Ben C Smith

It is a Hebrew name even if the one using it does not know Hebrew. Just because a baseball announcer does not know Japanese does not mean Kazuhiro Sasaki is no longer a Japanese name.

Ben.

seven8s

Because this Jesus can’t take away the sins of the world. Iow’s they like it this way. Let him kill himself they don’t care, they will even help him out, get there faster. Now the Jesus that was set free..................a whole other story. Most don’t like him either. Of course we are only recently hearing about him. ‘Recent', meaning given the time frame when this was done................written, whatever.

Antipope Innocent II

Not you, of course Toto. Your objections are as calm and mellow as serene Hindu cows.

Yes, that nickname is the exception to the rule. Yet he is still also called "Sumeon" in the Greek texts and it's still entirely reasonable to assume this is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Sim'on".

Just as it's reasonable to assume a "Yeshua" behind the Greek "Ieosus". When we see "Ieosus" in Josephus we do this and no-one does any different when they see it in the gospels. Unless they are trying to sustain the idea that Jesus never existed and so have to play by different rules whenever it's Jesus we're talking about.

Ditto for several people called "Ieosus" in Josephus. Yet you don't play that hypersceptical game with them, only with Jesus. I wonder why.

No, strike that - we both know very well why.

And I clearly agreed that there is no such text, so I have no idea why you keep going on about this as though I said anything different.

Would you wonder this if we were talking about one of the people called "Ieosus" in Josephus or is this only an issue with this particular "Ieosus"? If the assumption is reasonable in the former case (and it is) why is it not in the latter?

Is this penchant, by some, to refuse to see that the Aramaic form is implied by the Greek one an attempt to fictionalise the figure I wonder ...

aa5874

The plausibility of the Passion is of little concern to me, since plausibity does not determine historicity. I have not seen any specific historical facts or information to link Jesus, the offspring of the Ghost and Mary, in particular, to any crucifixion during the 1st century.

The authors of the NT and the Church fathers are not reliable sources of information, since, it appears that they themselves expect this same Jesus, the son of the Ghost, to reward them personally in heaven when the dead in Christ shall rise.

Chris Weimer

The Aramaic texts which mention the Aramaic name for Jesus are the Aramaic texts which mention the Aramaic name for Jesus - Peshitta, Peshitto, Cruetonius, Sinaiticus, etc...

angelo

''There is nothing more negative than the result of critical study of the life of Jesus.
The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of gods, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and died to give his work it's final con secration,never had any existence.
This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another. ''

~Albert Schweitzer~ ''Quest for the historical Jesus ''

spamandham

Then it's up to us to decide what scenario is more plausible;

- the original story was first written in Greek, which is why all the names are in Greek form

- the writers all decided to write the name of Jesus in Greek form for unknown reasons in spite of being familiar with the Aramaic form

- the writers were Nth generation Christians who had never even heard the Aramaic form because the stories had been passed down so long

Is there a 4th possibility more likely than any of these?

Antipope Innocent II

How about this one: the writers used Greek forms of all the names because they were writing a Greek text for a Greek-reading audience. Just as Josephus did. As I keep pointing out, no-one sees the Greek forms of Jewish names in Josephus and thinks they are anything other than Greek forms of Jewish names.

That odd leap of illogic only seems to kick in when it's Jesus that's being discussed.

spamandham

Cephas vs. Peter

Antipope Innocent II

We've already established that this nickname is the one exception. The fact remains that in Josephus we see Greek forms of Jewish names and recognise them as Greek forms of Jewish names. And we quite happily do the same for the names in the gospels. Except MJers, who scramble madly to move the goalposts whenever anything to do with Jesus is involved.