Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Yeshu, Yehoshua, or Yeshua
I know the most popular forms of Jesus' Hebrew/Aramaic name is either Yeshua or Yehoshua. I know Etheridge, in his translation, refers to the Messiah as Jeshu (Yeshu). Based on what I have read, Yeshua is the more modern form of Yehoshua and that Yeshu was part of the Jewish smear campaign (using a phrase that means "May His name be blotted out forever," that, in Hebrew, spells "Yeshu"). I'm not sure if that is completely true or not. What is the most accurate form of Jesus' name in the Semitic languages? I know Yeshua is the usual pronunciation from Jewish believers.
The full Name of the Anointed One is most certainly Yod-Hey-Waw-Shin-Waw-Ayin ? "Yehoshua/Yehoshuah".
In the dead sea scrolls manuscripts there are four different ways of spelling the name out in Hebrew (there is a fifth one, but it only occurs in the later books (Nehemiah, Ezra and Daniel) in the Masoretic, of which there aren't many manuscripts of among the DSS, and the ones we do have aren't substantial; though it is used exclusively throughout the Aramaic Texts, Old and New):
Full form: Yod, Hey, Waw, Shin, Waw, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea scrolls:
Deuteronomy 3:21 (4Q40 Deutm); Joshua 6:10, 8:3, 8:35 and 10:4 (4Q47 Josha)

Second form: Yod, Hey, Waw, Shin, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus 17:13 & 14 (4Q14 Exodusc); Numbers 32:28 (4Q23 Levi-Numa); Deuteronomy 31:21 & 28 (4Q31Deutd); Joshua 4:1 (twice - 4Q48Joshb), 6:6 (4Q47Josha), 17:4, 14, 15 (4Q48Joshb); Haggai 1:1 (4Q77MinProb), 1:14 & 2:4 (MurXII & 4Q77MinProb).

Third form (previously unknown before DSS discovery): Yod, Hey, Shin, Waw, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus 17:9, 13, 32:17 (4Q22paleoEx); Numbers 26:65, 27:22 (4Q27Numb); Zechariah 3:9 (4Q80e)

Fourth form (previously unknown before DSS discovery): Yod, Hey, Shin, Ayin
Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Joshua 5:2, 3, 8:35 (4Q47Josha)
As can be seen, it doesn't matter which form it is, but either one or both of the letters Waw can be dropped from this name. This also occurs in many other Hebrew words, where in the Masoretic there isn't a Waw letter, but instead it has the vowel-pointing, but in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Waw letter is there instead.

There are 5 and 6 letter variants of this name within the Masorete texts. The longer variant is found in Deuteronomy 3:21 and Judges 2:7. Neither of the Waws in any of the variations of the Masorete Text or those mentioned above represent a consonant form. All uses of the Waws in this name are strictly there for the soul purpose to denote vowel sounds.

And being in the Hebrew language vowels are to be implied - even when not supplied - the first and last Waws in this name are to always be pronounce every time without exception. The Fact that the Waws where provided in the longer forms are proof that the shorter forms are to have these vowels pronounced within them. This is something that has to be looked upon in a Hebrew mind-set in order to come to the correct understanding.

Y'hoshuah is defined as: "He Will/Shall Save" in the future tense.

{Mat_1:21} And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name Yehoshuah:
for?He shall save?His people from their sins.

Again it simply means "He Will /Shall Save" referring to The Anointed One.

Even the Aramaic form of this name (Yeshua) is defined as "He Will Save".

For H3091; he will save;

Wonder where they got that from? If you will notice it says that this Aramaic form is for H3091.

And anyone can see that the five letter and the six letter versions of this name are pronounced exactly the same. Again vowels did not have to be supplied in the Hebrew writings for the reader as they knew what vowels to apply through the Hebraic linguistic rules.

There are those whom will say that the so-called Aramaic form of Yeshua is really Hebrew because it has no standing within the Aramaic language, but it has none in the Hebrew either. It is only present within Aramaic writings. It is unto Yehoshuah as Mar-Yah is unto YHWH. That is to say that it is not a normal Aramaic name based off of a normal Aramaic word, but it is rather an Aramaic rendition of a Hebrew name, just as Mar-Yah is a special Aramaic form which stands in place of the Divine Name YHWH.
So even though there are five different spelling of this Name within Scriptures alone between the Original and Renewed Covenant Texts. Four are of Hebrew origin and are shown to be pronounced exactly the same, and the fifth is shown to be a SPECIAL Aramaic transliteration (which is pronounce slightly different) yet written within the Original(OT) and the Renewed(NT) Covenant writings that we have today. So if one wants to use the Aramaic rendition as Yeshua so be it, and if one wants to use the original form of the name then in English it would be as Yehoshuah. Most, if not all, of the people that prefer Yeshua will readily admit that Yehoshuah is the original full form of the name, and we whom would prefer the original fullest form need to be ready to also admit that in Yehoshuah's day the Aramaic form of this Name was well in play and could be a real possibility of being The Anointed One's Birth Name.

The Anointed One was Hebrew by Birth, yet was born into a society which spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic. So taking in all the evidence we are left with the question - "was The Anointed One's Name Yehoshuah or Yeshua?". Anyway we can at lest rest assured that it was not the Greek IESOUS or the English transliteration from the Greek (i.e. - Jesus). So in reality, it all boils down to the fact that we are left with a personal chose to choose either one of the viable pronunciations or to choose from the nonviable ones.

In Aramaic it is "Yod" "Shin" "Waw" "Ain"

And the English form "Jesus" is viable as a transliterated English form, from the Latin form "Iesus", which is from the Greek form "Iesous" which is a transliteration of his Name in Aramaic, "Yeshua", which the Greek text had transliterated, then the Latin transliterated the Greek, then the English transliterated the Latin and Greek forms...and thus we have "Jesus", as a transliteration of the Aramaic form "Yeshua" through the chain of translations of the Texts of the Aramaic, Greek, Latin, down to the English New Testament.

Where did the "J" come from?

The "J" is a replacement letter of the letter "I" in English, where it changed over the years, as you can see in the original KJV of 1611, where it reads "Iesus", which is from the Latin form, which is from the Greek form before it.

Since Jesus spoke Aramaic as His native language, when He confronted Saul on the road to Damascus, did He speak to him in Aramaic, when revealing to Saul/Paul who He was, giving His Name, which is the Name above all names? And when the Angel Gabriel told Maryam what His Name was to be called, since they spoke Aramaic, was it in Aramaic that the Name was given to her by Gabriel?

Does He care if the English peoples call His Name in its transliterated form, or the Chinese, Spanish, Latin's or Greek's in their language form, or the other tribes and tongues which all call on His Name in their particular language forms. He knows and understands all languages, for He created them all and gave them all to men at the tower of Babel.

Thirdwoe Wrote:: ... the English form "Jesus" is viable as a transliterated English form, from the Latin form "Iesus", which is from the Greek form "Iesous" which is a transliteration of his Name in Aramaic, "Yeshua", which the Greek text had transliterated, then the Latin transliterated the Greek, then the English transliterated the Latin and Greek forms...and thus we have "Jesus", as a transliteration of the Aramaic form "Yeshua" through the chain of translation of the Texts of the Aramaic, Greek, Latin, to the English New Testament.

Where did the "J" come from?

The "J" is a replacement letter of the letter "I" in English, as it changed over the years, as you can see in the original KJV of 1611, where it reads "Iesus", which is from the Latin form, which is from the Greek form before it.
What a tangled web!!!

Actually the letter J as it is known today is totally incorrect, as the form of it that showed up in the early English Versions was only a Fancy Capital I. Then when the J shape became a differentiation from the existing letter I it still resembled the shape somewhat of the Fancy Capital I. Lacking knowledge marginally literate English commoners began to get confused over the Fancy Capital I thinking it to be the newer letter J. They began to mispronounce the English transliteration of Iesus (which was supposed to be pronounced as yay-sooce or eeay-sooce) as jee-zuhs. Oy Vey!!! It was bad enough that the so-called English transliteration was 4 times removed from the original language (each lacking) but then once the mass printed Bibles started getting out to the uneducated populous there was no one around to stay back the on-slot of ignorance, hence the pronunciation - currently among the English population - is 100% throwed off compared to the original Hebrew name or its Aramaic rendition!!!

All the while excuses are a chose which one can choose indeed, but (among those whom receive wisdom) there is no such a name as "Jesus" when it comes to The Anointed One as it would be considered a misnomer [look it up "misnomer"]. A lie no matter how many times is told never will become the true. It is not possible! And if by chance one would even think that the English spelling has any merit they would have to at least pronounce it as yay-sooce in order to have any viability at all. It is a well known FACT that the letter J can make the Y sound as is called for in this name. There is no good excuse to pronounce this English transliteration with the J sound, or a long e sound, or even a z sound, none what so-ever. As said before Jesus is but only a transliteration of another not so good transliteration of a poorly done transliteration. Yet none of the past mistakes matter as the TRUTH is redily availible to those whom would choose. To those whom have ears let them here, and unto those whom would turn a death ear may they be mute as well.

Jnfamous Fancy Capital letter I
The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:
The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I)
used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two
symbols (J,l) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus
becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630
that the differentiation became general in England.

It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern
times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, i,
which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of "Y"
(as in maior, pronounced "mayor").

At a later stage, the symbol "J" was used for distinctive purposes, particularly when the
"I" had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another "I"). Either symbol used
initially generally had the consonantal sound of "Y" (as in year) so that the Latin
pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was as though the spelling was
"Yanuarius." While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or
Junker), "J" has the phonetic value of "Y."

Webster's Universal Dictionary (1936) discloses the early relationship between the I and the J:
As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with "i," both letters having
originally the same sound; and after the "j" sound came to be common in English, it was
often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two
letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the
Dutch printers.

New Funk and Wagnall Encyclopedia:
Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English
books; in the King James Bible of 1611 for example, the words Jesus and judge are
invariably Iesus and iudge.

This is corroborated by the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary concerning the letter J:
"The J types are not used in the Bible of 1611...."

The Oxford English Dictionary also in it? pronunciation Guide has the following:
The following have their usual English values: b, d, f, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, and z.
(Other symbols are used as follows: g get, x loch, D this, J YES)

The Encyclopedia Britannica shows that the sound of the letter J was the same as the letter I:
The original consonantal sound represented by the letter was the semi-vowel or spirant
"I" (the sound of y in yacht). This passed into dy and later into the sound dz which the
letter represents today.

The New Book of Knowledge confirms the findings of Moorhouse:
The early history of the letter "J" is the same as the history of the letter "I." "I" is a
descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter "yod" and the Greek letter
"iota." The Phoenicians gave the yod a semiconsonant sound pronounced like the "Y" in
yellow. While the lower case "J" of modern type was derived directly from medieval
manuscripts, the capital "J" is virtually a printer's invention. The sound "J" as we know it
in English today was derived when the "Y" sound eventually passed into a "dy" sound
and later into the "J" sound as in juggle.

Noah Webster 1828:
J. This letter has been added to the English Alphabet in modern days; the letter I being
written formerly in words where J is now used. It seems to have had the sound of y, in
many words, as it still has in the German. The English sound of this letter may be
expressed by dzh, or edzh, a compound sound coinciding exactly with that of g, in genius;
the French j, with the articulation d preceding it. It is the tenth letter of the English Alphabet.

HALLELUIAH, n. [Heb.   praise ye Jah or Jehovah, from , to praise, that is, to
throw, or raise the voice, to utter a loud sound. Ar.  halla or ealla, to appear; to
begin to shine, as the new moon ; to exclaim ; to exult ; to sing ; to rejoice ; to praise or
worship God. Gr. , a shout in battle. It coincides in elements with howl, L. ululo.].
Praise ye Jehovah ; give praise to God ; a word used in songs of praise, or a term of
rejoicing in solemn ascriptions of thanksgiving to God. It is used as a noun, or as an
exclamation. [This word is improperly written with j, in conformity with the German
and other continental languages, in which j has the sound of y. But to pronounce the
word with the English sound of j destroys its beauty. The like mistake of the sound of j in
Jehovah, Jordan, Joseph, has perverted the true pronunciation, which was Yehovah,
Yordan, Yoseph
. This perversion must now be submitted to, but in Halleluiah it ought
not to be tolerated

This man was supposedly one of the most brilliant scholars of his day. Yet some how he seemed to think that it is all right to profane the Sacred Name of the Heavenly Father, so long as one does not do the same unto the short form thereof. Here I must ask "Is not the whole more Sacred than it' parts?"

Should we let him decide for us that it is good now to submit to a fallacy? Is not a lie a lie no matter how many times it is repeated? Why submit to a perversion when throughout the Scriptures we are encouraged to gain knowledge and repent of the ignorance of our pass ways?

Conclusion upon the English Letter J:
The letter ?J? has never existed in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, or Greek languages. It did not appear in the English Language until 19 years after the so-called king Iames translation was first published in 1611 (i.e. - 1630). Keep in mind that king Iames would more than likely had people tortured (tongues cut out) or killed for mispronouncing his name. It was most more than likely pronounced ?yah-mez?, ?yah-maze?, ?eeah-maze?, or possibly ?eeah-mez?, yet most assuredly not ?jaymz? by any stretch of the imagination!

Also all the other early English versions of the Scriptures used the Capital I in the Anointed One?s Name as well as His Heavenly Father?s Divine Name. The Fancy Capital I was later erroneously mistaken, by marginally literate English commoners, as the capital letter J. Just because ignorant people in the past did not know better does not mean that we in this modern age of knowledge have to follow in their foot steps. Keep in mind they were only ignorant because they did not know better. They did not have dictionaries and the internet available at their disposal to gain the knowledge in which we (if susceptible to such)
can readily access. So while the marginally literate English commoners could claim ignorance as their excuse, it would be considered to be _ _ _ _ _ _ for some one who has knowledge before them to insist on doing the same. Any one that has read this can not say they did not know any better from hence forth. Follow in the foot prints of knowledge, REPENT!!!

To get back on track though, either the form Yehoshuah/Yehoshua/Y'hoshuah/Y'hoshua or Yeshua are viable English transliterations, and as for any other language so long as their transliteration is as close to the original pronunciation of the name as they can possibly get then they to will be in correct form. But as for a transliteration that is being pronounce totally unrecognizable to the original name it can never be a viable transliteration. No misnomer, by default, can qualify for anything other than WRONG as it can't be RIGHT!


When I called on the Name of Jesus to save me...guess what? He heard me and did just that, in an awesome way. I had no idea how, nor did I need to pronounce His Name just right, whatever the correct form may be in Aramaic or Hebrew, His Name is much more than the letters and vowles we chose to use.

Like it or not JESUS is just alright with Him.

Don't avoid the boulders and stumble over the pebbles...

How about "ESHOA"... I've seen that form as well ...or how about "ESHO" or "ESHU" as I have seen in the Liturgy books in the Church of the East.

Emmanuel knows we are talkin to Him, no matter what form were using.

My name is Charles...but you can call me Charley, Charlie, Chas, Chaz, Carlos, Chuck, Chuckie, or even Kalev and I know you are refering to me when you address me, but you dosen't hasta call me Johnson.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... re=related</a><!-- m -->


Very good explanation RAT. Just wanted to know where I can see these manuscripts, so I can see for myself if they are this way? You can give us the coordinates? Is there a site that offers them? Looking forward.

Yochanan Ben Efraym
BenEfraym Wrote:Shlama!

Very good explanation RAT. Just wanted to know where I can see these manuscripts, so I can see for myself if they are this way? You can give us the coordinates? Is there a site that offers them? Looking forward.

Yochanan Ben Efraym
not much in this life is free, and sad to say that goes for many of the copies of Scriptures as well. So shy visiting the Museum in Yisra-Ail one could either -

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

and then buy the extra module of the Dead Sea Scrolls @:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... s-database</a><!-- m -->

2) or get one of the 5 used "The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library, Vol. 1 (Dss Electronic Reference Library , Vol 1) [CD-ROM]" @: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... 9004106979</a><!-- m -->

3) or pray that "The Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library: Vol 2" becomes available @:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... %2C+Vol.+2</a><!-- m -->

4) maybe this might also show all the text?: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... B0012E7PYM</a><!-- m -->

If none of the above are an option then one would just have to take another's word at this.
Thirdwoe Wrote::
Like it or not JESUS is just alright with Him.
Yeah, I heard a great quote when talking with Tim Hegg the other week about the SNM that I think sums it up nicely,

"Sounds don't have meanings. Meanings have sounds."

Simply beautiful.

Anyway, in Hebrew it's Yeshua. There's an interesting wordplay in Matthew if we take it into Hebrew,

?You shall call his name Yeshua (he saves or delivers) for he will ?Yoshia? (will save) his people from their sins."

Accurate form of pronunciation though is quite relative. In the Aramaic manuscripts it's spelt exactly the way we spell it in Hebrew today, and we say it with vowels that have it end up sounding "Yeshua". But if we mean in relation to how 1st century Aramaic speakers pronounced it, I'm sure it was slightly different, although I can't say with exact certainty what it would be (perhaps the accent on the vowels was slightly changed?) The long forms of names was not used in the 1st century though, as you have already read.
Interesting. I am a Gentile, therefore I know the Son of God as Jesus. I called on the Messiah by the name of Jesus Christ and He saved me from my sin. I could have called on Yeshua, Eshoa, Eshu, Iesous, or Iesus and I would still have been saved.
God....oh wait. G-d does not seem to have a hang up about this. Some people seem to though and it gets pretty sad, as it causes needless divisions among us. Don't we have enough already?

But we still did not get an answer to the original question. Did we?

In Aramaic is it Yeshu, Yeshua, Eshu, Esho, or Eshoa?

I don't see where you would get the "ho" part of "Yehoshua" from the letters in Aramaic of Yod, Shin, Waw, Ain.

I know that the "Y" has an eeee sound, so just the "E" at the front is understandable for Eshu or Esho, as it is written in the English translation of The Liturgy of the Church of the East, but is the "Ain" silent? Is that why it is seen as Yeshu, Eshu, and Esho with no "a" at the end?

So, which is the most correct English form from the Aramaic?

Thirdwoe Wrote:So, which is the most correct English form from the Aramaic?
Okay, okay, yes, bunny trails aside.

How about this?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->

Victor also has an article up on it here,

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)