Talk:Names and titles of God in the New Testament/Archive 2

Redirect?
Is there any good reason why this article should not redirect to Sacred Name Bibles? Content here already exists at the target article, and the title of this article is misleading because its content asserts the opposite. See also previous discussions above.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You'd be slighting the JW's... AnonMoos (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Use of 'Jehovah' in the JW's version of the New Testament is addressed at Sacred Name Bibles and New World Translation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are more JW's than there are Sacred-Namers, and the JW's were first, so I'm not sure about subsuming JW within Sacred Name... AnonMoos (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * JWs don't own the Tetragrammaton. Refer to previous comment.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll allow a few days for additional comments. If no reasons are provided for not redirecting beyond 'hypothetical JWs may be offended', I'll go ahead with the redirect.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- I'm not actually worried about "offending" anybody; rather the fact that JW's are not Sacred-Namers and are bigger than Sacred Namers indicates that such a redirect would be inaccurate... AnonMoos (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The scope of this article is best reflected in the scope of Sacred Name Bibles, which makes it the correct redirect target. The relative size of the groups of people is not important.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally this article tries to do something slightly different than the Sacred Name Bibles article. This one generally tries to argue for the presence of the tetragrammaton in the NT, while the other explains some different translations that follow this assumption. However, this article does not strictly adhere to my narrow description in that it also has a section on English Sacred Name translations. The SNB article is broader than this in that it deals with both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. I am not so concerned with whether Wikipedia's divisions of topics does or does not line up with the preferences of various groups. Redirecting is certainly an option, but not a requirement. But this article could certainly benefit from some editing.Pete unseth (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If this article tries to do something slightly different than the Sacred Name Bibles article, then this article is a POV fork. As the burden of the article is that there is no YHWH in thew NT, it's rather difficult to see why it exists. It should be a redirect. PiCo (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but a redirect to an article which by its very name relegates a large part of the subject matter of this article to a subordinate and secondary position may not be entirely suitable... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither the name of the article, nor the majority of its content, refers to the subject you are saying would be made 'subordinate and secondary'. I agree though that a JW POV fork may be the intent of a [this] separate article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sacred Name Bibles says: "It (meaning YHWH) does not occur in early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament." Is there anything more to be said? This article seems to be a very long way of saying that there's not. It has nothing to say and needn't exist. Still, I don't have any commitment to SNB as its redirect destination - any other place would do. Or deletion. PiCo (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

unsourced content
please stop adding unsourced content to the article, as you did here and here and here. You cannot do this per WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Watchtower publications
These publications can probably only be used to support sections about Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs (which are otherwise not mainstream scholarly views). Because this article is in the scope of the JW WikiProject and that the use of Jehovah in the NT is important to them, they could be used in a section about the related JW beliefs and their NWT, probably not much elsewhere. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes. Firstly, I have removed a recent insertion attributing various NT works to specific authors, as the works in question are broadly regarded by scholars as anonymous works with authorship only traditionally attributed later (also incidentally removed with the same undo was an irrelevant statement about the Tetragrammaton appearing in the Septuagint OT). Secondly, I have removed a section that doesn't directly relate to the presence or absence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT at all, but merely implies that Jesus might have used the name; the statement was misleadingly ascribed as the more broad view of 'some nontrinitiarians', but only Watch Tower sources were provided. Thirdly, I have removed redundant over-sourcing regarding the JW belief about the use of the Tetragrammaton in the NT.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Paleo  Neonate  – 04:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have done some further editing, but the article still needs work (alternatively could be redirected to Sacred Name Bibles).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Gerard Gertoux
I have removed references to Gerard Gertoux's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." If Gertoux's views have had scholarly influence, cite those sources instead.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nine mainspace articles appear to also use Gertoux Lulu-published material. Since that is self-published, it's possible that those were also inappropriate sources...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

'Divine name'
The expression 'divine name' is inherently theologically biased. There is nothing objectively 'divine' (a poorly defined and ultimately unhelpful term in this context) about names, even if they are used in reference to a religion's chosen deity. This article is poorly named not only for that reason though, but also because the mainstream scholarly view is that the so-called 'divine name' doesn't appear in the New Testament. The article should ideally be moved to a title that reflects the scholarly view; within the article, it should be replaced with unbiased terms such as tetragrammaton, except where the phrase appears in original quotations. The article could probably be more accurately called Kyrios in the New Testament. However, there is already a precedent for calling the article Names and titles of God in the New Testament (compare Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or it could perhaps be merged into New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures? Is there another notable translation or group considering these arguments important?  I have the impression that your suggestion Kyrios in the New Testament would otherwise be be a good name.  If so, it could also include some information from Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 16:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The idea of "divine names" refers to names for divinity, not the idea that the names themselves are divine. Changing names for articles is always very difficult, so I do not suggest we try to change the name. Pete unseth (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Names for divinity' isn't a particularly useful definition, and even if it were accurate, it remains a POV term in reference to a Christian deity in the context of this article.
 * The article title is not particularly difficult to change, and there is already a precedent to change the article to Names and titles of God in the New Testament, as there is already a corresponding article about Jesus. That would more accurately reflect that actual content of the article, as the New Testament doesn't contain the supposed 'divine name'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The term divine name can be observed in scholarly works to refer not only to the tetragrammaton, but also to its variants. For example, the appearance of double yohd in P.Oxy 1007 is not tetragrammaton nor trigrammaton. Also the term Kyrios in its abbreviation $\overline{ KC}$ is "nomina divina". Divine name would encompass both the tetragrammaton, its variants, Kyrios, Theos or translations of these terms into other languages. If I am wrong, then the article should be renamed the "tetragrammaton in the new testament." Thank you in advance for your help. J. Levid Abimael C. O. 00:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article were renamed "Tetragrammaton in the New Testament", it would be a very short article indeed. Spoiler: it isn't in there.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have moved the page to a more accurate title without a POV term. As previously stated, there is already a precedent for the move, similar to Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Jeffro77, the focus of the article is dedicated to the tetragrammaton, not specifically to the titles of God. The composition of the New Testament preceded the establishment of rabbinical Judaism, which was the one that established seven names of God, and other titles. On the other hand, the topic Names and titles of God in the New Testament is very broad, since it would also include the titles, and in which verses these titles are included, being some of them: Lord and his orthographic variants, God and his orthographic variants, Lord God, The Lord your God or our God, Sovereign Lord (Despota), almighty Lord, Lord God of Israel, God your father, living God, Most High God, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, true God, God of our ancestors, Blessed One, Abba, God my Savior, Eli, Father, Heavenly Father, God and Father, God the Father, Father of glory, Father of Jesus Christ, God of Jesus Christ, God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Almighty (ho pantokrator), Almighty God, eternal God, Alpha and Omega, Divine Being (Theion), great God (thou megalou Theou), God our savior through Jesus Christ, King of eternity, Lord of hosts. If the problem is a POV term, then the article should be called Hypothesis about the existence of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament or Theory of the existence of the Name of God in the New Testament, since not only George Howard is the proponent and defender of this theory.J. Levid Abimael C. O. 05:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbimaelLevid (talk • contribs)
 * This article originated (as Jehovah in the New Testament) as a POV fork/coatrack presenting undue weight for Jehovah's Witnesses' use of Jehovah in their version of the New Testament. The article was later expanded as an objection to deleting the POV coatrack, and it was renamed Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, which is an inaccurate title as the tetragrammaton doesn't appear in any available manuscript. Divine Name in the New Testament employs a POV term in Wikipedia's voice and is also inappropriate. The wordy suggestions you have offered aren't very good (and "name" certainly wouldn't be capitalised in any case), and it would be more suitable to delete the POV coatrack, as should have been done in the first place. Any pertinent content is (or should be) adequately covered at Sacred Name Bibles (where most of the historical argument for inclusion belongs) and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (for briefly stating the JW view).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers. Sorry to contradict editors, but a variant of the tetragrammaton ιά (short form) appears in expression Halleluya (composed by two words), which was written into the text in continuous scripting. To claim that YHWH does not appear is original Greek manuscripts is refutable by the scholars: George Howard, Robert Shedinger, Sean McDonough, Pavlos Vasileiadis, J. A. Fitzmyer, Rolf Furuli, Ludwig Blau, David Trobisch, Robert B. Girdlestone, Edmon Gallagher among others included in the article, who have the basics to establish their affirmations. This time I agree with a previous statement in this talk page: "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". I will appreciate that we discuss in detail why the naming of the article  Hypothesis about the existence of the Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, Theory of the existence of the name of God in the New Testament, Scholar views about the presence of YHWH in the original NT manuscripts, or preferably Tetragrammaton in the New Testament are not neutral and cite the norms that are not respected, if they exist. J. Levid Abimael C. O. 05:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbimaelLevid (talk • contribs)
 * The fact that a thing that is not the tetragrammaton appears in the New Testament is not relevant to the fact that the tetragrammaton does not appear in the New Testament. It's a bit like someone insisting that chocolate icecream is on the menu because chocolate is on the menu and chocolate icecream contains chocolate. Aside from that, it is not ideal to have a full sentence as the title of the article. Twisting my statement that "The wordy suggestions you have offered aren't very good (and "name" certainly wouldn't be capitalised in any case)" into a claim about the neutrality of those titles is an irrelevant strawman.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all I offer you an apology if I offended you. That "thing" universally is defined as a variant of tetragrammaton, but I think that by discussing that we will not get anywhere. I think I understand the reason why the reason why you decided to use the title "name" instead of "tetragrammaton". I really have doubts about what rules could be applied to delete that article, especially if exist articles like: Riemann hypothesis (which is a point of view, Theory of religious economy or Theory of Big Bang (which scientifically can not be denied or affirmed). If my proposals for the renowned are not good, I think I have nothing more to say. J. Levid Abimael C. O. 14:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbimaelLevid (talk • contribs)
 * It's not a matter of 'offense'. The tetragrammaton doesn't appear in the New Testament. Neither hallelujah nor Jah are "a variant of the tetragrammaton", though they are derived terms. The ad hoc wordy titles you suggested are not directly comparable to established terms like Big bang theory. If there is an established name for the hypothesis that the tetragrammaton originally appeared in early manuscripts of the writings now found in the New Testament, then such a term may be an appropriate name for this article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
Given that this article is all about the name YHWH in the New Testament, and given that the name YHWH is totally absent from the New Testament, it should be deleted.PiCo (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should be deleted. Some elements could be moved to Sacred Name Bibles, but most of this is about less-common English translations and minority viewpoint writers. Pete unseth (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the procedure for deleting articles?PiCo (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a beginning: Deletion policy PiCo (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And process here: [] PiCo (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You could be right. The article failed the deletion process twice but long ago, a new run may still work...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings!. The fact that the two editors agree, does not mean that there is consensus to delete the article. Even, recently this article was not nominated for deletion. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The article has now been nominated however, feel free to WP:!VOTE here.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * PaleoNeotate. Thanks for the notice. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomina sacra in Old Greek manuscripts
Respected, have a good day. Let me express to you that regarding recent changes in the article under justification "nomina sacra too are "forms against YHWH in Heb." I have drawn attention to the contradictory information given about the two late 2nd century CE OG manuscripts" in which you merged a column, I think it was not right. First, in manuscripts it is attested YHWH and nomina sacra, YHWH and nomina sacra without contracting, and both: nomina sacra contracted and without contracting, so I really do not see in which there is contradiction. Second, the words God and Lord appear many times in Hebrew manuscripts and are translated into Greek also, not against YHWH, and there are Greek manuscripts that have no counterpart to the Hebrew YHWH and has nomina sacra or nomina sacra uncontracted. If the information currently presented is real, then we need to give you a source in which it reads that nomina sacra already appears in substitution of the tetragrammaton (e. g. any of the 6828 of the masoretic text), and not in another place. Thanks in advance for your answer and your help. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Contracted or not, a name such as κύριος/κς stands for the Tetragrammaton, as much as does 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅, does it not? The existing contradiction was between your affirmation in one column that these two manuscripts have respectively "No evidence" and "κς" and your statement in the other column that the two manuscripts have respectively "κς by second hand" and "κύριος and θεός uncontracted". The two statements cannot both be true.  In your statements about the other manuscripts there was no such contradiction between what you put in your (unnecessarily) two columns.  Am I mistaken? Bealtainemí (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I was wrong.  Your second column was unrelated to the different treatment of the Tetragrammaton.  However, I think that the presence or absence of nomina sacra should not be confused with that of the treatment in Greek of a MT Tetragrammaton.  Bealtainemí (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

YHWH in archaic form
What is YHWH in archaic form if not 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄‬? Bealtainemí (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Best regards. This manuscript presents an ancient peculiar writing of the tetragrammaton, but different of what it is considered the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (e. g. archaic Hebrew characters). --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. As far as I can see, there are just the differences that are inevitable in different handwritings of the same alphabet: in those reproduced in the book you linked to, no two are exactly the same.  But if you really want to present this example differently from the way you present the others (for which you use a stylized uniform font), I let it pass without objection over what seems an unnecessary distinction.  Bealtainemí (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Quotations in NT
I am very sorry to contradict due previously, citations to Old Testament were erased because "many commentaries link Mt 4:10 with Dt 6:13 (where LXX has κύριον τὸν θεόν σου), but not, it seems, with the other verses here added". There are sources that support the citation to Dt 6:13 and to Dt 10:20 (e.g. Craig A. Evans). Please, kindly help us.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for a mistake I made. As I said in my edit summary, many commentaries link Mt 4:10 with Dt 6:13. My mistake was in cancelling "Dt 6:13" instead of "Dt 5:9". What commentaries say that in 4:10 Mt is quoting either Dt 5:9 or Dt 10:20? Some of the sources you indicate deny that Mt is quoting Dt 10:20, for they say that the three Dt quotations in Mt 4 are "in descending order". Please forgive my inadvertent error. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that this commentary indicates the Septuagint Dt 6:13 as the origin of Mt 4:10. Has any manuscript of Dt 6:13 been found that has ΙΑΩ or YHWH in Aramaic or Paleo-Hebrew characters instead of κύριον τὸν θεόν σου? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me, You to me, I didn't find any comment to Dt. 5:9. I appreciate your answer, and let me tell you that I asked a general question and not you, because I really want to you know that I have nothing against you, and I don't want to be causing you any trouble. Answering your question, I regret not knowing if there is any known manuscript with the tetragram or ΙΑΩ in this verse. And please, any suggestions, I appreciate it. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, please help me to understand the indication in your table that Revelation 15:3 quotes Ps 92:5 and Ps 86:8-10, and that Rv 19:5 quotes Ps 97:1. I see no likeness between Rv 19:5 and Ps 97:1; neither does this source (A). Nor do I see likeness between Rv 15:3 and the Psalms you indicate. On the other hand, there is likeness between part of Rv 15:4 and Ps 86:9 (cf. this source (B)). Bealtainemí (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Best regards. Some of information: Rv 15:3 and Ps 86:8-10, Rv 15:3 and Ps 92:5 Rv 15:3 and Ps 92:5. pp. 445 Rv 15:3 and Ps 92:5 Rv 15:3 and Ps 92:5 and, Rv 19:5 and Ps 97:1 . I appreciate your suggestion, you could put the text you suggested in the table, or I would do it, but I will be absent for a few days. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I have failed to find in the sources you cite any indication that the Rv verses in question quote the Psalms mentioned. Saying that the sentiments that inspired two texts are the same is not a declaration that one text quotes the other. One might as well say that, in the two sources, A and B, that I cited above, the first verse cited quotes each and all of the others! I fear that perhaps most of the alleged OT quotations in NT texts in your table fail Wikipedia requirements for reliable sources. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well ... then proceeds as you see best. Meanwhile, I will look for some sources. Thank You. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the fears I expressed were for the most part unfounded.
 * I don't think it was necessary for you to add sources in cases where, as in Mt 3:3, the NT text explicitly says it is quoting OT ("the prophet Isaiah"); but it is certainly needed for a claim about a passage that makes no such statement and that, moreover, is quite unlike the OT passage that you say is being quoted. Unless you give a clear reason that those I have questioned really are quotations (of those particular OT passages), I will have to delete the claims. But not immediately.
 * I think you should also add question marks to the three OT verses that you say Mt 5:33 is quoting. Isn't it much more likely that Mt had only one of them in mind, not all three? They should therefore, I think, be given as: Leviticus 19:12?, Numbers 30:2?, Deuteronomy 23:21?. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I notice that for Rv 18:3 you now cite the appendix of a sensationalist book (is it a reliable source?). Does that book actually say that Rv 18:3 (“Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations!") is quoting Ps 92:5 ("How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!")?
 * Does the source that you give for Rv 18:4, citing a page that I cannot check of a different book, actually say that Rv 18:4 ("Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”) is perhaps quoting Ex 15:11 (“Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?") and certainly quoting both Ps 86:8-12 (all five verses) and Ps 98:1-2 (both verses)? Or does it merely remark that the thought in Rv 18:4 is similar to that expressed in those three passages?
 * I also strongly doubt the correctness of citing in relation to the OT passages that you say NT quotes the Aquila/Hexapla translations composed later than the New Testament and that add nothing to what MT already says is in the OT passages. Is it any more correct than citing a modern Greek translation of the OT passages? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, I think it best to remove immediately from your list the supposed quotations from OT in Rv. There seems to be consensus that in Revelation there are no formal quotations from the Old Testament, but only a multitude of allusions or references: Moyise, p. 14; Beale/McDonough, pp. 1081-1084; Moyise/Menken; Lowery; Leonard; Bauckham. You could find many such allusions, not quotations, in perhaps every book of the New Testament, even perhaps in almost every chapter. Even Howard does not suggest that the New Testament writers, when alluding to Old Testament passages in their commentaries (apart, that is. from their quotations), used 𐤉𐤅𐤄𐤅 ,יהוה, or ΙΑΩ, rather than Κύριος. Bealtainemí (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great job. And please feel free to make any improvement. I think that some thoughts are similar to those expressed in those verses instead of being formal quotes, and in some sources scholars agree that they were taking different thoughts to form a verse. If the table title could not be changed to quotes and allusions, then, as you suggest, those allusions could not be integrated. In Ambrosiano O39 sup. the name appears in the five columns, and in the fourth column the Quinta translation appears, although a date could not be assigned for it. It is assumed that there would be other translations in the Enneapla, but the same problem would persist. Now the AqTaylor manuscript does contain the name, but it is a post-New Testamentary translation. Thank you for your valuable time. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Quinta (fifth column of the full Hexapla, with the Hebrew text in the first column) simply Origen's redaction of the Septuagint and therefore to be classified as later than the New Testament text?
 * I take it that the Hebrew terms in the fourth column of your table are meant as the MT texts. I have made that clearer and I have removed the no longer true indication "and mostly post-NT Greek OT mss".
 * My eye has been drawn to your indications of Is 10:22-23 as: a) quoted in both Rm 9:28 and 9:29 and b) having different MT terms. Surely what you give for both Rm 9:28 and Rm 9:29 needs to be corrected. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank You. both texts of Romans has been corrected. I'm sorry for contradict you, but it seem that the Quinta translation is anonymous . Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The mss. Ambrosiano O 39 sup. does not have the Hebrew text nor the Theodotion translation. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I must have read too hurriedly the start of the section "Structure" of the article on the Hexapla, which describes the fifth column as "A recension of the Septuagint with ..." Perhaps I'll have time to study it better tomorrow.  Or perhaps I will let it lie or leave it to   others.  Bealtainemí (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel up to even beginning the research needed to throw light on the fifth column (quinta columna) of the Ambrosiana palimpsest. If you wish to restore it to your table, I'll raise no objection. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Delete redundant table
In the section "Tables related to κύριος and θεός in the New Testament", the table showing that NT normally has κύριος in its OT quotations where MT has יהוה, but instead has θεός if LXX has θεός in the OT verse that it quotes, should be deleted. One citation of a reliable source would be enough to show this fact. The table is no more than original research synthesis of sources, which Wikipedia does not admit. The ever-increasing number of bytes being added to the table day by day only makes more obvious this violation of Wikipedia norms. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Bealtainemí, I made changes in some words in the table for that it is limited to just showing the textual evidence and not "to imply a new conclusion". Let me express that the table compiles several verses of the New Testament in which different scholars have stated that other verses of the Old Testament are cited, and how these appear in the Greek and Hebrew texts. On the other hand, not necessarily יהוה corresponds to κύριος in NT, nor θεός of LXX to θεός in NT. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies that "scholars say that several verses of the New Testament quote verses of the Old Testament". A reference to a reliable source that says so is quite enough. Nor is your extremely lengthy insertion needed to show that NT generally agrees with the LXX version of what it quotes. A reference to a reliable source that says so is quite enough. If what you want to state is that "sometimes NT κύριος or Θεός do not correspond to LXX κύριος or Θεός", why on earth have you instead built a table of cases in which they do correspond? Bealtainemí (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer. So far, most of the names and titles of God that are in the table in the citations from the NT to the OT coincide with the Christian septuagint, but it has also been written about variables that would be well explained in Howard's thesis. I take this opportunity to thank you for the good work you have done, and many times correcting my mistakes. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For instance? The table gives the overwhelming impression that NT simply quotes LXX.  We don't need a table to "prove" this by original research. It is redundant.  Bealtainemí (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regards. Sorry for the delay and not attending as you deserve, I was absent, not because I wanted to. I perceive that you want to delete the table for two reasons: 1) "NT simply quotes LXX", and "we don't need a table to prove this" and 2) the "table is no more than original research synthesis of sources, which Wikipedia does not admit". Let me put it this way:
 * 1) If the table shows an undeniable reality, based on strong evidence, what is wrong with presenting these citations? Does a table with citations serve a researcher more than a phrase that states that the NT matches the LXX? Has a limit to the size of the articles been established in wikipedia, or is it intended to present the most complete information available? Quotations with the name of God have been the subject of study among various translators and scholars, or both. Whether the reader agrees with Howard's thesis or not, this table does not attempt to prove anything, it only presents information backed by sources, as you yourself have stated previously.
 * 2) If the table shows variants reported in critical texts like WH and NA26 or different critical text of LXX, compiled from some of the oldest fragments and texts, and this table shows quotatios to OT, Why it is claimed that it is an original investigation? Please quote with exact words WP:SYN, because if it violates the rules of wikipedia, there is nothing more to say. Thank you in advance for your answers, and for contributing a part of your valuable time. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the undeniable reality that you say is shown (or at least implied) by the table? Whatever it is, is it stated in any of the sources you cite? If it is stated in a source, quote that source and the purpose of the table is already achieved. If it is not, you are violating the rule, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (WP:SYN). Bealtainemí (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Answering your question "What is the undeniable reality that you say is shown (or at least implied) by the table?", is what you wrote in the previous paragraph: "nobody denies that scholars say that several verses of the New Testament quote verses of the Old Testament". Another undeniable reality is the manuscript evidence in which the words κύριος, Θεός, יהוה, or other variants are shown. Please, help me because I don's see where it is combined "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", and, what is the imply conclusion presented?. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The difficulty is largely that you still have not clearly indicated what is the conclusion that you want to reach. Even now you mention two different things. Which is it that the table is meant to teach? To show that "several verses of the New Testament quote verses of the Old Testament", it is enough to cite, for instance, this source. As for showing that there is "manuscript evidence in which the words κύριος, Θεός, יהוה, or other variants are shown", you must mean "shown in LXX", because there is no manuscript evidence showing יהוה in the New Testament. To show that fact, you need only state the fact and cite in your support one or more suitable sources. Perhaps this source, pp. 33-37. Or Appendix 5 of this source. Or chapter 13 of this source. Or this source. At any rate, don't leave the reader wondering what on earth is the point of this table?  What is it meant to show?  State whatever you intend to show and then back it up with a reliable source.   Bealtainemí (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a good day and sorry for the discussion going too far. It's true that there is no manuscript evidence showing יהוה in the New Testament (I have not written that). How can it be shown that it violates the rules of wikipedia if you have not established why "the table is no more than original research synthesis of sources, which Wikipedia does not admit.", as read in the first paragraph, without looking like a personal criterion instead of a citation to the rules of wikipedia? According to WP:SYN, for it to be an original investigation, it is intended to reach a conclusion C, and in the previous paragraph you contradict yourself by saying that it is not clear what the conclusion you want to reach is, so it is understood that there is no conclusion C. And please, don't see it as a battle between soldiers, we're just arguing to reach an agreement. As I said before: "please quote with exact words WP:SYN, because if it violates the rules of wikipedia, there is nothing more to say." Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I expect(ed) a table to indicate what it means, what it's for. You disagree. Your edit is in possession. I let it be. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)