The English-speaking world uses him bandied about as “Jesus”, but the letter j did not find its way into English till many centuries later than the New Testament. This leads to a tiny, yet refreshing reminder: the best known name in Christianity is also a translation-influenced inheritance, being transports across alphabets, languages instead of being preserved in one, definite sound.
In first century Galilee, the colloquial language of many of the Jewish communities was Aramaic. In that context, it is common knowledge among scholars that the given name of Jesus would have been more likely to be Yeshua (later Jewish texts show “Yeshu” as a short form). It was also a common name, used by most men, so that to tell anyone who it belonged to a supporting device, such as kinship, place of origin, trade, was necessary, instead of anything analogous to a modern surname.
The Yeshua to “Jesus” journey went through the methodological limitations of language. At the time the story of Jesus was translated into Greek, his name was translated to Iesous as the Greek language did not have the sounds to match the corresponding sounds in part of “Yeshua”, such as the sh sound, and the naming system of the Greek people inclined to add an ending s to the name of the male counterpart, further corrupted the name. The Greek form which Latin took was Iesus, and subsequently the spelling and sound of English were once more lost as the alphabet was changed and the sound of the letter J acquired its own. All this had no effect on what Christians confess Jesus to be, but it did influence what many Christians think that his “real name” must have been.
A question of explanation soon follows, What then is “Christ”? Christ in the original language used in the New Testament does not appear as a second name, rather as title. The Greek word christos is translated as anointed one and this trade is similar to the anointing of kings and others who are to be used by the God of Israel. The Gospel of John maintains the linkage to those readers who are not Aramaic speakers, thus providing the transliterated word Messiah with its Greek clarification. As a matter of fact, the Greek New Testament of the messias is not very common but christos is used with overwhelming frequency some 530 times, as the vocabulary of the church assumed that name which might wander across the Roman world.
The use of that word was important since “anointed” had expectations. This process of anointing and kingship had long been linked in the Scriptures and aspirations of Israel, and particularly among the successors of David. Nevertheless the Gospels also indicate that Jesus did not always identify himself with the most politicised names that could be given. It was more commonly used in the narratives, he also more frequently spoke of himself as “Son of Man”, and the term “Christ”, when used figuratively, is much more prominent in Christian proclamation following his death and resurrection. The title was both at once a confession and interpretation: this Yeshua of Nazareth is the anointed king, but his kingship is shown in suffering, mercy, and giving of his life as opposed to more traditional demonstrations of power.
In this light, the restoration of “Yeshua” is not a substitute of “Jesus”. It reinvents the sense of names and titles that numerous believers know by heart. The name was altered into a sound when the word spread across the borders; the message transmitted by the name of “Christ” was to be an announcement of who he is.
