Talk:Names and titles of God in the New Testament

(This talk page has been imported from "Jehovah in the New Testament" due to the controversy.)

Question

@Bealtainemí: From the editor's (the one with a long name/handle who keeps adding periodically more content to this article) reinsertion of his main thesis into the main Tetragrammaton article, and after reading carefully all the text he has just reintroduced there after it was recently deleted, I believe I can now articulate my main question regarding this thesis. Besides the fact that this thesis is based on a book the text of which I cannot verify (Shaw, Frank, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω), and is reinforced by a simple review of the book by a certain Didier Fontaine (https://www.academia.edu/22707254/English_Review_of_F._Shaw_The_Earliest_Non-Mystical_Jewish_Use_of), here is the paragraph in that material that I identify as the cental piece of evidence that keeps being hidden by this editor, both in main Tetragrammaton article and here:

No Jewish manuscript of the Septuagint has been found with Κύριος representing the Tetragrammaton, and it has been argued, but not widely accepted, that the use of Κύριος shows that later copies of the Septuagint were of Christian character, and even that the composition of the New Testament preceded the change to Κύριος in the Septuagint.

Could you or the editor answer directly my simple question here: What word of symbol do all the Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint precisely show as representing the Tetragrammaton in Koine Greek, when it was used the original Hebrew version? I would greatly appreciate a clear and direct answer to this, in my view central question on the issue of the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. - I guess I shall call the editor here henceforward simply as JLACO? warshy ^(¥¥) 16:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I simply don't feel up to dealing with Jairon's latest edits. What am I to make of his table on "Names and titles of God in New Testament quotations, allusions, summaries or paraphrases from Old Testament"? Almost any New Testament text can be seen as reminiscent in one way or another of some Old Testament text: John 1:1 begins with "᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος" ("in the beginning"), without the article where one would expect the article, and so do the opening words of Genesis 1:1, "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς", also without the article. And so on and on. Jairon's heading doesn't even require יהוה in the corresponding Masoretic text. His heading doesn't mean to make any sense, but I don't know how to get Jairon to change it into something that does make sense.

You ask what word or symbol do all the Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint precisely show as representing the Tetragrammaton in Koine Greek, when "the original Hebrew version" (by which I presume you mean the Masoretic text) has the Tetragrammaton. One answer is that there is no one "word of symbol". You have to limit the question in one way or another. The five oldest LXX manuscript now surviving? These were written when Christianity did not yet exist and so must be Jewish. One of them has ΙΑΩ. two have one has יהוה and two three have 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅. But there must have been thousands of other copies that have now perished. We have no knowledge about what was in those thousands. Did they only have either ΙΑΩ or יהוה or 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅, and never anything else? Or did some, many or few, have for instance Κυριός? Or something else? Nobody really knows. There are different views on the question, with different arguments in favour of one view or another. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no example of kurios instead of tetragrammaton in known manuscripts dated from the end of the second century CE onwards. In addition to the evidenced Hebrew form for YHWH in the Greek text, some have argued that the original LXX (which has been lost) contained a pronounceable Greek form such as ΙΑΩ. Let me recommend this journal. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bealtainemí for your detailed answer. It is a very good start for a much needed discussion here, I believe. When you say that two Koine Greek manuscripts (not fragments or other papyruses) of the Septuagint have יהוה in them, do you mean that they have precisely that, i.e., they have the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton inserted right inside the flow of the Greek text of the translation? All mentions of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible have just the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton inserted in the Greek text? Is there at least one complete manuscript that would look like that? Thanks a lot for clarifying to me all these basic questions about the appearance of the Koine Greek manuscripts. warshy ^(¥¥) 21:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Jairon, you surely mean: "There is no example of kurios instead of tetragrammaton in known manuscripts dated from before the end of the second century CE". From the end of the second century onwards the much more numerous LXX manuscripts (as distinct from manuscripts of Aquila and the like) normally have κυριός. Your phrase "kurios instead of tetragrammaton" also begs the question: Why not "tetragrammaton instead of κυριός"? Yes, some have argued for Ίαώ in "the original LXX". Others have argued that "the original LXX" had κύριος, others that it had יהוה (I think nobody argues that it had 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅), others have argued that there was no single "original LXX", but that the different original writers of the different books that compose the LXX made different choices. Nobody knows for sure who, if any, are right.

A study that seems to attach as much significance to transcriptions of the name YHWH from the 13th century down to today as it gives to transcriptions in Antiquity does not inspire in me much confidence. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Warshy, Papyrus Fouad 266, otherwise written in Greek, has, 30 times, in the midst of the Greek text, the Hebrew word יהוה in Hebrew letters, and three more pre-AD100 manuscripts have the same Hebrew word, written in an older form of the Hebrew alphabet (𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅), in the midst their Greek-language texts. Even among the Hebrew-language texts discovered in Qumran some use the older alphabet for the name YHWH, while all the rest is in the by then normal alphabet.

For a number of reasons I can't state that "All mentions of Yahweh in the Hebrew Septuagint Bible have just the Hebrew letters of the Tetragrammaton inserted in the Greek text." In the first place, there was then no complete Jewish Bible as a single scroll or book. Besides, all the five pre-AD100 manuscripts listed (five survivors out of thousands more) are incomplete parts of single books of the Bible. Furthermore, it is far from being the case for the post-AD100 manuscripts, when almost all the manuscripts known use only Greek letters. Thirdly, nobody really knows what was in the thousands of manuscripts that no longer exist. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bealtainemí for your very detailed answers and for all your clear explanations. You have indeed answered all my questions with a lot of additional detail I was missing, and your answers give me a good start on a lot of catching up on the field that I still have to keep working at. Thanks a lot for your time and expertise. Sincerely, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

View by one academic

@Bealtainemí: in this revision [1], you marked as span the phrase: "Trobisch agrees with Howard in that the early writings of the New Testament may had some form of the tetragram". Sorry for the inconvenience, I just wanted to ask you to check the sources. Have a good day.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where Trobisch says he agrees with Howard that "'the early writings of the New Testament' may [have] had some form of the tetragrammaton". It would be helpful if you would at least explain what you mean by "the early writings of the New Testament". The New Testament was published, Trobisch says, by 180 at latest, most likely some decades earlier by Polycarp, as a single compilation. So by "the early writings of" you must mean (unless I am mistaken) the autographs of those early writings that the New Testament utilized in some form or other, not necessarily as straight copies of particular autographs. You know that, for instance, the New Testament 2 Corinthians is widely believed to be an edited amalgam of two or more distinct letters (see Second Epistle to the Corinthians#Composition). So the New Testament manuscripts indicate, on the whole accurately, the original text of the New Testament, but not necessarily the texts in the autograph documents ("the early documents") that the New Testament drew on when making its own text. Is that what you mean? Of course, belief that the New Testament gives, word for word, nothing but the precise text of precise autographs is not upheld by Trobisch or Howard or, as far as I know, by anyone apart from the kind who insist that the stories of Noah and the Tower of Babel are plain history and that humans (just two) were created exactly in 4004 BC. There is no point in saying, as if it were something exceptional, that Trobisch agrees with Howard on that.

If you clarify what you mean by "the early writings of the New Testament" (a phrase I haven't found in Trobisch's book), that may indicate where you think Trobisch himself and the book Putting Jesus in His Place say "Trobisch agrees with Howard in that ..."

I thank you immediately for the response that I am confident you will give. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I thank you for your answer. It is interesting your appointment, and you are really right. The problem is that I understood that in the book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. pp. 158 it reads that the "New Testament originally contained the tetragram", that "Howard was the one academic scholar" and that "David Trobisch has affirmed Howard's conclusion".

I understood them to be synonyms early writings of the New Testament for New Testament originally.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't explained what you mean by "early writings of the New Testament". You now say it is a synonym of "New Testament originally", which explains nothing. And you quote a book that speaks of Trobisch, but skip its statement, "The religious group best known for advocating this theory is, of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses, whose New World Translation 'restores' the name Jehovah to the New Testament 237 times" and, more importantly, you don't give the words of Trobisch referred to (not quoted) in footnote 10 on page 158.

What do you mean by "New Testament originally"? Remember we're discussing your claim that "Trobisch agrees with Howard in that ..." According to Trobisch, the New Testament is a compilation, the first edition of which was published in the middle of the second century, made with an "overall editorial concept", as shown in the consistent use of nomina sacra (not tetragrams), uniformity of the titles given to the included books ... (see this). Is this compilation what you mean by "New Testament originally"? Or do you mean such things as the earlier compilation that according to Trobisch Paul made of several of his letters (more than four), now known as Rom, 1 and 2 Cor, and Gal? Or do you mean the various original autograph writings, some of which, for all we know, may (or may not) have tried to refer to God in a foreign alphabet. Copies of these (faithful or not) will have began to circulate individually and will only later have begun to be compiled, perhaps in edited form as in Paul's own edited compilation of a selection of his own writings. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't delete the text I've added in this discussion [2], I feel the need to rewrite the quote, but I will do so completely, with added emphasis.. In the quote it reads that "David Trobisch has affirmed Howard's conclusion", and the conclusion of Howard is the rejected theory by Bowman and Komoszewski, "the theory that the New Testament originally contained the tetragram and that scribes in the second century replaced it with Lord or God.

For these and other reasons outside the scope of this corrent 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, the Jehova's Witnesses, whose New World Translation "restores" the name Jehovah to the New Testament 237 times. Other "sacred name" groups (such as the Assemblies of Yahweh) make a similar claim. For years, George Howard was the one academic scholar who argued publicly for the same conclusion; recently, David Trobisch has affirmed Howard's conclusion.

Let me tell you that Bowman and Komoszewski do not deepen into what kind of manuscripts, if autographs, or those that were compiled in the New Testament, rather the original New Testament. David Trobisch believes that the nomen sacrum was introduced into the New Testament canon as an editorial decision when they "producing a canonical version of both the Old and New Testament in the middle of the second century" (Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century pp. 89). According to Trobisch, Paul's original letter (autograph) contained the tetragrammaton, and the nomina sacra were introduced into the canonical version of the New Testament by the editors. It is not mentioned if an intermediate version had nomina sacra uncontracted, in place of JHWH.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have just discovered your response. I don't feel like going deep into the question immediately, especially since I made a mistake the last time I looked, pressing Ctrl-X instead of Ctrl-C, when I was looking for more information on what you wrote. I apologize for the mistake, my mistake.

Perhaps it is enough to ask whether you think Trobisch holds that the tetragram was in what he calls the first edition of the New Testament, the same text (with nomina sacra) that is found in every extant New Testament manuscript. He does explicitly say (unless I am mistaken) that Paul wrote the tetragram when quoting OT phrases that he did not apply to Christ, but that he used Κύριος when applying to Christ OT phrases that in Hebrew contain the Tetragram. Howard accepts that the tetragram was eliminated from the text half a century before that first edition. Does Troblisch agree with Howard in this particular? If he does, we should for clarity distinguish what Troblisch says about unknown pre-first edition texts and what he says is in the actual New Testament that we do know. Or do you think Troblisch contradicts himself? Bealtainemí (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No dear Bealtainemí, Trobisch does not contradict himself, and he does not mention which word was used in "unknown pre-first edition texts" of the New Testament; only Trobisch says that autographs had JHWH and that the nomina sacra was written in the Canonical Edition of the New Testament in the 2nd-century. Howard does not treated the "pre-first edition texts". Only Gérard Gertoux The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah pp. 252 propose that P52 had the Tetragram, that P90 had contracted and uncontracted nomina sacra, and that the rest of manuscripts had nomina sacra in place of YHWH. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for distinguishing "New Testament" from "autograph". I agree. The question of the earliest nomen sacrum belongs in the section "Nomina sacra in the New Testament". Bealtainemí (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to you for your answers. May all be well with you. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

NT quotations

Respectable User:Warshy and User:Bealtainemí, please explain why the intention to delete the table [3] [4]? Thanks in advance for your reply. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please explain for what purpose you inserted it. Nobody says the Tetragrammaton is one of the "Names and titles of God in the New Testament". Howard said the Tetragrammaton may have been in the autographs of some documents that were later compiled as elements of the New Testament, but not even he said that the Tetragrammaton is one of the names and titles of God actually in the New Testament. Making a list of passages where the Tetragrammaton does not appear as one of the "Names and titles of God in the New Testament" is like making a list of passages where "Mickey Mouse" does not appear as one of the "Names and titles of God in the New Testament". It is no more useful than making a list of places (Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Mexico, Norway ...) where the sky is blue, instead of just saying the sky is blue. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer Bealtainemí. The table shows that in quotations of the Old Testament, the name YHWH of the Hebrew masoretic text is rendered in the NT text by Κύριος and Θεός, but it is not limited to that. Like J. K. Elliott wrote: "many text-critical variants concern the nomina sacra. Editors of the Greek New Testament need to resolve these variants when printing a critically established text. Commentators must also heed such matters". We usually use the scientific text or the NA, but there is a background behind it, and also the Septuagint that we have has been transmitted by Christians. In example, Κυρίου, Κύριον, Κύριον, Κύριος, Κύριε, ὁ κύριος, τῷ κυρίῳ, τοῦ κυρίου, τὸν κύριον, τῷ Κυρίῳ, etc are variants for the same Hebrew word (יהוה).--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Κυρίου, Κύριον, Κύριος, Κυρίῳ, Κύριε, are not "variants for the same Hebrew word". They are indications of the grammatical case of the one Greek noun Κύριος. Hebrew nouns (including יהוה!) have no grammatical case. Indicating places where the article ὁ, τῷ, τοῦ, τόν is or is not added to the Greek word in the New Testament might make more sense, but not in this context: it's not what your table is about. The New Testament sometimes adds the article, sometimes does not, also when not citing the Old Testament; and the Septuagint itself sometimes adds the article, sometimes does not, also in passages not alluded to in the New Testament. You don't need a table for that: there is no need for a table to illustrate the statement that LXX renders MT יהוה by ὁ Κύριος some 50 times and about 2000 times by Κύριος without the article. Bealtainemí (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

D. B. Capes says that Κύριος is not an exact synonym of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, and it is interesting the treatment in the NT of OT quotations. Before continuing in the discussion, I want to emphasize that if to your critic the table represents something very obvious, then I don't think there is a problem with keeping it. I don't see that its presence will hurt Wikipedia's reputation. I agree that "indicating places where the article ὁ, τῷ, τοῦ, τόν is or is not added to the Greek word in the New Testament might make more sense", as Trobisch wrote: "if Κύριος is preceded by an article, the word probably refers to Christ, but in all other instances Paul's original letter showed the tetragram."--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

You still haven't explained (you can't or won't) for what purpose you inserted the table. Its presence may serve the vanity of its compiler, but what good does it do the article? It doesn't even support the statement (which nobody denies) that the Tetragrammaton isn't in the New Testament, only giving instances of its absence. It doesn't support the statements by Capes and Trobisch that you mention and that, even if they were in the article, require no table. Why should this table be inserted in this article? Bealtainemí (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Distinguished Bealtainemí, let me try to make it simple by repeating my words again. The table presents the NT treatment to the tetragrammaton in the quotations made to the Hebrew OT i.e. ויהוה ,יהוה ,יהוה אלהיך, etc. This is the reason why I guess that it must to be. If the deletion of the table cannot be supported with a forceful reason (an answer was evaded from the start: "please explain for what purpose you inserted it") but only because it gives "instances of its absence", and not any rule of wikipedia is not violated, then there is no reason to delete it. As you emphasized, that Howard's thesis is a hyphothesis, then the table conffirms it. Thanks for your answers. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If as you said, that "nobody denies that the Tetragrammaton isn't in the New Testament", then there is no conflict. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:ONUS: "[...] Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted [...] The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Bealtainemí (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The rather small and fringe, rather insignificant I would say, Howard hypothesis is not important for any Wikipedia editor other than you. And now you are confirming that that huge table was added to the article just because in your eyes it somehow "confirms" the Howard hypothesis. No. User:Bealtainemí is correct, and the article does not need that table. warshy ^(¥¥) 14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jairon, in the New Testament references to the LXX Old Testament (not, as you mistakenly said, to "the Hebrew OT" ) the Tetragrammaton is not used. You won't gain consensus by the illogical claim that this fact "confirms" (!!) that Howard was right in his idea that, on the contrary, the New Testament originally did use the Tetragrammaton!! Bealtainemí (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

His Excellency Warshy and Bealtainemí, I respectfully address you. In wikipedia the opinion by one editor is not important, we only cites scholars on the subject that presents evidence, like the deleted table. It is impossible to say that "Howard hypothesis is not important for any Wikipedia editor than" me when clearly the article exists from October 11, 2005, almost 6 years before i join to wikipedia, and actually with 1435 editions and with the participation of 235 editors (not counting myself). It has been claimed that "the article does not need that table" just for presenting obvious evidence, but so sorry telling you, but if presenting obvius evidence, this evidence really does support its existence. If it is speculated that this table "somehow 'confirms' the Howard hypothesis", although nobody has exposing in what way, the only thing confirmed is that the NT coincides with the LXX, and does not support Howard's thesis. I agree with Bealtainemí that is "illogical [to] claim" that tis table support Howard's idea.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing the strange claim that your table supports Howard's idea that the New Testament once contained the Tetragrammaton, an idea that it clearly does not support. You now say that your table, your synthesis, "presents pbvious evidence". Of what? Clearly not of Howard's idea. Then of what? It lists New Testament passages that don't have the Tetragrammaton, but doesn't show that the New Testament doesn't have it anywhere. So what is it evidence of? This is the basic question put to you right from the start and still awaiting an explanation. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I will repeat it again, like in my first comment, the table confronts the treatment of the name YHWH of the Hebrew OT against the Greek NT and the LXX, and only presents manuscript evidence (MT, Dead Sea Scrolls, LXX and NT). Doesn't push any point of view. Any reader takes his own point of view. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Your excuse for deleting is that "there is no need for a table to illustrate the statement that LXX renders MT יהוה by ὁ Κύριος some 50 times and about 2000 times by Κύριος without the article", and I'm sorry to tell you, but it seems like a personal point of view.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I could make long tables of examples in the New Testament of Κυρίου, of Κύριον, of Θεός, of Θεὸς, of ὄνομα, etc., etc., all of which would "present obvious evidence" of something or other. In each, I could confront the Greek word with treatment of a word in another language. My tables wouldn't push any point of view. Any reader could take his or her own point of view ...

I don't think it would be agreed that they should be added to this article. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

When you deleted the first time the table, you said "removed a table that needlessly shows what is repeatedly stated in the article: that the New Testament never uses the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, even in its OT references, but always replaces it" and if it is true, let me ask you, Why are you so opposed? Are there byte limits in the articles?--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was badly expressed. The absence in the New Testament of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton does not mean that the New Testament cancelled it out, "replaced" it in the sense proposed by Howard. Did you perhaps imagine I meant that? I just meant that your table gave examples of supposed New Testament echoes (not necessarily a complete list, and with some of the supposed echoes marked as "failed verification") of Old Testament passages where the Masoretic Text (which the New Testament was not translating) uses the Tetragrammaton but where the New Testament did not. What would a list of instances where the New Testament is printed with Θεός before a punctuation mark add to the simple statement that "in the New Testament Θεός is given with an acute accent before a punctuation mark"? What did your table add to the simple statement that "the New Testament never uses the Tetragrammaton, even when it echoes Old Testament passages that employ it"? You alone want your own such table added to the article but, it seems, none of the many others. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Let me request a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion).Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not the first time of seeing long arguments like this. Don't you think that it would be better to warn people before deleting or tell them to proof it. EzinneAnwuri (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the deleted table of New Testament treatment of Old Testament quotations section

Should the section contain a table that shows how the NT render the Name of God YHWH with Κυρίος, Θεός, both, articulated or not, etc., when the Old Testament is quoted with the Hebrew names ויהוה ,יהוה ,יהוה אלהיך‎ etc.? Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

ויהוה just means "and Yahweh"; יהוה אלהיך just means "Yahweh, your God". What do these, and the "etc.", add to יהוה ("Yahweh")?

It is enough to state that "the New Testament, in its echoes of the Old Testament, uses Κύριος (LORD) or θεός (GOD) where the Hebrew text uses יהוה". No need to expand that clear sourced statement into a long obscure table of examples. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:STICK Elizium23 (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Bealtainemí above. This table was created by the requestor. It is, therefore, specifically his OR (Original Research), which he insists be published on Wikipedia against explicit WP guidelines WP:OR. The misnomer "Jehovah," and all its possible religious implications, also seems to be one of the user's pet projects on Wikipedia. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose such an exhaustive list would only be a novelty at best. This waffling repetetive article is already much longer than it need be, and inclusion of a list of translations that 'at least use Jehovah in the translation's commentary' well demonstrates an intent of undue weight to a minority view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, as overly detailed.--Mvqr (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight

In view of Jeffro77's comment [09:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)] immediately above. I propose to severely reduce the section "Beyond the Howard hypothesis". Views? Bealtainemí (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I would support severely reducing that section as you propose, as "undue weight to a minority view." Jeffro77 finally correctly articulated the main problem with some sections of this article as they currently stand. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say finally. Refer to archives of this Talk page. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs), previously editing as AbimaelLevid (talk · contribs), has been pushing this agenda for some time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeffro77, thanks for being back. Let me emphasize that the article is not called Names and titles of God in the Greek New Testament as to think that the list of NT translations should not be included. On the other hand, maybe Pete unseth's idea of moving that section of translations to Sacred Name Bibles could works. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, the list of translations in that section should be pared back to only those that use formal names of God (without the inappropriate focus on the form Jehovah over Yahweh) in the main text rather than also including commentaries. That said, this article remains a POV coatrack for asserting that forms of a name that are not present in any NT manuscripts 'should' be 'restored' therein, so I would still see no problem with deletion. The core fact that some people believe that early (unavailable) manuscripts of the NT contained the Tetragrammaton is already appropriately represented at other articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me express that for some time, there was a Bible that had a translation of the name YHWH only in notes, but a user deleted it. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's good that it was removed. Any other translations mentioned in this article that similarly use some form of YHWH only in their commentaries or "in notes" should also be removed. Ideally though, the coatrack shouldn't exist, but at the very least, the article should be greatly pared back to remove excessive attention to a minority view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The article has been embellished over the years to provide many sources (argument from verbosity) that basically repeat the idea ad nauseum that no available NT manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton, a minority of scholars say early manuscripts might have (on the basis that things that aren't the NT contain such forms), and most say it didn't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As long as no apostolic age manuscripts are known, the hypothesis of what word was in the place of the name in the autographs cannot be established as a scientific theory. The best that can be aspired is to present the minority of scholars who are proponents of YHWH in the NT and their antitheses, knowing that an original θεος or κυριος is widely accepted in the NT. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Except it is not appropriate to give undue weight to the minority viewpoints.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not comfortable to differ from your opinions, respectable Jeffro. Let me express that in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view it reads: "if your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". What I do agree on is that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained" (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight).--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A single paragraph could adequately present the minority view, and you will note that the guidelines only say it is necessary to indicate prominent adherents of minor views rather than scraping together as many sources as possible who have ever commented on the matter in order to make it seem more notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's analyze the scholars, since they not only repeat the same argument "in order to make it seem more notable", rather they contribute new ideas. Howard: the first one that made the thesis based in the extant LXX with the name, the supposed Christian innovation of nomina sacra and variables in terms Lord and God in the NT. Trobisch: nomina sacra was inserted when the NT was compiled. Shedinger: the Diatessaron and syriac text could support to Howard's thesis. Fontaine and Vasileiadis: internal textual evidence; reviews of the thesis and its antithesis. Shaw, use of IAW and in contemporary writings. Furuli: nomina sacra is a corruption. Gaston: Theology and not only Christology in Pauline writtings. Mussies: Hebrew background could support an original YHWH. Vasileiadis and Gordon: treatment to the name in Jewish and Christian sources. Feneberg: internal textual evidence, and writings of Church Fathers. McRay, possible use of Paleo-Hebrew in writing of the name YHWH and other words. There are other ideas in the article, but rather than highlighting them, I think it would be easier to discuss which ones you consider to be repeated. There are also other scholars who follow Howard, but these are not included in the article. It is frustrating that the guidelines only say prominent without delving in what way, giving option to possible interpretations.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As a guideline, 'prominent' sources would generally include authors whose views are referenced in other mainstream sources or published in respected journals, generally limiting attention given to self-published sources. Beyond that, the suitability of sources can be discussed at article Talk. However, it is not necessary to include every author who has ever commented on the subject, especially (but not only) if they endorse a minority view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that a thesis should be presented incomplete because it is from a minority. You're right the contributions must to be "referenced in other mainstream sources or published in respected journals", but this is not the case. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I unwittingly removed this page from my watchlist. It will take time for me to catch up.

Why not start by removing the long list of adaptations/translations of the New Testament that begins with "However, Pierro puts the following as ..." and ends with an example of an explicitly "self-published" production? Bealtainemí (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

For some time there was only the list of NT translations without giving any further explanation or idea. Later an editor added the title Beyond the Howard hypothesis to the text under discussion [5]. I agree with Jeffro 77: "At the very least, the list of translations in that section should be pared back to only those that use formal names of God (without the inappropriate focus on the form Jehovah over Yahweh) in the main text rather than also including commentaries."Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What does that list add to the statement already in the article " Matteo Pierro drew up a list of 135 translations of the New Testament, from the 14th century on, that used the Hebrew tetragram itself, "Jehovah", "Yahweh" or related forms: 26 into Hebrew with יהוה, twenty in other languages with a translated form throughout, seven with a translated form frequently, while others use a translated form in specified verses"? It is no more helpful than the table for whose retention you got absolutely no support. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The 'agreement' with my statement is a bit out of context, unless JLACO is also saying that action should be done at the very least. I would point out that I indicated my own preference for much more severe action—up to and including deletion of the article—immediately after the quoted statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps best to do one thing at a time. For now, should we or should we not remove the unnecessary questions-raising list? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with immediate removal of the list as undue and synthesis. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but a list says nothing, it only shows the editor's decision when translating the text. The reader interprets it in their own way.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Good. If this list says nothing (beyond what is already in the article), there is no reason to keep the Wikipedia editor's useless addition. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't twist my argument, I said it shows the editor's decision.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If the intention is to delete the article, I could interpret that from now on the intention is not to improve this article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I personally do not have time to devote to improving an article for which I think the salient points are already covered at articles such as Sacred Name Bible. However, I'm not aware that there is yet a consensus to delete the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Smells like fairness [6].

I endorse my own comment on that old discussion I had almost forgotten about, a year or so ago. I said then that my reason to not support a straight delete was to keep the edits of this SPA out of the important pages that are his real target. But even here it needs to be kept in check as Bealtainemí has been consistently doing since. Not only kept in check, but really pared down to its essentials only, which are really difficult to discern since they are disguised in some pseudo-scholarship that cannot really express itself clearly in English language. Pared down to its essentials, then, if not alltogether blown out of here by now... warshy ^(¥¥) 17:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jairon's latest proposal must be rejected. It is unquestionably original research. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Respectalbe Bealtainemí, It is appreciated and necessary that you explain why you claim "unquestionably original research".Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYN. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Not clear yet. It seems like an evasive and unsupported answer. Please explain, if there's a compelling reason, I have nothing to say. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You think that Wikipedia's foundational exclusion of original research admits your proposal to "analyze the scholars" and put together "new ideas". I don't think you'll get support for such a proposal. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

How could an argued comment be original research on a talk page? I only stated the opinion of the scholars. It doesn't seem useful to try to intimidate with the phrase "I don't think you'll get support for such a proposal". Even if they were in the article, it is untenable that the use of the phrases "analyze the scholars" and "new ideas" is an indication of original research. Or perhaps there is another reason not yet stated for the use of such words, and in what way it is an original investigation, even if it is on a talk page. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Jairon, we have to end the logorrhoea about un undefined "editor", who is neither Pierro (an author, not an editor) nor a Wikipedia editor, and about a personal proposal. I am removing the list otiosely spelling out what is already quite adequately stated in the article. If you get anyone at all to support you, I will undo the removal. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí, respectfully allow me to express that in Wikipedia:NPA it reads: "comment on content, not on the contributor." It appears that you erased the list, to end an talk, rather than have refuted me. Excuse me, but but in my opinion, your latest arguments have been untenable. I am not unreasonable, and I will back down when it is proven that I spoke a fallacy. Since this talk has been unproductive, perhaps a third opinion could help. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A reminder of WP:SYN and WP:OR is not a personal attack. Those mean that Wikipedia editors should avoid connecting individual dots themselves to suggest a conclusion (something that is fine in a thesis or paper but not for an encyclopedia article). If reliable secondary independent sources support that conclusion, it's then possible to expand using them, though. WP:WEIGHT also matters: minority scholarly views should not be given undue prominence. It can also be useful to consult prominent tertiary sources like literature reviews and other encyclopedias to have an idea of what is important that they decided to cover. Moreover, the part on the NWT was sourced to JW.org, a primary non-independent source, when there are better scholarly sources that criticize its doctrinal alterations that were not related to OT quotes. My impression is that this article attempts to be a WP:POVFORK of Sacred Name Bible. For some reason this was not obvious to the participants in previous deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact that it's a POV fork has been painfully obvious, to me at least, and I think the history of this Talk page clearly bears that out. :/ Essentially, I have tired of trying to improve this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I understood that Bealtainemí referring to me when he said "undefined" editor ", who is neither Pierro (an author, not an editor)" nor a Wikipedia editor about a personal proposal." But if not, I apologize publicly, and I admit that I was wrong to think of a personal attack. I am sorry Bealtainemí. Thanks PaleoNeonate for the third opinion. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No offence taken or meant by me. I had spoken about some Wikipedia editor's insertion of the list. You responded that the list "shows the editor's decision when translating the text". I didn't know what editor you meant, since neither the Wikipedia editor nor Pierro had been translating, and no producer of an adaptation of the New Testament had presented a list. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The Tetragrammaton is not in the New Testament, but why is it in the KJV?

biblegateway - john 20:20 KJV

has the Lord rendered in all caps as if it says YHWH

but if the tetragrammaton is not in the new testament, why is it in the KJV? 178.248.115.34 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that all-caps is part of the original KJV, or the 1769 edit of the KJV with spelling, punctuation etc. standardized, since only the first letter is capitalized in my paper Bible. However, look at article Kyrios... AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)