Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names and titles of God in the New Testament (3rd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A possible merge elsewhere can be discussed and decided on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Names and titles of God in the New Testament
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Names and titles of God in the New Testament was previously nominated for deletion in 2006 and 2007, the results being "keep" and then "no consensus".

Discussion in 2007 was rather thin - I can only count 4 editors getting involved. I can't find any record of discussion for 2006.

My reason for nominating this for deletion is that it fails WP:N. There's nothing to say on the subject: the name of God in the New Testament is the Greek word "theos" (it just means "god") and the title is "kyrios" (means "lord"). And yet it's become overv 80,000 bytes of mind-numbing discussion of words that are not actually found in the New Testament - YHWH, Jah, MariJa, and on and on - and none of them are actually in the New Testament.

Going back to the 2007 AfD discussion, this seems to be all about some obscure battle between Jehovah Witness adherents and some opponents of theirs - and I don't know who is who, and I don't care - over the name YHWH, otherwise known as Yahweh or Jehovah. Jehovah is never mentioned anywhere, and YHWH appears in the New Testament only when it's part of someone's name - the "someone" being inevitably some Old Testament figure.

So, why does this article exist? One editor (at least) feels very strongly that it should, but I'd like to see a justification for not deleting and replacing with a sentence (maybe two) in the article Names of God in Christianity. PiCo (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment — The 2006 AfD is at Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, and the 2007 at Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination). Regards.Tamsier (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (and possibly speedily). Far from there being "nothing to say on the subject", the names and titles of god have been the source of much debate among biblical commentators, stemmatologists and students of comparative theology, including the new testament , and in particular, scholarly literature . Just for starters.I thikn the nominator may be confused as to the purpose of AfD; it is not to not for cleaning articles up, and the basis of their nom seems to be a reflection of their own opinion rather than the principle of notability through verification. This would appear to be a content dispute, and, per the criteria, AfDs may be closed speedily if the nomination is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.I'd agree with the nom that, in its current state, the article could do with a rewrite to take into account the sources suggested, but there's clearly sufficient material to provide for a standalone article. FWIW, all the stuff in the nom about the previous AfDs is pretty irrelevant, due to their age. Thanks must go to for adding their likns though; they should be listed already, but the nom appears to have been malformed somehow? Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a notable topic, but I clicked on a couple of random references you listed, and one as from CreateSpace. It would be better to list a few good references rather than lots of mediocre ones. StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good references are in the article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * FTR This version is the one I commented on; the eagle-eyed among you will note that since then, the nominator has altered his original meaning, presumably to intimate that they have got a solid reason for deletion; ironically, all it has done is emphasise the complete lack of a WP:BEFORE search and disguise the fact that the nom is little more than their own research. Cheers! ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tamsier (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Of the "scholarly" sources you mention:
 * - John Avery is not a scholar (he describes himself as a "bible teacher")
 * - Herbert Lockyer is not a scholar (died 1984, a minister, not attached to any academic institution)
 * - Jeff A. Benner is not a scholar (has his own "Ancient Hebrew Research Center")
 * - Andrew John Jukes - his dates are 1815-1901, therefore extremely outdated, and in any case not a scholar (not connected to any academic institution)
 * - Emil Brunner - possibly passes, but is he really relevant?
 * - and so on. I can't see any contemporary,. relevant scholarship in these names. PiCo (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite "and so on". There are some good references there - e.g. Jacon Loewen, "The Names of God in the New Testament" in The Bible Translator. StAnselm (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I went through the first 5 links; of the rest, #6 is self-published (therefore not RS for Wikiepdia), #6 is a good source but what it says is already covered in another article (Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament), #8 the same, #9 doesn't seem to touch on the New Testament (it's incredibly densely written so a bit hard to tell), #10 is old and does not touch on the New Testament, #11 has nothing not already in that article on names of Jesus, the author of #12 is not a scholar, and #13 is titled "Names of God in Genesis". In short, the majority are not reliable sources, and the few that are say nothing not covered by another article.PiCo (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources supported by secondary and tertiary are in the article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete unreliable source, See WP:RS and this wikipedia search result. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 10:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tamsier (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tamsier (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. At least I could quote 14 scholars (with the possibility that there are more) that appear in the article, that directly support the appearance of YHWH in the NT. Even more have written on the subject, but in a neutral way, and a minority has gone against. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectable User:PiCo, let's analyze your arguments. I do not see much sense in copying verbatim from the article under discussion, since it is supposed that before being nominated, it should be analyzed in depth.
 * First of all you wrote "that it fails WP:N", but you are not textually referencing something like "on Wikipedia, notability is a ..." and for this reason this supports my argument. It is not just about contributing your point of view or mine. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to "there's nothing to say on the subject", let me express that it's not like that. So why have different scholars written so much about it?. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally you wrote that "the name of God in the New Testament is the Greek word theos", Can you name who has affirmed that the name of God is Theos?. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could someone reaffirm that: "Jah and MariJah... none of them are actually in the New Testament" (e. g. Marijah in Arklean text), because it was written that "and YHWH appears in the New Testament only when it's part of someone's name". Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And if the argument "some obscure battle between Jehovah Witness adherents and some opponents of theirs" can be supported, although it seems irrelevant, since not only the JW have maintained this point of view. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User:PiCo, no one has defended your arguments, not even yourself. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, please review WP:INDENT and WP:BLUDGEON. Jayjg (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank You Jayjg, it is ordered now.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per PiCo. An article about something that doesn't actually exist, sourced to non-WP:RS, serving as a proxy-war between various Christian groups. Jayjg (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * About "serving as a proxy-war between various Christian groups", What conflict can cause the existence of an article?. Theories have been discussed in fields of scholarship, such as Biblical criticism, history, finance, law, medicine, and politics. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This concerns not just the JW, but many traditional Protestant sects.  It's been widely discussed over many centuries, at various degrees of linguistic sophistication.  The article does need some major improvements, because it's disorganized, needs to make more explicit which views are accepted in the various sects, and needs to discus more the church-historical and theological interpretation.  The use of the name(s) of God has of course had a major place in Judaism, and the question 's fundamental meanings are to what extent early Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and which of the Christian sects has best carried on the tradition of the early Church. People have fought and died by the millions over such questions.
 * For many of us, this is not a question that affects our daily life, but the same can be said of a great deal of Wikipedia. Most forms of fiction talk about postulated  beings that have no real existence, but to different groups of us different ones of these are very significant, and very much worth discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - The real subject matter of this article seems to be how the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) of the Hebrew Bible gets translated or expressed in the Greek translation of it, the Septuagint. Basically, it is or should be a historical review of different manuscripts and versions of the Septuagint. Since the editor currently adding most of the new material to it (and the one who seems to be leading the side of the ones for keeping it) tried in the past many times to insert much of this material in the Tetragrammaton main article itself, where it really does not belong, maybe all the new material he keeps adding can be better reviewed, vetted, and discussed here. Sure, this article itself, as basically a fork of many others on the beginnings of Christianity, could also be deleted, and the material that passes the muster of reliable sources could be incorporated elsewhere. But as long a this becomes the single/main place where the new material can be vetted, reviewed, and discussed, maybe this would be a good reason for keeping it. My two cents. warshy (¥¥) 17:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Previously it has been proposed deleting the article with the argument of "unreliable source", I will appreciate that Roxy, the dog . help us with to establish which sources are not reliables of the 125 that currently contains. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was making the point that The New Testament itself is not reliable by our standards, nothing more. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So it was excellent that you support your statement in details, and not only request "delete" without bases. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea at all what you mean. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just that you request to "delete" it, and you did not specify why. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: I am a bit torn on this one, since the topic in itself is a notable one. However, we do have both Names of God in Christianity and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament already. The article is unbelievably bad, so WP:TNT is a reasonable option (even though AfD is not for cleanup), but it is better to merge the good material into the articles I mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - originally called Jehovah in the New Testament, but for more of its existence as Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, this article began as a POV coatrack originally to 'defend' Jehovah's Witnesses' use of 'Jehovah' in their version of the New Testament. After previous AfDs, and with some degree of support from proponents of Sacred Name Bibles, there has been some attempt to add a few more 'respectable layers' to the coatrack. Despite the extra layers, the core intent of the article still seems to boil down to 'the tetragrammaton isn't in the New Testament at all, but maybe you can kind of see it if you squint'. Suitable material is already at articles such as Tetragrammaton, Jehovah and Names of God in Christianity, and relevant articles can be expanded if necessary.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was reading that the article is almost 15 years old, and it surely has a long history (according [|page statics] actually it has 1.321 edits, with the participation of 213 editors). In the article it can read that since 1661 the name of God has been included in a bible, and since then there have been several translators that have inserted it, and the views of those translators are not included in the main text of the article. Rather, the proponents have no relationship with biblical translation (Except two persons mentions something, not in direct support of his argument). The lack of manuscript evidence, the failure to establish the origin of the sacred nomina, contemporary writings to the NT, and internal evidence of the NT have led to the conclusion of the thesis of existence of YHWH in the NT. In any case, someone could cite an authors that it has been established that Kurios appeared in the autographs, and additionally they manage an antithesis against the current erudition?, and if so, why would the article be deleted, instead of including those authors in the article?. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Concur with DGG above.  Also, the articles cited by StAnselm are insufficient to cover this topic.  The former is too lengthy and the latter is too focused. - JGabbard (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Until I saw this proposed deletion, I did not know God had so many names.  The article may inform others.  I am always amazed how so many bytes are typed to protect one's own bias.  No one changes their mind on religion or politics.  Leave this article alone. Eschoryii (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is a serious discussion of an important subject - important at least to Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as a clearly notable subject as per DGG's comment earlier, problems in the article can be addressed by editing rather than deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the primary 'keep' argument conflates the broader signifigance of the concept of Names of God in Christianity with a POV attempt to assert that such names appear in the New Testament.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on your talk reminding you of WP:ASPERSIONS; as for this, it's hardly a NT-POV when at least one of the sources has "New Testament" in its title 😂 ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The argument asserts a POV position. I mentioned no specific editors. The existence of sources presenting the POV that the name of God should 'really' be in the New Testament despite its absense in all extant manuscripts only demonstrates that the argument's POV nature is independent of any individual Wikipedia editor. The existence of such sources does not warrant an entire article dedicated to the subject (nor a coatrack for it with a few extra layers).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. "New Testament" is not only the Greek sacred text. There is a long discussion for this issue, it is important to be presented here.  pvasiliadis   21:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.