Amaleq13

Is there an actual difference in the meanings of the words or are you referring to how the word "Christ" was used by believers? It was my understanding that it was simply the Greek word for "messiah".

In your reply to CX, you answered my first question but not my second:

Did a resurrected Jesus appear to them [TJC] as it is claimed in the letter to the Corinthians or do you understand this as another lie from Paul?

spin

I just had a quick look for the usage of christos in Greek literature and beside the xian usage of the term it is hardly in use at all. Where it can be found it is related strictly to its original significance, related to "rubbing on", as in ointment, so one can see the relation with the Hebrew which comes from the idea of "to pour on" as in oil. Translators chose the nearest Greek term they could find.

It may well be that those who first used christos as having a theological meaning were those who first translated the relevant Hebrew biblical texts into Greek, ie Jews. The xian usage was merely a development on that.


spin

capnkirk

The Greek word XRISTOS (that is as close as an English keyboard can get) first appears relative to Jesus in Paul's first letter (Galatians). 'Christ' is just the English translation of XRISTOS.

Culturally, we have been taught to think that the two terms had exactly the same meaning...they don't. The Hebrew term was the title of a MAN. It simply meant annointed one and since the beginning of the Davidic Dynasty, only the top two titleholders were annointed (the King and the High Priest). Certainly David was not in any way deified by virtue of his annointment, so why would one apply any different standard to Jesus without compelling reason? The Greek term, on the other hand, described a god or demigod. Usually associated with apocalyptic (the end of days) construct or world-redeeming act.

I would call that a significant difference.

I'm sorry...I didn't answer your second question because I didn't have a ready answer, and it wasn't in the mainstream of my thoughts. So, I will take a moment now to offer you the best answer that I have.

"Did a resurrected Jesus appear to them [TJC] as it is claimed in the letter to the Corinthians...?" There is just no way to say for sure, because the evidence-standard that our skepticism demands for paranormal events can never be met for an event this temporally remote. That said, I believe that there is a seed of truth in most oral history myths. To declare any particular feature to be that seed or kernel would be sheerest speculation.

Subject to these disclaimers, I would venture to guessthat there were disciples and followers who were convinced that they saw a resurrected Jesus, maybe even a crowd of people. However, they may not have been any more accurate about their interpretation of what they saw/heard than the thousands of Tuscon AZ residents who were convinced that they were seeing a flight of UFO's hovering over the nearby mountains when it turned out to be high-altitude illumination flares (30 miles away) dropped from an airplane in support of military night maneuvers on the desert floor below. I definitely do believe that the accounts in Acts are greatly inflated (the way Nat'l Enquirer would have published the example above).

capnkirk

The term is used in the Greek language texts describing (from without or within) the (originally) Persian religion of Zarathrustra. Its Greek name was Zoroaster, and was widely practiced in Hellenistic Greece. Within that religious context, it always referred to (the annointment of) a god or demigod.

Good Point! The first to translate Hebrew language OT books into Greek were in fact Jews. They were some of the few Hebrew-literate Egyptian Jews left in Alexandria where most native Jews spoke Greek. They were the 70-odd translators that produced the Septuagint. It would be most interesting to see what Greek term these translators used when speaking of David's annointment. Whatever term they used, it would certainly set a precedent for Hebrew usage of the Greek term. I will be checking on this at my earliest convenience.

spin

I'll tuck this away until you can come up with a seriously dateable reference to this supposed use of christos. As I said, I did look at a range of Greek lit trying to find a use for the term, but there is almost nothing -- only what I described. 99.5% coming from xian sources.

This is the Pseudo-Aristaeus story. It doesn't have much value. What we do know is that there was a pre-Pharisaic LXX type Hebrew text in use among those who deposited the scrolls at Qumran. When this variety of Hebrew text was translated into Greek is up for grabs, though we do know that Philo of Alexandria was using bits of it circa 30 CE.

To save you the effort, look for example at Lev 4:5

Hebrew: H-KWHN H-M$YX

Greek: o iereus o xristos

English: the priest the anointed (ie the anointed priest)

(See also 1 Sam 24:6, 2 Sam 12:7, 2 Sam 19:21 David as the Lord's anointed [xristos kuriou], etc.)


spin

CX

Well then they did make messianic claims about Jesus, did they not? The fact that they weren't the distortion of what messianism means promulgated by the Xians isn't the point.

CX

Absolutely correct. The Greek word XRISTOS is a simple direct translation of the Hebrew MOSHIACH. Both mean "annointed with oil". On a deeper level, if I understand him correctly, CK is simply saying that the concept of "Christ" with a capital 'C" as conceived by Xians is different than the Jewish conception of messiah. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that conclusion.

I suspect CK will assent to the latter conclusion rather than the former. If I had to wager I'd fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not certain the original followers of Jesus claimed any kind of post resurrection apearance (as evidenced by the original ending of GMark) but I don't think Paul made it up either. I think it may have been an existing tradition he incorporated in his own theology. On the other hand it would appear Paul was not opposed to invention and we can hardly rely on the credibility of someone who hallucinates seeing the "risen Christ". Certainly stories of post-resurrection visions would help Paul's case that he was an authentic apostle of Christ despite not having known the earthly Jesus. The question becomes a)Did he fabricate the idea out of whole cloth? or b)Did he dig for existing traditions and find some minority view which, thanks to him, became the orthodox understanding or c)Did most followers of Jesus after he died believe he had resurrected and appeared to many?

godfry n. glad

Hey, guys....

I picked this up over at the JesusMysteries list:

Well... After searching my files, I dredged up this gem from long,
long ago:

I keep coming back to the understanding that _AofJ_ was written for a
Graecophonic Roman audience, most of whom would have no idea to what
the term referred. What would they have thought of this "Christ," had
the undefined term been included as it is in modern translations?
Well, lacking as I am in proficiency with Koine Greek, I sought
assistance from others in understanding how the term might have been
understood by the gentile audiences that Paul and his competitors
would have addressed. Another poster in another forum (Dr.
Christopher Forbes, who lectures in New Testament, Hellenistic
history, and history of ideas at Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia, where he is also Vice President of the Society for the
Study of Early Christianity) was kind enough to send me this:


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The term meant "Ointment" or "lineament". Outside the Jewish-
Christian sources, it was never used for a person on whom ointment
had been put, "an anointed one". As far as I have been able to tell,
the following statement by C.F.D. Moule (The Origin of Christology,
Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 31-2) is correct: "The
Septuagint seems, thus, to have introduced a new technical term ...
when Biblical Greek uses _christos_, not for the ointment ('for
external application') but for an anointed person or thing, this is a
new usage." (fn. 37): "in secular Greek _christos_ is applied to the
ointment, never, it seems, to the one anointed: it means 'for
external application' or 'externally applied', as against something
that is drunk and used internally."

"Essentially the same view is expressed by Hess in Kittel's
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p.495: "Christos
is never related to persons outside the LXX, the NT, and dependent
writings." In other words, as far as we know it was not used as a
title of any sort outside the Judaeo-Christian sphere of influence.
To someone with some knowledge of Judaism or Christianity it
meant "anointed person", i.e. person marked out for some special role
by anointing. I have found no evidence at all that it was used by
other Graeco-Roman religious groups."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Note his second sentence, that the term was not used for the one anointed, but for the anointing agent.

So, unless one were a member of the small minority group of the far-flung Jewish communities of the 1st century Mediterranean, or the even smaller minority of the germinal Christian communities, the chances are that one might think that Josephus was referring
to "Jesus, called the ointment"....or "called the lineament."

I'd say that would distinctly call for an explanation, or at least a
definition of what a Jewish speaker meant by using the phrase. Yet, such seems to be entirely absent from _Antiquities of the Jews_ or any of Josephus' other works.

Of course, there's still the "Paulist" definition of the word, which,
if we accept the usual dating of Paulistic corpus, would put a new
definition to the "christos" term, reputedly a Grecification of the
messianic term in Hebrew (which I'll just say was a reference to a
transcendant soteriological martyr-figure), in the middle of the
first century CE. The problem here is that this usage conflicts with
the typical Jewish understanding of the messianic figure
(i.e., "christos") as interpreted by Reb Akiba in relation to bar
Kochba nearly a century _after_ the reputed time of the Pauline
mission. If this is the case, and Paul and his contemporaries were
forging new definitions of the term, then how can we readily accept that Josephus is using the Paulist meaning... though that's exactly what most modern interpretors seem to be asserting.

These understandings give me pause in readily interpreting the _AotJ_ 20.200 reference as authentic. I'd be open to someone explaining to me why I should accept it as authentic, particularly if they could explain this terminology conundrum.... But that has not yet been done to my satisfaction.

Kelly Wellington"

Interesting, eh?

godfry n. glad

CX

Eminently! Good work and thanks. See? That's what I love about this forum. No matter how long you've been here or how many books you've read on the subject you can still get new information from your fellow posters.

capnkirk

Thank you ever so much godfry, for the clarification. This thread has definitely enlightened and educated me with respect to the particulars of the different meanings ascribed to the Hebrew 'messiah' and the Greek translation 'christos'. I was clearly and obviously incorrect in the specific attribution for the source of the different definition implicit in the Paulinist usage of "christos", but have now been basically confirmed in the contention that the Hebrews meant something entirely different when they said messiah from what Paul (et al) meant when they said christ. I thank you for the expansion, and I will be able to make a more succinct argument in the future.