# From Heb. Yeshua to Arab. Isa



## mojobadshah

Is the Arabic name for Jesus Isa derived from Grk. Iseous?  Izha the name of the Zarathushtrian angel of the milk sacrifice or Ishayas Gerezda is derived from the word Ishayas "sacrifice."  Avestan Gerezda is akin to our word Christ.  The Ishayas Gerezda appears to have been a parallel of the sacrifice of the cosmic bull also portrayed in the Mithra Taurochtony representing the shift into a new Great Year.  Could Izha be where the Arabic Isa is derived and could this word-phrase Ishayas Gerezda be a connected to Jesus Christ by folk etymology if anything?


----------



## berndf

We have a lengthy thread about the Arabic name of Jesus. I quote one of the contributions (be clicking on the white double arrow in the blue box you can go the the thread):


jahidmasud said:


> I think, عيسى , 3isa (Transliterated in Modern Hebrew as עיסא) has been formed in the Holy Qur'an by *reordering* the letters of the word for christian name of him, يسوع , Yasu3 (Hebrew, יֵשׁוּעַ - Yeshua3, Aramaic/Syriac, *ܝܫܘܥ* - Esho3) *backwards*.



It should be noted that عيسى(`Isa) is the Koranic name for Jesus and not the only Arabic name. Arab Christians use the name يسوع (Yasu`) as mentioned in the above quote. Taking into account that correspondence of Arabic Sin and Hebrew Shin, the Koranic name is a kind of "Anagram" of the Hebrew name taking into account only the consonant skeleton of the name, Hebrew Y-Sh-` and Arabic `-Y-S. I put Anagram in quotes because the ي is vocalized in عيسىand the و is missing. The summary of the discussion back then is that we don't know how and why the order of sounds changed in Koranic Arabic but that basis is Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ (_Yeshua_`) which itself is a shortening of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ (_Yehoshua_`; English name _Joshua_). Similar shortenings occur quite regularly, compare _Yehoseph _and _Yoseph _(English spelling _Joseph_).

The English spelling _Jesus _is fro Latin _Iesus _which is from Greek _Ἰησοῦς_ (_Yesous_) and the Greek version is the original of the New Testament. We know from the LXX that _Ἰησοῦς_ is the Greek rendition of יֵשׁוּעַ; compare Ezra 2:2 in the Hebrew Tanakh and in the LXX. Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Geek, referred to several people by the name of Ἰησοῦς. From that we know that יֵשׁוּעַ a common name among Jews of the Herodian temple period.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> From that we know that יֵשׁוּעַ a common name among Jews of the Herodian temple period.


If we take the probable assumption (mentioned above) that ישוע Yeshua3 is a shorter form or יהושע Yehoshua3, then the name was common at least 1000 years before Herod.

However: in many cases Yeho- is contracted to Yo- (as for Joseph, Jonathan, Joram, etc.), so the shortening of Yeho- to Ye- (as for Jesus) requires consideration. Aramaic influence on later Hebrew is a possible explanation. For a purely Hebrew explanation, maybe there was a (secondary?) stress on the Ye- syllable of Yehoshua3 that helped the vowel "e" remain instead of vowel "o" during the contraction, unlike for many other Yeho- names. But this makes more difficult to explain how a presumably stressed "Y" consonant disappeared in Arabic.


----------



## berndf

Do we have pre-exile attestations of the name (not in the Tanakh, that I have checked). Would you consider the possibilitiy that it is derived directly from the noun ישועה rather than from the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎?


----------



## Ihsiin

I am not convinced by this re-ordering hypothesis. The Quran talks about Jesus (and indeed, many other Biblical figures) as someone already known to its audience, i.e. the Arabs who were the original recipients of the message. There is no sense in which these characters are introduced by the Quran. It follows then that عيسى was the name already used in Arabic (or, at least, some varieties of Arabic) for Jesus. But it seems to me that the re-ordering of letters is much more of a self-concious literary effort and not something we'd expect from natural linguistic evolution.

I find more convincing a derivation from the Greek _Ιησους_, probably by some kind of intermediary (obviously unattested) like_ Ισους _or something. The reason for this is that I don't find it plausible that the ع would be introduced if it were imported purely from another Semitic language, and that there is precedent for ع being introduced in words of non-Semitic origin that are vowel-initial, e.g. _Ulysses_ -> عوليس, which can be considered some variety of the common practice of importing consonants as emphatics.


----------



## berndf

Ihsiin said:


> But it seems to me that the re-ordering of letters is much more of a self-concious literary effort and not something we'd expect from natural linguistic evolution.


Metathesis is a naturally occurring phenomenon.



Ihsiin said:


> I find more convincing a derivation from the Greek _Ιησους_, probably by some kind of intermediary (obviously unattested) like_ Ισους _or something. The reason for this is that I don't find it plausible that the ع would be introduced if it were imported purely from another Semitic language, and that there is precedent for ع being introduced in words of non-Semitic origin that are vowel-initial, e.g. _Ulysses_ -> عوليس, which can be considered some variety of the common practice of importing consonants as emphatics.


This would be a possibility, if the name יֵשׁוּעַ hadn't been attested before and hadn't been translated into Greek as _Ἰησοῦς __._


----------



## Ihsiin

berndf said:


> Metathesis is a naturally occurring phenomenon.



Yes, but to this degree I just don't find it convincing. يسوع to عيسى is just too much for me to buy.



> This would be a possibility, if the name יֵשׁוּעַ hadn't been attested before and hadn't been translated into Greek as _Ἰησοῦς__._



I don't understand why this should be the case. My hypothesis would be as such: ישוע -> _Ιησους _-> *_Ισου_ς -> عيسى. I don't see how the attestation of ישוע and _Ιησους _precludes this idea.


----------



## berndf

Ihsiin said:


> I don't understand why this should be the case. My hypothesis would be as such: ישוע -> _Ιησους _-> *_Ισου_ς -> عيسى. I don't see how the attestation of ישוע and _Ιησους _precludes this idea.


I misunderstood. I though you meant the Hebrew name were also derived from Greek. The step _Ιησους _-> *_Ισου_ς is not necessary. Late Koine/Byzantine pronunciation of _Ιη- _was [ii-] anyway.


----------



## fdb

I too think that the “jumbling of letters” theory is highly unlikely, both from the standpoint of linguistics, and from that of religious history. Ihsiin’s suggestion about a secondary initial ʻayn is very interesting (and to my knowledge new). Perhaps I can expand on it a bit. As is well known, in Babylonian Aramaic the phoneme /ʻ/ is lost in all positions (though the letter ʻayn is often retained in historic spellings). In the Babylonian Talmud Jesus of Nazareth is several times called yšw hnwṣry (thus, for “correct” yšwʻ). The Arabic name could conceivably have been borrowed via Babylonia. We could then envisage something like (Eastern Syriac) īšōʻ > (Babylonian Aramaic) īšō > (Arabic) ʻīsē عيسى , with س as the usual representation of š in old loan words, and with a “parasitic” initial /ʻ/ as also in (for example) ʻaskar < exercitus.


----------



## berndf

Absolutely, I find the idea interesting too. When I read it, I was rather thinking of a possible Nabatean rendering the late Koine [ii-] is [ʕi:] rather than of Babylonian/Parthian/Sassanid Aramaic. There are may possibilities.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> Do we have pre-exile attestations of the name


2 Chronicles 31:15, around 700 BC.

Regarding Ye- vs. Yo- in the name Yeshua3: the "e" is long (tzere), while in the other examples (Yehonatan etc.) the "e" is very short (schwa). And then again: not clear to me how Yehoshua3 (with schwa) becomes Yeshua3 (with tzere), unlike the other examples.


----------



## berndf

I did a full word search for ישוע but it is וישוע in 2 Chronicles 31:15. That's why I didn't find that occurrence.

What is your theory then?


----------



## fdb

The most common situation in classical Hebrew is this: the vowel in a stressed syllable and in an open pre-tonic syllable is lengthened, while that in an open pre-pre-tonic syllable is elided/reduced. Thus you have disyllabic yēšūʻ but trisyllabic yəhōšūʻ (both with an epenthetic vowel before the laryngeal in the Tiberian vocalisation). But there are exceptions.


----------



## mansio

Re-ordering or metathesis of Yeshua3 to Quranic 3îsâ could have been done deliberately to erase the meaning of the name Yeshua3, which is "God saves". The explanation would be plain theological.


----------



## origumi

origumi said:


> 2 Chronicles 31:15, around 700 BC.


Actually even older, 1 Chronicles 24:11, around 1000 BC (end of King David's reign).



mansio said:


> Re-ordering or metathesis of Yeshua3 to Quranic  3îsâ could have been done deliberately to erase the meaning of the name  Yeshua3, which is "God saves". The explanation would be plain  theological.


But does Islam have a problem with Jesus' name? He is a prophet according to Islam.

Is it really "God saves"? The root may be y-sh-3 (save), but also sh-3-h (pay attention, accept one's pray), or sh-w-3 (lord, noble).


----------



## Treaty

Most of the times Jesus is mentioned in Qur'an, it is either combined with '-bn-i Maryam' or after another name ending with ā (Yahyā or Mūsā). In regard to the 'ʿīsa-bn-i Maryam', I wonder how it would have been pronounced had ʿīsa been rendered as ʿīso. Would have there been a difference? 

The other issue is that Muslims (or probably pagan Arabs) viewed the couple of Jesus and Moses as the arch-prophets of their rival/precedent religions. Is it possible that the ā ending of ʿīsā was to rhyme with Mūsā?


----------



## fdb

Treaty said:


> Is it possible that the ā ending of ʿīsā was to rhyme with Mūsā?



This is the mainstream academic view (it goes back at least to Nöldeke), but I am not sure that it explains it completely.


----------



## mojobadshah

Could Musa and Isa be folk etymologies of Av. Mazda and Izha?


----------



## hadronic

And around what period did Hebrew ישו (without the final ע) come into being?


----------



## fdb

hadronic said:


> And around what period did Hebrew ישו (without the final ע) come into being?



As mentioned (no. 9) it is in the Babylonian Talmud, so perhaps 4th or 5th century CE.


----------



## hadronic

Oh right, I read too fast, a small ` (or lack thereof) can easily be missed .


----------



## ancalimon

mansio said:


> Re-ordering or metathesis of Yeshua3 to Quranic 3îsâ could have been done deliberately to erase the meaning of the name Yeshua3, which is "God saves". The explanation would be plain theological.



Something very similar comes to my mind.  The word "Allah" when written using the mirror writing method, can be read using old Turkic alphabet (using hand writing instead runes on rock) as "Tengri" meaning "The God" ; encloser of singularity in Turkic.


----------



## mansio

origumi said:


> But does Islam have a problem with Jesus' name? He is a prophet according to Islam.



Yes, he is a prophet according to Islam. 

But Jesus is a god (or God) according to christians, who has been sent to save mankind. So I think his name as Jesus = "God saves" was embarrassing for Islamic teachings.

No wonder then that Arabic christians have kept the name, in its arabized version Yasû3.




> Is it really "God saves"? The root may be y-sh-3 (save), but also sh-3-h (pay attention, accept one's pray), or sh-w-3 (lord, noble).



Yeshua3 is considered as being the shortening of Yehoshua3.


----------



## origumi

mansio said:


> Yeshua3 is considered as being the shortening of Yehoshua3.


But what Yehusua3 is derived from? If Yehonatan is Yeho+natan (God gave) and Yehoyada3 is Yeho+yada3 (God knew), etc., then Yehushua3 is Yeho+shua3. So we need to explore shua3, maybe of root sh-w-3. This is either "be rich, be free from danger" H7768 or "rich, noble" H7770. So although the common explanation for Yahoshua3 is "God-deliver", "God-rescue" (for example in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon), the origin can be questioned.


----------



## Malki92

origumi said:


> But what Yehusua3 is derived from? If Yehonatan is Yeho+natan (God gave) and Yehoyada3 is Yeho+yada3 (God knew), etc., then Yehushua3 is Yeho+shua3. So we need to explore shua3, maybe of root sh-w-3. This is either "be rich, be free from danger" H7768 or "rich, noble" H7770. So although the common explanation for Yahoshua3 is "God-deliver", "God-rescue" (for example in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon), the origin can be questioned.



I just want to note that in this context, the _actual _etymology is less important than how the early Christians and Jews understood what the name means. Based on Mat. 1:21, early Christian thinkers such as st. Jerome commented, "... Jesus is a Hebrew word, meaning Saviour. He points to the etymology of the name, saying, "For He shall save His people from this sins." (Matthew 1 Commentary - Golden Chain Commentary on the Gospels) and Rashi gives us a Talmudic reference in his commentary on Num. 13:16 saying, "And Moses called Hoshea…: He prayed on his behalf, “May God save you from the counsel of the spies.” [The name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ is a compounded form of יָהּ יוֹשִׁיעֲךָ, May God save you.]- [Sotah 34b]" (Bamidbar - Numbers - Chapter 13 (Parshah Shelach))

Just to be clear, I do believe that the meaning is "The Lord saves" or "The Lord is salvation" and this can be demonstrated. But, I felt that this point should be noted as well - that is, _how_ people understood it and _how_ it would have been defined in the Islamic era.


----------



## rushalaim

berndf said:


> We have a lengthy thread about the Arabic name of Jesus. I quote one of the contributions (be clicking on the white double arrow in the blue box you can go the the thread):
> 
> 
> It should be noted that عيسى(`Isa) is the Koranic name for Jesus and not the only Arabic name. Arab Christians use the name يسوع (Yasu`) as mentioned in the above quote. Taking into account that correspondence of Arabic Sin and Hebrew Shin, the Koranic name is a kind of "Anagram" of the Hebrew name taking into account only the consonant skeleton of the name, Hebrew Y-Sh-` and Arabic `-Y-S. I put Anagram in quotes because the ي is vocalized in عيسىand the و is missing. The summary of the discussion back then is that we don't know how and why the order of sounds changed in Koranic Arabic but that basis is Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ (_Yeshua_`) which itself is a shortening of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎ (_Yehoshua_`; English name _Joshua_). Similar shortenings occur quite regularly, compare _Yehoseph _and _Yoseph _(English spelling _Joseph_).
> 
> The English spelling _Jesus _is fro Latin _Iesus _which is from Greek _Ἰησοῦς_ (_Yesous_) and the Greek version is the original of the New Testament. We know from the LXX that _Ἰησοῦς_ is the Greek rendition of יֵשׁוּעַ; compare Ezra 2:2 in the Hebrew Tanakh and in the LXX. Flavius Josephus, who wrote in Geek, referred to several people by the name of Ἰησοῦς. From that we know that יֵשׁוּעַ a common name among Jews of the Herodian temple period.


1. About "Yeho-" part. There are short form and full form of those names. For example, full form Ιεζεβουθ "J*e*[ho]zebouth" (2Kings 12.21) and short form Ιωζαβαδ "J*o*zabad" (1Chronicles 26.4). Maybe the same with "Jehoshua" and "Joshua"? Old Greek always writes as sacred ligature *IC* (Jesus).
2. "Moses" is מושי indeed.


----------



## Ihsiin

Wow, I remember this thread. A couple of further points occur to me.



fdb said:


> I too think that the “jumbling of letters” theory is highly unlikely, both from the standpoint of linguistics, and from that of religious history. Ihsiin’s suggestion about a secondary initial ʻayn is very interesting (and to my knowledge new). Perhaps I can expand on it a bit. As is well known, in Babylonian Aramaic the phoneme /ʻ/ is lost in all positions (though the letter ʻayn is often retained in historic spellings). In the Babylonian Talmud Jesus of Nazareth is several times called yšw hnwṣry (thus, for “correct” yšwʻ). The Arabic name could conceivably have been borrowed via Babylonia. We could then envisage something like (Eastern Syriac) īšōʻ > (Babylonian Aramaic) īšō > (Arabic) ʻīsē عيسى , with س as the usual representation of š in old loan words, and with a “parasitic” initial /ʻ/ as also in (for example) ʻaskar < exercitus.



I wonder, if we suggest that the Arabic عيسى derives from Aramaic _īšō_, might we consider the addition of the ع as an instance of hypercorrection, assuming the Arabs would have been familiar with the fact that this dialect of Aramaic had lost the ع (or at least be aware that Arabic often had an ع where Aramaic had none), and simply 'reinserted' incorrectly? 



Malki92 said:


> I just want to note that in this context, the _actual _etymology is less important than how the early Christians and Jews understood what the name means. Based on Mat. 1:21, early Christian thinkers such as st. Jerome commented, "... Jesus is a Hebrew word, meaning Saviour. He points to the etymology of the name, saying, "For He shall save His people from this sins." (Matthew 1 Commentary - Golden Chain Commentary on the Gospels) and Rashi gives us a Talmudic reference in his commentary on Num. 13:16 saying, "And Moses called Hoshea…: He prayed on his behalf, “May God save you from the counsel of the spies.” [The name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ is a compounded form of יָהּ יוֹשִׁיעֲךָ, May God save you.]- [Sotah 34b]" (Bamidbar - Numbers - Chapter 13 (Parshah Shelach))
> 
> Just to be clear, I do believe that the meaning is "The Lord saves" or "The Lord is salvation" and this can be demonstrated. But, I felt that this point should be noted as well - that is, _how_ people understood it and _how_ it would have been defined in the Islamic era.



To be honest, it strikes me that perhaps this how scholars and theologians may have understand the name, but that lay people wouldn't have wondered about the meaning at all, rather simply accepting it as a name (as people do today). And surely it is more likely that the عيسى entered Arabic through common speech rather than through scholarly translation, which it seems to me _would _result in يسوع rather than عيسى.


----------



## PersoLatin

Guys, I read as much of the posts as I could and I'm sure the following has probably been pointed out but I have missed it:

Isn't it possible that يسوع than عيسى are ultimately derived from the same Semitic word but have entered Arabic twice, initially via a geographically closer Semitic language (يسوع) and later via Greek (عيسى)?


----------



## Malki92

Ihsiin said:


> To be honest, it strikes me that perhaps this how scholars and theologians may have understand the name, but that lay people wouldn't have wondered about the meaning at all, rather simply accepting it as a name (as people do today). And surely it is more likely that the عيسى entered Arabic through common speech rather than through scholarly translation, which it seems to me _would _result in يسوع rather than عيسى.



My comment was only meant to be explain how early Christians and Jews understood the meaning of the name Joshua/Jesus. I am not sure how exactly عيسى entered Muslim Arabic, but it's a very interesting question.


----------



## Malki92

PersoLatin said:


> Guys, I read as much of the posts as I could and I'm sure the following has probably been pointed out but I have missed it:
> 
> Isn't it possible that يسوع than عيسى are ultimately derived from the same Semitic word but have entered Arabic twice, initially via a geographically closer Semitic language (يسوع) and later via Greek (عيسى)?



Here's some food for thought: Do we have Quranic names that come from Greek? Let's take Elias and Yunus as examples. Elias begins with an alif and Yunus with a ya. Neither of them are proceeded by an 'ayin. Secondly, they both maintain the final sigma, seen. 

If عيسى is from the Greek Iesous, how did the 'ayin get there? What happened to the 'ou' vowel? Where did the final s go?


----------



## apmoy70

berndf said:


> ..
> It should be noted that عيسى(`Isa) is the Koranic name for Jesus and not the only Arabic name. Arab Christians use the name يسوع (Yasu`) as mentioned in the above quote...


Although the liturgical name (Antiochian Orthodox Church) and in the vernacular is  *المسيح *(Al-Massih) --> _The Messiah_


----------



## Awwal12

apmoy70 said:


> Although the liturgical name (Antiochian Orthodox Church) and in the vernacular is  *المسيح *(Al-Massih) --> _The Messiah_


Al-Masīḥ (with a single "s", by the way) is, essentially, "Christ". Greek Χρῑστός is a calque of Aramaic and, ultimately, Hebrew משיח (maːˈʃiːaħ).


----------



## apmoy70

Awwal12 said:


> Al-Masīḥ (with a single "s", by the way) is, essentially, "Christ". Greek Χρῑστός is a calque of Aramaic and, ultimately, Hebrew משיח (maːˈʃiːaħ).


Oh, I just gave the English transliteration, I did not post an accurate IPA pronunciation👍
True, what you said about the origin of the word, I just wanted to point out that I've never heard (or read) any Arab Orthodox Christian referring to Jesus as "Yasu" they always use the epithet "Messiah" (I think it's under Greek influence, the Antiochian Patriarchate used Koine Greek as the liturgical language until 1897 and the rise to the throne of the Patriarch of the first Arab national, Meletius Doumani, and in liturgical Greek, as well as in the vernacular, we prefer Christ, over Jesus)


----------



## Awwal12

apmoy70 said:


> True, what you said about the origin of the word, I just wanted to point out that I've never heard (or read) any Arab Orthodox Christian referring to Jesus as "Yasu" they always use the epithet "Messiah"


From my experience in Russian, Christians generally tend to use "Christ"; "Jesus" as a single name (i.e. without "Christ" or probably "Lord") will most likely appear in the Biblical narrative only ("when Jesus arrived to Galilee" etc.).
Atheists, on the other hand, tend to use "Jesus".


----------



## OBrasilo

Then that must be a Catholic-Orthodox difference because the Catholics do use Jesus quite often.

As for the Isa-Musa rhyme - that has also occurred in some European languages - see Ježiš and Mojžiš in Czech. Slovenian has Jezus and Mojzes, but there's also the archaic colloquial Ježeš and Mojžeš, the former still appears in the interjection "Ježešmarija". So it's not unlikely that the process also operated in Arabic.


----------



## Awwal12

OBrasilo said:


> Then that must be a Catholic-Orthodox difference because the Catholics do use Jesus quite often


May be related to the fact that the more typical image of Jesus Christ in Eastern Christianity is the reigning king and judge rather than the Suffering Christ. With the Virgin Mary the the same tendency is reflected in the predominant use of her titles instead of her personal name.


----------

