jesus still be using the expression praise Jah, not once but several time in Rev.19. Because the God of gods yes Jehovah, that is his name forever, says so. Exodus 3:15 when he said it he cannot take it back for he cannot lie. Heb.6:18, so his name is Jehovah and it is forever, It doesn't matter what the pathetic imperfect RCC teaches or claims. His name is Jehovah forever.
No assertion can change that. Way, way before the RCC, in words to Moses he said my name forever is Jehovah. It doesn't change because the RCC says otherwise. Nor does it's meaning change.
He is called the God of Gods because Moses and Jesus are called God and Jesus says my God several places in the bible. Thus acknowledging that Jehovah is the God of gods. The one that is the highest. The one Jesus worships,No matter what the RCC or any other apostate member of Christendom claims. To the Jews only Jehovah is the God of gods. They would never acknowledge that there is another name for him. Certainly not Jesus. Deut 10:17.
Apostate Christendom remover the divine name from the bible some 6900 times to confuse the faithful. To make it easy for them to follow the man made mystery of the Church. However if guided by the holy spirit there is no mystery. Since it searches into the deep things of God, yes all things. 1Cor. 2:10
So as it is written "God has given them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that do not see and that do not hear down to today." Romans 11:8. That's what the bible says and it doesn't mean anything else, nor does it need an explanation different from how it reads. For anyone who claims mystery or confusion then you better pray for Holy Spirit asking the father in Jesus name to see the truthfulness of it all.
From Philip Fletcher. I assume it was meant for this thread but wound up in another one:
The early christians don't believe in the Trinity because there is no written evidence that they did. None to support that they did. I have asked many a scholar to produce evidence that someone wrote belief in the trinity. There is none it is an assertion to say otherwise.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica says for the first 3 Century no one believed in the Trinity. If they are wrong, you can take them to court and sue them to correct what they wrote. But, you will not because they are not wrong. Again a bad assertion on your part. English words are defined, they do not have a different meaning, because you want them to. When a person reads no one believed in the Trinity for the first 3 centuries that is exactly what it means. It doesn't need a clarification or and explanation. No one did.
From Robert J. Wilkinson's book, Tetragrammaton (page 63). He is talking about the LXX:
We should further allow for the possibility of different practices in different books: in some of the prophets, kurios may definitely appear to have been the original, but this need not have been so in other books.40 The question is thus far from certainly settled. I shall therefore proceed with the possibility that the original Septuagint may indeed have a transliteration into Greek of the Tetragrammaton (iaô), and not the substitute kurios. Such a conclusion, however, leaves intact the previously established description of the other Jewish Greek biblical manuscripts which feature the Tetragrammaton
in Hebrew as archaizing and Hebraizing, and there is now growing agreement that their use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton represents a secondary stage in the transmission of the Greek biblical text. We shall also remain mindful of the residual evidence for an original kurios41 and the possibility that practice was not uniform. One advocate of diversity is K. de Troyer.42
Another book that supplies evidence of YHWH initially being written in some MSS of the LXX, is Philip Comfort's work, Encountering the Manuscripts. See also https://uasvbible.org/2024/08/05/the-significance-and-characteristics-of-papyrus-lxx-oxyrhynchus-3522/
@ Philip Fletcher
Your response relies heavily on unsupported assertions and theological presuppositions rather than historical and textual evidence.
The claim that “apostate Christians removed the name” around 101 CE (last time you claimed “around 130/135 CE”) is entirely without evidence. Such a significant alteration would have required a coordinated, global effort to remove YHWH from all NT manuscripts, an implausible scenario given the geographic spread of early Christianity. The earliest extant NT manuscripts—Papyri P52, P46, P66, and P75 (late 2nd to early 3rd centuries CE)—consistently use κύριος (Kyrios) or θεός (Theos) where OT passages would contain YHWH. These manuscripts were copied independently and across various Christian communities, which eliminates the possibility of a coordinated alteration. For example, P46, which contains Pauline epistles, shows uniform use of κύριος where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. If the Tetragrammaton had originally appeared, some copies would have preserved it, especially in Jewish-Christian communities such as the Ebionites. Yet no manuscript evidence supports this claim. So the absence of the Tetragrammaton in all extant NT manuscripts strongly suggests that κύριος was used from the beginning. Scribal transmission does not typically involve uniform, systematic changes across all traditions.
Some remarks:
• If, according to the Watchtower Society, the Book of Revelation was written in 96 CE, and Christianity had already become “apostate” in 101 CE, then why on earth were those 7 letters written mentioned in the Revelation, if he was really a lost cause, and “true” (JW-like) Christianity only had a few years left?
• If it was the “apostate” (=proto-orthodox) Christians, who removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT, then why does the Watchtower Society cite Shabbat 116a from the Talmud, suggesting that it was done by the Jews?
• (Just a parenthetical comment, this accusation of “apostasy”, this whole terminology is reminiscent of Takfiri Islam, the word you're thinking of would be “heresy”, not “apostate”.)
You argue that Hallelujah in Revelation 19 proves the NT originally used YHWH. However Hallelujah is a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase "Praise Yah"—a shortened, poetic form of YHWH. The NT authors retained this expression because Hallelujah was already a well-established liturgical term among Jews and Christians. This term occurs frequently in the Psalms (e.g., Psalm 146:1) and was part of the Jewish worship tradition. Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians would have been familiar with it. The presence of Hallelujah does not prove the restoration of YHWH into the NT text. Instead, it reflects a continuity of worship traditions where "Yah" was used in praise formulas. Revelation 19 directs praise to God and the Lamb (Jesus Christ), as seen in the broader context of Revelation (e.g., Revelation 5:13, Revelation 7:10, Revelation 22:3). Jesus is repeatedly identified with YHWH in the NT through OT quotations applied to Him (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23). So Hallelujah in Revelation 19 reflects established liturgical tradition, not an attempt to “restore” YHWH. The NT authors, like the LXX translators, consistently used κύριος as the Greek equivalent of YHWH.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures completed before Christianity, already uses κύριος (Kyrios) as the standard Greek rendering for YHWH. The LXX was the Scripture of Hellenistic Jews and was widely used in Jewish synagogues across the Mediterranean. Adonai ("Lord") was spoken aloud in place of YHWH during Jewish worship. The LXX reflects this practice by using κύριος in writing. The New Testament authors—who frequently quote the OT—naturally continued this practice. For example, in Romans 10:13, Paul quotes Joel 2:32 ("Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved") and applies it to Jesus, using κύριος for YHWH. Similarly, in Philippians 2:11, Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH is the subject, but applies the title κύριος to Jesus, explicitly identifying Him with the God of Israel. If Christians had removed YHWH in the second century AD, we would expect Jewish-Christian groups (e.g., Ebionites or Nazarenes) to preserve it. However, no manuscript evidence or historical writings support this. So the use of κύριος predates Christianity and reflects established Jewish practice. The NT authors adopted κύριος from the LXX, not as a result of apostasy but as a continuation of Jewish tradition.
You cite Exodus 3:15 ("This is my name forever") and Hebrews 6:18 ("God cannot lie") to argue that Jehovah's name must be preserved. However in Exodus 3:15: God declares His name to Moses in a Hebrew context. However, as Judaism developed, the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) became sacred, and Jews substituted it with Adonai ("Lord"). This practice predates Christianity. The LXX translators honored this tradition by rendering YHWH as κύριος. It was also declared about the old covenant that it will last "forever" (cf. Psalm 105:8-10), and the Hebrew word 'olam', usually translated 'forever' clearly doesn't always mean literal future infinity—although in some places it can have that sense. It is used in places to describe the past; events of a long time ago, but not events that happened an 'infinitely long time' ago. It describes the time of a previous generation (Deut. 32:7, Job 22:15); to the time just before the exile of Judah (Is. 58:12, 61:4, Mic. 7:14, Mal. 3:4) to the time of the Exodus (1 Sam. 27:8, Is. 51:9, 63:9) to the time just before the flood (Gen. 6:4).
Hebrews 6:18: God’s inability to lie pertains to the unchanging nature of His promises, not the linguistic preservation of His name in every culture or translation. The meaning of God’s name—His sovereignty, faithfulness, and covenant relationship—remains intact even when rendered as κύριος.
The accusation that “apostate Christendom removed” YHWH from the NT is baseless and reflects a misunderstanding of textual history. Early Christians faced persecution but remained steadfast in preserving the NT texts. There is no evidence that they systematically altered Scripture. The uniformity of κύριος across all NT manuscripts—from the earliest fragments to later codices—testifies to its original use. The Holy Spirit guided the NT authors, who intentionally applied OT texts about YHWH to Jesus. This is not apostasy but a declaration of Jesus’ divine identity.
@Philip Fletcher
You claim that "the early Christians did not believe in the Trinity" because there is allegedly no written evidence to support it and the Encyclopedia Britannica supposedly states this explicitly.
The Watchtower Society has a history of selectively quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica to misrepresent its statements. For instance, it is claimed that the Britannica supports the idea that the Trinity doctrine was a late invention. However, the full context from the Britannica reveals: "The New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies" (Encyclopedia Britannica, Trinity, Vol. X, p.126). The claim that the Britannica denies any belief in the Trinity in the first three centuries is false. The encyclopedia clearly affirms that the foundations for Trinitarian doctrine lie in the New Testament and early Christian worship, even if the explicit terminology (like "Trinity") was later developed.
While the term "Trinity" (from the Latin Trinitas, coined by Tertullian in the 2nd century) does not appear in the New Testament, the concept of the Triune God is evident in the early Christian experience and Scripture. Examples from early Christian writers:
Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–108 AD): In his letters, Ignatius refers to Jesus Christ as "God" and speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in unity (Letter to the Magnesians 13).
Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): He explicitly teaches the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, worshiped alongside the Father (e.g., First Apology 13:5-6, Dialogue with Trypho 61).
Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 AD): The first recorded use of the term "Trinity" in Christian writings, referring to "God, His Word, and His Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2.15).
Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD): He defends the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the work of creation and redemption (Against Heresies 4.20.1).
The foundation of the Trinity is explicitly scriptural, even if the formal doctrine developed over time. Key passages include Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, John 1:1-3, 14, and Acts 5:3-4. These passages show the early Christian experience of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The assertion that "no one believed in the Trinity in the first three centuries" is demonstrably false. While the explicit Nicene formulation of "one substance, three persons" arose in response to Arianism, the belief in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was already present in the writings of early Christians, as shown above. The idea that Constantine "invented" the Trinity or imposed it at Nicaea is refuted by the fact that the council affirmed the pre-existing beliefs of orthodox Christians, as seen in the works of pre-Nicene Church Fathers like Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
The Watchtower Society's claim that the Britannica or any scholar conclusively states that early Christians rejected the Trinity is unfounded. Most reputable sources acknowledge that the doctrine of the Trinity developed as a formal articulation of biblical and early Christian faith, not as a novel invention. Furthermore, the Trinity is not a contradiction of monotheism but a deeper articulation of the one God's self-revelation as Father, Son, and Spirit.
The claim that early Christians did not believe in the Trinity because "there is no evidence" ignores both scriptural testimony and extensive writings from the first three centuries. The selective quoting of sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica misrepresents their full context. Far from being a late invention, the Trinity reflects the lived faith of early Christians as they worshiped Jesus as God and experienced the Holy Spirit's presence alongside the Father.
Some resources for you:
* https://t.ly/B9zHO
* https://t.ly/czf5D
* https://t.ly/2PZUD
Scholarly Consensus holds that P. Fouad 266 is not an "original" text of the LXX but rather a revised or corrected version that reflects a later Jewish scribal attempt to insert the Tetragrammaton back into the text. Pietersma argued that P. Fouad 266 contains pre-Hexaplaric corrections that move the text toward the Hebrew Vorlage—specifically the reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton. The spaces left by the first scribe in the Greek text are precisely sufficient for the six-letter Greek word κύριος. Pietersma concludes that the scribe initially copied from a Greek Vorlage that used κύριος and left blank spaces for a second scribe to insert the Hebrew Tetragrammaton later.
Michael Thomas agrees with this interpretation, stating that the scribe was copying from a manuscript with κύριος and that the blank spaces indicate a deliberate revision. Koenen observed that the first scribe may have refrained from writing the Tetragrammaton due to reverence, leaving space for a second, more qualified scribe to insert the divine name in Hebrew script. This scribal hesitation reflects a later Hebraizing tendency, not the original Septuagint translation. Tov notes that the original Greek scribe intentionally left blank spaces for the Tetragrammaton, which were marked by raised dots. He concludes that this reflects a later revision, driven by Jewish liturgical concerns, rather than the original practice of the LXX translators. Tov emphasizes that the spaces were specifically added to accommodate the Tetragrammaton, showing that the scribe was departing from his Greek Vorlage. Würthwein similarly concludes that the presence of the Tetragrammaton in P. Fouad 266 is the result of an "archaizing and Hebraizing revision" of an earlier Greek text that originally had κύριος.
In conclusion, the presence of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in P. Fouad 266 is not evidence for its use in the original Septuagint. Instead, it reflects a later scribal revision intended to align the Greek text with Jewish reverence for the divine name during a later period.
The strongest internal evidence in P. Fouad 266 itself supports the hypothesis that κύριος was the original rendering. The space left by the first scribe in the manuscript is exactly the size required to write the word ΚΥΡΙΟΣ. This observation undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton was part of the original Greek translation, as the Greek Vorlage the scribe copied from likely used κύριος. This evidence aligns with Pietersma’s view that the Tetragrammaton was a later addition.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The claim that the Tetragrammaton was used consistently in the original LXX contradicts the broader historical and cultural context. Jews substituted Adonai ("Lord") for YHWH when reading aloud to avoid pronouncing the divine name. The LXX translators rendered this oral substitution into written form, using κύριος as the Greek equivalent of Adonai. This substitution was a natural linguistic and cultural choice for Greek-speaking Jews, who would have read κύριος in place of YHWH. By the time of Christianity, all extant LXX manuscripts use κύριος consistently for YHWH. If the Tetragrammaton had been part of the original LXX, it is inexplicable why all later Jewish and Christian copies of the LXX removed it without exception.
The reintroduction of the Tetragrammaton in select manuscripts like P. Fouad 266 reflects Jewish efforts during the re-Hebraizing recensions (e.g., the Kaige recension) to correct the Greek text toward the Hebrew Masoretic text. This was part of a broader scribal trend, not evidence for the original LXX practice.
If the NT authors had used a form of the Tetragrammaton (such as ΙΑΩ or יהוה), it would have been preserved in at least some earliest NT manuscripts. However the earliest NT papyri—P46, P52, P66, and P75—uniformly use κύριος or θεός in OT quotations where YHWH appears in the Hebrew text. There is no evidence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT manuscripts, even among Jewish-Christian communities that would have had every motivation to preserve it. This consistency aligns with the Septuagint tradition, which the NT authors adopted as their primary source of the OT Scriptures.
The accusation that modern translators show "contempt" by not using the Tetragrammaton misunderstands translation practices. Modern translations aim to reflect the original intent of the authors, and to reproduce for the modern reader the specific theological context of the New Testament. Since the NT authors used κύριος consistently when quoting the OT, modern translators are faithfully preserving their intent. The use of κύριος does not reflect "contempt" for the divine name but rather continuity with the LXX tradition, reverence for the Name, and respect for Jewish sensitivities.
I believe the Pietersma hypothesis has been done to death here. It's not that convincing and nigh impossible to verify with high probability. Repeating it ad nauseam won't make it true. Can we advance the discussion before the thread closes?
If you look at the Wikipedia article, you can see that Pietersma is not the only one who claims that these are re-Hebraizing recensions, quite the opposite. But even if Pietersma's view is wrong, there are still several unproven claims:
1. Let's assume that the cited Greek OT manuscript fragments "prove" that the Septuagint was translated this way by the Seventy, including the Tetragrammaton.
2. This does NOT prove that this was the LXX version that the apostles used, accepted, and proclaimed the Tetragrammaton in their preaching
3. Even if the apostles used such an version, it does not prove that the Tetragrammaton was inserted into the NT and later "erased" by someone for some heretical bias.
So this is anything but a "smoking gun", but completely wishful thinking, speculation. This is like the prosecutor in a criminal trial arguing that "since the kitchen knife was not in the drawer, this proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the one who committed the murder."
You cannot give a satisfactory answer to the question: Who made the decision to replace YHWH (or ΙΑΩ) with κύριος? Even more specifically: Who was the “Caliph Uthman” of the “apostate” (=proto-orthodox) Christianity who ordered the standardization of the NT and, under this heading, the tampering with the text?
Post a Comment