dog-on

There is no valid reason to use the name Yeshua or Yeshu, or any other name other than the one(s) used by the authors. Such a name is never mentioned in the text to reference Christ, to the best of my understanding.

I would, however, be interested to know if I am incorrect in this understanding. Show me the papyrus!

angelo

The same could be said about the term Christ. Some people use that as Jesus's surname. Nothing is further from the truth. Christ means ''anointed one'', in Greek it is messiah.

Antipope Innocent II

NO valid reason? None at all? Really? Sure about that?

If those Aramaic forms of the Greek name we get in the Greek texts written by Greek speakers for Greek speakers were mentioned, that that certain would be one valid reason to use that name about the alleged "Christ". But it's not the only valid reason for doing so.

It's interesting how some here get very touchy about this subject.

Gosh! You don't say? *Stifles wide yawn*

dog-on

Comic relief aside, please show me the relevant "Aramaic form" as used in one of those "Greek texts written by Greek speakers for Greek speakers".

...or don't quit your day job... :wave:

Antipope Innocent II

It isn't used in those Greek texts. Because they are in Greek. They use the Greek form of the Aramaic name, as they do with all the other Aramaic names in those texts. Hardly surprising, since they are Greek texts.

Did I say they used the Aramaic form? No, I said precisely the opposite.

I hope your day job doesn't require reading comprehension. :wave:

Toto

There are a few Aramaic phrases in the Gospels. Why not Jesus' name, if that was his name? We have no (that's nada, zero, zip) evidence that anyone ever called Jesus Yeshua.

I'm not touchy about it - I can't think of a reason to care very much, except that it reminds me of that evangelical front group, Jews for Jesus.

But let's parse through a convoluted paragraph that says less than meets the eye:

IF the Aramic form were mentioned in that Greek text, that would be a valid reason for using Yeshua.

But it's not mentioned.

So what is the valid reason?

budgie

I enjoy the Seneca interpretation.

-jim

Antipope Innocent II

It certainly would. That would be one of several good reasons to do so, though better than most.

I can’t see anyone saying otherwise; me least of all.

Luke 2:1 mentions a census administed by “Kyrenios”. Is it valid to assume that this “Kyrenios” is Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and that the Greek speaking author used a Greek form of a Latin name for the Greek-reading audience of his Greek text or is this somehow preposterous?

If it isn’t preposterous, why is it not valid to make a similar reasonable assumption about the Greek form “Iesous” of the Aramaic "Yeshua"?

It seems with you guys the rules suddenly change the second anyone tries to apply them to Jesus.

spamandham

The key difference, is that Jesus is the central character, whose name has theoretically been passed down from the Jews to the Greek orally. Just as we call him 'jesus' rather than 'joshua', it seems to me we would expect the same of the ancients, for the same reason.

Antipope Innocent II

So? All the other central characters names are in Greek forms as well. All the names, in fact, are in Greek forms. Josephus gives Hebrew and Aramaic names in Greek forms as well, for precisely the same reason - he's writing a Greek text for Greek-readers. No-one objects to the very reasonable assumption that the actual names of the people he mentions were Hebrew or Aramaic.

Those unreasonable objections only kick in from MJers when it's Jesus were talking about.

And which has been given a Greek form in a Greek text. Just like in Josephus.

Our use of "Jesus" is not analogous at all. That's an Anglicisation of a Latinised form of the Greek form of his name. In the gospels we get "Kyrenios" rather than "Quirinius", we get "Ioannes" rather than "Yohannan", we get "Ioseph" rather than "Yosep" and we get "Iesous" rather than "Yeshu(a)".

The reason MJer's object so violently to this perfectly common-sense conclusion is that admitting a Jewish name behind the Greek form gets dangerously close to admitting a Jewish man behind the Greek stories.

And we simply can't have that!