Exposing the "Yeshu'a" Name Game

 

 

I.            Introduction

 

Up to the early the fourth century C.E., the encounter between Judaism and Christianity was mostly a battle of words.  However, with the victory of the Church in the fourth century C.E., when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian and made mainline Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, a new element was injected into the conflict.  Christians now possessed both the official recognition and the power over the entire "executive branch" of the Roman Empire, and the first casualty of this triumph by the Church was its tolerance of others.  From that time on, the history of Christianity has given birth to a vicious pattern of persecution of the Jewish people by Bible-toting Christians.  These violent acts have caused many millions of Jews to be murdered, maimed, displaced, and stripped of both dignity and possessions simply because they were Jews, and because they chose to "kiss the sword" rather than "kiss the cross".  These harsh experiences have left a bitter taste about Christians and Christianity among the Jewish people.  The following quotes from well-known personalities address this issue:

 

"Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals.  But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..."  Hans Küng, On Being A Christian,  Doubleday, Garden City NY, (1976), Page 169.

 

"The Jews are a nervous people.  Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll."  Benjamin Disraeli

 

[Source:  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_pers.htm)]

 

While Christianity has been a tremendous success among all other groups, its efforts among the Jewish people have failed miserably.  The Jewish people, albeit one of the smallest components of the world's population, have continued to remain Jewish in spite of the persistent campaign by the Church to convert them to Christianity for nearly two millennia.  Eventually, early in the second half of the 20^th century, evangelical fundamentalist Christians began to realize that "something was wrong with the picture".  They observed that, even as the third millennium was approaching, the rate of success in converting Jews to Christianity was diminishingly small.  It would require a rather large number of Jews to accept Jesus in order to bring about his "return", i.e., the "second coming", since, according to the New Testament, Jesus implored a group of Jews as follows:

 

Matthew 23:39 (KJV) - For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

Luke 13:35 (KJV) - Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

 

These passages, according to evangelical fundamentalist Christians, imply that Jesus will not come back until Jews accept him en masse and become "believers".  Thus, they concluded that the Jewish people were "holding up the show", and this has become the incentive and motivation for these groups of Christians to evangelize and convert Jews to Christianity.  However, there was the problem of a 1,700 year history replete with relentless Christian persecution of Jews that stood in the way – a significant hurdle and impediment to leap and overcome in the quest for Jewish souls.

 

Evangelical fundamentalist Christians hold that only their religious beliefs are fully valid, since their doctrines are based on the "inerrant Word of G-d".  Theirs is the only path that will lead people to salvation and to a living knowledge and intimate relationship with G-d.  In other words, these Christians have an exclusive perspective, that they own the monopoly on "The Truth", and that all other religions of the world, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and even liberal Christianity, lead individuals away from salvation on a path to "hell".  This "package" is rather difficult to sell to followers of other faiths, especially to the Jewish people.  A paradigm shift was required in order to help solve this problem, especially as it concerns the Jewish people.  Clearly, murdering Jews was not effective; perhaps "loving" them would be received much more favorably.  How could this be accomplished?

 

One approach would be to distance oneself from the atrocities of the past by charging that all those who engaged in the persecution of Jews were not "true Christians", since "true Christians" really love the Jewish people, and have only their best interest in mind, to save them from going to "hell".  But this, in and of itself, would not enough to bring the Jews to Christianity; the pitch had to be "sugarcoated" in order to make it more palatable to the Jews.  Would it not be a good idea to tailor the package to what a Jew might be more apt to accept?  The conclusion reached was that the proper language had to be used when communicating with Jewish people.  A language that consists of elements that are more familiar to them would draw them in, rather than the old historical "Christianese", which creates visions of the past "show of horrors" and pushes them even farther away.

 

Enter Pastor Martin Rosen, allegedly a Jew by birth who converted to Christianity in the 1950's, and an ordained Baptist minister who attended Northeastern Bible Institute (a fundamentalist Christian seminary in New England).  Rosen, who was officially affiliated with the American Board of Missions to the Jews, founded Jews for Jesus in 1973, an organization that is dedicated to the evangelization of Jews.  Rosen, who now goes by the name Moishe Rosen, appears to have had an impact on developing a new vocabulary that made common Christological terminology more "Jewish friendly".  For example, the phrase Jesus Christ, was replaced with Messiah Yeshu'a, or, Yeshu'a HaMashiach.  The cross, is now a tree.  Instead of converting, one would refer to becoming a completed or fulfilled Jew.  The New Testament is now the New Covenant, or "Brit Chadashah", and so on.

 

This essay focuses on what has become the most popular and widely used term in this new vocabulary,  (Yeshu'a), the "hebraicized" name for Jesus, and the analysis will demonstrate how this popular name for Jesus is not based on factual evidence from the first century C.E.

 

II.            What's in A Name?

 

What is so special about the name  (Yeshu'a)[1]?  Just ask some Hebrew-Christians (i.e., members of groups such as Jews for Jesus, Messianic Jews, [American] Nazarenes, and others) who use this name for Jesus this question: 

 

?        How do you know for sure that  (Yeshu'a) was the name by which Jesus was known when he lived?

 

Responses to this question are likely to fall into two categories:

 

1. One group of answers will have as its common theme the claim that  (Yeshu'a), in Hebrew, means salvation, and that is how Jesus rewards those who accept him as their lord and savior.

 

2. The other group of answers will have as its common theme the notion that iησους (iēsous) is the Greek version of the Hebrew name  (Y^ehoshu'a), the diminutive form of which is claimed to be  (Yeshu'a), a form that was allegedly a popular name during the time around the change in era.

 

Then, follow up with this question:

 

?        What evidence, such as extant documentation or archaeological artifacts from that time, can you offer in support of your claim?

 

Responses to this question, in general, will also fall into two categories:

 

1. One group of answers will identify the Greek New Testament as the evidence, or some archaeological artifacts of questionable authenticity.

 

2. The other group of answers will typically be of the type, "This is what I was told by 'X'" (where 'X' stands for a friend, another 'believer', or a Pastor [messianic "rabbi"], etc.).

 

In order to analyze these responses and test their validity, some factual data has been collected and analyzed.

 

1. Hebrew Etymology

 

Table II.A-1 contains the requisite Hebrew linguistic information for the study of the term  (Yeshu'a).  Starting with the Hebrew root verb, all the derived vocabulary is identified, including verbs, nouns, and proper names that are found in the Hebrew Bible.  The following conventions are used in the "Pronunciation" column:  (a) English vowel sounds are used; (b) syllables are separated by a hyphen (-); (c) a schwa is denoted by a superscripted-e (^e); and (d) the accented syllable is shown in CAPS.  Regarding proper names, the King James Version (KJV) renditions are provided for reference.

 

Table II.A-1 – Hebrew etymology

 

*  - Only instances of this proper name relevant to Joshua Son of Nun will be examined.

** - All instances of these two proper names will be examined.

 

2. A Closer Look at the Three Relevant Proper Names

 

Table II.B-1 displays the three names that are relevant to this study, and which require a detailed analysis –  (Hoshe'a),  (Y^ehoshu'a), and  (Yeshu'a).  The Christian "Septuagint" (LXX) renditions are transliterations of the Greek.

 

Table II.B-1 – LXX and KJV renditions of three proper names:  (Hoshe'a),  (Y^ehoshu'a),

and  (Yeshu'a)

 

 

The information shown in Table II.B-1 indicates that:

 

§         With two exceptions, the LXX does not distinguish among the three names.  All three Hebrew names, regardless of who owned them, are translated into Greek as iησους (iēsous).  The two exceptions, where the LXX shows a different name, come in pairs.  One of these pairs is found at Numbers 13:8,16 where, at v. 16, Joshua's name was changed by Moses from  (Hoshe'a) to  (Y^ehoshu'a):

 

Numbers 13:8,16 – (8) From the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshe'a (αυση [ausē] in the LXX) the son of Nun.

(16) These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land.  And Moses called Hoshe'a (αυση [ausē] in the LXX) the son of Nun, Y^ehoshu'a.

 

The other pair of exceptions is found at 1 Samuel 6:14,18:

 

1 Samuel 6:14,18 – (14) And the cart came to the field of Y^ehoshu'a (ωσηε [ōsēe] in the LXX), a Bethshemite, and stood there, where there was a great stone; and they split the wood of the cart, and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the L-rd.

(18) And the golden mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fortified cities, and of country villages, to the great stone of Abel, where they set down the Ark of the L-rd; this stone remains to this day in the field of Y^ehoshu'a (ωσηε [ōsēe] in the LXX), the Bethshemite.

 

Sidebar note:  Though LXX is a Church-rendered document, Christian missionaries claim that the LXX is a Jewish work, a claim which has already been proven false.  The Original Septuagint was the translation by 72 Jewish scholars and Rabbis of the Torah (Pentateuch) into Koiné Greek, the spoken dialect in the mid-third century B.C.E.  Could it be that the 72 leading Jewish scholars and Rabbis of the time would not know the difference between the names  (Hoshe'a),  (Y^ehoshu'a), and  (Yeshu'a), and translate them all as into the same name in Greek?

 

§         The KJV, unlike the LXX, distinguishes among the three names.  In fact, on two occasions the KJV goes beyond the three names and draws further distinction.  First, regarding the name  (Hoshe'a), as it applies to Joshua, at Numbers 13:8,16 the KJV has:

 

Numbers 13:8,16(KJV) – (8) Of the tribe of Ephraim, Oshea the son of Nun.

(16) These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

 

Second, regarding the name  (Y^ehoshu'a), at Numbers 13:16 the KJV has:

 

Numbers 13:16(KJV) – These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.

 

And at 1 Chronicles 7:27 the KJV has:

1 Chronicles 7:27(KJV) - Non his son, Jehoshuah his son.

 

The same name has two slightly different spellings, both resembling the Hebrew name.

 

§         Within the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Bible, the name  (Yeshu'a) is present only in the last Books: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

 

§         With one exception, the name  (Y^ehoshu'a) is present only in the Torah (Pentateuch) and N^evi'im (Prophets) sections in the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Bible.  The single exception is found in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:

 

1 Chronicles 7:27 - Non his son, Y^ehoshu'a his son.

 

Some of these observations will be revisited in the analysis that follows.

 

III.            Whence Came the Name "Yeshu'a"?

 

The data provided in Section II will now be used to test the validity of the Christian missionary claim, as well as the evidence offered to support it, that  (Yeshu'a) is the Hebrew name of Jesus.

 

1. Does the Name "Yeshu'a" Uniquely Imply the Name Jesus?

 

As was noted above, two common types of responses are offered by Hebrew-Christians in response to the question about the name  (Yeshu'a) being applied to Jesus.  One answer is the claim that  (Yeshu'a) means salvation in Hebrew, since salvation is his gift to those who become "believers".  Is this true? 

 

Table II.A-1 shows the etymology of the Hebrew root  from which the Hebrew noun (y^eshu'ah), salvation, and the Hebrew proper name  (Yeshu'a) are derived.  One obvious problem with the Christian missionary claim, which does not even require the knowledge of Hebrew, is that these two terms have different spellings.  Another problem is that the two words have different meanings and applications.  Still another problem is the fact that the two Hebrew terms have different genders:  is a feminine noun, and  is a masculine proper name, and their respective pronunciations are different, as was shown in Table II.A-1.  In the Hebrew language, terms applied as proper names generally follow gender.

 

Conclusion #1:  Y^eshu'ah (), and not Yeshu'a (), means salvation.

 

The other common answer to the question about the name  (Yeshu'a) is the claim that iησους (iēsous) is the Greek version of the Hebrew name  (Y^ehoshu'a), the diminutive form of which is claimed to be  (Yeshu'a), a form that is also claimed to have been a popular name of that particular era.  Is this true?

 

Table II.B-1 shows the three Hebrew proper names that are relevant to the claims being tested, since they are all connected with the person Joshua Son of Nun, whose Hebrew name is  (Y^ehoshu'a).  The other two names are  (Hoshe'a), the name of Joshua Son of Nun before he was renamed by Moses, and  (Yeshu'a), the name used on one occasion for Joshua Son of Nun by Nehemiah.  As was already noted earlier, the LXX, in effect, makes no distinction between these three names.  Relative to Joshua Son of Nun, the only place where the LXX differentiates in its renderings of  (Hoshe'a; in Greek, αυση [ausē]) and  (Y^ehoshu'a; in Greek, iησους [iēsous]) is at Numbers 13:8,16.  In this case, there had to be some distinction made, at least in the latter of the two verses where the name change is described, in order to avoid nonsensical context.  There is also the other situation in the LXX (1 Sam 6:14,18) where, for some unknown reason, the name  (Y^ehoshu'a) was rendered differently from all other instances as ωσηε (ōsēe), which is the way the Hebrew name  (Hoshe'a) is rendered throughout the LXX.

 

Conclusion #2:  The LXX does not distinguish between the three proper names

       (Hoshe'a),  (Y^ehoshu'a), and  (Yeshu'a), when

       applied to Joshua.

 

Is there any basis to the claim that the name  (Yeshu'a) is a diminutive form of  (Y^ehoshu'a)?  This may actually be true.  However, note that, while the name  (Y^ehoshu'a) appears, with one exception (1 Chron 7:27), only throughout the first two portions of the Hebrew Bible, in the Torah (Pentateuch) and N^evi'im (Prophets), the name  (Yeshu'a) appears only in the third portion of the Hebrew Bible, in K^etuvim (Writings).  In fact,  (Yeshu'a) appears only in the last Books of the Hebrew Bible:  Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.  If this were truly a diminutive form, would not one expect to see some interchangeable usage of the two names?  The fact that the use of these two names is segregated, to a large extent, in separate portions of the Hebrew Bible would indicate that these two names are not necessarily related in this manner.

 

Sidebar note:  According to Jewish tradition, just as with Avram (Abram) the expansion of his name into Avraham (Abraham) was an expression of divine approval, so did this diminution of  (Y^ehoshu'a) into  (Yeshu'a) express divine disapproval for failing to implore G-d to remove the passion for idolatry from the heart of the people.  Joshua failed to do this because of his assumption that G-d possessed the land in its pristine holiness, so that this by itself would help Israel to overcome its idolatrous tendencies.

 

Conclusion #3:  Even though  (Yeshu'a) may be a diminutive form of  

       (Y^ehoshu'a), the evidence in the Hebrew Bible does not

       necessarily support this claim.

 

Is it possible that  (Yeshu'a), was a popular name given to male children in the time around the change in era?  In order to validate this claim, it is necessary to find sources from the particular era and check them for names that were used.  The only available extant and authentic source material from that general period is the Talmud in its original language, Hebrew/Aramaic.  The results of search of the Talmud for the three names of interest are shown in Table II.A-1.

 

Table III.A-1 – The three proper names:  (Hoshe'a),  (Y^ehoshu'a), and  (Yeshu'a) in

      the Talmud

 

 

These results indicate that, at least among the Talmudic Sages, the names  (Y^ehoshu'a) and  (Hoshe'a) were used, while the name  (Yeshu'a) never appears on the record, except in direct quotes of passages from the Hebrew Bible!  This invalidates the claim that  (Yeshu'a) was a popular name at the time of Jesus.

 

Conclusion #4:  The evidence does not support the claim that  (Yeshu'a) was a

       name, let alone a popular one, used in the days of Jesus.

 

2. Does the Evidence Offered Support the Claims?

 

In one of the  two types of responses concerning the evidence offered in support of the claim that  (Yeshu'a) was the Hebrew name of Jesus, the New Testament is often cited as the evidence for this claim.  This is a rather puzzling response, considering the fact that the New Testament was originally written in the Greek language.  As was shown above, the name  (Yeshu'a) appears neither in the Greek New Testament nor in the commonly used popular English translations, such as the KJV.  It was also demonstrated that the LXX does not differentiate between the three proper names, which would leave one at a loss as to which of these names iησους (iēsous) actually represents.  Moreover, no extant documents or other forms of credible and verifiable evidence are available to confirm that  (Yeshu'a) was the Hebrew name of Jesus. 

 

Conclusion #5:  Based on the evidence found in the LXX and in the common

       English translations of the New Testament, it is impossible to

       conclude that  (Yeshu'a) was the Hebrew name of Jesus.

 

Finally, what about a reply of the form, "this is what I was told by 'X'", as evidence?  The analysis presented above should demonstrate to anyone who is able to think for himself or herself that the facts do not support what 'X' has told this person.  The Psalmist summed it up best when he wrote:

 

Psalms 146:3 - Do not rely on nobles, or in the son of man who has no salvation.

 

Conclusion #6:  Do not accept without question everything that people [with a

       specific agenda] tell you.  Verify and validate against the facts

       all information you are asked to accept.  Remember, relatives,

       friends, "believers", clergy, etc., are all mortal human beings.

 

What is the "bottom line" here?  It is only in recent history, since the second half of the 20^th century, when a paradigm shift in the strategy for Jewish evangelism took place, that the substitute name  (Yeshu'a) for Jesus has surfaced as part of the jargon of Hebrew-Christian missionaries to the Jewish people. 

 

The book Practical Lessons From The Experience Of Israel For The Church Of To-Day, by F. C. Gilbert, A Converted Hebrew, ©1902 Library of Congress, South Lancaster Printing Company, Lancaster, Massachusetts, a 400-page opus, does not contain a single reference to any of the three names,  (Hoshe'a),  (Y^ehoshu'a), or  (Yeshu'a).  This is a significant fact, since the author quotes notable Christian scholars such as Alfred Edersheim[2] (an Austrian Jew born in 1925, who converted to Christianity at the age of 20, and became a minister and prominent Christian scholar and author), among others.  Clearly, those Christian scholars did not use any of these names in reference to Jesus.

 

Although there are occasions on which some of the Jewish Sages refer to Jesus as  (Yeshu'a), Christian sources did not use that proper name for Jesus prior to the 20^th century.  The name "Yeshua/Y'shua" started to be used by Hebrew-Christians in the latter half of the 20^th century in their communications.  It began to appear in print in various publications, such as in the recent translation of the New Testament, Jewish New Testament, by David H. Stern, and in the other media, such as radio and television.  Today, as part of a vigorous and well-funded campaign to evangelize the Jewish people, this deceptive material is everywhere.  Written in a "Jewish friendly" style, it aims to catch Jewish souls in this Christian trap with "kosher-style" bait in it.

 

Conclusion #7:  The substitute name application of  (Yeshu'a) for Jesus was

 revived by evangelical fundamentalist Christian missionaries in

 the latter half of the 20^th century as part of a new tactic in their

 quest for Jewish souls.

 

IV.            Summary

 

This essay examined the Hebrew proper name  (Yeshu'a), and tested the validity of its use by the various groups of Hebrew-Christians as the true given Hebrew name of Jesus.  The data clearly indicate that there is no Biblical nor historically credible and valid evidence to justify this association.  Quite to the contrary, it appears to be a recently fashioned application with a specific purpose rather than an historical fact.