Duvduv

I am interested in people's thoughts about the way names are used in Greek in both the Tanakh and the New Testament. In most cases we find that the Greek simply transliterates the Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek rather than provides a Greek version of the name. In so many places the Hebrew name is rendered into the Greek almost exactly (see names in Nehemiah, chapter 11 for instance).

Yet, although the partriarch Jacob is known as IAKOB in the Torah, the apostle has the name IAKOBOS in the New Testament.

Sometimes the name has the letter “S” at the end of a name that sounds like the best Greek transliteration from Hebrew, i.e. Zakaria (for Zechariah) or Zakarias; Yuda (for Yehuda) or Yudas; Yeremias, Berakhias, etc.

Strangely enough although the name Yochanan in Hebrew in Nehemiah becomes predictably Yoanan, but in the New Testament it is Yoannes. And Miriam/Maryam drops the second M to become Maria in the NT, despite the naming appearing transliterated only as Mariam in the Torah.

Even more strangely, the name YEHOSHUA in the Greek Torah always become IESOUS rather than transliterated as one would expect as IEOSOUA (Ἰηoσοῦα)? And why would a book attributed to a Jew named Josephus repeatedly use the name YESUS rather than IEOSOUA Ἰηoσοῦα in Greek?

In the Book of Nehemiah 11:26 there is mention of a location called YESHUA in Hebrew which is rendered in Greek as IESOU. In light of the above it would stand to reason that the name IESOUS was NOT the ORIGINAL Greek rendition of the name YEHOSHUA, but rather the rendition of the name YESHU which appears as Ἰησοῦ and Ἰησοῦς and not Ἰηoσοῦα. The name IESOU appears with different endings as IESOU, IESOUS, IESOUN (Ἰησοῦν,Ἰησοῦς Ἰησοῦ)

spin

Greek is a declined language, ie the noun has a different form depending on its relation to other parts of the sentence. Think of the English pronoun "he", which has related forms "his" and "him". These are nominative, genitive and accusative forms of the same pronoun. Greek has these relations and a few more. A Jew in Greek could be ιουδαιος (nom), ιουδαιου (gen) and ιουδαιοv (acc). But what do you do when the word has no declinable ending, as in the case of Jewish names when they were first used in Greek? You left them undeclined and that caused trouble with the grammar, as you didn't know how they fit into the sentence because there were no declensions. This caused the endings of the names to be changed, so they could be declined and grammatical sense could be given to Hebrew names. Hence:

Nothing strange of course. This shows the names being adapted into Greek over time.

Perhaps you missed the partial move in Hebrew not to use the divine name, so that, instead of theophoric names such as "Yah is righteous", "He is righteous" was used. Jehoshua "Yah saves" (Joshua) becomes Jeshua "He saves". The fact that the transliteration of Jeshua, ie Ιησους (Ιησου + nom), was used for Jehoshua merely represents the fact that Jehoshua was probably replaced by Jeshua in the spoken language.

It would stand to reason that one should know about Greek when talking about it, wouldn't it?

Ιησους (nom), Ιησου (gen), Ιησουv (acc).

Duvduv

Whether or not there were changes in Greek doesn't explain why there would have been a consistent use of IESOUS rather than IEOSOUA to represent the name YEHOSHUA throughout the entire Hebrew scriptures when other names did not undergo such a drastic change, except perhaps IOANAN to IOANNIS, which goes from the simple to the less simply representation.

Even the name Jacob started out as simply IAKOB and ended up in the NT as IAKOBOUS. It wouldn't take a rocket scientist to be able to compare a Jacob in Genesis with a Jacob in a new gospel, or a Yohanan in Nehemiah and a Yohanan in a gospel.

I am aware of the declensions (at least in theory because I am not expert in Greek) but assumed there was also a root of the name which I thought would have been IESOU even with the declension endings I mentioned. In any event if you were to represent the name Yeshu or Yeshua (even as a change from Yehoshua) you would represent it as IESOU or IESOUA, wouldn't you, regardless of the declensions? If a name like Zecharia is declined from ZAKARIA in Greek it still has a root form.

Sheshbazzar

'Amar na shibboleth....' (Judges 12:6) Not that they couldn't, but being more numerous and hence proud and arrogant, they wouldn't.

One hundred and forty three thousand nine hundred ninety and nine lay dead, and still even the last spoke the only word that could deliver, perversely.

Gainsayers forgetful of ancient standards think they will always prevail with their lips.

For a season they may reign with their word. Then they fall to the mouth of the sword.

For by your word will you be justified, or by your word you will be condemned. Therefore take heed to your lips, and to what manner of word it is which you speak.

spin

I think my earlier post deals with almost all of this.

Duvduv

I am not sure I see how it applies to what I was discussing, so maybe others will be able to contribute to it as well. And unfortunately I don't have a clue as to what Shesh's posting refers to in this context.

Sheshbazzar

Too bad Duvduv. I was hoping you could figure it out. But if not, that is OK too.

Iskander

Why is the Jewish holiday spelled "Chanukah," "Hanukkah," and "Hannukah?" Is there a correct spelling?

http://hotword.dictionary.com/chanukah/

Duvduv

The various English translations of the Tanach and NT rely on the Hebrew, not the Greek or Latin, to distinguish between YEHOSHUA and YESHUA (Joshua and Jeshua) as they appear in the Torah and Book of Joshua and in Nehemiah and Chronicles.

For some reason the English translators wanted to depart from the Greek and Latin to distinguish among all three names and thereby create a new name of Jesus.

What seems to come out from the Latin is that the translators intentionally wanted to call the Christ IESUS instead of IOSUE.. Had they called him IOSUE, it would of course never been known whether to call the Christ Joshua, Jesus or Jeshua.

If the name IESOUS is in fact intended to represent the Aramaic form - Yeshua - as found in Chronicles, Nehemiah and Ezra, AFTER the Babylonian exile period, then WHY would the Greek not have used a different name for YEHOSHUA/Joshua in the Torah/Joshua such as IEOSUA or IESOUAS just like the Latin IOSUE?

Sheshbazzar

Do you recall Duvduv, that the earliest copies of the NT carefully employed -nomina sacra- and did not ever actually write or translate the name of the messiah?

What you are presently discussing Duduv is the very reason that these texts did not provide that Name.

'The just shall live by faith'. You yourself as an individual must decide how you will speak this -shibboleth- Word.

Will it roll from your tongue as becomes one of a Gileadite minority? or as becomes one of the Ephraimite majority?

You have been told by Scripture that 'Death and life are in the power of the tongue'. 'Declare, for yourself, that you may be vindicated'.

It is the Holy Grail of eternal life which you seek. It has One Name written upon it. Choose you and speak you the right one rightly.