neilgodfrey

FWIW, I recall reading many years ago in my Penguin edition of G.A. Williamson's translation of Eusebius's Church History that Eusebius called Christians "christs".

Bodhimalik

Well, yeah. As a matter of fact, just yesterday (or the day before - I don't feel like checking old e-mail) I said, "You are P_ _ _ _ _ the Christ and I am Don the Christ.

P_ _ _ _ _ and I are both historical figures.

stonewall1012

toto: "If you want to discover some history behind ancient documents, then you need a method - that is what most of the historicists here lack."

I couldn't agree more... This random CHI RHO stuff drawn from the air bothers me greatly... Tell me Toto when you study history with which do you begin Archeology or the documents?

Toto

Since I am not a professional historians, I start with what historians say and work backwards. I trust archeology over documents, if that is what you mean.

The Chi Rho stuff was not drawn from the air. It is based on both documents and coins and Christian legend.

I don't know why you would be bothered by an internet debate. Don't take it so seriously. This board allows a large amount of free speech, so we get some wild an crazy stuff here.

stonewall1012

Toto: "This board allows a large amount of free speech, so we get some wild an crazy stuff here."

This bothers me because I am a historian. Not professionally. However, that is what my education is in. I have alway enjoyed it. What bothers me about all this "free speech" is exactaly what i told you earlier. history is not supposed to be about speculation and conjecture. It's supposed to be about factual inquiry and investigation.... and for a historian that means lots and lots and lots of reading. Have you noticed Im not running around theother posts about evolution... or even religion? I'm here in the supposed "history" section because this is what I want to discuss.

I'm glad you begin with what historians say. Thats good historiography. Trusting archeology over documents is some what questionable but not a bad process. I would agree on principle that archeological evidence is needed to confirm a documents veracity.

My problem with this Chi RHO stuff is that while it fixes certain problems about the christian symbol and beginning it causes other problems that are not readily apparent on the surface but a good historian would recognize nearly imediately.

History is like the Gordian knot often by fixing one problem you cause others. Hence Occums Razor is often employed. My example is Mr. Price assertion that Paul's letters are fiction. The pseudo-author would have known that Jesus didn't come back right away. Why would he write an impending doom when he KNEW it didn't happen? His solution to who authored Pauls "works" causes a problem with the works appocolyptic vision. Its a Gordian knot.

So how much contextual reading in the the 1st and 2nd century have you done?

thentian

Are someone still looking for ordinary people named Christ in the first century? The topic seems to split off in all directions so it's a bit hard to know if someone is still interested in that. (I thought it would be cool to have a long list of ordinary people called Christ to taunt the xians with! :devil1

vid

I am still looking for it, but it looks like there wasn't any we knew about...

thentian

I posted one yesterday, but it looks like that post must have come along with one of the snip-offs. Hang on while I go and find it!

Meanwhile, we also want people with names like Chrestus and Chrestos, right? How about people from the second century and the 1st century BC?

stonewall1012

It depends how truthful you wish to be. There are names that sound like Christ but would have had little interaction with the Jewish model of Messiah.

There were several people in the 1st Century and even early 2nd century (Bar Kochba ) who seemed to pick up this title on their own (Josephus provides a good list). But they were Jewish versions (Messiah)and it's doubious they used the Greek version(Christ)... perhapse Bar Kochba.

What is questionable about your question is that you don't seem to care if the title "Christ" has anything to do with the title that Jesus seemed to have aquired. Context is everything. You might be able to find several people the Greeks might have called "annointed" but it's doubtful they had anything to do with the Jewish concept of Messiah.
The first part of being a good historian is to understand the context. Context is everything.
But if you wish to be dishonst you can make up all kinds of good stuff. Chronos, Kronus, Chrestius, Chrispus. All of these sound like Christ so if we're not looking at contextual usage go ahead and use these it'll work.

thentian

Yes, it had gone to the Vatican/Mithra etc discussion! Here it is again:

The book is very obviously a scholarly one, so I'm sure we're talking about a real person. Using that name as the search criteria turned up a sarcophagus which I got the impression was his.

I also found a Chrestus in the first century BC and another in the second century. The former was a brother of Mithradates VI. I'll look them up again if you're interested.