>>19273211I will tell you a little. It's interesting because the origins of the name "Jesus Christ" are uncertain. Early Christians did not use this exact phrase in writing.
The earliest New Testament manuscripts do not say “Jesus” or Ἰησοῦς. They wrote abbreviations:
Nominative: ΙΣ
Genitive: ΙΥ
Dative: ΙΥ
Accusative: ΙΝ
Vocative: ΙΥ
So instead of Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, they wrote ΙΣ ΧΣ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomina_sacra#List_of_Greek_nomina_sacra[10]
What this actually means is debatable. There is some merit to the idea that ΙΣ was not originally a proper name and it actually meant something like אִישׁוֹ (ʾîšô) [ʔiːʃo] “his man” meaning “God’s man”, because that title can be connected to pre-Christian theology about a heavenly man made in the image of Elohim in Gen 1:26-27—the “firstborn son” of Elohim. אישו is attested in Aramaic in place of “Jesus”:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40753243This is remarkably similar to the modern eastern Syriac version which (coincidentally?) is pronounced with a glottal stop: ܝܼܫܘܿܥ (îšôʿ) [ˈʔi.ʃoʕ].
More certain than the ΙΣ situation is the fact that “Christ” (Χριστός) is a secondary and later (mis)spelling. Originally it was “chrest” (χρήστος/χρήστης) or even “Chreist” (χρείστης). All sorts of early Chrestian documents prefer Χρήστος over Χριστός. The later church even censored all occurrences of “Chrest” (χρήστος/χρήστης) in codex Sinaiticus by erasing η into ι. See pic related. You can clearly see the erased η (as capital Η).
Now, because it was always a nomina sacra abbreviation, it can be argued that ΧΣ was not “Christ” but rather a χρήστης meaning “prophet”.
https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CF%87%CF%81%CE%AE%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CF%87%CF%81%CE%B7%CF%83%CF%84%CF%8C%CF%82 