Original name for Jesus – From Wikipedia --
The following is an article taken from Wikipedia. It is not my intent to correct or demean this excellent article in any way but to add my comments to further the understanding that is presented in this balanced article. Many observations and sound research is presented in this article and I hope my added comments will expand on the positive and enhance what has happened to our Savior’s true birth name from the beginning to the present. Any of "My Comment" remarks may be address to email@example.com and for further information on various subjects may be found at, www.yahshuaservant.com Let’s begin --
Original Name of Jesus -- Source: Wikipedia plus my comments:
In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Iesoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. Greek or Iesoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deut. 32:44.)
Servant’s Comment: First Paragraph --We have been saying all along, of course, that the modern English is derived from the Latin, not Greek. The defenders of JESUS are then saying IESUS is a “transliteration” (see "Note A" at end of article for discussion of this word) of IESOUS but it is plain to see this is in no way an accurate transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic Name YaHshua, or YaHoshua. It is a different name completely from the beginning, as IESUS, as a transliteration of IESOUS (pronounced as Hey-s-oo-s) cannot be a transliteration of Yeshua either. Taking the IE and matching YE, in the name Yeshua one could say this is a transliteration, except the language has changed and these letters are no longer good transliterations of one another and it would be pointed out by some, like myself, that would say, SHUA and SOUS destroys the whole idea of a complete transliteration of His Name as it is obvious to the casual observer – Shua and Sous have nothing in common other than they both begin with the letter “S”.
Servant’s Comment: Second Paragraph – Koine Greek? Again it is plain to see, Inoous or Iesous cannot be a transliteration of the Hebrew/Jewish birth Name of our Savior as neither of these versions transpose His Name into the Greek. The Latin, following the Greeks come up with IESVS or IESUS, perhaps a latin transliteration of the Greek but even in today’s language this is not how the name of the Latin god is pronounced. It is not pronounced as the transliteration seen in Yeshua, nor YaHoshua, and not YaHshua. IESUS and YESUS have a similar appearance but are pronounced differently, which violates the “transliteration” attempt, but accepted as one coming or belonging to the other, as a name, eliminates, or should, both as transliterations of His Birth Name as a Jewish Child Named by an Angelic Messenger (Mat 1:21) a name found in the Hebrew Scriptures and among the people (Acts 4:12). The statement that “Hoshea” (Yeshua) is found in a couple of place in the Old Testament as authority, quoting Deut 32:44, for its use is quite wrong, as there is a whole Book, JOSHUA, written in His Name, the name also of Moses’ right hand man and the man that led the people into the promised land. Joshua is an Old English transliteration of YeHoShua which is a transliteration of His Hebrew Name, as is YaHshua and YaHushua (YaH-Shua and YaH-U-Shua). The Hebrew spelling of the English Joshua confirms this. This actually proves the Hebrew/Jewish Name given to our Savior has always been in the Bible, ignored and replaced by the Latin name IESUS. Like it or not the Jewish scholars trying to convince you the Hebrew does not contain the Name, YaHshua, want to ignore the principles of “transliteration” except for when they use it in their own translations, themselves being influenced by the Greek in the Septuagint of the original, lost, Hebrew Bible using Yeshua. They do admit to a few uses seen in the Hebrew as YaHoshua, YeHoshua, YaHushua, YeHushua, all transliterations of the original Hebrew and the transliteration spellings of Joshua, not Jesus.
During the second Temple period (beginning 538 BC – 70 AD), Yeshua first became a known form of the name Yehoshua. All occurrences of Yeshua in the Hebrew Bible are in I Chron. 24:11, II Chron. 31:15, Ezra, and Nehemiah where it is transliterated into English as Jeshua. Two of these men (Joshua the son of Nun and Joshua the High Priest) are mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible where they are instead called Yehoshua  (transliterated into English as Joshua).
Servant’s Comment: Third Paragraph –This supports the YaHshua transliteration as YeHoshua is admittedly the proper transliteration for the English Joshua, which begs the question of why the English translators use Jesus as opposed to Joshua? When the linguist point out that in YeH the “e” is supposed to be used as the “long” “e” which has the sound of “a” vowel and both are vowels and not actually part of the Original Name. So, the “e” even in the “long” is not part of the Name but was added to aid in pronunciation, the purpose of transliterations, and when the vowel or vowel point for the “e” it had a different sound closer to the vowel “a” of today’s languages into the English. To argue over the “e” as more correct is only correct over 2500 years ago and only then if those pushing for the retaining of the “e” accept it in the “long” form which would then make the pronunciation virtually the same as YaH-Shua. What about the “o”, or “u” in the middle? The “o” and the “u” are interchangeable as the language changed so did the sound so it move from “O” to “U” in keeping with the a more correct transliteration. This letter is of the smallest concern as it changes the “SHUA” from the meaning “Savior” to “Salvation” both having the same outcome in meaning. He is, our Savior, or Salvation so adding it is to say He is our Salvation, our USHUA, or He is our Savior, our SHUA.
The earlier form Yehoshua did not disappear, however, and remained in use as well. In the post-exilic books, Joshua the son of Nun is called both Yeshua bin-Nun (Nehemiah 8:17) and Yehoshua (I Chronicles 7:27). The short form Yeshua was used for Jesus ben Sirach in Hebrew fragments of the Wisdom of Sirach. (Some concern remains over whether these fragments faithfully represent the original Hebrew text or are instead a later translation back into Hebrew.) The earlier form Yehoshua saw revived usage from the Hasmonean period onwards, although the name Yeshua is still found in letters from the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 AD).
Servants Comment: Forth Paragraph – Here we find complete support for the “full” form of our Saviors Birth Name as opposed to the “short form”. Actually, Yeshua is really not a short form but a form that came later and coming later ignoring the earlier accepted form of YaHoshua (remember the “e” is in supposed to be in “long”, “ee” form and in today’s language transliterates into the “a”). What makes Yeshua a “short form” is the dropping of a principle letter of the Name of our Creator and Savior, the letter “H”, so it is not a short form but a changed name. Some say YH, or YaH is short for YHWH and if we follow that as a possibility it would then deny Ye-shua as a short form. What would the short form really be, then, if there is a short form? It would be YaH-shua, not Ye-shua. In today’s language Ye-shua is a different name and a mistake on the Jewish scribes part in continuing with a “later” form and rejecting the “original earlier” form. The consistency is either a glaring error or it is on purpose, you decide.
In the context of the documentary entitled The Lost Tomb of Jesus, archeologist Amos Kloner stated that the name Yeshua was then a popular form of the name Yehoshua and was "one of the common names in the time of the Second Temple." In discussing whether it was remarkable to find a tomb with the name of Jesus (the particular ossuary in question bears the inscription "Yehuda bar Yeshua"), he pointed out that the name had been found 71 times in burial caves from that time period.
Servant’s Comment: Fifth paragraph – This is in keeping with a profound statement from the lips of Peter recorded in Acts 4:12, “…no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (NIV). One has to wonder, did the Angel Gabriel coming from the Living God of all Creation with a Name to Name our Savior be coming with a “short form” of the ORIGINAL? I think we all know the answer to that and when we consider the principle of the Commandments we can see the truth – “If you break the least of these you are guilty of breaking them all” – by this principle alone we can see that to “break” His Name into anything other than the complete form is to break it entirely – the short form is from men, not our Creator and our Heavenly Father. It does not matter how many times the Jewish/Hebrew scribes use the self confessed “short form” in the copies of the Scriptures (Torah, Tanakh, etc.) this is a choice they have made and they admit to the “original form” but prefer to use the “short” or “broken” form of this Name, especially when it comes to making reference to our Savior, YaHshua, to them this would be, Yeshua or maybe even, Yashua?
Thus, both the full form Yehoshua and the abbreviated form Yeshua, were in use during the Gospel period - and in relation to the same person, as in the Hebrew Bible references to Yehoshua/Yeshua son of Nun, and Yehoshua/Yeshua the high priest in the days of Ezra.
Servant’s Comment: Sixth paragraph – So, both were used and this means our Savior was then named a name in the “short form” which actually cuts the Father’s Name out? If there were two choices being used during the time of our Savior’s birth it would only make sense that of the two choices our Heavenly Father would have chosen the longer, original form, doesn’t it? YaHshua said He came in His Father’s Name, not some short form of that Name. When you look at the so called short form it is easy to begin to see it is nothing like the name JESUS accept in a similarity of appearance as neither of these two are pronounced the same, so the transliteration between these names fails as does the transliteration between the name Yeshua and YaHshua, even if you spell it YaHushua, it fails miserably as a transliteration or even as representative of His birth Name.
In the Talmud, only one reference is made to the spelling Yeshua, in verbatim quotation from the Hebrew Bible regarding Jeshua son of Jozadak (elsewhere called Joshua son of Josedech). The Talmud does refer to several people named Yehoshua from before (e.g. Joshua ben Perachyah) and after Jesus (e.g. Joshua ben Hananiah). However in references to Jesus in the Talmud, where the name occurs, it is rendered Yeshu, which is a name reserved in Aramaic and Hebrew literature from the early medieval period until today, solely for Jesus of Nazareth for other Joshuas. However some scholars, such as Maier (1978) regard the two named "Yeshu" texts in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a and 107b) to be later amendments, and not original.Clement of Alexandria and St. Cyril of Jerusalem considered the Greek form Iesous to be the original,[original research?] even going so far as to interpret it as a true Greek name and not simply a transliteration of Hebrew. (A similar situation is seen in the use of the true Greek name Simon as a translation of the Hebrew name Shim'on in texts such as Sirach.) Eusebius related it to the Greek root meaning "to heal" thus making it a variant of Jason meaning healer.
Servant’s Comment: Seventh and Eight paragraphs – Simple truth is hard to ignore. In the latter paragraph we see the obvious answer to how His Name was changed and accepted, not by some mysterious twisting but by a simple CHANGE from the Hebrew to the Greek claiming it to be the true Greek name and “not simply a transliteration of Hebrew”. How much plainer can it get? Scholars of the Roman Church changed His My Hebrew/Jewish Name to that of a Greek.
However, the New Testament describes Jesus as being a part of a Jewish milieu, reading the Hebrew Bible and debating with Pharisees over interpretations of the Jewish legal tradition. The Gospels record several Hebrew and Aramaic words or expressions spoken by him. Moreover, Eusebius reports that Jesus's student Matthew wrote a gospel "in the Hebrew language". (Note, scholars typically argue the word "Hebrew" in the New Testament refers to Aramaic.)
An argument in favor of the Hebrew reduced form ???? Yeshua, as opposed to Yehoshua, is the Old Syriac Bible (c. 200 AD) and the Peshitta preserve this same spelling but using the equivalent Aramaic letters . Yeshu /jeSuS/ (Syriac does not use a 'furtive' pathach so extra /a/ is not used) is still the pronunciation used in the West Syriac dialect, whereas East Syriac has rendered the pronunciation of these same letters as Išô‘ /iSo?/. These texts were translated from the Greek, but the name is not a simple transliteration of the Greek form because Greek did not have an "sh" [?] sound, and substituted [s]; and likewise lacked and therefore omitted the final ‘ayin sound [?]. It can be argued that the Aramaic speakers who used this name had a continual connection to the Aramaic-speakers in communities founded by the apostles and other students of Jesus, thus independently preserved his historical name. Alternatively, Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible had long used Yeshu for Hebrew names such as Yehoshua Ben Nun. So the possibility of Jesus having been Yehoshua remains.
Servant’s Comment: Last paragraphs –The last line really says it all and while men on both sides, the Jews, and the Christians can argue for the name Yeshua in the “short form” it still does not measure up to the bogus name JESUS. All of the reasoning can be used in how certain letters could not be sounded out in the Greek because they did not have letters to properly transliterate the name properly is a faulty argument from the shear fact that today we do have letters and combination of letter to do the proper transliterations. We have already read where the Greek Name comes from, not form the Hebrew nor the Aramaic but from a couple of Roman Saints saying His Name is Greek. JESUS comes from the Roman Church, from the Latin language claiming to come from the Original Greek. The faulty think should be clear, the Roman/Greek Church, East and West, wanted a non-Jewish god and they created one, name and all.
This small article was lifted from Wikipedia at the address above. This is part of an excellent discussion and presentation concerning the name “Yeshua”, pro and con. I have added My comments:
Yeshua was used as the name for Jesus in late additions to the Yosippon; however, its usage here is a translation back into the Hebrew Yeshua from the Greek.
Servant’s Comment: This is not true, of course, and is of no surprise considering the source. Looking at the title you would think the Rabbinical Commentary is dealing with to variation Yeshu/Yeshua but right from the start we see it is Yeshua/Jesus. This is the lie being pushed by may scholars in a self imposed deception of the truth, that Yeshua and Jesus are the same. First, the names Jesus and Yeshua are not “translations”, and I will assume the Rabbinical commentators of this article know this.
In general rabbinical sources use Yeshu, and this is the form to which named references to Jesus in the Talmud as Yeshu occur. The name Yeshu is only found in the Babylonian Talmud, and some scholars, such as Maier (1978) have argued that those a late additions. Other Hebrew sources referencing Yeshu include the Toledot Yeshu Sefer Nestor ha-Komer, Jacob ben Reuben's Milhamoth ha-Shem, Sefer Nizzahon Yashan, Sefer Joseph Hamekane, the works of Ibn Shaprut, Moses ha-Kohen de Tordesillas, and Hasdai Crescas, etc.
Some of these sources comment on the reasons for the missing ayin from Yeshu, as opposed to the Hebrew Bible Yeshua and Yehoshuah. Leon Modena argues that it was Jesus himself who made his disciples remove the ayin, and that therefore they cannot now restore it. A tradition states that the shortening to Yeshu relates to the Y-SH-U of the yimach shemo "may his name be obliterated."
The Greek transliteration (Iesous) *jesu-os ? [je'sus] can stand for both Classical Biblical Hebrew Yehoshua [yho'suah] (top two) and Late Biblical Hebrew Yeshua[je'suah] (bottom). This later form developed within Hebrew (not Aramaic). All three spelling variants occur in the Hebrew Bible, including when referring to the same person. During the Second Temple Period, Jews of Galilee tended to preserve the traditional spelling, keeping the <?> letter for the [o] in the first syllable, even adding an additional letter for the [u] in the second syllable. However, Jews of Jerusalem tended to spell the name as they pronounced it, [je'sua?], contracting the spelling to ???? without the [o] letter. Later, Aramaic references to the Hebrew Bible adopted the contracted phonetic form of this Hebrew name as an Aramaic name.
Servant’s Comment: Way back when the Greek transliterated the name YeHoshua (this is a transliteration in English today) the Greek was pronounced quite differently than it is today. The original spelling and pronunciation is admittedly, YeHoshua. As a transliteration YaHshua also fits the bill but IESUS does not. Yeshua might have a favorable vote but for the fact it is not pronounced as a true “transliteration” due to the dropping of the all important letter “H”. What about the “O” being dropped? That letter is not part of the Father’s Name but is the beginning of the descriptive part. With the “O” or “U” present it changes the definition of what is being said in His Name from “Savior” to “Salvation” and both declarations are correct. YaH is our Savior and YaH is our Salvation. This is where we can determine the name “Yeshua” is incorrect as it literally cut His Name in half in effect replacing the transliterated “H” with the lowly vowel “e” not an original part of His Name. The pronunciation is then distorted from the true “transliteration” from YaH-Shua to Yes-shua. Some have rendered it as Yea-shua but the same problem occurs with the cutting of His Name in half discarding the letter “H”. Some, within the Jewish community, when finding it necessary to mention this name, will print it as, Y ' shua and in doing so, inadvertently, admit to the missing letter signifying our Creator's Holy Name.
The Jewish, record shows there was an original form and it was not Yeshua. Yeshua is said to be a “later contraction” and in knowing this, the error is apparent. Ask the question, would the Father of our Savior have named His Son in a contracted form or the whole form? The answer is obvious and by not keeping with this His Name, a Name by which we must all be saved (Acts 4:12) believers in the Scriptures are moved further and further from the Saving One. Little by little His Name has been changed until we have a name today that is not even close to His Birth Name -- not even close to the Name the Apostles preached in and died for. The flase name JESUS is not a transliteration and it is a poor transliteration of the poor attempt by the Greeks (Iesous). Even these two names are hard pressed to be called transliterations as they sound nothing alike and are not accurate reproductions of the Name of our Savior.
Some have tried to say that IESUS is the transliteration of IESOUS and if this is true it does not matter and is a worthless observation for neither is a transliteration of His Birth Name, His Hebrew Name, YaHshua, or YaHushua. The defenders of the names Yeshua and Jesus then say, "But, there were no proper letter replacements in the Greek for the total transliteration of the Hebrew". If this is true, it is no longer true today, as in today’s languages we do have the complete letterings and words to properly transliterate His Name. The Original Greek was mishandled and abused for purposes to change His Name From Hebrew to a Greek Names as admitted to by St Cyril of Jerusalem and Clement of Alexandria (see first article). They were purposely trying to disassociate the Christians from the Jews. They wanted a Gentile God, not a Jewish God and they made one. Under Emperor Constantine much was accomplished toward this goal of separation which led to the persecution of Jews and Jewish communities and anyone acting Jewish by, say, using Jewish names.
I personally see nothing wrong in dropping the “O” or the “U”, as mentioned before, these are subjective and not really a part of the original Name YHWH. But to drop half of the Name of our Creator and Savior by dropping the “H” in the transliteration, well, that changes everything -- even a vowel cannot restore such damage. The pronunciation is completely thrown off and when you look at the name JESUS compared to the original YeHoshua and the alternate “transliterations”, YaHshua and YaHushua you can see the name "Jesus" is not a “translation” and it is definitely not a “transliteration" of any of these original names of our Savior as He was Named by His Heavenly Father. A Name delivered by the Heavenly Messenger, Gabriel, a name given to Mary (Maryam) and Joseph (Yosheph) to Name Him, they were not given a choice, nor was their opinion requested, no, they were given the Name to Name Him and it was not some contraction of the Original, how could it be?
For those unfamiliar with translations and transliterations let’s have a look at the difference:
American Heritage Dictionary will be used for the definition of these two terms
Translation -- n. Abbr. tr., trans., transl. 1. The act or process of translating, especially from one language into another. The state of being translated. 2. A translated version of a text. 
Transliterate -- v.tr. trans-lit-er-at-ed, trans-lit-er-at-ing, trans-lit-er-ates. To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of another alphabet.
To translate from one language to another the words and letters may sound differently but produce the same meaning as the original language. The purpose, then, of “transliteration” is to produce corresponding “letters or words” for the production of the same sound. Some confuse translation and to transliterate missing this important point.
They seem similar and some think to “translate” is really the same as to “transliterate” which it is not and the those dealing in languages and have knowledge of how language is handled from one to the other know this. Transliteration, to repeat, is for the purpose of producing a letter and or word to correspond with the original, from a different language, in an effort to create the same sound and this is attempted by the use of letters or words that have the same sound, or pronunciation as the original language being transliterated -- the letters may be different but the goal is to reproduce the appropriate sound. In effect, if a complete book were to be “transliterated” the person may be able to read the book but it would make no sense while the reader would be sounding out the words of another language, written in his or her own language. This is where the “translation’ comes in.
The same book being translated and then read would be understood by the reader as the book would be reproduced in the readers own language with a meaning for meaning “translation”. This is why “transliterations” are mostly concerned with “names”. To “transliterate” a name from one language to another is to make that name sound like the original in the lettering or wording of a different language so the sound or pronunciation of that name is the same no matter which language it is spoken in. It may look different, on paper, to the owner of the name, but it would come out the same, or very near the same giving some allowance for accent and dialects when pronounced, or sounded out. This, however, is not what we find in the name, JESUS and YESHUA, neither is a suitable transliteration for the birth Name of our Savior, YaHshua.
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary. Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.