|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm again removing this stuff:
"The fact that the Septuagint and Nehemiah call Joshua Iēsous or Yeshua indicates that the name was pronounced in this way at their time. The question we address now is whether this form was used at the time of Jesus. Was the Greek spelling Iēsous meant to reflect the actual pronunciation as Yeshua, or was his name really Yehoshua and those who composed the Greek of our New Testament changed it to Iēsous in order to conform to some convention?
Although the form Iēsous was the normal form for Joshua son of Nun, this would obviously not require Greek writers or translators to use it for someone else named Yehoshua`. (The normal transliteration of Yehoshua would have been Ιωσους or Ιωσουε (compare the Latin Iosue), as in other NT names like Ιωσαφατ for Yehoshaphat.) And yet all New Testament writers or translators (at least nine different persons) use the form Iēsous for the founder of Christianity."
This is indeed original research. The forms Ιωσους or Ιωσουε are unattested in any Greek text nor does any discussion of the name in published works present these speculative forms. All known cases of Greek transliteration of the name Joshua are Iēsous, no other form is known. Also its not the Septuagint that calls "Joshua" by the name "Yeshua" it is the original Hebrew texts of Ezra and Nehemiah that use "Yeshua", you seem to be equating Iēsous with "Yeshua" despite the fact that it is used for "Yehoshuah" as well and there is no indication that Yehoshua was pronounced Yeshua when written out in Hebrew in uncontracted form, you seem to think that the Greek form implies the contracted Hebrew pronunciation Yeshua, but that is fallacy, Greek does not have an "h", the fact that its not present in the Greek form says nothing about the pronunciation of the Hebrew, you can't make up alternative speculative Greek transliterations and use them to conclude that Iēsous implies a pronunciation Yeshua. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Related to that, the initial paragraph states that Yeshua... "is thought by some scholars and religious groups to be the Hebrew or Aramaic name for Jesus." I think it's well-established and well-sourced for the hypothesis. What surprises me is that the phrase implies that it is a contested issue or minority position. If that is indeed the case, what other possibilities are there, or which groups do not advocate such a form as being the original Aramaic or Hebrew form of Jesus's name? --Wtrmute (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeshua is the name used for Jesus by Maimonides and anonymous redactors of the Josippon, but it is not known if this was the name used for him in the 1st century, as the article explains it could have been the full form Yehoshua or the Greek Iesous. As explained the Church fathers who discuss the matter claim that the Greek form is his original name. [[User:Kuratowski's Ghost|]] (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yarim Ha’Am Veyokhiakh Shedvaro Vetorato Omdim
I'm not sure, but this story about a Rabbi blurting out the word Yeshua in Kabbalistic language is interesting, and might deserve a mention if its relevancy is correctly pointed out or demonstrated.  ADM (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- You misunderstood, this is not some "Kabbalistic language". Please re-read: The Hebrew(!) sentence "Yarim Ha’Am Veyokhiakh Shedvaro Vetorato Omdim" translated simply means "He will lift the people and prove that his word and law are valid". [And from the context it is very easy to understand what it means.] As it says: "The initials [first letters of each word] spell the Hebrew name of Jesus". (And he is not talking about Christian Jesus, just to make sure.) -- 21:56, 23 August 2014 188.8.131.52
There is not one single Christian source that links this pejorative hebrew spelling of Yeshua/Jesus. It is complete crap that it is in this article and I suggest that it is removed. In the interm I posted reference from printed articles showing that it is infact pejorative and biased. --Teacherbrock (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- This article is about Yeshua, not Yeshu. If you want to include material about the latter being perjorative, maybe the Yeshu article would be a better place. Also, when you put in citations, use the book's name, author and page number, not the google link. --Noleander (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- The name Yeshu is a deliberately inaccurate transcription of Yeshua, for this reason I have removed it. I note it is already somewhat dubiously listed in the disambiguation page for Yeshua, where it is described as 'a Hebrew scribal abbreviation for enemies'. Cpsoper (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I have I hope tweaked the lede in a good way; putting the Strong's ref into a ref box, and adding into lede Joshua the High Priest - which is the most notable sourced used of this spelling - then Joshua and Yeshu in Franz Delitzsch etc. What further WP:source can be added for the spelling in the lede? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Way over-elaborate - Yeshua simply is the name used in Hebrew and Aramaic. List variants if you must, but there's really no need.PiCo (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yahshua and Yeshua as separate names (in addition to Yahshua being abbreviated to Yeshua)
I propose my previous edit be reinstated, as it is factually accurate. Whereas Yahshua is abbreviated to Yeshua, Yeshua is also a separate name. Yahshua is a theophoric name, abbreivated to Yeshua; whereas Yeshua as a separate name is a verbal form of Shua.
The same goes for Yoseph and Yehoseph; Yoseph is a verbal form of Seph, and also (separately) an abbreviated form of the theophoric Yehoseph. Many other examples exist. I strongly challege the undoing of my contribution.
"Yahshua" does not occur anywhere in the Bible or Hebrew/Aramaic literature. Rather, there's the name Yəhōšūʕ which is abbreviated to Yēšūʕ (or Yəhōšūaʕ which is abbreviated to Yēšūaʕ in the forms of the names as they're preserved by the Masoretes, though the "a" vowels were non-syllabic, and would not have been present in the pronunciation of the Biblical period itself). Yēšūʕ probably does contain a shortened form of the Tetragrammaton (etymologically at least), but formulas such as "Yehoshua is a theophoric name, combining Yeho and Shua"[sic] are extremely simplistic and not really accurate, and unhelpful in the context of this article. "Yoseph" is a finite inflected verb type of Semitic name, and not derived from "Seph"[sic]. If you don't know that Semitic-language etymologies generally proceed by way of triliteral roots, then you won't get too far in this area... AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Those are very unhelpful statements, you clearly miss the point. Personal opinions are irrelevant. I'm not debating pronounciations with you, as nobody knows them. Yeshua is known to be both a shortened form of Yehoshua (or as it is often spelled including on Wikipedia, Yahshua) as well as a verbal form of Shua. The same goes for Yosef, it is both a theophoric name and otherwise. You can't disagree with facts. As for trilateral roots, it has NOTHING to do with this, (you're clearly trying to show off) and is not always the case as you have to admit. In either case, Shua is trilateral (shin waw ayin). I'm quite stunned at your tone. Notice further that Yehosha (Yehoshua) doesn't have a waw, being Hoshea with a yod prefix, as is evident from the case of Hosea son of Nun getting the name Joshua (Yehosha) by simply adding a letter. This too underlines how Yeshua (always spelled with waw) is a separate name from Yehosh(u)a.
- Ben Ammi (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Dude, I'm sorry, but consonantal roots (triliteral or sometimes quadriliteral) have to do with almost everything in the Semitic languages. There are some exceptions (such as grammatical particles, or a few basic nouns such as those for "father" or "fish" or "hand"), but in a typical older Semitic language, 100% of verb forms and 95% of noun and adjective forms (excluding foreign proper names) are based on consonantal roots. The name Yəhōšūʕ and its variant Yēšūʕ are most commonly referred to the root y-š-ʕ which is actually the root w-š-ʕ due to a historical sound change of transforming "w" at the beginning of a word to "y" (except in the case of the conjunction). The word šūʕ (or "šūaʕ") comes from a root š-w-ʕ, which is different from y-š-ʕ/w-š-ʕ. Furthermore, when you state that Yehoshua = Yeho + Shua, it seems that you're thinking in terms of a type of noun compounding which doesn't really occur in the Semitic languages (except in the rather different construct+absolute genitive construction). Also, your claim that Yəhōšūʕ is Hōšēʕ "with a yod prefix" would appear to undermine your claims elsewhere that that Yəhōšūʕ is theophoric. The basic "yod prefix" of names in Hebrew and closely-related languages is actually the imperfect third person masculine singular verb inflection, since verbs conjugated according to consonantal roots can be used as names in this languages. So Yiṣħaq (a verb form meaning "he laughs", formed from triconsonantal root ץחק) is the name usually rendered into English as "Isaac". No one claims that Yiṣħaq is theophoric -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe this sentance should be added to the article; "Yeshua is spelled with a W in the Strong's Concordance as YESHUWA which has seven letters in it not just six."
Did you know the name Jesus is just the same name as Joshua? Joshua is a corruption of Yahshua and Yahshua is not the true spelling which is Yeshua. In the Hebrew there is a constinant letter there denoting the W which most people are dropping so therefore it should be YESHUWA. Note that the long form of YESHUWA is YEHOSHUWA. It is awe inspiring that the name YEHOVAH the name of the Father has the same letters as the name of the Son. YEHOSHUA just has the inset SHU and the H dropped off the end. As you know the Hebrew letter W and V are the same letter in Hebrew. In the Strong's Concordance the real root word of YEHOVAH is listed but no claims are made that it is the root of YEHOVAH. That root is HOVAH. For an explination of this see the take page of "Jehovah". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I already replied on your IPv6 talk page, as indicated in my edit summary. Here it is again: AnonMoos (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but Strong's Concordance is a convenient form of "Greek and Hebrew for those English-speakers who don't actually feel like learning Greek and Hebrew", and is really not a definitive source on anything. Many of your other claims are extremely dubious at best. Semitic-language etymologies most often proceed by way of triconsonantal roots, and if you don't understand that, then you won't get very far in this subject matter. The idea that the name of Jesus can be derived by adding a letter "shin" in the middle of the Tetragrammaton is the Pentagrammaton, which was originally invented by Renaissance occultists, and has not been accepted by Biblical or Hebrew scholarship. AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)