@susan @LeeWoofenden Thank you both for your assistance with my answer.
I had thought that asking for a biblical basis for a word would have to be concerned with its unpointed form, so I did not imagine that OP was asking about variant pointed forms.
As suggested, I have deleted my answer to this Q and reposted it to Lee's new Q. Please edit as you see fit.
@susan I'm going to try to learn some basics of Greek, both from online and from a book I sent away for - hence my new-found interest in language-type questions. I might try to learn a little Hebrew later, perhaps, but one thing at a time.
@LeeWoofenden I have one small concern, although of course this Q is about the beliefs of a particular group of Christians, not a Truth question.
I believe that in late biblical Hebrew, Yĕhôshúʿa was shortened to Yeshua, a view confirmed by @Susan answer. This seems somenwhat more relevant to this Q than to the first one. More importantly, Jesus would have spoken Aramaic and would not have had a Hebrew name, but an Aramaic one. I think the Aramaic equivalent was also Yeshua, or something very similar.
It would seem, in the end, that we can't assign a Hebrew name to Jesus, without some justification for doing so.
@DickHarfield Right. And there is a justification for doing it, as outlined in the various answers. Basically, it's just a matter of using the equivalent Hebrew or Aramaic name (transliterated into English) instead of the Greek name. Names come across in different forms in different languages. For example, the NT Iacobos comes across as "James" in English, though the original OT Ya'akov comes across as "Jacob."
@DickHarfield Since using the name "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" is an important part of the practice of Messianic Jews, I don't think it's a "truth" question, nor is it a question for BH.SE, but rather it's a question for Christianity.SE. And it's racking up the hits and votes, so apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so!
@LeeWoofenden Did you mean that we should assign a Hebrew name to Jesus even if he was never known, in his own lifetime, by that name?
I do agree that it is about what a group believes, not what actually occured. And I therefore agree it belongs in Ch.SE, not in BH.Se. Yes, I noted the hits - amazing!
@DickHarfield No. I'm very happy to call him "Jesus." But Messianic Jews prefer the Hebrew and Aramaic forms. Plus, the general opinion seems to be that Jesus spoke Aramaic. So he may very well have been known by the Aramaic form of the name in his lifetime.
@LeeWoofenden Thanks. BTW - that was not a challenge, but an attempt to understand the logic in any Truth statement about Jesus. I put myself in the position of someone living in the first century, on meeting Jesus in Palestine. (I also noted your edit to add Aramaic to the Q).
@DickHarfield I didn't take it as a challenge. This whole business of names, their varied translations, and their significance is fascinating to me. And of course, for Christianity, the name of Jesus, including its variations, and especially its significance, is a very important part of the religion. Perhaps it's just a word, but it's a word that is invested with great theological and ritual significance.
strong textwhy do moderators here shut interesting questions down? I'm starting to believe your not christians at all.
The Upper Room
The Upper Room