jeffevnz

Would the name, "Yeshua" (which likely would have been an historical Jesus's actual name) have had an obvious meaning for the early Jewish Christians, or would it have been just another name to them (like Joe, Kyle, etc), without any apparent meaning? And if it did mean something to them, would it have meant the same thing to them as its older form, "Yehoshua"?

Yeshua is a late, slurred form of Yehoshua, which was probably a compound word meaning "God's salvation", or something like that. It's clear that Hebrews understood the earlier version of the name to have that meaning. However, I'm wondering whether that meaning still would have been clear in the later form, "Yeshua". In other words, would the slurring have destroyed the meaning? The "shua" root, literally meaning "cry for help", and related to the Hebrew word meaning "to save", is still apparent; but the theophoric element "Yeho-" is half gone, and no longer clear.

The author of GMatthew apparently recognizes the second root: "You are to give him the name Jesus because he will save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21). But there's no indication that he sees a theophoric element in the name.


I'm asking about this because it seems to me that if the early Christians were referring to their Messiah by a name that, to them, was previously just an ordinary male name, and not one that refers to a god or was previously the name of a god; then it would be evidence that they thought of him as an actual earthly human being. While that would be weak evidence for an HJ, it would speak against the MJ argument that the early Christians didn't even think of Jesus as historical.

Chris Weimer

Matthew wrote in Greek, and in Greek Iesous isn't all that similar to salvation. It's probable that Matthew received the tradition that this Greek name meant "salvation".

BALDUCCI

The critical point is that the role of the messiah was not seen as supernatural, and saving the Jews was a role played by hundreds of erstwhile messiahs. The efforts to make Jesus divine was an interpolation made later for largely political reasons, creation of a divinity from which the Roman Emperor could derive his earthly authority

jeffevnz

Thanks for the responses, guys.

Balducci -

That's an interesting point, and would of course argue for historicity. What's the reasoning behind that? My understanding was that Paul's epistles described Jesus almost entirely in supernatural terms.

Chili

I new and improved testament with a better way to heaven is not a bad idea.