http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29#cite_ref-3
Comments by Dan Baxley
www.yahshuaservant.com
The following is an article taken from Wikipedia. It is not my
intent to correct or demean this excellent article in any way but to add my
comments to further the understanding that is presented in this balanced
article. Many observations and sound research is presented in this article and
I hope my added comments will expand on the posititve and inhance what has
happened to our Savior’s true birth name from the beginning to the present. Any
comment may be address to servant@yahshuaservant.com
and for further information on various subjects may be found at, www.yahshuaservant.com Let’s begin --
My Comment: One small observation to consider
before getting into the meat of this article: How would you pronounce these
names? Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Nehemiah or Zephaniah -- all names from the
Old Testament? The last three letters from each name is “iah” or more accurately,
YaH, not Ye as in the name Jesus or Yeshua. No one
spells or pronounces the name Jeremiah as Jeremye but this is
what those supporting the use of
“yeshua” as a name do and want you to do.
Wikipedia:
Original Name of Jesus: The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name ?ησο?ς Iesoûs.
In the Septuagint
and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of
Alexandria, ?ησο?ς
Iesoûs is the standard Koine Greek form
used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua.
Greek ?ησο?ς
or Iesoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New
Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the
Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses
where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deut. 32:44.)
My Comment: First Paragraph -- We
have been saying all along, of course, that the modern English is derived from
the Latin, not Greek. The defenders of JESUS are then saying IESUS is a
“transliteration” (see "Note A" at end of article for
discussion of this word, Transliteration - or this link Transliteration)
of IESOUS but it is plain to see this is in no way an accurate transliteration
of the Hebrew/Aramaic Name YaHshua, or YaHoshua. It is a different name
completely from the beginning, as IESUS, as a transliteration of IESOUS
(pronounced as Hey-s-oo-s) cannot be a transliteration of Yeshua either. Taking
the IE and matching YE, in the name Yeshua one could say this is a
transliteration, except the language has changed and these letters are no
longer good transliterations of one another and it would be pointed out by
some, like myself, that would say, SHUA and SOUS destroys the whole idea of a
complete transliteration of His Name as it is obvious to the casual observer –
Shua and Sous have nothing in common other than they both begin with the letter
“S”.
Comment on Second Paragraph
– Koine Greek? Again it is plain to see, Inoous or Iesous cannot be a
transliteration of the Hebrew/Jewish birth Name of our Savior as the Hebrew or
the Aramaic transpose His Name into the Greek. The Greek is incorrect as is the
Latin, which follows the Greek, or so they say but come up with IESVS or IESUS,
perhaps a Latin transliteration of the Greek, maybe, or not, but even in
today’s language this is not how the name of our Savior is pronounced. The
Savior declared by the writings of the Apostles is transformed into a Latin
name too similar to a Roman god, Zeus, and how strange it is we find the Latin
name for the Christ of the New Testament is pronounced, Hey-Zeus (The
Zeus)—imagine that. This Latin name is not pronounced as the Yeshua, nor
YaHoshua, and not YaHshua. IESUS and YESUS have a similar appearance but are
pronounced differently, which violates the “transliteration”. The efforts of
the Latin Church, from whom all of Christianity receives this false name, Jesus
(Geezus, or Heyzeus) work to proclaim “another”, different, Messiah, causing
all to accept a name belonging to another. This name, JESUS is not a transliterations and it is not a transliteration, it is
completely different name from His Birth Name – born a Jewish Child, of the
tribe of Judah (YaHudah). Named by an Angelic Messenger (Mat 1:21), a name
found in the Hebrew Scriptures and among the people (Acts 4:12).
The statement that “Hoshea”
(Yeshua) is found in a couple of place in the Old Testament as authority,
quoting Deut 32:44, for its use is quite wrong, as there is a whole Book, the
book of JOSHUA, written in His Name, a name of a man that stood with Moses, his
right hand man and the man that led the people into the promised land – Joshua
(YaHshua) led the people into the physical promised land, the Kingdom of God.
Joshua is an Old English transliteration of YeHoShua which is a transliteration
of His, our Savior’s Hebrew/Jewish Name. The following names are accurate
equivalents as is YaHshua and YaHushua (YaH-Shua and
YaH-U-Shua)—notice they all sound very similar and nothing like the bogus name
“Jesus”. The Hebrew spelling of the English Joshua confirms this and while the
name Joshua is a lesser equivalent it is still a faithful attempt but the name,
Jesus, is not an attempt but a “change”. The existence of this English attempt,
Joshua, actually proves the Hebrew/Jewish Name given to our Savior has always
been in the Bible, ignored and replaced by the Latin name IESUS and accepted by
the English translators ignoring the better choice, Joshua.
Like it or not the Jewish scholars trying to convince you the Hebrew does not contain the Name, YaHshua, want to ignore the principles of “transliteration”(phonetic attempt at creating a proper pronunciation of one language or name to another language) except for when they use this procedure in their own translations, themselves being influenced by the Greek Septuagint. Ancient Hebrew was being lost and to preserve what they could a committee of 70 Jewish scholars were commissioned to translate, to the best of their knowledge, the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. It was feared the whole of the Jewish population was losing their language so the Greek Septuagint was to preserve what was being lost so the common people could read it. From this the name Yeshua makes its appearance – notice the missing letter, the “H”. They, the modern Jewish bible teachers do admit to a few other equivalents seen in the Hebrew writings as YaHoshua, YeHoshua, YaHushua, YeHushua, all transliterations of the original Hebrew and the transliteration spellings of the name, Joshua, not Jesus. Talk about a great deception, it could not get much bigger than this. Everyone is calling on a false name, praying to a different Savior?
Continuing, Wikipedia:
During the second Temple period (beginning 538 BC – 70 AD), Yeshua
first became a known form of the name Yehoshua. All occurrences of Yeshua
in the Hebrew Bible are in I Chron. 24:11, II Chron. 31:15, Ezra, and Nehemiah
where it is transliterated into English as Jeshua. Two of these
men (Joshua the son of Nun and Joshua the High Priest) are mentioned in
other books of the Hebrew Bible where they are instead called Yehoshua
[20]
(transliterated into English as Joshua).
My Comment: Third
Paragraph –This supports the YaHshua transliteration as YeHoshua is admittedly
the proper transliteration for the English Joshua, which begs the question of
why the English translators use Jesus as opposed to Joshua? When the linguist
point out that in YeH the “e” is supposed to be used as the “long” “e” which
has the sound of “a” vowel and both are vowels and not actually part of the
Original Name. So, the “e” even in the “long” is not part of the Name but was
added to aid in pronunciation, the purpose of transliterations, and when the
vowel or vowel point for the “e” it had a different sound closer to the vowel
“a” of today’s languages into the English. To argue over the “e” as more
correct is only correct over 2500 years ago and only then if those pushing for
the retaining of the “e” accept it in the “long” form which would then make the
pronunciation virtually the same as YaH-Shua. What about the “o”, or “u” in the
middle? The “o” and the “u” are interchangeable as the language changed so did
the sound so it move from “O” to “U” in keeping with the a more correct
transliteration. This letter is of the smallest concern as it changes the
“SHUA” from the meaning “Savior” to “Salvation” both having the same outcome in
meaning. He is, our Savior, or Salvation so adding it is to say He is our
Salvation, our USHUA, or He is our Savior, our SHUA.
Continuing,Wikipedia:
The earlier form Yehoshua did not disappear, however, and
remained in use as well. In the post-exilic books, Joshua the son of Nun is
called both Yeshua bin-Nun (Nehemiah 8:17) and Yehoshua (I Chronicles 7:27).
The short form Yeshua was used for Jesus ben
Sirach in Hebrew fragments of the Wisdom of
Sirach. (Some concern remains over whether these fragments faithfully
represent the original Hebrew text or are instead a later translation back into
Hebrew.[21]) The earlier form Yehoshua saw revived usage from
the Hasmonean
period onwards, although the name Yeshua is still found in letters
from the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 AD).
My Comment: Forth
Paragraph – Here we find complete support for the “full” form of our Saviors
Birth Name as opposed to the “short form”. Actually, Yeshua is really not a
short form but a form that came later and coming later ignoring the earlier
accepted form of YaHoshua (remember the “e” is in supposed to be in “long”,
“ee” form and in today’s language transliterates into the “a”). What makes
Yeshua a “short form” is the dropping of a principle letter of the Name of our
Creator and Savior, the letter “H”, so it is not a short form but a changed
name. Some say YH, or YaH is short for YHWH and if we
follow that as a possibility it would then deny Ye-shua as a short form. What
would the short form really be, then, if there is a short form? It would be
YaH-shua, not Ye-shua. In today’s language Ye-shua is a different name and a
mistake on the Jewish scribes part in continuing with
a “later” form and rejecting the “original earlier” form. The consistency is
either a glaring error or it is on purpose, you decide.
Continuing, Wikipedia:
In the context of the documentary entitled The
Lost Tomb of Jesus, archeologist Amos Kloner
stated that the name Yeshua was then a popular form of the name Yehoshua and
was "one of the common names in the time of the Second Temple."[22] In discussing whether
it was remarkable to find a tomb with the name of Jesus (the particular ossuary
in question bears the inscription "Yehuda bar Yeshua"), he pointed out
that the name had been found 71 times in burial caves from that time period.[23]
My Comment: Fifth
paragraph – This is in keeping with a profound statement from the lips of Peter
recorded in Acts 4:12, “…no other name under heaven given to men by which we
must be saved” (NIV). One has to wonder, did the Angel Gabriel coming from the
Living God of all Creation with a Name to Name our Savior be coming with a
“short form” of the ORIGINAL? I think we all know the answer to that and when
we consider the principle of the Commandments we can see the truth – “If you
break the least of these you are guilty of breaking them all” – by this
principle alone we can see that to “break” His Name into anything other than the
complete form is to break it entirely – the short form is from men, not our
Creator and our Heavenly Father. It does not matter how many times the
Jewish/Hebrew scribes use the self confessed “short form” in the copies of the
Scriptures (Torah, Tanakh, etc.) this is a choice they have made and they admit
to the “original form” but prefer to use the “short” or “broken” form of this
Name, especially when it comes to making reference to our Savior, YaHshua, to
them this would be, Yeshua or maybe even, Yashua?
Continuing, Wikipedia:
Thus, both the full form Yehoshua and the abbreviated
form Yeshua, were in use during the Gospel
period – and in relation to the same person, as in the Hebrew Bible references
to Yehoshua/Yeshua son of Nun, and Yehoshua/Yeshua the high priest in the days
of Ezra.
My Comment: Sixth
paragraph – So, both were used and this means our Savior was then named a name
in the “short form” which actually cuts the Father’s Name out? If there were
two choices being used during the time of our Savior’s birth it would only make
sense that of the two choices our Heavenly Father would have chosen the longer,
original form, doesn’t it? YaHshua said He came in His Father’s Name, not some
short form of that Name. When you look at the so called short form it is easy
to begin to see it is nothing like the name JESUS accept in a similarity of
appearance as neither of these two are pronounced the same, so the
transliteration between these names fails as does the transliteration between
the name Yeshua and YaHshua, even if you spell it YaHushua, it fails miserably
as a transliteration or even as representative of His birth Name.
Continuing, Wikipedia:
In the Talmud,
only one reference is made to the spelling Yeshua, in verbatim
quotation from the Hebrew Bible regarding Jeshua son of Jozadak (elsewhere
called Joshua son of Josedech). The Talmud does refer to several people named
Yehoshua from before (e.g. Joshua ben Perachyah) and after Jesus (e.g. Joshua
ben Hananiah). However in references to Jesus in
the Talmud, where the name occurs, it is rendered Yeshu, which is a
name reserved in Aramaic and Hebrew literature from the early medieval period
until today, solely for Jesus of Nazareth, not for other Joshuas. However some
scholars, such as Maier (1978) regard the two named "Yeshu"
texts in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a and 107b) to be later amendments, and not
original.[24]
Clement of Alexandria and St.
Cyril of Jerusalem considered the Greek form Iesous to be the
original, even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not
simply a transliteration of Hebrew, (A similar situation is seen in the use of
the true Greek name Simon as a translation of the Hebrew name Shim'on in texts
such as Sirach.) Eusebius related it to the Greek root meaning "to
heal" thus making it a variant of Jason meaning healer.
My Comment: Seventh
and Eight paragraphs – Simple truth is hard to ignore. In the latter paragraph
we see the obvious answer to how His Name was changed and accepted, not by some
mysterious twisting but by a simple CHANGE from the Hebrew to the Greek
claiming it to be the true Greek name and “not simply a transliteration of
Hebrew”. How much plainer can it get? Scholars of the Roman Church changed His
My Hebrew/Jewish Name to that of a Greek.
Continuing, Wikipedia:
However, the New Testament describes Jesus as being a part of a Jewish milieu, reading the Hebrew Bible and debating with Pharisees over interpretations of the Jewish legal tradition. The Gospels record several Hebrew and Aramaic words or expressions spoken by him. Moreover, Eusebius reports that Jesus's student Matthew wrote a gospel "in the Hebrew language". (Note, scholars typically argue the word "Hebrew" in the New Testament refers to Aramaic.[25])
An argument in favor of the Hebrew reduced form ????
Yeshua, as opposed to Yehoshua, is the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200
AD) and the Peshitta
preserve this same spelling but using the equivalent Aramaic letters
. Yeshu/je?u?/ (Syriac does not use a
'furtive' pathach so extra /a/ is not used) is still the pronunciation used in
the West Syriac dialect, whereas East Syriac has rendered the pronunciation of
these same letters as Išô‘/i?o?/. These texts were translated from the
Greek, but the name is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form because
Greek did not have an "sh" [?] sound, and substituted [s]; and
likewise lacked and therefore omitted the final ‘ayin sound [?]. It
can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual
connection to the Aramaic-speakers in communities founded by the apostles
and other students of Jesus, thus independently preserved his historical name.
Alternatively, Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible had long used Yeshu
for Hebrew names such as Yehoshua Ben Nun.[27] So the possibility of
Jesus having been Yehoshua remains.
My Comment: Last paragraphs
–The last line really says it all and while men on both sides, the Jews, and
the Christians can argue for the name Yeshua in the “short form” it still does
not measure up to the bogus name JESUS. All of the reasoning can be used in how
certain letters could not be sounded out in the Greek because they did not have
letters to properly transliterate the name properly is a faulty argument from
the shear fact that today we do have letters and combination of letter to do
the proper transliterations. We have already read where the Greek Name comes
from, not form the Hebrew nor the Aramaic but from a
couple of Roman Saints saying His Name is Greek. JESUS comes from the Roman
Church, from the Latin language claiming to come from the Original Greek. The
faulty think should be clear, the Roman/Greek Church, East and West, wanted a non-Jewish god and they created one, name and
all.
_________________________________
This small article was lifted from Wikidpedia at the address above. This is part of an excellent discussion and presentation concerning the name “Yeshua”, pro and con. I have added my own comments, of course.
Yeshua was used as the name for Jesus in late additions to the Yosippon; however,
its usage here is a translation back into the Hebrew Yeshua from the
Greek.
My Comment: This is not true, of course, and is of no surprise
considering the source. Looking at the title you would think the Rabbinical
Commentary is dealing with two variation Yeshu/Yeshua
but right from the start we see it is Yeshua/Jesus. This is the lie being
pushed by many scholars in a self imposed deception of the truth -- that Yeshua
and Jesus are the same. First, the names Jesus and Yeshua are
not “translations”, and I will asssume the Rabbincal
commentators of this article know this
Continuing, Rabbinical Commentary:
In general rabbinical sources use Yeshu, and this is the form to which named references to Jesus in the Talmud as Yeshu occur. The name Yeshu is only found in the Babylonian Talmud, and some scholars, such as Maier (1978) have argued that those a late additions. Other Hebrew sources referencing Yeshu include the Toledot Yeshu Sefer Nestor ha-Komer, Jacob ben Reuben's Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, the works of Ibn Shaprut, Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas, and Hasdai Crescas, etc.
Some of these sources comment on the reasons for the missing ayin from Yeshu, as opposed to the Hebrew Bible Yeshua and Yehoshuah. Leon Modena argues that it was Jesus himself who made his disciples remove the ayin, and that therefore they cannot now restore it. A tradition states that the shortening to Yeshu relates to the Y-SH-U of the yimach shemo "may his name be obliterated."[27][28]
The Greek transliteration ?ησο?ς
(Iesous) *jesu-os → [je'sus] can stand for both Classical
Biblical Hebrew Yehoshua[j?ho'?ua?] (top
two) and Late Biblical Hebrew Yeshua[je'?ua?]
(bottom). This later form developed within Hebrew (not
Aramaic).[6] All
three spelling variants occur in the Hebrew Bible, including when referring to
the same person. During the Second Temple Period, Jews of Galilee tended to
preserve the traditional spelling, keeping the <?> letter for the [o] in
the first syllable, even adding an additional letter for the [u] in the second
syllable. However, Jews of Jerusalem tended to spell the name as they
pronounced it, [je'?ua?], contracting the spelling to
???? without the [o] letter. Later, Aramaic references
to the Hebrew Bible adopted the contracted phonetic form of this Hebrew name as
an Aramaic name
My Comment: Way back when
the Greek transliterated the name YeHoshua (this being the transliteration in
English today) the Greek was pronounced quite differently than it is today. The
original spelling and pronounciation is admittedly, YeHoshua, as the modern
English transliteration, along with, YaHushua and YaHshua .
As a transliteration YaHshua also fits the bill but IESUS (He-Zeus) does not.
Yeshua might have a favorable vote but for the fact it is not pronounced as a
true “transliteration” due to the dropping of the all important letter “H”.
What about the “O” being dropped from the transliteration, YaHshua? That letter
is not part of the Father’s Name but is the beginning of the discriptive part.
With the “O” or “U” present it changes the difinition of what is being said in
His Name from “Savior” to “Salvation” and both declarations are correct. YaH is
our Savior and YaH is our Savlation. This is where we can determine the name
“Yeshua” is incorrect as it drops the Name and in effect replaces the
transliterated “H” with the lowly vowel “e”. The pronunciation is then
distorted from the true “transliteration” from YaH-Shua to Yes-shua. Some have
rendered it as Yea-shua but the same problem occures with the cutting of His
Name in half discarding the letter “H”.
There record shows there was an
original form not Yeshua. Yeshua is said to be a “later contraction” and in
this the error is apparent. Ask the question, would the Father of our Savior
have named His Son in a contracted form or the whole? The answer is obvious and
by not keeping with this His Name, a Name by which we must all be saved has
been changed, little by little until we have a name today that is not even
close to His Birth Name. JESUS is not a transliteration and it is a poor
transliteration of the poor attempt by the Greeks (Iesous). Even these two
names are hard pressed to be called transliterations as they sound nothing
alike.
Some have tried to say that IESUS
is the transliteration of IESOUS and if this is so it is also true it is not a
transliteration of His Hebrew Name, YaHshua, or YaHushua. Then the defenders of
Yeshua and Jesus say, there were no proper letter
replacements in the Greek for the total transliteration of the Hebrew. If this
is true, it is no longer true as in today’s languages we do have the complete
letterings and words to properly transliterate His Name. The Original Greek was
mishandled and abused for purposes to change His Name From
Hebrew to a Greek Namem as admitted to by St Cyril of Jerusalem and Clement of
Alexaderia (see first article).
I personally see nothing wrong in
dropping the “O” or the “U” but to drop half of the Name of our Creator and
Savior by dropping the “H” in the transliteration changes everything. The
pronounciation is completely thrown off and when you look at the name JESUS
compared to the orignal YeHoshua and the alternate “transliterations”, YaHshua,
YaHushua is not a “translation” and it is definitely not a “transliteration’ of
any of these names of our Savior as He was Named by the Messanger from Heaven,
a name given to Mary (Maryam) and Josheph (Yosheph) to Name Him, they were not
given a choice, nor was their ipinion requested, no, they were given the Name
to Name Him and it was not some contraction of the Original, how could it
be?
Note: For those unfamiliar with translations and transliterations let’s have a look at the difference --
American Heritage Dictionary will be used for the difinition of these two terms
Translation -- n. Abbr. tr., trans., transl. 1. The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another. The state of being translated. 2. A translated version of a text. [1][1]
Transliterate -- v.tr. trans-lit-er-at-ed,
trans-lit-er-at-ing, trans-lit-er-ates. To represent (letters
or words) in the corresponding characters of another
alphabet.[2][2]
To translate from one
language to another the words and letters may sound differently but produce the
same meaning as the original language. The purpose, then, of “transliteration”
is to produce corresponding “letters or words” for the production of the same
sound. Some confuse translation and to transliterate missing this important
point. They seem similar and some think to “translate” is really the same as to
“transliterate” which it is not and the those dealing in languages and have
knowledge of how language is handled from one to the other know this.
To Transliteration -- to repeat -- is
for the purpose of producing letter and words to correspond with the original
from a different language in an effort to create the same sound (phonetics) and
this is attempted by the use of letters or words that have, or create, the same
sound, or pronunciation as the original language being transliterated. In
effect, if a complete book were to be “transliterated” the person may be able
to read the book but it would make no sense because the reader would be
sounding out the words of another language, written in his or her own language.
This is where the “translation’ comes in.
The same book being translated and then read would be
understood as if the book were produced in the readers own language
with a meaning for meaning -- to “translation” from one language to
another. Transliterations are different, reproducing a phonetic sound
and this is why “transliterations” are mostly concerned with
“names”. Many names, in fact, such as names of Leader, Presidents, or
Kings, are presented in their original languages and everyone, by repetition,
know how to say the "Exaulted Leaders" name, like President Bush or
Obama, but this is not true when it comes to our Savior's Name, a Name that is
to be above every name (Isa 12:4, Php 2:9)
To “transliterate” a name from one language to another is to make that name sound like the original in the lettering or wording of a different language so the sound or pronunciation of that name is the same no matter which language it is spoken in. It may look different, on paper, to the owner of the name, but it would come out the same, or very near the same giving some allowance for accent and dialects when pronounced, or sounded out. This, however, is not what we find in the name, JESUS and YESHUA. One is not the transliteration of the other, and it is not the translation either, it is totally made up. In 1611 AD, when the King James “Authorized” Version what published the name appeared as IESVS. When people here the word, authorized, used when speaking or writing about the King James Bible we need to remember, the authorization of this Bible was by the King, King James. In other words, the KJV Bible was a government issue and contrary to some beliefs, it was not written by the Apostles (tongue in cheek sarcasm).
email: servant@yahshuaservant.com
[1][1]Excerpted
from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
[2][2]Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.