Etymology of the name Jesus

[bob x]

In Zoroastrianism: An Introduction to an Ancient Faith Peter Clark mentions the use of the Avestan root sav- and its meaning which I take it is Porkorny's sava- which according to him means "salvation" as well as "benefit."

No, no, no!
A root that starts S in Podkorny (he has *SARVA for the "save" root which I spelled *SALWE; Podkorny uses V for a sound which was more like W, and R for a liquid that may have been either R or L) is not going to start S in Avestan: it would start H instead. Podkorny's sarva- (not sava-) is the Avestan haurva- as I have told you, twice now. Avestan sav- would have to come from something that did *NOT* start with S in Indo-European.

Well I've also noticed some connections between Zoroastrian, Sumerian, and Semitic concepts.

Of course. You are going to find similar concepts floating around everywhere in the cultural area. The problem is that you have a chauvinistic wish to see Zoroastrianism as a source, when it is millenia later than Sumerians or Semites.

Though I realized its often discredited the ancient Greek placement of Zoroaster often makes me second think the possibility that the Zoroastrians may have influenced the Sumerians and the Semites long before the Persians and Jews met in Babylon. But I see your point.



Well for what its worth according this quote Zoroaster had a connection to Babylon...

"In connection with his history he [Berosus 360 B.C.] mentions the name of Zoroaster as living a period twenty-four hundred years before Jesus' time. Berosus was not a prophet, predicting the birth of this great teacher at some future day. He was simply a chronicler of facts and events, as he found them stamped in clay or burnt upon bricks. It happened that Babylonia was overrun and conquered at that distant period, and Zoroaster's name is mentioned in connection with that event." Loren Harper Whitney, Life and Teachings of Zoroaster the Great Persian

Berossus makes up fabulous time-intervals of thousands of years because he has no connected chronology, and has a propagandistic purpose to make Babylonia ancient: here is a discussion of the literary background to Berossus; he was trying to correct Greek authors like Ctesias and Herodotus who discuss Assyrians, Medes, and Persians at great length but mention Babylon only as a city, as if it had never been an imperial power (the Neo-Babylonian period of Nebuchadrezzar is glossed over or skipped entirely in those authors; the Old Babylonian period of Hammurabi etc. is simply way beyond their knowledge). The capture of Babylon by the Persians that Berossus refers to is simply the capture by Cyrus in 535 BCE, and his date of ~2400 BCE for it is just an absurdity; Zoroaster was somewhat before Cyrus, precise date controversial but certainly not "thousands" of years before the rise of Persia (Vitashpa, the king who sponsored Zoroaster, would be one of the kings of Anshan by that name).

The Greek form Zoroaster, by the way, is an interesting example of a "calque", a word I used on the other thread for part-translation-part-borrow: Zarathrustra has two parts, the mysterious zarat (perhaps indeed related to Zerubabbel which we don't understand either) and a word for "star" which the Greeks therefore translated as aster.

Well another theory is that Persia means "frontier or borderland" which seems close enough to "to make sharp break," but you're the expert

Before it meant "borderland" apparently *pars meant more specifically "place of exile": where you would chase a group that had misbehaved badly enough to be driven out, but not badly enough to slaughter.

By the time Semitic and Indo-European languages were diverging, we have several distinguishable roots here: in Semitic the P-R-SH "to separate" (as in "Pharisee") and the P-R-TZ "to break sharply" (as in the "breech-birth" names), and in Indo-European the *pard (Podkorny's spelling) "to break wind" root and what I called the "purge" root (I don't know Podkorny's spelling off-hand) from which I think "Persia" derives. But, you are right that these all seem "close enough": it is quite possible that if you go all the way back to Nostratic, there was just a single root *P-R-X ("X" here for an uncertain final consonant) with a meaning like "to expel".

 

[Muslimwoman]

Sorry about that! Somehow I got this impression from a previous post of someones, but either I could not find their post (I looked) or I somehow misunderstood. It is possible I read it on a different site, so thanks for taking the time to point that out. It shows you have not put me into the hopeless bin.

That's what we're here for Dream, to learn about each others faith.

I never put anyone in the hopeless bin, unless they are personally abusive ... and even then they have to really push the boat out

 

[taijasi]

Did you say, Hey Zeus? As in, Jesús? As in, ¿Qué pasa?

Joshua/Yeshua/Yehoshua ... IAO, with Greek variants such as Iasios and Iason, or Jason

Hero-worship isn't exactly new ya know.

 

[bob x]

Did you say, Hey Zeus? As in, Jesús? As in, ¿Qué pasa?

Joshua/Yeshua/Yehoshua ... IAO, with Greek variants such as Iasios and Iason, or Jason

Hero-worship isn't exactly new ya know.

This is the kind of thing that gives me nails-on-the-chalkboard irritation. No, just grabbing words or names that have a letter-and-a-half in common is not a sound way to figure out the source of anything. Like, Yasir Arafat's first name is from "Yessir!" because he was a commander, and his last name because he was an "Arab" who was "fat"? Or, "AndrewX" is one who "also regrets whatever" ("and rue X", get it?)

 

[Saltmeister]

This is the kind of thing that gives me nails-on-the-chalkboard irritation. No, just grabbing words or names that have a letter-and-a-half in common is not a sound way to figure out the source of anything. Like, Yasir Arafat's first name is from "Yessir!" because he was a commander, and his last name because he was an "Arab" who was "fat"? Or, "AndrewX" is one who "also regrets whatever" ("and rue X", get it?)

"bob x" I don't think your name is Bob anymore. You're an ex-Bob, as in ..... "Bob ex."

AndrewX is a guy who used to be called Andrew but isn't anymore. He's an ex-Andrew.

 

[taijasi]

The first line that I posted was indeed *meant* to be somewhat funny.

As for the other two?

STET ... as in, you know, from the Latin stetare

 

[bob x]

I stand by my position that all of your comparisons were equally silly.

 

[Quahom1]

I stand by my position that all of your comparisons were equally silly.

I"believe" Sir, and that is why I reach out...go out of my way, to "touch" others, to attempt to take them into my fold...you can't deny that sir...

to do so, is to be called a "liar"...

 

[bob x]

??? Q, I was speaking to AndrewX

 

[Quahom1]

??? Q, I was speaking to AndrewX

Damn embarrassed again...

 

[Saltmeister]

??? Q, I was speaking to AndrewX

I thought you were talking to me about the ex-Bob and ex-Andrew thing.

 

[Quahom1]

I thought you were talking to me about the ex-Bob and ex-Andrew thing.

Yeah, see? Communication is key...

 

[bob x]

Yes, I should have hit the Quote button on his "STET" posting; that is what I was replying to.

 

[taijasi]

Let's see ... perhaps, bob_x, you should ask the man what, and who, He was named after ...

I find it's always helpful, when possible, to go to the source.

Since in this case it is certainly possible, your speculations to me are just a shot in the dark.

For example, the name Jesus is cognate with Jason. Either you can see this [the writing's plain as can be] ... or you can't. There isn't much wiggle room in between.

Can you not also see that the name is the same as Joshua, hence Yeshua, Yehoshua, etc? The Y, J and I are somewhat interchangeable, depending on culture, dialect, time period, etc.

I'm pretty sure Shakespeare had a way of putting this which showed up in ... let's see, big love story, got copied a lot over the past few hundred years. Mentioned a FLOWER, in good old Bill's choice of phraseology ... Hmmm?

Let's keep it simple though. IAO is what you want to be focusing on. Either that, or go on back to whistling Dixie.

 

[bob x]

Let's see ... perhaps, bob_x, you should ask the man what, and who, He was named after ...

Jesus never said anything remotely suggesting that he was named for the captain of the Argo, or indicating that he had any familiarity with that story, which has not one single solitary feature in common with the Jesus story (did Jesus sail to the mountains at the end of the known world to retrieve a fleece made of gold? did he marry a witch who betrayed her father and murdered her own children?)

For example, the name Jesus is cognate with Jason. Either you can see this [the writing's plain as can be] ... or you can't. There isn't much wiggle room in between.

"Cognate" does not mean "vaguely looks like". It means that if you trace back the earlier forms, they come to something in common. Iason is from Ias, one form of a name for northwest Anatolia (the offshore "Ionian" islands were also called the "Iastian" islands) which became Asia (the name broadened to mean all of Anatolia, then Anatolia became "Asia Minor" as the name "Asia" came to be used for the whole eastern continent). The older forms of that name had an r in them (peoples related to the Trojans called themselves Arsi, and the Hittites write is as Arzawa); dialects which did not allow an rs compound either deleted the r sound or replaced it with the initial y as in Ias.

When you have words that share a letter or two, they might be cognates, but you need to trace back the earlier forms: if they look less and less alike as you trace back, that is the opposite of cognacy.

Can you not also see that the name is the same as Joshua, hence Yeshua, Yehoshua, etc?

Haven't you read my posts?

Let's keep it simple though. IAO is what you want to be focusing on.

That is an exceedingly late deformation of the Tetragrammaton. No, it is the older forms which need to be focused on.

 

[taijasi]

My faith lies in the notion that Jesus had some idea what role He had to play in the preservation of a Divine lineage [both prior to, as well as during even the earliest years after - his incarnation]. It has to do with something sacred and celestial brought into an intersection with something relatively earthly or mundane - even though these are not mutually exclusive [in fact, that's largely the point]. I really don't believe that his name as the Nazarene was chosen either by accident, or at relative haphazard by his earthly parents.

I happen to maintain the same belief about you, and me, and every last Soul on the planet.

So, while orthodox Christians (wait wait wait, what I mean is, conventional Christians) or Jews, or Muslims may not currently even accept that Jesus taught rebirth, I take it as a simple matter of ~ both fact and Faith. And I also believe that Jesus pretty much inherited the same name that He Himself had born for two incarnations prior. This, once again, comes on some authority - although it's interesting how easily WE become the authority upon which we tend to judge others!

As for IAO being a later innovation, I hold that the KNOWERS of the day [Jesus' time] just as the KNOWERS of current times, typically KNOW - though with greater and lesser depth, and degrees of precision - what the heck they're talking about.

Yes, it's an unpopular idea with some. It's ESPECIALLY unpopular with others. Some of us, however, just take these things as given. It does indeed come back to a matter of Faith.

But I'm going to leave it at that. bob_x, you prefer an academic approach, and I wonder, if you cannot crack a book to show it, does it hold any merit whatsoever in your camp? Further, in that camp of yours, when the candles have all burned low, and when it is time to close the books for the night, what does Jesus mean to you ~ when the only Light that persists throughout the night is that of Faith, in the heart?

In other words, if you were to summarize and synthesize all of your academic research, leanings, discoveries and epiphanies ... what does the name Jesus mean TO YOU? I mean, what do YOU think, or believe, that it means?

THanks,
~andrewx/taijasi

 

[bob x]

...while orthodox Christians (wait wait wait, what I mean is, conventional Christians) or Jews, or Muslims may not currently even accept that Jesus taught rebirth, I take it as a simple matter of ~ both fact and Faith.

The word "fact" does not mean "sounds good to me": it refers to external verifiability. There is nothing outside of your personal preferences, so far as I can see, which verifies that Jesus ever said any such thing.

And I also believe that Jesus pretty much inherited the same name that He Himself had born for two incarnations prior. This, once again, comes on some authority

WHAT authority? It appears to be something that you made up yourself.

As for IAO being a later innovation, I hold that the KNOWERS of the day [Jesus' time]

The form "IAO" is not known from as early as the time of Jesus; it is first attested a couple centuries later.

I wonder, if you cannot crack a book to show it, does it hold any merit whatsoever in your camp?

Not much, no. It is an easy and rather masturbatory exercise to spin all kinds of profundities in your head, if you do not care about touching base with the world outside.

if you were to summarize and synthesize all of your academic research, leanings, discoveries and epiphanies ... what does the name Jesus mean TO YOU? I mean, what do YOU think, or believe, that it means?

It is the third-person-singular form of the Hebrew verb, meaning "he saves", an abbreviation for the longer form of the name "YHWH saves". It is not a terribly difficult name to interpret, nor an uncommon one in his day.

 

[taijasi]

The word "fact" does not mean "sounds good to me": it refers to external verifiability. There is nothing outside of your personal preferences, so far as I can see, which verifies that Jesus ever said any such thing.

Indeed, this is the problem. "SO FAR AS YOU CAN SEE" Let us try to fix this shortcoming ...

You are free to reject, or reinterpret, what Jesus taught to Nicodemus ... which made it into the Bible. I can refer you to the specific episode in question if need be, in which reference was made to reincarnation. However, since I agree that (the specific meaning for) such dialogue is open to our interpretation I far prefer to just stick with the episode wherein the Apostles question the Master regarding His identity:

Jesus makes it clear that He was NOT Elijah ... for the same had already appeared, "... and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. ... Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." [Matt. 17:12-13]

So you see, bob_x, some understood it then (with help from the Rabbi in order to see what they had missed) ... and so we understand it now (since these lessons tend to sink in after awhile). What might I do to help you see things any differently here? I am no Rabbi, nor an especially enlightened Initiate. I am simply someone who is paying a little bit of attention, and I do not refuse to drink from this pool of clear and refreshing water, simply because someone ELSE has led me here. I do not fear that my ego, my vanity and my foolishness/ignorance will be exposed, either in public or in secret.

You hold too tightly to what must be relinquished - yet I will argue no further, if you simply refuse to see. That is your RIGHT. Is it fair to insist on dragging a man to the Light? Hell no, it's your own choice to dig in your heels, even when the EVIDENCE, in PLAIN and simple language is put before you, taken DIRECTLY from the New Testament. This is the choice of all the obstinate Christian sort ... and even as a foolish lot, the Christ Loved them nonetheless - even asking their pardon (from the Cross upon which He was crucified).

1000 babies are born every DAY with HIV, and half of these are dead within 2 years. But nooooo, Jesus never taught reincarnation.

Nice chatting with you on this matter, bob_x. I yield to you the honor of the last word, while I hold gladly, if less tenaciously, to my own, preferred interpretation of these two verses from Matthew. Am I correct? Yes. Wanna bet? Go ahead; I have nothing to lose!

Thank you playing, though; try again sometime perhaps?

WHAT authority? It appears to be something that you made up yourself.

There, there, bob_x, no need to be so testy. We'll all find out in time that our own ego is not supreme. Slow and difficult lesson for some, it seems. Try to focus on the word AUTHORITY, however. Just take it into your meditation, how 'bout? Leave me back here in the discussion, if it makes you feel better. After all, I don't claim to BE such an authority, nor do I speak as one who HAS it. [Or perhaps if that's how it seems, you should get around sooner than later to considering that option, there, which is clearly the farthest from your mind! ] I am simply a person who accepts, on the basis of my reading, studies, meditations and experiences. I trust you to be the same, and if we don't see eye to eye, no big deal.

I would say again, if you don't believe Jesus was around before his incarnation as the Nazarene, ASK HIM. Why not GO TO THE SOURCE?

Because you can't? Don't worry, bob_x. You're in good company. I just argue, that you CAN. Even if you don't know how. And even that, which may sound rude and almost like a smack in the face, isn't meant to be anything other than reverse psychology. STOP setting yourself up as the authority on this (or similar) matter(s) ... and consider that others besides yourself might just actually BE such [authorities]. That's the only way to get to the Truth. Even if it means accepting that just because I refuse to produce a stack of degrees and holy writs 2 inches thick, PROVING to YOUR satisfaction that I am some kind of DemiGod incarnate ... perhaps I actually DO know wth I'm talking about.

Yes, yes, you and the doubting Thomases must sooner or later yield to the Truth on these matters. But I, while not exactly weary of such wasted keystrokes (hell, I'm more charged than ever), just plain don't care anymore about the arguing. That's all you're really interested in. And if people are singing your praises, and waiving their hands (or clapping them) at your vast learning and profundity of knowledge ... ah well, you remain satisfied and CONTENT - to have that `upper hand.'

But the moment someone who actually knows comes along ...

The form "IAO" is not known from as early as the time of Jesus; it is first attested a couple centuries later.

No my friend. Wrong again. But thanks for playing ...

The Gnostics and Their Remains: Part IV. The Figured Monuments of Gnosticism: The Name ΙΑΩ

Not much, no. It is an easy and rather masturbatory exercise to spin all kinds of profundities in your head, if you do not care about touching base with the world outside.

Well, now see there, bob_x, that's where we're definitely of a different feather altogether. Whether it's masturbatory, and therefore creative of a lower sort, spiritual, and thus creative EIN (i mean, umm, om, IN) the Higher sort ... or maybe just generally playful, he said with a smile, and therefore indicative of something in between ... yes, it's true, I like to use MY OWN HEAD when I'm thinking about things ~ at least at times.

You, apparently, do none of this whatsoever, and therefore unless it appears between the covers of [insert titles of books which YOU YOURSELF have deemed authoritative here, and further, that having been done with very LITTLE real "spinning of profundity" within that head of yours - since clearly you do not believe yourself capable of this to any real degree] ... it's safe to say it just holds no merit in your camp.

It is the third-person-singular form of the Hebrew verb, meaning "he saves", an abbreviation for the longer form of the name "YHWH saves". It is not a terribly difficult name to interpret, nor an uncommon one in his day.

Finally, you makes some sense. A few ego strokes and even the vain suddenly know how to speak simply, honestly, earnestly and clearly. And, I daresay, even Kindly.

Why, lo and behold, did you know that I, too, am capable of just the same? Ah well, bob_x, you've helped me demonstrate something of The Law [Torah, Torah, nvm the Qabbalah] once again! If only someone besides me were paying attention ... though, humbly, I accept that the lesson was mine to begin with.

Amazing, isn't it.

 

[mojobadshah]

I have to admit that bob_x has made a powerful case for the etymology of the name Jesus, and against my original hypothesis, but I do find it curious that the names Jesus and Jason are cognates, especially after having come across this passage in this e-book: The Armenian people from ancient to modern times by Richard G. Hovannisian wherein it states that Strabo mistakenly associated the Iranian places of worship which he called the "Iazonia" (cf. Middle Iranian yashtan, Avestan yaz, Modern Persian Jashan) with the name of Jason the Argonaut. First of all I got to ask if anyone knows why he made that association? And secondly is it possible he wasn't mistaken after all?

 

[taijasi]

I think we need to be asking ourselves a question. If the name of Jesus of Nazareth refers to a follower of the [Universal/Cosmic/Logoic] Christos [Mosiach, but not a figure, a PRINCIPLE in Nature] ... not simply as an historical figure, which I feel certain he was ... but also as the embodiment or embodier of something or Someone more Divine than we are ...

~~ then as Hero and Healer, I should expect this to be in the very least someone whom we ourselves, in some similar fashion, turn to, looking for or toward authority + Guidance. Similar fashion to what?

To the way that He, Himself in His life and example did just the same. That is, how Jesus was able to Honor, Follow and thus totally give charge to said Principle [Christos].

When the pop-up book has been reduced from it's magical, but somewhat still false-looking pop-up 3rd dimension ... to just 2, I start to lose interest. It isn't that I don't believe in a level playing field; it is, in important Respect(s), unavoidable. Yet pretty soon, we can just shove these little planar slices any old where on our bookshelf, and if we don't much feel like considering what the person in our company [and Presence] is about, then we can ignore it. I have to admit, at times, it's both helpful and necessary, or at least one or the other.

I am guilty of it, yes I know, but it isn't because I don't realize that we all come to the question from a somewhat different angle (a multifaceted Jewel, in which we are all sort of swimming, yes swimming, from the surface toward __ is a bit like this!) ...

Yet if I weren't certain of what I speak, in this instance, I wouldn't bother.

Specifically, the `Jesus' Whom we're finding within ourselves [and this is the connecting of the lesser to the Greater, even if both are parts of the Greatest, inasmuch as It encompasses, includes as well as IN-CORPOR-ates them, all THREE] is not OTHER than the Jesus Whom we've come to find outside of ourselves but incarnate in the man from Nazareth.

As Hypatia said, it's more about what we have in common, than what divides us. Or words to that effect. So if the Christos is this universal Principle, don't you think it's Heavenly-Chosen INCARNATOR [that is, the ONE in WHOM it was chosen all those years ago to appear, for US to ALL SEE] would be giving us pretty much as clear an indication of what we NEED ... to both understand and also be empowered to go about getting on with what it is we're here to be getting on with, to begin with?

It is difficult sometimes to cut off the 1001 tongues that all speak `BABYLON' at the top of [its] lung(s) ... yet, it was only as Herakles raised up the demon [serpent, hydra] from the ground that he was able to defeat it. While `rooted' it was impossible to slay, since each attempt caused more heads to erupt forth.

This is Promethean, it was referenced when The Man said that Satan could not cast out Satan ... and [It] is also our Father, if we are WISE enough to understand ... [It/Him].

And that's enough. Upset with the mirror yet? Doves know better, thus the Lords of Compassion and the Masters of Wisdom walk Together, as One Brotherhood. Yet if foolish man would perpetrate his sin outward, and divide not simply himself from himself, but even extend that ignorance to the only Protectors Who guard his future ... what result must follow?

#

So I daresay the Divine, eager to see the Divine's children come home, would be about leaving us plenty more clues than clever attempts at deception, even if, in the moments before a Victory in our Understanding ...

... we can only imagine what a scrambling of an effort, ooomph (stuffit), a Navel?

7 Rays of ... ?


(# From above:

I can be as preachy as the rest, but my passion is bringing _ to bear on ~. It's a much more awesome thing to me to see and feel that people understand their common origins, or history, plus future, or Destiny, than that they all learn to pray in the exact same words, facing the same direction, raising their voices with the same inflection, or all burning incense instead of goat flesh. Perhaps every single one of these has its proper place, or at least does so at the right time ... in history. But wouldn't we be better off in trying to establish a sustainable society by founding our society on ~. Yes, that is the voice of Zion. I hear you; I hear it. I want nothing to do with this. Every person on the planet is included; where admittedly, not every one of us is Inclusive. I'm just glad these Brothers look past my evening, my afternoon, your weekend, your least wonderful months. You see, by keeping the things of God a mystery, there is much that an opposing effort ... to Light, to Progress, might be able to maintain. Remember, if the status quo is a threat to you, even as a `man of god' you may one day realize, you've done as much as the next guy to hold up `the Divine Show.' Hence the Humility of the Brothers, and the choice, of the Buddha Himself, never to deny either that there are God(s), nor that we cannot, or do not need to Know Them. I believe Humility still has something to do with that; even if, in the East, a REVERENCE for the VENERABLE Ones is as matter of fact as any devout Christian or Jew could ever, would ever, be inclined to express for his Savior, Law and Prophets. But of course, I'm just rattling on, and since I know that, I'm moving this to the bottom.)

In summary, if all it amounts to is a footnote in a history book, who cares (where it came from, what it means). If it matters more, isn't that the point?