Chris Weimer

Because it was so common I don't think the name has any bearing at all.

spin

In the rush to exclude the possibility of a theological choice of the name Jesus it's interesting how people willingly ignore the significance of who Joshua was. Not only did he lead his people to the promised land, but he was the heir and successor to Moses, just as the religion of Jesus was a successor to that of Moses.

It is irrelevant that Jesus was a common earthly name. It's significance is clear, "Yah saves", and, no, it didn't lose it's impact because "the theophoric prefix "Yeho-" is almost gone". The reason why the theophoric was shortened was for reverence of the name of god. A Jew didn't lose track of the name of god. It was a constant in the religion. The Jew simply avoided using it because of its importance. That's why they used other means to refer to god, such as haShem ("the name").

The significance was so clear that Matthew underlines it (1:21).

If people haven't read Bob Kraft's paper on the subject of a Joshua messiah here it is.


spin

ph2ter

Regarding Jesus' name I like the idea that the numerical values of Greek letters in his name determined it. The numerical values of 'Ιησους' give us 10+8+200+70+400+200=888.
In Revelation, for example, 666 represents the beast’s name. The number 8 represents the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the new week (7+1=8) and also new begining and new creation.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

Thank you for the reference to Robert Kraft's paper. It was quite fascinating to read and I believe quite important.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Of all the proposals for a purely theological origin for the name Jesus, the conqueror Joshua is, IMVHO, by far the best.

Robert Price points out much the same thing as that Kraft paper does.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

If by miraculous one means one-off startling events of spiritual significance not really.
(There are such events in Philostratus' Life of Apollonius but I wasn't particularly thinking of them)

I mean thinks like the Indian sages in book 3 who in chapter 15 carry out all their religious worship while levitating (this being more reverent than remaining on the ground) and who in chapter 27 are served at formal banquets by Robots in the form of Tripods.

The encounter with a vampire/lamia in book 4 chapter 25 whose apparent sumptuous banquet is a magical illusion.

The encounter in book 6 chapter 27 with a (mostly invisible) satyr.

etc.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

If, as spin says, the name was indeed significant, why wasn't the name Moses chosen instead? Why a common name? After all, Moses typology is a fixture of the gospels.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle: By what criteria do you determine which miracles in which religious and non-religious books probably did and did not happen? Do you believe that Jesus walked on water?

jeffevnz

And what ever happened to "Emannuel"? It's clear from Isaiah and GMatt that that was supposed to be his name.

Chris Weimer

Perhaps. It's a complicated matter. If you would have read GMatt, you'll notice an explicit duplication. I argued once for interpolation, but I have changed my mind. I think it's Matthew trying to work in "Jesus" when he knows that the prophecy in Isaiah clearly refers to Immanuel.

And as far as Isaiah is concerned, the mere fact that the savior's name isn't Immanuel but instead Jesus looks far more like a twisting of the text in order to fit the life. Occam's Razor favors an attempt to equivocate Immanuel and Yeshua since the real person's name was Yeshua but the scripture says that his name would be Immanuel.