Article Index


Many sacred name movement people believe and openly propagate the myth that the name of Jesus is in some way connected with or derived etymologically from the name Zeus. Some believe it, but know it cannot be substantiated by research and are silent about it.  The more knowledgeable people within the movement openly deny the truth of it. Some of these seem to want to pretend the myth was never taught by the early movers and shakers of the movement and is not now being taught within the movement. These certainly resent it being brought up and talked about by one outside the movement.

I have been derisively and insultingly told, “That Eeyaezus [Jesus?] has nothing to do with Zeus is your greatest intellectual hurdle.” This is from an otherwise intelligent man who wanted to discuss the doctrine of the revelation of the sacred name with me on a higher level.   Some sacred name people teach this false doctrine; some do not. Regardless of the position an individual Sacred Name person may take, this fact remains: a large segment of the movement still believes this lie. Promoting the Jesus = Zeus myth to new converts is an easy way to get them away from saying the name of Jesus. It gives them a reason to look down on, even hate, the name of Jesus. The teachers of the movement use this lie as an appeal to the need many people have to possess esoteric knowledge which gives them a superiority over others. We know more than you know and if you knew where the name of Jesus came from you wouldn't be using it, are not uncommon attitudes.

Except in the minds of numbers of sacred name people, there is absolutely no connection between the name Jesus and the name Zeus. It is easy, however, for sacred name teachers to pull this doctrinal stuffed bunny out of the sacred name movement hat and fool people into thinking it is real. It is not of any substance. It is especially easy to trick folks who are eager to believe something. Many of them are not interested in and are trained not to ask for documentation of research. You may be sure of one thing, when this mythical connection between Jesus and Zeus is put before a group of people, the sacred name teacher is casting aspersions and disdain on the name of Jesus.

Let it be stated early and with emphasis that not all sacred name people believe the name Jesus is derived from the name Zeus. It is, after all, a lie. It has no foundation in any legitimate research. The teaching is rejected by some; it should be rejected by all sacred name people. This teaching is the product of the fertile imaginations of sacred name teachers.

First, we will show that this doctrine has been taught and propagated in various sacred name publications since the early days of the sacred name movement. We may be certain that it was taught from sacred name pulpits much earlier. It is still being taught both orally and in print by numerous groups. A large majority of sacred name believers subscribe to this false teaching and promote it as though it were fact.

Second, we will show that the name Jesus has a well grounded and easily researchable etymological history. It is not now, nor has it ever been etymological connected with the name Zeus. Sacred name people might easily find this etymology, if that were their desire. Some have done so.



A. B. Traina is the father of the sacred name bible. His Holy Name Bible is a corruption of the King James Version and was the first such bible. On page five of the preface of his bible are these words:

“The name of the Son, Yahshua, has been substituted by Jesus, Iesus, and Ea-Zeus (Healing Zeus).”


This statement is patently false. Though Traina is deceased, his book is still out there teaching this false doctrine. I am sure, when he pinned and published these words he believed the name of Jesus meant Healing Zeus. I am told, by people who knew him, that he was an earnest and sincere man.

Whatever Traina’s beliefs, sincerity, and ethics, the fact remains that he made a false statement which is not and cannot be backed by any valid research at all. Traina stated it as fact, but did not include any documentation.

This false statement was allowed to remain in the preface of his publication through various editions and printings for over two decades. It serves to show how entrenched this myth is. It also shows how good and ethical scholarship was lightly regarded, perhaps disdained, within the movement during these years.

The Holy Name Bible in my possession, from which the quotation was taken, has a publication date of 1974, some twenty years after the first publication of Traina’s New Testament. I am assured, quite adamantly assured, by a sacred name advocate that this false statement has been allowed to remain in editions of the Holy Name Bible as late a 1983.

[NOTE: The Holy Name Bible on my shelf has a stamp from The Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel , Pa. I have only word of mouth evidence that The Assemblies of Yahweh promote the Jesus - Zeus connection. I am convinced The Assemblies continue to perpetuate this sacred name lie.]

The lie was propagated from sacred name pulpits in numerous locations for two decades prior to Traina’s bible. However, Traina’s bible gave the myth a legitimacy and credibility which to this date is little diminished.

How many of Traina’s bibles are still out there teaching this false doctrine? Over the years, numbers of sacred name assemblies and individuals who cling to the King James Version have used Traina’s book as their bible. They have also accepted his notes, including the above statement, as true. Many still do. The myth has taken on a life of its own.

It might have been helpful if an explanation and a disclaimer had been put into recent editions of The Holy Name Bible.



Institute For Scripture Research, South Africa and Rhode Island , USA , is publisher of The Scriptures. This is one of the more recent entries into the ranks of sacred name bibles. This group continues to reproduce the Jesus/Zeus connection in print. As a consequence of their stand, it seems shameful that the words research and scripture are included in the name of the organization.

Here is a quotation from the Explanatory Notes section of their bible (1998 printing) under the article Jesus:

“Consider Iesous, rendered as ‘Jesus’ in English versions up to now.  For example the authoritative Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott, under Iaso:  The Greek goddess of healing reveals that the name Iaso is Ieso in the Ionic dialect of  the Greeks, Iesous being the contracted genitive form! In David Kravitx, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Mythology, we find a similar form, namely Iasus. There were four different Greek deities with the name Iasus, one of them being the Son of Rhea.”


This statement is a prime example of the pseudo scholarship that seems pervasive within the sacred name movement.

The quotation has the name of the Greek goddess of health and healing as Iaso. In Greek, the nominative case of this word is spelled with the Greek letters Iota, Alpha, Sigma, Omega - Iasw. The Greek word Jesus in nominative case is spelled Iota, Eta, Sigma, Omicron, Upsilon, Sigma - IhsouV. Didn't anyone at Institute for Scripture Research notice the different second letters - Alpha and Eta - in the two words?  Sure they did. They just hoped you and I wouldn't notice. We did.

This brings us to the mention and use the Institute makes of the genitive forms of the two words. For Iaso, the genitive, as given by ISR, in Greek letters is IasouV. For Jesus, the genitive in Greek letters is Ihsou. The impression the Institute desires to leave with us and certainly with avid Sacred Name converts who read their bible and its notes is that the words are the same.

However, the words are not at all the same. They are like the English words bell and ball. Consider the genitive forms of these words, bell's and ball's. That one letter makes them entirely different words.

Bell's and ball's may look alike and even sound a bit alike, but that is the end of their similarity. One is not derived from the other. The Greek words IasouV and Ihsou to some may look alike and they, too, sound a bit alike. There ends their similarity. One is in no case derived from the other. The people at Institute for Scripture Research know this.

Add to this, the fact that Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon, at least the one on my book shelves, makes no mention of Iaso being Ieso in the Iconic dialect. Perhaps someone misread it.

Now, we come to the Son of Rhea - Zeus. So, the Institute is attempting to foist off on us the same old sacred name movement absurdity that Jesus equals Zeus.  When in truth, the words are not connected in any way. They only look alike because of the final two letters.

If, however, we do as some teachers do and force a twisted pronunciation of the word Jesus, Gee-zoos, we can make the words sort of sound alike. For many sacred name people, that is enough. It also seems to be enough for Institute for Scripture Research.

This whole idea given to us by the Institute is gobbledygook, folderol, and foolishness. It is inserted in the notes of their publication, The Scriptures, with the calculated intention of leaving the reader with the idea that the name of Jesus is in some way derived from and connected with the name of one or more pagan gods, particularly Zeus.

This is a false impression. It is the impression Institute for Scripture Research wants to convey to us. Such scholarship, or lack thereof, as is exemplified by this, brings shame on many who indulge in it.

If the Institute would study the Scriptures a bit more and do some real Research, they would find this myth to by unworthy of the name of their institute and the false impression they leave to be unworthy of an organization claiming any connection at all with the scriptures.



William Hawkins, who changed his name to Yisrayl Hawkins, is founder and leader of the House of Yahweh in Abilene , Texas . Hawkins has the distinction of claiming to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in The Revelation chapter eleven. His brother, now deceased, claimed to be the other witness. Hawkins will also decease without this claim coming to fruition.

House of Yahweh is perhaps the largest single group of sacred name believers in America under the oversight of one organization and one man. If it is not the largest group in America , it most certainly ranks among the top two or three. It is one of the crown jewels of the sacred name movement.

Hawkins is well known for his many misfired prophesies, his deviant teachings, his strange practices (polygamy among them), his need to sell books, his exclusivity, and his atrociously mangled revision of the Scriptures - The Book of Yahweh.

On one of the web sites touting the superiority of The Book of Yahweh, can also be found the House of Yahweh version of the same old sacred name movement lie, Jesus = Zeus.

The purpose of this web site [wysiwyg://52]  is to explain the “Mistranslations of the King James Version of the Bible.” This is done from The House of Yahweh point of view.

A chart of mistranslations in the KJV is under the heading: The Names changed to Condemn us. Jesus is listed as a mistranslation. No mention is made as to what Jesus may be a mistranslation of. Yahshua Messiah is listed as the correct translation. By way of explanation of this so-called mistranslation we are told, “Jesus is Zeus, the Greek sun god,”.

This is a very typical sacred name movement articulation of the doctrine. It is generally given without any sort of documentation. It seems to be a statement that is solidly and firmly believed among this particular group. No one is expected to question its validity.

It is simply the continuation of the same old silly idea that because the words Jesus and Zeus both end with u - s  they must be kindred words. It is a lie, a fabrication. It is another mendacious attempt on the part of the House of Yahweh to discredit the name of Jesus.

Does the revelation of the doctrine of the sacred names need this kind of help to sustain it? A teaching built on a foundation of lies can in no case be the truth.

The House of Yahweh and Yisrayl Hawkins need to stop publishing such nonsense. It is predicted here that they will not stop.



A substantial percentage of sacred name people are either members of small groups or individuals who associate with no group at all. While these people may not be considered by some of the larger assemblies within the movement to be in the main stream of the sacred name movement, they surely are part of the independent minded people who make up the movement. Some of the names they have chosen to make sacred and cling to are often a bit unusual compared to those normally found in the Movement. Sometimes their practices are not in conformity with others in the Movement.  Nevertheless, their published thoughts, opinions, and teachings are part of the larger cacophony emanating from the movement.

As representative of them all, four are here presented for consideration.

  1. Across the River Ministry, Matherville , Ill
  2. Bible Revelations -
  3. Qodesh Beyth Yahweh, Flat Rock, NC
  4. Tobiyah -


Across the River Ministry:

           The quotation is from the web site at

“Well, wouldn't it be OK to keep using the name Jesus? The meaning of IEOUS in the Greek is ‘the son of Zeus, or the son of the most high god known to the Greeks as Zeus.’ Now we know that Zeus was the main Greek god and head of the pantheon of Greek gods’ by Sister Dawn”

It seems likely that this teacher has gotten the Jesus/Zeus myth from Sister Dawn. It seems likely he has never done any research for himself to ascertain the truth of falsity of the statement he has made.

Probably without even knowing it, he is just parroting the same old lie that his spiritual forbears parroted before him.


Bible Revelations:

The quotation is from the web site at

“Exactly the same as the pagan influence changed YAH’SHUAH to ‘Y’Zeus’ - (‘Jesus’ - phonetically ‘Jezus’), so also Luke 4:27 reflects the change of ‘Eli’Shuah’ to’Eli’Zeus’ (My God is Zeus’)!”

Where did this sacred name teacher get his research? He does not bother to tell us. He cannot tell us; he didn't do any. He has simply put his own spin, and not a very well thought out spin at that, on the same trite and worn out fiction.

He has no regard for the facts and the use made historically of the Greek word IhsouV. Forging ahead, in sacred name movement fashion, he tips his hand by using the word “phonetically.” Here he has told us the basis for his teaching; Jesus sounds like Zeus.

The sound alike theory, Jesus sounds like Zeus therefore it is derived from Zeus, is pretty much the single and major basis for this sacred name lie ever being taught. Our teacher in this instance has, by some sacred name movement standards of research, done well.

He could be complimented on adding an interesting new twist, Eli’Zeus = My God is Zeus. His reference is to Luke 4:27 in the KJV where Elisha is spelled Eliseus. It just sounds too much like Zeus for our teacher. He jumps at the chance to use his phonetically-like-Zeus theory. His jump takes him off a cliff. His smash up leaves him in ruins. The word Eliseus has nothing whatsoever to do with the word Zeus. Just as the word Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with the word Zeus.

However, it was a beautiful dive until he hit the bottom.


Qodesh Beyeth Yahweh:

The quotation is from the web site at

“But, for the Christian ’religion,’ the name of the Adversary's son is.. Ge-Zeus, Son of Zeus ...”


This teacher is vehemently against the Christians. He blames them for most, if not all, the problems facing the society of America and the world. He is so over zealous for his position that he is willing to use anything available to him to make these “Christians” look as bad as possible.

He doesn't bother to explain himself, but seems to indicate that Zeus is the same as Satan and Ge-Zeus (Jesus) is his son. If this is what he is actually stating, then his conclusion would be that “Christians” worship the son of Satan. That is a very strong statement, especially since no documentation is presented with it. It is apparently what at least one Sacred Name teacher promotes.

He could have made the Christians look bad by just telling the truth. There are many false doctrines among them. History and today's newspaper tell us that Christians are killing each other as well as their perceived enemies. Christians already look pretty bad; there was no need to resort to this sacred name movement lie for that. Sad.



The quotation is from the web site at

“The name JESUS is derived from the Latin words GE ZEUS, meaning THE FISH.” “The christians today still blindly worship this false god. That is where the sign of the fish has been adopted today as the sign of the believer.”


Here is one other sacred name movement teacher who sees the necessity of sharing his research with us. He gives us a nice picture of a page from a Latin Dictionary. Of course, he fails to tell us what Latin Dictionary it is. We look in our own Latin dictionary (D. P. Simpson, Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, Funk and Wagnalls, N Y, 1968) and find under article Zeus : “a kind of fish.”

Perhaps our teacher does not know that just quoting a book of some kind does not necessarily prove your point. It certainly does not prove your point unless it mentions your point. In this case, the Latin Dictionary does not even hint at this teacher's point.

The quotation from the Latin Dictionary says not a single word about Jesus being derived from Zeus. The Latin dictionary gives us nothing about Ge Zeus. It does not tell us the name Ge Zeus means the fish. Didn't this sacred name teacher notice this? Probably not. The Latin dictionary says only that there is a kind of fish called Zeus. What is most amazing about all this is that our teacher should imagine he has by this means proven his point.

This sacred name teacher has made a giant leap to conclude that GE ZEUS means THE FISH in Latin. He wanted so badly for it to be so, therefore, in his mind, it has become so. He is then delighted to connect this to people displaying a fish on their car, their desk, their refrigerator, their person, and etc. For him, this just reinforces his point as proven.

Sacred name people write me and call me to express astonishment that I should say the sacred name movement has pseudo scholarship in it. This man's logical process and his conclusion do not even make good nonsense. Calling it pseudo scholarship is giving it a compliment.

In his attempt to preach this lie of long standing, he has only succeeded in showing how little studying he has done and how little of that he has even understood.

A number of sacred name people seem to think this false doctrine is not taught among them anymore. In fact, the Jesus = Zeus theory is still very much alive. From the beginning of the movement, shoddy research was the basis for much of the teaching, particularly the doctrine of the sacred name itself. That heritage is in no place more manifest than in the doctrine of the name Jesus being connected with the name Zeus.

All these witnesses have been given in order to show how rife the sacred name movement is with this teaching. It is a fact that a very large majority of assemblies and individuals in the movement are believers of this lie.


In spite of a preponderance of fictitious drivel advanced by the sacred name movement, the name Jesus has a very distinct and traceably history. The fact that many sacred name people cannot seem to find out the root of the name of Jesus, in no way diminishes the truth about the name. We do not need to rely upon guess work and supposition to find out about his name.



Some of the sacred name people have done research with an open mind and are convinced they should no longer promote the Jesus = Zeus falsehood. One former sacred name believer who is not a christian and still has a great deal of love for the people in the movement comments to me this way on the Jesus = Zeus myth:  “As you probably know, this doctrine is simply not true.” He encourages sacred name movement publishers to remove this false teaching from their literature.

Another sacred name teacher who is well known among the sacred name internet community, says he has come to believe that Jesus is not derived from Zeus. He now thinks that IhsouV, Jesus, is a very poor attempt to transliterate the name Yahshua into Greek.

These men and others within the movement have come to realize that promoting this lie simply makes them, the movement itself, and other teachings of the movement suspect. It shows that they have not done and perhaps do not know how to do quality research. The more astute and better informed sacred name people have stopped or are in the process of stopping the propagation of this lie. All sacred name movement people and assemblies should take a page from their book.



A little research will inform us as to the derivation of the name of Jesus. Dictionaries will help those with a willingness to learn. These kinds of books are at hand for most people. There is no excuse. There is absolutely no excuse for the continued propagation of this lie.

We can research the Old Testament, apocryphal writings, the New Testament, and secular writings from the period of time relevant to our study.



Dictionary entry for Jesus: “ME. [a. L. Iesus, a. Gr. 'IhsouV, ad. late Heb. or Aramaic Jeshua, for earlier Jehoshua or Joshua (explained as ‘Jah (or Jahveh) is salvation’), a frequent Jewish personal name.”

William Little, et al., eds. , The Oxford Universal Dictionary on Historical Principals, (London: Oxford University Press, 1955).

Here, the English Jesus can be seen to have derived from the Latin, Iesus.  Iesus then, is from the Greek IhsouV, which is in turn from the late Hebrew or Aramaic Jeshua.  Jeshua was derived from the earlier Hebrew Jehoshua - our English Joshua. 



From The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, entry Jesus:

         “(je’zus) [Lat. From Gr. Iesous, which is for Heb.  Jeshua, a late form of Jehoshua or Joshua...]”

John D. Davis, The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1944).

The average sacred name teacher can quote nine kinds of research attempting to prove his doctrine. Why can they not simply read the dictionary about the derivation of the name of Jesus. It is not derived from the word Zeus.



In view of the fact that The New Testament was not written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, no ancient New Testament manuscripts in these languages exist. Sacred name teachers are therefore compelled to go to the Old Testament in an attempt to recover a Hebrew name which our Savior might have been called. They go, of course, to the name of Joshua.

Disregarding the approximately four hundred year gap between the writing of the last book of the O.T. and the birth of the Messiah these teachers expect us to believe that the Hebrew spelling and pronunciation of the name of Joshua remained static during these years. None care to address the three spellings and pronunciations for Joshua’s name
during the time of the O.T.

There are three different spellings for the name Joshua in the Old Testament. Yeshua in both early Aramaic and modern Hebrew is   hwhy. The spellings for this name evolved, along with the Hebrew language, over a period of about one thousand years, the time of the writing of the Old Testament.

The variations in spelling the name of Joshua have come down to us in square Hebrew letters. The square Hebrew letters are in truth the Aramaic alphabet. This is much like the English alphabet which is simply the Roman alphabet with slight variations. The Jews forsook their own alphabet and began to use the Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity.

The spellings are written  hyiwvhy, iwhy, and ivwvhy.  Scriptural references for these three biblical ways for spelling and pronouncing the name of Joshua the son of Nun are:

    *  Nehemiah 8:17    iwhy
    *  Numbers 13: 16   cx c wh y   u c w h y    
    *  Judges 2: 7   ivwvhy  


It would be a good idea, for anyone sufficiently interested, to check the Hebrew text of the O.T. for these references. It is not commonly acknowledged among sacred name movement folks that there are three spellings for Joshua's name. The reason for this is that for the Messiah's name, many of them arbitrarily pick one spelling and pronunciation at the exclusion of the other two.



Perhaps, the first recorded use of the Greek name Jesus, IhsouV, among the Jewish people is a transliteration for the Hebrew name iwvhy - Joshua - is in the Septuagint. The Septuagint is sometimes referred to as the LXX. This translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek began about 270 B. C. E. and continued for some years afterward. When the Hebrew name is in the text, without fail, it is transliterated into Greek as IhsouV, Jesus.

The question sacred name teachers, who propagate this Jesus=Zeus lie, need to address is how and why Jewish scholars would have chosen a word which means son of Zeus to put for the name of the great hero of their past.

These Rabbis did not make the name of that great Israelite hero into the Son of Zeus, Healing Zeus, and certainly not Ie-Zeus. This seems obvious to everyone except the sacred name people who still propagate this lie. Many of them have given it up. More will do so.



The apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, also called The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, was likely written early in the third century B. C. E. Originally written in Hebrew by one Joshua son of Sirach, it was translated into Greek about 132 B.C.E.

Read this short passage from the introduction written by Joshua’s grandson who translated the work into Greek.

“Anyone who values learning should be able to help others by what he himself says and writes. That is why my grandfather Jesus devoted himself to reading the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of our ancestors.”

The grandfather's name is iwvhy, Joshua. His grandson translated the book into Greek, the language which many of the Jews learned from childhood. At the same time, he transliterated the name of his grandfather into Greek as IhsouV, Jesus. It should be understood that at this time in history, not all Jews spoke Hebrew. Perhaps it would be well to read from Acts 2:5-11.

Acts 2:5. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.  6.  Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.  7.  And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileeans?  8.  And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?  9.  Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia , and in Judaea , and Cappadocia , in Pontus , and Asia ,  10.  Phrygia , and Pamphylia, in Egypt , and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene , and strangers of Rome , Jews and proselytes,  11.  Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

As today, so also in that day, not all Jews speak Hebrew. As a matter of fact most Jews do no t speak Hebrew. Hebrew was not the tongue of the Jews of the Diaspora. Hebrew was not the language of the Jews of Judea. It had ceased to be so many years before Joshua, son of Sirach, wrote his book of wisdom. Therefore, his grandson saw the need to translate his work into Greek. The Hebrew Old Testament had already been translated into Greek for the same reason.

Sacred name folks who still cling to the Jesus = Zeus doctrine, expect us to believe that the translator chose a Greek word meaning Son of Zeus and used it for his grandfather's name.

That anyone should believe such nonsense, is absurd and simply not the case. He actually transliterated the Hebrew name quite well. It has been used for centuries since.   [NOTE: To translate means to bring, as nearly as possibly, the meaning of a word from one language to another. An example is the Greek word ballw, ballo. The English translation of this word is THROW.

To transliterate means to bring, as nearly as possibly, the sound of a word from one language to another. For instance, the English word BAPTIZE is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizw, baptizo. (The translation would be immerse.)  So that in the new language the word sounds the same or nearly the same.]

An interesting observation is that while sacred name people are quick to inform us that they do not believe in an inspired translation of the Bible, they certainly do believe in inspired transliterations of the sacred names. These, of course, are always their own  transliterations and ones sanctioned by them.



Our Savior's name was given from heaven some four to eight years B.C.E. It seems obvious that he was given the same name as was born by the great leader of Israel , Joshua he son of Nun. We do not know and cannot know how his name was written or spoken in Hebrew. The name may never have been written in Hebrew at all, but in Aramaic.

However, even if his name were written in Hebrew or Aramaic, we have no record of it. sacred name teachers tell us that his name had to have been spoken in Hebrew. More likely it was Aramaic. Whether one or the other, there is still no record of it.

We do have the historical record. It is the New Testament. In every case where the writers of this book transliterated the Messiah's name into Greek they chose IhsouV, Jesus, as the correct transliteration.

When Jesus was born into the mixed Hebrew, Greek, and Roman culture of Judea and Galilee , it was already known how his name should be transliterated into Greek. That had been settled about three hundred years before. That Jesus lived in a mixed culture is shown, among other things, by the sign above him at his death. It was in three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Bear in mind that Galilee , because of Gentile (Greek) dominance, is called in Scripture, Galilee of the Gentiles. The area had been under Greek domination since Alexander the Great, centuries before Jesus was born.

The transliteration of iwvhy (or whatever spelling of the Messiah's name may have been used at that time), made by the apostles and apostolic men when they wrote the New Testament, is IhsouV, Jesus.  No Healing Zeus. No son of Zeus. No Ie-Zeus. Just Jesus.

Here is a question for all of us. Will we trust the transliteration done by sacred name teachers or will we trust the transliteration done by the men who wrote the New Testament?  I believe I will hold to the New Testament book and its writers. One is able to see that on this point as well as numerous others, sacred name teachers are left in a position of shame.



The transliteration of the Hebrew and Aramaic name of Joshua the son of Nun into Greek as IhsouVduring the time both before and after the Savior lived is attested to by manuscript evidence. These are available for study at any major university library. In these also we can find no Zeus connection in the name of Jesus.

Might I  suggest one manuscript for consideration. It is 5/6 Hever Babatha Archive, Greek Document 2  (5/6  HevBA 2).

A copy of the manuscript on film, with all its tears, damage, and other imperfections, can be found in The E. L Sukenik Memorial Volume (1889 - 1953), editors N. Avigad, et. al., Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem , 1976.

A non manuscript copy set in modern type (it is easier to read) can be seen in the book, Eretz-Israel, Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, Volume Eight, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Shrine of The Book, et. al., pg. 50. This copy has both the Aramaic and Greek texts.

Another copy in modern type is on page 162 of A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, (Second Century B. C. --- Second Century A. D.), ed. Joseph A Fitzmyer, S.J., et. al., Biblical Institute Press, Rome , 1978. This copy has only the Aramaic section, lines 11, 12, and 13. It has a nice English translation on the facing page.

This interesting if somewhat unusual manuscript was found at Nahel Hever. It certainly is poignant to our discussion of the transliteration of our Saviors name into Greek in the first and second centuries of the common era.

The document bears the date August 19, A. D. 132. It is a receipt given by Babatha to the Jewish guardian of her son for payment of six denarii for food and clothing for her son, Jesus. It is written in both Aramaic and Greek.

On line 12, in the Aramaic portion, twice repeated is the boy's name, iwhy. This is the shortened form of the name commonly used during this period. On line 16 of the Greek portion, is the transliteration, IhsouV.  In secular documents, the name Jesus is the transliteration for the name Joshua.

The entomological information regarding the name JESUS is well documented. And the documentation is readily available. There is no excuse for sacred name movement people to wallow in the error they are in. There is no excuse for sacred name teachers to continue in this fraud.


In this study, we have found that many sacred name movement assemblies and individuals have over the years promoted the false teaching that the word Jesus is in some way connected to the word Zeus. We have studied who teaches it and how and where they teach it. Many within the Movement still believe and promote this teaching.

We have further studied the historical derivation of the name of Jesus. It is the English form of the Greek of our Savior's name used by the Writers of the New Testament.

Many have been the errors of the sacred name movement since its inception in the early second quarter of the twentieth century. There are some serious and pivotal errors taught within the movement. Adherents to and promoters of the Jesus = Zeus theory are some of the most fanatical and harsh people within the movement.

No teaching of this religious persuasion is more obviously false than this one. When I was in grammar school, children would say of any falsehood, “That is just a bare faced lie.” The sacred name movement teaching that the name Jesus is in some way connected with or derived from the name of the Greek idol god Zeus is exactly that, a bare faced lie.

Note: Quotations from Sacred Name sources and others have been edited for spelling.


Bonus article on The Jesus=Zeus Myth

Saying Jesus is Not Only Zeus But, 666 Also