# Jesus' name in Arabic عيسى - يسوع‎



## mansio

I have been wondering for years what is the origin of the Arabic name of Jesus 3iisaa as it is found in the Quran.

Without the initial 3ayin it would be easy to say that it derives from the Greek Iesous, as Jesus does.

The problem is the initial 3ayin. Where does it come from?
The original Hebrew and Aramaic names carry a 3ayin, but at the end not at their beginning.

The only linguistically cognate name in the Bible is that of Esau, 3esav in Hebrew, although Esau has nothing to do with Jesus.


----------



## Josh_

First off, There is a thread here, which might be of some interest.

Secondly, regardless of the *ع* I believe the Arabic word does come from the Greek word. The Greek word is pronounced eye - ee - see - us, right? Many times the initial dipthong sound (eye) comes into Arabic as an *ع* because of the "roundness" of the sound which is better represented than with *إي* .  

Also, there is another word for Jesus in Arabic, yasuu3 (*يسوع *), which is derived from the Hebrew yehoshuu3a (*יהושע* ), which, incidentally, is also the root of my name -- Joshua.


----------



## mansio

Thanks Josh for your information. Semitic words have a strong consonantic skeleton (usually a three lettered root) so I am puzzled by the seemingly shift of the 3ayin from the end as in Yasuu3 to the front as in 3iisaa.
Do you have other examples of foreign names beginning with a long "i" that get an extra 3ayin in Arabic?


----------



## Outsider

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> The Greek word is pronounced eye - ee - see - us, right?


More like "Yeah-sooss". The first letter is read as a consonant, "y". I don't know if this makes any difference...


----------



## Josh_

Outsider said:
			
		

> More like "Yeah-sooss". The first letter is read as a consonant, "y". I don't know if this makes any difference...


Yeah that's right.  I have also heard 'yay-soos' or 'ee-ay-soos'.

I still think the Arabic word is a corruption of the Greek but I can't be 100% sure.



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> Do you have other examples of foreign names beginning with a long "i" that get an extra 3ayin in Arabic?


I seem to remember seeing some, but I don't know.  I may have jumped the gun with that comment.  I am looking, though.


----------



## Muwahid

Hello!

The word/name, "عيسى" I know in english it would corrospond with the name "Jesus", but lexically in Arabic what would it mean?

*Moderator note:
This new thread's been merged to the previous one to have all the opinions and the discussion in one place.
Please don't forget to search the forum before opening a thread.
Thanks *


----------



## Faylasoof

The Arabic Bible has the name یسوع  for Jesus, while in the Quran the name عیسى  is used for him. Same as  یوحنا  in the Arabic Bible versus   یحیٰ in the Quran for John the Baptist. 

The name doesn't seem to have any connection with either  ع ی س or    ع س ی roots.


----------



## Josh_

Hello Muwahid, 

My initial guess is that عيسى came from the other Arabic name for Jesus, يسوع, since they share the same three letters, ي-س-ع, but somehow the letters got reordered.  يسوع comes from the Hebrew ישוע _yashuu3_, which ultimately comes from יהשוע _yahoshuu3_ (or maybe it's the other way around), and which is, I believe, related to the Hebrew root י-ש-ע (_y-sh-3_), which is the cognate of the Arabic root و-س-ع (_w-s-3_).  I will look through my biblical Hebrew dictionary and see if I can find more information.

Lexically, the root ع-ي-س has to do with the color of camel hair and means something like yellowish-white, or dingy white.  This information from Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon.  So I think we can safely assume that the name عيسى did not originate from that root.


----------



## Muwahid

Interesting, so can it be assumed that "*عيسى*" does not originate from arabic but hebrew?


----------



## Faylasoof

Well, reordered Hebrew letters! 

...and Josh I too noticed the ع-ي-س as the root for words to do with camel hair colour as mentioned in Lane. Obviously no connection!


----------



## djamal 2008

Muwahid said:


> Interesting, so can it be assumed that "*عيسى*" does not originate from arabic but hebrew?




Then it should be written عيسا و ليس عيسى.


----------



## Mahaodeh

djamal 2008 said:


> Then it should be written عيسا و ليس عيسى.


 
Why? That is more of a modern (or at least newer) convension. My understanding is that most of the Prophet names are actually not Arabic in origin (not all, of course), including: عيسى وموسى وإبراهيم ونوح ولوط وداود ويونس.


----------



## origumi

Transition of the name from Hebrew to Aramaic (or Aramized Hebrew) to Greek to Arabic would mostly explain the sound of Isa:

Yehoshu3a (יהושע) -> Yeshu3a (ישוע) -> Isus (Ἰησοῦς) -> Isa (عيسى)

The initial "3" remains unexplained.


----------



## cherine

Why do you think it passed to Arabic through Greek?


----------



## clevermizo

cherine said:


> Why do you think it passed to Arabic through Greek?



Because the oldest widespread version of the Gospels was in Greek (although some claim the Aramaic). The version used in Arabic Churches primarily today is actually translated from the English version into Arabic. So it makes sense that the name of Jesus in Greek was very commonly spread, perhaps moreso than the name in the native Semitic languages.

I myself have no idea and think that these things may be more or less unanswerable, but it's not inconceivable that it came through Greek. However, the evidence that it did not come through Greek is that the sound of ع is preserved in both renditions of the name (عيسى or يسوع).


----------



## origumi

cherine said:


> Why do you think it passed to Arabic through Greek?


 
Tried to explain the shift of sh -> s.

Yet this must have a simpler explanation, for example the Hebrew / Aramaic accent of Galilean Jews, or the Arabic interpretation of sh sound.


----------



## Outsider

In Muhammad's time, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Middle East, and also the language of the Christian Church in the East. It would definitely make sense for the Koran to adopt the name for "Jesus" from Greek - the language of the New Testament.


----------



## cherine

clevermizo said:


> However, the evidence that it did not come through Greek is that the sound of ع is preserved in both renditions of the name (عيسى or يسوع).


That's what I was thinking.
If it came through Greek, from where would it get the ع ? (regardless of the position of the Ayn).


Outsider said:


> In Muhammad's time, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Middle East, and also the language of the Christian Church in the East. It would definitely make sense for the Koran to adopt the name for "Jesus" from Greek - the language of the New Testament.


But Greek was not known in Arabia. At least this is what I know.


----------



## Outsider

They didn't have to speak the language. But when Arabs first heard about Christianity, it may well have been from Greek-speaking travellers, or when they travelled into Greek-speaking provinces of the Roman Empire. So they may have associated the Greek pronunciation of the name more with Christianity than the Semitic versions.


----------



## origumi

Outsider said:


> In Muhammad's time, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Middle East


AFAIK Greek was the language of administration and government, Aramaic remained the lingua franca until replaced by Arabic.

[looking for reference]


----------



## WadiH

cherine said:


> That's what I was thinking.
> If it came through Greek, from where would it get the ع ? (regardless of the position of the Ayn).





It's a common phenomenon in Arabic to convert the initial (and sometimes the final) _hamza _into a '_ayn_.  This was described by the ancient grammarians and can still be seen in the Peninsula and Gulf region today.  So, I think it's very probable that عيسى came from the Greek Ieusus.

There's nothing unusual in the Quran using a Greek-derived form.  The Quran refers to the Biblical Jonah as "Younus," which is clearly derived from the Greek Jonas.


----------



## WadiH

By the way, is there any evidence that the practice of referring to Jesus as يسوع by Arabic-speaking Christians is anything other than a modern phenomenon?  I'm not saying such evidence does not exist, but I personally have not encountered any.  As far as I can tell, Christian Arabic-speakers in the Middle Ages were just as likely to call him عيسى as Muslims.


----------



## clevermizo

Wadi Hanifa said:


> By the way, is there any evidence that the practice of referring to Jesus as يسوع by Arabic-speaking Christians is anything other than a modern phenomenon?



This might very well be. The Eastern Churches were still using Greek and Aramaic scriptures up until the modern era when more Bible translations were available in Arabic.


----------



## Faylasoof

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Perhaps I can be of some assistance here! The Arabic names like عیسَی and   یَحیَی have always intrigued me and long time ago I saw Arthur Jeffrey’s book “THE FOREIGN VOCABULARY OF THE QUR'AN” which I traced as an online version here. 

He goes further than people like Jarir at-Tabari, az-Zamaxshari, as-Suyooti etc. who had recognised and partially traced some of the foreign words in the Quran.

Jeffery very conveniently lists all the foreign, non-Arabic lexical terms / names (~322 in all) mentioned in the Quran. [They represent ~0.4 % of the complete Quranic vocabulary.]

In part 18 (page 218) he takes the etymology of the name عیسَی as that proposed by Fraenkel who seems to suggest that it comes (most immediately) from the Syrio-Aramaic version of the name and was used by Christian Arabs before Islam. Jeffrey however admits earlier that the "name is still a puzzle to scholarship".

He doesn’t mention which region exactly these people were in but we know that the Nestorian Christians were centred in Najran – and present elsewhere too. 

(In part 25; page 290 he also has an interesting discussion about the etymology of   یَحیَی.)




Wadi Hanifa said:


> By the way, is there any evidence that the practice of referring to Jesus as





Wadi Hanifa said:


> يسوع by Arabic-speaking Christians is anything other than a modern phenomenon?.


 
According to Jeffrey there is some evidence for an ancient use of يسوع. Reference in the above reference.


----------



## Josh_

When I had posted my most recent post I had forgotten that عيسى most likely comes from the Greek, something that I had incidentally said three years earlier, in post #2 of this newly combined thread.

Anyway, making the connection between the fact that عيسى and يسوع have all the same letters (save one) and that the two words basically look like the reverse of the other has led me to have an interesting thought.  

When you read the Hebrew word ישוע from left to right (as someone familiar Hebrew letters, but not necessarily accustomed to the the fact that they are read from right to left might do) it would be pronounced like _3uusa, _more or less. As a comparison, it would be the equivalent of reading it as עושי in Hebrew or يسوع as عوسي in Arabic (the letters are merely reversed).  

So I wonder if it is possible that some Greek (which is read from left to right like English) speaking scribes/translators incorrectly read and/or wrote down the name this way (for whatever careless reason, be it lack of concentration, not being accustomed to reading from left to right, or otherwise) when translating into Greek.  And then the spelling just stuck!

The ע/ع thing is still problematic, however, as Greek has no equivalent letter, but perhaps they initially had some way of transliterating it (just to show that it was there) that was eventually lost.  And then, when it made its way into Arabic, it was just carried over as عيسى. 

Now, this would be more convincing if the Arabic were عوسى instead of عيسى, but maybe the 'uu' sound got changed to 'ii' or maybe the Hebrew ו was wrongly pronounced as 'ii' by those Greek speakers to begin with.

Who knows.  Just throwing out an idea.


----------



## clevermizo

Josh_ said:


> So I wonder if it is possible that some Greek (which is read from left to right like English) speaking scribes/translators incorrectly read and/or wrote down the name this way (for whatever careless reason, be it lack of concentration, not being accustomed to reading from left to right, or otherwise) when translating into Greek.  And then the spelling just stuck!



That's cute but unlikely. If you believe that the Gospels were written as attested (by the Apostles themselves), then they'd have no problem knowing Jesus' name or with misreading it. Remember, the Greek is the original (as far as we can tell) text, not a translation.

Furthermore, the iota is probably being used as a transliteration for yod. Furthermore, the iota and the yod have a genetic relationship.


----------



## Josh_

Yes, that may be the case if one accepts that the Gospels were written as attested.  I don't want to start a religious debate, but suffice it to say that there is a lot about that era that we do not know, and may never know.  A great deal of scholarship suggests that the Gospels were written well after the purported life of Jesus, and not by their purported authors, or even people who would have known Jesus.

Yes, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, but the authors were probably familiar with the Old Testament, which I assume had already already been translated into Greek by that point. If we accept that the name for Jesus  comes from the Hebrew ישוע, then it might not be too much of a stretch to think that they relied on transliteration when rendering that name into Greek.  Anyway, I'll stop there as I don't really know enough to make a confident statement.  

To turn back to linguistics for a moment, I just find it quite curious, and almost more than a coincidence, that عيسى and يسوع are so similar in spelling, one almost looking like the mirror image of the other.  I don't know what to make of it, however.


----------



## clevermizo

Josh_ said:


> Yes, the New Testament was originally written in Greek, but the authors were probably familiar with the Old Testament, which I assume had already already been translated into Greek by that point. If we accept that the name for Jesus  comes from the Hebrew ישוע, then it might not be too much of a stretch to think that they relied on transliteration when rendering that name into Greek.  Anyway, I'll stop there as I don't really know enough to make a confident statement.



My final point about this before I too leave it alone is that this Hebrew name is not found in the Old Testament to my knowledge. Also, you're right that the Old Testament had already been translated into Greek, but the Septuagint at least was translated by Jews from Hebrew into Greek. In fact, I tend to believe the transliterations of names because they usually contain interesting information (say, about the classical pronunciation of Hebrew consonants).


----------



## origumi

clevermizo said:


> My final point about this before I too leave it alone is that this Hebrew name is not found in the Old Testament to my knowledge.


The name ישוע appears several times in the Old Testament, books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is one of the families that returned from Babylon to Judea.


----------



## Outsider

Josh_ said:


> So I wonder if it is possible that some Greek (which is read from left to right like English) speaking scribes/translators incorrectly read and/or wrote down the name this way (for whatever careless reason, be it lack of concentration, not being accustomed to reading from left to right, or otherwise) when translating into Greek.  And then the spelling just stuck!


Regardless of who wrote (and later copied) the gospels, we can be sure that they were devoted followers of Christ. It's therefore hard to believe that they would have let such a crude mistake as the one you describe go uncorrected.



origumi said:


> AFAIK Greek was the language of administration and government, Aramaic remained the lingua franca until replaced by Arabic.
> 
> [looking for reference]


You may well be right about that. I think the term "Syriac" is normally used with reference to that period. There are very ancient Bibles written in Syriac.

Still, the hierarchy of the Roman Church would have most likely used Greek in that part of the world. The Greek version of the Bible was likely the model on which other versions were based.

What was Jesus called in medieval Aramaic/Syriac Bibles?


----------



## origumi

Outsider said:


> What was Jesus called in medieval Aramaic/Syriac Bibles?


In the Peshitta (Syriac NT) - ישוע (same as Hebrew), and in Aramaic letters ܝܫܘܥ


----------



## Outsider

Thank you. So, the Arabic version of the name can't be explained by Syriac influence. Hmm...


----------



## clevermizo

origumi said:


> The name ישוע appears several times in the Old Testament, books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is one of the families that returned from Babylon to Judea.



I stand corrected. I think I didn't realize because I can't think of a "main" Tanakh character with this name.


----------



## Ander

Outsider said:


> In Muhammad's time, Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Middle East, and also the language of the Christian Church in the East.



I would say the language of the Christian Churches in the Middle-East was Syriac Aramaic and Greek.

The Bible had been translated into Syriac (the Peshitta), as Origumi and Outsider said..


----------



## Outsider

I've been reading a book that reminded me that Ethiopia (the Kingdom of Axum) conquered parts of the Arabian Peninsula in pre-Islamic times. By then they had become Christian. I wonder if the Coranic version of Jesus' name reached the Arabs through the Ethiopians.


----------



## Faylasoof

*Hello Outsider,*

*The* *Aksumite /* *Axumite Empire did include parts of the southern Arabian peninsula.. Being Christians, they also came into conflict with the Jewish rulers of Yemen (~ 524 CE). So both Judaic (Hebrew) and Ethiopian Christian (*Ge'ez)*influences were there in the South. *

*The point is if Jesus’ name in the Quran is from Ge’ez, then could you (or someone else) tell us what that would be in this language – in both the original and Romanised form please! *

*These days Ge’ez refers to the language of the mainly liturgical texts in Ethiopia and Eretria. The official language being Amharic instead. But at that time Ge’ez or Ethiopic was supposed to be the official language*


----------



## Outsider

Faylasoof said:


> The point is if Jesus’ name in the Quran is from Ge’ez, then could you (or someone else) tell us what that would be in this language – in both the original and Romanised form please!


I wish I knew!


----------



## origumi

Faylasoof said:


> The point is if Jesus’ name in the Quran is from Ge’ez, then could you (or someone else) tell us what that would be in this language – in both the original and Romanised form please!


 
AFAIK: Yasus


----------



## Talib

Josh_ said:


> When you read the Hebrew word ישוע from left to right (as someone familiar Hebrew letters, but not necessarily accustomed to the the fact that they are read from right to left might do) it would be pronounced like _3uusa, _more or less. As a comparison, it would be the equivalent of reading it as עושי in Hebrew or يسوع as عوسي in Arabic (the letters are merely reversed).
> 
> So I wonder if it is possible that some Greek (which is read from left to right like English) speaking scribes/translators incorrectly read and/or wrote down the name this way (for whatever careless reason, be it lack of concentration, not being accustomed to reading from left to right, or otherwise) when translating into Greek.  And then the spelling just stuck!


עושי would be read as 3ushi or 3oshi most naturally.

Plus there are lots of Hebrew and Aramaic names and words which were transliterated in Greek properly, so your idea about reading ישוע backwards is intriguing, but I think untenable.


> To turn back to linguistics for a moment, I just find it quite curious, and almost more than a coincidence, that عيسى and يسوع are so similar in spelling, one almost looking like the mirror image of the other. I don't know what to make of it, however.


I noticed this too and I always assumed the ع got transposed to the front of the word somehow. How, I don't know.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> Tried to explain the shift of sh -> s.


This wouldn't prove anything. Arabic cognates of Hebrew words normally have "s" where Hebrew words have "sh". Arabic Sīn corresponds etymologically to Hebrew Shin and vice versa.


----------



## Talib

What's more, /s/ is believed to have been the original sound. Arabic preserves the sounds of Proto-Semitic more faithfully than Hebrew, including Biblical Hebrew.


----------



## origumi

berndf said:


> This wouldn't prove anything. Arabic cognates of Hebrew words normally have "s" where Hebrew words have "sh". Arabic Sīn corresponds etymologically to Hebrew Shin and vice versa.


This is true for "original" Semitic words. But what about Quran-time (or post Quran) borrowing? Both Hebrew and Arabic seem to have the sh sound at the time, so there was no apparent reason to change the sh -> s, unless by a strong bilingual population used to actively change Hebrew sh to Arabic s in many other words.



Talib said:


> What's more, /s/ is believed to have been the original sound. Arabic preserves the sounds of Proto-Semitic more faithfully than Hebrew, including Biblical Hebrew.


This comment refers to much earlier time. The shibboleth test proves that most Israelites had clear distinction between s and sh long after the Proto-semitic period and long before Jesus time. As far as I know the difference between shin and sin in written Quranic Arabic reflected the spoken language, so Arabic, even if maintained the original s sound, has no problem with sh.


----------



## berndf

origumi said:


> This is true for "original" Semitic words. But what about Quran-time (or post Quran) borrowing? Both Hebrew and Arabic seem to have the sh sound at the time, so there was no apparent reason to change the sh -> s, unless by a strong bilingual population used to actively change Hebrew sh to Arabic s in many other words.


I see what you mean. But I'd still argue that it would be a weak argument because the correspondence of Hebrew "sh" an Arabic "s" is too obvious from the assimilation of other Hebrew names (e.g. Ishmael>Ismail) to make the sound shift an argument against a direct assimilation from Hebrew rather than an indirect one via Greek. (To avoid any possible misunderstanding: I do not say it was one way or the other. I just think that the sh>s sound shift does not constitute a convincing argument.)




Talib said:


> What's more, /s/ is believed to have been the original sound. Arabic preserves the sounds of Proto-Semitic more faithfully than Hebrew, including Biblical Hebrew.


I think it is more complicated. Proto-Semitic is believed to have had five different sibilants which rearranged in different ways in the different Semitic languages. The standard reconstruction is that Hebrew Samech was derived from [s] and Shin from [ʃ] ("sh") while in Arabic both merged into Sīn. The Hebrew Sin and the Arabic Shīn are thought to be derived from a Proto-Semitic lateral sound similar to the Welsh double-"l", i.e. [ɬ].


----------



## Talib

Yes, explaining why both Arabic and Hebrew contrasted /s/ and /ʃ/, but from different sources.

That's why I think any explanation involving Greek is far-fetched. Greek only has a /s/, it's true, but Arabic renders ישמעאל _Yishma'el_ as إسماعيل so it's not hard to see how ישוע _Yeshua3_ could become عيسى with an /s/. The only question is how the ع got at the beginning, but there is probably an obscure linguistic process going on there. I'm afraid I don't have much more than that at the present.


----------



## maxq

Well it obviously NOT from Hebrew, which is exactly the case with Musa موسي wherein the Hebrew word would end with the soft "h" instead of the vowels ي or ا.

The word عيسي does not conform to Arabic grammar, which leads to only two possible explanations:

1) It was transliterated from Greek
2) It was naturalized into Arabic via Nabataean or Assyrian Aramaic.

(1) is a bit unlikely since it would have then been using a Glottal stop ء instead of the ع. Furthermore, Pre-Islamic Arabs (both the Ghassanid and Lakhmid) had good command of Greek and knew the lexical mapping for "E/J" as non-pharyngeal "h" as in "hammer". For instance, P*e*lla is properly transliterated as *فهل* in Arabic and not as فيل or فعل. The use of عيسي is attested as per Alphonse Mingaga in the Pre-Islamic times. So this leaves us with the second option.

(2) I feel that Pre-Islamic Arabs also had good command of Aramaic: Christian Arabs in Assyrian and Pagan Arabs in Nabataean. Arabic itself was a NON-RELIGIOUS SPOKEN language and NOT a literary or religious language by ANY stretch of the imagination. عيسيfor Pagans (yes Pagans) and Christians would have held a very special religious connotation which undoubtedly makes this word a pure transliteration of the Aramaic word ܥܝܣܐ which if translated, would mean العيس.


----------



## WadiH

maxq;7633096
The word عيسي does not conform to Arabic grammar said:


> e[/B]lla is properly transliterated as *فهل* in Arabic and not as فيل or فعل. The use of عيسي is attested as per Alphonse Mingaga in the Pre-Islamic times. So this leaves us with the second option.



As I said earlier, it's quite reasonable to expect the ع in that position, as Arabs have always put a ع in place of the glottal stop in many situations, and still do today.  For example, some dialects say أجل while others (e.g. Iraq and the Gulf) say عجل, some say لاء while others say لاع.  Where I come from, the old-fashioned way of saying "ice cream" was عسكريم.  The Classical grammarians called this عنعنة.  As for the mapping, there's no reason to believe that every instance of borrowing followed this mapping convention with absolute rigor, and in any case, is there anything but a Greek explanation for يونس?


----------



## Abu Rashid

Regardless of its origin, it seems it was immediately understood by the existing Arab Christians, and therefore was most probably the same name they already used.


----------



## jahidmasud

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*.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


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*.


Isa backwards would be Asi, no? Or am I too naive and literal now?
Unless you can make a case out of it and give some _solid evidence_, I am afraid we'll have to store this "reorganisation" in the department 'pseudo-linguistics'.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Abu Rashid

> Isa backwards would be Asi, no? Or am I too naive and literal now?



If it were a name that originates from a Latin-alphabet based language, yes... but it is not.

The letters involved are ayin, yeh, sin, alef (note: there's 4, not 3, for a start).

Whether or not those 4 match the reversed version as it exists in Aramaic or Hebrew, I'm not sure. If it is yeh, sin, waw, ayin.. then perhaps, since vowels in Arabic (and other Semitic languages) can often change especially those long vowels which act as consonants here.


----------



## jookieapc

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Isa backwards would be Asi, no? Or am I too naive and literal now?
> Unless you can make a case out of it and give some _solid evidence_, I am afraid we'll have to store this "reorganisation" in the department 'pseudo-linguistics'.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank



ع ي س ى (a'ysa) backwards is ى س ي ع which is pronounced yese'a. Notice the last letter ye' maqsoora (aka alif maqsoora) and the 2nd letter ye' are only differentiated by dots which even still today aren't always added. An intial ye' maqsoora (aa sound) is not allowed so it would always be read as a ye'.

The Sabean language was written left to right and then right to left alternatively on each consecutive line and I read that Greek scribes did the same in ancient inscriptions before the direction was solidified in later writing. Since Sabean was the language in southern Arabia and there was influence of Ethiopeans on Arabs in the region then possibly the reversal of letters occured here?

I think it is far more likely that the initial ع came via the transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the original name and then the hamza changed to ع before the oral Qur'an was written. I wonder though if this discrepancy is due to a scribe's error or mistakes made when the dots were added to the Arabic in the Qur'an. 

What is the Islamic belief on the authenticity of the names in the Qur'an? If the words contained are from a perfect source then wouldn't the names contained also be the original name? Or perhaps would the names be adjusted for the names people would be accustomed to recognising in the region which arguably were from Greek gospels?


----------



## Abu Rashid

> and I read that Greek scribes did the same in ancient inscriptions  before the direction was solidified in later writing.



Boustrophedon writing was only used in very old Greek texts (long before Christianity) as far as I know, and was borrowed from Phoenician (when they borrowed the alphabet). Many ancient Semitic languages used to actually use this alternating text direction.

So I doubt it's a case of this.


----------



## jookieapc

Abu Rashid said:


> Boustrophedon writing was only used in very old Greek texts (long before Christianity) as far as I know, and was borrowed from Phoenician (when they borrowed the alphabet). Many ancient Semitic languages used to actually use this alternating text direction.
> 
> So I doubt it's a case of this.


 
I agree, but Sabean language may still have been using this practice at that time. Even still though, how could a name be distorted so much unless it fell out of oral tradition?

Or the 3yn was deliberately added to make Eysa sound like a more Semitic name


----------



## Abu Rashid

> I agree, but Sabean language may still have been using this practice at  that time. Even still though, how could a name be distorted so much  unless it fell out of oral tradition?



As far as I'm aware there's no actual Hebrew Gospels in existence anyway. So we have only speculation about what his real name was. Therefore to claim that 3eesa must be a distortion of the original name is wrong, because we don't even know what the original name is. Even Christians themselves are still debating what his name is. And most of his companions also nobody knows their actual names, because their names were translated into Greek instead of being transliterated.

That's probably why they invented the "special name" Jesus (or Iesous) for him, because they simply weren't sure what his name was.


----------



## berndf

I am afraid we don't have the necessary information to reconstruct the precise etymology "3isa" but the most obvious suspects are through Aramaic or Greek. The most important link between the Arabic and the Christian cultures were the Nabataeans who were Arabs, spoke Arabic and wrote Aramaic; but the inscriptions in their churches where Greek, the language of the New Testament (the attached photo I took a few month ago in the ruins of the church of Avdat, a Nabataean city in the Negev desert). So both routes, through Aramaic or through Greek, are possible.

A possible development through Greek has already been discussed. In Aramaic, the spelling is the same as in Hebrew: ישוע (YSHU3) but there are different ways to place vowels. In Hebrew it is YeSHUa3, as stated before. Aramaic doesn't have the Hebrew "patach gnuvah" hence it becomes YeSHU3. But Aramaic has many dialects. In Eastern Syriac we find YiSHO3 (see attached image; the dot below the Yodh indicates "i"; "Waw" can stand either for "u" or "o"; the dot above the "Waw" indicates an "o"; Source – see section about "Yodh"), pronounced [yiʃo:] or [i:ʃo:] (the final "3" is mute).

To me, this hypothesis of a Syriac origin appears more plausible than Greek, though not completely convincing: neither of the two hypotheses can explain the "wrong" position of the 3aiyn.

The Syriac hypothesis has the additional problem of having to explain the change from [ʃ] to [s]. But I don't think this is very serious. The correspondence of Aramaic Shin to Arabic Sin was certainly obvious to speakers being fluent in both languages as certainly many Arabic scholars but also merchants were. In addition, early versions of the Arabic alphabet didn't distinguish between Shin and Sin; the three dots distinguishing Shin from Sin is an early Islamic amendment to the Arabic alphabet.


----------



## Abu Rashid

> The most important link  between the Arabic and the Christian cultures were the Nabataeans who  were Arabs, spoke Arabic and wrote Aramaic




The Nabataeans were long gone before the rise of Islam, and were they even Christians? I don't think so. On the other hand we have the Ghassanids, who were Christian Arabs, who existed for centuries prior to Islam and who existed between Shaam and Arabia... so they'd be a much more likely candidate if you ask me.




> In Hebrew it is YeSHUa3, as  stated before...




As far as I'm aware there's no Hebrew Gospels to actually verify this. And since the name used for Joshua and for Jesus in the NT are different in Greek, then it's just a guess to claim it's Yeshua3.




> In  addition, early versions of the Arabic alphabet didn't distinguish  between Shin and Sin; the three dots distinguishing Shin from Sin is an  early Islamic amendment to the Arabic alphabet.




The Hebrew alphabet still doesn't distinguish between them today except with the system of diacritic marks, which were introduced around the same time as the Arabic system or later.


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> The Nabataeans were long gone before the rise of Islam, and were they even Christians? I don't think so. On the other hand we have the Ghassanids, who were Christian Arabs, who existed for centuries prior to Islam and who existed between Shaam and Arabia... so they'd be a much more likely candidate if you ask me.


They lost their independence long before the rise of Islam. But the Nabataean culture continued to exist until the Islamic conquest. In addition, Nabataean script was one of if not the main source of the Arabic alphabet. As members of the Roman Empire, they became (or had to become) Christians in the 4th century. Anyway, I mentioned the Nabataeans only to prove that Greek influence is possible (which was contested in an earlier post).



Abu Rashid said:


> As far as I'm aware there's no Hebrew Gospels to actually verify this. And since the name used for Joshua and for Jesus in the NT are different in Greek, then it's just a guess to claim it's Yeshua3.


The Hebrew version of the Name is certainly Yeshua3. If Jesus himself and his disciples use the Hebrew (Yeshua3) or the West Aramaic form (Yeshu3) is not known. And it doesn't matter to the question of this thread. 

But you are right, strictly speaking we have no direct source verifying that the Hebrew or Aramaic version of the name is really the name of the Jesus of the Bible. The only contemporary sources are in Greek (well, copies of them; the earliest parts of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul and I don’t think the originals exist any more). We only know that a name spelled ישוע was current among Jews of the 2nd Temple period. Whether it was pronounced the Hebrew or the Aramaic way or maybe both we don't know. Early Christian Aramaic manuscripts show this spelling as well. But the oldest know one is, as far as I know, from the 5th century.


Abu Rashid said:


> The Hebrew alphabet still doesn't distinguish between them today except with the system of diacritic marks, which were introduced around the same time as the Arabic system or later.


And the same is true for the Syriac alphabet. Thank you for mentioning this. One more reason why the change from [ʃ] to [s] isn't very important.


----------



## Abu Rashid

I just came across an interesting thought regarding the apparent juxtaposition of the root radicals in this name according to Arabic and Hebrew/Aramaic.

The Hebrew verb that the name originates from is: יָשַׁע
and means to rescue.

In Arabic a word that has the exact same meaning of rescue is: غوث (this is the masdar, the root has a more general sense of aide or bolster or advocate, but so can the Hebrew root according to Gesenius).

Now it's known that in Hebrew:
First position yod is usually originally waw (but long vowels often vary in roots anyway).
Ayin is a merger of ayin and ghayin.
Shin is a merger of shin and tha.

So it would seem these roots could possibly have the exact same radicals originally, but the order is mixed.

It doesn't explain how Arabic ended up with sin (although sometimes sin and tha are mixed in Arabic dialects) or ayin instead of ghayin that is in the Arabic root. But it does seem to match the different radical order.


----------



## Abu Rashid

Something else interesting, a cognate verb to the Arabic one I just mentioned seems to exist also: עוּשׁ (come to the aid of, help)

Has the same radical order as the Arabic root.


----------



## jahidmasud

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Isa backwards would be Asi, no? Or am I too naive and literal now?
> Unless you can make a case out of it and give some _solid evidence_, I am afraid we'll have to store this "reorganisation" in the department 'pseudo-linguistics'.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank



If someone have deep understanding of Arabic Morphology, he surely will find this [heb. yeshua3>> Arb. 3iisa (y) by reversing] quite possible. I don't know why or how it has been changed. H. U. Stanton in his book, *Teaching of the Qur'An With an Account of Its Growth* also says about this change or reversal. 

"There is no direct evidence to show why Muhammad changed the original name Yeshu`, with Hebrew radicals ye, shin, 'ayin, by reversing them to 'ayin, sin, ya of Arabic 'Isa. Arabic-speaking christians have always kept the true name. The most probable conjecture seems to be theat the change was the result of Muhammad's love for assonance which led him also to change Saul and Goliath into Talut and Jalut, Gog and Magog into Yajuj and Majuj, Aaron and Korah into Harun and Qarun. Similarly ..."

[Anyone can find this in the Google Books.]


----------



## Malki92

I must respond to this and if it's deemed off topic, then please get rid of the posts making these claims. We don't want anyone to come on here thinking that this stuff has any credibility, at all.


Abu Rashid said:


> As far as I'm aware there's no actual Hebrew Gospels in existence anyway. So we have only speculation about what his real name was. Therefore to claim that 3eesa must be a distortion of the original name is wrong, because we don't even know what the original name is. Even Christians themselves are still debating what his name is. And most of his companions also nobody knows their actual names, because their names were translated into Greek instead of being transliterated.
> 
> That's probably why they invented the "special name" Jesus (or Iesous) for him, because they simply weren't sure what his name was.


It's interesting that because Abu Rashid has no idea where "3eesa" came from, he tries to attack the Biblical name of Jesus. The idea that scholars are somehow uncertain about the original name of Jesus is far from the truth. Or that Christians created a "special name" for Jesus is just a myth. Quite the contrary to his claims, we know that ישוע is a shortened form of יהושוע. It was a common Jewish name in the first century. We literally have ossuaries from the time period (and region) with the name ישוע on them. So we know from Archaeological or Epigraphical evidence that this isn't a "special name" that Christians just "invented." Also, you can find ישוע about 27 times in the Hebrew Bible (at least 5 different Biblical characters by this name). Look at how the translators of the Septuagint (2 to 3 centuries BC) rendered the name into Greek. Spoiler, it's Ἰησοῦς. Folks, this is not an invented name made up by Christians, as was alleged.

We know what the name means too. It means "the Lord saves" or "the Lord is salvation." The Bible frequently uses a similar verb that plays on the name of a person. Many examples can be given. I'll just give two; Genesis 4:1 and Genesis 16:11. Cain's name is a play on the verb, as is Ishmael's name in the latter reference. In the Gospel according to St. Matthew chapter 1 verse 21, the child is named Ἰησοῦς because "He will save His people from their sin." Again, the play on words here. The name ישוע means "the Lord will save" and the child, Ἰησοῦς is going to "save" his people. Even if we didn't have the Septuagint to see what Hebrew background was behind the transliterated Ἰησοῦς, we could easily just imagine what the Greek transliteration represents in Hebrew. It's no mystery. Furthermore, we do have early Bible translations into Aramaic (not just the Peshitta, but also the Diatessaron and guess what? They both use ישוע. Again, no surprise here.), Ge'ez, Armenian, Coptic, Latin, and Gothic all before the 7th century. And we have no shortage of Patristic writings, including sermons, commentaries, lectionaries and much more. So the idea that Christians were or currently are uncertain of the original name of Jesus is just bogus, do not believe it. The same arguments can be made for any of the names of the "companions" of Jesus, that we allegedly do not know "most" of their actual names. However, I will refrain from demonstrating that because the overall subject is about the name of Jesus into Arabic. Just know that's an absolute baseless claim that can be easily shown false.


----------



## Malki92

I was reading through this thread and I'd like to add some thoughts. I must admit, some of the theories mentioned here are difficult to keep up with. I'll stick with the ones that I understood.

In terms of Greek, I don't think that the phenomenon called عنعنة can account for the initial Ι shifting into an ع. Because for one, Ι isn't equal to hamza, it is equivalent to ي in Arabic. For instance, *Ἰ*ωνᾶς > يـونس‎. On that note, we know that إلياس‎ and يونس‎ come from Greek (both Quranic names) because of the final ς. If عيسى comes from the Greek Ἰησοῦς, then where is the final ς or س? To me, the initial ع is only the beginning of the question mark. Also, where did the οῦ go?

In terms of Aramaic, with ישוע we don't have the initial י turning into an ع. The י is retained. It's the second letter in عيسى. According to this theory, we'd need to explain not how י turns into  ع, but how the final ع was replaced by ى, and somehow made its way to the beginning of the word. Not forgetting that the ו isn't retained at all in عيسى.

The most natural and correct rendering of the Hebrew ישוע into Arabic seems to be يسوع‎. I think it's obvious who the Quran is referring to by the name عيسى. But, however, where the name comes from embodies a fascinating journey for the imagination of the linguist. 

Any feedback would be appreciated. 

Thank you!


----------



## WadiH

Malki92 said:


> I was reading through this thread and I'd like to add some thoughts. I must admit, some of the theories mentioned here are difficult to keep up with. I'll stick with the ones that I understood.
> 
> In terms of Greek, I don't think that the phenomenon called عنعنة can account for the initial Ι shifting into an ع. Because for one, Ι isn't equal to hamza, it is equivalent to ي in Arabic. For instance, *Ἰ*ωνᾶς > يـونس‎. On that note, we know that إلياس‎ and يونس‎ come from Greek (both Quranic names) because of the final ς. If عيسى comes from the Greek Ἰησοῦς, then where is the final ς or س? To me, the initial ع is only the beginning of the question mark. Also, where did the οῦ go?
> 
> In terms of Aramaic, with ישוע we don't have the initial י turning into an ع. The י is retained. It's the second letter in عيسى. According to this theory, we'd need to explain not how י turns into  ع, but how the final ع was replaced by ى, and somehow made its way to the beginning of the word. Not forgetting that the ו isn't retained at all in عيسى.
> 
> The most natural and correct rendering of the Hebrew ישוע into Arabic seems to be يسوع‎. I think it's obvious who the Quran is referring to by the name عيسى. But, however, where the name comes from embodies a fascinating journey for the imagination of the linguist.
> 
> Any feedback would be appreciated.
> 
> Thank you!



عيسى doesn't come from Greek -- it comes from a Syriac form إيشو _Isho._  The _yaa _after the 'i' is what leads to the _3an3ana _(_Yunus _doesn't start with a 'i' and there is a 'u' there, so it's not a relevant example, while _Ilyas _has a consonant after the 'i', which makes the 3an3ana less likely).

A Safaitic (ancient Arabic) inscription was discovered in Jordan in 2019 that mentions the name _3ysy_, further evidence that this form predates the Qur'an.


----------



## Ihsiin

This topic has also been discussed here, including possible Greek and Aramaic origins and the presence of ع: From Heb. Yeshua to Arab. Isa


----------

