aa5874

Why bring up conventional scholarship? The Sub-Lunar crucifixion of Jesus is NOT conventional at all.

There is NO logical basis to assume that an unconventional theory is wrong.

When the writings of Tertullian is examined it is noticed that it is claimed that there was some kind of "mix-up" with the word "Chrestian" and "Christian".

Now Tertullian was supposedly writing up to 100 years AFTER Pliny and it is assumed "Ad Nationes and "Apology" were written at the END of the 2nd century.


In "Ad Nationes"1.3 "Apology" 3 Now, isn't this ASTONISHING?

Based on Tertullian when he was alive up to 100 years after the Pliny letters the NATION of Romans did NOT know the correct name of the very people that they hated were calling them CHRESTIANS.

And further, we have Tacitus who appeared to have written the word CHRESTIANOS in Annals and Suetonius who wrote about a character called CHRESTOS in the "Life of Cladius"

I am afraid that TRAJAN may have never received Pliny's letter about CHRISTIANS.

Pliny's letter to Trajan about Christians may be a forgery or may have originally been about CHRESTIANS.

According to Tertullian, the Roman Nation "call us CHRESTIANS".

DCHindley

Huphan Steller,

It so happens that I was channeling Adolf last Saturday and we discussed these specific passages:

123 n2 Doch ist darauf hinzuweisen, daß Marcioniten noch im Anfang des 4. Jahrh. (Inschrift von Lebaba) den Namen Crhstos, schrieben und gewiß nicht übersehen haben, wie passend dieser Name für die persönliche Manifestation des guten Gottes ist.

"But it should be noted that even in the early 4th Century (inscription of Lebaba) Marcionites wrote the name Crhstos, and certainly did not overlook how fitting this name is for the personal manifestation of the Good God."

and

343 (8) Daß er nicht Cristos, sondern Crhstos, heißt, ist schwerlich ein bloßer Itazismus; denn naiv stand am Anfang . des 4. Jahrhunderts kein Christ mehr dem Wort gegenüber; vielmehr ist anzunehmen, daß die Marcioniten den Erlöser mit Bewußtsein Crhstos, nannten, im Gegensatz zum "Gesalbten" des ATlichen Gottes und in Erinnerung an den "guten Gott", den er offenbart hat. Man beachte auch, daß von den vier Namen des Erlösers nur der Name Crhstos, ausgeschrieben ist.

"That [the arch dated the 630th year of the Seleucid era (318/319 CE) near Damascus] did not use Cristos, but Crhstos, is hardly a mere itacism [the letter eta taking the sound of iota]. Because the word Christ is no longer the simple word of choice by the beginning of the 4th Century, it is more likely that the Marcionites consciously called the Redeemer Crhstos, as opposed to the "Anointed One" of the Old Testament God, and in token of the "Good God" he has revealed."

As it happened, I asked him whether we are actually naievely projecting this early 4th century substitution of Chrestos for Christos back to the 2nd century because it conforms to what we think Marcion himself should have been doing?

Unfortunately, I lost the signal before he could reply ... oops! I see Al Schweitzer is calling on the other plane of consciousness, so gotta go!

DHC

aa5874

Well, the very writer "Tertullian" to whom "Against Marcion" is atrributed did make a most astonishing claim.

The ROMAN people called them CHRESTIANS not Christians

In "Ad Nationes"1.3

Doug Shaver

You have no logical basis for supposing that I assume anything of the sort.

andrewcriddle

I already replied to this point.

Pliny says of his initial group of Christian suspects As his investigations continued various people who had at one time been interested in Christianity were denounced to him. They worshipped the Emperor etc and Pliny accepted their word that even if they had once been Christians they weren't anymore.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Over simplistic thinking imo. The phrase "the nation of christians" is a Eusebian trope, and it appears to have been Eusebius's intention to write a history of this "nation of christians". If a 15th century forger wanted to support the idea of a "nation of christians", and how they were discussed as intriguing objects of Imperial Inquisition and Persecution (for a 15th century audience), then he could have forged a letter that actually mentioned "christians". Since we dont have the letter in front of us we dont know whether he wrote "Chrestians" or "Christians".

mountainman

But Momigliano was not renown for his erudition in mathematics.

I was talking about whether we can make the claim that something in history can be judged as either 'proven' or 'not proven'. (See above)

Doug Shaver

The extent of Momigliano's erudition has no relevance to my point.

And I am talking about how there is no way I can speak to that claim until I know what you mean by "proven."

mountainman

The context was provided in the quote:

For example, on the question whether the Pliny letter is a genuine item from the early second century. The way I see it is that the genuineness is neither proven or not proven. There are arguments either way, and the evidence appears to be insufficient to reach a safe conclusion either way. This is a two-edged sword. There are many who are prepared to summarily judge the authenticity of the Pliny - Trajan Letter exchange as genuine and authentic on the basis of its popular presentation and inclusion into the documentary record since the 15th century. This judgement may be premature.

Doug Shaver

I didn't ask for context, you evasive twit. I asked for a definition.