Shmuel Playfair
2005-10-14 00:14:05 UTC
[Hillel M]
[John N]
in the TaNaHk. It is my understanding that "Yeshu" (Josh) is
a shortening of the Aramaic version of the name "Yeshua" (Joshua).
[John N]
is the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name, "Y'hoshua".
Thanks for the reference.
[John N]
For example, the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word "ben" (son)
is found in later Hebrew speech as we find with "bar[-mitzvah]".
[Alwyn]
[Shmuel continued]
Actually, I was repeating an assertion (I heard years ago) that
"Yeshua" was the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name "Y'hoshua".
I was not attempting to prove it.
It is interesting to note (according to the "Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament" AKA B.D.B.) that the later version of
the name, "Yeshua", was 1) the name of head of one of the classes of
priests [cf. 1 Ch. 24.11]; 2) a Levitical family-name of frequent
ocurrence [cf. Ezr. 2.40; 3.9 = Ne 7.43; 8.7; 9.4/5; 10.10; 12.8 and
2 Chr. 31.15; Ezr 8.33; Ne 12.24]; 3) a father of a builder at the
wall [cf. Ne 3.19]; 4) a Judaite family name [cf. Ezr 2.6 = Ne
7.11]; and 5) the name of a location in the south of Judah [cf Ne
11.26]. Also, one should consider that the name "Yeshua" is used
exclusively in the latest Biblical Hebrew texts and never in the
earlier ones.
[Alwyn]
the Hebrew name, Y'hoshua (Joshua)?
[Alwyn]
is "Yeshua". And the vowel pointing of this name in Ezra 5.2 is
exactly the same as the pointing of the name found in the Hebrew
portions of Ezra [cf. 2.2,6,40; 3.9; 8.35].
Since y'shu was never a Hebrew name (unless you believe
it is formed from the initial letters of the technical term for
a traitor) the question has no meaning.
it is formed from the initial letters of the technical term for
a traitor) the question has no meaning.
Eh? It's in Tana"kh.
[Shmuel] You must be referring to "Y'hoshua" (Joshua) foundin the TaNaHk. It is my understanding that "Yeshu" (Josh) is
a shortening of the Aramaic version of the name "Yeshua" (Joshua).
[John N]
Ezra 2:2
[Shmuel] So, you were referring to the name "Yeshua" whichis the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name, "Y'hoshua".
Thanks for the reference.
[John N]
Since the surrounding text is Hebrew, aren't you assuming what
you are trying to prove by saying it is the Aramaic equivalent?
[Shmuel] Aramaic loan words are often used in later Hebrew texts.you are trying to prove by saying it is the Aramaic equivalent?
For example, the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew word "ben" (son)
is found in later Hebrew speech as we find with "bar[-mitzvah]".
[Alwyn]
This is correct.
____[Shmuel continued]
Actually, I was repeating an assertion (I heard years ago) that
"Yeshua" was the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name "Y'hoshua".
I was not attempting to prove it.
It is interesting to note (according to the "Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament" AKA B.D.B.) that the later version of
the name, "Yeshua", was 1) the name of head of one of the classes of
priests [cf. 1 Ch. 24.11]; 2) a Levitical family-name of frequent
ocurrence [cf. Ezr. 2.40; 3.9 = Ne 7.43; 8.7; 9.4/5; 10.10; 12.8 and
2 Chr. 31.15; Ezr 8.33; Ne 12.24]; 3) a father of a builder at the
wall [cf. Ne 3.19]; 4) a Judaite family name [cf. Ezr 2.6 = Ne
7.11]; and 5) the name of a location in the south of Judah [cf Ne
11.26]. Also, one should consider that the name "Yeshua" is used
exclusively in the latest Biblical Hebrew texts and never in the
earlier ones.
[Alwyn]
That does not make 'Yeshua' Aramaic. More relevant in my opinion is
the fact that the Hebrew 'Yehoshua' starts with the first two
letters of the Sacred Name; dropping the 'h' made the connection
with the Divine Name less apparent. As time went on, use of the
Sacred name became more and more restricted.
[Shmuel] What is the Aramaic version or equivalent forthe fact that the Hebrew 'Yehoshua' starts with the first two
letters of the Sacred Name; dropping the 'h' made the connection
with the Divine Name less apparent. As time went on, use of the
Sacred name became more and more restricted.
the Hebrew name, Y'hoshua (Joshua)?
[Alwyn]
You find the name only once in an Aramaic passage in the Bible, and
that is in Ezra 5:2. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the
letters are the same, but the pointing is different in the
Masoretic text.
[Shmuel] In Ezra 5.2 we find that the Aramaic version of the namethat is in Ezra 5:2. As I mentioned in an earlier posting, the
letters are the same, but the pointing is different in the
Masoretic text.
is "Yeshua". And the vowel pointing of this name in Ezra 5.2 is
exactly the same as the pointing of the name found in the Hebrew
portions of Ezra [cf. 2.2,6,40; 3.9; 8.35].