Talk:Names and titles of God in the New Testament/Archive 1

Introduction does not follow

Quote:

In the Chester Beatty papyri, we find ΚΣ and sometimes ΘΣ with a horizontal bar above them where the [T]etragrammaton occurs in the Hebrew text.

It should be clarified that there is no "Hebrew text" of the NT except as a translation. I assume that this refers to the underlying Hebrew text of quotations used in the New Testament. How can it follow that [s]cholars have concluded that these abbreviations were not part of the autographs and thus were added some time later brings us to the conclusion that some scholars have concluded that YHWH did indeed occur in the NT? These two thoughts should not be connected with "thus," but perhaps with "furthermore." There are parts of the introduction that do not seem to follow logically, so it needs to be clarified or reworked. Yonah mishael 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Translations in the NT

Quote: "... since it is well established that the New Testament quotes the Septuagint extensively (and apparently exclusively), the other texts may not be relevant to the text of the New Testament..."

The text above is found in the conclusion of the article as it currently stands. This is simply a fabrication. Paul is (supposed to be) the author of some 13 of the 27 books in the New Testament (NT), yet he almost never quotes from any extant copy of the Septuagint. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes extensive use of the Septuagint, as do some of the Gospel writers. It is demonstrated in the Greek-English New Testament which verses are drawn from the Septuagint. This is done by the use of a symbol like this in the margin alongside the verse reference.

In Paul's letters, one never find this symbol in the margins, because his quotations are generally from his own translation of the Hebrew text, or at least this is the supposition. This quote should definitely be changed in the text of the article. It is unsupported.

- Yonah mishael 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Κύριος for יהוה in the LXX and the NT: Questions

Is there any evidence for יהוה in NT mss.?

I realize and have seen the evidence for the Tetragrammaton appearing in older copies of a Greek recension of the Jewish Bible (many say it was absolutely the Septuagint, but I have not looked at it closely enough to verify this). My question is simple: There are thousands and thousands of copies and fragments of the New Testament text, dating back to the middle of the Second Century. Among any of these fragments, is there even ONE instance of יהוה appearing in the Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew or Aramaic square script? I have not seen any evidence that the Name was removed from the text so much as that it is simply being eisegeted back into it by those who want to BELIEVE that it was written thus. Is there any evidence or solely speculation? Yonah mishael 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How could Greek express oblique cases with יהוה?

We know that Koine Greek is a very case-sensitive language. Many things that we express in English (possession, instrumentality, direct address, and many other oblique functions) are expressed in Greek by various case endings. For example:

Case	Form	Pronunciation	Meaning	Function
Nominative	θεός	thĕ-ŎS	god	subject, predicate nominative
Genitive	θεοῦ	thĕ-OO	of god, with god	possession, partivitity, substance
Dative	θεῷ	thĕ-Ō	to god, by god	indirect object, instrumentality, duration (time)
Accusative	θεόν	thĕ-ŎN	god	direct object

It does get a bit more complicated than this, but here are the basics of a noun case paradigm. So, my question is: How would it be even possible to express this quality in a word written in foreign characters? In other words, while ὁ νόμος τοῦ κυρίου means "the law of the Lord," how do we express "the Law of יהוה" (i.e., תורת יהוה) without these case endings? Do we simply write ὁ νόμος τοῦ יהוה with the article? What do we find in the fragmentary portions with regard to this? This is important as regards the functionality of יהוה in Greek texts, and the complexity of dealing with the Greek case system may have contributed to the removal of the foreign characters from the text of the LXX -- especially as the Hellenized Jews and the early Christians grew further and further withdrawn from the language of the Jewish Bible. This is highly explicable in light of the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. - Yonah mishael 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion and Wikipedia

To be clear

Currently, a religious sect called The Jehovah's Witnesses is attempting to hijack parts of Wikipedia by using certain articles as free bandwidth. Any consensus from the Wikipedian community is ignored and eliminated to express its and only its views.

To use JW dogma to add, change, alter, delete, censor, obfuscate, or reinterpret scholarly consensus each violates Wikipedia's express policy: WP:WORLD, WP:OWN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, et al...

Materials published by the JW Vatican (the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society), and JW websites, forums, tracts, etc may be used to describe JW dogma where relevant only.

For example, If JWs wish to express their own beliefs, they are welcome to start a new article, such as "Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrines in regard to Jehovah and the New Testament." That would be fair use of free bandwidth.  - Cestus ^Cd 01:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not offered ANY attempt to address my sourced edits despite being invited to do so multiple times over the past five days. Contrary to your lie, you are the one who has totally ignored proper wiki editing guidelines by ignoring me and my sourced information. You havn't even directly addressed me at all, instead opting to instigate and continue an edit war. I even left the article totally alone for two days so you could address my concerns without feeling antagonised. All efforts to gain your input have completely failed. To be clear, and again contrary to your nonsense above, it is you who has "hijacked" this article.

Here is a comprehensive look at the problems and factual errors with this article. I have already provided ALL of this information via the edits (themselves), and the talk section Castanea and Totally Disputed tag.

• This article is based on, and revolves around the unsourced and unequivocally wrong claim (a claim made SEVEN TIMES in the article): "The Septuagint does not contain forms of the word YHWH". The source given for that claim is an online order form for Septuagint computer software, however, the source does not verify the above claim, nor does it address our subject historically, on top of the fact that this particular Septuagint is circa 1851. Well guess what:

• - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Volume 2, page 512): "Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX [Septuagint] translated the tetragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb[rew] characters in the G[ree]k text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the O[ld] T[estament] in the first centuries A.D."

• - Professor George Howard, Biblical Archaeology Review (March '78 pg. 14): "When the Hebrew form for the divine name was eliminated in favor of Greek substitutes in the Septuagint, it was eliminated also from the New Testament quotations of the Septuagint. . . . Before long the divine name was lost to the Gentile church except insofar as it was reflected in the contracted surrogates or remembered by scholars."

• - LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266 ("contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us" Kurt Aland and others 'Studia Evangelica', 1959 pg.614), dated to the first century B.C., contains 49 easily identifiable instances of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton (provided in this edit). All fragments of LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266 were published by Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen in "Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy - Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen" vol. 27.

None of the above listed resources are Watchtower publications.

• - Taken from the current version of the Jehovah in the New Testament article: "Moreover in the Lord's Prayer, Christ says: "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name" (Matthew 6.9). If Christ meant that this name was Jehovah and that his Disciples should use "Jehovah" in prayer, it is a significant omission that he failed to tell them that." This is speculation on unsourced information. Please see WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY.

• - "Furthermore, to reconcile these facts with the belief that YHWH is the one and only name of God, Jehovah's Witnesses make various assumptions. Among these is the belief that YHWH was replaced in the Old Testament with Κύριος sometime after the New Testament was written! For example, it is stated that Origen included the Tetragrammaton in his Hexapla in the 3rd century AD. But this statement is deceptive; it does not mean that YHWH was used in the Septuagint. Origen's Hexapla was a comparison in side-by-side columns of separate versions of the Old Testament in Greek. Thus to say that YHWH appeared in the Hexapla, does not mean that it appeared in the Septuagint quoted in the New Testament at all." This paragraph from the section Jehovah in the New Testament#Jehovah and the Septuagint makes a gross number of mistakes.

• "Furthermore, to reconcile these facts with the belief that YHWH is the one and only name of God, Jehovah's Witnesses make various assumptions." - This sentence makes no sense, even in the context of the article it's still nonsensical. The focus of the article is not about "the belief that YHWH is the one and only name of God" it is about the inclusion of an English rendering of the name 237 times in the New Testament of the Jehovah's Witness bible The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures despite zero extant NT manuscript support. Witnesses cite several reasons for their inclusion of the Divine Name into the NT, some are valid, some are assumptive. The article does not provide a source for the asserted conclusion: "assumptions".

• "Among these is the belief that YHWH was replaced in the Old Testament with Κύριος sometime after the New Testament was written!" - This accusation (on top of being the unsourced product of a wiki editor who doesn't know what they're talking about) mixes it's apples with it's oranges. The Apples: - Witnesses believe and assert that ALL modern English translations of the OLD Testament replaces the divine name "YHWH" (rendered however you want) with the ambiguous title "Lord". This is an easily verifiable fact that on the whole, every modern translation of the bible fails to render "YHWH" as a name, opting instead to render it as "Lord" or "God" in the Old Testament in nearly 7,000 (SEVEN THOUSAND!) instances. The Oranges: - It is the belief of Witnesses that YHWH was replaced in the NEW Testament by the title: "Kurios" by superstitious scribes. It is verifiable fact that this accured with Septuagints, Witnesses theorise that it was likewise the case with the New Testament manuscripts.

• "For example, it is stated that Origen included the Tetragrammaton in his Hexapla in the 3rd century AD. But this statement is deceptive; it does not mean that YHWH was used in the Septuagint." Again, please thoroughly read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Provide a legitimate source that says "deceptive".

• The article heading: Many Greek Old Testaments - This section has not ONE reference among it's myriad of assertions and conclusions. I don't even see how this section is relevant to the article.

• The catagory "Forgery" at the bottom of the page is bad-faith and irrelevant to the article.

There will likely be more criticism to come. If you vandalise the disputed tag one more time I will seek Admin intervention against you. Duffer 08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Old

Simply put: YHWH/Jehovah does not occur in the original New Testament. Its insertion into versions in modern languages is a novelty. Asserting that this novelty is representative of the original is a deception.

Wikipedia policy is explicit that articles must follow scholarly convention and scholarly consensus. One cannot make an article on Wikipedia conform to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, nor may one compel editors to conform their edits to any religion whatsoever.

Convention and the scholarly consensus are quite clear in regard to the use of the word "Jehovah" and official statements from official sites of the Jehovah's Witnesses differ markedly. This version of this article here is sourced and cited. It also incorporates the contributions of numerous editors, including that of Jehovah's Witnesses where they may be truthful.

Each Jehovah's Witness is certainly welcome to his own point of view. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own websites and there is even a section in this article allowing for discussion of these views. The overwhelming majority of editors do not follow that religion, but the community has been generous and even indulgent in incorporating these sectarian views in the article.

Thus, in the interests of Policies and Guidelines particularly Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly urged to cease conforming articles against scholarly convention and consensus. More importantly, kindly cease from demanding that editors follow sectarian religious doctrine. Editors take offense at such tactics and are unlikely to comply.

We consider it rude and it reflects badly on Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are ample websites already owned by Jehovah's Witnesses for followers to contribute to. All are welcome to contribute here inasmuch as each follows the rules.  - C. dentata 06:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're just going to ignore me? Admin Stifle's block was unwarranted, the Admin's words on my talk page: "To be clear, I am having no part in this dispute as I am too prejudiced in the issue to be impartial. Stifle 14:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)". The vandal of the Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial issues reported me for 3RR and got lucky, meanwhile a more astute Admin was busy protecting the page from that users vandalism. Anyways, this is irrelevant, you gave me the exact same nonsense (word-for-word) when you objected to my edits of the Jehovah article. In that instance, like this one, you have completely failed to address ANY criticism I have brought forth, yet you continue to RV. How can you gain consensus when you ignore criticism, ignore sourced facts, ignore several invitations to address those facts, then have the nerve to say: "We consider it rude." Bring your facts to the table, we'll sort them out with the facts I've brought; If you can't or won't, then please stop RVing, and let people who are actually willing to take part in a communal article building project build this article. Duffer 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That which is asserted by some to be "Fraudulent"

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

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

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

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

Even the fragmentary reference to the LXX says that it read Kyrios not "YHWH." This contradicts your point.

Worse, you are assuming "what would have been!!" That is a belief and not substantiated. We have the Greek text of both the NT and LXX, so it is irrelevant what one thinks "what would have been" which is moreover wholly contradicted by what is. The article as written by the consensus is quite explicit and accurate on this point (no I did not write that part.)

To change the Greek text to what one imagines "would have been" is fraud!  - C. dentata 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Long list of Bible versions in article

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

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

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

The list is irrelevant.

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

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

The list does not belong here.  - C. dentata 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Amanuensis03 deleted my above reply (which I have restored).[1] This shows bad faith and is dishonest.  - C. dentata 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The actual long list of versions that differ from the original Bible

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

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

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

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

2. The Scriptures [3];

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

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

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

6. The Chinese Union Version, GB;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a list of versions of the Bible. None of these versions show that YHWH/Jehovah was written in the original New Testament, which is what the article has been all about since before you set up your new account.

Further, lists are unencyclopedic.

Since they neither prove nor disprove the existence of YHWH/Jehovah in the original New Testament, they are irrelevant. Besides which, if they were, there would have to be an extremely voluminous list of the far greater number of translations and versions in which the original language was not altered to read "YHWH" of "Jejovah."

Stating that Jehovah is not in the original New Testament is no "Personal Attack." That you do not want to read that is no reason to say it an "attack" or to revert articles without comment.

The article has been around a while, and your reversions are not part of any consensus. Worse, they are riddled with major factual errors and obfuscation.

This is why an administrator asked you to cease and desist, and characterized your reverts as Wikipedia:Vandalism.[7]

That the facts contradict a principle dogma of your religion is regrettable. However, Wikipedia is not the place to preach such religious dogmas and I dare say that this manner of proselytizing reflect poorly on your religion.  - C. dentata 01:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls information

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

Images of non-Septuagint fragments from unidentified Greek documents

The following fragments are sometimes mistaken for fragments from the Septuagint. However, in ancient times, there were at least seven versions of the OT in Greek, none of which was the Septuagint (and especially not the New Testament) and none of which was officially used in the Church:

Tetragrammaton in reference to Jesus

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

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

I have comments to this statement: "Jesus quoted numerous times from the Old Testament, including his replies to the tempter where he indicates that he is God: "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4.7). Here as elsewhere, he quotes from the Greek Septuagint." 1: To say that Jesus by this statement indicated that he himself was God/YHWH, is an interpretation. I believe one must see this in context, and take into account verse 6, where the Devil says, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." Who is being tempted here? Surely, Jesus would actually be the one putting his Father to the test by casting himself off the mount. My conclusion on this is: Mt 4:7 is here being interpreted; and interpretations should be left to the reader! 2: It is not obvious that Jesus himself quoted the Greek Septuagint; but the writer of Matthew's Gospel quoted it, later writing what had happened! Jesus spoke and read Hebrew/Aramaic, and had access to the Hebrew Scriptures in its original letter. -Sommer.

The box

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

Castanea and Totally Disputed tag

What is your deal with Jehovah's Witnesses? You gave me the same nonsense on the Jehovah article with no legitimate basis for your reverts/edits. I'm trying to make this article better. I've sourced my facts, removed unsourced information that contradicts those facts, I've removed POV and redundancy and changed the reference system. My focus is accuracy first, we can work on the rather convoluted prose next. If there is conflicting sourced information then by all means present it, but the fact stands the previous version of the article was built around the incorrect (and unsourced) assertion that Septuagints didn't contain the divine name. I have provided indesputable evidence to the contrary. The most well preserved, oldest (100 B.C!) GREEK Septuagint of the book of Deuteronomy contains 49 identifiable instances of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. After we get the facts straight we can hammer out the prose, either way: 1 - Please do not revert sourced information per WP:VERIFY without VERY good reason, 2 - A revert war would just move this article backwards, bring your information to the table, we'll sort it out and make a good, well referenced article. Duffer 07:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is convoluted, inaccurate, and very redundant. How many times does the article need to say: "The Septuagint does not contain forms of the word YHWH.." regardless of the fact that this assertion is wrong, and I have proven that, the article makes this particular assertion (or variations of) SEVEN times! At least one of the sentences I changed contains completely unsalvagable grammar, there's a myriad of asserted (unsourced) conclusions ("diseptive" "various assumptions" (which coincidentally are provable facts) "Indeed", bad faith "See Also" summaries and an irrelavant catagory "Forgery"; the "Main Article" isn't even right. I'm damned tired of being right yet get constantly battled over my edits simply because I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Duffer 08:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Castanea, please, PLEASE stop removing the dispute tag. We MUST try to reach consensus but you have said nothing on the matter. I've cited my sources, I've invited you to discuss your objections several times, you've given me nothing. Don't just ignore me and continue your bad-faith editing style, that is not how to resolve this. Duffer 07:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

The title "Jehovah in the New Testament" implies that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, which is by no means the case. I have therefore redirected the article to the more neutral title Tetragrammaton in the New Testament. Yahnatan 00:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jehovah" is an ENGLISH pronunciation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, nobody is claiming it is the correct Hebrew pronunciation. This article is about the use of this English rendering of the Tetragrammaton ("Jehovah") in 237 instances of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures despite no extant manuscript support for the inclusion. Technically this article is a content fork (really an attack page in it's current form) from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures article. Duffer 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alleluia and Jesus

The following statement is misleading POV:

"In addition, an abbreviation of the Divine Name appears as “Yah” 4 times in the 19th Chapter of the Bible book of Revelation, thus showing that some form of the Divine Name did appear in the original text. In addition names such as, [Jesus] which means "Jehovah is Salvation" John, "Jehovah has been gracious"; etc.,appear frequently in the New Testament, thus preserving the shorter form of YHWh."

"Yah" is not YHWH, and "Alleluia" as it is spelled in Greek does not contain "Yah." (It is pronounced "A-leh-lu-ee-a.")

"Jesus" is not YHWH and is not spelled "Yahsus" or "YHWHsus".

It is important we follow Wikipedia's rules to follow scholarly consensus.

The addition is not misleading. It is a fact that Yah is an abbrevation for the divine name (spell it how you wish). It is also true that Jesus' name means "Jehovah helps" (saves). You can check a dictionary for that information.

---

Who has written these comments? PUT SIGNATURES ON YOUR COMMENTS, for crying out loud!

ἁλληλυϊά (hallelujah, Heb. הַלְּלוּ־יָהּ) is one of a handful of words in the NT transliterated from Hebrew. Other examples are ἀμήν (amen, Heb. אָמֵן) and ὡσαννά (hosannah, Heb. הוֹשִׁיעַ נָא). The fact that this form (ἁλληλυϊά), a frozen form, contains the Greek transliteration of יה (Yah) indicates nothing about the intent of the author to include any form of God's name in his text. This was simply another frozen form like those above. Jewish audiences would understand them because they were pulled into the Hellenized Jewish Koine from their experience in dealing with the Hebrew language. This is very similar to the now common English expression "mazel tov" which has been pulled from the Hebrew and Yiddish מזל טוב to mean "congratulations." It is simply a frozen expression, and the speaker who uses it does not think about the roots of the words any more than the Jewish speaker of Koine in the first century would have thought about the roots of words like amen and hosanna. The discussion about Jesus' name meaning "YHWH saves" or at all containing portions of the Tetragrammaton is best saved for another time and place. (However, in passing, let me challenge you to find any form of the Tetragrammaton in letters of Ἰησοῦς. Is ΙΗ [iota eta] a form of God's name? I don't think so.) -- Yonah mishael 19:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref material

I am adding some info to a subpage for use in writing the article. Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament/source

As per these "sources," can you not distinguish between propaganda (essentially the "spin" version on the backside [pun intended] of scholarship) and actual evidence? Evidence of the existence of some Greek fragments containing יהוה in a Paleo-Hebrew handwriting within the text of a Greek document (apparently, an unconfirmed citation) does not indicate that the original New Testament contained such renderings, which would surely have been unnatural to a speaker of Koine Greek. There seems to be no evidence that the NT ever contained the Tetragrammaton other than wishful thinking. And what difference does it really make? I would say NONE. There is no magic associated with including this written form in a manuscript that flies in the face of monotheism. Or do you reject the verses that refer to Jesus as being God as "tampered" also? -- Yonah mishael 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please join discussion

Hi, I am trying to get an article started about Jehovah God and not have searches of the name Jehovah directed to a mere mention of the name within the Tetragrammaton article. Please join this discussion Ice9Tea 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

The following text has been removed - "Jesus quoted numerous times from the Old Testament, including his replies to the Tempter where he indicates that he is God: "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matthew 4.7)."

I find it extremely hard to accept that Jesus was referring to himself in Matthew 4:7, a quick reference to any translation of Matthew 4:4-7 shows that you can only conclude that Jesus is refering to himself if you are a trinitarian.

(KJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Trinitarians may well happily argue that Jesus is god but for non-trinitarians the passage explicitly refers to two people - the Son of God and God, therefore to avoid theological debate within this article I have removed the passage.

As a reasonably well-educated Trinitarian, I can say that the passage in question is not commonly used as the editor who inserted that paragraph says. However, it's beside the point, which is that Jesus was quoting the LXX. You are right to remove the commentary, but it is improper to cut a cited fact. So I'm restoring it, minus the eisegesis. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about

This article is not about the Trinity. This article is not about the divinity of Christ. There are other places to deal with those subjects...SV (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pipi

The article should mention that when the Tetragrammaton was written in Hebrew-Aramaic letters in Greek mansucripts (much more often occult/magical scrolls, and not Biblical texts, by the way), then the letters Yod-He-Waw-He written right to left were sometimes interpreted as Greek Pi-Iota-Pi-Iota ΠΙΠΙ written left-to-right. AnonMoos (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

It is known that versions of the Greek Septuagint Old Testament available in the first century did contain the Hebrew Tetragrammaton within the Greek text. It is therefore plausible that early versions of the New Testament (or rather, the separate writings, at least some of which were likely first written in Hebrew or Aramaic, that were eventually compiled into what became known as the NT) may also have contained it, particularly where the NT quotes the OT. The concern here is not whether the extant versions of the NT contain the Tetragrammaton, but whether the issue is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. If the issue is notable enough, the article should simply present the views of the notable proponents, rather than asserting that the original NT manuscripts (which are not available for any absolute determination) did or did not ever contain the Tetragrammaton; the article could probably also do with a name change. If the issue constitutes undue weight, then the most important points should be merged to Tetragrammaton, and this article should be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77. Well the trouble is that those who believe, for whatever reason, that Kyrios which is in the New Testament should be replaced with Yahweh/Jehovah/Tetragrammaton will certainly want to replicate all of this page on Tetragrammaton, which is already an overlong article (e.g. the pronunciation section badly needs spinning out), so no, merging with Tetragrammaton is not really an option. What is an issue is why this article isn't called Kyrios in the New Testament or LORD in the New Testament? Can you explain why the article should be titled as it is? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you imagine that I would suggest that the article should probably be renamed if I believed that the article should be titled as it is??--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

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

Archives

2006 - 2008

At some point it'll be worth looking at these.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for 3O

I was asked to give a 3rd opinion. First point: I do not know this topic. Second point: This is a fundamental problem in Wikipedia, namely that when a topic is less than obvious, it is hard to get further opinions. But, banking on my lack of familiarity with the topic, I may actually learn something, and also I do not have an opinion on it yet. But I do know a few things about the NT - although not this specific topic.

So can you guys help me on this please: Is this a representative search? What I would do is not rely on books/authors I do not know, but see what the "best known" NT texts say about this. And I have come to know most of the major NT texts by now. History2007 (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi History, would seem to be, other than that the 1st and 8th searches have sucked up two of those Wikipedia made books. xxxxxxxxxxxx seem to be the most detailed scholarly treatment of the problems with xxxxxxxxx.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know those Wiki-copied books. I was once amazed to see one of my own articles as a chapter in a book - verbatim. But as I said, I will look at the references I know well carefully over the next day or two. In order not to tilt towards anywhere, could you please delete the two books you suggested, so I can start on my own, sans guidance? I have not looked at those two for that reason. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted in text above. But won't you remember the names? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I can arrange selective amnesia - but I deliberately tried not to even look at them. In any case, there are plenty of other refs. All I wanted was to know if the "search terms" were appropriate. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Page with inbuilt POV

And hence this page is full of POV. Shouldn't really exist, seeing as there is no Tetragrammaton in the NT. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no benefit in simply contradicting the article premise in the opening sentence without clarification. The article should clearly present notable proponents of the proposition that the Tetragrammaton ever appeared in any versions of the NT, and what they cite as evidence for that belief. The reverted lead already states that no extant manuscripts of the NT contain the Tetragrammaton.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The notability of George Howard should also be ascertained. If his view constitutes undue weight, it may be appropriate to delete or merge the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro, I think the point can be illustrated by imagining the title of the article was "Women presidents of the USA", the first thing you would expect to see in line 1 would be "There has never been a Woman president of the USA", correct?

Howard is one writer who has other "controversial" (per his own faculty's website) views which put him in WP:Fringe, which is fine, but WP:Fringe means relegation to the end of the article. It's okay to have other views - evidently the JW and SNM have strong views on this. But those should be sourced the same as other WP sources. As it stands the article is still in "Women presidents of the USA" territory. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro, sorry but I have to restore the comment about Greek NT under the 1st line (which was there anyway as 5th line), adding that some English and many Hebrew NT do have this. We cannot have a Wikipedia article with a non-factual title and that not be addressed in the 1st line. George Howard + George Howard/Anchor are the same source, not 2 sources. He already has a very overweight paragraph under "other views" for one man. Article probably needs a move to LORD in the New Testament or Kyrios in the New Testament, to reflect factual reality. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro. Looking at history, I note that you reverted this. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Though the extant manuscripts do not contain the Tetragrammaton, which is already in the lead, it is possible that some at some point might have. It is not appropriate to dogmatically push your own POV in the lead in a manner that confrontationally contradicts the article title.

If an article is badly named, the proper course of action is to discuss an appropriate name for the article, not retributively contradict the title in the first sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're insinuating about my May reverts, but the two edits in question[8][9] were done for the reasons stated in the respective edit summaries; the reversions were to address issues relating to Manual of Style, Lead, POV and Tone. For example, The Tetragrammaton in the New Testament is the minority hypothesis... is poorly formatted and does not conform to the guidelines for an article lead - the bolded part (which shouldn't be bold per the Manual of Style for descriptive article titles) doesn't actually refer to any specific formally-named 'hypothesis', and is unsourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's possible to edit for MOS etc without placing WP:Fringe views prominently. As to "First paragraph *already* states that no extant manuscripts use the Tetragrammaton. You *DON'T KNOW* whether *ANY EVER DID*." ...... We don't know that NT MS didn't once contain Snoopy, Wikipedia can only comment on what is - i.e. no extant manuscripts use the Tetragrammaton. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming your query about snoopy is rhetorical hyperbole, and that you really don't require the obvious distinction explained to you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an example of a word that we "*DON'T KNOW* whether *ANY EVER DID*", so I'm wondering what the point of We *DON'T KNOW* whether *ANY EVER DID*." as a rationale for the edit you made was? Most scholars conclude that is extremely unlikely that any NT mss ever included either Greek IAO or a Hebrew script YHWH. As far as I can see this is a fringe doctrinal view of post-1914 Watchtower and the Assemblies of Yahweh with no academic support. So the we "*DON'T KNOW* whether *ANY EVER DID*", could equally apply to any name - of God or man - in the New Testament. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jeffro77 I have reverted your edits as they are again (a) placing a WP:fringe view, some other issues, like (b) again making it appear as if Howard and Howard/Anchor are 2 sources. I don't think you are suggesting the article should be renamed. I am suggesting it be renamed as the title is unfactual, per Women presidents of America, Glaciers in Egypt, Mentions of helicopters in the Egyptian Book of the Dead and so on. I've moved the Septuagint material to Septuagint manuscripts per title of both articles.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the previous version. Please get a neutral third opinion before changing back to your preferred version.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have lodged a third opinion request.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro77 I already did, before I saw this. But I'd hope that any Third Opinion who comes along will adjudge that having an article about something which does not exist is more than a little problematic. You wrote above: >It is therefore plausible that early versions of the New Testament (or rather, the separate writings, at least some of which were likely first written in Hebrew or Aramaic, that were eventually compiled into what became known as the NT) may also have contained it< ....to say something is "plausible" on the basis of that sort of argument on a Talk page is easy enough, but for a Wikipedia article the copy requires sources. It would seem that scholarship does not consider either of those two theories plausible, otherwise there would be scholarly sources at least saying that either of the two theories was plausible.

As regards the other edit I keep on reversing - you cannot have in the lede the same WP:Fringe source represented twice under the misleading impression that his book and his dictionary article are two separate things. Howard and Howard are not two separate sources.

As regards moving the material on the Tetragrammaton in Septuagint manuscripts to the section on Tetragrammaton in the article on Septuagint manuscripts, that's completely reasonable, unless you want to change the title of this article to Tetragrammaton in Greek Bible manuscripts, which will then create the problem of why these sections of the English Jehovah's Witness New World Translation and Assemblies of Yahweh Sacred Name Bibles are here? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already commented previously regarding the possible undue weight of Howard. That is completely separate to your insistence on a badly ordered lead with your POV coming before a description of the Tetragrammaton. I will simply await respondents of the 3O request.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes we discussed the weight of Howard, which is why I don't really understand you restoring an edit that made it look as though he was two people? Anyway, while we're here perhaps I should suggest something about the term WP:POV. We don't normally call POV something that is simply a statement of a fact which is sourced in the article:

_______ Tetragrammaton in the New Testament The Tetragrammaton does not occur in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but is found in some English and many Hebrew translations. _______ i.e. that isn't POV, that's simply undoing the impression given by a potentially misleading article title. Wheras if we present the view that there might have been/plausible/possible lost NT mss, that isn't a sourceable fact, can only possibly be an opinion. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the presentation of that information, with a statement that appears to contradict the article title before even explaining what the Tetragrammaton is. The other version states perfectly clearly that no extant manuscripts contain the Tetragrammaton without, so your assertion of an some alleged otherwise unsourced position is irrelevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion

I am not even sure why there is a big deal here. I think it is obvious that not all NT texts include the Tetragrammaton - that needs no debate. So it appears in a small percentage of NT texts - why is that notable enough to have an article? Unless there is a specific JW angle involved (and I do not think a JW angle should drive NT topics) this is not a notable issue. The Women Presidents of the US analogy is only about 80% applicable I guess, given that it does appear in a very small percentage of NT texts. The title is, of course, a total misnomer.

Two other issues I think are important:

• The solid book Theological dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey William Bromiley, Gerhard Friedrich does not even bother to discuss this topic. That tells me it is not a big deal as a topic.

• Like several other scholars Larry Hurtado discounts Howard's viewpoint, almost with disdain. And Howard himself is not hot on his own idea.

I am not even sure why this needs an article at all. It seems like a short paragraph or two on it in the Tetragrammaton article should be enough. I am not sure why there is a debate and why there needs to be an article on this minor topic. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with In ictu oculi's presentation in the article is that it goes straight into saying the Tetragrammaton (which should not be bold) isn't in the New Testament, before even explaining what the Tetragrammaton is. The alternative text clearly, and in appropriate order, states that the Tetragrammton isn't in the extant manuscripts without getting on a soapbox about it. I had not realised that the chapter in teh dictionary source was written by Howard, and I don't object to its removal. As previously and repeatedly stated, I don't object to removing reference to Howard in the lead if his view is being given undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but for the life of me, I do not even know why you guys are spending effort debating it. Or why I am being so foolish as to spend time on it.... History2007 (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've also previously suggested, I'm not entirely convinced this page should exist at all. All its notable content is or can be covered at Tetragrammaton and Sacred Name Bibles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

History 2007, Jeffro77. Okay, I'm convinced then. It seems nonsense to have an article about something that doesn't exist. The most obvious place for most of the content is Sacred Name Bibles. It's covered in Tetragrammaton already.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

May I gently raise a caution. It is not so clear to me that "most of the content" belongs in the Sacred Name Bibles article. That article has had arguments about POV on this very topic. That article should be about the English Sacred Name Bible translations that have been produced, not long detailed textual arguments in favor of SNB's. Pete unseth (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but the situation seems to be one that the material here is to move "somewhere" and it is like trying to find a country for exile. I am not familiar with the Sacred Name Bibles story, but I would suggest that you 3 guys who are familiar with the issues agree on 3 countries for the exile of this material and move suitable elements to suitable places so this saga can come to a happy conclusion. If 1/3 moves to one article 1/3 to another and 1/3 to another, then it may be easier. History2007 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

'Exile'? That's a tad dramatic. Anyway... I'm not sure what benefit there would be in 3 people 'agreeing' on 3 separate destinations for the material, nor is it necessary that a specific 'third' go to each destination. Aspects that are relevant to other articles should be added to those articles if not already present, regardless of what portion of this article those aspects make up. When I have the time and inclination I'll check the suggested targeted articles and amend as necessary, with an eventual goal of removing this problematic article. Other editors are more than welcome to start without me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go with History 2007's advice. This article should not even exist since the title is non factual. Seems that Tetragrammaton=Sacred Name, and that "Bible" here means "New Testament", so there's no reason that Jehovah's Witnesses and Assemblies of Yahweh opinions/versions cannot be accommodated on the same page. It would also improve the destination article.

The only other idea is Lord in the New Testament, whereby the page is moved to reflect MS evidence. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that I already suggested merging the article elsewhere, I'm obviously fine with that. Obviously History2007's suggestion of an 'even one-third split' is unnecessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I apologise I took time convincing. Do you want to just repeat/sketch out what should go where again (cut and paste from above is fine if no changes). In ictu oculi (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time/inclination to check right now, but I'm pretty sure that much of the information is already present in the target article. I don't think it will be a case of moving the text as is. If you go ahead with merging in anything that's missing, I'm sure I'll get around to checking at some point. You might also like to discuss at the Talk page of the target article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's leave it for a week to a month. It's not urgent.In ictu oculi (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Citation; Weasel Words

The article says near the beginning, "Older Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint often had the letters YHWH or a space within the Greek text, one example being the Dead Sea Scrolls." This sentence has no footnote. It implies that there are a plurality of older Jewish manuscripts of the LXX. The word "Jewish" suggests that there are older and newer Jewish LXX mss. "Older" is a weasel word. A date should be used instead of "older." Is there really proof that mss often had YHWH or a space? Which is it? YHWH or is it space? The statement is vague. If there really is proof of this, it should read something like, "There are 10 different mss extant in fragment form dating from 300 B.C. to 100 B.C. 4 of them have spaces for the Tetragrammaton and 3 have YHWH in Hebrew letters for the Tetragrammaton. 3 of them use kyrios." The Dead Sea Scrolls is not an older Jewish manuscript of the LXX. Does the author mean something like: "Among the DSS, there is one fragment of a manuscript, numbered by Allegro as #3.14159, which contains 2 instances of the Tetrgrammaton inserted in Hebrew in this otherwise Greek fragment." I am unaware of any text of the LXX in the DSS, though there may be fragments. If one finds some part of the Tanach in Greek among the DSS, how does one know that is the LXX? IMHO that sentence should be deleted or revised drastically. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

Title Needs Changing

Since the Tetragrammaton does not appear in the NT, this article would be better titled: Translation of the Tetragrammaton in the NT or Occurrences of Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton in the NT. The NT does refer to or quote the OT where the OT has the tetragrammaton; so far as I know, always using kyrios for the Tetragrammaton. Most famously Rom 10:13 refers to the Lord Jesus as kyrios, where the quotation is from Joel, which in fact has the tetragrammaton: "For whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD [YHWH] shall be saved." Even an objective list of those instances would be valuable information. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

Hi, as you see above I personally view the current title as bit of an WP:OR/WP:POV turkey, but we can't have translation of the Tetragrammaton... because only a small number of NT uses of Lord are actual OT citations/translations. Kyrios for the Tetragrammaton... is possible but a bit of a mouthful. Lord in the New Testament would be more natural, and include the other uses of Lord (for Jesus, Abraham, landlords) excluded by the current title. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter also quotes Joel 2:32 on the day of Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was first poured out to the New Testament church) in Acts 2:21 (http://biblehub.com/text/acts/2-21.htm), and Peter sites that he is quoting Joel. I do not believe that Peter misquoted scripture (in other words, diminished from God's word (Deuteronomy 4:2 [10], Jeremiah 26:1-2 [11]). Nor do I believe that Paul diminished from God's word when he quoted Joel 2:32 (http://biblehub.com/text/joel/2-32.htm). And I don't think that the Lord Y'shua misquoted scripture when he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (Deuteronomy 6:4 [12], Deuteronomy 6:5 [13], Matthew 22:37 [14], Mark 12:29 [15], and Luke 10:27 [16]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giddalti (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yahweh is in the New Testament, loud and clear!

In the second paragraph of this article, it says, "The Tetragrammaton does not occur in 'any extant' in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament." This is not a true statement. In Revelation 19:1, 3, 4 and 6, the term "Alleluia" is used. "Alleluia" is an English transliteration of a Greek transliteration for the Hebrew phrase, "Hallu Yah!" -- a phrase that David often used in Psalms (Psalm 150 is one example [17]). It's just that we don't see this phrase in most English Bibles. It is often replaced in English with this phrase, "Praise ye the LORD." The name "Yah" is the shortened (sometimes called the "poetic") name of Yahweh. So, Yahweh does occur in "some extant" the New Testament in the form of Yah. This is a fact that may be researched through the study of Greek and Hebrew transcripts of scripture. Yahweh bless all who seek him through his son, Y'shua! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giddalti (talk • contribs) 13:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The terms "Alleluia" (usually spelled Hallelujah in English) and Yah (יָהּ) are not, and do not contain, the Tetragrammaton (יהוה).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that you may be confusing the adjective extant with the noun extent.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct -- I was confusing "extant" with "extent" (I thought it was spelled wrong). However, I know exactly who is being praised in Revelation 19 -- Yahweh (‎יהוה), whom David also praised with the phrase "Hallu Yah!" Revelation 19 is the one place in the New Testament that translators (scribes) missed removing a reference to Yahweh's name, or if you prefer, a reference to "Yahweh."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giddalti (talk • contribs)

As the statement in the article is correct, your suggestion that the scribes 'missed' 'removing' a reference to 'Yahweh' is not relevant.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Giddalti -- a lot of Hebrew names contain cut-down or abbreviated forms of the Tetragrammaton, as does Halleluia, but the full four-letter form of the Tetragrammaton standing by itself was not commonly pronounced out loud in New Testament times (except by shady occultists practicing magical rituals, or supposedly once a year by the Jewish High Priest in the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple), and is not found in any Greek New Testament manuscript. AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)