Does Jesus in latin mean Hail Zeus?

[TimothyH]

Actually that’s not true at all. The first time Leviticus was seen in human history was when Ezra brought the Torah of Moses back from Exile, and introduced it in the Fall Festival as described in Nehemiah.

I simply don’t believe that the Book of Leviticus was never seen by humans until after the exile. Ezra brought the book back from exile but nowhere does the Bible say that it was never seen by humans prior.

The Book of Leviticus has two parts - a training manual for priests (chapters 1 through 16) and what was known as the “Holiness code” or a training manual for ordinary Hebrews (chapters 17 through 27). Children were taught to read from the Holiness Code. King David speaks of Gods’ laws in the Psalms. There are many references to the 613 commandments of God in books such as Kings and Chronicles.

That such a significant portion of the Torah was written but not seen by human eyes until after the exile simply isn’t tenable.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Actually that’s not true at all. The first time Leviticus was seen in human history was when Ezra brought the Torah of Moses back from Exile, and introduced it in the Fall Festival as described in Nehemiah.

I simply don’t believe that the Book of Leviticus was never seen by humans until after the exile. Ezra brought the book back from exile but nowhere does the Bible say that it was never seen by humans prior.

The Book of Leviticus has two parts - a training manual for priests (chapters 1 through 16) and what was known as the “Holiness code” or a training manual for ordinary Hebrews (chapters 17 through 27). Children were taught to read from the Holiness Code. King David speaks of Gods’ laws in the Psalms. There are many references to the 613 commandments of God in books such as Kings and Chronicles. That such a significant portion of the Torah was written but not seen by human eyes until after the exile simply isn’t tenable.

An argument about the age of the Book of Leviticus is really moot for the purpose of this thread. It doesn’t change the fact that the name Jesus comes from the Hebrew word Yeshua and that the word Yeshua is far older than Latin or Greek.

-Tim-

 

[Xeyed818]

I remember reading an article by some fellow who claimed that we should not use the word “Amen” because it is the name of an Egyptian god.

I wonder did any other gods get short shrift this way? Like someone from Persia telling the Egyptians one of their gods’ names really mean, “Oh, Cyrus”?

BTW, the direct translation of “Hey, (as opposed to “Hail”) Zeus” in Latin would be “O Zeu” *(Zeu *being the vocative case of Zeus).

Which makes one then suspicious of the prophet Hosea…

“Amen” has a lot more to it from a Jewish perspective. This link shows the difference in using “Amen, amen (verily, verily)” at the beginning and using “Amen” (so be it) at the end.

biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/amen.html

No intent to derail the thread…just a side-note.

 

[Xeyed818]

A friend of mine showed me this quote, "Jesus’ is a transliteration of a Latin name Ioesus, pronounced heysus - which means nothing in Hebrew, but in Latin it means ‘Hail Zeus’.

For a while, I thought in a similar vein from noticing other Greek mythological characters in the Bible. Apollo, Kore, Aquila… (I saw it as “son of Zeus”, however, rather than “Hail, Zeus”.) It was just as unhelpful to break down “Jesus” the other way where “sus” was ‘pig’ in Latin.

The Vatican and Church museums have many Greek and Roman symbols from mythology. I followed a suggestion to use Norse and Greek mythology as a framework for events in the Bible; that there are many clues in the Bible, and we are given other resources to help unravel the mysteries. To me, references and name meanings in the Bible are intentional - whether or not I can connect the dots in a meaningful way.

One of the question I have is that I don’t understand why Jesus wasn’t named “Immanuel” since that was prophesied. Jesus made obvious effort to create the conditions that fulfilled prophecy. Even if “Immanuel” was ‘hidden’ when Jesus was young and hunted, why wasn’t it revealed in His ministry? Why was Yeshua ‘brought forward’ and not Immanuel? Just another Q in a long list of them.

 

[Xeyed818]

I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t click, for me. John the Baptist was to be “John” - not another name that puts across a similar message.

I heard somewhere that “Immanuel” hasn’t come yet. That, of course, makes no sense to me, so I let that one slide. Still, it feels like there is ‘more to the story’…somewhere. Jesus fulfilling prophecies was a major deal…why was this ‘circumvented’. What would it have hurt to have named Him the name of prophecy?

Just came to me…song in Church, “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel”. Future tense, or do we just choose to call Jesus a name He didn’t choose for himself in His ministry? Tis a mystery, to me.

Thanks, anyway, for offering your understanding.

 

[Gorgias]

OK… if all that Jason meant was the relatively weak claim that a particular book hadn’t been viewed, then yeah, that’s a cute dodge. However, it certainly seems he meant that ‘Jeshua’, as it appears in Leviticus, wouldn’t have been encountered until after the exile.

(In any case, that too seems problematic. Are we suggesting that the name ‘Joshua’ (as in, oh, let’s say, “the Book of” ) is something that also wouldn’t have been encountered until after the exile? I hear what you’re saying, Deacon Jeff… but Jason’s claim just doesn’t hold up, given the various places we see the name ‘Jeshua’ in the OT. )

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t click, for me. John the Baptist was to be “John” - not another name that puts across a similar message.

I heard somewhere that “Immanuel” hasn’t come yet. That, of course, makes no sense to me, so I let that one slide. Still, it feels like there is ‘more to the story’…somewhere. Jesus fulfilling prophecies was a major deal…why was this ‘circumvented’. What would it have hurt to have named Him the name of prophecy?

Just came to me…song in Church, “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel”. Future tense, or do we just choose to call Jesus a name He didn’t choose for himself in His ministry? Tis a mystery, to me.

Thanks, anyway, for offering your understanding.

You might want to look up the ‘O Antiphons’, which ‘O Come, O Come Emmanuel’ is based on. Each antiphon addresses Jesus by a different title by which he is referred in prophecy, and which he fulfilled, fulfills, and will fulfill. Advent is about preparation for the second coming, as we recall the preparation for the first, and so the O Antiphons (as part of the last run of Advent) are in that spirit. We are looking forwards and backwards, at the same time.

The titles are: Sapientia (Wisdom), Adonai (Lord), Radix Jesse (Shoot of Jesse), Clavis David (Key of David), Oriens (Morning Star/Dawn), Rex Gentium (King of the Nations), and Emmanuel (God with us).

All are titles, and they form a backwards acrostic of “Ero Cras” meaning, “tomorrow, I come”.

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t click, for me. John the Baptist was to be “John” - not another name that puts across a similar message.

Fair enough. Want to get really technical, then? In Isaiah 7, God is asking the King of Judah, Achaz, to ask Him for a sign that God will deliver the people. The king refuses. So, through the prophet Isaiah, God says, “Agh! You’re really getting on my last nerve! OK, then – if you don’t want to ask Me for a sign, I’ll just give you one myself! Here it is: 'The maiden will be with child and will bear a son, and you will call his name ‘Emmanuel’.”

Did you catch that? The word in the Greek is καλέσεις (kaleseis), which means “you will call”. This is singular, not plural: God isn’t saying “all ya’ll will call him Emmanuel” but rather, “you, Achaz, will call him Emmanuel”!

In Matthew 1, the evangelist has rendered the prophecy differently: he uses the verb * καλέσουσιν* (kalesousin), which means “they will call”. So, Matthew interprets the prophecy as meaning that some unspecified group of people will call Jesus “God is with us.” This is all in the context of the dream Joseph was having, in which God told him “you will call him Jesus.” Yep, you got it: again, it’s you (Joseph) and not ya’ll who will do the naming.

So, I think it’s fair to interpret this as saying that ‘Emmanuel’ will be an appellation rather than a proper name. When God is talking to Jesus’ father – the person who has the right and duty to give Jesus his ‘legal’ name – God tells Joseph to name him ‘Jesus’. But, when God is talking to King Achaz, He tells him that he (Achaz) will identify the child as “God is with us.” (That was Achaz’s whole problem, by the way: he saw the enemies of his nation allying against him, and “the heart of the king … trembled, as the trees of the forest tremble in the wind” (Is 7:2). God is telling Achaz, “Don’t sweat it – I am with you!”)

 

[Xeyed818]

Fair enough. Want to get really technical, then? In Isaiah 7, God is asking the King of Judah, Achaz, to ask Him for a sign that God will deliver the people. The king refuses. So, through the prophet Isaiah, God says, “Agh! You’re really getting on my last nerve! OK, then – if you don’t want to ask Me for a sign, I’ll just give you one myself! Here it is: 'The maiden will be with child and will bear a son, and you will call his name ‘Emmanuel’.” …

Hi, Gorgias and All ~

I was following along with you using the Companion Bible when something strange popped up.

**Isa. 7:14 *- Therefore the Lord (Adonai) Himself shall give you a sign; ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’

**Note on 7:14 *- "the Lord. One of the 134 passages where Jehovah, in the primitive text, was altered by the Sopherim to “Adonai”. See Appendix 32."

In Isa. 7:3, Lord (Jehovah) is speaking to Isaiah and telling him and his son, Shear-jashub, to meet Ahaz/Achaz.

In Isa. 7:10 - “Moreover the Lord (Adonai) spake again unto Ahaz, saying…”

Jehovah did not speak directly to Ahaz - He sent Isaiah. Two different ‘Lords’ are in these passages, so it appears.

In light of this new twist, it’s probably best to let the matter drop as I don’t think CAF would be the place to try to puzzle this out - not that I’d get far because as I make more of the App. 32 changes, the more confusing it gets.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

sigh As reparation for this blasphemy (intended or not) on the most sacred name of Jesus:

May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable,
most incomprehensible and ineffable Name of God
be forever praised, blessed, loved, adored
and glorified in Heaven, on earth,
and under the earth,
by all the creatures of God,
and by the Sacred Heart of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Amen.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Hi, Gorgias and All ~

I was following along with you using the Companion Bible when something strange popped up.

**Isa. 7:14 *- Therefore the Lord (Adonai) Himself shall give you a sign; ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’

**Note on 7:14 *- "the Lord. One of the 134 passages where Jehovah, in the primitive text, was altered by the Sopherim to “Adonai”. See Appendix 32."

In Isa. 7:3, Lord (Jehovah) is speaking to Isaiah and telling him and his son, Shear-jashub, to meet Ahaz/Achaz.

In Isa. 7:10 - “Moreover the Lord (Adonai) spake again unto Ahaz, saying…”

Jehovah did not speak directly to Ahaz - He sent Isaiah. Two different ‘Lords’ are in these passages, so it appears.

In light of this new twist, it’s probably best to let the matter drop as I don’t think CAF would be the place to try to puzzle this out - not that I’d get far because as I make more of the App. 32 changes, the more confusing it gets.

I would say that’s primarily just an instance of saying that God directly did something even when God acts through an intermediary. Unless you are implying that Isaiah is the Lord (he is not).

 

[Gorgias]

xeyed818:

Jehovah did not speak directly to Ahaz - He sent Isaiah. Two different ‘Lords’ are in these passages, so it appears.

I would say that’s primarily just an instance of saying that God directly did something even when God acts through an intermediary. Unless you are implying that Isaiah is the Lord (he is not).

That’s precisely what’s going on here, and it’s not the only place in the Bible where that construction is used. (Sorry… I don’t have the time right now to go find another citation for you.)

In the OT, the prophets do not speak for themselves – rather, they are given the word of God, and it is their duty to transmit it faithfully. Therefore, when they speak, it is God who is speaking. So, this is a kind of ‘shorthand’, signifying that, when Isaiah speaks to Ahaz, it is God who is providing the message.

Your Bible apparently uses a different notation than the ones I use. In my Bible, whenever we see it written LORD, this signifies that, originally, the name of God was used there. But, as a historical fact, we know that, at a certain point in time, the Hebrews stopped using the name of God explicitly and replaced it with the word ‘adonai’ (that is, “lord”). So (at least in my Bibles) when I see “Lord”, I know that means ‘adonai’, but when I see “LORD”, I know that means the name of God.

(On a tangent: the name Jehovah (or Jahovah) never appears in the Bible. It’s a made-up word: Jewish words tend not to have explicit vowels, so in translation, there’s the need to create vowels in order to ‘make sense’ of and pronounce the Jewish words. No one, therefore, really knew how to pronounce the name of God (YHWH). So, some enterprising Germans looked at the substitution word ‘adonai’ and decided to smash the two words together in order to come up with the name of God – they decided to intersperse the vowels in ‘adonai’ into YHWH. Keeping in mind that in German, ‘j’ stands for ‘y’ and ‘v’ stands for ‘w’, you get adonai → JHVH == JaHoVaH. So, ‘Jahovah’ isn’t really the name of God… )

 

[patrick457]

(On a tangent: the name Jehovah (or Jahovah) never appears in the Bible. It’s a made-up word: Jewish words tend not to have explicit vowels, so in translation, there’s the need to create vowels in order to ‘make sense’ of and pronounce the Jewish words No one, therefore, really knew how to pronounce the name of God (YHWH). So, some enterprising Germans looked at the substitution word ‘adonai’ and decided to smash the two words together in order to come up with the name of God – they decided to intersperse the vowels in ‘adonai’ into YHWH. Keeping in mind that in German, ‘j’ stands for ‘y’ and ‘v’ stands for ‘w’, you get adonai → JHVH == JaHoVaH.

Hebrew like Arabic or Syriac really is one of those so-called abjads: writing systems that only represented consonants. Then by the second half of the first millennium ‘vowel points’ or niqqud (those dots that indicate vowels, and in some cases, distinguished alternate pronunciations of letters) were invented, though as anyone who knows Hebrew knows, they’re really only used when necessary.

The thing is, in most cases where Yhwh can be found in the scriptural text it is usually written with the vowels for Adonai* or ’Elohim* (though to be precise, the vowel points used are not exactly the same), which was basically a signal to the reader to read Adonai or 'Elohim instead. With these vowels, you would arrive at the combinations *Yehovah* or *Yehovi**h*.

Guess who the very first Western writer to use Jehovah (or to use the medieval spelling, Iehoua) is. It was a late 13th century Catalan Dominican friar named Raymond Martin who wrote an anti-Jewish work named Pugio Fidei; the Name in this form appears there quite a number of times. Apparently, he originally used the spelling Yohoua, his but later editions of his work (especially the printed ones) the Name was spelled Iehoua / Iehova / Jehova. About a century before Raymond, a Spanish Jewish convert named Peter Alphonsi did the same thing: he wrote apologetic/polemic books addressed to Jews, one of which was Dialogi Contra Iudaeos (“Dialogues against the Jews”). In that book, Peter attempted to link Yhwh with the Christian Trinity using three possible consecutive two-letter sequences. Guess what form of the Tetragrammaton he used: Ieue.

 

[Gorgias]

Guess who the very first Western writer to use Jehovah (or to use the medieval spelling, Iehoua) is.

Cool! I’d always heard it told the way I related it. Do you have any sources you can point out that I can read up on the development and construction of the word ‘Jehovah’?

 

[Xeyed818]

Hi, Gorgias and All ~

I was following along with you using the Companion Bible when something strange popped up.

**Isa. 7:14 *- Therefore the Lord (Adonai) Himself shall give you a sign; ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’

**Note on 7:14 *- "the Lord. One of the 134 passages where Jehovah, in the primitive text, was altered by the Sopherim to “Adonai”. See Appendix 32."

In Isa. 7:3, Lord (Jehovah) is speaking to Isaiah and telling him and his son, Shear-jashub, to meet Ahaz/Achaz.

In Isa. 7:10 - “Moreover the Lord (Adonai) spake again unto Ahaz, saying…”

Jehovah did not speak directly to Ahaz - He sent Isaiah. Two different ‘Lords’ are in these passages, so it appears.

In light of this new twist, it’s probably best to let the matter drop as I don’t think CAF would be the place to try to puzzle this out - not that I’d get far because as I make more of the App. 32 changes, the more confusing it gets.

Hi, All ~

In case anyone is interested in the original source of Appendix 32 that Bullinger used, here is a link I found helpful:

godsway.org/Proper%20Name%2010.htm

It corrects errors in App. 32 as well as explains how the resource came about. For me, there was some other surprising info as well:

When the Hebrew Text was printed, only the large type in the columns was regarded, and the small type of the Massorah was left, unheeded, in the MSS. from which the Text was taken.

When translators came to the printed Hebrew Text, they were necessarily destitute of the information contained in the Massorah; so that the Revisers as well as the Translators of the Authorized Version carried out their work without any idea of the treasures contained in the Massorah; and therefore, without giving a hint of it to their readers.

This * is the first time that an edition of the A.V. has been given containing any of these treasures of the Massorah, that affect so seriously the understanding of the Text. . . .

Some of the important lists of words which are contained in the Massorah are also given, viz. . . . the 134 passages where they * substituted Adonai for Jehovah (see Ap. 32); . . .

For further information on the Massorah see Dr. Ginsburg’s Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, . ."**

 

[Samuel1998]

A friend of mine showed me this quote, "Jesus’ is a transliteration of a Latin name Ioesus, pronounced heysus - which means nothing in Hebrew,
but in Latin it means ‘Hail Zeus’.

Well when a Spanish person’s name is Spelt like the lord’s it is pronounced heyzues