Lord Jesus Christ,Dictionary,

JESUS CHRIST, TITLES OF Titles of Jesus Christ. Names applied to Jesus, associated with christological functions. Several titles are used in the New Testament that indicate how His role in salvation was perceived, often building on or modifying previous expectations associated with the title.

Christ

Christ (Χρίστος, Christos) is a translation of the Hebrew term “messiah” (מָשִיחַ, mashiach)—meaning “anointed one”—and is one of the most common titles of Jesus. When the Davidic succession was cut off by the Babylonian exile, the expectation of a future restoration of the dynasty led to prophecies of a coming “anointed one” (e.g., Isa 11:1–9). The expectation in the Old Testament always refers to a human figure expected to restore the earthly kingdom of Israel. Messianic expectations varied; sometimes hope was transferred to an anointed priest instead of a king. Numerous historical figures received the designation—Zerubbabel and Joshua in Zech 4:11–14 (Fuller, The Foundations, 24–28) and the foreign ruler Cyrus in Isa 45:1. At Qumran, two messiahs were anticipated—one Davidic and one Levitical.

For more information on “Christ” as a title for Jesus, see this article: Messiah.

Son of Man

Son of Man (υἱός τοῦ ανθρώπου, huios tou anthrōpou) is a title probably translated from the Aramaic בַר אֱנָש (var enash). It is found almost exclusively in the Gospels and is always used by Jesus in the third person. The term is not a Greek idiom and must be a translation of a Semitic expression. The phrase rarely occurs with the definite article in Hebrew and Aramaic (Collins, The Origin of the Designation, 394).

It has been suggested that Jesus borrowed the term from Ezekiel (בֶן אֲדָם, ven adam), which reflects a Semitic idiom for a human being (Fuller, The Foundations, 43). In this case, it would not be a title but a generic reference. Jesus also may have used this idiom as a circumlocution for self-reference (e.g., Hurtado, New Testament Christology, 312). Others dispute this claim on the grounds that all known Semitic uses of the term are employed in the generic sense and not as individual self-reference (Collins, The Origin of the Designation, 397–98). This is further complicated by occasional plural “sons of man” (e.g., Mark 3:28–29). Regardless of how it was originally employed, Son of Man was understood as a title by the evangelists (Garnet, The Baptism of Jesus, 49). The term may have also been borrowed from the book of Daniel, which speaks “one like a son of man” appearing “with the clouds of heaven” and coming “to the Ancient of Days” to be presented before him (Dan 7:13–14; compare Mark 8:38).

For more information on “Son of Man” as a title for Jesus, see this article: Son of Man.

Son of God

Of all the titles attributed to Jesus, “Son of God” is perhaps the most versatile—it is applied to events throughout Jesus’ life and after his resurrection. It has subsumed the messiahship, the exaltation to the right hand of God, and the roles of eschatological redeemer, judge, and exorcist.

The origin of Son of God as a title is debated. Links to the ideology of Near East kingship exist, in which the anointed king was viewed as the adopted son of God (e.g., Psa 2:7). It was used as a messianic title in pre-Christian Jewish texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was also used in the Old Testament for angels, especially in the plural. A view popularized by Bultmann held that “Son of Man emerged from the Hellenistic concept of the ‘divine man’ (ἀνὴρ θεῖος, anēr theios), but the phrase Son of God is never used in the Graeco-Roman texts to express this concept” (Fuller, The Foundations, 32, 69).

The phrase occurs rarely in the words of Jesus. It is applied by the evangelists to both Jesus’ earthly life, His exaltation after the crucifixion, and key moments in the story. His Sonship is stated at both the baptism and transfiguration in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus’ miracles are often accompanied by the proclamation that He is the Son of God. It also figures prominently in the virginal conception in Matthew and Luke, where Mary is impregnated by the Holy Spirit with God’s Son. It is also associated with the concept of Jesus’ preexistence in John and the Pauline Epistles (Hahn, The Titles of Jesus, 291, 296, 300, 304). As a title, it occurs often in conjunction with “Father” and defines Jesus’ relation to Him both in life and in His future role (Loader, Apocalyptic Mode of Sonship, 531). Especially in John, it emphasizes that the Father has passed the power of judgment on to His Son (John 5:22).

For more information on “Son of God” as a title for Jesus, see this article: Son of God.

Son of David

The most common expectation about the messiah—from Isaiah into the rabbinic period—was that he would emerge from the Davidic line. It does not emerge as a title in a messianic context until the first century BC in the Psalms of Solomon. That it is spoken by the scribes in Mark 12:35 indicates its status as a common Jewish expectation in the first century AD (Fuller, The Foundations, 33).

Both of the canonical birth stories mark Jesus’ Davidic Sonship. The two genealogies are meaningful as indicators of blood descent from David. In Luke, it is foretold that He will be given the throne of David and rule over Israel forever (Luke 1:32–33). In Matthew, He is given the title King of the Jews and His birth in Bethlehem is connected to a Davidic prophecy (Mic 5:2) (Hahn, The Titles of Jesus, 265). The Christological formula in Rom 1:3 indicates an early attribution of Davidic sonship to Jesus. Beyond the birth story, only Matthew has a keen interest in using Son of David—six instances are demonstrably the evangelists’ own additions (Kingsbury, “Title ‘Son of David,’ ” 591–92).

Lord

Kyrios is the Greek word for an authority figure, and is used in this secular sense several times in the New Testament for Jesus (Matt 8:6, 8; Luke 7:6). The Aramaic word mar (מׇר, mr) usually has this same force, though with a possessive subject it may refer to God (Hurtado, New Testament Christology, 315). It appears in one of the oldest extant eucharistic liturgical statements, marana tha (Hebrew מׇרַנָא תָא, mrana' tha'; Greek μαράνα θά, marana tha), “Our Lord, come” (1 Cor 16:22). The use in Aramaic indicates an early application of the title mar to Jesus (Hahn, The Titles of Jesus, 68, 80, 92, 96).

At least as early as the first century AD, it was considered taboo to speak the divine name, which was replaced in worship by the Aramaic word ‘adonai (אֲדֹנַי, adonay, “my lord”). In the Greek translation, kyrios was used to render the divine name Yahweh (יהוה, yhwh). Thus it became possible to transfer to Jesus statements that were attributed in the Old Testament to God. The enthronement Psalm 110 could now be interpreted as Jesus’ post-ascension exaltation (see, e.g., Heb 1:13). The bestowal of the divine name upon Jesus allowed the two to share functions traditionally ascribed to God—such as judge—without explicit identification (Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology 106–08, 110). Thus Paul is able to split up the statement “Lord (Yahweh) our God, Lord (Yahweh) is one” (Deut 6:4) into “There is one God … the Father … and one Lord … Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 8:6).

The level to which Graeco-Roman use of the term kyrios played a role in this development has been debated. The title was often applied to rulers, but only connotes divinity with the additional presence of theos (θεός, theos, “god”). Nevertheless, since the emperor was often divinized in the emperor cult of the East, it is not implausible that Christian use was influenced by imperial royal connotations (Fuller, The Foundations, 87–88).

Logos

Logos (λόγος, logos, “word, reason”) is used as a designation for Jesus only in the Johannine writings and once in Revelation, though it became one of the most important titles in the early Church. As the “reason” or “word” of God, the title demonstrates Jesus’ preexistence and intimate connection to God. John 1:1 answers the question of identity with a paradox—God is equated with His logos yet is distinct from it. Where logos appears elsewhere in John, it reflects the proclamation of God channeled through Jesus. Human speech is referred to with other nouns (Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, 260).

In the New Testament, the “word of God” is associated with working powerful effects (Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, 255). In the writings of Philo of Alexandria, the logos is intimately associated with God, yet remains distinct from Him. The logos is used almost synonymously with God’s sōphia (σωφία, sōphia, “wisdom”) and often substituted for it in the Hellenistic sphere of Judaism (Fuller, The Foundations, 75–76)

For more information on “Logos” as a title for Jesus, see this article: Logos.

High Priest

The Epistle to the Hebrews identifies Jesus as a “priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb 5:6). Jesus attained the true priesthood and serves as the mediator between humans and God. The function associated with this role is the expiation of the sins of humanity. Not only does the High Priest offer the sacrifice, but He is the perfect sacrifice. The author places emphasis on Jesus’ participation in humanity, which allows Him to expiate the sins of those who are tempted (Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, 83, 90–92, 99, 103). Unlike the priestly Messiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the High Priest Jesus and His archetype Melchizedek are not of the Levitical line, and carry out both the royal and priestly duties (Rooke, Jesus as Royal Priest, 85, 91).

In Philo of Alexandria’s allegorical interpretation of Genesis, both Melchizedek and the Levitical high priest are associated with the logos (Fuller, The Foundations, 79–80). The logos is the sinless high priest, much as Jesus is in Hebrews. The representation in Hebrews presumes a tradition of a priest-king (Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, 85). Melchizedek is explicitly identified as the “King of Salem” (Heb 7:2), and his name is also etymologized as “king of righteousness” (מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק, malki-tsedeq).

For more information on “High Priest” as a title for Jesus, see this article: High Priest.

Savior

Savior appears rarely in the Gospels and Acts, but frequently in the general letters and the Pastoral Letters. Savior (σωτήρ, sōtēr) is also the meaning of the name Jesus (Hebrew יְשׁוּעַ, yeshua', “Yahweh saves”). The title typically refers to the role He will play in salvation when He returns at the parousia as Savior of the world. In Luke and Acts, the title is associated with the Davidic messianic line (Luke 2:11; Acts 13:23). In the Pastoral Letters, the title is attributed to Jesus and to God without any sort of systematic distinction (e.g., Titus 1:3–4). To call Jesus the Savior is functionally equivalent to calling God the Savior, since God enacted salvation by sending Jesus into the world. This title was an attribute of God in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament is also closely associated with the title kyrios (Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, 238).

Immanuel

“Immanuel” is a symbolic name given in the Old Testament (Isa 7:14; Isa 8:8; Isa 8:10) to a child who was to be born in the reign of King Ahaz of Judah. Matthew 1:23 cites Isa 7:14, applying this name to Jesus.

For more information on “Immanuel” as a title for Jesus, see this article: Immanuel.

Servant of the Lord

By quoting from Isa 42:1–3 to describe His own role, Jesus equates his role with that of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (also called the Servant of the Lord) and thus takes on the title too (Matt 12:15–21; compare Matt 20:28).

For more information on the “Servant of the Lord” as a title for Jesus, see this article: Servant of the Lord.

Selected Resources for Further Study

  Fuller, Reginald. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Scribner’s, 1965.

  Hahn, Ferdinand. The Titles of Jesus in Christology. London: Lutterworth, 1969.

  Cullman, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959.

  Kingsbury, Jack Dean. “Title ‘Son of David’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95, no. 4 (1976): 591–602.

  Hurtado, Larry W. “New Testament Christology: A Critique of Bousset’s Influence.” Theological Studies 40, no. 2 (1979): 306–17.

  Bateman, Herbert IV. “Defining the Titles ‘Christ’ and ‘Son of God’ in Mark’s Narrative Presentation of Jesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 3 (2007): 537–59.

  Levin, Yigal. “Jesus, ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’: The ‘Adoption’ of Jesus into the Davidic Line.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 4 (2006): 415–42.

  Nolland, John. “No Son-of-God Christology in Matthew 1.18–25.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 62 (1996): 3–12.

  Whitsett, Christopher G. “Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3–4.” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 4 (2000): 661–81.

  Collins, Adela Yarbro. “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man.’ ” Harvard Theological Review 80, no. 4 (1987): 391–407.

  Garnet, Paul. “The Baptism of Jesus and the Son of Man Idea.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 9 (1980): 49–65.

  Black, Matthew. “Jesus and the Son of Man.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1 (1978): 4–18.

  Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. “Jesus as a Son of Man.” Harvard Theological Review 3, no. 3 (1910): 325–40.

  Loader, William R. G. “Apocalyptic Model of Sonship: Its Origin and Development in New Testament Tradition.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97, no. 4 (1978): 525–54.

  Marcus, Joel. “Mark 14:61: “Are you the Messiah-Son-of-God?” Novum Testamentum 31, no. 2 (1989): 125–41.

  Smith, Stephen H. “The Function of the Son of David Tradition in Mark’s Gospel.” New Testament Studies 42, no. 4 (1996): 523–39.

  Rooke, Deborah W. “Jesus as Royal Priest: Reflections on the Interpretation of the Melchizedek Tradition in Heb 7.” Biblica 81, no. 1 (2000): 81–94.

ALEX RAMOS

JESUS IN THE TALMUD Discusses the debate over purported references to Jesus of Nazareth in classical rabbinic literature such as the Talmud.

The Debate

The question of whether classical rabbinic literature—especially the Talmud—ever refers to the Jesus of the New Testament has been vigorously debated for centuries. As Christianity and classical Judaism developed from the first century on, Jewish teachers needed to address Christian claims about Jesus for polemical purposes. The Talmud was primarily a repository of traditional teachings and stories accessible only to the educated elite. Those polemical texts, written in Hebrew and Aramaic were largely unknown to the church, though some of the stories undoubtedly circulated orally (see Origen, Against Celsus 1.28, 32). In the Middle Ages, Jews who had studied Talmud converted to Christianity and began drawing attention to these negative portrayals of Christianity found in traditional Jewish literature. From that point on, these polemical stories denigrating Christianity became a dangerous liability for Jewish communities under Christian rule.

The passages often claimed to refer to Jesus are vague, inaccurate, and inconsistent on many biographical details when compared to the Gospels and each other. This inconsistency allows a level of plausible deniability, so medieval Jewish rabbis such as Yehiel in Paris and Nachmanides in Spain could argue that the Jesus mentioned in the Talmud should not be equated with the Christian Jesus at all (Berger, Persecution, 159–60). These assertions, however, came during public debates, such as the Disputation of Paris in 1240 and the Disputation of Barcelona in 1263, where Jewish teachers were called before the Christian authorities to defend the Talmud against accusations that it contained blasphemy and was insulting to Christianity. A century earlier, Judah Hallevi had presented as common knowledge the tradition that Jesus the Nazarene was a disciple of Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah (Khazari, part III, paragraph 65; compare b. Sotah 47a). These differing answers reflect the change in the political climate of Europe in the 13th century that made life increasingly more difficult for the Jews living under Christian rule. It was in their best interests to downplay any ancient Jewish polemic against Christianity found in their literature since “negative mention of Jesus … might provoke local persecution” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, 106). Despite the denial that these passages were related to Jesus, the Talmud came to be censored and only published in expurgated form in Europe by the late 16th century.

Christian scholars began discussing these potential references to Jesus in the Talmud again in the late 19th century. In 1887, Bernhard Pick published a book explaining for a Christian audience what the Talmud was and providing the text of passages that could be allusions to Jesus, reading them largely as Jewish polemic against Christian teachings (Pick, The Talmud). Pick was very much convinced that the rabbis modified Jewish practice in notable ways in order to “check the advancement of the gospel” (Pick, The Talmud, 142). In 1891, Gustaf Dalman published the texts and translations of passages expurgated from the Talmud due to their potential reference to Jesus. Dalman’s work was combined with a lengthy essay by Heinrich Laible and published in Berlin as Jesus Christus im Thalmud. An English translation of that work appeared in 1893, translated by A. W. Streane. Pick published another short book in 1913 discussing “the passages of the Talmud as given by Dalman, and which are claimed to refer to Jesus” (Pick, Jesus in the Talmud, 12). These works assert their purpose is to make available the texts that Jewish self-censorship and Catholic prohibition had made scarce. Laible claims his goal is “to make good, as far as we may, the faults which the ‘censorship’ of earlier time has committed with regard to the Talmud” (Laible, “Jesus,” 2). Along the same lines, Pick describes Dalman’s work as giving “back to the Jews what the censor has taken from them and to show them that Christianity has nothing to fear from these expurgated passages” (Pick, Jesus in the Talmud, 7).

Scholarship through the 20th century and into the early 21st century has mostly maintained the same dichotomy between those who doubt the Talmud contains any genuine references to Jesus of Nazareth and those who accept the authenticity of a wide range of possible references (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, 108). Many of these studies were seeking information about the historical Jesus in Jewish sources (e.g., Goldstein, Jesus in Jewish Traditions; Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash; Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth; Maier, Jesus von Nazareth). Those studies contributed to the current consensus that these passages offer no historical information about Jesus (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 4–8; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:93–95). In his recent treatment of the subject, Schäfer acknowledges the value of studying the topic comes mainly from what it may reveal about Judaism’s response to Christianity in Late Antiquity, especially the Judaism of Sasanian Babylon responsible for the Babylonian Talmud (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 8–10).

The Talmud’s Portrayal of Jesus

While the Talmud undoubtedly has occasional allusions to Jesus of Nazareth,“Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud so sparingly that in relation to the huge quantity of literary production culminating in the Talmud, the Jesus passages can be compared to the proverbial drop in the yam ha-talmud” (“the sea of Talmud”; Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 2).

The possible references to Jesus in the Talmud are likely “dependent on popular corruptions of Christian gospel traditions” (Bockmuehl, This Jesus, 13). That is, they are responses to the spread of Christianity, not independent witnesses to the historical Jesus (Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:98). The stories and sayings are intentionally derogatory and polemical. They reveal a basic picture of Jesus similar to the New Testament: his mother was Mary, he had disciples, he performed miracles, and he was executed. However, the Talmud also portrays Jesus as an illegitimate child, a failed student of a prominent rabbi, and an apostate from Judaism. The passages that offer chronological clues reveal that the historical period that Jesus belonged to had been forgotten. For example, the tradition that Jesus was a disciple of Rabbi Joshua ben Perachiah places Jesus in the 2nd century BC during the reign of the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus (r. 104–78 BC; b. Sanh. 107b; b. Sotah 47a).

The passages from the Talmud most commonly associated with Jesus of Nazareth are the texts referring to Yeshu, Ben Stada, and Ben Pandera. The latter name is sometimes rendered as “Panthera” or “Pantera” and is “reasonably identified with Jesus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, 117). The name is probably a pun on the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin (parthenos in Greek); one passage equates Ben Stada (i.e., “son of Stada”) with Ben Pandera (i.e., “son of Pandera”), making Pandera the name of the man with whom Mary had an extramarital affair (b. Shabbat 104b). The name “Stada” is explained as an allusion to Mary’s unfaithfulness because the phrase satath da means “this one was faithless.” The story that Mary conceived Jesus out of wedlock with a Gentile soldier named Panthera was circulating among the Jews by the late 2nd century, as attested by Celsus (ca. 180; Origen, Against Celsus, 1.32). The charge of illegitimacy was an assertion that Jesus “should have no religious authority” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, 117).

Summary of Key Passages

The following passages are the ones most commonly invoked in the discussion of how Jesus is portrayed in the Talmud. Many of the relevant portions had been cut from printed editions of the Talmud until the 20th century, but recent English translations like Neusner’s Babylonian Talmud include the passages. These passages and more are discussed in detailed treatments of the topic such as those by Laible (“Jesus Christ in the Talmud”), Herford (Christianity in the Talmud), Pick (Jesus in the Talmud), and Schäfer (/Jesus in the Talmud).

Reference

Summary

b. Shabbat 104b

Miriam, a women’s hairdresser, committed adultery with Pantera; therefore the “son of Stada” is the “son of Pantera.”

b. Sanhedrin 107b

Jesus was a disciple of Joshua ben Perahiah and fled with him to Egypt during persecution that came during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus; Jesus later became an idolater (compare b. Sotah 47a).

b. Sanhedrin 43a

Jesus had 5 disciples and was hung on the Sabbath of the Passover for practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray.

b. Sanhedrin 67a

The “son of Stada” was hanged the day before Passover for apostasy and idolatry.

Related Articles

For more information, see these articles: Jesus, Historical, Quest for; Rabbinic Literature; Talmud; Judaism.

Selected Resources for Further Study

  Berger, David. Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue: Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010.

  Bockmuehl, Markus. This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. London: T&T Clark, 1994.

  Dalman, Gustaf. Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue. With an introductory essay by Heinrich Laible. Translated and edited by A. W. Streane. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1893.

  Goldstein, Morris. Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York: Macmillan, 1950.

  Hallevi, Judah. Kitab Al Khazari. Translated by Hartwig Hirschfeld. London: Routledge, 1905.

  Herford, R. Travers. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash. London: Williams & Norgate, 1903.

  Klausner, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching. Translated by Herbert Danby. New York: Macmillan, 1925.

  Laible, Heinrich. “Jesus Christ in the Talmud.” Pages 1–98 in Jesus Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the Liturgy of the Synagogue. Translated and edited by A. W. Streane. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1893.

  Maier, Johann. Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Uberlieferung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978.

  Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991–2009.

  Neusner, Jacob. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2011.

  Pick, Bernhard. The Talmud: What It Is and What It Says about Jesus and the Christians. New York: Jon B. Alden, 1887.

  ———. Jesus in the Talmud: His Personality, His Disciples and His Sayings. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1913.

  Schäfer, Peter. Jesus in the Talmud. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

  Voorst, Robert E. van. Jesus Outside the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

DOUGLAS MANGUM

Alex Ramos, “Jesus Christ, Titles of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).

Furnished by Rick Livermore Webmaster220 San Juan Capistrano California –  https://rick-livermore-on-blogger.blogspot.com/