stephan huller

The question of how the eta in Jesus was pronounced has a long and detailed history in the study of early Christianity. It would seem that by the time of Irenaeus at least eta was pronounced as iota (= ee). I am just working this out at my blog but the term for this phenomenon is itacism. This is bringing back some of the work I did years ago on the Marcionite interest in Chrestos. At the time, Trobisch reminded me that Chrestos and Christos would have no difference in pronunciation which implies to me at least that the eta in Jesus was probably pronounced 'ee' back to the end of the first century. More work needed though.

stephan huller

1 Corinth. ix. 8 Marcion reads εὶ οὐχὶ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα λέγει, whereas Epiphanius reads ἢ οὐχὶ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα λέγει. Here there appears to have been no falsification. Probably ἢ and εὶ were interchanged by itacism. http://books.google.com/books?id=3Vg...ion%22&f=false

stephan huller

Suetonius lived 70 - 130 CE which would imply to me at least that from the earliest possible period of recorded information about Christianity Jesus was pronounced Eesous.

stephan huller

(c) THE CHANGES WITH η. The changes between η and α, η and ε have already been discussed. η and ι. As already stated, originally H was merely the rough breathing, but the Ionic psilosis left a symbol useless, and heta was called eta.2 Thus the new letter took the old long ε value in Ionic and Attic and also largely supplanted the long α where α became e. The Sanskrit used long a, the Greek η and the Latin either e or i. This new (in spelling) η (v/B.c.) gradually turned more to the i sound in harmony with the growing itacism of the language, though there was some etacism on the other hand.3 As early as 150 B.C. the Egyptian papyri show evidence of the use of ι for η.4 By the middle of the second century A.D. the confusion between η and ι, η and ει, ηι and ει is very general. By the Byzantine times it is complete and the itacism is triumphant in the modern Greek.5 Reinhold6 thinks that the exchange between η and ι was natural in view of the relation between η and ε and the interchange between ε and ι. As early as the fifth century B.C. the change between η and ι is seen on vases and inscriptions. But the Ptolemaic papyri show little of it and it is rare in the LXX MSS. א‬,AB (Thackeray, Gr., p. 85). In the N. T. times the interchanges between η and ι, η and ει, ηι and ει are not many. In 1 Cor. 4:11 W. H. read γυμνιτεύω, though L and most of the cursives have η. The N. T. always has δηνάριον, though δινάριον appears very early.7 For κάμηλος in Mt. 19:24 and Lu. 18:25 a few late cursive MSS. substitute κάμιλος (‘rope’), a word found only in Suidas and a scholium on Arist. But "it is certainly wrong,"8 a mere effort to explain away the difficulty in the text, an effort as old as Cyril of Alexandria on Luke. For Κυρήνιος B9 it. vg. sah. have Κυρῖνος, while B* has Κυρεῖνος and A has Κηρύνιος, a striking example of itacism, η, ι, ει, υ having the same sound in these MSS. The N. T. MSS. give σιμικίνθιον in Ads 19:12, but Liddell and Thayer both suggest σημ. as an alternative spelling like the Latin semi-cinctium. So also the best MSS. in Rev. 18:12 read σιρικός, though some cursives have σηρικός (like Jos. and others), and still others συρικός.9 Indeed in 1 Pet. 2:3 for χρηστός L and many cursives have Χριστός. The heathen misunderstood the word Χριστός and confounded it with the familiar χρηστός, pronounced much alike. Suetonius (Claudius 25) probably confused Christus with Chrestus. In Ac. 11:26, א‬ have Χρηστιανούς, while B has Χρειστ. So in Ac. 26:28 א‬, has Χρηστιανόν for Χριστ., while B has again ει. The same thing occurs in 1 Pet. 4:16. [A. T. Robertson, A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of historical research p. 192, 193]

1. Thumb, Hellen., p. 92.
2. Hort, Handb. d. Griech. etc., p. 63.
3. Thumb, Hellen., p. 98 f.
4. Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 29. Cf. also Thumb, Hellen., p. 138. In Boeotia also η and ι interchange in ii/B.C. Cf. W.-Sch., p. 46. Mayser (Gr., p. 82) cites from a Hom. pap. of i/B.C. ἔθικε for ἔθηκε, and per contra (p. 84) ἀφήκετο
5. Schweizer, Gr. d. perg. Inschr., p. 47. He gives ἐπή for ἐπί from a Byz. inscr.
6. De Graec. Patr. etc., p. 41. Cf. also Meisterh., Gr. d. att. Inschr., p. 34 f
7. Blass, Ausspr. d. Griech., pp. 37, 94.
8. Hort, Notes on Orth., p. 151.
9. Ib., refers to σιρικοποιός in Neap. inscr. (C. I. G. 5834). In the mod. Gk. η = ι in pronunciation. Cf. Thumb, Handb. d. neugr. Volkerspr., p. 2. W.-Sch. (p. 46) mention θήβην, θίβην, θείβην, in Ex. 2:3-6.

stephan huller

Itacism with Eta at the time of Polycarp:

(4) 'Aννία 'Pήγιλλα 'Hρώδοv γvνή, τὸ φως της οἰkίας τίνος τα υτα τά Xωρία γέγοναν

Annia Regilla Hirodis uxor lumen domus cuius haec praedia fuerunt.

Annia Regilla, wife of Herodes, light of the house, to whom this estate belonged.


An interesting feature in example (4) is the representation of the Greek eta in the Latin version (Regilla, Hirodis). Ῥήγιλλα is the conventional way of writing Regilla ... This is easy to understand, as other Greek onomastic models such as Herakles/Hercules were so familiar that confusion between (E) and (i) rarely appeared in similar names in spite of the pronunciation. Therefore, the itacism in Hirodis is unexpected. The inscription (and others of this kind) was set up by Herodes Atticus after his wife's death to commemorate her and perhaps to dispel doubts that he had killed her.' The itacism informs us that the person who wrote the text had difficulty in transferring the Greek eta into Latin (Ῥήγιλλα = Regilla where eta-/e:/, Ἡρῴδης = Hirodis, eta=/i:/),' although Herodes was usually spelt correctly in Latin. The text, or at least part of it ... may have been planned by Herodes himself, since other texts of this kind have been found (e.g. Ameling 1983: ii no. 147=/G iii. 1417). [Martti Leiwo, From Contact to Mixture in Bilingualism in Ancient Society: Language Contact Adn the Written Word p. 175]

Davka

I am astonished that this thread has meandered for 3 pages without even approaching the original Hebrew name Y'shua or Yeshua or Yehoshua. What in the world do Greek transliterations of a Hebrew name tell us about how to pronounce the Hebrew?

stephan huller

THE USE OF THE GREEK 'H' (ETA). Another usage points exactly in the same direction: that of the Greek letter 'H' (η) to denote the Egyptian long /e/. We know that the pronunciation of this letter as /I/ (thus falling together with the original long "I" and the older diphthong 'ei') , the so called 'itacism', developed relatively late, though at different times in different areas. For much of mainland Greece itacism seems to have become the rule during the fourth century B.C.E (with the notable exception of Attica)9. The Greek Koine as spoken in the Middle East seems to have held up on the change for some time. The Septuagint , written in Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy II (285- 247 B.C.E.) , still consistently transcribes the Hebrew /e/ with 'H', cf. 'Eliyyahu (אֱלִיָּהוּ Gk.'Elias Ἠλίας), etc. Only about 150 B.C. E. do misspellings of 'l' for 'H' begin to appear in the papyri. Therefore , though this criterion does not necessitate as high a date as the one the aspirate occlusives demand, , it places the use of the Greek script for writing Egyptian at 150 B.C.E. at the latest, and thus squarely in the pre-Christian era. [University of South Florida Language Quarterly, Volumes 10-14 p. 4]

stephan huller

But there is no evidence that the Christian god was ever called יְהוֹשֻׁע. Indeed it is a bold theological presumption which never gets questioned because our culture is a direct product of Protestantism. The bottom line is that a god could not have been named יְהוֹשֻׁע. It is assumed by Protestant scholars who want to 'rescue' a historical Jewish rabbi or something like this. But there is no evidence for this. The closest we get is Irenaeus's statement at the end of the second century that the real name of the Christian god is ישו. But this name is a close mirror of the Marcionite name for Jesus ISU. Indeed what appears on the page of the earliest manuscripts is IC (= IS) which is presumed to be the name Ἰησοῦς,

Davka

The Gospels (indeed the entire NT) claim that 'jesus' was Jewish, born and raised in Roman-occupied Palestine. This being the case, there is no reason to assume that his name would have been anything other than a traditionally Jewish Hebrew or Aramaic name.

This holds true regardless of whether the Jesus story originated in Palestine among Jews or in the Diaspora among Greek-speakers. If you're going to invent a German character, you call him Hans or Johann, not Sven or Pierre. Since the intent of the NT writers was clearly and unambiguously to present their main character as a Jew, it seems absurd to suggest that he would not have been given a Jewish name.