Home (Netzarim Logo)
Onomastics of the Name Jzeus
(Hut, Booth or Exhibit #8)
2nd – 4th Centuries CE:
Onomastics of the name Jesus
Unique Perverted Translations of a Biblical Name
P-45 folios
Click to enlarge𝔓45

Sample of 45 leaves that accreted to the developing "Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)" Greek in late 2nd-3rd century C.E. (P-45 also included 66 leaves of Greek LXX.)


Rainbow Rule
Who Cannnot See…?
These Are Mutually-Exclusive Polar Opposites
Tracking Forward
From Av•râ•hâm
135 CE Tracking Back
From Today
Anti-Hellenist, PRO--​Teaching, Pharisee, Jewish Ribi and his orig­i­nal Nᵊtzâr•im Jewish follow­ers in 1st century Judean community des­cribed in (4Q) MMT

Poof!

Antinomian, misojudaic, PRO-Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι, followers of the Hellenized-syncretism Jesus  Ιησους, who were haters of and persecutors of Jews, condemning the original Jewish followers of Ribi as "Judaizers", vilifying as "the law of sin and death" and Jews as eternally lost, Christ-killers, sons of Sâ•tân and enemies of the Church.

Until I shattered the illusion in the early 1970s, scholars universally assumed Christianity traces back to 1st century Judaism (unconcerned how pro-Tor•âh Pᵊrush•im Jewish followers of a pro-Tor•âh Pᵊrush•im Ribi in the 1st century suddenly and magically overnight, with no record of it—Poof!—morphed into the rabidly antinomian and misojudaic Christianity preaching that Jews, especially "Judaizers believing Jews" (by which they meant the original Nᵊtzâr•im) were, accordidng to the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), "Christ-killers", "sons of Sâ•tân" and enemies of the Church."

In fact, however, no scholar has ever demonstrated Christianity before 135 C.E.!!!

Rainbow Rule
Christian Refutations
Dangle From Christian-Redacted LXX

I based much of The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) on the methodology of reversing the translation of 𝕸 Hebrew to LXX Greek; then using that mapping, supplemented by the Ëvën Bo•khan and all other earlier extant Hebrew sources, to map Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Greek to reconstruct the most accurate possible, restored Hebrew.

For quite a long time, this fooled me, just as it continues to fool many others, into accepting that the Hebrew name, , in the 𝕸 Hebrew equated to the LXX Greek Ιησους; and from there to Jesus in English.

But then I discovered the earliest extant (nearly complete) source!

"The text of the Septuagint is contained in a few early, but not necessarily reliable, manuscripts. The best known of these are the Codex Vaticanus (β) and the Codex Sinaiticus (א), both dating from the 4th century [C.E.], and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) from the 5th century. There are also numerous earlier papyrus fragments and many later manuscripts." (On-line Encyclopedia Britannica, Septuagint accessed 2012.04.23)

From my research in translating the entire Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) – from all of the earliest extant sources, I immediately recognized that these are the same, identical sources. The Greek LXX and the profoundly Hellenized-redacted Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) are from the same two earliest extant sources – and β!!! They were bound in the same two codices! It was suddenly strikingly clear: the Christian redactors redacted both of these to corroborate each other and bound them in the same codices together, as one internally, circular, self-corroborating unit. What is Hellenized-redacted in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was similarly backward Hellenized-redacted into the only copies of LXX that the Church permitted to survive and be copied.

Consequently, it shouldn't be surprising that the name (Bin-Nun) was redacted in LXX and the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) differently – because the Church insisted that the name Jesus be distinguished and special – from any other name ending with in Ta•na"kh.

In the English KJ/V (1611 C.E.), the identical name that is found in both the Hebrew Ta•na"kh () and the Greek LXX (Ιησους) was baselessly made different and entirely unique – Jesus – in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)!!!

Thus, the question must be asked, "Why was the name, (and its diminutive, Yᵊshua), victim of this gentile retroactive redaction to make the Greek Ιησους?" The only name in Ta•na"kh ending in to 'evolve' its 's' ending (Jesus)?

The same rule that transliterated other names ending in into Greek should have produced the Greek Ιοσουnot Ιησους, from which Jesus derives. The rule should have produced an "o" in the first syllable, not an "æ" and omitted the "s" ending of their native Zeus!

Still, why, in LXX, does the identical Greek name reach us as "Joshua," not Jesus???

Suddenly, it was no longer a great mystery why this one Greek name, unlike any other anywhere, was rendered differently from any other name in LXX as well as the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) (where the English was rendered more like ιε Zeus), from the original 𝕸 Hebrew . They were Hellenist-redacted exactly the same, by the same Hellenist, gentile Roman, Christian hands who, in 135 CE, had ousted the original Jewish followers of Ribi !

Critics quote their own self-proclaimed knowledge or Wiki-whatever (which could be an 8th-grader somewhere). I only cite legitimate scholars and works recognized by reputable universities.

I'm no longer deceived by Christianity and the church. Are you?

Etymology of Ιησους (Jesus)

PIE Yᵊdeiwós Cognates {Θέος  Deus  Ζεύς}

"… 'Diwijos – an archaic form of Ζεύς. The name Ζεύς is cognate with the Greek word Θέος and Latin Deus (both meaning "god"). These three terms ultimately trace their etymology to an ancient Proto-Indo-European [PIE] male sky-god" [Yᵊdeiwós]" (vide The Gods of Ancient Greece, Indo-European Poetry and Myth, also Greek Gods Before Homer)

The Greek word for God / Deity, and so translated more than 1,000 times in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and LXX, is Θέος, translated into Latin as Deus.

Like every Hellenist, Homer and Herodotus equated Θέος with Ζεύς: "Θέος, … (also Θέος Ζεύς in Homer's OdysseaΘέος, … ὁ θ., of natural phenomena, ὁ θ. υει ([scilicet] Ζεύς) (Herodotus Historiae]".

Even Google Translate translates ιε Ζεύς as "O Ζεύς" and "O Dios".

"From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek Θέος, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Ζεύς (gen. Dios), Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities." (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Deus is a cognate of Greek "*div- "to shine," thus cognate with Gk. dios "divine" and Ζεύς, and L. Deus "god" (O.Latin deivos); see Zeus" (deva).

"Dios – noun, masculine; genitive singular of Ζεύς – 'of Ζεύς' " (Univ. of Texas)

Thus, Hellenist Roman Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Θέος = Greek Hellenist Ζεύς = Roman Jupiter (see Acts 4.12-13), the Θέος native to Roman Hellenists (who, in 135 C.E., became the earliest and original Christians) and to which the Hellenist Roman Hellenists dedicated ( ) Aelia Capitolina.

Hellenist Roman gentiles were primed from birth with a headful of attributes associated with their primary Θέος, Ζεύς. When gentile Hellenist Romans were told by Hellenist Jews (a myriad of apostate min•im, probably many Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im who had formerly ruled the Temple before it was destroyed, and were now jobless) that "the real Ζεύς, instead of being born of Rhea and Cronus, was born of Mary and Θέος – it became a simple evolution of the name, among Hellenist Romans, for Ζεύς xman-god ιε Ζεύς (Old English: Je Zeus) Ιησους (= English Jesus, or perhaps better, jeZeus")—retaining all of the attributes that they had always associated with Ζεύς.

In other words, this was hardly more than a new name for the Ζεύς they had always worshiped. Even the face of Ζεύς was retained!

Hellenist Greek English

Διαθηκη Καινη (NT): Θέος = Deus = Ζεύς = Jesus!

(None of which are --!)

The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) explicitly syncretizes the worship of Ζεύς to their Hellenist (Χριστιανοι Church) ιε Ζεύς Ιησους Jzeus!!!

The two—historical Jew Ribi versus, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil, Roman-Hellenized, Goy•im Christian Church Jzeus—are mutually contradictory and exclusive, intractably antithetical, polar opposites!

Logically, these two diametric opposites must, therefore, be rigorously distinguished from each other.

Following either necessarily requires absolute and resolute rejection of the antithetical opposite.

Rainbow Rule

So… Who Was Historical "Jesus"?

Jzeus the 'Nazarene' ? Messiah Yeshua?
What was his authentic Name & Face?

'Historical Jzeus' or 'Jzeus the 'Nazarene' — was, in reality, the Pᵊrush•i Tor•âh teacher known among religious Jews of his era as Ribi or, in the Aramaic popular at that time, [Rab•ân] Yᵊshua—as engraved on the ossuary of his brother, Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq" Bën-Dâ•wid (see ossuary photo in the Mâ•shiakh page of this History Museum).

Even the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) acknowledges and documents that Ribi was a "ραββι"—an ordained "Pharisee" Jew ("Orthodox" in our modern era) teacher of .

After being misrepresented for millennia (since the 135 C.E. apostasy) as the anti- (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil) Jzeus by Christianity & the Church, the authentic Ribi is today fulfilling the Messianic Issues ascribed by ancient religious Jews (as opposed to apostates and later gentile Christians) to the Mâ•shiakh. Our Distance Learning Khav•rutâ is designed for educating Christians about . Find more information by taking our tour of the 'Nᵊtzâr•im Quarter' (NQ) virtual village. (Follow the tour signs at the end of major web pages.)

That Jesus is Zeus is a matter of historical record. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the English "god" traces back through the Old Teutonic Tiu – surviving in Tuesday Roman Jupiter  Latin Deus  Greek Θέος and finally (and probably shockingly) Greek Ζεύς, for which the gen. form is Διος. But Christian theologians are careful not to show you the connections between the dots and, if pressed, insist such connections are invalid – and who are you, they pontificate, to argue with Christian "theologians"? With Christian "Dr. of Divinity" degrees? ("Dr. of Divinity" degrees? Really? Even if they attended a brick & mortar diploma factory, could they pass even a high school math or science test?).

Hellenist Christians Adapted & Still Worshiped Hellenist Perceptions

Hellenist Roman goy•im understood their Greek terms for their deity in terms of their native Ζεύς, antipodal to what a religious Jew understood in Hebrew!

The Hellenist Jew, vacillating between the two communities, with only a superficial notion of each, muddled the two immiscibles – as they and Christians continue to do today.

Θέος ("God") in the Christian "Διαθηκη Καινη" (NT)

Usage of the Greek and Latin terms by the earliest (gentile) Christians must be kept in mind. Thus, in the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), as it had earlier been in the LXX (!), for the Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist-Christian Church writers and their Greek-speaking gentile Hellenist-Christian Church audience, they understood the Bible, "commandments" and "Temple" of the Jews only within their native Greek or Latin terms and their native, mythological, frame of referenceΘέος  Ζεύς. This held true even in Hellenist Judaic settings.

A moment's reflection is illuminating. It is identical today. When a Christian today thinks of "God," (s)he is thinking of the Trinity and Ιησους (Iæsous); \'\'Resurrected Zeus\'\' = Latin Deus, Deos and Theos = English god – anglicized to Joshua in LXX and Jesus in the Christian \'\'New Testament\'\'.','#ffff99', 260)"; onMouseout="hideddrivetip()">Jesus (and, despite denials, that is   Θέος  Ζεύς). This is definitely not what an Orthodox Jew has in mind when (s)he thinks of --!

Hellenist Morph:
Θέος  Ζεύς  ιε Ζεύς  Ιησους (English Jesus)

For example, unlike the Hebrew Bible, the Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) text indisputably demonstrates that their original Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) read (and Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist-Christians understood and believed):

Indeed, the entirety of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) accounts of Jesusevery reference to god, over 300 of them—revolve around Θέος  Ζεύς.

We find (Acts 10.38) "how Θέος  Ζεύς anointed Ιησους."

Interestingly, the Greek verb επιστρεφω can as easily mean "return toward" as "turn toward," which the KJ/V English equates to converting. Thus, Acts 15.19 speaks not of gentiles "turning to God" as understood by Jews, but, rather, when these gentiles were told by (obviously) Beit Sha•mai Jews in their local Diaspora communities and synagogues that they must choose between living according to the Beit Sha•mai "Jewish" standards (the Ultra-Orthodox of their day) or remaining "Hellenist", they were "returning to Θέος (God): " εθνος are (re)turned to Θέος  Ζεύς."

"Speaking in tongues" is then revealed (Acts 2.11) as "the greatnesses of Θέος  Ζεύς" and (Acts 10.46) "speak with tongues, and magnify Θέος  Ζεύς."

"Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate: Master Morpher

As a Greek-speaking Hellenist, "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate and father of Christianity was acutely aware that the gentile Roman – Hellenist – public equated the Hellenist Θέος with Ζεύς – with Ιησους  Jesus. It is clear from his own letters (which make up most of the "New Testament"), that Paul the Hellenist Apostate deceiver, doubtless with his own (Hellenist-perceived) good intentions of helping the gentiles, duplicitously blurred the difference to "market" his message among the freshly Temple-less Hellenist-Tzᵊdoq•im Jews and Hellenist Roman (Ζεύς-worshiping) idolaters to "morph" Θέος  Ζεύς  ιε Ζεύς  Ιησους (English Jesus).

In Col. 1.15, "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate and father of Christianity equates Ιησους  Jesus to "the image of the invisible Θέος  Ζεύς." who will (3.1) "sit on the right hand of Θέος  Ζεύς." Describing Θέος  Ζεύς as invisible does not equate, lᵊ-hav•dil, to --!

The equating of Θέος  Ζεύς with Ιησους  Jesus is also clear in Titus where (2.10) "Θέος  Ζεύς (is) our Savior" which is identical (2.13) "our Savior Ιησους  Jesus Christ."

Elementary logic dictates the intent:

In every one of the more than 300 instances in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) alone where one finds the word "God" in KJ/V, the original text reads the blurring term "Θέος Ζεύς.

Hellenized LXX

B.C.E. vs Christianized Earliest Extant Mss. & β

"It could hardly have escaped the translators of the LXX, who did their (pre- Christian-redacted) work two centuries before Nᵊtzâr•im Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhu ha-Lei•wi, that a transliteration of was strikingly similar to ίασούς." (NHM note 1.21.1).

"The aorist active [masc. participle] of the Greek verb "to heal" is ίασούς, in which the temporal augment changes the initial vowels to ια… The most probable explanation for the anomalous Ιησους is a conflation between Ιοσου, which is generated by the usual rules of Greek, and the phrase ίασούς-Ζεύς, the most popular and powerful Hellenist god, finally yielding Ιησους  Jesus." (NHM subnote 91 to note 1.21.1).

The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) goes even futher to avoid its connection to Ζεύς—and proving its Roman adaptation. Instead of transliterating the literal reading—Hellenist (Greek) Δια (accusative masc. sing. form of Ζεύς)—in Acts 14.12 & "priest of Διος" (gen. masc. sing. of Ζεύς) in v. 13, English translators avoided any connection to Ζεύς among non-Greek-speakers, by morphing it further, into the Roman Jupiter" as if there was no connection. Dot connections gone!!!

So why did this name — Ιησους ("seus") — alone, redacted by 2nd-4th century misojudaic gentile Roman Christians of Displacement Theology, turn out unlike any other similar name in the Hebrew (i.e., ending in )—and so eerily reminiscent of morphing the Egyptian Goddess "Isis," which evolved into the most popular Greco-Roman God "Ζεύς" ( Jupiter) as a portmanteau: "Iszeus" – nothing like Yᵊho•shua (or even the Hellenized "Joshua", for that matter)?

There is no rational, logical answer. (For documentation and further details see also Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link (WAN).

Rainbow Rule

Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera (ca. B.C.E. 22 – 40 C.E.)

Ta•lᵊmud: (Jesus? No First Name) "Son of Pantera"?

(Ma•sëkët Sha•bât 104b & Ma•sëkët Συνέδριον (Sunedrion) 67a) Compiled 5th Century C.E.

Hellenist Redactions vs Original Judaic Account

Tombstone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera in Bad Kreuznach, Germany
Tombstone of Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, apparently where he was last stationed in the Roman Legion, in Bad Kreuznach, Germany

Admission in the accounts that Miryâm became pregnant before she married Yo•seiph has always raised questions. While the earliest Roman Christians hearkened back to their native Roman mythology (Hellenism, derived from earlier Egyptian mythology) of gods mating with mortal virgins, the whole idea of a divine mating, as well as a resulting hybrid man-god, was entirely gentile — goy•im and idolatrous to Jews.

In fact, the story of this Jewish couple is only one of many that, when translated from Aramaic and Hebrew – by Hellenists – into Greek, long after the fact (after 135 C.E. into the 4th century C.E.), Roman Hellenist Christians were clueless to Judaic aspects. Hence, many Judaic aspects never made it into, and, expectedly, we don't find them in, the Hellenist (Greek) texts, which are all that have come down to us.

Thus, Hellenist myth displaced the original Judaic description in the Greek Christian accounts that have reached the modern world. By the 4th century, through Hellenizing translation and Christian redactions, it is impossible to distinguish elements of Egyptian-Hellenist myth from an original Judaic account — except by differentiating between the exclusive traditions that differentiated Jews from goy•im in the 1st century (documented, inter alia, in (4Q) MMT) and tracking those traditions consistently from the 1st century B.C.E. through the 4th century C.E. (the unique and ground-breaking methodology I introduced in the early 1970s; found only in NHM).

The Judaic Perspective: Marriage Process

In the only account accepted by the 1st century Nᵊtzâr•im Jews, NHM. the essential facts are that (1.18): " Miryâm to Yo•seiph, before they had set up household together,was found to be pregnant by the ."

The Judaic perspective, , is one of sanctity and holiness of marriage – not an idolatrous marriage with a Hellenist god (Ζεύς) to produce a Hellenist man-god.

Post-135 C.E. Origen of the "Pantera" Polemic

(Pardon the Pun)

Pantera was, indeed, a documented name of more than one Roman soldier in the 1st century C.E. However, an asserted association with Yesh"u" doesn't appear until referenced by Origen, quoting the 2nd century C.E. Hellenist, probably Alexandrian, philosopher principally known for polemicizing Christianity, Celsus. According to Origen, Celsus' assertion that Pantera impregnated Miryâm was a fabrication. (In fact, Celsus also contradicted the earlier sources claiming that Yo•seiph spurned and expelled Miryâm, not marrying her, on account, Celsus asserted, of her having been convicted of adultery with Pantera). It is clear from this that Celsus is, already by the early 2nd century C.E. (after 135 C.E.), concerned solely with polemicizing the Hellenist Roman Christian image and exclusively absorbed with Hellenist Roman perspectives; the same exclusive focus of the "Pantera" and other polemics echoed 3 centuries later in Ta•lᵊmud—entirely unaware of the earlier, original Nᵊtzâr•im or the Pᵊrush•i Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

The best argument for an association with Miryâm is that they both lived in the 1st century and both lived in the Middle East – perhaps even at the same time (Pantera in Sidon and Miryâm in Nâ•tzᵊr•at) – 96 km (60 mi) from each other. Since that applies to every mature male within a 96 km (60 mi) radius of Nâ•tzᵊr•at in the 1st century C.E., most scholars find this "evidence" entertaining. Logicians find such "evidence" ludicrous.

Parthenos to Panthera

Panthera (the Greek pronunciation) forms a metathetical play on words with παρθένος, the Greek term translated "virgin" in the Hellenist (Christian) Greek Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) — a distortion of found in Yᵊsha•yâhu 7.14 and quoted in NHM 1.22-23. (On the other hand, an is expected to be a virgin – but only until she marries. Unlike the Hellenist theme of Ζεύς mating with a mortal woman to produce a man-god as described in the Hellenist Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), this is exactly the implication of Yᵊsha•yâhu 7.14 and quoted in NHM 1.22-23.)

Prof. Tabor of the Univ. of North Carolina belittles the idea that this is a play on words (here, here and here); principally, it seems, because of the non sequitur that these two words are not linguistic cognates. However, the fact is that plays on words, often involving this kind of metathesis of letters, are widespread, popular and almost never linguistically related. That's what makes them a play on words as contrasted with some linguistic twist of cognates (e.g., to create two quick plays on words using cognates: If the driver drove the sheep, who shipped the sheep on the ship?). The documentation proving that Pantera was a real name of that time and era doesn't detract from the play on words in any way whatsoever.

Prof. Tabor also criticizes (ibid.) the idea of the association being a pun by asserting that there is no precedent for such a practice. On the contrary, the deliberate perversion of a word associated with idolatry to a nomen eradicum traces from present day practice (e.g., Yesh"u) back to Biblical examples. It's even commanded explicitly in Dᵊvâr•im 12.3-4. To change "son of a παρθένος (virgin)" to son of (an idolatrous goy•im Roman soldier named) Panthera" (Greek pronunciation) falls smack in the middle of that indisputably documented ancient tradition. See, among many examples, , a nomen eradicum (or damnatio memoriae) for the Hebrew name or title, , that had been afforded the idol by its worshipers, displacing the vowels with those of . Another example following the same tradition is , the nomen eradicum for Ishtar (Easter). In Greek, the nomen eradicum, or damnatio memoriae, tended toward a Greek-Hellenist adaptation fabricated by Celsus.

From there, the association, by this time linked solely to the post-135 C.E. Christian image Jesus, becomes echoed in the 5th century C.E. compilation of the Ta•lᵊmud.

Roman Perspective: Zeus mating with a mortal woman

The Hellenist frame of reference of the Roman goy•im rendered the basic elements of the Hellenized, Greek, stories within their native mythological worldview: Zeus mating with a mortal woman to beget a hybrid man-god, Ιησους (Zeus-incarnate) — namely, Egyptian cum Hellenist mythology.

Conclusion

Accordingly, we would agree with Celsus that the "son of Panthera" is an appropriate nomen eradicum that should be substituted for the "son of a παρθένος"; i.e., the Pauline Christian idol, Ιησους, the son of Mary Mother of god (better, I should write "Morey") to distinguish the Roman Christian idols of Hellenist mythology from the historical Jewess, Miryâm, and Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

It seems that Celsus may have been closer to the mark than even he realized! Ta•lᵊmud as well – though not modern rabbis who don't understand the same way as the rabbis of the Ta•lᵊmud.

Rainbow Rule

'Historical Jesus' — an Oxymoron

Pro- , ‭ ‬ 1st century, historical, Pharisee-Jew- Ribi versus (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil) ANTI-  ("antinomian"), post-135 C.E. Hellenist counterfeit-image syncretized by the Roman occupiers: ιε Ζεύς  Jesus (  Yesh"u). Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic