Draft:Presence of Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint

The rendering of Tetragrammaton from the Hebrew bible into the Greek translations has been done in different forms of writing such as Ιαω, transliterations in square Hebrew characters, in paleo-Hebrew characters, Greek characteres ΠΙΠΙ or the use of substitutes Κύριος or θεός. The oldest extant manuscripts of the Old Greek Bible (signed as OG) and the Septuagint have written some form of the Tetragrammaton or related form to represent the name of God. From 150 CE, YHWH is replaced by the word θεός, and from late 2nd century CE by Κύριος or θεός in the abbreviated form in nomina sacra. There are different opposing "heavily debated" points of view of the original rendering of the Tetragrammaton since the beginning of the Septuagint, in which the most widely accepted have been ιαω, the Tetragrammaton or Κύριος. Κύριος is not attested in any known ancient Greek manuscript written in its complete form, but scholars have attempted a historical reconstruction of its use in the origins of the Septuagint.

There are actually several textual forms of the Greek Bible: the old Septuagint, the Septuagint realigned on the Hebrew before the Christian era, and at the beginning of this one; and there are also Jewish revisions of the Septuagint undertaken during the turn of the Christian era. Scholars have discussed whether the Hebrew revisions, or because of their Jewish or Christian origin, have affected the decision to include or not the tetragrammaton in the written text.

Manuscripts
The oldest fragmentary manuscripts of the Old Testament in Greek always had the tetragrammaton itself written in Hebrew letters (יהוה), in paleo-Hebrew characters or the Greek term Ιαω. There is no manuscript that contains a substitute in place of the tetragrammaton for before 150 CE. The only manuscript without the name is the Papyrus Rylands 458 which contains blank spaces, where some scholars affirm that it should have a word written on it.

Papyrus Rylands 458
This manuscript has blanks for the tetragrammaton. The scholars have debated various divine name readings, in Deut 26:18, for example, Colin Henderson Roberts in 1936 wrote: "It is probable that κυριος was written in full, i.e. that the scribe did not employ the theological contractions almost universal in later MSS." In 1957, Paul E. Kahle said that Roberts changed his mind, and agreed with Kahle's view that this space actually contained the Tetragrammaton. Françoise Dunand claimed in 1966: "no doubt in P. Rylands 458 of Deuteronomy the tetragrammaton was written either in square Hebrew as in Papyrus F. 266, or in archaic characters".

Albert Pietersma commented in 1984 that "P. Ryl. Gk. 458 did not read $\overline{κς}$ is, of course, to be expected since the contractions of the nomina sacra are of Christian origin, but the full κύριος would seem to be perfectly acceptable from every perspective. Kahle wished to insert the tetragrammaton because he thought he knew what the original LXX must have read." Pietersma also says that the evidence from this manuscript has been overemphasized, "not because it is relevant to our discussion, but because it has been forcibly introduced into the discussion, in part, one surmises, because it is the oldest extant LXX MSS". He adds with some irony, "One hopes that this text will henceforth be banned from further discussion regarding the tetragram, since it has nothing to say about it".

In 2007, Martin Rösel affirmed that: "[a]n interesting phenomenon can be seen in Papyrus Rylands Greek 458 [...] where one would expect either κύριος or the tetragrammaton. This gap is large enough to accommodate both words, and it seems likely that the scribe of the Greek text left the space free for someone else to insert the Hebrew characters of the tetragrammaton." This discussion gives the impression of a clear measurable gap that likely contained a term for God. But as clearly discussed already by Kahle, there is no "gap" but the text "breaks off before the name of God." According to Anthony R. Meyer, "the later comments have entered into discussion unchecked, but were built on the mistaken premise that extant material exists for the use of a divine name in this location. P. Rylands 458 should be dismissed from the debate over the earliest rendering of the divine name in Greek texts".

Papyrus Fouad 266
Robert Hanhart, who believes that κύριος is the original term, said in 1978, about Papyrus Fouad 266: "this manuscript represents a secondary stage in reaction to the earliest textual tradition of the Septuagint which it presupposes". Frank E. Shaw reports that P. Fouad 266 is absent of Emanuel Tov's list of recensions.

P. Oxy 3522
According to Shaw, the publication of P. Oxy. 3522 that contains the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton allows "to judge the first Pietersma's points", because according to Peter J. Parsons and Emanuel Tov this manuscript "is not part of any Hebraized recensions" and "does not fit Pietersma's paradigm".

P. Oxy 5101
P. Oxy 5101 is probably the oldest manuscript that contains Psalms and has written a paleo-Hebrew Tetragram. Shaw states that this manuscript does not support Pietersma's thesis of an original kurios in the LXX because this manuscript has no recension.

4Q120
Shaw claim that "Pietersma admits that 4Q120 is not a part of any Hebraized recension [...] and declares it genuinely Septuagintal". He also says that Pietersma offers no explanation for the presence of Iao in this manuscript and that "clearly the data here do not fit his argument, and here he offers zero explanation for it". Because this manuscript does not have κύριος to represent the name of God, Kristin De Troyer claimed: "the appearance of ΙΑΩ in the Leviticus scroll has left many scholars baffled."

Summary
"W. G. von Baudissin (1929) maintained that right from its origins the LXX had rendered the Tetragrammaton by κύριος, and that in no case was this latter a mere substitute for an earlier αδωναι. Based on more recent evidence that had became available, P. Kahle (1960) supported that the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in the OG and it was the Christians who later replaced it with κύριος. S. Jellicoe (1968) concurred with Kahle. H. Stegemann (1969/1978) argued that Ιαω /i.a.o/ was used in the original LXX. G. Howard (1977/1992) suggested that κύριος was not used in the pre-Christian OG. P. W. Skehan (1980) proposed that there had been a textual development concerning the divine name in this order: Ιαω, the Tetragrammaton in square Hebrew characters, the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew characters and, finally, κύριος. M. Hengel (1989) offered a similar scheme for the use of κύριος for the divine name in the LXX tradition. Evolving R. Hanhart's position (1978/1986/1999), A. Pietersma (1984) regarded κύριος as the original Greek rendering of the Tetragrammaton in the OG text. This view was supported later by J. W. Wevers (2005) and M. Rösel (2007). Moreover, Rösel argued against the Ιαω being the original LXX rendering of the Tetragrammaton. G. Gertoux (2002) proposed that the replacement of the Tetragrammaton by ינדא was gradual between 300 B.C.E. to 100 C.E. and that Ιαω was an Aramaic substitute for the Tetragrammaton used from 200 B.C.E. until the middle of the second century C.E., at a time when the scribal practice of the nomina sacra appeared. K. De Troyer (2008) argued that θεός was the original rendering of the Tetragrammaton in Greek and only later κύριος became the standard rendering following the more extensive use of ינדא; obviously some Jews read Ιαω in their Greek Bible at least until the first century B.C.E. L. Perkins (2008) suggested that Ιαω was a secondary change to the original κύριος. G. D. Kilpatrick (1985), E. Tov (1998/2004/2008), J. Joosten (2011), and A. Meyer (2014) concluded that Pietersma's arguments are unconvincing. More particularly, Tov has supported that the original translators used a pronounceable form of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (like Ιαω), which was later replaced by κύριος, while Greek recensions replaced it with transliterations in paleo-Hebrew or square Hebrew characters. R. Furuli (2011), after comparing the various proposals, argued that κύριος did not replace the Tetragrammaton before the Common Era and the LXX autographs included the Tetragrammaton in some form of Ιαω."

History
Origen (c. 185-253/254 CE) wrote in his Commentary In Psalms 2:2: "in the more accurate exemplars [of the LXX] the (divine) name is written in Hebrew characters; not, however, in the current script, but in the most ancient". Pietersma interprets this statement as referring to the Septuagint. However, Robert J. Wilkinson says one might assume that Origen refers specifically to the version of Aquila of Sinope, which follows the Hebrew text very closely, but he may perhaps refer to Greek versions in general.

Jerome stated in his Prologus Galeatus (dated 391–392): "we find the four-lettered name of God even today written in ancient letters in some Greek text".

Wolf Wilhelm Friedrich von Baudissin wrote in 1929 (published posthumously) that "the ancient LXX read κύριος as a surrogate for Yhwh, and not a form of the Hebrew tetragram, as had been maintained as far back as Origen": He also states: "moreover, from the nature of the article usage in κύριος it is evident that in the original Septuagint the tetragram was not retained in Hebrew letters, nor was it transcribed with αδωναι, and that κύριος was not substituted for it later" Meyer says that: "many found Baudissin’s argument appealing until the flood of new epigraphic, inscriptional, and archaeological evidence in the following decades". Robert J. Wilkinson says that before the discovery of Septuagint early manuscripts "it had been a common opinion that the substitution of the Greek kurios (Lord) for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton had been characteristic of the very earliest Jewish Septuagint translation", but in 1944, even before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, William Gillan Waddell said that P.Fouad 266 has "no coincidende of Kurios at all".

In 1944 W. G. Waddell agrees with Charles Harold Dodd in saying that by eliminating the name of God in the LXX, it contributed to the definition of monotheism. Waddel explains that $\overline{κς}$ is found in P. Baden 56b and Papyrus Chester Beatty V, but not in LXXP. Oxy. VII.1007. With the discovery of Papyrus Fouad 266 "Waddell may have been the earliest to declare Baudissin wrong", he said about Baudissin's thesis of an original κύριος:

"This statement is now flatly disproved by a new papyrus of the LXX, the remains of a roll containing the second half of the Book of Deuteronomy, which in the extant fragments shows no example of κύριος, but everywhere the Tetragrammaton written in Aramaic characters."

Patrick W. Skehan proposed in 1956 about writing of the then as yet unpublished manuscript 4QpapLXXLevb, which contains the form Ιαω, he said: "this new evidence strongly suggests that the usage in question goes back for some books at least to the beginnings of the Septuagint rendering."

In 1957 Paul E. Kahle suggested that the word κύριος should not occurs in the blank space of P. Rylands 458, but rather the Hebrew Tetragram. Kahle based his reasoning on the fact that: "pre-Christian LXX MSS, or copies of early Jewish recensions (by Aquila and Symmachus) have with steady regularity been found in Egypt and the Judean Desert not with instances of κύριος where the Hebrew text has Yhwh". At that time, Kahle did not know of the existence of Oxyrhynchus Papyri 3522 and 5101, which have no recension, and which were published in 1983 and 2011. In 1959, Kahle said:

"We now know that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the Divine name by κύριος, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such MSS. It was the Christians who replaced the Tetragrammaton by κύριος, when the divine name written in Hebrew letters was not understood anymore."

Shaw reports in scholary community a "significant change in thinking on the issue of the divine name in the LXX" by influence of Kahle, that "Jewish translators were not responsible for replacing the tetragram with κύριος, but Christian were, and the manuscript evidence "was seen as corroboration of the statements of Origen and Jerome. A. R. Meyer wrote that Paul E. Kahle (1962), Lucien Cerfaux, Von Siegfried Schulz (1962), and "advanced the view that the use κύριος for God in the LXX was a Christian scribal innovation that began in NT writings and later spread to their LXX copies".

Sidney Jellicoe wrote in 1968 that "the evidence most recently to hand is tending to confirm the testimony of Origen and Jerome, and that Kahle is right in holding that LXX texts, written by Jews for Jews, retained the divine name in Hebrew Letters (paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic) or in the Greek-letters imitative form ΠΙΠΙ, and that its replacement by Κύριος was a Christian innovation".

Regarding pre-Christian use of κύριος in the LXX, Hans Conzelmann wrote 1969 "outside the Septuagint, κύριος is unusual in Judaism as a designation for God", "it has recently been disputed that the Septuagint in fact renders יהוה by κύριος. κύριος occurs only in Christian manuscripts of the LXX, and not in Jewish ones". He concludes: "the Christian use of κύριος cannot be derived from the LXX. The reverse is in fact the case. Once the title began to be used, it was found in the Bible again".

Hartmut Stegemann proposed in 1969 Ιαω in the textual tradition of the Septuagint.

In 1975, Joseph A. Fitzmyer made a study of the evidence from the non-Christian Jewish Greek Bible. According to Meyer "Fitzmyer took the scarcity of evidence for κύριος to indicate that κύριος probably was not the earliest rendering in the Greek translation, but he also suggested that some uses of κύριος, especially in biblical quotations within early Jewish-Greek literature, are difficult to explain on the assumption that later Christian scribes introduced κύριος in the process of transmission".

Frank E. Shaw reports that Elias Joseph Bickerman wrote in 1976 that "the hypothesis of Baudissin is now disproved without appeal" and C. H. Roberts said that "it is established that in their Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament the Jews invariably wrote the Name in Hebrew".

George Eulan Howard propose in 1977 that $\overline{κς}$ (κύριος) and $\overline{κς}$ (θεός) were the initial nomina sacra and were created by non-Jewish Christian scribes who in copying the Septuagint text "found no traditional reasons to preserve the tetragrammaton", and the pre-Christian OG did not contain a surrogate for the tetragrammaton. With the publication of the Greek manuscripts with the name YHWH, Howard made the following statement:

"From these findings we can now say with almost absolute certainty that the divine name יהוה was not rendered by κύριος in the pre-Christian Greek Bible, as so often has been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters or was transliterated into Greek letters. At a later time, about which we will have more to say soon, surrogates replaced the Tetragram. The first surrogates, as we will see, were θεός and κύριος."

Joseph A. Fitzmyer believes in 1979 that arguments by Colzemann "may indeed invalidate the claim that early Greek-speaking Christians were influenced by the so-called Septuagintal use of Kurios for Yahweh (either in Palestine or the diaspora)."

Before his death in 1980, Patrick W. Skehan propposes four chronological stages in the writing of the name of God in some books of the Greek Septuagint: 1. Ιαω; 2. in the usual Aramaic script; 3. 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅 in Paleo-Hebrew script; and finally 4. κύριος. He assumes that κύριος was originally used to translate both אדני and יהוה in phrophetic books, he said: "comes to hand with its earliest attainable stage showing leanings toward Κύριος ὁ θεός as an equivalent for אדני יהוה, in accordance with the Palestinian qěrē. Also, as far back as it is possible to go, the Kyrios term is employed in these books for both יהוה and אדני, on the basis of the spoken Adonay that stood for either separately [...] This cannot have come about as exclusively the work of Christian scribes". Meyer affirms: "overall, Skehan holds that ιαω was the original rendering of the Tetragrammaton, but for some books, the use of κύριος was developed among Jewish writers".

Martin Rösel reports that by 1980, the scholarly consensus of an original κύριος in the Septuagint had already changed in the light of new manuscript evidence: a) for 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅 in Paleo-Hebrew script, Paul E. Kahle (1962), Von Siegfried Schulz (1962), Joseph A. Fitzmyer (1975) and George Howard (1977), b) for ΙΑΩ, Patrick W. Skehan (1957) and Hartmut Stegemann (1978).

In 1984 Albert Pietersma takes issue with Howard's claim that "we can now say with almost absolute certainty that the divine name, יהוה, was not rendered by κύριος in the pre-Christian Bible". He holds that the Septuagint Pentateuch originally contained κύριος, and that the hebraizing insertion of the tetragrammaton in some copies can be seen as "a secondary and foreign intrusion into LXX tradition". Pietersma does not offer an explanation of 4Q120 containing Ιαω for the name of God, of which he said "the genuinely Septuagintal credentials of 4QLXXLevb are well-nigh impeccable". He also describes Papyrus Fouad 266 "as a typical exemplar of the LXX is not beyond doubt". Pietersma stated with regard to non-biblical sources: "When we put aside the biblical MSS and look for literary sources which may enlighten us on whether kyrios was a surrogate for the tetragram, we might possibly appeal to such books as Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, et al., all of which use kyrios as a divine epithet (or name?) extensively. But since there is no sure proof that kyrios in these works is a substitute for the tetragram, we had better not draw on them. Similarly, we might appeal to Aristeas 155 which contains a near quotation of Deut 7:18, and Aristobulus who seems to make reference to Exod 9:3; but since these authors were transmitted by Christians, kyrios could be secondary."

George Dunbar Kilpatrick is not convinced by Pietersma: and in 1985, he questions: 1) "the former's premise that the tetragram represents an instrusion from the Hebrew wherever the manuscript concerned shows any correction from an Hebrew text" and 2) contention that Papyrus Fuad 266, "as a typical exemplar of the LXX is not beyond doubt".

"We may question Pietersma's thesis that as far as 848 is concerned "its status, in general as a typical exemplar fo the LXX is not beyond doubt". This assumes that apart from demonstrable corrections the LXX was transmitted without interference from the Hebrew. We may this assumption and argue that apart from other variations the LXX was frequently corrected from an Hebrew text whenever opportunity arose. If this is true, we cannon discard text of the Greek version because they appear to show correction from the Hebrew. If this is so, we shall have to take 848's evidence seriously [...] Official manuscripts of the LXX may have had the tetragram, but unofficial and, subsequently, Christian texts, may have had κύριος. If this is true, Origen's statement is correct and the use of κύριος will by and large reflect private usage."

In 1985 Pierre-Maurice Bogaert said that "it is not clear whether the custom of the Greek biblical manuscripts of Jewish origin to transcribe the tetragrammaton by Hebrew letters is to be placed at the origins of the Septuagint or only later". Shaw reports that Bogaert, instead of accepting Pietersma's thesis, prefers to opine that it is not clear whether at the origin of the Septuagint the Jews transcribed the tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters.

Wolfgang Feneberg comments in the Jesuit magazine Entschluss/Offen (April 1985): "in pre-Christian manuscripts for Greek-speaking Jews, God's name was not paraphrased with kýrios [Lord], but was written in the tetragram form in Hebrew or archaic Hebrew characters. ... We find recollections of the name in the writings of the Church Fathers; but they are not interested in it. By translating this name kýrios (Lord), the Church Fathers were more interested in attributing the grandeur of the kýrios to Jesus Christ".

Mª Vª Spottorno y Díaz Caro writes in 1985 that one cannot rule out the possibility that the expression "Lord" (κύριος in Greek, מרא in Aramaic) as the name of God was already in use among Jews at about the time when the Septuagint was created. Her study centres on Papyrus 967 from the end of the 2nd century or early 3rd century CE, the oldest extant manuscript of the Septuagint text of Ezekiel 12–48, also containing Daniel and Esther in a text anterior to Origen's Hexapla, perhaps even of the first century. She believes that its use of the nomen sacrum form of κύριος (318 times) does not necessarily mean that it was the work of a Christian scribe. She repeats J.A. Fitzmyer's question: While the use of κύριος for יהוה in Christian copies of the Septuagint may perhaps be attributed to the influence of the New Testament, where did the New Testament itself get the usage from? She suggests that it came from use of κύριος for יהוה by Greek-speaking Palestinian Jews, and she cites Howard's assertion that from at least the third century BCE אדני was used in speech for יהוה, as suggested also by Qumran manuscripts of Ben Sira and Psalm 151 and by Philo's use of κύριος for יהוה in his Old Testament quotations. She accepts that the evidence comes from manuscripts of the Christian era and is therefore inconclusive, but she considers doubtful any explanation as due to Christian influence in the 1st or 2nd century the pronunciation of יהוה as κύριος by Hellenistic Jews. However, Kristin De Troyer, reported in 2006 that some scholars think that the text of Papyrus 967 is revised, and therefore does not present proof whether Kurios is an original reading or a secondary reading.

In 1985, Leslie John McGregor studied Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 656 and Ambrosiano O 39 sup. and put a "'hypothesis about the reduction of the divine name', which according to Shaw 'hardly constitutes a point-by-point refutation of Pietersma's ideas'".

Martin Hengel offers in 1989 similar transition from Ιαω to kurios by Stegemann and Skehan: "no doubt under Palestinian influence, Iao was replaced by the Tetragrammaton, written in either old Hebrew or square script, or by the Quere Kyrios". By 2002 he wrote again: "the tetragrammaton, as a rule continued in use in Greek scrolls of Jewish provenance, but in the Christian codices it was replaced by κύριος." Shaw says that "thus it appears that he has not been swayed by Pietersma but believes the LXX first had lao, then tetragrams, and finally at the hands of Christians, κύριος".

In 1994, Marcelo Epstein notes inconsistency in the supposed translation of kurios for יהוה proposed by Pietersma and he said "Pietersma's article is not convincing and the fact remains that, in his own words, 'we have early, even pre-Christian, MS evidence for the tetragram and no such MS evidence to the contrary'".

Mogens Müller says in 1996 that, while no clearly Jewish manuscript of the Septuagint has been found with Κύριος representing the Tetragrammaton, other Jewish writings of the time show that Jews did use the term Κύριος for God. Müller wrote: "Albert Pietersma has been able to establish that the occurrence of some kind of a tetragrammaton in Jewish Septuagint manuscripts was not original; more likely it was a result of the already mentioned 'revisionist' recensions. In all probability, the original Septuagint text used κύριος". James B. LaGrand emphasizes that "Müller reminds us that 'Origen and Jerome are adamant that the best Septuagint manuscripts do not render the Hebrew Yahweh by Kurios, but use the tetragrammaton in some form or other", he says that "Pietersma has demostrated that it is more difficult to explain the time and motive for the switch than has sometimes been supposes, but his analysis of 'revisionist rescensions' lead him to suppose that Kurios substitutions is in the 'original LXX'". Frank E. Shaw affirm that "without mentioning manuscripts P. Oxy 3522 and 5101, Müller claims that 'Pietersma has been able to establish that the occurrence of some kind of a tetragrammaton in Jewish Septuagint manuscritps was not original; more likely it was a result of the already mentioned 'revisionist' recensions', and therefore, the validity of their argument is undermined.

David Trobisch says in 1996 that with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls "we are in a more favorable position to describe pre-Christian Jewish practices than scholare were several decadas ago. These Jewish copies of the Greek Bible use neither nomina sacra nor κύριος to represent the tetragram". Trobisch supports the theory of the tetragrammaton as the original reading in the LXX, and even the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament.

After quoting Howard, Sean M. McDonough wrote in 1999 that "the view that κύριος did not appear in the LXX until after the advent of the Christian era is implausible". He adds: "Pietersma has undertaken a very detailed analysis of the translation technique of the Greek Pentateuch and has concluded that the evidence strongly suggests that κύριος was the original reading". Shaw opines that here "no critical discussion of Pietersma may be found" in McDonough affirmation, and "he also appears to believe that McGregor agrees with Pietersma (!)", but it is not the case.

In 2001, the Pietersma's teacher John William Wevers "registers agreement with Pietersma's argument that the use of the Hebrew YHWH in some Old Greek manuscripts (as well as other devices, e.g., ΙΑΩ, ΠΙΠΙ), represents 'a revision' that took place within the textual transmission of the Greek of the Hebrew scriptures". Shaw opines:

"Without any explanation Wevers states that the above discussed article by Pietersma is "a brilliant analysis" and that he "argued forcibly, and I believe convincingly, that the evidence for the tetragram in certain old papyri of the Pentateuch ... was not original text, but was a revision within its textual history," [...] Within the above ellipse is a list of these MSS that includes 848. How this change in Wevers' thinking from his seeing it as "a lineal descendant of Deut with very little revisionary influence apparent in its text form" (quoted above) to now being such a revision is unclear. Likewise, how 4Q120 (Ra 802 also listend in Wevers' ellipse above) can go from having "well-nigh implecable" "Septuagintal credentials" (Pietersma's words also quoted above) to suddenly also being such a revision is also a mystery, and will remain so since Wevers passed away in 2010."

Emanuel Tov in 2003 wrote that Ιαω "represents the earliest attested stage in the history of the LXX translation, when the name of God was represented by its transliteration, just like any other personal name in the LXX". He also claim that the irregularities that Pietersma observes to the anarthorus use of Kurios may be explained by the mechanical replacement of Ιαω by κύριος by Christian scribes.

A. R. Meyer reports: "the position of Qumran scholars, primarily Stegemann, Skehan, and Tov, has favored the emergence of κύριος at a later stage in the Septuagint’s transmission, at least not part of the Pentateuch’s translation in the mid-third century BCE".

Raija Sollamo suggested in 2003 that "Pietersma refuted the arguments put forward in 1977 by George Howard in his article "Tetragram and the New Testament." Shaw said that "no critical review is offered" by Sollamo in her assertion of the alleged refutation.

Frank E. Shaw reports that by 2003 Kahle's thesis has been "widely accepted" by Sidney Jellicoe (1968), Elias Joseph Bickerman (1976), Colin Henderson Roberts (1979), Hans Conzelmann (1969), Gérard E. Weil (1976), Hans Bietenhard (1976), Joseph Fitzmyer (1979), Bruce M. Metzger (1981), Murray J. Harris (1986), James Royce (1991) and David E. Aune (1996). Shaw also said that in contrast that Sean McDonough (1999), Natalio Fernandez Marcos (2000), John W. Wevers (2001) and Raija Sollamo (2003) have accepted Pietersma's thesis, but they have not offered critical review. Didier Fontaine said in 2014 that in scholarship it is not widely accepted the Paul E. Kahle's affirmation, unlike F. Shaw, and in the world scholarship there are "remnants of Baudissin at work." Fontaine also wrote that "Pietersma's thesis is still quite popular. But it could be an illusion. What is sure is that Shaw's thesis will contribute to change things" and "naturally, via Pietersma's views. Such a prolific scholar as L. Hurtado seems to agree with Pietersma and Rösel's views, by willingly quoting them with approval."

David B. Capes prefers to be more cautious and affirms in 2004 that the "discussion allows us to venture several conclusions. The examples [...] indicate that there is no one way the divine name was written in Greek or Hebrew biblical text around the time of Paul". In a footnote he clarified: "earlier I argued that the divine name was most often translated kyrios in Greek biblical manuscripts at the time of Paul. I now believe this previous judgement to be in error".

Martin Rösel affirm in 2007 that the Septuagint used κύριος to represent the Tetragrammaton of the Hebrew text and that the appearance of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton in some copies of the Septuagint is due to a later substitution for the original κύριος: "By means of exegetical observations in the Greek version of the Torah, it becomes clear that already the translators of the Septuagint have chosen 'Lord' (kyrios) as an appropriate representation of the tetragrammaton; the replacement by the Hebrew tetragrammaton in some Greek manuscripts is not original." He recalls that, although κύριος was obviously the name that early Christians read in their Greek Bible, "Jewish versions of the Greek Bible, including Aquila and Symmachus as well as a few LXX manuscripts," had the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters or the form ΠΙΠΙ imitating Hebrew יהוה and also recalls the arguments for the originality of the Greek transcription ΙΑΩ. However, in view of the inconclusive nature of the analysis of the manuscripts, he proposes evidence internal to the Septuagint text that suggests that "κύριος is the original representation of the first translators", delimiting his research in this matter to the Pentateuch texts, since these were the earliest and provide a glimpse of a translator's theological thinking, for, as he said earlier, "the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by theological considerations when choosing an equivalent for the divine name". In some contexts, to avoid giving the impression of injustice or harshness on the part of κύριος, they represent the Tetragrammaton instead by θεός. Thus the immediate context explains the use of θεός as avoidance of the default translation as κύριος, while "it is hardly conceivable that later scribes should have changed a Hebrew tetragrammaton or Greek ΙΑΩ into a form of ὁ θεός". The presence of κύριος in the deuterocanonical books not translated from Hebrew but composed originally (like the New Testament) in Greek and in the works of Philo shows, Rösel says, that "the use of κύριος as a representation of יהוה must be pre-Christian in origin". He adds that this use was not universal among Jews, as shown by the later replacement of the original Septuaginta κύριος by the Hebrew Tetragrammaton; and he says that "the ΙΑΩ readings in the biblical manuscript 4QLXXLevb are a mystery still awaiting sound explanation. What can be said, is that such readings cannot be claimed to be original."

Speaking of the Qumran manuscript, the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever, which is a kaige recension of the Septuagint, "a revision of the Old Greek text to bring it closer to the Hebrew text of the Bible as it existed in ca. 2nd–1st century BCE" (not a faithful copy of the original), Kristin De Troyer in 2007 remarks: "The problem with a recension is that one does not know what is the original form and what the recension. Hence, is the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton secondary – a part of the recension – or proof of the Old Greek text? This debate has not yet been solved." She then mentions the 4Q120 manuscript, which has ΙΑΩ as the name of God, and adds that in the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll God is at one point labeled παντοκράτωρ. She mentions also Greek manuscripts with the tetragrammaton in square Aramaic script, the paleo-Hebrew abbreviation 𐤉𐤉‬‬, κύριος, θεός, and concludes that "it suffices to say that in old Hebrew and Greek witnesses, God has many names [...] Finally, before Kurios became a standard rendering Adonai, the Name of God was rendered with Theos." According to A. R. Meyer, the evidence for the Troyer's position of an original θεός in the extant witnesses from the Second Temple copies is very limited.

Emanuel Tov in 2008 argues against Pietersma:

"According to Pietersma, the first translators wrote κύριος, mainly without the article, considered a personal name in the Greek Torah, as "the written surrogate for the tetragram." However, the internal LXX evidence offered in support of this assumption is not convincing, as all the irregularities pertaining to the anarthrous use of κύριος can also be explained as having been created by a mechanical replacement of Ιαω with κύριος by Christian scribes. On the other hand, according to Stegemann and Skehan, Ιαω reflects the earliest attested stage in the history of the LXX translation, when the name of God was represented by its transliteration, just like any other personal name in the LXX. Skehan, ibid., p. 29 provided important early parallels for the use of Ιαω and similar forms representing the Tetragrammaton: Diodorus of Sicily I,29,2 (1st century BCE) records that Moses referred his laws to τὸν Ιαω επικαλουμενον θεόν; likewise, in his commentary on Ps 2:2, Origen speaks about Ιαη (PG 12:1104) and Ιαω (GCS, Origenes 4:53); and two onomastica used Ιαω as an explanation of Hebrew theophoric names (for full details, see Skehan). The later magical papyri likewise invoke Ιαω. In a similar vein, Stegemann gives a long list of arguments in favor of the assumption of the priority of the transliteration. This transliteration reflects an unusual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton for which cf. the form in the Elephantine papyri. In the absence of convincing evidence in favor of any one explanation, the view of Skehan and Stegemann seems more plausible in light of the parallels provided. This argument serves as support for the view that 4QpapLXXLevb reflects the OG, and not a later revision/translation."

David Clint Burnett approvingly quotes Emmanuel Tov: "Pietersma and Wevers also do not consider that the gramatical anomaly of anarthorus kyrios is explainable also by Christian scribes replacing the Tetragrammaton in square Aramaic script or Paleo-Hebrew or even IAO with kyrios".

In 2008, Larry Perkins wrote that unlike Skehan and Tov, who believe that Ιαω is the original term, he prefers to agree with Pietersma. Perkins's study centers in Book of Exodus, and he "accepts the hypothesis that the original translators used κύριος as the rendering of the Tetragram".

Frank Crüsemann says in 2011 that all extant unequivocally Jewish fragments of the Septuagint render God's name in Hebrew letters or else with special signs of different kinds, and it can accordingly even be assumed that the texts the New Testament authors knew looked like those fragments.

According to Edmon L. Gallagher in 2013, some Christian scribes "would have produced a paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton", concluding that "if the scribe copied poorly the paleo-Hebrew script... as πιπι, which can be a corruption only of the Tetragrammaton in square script."

In 2014, Ernst Wurthwein and Alexander Achilles Fischer find unconvincing the view that the tetragrammaton was original in the Septuagint, and that among the thousands of copies that have now perished there were none with κύριος. They state: "the typical LXX rendering of the Tetragrammaton as κύριος must have extended back into the pre-Christian era, although there is no evidence for it in the early manuscripts (but perhaps cf. Papyrus Greek 458, fragment d: Deut 26:18).".

Frank E. Shaw said in 2014 that Pietersma does not mention Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3522 and neither 5101 in his discussion, which have been called by some scholars, as examples without recension. Pietersma also states that "an analysis of the translation technique used by the LXX traducteurs when they dealt with certain instances of the Hebrew tetragram indicates that they used Kurios to render it his ("internal evidence")". In view of the conflicting opinions of scholars, the question of how the Septuagint originally represented the Tetragrammaton (יהוה? ιαω? or κύριος?) is of doubtful relevance in relation to what was in the copies in use in the second half of the first century CE, when the New Testament texts were first composed. Shaw, taking as his starting point the Septuagint manuscript 4Q120, which renders the name of the Israelite God not by κύριος or ΠΙΠΙ or 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅, but by the word Ιαώ, rejects the arguments put forward in support of the various proposals: "The matter of any (especially single) 'original' form of the divine name in the LXX is too complex, the evidence is too scattered and indefinite, and the various approaches offered for the issue are too simplistic" (p. 158). He rejects not only the arguments for an original κύριος put forward by Pietersma, Rösel and Perkins and the idea that the tetragrammaton was put in its place for the sake of making the Greek text conform more closely to the Hebrew. but all others, and holds that "there was no one 'original' form but different translators had different feelings, theological beliefs, motivations, and practices when it came to their handling of the name". There was, he says, "considerable choice among ancient Jews and early Christians regarding how to refer to God".

Eugen J. Pentiuc in 2014, prefers to leave the debate open:

"A distinguishing mark for any Christian LXX manuscript is the ubiquitous use of Kyrios (Lord) for the Hebrew tetragrammaton (in consonantal transliteration YHWH), while Jewish scrolls continued to exhibit the divine name either in Hebrew characters (paleo or square script) or in Greek transliteration. Origen (Commentary on Psalms 2.2) and Jerome (Prologus Galeatus) mentions this practice in their days. The discovery of two small fragments (1 Kgs 20:9-17 and 2 Kgs 23:12-27) from the Greek translation of Aquila on a sixth century palimpsest found in the Cairo genizah proves the realibility of the two writers' testimony. This distinction goes back to the first century C.E., helping one to differentiate between a Jewish and Christian manuscript fragment, and between its use in Church or synagogue. However, Robert Hanhart argues that the easiness with which Old Testament sayings about Kyrios (YHWH) were applied to Jesus proves that the Septuagint had originally rendered the tetragrammaton with Kyrios. Yet his argument is not quite solid, as one can well reply that those Septuagint copies the New Testament writers used were already partially "Christianized" and the switch from the use of the tetragrammaton in one form or another to its rendition as Kyrios had by that time already ocurred. In Albert Pietersma view, the presence of some form of tetragrammaton in Jewish Septuagint manuscripts was not original, but rather the result of the revisionis recensios. In any event, the debate is still open and no definitive conslusion has been reached thus far."

Eugene Ulrich claim in 2015 that Pietersma's argument goes against the "early, even pre-Christian, MS evidence" for ΙΑΩ, and adds that "it is difficult to imagine a scribe introducing the not-to-be-pronounced divine name where the more reverent κύριος was already in the text", and declares possible the view that the original Old Greek text had ΙΑΩ, replaced later by the Tetragrammaton in either normal or archaic Hebrew letters or by κύριος, the view expressed with regard to the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch, but not of the writings of the prophets, by Skehan. Ulrich sees a parallel with this Ιαω-Κύριος substitution in the replacement of the Tetragrammaton in a Hebrew Qumran scroll by אדני (Adonai).

Robert J. Wilkinson suggested in 2015: "I shall therefore proceed with the possibility that the original Septuagint may indeed have a transliteration into Greek ot the Tetragrammaton (iao), and not the substitute kurios. Such a conclusion, however, leaves intact the previously established description of the other Jewish Greek biblical manuscripts which feature the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew as archaizing and Hebraizing, and there is now growing agreement that their use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton represents a secondary stage in the transmition of the Greek biblical text. We shall also remain mindful ot the residual evidence for an original kurios. He also said that there are "some pieces of textual evidence [...] to be considered. These incline one to take seriously the posibility that kurios did appear in some pre-Christian Jewish Greek manuscripts". He also said "it does not seem implausible that there may have been pre-Christians Jewish attempts to replace an original Septuagint iao".

Pavlos D. Vasileiadis is influenced by Skehan, Stegemann, Tov and Furuli of an original Ιαω and in 2014 he wrote: "truly, the hard evidence available supports this latter thesis".

Ronald L. Troxel in 2016 wrote that Shaw's final argument "accents the textual evidence of places where the Tetragram, written in Paleo-Hebrew, occurs in LXX manuscripts, as well as the appearance of Ιαω in 4Q120 and the curious spacing around the divine name in some LXX manuscripts. These and the onomastic evidence are what make Shaw's argument persuasive [...] I am persuaded by Shaw's counterarguments to Pietersma". Troxel continues: "Shaw's evidence and arguments from them are strong enough to dispense with speculation about how many others concur against Pietersma and, above all, claiming that his case constitutes some sort of developmental apex. His argument in this book is much too strong to need that. In fact, his book will be pivotal to any further discussion of uses of the divine name in early Judaism."

In 2016, Shaw agrees with Wilkinson in the posiblility that there was not an original form of the name of God in the LXX, but he criticizes the affirmation that the use of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton represents a secondary stage in the transmition of the Greek biblical text:

"The traditionalist Martin Rösel calls the view that the LXX translator used the Hebrew tetragram amid the Greek text the 'prevailing assumption'. Thus this position should not be so lightly dismissed. Albert Pietersma's 1984 article, upon which Wilkinson relies, misses the fact that several such LXX manuscripts are not Hebraized (Ra 848, P.Oxy. 3522 and 5101). It is also significant that, in addition to Emanuel Tov, Jan Joosten, Kristin De Troyer and now Gene Ulrich have rejected Pietersma's argumentation."

Anthony R. Meyer, who considers Shaw's book "erudite and nuanced", in 2016 writes the following: "I would like to thank the author for his thoughtful contribution. His work demonstrates the benefits of a comprehensive approach to the study of the divine name" He reports that "Shaw contends that arguments for the "originality" of κύριος in the LXX are inconsistent and contradictory (cf. Shaw's evaluation of the "Baudissin defenders" Pietersma [pp. 136–37], Rösel [p. 156], and Perkins [p. 161]). He concludes that "[t]he matter of any (especially single) 'original' form of the divine name in the LXX is too complex, the evidence is too scattered and indefinite, and the various approaches offered for the issue are too simplistic..." to account for the scribal practices as they happened (p. 158)"

Anthony R. Meyer states in 2017, in relation to Greek biblical manuscripts: "While ιαω and the Hebrew Tetragrammaton are clearly attested in Greek biblical texts, absent from all Second Temple copies is the title κυριος as a replacement for the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. κυριος is the standard title for God in the major Christian codices of the fourth and fifth centuries CE Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus [...] this practice enters the extant record in the second century CE, and from that point on, Christian copies of Greek biblical texts invariably use the term κύριος where the underlying Hebrew text reads the Tetragrammaton." Because the biblical manuscripts, according to Meyer, do not support an original κύριος, Meyer traces extrabiblical evidence of the use of κύριος to demonstrate its early use in Judaism, although he states that this does not necessarily imply its use in the LXX.

Vasileiadis calls in 2017 the "prevailing assumption" the affirmation that "'the original translators of the LXX never rendered the divine name with κύριος, but kept the tetragrammaton in Hebrew or Palaeo-Hebrew characters, or they used the transcription Ιαω'". Vasileiadis is not convinced by Pietersma: "Pietersma attempted to refute this new consensus and support the traditional view that κύριος was original in the LXX but despite the popularity of this view, it seems more and more unconvincing".

In an article of 2017 that according to Fontaine, Vasileiadis "carefully examines the different perspectives", P. D. Vasileiadis affirm that "a most obvious reason for the wide repetition of Pietersma's position is exactly because it provides a facile solution that supports the centuries-long held traditional thesis that κύριος originality rendered the Tetragrammaton within the original Greek NT. However, as G. Howard argued, this scenario does not satisfactorily explain the subsequent Christological implications of the NT textual variants and the long and bloodstained theological disputes provoked. [...] Pietersma tried to revive the core of Baudissin's thesis, that is, that "the LXX had rendered the divine name as kurios right from the beginning" but "today, however, Baudissin's view is generally discarded." [...] Regarding the sequence in which Ιαω appeared, M. Rösel concluded: "I would speculate that the strange reading of ΙΑΩ is a secondary replacement that comes from a community (in Egypt?) that still pronounced the name of God in this way." [...] But the question remains: If there were a 'community in Egypt that still pronounced the name of God' during the first century BCE and the first century CE, why might there not have been such a community two centuries earlier when the LXX Torah was written down?.

Rösel reacts against Shaw's book, and in 2018 updates his 2007 article The Reading and Translation of the Divine Name in the Masoretic Tradition and the Greek Pentateuch and wrote that "there are still important arguments that in the majority of the text κύριος was used".

In 2018, after listing pre-Christian manuscripts with the name yhwh or some related form, Hermann Lichtenberger quotes De Troyer, and states:

"The use of Ιαω in 4Q120 confronts us with the question of how the Divine Name was originally represented in the Septuagint. Opinio communis is by the term κύριος, but the evidence given here may indicate that there is a prehistory concerning κύριος. We either find Ιαω as in 4Q120 or the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton as in 8Hev XII gr."

Lincoln H. Blumell in 2019 listed three OT biblical manuscritps from 2nd-century CE (Rahlfs 0970/P.Bad IV 56 (LDAB 3086), 2082 (LDAB 3086) and 2122/PSI Congr. XX 1 (LDAB 3085)), he wrote that "determining whether an early LXX fragment is Jewish or Christian scribal origin is difficult; however, it appears that Jewish copyists had a tendency to substitute the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) for κύριος [...] eg. Rahlfs 0848 and 0857".

Extrabiblical evidence
Anthony R. Meyer submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2017. Meyer studied Greek biblical manuscripts and Jewish-Greek literature from "Hellenistic and early Roman periods, including Jewish-Hellenistic poets, historians, apologists, Philo, New Testament writings, and many works known today as Pseudepigrapha," and additionally in his work it reads that "the Greek copies of these works date on paleographic grounds much later than the Second Temple period. As such, they do not offer a direct window into Jewish divine name practices from earlier times." Meyer claim: "overall, the extant Second Temple Greek biblical manuscripts show the avoidance of the divine name in speech, but not in writing, the latter continued well into the first century CE, until Christian scribes largely took over the transmission of Jewish Greek biblical texts and worked to standardize terms for God with κύριος in the nomina sacra, a convention which seems to have been in force since earliest Christian transmission. Yet, it is improbable that κύριος entered Greek biblical manuscripts only in the first century CE. Apart from the widely held view that κύριος was used in reading Greek biblical texts that show evidence for avoiding the Tetragrammaton, Jewish religious uses of κύριος, as indicated by epigraphic and literary sources that are implausible to explain as the result of later Christian scribal habits—Greek additions to Esther, 2–3 Macc, Ach 70 and 71, 4Q126 (?), P. Fouad 203, and others—show that Jews began using κύριος in writing around the second century BCE." Accordingly, he writes that "the Septuagint manuscripts of the first century CE, which Philo and NT authors rely on for their quotations, could well have contained κύριος, but this does necessarily require that κύριος goes back to the Old Greek translation."; and states: "In summary of the use and non-use of κύριος, the available epigraphic and literary evidence suggests that Jews began using κύριος in writing approximately during the second and first centuries BCE, but such uses are not uniform or standard. At both ends there are writers for whom κύριος was not significant: the Jewish-Hellenistic authors of the early second century BCE and Josephus and 4 Macc of the late first century CE. But among these, other writers use κύριος, including the Greek additions earlier works (Esther, A–F), original Jewish-Greek compositions (2 Macc), and also epigraphic sources (Ach 70 and Ach 71). Further evidence may be adduced from 4Q126, if the reading is accurate, and the apotropaic prayer of P. Fouad 203." Meyer concludes:

"The use of κύριος in these texts cannot be explained as the result of later Christian scribal insertions. Jews likely began writing texts with κύριος during the second century BCE. The emergence of κύριος probably happened first among Jewish-Greek writers composing original Greek works, not biblical translations. At some later point, this approach to naming God worked its way into pre-Christian Greek biblical texts. That some translation patterns are best explained as having the qere system in the background —suggested by Skehan through the rendering of as the singular κυριος — suggests that κυριος somehow made its way into Jewish scribal circles before the first century CE. But this does not appear to go back to the translation of the Pentateuch. At the same time, the use of κύριος among Jews never became standard to the same extent that we find in Christian copies of the LXX. This much is suggestedbby the lack of κύριος in the extant record and its avoidance among prominent Jewish -Greek writers like Josephus and 4 Macc."

Philonic writtings
In 1950, W. P. M. Walters (Peter Katz), who considered Philo's text "aberrant" concluded that Philo's Bible was the LXX, but recensions can be observed in their writings (e.g. Aquila of Sinope).

Howard in 1977 wrote that the problem with use of κύριος and θεός for יהוה in Philonic MSS is that those that exist have been handed down by Christians: "it is quite possible that the Philonic MSS underwent a change in regard to the divine name along with the Christian LXX [...] In fact there is very good reason to argue that this is the case".

"[Walters] argued that in some Philo lemmata of Philo's treatises were omitted in the course of transmision only to be reinserted at a later stage. The reinserted quotations were placed in the wrong position, sometimes made longer than the original citation, and sometimes given a different form. Walters's conclusion based on his comparison of the lemmata and the OT text reflected in Philo's is that Philo's Bible was basically that of the LXX. In spite of that there are some problems connected with Walters' work, he observing that the Philonic MSS tradition reflects a certain amount of scribal alteration. The fact that most Philonic MSS preserve the Septuagint reading of κύριος for the divine name, therefore, should cause us hesitation in accepting his quotations as they now stand since we know that LXX MSS in his day generally preserved the Tetragram, no surrogates of it. As for Philo's exposition, alterations may not have been as plentiful as those within the quotations. However, it too received some modification, as the MS tradition shows. In spite of this, however, his weaving totether of biblical quotation and exposition at times leaves hardly any doubt that Philo was perfectly capable of using κύριος as a surrogate for the Tetragram within his exposition. It may be then that our earliest witness to this particular Greek substitute for the divine name in an expositional reference is Philo [...] Although it is improbable that Philo varied from the custom of writing the Tetragram when quoting from Scripture, it is likely that he used the word κύριος when making a secondary reference to the divine name in his exposition."

Pietersma in 1984 agrees with Dahl and Segal that, "while preserved Jewish fragments of the Greek version have some form of transliteration for the tetragrammaton, Philo must have read kyrios in his texts", and then he adds that: "there is only one way to negate the force of Philo's evidence on the equation of kyrios and the tetragram, and that is by making a distinction between what Philo saw in his Bible and what he understood and read, but that issue we will turn to at a later point".

Robert A. Kraft says that in 1993, "according to Runia, Philo's writings are preserved primarily 'in some 65 [Greek] mss dating from the 9th to the 17th centuries', which are divided into several sub-groups by their editors.

In 1999, Sean M. McDonough declares implausible the idea, on which Howard's hypothesis is based, that κύριος first appeared in the Septuagint only when the Christian era had begun. He says the idea is convincingly contradicted by the testimony both of Philo (c. 20 BCE) and of the New Testament itself. Howard's attribution to Christian copyists the consistent use of κύριος as a designation for God in Philo's writings is countered by Philo's frequent interpretation and even the etymology of the word κύριος. As for the New Testament, even its earliest manuscript fragments have no trace of the use of the Tetragrammaton that Howard hypothesizes and which in some passages of Paul would even be ungrammatical. While some Septuagint manuscripts have forms of the Tetragrammaton, and while some argue that κύριος was not in the original Septuagint, it is certain that, when the New Testament was written, some manuscripts did have κύριος.

David B. Capes admits in 2004 that Philo's text, as now extant, has been transmitted by Christian scholars, and cites the argument that Howard based on this fact. However, he follows James R. Royse in concluding that Philo, while using manuscripts that had the Tetragrammaton, quotes them as they were pronounced in the synagogue. Capes declares accordingly: "Philo, not Christian copyists, is likely responsible for the presence of kyrios in his biblical quotations and exposition". In 2018, Capes says:

"it may vary well that Philo, the exegete, knew and read biblical manuscripts in which the tetragrammaton was written in Paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic scritp, not kyrios. But he is not a copyist; he is an exegete, a philosopher, a commentator on Scripture. So he probably quoted Scripture the same way he sould have pronounced it, by translating the divine name kyrios."

In 2021 D. Clint Burnett wrote that "Pietersma's/Wever's and Hay's position underestimate the complexity of the evidence. The former neglect a key datum from Philo. The Jewish philosopher aknowledges that the Tetragrammaton consist of four letters, which cannot be κύριος or Ιαω".

Presence of the name of God in 13 books

 * Genesis
 * LXXP. Oxy. VII.1007: 2:8, 2:18.


 * Leviticus
 * 4Q120: 3:12, 4:27.


 * Deuteronomy
 * LXXP. Fouad Inv. 266b: 18:5 (x2), 18:7, 18:15, 18:16, 19:8, 19:14, 20:4, 20:13, 20:18, 21:1, 21:8, 23:5, 24:4, 24:9, 25:15, 25:16, 26:2, 26:7, 26:8, 26:14, 27:2, 27:3, 27:7, 27:10, 27:15, 28:1 (x2), 28:7, 28:8, 28:9, 28:13, 28:61, 28:62, 28:64, 28:65, 29:4, 29:10, 29:20, 29:29, 30:9, 30:20, 31:3, 31:26, 31:27, 31:29, 32:3, 32:6, 32:19.


 * 1 Kings
 * AqBurkitt: 20:13 (x2), 20:14, 23:12, 23:16.


 * 2 Kings
 * AqBurkitt: 23:21, 23:23, 23:25, 23:26, 23:27.


 * Job
 * P. Oxy 3522: 34:11, 34:12.


 * Psalms
 * Ambrosiano O 39 sup.: 18:30, 18:31, 18:41, 18:46, 28:6, 28:7, 28:8, 29:1 (x2), 29:2 (x2), 29:3 (x2), 30:1, 30:2, 30:4, 30:7, 30:8, 30:10 (x2), 30:12, 31:1, 31:5, 31:6, 31:9, 31:21, 31:23 (x2), 31:24, 32:10, 31:11, 35:1, 35:22, 35:24, 35:27, 36:Sup, 36:5, 46:7, 46:8, 46:11, 89:49, 89:51, 89:52.
 * P. Oxy 5101: 27:14 (x2), 65:1.
 * SymP. Vindob. G. 39777: 69:13, 69:30, 69:31.
 * AqTaylor: 91:2, 91:9, 92:1, 92:4, 92:5, 92:8, 92:9, 96:7 (x2), 96:8, 96:9, 96:10, 96:13, 97:1, 97:5, 97:9, 97:10, 97:12, 102:15, 102:16, 102:19, 102:21, 103:1, 103:2, 103:6, 103:8.

Codex Marchalianus: 1:2, 11:1 (marginal notes).
 * Ezekiel


 * Jonas
 * LXXIEJ 12: 3:3.
 * LXXVTS 10a: 4:2.


 * Micah
 * LXXVTS 10a 1:1, 1:3, 4:4, 4:5, 4:7, 5:4 (x2).


 * Habakkuk
 * LXXVTS 10a: 2:14, 2:16, 2:20, 3:9.


 * Zephaniah
 * LXXVTS 10a: 1:3, 1:14, 2:10.


 * Zechariah
 * LXXVTS 10a: 1:3 (x2), 1:4, 3:5, 3:6.
 * LXXVTS 10b: 3:7, 8:20, 9:1 (x2), 9:4.