Why is Greek underrated?

[Radagast]

Well, we do know what his name would have been in Hebrew. Joshua is the direct equivalence of Iēsous, which would be Yah-shua (not Yeshua). Frankly, I don't think it matters that much.

I am curious, what if we translated everywhere Jesus is to be Joshua, that would be weird!

And, of course, in the NT, the Joshua of the OT is given the name Iēsous too, which can cause confusion.

 

[Danielwright2311]

This question is based mainly by comparing it with Hebrew.

Even though Greek was the main language used in the Christian world in the age of the Apostles and the Early Church, the language of the New Testament, and the Septuagint, a lot of people still use Hebrew. I don't see anyone calling Jesus "Iesous" like they call him Yeshua, even those guys say it is evil to say it in that language
I don't see anyone calling God "Theos" or "Kyrios" neither.

So, I am curious why that preference of Hebrew, which wasn't even spoken as a native language but Arameic

Its so funny how man some how became the creator of all languages, when not all men know all the languages.

God created all spoken langue's, and he understands all men's hearts. So he knows when I say Jesus who I mean and why, he created the very name Jesus man.

 

[Radagast]

Biblical Hebrew has a tiny vocabulary and would be wholly unsuitable for use as a modern spoken language. It is not pure. It is not better than Greek. It is not more holy. And it is not the language spoken by Adam and Eve. Those are all imaginary things that people have attributed to Hebrew for no good reason. And it certainly is not the language spoken in heaven.

And, of course, Biblical Hebrew is not the language spoken in Israel today. It's a quite different language.

 

[Jonaitis]

It's a different English. What we speak today is not "more pure" or "less pure."

Haha, this reminds me of the Anglish argument. We must get rid of the impurities of Romance influence!

 

[dzheremi]

Oy vey! Some of the people making arguments about language in this thread could use a few linguistics courses.

 

[Jonaitis]

And, of course, in the NT, the Joshua of the OT is given the name Iēsous too, which can cause confusion.

I wouldn't think so, unless you really don't know anything at all.

 

[CodyFaith]

Well, yes, but you seemed to be downplaying the great importance of that -- an importance which means that all pastors should learn Greek.

Not seemed, I certainly am doing so.

You don't need to know Greek to understand the N.T., or Hebrew to understand the O.T.
God gave scripture in every tounge so that every tounge can know God's Word. Not everyone is called to go to school to learn Greek and Hebrew, in fact few are, and so it would be elitist to believe that only chosen few can wisely understand God's Word.

Pastors should learn it yes... but that is because pastors are held at a standard to which they must know the scriptures more in depth than others and able to contextualize things to better grasp the teachings. Where many pastors and others run into error is when they create entirely new meanings from the original language, meanings to which only privledged few can verify and even in those circles there is or would be debate.
Childlike faith is the best kind of faith.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

You know, I actually wanted to start doing that just for fun and see the reaction of people.

"You shall agape the Kyrios your Theos with all of your heart, and with..."

Learn some Greek declensions haha

καὶ ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου. αὕτη πρώτη ἐντολὴ

Its not that hard when you sing and read a three hour long service every week in a mix of both English and Byzantine Greek with the readings done in Koine Greek.

 

[CodyFaith]

Oy vey! Some of the people making arguments about language in this thread could use a few linguistics courses.

Is God's name revealed in any other language other than Hebrew?

Is God's name the purest of all names?

And if God's name is the purest of all names, and cannot and should not be translated into another language, wouldn't that make Hebrew a pure language?

See folks, philosophy is fun.

 

[Radagast]

I wouldn't think so, unless you really don't know anything at all.

Yes, confusion is possible:

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV, and similarly DRV): For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Hebrews 4:8 (ESV, and similarly ASV, CSB, NAB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV, etc.): For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.

 

[Radagast]

Is God's name revealed in any other language other than Hebrew?

God revealed a name to the Israelites (in Hebrew).

It's not God's only name.

 

[CodyFaith]

God revealed a name to the Israelites (in Hebrew).

It's not God's only name.

Ah, disagree.

Jesus means Yahweh saves or Yahweh is salvation.

 

[Radagast]

καὶ ἀγαπήσεις Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς διανοίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου. αὕτη πρώτη ἐντολὴ

δευτέρα ὁμοία αὐτῇ· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. (Matthew 22:39)

 

[Jonaitis]

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV, and similarly DRV): For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Hebrews 4:8 (ESV, and similarly ASV, CSB, NAB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV, etc.): For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.

Okay?

The early church and Greek-speaking churches read from the Greek-NT and LXX with Iēsous in it all the places it mentions. I think had this happened in the English crossover, retaining the same name, it would have been no problem (for the most part). Besides, you quoted only one verse in the NT, because that's its only reference to the successor of Moses. What about the passages in Acts with a man named bar-Jesus? Why is it translated like that in our modern versions? I think there was another mention in another epistle of a guy with the name (translated) Jesus in it.

 

[Radagast]

Besides, you quoted only one verse in the NT, because that's its only reference to the successor of Moses.

Well, tbh, I think that's the only place of real confusion. Joshua also gets a mention in Acts of the Apostles 7:45, but that's not ambiguous.

One reason why there isn't more confusion, of course, is that much of the NT refers to Jesus Christ.

 

[GingerBeer]

Is God's name revealed in any other language other than Hebrew?

Yes. In English as Jehovah

Is God's name the purest of all names?

No. Jesus is the name above all names.

And if God's name is the purest of all names, and cannot and should not be translated into another language, wouldn't that make Hebrew a pure language?

See folks, philosophy is fun.

 

[bèlla]

Did she ask for a book with translation?

No, I don't believe she was aware it existed. She didn't mention it.

 

[bèlla]

Some use it when talking to other Jews which I find it fine, but it can get a little annoying when doing it with other Gentiles. Especially since it involves demonization of the English name Jesus.

As you're aware, I attend a Jewish synagogue. A lot of the verbiage you hear on the site is not prevalent in those settings. They use English. If you're at an Orthodox gathering that may be different. However, that's roughly 10% of the Jewish population in the U.S. Most are Reform Jews. The return to Hebrew is relatively recent. Their services were in English in the past.

For what it's worth, most Messianic Jews are Gentiles.

 

[Radagast]

I don't think Egypt would've taken to Christianity as it did had it not passed through the medium of Greek, which had long been the language of prestige among the elite at Alexandria, where St. Mark first preached.

As i understand it, Alexandria once had more Jews living in it than the whole of Palestine, and they all spoke Greek. Christianity would have begun among those people, and then spread to others (including the Copts).

"Pure" Coptic, as I understand it, is basically the language of the pyramid-builders.

 

[Jonaitis]

Well, tbh, I think that's the only place of real confusion. Joshua also gets a mention in Acts of the Apostles 7:45, but that's not ambiguous.

One reason why there isn't more confusion, of course, is that much of the NT refers to Jesus Christ.

Even though I prefer Jesus over Joshua, I still find significance in the shared name with the successor of Moses. As you probably know, Joshua's original name was Hosea according to Numbers 13:16, but was changed by Moses. I wonder why. I am convinced that it was on account of the true Joshua that Hosea's mission typified (Jesus will bring his people to possess their inheritance and judge the nations on earth), or just in general. When we read Iesou as the name of the Savior, which is in the office of a Judge, it was of no coincidence.