Ben C Smith

Context.

The phrase the anointed priest and phrases like it show up a number of times in the Hebrew scriptures, but in such cases the term anointed is acting simply as an adjective modifying priest (or whatever noun).

The phrase the anointed (one) shows up a number of times, also, and here we start to get a specialized sense; the anointed one, without further explanation or specification, seems to be the king (Saul, David, Solomon, and so forth). This usage obviously serves as a lead-in to the later, even more specialized usages we find in Jewish literature.

In these later cases the anointed one is clearly a future ruler, usually or at least often imagined as the rightful heir of the Davidic throne. Even here, however, the term anointed one often seems mainly descriptive. That is, it simply means the one who shall take the place and perform the function that the Davidic monarchy was supposed to do. Only occasionally does it become what seems to be an actual title, the messiah (as in 4Q252).

With Jesus we have an even more specific usage, one not paralleled by anyone known to us to date; we have the Greek translation of the term messiah being used as a nickname (Matthew 1.16; the James reference in Josephus; Roman usage in Pliny and Tacitus, and implied in the term Christians in Lucian and Suetonius).

This is true.

The usual Pauline usage is as a nickname. He calls him Jesus Christ or often just plain Christ (even without the article), and his readers are supposed to know to whom he is referring without further specification.

Ben.

gstafleu

Hmmm... that is a bit problematic, as it leaves us free to ascribe any desired meaning to the term.

But anyway, is the usage as nickname not rather close to its usage as adjective, IOW is "the Christ Jesus" not similar to "the anointed priest" (when it comes to the position of christ/annointed, that is)? That then brings us back to the meaning of "Jesus." As has been said before, while a common name, it can also be read as something akin to "savior." Is Paul then referring to anything more than a saving entity god has dispatched, an entity that got the adjective/nickname "The Anointed"/"the Christ"? (Isn't there a passage somewhere that describes the name "Jesus" as the most powerful of names?) In this scenario one can easily see how Jesus could evolve into a real has-already-been-here Messiah.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Not sure I understand. It still means anointed.

No. In Leviticus 4.5, for example, the phrase the anointed priest is ο ιερευς ο χριστος; notice the double article (used for the attributive position). In the NT the name Christ Jesus is generally anarthrous (no article at all; Χριστος Ιησους). Where we see an article at all, the article goes with Christ only (as in John 20.31; Acts 5.42), not with Jesus (this would be the predicative position, not the attributive). Doubtless exceptions can be found, but this is by far the trend.

Not in Greek.

Ben.

gstafleu

IOW, we end up in a position where the meaning of "Christ" is not quite clear? It may have meant "Messiah," but Paul does not give us reason to think so (or, for that matter, not think so). Or it may have mean "anointed," although how to interpret that isn't too clear either? To get to "Messiah" we would have to go from Greek to Hebrew, but, as you point out re Jesus, that step is not unproblematic.

Gerard

Ben C Smith

I think, rather, that the meaning is still clear (christos is, after all, a Greek term that means anointed, and Paul is writing in Greek); what is unclear is why Paul calls him Jesus Christ.

The problematic step was for Jesus, not for Christ.

Jesus is not a Greek name; it is a rough transliteration of a Hebrew name. It would be a pretty rare bird who would read the name Jesus in Greek and think of its Hebrew meaning.

Christ, however, is a Greek term; it means anointed, and is often used in the LXX to translate (not transliterate) the Hebrew term messiah. So a Greek speaker ought to be able to read that term and get something like anointed out of it; however, as I pointed out, Paul does not use it as a typical modifying adjectival very much if at all. He uses it as if it were a (nick)name (that is, he treats Christ Jesus as if it were Sergius Paulus or Marcus Tullius or Pontius Pilate or such).

(Perhaps this analogy will make it clearer: Paul does not call him Jesus the anointed one or the anointed Jesus; he calls him Jesus Anointed or Anointed Jesus.)

I doubt many Greek readers would have any idea of the tradition underlying the Hebrew term messiah. But they should have had some idea what Christ meant, even if they had never seen it used as a name before.

Ben.

gstafleu

Wouldn't it be more precise to say "what is unclear is why Paul calls him Jesus Anointed"?

So if a Greek reader was familiar with the LXX, then that reader might well have made the association "Messiah" with "Christ." OTOH, if the reader was not familiar with the LXX, it would just mean "anointed," and we can only guess at any associations that would evoke.

So where does that leave us?
(1) If Paul meant "Messiah," and he had good reason to think that his audience was sufficiently familiar with the LXX, then it makes sense that he doesn't elaborate on the meaning of "Christ."

(2)OTOH, if his audience consisted of "many Greek readers," and he meant Messiah, then he probably would have elaborated on the meaning of Christ.

We don't find Paul elaboration on the Messiah interpretation of Christ. So either his audience was familiar with the LXX, or he did not mean "Messiah." Did I miss a possibility?

BTW, you say:
But what would that idea have been?

Gerard

Amaleq13

Agreed.

But this thinking is logically flawed. That some Jews apparently continued to hold to traditional messianic expectations in the 2nd century says nothing about any earlier non-traditional messianic expectations.

Ben C Smith

Not more precise, since that would mean that Christ is more precise a rendering of christos than anointed. Perhaps clearer to the English reader, however.

I doubt mere familiarity with the LXX would make the term messiah leap to mind. One would have to know the Jewish tradition behind that Hebrew term.

I do not think we are left guessing; but I do think it is important to distinguish between the following three things:

1. What the putative original tradents would have called Jesus (in Hebrew or Aramaic).
2. What Paul called Jesus (in Greek), and what it meant to him.
3. What the Pauline readership would have understood (in Greek).

I do not think we need to get into number 1 just yet.

As for number 2, we have plenty of evidence from the epistles themselves that Paul himself knew the term christos meant messiah in the full Jewish traditional way (refer to Romans 9.5, for example, or to the son of David concept in Romans 1.3).

As for number 3, I doubt the Greeks would have understood the messiah concept all that well without quite a bit of prepping. It seems likely to me that some of them, when Paul first visited, would have asked why Paul spoke of Jesus Christ, or Jesus Anointed, and he would have explained some of it; in some letters he certainly seems to assume that his readers would understand that Jesus fulfilled certain OT prophesies. But I am not certain how far he would have gone in explaining all this, particularly since all that was really important for his own mission was that what Jesus had done had somehow reconciled the gentiles.

As I mentioned before, I doubt mere familiarity with the LXX would have conveyed the whole messiah concept very well. Explanation would have been necessary for anyone who was not reared with these concepts, especially if he or she did not speak Hebrew.

Yes, you missed the possibility that I myself favor, namely that Paul himself knew that christos meant the messiah (which explains many passages in his epistles) but did not emphasize the Jewish aspect(s) of the messiah (which is understandable in light of his gentile readership).

But what would that idea have been?[/QUOTE]

Anointed one.

Ben.

aa5874

Except your earlier non-tradition is based on nothing but your imagination, speculation or guesswork.

Just tell me when there was an earlier RISEN dead Messiah tradition.

You must show that that there was a non-traditional Jewish expectation for a risen dead Messiah for your position to be logical.

Josephus and Philo wrote nothing about any tradition for a RISEN dead Messiah who would save the Jews from their sins with the Jewish Temple still standing.

Ben C Smith

No discussion of a Jewish expectation of a messianic resurrection is complete without 4 Ezra 7.28-32:

For my son the messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. And after these years my son the messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. And after seven days the world, which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who dwell silently in it; and the chambers shall give up the souls which have been committed to them.

Here the messiah is supposed to die right along with all of humanity, so that the earth might experience seven days of primeval silence, after which occurs the resurrection.

I doubt it is too hasty to presume that the resurrection would preclude the messiah himself.

But this text presents several difficulties. First of all, it postdates the beginnings of Christianity, so might reflect the influence of Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Second, though less importantly, this text has been redacted by Christians (indeed, the Latin version has my son Jesus instead of my son the messiah).

(I say the second difficulty is less important because the text as it stands is hardly Christian in any real sense; a 400 year period of peace followed by the death of the messiah at the same time as everybody else is fairly unique; so the Christian redaction cannot have been heavy enough to conform this text to mainstream Christian sensibilities.)

Ben.