From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Yeshua (name))
Jump to: navigation, search

Greek transliteration[edit]

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[edit]

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. [1] 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


See Talk:Yahshua#Merge regarding a proposal to merge the articles Yahshuah and Yahshua. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sound sample[edit]

I'd love to hear the variations here spoken. Any chance we can get some sound samples on this page? -- SpareSimian (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeshu (ישו)[edit]

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)

---So we can remove Yeshu from the article completely? I agree. --Teacherbrock (talk) 17:10, 27 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)

Disambig links at top[edit]

Teacherbrock: the convention in WP is to have a single disambiguation sentence/paragraph at the top, not 2 separate paragraphs. Is that okay? --Noleander (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

sure--Teacherbrock (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Article lede[edit]

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)[edit]

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.

Ben Ammi (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"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". (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)

Requested move 13 May 2016[edit]

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. Arguments in support of moving are stronger. SSTflyer 02:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

– "Yeshua" is most popularly refers to the name Yeshua. As you can see using the Pageview Analysis program from WMF Labs, the name of Yeshua receives c. 843 views per day, while the other variant spellings and subjects with the name of Yeshua get very low views per day, the highest being with the spelling Yeshu, with c. 84 views per day. The name Yeshua is the primary topic. Therefore, per policy, the name of Yeshua should be primary topic and there should be a disambiguation page named Yeshua (disambiguation) with the other spelling variants and subjects with the name. CookieMonster755 📞 03:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisted Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem of you opposing, 2601:541:4305:C70:B464:2C6:9E5E:1603, but please provide an explanation of why you oppose Face-wink.svg Cheers, CookieMonster755 📞 21:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, the name is the primary topic here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2016 (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.

Requested move 22 July 2016[edit]

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: WITHDRAWN by nominator. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

YeshuaYeshua (name) – Proposed move:

  • Yeshua → Yeshua (name)
  • Yeshua → redirect to Jesus of Nazareth
  • I know, I did a requested move back in May, but now I realize it was a mistake. Though the name is primary usage of Yeshua, it should be moved back to Yeshua (name) with the name "Yeshua" redirecting to Jesus of Nazareth. The name Jesus comes from the name Yeshua, and many people, specifically Messianic Jews, refer to Jesus strictly as Yeshua. That is why I believe Yeshua should redirect to Jesus, and the current page be named Yeshua (name). Besides, Yeshua Ha Mashiach (Jesus the Messiah or Jesus Christ in Hebrew) already redirects to Jesus, and I believe plainly Yeshua should too because it most commonly refers to Jesus and is used strictly by Messianic Jews and Hebrew Roots Christianity. If you do a quick Google search, you will see that everything that comes up is related to Jesus (the) Christ (of Nazareth). Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per WP:CONSISTENCY with the Jesus / Jesus (name) article pair. juju (hajime! | waza) 19:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Although I note the format of this RM is broken. Looks like you tried to force a multiple move into a single move template. I'd recommend withdrawing and reopening below with the proper template. See WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves. juju (hajime! | waza) 19:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Note: This user was WP:CANVASSED here by the nominator. See User talk:Jujutsuan#Christ article, needing work. -- Tavix (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I was asked to "leave my thoughts", not to vote a particular way. WP:CANVASS says that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". I want to WP:AGF, but this "note" really seems to be just an underhanded way of discrediting my vote. juju (hajime! | waza) 22:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You were brought here in a non-transparent manner by the nominator. You don't need to be asked to !vote in a particular manner to be canvassed. See WP:APPNOTE for more information. My note was simply to make the canvass transparent, not to discredit your !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You are the one being non-transparent. You keep quoting policies and guidelines that undermine your own point, hoping no one actually reads them and will just be intimidated by the "WP:" in front. This one, WP:APPNOTE, says: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: #4 On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: #4c Editors known for expertise in the field" (in this case, Christianity in general). CookieMonster did nothing wrong, and you know it. I would believe your stated motive except that your rationale is 100% bogus, by the very policies you cite. juju (hajime! | waza) 22:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm simply making it transparent how you were brought to this discussion. That's it. Okay? I'm collapsing this since it's not adding anything to the discussion at hand. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll end simply by pointing out that WP:STEALTH only considers off-wiki communication to be "non-transparent", while WP:APPNOTE considers user talk page notification perfectly transparent; so I really don't see why you felt compelled to point this out. juju (hajime! | waza) 23:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The Yeshua article is very informative and mentions extensively the etymology and Hebrew usage. Moving back to a Jesus redirect would lower the encyclopedic level of this entry. Besides, in the Hebrew Bible, Yeshua refers to several figures called Joshua as well as Jesus, so I doubt that Jesus can be considered the WP:PTOPIC for "Yeshua". — JFG talk 22:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What would someone searching for "Yeshua" be searching for? Since our English-speaking audience knows Jesus as "Jesus," people typically aren't going to be looking for Jesus. Instead, they're probably curious about the name in general. -- Tavix (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Since our English-speaking audience knows Jesus as "Jesus," people typically aren't going to be looking for Jesus. Sorry, but that ain't the best argument. There are many foreign language redirects to their English counterpart, because people know the subject by both names, such as this for example. But I will leave that up to you, since you are an admin and I know you have good judgement, my friend :) I am just trying to help out with the Wikipedia community. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 01:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JFG. Sufficient reason to have this at the base page instead of making it a redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article exists in its own right, and is neither about just the name nor just about Jesus. The nomination is perhaps POV inspired? Debresser (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Debresser POV inspired? I don't think so. If you have concerns, please leave it at my talk page. Thanks, and have a nice day! Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 18:41, 23 July 2016 (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.