tanya

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=307367
This sentiment is also found in Encyclopedia Britannica, defining "Messiah":

anointment: a kind of celebration, a ceremony, people standing around, applauding an accomplishment. This is the meaning of Χριστός and mashiach.

salvation, saviour: a military conquest, an action, people engaged in battle, led by a skilled warrior. This is the meaning of σωτήρ and moshiah. This is NOT the meaning of Χριστός, anointment.

Somewhere, in history, the meaning of the Greek word μεσσίας, from which arises our English word messiah, became associated with the Hebrew word mashiach, instead of the Hebrew word moshiah—the word which conveys both the MEANING, and PHONEMIC qualities of μεσσίας.

If this confounding of the two Hebrew words, is found as well, in Hebrew manuscripts buried in Qumran, that is the DSS, then one must consider the possibility that the confusion between the two Hebrew words, in assigning a meaning to μεσσίας, arose before the Christians arrived on the scene, perhaps during the Babylonian exile, or subsequently, under the occupation by Alexander's army.

This thread then becomes a simple question:

When, in history, did μεσσίας forfeit the meaning of σωτήρ, and acquire the meaning of Χριστός ? (and, WHY?)

MCalavera

I refer you to Sheshbazzar's post.

:redface:

tanya

Thanks for your input, Sheshbazzaar.

Have you an opinion regarding the question posed in #21

When, in history, did μεσσίας forfeit the meaning of σωτήρ, and acquire the meaning of Χριστός ? And why?

Sheshbazzar

As far as I am aware of, with the posting of this thread.
From the OP it appears that someone is determined to create another FISH TALE.

Nothing new under the sun, when it comes to the subject of religion;
As usual, one first convinces themselves, and then sets out to convince the world.

Maybe even crank up yet another new religious denomination.

tanya

Thanks, good rejoinder.

But, nope, the question was not posed: Why doesn't everyone change to adopt the correct meaning of μεσσίας : σωτήρ

Your answer, while good, humorous, and fair minded, was an excellent rebuttal, but, it doesn't address the issue raised.

The vast majority, including you, accept the flawed notion that "messiah", μεσσίας, meaning saviour, is derived from mashiakh, meaning anointed, Χριστός, rather than moshiah, meaning saviour, σωτήρ.

I am curious to learn why that should be. Why would someone change the source of the meaning of a Greek word? Was the change deliberate, or accidental? It certainly is not logical. By logic, μεσσίας, messiah, = saviour, ought to correspond to σωτήρ, meaning saviour. Yes, I understood your previous post, explaining that moshiah does not ALWAYS correspond to only the concept of saviour. It has a broader spectrum of meaning. I appreciate that input.

That point you made, however, does not address the fundamental question. Who made the change, from σωτήρ to Χριστός, WHEN, and for WHAT purpose? Obviously the messiah would have been someone anointed. But so would ten thousand others have been anointed, during the course of a year. However, The Messiah, the saviour, riding the white horse, leading the army to overthrow the invader, that person is very rare, once in many generations, not 10,000 per anum. Simply calling him "anointed" makes no sense.

No matter how many times it is written, the meaning of μεσσίας corresponds to σωτήρ, not Χριστός.

Sheshbazzar

To the best of my knowledge no one ever did. There have been thousands of scholars proficient in these languages. I am not aware of any respected Greek or Hebrew scholar either among the living or the dead that would support the position you are here asserting. Not one.
Do you?

So this leaves me with two basic and fundamental questions here.
1. What are your personal skills and qualifications with regards to Hebrew language?
Are you Hebrew literate? That is, Are you able to read, comprehend, and translate directly from the Hebrew texts?

What are your personal skills and qualifications with regards to the Greek language? Are you Greek literate?
That is, Are you able to read, comprehend, and translate directly from the Greek texts?

(And I do not mean able to look up words in a Concordance.)

2. Are you ready and able to provide us with a list of the names of accredited and respected Hebrew and Greek linguistic scholars
that agree with your claim?


So you claim.
You are an unknown Internet poster. WHY should we accept your unprovnanced assertion?

Thus far you have provided NO evidence that backs up your assertion.

You have produced NO comparative texts demonstrating the existence of any such change.

You have cited the works of NO respected or well known linguistic scholars employed in the field of Biblical languages, that supports such claim.

You have not demonstrated that anyone -other than yourself alone-, holds this 'peculiar' idea.

You will have to produce much more to even begin to become convincing.



Respectfully, Sheshbazzar





.

tanya

No.
I have no names with which to bolster my claim.
Here is an authority whose opinion I value, but who disagrees with me, and shares your opinion that THE messiah is represented by the Hebrew word mashiakh, rather than moshiah.

My rationale is simple:
if A = 3456,
and
if B = 8912, then
if unknown C has a value equal to 8912, should we describe it as "A" or "B"? Your point, Sheshbazzar, that B, moshiah, can also have other values, say, for instance 7653, doesn't alter my perception that choice B is nevertheless the best fit, for unknown C.

The meaning of Messiah, μεσσίας, corresponds, most closely, with B: σωτήρ, not A: Χριστός.

Underlying the skepticism in this thread, is a question of interpolation. Who first assigned to μεσσίας the notion of Χριστός, and WHY?

The thread's origin arose, some weeks ago, while thinking about spin's comment in another thread, about interpolation in Paul's epistle 1 Corinthians 15. Why would Paul write Χριστός seemingly every other word in that chapter?

I am not an expert in anything. I believe that this idea must be rejected, not because of a list of scholars who approve or disapprove, but rather, based upon an investigation into the history of the Greek word μεσσίας.

Human knowledge is filled with many lists of scholars who were wrong, about some of the most fundamental aspects of life. A long list of reputable scholars who agree with me, or who disagree with me, does not add clarity to the issue. Somewhere in time, the meaning of μεσσίας was shifted away from its natural Hebrew ancestor, moshiah, towards an antecedent only vaguely related, mashiakh. I have no idea why this shift occurred, I suspect, but have no evidence, that it is the result of some kind of Greek military force, superimposed upon a subservient Hebrew culture, compelled to obey their Greek overlords, killers armed with mediocre Hebrew language skills.

Sheshbazzar

No, sorry tanya but the usage and understanding of the meaning of the word has been in place for thousands of years by people who are conversant in the respective languages.
You who likely cannot read even a sentence of either the Hebrew or the Greek, are really in no position -at this point- to seriously attempt to reform that understanding.
Yes, I sure by now that we we all understand what your claim is, and what you believe concerning it.
You may have your personal 'perceptions' and your personal 'beliefs' but they alone are not sufficient to change my views, much less those of all of the thousands of other scholars and Hebrew and Greek speakers.

If you are so strongly convinced that all the rest of the world is wrong, and that you alone are right, it falls entirely upon YOU to provide any such positive evidence as may support your claim.

No here is under any obligation to do your homework for you.
From my perspective, with over forty years of Hebrew Biblical studies, what you are looking for is the proverbial 'needle-in-a-haystack' with a very strong possibility that said needle never even existed in the first place.

It really doesn't matter to me if you wish to spend the rest of your life looking for evidences of whatever it is that you believe 'ought to be'.

But, hypothetically, let's say you did find an ancient text that did contain evidence of your choice of wording.
How would learned Textual Scholars regard it?
It would be what is termed an 'outlier' that is a text that is an inconsistent anomaly. Such are relegated to a position of relative obscurity.
Your efforts would change nothing, Messiah would still remain meaning Anointed.

Your life, your dime, spend it any way you wish.

Respectfully, Sheshbazzar

tanya

English	Persian	Greek	Hebrew
saviour	monjee	soter	moshiah
phonemes	/m/o/n/dj/i:/
anoint	malideh	christou	mashiakh
phonemes	/m/ae/l/i:/d/e
messiah	maseeh	messias	?
phonemes	/m/ae/s/i:/

MCalavera

Christou and Mashiakh mean "anoint" as in the verb?

I know in Arabic, "Maseeh" is the term for Messiah. Persian's the same, I guess. Are you Persian?