"CHRIST" AND "CHRISTIANS"

The following bitS of nonsense (in italics) came from a friend of a friend, who may or may not be citing ideas in The Encyclopedia Judaica. Wherever it originated, I did not want it to stand without some sort of rebuttal.

“In the Hebrew manuscripts, Jesus is never referred to as “christ.”

There are no Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament.

Four times in the gospel accounts and twice in the account entitled Acts, Jesus is correctly identified as Jesus of Nazareth.

The totally unjustified conclusion implied by the word “correctly” is that any other designation is incorrect. In fact, Jesus was known by several different names in the NT, including Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus.

While the term “Christian” appears three times in the apostolic documents, those of the way of Jesus were known as Nazarenes.”

The three times believers are called “Christians” (Christianos) are in Acts 11:26,28, and I Peter 4:16. Acts 11:26 says that they were first called Christians in Antioch, indicating that it was the name they were also known by later on. To prove that they were called Nazarenes instead, the following quotation was provided.

"For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Heb. Natsarim).” (Acts 24:5)

Of course, all that proves is that on that particular occasion, they were also known as Nazarenes. And the reason that was done is quite clear. Rengstorf, in his article on the subject in The Dictionary of New Testament Theology, explains, “As a term to denote Christians in Gk. areas (Acts 24:5), Nazaratos seems to have disappeared quite early in favour of Christianos (Acts 11:26), while it was retained in this sense in Jewish areas and survives today in Heb. nosri as a designation for one who believes in Jesus.”

Thus, in Acts 24:5 it is the Jewish high priest Ananias who uses “Nazarene.” And then a little later in Jewish writings, the Jewish Talmud reads at beginning of the Eighteen Benedictions: “May the Nazarenes and heretics disappear in a moment; they shall be erased from the book of life and not be written with the faithful.” (R. Meyer) Nordholt also states: “From a Jewish point of view, the Christians...are described as belonging to...'the sect of the Nazarenes.'”

At this point, it becomes obvious that a Jewish source such as The Encyclopedia Judaica is behind the above contentions. And the reason why they are dead set against the words Christos and Christianos is quite natural. To use those designations in any fashion or to admit of their ancient pedigree would be to state that Jesus of Nazareth was the anointed king of Israel, the awaited Messiah.

The term “christ” was not limited to Jesus as it was of common use in paganism. The Vatican has a relief of the pagan god Mithras with the caption “chrestos mithras” – Good Mithras. Osiris is also referred to as “chrestos.”

At this point, their argument gets not just badly slanted but resorts to out-and-out false statements. In an attempt to discredit the Greek word christos, they purposely confuse it with a completely different Greek word, chrestos, simply meaning “good.” The only relation between the two words whatsoever lies in their similar pronunciation. Rengstorf explains “that for the Gk. environment of developing Christianity christos had taken on the meaning of a proper name, a process which would have been facilitated by the resemblance to the name Chrestos, pronounced Christos.”

It was actually that similarity in sound that caused Emperor Claudius to mistakenly say in his edict of AD 49 expelling all the Jews from Rome that it was because of a disturbance arising over a person named “Chrestos.” (see Acts 18:1-2)

Due to translations difficulties, the Hebrew “mashiach” became the Greed (sic) “messiah.” The Hebrew term denotes “anointed King of Israel.” Hence, all the kings of Israel were “mashiachim.” Hence, while the term “christ” has become associated with “anointed,” its meaning was “good.” As early as Justin Martyr the “faithful” were called “chrestoi” – good men. Clement of Alexandria stated: “all who are in Christ are called Crestoi, that is good men.”

The final objection is that some of the early Apostolic Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Clement called the believers chrestoi, meaning “good men.” Since no specific sources were mentioned, I couldn't track down either of those quotations. But it really isn't necessary since I am not at all surprised that Christians were called by many appropriate adjectives such as good, faithful, caring, loving, dedicated, etc. But that by no means indicates that these (a) were technical terms for Christians or (b) that it invalidated the use of “Christian.” After all, Clement used the term Jesus Christ (christos, not chrestos) extensively in his writings, and Justin Martyr begins his Epistle to Diognetus with the words: “Since I see, most excellent Diognetus, that thou art exceedingly anxious to understand the religion of the Christians...” (Lightfoot's translation)

The above demonstrates that one must always “consider the source” when encountering any sort of objection to Christianity. That does not mean that we can just ignore what opponents have to say, just that we need to check out their statements carefully and not simply take them at face value.