Shilo as Χρηστός

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 17978
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Shilo as Χρηστός

Post by Secret Alias »

People say that the use of Χρηστός among Christians can only be a "mistake" for Χριστός.

I would like to take this space to evaluate the idea laid forth by teacher and friend Rory Boid that "Shilo" was interpreted by the Greek translators to be something like "the Right One."

1. while there were many ways to translate Shilo one of the most consistent approaches of the early Greek translators is to take the word to mean "belongs to (him)" שלו.
2. the Aramaic phrase "שלו" (pronounced "shelo") translates to "belong to him" or "his" in English. Aramaic is an ancient Semitic language that has historical and cultural significance. In this context, the term "שלו" is possessive, indicating ownership or association. So, when used in a sentence, it signifies something that belongs to a male person or is associated with him.
3. Shilo is traditionally associated with a messianic figure, the Septuagint translators might have used terms such as "the one to whom it belongs" or "belonging to him."
4. The various Greek translators rendered "Shilo" as ἀπόκειται, ἀποκείμενα etc.
5. I think to "store something up" for someone is to store up for their use.

I think the title THE Chrestos had something to do with use.

Here is what Boid wrote to me at one point:
I mentioned to you long ago that Chrêstos, although superlative in form, often only means appropriate or right, not the most appropriate. The connotation of the common use of the superlative form is to signify the right person or the right thing, when only one can be the right one. The right one is therefore the one most right. The right one is therefore superior even to Moses.. This is to be the king that will be a king in the full sense, unlike David or Solomon, who were far inferior to Moses. He will be greater even than Moses. Translate Shiloh as “the right one”. Aquila, the translation authorised by Rabbinic Judaism, is the most explicit. The Peshitta agrees. I don’t mean this is the literal etymological meaning, because that is obscure, but this is what the word was universally taken to mean in the context. Neither does the LXX disagree in translating the word as ΑΠΟΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΣ meaning “the one stored away”. See Deuteronomy XXXII: 34. (The next verse gives you Menachem, the comforter and avenger, both being literal meanings of the word). Whose body lay uncorrupted in an unfindable cave, waiting for the time of Manifestation? Neither does the Rabbinic connection with descent from Judah ultimately differ. Neither does the translation of Targum Onkelos differ when it translate both ways, as the Anointed to whom belongs the kingship. The Palestinian Targum has the Anointed one, the last of his descendants, meaning the last descendant of Judah to hold kingship, because holding complete and everlasting kingship. In this context, the anointing is the anointing of the High Priest, but the High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle, like Moses ... The words Christos and Chrêstos are different in meaning, but can obviously be applied to the same person and imply the same as each other about the status of that person. The ms. evidence in John IV supports Christos. I intend to try to list the places where the ms. evidence supports Chrêstos. Anyway, Chrêstos is a literal translation of Shiloh.
Secret Alias
Posts: 17978
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Shilo as Χρηστός

Post by Secret Alias »

I think there are certain features of the name "Chrestos" that make more sense than the Christos. For instance, the traditional Jewish notion of THE Messiah assumes that he is one of one. The Christian notion of XC assumes that we can all become like Christ, Christ-like. This is not a Jewish understanding. But contrast Menander's famous axiom:

ὁ χρηστός, ὡς ἔοικε, καὶ χρηστοὺς ποιεῖ.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7496
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Shilo as Χρηστός

Post by Peter Kirby »

Wikipedia has this reference (which makes it unclear what part comes from which source):

The name Shiloh is associated both with "MoSheH" (משה, Moses), whose name has the same numerical value as the word "ShiLoH" (שילה)[10]... and with Mashiach[11]

This interpretation goes back at least as far as the Targum Onkelos in the first century AD, and was indeed interpreted to be the promised Messiah in most traditional Jewish thoughts and writings.[12]

[10] Zohar I, 25b
[11] Rashi on Genesis 49:10
[12] Pentiuc, Eugen J. (2006). Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible. Paulist Press. p. 108. ISBN 9780809143467.

I suppose that still leaves open the question of how Shiloh would have been translated into Greek and/or which Greek concepts were believed to correspond to the Hebrew Shiloh, which I understand to be the purpose of this thread.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7496
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Shilo as Χρηστός

Post by Peter Kirby »

The thing mentioned in Wikipedia has been mentioned here previously:
Secret Alias wrote: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:58 am Shiloh = 345 = Moses = the returning (Moses) who is God = Shemah, haShem
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7496
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Shilo as Χρηστός

Post by Peter Kirby »

Revisiting the first few posts:
Secret Alias wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:55 am People say that the use of Χρηστός among Christians can only be a "mistake" for Χριστός.

I would like to take this space to evaluate the idea laid forth by teacher and friend Rory Boid that "Shilo" was interpreted by the Greek translators to be something like "the Right One."

1. while there were many ways to translate Shilo one of the most consistent approaches of the early Greek translators is to take the word to mean "belongs to (him)" שלו.
2. the Aramaic phrase "שלו" (pronounced "shelo") translates to "belong to him" or "his" in English. Aramaic is an ancient Semitic language that has historical and cultural significance. In this context, the term "שלו" is possessive, indicating ownership or association. So, when used in a sentence, it signifies something that belongs to a male person or is associated with him.
3. Shilo is traditionally associated with a messianic figure, the Septuagint translators might have used terms such as "the one to whom it belongs" or "belonging to him."
4. The various Greek translators rendered "Shilo" as ἀπόκειται, ἀποκείμενα etc.
5. I think to "store something up" for someone is to store up for their use.

I think the title THE Chrestos had something to do with use.

Here is what Boid wrote to me at one point:
I mentioned to you long ago that Chrêstos, although superlative in form, often only means appropriate or right, not the most appropriate. The connotation of the common use of the superlative form is to signify the right person or the right thing, when only one can be the right one. The right one is therefore the one most right. The right one is therefore superior even to Moses.. This is to be the king that will be a king in the full sense, unlike David or Solomon, who were far inferior to Moses. He will be greater even than Moses. Translate Shiloh as “the right one”. Aquila, the translation authorised by Rabbinic Judaism, is the most explicit. The Peshitta agrees. I don’t mean this is the literal etymological meaning, because that is obscure, but this is what the word was universally taken to mean in the context. Neither does the LXX disagree in translating the word as ΑΠΟΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΣ meaning “the one stored away”. See Deuteronomy XXXII: 34. (The next verse gives you Menachem, the comforter and avenger, both being literal meanings of the word). Whose body lay uncorrupted in an unfindable cave, waiting for the time of Manifestation? Neither does the Rabbinic connection with descent from Judah ultimately differ. Neither does the translation of Targum Onkelos differ when it translate both ways, as the Anointed to whom belongs the kingship. The Palestinian Targum has the Anointed one, the last of his descendants, meaning the last descendant of Judah to hold kingship, because holding complete and everlasting kingship. In this context, the anointing is the anointing of the High Priest, but the High Priest of the Heavenly Tabernacle, like Moses ... The words Christos and Chrêstos are different in meaning, but can obviously be applied to the same person and imply the same as each other about the status of that person. The ms. evidence in John IV supports Christos. I intend to try to list the places where the ms. evidence supports Chrêstos. Anyway, Chrêstos is a literal translation of Shiloh.
Secret Alias wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:34 pm I think there are certain features of the name "Chrestos" that make more sense than the Christos. For instance, the traditional Jewish notion of THE Messiah assumes that he is one of one. The Christian notion of XC assumes that we can all become like Christ, Christ-like. This is not a Jewish understanding. But contrast Menander's famous axiom:

ὁ χρηστός, ὡς ἔοικε, καὶ χρηστοὺς ποιεῖ.
Which is, translated: "The kind, as it seems, also makes others kind."

This is what I find online in "Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers":

We have, secondly, Shiloh, the reading of the present Hebrew text. This would mean, Peaceful, or Peace-maker, and agrees with the title given to the Messiah by Isaiah (Genesis 9:6). But, thirdly, all the versions excepting the Vulg. read Sheloh. Thus, the LXX. has, “He for whom it is laid up” (or, according to other MSS., “the things laid up for him.”). With the former reading, Aquila and Symmachus agree; with the latter, Theodotion, Epiphanius, and others, showing that Sheloh was the reading in the centuries immediately after the Nativity of our Lord. The Samaritan transcript of the Hebrew text into Samaritan letters reads Sheloh, and the translation into Aramaic treats the word as a proper name, and renders, “Until Sheloh come.” Onkelos boldly paraphrases, “Until Messiah come, whose is the kingdom;” and, finally, the Syriac has, “Until he come, whose it is.” There is thus overwhelming evidence in favour of the reading Sheloh, and to this we must add that Sheloh is the reading even of several Hebrew MSS.

So there are differences in translation (and I will have to learn what the Greek word used by Aquila was).

I think this gets to the main point of the OP (from Boid):

Translate Shiloh as “the right one”. Aquila, the translation authorised by Rabbinic Judaism, is the most explicit. The Peshitta agrees. I don’t mean this is the literal etymological meaning, because that is obscure, but this is what the word was universally taken to mean in the context. ... The words Christos and Chrêstos are different in meaning, but can obviously be applied to the same person and imply the same as each other about the status of that person ... I intend to try to list the places where the ms. evidence supports Chrêstos. Anyway, Chrêstos is a literal translation of Shiloh.

The straightforward way to follow up on this would be, I think, to track down the same places that Boid has in mind.

He has mentioned Aquila and the Peshitta already. And it seems possible that Aquila agrees with Symmachus.

So I'm curious what Aquila and the Peshitta say here.
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1300
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Re: ἀποκείμενα = 'secreting away' in Philo J.

Post by billd89 »

Secret Alias wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:55 am ...I would like to take this space to evaluate the idea ... that "Shilo" was interpreted by the Greek translators to be something like "the Right One."

...
4. The various Greek translators rendered "Shilo" as ἀπόκειται, ἀποκείμενα etc.
5. I think to "store something up" for someone is to store up for their use.

I think the title THE Chrestos had something to do with "use."
Sure, but is ἀπόκειται, ἀποκείμενα the correct starting place? Rather than ChatGPT 'paraphrasing' or whatev (nonsense, hallucinations, etc.), I think it would be better to 'manually' search Scaife for ἀποκείμενα and all such variants. In such a Search, the only appearances of ἀποκείμενα in Philo Judaeus are at Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat 128 and De Mutatione Nominum 199. In both examples, the term is specifically associated with 'secreting away' not 'storing' in the 'useful' sense (as the OP would have it); worse yet, elsewhere, e.g. LA 3.35, this secreting away is explicitly condemned. That's damning: ἀποκείμενα (in Philo) doesnt mean what ChatGPT thinks it does. Actually, in Philo it's contraindicated. Ergo: a dead-end!

HOWEVER, on "usefulness" in a narrower, more relevant sense, the philology would have χρεώ/χρώμενοι here, here, here; χρἤσται, χρηστεύομαι = to show oneself serviceable to others, χρηστικός = knowing how to use, understanding the use of a thing; useful, serviceable; and χρηστός obviously; χρηστότης lastly, if remotely. Philo's Experienced (χρώμενοι) may offer the connection we seek: he uses the term over 25x.

Coincidentally, I had begun pursuing a partial investigation of this idea about a week ago. I began thinking about (possibly mystical) terminology in Philo Judaeus' works -- though I have long wondered about the 'Usefulness' angle (I've been researching this over 8 years). In DVC, Philo's term prohairesis infers a "moral purpose" in the soul-healing Therapeutae: is this not the definition of 'Good, Useful People'? Was this our Therapeuts' service-model, or their particular God-Concept? Precisely how the Therapeutae were helpful, in their daily activities -- as itinerant Jewish soul-healers or (!!!) in others' pagan temples -- is a burning question indeed.

DVC 2. And the prohairesis {=intentionality: life-purpose} of these philosophers is immediately apparent by their designation (Therapeutae), ... because they would profess an art ... which ministers to souls of the ten mental maladies, oppressively grievous and almost incurable, afflicted by hedonisms and cravings and pains, and greedy fears, and follies and iniquities, and all other passions and the plethora of never-ending vices ...

More on point to Philo's A. A. (i.e. who theoretically taught Jesus, acolyte in their cult), my answer is 'the Khromenoi', however. That was resolved almost two years ago. To wit: these Jews were Experienced, therefore Useful. Any underlying or branch philology is still unknown to me (still doubtful); but here we DO have Philo c.15 AD elaborating a cult (as the Edelsteins in 1938 elaborated a re-creation) placing 'Usefulness' AND 'Experience' at the core.

χρώμενοι is the plural of χρώμενος, which is derived from the verb χράομαι.
billd89 wrote: Mon Apr 25, 2022 3:18 pm Reading Liddell-Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (1940), by variant definitions of Khromenoi (= the Therapeutae; or Philo's A. A.) should be those who a) consult/inquire {e.g. an oracle}; b) are experienced {e.g. in suffering, revelation}; c) become friendly or intimate with another {e.g. God}; d) make use of {e.g. a method} and e) proclaim the 'Therapeutic Idea' or Archetypal Hermeneutic of this Jewish mystical cult. In these definitions, there is also a sense of their Employment for a higher goal, divine Agency.

From the Edelsteins' monumental Torah of Sobriety, Khromenoi correspondingly will be those who a) in daily inventory, "ask God's forgiveness and inquire what corrective measures should be taken," those who have b) "had a vital spiritual experience," those who c) have a "new-found Friend" in God, those who d) are "willing to make use of our experience" for their own spiritual recovery, so d) to "make use of spiritual principles," and then e) to share our A. A. message, "our way of life." God is the Director, you are his agent, etc.

How Philo Judaeus uses this seemingly trivial term χρώμενοι (an engaged state of being?) in his other works may provide greater insights. But this concept is richly elaborated in the Neo-Therapeut recovery bible written in 1938. Our Archetype (i.e. the Therapeutae = Aletheian Anthropoi: the primeval A. A.) is rather obvious, but the Prototype is mysterious still.
Again: I personally don't disagree w/ searching for 'Usefulness' in the Philonica, a logical source for hints of the Chrestianoi. I suspect that, in the beginning, Chrestianoi were merely pagans and Jews who went to Khromenoi sermons, as first-stage followers or 'good folks' who heard Proclamation(s) of 'The Experienced' and were willing to accept their message. But we need better examples, as proof, from the Philonica.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7496
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Shilo as Χρηστός

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:55 pmJudaism is subsequent to Samaritanism. It wasn't that "all the Israelites" were "Jews" and then Samaritans rebelled against "original concepts" like the Davidic messiah. The specifically Jewish ideas came later. That's why there is no mention of THE messiah in the Pentateuch.
I know you've been posting on the "Shiloh" text (Genesis 49:10).

Is the idea of a prophet like Moses also relevant here?

https://www.livius.org/articles/religio ... ike-moses/

Deuteronomy 18.15-19
Moses said: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For that is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: 'Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see His great fire any more, or we will die.'
The Lord said to me: "What they say is good. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command them. If anyone does not listen to My words that the prophet speaks in My name, I Myself will call him to account.'"

There is barely any acknowledgement above that this is not necessarily a "messiah" (slightly more so here):

https://www.livius.org/articles/religio ... n-prophet/

The Samaritan prophet may be called a Messiah, because he announced the restoration of the cult in the Samarian temple, which was on Mount Gerizim. But he was not a Messiah in its original sense, because that is a Jewish concept. The Samaritan equivalent is the Taheb, the Restorer-prophet "like Moses" announced in Deuteronomy 18.15-18.

So, anyway, ... is the "prophet" from Deuteronomy relevant here?
Post Reply