- then why isn’t every instance of “Joshua” in the Bible translated the same way?
We got Jesus in English by way of Greek. And Joshua in English by way of Hebrew.
And one (of a few that I recall but can’t find) earlier thread on the topic.
“Joshua” is from the Old Testament, which was mostly written in Hebrew. “Jesus” is from the New Testament, written in Greek. “Joshua” is the English version of the Hebrew name. “Jesus” is the English version of the Greek version of the Hebrew name.
I think Jesus may actually be the English version of the Latin version of the Greek version of the Hebrew name, which is variously given as Yeshua ( יֵשׁוּעַ ) or Yehoshua ( יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ).
I’m not sure he even existed honestly, the evidence is surprisingly weak.
While these are variations on the same name, Joshua from the Old Testament is, as I understand it, usually the latter, while Jesus (really Iesous) is the Greek form of the former (or possibly of another variant, Yeshu).
“surprisingly?”.
I can agree that evidence of his existence is weak (as is evidence of the vast majority of individual people living during that time). But I would question why you would say “surprisingly”.
What is surprising about it?
You should open a thread to explore this novel and surprising notion.
Do you really think people might have anything to contribute to a thread based on that unique idea?
Wait, wasn’t he supposed to be named - Nathanel?
(Or sumfink like dat- my Hebrew/Aramaic ain’t all that great)
Moderator Note
There are several other threads where his existence is questioned or debated. Let’s not hijack this thread.
Even if he were totally fictional, it would still be a valid question.
Immanuel.
Matthew 1:22–23 -
Yeah, that’s right.* Immanue*l it should be.
That was His middle name, but “Jesus I. Christ!” doesn’t really flow.
Jesus F. Christ better?
Nope. H. for Howard. As in Howard Be Thy Name.
Nah, the H stands for “haploid”.
Ay, but thy King won’t come…on Earth, as it isn’t Heaven.
He’s from Bethlehem, you know.