I am sure in your research of the NT gospels you noted the authors of the gospels explained christos=mashiach.
How the word was applied a few hundred years later would parallel changes in meanings of many words over that period of time.
When the numskulls translated the Torah they confronted the word “anointed” eight times, twice in reference to the patriarchs and six times in reference to the high priest. What they used the first time they just followed suit. The word was then coined then in Greek and what happened later in its development and application is a subject for etymologists.
That translation was regarded by contemporary Jews as a joke book.
This is technically true - the common/base form of the term is 'to rub' or 'greasy, oily'. That is the point of the title. One is anointed by a pouring or rubbing of oil. One should not confuse the common term with the title.
I am sure in your research of the NT gospels you noted the authors of the gospels explained christos=mashiach.
Moreover, The term 'christos', the Greek form of 'anointed one' was used historically (christos, chrestos, chrest, christ) long before the Hebrew Messiah, in the very same sense - The title having been bestowed upon many titans and gods, to include Apollo (who comes up out of the pit), which case being why I prefer not to use the term - There are many 'christos', but only one Messiah.
Whether my preference or not, the historicity of the title 'christos' leaves idov's statement wanting.
@RLH: thx for the ping... nice to see you : )