Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
It's not an H, it's supposed to be an M.
Jesus Marion Joseph.
Jesus Marion Joseph.
Did Jesus have a surname?
- Thread starter ivebeenhigh
- Start date
gnoriac
lowly seer
danny la rouge said:
It's never struck me how odd that is before. If you're taking a census, it's not only unnecessary, but counter-productive. You want to know where people are living now, esp if it's, like I'm guessing, for tax purposes. Not to mention the utter chaos you're going to produce by having 1000s of people in transit at the same time.
We got any experts on the Roman Empire on here?
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I'm not an expert, but I have researched this. There was a Census, but not at exactly the right time: the Palestinian census was undertaken by the Syrian legate, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, in 6 to 7AD. It was, however, a census of Judea, not of Galilee. Bethlehem would have been covered, but Jesus would not have been there - he would have been in Nazareth, which is in Galilee. Roman custom - like that of every other known census takers - was to count you in your place of domicile or work.gnoriac said:
Furthermore, Herod, reigned from 37 BC until 4BC. He was dead at least ten years before the Census, so either Jesus was born during the reign of Herod or at the time of the Census, but not both.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
You mean other than the Gospels?jayeola said:
No.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
I read somewhere that 'jesus' (or however it was spelt/pronounced back in the time of Brian) was pretty commone name - the crowd yell for 'barabbas' to be released becasue his first name is also jesus - so they have or choice of jesus bar-abbas or jesus bar-joseph (or whatever).
As for the census thing - the nativiety only appears in one of the gospels (I think) and is pretty tenuous in its historical realiability (well yes its the bible - but the gospels are - for the most part - a pretty detailed account of jesus's sayings an doings over a 2 year period, whilst the nativiety reads more like a fairy story) .
Jesus is said to be born in bethlehem in order to fufill biblical prohecies about the messiah - so maybe the writer needed to invent a pretext for mary and joeseph travelling to bethlehem. The census provides this.
It also emphasises the 'line of david' thing - another essentail precondition for messiah-hood according to the bible. In the gospels Jesus also deliberately takes actions in order to fullfill biblical prohecy (i.e going to some lengths to ensure he enters jerusalem on a donkey).
Its pretty clear that the writers of the gospels were very keen to assert Jesus' identity as the bona fide messiah (they were quite a few other messiahs wandering around at the time - 'life of brain' was pretty spot on in that respect) - and the whole 'born in stable in bethlehem' story is very much part of the spin.
BTW - there is absolutely no historical eveidence of Herod's massacre of the innocents either - which is wierd as it must have casued a bit of a stir at the time.
As for the census thing - the nativiety only appears in one of the gospels (I think) and is pretty tenuous in its historical realiability (well yes its the bible - but the gospels are - for the most part - a pretty detailed account of jesus's sayings an doings over a 2 year period, whilst the nativiety reads more like a fairy story) .
Jesus is said to be born in bethlehem in order to fufill biblical prohecies about the messiah - so maybe the writer needed to invent a pretext for mary and joeseph travelling to bethlehem. The census provides this.
It also emphasises the 'line of david' thing - another essentail precondition for messiah-hood according to the bible. In the gospels Jesus also deliberately takes actions in order to fullfill biblical prohecy (i.e going to some lengths to ensure he enters jerusalem on a donkey).
Its pretty clear that the writers of the gospels were very keen to assert Jesus' identity as the bona fide messiah (they were quite a few other messiahs wandering around at the time - 'life of brain' was pretty spot on in that respect) - and the whole 'born in stable in bethlehem' story is very much part of the spin.
BTW - there is absolutely no historical eveidence of Herod's massacre of the innocents either - which is wierd as it must have casued a bit of a stir at the time.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
This is what we want.danny la rouge said:
merlin wood
mind traveller 3rd class
How about Bejaysus O'Nazereth?
rhys gethin
New Member
Nobody had thought of surnames back then, but, being descended from David, he'd have been called Davies, obviously, like so many of us. And I don't understand #27 - if patronymics are the same as surnames, they aren't patronymics - and vice versa.
Dr Price of Llantrisant caused riots when he called his son Iesu Grist (Jesus Christ) back in the Nineteenth Century, whereas Barabbas Price would have been entirely acceptable to all. Makes you think, dunnit?
Dr Price of Llantrisant caused riots when he called his son Iesu Grist (Jesus Christ) back in the Nineteenth Century, whereas Barabbas Price would have been entirely acceptable to all. Makes you think, dunnit?
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I was responsible for post 27. I said there was a nice (ie fine) distinction.rhys gethin said:
Let me explain: in the culture I come from a man might be known as "Donald son of Thomas". (Domhall mac Thomais). That's patronymic. His surname might be MacKay. (Mac Aoidh) Which means Son of Aoidh. But Donald's father wasn't called Aoidh - it was Thomas. In fact in this case perhaps nobody's father was Aoidh, it's a archaic word for fire. While there might have been an Aoidh, it's just as likely that the clan name (clann means children) "son of fire" wasn't literal. But it's quite normal for someone to be called Domhall mac Thomais Mac Aoidh. And I'll not go into women, who commonly get called, colloquially, by their maiden names all their lives.
This is where it gets complicated: Gowans (or Gowan, or Gibbon) comes from the Gaelic for a smith, which is gobhainn (pron gowaign). However people are called Mac a' Ghobhainn in Gaelic - son of the smith. But that same person would be called Smith in English. (A famous example is the novelist and poet, Iain Crichton Smith, known as Iain Mac a' Ghobhainn in Gaelic). So is Smith patronymic or not? What about Gowans?
See what I mean about a fine distinction?
(Sorry for the side track, but I find this stuff interesting).
thefishdead
I love cake. Somewhat.
Jesus Quintana. 'Do not fuck with the Jesus'
rhys gethin
New Member
danny la rouge said:
Yup - same with us. The sort of surname your talking about is pretty well universal in Cymru: it was once a patronymic. Gwilym ap Rhys had a patronymic name. He had a son called not Ifan ap Gwilym but Evan Rhys/Rees. Since his father wasn't called after his father, he had a surname. We don't have occupational names - I had ancestors who were smiths, but they weren't called Gof but -incredibly - Smith, though they didn't speak English at that point, as far I can make out. Some local landowner being 'helpful'? Very odd!
Kenny Vermouth
Wankers
In Master and Margerita by Bulgakov he's called Yeshua Ha-Nostri. I don't why.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Interesting. The surname would be Italian for something like 'It has Ours'. Which is a bit weird. Domini Nostri, or something like that, I'd have understood...Kenny Vermouth said:
But maybe it isn't Italian (after all, why would it be?), or Latin, but a Hebrew word which just happens to be like Italian. Any Hebrew Scholars?
Similar threads
- Poll
