I don't think most people consider "Joshua" and "Jesus" to be the same name, frankly. Even in the Bible they're not the same name.
Oh well, now you mention
most people's view of etymology of an ancient Aramaic name that has been translated into Greek and then into Latin before being put into English, it all becomes clear! We all know how
most people are a reliable source of information about such things....
Jesus only appears in modern translations of the Bible (abe: there is a Yeshoshua in the Bible, but in English editions he is called Joshua, in Latin this is written as Iosue compare this with Jesus who is Iesu in the Latin (further edit, in the Greek Septuagint the Joshua of the Old Testament is called ιησους which is Iēsous, which is Jesus). It isn't in the original manuscripts. You might as well say that
most people can't see the connection between the name Confucius and K'ung-tzu, and it would have the same rhetorical weight. Indeed, many people don't think there is any link between the name 'Ian' and the name 'John' but there is.
The Arabs call him Isa, and they refer to Ibrahim. The Jews don't refer to a guy called Moses. The HNV tells us about the children of 'Yisra'el,' and some guy called 'Moshe'.
But here's the problem. You don't have any explanation for how "Yeshua", who did no miracles, came to be revered as "Jesus", who did do miracles, except for that there was a great deal of fabrication, lying, mythmaking, and storytelling involved in the origin of Christianity and the Jesus mythology.
As there are saints that are considered historical by secular historians but are given supernatural powers by the religious. The explanation is quite simple: People imbue mundane people with supernatural powers. He became revered as 'Jesus' when the Greeks, who do not have the same character set as the Aramaics translated his name so they used using their 'I' and the Latins followed suit. This was then transformed into a 'J' in later translations to be pronounced presumably as 'Y' in the same sense that Jehovah is a modern translation of Yahweh.
...there's no evidence to suggest where to draw the line about what parts are myth and what parts are history.
Yeah, history is kind of like that. But there are arguments as to why some things can be considered historical and other things can be dismissed.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.