Most contemporary readers assume that “Christian” is the original and definitive name for the followers of Jesus. However, this is a truth filtered through Greek. When we dig beneath the layer of Koine Greek in which the Apostolic writings have reached us, we discover a map of Hebraic and Oriental identities that the Roman Empire eventually standardized. Before they were “Christians,” the followers of the Mashiaj were named by the land and the language that birthed them.

1. The Hebraic Substratum: The Nasraye and the “Netzer”.

Long before the Apostolic writings spread in Greek, the original community identified itself within its Semitic matrix. The Greek term Christianoi (Acts 11:26) was, in its origin, an external label—possibly derogatory—imposed by the inhabitants of Antioch. But in the heart of the Aramaic and Syriac-speaking community, they were the Nasraye (ܢܨܪ̈ܝܐ).

This term, preserved in the Peshitta (the Syriac version of the Bible), is not merely a geographic demonym for Nazareth, but a Messianic title. It derives from the Hebrew Netzer (ܢܨܪ), the “Branch” or “Shoot” promised in Isaiah 11:1. By calling themselves Nasraye, the church of the Peshitta affirmed that they were not practicing a new religion, but were the branches grafted into the shoot of Jesse. For them, Jesus was not a “Greek character,” but the Hebrew Mashiaj.

2. Syriac and the Peshitta: The Persistence of the Mshikhaye.

In the theological centers of Edessa and Nisibis, the Syriac language produced some of the richest literature of early Christianity. In the Demonstrations of Aphrahat (the “Persian Sage,” 4th century), the author does not appeal to Roman terminology; instead, he uses Mshikhaye (ܡܫܝܚܝܐ)—Messianics.

For Aphrahat and the scribes of the Peshitta, faith was defined by union with the Mshikha. In their texts, such as Tatian’s Diatessaron, the believer’s identity is that of a “stranger” (aksnaya) in the world, whose citizenship belongs not to the Empire, but to the Kingdom of the Messiah. Here, the word “Christian” is either non-existent or secondary to the weight of the Messianic covenant.

3. Coptic and the Nag Hammadi Texts: The “Chosen” of Egypt.

Descending into Upper Egypt, the Christianity of the 2nd and 3rd centuries expressed itself in Coptic. In this context, identity moved away from imperial politics to focus on spiritual nature. In the Gospel of Philip (one of the codices from Nag Hammadi), we find a fascinating distinction: the followers of Jesus are spoken of as those who have received the “anointing” (p-soh).

For a speaker of Sahidic Coptic, identity was not a social label but an internal condition. In the Letters of Saint Anthony the Great, the father of monasticism, the focus is on the transformation of man into a “new creature.” For these communities, the Greek term Christianoi was an administrative formality from Alexandria, while their lived reality was that of the “Gnostics” (in the sense of those who know God) or the “Set Apart.”

4. Ge’ez and the Legacy of Aksum: The Mshikhawi of Ethiopia.

Ethiopia presents the most robust case of an identity that never detached itself from its Jewish roots. In its sacred language, Ge’ez, the term is Mshikhawi. This identity is cemented in the Kebra Nagast (“The Glory of the Kings”), the national and religious epic of Ethiopia.

In this form of Christianity, identity is defined not by a break from the Old Testament, but by its continuity. The follower of the Mashiaj in Ethiopia sees themselves as an heir to the Ark of the Covenant. Their name, Mshikhawi, is not a Roman religious category, but a royal and lineage-based one: they are the men of the King Messiah, spiritual descendants of Solomon.

The Veil of Greek.

History has reached us in Greek, and with it, the word “Christian.” However, the linguistic archaeology of the Peshitta, the Coptic codices, and the manuscripts of Aksum returns to us a more vibrant and diverse image.

By recovering names like Nasraye or Mshikhawi, we pull back the veil of Roman institutionalization. We discover that the original faith was not a uniform structure under a state decree, but an explosion of communities that understood themselves as the Branch, the Anointing, and the Lineage of the Mashiaj. Perhaps, by letting go of the label “Christians,” we may truly embrace the identity of the Shoot.

By: Dr. Liber Aguiar