Por Dr. Carlos Donate Alvira, ND, L.E.H.P.
I recently heard a comment from those who use the 1602P that we are “mutilating ” the name of Jesus Christ by merging Jesus with Christ to say Jesucristo. In their Bible, the 1602P people spell “Jesús Cristo” in over 80 New Testament references. According to them, this is the correct way to honor the Name of Jesus and His Messianic title of Christ. But is it mutilating to spell it the way it appears in our RVG Bible? Absolutely not!
Union of two concepts
“Jesus” refers to the proper name of the Son, based on the Greek “IEOSUS.” “Christ” refers to the Hebrew title of being the anointed one, or messiah CHRISTOS. In ancient times, Bibles were divided to emphasize each part. It read “Jesús” Christo ” even with the “h”. However, as the Spanish language was updated, "Jesucristo" became the most common way of writing both words without falling into mutilation or adulteration of Spanish lexigraphy or Christian doctrine.
Royal Academy of Spain
The Royal Spanish Academy has said that writing "Jesucristo" is correct. See https://www.rae.es/drae2001/Jesucristo . If the official dictionary of the Spanish language accepted it and decided it was correct, why do those of the 1602P ignore this meaning? In fact, those of the 1602P have said how important it is to use a dictionary of the Spanish language to define words in the Bible. Now, they don't want to do it.
Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ
Another reason for writing the coupled name of Jesus and Christ as Jesucristo is that we believe in the hypostatic union of Jesus' divinity and humanity, 1 Timothy 2:5; Philippians 2:6-8. This union is not mutilated, but rather credited and emphasized . Thus it is stated: “ In summary, the Hypostatic Union is a theological concept that refers to the perfect and indissoluble union of the two natures, divine and human, in the person of Jesus Christ (Jesucristo). This union implies that Jesus is fully God and fully human, without the two natures being mixed or confused .” See biblicaldictionary.org/hypostatic-union
Since When?
The contraction of both names, Jesus and Christ, appears for the first time in the Spanish Bible in 1909, but since the beginning of the 19th century it was already written as Jesucristo, see Francisco Martínez Marina | Academic | Royal Spanish Academy . Don Francisco Martínez Marina was Catholic, but he was an academic of the Spanish Language, and Spanish academics of the language did not necessarily teach dogma, but rather limited themselves to the scientific study of letters. Other academics of the Royal Spanish Academy such as Doctors José Oroz Reta, Manuel Marcos Casquero, and Manuel Díaz accepted it as Jesucristo since the late 18th century, and, in fact, when they were preparing the 12th edition of the Dictionary, they cited Isidore of Seville, father of the etymologies of the Spanish language in the 4th century, who already accepted it, see Etymologies of Isidore , Library of Christian Authors, Madrid, MMIX, page 633. Even so, those of the 1602P are quick to say that this change came from Roman Catholicism, as they say about the use of Verb instead of Word in John 1:1. This argument falls apart when the Catholic Church itself endorses both ways of writing Jesucristo, or Jesu Cristo, Verb or Word. The difference is that the Royal Academy is in charge of making exceptions, not a particular church like the Grace Baptist Biblical Church, headquarters of the 1602P. We have already seen that the union of Jesus and Christ as Jesucristo strengthens the doctrine of the God-Man, not weakens it.
Unnecessary Change
Saying and reading “Jesús Christo” in Spanish is an unnecessarily retrograde change. We are not used to hearing it this way. It is like saying “Anointed Jesus.” In Latin America, almost everyone says Jesucristo, except those who speak Carioca (Brazil). The 1602P is causing confusion and nonsense in congregations where their Bible is read antiphonally. Their Bible is a particular Bible, not a common one. They are not going to convince those who use the 1865, 1909 or 1960 to adopt their Bible. Adding to the problem, the 1602P follows an archaic Spanish with the excuse of “restoring” old words that appeared in the 16th century. Previously, the 1602P wrote Jesu Cristo, as Cipriano de Valera had written it in the 1602 Bible of the Jug. Why did they change in their 2024 edition?
Conclusions
At the end of the day, each person will have to decide which way of writing and reading the name and title of the Son of God he or she wants to adopt. If you like the old language, say “Jesus Christ.” But if you like the not-so-current way of saying it by most Spanish-speaking Christians, use Jesucristo!
Comments