Approaching The Messiah’s Name Through...

of 62 Messiah_Name_Read_Assignment._V33.docx February 7, 2015

Approaching The Messiah’s Name Through Scholarly Sources Preparation for Messiah’s Name Seminar

Michael A. Banak, [email protected]

Introduction to the Final Edition of this Paper (V33):

This paper was developed in parallel with a presentation, which was given at the Scared Name Unity Conference, 2014, in Sterling, IL. The presentation was by invitation only, exclusively for the benefit of recognized elders and pastors in the network. This author humbly acknowledges the kind and enthusiastic

reception given to that talk. It has been hard to keep track of all changes to this paper, done after the August seminar. In the main, those changes are refinements to the wording. Major changes include a reworking of the later section in defense of popular English forms, and the addition of two(2) new appendices. The appendices

cover: 1) The Greek Eta; 2) Cuneiform sources, and 3) Analysis of “Salvation” word strings. This paper was largely written as though the Seminar would be seen in the future, yet much of it has been

added since then. Please forgive the inadvertent perception that you are going back in time. The on-line archive location for this paper and the YouTube recorded PowerPoint Seminar will be found on

page 2. I remain enourmously grateful to my kind editors and reviewers. – MAB, January 2015

Abstract:

For the August 2014 Sacred Name Unity Conference, a Seminar on The Messiah's Name is being planned, for the benefit of recognized elders in The Network. In preparation for that executive session, this paper provides

a review of a particular Scholarly Reference on the subject, the article entitled “'Ihs ouj ”, by Werner Foerster,

on page 284 of Volume III, in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [1]. It is intended that this paper will provide pre-seminar exposure to issues we will explore, aid newcomers in the interpretation of such

material, and help tell the story of a very special name through the writings of recognized authorities. Introduction and Notes on This Author’s Bias:

The Hebrew Roots Movement has many branches. Among them, the Sacred Name Movement often exhibits a distinctive urgency to get things right. Proper articulation of The Holy Names is one area of special emphasis.

As of this writing, there are roughly a half-dozen ways among us for pronouncing The Holy Names. Arguments for and against each of these forms can range from the sublime to the absurd.

This author maintains that, if you want to have strong opinions, you must do strong research. This author has concluded that the indications we see in The Scriptures, in history and in archaeology, all

point to the fact of dialectal variety in the historical pronunciations of these Names. This author claims that dialectal variety existed in ancient times, and we will experience it today - especially since The Elohim is rebuilding Israel in these last days. Our people managed such dialectal variety back then, and thus we must

learn to manage it today. This author maintains that, if any pronunciation comes from the Hebrew, and is linguistically possible, it has

equivalent value to any other pronunciation before Heaven. Especially in light of how unlikely it is that anyone can articulate these Names perfectly after all this time. This includes short forms, long forms and in-between forms. (The seminar will recommend strategies for maintaining Divine Order in The Assemblies, in spite of

these differences). This author further claims that, in order to uphold one spelling / pronunciation pair, to the exclusion of all

others, one must diligently amplify one narrow body of evidence, to the exclusion of all other evidence. Indeed, your choice of starting assumptions, in conjunction with narrowly selected evidence, will drive the outcome every time.


Finally, this author claims that, except for patently absurd spelling / pronunciation pairs, all of them have merit. Yet all have lingering questions and inaccuracies, making them all the more equal. It would therefore be a grave error to make exact pronunciations a matter of high doctrine. (Maintaining order is a far more urgent

matter). Again. assumptions drive the outcome. And we will see this frustrating reality play out several times, as diverse

scholarly authorities are called forth to provide their often-puzzling testimony. More on the Seminar

Needless, long-standing prejudice against the short form, u w c y , necessitates an emphasis on the history of

the short form in the upcoming seminar, with acknowledgment of longer forms as part of its development. Though the paper you are now reading focuses on Foerster’s Article, it seems good to list the tentative agenda for the presentation to come in August 2014.

The seminar (by invitation only) will have the following modules: 0) Summary of the 2011 presentation, which the reader is urged to access [2]; 1) Brief analysis of The TetraGram; 2) Numerous forms of the Holy Name; 3)

Forms of the Holy Name as a Theophoric element in Names such as "Yahonadab, ” "Yahozadak,” etc.; 4) Short form modalities for such names (e.g. "Yonadab,” "Yozadak,” etc), 5) Linguistic phenomena impacting the pronunciation of all forms (e.g., trigger letters, polyphony); 6) Etymology of The Messiah's Name (longer form);

6) Biblical handling of the shorter form; 7) Evidence for multiple dialects of Hebrew; 8) Dissimilation as an engine for dialectal variety; 9) Scholarly development of the shorter form; 10) Consideration of the Hebrew letter Ayin as it impacts ancient transliterations.

Foerster's article has a connection to all of the above except items 0), 1) and 10). His article is also difficult to read, being a high-end, scholarly reference. Still, a step-by-step explanation of pertinent sections from Foerster

will enable a fuller participation in The Seminar. The presentation in August 2014 will be structured like a college-level lecture. The experience will include the

live lecture, the lecture materials (a power point presentation), any readings done by the attendees prior to the presentation, and a pre-lecture reading assignment.

This paper is the pre-lecture assignment. It has been archived at: http://www.yahuyahweh.org/im/pdf/Messiah_Name_Read_Assignment.pdf

The finalized PowerPoint, with narration, is available on YouTube at: http://youtu.be/sTaHCIhlneU

About This Paper

While this paper, and the seminar, will largely be an historical development of the short-form, u w c y , an

understanding of longer forms must be included, especially in light of popular (and verifiably false) theories about the relationship between these forms.

Here’s how this paper is structured:

- Pertinent sections of Foerster's article will be copied and pasted into this document, followed by explanatory notes. - Additional sources are cited along the way.

- Since these authorities use the Masoretic vowel points as a context for studying linguistic trends, we will allow them to do that without protest. (Our Appendix III is a different matter). - Our explanatory notes will often require multiple levels of digging and back-tracking.

- Subjects tangential to Foerster’s paper will be explored, as they touch upon seminar topics. - The Appendices explore certain topics in greater depth.

http://www.yahuyahweh.org/im/pdf/Messiah_Name_Read_Assignment.pdf

http://youtu.be/sTaHCIhlneU


IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED:

- This paper is not the substance of the seminar presentation. However, difficult issues raised in the

presentation also appear in Foerster’s article, making it an excellent item for study in advance. It is also good that this paper will be a tutorial, of sorts, for how one is to approach high-end references.

- While a persuasive mood will be detected in this paper, the real persuasion will come in the seminar. The purpose of this paper is to inform and prepare the reader for the seminar.

- The seminar will be much easier to follow than this paper. Foerster’s dense article is an aggregate of many sources, so it jumps around a lot. This paper must deal with that, plus the need to digress often.

Foerster's Article

The article we study is part of a larger, multi-volume work, "Kittel's Theological Dictionary of The New Testament," a specialized Greek Dictionary. The specific article, appearing on page 284, is entitled “ 'Ihsouj.” Kittel’s complete Dictionary is commonly available in many public libraries. For reference, a PDF scan of the “ 'Ih souj” article, formatted for test-searching, appears at the following WEB link:

http://www.yahuyahweh.org/im/MNSerminar/Kittel_Reference_cleaned.pdf The sections numbered in this paper match Foerster's section numbers, though his sections do not have

subsections and titles assigned as seen herein. Analysis of the Article

1. Introduction

In order to fully appreciate the inundation of data to follow, one must have, at-hand, a list of all of Foerster’s references. In an un-numbered footnote, he properly lists in them a dense, abbreviated form. It is pasted below,

with line numbers added to facilitate referencing.

If you are not used to this, it will be very daunting to absorb. Most of us would just gloss over it. For the purpose

http://www.yahuyahweh.org/im/MNSerminar/Kittel_Reference_cleaned.pdf


of our studies, some references are relevant, and many are not. Even if it proves to be a halting adventure, we

should at least *try* to understand who these authorities are, or else something about them. Be assured, this author has never heard of most of these sources. Still, some things should catch our attention.

- The latest references are from 1934 (Lines 8 & 15), the earliest from 1876 (Line 1). This is both good

and bad. On one hand, it may be lacking important information discovered since those times. On the

other hand, these old references may impart critical knowledge that is largely ignored today. - Many of the references have titles in foreign languages. We see many in German, some in Latin, and

one in English (Line 12). This is evidence of strong European input in the article we will study. Indeed, the English version of Kittel’s grand multi-volume compilation is a translation from German.

- Beginning on Line 10, we see a long series of references dealing with a controversy that emerged in the late 1800’s, and perhaps sooner. That was an attempt by renegade scholars to deem the

Evangelical accounts as the outgrowth of pagan cults. Look closer at the titles of the references. Even for titles in a foreign language, you can discern what the subject matter is about. Foerster handily deals with these theories head-on. But they have no pertinence to our interests.

- One of the great debates in Biblical scholarship is whether the best NT Greek Texts come from an

Eastern Tradition, or else an Alexandrian tradition. Those of you who are *into* that area of study might recognize the name of Eberhard Nestle (E. Nestle in Lines 4 and 6), who compiled a critical text of the New Testament. It is said that his comprehensive text incorporates the Alexandrian text without taking

some of the extreme positions of the Alexandrian camp. His work was continued by his son, and a later researcher Kurt Aland, to produce the famous Nestle-Aland Universal Text, used by most Bible publishers today.

- Most of the references are taken from scholarly journals. Example: Line 5 cites a paper by “Praetorius”

in the ZDMG, which is short for Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, (Journal of the German Oriental Society). When one looks it up, the article by “Fr. Pretorius” is actually followed by another article, written by “Eb. Nestle.” We conclude that these scholars all knew each other.

Praetorius’ article from the ZDMG will be cited later, primarily to refute its claims about Yahshua’s Name.

Here is the very first statement in Foerster’s article for the name Ihsouj :

Foerster states that the well-known Greek form corresponds to persons with Hebrew Names found in the Old

Testament (OT). It is to be noted that the Hebrew name for these characters had two basic spellings. The long

form, u c w h y , and the short form, u w c y , Foerster places an approximate time-demarcation between the

existence of the long and short forms: The short form seems to emerge after the Exile.

The list of citations for the various forms, mostly from Scripture, appears next. This is an overview where the

short and long Hebrew forms occur.


Note that Foerster includes citations from the Hebrew of the Apocryphal book, "The Wisdom of Ben Sirach" (abbrev "Sir"), commonly called "Ecclesiasticus" (not to be confused with Solomon's Ecclesiastes). To a scholar, it is acceptable to include this book for study of linguistic trends. He will cite additional Apochrypha,

Rabbinic literature and even Christian authors going forward. It is tempting to think the long form existed exclusively before the exile, and the short form eliminated it upon

the return from Babylonian Captivity. Foerster is not saying that. A better interpretation of the facts is that the short form emerged around the time of the first exile. Perhaps sometime thereafter it became dominant. The reference in 2Chrionicles, in Hezekiah’s time, may have admittedly been the work of a later Scribe. Otherwise,

we must view the short form in 2 Chronicles 31:15 as evidence of the short form before the Babylonian Captivity.

When Foerster mentions “Exile,” it is not sufficiently clear whether he is talking about the Assyrian Exile, for Northern Israel. This invites us to consider the time between the Assyrian Exile, and the time of the Babylonian Captivity, as a period of increasing Aramaic influence on the remaining Hebrews in Judea. This comes through

increasing contact with Assyrian and then Babylonian elements. Indeed, by the time Jehoiakim is King of Judah, the southern kingdom had become a vassal state under the hegemony of Babylon (2Kings 24:1).

It is often claimed that the short form of the Joshua’s Name is an “Aramaic” form. This simplistic approach suggests that (back then) one could reach out to Assyrio/Babylonian contacts, and inquire how they might say that name. It does give that impression, as though the Assyrians and Chaldees had this short name in their

hip-pocket all along, and have sprung it on us as a substitute. What really happens over decades of such regional influence is that new accents and phonemic contractions emerge, which impact the pronunciation of all words and names. While specific linguistic forces are at-play before and after the Babylonian Captivity,

Aramaic simply *influenced* the emergence of the short form. One of the more significant citations in Foerster’s article comes from Nehemiah 8:17, where Joshua son of Nun

has his name rendered with the short form u w c y .

It would be wrong to think the long form disappeared completely. As Foerster points out, the long form shows

up in Haggai and Zechariah, and Sirach. The Long Form, u c w h y , even appears on a later Bone Box from the

Apostolic era in Jerusalem [3]. Based on these, it is wrong to believe the long form died out completely. We will

see the long spelling make an unexpected comeback, appearing later in history in an extended form. We will momentarily skip Foerster's 2nd paragraph, and cover its rich implications, after first considering the

3rd paragraph.

Foerster, like all scholars, recognizes the Greek form I h s o u j in the Septuagint (LXX) as an adaptation of the

Short Hebrew form, u w c y . The short form has much going for it. It appears in The Holy Scriptures, it becomes

baked into the Jewish culture, even appearing often as the name on numerous Bone Boxes from the early


Common Era. Significantly, the dedicated, pre-messianic Jewish brethren of Alexandria gave evidence of the

Hebrew short form by employing the well-known Greek spelling in the LXX. It is believed, in some Sacred Name circles, that the Greek form was manufactured by Christian Greek scribes,

hostile to The Holy Name. In truth, it was an honest attempt at Transliteration in the pre-Messianic era ... hundreds of years before Yahshua. Attempts to equate this form with "zeus" would insult the sensibilities of those dedicated Jews, who flourished back then.

Let us focus on that final letter in the Greek form for a moment. It has stirred needless suspicion.

The Greek letter "sigma" comes in three (3) forms. Upper case (S ), Lower case (s), and lower case at the end

of a word (j). That 3rd form looks like something between a "C" and an "S .” Foerster points out that the LXX

translators were required to add the “j” at the end, in order to let the name be employed as masculine in

ordinary sentences. When Foerster says, “to be declinable,” he means that the “j” ending makes the basic form

for the name I h s o u j , but the ending letter will change based on its use in a sentence. The final “s” sound has

nothing to do with “zeus” or any other preposterous claim. It must be remembered that the LXX translators are the same people who preserved the Holy Name, in

Hebrew, in the original LXX, as seen in the images below. They hardly would insert a pagan name into their cherished translation. This is explained further by Voy Vilks in [4].

Images of the Septuagint, Showing The TetraGram in Ancient Hebrew, amidst the Greek Text


It is significant that the longer Hebrew form, and the shorter form, are both rendered into the same familiar form

in Greek in the LXX. Please think about that. Both u w c y and u c w h y are rendered as I h s o u j in the LXX.

This suggests that the shorter form dominated at their place in time and geography (Alexandria).

Seminar Note: The surprising sound of I h s o u j in ancient times will be explored in the Seminar.

So, where did this Hebrew short form u w c y originate? And how did it come to dominate?

Foerster provides a glimpse in the short paragraph we momentarily skipped, paragraph 2.

This one paragraph, consisting of but one sentence, points to a vast body of research and pre-requisite understanding. We are forced to explore several new layers of knowledge here.

Foerster draws attention to a vowel -shift. Though the diacritical marks he employs are unfamiliar to most of us, this vowel-shift will prove to be a central area of inquiry to understanding the short form.

Foerster initially cites a “desire to avoid having ô and û together.” What is he talking about?

To comprehend Foerster’s remarks, we must look closer at the Hebrew forms, and discern what the vowel points mean. Foerster accepts the vowel points at face value and they are the context in which these linguistic phenomena are explored. While the vowel pointing does not conform to the expectations of most Sacred

Namers, it is the basis for Foerster’s analysis, and for many of his references. In order for us to consider the ô and û sounds in this name, we have to know and verify where they are. It’s not

as easy as you would think. We will now establish what the vowel pointing before us represents. There are two parts: The initial ô before the Sheen and the û sound after the Sheen.

The Initial ô Sound before the Sheen: The ancient form of the name for Joshua, the Ephraimite commander, begins with the Theophoric element,

Yodth-Heh-Waw, w h y . The initial ô after the Yodth-Heh is well-established. The Theophoric element,

Yodth-Heh-Waw is usually approximated by “Ye-Ho.” And standard vowel-pointing for the Ephraimite commander’s name shows that. (The only two exceptions to the Ye-Ho pattern are Yehucal and Yehuda,

which exhibit a brief stop, a Plosive Consonant, after the Wav, thus inducing the oo-sound). Publishing sources in the Sacred Name Movement would call for an emphasis on the first syllable, attempting

to amplify the Theophoric sound “Yah.” Some even claim that a diminishment of that sound is an act of blasphemy against the Almighty’s Name. The vowel points are seen by them as an effective historical cover-up of the Holy Theophoric “Yah.”

Suggestion Using a Hebrew Bible that shows vowel points, find names with the Trigram, w h y ,

appearing in the front, such as Yehoshephat and Yehozadak. Confirm that the vowel points on the w h y part

are rendered as “Yeho.” Then examine where the h y appears at the end of other names (like Isaiah, and

Nehemiah), and confirm that it is vowel-pointed to sound like “Yah.”

Seminar Note: In the Seminar, we will devote substantial time illustrating that the proper sound of the first

syllable of The TriGram Theophoric w h y never sounds like “Yah” when it is the first syllable in a word, but rather


sounds like “Yeh.” Since the “Yah” sound still appears faithfully at the end of many words and Names,

conspiracy theories about these sounds are irrelevant. It would be odd for such a vast conspiracy to allow the “Yah” form to remain prominently at the end of so many names.

The û Sound after the Sheen: The most ancient form of the Ephraimite commander’s name appears below, but with the vowel-points

appearing in Foerster’s article. Based on the vowel pointing, the û sound after the Sheen is represented by a Qibbutsh.

In a rare form of this name, the Qibbutsh is replaced with a vowel pointed with the Shureq. This appears in two

well-known textual variations (See Deut 3:21 and Judges 2:7 where a 6-letter form, u w c w h y , occurs). This

would be represented with the following:

The ending to both forms adequately conveys the “Shoo-ah” sound we have come to expect.


Seminar Note: The original spelling, having no vowel points attached, did not originally convey this sound. In

the Seminar, we will examine how the full sound “Shoo -ah” emerged in the Late Biblical Hebrew era. While this six-letter form is a scribal variant, it is of the kind that reveals important linguistic trends.

Appearing on both sides of the Sheen, there are two similar phonemes: An ô before it and then an û after it. Linguistically, the ô and û are very similar. The main difference between them is the slight closing of the jaw for

the û.

There is no other Name in The Hebrew Dictionary which has this structure: a Waw-sound on both sides of the Sheen.

Let us remember that the Waw can convey both an “oh” sound or an “oo” sound, which are represented by ô and û respectively. When you hear someone say, “Yahoshua,” they are attempting to express these two

sounds. To clarify:

- The Ephraimite commander’s name is vowel-pointed to sound like “Shoo-ah” at the end. - In other words, a long vowel emerges after the sheen, long enough to create a full syllable.

- This also reflects how the ending is pronounced by most of us today. So, when Foerster cites a “desire to avoid having ô and û together,” he is referring to the Kholem (2) and the

Qibbutsh/Shureq (3) appearing on each side of the Sheen. He is further saying that there is a tendency to diminish one of those two similar sounds. This natural phenomenon (called Dissimilation) is explored in Foerster’s footnotes, which we will come to shortly.

You might have to resort to the vowel-pointing on the 6-letter spelling to see this clearly. The later sounding “Ye-Ho-Shu-ah” is then implied by Foerster and others for analysis of the linguistic trends affecting the 5-letter

form. Authors like Foerster demand a lot of the reader as they drill through these things. To appreciate the historical

vowel shift which ultimately explains the short form, there is even more expected of the reader. It is knowledge of the equivalent Short Forms in Hebrew Names.

Equivalent Short Forms in Hebrew Names

This author hesitates to call them “short forms,” as if something therein has fallen short. These shorter forms are key to understanding how the ancient names were pronounced.

A systematic study of those Hebrew Names, which begin with a Holy Theophoric, reveals the following trends:

- There are approximately fifteen (15) proper Names, beginning with The TriGram, w h y ,which are

distinguished by their having an equivalent “short form,” used interchangeably, sometimes even in reference to the very same person.

- There are nine (9) additional proper Names, which only appear as a “short form,” having no equivalent long-form.

We first list those 15 names, all from The Scriptures, which have equivalent long and short forms:


Long-form Short-Form

Yehoahaz Yoahaz Yehoash Yoash

Yehozabad Yozabad Yehohanan Yohanan Yehoiada Yoiada

Yehoiachin Yojakin Yehoiakim Yoiakim (also Yokim) Yehoiarib Yoiarib

Yehucal Yucal Yehonadab, Yonadab Yehonathan, Yonathan

Yehozadak, Yozadak Yehoram Yoram Yehoshaphat Yoshaphat

Yehoseph Yoseph To find these names in common Bible Research tools, you’ll want to convert the leading “Y” to a “J.”

Suggestion In your next Bible, consider honoring the Holy Name; Replace all those J’s with Y’s.

In some of these cases, the short and long forms appear in reference to the same individual. Example: Jeremiah mentions Yehucal with both the long form, and the short fo rm Yucal. He also uses both the long and short form of Yonadab’s name.

In the Hebrew, the short-form and long-form are distinguished by just one thing. Instead of the Holy

Theophoric, w h y , the short form drops the “Heh” and creates another Theophoric, a 2-letter form “Yo,” w y . It may be hard for traditional Sacred Namers to accept the existence of another Holy Theophoric, in addition to

the established ones w h y and h y . But a review of the following nine (9) names should dispel all doubt. Indeed,

in your Hebrew dictionary, names beginning with the Holy Theophoric w y , “Yo” far outnumber any other form!

Yoab Yoah Yoel Yozacar

Yoha Yochebed Yoezer Yoash Yotham

Some of these names should be familiar. Yoab was the assistant to David. Yochebed is Moses’ mother. Yoel is the noted prophet.

So far, we have 24 names beginning with “Yo” and only 15 beginning with “Yeho.” The dominance of these Yo-forms is a surprise to many at first. The expectation in our movement is that the sound “Yah” should

dominate. Pursuant to this, some have attempted to distort these names to sound like “Yah” in the beginning. “Joel” becomes “Yah-El,” instead of Yoel. Moses’ mother becomes “Yahchebed” instead of “Yochebed.” While not being a sin, these habits do frustrate the Divine principle of transliteration.

There are a small number of names that begin with The TriGram, w h y , and have no short form equivalent in the

Bible. For completeness, they are listed below:

Yehoada; Yehuda; Yehoaddan; Yehosheba / Yehoshabeath (feminine form)

Even with these included, the Yo-forms still dominate over Yeho-forms.


Suggestion Try to determine which of the Yo-form names is the most ancient.

It is inescapable that the “Yo” forms are equivalent to names with the “Yeho” prefix. But if there is any lingering question about this, it should be noted that, when the pre-Messianic brethren in Alexandria transliterated these

names into Greek, they consistently did two things in the LXX:

1 - Hebrew Names beginning with w y , “Yo,” appear in Greek beginning with Iota-Omega, Iw, which of course

sounds like “Yo.” … But …

2 - Hebrew Names beginning with The TriGram w h y ,”Yeho,” ALSO appeared in Greek beginning with the

letters Iota-Omega, Iw, which, again, sounds like “Yo.” For them, both w h y and w y , were equivalent.

This indicates a convergence of the pronunciations for many Jews at that time. In the following short list (chosen from many examples), note how the Greek transliteration of the Holy Theophoric is identical for long and short-forms of the Hebrew names. More specifically, they are transliterated as though the short Yo-form is

all they heard.

KJV Hebrew Septuagint

Rendering Name Transcription

Jehoahaz יהואחז Ιωαχας

Joahaz יואחז Ιωαχαζ

Jehohanan יהוחנן Ιωαναν

Johanan יוחנן Ιωαναν

Jehoiada יהוידע Ιωδαε

Joiada יוידע ιωδαε

Jehoiachin יהויכין ιωακιμ

Jehoiachin יויכין ιωακιμ

Jehoaddan יהועדין Ιωαδιν

Jehoaddan יהועדן Ιωαδεν

Josedech יהוצדק Ιωσεδεκ

Jozadak יוצדק Ιωσεδεκ

Jehoram יהורם Ι ωραμ

Joram יורם Ι ωραμ

Jehoshaphat יהושפט Ιωσαφατ

Joshaphat יושפט Ιωσαφατ

There are only two cases, irrelevant for this study, where the 2 forms are rendered differently in Greek. But, the overwhelming, consistent trend is that the Alexandrian Jews spoke and heard the short form, “Yo,” even when

the long-form was in front of them. For completeness, the cases where the rendering in Greek is different are listed below.


KJV Hebrew Septuagint

Rendering Name Transcription

Jehozabad יהוזבד ιεζεβουθ

Josabad, Jozabad יוזבד ιωζαβαδ

Jehoiarib יהויריב ιωαριμ, ιαριβ

Joiarib יויריב ιωριβ

Color fonts are used to show which long and short forms go together. The red forms are the rare ones. In the first case, the Theophoric in the long form collapses to a “Ye” in The Greek, while in the second case, the Theophoric in the long form collapses to a “Ya” in The Greek , for just one instance of that name. This form

“Iαριβ” appears only once in the LXX, 1Ch 24:7.

Out of all the Greek cases studied by this author, over two dozen, only one form conveys the “Yah” sound expected by Sacred Name enthusiasts. This suggests that, while the “Yah” sound is rare in the front of names, it is not out of the question.

Seminar Note: We acknowledge other linguistic trajectories, such as found in the Murašû Archives [5] and

perhaps the Cairo Geniza, which give evidence of alternate pronunciations. But our focus, at present, is to understand the short form, while always acknowledging dialectal variety as far as the evidence will take us.

From the standpoint of established scholars, certain facts create a cloud of understanding, which must be appreciated to grasp the more elusive parts of Foerster’s article. These points are summarized below:

1 - The Ephraimite Commander’s Name is among many, which begin with The TriGram Theophoric, w h y .

2 – When this element appears at the beginning of a Name, it is pronounced “Yeho” and in some cases “Yehu”

(As opposed to popular expressions such as YA-ho).

3 - There is an equivalent Theophoric, w y , or “Yo” (sometimes “Yu”), which is interchangeable with The

TriGram, both in The Scriptures and in practical usage.

4 – This prefix, w y , which I call the “Yo – form,” dominates Theophoric names (sometimes “Yu”)

Suggestion Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon is listed in the alphabetical order of the root words,

which can be confusing. Instead, refer to Gesenius (as translated by Tregelles) or even Strong’s concordance, where the entries are in a natural alphabetic order. Count for yourself the number of names beginning with

w h y , Yeho, and those beginning with w y “Yo.” Note how Yo-forms dominate.

Let us work our way back to Foerster’s claims.

Foerster expects the reader to be acquainted with the standard 5-letter form, u c w h y , the expanded 6-letter

form, u w c w h y , the short-form, u w c y , and even a relatively unknown 5-letter form. Outside the scholarship of

Hebrew Linguistics, this novel spelling is hardly known. We cover this next.

The Unknown Form of the Ephraimite Commander’s Name

There are a small number of scholars who have proposed yet another Hebrew spelling for Joshua’s name. When we say, “a small number of scholars,” this does not mean that there is a minority of scholars, who see it

this way, and then everyone else is lined up opposing them. Rather, we mean that very few scholars bother to go this deep, and among those who do, there is a shared understanding that leads to this novel 5-letter form.


We need to have this in-hand to fully digest Foerster and his references.

To build this form, we take the “Shoo-ah” ending, and then pre-pend it with the w y Theophoric, “Yo.”

The resulting form does not appear in any Hebrew text, even though linguistic trends clearly demand its existence. Here, it will serve as it does in the scholarly corpus, as a tool for explanation. This alternate 5-letter

form appears immediately below:

u w c w y = Yoshua

Before rejecting this out-of-hand, note that this form is not as unreasonable as it looks. When the leading Y is transformed back to the old-English “J,” we suddenly have the name “Joshua.”

u w c w y = Yoshua = Joshua

Seminar Note: In the Seminar, we will go deeper in determining from where this form “Joshua” came, as it is strongly related to the topics we address here.

Returning to Foerster, when he cites a “desire to avoid having ô and û together,” he is referring to vowels in two forms of the Messiah’s Name:

u w c w y = Yôshûa

u w c w h y = Yehôshûa

As we review Foerster’s references, we must have these two forms in mind, primarily the shorter one.

Referring back to Foerster’s 2nd

paragraph, we find a tiny footnote (1), which balloons into further references. Yet, one more technical term must be understood before comprehending the elusive torrent of data in the footnote. This concept is Dissimilation.

Dissimilaton

When two phonemes (sounds) in a word are similar, and they are separated by a third phoneme, the two similar phonemes will compete for expression. One will dominate and the other will be weakened. This is a

natural phenomenon. First some English examples. The word “surprise” has an “r” sound on both sides of the “p.” The “p” acts like a

fulcrum, across which the 2 r’s compete for expression. The second “r” wins, and thus many people say “suh-prise.” A similar thing occurs in the word, “berserk.” The r’s compete for expression across the “s,” and the second one wins. Thus the pronunciation, “beh-zerk.”

Dissimilation can occur in any language, even Hebrew.

Here are some in Hebrew, as documented by Joshua Blau [6], which you can check with your Strong’s concordance:

The Hebrew noun for “middle” is Strong’s 8342, “toke,” k w t.

To make an adjective out of this, you would normally add the letters waw-nun, making it n w k w t . “tokone”

But the adjective, found as Strong’s 8484, is “tikone,” n w k y t.

Note how the first Waw becomes weakened to a Yodth. This is by dissimilation. The additional waw created contention there, and the first waw lost expression. Perhaps the form “tikone” proved over time to be easier to

say than “tokone.”


Here is another example of dissimilation from your Bible, taken from Blau’s book:

The Hebrew noun for “outer” is Strong’s 2351, “khoots,” x w j .

To make an adjective, you would add the letters waw-nun, making it n w x w j “khootsone”

But the adjective, found as Strong’s 2435, is “khitsone,” n w x y j .

Note, again, how the first Waw becomes weakened to a Yodth. This is by dissimilation.

Seminar Note: In the Seminar, we will explore additional examples of dissimilation. One of those examples will be unforgettable. But, for the purpose of absorbing Foerster’s article, the examples provided herein are sufficient.

Foerster Cites Many Sources

First, we restate Foerster’s 2nd

paragraph:

Now we view the contents of the footnote (1), which is rich with further citations. We will dissect and parse this

footnote carefully. Keep in mind that Foerster is trying to account for the emergence of the short form, u w c y .

A. The First Sentence Reads: “So Philippi, Fraenkel, Nestle, Muller, Steinmetzer.”

Here he names five(5) scholars (including our friend, Nestle) who agree with this view, that the short form (with its vowel shift) emerged from a “desire to avoid having ô and û together,” as he stated before. In the next

sentence, he attributes this to dissimilation. Dissimilation will cause the waw on each side of the sheen to compete, and the first one will lose. We can

visualize the effects of dissimilation on The Name with the development shown below. The first waw, which carries the Kholem, becomes weakened visually for illustration.

u w c w y = Yôshûa

becomes

u w c w y = Y.shûa

u c w h y = Yehôshûa

becomes

u w c w h y = Yeh.shûa

In both cases, the Kholem (on the first waw) becomes suppressed. I have left its place in the English as a mere


dot, showing the uncertainty of how much vocalization remains. By definition, for dissimilation to be at work, the

first waw simply needs to be dissimilar to the sound of the 2nd

waw. With dissimilation at-play, the first syllable could actually have a number of possible pronunciations.

It must be emphasized!! Joshua’s Name is the only name, whose letters trigger this phenomena. B. Next Foerster States:

“There are many examples of this dissimilation.”

This verifies that the five (5) scholars stated previously hold this view - that the weakening of the first syllable in this name is due to the “dissimilation.” At this point he claims many examples of dissimilation. But he offers only two examples.

The first example is from your Bible. The second one is from Mandean Hebrew, which we can only appreciate with visual inspection.

The Bible example can be examined using Strong’s Concordance, H3058. This is the name of King Jehu, which in the Bible is spelled as:

a w h y The name would appear to sound like “Yehua.” It is actually a contraction of a larger construct.

The first part is the Holy Theophoric w h y , “Yeho.”

The second part is H1931, a w h , “Hua,” meaning “He (is)”

The development suggested by Foerster’s footnote would be like this:

a w h + w h y

a w h w h y

Next, contract the Trigram into the equivalent 2-letter form “Yo”

a w h w y

This might sound something like, “Yohu(a)” … that final aleph being a bit uncertain. By dissimilation, the first waw gets diminished and the final result is

a w h y Which your common English Bibles report as “Jehu,” but we would likely pronounce “Yehu,” Strong’s #H3058,

which means “Yahweh is He.” (I think it’s more like “Yahweh Lives” –MAB) It is significant that, in this name, Yahweh’s Name is represented by a singular Yodth.

The preceding development is an explanation for the first example of dissimilation given by Foerster. He says it with three words (2 of them Hebrew) but we needed several lines to fully explain it.

His second example is from Mandean Hebrew, for which we have no analytical tools. But if you look closely,


you will find that the first waw is diminished into a yodth, as highlighted below.

Foerster then goes on to cite additional references. Here’s the next …

“Delitzsch derives the form from the middle form Isua”

Here is the problem with Delitzsch’s derivation:

It denies any Divine Providence for the emergence of the short form u w c y .

If you allow the Sheen to be a Sin, yes, there is a visual correspondence between u w c y and “ISUA.” But, at

the risk of appearing prejudiced, we must decline interest in any development that fails t o emerge naturally

from the Hebrew Scriptures. This represents the first of many times that we reject one of Foerster’s references. While he is trying to be

forthcoming and comprehensive in presenting explanations for the emergence of the short form u w c y , it is our

task to assess them for ourselves.

C. Foerster’s Next Citation Is Puzzling:

This author has located a digital version of the German magazine article from 1905 [7]. Praetorius captured a trend in Hebrew that most observers skip over. Though it does not contribute to our understanding of the Short Form, issues raised by Praetorius must be addressed.

The reader is reminded that this tortured development is offered by Praetorius as a means of explaining the short form. Still, be advised that this author (MAB) doesn’t accept any of the following:

Praetorius notes that four (4) names in The Bible are constructed with a “Shua” ending.

u w c y b a = Abishua u w c y l a = Elishua

u w c w h y = Yehoshua (note the rare 6-letter form)

u w c y k l m = Malchishua

He then proposes that these are closely related to another four (4) names, which he tags as hypothetical reconstructions. The main difference in the forms below is that the 2

nd-to-last letter, the waw, is removed from

the ending of the name. He also cheats in one of the cases. Remember, these are speculative, though the 2nd

one appears in Scripture.

u c y b a = Abisha u c y l a = Elisha

u c y w h y = Yehoisha

u c y k l m = Malchisha

There is an annoying inconsistency about this. From Praetorius’ list of four names, the third one, Joshua’s name, originally had no “yodth” stuck in the middle of the word. The other three names do have that central


yodth. So, in this sense, he is cheating in the development. In the second cluster, he mysteriously adds a

yodth to the middle of Joshua’s name.

Part of his justification is the assertion that the name u w c y b a (Abishua) was originally

u w c y y b a (Abi-ishua). Note the double-yodth. In other words, one yodth belongs to “Ab,” making Ab-i (My

Father) and another yodth creates the string u w c y .

According to him, over time, the yodth in the u w c y string goes away, leaving u w c (shua).

If we go along with this idea, he is drawing a connection between “sha” and “shua” endings, through the strings

u w c y and u c y . Then he retro-fits the string u w c y back into the ending of Joshua’s name, making the form:

u w c y w h y = Yeho – Yeshua.

Now, (if you can follow this!), remember back as to how the name Jehu was developed. Particularly the beginning letters. That was a reasonable, though unexpected, derivation.

In this case, take all of that business in Jehu’s name, and apply it to the beginning of this form, u w c y w h y , and

then the short form u w c y emerges.

Start with this, hypothetical original form for Joshua’s Name: u w c y w h y

Drop the central yodth u w c w h y

Drop the heh-waw, like what happened with Jehu’s name: u w c y The above was included in this paper for the purpose of being comprehensive. The best we can learn from such a convoluted reference is that almost anything can be proven with slight-of-hand and mental gymnastics.

Prior to learning of Praetorius’ article, this author sought to resolve word-endings that contrasted the strings

u w c and u c , that is “Shua” vs. “Sha” . Even the best references disagree on many points. There is a

clustering of ideas out there about these strings meaning “shout ,” “cry,” “riches,” “abundance,” “salvation,” and other terms. Many authorities try hard to draw connections that do not convince. This author has reluctantly

covered this matter in APPENDIX III.

Seminar Note: For the seminar, there will be a study of “shua” vs. “sha” endings, but the focus will be on phonetics, rather than meanings, because even the experts disagree on the meanings.

D. Foerster’s Next Reference Is More Accessible:

You can recognize the Hebrew forms for yourself. K.G. Kuhn is saying that the form “Yoshua” existed

simultaneously with “Yehoshua,” until “Yeshua” emerged (from “Yoshua”) by dissimilation. Not counting Foerster (who is just an aggregator of information), we now have six (6) scholars who say the

short form u w c y emerges from dissimilation.


Earlier, we provided two examples of dissimilation from The Hebrew Bible. These cases were documented by the scholar, Joshua Blau in his modern book on Hebrew Phonology [6]. Interestingly, he provides a third example of dissimilation, which we have saved until now. That example is the name of the Ephraimite

commander, the very name we are analyzing. We now have seven (7) scholars on the side of dissimilation for explaining the short form.

Seminar Note: Joshua Blau’s material will be further explained in the seminar.

There is yet another source to support the existence of the form “Yoshua”. The following is taken from the The

Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries,” By W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann [8]

With Albright and Mann, we have nine (9) scholars pointing to the short form u w c y emerging from u w c w y .

Please pause and think about the weight of that. Perhaps it is wrong to call this a “small number of scholars.”

Scholars often trust the proficiency of the readers to piece together evidence such as this. As an aide to newcomers, the development suggested by these scholars is presented in the listing below.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE SPELLINGS ARE MEANT TO REPRESENT SOUNDS, NOT LITERAL HEBREW, EVEN THOUGH THREE OF THESE FORMS APPEAR IN THE BIBLE.

u c w h y = Yehoshua or Ye’oshua Ancient, Original Form

u w c w h y = Yehoshua or Ye’oshua Expanded Form

u w c w y = Yoshua Inferred Yo-Form, 100% equivalent to the original

u w c y = Yeshua Dissimilated form of the above from Late Biblical Hebrew

It is key to this development to appreciate the fact that aspirating on the “Heh” is optional. Sometimes it is silent,

and sometimes it experiences a strong, voiceless expelling of air from the lungs. This is exactly what we see in the English letter “H.” Compare the “H” in “Happy” vs. “Hour”

Suggestion Those of us who use the form “Yahshua” often have difficulty explaining how the first waw

gets “swallowed-up.” Get acquainted with the principles explained herein, and you will have ample material to defend the lack of articulation for the first waw.

Foerster’s Footnote #2

There is another statement of Foerster’s, which is also footnoted. Please look again at Foerster’s remark:


In the second part, Foerster speculates on a tendency to replace that first waw (marked with a Kholem for “Oh”) with a sound represented as ö. Finding the true sound of that symbol, when it was published by Foerster, points to a sound that is hard to represent in a written format like this. The closest I can recommend is to make

the “oo” sound as you normally do, and then stick your tongue out slightly. You will have to open your mouth a bit to sustain the airflow. Reference to the footnote (2), pasted below, will explain how this applies.

Foerster mentions that their “pronunciation is old.” This, supposedly, lends weight to whatever we find there. After all, if it is old, it is perceived as more authentic.

Some Sacred Namers will mention Yemenite Jews in sermons and teachings, as scholarly opinion attributes to them an ancient form of Hebrew. Some of our ranks will even claim that Yemenite Jews pronounce The Holy

Name close our 2-syllable tradition, i.e., “Yahweh. ” (I’ve been unable to verify this claim as of Feb 2015 – MAB) Grimme, the author cited, tells us that the first Kholem in the name, a Long O, shifts to either an ö or an e.

Regardless of which of these you choose, both of them point to a weakening of the Long O, Kholem. Grimme even points to “vacillation” of the vowel pointing in a particular Berlin Manuscript. In other words, the vowel pointing is inconsistent.

Seminar Note: This speaks to claims made in the coming seminar. Dialectal variety was and is the norm,

rather than strict uniformity. Vacillated vowel pointing would lend weight to that claim.

2. Further Observations on Use of the Greek Form Foerster’s article actually speaks to the Greek form. Hebrew is brought in to explain or compare with the Greek.

He sees Hebrew and Greek operating side-by-side. Beginning section 2, Foerster makes the following statement.

So, the short form was very common, both in Hebrew and Greek, among the Jews.

It is customary for publishers in our movement to make much of Josephus’ claims, to the effect that Greek was rare among Jews. Yet his writings survive in Greek only, we have a Greek Old Testament, which was created

by Jews who guarded The Holy Name, and Greek names dominate the Jewish bone boxes of Jerusalem from the 1

st century. Even more, two (2) of Yahshua’s Apostles had Greek names with no Hebrew equivalent (Philip

and Andrew). And many Greek manuscripts exist among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It is likely that Josephus wrote from his priestly perspective, rather than the perspective of the common man. At times, it would seem the “Hebrew Roots” movement has taken the remarks of Josephus too far. After all, if

Elohim hated foreign languages, why would He make languages the first big gift at the outpouring?


Additionally, Horiowitz [9] argues that Jews employed Greek, and that the Greek alphabet is obviously an

outgrowth of the original Semitic alphabet. (Aleph Alpha; Ayin O; Heh E; etc.) Foerster’s opening remark in section 2 has even greater implications, which will be seen later.

It is sometimes taught among certain Sacred Name publishers that the short form, u w c y , was created by

Jewish scribes to either hide the Holy Name (out of misguided reverence for The Name), or else to “sock it to” The Messiah, as a way of shaming Him..

The idea that they made this form to hide the Holy Name is refuted by the abundance of other names where no such phenomenon occurred. We have provided ample and cogent evidence of dissimilation for the emergence

of the short form, u w c y , while other short forms retain an unmistakable Theophoric element, w y . So, we reject

the theory that Joshua’s name was shortened to hide The Name, since they failed to do this with other names. The other theory, that sinister Jews manufactured this name to shame the Messiah, is absurd on the face of it.

There are quadrants in The Movement, where acceptance of the short form is so difficult, that theories such as this often make the rounds. In order for this to be true, the following unlikely events would have to occur in just the right sequence, 100’s of years before Yahshua makes the scene:

1) They have to anticipate His coming 2) They would have to figure out in advance what his Name would be

3) They would know (100’s of years in advance) that they would not like him. That one is a whopper. 4) They would then seize control of Ezra, Nehemiah and part of Chronicles. 5) They would alter those books, and only those books, to shame His Name,

6) The short form would then become standard among Jews. Adjunct to the above theory, is the notion that Jews “Hate The Messiah’s True Name so much, that they

embraced the short form u w c y for themselves.”

In other words, they supposedly hate the long form so much (being Yahshua’s true, long form name), that the short form is all the Jews will ever use, according to this theory.

Use of the short form among Jews is very prominent, up to, but not including, the 2nd

century, as Foerster explains. In a while, Foerster will report a dramatic turn of events in this regard. But for now, the time “between the Testaments” has Jews using the short form in Greek and Hebrew alike.

[We parenthetically note the unexpected long form for Yehosafe = Joseph in line 5, above, which also appears

in Psalm 81:5.] Here Foerster documents numerous cases of short form usage. Three of the LXX translators were named by


the Greek form, and several ossuary inscriptions bear the short form, both in Greek and Hebrew. Of special

interest is foot note, (23), which cites a bone box at Jaffa, exhibiting the extended 6-letter form, along with several additional forms on various ossuaries.

The form u w c y y (line 2) shows the existence of a 2nd

Yodth, a vowel (thus confirming a full syllable) in the

beginning, suggesting a sound like “Ye-shua” or “Yi-shua.” It is entertaining to note that the number of ossuaries and other finds from Jerusalem, since Foerster’s time,

has increased enormously. Today it can be said that the Greek form (Ihsouj) dominates, followed by the short

Hebrew form u w c y , and finally at least one additional bone box is known to exist with a long form (5-letter),

u c w h y [3]. Foerster gives further examples of the Greek form appearing in various places of interest.

This dominant use of the short form, both Greek and Hebrew, raises some questions. Long form proponents in

the movement have advanced many theories and explanations for why The Messiah’s Name had to be exclusively the long form. Yet, we would expect this to be an item of strong contention among early beli evers, if this was so important, given that the short form was so common. Yet there is no record of such a controversy

back then.

Seminar Note: The material towards the end of the Seminar will explain more about where the Greek form

came from. It was an honest attempt by devout Jews to transliterate a difficult Name. This will be brought out in the context of discovering the true, ancient sound of the difficult Hebrew letter Ayin, which appears at the end of

The Messiah’s Name. Foerster transitions to report a critical new trend emerging among Jews of the 2

nd century and beyond.

[continued next page]


In our movement, it is common to hear claims that the Jews embraced the short form, to distance themselves from the true long-form name for the Messiah. This claim is abundantly refuted by Foerster’s research. Upon

the arrival of the 2nd

century, rabbis are embracing a longer form for themselves, u w c w h y , ostensibly to

distance themselves from the short form name, which they believe the Messiah carried. Please review the statements underlined above to see this for yourself.

While the long and short forms are equivalent in the Scripture, it is interesting that these rabbis make a distinction over it, in the vain attempt to create distance between themselves and the Messiah they rejected.

Seminar Note: The Seminar will offer Biblical proofs that the long form and short forms are equivalent. Indeed, it is the unbelieving Jews of the early Messianic era who have fabricated a needless distinction.

3. Yahshua’s Name Is Common, So He Is Distinguished With Sub-Titles.

Foerster invests significant coverage of the fact that Yahshua’s name is common, and so he is addressed with sub-titles and qualifiers. He lifts his quotations from the Greek of the New Testament Scriptures. Here are some of the name/title forms we glean from Foerster’s overview:

Yeshua of Nazareth (of Galilee) Yehsua The Christ (Messiah)

Yeshua The Master (Kurios) Yeshua son of David


For those interested in such things, the patterns, usage and context for employing Yahshua’s Name in the NT is explored in more depth, in Foerster’s Section 3.

4. Theological Meaning of The Messiah’s Name. Since Foerster is an aggregator of other peoples’ research, we are not surprised to find this section affected

with unsound reasoning from unexpected sources. It may be that this sect ion of Foerster has influenced early Sacred Name teachers to avoid the short form. This section is easy to read, unlike the esoteric section on dissimilation. Perhaps it was easier to launch off of something understandable, than to take the time to

understand that hard stuff. Since the short form is demonstrably derived from the long form, and the equivalency of the two forms is upheld

by Scripture, we are hard pressed to understand why researchers would try to wrest different meanings for the two forms. Yet these are some of the topics explored in Section 4.

An emphasis on “Salvation,” instead of The Holy Name, is the thrust here. The Greek of Matt 1:21 is translated for convenience:

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yeshua: for he shall save his people from their sins. The customary translation of this verse leaves many of us short. We expect to find some lively expression of

The Holy Name in the context of this important declaration. This is the only passage in the Bible, where an explanation of The Messiah’s Name is provided.

We will resolve this shortly, but much is made of the failure of the angelic declaration to mention The Almighty’s Name, and this being coupled with the short form. Foerster states that this shifts the emphasis from the

Theophoric element to the verb “to save,” u c y (yahsha) in Hebrew.

Foerster’s footnote (35) states:

This refers to the Greek ‘autos’ for “He” in “He will save His people from their sins.” In other words, the Almighty

gets some slight, tangential acknowledgement in this plan of salvation through this one word. Sacred Namers are understandably quick to point out that a longer form, like Yah(o)shua, would provide proper representation for The Holy Name in the Messiah’s Name, and therefore in the plan for Salvation.

There are more points to be made about the short form, some even suggesting that there is some theological basis for the writers of the Evangels to choose one form over another.

It is good to consider an alternate text of Matt 1:21. The Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew [10] has a profound alternate reading. If Foerster knew about this, he might have included it for balance.


In the Shem Tob account, the angel that appears to Joseph is identified as a “Malach Yahweh.” And Matt 1:21

reads: She will bear a son a son, and y ou will call his name Y eshua: because he will save MY people from their sins.

The difference between the Greek and Hebrew is understandable. The difference in Hebrew is a single letter.

“His People” would be w m u , ahm-u, while “My people” would be y m u , ahm-i. Notice how similar they appear,

and thus lend themselves to scribal confusion.

Since the Malach-Yahweh is speaking for Yahweh, just like in the Old Testament, it is OK for this Angel to speak as though he is The Almighty Himself. Accepting this reading as more authentic, we find a great relief of

pressure, to make the Baby’s Name come out “just right.” Yahweh is speaking through this Angel, and His statements connect to the baby’s Name nicely. More specifically, He is saying:

“You will call him “Yahweh-Save,” for he will save My People from their sins.” Foerster disregards his own earlier remarks about the origin of the short form, and wanders into needless

speculation, as though the short form emphasizes salvation over the one doing the saving. We will address this passage more later.

IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS AHEAD.

The next paragraph in Foerster’s article tries to balance conflicting ideas about whether or not the Holy Name is adequately represented in the short form. This is an area of controversy in our own movement.

Foerster cites Greek and Christian literature, acknowledging the meaning of the short-form name, and even acknowledging the Holy Name Itself. For clarity, three (3) citations, below, are color-coded and labeled for comment.

A - Philo

B- Papyrus

C-Eusebius


Let’s zoom in on key citations above:

i) Philo of Alexandria says

Ih s ou j sothria kurios Ih s ou j is salvation of Lord Translation

Of course, “Lord” (without the definite article) refers to Yahweh

ii) A papyrus from the 3-4th

century, noted above in Greek, has an interpretive note, which says

Ih s ou j Iw s ot h ria

Ih s ou j (is) Yo Salvation Translation

Whoever wrote that 2nd reference, he knows about the Yo Theophoric (!), spelling it

in the Greek as Iw.

(Yes. Look at it again!)

iii) Eusebius has an impressive contribution.

I w s o u a d e e s t i n I a w s w t e r i a t o u t e s t i n t h e o u s w t e r i o n . Joshua being "Salvation of Iao," that is, Salvation of God. Translation

Foerster’s footnote attributes the item iii), above, to Eusebius’ “Demonstratio evangelica” or (Proof of the

Gospel), Book IV, Chapter 17, Line 23) [11]. If you do your own research, it will be frustrating to find that at least two(2) versions of this exist, and that a good translation for one of the versions is elusive. Eusebius actually wrote much about Yahshua’s Name, and he always equates the ancient 5-letter Hebrew form to the Greek

form, which of course is derived from the short Hebrew form. Items ii) and iii), above are most impressive, especially s ince they are writing in Greek. One acknowledges and

employs the Holy Theophoric “Yo” to explain The Messiah’s Name, and the other author, Eusebius, employs the Holy Theophoric “Ya-o,” which is obviously Greek for “Yaho.”

It is significant that three ancient witnesses, Eusebius, Philo and the papyrus cited, all see the connection

between the Greek Ih s ou j and the Holy Name, even though the “Yah” sound, demanded by so many, is

not evident in two of them.

After the mention of the 3

rd-4

th century papyrus, Foerster acknowledges that the ancient 5-letter form is a

sentence-name having two parts: A Theophoric Part as the noun, plus a verb for salvation. Foerster explains

that a Rabbinic source indicates that Joshua’s name was created by Moses adding a simple Yodth in front of his name, to make Yehoshua. To illustrate:

u c w h + y = u c w h y = Y(for Yahweh) + Hoshea = Yehôshûa

From this perspective, the Holy Name is adequately represented by a single Yodth.

Other references (outside this article) would explain that The Ephraimite Commander’s name was a contraction of the word for salvation, with The TriGram Theophoric:

u c ( y ) + w h y = u c w h y = Yaho(for Yahweh) + [ya]sha(Salvation) = Yehôshûa

Either way, the recognition of the ancient form coming from two parts (one part being The Holy Name) is

well-established.


But recklessly, Foerster states:

The shortened form u w c y no longer expresses the Theophoric

element clearly, directing attention simply to the verb u c y ,

This is the kind of speculation that causes much trouble. Despite his dandy explanation of dissimilation leading to the short form, and the understanding of this manifest by several ancient witnesses, he ascribes a kind of Messianic Theological purpose for the shorter form, even though he states elsewhere that it was in use 100’s of

years before The Messiah. Opponents of the short form will find much here to leverage in debate, especially if they do not have the tools

for understanding the earlier section on dissimilation. But critics like that do create a problem for themselves. By citing Foerster’s reasoning as a basis for rejecting the short form, they are in fact explaining how things might be if The Messiah really did have the short form for his Name. Yet, Foerster is explaining the short form

as a reality that certainly happened – opponents do not accept that part of Foerster’s analysis. They only exaggerate the implications of the short form … if it were true.

Note that Foerster does not claim the Theophoric vanished. Look again. His source is only saying that The Theophoric is not as clear.

The very last statement of the paragraph states that an authority named “Chrysostum” interprets The Messiah’s Name to mean simply “salvation” (soteria in Greek). Opponents of the short form claim to have

found a similar view expressed in a small number of certain dictionaries, where the short form u w c y is

interpreted as merely meaning “Savior,” with no Theophoric. It is to be noted that at least one reference cited in

this paper will also interpret the full form for “Joshua” as meaning simply ”savior.” The vast majority of references checked by this author report that the form “Yeshua” means either “Salvation of Yahweh (sometimes The Lord),” or else it is listed as simply an alternate for “Joshua.”

Nine (9) reference authorities will soon be reviewed, plus see material in Appendix III, which touches upon this more.

Critical Thinking When Consulting a Reference.

While it is impossible to be exhaustive, a sufficiently comprehensive overview of the literature will generally show two modes of thinking regarding the short form. It either contains the Holy Name, or it doesn’t. While the scholars make a choice, aver an opinion, and go happily on their way, teachers among us will seize upon one

source or another, and build high doctrine around it. Often these deductions are based on snap judgment and a narrow selection of references.

Without critical thinking, one could be left in a dark place, thinking he is bathed in light. If this quest to understand the short form is based on selective scholarship, we will never resolve it.

We reluctantly digress to assess one of the top references available. Davidson’s Analytical Concordance of Biblical Hebrew. [12]. The material you are about to read is tedious and challenging. We will do all we can to

make it flow. The information we explore here is the best information this author (MAB) has found, that would cause the

short form, u w c y , to lose ground. That is, this is the best data to support the notion that “Yeshua” merely means

“Deliverer”. We will see that this best-effort at diminishing the short form will fail.. Few items on the shelf offer the promise of Davidson’s Analytical Concordance. It lists every form of every Hebrew word in The Bible, plus inferring virtually a full sentence in the meaning of each word. This is

particularly useful in deciphering names. Surely, if we could find some top expert, who states the exact


meaning of names, we might conclude whether The Holy Name is sufficiently represented in that short form.

We will analyze several of his entries in detail, before doing the short form u w c y . We analyze others first, in

order to develop sound methods of interpreting the data in-hand. First we come to the name Hoshea, Joshua’s original name.

That spelling, u c w h , is represented four (4) times in Davidson’s work. Each instance is vowel pointed slightly

different. Since we know the vowel points are of late invention, we are left to wonder how these distinctions

were made anciently. Is this some deal where “everybody knew” back then? It is likely that vowel inflection was king in ancient times, and that subtle modulation of tone, emphasis, de-emphasis, etc. communicated more than the written word could possibly do.

Accepting the vowel points at face value, here are selected entries, labeled for reference.

The entries are usually parsed. Nouns, for example, offer the gender and case for each word. Verbs are described with the mood, tense, number and gender. To close the deal, the far-right column lists the root word from which the word is derived. {Online reviews show one Hebrew student struggling to pull away from the addictive ease, with which this remarkable volume helps with homework).

----------------- i) This entry for Hoshea lists.

u c w h Hiph. imp, sing. masc. u c y

This is interpreted to mean:

- Hilphil Verb (The subject causes the action of the verb, but does not directly perform the act ). - imperative mood (such as Help! or Row!), implies 2

nd person, i.e., you’re urging someone on

- singular case means you are talking to just one

- masculine gender means you are talking to someone male-gendered

- The word is derived from the root u c y , the word for Salvation.

Combined, these details suggest that it means Save!, like a cry to someone in particular for help. {This meaning is also extracted in the Appendix III, in this paper}.


----------------- ii) This entry appears immediately below our previous selection

u c w h w id. pret. 3 pers. sing. masc., for u y c w h u c y


- The initial wav, w , means that every occasion of this particular vowel-pointed form occurs with a

conjunctive w before it. It simply means “And” as a narrative device.

- idem means that some of this word’s data is drawn from the entry before it. - preterite refers to action completed in the past.

- 3 person means it’s talking about someone else - singular case means just one - masculine gender means it involves someone male-gendered

- “for u y c w h “ means this entry is a form of the word u y c w h


Combined, these details suggest that it means, “He saved.”

----------------- iii) Our final selection says:

u c w h ‘ w pr. name masc. u c y


- The initial wav with a stroke before it, ‘ w , means that some but not all occasions of this particular

vowel-pointed form occurs with a conjunctive w before it.

- pr. name means that it’s a proper name.. - masculine gender means the one named is male-gendered


No meaning is given in this case. The fact that this and three other words share the root word for “Salvation” suggests one of the meanings would apply, maybe “Save!! Or “He saved”.

Let’s see what our references say [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]. Here are the meanings for Hoshea as published by these authorities.



Hoshea

Reference u c w h

Strong's Number ==> 1954

Strong's in eSword deliverer

New Unger's Bible Dictionary deliverer

Home Bible Study Dictionary, A. R. Fausset salvation

New Bible Dictionary; Douglas, Bruce, Packer, Hillyer,

Guthrie, Millard, Wiseman

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) welfare

[salvation]

Brown-Driver-Briggs salvation

Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names (online)

Smith's Bible Dictionary (online) salvation

Young's Analytical Concordance Jah is Help

As usual, the authorities cannot agree among themselves. And Davidson disagrees with them. But at least we get to exercise our senses in accessing Davidson’s important work, and to compare it to others.

Next we look up what Davidson has for the name of Joshua, as given to him by Moses.

-------------


i) The first item is entered as:

u c w h y ‘ w h y w defect. u w c w h y (q.v.) h w h


- The initial wav with a stroke, here written ‘ w h y w , means that some but not all occasions of this

particular vowel-pointed form occurs with a conjunctive w before it. The extra letters, making it read

w h y w appear to indicate that the TriGram Theophoric is unchanged when the conjunctive wav appears

before this name. - defect. for “defective” means that the vowel pointing you see conveys the sound of a vowel not seen in

the spelling. The vowel indicated appears as the Wav near the end of the expanded form, which comes

next.

- u w c w h y Is the expanded 6-letter form. Note the Wav before the Ayin.

- q .v. comes from Latin “quod vide”, meaning “which see”. This directs us to look up the form u w c w h y

found elsewhere in this reference book.

- Shock! The word is derived from the root h w h , which is the root word for The Holy Name. It is

amazing that Davidson would draw attention to the root for the TetraGram as the root, rather than the

root u c y for salvation.

-------------

ii) The second item labeled, u w c w h y , is entered among a cluster of several words, and all of them share a

similar analysis.

- They are all proper names, masculine; whose root word is h w h , The root for the Holy Name. This is in

reference to the TriGram Holy Theophoric in the beginning of all these names.

It is noteworthy that Davidson makes no mention of the Hebrew root speaking to the OTHER half of each compound name. He leaves us to our own devices to determine their meaning.

So far, Davidson gives us rich insight on the name “Hoshea,” but adds little to our understanding of the long form, “Yehoshua”.

We will now transition to Davidson’s entry for the short form of Joshua’s Name, u w c y .



Be advised: This singular entry covers a lot of ground.

- The isolated wav, w , is supposed to mean that every occasion of this particular vowel-pointed form

occurs with a conjunctive w placed before it. It simply means “And” as a narrative device.

HOWEVER! One need only check an Interlinear to find this is not so. Here are some places where the form Yeshua exists without the conjunctive wav before it.

Ezra 2:2, 6, 36 Ezra 8:33, 10:18 Nehemiah 8:17 {This one in reference to Joshua son of Nun}

There are more, but this is enough to make the point. Davidson starts right off with spurious notation.

Back to analyzing his entry, Davidson offers an interpretation of this name …

he shall be a deliverance, i.e., deliverer, …

This interpretation comes from a whole new derivation. Whereas Yehoshua came from The Holy Name “plus” some form of the word for “salvation,” Davidson re-derives this short name from scratch, with additional

statements.

for u w c y h y = y h y comp, a w h y

(First, we cannot add the vowel points to this present document. The two forms given as y h y = y h y means that

the two forms (with their differing vowel points) are equivalent for the purpose of his derivation. The equivalence sign does not look like an equal sign in the book, owing to either the smudging of the printer ’s ink, or inconsistencies in the type-set).

His description invites comparison to the derivation for the Name Jehu, a w h y , so let’s have a look at that.


His real aim is to show that the form u w c y came from a contraction of u w c + y h y . He does this by calling

attention to a similar derivation for Jehu’s name, which we pasted above..

There is a form of the verb “to be,” which appears in the Hebrew Scriptures as y h y . It comes from the common

root verb to be, Hayah, h y h , Example: In Gen 1:3, where it says, “(Let there) be light, and there was light,” this

form y h y is employed twice.

Referring to the Davidson’s explanation for Jehu, we find the following explanation:

a w h y … he shall exist, live, contr(action) for a w h y h y

This is a bit of a bombshell.

Earlier in this paper, we derived King Jehu’s name from dissimilation of

a w h + w h y (= Yahweh is he, or Yahweh Lives)

But Davidson says it’s from:

a w h + y h y (= He shall exist)

Our prior development clearly brings in the Theophoric element. Davidson’s development obliterates it.

Taking that pattern for Jehu’s name (a w h + y h y = a w h y ) “he shall live,” he applies it to

manufacture the short form name (u w c + y h y = u w c y ) “he shall be a deliverance.”

Note that he takes the string u w c (shua) to mean deliverance, even though his own explanation for this string

(elsewhere in his book) emphasizes “crying for help” and “riches” as the true meaning. Being good Bible

students, we will continue down this unexpectedly long trail. Davidson has two main entries for u w c , shua,

which are pasted below. (The labels A, A1, A2, etc, are applied for reference).



Like many scholars, Davidson uses the vowel points to identify exactly which form he is discussing. He claims

the “shua” part of the short-form name comes from u w c (shua) to mean “deliverance.” His vowel pointing

points us to the collection (B), above. Before we examine this list, first note how group (A) [with its own vowel points] consistently means “cry for help”. Several instances from Scripture are provided.

Entry (B) is explained as follows. First we transcribe the entry ….

u w c Root not used; i.q. u c y q. v.

here’s what it means:

- Root not used; means, don’t try to look for this exact, unused form anywhere – we just assume it existed.

- i.q. u c y = idem quod u c y , Latin for “Same as” u c y .

Davidson is claiming this is equivalent to “yahsa”, salvation

- q. v. = quid vide = “which see.” In other words, to better understand this unused root, study the word “yasha.”

Davidson is trying to tell us that this particular form of u w c (shua) is the same as the u c y (yasha), the

ordinary word for “salvation,” and invites us to study *that* word. He then proceeds to give us four (4) examples, B1 through B4. Of these four, three (3) mean “rich,” as opposed

to “salvation.” Look again for yourself. Including the similar form in group (A), immediately above this one, everything he has shown us thus far points to the meaning “rich” for this word. Everything.

Finally, down to entry (B4), we get a longish word, h u w c t , “Teshuah,” whose meaning is

salvation/deliverance. In fact, the only form of this root (shua), meaning “salvation”, is this feminine form, entry (B4).


Let us retrace our steps. Davidson (writing back in 1848) teaches that the short name “Yeshua” comes from a

verb to be added to the root u w c (shua), meaning “salvation.” Most everywhere we look, u w c (shua)

means either “cry” or “riches.” The one exception is h u w c t , a feminine form, which is interpreted as

“salvation.” This is hard to believe. Are we to use this long feminine form as an existence proof for slapping “shua” at the end of the verb “to be”, to create a masculine name? It is hard to refute a scholar of such standing as Davidson. He claims the form “Yeshua” comes from pasting a common verb “to be” in fron t of

“shua.” That form “shua” is said to mean “salvation,” yet the only evidence for that is a long feminine word “Teshuah (H8668),” which is properly translated “salvation” in numerous places.

Interesting find: There is a similar word for “salvation”, h u w c y , “Yeshuah”, and several references claim it

comes from “yasha,” u c y . That is consistent with our studies elsewhere.

Restating, according to the authorities …

- “salvation”, h u w c y , “Yeshuah” comes from “yasha,” u c y . In fact many words involving salvation come

from this.

But

- “salvation”, h u w c t , “Teshuah” comes from “shua,” u w c . And this is the only instance in which “shua”

means salvation. Otherwise it means “Riches” or “Cry”.

When one looks more closely at the authorities, it is seen that they try to blend the words for “crying,” “salvation”, and “riches” to explain the form “Teshuah.” At the risk of appearing hopelessly subjective, this

author (MAB) finds these explanations to come across as forced. Let’s review some recognized authorities.

For Teshuah (H8668) h u w c t …

Strong (1890) says [13]:

From H7768 (shua) in the sense of H3467 (yasha); … rescue … deliverance

Q? What in the world is THAT supposed to mean? There seems to be an attempt to fuse two different

words. Gesenius [Tregelles] (1846) says [17]: From the root (shua) [H7768] No. 3 … deliverance, help welfare

But Gesenius under (shua) has … Entry No. 1: “TO BE AMPLE, BROAD” Entry No. 2: “be rich, wealthy”

Entry No. 3: “To be freed from danger or distress (compare yasha)”

Then several examples of the Piel form are provided, where (shua) means “ask for aid, cry for help”.

MAB: The tone of the freedom-oriented Entry No. 3 at first seems to suggest that “salvation” has occurred, yet the Piel form, which carries so much weight, suggest that “salvation” has not occurred yet.

Instead, deliverance is in the offing, and must be sought with beseechment. Again, the putting together of these ideas seems forced.

Wigram’s Englishman’s Hebrew-Chaldee Concordance [22] states that Teshuah comes from “shua” (as opposed to “yasha”).

Matityahu Clark, citing the work of famed rabbinic Jewish scholar Samson Raphael Hirsch [23], under the root “shua”, lists a fourth entry, (the last in the list), stating that “Teshuah” (derived from “shua”) means deliverance


from threat to authority.

For the theory that “Yeshua” means merely “salvation” or “deliverer,” with no Theophoric, the statements of these experts, (the best evidence this author can find), come down to this one question.

Is this root, “shua,” normally meaning “cry” and “riches,” the best explanation for the term “Teshuah” (one of many words for “salvation”)? If so, maybe “shua” really does have this

4th

-level meaning, “salvation” and slapping a yodth (for y h y ) in front of it makes “Yeshua”

merely mean “He is Deliverance”.

It bears repeating, this assumed connection to “Teshuah” is the only evidence in the references for claiming “shua” means salvation. That’s it.

There are serious doubts about this connection. The root “Yahsha” seems like a much better source for the word “Teshuah”, since they both mean “salvation” in one form or another. Dragging in the root “shua” (normally

meaning cry and riches) seems forced at every turn. If the root “shua” can be disengaged from “Teshuah,” it does irreparable damage to the “Yeshua means

deliverer” theory, for there is no other connection out there. Note that every authority cited above is writing well before the year 1900. The next reference emerged after

that point in time. We now give way to the assessment in the Hebrew Lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs (1906), who are compilers

of all Gensius’s works into the one volume called by their combined name. Their entry is scanned and pasted below [18], followed by an explanation.



The lower material section, with a red border, is provided for context only. We parse out the definitive material , at the top, as follows:

- 8668 is the Strong’s number, conveniently applied to later editions of BDB

- The main Hebrew spelling h u w c t is given, with an interesting alternate (h u c t ) from 2sa 19:5.

(It is erroneously noted as 2sa 19:3) - n.f. means “noun feminine” - deliverance, salvation are the assigned meanings

- “ = h u w c y “ means it is equivalent to this other word for “salvation,” “Yeshuah.”

Up to this point, everything is as we expect, and nothing controversial emerges. The parenthetical explanation is the critical material. It is spelled-out as follows, with abbreviations expanded

and translated for ease of understanding:

… formed by false analogy, as if from the root u w c (shua), in the sense of u c y

(yasha); most assign it to u w c (shua), but no sufficient evidence for existence of

such a root; compare Kö ii.200.

This statement handily overthrows the notion that “shua-means-salvation”. In our development, above, this author (MAB) expressed grave doubts about this assumed root “shu a” meaning “salvation”. The BDB Lexicon,

published well after the authorities cited above, provides a fresh perspective. Indeed, where is the evidence of this root and its connection to “yasha?” As BDB states, it is “ … formed by false analogy.”

The Sacred Name people are not generally a rich and prosperous people. But maybe it is time for us to collectively invest in modern Lexicons, which might help us get past older theories that proved untenable over time. Thankfully, a classic work like BDB Lexicon was sufficiently modern to cast aside the obsolete

development suggested by Davidson, Strong and others. Further, it is significant that none of the references cited invoke dissimilation as an engine for dialectal

variety. Note that the online Dictionary.com states that dissimilation emerged as a word in the English ca. 1820-1830. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissimilation?s=t]. This helps explain why the older references appear to be ignorant of the idea, as a means of explaining the short form “Yeshua”.

We have come a long way, but we now return to Davidson.

Davidson concludes his entry for u w c y by adding that it is a proper noun for several persons in the Old

Testament, and that it stands often for u w c w h y (which is the extended long-form for Joshua).

We have carefully considered Davidson’s unique contributions, and we come to 166 years of weeded overgrowth at a dead end. His starting assumptions differ from more modern authors. His reference was

created in 1848. Much has been re-thought and republished since then.

- Rather than derive the short form from the long form, he reconstructs this name from scratch.

- Did Davidson know about dissimilation? He seems to ignore it for both Jehu and Yeshua.

- His derivation (and others) make “Shua” u w c mean salvation/deliverance, even though the evidence

is lacking that such a root exists (as explained by BDB).

- But most devastating is this fact: Ezra and Nehemiah used the short form at the same time

Zachariah and Haggai were using the long form, in reference to the very same Priest. Rather than

derive “Yeshua” from scratch, it would be much better to accept the fact that it has an immediate, contemporary relationship to the long form “Yehoshua,” and to seek out linguistic science to explain that relationship. This author (MAB) believes that has been done in this paper.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissimilation?s=t


Davidson is approaching this name (Yeshua) with reasonable assumptions for his time, but which are nevertheless obsolete. Would he write the same things at this time, 166 years later? His interpretation of the short form bears a striking resemblance to the Greek text, where The Angel explains Yahshua’s Name to

Joseph. We resolved this matter earlier by resorting to the Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew:

Davidson: he shall be deliverance

Matthew 1 Greek: He shall save his people from their sins. Shem Tob Hebrew Matthew He shall save MY people from their sins.

It is hard to escape the impression that Davidson is taking his cues from The Greek. We have already shown that the readings “My People” vs. “His People” differ by the shaping of one letter: an

extended yodth might look like a wav. What profit is there to an early Christian in rendering the Greek as we see it? We have seen, elsewhere, that knowledgeable Christians were aware of the Theophoric in the Messiah’s Name. If the Angel can be made to say, (in reference to the baby), “He shall save His people from

their sins,” it does enhance the perceived deity of the child. The so-called “High Christology” inferred by this would be very attractive to a Christian scribe. You might have to think about that for a while.

Suggestion Some of you have seen references, dictionaries and other sources, which state that Yeshua

merely means “savior” or “deliverer.” Such sources are actually a minority. Please go back and check some things. Is it the writing of a Messianic Jew, who is inherently afraid of using the Holy Name? How long ago was

this written? What might your scholarly source say about Joshua’s ancient name? Is that also rendered as merely “savior?”

Resolution: There is a much better way to approach this matter, and it is explained as a “surprise ending” to the

APPENDIX-III. The reader is urged to consider it. Returning to Foerster, most of the second paragraph in Foerster’s Section 4 is supportive of the short form, and

its inclusion of the Holy Name. The most it speaks against the short form is that the Theophoric is not as clear. To close this section, below is pasted the meanings of the long and short form, as published by references

cited in this paper. {see next page}


Joshua Jeshua

Reference u (w) c w h y u w c y

Strong's Number ==> 3091 3442

Strong's in eSword Jehovah-saved <=== For 3091 He will save

New Unger's Bible Dictionary Jehovah is salvation A later form of Joshua,

Jehovah is salvation

Home Bible Study Dictionary, A. R. Fausset

Jehovah (by him) will save = Joshua



"the divine name" added to the

name Hoshea (salvation) Late form of

the Name Joshua

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) Whose help [salvation]

is Jehovah

A contracted form of the personal noun Joshua,

used in later Hebrew

Brown-Driver-Briggs (Yodth) is salvation, or

(Yodth) is opulence (Yodth) is salvation, or

(Yodth) is opulence


a savior; a deliverer same as Joshua

Smith's Bible Dictionary (online)

saviour, or whose help is Jehovah

Two Different Entries: 1) a saviour , another form

of the name of Joshua of Jesus 2) whom Jehovah helps

Young's Analytical Concordance Jah saves Jah is help

Later Sections in Foerster’s Article

Our interest in Foerster’s article wanes from this point. He rightly indicts unlearned theories about a Pre-Christian cult of Jesus, but none of his later points speak to our present needs.

A Defense of Other English Forms

While composing this material, something interesting emerged among virtually all of my editors and reviewers: They had preferred pronunciations of their own. The graciousness of these great friends cannot be overstated.

When one approaches this topic with a new perspective, there comes a renewed freedom and a lack of fear. Instead of narrowly searching for a pronunciation that is “just right,” this author has sought to find evidence for all legitimate pronunciations. If there is no evidence, then it isn’t legitimate. Hopefully, this freedom is

contagious. Questions: If Yahshua was Keltic, would I be required to speak His Name with an Irish Brogue? You might have

to think about that for a bit. Alternately, if He was a Texan, would I be compelled to draw-out any particular


syllable in His Name?

In this paper, we have tried to reconstruct the history of a Name. In our quest for authenticity, many of us are trying too hard. If I lean towards the short form, I have to wonder, “Why should I embrace something caused by

linguistic forces that do not apply to me?” Moreover, “How can I, in good conscience, make a doctrine out of such a choice?”

First, as stated above, for dissimilation to be operative, the first syllable must simply be dis -similar to the sound of the “waw” appearing at the end of Joshua’s name. Any sound conveying a relaxation, a softening of the first vowel, qualifies for dissimilation. This will include sounds ranging through Y’shua, Yeshua, Yehshua,

Yeh’shuah, Yah’shuah, and Yahshua. [See Appendix I for more on this, relative to the Greek form.] The form “Yahshua” is claimed to come from the long form. “The “O” in “YahOshua” is quiescent,” they say. It

turns out it is quiescent, because of dissimilation. And the original construction of this unique Name is the reason why it is the only name to be affected by dissimilation. If you dissimilate “YehOshua” you will get “Yehshua” and if you dissimlate “Yoshua” you will get “Yeshua”. Not much difference. The reason we say

“YAHshua” in some parts of the fellowship, is because it is normal for us English-speakers to emphasize the first syllable in a word or Name. And many of us like that because it allows us to amplify the Theophoric better. These are legitimate choices and preferences, but you cannot make a doctrine out of those choices.

Some saints will amplify the first syllable, (which is common and OK for English) and further make the second syllable a “U” sound. Such as “Yahushua.” This is based on Cuneiform transcriptions of *similar* names. At this

date, we have no cuneiform of The Ephraimite Commander’s Name. If we ever find it, we should not be surprised if it is dissimilated. Since the dissimilation represents a Southern, Judahite pronunciation, a cuneiform finding could go either way, being perhaps reflective of a Northern Israelite dialect instead. No

problem either way. While pronunciations with a “U” in that second syllable are possible, reliance on the cuneiform is problematic.

Please see the Appendix II where we int roduce the subject, in anticipation of another paper I am developing for this needlessly controversial topic.

This author appeals to the reader to consider the likelihood that, as part of our movement, the many reasonable renderings of The Holy Names we have, are all manifestations of Divine Influence for good. This returns us to the principle of dialectal variety, which is the thrust of the coming seminar. In this economy, everyone must

yield and respect, as the playing field is eternally leveled.

Summary of This Paper: The most ancient form of the Ephraimite general’s name has gone through a long history. Without any

Messianic application in-view, three (3) spellings, and thus at least three (3) pronunciations, appeared in the Biblical Corpus. Even more, two (2) characters from the Bible have their names spelled two (2) ways, and both of those men are prototypes of The Messiah: Joshua son of Nun and Yeshua son of Yozadak. The short form

name, shaped by dissimilation, became so common among Jews that it was the basis of transcriptions into Greek, and appears on numerous bone boxes in the Messianic era … both in Greek and Hebrew form.

Other pronunciations are most certainly possible, based on other sources and considerations. But the short form became a centerpiece in the Messianic era. Its association with The Messiah caused Rabbinic Jews to avoid using it, and to return to a longer form in a vain attempt to pretend it is a different name.

Therefore, it is unbelieving Rabbinic Jews (beloved though they are) who started the idea that the various forms are different in their meaning and in their theological import. Certain later scholars have bought into that

idea, adding to the confusion. Earlier, we cited Eusebius, who equates the Greek “Ihsous” with the Hebrew for Joshua. He actually does this

in a number of his writings. One gets the impression that he was trying to rebut any perceived difference between the long form, short form and Greek form, against a backdrop where Jews are trying to claim there is


a difference.

Theories that posit a different meaning for the two Hebrew names ignore their equivalent usage in The Bible, and their Divine Origin.

Considerations in Application

The Bible strongly upholds the principle of transliteration. Translation of names is rare. There are pagan gods and pagan kings in the Bible, for whom the meaning of their names is obscure. Yet we know what those names sounded like, thanks to transliteration.

But the Bible also upholds dialectal variety. For example, Daniel calls the Baby lonian king Nebuchadnezzar,

but Ezekiel calls him Nebuchadrezzar. When you see the Dome of The Rock in Jerusalem, remember it was at

one time the threshing floor of a Jebusite named “Araunah” (H728) in 2Samuel 24, but called “Ornan” (H771) in 1Chronicles 21. There are other examples of dialectal variation in the Bible for those who care to search.

In the Sacred Name Movement, there is an understandably strong desire to get these things right. But an honest approach to the data will tell you something about your choices when it comes to the Messiah’s Name.

Your choice of Hebrew Spelling and practical pronunciation will be associated with: - A tribal affiliation within Israel

- A geographical location - A point in time and thus …

- A particular dialectal influence and finally … - Some cherished scholar, whose words are most persuasive, and appeal to your tastes.

Consider:

One might argue that the ancient spelling for Joshua’s name is most authentic, ancient and correct. But, alas, it can be shown decisively that his own pronunciation was heavily influenced by his Ephraimite dialect, and that the southern Judean Kingdom is where the pronunciation we embrace actually emerged.

Which form is “correct?”

One might argue that the short form was most likely and most common in the Messianic era, and thus the short form should be “correct.” But in this age, we are not handicapped with the phonemic contractions and hardened speech habits, which caused the dissimilation to take effect. Must we embrace a short form, which emerged

from linguistic forces that do not operate in our space today? And once you decide all of that for yourself, would you accent these names according to the ancient accent, or

would you employ the rules of accent governing your own language, or might you accent it to highlight some theological concept that begs for expression?

No one reading this paper has the authority to single out any one form, and declare that it “has no salvation.” In the Seminar, this author will recommend simple, sound strategies for maintaining order in the Assemblies. It

is beyond question what the real danger is. We are not at risk of people using alternate pronunciations. We always had that. The risk we run is allowing members and visitors to needlessly fret over this matter, and allowing them to project disruptive energies into a Congregation that is doing just fine before Heaven.

How can we maintain order as the ancients did, in the face of dialectal variety and justifiable preferences? The answers are within reach for all of us, if we are humble.

That’s why the upcoming Seminar is scheduled for the Unity Conference.


References:

{This author reminds the reader to consider the Appendices, below, for further information}. [1] " Kittel 's Theological Dictionary of The New Testament,” article entitled “'Ihsous,” Page 284.

See the article entitled “'Ihsous”, by Werner Foerster, on page 284 of Volume III, in Kittel’s Theological

Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Foerster, Translator and Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromiley. A special text-searchable extract of this article from that volume, for reference, is available at:

http://www.yahuyahweh.org/im/MNSerminar/Kittel_Reference_cleaned.pdf [2] Banak, Michael A., Pronouncing The Holy Name, A Call To Humility, Presentation from the 2011 Sacred

Name Unity Conference, YouTube Video @

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSS0HZ5PtyI

[3] From A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel , by L.Y. Rahmani, The Israel

Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, 1994, p. 92. (Although this item has been viewed long ago by the author of

this paper, the reference is lifted from Acheson [24], cited below –MAB).

[4] Vilks, Voy, “The Name: From Yahshua to Jesus – How Did It Happen?” 12/06/1999, p. 15. (Citation lifted

from Acheson [24], below)

[5] Stolper, Matthew W., "A Note on Yahwistic Personal Names in the Murašû Texts ,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research, No. 222 (Apr., 1976), pp. 25-28.

Online sample @ http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356297

[6] Blau, Joshua, 2010, Phonology And Morphology Of Biblical Hebrew, p58, Sect. 1.19.8, Winona Lake,

Indiana, Eisenbrauns. See section on Dissimilation.

[7] Praetorius, Fr., in ZDMG (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, i.e., Journal of the

German Oriental Society), V59 (1905), p341 f., Full volume @

http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/dmg/periodical/structure/51362

Text-searchable PDF @

http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/download/pdf/63615?name=%C3%9Cber%20%22Jesus%22%20und

%20%C3%A4hnliche%20hebr%C3%A4ische%20Eigennamen

[8] The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, “Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes,” By W. F. Albright

and C. S. Mann, Doubleday & Company, Inc. Garden City, New York, 1971, p. 2. ; Also cited by Acheson [24],

below.

[9] Horowitz, Edward, 1988, How the Hebrew Language Grew, KTAV Publishing House, p 18.

[10]Howard, George, The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text , 1987, Mercer University

Press, Macon, GA

[11] Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel, (Latin Title, Demonstratio evangelica), Book IV, Chapter 17,

Online Versions available @:

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0312_eusebius_proof.html

Online translations

@: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/ChurchHistory/312_eusebius_proof-of-the-gospel.pdf

And

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0882/_P1G.HTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSS0HZ5PtyI

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356297

http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/dmg/periodical/structure/51362

http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/download/pdf/63615?name=%C3%9Cber%20%22Jesus%22%20und%20%C3%A4hnliche%20hebr%C3%A4ische%20Eigennamen

http://menadoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/download/pdf/63615?name=%C3%9Cber%20%22Jesus%22%20und%20%C3%A4hnliche%20hebr%C3%A4ische%20Eigennamen

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0312_eusebius_proof.html

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/ChurchHistory/312_eusebius_proof-of-the-gospel.pdf

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0882/_P1G.HTM


[12] Davidson, Benjamin; The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody.

MA, 2014, 1981, (originally Published 1848)

[13] Strong, James; Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon; Plug-In Module for eSword V9.6.0; Meyer’s, Rick; 2000-2010;

www.e-sword.net

[14] Unger, Merrill F. Ed.; Harrison, R.K. Ed., Vos, Howard F., Contr. Ed.; Barber, Cyril J., Contr. Ed., New

Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1957, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago

[15] Fausset, Andrew Robert, Home Bible Study Dictionary, 1987, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI

[16] Douglas, J. D., Ed.; Hillyer, N., Rev. Ed.; Bruce, F. F., Guthrie, D., Millard, A. R., Packer, J. I., Chee,

Sangwoo Youtang, Wiseman, D. J., Consult. Eds., New Bible Dictionary, 1993, Intervarsity Press, Downers

Grove, Illinois

[17] Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux, (translator), Gesenius ’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Baker

Book House, Grand Rapids, MI,1979

[18] Brown, Francis; Driver, S.R.; Briggs, Charles A.; Gesenius, Wilhelm; Hebrew and English Lexicon,

Hendrickson Publishers (Jay P. Green), Peabody, MA, 1979

[19] Hitchcock, Roswell D., Hitchcock 's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible, 1869, Public Domain

online Dictionary of Bible Names at:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/hitchcocks-bible-names/

[20] Smith, William, A Dictionary of the Bible, 1860’s, Public Domain online version at:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/smiths-bible-dictionary/

[21] Young, Robert, Young’s Analytical Concordance to The Bible, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA,

2011

[22] Wigram, George Vicesimus , Englishman’s Hebrew-Chaldee Concordance of The Old Testament

1980, Baker Book House Company; 1982 reprint Mott Media, Fenton, MI (Originally published 1843 and coded to Strong’s numbers in 1890)

[23] Clark, Mitiyahu, Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson

Raphael Hirsch (ca. 1867-78), Philipp Feldheim; First Edition ed., March 2000, Jerusalem/New York

[24] Acheson, Larry and June, Name of the Messiah: ? u w c y ? u c w h y ; An Appeal for Mutual Understanding

and Acceptance of Those With Differing Ideas , September 2013 [25] Sturtevant, Edgar, The Pronunciation Of Greek And Latin, Linguistic Society Of America, University Of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1940. For reference, an earlier, slightly different version (1920) may be accessed online at the following link, which will turn directly to the pertinent page. https://archive.org/stream/pronunciationgr00unkngoog#page/n140/mode/2up

[26] Coogan, M. D., Patterns in Jewish Personal Names in the Babylonian Diaspora; Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period; Jan 1, 1973;

http://www.e-sword.net/

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/hitchcocks-bible-names/

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/smiths-bible-dictionary/

https://archive.org/stream/pronunciationgr00unkngoog#page/n140/mode/2up


[27] Sayce, Rev. A. H.; The Higher Criticism And The Verdict Of The Monuments , Society For Promoting

Christian Knowledge, New York, 1910, Page 87. Available online at: https://archive.org/stream/highercriticismv00saycuoft#page/86/mode/2up

[28] Moscati, Sabatino; Spitaler, Anton; Ullendorff, Edward; Von Soden, Wolfram; An Introduction To The Comparative Grammar Of The Semitic Languages, Phonology And Morphology; Second Printing, Otto

Harrassowitz; December 31, 1969; Wiesbaden, Germany [29] Reiner, Erica, How We Read Cuneiform Texts, Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Jan., 1973),

pp. 3-58; Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research;

Online access through jstor:


[30] Harris, R. Laird, Ed.; Archer, Gleason L., Jr., Assoc. Ed.; Waltke, Bruce K., Assoc. Ed., Theological

Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1980, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago

Acknowledgements:

This author humbly and gratefully acknowledges the contributions and editorial support generously offered by

Gerald Smith of Powell, WY, and Larry, June & Colista Acheson of Plano, TX. While they have been generally

supportive, that is not meant to suggest their agreement with all points herein. The reader is urged to contact

them directly to assess their level of agreement for conclusions in this paper.

APPENDIX I

THE GREEK LETTER ETA h

This may be hard for classical Sacred Namers to accept, but the Greek form lends weight to both English forms “Yeshua” and “Yahshua.” In both English cases and the Greek the 2

nd Wav is quiescent and the first syllable is

variable. Here we consider the Greek spelling, which uses an “Eta” in the first syllable, which gives credence to

the first syllable ranging from “Ye” to “Yah”. We draw heavily from the classic book on the subject of Greek and Latin pronunciation. Edgar Sturtevant’s,

"The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin." [25].

Today, we are accustomed to seeing the letter h , Eta, explained as an ay-sound, as in the word, “bay”. But

Sturtevant claims the ancient sound of the Eta did not sound like "ay" until after the first century. Anciently, Eta sounded like something between "eh and "ah."

Sturtevant cites three (3) ancient sources, who are describing the sound of a sheep cry. As you read these citations, below, ask yourself what a sheep sounds like to you?



(Cratinus (519 BC - 422 BC) and Aristophanes (c. 446 BCE – c. 386 BCE), were Athenian Greeks, specializing in Comedy. The final source, Hesychius, is uncertain -MB)

In all three cases, the sound of the sheep is conveyed as “Beta-Eta.” Based on the use of the Eta to convey this sound, Sturtevant grants that the vowel Eta will be somewhere between “ah” and “eh”, but never “ay.”

This author believes the pre-Messianic brethren in Alexandria used the Eta (instead of the epsilon) after the Iota, to indicate and allow variety in the articulation of the first syllable of Ίησους, because they heard a variety

of sounds in the dissimilated Hebrew form. This analysis applies most strongly to the time between The Testaments, when the Septuagint (LXX) was

composed.

APPENDIX II

Cuneiform Sources for Transliteration

In the 5th

Century BC, about 100 miles Southeast of Bagdad, a prosperous business family, named Murašû and Sons (Pronounced “Murashoo”), made long tedious lists of all their business transactions. Even though these records appear in hard-to-read cuneiform, they provide a valuable glimpse into their lives, and the

Names of Israelites, who interacted with them. Many of these Israelite customers had names with the Theophoric element, and many of them have the

Theophoric as a prefix, which would interest us a great deal. Proponents of the 3-syllable pronunciation of The Tetragram (Yahuah) like to point to the published

transcriptions of these personal names, as evidence of a “Ya-Hoo” sound in the Holy Name. Transcriptions published by Stolper [5], Coogan [26], and others show many names with the Theophoric prefix, and it looks like “Yahu”. For such brethren, this means *all* the Holy Name must also begin with “Yahu”. We will address

the limitations of such findings shortly. In the paper you are reading, we have focused on just one trajectory for The Ephraimite Commander’s Name,

but the present author is comfortable, as should be the reader, with acknowledging that this cuneiform data gives evidence of yet another dialectal variation, appearing in another place on the earth – the Near East, about 600 miles from Israel.

Unfortunately, Joshua’s name has not appeared in any form in any literature from the Murašû Archives thus far as we can tell. Note that the dissimilation, explored earlier in this article, cannot be assessed here, because it

only applies to the unique structure of Joshua’s name. But evidence from those archives suggests a different inflection for the Theophoric in other names, as compared to the Greek and Hebrew evidence.


Here is a citation from page 87 of Sayce [27], conveying this point: In the cuneiform texts Yeho, Yo, and Yah are written Yahu, as for example in the names of Jehu (Yahu-a),

Jehoahaz (Yahu-khazi), and Hezekiah (Khazaqiyahu). Sayce has done a little “leveling” for us, and removed some of the bumps in the ancient text. For the names that

would interest us the most, the names actually begin with strange forms like “ya-a-hu-u”. Coogan [26] and Stolper [5] transcribe more precisely what the cuneiform reports. With just a glance at either

article, one is immediately struck by prefixes such as ya-a-hu-u, as if the sounds are repeated. Example: The name “Yehonathan” (Johnathan) appears in two forms:

ya-a-hu-u-natan and yahu-u-natan.

Here, the opening sounds can be either “Ya-a” or else “Ya”

Here is another name in two forms: ya-a-hu-u-Ia-ki-im

and ya-a-hu-Ia-ki-im

So here, after the “Ya” part, the portion following can be “hu-u” or else “hu”.

What strikes a Sacred-Namer is the seemingly clear assertion of the “Yah” sound up-front in all cases. Countless names are presented this way. This appears to be different than the Hebrew and Greek evidence provided throughout this article. Instead of demanding that one set of data be deemed “right” and all others

“wrong”, this author sees it as yet more evidence of dialectal variety. While graciously acknowledging variations between English Transcriptions of the cuneiform, and the record of

the Greek Septuagint, let us remember that the Murashu Archives were composed by gentiles, about 600 miles from Israel, while the Septuagint was composed by Jewish, pre-Messianic brethren, who carefully preserved the Holy Name using Hebrew letters in the Greek Text, living about 300 miles from Is rael.

The Murašû Family thrived at the time of the Achaemenid (Persian) Empire, at Nippur, at the edge of the Middle East, at a location sufficiently removed from the Holy Land as to allow the development of another

dialect. This is part of the empire built by Cyrus the Great, and reflects a time of increasing freedom for Jews (and displaced Israelites) in the Levant. Different data from that region should not frighten us.

There is a significant limitation to the Murašû Family Archives, which we must address. Much is made of the fact that every one of these records gives evidence of a “Ya-Hoo” sound up front. A search of the literature about the Murašû Family Archives has yielded no evidence of a “Yeho” or “Yo” prefix. There is a very good

reason for this. Most languages will have about 12 vowel sounds (phonemes) Do some digging, and you will find that only four

vowels are recognized by modern cuneiformists. JUST FOUR! Three main "frontal vowels" (where the tongue sits up front)

i - {pronounced "ee"} e - {pronounced like the final syllable in "beret"} a - {pronounced "ah" as in spa}


And just one back vowel (where the tongue is pulled back)

u - {pronounced "oo"} While three-syllable brethren pounce on the absence of the “o” in the records, scholarship wouldn’t know what

it looked like if it was originally there, ringing in the ears of the Murašû Family all along. I invite the reader to grab any book on Cuneiform. You will immediately see oceans of translated syllables with

/i/, /e/,/a/, and /u/. But, the sound /o/ is missing everywhere. Given all transcriptions of any words and names, pagan or Hebrew, not one is seen to have an /o/ in these words. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

That's NOT a reflection of The Original Hebrew. That's a limitation in our understanding of cuneiform. In Sabatino Moscati’s Introduction to Comparative Semitic Grammar [28], he accounts for this phenomena

(when comparing Canaanite/Hebrew to Akkadian), “ … the writing of /u/ for /o/ is due to the absence in cuneiform of a proper notation for the vowel o ...”

Please think about the gravity of this situation. We have brethren of good will, claiming superior, ancient information, based on Cuneiform transcriptions. The lack of the /o/ in the records of Hebrew Names is

paramount in their conclusion. But the existence of the /o/ sound, as in Yehonathan and Yehoshaphat, cannot be falsified in this system because we have no way of discerning that sound from the Cuneiform as understood today.

This means that the /o/ we would expect in names like Yehonathan, Yehoshaphat, etc. is missing in English Transcriptions, because the scholars use the “u” to convey both the /o/ and the /u/.

Analogy: This author’s dear father was slightly color blind. Blue and Green looked alike to him. If someone asked him the color of a new car in the distance, and he answered, “blue”, one had to consider that it was just

as likely to be green. Whether it was green or blue, dad would report the same thing. We have something similar here. That “u” sound, representing a back vowel, is not evidence of an exclusive,

final statement of the true pronunciation. It can stand for either “o” or “oo” or “w”, just like the Hebrew letter Wav. But cuneiformists have, by convention, rendered all back vowels as an “u”. By over-interpreting that “u” in the transcriptions, many brethren have “bet the farm,” insisting that everyone at all times in the past, rendered

these names with Yah-Hoo up front. This has created needless barriers to fellowship. With only a few hundred cuneiformists in existence, it seems odd that outsiders like us would take such dodgy data, and make a li fe and death doctrine out of it. This authors appeals to the conscience of the three-syllable brethren, to put their

weapons down. You have found useful evidence, but to over-interpret it has proven needlessly divisive. The Phonology of the vowels in cuneiform-based languages suffers from a great deal of uncertainty. Even at its

best, this evidence could never be catapulted to the level of proof. Never. It is fun to consider the likelihood that the limited vowels recognized in cuneiform correspond to the

semi-vowels in Hebrew: Cuneiform a is rougly Aleph

Cuneiform e is roughly Heh Cuneiform i is roughly Yodth Cuneiform u is roughly Wav

While this connection looks pretty good, you are about to learn where the cuneiform 4-vowel system really came from.

We share citations from the renowned Assyriologist, the late Professor Erica Reiner. From 1973-1996, she was the lead editor for the 21 Volume “Chicago Assyrian Dictionary", a 9-decade project in this field. In 1973, she

kindly published a foundational article, "How We Read Cuneiform Texts" [29]. She describes this science as an "algorithm." It involves much caution as the cuneiform texts are analyzed through a cumbersome 4-step


process. Reading it will make your insides turn to water.

In the article, Prof. Reiner speaks to the difficulty in creating a phoneme inventory of Akkadian (one of the cuneiform languages). But she mentions the vowels in terms guaranteed to humble every reader:

In reference to the vowels, Reiner states:

“Any phonetic label given to such spelling variations is, as labels generally are, a convenient short reference to the variations themselves, and thus remains on the level of name-giving and should not be confused with any kind of linguistic reality.”

MAB Comment: She is explaining that the small number of variant vowel choices are meant to show differences, not precise sounds.

Reiner further states:

“When Akkadian was first deciphered, readings of cuneiform signs gained by combinatory methods and internal evidence .... were adjusted to fit the deciphered Akkadian words' counterparts in other Semitic languages, as soon as it became apparent that Akkadian

belonged to the Semitic language family. For the vowel inventory, therefore, only the vowels known in Classical Arabic, namely a, i, u, were accepted.”

MAB Comment: Essentially, the earliest cuneiformists said, "Aha, Cuneiform represents a Semitic language and we have some vowels here that appear to match Semitic vowels. Let's just allow the ones we know existed in classical Arabic."

Look again, reader: This was initially only 3 vowels.

Note that they accepted the limitations of classical *ARABIC*, as best understood by them. .

Reiner further states:

“Later developments, among them ... comparison with Greek and Hebrew transcriptions

had led to the admission of e first into the phonetic, then into the phonemic inventory of Akkadian. There is still little clarity on this point, and the status of e is variously labeled phonetic or phonemic."

MAB Comment: The letter /e/, their fourth vowel, is a later addition, and was allowed only when they could find Greek and Hebrew evidence for it in similar Akkadian words. This is reflected in Moscati’s Book [28], with the

following remark about Northwestern Semetic Languages:

“ .. The vowel e, frequently resulting from an original a or i, now appears to be established

as part of the phonemic system, even though it started as a mere allophone {i.e., assumed equal in value to another letter - MAB}.”

When suggesting a future for the letter /o/ in cuneiform transcriptions, Prof. Reiner writes:

“As such notation, the use of the letter O - and other letters that may be eventually

introduced in the transcription of Akkadian words - is proper and acceptable, as long as it is kept in mind that it is the notation for a spelling variation {emphasis MAB} and does not predicate anything about the phonological reality that is assumed for the phoneme

corresponding to the notational letter; in other words, the use of the letter O does not correspond to the phonological reality of an O phoneme, or the existence of a free variant O of some phoneme (O cannot be an allophone because it is not predictable from the

phonological environment); such reality has to be proven by other means.”


Be careful, as you might be tempted to misread these statements. The admission of an /o/ into the Akkadian

syllabary someday will happen only to enhance differences between vowels. Not to nail down a precise sound. Doing THAT would require outside evidence. It is s ignificant that the /o/, if it is ever introduced in Cuneiform transcriptions, will carry the same uncertainty as the other vowels already recognized.

The caution exhibited by this renowned scholar contrasts sharply with the slap -dash efforts of certain authors in our ranks, who seek to extract precise phonetic value from these transcriptions.

We close this section with a quote from Stolper [5], who is frequently cited by 3-syllable brethren. This remark upholds my own claim of dialectal variety in ancient times:

“Naturally. it remains uncertain to what extent these spellings reflect the usage of the bearers of the names, and to what extent they reflect only the usage of Babylonian scribes. But such formal

diversity is just what should be expected in a milieu as diverse ethnically and linguistically as Achaemenid Nippur.”

APPENDIX III

A Review of the Strings u w c y (yshua), u w c (shua), u c y (yasha), and u c (sha).

There is a final, surprise twist in this review, appearing at the end of this APPENDIX. But first we must wear out

the reader with even more detail.

The inquisitive spirit will naturally contemplate the possible meanings of the letter-clusters in the title of this

APPENDIX, when they appear in a larger word or name. The informed spirit would not allow such musings to

be the basis of doctrinal decisions. The interpretation of these strings varies widely among the authorities.

We are driven to analyze these forms because of two factors.

1) Praetorius’ tortured development (as explained in this paper) tries to draw a relationship between words

ending in u w c y (yshua) and words ending in u c y (yasha). This piques our interest.

2) Standard references on names containing these strings are very inconsistent in their definitions.

Despite the confusion among the authorities about names with those letter strings, ministerial authors among

us are publishing broad statements, with deep theological impact, regarding “Yeshua,” the Biblical short form of

Joshua’s Name.

It will seem odd to the reader that we invest so much space to explain data that will prove to be irrelevant. But

the alternative is to leave important questions unanswered, which, for the present study, cannot be justified.

Take note of an important distinction between the approach in this appendix, and that of the main article.

In the essay above, we let the scholars have free reign in their employment of the vowel points. We have

approached the topic their way, allowing them to set the pace with those markings, since that is the context in

which they study these things.

But in this appendix, we will analyze letter strings with virtually no regard for the vowel points. We largely

pretend they do not exist, even though their influence is often there, lurking in the background.

It is observed that many untrained publishers among us claim something like the following: “Yahs hua means

Yahweh-Salvation, but the form Yeshua means merely “savior, ” without reference to The Holy Name, and must

therefore be rejected.”


With a careful and delicate application of sloppy research, one can confidently reach that conclusion, and

believe all is settled.

In the main article above, we have refuted that thesis after a rigorous assessment of Davidson’s definitions.

This appendix will dispel certain additional assumptions at play, from a perspective different than that of the

main article.

In this Appendix we step back for a comprehensive, perhaps even exhaustive, development of names ending

with u w c y (yshua), u w c (shua), u c y (yasha), and u c (sha).

Let us start with a Name we have seen and used many times:”ElYah,” Hebrew h y l a , Strong’s H452. (Please

allow the shorter form for now, having simply “Yah” at the end).

We commonly interpret that as “My El (is) Yah.” The possessive pronoun, “my” supposedly comes from the “i,”

the yodth, y , in the Hebrew. For the observant Bible student, there is an immediate problem. The Yodth

associated with the “my” is also used as part of the Holy Theophoric “Yah.” Yet there is only one yodth in

ElYah’s name. The most basic meaning of this construct *should* be “Elohim (is) Yahweh,” yet several

authorities convey the possessive form. Note the disagreement among the references below.

Elijah

Reference (w) h y l a


Strong's in eSword God

of Jehovah

New Unger's Bible Dictionary My God is Jehovah

Home Bible Study Dictionary, A. R. Fausset God-Jehovah



Yah is El or

Yahweh is God

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) My God is Jehovah

Brown-Driver-Briggs Yah(u) is God

Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names (online) God the Lord


my God is Jehovah

Young's Analytical Concordance

my God is Jah or

God Himself


Yellow coding is for any interpretation that uses “my”, and the pinkish coding is for those places where two

alternate meanings are given.

Opinion is divided as to whether the central Yodth should serve double-duty: To be part of “Yah,” and to also be

interpreted as “my.” This opens an important question. The letter yodth appears in a central position in many

compound names. For such names, how should that central yodth be interpreted? The authorities support

many options.

If we must rely on scholarly sources, we are perplexed, due to their disagreement.

There is a construct called the “Pronomial Suffix.” The yodth after a noun implies first person possession, “of

mine” or “my”. To see this we need only consider some examples, which are beyond dispute:

One patriarch was named “Naphtal-i,” “my wrestling,” as named by Rachel after enduring continued strife with

her sister Leah. The yodth conveyed possession.

In the famous passage, 2 Chr 7;14, “If my people, which are called by My Name, …” the Hebrew says “Shem-i ”

for “My Name,” and “Ahm-i” for “My people.”

When Jacob wrestles with the Angel, he realizes he could have lost his life. “My life is preserved,” he declares.

The word there is “Nephesh-i” in the Hebrew, for “my life.”

And everyone remembers Yahshua’s tortured cry, “Eli, Eli lemma sabactani!” (My El, My El …)

These and many other cases convey a tendency to interpret +yodth to mean “of mine,” or else My +.

Let us now consider the name of Daniel, Strong’s 1840, 1841 Hebrew l a y n d .

n d = “Dan,” meaning “Judge”

y = Yodth, meaning “of mine” or “my.”

l a = El

The Yodth cannot be confused with the last half of the name (As in ElYah’s name). So, “Judge of mine is El” (or

My Judge is El)) appears to be the meaning. Why, then, would the scholars be divided on the meaning of this

name? The same chart from above appears below, with a new column for Daniel. Even if we allow a reversal of

the words, (My Judge is El = El is My Judge), some authorities still offer an alternate meaning “Judge of El.”



Elijah Daniel

Reference (w) h y l a l a y n d

Strong's Number ==> 452 1840


of Jehovah Judge of God

New Unger's Bible Dictionary My God is Jehovah God is my Judge


God is my Judge; or

The Judge of God



Yah is El or

Yahweh is God God is my Judge

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) My God is Jehovah God's Judge

Brown-Driver-Briggs Yah(u) is God El is my Judge


judgment of God; God my judge


my God is Jehovah judgment of God


my God is Jah or

God Himself God is judge

Some of the authorities still hesitate to convey the possessive pronoun “my .” Instead, they make the yodth

mean “of”, but associate it with the last part of the name. Why is this?

We verify that the central Yodth can mean “of” in reference to the 2nd

half of a name, because we see it clearly

expounded in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Heb 7:1-2b For this Melch i sedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high Elohim, who met Abraham returning

from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by

interpretation King of righteousness …

So, that central yodth can also mean “of” coupled with the rest of the word.

Let us consider another Name. The name for the Angel Gabriel has three parts: ”Geber” (H1396, 1397)

meaning “strength” or “warrior,” then that central Yodth, and finally “El.” We would expect this to perhaps mean

“My warrior is Elohim.” Yet, except for Hitchcock, our authorities avoid that interpretation altogether, as seen

below.


Elijah Daniel Gabriel

Reference (w) h y l a l a y n d l a y r b g

Strong's Number ==> 452 1840 1403


of Jehovah Judge of God Man of God

New Unger's Bible Dictionary My God is Jehovah God is my Judge

"man" or "hero of God"


God is my Judge; or

The Judge of God Hero of God



Yah is El or

Yahweh is God God is my Judge

Man of God, or Strength of

God

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) My God is Jehovah God's Judge man of God

Brown-Driver-Briggs Yah(u) is God El is my Judge Man of El


judgment of God; God my judge

God is my strength


my God is Jehovah judgment of God man of God


my God is Jah or

God Himself God is judge God is mighty

The authorities are seen to extract four (4) possible meanings from the central yodth in a compound name.

Note A, R. Fausset’s dual rendering of Daniel’s name. Even he cannot decide. For him, the Yodth is …

1) A possessive pronoun associated with the first part of the word / name:

Daniel = My Judge is El

or

2) A possessive preposition associated with the last part of the word / name:

Daniel = Judge of El

When we are met with a compound name, with a central Yodth, there is a third possibility, which is that …

3) The yodth is naturally associated with the formation of the final part, a word unto itself. While this author

believes that ElYah (h y l a) should be interpreted this way (El is Yah), we still have several authorities, above,

who interpret it otherwise.


4) And then, there is another possibility. Some go so far as to assume that there really is a double-yodth in

there, as many do for EliYah.

Let us keep these possibilities in mind as we consider words and names pertinent to the present study.

The word, “Shua,” u w c, (sometimes “Shuah”), has a bouquet of meanings. This root is the basis for no less

than eight(8) separate entries in Strong’s Dictionary, each differentiated by vowel points and slight variations in

spelling (e.g., a u w c and h u w c). Sometimes it points to a personal name.

Shua(h)

Reference u w c

Strong's Number ==> 7768, 7769,

7770

Strong's in eSword

Halloo, cry;

riches

New Unger's Bible Dictionary




Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.)

Brown-Driver-Briggs cry for help


crying; saving

Smith's Bible Dictionary (online) wealth


Prosperity; Cry out;

The “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” [30] emphasizes many cases where the word means a “cry

for help,” and these uses are seen abundantly in the Psalms and elsewhere. But this reference also shows

there are a number of cases where this word has a different meaning, ideas in the locus of “Riches,”

“Opulence,” “Wealth,” “Abundance.”

In the following places, “Shua” u w c appears as a standalone word.


Job 36:19 Will he esteem thy riches (7769, u w c)? no, not gold, nor all the forces of strength.

Job 34:19 How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich (7771, u w c)

more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands.

[In the case above, u w c is prepended with a connective waw, but is still considered to standalone.]

Isa 32:5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful (7771, u w c).

Between the meaning “Cry” in Psalms, and these references meaning “rich”, It can be seen that two (2) very

different ideas are clustered around this three-letter string u w c . It is difficult to see the connection between

“riches” and “shouting.” Some will attempt to bridge these ideas through the concept of aiding/saving. Perhaps

a cry for help leads to salvation by abundance. It is more likely that we have one string of letters for spelling two different words. We see this in English. I can polish my shoes, which were made by a Polish shoemaker. I can wound my knee, while he wound-up the clock.

Reminder: In these examples, and others, it is the inflection of the VOWELS that determines the meaning. Yet, we are overlooking vowel-points in this analysis, for the most part, for a primitive take on these things.

It is best at this point to keep all possible meanings of “Shua” in-view.

We are now in a position to consider compound names that use the strings:

u w c y (yshua), u w c (shua), u c y (yasha), and u c (sha).

In The Scriptures, we are met with a small number of names, which contain the string “shua” at the end. These were also considered by Praetorius in the article above.

u w c y b a = Abishua u w c y l a = Elishua

u w c y k l m = Malchishua

What could each of these mean? Let us explore the name Abishua.

u w c y b a = Abishua; This could be any of the following:

1 ) u w c + y b a = Ab i+ shua = My Father is supplication (shouting)

2 ) u w c + y + b a = Ab +i+shua = Father of supplication (shouting)

3 ) u w c + y b a = Ab i + shua = My Father is abundance

4 ) u w c + y + b a = Ab +i+shua = Father of abundance

The meaning and implications of interpretation (4), above, has the most appeal to this author. But, in addition to

the above, there are some authorities who see the string u w c y as a word unto itself. They see it as a word for

“salvation.”

5 ) u w c y + b a = Ab + ishua = Father (is) salvation

In reviewing earlier examples, some authorities seem to “cheat” and allow the yodth to play dou ble-duty, so let

us add an extra yodth, and include those cases as well.

6 ) u w c ( y ) + y b a = Ab(i) + ishua = My Father is salvation

7 ) u w c y + y + b a = Ab + (i) + ishua = Father of salvation


There may be more possibilities, but the burden of uncertain meaning is evident. In the tally of nine (9) references, below, we see, the authorities have given us a checkered profile on what this

name means.

Abishua

Reference u w c y b a


Strong's in eSword Father of plenty

New Unger's Bible Dictionary Father of Salvation

Home Bible Study Dictionary, A. R. Fausset Father of Safety



Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) Father of Welfare

Brown-Driver-Briggs My Father is

rescue (or is opulence)

Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names (online) Father of salvation

Smith's Bible Dictionary (online) Father of deliverance

Young's Analytical Concordance Father of Safety

{ Paraphrasing Acheson: “Where do the scholars obtain *their* information?” [24] } It would seem that a majority of the authorities bring “salvation“ into the picture, through the letter-string

u w c y . This will catch our attention, as it gives the impression that this four-letter string might be a legitimate

word for “salvation,” with no Theophoric. PLEASE NOTE that in every case they interpret u w c y to mean “of

salvation,” they are assuming a double-yodth where only one yodth exists: One yodth for “of” and another as

part of u w c y .

Is that true? Does u w c y , standing alone, mean merely “salvation” (with no Theophoric), as suggested by

parsing-out this piece of Abishua’s name? If so, couldn’t we expect to find u w c y as a stand-alone word, with

that very meaning? Please allow digression for two (2) examples of a particular analysis employed here..

First we check the original name for Joshua. It is widely believed that Joshua’s final name was formed by a


Yodth (For Yahweh) + Hoshea, leading to “Yahweh Salvation”. Scholars have slight disagreement on the

meaning for “Hoshea”, u c w h . Of course, it comes from the word “Yasha” u c y , the root for Salvation. But

does that specific string of letters u c w h mean salvation? Using the search utility in eSword, this author

searched for the string u c w h in the Hebrew Scriptures. As expected, it often turns up attached to many

other letters to form larger words, and of course, it is often used as a proper name. But there are two (2) places

where it stands alone, and it is translated both times as the imperative form “ SAVE ! ”. Ps 86:2 “… save thy servant that trusteth in thee.”

Jer 31:7 “… praise ye, and say, O Yahweh, save thy people …” So, “Hoshea” doesn’t exactly mean “Salvation”, though it is related. Its exact meaning was extracted from

places in the Bible where it appears as a stand-alone word, and the meaning is clear. It means “SAVE !”, an emphatic appeal, similar to a drowning man crying “HELP ! “. And suggests that Joshua’s name means “Yahweh Save!”

Let’s check a second example. The name for Elisha, u c y l a , looks like a straightforward connection of El +

Yasha (Salvation), referring to the root u c y , assumed to mean “salvation.” Using the search utility in eSword,

this author searched for the string u c y in the Hebrew Scriptures. As expected, it often turns up attached to

many other letters to form larger words. But there are three (3) places where it stands alone, and it is translated

there as “Salvation” Ps132:16 “I will also clothe her priests with salvation, …”

Is 45:8 “ … let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation … ” Is 61:10 “ … for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, … “

There is an interesting additional example, where the word “yasha” works as an adjective. Ps 20:6 “ … he will hear him from his holy heaven with the saving strength of his right hand.“

With all respect to the translators of old, the Hebrew literally means “ .. salvation strength of his right hand.“

We will take a closer look at Elisha’s name shortly, but the part interpreted as “salvation” is plainly identifiable elsewhere in Scripture.

This approach is admittedly unusual. But the objective is simple. If a string of letters has a certain meaning, I would expect it to bear that meaning somewhere in The Scriptures. Admit tedly I have placed the threshold of verification very high. I seek that exact letter-string (with no alternate letters to force me into conjugations or

declensions), in verses where the meaning is very clear. The purpose of this rigor is to avoid uncertainty.

Using the search utility in eSword, this author searched for the string u w c y in the Hebrew Scriptures. The

tool provided every instance where that string of letters occurs, even as part of larger words.

Here is what turned up:

The string u w c y as a stand-alone word does not occur until we come to people named “Jeshua” in standard

English translations. This is the very name being researched herein. We doubt that the proper name

“Yeshua” was intended to be part of these larger names, like “Abishua .” Yet that very string, u w c y ,

yshua, within “Abishua”, is interpreted by several, though not all, authorities to mean “salvation.”

We question whether u w c y alone means simply “salvation” or “saviour”. If this specific word, u w c y , means

simply “Salvation” or “Savior” (as claimed by many) why do we never see it stand alone as such?


In a spirit of openness, here is what else the search exercise turns up. The string u w c y can appear as part of

a larger word. This happens in two ways.

A) Several times it appears inside Strong’s H3444, h u w c y (yshuah), the “Feminine passive participle of

H3467,” which is of course our u c y (yahsha, meaning “salvation”). It is significant that, for the word meaning

“salvation,” the only time we see the U sound after the sheen, is in this “Feminine passive participle” form for salvation, and it is followed by an additional letter.

In context, H3444 can have a number of spellings. For example t u w c y (yshuath), and t w u w c y (yshuauth).

For those who know about these forms, and claim u w c y , the short form of Joshua’s name, means merely

“Savior” without a Theophoric, are they willing to also claim that Joshua was feminine? Of course Joshua’s name is related to all this. But simple resemblance does not make them equal, armchair

experts notwithstanding.

B) Four (4) times u w c y appears inside forms of Strong’s H7768, u w c (shua), “to cry; shout.” In context, this is

spelled w u w c y , meaning “they cry.”

Does this resemblance now mean that Joshua’s short-form name means “crying?”

The overwhelming majority of references cited in the main article, above, tell us that the name “Yeshua” u w c y

includes Yahweh’s Name, or else is equivalent to Joshua’s Name, which we know with certainty includes the Holy Name. Oddly, Smith’s Bible dictionary (one of the older references) claims Joshua’s full name means merely “a savior; a deliverer”.

Only by tortured needle-threading and force-fitting can we claim that -- “Yeshua u w c y means merely savior,

and thus it must be rejected.”

When we approach a name like Abishua, we must make a choice among several possible meanings.

Salvation-minded partakers of the New Covenant may lean toward forcing u w c y to mean “salvation,” but even

the scholars disagree about this string in compound names, as we saw in the chart above.

1 ) u w c + y b a = Ab i+ shua = My Father is supplication (shouting)

2 ) u w c + y + b a = Ab +i+shua = Father of supplication (or shouting)

3 ) u w c + y b a = Ab i + shua = My Father is abundance

4 ) u w c + y + b a = Ab +i+shua = Father of abundance {This author’s preferred meaning}

5 ) u w c y + b a = Ab + ishua = Father (is) salvation

Or, by sneaking-in double yodths …

6 ) u w c y + ( y ) b a = Ab(i) + ishua = My Father is salvation

7 ) u w c y + y + b a = Ab + (i) + ishua = Father of salvation

This author finds the injection of “salvation” here to be unverifiable, and even rebutted by some (though not all)

authorities. These very same considerations apply to the other two (2) names having this appearance: Elishua and

Malchishua. The chart below shows all three names, with the checkered interpretations offered


by our nine (9) sources.

Abishua Malchishua Elishua

Reference u w c y b a u w c y k l m u w c y l a

Strong's Number ==> 50 4444 474

Strong's in eSword Father of plenty King of Wealth God of supplication

(or of riches)

New Unger's Bible Dictionary Father of Salvation The King of Salvation God of Supplication

Home Bible Study Dictionary, A. R. Fausset Father of Safety

My King (gives) Assistance

= Elishama; Which Strong says is

"God of Hearing"



Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) Father of Welfare King of Aid To whom

God is Salvation

Brown-Driver-Briggs My Father is

rescue (or is opulence) My king is opulence God is salvation, (or is opulence)

Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names (online) Father of salvation God is my salvation

Smith's Bible Dictionary (online) Father of deliverance

Malchi-shua (king of help) God is my salvation

Young's Analytical Concordance Father of Safety God is rich

Note the smear and blur of interpretations offered by these experts , especially for the “ishua” part. Surely, this

cannot be the basis of any doctrinal conclusion.

There is an additional name, which calls for consideration. That is the name of the prophet, Elisha u c y l a .

Using the analytical breakout approach employed earlier, here are the possibilities we see for the meaning of

this name:

u c y l a = u c y + l a = El + yahsha = El (is) Salvation

u c y l a = u c + y l a = Eli + Sha = My El (is) “Sha” [which has no meaning at all]

u c y l a = u c + y + l a = El + i + Sha = El of “Sha” [which has no meaning at all]

Or letting the yodth play double-duty …

u c y l a = u c y + (y) + l a = El + (i) + yasha = El of Salvation


The possibilities are happily limited, because the ending is “yasha” instead of ”yeshua”. This avoids the

confusion caused by the similarity of the word “Shua” (which has 2 possible meanings, “Cry” and “riches”),

compared to forms of “Yasha,” which, on occasion, contain “Shua”.

By eliminating the meaningless options, the interpretation comes down to “El (is) Salvation” or “El of Salvation. ”

Note what the references say, below. In every case but Dr. Strong, the authorities unambiguously connect this

name of Elisha with salvation. And they should. The simple root Yashah, u c y , is plainly in-view.

Abishua Malchishua El i shua El i sha

Reference u w c y b a u w c y k l m u w c y l a u c y l a

Strong's Number ==> 50 4444 474 477

Strong's in eSword Father of plenty King of Wealth

God of supplication

(or of riches)

Contracted form of

<=== 474

New Unger's Bible Dictionary Father of Salvation The King of Salvation God of Supplication God his salvation

Home Bible Study Dictionary,

A. R. Fausset Father of Safety

My King (gives)

Assistance

= Elishama;

Which Strong says is

"God of Hearing" God for Salvation

New Bible Dictionary;

Douglas, Bruce, Packer, Hillyer,

Guthrie, Millard, Wiseman God is Salvation

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.) Father of Welfare King of Aid

To whom

God is Salvation

To whom

God is Salvation

Brown-Driver-Briggs

My Father is

rescue (or is opulence) My king is opulence

God is salvation,

(or is opulence) God is salvation

Hitchcock's Dictionary

of Bible Names (online) Father of salvation God is my salvation Salvation of God

Smith's Bible

Dictionary (online) Father of deliverance

Malchi-shua

(king of help) God is my salvation God his salvation

Young's Analytical

Concordance Father of Safety God is rich God is saviour

The string u c y (yasha) points to salvation, and most references support that. Dr. Strong is alone (among those

cited) in trying to frame “Elisha” as a diminutive of “Elishua.” But in neither case, does he import the idea of

salvation. He believes the string u w c means “supplication” or “riches,” and u c “sha”, to be a diminutive of

that.

While this appendix may have been hard to follow, the important points are these:


A) The string u w c y, which here is trans-letterated as y.sh.u.a, has scholars divided over whether it means

“salvation” when it appears in compound words or names. That’s because the initial yodth could simply be a

possessive device, connecting it to the root “shua,” u w c , meaning “riches,” or “shouting.”

B) The explicit string u w c y cannot be found as a standalone word meaning “salvation” anywhere in the Hebrew

Scriptures. In contrast the string u w c , “shua,” can be found in several places as a standalone word. But it does

not mean “salvation.” Instead, it is somebody’s name, or else it means “riches,” or “shouting.” Perhaps this is

why the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon casts doubt on the root “shua” being connected to “salvation.”

C) When u w c + y (yodth + shua) appears at the end of a name, it is tempting to fuse them together, to mean

“salvation.” But that yodth could, instead, just mean “of”, or else be connected with the first part of a name, to

mean “of mine”.

C) The only time u w c y appears as a stand-alone word is when it appears as the name rendered “Jeshua” in

common English translations.

D) When the letters u w c y are found as a string, unambiguously meaning “salvation,” (with no Theophoric), it is

buried within a larger FEMININE word meaning “salvation.”

E) These facts (B through D) call into question the conclusion that the Masculine Name u w c y, means merely

“salvation” or “savior” with no Theophoric. Such claims were based on mere resemblance.

F) As expected, based on the forgoing, some authoritative references provide alternate meanings for the string

u w c y in a compound name, by assigning a possessive meaning to the central yodth, and interpreting the “shua”

as “cry/supplication” or else “abundance/wealth.”

G) Scholars are clearly divided on which way these constructs should go.

H) The confusion surrounding this string u w c y when used in compound names deters us from extracting

mere “salvation” as its meaning.

Surprising Conclusion to this Appendix

OK. So, we have considered a kaleidoscope of possibilities. At issue are the proper interpretation of the central

yodth, and proper interpretation of the sha/shua endings with a yodth in the neighborhood.

This author would count it a good thing if the reader experienced some frustration. When this author hears or

reads analytical statements about these strings, and what they mean, it is evident that some pre-conceived

notion is on the way. Perhaps an application of vowel -points would save the day, and order these possibilities

for us. If so, why don’t the scholars, who rely on vowel -points, agree among themselves? Even assuming that

vowel-sounds would refine these meanings to extreme precision, they may still not be close to the ancient

meaning.

If that is not enough, we are met with yet another dimension of uncertainty: There is evidence that, if a

word/name ending with “sha” originates in Northern Israel, it will morph into sounding like “shua”, when that

word / name is adopted in the Southern Judah region. This is strictly a dialectal phenomenon.

The evidence for this is slight but there are points worth mentioning, which will make the reading of this difficult

appendix worthwhile. First, the reader is invited to look, again, at the chart showing Elishua and Elisha side-by


side. Among all the authorities, Dr. Strong is alone in equating Elisha (A Northern Israelite Name) with Elishua

(A Southern Judean Name for David’s son). If these names really are related, then it lends weight to the

shashua transformation theory as one goes from North to South. Unfortunately, this further complicates our

ability to parse-out meanings from these words and names.

But there is more. This North-to-South shashua transformation theory would explain why, today, the

standard Jewish Name for the Ephraimite Commander (and The Jewish Messiah) sounds like “shua” at the

end, even though the original ending was evidently “sha”.

To avoid the manifest complications with this whole business, the coming Seminar will focus on the phonetics

of the Ephraimite Commander’s name as it made its way through history, rather than parsing out words with

multiple possible meanings.

There is a good reason for this. First, let’s recall where Hebrew Names come from. Normally, three-letter root

words are augmented with letters and spelling variations, which convey the sense, gender, case, tense, etc., of

the name to be created. This is true, also, for compound names, such as those under consideration here. If you

think about it, many pages up to this point have been a quest for the true meaning of names built -up in this

manner.

But, when that style of analysis is applied to the name “Yeshua”, it is doomed to fail. Here’s why. The original

name of the Ephraimite commander easily submits to a derivation from scratch. But, the short, Late Biblical

Hebrew form of that name was not a fresh construction. It was simply a derivative of the long form,

emerging from linguistic forces which affect only the sound of the name, but not its meaning. That is why it is a

waste of time to approach it with narrow analysis and critical parsing, which was the thrust of this Appendix ,

and parts of the main article.

Once the reader is introduced to dominant Yo-forms in The Hebrew, and then acquainted with the phenomena

of dissimilation with convincing examples from English and Hebrew, the transition from Long Form to Short

Form becomes a smooth continuum through history. Only when we try to make the short form a new word unto

itself, re-deriving it from scratch, are we forced into mental gymnastics and linguistic slight -of-hand. The

greatest evidence of these grotesque acrobatics is the perpetual denial that Ezra and Nehemiah legitimately

used the short form at the same time Zachariah and Haggai were using the long form, in reference to the very

same Priest.

Sadly for many, there will be no end to the study of this matter. We will never really have all the answers, until

that day of reckoning in the future. Yet freedom from Solomon's burden is within reach for all of us. Once you

accept the fact that Ezra, Nehemiah, Zachariah and Haggai all got along just fine, you can feel free to locate

this paper in your archives, thumb through it for a minute or two, and then burn it at your next campfire.

In fact, I would encourage that. Consider including some other publications too.

This section closes with a comprehensive chart for the critical names discussed in this Appendix. Note the

tie-dyed array of options the authorities left us with, especially with the endings.

[See next page]


Shua(h) Abishua Malchishua El i shua El i sha

Reference u w c u w c y b a u w c y k l m u w c y l a u c y l a

Strong's Number ==> 7768, 7769,

7770 50 4444 474 477

Strong's in eSword

Halloo, cry;

riches Father of plenty King of Wealth

God of supplication

(or of riches)

Contracted form of

<=== 474

New Unger's Bible Dictionary

Father of Salvation

The King of

Salvation

God of

Supplication God his salvation


Father of Safety My King (gives)

Assistance

= Elishama;

Which Strong says

is "God of Hearing" God for Salvation

New Bible Dictionary; Douglas, Bruce, Packer,

Hillyer, Guthrie, Millard, Wiseman

God is Salvation

Gesenius (Tregelles, tran.)

Father of Welfare King of Aid To whom

God is Salvation To whom

God is Salvation

Brown-Driver-Briggs cry for help

My Father is

rescue (or is opulence) My king is opulence

God is salvation, (or is opulence) God is salvation


crying; saving Father of salvation

God is my salvation Salvation of God

Smith's Bible

Dictionary (online) wealth

Father of

deliverance

Malchi-shua

(king of help)

God is my

salvation God his salvation

Young's Analytical

Concordance

Prosperity;

Cry out; Father of Safety

God is rich God is saviour

Chart 1. Names With “Shua” and “Sha” Endings, Translated By Several References.

We conclude from this that the meaning of Yodth + shua, alone, is uncertain and no basis for determining high doctrine

Approaching The Messiah’s Name Through...

Documents

Transcript of Approaching The Messiah’s Name Through...