oil for thought:
Clive Durdle said:
So we actually have LORD JESUS CHRIST or various nomina sacra.
1. Are these being correctly translated?
2. Doesn't this actually mean god's anointed saviour?
3. So are we looking at a name of someone or a title or a descriptive phrase?
4. A name of a god would be blasphemous in the Hebrew world wouldn't it?
5. In the writings of Paul this phrase is often spun around - Christ Jesus for example. Why is that?
metacristi said:
'Christ' of course means 'messiah' (the anointed one)
Addressing point by point, let's refer to the actual extant texts. For the new testament, Codex Sinaiticus is useful. For the old testament, pages are missing from that venerable source, so we must wait a couple more years, until the Vatican has scanned this critical early text.
spin's responses at the former BC&H forum, represent an instructive and authoritative reply to all these questions. My apologies Clive, for being unable to recreate his former posts. He has written on all of these important topics, but I neglected to make a copy of his excellent discussions on these points. I had thought I would always be able to click on the search engine there.
So, my recollection of his main point, was this: look at the original text. His second “dictum”, so to speak, “avoid inserting our own interpretation, onto the ancient text”.
Since I remember neither spin's specific answers, to these questions, nor the list of appropriate citations, he had furnished, in addressing these several points above, I offer my own, amateurish response. My reply, Clive, is not an adequate substitute for spin's comments of yesteryear.
From Codex Sinaiticus, we read in Mark 1:1
αρχη του ευαγγελι ου ιυ χυ
beginning of good news of iu xu, where both iu and xu have a superscript, not an underline, as I have written.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34
The xu with a superscript, designates one of two Greek words: Strong's 5548 XRIO, chi, rho, iota, omega, or 5547 XRISTO, derived from 5548. I do not know which authority defines the convention employed in the fourth century, when Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus had been copied. How do we know which of the two Greek words, the scribes had in mind, when they wrote xu with superscript? We know how the xu + superscript is interpreted, today, as 5547, not 5548. But which authority defines that convention, before the appearance of these two codices?
Liddell and Scott define XRIO as : “to touch the surface of a body, to anoint with scented unguents or oil, especially after bathing. (Also used to describe rubbing an arrow with poison, or dying the body with vermillion, and finally, to prick or sting, i.e. puncture the body slightly)
If we inquire from a teenager, texting with a cell phone:
“What is an ap?”
The teen will look confused, and wonder to themselves, which planet this old geezer inhabited, before his transport here, to planet earth, yesterday.
Persistant inquiry, from the average tenth grader, will yield a smirk and an explanation, something like this:
“Its for your finger to get movies and listen to music, jerk.”
It will be nearly impossible to find an ordinary, public school educated, middle school student, to acknowledge that “ap” is the abbreviation employed to represent “application”.
Perhaps the scribes all knew, intuitively, which Greek word xu + superscript represented. I don't know where that distinction is spelled out, i.e. where that code had been elaborated.
In Codex Vaticanus, (one of the pages that have been photographed and available online)
we read for the same passage, an additional couple of words, and close scrutiny of Codex Sinaiticus reveals, that these important two words have been inserted, as nomina sacra, into the text of Mark 1:2, as tiny letters with very tiny superscripts, just above the kappa and alpha in the next word of the text, “kathos”, first word of Mark 1:2. Those two words are υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. Yeah, I know three words. But, the two important words are designated by these tiny letters, (nomina sacra) upsilon--upsilon + superscript, and theta--upsilon + superscript in Codex Sinaiticus, and in a slight variation in Codex Vaticanus: upsilon iota omicron upsilon, (uiou, spelled out, not abbreviated, English, “son”) without any superscript, and theta--upsilon + superscript, the nomen sacrum for “god”, i.e. theou.
http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_024a.jpg
The Byzantine version of the same passage spells everything out, no more nomina sacra, no more confusion:
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ
Clive, many folks will tell you, that these nomina sacra, found in our oldest manuscripts, represent abbreviations for God and other divine entities, like god's son, for example. However, there are manuscripts extant yet today, which display nomina sacra, representing words which are neither sacred, nor “holy”.
http://bricecjones.weebly.com/1/post/2013/09/an-odd-nomen-sacrum-in-pbodmer-xiv-xv-p75.html
This is not a simple matter, in my view.
“Lord”. Clive, this is a can of worms. Sheshbazzar is another authority here, and his opinion certainly trumps mine. In my view, one not shared so far as I am aware, by many other folks, YHWH, found in the oldest extant copy of Deuteronomy, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, is not equal to the Hebrew word for “Lord”, adonai. Many folks argue that I err, and that “adonai”, (aka “kuriou” in Greek and “lord” in English) had been used in ancient times, by Jews, unwilling to write YHWH (in Hebrew of course), lest they offend God. I believe that tradition emerged after the return to Jerusalem, from Babylon, probably after Alexander conquered Egypt, and imposed Greek on the population. Since Alexander was “lord”, perhaps the confusion arose from the earliest days of the Greek empire. Point is, “Lord” in English, refers to a divine presence, and “lord”, refers to a human head of state, or head of government, or head of something involving power or wealth. When spoken, there is no distinction made between the two concepts.
It is my contention, that ancient Jews would not have used the Hebrew word “adonai” to refer to YHWH, because the same word is used to represent ordinary humans, whose stature in society is lofty because of wealth and political stature, but who are going to suffer the same fate as all humans: death, whereas, YHWH is not a human, and does not die. So, I cannot accept the widely held opinion, that “adonai”, aka “kuriou”, aka “lord” represents a divine person, de facto.
For one reason or another, these days, and probably for many centuries, perhaps all the way back to the second century CE, “lord” became synonymous and interchangeable with iesou. Is it a title, or a name?
Both.
Messiah: another issue of contention. The Greek word is not “messiah”. It is χϲ with superscript, interpreted, in the year 2014, as Strong's 5547, christos. Same word is found in Mark 1:1.
Codex Vaticanus Mark 14:61 is slightly different from Sinaiticus, and the two versions are worth consulting.
http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_03/GA03_036a.jpg
Codex Sinaiticus, Mark 14:61
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=14&lid=en&side=r&verse=61&zoomSlider=0
… παλιν ο αρχϊερευϲ επηρωτα αυτον κ(αι) λεγει αυτω “ ϲυ ει ο χϲ ο υϲ του θυ “ (quote symbols added by avi)
… again the high priest was questioning him, and says to him “ you are the xc the uc of the theou”?
Of significance, (at least to me, if no one else), Vaticanus spells out, (no abbreviation, no superscript, no “nomina sacra”), the word Εὐλογητοῦ, “blessed one”, whereas, Sinaiticus writes theta upsilon with superscript, representing theou, “God”, or, in the minds of the Jews, YHWH. Notice, here, Clive, nothing about “kuriou”, or “lord”. The Vaticanus writes “blessed one”, not kuriou. I find that very interesting.
Haha. Clive, use the magnification feature at Codex Sinaiticus' wonderful web site, and you will see, at the end of Mark 14:61, in tiny letters, after the nomen sacrum theta upsilon + superscript, the word,
Εὐλογητοῦ.
Somebody added it, later, after the fact, to ensure conformance with the newer version, the Codex Vaticanus.
But, what happened to “Messiah”? It isn't there, Clive.
The mystery deepens.
Jerome's Vulgate text offers a “reliable” translation of the original Hebrew,
LXX:
http://www.katapi.org.uk/katapiNSBu...rg.uk/katapiNSBunix/Lxx/LxxByBC.php?GB=3&GC=4
ἐὰν μὲν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ κεχρισμένος ἁμάρτῃ
notice the word, κεχρισμένος, anoint, Strong's 5548, then, in Leviticus 4:5, two verses later,
καὶ λαβὼν ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ χριστὸς ….
and taking the priest anointed....
The Hebrew word in the original text is derived from mashiak, to smear, or anoint.
Hebrew translated from Jerome's Vulgate into Latin and then, recently, into English
http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=0&b=3&c=4
si sacerdos qui est unctus peccaverit delinquere faciens populum offeret pro peccato suo vitulum inmaculatum Domino
Here, in Roman letters is the Hebrew word of both Leviticus 4:3 and 4:5
ham·mā·šî·aḥ , from which we observe masiah, obviously, messiah. This word, Strong's 4899, mashiak, simply means anointed, not “saviour”.
Many people in ancient times were anointed. Not all of them, in fact, a tiny tiny minority, were destined to become “saviours”.
We observe this same problem with translation errors concerning “messiah”, in another famous verse:
Deuteronomy 18:15
Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen
That's not how this verse is translated by LXX or in the traditional English versions of the Catholics and Protestants.
The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear
The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear
So, the Christians refuse to name YHWH, substituting “lord” instead. The word used is not “messiah”, but “prophet”.
Somehow, we moved from “prophet” to “anointed” to “messiah”--> meaning not “anointed” (its Hebrew root) but “saviour”, contrary to metacristi's comment.
If we look at 1000 years of English language tradition, since Norman times, the concept of “messiah” has always been “saviour”, irrespective of whether or not someone had poured olive oil on the guy's head, “anointed”.
). By the way a good read so far (although of course the supporters of mythicism won't see any significant difference in Ehrman's views in spite of the 'revolution' advocated by Carrier and others 
