@slimboyfat
Too bad you can't give a meaningful answer to 99% of my argument.
My initial argument acknowledges that Shaw demonstrates the wider
historical use of ΙΑΩ in onomastica, Jewish texts, and magical papyri.
However, this does not automatically equate to widespread liturgical
usage, especially within canonical contexts like the LXX. Shaw’s emphasis on
diversity and localized practices supports the idea that ΙΑΩ was one of
many renderings in circulation, but not necessarily dominant in formal Jewish
liturgical or scriptural contexts. Shaw himself writes that the evidence for
ΙΑΩ is diverse and scattered, often appearing in contexts like personal names,
magical texts, and marginal Jewish traditions, which does not refute the
centrality of κύριος in mainstream Jewish liturgical practice.
Shaw acknowledges that ΙΑΩ reflects an attempt to transliterate the
divine name phonetically into Greek. However, the Septuagint translators
prioritized theological and functional equivalence over phonetic representation,
resulting in κύριος as the respectful substitution. This aligns with the
established Jewish practice of using "Adonai" in oral recitation of
the Tetragrammaton. Shaw’s work does not negate the overwhelming manuscript
evidence showing κύριος as the dominant rendering in extant Septuagint texts,
especially those preserved and transmitted by Jewish and early Christian
communities.
Shaw critiques Pietersma's position that κύριος was uniformly original to
the Septuagint but does not provide definitive evidence that ΙΑΩ was the
primary rendering. Instead, Shaw highlights the diversity of practices
and manuscript traditions, suggesting that various forms (including ΙΑΩ,
paleo-Hebrew YHWH, and κύριος) coexisted in different regions or communities. My
argument that manuscripts containing ΙΑΩ (e.g., 4Q120) likely reflect
localized or revisionist traditions rather than the original LXX rendering
aligns with Shaw’s acknowledgment of regional diversity.
Shaw emphasizes that ΙΑΩ had a “widespread” non-mystical use in
certain contexts but does not argue that it was widely accepted in formal
Jewish worship or canonical scripture readings. The theological reverence for
the divine name likely influenced the choice of κύριος as a liturgical
substitute, consistent with Philo of Alexandria’s writings and the broader
Jewish tradition of avoiding the Tetragrammaton’s pronunciation.
While Shaw critiques oversimplifications in traditional scholarship, he
ultimately concedes that the historical reconstruction of the LXX’s original
form is complex and inconclusive. However, the overwhelming dominance of κύριος
in early Christian LXX manuscripts and citations in the New Testament suggests
its primacy in liturgical and scriptural use.
My argument is not that ΙΑΩ was unknown or marginal, but that its specific
appearance in texts like magical amulets, niche Jewish traditions, or
non-canonical settings does not establish it as the dominant rendering in the
Septuagint’s liturgical context. Shaw’s work supports the idea of textual
diversity but does not provide evidence that overturns the widespread use of
κύριος in Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions.
Your objection may stem from conflating Shaw’s demonstration of ΙΑΩ’s
broader historical use with a claim of its dominance in the Septuagint. Shaw’s
work, while valuable for understanding diversity, does not contradict my point
that κύριος remained the standard rendering in Jewish and Christian liturgical
texts.
@Earnest
Claim: Emanuel
Tov, alongside Stegemann and Skehan, views ΙΑΩ as reflecting the earliest stage
of the LXX translation, not a later revision.
Emanuel Tov does indeed assert that ΙΑΩ may represent an early
transliteration of YHWH in some texts, but this does not establish it as
the universal or original practice of the LXX translators. Several critical
points weaken this claim. The presence of ΙΑΩ in 4Q120 reflects a localized or sectarian
variant, not a uniform or universal translational strategy. Anneli
Aejmelaeus has argued that early LXX translations, particularly those predating
the Kaige recension, displayed considerable diversity in translation
strategies. This diversity includes ΙΑΩ as a phonetic transliteration
but does not negate κύριος as the more systematic and widespread
practice.
The use of ΙΑΩ appears primarily in fragments with sectarian characteristics,
such as the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g., 4Q120). These communities often sought to preserve
the sacredness of the divine name, diverging from mainstream Hellenistic
Jewish communities that adhered to oral substitution (Adonai → Kyrios).
As Tov and others point out, later revisions or corrections inserted ΙΑΩ
or the Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton into Greek texts for liturgical or
theological reasons.
Christian LXX manuscripts, which represent the dominant textual tradition,
overwhelmingly use κύριος. This strongly suggests that κύριος was
the standard rendering in the original translations, even if exceptions like
ΙΑΩ existed in sectarian or regional contexts. The predominance of κύριος
in manuscripts used by both Jews and Christians further supports its
originality as the default rendering of YHWH in Greek.
Claim: There is
no evidence of a transition from YHWH/ΙΑΩ to κύριος in NT manuscripts.
The absence of transitional evidence undermines the idea of κύριος
replacing the Tetragrammaton.
The NT manuscripts we possess (dating to the 2nd century CE and later)
consistently use κύριος or θεός. This uniformity is not evidence
of a sudden replacement but rather reflects the established textual
tradition that early Christians inherited from the LXX. If YHWH/ΙΑΩ had
been used in NT texts, some transitional evidence should exist, such as
manuscripts with mixed usage. However, no such manuscripts have been
discovered, undermining the claim that a systematic replacement occurred.
The introduction of nomina sacra (e.g., KY for κύριος) in
early Christian manuscripts aligns with broader scribal practices of reverence
but does not imply that κύριος was absent before this development. The
absence of transitional evidence for KY (κύριος) mirrors the broader
absence of transitional evidence for any competing terms like ΙΑΩ. This further
supports the argument that κύριος was the dominant rendering in
pre-Christian LXX manuscripts.
The claim that the NT’s use of κύριος arose to distance Christianity
from Judaism is speculative and unsupported by textual or historical evidence.
Early Christians explicitly identified Jesus with the κύριος of the LXX
(e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23), suggesting continuity rather
than a departure from Jewish tradition. The universal use of κύριος in
Christian LXX manuscripts cannot be dismissed as a mere "Christian
innovation." Several historical and theological factors support its
originality. The choice of κύριος in the LXX aligns with the theological
goal of portraying God as the sovereign ruler of all creation (ho Kyrios tēs
oikoumenēs). This universalist emphasis is a hallmark of the LXX and is
absent from transliterations like ΙΑΩ, which lack such theological nuance. Early
Christians inherited the LXX as their authoritative Scripture. Their use of κύριος
reflects continuity with Jewish tradition rather than a departure from it. The
association of κύριος with both God (YHWH) and Jesus in the NT
highlights its centrality in early Christian theology and its roots in the LXX.
The theological hostility displayed by Jehovah’s Witnesses in accusing
early Christianity of deliberately “corrupting” Scripture by substituting the
Tetragrammaton with κύριος or abbreviating sacred names (nomina sacra)
is both historically unfounded and theologically unwarranted. Their willingness
to portray Judaism as a more faithful preserver of the Scriptures while
suspecting proto-orthodox Christianity of all forms of malice reflects a deeply
flawed understanding of textual history and early Christian scribal practices. Far from being a malicious attempt
to hide or distort theological truths, the use of nomina
sacra was motivated by reverence for sacred
names and reflects early Christian scribal practices rooted in Jewish
traditions.
The nomina sacra were abbreviations of divine titles and names in
early Christian manuscripts, such as κυριος (Lord), θεος (God), Ιησους
(Jesus), and Χριστος (Christ). These abbreviations were marked with a
horizontal line above the letters to signify their sacred nature. Far from
being a clandestine effort to suppress theological truths or obscure the divine
name, the nomina sacra were a deliberate act of reverence.
As Bruce Metzger highlights, the nomina sacra were not invented
to save space but were intended to express respect and veneration for
divine names. The unique formatting—using generous spacing and overlines—emphasized
their sacred significance. The systematic application of nomina sacra to
sacred terms alone (e.g., distinguishing "spirit" from
"Spirit") demonstrates that this was an exegetical decision made
with theological precision.
The Jewish oral tradition of substituting “Adonai” for YHWH in Scripture
readings influenced the Greek rendering of YHWH as κύριος in the
Septuagint. Early Christians, inheriting the Septuagint, naturally retained
this substitution while introducing the nomina sacra as a further sign
of reverence. The use of sacred abbreviations in Jewish contexts, such as the
Paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts like P. Fouad 266,
indicates that the concept of reverence-driven abbreviation was not uniquely
Christian but had roots in Jewish textual practices.
Jehovah’s Witnesses allege that the use of κύριος and the nomina
sacra reflect an intentional effort by early Christians to “obscure” the
divine name (YHWH) and introduce heretical theology. This claim is unfounded
for several reasons. Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently argue that the substitution
of YHWH with κύριος in Christian manuscripts reflects a coordinated
effort by later ecclesiastical authorities, possibly the papacy. However the
papacy as a powerful institution did not exist in its developed form until the
4th century, and no ecumenical council addressed the issue of divine names in
Scripture. The nomina sacra practice predates such developments, as
evidenced by their appearance in manuscripts from the 2nd century CE,
well before the rise of formal ecclesiastical hierarchies. The use of κύριος
in the LXX predates Christianity itself, making any alleged “decision” irrelevant.
It is entirely plausible that the apostles themselves initiated the use of κύριος
and the nomina sacra. Early Christian communities sought to honor sacred
names, and the consistent appearance of nomina sacra across widespread
regions suggests that this practice originated during the apostolic era. If the
apostles used κύριος in place of YHWH, as suggested by their extensive
quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament, this further validates the
practice as rooted in Christian orthodoxy.
The nomina sacra were not a suppression of truth but an elevation
of sacred terms. Reducing the practice to a conspiratorial effort ignores
the cultural and theological motivations behind it. The absence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ
in Christian manuscripts is not evidence of suppression but reflects the
broader Jewish reluctance to pronounce or write the divine name, a
tradition the early Christians respected and continued.
The universal use of κύριος and its abbreviation (ΚΣ) in Christian
manuscripts suggests that no transition was needed because κύριος had
already been firmly established in the Greek text of the Septuagint before
Christianity adopted it. If there had been a conspiracy to replace YHWH with κύριος,
we would expect evidence of resistance or debate in early Christian writings.
Instead, the use of κύριος is universally accepted without controversy.
The nomina sacra safeguarded sacred names from profane use while
making their reverence explicit in written texts. Far from obscuring
theological truths, they highlighted the centrality of these terms in Christian
worship and theology. The consistent use of nomina sacra in Greek,
Latin, Coptic, and other manuscript traditions reflects the early Christian
commitment to preserving the sacred in a universally recognizable way. The
contraction of sacred names mirrors theological themes in Scripture, such as
Christ being “the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:13), reflecting the
divine completeness of the names abbreviated in the nomina sacra.
The accusations by Jehovah’s Witnesses that the early Christians
maliciously replaced YHWH with κύριος and introduced the nomina sacra
to suppress the divine name are historically and theologically baseless. The
evidence shows that:
- The use of κύριος and the nomina sacra
was motivated by reverence, not deception.
- These practices reflect a continuity with Jewish
traditions of substituting the divine name and elevate, rather than
obscure, theological truths.
- The uniformity of κύριος in Christian
manuscripts and its adoption in New Testament writings underscores its
centrality in early Christian worship and belief.
The argument made by
Jehovah’s Witnesses about the alleged "conspiracy" to replace the
Tetragrammaton with κύριος in early Christian texts mirrors the
Islamic claim of Tahrif al-Nass—the corruption of the text of
the Bible. This comparison is worth exploring, as it highlights the weaknesses
in such claims and the historical and textual evidence that refutes them. In
Islamic thought, particularly among certain Muslim apologists, Tahrif
al-Nass refers to the belief that the original text of the Bible
(Torah, Psalms, and Gospel) has been corrupted or altered by Jews and
Christians to conceal the true message of God. This claim often lacks specific
historical or textual evidence and is based on the Qur’an's allegations (e.g.,
Surah 2:75-79), which accuse the People of the Book of concealing or miswriting
portions of scripture.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue
that the original New Testament and Septuagint manuscripts contained YHWH (or
ΙΑΩ) and that these were deliberately replaced with κύριος by
proto-orthodox Christians. This, they allege, was done to obscure the divine
name and replace it with a generic title. The similarity to Tahrif
al-Nass lies in the accusation of deliberate tampering
for theological purposes. There is no historical or manuscript evidence
supporting the idea of a conspiracy to systematically alter sacred texts.
Neither Islamic apologists nor Jehovah’s Witnesses provide specific instances
of textual replacement or transitional manuscripts that show mixed usage (e.g.,
some portions with YHWH and others with κύριος). Both accuse early
Christians or Jews of acting with deliberate theological deceit, which
contradicts the textual and historical realities of how sacred texts were transmitted.
Both Jehovah’s Witnesses
and Islamic proponents of Tahrif al-Nass face a similar logical problem:
if their accusations are true, why is there no transitional evidence
or record of controversy or debate over the alleged
alterations? If YHWH or ΙΑΩ were systematically replaced with κύριος,
why are there no historical records or transitional manuscripts showing partial
replacements? Why did early Christians adopt the Septuagint (which they
inherited from Jews) without resistance, even though it consistently used κύριος?
If Jews or Christians corrupted the Bible, why do we have no historical
evidence of such changes in the manuscript tradition? Ironically, the Qur’an
itself affirm the reliability of Jewish and Christian scriptures in several
verses.
The accusations by
Jehovah’s Witnesses and some Islamic apologists parallel one another in their
reliance on unsubstantiated claims of textual corruption and theological
tampering. However, both claims are refuted by the overwhelming
manuscript evidence, the historical continuity of
scribal traditions, and the logical inconsistencies inherent
in their arguments.
- In the case of nomina sacra, the evidence demonstrates that the
use of κύριος and its abbreviation as
ΚΣ was an act of reverence rooted in Jewish and Christian traditions, not
a deliberate erasure of the divine name.
- Similarly, the Islamic claim of
Tahrif al-Nass ignores the textual consistency of the biblical manuscripts
and fails to provide historical evidence for systematic corruption.
The historical record
overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the sacred texts of both the Old
and New Testaments were preserved faithfully, and practices like the use of nomina
sacra reflect reverence and continuity rather than tampering or conspiracy.
