Kosh

Thanks for the reference. It makes a little more
sense now. But I still they should have made
and attempt to preserve the phonetical version
of the name. Seems like this is what we do today.


But, when I read this:

I can't help but see a Monty Python skit coming
on:

Guard: M'lord, there are normans at the gates. I
think they mean to conquer us.

King: Well then, we shall run them through with
our swords as we did the french!

Guard: But M'lord, they've got coconuts.

King: I'm not afraid of coconuts!

Guard: And....... the letter "J"

King: Odd, what do they look like?

Guard: Sort of little fuzzy hand puppets

King: Tell them we'll surrender!

CX

Fascinating essay. I am still in the dark, however as to why Joshua and Jesus are rendered differently. Well, perhaps not so much why as when this convention was established.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto: You make it sound so natural. But the two would hardly ever be confused. Doesn't it distort the record to use a different, non-Hebrew sounding name for Jesus? It's like painting a portrait of him with blue eyes and light brown hair. When you have new translations of the Bible with gender-neutral terminology, why not a translation that gives Jesus his name back?

I think you have a point, but I worship a North American capitalist Jesus so it doesn't bother me too much. Culture is the main factor in this issue. For example, messianic Jews usually refer to "Jesus" as "Y'shua", which is much closer to the proper phonetic sound of his name. If I ever meet the guy, I'll ask him if it bothered him when everyone was mis-pronouncing his name.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh: Guard: And....... the letter "J" King: Odd, what do they look like? Guard: Sort of little fuzzy hand puppets King: Tell them we'll surrender!

LOL... I guess this is one of those issues (Jesus vs. Joshua) that pops into your head when you're either smoking weed or just bored out of your mind. I'll leave it up to Cowboy X as to whether or not he wants to say into which category he falls, or maybe he knows of a third category. Just teasin' ya, Cowboy.

I've got another one... Why do thousands of Spanish-speaking parents name their sons "Jesus", but growing up in Minnesota I never met a Scandinavian named "Jesus"? I've never understood that... That would be cool to be the first Swedish "Jesus".

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Toto

Is that the risen Jesus? It's certainly not any historical Jesus. What did Jesus ever say that way compatible with North American capitalism? I guess there were those parables about the good steward, but do you know what it would do to the Dow if North Americans started living by what Jesus said?

Pantera

Matthew 13:12
For whoever has will be given more, and will have an abundance. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

That's the Republican platform in a nutshell, isn't it.

Vorkosigan

I see I did miss your point, CowboyX. Why not just chalk it up to tradition and leave it at that? What would be the advantage of calling Jesus "Joshua?"

Michael

Toto

What would be the advantage of portraying Jesus as a Semitic male with a dark complexion and a hooked nose? What if those portraits of the crucifixion had shown him fully naked and circumcized? History might have been different.

xoc

Interesting that parts of the Apocrypha make the reverse "error" in translating the Old Testament "Joshua" as "Jesus".

isaac42

What's the point of being accurate? If Jesus and Joshua are the same they should be rendered the same. To make them different is intellectually dishonest.

Isaac