Jesus is significant in many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and is also recognized by those who may not be religious. Now scientists and scholars say the son of God may have had a different name from the modern moniker we now call him by.
According to historical records, Jesus and his disciples lived in Judea, a region of the Roman Empire that is now part of modern-day Palestine and Israel. Scholars generally believe that he was born and raised in Nazareth, a town in Galilee, a smaller province to the north.
The son of God would not have spoken the English language.
The Son of God did not speak English, as it did not exist during his time. Professor Dineke Houtman, an expert in Judaism and Christianity from the Protestant Theological University in the Netherlands, explained to MailOnline:
“We cannot know for sure which languages Jesus spoke. However, given his family background in Nazareth, we can assume his day-to-day language was Aramaic.”
Aramaic, a language that emerged in what is now Syria, was widely spoken across the Middle East during Jesus’ lifetime. Historical records indicate that Jesus himself spoke Aramaic.
Over the 2,000-year history of Christianity, Jesus’ original name has undergone numerous layers of translation and transliteration. The modern name “Jesus” features a hard ‘J,’ which did not exist during his lifetime. The letter ‘J’ did not appear in written form until approximately 1,500 years after his death.
Professor Houtman said: ““His name would probably have been in Aramaic – Yeshua. It is likely that this is also how he introduced himself. Another possibility is the shorter form Yeshu which is the form used in later rabbinic literature.”
Professor Candida Moss from the University of Birmingham added: “Most scholars agree that his name was Yeshua or possibly Yeshu, which was one of the most common names in first-century Galilee.”
‘Yeshu’ is closer to the English name ‘Joshua.’
Given the popularity of his name at the time, it could be compared to commonly used names today, such as Olivia, Liam, or Arthur.
Experts also believe the name ‘Christ’ was unlikely.
Experts also believe that Jesus was unlikely to have been referred to as “Christ” in a personal sense. Dr. Marko Marina, a historian from Zagreb University, explained:
In the ancient world, most people didn’t have a last name as we understand it today. Instead, they were identified through other means, such as their parentage, place of origin, or other distinguishing characteristics.
“For example, someone might be referred to as ‘John, the son of Zebedee’ or ‘Mary Magdalene’, with ‘Magdalene’ probably indicating she was from a place called Magdala.”
Many scholars agree Jesus, frequently referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, would likely have incorporated his hometown into his moniker, most likely making his full name ‘Yeshu Nazareen.’
Source: igvofficial.com