Talk:Jesus (name)

Edit conflict

sorry about the edit conflict; I thought I was in edit conflict with myself, and didn't realize I was overwriting your correction. 83.78.176.157 13:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Plural

The plural is not attested for obvious reasons.

Heh! :) I wonder if we have an article about Jesuses. --84.20.17.84 12:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the plural would be Jesus anyway, it's a 4 declension Latin noun. Like fructus or something.

Well, the plural Jesii is well attested on the internet :). --Vlmastra 05:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I never bothered to check what declension it was, but I've never seen a 4th declension proper noun. Latin declensions are used infrequently for the higher declensions. For that matter, I can't think of any third declension words in English. Rex... sorta?

The question might matter more in Spanish where Jesus is a somewhat common name.69.12.143.197 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The name is not Latin. It is written in Greek in the New Testament and is derived from the Hebrew word for Joshua. The only reason why one would not find a plural is that in the narrative no situation arose in which there were two persons with that name together, like "Two Pauls were in town." (EnochBethany (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Chuy/Chui

Is it true that the Spanish diminitive Chui/Chuy is short for Jesus? what's the connection? Arthurian Legend 02:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The nickname (apodo) is Chuy. I don't think I would call it a diminuative (like -ito). Take the name Rosaurio; the apodo is Chayo. An apodo may not look much like the real name. (EnochBethany (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

Phonetically, the weaker first syllable disappears, and the s is made more emphatic with "ch." The final consonant is replaced with a vowel that gives the nickname a more diminished sound. While this all seems random, this actually follows some nicknaming rules. Rosario-Charo, Chalio, Chayo -Marcela, Chela, Vicente - Chente, Isabela-Chabela. 24.167.52.195 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Um, why is there a picture of Borat on this page?142.58.118.75 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection?

Shouldn't there be some kind of protection on this page? I mean, Jesus Christ, it's bound to get lots of negative attention. Seriously, Borat? Come on, why is "Very Nice" on this page? And it's news to me that Jesus Christ, son of God, died for the Internet.

Sorry, forgot my IP.

69.244.136.156 (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Plural of name

"The plural is not attested for obvious reasons."

If there is an obvious reason, then people would not wonder and this sentence becomes superfluous.

If it is obvious only to the author of that sentence, then the rationale needs to be explained.

My best guess is that names generally aren't used in the plural, at least in English. Is that true for all languages? Is it true for Hebrew?

I'm removing the sentence.

-Stian (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Declension

The word Iēsus/Ἰησοῦς doesn't fit into the Greek third declension or Latin fourth declension, as the article said. If it did, the Greek accusative would be Ἰησοῦς or Ἰησοῦος, and the Latin genitive would be Iēsūs. Rather, the declension is irregular. — Eru·tuon 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus is Aramaic. So the source name should not be Hebrew. Worse Yeshua/YSHW is an insult

Walk in Jesus's Feet. He is Aramaic and his name is “Eesa”. Hebrew writing was akin to Steno-typing, something for only a Rabbi to use in memorization. This is why Hebrew was once missing letters. It was not socially used during Jesus's time.

According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the spoken language of Jews until Simon Bar Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew and make it as the official language of Jews during Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 AD). Yigael Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time of Bar Kokhba revolt. In Book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew."(page 181).

Yeshua "Y'SHW`" is actually based upon a problematic and an ignoble Hebrew nomenclature for Jesus which is littered with disagreement and controversy. For 2000 years Jesus has been recorded in history under the cursed title ישוע "Y'SHW" an old Hebrew tetragram for "Yemach Shmo w'Zikro" meaning = "May His Name and Memory Be Wiped Out".

108.196.192.38 (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Jesus is Aramaic" really means -- his native tongue was likely 1st. century Galilean Aramaic (a language about which not too many details are known), but he was not ethnically Aramean or Chaldean, so ordinarily one would say "Jesus was an Aramaic speaker" but NOT "Jesus was Aramaic". Anyway, he knew enough Hebrew to read from an Isaiah scroll (and anyone aspiring to be a Jewish religious leader in his time and place would have to know Hebrew). The name ישוע indisputably originates in Hebrew, and occurs a number of times in the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, as documented on this article. And it is ישו (without the pharyngeal ע consonant), not ישוע, which is derogatory... AnonMoos (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you engaged him, means you are open to discussion and are capable in learning. I'm working on this topic; see my UserPage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DigDeep4Truth. Outlines within the Etymology of Jesus can be found there. --DigDeep4Truth (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

DigDeep4Truth -- referring to yourself in the third person is known as Illeism. Your user page material contains a significant number of errors, as I've told you... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

2022

How come this correction/addition has not been recognised yet? The name Jesus in Aramaic is "Eashoa". The fact that this hasn't been looked in upon since the last talk, stinks of a poor attitude of it not being well known, therefore not important. --Marccarran (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The name in EASTERN SYRIAC is /īšōʕ/, for which "Eashoa" is a strange Latin-alphabet transcription. We have an article about it at Isho, but the Eastern Syriac pronunciation in 800 A.D. is simply not the same as the Galilean Western Aramaic pronunciation in 30 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Article source 1 & 2 citing Yeshua as coming before Greek are wrong. They are Hearsay from after 1700 CE

Please Visit my user page and look for Question 1 (Q1). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DigDeep4Truth
And then return here to suggest the best edit solution for removing or educating people that Yeshu and Yeshua are not legitimate names for Jesus. Both well after the Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigDeep4Truth (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your user page material contains significant errors, and I don't feel like trying to get to grips with it in detail. If it's considered to be a "content fork", then it could be in violation of Wikipedia user page policies. In any case, Yeshu is a Jewish-internal term (from after the 1st century A.D.) which very few Christians would have heard or known about until after the rise of modern Christian Hebrew studies in the 16th century A.D. However, Yeshuaʕ ישוע is a late Biblical Hebrew form of the name "Joshua" which occurs a number of times in the Hebrew (and Aramaic) of the Old Testament, and which was transliterated into Greek as Ιησους already in the Septuagint (2nd. century B.C.). Jesus certainly had an Aramaic and/or Hebrew name (since Greek was hardly his first language, if he even spoke it at all), and all indications are that this was ישוע... AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Etomology

Shouldn't there be some mention of the first biblical origin of the name Joshua. Moses change the name of Hoshea, son of Nun to Jehoshua to commemorate the deliverance/salvation That YHWH was bringing by Hoshea's hand.(Numbers 13:16) Jiohdi (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

That's more relevant to the Biblical figure and name Joshua than to Jesus... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

1611 King Iames Bible - "Iesus", 1629 King James Bible - "Jesus"

I added... It was the 1629 1st Revised Cambridge King James Bible where "Jesus" (and "James") first appeared with the letter J being added to complete the modern 26-letter English Alphabet. 2601:580:109:170E:CC79:34AE:114:C35E (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

U and V were originally considered to be variant visual forms of the same letter, as were I and J. The 17th century was when there came to be a somewhat consistent association between vowel readings and U I, and between consonant readings and V J -- but I doubt that the years between 1611 and 1629 were decisive for this. The modern version of the KJV actually goes back to the "Standard text of 1769"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

AnonMoos: Wrong. Spend a few minutes looking at the original King Iames Bible of 1611 and you'll see that there is no letter J - the letter U was used and had been in use for awhile. It was the 1629 King James Version that used J for the 1st time. Do some research before making a glaring mistake. 2601:580:105:6D2C:84BE:8828:3F2:B1AA (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

'Jesus' evolved from the Classical Latin 'IESVS'

I tweaked the following... The proper name Jesus /ˈdʒiːzəs/ used in the English language originates from the Latin IESVS which was written on the titulus on the Cross.[1] Jesus is related to the Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), a rendition of the Hebrew Yeshua/Y'shua (ישוע‎), also having the variant Joshua.[2][3] - 2601:580:105:6D2C:84BE:8828:3F2:B1AA (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It goes through French and middle English to get from Latin to modern English. The difference between written "Jesus" and "IESVS" is a pure difference of changing spelling practices, and nothing else... AnonMoos (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew

I don't feel like quibbling with the cited source, but to seriously compete as a knowledgeable Jewish religious leader in the time and place where Jesus lived (Judea and Galilee ca. 30 AD) you had to know a significant amount of Hebrew, and this is also indicated by Jesus picking up and reading the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4... AnonMoos (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

A good general reference for this is Stegemann, Ekkehard (Basle) (2006). "Jesus". In Cancik, Hubert; Schneider, Helmuth (eds.). Brill’s New Pauly. doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e522560.: Aramaic was the colloquial language in Galilaea at the time of J.; Hebrew was the holy language or the language of the religious doctrine, hence it can be assumed that J. had knowledge of Hebrew. Knowledge of Greek is improbable. Hebrew and knowledge of the Bible and of religious traditions were probably taught to Jesus by his father, like to so many other children (or maybe in school); [...]. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Y'shua bar Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) became a rabbi (Hebrew: teacher) at age 30 like all Hebrew rabbis. Of course, the Messiah/Christ was literate in Hebrew. His father Joseph was a rabbi (Greek: tekton) and Jesus at age 12 taught the rabbis in the Temple - Luke 2:39-52. 2601:580:B:950A:9D95:A7E2:C24:D3B8 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Etymology section

The etymology section opens with a paragraph about the meaning of Joshua, not Jesus. And there doesn't seem to be a source indicating that Jesus is derived from Joshua, rather than simply etynology related, since both derive from a common Semitic root. The whole section needs rewriting and reorganizing using solid linguistic sources. Tiamut^talk 11:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've also pointed out at Talk:Jesus, the general view is indeed that the Greek Iēsous renders the Hebrew Yēshūaʿ, which in turn is an abbreviated form of Yəhōshūaʿ or Yəhōshuaʿ. For reference:

• Robinson, Neal (2005). "Jesus". In McAuliffe, Jane Dammen (ed.). Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān. Brill. doi:10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00099.: The English form “Jesus” is derived from the Latin Iesus which in turn is based on the Greek Iēsous. It is generally held, however, that because Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, his original name must have been Hebrew and that the Greek Iēsous represents the Hebrew Yēshūaʿ which is an abbreviated form of Yəhōshūaʿ (or Yəhōshuaʿ). The original meaning of Yəhōshūaʿ was “Yahweh helps” but it was popularly understood to mean, “Yahweh saves.” [...] The grounds for thinking that Jesus' original name was Yeshuaʿ are: 1) The Hebrew scriptures mention several people called Yəhōshūaʿ, Yəhōshuaʿ or Yēshūaʿ, including Moses' successor Joshua son of Nūn whose name is spelled in all three ways. In the Septuagint, these names are almost invariably rendered as Iēsous (Brown et al., Hebrew and English lexicon, 221). 2) By the first century, only the short form Yēshūaʿ was in use. 3) The New Testament refers to Moses' successor, Joshua, in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, and in both instances it gives his name in Greek as Iēsous. 4) According to Matthew 1:21, an angel told Joseph in a dream that Mary would have a son, and added “Thou shalt call his name Jesus for it is he who shall save his people from their sins.” As there is no play-on-words in the Greek, Matthew's readers were presumably familiar with the original Hebrew name and its etymology. Western scholars, because of their conviction that Jesus' authentic Hebrew name is Yēshūaʿ, have been puzzled by the Qurʾān's reference to him as ʿĪsā. [...]

• Stegemann, Ekkehard (Basle) (2006). "Jesus". In Cancik, Hubert; Schneider, Helmuth (eds.). Brill’s New Pauly. doi:10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e522560.: The Greek name Ἰησοῦς/Iēsoûs is, in the LXX, a rendition of the Hebrew Yəhōšuaʿ (‘JHWH helps’) as well as of the later form Yēšuaʿ and was, until the 2nd cent. AD, common among Jews.

I've also added these sources to the article, though probably not in the ideal place. I fully agree that the detailed explanations in the main body of the article need much better sourcing. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The second source does not support anything beyond the Greek being a rendering of both Yeshua and Yehoshua. And the first says it is a "generally held view" but the latest scholarship acknowledges that the root "to save" was also used in Aramaic and Amorite personal names (not just Hebrew), as far back as 2000 BC. That is why the Erhmann ref (the most recent from 2012) includes Aramaic in his description of the name'a root. I have expanded the Hadad Yith'i article to reflect this. (And I urge you to read it.) The inscription on that statue is part of what challenges and changed the scholarly consensus. Tiamut^talk 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You asked for a source indicating that Jesus is derived from Joshua, and I've given you two. I've read your contribution to Hadad-yith'i, but as also explained to you by user:Pathawi, the fact that the Semitic root yt' predates the Hebrew Bible does not necessarily imply anything about the origin of the name carried by Jesus of Nazareth, and unless you have multiple good secondary sources that make that specific claim, you're just wasting our time with original research. I understand your enthusiasm about your discovery, but you need to publish it in a journal, not on Wikipedia. Please just accept that no amount of discussion will allow us to do something that directly contravenes WP's core content policy. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"In Aramaic or Hebrew, as pointed out above, the name 'Jesus' and the verb 'save' would share the same root. When translated into Greek however, that etymological connection is lost. The Greek text reads: [...] "She will bear a son and you will call his name Jesus, for he will save the people from their sins. A reader auditor who is not aware of Hebrew or Aramaic would not grasp the linguistic wordplay, nor its theological significance." "Illuminating Jesus in the Middle Ages, Jane Beal, ed. Chapter authored by Larry Swain Swain's use of Aramaic alongside Hebrew is significant, as it acknowledges that the name/verb is not exclusively Hebrew. Swain traces the development of the conventional narrative of Joshua's name as equalling "God saves", and of seeing Jesus as a diminuitive of Joshua. However, given the new scholarship on the verb "to save" and its use in Aramaic & Amorite personal names shows, this could be simply the speculative lore of the Biblical tradition, rather than being rooted in Semitic epigraphy. Tiamut^talk 22:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you notice that Swain is citing Matthew 1:21, also cited by Robinson 2005 in the quote above? Yes, it's generally acknowledged that the etymology of the Hebrew and Aramaic name Yēšuaʿ is linked to a meaning of 'God saves', precisely through its derivation from Yəhōshūaʿ, which means literally this. Swain is saying nothing Robinson isn't saying, apart from passingly acknowledging that Yēšuaʿ is also an Aramaic name (yay, another source for that!). Swain indeed follows the conventional narrative that Jesus derives from Joshua. We at Wikipedia like conventional narratives. We are here to bring conventional scholary narratives to the screen of anyone with internet access. But then you go on stating about that conventional narrative that given the new scholarship on the verb "to save" and its use in Aramaic & Amorite personal names shows, this could be simply the speculative lore of the Biblical tradition, rather than being rooted in Semitic epigraphy. Now that's a hypothesis. The widely accepted derivation could just be speculation (note, however, that Robinson 2005 says that the Hebrew scriptures mention several people called Yəhōshūaʿ, Yəhōshuaʿ or Yēshūaʿ, including Moses' successor Joshua son of Nūn whose name is spelled in all three ways. In the Septuagint, these names are almost invariably rendered as Iēsous, citing Brown–Driver–Briggs, and that by the first century, only the short form Yēshūaʿ was in use, which seems more of the nature of evidence than speculation to me). But if you could prove a different derivation through Semitic epigraphy, you'll probably be widely cited, including here at Wikipedia. Now for the last time, please put of your scholar hat, and put on your Wikipedian hat. We need a secondary source of course. Since there clearly isn't any, you won't convince many. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the secondary source:

John A. Sawyer, " Historical Description of the Hebrew word YS (1974)

In it Sawyer outlines the common root ys for all the Hebrew personal names in the Bible, and reviews the ancient Semitic antecedents, noting particularly the similarities in use in Amorite personal names. It is a dense read but it establishes that the same verb "to save" in a permutation of the same form is indisputably used in the same way in devotional and liturgical expressions in Northwest Semitic traditions i. a geographical area spanning Syria, Palestine and Arabia.

As I said, I wish I could claim it as my own theory, but it actually exists and I would be engaged in plaigirism if I claimed it as my own. Tiamut^talk

A dense read indeed! Would you be so kind as to provide the page number and paragraph where Sawyer talks about the etymology of Jesus? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

He does not write out the name Jesus, but it is implied in his reference to biblical names based on the YS root meaning "to save", which is true too for Joshua, as your own sources say. And this article outlines the Northwest Semitic antecedents for that root.

A direct statement about this epigraphic reality is made by Millard & Boudreuil in their article of Hadad Yith'i where they write that "The second element [of his name] contains the same base as certain ancient names in Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Old South Arabic. This is y-sh-' in Hebrew, seen in Joshua (=Jesus) meaning to 'to save'. Thus the name means 'Hadad is my salvation.'" (Millard & Boudreuil, Summer 1982.) Tiamut^talk 00:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the second element indeed. This is what Sawyer 1975, p. 79 is talking about: the simple stem yašaʿ and the biform šuaʿ (Noth 1928, 154 f.) which occur only in personal names (cf. Noth 1928, 36) [...] is one of the commonest terms for 'to help, save' in Biblical Hebrew, as well as the verbal element in two common personal names. The second, verbal element in the Hebrew names is the biform (a form consisting of only two radicals) šuaʿ. The first element, on the other hand, is Yəhō, i.e., Yah or God, sometimes shortened to Yē: "God-saves". This specific combination (Yəhō/Yē + šuaʿ) is, of course, unique to the Hebrew Bible. I believe you're confusing the "y" of the first, non-verbal element (Yəhō or Yē, "God") with the first radical "y" in the root y-š-ʿ. But in the biform šuaʿ, the first radical "y" is not expressed (as also often happens with the semivocals "y" and "w" in, e.g., Arabic muḍāriʿ forms), and so the "Y" in Yēšūaʿ has nothing to do with the "y" in the root y-š-ʿ. This is the common etymological analysis of Yəhōšuaʿ/Yēšūaʿ, and I don't believe any of the sources you've consulted actually gives any other etymology. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of the adjectival form of the verbal root. I don't find the explanation convincing. See the etymology here for example where the biform is given the meaning "(financially) independent, free", which doesn't jive with the compound meaning "Yah saves". Why the yod should be interpreted as a reference to Yah seems to be an interpretation based on the Greek transcribing both Jesus and Joshua the same way. Anyway, I concede that your presentation is of the popular etymology, even if I find it linguistically suspect.

I will add though that in the search for sources, I have seen many more that refer to Jesus' name as Aramaic. I will post these at the main Jesus talk page soon. A little busy today, so thabk you in advance for your patience and engagement. Tiamut^talk 09:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Tiamut, hi. I wasn't aware of the discussion here when I went ahead and boldly introduced a distinction, complete with sub-sections and headings, between modern linguistic analysis and traditional Christian analysis of the name. It looks as if the linguists have even more diverging ways to look at it, and even more radically different from the by now popular etymology. I would be very grateful if you could ping me when you come around to add those comments. Thank you.

I have also separated into its own section the actual evolution of the name, as presented in the existing material: Yehoshua > Yeshua, Yeshu (Hebrew) > Iēsous (Greek) > IESVS (Latin) > Iesu (Early Middle English) > Jesus (Modern English). I see you doubt the first link. No problem with me, I don't have the knowledge to discuss that, but I do insist that the sub-topics are kept apart: the meaning of the name (in the two approaches, academic and traditional), its evolution, and on the Jesus page also contemporary historical aspects ("Naming convention, various names") and the messianic title ("Jesus as the Christ"). This keeps apples and oranges in separate trays, which helps both with properly expanding the topics, and making the article more user-friendly, as many users would probably be like me and come to Wiki to find a quick answer, not to go into a deep study of a convoluted presentation, which hides the conclusion somewhere in a side note of the fifteenth paragraph. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"a" vowel in these names

I don't want to quibble too much, but the sub-syllabic "a" vowel (diphthong element) between the long u vowel and the word-final pharyngeal consonant in Tiberian pointing would not have existed in the 1st-century AD pronunciations of these two names (much less in the earlier pronunciation of the Jewish Biblical period). The pronunciation of the name of Jesus in 1st century Western Aramaic or Hebrew was almost certainly /yēšūʕ/, without an "a" vowel. The sources quoted above may be very reliable, but they probably weren't written by historical phonologists who were focused on such details... AnonMoos (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)