Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please put comments about the name Jesus here in Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus.

Contents

[edit] Jesus is a Greek name, Not Hebrew

See Iasus a typical ancient Greek name, as also is Iason (Jason) and Iesous (Jesus) all very Greek names, all meaning the Healer from Iaso the Greek goddess of Healing, purely Greek and not Hebrew at all. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ιησούς didn't come from Ιασοώ. Ιασοώ and Ιησούς are false friends. The Latin is more reasonably close superficially (IESUS versus IASUS) but also too late and wrong etymologically. Ιησούς doesn't mean "healer." You live in Tampa Bay, Florida. Who are you to make up Ancient Greek false etymologies? Erudecorp ? * 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Iasus and Iesous are extremely close even in meaning the Healer, and Liddell and Scott page 816 confirms it. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Since you have a good source (Liddell and Scott) and everything else, feel free to add your information.
However, using the older etymology, the Hebrew too could mean "healer:"
Yeshua = shortened Yehowshuwa = Yehovah + Yasha "free," "safe," "saved," "healed," "savior," "healer."
They probably share the same root from the same language family, and maybe Iaso = Yasha. Then names derived from Iaso are common because Iaso simply means "healer," (or rather "recovery") and is a common word, not necessarily having anything to do with the goddess. Erudecorp ? * 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Liddell and Scott do not make any connection between the words Iasos and Iesous. The unregistered user is simply promoting a variation on his earlier argument that Iesous was etymologically related to Iaso. See the discussions from Talk:Jesus archived below, and those at Talk:Iaso. EALacey (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Liddell and Scott do give precisely Iesous as the Ionian genitive of Iaso. 72.186.213.96 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The words yasha "salvation" and iaso "recovery" do seem similar. Maybe they share a common ancestor (perhaps Egyptian or Semitic?). And are at least coincidental false friends. Is it worth looking up? I see what you mean about 72.186.213.96 repeatedly pushing the blatantly wrong, baseless conclusion that Jesus was Greek in a vain attempt to waste our time. Erudecorp ? * 05:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the integrity to say that early church fathers considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin: St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Cat., x, 13; P.G., XXXIII, 677). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (Paedag., III, xii; P.G., VIII, 677) Wikipedia should show this same integrity and include this in the introduction of the article on Jesus, with footnote reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia . Wikipedia should say that some church fathers considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin, not Hebrew.72.186.213.96 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia ignoring this ? 72.186.213.96 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeshua is english

Yeshua is english. Since there is no J in the hebrew alphabet his name is Yeshau and that is english. Yeshua is the english version of his real name. Yeshau is pronunced that way in ENGLISH!!!--The K.O. King (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeshua is transliterated Hebrew in English. "Jesus" is English, which in itself is ultimately etymologically derived from a transliteration of "Yeshua" into the Greek Iesous. In any case, it's irrelevant, because a name is no more "correct" in one language than in another; that is to say, calling Jesus by that name is no different than calling him Yeshua or Iesous- they are all just linguistic tags attached to a concept. Languages have their rules and forms, so to claim that the Hebrew form is the "official name" is a little half-baked. Juan and John, Pedro and Peter, James and Iago; these names all mean the same thing; neither is "more correct". "Jesus" is the proper and (certainly) the near-universal English name-form. According to Wikipedia rules, additionally, "Jesus" would be the proper usage. Did I miss your point? Does this pertain to a change you'd like to see in the article?--C.Logan (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the name of Jesus is the issue of the month. Most come with no sources for their claims or even ideas to contribute to the actual article.
Before posting I highly suggest anyone who wants to discuss their latest theory on the name of Jesus do so at Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament. Jstanierm (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know the English translation of Jeshua is Joshua. Jesus is the Roman translation of Iesous which in turn is the Greek for Jeshua. Jesus is the common English usage so by convention should be WP usage as well. This does not exclude mention in the article of the "controversies" over his name. Wayne (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Since his name is a word, it can go in the (currently tiny) Wiktionary:Jesus. Except, like Jstanierm mentioned, these people have no sources, no logical explanation for their objections, a very poor understanding of the languages, and don't make sense. We can't even add it as an alternative POV, because there's nothing to add. Sources (P.D.) that deal with his name can also go in Wikisource. There have been many objections about his name. Erudecorp ? * 17:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Name Is Not Jesus

You should change the name of this article from Jesus to Yeshua (Jesus). There is no J in the Hebrew alphabet therefore there is no way his name can be Jesus his name is Yeshua.--The K.O. King 13 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.130.114 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoth Wikipedia naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." That would be Jesus. - EronTalk 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh boy.--C.Logan 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see j, v and s. Your presumption of J is wrong. Jeshua and Jesus can be used rather than Yeshua: they are the same. He is called by many names. Please try to refrain from raising petty, unresolvable arguments on this already gigantic and controversial [1] talk page. Note that the "unspeakable" name of God is in his name, and that his name (perhaps) means "The Destroyer Rescues." Erudecorp ? * 03:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Origin of Name of Jesus

That the word Jesus (Iesous) is indeed first found in ancient Greek Mythology, derived from the Greek goddess of healing Iaso, this belongs in the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Jesus where the origin of the name Jesus is presented. (Source p.816 Liddell and Scott) 72.186.213.96 13:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR (WP:SYN), WP:UNDUE. The sources don't say what you want them to say, so please stop wasting everyone's time.--C.Logan 21:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Page 816 Liddell and Scott, there appears the word I-E-S-O-U-S. - And Note Iovis is also a genitive form that became a proper name. 72.186.213.96 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And yet again, the Lexicon does not support an etymological connection between the two in any manner. Please read the pg. 816 entry for "Iaso" and then read the pg. 824 entry for "Iesous". It does not connect the two in any form, as they are unrelated words which are simply spelled the same way. We've all tried to explain this to you many times; Jesus' name in Greek is the transliterated form of the Hebrew name "Joshua". The Lexicon says exactly this. Your consistent attempts to insert original research and unduly-weighted material into the encyclopedia will catch the attention of an administrator soon, so I suggest you move on and try to familiarize yourself with the rules so that you may contribute positively.--C.Logan 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Iesous was a pre-existing word first from ancient Greek Mythology, that was later on borrowed by those who translated the Septuagint to correspond or transliterate with the Aramaic name Joshua. - But it was first a Greek word.72.186.213.96 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me show you what is original research in your comment:

Jesus "Iesous" was a pre-existing word first from ancient Greek Mythology, that was later on borrowed by those who translated the Septuagint to correspond or "transliterate" with the Aramaic name Joshua. - But it was first a Greek word.

Everything which is bolded above is "original research", and you have no reliable source to support it. I'm hoping that this clarifies the problem with your proposed addition. That "Iaso" (in various forms) was a pre-existent name is verified by the sources. That "Iesous" is the transliterated from of the Hebrew word for "Joshua" is verified by the sources. The rest of it is simple original research, and in fact, Liddell and Scott and the Catholic Encyclopedia only help to refute your theory by emphasizing the factual etymology of Jesus' name.--C.Logan 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You are dead wrong. The words in the Liddell and Scott Lexicon are ancient Greek which pre-date even the Hebrews. Haven't you studied dating history ? Iesous comes from Greek Mythology, nothing is older. So in fact Iesous in Greek without question predates its far later Septuagint correspondance (transliteration) with Joshua. - FACT, not original research, a plain FACT. 72.186.213.96 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Iesous comes from Greek Mythology, nothing is older. Good heavens, you are deluded. And you don't know Greek. And you don't know how to read. And, you obviously have nothing better to do than to troll on this talk page. Get a life. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I don't think you get it. I'm not arguing whether or not the "Iaso"-derived name predates the transliterated from of "Joshua", because it does- I worry that you're simply attempting to obfuscate the issue. What you do not seem to understand is that this point is not relevant to the subject of etymological derivation.
That you argue that "Iesous" from "Iaso" is older than the transliterated "Iesous" from "Joshua" doesn't seem to make a difference, considering that these words are not etymologically related- and this is what I've been arguing. I say "the words are not etymologically related", and you say "one is older than the other"- yes, one is, but that doesn't do anything to help your theory. That false connection between facts is the "original research" to which I am referring, and it is a persistent problem here. On a side note, I can definitely emphathize with TCC.--C.Logan 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The actual original etymological origin of the word Iesous is given in Liddell and Scott p. 816, from Greek Mythology. - and they are the authorities. That is the first appearance of the word, not Hebrew but in Greek, it is of Greek origin, just like Clement and Cyril had said. 72.186.213.96 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it is given in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon on pg.824. They are indeed the authorities, and they state that "Iesous" derives from "Joshua". Again, the words are independent etymologically, and the sources reinforce this fact. Please cease making false connections.--C.Logan 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The word Iesous started from Iaso and was a thousand years later associated with Joshua, by Septuagint translators, but the word far predates the Hebrews. Etymology goes by the first appearance.72.186.213.96 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but I'm pretty sure that either 72.186.213.96 already gets it and is having fun at your expense, or he desperately doesn't want to understand what you're saying. You've explained your point very well. No one else here is in disagreement, as far as I can tell. I'd recommend that you stop discussing it with him. Just my 2 cents. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, I know. I'd already made a resolution to give up on this user; however, it seems utterly unbelievable to me that one person could persist down such a ridiculous path with such resolve. I myself recommended that we drop this discussion as well, but like Csernica, I was hoping that something might "click". It appears that I was mistaken.--C.Logan 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Clement and Cyril disagree and they know just a bit more than you - Iesous is indeed of Greek origin just like Clement and Cyril said. 72.186.213.96 02:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A common Greek name was Iesous in ancient times - it is not Hebrew at all - it was just a nearest sound-alike to Joshua. The definition of Etymology is the study of the origin of words and their changing usage in time. - the word Iesous first appears in Greek Mythology as a derivative of Iaso the healer. 72.186.213.96 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You said that already, and repeating it over and over again doesn't make it right. You've moved from "it's a form of a Greek name" to "it's a Greek name" to "it's a common Greek name". It was never anything of the kind, and you have not shown anything that says it is. See, you're the one making the claim. You're the one who has to prove your case. After all this typing, you should start doing that at some point, if it's at all possible.
Interesting what one finds when one tracks down citations. You're wrong when you say that Clement and Cyril said the name was of Greek origin. The Catholic Encyclopedia says they said that. But when I look up their citations, I found it was wrong, or at best a very strange reading. Cyril of Jerusalem says nothing of the kind. First he glosses "Jesus" as "savior" based on the Hebrew. Then -- now mind you, this is in one of his catechetical lectures, so it was for the purposes of instruction -- he glosses "Jesus" as "healer" in Greek. He's not declaring one or the other to be the "origin" of the name -- although, since he records it first in the discussion of the Hebrew with reference to Moses' successor, essentially crediting Moses for introducing it, on balance he appears to have believed it came from the Hebrew. His interpretation via Greek is nothing more than a pedagogical device to talk about Jesus role as healer. See [1] at 12, 13. The cite from Clement is utterly opaque; if he said it at all it was the barest allusion. In any event, what do you say about John Chrysostom, Philo, and Eusebius, all of whom affirm the name's Hebrew origin? Were they wrong just because you disagree with them? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia is far more expert than you. Also, Josephus said Iesous was a common Greek name. Look in index in Josephus' books it is there. 72.186.213.96 04:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, I'm perfectly capable of reading for myself. Of course "Yeshua" (Gr: Iesous) was a common name in 1st century Judaea; that's well-known. Josephus never once said it was a Greek name; you're making that up. And what about the majority witness of other sources cited in the CE that say it's Hebrew? TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't you call me a liar - You do as I say - Go get Josephus and look in the index you will find it, look up Iesous-Jesus. 72.186.213.96 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I did look it up. Josephus mentions people named "Jesus/Iesous" numerous times. At no point does Josephus ever say it was a Greek name. He mentions no one by that name who is not a Jew. If I'm wrong, point to a specific counterexample. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jesus was not a Jew, he was a Galilean not a Judaean, that is why the Jews killed him. Iaso was not a Jew she was Greek, and Iesous is a variant of her name, a Greek name. Many Galileans had the name Iesous, and Galilee was Gentile, Galil ha Goyim. - Clement and Cyril said Iesous was a name of Greek origin, they knew, they were there. 72.186.213.96 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course the Galileans weren't Greek. They were Celts. We know this because "Galilee" sounds a bit like like "Gallic" and because Hitler said so! Paul B 10:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Another descent into the depths of ridiculousness. I think that we can all generally agree that this user is a troll, and nothing will come of further discussion. I feel very sorry for this user, because the problematic methods of thought that he or she uses will only create problems or lead him or her to poor conclusions. If the user had open ears (and ironically, an open mind), I would be willing to continue in this discussion. Csernica is one of the most informed users on the subject that I happen to know on Wikipedia, and if this user continues to ignore even his explanations, there appears to be little else we can do.--C.Logan 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has been trolling this topic for a few days. It's been suggested no one respond to his 'arguments' and he'll go away. The article is not going to be changed to support his views.Jstanierm 05:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants to can delete the foregoing. I'd been watching this for a few days, but in the end couldn't resist the temptation to try to get a different reaction out of him. Disappointing, really. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll consider it. If any established editor has an objection to this, I would prefer they make a note of it. If not, I'm going to remove this wasted space from the talk page, as it's essentially a whole load of circular arguments that haven't gone anywhere, and will likely never go anywhere. If nothing else, I will transfer it to my user space so that one may be able to note the responses to the trolling if the user continues to try to make his case.--C.Logan 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Just think for a moment - Doesn't Iesous sound more like Iaso, than to Yehoshuhova garbage ? 72.186.213.96 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"Iesous" sounds nearly as close to "Yeshua" as it does to "Iaso"- and considering the fact that you're essentially saying "Does the Greek form of a name sound more like Greek names or Hebrew names?", your argument is lame. Note, again, that I have already explained how "Yeshua" transliterates into "Iesous", noting Greek phonetic limitations.--C.Logan 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For anyone watching this discussion, the same nonsense is being pursued over at Iaso, which can be edited by IP users. See also the "discussion" at Talk:Iaso. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have been. It's the next stop on my watchlist, in fact.--C.Logan 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
FACT: Ieso sounds much more like Iesous, than does Y'hoshua. Also, is no coincidence that Iaso is the Healer, same as Jesus. 72.186.213.96 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of religious websites, over a hundred, that discuss the connection of the name Jesus with Iaso. Search Iaso Iesous and you will see them all. So don't bury your head in the sand, and Blavatsky is hardly the only source for this, there are over a hundred sites presenting it. Also, Liddell and Scott are prefectly clear p.816 the entry Iaso-Ieso that the genitive meaning of Ieso is exactly Iesous I-E-S-O-U-S. On p.824 Liddell and Scott point out that the name was later used for Jesus (New Testament) or Joshua (Septuagint). but the word first appears meaning of Iaso the healer. 72.186.213.96 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 72.186.213.96 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A sign warning not to "feed the trolls".
A sign warning not to "feed the trolls".

Slrubenstein | Talk 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Encyclopedia says Jesus is Greek Name

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the name Jesus says that church fathers (Clement and Cyril) considered Jesus to be a name of Greek origin, not Hebrew. For balance Wikipedia should also include this fact in the first paragraph of the article here on Jesus where the origin of the name Jesus is treated. 72.186.213.96 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point, this could be deleted as trolling. However, I will remind you that WP:UNDUE does not allow this, and your interpretation of the sources is utterly flawed. You can click the link and read the policy yourself, but given your own misreading of the sources in the matter, I dread how you might interpret this policy as well. As it stands, I will no longer be replying to you, for the reasons listed in the section above.--C.Logan 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Catholic Encyclopedia trumps you anytime. 72.186.213.96 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The rest of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the majority of scholarship trumps you anytime. But if you wish to continue to argue your case, I suggest heading over to Etymology of the name "Jesus" instead. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Cyril and Clement belong where Wikipedia discusses the origin of the name Jesus and that place is precisely in the first paragraph of Wikipedia'a article on Jesus. 72.186.213.96 03:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
and I will remind both of you about WP:CIVILBalloonman 04:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Greek Origin of Name of Jesus. Erudecorp ? * 08:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' name Iesous is from Iaso

See Wikipedia entry for Greek goddess Iaso, which is the true origin of the name Iesous. - Iesous means healer in Greek Mythology. - This should be in the article as the real origin of the name Jesus, not Yeshu which is just a sound-alike name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.213.96 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The pet theories of anonymous users are always something special to read- this user is making his or her ignorance on the subject quite apparent here. If you don't understand the concept of transliteration, you shouldn't be doing any original research concerning name "origins"- or possibly, you should be more suspicious of what you hear on the internet.
Quite simply, Yeshu transliterates into Iesou; it is the closest possible pronunciation in Greek (which does not have a "sh", although the normal "s" sound is pronounced between "s" and "sh"). There are at least 3 other individuals in the Bible whose names have been transliterated identically (that is, Yehshua to Iesous).
I'm always puzzled by the forced theories presented in the matter of Jesus' name origins- it's as simple as can be, and yet people complicate it with nonsense etymologies that pander to their views of Christianity in general.--C.Logan 12:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Jesus is Iesous from Iaso - you can read it for yourself on page 816 of the Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language by Liddell and Scott, their entry for the goddess Iaso. - this is an authoritive source and it belongs in Wikipedia's article on Jesus, it should be in the first paragraph where the name's origin is presented. 72.186.213.96 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the citation you're referencing is claimed by Blavatsky, who is the only author who seems to make this connection- and reading her writings on the subject make her bias and forced interpretation quite clear. That Iaso and related names were common in Greek is not up for debate, as this was this case; however, because two names sound alike does not mean that one is derived from the other, or even etymologically related (and there are several English names that can attest to this fact).
However, it is quite clear to anyone who is not attempting to force an interpretation of etymologies that the name Iesous is a transliteration; Blavatsky and other esoteric writers support the "Iaso" connection because of their support of gnosticism/theosophy-related theories. Blavatsky's interpretation seems to erode once one realizes that Iesous had been the transliteration of the Yeshu root even before Christ- the Septuagint translation transliterates this name form as such.
I strongly doubt that the Jewish translators of the Septuagint had the interest of transliterating a common Hebrew name in a form influenced by a Greek goddess- it's simply how the name transliterates, period. Note Thayer and Smith's entry in the New Testament Greek Lexicon (excerpted here). Additionally, the Online Etymology Dictionary reinforces, again, that the form "Iesous" is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic forms. As it stands, I'm considering that WP:UNDUE grates against this suggestion quite a bit; though one of the sub-pages may be more appropriate for this information (I suppose).--C.Logan 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The Septuagint is indeed where the names Joshua and Iesous became confused, as simply sound-alikes. They had no other Greek name that sounded as close to Joshua, but they are still simply sound-alikes. The fact remains, according to the authoritive scholars Liddell and Scott, that Iesous is a Greek name, meaning healer, straight from ancient Greek Mythology. This belongs in Wikipedia's article on Jesus in the first paragraph where the origin of the name Jesus is presented. 72.186.213.96 20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE indeed. The reference could be used in the Theosophy article, but not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why hide it ? It belongs here. Tell the truth here. 72.186.213.96 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As you're making an agenda clear, your neutrality in the matter is quite questionable.--C.Logan 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You are the one pushing an agenda. You are probably a Bible thumper who insists Yeshu is Jesus when in fact they are just sound-alikes. 72.186.213.96 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
One should be concerned about the theories they espouse when they are supported by none but the more extreme devotees of gnosticism and theosophy (and, I might note, extreme Messianics who support only the Hebrew name). Your continued insistence on this forced interpretation spells great trouble for your ability to apply scrutiny in what you agree with. I don't rule out any possibilities, of course, because that would be rather close-minded. However, I see absolutely no support for this point outside of the aforementioned circles (and, I might note, I've caught such writers directly mis-reading sources before- something which makes me more cautious about these statements).
Again, your statement denotes that you are forcibly pushing an agenda, which is, of course, against policy. Regardless of my own bias, which is made clear on my user page, I am following Wikipedia policy in explaining WP:UNDUE, as well as pointing out your flawed interpretation of the sources, and the unreliability of other, related sources.
Interestingly, you're claiming that "Yeshu" and "Jesus" are sound-alikes, while I'm arguing the exact same thing (hence, transliteration). The two names that bear no relation beyond surface similarities are, in fact, Iesous (of Ieso/Iaso) and Iesous (transliteration of Yeshua).--C.Logan 01:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Septuagint is indeed where the names Joshua and Iesous became confused, as simply sound-alikes.
Do you... not understand the concept of transliteration? These names are phonetic imitations of names in one language in another language. It flabbergasts me that you would suggest that the Jewish, Greek-speaking translators confused the names. Names are almost never translated in meaning, but are simply transliterated. (Comment continued below.)
Correct, Yeshu and Iesous are just imitations, they are not really the same at all. 72.186.213.96 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I truly fear that you still do not understand what a transliteration is, and now you are resorting to childish argumentation, and you are making yourself look stupid.--C.Logan 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
They had no other Greek name that sounded as close to Joshua, but they are still simply sound-alikes.
What?
The fact remains, according to the authoritive scholars Liddell and Scott, that Iesous is a Greek name, meaning healer, straight from ancient Greek Mythology. This belongs in Wikipedia's article on Jesus in the first paragraph where the origin of the name Jesus is presented.
Unfortunately, it is not Liddell and Scott making this connection, but Madam Blavatsky. The Lexicon itself makes absolutely no connection between the words, and simply lists Ίησούς (on pg. 824) as meaning "Joshua", i.e. it is a transliteration from the Hebrew/Aramaic name (through Yeshua). Any actual connection between the two words is manufactured by those willing to force interpretations; in this case, Blavatsky. Therefore, we have an extreme, minority theory being presented by a biased author who is no specialist in the Greek language; as far as my familiarity with WP:UNDUE extends, this doesn't warrant coverage in the article at all, much less in the first paragraph.--C.Logan 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Forget Blavatsky, It is right there in black and white in Liddell and Scott. 72.186.213.96 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. What you are doing is called "original research", and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Hey, believe in it if you want, but your pet theories are not allowed here. I possess Liddell and Scott's lexicon, and I can assure you that it makes absolutely no relation between the words- you are the one doing that. That is not suitable for Wikipedia, but I'm certain you can start a Livejournal or a Geocities page if you want people to hear your argument.--C.Logan 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be inserted at the end of the article's first paragraph like this: According to the Lexicon of the Greek Language of Liddell and Scott, page 816, the ancient Greek name Iesous is related to the name of the Greek goddess of healing Iaso from Greek Mythology. 72.186.213.96 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LSJ state that the genitive of the Ionic spelling of Ἰᾱσώ is Ἰησοῦς. This means only that one inflected form of Iaso is spelt the same as a different inflected form of Jesus. To use an English analogy, the third-person singular of the verb "mar" is spelt the same as the name of the god Mars. A dictionary entry for "mar" might note that an inflected form was "mars", but this would not mean that the editors thought the word had any etymological connection to the name of the god. EALacey 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're comparing apples with oranges. Iesous is the genitive form of Iaso, meaning of Iaso, analogous to names like Johnson or Davidson. It is essentially still the same name. 72.186.213.96 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you again neglect the fact that this is a transliteration that pre-dates Christ. The Septuagint transliterates instances of the same name in the same fashion (primarily because this is the closest transliterated form); therefore, I don't know how you're arguing this. Greek allows a certain number of spellings, and the fact that the transliterated form in one case takes a form identical to a particular spelling of a name in another case does not mean that one name is derived from the other, or that they are even related etymologically. It is a forced interpretation, which has not been presented by any reliable sources.--C.Logan 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Here I agree, Yeshu and Iesous are not related at all, they are simply sound-alikes. But Iesous is in fact related to Iaso, both are directly from the Greek verb iasthai meaning to heal. 72.186.213.96 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to get the feeling that I'm just reinforcing the same points again and again, and you are ignoring them all the same. Iesous is a transliteration of Yeshua (Joshua). The sources that you are citing state this quite clearly. What they do not state is any etymological relationship between the two words, but despite this fact, you continue to parrot the same arguments, even when they've already found a response. This to me, seems to be trollage.--C.Logan 01:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As I've explained above, the Lexicon does not say this at all. EALacey provides a relevant example that helps to explain the fallacy given here; Blavatsky is hardly reliable enough for such a claim, and the sort of connection this anon is pushing is clear original research. Thank you for elaborating.--C.Logan 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Both names Iesous and Iaso are related to the Greek verb iasthai meaning to heal, so they are both closely related to each other. Also Iason (Jason) means the healer, they are all equivalent derivative names. 72.186.213.96 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you're talking about two different names. Iesous is the Ionic genitive form of Iaso, which is related to iasthai. The other, more famous Iesous is the nominative form of the Greek transliteration of "Joshua", from the Hebrew/Aramaic "Yeshua/Jeshua". This is a very simple transliteration, with the only notable differences being the "sh", which is a specific sound not present in Greek (the standard sigma possesses a sound which is between the "s" and "sh" sounds in English), and the final sigma is a standard final letter in Greek names (if you didn't know this, I'd be worried). They are spelled the same and pronounced the same, but they are unrelated otherwise. It would be like claiming that an individual's name which would be transliterated as "Cat" shares the same etymology as the word "Cat"- it is certainly not the case.--C.Logan 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The genitive form becomes a nominative form in usage, as in English names like Davidson or Johnson. The name Iesous without question is related to the name Iaso, and so is Iason (Jason, the healer also). All are from the Greek verb iasthai to heal, according to the authoritive Catholic Encyclopedia. 72.186.213.96 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The genitive form becomes a nominative form in usage, as in English names like Davidson or Johnson.
First of all, this point is irrelevant to my comment above (though I suppose it is partly in response to EALacey as well. Additionally, I'm not an expert here, but I don't think that Davidson or Johnson is the genitive form of David or John, but is a compounding of two words (e.g. David's son). The genitive form would be a general name form to indicate "from", and as far as I know, this is not really applicable with these English names.
The name Iesous without question is related to the name Iaso, and so is Iason (Jason, the healer also).
Again, these are two words, with different etymologies. Your statement is true of the Greek name derived from "Iaso", but not of the transliterated from of "Yeshua".
All are from the Greek verb iasthai to heal, according to the authoritive Catholic Encyclopedia.
Again, it seems, you are misreading the source in your favor. To excerpt the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." [...] During the Hellenizing period, Jason, a purely Greek analogon of Jesus, appears to have been adopted by many. The Greek name [referring to "Jason" here, not "Jesus"- note the context] is connected with verb iasthai, to heal; it is therefore, not surprising that some of the Greek Fathers allied the word Jesus with same root. Though about the time of Christ the name Jesus appears to have been fairly common it was imposed on our Lord by God's express order, to foreshow that the Child was destined to "save his people from their sins."

- You cut off the next sentence ! The Catholic Encyclopedia there continues that Iesous is of Greek origin. Why did you cut that off ! 72.186.213.96 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I cut it off because the penultimate sentence of what I quoted says the exact same thing that the text illustrates: it is therefore, not surprising that some of the Greek Fathers allied the word Jesus with same root. I had a terrible sinking feeling that you would misread this as well, but for the sake of it, it shall be quoted:

Philo is therefore, right when he explains Iesous as meaning soteria kyrion; Eusebius gives the meaning Theou soterion; while St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter . This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin ; St. Chrysostom emphasizes again the Hebrew derivation of the word and its meaning soter, thus agreeing with the exegesis of the angel speaking to St. Joseph (Matthew 1:21).

None of this makes the etymological connection you are assuming, as Clement and Cyril simply assume the name is of Greek origin. Additionally, all of these fathers agree on the general meaning of the name as being based in the word from which it was transliterated- the Hebrew form of "Joshua", which means "YHWH saves"/"YHWH is salvation". Understanding that this exactly what those Greek phrases mean, I don't see where the confusion is in the matter- again, you are reading the sources for what the do not say to make things in your favor.--C.Logan 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Both Clement and Cyril considered the word Iesous as of Greek origin it says. Clear enough. 72.186.213.96 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are making a false connection. First and foremost, the fact that two Church Fathers presumed the name Iesous to be of Greek origin does not mean that they presumed the same connection which you continuously espouse; that is, that they presumed Iaso to be the origin, and the name to be pagan is not established in any form.
That they may have considered iasthai to be the origin of the words is more plausible, but somewhat perplexing, as it notes that Cyril denotes the name as meaning "saviour"- a meaning derived from the root name of "Yeshua". Regardless of this fact, however, the article itself makes it clear that the words are similar in form, and it is a natural course of thought to compare the two terms (and even to erroneously assign the etymology to a Greek name origin).
Again, keep in mind that the article reinforces, quite clearly, what is the "correct" etymology (several times throughout the text). The text says, to simplify it: "This is X, which derives from Z. There is also Y. Many people reinforced that X derives from Z, but a few people thought it could be related to Y. However, other people reminded these people that X derives from Z, because it does". The article tells you X is true, but some people have thought otherwise, and their thoughts were erroneous. I think that one could fill in the variables there, and the illogic of your continued claim of "the Catholic Encyclopedia supports me" would become very clear.
In summary: no, it isn't "clear enough"- not for a skeptical, rational mind, and certainly not for Wikipedia's policies. The only relevant page that I could see for this information would be the Iaso article, and even then, the sources should be verified against the possibility of original research, which at this time, I'm rather tired of seeing.--C.Logan 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
As it should be clear, the source you've attempted to cite makes no such etymological connection, and continues to reinforce what we already know- it is a transliteration of "Yeshua" which possesses the same spelling (of a particular variant). A comparison between these two names is inevitable, of course, but they are not etymologically related, and it is erroneous to consider them as such.--C.Logan 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All three, Iaso, Iason, and Iesous, are related to each other and all three to the Greek verb iasthai. That is what the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly is saying if you look at the rest of the paragraph that you curiously omitted, and Liddell and Scott also directly ties Iaso to Iesous. 72.186.213.96 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this direct trolling? How can you honestly delude yourself or lie outright like you're doing here? The Catholic Encyclopedia can only be warped to your argument if you ignore the context, and Liddell and Scott make absolutely no connection between these words, and I've shown you this several times. You're only fooling yourself, because both of these sources are widely accessible, and therefore anyone can check the sources to see that you are incorrect- you are simply making up original research on the spot, and it isn't even well supported. I should ignore you entirely for the above statement, because it's clear that you won't even attempt to have an honest discussion on the matter.--C.Logan 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Liddell and Scott are perfectly clear Iaso..Iesous, put on your reading glasses. 72.186.213.96 03:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
They are clear on the fact that the word Iaso/Ieso has a genitive form of "Iesous", and they are clear that there is an unrelated name "Iesous" which is derived from the transliteration of the Hebrew from of "Joshua". Please stop making false connections.--C.Logan 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I see here that I am dealing with a fundamentalist religious fanatic. Iesous is Iesous, I-E-S-O-U-S. What do you want ? Liddell and Scott to stand on their heads ? 72.186.213.96 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I see here that I am dealing with some sort of alternative thinker that rejects the entire body of scholarship on the matter, forces interpretations of sources, and completely ignores any points brought against his or her own personal pet theory, content to parrot the same thing over and over again.
Do I have to explain transliteration and its tendencies in Greek yet again? Do I have to remind you that there is no given connection between these two words because of their separate etymologies? Do I have to remind you of the simple example which I'd provided, and the more sophisticated example which EALacey had provided, which demonstrated the illogic in assuming that the similarity between two words is a guarantee of a related etymology? Do I need to remind you that the very same source which you continue to erroneously claim supports this claimed connection states, quite clearly, nothing to establish a relationship, even distant, between these two words? Do I need to walk you through the context and tone of the Catholic Encyclopedia yet again? All you have is a word that is spelled like another.
Your unbelievable assumption that a source like Liddell and Scott would not mention a relation to this word in the Iesous entry simply reinforces the fact that you are stretching things to your own flavor, and it seems to be the breaking point of your efforts. The entry says, with absolute clarity, that Iesous is a transliteration of "Joshua" on page 824. There is no mention of the other name; these two names are not, not related. Is it natural to suspect that they could be? Perhaps, but to continue to deny the actual etymology of the word in the face of blatant evidence is either stubbornness or stupidity.
Your entire argument goes like this "I saw a word, and when said in a particular way it looks like another word, so they must be related". It's a simple conclusion, but it's incorrect. Therefore, I've spent all this time trying to explain things to you, but you appear to be throwing it back at me. If you think I'm a fundamentalist, then you are severely mistaken, and it appears that you are trying to discredit what I'm showing you by creating a caricature of an opponent in your mind- I'm afraid that no one else is convinced of your ad hominem misrepresentation. I can play the same game, but it's easier to just show you what the very sources you cite actually say.
I can only continue to explain a page's worth of text for so long before it just becomes a burning cycle. If you choose to continuously ignore what I'm telling you, then so be it. However, I don't think that anyone besides yourself is going to continue this argument if you don't start participating like a reasonable human being, and cease trolling with the same rephrased statements. I've been told that I spend too much time arguing with trolls; I'm wondering if it's about time I took some advice and ignored them. If the discussion continues in this manner, I may be able to to make it my first step towards a brighter future.--C.Logan 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Clement and Cyril said it, Iesous is a Greek origin word. Are they both original researchers ? Are they nuts ? Or legitimate sources ? 72.186.213.96 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
They were both in error with their assumption, and the reliable source you continue to cite makes this rather clear. I've tried to demonstrate, with variables, how your usage of this source despite this simple fact doesn't make much sense. I don't really want to have to construct an actual analogy to demonstrate this.--C.Logan 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have studied ancient Greek for four years at a private, accredited, secular, research university. I say this not to boast but to prevent ad hominem attacks against me since I doubt you have can claim to have been better educated on the subject, IP 72.186.213.96.

1. Your claims constitute original research and as such do 'not' belong on wikipedia. This is irregardless of whether your views are correct or not.

2. Your claims are not correct. C.Logan has been very clear, and several analogies have been presented. You have said that the genitive may be used as a nominative. This is false. It may be used as a subject of a sentence, but you conflate your terminology. Davidson and Johnson are not genitives. English has no cases.

You're making illogical conclusions based on faulty assumptions. I will give you another example to demonstrate your reasoning.

The English 'pan' is phonetically equal to a certain grammatical form of a Greek word. Therefore, the words are the same in regards to etymology. (pan = all, everything)

The Hebrew word 'Yeshua' when transliterated to 'Iesous' is phonetically equal to a certain grammatical form of a Greek word. Therefore, the words are the same in regards to etymology.

You must assume that for two things to be etymologically similar then being phonetically equal is a sufficient condition.

Logically, if you believe this: IF (two things are phonetically equal) THEN (those words are etymologically related) then you must believe IF (those words are not etymologically related) THEN (those two things are not phonetically equal) That is a basic rule of logic called modus tollens.

You can see the absurdity. Many words are related linguistically, but they need not be completely phonetically similar.Jstanierm 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I admire your effort Logan, but this type of difficulty borders on behavior similar to a troll. I concurr with your final analysis and I think it best to move on after having exerted so much effort to facilitate understanding. It is admirable to assist those seeking understanding, something lacking in this instance; however, when one does not seek understanding and only antagonizes or refuses to listen to reason, the conclusion is that a discussion is not taking place, just a useless conversation with a wall of unreason, which is an unprofitable use of your time. Let's move on to the next topic. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeshu is just a sound-alike. Iesous has nothing to do with Yeshu other than they are sound-alikes. Same as Fred and afraid, just mere sound-alikes. Iesous is a purely Greek word meaning healer.72.186.213.96 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, the Greek word for healer is 'iatros' not 'iesous' Jstanierm 05:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Iatros means Doctor in modern Greek, from Iaso, Iesous, healers. Yeshu has nothing to do with them, Yeshu is just a sound-alike. 72.186.213.96 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely correct except 'iatros' meant healer/doctor in ancient Greek also. Yeshua has no etymological relation to the Greek verb to heal. It is, however, phonetically identical to a certain form of a related word when it is transliterated as 'iesous.' 'Yeshua' is transliterated as 'iesous'.Jstanierm 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeshua is just a mere transliteration, with no meaning, just a sound-alike. Because Iesous has nothing to do with Yeshu. Iesous is rooted in Greek Mythology and is in no way Semitic. 72.186.213.96 05:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Greek is not a Semitic language, so citing the word "Iesous" as "in no way Semitic" is obvious. However, the word from which it is transliterated is Semitic. Simple concept.--C.Logan 06:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not sure where you come from if you pronounce "Fred" like "afraid". I think Jstanierm's explanation of the logical fallacy in your supposition of a relationship of these two words is rather excellent. Additionally, that Yeshu and Iesous sound alike is the point- one is a transliteration of the other. That's the entire point. Transliteration is taking the sounds of a word in one language and imitating the sounds to the closest possible approximation in another language.
This is what one does with names in one language when attempting to bring them into another language- we do not translate the meaning. It's like you're arguing the Bat Ye'or's pseudonym originates from the word used to describe the flying mammal- it doesn't; it is a transliteration of the Hebrew word (which sounds the same, obviously) which means "daughter". Welcome to the world of transliteration: we do not call her "Daughter", but "Bat", the transliterated form of the name in the original language. A simple example, but I think it's a relevant one (especially considering the language involved). The names Iesous and Yeshu are related- through transliteration.--C.Logan
Because 'iesous' is a transliteration of 'yeshua' does not necessarily mean it is devoid of meaning. The word 'rendez-vouz' is French, and when transliterated to English as 'rendezvous' retains a very similar meaning.Jstanierm 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Because rendez-vous is precisely rendez-vous, but Iesous is in no way Yeshu, they just vaguely sound alike. Like Cat and Kate. 72.186.213.96 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
English uses the (mostly) same alphabet as French, and as a word partly rooted in French origins, does not have much difficulty transliterating words from that language (or any language, really, with some exceptions- ask someone who speaks a non-Romance language). Additionally, this is equally as valid a transliteration as Iesous is to Yeshu. The dividing factor is that Yeshu is a name, and I am unaware of many cases where names are translated rather than transliterated between languages. Therefore, rendezvous retains a meaning because it is a word, not a name. The reason why this word was transliterated seems clear, as the concept had no equivalent in English. Many new words are transliterated into English because of this.--C.Logan 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Very rarely are words translitered and retain their exact phonetic structure. Languages are often unable to incorporate phonemes from other languages. For instance, 'assassin' is a direct transliteration of the Arabic 'hashashim'. The word is a transliteration and means the same thing despite only vaguely sounding alike.Jstanierm 05:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My friend you are talking of something completely different, where a word is directly borrowed, is not comparable whatsoever here. 72.186.213.96 05:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
When a word is "directly borrowed", it is "transliterated". I think this is what you may not understand. Every other instance is of translation, but when the sound and spelling of a word is attempted in proximation to the word's original form, it is transliteration. As I've explained, names are almost never translated, but are transliterated. Their "meaning" extends as far as the meaning of the word of origin. Hence, Iesous means Yeshua/Joshua which means "God is salvation"/"God saves".--C.Logan 06:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
QUOTED:"Iesous is in no way Yeshu, they just vaguely sound alike."72.186.213.96 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What you have argued is:
PREMISE 1 :IF (two words are not exactly the same in every respect) THEN (there can be no relationship in regards to transliteration between them)
I reduced your argument ad absurdam since the logical conclusion is:
DEDUCTION 1 by modus tollens: IF (there can be a relationship in regards between two words) THEN (those words must be exactly the same in every respect)
ABSURDITY: There is a relationship in regards to transliteration between two words (assasin/hashashim) therefore they are exactly the same in every respect. We must also assume assassin/hashashim are not the same in every respect. Jstanierm 06:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Since your previous argument is absurd we can postulate a relation in regards to transliteration between 'yeshua' and 'iesous' despite the fact that they are not exactly the same vis a vis the 'rendezvous' example.Jstanierm 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Bible thumpers cannot face facts. Tranliteration is guessing at a word, a construction, while simply and directly borrowing a word like rendez-vous is a completely different animal. 72.186.213.96 12:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be inserted into Wikipedia's Jesus article right in the first paragraph, that Cyril and Clement both considered the word Iesous to be of Greek origin, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, and also should be quoted Liddell and Scott their page 816. 72.186.213.96 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE = No it shouldn't. Additionally, exactly "what" their origin theory was isn't clear at all, so you'd essentially be producing more original research (as you connect these concepts erroneously). Your treatment of Liddell and Scott is also clear original research (specifically synthesis)- using the pg. 824 entry for "Iesous", however, is not. I think you can take a guess at what that entry says.--C.Logan 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It says on p.824 once again precisely Iesous. NOTE also that genitive forms are in all languages used as names, look at Charles de Gaulle, or Valery D'Estaing, Ludvig Van Beethoven, Romanov, Da Vinci, Johannson, etc, these names are all actually genitive forms. There is no reason to censure Clement and Cyril, the Catholic Encyclopedia is precise. 72.186.213.96 12:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Genitive forms are not used as separate names in Greek, any more than "of Iaso" could be used as a name in English. EALacey 12:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Even in modern Greek, names are very commonly formed with genitive endings like -akis or -poulos, etc. 72.186.213.96 12:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Those are not genitives. They are suffixes which can be added to a root to form a new nominative. What you are suggesting is that the genitive of one noun can function as the nominative of a new noun, which is plainly nonsense and will be recognised as such by anyone with the slightest knowledge of Greek grammar, which is why you have been unable to cite any reliable source in support of your position. EALacey 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
They are genitive suffixes. They become new nominatives. Just like Iesous. ps. Just as a side note, interestingly Jason that could well be a genitive as well, we know Iason is indeed also related to Iaso. 12:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please cite a source for your statement that -akis and -poulos are genitive suffixes. In any case, even if genitives can become nominatives of new nouns in modern Greek, that certainly isn't how derived names are formed in the ancient language. For example, the names Dionusios and Apollonios are derived from Dionusos and Apollon but are not based on the genitives (if they were we would have people called "Dionusou" and "Apollonos"). EALacey 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it has been done since cave man days, all over the world, perfectly natural thing to do. Iesous is perfect example, from ancient Greek. 72.186.213.96 13:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Even in Latin, Iovis is actually a genitive form of a name. 72.186.213.96 15:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I will make two, and only two, comments on this matter.

1) 'Iovis', although indeed a genitive, is not in fact the basis of any nominative form of a name. In fact, the reverse is true: 'Iuppiter' is actually (more or less) a concretion of 'Iou' and 'Pater' - meaning "Iou the Father", "Iou" being etymologically related to the Latin "deus" or Greek "theos". "Iovis" is the genitive of "Iou". 2) As regards your side note, claiming that 'Iason' "could well be a genitive," I have studied Indo-European linguistics and am aware of no Indo-European noun system which would allow a genitive singular ending in 'n'. MatthewDBA 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Iovis is genitive but it has become fully nominative as a proper name. As for Iason being possibly genitive, you weren't aware of Iesous either now were you. 72.186.213.96 20:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a balanced presentation of the origin of the name Iesous, why cannot Wikipedia do the same ? The Catholic Encyclopedia cites Cyril and Clement, Wikipedia should not hide it. - and page 816 of Liddell and Scott is equally important. 72.186.213.96 13:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you cease arguing. You betray your ignorance on the subject. Your claims have no basis. Your have only one citation, which you read incorrectly and infer to mean something it doesn't. You obviously do not know what the word transliteration means. You obviously do not know what the word genitive means. Charles de Gaulle, Valery D'Estaing, Ludvig Van Beethoven, Romanov, Da Vinci, Johannson, etc... are not genitives. You are wrong. You are being illogical. You are not listening to other editors' requests for citations. Wikipedia works by consensus, and there is clear consensus on this issue. Your claims will not be included into the article. That is all there is to it. Jstanierm 20:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You know not of what you speak. Romanov is absolutely a genitive, don't you know that ? And so is Iovis and all the other examples. Go educate yourself and look them up. You are just a bigoted Bible banger who denies reality. 72.186.213.96 21:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that any and all responses to this troll cease completely. Every single misinterpreted point, when responded to, is cast aside by this user and replaced with another misinterpreted point or a completely irrelevant one.

That this user doesn't understand Wikipedia policy is not so troubling, as we're all new at some point. That this user is not willing to listen in regards to that subject by experienced editors is quite troubling. Of course, the most deeply disturbing thing about this discussion is the fact that I am getting an up-close and personal view as to how the minds of biased researchers, conspiracy theorists and historical revisionists actually operate.

I used to be shocked at the ignorance of Greek exhibited in the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of John 1:1. This discussion has brought me to new levels of consternation concerning the gullibility and lack of comprehension of many human beings out there. It's absurd that individuals can read a track or read biased books and then presume that they know subjects and languages more than individuals who have spent years studying this subject.

This user completely ignores logic, and will continue to do so. This user misinterprets sources completely, and will continue to do so. This user refuses to face the fact on his or her errors, and refuses to accept an expert refutation- this will continue as well. This user believes that he or she is right, and that no one else can possibly understand things as well as he or she does. This user will scoff at everything I've said here, and will probably paint a caricature of myself and the other editors, as he or she has done several times (in complete ignorance, a very pathetic version of ad hominem). This user commits the most fundamental error of research: forming sources around a conclusion, rather than founding a conclusion based on sources.

The complete stubbornness, ignorance and absence of rational thinking exhibited by this user is stifling- he or she likes to paint a picture of his or her opponents by the caricature of ignorant "Bible thumpers", when in reality the most ignorant individual in the discussion is, in fact, the user themself (a very sad irony). I think it's fairly clear that this user will continue to live in a happy little place in which he or she is convinced that their method of research is even remotely sensible. God forbid if research is an element of his or her real-life occupation, if this discussion is any good representation.

Judging by this user's furious perserverence into new, almost frightening depths of ignorance, I see no real solution to knock this user back into sensible shape. Ignoring evidence, misinterpreting every reliable source on the matter, ignoring policy, defying logic, and trolling the talk page? I think it's time to give up. As an experienced editor, I can say that this user will never be able to make a NPOV contribution. As a rational human being, I fear that this person may never crawl out of this intellectual quicksand. This will be my last post in this section, as everything that can be said has been said many, many times. Please, ignore this user.--C.Logan 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good glad you are gone. You just ramble on and on and never address the facts. 72.186.213.96 22:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew translation

I question the translation of the Hebrew, Yehoshua, as Ya is salvation. In his new translation of Psalms, noted Bible scholar Robert Alter translates Yehoshua as God is Victorious or God Rescues. In a recent review of the book, literary critic James Wood notes that in the Hebrew Bible there is no notion of "salvation" in the Christian sense. I have no doubt that Christians view Jesus as their savior. But I am highly skeptical of anachronistic translations. Could we say, that the Hebrew means something like, "God rescues" but is conventionally glossed by Christians as "God is salvation?" That seems more NPOV to me (and more informative). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No comments after a few days, I made the change. Another conventional translation of the root in question is "deliver" but I prefer "rescue" lest people think God is in the pizza business. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the change, but I also don't think it's necessary for the reasons you have claimed it is. The phrase 'God rescues' and 'God is salvation' are semantically identical. Rescuer/savior is one who rescues/saves. These words mean the same thing as deliverer when a deliverer delivers from harm. The Hebrews very clearly would have had an idea of God rescuing/delivering/saving from something. That the Christians decided God rescues from death is incidental.Jstanierm 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you do not objct. I disagree with you that "rescues" and "saves" are semantically identical. Be that as it may, I am trying to comply with the spirit of NOR - it i not my poiint of view, but the point of view of established scholars, that led me to make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The History of the Name “JESUS”

This article looks good and has sources for it's claims. Wayne (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)