Yahushua, Yahusha or Jesus?

SteveCaruso said:

Given the number of Greek funerary inscriptions *in* Judea, a fair number of them lived there, too.

Click to expand...

Of course...

I have to remember that when I speak in generalities I need to make that clear.

Radagast said:

And the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in what part of the world? And the Greek synagogues in Judea?

Click to expand...

You don't double down after making a point where still less than 1% of the DSS were in Greek. You made a good point, it wasn't "none" but the 1% it was isn't a mandate to build upon. The language of the land in the first century among Jews was Aramaic, the language of the Temple was Hebrew... their occupiers and the language of commerce was Greek. However, and again, it is clear in the NT and in some extra-biblical writings, that the Jews (many of them) considered Greek to be a loathsome language (not to mention a loathsome people). Yes that changed, the vision given to Peter for example.... but change takes time and it isn't like a switch was thrown and all of a sudden everyone dropped the cultural influences they were raised in and started speaking and writing in Greek.

We have mostly Greek manuscripts, some Aramaic... and I accept that and have "no" issue with that. But, again, to think that those first century Jews were all immersed into a Greek culture and lived as Greeks is not Scriptural nor historical.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

What I find more interesting is that Yeshua is from Yehoshua. Why that did not end up as Joshua?

Click to expand...

Yeshua isn't from Yehoshua. They're cognates, but not derivative, and when Aramaic became the dominant language among Jews, they adopted the Aramaic form. "Joshua" is from the Hebrew.

Ken Rank said:

Of course...

I have to remember that when I speak in generalities I need to make that clear.

Click to expand...

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

SteveCaruso said:

Yeshua isn't from Yehoshua. They're cognates, but not derivative, and when Aramaic became the dominant language among Jews, they adopted the Aramaic form. "Joshua" is from the Hebrew.

Click to expand...

I have been told that as the culture changed... "Yeshua" became the short form (accepted as such) of Yehoshua? I have been also told, and I would love to get your take on this Steve... that as many as 25% of the Jewish boys born in Judea in the first century were named Yeshua or Yehoshua?

SteveCaruso said:

Yeshua isn't from Yehoshua. They're cognates, but not derivative, and when Aramaic became the dominant language among Jews, they adopted the Aramaic form. "Joshua" is from the Hebrew.

Click to expand...

You mean derivative like Mike and Michael?

Ken Rank said:

I have been told that as the culture changed... "Yeshua" became the short form (accepted as such) of Yehoshua? I have been also told, and I would love to get your take on this Steve... that as many as 25% of the Jewish boys born in Judea in the first century were named Yeshua or Yehoshua?

Click to expand...

Aye it could have been colloquially accepted as a shorter form by some, despite its etymological origins, but given how they are recorded on ossuaries they were seen as distinct identifiers.

You're also right that it was a very common name. The more conservative estimate usually falls between 10-15%, but in some places I wouldn't be surprised if it was as high as 25% (depending on the neighborhood).

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

You mean like Mike and Michael?

Click to expand...

No, Mike is a diminutive of Michael, directly derived from it.

Yehoshua literally comes from "YHWH saves." Yeshua comes from "he will save" (as we can see in Matthew 1:21) -- the "he" in pagan Aramaic languages originally referring to either the individual given the name or some other, but unnamed, deity.

When the Jewish people adopted Aramaic, it was an easy name and piece of culture to absorb and repurpose. It helped them blend in and at the same time stay true to their own naming conventions.

SteveCaruso said:

No, Mike is a diminutive of Michael, directly derived from it.

Yehoshua literally comes from "YHWH saves." Yeshua comes from "he will save" (as we can see in Matthew 1:21) -- the "he" in pagan Aramaic languages originally referring to either the individual given the name or some other, but unnamed, deity.

When the Jewish people adopted Aramaic, it was an easy name and piece of culture to absorb and repurpose. It helped them blend in and at the same time stay true to their own naming conventions.

Click to expand...

Right, theophoric YeHo (YHVH) saves. So from "Yoshia"

SteveCaruso said:

You're also right that it was a very common name. The more conservative estimate usually falls between 10-15%, but in some places I wouldn't be surprised if it was as high as 25% (depending on the neighborhood).

Click to expand...

That is interesting, that one male name would dominate so greatly. I take away from this that there was an expectation of deliverance at that time.

Blessings.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

So you think ALL the writers of the NT knew Greek?

Click to expand...

Of course. Because they wrote in Greek.

Ken Rank said:

You don't double down after making a point where still less than 1% of the DSS were in Greek.

Click to expand...

According to Elledge, 3%.

Ken Rank said:

The language of the land in the first century among Jews was Aramaic

Click to expand...

Synagogue inscriptions indicate it was more Greek in coastal towns, and more Aramaic in rural areas.

Ken Rank said:

However, and again, it is clear in the NT and in some extra-biblical writings, that the Jews (many of them) considered Greek to be a loathsome language (not to mention a loathsome people).

Click to expand...

That's absolute nonsense, which is no doubt why you've made no attempt to provide NT verses.

We have some disciples with Greek names, and we have an NT composed in Greek. Outside Palestine, virtually all Jews spoke Greek, and inside Palestine it was the preferred language of some Jews (see those synagogue inscriptions) and a language known to many others.

Radagast said:

According to Elledge, 3%.



Synagogue inscriptions indicate it was more Greek in coastal towns, and more Aramaic in rural areas.



That's absolute nonsense, which is no doubt why you've made no attempt to provide NT verses.

We have some disciples with Greek names, and we have an NT composed in Greek. Outside Palestine, virtually all Jews spoke Greek, ans inside Palestine it was the preferred language of some Jews (see those synagogue inscriptions) and a language known to many others.

Click to expand...

Yeah, ok... I see a reason for us to continue.

I've been following this bit of exchange. I don't know anything in the New Testament that even suggests the Jews didn't speak Greek. It seems to me that more of them knew Greek than Aramaic or Hebrew. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cries out, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?," which we know is from Psalm 22:1. ale ale, presumed by those standing nearby to be Jesus calling for Eli-jah, is not understood. Pilate had the titulus written in Greek, Latin, and in Hebrew, because there were clearly people who might see the spectacle and not read one or more of the languages. Biblical Greek is called koine Greek for a reason. It's "common" Attic, or Hellenistic Greek, and it existed in the area since the time of Alexander the Great. How else would commerce between the cultures have existed? It's far less likely that Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans, and everyone else spoke Aramaic than that Jews spoke common Greek, which was spoken throughout the Mediterranean. That's the point of a "common" tongue in a region.

But honestly, I think this pointless argument has gotten way off target.

The foundation of this thread is about using alternate versions of Jesus' name, rather than using the one that people know worldwide. The fact is, no one in the New Testament ever uses any version other than the Greek one. No New Testament writer ever felt the need to transliterate his name to its Hebrew or Aramaic root. It's only here, now, today, that people who speak NEITHER language have decided that all of a sudden, it's needful to do what no one else has been doing for the last two thousand years.

I'll reiterate what I said pages ago ... I think people do it because they are presumptuous and pretentious. It creates confusion, which is not of God. It subconsciously strokes egos, which is not of God. And it pushes people away from the truth, which is not of God. Outside of academic discussion, the use of Hebrew or Aramaic versions of his name should be abandoned. No good comes from it.

Radagast said:

Of course. Because they wrote in Greek.

Click to expand...

Ha ha...yeah, of course. Maybe I should have said the authors. We do not even know in many cases WHO the authors were, so they could have been Jews who knew no Greek but dictated to someone who knew both.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

We do not even know in many cases WHO the authors were

Click to expand...

In most cases we do.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

so they could have been Jews who knew no Greek but dictated to someone who knew both.

Click to expand...

Impossible. The complex sentences of the New Testament could not possibly have been constructed that way.

Radagast said:

In most cases we do.

Impossible. The complex sentences of the New Testament could not possibly have been constructed that way.

Click to expand...

Really? So why not? I am not a Biblical author historian, but from what I have read, Luke authored Luke and Acts while Paul wrote all his epistles...the rest are under debate.