Clement Of Alexandria - Tumblr Posts

"According to Photius [a 9th century Byzantine Patriarch], Clement of Alexandria held at least a quasi-docetic belief regarding the nature of Christ, namely that the Word/Logos did not became flesh, but only ‘appeared to be in flesh,’ an interpretation which directly denied the reality of the incarnation."

--(Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of "Heresy" from Photius' Bibliotheca. Ashwin-Siejkowski 95).

Was James the Brother of Jesus?

Eli Kittim (Author)

——-

Given that Josephus didn’t believe in Jesus, he wouldn’t have written “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.” So, it’s very likely that the James passage in book 20 of Antiquities is, at the very least, a partial interpolation.

This phraseology smacks of redaction as Josephus supposedly uses NT messianic terminology to refer to Jesus as the Christ! The purpose of the interpolation is seemingly to establish James both as a historical figure and as “the brother of Jesus.”

In fact, scholars such as Tessa Rajak and G. A. Wells, among others, have argued against the authenticity of the James passage for various reasons. Not to mention that there are conflicting reports between Josephus and other early Christian writers regarding both James’ type of death and time of death, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation.

——-

The scholarly preoccupation with James is so complicated and confusing that it has taken on a life of its own. Personally, I think it’s a circular argument. It probably started out as a simple acknowledgement on the part of Josephus of the NT writings and ended up as an elaborate conspiracy theory that fueled much scholarly debate. There are quite a few people called “James” in the Scriptural record, and many early interpretations give rise to wild speculations and cases of mistaken identity. For ex, James, son of Alphaeus is said to have been stoned to death. The similarity of his purported martyrdom to that of James the Just, has led some scholars, notably James Tabor and Robert Eisenman, to assume that these “two Jameses” were one and the same. This specific identification of James, son of Alphaeus with James the Just, as well as James the Less, has been asserted since medieval times. Obviously, these presuppositions lead to divergent interpretations. There is also much scholarly disagreement about James’ exact relationship to Jesus.

——-

Archaeological findings do not support a historical James either. We know, for example, that the James Ossuary is a forgery.

——-

Surprisingly, however, there is wide attestation to James from Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius of Salamis, Jerome, the apocryphal works of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and so on. But we need to put these findings in perspective. Many of these writers come from centuries later, and they’re doing Midrash (interpretation), irrespective of whether the James story is historical or not, much like men of letters who have expounded on works of Shakespeare throughout the centuries. So, the wide attestation to Hamlet, for example, doesn’t mean that he’s a real, factual, historical person. Thus, despite its wide attestation, the story of Hamlet is still a legend.

——-

According to the gospel narratives themselves, there is strong evidence that James was NOT the brother of Jesus, so that no matter what Josephus wrote, it was wrong. Even if the James passage in Book 20 turns out to be authentic, which I seriously doubt, it would still be false contextually and linguistically because Josephus suggests a biological blood-relationship between James and Jesus, which is unwarranted according to the sitz im leben of the gospels.

Both the Church Fathers and the Gospels reveal who the so-called “brothers” of Jesus are

Here are the proofs:

Mt. 13.53-57 names the so-called “brothers” of Jesus: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

There are scholarly debates about the precise relationship of these men to Jesus that goes back to the Patristic Fathers.

We also know that the term “brother” can be employed to convey the meaning of “cousin” or “ nephew (see Gen. 13 & 14).

In Jn. 19, just before his death, when Jesus entrusts the safekeeping of Mary to John, it seems highly unlikely that Jesus would’ve done this if he was survived by his brothers, such as James. It would’ve been their obligation to take care of their mother.

Mt. 27.55-56 references Mary, the mother of James and Joseph (who were mentioned back in Mt. 13.55 as the so-called “brothers” of Jesus).

Mt. 27.59-61 depicts the so-called other Mary (mother of James & Joseph), who is obviously not Mary, the mother of Jesus. This implies that James and Joseph cannot possibly be the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

In other words, even from the point of view of the allegorical narratives, James and Joseph cannot be portrayed as the brothers of Jesus.

In Jn. 19.25 Mary, the mother of Jesus is clearly distinguished from her “sister” Mary, the wife of Clopas. It demonstrates that the terms “brother” or “sister” don’t necessarily mean a blood-brother or blood-sister but rather a relative of some kind——perhaps even a brother in the faith.

——-

External Evidence

Eusebius, Church History, 4.22.4: Simon, who was earlier mentioned as the “brother” of Jesus, turns out to be a cousin.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.11-12: Here we have, once again, a reference to cousins.

Eusebius, Church History, 3.32.1-6: Judas, the so-called “brother” of Jesus also turns out to be a cousin.

——-

Summary

Therefore, both the internal and external evidence demonstrate that James could not have been the biological brother of Jesus in any sense, whether literal or historical.

——-

Was Mythicism or Historicism More Dominant In the Early History and Development of the Christian Church?

By Goodreads Author Eli Kittim

——-

Preface

There are certain things in the Bible that we all take for granted today, such as the historicity of Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the like. We think that these “facts” were written in stone and have been known since Christianity’s inception. How can anyone seriously challenge them?

——-

Christian Origins

But early Christianity was not monolithic. It was diverse. There were many different sects that held very different views both about Jesus and the interpretation of the New Testament. Orthodoxy eventually won the day but that doesn’t mean that they necessarily represented the sect that held the hermeneutically-correct and valid Bible interpretations or that they had the correct view about Jesus. Far from it. There were, in fact, diametrically opposed views that ranged from one extreme to another, from a completely human Jesus to a phantom or a ghost that never really existed. But, as we will see, there is a middle ground where mythicism and historicism meet.

——-

Gnosticism

The New Testament is a literary creation. So it’s difficult to probe its historical antecedents. What were some of the opposing views to “Orthodoxy”? One of the most vocal of these Christian sects was centred in Alexandria, Egypt: the Gnostics. They were the first advocates of the “you-don’t-need-religion, you-need-a-relationship-with-Jesus” pitch. Although there were many splinter groups, they all emphasised a personal “gnosis” (knowledge) and acquaintance with spiritual realities rather than a preoccupation with dry religious discourses and traditions. They originated in the first century C.E. and flourished until the second century, during which the Patristic Fathers denounced them as heretics. But were they? According to Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels, they were the genuine Christians of that early period whom the Orthodox Church tried to suppress!

——-

To be sure, their theology was influenced by Greek thought, but the focal point of their doctrine and practice was not based on rhetoric or dogma but rather on personal existential experience. And based on their own inimitable style, one can infer that they had better insights into the divine than their orthodox counterparts who did little more than debate the issues.

——-

Docetism

Then there were the Docetists, who held the “heterodox” (i.e. “at variance with orthodoxy”) doctrine that what appeared to be a historical Jesus was nothing more than an apparition or a phantom, and that his phenomenological bodily existence was not real. This is actually more in line with Scripture, which repeatedly talks of visions and apparitions in one form or another (cf. Lk 24.23–24; Gal. 1.11-12). These are the first mythicists who believed that Jesus never existed! There’s a great deal of Biblical evidence that supports this view. This early Christian view called “Docetism” (derived from the Greek term “Dokesis,” meaning “to seem”)——which held that Christ did not really exist in human form, an idea that was later picked up by Islam——attracted some of the greatest Biblical thinkers of Antiquity:

“According to Photius [a 9th century Byzantine Patriarch], Clement of Alexandria held at least a quasi-docetic belief regarding the nature of Christ, namely that the Word/Logos did not became flesh, but only ‘appeared to be in flesh,’ an interpretation which directly denied the reality of the incarnation” (Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr. “Clement of Alexandria on Trial: The Evidence of ‘Heresy’ from Photius’ Bibliotheca.” [Leiden: Brill, 2010], p. 95).

As would be expected, Docetism was eventually rejected as a heretical doctrine at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. But this verdict was issued in the 4th century. And there is a very good reason why mythicism had thitherto been on the upswing. In fact, despite this setback, the hermeneutical doctrine that gave rise to Docetism continued to hold sway over most of the church until the Reformation.

——-

The Monophysite Christian church

According to tradition, the Coptic Church of Egypt was founded by Mark the evangelist in the first century CE. Due to a Christological dispute, this “Monophysite” Christian church was condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Instead of accepting the doctrine that Christ was fully human and fully divine, the Coptic church asserted that Christ had only one nature, and that nature was divine. In other words, just like the Docetists they denied the incarnation and therefore they can be technically defined as mythicists! A similar monophysite explanation of how the divine and human relate within the person of Jesus is Eutychianism. Eutychians were often classified as Phantasiasts by their opponents because they reduced Jesus’ incarnation to a phantasm or an illusion of some kind. Their Christology was along the lines of Docetism in that they, too, denied the full reality of Jesus’ humanity. Thus, we find that there were quite a number of sects that denied the historicity of Jesus during the early period of the church. Things started to change with the onset of the first ecumenical councils!

——-

The Alexandrian School

The early Christian church held to an allegorical (theological) Interpretation of the Bible, not a historical one. Philo’s essential approach to Biblical interpretation influenced the Christian School of hermeneutics, which also developed in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. One of its principal leaders was the Great Bible scholar, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE), who while acknowledging that the Bible contained various levels of meaning also realized that the non-literal (i.e. the allegorical/mystical) interpretations contained the ideal spiritual insights. Alexandrian hermeneutics were so popular that they eventually became the dominant force in Biblical interpretation up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. So, the allegorical/theological Biblical interpretation that gave rise to such views as Docetism was the mainstay of early Biblical scholarship. This method was obviously more inclined towards the spiritual, the metaphorical, and the metaphysical, dare I say the Gnostic!

——-

The School of Antioch

Sometime towards the end of the 3rd century CE, the School of Antioch was founded. It was the first Seminary, so to speak, founded in Syria that overemphasized the literal interpretation of the Bible and the humanity of Christ. This so-called “exegetical school” interpreted Scripture primarily according to its historical and grammatical sense. In an attempt to offset the earlier excesses of Biblical interpretation that could lead to various questionable doctrines, such as those of Docetism, the Antioch school became increasingly dogmatic and heavily involved in overemphasizing the literal interpretation of the Bible and the full humanity of Jesus. This led to the so-called “Nestorian Heresy,” namely that Jesus possessed two hypostases, one human and one divine! As a result of the condemnation of Nestorius (386 – 450 CE) at the First Council of Ephesus in 431, the Antioch school’s influence declined considerably and never really recovered. Many followers abandoned the school and it eventually moved to another location further East in Persia. Even though the Antiochian school’s tenets had lost traction, they were eventually taken up again by Martin Luther and John Calvin, who restored them to their former glory.

——-

Conclusion

So, the earlier Alexandrian School of allegorical interpretation at least allowed the possibility of mythicism to be considered as a viable option, whereas the later Antiochian school of literal interpretation——which influenced not only “the dogma of Christ” in the early ecumenical councils, but also modern Bible scholarship——eventually became the dominant school of hermeneutics that held to a rigid form of literalism and overemphasized the historicity of Jesus. In other words, the early church was not as adamant about the historicity of Jesus as the later Church! Thus, up until the end of the third century (the Ante-Nicene Era), and just prior to the onset of the first ecumenical council, the allegorical/metaphorical Jesus dominated the Biblical landscape. It was not until much later that the literal, historical interpretation of Jesus became the prevalent view that it is today!

——-

Answering Tuvia Pollack’s “Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”

By Goodreads Author & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Introduction

Tuvia Pollack writes for Kehila News, which seems to be a Messianic-Jewish apologetics blog. He has no formal biblical training, as far as I know. According to the Kehila news blog, “Tuvia Pollack is an unpublished writer of historical fiction novels depicting Judeo-Christian relations throughout history.”

According to his own words, Mr. Pollack is “an Israeli Messianic Jew” who believes “in the Jewish faith … and the Old and New Testament.” He wrote an essay (“Jesus, Yeshua or Yahshua?”) in which he’s basically trying to establish the notion that the Greek name for Jesus (Ἰησοῦs) in the New Testament comes from the Hebrew Yeshua or Yahshua, and he therefore concludes that it doesn’t really matter what we call the messiah. In other words, we can call him any of the 3 names that he mentions above. However, his whole thesis is flawed because he doesn’t understand the finer points of biblical scholarship and how details often go unnoticed. I will not go over his entire paper but rather explore a few key comments that he made therein.

Does it Matter What We Call the Object of Our Worship?

In reference to Jesus, Mr. Pollack writes:

Calling on his name is what mattered,

whether you would say Iesous as the

Greeks would, or Yeshua as the Jews would.

Not true. The New Testament is very specific with names, especially with the name that is above all other names. If any form of the name of Yeshua would do, then that means that any form of the name of God would do as well, right? Wrong! Acts 4:12 (NJB) declares:

of all the names in the world given to

men, this is the only one by which we can

be saved.

Notice that the NT doesn’t say “Salvation is found in no one else” except in Yahweh. Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Not once! The name Elohim is never once mentioned in the NT either. Neither Yeshua nor Yehoshua are ever mentioned in the New Testament. Not even once! The only name that we are commanded to call on is Ἰησοῦς (translated into English as Jesus). We should not overlook this state of affairs. If the New Testament doesn’t even mention the name Yahweh, why would a Christian call on Yahweh instead of Jesus? Yet there are many so-called Christians who never mention the name of Jesus but keep praising Yahweh who is never mentioned by name in the Greek New Testament. Isn’t that bizarre, if not cultic? By that logic, why would a Christian call on Elohim or Yahshua in time of trouble? After all, we must know who we serve and who we worship. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are not instructed to call on Allah, Yahweh or Yahshua. They are repeatedly told to call on the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19.16). There is only one name associated with that title, namely, Christ Jesus (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς)! After all, that’s the whole point of the New Testament’s revelation, namely, that Jesus is God and the great “I AM” (Rev. 1.8; 22.13). The NT trumps the OT. Therefore, we should not impose OT theology on the NT. Rather, we should get our final revelation of Iesous from the NT per se!

A Bad Theology Based On a Mistranslation

Pollack writes:

When the New Testament was written in

Greek, the name of the Messiah is said to

be Iesous ‘because he will save his people.’

That’s an unfaithful translation, which is based on a Hebrew theology that the name of Jesus is derived from Jewish sources. Mr. Pollack doesn’t understand Greek, so he’s relying on English translations to carry him through. Allow me to explain. Here is the critical Greek text (original text). Mt 1.21 (SBLGNT) says:

τέξεται δὲ υἱὸν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα

αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν, αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν

αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν.

My Translation:

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

Keep in mind that this verse neither explains the name Ἰησοῦν as an Aramaic or Hebrew name, nor does it define it etymologically as a linguistic transliteration, translation, or pronunciation from the Hebrew language. This is precisely where *Hebrew Roots Theology* twists the Greek to make it say what it wants it to say. The English (Christian) translations typically try to connect the name with a cause, and so they’ll usually take the word γὰρ (which very often doesn't mean “for,” according to Bill Mounce) and they’ll try to assign to it a “reason” for the name. So, they usually end up translating it as “for,” in the sense of “because.” But even though it is commonly translated as such, the Greek grammatical construction sounds very awkward when you insert the conjunction “for” in between αὐτὸς and σώσει. It would literally read: “he for will save.” Just to give you an example, John 4.44 reads:

αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐμαρτύρησεν ὅτι

προφήτης ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι τιμὴν οὐκ ἔχει.

Translation (NJB):

He himself had declared that a prophet is

not honoured in his own home town.

Notice that we have a similar clause: αὐτὸς γὰρ Ἰησοῦς. Where is the translation “for” in this verse? Nowhere! The conjunction γάρ is translated as “himself.” In many other cases, γάρ is translated as “indeed.” In fact that is the correct translation, here, in Mt 1.21 (My Translation):

She will then bear a son and you will call his

name Ἰησοῦν; he indeed will save his

people from their sins.

There is no explanatory factor here, just that Ἰησοῦς will indeed save his people. The term “indeed” acts as an assurance or a reaffirmation that this statement is in fact true.

Mr. Pollack doesn’t take into account the fact that Hebrew was a consonantal writing system with no vowels. That’s why we don’t really know what the tetragrámmaton יהוה (transliterated as YHWH) sounded like phonetically. Nor do we know what these other names sounded like. These are approximations at best, yet Mr. Pollack writes about these names as if they were written in stone and well known.

What Happens if the Greek New Testament is Suddenly Changed into the Hebrew New Testament?

Mr. Pollack then goes on to write that no matter what you call Jesus, it doesn’t really matter. Really? Could you call him Allah? Or Yahweh? Or Elohim? Or Lucifer? He mentions how some Christians abhor Judaizing, which I will get to in a minute. Judaizing is actually very dangerous. This is an attempt by the Hebrew Roots movement to revert Christians back to Judaism, to the laws of Moses, the Hebrew covenants, and the Sabbath, while pretending that Jews don’t really need Jesus to be saved because there are actually 2 groups of people within Christianity: the Jews and the church (Dual-covenant theology). Not only that, but they turn the Greek New Testament into a Jewish book, and they also manipulate the Greek words by changing them into Hebrew. This is a complete corruption of the Greek text, and of Christian theology. How many times have you heard the alpha and omega being declared as the aleph and the tav? Or Jesus being referred to as Yeshua Hamashiach? Others try to interpret the Greek NT passages by using the Hebrew language. Does that sound like a proper method of exegesis, or does it sound like a corruption of the inspired text? It’s like trying to understand Polish literature through the Chinese language. At any rate, returning to our vignette, Pollack objects to the Christian attack on Judaizers, and writes:

‘Saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is

Judaizing.’ Will you then please tell

me, what we Israeli Hebrew speakers are

supposed to say? How should we address

him in Hebrew? Do you expect us to adopt

the Greekified version instead of his original

name?

But the Greek version contains his original name, which is given to us in the Greek New Testament by God. Anything else is a perversion and a corruption of God’s word. Otherwise, we’re disrespecting the NT by implying that only the OT is inspired. When Mr. Pollack tries to usurp the original name that is inspired by God, and supplant it with a foreign one, he’s not only violating and corrupting God’s word, but he’s also imposing his own Jewish theology on the text, rather than respecting the principles of textual criticism.

By that logic, Christians should still call on Yahweh. But God is never mentioned as Yahweh in the NT. Jews may not care, but Christians do care and want to call God by his proper name. If we don’t know which God we believe in, and which God we serve, or whom we worship, then how can we even claim to be Christians who follow Christ? Calling and praising Yah is not Christianity. It’s Judaism.

Is the Ἰησοῦς of the Septuagint the Exact Same Name We Find in the New Testament?

Moreover, Mr. Pollack uses the logic that since the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint (LXX) translates the name Yeshua as Ἰησοῦς, then the matter is officially settled. It must come from Hebraic sources. Here’s the backstory. Joshua, son of Nun——who later succeeded Moses as the chief leader of the Israelite tribes——was originally called Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ‍), and Moses changed his name to “Yehoshua,” which afterwards became shortened to “Yeshua.”

However, this is akin to a genetic fallacy. A genetic fallacy occurs when an argument is based on a word’s origin or history rather than its content. It asserts that a word's historical meaning is its only valid meaning and that its current meaning is invalid. But anyone who studies philology and linguistics knows that names and words change and evolve over time. For example, the word “nice,” derived from the Latin nescius, originally had a negative connotation and meant “unaware,” or “ignorant.” That is not what the word “nice” means today. There are many similar examples. In fact, many classical Greek words began to have different meanings or connotations in Koine within only a few hundred years. The point is, the meaning of words is not static. It changes over time, just as languages change and evolve. All languages undergo diachronic changes. Therefore, a name that was once ascribed to a Hebrew man named Hoshea, son of nun (based on a Hebrew meaning), may not have the same etymology as a diachronic name assigned to a different figure, centuries later, in a different language and based on a Greek meaning. From a philological standpoint, that’s the key difference between the LXX and the NT rendering of Iesous. Whatever the name may have meant in the 3rd century BC, it had a significantly different meaning centuries later as it was assigned to the Son of God. The name Iesous might have had the same referent in both the LXX and the NT but not necessarily the same sense (cf. Heb. 4:8). In fact, the argument of whether or not the NT Ἰησοῦς is a distinctly Greek name or a Hebraic transliteration (derived from the earlier LXX) is analogous to the argument of whether or not the OT Yahweh is a distinctly Hebraic name or the patron god of metallurgy (derived from the earlier Canaanite pantheon). It’s the exact same argument with the exact same conclusion. Although the name Yahweh is shared by both religions, Jews rightly believe that the earlier Canaanite Yahweh is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. In the same way, the earlier Ἰησοῦς of the LXX bears no resemblance to the Divine Ἰησοῦς of the New Testament!

Here’s a case in point. Cyril of Jerusalem was born at or near the city of Jerusalem and was steeped in the writings of the Christian scholars. He was a learned theologian who obviously understood both Greek & Hebrew. He knew the Septuagint extremely well because that was his Old Testament, given that the Latin Vulgate had not been written yet. Knowing Hebrew, he obviously knew that the Book of Joshua (Yeshua) was translated as Iesous. Yet, despite all that, Cyril nevertheless considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin. The same thing occurred with another towering figure of Bible scholarship and one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, Clement of Alexandria. He lived very early (150 – c. 215). He was a famous Christian theologian and Bible scholar who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. Some of his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem. He was obviously steeped in the LXX and yet he, too, attributed the name Ἰησοῦς to Greek sources. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia writes that many early church fathers considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be of Greek origin. For instance, both St. Cyril of Jerusalem (catechetical lectures 10.13) & Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus, Book 3) considered the name Ἰησοῦς to be derived from Greek sources. Thus, it appears that the name Ἰησοῦς has different meanings in the Hebrew and Greek languages. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:

Jesus then means according to the Hebrew

‘Saviour‘, but in the Greek tongue ‘The

Healer.’

Cyril is most likely referring to the derivation of the name Ἰησοῦς from Ἰάσων (Iásōn), meaning "healer".

see 2392. iasis (“healing”)

https://biblehub.com/greek/2392.htm

We find the same idea in Revelation 9.11 in which *the same referent* (i.e. destroyer) of an angelic king has 2 different renderings in Hebrew (Abaddon) and Greek (Apollyon).

Evidence from Within the New Testament that Ἰησοῦs is a Greek Name

As serious students of the Bible, and especially of the NT, we should not accept a Hebrew alteration or a redefinition of what the New Testament says, as this would be equivalent to an eisegesis. Regardless of what the consensus might be, we should always demand an exegesis directly from within the Greek New Testament itself. Otherwise we’re changing not only what God said, but also how he said it!

Even in the introduction of the Greek name Ἰησοῦς, never once does the New Testament EXPLICITLY say, SUGGEST, or even REMOTELY hint that it is an Aramaic or Hebrew name. Nowhere, in any NT book, do you find a Hebraic definition or explanation for the name Ἰησοῦς. It doesn’t even work as a Hebraism. If it was a Hebraic transliteration, it would have been rendered as Ωσηέ (Hoshea הוֹשֵׁעַ‎ Hōšēaʿ). What is more, Hebraic transliterations are typically explained in the New Testament one way or another. For example:

1) In Mark 11.9, hosanna (ὡσαννὰ) is

explained.

2) In Mark 15.34; Matthew 27.46, «ελωι ελωι

λεμα σαβαχθανι» is explained.

3) In Mark 5.41, “Talitha cum” is explained.

4) In John 20.16, “Rabbouni” is explained.

5) In Romans 8.15, “Abba” is explained.

6) In Matthew 1.23, the name “Immanuel” is

explained.

The Aramaisms that exist in the Greek New Testament are typically explained or defined. By contrast, the name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Jesus) is *never* *ever* explained as an *aramaism,* nor defined as an Aramaic or Hebrew name.

You would think that a name as important as Jesus would **necessitate** such an explanation. The fact that there isn’t any indicates that the Greek name Iēsous is not a transliteration of Hōšēaʿ. At least not in NT times. Mt. 1.21 clearly says “you should call his name Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς). It doesn’t say that this is a pronunciation or a transliteration of the Hebrew name Hoshea or Yeshua.

The Hebrew Roots movement has attempted to turn Christianity into Judaism. Have you ever heard any pastor preaching about Ἰησοῦς? All you hear is “Yeshua Hamashiach” and Yahweh. Well, Yahweh is never once mentioned in the NT. Nor is Yashua. If God doesn’t mention them, why should we?

If people want to go back to the OT, that’s fine. But don’t call yourselves Christians and expect the third temple to be rebuilt, and the animal sacrifices to be reinstituted. Read Heb. 10.4:

Bulls' blood and goats' blood are incapable

of taking away sins.

It’s a complete rejection of Christ and his atonement. The Hebrew roots movement has also influenced Dispensationalism, to such an extent that the latter distinguishes between 2 classes of people in the Bible, namely, the Jews and the church. And they also assert that these 2 groups have supposedly two completely different programs of salvation. They believe that the Jews don’t need Jesus; they can be saved through their own covenants. And if some reasonable theologian rightly objects, he’s immediately attacked as an antisemite, or as one who resorts to replacement theology. However, the attempt to fuse Judaism with Christianity has been disastrous. In the final analysis, you either follow Christ or Moses, but not both!