Why do so many major characters in the NT change their jewish name to a greek one ?

mP:

"Well Jesus is not really a name its also a title"

Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua (Yeshua). It was a personal name versus a title, but it does have etymological meaning (Jehovah/Yahweh is salvation/savior) I think most translations use "Jesus" for Jesus simply to maintain a distinction with Joshua (Moses successor) and for reasons of common usage.

Interestingly, the name "Jesus" has also been turned into an expletive.

Edited to add: Blondie beat me to the punch.

@Blondie & @bobcat

Yes i am aware of the nature of constructing Hebrew names. However the question remains is Jesus a "title" or "name". THere are many instances in history that record other characters called Jesus. The name is not unique. Given many of these that were recorded were significant characters that led rebellions to "save" the Jews from the godless invaders, are those records telling us their real name or perhaps a title for the fact that they perhaps liberated the peoples even for a short while ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias

Jesus ben Ananias ("the son of Ananias") was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 CE, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction. The Jewish leaders of Jerusalem turned him over to the Romans, who tortured him. The procurator Albinus took him to be a madman and released him. He continued his prophecy for more than seven years until he was killed by a stone from a catapult during the Roman siege of Jerusalem during the war. His name is rendered ???? ?? ????? ( Yeshua ben Hananiah ) in modern Hebrew histories. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Reading this story it also makes sense to read "The saviour son of Ananias" as much as it does to read Jesus as a name or label. Given much of the history in the Bible is written after the event its not a surprise to find names match the supposed attributes or achievements of the character.

We see the same in Roman names where people are named after their achieements, namely Scipio Africanus who defeated the Carthaginians and so on.

mP:

Given much of the history in the Bible is written after the event its not a surprise to find names match the supposed attributes or achievements of the character.

I think Nimrod (meaning something about rebellion) would possibly be an example of someone who earned his name by his conduct. (Many believe this, anyways.) There may be other examples. Some think Job was named after the fact.

In the case of Jesus (son of Mary and Joseph), you had people who were still alive that knew him personally or knew of him while he was alive. (Compare 1 Cor 15:3 - 6) This would have made it difficult to write the earlier NT books if he was given the name Jesus after the fact. And if the later writings (perhaps Revelation and the letters of John) had swithed names, they would have broken the continuity of the new religion. More likely, they would have been rejected as authentic Chritian documents for introducing a new name or new gospel.

Another thought that came to me concerning Jesus was that he had birth/family records maintained by the Jews. Up till 70CE, these would have made a name change on his part very problematic since some of his credentials were based on his family line and city of origin.

And BTW, Greek was not uncommon in Judea; even in Galilee there was an important Greek city (Sepphoris).

Quite a wealthy city in the first century and no doubt in need of a carpenter or two at the time. And Nazareth was only six miles away and so small a place there is no mention of it outside the gospels in the first century. So where would a carpenter like Joseph (or Jesus) go for work?

Bobcat:

I think Nimrod (meaning something about rebellion) would possibly be an example of someone who earned his name by his conduct. (Many believe this, anyways.) There may be other examples. Some think Job was named after the fact.

MP -> Bobcat

Many characters in the OT names are simply some major attribute or statement that the author wishes to point out. Most xians do not realise that this practice occurs over and over again.

Bobcat -> MP

Another thought that came to me concerning Jesus was that he had birth/family records maintained by the Jews. Up till 70CE, these would have made a name change on his part very problematic since some of his credentials were based on his family line and city of origin.

In the case of Jesus (son of Mary and Joseph), you had people who were still alive that knew him personally or knew of him while he was alive. (Compare 1 Cor 15:3 - 6) This would have made it difficult to write the earlier NT books if he was given the name Jesus after the fact. And if the later writings (perhaps Revelation and the letters of John) had swithed names, they would have broken the continuity of the new religion. More likely, they would have been rejected as authentic Chritian documents for introducing a new name or new gospel.

Jesus is a perfect example of this naming. We also have Mt claim that Jesus forfilled some prophecy and was called Emmanuel. The scripture presents it as a name when its actually a proclaimation.

Im sorry Paul did not know Jesus. At no stage in any of his letters does he mention anything remotely connected with the Jesus ministry, family or birth. Paul never mentions Nazareth, Mary, Joseph, any miracle, ministry and so on. THe best that can be found in a single scripture in Galatians(i think) that mentions James the brother of the Lord and another that also mentions Cephas. If we accept that the gospels were written much later than Pauls writings its clear to see the evolution of the Jesus character was unknown to Paul.

My grandfather would often say something to me about his mother (whose name was Florence Avery) but, he called her by the nickname

I HAD INVENTED for her (which was Groogie). He might say, "Groogie was born in Tennessee and came to Texas in a covered wagon."

Well, nobody named Groogie--in point of fact--actually did!

But, he is looking backward through time and changing the name to fit MY understanding.

He was tailoring for audience.

Bible writers, translators, redactors and such did this as well when talking about locations, people, names and events!

We cannot forgot something that is important to this discussion.

We pick up the bible and read this and that automatically taking it as written rather than asking ourselves an important question.

"How long after an event was this written down and was this transmitted as a repeated story?"

"Is what I'm reading overlaid by a redactor or translator who is "helping" the reader by "adjusting" something to "clarify"?

We have to wonder about a lot of the New Testament and the Aramaic or Hebrew names. How many Jews still were able to read or speak those languages? Hundreds of years had passed since Alexander the Great spread Greek culture to Semetic lands and people.

In Texas, 2nd generation Latinos are bi-lingual while 1st generation immigrants are not. By the time you get to 3rd and 4th generation Latinos, the vocabulary is often predominantly English with only a smattering of left-over Spanish words.

Would it have been any different in the first three centuries c.e.?