FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-21-2013, 03:50 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Because in comparison with other Hebrew names (which I indicated in my first posting) which are not so different than the Hebrew original, the name IESOUS is strange. If the Greek could make other names similar to the Hebrew couldn't it also just as easily have IEOSOUA for Yehoshua in the Torah/Joshua and IESOUA for Yeshua in Nehemiah and Ezra?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Regardless of when the nomina sacra was inserted, the name IESOUS would have still already covered both Joshua and Jeshua in the Tanakh. This is what is strange, and how the eventual translations changed those names and limited IESUS/JESUS for the Christ alone despite the fact that the name of this figure would have presumably been easily expressed in Greek as IESOUA for a first century Yeshua person.

The use specifically of IESOUS for the Christ AND for Joshua in Greek and Jeshua seems to be what is rather strange.
Why exactly do you think it is "strange"? The gospel Jesus took his name from the Hebrew character we call Joshua.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 05:31 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Why haven't you responded to this, Duvduv?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
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.
This would have the reader routine substitute Yeshua for Yehoshua, just as Yotsedeq would have been used for Yehotsedeq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Because in comparison with other Hebrew names (which I indicated in my first posting) which are not so different than the Hebrew original, the name IESOUS is strange. If the Greek could make other names similar to the Hebrew couldn't it also just as easily have IEOSOUA for Yehoshua in the Torah/Joshua and IESOUA for Yeshua in Nehemiah and Ezra?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Regardless of when the nomina sacra was inserted, the name IESOUS would have still already covered both Joshua and Jeshua in the Tanakh. This is what is strange, and how the eventual translations changed those names and limited IESUS/JESUS for the Christ alone despite the fact that the name of this figure would have presumably been easily expressed in Greek as IESOUA for a first century Yeshua person.

The use specifically of IESOUS for the Christ AND for Joshua in Greek and Jeshua seems to be what is rather strange.
Why exactly do you think it is "strange"? The gospel Jesus took his name from the Hebrew character we call Joshua.
spin is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 06:00 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Why would it be to remove the divine name when the name Yehoshua is all over the Tanach? It's probably just a matter of pronunciation. For example the name YEHUDA can sound like YUDA when someone speaks Hebrew quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Why haven't you responded to this, Duvduv?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
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.
This would have the reader routine substitute Yeshua for Yehoshua, just as Yotsedeq would have been used for Yehotsedeq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Because in comparison with other Hebrew names (which I indicated in my first posting) which are not so different than the Hebrew original, the name IESOUS is strange. If the Greek could make other names similar to the Hebrew couldn't it also just as easily have IEOSOUA for Yehoshua in the Torah/Joshua and IESOUA for Yeshua in Nehemiah and Ezra?
Duvduv is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 07:24 PM   #34
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Why would it be to remove the divine name when the name Yehoshua is all over the Tanach? It's probably just a matter of pronunciation. For example the name YEHUDA can sound like YUDA when someone speaks Hebrew quickly.
We are not dealing with modern Hebrew, but the evidence from the literature we have from antiquity. There are many names that show the change from Yeho- to Yo- or Ye- in the Tanakh. Why do we have Yehoahaz and Yoahaz (both Ιωαχαζ), Yehozedeq and Yozedeq (interestingly Ιωσαδακ and Ιωσεδεκ, indicating two different readers both with the abbreviation), Yehoyada and Yoyada, Yehohanan and Yohanan (both Ιωαναν), often for the same person?
spin is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 08:12 PM   #35
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
There is a very important point that I would like to make here. Once the Holy Roman Catholic Church decreed that the name of the Saviour was 'IESOUS' and that every knee must bow, and every mouth confess this name 'IESOUS'. anyone that held to any other spelling or pronunciation would have been anathematized, declared a 'Judaiser' and executed for the heresy of opposing the decree and the authority of the true and Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The name of Jesus is protestant theology and you must have been going to the wrong library. Catholics still never use the word Jesus as a name on its own. If you ask them if they know Jesus they would say "who?" and if you ask them if they are a Christian they would say "huh"? and will have never heard these questions before.

In fact, to worship Jesus and preach his name was the only thing needed to be called heretic and then you were given a choice and most ppl chose to die as martyr for the ideal they saw in that so called sacred name. After that they got to pick their own recipe to match their name to fame. It so was that their Book of Martyrs became their small c canon.

In reality to say the word Jesus is the supposed to be the 'final lie we choke on' as the 'word' we could not utter, and so reach the end of our own world including our religion, in the same way that God is never used by Jews except as G-d. I .e. Jesus Christ is not the same as Jesus.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 09:48 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default The curse of a federal holiday for a state employee

Now I've done it. I expanded that table of Jesus and Jehosadek to make it clear that, for whatever reason they might have had, the Greek speaking Jews who translated 1 Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah consistently translated Yeshua

RSV translation of MT LXX translation (formally 2 Esdras) ch 1-10 = Ezr ch 1-10 and ch 11-23 = Neh ch 1-13 1 Esdras, alternate independent Greek translation of parts of Hebrew Chr-Ezr-Neh as one book.
RSV 1 Chronicles 6:14 Seraiah of Jehozadak (LXX 1Chr 5:40 Ιωσαδακ)  
RSV 1 Chronicles 6:15 and Jehozadak went into exile (LXX 1Chr 5:41 Ιωσαδακ)  
RSV Haggai 1:1 Joshua the son of Jehozadak (LXX Hag 1:1 Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)  
RSV Haggai 1:12 Joshua the son of Jehozadak. (LXX Hag 1:12 Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)  
RSV Haggai 1:14 Joshua the son of Jehozadak (LXX Hag 1:14 Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)  
RSV Haggai 2:2 Joshua the son of Jehozadak (LXX Hag 2:2 Ἰησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)  
RSV Haggai 2:4 Joshua, son of Jehozadak (LXX Hag 2:4 Ἰησοῦ ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)  
RSV Zechariah 6:11 Joshua, the son of Jehozadak (LXX Zec 6:11 Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)  
RSV Nehemiah 7:7 They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, (LXX Neh ɻ7:7 Ἰησοῦ) (LXX 1 Esdras 5:8 Ἰησοῦ)
RSV Neh 12:26) Jeshua son of Jozadak (LXX Neh 12:26) Ιησοῦ υἱοῦ Ιωσεδεκ Not in 1 Esdras
RSV Ezra 2:2 They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua (LXX Ezr 2:2 Ἰησοῦς) (LXX 1 Esdras 5:8 Ἰησοῦ)
RSV Ezr 3:2) Jeshua the son of Jozadak (LXT Ezr 3:2) Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ (LXX 1Es 5:47) Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ
RSV Ezr 3:8) Jeshua the son of Jozadak (LXX Ezr 3:8) Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ (LXX 1Es 5:54) Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ
RSV Ezra 5:2 Jeshua the son of Jozadak (LXX Ezr 5:2 Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς Ιωσεδεκ) (LXX 1 Esdras 6:2 Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)
RSV Ezra 10:18 Jeshua the son of Jozadak (LXX Ezr 10:18 Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ιωσεδεκ) (LXX 1 Esdras 9:19 ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ )
RSV Jer 23:6 this is the name by which he will be called: 'The LORD (YHWH) is our righteousness.' [צדקנו יְהוָ֥ה ] (LXX Jer 23:6) τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὃ καλέσει αὐτὸν κύριος Ιωσεδεκ (Lord Jo-sedec = Lord I[H]W[H] of righteousness The LXX translator of this book evidently read [יוצדק] in his Hebrew text (probably using an alternative form of the name Zedek-iah) rather than [צדקנו יְהוָ֥ה ] as found in the MT. The KURIOS is his own modification.
RSV 1Es 5:5) Jeshua the son of Jozadak Not in Ezra-Nehemiah (LXX 1Es 5:5) Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ
RSV Sir 49:12) Jeshua the son of Jozadak (LXx Sir 49:12) Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ιωσεδεκ  

*(Lust, J) "Messianism and the Greek Version of Jeremiah: Jer 23, 5-6 and 33, 14-26" (SBL SCS 31, 1991, 87-122)
The major distinctive characteristic of the Greek version is not its use of the term άνατολή in v. 5, but rather its rendition of the future king’s name at the end of v. 6. The lxx reads Ιωσεδεκ. This means that the translator probably found יוצדק [Jozadak = "IO is righteous"] in his Hebrew Vorlage where the MT has צדקנו יְהוָ֥ה [YHWH is our righteousness] The Greek name in particular resembles that of Zedekiah. The theophoric element stands in front Io-sedek (Ιω-σεδεκ), whereas in the usual spelling of the king’s name, Zedeki-Yah (צדק־יה), it figures at the end. According to E. Lipinski, these are two different forms of the same name, belonging to one and the same person. If this is correct, it means that the original oracle, such as preserved in the lxx, welcomed Zedekiah, alias Io-sedek, as the successor to the throne of David after the exile of Jehoiakin. (p. 43)
DCH (Damn, used the title Line again!)
DCHindley is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 10:01 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default 1:00am already? Thank God it is a blizzard outside so work might be canceled tomorrow

Here is a table of LXX translations of Hebrew passages concentrating on Joshua son of Nun and Joshua son of Jehozadak. Sorry for the crappy transliteration of the Hebrew. BW should have used Times New Roman unicode characters rather than a proprietary font (where it is much more comprehensible).

Joshua son of Nun  
   
(BHT Exo 17:9) yühôšùª` (LXT Exo 17:9) Ἰησοῦ
(BHT Num 11:28) yühôšùª` Bin-nûn (LXT Num 11:28) Ιησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Ναυη
(BHT Deu 1:38) yühôšùª` Bin-nûn (LXT Deu 1:38) Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη
(BHT Jos 1:1) yühôšùª` Bin-nûn (LXT Jos 1:1) τῷ Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη
(BHT Jdg 1:1) yühôšùª` (LXT Jda 1:1) Ἰησοῦ
(BHT 1Ki 16:34) yühôšùª` Bin-nûn (LXT 1Ki 16:34) Ιησου υἱοῦ Ναυη
(BHT 1Ch 7:27) nôn Bünô yühôšùª` (LXT 1Ch 7:27) Νουμ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Ιησουε
   
Joshua son of Jehozadak  
   
(BHT Hag 1:1) yühôšùª` Ben-yühôcädäq (LXT Hag 1:1) Ιησοῦν τὸν τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ
(BHT Zec 3:1) yühôšùª` (LXT Zec 3:1) Ἰησοῦν
  (LXT Sir 46:1) Ἰησοῦς Ναυη
  (LXT 1Ma 2:55) Ἰησοῦς
  (LXT 2Ma 12:15) Ἰησοῦ
(GNT Act 7:45) Ἰησοῦ when they dispossessed the nations  
(GNT Heb 4:8) Ἰησοῦς [refering to Joshua who conquered Caanan]  
   
NT Forefather of Jesus (Christ)  
   
(GNT Luk 3:29) τοῦ Ἰωσή, τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ IMHO, that should be Jōsḗ, not Joshua

Sleep calls me ...

DCH
DCHindley is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 11:37 PM   #38
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
There is a very important point that I would like to make here. Once the Holy Roman Catholic Church decreed that the name of the Saviour was 'IESOUS' and that every knee must bow, and every mouth confess this name 'IESOUS'. anyone that held to any other spelling or pronunciation would have been anathematized, declared a 'Judaiser' and executed for the heresy of opposing the decree and the authority of the true and Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The name of Jesus is protestant theology and you must have been going to the wrong library. Catholics still never use the word Jesus as a name on its own. If you ask them if they know Jesus they would say "who?" and if you ask them if they are a Christian they would say "huh"? and will have never heard these questions before.
Do you suffer under some strange delusion that you are the only Catholic person that I know of?

I've had Catholic acquaintances and co-workers all of my life. About half of my extended family in the U.S. is Catholic.
My next door neighbor of the last 6 years, Father John is the Priest of our local Catholic Parish, occasionally we walk in the Lions Club Park together and discuss politics and social justice.
I just spent this last Christmas Eve with my son's girlfriends family in the presence of approximately 30 practicing Catholics, many of them just having returned from Mass.
In fact I and my wife spent the entire week of this Christmas holiday as guest in the household of her huge Catholic family. (as we have for several years now)

My son's former High School Catholic girlfriend used to bring me Catholic literature that used the Name Yahweh, and her father, our local Probate Judge used to have us over for afternoons in his pool, and family cookouts. And our daughters performed in recitals together.
On the Judges recommendation I enrolled my son in a large Mid-Western Jesuit University, where he has received his Degree, is an alumni, and now sits on its Advisory Board and also holds several other committee seats.

In short Chili my friend, I have spent many many hours in conversations with many other Catholics and I do not find them to be even half as weird as what you present them to be in your posts on this Forum.
None of them has ever went off into the psychedelic off the wall speeches that you present us with here daily in this Forum.

While I do not have any love or respect for teachings of, nor the Institution known as Catholicism, none the less I have many near and dear friends and family members whom are Catholics. (My eldest surviving Aunt has been a practicing Catholic for 93 years now) I love them anyway, although I'm convinced that they have been duped.
But then most of them were born into it, and it is very hard for them to ever turn their back on their upbringing and traditions. I may not agree with their views but they have my sympathy.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 01-21-2013, 11:51 PM   #39
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
There is a very important point that I would like to make here. Once the Holy Roman Catholic Church decreed that the name of the Saviour was 'IESOUS' and that every knee must bow, and every mouth confess this name 'IESOUS'. anyone that held to any other spelling or pronunciation would have been anathematized, declared a 'Judaiser' and executed for the heresy of opposing the decree and the authority of the true and Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The name of Jesus is protestant theology and you must have been going to the wrong library. Catholics still never use the word Jesus as a name on its own. If you ask them if they know Jesus they would say "who?" and if you ask them if they are a Christian they would say "huh"? and will have never heard these questions before.
Do you suffer under some strange delusion that you are the only Catholic I know?
I've had Catholic co-workers and acquaintances all of my life. I have Catholic family members.
My next door neighbor of the last 6 years, Father John is the Priest of our local Catholic Parish, occasionally we walk in the Lions Club Park together and discuss politics and social justice.
I spent this last Christmas Eve in the presence of approximately 30 practicing Catholics, many of them just having returned from Mass.
In fact I spent the entire week of this Christmas holiday as guest in the household of a huge Catholic family. (as I have for several years now)

My son's High School Catholic girlfriend used to bring me Catholic literature that used the Name Yahweh, and her father, our local Probate Judge used to have us over for cookouts and afternoons of swimming in his pool.
On the Judges recommendation I enrolled my son in a large Mid-Western Jesuit University, where he has received his Degree, is an alumni, and now sits on its Advisory Board and also holds several other committee seats.

In short Chili my friend, I have spent many many hours in conversations with many other Catholics and I do not find them to be even half as weird as what you present them to be in your posts on this Forum.
None of them has ever went off into the psychedelic off the wall speeches that you present us with here daily inthis Forum.

I do not have any love or respect for teachings of, nor the the Institution known as Catholocisim, but none the less I have many near and dear friends and family members who are Catholics. I love them anyway, although I'm convinced that they have been duped. But then most of them were born into it, and it is hard for them to ever turn their back on their upbringing and traditions. I may not agree with their views but they have my sympathy.
Well my dear friend Chess, I knew that you would bite and wrote this special for you.

But I have also told you that American Catholics are no longer Catholic, or at least pretend not to be, as if they have painted red paint on their front door to say: I am already Christian, try the neighbor maybe, (who might buy the shit you have to sell).

In short, Catholicism is a mystery religion, much like Judaism where Tradition is they way to go to heaven since that is where Mary is from, who is a local, and will appear to even Chinese as Chinese, and around the world will She be the perfect image of mortal beauty, always a local, to be sure, and without sin, I must add, as the mediatrix to heaven and the girl who pulls all the strings for us to get there even.

Of course you have probably warped all your Catholic friends so much that they would not know about this even. . . . or maybe they just do not say.
Chili is offline  
Old 01-22-2013, 12:17 AM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili
I have also told you that American Catholics are no longer Catholic,
Nice. I suppose the Vatican will be pleased to hear that you have dis-fellowshipped all American Catholics. Have you made that pronouncement at your local Church?
Quote:
Of course you have probably warped all your Catholic friends...
You give me far too much credit. They are hundreds and I am only one.

As far as I can tell I've had little if any influence at all upon their views, all they know of me is that I am very polite, and have never been heard to argue either religion or politics with anyone. I am tsaphan.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.