Toto

Duvduv - IESOUS comes from the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, "Iesous" is used for the name of Moses' lieutenant otherwise known as Joshua.

At an early point in Christian church history (that I don't have the time to look up now) the western church decided to drop the Septuagint and base their "Old Testament" on a translation from the Hebrew text directly, rather than on the Greek translation of the Hebrew. That is the only reason that Joshua and Jesus appear to have different names. Aramaic did not enter into the calculation.

That's all. You are spending too much time on an issue that is not really an issue.

Sheshbazzar

The question is whether it is rightly so used.

"Iesous" is not a translation, and it is not a transliteration. It is a popular Greek substitution.

Duvduv

This does not explain then the retention of the name IESOUS which is specifically a Greek name in the Greek text covering the names Joshua and Jeshua, one of which was the name of the Christ - which one is unknown because Iesous covers both.
The Latin text preserves the Greek Iesous only for the Christ, as if to suggest it is a separate name unrelated to Joshua and Jeshua which are IOSUE despite the fact that the Greek uses it for the earlier Hebrew Yehoshua and the later Aramaic Yeshua.

The English translations went a bit further to retain IESUS/JESUS only for the Christ but to distinguish between the Hebrew Joshua and Aramaic Jeshua. I suppose the English form Joshua developed because in Greek and Latin it would be impossible to express the first "YEH" and then "HO" apart from IEOSUA, which we can see can only be expressed as "YOSUA/YOSHUA".

Presumably the original use of IESOUS should have led to the Christ simply being called in English Yeshua/Jeshua from the 1st century Aramaic period form since that was a main form in that period.

And of course the Greek form should have been IEOSOUA for Joshua even if IESOU was Yeshua (with an S added at the end for a masculine form).

So the question is "Why was this not the case?"

Iskander

I wonder what the Chinese call Jesus.

The religious Jews call him " jeezeus or jeebua..."

Christians called Jesus whatever they want; they own him

Sheshbazzar

It is the spelling or vocalisation of the ש 'sh' consonant that is the sticking point. Greeks claim that they cannot write or pronounce this 'sh' sound.

That would not however prevent a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' from traveling among them and directly and distinctly teaching them the proper pronunciation of this name.

(I remember the old LXX that we had in our local library, when it came to the word shibboleth of Judges 12:6 instead of transliterating it, it had an English language note inserted into that place in the surrounding Greek text saying something like 'a nonsense word'. Nice way to 'translate' hey?)

sotto voce

Ah yes, the LXX, with its pagan additions. A creepy way of preserving human pride intact.

Duvduv

I made some changes to my last posting.

semiopen

Using the CH puts American gentiles in danger of having their heads explode. We also get this a little bit with Chabad and Habad, oddly it seems academics tend to spell it Habad.

Just to slightly derail Duv's OP, but why don't names repeat in the Torah? Everybody has a unique name, didn't anyone decide to name their kid after Isaac or someone?

Toto

I don't see anything that needs to be explained. The NT was written in Greek. It barely acknowledges the existence of Aramaic. When the Greek NT refers to Joshua, it uses the name IESOUS, identical to Jesus.

You'll have to take that up with Saint Jerome. He established the Latin translation, and dropped the LXX for a Hebrew text, breaking the connection between Jesus and Joshua. I don't think he knew Aramaic. These people think that is highly significant.

Yes - there are some Messianic Jews for Jesus who insist on using the name Yeshua for the savior in the Christian religion. This is based on modern reconstructions of what Jesus would have been called if he had been someone like the Jesus of the gospels. Of course, we have no evidence of such a person outside of the gospels that call him Jesus, not Yeshua. Draw your own conclusions.

This website thinks it has an explanation involving gematria. Maybe you will like it.

http://jesus8880.com/chapters/gematria/yehoshua.htm

Sheshbazzar

The early Greek copies of the NT never used any such spelling as 'IESOUS'. They all carefully and religiously employed the nomina sacra.
'IESOUS' as being the name for the Messiah only latter appeared in texts produced by the Roman Church.