Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question is in regard to Matthew 1:21, "His name shall be called Jesus for he will save his people from their sins." The question has two parts.

1) Strongs equates the name "Jesus" with the Hebrew name "Joshua or Johoshua." On what basis does he do this?

2) It appears as though the name "Joshua" "Ya-Save/salvation/saves" is trans‌literated over into Greek and English in the NT without difficulty, seeing that it appears in Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Why then is the name trans‌lated "Jesus?" Does "Jesus" mean God is salvation in Greek? When I read in Matthew 1:21, there seems a complete linguistic disconnect between the name "Jesus" and God saving.

share|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

This is just to add to Mike's answer, not to replace it.

Joshua does not transliterate into Greek exactly. There are letters in Hebrew that are simply not there in Greek. The Greek of Luke 3:29, Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 all have Ἰησοῦ/s for Joshua. Translators render it as Joshua instead of Jesus because that is the name readers will be familiar with. Likewise, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament often abbreviated LXX) uses Ἰησοῦ/s (Greek grammar rules specify that the final sigma appears depending on the case of the noun).

That "Joshua" transliterates as "Jesu"s is easy to see when you examine the respective alphabets (Hebrew, Greek).

J - the Hebrew yod becomes the Greek Iota

E - the same sound is found in both

H - Greek has no stand alone letter for H, so they had to drop this letter.

O - Without an H to connect to, the O disappears. Combining the e and o would produce an unnatural sound in Greek--they don't have that dipthong.

SH - the Hebrew shin (long e sound) is SH together and becomes a sigma (merely an S) as Greek does not have a letter for the SH sound.

U - equivalent sounds in both languages

A - Greek prefers not to end a name with a vowel sound, so they often (but not always) add a sigma.

The same differences with shin and a final vowel can be found in the Hebrew name Moshe, which we know better by the Greek Moses. You can also see such name changes in the Hebrew Shlomoh whom we know as Solomon. Greek does not have a equivalent for H so drops it, ending the name in a vowel (which they don't like), and adding an N.

Knowing these rules, and seeing how Joshua is rendered as Ἰησοῦ/s in the Septuagint and in the New Testament (and we know who it is where it is followed by "son of Nun") would be why scholars like Strong have linked them.

share|improve this answer
@GoneQuiet Yes it would. Koine Greek does not have a stand-alone letter H and has to use a rough breathing mark for Hebrew names Hosea. – Frank Luke Feb 12 '13 at 18:17

In Hebrew the name Joshua is:

יְהוֹשׁוּעַ Yehoshua or יְהוֹשֻׁעַ Yehoshua “the LORD is salvation.”

In Greek it is the transliteration of the Hebrew:

Ιησους (Iēsous, sounds like ee-ay-soos).

Therefore in the Greek New Testament Jesus and Joshua are both Iēsous.

Up until now the names are the same and even in the Latin Vulgate they remained the same. In Latin Iēsou was called lesus, again a transliteration of Joshua in Greek. The Latin spelling differed from the Greek because the two alphabets are not identical. The Latin pronunciation however was still very close to the Greek sounding like "ee-ay-soos".

When an English version of the name was created from the Latin, it was close to the Latin and was spelled Iesus. The 1611 King James Version uses Iesus. However the English language was evolving and any name starting with I or Y was replaced with a J so we finally arrived at the name Jesus.

Now the question one might ask is, 'Why was the English name Joshua taken from the original language but Jesus from the Latin?' There is no apparent answer other than possibly the publishers of the King James Bible decided it was good to keep the familiar Latin spelling for the name Jesus due to its common frequency, whereas since Joshua is not frequently found in the New Testament, a transliteration from original languages was preferred. It seems to have been some practical decision to translate Jesus from Latin, rather than a logical exegetical reason. Even more so today, now that everyone is familiar with the name 'Jesus' it seems best and practical by modern English translations to keep it and not confuse anybody with pedantic quibbling about the the exactness of the original sound.

share|improve this answer
So, the "s" is at the end from the masculine nominative noun ending. Thanks fumanchu. That was a very helpful thing to point out! – user2027 Feb 16 '13 at 22:53

I know that the other answers explain this in more depth, but the simple answer is really that the early Christians read the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and this translation of the Hebrew Tanakh and apocryphal works rendered יֵשׁוּעַ / יְהוֹשֻׁעַ as Ἰησοῦς. From there it was transliterated into Latin (Iesus) and became the name associated with the Christian Messiah in the West for over 1500 years. The transliteration into English as Jesus is really from the Latin.

share|improve this answer

protected by Community Jan 11 '14 at 19:02

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?