Print Page | Add To Favorites | Close Window | Send To A Friend | Save This Page
FAQ # 238
QUESTION 238 : I have heard that "Jesus" is not the Lord's
real name. Is this true? What is the real name of the savior any way;
the name "whereby we must be saved?" Is it Jesus, Yeshua, Yahoshua,
Yahshua, Esau, Eesho, Eesa, etc?
There is much speculation about the savior's name. Some have preferred
to use what they deemed as the original. Unlike the personal name of God
covered under the Tetragrammon, the savior's original name is quicker
to discover. Reason being it is the name of a man and a common name too.
According to how the present name (Jesus) is pronounced, we can clearly
say this is not how it was said. Many speculations arise from this. Though
there is overwhelming proof of the original usage of Christ's Hebrew name,
many Christians still believe the name Jesus is "holy" and undeniable.
Muslims still claim the pronunciation is Eesa (Isa) and some Muslim think
the actual name of Christ should be pronounced as Esau, as in Esau and
Jacob. Others claim it to be Eesho, which they ascribe to the Aramaic;
though this pronunciation doesn't sound like how it is spelt here in the
Aramaic. This should sound strange to the 'ordinary' reader by now. However,
here are the spellings and the background of his name from the language
that Jews and Middle Easterners spoke:
Eesho (ARAMAIC) is spelt yodh-sheen-waw-aih.
Y'shua (HEBREW) is spelt yod-shin-vav-ayin.
Eesa (ARABIC) is spelt ayn-yaa-seen-yaa
Of all the above Semitic forms, Y'shua (yod-shin-vav-ayin) is the most
authentic pronunciation of the savior's name. The Aramaic and Hebrew above
are spelt exactly alike and should sound the same in English. Thus, Eesho
is probably a mispronunciation after various alterations. The same could
be said of Eesa as well. Of the three, only Y'shua proves to be the original
pronunciation of the Messiah's name.
Notice that it is one word as against 'Jesus Christ', two words. That
is because Christ is not the savior's name or apart of it, like a surname.
It is just a title, like saying Cohen the Principal. Christ simply means
Messiah. Written in Hebrew as 'Ha Mashiah' and thus Jesus Christ from
the original would be Y'shua Ha Mashiah.
Proof of Original Usage of Y’shua
It
is undisputable that the name of Christ was Y'shua. Many sources verify
this and it can be obviously traced, seeing it was a common name that
was made overtly famous by Christ. Moreover, we have this evidence; though
it says hanged, it refers to the crucifixion as it does in the bible (Gal
3:13):
"On
the eve of the Passover, Yeshua` was hanged..." (Babylonia
Sanhedrin 43A).
In
refutation, one person said, “The Talmud was written between 300-600 A.D.
Other commonly quoted books like the "Toledoth Yeshua" were
satires written to defame Christianity as late as the 10th century A.D.,
nearly 1000 years after Jesus.” The scribes and Pharisees were always
recording events, that’s why scribes are called scribes. The Talmud was
just a small collection of what was recorded from the inception of this
sect (Egyptian exile) to present history, including the time of Jesus.
It’s like saying the K.J.V of the bible can’t reference Abraham because
it was written in the 1600’s, centuries after Abraham. No silly, it only
compiled some already written books. The same procedure is sort of followed
with the Talmud.
Also,
remember that Y'shua had different variations, Joshua, Jeshua and Jehoshua.
Joshua, servant of Moses, wasn’t named Joshua, he was named Oshea; Moses
only called him Joshua (Numbers 13:16). So his real name was Oshea and
he was called Joshua, written also as Jeshua (Neh 8:17) and Jehoshua (Num
13:16) in the King James Version. Remember also that the 'J' was pronounced
as a Y when these names were first written in the English. So, though
the name is written differently in the Babylonia
Sanhedrin quote (Yeshua), it refers to the same name; especially
with translations and reverse translations one after the other. Similarly,
my name is Oneil but many write O’neal, O’neil, Oneal, Oniel, Oneil and
others. The pronunciation is usually preserved. The same thing goes for
the name Y'shua and its rightful variations.
Surprisingly, this name was first created by Moses and according to how
it is structured, it could not exist before Moses. In other words, Joshua,
Son of Nun and servant of Moses was the first person in scripture and
history to have this name (Ex 17:9). By the time of 1 Chronicles 24:11
they started to refer to is as Jeshua; even the New Strong Concordance
verifies this “as being for Joshua” (3091). According to Strongs, Jehoshua
is the same as Joshua both with strong number 3091. The only time Jehoshua
occurs, happened when the scripture stated that the name Oshea, the same
Son of Nun and Moses Servant, was changed to Jehoshua (Num 13:16). This
probably happened to clearly show the development of the name. Jehoshua
occurs only another time in 1 Chronicles 7:27 where someone in the genealogy
of Issachar had the name, spelt out as it was in its original form.
So Joshua, Jeshua and Jehoshua is the same name from the Old English,
correctly written today as Yahoshua. This is the reason it was first created
by Moses:
1. His actual name
was Oshea pronounced O-shay-ah or O-shu-ah.
2. This name means deliverer or savior, coming from “Yasha,” which
means salvation.
3. It is then recorded that Moses called him Jehoshua, pronounced Jeh-o-shu-ah.
4. The "Je" as in Jehovah is actually "Yah," as seen
in Yahovah dealt with in another FAQ.
5. So we have the name really pronounced as Yahoshua.
6. So what Moses did was combine the name revealed to him, "Yah",
with Oshea.
7. Thus the name no longer means savior but 'Yah is salvation' or 'Yahovah
Savior'.
So
the savior's name is not a combination of an alleged 'Yahu' and 'shua',
but Yah and Oshea; Oshea is also written as Hoshea and Hosea, as all share
the same strong number of 1954. Therefore, the name Yahoshua could not
have been before Moses, because Yah, the name of God, was first revealed
to Moses. It was recorded in Numbers 13:16 of Moses making this name change,
but we see the name Joshua appearing as early as Exodus 17:9, apparently
this was done from then and Numbers 13:16 just simply mentioned it; thank
God they did, for we would be at lost as to the etymology of the savior's
name.
Now we know the name is Yahoshua as seen in Jehoshua. But how do we come
to Yahoshua as seen in Joshua and Jeshua? Lets put out the cards on the
table from the New Strong's Concordance:
Jehoshua, #
3091. Written in today's English as Yahoshua.
Joshua,
# 3091. Written in today's English as Yoshua.
Jeshua (really Jehshua), #
3442. Written in today's English as Yashua (really Yahshua).
As seen above, Jehoshua and Joshua comes from the same Hebrew word and
it is an English blunder to have them written differently, probably a
shortening in English not Hebrew. So where you see Joshua in scripture
it should be Jehoshua (Yahoshua).
Then we have Jeshua or Jehshua that was later used for Jehoshua in scripture.
So in Hebrew, Jehoshua was shortened to Jehshua, appearing as two
different words as seen in the two different strong numbers of 3091 and
3442. What they later did was remove the 'o' sound as to probably make
it flow. Therefore, what we have in English today as Yashua (Jeshua) comes
from this form, rather than Yahoshua (Jehoshua), which is the rightful
pronunciation. Some even maintain the wrong “e” sound of the shorten form
and write Yeshua.
Concludingly, Moses not only was the first one to receive God's name,
but also the first one to receive the savior's name. This wasn't arbitrarily
done. It was aptly fit to the man who should succeed him. As the Messiah
was the one who would succeed his dispensation. That is, Moses brought
in the Law and Yahoshua the Messiah brought in Grace; "For the law
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John
1:17). So this incident was of divine ordination by God to tell the end
from the beginning.
Is there any Aramaic Influence
This question is posed about Aramaic because it was very close to Hebrew
and spoken by all Semitics. That's why the spelling is the same. In fact,
it became interwoven as Israel's first language. We find,
Jesus
spoke Aramaic. Thus, the New Testament would have to be dependent upon
it. Much of the Old Testament was in Aramaic as well, and the earliest
Christian societies throughout Arabia from Palestine, to Syria, to Nabataea
spoke Aramaic. So what is Jesus' name in Aramaic? "Eesho M'sheekha" meaning "Jesus the Messiah."
Though Jews spoke and wrote Aramaic
in Jesus' time, the name predates the Aramaic takeover. The name go as
far back to the Egyptian exile of the noted Joshua who succeeded Moses.
In fact, one source said that "Yeshua was the fifth most common Jewish
name, 4 out of the 28 Jewish High-Priests in Jesus' time were called Y'shua."
In other words, the name in Aramaic would be a transliteration of the
Hebrew. Aramaic and Hebrew are so close the difference should be minimal,
if any. Not like Peter in English put as Pedro in Spanish. In fact, the
Aramaic version in Aramaic is spelt the same as the Hebrew yet sounds
different in the English - "Eesho" and "Y'shua". What
I probably think happened is a mispronunciation or mistransliteration
or it being transliterated from a translation itself; like how we have
our English New Testament from Latin-Greek, rather than from the original.
Because "names do not change from language
to language. One can listen to a foreign broadcast and recognize names
of world leaders such as Bush, Yeltsin, Kohl, and Mitterand. Names are
transliterated ("given the same sound") by employing equivalent
letters of a given alphabet.” So the Aramaic and Hebrew should sound the
same in English, even more so because the two languages are almost the
same.
Why was this display of Eesho done? Being just an analyzer of linguistic
references, I could not precisely tell. It is quite possible that the
peshitta (The most famous Aramaic scriptures) was Hellenized too; that
is, put in Greek then back in Aramaic from the Greek, though this is denied.
The most authentic Aramaic scriptures probably can be found in Ethiopia,
which was never overtly conquered by any super power; hopefully they are
not altered by devils already.
Another source said, “The Hebrew name Yahushua, through the medium of
Aramaic, was later translated into Greek as Iesous (English, "Jesus").”
He earlier said, “Jewish religious leaders...abandoned palaeo-Hebrew letters
for Aramaic...” In other words, what
was translated Iesous in the Greek and later Jesus in the English, came
from the Aramaic rather than Hebrew. That's the reason when you translate
the savior's name from the Old Testament (Hebrew) you get Y'shua
or Joshua and from the New Testament (Aramaic/Greek/Latin) you get Jesus.
You'll notice in the Old Testament Y'shua (Joshua) the son of Nun, companion
of Moses, subject of the Old Testament Book of Joshua; Y'shua (Joshua)
the Bethshemite (1 Samuel 6:18); Y'shua (Joshua) governor of Jerusalem
under King Hosiah (2 Kings 23:8); Y'shua (Joshua) son of Josedech (Haggai
1:1) and so forth. Does this mean that “all the aforementioned
…not [being] transliterated into "Jesus" or "Ieosus"…proves
that Y'shua is not his name?"
No! Because as said above, Jesus went through
various transliterations before coming into English. Isolated for Y'shua
(Joshua) as follows:
OLD TESTAMENT (OT):
HEBREW =>
OLD ENGLISH (and often GREEK
in the middle, "Septuagint")
NEW TESTAMENT (NT):
HEBREW => ARAMAIC => GREEK =>
LATIN => OLD ENGLISH
That
is why you have two different pronunciation of the savior's name in the
Old and New Testament. As seen in the word Elijah in the OT pronounced
Elias in the NT. Noah in the OT pronounced *Noe in the NT. Jeremiah in
the OT pronounced Jeremias in the NT.
And to
add to this is the fact that the English language has evolved from old
English to present English. English today would seem to pronounce transliterated
words differently from back then. For instance, Abraham's son with Hagar
his servant, is pronounced in the Bible as Ishmael, but it is actually
pronounced Yishmaael (
) from the original. Or even Cain and Abel, pronounced 'Kayin' and 'Hevel'.
And to make matters worst all the languages evolved from an Old dialect
to their present dialect. The only way to see that this Aramaic spelling
is correct to the Hebrew spelling, is to see how the Greeks had pronounced
it and hence show that the pronunciation is similar, but under present
English it looks absurd – Eesho.
The Aramaic "Yah" sound was transliterated
"Ee" and "shua" sound as "sho," giving the
name Eesho. Even the double 'e' combination at the front sounds like the
Greek 'iota' and 'eta' together, creating an "ee" or
the transliteration of the 'Y' sound. Example, Zekar-yah
("Yah is remembered”) or Zechariah in English, is transliterated
as "Zachar-eeah [s]" in the LXX or Greek.
So Eesho in the old English or old Greek would actually sound like “Yeesho”
today (written as Y’sho) – which is an allege translation of Y’shua; yet
sound more appropriate doesn’t it? Why they didn’t get “Y’shua” from the
Aramaic is mostly that it was translated into Greek – becoming “Y’soos”
(pronounced Yay-soos) – then back into Aramaic from the Greek. What the
Greeks did was take off the “a” sound at the end because masculine names
cannot end in a vowel and the stigma ‘s’ is added; as in many names –
e.g. Jeremiah becomes Jeremias in Greek. Plus they had no sound for “sh”
but “s” itself. Now, while the name was in Greek they attempted to put
it back in Aramaic strictly from the Greek, as if it was originally a
Greek name. To put it back in Aramaic, they only took off the Greek stigma
“s” and didn’t bother to add the “a” sound or consider the missing “aho”
for the apostrophe between ‘Y’ and ‘s’. Then when it came to English from
Aramaic in later centuries, they translated it from this corrupt Greek
form/version rather than a pure Aramaic original form/version; whereby
you would get Y’shua (or Yahoshua) from the original Aramaic. So the pronunciation
was lost in this Aramaic form (Eesho) with the Greek “mingling,” but the
spelling remain “authentic”; for the Aramaic letterings “yodh-sheen-waw-aih”
should be pronounced Y’shua. And if you know that the double “ee” is the
Y sound, Eesho is really pronounced Y’sho.
What about the Arabic Influence
Arabic is another Semitic language closely related to Aramaic and also
Hebrew. It is said,
The Muslim world
knows Jesus Christ as "al-MaseeHu Eesa" meaning "Jesus
the Messiah". This is illustrated in the following verse of the Qur'an…-
"al-MaseeHu `Eesa" - "al-MaseeH" is Arabic for "The
Messiah" and "`Eesa" is the name used for Jesus in the Qur'an.
On the other hand, writings against Jesus came the Arabic "Yesu`
as well...But Eesa is the most popular because it is the only name used
in the Koran. Another mentioned was “the term "Ya`si" or "Ya`su"
from which an Arabic version of "`Eesa" could easily evolve
etymologically.”
Another person gave a doubtful explanation of how this name came to be,
Thus it has been clearly demonstrated that Jesus' name
being "`Eesa" from the Arabic root "`Assa"
and the Hebrew root "Esh" meaning "North Star"
has far more credibility than a reference to a name for which there is
absolutely no congruence with Biblical prophecy or historical evidence.
Seeing that Arabic
is similar to the other Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic, it should
also
sound similar to
Y'shua. And so far, the Arabic spelling of Eesa and even the pronunciation
sounds
nowhere near the
savior’s name, Y’shua. It seems to have taken the same course of the alleged
Aramaic name, Eesho.
Also, there is a resort to trace Eesa to the biblical name of Esau, but
it’s
obviously doesn’t
sounds like the savior’s name. Well, not if you saw it in the Arabic bible
like this –
Esuwaa – you see the “shua” sound. Now compare the two, Eesa and Esuwaa, in Arabic:
"`EESA", spelled AYN , YAA, SEEN,
YA/FATHAH
"`ESUWAA", spelled AYN, YAA,
SEEN/DHAMMAH, WAW
One person rightly
concluded,
Again, we can see that "`Esuwaa" in the Arabic Bible
is certainly not the same as the Arabic
"`Eesa" as they have distinct and different root words. So how could the
Critic or even anyone
who knows Arabic claim otherwise? (answering-christianity.com)
Also, Y'shua in
Hebrew is nowhere near Esau in Hebrew and I believe this Eesa/Esau notion
is
purely based off
the fact that the Quaran's Eesa sounds similar to Esau. But don't take
my word for it,
here is some proof:
The names "`Eshaw"
and "`Eesa" are completely unrelated etymologically and lexically.
"Esau" is Latinization of the Biblical Hebrew name for Jacob's
twin brother, `Eshaw, who was disavowed. This name is spelled:
--`Eshaw -
- "AYN, SHIN, WAW"; Pronounced "`Ee"
(like "see") + "shaw" (like "saw" with additional
stress).
--This is an archaic word which literally means "hairy". It
refers to one who has a hairy and dark body. “Eshaw" meaning "covered
with hair".
--The corresponding word for this in Arabic is A`thaa with the trilateral
root
"AYN, THAA, YAA". This word, likewise, means covered
with hair. In Ibn ManTHoor's cohesive and authoritative work on the Arabic
language entitled "Lisaan al-`Arab" (The Arabic Tongue), he
states:
--"`Athaa: al-`athaa: Having a murky color with an abundance
of hair; al-a`tha: an abundance of ugly and coarse hair;
i.e. al-untha `athwaa' (fem. "hairy woman", i.e.
hag); al-`uthwatu: coarse head hair, matted in spite of
being combed; `athi: old person's hair; `athwaa, a`thaa,
perhaps a reference to a hairy man is "a`thi";
an old man is "`athwaa'"; a`tha: Hyenas."
["`Athaa" Lisaan al-`Arab, Ibn ManTHoor]
--Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon refers to the Arabic word "`Athaa"
as it is the obviously correlating word to "`Eshaw". The
Qur'anic name for Jesus is not related by any stretch of etymology to
the words "`Eshaw", or "`Athaa".
Despite all this, it is quite
interesting to know that though the Qu'ran has Eesa for Jesus, more ancient
Arabic writings do not; as quote here,
Finally, it is interesting to note that information
on the oldest Arabic inscription mentioning Jesus does not name him Eesa,
but may shed some light on a possible evolution from Y'shua to Eesa. The
inscription basically spells Jesus' name ya-sheen-ayn-ya, which
makes a sort of transitional fossil in the world of etymology. The inscription
was written underneath a circular Christian symbol some time near the
turn of the century, and was in Thamudic, an archaic form of Arabic. Consider
the following from a popular Orientalist journal:
"Mr. G. Lankaster Harding, Chief Curator of Antiquities Hashimite
Kingdom of Jordan, kindly sent me copies of a little more than five hundred
Thamudic inscriptions. [...] It is the inscription [Harding No. 476] that
interests us here. [...] Below the circle there are four letters: a y,
a sh, a c, and again a y." [Enno Littman,
"Jesus in a Pre-Islamic Arabic Inscription," Muslim World,
(1950, vol. xi) p. 16.]
This spelling most
appropriately fall in line with the other Semitic spellings cited earlier
and represents the closest possible Arabic transliteration of the savior's
name. Enno Littman says it represents "the ancient Arabic name of
Jesus" [ibid. p. 18] and further states that "Inscription Harding
No. 476 is the oldest native document of Christianity of Northern Arabia
known so far" [ibid.]. Thought his best guess on its pronunciation
is Yasha, it more than like was pronounced Y’shua by the native Arabs.
So it relatively falls inline with the other dominant Semitic languages
cited earlier:
Y'shua (ARAMAIC) is spelled yodh-sheen-waw-aih.
Y'shua (HEBREW) is spelled yod-shin-vav-ayin.
Y'shua (ARABIC) is spelled ya-sheen-ayn-ya
What happened with
this Arabic spelling and the present (ayn-yaa-seen-yaa/fatHa) might be
that Eesa was transliterated into Arabic after it was transliterated from
a previous language, namely Greek. Plus there is archaic Arabic and the
modern Arabic. Amongst many many many other possibly reasons. Plus we
have to remember that Christ’s name came from the Hebrew and did not originate
in Arabic or Aramaic, though he was probably publicly proficient
in both and at least one.
So
we see that from the three Semitic languages closely related and active
in that region, the savior's
name
is relatively preserved as Y'shua (or Yahoshua).
What about the Yahu influence
As seen in the Yahovah FAQ (162), Yahu allegedly plays an important part
in God's name, according to some scholars. However, they wrongly claim
that Yahu or Yaho is a stand alone word for God, which forms the first
part of Yahoshua. But as already seen in this study, 'Yaho' and some word
'shua' wasn't joined together to form the savior's name. But rather 'Yah'
and 'Oshea'. When combined you can clearly see Yaho in Yahoshea written
as Yahoshua; because it's pronounced that way. They not only wrongly claim
a stand alone Yahu, but that it is pronounced Yahoo and consequently so
does the savior's name, when in that form. Two sources says,
When the term Yaho
is used in conjunction with other syllables to form compound names the
o can be left in or dropped as preferred. When the Yah
is on the end of the word the o or the consonant vav
and the vowel is often dropped. Thus, the name Abijahuw... becomes
Abiyah, rendered Abijah in the English, which becomes the
normal pronunciation...Yahoshua becomes Yahshua (The Etymology
of the Name of God, logon.org or ccg.org).
Because his praenomen was Yahu, when Yahu
Yahweh became a man he was known as Yahu-shua the messiah. We shall
also demonstrate that the name Yahushua does not mean "Yahweh saves,"
as often but incorrectly advocated, but "Yahu saves" (The Sacred
Name, yahweh.org).
So it is not a
rare thing that many claim Yahu to be a separate word joined to some other
word to make the savior's name. We already prove that this is erroneous,
but here are further reasons I hesitate to accept Yahu as God's name and
root of the savior's name:
"Contrary to popular notion, Yahu is a separate
name from Yahweh. The sacred name Yahweh is the personal name of father
Yahweh and became the cognomen of the lesser Yahweh, but Yahu belonged
to the lesser Yahweh as his praenomen" (The
Sacred Name, yahweh.org).
"The claim that Yaho was dropped from the Babylonian captivity is
unsubstantiated conjecture as the Elephantine texts show. As we have seen,
the form YH is pronounced Yahoo or Yaho when used as a syllable on its
own. This is the form rendered Jah in the KJV. He spoke for Yahovih or
Yahovah of Hosts, God the Father, the Elyon, or Most High, who is Eloah.
In this sense, the pre-incarnate Messiah was also the Messenger or
Angel of Yahovah as elohim in Zechariah 12:8" (logon.org).
"The reference is a singular
one at Ugarit, but later Phoenician sources refer to a god named
Iahu [Yahu], Iaio, Ieuo (in Philo of Byblos' 'Phoenician History')."
From the above you can see that many claim Yahu or Yahoo as a second divine
being, not just similar to the trinity of persons, but a subordinate and
sometimes Chief angel of God. Most references to the word Yahu claim this
unbiblical notion and there are references that tie this name to heathen
deities. This alone would cause any true bible adherent to digress from
this name being the name of God, but rather use the rightful "Yah"
(Ps 68:4).
The Abbreviated form
Someone said, "The
name Yahushua was then shortened for everyday use, the same way Barbara
is often shortened to Barb, and Yahushua was known by those around him
as Y'shua."
In truth and in
fact, the name should be pronounced Yah-o-sh-uah but the Hebrews took
out the 'ho' sound later on. By the method of how this is done, in no
way suggest that Yashua is an abbreviated form. But rather, a shorten
way of saying the name. It was first recorded this way, Ya-shu-ah, in
the book of 1 Chronicles under "Jeshua". They probably did it
to make it flow, like having silent letters.
Now we come to
the "Y" apostrophe "shua" (written as Y’shua), there
is no evidence to say that this was ever done in the original language.
We have to be careful
in saying there was an abbreviated form, because this could be an infiltration
to later say the savior's name was translated from an abbreviated form
or a symbol; much like the scenario with the Tetragrammon. It is quite
doubtful that the savior's name was ever written in an abbreviated form
in the original, like how Y'shua is written in English. This (Y'shua)
seems like an English invention. Putting the apostrophe (') between 'Y'
and 'shua' is to say something is to be there, so you can fill it in when
saying or writing it. It is normally known and therefore much problem
does not arise. However, it is best to write out the name in full as all
can grasp the true pronunciation rather than injecting what they deem
best – ‘aho’ or ‘eh’ or ‘ah’.
Though Barbara
can be written as barb, barb is not her name and cannot be used on official
documents. Likewise, Yashua or Yeshua is not his name though he can be
referred to by it. His name is Yahoshua. Some might say that it is pretty
much okay to use Yashua or Yeshua, but if you did that for the name of
God would it be the same? That is, if you changed Yahovah to Yahvah, by
taking out the
"Ho"
sound, is that still the same pronunciation or word? No. It's best to
cling to the original name not a shorten form.
Moreover, names
are transliterated, not translated. That is, how the name sounds in the
original is what would appear, not the translation of the meaning or ‘lettering’.
Thus the spelling is not important, what is important is that the spelling
pronounces or sounds exactly like the name. Y’shua doesn’t sound like
that savior’s name, it is just short handwriting.
The savior's name
is pronounced Yah-O-sh-uah. But it can be written Yaoshua or Yahoshuah
or Yahhoshua without any lost of pronunciation. Much like how HalleluYah
is often written as Halleluia or Alleluia. You still hear the same sound,
which means this praise word was transliterated. That should be gained
from any variation of the Hebrew name for our savior.
Yahshua, the shorten form of his name, spelt in Hebrew:
Yahoshua, the true pronunciation, spelt in Hebrew:
or
All Variations
The following are
transliterated versions of the savior's Hebrew name, which are in use
by various Sacred name groups:
Jeshua, Yeshua, Yeshuah, Yehshua, Yehshuah, Yeshouah, Y'shua, Y'shuah, Jeshu, Yeshu, Yehoshua, Yehoshuah,
YHVHShua, YHVHShuah, Yhvhshua, Yhwhshua, YHWHShua, YHWHShuah, Yhvhshuah,
Yhwhshuah, Yahvehshua, Yahwehshua, Yahvehshuah,
Yahwehshuah, Yawhushua, Yahawshua, Jahshua, Jahshuah, Jahshuwah, Jahoshua,
Jahoshuah, Jashua, Jashuah, Jehoshua, Jehoshuah, Yahoshua, Yahoshuah,
Yahshua, Yahshuah, Yahushua, Yahushuah, Yahuahshua, Yahuahshuah, Yahoshua,
Yahoshuah, Yaohushua, Yaohushuah,
Yauhushua, Iahoshua, Iahoshuah, Iahushua, Iahushuah, YAHO-hoshu-WAH
and many others.
Though they look similar, you can eliminate by the facts given so far.
From Yahoshua to Jesus (Etymology)
Firstly, as seen
in the three Semitic spellings given at the start, what was translated
as the savior's name was the shorten form. That is, Yahshua rather than
Yahoshua, unfortunately. Then from there it went into Greek.
"The transliteration
of "Yahshua" into Greek posed some difficulty. First, the Greek
language did not have the "Ya-" or "sh-" sounds. To
approximate the first sound, the translators had to put the Greek letters
of iota and eta together, creating an "ee-ay" sound. The simple
"s" of the letter sigma replaced the "sh" sound. The
result was "ee-ay-soo'-ah." [ee =
Y, ay = ah, soo = shu and ah = ah]. This result posed an additional
problem; masculine Greek names never end in a vowel sound (feminine Greek
names do.) For names imported from another language, it was customary
to add a sigma at the end (Barnabie became Barnabas, Elijah became Elias,
Jonah became Jonas, for example.) This was done to the Lord's name too,
rendering it "ee-ay-soo-ahs." The vowels of the last two syllables
did not flow well, so the "-ah" sound was dropped. The Name
thus became "ee-ay-soos."
With Jerome's translation
of the Bible into Latin (the Latin Vulgate) the transliteration was straightforward,
as the Latin language could make all of the same sounds as the Greek.
All that was needed was to substitute the letters of the Roman alphabet
for the Greek, which resulted in the name "Iesus." This rendering
of the Name would dominate the Christian world for the next thousand years.
In 1384 John Wycliffe
made the first English translation of the New Testament, using the Latin
Vulgate as his only source. This time places Wycliffe's work in the early
Middle English period. Prior to the 1100's, Old English did not have the
letter "J" or the sound it makes. Between 1100 and 1600, some
dialects of English began using the "J" sound. Wycliffe used
the traditional Latin spelling and pronunciation of "Iesus."
Since the printing press had not yet been invented, only a few manuscript
copies of Wycliffe's Bible were produced and these were in the possession
of scholars rather than the common people.
By the time William Tyndale made his translation of the Bible in 1526,
the "J" sound was commonplace in the English language. Tyndale
wanted his translation to be in the language of the common people, and
he had not only the Latin Vulgate but also some ancient Greek manuscripts
for his sources. The printing press had been invented a few decades before,
which enabled Tyndale's Bible to get greater circulation. Tyndale was
the first to spell the Name as "Jesus," and there is evidence
that he wanted the pronunciation to be "Jay-soos." The Spanish-speaking
people took the English spelling and pronounced it "Hay-soos."
The English commoners soon substituted the long "e" sound for
the long "a" carried from the Greek and Latin, resulting in
the pronunciation used today by English-speaking people. In 1611, the
most widely published and accepted English translation of the Bible was
made, the King James Version. It had a pronunciation guide, which made
official the pronunciation "Jee-sus," with the long "e"
sound, that we use today. Incidentally, all of the Biblical names beginning
with the letter "J" have undergone the same transformation.
Jeremiah, Judah, Jerusalem, John, and many others had a vastly different
pronunciation at the time that they were originally written about, because
neither Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Greek, nor Latin had either the letter
"J" or the sound that it makes" (from a site called lakeside).
Why knowing is important -
prophecies, deity, etc.
"Studying
things from the original will bring out the original or true meaning.
For instance, there are many various sacred name bibles and versions,
however, a good one will read and show that Yahoshua is God the father.
For instance, Isaiah 9:5 (or 6 in some versions) should read in the original
Hebrew version and its literal word meanings:
Ki - Because
Yeled - a boy
yulad - born
lanu - to/for us
Ben - a son
natan - was given
lanu - to us
va'tehi - and shall
be
ha'misrah - the
rule, dominion
al Shichmoh - on
his shoulder
va'yikra Shmoh
- and - shall call - His Name
Peleh - Wonderful
Yoh'etz - Consultant,
Councellor
El Gibor - God
Mighty
Avi-ad - Father
Eternal
Sar-Shalom - Ruler
of Peace
The literal word
meanings above, indisputably refer to the Messiah as the 'Mighty God and
Eternal Father' - but when comparing different sacred name translations,
it becomes clear that some translators deliberately conceal this Revelation
by their manipulative renderings. The
reader may be sure that the rest of such a translation, in the many less
affirmative texts, will certainly continue this cover-up."
The savior's name
is Yahoshua, undisputedly. Not only that, but knowing this origin unlock
other things about his name. Like how it is so closely related to the
Hebrew word for salvation, "yasha" and the Hebrew word for save,
"yoshia." The combination name Oshea is derived from Yasha,
according to Strongs. Which rightly fits with his purpose as the savior
of mankind with salvation in his hands. With knowing the name you'll also
see that the name revealed to Moses is rightly fitted into it, Yah, making
known that the Messiah is none other than Yahovah himself who came to
save us. And many other such things; though others bore the name.
Also, wouldn't
it be good to identify your savior by his exact name, rather than by a
hybrid transliteration. Though you understand when someone call you Onion,
though your name is Oneil, wouldn't it be good for them to call you by
your correct name? My biggest sister does that by the way, affectionately.
Does it matter if we know or
use it
What
matters is that the name is used, rather than a title as seen with the
FAQ (162) that dealt with ‘Yahovah’ and the use of "Lord" or
"God." Romans
10:13 states that whosoever shall call on the name shall be saved. There
is no other way to be save except through the name (Acts 4:12).
Unfortunately, what some have done through transliteration is omit using
Christ's name for titles. For instance, one person wrote on an old Good
News Cafe discussion board I had downloaded:
"You're pretty much on the right lines, I've only heard
it said that way in the Catholic realm. Its almost a ‘marker’ to me to
hear it said that way; preferred way to say it in Spanish is ‘El Senor’,
meaning, ‘THE LORD’, in our...churches, that's how it
is done; if said at all, it's just ‘Cristo!’. Qien vive? Cristo! Just
as in : ‘Paz de Cristo’!” (HMNOVILLA).
One
person correctly replied,
"People could, I suppose use that
Logic to defend using the titles, but the fact remains that they haven't
spoken the NAME" (ourlordisone).
My point exactly and scriptural too. The name
must be said, preached, declared and used "limitlessly"; not
titles alone at all. That's what the apostles were persecuted for. They
let them alone when they worked miracles, fellowshipped and do wonders.
But when they used the name they got in trouble with the devil's pawns
(Acts 4:18 , Acts 5:42). Unless the name is used there is no salvation,
no power and no remission of sins at water baptism. The name is not a
magic wand, but faith in the name can do far more than any magic wand.
Nevertheless using Jesus is
acceptable
One person noted, "At one time I believed that because the name Jesus
Christ is regularly used in cursing, it is proof in itself that Jesus
is his name because God-less beings hate it. But in all my research, I
have been unable to find one other language in which his name is used
in a similar cursing manner. No other language renders the Lord's name
with the phonetic harshness as does the English language." True,
but that doesn't mean anything, as he states. Because fools often state
"F~ck God" in talking about the Almighty and that doesn't mean
God is his name.
Now, it is common
practice throughout the world, that names are not changed when used in
different languages. Pres. Clinton will remain Clinton in all other languages.
So also Kruschev, Mandela, Napoleon, Hitler, Arafat, etc. For instance:
English - Jesus
Christ
Italian - Gesu
Cristo
Welsh - Iesu Grist
Hungarian - Jezus
Krisztusnak
Nigerian - Azisos
Kraist
It might be said that with these, the pronunciation is allegedly lost.
However, some of these transliterations are close to sounding like Jesus
Christ. That is what really matters, the sound is preserved, because the
meaning will always go with a name through accompanying titles; that's
why it was transliterated in the first place, to preach the same person
from language to language, and a consistent message tied to that name
throughout the world. Some, like the Nigerian one probably sounds like
Jesus in Nigerian and was badly transliterated back into English. However,
the pronunciation they get is probably from a preacher who pronounced
Jesus as Jee-Zus, as everybody does; though from the Greek, where it was
created, it is pronounced 'Yay-shus.'
But wait, isn't the name Yahoshua? And isn't Jesus a transliteration from
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English? And does it mean they
are preaching another Christ, because the pronunciation isn't exactly
correct? Unfortunately the correct pronunciation (Yahoshua) is not widely
used today, but that doesn't mean salvation isn't had or God is not glorified;
especially wherever this gospel in preached and in whatever tongue, all
sing HalleluYah without no further transliteration. I've seen this time
and time again in the oversees crusades on television. Africans, Philippians
and other peoples all sing HalleluYah directed by the Evangelist. If only
they could do that for the savior's name from the original. Using Jesus
would be a problem if it didn't come from the original, whether directly
or from transliterations, one after the other. Like saying Medley is the
savior. That name cannot be traced back to Yahoshua.
Answer Notes: 1. * denotes, It is strange we find a masculine
name coming from the Greek, ending with a vowel sound, if it sounded like
a vowel back in Greek. That is, Noah becomes Noe, where as vowel sounding
endings of transliterated names in Greek were dropped and the stigma ‘s’
added; still unclear why this wasn’t done for Noah’s name, if it wasn’t.
2. One person said, “Jesus'
Name is Literally ‘Jehovah Our Righteousness’." Literally, NO, for
Jesus is Yahoshua from oshea, which means savior or salvation. But salvation
encompasses everything, including righteousness, hence Jehovah our healer,
teacher, comforter or righteousness.
Go to top of Page | Get the Book | Buy it here or here or here or here | More FAQ's