archibald

Roger Pearse, as far as I know, is an amateur with a passion for ancient manuscripts. I don't know the strength of his leanings.

Overall, the citations on that page give a different impression than might have been gained from reading Jake's comment that Tacitus was first referred to by name in the middle ages, even if Jake was technically correct. I'm not suggesting Jake was trying to create a false impression.

Pearse references this book:

Clarence W. MENDELL, Tacitus: The Man and his Work, Yale University Press/Oxford University Press (1957).

http://www.jstor.org/pss/291892

by Tacitus biographer Clarence Mendell. I haven't read it, but when Pearse says....

'Mendell also gives an extensive list of people who mention Tacitus or any of his works from the 1st century onwards. From this we can see that Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in every century down to and including the Sixth. The Seventh and Eighth centuries are the only ones that have left no trace of knowledge of our author4. The Dialogus is not mentioned at all, however.1 Without quoting every reference, here are some which I found of interest.......'

.....it would have been interesting to our discussion here to also read which attestations go back before 400AD.

jakejonesiv

Hi Archibald,

The two oldest nearly complete manuscripts of the New Testament both have (of course) the Nomina Sacra for Jesus Christ or Chrestos. You can't tell the difference because of the abbreviation. But their use of the related word "Christian" is quite revealing. Codex Sinaticus reads "Chrestian" and Codex Vaticanus reads the hybrid "Chreistian."

According to Van Voorst, in Phyrgia, a number of funerary inscriptions from the third century CE contain the spelling "Chrestians."

In the oldest manuscript of Tacitus, in the famous Annals passsage, actually mentions Chrestians which someone changed to Christians. See “The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated,” by Erík Zara, Th.D. (rel. expt), © 2009
http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

Justin’s defense of the name as meaning “excellent” makes no sense if the original term was “Christian” but is a perfect match for “Chrestian.” Apology 1.4

Jake Jones IV


P.S. I am eating vegan barbecue pork chops right now. :vomit:

archibald

None of the above makes any sense. A lot of it is just plain incorrect. I don't think you can have been reading the thread, or reading it properly, or familiar with the things posted elsewhere I was referring to. You are just getting your knickers in a twist for nothing. Again.

archibald

I have just had Chicken mango Korma. Leftovers from last night's dinner.

(If you want the recipe, it's a treat, and dead simple to prepare)

Regarding that article on Chrestians in Tacitus, it seems to accord with what I had previously thought.

Can I just ask, is the overall suggestion here that Christ was unknown and that there were Chrestians instead, early on? Surely, this would involve 'unusual' datings for both the epistles and the gospels, for starters?

I'm not saying they would be wrong, but I might wonder if it's not just yet another hoop to jump through.

maryhelena

Spelling aside - likewise, interpolations and forgeries......

There were 'christians' in the time of Augustus (27 b.c. - 14 c.e.). Jewish christians, Jewish messianism. The issue is when did christian messianism first appear ie the all inclusive messianism with neither Jew nor Greek. In other words, the spiritual brotherhood and the heavenly temple - as opposed to the brotherhood of blood and the earthly temple. The term 'christian' is not restricted to the spiritual brotherhood variety of 'christians'.

The book of Acts says it was at Antioch where the followers of the gospel JC were first called christians. That story is not history but salvation history. Antioch is important for both history and for it's salvation interpretation (in the NT JC story). Antioch is the city in which the Romans, Marc Anthony, bound Antigonus to a cross, flogged and beheaded him, in 37 b.c. Plenty of scope with that historical event to light the messianic fire of removing the Roman occupation. Eventually, of course, the Jewish messianic hopes of rebuilding the temple were dashed - but in the meantime, the long years of Roman occupation would bring forth those prepared to keep the messianic torch burning.

37 b.c. to 132/136 c.e. = around 170 years of occupation. A short time in the history of occupation - but long years for a people who considered themselves the 'chosen people'. Hope, messianic hope - would be a living reality. Following 'christ' figures, dead or alive, would not be unexpected. Strange? Hardly. The Jews preserved their past and hopes for the future in prophetic writing - the Irish, through their 800 years of British occupation, did the preserving of their struggle in song......

(Boolavogue, beautifully sung by Anthony Kearns - without the bloodthirsty verse..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHNHhQ1Q_nk )

Methinks, if it's early christian origins we seek - we should not get faint of heart when we encounter Jewish messianism...

jakejonesiv

I don't know why "Chrestos" would force a redating of the gospels, although it is surely consistent with a second century date.

Here is a question that I have posted before. What is the earliest extant Greek manuscript of any NT text that actually spells out the Nomina Sacra, so that we can actually see the difference in the text between Christos and Chrestos? I have seen an ancient example brought forth yet. OK, what about other Christian writers, such as the Pre-Nicene fathers? Just give me something in Greek before Constantine. I don't know of any, but I will be happy to be proved wrong.

I posted this somewhere else, but I can't find it right now. The earliest extant dated church inscription is a sign over the doorway of a Marcionite building in a Syrian village dedicated to "the Lord and Savior Jesus The Good (Chrestos)."

It is dated to the early fourth century, in the year 318-319 C.E., 630 of the Seleucid era. It was discovered at Deir Ali (Lebaba), about three miles south of Damascus, by Le Bas and Waddington.

\9/ Insc. Grec. et Latines, 3. 1870, No. 2558, p. 582; cp. Harnack in Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. (1876), pp. 103 f.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/religious_s...k/bk4ch3-1.htm

http://tinyurl.com/3p7flfc

Jake

archibald

Personally, Jake, I'm just confused about what significance we should attach to the 'Chrestos/Christos' thing', in Tacitus, and/or elsewhere, vis-a-vis MJ/HJ.

Or more properly, I'm actually wondering why mountainman brought it up. Do you know?

jakejonesiv

I don't think MM brings up anything other than to promote the idea that Constaintine invented Christianity. But Pete can speak eloquently for himself.

Perhaps Christianity is a syncrestic religion, the combination of sects, some of which worshiped Christos, some of who worshipped Chrestos. Who knows?

Personally, I don't mind having loose ends. It just reminds us that we don't know everything, and that no one theory of Christian origins presented so far fits all the evidence. I think that is cool.

Jake

P.S. I try to stay away from the MJ/HJ dichotomy. I like Historical/Ahistorical better. I try to stay away from sublunar realms and patriarchal progenitors roaming the ancient Judean skies. It is much more productive to study these texts in terms of known Christian sects and documented theological controversies.

MCalavera

No one mythicist theory, you mean.

Historical Jesus fits quite well the current collective evidence and in a very parsimonious manner.

aa5874

This is incredible. An AGNOSTIC who admits nothing is certain is arguing for HJ of Nazareth.

Can't you see your FOLLY? Your are wasting your time. You're Agnostic.

You have NO idea what other people are talking about.

You cannot resolve the HJ/MJ argument.

You cannot show whether or NOT there was an HJ of Nazareth.

It is time to for you to call it QUITS. You are NOT contributing anything to thread.

In the NT, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and no supposed contemporaries, the authors of Acts and Pauline writings, ever claimed Jesus had a human father.

Paul was ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED to SEE Jesus in a non-historical state and BOASTED that OVER 500 people saw the RESURRECTED MYTH. See 1 Cor.15.

You MUST KNOW what that means.

It MUST mean that Paul was extremely happy with MYTH Jesus.