IQS (community role)¹⁹: In Figure 1, line 14 it is shaded where the scribe uses four dots when referring to Yhwh. He writes that whilst Israel was in the desert (indicative of the second person pronoun ‘you’ in line 12) they abandoned the way of ‘Yhwh’ (shaded in Figure 1, line 13), followed by an Isaiah 40:3 quotation in line 14. The use of four dots²⁰ (1QS 8.14) for the reproduction of Yhwh is not repeated elsewhere in the community role,²¹ and the use of the term הואהא in line 13 as a a rendition for Yhwh is a hapaxlegomina.²² In fact, the use of the four dots to reproduce a Hebrew deity is not common among texts found in the Judean desert. The so-called ‘War Scroll’ (1QM) makes no reference to a Hebrew deity using any equivalent term for Yhwh. What is a unique characteristic in 1QM is the dominant use of אל in referencing a Hebrew deity.²³ The scribal practice used to reproduce Yhwh appears to be somewhat different in the temple scroll (11Q19).

11Q10 (temple scroll)²⁴: In Figure 2, the name of the Hebrew deity, Yhwh, is rendered using square Hebrew script as can be seen in lines 13 and 14.²⁵ This scribal practise dominates this manuscript; as a matter of fact, it dominates most of the documents found in the Judean desert.²⁶ Tov (2004:207) listed a dicolon (:) used throughout 4QRP^b (4Q364) and the uncommon and uncertain use of different colours of ink for לאלהיכ in 11QpalaeoUnidentified Text (11Q22) (Tov 2004:207). He concludes that the four types of special writing systems for the divine names are closely connected to the Qumran scribal practise, and that no Hebrew texts of a non-sectarian nature or those clearly not written in the Qumran scribal practice containing any of the aforementioned scribal systems for the writing of the divine names have been preserved (Tov 2004:207–208).

A reasonable observation is that there were no standardised scribal practises adopted by scribes of the sectarian manuscripts when it came to the reproduction of the divine name, Yhwh. Reproducing the term remained a religious sensitive matter, often reflecting reverence for, and fear of, uttering the divine name. The יהוה was considered so sacred that it was not written with regular characters.²⁷ The challenges posed by the sacred divine name, Yhwh, was certainly not limited to the sectarian or non-biblical manuscripts but proved to be equally challenging for the scribes who copied the biblical content.

1QpHab (Hab 2:16–20): There were a few manuscripts from the Judean desert written in square and palaeo-Hebrew script. The finds from Qumran and Masada include several forms of writing in palaeo-Hebrew characters. Tov (2004:207–208) characterised them as follows:

The peculiar use of palaeo-Hebrew script²⁸ to reproduce Yhwh was not as uncommon as one might think. According to Tov (2004:225) the writing in palaeo-Hebrew characters probably ensured the non-erasure of the divine name.²⁹ The extract from 1QpHab (commentary on Habakkuk) in Figure 3 is but one illustration. In fact, this scribal practise was not limited to manuscripts written in square Hebrew script, but also influenced manuscripts written in Greek.³⁰ The Nahal Hever finds (manuscripts dated to 50 BCE–50 CE) consistent use of palaeo-Hebrew script without exception (see Figure 4 as illustration).

8HevXIIgr (Hab 2:16–20): Returning to the challenge faced by scribes in rendering the name of the Hebrew deity, no other manuscript illustrates the complexity more than the ‘Large Isaiah Scroll’ (1QIsa^a) (See Nagel 2012:173–191), Figure 5.

IQIs^a (Is 3:15–18): In Figure 5, at the end of line 20 (Is 3:15), the manuscript reads Yhwh with a superscript reading Adonaj.³¹ In line 24 (Is 3:17) the manuscript reads Adonaj with a superscript reading Yhwh, and the direct opposite is again found in line 25 (Is 3:18) reading Yhwh with a superscript Adonaj.³² What apparently caused the confusion is brought about by the Qere and Ketib tradition; what ought to be written and read, respectively, which is obviously not limited to 1QIsa^a but can be observed elsewhere (cf. Tov 2020:49).

In Figure 6, a redactor inserted four dots above Adonaj, presumably indicating that this is what ought to be read, but the term יהוה was meant.

The three manuscript extracts are only revealing the tip of the iceberg. The data from the Judean desert finds are overwhelming. An apparent inference is that like the non-biblical manuscripts, here too there was no standardised scribal system on how one should render the ‘name’ of the Hebrew deity. These illustrations produce not less than five terms used to render the divine name Yhwh:

To confirm, these are not the only possibilities, but it sufficiently illustrates the scribal variety with the reproduction of the divine name, Yhwh. These reproductions also created fertile soil for unearthing numerous complex challenges for the Greek translators of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In the case of Isaiah 28:16 (Figure 7) the text reads Yhwh in square Hebrew characters with a superscript Adonaj, which is characteristic of the 1QIsa^a scroll as indicated earlier. In Codex Leningradensis,³⁶ the superscript presumably found its way into the text for it to read אֲדָֹ֣נָ֣י יְה֔וִ֔ ה with Codex Sinaiticus reading a single κ̅ς̅. The point of contention is whether the term κ̅ς̅ is an equivalent for the superscript Adonaj or Yhwh.³⁷ The Hexapla recension³⁸ read an additional κυριος, the Lukian recension³⁹ attest to a plus reading ο θεος. A similar type of issue is present in Isaiah 28:22; in 1QIsa^a it reads יהוה but in the MT it reads אֲדָֹ֧נָ֧י יְהִ֛וִ֛ה but in this case the Greek text tradition reads. In the latter it seems as if Adonaj found its way outside of the text. Another striking case is found in Lamentations 1:14–17.

In the short space of a few lines of text (Table 2) it is unclear which terms represent what and whom. It is uncertain whether אדוֿנֿ֯י֯̇ is a substitute for ̇ה̇וה or if it simply means ‘master’. Codex S uses κ̅ς̅ throughout, avoiding duplication in Lamentations 1:17. These examples are not the exception but are so frequent that one could even define it as the rule. In summary, it is uncertain if and to what extent the term κύριος was used to translate Yhwh. Moreover, when Yhwh was used in combination with Elohim or Adonaj, or both, the Greek text tradition in part adopted a practise of conflating it to a single term in various instances. One should therefore be cautious when postulating the idea that the term θεός is a Greek equivalent for Elohim and the term κύριος for Yhwh; it is far more complex and nuanced than that.⁴⁰

A few postulations should be in order at this point:

This fragment (Figure 8) reads ΙΑW, which was the reason why the remainder of the 4Q120 fragments were ‘reconstructed’ with the term ΙΑW. Without going into detail, two remarks should suffice. Firstly, it is not totally impossible that the scribe left an open space between ΕΝΤΟΛWΝ and ΟY with a later redactor inserting ΙΑW. Secondly, one should not assume based on this single occurrence that this term was used throughout the manuscript.⁴¹ The point is that at a very early stage, the term ΙΑΩ was considered an accepted transliteration of the term Yhwh but whether it was the general accepted term remains questionable.⁴²

Figure 9 is an extract taken from P.Fouad 266b (848 – second century BCE) attesting to Deuteronomy 31:28–32:7 content. The scribe left an open space, wide enough to insert either יהוה or κυριος written out. A latter redactor then inserted יהוה into the blank spaces (cf. Tov 2004:226). In 848 (plate 44, col. 71.44ff) attesting to Deuteronomy 31:27 read יהוה τον θεον, whereas 847 (plate 51, col. IV) reads το]ν θ[εον. This scribal practice of not accounting for the divine name at all by leaving an open space is not limited to P.Fouad 266b; P.Oxy 656 (905), a second century manuscript also attests to leaving an open space, which was later filled with an abbreviated form of the term κύριος. Reference was already made to 8HevXIIgr, Greek manuscripts (50 BCE–50CE), which reproduce the term יהוה using palaeo-Hebrew script.

With these three examples, if one includes 8HevXIIgr, there are four rendering possibilities for Yhwh:

The transmission of the term יהוה in the Hebrew tradition, the translation of Yhwh with the term κύριος, and the subsequent reproducing and transmission of the latter term opens an array of possibilities on how to render the divine name. The κύριος problem is multilayered, multifaceted and complex problem with no easy solution. To add to all of this, the use of the term κύριος in Hellenistic specific Graeco–Roman literature offers another dimension to the κύριος problem.

Hebrews 1:10a (Ps 101:26a)⁵⁰: The reason for showing the manuscripts here (Figures 10–12) is to prove the use of nomina sacra scribal practice. Codex S (Ps 101:26a) does not read any κύριος term, but it was added by a later redactor as a superscript (see the red block as indicated on the manuscript directly above). The Hebrews 1:10a section (Table 3) of codex S does account for a contracted κύριος term; the same applies to 𝔓𝔓⁴⁶.

Hebrews 1:1–14 attest to a plethora of Old Testament citations, carefully and strategically structured in an attempt to affirm the identity of the son and to acknowledge his authority by allowing Theos to speak through the Hebrew Scriptures.⁵¹ Hebrews 1:10–12 is a continuation of what Theos is saying about the son as introduced by the formula πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν ‘about the son’ in Hebrews 1:8a. This is a continuation of what ὁ θεὸς is saying about the son in contrast with the angels (cf. Heb 1:5a, 6a, and 7a). In Hebrews 1:10–12 the author relies on the prayer addressed to κύριος in Psalms 101:26–28 to express what ὁ θεὸς supposedly thought about the son. The author’s strategy to have ὁ θεὸς speak about the son through the Old Testament citations is both risky and strategically ingenious allowing ὁ θεὸς to speak in such a manner would certainly accrue status and authority for the son, but compiling the various literary contexts could cause some confusion. For example, if one assumes that the definite article ὁ and noun θεὸς is calling a Hebrew deity to mind, and if one accepts that Psalms 101:26–28 is a Psalm about κύριος as in Yhwh, and if Yhwh is the Hebraic deity, then the vocative form of the term κύριος implicates ὁ θεὸς is speaking ‘about’ and ‘to’ himself. It is not per se problematic for a deity to speak about to him or herself, but from the introduction formula (1:6a, 7a and 8a) it is clear that ὁ θεὸς is speaking about the son. Was this done by accident? Did the author lost track of who is saying what and about whom, or is this a case of equating the son with Yhwh?⁵²

Intertextually speaking the Psalmist calls upon κύριος, in the vocative case, to listen to his prayer (Ps 101:2). In Psalms 101:13 κύριος is again referenced using the vocative case; here the scribe affirms that κύριος remains κύριος through all the ages of time. The vocative use in Psalms 101:26a, κύριος is recognised as the one who laid the foundation of the earth, from the very beginning, whereas Psalms 101:26b acknowledge the fact that it is because of the works of his (kurios’) hands that the heavens exist.⁵³ Conceptually, there should be little doubt that the κύριος of Psalms 101:26 is the θεός of Genesis 1:1 and 2:4b (cf. Steyn 2010:110-111). From an intertextual point of view, Hebrews 1:2b–c suggest that the son is positioned as heir of everything through whom θεός made all the ages.⁵⁴

This sounds somewhat different from what is presumably proposed in Hebrews 1:10a–b that κύριος as in Yhwh is the creator, he is the one who laid the foundations of the earth (Heb 1:10a) and created the heavens (Heb 1:10b), whereas in the former (Heb 1:2b–c) the son is the heir, the medium through which all has been created. The author appears to be inconsistent if (1) one draws a distinction between θεός in Hebrews 1:2b–c and κύριος in Hebrews 1:10b and (2) if κύριος in Hebrews 1:10b does not refer to the son. What seems to be more plausible is that the author did not think through the implication of the term κύριος in Hebrews 1:10b.⁵⁵ But how does these arguments hold up in the textual unit Hebrews 1:8–9 (Ps 44:7–8) and Hebrews 1:10–12 (Ps 101:26–28), both of which are presented as Theos’ speech about the son (Heb 1:8a)?

In Hebrews 1:8b it is said about the son that his (second person, personal pronoun) throne is ὁ θεὸς and therefore it is a throne forever and that his (implying the son’s) kingdom is a rule that can be characterised by uprightness (Heb 1:8c). It is further declared that the son loves righteousness but hates lawlessness (Heb 1:9a). The second person speech in Hebrews 1:8b–9b implies that the Psalmist directs his Psalm to the son, the king and son of all sons of Cyrus (cf. Ps 44:1–2). In Hebrews 1:9b it is ὁ θεὸς as the ὁ θεός of the king (cf. Psalm 44) and by implication the son, who anoints the king and son. It is at this point that the author introduces the Psalm 101:26–28 citation. It seems rather obvious that σὺ (Heb 1:10a) also refers to the son, as does all the other second person pronouns in Hebrews 1:8–9. If this is the case, then the vocative use of the term κύριος can only refer to the son, but does it? The suggestion here is that the σὺ in Hebrews 1:10a, to be sure the vocative use of the term κύριος refers to ὁ θεὸς as supported by the connection drawn in the source text (Ps 101). The reason for this suggestion is that whilst Psalm 44:7–8 (Heb 1:8–9) is addressed to the king (κύριος; cf. Ps 44:12) in relation to ὁ θεὸς, Psalm 101 (Heb 1:10–12) is a prayer directed at κύριος as in Yhwh. What does the author achieve with such a reading? How does it contribute to establishing the authority of the son? The answer is that in Hebrews 1:8–9 the kingship of the son in relation to ὁ θεὸς is brought into focus, so much so that the son’s throne is ὁ θεὸς. But in Hebrews 1:10–12, the κύριος as in Yhwh, is brought into play. The author had to account for the fact that his readers might have understood σὺ κατʼ ἀρχάς, κύριε, as referring to the son, but it is even more likely that the Yhwh characterisation of ὁ θεὸς is preferred as the more appropriate reading for a Hellenic–Judaic audience.⁵⁶ If Hebrews 1:10–12 awoke a sense of ambiguity, it would have been laid to rest with the citation taken from Psalm 109:1 (Heb 1:13b).⁵⁷ In Hebrews 1:13a, the author returns to the topic of angels, asking whether Theos has ever said to the angels to κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ‘to be seated on my right hand’ (Heb 1:13b). It is noteworthy that μου by implication refers to Theos in this case, which begs the question why is it not possible to interpret the σὺ in σὺ κατʼ ἀρχάς, κύριε (Heb 1:10a) as also referring to Theos? On the one hand the citation in Hebrews 1:10–12 (Ps 101:26– 28) exemplifies the κύριος problem, but on the other hand it offers theological perspectives necessary to find an amicable solution.

Acts 2:20–21 (Joel 3:4–5a): The manuscript data appear intact, with no alternatives suggested for the term κύριος, but this does not suggest that all is what it seems, it might just be a matter of scribal ‘cover-up’. Be it as it may, the literary ‘κύριος’ context does not disappoint in offering support to the κύριος problem. The events that would unfold in Acts 2:20–21 begins with Acts 1:6 when those who gathered around him addressed Jesus by using the term κύριε. They wanted to know whether the time has come for the kingdom of Israel to be revealed. They kept referring to Jesus by using the term κύριος even after Jesus ascended into heaven (cf. Acts 1:9–11). His followers also referred to his earthly ministry with the phrase ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς (cf. Acts 1:21). It did not end here, they prayed to him, calling upon him as κύριε (Acts 1:24). The second chapter of Acts introduce the ‘day of Pentecost’ followed by Peter’s first speech in Acts 2:14–40. It is within this context that the Joel 3:1–5 citation⁵⁸ is implemented, of which Joel 3:4–5a (Acts 2:20–21) is of interest (cf. Table 4).

There is no obvious reason why one should not interpret the two κύριος references in Acts 2:20–21 as referring to the same entity as the term κύριος in Acts 1:6, 21 and 24, hence, Jesus. This raises two questions. The first is whether the author was cognisance of the fact that the term κύριος in Acts 2:20–21 could imply Yhwh. The second related question is whether the author re-interpreted the term κύριος to give it a more Hellenistic flavour.⁵⁹ What is clear is that the author cites Joel 3 extensively, which makes it highly likely that he had a fairly good understanding of the literary context. In the Hebrew version of Joel, the term Yhwh is used throughout, and if one assumes that the MT text represents a possible Hebrew vorlage then there is no reason not to interpret the term κύριος as a Greek equivalent for Yhwh. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, except for the fact that some of the oldest Greek manuscripts attesting to Joel might have read palaeo-Hebrew script for Yhwh. Not only that, there is no hard evidence to prove that an uncontracted κύριος term was used to translate the term Yhwh. One should assume, for the sake of the argument, that conceptually at least, the term κύριος represented Yhwh in the source text, but when the text was applied to the target text, is was re-interpreted. There are at least two arguments opposing a Yhwh meaning assigned to the term κύριος in these instances:

One can also argue in reverse order; if the two κύριος represented Yhwh as the Elohim of Israel, why would it be necessary to make it explicit that θεός wants to say something? Why introduce Acts 2:17–21 as Theos’ speech if it was so obvious that the term κύριος called a Hebrew deity to mind? In fact, the textual construct ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου ‘to call the name of the lord’ is already a shift away from Yhwh as the divine name; the Hebrew text reads בְֵּ֥שֵׁ֥ם יְהָ֖וָ֖ה ‘in the name Yhwh’. The power of submission is to do it in the name, the ‘divine name’. In Joel the term κύριος becomes a title of someone with a significant name, and this name is interpreted in Acts 2:20–21 as Jesus. The term κύριος in Acts 2:20–21 (Joel 3:4a–5) is not a reference to Yhwh, but to a lord with a meaningful name, reinterpreted as Jesus. The Theos’ speeches make it extremely difficult to interpret the use of the κύριος term in Hebrews 1:10a and Acts 2:20–21 as referring to Yhwh. It helps to get rid of the ambiguity and by doing so contributes to finding a solution to the NT κύριος problem.

Acts 2:25b (Ps 15:8a): The inverse dualistic (solution–problem) nature of the κύριος problem has been highlighted by way of the so-called Theos’ speeches, but does David’s speeches also hold solution potential? In Acts 2:25a, the introductory formula Δαυὶδ γὰρ λέγει εἰς αὐτόν ‘David says about him’ introduces a citation taken from Psalms 15:8–11; Psalm 15 is a stele inscription pertaining to David submitting himself to Kyrios and by implication Yhwh. It is doubtful if the author wanted his readers to hear that David is saying something about Yhwh; he probably wanted them to hear what the ‘great’ king David said about Jesus as the Kyrios. The author interprets David’s foresight as referring to the resurrection of Χριστός (cf. Acts 2:31).⁶⁰ In Psalm 15 the Psalmist addresses Kyrios as in Yhwh throughout, but the author of Acts extracted verse 8–15 to serve his purpose of prophetic foresight (cf. Ps 15:8), the resurrection of the devoted one (cf. Ps 15:10), in this case Christ (cf. Acts 2:31). The Psalm, however, speaks of the devoted or pious one, such as king David, whose soul will not be abandoned by Kyrios to Hades. How are these linguistical ‘transfigurations’ and ‘transformations’ of κύριος from being Yhwh to κύριος as in Jesus the Messiah and David being the pious one to the one who speaks in the third person possible? This reimagination is made possible by the reference to the pious one in Psalms 15:10, introducing the Psalms 15:8–11 citation as Davidic speech, the term κύριος in its accusative form and the literary context of Acts 2:17–28; both the Joel 3:1–5 and Psalms 15:8–11 citation form part of Peter’s first speech. The term κύριος in Acts 2:25b (Table 5) should be interpreted as the same κύριος in Acts 2:20 and 21, namely Jesus, the Messiah.

Mark 12:36⁶¹ and Acts 2:34b (Ps 109:1a): The citation in Acts 2:34b in Table 6 follows the same trajectory as Acts 2:25b; the uttering of the term κύριος is placed on the lips of David. These words reflect Psalms 109:1a and is also introduced in Mark 12:36b⁶². One can deduce at least two text traditions from the data, the one reading the first κύριος term with and without a definite article. The reason for this is to draw a distinction between the first and second κύριος term; the first is a reference to Yhwh and the second to a king. In the case of Mark 12:36b the author as Jesus argued against the notion that the Messiah is the son of David. Jesus’ argument is that how can the Messiah be the son of David if David himself calls κύριος, κύριος (cf. Mk 12:37). The problem with such an argument is as follows:

It is therefore not David calling κύριος, κύριος but the Psalmist who refers to κύριος (as in Yhwh, the first κύριος term) as κύριος who in turn calls David, the Psalmist’s κύριος, κύριος. Said differently, the one who speaks in Psalm 109:1a is κύριος in the sense of Yhwh, and the one who Yhwh is saying something about is also κύριος in terms of David as king. This is written by the Psalmist who allows Yhwh to say something about the Psalmist’s king.⁶³ In the Lukan version, David is speaking in the ‘book of the Psalms’ about the Messiah being the κύριος.⁶⁴ It is clear from the Psalm 109:1b citation that the Synoptic Gospels differentiate between the term κύριος (second term) used for the Messiah and the term κύριος used as equivalent for Yhwh (first occurrence). In the context of Psalm 109 the second κύριος is an appellative, signifying authority and rule. The right hand in this case is reserved for king David, but it is reinterpreted in the NT as reserved for the Messiah or the son.⁶⁵ The ultimate objective is to counter the argument that the Messiah is just another ruler of Israel from the lineage of king David. In the case of Hebrews 1:13b the authoritative position of the son (sitting at the right hand) is set off against the inferior position of the angels. The difference is that in the latter case it is Theos who speaks and not David. To reiterate, by placing the words of Psalms 109:1a on the lips of king David implies that the author understood the first κύριος as an equivalent for Yhwh, whilst the second κύριος term is interpreted as the authoritative position of the Messiah, namely at the right hand of Yhwh. The duplication of the term κύριος complicated the matter, but this duplication allows one to infer that the sacred thrust of the ‘name’ Yhwh got lost in translation. A more appropriate translation for יהוה לאדני (Ps 110:1b^MT), is κύριος δεσποτω. Be it as it may, the NT authors succeeded in convincing their audience of the authoritative position of the Messiah at the right hand of Kyrios as in Yhwh, elevating his position as more authoritative than king David.

The version in Acts 2:34b has no interest in addressing the Messiah being the son of David issue, but the aim is to support Acts 2:31; the foreseeing of David, even though David did not ascend into heaven he still knew that εἶπεν [ὁ] κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ μου· κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ‘Kyrios said to my Kyrios sit on my right hand’. The words in Acts 2:36 summarise the author’s intent: ἀσφαλῶς οὖν γινωσκέτω πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραὴλ ὅτι καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν καὶ χριστὸνἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε. ‘Therefore, the house of Israel should undoubtedly know that Theos made him both Kyrios as in ‘authoritative figure’ and ‘Messiah’ as in divine liberator, this is Jesus whom you have crucified’. In summary, the solution to the κύριος problem offered here is the reinterpretation of Psalms 109:1b. To be sure, allowing David to speak and because of his speech the use of the κύριος term in Psalms 109:1b in relation to Yhwh and Jesus is cleared of any indistinctness.

Mark 12:29b–30a (Dt 6:4c–5): The Greek text tradition once again appears to be intact, with minor variations in the Greek tradition (Table 7). In the case of Mark 12:28–30, scribes came up to Jesus to ask him what is the first commandment of them all? The Markan Jesus then responded by quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4a–5. There is no clearer evidence, at least in the mind, that both Jesus and the author conceptually distinguishes himself from the one and only κύριος ὁ θεὸς in the sense of Yhwh, the one and only Elohim of Israel. Earlier on in the narrative (cf. Mk 12:18–27) some Sadducees came to Jesus, to challenge him on the resurrection. He responded to them by quoting from the book of Moses (Ex 6:15), which says that Theos is the Theos of the Patriarchs, the Theos of the living, not the dead. The fact that Deuteronomy 6:4b–5 is cited by Jesus simplifies the κύριος problem. There are no discrepancies, uncertainties or clarifications needed; the content cited is a living tradition, which Jesus simply repeats, as one does as a law-abiding Judean. Deuteronomy 5–6, amongst other text, were part of Hebrew texts on vellum placed in a small leather box called a phylactery, worn by Jewish men at morning prayer as a reminder to keep the law. These texts were recited repeatedly and would have been known of by heart. It is against this backdrop that one should interpret Jesus’ response. He (Jesus) is merely reciting this morning prayer that the Yhwh, the Theos of Israel is the one and only Kyrios. The second reference to the term κύριος is to emphasise the dominion and authority of Yhwh as the one and only Theos. The fact that this is Jesus’ speech and the nature of the content of the speech, contributes to a better understanding of the term κύριος and the problem it might pose.

The explicit κύριος citations in combination with the introductory formulae characterised as Theos’, David’s and Jesus’ speech is the most effective way to determine whether referring to Jesus as Kyrios is meant in the Yhwh sense or not. These speeches and the content placed on the lips of Theos, David and Jesus, respectively, cleared the NT κύριος problem from any ambiguity or vagueness.