homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Jesus is NOT Joshua! (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Jesus is NOT Joshua!
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In seminary, I was soundly rebuked by one of my professors who stated that Joshua is an inappropriate translation of Jesus (after I compared Joshua's conquest of the Promised Land with Jesus's conquest of sin). It's along the same lines as the argument that Daddy is an inappropriate translation of Abba.

Skimming through what little information I found on the internet, wikipedia and the like, what I discovered is that Joshua and Jesus have the same Hebraic root, but they are not the same thing.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well don't keep us in suspense, if it's not Joshua that's the correct translation, what is?

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the Septuagint, "Joshua" is translated as Ιησους (v. Joshua 2:2). Compare this to the Greek text of Matthew 3:13, where "Jesus" is Ιησους. Same word.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They both come down to "Yoshua/Yeshua" in Hebrew, IIRC. And the vowels can vary. In Hebrew and other Semitic languages, the vowels aren't fully written--they're diacritical markings above the consonants.

Put with the "Abba" question, IMHO, that sounds like the prof wants Jesus to be so special that everything about him was/is unique.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some people seem to insist on referring to Jesus as Yeshua. In my experience they are either Messianic Jews or a particularly pro-Israel breed of dispensationalist keen to emphasise Jesus' Jewishness.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry if this is a tangent, but I've always thought how odd it is that there are so many ways to say Jesus in many different languages but (as far as I know) few seem to offer much of a suggestion of a link to the name we have in English as Joshua.

Whether or notthe name is exactly the same is a bit irrelevant - we know that there were other people in the NT called Jesus and there were other people with variations on similar names. But we don't usually get that link in English (or I think in many other languages).

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anglican Brat wrote:
quote:
Skimming through what little information I found on the internet, wikipedia and the like, what I discovered is that Joshua and Jesus have the same Hebraic root, but they are not the same thing.
AB - can you expand a bit on what the prof. was on about? Clearly Yeshua and Yehoshua (which generally get translated into English as Jesus and Joshua) are not identical, but they are two forms of the same root, as already pointed out. Therefore the meaning is the same which is the important thing, and from the NT perspective that is what the symbology is all about - "God saves", through the man who takes his people into the promised land.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Some people seem to insist on referring to Jesus as Yeshua. In my experience they are either Messianic Jews or a particularly pro-Israel breed of dispensationalist keen to emphasise Jesus' Jewishness.

Really? I've mostly heard it from grumpy atheists trying to make out they know more about the real Jesus than you do.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Some people seem to insist on referring to Jesus as Yeshua. In my experience they are either Messianic Jews or a particularly pro-Israel breed of dispensationalist keen to emphasise Jesus' Jewishness.

Really? I've mostly heard it from grumpy atheists trying to make out they know more about the real Jesus than you do.
quote:
Yeshua’s Name was given by an angelic messenger from ADONAI and reveals the special relationship and ministry he has with his Jewish People.
Second link on Google for me, after the Wikipedia page.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think your Professor is wrong.

This leaves you with the difficult decision whether to go with a highly qualified and experienced expert in the field, or someone without any relevant qualifications from the internet. Of course, people in this country have had enough of experts.

Detail (source the superb J. P. Meier A Marginal Jew vol 1 chapter 8) :

Jesus derives from Yêšū, a shorter Galilean version of the earlier 'more correct' Yêšūa‘, in turn a shortened form of Yəhōšua‘, aka Joshua the OT hero. The shorter versions became much more common after the Babylonian exile (as Josh is today), but the longer is returned to the much more common use in C2. It should be stressed that these were common names throughout all periods, again much as Josh/Joshua is today.

All occurrences of Yêšūa‘ (never Yêšū) are found in the post-exilic Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. Notably, (the hero) Joshua is called Yêšūa‘ in Neh 8:17. Also, the high priest Joshua who returned with Zerubbabel is known as Yəhōšua‘ in Haggai and Zechariah, and Yêšūa in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Jesus would likely have been called Yêšū when in Galilee, and Yêšūa or even Yəhōšua‘ in Jerusalem.

I am, however with your Professor on the Abba/Daddy thing, despite what evangelicals will tell you.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Anglican Brat wrote:
quote:
Skimming through what little information I found on the internet, wikipedia and the like, what I discovered is that Joshua and Jesus have the same Hebraic root, but they are not the same thing.
AB - can you expand a bit on what the prof. was on about? Clearly Yeshua and Yehoshua (which generally get translated into English as Jesus and Joshua) are not identical, but they are two forms of the same root, as already pointed out. Therefore the meaning is the same which is the important thing, and from the NT perspective that is what the symbology is all about - "God saves", through the man who takes his people into the promised land.
All I remember is that I opined that we can treat Jesus as a second Joshua in terms of the Christology and that they shared the same name. He immediately stated quite emphatically that their names are not identical and that it's inappropriate to contrast Jesus' nonviolent movement versus Joshua's violent movement.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whether or not they are analogous, their names are in fact identical, at least in Greek. Does he have some reason to think that Jesus' name in Aramaic wasn't Yehoshua? I mean some documentary evidence of some kind?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, I've heard the Second Joshua theory before, but I agree, disagreeing with that doesn't mean they had entirely different names. We all agree Saul of Tarsus wasn't the guy who chucked a spear at David, right?

[ 31. December 2016, 03:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not really any different to a bunch of other names that take on slightly different forms across languages and centuries.

I was once in a class with a Katherine, Kathy, Kate and Katie. It's probably a good thing we didn't thrown in a Katrina and a Karen.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I understand it, we don't actually have any information on the Hebrew version of Jesus' name. What we have is that
1) The Greek NT version of Jesus' name is 'Iesous'.
2) The LXX Greek version of Joshua's name is also 'Iesous'.

So on the face of it, Jesus and Joshua are in fact the same thing; and we have that from people like Mark who clearly knew both Greek and the OT.

Exactly what you make of that likeness when interpreting is a different question. If your professor's concern is over the difference between Joshua as man of war/violence and Jesus as man of peace, I think the position would be that the comparison between Joshua and Jesus is valid. They do equivalent jobs at different stages of God's overall salvation plan.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Could it be that the professor is objecting to the premise (ie that Christ was a Joshua "sequel") rather than the use of the words? It seems undeniable that the root is the same, but an arguable point that even if the names are exactly the same that we are supposed to link the two together.

I suppose one could say that there are vague similarities between the gospel account and Joshua, but couldn't one say similar things about various other characters - Moses, Amos, Jonah etc.

One could go as far as saying that the Jesus stories are cobbled together reinterpretations of various mythical stories which were hanging about in the first century CE, but few travel that road as it doesn't tend to go anywhere useful. Maybe your professor is just saying that a simple this-is-that thesis lacks credibility (if only on the level that if we are prepared to go that far then we may as well throw everything up in the air and say that anything is a possible interpretation of the Jesus story and that it is impossible to know which idea is more likely to be true than another..)

Deconstructionalism and mythicism sound like reasonable sensible intellectual ideas, but theologically they're basically bankrupt. If you think it is highly likely that the gospel stories are fundamentally flawed then it becomes increasingly difficult to justify wasting time coming up with new theories about how they were generated, as there is no way to decide between then. IMO.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My professor is very Protestant, and I imagine he didn't make quite as much fuss over the fact that Mary is in fact, a translation of Miriam.

On a related issue, has there been Catholic/High Church theology that has looked at Mary as the Second Miriam?

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That intrigued me enough to search. It is certainly discussed in the book Women, Wisdom and Witness

quote:
on page 16

By the use of the Hebrew name in the opening greeting of the annunciation narrative and the term “bondwoman” in Mary’s response, which forms the closing element of the pericope, Luke evokes a parallelism between Miriam of Nazareth and her “eponymous ancestor” Miriam of Egypt, prophet and sister of Moses and Aaron. As well as a shared name, both women are linked by the reality of bondage. The first Miriam knew the pain and suffering caused by the Hebrews’ bondage at the hands of the powerful in Egypt. The second Miriam knew the pain and suffering caused by bondage of her villagers in Nazareth at the hands of the powerful ruling class. By framing the account of the annunciation with references that evoke the ancestor Miriam, Luke gives us a further insight into how the term “bondwoman” that Mary uses functions theologically. Thus, as well as the use of the prophetic call form, Luke’s use of the Hebrew name for Mary is further evidence that he wishes to speak to the emergence of a new female prophet from Nazareth.


Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A slightly tricky question. How much does this matter?

The angel Gabriel told Mary that she was to call her son Jesus. The same or a different angel repeated this instruction to Joseph in his dream with the extra explanation that this was because "he shall save his people from their sins". That is the reason we are given why Jesus is named Jesus.

Is making a big issue of whether Joshua had the same or a slightly different version of the same name, that many steps from arguing that Salvador Dali is theologically significant because he was called Salvador?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not to boast, but in my homily yesterday, I stated

"Jesus, our Joshua who leads us into a new year of promise just as Joshua led the people of God into the Promised Land."

Whether the linguistic issues, I think it's a good theological point [Razz]

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533

 - Posted      Profile for Pancho   Author's homepage   Email Pancho   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
On a related issue, has there been Catholic/High Church theology that has looked at Mary as the Second Miriam?

Traditionally Mary is seen as the New or Second Eve (just like Jesus is the New Adam.) I've come across comparisons with Miriam a couple of times but the historically the comparisons with Eve have been more important. From this link:
quote:

B. Typology and Mary

This way of reading and writing is broadly known as typology. And typology is critical to understanding what the Bible has to say about Mary.

Typology is the way Jesus taught the Apostles to read the Old Testament.

He referred to Jonah (see Matthew 12:39-41), Solomon (see Matthew 12:42), the Temple (see John 2:19) and the brazen serpent (see John 3:14) as "types" or "signs" that prefigured Him.

On the first Easter night He said that, "Everything written about Me in the Law of Moses, and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled" (see Luke 24:44-45)...

<snip>

Jesus and the Apostles were already familiar with this way of reading from the Old Testament and the liturgical readings they heard in the synagogue. In the writings of the prophets and psalmists, often we find typological readings of earlier events, deployed to prepare Israel for its coming savior...

<snip>

Jesus was the New Adam, the first born of a new creation (see Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 45-49). His Cross and Resurrection mark a new exodus (see Luke 9:31; 1 Corinthians 10:1-4). His Church is the new Jerusalem and the new Kingdom of David (seeGalatians 4:26; Acts 1:6-9; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6).

As we will see in the lessons ahead, the New Testament writers also developed a typological understanding of Mary’s role in salvation history - as the new Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant, and the new Queen Mother of the Kingdom of God...



--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"

Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

Is making a big issue of whether Joshua had the same or a slightly different version of the same name, that many steps from arguing that Salvador Dali is theologically significant because he was called Salvador?

I was thinking the same thing ...

I don't think there is any doubt that Jesus was genuinely called Jesus. So if we are going down the demythologising route, it's possible that the Evangelists decided to put his birth in Bethlehem in order to link him to Old Testament messianic prophecies, but they wouldn't have been able to make that kind of choice with his name because they were constrained by what he was actually called.

If we think the Gospels are a more or less accurate record of what happened, then I don't think there's any reason to question the reason the angel gave Joseph - that Jesus would save his people. The alternative is that the angel said the name symbolised salvation, but there was also a secret extra meaning left hidden like a cryptic crossword clue for theologians.

[ 02. January 2017, 20:45: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I was thinking the same thing ...

I don't think there is any doubt that Jesus was genuinely called Jesus. So if we are going down the demythologising route, it's possible that the Evangelists decided to put his birth in Bethlehem in order to link him to Old Testament messianic prophecies, but they wouldn't have been able to make that kind of choice with his name because they were constrained by what he was actually called.

I'm not following. Surely it is a simpler explanation that he was called (the equivalent of) Joshua but that as the Christian religion expanded after the crucifixion, the names were usually translated to be different to distinguish Jesus Christ from Joshua. I can't really see any reason for thinking his mother called him Jesus.

If we are going full-bore demythesis, then we might doubt that he ever existed and that the myths were cobbled together from various characters and stories that were going around and the name (equ of) Jesus was attached to the legend.

Similar to legendary stories about King Arthur, I'm not sure that having a name is, in and of itself, evidence that the stories have any connection to a person who had that name, that the name wasn't later attached to stories about someone else - or even that the person ever existed at all.


quote:
If we think the Gospels are a more or less accurate record of what happened, then I don't think there's any reason to question the reason the angel gave Joseph - that Jesus would save his people. The alternative is that the angel said the name symbolised salvation, but there was also a secret extra meaning left hidden like a cryptic crossword clue for theologians.
I dunno, there are various biblical characters who were given symbolic names to reflect their special job in the context of the story, I'm not really too bothered if their real given name was something else.

It seems to me that the gospel stories are written to ground it within a particular community of ordinary people with ordinary names, so it would be a bit surprising if it turned out that these people were called something else (or were stock characters, amalgamations of various people or didn't really exist) - but that is a statement of faith not fact.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by mr cheesy;
quote:
I can't really see any reason for thinking his mother called him Jesus.
Well no, she would call him some version of 'Joshua' - it's just that when you're writing a gospel in Greek, 'Iesous' is the Greek version of Joshua (in the LXX), and in Latin that becomes 'Jesus' though probably pronounced almost the same, as it is thought that the 'J' was pronounced I/Y in those days.

Obviously Jesus is not simply Joshua - but when we are told that God instructed that his incarnate self should have that name, it's a strong likelihood that He meant something by it. Not identity, but some kind of equivalence or comparison.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I suppose my caution about doing much with the Jesus/Joshua connection would be that there's very little/nothing done with it in the NT. Matthew pairs Jesus and Moses (as does Hebrews) and Paul does much with the new Adam theme, but anything much about Joshua is missing IMHO. For Matthew the focus is on the meaning of the name, not on its resonances.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not following. Surely it is a simpler explanation that he was called (the equivalent of) Joshua but that as the Christian religion expanded after the crucifixion, the names were usually translated to be different to distinguish Jesus Christ from Joshua.

When they went to render his name into Greek, they chose the exact same word that the LXX translators all those years back chose for Joshua. If they were trying to distinguish Jesus from Joshua, giving him the same name as Joshua wasn't the brightest way to go about it.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When they went to render his name into Greek, they chose the exact same word that the LXX translators all those years back chose for Joshua. If they were trying to distinguish Jesus from Joshua, giving him the same name as Joshua wasn't the brightest way to go about it

Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods, but Jesus Christ has had a distinct name in almost all languages I have ever heard of for as long as anyone can tell.

Which is even stranger given as you say that the Greek texts themselves use the name with the same root.

Which either suggests the "fashion" for giving Jesus Christ a distinct name in other languages was a later development, or perhaps that there was some kind of oral tradition which was not reflected in the written text.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Jesus as we use in English has little relation to the way the word was used in Aramaic.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or, I suppose, a later effort to show a break with the Jewish Jesus..

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My guess is that when further translations of the Old Testament were made from the Hebrew texts, the OT name was rendered in a way that made more phonetic sense to the translators, but there was no text to produce a similar modifying effect on the name Jesus. Thus, e.g., the Latin Vulgate has Iosue for Joshua, and Iesus for Jesus.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
I can't really see any reason for thinking his mother called him Jesus.
Well no, she would call him some version of 'Joshua' - it's just that when you're writing a gospel in Greek, 'Iesous' is the Greek version of Joshua (in the LXX), and in Latin that becomes 'Jesus' though probably pronounced almost the same, as it is thought that the 'J' was pronounced I/Y in those days


Latin had no J. The Latin spelling is Iesus. J originated from a stylistic variation on I and only started to be considered a different letter with a different pronunciation in the late mediaeval period. 'J' wasn't pronounced as anything because it didn't exist.

There is indeed a tradition of using J as the consonantal I in Latin texts, and it's still the norm in ecclesiastical Latin, but the Romans would have scratched their heads at it, as the would at the distinction between V and U. They were the same letter to the Romans as well, pronounced much as modern Italian as a vowel, or as a W sound as a consonant.

[ 03. January 2017, 09:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mary did not call Jesus Joshua, nor Jesus either. She was a mom. She called him Snugglebug, or Babykins, or Dumpling, at least while he was an infant. I am sure the gospel writers edited that out by Jesus's express command.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mary did not call Jesus Joshua, nor Jesus either. She was a mom. She called him Snugglebug, or Babykins, or Dumpling, at least while he was an infant.

Then later, when he got in trouble, she used all three names.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's probably a reason why He told the disciples it was important to get out from your family.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not following. Surely it is a simpler explanation that he was called (the equivalent of) Joshua but that as the Christian religion expanded after the crucifixion, the names were usually translated to be different to distinguish Jesus Christ from Joshua. I can't really see any reason for thinking his mother called him Jesus.

I was unclear. I'm not suggesting that she called him Jesus in contradistinction to Joshua. My point is that if the evangelists called him Iesous, that's probably because Iesous was a reasonable approximation to his actual name, not because they were trying to draw any spiritual conclusions from it.

Imagine I write a historical romance set during the Wars of the Roses. If I invent characters with names like Friar Goodheart and Cardinal Thumbscrew, there's a good chance that I'm giving you subtle hints about their function in the story. But if I mention Margaret Beaufort, then any elaborate theory you may spin about the Beaufort scale and Margaret roaring into English politics like a hurricane will be false, because the real reason I call her Margaret Beaufort is because Margaret Beaufort was her name.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure how it is in your neck of the woods, but Jesus Christ has had a distinct name in almost all languages I have ever heard of for as long as anyone can tell.

Which is even stranger given as you say that the Greek texts themselves use the name with the same root.

Which either suggests the "fashion" for giving Jesus Christ a distinct name in other languages was a later development, or perhaps that there was some kind of oral tradition which was not reflected in the written text.

There seems to be a Western vs Orthodox split here.

[Language geek alert]
By the scientific process of checking the 'Read in another language' tab on the Wikipedia articles for both Joshua and Jesus, I established that Joshua and Jesus are the same words in Modern Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Serbian. They are different in most 'Catholic' and 'Protestant' languages, including Croatian (which is significant because the differences between Croatian and Serbian tend to be somewhat political). The exception is Romanian, which also distinguishes Joshua from Jesus - but Romanian went through a phase in the nineteenth century of trying to emphasise its Latin roots, which might be why.

I think I am right in saying that the Orthodox have traditionally used the Septuagint as their 'standard' Old Testament whereas the West has used either the Hebrew directly or the Vulgate which is based on the Hebrew - which would perhaps explain the discrepancy.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think I am right in saying that the Orthodox have traditionally used the Septuagint as their 'standard' Old Testament whereas the West has used either the Hebrew directly or the Vulgate which is based on the Hebrew - which would perhaps explain the discrepancy.

That is correct.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Surely in terms of the OP, the question of whether Joshua and Jesus are etymologically the same is not to be determined by the different approaches of later translators into other languages, but by looking at the names as they were used in Jesus/Joshua's contemporary life.

The answer to that is- basically they are the same. I refer readers to the tediously full answer I gave earlier for further explanation.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Ricardus;
quote:
that's probably because Iesous was a reasonable approximation to his actual name, not because they were trying to draw any spiritual conclusions from it.
i kind of agree with you (liked your Beaufort analogy [Smile] ), except for one thing - that Matthew records how an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and that part of the message is
quote:
"... and you will call him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins"
I think we have now pretty much established that in the Hebrew/Aramaic that would be Joseph and Mary's primary language, the angel basically said "call him Joshua" (or a variant meaning exactly the same - Yeshua/Yehoshua/or similar). That the Saviour/Messiah's name is 'Joshua' is not a random accident but a divine instruction.

And Joshua and its variants all mean "Yahweh saves". As a Trinitarian I take it that a primary reference here would be to the Incarnation of Yahweh in Jesus, and therefore that in Jesus it is Yahweh who saves those who put faith in Jesus and Jesus' sacrifice. That is, the simple literal meaning - in the special circumstances of the Incarnation - is primary.

Do we nevertheless look back to the earlier hero Joshua and consider parallels and likenesses in the respective roles of Joshua and Jesus? On the one hand, I can't see why not and there does seem to be mileage in Joshua leading the people into the Promised Land. On the other hand, I'd try to resist the temptation to push that too far, because Jesus is not literally Joshua. Things in the OT do point to Jesus and help us to understand his mission in various ways - his name being the same as the older hero may have significance, but don't go overboard about it.

Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From my very rusty Hebrew, Yoshua means "Yahweh has saved" and Y'shua means "he will save." (the "y" can be a tense marker). So the angel could have called Jesus "He will save" or "Yhwh has saved." We'll never know because both transliterate into Greek as Iesous.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can anyone help me out with examples of biblical character names which are obviously supposed to suggest a connection with an earlier character with the same name? I'm not really sure this connection exists as a real thing - mostly the names seem to have a meaning which signify a specific role not a connection with another character.

At best this seems akin to circular "they have the same name so there must be a connection" which I am not sure is ever directly suggested by the text.

For another thing, there is another Jesus in the NT (maybe also other Joshuas?) In Col 4:11, presumably nobody is suggesting there is supposed to be continuity with the OT judge?

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I can and I am only just discovering it, thanks to this thread. Take the verse Ruth 1:20 and look at the name 'Mara'. Then add to it fact that the root of Mara has the same the name Miriam and then see Modern Jewish understanding of Miriam and you see a connection with the Widow returning from exile and the female prophet of the Exodus.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mary did not call Jesus Joshua, nor Jesus either. She was a mom. She called him Snugglebug, or Babykins, or Dumpling, at least while he was an infant.

Then later, when he got in trouble, she used all three names.
All parents will know that when frustrated they go through the whole list of siblings before they shout out the correct name.

I have every confidence that when Jesus was summoned to clean his mess up, Mary would have shouted, "James, Joses, Judas, Simon... JESUS! whatever your name is, GET IN HERE!!!"

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes, I can and I am only just discovering it, thanks to this thread. Take the verse Ruth 1:20 and look at the name 'Mara'. Then add to it fact that the root of Mara has the same the name Miriam and then see Modern Jewish understanding of Miriam and you see a connection with the Widow returning from exile and the female prophet of the Exodus

Jengie

Indeed - even more pertinently, Miriam (Mariam, Mariamne etc.) is the name translated as "Mary".

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Yes, I can and I am only just discovering it, thanks to this thread. Take the verse Ruth 1:20 and look at the name 'Mara'. Then add to it fact that the root of Mara has the same the name Miriam and then see Modern Jewish understanding of Miriam and you see a connection with the Widow returning from exile and the female prophet of the Exodus

Jengie

Indeed - even more pertinently, Miriam (Mariam, Mariamne etc.) is the name translated as "Mary".
Did she know?
[Big Grin] [Snigger]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mudfrog

Me or Mary. In both cases, the answer is "yes". Myself, I can speak for.

For Mary then all I am relying on is that if you are named after one of the greats of your faith you know it. It becomes part of your character. How you deal with it is up to you and the reaction is different in different people but it is still a reaction.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, my question 'Did she know?' was a flippant reference to the song, Mary, did you know?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Mary did not call Jesus Joshua, nor Jesus either. She was a mom. She called him Snugglebug, or Babykins, or Dumpling, at least while he was an infant.

Then later, when he got in trouble, she used all three names.
All parents will know that when frustrated they go through the whole list of siblings before they shout out the correct name.

I have every confidence that when Jesus was summoned to clean his mess up, Mary would have shouted, "James, Joses, Judas, Simon... JESUS! whatever your name is, GET IN HERE!!!"

You forgot the dog. The dog's name is always in that list.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I always used to shout the cat's name (RIP) and she was called Susie - yet our kids are all boys!

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The other thought is, this is a culture with a fairly limited menu of names for babies. No Tawannha adorns the pages of the Gospels. And so, to prevent confusion, there are nicknames or add-ons. Thomas is 'the twin' -- we never see his twin, but this is clearly to distinguish him from Thomas the sandal-scraper, Thomas the winemaker, Thomas the guy who will fix your roof, etc. There's James brother of Jesus versus James brother of John. There must have been a lot of Joshuas/Yeshuas littering the landscape of the period.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The other thought is, this is a culture with a fairly limited menu of names for babies.

Dunno - is that true? How would we know? There seems to be a fairly small collection of names in the NT, but then these seem to be from a distinct set compared to the ones in the OT, which seems to suggest that NT parents were not constained to only use the prescribed religious first-name-book of the time, and which could even suggest that there was a wider pool of names of which only a smaller number made it into the gospels.

Which is one of those times when finding the census ordered by Quirinius would be very handy.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools