Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 09-12-2004, 07:55 AM

I am not your foil.

It does seem that the -ian- suffix is based on Latin.

best,
Peter Kirby

spin · 09-12-2004, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I am not your foil.

Sorry, that last "you" was meant to be impersonal, which might more clearly have been expressed with a "one".

spin

joedad · 09-12-2004, 10:24 AM

So if the word “Christian�? is the result of Latin translation, does that literally make it a Latin invention? And is the use of “christ�? in Mark the same thing? I only ask because I saw spin’s thread appear after the question about the word “christ�? occurred to me.

Is there a history of the word “christ�? or “Christ�? to be read somewhere, and not a history of a person referred to as same? Or are they one in the same?

spin · 09-12-2004, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joedad

So if the word “Christian�? is the result of Latin translation, does that literally make it a Latin invention? And is the use of “christ�? in Mark the same thing? I only ask because I saw spin’s thread appear after the question about the word “christ�? occurred to me.

Is there a history of the word “christ�? or “Christ�? to be read somewhere, and not a history of a person referred to as same? Or are they one in the same?

The word "Christ" appears in the LXX for the Hebrew masyach ("messiah"). It is a novel use for the term in Greek culture meant "unguent/ointment". It probably took a long while to emerge from Greek speaking Jewish circles. It may only have happened when the earliest xians took over the LXX.

My conjecture at the moment is that at some stage "Christ" made it into the Latin speaking world in which the believers of this figure became known by a Latin construction (from the Greek word), Christiani. I see no evidence that xristianoi could have been constructed in a Greek speaking context, where I would expect something like *xristeioi*.

spin

Clivedurdle · 09-13-2004, 11:19 AM

Posted by Peter Kirby

Quote:

Theophilus of Antioch attempts an explanation of the name: "And about your laughing at me and calling me 'Christian,' you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God." (Ad Autolycum 1.12)

The Gospel of Philip seems to agree: "The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word 'Chrism' that we have been called 'Christians,' certainly not because of the word 'baptism'. And it is because of the chrism that 'the Christ' has his name.

What is this chrism? Is it possible the idea of annointing, the caulking, the oil of God comes first, and the person doing the annointing, the Christ, is a later idea?

Is this the revolutionary concept of annointanity? A healing balm for everyone?

Clivedurdle · 09-13-2004, 11:21 AM

There is very strong physiological backing to this - it is not obvious to humans, but our sense of smell is very powerful and important. Is this the cult of the beautiful pong?

Clivedurdle · 09-13-2004, 11:24 AM

My mum's conversion experience in the 1950's included her reporting a very powerful and beautiful smell. Anyone done any work on smells and religious or transcendental experiences?

Peter Kirby · 09-13-2004, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is this chrism?

Oil, unguent, perfume, medicine, a drug, I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is it possible the idea of annointing, the caulking, the oil of God comes first, and the person doing the annointing, the Christ, is a later idea?

As far as the term "Christ" goes? The term comes from the fact that the (Jewish) kings were anointed upon ascension. The messiah is a sort of king, so the Christ is anointed (note: the Christ is not "the person doing the annointing"). We previously had a discussion of many texts relating to the anointing of Christians (with the idea that cannibis could have been part of the formula).

best,
Peter Kirby

Chili · 09-13-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is this the revolutionary concept of annointanity? A healing balm for everyone?

Yes, is like a spiritual maturity, a yellow kind of ripeness that is found in every mythology except Christianity because there Christ is the declared onnointed which is typical of an evil age that is looking for a sign.

So yes, "the Christ" is a later idea that was given free reign after the Reformation.

Haran · 09-13-2004, 09:29 PM

Hello. Busy, busy, busy... Just popping in and throwing out some thoughts...

What about the "Herodians"?

I believe that "gentiles" bestowed the name of "Christian" anyway, so it might not be a stretch to think that the word might contain a latin ending before the Greek ending.

Don't forget, however, that "an" (and thus many times "ian") is the Greek ending for the accusative case. Could it be that some form of the accusative was adopted for some reason and then Greek case endings added on top of that?

The idea of "anointed prophets" using the mentioned Greek terms seems to be found in the Maccabees and in the LXX. I think that "anointed" was probably understood as one meaning for a time before Jesus... How long? Perhaps not long.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-12-2004, 07:55 AM	#11
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I am not your foil. It does seem that the -ian- suffix is based on Latin. best, Peter Kirby

09-12-2004, 10:24 AM	#13
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	So if the word “Christian�? is the result of Latin translation, does that literally make it a Latin invention? And is the use of “christ�? in Mark the same thing? I only ask because I saw spin’s thread appear after the question about the word “christ�? occurred to me. Is there a history of the word “christ�? or “Christ�? to be read somewhere, and not a history of a person referred to as same? Or are they one in the same?

09-13-2004, 11:21 AM	#16
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	There is very strong physiological backing to this - it is not obvious to humans, but our sense of smell is very powerful and important. Is this the cult of the beautiful pong?

09-13-2004, 11:24 AM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	My mum's conversion experience in the 1950's included her reporting a very powerful and beautiful smell. Anyone done any work on smells and religious or transcendental experiences?

09-13-2004, 09:29 PM	#20
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	Hello. Busy, busy, busy... Just popping in and throwing out some thoughts... What about the "Herodians"? I believe that "gentiles" bestowed the name of "Christian" anyway, so it might not be a stretch to think that the word might contain a latin ending before the Greek ending. Don't forget, however, that "an" (and thus many times "ian") is the Greek ending for the accusative case. Could it be that some form of the accusative was adopted for some reason and then Greek case endings added on top of that? The idea of "anointed prophets" using the mentioned Greek terms seems to be found in the Maccabees and in the LXX. I think that "anointed" was probably understood as one meaning for a time before Jesus... How long? Perhaps not long.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.