aqwsed12345 : For example in his "Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research," Tov argues that the use of ΙΑΩ or the Tetragrammaton in Paleo-Hebrew within Greek manuscripts reflects textual diversity, not uniformity. This diversity suggests localized practices, and Tov states that such forms represent variant traditions, rather than the original text of the LXX.
I managed to access a copy of Tov's "Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research" here but could not find him stating that ΙΑΩ represents variant traditions rather than the original text of the LXX. In fact, I could not find him discussing ΙΑΩ at all. Perhaps you could kindly direct me to the relevant pages?
aqwsed12345 : [4Q120] is a single fragmentary manuscript reflecting one regional practice, and its use of ΙΑΩ aligns with Egyptian Jewish scribal customs rather than a universal LXX tradition. If you believe otherwise, you need to cite where Tov explicitly equates ΙΑΩ with a universal and original stage of the LXX translation.
I did cite this in a previous post, but I will quote again from Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Third Edition, 2012, p.132 :
In [4Q120] Lev 3:12, 4:27, Iaw ... probably reflects the original, pre-Christian rendering of the Tetragrammaton, preceding kurios of the Septuagint translation.
It makes sense, really. If all other Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek then to do so with God's name is just following the scribal practice.
Incidentally, you quote Hurtado as saying "Kyrios was used without the definite article to function as if it were a name" and you add that it shows the LXX translators and users treated Κύριος as a theological equivalent of YHWH. Interestingly, Tov says (The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert, p.20) :
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.