Lost in Translation: Part 1 — What’s in a Name?
What Was Lost When the Name Changed?
Scripture First
Before we look at history, before we trace decisions and documents, let’s start where we should always start — with Scripture itself.
In Exodus chapter 3, Moses stands before a bush that burns but is not consumed. A voice speaks. Moses asks a reasonable question: When I go to the children of Israel and tell them the God of their fathers sent me, they will ask, “What is His name?” What do I tell them?
The answer comes in two parts.
First, in verse 14:
“God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ Then He said, ‘You are to say to Bnei-Yisrael, “I AM” has sent me to you.’” — Exodus 3:14 (TLV)
Then, in verse 15:
“God also said to Moses, ‘You are to say to Bnei-Yisrael, “YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and the memorial of Me from generation to generation.“’” — Exodus 3:15 (TLV)
The Hebrew text contains a specific name: יהוה — four letters, often called the Tetragrammaton. Scholars generally transliterate it as YHWH and believe it was pronounced something like “Yahweh,” though the exact vocalization has been debated for centuries.
What is not debated is what the text says: this is His Name. Forever. From generation to generation.
This name appears in the Hebrew Scriptures approximately 6,828 times. It is the most frequently used name in the entire Bible.
What English Bibles Do
If you open most English Bibles — the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version, and many others — you will not find “YHWH” or “Yahweh” in those 6,828 places. Instead, you will find “the LORD,” rendered in small capital letters.
This is not a direct transliteration of the Name. “LORD” is a title used as a substitutional rendering — a longstanding translation convention for handling the divine name. The Hebrew word for “lord” is adon (אָדוֹן). That is not what appears in the text. What appears is a personal name — the Name that the text itself says is His “forever.”
So the question is not whether this happened. It did. The question is: how did it happen, and what was lost when it did?
Tracing the History
The First Substitution: Adonai in Hebrew Practice
Before we trace what happened in Greek, Latin, and English, we need to start earlier — with what happened within Hebrew-speaking communities themselves.
At some point — scholars debate exactly when, but likely during or after the Second Temple period — a tradition developed among Jewish readers to avoid pronouncing the Name YHWH aloud. The concern centered on the third commandment:
“You shall not take the Name of YHWH your God in vain, for YHWH will not hold him guiltless that takes His Name in vain.” — Exodus 20:7 (TLV)
Over time, this command — which addresses misusing or emptying the Name of its weight — was interpreted more broadly. To avoid any possibility of violating it, a safeguard developed: don’t pronounce the Name at all. When readers encountered יהוה in the text, they would say Adonai (אֲדֹנָי), meaning “my Lord,” instead.
The Torah does not explicitly command Israel never to pronounce the Name — yet later Jewish tradition developed this restriction as a safeguard. The Hebrew Bible itself repeatedly preserves the Name in its text, and the priests pronounced it in the temple blessings (Numbers 6:22-27). But the tradition of substitution took root, and in later Jewish practice, the public pronunciation of the Name became highly restricted. Some rabbinic traditions especially associate its explicit use with the High Priest on Yom Kippur, though other traditions connect it to priestly use in the Temple more broadly.
(It should be noted that Exodus 6:3 raises interpretive questions about when and how the Name was known, which scholars continue to discuss. This is more complex than a simple appeal to patriarchal usage.)
Here is where it gets interesting for translation history: When the Masoretes — the Jewish scribes who added vowel markings to the Hebrew text between the 6th and 10th centuries AD — came to the Name YHWH, they placed the vowels of Adonai underneath the consonants. This was not meant to indicate pronunciation. It was a reading instruction: “When you see these consonants, say Adonai instead.”
This scribal convention would later cause significant confusion among Christian scholars — but we will return to that.
The Septuagint (~3rd Century BC)
When Jewish scribes in Alexandria translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek — producing what we call the Septuagint — they faced a challenge. The Greek tradition generally did not preserve the divine name by transliteration. Instead, the dominant textual practice came to render it with kyrios (κύριος), meaning “lord.”
Interestingly, some of the earliest Septuagint fragments we have — such as Papyrus Fouad 266, dated to the 1st century BC — actually retain the Hebrew letters יהוה within the Greek text. This complicates any simple account of a uniform early replacement by kyrios. At minimum, it shows that the transmission history is more layered than many readers realize.
But over time, the substitution became standard. Greek-speaking Jews and later Greek-speaking Christians read kyrios where the Hebrew said YHWH.
The Problem This Creates: LORD and Lord
Here is something important to consider.
In the New Testament, the Greek word kyrios (”lord”) is used in two ways:
In quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures, where it stands in for YHWH (rendered “LORD” in English Old Testaments)
As a title for Yeshua — “Lord Jesus,” “Jesus is Lord”
When English translates both as “Lord,” something significant becomes invisible.
Consider Peter’s sermon at Pentecost. He quotes Joel 2:32:
“And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of YHWH shall be saved.” — Joel 2:32 (TLV)
In Acts 2:21, Peter applies this to the moment at hand — and by the end of his sermon, he declares:
“Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah — this Yeshua whom you crucified.” — Acts 2:36 (TLV)
Peter is widely understood to be connecting Yeshua to the YHWH of Joel’s prophecy — applying the “LORD” text to the “Lord” Yeshua. If that reading is correct, the theological weight is enormous. But when both are rendered “Lord” in English, the reader may not see what Peter is doing.
Or consider Paul in Philippians 2:10-11:
“...at the name of Yeshua every knee shall bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Yeshua the Messiah is Lord...” — Philippians 2:10-11 (TLV)
Paul appears to be drawing on Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH says:
“By Myself I have sworn... that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” — Isaiah 45:23 (TLV)
If Paul is applying a YHWH passage to Yeshua, this is a profound theological claim about who Yeshua is. But if the Old Testament “LORD” (YHWH) and the New Testament “Lord” (Yeshua) both appear as variations of the same English word, the connection is obscured — and so is the distinction.
This raises a question worth sitting with: When you pray, when you worship, when you call on “the Lord” — who are you actually talking to? The Father? The Son? Does it matter to you? Is there a distinction?
Scripture presents the Father as the one Yeshua prayed to, submitted to, and glorified. It presents Yeshua as the one through whom we come to the Father. It presents the Ruach as the one who empowers and guides us. We are not here to tell you what the relationship between them is — that may be beyond any human formulation. But we are asking: Have you ever considered who you are addressing? And have you ever wondered whether the collapse of “LORD” and “Lord” into the same English sound has obscured something that Scripture keeps distinct?
Jerome and the Latin Vulgate (~405 AD)
When Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate — the translation that would become the standard Bible of Western Christianity for over a thousand years — he followed the Septuagint’s convention. Where the Hebrew text had YHWH, Jerome wrote Dominus, the Latin word for “lord.”
Jerome was a careful scholar. He knew Hebrew. He was aware of the Name. But he followed the Greek tradition. You can read his prologues to various books, where he discusses his translation choices, at sources like Tertullian.org.
The Invention of “Jehovah” (~13th Century AD)
Here is something that may surprise you: the name “Jehovah” is a medieval accident.
Remember the Masoretic scribal convention: the vowels of Adonai were placed under the consonants YHWH as a reading instruction — a reminder to say Adonai instead of attempting to pronounce the Name.
Later Christian scholars in medieval Europe, unfamiliar with this convention, did not realize these vowels were a substitution marker. They assumed the vowels belonged with the consonants and combined them: Y + a, H + o, W + a, H — producing “YaHoWaH.”
In older European languages, “Y” was written as “J” and “W” as “V.” So “YaHoWaH” became “JaHoVaH” — Jehovah.
There is no “J” sound in Hebrew. “Jehovah” does not appear in any ancient manuscript. It is a 13th-century invention born from a misunderstanding of scribal notation.
The King James Version (1611)
When the King James translators produced their English Bible, they followed the conventions that had been established over the preceding centuries. Their preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” discusses many of their translation principles, though it does not extensively address the divine name specifically.
They chose to render YHWH as “the LORD” (in small capitals) following the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and earlier English translations like Tyndale and the Geneva Bible. They used “Jehovah” in only a handful of places — Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, and Isaiah 26:4.
This was a decision. A choice made by translators in 1611, following conventions established over a thousand years earlier.
What About the Son’s Name?
The pattern repeats with the name of the Messiah.
In Hebrew, His name is יֵשׁוּעַ — transliterated as “Yeshua.” This is a later shortened form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — “Yehoshua” (Joshua). The Greek Iēsous can represent both forms.
The name means “Yah saves” or “YHWH is salvation.” It is not merely a label; it carries meaning. When the angel speaks to Joseph in Matthew 1:21, the connection is explicit:
“She will give birth to a son, and you shall call His name Yeshua, for He will save His people from their sins.” — Matthew 1:21 (TLV)
The name and the mission are inseparable. He is called “Yah saves” because He will save.
From Yeshua to Jesus
When the New Testament was written in Greek, the name was transliterated as Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous). Greek has no “sh” sound and no Hebrew ayin ending, so the transliteration adapted to Greek phonology.
From Greek, the name passed into Latin as Iesus. From Latin into English, it became “Jesus” — with the “J” sound that developed in English around the 17th century.
“Jesus” is not a translation. It is the end of a transliteration chain: Yeshua → Iēsous → Iesus → Jesus.
The English form “Jesus” comes through Greek and Latin, and for most English readers it no longer transparently signals the Hebrew meaning embedded in Yeshua/Yehoshua. The etymological connection is real, but the meaning — “Yah saves” — is not visible to most who say the name.
A Question the King James Raises
Here is something worth sitting with.
The Greek name Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) appears in the New Testament referring to the Messiah. But the same Greek word also appears in two places referring to Joshua, the son of Nun — Moses’ successor.
In Acts 7:45, Stephen recounts Israel’s history:
“Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David.” — Acts 7:45 (KJV)
In Hebrews 4:8, the writer argues about rest:
“For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day?” — Hebrews 4:8 (KJV)
In both passages, the context makes clear that the reference is to Joshua son of Nun — the one who led Israel into Canaan, not the Messiah. Yet the KJV renders the name as “Jesus.”
Modern translations — the New King James, the ESV, the NIV, the TLV — correct this to “Joshua.” You can compare them yourself:
The question this raises: If the translators rendered Iēsous as “Joshua” when referring to the son of Nun in the Old Testament, why did they render it as “Jesus” when referring to the Messiah? They are the same name. The same Greek word. The same Hebrew origin.
We are not here to assign motive. But we can observe the outcome: English readers do not naturally connect “Jesus” with “Joshua.” The shared name — and its meaning — was lost.
What Was Lost
When the Name of the Father was replaced with a title, something was lost.
The Scriptures speak of calling on the Name:
“It will happen that everyone who calls on the Name of YHWH will be saved.” — Joel 2:32 (TLV)
Peter quotes this passage at Pentecost in Acts 2:21. The invitation is to call on a Name — not a title, not a generic reference to deity, but a specific, revealed, personal Name.
Consider what the Scriptures say about this Name:
“Therefore My people will know My Name.” — Isaiah 52:6 (TLV)
“I will set him securely on high, because he has known My Name.” — Psalm 91:14 (TLV)
“Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the Name of YHWH our God.” — Psalm 20:7 (TLV)
“The Name of YHWH is a strong tower; the righteous run into it and are safe.” — Proverbs 18:10 (TLV)
Throughout Scripture, there is an emphasis on knowing, trusting, and calling upon the Name — a specific Name, revealed to Moses, declared to be His “forever.”
When that Name becomes “the LORD,” what is lost?
When the name Yeshua — “Yah saves” — becomes “Jesus,” a sound without meaning in English, what is lost?
When readers no longer see that the Messiah shares the name of the one who led Israel into the Promised Land, what is lost?
When the angel’s words in Matthew 1:21 no longer resonate — “call His name ‘Yah Saves,’ for He will save His people” — what is lost?
When praying “in the name of Jesus” becomes a formula rather than an invocation of meaning — “in the name of Yah-Who-Saves” — what is lost?
These are not rhetorical questions. They are invitations to consider what may have slipped away, layer by layer, translation by translation, century by century.
What Might Be Recovered
We are not suggesting that everyone who has ever said “Jesus” or read “the LORD” has somehow missed God. The Spirit of the living God is not constrained by our translations. Millions have encountered Him, been transformed by Him, and walked faithfully with Him using the names and titles passed down to them.
But we are asking a question: What might be recovered if we traced these things back?
What might it mean to know that when you call on the Messiah, you are calling on One whose very name declares that Yah saves?
What might it mean to read the Hebrew Scriptures and encounter not “the LORD” — distant, generic — but YHWH, the personal Name of the God who revealed Himself to Moses, who made covenant with Abraham, who calls Himself “I AM”?
What might it mean to see that Yeshua and Joshua are the same name, and to recognize the Messiah as the one who truly leads God’s people into rest — the rest that Joshua son of Nun could only foreshadow?
Consider Hebrews 4, where the writer makes exactly this argument: Joshua gave Israel a rest in the land, but it was not the ultimate rest. There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. The one who leads us into that rest bears the same name as the one who led Israel across the Jordan. The typology is embedded in the name itself — if we have eyes to see it.
What might it mean to pray “in the name of Yeshua” — not as a formula, but as a declaration? To invoke not just a sound, but a meaning: “I come in the name of the One whose name means ‘Yah saves.’ I come in the authority of the One who is salvation.”
We are not asking you to take our word for any of this. The sources are available. The manuscripts exist. The translation histories are documented. You can read the KJV translators’ preface yourself. You can look at Papyrus Fouad 266. You can compare Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 across translations with a single click.
The tools that were once locked in seminary libraries are now in your pocket. What once required academic credentials and institutional access is now freely available to anyone willing to look.
Questions to Sit With
We close not with conclusions but with questions — because this is your journey, not ours. We’ve traced the history. We’ve shown the sources. But what you do with it is between you and the Ruach HaKodesh.
Have you ever considered why the personal Name of God — used nearly 7,000 times in Scripture — does not appear in most English Bibles?
When you read “the LORD,” did you know that the underlying Hebrew is a specific, personal Name that the text says is His “forever”?
What might change in your reading of Scripture if you began to recognize YHWH not as a title but as a Name?
When you hear “Jesus,” do you hear a name with meaning — “Yah saves” — or a sound you’ve simply inherited?
What was lost when the connection between Yeshua and Joshua was obscured? What might be recovered by restoring it?
Have you ever asked the Holy Spirit to reveal what, if anything, has been lost in the translations you’ve received — and what He might want to restore?
An Invitation
This is Part 1 of a series. We will continue to trace what happened historically — not to tear down, but to understand. And in understanding, to ask: what was lost, and what might still be recovered?
We are not asking you to abandon what you’ve known. We are inviting you to investigate. To compare what you’ve been taught with what the Scriptures actually say. To look at the historical record — the councils, the letters, the translation choices — and to ask honest questions.
And above all, to take those questions to the One who promised that His Spirit would guide us into all truth.
The treasure is there. The path is open.
Are you willing to look?
Next: Part 2 — What Happens When Hebrew Becomes Greek?
Sources Referenced: