Information Confirmation

[Stuart]

I think the more interesting part of the commentary has to do with Psalm 110:1 (109.1 LXX) and the understanding in the Christian texts that can only derive from the Greek for Lord. The Hebrew text is clear that God and human masters are different, Adonai (יהוה unspoken "Yehovah") and Adon (אָדֹן). And the observation that Palestinian Jews who could read Hebrew if not speak it, and certainly spoke Aramaic, would never accept the interpretation of Matthew 22:41-46 and parallels (Mark 12:35-37, Luke 20:41-44).

Luke comes to us in different form than the Marcionite text (e.g., 20:37b-38), but Matthew, with seems to preserve best what appears to be a Marcionite antithesis by having the question of Jesus' origin stated by the Pharisees, stand ins for Jewish Christian, (22:41-42) retorted by Jesus, using the OT Psalm against the notion of Jesus being a descendant of David, but in fact coming from the divine. Luke's text simply has a vague "they" brought up out of the blue and answered, without ever having actually stating anything. Mark asks "how can the scribes say Christ is the son of David?", implying the adjusters of the texts (i.e., Christian texts) are the ones making this claim. This Psalm was also part of the Catholic formula, for declaring a virgin birth (e.g., Irenaeus AH 4.33.4 ... I was looking at it recently, so came to mind). So the usage was not a differentiator, rather it's interpretation. But both Catholic and Gnostic/Marcionite comes from a reading that would not pass muster in the Hebrew/Aramaic Palestine.

We see the use of this Psalm being understood to declare himself the Christ in the trial (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69) and thus blaspheming (Matthew 26:65-66, Mark 22:63-64, Luke 22:71) by declaring himself equal with God. Of course this doesn't work in Hebrew, but does in Greek, since he would be seen as declaring himself the heir of David rather than a God.

We see a pre-Catholic formula of Jesus being adopted as God's son in Act 2:32-36, again to Jews in Jerusalem, who should not be accepting this Greek reading, and Hebrews 10:12-13, 1:3 and explained in 1:13. Similar in Ephesians 1:20. There are other implied examples of this formula in 1 Corinthians 15:25 (really the passage 15:24-27 which has a Gnostic celestial powers read to it), and also Colossians 3:1. But all these are based on the notion that "the Lord says to my Lord" as equals speaking that only comes about in Greek.

Anyway, I find that more curious. And somewhat satisfying, as I have long felt that Christianity formed in Gentile communities that while using the LXX, had long separated from Palestinian Judaism and were interpreting the OT very differently than in Palestine. My WAG being the groups were encratitic (celibate), and while they started as Jewish communities, they recruited from the local population, and in a few generations had effectively been replaced by gentiles. Egypt is often pointed to for the source, but the Pauline letters and the various myths suggest modern day Turkey (Asia Minor) as a probable source, reaching Greece and Syria. The Gospels to have such a story where that interpretation is accepted by Palestinian Jews is absurd, unless we are looking back several generations from outside Palestine and projecting this element upon the story.

Whatever the above paragraph is speculative to say the least. But the key point is whomever was writing the NT letters and gospels, they were not Aramaic or Hebrew speakers, and they only knew the LXX.

[Secret Alias]

The original post about 'Iesou' is complete nonsense.

But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou”

But Stuarts point about Adonai and Yahweh and those who hold the same thing about Yahweh and Elohim always makes me laugh. Claiming that the various divine names in the Pentateuch are all 'different names' of one god is like people 2000 years from now saying that 'Dick,' 'Jane' and 'Spot' are all different names of the same person.

See Dick run! Run, Dick, run! See Jane! See Jane run! Run, Jane, run! See Spot! See Spot go! Go, Spot, go!

[Jax]

The original post about 'Iesou' is complete nonsense.

But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou”

But Stuarts point about Adonai and Yahweh and those who hold the same thing about Yahweh and Elohim always makes me laugh. Claiming that the various divine names in the Pentateuch are all 'different names' of one god is like people 2000 years from now saying that 'Dick,' 'Jane' and 'Spot' are all different names of the same person.

See Dick run! Run, Dick, run! See Jane! See Jane run! Run, Jane, run! See Spot! See Spot go! Go, Spot, go!

What is the root of Iesou then?

[Secret Alias]

IESOUS

[Ben C. Smith]

The original post about 'Iesou' is complete nonsense.

But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou”

But Stuarts point about Adonai and Yahweh and those who hold the same thing about Yahweh and Elohim always makes me laugh. Claiming that the various divine names in the Pentateuch are all 'different names' of one god is like people 2000 years from now saying that 'Dick,' 'Jane' and 'Spot' are all different names of the same person.

See Dick run! Run, Dick, run! See Jane! See Jane run! Run, Jane, run! See Spot! See Spot go! Go, Spot, go!

What is the root of Iesou then?

Stephen is just pointing out that one ought not to ignore the Greek case endings. Iēsou looks closer to Yeshua than Iēsous does, but this means nothing etymologically. The article seemed like it was trying to say that Yeshua is more closely connected to Iēsou (the genitive or dative) than to Iēsous (the nominative), which is not how transliterating names from and into these languages works.

[Jax]

The original post about 'Iesou' is complete nonsense.

But “Yeshua” in Greek is “Iesou”

But Stuarts point about Adonai and Yahweh and those who hold the same thing about Yahweh and Elohim always makes me laugh. Claiming that the various divine names in the Pentateuch are all 'different names' of one god is like people 2000 years from now saying that 'Dick,' 'Jane' and 'Spot' are all different names of the same person.

See Dick run! Run, Dick, run! See Jane! See Jane run! Run, Jane, run! See Spot! See Spot go! Go, Spot, go!

What is the root of Iesou then?

Stephen is just pointing out that one ought not to ignore the Greek case endings. Iēsou looks closer to Yeshua than Iēsous does, but this means nothing etymologically. The article seemed like it was trying to say that Yeshua is more closely connected to Iēsou (the genitive or dative) than to Iēsous (the nominative), which is not how transliterating names from and into these languages works.

AFAIK, in the case of Paul at least, only the name Iesou is used.

I think.

[Ben C. Smith]

AFAIK, in the case of Paul at least, only the name Iesou is used.

I think.

If true, this would mean that Paul never uses Jesus as the subject of a sentence (or in any of the few other reasons the nominative is used grammatically). What information would this give you?

But just a quick, informal search (not even using special software) on my part produces 1 Corinthians 12.3, which uses Ἰησοῦς twice.

I imagine the dative and/or genitive Ἰησοῦ is going to be far more common in Paul, however, given his penchant for phrases like "the faith of Jesus Christ" and "in Jesus Christ." But this is just grammar; it has nothing to do with etymology.

[Secret Alias]

The paucity of nominative examples is interesting though. Wonder what it implies.

[Ben C. Smith]

The paucity of nominative examples is interesting though. Wonder what it implies.

Probably that Paul is usually writing things about Jesus rather than narrating things done by Jesus.

James has only two instances of Jesus, both in the genitive. It appears that 1 Peter never has Jesus in the nominative, while 2 Peter has it only once (out of nine total). Jude never has the nominative. Nor does 2 or 3 John. Among the general epistles, only in 1 John are there quite a few nominatives relative to the total. Contrast the gospels, in which Jesus is constantly the subject of verbs because he is the main character of a narrative.

[Jax]

AFAIK, in the case of Paul at least, only the name Iesou is used.

I think.

If true, this would mean that Paul never uses Jesus as the subject of a sentence (or in any of the few other reasons the nominative is used grammatically). What information would this give you?

But just a quick, informal search (not even using special software) on my part produces 1 Corinthians 12.3, which uses Ἰησοῦς twice.

I imagine the dative and/or genitive Ἰησοῦ is going to be far more common in Paul, however, given his penchant for phrases like "the faith of Jesus Christ" and "in Jesus Christ." But this is just grammar; it has nothing to do with etymology.

I checked that with the Greek Interlinner Bible online and got two cases of IHCOYN at 12:3.

I think I'll troll Paul's letters and see what deviations of Iesou there are and where. I'll post back what I find.