article sent to me. How do I respond?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jogri17

Puritan Board Junior
This is the article:
The English word “Jesus” is not a translation; it is a transliteration of a transliteration, and it has lost every shred of its original meaning.

How did we get from point A (Yahshua) to point C (Jesus)? The standard reference books will tell you that there are several forms of the word translated “Jesus” in the New Testament, and they’re all singular, masculine nouns. (There’s an important glitch in the textual evidence that throws the Greek words into question, but let’s ignore it for just a moment.) In Greek, as in most languages, nouns (including names) must agree in case, number, and gender with the adjectives that modify them. The word we know as “Jesus” is found in five different cases in the New Testament, three of which share the same form; the remaining two have different endings.

Ίησου̃ (pronounced E-aý-sū) is in the genitive case, which denotes description, possession, or relationship.

Ίησου̃ (E-aý-sū). The second case (which looks like the genitive) is dative, used when its nouns or pronouns have the function of an indirect object. The vocative case (the case of address) also takes this same Greek form.

Ίησου̃ν (E-aý-soon). The accusative case sounds a little different. There are six distinct types, but basically, they function as the direct object of the verb.

The last form is Ίησου̃ς (E-aý-soos), the nominative case (used where the subject is producing the action). There are five separate nominative types.

As complicated as all this may look, the reality is far worse. Greek is extremely complicated, and is therefore capable of transmitting quite subtle nuances of meaning. Unlike English, however, Greek nouns, pronouns, and adjectives—including names—don’t stay put. As we have seen, they change to fit the case, gender, and number of the sentence. But the lexical form of a noun or adjective—i.e., the form found in a lexicon or Greek dictionary—is always the nominative singular form, in this instance Ίησου̃ς (E-aý-soos). Hence the alternate forms Ίησου̃ (E-aý-sū) and Ίησου̃ν (E-aý-soon), as well as other possible forms, would never show up in standard reference works like Strong’s or Thayer’s.

Note therefore: (1) The genitive, dative, and vocative case of the Greek word rendered “Jesus” in our English texts, Ίησου̃ (Iesou, prounounced E-aý-sū), is about as good a transliteration of the short form of Yahshua, “Yahsu,” as you can get in Greek, and makes for a passable transliteration in Latin as well: “Iesu.” In Greek, the final “ah” syllable of “Yahshua” would never appear because the case designation would be lost. Note also that there is no “Y” sound in Koine Greek, nor is there a “sh” sound. (2) The nominative form Ίησου̃ς (Iesous, pronounced E-aý-soos) is the obvious origin of the transliteration that eventually emerged in English, “Jesus.” The Latin “I” transformed over time into a “hard I” and only later into the new letter “J”. As a matter of fact, the Authorized version of the English Bible (a.k.a. the King James Version) used the name “Iesus” from 1611 through 1628; “Jesus” did not appear until the 1629 edition, and we’re not positive how that was pronounced. Considering the drift of pronunciation modes of European languages, especially the ambivalent use of “J” versus “Y” sounds in Germanic and Scandinavian tongues, it could have been pronounced Yesus as easily as Jesus. The transformation therefore seems natural and logical: Yahshua...to Ίησου̃ς (E-aý-soos)...to Iesu/Jesu (Latin)...to Iesus... to Jesus.

But as I warned you, there’s a rub, a textual convention that was employed to render the Savior’s name and other key words in all of the earliest Greek parchments. As arcane as what follows may seem, you should be aware of it, for it affects the very heart of our standard Christian vocabulary.

We now possess some seventy manuscripts of portions of the Greek New Testament that date before the time of Constantine—pre-fourth century. And not a single one of them spells out Yahshua’s name—the Ίησου̃, Ίησου̃ν or Ίησου̃ς we find in later texts. Instead, the Name is always represented by a placeholder: two Greek capital letters with a line scribed over the top (indicating that these are not regular words), and apparently keyed to the case. So what would eventually be written Ίησου̃ς was indicated as ΙΣ (Iota-Sigma), Ίησου̃ν was penned as ΙΝ (Iota-Nu) and Ίησου̃ was written ΙΥ (Iota-Upsilon), each with a horizontal line above it, and each (in its own case) meaning Yahshua—Jesus.

Actually, there are seven key words in the New Covenant scriptures that were consistently handled the same way in all the pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts—translated Jesus, Christ, Spirit, Holy, God, Lord, Father, and Son. All of them seem to be a code or abbreviation for the Greek word they replace, words that would be spelled out in post-Constantine manuscripts (for example, ΚΣ for Kurios was translated “Lord”). I’m not absolutely sure why this was done. “Yahshua” couldn’t be correctly pronounced in Greek, and if spoken in certain circles it could get you stoned because it contained the divine name Yah. But others suffered no such handicaps to communication. The verbal ideas they represent, however, are invariably critical to our understanding of Yahweh and His plan of redemption. Perhaps we would be safer using the Hebrew words for these fundamental concepts (e.g. Ruach in place of Pneuma for Spirit) than their rough Greek equivalents. At the very least, we should ponder why the original Greek Renewed-Covenant texts universally employed this place-holder code, and contemplate why the code was replaced by the pagan-compromised Church of Rome under Constantine and his successors.
 

staythecourse

Puritan Board Junior
This is the article:
The English word “Jesus” is not a translation; it is a transliteration of a transliteration, and it has lost every shred of its original meaning.

How did we get from point A (Yahshua) to point C (Jesus)? The standard reference books will tell you that there are several forms of the word translated “Jesus” in the New Testament, and they’re all singular, masculine nouns. (There’s an important glitch in the textual evidence that throws the Greek words into question, but let’s ignore it for just a moment.) In Greek, as in most languages, nouns (including names) must agree in case, number, and gender with the adjectives that modify them. The word we know as “Jesus” is found in five different cases in the New Testament, three of which share the same form; the remaining two have different endings.

Ίησου̃ (pronounced E-aý-sū) is in the genitive case, which denotes description, possession, or relationship.

Ίησου̃ (E-aý-sū). The second case (which looks like the genitive) is dative, used when its nouns or pronouns have the function of an indirect object. The vocative case (the case of address) also takes this same Greek form.

Ίησου̃ν (E-aý-soon). The accusative case sounds a little different. There are six distinct types, but basically, they function as the direct object of the verb.

The last form is Ίησου̃ς (E-aý-soos), the nominative case (used where the subject is producing the action). There are five separate nominative types.

As complicated as all this may look, the reality is far worse. Greek is extremely complicated, and is therefore capable of transmitting quite subtle nuances of meaning. Unlike English, however, Greek nouns, pronouns, and adjectives—including names—don’t stay put. As we have seen, they change to fit the case, gender, and number of the sentence. But the lexical form of a noun or adjective—i.e., the form found in a lexicon or Greek dictionary—is always the nominative singular form, in this instance Ίησου̃ς (E-aý-soos). Hence the alternate forms Ίησου̃ (E-aý-sū) and Ίησου̃ν (E-aý-soon), as well as other possible forms, would never show up in standard reference works like Strong’s or Thayer’s.

Note therefore: (1) The genitive, dative, and vocative case of the Greek word rendered “Jesus” in our English texts, Ίησου̃ (Iesou, prounounced E-aý-sū), is about as good a transliteration of the short form of Yahshua, “Yahsu,” as you can get in Greek, and makes for a passable transliteration in Latin as well: “Iesu.” In Greek, the final “ah” syllable of “Yahshua” would never appear because the case designation would be lost. Note also that there is no “Y” sound in Koine Greek, nor is there a “sh” sound. (2) The nominative form Ίησου̃ς (Iesous, pronounced E-aý-soos) is the obvious origin of the transliteration that eventually emerged in English, “Jesus.” The Latin “I” transformed over time into a “hard I” and only later into the new letter “J”. As a matter of fact, the Authorized version of the English Bible (a.k.a. the King James Version) used the name “Iesus” from 1611 through 1628; “Jesus” did not appear until the 1629 edition, and we’re not positive how that was pronounced. Considering the drift of pronunciation modes of European languages, especially the ambivalent use of “J” versus “Y” sounds in Germanic and Scandinavian tongues, it could have been pronounced Yesus as easily as Jesus. The transformation therefore seems natural and logical: Yahshua...to Ίησου̃ς (E-aý-soos)...to Iesu/Jesu (Latin)...to Iesus... to Jesus.

But as I warned you, there’s a rub, a textual convention that was employed to render the Savior’s name and other key words in all of the earliest Greek parchments. As arcane as what follows may seem, you should be aware of it, for it affects the very heart of our standard Christian vocabulary.

We now possess some seventy manuscripts of portions of the Greek New Testament that date before the time of Constantine—pre-fourth century. And not a single one of them spells out Yahshua’s name—the Ίησου̃, Ίησου̃ν or Ίησου̃ς we find in later texts. Instead, the Name is always represented by a placeholder: two Greek capital letters with a line scribed over the top (indicating that these are not regular words), and apparently keyed to the case. So what would eventually be written Ίησου̃ς was indicated as ΙΣ (Iota-Sigma), Ίησου̃ν was penned as ΙΝ (Iota-Nu) and Ίησου̃ was written ΙΥ (Iota-Upsilon), each with a horizontal line above it, and each (in its own case) meaning Yahshua—Jesus.

Actually, there are seven key words in the New Covenant scriptures that were consistently handled the same way in all the pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts—translated Jesus, Christ, Spirit, Holy, God, Lord, Father, and Son. All of them seem to be a code or abbreviation for the Greek word they replace, words that would be spelled out in post-Constantine manuscripts (for example, ΚΣ for Kurios was translated “Lord”). I’m not absolutely sure why this was done. “Yahshua” couldn’t be correctly pronounced in Greek, and if spoken in certain circles it could get you stoned because it contained the divine name Yah. But others suffered no such handicaps to communication. The verbal ideas they represent, however, are invariably critical to our understanding of Yahweh and His plan of redemption. Perhaps we would be safer using the Hebrew words for these fundamental concepts (e.g. Ruach in place of Pneuma for Spirit) than their rough Greek equivalents. At the very least, we should ponder why the original Greek Renewed-Covenant texts universally employed this place-holder code, and contemplate why the code was replaced by the pagan-compromised Church of Rome under Constantine and his successors.

This guys got an axe to grind. He apparently wants you to be amazed with his knowledge (which leaves much to be desired). THe best part is at the beginning: "and it has lost every shred of its original meaning. "

Hilarious. Even if we don't pronounce "Jesus" as a 1st century Palestinian Jew the angel already explained what his name would mean "And you will call his name "Jesus" because he will save his people from their sins."

In fact the passage has two explanations of Jesus and his role as it pertains to his Name.

behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph,son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." 22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
What advantage is it to "say" the name like a Hebrew would? The PB had this conversation only about a month ago, regarding "Jehovah". As I said then, so say I now, Big Deal. Why should we pronounce the names of foreign lands and capitals as those people do, who have different sounds in their alphabet than we do?!? Will it make them like us more? Will it prove our "respect for them"? Why wouldn't it appear more condescending? Because if the situation were reversed WE would be less offended? Even if it were true, culturally it might be the exact reverse! So, now ought we to not only attempt to "sound" like people we aren't, but also to know everything about their culture, before we can even talk about them, let alone to them?

I digressed there some only to show how utterly without merit is this whole question of pronunciation. Even if it were true that some nuance was lost in the rendition, this is not an argument for translilterating Chizkiyahu or Yirmiyahu for Hezekia and Jeremiah, or a Hebrew pronunciation of Jesus. Even though the early unical manuscripts had abbreviation conventions, those conventions arose out of space considerations--considerations that the apostolic writers themselves would not have been following.

Letters, etc, were not written with learned literary conventions taught and executed in scriptoriums, as many scribes lined out the text that was read to them--a later process than the first transcriptions. Nor, might I add, did the average Christian (and there was far more basic literacy in the ancient world than the chronological snobs of today admit). According to Warfield, there were undoubtedly many, many personal at least partial copies of various NT Scripture material that blanketed the Greco-Roman world.

Now, how would a NEW pronunciation of "Jesus" different from the common standard that covered the world, overthrow that terminology, absolutely and utterly obliterating it from memory? This thought, along with the author's precommittment to BELIEVE all the pompous claims of Rome that she is responsible for all the forms of Christendom, is simply incredible. It is as utterly unbelievable as the "Byzantine recension" theory: that somehow church and government officials managed to obliterate all trace of manuscript disagreement from the "approved" Bible in the 4th century, and this hypothesis best explains its preservation as a text-form.

See, the author really shows his intent in the end. He is first committed to the Constantinian conspiracy theory, which is then used to explain how all this wonderful information he has ferreted out, which had previously been deliberately hidden from you, is now to be shared. These guys are almost the same as the Gnostics. Except, instead of trotting out a new "Gospel", they will share with you the "truths" that are the real hidden message of the Bible.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
What is the "Constantinian conspiracy theory" for young people like me who don't know it?
To quote the final sentence of the article:
"At the very least, we should ponder why the original Greek Renewed-Covenant texts universally employed this place-holder code, and contemplate why the code was replaced by the pagan-compromised Church of Rome under Constantine and his successors."

The EEEEVIL Constantine realized he could not defeat the church by persecution, SO! he sneakily decided to take over the church by making it the official religion!

This is the same sort of rant that the Seventh-Day-Adventists write. That the "Trail of Blood" Baptists teach. Oneness Pentacosals. That all purity was lost when Constantine faked his conversion, and made the church official, and Roman. They accept the Roman claims (on the one hand) to have changed the day of worship on her own authority, to have instituted infant baptism and sprinkling on her own authority, to have created hierarchy over against pure congregationalism on her own authority, created the doctrine of the Trinity on her own authority, rewritten the Bible using corrupted manuscripts and making the Vulgate official and off limits to laymen on her own authority, ... and, changed the real name of Yehoshua to Jesus! O MY GOODNESS, WILL THEY STOP AT NOTHING!!!!!

On the other hand, anyone at all whom Rome persecuted must have, de facto, been good Christians. This would include proto-Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians) proto-Mormons, and all kinds of others with aberrant doctrines. BUT, because they weren't ROME, must have really been OK. Those must be lies told about those good people and their doctrine, why? Because Rome was pure evil, and they only persecuted the righteous! So logical...

"Just listen to us, WE will set you straight; WE have them figured out; WE have unscrambled your Bible; trust us..."

Christian Gnosticism, nothing less.
 

Scott1

Puritanboard Commissioner
The English word “Jesus” is not a translation; it is a transliteration of a transliteration

Tell your friend who sent you that this, that you have carefully reviewed and evaluated this material, and your conclusion is it all depends on what the meaning of is...is!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top