Messiah/christ Anachronism

[mass168]

I'm sure it has been discussed somewhere before, I was unable to find it. What is a current explanation for why the BOM gives the name of the Son to be Christ (ex. 2 Nephi 10:3)? I have read the FAIR explanation and it seems to be missing the point. 

[Okrahomer]

I'm sure it has been discussed somewhere before, I was unable to find it. What is a current explanation for why the BOM gives the name of the Son to be Christ (ex. 2 Nephi 10:3)? I have read the FAIR explanation and it seems to be missing the point.

Hello Mass 168!

Perhaps it would help focus the responses, if you could first explain why you feel the reference to Christ in 2 Nephi10:3 is anachronistic?

[mass168]

Hello Mass 168!

Perhaps it would help focus the responses, if you could first explain why you feel the reference to Christ in 2 Nephi10:3 is anachronistic?

Hello! 

 

Christ was not his name. It was a title, a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. In the narrative, the angel tells Jacob that would be his name. That alone is enough to set off the "hold on a second." But considering the background of the Nephites, with no knowledge of this later Greek translation, it seems even more out of place. 

[Okrahomer]

Hello!

Christ was not his name. It was a title, a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. In the narrative, the angel tells Jacob that would be his name. That alone is enough to set off the "hold on a second." But considering the background of the Nephites, with no knowledge of this later Greek translation, it seems even more out of place.

From the Fairmormon.org article:

"It should be remembered that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite text. The English word "Christian" is not the word that was originally on the Nephite record, but is the English word that Joseph Smith used when translating the original Nephite word. The word "Christian" simply means "Christ-believer" in common use and in the Book of Mormon. We don't know what the original Nephite word was for "Christian", but it signified something like "Christ-believer." The word "Christ" is a Greek word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word "Messiah." The concept of a future Messiah was taught in ancient Israel, and anyone who believed those prophecies would have been a "Messiah-believer". Therefore, all pre-Christian era Israelites who believed in the coming Messiah/Christ were Christians in this sense. This is the sense we find in the Book of Mormon."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Pre-Christian_Christianity

We do not know the actual Nephite word engraved on the plates--Christ was simply the word Joseph Smith used to capture its meaning.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Storm Rider]

In addition to what was just said, Christ and Jesus would be the names we would use today for the translation from any other language into English.  Why would it be different for Joseph?  Are you proposing that it would make more sense if he used words that had no correlation in English?

[mass168]

From the Fairmormon.org article:

"It should be remembered that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite text. The English word "Christian" is not the word that was originally on the Nephite record, but is the English word that Joseph Smith used when translating the original Nephite word. The word "Christian" simply means "Christ-believer" in common use and in the Book of Mormon. We don't know what the original Nephite word was for "Christian", but it signified something like "Christ-believer." The word "Christ" is a Greek word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word "Messiah." The concept of a future Messiah was taught in ancient Israel, and anyone who believed those prophecies would have been a "Messiah-believer". Therefore, all pre-Christian era Israelites who believed in the coming Messiah/Christ were Christians in this sense. This is the sense we find in the Book of Mormon."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Pre-Christian_Christianity

We do not know the actual Nephite word engraved on the plates--Christ was simply the word Joseph Smith used to capture its meaning.

I think that article is missing the point. The angel said it would be his name. It is not a name, it is a title. 

[mass168]

In addition to what was just said, Christ and Jesus would be the names we would use today for the translation from any other language into English.  Why would it be different for Joseph?  Are you proposing that it would make more sense if he used words that had no correlation in English?

I am proposing it was very strange to translate the word Christ, since the Nephites would have used the word Messiah. That was all they knew, they didn't know the title Christ if they were of Hebrew background at that time (100's of years before Christ coming). That is how all the scriptures referred to him. 

[Bobbieaware]

I think that article is missing the point. The angel said it would be his name. It is not a name, it is a title.

The New Testament frequently speaks of the "name" Jesus Christ. Are you saying the New Testament writers should have used the word "title" instead of using the word "name" when speaking of Jesus Christ? And do you believe the church today should perform the ordinances by the title of Jesus Christ rather than perform them in the name of Jesus Cjrist?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[filovirus]

Christ means Messiah. Most likely the nephites used the term "Messiah" or "Yahweh". "Christ" is the term Joseph Smith used in the translation. One must remember that Joseph's translations used common words for him at the time. No meaning is lost between the messiah and Christ because they mean the same thing.

[Okrahomer]

I think that article is missing the point. The angel said it would be his name. It is not a name, it is a title.

I agree that it is a title; however, it was also a name--please see Matthew 1:16 (KJV)

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

[strappinglad]

I see your point, that the Nephites were told His title instead of His name. Then again, what is a name? We have Elizabeth, Queen of England ( yes, I know, and a lot more places ). Elizabeth is her name and Queen is her title. We have Peter Johnson in the New Testament, sorry, Simon bar Jonah. Peter was apparently not his given name but one he was given later. Son of John was his title sort of. We have Nephi as a given name but it became a title later for other rulers. If I were to say that Jim was to be an important person on some TV program would that be better and more precise than if I were to write Captain Kirk ? How many men called Jesus are there in the world right now? How many called Christ? Perhaps the word is anachronistic but not, in my opinion, a problematic one.

[Kevin Christensen]

I see a strong possibility that much of the issue comes from not considering the culturally specific conventions of the Jewish Temple culture. Remember, 2 Nephi 25:1-5 is a discussion of the importance of cultural background. And remember that Jacob is a consecrated temple priest, with strong ties to the Pre-exilic tradition.

Here is 2 Nephi 10:2,3 ...God will be merciful unto them,and our children shall be restored, that the may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer. Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name... should come among the Jews.

Here is Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: 97.

Old texts suggest that before the reform the Name had been simply a a synonym for the presence of Yahweh, and not a substitute. There are several examples of this:
Behold the Name of Yahweh comes from far
Burning with his anger and in this rising smoke:
his lips are full of indignation
and his tongue like a devouring fire (Isa. 30.27)

This is a fire theophany in anthropomorphic terms.

She gives several other examples, where "the Name" is not used in the way we suppose when we read 2 Nephi 10:.
 

The Name was the presence and power of Yahweh. It could be manifested in human form in two ways: it could be 'in' someone, as exemplified by the angel of whom Yahweh said, 'My Name is in him' (Exod. 20.21) or it could 'clothe' someone....
There is a great deal in later tradition to suggest that the high priest when he wore the Name actually represented Yahweh, especially when he performed the atonement rituals.

Jacob is discoursing at the temple in the role of high priest, and the theme is atonement.
Barker continues: p 100.

The vital tradition of anthropomorphism, where the Name was in an angel, or a chosen himan being vested and crowned with the Name, was the older tradition, and it survived together with a great deal of the older theology. The early Christians drew on it: 'Therefore God has highly exalted him, and bestowed upon him the Name which is above every other name' (Phil. 2.90.

Barker also cites the gnostic statement that "The Name of the Father is the Son," and argues of the longstanding tradition "that 'the Name' was a separate being rather than just a name in our sense of the word, and that the Name was that aspect of God which could be perceived and known." (Barker, 102).

The tradition was closely bound up with the notion that the First Temple High priest was literally annointed with a mark that represented the Name, and therefore, in his role as anointed high priest, that priest represented by that anointing, the visible presence of God by means of that anointing, which is the Name. And Christ and Messiah both mean "anointed one."

So rather than anachronism, the Book of Mormon takes us into the First Temple traditions. It is important to remove the beams from our own eye before we can see clearly.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 8, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[nealr]

I think that article is missing the point. The angel said it would be his name. It is not a name, it is a title. 

 

From John Tvedtnes, a scholar of Hebrew:

 

In Hebrew, nouns and names (and some other parts of speech, such as adjectives and participles) are substantives, and the term shem (“name”) means both “name” and “title.”

 

 

http://bookofmormonresearch.org/book-of-mormon-criticisms/generic-criticisms-of-the-book-of-mormon/jesus-christ-and-his-life/christ

[strappinglad]

So, as can be seen from the above posts, had the name Jesus been used in 2 Nephi, there would have been more of a concern.

[mfbukowski]

Christ means Messiah. Most likely the nephites used the term "Messiah" or "Yahweh". "Christ" is the term Joseph Smith used in the translation. One must remember that Joseph's translations used common words for him at the time. No meaning is lost between the messiah and Christ because they mean the same thing.

The way it is written:

 

 

 3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that Christ—for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name—should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

 

The way Joseph might have translated it, but did not:

 

 3 Wherefore, as I said unto you, it must needs be expedient that  Christ— Messiah, for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name— He should be called Messiah, should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God.

As you point out, this is a non-issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hello! 

 

Christ was not his name. It was a title, a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. In the narrative, the angel tells Jacob that would be his name. That alone is enough to set off the "hold on a second." But considering the background of the Nephites, with no knowledge of this later Greek translation, it seems even more out of place. 

Christ is a title.  You are correct.  But so is Messiah a title.  Nephite is a title.  Quite often titles are used for names.  For example, Jehovah is a title, but is often used as a name.  Same applies to God, a title which can be used as a name.  Same for Father and Son.  Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost is also a title.  In fact the only real name you have above is "Jacob," which is really a Hebrew verb meaning "He shall deceive [popular etymology]," or "May (God) protect him."  However, in the NT, Jacob is substituted for by "James," because the two are equivalents in English.

 

The equivalence of Christ and Messiah is explicitly recognized In the NT (John 1:41 ton Messian, ho estin methermēneuomenon Christos; 4:25 Messias erchetai ho legomenos Christos), but, ignoring this fact, scholar Ed Ashment stated unequivocally that Joseph Smith “did not understand that to Nephites ‘Christ’ would have been a meaningless replacement in a totally foreign language” -- Ashment in B. Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon (SLC: Signature, 1993), 364 n. 24.  Of course it is understandable that non-scholars would make such a foolish error.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am proposing it was very strange to translate the word Christ, since the Nephites would have used the word Messiah. That was all they knew, they didn't know the title Christ if they were of Hebrew background at that time (100's of years before Christ coming). That is how all the scriptures referred to him. 

The Nephite records (Brass Plates, Book of Mormon plates) were kept in Egyptian, not Hebrew.  So it is possible that they simply transliterated the Classical Hebrew māšûaḥ into Egyptian characters directly, or have used an Egyptian word, such as gsy or tōhs.

 

The post-exilic Hebrew would have been māšîaḥ “anointed one”  (J. Milgrom), which would have been unknown to the Nephites.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Maedros]

I think the confusion comes with the definition of the word 'name' itself - in the verse it says: "that this should be his name" - so how is the word 'name' referred to in that sentence? Well, one of the definitions of the word is: "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to" so using this definition we can see that the name Christ was what he was to be addressed as or referred to, so his name was Jesus and he was referred to or addressed as Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the confusion comes with the definition of the word 'name' itself - in the verse it says: "that this should be his name" - so how is the word 'name' referred to in that sentence? Well, one of the definitions of the word is: "a word or set of words by which a person, animal, place, or thing is known, addressed, or referred to" so using this definition we can see that the name Christ was what he was to be addressed as or referred to, so his name was Jesus and he was referred to or addressed as Christ.

Actually, Jesus is also a title or epithet rather than a name, and it is Greco-Latin in form here, Yeshua in Hebrew.  Its meaning in Hebrew is "Salvation, Savior," or a short form of Joshua "Yeho (the Lord) will save."  Take your pick.  He is often called Jesus Christ, which means "Jesus, the Anointed-One."  Such terms can be translated into any language, but are most at home in Hebrew-Aramaic.

[halconero]

In the ancient Greco-Roman world (including Israel), the differentiation between a name and a title was not as big as you're making it sound. In fact, the dichotomy you're presenting is the true anachronism. Remember the famous verse in Isaiah immortalized by song?

"And his name shall be called Wonderful, Councilor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

If you have a problem with the Nephite record saying that Jesus' name shall be Christ, the Messiah or Anointed One, you're going to have a problem with Isaiah. In fact, a title is called a cognomen, a descriptive name.

Source: I read Ancient Greek and Hebrew and have a degree in ancient Biblical Writings from the University of Toronto. Blah blah blah, appeal to authority, I know.

Here are some other examples of title-names from the ancient world:

Caivs Ivlivs Caesar Octavianvs Avgvtvs (Gaius Julius the Redheaded Glorious Person)

Antiochus Soter (Antiochus Saviour)

John Maccabeus (John the Hammer)

Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer)

Charlemagne (Charles the Great)

In each case, the title is actually incorporated into the name.

[Uncle Dale]

I'm sure it has been discussed somewhere before, I was unable to find it. What is a current explanation for why the BOM gives the name of the Son to be Christ (ex. 2 Nephi 10:3)? I have read the FAIR explanation and it seems to be missing the point. 

 

 

Seems to me that the LDS explanation relies upon the precept

of gospel antiquity -- that is, that the "Plan of Salvation" goes

all the way back to the supposed primordial "Council of the Gods"

and Jehovah there offering to save man from his sin.

 

If I understand LDS theology correctly, there have been seven

dispensations of the Christian gospel. Adam was a Christian and

had a Christian immersion-baptism. Enoch was a Christian and

founded an entire Christian city, etc. etc.

 

If that explanation of things were indeed valid, then most (all?)

of the ancient prophets knew that Jesus the son of Mary would

"save man from his sin" -- all the way back to Noah and Adam.

 

If that explanation of things were indeed valid, then in each of

the seven dispensations there would have been inspired men

who understood messiahship just as clearly as late second

temple Jewish authorities -- just as clearly as the writers of

the Dead Sea Scrolls understood fully developed messianic

concepts of their day and age.

 

Thus, it would be no great surprise that Lehites and Nephites

(at least some of the more righteous and inspired ones) would

have understood that a Messiah with the "name" of Jesus

would be born in "the land of Jerusalem" in the "meridian of time."

 

Why the Book of Mormon calls "Christ" a "name" is something of

a mystery -- and I have never heard this scriptural oddity

explained to my satisfaction.

 

Needless to say, Mormons enrolling in advanced historical

and scriptural studies in accredited secular universities will

NOT encounter the "antiquity of the gospel" concept in their

coursework and readings (other than as a pseudo-biblical

notion peculiar to the Latter Day Saints and some other

minor Christian denominations).

 

Ask your local rabbi whether or not the preColumbian Americans

knew the "name" of "Jesus Christ" (as being the Jewish Messiah

to come) ---- and see what sort of response you get.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Ask your local rabbi whether or not the preColumbian Americans

knew the "name" of "Jesus Christ" (as being the Jewish Messiah

to come) ---- and see what sort of response you get.

 

UD

A rather odd comment.

 

Rabbis are typically not experts on ancient America, at least not that I know of, and no, it is not a Mormon claim that Pre Columbian Native Americans commonly knew the name "Jesus Christ", nor that that would even be known to secular scholars.

 

At the very least, I think that preColumbian native Americans had only a sketchy knowledge of modern English. 

 

If one is looking for anachronisms, I think I know where a few can be found. 

Edited June 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

A rather odd comment.

 

Rabbis are typically not experts on ancient America, at least not that I know of, and no, it is not a Mormon claim that Pre Columbian Native Americans commonly knew the name "Jesus Christ", nor that that would even be known to secular scholars.

 

At the very least, I think that preColumbian native Americans had only a sketchy knowledge of modern English. 

 

If one is looking for anachronisms, I think I know where a few can be found.

The RLDS never canonized the Book of Abraham, so the whole

Council of the Gods story is alien to Reorganized theology.

Nevertheless, the church I belonged to did promote the JST

as the "one true Bible," and as a young man I went off to

Protestant graduate seminary steeped in "Book of Moses"

tenets.

You can imagine the surprise of my professors and fellow

seminarians, when I causually mentioned that Father Adam

was immersed in the name of the Father, the Son, and

the Holy Ghost -- and that Lehi and his son Nephi knew

all about Christianity when they came to America.

Rather than argue with me, my Methodist instructor

simply assigned me the task of writing a paper on the

"antiquity of the Gospel." He pointed out where I could

find, in the library, all the writings of the Church Fathers,

the complete Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud books,

decades of biblical studies professional journals,

etc., and etc.

I did manage to find one instance in which a Cumberland

Presbyterian argued that Jesus Christ personally

directed the path of the pillars of fire and cloud that

preceded the ark across the desert.

Other than Mormon stuff, that was all I found.

Seems that "Jesus Christ" was a rarity in Old

Testament times -- although there was one

"anointed" High Priest (Messiah) during

Seleucid times, named Jeshua.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

If one is looking for anachronisms, I think I know where a few can be found. 

 

 

Well, perhaps one interesting place to look would be in the recollections

of Elder Sidney Rigdon's Campbellite parishioners resident in Geauga

and Portage counties, prior to 1830.

 

Seems that a few of them later reported that Elder Rigdon, at that time,

was professing that the Christian Gospel had been preached in ancient

Ohio, just as he was preaching it in 1827-28-29. That is -- the first

principles being faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, immersion, the

remission of sins, and the bestowal of the Holy Ghost by the laying on

of hands by the elders of the Church.

 

No doubt Rigdon, Bentley, Scott, Hyde, Pratt and other Campbellites

were preaching this message at the time -- but how many of those

elders (other than the ones who turned Mormon) were professing that

it had been preached the same way in preColumbian America?

 

Well -- perhaps those wicked Campbellites were telling fibs about

Elder Rigdon... but, no, the LDS D&C states that he was preparing

the way for Joseph Smith, in his Ohio preaching, but "knew it not."

Besides which, LDS members who were formerly Rigdon Campbellites

did not dispute (and largely confirmed) that Rigdon was preaching

such stuff in 1827-28-29.

 

I'd call that an anachronism. But, then again, if Mormonism be true,

then Rigdon's professions of the antiquity of the Gospel of Jesus

Christ among the preColumbians was a remarkable instance of

prophecy -- a marvelous work -- a wonder.

 

UD

[ERayR]

I think that article is missing the point. The angel said it would be his name. It is not a name, it is a title. 

 

Methinks much ado about nothing.  A title can be a name.