Restoration of "Yeshua" vs. accommodation to "Yeshu"

The most popular Hebrew term used for Jesus is "Yeshu," a word spelled with three Hebrew letters. You find this in textbooks, newspapers, and in conversations about Jesus.

However, “Yeshu” is generally not the term used by Messianic Jewish Hebrew-speakers. The reason is simple: other than as the negation "may his name and memory be blotted out" (yemach shmo vezichro ימח שמו וזכרו = y-sh-v --> Yeshu יש''ו, often written without the abbreviation marks as ישו), the name has no clear meaning or origin.

Often, a Hebrew-speaking believer has the experience of being asked if she believes in "Yeshu" ישו, wherein she responds that no, she believes in "Yeshua" ישוע (which means "the Lord saves"). Her clarification then may be met by skeptical looks and the question: "who is this Yeshua?"

Is "Yeshua" Jesus' name in Hebrew? And how do we know?
I think "Yeshua" is His name, but I also am willing to be as skeptical about it as the evidence will allow me to be, and I do not want to hold this contention any stronger than the evidence suggests. Its not like there are points awarded for "just believing," when the object of belief is simply a convention-flouting lexicality. Brothers and sisters, that would be the height of randomness. On that matter, one writer Mr. Uri Yosef has insisted (warning: not much truth about Messiah in the given link) that those who call Jesus "Yeshua"--doing so with an allegedly religiously fervent certainty--are buying into a missionary conspiracy, or "a new tactic in their quest for Jewish souls." I note that he guides his historical lasers on one Martin/Moishe Rosen. Who doesn't? (I believe Mr. Rosen's organization was involved in a semantic conspiracy, but one which had to do with an annoying apostrophe unnecessarily and against all normal transliteration techniques inserted to replace an "e" of the name's tsere (which he apparently still gets grief for (but we forgive you Moishe (still, try saying the vowel ts'r' - that's different!)))). 

I will refute Mr. Yosef's contentions where they appear relevantly wrong, but I admit its only a side dish. Whether a full rebuttal article or just a blog post, any piece of writing that makes his article its main course will leave the interested consumer intolerably emaciated. I hope to nourish at least a little bit! :)


But as best I can gather, the supposition is that the missionaries are out to make the person Jesus seem ... really Jewish, and thus more palatable and meaningful to those being evangelized by way of said fraudulent nom de plume. I suppose I have to momentarily bracket the point that {Jesus was (and is) Jewish} -  which would imply it is not dishonest whatsoever, but simply accurate, to portray him as such. For example, I myself would want to portray Him as Jewish in any given respect, because He was (and is) Jewish. But whatever, I was supposed to be bracketing. So let me be moving on. 

As for names, the article itself offers three Hebrew options to which the Greek transliteration of Jesus can refer - Yeshua, Yehoshua, and Hoshea. I should note that all three of these are closely related: 1) they are theophoric, i.e. names containing reference to the divine name, and 2) they are based on the verb root "saves" (yud-shin-ayin). And so what the author seems to be saying, or at least allowing, is that IESOUS should be taken to be one of these. And this is correct. 

So what's the problem? The "name-game" revolves around, again, I suppose, a certainty which allegedly is felt apart from evidence by many believers over one particular option of the three, and the fundamentalist or anti-Jewish badness that motivates such imposed certainty. I don't know whose attitudes he is citing in particular, but I am sure he has someone out there in mind. So it becomes a chance to show how guilty those someones are of trusting their authorities at every turn (not sure if this means: don't trust your Rabbi unless he is one I agree with. but that would be amazing). Also its that the source is allegedly Christian authorities by way of many groups and/or Moishe Rosen. Its a narrative of lexicalities-gone-bad, gone-something-very-very-bad ... actually it gets off the rails for me and I am not sure what the contention really is.

Even with the charts, Mr. Yosef's article does not explore which one of those three names would be the best evidenced, and how certain it is. I think that is a crucial question. The problem is in part his sources: he says "the only available extant and authentic source material from that general period is the Talmud in its original language, Hebrew/Aramaic." And it is true that the Talmud (whether Bavli or Yerushalaymi, i.e. from Babylon or Jerusalem) won't reveal the secret that easy. But that doesn't leave us in anywhere near the 'position of no position' Mr. Yosef asserts (I am not sure I should call it that, as having three closely related options all targeted on the meaning at issue would itself be something. we'll call it the 'position of three options'). But first, the Talmud, which he says is the only good stuff from that general period, is actually not from "that general period," if he is referring to the general period of Jesus or the early Jesus-movement. The Talmud is from 200-600, whereas the general period we are interested in is the first century (about 5BCE - 70CE). This is not to say Talmud is irrelevant for that period, as it contains names and citations from that time and region, among many other times and regions. Yet the temporal and provincial differences really matter for this issue. Second, we actually do have better "extant and authentic material" which can tell us more clearly about name usage in that place and time. (If I am not mistaken, the Israel Antiquities Authority does things). Third, if we broaden out the evidence-base to include Talmud, which of course is something we should do, then there is even more evidence to help. I submit that through a sifting of the evidence and just slightly more careful methods than Mr. Yosef's, the option of 'Yeshua' emerges as by far the most probable name of the three, which is in accord with the mainstream of scholarly opinion. For practical puposes, that's a sufficient reason for adopting this as the representative name form in Hebrew. The notion that we had to defend a position of absolute certainty about the name "Yeshua" (bearing in mind this is a historical question, not a math problem) reeks of unequal weights and measures in the highest degree. But no matter: as hinted at and as should become clear below, Mr. Yosef's theses also turn out to be mostly irrelevant to the more important issue of which Hebrew usage is appropriate, the one which heads this post. In particular, he has nothing to say about the name "Yeshu" (the popular and traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew).

So all that to say, one day I got to thinking about this, and decided to write out reasons for and against using the names Yeshua and Yeshu. I've posted them by request. Such reasoning depends a great deal on whether either one actually is His Hebrew name, but also includes other issues (and who doesn't want more to blog about). As for what is, just to be clear about my view: Yeshu was almost certainly not His name, whereas Yeshua most likely was. Here it seemed to me like the best way to organize the material was on practical lines since, in the end, we want to consider the Hebrew name by which we will honor Him in practice. Also, I am not an expert on languages, philology, or ancient near east per se, so I am basically just researching and using my brain to sort it out. Note also that its mostly limited to Yeshua and Yeshu, not the use of Jesus which is standard today in English. This is somewhat arbitrary, but I am interested in considering what we call Him in Hebrew, not to argue for or against using "Jesus" in English (for the record, I am against calling Him "Jesus" in Hebrew, which you can do, and which would look very different, something like this: ג'סס. In principle I find that weird on many levels.)

Reasons for using the name "Yeshua" 
1. The Greek IESOUS (which we know is a translation of some Hebrew name) corresponds to “Yeshua” in the later Biblical Hebrew texts (1 Chr. 24:11; 31:15 Ezra 2:2,6,36,40; 3:2,8,9; 4:3; 5:2; 8:33; 10:18; Neh. 3:19; 7:7,11,39,43; 8:7; 9:4,5; 10:9; 11:26; 12:1,7,8,10,24,26). This attests to widespread usage at that time. As Mr. Yosef says it:

§    Within the Jewish canon of the Hebrew Bible, the name  (Yeshu'a) is present only in the last Books: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

Well, that's right. But this puts the common usage of that name close to the relevant time of the earthly life of our subject, which already makes it a preferable translation based on that background data. However, its


a. fair to note: IESOUS also corresponds to Yehoshua (Joshua) in Biblical Hebrew (as it does Joshua's earlier name, Hoshea). This name tends not to occur in Late Biblical Hebrew. Still, on the basis of the Greek alone, I would be good with treating “Yehoshua” as a possible variant (and I guess, to a lesser degree, Hoshea). Um... are you good with that? Or are you one of the someone's he was after? Perhaps there is information which would make this qualification moot (even may be discovered below under the heading "reasons for using Yeshu"). But it is unclear why such a qualification, assuming its a necessary one, should be treated as a scandalous admission by anyone. And this point that there are two possible variants is at best the most that could be gathered from Mr. Yosef's actual name-related argumentation. (though more on possible moot-ness below)

b. Still, the name Yeshua itself is most likely a late-Hebrew shortened form of Yehoshua. This is because Joshua (Yehoshua) son of Nun is recorded as Yeshua son of Nun in a later biblical text (Neh. 8:17) (Mr. Yosef records this in chart but doesn't note what significance it might have). So to treat Yehoshua and Yeshua as totally distinct game-changing options is quite a game in itself. They are forms of each other.

2. The Aramaic Peshitta uses the cognate of Yeshua. I say cognate, as from what I've been told it may only be cognate with respect to pronunciation, but its identical with respect to spelling: ישוע

3. Tal Ilan, on the basis of her wide-ranging survey of literature and archaeology, ranks it as the sixth most common male name in her Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330 BCE--200 CE. Same Tal Ilan (ibid.) notes that the Yeshua form is the name of Jesus of Nazereth (citing the Tosefta Hullin 2.22 which uses Yeshua for him and not the negation or corruption “Yeshu”).

With the above points in mind, here's a pushback via Mr. Yosef I feel worth addressing, because it reinforces the issue of sources. Noting the usage in his controlling source of the Talmud, he finds extremely high usage of Yehoshua (2017x), a pair of usages of Hosea (2x), in reference to the Talmudic sages. 

"These results indicate that, at least among the Talmudic Sages, the names  (Y^ehoshu'a) and  (Hoshe'a) were used, while the name  (Yeshu'a) never appears on the record, except in direct quotes of passages from the Hebrew Bible! This invalidates the claim that  (Yeshu'a) was a popular name at the time of Jesus."  

[extremely minor point which also serves as a quick Hebrew time-out: putting the apostrophe where he does in Yeshua is technically inaccurate. The final vowel is a furtive patach (patach genuva), one that unlike most cases of the sound, "steals ahead" of the letter its under (that's a way to remember the hebrew name at least - "stealing patach" ;). And the ' represents the "ayin" guttural stop in the name. The general rule: whenever the patach is under a final guttural which comes after an unchangably long vowel which is not a-class (as is the case here with the shurek, the "u" vowel in Yeshua), the patach is furtive. For a more clear example, consider the word sameach or "happy," as in chag sameach. Though the "a" sound is under the guttural chet, unlike most other cases the guttural consonant "ch" follows the vowel "a." So if one wanted to be a hardcore completist, I believe one would put the guttural sound (') after the "a": Yeshua'. This info may be found in any introductory Hebrew grammar textbook.] 

If right his quote would mean that Yehoshua was the more popular form of basically the same name, which we've already seen is nothing particularly sensational to expose (I am ruling out Hoshea with its 2x because we don't have any examples of the name being given with a hey, though I suppose I am not supposed to go outside the Talmud in answering the question by Mr. Yosef's lights.) But there are multiple problems here. The Late Biblical Hebrew in Nehemiah gives us Yeshua as a form of Yehoshua (son of Nun), even as texts from that time give Yeshua. Thus we know the names are forms of each other, and Yeshua was becoming a common name at that time. We also recall that the Talmud was put into writing, composed, and edited during a completely different time period than the first century. The difference between the time periods far outstrips whatever difference Mr. Yosef wants to emphasize between the names themselves. Its different, indeed, than the period of the sages who are mostly referred to (at least the ones contemporary to Messiah). We have to allow that the way someone's name is rendered in one century may be different than another, since this is the case with Yehoshua becoming Yeshua. 

[As for why Yehoshua might be a more popular from to cite in Babylon, at a time much later than the 'Late Biblical Hebrew' in Israel where the form "Yeshua" became popular, which indicates a reversal of sorts... its an interesting question about which I can only speculate dangerously... One idea is that it has a lot to do with the Torah-textual character of the use of Hebrew in that diaspora community. The form Yehoshua (also Hoshea) shows up in Torah and prophets whereas Yeshua doesn't, and this Torah in particular intimately informed the language of the sages. So perhaps rendering names by the form found there would come naturally. Perhaps a better guess... Arachim 32b shows that the letter hey found in Yehoshua and not in Yeshua had theological significance, in that the hey being dropped represented the chastening hand of the divine, contrasted to the bestowal of favor to Abraham with the adding of a hey to his name. From this we could extrapolate there would be no problem calling a rejected man "Yeshu" whereas they would have a problem even calling a well-regarded sage "Yeshua" and might instead "restore" the hey. However, I don't think I can read these Talmudic-era beliefs (which while extrapolated from Torah, have their own distinct character), into a different time, place, and culture, where we would find different naming conventions. I cannot yet confirm or speak to what various beliefs on divine name alteration were at that time and place and what effect they may have had on someone's view on the relationship between Yeshua and Yehoshua. Philo, a contemporary in time if not place, comments that the change from "Hoshea" to "Joshua" for the son of Nun, noting that Moses is "displaying by his new name the distinctive qualities of his character" followed by an interpretation based on, as best I can tell, the Greek (!) in the case of Hoshea "what sort of person is this?" but the Hebrew in the case of Yehoshua "the salvation of the Lord." But so far I cannot find anything like the above, that a shortened name is dishonor, in his On the Change of Names, and he does not cite Nehemiah 8:17 in any of his extant writings. Even if I could find a view in his writings one way or the other, this would not necessarily tell us what all or even most Jews at that time believed about naming.]

4. All modern Hebrew translations of the New Covenant use Yeshua, going back to at least the 19th century. The notion that these translations "picked" Yeshua (i.e. out of the three options above) in order to perpetrate a conspiracy is simply not a serious suggestion. Beyond the fact that it is a conspiracy theory, the translations are made by heavy-hitters, scholarly speaking (Delitzsch, Ginzburg, etc.). So we would need good reasons to go against their decisions in practice.

5. The name has also been used without controversy within Jewish tradition. Kai Kjaer Hansen notes:"In his prolegomena to Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (Jerusalem, 1940, pp. 215-216), Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the father of Ivrit, deals with the name of Jesus. Here the name of Jesus is mentioned explicitly at least 8 times, and every time the form Yeshua is used" (note: Prof. Hansen gives plenty more citations of relevant uses of "Yeshua" in Jewish tradition for Jesus, including Maimonides in early texts of Iggeret Teman, parts of the polemical Toldoth Yeshu, and early texts and explanatory notes to Mishnah, but being where I am I have not been able to check most of them. That said, I have no good good reason to doubt him.)

6. Its root meaning explains the key text where his name is introduced (Matt. 20:21), as well as having theological significance for his character. (note: taken alone this point only favors using one of the forms from yasha to which IESOUS translates, but that is enough for considering Yeshua which does and Yeshu which does not.) If a text is made meaningless by adopting one practice, and meaningful by adopting another, all things being equal we should choose the second. And this is distinct from the issue of the text's inspiration.


Reasons against using Yeshua (with some responses): 
1. It was concocted (or "revived") by modern Hebrew-Christian movements for the purposes of evangelism.
a. The idea that it was "concocted" seems to have caught on among some, but its clearly false. It is so clearly false that those who perpetrate this idea have no scholarly credibility. Just see the above. If it was only "revived," and I certainly think it was to some degree, it is unclear why this is a reason not to use it. Some people's purposes are to communicate the Jewishness of Jesus, and others may find this suspect. But for my part I do not see what is wrong with the motivation. Why shouldn't the Good News be put in terms more amenable and clarifying, including calling the Jewish Messiah by His name?
2. It is offensive to use a Hebrew name for Jesus that is not recognized by traditional Judaism.
 a. While I do not want to be insensitive on this point, we have to be wary here of political correctness.  If the recognized term Yeshu is wrong, misleading, or inappropriate on other grounds, it would seem unwise to adopt it merely to avoid offense. That's something I'll explore below. But also, its use in the Tosefta, as well as Ben Eliezer, not to mention Maimonides and the Toldoth Yeshu itself (the latter two I haven't gotten to check) would mean that the name is in fact recognized.

Summary: I think reasons like these are about as good as history can get in determining that His Hebrew name was Yeshua (not to say the reasons are close to exhaustive). The reasons to avoid its use anyway are quite weak. 

Reasons for using the name "Yeshu" 
1. It is the name we have for him from the Talmud, and is thus His traditional Jewish and Hebrew name.
a. As mentioned, it seems to be used there as a negation. So that is unhelpful if one wants to refer to Him by name.
b. Some, however, have suggested that Yeshu may have evolved from Yeshua as a shortened form of it. It has likewise been suggested that the final ayin, while appearing originally in the written form, was left off the pronunciation by 1st century Galilean speakers, and that this led to it being left off in writing in later Jewish texts. Only later was it attached to the negation formula "may his name and memory be blotted out."
i. Perhaps this is speculative, but if true (and see the above linked Prof. Kjaer-Hansen for an interesting theory about it), it also would qualify b. as yet another reason to legitimately use the earlier form, Yeshua (as opposed to the other options brought up by Mr. Yosef). Even if the final ayin was only in writing and not pronounced (with the extra syllable and guttural) by certain Galileans, and even if this led to its use as such in Jewish tradition, the written form then is what provides appropriate significance and meaning today (see point 6 above for example). It would take a very odd sort of nativist combination to attempt to use in normal practice a hypothetical pronunciation from 2000 years ago, all the while committed to the correct and well-attested written form, when the latter is pronunced in a different way today. That would confuse everyone in ways which are simply impractical. We should note that this hypothesis if confirmed would indicate that Yeshua was more likely His name as opposed to other two Hebrew options offered by Mr. Yosef, since Yeshu would be far more likely to evolve from Yeshua than Hoshea, and would require at least another step from Yehoshua. That also makes Mr. Yosef's silence on "Yeshu" problematic.

2. A negation SHOULD be used and not his real name since Jews do not believe in Him, and thus should not utter the name of a strange god.
a. I don't think we should take this point lightly. It shows that it is not mere semantics and not mere spite - unfortunately two explanations I've heard from fellow followers of Yeshua - but a genuine theological conviction which not only can motivate but perhaps did motivate the conscious use of Yeshu as negation (bearing in mind that most are not conscious at all that it is such). Hence, should not a reclamation of that name likewise should be met on theological grounds, not only semantical grounds? It is on the basis that Yeshua is in fact, the Jewish Messiah, the manifestation of the God of Israel Who is our Salvation, that I use His real Hebrew name.
b. This is not to make a non-believer be inconsistent or "trapped" if she uses the name which fits a conviction they don't hold. Yeshua is still a name which is historical and correct, and can be used on those grounds. Rather, my point is he is the Messiah! Yeshua is not a foreign god; rather, He is the God of Israel come in the flesh. Using "Yeshua" is not a last-ditch effort at disguising "Yeshu" to get those who don't follow Him to be inconsistent, but a simple restoration which, taken within this dialectic, can point to some deeper truths. The name's overall consistency with historical data is for some of us of one cloth with its consistency with biblical, Jewish truth.
3. Hebrew speaking and/or Jewish believers themselves may wish to be respectful of Jesus’ actual name, i.e. to not use it in vain, or in public context.
i. The negation “may his name be blotted out forever” (Yeshu) would not perform that respect, in my opinion - even if it was originally a "nick-name."
ii. Nor could one do this through the use of “Jesus” since this is itself an English transliteration of the Greek transliteration (IESOUS) of the Hebrew name (most probably Yeshua). I mention this, again, not to argue against using "Jesus" in English, but because one friend (who took deep offense at using the name Yeshua) thought that 'Jesus' was some sort of alternative given name, the way one might be called “Mark” in public, but “Moshe” when being called up to read the Torah or participate in other aspects of synagogue. In reality, if Yeshua had any non-Hebrew names for public use, we don’t have them.
iii. there is no evidence that we are expected NOT to refer to the Messiah by His name in order to be respectful.  On the other hand, the text seems to imply calling on His name is a good thing! ;)
iv. it would reflect bad exegesis of the commandment, “Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”
3. In Hebrew, Yeshu is the most recognizable name today for the person Yeshua and need not be seen as negation. (in my opinion, this is probably the best argument for using Yeshu and not Yeshua.)
    a. However, it may be asked, is the use based on ignorance of the negation-origin, or is it aware of the negation-origin? b. If through ignorance, the ignorance may be healed through better information like the above. And in general, this means using the name Yeshua, otherwise the matter is "in the closet." If its done with awareness of negation, then how can Yeshu be seen as an appropriate name? Here the pragmatic value of keeping the status quo seems overwhelmed by the altogether importance of truth in general and truth with respect to the person of Yeshua.

In sum: None of the arguments (i could think of) for using "Yeshu" carry the day. However, since it is recognizable and popular for reasons unrelated to the traditional practice negating His real name, believers need to be sensitive and wise in how they treat the issue. Its not a point for defensiveness, but dialogue. That said, even as the weight of evidence is heavily for "Yeshua," so also one's practice of using that name can be well-grounded, and indeed should be. Yay facts!


Reasons against using Yeshu
1. Apart from a few possible exceptions, it doesn’t exist as a root or name in 1st century in Hebrew or Aramaic. So it is highly unlikely to actually be His name.
2. It indeed functions as an acrostic meaning “may His name be blotted out forever.”

This is a work in progress. Its open to helpful additions.