From: Isidoros (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Mar 07 1997 - 23:34:17 EST
R. Petry on 5 Mar 1997 17:55:52 wrote:
>In the last digest I received I read this comment.
>My paraphrase (I know no Y'shua as the Name in Greek is IHSOUS).
>This may be so, but what about the fact that English translations of the
>>same word in the LXX translate it as Joshua. Isn't there some discrepancy
>>here and should we not be consistent in translating?
First let me thank you for the interesting questions; since they concern me,
addressing points I treated, I should have a couple of comments but, before,
Your "paraphrase" is generally accurate, I 'd only like to add that I felt it
very significant, within the context of this discussion, not to give credence
to statements such as
>> What are YOUR indicators that Y'shua spoke primarily Greek?
>> Your unstated position is that Y'shua spoke Greek as his "native
>>tongue. Mine is that he spoke Aramaic,
in that I feel that the usage here of "Y'shua" was begging the question and
was prejudicing the issue unscholarly and unfairly, as in replacing the
name it was "naively" introducing "assumption" therein that Jesus language,
as accrued by the name *was* Aramaic. Whereus that is precisely what
Mr. Kilmon is burdened to substantiate. And, to confirm this, when raising
this very objection, Mr. Kilmon, as if dsurprised, responded:
>uh...glance up and look at the "subject." [of that thread: "...Jesus..."]
Right. Which bespeaks of some historians peculiar eyesight. The truth is,
some people "see" into the evidence only what they like. And attest, before
a "court" such as this, accordingly.
>If we were consistent in translating or
>transliterating, etc. we would use Joshua, Yahshua or the correct variant
>would we not? The reason being, this was the older meaning of IHSOUS.
No. Definitely not - unless it translation into Hebrew or Aramaic.
IHSOUS was transliterated from the *Greek* _that was_ into Latin,
and onto English, as Jesus. Why transliterate it into an-other thradition,
other than the one in which the name is, within the context of the Biblos,
met?! Why? Because... "th(at) was the older meaning of IHSOUS"?
First of all, may you not mean here "meaning," but "name" (?!) What do
you mean by "meaning", and why do you use this word here? You, please,
may answer - and especially if you did do mean "meaning" (I may offer a
comment or two further down) but if I may focus on the hypothesized
main point brought in as reason for such a substitution: why "older"?!
>He lived in would cause us to be true to the names used in that land
>and nation. They were not Greeks, Latins, Germans, etc, they were,
>for lack of a better term, Israelis, no?
Israeli is a very fine word - for a subject and context befitting the word.
But it does not, not exclusively, not appropriately, and not even perhaps
in the main apply to the land (Palestine) and the people, as a whole, of,
or preceding the period that concerns us. Mr. Conrad offered a sense of the
complexities involved. I 'd like to offer that contrary, again, to the belief
held again generally by the "educated," the presence of the Greek peoples
in the area, and especially in northern and central Palestine, was primary
during and for many centuries before the gospels came to be commited to
text, preceding, in fact, and in accordance to the increasingly pilling up
archaeological evidence, that of the appearance of the tribes of Israel into
the area. Though, I must hasten, that the relationship of the Ellhnes and of
the Ysraelis and, yes, of the (original) Arams is by far culturally *closer*
interwoven and more complex that scholarship generally has recognized
>What is the basic meaning of the word IHSOUS anyway.
>Joshua is supposed to be Yah is Salvation, or close to that.
>What does IHSOUS mean if not the same.
Ah! the "meaning"! A most interesting question. May I only say, today,
re "Yay: Salvation": related, but not the same - if by "same" you mean
"identical" to the meaning proposed for Joshua.
>Thus, if it does, then would we not use the
>LXX translation Joshua even in the New Testament? Just a thought.
No. You would use the Greek one, IHSOUS, in that *this* name is the one
name found in the Christian tradition that was transmitted in Greek,
was originally attested in Greek, and was in Greek written - not in
Aramaic, nor in Hebrew, but in the Hellenic. Why would you then want to
write it in another language? Is not the common Latin, English, enough of
PS. I hope you do not mind Robert, but considering the subject title of the
thread you named, I think, not quite correctly (as the term "Messiah"
is an epithet that has been used to connote variously) I have changed it
to what this discussion is on (the Language of) IHSOUS.
The Ionic Centre
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:08 EDT