Here's my research into the subject, sorry its so long (most of the length is in the reference material).
pseudo
The Tetragrammaton appears to have been widely used up until the Second Century BCE. Its common usage is attested by the prohibition against it during Syrian rule. In the Second Century BCE, about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian rulers decreed that the Jews should no longer mention God?s name. Later, when the Hasmoneans gained victory they not only repealed this decree, but also encouraged the use of the Divine Name. The rabbis (Pharisees) however forbid this practice and actually made the day of the prohibition an annual festival Rosh Hashanah [1] .
Because the Divine Name was widely used up until the Second Century, the early translations of the LXX likely contained the Tetragrammaton. Very old fragments of LXX manuscripts have been found containing the Tetragrammaton [2] . Given the common use of the Divine Name up until the Second Century BCE; the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in the earliest versions of the LXX is to be expected. Although it is possible that early Christians could have used such copies, the discoveries of a few old fragments are in no way absolute proof that this was the case. There are several other factors that suggest that Christians did not make use of LXX copies with the Tetragrammaton.
These factors must be considered when attempting to determine the character of the LXX used by Christians in the first Century. First of all, it is obvious that first Century writers of the NT preferred the LXX to the Hebrew text. Many of the NT quotes are clearly taken directly from the LXX [3] . Next, it must be pointed out that the LXX used by Christians suffered from textual corruption. Evidence indicates that this corruption had already begun before the Christians adopted the LXX in the first Century [4] . Later, the Jews would argue that the LXX used especially by Christians was inferior to the Hebrew text [5] . One of the more well known points of contention was the rendering "virgin" in Isa 7:14. The Jews assertion that it should have been properly translated ?maiden? [6] is even now considered the more accurate rendering of the word. This textual corruption indicates that the translators had abandoned their custom of producing strict copies or translations of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The textual corruption, the prohibition against the use of the Name [7] and the cultural changes resulting from the adoption of the Greek language, are all factors that would have combined to influence the abandonment of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX.
The first Century prohibition against use of the Divine Name would have also prevented NT writers from including the Tetragrammaton in their own works even if it had occurred in the LXX that they were quoting [8] . Most of the NT books were not considered scripture by their authors [9] , therefore they would have been prohibited from including the Tetragrammaton. It was not until the middle of the second Century that some thought was given to the cannon of a New Testament [10] . Even then there was some dispute until the matter was finally settled in the fourth Century [11] .
The beginning of the second Century saw an escalation in the hostilities between the Christians and the Jews [12] . The LXX used by the Christians was felt by the Jews to be inadequate. A group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century further widened the gap between Jews and Christians. The Tetragrammaton was first restored to the text of the LXX in Aquila?s version [13] . This was followed by later translations all of which were much more strict than the LXX used by Christians [14] .
Origen?s Hexapla early in the third Century, which included Aquila?s text, is a clear attempt on behalf of Christians to rectify the corruption that the LXX had suffered in the earlier centuries. Instead of suppressing the Divine Name, Christians were acknowledging that the LXX that they had been using had room for improvement.
The most condemning evidence against the existence of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX used by Christians comes from the extant manuscripts of the NT itself. Not one fragment of a NT mss has been found to contain the Tetragrammaton.
There are available for comparative study more than 13,000 papyrus and vellum manuscripts containing the whole or a part of the Christian Greek Scriptures, dating from the 2nd to the 16th century. Of these, some 5,000 are in Greek, and the remainder in various other languages. More than 2,000 of the ancient copies contain the Gospels, and more than 700, the letters of Paul. While the original writings themselves are not currently extant, copies date back to the second century, which is very close to the time that originals were written Insight On The Scriptures, vol. 1, pg 443. Under the heading "Christian Greek Scriptures".
?the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form?. Insight On The Scriptures, vol. 2 pg. 9. Under the heading of "Jehovah".
Not only do the extant mss of the NT not contain the Tetragrammaton, but neither do the non-canonical writings of the early Christians [15] .
Another issue that provides some a clue to its absence is the fact that there is a significant difference in character between the OT and the NT. It is much more significant than the just the absence of the Divine Name. The Old Testament makes use of many different descriptive names and titles when speaking of the Israelite God "Yahweh". The variety of names that characterize the Old Testament is almost completely lacking in the New Testament. Even if one were to insert the proper name of God in the New Testament where it would normally be found in the quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures, the resulting character would still be lacking in the diversity unique to the Old Testament. If, as it is claimed, the Divine name were originally in the NT, we would also expect the New Testament to have the same characteristics regarding the different descriptive names and titles as the Old Testament. Removal of the "Name" and these other characteristics from the NT would have drastically altered the text to the point of it being un-reliable.
One outstanding characteristic of the New Testament is the constant use of the more personnel title "Father". Even though the Old Testament does refer to God as the "Father" its frequent occurrence in the New Testament indicates a significant shift in the NT writer?s view of the relationship between Man and God. There are well over 200 references to God as the ?Father? in the NT. This is in sharp contrast to about 8 such references in the OT.
[1] Biblical and Talmudic Names for God
?Finally it should be mentioned that to the rabbis it is definite that the Tetragrammaton denotes God in His attribute of mercy and Elohim (which in fact means a "judge" (Exodus 22:8, 27)) denotes Him in His attribute of justice.
Our sages added more power to using the name of God. They prohibited both the pronunciation and the writing of any of God's names except where they applied to sacred writings. The prohibition against the pronunciation of the name of God applies only to the Tetragrammaton, which could be pronounced by the high priest only once a year on the Day of Atonement in the Holy of Holies (Mishnah Yoma 6:2), and in the Temple by the priests when they recited the Priestly Blessing (Sotah 7:6;) As the Talmud expresses it: "Not as I am written am I pronounced. I am written yod he vav he, and I am pronounced alef dalet" (nun yod: Adonai; Kiddushin 71a). The prohibition of committing the names of God to secular writing belongs to a different category. Basing themselves on Deuteronomy 12:4, the Sifrei and the Talmud (Shevu'ot 35a) lay it down that it is forbidden to erase the name of God from a written document, and since any paper upon which that name appears might be discarded and thus "erased," it is forbidden to write the name explicitly. The Talmud gives an interesting historical note with regard to one aspect of this. Among the decrees of the Syrians during the persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes was one forbidding the mention of the name of God. When the Hasmoneans gained the victory they not only naturally repealed the decree, but demonstratively ordained that the divine name be entered even in monetary bonds, the opening formula being "In such and such a year of Johanan, high priest to the Most High God." The rabbis, however, forbade this practice since "tomorrow a man will pay his debt and the bond (with the name of God) will be discarded on a dunghill"; the day of the prohibition was actually made an annual festival (Rosh HaShanah 18b).
It is, however, specifically stated that this prohibition refers only to seven biblical names of God. They are El, Elohim (also with suffixes), "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh," I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14), Adonai, the Tetragrammaton, Shaddai and Tzeva'ot (R. Yose disagrees with this last, Shevu'ot 35a-b). The passage states explicitly that all other names and descriptions of God by attributes may be written freely. Despite this, it became the accepted custom among Orthodox Jews to use variations of most of those names in speech, particularly Elokim for Elohim, and Ha-Shem ("the Name; and, for reasons of assonance, Adoshem) for Adonai. The adoption of Ha-Shem is probably due to a misunderstanding of a passage in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement, the Avodah. It includes the formula of the confession of the high priest on that day. Since on that occasion he uttered the Ineffable Name, the text has "Oh, Ha-Shem, I have sinned," The meaning is probably "O [here he mentioned the Ineffable Name] I have sinned," and from this developed the custom of using Ha-Shem for Adonai, which is in itself a substitute for the Tetragrammaton?
http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=799
[2] God's Name and the "New Testament"
Well, some very old fragments of the Septuagint Version that actually existed in Jesus' day have survived down to our day, and it is noteworthy that the personal name of God appeared in them. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512) says: "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D." Therefore, whether Jesus and his disciples read the Scriptures in Hebrew or Greek, they would come across the divine name.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_06.htm
[3] II - THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT
There are about 263 direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and of these only 88 correspond closely to the Septuagint. A further 64 are used with some variations, 37 have the same meaning expressed in different words, 16 agree more closely with the Hebrew, and 20 differ both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint. (Note, this tabulation adds up to only 225)
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv2.htm#II
[4] SEPTUAGINT
?
1. Early Corruption of the Text:
Textual corruption began early, before the Christian era. We have seen indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III, 5, (9) above). Traces of corruption appear in Philo (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 56, on Gen 15:15, shows that already in his day tapheis, "buried," had become trapheis, "nurtured," as in all our manuscripts); doublets already exist. Similarly in the New Testament the author of Hebrews quotes (Heb 12:15) a corrupt form of the Greek of Dt 29:18. ?
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
[5] II - THE GREEK SEPTUAGINT
Before the birth of Messiah the Jews used to observe a feast in memory of the translation of the Septuagint. Philo the Jew, who lived in the time of Caliqula the Roman Emperor, while the Apostles were fruitfully engaged in the preaching of the Gospel, tells us in his "Life of Moses" that to that time they kept a yearly feast in memory of the Scriptures having been translated into Greek by the seventy-two interpreters. After Philo's days, the Jews turned that feast into a fast, lamenting that such a translation had been made. As the version became more popular with Christians, it fell from favor with the Jews, who preferred to use a version which the Christians could not so easily apply to the Messiah.
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv2.htm#II
[6] SEPTUAGINT
?
3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians:
But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence, mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. "They dare to assert," says Justin (Dial., 68), "that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate." A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering "virgin" in Isa 7:14, where they claimed with justice that "young woman" would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
[7] Josephus Antiquities of the Jews - Book II, Chapter 12, par. 4.
Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more (24)
[footnote to passage]
(24) This superstitious fear of discovering the name with four letters, which of late we have been used falsely to pronounce Jehovah, but seems to have been originally pronounced Jahoh, or Jao, is never, I think, heard of till this passage of Josephus; and this superstition, in not pronouncing that name, has continued among the Rabbinical Jews to this day (though whether the Samaritans and Caraites observed it so early, does not appear). Josephus also durst not set down the very words of the ten commandments, as we shall see hereafter, Antiq. B. III. ch. 5. sect. 4, which superstitious silence I think has yet not been continued even by the Rabbins. It is, however, no doubt but both these cautious concealments were taught Josephus by the Pharisees, a body of men at once very wicked and very superstitious.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-2.htm#EndNote_ANT_2.24b
Philo ON THE LIFE OF MOSES, II,
XXXVIII ?(206) But if any one were, I will not say to blaspheme against the Lord of gods and men, but were even to dare to utter his name unseasonably, he must endure the punishment of death; (207) for those persons who have a proper respect for their parents do not lightly bring forward the names of their parents, though they are but mortal, but they avoid using their proper names by reason of the reverence which they bear them, and call them rather by the titles indicating their natural relationship, that is, father and mother, by which names they at once intimate the unsurpassable benefits which they have received at their hands, and their own grateful disposition. (208) Therefore these men must not be thought worthy of pardon who out of volubility of tongue have spoken unseasonably, and being too free of their words have repeated carelessly the most holy and divine name of God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book25.html
[8] Josephus Antiquities of the Jews - Book II, Chapter 12, par. 4.
Whereupon God declared to him his holy name, which had never been discovered to men before; concerning which it is not lawful for me to say any more (24)
[footnote to passage]
(24) This superstitious fear of discovering the name with four letters, which of late we have been used falsely to pronounce Jehovah, but seems to have been originally pronounced Jahoh, or Jao, is never, I think, heard of till this passage of Josephus; and this superstition, in not pronouncing that name, has continued among the Rabbinical Jews to this day (though whether the Samaritans and Caraites observed it so early, does not appear). Josephus also durst not set down the very words of the ten commandments, as we shall see hereafter, Antiq. B. III. ch. 5. sect. 4, which superstitious silence I think has yet not been continued even by the Rabbins. It is, however, no doubt but both these cautious concealments were taught Josephus by the Pharisees, a body of men at once very wicked and very superstitious.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-2.htm#EndNote_ANT_2.24b
[9] Canon of Scripture--New Testament
Michael R. Cosby, Ph.D.
As with the authors of the OT books, none of the NT authors realized that he was writing scripture. Paul, for example, wrote missionary letters to churches and to individuals, and some of his correspondence was preserved, collected, and later considered divinely inspired. Likewise, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John became venerated and were included in what was later called the NT. Other accounts of Jesus' life were written by early Christians, primarily in the second century, but these were excluded from the orthodox canon. This choice was not arbitrary. Those documents which found sustained use and veneration in the churches were finally canonized; and although there was great debate over some documents, the core of the NT was universally accepted by those who belonged to the orthodox part of the church.
For the early Christians the scriptures were what we now call the "Old Testament." They would have been puzzled with this designation, however. Their only Bible was the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint (Greek translation). They did not refer to the Gospels or to Paul's letters as scriptures for many years.
For Jesus and his first Jewish followers, the Hebrew scriptures were their Bible. Several decades later, however, most Christians used the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX). Nearly all of the OT quotations in the NT are from the LXX. And because early Christians inherited their scriptures from the Jewish environment in which Christianity was born, they too were a people of the book--but in a different way. They believed that with Jesus the new age of revelation had come: the Holy Spirit was at work in their midst, inspiring prophecy, healing, etc. And especially as Christianity moved into Gentile regions, the OT was used not as a source for commandments on food laws, etc. which occupied Jewish scribes. They saw the OT as a repository of information about Jesus and the new age in which they were living. They sought in the OT testimonies to Christ, not commandments for daily life. We might say that they read the OT through Christ-colored glasses, seeing references to him everywhere.
http://home.messiah.edu/~mcosby/NT-Canon.html
[10] THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH AT FIRST WERE NOT CONSIDERED INSPIRED
As in the case of the Old Testament, so in that of the New Testament, when the books composing it came into the world they were not considered inspired. They were looked upon the same way other books are. No one thought of calling them the word of God. The Old Testament was considered by the early Christians as inspired, and for two or three centuries after Jesus it was their only Bible (Westcott, Canon, 55). The first instance of the canonization of any of the New Testament books was about 170 A.D., when, in the Second Epistle of Peter (2 Peter 3:16), Paul's epistles are regarded by some as if Scripture, and that was simply a bothersome recognition of Paul after the long quarrel between the friends of himself and of Peter (Davidson, Canon, 134). For a century and a quarter after the death of Jesus the New Testament was not recognized to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (Westcott, Canon, 179; Davidson, Canon 122). And when Paul said, "The Holy Scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ" (2 Tim. 3:15), he meant exclusively the Old Testament (Westcott, Canon, 55.) Previous to the year 170 A.D., wherever the early Christian Fathers used the phrase "Scripture" or "It is written," they always meant the Old Testament (Davidson, Canon, 119). The name "New Testament" was first given to the collection by Tertullian (Adv. Prax. 15), about the year 210 A.D., and the collection then laced many books which are in it now. The word canon, as signifying a list of authoritative Scriptures, was not used till Origen's time (Davidson, Canon, 4). The word "canonical" was used first in the decree of the Council of Laodicea (Ibid., 5), about 363 A.D. The word "Bible" was first applied to the books collectively by St. Chrysostom in the firth century (Westcott, Canon, 438). New Testament copyists felt at liberty to change the language to suit their own ideas by taking out texts and inserting new ones (Tischendorf, "When Were Our Gospels Written?" Religious Tract Society's authorized edition, London, 1869, p. 15). Prof. Davidson says:
"Papias (150 A.D.) knew nothing, so far as we can learn, of a New Testament Canon?He had no conception of canonical authority attaching to any part of the New Testament. His language implies the opposite, in that he prefers unwritten tradition to the Gospel he speaks of. He neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels" (Davidson, Canon, 123).
"It is clear that the earliest Church Fathers did not use the books of the New Testament as sacred documents, clothed with divine authority, but followed for the most part, at least till the middle of the second century, apostolic tradition orally transmitted" (Ibid., 136).
"One thing appears from the early corruption of the sacred records spoken of by Irenaeus, Origen, and others, that they were not regarded with the veneration necessarily attaching to infallible documents" (Ibid., 161).
http://www.geocities.com/faithofyeshua/books_at_first_not_considered_inspired.htm
[11] A Brief Overview of Bible History
During the early centuries of the Church, there were many documents that claimed to hold "true" Christian teaching. Due to misinterpretation of various teachings, it became important to identify which were truly canonical and "inspired", and which were not. The very first version of the "New Testament", in AD 140, was written by an anti-Semite, Marcion, who deleted all references to Jesus' Judaism. This convinced the leaders of the Church that there was a dire need to authoritatively decree which books were to be considered truly inspired.
Selection of New Testament books as canonical was slow, the present Canon appearing for the first time in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius (A.D. 367). Pope Damascus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, stated the canon of Scripture, and listed the same books we have today. In the Synod of Hippo (A.D. 393) this same Canon was officially stated and adopted for all the Church. However, it is evident that it found many opponents in Africa, since three councils there at brief intervals--Hippo, Carthage, in A.D. 393; Third of Carthage in A.D. 397; and Carthage in A.D. 419 - found it necessary to reiterate the official catalogues. This canon was once again by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787; and then by the Council of Florence in 1442.
http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm
[12] SEPTUAGINT
I. Importance.
?Then came the most momentous event in its history, the starting-point of a new life; the translation was taken over from the Jews by the Christian church. It was the Bible of most writers of the New Testament. Not only are the majority of their express citations from Scripture borrowed from it, but their writings contain numerous reminiscences of its language. Its words are household words to them. It laid for them the foundations of a new religious terminology. It was a potent weapon for missionary work, and, when versions of the Scriptures into other languages became necessary, it was in most cases the Septuagint and not the Hebrew from which they were made. Preeminent among these daughter versions was the Old Latin which preceded the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.), for the most part a direct translation from the Hebrew, was in portions a mere revision of the Old Latin; our Prayer-book version of the Psalter preserves peculiarities of the Septuagint, transmitted through the medium of the Old Latin. The Septuagint was also the Bible of the early Greek Fathers, and helped to mold dogma; it furnished proof-texts to both parties in the Arian controversy. ?
1. Early Corruption of the Text:
Textual corruption began early, before the Christian era. We have seen indications of this in the letter of Aristeas (III, 5, (9) above). Traces of corruption appear in Philo (e.g. his comment, in Quis Rer. Div. Her. 56, on Gen 15:15, shows that already in his day tapheis, "buried," had become trapheis, "nurtured," as in all our manuscripts); doublets already exist. Similarly in the New Testament the author of Hebrews quotes (Heb 12:15) a corrupt form of the Greek of Dt 29:18.
2. Official Revision of Hebrew Text circa 100 AD:
But it was not until the beginning of the 2nd century AD that the divergence between the Greek and the Palestinian Hebrew text reached an acute stage. One cause of this was the revision of the Hebrew text which took place about this time. No actual record of this revision exists, but it is beyond doubt that it originated in the rabbinical school, of which Rabbi Akiba was the chief representative, and which had its center at Jamnia in the years following the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jewish doctors, their temple in ruins, concentrated their attention on the settlement of the text of the Scriptures which remained to them. This school of eminent critics, precursors of the Massoretes, besides settling outstanding questions concerning the Canon, laid down strict rules for Biblical interpretation, and in all probability established an official text.
3. Adoption of Septuagint by Christians:
But another cause widened still farther the distance between the texts of Jerusalem and Alexandria. This was the adoption of the Septuagint by the Christian church. When Christians began to cite the Alexandrian version in proof of their doctrines, the Jews began to question its accuracy. Hence, mutual recriminations which are reflected in the pages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. "They dare to assert," says Justin (Dial., 68), "that the interpretation produced by your seventy elders under Ptolemy of Egypt is in some points inaccurate." A crucial instance cited by the Jews was the rendering "virgin" in Isa 7:14, where they claimed with justice that "young woman" would be more accurate. Justin retaliates by charging the Jews with deliberate excision of passages favorable to Christianity.
4. Alternative 2nd Century Greek Versions:
That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous versions
5. Aquila:
The earliest of "the three" was Aquila, a proselyte to Judaism, and, like his New Testament namesake, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to Epiphanius (whose account of these later translators in his De mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy), under Hadrian (117-38 AD) and was related to that emperor; there is no ~probability in Epiphanius' further statement that Hadrian entrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, that there he was converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his version of the Old Testament. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (95-135 AD), and that his version was an attempt to reproduce exactly the revised official text. The result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Greek literature, if it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittle of the Hebrew might be neglected; uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his translation (Gen 1:1) may be rendered: "In heading rounded God with the heavens and with the earth." "Heading" or "summary" was selected because the Hebrew word for "beginning" was a derivative of "head." "With" represents an untranslatable word (Hebrew ['eth]) prefixed to the accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposition "with." The Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, Hebrew [YHWH]) was not translated, but written in archaic Hebrew characters. "A slave to the letter," as Origen calls him, his work has aptly been described by a modern writer as "a colossal crib" (Burkitt, JQR, October, 1896,207ff). Yet it was a success. In Origen's time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Hebrew, and continued in use for several centuries; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues (Nov., 146). Its lack of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not due to ignorance of Greek, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of the 2nd century AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though "a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint," it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in manuscripts, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Burkitt (Fragments of the Books of Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers 2, 1897; Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swete's Old Testament will trace Aquila's unmistakable style in the footnotes to the Books of Samuel and Kings; the older and shorter B text in those books has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer specimen of his work occurs in the Greek Ecclesiastes, which has no claim to be regarded as "Septuagint"; Jerome refers to a second edition of Aquila's version, and the Greek Ecclesiastes is perhaps his first edition of that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Hebrew text (Mcneile, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904, App. I). The suggested identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Targum of that name, has not been generally accepted?.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
[13] God's Name and the "New Testament"
God's name remained in Greek translations of the "Old Testament" for a while longer. In the first half of the second century C.E., the Jewish proselyte Aquila made a new translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and in this he represented God's name by the Tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters. In the third century, Origen wrote: "And in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], but in the most ancient ones."
Even in the fourth century, Jerome writes in his prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings: "And we find the name of God, the Tetragrammaton [ ], in certain Greek volumes even to this day expressed in ancient letters."
http://www.watchtower.org/library/na/article_06.htm
[14] SEPTUAGINT
?
4. Alternative 2nd Century Greek Versions:
That such accusations should be made in those critical years was inevitable, yet there is no evidence of any material interpolations having been introduced by either party. But the Alexandrian version, in view of the revised text and the new and stricter canons of interpretation, was felt by the Jews to be inadequate, and a group of new translations of Scripture in the 2nd century AD supplied the demand. We possess considerable fragments of the work of three of these translators, namely, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, besides scanty remnants of further anonymous versions
5. Aquila:
The earliest of "the three" was Aquila, a proselyte to Judaism, and, like his New Testament namesake, a native of Pontus. He flourished, according to Epiphanius (whose account of these later translators in his De mens. et pond. is not wholly trustworthy), under Hadrian (117-38 AD) and was related to that emperor; there is no ~probability in Epiphanius' further statement that Hadrian entrusted to Aquila the superintendence of the building of Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, that there he was converted to Christianity by Christian exiles returning from Pella, but that refusing to abandon astrology he was excommunicated, and in revenge turned Jew and was actuated by a bias against Christianity in his version of the Old Testament. What is certain is that he was a pupil of the new rabbinical school, in particular of Rabbi Akiba (95-135 AD), and that his version was an attempt to reproduce exactly the revised official text. The result was an extraordinary production, unparalleled in Greek literature, if it can be classed under that category at all. No jot or tittle of the Hebrew might be neglected; uniformity in the translation of each Hebrew word must be preserved and the etymological kinship of different Hebrew words represented. Such were some of his leading principles. The opening words of his translation (Gen 1:1) may be rendered: "In heading rounded God with the heavens and with the earth." "Heading" or "summary" was selected because the Hebrew word for "beginning" was a derivative of "head." "With" represents an untranslatable word (Hebrew ['eth]) prefixed to the accusative case, but indistinguishable from the preposition "with." The Divine Name (the tetragrammaton, Hebrew [YHWH]) was not translated, but written in archaic Hebrew characters. "A slave to the letter," as Origen calls him, his work has aptly been described by a modern writer as "a colossal crib" (Burkitt, JQR, October, 1896,207ff). Yet it was a success. In Origen's time it was used by all Jews ignorant of Hebrew, and continued in use for several centuries; Justinian expressly sanctioned its use in the synagogues (Nov., 146). Its lack of style and violation of the laws of grammar were not due to ignorance of Greek, of which the writer shows, in vocabulary at least, a considerable command. Its importance lay and lies (so far as it is preserved) in its exact reproduction of the rabbinical text of the 2nd century AD; it may be regarded as the beginning of the scientific study of the Hebrew Scriptures. Though "a bold attempt to displace the Septuagint," it cannot be charged with being intentionally antagonistic to Christianity. Of the original work, previously known only from extracts in manuscripts, some palimpsest fragments were recovered from the Cairo Genizah in 1897 and edited by F. C. Burkitt (Fragments of the Books of Kings, 1897) and by C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers 2, 1897; Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, 1900). The student of Swete's Old Testament will trace Aquila's unmistakable style in the footnotes to the Books of Samuel and Kings; the older and shorter B text in those books has constantly been supplemented in the A text from Aquila. A longer specimen of his work occurs in the Greek Ecclesiastes, which has no claim to be regarded as "Septuagint"; Jerome refers to a second edition of Aquila's version, and the Greek Ecclesiastes is perhaps his first edition of that book, made on the basis of an unrevised Hebrew text (Mcneile, Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cambridge, 1904, App. I). The suggested identification of Aquila with Onkelos, author of the Targum of that name, has not been generally accepted?.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
[15] From the book The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures
Chapter 10: REMOVAL OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON FROM EARLY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
[from chapter summary]
4. There are numerous early writings apart from Scripture. These non-canonical Greek writings frequently quoted passages from the Hebrew Scripture. There is no evidence that the writings of the earliest Christian congregation era used the Tetragrammaton in these quotations. Rather, these writings freely used the Greek word Kurios when quoting or alluding to Hebrew Scripture passages. The earliest of these writings would have been no more than 10 to 30 years after the last Gospel was written. It is inconceivable that within 10 to 30 years of the final writing of Scripture these corrupted writings could have freely circulated in the early Christian congregation if they contained a heresy as serious as the misrepresentation of the nature of Jesus.
