I agree there is not enough evidence one way or another to draw a
definite conclusion about Jesus. But that doesn't mean the only option
is to throw your hands up in the air and say you have no idea one way or
Never said I was throwing up my hands, I am keen to have an answer, and study the topic extensively.
As for the divine name in the NT there is some
evidence. 1) the Septuagint of the period still used the divine name 2)
nomina sacra forms in surviving manuscripts show divine names were
treated as special even at a later sage 3) high number of variants
involving kyrios or KS show confusion in the text involving that title
4) some verses make better sense with divine name assumed ("the Lord
said to my Lord") 5) Jewish sources say gospel texts containing the
divine name were burned
I find none of the alleged evidence compelling. The existence of the DN in the some copies of LXX in certain locations is not evidence it was used in other writings by very different authors. There is no direct evidence that the NT contained it. No documents nor quotes of it. Matt was written in Greek, that study is conclusive to my satisfaction. The NT nomina sacra tradition, if relevant at all, suggests the absence of the DN. Certain topics will always be debated but until real evidence comes forward, I have resolved that the DN is not part of the NT.