hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (09/17/90)
In article <Sep.13.04.20.29.1990.24968@athos.rutgers.edu> jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >Question: If Christ is English translation for Greek word with > approximately same pronunciation which is the Greek > translation of the Hebrew word meaning messiah and > both of those words mean "anointed" or "the annointed > one" then should Jesus of Nazareth be called in his > titular form either Jesus the Christ as in Jesus the > Messiah or Jesus, Christ? Christ is not a surname > in my reading. I suspect it depends on how you interpret the Greek. If it means "annointed" (adjetive) then we should probably add "the." If it means "the annointed one" then the "the" is implicit in the term and adding it would be redundant. Any Greek scholars care to comment? In any case it appears to be a title more than a name (although I'm not sure people 2000 years ago distinguished between titles and names). (At least one author, James Talmadge an LDS apostle wrote a book called _Jesus the Christ_ BTW.) [Christos is used as a noun (actually a title), "annointed one" or "Messiah". As such it would typically be used with the article. Examples (cited from Gingrich's shorter lexicon) of this use are Mat 2:4, 16:16, Mark 8;29. However the modern tendency to use Christ and specifically Jesus Christ as a proper name is also present in the NT. Examples are Mark 1:1, Rom. 1:4,6,8. In that case the article is not used. All the examples Gingrich gives use the article when it's meant as a title and omit the article when it's used as a name, but I'm not sure that the article is an invariable sign of the usage. Thus I conclude that both "Jesus Christ" and "Jesus the Christ" have Biblical precedent. --clh]
daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) (09/17/90)
In article <Sep.13.04.20.29.1990.24968@athos.rutgers.edu> jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >Question: If Christ is English translation for Greek word with > approximately same pronunciation which is the Greek > translation of the Hebrew word meaning messiah and > both of those words mean "anointed" or "the annointed > one" then should Jesus of Nazareth be called in his > titular form either Jesus the Christ as in Jesus the > Messiah or Jesus, Christ? Christ is not a surname > in my reading. I can't answer John's question directly, but here is something related to contemplate over. In speaking not merely of Jesus, or merely of Christ, but of Jesus Christ, we stress the tension between two points of reference. One is in time: the historic Jesus. The other is timeless: the Christ-reality in Him and in all of us. That creative tension must be maintained between those two aspects. If that tension is allowed to snap, ones relationship with Jesus Christ becomes polarized. One will either be unable to look beyond the historic frame of reference, or else run the risk of losing the Christian historic anchorage altogether. The historic Jesus provides an objective standard for the life of Christians. This prevents their awareness of the Christ with in them from drifting off into mere subjectivity. Yet the historic Jesus is merely one point of reference in genuine encounter with Jesus Christ. The other is expressed in the words, "Christ lives in me". David Hatcher
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (09/17/90)
In Jesus' lifetime He was known as Jesus of Nazareth. In Nazareth He was the carpenter's son. He was called Christ as a surname after His ascension by the early Church. I speculate probably while Peter was at Antioch before he traveled to Rome. If you wish to render Jesus' name in English it would be Joshua Nazareth for the time before His death. Let me point out this discussion is about as relevant as the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Mike P.S. A slightly less irrelevant way would be Joshua Manson, a contraction of His self naming as the Son of Man. Joshua Adams would be even closer, and possibly relevant as it mentions His humanity.
mmh@cs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew Huntbach) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.13.04.20.29.1990.24968@athos.rutgers.edu> jag@cello.mc.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >Question: If Christ is English translation for Greek word with > approximately same pronunciation which is the Greek > translation of the Hebrew word meaning messiah and > both of those words mean "anointed" or "the annointed > one" then should Jesus of Nazareth be called in his > titular form either Jesus the Christ as in Jesus the > Messiah or Jesus, Christ? Christ is not a surname > in my reading. > Correct, and therefore when we say "Christ" we are affirming our Christian beliefs. Anyone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus should not be called a "Christian", even if he or she respects the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. We should also be careful in dialogue with non-Christians not to use the word "Christ" except in appropriate contexts. Matthew Huntbach
dg@pallio.uucp (David Goodenough) (09/18/90)
jag@cello.cellbio.duke.edu (John Allan Graves) asks: > [history of the word "Christ"] deleted > ..... should Jesus of Nazareth be called in his > titular form either Jesus the Christ as in Jesus the > Messiah or Jesus, Christ? Christ is not a surname > in my reading. I would agree with John. I suspect that the first form (with a "the") was what was intended. However it may be the case in Greek [1] as it is in Latin that there are no definite or indefinite articles: you wouldn't say "That is a chair" in Latin, but "That is chair". Whether "a" or "the" is intended can usually be figured from context. [1] I don't know _ANY_ Greek, except for the letters of the alphabet, so a comment from a Greek scholar would be most welcome. If this were applied to Jesus the Christ, then the closest they could get would be the second: Jesus, Christ where the comma is intentionally placed to make it like Christ is not a last name. Also, if you read all up and down the Bible, nowhere do you find the equivalent of a surname. People in that place at those times didn't have last names like we do in current Western civilization. Even now, in some scandanavian countries (Iceland for one), I would be David Peterson, since my father's name is Peter, and he would be Peter Harryson (can you see where Harrison came from :-) ) since his father was Harry. So, for example, in the Bible, Christ says "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah" or "Simon, Son of Jonah". Also, note that when the "geaneology" is cited at the beginning of Matthew, it's first names only. So in those times there _WERE_ no last names, and the title Jesus Christ would have it's intended meaning. In Christ, -- dg@pallio.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ IHS | +-+-+ ..... !harvard!xait!pallio!dg +-+-+ | AKA: dg%pallio.uucp@xait.xerox.com +---+
lins@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lindsay Gower) (09/23/90)
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu writes: >P.S. A slightly less irrelevant way would be Joshua Manson, a >contraction of His self naming as the Son of Man. Joshua Adams >would be even closer, and possibly relevant as it mentions His a His name would have been Joshua bar Joseph, since everyone "knew" his father was Joseph the Carpenter, of Nazareth. I think we often forget how the people in his day were looking on him; we are usually introduced to him as Jesus, Son of God (whether we believe that to be true or not). But at the time people knew him to be Mary and Joseph's boy (and everyone heard the whispers about his birthdate vs their wedding date). I do agree that the semantics over what to actually call him aren't relevant to His saving grace. Lindsay Gower UniSoft Corporation lins@unisoft.comm