|
|
-
Ponder Scripture Newsletter
-
-
-
ith
the seemingly
endless array of Bible-based articles, newsletters and other
publications currently available on the Internet, there is a
veritable "information overload" of sorts when it comes to searching
for various Bible-related topics. Since there is already an
abundance of Bible-related topics to choose from, you can well
imagine that one could devote his or her full time to reading these
studies. June and I have added our share of studies to
cyberspace, some of which are very lengthy. Indeed, some
topics require lengthy explanations to provide in-depth answers.
On this page, however, we want to keep things as "short and sweet"
as possible. While we primarily gear our writings to those who
share our understanding that the Torah is relevant for believers
today, anyone is welcome to read and offer feedback; however, due to
our schedules, we cannot guarantee a quick turn-around response
time. We invite you to direct all correspondence to seekutruth
at aol dot com.
Archived Newsletters
Newsletter #6: Ab 2011 (Fifth Month
of the Scriptural Year)
he new moon was sighted after sunset on August
1st, marking the fifth new moon of the Scriptural year. For me,
sighting the new moon is a monthly treat that never grows old.
There are many months when, due to cloud cover, we are not able
to see the new moon. Nevertheless, as much as I enjoy
looking at the new moon and pondering what an awesome show our
Creator puts on for us, this is one month for which I would have
gladly traded seeing the new moon for some heavy cloud cover,
cooler temperature readings and about a week's worth of gentle
rain. It currently appears that we are going to break
North Texas' 1980 record for consecutive triple-digit
temperature days, as we have thus far had over 30 consecutive
days of 100+ degree temperatures. Back in 1980, this area
was scorched with 42 consecutive days of triple-digit temps.
Rain and cooler temperatures would be a welcome relief. Here is
a photo of this month's new moon, taken from a vantage point
here in Plano, Texas:
I realize I have committed myself to trying to keep this newsletter as
brief as possible, but there are bound to be some months wherein brevity
is just not feasible. I have been addressing issues as they come to me
each month, and it seems as though a different "hot topic" (or two)
finds its way to our inbox in time to become the subject of our monthly
newsletter. This past month, more than one individual has
challenged June and me on the issue of the Messiah's name. Our response,
though much briefer than our full-length study on this same topic, is
still longer than we would have preferred. Notwithstanding, we
feel it addresses a huge unfounded and unnecessary bias within what is
known as the "Sacred Name Movement." It also addresses a couple of
our "pet peeves": Anonymous authors and authors who create the
(false) impression that they are Hebrew scholars. We could also
throw in another concern: reference abuse!
Why Do We Use the Form Yeshua When
Referring to the Messiah?
By Larry and June Acheson
Over the years, June and I
have taken a lot of flack from Sacred Name believers about the name we
use in reference to the Messiah. We decided to devote a special section
of this month's newsletter to the study of the Messiah's name because,
once again, we have been challenged on this topic.
ack
in 1997, June and I authored a fairly brief study outlining our
reasons for believing that the Messiah’s name is spelled a
certain way in Hebrew. Of course, a different spelling
often requires a different pronunciation as well, and such is
the case with the spelling that we came across in our studies.
At the time, we had no idea that our decision to refer to the
Messiah as “Yeshua” instead of “Yahshua” or “Yahushua” would
cause the friction that it did. Initially, it seemed as
though the folks who disagreed with us really weren’t interested
in reviewing our evidence. Their approach seemed to be that we
are simply wrong – no need to even give our reasoning any
consideration. A few years later, I decided that maybe
presenting our reasoning at a “Unity Conference” would generate
a little more understanding of our position. Indeed,
my presentation did garner the understanding of a few
individuals who actually took the time to study this matter
further and review our research on this topic. Others,
however, remained adamant in their stand against the form
“Yeshua” (pronounced
Yay-shua) without exhibiting
any signs that they are either interested in reviewing or
considering our reasons for believing as we do. In spite
of the evidence that we have found in our research, we continue
to be regarded as being among those who seek to remove the
Father’s name from the Son’s name or otherwise distort the
Messiah’s name. June and I continue our goal of striving
to seek, learn and practice the truth in all areas of Biblical
application, but when it comes to the Messiah’s name, our
current emphasis seems to be that of asking others to try to be
a little more understanding. What started out as a brief
study in 1997 has grown to a 100-page document titled
The Name of the Messiah,
which we believe addresses all the arguments. The study
you are now reading is the result of our latest challenge on
this topic.
What seems to make this topic such a hot issue is the fact that some
Sacred Name folks exhibit a condemning approach towards those who
refer to the Messiah as Yeshua
instead of the form they believe is “original and correct,” which is
Yahushua. In view of our
observation that supporters of the forms Yahshua/Yahushua have done
little (often nothing) to correct this approach suggests that there
is an implied consent. Here is one of the condemning remarks
that have been directed at those who use the form Yeshua:
As you know, the Holy Scripture was originally
written without any vowel points. With the use of ‘vowel
dissimilation’ only a slight change occurs, but the slight change
REMOVES the Name of Yahweh, effectively
shutting off SALVATION FROM YAHWEH to those who are deceived into using
the name Yeshua, according to Acts 12.
According to the above author, if you refer to the Messiah as Yeshua,
salvation has been shut off from you. Since those who are not
saved are condemned, this sounds like a condemning remark to me.
Other Sacred Name believers are more tolerant of those who use the form
Yeshua, yet they insist that it is not correct and they maintain
that referring to the Savior as Yeshua involves the same
principle outlined by the above author – removing the Father’s name from
the Son’s name.
What many Sacred Name believers do not understand is the fact that the
Father’s name is indeed in the name Yeshua.
Of course, they will shake their heads and say, “You’re wrong” without
batting an eye and often without lifting a finger to research my
reasoning. The name Yeshua, in Hebrew, is spelled
ישׁוע.
The key to this name is the first letter, the yod (י).
That (י),
contrary to what some Sacred Namers are willing to admit, is the initial
of the Father’s name. For those who are skeptics, all I have to do
is provide an illustration of the name that Moses gave to the man
commonly known as Joshua son of Nun. Before Joshua’s name was
changed, his name was Hoshea. This name is spelled
הושׁע, and is word #1954 in
Strong’s.
Few people are aware that when Moses changed this man’s name, all he did
was add a yod (י)
to it! Thus, the name הושׁע
(Hoshea) became
יהושׁע
(Yahushua). Observe, if you will, that Moses did not
add “YAHU” (יהו)
to the name Hoshea! All he added was a yod, which by itself represents the name
Yahweh. This sufficiently
demonstrates that the “yod” is and was considered the “initial” of
Yahweh’s name.
Please bear in mind that the name Hoshea means “salvation.."[1]
Simply by tacking on the Hebrew letter “yod” (י)
to that name, we form a name meaning “Yahweh is salvation.” Thus,
we have just demonstrated that a name containing the yod prefix
can be said to simultaneously contain the initial of Yahweh’s name. The
following chart vividly illustrates this point:
|
|
NAME |
MEANING |
|
Name Without the “Yod”
à |
הושׁע |
Salvation |
|
Name With the “Yod” Added
à |
יהושׁע |
Yahweh
is Salvation |
You would think that those folks who continually harp that “the Father’s
name is removed from the form pronounced Yeshua” would read the
above commentary and at least understand that we have a valid point.
Of course, some folks do understand that we have a point, so if
you fall into that category, then I am not directing my comments to you.
However, it seems that there are quite a few people out there who just
don’t “get it.”
A few weeks ago, I had a phone conversation with a Sacred Name believer
who told me that the reason he doesn’t use the form Yeshua is
because he feels it is wrong to remove the Father’s name from the Son’s
name. In response to his comment, I explained the above example
involving Joshua son of Nun and how all Moses did was add a yod (י)
to the name Hoshea to transform a name that means “salvation”
into a name that means “Yahweh is Salvation.” The yod,
then, was understood as representing the Father's name when Moses added
it to the name Hoshea. Once I explained this to the caller,
he seemed to understand that it is not possible to have “removed” the
Father’s name from the name Yeshua when all you need is the “yod”
to represent the Father’s name (and Yeshua --
ישׁוע --
does indeed contain the yod). The way I look at it is like
this: If using the yod (י)
to represent the Father’s name is sufficient for Yahweh, then who am I
to say otherwise? Nevertheless, some Sacred Name folks, without
really bearing down and diligently studying this matter, seem all too
willing to say otherwise. Anyway, once I offered the above
explanation to the caller, I thought we had resolved the issue.
However, a
few minutes later, the man offered another protest to the form “Yeshua.”
He said, “It seems to me that His name should be ‘Yahushua’ because
isn’t there a verse of Scripture where it says, ‘My name is in him’?”
(Exodus 23:21). In other words, once again, from the Sacred Name
believer’s perspective, with the form “Yeshua,” the Father’s name is not “in Him.” We were back to “square one.” Obviously, I
was frustrated because I had to once again explain that the Father’s
name is indeed in the name Yeshua. Frankly, I don’t think
he ever understood, and I began to realize that he has been duly
indoctrinated into the Sacred Name Movement mentality that the form
Yeshua is the result of a Jewish conspiracy to remove the Father’s
name from the Son’s name.
I’ll Tell You
How To Pronounce His Name – But I Won’t Tell You What My Name Is!
Just the other day another Sacred Name believer called me to let
me know that I don’t know how to properly spell or pronounce the
Messiah’s name. He insisted that I go to www.eliyah.com and
read this “new” article titled “Why Yahushua?” which (he says) proves
beyond a shadow of doubt that the correct name for the Savior is Yahushua, which is spelled
יהושׁע
in Hebrew.[2]
I skimmed the study while we visited over the phone (yes, it’s that
brief) and I quickly determined that it is a modification of the same
article I have previously read from the same anonymous author.
When I explained to my friend that I address these and other arguments
in our full-length study, he countered that he has read our full-length
study and he insisted that I did not address them. I decided that maybe
I should present my response in a different format and maybe from a
different angle. This time I'm answering the specific arguments
raised against the form Yeshua in the article "Why Yahushua?"
For starters, I find it a bit strange that the author creates the
impression that he doesn't really want the reader to know who he is.
Granted, I already know the author’s identity by virtue of the fact that
I have known him since the early 1990’s. When it comes to studying
the issue of “names,” it seems rather ironic that an individual would
expend so much effort into promoting his view of how a certain name
should be pronounced, yet he withholds his own name from his readers.
I’m not so much opposed to anonymous authors as I am confused over why
they find it sooooo important that people know how to identify the
Creator (and His Son) by name – to the point of even pronouncing it a
certain way – yet they don’t want anyone to know their own name.
It’s like they’re saying, “Hey, make sure you pronounce the Messiah’s
name the same way I do! Oh, by the way, I’m not going to tell you
what my own name is!”
When you access the article, here is what you see (and what you don’t
see, i.e., no author’s name):
Although I may not be opposed to the writing of anonymous articles, per
se, this is not to say that I support authoring anonymous articles,
either, because I personally find it to be an indication that the author
is afraid of something. I mean, if you don’t want people to know
who you are, doesn’t that mean you’re hiding or that you have something
to hide? Some folks have told me they prefer to remain “modestly
anonymous” because they don’t want to parade their name before others,
as though they might be regarded as seeking publicity for themselves.
They feel that remaining anonymous reflects a humble approach.
Right. I don’t buy that explanation because, for one, choosing to
remain “modestly anonymous” out of a desire to not be the recipient of
the next Pulitzer Prize presumes that the content of the article is
really that noteworthy or accurate. What if the content is shown
to be inaccurate? Who is willing to assume responsibility for
dispensing bogus information under the guise of truth? Certainly
not the author of “Why Yahushua?” because he doesn't want anyone to know
who he is. I might also add that I know the authors of Scripture
in general identified themselves for their reading audience, and no one
is about to accuse them of being proud or arrogant. The author of
the book of Hebrews is an exception to this rule, so I suppose the
author of “Why Yahushua?” prefers to be an “exception to the rule.”
It was only after I completed the original version
of this study that I found that the author does actually reveal his
identity on his web site, but I only discovered this fact when I
stumbled across it by accident. You might say it was "hiding in
plain sight." If you scroll down to the link for “Who is EliYah?”
you can learn that the author’s birth name is Thomas Martincic.
True to the typical explanation offered by anonymous authors of
religious articles, Mr. Martincic explains that he doesn’t make his name
very prominent on his web site because he doesn’t want to draw attention
to himself. He doesn’t address the fact that when he
cites articles and books, he provides the names of the authors (which in
turn gives his own articles a higher level of credibility), nor does he
address the concerns of folks like us regarding how anonymity can be
used as a clever means of evading accountability. It only seems
fair that if Thomas needs the names of authors to add credibility to his
own studies, he should provide his own name, not to draw attention to
himself, but to make a clear statement that he is willing to
accept
responsibility for what he writes.
If you
read Thomas Martincic’s article, you will notice that the first three
sections of his study are not really relevant to my reason for
responding to it. The first section has to do with his belief that
the Messiah’s name is important, and we certainly agree with him on that
point. The second section of Thomas’s study addresses the origin
of the form “Jesus,” and I am encouraged by the report of his conclusion
about this name. Many Sacred Name folks attempt to identify and
vilify the name “Jesus” with the Greek idol Zeus, but Mr. Martincic
rightly denounces that connection, even pointing out that the Greek form
Iesous, from which “Jesus” is derived, was used in reference to
Joshua son of Nun in the Greek Septuagint centuries before the Messiah
was even born. Certainly the Hebrew scholars who translated the
Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek would not have selected a
transliteration such as “Iesous” if they knew it has a pagan
origin.
“Yehoshua”
Things start to get interesting in the next section of Thomas’s article,
which he simply titles “Yehoshua.” Without going into a lot of
detail, I will say that his premise may be correct, but I am at complete
odds with his conclusion. What is his premise? Originally
the Hebrew name יהושׁע
may have been pronounced Yahushua instead of Yehoshua.
Since I wasn’t present in the 5th century
bce to hear whether the
vowel sound was an “ah” versus an “eh," I have no choice but to
acknowledge that Thomas’s findings about the original pronunciation of
the form Yehoshua may possibly be correct. Nevertheless,
regardless of how correct Mr. Martincic’s premise is, I must report that
his conclusion is completely irrelevant to the discussion of how to
pronounce the Messiah’s name because there is no rule requiring the form
of the Messiah’s name that He was given at birth to precisely match the
original form of that same name. Here is what Thomas wrote:
The Murashu texts, dated 5th century BCE and
written on clay tablets in cuneiform script, lists the names of about 70
Jewish settlers in Persia. In these tablets, vowels are used.
The Hebrew names which begin with
יהו (Yod Heh Waw) are all written "Yahu-" and never "Yeho".
"In the cuneiform texts Yeho [YHW], Yo [YW] and
Yah [YH] are written Yahu, as for example in the names Jehu (Yahu-a),
Jehoahaz (Yahu-khazi) and Hezekiah (Khazaqi-yahu)" A. H. Sayce in
"Higher Criticism" notes on p. 87
Notice that not only were names beginning with "Yeho"
written as "Yahu", but also names beginning with "Yo" such as "Yochanan"
(John) and "Yoel" (Joel) were written as "Yahu". This indicates John and
Joel were originally pronounced "Yahuchanan" and "Yahuel".
On the surface, Thomas’s claim that we
should pronounce the Messiah’s name Yahushua because that’s the
way that name was originally vocalized seems reasonable. I say
this even though Thomas doesn't explain how it is possible to determine
what cuneiform vowels are, much less how to recognize the difference
between a cuneiform “eh” sound symbol and a cuneiform “ah” sound symbol
(how does a linguist point to a certain symbol and say with confidence,
“That's an ‘ah’ sound”?). I checked out Thomas’s reference and it
was not helpful in answering my question. The book is actually
titled The "Higher Criticism" and the Verdict of the Monuments. I’m
not sure where Mr. Martincic came up with the notion that the quote from
Sayce’s book has anything to do with “notes on p. 87” because the
quote appears within the body of the full text found on that page (not
as a part of any notes or footnotes).
I personally question Thomas’s decision to
only offer his reading audience that one lone sentence from Sayce’s
book; however, I can see why, due to his biased approach, he omitted
supplying his readers with the full context. You see, according to
the author of The "Higher Criticism" and the Verdict of the Monuments,
those “cuneiform vowels” reveal a different pronunciation of the
Creator’s name than the one promoted by Thomas Martincic. Mr.
Martincic fully supports referring to the Creator with the name
pronounced Yahweh.[3]
I concur with the pronunciation Yahweh, but if we go by A. H.
Sayce’s report, which is presumably based on the same “cuneiform vowels”
that Thomas promotes in his article, then we should refer to the Creator
as Yahăvah. In other words, Thomas employs a double
standard when he uses Sayce’s book to justify using the first-syllable
pronunciation Yah for the Messiah’s name, yet he ignores
Sayce’s book when it comes to vocalizing the final syllable of the
Creator’s name. Let’s examine the entire paragraph from A. H.
Sayce’s book so we can view the writing in full context (and see what
Thomas chooses to ignore):
The name of Yahveh, which is united with Elohim in
the second account of the creation in Genesis, and by which the national
God of the Hebrews was distinguished from the gods of the heathen, is a
name upon which oriental archæology has as yet shed but little light.
Even its meaning and origin are obscure, though we now know that the
full form Yahveh, or rather Yahăvah, and the shorter form Yeho,
Yô, or rather Yahu, existed side by side from an early date. In
the cuneiform texts Yeho, Yô, and Yah are written Yahu, as for example
in the names of Jehu (Yahu-a), Jehoahaz (Yahu-khazi), and Hezekiah (Khazaqi-yahu).
But there are also contract-tablets found in Babylonia on which the
names of Jews occur, and these names are compounded, not with Yahu, but
with Ya(h)ava(h). This was first pointed out by Dr. Pinches,
we have Gamar-Ya’ava or Gemariah, and Ya’ava-natanu or Jonathan.[4]
Upon reading the full quotation from
Sayce’s book, the obvious question is, “Why does Thomas Martincic
believe A. H. Sayce’s report that the first syllable of names
beginning with
יהו in Hebrew was
anciently pronounced ‘Yahu,’ yet he ignores Sayce’s additional
report that the Tetragrammaton was anciently vocalized Yahăvah?”
This, of course, is an example of selective citation, whereby
an author selects the portion of a reference that seems to offer
support for his view while ignoring the portion that, by applying
the same rule, would require him to change his view on something
else. In this instance, the very same “cuneiform vowels” that
might appear to validate Mr. Martincic’s view about the first
syllable of the Messiah’s name simultaneously invalidate his
view about the final syllable of the Creator’s name. I find it
fascinating that Thomas Martincic, in true biased fashion, cites
Sayce's work in his study pertaining to the Messiah's name, but in
his study validating the pronunciation of the Creator's name
(Yahweh), Sayce is ignored.
Others Share Our Concern
About Proving Vowel Sounds from Cuneiform Documents
It turns out that
June and I are not the only ones who question Tom Martincic’s
approach of validating the pronunciation of vowels from ancient
cuneiform documents. The anonymous owner of the web site JewsandJoes.com, in his online article “What is the Proper Name
of the Creator of the Universe?” addresses the “cuneiform vowel”
argument in the section titled “What About the Murashu Archive?”:
What about the Murashu Archive?
"Yahweh" proponents argue
that the Murashu archive is approximately 1500 years older than the
Ben Asher manuscripts and it has Hebrew names with "Yahu-" as the
prefix instead of the traditional 'YeHo-"
prefix. When I asked Nehemia Gordon regarding this ancient archive
and the 'Yahu-" ramifications, he answered: "The
pronunciation of ancient cuneiform documents is pure speculation.
Scholars have been able to decipher the words but they by no means
know how the words were pronounced and certainly not how the vowels
of the words were pronounced."
[5]
In spite of the
awkward situation in which Tom Martincic has placed himself, let’s
suppose for the moment that the experts in ancient Semitic
linguistics are indeed able to accurately determine how ancient
words were pronounced by looking at “cuneiform vowels,” and let’s
say that they confirm that, anciently, the Messiah’s name was
pronounced Yahushua. Do we really need to go back 500 years
prior to the birth of the Messiah to determine how His name was
pronounced? Should our goal be to pronounce the Messiah’s name in
that name’s most original form or should it be to pronounce it with
the form by which He was actually named at birth? Of course, Tom
believes that he achieves both goals with the form Yahushua (יהושׁע).
However, we have already seen historical evidence supportive of the
possibility that the Messiah was given the name Yeshua (ישׁוע).
Mr. Martincic ignores this historical evidence (which he feels was
mishandled), instead citing his interpretation of a prophecy in
Zechariah as evidence of the “prophetic name.”
If the Messiah’s given name at birth is
ישׁוע, which is considered the “short form” of the
longer form
יהושׁע,
then it only makes sense that we refer to Him with that shorter
form. For anyone to maintain that we should refer to Him with
the long form “because it's the original
form”
would be the same as saying we should pronounce Jenny’s name as
“Jennifer” because that’s the original form of the name “Jenny.”
Never mind the fact that “Jenny” is what appears on her birth
certificate! It would be like saying we should pronounce
Mike’s name as “Michael” because that’s the original form of the
name “Mike.” Again, never mind that “Mike” is the name on his
birth certificate! In my own case, it would be like referring
to me as “Lawrence,” even though “Larry” is on my birth certificate.
I’ve actually been called “Lawrence” on quite a few occasions, and
it’s never bothered me; however, that doesn’t mean it’s my name!
What would be most helpful in the case of the Messiah’s name would
be to see the name that is on His birth certificate.
Since He didn’t have a birth certificate
for us to examine, the only viable option is to find the name that
is found within the existing written records. Texts
such as the Hebrew Matthew validate that His name was spelled yod,
shin, waw, ayin (ישׁוע).
Please note that this is not the spelling advocated by many
within the Sacred Name Movement, including Thomas. They insist
that we should refer to Him with the long form (יהושׁע),
which is vocalized Yahushua.
Therefore, as noble as Thomas’s intentions may be, they are based on
flawed reasoning. Our focus should be on what name was
actually given to the Son of Yahweh, not on what the original form
of that name is.
Presumption of Guilt
When it comes to pronouncing
יהו
as “Yeho” versus “Yahu” at the beginning of a
person’s name, Thomas Martincic follows the principle of “guilty until
proven innocent.” He believes the scribes, who had already
vowel-pointed the Tetragrammaton so as to not be pronounced “Yahweh,”
did this same thing with any name starting with
יהו:
Notice that there are other names listed in the
Strong's concordance which contain the first three letters of Yahweh's
name. And just like Yahweh's name which starts with the "Yeho" vowel
points, they use the "Yeho" vowel points in "Yehoram", "Yehosheba", "Yehoshaphat"
and numerous other names which contain the first part of Yahweh's name.
The scribes apparently did not want anyone to accidentally pronounce the
Heavenly Father's name when saying these other names, so they changed
the vowel points of those names as well.
Notice Thomas’s use of the word “apparently” within his statement that
the scribes “apparently” didn’t want anyone to accidentally pronounce
the Heavenly Father’s name when vocalizing a name that begins with
יהו. Thomas is
left with no choice but to use words such as “apparently” because he
doesn’t actually have any evidence to support his theory.
While it may possibly be true that in the most ancient of times these
names carried the “yahu” pronunciation, many scholars believe
that by the time the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, the “yeho”
pronunciation was the accepted form. Not only that, but leading
Hebrew scholars believe this form has the blessing of Yahweh.
Nineteenth century Hebrew scholar Wilhelm Gesenius, in his Gesenius’
Hebrew Grammar, offers a pronunciation insight that many Sacred Name
folks would consider to be downright offensive:
The pronunciation of the
Jews of the present day is very divergent. The Polish and German Jews
adopt a worse one, partly like the Syriac, while the Spanish and
Portuguese Jews, whom most Christian scholars (after the example of
Reuchlin) follow, prefer a purer one, more in harmony with the Arabic.
The manner in which the Septuagint (lxx)
wrote Hebrew proper names in Greek letters, furnishes an older and more
weighty tradition. Several, however, of the Hebrew sounds they
were unable to represent for want of corresponding characters in the
Greek language, e.g.,
שׁ
,ק
,צ
,ע
,ט
(in which cases they made the best shifts they could).[6]
It goes without saying that, in general, the Greek transliteration of
names beginning with יהו
in Hebrew is the “Yey” sound, not the “Yah” sound as required by Sacred
Name authors such as Thomas Martincic. Curiously, those ancient
Greek authors who wrote of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton
offered the “Yah” prefix, which is one of the major reasons that many
scholars support the ancient pronunciation Yahweh.
Sacred Name believers, who tend to not be proficient in Hebrew and
frequently exhibit a lack of understanding about pronunciation nuances
within any given language, feel that if the first syllable of the
Creator's name is vocalized "Yah," then any name beginning with
יהו must likewise carry that same sound. Such a
consistency requirement is not linguistically the way the Hebrew
language works, and this is even the case within the parameters of our
own English language. In the English language, there are common
pronunciation inconsistencies, which is why we see words such as "break"
vs. "streak," "laughter" vs. "daughter," "beard" vs. "heard," "lost" vs.
"post," "worm" vs. "storm" and "monkey" vs. "donkey."
We thus see that Thomas bases his conclusion on his unsubstantiated
hunch that the scribes deliberately mis-vowel-pointed not only the
Tetragrammaton, but also every name that begins with
יהו in Hebrew. Wilhelm Gesenius
differs with Thomas’s conclusion, maintaining that the ancient Greek
transliterations furnish “an older and more weighty tradition.”
“Yeshua”
This brings us to what we feel is the primary thrust of Thomas
Martincic’s argument – his “anti-Yeshua” commentary:
Much used by the Messianic movement, "Yeshua" is
actually an Aramaic form of the Hebrew name "Yahushua". In the Hebrew
script, Yeshua ישׁוע
is not spelled the same as Yahushua
יהושׁע.
The "Yeshua" name,
spelled
ישׁוע
(Yod Shin Waw Ayin), is found in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra
where it lists the names of those who returned from the Babylonian
exile. One of them is called "Jeshua, the son of Jozadak":
Ezra 3:2 Then stood up Jeshua the son of
Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son
of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the Elohim of
Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of
Moses the man of Elohim.
In Thomas's writings, he emphasizes his belief that the form Yeshua is
not “really” Hebrew, but that it is instead an Aramaic form of the
longer form Yahushua. What is amazing is that he makes this claim
while spelling this name in the “Hebrew script.” We understand
that, upon the Jews’ return from Babylonian exile in the 5th century
bce, there were some
changes in the way they spelled some names, including the name Yahushua, as evidenced by the above reference taken from the book of
Ezra. The fact that the form Yeshua was considered acceptable
enough to nobly appear in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, including as a
reference to Joshua son of Nun (Neh. 8:17), should be sufficient
evidence that it is not regarded by Yahweh as being a corrupt or
otherwise “messed up” form of Yahushua. Thomas, however,
disagrees:
Should we shorten the name of the Messiah to
the point where remove all reference to the Father and change the
meaning altogether? Why mess with it, I would say we should leave it the
way it is.[7]
Once again, we feel it is important to understand that the name Yeshua is widely recognized by scholars as being a shortened form of
the original Yahushua. Since Yahushua is a Hebrew
name and since Yeshua is a shortened form of that name, it should
be clear that Yeshua is also a Hebrew name. The fact that
this shortening occurred during the Babylonian Captivity may make for an
interesting side note, but it is still spelled with Hebrew characters,
and the fact that the Almighty has no problem in His inspired Word with
shortening Joshua son of Nun’s name to Yeshua should make it
plain that Yahweh does not regard the shortening process as “messing
with it.”
Thomas’s remark about messing with the form Yahushua was made
back in 1999 (when he posted commentaries under the pseudonym “EliYah”),
but his recent article indicates that he still casts the same rejection
of the form Yeshua that he offered back then. Actually, in
his 2011 article, Thomas paints an even more sinister picture of the
form Yeshua
than the one he offered in 1999. He opens his 2011 commentary by
emphasizing the Aramaic influence on shortening the form Yahushua
(יהושׁע)
to Yeshua
(ישׁוע):
"Jeshua the Son of Jozadak" is the same High
Priest mentioned in Zechariah 6:
Zechariah 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make
crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the
high priest;
Notice that in Zechariah, he is not called "Jeshua
the son of Jozadak" but he is called "Joshua the son of Josedech" (Heb.
Yahushua the son of Yahutsadak). This reflects the Hebrew spelling of
the same name. So in Zechariah, he is called Yahushua but in Ezra he is
called Yeshua. The book of Nehemiah also changes the name of Joshua the
son of Nun to "Jeshua, the son of Nun":
Nehemiah 8:17 And all the congregation of them
that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the
booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day
had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great
gladness.
The change in spelling to "Jeshua/Yeshua" (ישׁוע
"Yod Shin Waw
Ayin" ) is due to the Aramaic influence during the exile. In fact, parts
of the book of Ezra are written in Aramaic. For confirmation, look at
your Strong's Lexicon:
Notice that #3442 and #3443 are the same exact
word with the same Hebrew spelling, but this lexicon lists them
separately. Why is this?
Well, if you looked up "Jeshua" in the
concordance, you will notice that it lists "Jeshua" in Ezra 3:2 as
coming from #3442 and "Jeshua" in Ezra 5:2 coming from #3443. The reason
for the two different Strong's word numbers is Ezra 5:2 is a part of the
book of Ezra which was written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8 through 6:18;
7:12-26). This is why #3443 mentions "Yeshuwa" as coming from "Chaldean"
in the above definition (3443.
ישׁוע
Yeshuwa' (Chald.)). Therefore, "Yeshua" is actually an Aramaic
rendering of "Yahushua".
Thomas Martincic, in his commentary above, seems to expend a great deal
of effort in attempting to prove that the form Yeshua isn’t
really Hebrew at all, but rather an “Aramaic rendering.” In spite
of his efforts to disparage the form Yeshua, Mr. Martincic fails
to answer how and why Yahweh would approve of the shortened formישׁוע
appearing in His Word. If
the authors of Ezra and Nehemiah wrongly shortened or, as Thomas puts
it, “messed up” Yahushua so as to produce the hybrid Yeshua,
then does Thomas consider those two books to be a part of the inspired
Word of Yahweh? He stops short of claiming that they are not;
however, in our study Name of the Messiah, we address the
assertion from a leader within the Sacred Name Movement that the books
of Ezra and Nehemiah are "not books necessarily of inspiration."
Since it is true that the form Yeshua (ישׁוע)
didn’t appear within the framework of the Hebrew language until the
Jews’ return from their seventy-year period of Babylonian Captivity, we
can agree with Thomas that there was an Aramaic influence that resulted
in the name Yahushua being shortened to Yeshua. Our
disagreement, then, lies with whether or not this same form was used
over 500 years later in naming the Son of Yahweh. Thomas doesn’t
seem to have so much of a problem with shortening the name as he does
with allowing such a “messed up” form to be given to the Son of the Most
High:
I wish to express that I do not believe it was
wrong of someone to shorten the name of Yahushua son of Yahutsadak to
"Yeshua". The Messiah's name is certainly of higher importance due to
the scriptural reasons I set forth at the beginning of the post. The
name "Yeshua" (technically meaning 'Salvation', not 'he is salvation')
is certainly not inherently evil.[8]
The above is an excerpt from a commentary that Thomas submitted to a
forum discussion back in 1999. We thus see that Thomas doesn’t
really mind the shortening of Yahushua to Yeshua, so long
as this process is not applied to the Messiah's name. Of course,
this is Thomas Martincic’s opinion; regrettably, his opinion is not
supported either by Scripture or the record of history. Thomas
does not bill himself as a Hebrew scholar, yet in the above commentary,
as he also does in his “Why Yahushua?" study, he nevertheless asserts
himself as though he is an expert in Hebrew semantics. A novice
Bible student would likely form the impression that Thomas is a Hebrew
scholar. As we are about to see, Mr. Martincic inadvertently
exposes his lack of expertise in Hebrew semantics by drawing a biased
conclusion that clashes with the conclusion shared by qualified Hebrew
scholars.
In the above 1999 commentary, Thomas asserted that “Yeshua” technically
means “Salvation,” not “He is Salvation.” Coming from a
non-Hebrew scholar, we would expect him to back up his commentary with
evidence supported by experts in the Hebrew language. However, he
chose not to do so.
Now, in 2011, Thomas attempts to malign the meaning of “Yeshua,”
asserting that it doesn’t even mean “salvation” at all! Here is
what he now writes:
Now, some claim that Yeshua
ישׁוע
is a pure Hebrew word which isn't
derived from "Yahushua" at all, but that it is a Hebrew word meaning
"Salvation". The problem with that is the Hebrew word for "Salvation"
is notישׁוע
(yeshua) at all! The Hebrew word for "Salvation" is
word number #3444.
We find the above commentary to be very strange. First, Thomas
mentions that some folks claim Yeshua (ישׁוע)
is a pure Hebrew word which isn't derived from “Yahushua” at all.
In all our years of studying the issue of the Messiah’s name, we have
never heard anyone make this claim. Where did Thomas hear of it?
He doesn’t share his source, so we are left to take his word for it.
Mr. Martincic proceeds to take another giant leap by declaring that Yeshua doesn’t even mean “salvation.”
We find it interesting
that someone who takes such leaps in asserting themselves as experts in
Hebrew would go from writing that Yeshua means “salvation” (in
1999) to declaring that it doesn’t mean “salvation” at all (in
2011). Does Thomas really
know whatישׁוע
means? Why has this “expert” in
Hebrew semantics deviated from believing thatישׁוע
means “salvation” to now insisting that it doesn’t?
The name Yeshua, as exhibited by the Strong’s Concordance
listing that Thomas supplied above, means “He will save.”
“Salvation,” then, is inherent in the meaning of this word. Thomas
disagreed with the meaning supplied by Strong’s back in 1999 and
now he believes “salvation” should be completely removed from
consideration as a possible meaning for this name! Does Thomas really believe he is more qualified in Hebrew semantics than James
Strong, who compiled Strong’s Concordance? That is the impression we are left with.
We might think that Thomas really does know something that James Strong
didn’t if it weren’t for the fact that other Hebrew scholars also clash
with Mr. Martincic’s conclusion.
In addition to being at odds with James Strong, Thomas's conclusion that
Yeshua doesn’t carry the meaning “salvation” contradicts the
explanation offered by Benjamin Davidson, author of The Analytical
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. We might ask if Thomas Martincic is
more qualified in Hebrew semantics than Benjamin Davidson.
Davidson’s lexicon presents the name Yeshua as meaning “he
shall be a deliverance, i.e. deliverer.”[9]
Please note that “deliverer” is synonymous with “savior.”
According to
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, this
same name is presented alongside the long forms
יהושׁוע
andיהושׁע
and means “′י
is salvation.”[10]
As we demonstrated earlier, the Hebrew “י”
is used to represent the name “Yahweh.” Contrary to what some
folks may believe, it is no worse to use the abbreviatedי
as a
designation of Yahweh’s name than it is to use the abbreviated
יהו.
The above-listed authorities on Hebrew semantics, in stark contrast to
Thomas Martincic, hold that the meaning of “salvation” is inherent in
the Hebrew name
ישׁוע. We hope
you understand why we put more stock in the meaning as presented by
these Hebrew scholars as opposed to the meaning offered by Thomas
Martincic (a.k.a. “EliYah”), who is not a qualified Hebrew scholar.
This is not to say that June and I are qualified Hebrew scholars;
however, as we have demonstrated, those who are qualified are in
agreement that ישׁוע does indeed mean “He will save.”
I would go a step further and state that since the yod is the
abbreviation used to represent Yahweh's name,
ישׁוע
actually means "Yahweh is salvation."
First-century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria also bears witness
to the ancient understanding that “salvation” is inherent in the name Yeshua. In his treatise titled “On the Change of Names,” Philo
explains that this name means “the salvation of the Lord.”[11]
What makes Philo’s commentary so interesting is the fact that he never
used the form Yahushua in his writings. Philo wrote in
Greek and used the Greek form ᾿Ιησους
(Iesous, pronounced Yey-soos). Many Sacred Name
believers utterly reject the form᾿Ιησους
as an outright butchering of the form Yahushua. While we
understand their concern, it can be demonstrated that the Greeks were
only transliterating the form Yeshua within the limited
parameters of their language, which doesn’t have a “sh” sound, and
masculine names generally end in an “n” or an “s.” The resulting
form, pronounced Iesous, is not such a distorted rendering when
viewed from this perspective.
For Philo to write that᾿Ιησους
means “salvation of the Lord” is significant in that this first-century
author, who was a contemporary with the Messiah, understood that the
name ישׁוע does
indeed carry the intrinsic meaning of salvation. Even more
significant is the fact that Philo, while not using the Tetragrammaton
in his writings, regarded the form ᾿Ιησους
as meaning “salvation of Yahweh.” Remember, when Moses changed the
nameהושׁע
(Hoshea) to
יהושׁע
(Yahushua), all he did was add a yod to transform a name
meaning “salvation” to a name that means “Yahweh is salvation.”
Thus, it is reasonable to believe that Philo saw the Tetragrammaton in
the name᾿ Ιησους,
which means he in turn saw it in the form Yeshua (ישׁוע).
The Wikipedia article “Names of Jesus and his family” echoes this
same understanding:
By the time of the 1st century, many were
interpreting this (the Messiah’s name) as "Yahweh saves" or "May Yahweh
save." This understanding is attested in the work of the philosopher
Philo:
"Joshua [Ιησους] means 'the salvation [σωτηρία] of the Lord.'"
This popular etymology is also implied in Matthew 1:21.[12]
Please bear in mind that the Greek language makes no distinction between
the long form and the short form of the name
יהושׁע. Both forms are rendered
᾿ Ιησους. While we
appreciate Thomas Martincic’s apparent desire to honor our Heavenly
Father to the extent of incorporating the first three letters of the
Tetragrammaton into His Son’s name, his bias does not seem to allow him
room to see that even a first-century scholar contradicts his
understanding of Hebrew semantics. Although Thomas is not really a
Hebrew scholar, he once again expounds on Hebrew linguistics as though
he is—this time incorporating the modern Hebrew vowel points into his
argument:
Take a look again in the above lexicon graphic and
see the differences between 3442/3443 and 3444. They are:
· There is an additional Hebrew letter at the end (the
"Heh").
ישׁוע
uses
the silent (but anciently guttural) "Ayin" letter to end the word, but
#3444 ends in the letter "Heh". While vowel letters under both words
indicate they have have a similar sounding ending, the different
spelling indicates they are two different words.
·
In #3444 (Yeshuwah) there is a different vowel pointing
under the first Hebrew letter (Yod [remember Hebrew reads from right to
left]). 3442/3443 (YESHUA) has 2 horizontal dots underneath the
first letter like this: יֵ.
These two horizontal dots represent the Hebrew
vowel point
"Tsere" (pronounced Tsey-rey) which produces the "ey" sound as in the
English word "Hey". But #3444 has two vertical dots
underneath the first letter like this
יְ. The two
vertical dots represent
the Hebrew vowel point "Sheva" which is a very short "e", somewhat like
our "E" sound in the word "Average" (Check the first page of your
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon for verification of this).
Incidentally, the
יְ
(Sheva) is also the vowel point used by the scribes in "Yehoshua"
and it is why you will sometimes see "Yehoshua" or "Yeshua" written as "Y'hoshua"
and "Y'shua". The purpose of the ' is to indicate
the presence of the sheva vowel point in Hebrew. But as you can see,
"Yeshua" does not contain that vowel point at all. "Yeshua" uses the "Tsere"
Hebrew vowel point which produces an "ey" sound. So Yeshua and Y'shuah
are actually pronounced differently. The Strong's Lexicon indicated
this when it gave the pronunciation of
ישׁוע
as 'yay-shoo-ah',
but #3444 as 'yesh-oo-aw'.
So the name "Yeshua" and the Hebrew word "Y'shuah"
are not the same. "Yeshua" is the Aramaic form of "Yahushua" and "Y'shuah"
is the Hebrew word for "Salvation". Therefore, in spite of what some
may say, I find no evidence to suggest that
ישׁוע
("Yeshua") means "Salvation" in Hebrew. "Yeshua" is actually not an
authentic Hebrew word meaning "salvation". For it to mean "Salvation"
it would have to have the Hebrew letter "heh" added to the end of it,
changing the spelling toישוע
(Yod Shin
Waw Ayin Heh) and it would need to have the
יְ
"Sheva" vowel point under the Yod. These things further indicate
that "Yeshua" isn't from Hebrew, but is an Aramaic form of "Yahushua".
All the above commentary amounts to is the testimony of a non-qualified
Hebrew student who now asserts his position based on Hebrew vowel
points, which weren’t even contrived until their appearance during the
Middle Ages by the Masoretes. Thomas somehow manages to
incorporate his “vowel point reasoning” into his argument and conclude,
contrary to the meanings specifically listed by James Strong, Benjamin
Davidson and The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English
Lexicon,
that ישׁוע
doesn’t really mean “salvation” or “He will save.” Certainly,
those Sacred Name adherents who agree with Thomas’s bias can be expected
to jump on his bandwagon, which explains why the Sacred Name believer
that I mentioned earlier called my attention to Mr. Martincic’s article.
Having thus presented his position from a biased, ill-founded premise,
Thomas Martincic offers the following conclusion:
Since the Heavenly Father's name (Yahweh) is a
Hebrew name, I would not expect to see His Son's name coming from some
other language, whether it be Greek, Latin, Aramaic or English. I
realize that the other forms seem to be more popular, but "Yeshua" is no
more correct than "Iesous." If neither of these languages do it right,
why not return to the original and correct form?
In response to Mr. Martincic’s conclusion, I feel I should point out
that we have established that, in fact, the form
ישׁוע, pronounced
Yeshua (or as
Thomas points out, “yay-shoo-ah”) is indeed a
Hebrew name, which is shortened from the longer form
יהושׁע.
Regardless of the Aramaic influence, this shortened form had the
blessing of Yahweh insofar as being used in reference to Joshua son of
Nun (Neh. 8:17), and the historical evidence supports that this same
shortened form was also used in reference to the Son of Yahweh.
Like it or not, this form appears in the Hebrew Matthew documents.
The study of the Messiah’s name is really not very complicated, but
Sacred Name believers such as Thomas Martincic seem intent on making it
that way. The record of Scripture, combined with historical
evidence, support the understanding that the Son of the Most High was
given the name ישׁוע at
birth. Thomas says, “No, that can’t be right becauseישׁוע
isn’t a
Hebrew name – it’s Aramaic!” That would be like saying, “Joseph
isn’t a Hebrew name, it’s English!” Those who check out the origin
of the name
Joseph understand that, yes, the way it is pronounced bears the
results of English influence, but it really is a Hebrew name that
has been handed down to us.
In our
full-length study, we cover many of the same points
addressed here, as well as all the other arguments that Thomas raises in
support of his belief that the only possible name for the Messiah is Yahushua.
__________________________________________________
1 For references
substantiating that Hoshea means “salvation,” please consult
Cruden’s Complete Concordance,
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon
and The Expositor‘s Bible
Commentary, Vol. 2, Frank E.
Gæbelein, Gen. Editor, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI,
1990, p. 806. Other references list such meanings as “help” and
“deliverer.”
2
Thomas Martincic’s study, “Why Yahushua?” can be accessed online at
the following URL: http://www.eliyah.com/yahushua.html.
3
Cf., Thomas Martincic’s article titled “Why the Heavenly Father's
name is pronounced, ‘Yahweh.’” This article may be read in its
entirety by accessing the following URL: http://www.eliyah.com/proof.htm.
4
A. H. Sayce, The "Higher Criticism" and the
Verdict of the Monuments, 7th
Edition, Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, England,
1910, pp. 87-88.
5
From
“What
is the Proper Name of the Creator of the Universe?”
published on Sunday, 24 February 2008. This article was originally
accessed at the following web address:
http://jewsandjoes.com/yhvh-yhwh-ha-shem-the-great-name.html.
Although the author
does not give his name, the web site owner goes by the pseudonym
“Hanok ben Isaak.” NOTE: As of 2022, the jewsandjoes.com
website no longer exists; the article has since been moved
here and has been renamed "What is
the Proper NAME of the Most High (YHVH)?"
6 From Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar,
Translated by Benjamin Davies, LL.D, Ira Bradley & Co., Boston, MA,
1880, p. 26.
7
From a posting that Thomas Martincic submitted under the screen name
“EliYah” on his EliYah’s Forums web site on 11-28-1999. The name of
the forum topic was “Name of Our Messiah,” which may be accessed at
the following URL: http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/001600.html.
8
From a posting that Thomas Martincic submitted under the screen name
“EliYah” on his EliYah’s Forums web site on 12-08-1999. The name of
the forum topic was “Name of Our Messiah,” which may be accessed at
the following URL: http://www.eliyah.com/forum2/Forum1/HTML/001600-4.html.
9 Cf., The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,
by Benjamin Davidson, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1986
(orig. published in 1848), p. 354.
10
Cf., The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew-English Lexicon, by Francis
Brown, D.D., D.Litt., with the cooperation of S. R. Driver, D.D.,
Litt.D. and Charles A. Briggs, D.D., D.Litt., Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, MA, 1979 (orig. published in 1907), p. 221.
11
Cf, The Works of Philo
by Philo of Alexandria, “On the Change of Names,” ch. XXI (122).
12
Wikipedia
article “Names of Jesus and his family,” cited 07/22/2011. The
article, as of that date, could have been read in
its entirety by accessing the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Jesus_and_his_family#cite_note-0.
The article has since been renamed
"Brothers of Jesus" and the quote has been removed.
Back to
Ponder Scripture Newsletter Archives
|
|
