Jasius Now, if we remember, firstly, that the names of IESUS in their different forms, such as Iasius, Iasion, Jason and Iasus, were very common in ancient Greece, especially among the descendants of Jasius (the Jasides), as also the number of the "sons of Iaso," the Mystoi and future Epoptai (Initiates), why should not the enigmatical words in the Sibylline Book be read in their legitimate light, one that had nought to do with a Christian prophecy? The secret doctrine teaches that the first two words [IESOUS CHREISTOS] mean simply "son of Iaso, a Chrestos," or servant of the oracular God. Indeed IASO is in the Ionic dialect IESO and the expression Iesous -- in its archaic form, [IESOUS] -- simply means "the son of Iaso or Ieso, the "healer," i.e., [ho Iesous] ([uios]). No objection, assuredly, can be taken to such rendering, or to the name being written Ieso instead of Iaso, since the first form is attic, therefore incorrect, for the name is Ionic. "Ieso" from which "Ho Iesous" (son of Ieso) -- i.e., a genitive, not a nominative -- is Ionic and cannot be anything else, if the age of the Sibylline book is taken into consideration. Nor could the Sibyl of Erythrea have spelt it originally otherwise, as Erythrea, her very residence, was a town in Ionia (from Ion or Janus) opposite Chios; and that the Ionic preceded the attic form. http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/hpb-sio/sio-eso2.htm