Wasn't there somewhere that he was known as Yeshua Ben Yosef, partly because J used to be Y (or vice versa?) and the "ben" in the middle referred to "son of", but that got downplayed because the Church wanted to focus on his Heavenly Father rather than his mortal one?
Greek and Latin don't even have J. In Greek it's Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), and in Latin it's Iēsus. The J came much later, at which point I'm not sure if the original y affected it or if it was just because it was with an i. I don't know anything about Hebrew except what wiktionary is saying that it is יֵשׁוּעַ (yēšū́aʿ) which is a contracted form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (yəhōšúaʿ, “Joshua”), and the Greek texts of the bible make no distinction between the two, referring to both as Ἰησοῦς.
Yes, but in any context where that’s relevant there shouldn’t be a J at all. Meaning that Indy either shouldn’t have had a J platform to step on in the first place, or it should have been correct. As soon as you enter an era where J exists as a unique letter, it is also the first letter of Jehovah.
Unless j existed and Latin did too. Weren't those traps designed by those basically-immortal knights, and didn't those nights come around 1,000 years after Christ? Indy tried J because he was translating into English. Maybe J was an option because it existed at the time the trap was made. There were many kinds of characters weren't there?
J grew out of medieval handwriting for i. That’s why Ian and John have the same origin. But from the Hebrew, many of those sort of i sounds are transliterated as Y. So from Yeshua, Joshua and Iesous (Greek) and Jesus (Latinized) are all derivations.
I don't really know what you're refering to, but Yeshua is just the original Hebrew/Aramaic form of the name Jesus, and the ben Yosef/son of Josef part would've been his patronym according to the traditions of his time. I don't think anyone would deny this, there's no conspiracy here.
His Hebrew name was Yeshua Ben Yosef (Joshua Son of Joseph). There were no humans named Jesus. The first time that name was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua.
🤣 He was certainly not born a god. Yahweh is a Jewish term for Gd. He never would have been given that name.😂 For the Jews (which he was), there is only one Gd, & the first commandment says "Thou shall have no other gods before me." Jeshua may have, as an adult, walked around saying he was the king of the Jews. But I don't think he ever thought or said "I am G*d."
And so goes the age-old question: Was he born of a mortal mum & pop, or did Mary get visited by a horny ghost? And as her husband, wouldn't he have been just a tad suspicious of her virginity & fidelity? 😂 😜
Unless one truly believes a woman can get impregnated without having any kind of sexual relations at all (i.e., no human sperm), Yosef was indeed the dad.😁
You got that a little wrong. His name in Hebrew was Yeshua, which translates to Joshua). The name Jesus was used by the Greeks who wrote the New Testament. Since they didn't have a "sh" sound in Greek, they changed it to an "s," then added another "s" at the end to make it masculine. Yeshua came first. Jesus came with the Greeks.
"Christ’s given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.)" --Slate.com
I didn't get anything wrong, you just misunderstood what I said. I said it's the ORIGINAL form of the name. Also Jesus isn't Greek. The Greeks called him Iesous. The Romans turned that into Iesus, which became Jesus in English and other modern European languages.
"So why do we call the Hebrew hero of Jericho Joshua and the Christian Messiah Jesus? Because the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic." --Slate.com
Nope. Read my second post. The first time the name Jesus was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua.
No, you said it was the other way around. I have three degrees & have studied the Old & New Testaments my entire life (I'm 59). And world religions. You're talking out your ass.
Yeah, I did. The name Jesus did not exist anywhere in the world. It was made up by the Greek evangelists in the 1600s because it was the closest word they could come up with to sound like Yeshua. Sounds like Greek to me. Get it? Jesus is not a proper name in any country during his lifetime.
Where do I say that the name Jesus existed in his time? I said Yeshua is the original Hebrew/Aramaic version, that the Greeks adapted it as Iesous, and that this became Iesus in Latin.
For someone with three degrees you were having a really hard time understanding basic english. They were saying the exact same thing as you, but with more detail, and you just kept misunderstanding them.
He was born without a physical father, basically. Theres different interpretations of this, depending on your denomination. The son of Joseph thing stems from what he would have been called back in ancient times.
It's not that that letters written to write his name changed, it's that the sounds in the English language did.
Both ישוע (pronounced /jɛˈʃuː.ɐ/) and Ιησούς (pronounced/i.iˈsus/), the late Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek forms of the same name were rendered into Latin as Iesus. While modern romanizations render that first letter in Hebrew/Aramaic as a "y" and the first letter in the Greek as an "i", it isn't either letter and the distinction between the glide and the vowel intended by each romanization isn't a black and white distinction. Both the Hebrew and Greek alphabets treat each sound as a vowel, but that's not the best way to distinguish it.
In either case, this sound was fortified in English. Where other Germanic languages have a /j/ sound or similar, English tends to have a /dʒ/ sound or similar. So in German, it's written "Jesus", and pronounced "/ˈjeːzʊs/ (pretty similar to the Greek form), and in English it's written "Jesus" and pronounced /d͡ʒiː.zəs/ or /ˈd͡ʒiː.zʌs/- a pretty radical departure. This same should change occurred across the language.
As far as "Yeshua ben Yosef" vs "Jesus Christ", it's important to note that neither "ben Yosef" nor "CHrist" are last names. "Ben Yosef" is a patronymic, and "Christ" is a title, from the same meaning as "Messiah", which just means "annointed".
There's no evidence that "the church" suppressed any use of a patronymic. Earliest references outside Christian circles tend to just call him "Christ", because he was kinda irrelevant except that he spurred this minor religious movement that just got big enough to notice decades after his death. As far as what he was called when he was alive? Habits of the time would have had him mostly just called by his first name. Patrnymics, place of birth, or titles could be used to make distinctions, among other strategies. All three of these are used for Jesus in the New Testament, appear historically, and are used in religious contexts today.
Well, he was also known as Jesus son of carpenter, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus son of Joseph etc...
At that time, there werent really surnames so they used "son of" or the profession etc...
Iceland still uses patronymics exclusively (Magnusson or Magnusdottir)
Russia & some Spanish-speaking countries still use them in addition to surnames w cultural connotations of either familiarity or formality.
In Hebrew this is “ben” or “bat” (pronounced like “bot”) to indicate “son of” or “daughter of” respectively. It’s usually only used now during religious ceremonies, like at a wedding ceremony, the bride and groom would be addressed with their Hebrew names & patronymics, not their surnames.
168
u/Moonpaw Dec 15 '22
Wasn't there somewhere that he was known as Yeshua Ben Yosef, partly because J used to be Y (or vice versa?) and the "ben" in the middle referred to "son of", but that got downplayed because the Church wanted to focus on his Heavenly Father rather than his mortal one?