Yeshua or Y'shua? A Genuine Resolution

    One good use of a rabbi's blog is to help dispel confusion.    I encounter a fair amount of confusion about whether the transliteration of the name of Messiah from Hebrew into English is properly rendered, "Yeshua," or "Y'shua," – or whether both are somehow equally valid spellings.   Since I hold a degree in Comparative Literature (the study of texts in multiple languages), and worked professionally as a definitions editor and writer for a major international English dictionary,* I can offer a more than casual contribution on this topic: and since this spelling conflict has created an unnecessary schism in Messianic norms - as if we needmore things to divide us – and, since one of these spellings is awkward in English usage to the point of being distracting – I thought I would offer my view of this matter from the standpoint of my specific academic training and my thirty years of experience teaching about disputed texts.    The Yeshua spelling is correct, and the Y'shua spelling is incorrect.    There are no circumstances under which the spelling Y'shua could be considered correct. This is not a matter of opinion, but of standard, normative linguistic practice.      In  all vowelized Hebrew New Testaments, whether Delitzsch, Modern, or the Aramaic Peshitta, the vowel beneath the yod in Yeshua's name is a "tsereh" (..) which is pronounced "ehy" like the end of Sunday, and is denoted in English transliteration varyingly by the letters e, ey, or ay. It is never denoted by an apostrophe, which is reserved in transliterations of Hebrew to indicate a glottal stop as rendered either by the vowel called a "shvah" (:) or in relation to a letter with a glottal quality to its correct pronunciation, like the back-of -the-throat letter ayin. In transliterations, this glottal indication (awkward because it has no English equivalent) looks like this: 'ozzi [See Keil-Delitzsch Vol. 7  Isaiah, p. 292]. In Yeshua's name, the end ayin would justify the spelling Yeshu'a - but since the English contains no glottal, adding the awkward apostrophe serves no purpose, and for that reason, virtually no one uses it in non-scholarly writing.     This being so - why is the Y'shua spelling used? Insofar as I am aware, there is one justification held forth by its primary proponents, and there are three reasons (motivations) not so often openly discussed.     The primary international installer of use of the Y'shua spelling is the California-based Hebrew Christian evangelical association called "Jews for Jesus." Two of their highest executives (Executive Director David Brickner, and Australia National Director Bob Mendelsohn) explained this spelling to me in person years ago, and both offered the same justification, which was repeated to me by JFJ Founder Moishe Rosen just yesterday in an email: "There is no correct way to spell a transliteration." With all due respect, this statement is simply not accurate.   In language, rules emanate from either established grammatical precepts or from usage itself creating a norm. In both cases, where Hebrew transliteration has been and is done, an apostrophe is never to my knowledge used normatively to denote a tsereh. It is only used for the sh'vah and to differentiate the open glottal 'ayin from the non-glottal open aleph. FYI, this is why Gaza is spelled with a "g" when the name in Hebrew is actually spelled 'ayin, zayin, hey. The "g" is intended to mimic as closely as possible the back-throat pronounciation of 'ayin –  thus turning 'Azah into Gaza.  Rules in language exist via code and practice. I can insist it is permissible for me to spell 'fish' with the letters g, h, o, t, i ("gh" making the "f" sound as in "tough," o making the "i" sound as in "women." and "ti" making the "sh" sound as in "action") - and it will still not make that spelling a sound choice for a fish store: signs with "Fresh 'Ghoti' Sold Here!" written on them will not serve fish sellers' interests. And there are rules for this kind of choice. Scripture commands us to have respect for what is considered honest/respectable in the sight of all humankind," (Rom. 12:17b) and not to make choices that would make us, as Believers, appear unsound of mind to non-believers. (1Cor. 14:23)    Injecting this non-normative, patently incorrect usage into the communication of our Movement within itself and with the outside world is, in this writer's view, unjustifiable.      So much for justification. Now - as to the reasons for its use.  I trust my reader understands justification [back-loading validation for installation or maintenance of usage]  is different from reason (motivation) for the choice to install or maintain usage. Insofar as I am aware, the three main reasons for Y'shua being used by Jews for Jesus (which I got from the people involved first hand on both sides of the question) have to do with JFJ using the variation in spelling as a marketing tracking device for JFJ's influence as contrasted with other Jewish believing ministries: those using it "downstream" would be more identifiable as having come to faith via JFJ. The second anecdote is about a supposed dispute between JFJ founder Moishe Rosen and one of the first synagogual Messianic Jewish proponents during the 1970's over use of Judaic nomenclature by Messiah-believers. The third, which I heard for the first time only a few days ago, involved a desire to render the name easier to pronounce. While these accounts were, as I said, all relayed to me first hand by the people involved, there is some inconsistency in them that, in my view, renders them unfit for detailed publication - especially regarding an issue needing to be resolved in a professional manner.   The spelling "Yeshuah" would also technically be correct from an isolated angle, since the additional end-"h" technically does not alter pronunciation; but the Yeshuah spelling is not to be preferred, for a specific scholarly reason: in Hebrew, the male proper name Yeshua is spelled "yod, shin, vav, 'ayin and the "thing" salvation (rescue) is spelled yod, shin, vav, 'ayin, hey. In Hebrew, that end "h" letter renders the word a noun rather than a proper noun, and renders its gender feminine, rather than the masculine name without the end-hey. So - in English transliteration, it would be a poor choice to spell the Messiah's first name, Yeshuah with the end-"h" because it makes the word less clear in meaning.The end "h" normatively being absent or present lends additional clarity as to whether the noun or a person is being referenced by the word. Paul the Apostle wrote of this kind of choice-making priority system when he said, "All (non-criminal) things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All (non-criminal) things are lawful, but not all things edify." (1Cor. 10:23) Just because you can "get away with" doing something at the outer margins of permissibility does not mean it is advisable that you do it.   There are rules. Big, clear ones. In scholarship and in relevant Biblical precept texts.   Thus - in closing - with all anecdotal information aside, and on scholarly grounds only: the spelling Y'shua is incorrect, and in this writer's view should be stricken from Messianic Jewish practice as quickly as the international community can absorb the facts of its impropriety, and transmit reconfiguration regarding its use.*[Rabbi Bruce Cohen holds a B.A. cum laude in Comparative Literature from Union College, and did additional work in foreign language at Columbia University in Manhattan. In addition to teaching local, regional, national and international classes in religious literature across thirty years, he has also been a Yeshiva Instructor (Teacher of Rabbis) in Talmudic Literature in the IAMCS Yeshiva, and is a widely published author on related topics, and was a Definitions Editor and Writer for Houghton Mifflin's American Heritage Dictionary 2nd College Edition.]3 February 2009