Bad to call Him Jesus?

[Bernergirl]

I did some research on the names Jehovah and Yahweh and how the Tetragrammaton evolved into Jehovah, and I stumbled across something that said that the origin of the Greek transliteration of the name Yehoshua/Yeshua/Joshua (Jesus) came from early Christian Gentiles that had converted from following cults that worshipped Zeus and there was some form of the name Zeus (like I'esus or something) that evolved into Jesus over the time it took for the consonant I to evolved into J. Then i saw a Messianic translation of the Scriptures from the Institute of Biblical Research that translated anyplace where Jesus Christ appeared to Yeshua Mashiach in order to "eliminate any name of idolatrous origin."

So... is it bad to call Him Jesus???? Been struggling with this.

God bless,

Lissa

 

[hopperace]

I think "Jesus" is fine.

I'm appreciative of efforts to culturalize many Bible names back into Hebrew and Greek forms found in the original Bible languages, and various transliterations of them. I think this is a worthy trend, particularly from aspects of trustworthy Messianic church or congregational movements. However, I also find it quite appropriate that English translators have tended to follow earlier trends in use of "LORD" or "LORD God", etc., that is usually explained in the preface of most English Bibles.

One also needs to be cautiously aware of much of what is going on in current cultic activities making use of various Hebrew names of God.

 

[Bernergirl]

You mean the Sacred Name movement?

Personally, I like translations that turn the Tetragrammaton to Yahweh or leave it as is (like the Messianic translation I mentioned; leaves it in Hebrew characters) and when I read my NLT or NIV, etc. to myself, I read it as Yahweh rather than LORD. The Tetragrammaton appears almost 7,000 times in the OT. Apparently He isn't hiding it, why should we? But, I object to inserting the Tetragrammaton or other such suggestive names in the NT because it doesn't appear there in the original texts. Just my two cents.

Thank you for your reply and God's blessings be upon you,

Lissa

 

[hopperace]

Yes, the Sacred Name Movement has been one of the most prominent among them.

I think the usage of Messianic titles (for want of a better description), may be the next wave in offerings of English translations. There is some growing indication of this. And I too would welcome a wider acceptance of such.

I'm also hopefully cautious that a similar trend may be welcome concerning other Biblical forms that generally get culturally associated - like forms of resurrection/ passover celebrations, and wider recognition of Biblical holidays among Christian observants. Christian holiday observances can be a very delicate subject to breach these days, but I find it noteworhty that here in the States, many Calvinistic Protestants (Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.) did not celebrate Christmas or Easter prior to the War of Northern Agression. I'm not exactly anti-Christmas, but I'm encouraged by Messianic influence in celebration of Biblical holidays; even though (just as in the early Church) there are many current concerns within Messianic Judaism regarding legalism and rabbinic (as opposed to Biblical) forms, as a sort of cultural ethnicity that may or may not be consistent with what the Church should be persuing.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Folks,

This is an issue that (IMHO) involves many folks making mountains out of mole hills.

The Old Covenant Scriptures were written in Hebrew and a small part in Aramaic. In the New Testament we find lots of the Old Covenant words translated into Greek. The name of the Messiah was not given to the Gentile converts in its Hebrew form, but was translated into the international language of the day - Greek.

Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, quoted from the Septuagint. An earlier translation of the Old Testament by/for Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt.

The Christians Church, beginning with the Apostles, never had a problem with making or using translations from the original Hebrew or Aramaic. If God wanted us to use the Hebrew version of the Christ, then why did His Apostles give us the Gosple of His Messiah in the Greek language.

I think, and forgive if this does not apply, but I tink some folks are always looking for un biblical ways to look and sound "holy," and this is the latest Craze.

I had a friend who got into this Hebrew names thing and when I started pointing out some of the things I mention above (and other things) he broke off communication with me.

Jesus, Iesous, Yeshua. I am waiting for someone to insist that not only can we not use Greek or English translalations of the names but need to use the Hebrew characters as well.

One more important point: It is Islam and not Christianity that has always insisted on using only the original language.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[hopperace]

Thanks CH. But one cannot doubt the importance of names, especially in the importance God placed on them in the both the Old Covenant and the new - renaming Abram/Abraham and Saul/Paul, for example. I think you are so 'right on' in that great care is warranted to avoid legalistic trends and practices, or demanding cultural nuances that can be divisive rather than reconciliatory; but Biblical forms have their place, and I find it admirable to harken back to original language flavors well-rooted in the Scriptures.

I agree that, even concerning certain KJV-only trends, care should be taken not to make an idol out of ancient Jewish culture, undiscovered original manuscripts, or any forms of language or worship that is not strictly in spirit and in truth. In many ways Jesus is as much Cajun as he is Jewish, but I find it encouraging to reflect upon Bible names as they were given (or our close approximations of them). After all, I'm rather used to thinking of Peter as 'Peter' instead of 'Rocky', but frankly admit I don't generally call him either Simon or Cephas.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Ciborium,

Your points are well made and accurate. Names are important, as are the meanings of names, but I think that has always been understood.

What I see in this new "fad" over using original names is different. It has been my experiance that some of these people use the name thing as a means to be "holier than thou."

I don't want to paint with a broad brush. My own contact with such people is limited (in person and on the web), but I do see it to be evident those that I have had contact with. It appears that they see it as far holier to write "G-d" than it is to write "God."

It is good that Christians realise that Jesus and Joshua are the same name (Yeshua) in Hebrew. It is good that these things are becoming better understood, but it is another thing to make it a point of holiness or an essential of the Faith.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[hopperace]

I've just finished reading Stan Telchin's book, Some Messianic Jews Say, “Messianic Judaism Is Not Christianity”: A Loving Call to Unity, where many of the same concerns are raised. One of our large local Messianic congregations seems reflective of the Messianic movement in general in struggling with this issue. I'd say the movement is growing and is here to stay, and I'm actually very encouraged by this, but it has been fascinating to follow the history of the movement and see some of the issues it's had to deal with.

It can be a very delicate subject in terms of cultural identities, Jewish outreach and Jewish and Gentile relations, and legalistic tendencies. Indeed, and perhaps in attracting large numbers of Gentiles to the movement, there has been a tendency for the adoption of some attitudes and practices quite reflective of the first influx of Gentiles into the Christian faith. It is sometimes difficult to sort through errors in attitude (an "holier than thou" factor, if you will), inappropriate legalistic requirements or pressures, and a rather wonderful appreciation of both Biblicalness (reconstruction of Scriptural forms and practices quite in keeping with our Reformed tradition) and Jewish culture (whatever that's determined to be).

I would heartily recommend reaching across the aisle here at CF to the Messianic congregational threads and viewing their great love and respect for G-d, and how some of these issues are approached. It's very true that a tendency to talk from above one another must be guarded against while graceless legalistic requirements are also to be avoided, but I view that Christianity can merit from a reconnection to its Jewish roots in ways that encourage a deepening affection for Biblical forms and just what we Gentiles have been grafted into.

You are quite correct to caution a wowing with rhetoric. I'm rather enamoured of words and even theological jargon. It's a struggle for me not to be overwhelming or overpowering in my eccentricities. Whatever gifts and graces we possess have a right way and a wrong way of both expression and service, and caution must be urged to humble engagement with others. Still, I've heard the clarion call that "Jesus was Jewish!" and find it a helpful aspect of regaining some of our Christian distinctives particularly lost in our American homogenization with worldly culture. For me the key is to make it a reclamation of Biblical norms in unity with our Jewish brethren, and not a crusade to rabbinic traditionalism.

-kib

 

[heymikey80]

Don't worry, Lissa. The story's a construction of poor argument.

People create mythologies around names and connect things to them without so much as a shred of historical evidence, just "the names sound close" so they must be close. This is one of those cases.

Jesus' Greek name doesn't bear any relationship to Zeus'.

"'Iesous" is the transliteration of the Greek for Yeshua's name. Pilate would've used this name of address. The Apostles, who spoke Greek, would've used this name to talk to Greeks and Hellenistic Jews about the Messiah.

For hundreds of years before this the name "Yeshua/Yashua/Yoshua/Joshua" was converted to the Greek "'Iesous". No implications for godhood. Nothing.

The "I" sound shifted to "J" in English because of different languages and consonantal shifts in English over centuries of time. It's a mistake to assert that the "J" is wrong (for it was right when it was first translated to this writing), though modern pronunciation doesn't do justice to the original.

I'm not sure what Jehovah's Witnesses could do with this now, either. It's blatantly clear that "Jehovah" is not how the Tetragrammaton was pronounced. Further afield, while we can probably converge on a better pronunciation of each of these names, it'd be a mistake to latch onto our present pronunciation as perfect, too. The whole issue is ultimately unattainable. We can't recover pronunciations perfectly.

The subject you're touching on, linguistics, fascinates me immensely. But it's not that significant how you pronounce Jesus' name. It's far more significant that you trust Him.

 

[arunma]

As has just been mentioned, Jesus' name in modern times comes from the Biblical Greek Iesous. For a very long time, the Savior was called by the Latin equivalent, Iesus. The usage of the letter J is rather recent. In any case, there is nothing "pagan" about the modern way in which we render Christ's name. A better case could be made for saying that the Biblical Jewish name "Mordechai" is pagan, since it is well-known to be derived from the name of the pagan god Marduk.

As has also been said already, we ought not to idolize ancient Jewish culture. I would add that we should never equate ancient and modern Judaism, seeing as how the latter has cut itself off from God by rejecting Jesus Christ.