Why Greek?

[Richard_1]

DeaconDan wrote

Jesus is not ever called Yeshua in the Bible.

And in the King James before the 17th century Jesus was not in the Bible. Note in the original 1611 version of the King James Version of the Bible there was no “J” letter in this Bible for because its usage did not exist until the 17th century. James was spelled Iames. Jesus was spelled Iesous. Jesus is a transliteration of the Greek word Iesous which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word Yehshua (God our salvation)

Transliteration--- to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language:

So all Jesus is is a transliteration of the Hebrew name that Jesus would have had (yehshua) so the point is that whether you say Yehshua or Jesus you are speaking of the same person and the same name just in two different languages.

Here is an example of transliterating

Yah sh ua Hebrew
Ie s ous transliterated from Hebrew to Greek
Je s us transliterated from Greek to English

[DeaconDan]

And in the King James before the 17th century Jesus was not in the Bible.

Iesus is the name everyone in the Bible used. The J was created after flair was added to the. But, Yeshua is not Jesus' name. People's names do not change just because their names are spoken by speakers of different languages. In fact, your argument is hypocritical. If names do change, you should use the English version, not a transliterated Hebrew translation of the biblical name.

How is it that you are not placing your judgement above that of the authors of the Bible when you choose a name that they did not use, not even once? They were Hebrew speakers who wrote largely to Hebrew audiences, yet they still only used the Greek name Iesus.

If Iesus and Yeshnua were separated by only transliteration, they would have the same letters. If A=B and B=C and C=D then A=D.

[Richard_1]

DeaconDan wrote

In fact, your argument is hypocritical. If names do change, you should use the English version, not a transliterated Hebrew translation of the biblical name.

If the name of Jesus wouldn’t have been transliterated from the Hebrew Yehshua then the word Iesous would not have been in the Greek text. You see Jesus was not Greek so therefore He had a Hebrew name and the need to transliterate that name into Greek was necessary to come up with the name Iesous which eventually became transliterated into Jesus from the original Greek text. The Bible didn’t come written in English and the English version came from Greek and the transliteration of the name Iesous was transliterated was from the original Hebrew name of Jesus.

DeaconDan wrote

If Iesus and Yeshnua were separated by only transliteration, they would have the same letters. If A=B and B=C and C=D then A=D.

You know little about language translation. The letters in Hebrew and Greek are different than English so therefore transliteration is necessary. In Hebrew there is no exact equivalent alphabet that is compatible with the Greek language or English language.

Hebrew alphabet Greek alphabet English alphabet
א = al α=alpha =a
בּ= bet β=beta =b
ג = gimal Γ=gamma =g
ד = dal δ= delta =d

In Hebrew there are only 22 letters in their alphabet and in the Greek there are 24 letters and in the English there are 26 so you have a problem in translating with out transliteration, as you can see without transliteration there would be no translation. So to be able to name Jesus then His Hebrew name would have to be transliterated into Greek and then transliterated into English. The transliterated name of Jesus came from the Greek name Iesous which is transliterated from the Hebrew name Yehshua . What I can’t understand is why you seem to want to eliminate any reference to the Hebrew roots of Jesus.

[DeaconDan]

You know little about language translation. The letters in Hebrew and Greek are different than English so therefore transliteration is necessary. In Hebrew there is no exact equivalent alphabet that is compatible with the Greek language or English language.

In the Hebrew spelling of Yehshua, הוֹשֻׁעַ, which letter transliterates to the last 's' in Jesus, Ἰησοῦς? "Jesus" is a transliteration of Greek: Ἰ=I/J, η=e, σ=s, οῦ=u, ς=s (the σ and ς are both sigma, which is the same as 's'). Greek has the necessary letters for a transliteration like "Yehshua" from Hebrew (such as the Greek letter 'A', alpha, for the last letter, rather than sigma).

Iesus is not a transliteration of Yeshua. Else, you could answer the above question (where does 's' come from). Jesus is a transliteration, as I demonstrated.

Yeshua is equivalent to Jesus, but it is not a transliteration. Jesus is never referred to as Yeshua in all the Bible, in neither the Hebrew or Greek scripture. It is poor reasoning to think Jesus had a Hebrew name because his parents are Hebrew. God, who is not a Hebrew, selected the name Jesus. The same God selected Greek for the New Testament. Jesus might have gone by both names, but we have no evidence of that. I will follow the Bible.

What I can’t understand is why you seem to want to eliminate any reference to the Hebrew roots of Jesus.

Why do some people want to use a name for Jesus that the Bible does not use? Why do some people feel the need to judaize Christianity?

[Richard_1]

Deacon Dan wrote

Yeshua is equivalent to Jesus, but it is not a transliteration. Jesus is never referred to as Yeshua in all the Bible, in neither the Hebrew or Greek scripture.

So then lets look at the name Joshua which in the Greek is translated Iēsous. In Hebrew the name Joshua is Yĕhowshuwa` which you can see is the same name as Jesus and Joshua/yehowshua is transliterated from Hebrew into Greek and is the name Ieous. In Acts 7:45 and in Hebrewswe see this transliteration from Hebrew to Greek to english where it transliterates the name for Joshua/yeshua into Iesous/Jesus.

Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

And in Hebrews 4:8 it is referring to Joshua/yehoshua as Jesus

For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

The person called Jesus here was actually Joshua/yeshua/Jehovah is God and is transliterated into Greek Iesous and then transliterated into English Jesus. So you see the transliterating of Yeshua is the word Iesous which is then transliterated Jesus. So if you were speaking Hebrew or Aramaic you would have said Yehoshua/Yeshua.

In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. (It was also used to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun--Deut. 32:44.)

The first letter in the name Yeshua/Jesus is the yod. Yod represents the "Y" sound in Hebrew. Many names in the Bible that begin with yod are mispronounced by English speakers because the yod in these names was transliterated in English Bibles with the letter "J" rather than "Y". This came about because in early English the letter "J" was pronounced the way we pronounce "Y" today. All proper names in the Old Testament were transliterated into English according to their Hebrew pronunciation, but when English pronunciation shifted to what we know today, these transliterations were not altered. Thus, such Hebrew place names as ye-ru-sha-LA-yim, ye-ri-HO, and yar-DEN have become known to us as Jerusalem, Jericho, and Jordan; and Hebrew personal names such as yo-NA, yi-SHAI, and ye-SHU-a have become known to us as Jonah, Jesse, and Jesus.


The letter yod =y in Hebrew was transliterated as the letter iota=I in Greek and later became the J in Jesus.

The first sound of the second syllable of Yeshua is the "sh" sound. It is represented by the Hebrew letter shin. However Greek, like many other languages, has no "sh" sound. Instead, the closest approximation, the Greek sigma, was used when transcribing "Yeshua" as "Iesus". Translators of English versions of the New Testament transliterated the Greek transcription of a Hebrew name, instead of returning to the original Hebrew. This was doubly unfortunate, first because the "sh" sound exists in English, and second because in English the "s" sound can shift to the "z" sound, which is what happened in the case of the pronunciation of "Jesus".

The a sound in Hebrew was ayin which was a gutteral sound that was not in the Greek language so the ayin sound in Yehshua was dropped because it was unpronoiuncable in the koine Greek. The fith and sixth sound in the name Yeshua were dropped and so to put an end on the name a s was added. So where did the final "s" of "Jesus" come from? Masculine names in Greek ordinarily end with a consonant, usually with an "s" sound, and less frequently with an "n" or "r" sound. In the case of "Iesus," the Greeks added a sigma, the "s" sound, to close the word.

Deacon Dan wrote

Why do some people want to use a name for Jesus that the Bible does not use? Why do some people feel the need to judaize Christianity?

And why do some have to replace the Hebrew roots (foundation the apostles were Hebrew/Jewish as was Jesus) of Christianity with just a Gentile outlook replacing Israel with the Gentile version of the Church eliminating all reference and connection to its Hebrew beginnings.

By the way I am a Gentile but I recognize that the oracles of God, those scriptures that established Jesus as the Messiah were given to the Hebrews/Jews and was one pof the foundation of the Gospel we as Gentiles have embraced
[quote]

[DeaconDan]

So where did the final "s" of "Jesus" come from? Masculine names in Greek ordinarily end with a consonant, usually with an "s" sound, and less frequently with an "n" or "r" sound. In the case of "Iesus," the Greeks added a sigma, the "s" sound, to close the word.

The Greeks added? Transliterations do not include additions. Adding to the word, domesticating it or making it native, makes it a translation, not a transliteration.

The pronunciation of the Jesus' name is another topic. Hebrew was a dead language for nearly 2000 years, and it was written without vowels, not the best recipe for getting the pronunciation right today. This is another reason why you should be hesitant to replace Jesus' name.

By the way I am a Gentile but I recognize that the oracles of God, those scriptures that established Jesus as the Messiah were given to the Hebrews/Jews and was one pof the foundation of the Gospel we as Gentiles have embraced

You are treating Hebrews/Jews like the Catholic Church treats Mary. No one denies that God entrusted and blessed Mary to be the mother of Jesus incarnate. No one denies that God entrusted and blessed the Hebrews with His prophets. You want to pay homage to the messenger, not the one who sent the message.

[Richard_1]

I wrote

By the way I am a Gentile but I recognize that the oracles of God, those scriptures that established Jesus as the Messiah were given to the Hebrews/Jews and was one of the foundations of the Gospel we as Gentiles have embraced

Deacon Dan wrote

You are treating Hebrews/Jews like the Catholic Church treats Mary. No one denies that God entrusted and blessed Mary to be the mother of Jesus incarnate. No one denies that God entrusted and blessed the Hebrews with His prophets. You want to pay homage to the messenger, not the one who sent the message.

No Deacon Dan I am paying no more homage than what the scriptures pay to the Hebrews/Jews

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

I paid no more homage than did the scriptures. What you seem to want to do is replace the Jews completely in Gods plan and have the Church as the only attention of God. In theology this is called "replacement theology"

[DeaconDan]

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

I paid no more homage than did the scriptures. What you seem to want to do is replace the Jews completely in Gods plan and have the Church as the only attention of God. In theology this is called "replacement theology"

Quoting Romans 3:1-2 to support your theology is no different from a Roman Catholic quoting Luke 1:30 of Mary, "thou hast found favour with God" to support their unbiblical idolization of Mary. Your quote is actually worse because Mary is simply being praised, while Romans 3:1-2 is not praise, it is a consolation. Paul just finished explaining that being a Jew has nothing to with race, refuting your racial theology of idolization of Jews. See Romans 2:28-29 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;" To which the Hebrews ("the Jews") might reply "Whaaa! I thought we were special?", to which Paul replies "You are not totally nothing special, the prophets were Hebrews. You are also taller than Pigmies."

Back to Iesous. 'S' is one example proving Iesous is not a transliteration. The actual Hebrew for "Jehovah is salvation" is יְהוֹשׁוּעַ which transliterates to Yehowshuwa, a much larger word. "Yeshue" is at best an abbreviated form. Iesous is not an abbreviated form.

[Richard_1]

DeaconDan wrote

Your quote is actually worse because Mary is simply being praised, while Romans 3:1-2 is not praise, it is a consolation.

Here is a piece from Chuck Smith of Calavry Chapel who was my teacher

The thing in Romans 3:1-2 is not a consolation. It is Paul reassuring the Jews about being God’s chosen people. He was saying that what advantage was it to be a Jew. If circumcision doesn't make me righteous, if the law doesn't make me righteous, then what advantage is there in being a Jew? Then he said this

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The word much is used as often in the New Testament to express the first or most important way. That a Jew has as an advantage is unto them were committed the oracles of God. For the Word of God was committed unto them. Now that is a tremendous advantage, the advantage of having the Word of God, and never underestimate the value and the advantage of having the Word of God.

God committed unto them His word, and in so doing, they kept the Word of God with great care and with great accuracy, thus, we owe a tremendous debt to them for the way they have preserved so carefully the Word of God and brought it to us as God gave it to them, as pure from error as is any human document or as any human document could be.

When a person was hired as a scribe to copy the scriptures, this, of course, was considered a great honor. It was a sacred trust. They held the Word of God very sacred, and rather than copying the text by words or by sentences, they would copy letter by letter and one would copy, and the other one would check his copy.

In the copying of the scriptures they would not allow any erasers, any strike overs, or any changes. If a mistake was made they had to begin all over again. Now that is not talking about a page, that is talking about a scroll. The entire book of Isaiah was written on a scroll. And if on the end, on the last chapter of Isaiah, if on the last words they made a mistake, they would rip up the scroll and months of labor tossed out for they would not allow for any mistakes at all.

That is why when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered it was such an exciting thing to Bible scholars, because among the scrolls that were found in the Qumran cave was the scroll of Isaiah, which was 600 years older than any complete copy of Isaiah we have. There was an intense interest in comparing those copies of Isaiah with the Dead Sea scrolls, because now you are making a leap of 600 years earlier, closer to the time of Isaiah.
Of course, the fascinating thing was that there was not one significant change in the text.
unto them were committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:2).

They kept those oracles faithfully, recorded them faithfully and passed them on to us. They had such a high reverence for the name of God, that whenever they wrote the word God, the Elohim, or the El, they would wash their pens, wash their hands, and then dip the pen in fresh ink to write the word Elohim, so did they reverence the title of God. But when they wrote the consonants that represented the name of God in writing, the consonants, before they would write them, they would go in and take a bath, change their clothes, and then take a pen, dip it in fresh ink, and write the consonants, YHVH, those consonants that represented the name of God.
There was no vowels written on these consonants because they did not feel that a man even in his mind was worthy of pronouncing the holy name of God. So they took the copying of scripture as a sacred trust. They realized the advantage that was theirs in having the Word of God given to them. Unto them was given the oracles of God. They were committed to them.

This then is still my question

What you seem to want to do is replace the Jews completely in Gods plan and have the Church as the only attention of God. In theology this is called "replacement theology"

[DeaconDan]

Here is a piece from Chuck Smith of Calavry Chapel who was my teacher

The thing in Romans 3:1-2 is not a consolation. It is Paul reassuring the Jews about being God’s chosen people. He was saying that what advantage was it to be a Jew. If circumcision doesn't make me righteous, if the law doesn't make me righteous, then what advantage is there in being a Jew?

Your teacher has distorted Romans. The issue is not what makes someone "righteous". It is what makes someone a "Jew". Romans 2:29, "A man is a Jew... by the Spirit" Not, "A man is righteous... by the Spirit."

For the Word of God was committed unto them. Now that is a tremendous advantage, the advantage of having the Word of God, and never underestimate the value and the advantage of having the Word of God.

Having the Word of God is a tremendous advantage. But, outward-Jews wasted that advantage with their disbelief. The church has been entrusted with preserving the Word of God for the last 2000 years.

What you seem to want to do is replace the Jews completely in Gods plan and have the Church as the only attention of God. In theology this is called "replacement theology"

That is like claiming Jesus' sacrifice replaced the animal sacrifices. Jesus' sacrifice is the only one that ever mattered. No one gets into Heaven through the blood of a slaughtered goat.