Talk:Isa (name)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article title

Having a main article and disambig page called the same title with only captialisation difference seems confusing, so will do the following:

1. Move Isa to Isa (name) (retaining history)
2. Change the Redirect in Isa to point to ISA
3. Add Isa (name) to the disambig list there.
4. Go through the links to Isa to retarget any that are incorrect. (<200, mostly on talk pages)

That would result in both "Isa" and "ISA" search terms going to the disambig page at ISA which I think would be the expected result for most people due to the large amount of meanings of "isa". Even though step 4 will take a while, it needs to be done at the moment anyway, as many of them should be retargeted to Islamic_view_of_Jesus as a specific person called Isa and not the generic name, which this article is. Regards, MartinRe 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

All article links now corrected, there weren't as many as I thought as most were referenced through one template. I have left talk and user pages unchanged, as I dislike editing other people comments, even if it for a minor change as disambiguation. Regards, MartinRe 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lisan al-Arab the recognized expert lexicon of the Arabic language only has Isa as an Arabic word; "Yasu" is not even defined in as an Arabic word in that main lexicon of the Arabic language. [1]. Also the Qur'anic manuscripts with Isa come before (Topkapi manuscript among others [2] that are confirmed to be from the 8th century CE. The oldest Arabic translation of any Christian work is the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 dated to 867 CE in the 9th century CE. Bible translations into ArabicHistorylover4 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating yourself. Anyway, it's "Bible translations into Arabic", and it's hard to believe that the Christian community of Najran didn't have some form of written literature (though in a dialect quite different from the Arabic of the Hijaz). Not that any of this has much to do with عيسى vs. يسوع... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest text of Christian document in Arabic is from 867 CE.Historylover4 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isa not Yeshua

Isa is not the translational equivalent to the Hebrew or Aramaic name of Jesus, at least this fact is not agreed upon. At best, Isa is one translation. --Ephilei 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Why would the Arabs translate the original name to Esa???? Arabic and Ancient Hebrew are sister Semitic ;languages. Arabic is very comfortable with using Y in the beginning of words ( Atrabic actually uss more Y in beginning of words than hebrew) so they can easily pronounce Yeshua just like they pronounce Yeshua the name of ( Joshua son of Nun) the first man with that name . Arabs do not name Joshua ( Yeshua) as Esa so why would they do that the the second Yeshua ( ie Jesus) unless if the theory of Jesus comees from Yeshua of Yehushua is counterfeit.

However Esa is the word where the name Yeshua ( Joshua) are reversed, jews used to do these thing just like arabs but Esa have a new meaning than Joshua . Esa means ( the one of the herd ie the one who owns the herd and herd it ( not exactly shepard). -- 06:27, 5 May 2007 63.226.128.37

The Christian rendering is يسوع Yasū‘ while the Muslim rendering is عيسى `Īsā -- the placement of the `Ayn consonant in the latter form is actually much more in need of explanation than the disappearance of the "y", and a number of theories have been developed... AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

---

The Christian rendering is post Islam as the oldest copies of any New Testament documented translated into the Arabic language comes over two centuries after the advent of Islam. And the Arab Christians who use "Yasu" are simply transliterating the questionable word Yeshu that some say the Jews made as a curse acronym Yemach Shmo w'Zikro ימח שמו וזכרו in regards to Jesus (such as the Jewish "Toledot Yeshu"). Also there is a big question regarding the name Yeshua compared to the different translation of Jeshua or even Jeshuah used in Hebrew not Aramaic portions of the Old Testament 1 Chronicles 24:11, 2 Chronicles 31:15, Ezra 2:6, Ezra 2:36, Ezra 2:40, Ezra 8:33, Nehemiah 3:19, Nehemiah 7:11, Nehemiah 7:39, and Nehemiah 7:43 Jeshua Historylover4 (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there may have been some pre-Islamic Christian writings in Yemen (though very few people ever saw them, and they would have been in a very different form of Arabic than spoken in the Hejaz). In any case, there were Arabic-speaking Christians in the 6th-century, and they needed to refer to Jesus by name -- they certainly didn't wait until Arabic New Testament translations existed to refer to Jesus by name. The س in يسوع indicates a rather early borrowing from Hebrew/Aramaic into Arabic (certainly before the 9th-century A.D., when Hebrew/Aramaic ש was now borrowed into Arabic as ش not س). And Arabic يسوع is not borrowed from ישו, because ישו doesn't have a pharyngeal ayn/ayin/ע/ع consonant. Frankly, "Yeshu" was a Jewish-internal word, which very few Christians would have heard until late medieval times (when Christian scholars started taking an interest in the Hebrew language). Also, "Jeshua" vs. "Yeshua" is merely a meaningless transcription difference, since "Jeshua" follows the old traditional rules for Biblical names in English, while "Yeshua" is a more modern transcription which more closely reflects the original Hebrew prnonunciation. "Jeshuah" for ישוע is complete nonsense, since the pharyngeal ayn/ayin/ע/ع consonant is not an "h" and is never confused with "h" in Biblical Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest existing copy of any Christian text translated into Arabic is from 867 CE, and what "might have" been is not important. Similar claims are made by people who claim the Qur'an was influenced by "Jewish sources" when in many cases said Jewish sources have no complete manuscripts until centuries after Islam (like the Babylonian Talmud which doesn't have a complete manuscript that still exists today until 1123 CE).Historylover4 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dude, there were Arabic-speaking Christians in 600 A.D. (the most famous being the Ghassanids), and do you think that they had no form of the name of Jesus in their language, and instead coughed or grunted or sneezed to refer to Jesus?? The س in يسوع is a strong indication that this word did not originate in 867 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest manuscripts of Christian text in Arabic are centuries post-Islam (specifically the earliest being from 867 CE). Scholar Sidney Griffith writes; "All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged. Furthermore, even if some unambiguous evidence of it should turn up as a result of more recent investigations, it is clear that after the Islamic conquest of the territories of the oriental patriarchates, and once Arabic has become the official and de facto public language of the caliphate, the church faced a much different pastoral problem than was the case with the earlier missions among the pre-Islamic Arabs"Historylover4 (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Yasuʿ was the original Arabic rendering before Islam since we have record of several Arab Christians named so. Some examples are the Banu ʿAbd Yasuʿ (Sons of the Servants of Jesus), who were pre Islamic Christians of Najran. We also know that the head of Taghlib during the early Umayyad period was called ʿAbd Yasuʿ bin Harb (عبد يسوع بن حرب) and was born during the lifetime of Muhammad. I'm also not sure where Historylover4 came up with the date 867 A.D. since there were many Christian polemics written in Arabic well before this time. We have the apologetic letters of Abu Raita (b. late 8th) in which he calls himself ʿAbd Yasuʿ al-Masih (Servant of Yasuʿ the Christ).

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the name Isa was either transmitted to Muhammad via the Jews of Yathrib who likened Jesus to Esau. Or it was derived from Syriac and modified to be harmonised with Musa.--Rafy talk 16:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is always doubt about such things. The early Qur'anic manuscripts provide good evidence for the use of `Isa (did this issue come up in the early Christian polemics?), as does the monastery mentioned in EQ. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of Historylover4 are drawn from modern Muslim apologetic arguments which claim the the name ʿIsa is more faithful to the original form than Yasuʿ, and that the latter was introduced to Arabic much later. The EQ concludes that most of those arguments are "indecisive" and some "unsound".(V. 3 pp. 10).--Rafy talk 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was making two points and both should probably be mentioned in the article (assuming they are true): 1) The earliest extant Arabic manuscripts that refer to Jesus use `Isa. 2) The early Christian polemics against Islam and the Qur'an did not complain about this usage. If the second point is true, then it is safe to assume that the early Christians either did not use Yesoo` as often (or in the same sense) as `Isa or thought `Isa to be equally correct. Also, it is worth considering how at least one other Biblical/Qur'anic figure (Jacob) has a second name (Isreal) which carries additional religious nuances. And just to clarify, the conclusion you quoted from EQ is not relevant to the `Isaniyya monastery argument. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

1) Arab Christians knew Yasuʿ long before ʿIsa, this is evident from several pre-Islamic personal names as I mentioned earlier. 2) Christian Polemics did not complain about the use of ʿIsa by their Muslim counterparts but they never adopted it. The name Yasuʿ appears in several Christian writings from the early centuries of Islam, some examples are Abu Raita, Abu Qurra (pp. 33, 55, 68...), Bar Bahlul and others. On the other hand we have NO RECORD of Christians refering to Jesus as ʿIsa, a name that have not appeared before the Quran. I cannot see how can you make such an assumption otherwise.--Rafy talk 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The pre-Islamic usage of `Isa is still an open question (given also the `Isaniyya monastery argument). Thus we can't be sure about your claim that "Arab Christians knew Yasuʿ long before ʿIsa", as it's still possible for both words to co-exist. Furthermore, your other point about Arab Christians never referring to Jesus as `Isa doesn't seem to be accurate. For instance, in the link you provided, Timothy I in his debate with al-Mahdi used Yasu` and `Isa interchangeably (e.g., p.133). The paper then concludes that These are clear examples indicating that Qur’ānic and Islamic terminology, specifically regarding Christians and Christian concepts, were being used by Arabic speaking Christians at that time., and The Arabic version of the debate indicates that, by the first half of the 9th century, there existed a normative use of the vocabulary of Qur’ān in the writings of Arabic speaking Christians. In any case, the paper also concludes that this debate was originally written in Syriac (so a Syriac influence and later modifications is implied). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the early Islamic works of history (like that of Ibn al-Kalbi) needs to be examined more critically (using critical editions). Recently, the use of Yesu` as found in some works turned out to be just a corruption/typo of Yeshu` (See [3]). Also such works have often been accused of forging stories and poems. Incidentally, it is also possible to find the name `Isa used by Arab Christians and Hanifs contemporary to the Prophet Muhammad. One example is a poem by Umayya ibn Abi al-Salt mentioned by Ibn Muṭahhir. But these references, once examined carefully, are usually discredited or considered to have been themselves influenced by the Qur'an (just like the writings of the later Arab Christians mentioned above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Turning of Shin to Sin is a very common feature of Semitic languages and is often found in Arabic cognates of Aramaic and Hebrew words so it can't be called a corruption. The Timothy-Mahdi debate is written specifically to appeal to both Muslims and Christians through the use of Islamic and Quranic vocabulary, This is stated in page 5 "The translator of the Arabic text uses the Islamic and Qur’ānic name عيسى for Jesus, instead of using the Arabic name يسوع , which is a direct reflection of the Syriac name ܥܘܫܝ.".--Rafy talk 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Hebrew/Aramaic ש = Arabic س correspondence is very common in early loanwords into Arabic, and fits with the pattern that both the Arabic letters س and ش derive from the Aramaic letter ש (no Arabic letter derives from Aramaic ס). Look at the different Abjad orders to see how there's a ש = س correspondence in the probably chronologically earlier ordering. In any case, this issue is exactly the same for يسوع and عيسى... AnonMoos (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again scholar Sidney H. Griffith; "All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged. Furthermore, even if some unambiguous evidence of it should turn up as a result of more recent investigations, it is clear that after the Islamic conquest of the territories of the oriental patriarchates, and once Arabic has become the official and de facto public language of the caliphate, the church faced a much different pastoral problem than was the case with the earlier missions among the pre-Islamic Arabs." The Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 from 867 CE is the oldest existing Christian document in Arabic. The sources you cite such as "Abu Raita" and others are later and from the times of the Umayyads and Abbasids and don't have any manuscripts from even their lifetimes but from later manuscripts in Aleppo going up till the 18th century CE. So what their "original" contains is completely unknown. Same with your linking to different websites, of later sources.Historylover4 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The oldest firmly dated text of any Christian work in Arabic is confirmed to be from 867 CE. Sidney Griffith writes; "The oldest known, dated manuscripts containing Arabic translations of the New Testament are in the collections of St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. Sinai Arabic MS 151 contains an Arabic version of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles. It is the oldest dated New Testament manuscripts. The colophon of this MS informs us that one Bisr Ibn as-Sirri made the translation from Syriac in Damascus during Ramadan of the Higrah year 253, i.e., 867 AD." As for the source you bring [4] It mentions this on the "authority" of Hisham al-Kalbi who is from the 8th century and post-Islam (what is the oldest existent copy of his work Jamharat al-Nasab) and also Lisan al-Arab is the main lexicon of the Arabic language. Again the oldest firmly dated Christian documents in Arabic is the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex from 867 CE and Sidney Griffith also writes; "All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged. Furthermore, even if some unambiguous evidence of it should turn up as a result of more recent investigations, it is clear that after the Islamic conquest of the territories of the oriental patriarchates, and once Arabic has become the official and de facto public language of the caliphate, the church faced a much different pastoral problem than was the case with the earlier missions among the pre-Islamic Arabs".

Griffith is talking about Bible translations in Arabic. Most Arab Christians were illiterate nomads who had no use for books and their lack of recorded literature doesn't mean that they didn't use the name Yasuʿ.--Rafy talk 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again 867 CE is what Griffith says is the oldest firmly dated Christian text in Arabic, thus no manuscripts exist before this. And as for the Arabic language again Oliver Leaman Ph. D. from Cambridge University notes; "The Qur’an is the oldest book in the Arabic language-system and even today is regarded as the final authority regarding diction, morphology, syntax, grammar, and rhetoric in Arabic."Historylover4 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the name Isa, the Nestorian Christian Isa Kelemechi had it and this article itself notes: "One explanation given is that in ancient Mesopotamia divine names were written in one way and pronounced in another. Thus it is possible for borrowed words to have their consonants reversed. Another explanation is that Muhammad adopted Isa from the polemical Jewish form Esau. However, there is no evidence that the Jews have ever used Esau to refer to Jesus, and if Muhammad had unwittingly adopted a pejorative form his many Christian acquaintances would have corrected him. A third explanation is that the Qur'an used this form to assimilate Jesus's name with Moses, or Mūsā. A fourth explanation is that prior to the rise of Islam, Christian Arabs had already adopted this form from Syriac, and Arabic often adds an initial ʿayn to words borrowed from Aramic and Syriac. While there is no irrefutable evidence that ʿĪsā was in use prior to Islam, there may have been a monastery named ʿĪsāniyya in Syria as early as 571 CE."Historylover4 (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isa Kelemechi was born more than 500 years after the rise of Islam. His name gives no indication of the origin of "ʿIsa". As a matter of fact Christians were known do adopt Arabic and Islamic names since the 9th century. A fact noted by al-Jahiz in one of his polemic letters.

The Encyclopaedia of Quran mentions that there may have been a monastery in Syria named Isaniya. The EQ furthermore concludes that there is "no irrefutable evidence on the usage of the name Isa in pre Islamic times".--Rafy talk 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isa Kelemechi lived with the Mongols (Yuan dynasty) and was hostile to Muslims, there is no evidence he took the name from Muslims.Historylover4 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And [5] says Abu Raita lived under the Abbasids no more info is given on him; and it mentions "new" Abbasid policies, which would imply this was not at the start of the Abbasid's rule. And again Sidney Griffith makes a point of noting the oldest still existent translation of any Christian text into Arabic is from 867 CE the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151. Also any existent work of "Abu Raita" would have to have actual existent manuscripts that can be firmly dated and not later manuscripts.

[6] this link when discussing Abu Raita's work lists most of the existent manuscripts as being from Aleppo, Syria and dating between the 14th and 18th centuries CE.Historylover4 (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I cant see the passage you're pointing at. Even if we conceive that the oldest manuscripts date to the 18th century this doesn't mean that they were not written by Abu Raita, anyway no specialist has claimed so AFAIK.--Rafy talk 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

They would be later writings, the source you provided on Abu Raita lists every different book as "probably written between such and such date" and then mentions manuscripts most are MS Aleppo (or MS Cairo) and again date between the 14th and 18th centuries CE; that would mean whatever writings this figure would be open to editing and have a very late text.Historylover4 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And no source is provided for the claim the head of the Taghlib's was "Abd al-Yasu bin Harb" in the time of the Umayyads. And again the scholar Sidney Griffith notes; "The oldest known, dated manuscripts containing Arabic translations of the New Testament are in the collections of St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. Sinai Arabic MS 151 contains an Arabic version of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles. It is the oldest dated New Testament manuscripts. The colophon of this MS informs us that one Bisr Ibn as-Sirri made the translation from Syriac in Damascus during Ramadan of the Higrah year 253, i.e., 867 AD."Historylover4 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some references on Abd Yasu: [7][8][9]. Again the lack of Arabic translations of the Bible doesn't proof anything.--Rafy talk 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[10] has both names listed, when is this text from (as "Abu Raita" works often say manuscript "14th century MS Aleppo" or 18th century CE, etc meaning they had to be rewritten by later copyists)? Same for the other site you link to. There clearly later writings of different scholars. Also again as I said scholar Sidney H. Griffith [11] said about the oldest existing Biblical translation into Arabic (whichever canon that be from the different Syriac, or the main Greek manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) is from 867 CE. "All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged" So if there were Christians speaking the Hijazi version of Arabic, we don't have any texts from them. As for the Arabic language (Lisan al-Arab), scholar Oliver Leaman (Ph. D from Cambridge University) notes; "The Qur’an is the oldest book in the Arabic language-system and even today is regarded as the final authority regarding diction, morphology, syntax, grammar, and rhetoric in Arabic."Historylover4 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The year 867 A.D. may or may not have any relevance to Arabic Bible translations, but it really does not represent the origin, or anything close to the origin, of the word يسوع. If people who have more knowledge in relevant areas than you do are aware that mainstream scholarship does not support restricting يسوع to the period after 867 A.D., then it's really quite pointless for you to repetitively chant "867 A.D., 867 A.D., 867 A.D." as your monotonous mantra, because it really proves nothing, and it definitely doesn't do anything to constructively advance the cause of article improvement... AnonMoos (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

islamport does indeed mention a certain Abu ʿIsa al-Qaisi but it is clear from the context that he is a Muslim Muhaddith or Nassab etc. My point is that there are several attested occurrences of the name Yasuʿ in pre Islamic Arabia and not a single ʿIsa is to be found before the Quran.--Rafy talk 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the EQ mentioning of an Isaniyya monastery in 571 CE in Syria (which one can debate), the things you are citing are later works and people like "Abu Raita" (himself from the Abbasid era) which even the books your citing mention a period of time he "may have written such and such in" followed by "MS Aleppo 14th century", "MS Cairo 14th century" (going to the 18th century CE, so this would imply this is the oldest manuscripts). And again as academic Sidney H. Griffith mentioned; "The oldest known, dated manuscripts containing Arabic translations of the New Testament are in the collections of St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. Sinai Arabic MS 151 contains an Arabic version of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles. It is the oldest dated New Testament manuscripts. The colophon of this MS informs us that one Bisr Ibn as-Sirri made the translation from Syriac in Damascus during Ramadan of the Higrah year 253, i.e., 867 AD." There is not a record of Christian writings in Arabic, the majority of Christians (would be in places like today's Iraq and not the Hejaz) who are today Arabized (like the rest of Levantine people) would speak some form of Aramaic as their main language; as again Griffith notes; "All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged."

And as for the Arabic language itself, Oliver Leaman (Ph. D. Cambridge University) again notes; [12]

"The Qur’an is the oldest book in the Arabic language-system and even today is regarded as the final authority regarding diction, morphology, syntax, grammar, and rhetoric in Arabic"

As for Lisan al-Arab the two following entry results from this lexicon may be of note;

"ويَسُوعُ اسم من أَسماء الجاهلية"

And on the name Isa (putting aside the reported Isaniyya monastery from 571 CE in Syria) from Lisan al-Arab

"وعِيسَى اسم المسيح، صلوات اللَّه على نبينا وعليه وسلم؛ قال سيبويه: عيسى فِعْلَى، وليست أَلفه للتأْنِيث إِنما هو أَعجمي ولو كانت للتأْنيث لم ينصرف في النكرة وهو ينصرف فيها، قال: أَخبرني بذلك من أَثِق به، يعني بصَرْفِه في النكرة، والنسب إِليه عِيْسِيٌّ، هذا قول ابن سيده، وقال الجوهري: عِيسى اسم عِبْرانيّ أَو سُرياني، والجمع العِيسَوْن، بفتح السين، وقال غيره: العِيسُون، بضم السين، لأَن الياء زائدة (* قوله «لأن الياء زائدة» أطلق عليها ياء باعتبار أنها تقلب ياء عند الإمالة، وكذا يقال فيما بعده.)، قال الجوهري: وتقول مررت بالعِيسَيْنَ ورأَيت العِيسَيْنَ، قال: وأَجاز الكوفيون ضم السين قبل الواو وكسرها قبل الياء، ولم يجزه البَصريون وقالوا: لأَن الأَلف لما سقطت لاجتماع الساكنين وجَب أَن تبقى السين مفتوحة على ما كانت عليه، سواء كانت الأَلف أَصلية أَو غير أَصلية، وكان الكسائي يَفْرق بينهما ويفتح في الأَصلية فيقول مُعْطَوْنَ، ويضم في غير الأَصلية فيقول عِيسُون، وكذلك القول في مُوسَى، والنسبةُ إِليهما عِيسَويّ ومُوسَويّ، بقلب الياء واواً، كما قلت في مَرْمًى مَرْمَوِيّ، وإِن شئت حذفت الياء فقلت عِيسِيّ وموسِيّ، بكسر السين، كما قلت مَرْميّ ومَلْهيّ؛ قال الأَزهري: كأَن أَصل الحرف من العَيَس، قال: وإِذا استعملت الفعل منه قلت عَيِس يَعْيَس أَو عاس يَعِيس، قال: وعِيسى شبه قِعْلى، قال الزجاج: عيسى اسم عَجَمِيّ عُدِلَّ عن لفظ الأَعجمية إِلى هذا البناء وهو غير مصروف في المعرفة لاجتماع العُجمة والتعريف فيه، ومَنال اشتقاقه من كلام العرب أَن عيسى فِعْلى فالأَلف تصلُح أَن تكون للتأْنيث فلا ينصرف في معرفة ولا نكرة، ويكون اشتقاقه من شيئين: أَحدهما العَيَس، والآخر من العَوْس، وهو السِّياسة، فانقلبت الواو ياء لانكسار ما قبلها، فأَما اسم نبيّ اللَّه فعدول عن إِيسُوع، كذا يقول أَهل السريانية، قال الكسائي: وإِذا نسبت إِلى موسى وعيسى وما أَشبهها مما فيه الياء زائدة قلت مُوسِيّ وعيسيّ، بكسر السين وتشديد الياء. وقال أَبو عبيدة: أَعْيَس الزرعُ إِعْياساً إِذا لم يكن فيه رطب، وأَخْلَس إِذا كان فيه رَطْب ويابِس."Historylover4 (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And the source provided on "Abu Raita", from google books only mentions manuscripts from between the 14th century CE to the 18th century CE held in Aleppo and then an undated manuscript/s held in Cairo (MS Cairo) as Raita was from Iraq (al-Takriti) for even his original work which given what even the link you cited provides is not the case, to make its way to Egypt would have taken time and with the manuscripts around it all being from relatively modern copies it follows these would be to (but as it is they are undated). And the same follows for the undated later works of Hisham al-Kalbi were manuscript evidences have not been provided.

Regarding Islamic writings; some of those at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem at the end of the 7th century CE. 691 CE that have Qur'anic verses mentioning Jesus as Isa on the artistic calligraphy on the Dome of the Rock [13] by Estelle Whelan [14]Historylover4 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you're the one who's so insistent on the momentous significance of the earliest preserved manuscript/inscription, you should know that the Dome of the Rock inscriptions contain many variations of wording and small discrepancies from the wording found in the corresponding verses in Qur'an manuscripts. Tell me, are the Dome of the Rock inscriptions wrong, or are the Qur'an manuscripts wrong? The Dome of the Rock inscriptions actually pre-date almost all known Qur'an manuscripts... AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The "variants" are all completely accepted within Islamic tradition; unlike the Greek Bible (when Jesus spoke Aramaic, and not Greek or Hebrew, which hasn't for centuries had even an agreed upon codified "pronunciation style" of any kind (scholarly consensus "Yemenite pronunciation is probably 'closest' to Ancient Hebrew"); "Because approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament have been identified, textual criticism became a necessity. As Professor Metzger put it, “The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another."Historylover4 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have here a book authored by top researchers on the subject with a very extensive coverage of his Risala. The authors no where question the authenticity of this work. They even note some grammatical mistakes common among first generation Syriac speakers who wrote in Classical Arabic (p. 33).

I take it that the author of Lisan al Arab identified Yasuʿ as a pre-Islamic name. The second entry on ʿIsa is useful but it contains much folk etymologies.--Rafy talk 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lisan al-Arab is recognized as the most authoritative lexicon of the Arabic language along with the Qur'an being the basis "diction, morphology, syntax, grammar, and rhetoric in Arabic", Oliver Leaman Ph. D. Cambridge University UK "The Qur'an" [15]Historylover4 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the work you cite, again they all reference manuscripts in Aleppo from the 14th century CE to the 18th century CE, and some undated manuscripts in Cairo (that are not even where the individual in question lived). And noting "grammar mistakes" doesn't replace an authentic original manuscript not being in existence (again you don't even touch on the MS Aleppo Codex, etc listed with all the sources you provide).Historylover4 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The first extract from Lisan al-Arab suggests that Yesu` was a name used in the Jahiliyyah (without linking it in anyway to Jesus). The longer extract presents a number of theories about the origin of `Isa (presenting various Arabic inflections; theories that suggest it was a foreign name, i.e., Aʿjamī or Syriac; and a reference to it being a modification of ʾĪsūʿ qualified by "as the Syriac people claim"; etc). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

aissa

in the maghreb (morocco, algeria, tunisia), isa is rendered aïssa (the first a indicates the ayin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.51.169 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lisan al-Arab by ibn Manzur

Lisan al-Arab the recognized expert lexicon of the Arabic language only has Isa as an Arabic word; "Yasu" is not even defined in as an Arabic word in that main lexicon of the Arabic language (as its clearly a transliteration of a Hebrew word, which evidence shows a historical Jesus would likely not have spoken Hebrew only Aramaic [16] work of John P. Meier "A Marginal Jew". Also the Qur'anic manuscripts with Isa come before the oldest existing Arabic translations of a Christian text still existent' on Qur'anic manuscripts the Topkapi manuscript and others [17] that are confirmed to be from the 8th century CE. The oldest confirmed Arabic translation of any Christian work is the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 dated to 867 CE in the 9th century CE. Bible translations into ArabicHistorylover4 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew vs. Aramaic really doesn't make any difference, because the name ישוע occurs in both in the Hebrew portion of the Bible (at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15) and the Aramaic portion of the Bible (at Ezra 5:2), and would have been pronounced the same in the Hebrew and Western Aramaic spoken in the first century A.D. -- i.e. as Yēšūʕ (the "a" vowel came later). AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Lisan al-Arab the lexicon of the Arabic language? Hebrew was a dead language at the point, and a historical Jesus would likely not have spoken any Hebrew as scholar John P. Meier showed by the very existence of the Targums. And not to go into the English spelling Jeshua. Historylover4 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As I told you before, a clear implication of the New Testament is that Jesus knew at least enough Hebrew to read an (unpointed) Isaiah scroll aloud to the synagogue congregation at Nazareth (Luke 4:17). If any written targums existed in 30 A.D. (a rather unclear point), they were rough informal local working documents without official religious status, and certainly did not take the place of Torah scrolls in public synagogue ceremonial! In 30 A.D., the Jewish nation was renowned for the number of men who were scholars of Jewish religion and Jewish law, and it was hardly possible to be taken seriously by other scholars of Jewish religion and Jewish law unless you could read Hebrew... AnonMoos (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside that there's no evidence for Nazareth existing as a city before the 4th century CE [18], first "Hebrew suffered a great decline in popular use after the Babylonian exile and the return of Jews to Palestine. Increasingly Aramaic, the lingua franca of the ancient Near East from the neo-Assyrian and Persian periods onward, made inroads among ordinary Jews resettled in Israel." and scholar John P. Meier notes in his book "A Marginal Jew" [19]

"What elementary education did exist was carried out within the family, and most often it simply involved instruction in a given craft by the father." (page 273) Meier writes: 'Hence, despite inflated claims from some modern authors, we are not to imagine that every Jewish male in Palestine learned to read - and women were rarely given the opportunity. Literacy, while greatly desirable, was not an absolute necessity for the ordinary life of the ordinary Jew. Indeed, the very existence of Aramaic targums (translations) of the Hebrew Scriptures argues that a good number of ordinary Jews present in the synagogue could not understand Hebrew even when it was spoken, to say nothing of an ability to read or write it. Jewish peasants who never learned to read or write could still assimilate and practice their religion through family traditions in the home, the reading of the Scriptures in the synagogue (with accompanying Aramaic translations), and the homily that preceded or followed the reading. These living traditions of the community would have been the matrix of Jesus' religious life and thought, as they were for most Palestinian Jews at the time. Taken by themselves, therefore, such influences as reverence for the Torah and respect for literacy do not prove that Jesus was counted among those Jews who could read and study the Scriptures; they simply show what might have been." (page 275-276)

So far, the results have been unpromising, as neither the most relevant biblical citation nor common Jewish practices do much support the idea that Jesus was literate. But Meier argues that the debates of Jesus over the Scripture in the synagogues and other details suggest that Jesus had the ability to read the sacred Hebrew texts. However, this 'indirect argument' can be doubted, not least because the scriptural background "could have been conveyed by word-of-mouth catechesis and memorization."

W. V. Harris in Ancient Literacy estimates less than 10% of the Roman Empire under the principate to be literate, with that number falling as low as 3% in Roman Palestine (see also M. Bar-Ilan, 'Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries CE', in S. Fishbane and S. Schoenfeld, Essays in the Sociel Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society, pages 46-61). Since we do not have any clear reliable tradition in the Gospels, a positive judgment cannot be made here, especially in light of the fact that illiteracy was widespread in the ancient world."Historylover4 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- you're good at rooting around in semi-random books to find quotes, but if you don't understand the context of the quotes, then it's quite unlikely that you'll be able to make any good use of them to support your arguments. Semi-random quote retrieval really will not take the place of actually knowing something about ancient Hebrew, and Jewish or Christian scriptures -- there's no way of making yourself an "instant expert" without first putting in the necessary hard work... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm quoting John P. Meier a respected scholar, who was showing any use of Hebrew and general literacy at the period in question was extremely low and thus most average people would not be able to even understand any spoken Hebrew much less be able to read it (when scholar of "Ancient Literacy" notes Roman Palestine's literacy rate was 3% or lower in the period in question). And then what you advanced as "evidence" was about "this happened in the Bible in Nazareth" when Nazareth didn't even exist until the 4th century CE and even Meier says what you mentioned was "an indirect argument" that "can be doubted, not least because the scriptural background 'could have been conveyed by word-of-mouth catechesis and memorization.'". And as for "ancient Hebrew" you mean the Leningrad Codex and Masoretic tradition (and the Greek Septuagint and other finds [[20]]) there isn't even any agreement on what "Ancient Hebrew" would've sounded like and Yemenite, Ashkenazi, and different pronunciation styles are debated (most scholars saying the Yemenite pronunciation was probably closest) not to even get into the fact of texts with no vowels that have to be added later and the whole issue of the Samaritan text and in modern times the neologisms and further developments after Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. Also take your tone somewhere else I didn't speak with a tone to you; and your not a scholar John P. Meier the person you tried to "insult" however is.Historylover4 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, you would probably have somewhat justified feelings of disdain towards someone who pretended to be an "expert" on the Qur'an based solely on searching Christoph Luxenberg's books in Google Books without actually knowing any Arabic -- so why shouldn't the same conclusion apply to you, when you try to claim to be an "expert" on the ancient Bible without actually knowing any Hebrew or Greek?? I know quite a bit more about Biblical Hebrew and the reconstruction of its pronunciation than you do, so I find it rather difficult to take very seriously the results of your somewhat clumsy and awkward Google searching.

By the way, did you know that ئ and ؤ exist solely and exclusively because the early editors of the Qur'an wanted to use a pronunciation of Arabic which they thought was more correct than Muhammad's pronunciation of Arabic? If you think that Muhammad is a true prophet, then you should be agitating to abolish the insult to Muhammad which is represented by ئ and ؤ!!! ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Your not a scholar. I posted scholars like John P. Meier [21] and William V. Harris, actual accomplished scholars as they are, about the debate about if and to what level Hebrew was used or spoken at all especially among the common masses in 1st century CE Palestine versus Aramaic. And again nobody was rude to you at any point. And on the Qur'an; I quoted already Oliver Leaman Ph. D. from Cambridge University; "The Qur’an is the oldest book in the Arabic language-system and even today is regarded as the final authority regarding diction, morphology, syntax, grammar, and rhetoric in Arabic. ... From a linguistic point of view, the Qur’an was the most important event in the history of the Arabic language."[22] And as for say Biblical Hebrew, I simply stated one point about the pronunciation style being heavily disagreed upon even for what would be "Ancient Hebrew" with most scholars saying Yemenite pronunciation is likely closet as even wikipedia articles on the subject discuss. And its none of your business how many years of Arabic, Hebrew, and Greek studies I've taken, nobody here is a published scholar; except for your rude attacks against others saying you know better than even scholars quoted. I posted links to scholars I was quoting [23]Historylover4 (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I actually am somewhat of a scholar, within a certain narrow range of subject matter -- though such matters are actually not too generally relevant to Wikipedia talk page discussions (at least I certainly know when to use an apostrophe in "your"[sic]!). In any case, regardless of any formal credentials which I may or may not have, I definitely know one hell of a lot more than you do about Biblical Hebrew -- and therefore I am not too impressed by the results of your semi-random Google searching. I'm not actually impugning the sources which you've dug up -- I'm impugning your methodology in finding and using such sources in an area which you know very little about, and the inadequacy of your attempts to make yourself some kind of supposed "instant expert" by means of such faulty methods. Very little of what you say in your "instant Bible expert" mode is worthy of much serious consideration or response, but suffice it to say that any uncertainties in the reconstruction of the First Century A.D. pronunciation of the name ישוע (uncertainties which are rather less severe than you seem to suppose) have no ascertainable impact whatever on the matter of يسوع vs. عيسى ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Persian

Does anyone have links on the Nestorians using the name Isa as they are associated with Persia (and Farsi); and for example the Nestorian Christian Isa Kelemechi (who was not on good terms with Muslims) and worked for the Mongols used the name Isa.Historylover4 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If they did, it probably came through Syriac, not Arabic... AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isa Kelemechi seems relevant here and should be mentioned. AnonMoos, why do you keep removing his name? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Because all of User:Historylover4's edits to the article so far have had far more negative than positive features, so I reverted them as a unit. If it's just a question of adding a relevant name to the list of names, then of course that would not be a problem... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no real objection to adding Isa Kelemechi, I added his name as an example of a Nestorian Christian named Isa. This seems rather appropriate and factual. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just a bad WP:OR. First of all Isa Kelemechi was a Syrian (Syriac/Assyrian) and not ethnically Persian, Persian speaking Christians disappeared not long after the fall of the Sassanian empire. Secondly claiming that Persian Christians called Jesus Isa because one of them was named Isa is like saying Syriac Christians use Isa because their bishop in Europe was called Isa. The reason behind their use of Arabic and Islamic names is discussed here.--Rafy talk 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A descriptive statement is not OR. Furthermore, it can be easily supported by literary evidence. For instance, the use of Isa in Persian can be found in some of the earliest surviving Persian translations of scripture. Take a look at this manuscript form the early 14th century [24]. A short description of this MS is available here under "Gospel of Matthew in Persian". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point there. There are a number of other translations in Arabic and Hindi which use "Isa" as in this Gospel. I know as well that modern evangelised North Africans use Isa regularly, an interesting example is in the translations of the Jesus film into those dialects. The use as proper name however, as in Kelemechi's case, is not a proof since this name is also shared by many Arabic speaking Christians who nevertheless call Jesus Yasu.--Rafy talk 13:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else regarding 'Isa Kelemechi it is interesting he kept and thus used the name 'Isa even though he was in Mongol China and was apparently quite hostile to Muslims (being involved in banning Halal slaughter of animals and circumcision by his talking with Kublai Khan who most sources say favored Tibetan Buddhism among the religions in the area he ruled [25]). Showing more, as user Wiqi said, use of the name 'Isa for Jesus by, in this case, a Syrian Nestorian Christian in Mongol China who it appears was not on good terms with Muslims and was in a land where the dominate religion was Tibetan Buddhism at that time.Historylover4 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding name connections

The scholars who have noted the connection of Musa (Moses) and 'Isa (Jesus) in the Qur'an such as Qur'an Surah 33:7, etc. have also noted other Arabic names that (according to them) also show this pattern (and some scholars have hypothesized that is how they were formed and developed, etc in Arabic) these include Habil (Abel) and Qabil (Cain), Surah 2:249-250 an example of Talut (Saul) and Jalut (Goliath), Surah 18:94 with Yajuj and Majuj (God and Magog), other pairs that are connected by some academics are Harun (Aaron) and Qarun (Korah) and Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismaeel (Ishmael).Historylover4 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, but this is the "Muhammad garbled Biblical names to make associated pairs of names sound euphonious together" explanation... AnonMoos (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering there was no Arabic "Bible" of any kind for Muhammad to base anything on your claims are just more rude comments on your part backed up with nothing (other than your claims that you are a supposed 'scholar' care to present your credentials? While you attack John P. Meier and thus by extension Notre Dame University, the "Jewish Study Bible" of the acclaimed Oxford University Press [26] that even notes that "reconstructed" Biblical Hebrew is extremely tenuous with its notes about Biblical Hebrew text (putting aside the debate about how to pronounce things [27] being uncertain every few pages, scholars discussing Josephus and what he shows about the wide variety of different names represented by one Indo-European Greek word (oldest Christian texts being in Greek of course Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, and everything else you don't agree with.Historylover4 (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- Muhammad certainly did not have any access to any form of written Arabic Bible, and I never made the slightest claim otherwise, which makes part of your remarks completely useless. Nevertheless, in your message of "16:37, 14 July 2012" you presented a hypothesis that Muhammad garbled Biblical names so that he could present them in euphonious pairs -- whether you understood that's what you were doing or not. There are certain technical uncertainties connected with some aspects of Biblical Hebrew, but they have no impact whatsoever on whether Tiberian Masoretic name forms or Muhammad's name forms are closer to the pronunciation of Bible times -- the answer is almost always that the Tiberian Masoretic name forms are much closer to those of Biblical times (ignoring certain minor phonological changes, such as stop fricativization and segholate epenthesis).

It's not usual to present one's personal academic credentials in a Wikipedia talk page discussion, since it would not normally affect the outcome of such discussions. However, regardless of formal credentials, I know quite a bit more about linguistics and Hebrew than you do, and what you call my "rudeness" is in fact my refusal to give your attempts to transform yourself into an instant "Bible expert" or instant "Hebrew expert" by means of Google searching the respect which you feel that they properly deserve... AnonMoos (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again you claiming you know more than John P. Meier, by extension Notre Dame University, the entire Oxford University Press [28], actual employed scholars discussing Josephus, etc. etc. Again I cite sources, you respond with vague claims that "I'm a scholar, just not employed", etc.Historylover4 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As explained repeatedly, the issue is not necessarily the sources themselves, but your selective use and manipulation of material in an area which you know rather little about in order to elevate yourself into some kind of instant Bible expert or instant Hebrew expert... AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "selectively quoting" anything, I am yet again quoting among the most respected academic sources (i.e. [29], etc). Also I've never claimd to be an "instant Hebrew expert" it is YOU who over and over literally claim that because of your own assertion that you are supposedly an "unemployed PhD" that somehow gives you the right to make SOURCELESS, citation less claims on wikipedia as if you yourself are a published academic source!! And the claims you are utilizing here (yet again) are the same things you throw out at me when I quote sources (something wikipedia requires) that you don't like or you just disagree with. And because nobody here is a published scholar we are to post the scholarly sources and let the employed scholars do the talking; you regularly give your own "analysis" as if it is supposedly on par with what the Oxford University Press, Professor John P. Meier, etc. are stating. You could do that on your own blog, but this is wikipedia we are suppose to cite sources.Historylover4 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is really not me against sources -- rather it's the way in which you're trying to set yourself up as an "instant Google Hebrew expert" or "instant Google Bible expert" by tendentious and/or incompetent selective manipulation of sources in an area which you know very little about. Unemployed Ph.D. is the lowliest perch on the academic totem pole, but it's still far above pretentious ignoramus... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a completely rude individual who continuously and absurdly claims that you somehow are able to "overrule" actual academic sources. Again I quote from respected academic sources like the Oxford University Press Jewish Study Bible, an employed reputed academic John P. Meier, Notre Dame University, The Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, etc. and your only claim back is that I'm supposedly "selectively quoting" things! This is the claim you make every time I post something from these sources that goes against what you claim; and your only response is attempts at insults and claims that you should supposedly be allowed to challenge these actual academic sources on wikipedia because of your supposed status as an "unemployed PhD" without you providing any published sources at all the vast bulk of the time.Historylover4 (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, what you call my "rudeness" is merely my refusal to give your attempts to transform yourself into an instant "Bible expert" or instant "Hebrew expert" by means of Google searching the elevated degree of respect which you seem to feel that they properly deserve... AnonMoos (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Again your attempted "attacks" on me are both pathetic, absurd, and also evidence of you apparently being completely unwilling to answer SOURCES I quote (other than the claim that you are supposedly again an "unemployed PhD"; as if that claim of yours means you don't have to quote sources like you are some supposed published academic or something! Which you clearly are not). You are acting as if I'm claiming something on my own. I'm citing source after source; again are you literally claiming you supposedly can contest something the acclaimed "The Jewish Study Bible" from Oxford University Press says?! Because they say the Nehemiah 8:17 you would go on about is "meaning of heb. uncertain" on page 1700 of [30].

On Greek

Going with this article by an Islamic writer [31]

This article goes into how the Western name Jesus obviously comes originally from Greek and the Greek codices; in this case the 4th century CE Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus that give the usual Greek rendering of Jesus (that would seem to be translated from Hebrew, but scholars like John P. Meier have documented Hebrew dying as a spoken language by this point and the domination of Aramaic) as the Greek "Iesous" (Ιησούς) and it has been mentioned that Josephus provides interesting evidence of the wide variety of different names being translated from Semitic languages like Hebrew into the Indo-European Greek language that are also represented with this same Greek name "Iesous" (Ιησούς); a name in Greek that is obviously most famously associated with Jesus. Josephus notes in particular the name Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֖י) ending in the Hebrew letter Yodh used in the following Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh Biblical verses in particular:

Genesis 46:17- Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. (NIV)

1 Samuel 14:49- Saul’s sons were Jonathan, Ishvi and Malki-Shua (NIV)

and 1 Chronicles 7:30- The sons of Asher: Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah (NIV)

This topic is not directly connected with either names in Arabic, Syriac, etc. but is relevant as the oldest Christian terminology for Jesus again comes from the Indo-European language of Greek not a Semitic language the oldest copies of the Peshitta are said to be from the 5th century CE (i.e. so in this case we are dealing with Hebrew or Aramaic translated into Greek, the history of the Septuagint aka the Greek translation of the Old Testament/Jewish Tankah from Hebrew that was done in Alexandria would be something to study on this general topic as well).Historylover4 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should the name of this extremely obscure tribal ancestor override in any way the direct testimony that the Greek form Ιησους Iēsūs referring to Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 corresponds to the Hebrew form ישוע Yēšūʕ referring to Joshua son of Nun in Nehemiah 8:17 in the Hebrew Bible????????? "Ishwi" is a pure desperation maneuver, and it doesn't make any sense to try to resort to it when the accepted scholarly consensus explains things in Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek perfectly well... The position of ع in Arabic عيسى is certainly anomalous, but it seems to be an Arabic-internal anomaly, which does not require reaching back to the original Hebrew/Aramaic/etc. for an explanation... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Again you are an extremely rude individual who continuously claims you a layman allegedly "know better" than John P. Meier, The entire Oxford University Press and their best selling "Jewish Study Bible" that again document untold footnotes with "meaning of 'Hebrew' uncertain" over and over, and now what scholars say about even Josephus! That is you now saying that noting other various names translated into the one Greek name "Iesous" (Ιησούς) is supposedly again according to you (versus scholars) only a "pure desperation maneuver" (with your typical rude tones); actual scholars note that Ishvi יִשְׁוִ֖י in Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30 being translated into Greek as the one exact same Indo-European Greek name Ιησούς in the work of Josephus shows "the wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous". You claim some supposed "scholarly consensus", while you absurdly try to belittle Notre Dame University, Oxford University Press, Josephus, etc. etc. Also Greek is an Indo-European language and thus entirely unrelated to all Semitic languages; and the earliest Christian documents (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) all are in a language that an actual scholar John P. Meier says a historical Jesus never spoke in any sizable fashion whatsoever "Jesus regularly and perhaps exclusively taught in Aramaic, his Greek being of a practical, business type, and perhaps rudimentary to boot" page 268 [32] [33]Historylover4 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You really do not know that I am a "layman", and in any case, whether I am or not has no real relevance to such Wikipedia article talk page discussions. For the record, I'm an unemployed Ph.D., but I refuse to give out my real name to random people (though it's not any great secret), because of possible unpleasantness I might encounter from unpleasant individuals whom it's my misfortune to come across on-line.

In any case, regardless of credentials, I know a lot more Biblical Hebrew than you do. Therefore I know that the simple correlation of Ιησους Iēsūs in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 of the Greek New Testament with ישוע Yēšūʕ in Nehemiah 8:17 in the Hebrew Bible -- all of them referring to Joshua son of Nun (i.e. leaving Jesus of Nazareth completely aside) -- makes the "Ishwi" hypothesis implausible in the extreme, whether you happen to like this fact or not... AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote employed and widely recognized academic sources be that the Oxford University Press and their well-known and respected "Jewish Study Bible" [34], a well known employed scholar like John P. Meier [35], and also here of most relevance scholars noting the work and translation of Josephus. Again they note for one that the different name Ishvi (יִשְׁוִ֖י) of Genesis 46:17, 1 Samuel 14:49, and 1 Chronicles 7:30 being translated by Josephus into the exact same Greek name in question, Ιησούς, opens up a window to as they say "the wide variety of Hebrew names represented in Greek by Iesous". And since you are often bringing up Nehemiah 8:17, I went to my copy of the "The Jewish Study Bible" [36] again by the Oxford University Press and on page 1700 they note the following: Nehemiah 8:17- "Joshua (footnote b) son of Nun." And that foonote b on the name "Joshua" says in the explanation of it by the acclaimed "Jewish Study Bible" (again of Oxford University Press, so a highly respected academic source) "Meaning of Heb. Uncertain". So your claim about Nehemiah 8:17 is refuted by the Oxford Jewish Study Bible who themselves say that "Joshua" in Nehemiah 8:17 is again in their own words "Uncertain". And when they use Uncertain they mean as they say in their preface; "Where the translation represents the best that the committee could achieve with an elusive or difficult text. In some cases the text may be unintelligible because of corruption." Real scholars giving a much different picture then what you say. Historylover4 (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You've come close to having a real point there, but unfortunately it really doesn't do what you want it to do. Several Hebrew/Aramaic names can come out as Ιησους in Greek, but aside from forms of יהושע/ישוע they're rather minor and obscure. And ישוע in Nehemiah 8:17 is in fact often understood and translated as "Joshua" -- but you're perfectly correct to point out that this is by no means done unanimously. However, these facts together simply do not do anything meaningful to undermine the basic Greek Ιησους = Hebrew יהושע/ישוע equivalence, and it would be blatant "original synthesis" for you to claim otherwise... AnonMoos (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow you just completely ducked yet more issues entirely, an actual scholarly source (unlike you, who again simply absurdly says that I allegedly "selectively quote things") you do not quote anything at all but simply claim to be an unemployed PhD who is allegedly able to "correct" Notre Dame University, prestigious scholar John P. Meier, the ENTIRE Oxford University Press, actual scholars discussing Josephus, and on and on. And you simply then have the utter gall to say I am supposedly "selectively quoting sources"; even if I was that is better than you who simply doesn't quote anything at all and claims that you (someone with no credentials, and even if you are an unemployed PhD you don't get to overrule actual employed, published scholars that I quote) can simply give your own opinions here on Wikipedia and that somehow supposedly "trumps" the quotes I constantly give from recognized scholarly publications and academics! Again the renowned Jewish Study Bible from Oxford openly admits plain as day on your favorite verse Nehemiah 8:17 "Meaning of Hebrew. Uncertain" That is again these real scholars (with all the credentials they come with unlike any of us here including you as much as you try to deny it and actually go at and 'debate" real employed and prestigious scholars with their credentials and employment) real scholars who say your claims are null and void as they themselves are saying the entire Hebrew meaning is Uncertain; so for you to claim you are allegedly "correct" and that your opinions minus any source should be the wikipedia "gospel" pits you against actual scholars (last I checked wikipedia doesn't allow original research but requires sources, like I provide over and over again [37].Historylover4 (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Too bad for you that you've chosen to make the main issue here be your often somewhat incompetent and/or disingenuous attempts to selectively manipulate sources in an area which you know very little about... AnonMoos (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Again more of your rudeness and absurdity on display. I quoted the Jewish Study Bible by Oxford University Press stating that the verse Nehemiah 8:17 that you were going on about has a footnote by it that notes the name "Joshua" in that verse is as they admit entirely UNCERTAIN; anyone owning the Oxford University Press Jewish Study Bible [38] can simply go to page 1700 of it and confirm this. So yet again we have you throwing attempted insults at me; when all I do is cite academic source after academic source. Followed by you claiming I'm supposedly "selectively quoting" stuff; then followed by claims that your personal opinions should be included and used because you claim to be an "unemployed PhD" which supposedly means you can challenge the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān, the Oxford University Press, Notre Dame University, Professor/published academic author John P. Meier, etc. etc. and we are all suppose to go with you over real sources because of your claims about yourself!Historylover4 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)