Frank Edward Shaw is a retired professor and the originator of the theory that there was no single original form of writing of the name of God in the Greek Bible, instead of Ιαω, transliterations in square Hebrew characters, in paleo-Hebrew characters, Greek characteres ΠΙΠΙ, Θεὀς or, contrary to the more common opinion, of an original κύριος.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]}

Quick Facts Born, Education ...

Frank E. Shaw
Born	Frank Edward Shaw
Education	Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Arts
Alma mater	University of Cincinnati San Francisco State University San Diego State University
Occupation	Writer, biblical scholar, university teacher
Employer	Ashland University Ball State University Earlham College University of Dayton University of North Dakota Wright State University Xavier University

Close

Frank demonstrated that the trigramaton ιαω was widely used among Jews of the Second Temple period and early Christians in the era before the First Council of Nicaea. Shaw also establishes that the ιαω was used by the Jews up to the common era, and that there is no single original form of the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint, focusing primarily on refuting the originality of Kurios held by Albert Pietersma, Larry J. Perkins and Martin Rösel. A. R. Meyer states:

Frank Shaw, The Earliest Non-mystical Jewish Use of Iαω (2014), offers a comprehensive assessment of the early history of ιαω, a poorly understood Greek form of the divine name. His study makes a serious contribution to research on the divine name by correcting much of nineteenth and twentieth-century scholarship, but he also offers insights on the methods with which scholars approach the manuscript evidence. In his study, Shaw undermines two peruasive assumptions: (1) that ιαω was a post-Second Temple phenomenon, with relevance primarily in circles enamored with mysticism and magic; and (2) that ιαω was a marginal designation for the Jewish deity, for example, as some scholars have characterized its occurrence in 4QpapLXXLev^b (4Q120). Shaw convincingly demonstrates that the name ιαω had a vibrant non-mystical use in the second and first centuries BCE and that knowledge of the name was more widespread than traditionally thought, not only in Egypt but else where in the Mediterranean world. Following his integrative assessment of the evidence for the use and non -use of the divine name, Shaw examines the long-standing debate over the 'original' rendering of the Tetragrammaton in the LXX. He argues that [t]he matter of any (especially single) 'original' form of the divine name in the LXX is too complex, the evidence is too scattered and indefinite, and the various approaches offered for the issue are too simplistic to account for the uses of the divine name as they happened. He makes a compelling case that an either/or framework for understanding the earliest rendering(s) of the divine name in the LXX is historically implausible. The complex and incomplete sources at hand obscure rather than clarify our reconstructions. Shaw's monograph confirms what will likely prove to be the standard view of divine name traditions in early Judaism and also in early Christianity for years to come. Pending new evidence, complexity and diversity are givens in any historical reconstruction. Shaw's efforts were directed, in particular, towards better understanding the Greek form of the divine name. The current study, while informed by Shaw’s approach of integrating all known evidence into our reconstructions, takes additional steps to include not only Greek evidence but also the extensive data from the Aramaic and Hebrew sources of the Second Temple period.^[4]