English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-14 21:00:26 · 29 answers · asked by !!#$^&*(&^!! 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

29 answers

No.

2007-01-14 21:03:44 · answer #1 · answered by Bunz 5 · 0 3

They didn`t have surnames the same way Arabs today Don`t have Surnames . The only reason they have them in Isreal now is because they they had them when they came from Europe .So he he would have been what ever name Jesus was then (it wasn`t Jesus ) son of ____but i can`t see that he would have called himself son of God when he was a child so probably Jesus son of Joseph Whatever Josephs name was
PHEEW thats complicated

2007-01-14 23:40:40 · answer #2 · answered by keny 6 · 1 0

Surnames developed in recent history as the population increased and people ceased to live in small tightly knit communities. However, you see a glimpse of this development in names from the scots Mac, "son of" Fitz in the Irish and O' , Irish for grandson of etc. In Anglicized names you see, Williamson, Davidson, son of William son of David etc.
If anyone needed to describe Jesus (I always use a capital letter for the Light of the World )they would have said, Jesus, the son of Joseph or Jesus, the Carpenter's son.

2007-01-14 21:46:26 · answer #3 · answered by Raymo 6 · 1 1

can i just point out to all the dimwit christians that have answered..
CHRIST IS NOT A SURNAME
either you do not understand english, or you do not understand your own religion.
Christ is an honourific title meaning 'annointed one'.
thinking Jesus's surname is christ is a bit like thinking Queen Elizabeth's first name is 'Queen'

He could be called Jesus bar Joseph - meaning Jesus son of Joseph

or you could call him jesus Barabbas - meaning Jesus son of the father (although Barabbas was generally reserved as a 'nickname' for b@stards.......maybe that would be appropriate given the christian view of his conception)

2007-01-14 21:53:06 · answer #4 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 4 1

Jesus christ was and still the son of God from we the christain beleive. his surname is therefore never a point of contention. he was not born to perpetuate any Family lineage and thus heve no need for an earthly family tie.
For the purpose of the Jews then He was Jesus the son of Joseph the Carpenter.thus He is Jesus Joseph to the Jews then.

2007-01-14 22:01:26 · answer #5 · answered by Kola B 1 · 0 3

My supicions are that he (or other Jews of his time) really did not have surnames. I think that tradition came later when the diaspora Jews in Europe interacted with their Christian neighbors and began adopting some of their ways.

This came from Suzanne McVetty's online article about surname development:

"Jews from eastern Europe (Sephardic) often took the names of places they lived or the names of cities from which they emigrated, such as Mannheim, Ginsberg, or Lipschitz. German Jews (Ashkenaim) commonly used combinations of beautiful words for surnames, such as Goldstein (gold stone) and Blumberg (flower mountain)."

Here is a link to that site:

http://www.last-names.net/Articles/Anatomy.asp

Still, your question and Ms. Vetty's research leads to more questions. Example: She points out that peoples under the control of the Romans adopted the custom of taking on surnames (or family names). Did the Palistinian Jews do this too?

Here is a link to a short discussion on surname development for Ashkenazi Jews. And this piece also points to the probability that Jewish people were not in the habit of taking on surnames until long after the fall of Jerusalem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#Ashkenazi_Jewish_surnames

And by the way, to refer to him as "the son of Joseph" or "Jesus bar Joseph" is NOT the same as adopting a family surname.

P.S. The asker is asking a very simple, down-to-earth genealogical question related to Jewish history and Jewish culture. It really is not a religious question whatsoever. And as one answerer put it, "Christ" is an honorary title, not a surname; nor is "bar Joseph" or "son of Josepth" true surnames. I always find in most amusing when some Christians forget that Jesus was a Jewish fellow raised in the cultural context of occupied Judea in the first century. He was not a European person at all and even most Europeans of his time did not have surnames.

2007-01-14 21:06:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

Jesus name was actuall Jesus Ben Joseph (or Jesus son of Joseph). Christ is not part of His name, but a title, meaning "The Anointed One". Hence, sometimes you'll hear him referred to as Jesus The Christ.

2016-03-28 22:25:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Surnames were an invention in about the 13th or 14th centuries in England. Prior to that, people were known, as Jesus was known, by where they were from, i.e. "Jesus of Nazareth"

2007-01-14 21:10:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

He was known as Jesus Of Nazareth.

2007-01-14 21:03:46 · answer #9 · answered by Sheryl 4 · 3 0

They didn't have family names during that time. You were referred to by a first name and who your father was -- Jesus, son of Joseph.

2007-01-14 21:08:02 · answer #10 · answered by Derek S 2 · 4 2

In Jesus's time, they didn't have surnames. You were identified by your father's name, so you had a name like Simon bar Jonah meaning Simon son of Jonah.

Jesus would have been known as son of Joseph. He was called son of Mary - which would have suggested he was illegitimate. He called himself the son of man (which also translates as son of Adam). We call him the son of God.

2007-01-14 21:06:10 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 6 2

fedest.com, questions and answers