Why do we call him Jesus if the son of God was named Yeshua?
17 Likes
The name drifted over centuries as it passed through different languages.
âJesusâ is what you get when the Hebrew name Yeshua goes through Greek and then Latin. The New Testament was written in Greek, which had no âshâ sound, so Yeshua became Iesous. Latin turned that into Iesus, and English eventually landed on Jesus. âJoshuaâ came into English more directly from the Hebrew, which is why Joshua in the Old Testament and Jesus share the same name.
It took me a while to get used to this. What helped was seeing that God seems comfortable meeting people in their own language. Pentecost was literally about that (see this thread). Peter in English is Pedro in Spanish.
I figure he cares more about whether we follow him than which vowels we use.
3 Likes
Jesus and Joshua are two English forms of the same name. In the Greek New Testament, Iesous is used for both Jesus Christ and Joshua son of Nun. Thatâs why translators use âJoshuaâ in Hebrews 4:8, since itâs talking about the Old Testament leader, not Christ.
Yeshua was a shortened form of Yehoshua, meaning âthe Lord saves,â which fits Matthew 1:21. Jesus is the usual English version of that name. Using Yeshua or Joshua can point out the Hebrew roots.
I used to figure we should be saying Joshua in English and that Jesus was a mistranslation. Joshua is just an English spelling too. Nobody in Galilee was pronouncing it that way.
The letter J is what throws people off, since the J sound didnât exist in Hebrew or Greek.
James and Jacob make a good comparison. One Hebrew name with two English forms, and nobody calls James a mistake.
When I pray, I say Jesus. Itâs the name I was raised with.
Hebrews 4:8 confused me for years in my old KJV because it says Jesus there.
The James and Jacob thing finally made it click for me, same name took different roads into English
The James/Jacob comparison helps, but Iâm not sure that ânobody calls James a mistakeâ settles anything. Familiarity by itself doesnât determine the clearest English form, and some readers like Yeshua because it keeps the connection to Joshua visible.
The better argument is the biblical pattern of translating names across languages, not how familiar it feels.
Pentecost makes it click for me too. Each person heard the good news in their own language.
Which supports the point that following him matters more than getting first-century Galilean vowels right.
Your point about Hebrews 4:8 hit home for me. The first time I read that verse in an older translation, it said âJesusâ there instead of Joshua, and I sat there confused, half wondering if Iâd stumbled onto some hidden teaching nobody had told me about. Took me a while to figure out it was Iesous doing double duty, like you described.
I wish Iâd understood what you said about Yeshua meaning âthe Lord savesâ and how it fits Matthew 1:21. The name itself was carrying the whole message, and I was too hung up on spelling to see it. Your point that the translators in Hebrews made a deliberate choice would have saved me worry.
Do you think thereâs real spiritual value in using Yeshua sometimes, like you mentioned with pointing to the Hebrew roots?
3 Likes
Shakespeare had Juliet ask, âWhatâs in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.â Sheâs partly right. Jesus is no less himself in English, Greek, or Spanish, and the apostles preached him in Greek. But in Scripture, names usually mean something, which is the thing you noticed with Matthew 1:21.
Saying or reading Yeshua now and then is useful. It reminds me he was a real Jewish man in a real place, praying the Psalms and keeping the feasts, not a figure who floated above history. It makes the Joshua echo audible. This is where your Hebrews 4:8 confusion turns into a gift. Joshua led Israel into the land but couldnât give them true rest. Then a greater Joshua comes, with the same name, and brings the rest the first one only pointed to. A less familiar form can make me hear âthe Lord savesâ again.
Some groups teach that only the Hebrew pronunciation is valid, or that âJesusâ is somehow corrupt. When Acts 4:12 says there is âno other nameâ by which we must be saved, itâs pointing to the person and his authority, not a particular set of sounds.
So use Yeshua when it helps you see him more clearly, and say Jesus without a trace of guilt.
1 Like
The Greek alphabet thing. Thereâs no âshâ sound in Greek, so when they wrote down Yeshua, it came out as Iesous. Then Latin grabbed that, Old English tweaked it, and here weâre with Jesus. Five language hops from the original Hebrew pronunciation.
YHWH is consonants with no vowels, an unpronounceable name that means âIâm what I am.â God didnât seem hung up on pronunciation.
Moses asked for a name because thatâs how Egyptian religion worked, with all the competing gods. God skipped the whole naming game and was about to show them who He was, so they could call Him whatever.
Obsessing over the exact right name misses the point. God cares more about whatâs going on inside than whether youâre pronouncing first-century Aramaic perfectly.
No one ever sat down and decided to change the name. It drifted over two thousand years, moving from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English, with each language adapting the sounds it couldnât pronounce.
Greek speakers couldnât say âsh,â so Yeshua became Yesus. Latin kept it almost the same. Then English vowel shifts did the rest, until we landed on Jesus.