Derivation of the Name "Jesus"
I was asked in my Jewish Roots class this past week if the name "Jesus" was derived from "Zeus" (for example, some groups claim that "Jesus" really means "hail Zeus" - this is, in my opinion, an unfortunate and growing trend). After doing some digging, my initial understanding that Jesus is simply Yeshua transferred into English was verified. Here is why I believe the name "Jesus" (and the Greek term "iesous" from which it derives) cannot be derived from anything related Zeus.
#1. Our earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contain "iesous" (or "iesou" or "iesoun" depending on its inflection due to its role in the sentence). If something so blatantly pagan as purposely turning the name of the Messiah into praise for Zeus is found in all of our earliest manuscripts, then the pagan influence on our New Testament is from a very early date and, therefore, they cannot be trusted in many other areas as well. However, what we have are Greek language manuscripts that are thoroughly Jewish in thought and thoroughly anti-pagan. They can be trusted. It would be wrong to read the New Testament with a suspicious eye.
#2. The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and dates from before the time of Yeshua, uses "iesous" for its translation of Joshua. Joshua is the English of the Hebrew "Yehoshua", or in the more Aramaic influenced Hebrew, "Yeshua". If the Septuagint, which was created under close scrutiny of Jewish leadership and affirmed by the rabbis (especially the Septuagint's translation of the books of Moses), used "iesou" (see Ex. 17:9 for example) then it must be a simple translation of "Yehoshua" or "Yeshua" and not an underhanded way to sneak in a pagan deity's name. The Jewish people fought and died to preserve our monotheistic faith, they certainly aren't going to create and condone a translation that undermines that attempt. If the Septuagint uses "iesou", then so can the New Testament legitimately use that term.
#3. The move from "Yeshua" to "Jesus" is easy to see. First of all, the "j" in antiquity had the "y" sound (see Latin pronunciation), so the fact that "Jesus" begins with a "J" makes sense. Secondly, the move from the "sh" in Yeshua to the "s" sound in Greek makes sense as there is no "sh" sound in Greek and the "s" is as close to that sound as you can get. In addition, Greek is a highly inflected language. This means that most words (including proper names) change depending on their purpose within the sentence. That's why Matthew 1:1 will read Yeshua's name as "iesou" whereas Matthew 1:21 will read "iesouv", and the lemma (dictionary form of the word) is "iesous". So the fact that the Hebrew/Aramaic ends with an "a" sound and does not do so in the Greek is of little surprise as the Greek ending of "iesous" was fluid to fit within Greek rules for inflecting a word.
If the above is true, why do we at Tikvat Ami call Him "Yeshua" and not "Jesus"? We call him "Yeshua" to emphasize the fact that He was theJewish Messiah. Is it wrong to say "Jesus"? My thought is that in no way is it wrong to say "Jesus" just as it is not wrong to call someone named "Joseph" "Jose" while in Mexico. My preference in prayer and in the synagogue, however, is that we usually stick to "Yeshua" for the reason stated above - to emphasize His Jewish context, apart from which even the concept of Messiah makes little sense.
Below is a link to an article by Dr. Michael Brown, perhaps the leading Messianic Jewish apologist of our time, for those looking for backing for my conclusions from a scholar with a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures. In addition to his refutation of "Jesus" being derived from Greek, he also combats odd, new pronunciations of Yeshua (such as "Yahshua" and others).
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/39917-is-the-name-jesus-really-related-to-the-name-zeus
Why is this an important subject? It is important for a couple of reasons. First of all, as stated above, if "Jesus" is a direct allusion to Zeus, then we have a New Testament that cannot be trusted. This is far from the truth. It is very important to understand that, while we have mistakes and discrepancies in our manuscripts, they are usually honest mistakes with little to no theological import. We can trust the New Testament that we have. It is the most well-attested ancient document in our possession.
Secondly, while there has been much corruption in the institution of the Church throughout much of its existence, we must not create division with the many genuine Christians over secondary issues such as pronunciations. While I believe that many who argue against the use of the term "Jesus" because of its purported association with "Zeus" are simply misinformed, the end result is not good - their arguments lead to division. 1 Timothy 6 uses extreme language that categorizes some, but not all those who disagree on this issue.
1 Timothy 6:3-5 (Tree of Life Bible)
If anyone passes on a different teaching and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and with the instruction in keeping with godliness, he is prideful, understanding nothing. Instead he is obsessed with arguments and disputes about words - out of which come envy, strife, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction between people corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
Romans 12:18 (TLV)
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in shalom with all people.
Obviously there is a time to argue and even a time to take up the sword (to defends one's country, for example. See Ecclesiastes 3:1 and following). But to argue and create division over this pronunciation is not profitable. Let us not seek out an argument on this or any other issue, but let us seek peace. If you see how another needs to grow in the faith, ask and pray for the right and peaceful way to gently guide. Too often people take up the sword over an issue like this and the true motivation is the unrest in their own hearts. Let us be motivated by peace and not a desire to condemn. If your heart's unrest is leading you to argue, learn the peace of Messiah by spending time in the healing presence of God.
In Messiah's Love,
Joshua
#1. Our earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contain "iesous" (or "iesou" or "iesoun" depending on its inflection due to its role in the sentence). If something so blatantly pagan as purposely turning the name of the Messiah into praise for Zeus is found in all of our earliest manuscripts, then the pagan influence on our New Testament is from a very early date and, therefore, they cannot be trusted in many other areas as well. However, what we have are Greek language manuscripts that are thoroughly Jewish in thought and thoroughly anti-pagan. They can be trusted. It would be wrong to read the New Testament with a suspicious eye.
#2. The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and dates from before the time of Yeshua, uses "iesous" for its translation of Joshua. Joshua is the English of the Hebrew "Yehoshua", or in the more Aramaic influenced Hebrew, "Yeshua". If the Septuagint, which was created under close scrutiny of Jewish leadership and affirmed by the rabbis (especially the Septuagint's translation of the books of Moses), used "iesou" (see Ex. 17:9 for example) then it must be a simple translation of "Yehoshua" or "Yeshua" and not an underhanded way to sneak in a pagan deity's name. The Jewish people fought and died to preserve our monotheistic faith, they certainly aren't going to create and condone a translation that undermines that attempt. If the Septuagint uses "iesou", then so can the New Testament legitimately use that term.
#3. The move from "Yeshua" to "Jesus" is easy to see. First of all, the "j" in antiquity had the "y" sound (see Latin pronunciation), so the fact that "Jesus" begins with a "J" makes sense. Secondly, the move from the "sh" in Yeshua to the "s" sound in Greek makes sense as there is no "sh" sound in Greek and the "s" is as close to that sound as you can get. In addition, Greek is a highly inflected language. This means that most words (including proper names) change depending on their purpose within the sentence. That's why Matthew 1:1 will read Yeshua's name as "iesou" whereas Matthew 1:21 will read "iesouv", and the lemma (dictionary form of the word) is "iesous". So the fact that the Hebrew/Aramaic ends with an "a" sound and does not do so in the Greek is of little surprise as the Greek ending of "iesous" was fluid to fit within Greek rules for inflecting a word.
If the above is true, why do we at Tikvat Ami call Him "Yeshua" and not "Jesus"? We call him "Yeshua" to emphasize the fact that He was theJewish Messiah. Is it wrong to say "Jesus"? My thought is that in no way is it wrong to say "Jesus" just as it is not wrong to call someone named "Joseph" "Jose" while in Mexico. My preference in prayer and in the synagogue, however, is that we usually stick to "Yeshua" for the reason stated above - to emphasize His Jewish context, apart from which even the concept of Messiah makes little sense.
Below is a link to an article by Dr. Michael Brown, perhaps the leading Messianic Jewish apologist of our time, for those looking for backing for my conclusions from a scholar with a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures. In addition to his refutation of "Jesus" being derived from Greek, he also combats odd, new pronunciations of Yeshua (such as "Yahshua" and others).
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/39917-is-the-name-jesus-really-related-to-the-name-zeus
Why is this an important subject? It is important for a couple of reasons. First of all, as stated above, if "Jesus" is a direct allusion to Zeus, then we have a New Testament that cannot be trusted. This is far from the truth. It is very important to understand that, while we have mistakes and discrepancies in our manuscripts, they are usually honest mistakes with little to no theological import. We can trust the New Testament that we have. It is the most well-attested ancient document in our possession.
Secondly, while there has been much corruption in the institution of the Church throughout much of its existence, we must not create division with the many genuine Christians over secondary issues such as pronunciations. While I believe that many who argue against the use of the term "Jesus" because of its purported association with "Zeus" are simply misinformed, the end result is not good - their arguments lead to division. 1 Timothy 6 uses extreme language that categorizes some, but not all those who disagree on this issue.
1 Timothy 6:3-5 (Tree of Life Bible)
If anyone passes on a different teaching and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, and with the instruction in keeping with godliness, he is prideful, understanding nothing. Instead he is obsessed with arguments and disputes about words - out of which come envy, strife, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction between people corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
Romans 12:18 (TLV)
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live in shalom with all people.
Obviously there is a time to argue and even a time to take up the sword (to defends one's country, for example. See Ecclesiastes 3:1 and following). But to argue and create division over this pronunciation is not profitable. Let us not seek out an argument on this or any other issue, but let us seek peace. If you see how another needs to grow in the faith, ask and pray for the right and peaceful way to gently guide. Too often people take up the sword over an issue like this and the true motivation is the unrest in their own hearts. Let us be motivated by peace and not a desire to condemn. If your heart's unrest is leading you to argue, learn the peace of Messiah by spending time in the healing presence of God.
In Messiah's Love,
Joshua