OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 10:11:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lord Isus Christ or Lord Jesus Christ?  (Read 5675 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lenexa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Orthodox
Posts: 159


VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS, DEUS ADERIT


« on: February 04, 2010, 02:37:47 AM »

At first glance I'm sure this seems rather trivial and a waste of time to bother with but this question has been dogging me for the last few weeks ever since I started researching Old Believers/Old Rite Russian Orthodox. The question of the Name of Our Lord began during the Nikonian Reforms when the Old Rite was proscribed and then anathematized which turned questions of Liturgical practice into serious doctrinal issues. In the Russian Old Rite our Lord's Name was Ісусъ [Isus] and in the Reforms the spelling was changed to Іисусъ [Iisus] in an effort to correct what were believed to be mistakes and/or to draw closer to the Greek practices. I am certainly no expert in linguistics and do not speak Greek or Church Slavonic but it seemed such a minor issue I could not understand why the Reformers pushed it?! Still the fact the precision of our Lord's Name was so important reinforced my concerns about addressing Him as Isus or Jesus. The Old Believers writing in English always write Lord Isus Christ judging the 'Je' to be improper.
I have no intentions of denying the usage of 'Je' or calling it heretical but as Our Lord's Name most often begins with an E sound I've gone with just saying Isus Christ.
Please forgive me for wasting your time if this seems an incredibly trivial issue to bother with.

Lord Isus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on me a sinner!
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2010, 02:52:10 AM »

I find some aspects of the Nikonian reforms to be unnecessary, but I'm not sure about this one. One possibility is that there was already some dispute about the correct way to spell "Jesus" at the time, so the Council may have simply been settling the dispute rather than changing things, but I'm just guessing here.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2010, 02:54:50 AM »

Well classically and at the time of the new testament, ᾿Ιησοῦς  was pronounced as ipa [je: sus) or english yay soos, which is why when transliterated into Latin from Greek it was spelt as Iesvs ipa [je 'sus) or English yay soos, but today Greek changed it's pronunciation of the name Jesus so Ιεσούς is today pronounced as I think I heard 2 pronunciations ipa [ji 'sus] and [i 'sus].

So if you use the new testament pronunciation (which is attested to by the Latin transliteration) you Should Say Iesvs, Iesus, Jesus as ipa [Je: 'sus]
the : symbol to show that it was a long e, but if you use the modern Greek pronunciations you should get isús or [jisús]
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,714


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2010, 03:02:41 AM »

It is linguistically incorrect to render Christ's name as Isus. The Hebrew form is Yeshua, the Greek is IHCOYC (pronounced EE-I-SOUS to this day - sorry, Christianus!), the Latin Iesus, etc.

Some Greeks may be heard to only pronounce one I sound, but this is simply sloppy pronunciation on their part. The name has always been written as I have written it above, whether in the OT (Joshua is another form of Yeshua, rendered in Greek as Iesous), or the NT.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2010, 03:54:27 AM »

the Greek is IHCOYC (pronounced EE-I-SOUS to this day - sorry, Christianus!), the Latin Iesus, etc.
This transliteration seems to suggest that IHCOYC has three syllables, which it doesn't. It has two syllables and Christianus' rendering is closer (ye-sous would be closer still).
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Lenexa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Orthodox
Posts: 159


VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS, DEUS ADERIT


« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2010, 11:14:18 PM »

Still Confused
and now more so after recently reading this:
Quote
Isa (Arabic script عيسى) is an Arabic name corresponding to Jesus in English. It is a common male given name for the Arabs and other Islamic peoples. Arabic-speaking Muslims refer to Jesus as Isa, while Arabic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasu (Arabic script يسوع). Jesus is considered a prophet in Islam (see Islamic view of Jesus), and his name is used in these two forms in the Qur'an and Arabic versions of the Bible, respectively.
So the Arabic version that a Christian should take into consideration when researching this is Yasu?
But then that begs the question for me, Why Yasu?
Everyone says that our Lord was named:
Yeshua like the Prophet Yeshua (Joshua)
But Joshua in Arabic is Yusha!
When I look at the Jesus prayer in different languages http://ypseni.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/jesus-prayer-different-languages/ and how our Lord is listed I find in most languages it sounds closest to Isus.
As I wrote before that I don't take this as seriously as the Pomortsy Old believers do and that Jesus is fine with me. Still I just have a strange feeling that placing a J on our Lord's Name seems improper. We wouldn't say Jello and Yello sound close enough to be mistaken. Part of my query whence the "J" ?
Again I know that this may seem a strange fixation of mine but I recently read an article http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nothingincommon.shtml where the author argued that Muslims are honoring Isa and that Isa is actually a completely different person from Jesus. I'm not a Muslim but one of my best friends is a West African Muslim and I have never doubted that they do honor Him, he even recites the Lord's Prayer, even though it is incorrectly.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,916



« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2010, 11:25:37 PM »

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Arabic, there are differences. Also, Yeshua is Hebrew, and can be translated to Greek as Iesous, the Greek was then translated to Latin as Iesus then eventually to Jesus.

I would be cautious about whatever the Old Believers thought was right, they are schismatics (by their own choice, as the Old Rite is no longer anathema to my knowledge). Many of the Nikonian reforms were probably unneccessary, however we must keep in mind that Russia is not the origin of Biblical language, and Orthodoxy didn't arrive until 988. (well, it was there before, but wasn't widespread) So there would already be differences, especially when the written language of Cyrillic was created by Saints Cyril & Methodius (and it was based on Slavic languages & Greek).
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 11:30:44 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Lenexa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Orthodox
Posts: 159


VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS, DEUS ADERIT


« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2010, 12:44:15 PM »

Yes I know that there are differences but I was simply trying to understand why in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, the same name is used for Joshua and Jesus, Iesous (EE - sEUs) while in Arabic you somehow have two names for Jesus and a different name for Joshua (Isa, Yasu and Yusha)? It just didn't make sense to me that the Arab Christians call Jesus Yasu while the Muslims call Him Isa and the why they would call him Yasu when the New Testament, originally in Koine, calls our Lord Iesous which does not sound like Yasu?
I just read something that gives a good explanation.
Quote
An argument in favor of the Hebrew form ישוע Yeshua is that the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 AD) and the Peshitta preserves this same spelling using the equivalent Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ (Yēšū‘) to the Hebrew letters of Yeshua (Syriac does not use the 'furtive' pathach, so the 'a' vowel is not used). This is still the spelling and pronunciation used in the West Syriac dialect, whereas East Syriac has rendered the pronunciation of the same letters Išô‘. These texts were translated from the Greek, but the name is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form because its "sh" sound is not expressed in the Greek (although the Greek has a letter sounding like "s"), and ends with the pharyngeal ‘ayin sound, also not found in Greek. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speaking apostles and disciples of Jesus, and thus were able to accurately preserve the actual name used for him.
Yeshua was used as the name for Jesus in late additions to the Yosippon; however, its usage here is a translation back into the Hebrew Yeshua from the Greek. The Toledot Yeshu narratives combine the person or persons designated Yeshu in the Talmud with Jesus, but relate that his original name was Yehoshua. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)
But still I think it is important to remember that both St.Clement of Alexandria and St.Cyril of Jerusalem considered Iesous to be the original name and not Yeshua.
There seems to be some discrepancy about the correct pronunciation about the Name of Our Lord as it was originally written in the Gospels. The Greek people I've read state that it is pronounced ee-sEUs; only two syllables. When I've been to Latin Masses, long ago Iesus is pronounced ee-AY-SEUS; now three syllables. But we should remember the Latins are pronouncing a Greek word as it would sound using Latin Pronunciation.
As far as the Old Believers go I would have written the same thing several years ago but now after researching what happened I have a very different view. When the name of the Lord was changed with the addition of one letter it seemed to be from Latin influence. It is difficult for us to understand but think of it this way. You are Russian Orthodox and all the other Orthodox peoples have fallen to Muslim Turks and before that were actively involved in trying to re-unite with the Latins and in fact did at times. Now the Patriarch is working with hierarchs from the various other Orthodox peoples who are trying to alter and change many important aspects of your faith. In fact they considered the changes so important that they persecuted and killed those who clung to the Old Rite. Patriarch Nikon was willing to allow those who wished to continue using the Old Rite but then he was deposed. The foreign bishops continued to work with the government of Tsar Alexei and the other Russian Bishops to force the New Rite on everyone and anathematized the Old Rite. I can understand why so many thought that the changes were of the Antichrist. Later they were vindicated by research as it was shown that in fact the Russians prior to the Nikonian changes had scrupulously preserved and maintained what they received without changing it at all. The differences were based on a different recession which had different practices. In fact the other Churches had developed and changed their rites more.
I think in all fairness we should remember that the way the Nikonian changes were implemented and the offensive conduct of the foreign bishops and certain Russian bishops in anathematizing the legitimate Russian Old-Rite and brutally persecuting those who did not want to follow the changes played a strong if not the greatest role in creating the Schism (Raskol).
But that is another discussion.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,916



« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2010, 12:52:21 PM »

I'd think that it wouldn't matter too much if it was from Latin influence. Example, we have St. Basil the Great, whose name is often Vassilios, Vasilios, Vasili, Vasily, Basileios, Vassily, etc... Yet in English, instead of referring to him in one of those more original ways, we call him Basil, which is much shortened from the original Vassilios, and if retranslated would probably be a completely different name. It's just a name...
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2010, 12:54:48 PM »

It is linguistically incorrect to render Christ's name as Isus. The Hebrew form is Yeshua, the Greek is IHCOYC (pronounced EE-I-SOUS to this day - sorry, Christianus!), the Latin Iesus, etc.

That may be right, but even some 300+ years after Nikon, many Russians in their everyday life say "Isus," Not Iisus":

"Тоскно очeнь жить Марусe в городe Тарусe -
Пeтухи одни да гуси, Господи Исусe!"

(Н. Заболоцкий, "Цeлый дeнь стираeт прачка...")
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,638



« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2010, 01:05:26 PM »

At first glance I'm sure this seems rather trivial and a waste of time to bother with but this question has been dogging me for the last few weeks ever since I started researching Old Believers/Old Rite Russian Orthodox. The question of the Name of Our Lord began during the Nikonian Reforms when the Old Rite was proscribed and then anathematized which turned questions of Liturgical practice into serious doctrinal issues. In the Russian Old Rite our Lord's Name was Ісусъ [Isus] and in the Reforms the spelling was changed to Іисусъ [Iisus] in an effort to correct what were believed to be mistakes and/or to draw closer to the Greek practices. I am certainly no expert in linguistics and do not speak Greek or Church Slavonic but it seemed such a minor issue I could not understand why the Reformers pushed it?! Still the fact the precision of our Lord's Name was so important reinforced my concerns about addressing Him as Isus or Jesus. The Old Believers writing in English always write Lord Isus Christ judging the 'Je' to be improper.
I have no intentions of denying the usage of 'Je' or calling it heretical but as Our Lord's Name most often begins with an E sound I've gone with just saying Isus Christ.
Please forgive me for wasting your time if this seems an incredibly trivial issue to bother with.

Lord Isus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on me a sinner!

Against my better judgement, I'm going to weigh in on this.

The "y" sound in Greek is nothing but an allophone (a fancy word for varient) of the "i" sound. There is no distinction between "y" and "i" in Ancient or Koine Greek (there is now in Modern Greek, but that is because of developments of the gamma "g" sound).  The original "ay" sound in Greek has become just another letter to write "i" (a development called "iotaization").  Hence the merging in normal speech of the two "i"'s.

The change of spelling had noting to do with the Latins (as the pronunciation of the name was different by then): it was only to make the spelling look more Greek, by using the same letters as the Greek (и<H)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(Cyrillic)

It's not theology, just phonology.

Btw, the Arabic is different because of facts like why Stephen and Stefan are "two" names in English.

I'd think that it wouldn't matter too much if it was from Latin influence. Example, we have St. Basil the Great, whose name is often Vassilios, Vasilios, Vasili, Vasily, Basileios, Vassily, etc... Yet in English, instead of referring to him in one of those more original ways, we call him Basil, which is much shortened from the original Vassilios, and if retranslated would probably be a completely different name. It's just a name...
You left out Bill (which btw, has something to do with the differences in Arabic).

Btw, this is like the discussion in Romanian of whether to write Cristos, Hristos or even Christos.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 01:07:43 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2010, 01:19:24 PM »

the Greek is IHCOYC (pronounced EE-I-SOUS to this day - sorry, Christianus!), the Latin Iesus, etc.

This transliteration seems to suggest that IHCOYC has three syllables, which it doesn't. It has two syllables and Christianus' rendering is closer (ye-sous would be closer still).

I'm sorry, but it does have 3 syllables.  

In Hebrew/Aramaic, the name has only two syllables, but not so in the Greek.

The breathing mark actually gives it away; when a dipthong begins a word, the breathing mark is placed over the second letter - but in every rendering of the Lord's name, the breathing mark precedes the first letter (concession to capitalization), thus indicating separate vowels and no dipthong.  Since the vowels are separate, you have two vowel syllables at the beginning, and one at the end: I-H-SOYS.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2010, 01:25:28 PM »

Quote
Btw, this is like the discussion in Romanian of whether to write Cristos, Hristos or even Christos.
Well, in Romanian "Iisus Hristos" IS the norm. All others are departures from the norm and unorthodox ways of writing the divine names, only used by RC, GrC or some Baptists.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2010, 02:15:34 PM »

It's not theology, just phonology.

Btw, the Arabic is different because of facts like why Stephen and Stefan are "two" names in English.
Exactly. Names are re-borrowed quite often. Michaela is now common, while Michelle is less so; Caitlin is popular, and Catherine is not as popular; Angel is replacing Angie. Names change, and there's no real reason for it. We might say that in these cases names of Italian, Gaelic, and Spanish origin are having a resurgence, while French and English derivations are in decline; but it's really all personal preference.

It works in other languages, as well. One is now more likely to see "Josue" than "Jesus," as Spanish is gaining the English language's propensity to keep Jesus' name linguistically distinct from that of other people who bear it. So there are some reasons for the trend that may be studied, but there's no real theological basis for any of it.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2010, 02:25:20 PM »

Quote
Btw, this is like the discussion in Romanian of whether to write Cristos, Hristos or even Christos.
Well, in Romanian "Iisus Hristos" IS the norm. All others are departures from the norm and unorthodox ways of writing the divine names, only used by RC, GrC or some Baptists.

I am so happy for my ancestors that they also used "Iisus." Otherwise they would not have been (indeed could not have been) Orthodox!

/s
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2010, 06:38:06 PM »

If you're translating from a translation (the Greek Iesus being a translation of the Hebrew-Aramean Yehoshua), then how can you even begin to think that you have room to be dabbling in the idea that there is a particular proper way of saying it in Slavonic that reflects His actual name?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,787



« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2010, 06:51:05 PM »

If you're translating from a translation (the Greek Iesus being a translation of the Hebrew-Aramean Yehoshua), then how can you even begin to think that you have room to be dabbling in the idea that there is a particular proper way of saying it in Slavonic that reflects His actual name?

Hi deusveritasest--If you are addressing me, "/s" means sarcasm off.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2010, 08:25:06 PM »

If you're translating from a translation (the Greek Iesus being a translation of the Hebrew-Aramean Yehoshua), then how can you even begin to think that you have room to be dabbling in the idea that there is a particular proper way of saying it in Slavonic that reflects His actual name?

Hi deusveritasest--If you are addressing me, "/s" means sarcasm off.

No. Generally if I don't quote someone else's post in my post I am responding to the OP. It's etiquette that I learned at another forum.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2010, 09:37:48 PM »

Meshiha Eshua (Messiah Jesus). Aramaic. Let's have some respect here, would you like to be called "Peter" your entire life when your name is "Pierre"? Wouldn't you be offended that your friend is somehow denying your "frenchness"?
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2010, 09:37:48 PM »

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Arabic, there are differences. Also, Yeshua is Hebrew, and can be translated to Greek as Iesous, the Greek was then translated to Latin as Iesus then eventually to Jesus.


Whether he has an agenda or not, a friend of mine who is a Hebrew and believer does not like this transliteration. He says "Yoshua" would be a much more accurate Greek transliteration than "Ieseus". Yes, Yeshua is Hebrew, but his name as pronounced in the Aramaic NT is "Eshua". That is the name his Mother and the Apostles would most probably use to speak to him since Aramaic was the lingua franca of the era (all over Mesopotamia).
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,916



« Reply #20 on: February 20, 2010, 01:00:04 AM »

I've been wondering, is the Aramaic NT a more recent translation, or is it one of the older translations? (or rather, are the manuscripts older or newer?) Just curious...
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,206


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #21 on: February 20, 2010, 01:29:42 AM »

Meshiha Eshua (Messiah Jesus). Aramaic. Let's have some respect here, would you like to be called "Peter" your entire life when your name is "Pierre"? Wouldn't you be offended that your friend is somehow denying your "frenchness"?
But then, Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and has ascended to His glory in the heavens.  He therefore transcends race, even His own race as an Aramaic-speaking Jew.  Don't we English speakers also refer to the Apostle Peter as "Peter", even though his original name was "Petros"?  For much the same reason.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 01:31:59 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2010, 01:33:07 AM »

The COE does not endorse any translation (nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter). You can click on the link on my avatar to read an interlinear of the 4 Gospels. That website also links to a "repository" of unofficial Peshitta translations and interlinears by Protestant theologians (and Lamsa, who is something of a heretic unfortunately). As for how old the manuscripts are, that is irrelevant to the COE since it burns all manuscripts too old for use so they don't get corrupted (British missionaries have removed some fairly old manuscripts though in the past). The practice of memorizing the Quran was taken from the Assyrian COE which did the same thing with the NT before Mohammed by the way. The original does not have vowel pointers and so forth, these need to be memorized by the priests.

The Peshitta is the Aramaic NT, the original:

Quote
"Moreover it is known that books were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, and while such an intercourse existed it is scarcely possible to believe that the Scriptures themselves remained untranslated. The same conclusion follows from the controversial writings of Bardesanes (dead in the year 222 CE, Catholic Encyclopedia-- AGR) which necessarily imply the existence of a Syriac Version of the Bible. Tertullian's example may show that he could hardly have refuted Marcion without the constant use of Scripture. And more than this, Eusebius tells us that Hegisippius 'made quotations from the Gospel according the Hebrews and the Syriac and especially from the Hebrew language, showing thereby that he was a Christian of Hebrew descent. This testimony is valuable coming from the only early Greek writer likely to have been familar with Syriac literature...

"Ephraem Syrus (dead 373, Catholic Encyclopedia--AGR), a deacon of Edessa, treats the Version in such a manner as to prove that it was already old in the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of established authority, calling it 'Our Version'; he speaks of the Translator one whose words were familar; and though the dialects of the East are proverbially permanent, his explanations show that its language even in his time had become partially obsolete.

"Another circumstance serves to exhibit the venerable age of this Version. It was universally received by the different sects into which the Syrian church was divided in the fourth century, and so has continued current even to the present time. All the Syrian Christians, whether belonging to the Nestorian (Church of the East--AGR), Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox Church--AGR) or Roman communion, conspire to hold the Peshitto authoriative and to use it in their public services. It must consequently have been established by familar use before the first heresies arose or it could not have remained without a rival. Numerous versions or revisions of the New Testament were indeed made afterwards, for Syriac literature is peculiarly rich in this branch of theological crticism; but no one ever supplanted the Peshitto for ecclesiastical purposes...

"But meanwhile there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion that has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation should be fixed to the first half of the second century. The text, even in its present revised form, exhibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient Greek Manuscripts and the earliest quotations from, The very obscurity that hangs over its origin is a proof of its venerable age, because it shows it grew up spontaneously in Christian congregations, and it was not the result of any public labour. Had it been a work of late date, of the third or fourth century, it is scarecly possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is."

Brooke Foss Westcott, "A General Survey of the History and Canon of the New Testament" (Seventh Edition, 1896), p. 244-8.

Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,916



« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2010, 01:42:33 AM »

The COE does not endorse any translation (nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter). You can click on the link on my avatar to read an interlinear of the 4 Gospels. That website also links to a "repository" of unofficial Peshitta translations and interlinears by Protestant theologians (and Lamsa, who is something of a heretic unfortunately). As for how old the manuscripts are, that is irrelevant to the COE since it burns all manuscripts too old for use so they don't get corrupted (British missionaries have removed some fairly old manuscripts though in the past). The practice of memorizing the Quran was taken from the Assyrian COE which did the same thing with the NT before Mohammed by the way. The original does not have vowel pointers and so forth, these need to be memorized by the priests.

The Peshitta is the Aramaic NT, the original:

Quote
"Moreover it is known that books were soon translated from Syriac into Greek, and while such an intercourse existed it is scarcely possible to believe that the Scriptures themselves remained untranslated. The same conclusion follows from the controversial writings of Bardesanes (dead in the year 222 CE, Catholic Encyclopedia-- AGR) which necessarily imply the existence of a Syriac Version of the Bible. Tertullian's example may show that he could hardly have refuted Marcion without the constant use of Scripture. And more than this, Eusebius tells us that Hegisippius 'made quotations from the Gospel according the Hebrews and the Syriac and especially from the Hebrew language, showing thereby that he was a Christian of Hebrew descent. This testimony is valuable coming from the only early Greek writer likely to have been familar with Syriac literature...

"Ephraem Syrus (dead 373, Catholic Encyclopedia--AGR), a deacon of Edessa, treats the Version in such a manner as to prove that it was already old in the fourth century. He quotes it as a book of established authority, calling it 'Our Version'; he speaks of the Translator one whose words were familar; and though the dialects of the East are proverbially permanent, his explanations show that its language even in his time had become partially obsolete.

"Another circumstance serves to exhibit the venerable age of this Version. It was universally received by the different sects into which the Syrian church was divided in the fourth century, and so has continued current even to the present time. All the Syrian Christians, whether belonging to the Nestorian (Church of the East--AGR), Jacobite (Syrian Orthodox Church--AGR) or Roman communion, conspire to hold the Peshitto authoriative and to use it in their public services. It must consequently have been established by familar use before the first heresies arose or it could not have remained without a rival. Numerous versions or revisions of the New Testament were indeed made afterwards, for Syriac literature is peculiarly rich in this branch of theological crticism; but no one ever supplanted the Peshitto for ecclesiastical purposes...

"But meanwhile there is no sufficient reason to desert the opinion that has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars, that its formation should be fixed to the first half of the second century. The text, even in its present revised form, exhibits remarkable agreement with the most ancient Greek Manuscripts and the earliest quotations from, The very obscurity that hangs over its origin is a proof of its venerable age, because it shows it grew up spontaneously in Christian congregations, and it was not the result of any public labour. Had it been a work of late date, of the third or fourth century, it is scarecly possible that its history should be so uncertain as it is."

Brooke Foss Westcott, "A General Survey of the History and Canon of the New Testament" (Seventh Edition, 1896), p. 244-8.



I am really confused, I didn't ask about the COE's position on it, I simply asked about Aramaic translations of the Scriptures. I'm not saying I think they would be any less or that they'd be corrupted, I'm just inquiring about them. I didn't know if the earliest NT manuscripts were in Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic. It's not a question about the COE or any of its affiliates, it's simply a historical question about NT manuscripts.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2010, 01:44:19 AM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2010, 08:55:05 PM »

They are autographs given by the Disciplers Mar Mari and Addai for the first 22 books of the canon (Syriac Church never accepted the last five Western books, ie: Revelation).
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Lenexa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Orthodox
Posts: 159


VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS, DEUS ADERIT


« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2010, 08:28:32 PM »

I would like to say that I am sorry that I do not write more now but I will in the future. Still with the few minutes I have I just want to ask a question about your post Augustin.

Quote
Btw, this is like the discussion in Romanian of whether to write Cristos, Hristos or even Christos.
Well, in Romanian "Iisus Hristos" IS the norm. All others are departures from the norm and unorthodox ways of writing the divine names, only used by RC, GrC or some Baptists.

It was my understanding that in Romanian the Name of Our Lord is more properly written as Isus not Iisus? For example in Romanian Literature?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,638



« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2010, 08:37:06 PM »

The COE does not endorse any translation (nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter). You can click on the link on my avatar to read an interlinear of the 4 Gospels. That website also links to a "repository" of unofficial Peshitta translations and interlinears by Protestant theologians (and Lamsa, who is something of a heretic unfortunately). As for how old the manuscripts are, that is irrelevant to the COE since it burns all manuscripts too old for use
No, its not because 1) that means you can't prove your assertions, because proof doesn't come from silence 2) I haven't seen evidence that this book burning has been standard practice among the Assyrians.

Quote
so they don't get corrupted (British missionaries have removed some fairly old manuscripts though in the past). The practice of memorizing the Quran was taken from the Assyrian COE which did the same thing with the NT before Mohammed by the way. The original does not have vowel pointers and so forth, these need to be memorized by the priests.

The Peshitta is the Aramaic NT, the original:

No, it's not, which can be shown from the Peshittas itself because 1) it is written in an East Syriac dialect whereas the Lord and His disciples spoke a Western Aramaic form, 2) the stage of the language is centuries later than the Lord's time, 3) the Peshitta itself has verses were includes the glosses on Aramaic words in the Greek original.
Etc. etc. etc.


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,638



« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2010, 08:41:43 PM »

I've been wondering, is the Aramaic NT a more recent translation, or is it one of the older translations? (or rather, are the manuscripts older or newer?) Just curious...
This is pretty accurate (I don't have the time right now, but I posted links to more scholarly works on this issue before).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta#History_of_the_Syriac_versions
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,634



« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2010, 08:45:43 PM »

Lenexa,
Both "Isus" and "Iisus" appear in Rom. literature, but the church/Orthodox-sanctioned form is "Iisus", although I suspect that in the past both forms were deemed acceptable.
Now "Iisus" is the standard form.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2010, 09:05:24 PM »

(nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter).

What do you mean by "Jacobite" if not Syriac Orthodox?  Huh
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2010, 09:56:35 PM »

The COE does not endorse any translation (nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter). You can click on the link on my avatar to read an interlinear of the 4 Gospels. That website also links to a "repository" of unofficial Peshitta translations and interlinears by Protestant theologians (and Lamsa, who is something of a heretic unfortunately). As for how old the manuscripts are, that is irrelevant to the COE since it burns all manuscripts too old for use
No, its not because 1) that means you can't prove your assertions, because proof doesn't come from silence 2) I haven't seen evidence that this book burning has been standard practice among the Assyrians.

Quote
so they don't get corrupted (British missionaries have removed some fairly old manuscripts though in the past). The practice of memorizing the Quran was taken from the Assyrian COE which did the same thing with the NT before Mohammed by the way. The original does not have vowel pointers and so forth, these need to be memorized by the priests.

The Peshitta is the Aramaic NT, the original:

No, it's not, which can be shown from the Peshittas itself because 1) it is written in an East Syriac dialect whereas the Lord and His disciples spoke a Western Aramaic form, 2) the stage of the language is centuries later than the Lord's time, 3) the Peshitta itself has verses were includes the glosses on Aramaic words in the Greek original.
Etc. etc. etc.




1)The Estrangelo is different, languages evolve, but the tradition behind the text is what matters. East Syriac uses Ktav Ashurri (the script of Aramaic).

2)Loan words are proof of its primacy, an artificial dialect would be proof of it not being the original.

3)You haven't explained why nobody accepted old syriac as their standaridzed text, why it was found by westerners on a trash heap.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2010, 09:56:35 PM »

(nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter).

What do you mean by "Jacobite" if not Syriac Orthodox?  Huh

SOC believes in the Peshitto as well. They just use one in the Western Syriac with a couple of verses changed due to their miaphysite beliefs. There are two Peshittas (Aramaic NTs) one is the one used by SOC, the other is in Eastern Syriac.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Lenexa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Orthodox
Posts: 159


VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS, DEUS ADERIT


« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2010, 02:03:10 PM »

the Greek is IHCOYC (pronounced EE-I-SOUS to this day - sorry, Christianus!), the Latin Iesus, etc.

This transliteration seems to suggest that IHCOYC has three syllables, which it doesn't. It has two syllables and Christianus' rendering is closer (ye-sous would be closer still).

I'm sorry, but it does have 3 syllables.  

In Hebrew/Aramaic, the name has only two syllables, but not so in the Greek.

The breathing mark actually gives it away; when a dipthong begins a word, the breathing mark is placed over the second letter - but in every rendering of the Lord's name, the breathing mark precedes the first letter (concession to capitalization), thus indicating separate vowels and no dipthong.  Since the vowels are separate, you have two vowel syllables at the beginning, and one at the end: I-H-SOYS.

Yes that is three syllables but in my research, and I admit it is not extensive, the Name of Our Lord is found in Medieval Greek, Byzantine jewelry and manuscripts, spelled as ICOYC not IHCOYC. Let me make it clear that I would not be surprised if I am mistaken in this or that IHCOYC actually does occur as often or more often.

Thanks to Augustin for your answer!

Thanks to Rafa for your information and comments. I have learned a lot about the COE and the Syriac/Aramaic scripture, of which I know very little, just from reading your posts.

Thanks to everyone for your interest, info and comments!
My two goals when I started this is to learn more about the Name of our Lord and why the Old Believers hold that his Name is Ісусъ or more to the point why the Old Church Slavonic Manuscripts spell his Name that way?
The Old Russian Rites have been vindicated but what about the Old Church Slavonic spelling of our Lord's Name?
Logged
Lenexa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Orthodox
Posts: 159


VOCATUS ATQUE NON VOCATUS, DEUS ADERIT


« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2010, 09:04:21 AM »

One thing I have learned from studying this issue by actually looking at the spelling of our Lord's name in the Codex Sinaiticus is that it is always abbreviated using two letters. I haven't found any evidence for third middle vowel of ee-yay-sous (I-H-S) which some people have told me is the original correct version. Rather, as enlightening comments above show, the evidence points to this vowel not having been part of the original version and a later addition.

Logged
pupacios
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: romanian Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 25


« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2010, 03:48:13 PM »

perhaps it was like the tetragrammaton יהוה or Yaweh
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2010, 08:27:23 PM »

(nor do the Jacobites, Syriac-Maronites, Syriac Orthodox,etc. for that matter).

What do you mean by "Jacobite" if not Syriac Orthodox?  Huh

SOC believes in the Peshitto as well. They just use one in the Western Syriac with a couple of verses changed due to their miaphysite beliefs. There are two Peshittas (Aramaic NTs) one is the one used by SOC, the other is in Eastern Syriac.

How does that answer my question?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,229


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #36 on: April 04, 2011, 04:31:30 PM »

I've wondered the similar question for a long time with a twist.  If we can actually pronounce Yeshua is English, why do we speak the transliteration of the Greek?

Obviously names matter because the Jews won't even dare "say" the name.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
Tags: Old Believers 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.139 seconds with 63 queries.