New Research Sees Correlation Between Violent Bible Passages and Aggression

February 27, 2007 -
In what is likely to be a controversial finding, a team of researchers reports a correlation between violent sciptural passages and real-life aggression.

The research, which may have implications in the ongoing debate over the effects of video game violence, was conducted in part at Utah's Brigham Young University. As reported by the Deseret News:
a study of 490 students — 248 of them at Brigham Young University — suggests a correlation between exposure to scriptural violence that is condoned by God and increased aggression.

University of Michigan psychologist Brad Bushman, BYU professor Robert Ridge and three other researchers co-wrote "When God Sanctions Killing," which will appear in the March issue of Psychological Science magazine.

Ridge was careful to point out that the study was not meant as an attack on biblical writings:
We were not saying that reading the scriptures is bad, but we were pointing out that if a person was seeing that kind of (violent) literature, it could have some negative effects... when you think about terrorists and they say, 'God will sit in judgment,' and they sometimes refer to a scripture, our question was, 'Could that really make a person behave more aggressively?' And the answer is, yes, it could.

In the study, student volunteers were shown bible passages containing references to violent acts such as rape, beatings and murder. Half of the survey group were then shown an additional passage indicating that God sanctioned violent retribution. Those who were given this additional information responded with increased aggression in a subsequent measurement.

The Deseret News reports that the researchers believe their findings are consistent with other studies which show correlation between aggression and violent movies, music and video games. On this point, Ridge said:
We're not saying that just in and of itself violent media is uniformly bad but oftentimes there is no redeeming context to it...  But if a person dives into (a violent passage) without the context, you could probably get some increased aggression.

Among the researchers involved in the scriptural violence study, Dr. Bushman has prior background with research on aggression and violent video games. In 2005 he was a member of the American Psychological Association's Committee on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media. That group issued an oft-cited report linking violent games to increased aggression.

Comments

Now this is actually possible, because people believe whats in the Bible (and the Koran), they dont believe whats in a video game.

As an LDS college student and gamer, I'd like to high-five the guys who did this study.

I'm a complete an utter pacifist, I've never fought back in a fight, and I go out of my way to resolve conflicts, even when some would say it's none of my business, and I try to live my life as in harmony with my religious beliefs as possible.

I also love first-person shooters, blowing up cars and capping zombies as much as the next gamer, and I've been playing games my whole life. So it always bothers me when these studies pop up telling me that after an hour of playing Burnout online, I'm statistically going to start driving down the wrong side of the highway and drift into a pole.

I'm not an idiot. I know what a gun can do, I know that there's no reset button to life, and if I snap and start shooting my classmates, there was a lot more messed up about my life than playing DOOM.

So, yeah, Kudos you crazy Mormon psychologists. I know exactly whats contained in the referenced scriptures, and I completely understand the point of the study. It's not the violence, it's the context. If you plop a person into a room and show them a three-minute montage of people's heads exploding, then, yes, they're going to get agitated. It doesn't matter if the media it comes from (be it a video game or religious scripture), without knowing more about the story, it's just violence. This can be extended to explain why it is that violent people like violent entertainment.

Basically, if a boy grows up in a home with abusive parents, gets made fun of at school, and knows only anger and frustration, then, yes, violent media has a negative effect on him. But that's because all they know is violence. They're one-sided, and they don't know that there's anything in the world besides guns and hurting people. Unless they're also exposed to the opposites in life (caring, compassion, charity), then the world to them is nothing but a stupid hole for people to suffer and die. Of course they're going to go nuts and start killing people.

At least... that's just my opinion.

Consider this... there are some things in the Bible that would be in contrast to the wording of some of the anti-game bills:

Depictions of extreme violence directed at a human being: Read those chapters about the crucifixion again, about nails through the hands and being poked in the lungs with spears.

Unrealistic depictions of violence and the consequences of violence: An apostle cuts off a roman's ear and the J-man magically re-attaches it as if it was never severed... Miracle? I call it a health pack. But I do usually play the medic/healer class.

Unrealistic depictions of death and the consequences of death: It took him 3 days, but Jesus respawned! Totally unrealistic!

Freaking Bible thumpers pushing their "Holy" porn on children.

Please, won't someone think of the children!!!! Stop them from reading this awful book.

@Berg

Those were my thoughts also, though I'm not certain it was intended as a satirical study, more as a look into the very large impact that religion has on the world, both to the benefit and defecit of people.

I suppose where I stand is..

Do I believe in God : Yes
Do I believe in Evolution : Yes
Do I believe in the Bible : No. No God is small enough to fit in a book.

So I don't class myself as Christian, but I do count myself as Religious, I just don't worrying about fairy tales or tracing Gods' family tree etc, it's always when you add the 'human factor' that religion gets dangerous.

I'm pretty sure we didn't evolve complex brains because God intended us to not use it and simply go by what was in a 2000-4000 year old book, written by people with a concept of the world which is now 2000-4000 years old.

Anyway, back on the subject, yes, I think this study was intended as serious, but, quite frankly, anyone who cannot see the irony in the situation must have fried frontal lobes ;)

About people listing the Pulp Fiction quote, IIRC that is from a Sonny Chiba movie, not the bible.

Dear illspirit (what a fitting name, really),

Dude, you seem a little thin skinned, but don't let the clue fly over your head while getting all defensive over nothing.

If you wish, I could do some REAL religion (you could even suggest the religion to bash...how about Taoism?) bashing, but since that wasn't really the point in the first place, why bother, you wouldn't get it even then.

This almost sounds more like a satirical study to make fun of similar video game studies.
Now all we need to do is wait for the next school shooting, and make sure to report that a bible was found in the kids house.
Then they can just stop the investigation, as clearly the kid killed people because of all the bible reading he did.
Anyone up for the media-whore anti-bible Miami lawyer role?

And you guys who mentioned Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, don't forget the bible quoting sniper in Saving Private Ryan.

@Pixelantes Anonymous-

"I’d LOVE to see the Christian moralists attacking video games based on the SAME type of evidence explain this. I’d love to see them argue themselves into a corner."

Newsflash: This study was done by "Christian moralists!" BYU is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But don't let things like facts get in the way of your religion bashing...

*sight*

So does this mean that the Bible creates killers? Well the news is fuul of accounts where bible zealots went on a killing spree so I guess JT and the NIMF would have to say "yes it does".
But we in the videogame community have more than two orbitting brain cells and are well aware that these bible zealots were mentally screwed to begin with. Using the bible, or a videogame, as a justification for killing is always a symptom of a distressed mind, not a cause.

I don't know why a lot of people here are slamming the study. No, I don't believe religion makes people violent, but those who feel video games make people violent are always of the so-called "religious" crowd. Look at JT, or look at Joe Lieberman, or even look at the PTC. These are people who claim the studies on video games convinced them that games are harmful, yet always come to the defense of religion. Because of this study, they are going to have to choose a side. They either claim that religion too is "harmful" to children and ought to be regulated, or they claim this study on religion is flawed, and therefore would make the studies done on video games flawed as well (since they are basically identical studies).

So I like this study, not because I believe the study is flawless (which of course, isn't), but because the people who slam video games won't have a leg to stand on, either way they look at it.

Also, "context" is something these anti-gamers always use as an excuse because they feel the things that they like are ok, but the things that they don't like (e.g. video games) are not ok in regards to context. Remember, these are the same people who claim kids are young, vulnerable, impressionable, cannot even tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and their brains aren't fully developed and wired properly, yet somehow these kids are able to understand the context in which the violence is being portrayed? It's a miracle!

Hahhahaha, this is just hilarious.

I'd LOVE to see the Christian moralists attacking video games based on the SAME type of evidence explain this. I'd love to see them argue themselves into a corner. If they were logical, they'd move to ban bibles. But of course they won't do that. They will instead point out all the positive sides to religion, the bible and reading the bible. Gee...I wonder if there's a lesson learned from there...

Anyone with half a brain understands being exposed to violence will cause an aggressive emotional response (we're all human, after all), which is exactly what this study measured.

Anyone with half a brain also understands that doesn't CAUSE people to actually PERFORM violent acts as morons like Jack Thompson (and his bank account) want us all to believe.

Whoever did this study...well done indeed!

Pixelantes Anonymous
*raises my coffee*

I think a valid point is its not the violence or the issues dealt in what you read but how a person handles it what dose one do with that extra "energy" gained from it,a poorly taught child or teen will express that "energy" in a less refined manner,this falls strongly on parenting and personal responsibility,because both of these are not easy to fix some people want to scape goat the content they read.

Perhaps because tis a religious text telling people to be Aggressive for god yet they skipping the passages about being lawful and following the law of man....

and for everyone to say that context blah blah bible teacher the right context blah blah.

One can read a story and and gain understanding from it at the same time NOT becoming a character in a book and breaking the law.

Fiction dose not make criminals or insane people however the bible is not fiction persay its guide to faith and foundation of a popular religion the dim can think they are doing gods work doing the most horrible crimes.


my point being EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT a game is the same as a movie or book and the bible is a book as well to blame the "crime" on the matrail read is to take things out of context.

Tacophiliac
do tell what mainstream game teaches that?I know of no rape,and its not murder when you someone is trying to kill you.

While we are at it lets ban all non religious media because it dose not "teach"...

normally i would say that this dosn't matter, but considering that the bible is supposed to be the law handed down by "god" i would think it is every theist's duity to read the bible cover to cover and see what it's actually saying.

I agree with AgonThalia. This study is pointless with regards to the issue of violent video games because the authors of the study gave them an out. It says right in the article that violence is bad when it's not framed in the proper context. I think very few people who are against video gaming are going to agree with the argument that the bible is improper context.

What we're going to get is people pointing to this study and saying that even the bible can cause violence, but at least it teaches a moral lesson framed in the proper context. Video games, on the other hand, just teach murder and rape.

It's ever so ironic that this takes place in Utah.

I wonder if the senators there will be jumping up and down trying to create a counstitutional law to "protect children" from violent religious exposure, or will they play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".

But, I stand as I do in regards to those video game "studies". The study doesn't discern the various forms of aggression. Anger, frustration, zealous furvor, and so on. And all the varieties of each of those that also affect aggressive feelings.

I also find it ironic (and I truly believe unplanned) placement of the story just above a PTC story. Now, there needs to be a story about "You know who", especially one with a "Warrior for God" quote, above this one and I'll be laughing for the next week. :)

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

@Brokenscope

not quite, not quite... remember this study isn't just covering ANY form of media, this study is covering the holy bible. The last thing a a vote grabbing politician is gonna do is attack the bible. an honest politician with true concerns might use this study, but the ones we are up against are the ones who are just in it for the votes. And when it comes down to it, where "protecting children" from violent games gains votes, "protecting children" from the bible is a good way to get blasted. No politican on the anti-game side is gonna want to touch this study.... cencorship/regulation of the bible is something that very few politicians would get behind, even though it actually isn't really a book for children.

[...] Interestingly ample, University of Michigan professor Brad Bushman, a leading critic of video game violence, plus found links amidst Biblical violence and real-life aggression in a 2007 study. [...]

Also, if you think about it, the comparison actually does not discourage regulating video games but the opposite: anything deemed harmful to children (which, according to the comparison includes the Bible and video games) should be regulated.

Published in
Catholic Digest
January 1992
vol.32,no.6

The Mystery of the Magi



How Yeshu’a become Jesus


page 17
How
Yeshu’a
become
Jesus

By:JOSEPH STALLINGS

We usually don’t think about it, but our Lord’s name was not always Jesus. It was in fact originally the popular Aramaic name Yeshu’a.
.
In first century Judea and Galilee, the name Yeshu’a was very common and shared fifth place with Eleazar (Lazarus) in popularity as a name for Jewish men. The most popular male names at that time were Shime’on (Simon), Yosef (Joseph), Yehuda (Judah or Judas) and Yochanan (John).

In the Holy Land at the time of Christ, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew in everyday conversation, but Hebrew remained the holy language and was used in worship and daily prayers. The rabbis also used Hebrew when instructing their disciples. The two languages were closely related, however, as close as Italian is to Spanish, and both used the same alphabet.

Yeshu’a was the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name Yehoshu’a (Joshua), and means “Yahweh saves”.

Throughout Christ’s lifetime in Galilee, Samaria and Judea of course the name Yeshu’a presented no problem for those who spoke Aramaic and read the Bible and prayed in Hebrew. But outside the Holy Land it become a different story as Good News spread.

The Gentiles of the Roman Empire spoke Greek and Latin and simply could not pronounce Yeshu’a. It contained sounds that did not exist in their language. When the Gospels were written in Greek, therefore, the Evangelists had a real problem regarding how they might render our Lord’s name into acceptable Greek.

The initially ‘Y’ (Hebrew and Aramaic letter ‘yod’) was easy. The Evangelists could use the Greek letter ‘iota’, written ‘I,’ since it was pronounced like the ‘y’ in yet.

The next sound was a vowel, and that was a little more difficult. Unlike Greek, all the letters of the Aramaic-Hebrew alphabet are consonants. The marks for the vowels were not invented until some centuries after Christ and were simple dots and dashes, placed above or beneath the letters. At the time of Christ apparently, the first vowel in our Lord’s name was pronounced like the ‘a’ in gate. And the Evangelists believed they could approximate that sound by using the Greek letter ‘eta’. (The capital Greek letter looks just like our English letter H).

Then followed the first of two almost insurmountable problems with Hebrew and Aramaic pronunciation. There was no letter for the ‘sh’ sound in the Greek alphabet. Such a familiar name as Solomon was actually Sh’lomo in Hebrew, Samson was Shimson and Samuel was Sh’mu-El. Like the Greek translators of these Old Testament Hebrew names, the Evangelists used the Greek sigma (s) for the Hebrew shin (sh) when rendering Christ’s name.

The first three Greek letters ‘iota’, ‘eta’, and ‘sigma’, moreover came to be used in early Byzantine religious art as an abbreviation of Jesus name. As they look very much like the Latin letters HIS, the letters were adapted in Western European religious paintings and church architecture as a symbol for Christ’s name.

The next letter in the Aramaic name Yeshu’a was the Hebrew letter ‘waw’, which here represents the sound ‘oo’, as in too. It was easy for the Evangelists to duplicate this sound in Greek. It takes two letters, however, the omicron (o) and upsilon (u).

But that easy substitution was followed by the biggest problem of all: the final ‘a’ sound. In Greek, there was no substitute for the Hebrew letter ‘aiyin’. Though the ‘aiyin’ has no sound of its own, it causes the vowel that it controls to be pronounced deep in the throat. The Greek couldn’t do that, and neither could the Romans when speaking in Latin. Usually, a Greek or Roman would pronounce an ‘aiyin’-controlled ‘a’ like the ‘a’ in father.

A final ‘a’ on a name however was most commonly feminine in both Greek and Latin. Thus it was decided to drop the Hebrew ‘aiyin’ completely and replace it with the final Greek sigma (s) which most often indicates the masculine gender in nouns.

Throughout the Roman Empire then our Lord’s Aramaic name Yeshu’a, had become the Greek name Iesous, pronounced yeh-SOOS. And this remained Christ’s name throughout the Roman Empire as long as Greek remained the dominant language.

But after some centuries Greek lost its favored position and Latin took its place. In the last quarter of the fourth century, the Bible was translated from Greek into Latin by *St. Jerome who had no trouble rendering the Greek Iesous into Latin, it became Iesus. The accent, however, was moved to the first syllable and the name pronounced YAY-soos, since the Romans liked to accent the second from the last syllable.

In about 14th century, in the scriptoria of the monasteries where Bibles were copied by hand, Monks began to elongate the initial ‘I’ of the words into a ‘J’. (The pronounciation remained the same-like the ‘y’ in yet but the Monks thought a ‘J’ looked better). Probably the first Monks to do this were Germans because the letter ‘j’ in that language sounds the same as the ‘y’ in English. The name Iesus, consequently, evolved into the familiar written form of Jesus by the 17th century. Everyone still pronounced it YAY-soos, however, as it was in the official liturgical Latin.

Way back in the fifth and sixth centuries, some pagan Germanic tribes called the Angles and Saxons invaded England. St Augustine of Canterbury came to convert them to Christianity in A.D.396. Of course St. Augustine established Jerome’s Latin translation as England’s official Bible. The Anglo-Saxon learned that our Lord’s official Latin name was Iesus. Naturally the Germanic Anglo-Saxon converted the initial Latin ‘I’ into the German ‘J’. They pronounced the name, however, as YAY-zoos, since a single ‘s’ between two vowels is sounded like our ‘z’ in Germanic languages.

When the Normans invaded England in A.D.1066 they brought with them the French language. Since neither the Anglo-Saxons nor the Normans would surrender their language to the other, the two become wedded and eventually evolved into Modern English.

The Normans did influence the pronunciation of the first letter of Our Lord’s name, though, they brought the French pronunciation of ‘j’ (jh), which evolved into our English sound of ‘j’.

When King James commissioned the first official translation of the Bibles into English in the early 17th century, the Latin Jesus was carried over unchanged into the new English Bible. The average English citizen of the day probably pronounced the name JAY-zus which ultimately evolved into our modern English JEE-zus.

The long process was now complete. A name that began as the Aramaic Yeshu’a would remain written in English as it was in Medieval Latin, but now would be pronounced in English speaking countries as the familiar and loving name of the One who is our Savior, JESUS.

• Eusebius Hieronymus A.D.347 – A.D.419






The Letter J in our Alphabets

The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:
“The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J, I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J, I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.”

The New Book of Knowledge reads:
“J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, is the youngest of the 26 letters. It is a descendant of the letter I and was not generally considered a separate letter until the 17th century. The early history of the letter J is the same as the history of the letter I. I is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter yod and the Greek letter iota” (Vol. 10, 1992 ed.).
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language says about the J:
“The tenth letter of the English alphabet developed as a variant form of I in Medieval Latin, and except for the preference for the J as an initial letter, the two were used interchangeably, both serving to represent the vowel (i) and the consonant (y). Later, through specialization, it came to be distinguished as a separate sign, acquiring its present phonetic value under the influence of the French.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, under “J,” offers additional information:
“J, a letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! Jung, & c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are of foreign (mostly French) origin, as ‘jaundice,’ ‘judge’”…(p.103).
Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia (1979 edition), volume 14, page 94 under “J,” states:
“J, the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet. It is the latest addition to the English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after I, from which it was developed, just as V and W follow U, the letter from which they arose. In form, J was originally merely a variation of I; J appeared first in Roman times, when it was used sometimes to indicate the long i vowel sound, but was often used interchangeably with I. The Romans pronounced I as a vowel in some words, such as iter, and as a semi-vowel in others, for example, iuvenis, spelled presently juvenis. The only difference in spelling, however, was the occasional use of double i for the y sound for example, in maiior, spelled presently major. In the Middle Ages the elongated form (j) was used as an ornamental device, most often initially and in numeral series; many old French manuscripts indicate the numeral 4 by the letter sequence iiij. The use of j as an initial led ultimately to its specialized use to indicate both the old semi-vowel sound y, found in German, and the new palatal consonant sounds (z) and (dz), found in French, Spanish and English. Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611, for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge. Long after the invention of printing, j thus became more than a mere calligraphic variation of i (which in Latin could be either vowel or semi-vowel), and, j became restricted to a consonantal function.
“In English, j has the composite sound of d + zh, as in journal. In French, on the other hand, the zh sound alone is given the letter, as in jour; German has retained the original y sound of the Latin i consonant, as in jahr; and Spanish has introduced a new sound resembling a guttural ch, as in Jerez. In Middle English, before the differentiation of i and j, the combination gi was sometimes used to represent the dzh sounds, such as in Giew for Jew, and in modern times the soft g is used for the same sound, as in general…”
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary confirms how the J developed from the I and became a consonant only a few centuries ago:
“J, j (ja), n. 1. The tenth letter of the English alphabet: formerly a variant of I, i, in the seventeenth century it became established as a consonant only, as in Julius, originally spelled Iulius.”
The letter J was often used instead of the letter I, especially at the beginning of a word. This became common in the 1600s (World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 1995 ed). Medieval scribes added a tail to the second I when two I’s appeared together. Because a beginning I almost always has a consonant sound, the long form, J, came to be used generally for the consonant sound of the letter (New Book of Knowledge).
It became necessary to distinguish between the J and the I when the dictionary came into being. In the seventeenth century, the dictionary’s appearance forced a consistent spelling. Using either I or J became mandatory to ensure proper alphabetical positioning. Owing to this close kinship with I, J was inserted immediately following I in our English alphabet.
Note the substantiating comments on the J from the Encyclopedia Americana:
“It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of ‘Y’ (as in maior, pronounced ‘mayor’).
“At a later state, the symbol ‘J’ was used for the distinctive purposes, particularly when the ‘I’ had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another ‘I’). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of ‘Y’ (as in Year) so that the Latin pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was as though the spelling was ‘Yanuarius.’ While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), ‘J’ has the phonetic value of ‘Y.’”
We discover, then, that the letter J derived from the vowel letter I and originally had the same sound as the vowel I. That is why the lower case j still has a dot over it. The letter I represents the Greek iota (I), which usually corresponds to the Hebrew yothe (Y as in yes). The letter J has a Y sound (as in “hallelujah”) in Latin, German, and Scandinavian languages. In Spanish, J is an aspirate, having the sound of H.
The J was first pronounced as the I at the time of the introduction of the printing press. Dutch printers fostered utilizing the J, especially at the beginning of a word. The letter J eventually acquired its own sound. It was the French who gave the letter J the present sound of the soft letter g as in “large” or “purge.” In Latin, German, and other languages the J is pronounced more like Y with an “ee” sound. The Spanish J is more like an aspirant as in San Jose. Some old European maps still show the spelling of countries like Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) or Sowjet (Soviet) Russia. It is only in the last century that the letter J has firmly taken on the French pronunciation as in joy or journal.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary (1936) reinforces the fact of the early relationship of the letter J to I:
“As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with ‘I,’ both letters having originally the same sound and after the ‘J’ sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.”
Oscar Ogg’s books, The 26 Letters, which gives a history of each letter of the English alphabet, explains how the J, along with the U and W, were the last to be added to the alphabet:
“The three missing letters, J, U and W, were not used by the Romans at all. U and W developed from V about a thousand years ago, and J developed from the letter I about five hundred years ago,” p. 106.
As already confirmed, most of our American vocabulary employing the letter J stems from the French. Nearly all words containing the letter J in English are pronounced as in French, such as journal or major, although French has a considerably softer pronunciation of J than English. In Spanish the J is more of an h aspirate as in “San Jose.”
After development of the letter J, the Savior’s Name was changed by the translators to Jesus, but continued to be pronounced much like the letter Y. However, the pronunciation of the J soon changed completely from its former “yee” sound to our present “juh” through French influence.
In Latin the J was pronounced as a Y. Even today, the German tongue, among others, pronounces the J like a Y (July – Yulee; Ja = Ya; Major in German is pronounced as “mayor;” June is “Yunee”). Note the comments of author F.F. Bruce in his The Books and the Parchments: “In the English Bible, Hebrew proper names with yod are represented with j, which in modern English has quite a different sound from y. Thus ‘Jehovah-jireh’ would have been pronounced in Hebrew something like Yahweh yeereh” (footnote, p. 40).
In his book, Story of the Letters and Figures, Hubert M. Skinner provides an excellent summation of the discordant transformation inflicted on the Savior’s Name:
“In some way, various modern peoples who received the J from the Romans have lost the original sound, and have substituted something very different. We retain the former sound in our word ‘hallelujah,’ but we generally give the letter the disagreeable soft sound of G. Yod is the initial of the name Jesus. It is unfortunate that a name so dear and so sacred is pronounced in a manner so different from that of the original word. The latter sounded very much as if it were Yashoo-ah, and was agreeable to the ear. Our sounds of J and hard S are the most disagreeable in our language, and they are both found in our pronunciation of this short name, although they did not exist in its original,” pp. 122-123.
The Name of Our Savior Has Letter J
Often heard in the churches of our land is the refrain sung about the Savior, “There’s something about that name…” In our English-speaking world we have been taught that the saving name of the Redeemer of Israel is “Jesus.” So accepted is this name that few stop to consider its authenticity. But the truth is, there is indeed “something about that Name.” That “something” is the inescapable fact that the Savior’s name is not Jesus, and never was. What’s more, the Name of the Heavenly Father is not Jehovah, a designation that is only five centuries old.
Churchianity has so thoroughly immersed the world in the error of this tradition for the past 500 years that few even think to research the matter or to consider the consequences of calling on the wrong name. As a result, most continue believing that the Hebrew Savior is called by a Latinized Greek name that could not possibly have existed at the time He walked the earth. It’s a name that would have been completely foreign to Him.
Eminent French historian, scholar, and archaeologist Ernest Renan acknowledges that the Savior was never in His lifetime called “Jesus.” In his book, The Life of Jesus, Renan doubts that the Savior even spoke Greek (p.90). Greek was mostly the language of business and commerce in cosmopolitan circles.
As for the Father’s Name, the hybrid “Jehovah” came into existence through the ignorance of Christian writers who did not understand the Old Testament Hebrew. Credit for the error is given to Petrus Galatinus, confessor to Pope Leo X in the 16th century.
Modern scholarship recognizes “Yahshu’a” as the best rendition for the Name of the Savior, while “Yahweh” is the closest transliteration for the Name of the Creator as found in ancient Scriptural manuscripts. In returning as nearly as we can to the Bibles’ original language and meaning, we come to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the truths contained within it.
As we will learn, the Father and Son’s revealed, personal Names are the foundation on which other vital, salvation truths rest. It was not without reason that Yahweh established the foundation of the Ten Commandments with the clear declaration of His sacred Name: “I, Yahweh, am your Elohim…” Exodus 20:2. Our Savior, as well, opened His Model Prayer with the words, “hallowed be Thy Name.” Yahweh devoted the Third Commandment to warn of the sin of taking His Name in vain (a meaning that includes bringing His Name to uselessness, as has been done for centuries), Exodus 20:2, 7. Our Redeemer’s Name is critically important as well, or else our Creator would not have inspired the writer of Acts to proclaim, “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12.
Back to the Basic Truths of the Bible
It should be evident to anyone that through time and tradition, observances change, are added to, and also lose some of what they first had. This is especially true of the worship originally practiced in the Bible. Our primary goal as True Worshipers should be to return to fundamental truths, like His true Name, once known and taught by the early Assembly but that have been neglected or ignored through the centuries. Shouldn’t this be the desire of every sincere Bible believer—to worship in ALL truth? Why go only halfway, or put another way, why continue worshiping partly in error?
Jude 3 speaks directly to us: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” This original faith as practiced in the early New Testament Assembly is being restored now, just before the Savior Yahshu’a returns to earth. Acts 3:21 say the heaven must receive the Savior until the time of restitution of all things. “Restitution” is the Greek apokatastasis and means re-establish from a state of ruin.
Foundational to this original truth being restored by believers in the Name of Almighty Yahweh is the identity of the One we worship. Nothing in existence is more holy than the Father and His personal, revealed Name Yahweh. Paul wrote that Yahweh has given His Son a Name that is above every name, Philippians 2:9. The prophet Malachi tells us that if we will not give glory unto the Name of Yahweh that He would send a curse upon us (2:2).
With a sense of gravity of the Sacred Name, let’s examine why any substitute name employing the letter J is erroneous on its face. We will look at the facts and the overwhelming evidence and carefully evaluate our findings, using numerous sources revealing the truth. Much of the information we cite here is readily available in your public library, or found in references you may even have at home. We urge you to look into this important issue and prove it for yourself.
The ‘J’: A Letter Come Lately
Among the many reasons that both “Jesus” and “Jehovah” are erroneous is the simple fact that they begin with the letter J, the most recent letter added to our English alphabet. The Savior’s name could not begin with the letter J because it did not exist when He was born –not even a thousand years later! All good dictionaries and encyclopedias show that the letter J and its sound are of late origin.
A chart on both the Hebrew and Greek alphabet is found on page 48 in this booklet. Take special note that there is no letter equivalent to J in either Hebrew or Greek even today. Here are what major references tell us about the J and its development:
The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:
“The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J, I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J, I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.”
The New Book of Knowledge reads:
“J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, is the youngest of the 26 letters. It is a descendant of the letter I and was not generally considered a separate letter until the 17th century. The early history of the letter J is the same as the history of the letter I. I is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter yod and the Greek letter iota” (Vol. 10, 1992 ed.).
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language says about the J:
“The tenth letter of the English alphabet developed as a variant form of I in Medieval Latin, and except for the preference for the J as an initial letter, the two were used interchangeably, both serving to represent the vowel (i) and the consonant (y). Later, through specialization, it came to be distinguished as a separate sign, acquiring its present phonetic value under the influence of the French.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, under “J,” offers additional information:
“J, a letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! Jung, & c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are of foreign (mostly French) origin, as ‘jaundice,’ ‘judge’”…(p.103).
Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia (1979 edition), volume 14, page 94 under “J,” states:
“J, the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet. It is the latest addition to the English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after I, from which it was developed, just as V and W follow U, the letter from which they arose. In form, J was originally merely a variation of I; J appeared first in Roman times, when it was used sometimes to indicate the long i vowel sound, but was often used interchangeably with I. The Romans pronounced I as a vowel in some words, such as iter, and as a semi-vowel in others, for example, iuvenis, spelled presently juvenis. The only difference in spelling, however, was the occasional use of double i for the y sound for example, in maiior, spelled presently major. In the Middle Ages the elongated form (j) was used as an ornamental device, most often initially and in numeral series; many old French manuscripts indicate the numeral 4 by the letter sequence iiij. The use of j as an initial led ultimately to its specialized use to indicate both the old semi-vowel sound y, found in German, and the new palatal consonant sounds (z) and (dz), found in French, Spanish and English. Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611, for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge. Long after the invention of printing, j thus became more than a mere calligraphic variation of i (which in Latin could be either vowel or semi-vowel), and, j became restricted to a consonantal function.
“In English, j has the composite sound of d + zh, as in journal. In French, on the other hand, the zh sound alone is given the letter, as in jour; German has retained the original y sound of the Latin i consonant, as in jahr; and Spanish has introduced a new sound resembling a guttural ch, as in Jerez. In Middle English, before the differentiation of i and j, the combination gi was sometimes used to represent the dzh sounds, such as in Giew for Jew, and in modern times the soft g is used for the same sound, as in general…”
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary confirms how the J developed from the I and became a consonant only a few centuries ago:
“J, j (ja), n. 1. The tenth letter of the English alphabet: formerly a variant of I, i, in the seventeenth century it became established as a consonant only, as in Julius, originally spelled Iulius.”
The letter J was often used instead of the letter I, especially at the beginning of a word. This became common in the 1600s (World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 1995 ed). Medieval scribes added a tail to the second I when two I’s appeared together. Because a beginning I almost always has a consonant sound, the long form, J, came to be used generally for the consonant sound of the letter (New Book of Knowledge).
It became necessary to distinguish between the J and the I when the dictionary came into being. In the seventeenth century, the dictionary’s appearance forced a consistent spelling. Using either I or J became mandatory to ensure proper alphabetical positioning. Owing to this close kinship with I, J was inserted immediately following I in our English alphabet.
Note the substantiating comments on the J from the Encyclopedia Americana:
“It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of ‘Y’ (as in maior, pronounced ‘mayor’).
“At a later state, the symbol ‘J’ was used for the distinctive purposes, particularly when the ‘I’ had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another ‘I’). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of ‘Y’ (as in Year) so that the Latin pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was as though the spelling was ‘Yanuarius.’ While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), ‘J’ has the phonetic value of ‘Y.’”
We discover, then, that the letter J derived from the vowel letter I and originally had the same sound as the vowel I. That is why the lower case j still has a dot over it. The letter I represents the Greek iota (I), which usually corresponds to the Hebrew yothe (Y as in yes). The letter J has a Y sound (as in “hallelujah”) in Latin, German, and Scandinavian languages. In Spanish, J is an aspirate, having the sound of H.
The J was first pronounced as the I at the time of the introduction of the printing press. Dutch printers fostered utilizing the J, especially at the beginning of a word. The letter J eventually acquired its own sound. It was the French who gave the letter J the present sound of the soft letter g as in “large” or “purge.” In Latin, German, and other languages the J is pronounced more like Y with an “ee” sound. The Spanish J is more like an aspirant as in San Jose. Some old European maps still show the spelling of countries like Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) or Sowjet (Soviet) Russia. It is only in the last century that the letter J has firmly taken on the French pronunciation as in joy or journal.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary (1936) reinforces the fact of the early relationship of the letter J to I:
“As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with ‘I,’ both letters having originally the same sound and after the ‘J’ sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.”
First Letter of the Sacred Name is Y
As we have shown, the J came from the letter I. The New Book of Knowledge shows the letter I (hence the J as well) derived from the Hebrew yothe (y), which is the first letter of the name of Yahweh (hwhy, YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton or “four letters”; Hebrew is read from right to left). It is also the first letter of the name Yahshu’a. The letter I (yothe or yod) in Hebrew carries the sound of “ee” as in “police.”
The King James Version and other Bibles employ the Latinized-Greek “Jesus.” But the facts of etymology prove that this cannot be His true name. If the King James and other Bibles are in error in calling the Savior “Jesus,” how did the error come about? And how can we determine exactly what that precious Name is?
The fact is, the first copies of the 1611 King James Bible did not use the letter J (see production at top). And no evidence is found to show that the letter I had the consonantal sound of J. This has been shown in the New Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia:
“Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611 for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge.”
Oscar Ogg’s books, The 26 Letters, which gives a history of each letter of the English alphabet, explains how the J, along with the U and W, were the last to be added to the alphabet:
“The three missing letters, J, U and W, were not used by the Romans at all. U and W developed from V about a thousand years ago, and J developed from the letter I about five hundred years ago,” p. 106.
As already confirmed, most of our American vocabulary employing the letter J stems from the French. Nearly all words containing the letter J in English are pronounced as in French, such as journal or major, although French has a considerably softer pronunciation of J than English. In Spanish the J is more of an h aspirate as in “San Jose.”
After development of the letter J, the Savior’s Name was changed by the translators to Jesus, but continued to be pronounced much like the letter Y. However, the pronunciation of the J soon changed completely from its former “yee” sound to our present “juh” through French influence.
In Latin the J was pronounced as a Y. Even today, the German tongue, among others, pronounces the J like a Y (July – Yulee; Ja = Ya; Major in German is pronounced as “mayor;” June is “Yunee”). Note the comments of author F.F. Bruce in his The Books and the Parchments: “In the English Bible, Hebrew proper names with yod are represented with j, which in modern English has quite a different sound from y. Thus ‘Jehovah-jireh’ would have been pronounced in Hebrew something like Yahweh yeereh” (footnote, p. 40).
In his book, Story of the Letters and Figures, Hubert M. Skinner provides an excellent summation of the discordant transformation inflicted on the Savior’s Name:
“In some way, various modern peoples who received the J from the Romans have lost the original sound, and have substituted something very different. We retain the former sound in our word ‘hallelujah,’ but we generally give the letter the disagreeable soft sound of G. Yod is the initial of the name Jesus. It is unfortunate that a name so dear and so sacred is pronounced in a manner so different from that of the original word. The latter sounded very much as if it were Yashoo-ah, and was agreeable to the ear. Our sounds of J and hard S are the most disagreeable in our language, and they are both found in our pronunciation of this short name, although they did not exist in its original,” pp. 122-123.
‘Jesus’: A Word Out of Place and Time
The Bible clearly reveals that salvation is available in only one name: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The name the angel gave to Hebrew-speaking Mary and Joseph was Yahshu’a, meaning “Salvation of Yah.”
This original Name has been made a hybrid by translators and changed to the Latinized, Grecianized name Jesus – a name that came into our language about the time of Christopher Columbus. The following Biblical study references clearly explain that “Jesus,” used in place of the Savior’s true Name Yahshu’a, is erroneous. (Some of these references correctly show the Y or I superior to the Mistaken J.)
Þ Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: “Import of the Name. –There can be no doubt that Jesus is the Greek form of a Hebrew name…Its original and full form is Jehoshua (Num. 13:16). By contraction it became Joshua, or Jeshua; and when transferred into Greek, by taking the termination characteristics of that language, it assumed the form Jesus” (vol. 4, pp. 873-874).
Þ The Anchor Bible Dictionary: “Jesus [Gk. Iesous]. Several persons mentioned in the Bible bear this name, which is a Greek form of Joshua (Heb. Yehosua; cf. the Gk of Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8)…’Jesus Christ’ is a composite name made up of the personal name ‘Jesus’ (from the Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yesu(a), a late form of Hebrew yehosua, the meaning of which is ‘YHWH is salvation’ or ‘YHWH saves/has saved’)…” (III, p. 773).
Þ The Anchor Bible (note on Matthew 1:1): “Jesus. The word is the Greek rendering of a well-known Hebrew name. It was Yahoshu first, then by inner Hebrew phonetic change it became Yoshua, and by a still northern dialectal shift, Yeshua. The first element, Yahu (=Yahweh) means ‘the Lord,’ while the second comes from shua ‘To help, save.’ The most probable meaning is ‘O Lord, save.’” (Vol. 26, p.2)
Þ The New International Dictionary of The Christian Church: “Jesus Christ, The Founder of Christianity bore ‘Jesus’ (the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua) as His personal name; ‘Christ’ (Gk. Christos, ‘anointed’) is the title given Him by His followers…” (p.531).
Þ Mercer Dictionary of the Bible: “Jeshua: An Aramaic form of the name Joshua, meaning ‘Yahweh is salvation.’ It occurs only in postexilic biblical literature, which supports the later origin of the name. Joshua, the son of Nun, is referred to in one passage as Jeshua (Neh. 8:17)” (p.444).
Þ Newberry Reference Bible (on Matt. 1:24): “Jesus, Heb. Joshua, or Jehoshua. Compare Num. 13:8, 16, where ‘Oshea,’ verse 8, signifying ‘Salivation,’ is altered in v.16 to ‘Jehoshua,’ ‘the Salvation of Jehovah,’ or ‘Jehovah the Savior.’”
Þ The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: “Jesus (Iesous) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Joshua’ (ucwhy, Yehoshua) meaning ‘Jehovah is salvation.’ It stands therefore in the LXX and Apoc for ‘Joshua,’ and in Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8 likewise represents the OT ‘Joshua.’ In Mt. 1:21 the name is commanded by the angel to be given to the son of Mary, ‘for it is he that shall save his people from their sins…It is the personal name of the L-rd in the Gospels and in the Acts…’” (Vol. 3, p.1626).
Þ The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary: “The given name Jesus means ‘savior,’ it is the Greek equivalent of Jeshua (Heb. Yesua, from yehosua ‘Yahweh saves’ [=Joshua]. Christ is the title, indicating that he is the ‘anointed one,’ the Messiah from Hebrew masiah).” …”Jeshua (Heb. Yesua ‘Yahweh is salvation’)” (p.573).
Þ The Bible Almanac: “The name Jesus (which is identical with Joshua and means ‘God is Savior’) emphasizes His role as the Savior of His people (Mat. 1:21). Christ is the New Testament equivalent of Messiah, a Hebrew word meaning ‘anointed one’…” (p.522).
Þ Holman Bible Dictionary: “Jesus Christ: Greek form of Joshua and of title meaning ‘Yahweh is salvation’ and ‘the anointed one’ or ‘Messiah.’” (p.775).
Þ New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, “OT Iesous is the Gk. Form of the OT Jewish name Yesua, arrived at by transcribing the Heb. And adding an –s to the nominative to facilitate declension. Yesua (Joshua) seems to have come into general use about the time of the Babylonian exile in place of the older Yehosua. The LXX rendered both the ancient and more recent forms of the name uniformly as Iesous. Joshua the son of Nun, who according to the tradition was Moses’ successor and completed his work in the occupation of the promised land by the tribes of Israel, appears under this name…It is the oldest name containing the divine name Yahweh, and means ‘Yahweh is help’ or ‘Yahweh is salvation’ (cf. the verb yasa, help save). Joshua also appears in one post-exilic passage in the Heb. OT (Neh. 8:17) as Yesua the son of Nun, and not as in the older texts, Yehosua” (Vol. 2, pp.330-331).
Þ The Classic Bible Dictionary (Jay P. Green), page 633, under Jesus: “Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Joshua,’ meaning ‘Jehovah is salvation.’ It stands therefore in the LXX and Apocrypha for ‘Joshua,’ and in Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8 likewise represents the OT Joshua.”
Author Green also comments on the Greek word “Christ:” “Christ (Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah, meaning anointed.”
Thus we see that the Savior’s name as well as the descriptive title “Messiah” have been undermined and appear in Greek in changed form. Our Savior has been stripped of His Israelite roots.
Þ The SDA Bible Dictionary, page 565: “Jesus Christ [Gr. Iesous] (a transliteration of the Aramaic Yeshua, from the Heb. Yehoshua, ‘Joshua,’ meaning ‘Yahweh is Salvation’), Christos (a translation of the Heb. Mashiach, ‘Messiah,’ meaning anointed or anointed One).] The English form ‘Jesus’ comes from the Latin.”
Þ In Strange Facts About the Bible, author Garrison notes on page 81: “In its English form, ‘Jesus’ goes back to church Latin Iesus which is a transliteration of the Greek Iesous. But in its original Hebrew form it was Y’hoshu’a (‘Yahweh saves’), frequently abbreviated to Joshua…”
Þ Ian Wilson’s Jesus: The Evidence, says on page 66; “’Yeshua’, as Jesus would actually have been addressed, means ‘God saves’, and is merely a shortened form of the more old fashioned ‘Yehoshua (‘Joshu’a’ of the Old Testament).”
Þ New Bible Dictionary (edited by J.D. Douglas) reads under Jesus: “The name Jesus is not strictly a title for the person who bore it. It is, however, a name with a meaning, being a Greek form of ‘Joshua’, i.e. ‘Yahweh is salvation’. The NT writers were well aware of this meaning (Mt. 1:21). The name thus indicated the function which was ascribed to Jesus, and this later found expression in the title Saviour…” (p.584).
Þ Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary: “Jesus –The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel.”
Þ Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion: “Jesus (The Name) –Matthew’s Gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, ‘For He will save His people from their sins.’ This agrees with its popular meaning as ‘Yahweh saves…’” p. 1886.
Þ A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings: “Jesus –the Greek form (uoshIs) of the name Joshua (ucwhy) or Jeshua. Jeshua – Yahweh is salvation or Yahweh is opulence” (pp.603-602).
Þ New International Dictionary of the Christian Church: “Jesus Christ, The Founder of Christianity bore ‘Jesus’ (the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua) as His personal name; ‘Christ’ (Gk. christos, ‘anointed’) is the title given Him by His followers…” (p. 531).
All of these authorities and scholars agree. His name is not the Latinized Grecianized name “Jesus,” but reflects His Hebrew heritage and the mission He was given to save His people through the Name of the Heavenly Father Yahweh.
So how did He end up with the name so many erroneously call on today?
Greek Not the Original New Testament Language

Very early in history, even before the Messiah, Greek had become a world language. Alexander the Great conquered the lands east and south of Greece, establishing Hellenistic culture and society as far as the Indus River and south into Egypt.
The koine or common Greek dialect prevailed, becoming dominant in the wake of Alexander’s exploits. Greek survived the ravages of Roman persecution, as well as the crusades, and continued to be spoken up to the time of the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean area.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Rome crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E. The Roman army destroyed anything Jewish, especially religious scrolls and books, including their Torah. This was followed by the Catholic inquisitions in Europe, eradicating anything Jewish. The crusaders made fair game of the Jews, ruthlessly destroying any vestiges of Hebrew writings.
Thus, between the suppression carried out by the Romans and the later Crusades, any Hebrew copies of both Old and New Testament writings were lost. Only Greek copies survived. Neither are there any original Hebrew Old Testaments manuscripts, only copies of copies of copies.
An increasing number of competent Bible scholars now agree with scholar Charles Cutler Torrey (Documents of the Primitive Church) that the New Testament in whole or part was first written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek.
In the September 12, 1986 issue of The Washington Times, David Bivin notes that Yahshu’a, like His contemporaries, most likely spoke Hebrew, Bivin, the director for the Jerusalem School for the Study of the Gospels, also believes that the original account of the life of Yahshua was written in Hebrew, not Greek of Aramaic. In addition, he and his Jerusalem scholars agree that by considering the Evangels Hebraic, many textual difficulties are cleared up, strongly suggesting that the Evangels were first written in Hebrew.
Even Martin Luther recognized the Hebrew roots of the New Testament. He wrote in Tischreden, “Although the New Testament was written in Greek, it is full of Hebraisms and Hebrew expressions. It has therefore been aptly said that the Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the stream that flows from it, and the Latins from the downstream pool” (translated by Pinchas E. Lapide in Hebrew in the Church, p.10).
Where is the justification for changing the Savior’s Name? Even in a Greek context, there is no J or J sound in the Koine or in any Greek dialect known. The Greek New Testament of the Bible provides the basis for our present Latin and English translations. Obviously the J came from another source, as Greek has no phonetic equivalent of the letter J in its 24 characters of the alphabet. Neither does Hebrew. The words judge, journal, jack, jam, jet, jog, etc., likely would all be spelled beginning with the Greek iota (English I) and would be pronounced as “ee.” In English the letter j would be replaced by the letter i. We would read iudge, iournal, iack, iam, iet, iog, etc. Some orthographers would prefer that these examples begin with today’s letter y instead of i.
We cannot ignore the fact that there was no letter J in ANY language until around the 15th century, and therefore must conclude that the name “Jesus” never existed before 500 years ago. Let us not forget that we read from a Hebrew Bible. It is the account of Yahweh’s dealing with His people Israel. Yahweh spoke to a people who understood Hebrew. Yahweh is the Mighty One of the Hebrews. Remember also that there was no Jew before the time of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. So the Sacred Name is not Jewish.
The seeker of truth must not shy from the Hebrew roots of true Biblical faith, for we are children of Abraham, a Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). Hebrew means to “cross over,” and we are to “cross over” the falsity and error of this world and join in pure worship of Yahweh and His Son Yahshu’a.

Savior’s Name Explained in Bible Versions
Inspired Scripture calls attention to a singular Name wherein rests our eternal salvation.
The following Bible versions have these footnote explanations on Matthew 1:21, the verse where the angel tells Joseph (Yowceph) what to name the Redeemer of mankind:
• “’Jesus’ (Hebr. Jehoshua) means ‘Yahweh saves’”—The Jerusalem Bible.
• “’Jesus’ is the Greek form of Joshua, which means ‘the Lord saves’” –New International Version.
• “’Jesus,’ from the Greek form of a common Hebrew name (Joshua) derived from yasha, ‘he saves’” –Harper Collins Study Bible
• “She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, [which means ‘Adonai saves’], because he will save his people from their sins” –Jewish New Testament, David Stern, translator.
• “Heb. Yoshia, reflected in the name Yeshua (Gr. Jesus)” –The Original New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield.
• “Jesus: The Greek form of ‘Jeshua’….The full significance of the name ‘Jesus’ is seen in the original ‘Yehoshua,’ which means ‘Jehovah the Savior,’ and not merely ‘Savior,’ as the word in often explained” –Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech.
• “Jesus Christ. The name ‘Jesus’ is from the Greek (and Latin) for the Hebrew ‘Jeshua’ (Joshua), which means ‘the Lord is salvation.’ ‘Christ’ is from the Greek for the Hebrew ‘Meshiah’ (Messiah), meaning ‘anointed one’”—Ryrie Study Bible
• “Jesus, Yeshua, meaning ‘Jehovah Is Salvation’” –The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
The following commentaries add their observations on the Savior’s Name:

¨ Matthew Henry’s Commentary (on Matthew 1:21): “Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek.”
¨ Interpreter’s Bible (Note on Matthew 1:21): “Jesus for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means “Yahweh is salvation.”
¨ Barnes’ Notes (Note on Matthew 1:21): “His name Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where it means Joshua, the leader of the Jews [Israel] into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should not have been retained.”

The prefix Yah is the short or poetic form of YAH-weh the Heavenly Father’s Name as found in HalleluYAH and in names of many Biblical personalities, as we will see. Thus, the Savior’s Name begins with the prefix “Yah” that begins the name of Yahweh, as revealed in Psalm 68:4: “Sing unto Elohim, sing praises to his name: extol him that rides upon the heavens by his name JAH [YAH], and rejoice before him.” “Shua,” the last part of the Savior’s Name, carries the primary meaning of “salvation.” Thus, Yahshua means “the salvation of Yah.”
When Israel crossed over the Red Sea, Moses sang a song of thanks to Yahweh in Exodus 15. The saving name appears in verse 2, “Yah is become my salvation,” which was to be Yahshua!
The following reasons clearly show why the name Jesus could never have been the Savior’s Name:
Þ There is no letter J or equivalent in Hebrew.
Þ There is no letter J or equivalent in Greek.
Þ There was no letter J in English until about 500 years ago.
Þ “Jesus,” an etymological hybrid from Greek and Latin, has no inherent, etymological meaning in Greek or Latin, not to mention Hebrew or English.
Þ Joseph (“Yowceph” in Hebrew), a Hebrew and a Jew, was told by the angel Gabriel that Mary (Miriam), a Jewess, would give birth to One Who would “save His people Israel from their sins,” Matthew 1:21. Only the Hebrew name “Yahshua” means “Salvation of Yah” (“Yah”shua). He Himself said that He is come in His Father’s Name (“Yah”weh/”Yah”shua) and “you receive me not,” John 5:43.
Þ Mary, a Hebrew, was told the same thing that Joseph was, Luke 1:31.
Þ Would a celestial being announce the coming Savior to Jews who spoke Hebrew (or Aramaic), proclaiming a Romanized, Grecian name beginning with a letter J that did not exist, but would originate in a European tongue 1500 years later? Remember it was to Israel, a Semitic people who spoke and understood Hebrew, that His saving Name was first revealed.
Þ Would HEBREW parents give their baby a hybridized GREEK name devoid of any meaning – especially such an important name that would identify the very Savior of the world?
How Did ‘Yahshu’a’ Become ‘Jesus’?
It is necessary that we understand the prefix “YAH” has come to us in the form “YEH” (a type of which is found in “Yeshu’a” commonly used for Yahshu’a). It is also manifest in the names JEHovah and Jesus.
Almost any scholarly reference work will acknowledge that Rabbinic tradition has suppressed the true Name Yahweh centuries before the Messiah came at Bethlehem. Writing Yahweh’s Name in the Hebrew, Jewish scribes inserted a shewa (:) instead of the proper qamets (T), thus changing the vowel sound “ah” in “Yah” to “eh.” This was done to conceal the sacred Name, thus yielding the improper Yehovah and Yeshua.
This is practiced even today by such groups as the Jews for Jesus, who contend that “Y’shua’ is the Jewish way to say “Jesus.” This may have been done to avoid offending the Jews and their proscription against even the short form YAH.
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary clearly shows the erroneous vowel pointing of YAH to YEH in the first column of page 48 where the resulting “YEH” is obvious. In every name in this column, a shewa (:) appears under the Hebrew letter yod (y:), and the pronunciation given following the Hebrew spelling begins with the prefix “YEH.”
Using the “e” instead of the proper “a” is another ploy of the Adversary to do away with the family Name YAH, the first syllable of both Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s Name.
This explains how the “e” came about in the name Jesus. The next letter in Jesus, s, results from the fact that Greek has no “sh” sound, only “s” (sigma) sound. This was incorporated into the Latin text. The “u” in Jesus comes from the u in Yahshua. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains, “Iesous is the Greek form of the Old Testament Jewish name Yesua [Yahshua], arrived at by transcribing the Hebrew and adding an s to the nom. to facilitate declension.”
The final “s” in “Jesus” is the Greek nominative masculine singular ending. Matthew 1:8-11 contains the genealogy of Joseph’s line, where we can find similar examples of “s” added to produce Greek-inflected Hebrew names: Uzziah becomes Ozias; Hezekiah becomes Ezekias; Jonah becomes Jonas, etc. The errors that we find among names in most versions can be traced to translators. The early Christian translators relied upon the Greek translation called the Septuagint as their source of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is it not significant that even though these Hebrew names were Grecianized, that they still are recognizable? Why then in English versions does Yahweh’s Name become changed to a completely foreign “God,” while “Yahshua” mutates into “Jesus,” a substitute that is not even close to the original?
Why the change, when even the name of the Adversary – Satan – retains its original Hebrew form and close pronunciation? (Saw-tawn, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary No. 7854).
Adam Clarke’s respected comments on the inferior early translations are informative: “Through the ignorance and carelessness of transcribers innumerable mistakes have been made in ancient names. These also have suffered very greatly in their transfusion from one language to another, till at last the original name is almost totally lost…Besides, neither the Greeks nor Romans could pronounce either the Hebrew or Persian names; and when engaged in the task of transcribing, they did it according to their own manner of pronunciation,” Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 393-394. Clearly, some over-zealous scribe tampered with the text of the King James Bible and what we have is a New Testament in which the Name of Yahshua has been adulterated and almost obscured.
For an example of this, look at Acts 7:45 in the King James Version. The sentence reads, “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles whom [Elohim] drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.” But the account is actually speaking of the Old Testament Joshua, the son of Nun!
Another example is found in Hebrews 4:8, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Many study Bibles will have notes on these two verses pointing out that the more correct name is JOSHU’A the son of Nun.
Certain translations other than the King James have corrected this error and inserted “Joshua” in the text. Thus, we can see that this name is the same as that given by Moses to his successor in Numbers 13:16. It is also the name of the Savior (corrected with the “Yah”). This shows how the translators overzealously changed all the “Yahshua’s” to “Jesus”—even when it referred to someone in the Old Testament not the Savior.
Go to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and peruse page 47, taking special note of the second name from the top of the right column, No. 3050, YAHH. Notice this is the correct spelling and pronunciation of the short form YAH and includes the qametes under the yod: (3050. Yahh, yaw).
Although author James Strong is noted for his classic concordance, his understanding of the Name was lacking and he used the erroneous Jehovah. However, his is correct in listing No. 3050 YAHH, spelling it with the vowel a instead of e and the double hh to bring out the “ahh” sound.
The importance of the short form YAHH takes on additional significance when we read John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name….” We understand this to mean that He came in the authority and power of the Heavenly Father. Yet, we must understand that His Name Yahshua also included His Father’s Name, YAH. It is the short form, the prefix of the Name Yahshua! (Followers of Yahshua will be carrying that Name in the Kingdom, Eph. 3:14-15; Dan. 9:19).
The custom of reading a substitute name when the Tetragrammaton was encountered in the Hebrew Scriptures was carried over into the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX (Septuagint). The translation was said to have been made by seventy Hebrew translators for the King of Egypt who wanted a copy of this great book of the Hebrews for the grand library of Alexandria in Egypt. The letters LXX (meaning “70”) are often used as an abbreviation for the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
In making the Greek translation, the copyists inserted the four characters of the Tetragrammaton in gold letters of the Hebrew, namely hwhy, wherever the name Yahweh was to appear. However, the pronunciation was pointed with the vowels of Adonai. After the death and resurrection of the Messiah, there arose a demand for a Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament by the expanding church. These early translators were not skilled in the Hebrew language, and actually detested the Jews and refused to learn the Aramaic or Hebrew tongue. They were ignorant of Hebrew and were often ridiculed by the Jews for their ludicrous pronunciation of Hebrew.
And What About ‘Jehovah’?

Scholars know that Jehovah could never be the name of the Heavenly Father. Aside from the error with the letter J, this word has other problems. Even the Catholics, who have been given the distinction of inventing the word “Jehovah,” know it is not the Father’s Name.

Note what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says under “Yahweh”: “Judging from Greek transcriptions of the sacred name, YHWH ought to be pronounced Yahweh. The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown in ancient Jewish circles, and is based upon a later misunderstanding of the scribal practice of using the vowels of the word Adonai with the consonants of YHWH,” p. 1065.

In the preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is the following: “The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” pp. 6-7.

In the introduction to The Emphasized Bible, editor Joseph Rotherham writes, “The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, against grammatical and historical propriety.” Rotherham continues his analysis of this ghost word, “Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowel in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for YHWH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name…To give the name YHWH the vowels of the word for Lord (Heb. Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah, is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal –viz., Gormuna” (pp.24-25).

Perhaps the best explanation of how the word Jehovah came about is made in the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary. A photocopy of its entry on “Jehovah” is shown at the top of the page.

The sacred Name was deemed too holy to pronounce. Either because of this fact or because its four letters are also employed as vowels, the Masoretes did not vowel point the Tetragrammaton. Instead, the vowel points for “Adonai” were inserted, alerting the reader to say “Adonai” rather than blurting out the sacred Name Yahweh. Along came Christian scholars in late medieval times who didn’t realize what had been done. Not skilled in Hebrew, they mistakenly combined these added vowels with the Tetragrammaton and the result was the hybrid combination “Jehovah.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia says about the name Jehovah, “This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form ‘Jehovah,’ which, however, is the a philological impossibility…This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai…” (p.160).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves admit that “Jehovah” is inferior to “Yahweh.” In their book, Let Your Name Be Sanctified (p.16), they quote the Roman Catholic translator of The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures, saying, “I should have preferred to write ‘Yahwh,’ in which, although not certain, is admittedly superior to ‘Jehovah,’”

On page 17 of this same book the Jehovah’s Witnesses write, “In harmony with the practice that had developed among the superstitious, the vowel signs for Elohim or for Adonay were inserted at the accustomed places in the text to warn the Hebrew reader to say those words instead of the divine name. By combining those warning vowel sings with the Tetragrammaton the pronunciation Yahowih and Yehowah were formed.”

Then on page 20 they quote the Lexicon for the Books of the Old Testament, by Koehler and Baumgartner, under the Tetragrammaton: “’The wrong spelling Jehovah (Revised Version: The LORD) occurs since about 1100,’ and then it offers its arguments in favor of Yahweh as ‘the correct and original pronunciation.’”

In the foreword of their Bible, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (published by the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), they say on page 25:

“While inclining to view the pronunciation ‘Yahweh’ as the more correct way, we have retained the form ‘Jehovah’ because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century.

In our search for truth we must retrace our steps and boldly proclaim His true Name, and not follow tradition or erroneous understanding.
Biblical Names Reveal the Person
Our culture today looks on names as little more than labels, although we still talk about having a “good name” and speak of being “true to one’s name.” These expressions are carryovers from a time when a name expressed and conveyed a person’s attributes and character.

In the Hebrew, Bible names all have meaning. At times Yahweh or Yahshu’a (or sometimes parents) changed the name of individuals, giving them a special name that had new meaning. For example, Abram means exalted father; later his name was changed to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude.” Isaac means “laughter” (because his mother laughed when promised a son in her old age). Jacob (Yacob) means “heel-grabber” or “supplanter,” because he supplanted his firstborn brother Esau. His name was changed to Yah-shurun (Israel), meaning “contender” or “perseveres with Yah,” when he wrestled with the angel in Genesis 32.

An eye-opening study of the names of the 12 tribes of Israel appears in Genesis chapter 29-30. Situations surrounding the birth of each of these sons is reflected in their individual names. The Hebrew Dictionary found at the back of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance provides a fascinating exercise in the meaning of names.

In his book, Our Father Abraham, Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Marvin R. Wilson writes: “In Hebrew thought, the name of an individual was considered to be more than a title or a label for identification. Rather, a name was believed to reveal the essence, character, reputation, or destiny of the one to whom it was given. This is why the moral law of Moses forbids defamation of another’s name by false witness (Ex. 20:16). Thus the name of

Published in
Catholic Digest
January 1992
vol.32,no.6

The Mystery of the Magi



How Yeshu’a become Jesus


page 17
How
Yeshu’a
become
Jesus

By:JOSEPH STALLINGS

We usually don’t think about it, but our Lord’s name was not always Jesus. It was in fact originally the popular Aramaic name Yeshu’a.
.
In first century Judea and Galilee, the name Yeshu’a was very common and shared fifth place with Eleazar (Lazarus) in popularity as a name for Jewish men. The most popular male names at that time were Shime’on (Simon), Yosef (Joseph), Yehuda (Judah or Judas) and Yochanan (John).

In the Holy Land at the time of Christ, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew in everyday conversation, but Hebrew remained the holy language and was used in worship and daily prayers. The rabbis also used Hebrew when instructing their disciples. The two languages were closely related, however, as close as Italian is to Spanish, and both used the same alphabet.

Yeshu’a was the Aramaic version of the Hebrew name Yehoshu’a (Joshua), and means “Yahweh saves”.

Throughout Christ’s lifetime in Galilee, Samaria and Judea of course the name Yeshu’a presented no problem for those who spoke Aramaic and read the Bible and prayed in Hebrew. But outside the Holy Land it become a different story as Good News spread.

The Gentiles of the Roman Empire spoke Greek and Latin and simply could not pronounce Yeshu’a. It contained sounds that did not exist in their language. When the Gospels were written in Greek, therefore, the Evangelists had a real problem regarding how they might render our Lord’s name into acceptable Greek.

The initially ‘Y’ (Hebrew and Aramaic letter ‘yod’) was easy. The Evangelists could use the Greek letter ‘iota’, written ‘I,’ since it was pronounced like the ‘y’ in yet.

The next sound was a vowel, and that was a little more difficult. Unlike Greek, all the letters of the Aramaic-Hebrew alphabet are consonants. The marks for the vowels were not invented until some centuries after Christ and were simple dots and dashes, placed above or beneath the letters. At the time of Christ apparently, the first vowel in our Lord’s name was pronounced like the ‘a’ in gate. And the Evangelists believed they could approximate that sound by using the Greek letter ‘eta’. (The capital Greek letter looks just like our English letter H).

Then followed the first of two almost insurmountable problems with Hebrew and Aramaic pronunciation. There was no letter for the ‘sh’ sound in the Greek alphabet. Such a familiar name as Solomon was actually Sh’lomo in Hebrew, Samson was Shimson and Samuel was Sh’mu-El. Like the Greek translators of these Old Testament Hebrew names, the Evangelists used the Greek sigma (s) for the Hebrew shin (sh) when rendering Christ’s name.

The first three Greek letters ‘iota’, ‘eta’, and ‘sigma’, moreover came to be used in early Byzantine religious art as an abbreviation of Jesus name. As they look very much like the Latin letters HIS, the letters were adapted in Western European religious paintings and church architecture as a symbol for Christ’s name.

The next letter in the Aramaic name Yeshu’a was the Hebrew letter ‘waw’, which here represents the sound ‘oo’, as in too. It was easy for the Evangelists to duplicate this sound in Greek. It takes two letters, however, the omicron (o) and upsilon (u).

But that easy substitution was followed by the biggest problem of all: the final ‘a’ sound. In Greek, there was no substitute for the Hebrew letter ‘aiyin’. Though the ‘aiyin’ has no sound of its own, it causes the vowel that it controls to be pronounced deep in the throat. The Greek couldn’t do that, and neither could the Romans when speaking in Latin. Usually, a Greek or Roman would pronounce an ‘aiyin’-controlled ‘a’ like the ‘a’ in father.

A final ‘a’ on a name however was most commonly feminine in both Greek and Latin. Thus it was decided to drop the Hebrew ‘aiyin’ completely and replace it with the final Greek sigma (s) which most often indicates the masculine gender in nouns.

Throughout the Roman Empire then our Lord’s Aramaic name Yeshu’a, had become the Greek name Iesous, pronounced yeh-SOOS. And this remained Christ’s name throughout the Roman Empire as long as Greek remained the dominant language.

But after some centuries Greek lost its favored position and Latin took its place. In the last quarter of the fourth century, the Bible was translated from Greek into Latin by *St. Jerome who had no trouble rendering the Greek Iesous into Latin, it became Iesus. The accent, however, was moved to the first syllable and the name pronounced YAY-soos, since the Romans liked to accent the second from the last syllable.

In about 14th century, in the scriptoria of the monasteries where Bibles were copied by hand, Monks began to elongate the initial ‘I’ of the words into a ‘J’. (The pronounciation remained the same-like the ‘y’ in yet but the Monks thought a ‘J’ looked better). Probably the first Monks to do this were Germans because the letter ‘j’ in that language sounds the same as the ‘y’ in English. The name Iesus, consequently, evolved into the familiar written form of Jesus by the 17th century. Everyone still pronounced it YAY-soos, however, as it was in the official liturgical Latin.

Way back in the fifth and sixth centuries, some pagan Germanic tribes called the Angles and Saxons invaded England. St Augustine of Canterbury came to convert them to Christianity in A.D.396. Of course St. Augustine established Jerome’s Latin translation as England’s official Bible. The Anglo-Saxon learned that our Lord’s official Latin name was Iesus. Naturally the Germanic Anglo-Saxon converted the initial Latin ‘I’ into the German ‘J’. They pronounced the name, however, as YAY-zoos, since a single ‘s’ between two vowels is sounded like our ‘z’ in Germanic languages.

When the Normans invaded England in A.D.1066 they brought with them the French language. Since neither the Anglo-Saxons nor the Normans would surrender their language to the other, the two become wedded and eventually evolved into Modern English.

The Normans did influence the pronunciation of the first letter of Our Lord’s name, though, they brought the French pronunciation of ‘j’ (jh), which evolved into our English sound of ‘j’.

When King James commissioned the first official translation of the Bibles into English in the early 17th century, the Latin Jesus was carried over unchanged into the new English Bible. The average English citizen of the day probably pronounced the name JAY-zus which ultimately evolved into our modern English JEE-zus.

The long process was now complete. A name that began as the Aramaic Yeshu’a would remain written in English as it was in Medieval Latin, but now would be pronounced in English speaking countries as the familiar and loving name of the One who is our Savior, JESUS.

• Eusebius Hieronymus A.D.347 – A.D.419






The Letter J in our Alphabets

The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:
“The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J, I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J, I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.”

The New Book of Knowledge reads:
“J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, is the youngest of the 26 letters. It is a descendant of the letter I and was not generally considered a separate letter until the 17th century. The early history of the letter J is the same as the history of the letter I. I is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter yod and the Greek letter iota” (Vol. 10, 1992 ed.).
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language says about the J:
“The tenth letter of the English alphabet developed as a variant form of I in Medieval Latin, and except for the preference for the J as an initial letter, the two were used interchangeably, both serving to represent the vowel (i) and the consonant (y). Later, through specialization, it came to be distinguished as a separate sign, acquiring its present phonetic value under the influence of the French.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, under “J,” offers additional information:
“J, a letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! Jung, & c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are of foreign (mostly French) origin, as ‘jaundice,’ ‘judge’”…(p.103).
Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia (1979 edition), volume 14, page 94 under “J,” states:
“J, the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet. It is the latest addition to the English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after I, from which it was developed, just as V and W follow U, the letter from which they arose. In form, J was originally merely a variation of I; J appeared first in Roman times, when it was used sometimes to indicate the long i vowel sound, but was often used interchangeably with I. The Romans pronounced I as a vowel in some words, such as iter, and as a semi-vowel in others, for example, iuvenis, spelled presently juvenis. The only difference in spelling, however, was the occasional use of double i for the y sound for example, in maiior, spelled presently major. In the Middle Ages the elongated form (j) was used as an ornamental device, most often initially and in numeral series; many old French manuscripts indicate the numeral 4 by the letter sequence iiij. The use of j as an initial led ultimately to its specialized use to indicate both the old semi-vowel sound y, found in German, and the new palatal consonant sounds (z) and (dz), found in French, Spanish and English. Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611, for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge. Long after the invention of printing, j thus became more than a mere calligraphic variation of i (which in Latin could be either vowel or semi-vowel), and, j became restricted to a consonantal function.
“In English, j has the composite sound of d + zh, as in journal. In French, on the other hand, the zh sound alone is given the letter, as in jour; German has retained the original y sound of the Latin i consonant, as in jahr; and Spanish has introduced a new sound resembling a guttural ch, as in Jerez. In Middle English, before the differentiation of i and j, the combination gi was sometimes used to represent the dzh sounds, such as in Giew for Jew, and in modern times the soft g is used for the same sound, as in general…”
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary confirms how the J developed from the I and became a consonant only a few centuries ago:
“J, j (ja), n. 1. The tenth letter of the English alphabet: formerly a variant of I, i, in the seventeenth century it became established as a consonant only, as in Julius, originally spelled Iulius.”
The letter J was often used instead of the letter I, especially at the beginning of a word. This became common in the 1600s (World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 1995 ed). Medieval scribes added a tail to the second I when two I’s appeared together. Because a beginning I almost always has a consonant sound, the long form, J, came to be used generally for the consonant sound of the letter (New Book of Knowledge).
It became necessary to distinguish between the J and the I when the dictionary came into being. In the seventeenth century, the dictionary’s appearance forced a consistent spelling. Using either I or J became mandatory to ensure proper alphabetical positioning. Owing to this close kinship with I, J was inserted immediately following I in our English alphabet.
Note the substantiating comments on the J from the Encyclopedia Americana:
“It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of ‘Y’ (as in maior, pronounced ‘mayor’).
“At a later state, the symbol ‘J’ was used for the distinctive purposes, particularly when the ‘I’ had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another ‘I’). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of ‘Y’ (as in Year) so that the Latin pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was as though the spelling was ‘Yanuarius.’ While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), ‘J’ has the phonetic value of ‘Y.’”
We discover, then, that the letter J derived from the vowel letter I and originally had the same sound as the vowel I. That is why the lower case j still has a dot over it. The letter I represents the Greek iota (I), which usually corresponds to the Hebrew yothe (Y as in yes). The letter J has a Y sound (as in “hallelujah”) in Latin, German, and Scandinavian languages. In Spanish, J is an aspirate, having the sound of H.
The J was first pronounced as the I at the time of the introduction of the printing press. Dutch printers fostered utilizing the J, especially at the beginning of a word. The letter J eventually acquired its own sound. It was the French who gave the letter J the present sound of the soft letter g as in “large” or “purge.” In Latin, German, and other languages the J is pronounced more like Y with an “ee” sound. The Spanish J is more like an aspirant as in San Jose. Some old European maps still show the spelling of countries like Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) or Sowjet (Soviet) Russia. It is only in the last century that the letter J has firmly taken on the French pronunciation as in joy or journal.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary (1936) reinforces the fact of the early relationship of the letter J to I:
“As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with ‘I,’ both letters having originally the same sound and after the ‘J’ sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.”
Oscar Ogg’s books, The 26 Letters, which gives a history of each letter of the English alphabet, explains how the J, along with the U and W, were the last to be added to the alphabet:
“The three missing letters, J, U and W, were not used by the Romans at all. U and W developed from V about a thousand years ago, and J developed from the letter I about five hundred years ago,” p. 106.
As already confirmed, most of our American vocabulary employing the letter J stems from the French. Nearly all words containing the letter J in English are pronounced as in French, such as journal or major, although French has a considerably softer pronunciation of J than English. In Spanish the J is more of an h aspirate as in “San Jose.”
After development of the letter J, the Savior’s Name was changed by the translators to Jesus, but continued to be pronounced much like the letter Y. However, the pronunciation of the J soon changed completely from its former “yee” sound to our present “juh” through French influence.
In Latin the J was pronounced as a Y. Even today, the German tongue, among others, pronounces the J like a Y (July – Yulee; Ja = Ya; Major in German is pronounced as “mayor;” June is “Yunee”). Note the comments of author F.F. Bruce in his The Books and the Parchments: “In the English Bible, Hebrew proper names with yod are represented with j, which in modern English has quite a different sound from y. Thus ‘Jehovah-jireh’ would have been pronounced in Hebrew something like Yahweh yeereh” (footnote, p. 40).
In his book, Story of the Letters and Figures, Hubert M. Skinner provides an excellent summation of the discordant transformation inflicted on the Savior’s Name:
“In some way, various modern peoples who received the J from the Romans have lost the original sound, and have substituted something very different. We retain the former sound in our word ‘hallelujah,’ but we generally give the letter the disagreeable soft sound of G. Yod is the initial of the name Jesus. It is unfortunate that a name so dear and so sacred is pronounced in a manner so different from that of the original word. The latter sounded very much as if it were Yashoo-ah, and was agreeable to the ear. Our sounds of J and hard S are the most disagreeable in our language, and they are both found in our pronunciation of this short name, although they did not exist in its original,” pp. 122-123.
The Name of Our Savior Has Letter J
Often heard in the churches of our land is the refrain sung about the Savior, “There’s something about that name…” In our English-speaking world we have been taught that the saving name of the Redeemer of Israel is “Jesus.” So accepted is this name that few stop to consider its authenticity. But the truth is, there is indeed “something about that Name.” That “something” is the inescapable fact that the Savior’s name is not Jesus, and never was. What’s more, the Name of the Heavenly Father is not Jehovah, a designation that is only five centuries old.
Churchianity has so thoroughly immersed the world in the error of this tradition for the past 500 years that few even think to research the matter or to consider the consequences of calling on the wrong name. As a result, most continue believing that the Hebrew Savior is called by a Latinized Greek name that could not possibly have existed at the time He walked the earth. It’s a name that would have been completely foreign to Him.
Eminent French historian, scholar, and archaeologist Ernest Renan acknowledges that the Savior was never in His lifetime called “Jesus.” In his book, The Life of Jesus, Renan doubts that the Savior even spoke Greek (p.90). Greek was mostly the language of business and commerce in cosmopolitan circles.
As for the Father’s Name, the hybrid “Jehovah” came into existence through the ignorance of Christian writers who did not understand the Old Testament Hebrew. Credit for the error is given to Petrus Galatinus, confessor to Pope Leo X in the 16th century.
Modern scholarship recognizes “Yahshu’a” as the best rendition for the Name of the Savior, while “Yahweh” is the closest transliteration for the Name of the Creator as found in ancient Scriptural manuscripts. In returning as nearly as we can to the Bibles’ original language and meaning, we come to a deeper and more accurate understanding of the truths contained within it.
As we will learn, the Father and Son’s revealed, personal Names are the foundation on which other vital, salvation truths rest. It was not without reason that Yahweh established the foundation of the Ten Commandments with the clear declaration of His sacred Name: “I, Yahweh, am your Elohim…” Exodus 20:2. Our Savior, as well, opened His Model Prayer with the words, “hallowed be Thy Name.” Yahweh devoted the Third Commandment to warn of the sin of taking His Name in vain (a meaning that includes bringing His Name to uselessness, as has been done for centuries), Exodus 20:2, 7. Our Redeemer’s Name is critically important as well, or else our Creator would not have inspired the writer of Acts to proclaim, “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved,” Acts 4:12.
Back to the Basic Truths of the Bible
It should be evident to anyone that through time and tradition, observances change, are added to, and also lose some of what they first had. This is especially true of the worship originally practiced in the Bible. Our primary goal as True Worshipers should be to return to fundamental truths, like His true Name, once known and taught by the early Assembly but that have been neglected or ignored through the centuries. Shouldn’t this be the desire of every sincere Bible believer—to worship in ALL truth? Why go only halfway, or put another way, why continue worshiping partly in error?
Jude 3 speaks directly to us: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that you should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” This original faith as practiced in the early New Testament Assembly is being restored now, just before the Savior Yahshu’a returns to earth. Acts 3:21 say the heaven must receive the Savior until the time of restitution of all things. “Restitution” is the Greek apokatastasis and means re-establish from a state of ruin.
Foundational to this original truth being restored by believers in the Name of Almighty Yahweh is the identity of the One we worship. Nothing in existence is more holy than the Father and His personal, revealed Name Yahweh. Paul wrote that Yahweh has given His Son a Name that is above every name, Philippians 2:9. The prophet Malachi tells us that if we will not give glory unto the Name of Yahweh that He would send a curse upon us (2:2).
With a sense of gravity of the Sacred Name, let’s examine why any substitute name employing the letter J is erroneous on its face. We will look at the facts and the overwhelming evidence and carefully evaluate our findings, using numerous sources revealing the truth. Much of the information we cite here is readily available in your public library, or found in references you may even have at home. We urge you to look into this important issue and prove it for yourself.
The ‘J’: A Letter Come Lately
Among the many reasons that both “Jesus” and “Jehovah” are erroneous is the simple fact that they begin with the letter J, the most recent letter added to our English alphabet. The Savior’s name could not begin with the letter J because it did not exist when He was born –not even a thousand years later! All good dictionaries and encyclopedias show that the letter J and its sound are of late origin.
A chart on both the Hebrew and Greek alphabet is found on page 48 in this booklet. Take special note that there is no letter equivalent to J in either Hebrew or Greek even today. Here are what major references tell us about the J and its development:
The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following on the J:
“The form of J was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J, I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J, I) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel. It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.”
The New Book of Knowledge reads:
“J, the tenth letter of the English alphabet, is the youngest of the 26 letters. It is a descendant of the letter I and was not generally considered a separate letter until the 17th century. The early history of the letter J is the same as the history of the letter I. I is a descendant of the ancient Phoenician and Hebrew letter yod and the Greek letter iota” (Vol. 10, 1992 ed.).
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language says about the J:
“The tenth letter of the English alphabet developed as a variant form of I in Medieval Latin, and except for the preference for the J as an initial letter, the two were used interchangeably, both serving to represent the vowel (i) and the consonant (y). Later, through specialization, it came to be distinguished as a separate sign, acquiring its present phonetic value under the influence of the French.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, under “J,” offers additional information:
“J, a letter of the alphabet which, as far as form is concerned, is only a modification of the Latin I and dates back with a separate value only to the 15th century. It was first used as a special form of initial I, the ordinary form being kept for use in other positions. As, however, in many cases initial i had the consonantal value of the English y in iugum (yoke), &c., the symbol came to be used for the value of y, a value which it still retains in German: Ja! Jung, & c. Initially it is pronounced in English as an affricate dzh. The great majority of English words beginning with j are of foreign (mostly French) origin, as ‘jaundice,’ ‘judge’”…(p.103).
Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia (1979 edition), volume 14, page 94 under “J,” states:
“J, the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet. It is the latest addition to the English script and has been inserted in the alphabet after I, from which it was developed, just as V and W follow U, the letter from which they arose. In form, J was originally merely a variation of I; J appeared first in Roman times, when it was used sometimes to indicate the long i vowel sound, but was often used interchangeably with I. The Romans pronounced I as a vowel in some words, such as iter, and as a semi-vowel in others, for example, iuvenis, spelled presently juvenis. The only difference in spelling, however, was the occasional use of double i for the y sound for example, in maiior, spelled presently major. In the Middle Ages the elongated form (j) was used as an ornamental device, most often initially and in numeral series; many old French manuscripts indicate the numeral 4 by the letter sequence iiij. The use of j as an initial led ultimately to its specialized use to indicate both the old semi-vowel sound y, found in German, and the new palatal consonant sounds (z) and (dz), found in French, Spanish and English. Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611, for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge. Long after the invention of printing, j thus became more than a mere calligraphic variation of i (which in Latin could be either vowel or semi-vowel), and, j became restricted to a consonantal function.
“In English, j has the composite sound of d + zh, as in journal. In French, on the other hand, the zh sound alone is given the letter, as in jour; German has retained the original y sound of the Latin i consonant, as in jahr; and Spanish has introduced a new sound resembling a guttural ch, as in Jerez. In Middle English, before the differentiation of i and j, the combination gi was sometimes used to represent the dzh sounds, such as in Giew for Jew, and in modern times the soft g is used for the same sound, as in general…”
Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary confirms how the J developed from the I and became a consonant only a few centuries ago:
“J, j (ja), n. 1. The tenth letter of the English alphabet: formerly a variant of I, i, in the seventeenth century it became established as a consonant only, as in Julius, originally spelled Iulius.”
The letter J was often used instead of the letter I, especially at the beginning of a word. This became common in the 1600s (World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 1995 ed). Medieval scribes added a tail to the second I when two I’s appeared together. Because a beginning I almost always has a consonant sound, the long form, J, came to be used generally for the consonant sound of the letter (New Book of Knowledge).
It became necessary to distinguish between the J and the I when the dictionary came into being. In the seventeenth century, the dictionary’s appearance forced a consistent spelling. Using either I or J became mandatory to ensure proper alphabetical positioning. Owing to this close kinship with I, J was inserted immediately following I in our English alphabet.
Note the substantiating comments on the J from the Encyclopedia Americana:
“It is one of the few permanent additions to those alphabets, made in medieval or modern times. More exactly, it was not an addition, but a differentiation from an existing letter, I, which in Latin, besides being a vowel (as in index), had also the consonantal value of ‘Y’ (as in maior, pronounced ‘mayor’).
“At a later state, the symbol ‘J’ was used for the distinctive purposes, particularly when the ‘I’ had to be written initially (or in conjunction with another ‘I’). Either symbol used initially generally had the consonantal sound of ‘Y’ (as in Year) so that the Latin pronunciation of either Ianuarius or Januarius was as though the spelling was ‘Yanuarius.’ While in some words of Hebrew and other origin (such as Hallelujah or Junker), ‘J’ has the phonetic value of ‘Y.’”
We discover, then, that the letter J derived from the vowel letter I and originally had the same sound as the vowel I. That is why the lower case j still has a dot over it. The letter I represents the Greek iota (I), which usually corresponds to the Hebrew yothe (Y as in yes). The letter J has a Y sound (as in “hallelujah”) in Latin, German, and Scandinavian languages. In Spanish, J is an aspirate, having the sound of H.
The J was first pronounced as the I at the time of the introduction of the printing press. Dutch printers fostered utilizing the J, especially at the beginning of a word. The letter J eventually acquired its own sound. It was the French who gave the letter J the present sound of the soft letter g as in “large” or “purge.” In Latin, German, and other languages the J is pronounced more like Y with an “ee” sound. The Spanish J is more like an aspirant as in San Jose. Some old European maps still show the spelling of countries like Jugoslavia (Yugoslavia) or Sowjet (Soviet) Russia. It is only in the last century that the letter J has firmly taken on the French pronunciation as in joy or journal.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary (1936) reinforces the fact of the early relationship of the letter J to I:
“As a character it was formerly used interchangeably with ‘I,’ both letters having originally the same sound and after the ‘J’ sound came to be common in English, it was often written where this sound must have been pronounced. The separation of these two letters is of comparatively recent date, being brought about through the influence of the Dutch printers.”
First Letter of the Sacred Name is Y
As we have shown, the J came from the letter I. The New Book of Knowledge shows the letter I (hence the J as well) derived from the Hebrew yothe (y), which is the first letter of the name of Yahweh (hwhy, YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton or “four letters”; Hebrew is read from right to left). It is also the first letter of the name Yahshu’a. The letter I (yothe or yod) in Hebrew carries the sound of “ee” as in “police.”
The King James Version and other Bibles employ the Latinized-Greek “Jesus.” But the facts of etymology prove that this cannot be His true name. If the King James and other Bibles are in error in calling the Savior “Jesus,” how did the error come about? And how can we determine exactly what that precious Name is?
The fact is, the first copies of the 1611 King James Bible did not use the letter J (see production at top). And no evidence is found to show that the letter I had the consonantal sound of J. This has been shown in the New Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia:
“Not until the middle of the 17th century did this usage become universal in English books; in the King James Bible of 1611 for example, the words Jesus and judge are invariably Iesus and iudge.”
Oscar Ogg’s books, The 26 Letters, which gives a history of each letter of the English alphabet, explains how the J, along with the U and W, were the last to be added to the alphabet:
“The three missing letters, J, U and W, were not used by the Romans at all. U and W developed from V about a thousand years ago, and J developed from the letter I about five hundred years ago,” p. 106.
As already confirmed, most of our American vocabulary employing the letter J stems from the French. Nearly all words containing the letter J in English are pronounced as in French, such as journal or major, although French has a considerably softer pronunciation of J than English. In Spanish the J is more of an h aspirate as in “San Jose.”
After development of the letter J, the Savior’s Name was changed by the translators to Jesus, but continued to be pronounced much like the letter Y. However, the pronunciation of the J soon changed completely from its former “yee” sound to our present “juh” through French influence.
In Latin the J was pronounced as a Y. Even today, the German tongue, among others, pronounces the J like a Y (July – Yulee; Ja = Ya; Major in German is pronounced as “mayor;” June is “Yunee”). Note the comments of author F.F. Bruce in his The Books and the Parchments: “In the English Bible, Hebrew proper names with yod are represented with j, which in modern English has quite a different sound from y. Thus ‘Jehovah-jireh’ would have been pronounced in Hebrew something like Yahweh yeereh” (footnote, p. 40).
In his book, Story of the Letters and Figures, Hubert M. Skinner provides an excellent summation of the discordant transformation inflicted on the Savior’s Name:
“In some way, various modern peoples who received the J from the Romans have lost the original sound, and have substituted something very different. We retain the former sound in our word ‘hallelujah,’ but we generally give the letter the disagreeable soft sound of G. Yod is the initial of the name Jesus. It is unfortunate that a name so dear and so sacred is pronounced in a manner so different from that of the original word. The latter sounded very much as if it were Yashoo-ah, and was agreeable to the ear. Our sounds of J and hard S are the most disagreeable in our language, and they are both found in our pronunciation of this short name, although they did not exist in its original,” pp. 122-123.
‘Jesus’: A Word Out of Place and Time
The Bible clearly reveals that salvation is available in only one name: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The name the angel gave to Hebrew-speaking Mary and Joseph was Yahshu’a, meaning “Salvation of Yah.”
This original Name has been made a hybrid by translators and changed to the Latinized, Grecianized name Jesus – a name that came into our language about the time of Christopher Columbus. The following Biblical study references clearly explain that “Jesus,” used in place of the Savior’s true Name Yahshu’a, is erroneous. (Some of these references correctly show the Y or I superior to the Mistaken J.)
Þ Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature: “Import of the Name. –There can be no doubt that Jesus is the Greek form of a Hebrew name…Its original and full form is Jehoshua (Num. 13:16). By contraction it became Joshua, or Jeshua; and when transferred into Greek, by taking the termination characteristics of that language, it assumed the form Jesus” (vol. 4, pp. 873-874).
Þ The Anchor Bible Dictionary: “Jesus [Gk. Iesous]. Several persons mentioned in the Bible bear this name, which is a Greek form of Joshua (Heb. Yehosua; cf. the Gk of Luke 3:29; Acts 7:45; Heb. 4:8)…’Jesus Christ’ is a composite name made up of the personal name ‘Jesus’ (from the Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yesu(a), a late form of Hebrew yehosua, the meaning of which is ‘YHWH is salvation’ or ‘YHWH saves/has saved’)…” (III, p. 773).
Þ The Anchor Bible (note on Matthew 1:1): “Jesus. The word is the Greek rendering of a well-known Hebrew name. It was Yahoshu first, then by inner Hebrew phonetic change it became Yoshua, and by a still northern dialectal shift, Yeshua. The first element, Yahu (=Yahweh) means ‘the Lord,’ while the second comes from shua ‘To help, save.’ The most probable meaning is ‘O Lord, save.’” (Vol. 26, p.2)
Þ The New International Dictionary of The Christian Church: “Jesus Christ, The Founder of Christianity bore ‘Jesus’ (the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua) as His personal name; ‘Christ’ (Gk. Christos, ‘anointed’) is the title given Him by His followers…” (p.531).
Þ Mercer Dictionary of the Bible: “Jeshua: An Aramaic form of the name Joshua, meaning ‘Yahweh is salvation.’ It occurs only in postexilic biblical literature, which supports the later origin of the name. Joshua, the son of Nun, is referred to in one passage as Jeshua (Neh. 8:17)” (p.444).
Þ Newberry Reference Bible (on Matt. 1:24): “Jesus, Heb. Joshua, or Jehoshua. Compare Num. 13:8, 16, where ‘Oshea,’ verse 8, signifying ‘Salivation,’ is altered in v.16 to ‘Jehoshua,’ ‘the Salvation of Jehovah,’ or ‘Jehovah the Savior.’”
Þ The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: “Jesus (Iesous) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Joshua’ (ucwhy, Yehoshua) meaning ‘Jehovah is salvation.’ It stands therefore in the LXX and Apoc for ‘Joshua,’ and in Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8 likewise represents the OT ‘Joshua.’ In Mt. 1:21 the name is commanded by the angel to be given to the son of Mary, ‘for it is he that shall save his people from their sins…It is the personal name of the L-rd in the Gospels and in the Acts…’” (Vol. 3, p.1626).
Þ The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary: “The given name Jesus means ‘savior,’ it is the Greek equivalent of Jeshua (Heb. Yesua, from yehosua ‘Yahweh saves’ [=Joshua]. Christ is the title, indicating that he is the ‘anointed one,’ the Messiah from Hebrew masiah).” …”Jeshua (Heb. Yesua ‘Yahweh is salvation’)” (p.573).
Þ The Bible Almanac: “The name Jesus (which is identical with Joshua and means ‘God is Savior’) emphasizes His role as the Savior of His people (Mat. 1:21). Christ is the New Testament equivalent of Messiah, a Hebrew word meaning ‘anointed one’…” (p.522).
Þ Holman Bible Dictionary: “Jesus Christ: Greek form of Joshua and of title meaning ‘Yahweh is salvation’ and ‘the anointed one’ or ‘Messiah.’” (p.775).
Þ New International Dictionary of the New Testament Theology, “OT Iesous is the Gk. Form of the OT Jewish name Yesua, arrived at by transcribing the Heb. And adding an –s to the nominative to facilitate declension. Yesua (Joshua) seems to have come into general use about the time of the Babylonian exile in place of the older Yehosua. The LXX rendered both the ancient and more recent forms of the name uniformly as Iesous. Joshua the son of Nun, who according to the tradition was Moses’ successor and completed his work in the occupation of the promised land by the tribes of Israel, appears under this name…It is the oldest name containing the divine name Yahweh, and means ‘Yahweh is help’ or ‘Yahweh is salvation’ (cf. the verb yasa, help save). Joshua also appears in one post-exilic passage in the Heb. OT (Neh. 8:17) as Yesua the son of Nun, and not as in the older texts, Yehosua” (Vol. 2, pp.330-331).
Þ The Classic Bible Dictionary (Jay P. Green), page 633, under Jesus: “Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Joshua,’ meaning ‘Jehovah is salvation.’ It stands therefore in the LXX and Apocrypha for ‘Joshua,’ and in Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8 likewise represents the OT Joshua.”
Author Green also comments on the Greek word “Christ:” “Christ (Christos) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah, meaning anointed.”
Thus we see that the Savior’s name as well as the descriptive title “Messiah” have been undermined and appear in Greek in changed form. Our Savior has been stripped of His Israelite roots.
Þ The SDA Bible Dictionary, page 565: “Jesus Christ [Gr. Iesous] (a transliteration of the Aramaic Yeshua, from the Heb. Yehoshua, ‘Joshua,’ meaning ‘Yahweh is Salvation’), Christos (a translation of the Heb. Mashiach, ‘Messiah,’ meaning anointed or anointed One).] The English form ‘Jesus’ comes from the Latin.”
Þ In Strange Facts About the Bible, author Garrison notes on page 81: “In its English form, ‘Jesus’ goes back to church Latin Iesus which is a transliteration of the Greek Iesous. But in its original Hebrew form it was Y’hoshu’a (‘Yahweh saves’), frequently abbreviated to Joshua…”
Þ Ian Wilson’s Jesus: The Evidence, says on page 66; “’Yeshua’, as Jesus would actually have been addressed, means ‘God saves’, and is merely a shortened form of the more old fashioned ‘Yehoshua (‘Joshu’a’ of the Old Testament).”
Þ New Bible Dictionary (edited by J.D. Douglas) reads under Jesus: “The name Jesus is not strictly a title for the person who bore it. It is, however, a name with a meaning, being a Greek form of ‘Joshua’, i.e. ‘Yahweh is salvation’. The NT writers were well aware of this meaning (Mt. 1:21). The name thus indicated the function which was ascribed to Jesus, and this later found expression in the title Saviour…” (p.584).
Þ Alford’s Greek Testament, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary: “Jesus –The same name as Joshua, the former deliverer of Israel.”
Þ Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion: “Jesus (The Name) –Matthew’s Gospel explains it as symbolic of His mission, ‘For He will save His people from their sins.’ This agrees with its popular meaning as ‘Yahweh saves…’” p. 1886.
Þ A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings: “Jesus –the Greek form (uoshIs) of the name Joshua (ucwhy) or Jeshua. Jeshua – Yahweh is salvation or Yahweh is opulence” (pp.603-602).
Þ New International Dictionary of the Christian Church: “Jesus Christ, The Founder of Christianity bore ‘Jesus’ (the Greek form of Joshua or Jeshua) as His personal name; ‘Christ’ (Gk. christos, ‘anointed’) is the title given Him by His followers…” (p. 531).
All of these authorities and scholars agree. His name is not the Latinized Grecianized name “Jesus,” but reflects His Hebrew heritage and the mission He was given to save His people through the Name of the Heavenly Father Yahweh.
So how did He end up with the name so many erroneously call on today?
Greek Not the Original New Testament Language

Very early in history, even before the Messiah, Greek had become a world language. Alexander the Great conquered the lands east and south of Greece, establishing Hellenistic culture and society as far as the Indus River and south into Egypt.
The koine or common Greek dialect prevailed, becoming dominant in the wake of Alexander’s exploits. Greek survived the ravages of Roman persecution, as well as the crusades, and continued to be spoken up to the time of the Muslim conquest of the Mediterranean area.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Rome crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E. The Roman army destroyed anything Jewish, especially religious scrolls and books, including their Torah. This was followed by the Catholic inquisitions in Europe, eradicating anything Jewish. The crusaders made fair game of the Jews, ruthlessly destroying any vestiges of Hebrew writings.
Thus, between the suppression carried out by the Romans and the later Crusades, any Hebrew copies of both Old and New Testament writings were lost. Only Greek copies survived. Neither are there any original Hebrew Old Testaments manuscripts, only copies of copies of copies.
An increasing number of competent Bible scholars now agree with scholar Charles Cutler Torrey (Documents of the Primitive Church) that the New Testament in whole or part was first written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek.
In the September 12, 1986 issue of The Washington Times, David Bivin notes that Yahshu’a, like His contemporaries, most likely spoke Hebrew, Bivin, the director for the Jerusalem School for the Study of the Gospels, also believes that the original account of the life of Yahshua was written in Hebrew, not Greek of Aramaic. In addition, he and his Jerusalem scholars agree that by considering the Evangels Hebraic, many textual difficulties are cleared up, strongly suggesting that the Evangels were first written in Hebrew.
Even Martin Luther recognized the Hebrew roots of the New Testament. He wrote in Tischreden, “Although the New Testament was written in Greek, it is full of Hebraisms and Hebrew expressions. It has therefore been aptly said that the Hebrews drink from the spring, the Greeks from the stream that flows from it, and the Latins from the downstream pool” (translated by Pinchas E. Lapide in Hebrew in the Church, p.10).
Where is the justification for changing the Savior’s Name? Even in a Greek context, there is no J or J sound in the Koine or in any Greek dialect known. The Greek New Testament of the Bible provides the basis for our present Latin and English translations. Obviously the J came from another source, as Greek has no phonetic equivalent of the letter J in its 24 characters of the alphabet. Neither does Hebrew. The words judge, journal, jack, jam, jet, jog, etc., likely would all be spelled beginning with the Greek iota (English I) and would be pronounced as “ee.” In English the letter j would be replaced by the letter i. We would read iudge, iournal, iack, iam, iet, iog, etc. Some orthographers would prefer that these examples begin with today’s letter y instead of i.
We cannot ignore the fact that there was no letter J in ANY language until around the 15th century, and therefore must conclude that the name “Jesus” never existed before 500 years ago. Let us not forget that we read from a Hebrew Bible. It is the account of Yahweh’s dealing with His people Israel. Yahweh spoke to a people who understood Hebrew. Yahweh is the Mighty One of the Hebrews. Remember also that there was no Jew before the time of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. So the Sacred Name is not Jewish.
The seeker of truth must not shy from the Hebrew roots of true Biblical faith, for we are children of Abraham, a Hebrew (Gen. 14:13). Hebrew means to “cross over,” and we are to “cross over” the falsity and error of this world and join in pure worship of Yahweh and His Son Yahshu’a.

Savior’s Name Explained in Bible Versions
Inspired Scripture calls attention to a singular Name wherein rests our eternal salvation.
The following Bible versions have these footnote explanations on Matthew 1:21, the verse where the angel tells Joseph (Yowceph) what to name the Redeemer of mankind:
• “’Jesus’ (Hebr. Jehoshua) means ‘Yahweh saves’”—The Jerusalem Bible.
• “’Jesus’ is the Greek form of Joshua, which means ‘the Lord saves’” –New International Version.
• “’Jesus,’ from the Greek form of a common Hebrew name (Joshua) derived from yasha, ‘he saves’” –Harper Collins Study Bible
• “She will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua, [which means ‘Adonai saves’], because he will save his people from their sins” –Jewish New Testament, David Stern, translator.
• “Heb. Yoshia, reflected in the name Yeshua (Gr. Jesus)” –The Original New Testament, Hugh J. Schonfield.
• “Jesus: The Greek form of ‘Jeshua’….The full significance of the name ‘Jesus’ is seen in the original ‘Yehoshua,’ which means ‘Jehovah the Savior,’ and not merely ‘Savior,’ as the word in often explained” –Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech.
• “Jesus Christ. The name ‘Jesus’ is from the Greek (and Latin) for the Hebrew ‘Jeshua’ (Joshua), which means ‘the Lord is salvation.’ ‘Christ’ is from the Greek for the Hebrew ‘Meshiah’ (Messiah), meaning ‘anointed one’”—Ryrie Study Bible
• “Jesus, Yeshua, meaning ‘Jehovah Is Salvation’” –The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures.
The following commentaries add their observations on the Savior’s Name:

¨ Matthew Henry’s Commentary (on Matthew 1:21): “Jesus is the same name with Joshua, the termination only being changed, for the sake of conforming it to the Greek.”
¨ Interpreter’s Bible (Note on Matthew 1:21): “Jesus for He shall save: The play on words (Yeshua, Jesus; yoshia, shall save) is possible in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. The name Joshua means “Yahweh is salvation.”
¨ Barnes’ Notes (Note on Matthew 1:21): “His name Jesus: The name Jesus is the same as Saviour. It is derived from the verb signifying to save. In Hebrew it is the same as Joshua. In two places [Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8] in the New Testament it is used where it means Joshua, the leader of the Jews [Israel] into Canaan, and in our translation the name Joshua should not have been retained.”

The prefix Yah is the short or poetic form of YAH-weh the Heavenly Father’s Name as found in HalleluYAH and in names of many Biblical personalities, as we will see. Thus, the Savior’s Name begins with the prefix “Yah” that begins the name of Yahweh, as revealed in Psalm 68:4: “Sing unto Elohim, sing praises to his name: extol him that rides upon the heavens by his name JAH [YAH], and rejoice before him.” “Shua,” the last part of the Savior’s Name, carries the primary meaning of “salvation.” Thus, Yahshua means “the salvation of Yah.”
When Israel crossed over the Red Sea, Moses sang a song of thanks to Yahweh in Exodus 15. The saving name appears in verse 2, “Yah is become my salvation,” which was to be Yahshua!
The following reasons clearly show why the name Jesus could never have been the Savior’s Name:
Þ There is no letter J or equivalent in Hebrew.
Þ There is no letter J or equivalent in Greek.
Þ There was no letter J in English until about 500 years ago.
Þ “Jesus,” an etymological hybrid from Greek and Latin, has no inherent, etymological meaning in Greek or Latin, not to mention Hebrew or English.
Þ Joseph (“Yowceph” in Hebrew), a Hebrew and a Jew, was told by the angel Gabriel that Mary (Miriam), a Jewess, would give birth to One Who would “save His people Israel from their sins,” Matthew 1:21. Only the Hebrew name “Yahshua” means “Salvation of Yah” (“Yah”shua). He Himself said that He is come in His Father’s Name (“Yah”weh/”Yah”shua) and “you receive me not,” John 5:43.
Þ Mary, a Hebrew, was told the same thing that Joseph was, Luke 1:31.
Þ Would a celestial being announce the coming Savior to Jews who spoke Hebrew (or Aramaic), proclaiming a Romanized, Grecian name beginning with a letter J that did not exist, but would originate in a European tongue 1500 years later? Remember it was to Israel, a Semitic people who spoke and understood Hebrew, that His saving Name was first revealed.
Þ Would HEBREW parents give their baby a hybridized GREEK name devoid of any meaning – especially such an important name that would identify the very Savior of the world?
How Did ‘Yahshu’a’ Become ‘Jesus’?
It is necessary that we understand the prefix “YAH” has come to us in the form “YEH” (a type of which is found in “Yeshu’a” commonly used for Yahshu’a). It is also manifest in the names JEHovah and Jesus.
Almost any scholarly reference work will acknowledge that Rabbinic tradition has suppressed the true Name Yahweh centuries before the Messiah came at Bethlehem. Writing Yahweh’s Name in the Hebrew, Jewish scribes inserted a shewa (:) instead of the proper qamets (T), thus changing the vowel sound “ah” in “Yah” to “eh.” This was done to conceal the sacred Name, thus yielding the improper Yehovah and Yeshua.
This is practiced even today by such groups as the Jews for Jesus, who contend that “Y’shua’ is the Jewish way to say “Jesus.” This may have been done to avoid offending the Jews and their proscription against even the short form YAH.
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary clearly shows the erroneous vowel pointing of YAH to YEH in the first column of page 48 where the resulting “YEH” is obvious. In every name in this column, a shewa (:) appears under the Hebrew letter yod (y:), and the pronunciation given following the Hebrew spelling begins with the prefix “YEH.”
Using the “e” instead of the proper “a” is another ploy of the Adversary to do away with the family Name YAH, the first syllable of both Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s Name.
This explains how the “e” came about in the name Jesus. The next letter in Jesus, s, results from the fact that Greek has no “sh” sound, only “s” (sigma) sound. This was incorporated into the Latin text. The “u” in Jesus comes from the u in Yahshua. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains, “Iesous is the Greek form of the Old Testament Jewish name Yesua [Yahshua], arrived at by transcribing the Hebrew and adding an s to the nom. to facilitate declension.”
The final “s” in “Jesus” is the Greek nominative masculine singular ending. Matthew 1:8-11 contains the genealogy of Joseph’s line, where we can find similar examples of “s” added to produce Greek-inflected Hebrew names: Uzziah becomes Ozias; Hezekiah becomes Ezekias; Jonah becomes Jonas, etc. The errors that we find among names in most versions can be traced to translators. The early Christian translators relied upon the Greek translation called the Septuagint as their source of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is it not significant that even though these Hebrew names were Grecianized, that they still are recognizable? Why then in English versions does Yahweh’s Name become changed to a completely foreign “God,” while “Yahshua” mutates into “Jesus,” a substitute that is not even close to the original?
Why the change, when even the name of the Adversary – Satan – retains its original Hebrew form and close pronunciation? (Saw-tawn, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary No. 7854).
Adam Clarke’s respected comments on the inferior early translations are informative: “Through the ignorance and carelessness of transcribers innumerable mistakes have been made in ancient names. These also have suffered very greatly in their transfusion from one language to another, till at last the original name is almost totally lost…Besides, neither the Greeks nor Romans could pronounce either the Hebrew or Persian names; and when engaged in the task of transcribing, they did it according to their own manner of pronunciation,” Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 393-394. Clearly, some over-zealous scribe tampered with the text of the King James Bible and what we have is a New Testament in which the Name of Yahshua has been adulterated and almost obscured.
For an example of this, look at Acts 7:45 in the King James Version. The sentence reads, “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles whom [Elohim] drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.” But the account is actually speaking of the Old Testament Joshua, the son of Nun!
Another example is found in Hebrews 4:8, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Many study Bibles will have notes on these two verses pointing out that the more correct name is JOSHU’A the son of Nun.
Certain translations other than the King James have corrected this error and inserted “Joshua” in the text. Thus, we can see that this name is the same as that given by Moses to his successor in Numbers 13:16. It is also the name of the Savior (corrected with the “Yah”). This shows how the translators overzealously changed all the “Yahshua’s” to “Jesus”—even when it referred to someone in the Old Testament not the Savior.
Go to Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and peruse page 47, taking special note of the second name from the top of the right column, No. 3050, YAHH. Notice this is the correct spelling and pronunciation of the short form YAH and includes the qametes under the yod: (3050. Yahh, yaw).
Although author James Strong is noted for his classic concordance, his understanding of the Name was lacking and he used the erroneous Jehovah. However, his is correct in listing No. 3050 YAHH, spelling it with the vowel a instead of e and the double hh to bring out the “ahh” sound.
The importance of the short form YAHH takes on additional significance when we read John 5:43, “I am come in my Father’s name….” We understand this to mean that He came in the authority and power of the Heavenly Father. Yet, we must understand that His Name Yahshua also included His Father’s Name, YAH. It is the short form, the prefix of the Name Yahshua! (Followers of Yahshua will be carrying that Name in the Kingdom, Eph. 3:14-15; Dan. 9:19).
The custom of reading a substitute name when the Tetragrammaton was encountered in the Hebrew Scriptures was carried over into the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the LXX (Septuagint). The translation was said to have been made by seventy Hebrew translators for the King of Egypt who wanted a copy of this great book of the Hebrews for the grand library of Alexandria in Egypt. The letters LXX (meaning “70”) are often used as an abbreviation for the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
In making the Greek translation, the copyists inserted the four characters of the Tetragrammaton in gold letters of the Hebrew, namely hwhy, wherever the name Yahweh was to appear. However, the pronunciation was pointed with the vowels of Adonai. After the death and resurrection of the Messiah, there arose a demand for a Latin version of the Hebrew Old Testament by the expanding church. These early translators were not skilled in the Hebrew language, and actually detested the Jews and refused to learn the Aramaic or Hebrew tongue. They were ignorant of Hebrew and were often ridiculed by the Jews for their ludicrous pronunciation of Hebrew.
And What About ‘Jehovah’?

Scholars know that Jehovah could never be the name of the Heavenly Father. Aside from the error with the letter J, this word has other problems. Even the Catholics, who have been given the distinction of inventing the word “Jehovah,” know it is not the Father’s Name.

Note what the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) says under “Yahweh”: “Judging from Greek transcriptions of the sacred name, YHWH ought to be pronounced Yahweh. The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown in ancient Jewish circles, and is based upon a later misunderstanding of the scribal practice of using the vowels of the word Adonai with the consonants of YHWH,” p. 1065.

In the preface to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is the following: “The form Jehovah is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. The word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew,” pp. 6-7.

In the introduction to The Emphasized Bible, editor Joseph Rotherham writes, “The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, against grammatical and historical propriety.” Rotherham continues his analysis of this ghost word, “Erroneously written and pronounced Jehovah, which is merely a combination of the sacred Tetragrammaton and the vowel in the Hebrew word for Lord, substituted by the Jews for YHWH, because they shrank from pronouncing The Name…To give the name YHWH the vowels of the word for Lord (Heb. Adonai) and pronounce it Jehovah, is about as hybrid a combination as it would be to spell the name Germany with the vowels in the name Portugal –viz., Gormuna” (pp.24-25).

Perhaps the best explanation of how the word Jehovah came about is made in the prestigious Oxford English Dictionary. A photocopy of its entry on “Jehovah” is shown at the top of the page.

The sacred Name was deemed too holy to pronounce. Either because of this fact or because its four letters are also employed as vowels, the Masoretes did not vowel point the Tetragrammaton. Instead, the vowel points for “Adonai” were inserted, alerting the reader to say “Adonai” rather than blurting out the sacred Name Yahweh. Along came Christian scholars in late medieval times who didn’t realize what had been done. Not skilled in Hebrew, they mistakenly combined these added vowels with the Tetragrammaton and the result was the hybrid combination “Jehovah.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia says about the name Jehovah, “This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form ‘Jehovah,’ which, however, is the a philological impossibility…This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai…” (p.160).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves admit that “Jehovah” is inferior to “Yahweh.” In their book, Let Your Name Be Sanctified (p.16), they quote the Roman Catholic translator of The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures, saying, “I should have preferred to write ‘Yahwh,’ in which, although not certain, is admittedly superior to ‘Jehovah,’”

On page 17 of this same book the Jehovah’s Witnesses write, “In harmony with the practice that had developed among the superstitious, the vowel signs for Elohim or for Adonay were inserted at the accustomed places in the text to warn the Hebrew reader to say those words instead of the divine name. By combining those warning vowel sings with the Tetragrammaton the pronunciation Yahowih and Yehowah were formed.”

Then on page 20 they quote the Lexicon for the Books of the Old Testament, by Koehler and Baumgartner, under the Tetragrammaton: “’The wrong spelling Jehovah (Revised Version: The LORD) occurs since about 1100,’ and then it offers its arguments in favor of Yahweh as ‘the correct and original pronunciation.’”

In the foreword of their Bible, The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (published by the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), they say on page 25:

“While inclining to view the pronunciation ‘Yahweh’ as the more correct way, we have retained the form ‘Jehovah’ because of people’s familiarity with it since the 14th century.

In our search for truth we must retrace our steps and boldly proclaim His true Name, and not follow tradition or erroneous understanding.
Biblical Names Reveal the Person
Our culture today looks on names as little more than labels, although we still talk about having a “good name” and speak of being “true to one’s name.” These expressions are carryovers from a time when a name expressed and conveyed a person’s attributes and character.

In the Hebrew, Bible names all have meaning. At times Yahweh or Yahshu’a (or sometimes parents) changed the name of individuals, giving them a special name that had new meaning. For example, Abram means exalted father; later his name was changed to Abraham, which means “father of a multitude.” Isaac means “laughter” (because his mother laughed when promised a son in her old age). Jacob (Yacob) means “heel-grabber” or “supplanter,” because he supplanted his firstborn brother Esau. His name was changed to Yah-shurun (Israel), meaning “contender” or “perseveres with Yah,” when he wrestled with the angel in Genesis 32.

An eye-opening study of the names of the 12 tribes of Israel appears in Genesis chapter 29-30. Situations surrounding the birth of each of these sons is reflected in their individual names. The Hebrew Dictionary found at the back of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance provides a fascinating exercise in the meaning of names.

In his book, Our Father Abraham, Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Marvin R. Wilson writes: “In Hebrew thought, the name of an individual was considered to be more than a title or a label for identification. Rather, a name was believed to reveal the essence, character, reputation, or destiny of the one to whom it was given. This is why the moral law of Moses forbids defamation of another’s name by false witness (Ex. 20:16). Thus the name of

Re:

I wonder what JT will say about this study, seeing as he is a christian him self and he's been using flawd studys like this one for ages.

<a href="http://www.thebible365.com"rel="DoFollow">The Bible</a>

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Wonderkarpso interesting info about that blocklist I'm on https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B3GOLniCUAAnHbP.png11/22/2014 - 10:54pm
Wonderkarpspeaking of game swag, went to a GTAV midnight release at a gamestop. I was getting WWE2k15. First in line so I got 2 free posters and a free Los Santos Sherrif hat that doesnt fit my head. Still sits proudly on a shelf11/22/2014 - 10:34pm
Wonderkarpno pics though cause I'm going to be moving soon hopefully so I'm not too keen on working on it, other than buying some stuff.11/22/2014 - 10:33pm
WonderkarpGhostbusters, Alien, and Aliens make up my top 3 favorite films. Its not a Coincidence that Sigourney Weaver is my favorite Actress11/22/2014 - 10:31pm
Andrew EisenIf you do build a game room you're proud of, do post pics.11/22/2014 - 10:31pm
Andrew EisenGhostbusters! My favorite movie.11/22/2014 - 10:21pm
Wonderkarpthough not strictly games. I have Lightsabers mounted on the wall, and on a shelf you'll see the Infinity Gauntlet, the Ocarina of Time, a Sith Holocron, and some of my Ghostbusters Props11/22/2014 - 8:57pm
Wonderkarpswag of all kinds, Andrew. I'm trying to build a game room as impressive as AVGNs nerd room. I'm also trying to build a coffee table/storage space shaped like a NES Controller11/22/2014 - 8:55pm
E. Zachary KnightI need new controllers for my Gamecube. Its not everyday you can get brand new 1st party controllers.11/22/2014 - 8:51pm
Andrew EisenPredominately figurines or swag of all kinds?11/22/2014 - 8:37pm
WonderkarpI would like a new gamecube controller....but I also just like gaming swag....11/22/2014 - 8:32pm
Andrew EisenI'm just waiting to buy a new Gamecube controller for my Gamecube.11/22/2014 - 7:15pm
Wonderkarphttp://kotaku.com/smash-bros-gamecube-adapters-sold-out-online-prices-g-1662162871 Smash Bros Gamecube adapter sold out, online prices go nuts11/22/2014 - 6:50pm
Andrew EisenI bet there's a lovely comedy of errors surrounding that list's journey to the IGDA's page!11/22/2014 - 6:49pm
Andrew EisenAnd the fact that it was curated by some random person on Twitter should have been another.11/22/2014 - 6:48pm
Andrew EisenYep, it's pretty clear that whoever at the IGDA grabbed that list, didn't look at it first. I think the fact that there's over 10,000 names on it should have been a bit of a red flag.11/22/2014 - 6:44pm
Wonderkarppenguin books is on the list. wow.11/22/2014 - 6:43pm
Wonderkarpthats better, though I'd prefer something a little more than a simple tweet, I'll take it.11/22/2014 - 6:37pm
Andrew EisenKate Edwards' Twitter: "like people, tools are imperfect; we've removed it for now."11/22/2014 - 6:35pm
Andrew EisenHard to say with any certainty but it appears it at least understands the tool didn't do what it thought it did.11/22/2014 - 6:34pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician