Much has been written about this subject--by those who study ancient Biblical manuscripts, by Jehovah's Witness theologians and editors, as well as by "Trinitarian" authors.  This short study is an attempt to summarize present, publicly available information, as presented in Jellicoe's two volume work and from Field's compilation of the manuscripts.  For those unacquainted with Septuagint (LXX) and Hexapla studies, these two men are considered by their peers in this field as prime authorities.

Secondly, until 1897, the only evidence we had concerning the style, form, and content of Aquila's (1st Century) and other  translations of the Hebrew scriptures, were copies of statements by Origen which were also cited by Jerome.  Origen wrote his Hexapla in the middle of the 3rd century and Jerome wrote during the late 4th century.  However, in 1897 some manuscripts were found discarded in the Cairo synagogue.  Among them were some palimpsest (written on both sides or, original writing erased to make space for new writing) scraps containing a supposedly 6th century copy of portions of Aquila's translation.  The scraps were of 1 Kings 20:9-17 and 2 Kings 23:12-27, as well as parts of  Psalms 90-103.  Besides these, the only other early copies of Aquila we have are from the (Christian) Syriac versions of the Hexapla and one 10th century portion.  Thus, the manuscripts of Aquila are relatively late and very incomplete, whereas we have complete LXX copies which are far earlier.  However, it is fairly clear that the LXX copies we do have--excepting any Qumran copies--were most likely copied/prepared by Christians.  The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that these Christians changed the Tetragrammaton () to .

A comparison of the palimpsest scraps of Aquila with the major LXX texts shows the following details:

1. It is clear that LXX-B (or its parent original) was prepared as a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.  Those who did the translating used the method that today is called "dynamic" meaning that the primary goal was to convey the meaning of the Hebrew text as compared to translating each word literally without regard for whether or not the result was understandable to the reader.

2. It is clear that LXX-A, compared to B, attempted to stay closer to the Hebrew text and structure, and in some cases agrees with Aquila's version.  (But it also sometimes agrees with B rather than Aquila.)  However, A and  are much more like B in style than they are like Aquila or Symachus.

3. It is certain that Aquila's main goal was to create a word-literal translation.  Sometimes to do this, he even created forms of Greek words that do not occur in the Greek language  itself.  Sometimes his literal rendering is so exact that only someone familiar with Hebrew could understand his Greek translation.  In fact, the more Hebrew the reader of Aquila's translation knows, the more easily they can follow his Greek version.  Contrarily, the average person familiar only with the Greek of that day would find much of it incomprehensible.  From this we may draw the conclusion that Aquila prepared his translation primarily for Jewish readers and possibly for those who were themselves academics, i.e. Scribes, Rabbis, etc.  It must be remembered that Aquila was a faithful, orthodox Jew who repudiated Christianity as a heresy.

It is Aquila's goal of strict literal faithfulness to the Hebrew text and his likely intended audience of Jews and his antipathy to Christianity that best explains why he rendered the Hebrew Tetragrammaton with archaic Hebrew letters (frequently referred to as paleo-Hebrew).  This has led some scholars to conclude that it is to Aquila's version that Origen is referring when he wrote that the "most exact copies" used Hebrew letters to render the Divine name.  All three of the LXX versions we possess use the Greek word for Lord, , to translate the name.  The Hebrew word Adonai  (Lord) was usually just transliterated, substituting Greek letters for Hebrew ones: .  (cf  Isaiah 6:1)

It is interesting that at 2 Kings 23:24, Aquila used to translate (house of Yahweh).  He did the same at Genesis 3:1.  Indeed, the Hexapla columns for Aquila, Symachus and Theodotian all did this at Gen 8:21. Of note also is the fact that Aquila replaced Elohim, , in Gen 1:1 with , but did not repeat this substitution in parallel passages in Gen 2 or elsewhere.

In a few fragment copies (Q, 86, 88, 243^mg, 264) of Origen's Hexapla, the Tetragrammaton is sometimes rendered by imitative Greek letters: .  But this is not found in any LXX versions.  In other words, it is found only in the non-Septuagint columns of the Hexapla!  Only the Syriac translations of the LXX use this imitative form in place of the LXX's .

Further, in most of the non-Aquila Hexapla columns, the Greek text most often agrees with LXX-B.  And when it does not, it typically agrees with LXX-A and .  That makes Aquila's Palestinian version rather singular and unique and the Alexandrian LXX the norm.  Exceptions to this norm can be found in a partial collection of Hexaplaric Psalm fragments of late date.  In the five, non-LXX columns, the Divine name was rendered in Hebrew letters.  However, at Ps 28:1c,  the 5th column uses .  In this same column the Hebrew letters of the Divine name was also accompanied by the Greek lettered form.  In a single case (Ps 27:8) both forms were accompanied by the imitative.  Curiously, in this collection of Psalm fragments, the LXX column also has one (only) exception (Ps 88:50a) that used Hebrew letters to render the Divine name.

So, what conclusions may be drawn from this brief survey of the manuscript evidence?  As to the Jehovah's Witness' claim that the original LXX consistently and invariably transcribed the Divine name in Hebrew letters, there is NO evidence at all.  Indeed, those columns in Hexapla copies representing the LXX consistently and invariably use a form of to transcribe.

Appeal to Aquila's column to support their argument is certainly inconclusive.  His style and translation method, as well as consideration of who actually liked and used his translation, emphatically demonstrate that he had a biased agenda other than to merely translate the Hebrew scriptures from Hebrew into a familiar Greek polyglot.  Using paleo-Hebrew letters to transcribe the Divine name only served to demonstrate the reverence which some Jews felt towards that name.  It conveyed no more meaning--maybe even less--to a Gentile reader than any other Biblical name would have had were it, too, similarly transcribed.  Of extreme importance in examining the claim of Jehovah's Witness' is the incontrovertible fact that Aquila did not consistently transcribe the Divine name with Hebrew letters, but frequently, and at surprising places, followed the practice of the LXX.

Some would argue that, since three major and complete copies of the LXX we possess were probably copied by Christians in the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Christians of that time, wishing to distance themselves from Judaism, "changed" the in their earlier copies into .  Perhaps they did.  And it may therefore be argued that later Christians also similarly modified some of the cases found in the Hexapla's Aquila column.  But we must ask ourselves,  If it was the Christians' intention to so transform the (LXX) Bible version they were using, so that they completely removed the Divine name from their copies, then why were they not as thorough in altering the copies of Aquila's version?  Therefore, we must conclude that the surprisingly numerous occasions in Aquila where the Hebrew Divine name is transcribed with Greek letters was not done by Christians, but by Aquila himself, for whatever unfathomable reasons of his own!

Further, the claim that transcribing with the English letters J-e-h-o-v-a-h is superior to using LORD in all capital letters is like arguing that using paleo-Hebrew letters instead of the more frequently found  is somehow superior.  In actual fact, Jehovah does not accurately transcribe.  The English form, Yahweh or Yahveh does that.  And if, as Jehovah's Witnesses maintain, it does not matter what letters you choose to represent the pronunciation of God's personal, Divine name, then why not use  or LORD?  The capitalized, Greek form let the Greek reader know WHO was named, as does the English capitalized form, and, more than just an arbitrary transcription does, conveys some idea, i.e. ruler, boss, king, etc.  If all that is important is to communicate who the god is who is speaking or being spoken about--as many Jehovah's Witness publications teach, then any of these forms will suffice.  If, on the other hand, the name itself also has importance, as Aquila's usual practice indicated that it did for him (and so, too, Jehovah's Witnesses), then the safest method is a more consistent and thorough version of Aquila's practice.  A less safe form would be a transliteration with the letters of some other language, thus:  Yahweh or .  This latter Greek form is found in a few early fragments of the translated Hebrew scriptures, as well as in some comments of Origen.  Jehovah's Witnesses themselves testify that the earliest known occurrence of the form, Jehovah, dates to about 1270 ad.

As to their argument that all believers today should use Jehovah in speaking about God because this is the form most widely known in Bible translations of today, it should be noted how much more well known is the even more ancient, and still common use today, of  LORD.  More than one of the Witnesses' articles claim that Trinitarian Christians removed God's name from the Bible.  In one sense that may be true.  But, based on their criteria, it must be equally affirmed that the Witnesses have substituted an untranslatable,  false name that transcribes no word in any known language, and therefore has no linguistic meaning.  How is this better than substituting a known Greek or English word, properly emphasized, in place of the Hebrew form???

Finally, let us remember, Aquila's translation is the best evidence supporting the argument that the original LXX did not use , but maintained the Hebrew letters of the Divine name.  And yet, even Aquila's versions do not offer conclusive proof of this claim.  Aquila himself in many verses used .  And there are no other early manuscript examples that come even close to Aquila's practice!  Conversely, in the 2nd Century b.c., apparently some Jews were claiming that the only true Bible was the Hebrew version.  Aristarchus wrote a refutation of that position, defending the Septuagint translation.  In the 1st Century a.d.--much earlier than the 3rd or 4th Centuries a.d.--Philo, writing in Greek, frequently used  or  when writing about, and no one questions Philo's Jewishness.