There is not a single authoritative reference source which gives the name Jesus or Iesous as the original name of our Saviour! All of them admit that the original form of the Name was Jehoshua or Yehoshua. Why then, was it changed from Yehoshua to Jesus?
Many Hebrew names of the Old Testament prophets have been “Hellenized” when these names were rewritten in the Greek New Testament. Thus, Yesha'Yahu (Isaiah) became Isaias, Elisha became Elissaios or Elisseus (Eliseus), and Ěliyahu (Elijah) became Helias in the Greek New Testament. The King James Version has retained some of these Hellenized names. Since the King James Version was published, the newer English versions have ignored these Hellenized names of the Greek New Testament, and have preferred, quite correctly, to render them as they are found in the Hebrew Old Testament, namely: Yesha'Yahu (Isaiah), Elisha and Ěliyahu (Elijah).
Incidentally, the similarity between the Hellenized Helias (instead of Ěliyahu) and the Greek Sun-deity Helios, gave rise to the well-known assimilation of these two by the Church. Dr. A.B. Cook, in his book, Zeus -- A Study in Ancient Religion, Vol. I, pp. 178-179, elaborates on this, quoting the comments of a 5th century Christian poet and others, on this. Imagine it, Ěliyahu identified with Helios, the Greek Sun-deity!
Returning to our discussion on the reluctance of the translators to persist with all of the Hellenized name in the Greek of the New Testament, one could very well ask: but why did they persist with the Hellenized Iesous of our Saviour’s Name, and its further Latinized form Iesus? It is accepted by all, that our Saviour’s Hebrew Name was Yehoshua. So why did the translators of the Scriptures not retain or restore it, as they did with the names of the Hebrew prophets?
It is generally agreed that our Saviour’s Name is identical (or very similar) to that of the successor to Moses, Joshua. But “Joshua” was not the name of the man who led Israel into the Promised Land. The Greeks substituted the Old Testament “Yehoshua” with Iesous, the same word they used for our Saviour in the New Testament. Subsequently the Latins came and substituted it with Josue (Iosue) in the Old Testament (which became Josua in German and Joshua in English), but used Iesus in the New Testament.
In the Hebrew Scriptures we do not find the word “Joshua.” In every place it is written: Yehoshua. However, after the Babylonian captivity we find the shortened form “Yeshua” in a few places – shortened, because they then omitted the second and third letters, namely: WH. Everyone who sees the names Yehoshua and Iesous will agree there is no resemblance between the names Yehoshua and Iesous or Jesus.
Before we continue with our study of the words Iesous and Iesus, we would like to point out that we have been led to believe that our Saviour’s correct Name is: Yehoshua (It is actually Yahu-shua, but in a conjunction word, the suffix (begining) always shortens its syllables, thus we get “Yehoshua) . Our Saviour said in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name.” Again, in John 17:11 He prayed to His Father, “Keep them through Your Name which You have given Me” – according to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the United Bible Societies’ Third Edition, and the Majority Text. Therefore, in John 17:11 our Saviour states That His Father’s Name had been given to him. Again he repeats this irrefutable fact in the next verse, John 17:12, “in your Name which You gave Me. And I guarded them (or it).” Read John 17:11-12 in any of the modern English versions.
So, we have our Saviour’s clear words, in three texts, that His Father’s Name was given to Him. Paul also testified to this in Eph 3:14-15 as well as in Phil 2:9. What then is His Father’s Name? Although most scholars accept YHWH as being “Yahweh,” and many still cling to the older form “Yehowah” (or Jehovah) (Yehowah means: Yah is my calamity or my destruction), we are convinced that the correct form is Yahueh (which is 100% provable)
Two factors contributed greatly to the substitution and distortion of our Saviour’s Name. The first was the un-Scriptural superstitious teaching of the Jews that the Father’s Name is not to be uttered, that it is ineffable, that others will profane it when they use it, and that the Name must be “disguised” outside of the temple of Jerusalem.
Because of the Father’s Name being in His Son’s Name, this same disastrous suppression of the Name resulted in them (? The Greeks) giving a Hellenized, in fact a surrogate name for our Saviour. He did warn us in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name… if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.”
The second factor was the strong anti-Judaism that prevailed amongst the Gentiles, as we have already pointed out. The Gentiles wanted a saviour, but not a Jewish one. They loathed the Jews, they even loathed the Elohim of the Old Testament. Thus, a Hellenized saviour was preferred. The Hellenized theological school at Alexandria, led by the syncretizing, allegorizing, philosophying, Gnostic-indoctrinated Clement and Origen, was the place where everything started to become distorted and adapted to suit the Gentiles. The Messianic Belief, and its Saviour, had to become Hellenized to be acceptable to the Gentiles.
Where did Iesous and Iesus come from? In Bux and Schöne, Wörterbuch der Antike, under “Jesus,” we read, “JESUS: really named Jehoshua. Iesous (Greek), Iesus (Latin) is adapted from the Greek, possibly from the name of a Greek healing goddess Ieso (Iaso).”
Like all authoritative sources, this dictionary admits to the real true Name of our Saviour: Jehoshua (or as we believe: Yehoshua). It then states, as most others, that the commonly known substitute, non-original, non-real name “Jesus” was adapted from the Greek. We must remember that our Saviour was born from a Hebrew maiden, not from a Greek one. His stepfather, His half-brothers and half-sisters, in fact all His people, were Hebrews (Jews). Furthermore, this dictionary then traces the substitute name back to the Latin Iesus, and the Greek Iesous. It then traces the origin of the name Iesous back as being possibly adapted from the Greek healing goddess Ieso (Iaso).
To the uninformed I would like to point out that Iaso is the usual Greek form, while Ieso is from the Ionic dialect of the Greeks.
This startling discovery of the connection between Ieso (Iaso) and Iesous, is also revealed to us by the highly respected and authoritative unabridged edition of Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, p.816. under “Iaso.”
The third witness comes to us in a scholarly article by Hans Lamer in Philologische Wochenschrift, No. 25, 21 June 1930, pp. 763-765. In this article the author recalls the fact of Ieso being the Ionic Greek goddess of healing. Hans Lamer then postulates, because of all the evidence, that “next to Ieso man shaped a proper masculine Iesous. This was even more welcome to the Greeks who converted to Christianity.” He then continues, “If the above is true, then the name of our Lord which we commonly use goes back to a long lost form of the name of a Greek goddess of healing. But to Greeks who venerated a healing goddess Ieso, a saviour Iesous must have been most acceptable. The Hellenization was thus rather clever.”
This then is the evidence of three sources who, like us, do not hide the fact of the Greek name Iesous being related to Ieso, the Greek goddess of healing. The Hellenization of our Saviour’s Name was indeed most cleverly done. To repeat our Saviour’s words of warning in John 5:43, “I have come in My Father’s Name, and you do not receive Me, if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.”
There is no resemblance or identifiability between our Saviour’s Name, Yehoshua, and the Greek substitute for it, Iesous. The Father’s Name, Yah- or Yahu-, cannot be seen in the Greek Iesous or in the Latin Iesus, neither in the English or German Jesus.
In spite of attempts made to justify the “translating” of the Father’s Name and His Son’s Name, the fact remains: A personal name cannot be translated! It is simply not done. The name of every single person on this earth remains the same in all languages. Nobody would make a fool of himself by calling Giuseppe Verdi by another name, Joseph Green, even though Giuseppe means Joseph and Verdi means Green. Satan’s name is the same in all languages. He has seen to it that his name has been left unmolested!
However, let us further investigate the names Ieso (Iaso) and Iesous. According to ancient Greek religion, Apollo, their great Sun-deity, had a son by the name of Asclepius, the deity of healing, but also identified with the Sun. This Asclepius had daughters, and one of them was Ieso (Iaso), the Greek goddess of healing. Because of her father’s and grandfather’s identities as Sun-deities, she too is in the same family of Sun-deities. Therefore, the name Iesous, which is derived from Ieso, can be traced back to Sun-worship.
We find other related names, all of them variants of the same name, Iasus, Iasion, Iasius, in ancient Greek religion, as being sons of Zeus. Even in India we find a similar name Issa or Issi, as surnames for their deity Shiva. Quite a few scholars have remarked on the similarity between the names of the Indian Issa or Issi, the Egyptian Isis and the Greek Iaso.
In our research on the deity Isis we made two startling discoveries. The one was that the son of Isis was called Isu by some. However, the second discovery yielded even further light: the learned scholar of Egyptian religion, Hans Bonnet, reveals to us in his Reallexikon der agyptischen Religionsgeschichte, p. 326, that the name of Isis appears in the hieroglyphic inscriptions as ESU or ES. No wonder it has been remarked, “Between Isis and Jesus as names confusion could arise. This Isis also had a child, which was called Isu by some. This Isu or Esu sound exactly like the “Jesu” that we find the Saviour called in the translated Scriptures of many languages, eg. many African languages.
Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, p. 164, also remarked on the similarity of Jesus and Isis, “IHS – Iesus Hominum Salvator – But let a Roman worshipper of Isis (for in the age of the emperors there were innumerable worshippers of Isis in Rome) cast his eyes upon them, and how will he read them, of course according to his own well-known system of idolatry: Isis, Horus, Seb.” He then continues with a similar example of “skilful planning” by “the very same spirit, that converted the festival of the Pagan Oannes into the feast of the Christian Johannes.” (The Hebrew name of the baptizer, and that of the apostle as well, was Yochanan or Yehochanan).
Thus, by supplanting the Name of our Saviour Yehoshua with that of the Hellenized Iesous (IHSOUS), which became the Latinized Iesus, it was easy to make the pagans feel welcome – those pagans who worshipped the Greek Ieso (Iaso), of which the masculine counterpart is Iesous (in capitals: IHSOUS), as well as those who worshipped the Egyptian Esu (Isis).
Further evidence of syncretism with the Isis-system is found in A Kircher, Oedipus Aegypticus, wherein the name of the son of Isis is revealed to us as “Iessus, which signifies Issa, whom they also call Christ in Greek.”
Another pagan group of worshippers could also be made to feel at home with the introduction of this surrogate name Iesous (IHSOUS) or Iesus, namely the worshippers of Esus. Jan de Vries holds that Esus was a Gallic deity comparable to the Scandinavian Odin. Odin, of course, was the Scandinavian Sky-deity. This Gallic or Celtic deity, Esus, has also been identified with Mars, and by others with Mercury, and was regarded to be the special deity of Paris.
Just as Iaso, Ieso, Iesous are derived from the Greek word for healing, iasis, we similarly find Isis (more correctly; Esu) and her son Horus (more correctly; Her), regarded as deities of healing as well as cosmic deities, or Sun-deities, by others.
The most disturbing evidence is yet to follow. The abbreviated form of the name Iesous is: Ies or in capitals: IHS, for in Greek the capital for “e” is “H.” This is to be found on many inscriptions made by the Church during the Dark Middle Ages. This fact is also well documented and is generally admitted by scholarly sources and ordinary English dictionaries. These dictionaries bear witness to the fact of IHS (Ies) being an abbreviated form of IHSOUS (Iesous).
Furthermore, the shocking fact has also been recorded for us that IHS was a mystery surname of Bacchus, and was afterwards taken as initials for Iesous, capitals: IHSOUS. We discovered this in a dictionary of mythology and in an encyclopedia of religion.
This revelation was confirmed by a third witness, Dr. E.W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, footnote p. 396, “Whatever meanings of… IHS may be given, the fact remains that it was part of the name of Bacchus…” We then realized most painfully, that our beloved Messiah was identified with the Greek deity Bacchus, by giving our Saviour the surname or other name of Bacchus, namely: IHS or Ies! Bacchus was well known to be a Sun-deity. Bacchus was also a commonly known name for Tammuz among classical writers. Tammuz, as you will remember, was known to be the young returning Sun-deity, returning in spring. Bacchus, also known as Dionysus, was expressly identified with the Egyptian Osiris, the well known Egyptian Sun-deity. Bacchus was also called Ichthus, the Fish.
So, yet another group, the worshippers of Bacchus, the Sun-deity, alias Ies (IHS), were conciliated, were made welcome, with the foreign-to-the-Hebrew name of Iesous (IHSOUS) or Iesus. The most appalling revelation startled us, indeed. After being enlightened about the solar origin of the word IHS and its fuller form IHSOUS (Iesous), we are no longer surprised to find the ecclesiastical emblem, IHS, encircled by sunrays, commonly displayed on church windows:
No wonder that we read the testimony of the learned Christian advocate, M. Turretin, in describing the state of Christianity in the 4th century, saying “that it was not so much the [Roman] Empire that was brought over to the Faith, as the Faith that was brought over to the Empire; not the Pagans who were converted to Christianity, but Christianity that was converted to Paganism.”
A further witness to this paganization of the Messianic Belief is that of Emperor Hadrian, who, in a letter to the Consul Serianus, wrote, “There are there (in Egypt) Christians who worship Serapis; and devote to Serapis are those who call themselves ‘Bishops of Christ.’”
Another testimony comes to us from the letter of Faustus, writing to Augustine, “You have substituted your love-feasts for the sacrifice of the Pagans; for their idols your martyrs, whom you serve with the very same honours. You appease the shades of the dead with wine and feasts; you celebrate the solemn festivals of the Gentiles, their calends, and their solctices; and as to their manners, those you have retained without any alteration. Nothing distinguishes you from the Pagans, except that you hold your assemblies apart from them.
Our Saviour Yehoshua, in His final message to us, the book of Revelation, has warned us of this in Rev 17, Rev 18, Rev 19, and also in Rev 13, Rev 14, and Rev 16 – Babylon, Mystery Babylon. The Great Harlot has made “the inhabitants of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication,” out of the “golden cup” in her hand, “full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication” (Rev 17:1-5). She is also described as “sitting on a scarlet beast, full of names of blasphemy” (verse 3).
Tammuz, alias Bacchus, has a surname: Ies or IHS. He was also known as the Fish (Ichthus), and had the Tau, the cross, as his sign. These three (Ies, the Fish, and the cross) have survived, and are still with us!
In Acts 4:12 we read, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This verse clearly tells us that there is only one Name whereby we can be saved – there is none other. It cannot be Yehoshua as well as Jesus, Iesous, Iesus, or Ies (Bacchus). There is no resemblance between the names Yehoshua and Jesus. The one is correct and the other one a substitute. The one contains our Father’s Name and the other one not. Yehoshua has said that He came in His Father’s Name (John 5:43). In the newer translations of the Scriptures, we read in two places (John 17:11 and 12), that Yehoshua said that His Father’s Name was given to Him. If we believe the Scriptures, if we believe our Messiah, if we believe what is written in Acts 4:12, we cannot be satisfied with any substitute name. We must believe, accept, and be baptized into the only saving Name: Yehoshua.
In the end-time, according to Joel 2:32, calling on the Name of Yahueh will be necessary for salvation and deliverance. By believing in, calling on, and being baptized in the Name of Yehoshua, we do “call on the Name of Yahueh,” through His Son, who had His Father’s Name given to Him, by His Father. “I have come in My Father’s Name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:43).
The writer of Proverbs challenges us in Prov 30:4, “What is His Name, and what is His Son’s Name, if thou canst tell?” KJV. A very interesting alternate rendering for Psalm 72:17 is given to us in the centre column of the Reference King James Version, speaking about the promised Messiah. “His Name shall be as a Son to continue His Father’s Name for ever.”
As I have stated, there is no resemblance between the Name Yehoshua abd the name Jesus. Neither is there any resemblance between their meanings. Yehoshua means: “the Salvation of Yah or Yahu.” “Jesus” is derived from Iesus, derived from Iesous (IHSOUS), obviously derived from the Greek goddess of healing, Ieso or Iaso. Her name was derived from iasis, which means “healing.” Further, the short form, or original source of the name Iesous (IHSOUS) is Ies (IHS), the very surname of Bacchus, the Sun-deity.
Therefore, the two names differ completely in their origin, and in their meaning. And more important: Our Saviour’s Name contains the Name of His Father, which the substitute name does not. Further proof of the Father’s Name being in the Son’s Name is found in Eph 3:14-15, “For this reason I bow my knees to the Father… from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.” Surely, if His family receives His Name, His only begotten Son will also have His Name.
Another proof is Rev 14:1, which in the Textus Receptus based translations read somewhat differently to what is found in the newer versions. Rev 14:1-5, in Green’s Interlinear Translation reads, “And I saw, and behold, a Lamb standing on the Mount Zion! And with Him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having the Name of His Father written upon their foreheads… These are those who were not defiled… These are those following the Lamb wherever He may go. These were redeemed… first-fruit to Elohim… And no guile was found in their mouth, for they are without blemish before the throne of Elohim.”
The Nestle-Aland test reads, “having His Name and the Name of His Father written on their foreheads.” Do we wish to be part of this first-fruit company? Then we are to make quite certain that we have the Father’s Name and the Lamb’s Name on (or in) our foreheads. The similarity between their Names is obvious. Whether it will be just one Name, Yah, or whether it will be both Yahueh and Yehoshua, is not clearly indicated, and is less important – as long as we have the essential part of the Name, Yah, which transmits its etymological concept of life, ever-lasting life. Verses 4-5 warn us against defilement – spiritual defilement – the lies that we have inherited, including the lies about the Names, “O Yahueh,… the Gentiles shall come to you from the ends of the earth and say, ‘Surely our fathers have inherited lies…’ Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know…; and they shall know My Name is Yahueh” (Jer 16 19-21), a prophecy for the end-time.
“Therefore My people shall know My Name” (Isa 52:6). “I will bring the one-third through the fire, will refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My Name, and I will answer them. I will say, ‘This is My people’; and each one will say, ‘Yahueh is my Mighty One’” (Zech 13:9). “For then will I restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the Name of Yahueh, to serve Him with one accord” (Zeph 3:9). “And Yahueh shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be – ‘Yahueh is one,’ and His Name one” (Zech 14:9). He will no longer be called by all those hundreds of names, by which He is known today. His Name will be “one.” And His Son, in whose Name the Father’s Name is contained, will subject Himself to His Father in that day (1 Cor 15:28).
(This is an excerpt from the book "Come out of her my people" by Dr. Chris Koster)
Why is Yahweh's name removed from the Tanach (T-N-K) and replaced by "Adonay (owner)" and "Elohim (powers)" whose vowels were placed on Y-H-W-H to form "Yohovah" and "Yehovih" which are hybrid names?
ReplyDeleteThe Masoretes placed the vowels of "Aadonay (אֲדוֹנָי)" and "Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים)" upon "YHWH (י-ה-ו-ה)" to form the hybrid words like "Yohovah (יְהוָֹה)" and "Yehovih (יֱהוִֹה)". Thus, my conclusion is neither "Yohovah (יְהוָֹה)" nor "Yehovih (יֱהוִֹה)" represent "YHWH (י-ה-ו-ה)".
ReplyDelete