Sheshbazzar

Thank you for providing a clear, honest, and unsarcastic reply, as so often the urge to ridicule derails what otherwise could prove to be serious and profitable discussion.
My composition was intended to convey the connection between the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 and the claims of John 1:1 in the clearest terms that would be understandable to a lay audience mostly unfamiliar with Hebrew.
We do differ on the point "that the name was Yehoshua", depending on what individual we are speaking about, as I also accept the spelling and the pronunciation "Yehoshua" as proper when applied to certain OT persons, The "yod" prefixed to "hoshua' giving a meaning roughly of "he saves", "he helps" or "he delivers", the "he" (masculine singular) remaining unidentified, could be applicable to that particular individual, a rather common name that a father and mother would not hesitate to bestow upon their offspring.
However "Hoshua the son of Nun" was renamed by Moses, and it is my belief, as shared by many others, that Moses prefixed his name with the verb form "yah" joined to "hoshua" which in its simplest form would be understood as "shall deliver", "will deliver", or "shall save" an apt expression of a forward looking hope that this individual should be the one to lead the people out of the wilderness and into the Promised land. (as an aside, and as you are probably aware that in Hebrew language construct when the first particle ends with the letter "hey" and the second begins with one, the second is dropped, thus there are no double "heys" (hh) to be found in any word, although when the construct word is separated into its individual components the dropped "hey" must be restored)
Now it is rather evident by the record of the Scriptures that this first
"Joshua" though he was able to bring the people into the Promised land, had no power to be a "self existent saviour" but was the prototype of the One to come who would bear His Fathers Name in its highest sense, being "YAH the Saviour" to all mankind. "You shall call His Name Yahshua, for He SHALL SAVE His people from their sins." In our view it is He that Psalms 68:4, 102:18 and 115:17-18 are speaking of. (note to our non Hebrew readers, the 'short' form of the Divine Name, "YAH", is used as a proper personal name in each of these verses)

Neither being the translator of, nor compositor of the Hebrew NT that I use and quote from, I do note that in that edition the second clause does prefix the verb, as "v'ha'dabar ha'yah..." agreeing with my covictions, I detect no reasonable reason to cross out that "ha'yah".
Only by one thing, "searching the Scriptures", I have no reason to doubt that the writer was well versed in what he was writing about, anyone who is so inclined may begin at Genesis 1:1 and locate all of the contexts, constructs, and applications of the verb form "yah". However no one can be forced to believe something that is contrary to his (or her) beliefs, thus if you and others are unable to reach the same conclusions regarding the the Name "Yah", and the verb form "yah" as my fellow believers and I have, well then that is simply the way things are appointed to be, no hard feelings or animosity here regarding your inability to believe as we do. (though we may at times get upset by the derogatory, willfully irreverent, and insulting comments.)
Our sincere hope for every one of you is that you find complete satisfaction and joy in this life, and be blessed with every good thing that this life can provide.

spin

I had no particular individual in mind. I was looking at the wayward form "YAH-ha-shua", a patent misrepresentation of the Hebrew name.


You are already misrepresenting another name. It was Hoshea (hw$().

Names were predominantly formed by the theophoric element yhw. It is only in late practice that the abbreviated versions emerged, y$w( instead of yhw$w(, yxnn instead of yhwxnn, etc.

Hopefully on a number of accounts mentioned you'll see that this attempted etymology is not correct -- although your comment about the dropping of the doubling of the HE is correct.

When you misunderstand the name then continue you will multiply the error count. The name is changed to yhw$w(, which doesn't reflect so much on Joshua as on the one who uses him.

This is an artificial translation of the original Greek, based on HB expressions.

Which are naturally late efforts.

I detect no reason for the artificial translation. It doesn' seem to reflect Hebrew usage.

In Gen 1:2, it says "and darkness [was] on the face of the deep".

In Gen 3:3, "but of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden"

In Gen 3:6, "that it [was] pleasant to the eyes"

And there are very many other examples of a verbless clause where you would expect the verb "to be" in English.

In the end of these labours you would still only be projecting your desirs onto the Greek text.

It is not a matter of belief. Belief can be wrong, yet needs no evidence. We are dealing with what needs evidence and you are emptyhanded.

That is a very noble thought,... but who is the "we" that you are speaking for?


spin

spin

Further, Sheshbazzar, why not do a search of the HB looking for the combination "is with" in the English and see how many there are that have the verb. At a casual glance I found not one.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Sorry that you think it is a wayward form and a patent misrepresentation, of course you are aware that the vowel points were not in the original manuscripts, and that the actual letters written consisted of only;
Yod-hey-wau-shin-wau-ayin, and that this name is understood to be a construct? If you render it "Yehoshua" it is constructed of the common verb form yod-hey, ="yeh" joined to the word, hey-wau-shin-wau-ayin,= "hoshua"
(with an alternate spelling of hey-wau-shin-ayin, still pronounced "hoshua"
again the joining cancels (or more properly, 'conceals' one of the "hey's")
Now I must point out a peculiarity of Hebrew, the letter "yod" alone prefixed to a word may stand for the entire name "Yah" or even "Yahweh", not requiring the "hey", however the "hey" may be used as a direct object indicator, as in "ha'berith", "ha'daleth" or as I believe in this instance, "Yah the Saviour"
Of course here again you are depending on the vowel pointing, specifically the "tsere" to provide the "shea" pronunciation, (also there is nothing in your strange form of letter representation that would indicate any long "e" sound) it seems a little strange that simply prefixing the yod-hey would alter the primative root word from "shea" into "shua" as virtually all subsequent spelling and pronunciation has it, and that after this story the "shea" form virtually disappears, more likely perhaps it never really existed in the first place.

Sheshbazzar

Late efforts? how late are you placing them? too late to be contained within the writings (Scriptures) that were used by the Saviour, the Apostles, and the people? (as the subject of this thread is about what the NT believers believed)
Man, It would be terrific to have the irrifutable proof that Yahwhistic religion so expressly promoting the Name, was thriving in the 2nd, 5th or 10th centuries AD! please do tell us how "late" these Psalms really were.

That is interesting, as I have corresponded with members of my faith that live in Jerusalem and speak and worship in the Hebrew language, and they believe as I believe regarding these matters, of course their beliefs and practices do not reflect either the Jewish or Xtian beliefs and practices.

spin

Do me a favour and try your analysis on Abishua )by$w(. It doesn't work.
The -shua comes from the fact that there is a waw in the form, $w(. This is the distinction I was making. The name Hoshea didn't have the waw. The name Hoshea never has the waw despite the fact that various people had the name.

You are smoothing differences tendentiously.

That's late with regard to YHW-names.

The relationship between modern and ancient Hebrew is far from transparent, with non-ancient ideas of phonetic information, with European influence for the underlying grammatical structures. This explains why the verb hyh gets overused. After all modern Hebrew is a modern phenomenon based on a language which survived only as a cultic means and has no way of relating directly to ancient Hebrew.

Your reponse is a put off. You are not prepared even to look at the few examples I gave or do the test with a search of an English translation using "is with" to find that Hebrew almost always, perhaps always, has a verbless clause. You'll keep coming back with stuff that isn't based on the HB, which is the main reference for ancient Hebrew that we have.


spin

Chris Weimer

Except Jesus was from Galilee, and Josephus was clearly talking about upstanding Jerusalemites, not Galilee which according to D. F. Hudson was entirely a bilingual area. Bilingual areas aren't all that uncommon even today.
Except the Isaiah quote matches perfectly with the LXX, not to mention that this might not have even happened.

As for the Hebrew of John, there is already a translation of it. I wish I had Bibleworks with me, but I'll check on it when I return home (if I remember, that is).

Chris Weimer

It wouldn't be in the accusative case anyway, not with a linking verb. Once again, thank you Mr. Obvious.

You might want to check out here for usage of the Greek definite article. E.21 would suggest that theos is qualitative, thus "The word was God" - furthermore, below it, gives the translation that Peter Kirby gave earlier. Qualitative, then, wouldn't suggest that the word itself was god, but that it contained the properties of god, making it divine.

Sheshbazzar

Obviously not, firstly this name is not prefixed with a "yod", so the first element could not be considered a particle representing the Name, and the "hey" is entirely absent as a component of "Abi" nor does it prefix the "shua",
It seems a little strange that simply prefixing the yod-hey would alter the primitive root word from "shea" into "shua" as virtually all subsequent spelling and pronunciation has it, and that after this story the "shea" form virtually disappears, more likely perhaps it never really existed in the first place.


Yes, but definitely preceding the time of the events related within the NT, thus these so called "late" (and I am aware of your "methods" for arriving at the "late" dating) We trust that if these writings were acceptable to the founders of our faith, "profitable for reproof, correction,and instruction.." they are also to be accepted by us.
Perhaps it pleases you to regard my lack of an immediate reply to your every thrust as a "put off", I was active on this board until 3:00 am last night, and I have family activities with my children and grandchildren today.
You and your arguments are not the most important aspects of my very busy, rewarding, and joyous life.

spin

You should therefore see that the non-theophoric radical is -$w( for yhw$w( and not the analysis you give. (See also Elishua.)

We are working from the evidence. hw$( is just one form (hiphil) of the verb y$(. You can see the verb in Jer 11:12, 31:7. Hoshea is a name which in itself means salvation.

The LXX provides wshe as a transliteration with an eta (h) indicating the qere.

The form Yeshua is late, ie after the start of the tendency to reduce the theophoric YHW to Y-.

All you had to say then, was I'll deal with that at the next opportunity and an honest put off is obviously more acceptible, isn't it? But as it seems, you were cherry picking your responses -- you made two -- and using an attempted recourse to authority instead of dealing with the issue.

The issue is that there are numerous verbless clauses in ancient Hebrew where in English we would require the verb to be. I gave you two ways to enter the problem. Now take your time, Sheshbazzar: deal with the problem rather than writing a paragraph wasting time telling us what other people's opinions are.


spin