Diogenes the Cynic

I guess the thread title is pretty self-explanatory. I've read Doherty and Mack and snippets of others and I find the case for mythicism to be stronger these days than I used to. My own views tend along the lines of Crossan and the Jesus Seminar in that I think Jesus was probably a real person who was crucified and said at least some of the things attributed to him but I find myself more open to mythicism now than I was a few years ago when I was a religion student obsessed with HJ research and books.

One question I haven't seen answered, though, is how a purely mythical "Christ" icon, or allegory, or conglomeration of legends, or god-king archetype or however he is theorized, is where the name "Yeshu" came from and how it came to be affixed to the Messiah title. It was such a staggeringly ordinary name, after all. Has anyone offered any hypotheses about this?

Toto

Jesus is a form of Joshua. It means "Savior", and it was also the name of Moses' lieutenant (Joshua son of Nun) who brought the early Israelites into the promised land. It is all too convenient a name for the savior figure in a new religion that borrows so much from the Hebrew Scriptures to assume that it was likely the name of an actual person.

spin

To be exact, the name Jesus is a form of Joshua, a shortening of Jehoshua, which means "Yah saves".

Joshua was the one who led the chosen people to the promised land, as the xian Jesus was to save his chosen ones and lead them into the kingdom of God.

Yeshua was also the name of the anointed priest who led the people of God when they returned from the exile.

The name is imbued with significance.


spin

Vorkosigan

To carry this further, in places the gospels cite the OT with reference to Joshua, so you can see the parallels. For example, in Mark 9 Jesus was transfigured with Moses and Elijah.

Here is Exodus 24:13-18:
13 Then Moses set out with Joshua his aide, and Moses went up on the mountain of God. 14 He said to the elders, "Wait here for us until we come back to you. Aaron and Hur are with you, and anyone involved in a dispute can go to them." 15 When Moses went up on the mountain, the cloud covered it, 16 and the glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the LORD called to Moses from within the cloud. 17 To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. 18 Then Moses entered the cloud as he went on up the mountain. And he stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. (NIV)

Here Joshua -- Jesus appears during Moses' transfiguration on a mountain. Similarly in Mark 6, in the first feeding miracle, v34 says:

34: As he went ashore he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things

Note the affinities with the account of the appointing of Joshua in Numbers 27:15-18

15: Moses said to the LORD , 16 "May the LORD , the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community 17 to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD's people will not be like sheep without a shepherd." 18 So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him.(NIV)

The name "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua."

As Meier (1987) observes:

• "It is probably not by accident that, like himself, all of Jesus' relatives bear names that hark back to the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, and the entrane into the promised land. His putative father was Joseph, the name of one of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel and the progenitor, through Ephraim and Manasseh, of two of the twelve tribes. His mother was Mary, in Hebrew Miriam, the name of the sister of Moses. His four brothers, James, Joses, Simon, and Jude, were named after the patriarchs who begot the twelve sons/tribes of Israel (James =Jacob) and after three of those twelve sons (Joses=Joseph, Simon=Simon, and Jude=Judah)"(p207)."

In this context it should be emphasized that Jesus' own name was actually "Joshua" ("Jesus" being the Greek form of the Hebrew) or "Yeshua." This was identified with "Yehoshua" which originally meant "YHWH helps" but later came to be seen as "YHWH saves," the former being post-exilic (Meier 1987, p232).

Hope this helps

Vorkosigan

Fr.Andrew

(Andrew): During Stephen's summary of the history of the Israelites, in Acts 7:45, Joshua is actually referred to as "Jesus". At least in the KJV.

spin

Joshua is always ihsous (Jesus) in the LXX.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding Jesus' name and the mythicist position the observation that no one is sure what Jesus' given name was or what exactly he was called is support for lack of a historical Jesus. What I mean by "Jesus" given name" is the actual name his parents gave him in the original language which presumably would have been Aramaic or Hebrew. What I mean by "he was called" is the actual name he was addressed by and referred to in the language he used. Possible candidates are "Yeshu", "Yeshua" and "Yehoshua".

Now this is only support for the mythicist position and not proof because it's entirely possible that there was a real historical Jesus with a known name but subsequent Christianity dismissed this real person as a candidate for this real person because the real history of this real person was not what subsequent Christianity wanted to believe and the real name in the real original language was lost.

All the identifications of the Gospel Jesus' name seem to be either in Greek or translations of Greek. We don't appear to have anything showing what the Gospel Jesus' exact name was in his original language. This is better evidence for a mythical Jesus than a historical one.

Of course Christian Bible scholarship has dishonestly ignored this problem while I don't believe Doherty has thought of it. I think the argument for lack of a historical Jesus is better than what Doherty has presented so far. My guess is that he has realized that commercially he's on the wrong side of the Christianity question.

In the meantime, while continuing your search for the historical Yeshua see how many references you can find indicating that Yeshua was
the Jewish Messiah in the puzzle below made up of actual letters
taken from the Tanakh.


A--B--I--B--U--R--I--E--D--Y--E--S--H--U--A
B--E--S--O--N--I--F--N--O--E--L--H--I--N--S
N--E--T--A--I--A--I--V--E--S--M--O--S--B--I
O--S--H--R--N--L--I--E--S--M--S--N--T--A--I
W--H--E--N--C--U--B--S--W--I--N--W--S--A
A--I--P--W--O--F--E--L--B--A--L--K--P--S--I
Y--C--H--A--O--C--I--I--A--V--M--O--I--E--W
H--O--A--E--L--Z--O--M--I--I--D--W--Q--L--P
O--O--Y--U--K--F--G--E--L--I--U--E--A--I--W
S--N--O--W--B--A--L--L--I--N--H--E--L--L--I
E--S--T--W--G--S--K--Q--P--L--F--I--X--K--R
A--B--M--E--U--I--L--O--W--I--S--X--I--P--A



Joseph

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...hristian_Bible

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

spin

All of these are forms of the same name. We only have the Greek, so any speculation beyond ihsous is just speculation.

However, the topic is where the name came from, so a Hebrew original is no great problem in a generic sense. No-one is claiming that the figure referred to by the Greek ihsous actually existed or had a particular Hebrew or Aramaic name.


spin

Sheshbazzar

To slightly expand on Spins comments, "Yah" is more than just a 'name' , First of all it is not Hebrew, and not of a Hebrew nor of a Jewish origin.
This statement is true from both the historical and theological point of view.

Secondly, This ancient word "YAH" is the root word to 'exist' in the broadest sense, expressing all tenses of 'being', the "was'", "is", "AM", and "Shall be".
And was according to Scripture, the very first spoken word to proceed from the mouth of Elohim in the day that He spoke. "Let him be light..."

The successor to Moses was one "Hoshea the son of Nun", which is also more than just a 'name', but is also a statement and a prediction, which can be read as "he is the help born of favor" (like with the native Americans,
'names' were not just an ear pleasing combination of sounds but were imbued with significance in their meanings)
So that Moses re-naming "Hoshea" to "YAH-hoshea" (Joshua, sic) was a declaration that this man 'Would Be" the Help or the Saviour (Deliverer) that Yahweh promised.
And with the birth of Yahshua (Yeshua,.. err.. Ge'zeus) He was given "a Name above every name".. "therefore you shall call His Name YAHshua, for he SHALL SAVE his people.." The name in and of itself becomes the 'Salvation' of YAH, it IS the name, 'YAHshua' which is 'eem-nu-El',(Emanuel, sic) that is "EL (god,sic) with us." and.. "none other name under heaven given among men."
Now that "all the nations" are not yet fully aware of this is rather self-evident, It is also rather self-evident that a majority have been led through a bloody and heinous history in another name. (Under a legion of pagan substitute nameS for that unique singular ancient.)

Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks for the answers, everyone. I already knew the etymology of the name, I guess I was just asking why it was chosen as a name for a mythical Christ figure. My understanding is that names were chosen to recall legendary heroes more than for their literal meaning. (In 1st century Palestine, I don't think people gave much more thought to the literal meanings of names than we do to "Baker" or Miller" in English). So if the intent was to evoke Joshua then I'm not sure there weren't some better names which could have been chosen. Joshua was primarily a military hero while "Christ" was foremost a king (with a bit of prophet and priest thrown in). The most obvious name to me would be David.

Yeshua was as common as Bill or Joe back then. It would have seemed mundane. That's one thing that makes me think it could have been authentic.

I appreciate the answers, though. I'm still pondering mythicism and haven't definitively ruled it out yet.