posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Minus
I have for a long time wondered about the names in the bible, and how the church have decieved the population in the respective countries by changing
bible names into something more suitable.
There's no deception in translating names to fit the style of the receptor language. If I say "Christopher Columbus," you know who I'm talking
about. It doesn't matter that he was born Christoforo Colombo. There are some Biblical cases I think are based on poor readings (Jehovah) or
inconsistent (Joshua/Jesus), but I wouldn't call those deceptive, either. If you are studying the Scripture at such a level that the meanings of the
names matter, you should have access to the original texts or at least a concordance.
Originally posted by Minus
For eksample John the Baptist - wonderd if any people in the middle east ever was named john?
In france his name is Jean
In spain his name is Juan
In denmark his name is Johannes
In Italy his name is Giovanni
Anybody know what his REAL name actually was?
From a documentary point of view, it was Ioannes, since that is what is recorded in the Greek New Testament, and we have no earlier evidence of his
existence. If he was an actual person, he would have called himself Yohanan.
And this disinformation goes for many many names in the bible just so people better can relate to them or is there a better explanation to
Would it have changed anything for the succes of christianity if they kept the original names?
Some names don't transfer exactly from one language to another. Take the Hebrew Yeshua. In Greek, the -a ending is usually feminine, male names end
in -s. And I don't think they had the -sh- sound. So Yeshua became Iesous. (This happened no later than the 2nd century BCE, as the name is found in
Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures.) In Latin Iesous became Iesus, since the Latin masculine ending is -us. That became Jesus when written
English started using J to represent consonantal I. It's the same name, it has just been adapted for different speakers and writing systems over two
thousand years. Perhaps it has undergone more adaptations due to the number of people speaking and writing about it?
To answer your second question, would Christianity have been as successful if its founder had what would have been considered an unpronounceable
foreign woman's name? Probably not. But neither would any other Yeshua in the Hellenic world. That's why they were all Iesous in Greek. And every
Mosheh was Mouses, and every Shaul was Saulos, and so forth. That's not a disinformation conspiracy among Hellenic Jews--that's simply how people
handled their names in a multilingual society. When you speak Hebrew or Aramaic or some other provincial tongue, and everyone in power speaks Greek,
you figure out a way to introduce yourself in Greek. And then Greek becomes the provincial tongue and everyone's speaking Latin, or English, or some
other language, and your descendants figure out how to introduce you in the new language. If people are still talking about you in two thousand years,
you might not recogize your name--but it would still be your name.