Talk:Yeshua (disambiguation)

Furtivum vowel

Dear Kuratowski's Ghost: I don't see that my comments were "inaccurate", but regardless of whose phrasing of an explanation of furtivum vowels is to be preferred, it doesn't change the fact that you removed some relevant information when you made your edit. That is, presumably one of the main reasons why people would consult an article titled "Yeshua" is because they want to know what information is available about the accurate pronunciation of the name of Jesus during Jesus' own lifetime in the languages which Jesus spoke. In this context, the reasonably uncontroversial linguistic historical fact that such "furtivum" diphthongization hadn't yet occurred during the Biblical period is quite relevant. AnonMoos

Is this indeed accurate. The notation of the furtive patach is Masoretic period but this does not mean that the diphthongization had not occurred. What evidence to you have that it had not occurred? Kuratowski's Ghost 10:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The notation of ALL vowels in Hebrew orthography is only from the Masoretic period (except for the ambiguous and inconsistent partial use of matres letters). However, some features of the Masoretic pronunciation are revealed by external evidence (such as Septuagint spellings, or other foreign-language transcriptions and borrowings) to be chronologically rather late (i.e. post-Biblical). This is a whole area of study of its own. P.S. If you mean to ask a question, please use a question mark. AnonMoos 08:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Masoretes recognised this vowel as a natural reflex that occurs between a close vowel and a strong gutteral consonant. It is never counted as a syllable in Hebrew poetry. The sound can be noted in other Semitic languages: the jaw drops slightly, near the end of the vowel, to prepare for the following strong gutteral. Current thought on the matter suggests that, by noting this reflex, Masoretic notation actually made this vowel more pronounced. Therefore, it is likely that in Jesus' time this vowel would actually be furtive. Gareth Hughes 11:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The underlying PHONETIC partial assimilation phenomenon (the original basis from which pathah furtivum developed) probably occurs in all languages with pharyngeal consonants, but the PHONOLOGIZATION of this automatic phonetics into a meaningful sound contrast was a specific historical change which probably occurred after the 1st. century A.D. Arabic has sequences of long /u/ or long /i/ plus pharyngeal consonant, and these are not usually transcribed into other languages with an "a" vowel -- and neither were such sequences in Hebrew transcribed into other languaguages with an "a" vowel in ancient times. So you get things like Joshua (Yehoshu`) transcribed as "Josue" and Yeshu` transcribed as Iesou-s, but very little in these Greek etc. transcriptions which could be interpreted as reflecting any phonological pathah furtivum vowel... AnonMoos 08:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The notation has resulted in it turning into a complete syllable due to spelling pronunciation, but the point is that there was indeed a difference in pronunciation of a "u" before an ayin and a "u" in other places, in simple terms the ua in Yeshua` is something similar to the oo in English "moor" as opposed to the "oo" in "food". Kuratowski's Ghost 13:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The relationship between a British RP "fracture diphthong" and a Tiberian Hebrew long vowel plus pathah furtivum combination is probably rather inexact. It can be OK as a basic analogy, provided you don't try to take it too far. AnonMoos 08:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the furtive vowel is ever considered to constitute an extra syllable: Yeshua` is always considered to be two syllables. Most vowels become mid-centralised before emphatics in Semitic languages, and thus vowel quality is quite dependent on context. The furtive pathach is a marked realisation (unnecessary as far as I'm concerned) of the contextual modification of long close vowels before strong gutterals (cheth, `ayin and he-mappiq) in word-final positions. The comparison with moor and food works quite well for me: the r of moor requires the vowel to 'open out'; in some dialects this may be more pronounced than in others. Gareth Hughes 13:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right that Yeshua` is almost certainly two syllables in Tiberian massoretic Hebrew pronunciation (a fact which it might be worthwhile to include in the article). AnonMoos 08:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Moor

That "Moor" thing basically partially applies to some dialects of British English and British-influenced English only, so it's not necessarily all that helpful in the form in which it currently stands in the article. For example, in my dialect, unless you're pretentiously enunciating on stage, then "Moor" rhymes with "More", and has a retroflex approximant "r" sound rather than a centering diphthong -- and the Tiberian Hebrew lowering diphthong before pharyngeals and "h" was not necessarily the same thing as an RP centering diphthong, and the lowering diphthong was extremely unlikely to have existed as a distinct sound (as opposed to a partial variable phonetic assimilation) in the Hebrew or Aramaic of the 1st century A.D. in any case! AnonMoos 07:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an important point which I realized. In my dialect "moor" doesn't sound anything like "more" and final Rs are completely silent. Any suggestions on which dialect can be pointed out that readers will be familiar with where the description in the article makes sense. ? Kuratowski's Ghost 13:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussions

I have been discussing the Yeshua article with Eric on my talk page, I am copying some of the info here as its of general interest Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Thanks for your point about Yeshua being used for Yehoshua bin Nun and Yehoshua ben Yehotsadaq in Ezra/Nehemia. I didn't remember that. But I don't see how they could contract Yehoshua to Yeshua. There are no other such cases of Yeho- going to Ye-. Maybe there were two traditions for what the name was. By the way, I suppose you know that the name "Yehoshua" is written like "Yehoshea" (that is, no vav after the shin) and in a couple places "Hoshea". This is even farther from Yeshua.

What do you think was the pronunciation of the name of "Jesus"?

Feel free to answer me through e-mail via my (still empty) user page.

EricK 20:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say there is not enough information known to be certain. The Ben Sirach example btw is not good as it is unknown if the Hebrew texts are original or translations into Hebrew from Greek or Syriac something found for example with Josephus' writings so also with ben Sirach we do not know for certain if his name was originally Yeshua or Yehoshua.

Kuratowski's Ghost 23:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But what is your guess? What, in your opinion is the most probable original pronunciation of "Jesus", and what is the second most probable?

I just changed some of what you wrote yesterday. :) I would be glad to support what I say, but it would be easier by e-mail in Hebrew.

Well its been some time since I read up on the Hebrew versions of Sirach but I remember arguments about it not necessarily being the original language of the text, the fact that the Greek has a chi at the end suggests an original name with a chet at the end, while the Hebrew texts have an aleph suggesting derivation from a variant Greek text without a chi. The 1910 Jewish Encyclopedia article is very biased against such a view but the matter has still not been settled a century after that article was written so I think mention still needs to be made in the Yeshua article.

Have you read the Hebrew and compared it to the Greek? It's obvious which one is the original. My copy is edited by Moshe Tsvi Segel, 5713 (which is 1952 or 1953), and he gives a very thorough and erudite discussion of the manuscripts and translations. (By the way, he expresses no doubt that the name was Yeshua. There is some doubt about whether the author was Shim`on ben Yeshua or Yeshua ben Shim`on.) EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Also correct me if I'm wrong but none of the extant manuscripts are complete and all are missing the crucial intro listing the full name of the author, whose Hebrew form is only known from Saadia Gaon Kuratowski's Ghost 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the name is used in Chapters 50 and 51 as well, where there is a manuscript. (Actually it was you who wrote that it was used in Hebrew texts of Ben Sira!) EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling about what the original for Jesus was, only a strong feeling that the case for "Yeshua" has never been conclusively shown. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But what else could it have been? Yehoshua? Yeshu? EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

It could have been Yehoshua, Yeshua or might simply be the Greek Iesous itself that was the original, something people overlook! Kuratowski's Ghost 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

I like what you say about being a post-deconstructionist! I am one too! EricK 16:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See indented comments above.

I'm going to put back what I said about shin and `ayin. You're right that sigma "corresponds" to shin in the sense that shin is transliterated by sigma, but so is samekh. When transliterating from Greek to Hebrew or Aramaic, sigma is rendered by samekh, not shin. And there's no correspondence between `ayin and omicron (except that the character omicron is derived from the character `ayin). `Ayin is not transliterated by omicron, nor omicron by `ayin. The fact that the Syriac Bible uses Yeshua` for the name of...ha'ish hazeh...shows that there was a tradition that that really was his name. And there is no doubt that Christianity always had an Aramaic-speaking contingent, unbroken from the Apostles to the Aramaic-speaking Christians of today. EricK 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

No one is saying that its was an attempt at transliterating precisely, the translator might have had on his mind that Yeshua ben Yotzadak was rendered Iesous and therefore picked Yeshua as the name to use in the translation Kuratowski's Ghost 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion that Y's name was simply the Greek Iesous is realistic. After all, the everyday language of him and his people was Aramaic, not Greek. He is often quoted in the gospels as saying something in Aramaic. His parents would not have called him by a Greek form of a Hebrew/Aramaic name!

I read the external link you put in. I find it strange that they care so much about casting doubt on the idea that Y's name was Yeshua. What is the point? They seem to think that by prohibiting use of the name Yeshua they will make Christianity less acceptable to Jews--as though they will confound the "missionaries" by announcing that we don't even know the correct pronunciation of Y's name! I did learn one thing from it--that there are many references to various Talmudic sages called Yehoshua but none called Yeshua. That is interesting. Why did the Jews stop using the name Yeshua (as they certainly did in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah)? The most likely explanation I can think of is that they "davqa" wanted to avoid the name Yeshua because of Y the Nazarene.

Another thing I learned was that some Jewish sages refer to Y the Nazarene as Yeshua. I thought they only used the word Yeshu.

Of course they are wrong in thinking that the idea that Y's name was Yeshua started in the 20th century. Edersheim's book (which they mention) was from 1883 (he was born in 1825, not 1925 obviously), and he gives the name as Jehoshua or Jeshua (using J for a Y sound). I'm sure there were plenty of other writers who attempted to explain the Hebrew root of his name, and of course they would have given the Hebrew form, either Yehoshua or Yeshua. What about Renan for instance?

They reveal their lack of knowledge when they claim that the LXX is not the Septuagint! Don't they know that LXX is simply the conventional abbreviation for the Septuagint?

But what I find most objectionable in that site is their attitude that it is bad of Christians to want to go back to the roots of their faith. They talk as though they want Christians to stay as goy as possible, just so no Jews will be attracted to Christianity! They're trying to dictate to us that we have to call Yeshua Jesus!

Anyway, I think it's an interesting question why the Septuagint uses Iesous (from yod-shin-vav-`ayin) where the Masoretic text has yod-he-vav-shin-`ayin with vowel pointing to give Yehoshua. There are a couple questions here: why did the Masoretes point it like that instead of the more natural Yehoshea`, and which variant of the consonants is original. (There are many cases where the LXX contains a translation of the original text, and the Masoretic text is corrupt, but most religious Jews of course will never admit that.)

By the way, are you aware that on the Hebrew Wikipedia, it says that his name was Yeshua?

One other thing--the Syriac Bible I was referring to was the Old Syriac version. The Peshitta is from a bit later.

I will try to get around to changing the article a bit, unless you do.

EricK 3 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Hi Eric, I'm not trying to prove that his name wasn't Yeshua, I'm trying to keep things neutral, it is simply not the case that it is known with certainty that his name was Yeshua. His parents for all we know could have come from a majority Greek speaking community, such communities existed already under the Ptolemies and Greek eventually became the dominant language, so he might have been named Iesous from the word go. Yehoshua is also a very likely possibility and since we don't have any examples of people named Yeshua already from the Hasmonean period it makes Yeshua the least likely candidate. I added the external link because it has a very good summary of the data. It also ultimately argues that it is unknown what his name was, not that it was definitely not Yeshua. The dogmatic usage of Yeshua is indeed a farely modern thing. Feel free to add links that give alternative views. Also bear in mind that not everyone believes that there was an historical Jesus and they have some pretty good arguments to show that at least such a view is not merely denial but based on scholarly analysis of the evidence, so arguments that he spoke Aramaic are within the perspective of an historical Jesus and should be qualified as such. Regarding the Peshitta, my understanding is that all Syriac translations are called "Peshitta"? As the article on the Peshitta points out it has its beginnings in the 2nd century, but feel free to change the article if this is incorrect usage of the term. Kuratowski's Ghost 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)

The idea that the Greek form was original is rendered, I will not say impossible, but somewhat improbable, by the many times in the Gospels where Jesus is quoted speaking Aramaic (see Aramaic of Jesus). Also, Greek never became the dominant language in Palestine; it became the dominant written language, but Aramaic remained the majority spoken language until displaced by Arabic. The Juferi article, like those to which it's a response, is hopelessly mixed up in many respects; the Syriac Eesho is Yshô`, and can be equated with Arabic `Îsâ only by assuming that the ayin-aleph distinction had already been lost in the source dialect (which is not impossible, though it's retained in names like Isma`il) and was hypercorrected when it entered Arabic. But you should really ask User:Garzo about this issue. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

I also wouldn't put my money on Greek being the original but as you say it is not impossible and so needs to be mentioned, particularly since some Christians do view it as the original - the Greek orthodox usually point out how it has a purely Greek meaning of healer besides being used to translate Hebrew Yehoshua and Yeshua. And in defense of this view there is still no clearly undisputed Hebrew reference to Jesus as either Yeshua or Yehoshua from the period of the writing of the NT. The possibility of a Greek origin is also more plausible if you take into consideration views of early Christian origins that consider Jesus to have been originally a supernatural being with traditions of an earthly Jesus only coming later, if that is the case anything supposedly said by Jesus in Aramaic or any other language is fable, although thats a can of worms for another article. Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

Also, Juferi is missing the point in stating that Esau and Isa are not cognate. They aren't, but then again none of the Biblical names in the Qur'an (Isma`il, Ishaq, Ya`qub, Ibrahim...) are cognate; they're almost all provably loanwords from Aramaic and/or Hebrew. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid this article for as long as I can, but Mustafaa asked me to have a look. The article makes some common mistakes from the start - it starts with reconstructions rather than with facts, and it plays down those things that are generally agreed. There is little in the article about the linguistic background of first-century Galilee and Judaea either. It is true that the Greek version of the name is Ιησους, and it is true that this is almost certainly a transliteration of a Jewish Aramaic name with Hebrew roots. Almost all the evidence points to this being the bibilical name Joshua, which appears in a number of different forms, of which Yeshua` or Yeshu` (the a is a Massoretic prosthetic) is most common in the centuries around the dates in question. The Quranic take on the name is very interesting, and we should have something here about how names from Aramaic/Hebrew appear in the Qur'an. --Gareth Hughes 5 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)

Hi Gareth, please do not avoid the article :) please correct any obvious mistakes. Kuratowski's Ghost 5 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

Originality of the Hebrew ben Sirach

Is it really the case that the Hebrew fragments of ben Sirach represent the original Hebrew text faithfully? My understanding is that it universally agreed that Sirach was written in Hebrew but that it is not agreed that the fragments faithfully represent the original text, the very form Sira' as an original for Sirach is suspect. Kuratowski's Ghost 5 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

I believe the Hebrew fragments should be handled very carefully; certainly, no firm argument can be made from the fragments alone. Gareth Hughes 5 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

There are certainly corruptions in the Hebrew texts, but of the kind one generally finds in the Tanach. Not something like replacing yod-he-vav with just yod. EricK 6 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

I really think its more complicated than this, there is also no agreement on whether the original title is Chokhmat Ben Sira or Mishle ben something else. If Sira is the original Hebrew, how did it get a chi in Greek? Kuratowski's Ghost 6 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

I added a note to the Ben Sira article on this just now, from the introduction by Moshe Tsvi Segel. He says the chi is added "lhafiq et ot hattnu`a alef kmo nach nir'eh", which means something like to emphasize the vowel alef as "nach nir'eh". I'm not sure what he means by that. My dictionary says "nach nir'eh" designates a consonant which is pronounced but with no vowel after it. But Segel calls the alef a vowel. I don't think this alef was pronounced at all. As you can see in the Ben Sira article, there are other examples of adding a chi. EricK 7 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

I just edited the Ben Sira article, the Iosech example is something different it is a chi replacing an obvious phi, not a chi for an aleph, Byzantine text has phi. The dama rendered as damach does indeed look like the same sort of thing and makes me feel more confident that Sira given in Hebrew is indeed the correct original form of the name. I still have my doubts about the faithfulness of the text as a whole though. Kuratowski's Ghost 7 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

In all the old manuscripts, Luke 3:26 says Iōsēch. Segel says this is for yod-vav-sin-yod (he doesn't give vowel points, so I don't know if that is Yosey or Yosiy). The form Iōsēph is simply a later "correction" by someone who thought it should be the better known name Yosef.

I also can't make out precisely what he means to emphasize the "vowel" alef like a final consonent, although I think he means that the alef isn't simply a vowel here its the aa vowel with a pronounced alef i.e. glottal stop at the end. Try pronouncing it and it is indeed plausible that chi could be used to indicate a final glottal stop. I have always read though that the Aramaic final alef is simply a reminder that there is a vowel not a pronounced glottal stop?? Kuratowski's Ghost 8 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Original pronunciation of Syriac Eesho?

Can it be said with certainty that it was pronounced more like Hebrew Yeshua originally? Kuratowski's Ghost 5 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)

It is spelled yod-shin-vav-`ayin, with a little sign over the yod that looks like a backward epsilon and indicates a sound like a Continental e (I mean, not e as in English "be", "me"), and a little sign above the junction of the shin and vav that looks like an omicron with an upside down y (like capital Ypsilon) above it. This indicated a vowel like omicron ypsilon in Greek, namely, a long u sound. So the result is Yeshu`. I don't know whether they put in a "patach furtive" before the `ayin (as one does in Hebrew) or not (as in Arabic)--in other words, was it Yeshua` or Yeshu`? EricK 6 July 2005 06:35 (UTC)

Eric, you are trying to describe how the name Jesus is written in Syriac Serto. It is properly transliterated yešū`, and the letters are yūd-šīn-waw-`ē. This furtive a is a Masoretic prosthetic: it has no lexical meaning. --Gareth Hughes 6 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that. EricK 7 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean by a Masoretic prosthetic, sounds like a Rabbi with a wooden leg :D My understanding of the patach furtive is that it repesents the slight almost unavoidable "diphthongization" of the preceding vowel that results from pronouncing a pharyngeal at the end of the syllable. Kuratowski's Ghost 7 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)

I don't know whom you're addressing the question to. I'd say your description is good. It was "unavoidable" for the Hebrews, but the Arabs manage to pronounce things without it, and I guess the Aramaic speakers as well, if I understand Gareth. EricK 8 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that we shouldn't get hung up on that a. Phonetically, it is difficult to pronounce `e/`ayin immeadiately after a long close vowel. Usually, there will be a noted glide to a central open position. This is what became the furtive pathach in standard Hebrew pointing. Semiticists are generally agreed that this system of vowel pointing is degeneratively descriptive: most other systems of pointing in Semitic languages are not as full as this. There is no need to mark the furtive pathach as it has no lexical significance, only phonetic. That is why Syriac does not mark a ftoho (pathach) before the `e (`ayin). --Gareth Hughes 8 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)

Regarding the modern pronunciation, Eesho is the way its pronounced according to this Learn Assyrian site and others. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The vowel pointing is Īšo`. --Gareth Hughes 15:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I have some brief basic information on Syriac on my page http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/yeshua-yasu-isa.htm (which I have recently updated with additional information)... AnonMoos

Thank you for the link. The information on your page is a pretty accurate summary of some the discussion here. Gareth Hughes 11:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Merger into Yehoshua ben Yosef

I'm definitely against a merger, this article is about the usage of "Yeshua" as the name for Jesus. Yehoshua ben Yosef looks like it should be merged into Historical Jesus and the latter should perhaps itself be merged into Historicity of Jesus. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The Yehoshua ben Yosef article is badly written. I suggest that the third person to agree that the merger shouldn't take place should remove the merger notice. After all, it was put up by one person. That user can try to explain the reasoning behind the proposal here. --Gareth Hughes 13:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

removal of Exposing the "Yeshu'a" Name Game from references

Kuratowski's Ghost challenged my removal of "Exposing the "Yeshu'a" Name Game" from the references section, and referred to my edit ads censoring. My intent was not to censor points of view, but to remove a link that was not referenced in the article and did not add to the articles content. The link in question is no longer referenced in the article as the quote (or actually misquote) has been removed in a prior edit. Also the primary point of the page was not to discuss whether or not Yeshua was the actual name of Jesus, but to make the point that the use of it by Christians was a tactic to try to convert them.

Also it is evident that the article has a sectarian agenda and can be considered as inflammatory. There is a history of edits to remove such content, like jayig did when he removed a point of view reference by chaplain, and when Kuratowski's Ghost changed AD to CE in the Yeshu article. So if removing anti-missionary references constitutes censorship, then equally removing missionary references constitutes censorship; and wikipedia becomes a platform for promoting agendas, as apposed to an objective presentation of well ordered information

The reference is not directly referenced but is a supporting source for some statements made in the article, like the occurrences of the names in the Bible.

AD to CE is not sectarian, its modern standard, AD is archaic and even from the perspective of many believing Christians Jesus was born no later than 4 BCE making the AB/BC terminology just plain wrong. My 2c Kuratowski's Ghost 12:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeshua and Showbread

The name "Yeshua" spelled Yod-Shin-Vav-Ayin may well have been the name of Jesus in Hebrew. I do not dispute this point. However, the etymology of the name, as near as I can tell, has nothing to do with the word for showbread (or shewbread, as it is spelled by the venerable King James Version of the Bible). The assertion cought my eye, as I was set about improving the article. I fact-checked the point against my print-copy of the Strongs Concordance.

For reference, I am using The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. It appears to be the 1996-printing. ISBN 0-7852-0931-X. The Hebrew words used for shew bread, in the Bible corrispond to the following Strong's Numbers:

1. H3899, H6440 (cited as occuring together in a verse. A compound-word perhaps?)
2. H6440 (cited by itself, in a verse)
3. H4635 (cited by itself)
4. H4635, H3899 (cited as occuring togeather in a verse.)

None of these appear to be the word Yeshua, nor do they appear (to my eye) to be related in any obvious way.

It's also worth noting that shewbread is not used at Passover. Showbread had a special place in the Tabernacle, and the Temple at Jerusalem in ancient Israel. Matzah is used throughout the Sader proper. It is worth noting that Afikomen (one of the loaves of Matzah) is broken and hidden for part of the ritual, which is often held by Messianic Jews and Hebrew-Christians to be a symbolic reference to Yeshua. This is, however, not a word-etymology but symbolic or mystical interpretation of the ritual.

It is fine to have an article, (or section of this article perhaps) covering the symbolic or mystical meanings Yeshua. The etymology section of the article, however, is not the correct place.

—Wikijeff 22:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Annon poster rebuttal: the reference to "heysus" the Spanish/latino et c. pronouncing of Jesus when referenced in my print volumn of Strong's is a hebrew word meaning "war Horse"; what a terrible pun or insult in the jewitch tradition to refer to the "prince of peace" as "the war horse" and since the there is no "j" sound in hebrew (right?) GEEEsuss juuuhuss or heysus makes little since. My Stongs also makes refernce to bread under the word Yeshua and whether it is levened or not it was broken at the last supper either on the high sabboth or not. The artical is seething with bias from the start with the reference to "his name being blotted out" stuff. I stongly suspect zionist agenda instead of a encyclopedic (not egghead scholarship) article. Shewbread however it is spelled seems to be unlevened. The Bread broken at the last supper was "apparently" levened, symbolically it is interpreted, with the holy spirit not guile or deception.

Yeshua STA"M Graphic

I think it would be nice to see a graphic of יֵשׁ֣וּעַ‎ in STA"M style lettering, including vowel-points, and consonant "crowns". If anyone here has sufficent skill and time with a graphics editor, and sufficent grasp of Hebrew letter-forms: I think it would go a long way to improve the visual appeal of the Yeshua article. —Wikijeff 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to take a moment to thank Haldrik for the nice new STA"M style Yeshua graphic. Not only is it visually appealing, but it goes a long way to visually depict the entemological relationship between Yeshua, and Yehosua. —Wikijeff 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Haldrik 22:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Legibility and the Hebrew Template

There is now a Hebrew template {{Script/Hebrew|}} which causes all Hebrew text so marked to be displayed in a Surf font, if it is abailable on the viewer's system. The text apears larger, and the surfs clearly distinguish the Hebrew letters. A quick glance may be mistaken for Bolded Hebrew text, but it's not. The point of using the template is to increase readability of the article. At one point I had all the Hebrew in the article marked up with the template. A well meaning individual who otherwise contributed good material remove the templates except at the start of the article.

Not everyone who reads and or contributes to this article is litterate in Hebrew at a native-level. Given that this is an English-language Wikipedia article I'd suspect most people are native (or near native) English litterates, and that Hebrew literacy is uneven among our visitors and contributors. And, it has been my experience that the newer someone is to the Hebrew language the more problems small unserfed fonts present to the reader.

So that the affects of the template are clear to all:

• This is untemplated Hebrew, sans-surf: יֵשׁ֣וּע
• This is templated Hebrew, with surf: יֵשׁ֣וּע‎
• This is templated Hebrew, with surf, that has been italicized: יֵשׁ֣וּע‎
• This is templated Hebrew, with surf, that has been bolded: יֵשׁ֣וּע‎

I belive the readability improvements should be apparent to all.

I'm not trying to sart an edit-war, I'm just trying to be considerate of my fellow man and improve the readability of the article. One day, I'd like to see this article featured on the Main Page, once it developes more, and becomes a bit smoother of a read. So, unless anyone has any major objections, I'm going to put the surfed text back in. And thank-you all for the wonderful jobs you are doing improving the article. —Wikijeff 22:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The untemplated Hebrew is perfectly clear and fine.

• It should look like this: יֵשׁוּעַ

Just dont use this unnecessary nikud, the Muna accent: ֣ (= ֣‎).

--Haldrik 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality in explaining the name Yehoshua

Please try to keep things neutral. Looking at Bible dictionaries one finds several interpretations of the name Yehoshua. The interpretation of shua as "salvation" is not figurative and interpreting Yehoshua as a future tense has nothing to do with Midrash. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is achieved by ensuring multiple view points, not by deleting view points disagreed with. The Hebrew word Yehoshua יהושע cant be interpreted as a future tense because it cant. It just cant. The claim that it is an "irregular" verb is garbage. Only a midrashic rereading (which uses the Al Tikra method) to change the vowels can render it (improperly!) as such. Similarly, the word Yeshua יֵשׁוּעַ can achieve a similar interpretation, but only if it too uses a midrashic rereading to change the vowels (improperly!) as yshua יְשׁוּעָ "salvation" (properly יְשׁוּעָה). Such an improper form is not impossible but is extremely irregular and conspicuously artificial because a Hebrew word almost never ends with a vowel except for specific exceptions. Words have actual meanings, people cant make them mean something they dont, just because they want them too. When people achieve a desired interpretation it's important to follow their reasoning exactly. --Haldrik 09:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The explanation of the name as a future tense is that Moses (or whoever) simply appended a yod to Hoshea. Artificial modifications of words in this mannner do not follow normal grammatical or even phontic evolution so it has nothing to do with the proper hiphil form nor anything do with rereading it later with silent letters - it is an improper future tense and was so from its invention hence the description "irregular". Calling the understanding "midrashic" implies that it is a late deliberate reinterpretation of the name for exegetical purposes which is not what claimed, what is claimed is that it was always understood that way from the time of Joshua.

The argument that the name was spelt Yehoshua at the time of Jesus in order for the verse in Matthew to makae sense doesn't follow. It might have been spelt (and pronounced) Yeshua but people were aware that this was a shortening of Yehoshua which they interpreted as "he will save" as explained above. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this for a compromise:

The majority view is that the original name Yehoshua was a compound of Yeho-shua: Yeho- יְהוֹ‎ is a shortened form of יָהוּ‎ Yahu, a theophoric element standing for the personal name of God Yhwh, and שׁוּעַ‎ shua is a noun meaning "a cry for help", "a saving cry", that is, a shout given when in need of rescue. Together the name literally means, "'God' is a saving-cry", that is, shout to God when in need of help. In the 1st century, Philo of Alexandria renders this figurative meaning in Koine Greek, in an explanation of the namechange of the biblical Joshua Ben Nun (from הוֹשֵעַ Hoshea "He saved" to יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua): "And Iesous", which stands for the Hebrew name Yehoshua, refers to "salvation of the Lord" (Ιησου δε σωτερια κυριου) (On the Change of Names 21.121).

The noun שׁוּעַ‎ shua derives from the Hebrew three-letter root שוע‎ sh-w-`. This root possibly derives indirectly, via a denominating from שַׁוְעָה‎, from an early form of a root relating to the root ישע‎ y-sh-`, whose verb form הוֹשִׁיעַ‎ hoshia means "he saved".

Although they may be related indirectly, the later name יֵשׁוּעַ‎ Yeshua does not derive directly from root ישע‎ and thus is not identical to the noun form יְשׁוּעָה‎ yshua ("salvation") or to any verb form such as יוֹשִׁיעַ‎ yoshia ("he will save").

An alternative view is that the name Yehoshua is simply an artificially constructed future tense obtained by appending a yod to הוֹשֵע‎ ("he saved") to form יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ with the understanding that this means "he will save." However the grammatically correct third person imperfect Hifil verb form of the root ישע‎, is yoshia יוֹשִׁיע‎). Possibly this understanding of the name is behind the Gospel's account where the angel instructs Joseph (Matthew 1:21): "You are to give him the name Jesus because he will save his people from their sins". This suggests that the name was understood to mean "he will save" (regardless of what form of the name was used at the time).

Kuratowski's Ghost 15:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But this statement isnt true: "An alternative view is that the name Yehoshua is simply an artificially constructed future tense obtained by appending a yod to הוֹשֵע ("he saved") to form יְהוֹשֻׁעַ." It's not an "alternative view". It's just stupid nonsense, an outright lie. --Haldrik 16:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific: The name Yehoshua יְהוֹשֻׁעַ CANT be an imperfect verb. It just cant. Anyone who suggests it can doesnt understand Hebrew and is wrong. On the other hand, arguably, this name could be construed as if spelling "Yoshia" יהוֹשִׁעַ, which is an imperfect verb, but the vowels would have to be completely different and the letters of the verb would be spelled "improperly". Because the previous name of Yhoshua Ben Nun was Hoshea, which is a perfect form of a verb meaning "He saved", it may have motivated readers to change of the vowels of Yehoshua to make it into an imperfect form of this verb as Yoshia. Nomatterwhat the name "Yehoshua", with these vowels -e-o-u-, cant be interpreted as an imperfect verb. --Haldrik 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it can't be a normal imperfect verb, no one is saying that there is anything normal about it the claim is that its artificial - this is a possibility that was always mentioned when I studied Tanakh - "Yehoshua is either Yeho+shua or Moses simply added y to hoshua / hoshea to turm it into future tense". We can all see that it doesn't follow normal grammar but artificial words do not typically follow the usual rules - its like saying the word "soccer" can't possibly be derived from "association football" - indeed it can't by any normal phonetical evolution or grammatical change but it did by conscious artificial word creation. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• "But it did by conscious artificial word creation." Except it didnt.

Actually it did, unless you know something about the word "soccer" that the rest of the world doesn't :P Kuratowski's Ghost 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• "This is a possibility that was always mentioned when I studied Tanakh - 'Yehoshua is either Yeho+shua or Moses simply added y to hoshua / hoshea to turm it into future tense'. What you heard was false. Either you misunderstood what was precisely said. Or the person who said it misunderstood.

This was said by more than one instructor and there was no misunderstanding. The fact that you do not agree with an explanation does not make it a misunderstanding. Although I have to agree that the idea of it being a future tense is not particularly plausible and probably would never have been considered if it were not the case that Numbers mentions that his name was originally Hoshea and that it was deliberately changed it to Yehoshua (which looks the same except for the addition of a yod). Kuratowski's Ghost 21:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are midrashim about the name changes and spelling variants of names in the Hebrew Bible, including Yaakov/Yisrael יעקב/ישראל, Abram/Abraham אברם/אברהם, Saray/Sara שרי/שרה, Moshe משה/מושה, Pinkhas פנחס/פינחס, and Hoshea/Yhoshua הושע/יהושע/יהושוע, and more. However, these dont involve the invention of new non-Hebrew words. (Occasionally they involve Aramaic words, since Aramaic words occasionally appear in the Hebrew Bible, but Yehoshua cant be an Aramaic verb either.) --Haldrik 20:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give some references for midrashic interpretations of Yehoshua. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Joshua" in the JewishEncyclopedia.com says:

The Change in His Name

Moses added the letter י to the name "Hoshea" Numbers 13:16 [1] because he had prayed that God (יה) would keep Joshua from joining the conspiracy of the spies; and also [2] because, as Caleb's reward was a portion of the land, Joshua's compensation was to be his own allotment and that of the other ten (= "yod") spies (Sotah 34b; Tan. ad loc.; Num. R. 16).

So, according to the Talmud and Midrash Raba, the extra Yod was added to stand for God's protective presence or for the number 10. --Haldrik 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

References

YAHUSHUA alt. YAHOSHUA

Other considerations: On or about 9-25-06, the topic "YAHUSHUA" was deleted from Wikipedia, apparently for "ranting", however the shortened form of "YEHOSHUA" (Y'shua, as some prefer), was clearly explained. The following is the core of that deleted article for anyone's comments:

YAHUSHUA (Hebrew letter spelling, yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin) is the Hebrew name for the successor of Mosheh (Moses), and conveys the meaning of "Yah-is our-salvation" (in contrast to "Yeh-is our salvation". Suffering the disadvantages of passing through Greek and Latin alphabets, this Hebrew name eventually mutated into two highly diverse forms:

JESUS and JOSHUA. It then became the whim of a translator which form would be used in English translations of the Scriptures. Scholars have long agreed that in the Hebrew, both men had identical spellings for this name. Since their appearance, the Society of JESUS has promoted the use of the Latinization of the Greek letters IESOUS, assuming the disciples of the Messiah of Israel had written the Name in those Greek letters. The idea of explaining the source of the form JESUS using only the Greek and Latin fails to address the fact that the original Name is actually Hebrew, and carries a meaning in that language. It seems to have no certain meaning in the form of JESUS, nor has the sound been preserved. The Greek letters underlying both names, JOSHUA and JESUS, can be easily seen at Hebrews 4, and Acts 7. These texts refer to two separate men; one is Mashiach, and the other is the successor of Mosheh. The Greek letters in both cases are IESOUS. The translators simply decided to spell them differently in English.

Looking at the Hebrew text (rather than Arabic or Cantonese), and the letters of the name for the man they today call "JOSHUA", we see yod-hay-waw-shin-ayin, or YAHUSHUA (alt. YAHOSHUA). We should not be upset about this either. The Name is also correct if we shorten it to Y'shua; the meaning still stands, "Yah is our salvation". "Ben" is short for "Benyamin" (no letter "J" is possible for Hebrew, Greek, or Latin - it didn't show up in any alphabet until about 1530 CE). One thing is certain, Yahushua was never called "J.C.", or "JESUS" while He was on Earth. The letter "Y" at the beginning of the Name is followed by the Hebrew letter "hay", and "yod-hay" is the short form of the proper Name Yahuah (mostly seen as Yahweh), as we see "YAH" used at Psalm 68:4. So, "Yah" is contained in the first part of the authentic Name of the Messiah of Israel, and it is connected to "shua"(save), explaining why Gabriel said, "'Yoseph, you son of David, fear not to take unto you Miryam your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the (Ruach haQodesh). And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His Name (Yahushua): for He shall save his people from their sins.' Matt 1:20-25

As recently as 1599, in the "Geneva Bible", you will find that there was no use of the letter "J" - they spelled the Rabbi's Name "IESVS". "James" is spelled "IAMES", very much corrupted from the original name, Ya'aqob.

The form "YESHUA" has been cited to be from the acronym "YESHU", a mutilation of Yahushua's Name used by unbelieving Yahudim during the late 1st and 2nd century CE (search google.com for more on this). The letters in "YESHU" stood for the sentence, "Yemach Shmo u'Zikro" meaning "may his name be blotted out" (from the scroll of life). You can search the internet yourself with these letters, and find this to be true. This "Yeshu" acronym is highly likely the root of the form "JESUS", after going through Greek, then Latin, considering the following evolutionary path:

YESHU (remember, this is an acronym, meaning "may his name be blotted out", referring to the scroll of life). A rabbinic word-play, from the original Hebrew words: "Yemach Shmo u'Zikro". NOTE: There's not actually a letter "W" in the Hebrew alef-beth; the letter "W" is a rather new letter to our own alpha-beta. It's called a "DOUBLE-U" for a reason; our letter "U" is a perfect match with the sixth letter of the Hebrew alef-beth, now called a "waw". Acronyms are abbreviated messages, like "SCUBA" stands for "self contained underwater breathing apparatus".

YESU IESOU - Going into Greek, the letter "Y" became an IOTA because Greek has no "Y"; also, the sound of "SH" was lost, because Greek has no letters to make this sound. The letter combination "OU" is a diphthong, arising from the Greek attempt to transliterate the sound "OO" as in "woof". Our letter "U" and the Hebrew letter "WAW" does this easily. JESU is used also.

YESOUS IESOU took on an ending "S" to form IESOUS, since the Greek wanted to render the word masculine with the ending "S". Going to Latin, the diphthong "OU" became "U".

JESUS In the early 1530's, the letter "J" developed, causing a tail on proper names beginning with the letter " i ", and words used at the beginning of sentences. This "J" is really the letter "IOTA". Many European languages

pronounce "J" as the letter " i ", or a "Y" sound.

If we go to the Greek language, and attempt to spell YAHUSHUA, the first thing we notice is that we cannot do it for the lack of two letter/sounds: the Y and the SH. But, if we had to come as close as we possibly could, it would still wind up like trying to play a symphony on a 4-string banjo. It would have to begin with the Greek letter IOTA, then to simulate the vowel sound in "YAH" the second Greek letter would have to be an ALPHA. Clement of Alexandria spelled YAHUAH (yod-hay-waw-hay) with the Greek letters IAOUE. There is only one name that is the true Name, and that would be the Hebrew-based Name, uncorrupted by foreign alphabets. To build on a foundation other than the original Hebrew, one cannot arrive at a proper transliteration.

"He is 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.'

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:11-12

If we accept a Roman, Greek, or Arabic form that has no meaning of salvation, nor contains the proper Name, then we have abandoned Truth. (Lew White)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahushua" . . . now deleted, and they have the search directed to the article "Yeshua" instead. The true Name is deleted, and the form based on "MAY HIS NAME BE BLOTTED OUT" remains. They truly have blotted out Yahushua's name, and when Wikipedia deleted it from their site, it happened again.

Chinese for Jesus

The Chinese name for Jesus, 耶穌 (pronounced Ye Su in Mandarin and Ye So in Cantonese), also uses Yeshua as the basis for pinyin.

This is wrong. Ye-su most probably comes from one of these two sources: a) From the Syriac rendering of Jesus, through Nestorian Christians. b) From Old Portuguese jesus [ʒe'su:s], through the influence of the first 15th century Portuguese missionaries to East Asia. 201.21.200.15 15:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

YESHUA IS INCORRECT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRONOUNCED YESHU` OR EESHU`

Only in Modern Hebrew due to the Ashkenazi (Germanic/Yiddsh) influence is the `AYN silent or pronounced like an aleph. This is completely wrong. It is pronounced in Arabic and Syriac. Yesu` or `Isu in Arabic and Eeshu` in Syriac. סרגון יוחנא 15:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why so much fuss over this name?, I wonder. Does it have to be perfectly pronounced? From what I can gather, the Syriac version of the name is ܝܸܫܘܼܥ and the Arabic versions are two: عِيْسَى and يَسُوع. Would you agree with this? Obviously the Ayin (ע ع ܥ) is not silent in either Arabic or Syriac, but does this mean that we have be 100% proper in our pronunciation of a name that hasn't been spoken in this exact form in so many years? I mean, if it wasn't spoken "correctly" in Hebrew (for the lack of Ayin production) or in Syriac (ܝܸ /iː/ for יֵ‎ /je/) or in Arabic (س /s/ for שׁ‎ /ʃ/) and (ـَى /aː/ for עַ‎ /aʕ/, as well as عِيـ /ʕiː/ for יֵ‎ /je/). In the end, who cares if it should be pronounced "properly" as /je.'ʃu.aʔ/ (Modern Hebrew), /'ʕiː.saː/ or /ja.'suːʕ/ (Arabic), or /iː.'ʃuːʕ/ (Syriac)? And do these transcriptions really mean something when it comes down to it? Why all the "I know the right way to say this word and you don't" that goes on with this article? Relax! Who cares?! - Yonah mishael 22:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for Remarks

In the 1st century, Philo of Alexandria renders this figurative meaning in Koine Greek, in an explanation of the name change of the biblical Joshua Ben Nun (from הוֹשֵעַ‎ Hoshea "He saved" to יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ Yehoshua): "And Iesous", which stands for the Hebrew name Yehoshua, refers to "salvation of the Lord" (Ἰησοῦ δὲ σωτηρία κυρίου) (On the Change of Names 21.121).

I would just like to know if the author of this section could provide textual support or a citation for the Greek text behind Philo's statement. I did not find it online, though I did find a copy of a Loeb Classical Library source that I could purchase to verify it (I may do this at a later date). But, I am simply curious about the location of this quote in book form. Why wouldn't Ἰησοῦ appear in the nominative as Ἰησοῦς?

Also, I verified the LXX quote in the footnote at the end of this paragraph, and I corrected a couple of things based on Brenton's LXX. I would like to know, however, where the Hebrew text comes from. Thanks. - Yonah mishael 21:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vowel Points

Some time ago I edited this page to improve readability, and introduced the {{hebrew}} template. However, I may have screwed up the vowel pointings in this article. Can someone with a better understanding of Hebrew vowel-points please check this. Thanks. —Wikijeff 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yehoshuah is the really correct name.

Yehoshuah is the really correct name. --Don'tJoshMe (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Yeshua (disambiguation) → Yeshua – per WP:MALPLACED: Yeshua (the original dab page) appears to have been blanked in 2010 and moved or recreated here, while redirecting Yeshua to Yeshua (name), but a dab is more appropriate since books show no absolute majority topic for "Yeshua" - use relating to the post-Babylonian high priest and Jesus of Nazareth are about 50/50 in serious sources. Alternatively moving Yeshua (name) over baseline is an alternative solution per WP:MALPLACED, but moving the dab page to baseline is what is proposed. Third option, no move and redirect Yeshua to Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Mild support moving Yeshua (name) here. I respect and appreciate In ictu oculi's effective analysis of the situation. I think redirecting to Jesus, while a reasonably unastonishing result, wouldn't be the most efficient use of the pedia; most people know how to get to the article on Jesus by typing in Jesus As for the originally proposed move, I can't really think anyone would be looking at other uses of "Yeshua" when they type it into Wikipedia. Red Slash 04:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the nom (and agree with the Slash that a redirect to Jesus doesn't seem desirable). —BarrelProof (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This was the disambiguation page until a copy and paste move in June 2010. older ≠ wiser 00:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yeshua (name) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)