This article is adapted from a discussion in which I participated on the SHeMA bulletin board. The discussion referenced comments from a noted Biblical scholar and champion for the truth regarding the fact that Messiah is NOT God in which he shared his sadly incorrect opinion that the name "Jesus" is the correct name of Messiah (Christ). I have tremendous respect for the scholar who promotes this error; however, I am bound by my duty to truth and the Eternal Creator to refute such error. The identity of the scholar is concealed in this article, and his name will be replaced with the generic name of "Mr. Scholar."
I decided to place this discussion on the Torah of Messiah website for a very simple reason. That reason is because Mr. Scholar's incorrect understanding of Messiah's name is very common within the traditional Christian sphere of belief. I continue to be amazed at the blatant use of the WRONG name for Messiah (Christ) within the Christian world and the often vehement hostility to use of Messiah's actual, true name.
Now on to the article. We begin with comments from an individual who had personally communicated with Mr. Scholar. His comments are then followed by my response, which comprises the rest of the article.
Thanks for writing. Yeshuah was not an uncommon name in the first century, I believe. Do you have some information on this point?
Jesus is the equivalent in English of Joshua, used now of the name of the successor of Moses.
In the Greek LXX Joshua is YEESOUS, which gives us Jesus in English. It is simply a matter of tranferring from one language to another.
The Apostles wrote the name of the savior in GREEK and is it wrong to transliterate that into English or any other language. The Apostles could easily have written the Hebrew word Jeshua or Joshuah but they did not.
Why do we need to differ from apostolic practice?
I was not aware that Joshua's name was translated as such in the LXX (Note: LXX refers to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Tanakh (Older Testament)).
Now for my response:
That sounds a lot like what I concluded as being Mr. Scholar's position from my correspondence with him a couple of years ago.
I have tremendous respect for Mr. Scholar, as much respect as I do any other scholar of Scripture. His dedication to advancing the true “gospel” idea, which is the gospel OF THE EARTHLY KINGDOM, is unmatched. The same can be said about his bold promotion of the true HUMAN Messiah along with his powerful rebuttal to the false "God in the flesh" idealogy that infests Christianity. I also am confident of his sincerity and devotion to truth. Having said that, his belief regarding the name "jesus' is very puzzling and troubling. In my opinion his arguments are defenseless and ridiculous. I can't understand how someone with his knowledge can be so utterly WRONG!
A few observations regarding his response to you:
First, I couldn't help but notice that even though he stated Yahshua (Yeshuah) was "not an uncommon name in the first century", it appears that for some reason he can't seem to bring himself to admit that it was AND STILL IS the name of the Messiah he calls "jesus." It is almost as if he dislikes the thought of the name "Yahshua" and has a psychological aversion to using it. It is as though it makes him sick to even consider it. That troubles me and leaves me wondering about and questioning the deeper motives behind his apparent revulsion at the name "Yahshua."
I'm not suggesting that he has some sort of sinister motive. I just wonder if his opposition to the name "Yahshua" has caused him to become so hostile to the simple truth that he has lost his objectivity and is in the grip of traditional bias. Frankly, I think that is precisely what has happened..
Second, His additional comment followed by a question regarding how Yahshua was "not an uncommon name in the first century I believe. Do you have some information on this point?" seems to suggest that he isn't even aware of how common the name "Yahshua" was! That suggests to me that he really is rather ignorant of this entire subject and doesn't consider it worthy of his time to study. That troubles me even more and tends to lessen the usefulness of his opinion since it demonstrates an ignorance that erases the importance of his contribution to the discussion. In effect, it suggests he is not a good resource on the topic and, thus, his opinion is less worthy of sincere consideration than is the case on other issues in which he shares his esteemed opinion.
Third, His statement of "Jesus is the equivalent in English of Joshua" shows gross ignorance! No offense to Mr. Scholar, but despite his tremendous knowledge and value in the cause of the Kingdom, on this subject he is way off base and displays an almost embarrassing level of slothful study. "Joshua" is, itself, an English version of a Hebrew name. Mr. Scholar should know that! “Joshua” is not a “Hebrew” name! It is an English pronunciation of a Hebrew name!
Later, when I discuss Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, that will become clear. Mr. Scholar is PROVEN, beyond doubt, to be wrong when those two verses are considered. The facts revealed from those two verses cause the entire argument supplied in his response to completely fall apart!
Fourth, his statement of "In the Greek LXX Joshua is YEESOUS, which gives us Jesus in English. It is simply a matter of transferring from one language to another." is deceptive, and his conclusion is wrong.
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek TRANSLATION from the original language of Hebrew. So, the correct approach is to go to the ORIGINAL language (Hebrew) and, if a person wishes to transfer the name into English, do it using that ORIGINAL Hebrew language instead of from a translation. It is obviously wrong to use a translation from an original as the basis of the name. Using his argument a person could take Scripture translated into any language as alleged "proof" of Messiah's name! What about Chinese, or Russian, or Latin, or Cherokee, or German, or French, or....? I think you get my point and see why his statement is invalid.
He was correct in part when he said, "It is simply a matter of transferring from one language to another.", but the language being transferred from should be HEBREW, not Greek. It is "simply a matter" of common sense, which Mr. Scholar seems to be lacking in this case.
When the correct language of Hebrew is used as the basis for transferring the name, the English name is "Joshua," NOT "jesus." That is a simple common sense basic fact that even a child should be able to see, much more a man of Mr. Scholar’s intellect. That fact that he blinds himself to seeing it is troubling.
Once again, I am amazed at Mr. Scholar's ignorance given his proven level of outstanding knowledge. I guess this is a good example to illustrate how knowledge does not infer wisdom. Mr. Scholar seems to have lost his wisdom somewhere along the way as he resists using Messiah's proper name. His lack of insight on this subject makes him look like either an untaught child, a latent anti-Semite, or a purposeful opponent to the true name of Messiah. I realize he is none of those, but the severity of the weakness in his argument leaves a person wondering how a man of his devotion and knowledge could put forth such a silly argument.
Fifth, regarding Mr. Scholar’s final response of:
The Apostles wrote the name of the savior in GREEK and is it wrong to transliterate that into English or any other language.
The Apostles could easily have written the Hebrew word Jeshua or Joshuah but they did not.
Why do we need to differ from apostolic practice?
These final words encapsulate all the errors in his argument. Every one of his faulty conclusions is evident.
Before responding directly to his words I’ll briefly discuss some powerful evidence found in the New Testament which proves Messiah's name is NOT "jesus."
Mr. Scholar and others are quick to point out that the New Testament was allegedly written in Greek; therefore, even though that is NOT a certain fact, I'll nevertheless concede, for the purpose of this discussion, that Greek was the original language and STILL prove them wrong. The New Testament passages I cite torpedo the argument of the Mr. Scholars of the world who stubbornly persist in their faulty belief that "Jesus" is Messiah's name.
The passages are Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. I will quote from a portion of another article in which I prove wrong those who claim “Jesus” is Messiah’s name.
… The New Testament translators accidentally uncover the error of the fanciful argument that "Jesus" is an "English translation" and therefore further expose the deceit of many who promote the name "Jesus". … Note the verses as rendered in the King James Version:
- Acts 7:45 (KJV)
- 45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
- Hebrews 4:8 (KJV)
- 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Now note the exact same verses taken from the Updated New American Standard Version:
- Acts 7:45 (NASB95)
- 45 And having received it in their turn, our fathers brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David.
- Hebrews 4:8 (NASB95)
- 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.
In BOTH of these verses the person being referred to is Joshua - the servant of Moses who lead Israel into the promised land. The reason the KJV says "Jesus" is because it comes from the exact same Greek word, Iesous, and the King James Version translators apparently either did not catch the error or, more probably, chose to perpetuate traditional Christianity's anti-Hebraic lie regarding the name of Messiah.
.... The translators [of the New American Standard version] CORRECTLY rendered "Joshua" because they knew it to be the TRUE translation of the original Hebrew name for the servant of Moses. In short, they ignored the Greek transliteration, Iesous, because they knew it to be faulty.
Now, the question for those that claim "Jesus" is the correct English rendering of "Yahshua" is this: if the translators of Scripture elsewhere, especially in the Tanakh (Old Testament) and also in most modern versions of the New Testament, CORRECTLY render the SAME Greek word, Iesous, as "Joshua" in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, why do they refuse to correct the false rendering of "Jesus" for the name of our Messiah? IT IS THE SAME GREEK WORD!
The English equivalent of Messiah's name is "Joshua" (Yahshua), NOT "Jesus." Why is Messiah's name correctly translated ONLY in the cases where it doesn't apply to him? Why does Christianity willfully refuse to correctly render Messiah's Hebrew name even when they correctly render the exact same Greek word in cases where he is not the one being referenced?
So, what this shows is that even translators know the name "Jesus" is NOT correct. So, why is the most important name ever given purposely mistranslated and promoted by Traditional Christianity? …
and by Mr. Scholar.
The old switch-a-roo textual gymnastics done with the names "Joshua" and "Jesus" in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 stop dead in its tracks the argument that “Jesus” is the correct name for Messiah. Quite frankly, all a person has to do is reference the facts uncovered in the translation of these two verses and the issue is settled. If people still do not accept it, then they are proven to be insincere and stubbornly unwilling to accept truth. In such cases, don’t’ waste any more time with them. Just walk away and leave them to wallow in their deceit.
It is as simple as this. The SAME Greek word, Iesous, (Yeesoos) is used in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 as is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the name "Jesus." Yet in those verses everyone, including Mr. Scholar, knows "Joshua" is the correct name. It is so certain that all modern translations correct the mistake of the KJV. So, since they know Iesous should be rendered as "Joshua" in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, why do they refuse to correctly render the name as "Joshua" in all the other places within the Greek where Iesous is used? Why do they continue to promote the name "Jesus" even though they admit in those two verses that the correct rendering is "Joshua?"
Furthermore, when the facts that the letter “J” was not even part of the English alphabet until the 16th century and that what is now pronounced with a “J” sound was previously pronounced with a “Y” sound are considered, the fact that YAHSHUA (or Yeshua, etc.) is the actual true name for Messiah and the truly correct English pronunciation is proven to be absolutely irrefutable! It is a fact that is beyond dispute!
But there is more! Mr. Scholar, himself, proves what was just discussed when he says, "In the Greek LXX Joshua is YEESOUS,...".
In making such a statement he is explicitly admitting that the same word used for Messiah's name in the Greek New Testament manuscripts is also used in the Septuagint (LXX)! He unknowingly proves by that statement that the Greek word, Iesous, (Yeesoos) equates to Joshua (if you insist on the incorrect "J" sound) and that he and others then change the obvious name (Joshua) to "Jesus."
How do they get two totally different names from the exact same Greek word? Yes, those who promote that "Jesus" is Messiah's name contradict themselves by using "Joshua" elsewhere even though they both refer to the EXACT SAME GREEK NAME in the manuscripts! I'll tell you how they do it. They let traditional error dictate their choice instead of truth! And they do that largely because they do not want to deal with the certain negative outcry from their followers who are emotionally attached to the false name "Jesus" if they begin promoting Messiah's actual name! They revere and fear their followers more than YHWH and wish to maintain their exalted status among the deceived masses of traditional Christianity!
You would think that they should decide which name they wish to use in Scripture when Iesous (the Greek name) is translated and then be consistent in their choice. But NOOOOOO. They display a gross lack of consistency as they purposely change the word to "jesus" when referring to Messiah even though they correctly render it "Joshua" elsewhere! If "Jesus" is correct, they need to change all the occurences of "Joshua" to "Jesus." But of course they do not do that because they know "Joshua" is the correct name!
Friends, the deception is obvious. It is obvious that deriving two separate names from the same original Greek word is wrong, and that blatant deceit reveals much about the darker side of the traditional Christian mindset of many scholars. It reveals how truth is actually NOT their ultimate objective in their studies.
Back to Mr. Scholar’s final statement:
The Apostles wrote the name of the savior in GREEK and is it wrong to transliterate that into English or any other language.The Apostles could easily have written the Hebrew word Jeshua or Joshuah but they did not.
Why do we need to differ from apostolic practice?
The language used by the apostles in everyday communication was Hebrew (or Aramaic if you wish. In this case it doesn’t influence the discussion.). That is a fact that only the most naïve and deceived would dare question.
We have no idea what the ORIGINAL language of the gospel letters was! Yes, despite what Mr. Scholar and others may say, there is absolutely no way today to know in what language the ORIGINAL autographed copies of the gospel letters were written. All we have to go on are ancient copies of lost copies of lost copies of lost copies of … (you get my point) of the originals. What language the originals were in is lost to antiquity, and the oldest manuscripts we have may be hundreds of years removed from the originals. At the very least they are decades removed.
In fact, there is strong evidence to support the idea that at least the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and less conclusive yet still good arguments that other gospel letters as well as some of the epistles may have also originated from Hebrew. So, if some parts of the New Testament were originally in Hebrew and others in Greek, doesn’t it make sense that we should use Hebrew as the basis of Messiah’s name since that was the common everyday language of the New Testament authors? Of course, it makes sense anyway, but to those like Mr. Scholar who keep referring to the “Greek” of the New Testament, the fact that some of it was probably Hebrew written becomes an issue they must deal with.
Anyone who tells you there are “original” Greek copies of the gospels is either a liar or ignorant.
Therefore, Mr. Scholar’s statement of "The Apostles wrote the name of the savior in GREEK …" is biased speculation and wishful thinking on his part. It cannot be proven. He should know that, and I suspect he does.
The only probable exception are the epistles of the apostle Paul. Yet the only reason it is likely he wrote in Greek is due to the common sense fact that many of his letters were written to those who spoke Greek as their common language in the Roman Diaspora. So Paul was simply writing in the language of his audience. Yet in truth we cannot know with absolute certainty what the original language was of Paul’s letters.
Note: Some anti-Paulists use the fact that Paul wrote in Greek as part of their so-called “proof” that Paul was a false apostle. Only people who, in my opinion, are stupid fools so bitterly biased against Paul and/or the New Testament and/or so ultra-Semitic that they have lost all common sense objectivity use such a weak argument. They suffer from a self-induced bias-blindness as well as idolatrous Hebrew language-worship.
Simply stated, since we know that the common everyday language of the apostles was Hebrew (or Aramaic) and not Greek, and since that being the case they would have called Messiah by his God-given Hebrew name, doesn’t in make sense that we should use the same name used by his original followers? Or, if a person wishes to “transfer into English” Messiah’s name, doesn’t it make sense that we transfer from the Hebrew language? Of course! It is simply a matter of common sense! Therefore, regardless of what language in which the New Testament was written we should call Messiah by the same name in which he was addressed by the apostles and all his original followers.
I will paraphrase and modify Mr. Scholar’s final comment to make my own point. I wish he would someday remove his bias and actually be open to truth on this subject.
The Apostles SPOKE the name of the savior in HEBREW and is it wrong to transliterate that into English or any other language.
The Apostles SPOKE the Hebrew word Yeshua or Yahshua but Mr. Scholar and others choose to not do so.
Mr. Scholar, AND THOSE WHO AGREE WITH HIM, why do YOU differ from apostolic practice?
And that pretty much summarizes my response to his response.
In closing I want to again emphasize my deep respect and admiration for Mr. Scholar and my deep dismay at his apparent self-induced blindness and error regarding Messiah’s name. This issue, along with his persistent anti-torah stance, has sadly resulted in my feeling less respect for Mr. Scholar. The simple, common sense nature of this subject causes it to be perhaps one of the most easily understood subjects there is. Given its simplicity, the resistance by Mr. Scholar and others to the simple truth defies legitimate explanation. The ONLY explanation is that such people are stubbornly closed minded and biased. They simply refuse to accept the common sense, obvious truth.