tanya

Sheshbazzar has correctly summarized the orthodox view, that the English word Messiah, derived from the Greek word messias, is in turn, derived from the Hebrew word Mashiakh.

I dispute this notion, but as both you and Sheshbazzar have rightly pointed out, I have no authorities on my side.

I believe that words change with time, and custom. In ancient times, anointment was widely practiced, not only in Hebrew and Greek cultures, but also in Persian and Turkish cultures, and probably elsewhere too.

Anointment, in other words, was a COMMON practice. Let's say a 17 year old kid's father, uncles, and brothers were all slain in battle. He then inherits the kingdom from his father, because he was not killed, since he had been left behind. Such a kid would have been anointed, meaning, the populace would recognize the legitimacy of his rule.

He did not attain anointment by virtue of accomplishments in battle, but by inheritance.

Similarly, young men, entering the priesthood, of many religions, not just Judaism, would have been anointed, in ceremonies celebrating their coming of age, or accepting the responsibilities of priesthood.

Neither of these two groups of young men would have been regarded as "messias", English: messiah. Good guys, yes. Earnest, perhaps. Strong yeah, maybe. Intelligent: probably above average.

But, a messiah? No way.

In other words, the process of anointment does not recognize the accomplishment corresponding to that of messiah. Anointment is not, in modern usage, a DISCRIMINANT of messiah.

Heroism, battle tested, vibrant, dynamic, skillful, accomplished: these are the traits of a messiah, none of which are prerequisite to entering the priesthood, nor assuming the throne by virtue of inheritance.

So, then, how did the modern era Jews, Christians, and Muslims come to regard the English word messiah, coming from the Greek word "messias", as having been synonymous with "mashiakh", which means anointment, rather than "moshiah", which more closely approximates the meaning of messiah: saviour.

My supposition is that this transfer of meaning, from the more logical "moshiah", to the improbable "mashiakh" came about as a consequence of the Babylonian exile, or the conquest by Alexander, or perhaps, the subsequent rule in Alexandria, by the Greeks, in creating the LXX. Maybe the change occurred as late as the time of Origen.

I don't know the answer. I just know that it is illogical, linguistically, for "messias" to correspond to "mashiakh", rather than "moshiah".

Some functions in language are unfathomable, some are illogical: gender distinctions in Romance language nouns, for example. But, rather than assume that "messias" ALWAYS corresponded to "mashiakh", I seek to explore the concept that once upon a time, utterance of the Greek word "messias", conveyed to the audience listening attentively, a meaning which more closely approximated the meaning of "moshiah", not "mashiakh".

The alternative, if it were somehow possible to prove, convincingly, that "messias" had ALWAYS translated "mashiakh", would involve a more complicated linguistic process: change of meaning unaccompanied by change in pronunciation. Say the word anoint, but intend the audience to comprehend the word saviour. I claim, not perhaps, correctly, that this is precisely what happens today.

When MCalvara writes (or speaks) "Messiah", he is NOT thinking "anoint". He is thinking: SAVIOUR.

Iskander

It very seldom matters how words were used in the distant past in remote alien cultures or in extinct cultures. The important thing is how we use words at present, whichever their origin.


In Shakespeare’s Anthony and Cleopatra, Anthony says this to the Ambassador of Cesar:
Gay was then used for pretentious, showy, or gaudy.

I think you are both right whatever it is that either of you is saying.

Sheshbazzar

No one is stopping you. But no one here is going to do your work for you.
And simply repeating this unprovinanced assertion over and over will not convince anyone.

Moreover, you are making a serious unlearned beginners mistake regarding the common Hebrew word 'messiah'.

True, any person who is 'anointed' with oil is (a) 'mashiach' in the Hebrew language, as the word means to 'paint' or 'rub' with oil, no matter who it is done by, or whom it is done to.
However 'THE Messiah' is not simply the common word 'משיח - 'mashiach' (or the Greek word χριστὸς - 'christos') neither one of which should ever be capitalized when rendered into English.

You read in your English Bible's 'the anointed' in the verses this phrase occurs.
However, the direct object indicator 'the' DOES NOT at all actually occur in any verse of the Hebrew texts that is in reference to a common earthly 'anointed' man.
The 'the' is only provided by the English language translators to conform to standard English syntax and usage, but it is of no part of the original Hebrew texts.

Not even King David is referred to as 'THE' Messiah, המשיח 'HA' Masiach' within the Hebrew texts.
Such a designation of -any common man- is always and conspicuously avoided.

Here are those Hebrew and Greek verses where a everyday human person is referred to as ('the') messiah';
No capitalisation in either Hebrew or Greek- and no direct object indicator 'the'; simply 'anointed'. Saul was not, and never was 'THE' Anointed' One. (or 'THE Messiah')

A more correct rendering is;
" And he said unto his men, YHWH forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, YHWH's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is -anointed- of YHWH."
No damn 'the' needed.
Again, the English word 'the' is supplied ONLY in the English, it is not present in the original texts.
And would be better rendered without the uneeded and needlesly misleading 'the'.

To wit;
"Now these are the last words of David. Thus says David the son of Jesse; Thus says the man raised up on high, anointed of the Elohi of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel:"
No 'the' is in the originals;
"The breath of our nostrils, anointed of YHWH, Was caught in their pits, Of whom we said; "Under his shadow We shall live among the nations."

Stop and think about what it says.

First note that the Hebrew word here is ממשח_ mim'meshach.
Recall what I previously mentioned about the prefex מ_ 'mem'? and how it modifies the root word to the English equivelent of "which is..."?
So this would be the 'cherub-'which (was) anointed'.
Or as the NIV better renders it; "You were anointed as a guardian cherub,..." ('were anointed', not 'the' anointed..)

Look at the context. Do you really wish to insist that this verse is in reference to THE Messiah???
Perhaps you will yet come to 'learn to put a difference', and 'to -discern- and to -distinguish- between' ὁ Χριστὸς and simply χριστὸν, And between המשיח and simply משיח

המשיח = "HA' Mashiach' = "THE"- MESSIAH" , is -reserved- to only ONE in all of history, and in all of creation.
(Ezekiel 22:26 & 44:23)






Respectfully, Sheshbazzar the Hebrew







.

tanya

Kind hearted Sheshbazzar, many thanks for your thoughtful, detailed, well written rebuttal.

MUCH appreciated.....

I agree with you, that it is very difficult to compose any message in all three languages. Well done.

I single out this particular passage from your otherwise excellent rejoinder, because, (if I have properly understood you), I believe that there is a miscommunication here, of modest dimension.

I do not dispute that the English word "anoint" corresponds to the Hebrew word: "mashiakh".

I do dispute that the English word (not Hebrew, as I think you may have inadvertently suggested, above), messiah, corresponds to the meaning of "anoint", as is commonly asserted, by almost everyone. In my opinion, not a fact, "messiah", with or without "the" corresponds to "saviour", not anointed. More precisely, of course the messiah, or a messiah, will have been anointed. no big deal. The point is, that anointment per se, does not differentiate a messiah, or the messiah, from Joe Blow, or Harry the weed, or Sam the garbage man. Anointed folks are a dime a dozen, heck, even your cherubs get anointed, for heaven's sake.

There is nothing special about anointment. There is something very special about serving as messiah (or "the" messiah). "Mashiakh" doesn't cut it. Mashiakh is too banal, too ordinary, too mundane, too common.

Messiah is derived, linguistically, NOT from mashiakh, but from mosiah, the word conveying almost the same phonemic make up, as "messias", and virtually the same meaning as "messias", Greek ancestor of the English word messiah.

I struggle to find a good analogy.

This one is not quite satisfactory: Youtube, and Innertube.

What? you mean that to discover the inner self, (meditate) one should log onto the internet, and watch video clips, because of the suffix "tube", as in cathode ray? Or, perhaps one should float in a pool of olive oil resting on an air mattress, watching television?

Ah, yes, here is your sentence:
As a beginner, I do not feel insulted to acknowledge that there are undoubtedly LOTS of mistakes in my submissions to the forum. thanks in advance for correcting them.....

That was an aside. Getting back to your quote, answering your question:
NO. No, absolutely not. I certainly do not wish to consider cherubs as "messiah", with or without "the".

Was Alexander of Macedonia a "messias"? He rid the Egyptians of their Persian masters. Did the folks living in the fishing village we call Alexandria, anoint him? Most likely. Did Alexander ride a white horse? Probably. Was he a powerful military leader? Yes, I think he was a messias, though, from a Jewish perspective, he was certainly not a, or the, messiah. The Jews would certainly not have hailed him as "Moshiah", but they may have been willing to call him "Mashiakh". Is that the origin of all this confusion?

Sheshbazzar

All of this 'confusion' is solely of your own fashioning. And no one else shares your 'confusion'.

You do not -read- the languages, you do not -speak- the languages, and obviously you can not -understand- the languages.
Thus, as far as I am concerned this discussion has run its full course.

You of course, are fee to fabricate as many imaginary windmills to joust as you wish.

stephan huller

Irenaeus's definition of Christ (Against Heresies 3.18.3)

tanya

Thank you Stephan, personally, I find this a very constructive, and informative post, I appreciate your effort.

It is particularly salient, to me, personally, because I had not known, previously, that Irenaeus had taken the trouble to explain the meaning of "Christ", i.e. "the" Anointed one.

I wonder why Irenaeus felt obliged to explain the meaning of cristou?

In another thread, recently, sorry I don't recall at this instant, precisely which one, you, Stephan, had called into question, the issue of the veracity of one of the patristic authors, perhaps it was Origen?

In any event, I then wonder, if the criticism you had applied to that particular author, (wasn't it Irenaeus???, ) could apply here, as well, i.e. maybe this passage represents a LATER interpolation? Maybe, even, an addition to Irenaeus' original text, dating from the end of the third century?

With regard to the definition/clarification provided by Irenaeus, I would argue, apart from the obvious question of WHY he felt a need to write on this issue, particularly in a book devoted to criticizing Heretics, (does that imply that some heretical thinkers of the second century denied that Jesus was "the" anointed one?---> perhaps those who rejected as heretical, Paul's epistles?), how does Irenaeus' text here, compare with that of other 2nd/early 3rd century authors, on this topic, or, was he uniquely alone in commenting on this issue with regard to heretical beliefs? In other words, from which "holy" written source, does Irenaeus claim to locate his opinion?

I feel as though I am somewhat in harmony with those heretics of bygone days....

Finally, I would note that it remains unclear from Irenaeus' text, whether the process of supposed divine anointment, corresponds to acknowledgement, as well, of Jesus' inheritance of the title, Messiah, meaning, saviour. In other words, are we supposed, on reading Irenaeus' text, to then affirm that Jesus is not only "the" anointed one, (anointed by God, himself, no less), but also "the" messiah--> that is, "the" long sought Jewish moshiah.

tanya

Sometimes, those of us with less experience, need to rely upon others, with more experience, and superior language skills:

So, in conclusion, a messiah is one who smashes the heads of enemies. That description seems incompatible with the activity of a rabbi, working the true believers in the temples, though, maybe at night, when the lights go out, who knows?

Conclusion:

Smiling temple rabbi, adorned with laurel, anointed in a lavish ceremony = mashiakh.
Sword wielding, samurai warrior, "smashing heads", = messiah = moshiah.