Transient

There has probably been lots of discussion on this subject here.
I sort of want to tackle it from the pov of something that Jesus is reported to have said "I kept them safe by the power of the name that you gave me" or something like that - just from memory.

Now for the heck of it let's assume that there was a son of god that came and was crucified etc.

I assume that hebrew letters were quite different to ours so the greeks had to change the writing of the name to suit their alphabet.
But normally, as far as I am aware, we try to keep the name sounding the same as the original - presumably the chinese don't call Bush "Fush" or something else.
The writing will be different because of the different alphabets and sometimes there may not be an equivalent letter or even sound.

So ok they start with something like Yeshua or Yahashua.
Then the greeks get it and change it to something else - was that pronunciation very close to the hebrew?

I assume that the Hebrew pronunciation did not have a "J" sound.
Why the heck did they put in a "J" sound at all? (I know that came much later in the UK I think)

I cannot understand why the need to change the pronunciation of a name at all.

Maybe I am missing something here and "Joshua" is just the way an Israelite would have said that name - but then they would have had a "J" sound etc.

Anyone know if the hebrew language had a "J" sound? and if not why the heck it was put in those words?

David Henson

If we wanted to keep them sounding as much as the original we would simply transliterate them rather than translate them. Names are, however, almost always translated. An exception for example is the Hebrew Satan, but satan is actually a word which became the name of Satan the Devil.

Jesus comes from the Latin form of the Greek I·e·sous′, which corresponds to the Hebrew Ye·shu′a‛ or Yehoh·shu′a.‛ It is interesting that at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 the Greek Iesous appears in application to Joshua and is translated as Joshua. In other words an English translation of the Hebrew Yeshua is Joshua, so in Hebrew Jesus name was Joshua. But of course the Greek hadn't become the more common language in Joshua's day as it had in Jesus' day, which is why there were often two names given for some of the people in Jesus' time. One in Hebrew and one in Greek. Saul / Paul, Simon / Peter etc.

You have to keep in mind that the Hebrew language had no vowels, only 22 consonants, several of which can represent two different sounds giving a total of 28. The vowel sounds were supplied by the reader according to context like spelling brck bldg and reading brick building.

Names, in fact nouns, are often difficult to translate because there is no ancient dictionary to get an exact definition from 3,000 years ago. Scholars have to compare the meaning of nouns with those of related languages such as Arabic. For example, the Hebrew word sis it thought to mean the swift since the bird is still called sis in Arabic.

Some birds and beasts in the Bible may be onomatopoeic, which means imitating the sound the creature makes, similar to how "cluck" would chicken, "hoot" would owl, and "moo" ?

Does the Hebrew have a J sound? No.

Transient

Thanks for the reply.

So was the Greek I·e·sous′ very close in pronunciation to Yeshua (Joshua(?
It doesn't even look close to me but then I don't know how either spoke.

Also, why then was "J" sound added later on? Just for fun?

Doug Shaver

This question looks like it might be more appropriate for a language forum. Here is one you might try: http://forums.delphiforums.com/dictionary/start

Transient

I don't think so.
Most articles that I have read say that the J was added when it came along into the english language.
What I am wondering is whether the original name had a "J" sound or not.
If not then why would it have been changed.

It would be like changing Bush to Kush or Dush.
Or Obama ot Owama etc

An why change Myriam to Mary etc.

I cannot see why names had to be changed at all.

Did Napolean's name sound entirely different to Napolean?

I do not give a stuff about it really but I am trying to clean this problem off my slate - trying to see what occurred back then and why.
Maybe it will give me an insight into the mindset of those who were responsible for putting together the NT or fabricating it or whatever.
Maybe they just hated using Jewish names and made their own up?
beats me, just asking.
I guess no-one knows why they put the J in or why they changed lots of names.
Maybe that's how everyone did stuff back then - just changed the names of stories to familiar names in their own culture?
Are there any other examples of name changes outside the bible?

mountainman

Dear Transient,

In its original entry into the technology of writing, whether via scroll or codex the important and sacred names were written in a symbolic form, and not in the full and expanded form. The name of Jesus in the earliest codices in both the greek and the coptic is an abbreviation. Like just abbreviating jesus to the two letters J_S. Why this is the way it is has not been adequately explained. To make matters more complicated, the "abbreviated name" or nomina sacra for the Hebrew name of "Joshua" is also "J_S".

Here are some notes I gathered on nomina sacra (sacred names).

Best wishes,


Pete

Transient

Thanks - I am reading that at the moment.
All the stuff I have looked at seems to indicate that the name Yahashua or Yeshua etc have a more "Y" sound like in yellow. I can't see where the "J" sound comes from or rather was inserted - it seems pointless and ridiculous but then maybe I am missing something.
I will finish reading your article.

Transient

Thanks for that Pete.
I cannot head off in all the tangents or sidetracks raised in that article or my head will implode.
So for christians the name of the messiah is the greatest name in the universe.
For me, the pronunciation is more important than the spelling or characters used.
In other words, if a friend from another country were to use my name, the spelling may look different because of different alphabets but at least the pronunciation could be similar.
Of course there would be speech difficulties with some sounds that would come out differently, but in the main the name sound would be similar.

I just can't for the life of me see how Yahashua sounds anything at all like Jesus?
If it is supposed to be the most important name, why the heck has it been so corrupted as to be unreconizable at all?
Might as well be talking about Fred who was really called Malcolm.
Totally absurd to my wee brain unless I am missing something.

btw I got lost in sidetracks from a wiki article on the letter J - my brain has severe limitations it seems.

Sheshbazzar

The problem is, Transient, that the Gospel stories were written late, and in a Gentile environment and language, (Greek) while they deal with a Hebrew culture and language.

The apparent name change comes about through two factors working in concert, the first having to do with the differences between the Hebrew alphabet and language and the Greek alphabet and language.
The second factor in the change is what is called "Hellenization" the deliberate change of foreign sounding names to conform to Greek standards, as Greek culture was deemed superior to all others. Thus one wanting to "fit in", and not be immediately recognized as being an Xeno (outsider) would put aside their actual given name, for an equivalent, or entirely different Greek name.
There are many examples of this to be found in the Bible, it also occurs in the Old Testement in books such as Daniel where the Jews either take on, or are given Babylonian names.
The Hebrew name יהושע "Yah'shua" which is indicated by the text, is a pronunciation that almost impossible to convey using the Greek alphabet, which does not have letter(s) to represent the "sh" sound, and lies outside of the normal range of Greek speech and pronunciation. Thus making it more convenient to supply a Greek "equivalent". As the Greek language LXX (Septuagint) Bible used the Greek form of "Jesus" and the NT was primarily addressed to the Gentiles and a predominately Greek speaking audience it was a natural that the written form would follow the Greek practice.
However, weighed against this is the factor that the original context was in Hebrew;
(as when Miriam and Y'oa'sef took their son to The Temple, and gave him the name designated by the angel- "Yah'shua", because YAH through him would "shua"=save His people. The idea is one of "self existent salvation" in and by a name, IE. "Whosoever should call upon" His name "would be saved" without any exception; The name alone being fully sufficient to support the guarantee.
And the original preachers of the Gospel went forth preaching an -oral- Gospel and could pronounce this name in accord with their conscience.
The written Gospels were not composed until much latter, and then in the Greek language where naturally the form "Jesus", Ἰησοῦς = "Iēsous" would predominate and supplant the more difficult (to the Greeks) to pronounce or spell Hebrew original.
And as the Gentile (read Greek/Roman) church gained ascendancy (and the early "Jewish/Hebrew" church virtually disappeared) it was inevitable that subsequent translations into other languages would follow the Greek model, and thus it was that to most peoples the actual given name has became virtually forgotten outside of scholarly discussions.
The letter J is really a non player as it does not (any longer) accurately represent either the Greek or the Hebrew pronunciations (although hundreds of years ago when The Bible was first translated into English, it was pronounced like the Greek iota somewhat the equivalent of our modern letter I or Y, but finally morphed into our letter J with a completely different sound than either Greek or Hebrew.
I hope you find this of help.

Transient

hey thanks a lot for that.
That's easy for me to read and understand.

I guess there remains for me the mystery as to why, when they came to translate stuff into english, they didn't go back to the original hebrew language with the help of the Jewish community and try to get a more accurate representation of the "most important name in history".
Maybe it wasn't really so important to them after all and they were just doing a job.
One would think that even the modern church would "go to the bother" of changing the name into something more close to how "god" originally intended it to be. I think this just shows the vested and petty reasonings of churchy people today.
How could they possibly change the "sacred" name of Jesus? It would be an abomination to pronounce his name like they did back when he walked the earth It would be thoroughly indecent.
That is, tho presuming that there ever was a god man by that name in the first place.
The more I look at the early church and the RCC the more I see petty, deceiptful people who just did what was good for them and their bosses.
They seem to have hated the Jews over the centuries and so I see no reason why they would want to use jewish names for their own new religion.

I guess I will leave it there - it just confirms my suspicions of that pathetic group.