Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear list-members,

This thread has brought up many interesting observations and arguments. I 
think it is time to draw the lines together. What started the thread was my 
words that there is even good evidence that the the tetragram in some form 
occurred in the NT autographs. In my posts I have tried to present the case 
in an undogmatic way.

EVIDENCE

a) All the fragments of the LXX up to 50 CE have the tetragram or IAO.
b) The LXX manuscripts from the second century CE onward have KS in quotes 
from The Tanakh where YHWH is found.

c) We do not possess the NT autographs and do not know whether they contained 
YHWH or YAO.

d) The NT manuscripts from the second century CE onward have KS.

Conclusion regarding this evidence: The KS in the LXX manuscripts represent 
textual corruption; someone deliberately changed the text from YHWH/IAO  to 
KS. The KS in the NT manuscripts also represents textual corruption, because 
KS was not written in the original NT manuscripts. The pattern of the LXX 
(YHWH/IAO ----> KS) suggests, but do not prove, that the NT autographs 
contained YHWH or IAO.

ARGUMENTS

a) Exodus 3:15 NIV says regarding YHWH: "This is my name for ever, the name I 
am to be remembered from generation to generation." The witness of the whole 
Tanakh is that  YHWH should be used for ever and not any substitute. (A name 
was extremely important for the Jews.)

b) Jesus and the NT writers unanimously say that the Tanakh is the truth of 
God and must not be altered. Traditions and customs that are against the 
sayings of the Tanakh are condemned. Thus, there is no reason why the NT 
writers should not follow Exodus 3:15 and other similar passages, even if 
other persons used a substitute for YHWH.

c) The argument in favor of the inclusion of KURIOS in the NT is that the 
general custom in the first century CE was to say 'adonay when YHWH was 
written. The NT writers followed this custom and used KURIOS in the NT. There 
is evidence that in the last two centuries BCE the religious order at Qumran 
did not pronounce God's name, but used )L instead. There is no evidence that 
different groups in the second or first century BCE used )DNY as a substitute 
for YHWH. But there is evidence from the DSS that some who wrote manuscripts 
that were imported to Qumran, used YHWH until 70 CE. There is also evidence 
in Tosefta that the Pharisees and the Morning-bathers used YHWH in the first 
century CE, and there is evidence in the Talmud that the minim (most likely 
Christians) used YHWH in the first century CE. There is also much evidence 
for a widespread use of IAO from the third century BCE to the second century 
CE.

d) The evidence is that YHWH was in use in the days of Jesus, and even if 
only )DNY had been used, there is no reason to believe that Jesus would have 
violated the Tanakh by using a substitute for YHWH.

FINAL CONCLUSION: Because the oldest extankt NT manuscripts  have a corrupt 
text—KS was not in the original—we cannot know with certainty how the NT 
autographs rendered God's name. But the bulk of the evidence suggests that 
YHWH was found in the NT autographs, because, 1) the command of the Tanakh is 
that the YHWH should be used for ever, 2) Jesus and the NT writers did not 
follow the traditions of men,  3) when the NT writers quoted the Tanakh where 
the name occurs, there was no reason why they should not use YHWH in their 
quoted texts, and 4) the text of the LXX was tampered with, and God's name 
was removed from it between 50 and 130 CE. The same substitute, KS; is found 
in the NT and LXX manuscripts from the second century, and this suggests that 
the NT was tampered with in the same way as the LXX was—YHWH was removed and 
KS was used as a substitute.




Best regards,



Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway