The name “Jesus” is an English import, not an early first-century name. For the Galilean teacher at the heart of the Christian tradition, “Jesus” would have represented a foreign nomenclature, handy for readers but not the name he heard on the streets of his hometown.
Thus, in the context of first-century Galilee, the language of everyday communication was predominantly Aramaic, a language of business, agriculture, and the synagogues. It is within this context that the scholarly consensus regards the historical name as Yeshua, although Yeshu can also be used, particularly in shortened form, in a later rabbinic context. As Professor Dineke Houtman comments, “His name would probably have been in Aramaic: Yeshua. It is likely that this is also how he introduced himself. Another possibility is the shorter form Yeshu, which is the form used in later rabbinic literature.” Professor Candida Moss comments: “Most scholars also accept that his name was Yeshua or perhaps Yeshu, which was a very common name in first-century Galilee.”
The last point shifts the mood in the story. Yeshua was not a unique, distinguishing mark; rather, it was just one of the names of the period. The language use in the period confirms the ordinariness of the name. The use of the name Yeshua was common in the period as the alternate spelling of the name Yehoshua, or Joshua, in the period of the Second Temple. The point is that the early communities did not have a “brand.” Rather, they started with a man whose given name would easily place him in his period.
The transformation from Yeshua to Jesus occurred through the typical process of historical change: through the power of language. As the movement centered around Jesus spread into a Greek-speaking community, his name had to adapt to the limitations presented by a different alphabet and phonetics. Greek does not have the “sh” sound and does not use the same suffixes as Semitic names. A functional compromise was reached: Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) emerged as the Greek rendering of either Yeshua or Yehoshua. A seeming minimal phonetic adjustment to replace “sh” with “s” and change the suffix to conform to Greek grammar rules created a spelling that was portable and transportable across cultures and languages.
The Latin received this form with relatively little resistance and retained it for a long time as IESVS/Iesus. The most obvious jump for English-speaking audiences occurred later and was more a matter of typography than theology. The letter “J” was a late addition to the English alphabet, and this is reflected in early English translations of the Bible. The 1611 King James Version of the Bible used “Iesus,” and it is important to remember that what seems obvious and fixed at one time was not so long ago dependent on the gradual standardization of letters. It was not until “J” had become a standard English letter that “Jesus” emerged as a familiar name.
Then there is the second word, which is frequently confused with a last name. “Christ” is a title an identification of role that originated from Greek. It is derived from the Greek word “Christos,” meaning “anointed,” or “Messiah.” In the Near East, being anointed designated kings, priests, and other persons who were consecrated for ritual purposes. Therefore, “Jesus Christ” is not “first name + last name,” but rather “Yeshua, the Anointed One.” Names, in this perspective, function like moving boats. With each language they encounter, they change form, and yet people attempt to hold on to that which is essential: recognition, memory, and meaning. This is the core paradox of religious history to be dedicated to someone whose most well-known name is itself an act of translation.
