Thanks slimboyfat for quoting Gaston's words of "G. Howard points out that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters." That is something I did not know. Those words are a figurative "big eye opener" to me. That message is a huge revelation. I knew there were some LXX manuscripts which contained the tetragrammaton, but until now I didn't know that ALL of the LXX manuscripts from the first century CE lacked kyrios as a substitution for the tetragrammaton. WOW!
Vanderhoven7, your references to P47 does not not refute slimboyfat's (and Gaston's) claim since that manuscript (which you say that according to JWfacts "dates prior to 300 A.D.") is dated to very probably AFTER the 2nd century CE (after the year 200 CE) and slimboyfat says the NT was revised in the 2nd century CE (and thus before the year 201 CE). Also since "P66 dates from around 200 A.D." it might also be after (by a few decades) the time period which slimboyfat claims the NT was revised.
Paul's writings are from the mid 1st century CE and slimboyfat revealed that Gaston revealed that George Howard revealed that "that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters." Since Paul quoted from the scriptures in which the tetragrammaton was used in both the Hebrew Scriptures text and from the Greek Septuagint text (the latter being being revealed us as the case, as stated above), isn't that strong evidence that Paul included the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in his original NT letters which contained those quotes? The congregations he wrote to all had a copy of the OT scriptures (whether in Hebrew or in Greek) which included the tetragrammaton in the text! If they had noticed that Paul's letters to them had used the word kyrios in place of the tetragrammaton wouldn't they been alarmed?
Regarding the quote which Vanderhoven7 provided of Justin Martyr (who was a Hellenized Samaritan before becoming a Christian), I get the impression that Justin Martyr was lying in implying that God the Father has no name. Surely he would have seen the name used in the Scriptures if he ever read them in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, or even in the Greek Septuagint text (since we now know the Greek Septuagint manuscripts contained the name). He lived from AD 100 – c. AD 165, thus he must have have seen the name in the OT scriptures - unless the revision of the Septuagint (to exclude the name) had already taken place in the 2nd century CE before Justin Martyr began reading the scriptures as a Christian and even as a person of the Samaritan religion.
Furthermore, Justin Martyr argument that everyone who has name received the name from someone older than them is false. Some people change their own name, thus making their current name one which gave to themselves. Furthermore, the OT teaches that (or at least makes the implication) that YHWH gave his name "YHWH" to himself.