t's 2015 and an issue that seemingly won’t go away has already taken up
a sizeable chunk of our time this year. I’m referring to the topic of
the Messiah’s name. Ever since June and I began referring to Him by the
name Yeshua instead of Yahshua, we’ve been criticized,
ostracized and occasionally condemned by various members of the Sacred
Name Movement. We cover this fact in-depth in chapter 3 of our study
Name of the Messiah. The primary
point of contention is the vowel in the first syllable of His name; if you don’t get it
just right by Sacred Name Movement standards, you
are regarded as being among those who remove the Father’s name from the
Son’s name. The first syllable of the Father’s name is Yah, and
it is this same first syllable that, according to Sacred Name Movement
adherents, must be written and pronounced as the first syllable
of the Messiah’s name. The majority of Sacred Name Movement adherents
we’ve encountered refer to the Messiah as Yahshua and they spell
it יהושׁע
in Hebrew. For ten years, June and I were a part of that crowd; but
when we came across evidence that He very likely spelled His own name
with the short form ישׁוע, one
thing led to another and we found that the ancient 3rd
century b.c.e. Hebrew
scholars who translated the Greek translation known as the Septuagint
transliterated that first syllable as Yay, not Yah. It
didn’t matter whether the Hebrew spelling was
יהושׁע or
ישׁוע;
either way, they rendered that first syllable as Yay, not Yah.
It’s almost kind of funny
how history repeats itself. When I learned that the Hebrew scholars who
translated the LXX way back in the 3rd century
b.c.e. rendered the first
syllable of the name we know as Joshua as Yay (as in
"pray"), I couldn’t wait to share it with our Sacred Name Movement
friends. Based on my history of sharing newfound truths with others, I
should have known to expect overall rejection instead of
acceptance. I am reminded of the membership classes that June and I
were taking back in 1982 that, once completed, would allow us to become members of
the Presbyterian Church. The last one was titled “The Sacraments,”
which included water baptism. We knew the Presbyterian Church teaches
and practices sprinkling as a valid form of baptism, but we had studied
enough to know this is an unscriptural method. Never mind that, we knew
the kind folks at the Presbyterian Church were open to new truths, so
June and I came to that class loaded with all kinds of information about
sprinkling vs. immersion and we naively reasoned that by
the time we were finished showing everyone all the facts, a doctrinal
change would be forthcoming. Those of you who have experienced the
tenor of discussions in which one party expects the other to make a
doctrinal change most likely know how that last membership class went.
Suffice it to say we didn’t become members of the Presbyterian Church
and we were devastated to learn that the kind folks we thought were our
friends were all too glad that we didn’t return. Years later, we
experienced much the same thing when we shared our findings about which
day is the weekly Sabbath and how that commandment was never “done
away.”
Finding out that folks whom we
thought shared our determination to embrace truth regardless of how
painful it might be aren’t actually willing to take that next step is a
devastating experience. It’s devastating for us because we don’t take
the bond of friendship lightly. A “bond” is a linking together, being
bound together; severing that bond is emotionally painful, giving
special meaning to the term “broken heart.” So 15 years after our
decision to not join the Presbyterian Church, June and I naively thought
the Sacred Name Movement was ready to learn that the Hebrew scholars who
translated the Greek text of what is known as the Septuagint didn’t hear
a “Yah” in the first syllable of the name we know as Joshua (יהושׁע).
But the Sacred Name Movement wasn’t ready. For June and me, our
hearts were broken when we came to the realization that we were square
pegs in the Sacred Name Movement’s round hole.
I am now persuaded that
nearly fifteen years after my rebuffed attempt at explaining our reasons
for spelling the Messiah’s name
ישׁוע
instead of יהושׁע,
the Sacred Name Movement still isn’t ready. A long-time
acquaintance named Michael A. Banak, who is a professing member of the
Sacred Name Movement, was among those whom June and I regarded as the
“exception to the Sacred Name Movement rule” about the spelling and
pronunciation of the Messiah’s name. The primary example of this was
his occasional use of the transliteration Yeshua for the
Messiah’s name in his writings. In fact, way back in 1999 Michael
offered a plea for everyone to extend grace to others about how to
pronounce the Messiah’s name. For example, in a forum posting about
this same topic, Michael wrote the following:
Look at the landscape of this debate. Some are convinced that the Name
of the Master is Yeshua. Others are flexible. And some lean towards
some form of Yahoshua. But here is what I want to know. How many of us
have taken the stance, in times past, that some particular form of the
Master’s Name was the right one, to the exclusion of all others?
Let me develop this. If you had clung, in the past, to one form as the
exlusively correct one, and have now ran fleeing to embrace a new
pronunciation as exlusively correct, what would have become of you if
you had died in the interleaving years? Not only that, if you clutch
and defend one particular form now, as exclusively correct, declaring
your salvation to be at stake, under what circumstances will you change
your choice of pronunciation? You did it once? Remember that name
“Jesus”?
My fear through the years was quite simple. If I manufactured a
doctrine, or else an interpretation of a doctrine, which kept me on the
inside…and others on the outside…based merely on something I KNEW and
they did NOT KNOW, then I would likely lose my salvation on the day of
judgment by the principle of like-judgment. (As you judge, so will you
be judged). I felt this with confidence because I knew that I didn’t
know it all. The flow of history shows that every generation seems to
discover a lost truth. We think we’re so smart. But following
generations will be even smarter. Count on it.
I am especially fearful of the responses I see, clinging to a form like
“Yahshua” like the last rung on a chain ladder. What are you going to
do on the day of judgment if you find a different form than the one you
chose is the real one?
The above commentary
corresponds to the plea that June and I have made since 1997, a plea
that was publicly manifested in my Unity Conference 2001 presentation
titled “Name of the Messiah: An Appeal for Mutual Understanding and
Acceptance of Those With Differing Ideas.” Our appeal has long
since been ignored by the Sacred Name Movement in general, though
various individuals have come forward as sharing our concerns about
reaching a conclusion about one form to the exclusion of all others.
Michael Banak, we reasoned, was among these latter individuals. As a
further demonstration of Michael’s willingness to accept dialectal
variety back in 1999, here’s his conclusion to the above commentary:
In case you’re wondering,
1) I lean toward the form Yeshua,
2) I freely accept the form Yahoshua and often use it.
3) And I have used the form Yahshua based on habit.
Interestingly, while there is little or no documented support in
antiquity for the form “Yahshua”, there is plenty of reason to suppose
that all three pronunciations are possible.
I replied to Michael’s posting by stating that I share his
view that we need to be careful about whom we exclude with regard to the
Messiah’s name and any other issue as well. I agreed with Michael’s
approach then and I reiterate that agreement now.
Fast forward to fourteen years later. In 2013 and continuing
through the better part of 2014, Michael graciously requested my
editorial assistance with an “elders only” presentation on the Messiah’s
name that he was working on for the 2014 Unity Conference in Sterling,
Illinois. To read his initial rough draft, you would have thought you
were reading an extension of the above-cited commentary from 1999. He
titled his presentation “The Messiah’s Name:
Accepting Dialectal Variety.” June and I heartily embrace the cause
embodied within that title and we extended our support of his noble
endeavor.
However, as his work progressed, we noticed what we perceived
to be a possible agenda unfolding before our eyes. It began with a
citation from Greek scholar Edgar H. Sturtevant’s work
The
Pronunciation of Greek and Latin. In question is the Greek
vowel eta (η),
which is the vowel used in the first syllable of the Greek
transliteration of the Messiah's name (Ίησους,
commonly transliterated Iesous).
Sturtevant pointed out that in the
ancient past this Greek vowel sound was used to transliterate the sound of a
bleating sheep
(βη̃). As such, as reasoned by Michael, that ancient
eta
must have
produced a first-syllable sound more akin to the pronunciation Yahshua than
Yeshua or possibly something in between. But
Michael specifies and dogmatically asserts that the ancient Greek eta
most certainly could not have carried the pronunciation
Yay’shua (or so he
reasons).
This was our first clue
that Michael had formed a bias. Why? Because the vowel sound produced
by bleating sheep is not “ah” as in “Yah.” Rather, it is “æ” as
in “sad.” Now if Michael had absolutely no bias whatsoever, he would
have formed the conclusion that based on the very ancient sound produced
by the Greek eta as exhibited by
the ancient Greek transliteration of bleating sheep, the first
syllable of the Messiah’s name would have been vocalized as “Yæ” as in
“sad” -- or Yashua as in Nashua. But no, Michael didn’t go
there. Rather, he decided to tweak the sheep sound so as to make it fit
the Sacred Name Movement paradigm. There is a reason for his tweak –
you can be certain that if Michael had promoted the pronunciation Yashua as in
Nashua, his presentation would have gone over
like a rotten egg. As it is, Michael made certain he left the
Unity Conference without getting tarred and feathered.
Now don’t get us wrong,
please. We aren’t opposed to referring to the Messiah as Yahshua.
We wouldn’t even be opposed to referring to Him as Yashua as in
Nashua. That’s because, in keeping with the title of Michael’s
presentation, June and I really do support allowing dialectal variety when it
comes to pronouncing the Messiah’s name. We highly doubt that any
English-speaking Messianic believers get His name 100% correct anyway,
so why draw a line and tell others how it cannot be pronounced?
Yet, that is precisely
what Michael Banak did in his “Elders Only” Unity Conference
presentation. In keeping with the message he promoted in 1999 in which
Michael cautioned against choosing one particular form of the Messiah’s
Name as the correct one to the exclusion of all others, Michael
continues that same warning early into his Unity Conference presentation
as being one of the three "biggest mistakes" you can make. Here is
Michael's exhortation:
I want to first speak to the
biggest mistakes you can make. There's lots of mistakes you can make and
here's the three biggest ones. Number 1: If you seek to find one and
only one true pronunciation for the Names to the exclusion of all other
pronunciations, that's a big mistake, especially in light of dialectal
variety, a verifiable fact.3
We need to
be clear that in his presentation, Michael remains true to his
conviction against choosing one pronunciation to the exclusion of all
others.
That,
then, isn't our concern. However, he does select one
pronunciation to exclude from all others. As we are about
to see, Michael makes room for several pronunciation options to the
exclusion of ONE pronunciation, and that is, to borrow Michael's words,
a "big mistake." In our ongoing appeal for mutual understanding
and acceptance of those with differing ideas, June and I find that
Michael's call to reject a certain pronunciation of the Messiah's name
-- even though that pronunciation most definitely falls within the
"locus of linguistic possibility" and has the support of some of the
most widely respected scholars -- his rejection belies the primary
message that otherwise embodies his presentation. In fact,
contrary to what appears to have been the driving force behind Michael's
presentation, his call to reject a certain pronunciation encourages the
Sacred Name Movement to continue their exclusionary ways instead of
truly "accepting dialectal variety." The harm caused by excluding
this one pronunciation effectively brought us back to having to resume
addressing the same prejudicial remarks that we've encountered before.
Michael's "exclusionary contradiction" must not and cannot be
overlooked.
Although June and I
weren’t actually present for Michael’s presentation, he later put
together a video “recapitulation,” which he shared with a select few
(including June and me) via
YouTube. In his presentation, Michael eloquently sets the table for a
full course of gracious acceptance of all who come within a “locus of
linguistic possibility" – matching a potential Hebrew pronunciation of
the Messiah’s name. Michael forthrightly states, “If your pronunciation
comes from the Hebrew and is within the locus of linguistic possibility,
it is my pleasure to worship with you.”
Michael later adds, “Just
because somebody doesn’t open up their jaw a fraction of a centimeter
less, or doesn’t sustain a syllable length just right, brethren are
being needlessly divided.”
For us, the above remark
came across as a shared concern. In that sense, it was a refreshing
observation despite being a sobering reality. Also sobering is the fact
that in his presentation Michael later contributes to the very division
process that he outwardly deplores.
In spite of Michael’s subsequent pleas for believers to avoid using such
“poisonous” phrases as “We think this pronunciation is most correct,” it
turns out that he himself sets a table intermixed with the very poison
that he warns against by advising his audience that a certain
pronunciation cannot be correct. That “certain pronunciation” just
happens to be the one that June and I have used for many years. We
should point out that the pronunciation June and I currently use is one
that we had settled on years ago as coming the closest to matching the
name given to the Messiah. It is the one listed by virtually every
scholarly reference we have consulted. This includes Strong’s
Concordance, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English
Lexicon, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon and The
New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon. We even consulted Professor
Anson Rainey, who was professor of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures and
Semitic linguistics at Tel Aviv University. I realize our use of the
phrase “coming the closest” in the sentence above would likely be
construed as “poison” by Michael, so we need to clarify that each of us
is hopefully conducting our own careful research and we must as
individuals form our own conclusions based on our findings. The key is
respecting the findings of others, even if they don’t line up with
ours. And we respect forms such as Yahshua, Yashua,
Yahushua, Yahoshua, Yehoshua and the one we use,
Yeshua.
We even respect the form
Jesus, even though we are on record as identifying it as a poor
transliteration of an inferior transliteration. We say this because
“Jesus” is a transliteration, not from Hebrew, but from the Greek Iesous, which cannot reproduce the “sh” sound, nor does the Hebrew
form end with an “s” sound. There is a scholarly consensus about the
Greek language’s inability to reproduce the “sh” from the Hebrew as well
as the fact that there is not an “s” ending in the Hebrew form of this
name. But there is no scholarly consensus about the pronunciation of
the vowel in that first syllable and where the consensus ends is where
contention begins.
Maybe there is no scholarly
consensus regarding how the first syllable of the Messiah’s name was
pronounced, but nearly two hours into his presentation Michael takes it
upon himself to educate his listening audience as to how, in his
estimation, it wasn’t pronounced. The following commentary comes
at the 1:50:26 mark of his presentation:
Now let’s talk about the “eta” (η)
first in this Greek form of Iesous (Ίησους).
Now today people are saying it was pronounced “YAY-soos,” but anciently, when it was first rendered, the eta didn't sound
like “ay” (as in “pray”). In Edgar Sturtevant’s book about Greek – and
you’ll find this in the reading assignment – he cites three historical
references of people who make the sound … record the sound … of a sheep
crying, and they use the eta to spell that. They spell it “beta
eta.” You’ll have to look real closely here. We have three
historical references of it, and Edgar Sturtevant makes the claim that
this is going to sound, you know, as like an “ah” or an “uh,” an “ehh,”
but NOT as an “ay.” Now the sound of a sheep crying might have some
variability to it, but it doesn’t sound like “bay.” So this is
evidence that the sound of the eta is going to be somewhere
between an “ah” and an “ehhh.” “Ah” and an “ehhh” (as in met).
Not an “ay” (as in “pray”). Not that long vowel “ay.” So
this lends weight to the existence of that short form “Yahshua” existing
before the apostolic era.
This
is why we maintain that Michael tweaks the sound uttered by bleating
sheep to make it fit the Sacred Name Movement model that he upholds.
Third, Michael very conveniently omits “the rest of the story.” I’m
referring to the rest of the story as presented by the scholar whose
work he cites, Edgar Sturtevant. While Sturtevant does indeed bring out
the fact that in ancient times the cry of a sheep was transliterated
with “beta eta,” which would certainly indicate that the eta
could have carried the “æ” sound (as in “bad”), he later goes on to
write that by 400 
Here’s what I came up with: The Sacred Name Movement group that
Michael currently associates with is a major supporter of the
pronunciation Yahshua and they are dogmatically
intolerant of the form Yeshua, blatantly terming it “error.”
They also promote the Hebrew long form of the Messiah’s name (
