SeekGod.ca Discussion Forum

http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

This is a well written article. However, there's something very important that remains unanswered.

Why is Iesous transliterated from the Greek Septuagint to English as Joshua, and the New Testament transliterates the name Iesous to English as Jesus?

(10-11-2010 12:45 PM)sari83 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

This is a well written article. However, there's something very important that remains unanswered.

Why is Iesous transliterated from the Greek Septuagint to English as Joshua, and the New Testament transliterates the name Iesous to English as Jesus?

Jesus and Joshua are the same name. Yehoshua [Joshua] was shortened in the OT to Yeshua [Jeshua in the KJV] 37 times. Although Yehoshua also appears in the prophets as well. Both names are interchangeable.

Iesous is the transliterated form of Yeshua. And because there is no Greek name for Joshua other than Iesous in the NT, it got translated as Jesus by the King James translators. Other versions use Joshua. There are only two instances in the NT when Iesous was translated to Jesus that some say should read as Joshua in the KJV. Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8.


H3442
ישׁוּע
yêshûa‛
BDB Definition:
Jeshua = “he is saved”
1) son of Nun of the tribe of Ephraim and successor to Moses as the leader of the children of Israel; led the conquest of Canaan (noun proper masculine)
2) son of Jehozadak and high priest after the restoration (noun proper masculine)
3) a priest in the time of David who had charge of the 9th course (noun proper masculine)
4) a Levite in the reign of Hezekiah (noun proper masculine)
5) head of a Levitical house which returned from captivity in Babylon (noun proper masculine)
6) father of a builder of the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (noun proper masculine)
7) a town in southern Judah reinhabited by the people of Judah after the return from captivity (noun proper locative)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: for H3091

H3091
יהושׁע / יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛
BDB Definition:
Joshua or Jehoshua = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) son of Nun of the tribe of Ephraim and successor to Moses as the leader of the children of Israel; led the conquest of Canaan
2) a resident of Beth-shemesh on whose land the Ark of the Covenant came to a stop after the Philistines returned it
3) son of Jehozadak and high priest after the restoration
4) governor of Jerusalem under king Josiah who gave his name to a gate of the city of Jerusalem
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
Thayer Definition:
Jesus = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor (Act_7:45, Heb_4:8)
4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luk_3:29)
5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col_4:11)
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of Hebrew origin H3091

Thank you very much for your response. I'm still puzzled as to why the name Jesus became popularized if Joshua was in so many other translations. If the translators of the KJV knew to render the name Iesous as Joshua in the Old Testament, why wouldn't they do in the New Testament? The translations of both the OT & NT of the KJV were being made by the same scribes I would assume.

(10-11-2010 08:51 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2010 12:45 PM)sari83 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm

This is a well written article. However, there's something very important that remains unanswered.

Why is Iesous transliterated from the Greek Septuagint to English as Joshua, and the New Testament transliterates the name Iesous to English as Jesus?

Jesus and Joshua are the same name. Yehoshua [Joshua] was shortened in the OT to Yeshua [Jeshua in the KJV] 37 times. Although Yehoshua also appears in the prophets as well. Both names are interchangeable.

Iesous is the transliterated form of Yeshua. And because there is no Greek name for Joshua other than Iesous in the NT, it got translated as Jesus by the King James translators. Other versions use Joshua. There are only two instances in the NT when Iesous was translated to Jesus that some say should read as Joshua in the KJV. Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8.


H3442
ישׁוּע
yêshûa‛
BDB Definition:
Jeshua = “he is saved”
1) son of Nun of the tribe of Ephraim and successor to Moses as the leader of the children of Israel; led the conquest of Canaan (noun proper masculine)
2) son of Jehozadak and high priest after the restoration (noun proper masculine)
3) a priest in the time of David who had charge of the 9th course (noun proper masculine)
4) a Levite in the reign of Hezekiah (noun proper masculine)
5) head of a Levitical house which returned from captivity in Babylon (noun proper masculine)
6) father of a builder of the wall of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (noun proper masculine)
7) a town in southern Judah reinhabited by the people of Judah after the return from captivity (noun proper locative)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: for H3091

H3091
יהושׁע / יהושׁוּע
yehôshûa‛
BDB Definition:
Joshua or Jehoshua = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) son of Nun of the tribe of Ephraim and successor to Moses as the leader of the children of Israel; led the conquest of Canaan
2) a resident of Beth-shemesh on whose land the Ark of the Covenant came to a stop after the Philistines returned it
3) son of Jehozadak and high priest after the restoration
4) governor of Jerusalem under king Josiah who gave his name to a gate of the city of Jerusalem
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
Thayer Definition:
Jesus = “Jehovah is salvation”
1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor (Act_7:45, Heb_4:8)
4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Luk_3:29)
5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col_4:11)
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: of Hebrew origin H3091

(10-11-2010 09:37 PM)sari83 Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you very much for your response. I'm still puzzled as to why the name Jesus became popularized if Joshua was in so many other translations. If the translators of the KJV knew to render the name Iesous as Joshua in the Old Testament, why wouldn't they do in the New Testament? The translations of both the OT & NT of the KJV were being made by the same scribes I would assume.

The King James Version was translated in the early 1600's. There were no other English versions available other than the Geneva Bible, the Wycliffe Bible and the Tyndale [which was a complete NT and a few OT books] - which are a bit older.

The list of King James translators has never been duplicated. They were world renown scholars and head of departments of universities and included men from various denominations. They were studied men who compared their translations to render the most accurate word choice. In the preface of the KJV, it is noted that the translators did not perceive their work as beyond correction and in fact, encouraged corrections based on more knowledgeable expertise. I find that very humble.

Again, Joshua and Jesus are interchangeable and it's a very minor point, in my opinion. There are other names used interchangeably as well in both the old and the new testaments, like Paul/Saul; Jacob/Israel; Peter/Simon/Cephas - for example.

The modern versions were not compiled until the last 100-200 years [approx.].

The Greek old testament, known as the Septuagint or LXX has a very involved and spurious history. It is not known for its accuracy and has gone through many revisions since it was first translated. The early LXX [BCE] was originally only the first five books translated by Jewish scholars. The rest of the OT has unknown translators and no complete copies of it exist today, nor is there a complete consensus as to when it was actually completed. There were some fragments of the LXX found in Qumran when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, but they do not match either the masoretic [Hebrew] version of the OT, nor to they match the later LXX revisions. The earliest revisions of the LXX that we have today date only back to around 200CE. There was no complete LXX in the first century - it is a lesser translation and not credible, other than the first five books.

The OT is not a Greek work. It is composed with ancient languages, Hebrew from about 900BCE onwards. The OT is considered a Hebrew testament today. The Greek NT is not the LXX and is not related to the LXX in any way.

The translations of the Bible have a long history and many have sought to undermine it. I believe the KJV is the most accurate today, although I may not agree with all their word choices - this does not change the theology of the text and I believe that God has used the KJV to accurately preserve His Word for us today.

There are a lot issues and controversies surrounding the modern versions, and my personal opinion based on what I have read and studied leads me to believe they have missed it. I believe that the modern versions have definitely messed with the Word and are a theological danger that people are unaware of.

I hope that helps!

I appreciate you sharing what sounds like exstensive studies on all the various translations of the bible. I also read KJV. Although I usually prefer the NKJV. I have the program PC bible study which I find very helpful.

Do you think it is of importance to note that Joshua is closer to the original name?

Or is your main point that would should not be concerned with actual names as we are knowing our Savior personally?

(10-12-2010 09:24 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2010 09:37 PM)sari83 Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you very much for your response. I'm still puzzled as to why the name Jesus became popularized if Joshua was in so many other translations. If the translators of the KJV knew to render the name Iesous as Joshua in the Old Testament, why wouldn't they do in the New Testament? The translations of both the OT & NT of the KJV were being made by the same scribes I would assume.

The King James Version was translated in the early 1600's. There were no other English versions available other than the Geneva Bible, the Wycliffe Bible and the Tyndale [which was a complete NT and a few OT books] - which are a bit older.

The list of King James translators has never been duplicated. They were world renown scholars and head of departments of universities and included men from various denominations. They were studied men who compared their translations to render the most accurate word choice. In the preface of the KJV, it is noted that the translators did not perceive their work as beyond correction and in fact, encouraged corrections based on more knowledgeable expertise. I find that very humble.

Again, Joshua and Jesus are interchangeable and it's a very minor point, in my opinion. There are other names used interchangeably as well in both the old and the new testaments, like Paul/Saul; Jacob/Israel; Peter/Simon/Cephas - for example.

The modern versions were not compiled until the last 100-200 years [approx.].

The Greek old testament, known as the Septuagint or LXX has a very involved and spurious history. It is not known for its accuracy and has gone through many revisions since it was first translated. The early LXX [BCE] was originally only the first five books translated by Jewish scholars. The rest of the OT has unknown translators and no complete copies of it exist today, nor is there a complete consensus as to when it was actually completed. There were some fragments of the LXX found in Qumran when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, but they do not match either the masoretic [Hebrew] version of the OT, nor to they match the later LXX revisions. The earliest revisions of the LXX that we have today date only back to around 200CE. There was no complete LXX in the first century - it is a lesser translation and not credible, other than the first five books.

The OT is not a Greek work. It is composed with ancient languages, Hebrew from about 900BCE onwards. The OT is considered a Hebrew testament today. The Greek NT is not the LXX and is not related to the LXX in any way.

The translations of the Bible have a long history and many have sought to undermine it. I believe the KJV is the most accurate today, although I may not agree with all their word choices - this does not change the theology of the text and I believe that God has used the KJV to accurately preserve His Word for us today.

There are a lot issues and controversies surrounding the modern versions, and my personal opinion based on what I have read and studied leads me to believe they have missed it. I believe that the modern versions have definitely messed with the Word and are a theological danger that people are unaware of.

I hope that helps!

(10-12-2010 11:08 AM)sari83 Wrote: [ -> ]I appreciate you sharing what sounds like exstensive studies on all the various translations of the bible. I also read KJV. Although I usually prefer the NKJV. I have the program PC bible study which I find very helpful.

Do you think it is of importance to note that Joshua is closer to the original name?

Or is your main point that would should not be concerned with actual names as we are knowing our Savior personally?

Personally, it does not matter to me that the KJV used Jesus instead of Joshua. The Geneva Bible did not use Joshua either, it used the Latin transliteration, Iesus, - which is how the 1611 KJV has the name of Jesus rendered until the hardened French J came along. Personally, I think all the name stuff is a distraction from following Christ.

You are right, it does not matter how you pronounce the Savior's name, it's knowing Jesus as Lord and Redeemer. Other languages around the world all pronounce His Name differently - makes for an interesting study