WAS HIS NAME REALLY JESUS?

James W. Deardorff December 1990 Revised May, 1998 The name "Jesus" Gospel clues Who changed his name, and why? Could it have happened? The Messianic implications Summary References There are certain theological questions that demand careful consideration from a logical viewpoint, but which have not yet received this consideration because an unexpected answer would be theologically upsetting. As noted by E. P. Sanders, an essential task for biblical scholars to become engaged in is "the effort to free history and exegesis from the control of theology; that is, from being obligated to certain conclusions which are pre-determined by theological considerations."1 The question posed in the title of this paper is one such question. As a corollary, one may add that one's studies should also be free from the control of any scholastic consensus that may have fallaciously evolved out of theological commitment. Although scholastic consenses may generally be correct, here and there they are bound to be wrong as long as so many outstanding New Testament (NT) questions remain unresolved. It is therefore in the best interests of NT inquiry that some small fraction, at least, of its scholarly literature derive from sources free form the pressures of theological control or scholastic consenses, whether the pressures are subtle or evident. The following study is offered in this spirit. THE NAME "JESUS" It is fairly well agreed that the name "Jesus" is the English rendition of IEsous, which is the Greek rendition of the Hebrew "Joshua" or "Yehoshua," meaning "Yahweh saves."2 (To avoid any confusion, we shall use "J" here to refer to "Jesus.") However, scholarly literature seems to be devoid of any discussion of the scriptural evidence indicating that J's name may not originally have been Jesus or Joshua. The question should have risen immediately upon realizing how strong the evidence is that soteriology is not a teaching originated by J.3 To the same extent that soteriology is to be questioned as having been an authentic part of J's teachings, the soteriological name "Jesus" should likewise be questioned as having been J's original name. As explained in the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:21), by the time it was written the name was meant to be interpreted with the view that God or J will save his people from their sins. Thus the name came to embrace the concept of soteriology. GOSPEL CLUES The first gospel clue has already been touched upon. Mt 1:21 implies J's divinity, since the meaning of "Yahweh saves" is applied to "Jesus," not just to Yahweh. Yet, the suspicion is quite properly strong among NT scholars that the concept of J's divinity is indefensible and first arose with the early church, or with Paul.4 If so, Mt 1:21 must be a redaction fed in by the compiler of Matthew. For our clues we use Matthew for two reasons. First, since Mark contains no nativity material, and since solid arguments exist indicating that Matthew is more primary than Luke,5 it is appropriate to concentrate on Matthew here. Second, the present analysis will be seen to be most compatible with those Gospel-source hypotheses that favor primacy of Matthew,6 upon excluding large amounts of

its material that are considered to be inauthentic additions.7 From critical analyses such as that of F. Beare,8 it appears that the handiwork of the compiler of Matthew does tend to stand out from the remaining material, and serve to identify the individual theology of this compiler, who was of Jewish background. Much of the remaining material can then be considered to represent the authentic part of surviving portions of Papias's Logia, or Proto-Matthew. Thus, with Matthew more than with any of the other Gospels, it seems possible to pick out the seemingly inauthentic verses from a more authentic background. In discussing the citation from Papias, as relayed by Eusebius: "Matthew compiled the Logia in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could," Burnette Streeter raised one interpretation, among others, that these Logia were unauthorized for church use,9 if "interpreted" meant just that and not "translated." This would then imply a heretical nature for the Logia. Since this development would have been embarrassing to the early church, and would explain the sparsity and terseness of ancient literary fragments dealing with Gospel origins, it deserves much more consideration than it has so far received. In the present study, it explains why Matthew's compiler felt obligated to edit his source so extensively, and why his finished product contains so many redactions. (I find that F. Beare's commentary on Matthew correctly points to 194 of these redactions, though pointing erroneously to a further, somewhat smaller number of redactions.) It would also help explain why the two-document hypothesis (Mark and Q priority) of Gospel origins eventually gained ascendancy, with Mark receiving priority over Matthew: namely, when the writer of Mark epitomized much of Matthew, he omitted many of its Judaisms added by the compiler, feeling that they were not of interest, or were too obscure, for gentiles in Rome to contend with. Thus the topic of this paper unavoidably touches upon the synoptic problem, which, however, cannot be pursued further here. The second Gospel clue also involves Mt 1:21. C. T. Davis has noted the opinion that this verse is "a virtual citation of Isaiah 7:14 -- the chief point of difference being the name given the child."10 That is, except for the name "Jesus" instead of "Immanuel," Mt 1:21a follows the cited Isaiah verse more closely than does the Matthean citation, Mt 1:23, itself. This is consistent with the Isaiah citation being part of the original source, and with the compiler of Matthew having had access to the LXX (Septuagint) when inserting Mt 1:21. With this reasoning, the compiler altered 1:23 slightly when forming his gospel out of the Logia, changing its verb form into the passive tense, in order that its conflict with Mt 1:21 not appear quite so flagrant. That is, the passive verb form is less authoritative than the active voice. The "conflict" under discussion here is the difference between the name "Immanuel" and "Jesus." Some implications of the Isaiah citation being genuine are discussed later. A third clue involves the logic that J would not have been given two names at once: Jesus and Immanuel. We may then ask why the compiler of Matthew would have inserted a verse instructing Joseph to name his stepson "Jesus" if, two verses later, he included an original passage (quoting Isaiah) saying that his name would be Immanuel. The most straightforward explanation is that this compiler was happy to see the Isaiah citation present in the source writing, which he was editing, because it supported his existing belief that J was the Jewish Messiah. Hence, he was no doubt delighted to allow this Messiah verse to carry over into his gospel. And to certify that J's name had been "Jesus," he added verses to that effect. A related clue is that if his name had not been Immanuel within the source document, there would not have been any point in the compiler bothering to try to make the case that J was the Messiah. For anyone could claim that someone had been born of a maiden or virgin -- that in itself would carry no evidential weight. Only if his name had also been correctly foretold in conjunction with a virginbirth story could the birth of a baby boy with those attributes gain any attention. Yet, since a few decades before the time the Gospel was written his name had been known as Jesus, and so the compiler evidently felt obligated to alter the name from "Immanuel" in his source to "Jesus" in his gospel.

The next Gospel clue deals with Mt 1:25, in which it is stated that J was actually given the name "Jesus." We note that 1:25a contains information that the compiler could not have had any access to - that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after J's birth. This would have been private information unavailable to anyone besides Joseph and Mary. The verse furthermore continues the theme of Joseph's righteousness, which Davis found to be excessive and therefore inauthentic within Mt 1:19.11 With 1:25a being a redaction, we must suspect its connected clause, 1:25b, to be inauthentic also, especially since it belabors the point that J's name had been designated "Jesus." We may further notice that in the writing of Justin Martyr (his 'Treatise against Marcion" in Adv. Haer. of Irenaeus, Bk 3, chap.7), he writes this: "So also in Zechariah, Christ Jesus, the true High Priest of the Father, in the person of Joshua, nay, in the very mystery of His name, is portrayed in a twofold dress with reference to both His advents. At first He is clad in sordid garments, that is to say, in the lowliness of suffering and mortal flesh: then the devil resisted Him, as the instigator of the traitor Judas, not to mention his tempting Him after His baptism: afterwards He was stripped of His first filthy raiment, and adorned with the priestly robe and mitre, and a pure diadem." So why was there a mystery in his name? Was it a mystery that he was supplied with the same name as Joshua of the old Testament? Or did some memory persist to mid-2nd century that his name had originally been something different (Immanuel), which name for some mysterious reason was not supposed to be uttered? Was he stripped of his earlier name (Immanuel), and adorned with the post-crucifixion name "Jesus"? GNOSTIC CLUES There are at least two Gnostic writings that tend to support the present hypothesis. From Act 13.163 of the Acts of Thomas we read: And Misdaus said [to Judas-Thomas]: "What is his [your master's] name?" Judas said: "Thou canst not hear his true name at this time... but the name which was bestowed upon him for a season is Jesus, the Christ." Similarly relevant is verse 9.5 from the Ascension of Isaiah: ...and he who gave permission [for Isaiah to ascend to the seventh heaven] is thy Lord, God, the Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus on earth, but his name thou canst not hear till thou hast ascended out of thy body. In contrast to all this indirect evidence supporting a different name for J, we have mainly the absence of obvious evidence to the contrary to support the customary name "Jesus." WHO CHANGED HIS NAME, AND WHY? It should be evident that there is no candidate other than Paul to have supplied the new name for J. Paul's primary role in shaping or forming Christianity is well known.12 That Paul was the first to expound early Christian theology on "being saved" through the sacrifice of God's Son is also evident.13 His background as a Pharisee suggests he would have been acquainted with the concept of offering human sacrifice in hopes of deliverance.14 Thus he would have had the motivation to change J's name to "Jesus" (with meaning of God saves) in support of his theology. Since Paul changed his own name from Saul to Paul, we know that he was not averse to altering a name. The name of "Joshua" or its Greek equivalent of "Jesus" was of course already known to Paul, and though it was not a rare name, through frequent attachment of the designation "Christ" Paul could ensure that the intended man was understood. Renaming him from Immanuel to Jesus would link his name to the more common expression for the Divine Name: Yahweh, which achieved supremacy over El in the biblical tradition. Yahweh is

mentioned some 6800 times in the Old Testament, while El is mentioned some 235 times. (However, "Elohim," which means "gods" but came to be interpreted as "God," is mentioned some 2500 times.) Yahweh was the more recent or current name for God (rendered LORD in English versions of the Old Testament). From Exodus 6:2-3 one sees an example of the name Yahweh taking over from El. Hence this consideration likely contributed to Paul's renaming of Immanuel to Joshua. There is additional motivation, if not the prime motivation, for Paul to have altered J's name. After his conversion Paul would no doubt have wished to dispel from his mind the name of the man he must have hated with a passion and whose disciples he had been persecuting. Thus in speaking or writing of "Jesus," or "Jesus Christ," he could dwell on the new image that had come into his mind after his conversion on the road to Damascus,15 not the old image of Immanuel, the detested enemy. From the New Testament we do not even know for sure that Paul had never confronted J during J's ministry. If a proto-Matthean writing, which the Logia is here suspected to be, had mentioned such an encounter, the episode likely would have been considered too embarrassing for the early church to retain it within the first Gospel. Yet, such an episode would explain why Paul had so vigorously persecuted J's disciples before his conversion, as if he had disagreed with most of J's teachings. The fact that the Epistles refer a little, but only a little, to J's teachings is consistent with this reconstruction. Also consistent is Paul's "thorn in the flesh" (2 Cor 12:7), which detailed study has suggested may refer to an "opponent" or "opponents" rather than to any physical ailment.16 The chief opponent may then have been J himself during the period when Paul had been persecuting his disciples. By altering J's name to "Jesus," Paul could more readily keep this "thorn" from popping up in his memory. COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED? Assuming the Logia did not appear on the scene in Palestine or Syria until some decades after Paul wrote his epistles, sufficient time would have elapsed for the name "Jesus" to have become well established within the early church before Matthew was written. A relatively late date for Matthew is implied by the failure of any writer before about mid-2nd century to refer to any Gospel by name or to definitely quote from a gospel. Ignatius is sometimes considered to have quoted roughly from Matthew as well as from oral tradition, and since he is usually considered to have died in A.D. 110, a date nearly this late is sometimes assigned to the Gospel of Matthew.17 The date could be another ten years or so later, however, if the circumstances were reversed and the writer of Matthew had instead made use of Ignatius's epistles when forming his gospel. Such a late date then helps explain why the emergence of the Gospels did not bring about any spate of writings concerning them until mid-2nd century (Papias, Marcion, Justin and Tatian). Thus it may be assumed that the impetus for the writing of the first Gospel, which impetus is here considered to be the Logia, did not arrive on the scene until early 2nd century. J's original name of Immanuel would not likely have been entirely forgotten, however. Irenaeus twice referred to J as "Him who was born Immanuel of the virgin," and once referred to Immanuel as "who it was that was worshipped" by the magi.18 That is, if J was born with the name Immanuel, then the name "Jesus" was bestowed upon him at a later date. Irenaeus may have known of this through a lingering oral tradition, although it is also possible that he knew or deduced it only from the Gospel of Matthew. There is an Old Testament precedent for a name change of this nature -- one for which the changed name is mentioned 220 times. The reference is to Joshua, who had originally been given the name "Hoshea" until renamed "Joshua" by Moses or by the writer of this portion of the Old Testament: see Num 13:16. Except for this verse, we would not know that the name change had been effected. The new name was apparently bestowed upon Hoshea, son of Nun, to honor him for his role in the decisive victory over Amalek's people (Ex 17:8-15). It signified that Joshua's leadership had saved

the Jews through the help provided by Yahweh's magic rod. In the case of the New Testament, the indicated name change to Joshua (Jesus) was apparently effected by Paul without any trace remaining, except for the clues already mentioned and the name "Immanuel" within Matthew. Such care in preserving what would become known as orthodoxy is well known, having been utilized, for example, to suppress the literature of the Gnostics.19 THE MESSIANIC IMPLICATIONS If J's name had indeed initially been Immanuel, it implies that a substantial fraction of the Old Testament's Messianic prophecies do actually apply to one who was to come centuries later, and that some fraction of the references to these prophecies in Matthew, including Mt 1:23, are partly or mostly genuine.20 As is well known, a scholarly consensus has gradually evolved in opposition to this possibility, mainly because no physical mechanism is known by which to explain how longrange prophecy could be accomplished successfully. Yet, this opposition is counter-balanced by the fact that a Jewish messiah was still expected to occur as of two millennia ago on the basis of such prophecies, and is still expected within some sections of Judaism today. We may note that Isa 7:14 was spoken "to the house of David," and thus not necessarily just to King Ahaz. In Isa 9:1 the Messianic prophecies refer to "the latter time" as opposed to the "former time," and this is consistent with it referring to a distant future event within the house of David, not an event to occur within Ahaz's reign. One may also note that the text of Isa 7:10-17 appears to have suffered substantial redaction or revision, suggesting that an original text may have been more extensive and more clear on the timing of the fulfillment of the prophecy. That is, at Isa 7:10 the Lord is speaking to Ahaz, and Ahaz replies; but from there on, in the passage, "he" refers to Isaiah although Isaiah is not first mentioned. In this section the first person is no longer used to voice Isaiah's narration and concerns. This is very suggestive of how editorial activity can generate textual inconsistencies. It may be illuminating to advance an argument that is not inconsistent with a rare person such as Isaiah having actually had a gift for prophecy. There does not yet seem to be any scholarly consensus opposing the authenticity of many of J's miracles of healing, so we may start there. The healing miracles are so well attested and in such considerable detail that they are among the most trusted pericopae of the synoptic gospels. The instances wherein J healed at a distance, as in Mt 8:5-13 (excluding 8:11-12) and in Mt 9:18-24, are exegetically just as trustworthy as the others, yet require that J have known that the ailing person was well, or had suddenly been made well, before any physical evidence of it was visible or available to him. This then actually constitutes prophetic ability as much as healing ability, and indicates that we must take seriously the possibility that J could actually prophesy certain future events as well heal the sick. Since others besides J are acknowledged to have possessed healing ability,21 it is only consistent and logical that we leave open the possibility that an occasional other, such as Isaiah, also possessed prophetic ability. Further, J himself seems to have accepted the validity of some of the prophets (Mt 5:12, 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 13:17...). With this line of reasoning, then, there are some Old Testament prophecies whose potential validity should not be ruled out, and the Isaiah prophecy of Isa 7:14 is one of these. SUMMARY The main argument in support of J's name not originally having been "Jesus" is its "God saves" connotation, and the evidence that the concept of soteriology stemmed from the early church and the Gospels, having been introduced earlier by Paul. However, further arguments by C. T. Davis are also not to be dismissed. Still other arguments that have been presented here further support the concept that his original name had been Immanuel. Although most of these arguments involve some theologically or scholastically upsetting discussions, we should keep in mind our initial plea, quoted from E. P. Sanders, not to allow our conclusions to be predetermined by theological considerations.

Equally important, we must allow that a scholarly consensus for one reason or another may be incorrect on certain topics, and that a minority viewpoint will sometimes prove to be the correct one. REFERENCES 1. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 333-334. 2. Francis Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) 64. 3. See Jesus and Judaism, 331-333. 4. See selections in Incarnation and Myth, Michael Goulder, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979) by Don Cupitt, p. 43, and by Goulder, pp. 142-146. 5. For example, see A. W. Argyle, "Evidence for the view that St. Luke used St. Matthew's Gospel," JBL 83 (1964) 390-396. 6. C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Arthur J. Bellinzoni, ed., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Reappraisal (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985). 7. For example, see Jesus and Judaism, 222. 8. See Gospel according to Matthew for scores of examples of apparent redactions made at the level of words, phrases and verses, excluding those identified as inauthentic merely because they differ too much from Mark. 9. Burnette Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels (London: MacMillan, 1964) 19. 10. Charles Thomas Davis, "Tradition and redaction in Matthew 1:18-2:23," JBL 90 (1971) 404-424; see p. 412. 11. "Tradition and redaction in Matthew," p. 413. 12. See Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (English transl.)(Boston: Beacon Press, 1943) 440-442, 513-524, 581-582; and H. Conzelmann, "Current problems in Pauline research," Interpretation 22 (1968) 172. 13. See Rom 5:6-10,15 & 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11 & 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14; Gal 1:4; and Col 1:14. 14. E.g., see 2 Kgs 3:27. 15. This reference connects to http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/paulconv.htm . 16. See Terrence Y. Mullins, "Paul's 'thorn in the flesh'," JBL 56 (1957) 299-303; and Jerry W. McCant, "Paul's thorn of rejected apostleship," NTS 34 (1988) 550-572. 17. Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7. Here Beare notes that this gospel may not have appeared until as late as the first decade of the 2nd century. 18. "Irenaeus Against Heresies," in ANF 1, III.19 and III.21. 19. Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (NY: Random House, 1979) xxiv.

20. This particular implication of genuineness in whole or in part in my opinion extends to Mt 11:35, 16:13-15, 21:1-8, 22:41-45 and parts of Mt 24. 21. E.g., Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, a contemporary of J, reportedly could heal at a distance. Also, Apollonius of Tyana (1st century) was well known for his prophetic ability as well as healing ability. Note on journal abbreviations: NTS: New Testament Studies JBL: J. of Biblical Literature ANF: Ante-Nicene Fathers