Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Yonah Mishael wrote:

> > HH: The idea of national redemption for Israel is not lost in the term> 
> > Christ. Nor is the idea of Davidic kingship.
> >    
> YM: More specifically, the Davidic kingship about which I amcommenting refers 
> to the national king who reigns from Jerusalem.
> Christ connotes a world savior rather than the Messiah who gathersIsrael in 
> from exile.
>  

HH: Christ connotes whatever the Scripture says about the Messiah, and 
one of the things it says is that he will rule the world from Jerusalem.

> > HH: Christ is the English translation of the Greek word CRISTOS, which> was the 
> > translation for the Hebrew word MESHIACH. You are arguing about> what you think each word 
> > connotes, but the translations are obvious. The> content of the English word Christ comes 
> > from the revelation in the> Bible given about this figure. Any other connotations the 
> > word may have> are irrelevant to a Bible-believing person.
> >    
> YM: Christ is an English *transliteration* (not translation). TheEnglish translation of 
> both משיח and χριστος is "anointed."
>  

HH: The reference of all three terms is the same, the Jewish Messiah. 
The terms are normally used as nouns, not adjectives, in this usage. 
"The Anointed One" is clumsy. "Messiah" is a legitimate translation of 
Greek XRISTOS, and some Bibles are using it.

> I am saying that the ideas associated with the two terms aredifferent, and 
> this would be apparent to anyone with no theologicalaxe to grind.
>  

HH: The ideas belonging to the terms come from the Bible. When the New 
Testament uses the term CRISTOS, it gives it the meaning of the Tanakh 
term. Of course there are many new connotations that accrue to the word 
in the NT, and you refer to those. The term Christ embodies the 
additional connotations given to the word in the NT, but it is still the 
same figure called Mashiach in the Tanakh, at least from a NT perspective.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard