Christ as proper name?

[_Runtu]

Last night I was reading in 2 Nephi 10 and came across this passage:

3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

The Bible Dictionary gives the meaning of the word "Christ" as "The anointed (Grosskreutz.) or Messiah (Heb.)." The English etymology is as follows: "Middle English Crist, from Old English, from Latin Christus, from Greek Christos, literally, anointed, from chriein" (Merriam-Webster), and its definition is "Messiah." So the word is a title, a designation of the Messiah, but here it is being used as a proper name.

I was trying to figure out why the Nephites would have considered the title of Messiah as a proper name. Leaving aside the use of a Greek-derived title in pre-Christian times, there doesn't seem to be any reason why Jacob would have pointed out the term as a proper name. We might reason that Joseph Smith is here translating "Christ" from a Hebrew (or even reformed Egyptian) word for Messiah, but this doesn't make sense, either. The Nephites already knew that there was to come a Messiah (see, for example, 1 Ne. 10: 4-5, 7, 9-11, 14, 17), so it would seem weird to say that the Messiah would be named Messiah. Likewise, in verse 2, Jacob refers to the Messiah as "Redeemer," so Christ then is not synonymous with Redeemer.

[Guest]

So in addition to the problem about 'Christ' being said to be the 'name' of the Messiah, we have:

1. References to crucifixion as a means of execution.

2. A reference to the Jews 'crucifying their God' (so 'Christ' = 'God').


And all this from a Jew writing around 600 BCE.

Now given that crucifixion was apparently not used by the Jews as a mode of execution (see http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp? ... 5&letter=C), and given that (If I recall correctly) no other Jew of the time of Nephi (outside the Book of Mormon) said that the Messiah was God, and given that in any case it was the Romans not the Jews who executed Jesus ... is not the easiest solution to the difficulty that at least this part of the Book of Mormon was written by somebody living much later and familiar with a Christian interpretation of the Bible, and sharing the common Christian habit of referring to Jesus as 'Christ'? Like Joseph Smith and his associates, for example?

And if this part of the Book of Mormon is unlikely to be ancient, does that not make us see the rest in a certain sceptical light, given that the whole book was dictated by one man with his head in his hat?

[_Yoda]

This is really odd, Runtu. I don't think I ever noticed that verse before.

I was always taught that Christ was not a proper name, and that the correct reference is Jesus the Christ, or, as you stated earlier, Jesus the Messiah, basically. Christ is a title.

Jesus Christ is more or less a "nickname" or a shortcut reference.

[_Runtu]

This is really odd, Runtu. I don't think I ever noticed that verse before.

I was always taught that Christ was not a proper name, and that the correct reference is Jesus the Christ, or, as you stated earlier, Jesus the Messiah, basically. Christ is a title.

Jesus Christ is more or less a "nickname" or a shortcut reference.

This is one of those passages that makes more sense (albeit not complete sense) if you imagine that the angel and Jacob both spoke English.

[_Yoda]

This is really odd, Runtu. I don't think I ever noticed that verse before.

I was always taught that Christ was not a proper name, and that the correct reference is Jesus the Christ, or, as you stated earlier, Jesus the Messiah, basically. Christ is a title.

Jesus Christ is more or less a "nickname" or a shortcut reference.

This is one of those passages that makes more sense (albeit not complete sense) if you imagine that the angel and Jacob both spoke English.

I still don't think it makes sense. Either Christ is a title or it isn't. There is absolutely NO documentation surrounding Jesus' last name being Christ.

[_Runtu]

This is really odd, Runtu. I don't think I ever noticed that verse before.

I was always taught that Christ was not a proper name, and that the correct reference is Jesus the Christ, or, as you stated earlier, Jesus the Messiah, basically. Christ is a title.

Jesus Christ is more or less a "nickname" or a shortcut reference.

This is one of those passages that makes more sense (albeit not complete sense) if you imagine that the angel and Jacob both spoke English.

I still don't think it makes sense. Either Christ is a title or it isn't. There is absolutely NO documentation surrounding Jesus' last name being Christ.

That's what I mean. It makes sense only if the author thought that Christ was Jesus' name. A Hebrew speaker or Greek speaker wouldn't make that mistake, but an English speaker who wasn't particularly well-educated might. The author obviously didn't think that Christ was synonymous with Messiah but that the revelation of the name Christ was something new and important. Who might have made that mistake? Hmmmm.

[_Yoda]

That's what I mean. It makes sense only if the author thought that Christ was Jesus' name. A Hebrew speaker or Greek speaker wouldn't make that mistake, but an English speaker who wasn't particularly well-educated might. The author obviously didn't think that Christ was synonymous with Messiah but that the revelation of the name Christ was something new and important. Who might have made that mistake? Hmmmm.

I would be interested in hearing what some of our apologists may have to say about this? BC? Charity?

This would actually be an excellent question for Dr. Peterson.

[_Runtu]

That's what I mean. It makes sense only if the author thought that Christ was Jesus' name. A Hebrew speaker or Greek speaker wouldn't make that mistake, but an English speaker who wasn't particularly well-educated might. The author obviously didn't think that Christ was synonymous with Messiah but that the revelation of the name Christ was something new and important. Who might have made that mistake? Hmmmm.

I would be interested in hearing what some of our apologists may have to say about this? BC? Charity?

This would actually be an excellent question for Dr. Peterson.

I posted it on MADB, but with not much response.

[_Canucklehead]

This passage also betrays a strain of anti-semitism that is prone to running through Christianity. If Elohim/Jehovah were truly the one inspiring this passage (having the benefit of omniscience and objectivity), I don't think that it would have been written the way it was. It's hard to believe that the Jews were the ONLY nation wicked enough to kill their god. In fact, in India, centuries before Jesus, Krishna (i.e. the Hindu god, Vishnu) was killed by the very people who were supposed to worship him.

Edit: Although I suppose that the way the passage reads could be interpreted that there was no other nation on earth *at that moment in history* that would kill their god. But then, no other nations on earth worshipped Jehovah except the Jews. Why wouldn't the passage read "there is no other nation on earth wicked enough to kill God/Me"? Why insert the possessive pronoun "their"?

[_truth dancer]

OK, lets see here...

The original writer just had a superficial understanding of the reality of Jesus, and did not realize that "Christ" would be a title. His revelation was that the Savior would be called Jesus Christ. The details do not change the truth.

The word "title" and the word, "name" can be interchangeable under certain circumstances, in certain languages.

It doesn't make any difference to your salvation.

Any mistakes are the mistakes of men, not of God.

~dancer~