Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 01-21-2013, 12:05 PM

Thank you both. Now I feel we are getting somewhere. That sounds like it was the mature church that finalized the name of the savior as IESOUS XRISTOS. If that is when the name IESOUS emerged, then does that mean that those early copies with the nomina sacra still used the name Iesous for Joshua and Jeshua?

Of course it is not important if the NT Jesus did not exist, however in terms of the THINKING of those using the names, it would appear as if there was an intention to identify the Christ with a name of IESUS in Latin being different than the names of Joshua (Yehoshua) or Jeshua (Yeshua).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 the name for the Messiah only showed up in latter texts produced by the Roman Church.

DCHindley · 01-21-2013, 12:09 PM

The Greeek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch (as it existed in their day and area, so not always the MT readings) was made by Jews living in Alexandria probably in the 3rd century BCE.

(Exo 17:9) Exodus 17:9 εἶπεν δὲ Μωυσῆς τῷ Ἰησοῦ (Rahlfs LXX)
(Exo 17:9) Exodus 17:9 And Moses said to Joshua, (Brenton's English translation of LXX )

(Exo 17:9) ויֹּ֙אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֤ה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙
(Exo 17:9) Exodus 17:9 wayyöº´mer möšè ´el-yühôšùª` (MT transliteration by Matthew Anstey © 2001. It looks better in BibleWorks Bwtransh font)
(Exo 17:9) Exodus 17:9 And Moses said to Joshua, (RSV based on MT)

As for case forms of Hebrew transliterations into Greek, there is a LOT of variety. According to New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin By Andrew L Sihler (pg 346):

Most foreign names and words are somehow accommodated in the inflectional systems of L and G, but Egyptian words are undeclined in Herodotus, and in the Septuagint the names transliterated from Hebrew are indeclinable (though in later texts the usual endings start to appear)

That blanket statement about how Hebrew names become indeclinable when transliterated into Greek isn't exactly true. IESOUS appears to be declined in the Lxx. So Does Moses. Not so Jehozadak:

RSV 1 Chronicles 6:14 Seraiah of Jehozadak	(LXX 1Ch 5:40 Ιωσαδακ)
RSV 1 Chronicles 6:15 and Jehozadak went into exile	(LXX 1Ch 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 7:7 Ἰησοῦ)	(LXX 1 Esdras 5:8 Ἰησοῦ)
RSV Ezra 2:2 They came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua	(LXX Ezr 2:2 Ἰησοῦς)	(LXX 1 Esdras 5:8 Ἰησοῦ)
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 Ezra 10:18 Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Ιωσεδεκ)	(LXX 1 Esdras 9:19 ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ιωσεδεκ )

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 · 01-21-2013, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Thank you both. Now I feel we are getting somewhere. That sounds like it was the mature church that finalized the name of the savior as IESOUS XRISTOS. If that is when the name IESOUS emerged, then does that mean that those early copies with the nomina sacra still used the name Iesous for Joshua and Jeshua?

Of course it is not important if the NT Jesus did not exist, however in terms of the THINKING of those using the names, it would appear as if there was an intention to identify the Christ with a name of IESUS in Latin being different than the names of Joshua (Yehoshua) or Jeshua (Yeshua).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 the name for the Messiah only showed up in latter texts produced by the Roman Church.

The early NT texts used the letters I S with a bar above the letters, rather than any 'name' proper. (The Keyboard will not let me exactly duplicate it here) There are many articles available on the usage of Nomina Sacra, but do understand, the 'authority' of the Roman Church is what came to -dictate- their interpretation.

Toto · 01-21-2013, 12:26 PM

I believe that there are examples of "Jesus" before the use of Nomina Sacra. I don't know what other name would be abbreviated.

I found this example - dated to the second or third century: A Greek Inscription: “Jesus is Present” of the Late Roman Period at Beth Loya. It implies that there are other examples.

Quote:

. . . Inscriptions and texts of the Byzantine period normally do not spell out the name of Jesus. Jesus, when referring to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, begins to be abbreviated in Christian texts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, while Christ begins to be abbreviated in the 3rd century.21 In an inscription from an early 3rd century Christian gathering place at Megiddo, perhaps a prayer hall or a church, the “words ‘God Jesus Christ’ on the next-to-last line are abbreviated in the form of a contraction consisting of the first and last letters of the two words. Above the two sacred words is a straight line. While these abbreviations and the line above indicating sacred words was later a common practice, this is their earliest attestation.”22 The “Jesus is present” inscription certainly refers to Jesus Christ, and fully spells out the name of Jesus, indicating that it may have been inscribed before the time that abbreviation of nomina sacra became common in the 3rd century AD.

...

21 Millard, A.R. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000) 70.
22 Tzaferis, Vassilios. “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ,’” Biblical Archaeology Review 33:02 2007: 38-49.

Sheshbazzar · 01-21-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

There are many articles available on the usage of Nomina Sacra, but do understand, the 'authority' of the Roman Church is what came to -dictate- their interpretation.

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.

This matter of names would have been no light thing. It was now confess to this name 'IESOUS' as Christ and your Lord, or death.

Of course the latter Church scholars came to know that an error had been made, but having executed countless thousands to establish her name there was now no turning back.
The Church may error, the Church may make blunders that cost tens of thousands of innocent lives, but on principal, in such an important matter of Church Faith and Doctrine, the leadership of The Holy Roman Catholic Church can never be wrong.

So to them (Her and her daughters) it doesn't matter what name it that is right, or how many innocent victims perished in their fires, only that every knee bows to them and to the false name of that Nehushtan that they have have made.

Duvduv · 01-21-2013, 01:58 PM

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.

Toto · 01-21-2013, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

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 · 01-21-2013, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

That blanket statement about how Hebrew names become indeclinable when transliterated into Greek isn't exactly true. IESOUS appears to be declined in the Lxx. So Does Moses. Not so Jehozadak

With names ending with a vowel it was easy to and an /s/ and decline them normally from the beginning. ("Haggai" became αγγαιος. --γγ!) The problem comes with /p/ /t/ /k/ /b/ /d/ /g/ endings. This was mainly dealt with after a time by the addition of an /os/. With a final /n/, it was usually lost and an /s/ was added, but final /m/ got the /os/ added.

However, what seems interesting to me is the process of transliteration, which seems to involve two people work: one reading the original text and probably translating as he went and a scribe recording the results, though there was probably a discussion at times. This leads to quite varied transliterations of names, especially the more marginal ones. (One at random: the place we call Zo`ar is ζογορα (Gen 13:10) and σεγωρ (Gen 14:2), though both readers pronounced the ayin [`] as a /g/.)

stephan huller · 01-21-2013, 02:50 PM

And we shouldn't forget that pronunciation of the original Hebrew wasn't always the agreed. According to the Samaritan pronunciation Moses is Mushi, Levi is Lîbi, Nathaniel Nâtan’îl etc. The Samaritans also have a separate pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Roman names become quite unusual. Titus = Ṭîṭe, Marcus = Mårqe

stephan huller · 01-21-2013, 03:00 PM

Incidentally Samaritan pronunciation of Yahweh = Iabe (consistent with Levi = Libi)

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

01-21-2013, 01:58 PM	#26
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	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.

01-21-2013, 02:50 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And we shouldn't forget that pronunciation of the original Hebrew wasn't always the agreed. According to the Samaritan pronunciation Moses is Mushi, Levi is Lîbi, Nathaniel Nâtan’îl etc. The Samaritans also have a separate pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Roman names become quite unusual. Titus = Ṭîṭe, Marcus = Mårqe

01-21-2013, 03:00 PM	#30
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Incidentally Samaritan pronunciation of Yahweh = Iabe (consistent with Levi = Libi)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.