@slimboyfat
Once I argued with a JW about
the hypothesis that if they found a 2nd or 3rd-century NT
manuscript fragment which would contain some form of the Tetragrammaton (or
ΙΑΩ). 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 re-Hebraizing recension, so the
hypothetical NT manuscript I suggested could also be the own product of a
Judaizing heterodox sect (e.g. Ebionites). We wouldn't really know anything
specific, but let's not doubt it, the Watchtower would immediately start
promoting that their claim regarding this has been “proven”.
If
such a hypothetical NT manuscript fragment were found containing the
Tetragrammaton or ΙΑΩ, it would not conclusively prove that
this form was original to the apostles or the earliest Christians. A singular
manuscript, or even a handful fragments tell us very little about its origins,
provenance, or theological alignment. Was it mainstream or sectarian? Orthodoxy
or heresy? Without additional evidence, it’s impossible to attribute this
practice to the apostles or the original NT authors. Judaizing sects such as
the Ebionites could have produced manuscripts that reintroduced a Hebrew form
of the divine name. Such a fragment could simply reflect the influence of a
heterodox group, not mainstream Christian belief. The existence of one textual
variant does not invalidate other manuscript traditions. For example, we find
textual variations in early manuscripts of the Gospels and epistles, but
scholars rely on the broad attestation of the textual tradition to reconstruct
the original text. A lone fragment with the Tetragrammaton would not outweigh
the overwhelming manuscript evidence of Kyrios in the Greek NT.
In the same unfair way, you
now want to reverse the burden of proof, so that instead of the Watchtower
having to prove the existence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT, or its removal,
I have to present the LXX manuscripts with Kyrios.
Albert Pietersma’s thesis
regarding re-Hebraizing revisions is highly relevant here. Pietersma and other
scholars (e.g., Martin Rösel, Emanuel Tov) argue that the presence of the
Tetragrammaton in some Greek OT manuscripts, like 8HevXIIgr or Papyrus Fouad
266, represents later corrections that sought to align the
Greek text with Hebrew scribal traditions. This process is particularly visible
in the Kaige revision, which emerged in the 1st century BCE to
“correct” the Septuagint toward proto-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The appearance of
the Tetragrammaton in Greek manuscripts reflects a reactionary phase of Jewish
scribal activity, not the original practice of the LXX translators. It arose out
of a perceived need to return to Hebrew textual and theological norms, likely
as part of broader concerns about Hellenistic influence and Christian usage of
the LXX. The Kaige revision and re-Hebraizing tendencies show that Jewish
scribes were inconsistent in handling the divine name. Some manuscripts
included the Tetragrammaton; others used Greek equivalents like Kyrios.
This diversity highlights that there was no universal standard
in pre-Christian Judaism.
So the claim that “all”
pre-Christian LXX manuscripts containing the divine name use the Tetragrammaton
(or ΙΑΩ) is grossly misleading because pre-Christian manuscripts of the LXX are
extremely limited and fragmentary. The few surviving examples
that preserve the Tetragrammaton are exceptions, not representative of a
universal scribal standard. These fragments constitute isolated instances. From
such a small sample size, it is methodologically unsound to generalize that “all”
pre-Christian LXX manuscripts used the Tetragrammaton. The fact that no extant
pre-Christian LXX manuscript contains Kyrios does not prove that Kyrios
was absent. The textual gap does not allow for definitive conclusions
about the entire pre-Christian LXX tradition. The argument assumes that the
absence of Kyrios in a limited number of surviving manuscripts equates to its
universal absence. This is a classic argument from silence, which fails
to account for the selectivity and incompleteness of the surviving
manuscript record.
Philo of Alexandria consistently
uses Kyrios when quoting the Septuagint. This is a crucial piece of
evidence for the pre-Christian use of Kyrios in Greek-speaking Jewish
communities. Philo never refers to the Tetragrammaton or its Greek equivalents
(e.g., ΙΑΩ) in his extensive works. If the divine name were universally
preserved in the LXX, Philo’s omission would be inexplicable. Philo explicitly
uses Kyrios as a reverent reference to God, demonstrating that Kyrios
was already a common and accepted substitute for the Tetragrammaton in Jewish
circles during the pre-Christian period.
The NT writers,
all of whom were Jewish, consistently quote the LXX using Kyrios where
the Tetragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures. The NT authors were writing
under divine inspiration. If the original LXX universally contained the
Tetragrammaton, it is inconceivable that the apostles would consistently use an
“altered” form of the text (Kyrios). In every instance, the NT writers preserve
Kyrios, not the Tetragrammaton, reinforcing that this was the form of
the Greek Scriptures used in the Jewish-Christian milieu of the first century.
The Kaige Revision of
the Greek Old Testament is key to understanding how scribal practices evolved. The
Kaige revisers were hyper-literal scribes who sought to align the Greek
text more closely with the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text. The re-Hebraization
seen in texts like 8HevXIIgr and P. Fouad 266 reflects a later
scribal correction, not the original LXX. This reintroduction of the
Tetragrammaton likely arose as a reaction to the increasing Christian use of
Kyrios. Pietersma argues that the Old Greek translators originally used Kyrios
to represent the Tetragrammaton. The use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in
certain fragments is evidence of later scribal revisions, not the
original translation practice.
The translation technique
of the original LXX, particularly in the Pentateuch, strongly suggests that Kyrios
was the original rendering of YHWH. The LXX translators frequently rendered YHWH
as Kyrios, often without the definite article, to reflect its function
as a divine name. For example in Genesis 15:2, where the Hebrew text has Adonai
YHWH, the LXX reads Κύριε Κύριε ("Lord, Lord"). This shows
that Kyrios was not merely a placeholder but an intentional rendering. If
the Tetragrammaton had been present, we would expect inconsistencies or mixed
usage in these renderings. The uniformity of Kyrios strongly indicates that it
was the translator’s choice, not a later Christian insertion.
While scholars like Tov and
Skehan argue for the originality of the Tetragrammaton, their views are far
from universally accepted. Their conclusions rely heavily on the limited
evidence of fragments like P. Fouad 266. These fragments do not
represent the full scope of the early LXX tradition. Scholars such as Albert
Pietersma, Martin Rösel, and Larry Perkins argue persuasively
that Kyrios was original in the Old Greek. Tov himself acknowledges that
the evidence is inconclusive, as the number of pre-Christian manuscripts is
insufficient to make universal claims.
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 textual
standardization like that implemented by Uthman ibn Affan on the Qur’an.
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. There is no written record within early 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.
Consider this: 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?
The Watchtower Society
frequently conflates hypothetical scenarios with established fact. If some
hypothetical NT fragments with the Tetragrammaton were discovered, they would
likely promote it as definitive proof of their claims. However, based on the
fragmentary manuscript data, it cannot be stated that this is normative.
Without widespread attestation across early manuscripts, the fragment’s
significance would remain limited. The Watchtower fails to meet the burden of
proof for its claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the NT. There is
no evidence of transitional manuscripts or historical records describing this
supposed “removal.” In contrast, the consistent use of Kyrios in the
NT and early Christian manuscripts reflects a well-established tradition. The
Watchtower ignores the overwhelming evidence for Kyrios in early
Christian manuscripts while elevating isolated and ambiguous examples of the
Tetragrammaton. Their argument relies on speculation and selective reasoning,
not a balanced assessment of the textual tradition.
Pliny the Younger writes about the Christians: “Affirmabant
autem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato
die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere...” Why doesn't he
write that they call upon some “Iehovah”, thereby causing great scandal to the
Jews?
