Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-05-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

So then is it safe to say that Joshua = Yeshua = Jesus?

Safe? What kind of danger are you looking for?

It's is clear that Joshua = Iesous = Jesus.

It has been hypothesized that, if Jesus had indeed lived as a Jew in Galilee in the first century, that he would have spoken Aramaic, and would have been known by the Aramaic form of Joshua, which was Yeshua. But this name is missing from the original texts.

Why are people so fascinated with this? Why is this topic so popular? :huh: Here's a thread from 2007: Joshua vs Jesus, why two translations for the same name?

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-05-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

So then is it safe to say that Joshua = Yeshua = Jesus?

What is safe -- i.e., lingustically and historically accurate -- to say is that the name Jesus comes from the Latin Iesus which is from the Greek Ἰησοῦς which is a transliteration into Greek of the late Heb. or Aram. yeshua, Jeshua, for the earlier y'hushua.

Why do you want to know?

Jeffrey

vid · 01-05-2009, 01:18 PM

When did the Joshua/Jesus split happen? During Greek->Latin translation, or later?

Toto · 01-05-2009, 01:23 PM

When the Bible was finally translated into English, King James' translators were divinely inspired (or otherwise) to translate the "Old Testament" from the Hebrew, as opposed to the Greek Septuagint, so they picked up the Hebrew Joshua. But they translated the NT from the Koine Greek, so the later Joshua/Iesous became Jesus.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-05-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When the Bible was finally translated into English, King James' translators were divinely inspired (or otherwise) to translate the "Old Testament" from the Hebrew, as opposed to the Greek Septuagint, so they picked up the Hebrew Joshua. But they translated the NT from the Koine Greek, so the later Joshua/Iesous became Jesus.

It comes earlier than 1611 in English translations of the Bible. You'll find the "separation" not only in the Coverdale, but in Wycliffe's Bible as well.

Jeffrey

Yahwarrior23 · 01-05-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Jeffrey, isn't "Jesus" an English name, derived from Latin rather than from Greek?

Yes Jesus is derived from Latin! So you cant ignore the the conversion, so basically Jesus couldnt be Jesus or basically the messiah couldnt be Jesus. Since the letter J was added in the 1500s to the alphabet. Matter of fact the first KJV in 1611 used Iesus (Latin) for the messiah. Then when the letter J was added then you have your so called Jesus Christ, so basically hes only been in the saving game for 500yrs or so. Not good in my opinion and if you look up what the name Jesus means in Latin you will be in for a treat no joke!

Yahwarrior23 · 01-05-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

When did the Joshua/Jesus split happen? During Greek->Latin translation, or later?

Joshua and Jesus are both English translation. So no split between Greek -> Latin!

Hebrew: Yahushua, Yahshua, etc...
Aramic: Yeshoshua, Yeshua, etc..
Greek: Iesous
Latin: Iesus
English: Jesus

Closest english translation it should of been would of been Joshua. But why dont they use that is the question you should ask yourself!?!?!? Best to go back to the roots. Been mislead for real!!

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-05-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwarrior23

Matter of fact the first KJV in 1611 used Iesus (Latin) for the messiah.

Can you point me to where in the KJV text this is done?

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith · 01-05-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwarrior23

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Jeffrey, isn't "Jesus" an English name, derived from Latin rather than from Greek?

Yes Jesus is derived from Latin! So you cant ignore the the conversion, so basically Jesus couldnt be Jesus or basically the messiah couldnt be Jesus. Since the letter J was added in the 1500s to the alphabet. Matter of fact the first KJV in 1611 used Iesus (Latin) for the messiah. Then when the letter J was added then you have your so called Jesus Christ, so basically hes only been in the saving game for 500yrs or so.

Jesus Christ could not save anybody until a J replaced the consonantal I in his name?

¿Perdón?

Quote:

Not good in my opinion and if you look up what the name Jesus means in Latin you will be in for a treat no joke!

I give up. What does the name Jesus mean in Latin? (Relishing the prospect of getting a real treat!)

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-05-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwarrior23

if you look up what the name Jesus means in Latin you will be in for a treat no joke!

If I look it up where? In an actual Latin Lexicon? Or somewhere else?

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2009, 01:18 PM	#33
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	When did the Joshua/Jesus split happen? During Greek->Latin translation, or later?

01-05-2009, 01:23 PM	#34
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	When the Bible was finally translated into English, King James' translators were divinely inspired (or otherwise) to translate the "Old Testament" from the Hebrew, as opposed to the Greek Septuagint, so they picked up the Hebrew Joshua. But they translated the NT from the Koine Greek, so the later Joshua/Iesous became Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.