Below is part of an email that I had receive from a freind.

It adresses the Hebrew Name of The Anointed One as prophesied in Zekhar-YaHu [Zechariah] 6:9-13. Most scholars will tell you that "The Branch" is a prophetic reference to the coming Moshiach who would be our Eternal Priest and King. See: Yesha-YaHu [Isaiah] 11:1-7, Yirmee-YaHu [Jeremiah] 23:5 and 33:15-16.

"Shlama akhi, The name ( Joshua / Yehoshuah) was originally ( Hoshayah / Hosea / Hoshea / Oshea). The Oshea pronunciation is simply the inconsistency of the older English translations in the realm of transliterating proper names. It is no different than Hosea / Hoshea, for example, like how herb can be pronounced phonetically as HURB or else by dropping the initial H sound and yielding ERB. Same thing. WHY English does this, I cant say, but apparently it was at work even back in 1611 when the translators of the KJV did their version. So the variant reading in English of OSHEA is nothing more than a situation where more than one translator worked on the same Bible. The name is pronounced the same in the Hebrew language (HOSHAYAH), just written differently in some English translations which are not consistent in transliterating proper names (so there needs be no further attention paid towards these English variants). Ok, so in this name lay the root word of YASHA rescue / save / deliver. The root is definitely YASHA not YESHUAH. Rather, YESHUAH would be an extension of the root YASHA. YESHUAH itself is built off of the YASHA root, but it is grammatically feminine in that the help / aid / rescue promoted in it is of a kindness / compassionate nature, which in Hebrew tends to be written in a feminine gender in a word it doesnt make anything girly about it, just is done to show the softer edge of the term. There are other languages that are gender-specific, such as Spanish, where you will find the same types of subtle differences in terms that are otherwise identical in meaning. But of course, any gender-specific word can only have one root no matter if it were an alien language with four genders, right? We can return to this matter at a later date, because this is how we can eventually arrive at a correct pronunciation of The Anointed One's Name, when we understand the root and what was happening. But for now, lets continue on the same topic. So continuing on, you can see the root (YASHA) in the name (HOSHAYAH). Due to the grammatical aspect of Hebrew, instead of it being spelled it has the letter Yud () morphed into a Waw ( ) for the end result of ( HOSHAYAH). The letter Heh () in the beginning of the name is due to the grammatical tensing of the verb into what is called Hophil which denotes a causal verb where a third party has caused an action to happen to the subject. The idea of the name HOSHAYAH is thus HE SAVED / RESCUED.

Put simply, Joshua parents could have named him ( YASHA), but they chose to tense the idea of rescue / save into a what has been done to him kind of thing, and that required placing the letter Heh ( ) in the beginning of the name, resulting in ( HOSHAYAH). So as you can see, the first letter Waw ( ) in this name exists only because of the addition of the letter Heh ( ) at the beginning of his name due to how the name fits verb tense in Hebrew grammar. Otherwise it would have been a letter Yud () as it is a part of the root ( YASHA). Okay, so then Moshay comes along and CHANGES the name of Hoshayah [Joshua] into a new grammatical inflection: the form of ( YEHOSHUAH). This change came about by Moshay adding the letter Yud ( ) to the beginning of the mans name = . What this did is effectively change the tense of the name yet again, into Hiphil tense, meaning the subject is causing an action to happen (He Shall Save / Rescue). In this instance, Hoshayah the man is about to be going into the land of Canaan, and it will be HIS actions that lead to the saving that takes place. Albeit, the actual saving doesnt take place until a generation later, it is his own actions of faith that bring about his and the people eventual entrance into the land after wandering for so long. What we have, therefore, is the root of ( YASHA) [save / rescue] buried in a twice grammatically inflected verb-turned-proper-name: = YEHOSHUAH . The end result, therefore, shows that the Trigrammaton of the Divine Name YaHU ( ) is actually present ONLY in appearance, and not in intention. This can be seen furthermore if one was to remove the transformation of the Yud ( ) into the Waw ( ) in the name, and pretend that aspect of Hebrew syntax didnt exist, and render it instead as it would appear in the root of ( YASHA), to yield a result of ( Yahyshuah instead of Yehoshuah). As you can see, that would effectively erase the Trigrammaton form of the Divine Name YaHU ( ) from Yehoshuahs name, since it would become . This is not the the Short Form of the Divine Name. Keep in mind also that the letter Heh ( ) is there only due to the inflection of Yehoshuahs original name as explained above, which was also not originally meant to signify the Divine Name in any way. Okay, let's pause here and return the first proof. I am going to paste it here but place the Hebrew in it so you can really see what I was talking about. This should help some before we move on, if there is any confusion remaining. The to ( YUD-to-WAW) is essential to the root word of ( YASHA) "Rescue." Without it remaining in place the root falls apart. So IF the YUD-HEH-WAW = YaHU ( ) presence signified actually the Trigrammaton Name YaHU, then the root of YASHA is destroyed, since the WAW would in effect be confiscated for use in the Trigrammaton Form of the Divine Name. Ive broken the name apart to show what would be happening if the Trigrammaton of the Divine Name were

really supposed to be part of this name. This helps show how the root word would be broken up if the Trigrammaton truly was present: ( + YaHU + shuah). See that IF the Divine Name were present, it would be stealing part of the root of ( YASHA) for itself, which NEVER happens in Hebrew grammar, and would in effect rob the root word of it' meaning. The result would leave ( SHUA) as the root - meaning "a cry for help" or "riches / valuables." Taken in this way, YaHU-Shua would then mean YaHU cries for help or YaHU has riches. It completely changes the meaning if the root word dissolves? Furthermore, since the second Waw ([ ) OO sound] really only arises in the personal name pronunciation of Yehoshuah {due to inflection}, and is not part of the root ( YASHA), then advocating for SHUA disintegrates at that point, and one would be left with just SHA - a sound and not a word in Hebrew = leaving YaHU-SHA, which would effectively be bringing His Name to nothing while trying to say His Name. [note, the U in SHUAH is indeed implied, but only because of the presence of the root YASHA, and if that dissolves {the root word}, then so too does the OO in the latter part of the name. If the root changes, and the root determines what is implied, then it can no longer be implied. So to close with this first proof, it should be noted that in Hebrew, a letter from one root CANNOT be shared with another root. In other words, it wouldn't be acceptable in Hebrew for the Divine Name YaHU to borrow a letter from YASHA and still let the root meaning of Salvation stand. It just can't happen in Hebrew grammar. Chayim b'Moshiach, Jeremy"

The full Name of the Anointed One is most certainly Yod-Hey-Waw-Shin-Waw-Ayin "Yehoshua/Yehoshuah". This is based on discovering, in the dead sea scrolls manuscripts four different ways of spelling the name out in Hebrew (there is a fifth one, but it only occurs in the later books (Nehemiah, Ezra and Daniel) in the Masoretic, of which there aren't many manuscripts of among the DSS, and the ones we do have aren't substantial): Full form: - Yod, Hey, Waw, Shin, Waw, Ayin Evidenced in the Dead Sea scrolls: Deuteronomy 3:21 (4Q40Deutm); Joshua 6:10, 8:3, 8:35 & 10:4 (4Q47Josha) Second form: - Yod, Hey, Waw, Shin, Ayin Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus 17:13 & 14 (4Q14 Exodusc); Numbers 32:28 (4Q23 Levi-Numa); Deuteronomy 31:21 & 28 (4Q31Deutd); Joshua 4:1 (twice - 4Q48Joshb), 6:6 (4Q47Josha), 17:4, 14, 15 (4Q48Joshb); Haggai 1:1 (4Q77MinProb), 1:14 & 2:4 (MurXII & 4Q77MinProb).

Third form (previously unknown before DSS discovery): - Yod, Hey, Shin, Waw, Ayin Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus 17:9, 13, 32:17 (4Q22paleoEx); Numbers 26:65, 27:22 (4Q27Numb); Zechariah 3:9 (4Q80e) Fourth form (previously unknown before DSS discovery): - Yod, Hey, Shin, Ayin Evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Joshua 5:2, 3, 8:35 (4Q47Josha) As can be seen, it doesn't matter which form it is, but the letter Waw - - can be dropped from a name. This also occurs in many other Hebrew words, where in the Masoretic there isn't a Waw letter, but instead it has the vowel-pointing, but in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Waw letter is there instead. There are 5 and 6 letter variants of this name within the Masorete texts. The longer variant is found in Deuteronomy 3:21 and Judges 2:7. Neither of the Waws in any of the variations of the Masorete Text or those mentioned above represent a consonant form. All uses of the Waws in this name are strictly there for the soul purpose to denote vowel sounds. And being in the Hebrew language vowels are to be implied - even when not supplied - the first and last Waws in this name are to always be pronounce every time without exception. The Fact that the Waws where provided in the longer forms are proof that the shorter forms are to have these vowels pronounced within them. This is something that has to be looked upon in a Hebrew mind-set in order to come to the correct understanding. And this name is not YaH with a Shuah added as a compound to it - but rather Hoshayah with a yohd prefixed unto it. The long U sound in Y'hoshuah is due to the inflection of the verb yasha being in its future tense. When the name was only but Hoshayah the root yasha was in its pasted tense and the vowel sound was the long A sound. So now we have Y'hoshuah, but again the shuah is not separate from the o in the "ho" syllable as the o is the Yohd of the root yasha morphed into a Waw whereby making the long O sound. If you try and steal this vowel from the root of yasha, by claiming it is the third letter of the Trigrammaton (YHU), then the root yasha is effectively destroyed along with its meaning of him doing the saving to him wanting to be saved within this name, whereby leaving it with the definition of "YaHu-Cries for help" instead of "he will save", as "shuah" denotes one who cries/calls out for help and not the act of one whom will save. Keeping this in mind the long U sound is not that of shuah but that of Y'hoshuah. This form still has the Waw that was morphed from the Yohd of yasha. As if is not allowable to separate this vowel from the letters following it with out destroying the root yasha along with its definition. In order to see this one will have to learn Hebraic linguistics and Rules of Grammar and how it is never allowable to destroy a root. And being that the name started out using the root yasha (meaning salvation), and then with the addiction of the Heh went from the present tense unto the past tense as "he saved". Then when the Yohd was prefixed it changed the tense of the root unto its future tense resulting in "he will save". So what you have is the word yasha and the prefix with a Heh to form Hoshayah and then being added upon with yet another prefix of Yohd resulting in the new form of Y'hoshuah. The vowel Yohd which was morphed into a Waw has to stick with the root word yasha [Hoshayah; Yehoshuah] and can not be re-aprpreated to form another root as this is not ever allowed within Hebraic rules of Grammar.

So to advocate that the Trigrammaton of the Divine Name (YaHu) is part of this name is literally, whether one understands or not, laying claim (within the Rules of Hebrew Grammar) that the definition is "YaHu-Cries For Help"! And this is clearly not the definition of this name, but rather "He Will / Shall Save" (i.e. - Y'hoshuah)! {Mat_1:21} And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name : for He shall save His people from their sins. Yet many people will not receive this teaching because they either do not want to let go of the name Jesus or because they have fallen for a THEORY that The Anointed One's Name has to PHYSICALLY have His Father's Name as a part of His. And with the first three letters being the exact same letters as that in His Father's Name it is easy to fall for this THEORY. I myself was teaching anybody that would listen that The Anointed One's Name was YaHu-Shuah. But when The Anointed One said that He came in His Father's Name He did not say that His Name has His Father's Name within His Name. And when one takes into consideration that the word in Hebrew for name (shem) can also be defined as authority it should become very clear that He came in His Father's Authority not actual Name. The Anointed One said: "I am come in my Father's Authority, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own authority, him you will receive". {Yo-Khawnawn [John] 5:43} Considering the context of this story in Yo-Khawnawn Chapter 5 the Yehudish leaders where not disagreeing with Yehoshuah as to what his Name was or how to spell it, but rather why Yehoshuah was doing the things He was doing. Yehoshuah was answering the Yehudish leaders why he had just healed a man. And that He did so because it was of His Father's will that He do such things. The conversation had nothing to do with His Name, but rather His Authority to do such things as healing on the Shabbawth. Yehoshuah was telling them that He had the Authority of His Father to do these things, and that if another person was doing things by their own authority they would not be having this same problem with them as they were having with Him. But Yehoshuah did speak and teach others to speak the Divine Name of His Father no doubt. Yet still this does not mean that His Name has to physically bare within it the Trigrammaton (YaHU) of the Divine Name. The Theory that the Anointed One's Name has to physically have a written / phonetic form of His Father's Divine Name within it is built on the same type of conjecture that the Lunar Shabbawth Theory was built off of. Each Theory has Scriptures in which to build their case all the while neither has any factual bases. Keep in mind many an idea has been fostered in which one can use Scriptures to try and support if one takes the Scriptures out of context. Happens all the time. The linguistics of this name were in play thousands of years before the above mentioned THEORY ever came about. In fact this THEORY is not more than 90 years old (upon the birth of The Sacred Name Movement). There is no other writings any where that taught that this name had the Physical form of the Trigrammaton of The Divine Name within it. And when considering that it came about nearly 1,910 years after The Resurrection of The Anointed One one should wonder what was the common belief pertaining to this Name before the 1930s.

When one does an honest investigation into the Hebrew language's rules of grammar they will come to see that this name only appears to have the Trigrammaton of the Divine Name within it. Many fluent Hebrew speakers have never even bothered to consider how the linguistic rules apply to this name. Many have just taken the definition within the Strong's dictionary at face value that the name means "YaHU-Saves". But again it simply means "He Will /Shall Save" referring to The Anointed One not His Father YHWH. And back when Moshay first called Hoshayah "YeHoshuah" Moshay was referring that Hoshayah through his actions of faith would save the Hebrew Nation. Even the Aramaic form of this name (Yeshua) is defined as "he will save". H3442 ysha For H3091; he will save; Wonder where they got that from? If you will notice it says that this Aramaic form is for H3091. H3091 / yehsha / yehsha And any one can see that the five letter and the six letter versions of this name are pronounced exactly the same. Again vowels did not have to be supplied in the Hebrew writings for the reader as they knew what vowels to apply through the Hebraic linguitic rules. In the English language just because a word has the same consonants as another word does not mean that it has to have the same vowels. Take the letters "cm", they could stand for "come" or "came". This being and action word shows as an example of how the vowels change within the word yasha to Hoshayah to Yehoshuah. Also the letters "dg" can either have the vowel "i" or "o" added between them to make up two completely different things. Just because they share common consonants does not mean that they are related in any way. There are literally thousands of example in the English Language that show that one can not just assume because one word has common consonants then the vowels must be the same. And from a Hebrew standpoint, it makes no either. When m is pronounced em it means mother. When m is pronounced om it means nation or people. When m is pronounced eeM' it can mean if or when. Now if three Hebrew words have the exact same consonants except a change in one vowel which changes the meaning this much, how is it that one should/could/would conclude anything has to be constant about vowel pronunciation between two totally different Hebrew Names coming from different root words to begin with. May, YHWH bless thee and keep thee; YHWH cause His face to shine on thee, and be gracious to thee; YHWH lift up His face to thee, and give thee shalom. in the Name Y'hoshuah, The Anointed One.