Those following the various Restoration Movement discussions for the past several months are aware that concerns have arisen over the the name of "Jesus." I would like to know what you think of this issue.
Let me begin the discussion with a few thoughts.
Per Strong's online edition at crosswalk.com ...
The original word is "ÅIhsou'ß" (all references are exactly as listed in Strong's). "ÅIhsou'ß" is of Hebrew origin from "[wXwhy," from which the names "Jehoshua" or "Joshua" are derived, which shows the relationship between the names "Joshua" and "Jesus," which explains the KJV's use of "Jesus" in Hebrews 4:8 when "Joshua" was intended.
Also, per Strong's, the transliteration of "ÅIhsou'ß" is "Iesous." A short article at the following website offers a concise explanation of the transition from "Iesous" to "Jesus" in English: http://wahiduddin.net/words/jesus.htm
At the heart of this issue is whether or not it is acceptable to translate Bible names from the original language in which they were given. I think translation is acceptable, based Jesus' and the apostles' quotes from the Greek Septuagint Version - the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. Here's the relevant principle as I see it: both the original Hebrew writings as well as those writings translated into Greek were available to Jesus and his apostles, but they frequently chose to quote from the Greek Septuagint Version - rather than the original language. Therefore, I conclude it is acceptable to translate from one language to another. Once translated, it ensures people can understand the Scriptures in the language they speak.
Now, back to the "Iesous" versus "Jesus" issue. I believe it is assumed the transliteration "Iesous" is acceptable to God. Therefore, based of this assumption, deviation is not allowed (i.e., condemned). No adding to or taking from God's word is allowed. Personally, if I were going to make such an argument about not being able to change God's or Jesus' name, I would feel compelled to make it on the original word in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek - not on a transliteration. And, to be consistent with the rest of Scripture, I would also feel compelled to leave the Scriptures in their original languages. That way would ensure there are no additions and no subtractions, right? The problem is we all would have to be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek scholars to read and discuss the Scriptures. On the other hand, we could follow Jesus' example and be open to the idea that is acceptable to translate the Scriptures into other languages, particularly the English language that we speak today, and study (i.e., give diligence) per 2 Timothy 2:15 to ensure we understand the words used, their meaning(s), and other passages where the words are used to ensure we understand what God's word reveals. I choose the latter option.
Perhaps you have something you would like to contribute to this discussion. Please feel free to chime in.
Let me begin the discussion with a few thoughts.
Per Strong's online edition at crosswalk.com ...
The original word is "ÅIhsou'ß" (all references are exactly as listed in Strong's). "ÅIhsou'ß" is of Hebrew origin from "[wXwhy," from which the names "Jehoshua" or "Joshua" are derived, which shows the relationship between the names "Joshua" and "Jesus," which explains the KJV's use of "Jesus" in Hebrews 4:8 when "Joshua" was intended.
Also, per Strong's, the transliteration of "ÅIhsou'ß" is "Iesous." A short article at the following website offers a concise explanation of the transition from "Iesous" to "Jesus" in English: http://wahiduddin.net/words/jesus.htm
At the heart of this issue is whether or not it is acceptable to translate Bible names from the original language in which they were given. I think translation is acceptable, based Jesus' and the apostles' quotes from the Greek Septuagint Version - the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. Here's the relevant principle as I see it: both the original Hebrew writings as well as those writings translated into Greek were available to Jesus and his apostles, but they frequently chose to quote from the Greek Septuagint Version - rather than the original language. Therefore, I conclude it is acceptable to translate from one language to another. Once translated, it ensures people can understand the Scriptures in the language they speak.
Now, back to the "Iesous" versus "Jesus" issue. I believe it is assumed the transliteration "Iesous" is acceptable to God. Therefore, based of this assumption, deviation is not allowed (i.e., condemned). No adding to or taking from God's word is allowed. Personally, if I were going to make such an argument about not being able to change God's or Jesus' name, I would feel compelled to make it on the original word in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek - not on a transliteration. And, to be consistent with the rest of Scripture, I would also feel compelled to leave the Scriptures in their original languages. That way would ensure there are no additions and no subtractions, right? The problem is we all would have to be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek scholars to read and discuss the Scriptures. On the other hand, we could follow Jesus' example and be open to the idea that is acceptable to translate the Scriptures into other languages, particularly the English language that we speak today, and study (i.e., give diligence) per 2 Timothy 2:15 to ensure we understand the words used, their meaning(s), and other passages where the words are used to ensure we understand what God's word reveals. I choose the latter option.
Perhaps you have something you would like to contribute to this discussion. Please feel free to chime in.