Etymology of the name Jesus

[mojobadshah]

Y-howshuwa' "Joshua" is a contraction of YHWH y-shuwa' "YHWH rescues"; all personal names using "YHWH" as an element contract it in some manner, for the same reason as the "taboo deformations" I discussed in connection with "wolf/bear" deities (to speak the right name of a deity has the effect of summoning: don't do it unless you mean it).

I think I finally know where your "yasha" comes from. I noted that the waw which is supposed to be second-consonant slips in front of the shin which is supposed to be first, in such forms as Howshea', and this also happened in the simple noun, which pattern is usually [1st]e[2nd]e[3rd] like melekh "king" from m-l-k "to rule", or [1st]a[2nd]e[3rd] like lamed "cane" from l-m-d "to guide" so we might expect *shewe'/shawe' "[an act of] rescue" if not for the "weak" consonants ('ayin only likes "a" before it; waw prefers "o" or "u"); instead the word was apparently w-sha' but Hebrew early shifted initial "w" to "y" systematically: Canaanite wayin, the source through Phoenician of Greek oenus, Latin vinus, English wine, gives Hebrew yayin; the city of Weru-Shaliym with first element like Sumerian ur "city", became Yerushalayim "Jerusalem"; the w-l-d root "to be born" retains its "w" after prefixes, like yowled "he is born" or howlid "he caused to be born; fathered the child" rendered "begat" in King James, but the simple noun "child" is yeled, contrast Arabic walid.

So we find Y-sha'yah(uw) "rescue [is] YHWH" as the name of the prophet "Isaiah" (as rendered in English) and Yish-'ay "my rescue" as the name of David's father "Jesse". I am using a dash "-" for the sh-wa vowel (literally, a "nothing"; the absolutely least possible vowel, as in the first syllables of English about or alone). So a derivation did become like y-sha', tolerably like your "yasha" and probably the source of whatever website you got it from.

So the etymology that suggested that Y-howshuwa' was a contraction of YHWH and Oshea is definitely false? Because that appears to be popular conception. It was mentioned on this thread and all the sites that claim the name Oshea was derived from this Yasha and so on. So pretty much everybody except for you and who else is wrong? This form y-sha is definitely an attested form right? Is the form y-shuwa' attested too?

 

[bob x]

So the etymology that suggested that Y-howshuwa' was a contraction of YHWH and Oshea is definitely false?

It is a contraction of YHWH and the root sh-w-' of which Howshea' is a different derivation (from which "Oshea" is a mis-spelling).

Because that appears to be popular conception. It was mentioned on this thread and all the sites that claim the name Oshea was derived from this Yasha and so on.

You still have not shown me any site from which you got this "Yasha" idea in your head; I did try to Google "yasha" and couldn't find much of anything.

So pretty much everybody except for you and who else is wrong?

Me and other people who actually know some Hebrew and have half a clue how words get formed in that language.

This form y-sha is definitely an attested form right?

Outside the names "Isaiah" and "Jesse" I don't know of an example. It is a very irregular derivative, with a transposition of sh/w to w/sh order followed by a w-to-y shift, and must be expected to be very rare.

Compare, say, wrought now used only in "wrought iron" but archaically a participle for "worked": here -t instead of -ed is not uncommon (see slept, dreamt); the "gh" was originally not silent but pronounced as a guttural fricative, substituting for k/nk/ng in such forms as seek, sought; think, thought; bring, brought; the transposition (wro- for wor-) is weird. Your theory is like claiming that "wrought iron" is from German rot "red" because iron can turn red when it rusts (nice try, but no)-- and then going on to claim that perfectly regular derivatives of the same root like "works" are also from this source.

Is the form y-shuwa' attested too?

As the most common form of a relatively common verb, it occurs all over the place. As a proper name, it was the third most common male name in Judea, after Y-huwdah "Judah" and Yowseph "Joseph", of frequent occurrence in Hellenistic and Roman periods.

 

[mojobadshah]

Neither does any concept of "immortality": there are no angels or devils in the Hebrew, and no afterlife in either a heavenly or hellish realm; your reward for good deeds is to have your family prosper and multiply, your punishment for evil to have your family extincted, and that is all. The verb sh-w-' "to save" is always used in the sense of rescue from a peril in this world (in the sense: if a lion is chasing you and I shoot the lion, I "saved" you), never (not even once; not at all; zero times) in the sense of being "saved from eternal damnation", a concept which is just unheard-of in the Hebrew scriptures.

I don't know how often I have to explain this to you: Zoroastrianism most certainly DID influence the post-Persian form of Judaism which is the background for Christianity; but all of those elements (angels, demons, heaven, hell etc.) are a late layer of addition, alien to the Hebrew tradition which had a long history of independent development long before they had ever heard of Persians. Most present-day forms of Judaism have shed all of that Zoroastrian baggage.

Are you saying that the late addition of heaven and hell is the hell that you described above or the one that the Zoroastrians, Christians, and Muslims adhere to.

 

[bob x]

Are you saying that the late addition of heaven and hell is the hell that you described above or the one that the Zoroastrians, Christians, and Muslims adhere to.

I don't understand the question. I have not described any "hell" other than the one Zoroastrians, Christians, and Muslims adhere to.

 

[mojobadshah]

I don't understand the question. I have not described any "hell" other than the one Zoroastrians, Christians, and Muslims adhere to.

I think I got it. No hell or heaven in the Hebrew Bible right?

Now, you mentioned Isaiah and Jesus. And I had actually come across an etymology for Isaiah before you mentioned it and realized there appeared to be a semantic relationship between the y-shuwa' you mentioned and I have to admit I find it odd that this is the name of an author of the Hebrew Bible that appears while the Jews were under Persian tutelage and distinct Zoroastrian concepts such as the idea of "the coming of a savior" appear, while I have been hypothesizing about a connection between this attested y-shua' "he rescues" form and the Avestan Asha "order; the way to salvation." For the moment however I would like to inquire about another form, an Arabic form Ijtihad "the struggle to find inner peace." Where does this word come from according to what you know? Because it would appear to me to not only have a semantic relationship to both the words Yeshua and Asha but morphological connections to these forms too.

 

[bob x]

The morphology is the "reflexive" form (doing [such-and-such] to oneself) called hithpa'el in Hebrew because such patterns are named by what they do to the root p-'-l "to do". The pattern is hit[1st]a[2nd]e[3rd] whatever the 1st, 2nd, 3rd consonants are, but sometimes the "t" transposes with the [1st] as in hishtaqaw "worship" from a root sh-q-w not apparently used in any other form; and in Arabic, the initial "h" is lost, and that transposition of "t" with [1st] is common. Thus, ijtihad is the form of the root j-h-d "to struggle" (as in the nouns jihad "struggle" and mujahid "one who struggles") that means "struggle with oneself".

What possible connection to any of the other words we discussed you can possibly see is, frankly, beyond my comprehension. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE CONSONANT IN COMMON!

 

[mojobadshah]

The morphology is the "reflexive" form (doing [such-and-such] to oneself) called hithpa'el in Hebrew because such patterns are named by what they do to the root p-'-l "to do". The pattern is hit[1st]a[2nd]e[3rd] whatever the 1st, 2nd, 3rd consonants are, but sometimes the "t" transposes with the [1st] as in hishtaqaw "worship" from a root sh-q-w not apparently used in any other form; and in Arabic, the initial "h" is lost, and that transposition of "t" with [1st] is common. Thus, ijtihad is the form of the root j-h-d "to struggle" (as in the nouns jihad "struggle" and mujahid "one who struggles") that means "struggle with oneself".

What possible connection to any of the other words we discussed you can possibly see is, frankly, beyond my comprehension. THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE CONSONANT IN COMMON!

Well I'm not qualified to be making any comparative linguistic determinations, though through mass comparison it would appear that there are both morphological and semantic relationships between the Avestan asha "order" Old Persian Arta "order" Semitic y-sh-w- "He rescues" and the Arabic ijtihad "the making of a decision in Islamic law (sharia) by personal effort (jihad), independently of any school (madhhab) of jurisprudence (fiqh)" (I realize I was initially off on the definition of ijtihad, but the actual definition actually strengthens my argument).

It would appear to me that the Avestan Asha "order" is a hypostasis is linked to the Semitic sh-w "to rescue" and the Old Persian Arta "order" is linked to the Arabic concept Ijtihad. Av. Asha, OPer. Arta "order," and Ijtihad "making of a decision in law" all make the world a safer place or Semtic sh-w "rescue" the world.

 

[bob x]

Asha, "order" in the sense of "deference to the existing authorities", is quite the opposite of ijtihad, "figuring things out for yourself". But we were originally arguing not about conceptual connections, which I think you have very muddled, but about linguistic connections among the words, of which there are none.

 

[mojobadshah]

Asha, "order" in the sense of "deference to the existing authorities", is quite the opposite of ijtihad, "figuring things out for yourself". But we were originally arguing not about conceptual connections, which I think you have very muddled, but about linguistic connections among the words, of which there are none.

No, I'm not muddled about anything. I agree with you that according to convention there are no morphological (sound and meaning) correspondences between the words asha "order" arta "order" sh-ua "to rescue," and ijtihad "figuring things out for yourself e.g. figuring out the difference between right and wrong." And I admit I'm not qualified to argue against the convention any further than through mass comparison, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised if one day someone was able to prove my hypothesis through the comparative method.

 

[mojobadshah]

"We should care because Zarathustra was a Prophet who foretold the physical incarnation of Jesus Christ hundreds of years before it happened. He said, "May Asha attain a body."[3] This passage is from the Gathas, which are the part of the Zoroastrian holy texts that scholars believe are the real words of the ancient Prophet Zarathustra himself. Duchesne-Guillemin says about this verse, "He (Zarathustra) desires that righteousness may become incarnate and strengthened by the action of mankind."[4] In a later Zoroastrian text, a comment is made, apparently about this verse, that in the Gathas it says there is a wise man called "the Word incarnate."[5]" Did Zarathustra (Zoroaster) Prophecy the Coming of Christ?

Look, I swear this isn't even where I got the idea about Jesus being Zoroaster's word incarnate, but the above just blows my mind. It says Zoroaster said "May Asha attain a body." Who was Jesus, but an embodiment of Asha.

 

[bob x]

"We should care because Zarathustra was a Prophet who foretold the physical incarnation of Jesus Christ hundreds of years before it happened. He said, "May Asha attain a body."[3] This passage is from the Gathas, which are the part of the Zoroastrian holy texts that scholars believe are the real words of the ancient Prophet Zarathustra himself. Duchesne-Guillemin says about this verse, "He (Zarathustra) desires that righteousness may become incarnate and strengthened by the action of mankind."[4] In a later Zoroastrian text, a comment is made, apparently about this verse, that in the Gathas it says there is a wise man called "the Word incarnate."[5]" Did Zarathustra (Zoroaster) Prophecy the Coming of Christ?

Look, I swear this isn't even where I got the idea about Jesus being Zoroaster's word incarnate, but the above just blows my mind. It says Zoroaster said "May Asha attain a body." Who was Jesus, but an embodiment of Asha.

This is simply fabrication. He claims "May Asha attain a body" is found in Yasna 43:16, which really reads,
"O Ahura Mazda, Zarathushtra has selected for himself pure wisdom as his guide. May truth and righteousness strengthen our material lives. May spiritual power along with faith and love lighten our hearts as shining rays of sun. Do grant reward, O my Lord, to the persons who perform their actions through pure mind and wisdom."

Elsewhere he claims that Ahura Mazda forms a "trinity" with Asha (one of the seven hypostases) and "Vohu Mainyu" (two of the hypostases, Vohu Mana and Spenta Mainyu, thrown into a blender), ignoring the other four (Haurvaiti, Kshathra, Armaiti, Ameridad) because he wants 3 instead of 7. Can't you recognize a gross distorter when you see one?

 

[mojobadshah]

OK so it hasn't taken long for it to dawn upon me, but at this point there is no doubt in my mind that there is a connection between the Avestan forms ishayas gerezda "sacrifice to milk" and the word-phrase Jesus Christ.

In Zoroastrianism ishayas is recognized as "angel of the sacrifice," and is associated with gerezda "milk" hence ishayas gerezda "milk sacrifice."

One only needs to compare the Avestan word-phrase to the Greek word-phrase: Av. ishayas gerezda : Iesous Khristos, to see that there is indeed a relationship between the two compounds.

What this implies is that though there may have been Hebrew-Aramaic forms of the Avestan ishayas there certainly were no Hebrew-Aramaic equivalents to gerezda/khristos which is are confirmed Avestan-Greek cognates, and therefore the Greek form Iesous Khristos did not develop from Hebrew-Aramaic at all. Even if the Hebrew conceptual relative to Christ, Messiah was in use, why would our earliest references to "Jesus" have known about the Avestan word-phrase ishayas gerezda, chosen to call "Jesus" something along the lines of Yeshua Messiah and then have reverted back to Iesous Khristos which was a rendering of the Avestan ishayas gerezda? This also implies that though there may have been plenty of Hebrew-Aramaic Yeshuas there never was a man who called himself "Jesus Christ" because the anachronism and Iesous Khristos is as old as its etymological equivalent which is mentioned in the oldest portions of the Avestan compositions.

 

[Quahom1]

OK so it hasn't taken long for it to dawn upon me, but at this point there is no doubt in my mind that there is a connection between the Avestan forms ishayas gerezda "sacrifice to milk" and the word-phrase Jesus Christ.

In Zoroastrianism ishayas is recognized as "angel of the sacrifice," and is associated with gerezda "milk" hence ishayas gerezda "milk sacrifice."

One only needs to compare the Avestan word-phrase to the Greek word-phrase: Av. ishayas gerezda : Iesous Khristos, to see that there is indeed a relationship between the two compounds.

What this implies is that though there may have been Hebrew-Aramaic forms of the Avestan ishayas there certainly were no Hebrew-Aramaic equivalents to gerezda/khristos which is are confirmed Avestan-Greek cognates, and therefore the Greek form Iesous Khristos did not develop from Hebrew-Aramaic at all. Even if the Hebrew conceptual relative to Christ, Messiah was in use, why would our earliest references to "Jesus" have known about the Avestan word-phrase ishayas gerezda, chosen to call "Jesus" something along the lines of Yeshua Messiah and then have reverted back to Iesous Khristos which was a rendering of the Avestan ishayas gerezda? This also implies that though there may have been plenty of Hebrew-Aramaic Yeshuas there never was a man who called himself "Jesus Christ" because the anachronism and Iesous Khristos is as old as its etymological equivalent which is mentioned in the oldest portions of the Avestan compositions.

Could be because the "Yeshua" of interest in this case never referred to himself as "The Christ". In fact the only "title" he ever called himself was "I Am Who Am".

Curious to know how that meshes with this conversation, or if at all.

note: please forgive that I used the Latin Vulgate for the Christian translation of "I Am ", and that I reversed the sayings between the two. The Father states "I Am Who Am". Jesus states "I Am". I think that is significant.

v/r

Q

 

[bob x]

It's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products.
sorry, couldn't help myself

there is a connection between the Avestan forms ishayas gerezda "sacrifice to milk" and the word-phrase Jesus Christ.

In Zoroastrianism ishayas is recognized as "angel of the sacrifice," and is associated with gerezda "milk" hence ishayas gerezda "milk sacrifice."

"Milk" is conspicuously absent from Judeo-Christian imagery.

One only needs to compare the Avestan word-phrase to the Greek word-phrase: Av. ishayas gerezda : Iesous Khristos, to see that there is indeed a relationship between the two compounds.

One only needs to compare the English word linen to the Russian name Lenin to see that there is indeed a relationship...

I do get tired of having to tell you over and over again that this is a senseless way to proceed. There is no relationship between ishayas and Iesous except a coincidence of some letters, which is not terribly difficult to find if you rummage around in the dictionaries of two different languages: "mojobadshah" is obviously derived from "mojo" (American slang for magic power, sex appeal, or self-confidence) plus "[George] Bernard Shaw" (English playwright).

There is a relationship between gerezda and khristos because they are descended from a root in a common ancestor from thousands of years earlier: the relationship certainly does not consist of a borrowing from Avestan into Greek, or it would just have become *gerezdos or something similar (none of the sounds are missing from Greek, so there would be no reason why it would get distorted any further than a change in grammatical ending). The sound-shifts indicate, rather, the end results of lengthy processes of linguistic drift. This is confirmed by the extent of semantic drift in the meaning: gerezda is a milk-fat, like the clarified butter ghee in Sanskrit, and is used for feeding a fire; chrismos is olive-oil-based, and used for rubbing on the body; both are kinds of "grease" but the connotations have become different.

What this implies is that though there may have been Hebrew-Aramaic forms of the Avestan ishayas

No, there aren't. Y-shua' does not mean "angel of sacrifice" or anything remotely like it; it means "he rescues [from danger]" and did so long before Hebrew or Aramaic speakers had any contact with Iranians.

there certainly were no Hebrew-Aramaic equivalents to gerezda/khristos

Correct: the "grease" root is Indo-European, and I don't see anything that looks anything like it in Semitic. Khristos is a translation of moshiach "rubbed with oil", not a derivation from it.

why would our earliest references to "Jesus" have known about the Avestan word-phrase ishayas gerezda

What gives you any idea that anybody referring to "Jesus" had any knowledge of any such phrase in Avestan?

chosen to call "Jesus" something along the lines of Yeshua Messiah

Uh, they called him that because it was his name. It was an exceedingly popular name. It's like asking why people called President Kennedy "John" all the time: must be a reference to French Dijon "strong mustard", what else could it be, huh?

 

[mojobadshah]

"Milk" is conspicuously absent from Judeo-Christian imagery.

Milk is the way Boyce translates it. A better one may be "creamy; oily fat; ghee" and the point was that this deity Ishayas is closely associated with gerezda. See Yasna 50 where ishayas directly precedes gerezda written ishayas gerezda. Also gerezda (cf. Christ) was mixed in with hom-juice and the hom plant is associated with immortality. The drinking of the hom has also been likened to the Eucharist.

I do get tired of having to tell you over and over again that this is a senseless way to proceed. There is no relationship between ishayas and Iesous except a coincidence of some letters, which is not terribly difficult to find if you rummage around in the dictionaries of two different languages: "mojobadshah" is obviously derived from "mojo" (American slang for magic power, sex appeal, or self-confidence) plus "[George] Bernard Shaw" (English playwright).

It never is senseless. If I was selecting TOTALLY random words then it would be, but first off gerezda and christ are already confirmed cognates, and the fact that this form is placed so close to ishayas which resembles Iesous makes it even more worth looking into. Not to mention the association with these forms and the relationship between the ingesting of the Hom and the Eucharist.

Well where can I find information on Avestan-Greek sound correspondences? My instincts are telling me that corresponds to [ie] which is basically the same vowel sound Av. [sh] > Gk. and Av. aya > Gk. ou and Av. : Gk. .

There is a relationship between gerezda and khristos because they are descended from a root in a common ancestor from thousands of years earlier: the relationship certainly does not consist of a borrowing from Avestan into Greek, or it would just have become *gerezdos or something similar (none of the sounds are missing from Greek, so there would be no reason why it would get distorted any further than a change in grammatical ending). The sound-shifts indicate, rather, the end results of lengthy processes of linguistic drift. This is confirmed by the extent of semantic drift in the meaning: gerezda is a milk-fat, like the clarified butter ghee in Sanskrit, and is used for feeding a fire; chrismos is olive-oil-based, and used for rubbing on the body; both are kinds of "grease" but the connotations have become different.

Yeah, I'm sure there was linguistic drift. You said it yourself [g] is more archaic than [kh] and [ch]. And if I'm not mistaken the -a in gerezda is an affix denoting "of" so gerezda translates to "milk of." Therefore gerezd developed into the Greek khrist and the affix -os was combined with it to form khristos resulting in Christos. The Greeks were probably aware of the Zoroastrian "Eucharist" ishayas gerezda.

No, there aren't. Y-shua' does not mean "angel of sacrifice" or anything remotely like it; it means "he rescues [from danger]" and did so long before Hebrew or Aramaic speakers had any contact with Iranians.
Correct: the "grease" root is Indo-European, and I don't see anything that looks anything like it in Semitic. Khristos is a translation of moshiach "rubbed with oil", not a derivation from it.

So what you're saying is that Y-shua and ishayas are not related, but that doesn't mean that ishayas gerezda and iesous khristos aren't.

What gives you any idea that anybody referring to "Jesus" had any knowledge of any such phrase in Avestan?

The Jews and Greeks had been in contact with the Zoroastrians at least since the Acheamenid period. So the Persified Jews or Grecians or Grecian speaking Jews were probably aware of the Zoroastrian practice of the ishayas gerezda "sacrifice of milk or oily fat."

Uh, they called him that because it was his name. It was an exceedingly popular name. It's like asking why people called President Kennedy "John" all the time: must be a reference to French Dijon "strong mustard", what else could it be, huh?

I'm not saying that it wasn't a popular name, but first of all do we even have a Hebrew-Aramaic version of the old testament as early as our first reference to the compound Jesus-Christ?

 

[bob x]

Milk is the way Boyce translates it. A better one may be "creamy; oily fat; ghee" and the point was that this deity Ishayas is closely associated with gerezda.

Whereas Jesus is not associated with cream or clarified butter or any other dairy product.

Also gerezda (cf. Christ) was mixed in with hom-juice and the hom plant is associated with immortality. The drinking of the hom has also been likened to the Eucharist.

But, mixing in cream or butter or anything like it is most distinctly not one of the likenesses.

Yeah, I'm sure there was linguistic drift. You said it yourself [g] is more archaic than [kh] and [ch].

This kind of drift is what happens over the course of MANY CENTURIES. You are proposing a direct borrowing from Avestan to Greek, with no time for "drift" at all.

And if I'm not mistaken the -a in gerezda is an affix denoting "of" so gerezda translates to "milk of."

No, "of milk" rather. The compound is Ishayas of-the-milk.

Therefore gerezd developed into the Greek khrist

No, both gerezd- and khrist- developed from a common ancestor in a language spoken thousands of years earlier.

The Greeks were probably aware of the Zoroastrian "Eucharist" ishayas gerezda.

Why do you think so???? The Greeks were extraordinarily ignorant about Zoroastrianism; we have been over this many times.

So what you're saying is that Y-shua and ishayas are not related, but that doesn't mean that ishayas gerezda and iesous khristos aren't.

Yes it does, since Iesous is just the way that Greeks wrote Y-shua' (not just when writing about the "Jesus" we know, but also when referring to any of the dozens of other people of that name who come up in the literature of the period).

The Jews and Greeks had been in contact with the Zoroastrians at least since the Acheamenid period.

But Zoroastrianism, for whatever reason, has just never had the "missionary" urge to teach other peoples. The amount of information about Zoroastrianism that other peoples learned tended to be quite fragmentary; more so in the case of the Greeks, who were never actually ruled by Persians, than in the case of the Jews, who absorbed rather more.

So the Persified Jews or Grecians or Grecian speaking Jews were probably aware of the Zoroastrian practice of the ishayas gerezda "sacrifice of milk or oily fat."

I doubt that even the Jews knew anything about specific Zoroastrian rituals, since they would never have attended such rituals, and Zoroastrians didn't teach outsiders about them.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a popular name, but first of all do we even have a Hebrew-Aramaic version of the old testament as early as our first reference to the compound Jesus-Christ?

Yes. Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are a century or two BC.

 

[mojobadshah]

Whereas Jesus is not associated with cream or clarified butter or any other dairy product.

But, mixing in cream or butter or anything like it is most distinctly not one of the likenesses.

No but Gerezda was milk-fat or butter and oily like an ointment that Christians use in Christenings. And Jesus was associated with the tree of life and immortality as was the Hom plant.

This kind of drift is what happens over the course of MANY CENTURIES. You are proposing a direct borrowing from Avestan to Greek, with no time for "drift" at all.

No, I'm saying there was a time drift that begins as far back as our first Greek recollections of the Zoroastrian tradition.

No, both gerezd- and khrist- developed from a common ancestor in a language spoken thousands of years earlier.

I suppose the -s or -os could even have been combined with gerezda to make it sound more Greek, but for the time being lets just say that we know for a fact that the two forms are undeniably related.

Why do you think so???? The Greeks were extraordinarily ignorant about Zoroastrianism; we have been over this many times.

You make it sound like they didn't know anything about Zoroastrianism. I'm sure that anyone who had observed Zoroastrian practices and were told that they the Hom drink was the elixir of immortality that it would have caught on. Moreover the Roman Mithraists were obviously aware of the Hom practice because they had their version of the Eucharist.

Yes it does, since Iesous is just the way that Greeks wrote Y-shua' (not just when writing about the "Jesus" we know, but also when referring to any of the dozens of other people of that name who come up in the literature of the period).

Then where did the -s in iesous come from? And how different is ishayas from Y-shua really? Essentially the same development would have transpired. Heb. y-/ Av. i > Gk. ie + Heb. sh/ Av. sh > Gk. + Heb. ua/ Av. aya > Gk. ou Av. s > Gk. s

Using Iesous probably wasn't a Greek pronunciation of y-shua, but rather the substitution of a term familiar to the Greeks for y-shua which shared semantic resemblance. I mean if what you're saying about there having to have been time for divergance between the Avestan gerezda and the Greek khristos then wouldn't the same have to have been true for the Hebrew-Aramaic Y-shua > Greek iesous theory, and how long would that have had to have taken?

But Zoroastrianism, for whatever reason, has just never had the "missionary" urge to teach other peoples. The amount of information about Zoroastrianism that other peoples learned tended to be quite fragmentary; more so in the case of the Greeks, who were never actually ruled by Persians, than in the case of the Jews, who absorbed rather more.

I don't agree that Zoroastrianism never had the missionary zeal. Both the Greek and Jewish lands had been incorporated into the Persian Empire . The Persian frontiers extended as far west as Macedon which bordered Athens, not to mention all the Greeks of Asia minor. And the Hom ritual was a central practice among the Zoroastrians.

I doubt that even the Jews knew anything about specific Zoroastrian rituals, since they would never have attended such rituals, and Zoroastrians didn't teach outsiders about them.

Well I doubt that they didn't. The knew enough about the ideology to have established Christianity.

Yes. Many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are a century or two BC.

But the word-phrase "Jesus-Christ" isn't is it? I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls were all Old Testament material. What is our earliest reference to the word-phrase "Jesus-Christ"?

 

[bob x]

No but Gerezda was milk-fat or butter and oily like an ointment that Christians use in Christenings.

Olive oil is the base of that ointment.

And Jesus was associated with the tree of life

Not in any scripture, no.

I'm saying there was a time drift that begins as far back as our first Greek recollections of the Zoroastrian tradition.

That's in the generation after Alexander, which is far too short a time, less than the time from Shakespeare to now-- but "grease" in English is still pronounced as in Shakespeare's day. The kind of drift reflected among cognates descended from the Proto-Indo-European of thousands of years earlier is not the kind of thing that happens rapidly.

You make it sound like they didn't know anything about Zoroastrianism.

That's right. What the Greco-Roman authors have to say about Zoroaster is astoundingly ignorant.

I'm sure that anyone who had observed Zoroastrian practices

What makes you think that ANY outsiders had observed Zoroastrian rituals?

Moreover the Roman Mithraists were obviously aware of the Hom practice because they had their version of the Eucharist.

We don't really know that. We have 19th-century authors guessing that they "must" have.

Then where did the -s in iesous come from?

In the Greek, it is masculine nominative, the usual ending for a male name.

And how different is ishayas from Y-shua really? Essentially the same development would have transpired. Heb. y-/ Av. i > Gk. ie + Heb. sh/ Av. sh > Gk. + Heb. ua/ Av. aya > Gk. ou Av. s > Gk. s

When Persian words are borrowed into Greek, we find complex vowels simplified, those involving "y" going to front vowels "i"/"e": for example, the king Daraywush or Darayawush (the Old Persian script is ambiguous) becomes "Darius" and Khshayarsha becomes "Xerxes" (the first xi is a reasonable representation of "Khsh" but the "sh" only becomes xi by influence from the first; the final -es is just to make it masculine nominative). Here you are proposing that a simple vowel "i" in Persian became a complex "ie" in Greek; and that "aya" would become a back vowel "ou"; I know no examples that would confirm any such patterns.

Using Iesous probably wasn't a Greek pronunciation of y-shua

Yes it was. The name was the fourth most common (after Judah, Joseph, and Simon) among Jews of the period; in the Aramaic spelling Y-sh-w-' it is common on tombstones, and in the Greek spelling Iesous it is used for dozens of people in the historical records of the time.

rather the substitution of a term familiar to the Greeks

The Greeks did not have any "familiarity" with Iesous except for its usage to spell the common Jewish name.

I mean if what you're saying about there having to have been time for divergance between the Avestan gerezda and the Greek khristos then wouldn't the same have to have been true for the Hebrew-Aramaic Y-shua > Greek iesous theory, and how long would that have had to have taken?

Zero time. The initial iota is how they wrote words starting with "y" (they did not distinguish the consonant "y" from a short "i" in writing); it is a little unusual that eta (a long "e") rather than epsilon (short "e") is used for the minimal schwa-vowel (but perhaps that vowel was pronounced more strongly in Aramaic than in Hebrew; the sigma "s" for "sh" is perfectly regular since Greek did not have the "sh" sound; the compound vowel ou is how they always wrote the "oo" sound in English food corresponding to the uw in Y-shuwa'; the glottal stop ' disappears because it is a weak sound which Greek didn't have and Greeks probably couldn't even hear (even if it hadn't fallen silent, as it does in many modern Hebrew dialects); and the ending is changed to -s for grammatical reasons (to make it masculine; an -a ending would be feminine).

This all fits perfectly with how all other names from Hebrew or Aramaic got transliterated into Greek. We might compare French Jacques becoming English Jack: the French starts with a "zh" sound (sibilant only, not the affricate "j" which combines stop and sibilant) but English doesn't start words that way; the French vowel is "ah" but English prefers the "slack" vowel for "short a"; the French final consonant is released ("zhock-uh") while English leaves final stops unreleased; so yes, there are some sound-shifts here, but no "drift", just a substitution of nearest equivalents. What you are, again, refusing to understand is that if you propose a set of sound-shifts, it will not do to make up a new set of sound-shifts for every pair of words that you want to declare the "same"; you have to justify each sound-shift by showing multiple examples of the same shift happening in other pairs of words.

I don't agree that Zoroastrianism never had the missionary zeal. Both the Greek and Jewish lands had been incorporated into the Persian Empire .

And name me any Greek or Jewish converts to the religion. The Persian Empire adopted a policy of leaving local religions alone.

But the word-phrase "Jesus-Christ" isn't is it? I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls were all Old Testament material.

In which the name Y-shua' and the word moshiach occur often; very little of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Greek so only in the "1st Enoch" texts do we find christos. You wouldn't expect to find the name together with the title until, of course, there had been somebody with that name who claimed the title.

What is our earliest reference to the word-phrase "Jesus-Christ"?

Paul's epistles. He does have a metaphorical usage of "milk"-- but to mean feeble spiritual teachings, of the sort appropriate for immature people who are not ready for the "meat".

 

[mojobadshah]

Olive oil is the base of that ointment.

Well how does a root go from meaning "creamy; oily fat from a cow; dairy product" as in the Avestan gerezda to "olive oil annointed one" in Greek back to "cream or dairy product" in Greek loan to Old French?

That's right. What the Greco-Roman authors have to say about Zoroaster is astoundingly ignorant.

Yet they knew of Zoroaster nonetheless and the platonic school held that the Greeks had been aware of Zoroaster as far back as Pythagoras. That's not absurd is it?

What makes you think that ANY outsiders had observed Zoroastrian rituals?

The Greek historian Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 AD) mentions the Persian ritual of the omomomi which is mixed with the blood of wolf and Geiger equates the omomomi with hom Zarathushtra in the Gathas and in the Greek and Roman Classics

Yes it was. The name was the fourth most common (after Judah, Joseph, and Simon) among Jews of the period; in the Aramaic spelling Y-sh-w-' it is common on tombstones, and in the Greek spelling Iesous it is used for dozens of people in the historical records of the time.

Right. I remember that Khristos goes back to Septuagint as a designation for Cyrus and Iesous for Yeshua would go back to the Septuagint to if it was indeed a Greek rendering of Yeshua (or was it Yehoshua... which one was it?). What about before that for both forms? But I still find it a little strange that the first time the two forms are used in conjunction with each other is in one of that last books of the NT. How was John 1:41 translated? Did the Greeks distinguish between Messiah and Christ here?

And name me any Greek or Jewish converts to the religion. The Persian Empire adopted a policy of leaving local religions alone.

They didn't have to be converts to have been influenced by Christianity. I think we both agree that a lot from the post-exilic period to the birth of Christianity is riddled with Zoroastrian ideas.

 

[bob x]

Well how does a root go from meaning "creamy; oily fat from a cow; dairy product" as in the Avestan gerezda to "olive oil annointed one" in Greek back to "cream or dairy product" in Greek loan to Old French?

I don't know what Old French word you are referring to: please clarify.

The root didn't go from Avestan to Greek. It went from Proto-Indo-Germanic (at least; I can't say PIE without knowing if it occurs at all in Centum) meaning "any greasy substance" to Germanic meaning "lard, especially for slicking one's hair" and independently to Balkan Peripheral meaning "olive oil, especially for rubbing one's body" and independently to Indo-Iranian meaning "butterfat, especially for burning".

Yet they knew of Zoroaster nonetheless

After Alexander, they knew the name, in a garbled form, and not much else about him.

the platonic school held that the Greeks had been aware of Zoroaster as far back as Pythagoras.

Pythagoras personally met someone whose name started with "Z" but didn't otherwise sound similar, in Babylon. Neoplatonists later decided that this must have been the same person, indicating that they had no very good notion of when Zoroaster lived (hundreds of years separate him from Pythagoras) or where (hundreds of miles separate his haunts from Babylon).

That's not absurd is it?

It's a perfect example of how little they knew.

The Greek historian Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 AD) mentions the Persian ritual of the omomomi which is mixed with the blood of wolf and Geiger equates the omomomi with hom Zarathushtra in the Gathas and in the Greek and Roman Classics

And so is this. There is nothing in any Iranian source about "wolf's blood". Plutarch has no idea how the ritual's name is pronounced or what it consisted of.

Right. I remember that Khristos goes back to Septuagint as a designation for Cyrus

As a designation for any anointed king, priest, or prophet.

and Iesous for Yeshua would go back to the Septuagint to if it was indeed a Greek rendering of Yeshua (or was it Yehoshua... which one was it?).

The short form Yeshua' occurs (as Iesous in the Greek text) for the first high priest of the restored Temple.

What about before that for both forms?

Before they translated Hebrew, of course Greeks had no use for a way to spell Yeshua'; but the khristos word meant "rubbed with oil", particularly with reference to athletes (either wrestlers greasing themselves up before a bout for better slipperiness, or athletes getting a massage to ease their aches after finishing).

But I still find it a little strange that the first time the two forms are used in conjunction with each other is in one of that last books of the NT.

Paul's epistles are the first books of the NT written.

How was John 1:41 translated? Did the Greeks distinguish between Messiah and Christ here?

eurehkamen ton Messian, ho estin methermeneumenon Christos
"We-have-found the Messiah, which is translated Christ."

I think we both agree that a lot from the post-exilic period to the birth of Christianity is riddled with Zoroastrian ideas.

Angels, the Devil, demons, afterlife in heaven or hell: yes, all that is Zoroastrian. You are claiming knowledge of Zoroastrian rituals, however, which I see little sign of.