Talk:Angel of the Lord

Angel Gabriel

The Angel Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. From his words: "I am Gabriel, I stand in the presence of God." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.31 (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All the angels stand in the presence of God: Rev. 5:11, Matt. 18:10, Job 1:12, Job 2:7, 1 Kings 22:19, Dan. 7:9-10./Leos Friend (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I disambiguated some confusion of the use of "angel of the Lord" in the gospel of Luke; it's always been understood, as simply as "duh", that it was not THE Angel of the LORD that Luke's gospel indicated, at least from the Greek--yet also widely amongst the preaching Churches for many years, knowing that the inserted definite was an error; when the opportunity to conform the passage to the Greek arose, they removed the insertion; I plan to add several citations on this subject a bit later. TheResearchPersona

tooMuchData

12:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

"In most cases, the angel is understood to be a preincarnate appearance of Jesus Christ.". No. Build a more sensible and neutral base, and more sensible editors will come and work on this article.--Wetman (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Enoch/Metatron

Couldn't Enoch/Metatron be counted as an Angel of the Lord, since Metatron is thought to be the King of Angels ? ADM (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since "angel" is simply "messenger" of the lord, then the truest delivery of the message of God, via communication, would be his own very vessel with which to do so; Metatron and Sandalphon were prophets made archangels, who purportedly bear the arc of the covenant and by which one must commune with them (God's law) to relate or communicate with God in any manner, as his right and left hands. They may be removed on that account from being a perfect expression with his dynamic communication, as the law and his Logos may be considered blind if unguided by insight or inspiration; to Muslims it should be Mohammed as known to their sect, to Catholics the living vicar to messianic truths etc. The archangel Michael may be said to simply be the expression of God's will, and thus his communication as his highest angel (the angel after his own fashion; who is "like" God. Further its sensible to take the Mormon outlook of Michael as Adam Kadmon as our image and the intelligibility of revelation for our template); to Christians, Jesus is God's greatest "angel" i.e. messenger, being God expressed (mercurial) as object in the flesh, God's transcendence made immanent. The Holy Spirit is Gods presence and communication as subject and emotive immanence made to transcend the normal lateral limits; both Christ-savior his son and the Holy Ghost as his love and eternity are mercurial volition of God's willed communication par excellence and may be too thorough-goingly God as identical with himself to be considered plenipotentiaries of gods motives as angels are. Yet Christ & Holy Ghost are simply the subject and object of Logos by one manner of deduction (the value to which admittedly can be transposed and centralized as divinity originating into either constituent however, so trinity holds weight by my perspective evaluation) So barring those as angels however I'd say Michael, Metatron/Sandalphon (and maybe Satan if you have a greater plan considered or if Satan/"Samael" isn't actively opposed to God; albeit a Dysangel rather than a Evangel) or if you want to get abstract or consider potentially blind divine philosophical forces unembodied by specific intelligences: then Logos broadly. Possibly love/agape, nous-theos (as Thoth is to Ra in Egyptology), duality/division as precursor to mercurial transference (and back to reconsidering privation as cause necessitating a tree of knowledge / emanation and considering Satan God's greatest angel yet again; but without whom angels would be unnecessary). The "king" of the angels would be God overly objectified, made dogmatic, Melek (Hebrew for 'king' and a title of God) throwback becomes Moloch (a chief demon-name from the archaic spelling for king in Hebrew with an extra letter as an obsolete title to God; God reified as naught more than kingly) and made un-unified, set against Satan as an equal. etc etc. So in Judaic consideration I am drawn to the Qabalah in light of such a question wherein I see Sephiroth, out of Ain Soph via Tzim-Tzum as the groundwork for all angels and demons just depending on how they mediate that framework/infrastructure; either toward vitality or stagnation. The ultimate angel is Kether or Ain Soph; divisible into all permutation as to its own very criterion (1 divides into all enumeration perfectly) or infinitely so divisible (zero goes an unlimited amount of times into any number). 67.171.248.22 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

CHristian view=

The text claims that in the New Testament the specific "Angel of the Lord"never appears - then what about, for example, Acts 12:23? 21And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.

22And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.

23And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.185.189 (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 

It seems the Greek text says "an angel of the Lord". From Youngs Literal: "and presently there smote him a messenger of the Lord, because he did not give the glory to God, and having been eaten of worms, he expired." Greek: "paracrhma de epataxen auton aggeloV kuriou anq wn ouk edwken thn doxan tw qew kai genomenoV skwlhkobrwtoV exeyuxen". /Leos Friend (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchs Did Not Worship The Angel?

The Angel was worshipped by Jacob. Jacob exclaims, "I have seen God and lived", or something to this effect. By this we can assume that he would have professed some form of worship as a result of his understanding that this was not merely an "angel" but a theophany of God. Also, Abraham recognized the theophany as well. So, some of the patriarchs did indeed worship the angel, contrary to what the article asserts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.14 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Angel of Jehovah?

One editor holds that in the body of the article "Jehovah" should be used for the Deity of the Tetragrammaton, rather than "the Lord". Use of "the Lord" seems to me more logical, because 1) of the article's title; 2) the sources cited use "the Lord", not "Jehovah". What do others think? (The statement that I removed seemed obviously original-research and unnecessary.) Esoglou (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no big problem leaving it as "Lord", but that's not all you removed. Anyway, the reason I put that in is to elaborate a bit more (per usage in ASV and other translations) what the term "Lord" was referring to. Because technically it's not Angel of the "Lord" in the original Hebrew, but rather "Angel of Jehovah" or "Angel of Yehowah". (From YHWH or YHVH or JHVH). NOT "Adonai". Hence why the need to maybe have both terms in the article, for clarity and elaboration. You notice that I did not remove all terms "Lord" in the article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have no objection to "leaving it as 'Lord'", and are only objecting to what I removed, I will reinsert that phrase, adding a citation-needed tag to it. Can we agree on that? Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I only changed one reversion you did in the spirit of compromise, as YHWH is repeated redundantly, when it makes no sense if the second one is supposed to be a TRANSLATION...so repeating that is not a translation. But I left your other changes alone...compromise. Otherwise if you remove that, it shows that you want NO Wikipedia article to ever have the form "Jehovah" in it, for (again) clear obvious POV and questionable reasons. It's not the same as putting some left-field term, but "Jehovah" is a long-established and even accurate form (preserving the four consonants, and having three syllables correctly, as a number of scholars have mentioned) and is in various English Bible translations, as well as in many written works, favorably, by both Protestant and Catholic scholars and writers and theologians. To so vehemently object to that everywhere you go, and even POV-push on the "Jehovah" article itself, shows unwarranted personal bias, simply because you "don't like it". Anyway, as I said, I changed the redundancy. Of "YHWH". (If you put "Yahweh" there, by the way, well that's allowable per WP usage etc, but again shows old tired POV on your part. No one owns any one article. And that goes all ways.) Addendum: By the way, what I said in my first comment here was not that I "have no objection" at all, or "no problem", but rather I said "I have no big problem" with it. Meaning that I could have maybe at least a little problem with the mis-translation "Angel of the Lord". Not a major problem, given that it's an established and known rendering, and at a certain point, what can you do, right. But obviously, for factual and linguistic reasons, I would have a wee bit of a problem with it given that it's simply not "Adonai" there in the original Hebrew text, but rather "YeHoWaH". But it's called being flexible and realistic, because of known or more-common usage, and WP articles etc. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk)

I see you have put back one "Jehovah". I still think that, whether "Jehovah" is or is not a correct transliteration, it is better to follow the usage indicated in the title of the article and in the cited sources and indeed in most Bible versions. Let we now just await input from other editors. Esoglou (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou is correct here, given that the title uses "Lord" so should the article, or rather "LORD" small caps which is the correct Wikipedia template for "Lord" in English texts where the original is YHWH in Hebrew Bible usage or YHWH-via-Kyrios in NT citations of Hebrew Bible usage. Jehovah would only be used in ref to Protestant history, wheras Yahweh would generally be used in relation to Ancient Near East archeology. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello oculi, how've you been. I always appreciated your work on articles like Holy Spirit and other articles. And I've always respected your edits and assessments. As I said, I understand about general WP usage, etc. And I said I had no major problem with "Angel of the Lord" especially in an article with that very title. I was saying though that saying "YHWH" twice was redundant the second time for supposedly a translation of "YHWH". Also, by the way, you're just plain wrong when you say that "Jehovah" is only "in ref to Protestant history", and can't be used in reference to "Ancient Near East" archeology or situations. "Jehovah" is an established English form and representation of the Hebrew God, and has been (and still is) used as such in numerous works and writings, encyclopedias, dictionaries, Bible commentaries, covenant history books, etc, many times in that context and sense. Despite what certain 'scholars' have said or thought. There are historians and Bible scholars on both sides of that issue. Anyway, as I said, if consensus pushes for "Lord" even when translating "YHWH", then it's like so be it. (There were other issues though between me and the other editor, that had to do with arguable "hounding". Which is one main reason for the problem here. It went beyond a good-faith or legitimate edit or change on his part, but obviously involved resentment or personal bias, POV, and following-around disruptions. Which obviously I didn't appreciate.) Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hashem sfarim. I have no strong opinion, but it does seem that the usage "Jehovah" has tailed off in writings since 1930s, perhaps that is because of increased use of "Yahweh" in Catholic Bible versions and studies of the ANE. In this case however, since there is this Wikipedia template for small caps LORD, and since the LORD small caps usage seems to be continuing in English Bible versions (I haven't checked NRSV ESV NASB), and to have some usage in academic/SBL type literature, it's easiest to go with it unless there's a convincing reason to not do so. As far as I know Jehovah in English Bible versions was only ever used for, and still persists for, place names, Jehovah-jireh and so on. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

unsourced OR paragraph moved to Talk

If anyone has any meaningful WP:RS sources this maybe can go back in.

Mystic views

Various Judeo-Christian mystics have interpreted the angel Metatron (considered to be an archangel, who is mentioned only in the Talmud and Kabbalah) as the direct Shekhinah, which is considered to be an avatar of God the Father, his very countenance. Identifying further, with occurrences mentioning an Angel of the Presence, an entangled distinction of Metatron and the Holy Ghost.

Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do with that, when I first saw it in the article. I saw that little section there, and so just re-worded some things. It's an interesting piece. And it arguably should be in the article, but it should be sourced. That is true. So instead of removing it like that, why not just put "citation needed" tags on it? Because "Metatron" was viewed in some circles as probably the "Angel of the Lord", in Judaeo-Christian apocryphal and mystic literature. It's worth noting, I would say. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you search Google Books for the two words "Metatron" and "Shekhinah", you get about 3020 hits; if you search for "Metatron" and "Shekinah", you get about 1470. If someone thinks any of them are really reliable sources, they can put the information back in (as "according to ..."), along with the citation(s). "Citation needed" tags are only a temporary expedient and, if they are not responded to within a reasonable time, the statement they are attached to not only can but should be removed. There seems to be no essential difference between adding that tag and moving the unsourced statement to the Talk page, where it can be preserved for a much longer time for the notice of anyone who thinks the statement should be kept. Esoglou (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I moved it here to Talk rather than just tag was (1) because this Talk page (for once) is active, but (2) more because the sources I briefly browsed (such as Toward the millennium: messianic expectations from the Bible to Waco p220 footnotes which is a WP:RS, ed by Peter Schäfer, Mark R. Cohen - 1998 had "Regarding the symbolic association of Metatron and the phallus, see below, n. 60 . On the homologous relationship of Metatron and the Shekhinah, see Zohar 2:94a- b. In that context, Metatron is identified as the "body of the princess" as " ) didn't leap out and connect Metatron with Angel of the Lord. There may be some WP RS out there, but what I saw didn't easily fit what was in the article, so by all means anyone who can disentangle any source for what is above please go for it. More likely however I suspect if it belongs anywhere it'd be in Zohar article, 3 Enoch or some other article, not here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. If the connection of "Metatron" to the actual "Angel of the Lord" is not solid in searched sources, then it's probably better just to hold off, on putting it in the article, an article that deals with "Angel of the Lord". If the connection or identification is ambiguous at best, in any book, website, or source, then we should wait and see if there's a better or clearer source and reference for that. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Goodo :) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A o L not mentioned in NT?

Sorry but reverted this edit. The article says the A o L is mentioned in NT. And the "generally" is that supported by the source given? Seems odd, given the NT uses. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of Satan?

In the story of Balaam, the Angel of the Lord is Satan in the original Hebrew texts. Why not mention it here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.21.124 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you're slightly mixed up here. It's true that the Hebrew word satan (a common noun, not a proper name), shows up in this story, but saying "the Angel of the Lord is Satan" stretches the text beyond what it will bear. That's why you won't see any major translation endorsing your view. Alephb (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Angel of the Lord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150508184557/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG0839/__P1K.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1K.HTM#$7B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515223333/http://www.wlsessays.net:80/files/VogelAngel.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/VogelAngel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of the Tetragrammaton is off-topic and irrelevant in this article

The title of the article is "Angel of the Lord". The topic is unaffected by the choice of representation of the Tetragrammaton, whether as "the Lord" or "the LORD" or "Jehovah" or "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or "Jah" or "Yah" or "Yahu" or יהוה or יְהוָה or 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅‬ or Κύριος. This discussion page, not the body of the article, is the place to discuss the choice, and the expressions used in the article should not be changed without previous consensus here. Am I wrong? Bealtainemí (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it could be useful for the article to note that "Angel of the Lord" (or what have you) is an English phrase for the Hebrew malakh Yhwh. Certainly I think sticking paleo-Hebrew into the lead is a bit much, so I'd say probably a good idea would be to trim some of that stuff in the lead a bit and go from there. I don't think we'd need to avoid all reference to the underlying Hebrew.

I don't think we have any rule on Wikipedia that an article can't be changed without prior discussion, though. If there's some specific recent change you object to, I think it would be fine to discuss that, but I don't think we need to go so far as to declare all future changes off-limits like that. Alephb (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bealtainemí, before everything I want to thank you for your contributions to the article. So, let me express the reasons why I do not agree with the recently deleted text.

About the statement: The sourced statement about "an MT-type text" should not be deleted merely on the basis of being misinterpreted as speaking of the centuries-later actual Masoretic text, I appreciate that you focus on that if you were not in agreement that sentence was deleted, you only had to restore the deleted text, it was not enough reason to delete the whole paragraph (I recently added more information about the version of this manuscript in the article Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever). The question is not about the "type of text" from which it was translated, rather it asserts that it is a "direct translation". Of course, this manuscript an early Hebraizing revision, but not a different translation, like David L. Washburn wrote (who is the only one who claimed). In the article of the manuscript there is information of scholars: Dominique Barthélemy, Tuukka Kauhanen, Eugene C. Ulrich, Emanuel Tov, and others that define the version that as a recension of the Septuagint, not as another translation. Revision or recension are not the same thing that translation.

About the second statment: removed controversial, off-topic and irrelevant paragraph: see discussion page, there is not enough information about why it is controversial or irrelevant, so I will be very grateful that you expose it, then it won't look like a POV. In reality, each thesis can have its antithesis, and the appearance of the tetragrammaton in the new testament is not a controversial issue (a minority of Bibles includes the name in the text), although Howard's influence is considerable in the field in works by Robert Shedinger, Sean McDonough, Pavlos Vasileiadis, J. A. Fitzmyer, Rolf Furuli, Ludwig Blau, David Trobisch, Robert B. Girdlestone, Edmon Gallagher among others). A well-argued thesis contributes towards advancing methodology in scholarship. In the LXX, the proponents of an original tetragram are: P. Kahle, S. Jellicoe, H. Stegemann, P. W. Skehan, M. Hengel, G. D. Kilpatrick, E. Tov, J. Joosten, A. Meyer, among others, so it must be taken into account that an original ἄγγελος Κυρίου may not be the original reading in both OT and NT.--AbimaelLevid 14:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Alephb about the irrelevancy of indicating that in Paleo-Hebrew script "Angel of the Lord" (the topic of this article) was written 𐤌𐤋𐤀𐤊 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅‬. Equally irrelevant is the fact that some Hebrew manuscripts written in the square script give the Tetragrammaton in this phrase in the paleo form. Equally irrelevant is the fact that some manuscripts give the corresponding Greek phrase in uncial characters ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ ΚΥΡΙΟΥ, some in minuscule αγγελος κυριου, some with the addition of breathing and accent marks, some with no space between the words, some as ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅, some perhaps as ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ ΠΙΠΙ, ...

I certainly don't hold that "on Wikipedia an article can't be changed without prior discussion". Only that, when a matter is controversi,al, it should first be discussed. I do believe (am I wrong?) that the topic of the use of "Jehovah" to represent the Tetragrammaton is controversial. What is more important in relation to this article, I believe that its insertion is irrelevant and off-topic in the context of "angel of the Lord". (I see that the editor who inserted it here has recently made similar edits elsewhere, but I am only discussing this article, not others.) What difference does it make to the understanding of "angel of the Lord" whether "the original LXX OT and NT" had ΚΥΡΙΟΥ or 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅‬? Bealtainemí (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, at the very least you have my full agreement here that the reference to Girdlestone, a dated and by now WP:FRINGE source, is out of place. The general Wikipedia approach is to build articles around reliable and up-to-date sources. Alephb (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Bealtainemi and Alephb, I hope you have a good day, and Thank you for your answers. It's nice when the answers are extended, and it's not just like: "I think...", I don't think...

If there is nothing more to say about the addition of the paragraph by George Howard, and the paragraph of the appearance of the phrase the angel of YHWH in the oldest manuscript LXXVTS10, to which can be added that the manuscript that already contains KURIOS in the phrase the angel of the Lord (from the beginning of the 3rd century common era). So, I'm allowed to restore it?

On the other hand, the transcription, transliteration or translation of the tetragrammaton is not being discussed, obviously this would unnecessarily expand the article. In the Girdlestone's quote it could be clarified that the phrase the angel of the Lord should have included the tetragrammaton in the apostolic age. I agree that Girdlestone's text is not updated, so, with Howard's, it will be enough. If You do not agree I will be grateful to refute each one of my arguments and my previous arguments.--AbimaelLevid 14:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes at the end, like so: ~~~~. It'll make it easier to follow who says what.

Let me restate the situation to make sure I'm following this correctly. The article currently has a short reference to George Howard's idea that in some places where the NT quotes the OT, earlier NT manuscripts that no longer exist may once have read aggelos YHWH instead of aggelos kyriou. George Howard published his idea in JBL, so that's good. I guess the question is how much WP:WEIGHT, if any, Howard's theory about spelling in no-longer extant manuscripts should get in an article that is primarily about the use of the phrase "Angel of the Lord", rather than about, say, early Christian scribal practices.

So I guess we're dealing with weighing two factors. The first factor is how relevant such a spelling, even if true, would be in this article. After all, we know and nobody disputes that the OT used YHWH in the verses in question, so how much difference does it make exactly how later quotations of those texts translated into Greek spelled the name of God? Basically -- why does this matter? The second factor is how prevalent Howard's view is. Who else is with Howard on this? Is it an interesting but ultimately tiny view held by one scholar? If Howard is the only scholar on record in mainstream publications holding to this view of these particular quotations, why does this idiosyncratic reading get any place at all in the article?

Now, I'm no expert here on the New Testament, so if you've got other scholars publishing in reliable outlets about this, perhaps the theory is a bigger deal than my current impression. You've listed a lot of names earlier. When it comes to Howard's specific idea about N.T. quotes of the OT, how many of those names are on record agreeing with him? Specific reliable sources with page numbers would help sort that second factor out. Alephb (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Alephb, thank you very much for the advice about the signatures and let me tell You that I'm not an expert in th NT. There is not much to say specifically about the phrase the "angel of YHWH" in NT, unlike we talk about the thesis of the appearance of the name in the NT. About the phrase the angel of Yahweh in Howard's work (George Howard (2005). Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. Mercer University Press. pp. 229–232.), is cited by Victor Paul Furnish in JBL, Vol. 105 (1986), pp 57, The Society of Biblical Literature. Other translations over the centuries, not only to the Hebrew, made by scholars, have translated this phrase with the name of God (see Names and titles of God in the New Testament). Allow me to manifest that there is another edition of Robert Baker Girdlestone's book, which was mentioned as outdated, "Synonyms of the Old Testament". This new edition published 85 years after the original would support the phrase the angel of YHWH in the NT. In theology, Michael S. Heiser although does not suggests the translation "the angel Yahweh", even when appears with or without definite article, but He consider that NT writers connect Jesus to the Old Testament's Name theology and the angel of Yahweh, (Michael S. Heiser (2018), Angels: What the Bible Really Says About God’s Heavenly Host, Lexham Press, pp 192), like trinitarian view. A thousand apologies, English is not my native language.--AbimaelLevid 14:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a single other scholar who says Howard is correct? Can you name one? If Howard's view is fairly widespread in reliable sources, then arguably there might be a case for mentioning it, maybe. But if it's just one scholar arguing for a view that is only indirectly related to the topic of this article, then insisting on shoe-horning it into the article is not right.

So let me ask you directly: do you know of anyone other than Howard who has gone on record in a WP:RELIABLE publication to agree with him?Alephb (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers and the time you dedicated them. I insist that specifically on the phrase the angel of the YHWH in the NT, there are not many works to quote, except Furnish, and Robert Baker Girdlestone (adding the NT translations that include it and its translators). Of those who give support to the Howard's thesis about the appearance of the tetragrammaton in the NT, we can mention Rolf Fuluri (Rolf Furuli (1999), "The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses" Elihu Books, 1999, ISBN 9780965981446), Gerard Gertoux (Gertoux, Gerard (2002). The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH which is pronounced as it is written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its story. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. ISBN 0761822046), David Trobisch (David Trobisch, Throckmorton-Hayes (2000), "The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford University Press", pp. 66-67, ISBN 9780195112405) and Pavlos Valileiadis (Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek". Open Theology. 1: 56–88.). Gertoux is quoted by Didier Mickaël Fontaine (Didier Mickaël Fontaine (2007), "Le nom divin dans le nouveau testament", Editions L'Harmattan, Paris ISBN 2296176097), Vasileiadis, and Wilkison. Those who claim that Howard "might be right" (quote all those who mention Howard is very broad): R. F. Shedinger and Robert J. Wilkison. Robert Shedinger propose that Howard may be right in developing his theory of a surrogate theos instead of kurios (among other books, Robert F. Shedinger (2001). "Per Visibilia ad Invisibilia". Peeters Publishers. p. 138. ISBN 9042910429.). Robert J. Wilkison define Howard's article as "an influential article" (Robert J. Wilkinson (2015). "Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century" Brill. p. 92. ISBN 9004288171). Pavlos D. Vasileiadis wrote that state of the art of research foreground it can not ignore among others, the Howard's thesis and Shedinger's (Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek". Open Theology. 1: 64.). Shabbat 13:5 is cited in other works to support an original tetragrammaton in Gospels, and even the complete NT. (i. e Crawford Howell Toy; Ludwig Blau (1906). "Gilyonim". Jewish Encyclopedia).

I noticed that you deleted the text that I added to the article, if I add sources, you allow me to include it?--AbimaelLevid 18:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If I'm reading you correctly, Howard's thesis about YHHW in the NT is supported by Furnish, Girdlestone, Fuluri, Gerard Gertoux, David Trobisch, and Pavlos Valileiadis. The other characters you mention seem to have various indirect relationships to the whole thing, and unless you want to quote them directly I'll just set them aside for now.

As we've already discussed, Girdlestone published his book in the 1870's, so he can't tell us anything about the statement of current scholarship. Furuli is a WP:FRINGE character publishing in a small publishing house that is basically equivalent to self-publishing, so we can set him aside. Gertoux is another such fringe character setting a global flood around 3200 BC, so we can set him aside. So that leaves us with Trobisch and Valileiadis. Can you give us the specific page numbers where they say the original N.T. documents read YHWH instead of kyrios? Alephb (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

David Trobisch supports Howard's thesis in is own book (David Trobisch, Throckmorton-Hayes (2000). The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford University Press. pp. 66–67. ISBN 9780195112405.). Although Robert M. Bowman and J. Ed Komoszewski do not agree Howard's conclusion, they wrote that Trobisch affirmed it (Robert M. Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski (2007). Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Kregel Publications. p. 159. ISBN 0825497450.). Pavlos Valileiadis quoting Howard and others states that to claim the NT authors originally wrote Kurios is not as obvious as it may seem: (Pavlos D. Vasileiadis (2014). "Aspects of rendering the sacred Tetragrammaton in Greek" (PDF). Open Theology. 1: 64.). Vasileiades also quote the R. Fuluri's work in page 58, 61 and 62, so it could to have significant scholarly influence (Not only Vasileiadis, as it can see here).--AbimaelLevid 05:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the point? For the significance of "angel of the Lord" it makes no difference how THE NAME was pronounced. or written Even if it was pronounced Ding-Dong and written dozens of different ways, the meaning of "angel of the Lord" was/is the same. This article is about "angel of the Lord" not about the pronunciation of יהוה.Bealtainemí (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Good day Bealtainemi (right now here is morning). The meaning, pronunciation or writing of the tetragrammaton (as scribal practicing) is not discussed, but rather only the inclusion of the name in the phrase the ‘’angel of the Lord’’, that, it could have been the ‘’angel of YHWH’’. By the way, I forgot to write that Wolfgang Feneberg (Entschluss/Offen (April 1985)) supports the thesis of Howard and also the authors of the journal ‘’New Testaments Abstracts’’ ((March 1977). "New Testaments Abstracts". Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts: Boston College School of Theology and Ministry. p. 306.). Like I wrote before, a well-argued thesis contributes towards advancing methodology in scholarship, and this coincides with Albert Pietersma, who states that the theory about Yahweh in NT (by Howard) “could produce interesting results for students of early Christianity”, without mentioning biblical translation.--AbimaelLevid 13:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's take the Putting Jesus in his Place that you cited recently. Here's the quote:

"For these and other reasons outside the scope of this current volume, we should reject the theory that the New Testament originally contained the tetragram and that scribes in the second century replaced it with Lord or God. The religious group best known for advocating this theory, of course, is the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose New World Translation 'restores' the name Jehovah to the New Testament 237 times. … For years, George Howard was the one academic scholar who argued publicly for the same conclusion; recently, David Trobisch has affirmed Howard's conclusion."

Even use the sources you've picked, this is a small fringe view, and arguably off-topic. Without quibbling over further details, I think this discussion has gone on long enough, and with the three of us probably won't get any further. In particular, it's been a hard slog through the large number of sometimes irrelevant, sometimes fringe, sometimes non-specific (no page numbers of specific books) cites that you keep coming up with. Alephb (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Before anything, let me tell you that I changed my username (I was AbimaelLevid). And I want to mention that, although it may not look like this, I try to express myself with all the respect in the world.

Thank you for taking this comment on the last book I mentioned (although the last ones were 3, plus the previous ones), I think it was useful to link it (I really expected comments like that from before). The appointment to Robert M. Bowman, is secondary, since it only supports the one that Trobisch affirmed the Thesis of Howard, but that is in the Book of Trobisch. This was with the intention of answering a previous question ("Is there a single other scholar who says Howard is correct? Can you name one?. If Howard's view is fairly widespread in reliable sources, then arguably there might be a case for mentioning it, maybe.")

It is true that some books do not have pages, but others do, and what about them? On the other hand, do not worry Alepph, I will respect your opinion of not including a textual quote, even if I do not share that position.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 14:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)