The Jesus Seminar and Early Christian Writings

[nazz]

How do you view scripture now? Divinely inspired in some sense, or a reflection of an evolving but decidedly human tradition?

Both

 

[roger1440]

Has the Jesus Seminar or any other group of scholars or single scholar ever discussed the authenticity of Jesus’s name? Most scholars believe Jesus was a real person. This real Jewish dude caused a nuisance and in the end got himself executed. In the 21st century there are around two billion people who believe Jesus can save us from our sins. Coincidentally, the very name “Jesus” means “the Lord saves”. Was it just a stroke of luck the parents of Jesus gave him a name that literally means what he would be known for? What’s up with that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Has the Jesus Seminar or any other group of scholars or single scholar ever discussed the authenticity of Jesus’s name?

Not really, given that "Jesus" I a mispronounced transliteration of the Hellenistic Greek Ἰησοῦς which was itself a transliteration from Aramaic. With very little familiarity with either Greek or Aramaic, it' pretty easy to determine Jesus' name. An exception occurs when one considers "Christ" to be a name. This is no longer a transliteration from an Hebraic language but rather the best approximation of a Semitic term. The Greek word for "anointed was nothing like the construal of the Hebraic "equivalents". However, as this wasn't his name it is irrelevant.

Most scholars believe Jesus was a real person

Of the many thousands of those with expertise in ancient history for, say, the last century, you can count on your fingers the number who haven't laughed of the idea that Jesus wasn't historical.

Coincidentally, the very name “Jesus” means “the Lord saves”.

Wrong. It means nothing. It's a transliteration. Also, as in the ancient world typically there were only a few names (i.e., in any language from Latin to Hittite most people had a name quite like "John Doe"), it couldn't possibly be relevant that Jesus' name in Hebrew or Aramaic meant anything.

Was it just a stroke of luck the parents of Jesus gave him a name that literally means what he would be known for?

This was true of many if not most Hebraic names at the time.

 

[roger1440]

Regardless if we a speaking of the English, Greek, Latin or Hebrew version of his name, it all means “God saves”.

How is it possible same rural Jewish couple named there child by the very same thing he will be known by? I don’t think his parents were psychic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Regardless if we a speaking of the English, Greek, Latin or Hebrew version of his name, it all means “God saves”.

It doesn't. It's akin to claiming that anybody named Joshua has a name which means "god saves" and it ignores the fact that the underlying Hebrew doesn't have the word for "god".

How is it possible same rural Jewish couple named there child by the very same thing he will be known by?

Because Joshua was so common a name that given any sample of around ~30 rural Jewish individuals you'd a Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus.

I don’t think his parents were psychic.

They didn't name him messiah or any other of the Christological titles, names, and references we find, so I'd agree with the above. They gave him a common Jewish name and this was changed by the early Christians (the addition of "Christ" became part of his name, at least as far as any linguistic definition of "name" is concerned). It didn't correspond with almost any commonly used reference to him such as Lord, Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, Rabbi, etc., and nowhere in the early Christian literature does it appear anybody found the fact that Jesus was named "Jesus" of any significance whatsoever.