The Origins of Christianity

[MrMacSon]

I would look very carefully at all occurrences of Jesus and Christ, by themselves and together, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord etc.

Were any not names but a series of titles, God's anointed saviour? Might some be insertions for theological reasons? What might the originals have read as?

DCHindley listed the occurrences of Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ in the NT texts in a previous thread here as follows -

I found the following on my computer that compares "Jesus Christ" with "Christ Jesus", probably based on the RSV, which follows Nestle-Aland GNT as opposed to the Majority or Byzantine textual reconstructions:

Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	Book	JC	CJ	Relative	Percentage
Matt. 1:1, 18;	None	MAT	2	0
Mk. 1:1;	None	MAR	1	0
Luke (None)	None	LUK	0	0
Jn. 1:17; 17:3;	None	JOH	2	0
Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	Gospels	5	0	100.0%	0.0%
Acts 2:38; 3:6; 4:10; 8:12; 9:34; 10:36, 48; 11:17; 15:26; 16:18; 20:21; 28:31;	Acts 24:24;	ACT	12	1	92.3%	7.7%
Rom. 1:1, 4, 6, 7 8; 3:22; 5:1, 11, 15, 17, 21; 7:25; 13:14; 15:6, 30; 16:20, 25, 27;	Rom. 2:16; 3:24; 6:3, 11, 23; 8:1, 2, 11, 34, 39; 15:5, 16, 17; 16:3;	ROM	18	14
1 Co. 1:2, 3, 7, 8. 9; 2:2; 3:11; 6:11; 8:6; 15:57;	1 Co. 1:1, 2, 4, 30; 4:15; 15:31; 16:24;	1CO	10	7
2 Co. 1:2, 3, 19; 4:5; 8:9; 13:5, 14;	2 Co. 1:1;	2CO	7	1
Gal. 1:1, 3, 12; 2:16; 3:1, 22; 6:14, 18;	Gal. 2:4, 16; 3:14, 26, 28; 4:14; 5:6, 24;	GAL	8	8
1 Thess. 1:1, 3; 5:9, 23, 28;	1 Thess. 2:14; 5:18;	1TH	5	2
Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	"Genuine"	30	18	62.5%	37.5%
Eph. 1:2, 3, 5, 17; 5:20; 6:23, 24;	Eph. 1:1a, 1b; 2:6, 7, 10, 13, 20; 3:1, 6, 11, 21;	EPH	7	11
Phil. 1:2, 6, 11, 19; 2:11, 21; 3:20; 4:23;	Phil. 1:1, 8, 26; 2:5; 3:3, 8, 12, 14; 4:7, 19, 21;	PHI	8	11
Col. 1:3;	Col. 1:1, 4; 2:6; 4:12;	COL	1	4
2 Thess. 1:1, 2, 12; 2:1, 14, 16; 3:6, 12, 18;	None	2TH	9	0
Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	"Disputed"	25	26	49.0%	51.0%
1 Tim. 1:16; 6:3, 14;	1 Tim. 1:1a, 1b, 2, 12, 14, 15; 2:5; 3:13; 4:6; 5:21; 6:13;	1TI	3	11
2 Tim. 2:8;	2 Tim. 1:1a, 1b, 2, 9, 10, 13; 2:1, 3, 10; 3:12, 15; 4:1;	2TI	1	12
Tit. 1:1; 2:13; 3:6;	Tit. 1:4;	TIT	3	1
Phlm. 1:3, 25;	Phlm. 1:1, 9, 23	PHM	2	3
Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	Pastorals	9	27	25.0%	75.0%
Heb. 10:10; 13:8, 21;	None	HEB	3	0	100.0%	0.0%
Jas. 1:1; 2:1;	None	JAM	2	0
1 Pet. 1:1 2, 3a, 3b, 7, 13; 2:5; 3:21; 4:11;	None	1PE	9	0
2 Pet. 1:1, 8, 11, 14, 16; 2:20; 3:18;	None	2PE	7	0
1 Jn. 1:3; 2:1; 3:23; 4:2; 5:6, 20;	None	1JN	6	0
2 Jn. 1:3, 7;	None	2JN	2	0
3 Jn (None)	None	3JN	0	0
Jude 1:1, 4, 17, 21, 25;	None	JUD	5	0
Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	"General"	31	0	100.0%	0.0%
Rev. 1:1, 2, 5	None	REV	3	0	100.0%	0.0%
Jesus Christ:	Christ Jesus:	TOT	118	72	62.1%	37.9%

I subtotaled the relative proportions to illustrate the real differences by groups. The four Gospels; Acts (alone, as I am not convinced was written by same author as Luke); the five generally uncontested letters of Paul (ROM, 1CO, 2CO, GAL & 1TH); the four "disputed" letters to cities (EPH, PHI, COL & 2TH); the four "Pastorals" (1TI, 2TI, TIT, PHM); Hebrews (alone, again, as its likely not by any genuine Paul); the seven "General" letters (JAM, 1PE, 2PE, 1JN, 2JN, 3JN & JUD, which are usually transmitted along with ACT).

This does NOT include "Jesus" alone, or "Christ" alone, or "Lord" (whether alone or whether in combination with any of the previous).

From experience, I'd say "Christ" (alone) far outnumbers "Jesus" (alone). "Lord" gets a little complicated. If the term proceeds either J, C, JC or CJ, should it be treated differently that if it comes after, as in "our Lord"?

If that is the case, then the combinations would be: J, LJ, JL, C, LC, CL, JC, LJC, JCL, CJ, LCJ, CJL

DCH

[MrMacSon]

also to Clive (and anyone else interested) -

I took DCH's data and categorized it further (in the next post to the one above); Reproduced here (with slight grammatical or layout modification)

Re-worked subtotals of the relative proportions to illustrate the real differences by groups.

1. The four Gospels;
2. Acts (alone, as I am not convinced was written by same author as Luke);
3. the five generally uncontested letters of Paul (ROM, 1CO, 2CO, GAL & 1TH);
4. the four "disputed" letters to cities (EPH, PHI, COL & 2TH);
5. the four "Pastorals" (1TI, 2TI, TIT, PHM);
6. Hebrews (alone, again, as its likely not by any genuine Paul);
7. the seven "General" letters (JAM, 1PE, 2PE, 1JN, 2JN, 3JN & JUD, which are usually transmitted along with ACT).

The Gospels, 'the seven "General" letters', Revelation (aka the Apocalypse), and Hebrews, are all 100% *Jesus Christ*,

Acts (which you note "are usually transmitted along with the seven 'General' letters") is 92% *Jesus Christ* (12/13),

The 5 "genuine Paulines" are ~2/3 'Jesus Christ' and ~1/3 'Christ Jesus',

The "disputed Paulines" are 50/50; and

The Pastorals are 25% 'JC' and 75% 'CJ'.

[MrMacSon]

That it's pre-70 I base on the evidence that Paul demonstrates no knowledge of the events of the War of 68-70. He speaks of Jews as redeemable as anyone else. That doesn't prove the texts we work with are pre-70 but it's a reasonable starting point.

Could Paul be writing elsewhere: somewhere distant with little knowledge of events in Jerusalem in 68-70 AD/CE??

"Could" be but way too little evidence to support this speculation to make it viable. That's not to say later persons added much to his writings. In fact there's no evidence I can think of at all to support such speculation. Simpler explanation for contents of his letters (as Ben Smith outlined) is that he was pre 70.

Can I change my reply? You asked if Paul could have been writing in the second century and I do not believe so, for many reasons. That part I hold to.

But I do not discount the possibility that much of the Pauline literature was composed in the second century. Presumably the first drafts approximated what Paul himself taught, if that did happen, or at least they approximated what he taught as reshaped by the needs of whoever wrote the letters.

But that's not a question I've looked into for quite some time now. But Paul himself certainly was pre-70.

Cheers Neil.

[neilgodfrey]

Actually much of what I've said in these comments has been on auto-pilot. I haven't studied the epistles seriously for a long time now. There is also Brodie's view to consider: that the epistles were written by a school, not an individual. I used to do a bit of study into the whole ancient letter writing genre and the different ways this was used by philosophers and others. Maybe in the future I can return to studying all of this in depth again. Who knows where that might lead.

[Clive]

How do we tell intention? A name, Jesus or Christ or some combination, or a title, God's anointed saviour?

[neilgodfrey]

How do we tell intention? A name, Jesus or Christ or some combination, or a title, God's anointed saviour?

If you are asking how we can tell if Christ is used as a name or as a title you can find one discussion attempting to answer this in Novenson's book which I have discussed here -- start at post 3b.

[Clive]

Christ (/kraɪst/; Ancient Greek: Χριστός, Christós, meaning "anointed") is a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ) and the Syriac (M'shiha), the Messiah,

Wiki

I am making a different point - does Christ mean Messiah? Is it a translation of the Hebrew Messiah? Or is that a conflation of war lord/kings and anointing priests? Jesus also means saves, another possible conflation?

Name above names?

[iskander]

...
I am making a different point - does Christ mean Messiah? Is it a translation of the Hebrew Messiah? Or is that a conflation of war lord/kings and anointing priests? Jesus also means saves, another possible conflation?

Name above names?

It does not really matter what Christ means in other languages. It is the meaning Christians give to this word what matters.


Take a simple contemporary example , the word " gay" has acquired a new meaning : gay .Apparently it is intended to be understood as " good as you ".
Take a simple ancient example, the word " Messiah " has acquired a new meaning :Christ . Apparently it is intended to be understood as " attributes an atoning death to the works of the Messiah"

[Clive]

My point is that it appears the meanings changed for the xians themselves, and we therefore need to be very careful what meanings "Paul" was using, or if this is evidence of composite writing, with people using the same terms but with different meanings.

Isn't Jesus meaning saviour also similar to Messiah, so Jesus Christ is saying the same thing twice?

The priest king is critical here. Is a possible translation of Christ Jesus Priest King?

[Ulan]

I am making a different point - does Christ mean Messiah? Is it a translation of the Hebrew Messiah? Or is that a conflation of war lord/kings and anointing priests?

It's a direct translation, yes. It definitely becomes a name/title when it's transliterated, like the Greek "Messias" or the Roman "Christus". Otherwise it means just anointed. In the OT, it's used for kings and high priests (or even all priests at the temple in Daniel).