A Closer Look at The Scriptures (ISR) Explanatory Notes — “Jesus”
Why This Entry Matters
No name in the New Testament is more central—or more sacred—than the name Jesus. It is inseparable from the gospel itself, from Christology, and from the church’s confession that “Jesus is Lord.”
In recent years, questions surrounding this name have become a focal point in discussions about:
- alleged pagan corruption,
- the legitimacy of Bible translations,
- and whether historic Christianity faithfully preserved the identity of Christ.
Because of that, explanatory notes dealing with the name Jesus carry extraordinary influence. How they are framed can either strengthen confidence in Christ and Scripture—or quietly introduce suspicion toward the name by which believers have confessed salvation for centuries.
This post evaluates the ISR explanatory note on “Jesus” using linguistic, historical, and theological lenses, and then asks a pastoral question:
Does this explanation clarify how the name Jesus functions in Scripture—or does it subtly undermine confidence in Christ, the New Testament, and the church’s received faith?
What the ISR Note Claims
The ISR explanatory note states, in summary:
- The Greek name Iēsous is rendered as “Jesus” in English translations
- Greek lexicons note similarities between Iēsous and names of Greek mythological figures such as Iaso or Iasus
- Some Greek deities bore similar-sounding names
- The shortened form “Ies” appears in pagan contexts
- E.W. Bullinger is cited regarding name components
- Readers are directed to C.J. Koster’s Come Out of Her, My People
- The KJV translators consistently rendered Iēsous as “Jesus,” even when referring to Joshua
- Modern translators sometimes render Iēsous as “Joshua” in Hebrews 4:8, allegedly inconsistently
On the surface, this appears to be a linguistic and translational discussion. In reality, it moves well beyond that.
Linguistic Evaluation: Is Iēsous Connected to Pagan Deities?
No.
The Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) is the standard Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yehoshua / Yeshua. This is not speculative—it is universally recognized in biblical scholarship.
Similar-sounding names in Greek mythology do not establish linguistic or theological connection.
This explanatory note relies on a familiar fallacy:
- associating words based on phonetic resemblance,
- then implying shared origin or meaning.
Greek contains thousands of names. The existence of mythological figures with overlapping syllables does not create etymological linkage—especially when the semantic, historical, and cultural contexts are entirely different.
Sound similarity is not evidence of corruption.
Historical Evaluation: How Was the Name Understood by the Early Church?
From the earliest period of Christian history:
- Iēsous was universally recognized as the Greek form of the Hebrew name borne by Israel’s Messiah
- Greek-speaking Jews used Iēsous for Joshua long before Christianity
- Early Christians proclaimed salvation in this name without confusion or controversy
- No early Christian writer argued that the name Iēsous was pagan, corrupted, or dangerous
Notably, no early church controversy exists about the legitimacy of the name Jesus. This silence is historically significant.
If the name itself were compromised, we would expect:
- early debates,
- alternative names promoted,
- or warnings from church leaders.
We find none.
What the Note Does Not Say (and Why That Matters)
While the ISR note raises linguistic associations, it does not clarify that:
- transliteration does not equal translation
- the New Testament authors freely used Iēsous under divine inspiration
- Scripture consistently affirms salvation through this name (Acts 4:12)
- names are defined by referent and meaning, not phonetic ancestry
Most concerning, the note does not warn readers against false conclusions—it leaves them open.
This silence invites a dangerous inference:
“If the name Jesus resembles pagan names, perhaps the name itself is compromised.”
That conclusion is neither biblical nor historical—but the note does nothing to prevent it.
Theological Evaluation: Why This Is Not a Neutral Note
This explanatory note differs from others in a crucial way:
It does not merely explain language.
It questions the reliability of the name by which Christ is known.
That directly touches:
- Christology (Who is Jesus?)
- Revelation (How has God made Him known?)
- Preservation (Can Scripture be trusted?)
- Salvation (What name are we saved by?)
The inclusion of C.J. Koster’s Come Out of Her, My People is especially telling. That work explicitly develops Hebrew Roots theology, including suspicion of historic Christianity, rejection of traditional Christological language, and reconstruction of faith identity.
This is not an incidental reference.
It is a directional handoff.
Why This Note Is Pastoral High-Risk
The danger here is not academic curiosity—it is formational effect.
When readers encounter explanatory notes that:
- associate Christ’s name with paganism,
- undermine translation confidence,
- and point toward separatist literature,
the result is often:
- anxiety about worship language,
- doubt about salvation assurance,
- distrust of the New Testament,
- and movement away from historic Christian confession.
This drift rarely feels rebellious.
It feels enlightened.
A Biblically Faithful Way to Handle This Note
A responsible explanatory note would say something like:
The Greek name Iēsous is the established transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. While similar-sounding names exist in Greek mythology, there is no linguistic or theological connection. Scripture affirms salvation in this name, and its use by the New Testament authors is inspired and authoritative.
That framing protects both truth and faith.
Final Assessment
Is Iēsous a legitimate Greek rendering of the Messiah’s name?
Yes.
Are the pagan associations suggested in the ISR note linguistically valid?
No.
Does this note risk undermining Christology and confidence in Scripture?
Yes—significantly.
Does the inclusion of Come Out of Her, My People intensify that risk?
Yes—and unmistakably.
This is not merely a technical note.
It is a gateway explanation.
Leave a Reply