Site intéressant supportant la conclusion courageuse que le nom de Dieu fut

originellement dans le nouveau testament.

 http://www.lifespurpose.net/divinename/NameofGod1.htm (Résumé du livre de
Gertoux par Q&R)
 http://www.chronosynchro.net/wordpress/nouveautes-conferences/ (c’est là qu’on
trouve le pdf sur l’utilisation du nom de Dieu par les premiers chrétiens)
 http://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/Gertoux.htm (Résumé plus complet sur
YHWH)
 http://meilleurforum-net.meilleurforum.net/t3974-le-nom-de-dieu-a-t-il-sa-place-
dans-le-nouveau-testament (forum 1000 messages sur le sujet + DNKJV)
 http://issues.xanga.com/764487165/item/ (arguments intéressants)
 http://www.jwstudies.com/The_Divine_Name_in_Shem-Tobs_Matthew.pdf
(position contre, avec des articles sérieux : dans l’article de Howard, on trouve 2
points intéressants supportant l’emploi du nom dans le NT )
 http://www.forum-religion.org/oecumenisme/le-nom-de-jehovah-et-la-tmn-t418-
30.html (la conjecture est terminé avec Ibn Shem Tob Matthew hebrew)
 http://www.areopage.net/traducnt.htm (auteur du nom divin dans NT)
 http://orajhaemet.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/62926694-gospel-of-matthew-
according-to-a-primitive-hebrew-text-by-george-howard.pdf (Matthew hebrew
étude de G.Howard sur le texte hébreu de Matthieu de Shem Tob Ibn Shaprut)
 http://nazarenespace.com/page/nazarenes-and-the-name-of-yhwh (James Trimm
discute de l’utilisation de YHWH par les nazaréens)
 http://nazarenespace.com/group/hebrewmatthew?
groupUrl=hebrewmatthew&xg_source=activity&id=2182335%3AGroup
%3A88015&page=1#comments (seeThe conclusion to Chapter 8 of James
Trimm’s (ce bonhomme est controversé) book The hebrew and Aramaic origin of
the New Testament)
 http://lareopage.free.fr/BARIV1031978.pdf (Sur le site de Didier Fontaine, on
trouve le travail de Howard sur le nom de Dieu et les chrétiens)
 http://dnkjb.net/about DNKJV trop fort en 2012, une autre traduction reconnaît la
nécessité de sanctifier le nom de Dieu c’est curieux tout de même qu’ils
raisonnent comme des TJ
 http://www.jcrelations.net/Blindness_or_Insight__The_Jewish_Rejection_of_Jesu
s_Christ.2806.0.html?L=3 vers le bas on parle d’une légende où Jésus aurait écrit
le nom de Dieu sur sa cuisse
 NameNT1.pdf document téléchargé de Gertoux
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinical_translations_of_Matthew autres sources
il ressort que les chercheurs optant pour ces conclusions sont impopulaires ou marginaux
 http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Hebrew-Matthew/hebrew-matthew-library-
sources.html site qui prouve que Matthieu a écrit son évangile en hébreu!
 http://www.trimmfamily.com/hrvsacredname.html Selon Trimm, preuve que le
nom divin devait être dans matthieu!
 http://www.euaggelion2414.com/nomNT.htm (À mon avis, c’est encore didier F.)
 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots/Neglected_Commandments/Honouri
ng_His_Name/NT-usage (Très intéressantes évidences et assez convaincant)
  http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/articles/The_Syriac_New_Testament (Un
jour je lirai cela )
 Vérifier la valeur de ces documents : (Munster Hebrew Hebrews ;The Old
Syriac Aramaic Gospels; The Aramaic Peshitta NT
(www.dukhrana.com/peshitta/ and the Crawford Aramaic Revelation.
Fox translation)
 http://fr.scribd.com/doc/18420701/The-Divine-Name-Used-in-the-Peshitta-New-
Testament toutes les places où peshitta rend yahweh

A partir d’ici, je suis déjà convaincu que le nom de Dieu figurait dans le nouveau
testament. Maintenant, je constate que les places où le nom de Dieu figure diverge des
textes hébreux et araméens (Peshitta).
 http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Aramaic_primacy#Peshitta_Primacy_Approach
Pour les partisans du NT araméen
 http://www.syriac.ca/Library/chapter3.pdf comparaison Peshitta old syriac
Heb.Matthew
 http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs/which-is-the-oldest-aramaic-2 Pesshita or
Old Syriac ?
 http://www.lydiaofpurple.com/new_testament_written_in_Hebrew.htm Hebrew
root version (arguments allant même jusqu’à dire que tout le NT original était
hébreu)
À date je comprends que la old Syriac est plus ancienne que la Peshitta et qu’il y a de
bonnes raisons de croire que les textes autographes du NT furent en langue sémite
(sûrement hébreu puis araméen, puis le grec traduit de l’hébreu ou de l’araméen). La
question que je me pose est pourquoi les occurrences du nom divin diverge des textes
hébreux par rapport aux textes syriaques.
 http://www.mybrethren.org/history/hy61bibl.htm à comparer avec tmn et hrv.
 http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/8_Bt/R_V_UK.html#a1 aussi

http://kurios.homestead.com/Marya_the_Lord_in_Aramaic.html The word in Aramaic for

lord is mry, marya’. Just as with the English equivalent, lord, and with the Greek and
Latin words kurios and domine, there are over seven hundred uses of this Aramaic word
in the Aramaic New Testament. In Aramaic, lord appears in almost sixty forms. Of these,
only eleven are ever used in reference to the Old Testament name of God, Jehovah. In
English, every use must be studied in light of its context to determine whether lord is
being used either to represent Jehovah, to name the Lord Jesus Christ, or to simply
attribute dominion to a man or a woman. Because eighty percent (48 of 59) of the
Aramaic forms of lord are excluded from being a reference to the Hebrew
tetramagamatton (JHVH) by their spelling alone, a careful understanding of the Aramaic
forms is very important to the study of Lord and LORD in the New Testament.

 http://www.syriac.ca/Library/Mattitiyah.pdf site tres intéressant et critique

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Name_Bibles liste de Bibles qui mettent
YHWH de façon consistante.
  http://phiphi.jolie.perso.infonie.fr/nomdiv2.html comparaison avec Chouraqui
et tresmontant

Je pense terminer cette recherche en me disant : Le nom de Dieu figurait dans le Nouveau
Testament à beaucoup d’endroits. Les citations et le contexte permettent de dire si on
doit remettre le nom dans le verset. Ce ne sont pas des décisions faciles et il est évident
que l’on sera critiqué peu importe la position qu’on prend. Alors mieux vaut prendre la
position de la Bible. Fichtre!
 http://www.wnae.org/ntorigin.htm hebrew origin of the nt arguments (good ones!)

 Fin de ma recherche sur les origines. C’est plausible qu’il y ait une origine
araméenne ou hébraïque du nouveau testament mais les preuves ne sont pas
vraiment au rendez-vous. Pour Matthieu, il n’y a pas de doute. Pour les évangiles,
c’est fort probable (à mon avis 90%), pour les écrits de Paul (50%, 80% pour la
lettre aux hébreux).

 Parmi tous les arguments et documents consultés, ceux que je retiens sont

o Les citations de l’ancien testament obligent de considérer Jéhovah dans le

nouveau testament.
o Les premiers chrétiens suivaient le Christ. Christ ne suivait pas
aveuglément les traditions. L’argument de la condamnation de Jésus
(blasphème) est convaincant. De même pour Étienne.
o Le plus ancien manuscrit complet des évangiles (Sinaiticus) fait une
distinction dans les mots seigneur pour Jéhovah et seigneur pour d’autres.
o Il existe plusieurs manuscrits de la septante du temps de Jésus et ceux-ci
contiennent le nom.
o Des références indiquent que les chrétiens possédaient des textes avec le
tétragramme qu’on voulait brûler.
o Il y a eu une grande apostasie et une héllenisation du christianisme et par
conséquent une « déjudaïsation ». Les grecs ne comprenaient pas
vraiment ce que signifiait YHWH.
o C’est vrai tout de même que ce que l’on a aujourd’hui comme manuscrit
est exempt de YHWH.
o Il faut s’intéresser de près au nom pour apprendre ces choses.
o C’est un privilège de connaître Dieu par son nom.
o http://books.google.ca/books?
id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=schechter+palimpsest+t
etragrammaton&source=bl&ots=PCunh4Z8IR&sig=wRdqbrsItO0DiqME
O6Wck4PKswI&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=JDvbUMfUF8rn0gG5joHQDQ&ved=0
CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=schechter%20palimpsest
%20tetragrammaton&f=false tetragrammaton
o http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/jewpap/sbl2003.htm site assez poussé
donnant un avis d’expert semble-t-il.
o http://fr.scribd.com/doc/117293762/hebrew-bible un livre interessant qui
parle à la page 38 du palimpseste de la version d’Aquila contenant le
tétragramme.
o J’ai intercepté un email traitant du nom dans NT et comme je le pensais,
l’argument principal est Matthew hebreu ShemTob et DuTillet :
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-09/27827.html
o http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0158.html
o http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-08/0159.html trop cool
o http://fdier.free.fr/FN12-1999-25-54.pdf Site comparant les différents
endroits où seigneur lord marya sont présents dans la Peshitta. Essaye de
discerner si c’est de Jésus ou de Dieu qu’on parle.
o http://www.rivtsion.org/f/index.php?sujet_id=2424 site montrant que la
thèse de Tresmontant a bien du bon sang! Et parle d’autres personnes
importantes ayant poursuivi dans sa voie.
o http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.ca/2009/11/jhvhnt-jehovah-in-nt.html I agree that
most of the physical evidence found in existing NT manuscripts does not support
"Jehovah" in the NT, and, ordinarily that would be enough for me. But what makes such
a difference to me is the belief that BOTH "Testaments" are the word of God and must
not contradict each other in important areas of knowledge.We can accept both
"Testaments" as the inspired word of God and still see understandable differences
occurring between the two, but not basic contradictory differences. For example, we
know how and why animal sacrifices to God have been done away with. It has been
carefully, logically explained in the NT and, therefore, does not contradict the OT
teachings where such sacrifices were required (essential). But where is the careful, logical
explanation that shows that the necessary knowledge and use of God's name (as clearly
acknowledged by word and example throughout the OT) was done away with in the NT?
It's not there! How can it be that God reveals his personal name and commands that it be
publicly acknowledged and used forever by his servants (and they respectfully do so for
over a thousand years) and then, for no scriptural reason, His worshipers suddenly begin
refusing to use that name and even hide it?
o I don't understand how anyone can deny the extreme importance of God's eternal, holy
name in the OT nor that that name was used respectfully much more than any other name
(nearly 7000 times) throughout the OT. Nor that God foretold that it would have to be
known worldwide by all the nations. And that name was YHWH in the OT! Nor can I
understand anyone honestly refusing to admit that YHWH simply does not translate nor
transliterate, by any stretch of the imagination, into "Lord"!
o What are we doing if we purposely change the inspired scriptures; if we purposely
remove an essentially important word 7000 times from the inspired Scriptures (and add
words and meanings not intended in the original)? We are not just interpreting and
translating, but we are actually disobeying God's clear commandments concerning his
Most Holy Name and disobeying his clear commandments concerning adding to and
taking away from his inspired word! How can this possibly be Christian (whether it
started in the 2nd century or the 17th century)?
o and if Jesus (the Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jew) quotes from the OT to his
fellow Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking Jews, he is not going to do it from the Greek
Septuagint! He is going to do it from the scrolls found in the temple in Jerusalem (or
copies thereof): the Hebrew Scriptures!
 "...the Hebrew text, ... was the only authoritative form of the scriptures recognized by the
Palestinian Jews." - p. 168, Vol. 2, The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillan Publ., 1987.
(In any case even the Septuagint at this time in Palestine also used the Divine Name in
Hebrew characters.)
o I cannot believe that the only-begotten Son of God would deliberately and knowingly
change any part of the scriptures. I cannot even conceive of him actually changing the
 very name of God found in those holy Scriptures! (If the very Son of God himself was
forced to never say aloud the name of his Father, we would be terribly wrong to presume
that it is acceptable for us to pronounce that most holy name - and all the preceding holy
prophets of God would have been terribly, tragically wrong to use the name aloud almost
incessantly as they did!)
o Since the name of God being used as YHWH even in everyday life is attested to by
archaelogical findings back to the 8th century B. C. at least, I am forced to conclude that,
yes, the existing NT manuscripts are terribly wrong in this particular area.
o [Among others, fragments of a leather scroll (LXXVTS 10a) dated to the end of the first
century A.D. found in a cave in the Judean desert used the tetragrammaton in Hebrew
letters extensively in 5 of the `minor prophets,' and a fragment of a parchment scroll of
Zechariah (LXXVTS 10b) dated to the middle of the first century C.E. found in the Judean
desert used the tetragrammaton in ancient Hebrew characters.]
o It is a matter of extreme difficulty to decide what historical value we should attach to any tradition
recorded in the Mishnah. The lapse of time which may have served to obscure or distort memories
of times so different; the political upheavals, changes, and confusions brought about by two
rebellions and two Roman conquests; the standards esteemed by the Pharisean party (whose
opinions the Mishnah records) which were not those of the Sadducean party ... - these are factors
which need to be given due weight in estimating the character of the Mishnah's statements
o In connection with the annual Day of Atonement, Danby's translation of the Mishnah states: "And
when the priests and the people which stood in the Temple Court heard the Expressed Name come
forth from the mouth of the High Priest, they used to kneel and bow themselves and fall down on
their faces and say, `Blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for ever and ever!'" (Yoma
6:2) Of the daily priestly blessings, Sotah 7:6 says: "In the Temple they pronounced the Name as it
was written, but in the provinces by a substituted word." Sanhedrin 7:5 states that a blasphemer
was not guilty `unless he pronounced the Name,' .... Sanhedrin 10:1, in listing those "that have no
share in the world to come," states: "Abba Saul says: Also he that pronounces the Name with its
proper letters." Yet despite these negative views, one also finds in the first section of the Mishnah
the positive injunction that "a man should salute his fellow with [the use of] the Name [of
God]," the example of Boaz (Ru 2:4) then being cited. - Berakhot 9:5.
o There is, therefore, no genuine basis for assigning any time earlier than the first and second
centuries C. E. for the development of the superstitious view calling for discontinuance for the
[oral] use of the divine name. The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew
Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either `Adhonai' Sovereign Lord)
or `Elohim' (God) rather than the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton
o It evidently took place in the centuries following the death of Jesus and his apostles. In Aquila's
Greek version, dating from the second century C. E., the Tetragrammaton still appeared in Hebrew
characters
o Proceeding on this same basis (which evidence now shows to have been actual fact) he adds:
`Supposing a Christian scholar were engaged in translating the Greek Testament into Hebrew, he
would have to consider, each time the word Kurios occurred, whether there was anything in the
context to indicate its true Hebrew representative; and this is the difficulty which would arise in
translating the N.T. into all languages if the title [personal name] Jehovah had been allowed to
stand in the [Septuagint translation of the] O. T. The Hebrew Scriptures would be a guide in many
passages: thus, whenever the expression "the angel of the Lord" occurs, we know that the word
"Lord" represents Jehovah; a similar conclusion as to the expression "the word of the Lord" would
be arrived at, if the precedent set by the O. T. were followed; so also in the case of the title "the
Lord of Hosts." Wherever, on the contrary, the expression "My Lord" or "Our Lord" occurs, we
should know that the word Jehovah would be inadmissible, and Adonai or Adoni would have to be
used.' (Synonyms of the Old Testament, 1897, p. 43.) It is on such a basis that translations of the
Greek Scriptures (mentioned earlier) containing the name of Jehovah have proceeded." - p. 10, Vol.
2, Insight .
o The first part of this Jewish religious work is entitled Shabbath (Sabbath) and contains an immense
body of rules governing conduct on the Sabbath. In one section, there is a discussion as to whether
it is proper to save Bible manuscripts from a fire on the Sabbath, and then the following passage
appears: `It was stated in the text: The blank spaces [gilyohnim] and the Books of the Minim, we
may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names
which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not
burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand.' - translated by Dr. H.
Freedman
o Lawrence H. Schiffman, the above-quoted portion of the Talmud is translated as follows: `We do
not save from a fire (on the Sabbath) the Gospels and the books of the minim ("heretics"). Rather,
they are burned in their place, they and their Tetragrammata. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: During
the week, one should cut out their Tetragrammata and hide them away and burn the remainder. Said
Rabbi Tarfon: May I bury my sons! If (these books) would come into my hand, I would burn them
along with their Tetragrammata.' Dr
o Is this portion of the Talmud really speaking about the early Jewish Christians? If so, then it is
strong evidence that the Christians did include God's name, the Tetragrammaton, in their Gospels
and writings. And it is extremely likely that the Talmud is discussing Jewish Christians here. There
is scholastic support for such a view, and in the Talmud the context appears to add further support.
The section following the above quote from Shabbath relates a story involving Gamaliel and a
Christian judge in which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are alluded to. - pp. 30-31, The
Watchtower, November 1, 1993.
o "In this period [first century AD] churches were still regarded as synagogues, whose members ....
professed monotheism in the same terms as did the Jews. They used the Hebrew Scriptures, and
took Messianism, the eschatology (even angelology), and the ethics of Judaism for granted" - pp.
121-122, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend, Fortress Press, 1985.
o However, at some point (probably around the time of the Jewish Revolt of 135 A.D.) the
Gentile Christians took over. The Scriptures came to be Greek rather than Hebrew, and
an actual anti-Jewish sentiment began to predominate. The Septuagint was now being
used exclusively, but the anti-Jewish Gentile "Christian" copyists actually removed God's
name whenever they saw the "despicable" Hebrew letters of the Divine Name (the
Tetragrammaton [YHWH, Jehovah] and its shortened form [YH, Jah]) that were still
being used in the original Jewish manuscripts of the Septuagint. They usually replaced
the name with "Lord" or "God" in the copies they made.
o the church was by this time [around the middle of the 2nd century AD] a predominantly Gentile
body. According to Christian writers in the second and third centuries, relations between Christians
and Jews apparently became increasingly hostile. [p. 103]
o It was the generation following the destruction of the Temple which brought about a final rupture
between Jews and Christians .... In the third rebellion against Rome [132-135 A.D.], when the
Christians were unable to accept bar Kochba as their Messiah, they declared that their kingdom was
of the other world, and withdrew themselves completely from Judaism and everything Jewish.
The alienation process was completed. Judaism and Christianity became strangers to each other
o We don't know exactly when this anti-Jewish reaction against the original Christ-
commanded Memorial actually began in earnest (a good guess, however, would be 135
A.D. or shortly thereafter). But we do know that "By 180 A.D. the latter custom [`Easter'
celebrated on the non-Passover date and always on a Sunday] prevailed generally" and
that Pope Victor I (189-198 A.D.) "demanded uniformity and threatened to
excommunicate" the minority of churches which still hung onto the original Jewish
Passover date. - p. 190, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia International, Grolier, 1966.
o earliest Christians celebrated the Lord's Passover at the same time as the Jews, during the night of
the first (paschal) full Moon of the first month of spring (Nisan 14-15). By the middle of the 2nd
century, most churches had transferred this celebration to the Sunday after the Jewish feast."
o From this time - "middle of the 2nd century" (180 A. D., at least) - until the blasphemous
Nicene Council (325 A. D.) "Hostility against Jews and Jewish customs led to formal
debates [about the date for "Easter"] in councils of the Church." - How It Started
o With the example of the extremely important "Easter/Passover" reaction of the Gentile
"Christians" in mind we should not be surprised that these same Jewish-hating people
changed the Hebrew name of the "Jewish" God during their attempts to "smooth out" "the
text of Scripture" during the same time period. In fact it would be surprising if they
hadn't.
o We find that when the shortened form of the Divine Name (Jah) was left in Hebrew
characters by the original Jewish translators of the Septuagint, the "Christian" copyists
always changed it to "Lord." But when the original Jewish translators had incorporated it
with another word or words (as in proper names, e.g., "Elijah" [which means "God is
Jehovah" - p. 674, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publ., 1982] or in the
phrase "Praise ye Jehovah" [Hallelu JAH]) and transliterated it into Greek characters, it
became an acceptable "Greek" word (although one whose meaning they didn't wholly
 understand) to the "Christian" copyists, and they didn't change it (out of ignorance only).
This is very obvious in the "Hallelujah" Psalms where, for some reason, the original
Septuagint translators combined the two Hebrew words Hallelu ("Praise ye") and Jah
("Jehovah") and then put that new word into GREEK characters (which still had the
Hebrew pronunciation of "Hallelujah").
o When the 2nd century Jew-despising "Christian" copyists saw "Jah" in Hebrew
characters, they always removed it entirely or changed it to "Lord" or "God" - e.g., Ex.
15:2; Ps. 68:4, 18; Is. 26:4. But when they saw the Greek characters of "HalleluJAH" (
JAllhlouia) they always left it unchanged:
o Of course, the Gentile manuscript copyists of later centuries probably did not know that
"Abijah"("The Father is Jehovah"), "Elijah," ("God is Jehovah"), etc. are transliterations
that actually use the shortened form of God's personal name ("Jah") and certainly didn't
know that "Hallelujah" (Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6) is really Hebrew for "Praise Jah" or they
would have surely changed them all also. However, the inspired Jewish Christians who
actually wrote the original NT manuscripts certainly knew that writing or proclaiming
aloud "Hallelu JAH!" (whether in Hebrew characters or Greek characters) was writing
(or proclaiming aloud) God's personal name. If the Jewish Christian and Apostle John
had left God's name out of the NT originally, he surely would not have then used "Hallelu
JAH!" in four places in Revelation 19, for he knew exactly what it truly said: "Praise ye
Jehovah"! Only the Hebrew-ignorant Gentile "Christian" copyists would be fooled by
"Hallelujah" exactly as they were when they removed and changed the Divine Name in
the Septuagint about the same time)!

Meilleure réponse - Choisie par le demandeur

On notera également que, sous l’entrée “ Le Tétragramme dans le Nouveau Testament ”,
un dictionnaire biblique (The Anchor Bible Dictionary) fait ce commentaire :

“ Certains indices laissent entendre que le Tétragramme, le nom divin, Yahweh, figurait
dans une partie, voire dans la totalité, des citations de l’A[ncien] T[estament] reprises
dans le N[ouveau] T[estament] lorsque les parties du NT ont été rédigées. ” Enfin, le
bibliste George Howard déclare : “ Étant donné qu’on trouvait encore le Tétragramme
dans les copies de la Bible en grec [la Septante], qui constituait l’Écriture sainte pour
l’Église primitive, il est raisonnable de penser que les rédacteurs du N[ouveau]
T[estament] maintinrent le Tétragramme dans le texte biblique quand ils citèrent
l’Écriture. ” Fin de citation.

De nombreuses versions du Nouveau Testament en langues africaines, américaines,

asiatiques et des îles du Pacifique utilisent abondamment le nom divin. Certaines de ces
traductions sont parues récemment, comme la Bible en rotumien (1999), qui emploie la
forme Jihova 51 fois dans 48 versets du Nouveau Testament, et la version en batak-toba
d’Indonésie (1989), qui emploie Jahowa 110 fois dans le Nouveau Testament. Le nom
divin a été utilisé également dans des traductions allemandes, anglaises, espagnoles et
françaises. À titre d’exemple, Benjamin Wilson a traduit le Nouveau Testament en
anglais en 1864 et a employé le nom Jéhovah 18 fois au total.

On trouvera ci-dessous entre autres quelques exemples de traductions dans des langues
européennes qui ont conservé le nom de Dieu dans le Nouveau Testament :
Bible de Chouraqui (1985)
Évangiles et Apocalypse de C. Tresmontant (parus entre 1984 et 1988)
A Literal Translation of the New Testament... From the Text of the Vatican Manuscript,
de Herman Heinfetter (1863)
The Christian’s Bible—New Testament, de George LeFevre (1928)
El Nuevo Testamento de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, de Pablo Besson (1981)
Die heilige Schrift des neuen Testaments, de D. von Brentano (1791).

Manifestement, donc, la Traduction du monde nouveau n’a pas innové en faisant figurer
le nom divin dans le Nouveau Testament.
o