Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-29-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

His contemporary and rival Adrian apparently died at 80 in 192.
His teacher Herodes Atticus apparently died at 76 in 179.
He lived in the second half of the Second century, so he cannot be the Chrestus referring to by Pliny or Tacitus. He did have a hundred disciples. They could have been called Chrestians too....

Again, Pliny did NOT mention any one called Chrestus so it does NOT matter how persons were called Chrestus.

It was Suetonius that mentioned Chrestus.

PhilosopherJay · 08-29-2012, 07:59 PM

Hi aa5874,

As it explains in this article Pliny correspondence with Trajan: Christians or Chrestians?, we do not have an early manuscript to tell if Pliny used Christus or Chrestus.

The article notes this:

Quote:

In France Giovanni Giocondo (c. 1433 – 1515) a Dominican priest, claimed to have discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger’s letters containing copies of his correspondence with Trajan. Two Italian editions of Pliny’s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

The earliest letters are medieval and we do not know what exactly Pliny may have written – Chrest or Christ.

Such is the case for all texts claimed in support for early Christianity: they either use Chrest, an abbreviation, or they do not exist – and belong to a Christian textual tradition, rather than history. By understanding their context, we may learn something useful.

If we are to find any value in the Testimonia, the many texts for which no primary source material exists, such as Pliny and Justin amongst others, it is by studying them within their archaeological context.

The term used in the artefactual evidences of the early centuries is Chrest/Good – not messiah – and Jesus the Good, and that is the context within which the missing primary source material should be interpreted.

If the Pliny-Trajan correspondence is genuine, then we may consider the term used was not Christian, but Chrestian. This method of interpretation applies also to the earliest codices of the New Testament.

Think of it this way. A mouse is a small rodent. In 1953, a pointing device was invented by Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute. It looked like a mouse, so he called it a mouse.

If we see the word mouse in a writing from say 1945, we can be sure that the author meant a rodent and not a pointing device. In a similar way, because we have never found the term Christos used at the time of Pliny, but we have found the term "Chrestos" often used then, we should assume that Pliny also used the term Chrestos, and the term Chrestians. This is logical from the best evidence we have.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

His contemporary and rival Adrian apparently died at 80 in 192.
His teacher Herodes Atticus apparently died at 76 in 179.
He lived in the second half of the Second century, so he cannot be the Chrestus referring to by Pliny or Tacitus. He did have a hundred disciples. They could have been called Chrestians too....

Again, Pliny did NOT mention any one called Chrestus so it does NOT matter how persons were called Chrestus.

It was Suetonius that mentioned Chrestus.

aa5874 · 08-29-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...Think of it this way. A mouse is a small rodent. In 1953, a pointing device was invented by Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute. It looked like a mouse, so he called it a mouse.

If we see the word mouse in a writing from say 1945, we can be sure that the author meant a rodent and not a pointing device. In a similar way, because we have never found the term Christos used at the time of Pliny, but we have found the term "Chrestos" often used then, we should assume that Pliny also used the term Chrestos, and the term Chrestians. This is logical from the best evidence we have.

Again, you ERR.

The Greek word for "Anointed" was known for hundreds of years BEFORE the Pliny letter. See the Septuagint.

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2012, 05:00 AM

Hi aa5874,

My analogy was perhaps imperfect.

Let us look at the term "Superman." It was certainly in use before the first "Superman" comic book came out in 1937. George Bernard Shaw wrote his play "Man and Superman" in 1903. We can be sure that it was not generally a reference to the comic book character "Superman," (alias Clark Kent) until 1937.

Thus when Jimmy McHugh says to James Cagney in the 1933 movie "Footlight Parade," "I'm not a Superman," we can be sure that he is not referring to the comic book character. On the other hand, in the song at the beginning of the television show "Scrubs" (2001-2010) entilted "I'm no Superman" uses the term "Superman," there very well may be a reference to the comic book character "Superman."

The term "Christian" is not attested to be referring to a follower of Jesus until the late 2nd Century. Since we have attestations to the term "Chrestian" being used before that, whenever there is ambiguity, logically we should assume that Chrestian was used. The archaeological and manuscript evidence backs this up.

Because we live in a culture where the term"Christ," almost universally refers to Jesus, we assume that the term was in use in reference to him during his lifetime or shortly thereafter.

However, if we assume Jesus was a literary creation, the term "Christ" could have been added later as a description. In the same way, the term "Superhero" was added later to the character "Superman." It was first used in print in 1942 in "Supersnipe" Comics. In 1937, "Superman" was not a "Superhero" because there was no word "superhero."

There was certainly the word "Christ" meaning anointed before the first century, but the question is when it was applied to the Jesus character.

It is my hypothesis that we should assume that alongside the Jesus fiction, there were historical characters named Chrestus and their followers were called Chrestians (or Chrestianos in Greek). At a certain point in the mid to late 2nd century, the term Christ (or Christus) ("anointed") was applied to the Jesus character. Since the term Chrestus was known to be an historical name. The similar sounding term "Christus" was confused with Chrestus. Thus Pliny and Tacitus may have made reference to real historical men named Chrestus, but not to Jesus. Later Christians assumed these references were to the historical Jesus called Christos. In fact, it seems the term "Christos" was chosen for Jesus because the enemies of the cult already referred to him as Chrestus (the Good/Useful) and his followers as Chrestians. The enemies of the Jesus cult were using the term mockingly to mean somebody who pretends to be good and is really useless. They used the term in the same way that the term "Tiny" is often used to describe huge people.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...Think of it this way. A mouse is a small rodent. In 1953, a pointing device was invented by Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute. It looked like a mouse, so he called it a mouse.

If we see the word mouse in a writing from say 1945, we can be sure that the author meant a rodent and not a pointing device. In a similar way, because we have never found the term Christos used at the time of Pliny, but we have found the term "Chrestos" often used then, we should assume that Pliny also used the term Chrestos, and the term Chrestians. This is logical from the best evidence we have.

Again, you ERR.

The Greek word for "Anointed" was known for hundreds of years BEFORE the Pliny letter. See the Septuagint.

anethema · 08-30-2012, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Since Pliny's mention of Christians is the first historical mention of the term Christian that we can date, we have to consider that the term may have been Chrestian (the good or useful) rather than Christian (the anointed ones). As I have previously suggested, it may have been derived from the followers of Bithynian Archpriest Gaius Cassius Chrestos and later transferred to the Jesus cult.

This point is made in the article Pliny correspondence with Trajan: Christians or Chrestians? at History Hunters International that Pliny probably used the term "Chrestian" rather than "Christian."

Since Tacitus apparently also used the term Chrestianos (see The Chrestianos Issue in Tacitus Reinvestigated
by Erík Zara, Th.D., there is a good possibility that the term Christian may derive from Chrestianos. See Chrestians before Christians? An Old Inscription Revisited,by Erík Zara, Th.D. for the lack of attestation of the word "Christian" in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The term Christrianos (Anointed ones) from Christos (the Anointed) really doesn't make sense being applied to Jesus. Jesus does not undergo any real anointing ceremony and Jewish Christians did not have any anointing ceremony for their followers. They did have a baptism (dipping ceremony) but this is very different than the anointing with oil ceremony we should expect of followers of an anointed Jewish man.

The only references in the new testament to the term Christian (Χριστιανός) explains nothing:
Acts 11:26: "and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."
Acts 26:28, "And Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
1 Peter 4:16, "but if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but in that name let him glorify God."

They could very well be Second, Third century or later additions.

As an alternative, we can well imagine that a wealthy Archpriest like Gaius Cassius would get the nickname "the Good" (Chrestos) for various reasons and his followers would get the name Chrestians - (the good ones). Later Jesus followers could adopt the name and wrongly claim it came from the term "Christos" anointed.

Plutarch tells us of Phocion, a 4th century BCE Athenian stateman who was noted for his honesty and given the nickname "Chrestos" It is quite a common Greek name.

James Davison in a book review[/URL] of "A lexicon of Greek Personal Names" by T. Corsten, notes:

Because of this and the generally insidious nature of the Christian revolution, the name changes of the Christian era were rather subtle and much less dramatic than those provoked by the Muslim or the Norman Conquest. Some traditional but generalised theophorics – Theodore, Dorothy, Theodosius – needed no amendment, others reflected a rather different religious emphasis: Theodoulos (‘Slave of God’), Cyril and Cyriac (‘Of the Lord’), Eusebios (‘Pious’), Anastasia (‘Resurrection’). Christophoros, however, is the only name in this volume with a Christ element, and Iesous (Jesus/Joshua) also seems to have been carefully avoided in this, as in almost all, regions. Stavros – ‘Cross’ – has not yet become a name. On the other hand, there are lots of names in Chrestos – an old name meaning ‘useful’, ‘good’ – which sounded like Christos and seems to have been used as an alternative, so we have a Chrestos son of Theodoulos, and Chrestos father of Logos, as well as a Chrestinianos and a Chrestina.

I believe based on the evidence of the moment that Gaius Cassius Chrestos would be the logical choice for where the term "Christian" or what would become the term "Christian," (originally Chrestian) originated.

The Codex Sinaiticus with the eta in Chrestinous changed to an iota, thus turning the original Chrestians into Christians. This is from the above mentioned article "Pliny correspondence with Trajan: Christians or Chrestians?" We can say that the word originally meant the followers of Chrestos and was later appropriated by the Followers of Jesus.

all i can say is thank theos for your contribution to the discussion. can you imagine how many christines of the world dont know the derivation of their name? the funny thing is the eta or iota is paramount to the meaning. oh if english would be as precise. arius lost the battle for orthodoxy over an iota remember? thanx

Duvduv · 08-30-2012, 08:44 AM

The fact that an original manuscript no longer exists, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, which usually goes ignored:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://h.../2011/05/pliny

In France Giovanni Giocondo (c. 1433 – 1515) a Dominican priest, claimed to have discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger’s letters containing copies of his correspondence with Trajan. Two Italian editions of Pliny’s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2012, 10:31 AM

Hi anethema,

Thanks anethema. It is always nice to know that people are thinking about these things.

One letter usually doesn't make a difference in most things, but in some cases it certainly does.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by anethema

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

{snip}.

all i can say is thank theos for your contribution to the discussion. can you imagine how many christines of the world dont know the derivation of their name? the funny thing is the eta or iota is paramount to the meaning. oh if english would be as precise. arius lost the battle for orthodoxy over an iota remember? thanx

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2012, 10:53 AM

Hi Duvduv,

I don't discount the possiblity that the correspondence might be a fraud, however, I have not seen any convincing arguments for it. It seems that Giocondo would have gotten a lot more prestige from discovering a new letter from any apostle or Christian of the period, rather than going to the trouble of writing hundreds of authentic sounding letters with details that could easily have exposed him as a fraud. For example, if he had mentioned a person who was not alive then or a practice that came after Pliny, the best historians of his day would probably have found him out.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The fact that an original manuscript no longer exists, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, which usually goes ignored:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://h.../2011/05/pliny

In France Giovanni Giocondo (c. 1433 – 1515) a Dominican priest, claimed to have discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger’s letters containing copies of his correspondence with Trajan. Two Italian editions of Pliny’s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

andrewcriddle · 08-30-2012, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

I don't discount the possiblity that the correspondence might be a fraud, however, I have not seen any convincing arguments for it. It seems that Giocondo would have gotten a lot more prestige from discovering a new letter from any apostle or Christian of the period, rather than going to the trouble of writing hundreds of authentic sounding letters with details that could easily have exposed him as a fraud. For example, if he had mentioned a person who was not alive then or a practice that came after Pliny, the best historians of his day would probably have found him out.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I commented in another thread that it would have been difficult for Giocondo (or a contemporary) to present a convincing picture of small town politics in Bithynia c 100 CE without access to the works of Dio Chrysostom, which were not generally known until a little later.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv · 08-30-2012, 11:19 AM

He might have specifically found something that required a few "improvements." In other words, what he found and what he claimed to have found were different. I mean, if it can happen in a controversial case outside the church as in the case of the Secret Gospel of Mark and Morton Smith, then surely it can be expected pertaining to church officials in the past, especially since there is no original manuscript anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

I don't discount the possiblity that the correspondence might be a fraud, however, I have not seen any convincing arguments for it. It seems that Giocondo would have gotten a lot more prestige from discovering a new letter from any apostle or Christian of the period, rather than going to the trouble of writing hundreds of authentic sounding letters with details that could easily have exposed him as a fraud. For example, if he had mentioned a person who was not alive then or a practice that came after Pliny, the best historians of his day would probably have found him out.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The fact that an original manuscript no longer exists, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, which usually goes ignored:

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://h.../2011/05/pliny

In France Giovanni Giocondo (c. 1433 – 1515) a Dominican priest, claimed to have discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger’s letters containing copies of his correspondence with Trajan. Two Italian editions of Pliny’s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

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

08-30-2012, 08:44 AM	#66
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	The fact that an original manuscript no longer exists, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, which usually goes ignored: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://h.../2011/05/pliny In France Giovanni Giocondo (c. 1433 – 1515) a Dominican priest, claimed to have discovered a manuscript of Pliny the Younger’s letters containing copies of his correspondence with Trajan. Two Italian editions of Pliny’s Epistles were published by Giocondo, one printed in Bologna in 1498 and one from the press of Aldus Manutius in 1508.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.