Jump to content

Talk:Jehovah in the New Testament: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎==: remove incorrect formatting
→‎Long list of Bible versions in article: counter argument to '10,000s of thousands of others sb listed'
Line 29: Line 29:
:To be fair, if there is a list of obscure modern versions in which Jehovah were added, then there would have to be the 10,000s of translations in which Jehovah was '''not''' added. The original language — [[Koine Greek|Greek]] — did not use Jehovah or anything similar in the New Testament and it is a major factual error to equivocate!
:To be fair, if there is a list of obscure modern versions in which Jehovah were added, then there would have to be the 10,000s of translations in which Jehovah was '''not''' added. The original language — [[Koine Greek|Greek]] — did not use Jehovah or anything similar in the New Testament and it is a major factual error to equivocate!


'''NOTE:''' The list put forward is shown as testamentary evidence in support of a contrarian position; that the versions shown are delineated as different because of using Jehovah or some form thereof in their translation of the NT is, by extrapolation, stating that all or most others do not include it; hence no list in opposition is needed; it is understood to be the universe of others [numbering perhaps 1000 - 2000 in English; no source has been cited for the '10,00s' averred here].
:The list does not belong here.&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="green">-</font> <i><b>[[User:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">C.</font></font>]] [[User talk:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">dentata</font></font>]]</b></i> [[Image:Chestnut.png|12 px]] 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
:The list does not belong here.&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="green">-</font> <i><b>[[User:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">C.</font></font>]] [[User talk:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">dentata</font></font>]]</b></i> [[Image:Chestnut.png|12 px]] 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


::'''NOTE:''' Amanuensis03 deleted my reply (which I have restored).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah_in_the_New_Testament&oldid=40169974] This shows bad faith and is dishonest.&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="green">-</font> <i><b>[[User:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">C.</font></font>]] [[User talk:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">dentata</font></font>]]</b></i> [[Image:Chestnut.png|12 px]] 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
::'''NOTE:''' Amanuensis03 deleted my reply (which I have restored).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jehovah_in_the_New_Testament&oldid=40169974] This shows bad faith and is dishonest.&nbsp;&nbsp;<font color="green">-</font> <i><b>[[User:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">C.</font></font>]] [[User talk:Castanea dentata|<font color="green"><font face="times">dentata</font></font>]]</b></i> [[Image:Chestnut.png|12 px]] 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


::'''NOTE:'''Castanea dentata has deleted numerous entries posted here, including the list in the aritcle he asserts is irrelevant - it has been deleted half a dozen times, perhaps because it demonstrates that which is not in agreement with the agenda being advanced here. That about a dozen other translators have opted to to include the name of god in their rendering of the NT demonstrates that not only is this position reasonable, it has been considered by a fair number of translators as a precept they will follow. In point of fact it started with Shem Tob's version of 1385 - some 620 years ago.
::'''NOTE:'''Castanea dentata has deleted numerous entries posted here, including the list in the article he asserts is irrelevant - it has been deleted half a dozen times, perhaps because it demonstrates that which is not in agreement with the agenda being advanced here. That about a dozen other translators have opted to to include the name of god in their rendering of the NT demonstrates that not only is this position reasonable, it has been considered by a fair number of translators as a precept they will follow. In point of fact it started with Shem Tob's version of 1385 - some 620 years ago.


Further, note that assertion made regarding '10,000s of translations.' If that is meant to be a truthful statement and not hyperbole, then there must be at least 20,000 translations of the NT - a very fanciful number and one that needs some source to be seen as believable.
Further, note that assertion made regarding '10,000s of translations.' If that is meant to be a truthful statement and not hyperbole, then there must be at least 20,000 translations of the NT - a very fanciful number and one that needs some source to be seen as believable.

Revision as of 17:24, 19 February 2006

WikiProject iconChristianity Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

That which is asserted by some to be "Fraudulent"

The article is inaccurate. For example, the English version of a Italian article published on the catholic magazine, edited from Dehonian friars, "Rivista Biblica", year XLV, n. 2, April-June 1997, p. 183-186. Bologna, Italy says: "... recent discoveries have shown that the practice of substituted in the LXX YHWH with KYRIOS started in a much later period in comparison with the beginning of that version.[date? context?] As a matter of fact, the older copies of the LXX keep the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters in the Greek text.[citation needed] Girolamo, the translator of the Latin Vulgate[citation needed] confirms this fact. In the prologue of the books of Samuel and Kings he wrote: "In certain Greek volumes we still find the Tetragrammaton of God's name expressed in ancient characters".[citation needed] And in a letter[citation needed] written in Rome in the year 384 it says: "God's name is made up of four letters; it was thought ineffable, and it is written with these letters: iod, he, vau, he (YHWH). But some have not been able to decipher it because of the resemblance of the Greek letters and when they found it in Greek books they usually read it PIPI (pipi)". S. Girolamo, Le Lettere, Rome, 1961, vol.1, pp.237, 238; compare J.P.Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol.22, coll.429, 430."

We can conclude that the article is biased, which also the writer's nick suggests. (Anonymous 2005-10-12 07:01:59)

Anonymous: The above quotation, whatever its provenance, discusses the Old Testament. This article is about the New Testament.  - C. dentata 18:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote above, referencing the LXX, is relevant in that it refers to the nominal source for the quotations from the OT. It is manifestly the basic issue here - what did the writers of the NT quote when citing references from the OT? If the Masoretic / Hebrew text, then the quote contained the Tetragram. If the Septuagint, then, as the article asserts, they would also have quoted from a reference bearing the Tetragram and, reasonably, it would have been in the NT. (Amanuensis03 2006-02-18 18:26:07 )

Even the fragmentary reference to the LXX says that it read Kyrios not "YHWH." This contradicts your point.
Worse, you are assuming "what would have been!!" That is a belief and not substantiated. We have the Greek text of both the NT and LXX, so it is irrelevant what one thinks "what would have been" which is moreover wholly contradicted by what is. The article as written by the consensus is quite explicit and accurate on this point (no I did not write that part.)
To change the Greek text to what one imagines "would have been" is fraud!  - C. dentata 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of Bible versions in article

A visit to http://www.e-sword.net will furnish one with the opportunity to verify the accuracy of quotations shown from translations numbered as 4 & 5 above; one will have to download e-sword, download the bibles and then install all files, including fonts unique to the bible.

Those listed as #1, 2, 9 & 11 have urls attached to the citation and can be easily verified.

The Hutter referred to is a well-respected translation and somewhat of a unique bible; copies are called 'Hutters' reasonbly enough and are prized. Hutter himself founded the movement that is still in existence today and bears his name. For information about him from a modern day perspective, visit this site: http://www.hutterites.org/hutter.htm (Amanuensis03 2006-02-18 01:46:09 )

The list is irrelevant.
To be fair, if there is a list of obscure modern versions in which Jehovah were added, then there would have to be the 10,000s of translations in which Jehovah was not added. The original language — Greek — did not use Jehovah or anything similar in the New Testament and it is a major factual error to equivocate!

NOTE: The list put forward is shown as testamentary evidence in support of a contrarian position; that the versions shown are delineated as different because of using Jehovah or some form thereof in their translation of the NT is, by extrapolation, stating that all or most others do not include it; hence no list in opposition is needed; it is understood to be the universe of others [numbering perhaps 1000 - 2000 in English; no source has been cited for the '10,00s' averred here].

The list does not belong here.  - C. dentata 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Amanuensis03 deleted my reply (which I have restored).[1] This shows bad faith and is dishonest.  - C. dentata 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:Castanea dentata has deleted numerous entries posted here, including the list in the article he asserts is irrelevant - it has been deleted half a dozen times, perhaps because it demonstrates that which is not in agreement with the agenda being advanced here. That about a dozen other translators have opted to to include the name of god in their rendering of the NT demonstrates that not only is this position reasonable, it has been considered by a fair number of translators as a precept they will follow. In point of fact it started with Shem Tob's version of 1385 - some 620 years ago.

Further, note that assertion made regarding '10,000s of translations.' If that is meant to be a truthful statement and not hyperbole, then there must be at least 20,000 translations of the NT - a very fanciful number and one that needs some source to be seen as believable.

Here is the list which he asserts is irrelevant; whether it is relevant or not should be left to the reader to judge; if the reader adjudges the translations shown as irrelevant, then so be it. How though can they do so if the list is suppressed? Censorship is not reason.


1. The Sacred Name King James Version [2];

2. The Scriptures [3];

3. Moffat’s translation of the Bible in Tswana [the first complete Bible to be printed in Africa, in 1872];

4. The Chinese Union Version, Simplified [4]uses 耶和华 [the chinese equivalent of Jehovah] in Revelation 19.1;

5. The Chinese Union Version, Traditional [ibid.];

6. The Chinese Union Version, GB;

7. The Malagasy Bible, Protestant Version, uses Jehovah in the NT;

8. The Malagasy Bible, Catholic version, uses IAVEH at Matt 4.7 & 10;

9. The Restored Name King James Version [5] uses the Tetragrammaton itself in the text of the NT and uses YAH for the Hebrew parse of the Tetragrammaton rendered JAH by the KJ and ASV;

10. The Christian Greek Scriptures in 12 languages by Elias Hutter, 1599, uses the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew translation of the NT;

11. The Hebraic Roots Version (NT only)[6] uses YHWH.


Worse, personally attacking another is a formal error in logic - demonstrating the weakness of the arguments advanced.

Regarding the citations of LXX in papyrus, note what Professor George Howard stated: “When the Septuagint which the New Testament church used and quoted contained the Hebrew form of the divine name, the New Testament writers no doubt included the Tetragrammaton in their quotations.” (Biblical Archaeology Review, March 1978, page 14)

Further, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: "Recently discovered texts doubt the idea that the translators of the LXX have rendered the Tetragrammaton JHWH with KYRIOS. The most ancient mss (manuscripts) of the LXX today available have the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew letters in the Greek text. This was custom preserved by the later Hebrew translator of the Old Testament in the first centuries (after Christ)". Vol.2, pag.512

Dead Sea Scrolls information

With respect to the Dead Sea scrolls, referred to in the main article, please go to the following site and note the image therein of a portion of the Psalms wherein the tetragrammaton is shown in older phoenician letters: http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/full-images/psalm-b.gif


Septuagint images showing the Tetragrammaton in the Septuagint

Tetragrammaton in reference to Jesus

Here's one page talking about all three mentioned scriptures, and some others: http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/hiding.html. It took me about two seconds to find this. Surely I'm not the only one that knows how to use search engines here. You can find enough to read until the cows come home.Tommstein 08:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! Perhaps this should be incorporated into the article?  - C. dentata 18:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The box

What do this box in this article? This article is not about any particular god, it is an essay about the use of a name in the Bible. I think this box do not belong to this article. Summer Song 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]