Information Confirmation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Information Confirmation

Post by Jax »

Came across this blog post the other day while looking up something that MrMacSon had posted (thanks MrMacSon) and wondered what others on this board thought about the contents. https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/cate ... ha-notzri/

I am very interested in confirming information such as this...
As you know, Jesus’ actual name is “Yeshua”. Translating this directly into English is “Joshua”, not “Jesus”. But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou” (Ιησου), and “Iesou[s]” in English is Jesus. In my opinion, it seems as though “Iesous” was back-translated in to Hebrew to end up as “Yeshu”; the “I” sound in Greek, the “Y” sound in Hebrew, and “J” sound in our modern English are all generally the same sound, so you could say “Yeshu” or “Jesu”, the “s” in Hebrew can be pronounced as either a regular “s” or an “sh” (It seems pretty obvious to me that the Hebrew “Yeshu” was derived from the Greek “Jesu”). And the ending of the word in Greek depends on its grammatical context.

For example, “Jude”, “Judas”, and “Judah” are all the same name in Greek but change depending on the grammatical context, kinda like we would say either “an apple” or “a pear”; so “Jesus” could be pronounced as either “Jesu” or “Jesus” (or “Jesun”) in Greek. In Mark 1:1, it says “αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου” (the beginning of the good news [of/by] Jesu Christ) but just a few lines later at Mark 1:9 it says “ιησους της γαλιλαιας” (Jesus of Galilee [“from Nazareth” is argued to not be original, since this is the only time in Mark’s gospel he uses “Ναζαρετ – Nazareth” instead of “Ναζαρηνος – Nazarene” and all of its grammatical variations, the significance of which I’ll explain later]). Later at Mark 15:1 is another grammatical variation of “Jesus”, it says “ολον το συνεδριον δησαντες τον ιησουν” which says literally “all of the conference bound [the] Jesoun”.

“Jesu” is the neutral version of the name and the actual transliteration of Yeshua/Joshua, whereas if Jesus is doing something, it becomes “Jesus” (which is why this is the version that occurs the most in the NT), if Jesus is having something done to him, it changes to “Jesoun”. And just to be thorough, here is Numbers 13:16 LXX:

και επωνομασεν μωυσης τον αυση υιον ναυη ιησουν / And Moses named Hosea son of Nun Jesus

But it’s literally “Jesun” since Jesus/Joshua is having something done to him – the naming.
And this...
For example, in Hebrew, there are two words for “lord” – Adonai and adoni. Adonai is “LORD” and adoni is “lord”; the first refers to YHWH only, and the second is simply a human title. This is because Jews, if they’re reading from the Hebrew Bible and come across YHWH (יהוה), they’ll say “LORD” – Adonai (or they’ll say “HaShem” – The Name). Greek only has one word for “lord” – kyrios (κυριος). This is a critical point here – the tetragrammaton (יהוה or YHWH – Yahweh) is never written in the LXX. The writers of the gospels and Paul wrote in Greek and used the LXX for their arguments. This means that they couldn’t read Hebrew and thus were unaware of the difference between the two “lords” in Hebrew, and unaware of any being named YHWH. I reiterate – Paul, James, Jude, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and for some reason Jesus himself were **all unaware of a being named YHWH**. All references to YHWH in the LXX use either “kyrios” or “theos”, so the writers of the NT only used those words as well. The most glaring example of this confusion by the gospel writers is Psalm 110 (NIV):

“The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

In Hebrew, the first LORD is pronounced as “Adonai” but would be really pronounced YHWH (vowels aren’t really written in Hebrew, so for example your name in Hebrew is actually שרה or SRH) if Jews were to forsake the aversion of saying Ha Shem out loud. The second “lord” is “adoni”, and in this case is referring to a *human*… King David (the Psalm begins with “a psalm for/about King David”. “My lord” = King David). Adoni is *never* used for a divine entity, only for *humans*. The second “lord” is, in English, improperly capitalized (you can read the actual Hebrew here: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt26b0.htm and see that יהוה only appears one time in verse 1, not twice; Hebrew reads from right to left). However, this distinction between the two types of “lord” doesn’t exist in Greek or in the LXX. So when, for example, the writer of Matthew wrote 22:41-44 and quotes Psalm 110, he thinks that both lords have the same divine “lord” status. Both “lords” are gods. Thus you get the inaccurate idea that the “lord / adoni”, a god (in Matthew’s case, Jesus) sits at the right hand of the “lord” (YHWH). A Pharisee (trained in Hebrew) would have pointed out the two *very* different types of “lords” immediately, and not sulked away with their tail between their legs. This also seems to imply that Jesus spoke Greek *instead* of Hebrew or Aramaic, which doesn’t make sense.

The implication that Jesus spoke in Greek and not Hebrew/Aramaic shows up again in John 3:1-8… “[born] again” (γεννηθη άνωθεν – gennithi anothen [our word “genesis” comes from the Greek]) makes sense in Greek as a double entendre, but not in Aramaic/Hebrew, since in Greek the word for “again / anew” can also mean “from above” (anothen). The more specific word in Greek for “again” would be either “pali” (or in koine Greek “palin” …lol) or as is used in 1 Peter 1:23 “αναγεγεννημενοι – anagegennimeni”… literally “reborn [pl.]”. This double meaning is completely absent in the Hebrew/Aramaic word for “anew”. “From above” and “anew” are two separate words/phrases in Aramaic. The writer of John thus implies that Jesus and Nicodemus are speaking in Greek to each other, since Nicodemus wouldn’t have had the confusion/reaction that he had if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and said “born from above”.

Paul makes the same “mistake” meshing the two different “lords” and showing ignorance of YHWH in Romans 10:9 – 13 (and elsewhere):

“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. For the same Lord is Lord of all. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

Paul is using Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5 LXX) as a proof text for the divinity of Jesus. His argument only makes sense if Joel 2:32 reads “lord” – as does the LXX. If Paul had rabbinic training (or could read Hebrew) then he would certainly know that Joel was talking about a specific name – YHWH (the referent for Adonai). Joel in Hebrew doesn’t say “lord”, it says YHWH. Not once does the book of Joel say the word “lord”.

To try expressing this another way, whenever the phrase “YHWH El” or “YHWH Elohim” appears, Hebrew literate Jews would read it “the LORD God”. Sometimes it’s written as YHWH El (the LORD God), sometimes just YHWH (the LORD). If someone can’t read Hebrew, they might think that the singular “lord” (kyrios) is a different being than the “lord god” (kyrios theos), but seems to have similar “powers” as the “LORD God”. Since non-Hebrew literate readers of the LXX find “lord” and a different “lord god” they might think that these are two different beings (sorta like Philo’s “Logos”, hmm…) – yet Hebrew literate readers would recognize that YHWH (Adonai – Lord) is the same being, regardless of the qualifier “God”. Notice in Joel 2:32 that “the LORD God” is never mentioned. Just the LORD. Of course, Paul couldn’t read Hebrew, so he didn’t know that this “LORD” character is YHWH, and not some other “LORD” (in Paul’s case, Jesus). Now you know how the phrase “my name is the LORD” is actually supposed to be (“my name is YHWH”).

As a slight side note, however, the gospel of John implies that YHWH’s name is “I Am”, which he got from Exodus 3:14. It’s still not quite, since “I am” in Hebrew is אהיה (ehyeh or ahyah) and not יהוה. John uses multiple “I am” statements to imply that Jesus is God – but he’s still unaware of The Name יהוה since that would have been written in the LXX as “lord” and אהיה would be written in the LXX as “I am” (εγω ειμι – ego eimi). But notice in the very next verse, Exodus 3:15, YHWH says his actual name that he says he should be called “from generation to generation” (but, in our English and the LXX, it says “LORD” and not YHWH). And in the subsequent generations, the Jews have to be reminded again and again that their “God” is “Yah” (“god” = el… “yah” or “jah” – Elijah, means “my god is jah”; “shua” in Hebrew means “salvation”, “Yah-Shua” [Jesus’ Hebrew name] means “Yah is salvation”; but don’t take these theophoric names too prophetically, since “Judas” – the betrayer – his name comes from Yahuwdah which means “praise to Yah”).

This Jewish person I correspond with sometimes had this to say about Exodus 3:14:

Without gong into detailed Hebrew ‘word studies’ and elaborately documented ‘proofs’, my personal opinion on Exodus 3:14 is approximately;

“I am the causing to be, what I am causing to be”

A ‘play’ on The Name ‘YHWH’ and the causative verb forms ‘yah’he and ha’yah’ יהי and היה (and ‘it (he) WAS)’-(and ‘it (he) BECAME’)

The core idea being of a past, present, and future (self-existent) FORCE, causing, and bringing into ‘being’ all that -ever ‘was’ -now ‘is’-ever ‘shall be

The LXX version of Ex 3:14 has YHWH say “εγω ειμι ο ων” which in Greek is “I am the being” (ων is the Koine Greek version of οντος which forms the root to one of my favorite words “ontology” lol). It’s probably the closest the Greek translators could come to describing the “pun” that only makes sense in Hebrew.

Another interesting side note about “adoni” is that’s no coincidence that this is the name of one of the Greek gods “Adonis” who, oddly enough, was a dying and resurrecting god. “Adoni” (lord) is where Adonis gets his name.

So, if Paul knew Hebrew, his argument in Romans would look like this (for this instance I’ll translated YHWH as “Jehovah” as JWs do):

“Whoever calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved. For the same Jehovah is Jehovah of all. If you confess with your mouth that Jehovah is salvation is Jehovah and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

This makes absolutely no sense. Like I wrote above, “Jesus” isn’t Jesus’ actual name, it’s “Yah is salvation” (Yahshua or Yahoshua).
I look forward to any feedback you gentlemen can give me.

Lane
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Jax »

Update: Part 2 and 3 of the above blog post are here... https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/category/ebionites/
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:43 am Came across this blog post the other day while looking up something that MrMacSon had posted (thanks MrMacSon) and wondered what others on this board thought about the contents. https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/cate ... ha-notzri/

I am very interested in confirming information such as this...
As you know, Jesus’ actual name is “Yeshua”. Translating this directly into English is “Joshua”, not “Jesus”. But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou” (Ιησου), and “Iesou[s]” in English is Jesus. In my opinion, it seems as though “Iesous” was back-translated in to Hebrew to end up as “Yeshu”; the “I” sound in Greek, the “Y” sound in Hebrew, and “J” sound in our modern English are all generally the same sound, so you could say “Yeshu” or “Jesu”, the “s” in Hebrew can be pronounced as either a regular “s” or an “sh” (It seems pretty obvious to me that the Hebrew “Yeshu” was derived from the Greek “Jesu”). And the ending of the word in Greek depends on its grammatical context.

For example, “Jude”, “Judas”, and “Judah” are all the same name in Greek but change depending on the grammatical context, kinda like we would say either “an apple” or “a pear”; so “Jesus” could be pronounced as either “Jesu” or “Jesus” (or “Jesun”) in Greek. In Mark 1:1, it says “αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου” (the beginning of the good news [of/by] Jesu Christ) but just a few lines later at Mark 1:9 it says “ιησους της γαλιλαιας” (Jesus of Galilee [“from Nazareth” is argued to not be original, since this is the only time in Mark’s gospel he uses “Ναζαρετ – Nazareth” instead of “Ναζαρηνος – Nazarene” and all of its grammatical variations, the significance of which I’ll explain later]). Later at Mark 15:1 is another grammatical variation of “Jesus”, it says “ολον το συνεδριον δησαντες τον ιησουν” which says literally “all of the conference bound [the] Jesoun”.

“Jesu” is the neutral version of the name and the actual transliteration of Yeshua/Joshua, whereas if Jesus is doing something, it becomes “Jesus” (which is why this is the version that occurs the most in the NT), if Jesus is having something done to him, it changes to “Jesoun”. And just to be thorough, here is Numbers 13:16 LXX:

και επωνομασεν μωυσης τον αυση υιον ναυη ιησουν / And Moses named Hosea son of Nun Jesus
But it’s literally “Jesun” since Jesus/Joshua is having something done to him – the naming.
The bare facts here are reasonably accurate. The interpretation of those facts (Greek > Hebrew), however, is opaque to me. Much seems to be made of "Jesus" ending with that sigma in the nominative case in Greek, but Hebrew names are routinely given a Greek case ending in the nominative (Moses comes from משה, for instance).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 6:53 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:43 am Came across this blog post the other day while looking up something that MrMacSon had posted (thanks MrMacSon) and wondered what others on this board thought about the contents. https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/cate ... ha-notzri/

I am very interested in confirming information such as this...
As you know, Jesus’ actual name is “Yeshua”. Translating this directly into English is “Joshua”, not “Jesus”. But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou” (Ιησου), and “Iesou[s]” in English is Jesus. In my opinion, it seems as though “Iesous” was back-translated in to Hebrew to end up as “Yeshu”; the “I” sound in Greek, the “Y” sound in Hebrew, and “J” sound in our modern English are all generally the same sound, so you could say “Yeshu” or “Jesu”, the “s” in Hebrew can be pronounced as either a regular “s” or an “sh” (It seems pretty obvious to me that the Hebrew “Yeshu” was derived from the Greek “Jesu”). And the ending of the word in Greek depends on its grammatical context.

For example, “Jude”, “Judas”, and “Judah” are all the same name in Greek but change depending on the grammatical context, kinda like we would say either “an apple” or “a pear”; so “Jesus” could be pronounced as either “Jesu” or “Jesus” (or “Jesun”) in Greek. In Mark 1:1, it says “αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου” (the beginning of the good news [of/by] Jesu Christ) but just a few lines later at Mark 1:9 it says “ιησους της γαλιλαιας” (Jesus of Galilee [“from Nazareth” is argued to not be original, since this is the only time in Mark’s gospel he uses “Ναζαρετ – Nazareth” instead of “Ναζαρηνος – Nazarene” and all of its grammatical variations, the significance of which I’ll explain later]). Later at Mark 15:1 is another grammatical variation of “Jesus”, it says “ολον το συνεδριον δησαντες τον ιησουν” which says literally “all of the conference bound [the] Jesoun”.

“Jesu” is the neutral version of the name and the actual transliteration of Yeshua/Joshua, whereas if Jesus is doing something, it becomes “Jesus” (which is why this is the version that occurs the most in the NT), if Jesus is having something done to him, it changes to “Jesoun”. And just to be thorough, here is Numbers 13:16 LXX:

και επωνομασεν μωυσης τον αυση υιον ναυη ιησουν / And Moses named Hosea son of Nun Jesus
But it’s literally “Jesun” since Jesus/Joshua is having something done to him – the naming.
The bare facts here are reasonably accurate. The interpretation of those facts (Greek > Hebrew), however, is opaque to me. Much seems to be made of "Jesus" ending with that sigma in the nominative case in Greek, but Hebrew names are routinely given a Greek case ending in the nominative (Moses comes from משה, for instance).
Thank you for your reply Ben. I don't want to just blindly rely on information I've found on some web pages, it helps to hear from someone else like you.
Any thoughts on the second part?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:13 amAny thoughts on the second part?
This part comes off as a bit of mindreading to me:
I reiterate – Paul, James, Jude, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and for some reason Jesus himself were **all unaware of a being named YHWH**.
If the custom was to use a substitute name for Yahweh except in the rarest of circumstances, how would we know that these authors do not know of the name of Yahweh? Their use of a substitute would be expected, not unusual.
The implication that Jesus spoke in Greek and not Hebrew/Aramaic shows up again in John 3:1-8… “[born] again” (γεννηθη άνωθεν – gennithi anothen [our word “genesis” comes from the Greek]) makes sense in Greek as a double entendre, but not in Aramaic/Hebrew, since in Greek the word for “again / anew” can also mean “from above” (anothen). The more specific word in Greek for “again” would be either “pali” (or in koine Greek “palin” …lol) or as is used in 1 Peter 1:23 “αναγεγεννημενοι – anagegennimeni”… literally “reborn [pl.]”. This double meaning is completely absent in the Hebrew/Aramaic word for “anew”. “From above” and “anew” are two separate words/phrases in Aramaic. The writer of John thus implies that Jesus and Nicodemus are speaking in Greek to each other, since Nicodemus wouldn’t have had the confusion/reaction that he had if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and said “born from above”.
Again, the data is by and large correct, I think. But the interpretation is weird: "Jesus spoke in Greek." I would suggest it is at least equally plausible that this saying was simply made up (and in Greek). Jesus need have nothing to do with it.
Paul makes the same “mistake” meshing the two different “lords” and showing ignorance of YHWH in Romans 10:9 – 13 (and elsewhere):

“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. For the same Lord is Lord of all. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
This is possible. I myself favor a very different interpretation of Paul's use of the term "Lord," one based upon observations and arguments made by Margaret Barker: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2588&start=10#p71703. Other interpretations are possible, but they have to grapple with the stark fact that, while the Old Greek very frequently calls (the one and only) God the Father kurios, Paul reserves that title almost exclusively for Jesus the Son, not for God the Father. In other words, even if Paul knew only Greek and no Hebrew, something weird is going on (he never unambiguously calls the Father kurios, not once, even though it would be clear in the Old Greek that the God of the Jews was called kurios), and that link does not reckon with what it may be.
And in the subsequent generations, the Jews have to be reminded again and again that their “God” is “Yah” (“god” = el… “yah” or “jah” – Elijah, means “my god is jah”; “shua” in Hebrew means “salvation”, “Yah-Shua” [Jesus’ Hebrew name] means “Yah is salvation”; but don’t take these theophoric names too prophetically, since “Judas” – the betrayer – his name comes from Yahuwdah which means “praise to Yah”).
This bit sinks the argument previously made that "the Hebrew 'Yeshu' was derived from the Greek 'Jesu'" (from your "first part" above). Yeshua means something concrete in Hebrew; it means nothing in Greek. The natural conclusion is that it originated in Hebrew and then was transliterated into Greek.

So, again, most of the raw data is correct, so far as it goes, but the interpretations of that data are either merely possible (as opposed to probable) or, in some cases, not even that.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:38 am
Jax wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:13 amAny thoughts on the second part?
This part comes off as a bit of mindreading to me:
I reiterate – Paul, James, Jude, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and for some reason Jesus himself were **all unaware of a being named YHWH**.
If the custom was to use a substitute name for Yahweh except in the rarest of circumstances, how would we know that these authors do not know of the name of Yahweh? Their use of a substitute would be expected, not unusual.
The implication that Jesus spoke in Greek and not Hebrew/Aramaic shows up again in John 3:1-8… “[born] again” (γεννηθη άνωθεν – gennithi anothen [our word “genesis” comes from the Greek]) makes sense in Greek as a double entendre, but not in Aramaic/Hebrew, since in Greek the word for “again / anew” can also mean “from above” (anothen). The more specific word in Greek for “again” would be either “pali” (or in koine Greek “palin” …lol) or as is used in 1 Peter 1:23 “αναγεγεννημενοι – anagegennimeni”… literally “reborn [pl.]”. This double meaning is completely absent in the Hebrew/Aramaic word for “anew”. “From above” and “anew” are two separate words/phrases in Aramaic. The writer of John thus implies that Jesus and Nicodemus are speaking in Greek to each other, since Nicodemus wouldn’t have had the confusion/reaction that he had if Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and said “born from above”.
Again, the data is by and large correct, I think. But the interpretation is weird: "Jesus spoke in Greek." I would suggest it is at least equally plausible that this saying was simply made up (and in Greek). Jesus need have nothing to do with it.
Paul makes the same “mistake” meshing the two different “lords” and showing ignorance of YHWH in Romans 10:9 – 13 (and elsewhere):

“Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. For the same Lord is Lord of all. If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
This is possible. I myself favor a very different interpretation of Paul's use of the term "Lord," one based upon observations and arguments made by Margaret Barker: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2588&start=10#p71703. Other interpretations are possible, but they have to grapple with the stark fact that, while the Old Greek very frequently calls (the one and only) God the Father kurios, Paul reserves that title almost exclusively for Jesus the Son, not for God the Father. In other words, even if Paul knew only Greek and no Hebrew, something weird is going on (he never unambiguously calls the Father kurios, not once, even though it would be clear in the Old Greek that the God of the Jews was called kurios), and that link does not reckon with what it may be.
And in the subsequent generations, the Jews have to be reminded again and again that their “God” is “Yah” (“god” = el… “yah” or “jah” – Elijah, means “my god is jah”; “shua” in Hebrew means “salvation”, “Yah-Shua” [Jesus’ Hebrew name] means “Yah is salvation”; but don’t take these theophoric names too prophetically, since “Judas” – the betrayer – his name comes from Yahuwdah which means “praise to Yah”).
This bit sinks the argument previously made that "the Hebrew 'Yeshu' was derived from the Greek 'Jesu'" (from your "first part" above). Yeshua means something concrete in Hebrew; it means nothing in Greek. The natural conclusion is that it originated in Hebrew and then was transliterated into Greek.

So, again, most of the raw data is correct, so far as it goes, but the interpretations of that data are either merely possible (as opposed to probable) or, in some cases, not even that.

If the custom was to use a substitute name for Yahweh except in the rarest of circumstances, how would we know that these authors do not know of the name of Yahweh? Their use of a substitute would be expected, not unusual.
I agree.
Again, the data is by and large correct, I think. But the interpretation is weird: "Jesus spoke in Greek." I would suggest it is at least equally plausible that this saying was simply made up (and in Greek). Jesus need have nothing to do with it.
Again, I agree.
This is possible. I myself favor a very different interpretation of Paul's use of the term "Lord," one based upon observations and arguments made by Margaret Barker: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2588&start=10#p71703. Other interpretations are possible, but they have to grapple with the stark fact that, while the Old Greek very frequently calls (the one and only) God the Father kurios, Paul reserves that title almost exclusively for Jesus the Son, not for God the Father. In other words, even if Paul knew only Greek and no Hebrew, something weird is going on (he never unambiguously calls the Father kurios, not once, even though it would be clear in the Old Greek that the God of the Jews was called kurios), and that link does not reckon with what it may be.
Thank you for this link. I am reading it now with interest.
This bit sinks the argument previously made that "the Hebrew 'Yeshu' was derived from the Greek 'Jesu'" (from your "first part" above). Yeshua means something concrete in Hebrew; it means nothing in Greek. The natural conclusion is that it originated in Hebrew and then was transliterated into Greek.
Agreed. Does it however mean Iesou = Yeshua = “Yah-Shua” = “Yah is salvation” as in "YHWH is salvation"?

Thanks again.

Lane
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Jax wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:32 pm
This bit sinks the argument previously made that "the Hebrew 'Yeshu' was derived from the Greek 'Jesu'" (from your "first part" above). Yeshua means something concrete in Hebrew; it means nothing in Greek. The natural conclusion is that it originated in Hebrew and then was transliterated into Greek.
Agreed. Does it however mean Iesou = Yeshua = “Yah-Shua” = “Yah is salvation” as in "YHWH is salvation"?
In the main, yes (except that it would be Iēsous in the nominative). To fill it all out:
  • Yehoshua = Hebrew for "Yahweh saves / is salvation."
  • Yeshua = alternative/shortened form of Yehoshua.
  • Iēsous = Greek transliteration of Yeshua + Greek nominative case ending (Iēsou = genitive & dative; Iēsoun = accusative).
  • Iesus = Jesus = Latin transliteration of Iēsous.
  • Joshua = traditional English transliteration of Yehoshua/Yeshua.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by MrMacSon »

Jax wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:43 am Came across this blog post the other day while looking up something that MrMacSon had posted (thanks MrMacSon) and wondered what others on this board thought about the contents. https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/cate ... ha-notzri/
Cheers, Jax.

Jax wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:43 am I am very interested in confirming information such as this...

... In my opinion, it seems as though “Iesous” was back-translated in to Hebrew to end up as “Yeshu” ...
I dunno about that. One would think a proposition such as that would be backed up by other facts and context eg. a time period and place, such as a place where a lot of Judaism was influenced by hellenization, such as Alexandria
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:17 pm
Jax wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:32 pm
This bit sinks the argument previously made that "the Hebrew 'Yeshu' was derived from the Greek 'Jesu'" (from your "first part" above). Yeshua means something concrete in Hebrew; it means nothing in Greek. The natural conclusion is that it originated in Hebrew and then was transliterated into Greek.
Agreed. Does it however mean Iesou = Yeshua = “Yah-Shua” = “Yah is salvation” as in "YHWH is salvation"?
In the main, yes (except that it would be Iēsous in the nominative). To fill it all out:
  • Yehoshua = Hebrew for "Yahweh saves / is salvation."
  • Yeshua = alternative/shortened form of Yehoshua.
  • Iēsous = Greek transliteration of Yeshua + Greek nominative case ending (Iēsou = genitive & dative; Iēsoun = accusative).
  • Iesus = Jesus = Latin transliteration of Iēsous.
  • Joshua = traditional English transliteration of Yehoshua/Yeshua.
Thank you very much!

Your obedient and most humble servant

Lane
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Information Confirmation

Post by Jax »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2019 1:49 pm
Jax wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:43 am Came across this blog post the other day while looking up something that MrMacSon had posted (thanks MrMacSon) and wondered what others on this board thought about the contents. https://deusdiapente.wordpress.com/cate ... ha-notzri/
Cheers, Jax.

Jax wrote: Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:43 am I am very interested in confirming information such as this...

... In my opinion, it seems as though “Iesous” was back-translated in to Hebrew to end up as “Yeshu” ...
I dunno about that. One would think a proposition such as that would be backed up by other facts and context eg. a time period and place, such as a place where a lot of Judaism was influenced by hellenization, such as Alexandria
I agree, it seems to me that a one way trip from the LXX is the most probable.
Post Reply