Talk:Names and titles of God in the New Testament

2206:

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

1510:

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.

1410:

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 claim" that tis table support Howard's idea.

909:). 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. 981:). 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. 773: 905:

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

740:

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.

167: 833:, 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. 612: 236: 91: 64: 1265:

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.

791:

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.

444: 454: 423: 1280:

problem with keeping it. I don't see that its presence will hurt Knowledge'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."--

302: 355: 334: 101: 1310:

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.

33: 998:, 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 548: 1432:, "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. 226: 199: 811:

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.

2628:

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

2099:

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

1938:

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

1279:

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

855:

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

810:

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

790:

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

771:

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

756:

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?

2674:

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.

2528:

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

965:

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,

2759:

I understood that Bealtainemí referring to me when he said "undefined" editor ", who is neither Pierro (an author, not an editor)" nor a Knowledge 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.

2654:

Sorry, Jairon, we have to end the logorrhoea about un undefined "editor", who is neither Pierro (an author, not an editor) nor a Knowledge 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

1476:

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

1409:

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 Knowledge editor

2358:

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

2013:

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,

840:

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

683:

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

1509:

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

1446:

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.

1309:

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

1264:

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

1073:

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

739:

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

2702:

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

2697:

is not a personal attack. Those mean that Knowledge 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

2205:

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

1884:

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

1088:

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

1294:

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

2260:

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.

1494:

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

1035:

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

904:

Sorry, I don't see where Trobisch says he agrees with Howard that "'the early writings of the New Testament' may 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,

1394:

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!!

1373:

The rather small and fringe, rather insignificant I would say, Howard hypothesis is not important for any Knowledge 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.

1043:). 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. 1229:

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

1057:

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

743:

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

2344:. 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." 978: 568: 1461:

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

841:

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.

1214:

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.

578: 889:, 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.-- 2288:

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.

966:

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.

2629:"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. 2326:

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?

1295:

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?

2829:

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

748:"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. 1755:

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.

2359:

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.

2703:

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

712:, 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, 588: 1974:

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.--

2736:

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.--

1246:

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).--

814:

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.

2613:

You think that Knowledge'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.

2341:

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

2782:

the text". I didn't know what editor you meant, since neither the Knowledge editor nor Pierro had been translating, and no producer of an adaptation of the New Testament had presented a list.

973:, 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 629: 625: 1576:

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

1679:

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

310: 209: 1786: 2520:

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

708:

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

912:

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

2873: 1655:

above. This table was created by the requestor. It is, therefore, specifically his OR (Original Research), which he insists be published on Knowledge against explicit WP guidelines

181: 692:), 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: 1234:. 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 1194:

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

940:

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".

2903: 405: 395: 1065:) 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 2908: 1872:

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

2377:. 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.-- 2868: 1424:

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

2599:

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.

696:

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

2150:

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.--

1061:

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

2863: 1557:

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.

157: 147: 2765: 2680: 2634: 2604: 2573: 2478: 2458: 2430: 2349: 2294: 2215: 2109: 2019: 1929: 1851: 1780: 1585: 1533: 1500: 1467: 1452: 1415: 1329: 1315: 1285: 1251: 1184: 1137: 1101: 1096:

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.

1048: 956: 894: 781: 1029:

For years, George Howard was the one academic scholar who argued publicly for the same conclusion; recently, David Trobisch has affirmed Howard's conclusion.

371: 684:

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,

2898: 2878: 176: 74: 2918: 526: 516: 480: 362: 339: 123: 700:

shows that later copies of the Septuagint were of Christian character, and even that the composition of the New Testament preceded the change to

2923: 2888: 2858: 292: 282: 1023:

The religious group best known for advocating this theory, of course, the Jehova's Witnesses, whose New World Translation "restores" the name

1013:

we should reject the theory that the New Testament originally contained the tetragram and that scribes in the second century replaced it with

2487:

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

2439:

Good. If this list says nothing (beyond what is already in the article), there is no reason to keep the Knowledge editor's useless addition.

933:

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

2815: 488: 2146:

A single paragraph could adequately present the minority view, and you will note that the guidelines only say it is necessary to indicate

2425:

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.

2893: 315: 2913: 2774:

No offence taken or meant by me. I had spoken about some Knowledge editor's insertion of the list. You responded that the list "shows

1800: 689: 114: 69: 1740:

In view of Jeffro77's comment immediately above. I propose to severely reduce the section "Beyond the Howard hypothesis". Views?

1659:. The misnomer "Jehovah," and all its possible religious implications, also seems to be one of the user's pet projects on Knowledge. 1924:

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.

969:

What do you mean by "New Testament originally"? Remember we're discussing your claim that "Trobisch agrees with Howard in that ..."

906: 484: 258: 1210:

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

1074:

edition texts and what he says is in the actual New Testament that we do know. Or do you think Troblisch contradicts himself?

2883: 2101: 1595:ויהוה just means "and Yahweh"; יהוה אלהיך just means "Yahweh, your God". What do these, and the "etc.", add to יהוה ("Yahweh")? 2096: 492: 468: 428: 2473:

If the intention is to delete the article, I could interpret that from now on the intention is not to improve this article.

2400:

Perhaps best to do one thing at a time. For now, should we or should we not remove the unnecessary questions-raising list?

757:

Nobody really knows. There are different views on the question, with different arguments in favour of one view or another.

2761: 2676: 2630: 2600: 2569: 2568:

Respectalbe Bealtainemí, It is appreciated and necessary that you explain why you claim "unquestionably original research".

2474: 2454: 2426: 2345: 2290: 2211: 2105: 2015: 1925: 1847: 1776: 1581: 1529: 1496: 1463: 1448: 1411: 1325: 1311: 1281: 1247: 1180: 1133: 1097: 1044: 952: 890: 777: 724: 1206:

one of the names and titles of God actually in the New Testament. Making a list of passages where the Tetragrammaton does

1202:

of some documents that were later compiled as elements of the New Testament, but not even he said that the Tetragrammaton

1036:

decision when they "producing a canonical version of both the Old and New Testament in the middle of the second century" (

44: 659: 249: 204: 1324:

If as you said, that "nobody denies that the Tetragrammaton isn't in the New Testament", then there is no conflict.

1027:

to the New Testament 237 times. Other "sacred name" groups (such as the Assemblies of Yahweh) make a similar claim.

370:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2373:

The 'agreement' with my statement is a bit out of context, unless JLACO is also saying that action should be done

802:

Jairon, you surely mean: "There is no example of kurios instead of tetragrammaton in known manuscripts dated from

1342:: " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted 554: 1834:

Jeffro77, thanks for being back. Let me emphasize that the article is not called Names and titles of God in the

638: 2843: 2823: 2791: 2769: 2754: 2723: 2684: 2664: 2638: 2623: 2608: 2594: 2577: 2563: 2535: 2509: 2482: 2462: 2448: 2434: 2420: 2409: 2395: 2368: 2353: 2336: 2298: 2283: 2219: 2168: 2113: 2066: 2023: 1992: 1957: 1933: 1903: 1855: 1821: 1762: 1749: 1729: 1708: 1665: 1643: 1623: 1589: 1566: 1537: 1519: 1504: 1489: 1471: 1456: 1441: 1419: 1404: 1384: 1355: 1333: 1319: 1304: 1289: 1274: 1260:Κυρίου, Κύριον, Κύριος, Κυρίῳ, Κύριε, are not "variants for the same Hebrew word". They are indications of the 1255: 1224: 1188: 1141: 1127: 1105: 1083: 1052: 990: 960: 928: 898: 862: 850: 824: 797: 785: 766: 733: 718: 2819: 2787: 2660: 2619: 2590: 2559: 2525: 2444: 2405: 2364: 2332: 1745: 1619: 1515: 1485: 1437: 1400: 1351: 1300: 1270: 1220: 1123: 1079: 986: 924: 846: 820: 762: 1039:

Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God: From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century

1838:

New Testament as to think that the list of NT translations should not be included. On the other hand, maybe

1525: 2717: 2265:

author who has ever commented on the subject, especially (but not only) if they endorse a minority view.--

1794: 1562: 642: 50: 17: 1790: 1110:

Thank you for distinguishing "New Testament" from "autograph". I agree. The question of the earliest

547: 32: 2783: 2656: 2615: 2586: 2555: 2524:

out of the important pages that are his real target. But even here it needs to be kept in check as

2440: 2401: 2360: 2328: 2323:

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

1741: 1652: 1639: 1615: 1511: 1481: 1433: 1396: 1375: 1347: 1296: 1266: 1216: 1171: 1119: 1075: 982: 920: 881: 842: 816: 758: 690:

https://www.academia.edu/22707254/English_Review_of_F._Shaw_The_Earliest_Non-Mystical_Jewish_Use_of

678: 106: 1880:) in the main text rather than also including commentaries. That said, this article remains a POV 257:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

122:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2839: 2750: 2505: 2391: 2279: 2164: 2062: 1988: 1953: 1899: 1843: 1817: 1704: 1598:

It is enough to state that "the New Testament, in its echoes of the Old Testament, uses Κύριος (L

1235: 644: 2711:. For some reason this was not obvious to the participants in previous deletion discussions. — 2095:

It is not comfortable to differ from your opinions, respectable Jeffro. Let me express that in

603:(This talk page has been imported from "Jehovah in the New Testament" due to the controversy.) 2712: 2708: 2704: 2488: 1558: 934: 830: 367: 1037: 2699: 2533: 2418: 1839: 1760: 1663: 1382: 1261: 860: 795: 731: 716: 640: 611: 1344:

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content

1632: 1572:

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

459: 1089:

2nd-century. Howard does not treated the "pre-first edition texts". Only Gérard Gertoux

166: 1881: 1725: 1635: 1607: 1339: 2852: 2835: 2737: 2690: 2671: 2582: 2521: 2492: 2378: 2266: 2151: 2049: 1975: 1940: 1886: 1804: 1691: 1429: 2554:

Jairon's latest proposal must be rejected. It is unquestionably original research.

2694: 1656: 1239: 241: 119: 688:), and is reinforced by a simple review of the book by a certain Didier Fontaine ( 2530: 2415: 1757: 1660: 1379: 1167: 977:(not tetragrams), uniformity of the titles given to the included books ... (see 857: 792: 728: 713: 709: 2491:. However, I'm not aware that there is yet a consensus to delete the article.-- 2048:

Except it is not appropriate to give undue weight to the minority viewpoints.--

453: 1243: 449: 301: 231: 96: 90: 63: 2814:

but if the tetragrammaton is not in the new testament, why is it in the KJV?

1480:

I don't think it would be agreed that they should be added to this article.

919:

I thank you immediately for the response that I am confident you will give.

1721: 557:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: 443: 422: 354: 333: 100: 2675:

Since this talk has been unproductive, perhaps a third opinion could help.

2100:

aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained" (

1092:

The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which is Pronounced as it is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah

836:

For a number of reasons I can't state that "All mentions of Yahweh in the

479:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us 2804:

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

2210:

without delving in what way, giving option to possible interpretations.--

1477:

any point of view. Any reader could take his or her own point of view ...

475: 2414:

Yes, I agree with immediate removal of the list as undue and synthesis.

2014:

knowing that an original θεος or κυριος is widely accepted in the NT.

1011:

For these and other reasons outside the scope of this corrent volume,

806:

the end of the second century CE". From the end of the second century

2831: 1524:

Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Let me request a third opinion (

1090: 723:

P.S. - I guess I shall call the editor here henceforward simply as

1610:

uses יהוה". No need to expand that clear sourced statement into a

254: 1970:

sources (argument from verbosity) that basically repeat the idea

1690:

well demonstrates an intent of undue weight to a minority view.--

2453:

Don't twist my argument, I said it shows the editor's decision.

645: 605: 542: 225: 198: 26: 1132:

Thanks to you for your answers. May all be well with you. --

995:

Please, don't delete the text I've added in this discussion

936:

Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ

300: 165: 1966:

The article has been embellished over the years to provide

253:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2515: 2342: 1611: 1177: 1175: 1174:, please explain why the intention to delete the table 1069:

apply to Christ, but that he used Κύριος when applying

996: 887: 2670:

Bealtainemí, respectfully allow me to express that in

1378:

is correct, and the article does not need that table.

2811:

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

2102:

Knowledge:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

2097:

Knowledge:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view

1242:, but there is a background behind it, and also the 366:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 118:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 313:, a work group which is currently considered to be 1842:'s idea of moving that section of translations to 1495:opposed? Are there byte limits in the articles?-- 1803:), has been pushing this agenda for some time.-- 1390:Jairon, in the New Testament references to the 1009: 473:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on 2655:all to support you, I will undo the removal. 856:a lot for your time and expertise. Sincerely, 916:say "Trobisch agrees with Howard in that ..." 907:Second Epistle to the Corinthians#Composition 653:This page has archives. Sections older than 8: 2874:Low-importance Jehovah's Witnesses articles 2760:Thanks PaleoNeonate for the third opinion. 1428:support. You now say that your table, your 686:The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Ιαω 417: 328: 193: 58: 2904:Low-importance Ancient Near East articles 1939:excessive attention to a minority view.-- 2909:Ancient Near East articles by assessment 2698:possible to expand using them, though. 2529:alltogether blown out of here by now... 2261:However, it is not necessary to include 309:This article is within the scope of the 18:Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament 1775:. Refer to archives of this Talk page. 1179:? Thanks in advance for your reply. -- 419: 380:Knowledge:WikiProject Ancient Near East 330: 195: 60: 30: 663:when more than 5 sections are present. 383:Template:WikiProject Ancient Near East 7: 2869:C-Class Jehovah's Witnesses articles 2864:Low-importance Christianity articles 465:This article is within the scope of 360:This article is within the scope of 247:This article is within the scope of 112:This article is within the scope of 945:early writings of the New Testament 49:It is of interest to the following 2899:C-Class Ancient Near East articles 132:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity 25: 2879:WikiProject Christianity articles 943:I understood them to be synonyms 657:may be automatically archived by 135:Template:WikiProject Christianity 2919:Low-importance Religion articles 2762:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2677:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2631:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2601:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2570:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2475:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2455:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2427:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2346:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2291:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2212:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2106:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 2016:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1926:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1885:represented at other articles.-- 1848:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1777:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1582:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1530:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1497:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1464:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1449:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1412:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1326:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1312:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1282:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1248:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1181:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1134:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1098:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 1045:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 953:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 891:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 778:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco 610: 546: 452: 442: 421: 353: 332: 234: 224: 197: 99: 89: 62: 31: 553:This article was nominated for 521:This article has been rated as 400:This article has been rated as 287:This article has been rated as 177:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses 152:This article has been rated as 2808:biblegateway - john 20:20 KJV 1612:long obscure table of examples 501:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion 1: 2924:WikiProject Religion articles 2889:Low-importance Bible articles 2859:C-Class Christianity articles 504:Template:WikiProject Religion 374:and see a list of open tasks. 363:WikiProject Ancient Near East 311:biblical criticism work group 261:and see a list of open tasks. 174:This article is supported by 126:and see a list of open tasks. 2844:15:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 2824:04:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 2792:19:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 2770:15:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 2755:08:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 2724:05:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 2685:02:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 2665:19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2639:15:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2624:06:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2609:20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2595:07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2578:01:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2564:10:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC) 2536:17:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2510:07:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2483:21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2463:15:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2449:06:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC) 2435:21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2421:16:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2410:09:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2396:08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2369:07:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2354:01:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2337:10:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC) 2299:02:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 2284:07:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC) 2220:08:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC) 2169:08:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 2114:07:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 2067:08:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2024:17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1993:07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 1958:02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 1934:17:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1904:07:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 1856:04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 1822:22:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1763:18:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1750:15:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 1730:11:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC) 1709:09:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 863:20:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 851:19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 825:19:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 798:21:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 786:21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 767:20:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 734:16:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 719:16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 267:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible 2940: 2894:WikiProject Bible articles 1666:16:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1644:12:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1624:08:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1590:04:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC) 1567:12:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 914:Putting Jesus in His Place 527:project's importance scale 406:project's importance scale 386:Ancient Near East articles 293:project's importance scale 270:Template:WikiProject Bible 158:project's importance scale 2914:C-Class Religion articles 1789:), previously editing as 1577: 1538:21:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1520:14:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1505:10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1490:08:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1472:06:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 1457:21:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1442:20:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1420:19:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1405:15:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1385:14:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1356:11:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1334:10:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1320:10:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1305:06:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1290:03:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC) 1275:13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 1256:07:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC) 1225:06:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC) 1189:20:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC) 1142:14:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 1128:10:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 1106:01:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 1084:20:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC) 1053:17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC) 991:10:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC) 961:00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC) 929:09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC) 899:01:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC) 772:as ΙΑΩ. Let me recommend 520: 437: 399: 348: 308: 286: 219: 173: 151: 84: 57: 1118:in the New Testament". 1114:belongs in the section " 949:New Testament originally 491:standards, or visit the 115:WikiProject Christianity 1720:, as overly detailed.-- 1578:ויהוה ,יהוה ,יהוה אלהיך 1526:Knowledge:Third opinion 2884:C-Class Bible articles 1032: 660:Lowercase sigmabot III 577:, 20 August 2007, see 305: 170: 39:This article is rated 2514:Smells like fairness 1683:in the translation's 971:According to Trobisch 304: 169: 138:Christianity articles 875:View by one academic 587:, 10 June 2006, see 469:WikiProject Religion 567:, 16 May 2019, see 107:Christianity portal 1844:Sacred Name Bibles 704:in the Septuagint. 481:assess and improve 306: 171: 45:content assessment 2709:Sacred Name Bible 2489:Sacred Name Bible 2375:at the very least 1198:have been in the 886:in this revision 831:Papyrus Fouad 266 752:one has יהוה and 667: 666: 601: 600: 597: 596: 541: 540: 537: 536: 533: 532: 507:Religion articles 495:for more details. 416: 415: 412: 411: 377:Ancient Near East 368:Ancient Near East 340:Ancient Near East 327: 326: 323: 322: 250:WikiProject Bible 192: 191: 188: 187: 16:(Redirected from 2931: 2747: 2742: 2720: 2715: 2502: 2497: 2388: 2383: 2276: 2271: 2161: 2156: 2059: 2054: 1985: 1980: 1950: 1945: 1896: 1891: 1814: 1809: 1701: 1696: 1689: 1653:User:Bealtainemí 1605: 1601: 1579: 1376:User:Bealtainemí 1262:grammatical case 1172:User:Bealtainemí 885: 682: 662: 646: 614: 606: 559: 558: 550: 543: 509: 508: 505: 502: 499: 493:wikiproject page 462: 457: 456: 446: 439: 438: 433: 425: 418: 388: 387: 384: 381: 378: 357: 350: 349: 344: 336: 329: 275: 274: 271: 268: 265: 244: 239: 238: 237: 228: 221: 220: 215: 212: 201: 194: 140: 139: 136: 133: 130: 109: 104: 103: 93: 86: 85: 80: 77: 66: 59: 42: 36: 35: 27: 21: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2849: 2848: 2806: 2743: 2738: 2718: 2713: 2498: 2493: 2384: 2379: 2272: 2267: 2157: 2152: 2055: 2050: 1981: 1976: 1946: 1941: 1892: 1887: 1846:could works. -- 1810: 1805: 1771:I wouldn't say 1738: 1697: 1692: 1687: 1603: 1599: 1574: 1236:scientific text 1164: 879: 877: 676: 674: 658: 647: 641: 619: 506: 503: 500: 497: 496: 460:Religion portal 458: 451: 431: 385: 382: 379: 376: 375: 342: 272: 269: 266: 263: 262: 240: 235: 233: 213: 207: 137: 134: 131: 128: 127: 105: 98: 78: 72: 43:on Knowledge's 40: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2937: 2935: 2927: 2926: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2906: 2901: 2896: 2891: 2886: 2881: 2876: 2871: 2866: 2861: 2851: 2850: 2847: 2846: 2816:178.248.115.34 2805: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2778:decision when 2757: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2689:A reminder of 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2412: 2324: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1766: 1765: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1646: 1596: 1573: 1570: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1478: 1459: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1322: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1059: 1033: 1007: 967: 941: 917: 910: 876: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 834: 827: 812: 769: 741: 706: 705: 673: 670: 665: 664: 652: 649: 648: 643: 639: 637: 634: 633: 621: 620: 615: 609: 599: 598: 595: 594: 593: 592: 582: 572: 551: 539: 538: 535: 534: 531: 530: 523:Low-importance 519: 513: 512: 510: 464: 463: 447: 435: 434: 432:Low‑importance 426: 414: 413: 410: 409: 402:Low-importance 398: 392: 391: 389: 372:the discussion 358: 346: 345: 343:Low‑importance 337: 325: 324: 321: 320: 307: 297: 296: 289:Low-importance 285: 279: 278: 276: 273:Bible articles 259:the discussion 246: 245: 229: 217: 216: 214:Low‑importance 202: 190: 189: 186: 185: 182:Low-importance 172: 162: 161: 154:Low-importance 150: 144: 143: 141: 124:the discussion 111: 110: 94: 82: 81: 79:Low‑importance 67: 55: 54: 48: 37: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2936: 2925: 2922: 2920: 2917: 2915: 2912: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2902: 2900: 2897: 2895: 2892: 2890: 2887: 2885: 2882: 2880: 2877: 2875: 2872: 2870: 2867: 2865: 2862: 2860: 2857: 2856: 2854: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2812: 2809: 2803: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2746: 2741: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2725: 2721: 2716: 2710: 2706: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2673: 2672:Knowledge:NPA 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2537: 2534: 2532: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2501: 2496: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2417: 2413: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2387: 2382: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2322: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2275: 2270: 2264: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2160: 2155: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2058: 2053: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1984: 1979: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1949: 1944: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1895: 1890: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1813: 1808: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1700: 1695: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1597: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1571: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1377: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1162:NT quotations 1161: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1093: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1040: 1034: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1008: 1005: 1001: 997: 994: 993: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 963: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 939: 937: 932: 931: 930: 926: 922: 918: 915: 911: 908: 903: 902: 901: 900: 896: 892: 888: 883: 874: 864: 861: 859: 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 839: 835: 832: 828: 826: 822: 818: 813: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 796: 794: 789: 788: 787: 783: 779: 775: 770: 768: 764: 760: 755: 751: 747: 742: 738: 737: 736: 735: 732: 730: 726: 721: 720: 717: 715: 711: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 691: 687: 680: 671: 669: 661: 656: 651: 650: 636: 635: 632: 631: 627: 623: 622: 618: 613: 608: 607: 604: 590: 586: 583: 580: 576: 573: 570: 566: 563: 562: 561: 560: 556: 552: 549: 545: 544: 528: 524: 518: 515: 514: 511: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 477: 472: 471: 470: 461: 455: 450: 448: 445: 441: 440: 436: 430: 427: 424: 420: 407: 403: 397: 394: 393: 390: 373: 369: 365: 364: 359: 356: 352: 351: 347: 341: 338: 335: 331: 318: 317: 312: 303: 299: 298: 294: 290: 284: 281: 280: 277: 260: 256: 252: 251: 243: 232: 230: 227: 223: 222: 218: 211: 206: 203: 200: 196: 183: 180:(assessed as 179: 178: 168: 164: 163: 159: 155: 149: 146: 145: 142: 125: 121: 117: 116: 108: 102: 97: 95: 92: 88: 87: 83: 76: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 38: 34: 29: 28: 19: 2813: 2810: 2807: 2779: 2776:the editor's 2775: 2744: 2739: 2653: 2499: 2494: 2385: 2380: 2374: 2273: 2268: 2262: 2207: 2158: 2153: 2147: 2056: 2051: 1982: 1977: 1971: 1967: 1947: 1942: 1893: 1888: 1877: 1873: 1835: 1811: 1806: 1797: 1791:AbimaelLevid 1783: 1772: 1739: 1736:Undue weight 1717: 1698: 1693: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1648: 1628: 1606:) where the 1602:) or θεός (G 1575: 1559:EzinneAnwuri 1556: 1425: 1391: 1372: 1343: 1232:nomina sacra 1231: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1166:Respectable 1165: 1116:Nomina sacra 1115: 1112:nomen sacrum 1111: 1091: 1070: 1066: 1063:nomina sacra 1062: 1038: 1028: 1024: 1018: 1014: 1012: 1010: 1003: 999: 975:nomina sacra 974: 970: 948: 944: 935: 913: 878: 837: 807: 803: 774:this journal 753: 749: 745: 722: 707: 701: 697: 685: 675: 668: 654: 624: 616: 602: 584: 575:No consensus 574: 565:No consensus 564: 522: 483:articles to 474: 467: 466: 401: 361: 314: 288: 248: 242:Bible portal 175: 153: 129:Christianity 120:Christianity 113: 70:Christianity 51:WikiProjects 2784:Bealtainemí 2780:translating 2657:Bealtainemí 2616:Bealtainemí 2587:Bealtainemí 2556:Bealtainemí 2526:Bealtainemí 2441:Bealtainemí 2402:Bealtainemí 2361:Bealtainemí 2329:Bealtainemí 1840:Pete unseth 1742:Bealtainemí 1616:Bealtainemí 1608:Hebrew text 1512:Bealtainemí 1482:Bealtainemí 1434:Bealtainemí 1397:Bealtainemí 1348:Bealtainemí 1297:Bealtainemí 1267:Bealtainemí 1217:Bealtainemí 1168:User:Warshy 1120:Bealtainemí 1076:Bealtainemí 983:Bealtainemí 921:Bealtainemí 882:Bealtainemí 843:Bealtainemí 817:Bealtainemí 759:Bealtainemí 710:Koine Greek 679:Bealtainemí 2853:Categories 2705:WP:POVFORK 1972:ad nauseum 1685:commentary 1244:Septuagint 1200:autographs 589:discussion 579:discussion 569:discussion 2700:WP:WEIGHT 2208:prominent 2148:prominent 1636:Elizium23 1430:synthesis 1071:to Christ 938:. pp. 158 210:Criticism 75:Witnesses 2836:AnonMoos 1882:coatrack 1801:contribs 1787:contribs 1633:WP:STICK 1580:‎ etc.? 1058:mistake. 829:Warshy, 750:two have 672:Question 617:Archives 555:deletion 498:Religion 476:Religion 429:Religion 316:inactive 2719:Neonate 1874:Jehovah 1773:finally 1681:Jehovah 1340:WP:ONUS 1238:or the 1094:pp. 252 1025:Jehovah 808:onwards 655:90 days 525:on the 404:on the 291:on the 156:on the 41:C-class 2832:Kyrios 2740:Jeffro 2691:WP:SYN 2583:WP:SYN 2531:warshy 2495:Jeffro 2416:warshy 2381:Jeffro 2269:Jeffro 2154:Jeffro 2052:Jeffro 1978:Jeffro 1943:Jeffro 1889:Jeffro 1878:Yahweh 1807:Jeffro 1758:warshy 1718:Oppose 1694:Jeffro 1677:Oppose 1661:warshy 1649:Oppose 1629:Oppose 1380:warshy 1041:pp. 89 858:warshy 838:Hebrew 804:before 793:warshy 729:warshy 714:warshy 702:Κύριος 698:Κύριος 47:scale. 2714:Paleo 2695:WP:OR 2263:every 1876:over 1836:Greek 1657:WP:OR 1651:per 1462:view. 1338:Read 725:JLACO 264:Bible 255:Bible 205:Bible 2840:talk 2834:... 2820:talk 2788:talk 2766:talk 2751:talk 2693:and 2681:talk 2661:talk 2635:talk 2620:talk 2605:talk 2591:talk 2574:talk 2560:talk 2506:talk 2479:talk 2459:talk 2445:talk 2431:talk 2406:talk 2392:talk 2365:talk 2350:talk 2333:talk 2295:talk 2280:talk 2216:talk 2165:talk 2110:talk 2104:).-- 2063:talk 2020:talk 1989:talk 1968:many 1954:talk 1930:talk 1900:talk 1852:talk 1818:talk 1795:talk 1781:talk 1746:talk 1726:talk 1722:Mvqr 1705:talk 1640:talk 1631:per 1620:talk 1586:talk 1563:talk 1534:talk 1516:talk 1501:talk 1486:talk 1468:talk 1453:talk 1438:talk 1416:talk 1401:talk 1352:talk 1346:." 1330:talk 1316:talk 1301:talk 1286:talk 1271:talk 1252:talk 1221:talk 1185:talk 1170:and 1138:talk 1124:talk 1102:talk 1080:talk 1049:talk 1015:Lord 1000:Lord 987:talk 979:this 957:talk 947:for 925:talk 895:talk 847:talk 821:talk 782:talk 763:talk 585:Keep 487:and 485:good 2707:of 2585:. 2522:SPA 1614:. 1600:ORD 1426:not 1392:LXX 1212:not 1208:not 1196:may 1067:not 1019:God 1017:or 1004:God 1002:or 951:.-- 754:two 746:one 517:Low 489:1.0 396:Low 283:Low 148:Low 2855:: 2842:) 2822:) 2790:) 2768:) 2753:) 2745:77 2722:– 2683:) 2663:) 2637:) 2622:) 2607:) 2593:) 2576:) 2562:) 2517:. 2508:) 2500:77 2481:) 2461:) 2447:) 2433:) 2408:) 2394:) 2386:77 2367:) 2352:) 2335:) 2297:) 2282:) 2274:77 2218:) 2167:) 2159:77 2112:) 2065:) 2057:77 2022:) 1991:) 1983:77 1956:) 1948:77 1932:) 1902:) 1894:77 1854:) 1820:) 1812:77 1748:) 1728:) 1707:) 1699:77 1642:) 1622:) 1604:OD 1588:) 1565:) 1536:) 1528:). 1518:) 1503:) 1488:) 1470:) 1455:) 1440:) 1418:) 1403:) 1354:) 1332:) 1318:) 1303:) 1288:) 1273:) 1254:) 1240:NA 1223:) 1204:is 1187:) 1140:) 1126:) 1104:) 1082:) 1051:) 989:) 959:) 927:) 897:) 849:) 823:) 784:) 776:. 765:) 727:? 628:, 208:: 184:). 73:: 2838:( 2818:( 2786:( 2764:( 2749:( 2679:( 2659:( 2633:( 2618:( 2603:( 2589:( 2572:( 2558:( 2504:( 2477:( 2457:( 2443:( 2429:( 2404:( 2390:( 2363:( 2348:( 2331:( 2293:( 2278:( 2214:( 2163:( 2108:( 2061:( 2018:( 1987:( 1952:( 1928:( 1898:( 1850:( 1816:( 1798:· 1793:( 1784:· 1779:( 1744:( 1724:( 1703:( 1688:' 1638:( 1618:( 1584:( 1561:( 1532:( 1514:( 1499:( 1484:( 1466:( 1451:( 1436:( 1414:( 1399:( 1350:( 1328:( 1314:( 1299:( 1284:( 1269:( 1250:( 1219:( 1183:( 1136:( 1122:( 1100:( 1078:( 1047:( 1021:. 1006:. 985:( 955:( 923:( 893:( 884:: 880:@ 845:( 819:( 780:( 761:( 681:: 677:@ 630:2 626:1 591:. 581:. 571:. 529:. 408:. 319:. 295:. 160:. 53:: 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index