cornbread_r2

I apologize in advance if this turns out to be a really stupid question.

I've recently read that the name "Joshua" is the Hebrew translation for the name "Jesus". If that's true, that the two names are different translations for the same name, then why isn't Jesus called Joshua in the NT, or conversely, why isn't Joshua called Jesus in the Christian OT? In other words, why does the name appear in the Hebrew form in the OT and the Greek form in the NT?

fatpie42

No expert here, but I've often seen Jesus written as Yeshua. Certainly the claims that Jesus is found in the Talmud always involves pointing to figures whose names are written this way (in the translation, of course).

fatpie42

Just to check. You know that the Tanakh (or "Hebrew Bible" or "OT") is written in Hebrew while the Christian New Testament is written in Ancient Greek, right?

Sheshbazzar

Two different languages (actually three if one takes the English spelling and pronunciation into account)
Without going deeply into the details of the Hebrew spellings and pronunciation, the pronunciation Y'shua Yeshuah or Yahh'shuah (and rarely 'Yah'ho'shua') most accurately transliterate the spelling/pronunciation of the actual Hebrew name.

When translated into Greek however (as in the Septuagint) The Greek alphabet and Greek language is lacking in a letter, or reasonable combination of letters, to represent or reproduce the ''sh'' sound, thus simply writes and sounds the "sh" as an "s"

The other Greek linguistic convention is that in Greek, masculine names take on a terminal s.
Thus, the Hebrew name Y'shuah, comes out in Greek in the form 'Ea'sus' = 'Ea'sooce'.
And Greek readers see the name Easus (Jesus) in every place within the OT Greek texts that the English texts have the written form 'Joshua'.
Because the Greek is the language of the NT, Christian convention is to present the Greek form rather than the Hebrew.

(Actually this is a practice called Hellenism or Hellenization, the conforming things to 'civilized' Greek norms. Hebrew being regarded as a barbarian tongue.)

The only stupid questions are the ones that should have been asked but weren't.



.

Toto

The Christian Bible is written in Koine Greek, an outgrowth of classical Greek, used as the common language for trade and administration in the early Roman Empire. In it, IESOUS is Jesus, identical to the Septuagint's translation of the Hebrew name Joshua. (The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek.)

Yeshua is what Jesus would have been called in Aramaic, which was the language of Galilee at the time; this is based on a theoretical reconstruction of early Christianity, but AFAIK there is no record of Jesus being called Yeshua before the 20th century.

stephan huller

Although interestingly Clement thinks the name Jesus comes from the Greek word for healing.

cornbread_r2

Woweee, you guys don't mess around!

I was aware that the Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek in the LXX and also aware that the NT was likely written in Greek as well and that's what led to my confusion. To wit: If English translations of the Hebrew scriptures used the Greek LXX and English translations of the NT were based on Greek mss, I would expect the name to appear as the same in English-translated Old and New testaments...if that makes any sense. (I also couldn't help but think that people would regard the Bible differently if the name appeared the same throughout the Bible.) I see now that it's more complicated than that.

Thanks for your help!

Toto

The English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are generally made from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint.

IIRC there is one instance where the NT refers to Joshua, which is IESOUS in the original, but translated as Joshua in English.

stephan huller

Did you know that in the Masoretic and LXX the Patriarch Joshua was originally called by a different name and only received Jesus/Joshua later? Only in the Samaritan text is his name consistently “Joshua”

jakejonesiv

I think that behind the figure of Gospel Jesus, there may lie a Joshua Revidicus expectation. Robert A. Kraft gathered some relevant information on this back in 1961/62, Was There a "Messiah-Joshua" Tradition at The Turn of the Era?


I would add to that, Joshua/Jesus ascended Mt. Sinai with Moses (Exodus 24:13) and descended Mt Siani with Moses (Exodus 32:16-18). In the first century CE Philo employed a midrashic tradition which interpreted Moses' ascent to Siani as a heavenly ascent where he was deified. (De Somnii 1.36, De Posteritute Caini 28.31, De Confusione Linguarum 30-32, Quaestones et Solutioners in Exodum 2.29)

Since Joshua alone was said to have accompanied him (Exodus 24:13-14 ), legend grew that Joshua shared in that deification, and the ascent and descent to heaven/Sinai. This presumed legend lies behind Ephesians 4:8-10.

The Targum on the Psalms 68:18 reads: 'Thou ascendedst up to the firmament, O prophet Moses, thou tookest captives captive, thou didst teach the words of the Law, thou gavest them as gifts to the children of men'.


In the Assumption of Moses, the dying Moses calls Jesus/Joshua to him and gives him the task of finishing his work, christening his books (Jesus Christ?), leading to the ushering in of "the consummation of the end of the days." Assumption of Moses, 1.12-14.

Jake Jones IV