Wycliffe-KJVTetragrammaton Chart[1]

Texts

The texts are A (Gen.15:2); B (Gen.22:14); C (Ex.6:2); D (Ex.6:3); E (Ex.15:3); F (Ex.17:15); G (Ex.23:17); H (Ex.33:19); I (Ex.34:23); J (Dt.3:24); K (Dt.9:26); L (Jg.6:24); M (Ps.83:18); N (Is.12:2); O (Is.26:4). Versions having Iehoua[h]/‌Jehovah,[2] at those days state of the art, have a smiley face. Those given a 4 (Four Caps) show Tyndaleís convention of capitalising Godís name, howbeit it still implied a title, not a name. Those merely expressing Lord/‌lord, I have marked L. An o (other) indicates either Adonay (Vulgate), Almighty (Vulgate), or God [eternal], which includes the practice of compounding Adonay Yahweh, or Yah Yahweh, into Lord God (Domine DeusKJVs have either Lord GOD or, better indicating a name component, LORD God. A dash (-) is for missing text.

 

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

WycliffeLV

o

L

L

o

o

L

o

L

o

o

o

L

L

L

o

Tyndale

4

L

-

-

-

-

Coverdale

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Matthew

L

L

o

o

L

o

o

Great

o

L

L

L

L

o

L

o

o

L

o

o

Geneva

o

L

L

o

o

o

o

Bishops

o

L

L

L

o

o

o

L

o

o

o

Douay

o

L

L

o

o

L

o

L

o

o

o

L

L

L

o

KJVCambridge

o

4

4

o

4

o

o

o

Comparative Class Grades

We neither should tetragrammatise adonay texts, nor detetragrammatise Yahwehtexts. On this chart, yet aware that sadly Tyndaleoften reverted to the Latin method of non-differentiation by Lord, I rate Tyndaleís average as best, followed by the KJV. Let us be surprised, not that Tyndaledidnít go as far as we might have wished, but rather that he went as far as he did. He was the baker expecting execution, whereas the KJVtranslators were the butler expecting exaltation (Gen.40). Coverdalescores well, yet only and overly employed Tyndaleís four cap method, thus both downgrading Godís name to a mere reverential marker, and upgrading adonay to that same marker level, effectively flattening out the distinction. If all little girls become princesses (and all mothers, queens), then all princesses become commoners. If only the right boxes are to be ticked, does it really help to tick all the boxes, right and wrong? Is Equality Law right, when moral and immoral boxes must be treated as equal (eg partner, or Ms) to avoid the secular blasphemy of discrimination, and morality flatlined? Thankfully the KJVachieved greater accuracy than Tyndale& Coverdale, though seldom preferring Tyndaleís higher method to his lower, and being confused over compound terms such as Yah/Yahweh, or Adonay/‌Yahweh.[3] The other versions infrequently followed Tyndaleís better idea, and failed to follow his lesser one. Of them, Geneva/‌Matthewrate better than Bishops/‌Great, followed way down the line by Douay/‌Wycliffe, which followed the Vulgatelead.



[1] ††††††††† Numerous Charts are on www.mdtc.eu/wggc.html.

[2] ††††††††† The KJV1611 had the former; since 1671 it has had the latter.

[3] ††††††††† For example, Ex.4:10 & 5:22 both have Adonay & Yahweh, which Tyndaleput equally as Lord/‌Lord, Coverdaleequally as LORD/‌LORD, and the KJVas Lord/‌LORD.