Tyro

I ment in singular, Christian. A Christian was called Chrestianus. Chrestiani in plural.

Tertullian says:
"But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you “Chrestianus” (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity."

Tyro

I still find it odd that a soldier could have the cognomen Chrestianus at the same time as the Christians were called Chrestianus by non-Christians. Since Tacitus is aware of Chrestiani in 115 CE, the soldiers certainly must have been in 205 CE. I wonder if this really supports Jucundus having Chrestianus as his cognomen, or just support Herennius being a Christian or being accused of being one.

Minimalist

I don't want to start the whole Tacitus thing again but I have grave doubts about its validity. No other writer in antiquity makes reference to Tacitus' passage including xtian writers who, one would think, would have been able to make use of such a passage.

Then again, there is this discussion of the medieval manuscript.

http://www.textexcavation.com/docume...hrestianos.pdf

Enjoy.

Tyro

But if indeed Tacitus mentions Chrestiani here, as the earliest extant manuscript seems to indicate, then Chrestian could mean Christian even earlier than Tertullian. It seems odd Herennius as a Roman soldier would have been called something Romans called the Christians - Chrestianus - especially if they would have ment that Herennius was a good guy.

spamandham

I see a couple of possibilities:

1. Christians were really referred to individually as "Chrestianus" early on, as recorded by Tertullian. If that's the case, and considering the rarity of the word prior to the 2nd century, it seems to me it's proper to conclude that Jucundus Chrestianus really was an early Christian. That such titles would predate the 1st century is not surprising to me, since it's doubtful Christianity arose in big bang fashion in the 1st century. The most plausible scenario (to me), is not that Christianity started with Jesus, but that the Jesus figure was later attached to a pre-existing cult. (the Gospels strongly imply that Christianity evolved out of the John the Baptist cult).

2. It's a later attempt to distort history, such that readers will confuse earlier mentionings of "Chrestianus” with "Christian". But why? One reason to distort history, is because the history you desire simply doesn't exist.

Unless of course, he was a Christian, and that's what was meant by "Chrestianus".

Roger Pearse

I doubt that I am the only one who is a little tired of this genre of argument (although you make it in good faith, I'm sure).

All these arguments rely on several silent assumptions which won't bear examination, including

1. That most ancient literature is preserved, so we can argue from what that collection does NOT contain. In reality our best estimate is that 1% is preserved.

2. That because an author does not quote another author means that he does not know that author. In reality, authors write books for their own ends, and include what *they* want to include. We could only argue about what their books 'must' contain if we know the circumstances of composition, and this we know for very few ancient literary texts.

Can we all stomp on this argument when it appears, please?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Minimalist

Yes, if that's what they were doing. You are looking at it in English. Both christus and chrestus were Greek words. Christus meant "the anointed one" and chrestus seems to mean "good" or "useful." That seems to be quite a mistake for a Roman to make.

Minimalist

Roger, you always leave out #3. "That there was nothing there for them to quote."

I understand that it goes against your desires but #3 exists, nonetheless.

Tyro

A Christian among the watchmen of Rome during the times of persecution, in which "Many martyrs are daily burned, confined, or beheaded, before our eyes." (Clement of Alexandria)?

Roger Pearse

? Please read my post before disagreeing with it, hmm? I wasn't giving a list of alternative possibilities.

All the best,

Roger Pearse