Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton

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. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton

Listcruft. Apparently created to support some point or other, but not otherwise very informative since it contains no information about any of these translations -- "versions" is distinctly the wrong word -- other than their dates and un-explicated translators/editors. Another, correctable, flaw is that it's artificially inflated, with serial translations by the same parties listed separately, but that probably goes more to the point that's being aimed at here than anything else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to TCC's AfD I would like to point out that this list has already been assembled by a Biblical scholar and quoted in a Catholic Magazine referenced at the bottom of the list.

The list is of interest to readers of the following articles: Tetragramaton, Septuagint (because most uses of YHVH in the NT are quotes from the Septuagint), New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures and Jehovah as well as many others dealing with the divine name or the New Testament.

There is a debate among bible translators and readers as to whether or not the Divine name was originally in the New Testament. While the List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton in no way proves any point it is important to allow readers to have access to the sum of human knowledge on the point.

Is the purpose of this list in line with what a Wikipedia List is?

In a word "Yes"

Information. This list contains valuable information not often assembled for readers information. And the list is arranged chronolgically which allows users to draw their own conclusions from the information.

Navigation. This list could be used as a navigation point for wiki articles about each Hebrew Translation of the New Testament and already points to a couple of the translators. More articles may already exist.

This is not List Cruft

The list was created to support several articles: Jehovah, Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, Tetragramaton and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
Many readers interested in Bible Translation will be interested in this point.
The information is Scholarly and orderly
The information has been published in a Scholarly journal.
The list is quite long already and could be expanded to include many more members.
The list has a finite scope
The list contains dates, names of Translators and locations of copies
The information is both Scholarly and Encyclopedic.

What is this list?

not a dictionary
not original thought
not a soapbox
not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media file
not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site
not a directory
not a manual, guidebook, or textbook
not a crystal ball
not an indiscriminate collection of information
not censored yet

I cannot see how this list conflicts with such Wikipedia concepts as Original Thought, Soapboxing, Indiscriminate Collections of Information or Textbook-like behavior. Nor is this list a form of gaming or disruptive editing. The information presented has been assembled by Matteo Pierro and published in "Revista Biblica." Thus,I believe that this list is supported by outside evidence as a list of value to readers interested in the divine name in Jewish and Christian sources. Losing this list would diminish Wikipedia.

I don't mind if it needs a name change, generalisation of the name or additional information but it's a start of something interesting.

I am concerned that this AfD may be an attempt to protect a point of view. TCC has complained that the list is artificially inflated indicating his/her dislike of conclusions that could be drawn from a larger list.

Please be broad minded in your voting. I would propose some options to vote on: Keep, Delete, Move to "List of Translations of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton."

SV 06:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please, especially if you're going to blather on at such length in the first place. I have no point to make except that there's no point to including this list. (And you must know perfectly well that this is not a pointy AFD. The other one which I nominated at virtually the same time, on which you have also commented, was arguing in favor of the point you accuse me of making here.) There's indeed nothing to be made of it either way except for whomever created the article in the first place. We are told nothing about the people making the translations or why they were made. Without that information a bare list is virtually useless.

I should also mention that we have not been given a reliable source for this material. The original article is not cited, but an English translation found on a Jehovah's Witnesses website. This group is obviously not neutral on the subject, and the original text itself cannot be verified.

But if all this is supposed to be is source material, it can be cited just like any other source. We do not typically create articles just to make a copy of sources. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should put the gloves back on. Words like "blather" lower the tone into ad hominem attacks. SV 04:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for me to lower the tone. You did that yourself quite effectively. And you need to read up on what an ad hominem attack is. It's not a personal insult, or anything perceived as a personal insult. It's the argument such as you are engaging in when you say things like, "TCC has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament." Instead of engaging an argument directly, you try to disqualify the person presenting it somehow. As I said earlier in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination), argue on the merits or not at all.

"Blather" is a perfectly valid characterization of your contributions to this discussion. You are a fairly new user, so I suggest you take a look at a number of AFDs to see the relative terseness of how arguments are presented. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete the stuff in the article is not needed and is unimportant. basically, no one cares about it. ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there any Hebrew versions of the New Testament that don't have the "Tetragrammaton"? As I understand it, tetragrammaton is a 14 letter word for a word of 4 letters -- for Jehovah or Yahweh. What's the alternative in Hebrew to using the four letter version? And if all the Hebrew translations use that version, what's the point of the article?Mandsford 00:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative is to not insert it at all. The original is written in Greek, and neither YHWH nor one of its Greek transliterations appears at all. You have to make a theological decision about when the Divine Name was intended in order to put it in. Any procedure of this sort is dodgy. In the 1st century the Name was not pronounced by anyone except the high priest, and only on the Day of Atonement. Since the usual substitute "Kyrios" occurs not in narration but only in people's speech, that's where you have to place it. In so doing you create a text where at least one person is saying something he is not in fact recorded as having said.
- Which is interesting, but IMO beside the point of the AFD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is this a Judaism-related deletion? The New Testament is a Christian text no matter what language it's translated into. I'm removing it out of courtesy to those who watch it so as not to clutter it up with irrelevant material -- which, to judge from SV's argumentation style, is going to be quite voluminous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TCC has identified his point of view as trinitarian, opposed to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament. see Talk:Tetragrammaton in the New Testament Is TCC using this AfD to push a POV? SV 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is once again a presumption of bad faith, which I again demand you withdraw. Or should I urge everyone to discount anything you have to say on the grounds you're evidently JW? (This is not the same as impeaching sources as biased. I don't think any religious organization is interested in presenting anything other than their own POV. What we do on Wikipedia is -- or should be -- an entirely different matter.) "Opposition to the idea of YHVH in the New Testament" does not, in any event, have anything at all to do with Trinitarianism, as demonstrated by the vast majority of historical non-trinitarians who did not advocate redacting the New Testament. It is, instead, simple honesty about what the ancient texts we have actually say. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list serves no useful purpose, is nothing but a verbatim copy of material from elsewhere.I would support deletion.213.84.53.62 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give the editors a chance mate! The list is only a few days old there are other sources. SV 04:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not to the point. This is source material, not encyclopedia article material. It's the kind of thing we cite, not host. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I find that the content is sort of short and bare by itself, but if we merged it to Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, maybe this could be a reasonable compromise. bibliomaniac 15 Prepare to be deleted! 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan 21:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not paper. This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia cooler than paper encyclopedias. It is a compilation and listing of information that would be harder to find and sift through without the article. The subject does not interest me, but I can see that it might help someone down the line. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very simple - this material fits into the Tetragrammaton page naturally. MarkBul 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Among Bible scholars, "version" is the accepted (and correct) term for a Bible translation. Hence "Authorized Version", "Douay-Rheims version" and so on. RandomCritic 15:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is perfectly useless, as it is. It is not as if it were so long that it cannot be incorporated in a relevant article.--Goochelaar 18:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather pointless, needs cleaning up regardless. Rehevkor 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this inclusion criteria is a very common way to categorise Bible versions. Most of these versions will eventually have articles of their own. John Vandenberg 01:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.