It is relevant to note that there is no real doubt that the divine name was
accorded special treatment well before NT times (Hong has recently argues
that this goes back further than previously thought, cf, JSOT 37/4, but the
use of special notations and archaic scripts all point to this). The
presupposition that an original and uncorrupted LXX included the
tetragrammaton in Hebrew script is by no means certain (cf. A. Pietersma,
âKyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original LXXâ who argues
that those manuscripts which include the Hebrew tetragram reflect a later
archaizing process).
Consequently any claim that the NT text we have is corrupt because it
consistently employs kurios in place of the tetragram lacks any substantial
evidence.
Regards,
Martin Shields.
Re: [b-hebrew] G.Gertoux and the Name...
, (continued)