J-D

The Gospels could only list the original names by using Hebrew script, and if they did that they could only be understood by people who could read Hebrew script. Translating texts so that people who do not understand the original language can read them is not lying.

Sheshbazzar

Do you really have such poor reading comprehension?

Of course no one would have called out the form "Jesus" (Gee'zuz) in Judea in his time. (and I remind you, that I do not believe that this 'person' ever existed)
However, the evidence does indicate that the Jews of Judea who were conversant in Greek would have had no problem with hearing and using the Greek form of the name Iēsous (Ia'sooce) and in fact many Jews were actually called by this form of the name. (rather than Ya'shuah_ 'Joshua')

They would have never have even thought of it as having any connections with Latin, or being a 'Latin name', as no Latin copies of either the Tanakh or the NT were even available at that early date.
And No Old Latin New Testament exists, and indeed such a work probably never existed.

First century Jewish familiarity with the Greek form of the name Ἰησοῦς' Iēsous (Ia'sooce) would have derived directly from their long usage and knowledge of The Septuagint, which had already been in wide circulation amongst the Greek speaking population for hundreds years by that time.

The NT was only many years latter composed in the Koine Greek, and it usage of Iēsous for its 'christ's' name was exactly because it was the same name appearing within the 300+ year old LXX (Septuagint) Bibles, that is what gave the name a patina of authenticity.
The crude and faulty Latin translations of the Greek NT only arrived much latter in the 3rd or 4th century, and would have had no impact at all upon what either Greeks or Jews thought or spoke way back in the 1st century.
You are laboring under the mistaken impression that there were Latin Scriptures in the 1st century. There were NO such thing as 'Latin Gospels', or any other 'Latin' Scriptures at that early date.
No one is claiming that Jews ever wrote scriptures in Latin, that is your own personal misconception (although I would suppose that for business and trade purposes some few might have had some Latin language ability)
I will not waste additional time to diverge into the realm of the latter Latin forms of Hebrew names because it is totally irrelevant, by being an anachronism

NO SHIT DICK TRACY! Exactly what I've been trying to get through to you.

However the koine Greek Gospels were based directly on the wording of The Septagint Greek Bible that had been translated into Greek by the JEWISH scribes themselves in the THIRD CENTURY BCE
and it was these JEWISH scribes that first employed the Greek forms of the names Ἰησοῦς' Iēsous (Ia'sooce) and Ἰούδας _'Ioudas'
Ma'bien? Understand? It was the JEWS themselves who first introduced these variant 'Greek' name forms into the Hebrew language through their OWN translation of the their Bible.

Attempting blaming the Romans, and Latin 'Christian scriptures', that were not even in existence until some 500+ years latter for the appearance of these names is utterly and completely asinine.

Its a crying shame that we waste precious time on disputing what ought not even need be disputed, there is so much more important information that I could be imparting to you day by day, that would be far more helpful to you, in building upon the things that you do have right_
but in arguing and disputing everything we never get there.
I'm sure that you are presently incapable of recognizing it, but I could prove to be the best friend that you will ever have.
If I provoke you, it is only because I recognise that you could be doing so much better, and it pains me to sadness to see what I'm seeing.

Sheshbazzar

You do realise, I might hope, that when Josephus translated his writings to into GREEK he perforce also translated each of those hundreds of names that were in his documents into GREEK names that could be read and related to by his GREEK readers?
Do you think he wrote Hebrew names in Hebrew when writing GREEK to the GREEKS, with the intention that they should be able to read and understand his writings, and be able to identify by names familiar to them, of whom he was writing?
He writes his history of the Jewish people, for the edification of other nations by way of the Greek, as few outside of Judea were Hebrew language literate. And there were religious reasons for that.
Look at yourself Joseph, even as much as you love and respect the Hebrew, and yet even with all the modern advantages, you still remain Hebrew language illiterate, how much more so it would have been in an age where books were few and very expensive.
Tanakha scrolls in particular were sacrosanct, and jealously guarded, with a tight web of regulations surrounding their handling, one such as yourself, would likely have lived out your life, never having been permitted more than to gaze at it from a distance of hundreds of paces.

When previously I have addressed you by a perfect and 'proper' Hebrew name, you could not read it.
Now imagine facing a Book of hundreds of pages containing hundreds of strange names, all written in forms that violated most of the pronunciation rules of your native language, and appeared to you as only so much gibberish.
You would soon enough toss the book, and curse foolishness of the author, who lacked the sense to provide you with a document legible in your own language and tongue.
The problem being even more acute for Josephus, as most Greeks already regarded the Judeans as being a lot of inferior and uncouth barbarians.
They were accustomed to flowing prose, and polished style, no way would they have gave respect to a book that attempted to enunciate every queer and foreign name, when through other works they were already well familiar with the Greek forms of these names.

As a budding Hebrew student I endured years of frustration, pronouncing the Hebrew names correctly, I would daily be 'corrected' by my English speaking friends and new aquaintances- they didn't know or speak any Hebrew, and to their 'English ears', the names I spoke sounded all wrong. And nothing I could say would ever change that.
I learned- the hard way, that if I was going to reach them, and teach them, it would not be by being over wise.
Over four decades of guarding my lips, I have developed a finely honed talent for verbally communicating Biblical information without mentioning names.

I have now spent near 20 of the last 24 hours in the researching and the composing of these replies to you.
I have provided and highlighted verses from The Septuagint, from Josephus, and from books of The Greek NT,
If you think this is easy, just give it a try sometime.
And now, although I could continue and go on to show the ancient usages of hundreds of additional names as they appear both within the Hebrew, and within the Greek texts, I am for the present, quite tired of the task.

IamJoseph

Yes: ["I, Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and on who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards - I am Flavius Josephus – I am the author of this work.”']. That is the correct mode of translation - not seen in the Gospels.

However, this is not a good example, it is a historical record made specifically for those who wanted a translation of an existing document. This cannot be the same of a scripture - here, the primal factor must be honesty, authenticity and a true depiction of historicity.

The example is seen in the Hebrew - admittedly not a translated work, but nonetheless accurately listing the non-hebrew names as they were. None in Judea knew a name such as Jesus, and certainly no Judean looked like a Norwegian blonde doll. It creates the blatant suspicion the Gospels is concocting a story far removed from the actuals, by negating everything Hebrew and instigating a reveling on one dishonoring the sabbath, then going on to question what a Judean Jew's first obligations are. It does not exactly smack of a Hebrew writings - the point.

Certainly not illiterate - this label should be cast on Christians who do not know their own revered figures' language, instead clinging to the inferior roman brutes's pagan and imoral language culture, who were the nazis of their days. The Gospels here is hardly shunning away from a past it says it dislodged and opted for Monotheism. It is not possible to speak Hebrew [I guess any language], when one is not actively involved in it in a day to day basis. But I do understand, read and write, biblical Hebrew - which is varied from having a street chat with Israelis. Have you not confronted the ballistic speed they engage it - its faster than a speeding bullet!

And you should know, although English is deemed derived from the latin - its superior mode is based on the Hebrew: namely its reverting to the combining of the vowels and the alphabets as one - which was separated by the Greeks, then adopted by the latin - but reversed again by the intelligent Brits. The Hebrew was and is today, one of the most advanced languages and writings, inherent of both vowels and numbers - as well as musical expressionism - all delivered in only 22 alphabets.

Compared to the Latin, which uses 4 digits to write 17 - the Hebrew despenses this in half the digits. We see majestic prose, poetry and expressionism in the ancient Hebrew - emulated by the greatest writers in history - which has lost none of its lustre today. Does not the Mosaic and Isaiah, for example, trash Shakespear - and I am an avid deciple of the British writers, and can dispense long poems of Byron, Keats, Johnson, Milton - by heart?


Whatever are you on about! The entire Hebrew bible must be written by every jew once in his life - a mandated law, but which is today conducted by scribes and the congressions symbolically write a single alphabet. The Jews are more proficient in their scripture than any other peoples. I am not trying to boast at all, but you are saying antithetical things.

Then it did not show up as Hebrew in the post.


Not true. The Jews held esteemed positions in Egypt, babylon, Greek, Rome, Europe and Islamic sphears - even when exiled there and barred from almost every profession by the Church. They cornered the professions of medicine, accountancy, banking, law, entertainment & music, with almost all the ruling regimes having their first tier advisors as Hebrew. Spain's Isabela was surrounded by Jewish advisers even as the expulsion was in progress there. The Muslim sector suffered great losses when the Jews left last century, and this appears the unfolding case in Euorpe also - what was the last great discovery from these two sectors?

Actually, the Hebrew, with its gutheral accenting, proves its ancient authenticity. It is a crytal ball or a time machine journey how it was spoken 2000 years ago. It shows also how all langues were spoken - they were all gutheral - thus we spell night with a gutheral spelling - this is a residual factor.

I can understand. The consolation is its harder for me - one Zionist against 270 [?] anti-zionists premises. The hard part is not evidencing which, if any, is more correct - it is the nature of the beast which mkes it impossible for one inculated with a certain belief to negate it. Here, reason cannot adequately counter beliefs - even when it is clear the two religions forever obsessed with negating the hebrew - and also being in mutually exclusive contradictions of each other. Would an intelligent alien accept such insanity - would an inbiased court or judge?

Sheshbazzar

At this point, it has become unreasonable for me to continue to engage IAJ in any further discussion along these lines.

דרך אויל ישר בעיניו ושמע לעצה חכם׃
איש־חכם נשפט את־איש אויל ורגז ושחק ואין נחת׃

:פתי כפתי מעשה

"And that's all I got to say about that" -F.G.

show_no_mercy

Are you under the impression that all Jews in the 1st century lived in Judea? No Jews lived in Rome? Greece? Egypt? Are diaspora Jews simply a "European myth"?

Of course no one in Judea in the 1st century CE knew the name "Jesus". Jesus is an English (for all intents and purposes) name - and English didn't exist in the 1st century. However, they most certainly would have known the name Ιησου, since Yashua cannot be pronounced directly in Greek so it is transliterated as Iesou (Ιησου). There's absolutely no instance of "Yashua" in the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures called the LXX.

Ironically, no one in 1st century Judea would have known the name "Judea" either.

J-D

What makes you say that references to 'Joseph' and 'Matthias' are 'correct'? They are not correct Hebrew. (Nor, for that matter, are they correct Latin.)Are you trying to establish that the Gospels are not accurate historical accounts? As far as I know, nobody involved in this discussion believes that the Gospels are accurate historical accounts, so you are unnecessarily pushing on an open door. But it's hard to tell clearly what your point is. For example, not only has nobody in this discussion suggested that Jesus was a Norwegian blonde doll, the Gospels don't suggest that either.The English language is not deemed by linguists to be derived from Latin. Linguists classify English as a branch of Anglo-Frisian, which is in turn a branch of West Germanic, which is in turn a branch of Germanic, which is in turn a branch of Indo-European. Since Latin is also an Indo-European language, English is thus indirectly related to it, but it is not directly descended from it any more than it is from any of the many other Indo-European languages to which it is also indirectly related.

On the other hand, English is written with the basic modern Latin alphabet, which does derive from the Roman/Latin alphabet. It is not exclusively an 'English alphabet', because the same alphabet is also used to write other languages.

Hebrew uses a system of writing in which each symbol always or usually represents a consonant and the reader must supply appropriate vowels (although an optional system of diacritics can be used to indicate vowels). This kind of system is classified by some linguists as a specific variety of alphabet (using terms like 'consonantal alphabet') and by others in a separate category distinct from alphabets. In either case, systems like this are not unique to Hebrew but are the norm in languages of the Afroasiatic family, where the pattern of relationships between consonants and vowels makes it easy to supply appropriate vowels. It would not be appropriate to use such a system for Indo-European languages (like English, Greek, or Latin) because of the different pattern of relationships between consonants and vowels in those languages. Neither system is intrinsically more ingenious or more advanced: they are suitable for different languages.The system of using letters of the Hebrew alphabet to represent numbers is more efficient than the system of using letters of the Roman alphabet, but much less efficient than the modern standard Hindu-Arabic numerals.No. It does not.The presence or absence of guttural sounds has no general correlation with whether a language is old or recent.

IamJoseph

That he is certainly not made to look like a Judean Jew, is the better conclusion.

I refer to the vowels being inclusive of the alphabet - this was taken [or reverted to] from the Hebrew, whereby the vowel ALEF [A] is immediately followed by the Bet [B]. The Greeks separated the vowels from the Hebrew alphabets when they translated the Septuagint in 300 BCE, and the English language reverted back to the Hebrew mode. I gave numerous examples how
the hebrew was more advanced as a language despite its anciency. The Hebrew also includes numericals, all in 22 alphabets, making it the most pristine language of all. The first cencus, in thier millions, is recorded in the Hebrew.






Why is night spelled that way? - because it was pronounced that way in the early stages. The Hebrew was dorment for 2000 years, then returned, along with a 2000 year dorment writings: this has never occured before in Geo-History - and we see the gutheral sounds in tact, and varied from its surrounding languages.

J-D

If your point is that (you think) the Gospels represent Jesus inaccurately, how is that supposed to be relevant to this thread?I don't know what you mean by 'inclusive'.

It is not intrinsic to a particular letter in a particular alphabet that it be either a consonant or a vowel. When the Latin alphabet is used to write English, 'Y' is sometimes used as a consonant and sometimes used as a vowel. In writing English, 'W' is used as a consonant, but in writing Welsh, 'W' is used as a vowel.

As I explained before, Hebrew uses a system of writing in which each symbol always or usually represents a consonant and the reader must supply appropriate vowels (although an optional system of diacritics can be used to indicate vowels). On the other hand, when the same alphabet is used to write Yiddish, some of the letters are used as vowels.א is not a vowel.No, they didn't. The Greeks did not change the Hebrew alphabet; the Greeks did not use the Hebrew alphabet.No, it didn't. In writing English the vowels are always represented; in writing Hebrew they usually aren't.There is no meaningful standard by which languages can be judged more or less 'advanced'.Letters, not alphabets. 'Alphabet' is not a synonym for 'letter'.I'm not sure what you mean by 'pristine'. If you mean that Hebrew has changed less than any other language, you haven't produced the evidence to show that.There are many examples of sounds being lost from languages. 'Night' is spelled that way because in that particular case one particular language (English) has lost one particular guttural sound. However, there is no general correlation between the presence or absence of guttural sounds and the anciency or recency of a language.