Thanks. Right. I wanted to make it sound and feel to us what it must have sounded and felt like to a Greek (or Hebrew) reader.Peter Kirby wrote:I think this was a good move -- it's accurate to the Greek (not more accurate, but equally accurate), and it shakes up our preconceptions in a way making it all "Joshua" in this post wouldn't (because it's traditionally rendered Joshua in most of these passages, creating a difference where there isn't).Ben C. Smith wrote:I said in the OP that I was changing "Joshua" to "Jesus" in the texts in order to preserve the feel of things
Jesus and Joshua.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
Is Joshua an 'unnecessary' intermediate name in the 'progression' from Yeshua -> Jesus ?
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
This may also help explain 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, about Jesus/Joshua (same in Greek) being the spiritual rock that followed Moses in the desert. I think all of this is consistent with an allegorical concept of Moses replaced by Jesus, the Law (Moses) replaced by grace (Christ), as we see suggested in John 1:17.
Good topic. I am glad somebody brought it up.
Good topic. I am glad somebody brought it up.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
-
- Posts: 18362
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
delete
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Apr 23, 2017 1:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
No. Joshua is a direct Anglicization of Yeshua, while Jesus is an Anglicization of the Latin Iesus, which is a Latinization of the Greek Ἰησοῦς, which is a Graecization of Yeshua.MrMacSon wrote:Is Joshua an 'unnecessary' intermediate name in the 'progression' from Yeshua -> Jesus ?
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Joshua.
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus.
(This is part of why Joshua is closer to Yeshua than Jesus is. There are fewer steps leading to Joshua than to Jesus.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
MrMacSon wrote:
- Is Joshua an 'unnecessary' intermediate name in the 'progression' from Yeshua -> Jesus ?
Cheers Ben. I guess I was wondering if, as well as -Ben C. Smith wrote:
No. Joshua is a direct Anglicization of Yeshua, while Jesus is an Anglicization of the Latin Iesus, which is a Latinization of the Greek Ἰησοῦς, which is a Graecization of Yeshua.
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Joshua.
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus.
(This is part of why Joshua is closer to Yeshua than Jesus is. There are fewer steps leading to Joshua than to Jesus.)
.
- Yeshua -> Joshua
Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus -
- Yeshua -> Jesus
- Yeshua -> Iesus -> Jesus.
.
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
I think the distinction is artificial. Something in our English language. We distinguish the common name Joshua from Jesus. We would never name our sons Jesus. But in Spanish there is no such distinction, much as in Greek. It's not uncommon to see a Spanish speaker named Jesus. I think this impacts German and English speakers Biblical reading.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
His real Aramaic name was probably IshoBen C. Smith wrote:The name Jesus/Joshua comes from the Hebrew Yehoshua, shortened to Yeshua.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
It is really not about communities; it is about languages. For example, going from Yeshua straight to Jesus would mean that somebody took a Hebrew name and turned the yod into a J in the way one Anglicizes Hebrew words while simultaneously adding, for no apparent reason, a Latin case ending (-us). Why would someone do that when going straight from Hebrew to English? No, the Latin case ending obviously got there when it rendered the Greek ending (-οῦς).MrMacSon wrote:MrMacSon wrote:
- Is Joshua an 'unnecessary' intermediate name in the 'progression' from Yeshua -> Jesus ?
Cheers Ben. I guess I was wondering if, as well as -Ben C. Smith wrote:
No. Joshua is a direct Anglicization of Yeshua, while Jesus is an Anglicization of the Latin Iesus, which is a Latinization of the Greek Ἰησοῦς, which is a Graecization of Yeshua.
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Joshua.
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus.
(This is part of why Joshua is closer to Yeshua than Jesus is. There are fewer steps leading to Joshua than to Jesus.)
.
there could also have been
- Yeshua -> Joshua
Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus -
or
- Yeshua -> Jesus
in various places or communities.
- Yeshua -> Iesus -> Jesus.
.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: Jesus and Joshua.
.
I should have avoided reference to and thus use of the anglicized Jesus. I guess my question is answered by the 2nd line here: -
I should have avoided reference to and thus use of the anglicized Jesus. I guess my question is answered by the 2nd line here: -
Ben C Smith wrote:
- Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Joshua.
Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus.
- ie. Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus -> Jesus
=> Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ἰησοῦς -> Iesus