cmp.2008.08.04
ed.2008.08.08.011 (Public Draft II)
Note: You will need Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic fonts to view this article.
Organization
1. The Testimony
2. The Dilemma
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
8. Conclusion
1. The Testimony
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
2. The Dilemma
All over the world, people refer to the name of Jesus in many different ways.
However, many Messianic Jewish teachers are claiming that it is more correct and "spiritual" to call Jesus, "Yeshua", because Jesus was Jewish, and "Yeshua" is the Hebrew form of the English name, "Jesus". They also argue that when Jesus walked the streets of Israel, He was commonly known as "Yeshua".
So the question is, what are we really supposed to call "Jesus"?
3. An Argument From The Greek Old Testament
In the Old Testament, (1 Chron. 24:11), there was a Priest named "Jeshua", ("Yeshua", יֵשׁוּעַ in Hebrew which is argued to be a shortened form of "Joshua", יְהֹושֻׁע). Now, when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name "Jeshua" was consistently translated as "Jesus", (Iesous, Ἰησοῦς in Greek).
It is reasonable to believe that "Yeshua" in Hebrew is the etymological source of the Greek name "Iesous", (which is where we get the name "Jesus").
However, if the translators of the Old Testament and the Apostles had intended to preserve original pronunciations, then the Greek form of "Yeshua" may have been more phonetically accurate and look more like "Ἰησῦα", rather than "Ἰησοῦς".
Therefore, it is reasonable to accept that any concern over the proper phonetic pronunciation of the name, "Jesus" was most probably not that big of an issue for the Jewish scholars in the second and third centuries B.C.
4. An Argument From The Aramaic And Greek New Testament
When we consider Aramaic New Testament manuscripts, we find that the Aramaic version of Jesus' name is a direct letter to letter transliteration from Hebrew into Aramaic. But, the Aramaic name in practice was most probably pronounced differently from Ancient Hebrew, "Isho'", (with a hard gutteral stop at the end), instead of "Yeshua".
In addition, all of the Greek and Aramaic texts of the New Testament make every effort to make sure that "Immanuel" is preserved phonetically as "Ἐμμανουήλ" and "ܥܡܢܘܐܝܠ". Why would the Apostles phonetically preserve the Hebrew name "Immanuel", but never preserve the phonetic pronunciation of "Yeshua"?
The only reasonable conclusion is that the preservation of the prophetic name "Immanuel" was far more important to the Apostolic Church than any of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic expressions of the name, "Jesus".
5. An Argument From Mishnaic Hebrew
Which form of Hebrew should we transliterate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If we are trying to determine the most accurate pronunciation of Jesus' name during the age He lived in, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew because this was the form of Hebrew being used by the religious scholars of that period.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to "Jesus the Nazarene", what we can at the very least determine is how they wrote this very commonly used name as, "Yeshu", ("ישו", A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b as well as many other places). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of Jesus' name during and after His life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable in every ancient representation of Jesus' name is consistently dropped. This is further evidence that Jesus was not referred to as "Yeshua" in ancient times.
6. What Did The Apostles Call Jesus?
An obvious resolution to this issue could be found by deferring to the Apostles since they were given authority over the Church; specifically, they were given twelve thrones to judge the tribes of Israel, which Gentile believers are grafted into.
The Apostles clearly called Jesus, "Ἰησοῦς" in Greek. We can make this conclusion because of Luke's writings and Paul's letters to the Greeks, such as his letter to the Romans. It is certainly not reasonable to believe that Paul proclaimed the Gospel to the Greeks in Aramaic, and certainly not in ancient Biblical Hebrew.
Romans 1:4-6 (NASB)
... Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ ...
And, if the Apostles wrote in Aramaic (the dialect of the Hebrews, "τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ", Acts 26:14), then it is reasonable to believe that the Apostles also called Jesus, "ܝܫܘܥ", or "Isho'" in Aramaic.
If Paul introduced himself as "Paul", would we consider it reasonable to disrespect him and call him by his Hebrew name, "Sha'ul"? If the Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to establish the Church, and they consistently introduced Jesus to the nations as "Iesous" and "Isho'", could it be considered reasonable to claim that people all over the world called Jesus, "Yeshua" instead?
Since the Apostles used Aramaic and Greek names for Jesus, then it is reasonable for us to express the name of Jesus in different dialects as well. Also, because Hebrew was not widely known in Israel except among scholars, and because there are no ancient Hebrew texts that refer to Jesus as "Yeshua", it is reasonable to conclude that few people, if any, ever referred to Jesus as "Yeshua" as people do today 2000 years later.
7. What Did God Call Jesus?
Matt. 1:23 (NASB)
"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."
Now beyond doubt, this is most arguably the Hebrew name of Jesus. God said it and Gabriel confirmed it. And even both Matthew the Apostle, and Isaiah the Prophet wrote it.
What is really awesome about this is that even though this is not an "Imperative Command", and Scripture does not directly command anyone to call Jesus "Immanuel", (עִמָּנוּ אֵל), it is a "Testimony" of God, something that God has witnessed of the future. Therefore, if God said that Jesus' Hebrew name was Immanuel, we can assume that we know what Jesus' real Hebrew name was.
It was very common for people to have different names in different languages: Peter's name was Simon in Hebrew, Cephas in Aramaic, and Petros in Greek. The list goes on. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Jesus had an Aramaic name, "Isho'", a Greek name, "Iesous", and a Hebrew name, "Immanuel".
8. Conclusion
It is clear that the Apostles accepted and even encouraged the transliteration of the name of Jesus into other languages.
However, claiming that the Apostles, the people of Israel, or the rest of the world knew of Jesus as "Yeshua" in Hebrew during the period of the Apostolic Church is not supported at all historically.
And, if the Apostles did not consider proclaiming the name of Jesus in Hebrew as necessary, then it is well beyond the intellectualism of anyone today to suggest that the Church should use this name outside of Hebrew speaking communities.
Finally, because we know that faith must be preceded by what God has said and not our own intellectualism, it is not reasonable to ask others to simply believe that Jesus was originally called "Yeshua" in Hebrew. Rather, we can say with certainty that the Apostles, the Apostolic Church, and Scripture, all spoke of Jesus as, "Immanuel", "Isho'", and "Iesous".
Monday, August 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Received this comment in an email and posted here by permission:
"A" Said:
---------------------
Yeshua appears to have welcomed his disciples to call him Yeshua. It would have been in Hebrew/Aramaic being in Judea. It only has meaning in Hebrew - not a word in Greek vocabulary. A post Babylon short form of Yehoshua which had no vav in between the shin and Ayin so would not have been pronounced as wah at the end. The vav gets added in with Yeshua (was the first way of writing the vowel oo and now has a dot to the left of the vav to show that it is oo). Post Babylon Yeshua is used in Ezr. 3:2, 8, 9; 5:2; Neh. 12:26 for Yehoshua son of Yozadak (which also has been shortened - from Yohozadak; and in Nehemiah 8:17 (Yeshua) of major prophet Yehoshua).
So, yes, it is more literal to call him Yeshua, but is transliterated into many languages. I do not hear all Messianic Rabbis saying that it needs to be used that way. Yes, it is usually done and encouraged, but I would not say enforced or always done. Yes it is more literal, but it is also done to help give a Hebrew cultural feel - helps us to be more grounded in the context of the apostolic era. Language and culture are so inter-twind that learning language and culture go together.
"A" Said:
---------------
Yeshua appears to have welcomed his disciples to call him Yeshua. It would have been in Hebrew/Aramaic being in Judea.
Response
---------------
To my knowledge, there are no historical documents at all with the name of Jesus expressed in Hebrew dating during the Apostolic and Early Churches.
You said "Hebrew/Aramaic". However, we must be very clear here. This isn't "Hebrew OR Aramaic" since Hebrew was a dead language at the time, (not spoken on the streets by common people and only spoken by religious scholars).
However, there was arguably a Hebrew dialect OF Aramaic. In other words, the Jews may have spoke Aramaic with a different accent than those in Syria and elsewhere.
"A" Said:
---------------
It only has meaning in Hebrew - not a word in Greek vocabulary.
Response:
---------------
Hebrew and Aramaic are very similar languages. Just because the Greek name for Jesus was meaningless, doesn't mean that the Aramaic is meaningless.
It will take a while before I can figure out if it is true that this name is also meaningless in Aramaic. However, regardless of whether or not it has meaning in Aramaic, it is most probable that the way it was pronounced changed from the way it was pronounced 2 or 3 hundred years before before Jesus lived, the way it was pronounced during the time of Jesus, and the way it is pronounced now.
"A" Said:
--------------
A post Babylon short form of Yehoshua which had no vav in between the shin and Ayin so would not have been pronounced as wah at the end. The vav gets added in with Yeshua (was the first way of writing the vowel oo and now has a dot to the left of the vav to show that it is oo). Post Babylon Yeshua is used in Ezr. 3:2, 8, 9; 5:2; Neh. 12:26 for Yehoshua son of Yozadak (which also has been shortened - from Yohozadak; and in Nehemiah 8:17 (Yeshua) of major prophet Yehoshua).
Response:
--------------
Now you're just showing off. :) What you have just given evidence to is that the Hebrew langauge changed, (L'shon HaKodesh, the Holy Tongue). Don't tell Kabbalic Jews this. :P
If the language changed, and names were modified to fit the common vernacular, it is evidence to support that it is very reasonable for us to present Jesus' name in the common dialects of who the Gospel is being presented to.
"A" Said:
--------------
So, yes, it is more literal to call him Yeshua, but is transliterated into many languages.
Response:
--------------
The most literal translation would be to call Jesus, "He Saves", (or something like that).
But since you said, "transliteration", you are bringing up another question. Which form of Hebrew do we translate Jesus' name into? Early Mosaic Hebrew? Pre/Post Babylonian? Mishnaic Hebrew? Modern Hebrew?
If you were trying to get the MOST modern pronunciation of Jesus' name, it would be more accurate to consult Mishnaic Hebrew instead of Post Babylonian Hebrew. This is because of the effects of the Aramaic language on Hebrew over time.
Although I cannot make a sound argument that the "Jesus" referred to in the Talmud actually refers to THE "Jesus", what we can at the very least do is see how they wrote a very common name used in Israel, "ישו", (A reference can be found in Sanhedrin 107b). So, we can see a change of this name over time, from Yehoshua, to Yeshua, to Yeshu. Even in Israel today, it is a very common practice to shorten Biblical Hebrew names.
So, it is evident that the "Hebrew" form of this name during and after Jesus' life, "Yeshu", is confirmed in both the Aramaic and Greek languages. "Yeshu" in Hebrew, "Isho'" in Aramaic, and "Iesous" in Greek. The third syllable is consistently dropped in all three languages.
"A" Said:
--------------
I do not hear all Messianic Rabbis saying that it needs to be used that way. Yes, it is usually done and encouraged, but I would not say enforced or always done.
Response:
--------------
I was so not trying to hasty generalize "All" Messianic Rabbis. Sorry... I modified the article to clear that up.
"A" Said:
--------------
Yes it is more literal, but it is also done to help give a Hebrew cultural feel - helps us to be more grounded in the context of the apostolic era. Language and culture are so inter-twind that learning language and culture go together.
Response:
--------------
It is great and noble to understand the culture of the time to interpret texts more accurately, but why in the world would Christians today want to imitate a culture then? It is evident that the early Church quickly removed themselves of the "Pharisaic" and "Rabbinic" religious practices as fast as possible.
So, if Christians believe that Rabbinic Jews are Anti-Christ, (deny Jesus), then why would they want to imitate them?
Jesus was obviously not "Rabbinically" or "Pharaisically" Jewish. On the contrary, they were accusing Him of violating their practices all of the time.
It is not reasonable to believe that by imitating the Hypocritical Religious culture of Jesus' time will bring any Christian closer to the knowledge of Jesus. Nor, is it true that Jesus observed "Judaism" as Jews did then, and Jesus was certainly not like Jews today.
This comment was received in an email and reposted here:
"A" Said:
--------------
As for my response to your post on the name of "the Messiah" - yes, you are welcome to post my response. Regarding the transliteration of Yeshua and Aramaic - I don't know what the Aramaic is. I don't know if the word yeshua has a meaning (ie. used as a general word) in the Aramaic language as it does in the Hebrew. The Greek language/vocabulary is so different that when transliterated into Greek Hebrew names - which were regular Hebrew words or plays on regular Hebrew words are not regular Greek words - therefore loose their meaning to a Greek reader.
Also, although the Hebrew writings of the Torah and prophets (as is catagorized in the Tanakh) were canonized before Babylon, and translated into Greek before "the Messiah" Yeshua ben (son of) Yoseph of Nazareth lived, the category of the writings of the Tanakh (which use the word Yeshua) had not been canonized by the Israelites before the time of Yeshua, and I don't know if they were translated into Greek or Aramaic before He was born. I've read that most of the other language translations by early Christians of the Tanakh as well as the N.T. were from the Greek rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic (eg. Coptic, Latin etc.), so the transliterations would have been from the Greek despite that He would have been named in Hebrew or Aramaic. Becoming even further in sound from the original.
"A" Said:
-------------
Also, although the Hebrew writings of the Torah and prophets (as is catagorized in the Tanakh) were canonized before Babylon, and translated into Greek before "the Messiah" Yeshua ben (son of) Yoseph of Nazareth lived, the category of the writings of the Tanakh (which use the word Yeshua) had not been canonized by the Israelites before the time of Yeshua, and I don't know if they were translated into Greek or Aramaic before He was born.
Response:
-------------
The collection of the books of the Bible translated into Greek is known as the Septuagint, (or LXX). Now, it is widely conceded that this translation was done over time. However, it is also widely held that this translation was fully completed, (including 1 Chronicles where the name "Yeshua" is mentioned), well before the time of Jesus, (most every reference that I have researched has the finishing date before the 2nd Century B.C.).
"A" Said:
-------------
I've read that most of the other language translations by early Christians of the Tanakh as well as the N.T. were from the Greek rather than the Hebrew or Aramaic (eg. Coptic, Latin etc.), so the transliterations would have been from the Greek despite that He would have been named in Hebrew or Aramaic. Becoming even further in sound from the original.
Response:
-------------
The Peshitta translation, (Aramaic translation), is widely believed to have been translated from the Greek Old Testament, (the Septuaigint). And, even the Peshitta new testament is argued to be made to "agree" with the Greek New Testament texts.
However, there are several Aramaic New Testament texts that do NOT agree with the Greek New Testament and very probably predate the New Testament Greek texts in SOME cases, (like the Cureton Aramaic text).
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that there were already "standard" expressions of this common name in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. This again is evidence that all three names were used for Jesus. And, if this is the case, then the most accurate depiction of the "Culture" of Jesus' time was that many different names were used for Him, not just one.
I believe that this is an awesome illustration of Paul's manner to adopt to the culture that he was preaching in.
"A" Said:
----------------
Professor and Dead Sea Scrolls translator Dr. M.A. just wrote me the following.
As to the extent of Hebrew use, this is a difficult question to answer. Perhaps it was simpler to answer before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found! It used to be assumed that Aramaic was the common language of the first century. Now we are less sure. Over 80% of the scrolls are written in a Hebrew that gives evidence of being a spoken (rather than literary) language. So, was the community that collected these texts simply a "back to our roots" movement, promoting the use of Hebrew as the "Holy Language" and denigrating Aramaic as a corrupting influence? Or was the use of Hebrew actually more widespread than we once thought? We'll need more information to know for sure. But I would guess a bit of both is true.
Hebrew names were clearly in the majority. But one would not always be able to distinguish them from Aramaic (as a simple example of a clear indicator, names with bar would show Aramaic influence, ben would reflect Hebrew). And it was popular--as today--to use biblical (Hebrew) names. So the evidence is often difficult to assess.
With regards to the use of Yeshu:
As I understand it, later rabbis promoted this pronunciation because it formed the acronym: Yimmahaq SHemo Wezikhro (may his name and memory be erased).
"A", I take it you really like research. :)
"A" Quoted:
-----------
With regards to the use of Yeshu:
As I understand it, later rabbis promoted this pronunciation because it formed the acronym: Yimmahaq SHemo Wezikhro (may his name and memory be erased).
Response:
------------------
It is true, this acronym was most probably used by later Rabbis, much later. Not during the time of Jesus.
However, the acronym is typically presented as יש"ו.
I am not saying that "Yeshu" IS for a fact that transliteration of Iesou into Hebrew, (because I wasn't there). All I am saying is that the Hebrew looks sneakishly similar to the Greek and Aramaic forms; this gives credence that the Aramaic form of Jesus' name was dominant and then transliterrated into Greek and Hebrew.
"A" Quoted:
-----------------
So, was the community that collected these texts simply a "back to our roots" movement, promoting the use of Hebrew as the "Holy Language" and denigrating Aramaic as a corrupting influence?
Response:
----------------
Perhaps, there is that possibility. However, what is true is that there are is a very large number of copies of manuscripts, especially Biblical manuscripts, like Psalms. It is highly probably that this this was a community of scribes writing copies of Scriptures.
And, scribes would have been contracted to write many things in many different languages. For example, a religious leader, (a High Priest?), may want a contract written in Biblical Hebrew to be enforced by the Sanhedrin ... Who knows?
"A" Quoted:
-----------------
Or was the use of Hebrew actually more widespread than we once thought? We'll need more information to know for sure. But I would guess a bit of both is true.
Response:
-----------------
It would be very irresponsible to try to characterize where Jesus grew up, let alone the rest of Israel based off an isolated, (probably Essenean) sect located in kilometers south of Jericho.
Again, this is all highly inconclusive. It is not kosher to ask people to trust that Jesus was called "Yeshua" based off of speculation. Why can't we just expect people to place their faith on what God says? The Biblical texts that we have clearly indicate Jesus' Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic names. Why go further away from Scripture?
Post a Comment