CX

Does anyone know why English translations translierate Christ's name as Jesus instead of translating it Joshua? What is the history behind that? Even in the NT the name Joshua appears 3 times at least (Acts, Hebrews and Luke) in each case when it is not Christ who is referred to the name IHSOU or IHSOUS is translated as Joshua, whereas when it refers to Christ the same name is transliterated from the Greek instead of translated to English. What started this practice?

Marduk

Blame the Greeks, just read this this AM, Jesus is Joshua to the Greeks, Miriam became Mary as well, Blame the Romans for that.

Toto

It appears to be a translation problem. The earliest translators of the Bible did not know enough Hebrew. Now the church has a lot invested in the brand name, too much to change to what everyone knows is accurate.

I tried doing a Google search on <Jesus Iesous Joshua> and came up with a lot of pages from Jews for Jesus arguing that both names should be Yehsua. Also this:

<a href="http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/acts7_45.html" target="_blank">Jesus, Joshua, what's the difference?</a>

CX

The little article ou cited was interesting if simplistic and somewhat obvious. My real question though is why do modern translations persist in transliterating IHSOUS when it refers to Christ rather than translating it properly? Is it simply a matter of convention? I imagine a lot of fundamentalist Xians would be upset at calling Jesus by his real name. (I've actually had some particularly brain dread carismatic types tell me the KJV is the original text with no knowledge whatsoever that the NT was written in Greek."

Vorkosigan

Well, translating from the Greek, Jesus would be an acceptable translation, no? In the interest of consistency, wouldn't you then have to use the Hebrew equivalents for Jerusalem, Tiberias, Capernaum, Sepphoris, Passover, foods & beverages....

Michael

CX

That's just my point. Jesus is not a translation of the Greek IHSOUS. It is a transliteration. Which is fine for words that have no English analog, however IHSOUS does have an English analog namely Joshua. IHSOUS is translated as Joshua any time it doesn't refer to Christ. It is inconsistent, but most likely highlights Jesus' "specialness" I suppose. I just wondered how the practice got started.

MortalWombat

It is interesting to note that around the first century there was an expectation among many that the Messiah would be a Joshua-like figure, a conquering hero. Translated to English, Joshua Messiah becomes Jesus Christ.

Kosh

Why?

Why is it that Joshua must translate to english
as Jesus? Why doesn't Joshua translate as Joshua?
It's not like we have trouble pronouncing it, or
even spelling it. In fact, in english, Joshua
looks to me like, well, Joshua.

Since Joshua was a hebrew name (right?), why would
there even be an English equivalent of that
(Jesus). Or should I say a Latin equivalent?
Was Jesus a common name in the english
language before Hebrew was first translated?
Was it a common name in Latin?
Did some interpreter sit and and say, "Hmmm, I need
a name in English that's the same as Joshua...
hmmm... well there's all these guys name Jesus..."

With words, it makes sense to translate them to
another language. Not so with names (IMHO) if they
are pronouncable and spellable in the new language.

Would really appreciate some insight on this...

IF we're going to insist on translating names,
begin getting rid of all Abdulah Alla Atta
type stuff and just call them "Abe"?

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CowboyX: Does anyone know why English translations translierate Christ's name as Jesus instead of translating it Joshua? What is the history behind that? Even in the NT the name Joshua appears 3 times at least (Acts, Hebrews and Luke) in each case when it is not Christ who is referred to the name IHSOU or IHSOUS is translated as Joshua, whereas when it refers to Christ the same name is transliterated from the Greek instead of translated to English. What started this practice?

I’m too lazy to write out a long explanation myself, so I searched the internet and found a guy who did a good job explaining it on another discussion board.

<a href="http://www.wuzupgod.com/bulletinboard/Forum13/HTML/000244.html" target="_blank">Jesus vs. Joshua</a>

Some of it is tied into the different sounds used in each language. For example, in Spanish you wouldn’t say “Jee-zus”, you’d say “Hay-soos” because there’s no hard-J sound in Spanish.

I think the main thing is that English translators somewhere along the way decided to translate them differently simply to keep the name “Jesus” distinct from the other biblical character of the same name, using “Joshua” for that person. I have no idea when this distinction occurred, but it must have been after 1611 because the KJV has “Jesus” in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, and “Jose” in Luke 3:29. All modern versions use “Joshua” in these three places to indicate the OT character.

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?

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>