Ted Hoffman

Very few Christians appreciate that Christ is actually a title and not a name.
If Christians believed that to be true, Doherty's book would be a primary textbook in theological seminaries.

spin

And do you reckon Jews in Palestine would have used it as a name?


spin

Ted Hoffman

Peter, it looks good to me. The baseline is fine. The helping to decide which ones meet the criteria is fine. Slice them up and let us know when they are ready for analysis. I am still not very comfortable with these post third century writers but lets see what we turn up with. Very interesting.

Ted Hoffman

I have no idea. Xristos was a Greek word so...I dont know. What I know is that, here in Africa, one out of every 5000 or so Christians actually know that Christ is a title and not a name.

Peter Kirby

Okay, it will take me a few days at least to get the ball rolling. In that meantime, I will accept suggestions for additions.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

spin

Well, the funny thing is that some of the Pauline letters (eg Rom 8:9, 1 Cor 1:12) appear to use xristos as a name, ie without a definite article. I had thought Mt did as well, but I checked and I find "the christ" -- though the term "Jesus Christ" looks perilously like a name. I don't think Jews in Palestine could have accepted such a usage, y$w( m$yx. This suggests that such usage was developed elsewhere.


spin

andrewcriddle

One explanation is that "Jesus Christ" developed as a standard term in Palestine and became regarded as something like a double-barrelled name in the Diaspora, from which came the use of Christ as a name rather than title.

Andrew Criddle

spin

y$w) h-m$yx?

If that had entered the diaspora communities do you think that the Jews there would have not understood the implication? Do you think they wouldhave ignored the definite article? Do you think a Jew like Paul would have done so?


spin

Ted Hoffman

Paul is a complex one - he was a pharisee who turned to a Hellenizer. And he mutated to suit his audience: his gospel was functionally fluid.
For a Jew (moreso a pharisee) in the Diaspora, it would not have been easy to accept someone as the anointed messiah (that is why Orthodox Judaism still awaits the messiah to date). The definite article could not have been ignored. Perhaps that is why the messianic secret was necessary - even in an allegorical work like GMark).
There were JBap followers and there was a huge Helleniztic influence and itinerant preachers - Apollos and other unnamed Pauline opposers.
None of them claimed to be the anointed saviour although there were a few "saviours" (like ben Ananias).

I think the key question would have been - anointed by who? Then they would have fallen back to the scriptures to challenge and question the legitimacy of whoever was arrogating himself the status of the prophesized messiah.