|WikiProject Christianity / Jesus||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Anthroponymy||(Rated Start-class)|
sorry about the edit conflict; I thought I was in edit conflict with myself, and didn't realize I was overwriting your correction. 188.8.131.52 13:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- The plural is not attested for obvious reasons.
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.184.108.40.206 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))
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)
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.
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.
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".
- 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)
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)