"The removal of the Tetragram in the NT of the Gentile church obviously affected the appearance of the NT text..." - George Howard, JBL, Vol.96, p.77
That's quite a statement considering there is not any evidence whatsoever that suggests that the NT ever contained the name Yahweh. - peacefulpete
It's true there's not any concrete evidence, no extant copies of the NT with the tetragram, but until the twentieth century there was no evidence to suggest that the LXX contained the name Yahweh. And no manuscripts or papyri containing NT texts have yet been discovered which are as old as the copies of the LXX which do contain the tetragram (prior to and including first century C.E.). Furuli gives an example of an ancient aqueduct crossing a valley, in his book Theology and Bias in Bible Translation. He says that even though only half the aqueduct remains we have no doubt that sometime in the past it stretched the width of the valley. Likewise, we have textual evidence that the tetragram was in early copies of the LXX and so we would expect that to be true of NT writings in the same period. Nevertheless, I must admit I am uncomfortable myself in including 'Jehovah' in the main text without direct textual support. I think it would have been better practice to have kept it as a footnote.
George Howard gave several examples where the textual tradition was undecided whether theos or kyrios is the correct reading (which confusion he attributes to the earlier writings containing the tetragrammaton).
Nevertheless, they did not all obey the good news. For Isaiah says: "[Lord / Jehovah], who has believed our report ?" So faith follows the thing heard. In turn the thing heard is through the word about [Christ / God].
The words: "Lord, who has believed our report" (v.16), are shown to be a genuine quotation (Isa.53:1) by the introductory formula: "For Isaiah says." B.M. Metzger, commenting on the Greek NT of the United Bible Societies, accepts Christou as original in v.17 because: (a) it is strongly attested by early and diverse witnesses; and (b) the expression rema christou [word about Christ] occurs only here in the NT while rema theou [word about God] is more common (Luke 3:2; John 3:34; Eph 6:17; Heb 6:5; 11:3). The omission of the name altogether in several Western witnesses he ascribes to carelessness.
Without doubting the judgement of the committee in regard to the textual principles under which it worked, we now may have other criteria by which to analyze the variants. If we assume that the original lemma employed the Tetragram, the quotations would have appeared to the first-century church as: [tetragram] tis episteusen te akoe emon [Jehovah, who has believed our report ?]. It can be argued from this that theou in the following comment is the original reading, not Christou, since it corresponds to the Jewish practice of using the Tetragram in the quotation and the word for "God" in the comment. Christou would have arisen from a confusion in the mind of later scribes as to which person kurie referred, once it had replaced the Tetragram in the lemma. This confusion would have been encouraged by the ambiguity of kurios in early Christian times; thus the shift from theou to Christou, scribally speaking, would have been quite insignificant. The omission of both theou and Christou in some Western witnesses, on the other hand, may go back to a time before the Tetragram was removed. Some Gentile scribe, totally bewildered by the Hebrew word, failed to recognize it as the antecedent to the word theou. By eliminating the word "God" in the comment (and perhaps even the Tetragram itself in the lemma, though we have no evidence for it) the problem of antecedence was solved.
But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you also look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of [God / Christ] ; for it is written: " 'As I live,' says [the Lord / Jehovah], 'to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.' "
Again we are assured that v.11 (a combination of Isa 49:18 and 45:23) is a genuine quotation because of the introductory formula [for it is written]. It corresponds closely to the wording of the LXX. The Tetragram appears in Isa 49:18, and we can presume that it did so in the Greek copy of the text with which Paul was familiar. The UBS committee accepts the reading of theou as the original text in v.10. Metzger, speaking for the committee, suggests that Christou probably appeared as an influence from 2 Cor 5:10, which speaks of the "judgement seat of Christ." This is perhaps offset, however, by the fact that in Rom 3:6 Paul speaks of God judging the world. The concept of the judgement seat of God, therefore, lies within the range of Pauline thought in the Roman letter. Moreover, another explanation is possible if we assume that the Tetragram stood in the original lemma of v.11. At an early time a confusion could have arisen over which person kurios represented, once it had replaced the Tetragram. A shift from the indefinite kurios to Christou, therefore, could have happened without problem. This means that the judgement of the committee is probably right, but for a different reason than it states.
1 Corinthians 2:16
For "who has come to know the mind of [the Lord / Jehovah], that he may instruct him?" But we do have the mind of [the Lord / Christ].
Here it is not quite as clear that we have a genuine quotation. However, gar [For] forms a type of introduction, and since the text corresponds roughly with both the LXX and the MT of Isa 40:13 (see Rom 11:34), we can be relatively safe in viewing it as a free quotation. The Tetragram appears in the MT and is, therefore, possible here. A. Robertson and A. Plummer prefer the reading of Christou in Paul's comment because "Christou would be likely to be altered to conform with the previous kuriou." If, however, the Tetragram stood in the original lemma, this explanation would be invalid. The most likely explanation for the variant is that Paul originally wrote: "For who has known the mind of Yhwh...but we have the mind of the Lord." Kuriou is an appropriate word according to early practice for a secondary reference to Yhwh, but not "Christ." Later, when the Tetragram of the lemma was replaced with kuriou, it was little trouble for the second kuriou to be changed to the more definite Christou.
1 Peter 3:14,15
But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are happy. However, the object of their fear do not you fear, neither become agitated. But sanctify the [Christ / God] as [Lord / Jehovah] in your hearts, always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect.
The passage contains an allusion to the LXX of Isa 8:12,13 in spite of its lack of a more formal introduction than de [But]. The best NT witnesses read Christon; the Textus Receptus with the later uncials KLP and many minuscules read theon. The reading Christon, though better attested, is probably secondary, if we suppose that the Tetragram stood in the original citation. In that case the original text would have read [tetragram] de ton theon agiasate [But sanctify God as Jehovah]. The author would hardly have written Christon since that would have identified Christ with Yhwh. In v.18 he distinguishes the two when he says that Christos died in order to bring man to theo [to God], and in v.22 he says that Christ is at the right hand of theou. Once the Tetragram had been replaced with kurion, however, this obstacle vanished and the way was cleared for Christon.
These examples support the theory that the removal of the Tetragram from the NT quotations of the Greek OT created confusion in the minds of early scribes which resulted in scribal alterations designed to clarify the text.