Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 06-15-2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Chres[t]i-anon

It seems to me that Πετοσαρᾶπιν Ὥρου χρησι-ανὸν could mean

"Petosarapin of-Horus chrEsianon" ("Horus chresianon" being a place designation) but the word chrEsianon seems to be in the nominative or accusative case, unless it is an undeclinable transliteration of a local place name.

The translators seem to have interpreted "Of-Horus" to mean "[Son] of Horus" (a person's name), and "chrEsiana" to be a misspelled coloqual form of "a christian", assuming that this was there to xplain the reason for the extradition order.

In order to get "christian" out of "Chresianon"
one needs some form of poetic licence. This
in my opinion is another instance of "let's put
on the christian glasses".

Nevertheless, I appreciate the Greek analyses.
Best wishes,

Pete

Tyro · 06-15-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In order to get "christian" out of "Chresianon"
one needs some form of poetic licence. This
in my opinion is another instance of "let's put
on the christian glasses".

I cannot see what else Chresianon could refer to. The text seems corrected and say Chrisianon, and that is very close to Christianon, Christian.

mountainman · 06-15-2009, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In order to get "christian" out of "Chresianon"
one needs some form of poetic licence. This
in my opinion is another instance of "let's put
on the christian glasses".

I cannot see what else Chresianon could refer to.

Your opening post in this thread states in regard to an assessment
on the chrestiani inscription he "leave[s] the subject without further conclusions about the meaning of the word Chrestiani here".

Quote:

The text seems corrected and say Chrisianon, and that is very close to Christianon, Christian.

Very close is not the same as.

The greek "chrestos" and "christos" words have different roots.
Word and sword are "very close" too.

In all objectiveness, the claim that any of these "chrestos" references
have anything at all to do with "christos" references is fraught with a
certain degree of totally open ambiguity. We do not have the necessary
data to make an unambiguous conclusion, conjectures aside.

Tyro · 06-15-2009, 07:51 PM

In all objectiveness, we cannot just ignore the statements by Lactantius and Tertullian that Christus/Christianus by non-Christians was pronounced Chrestus/Chrestianus. We cannot ignore Codex Sinaiticus, which has Chrestianou, Chrestianon and Chrestianos (Acts 11:26 and 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16). Indeed, Chrestianus in 37 CE cannot mean Christian, but in 256 CE noone claims there were no Christians, and I don't see what else this Chresianon could mean in the context. Why couldn't it mean Christian? What else would a Chresianon be?

spamandham · 06-15-2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

Chrestianus in 37 CE cannot mean Christian

Why not?

Tyro · 06-16-2009, 10:39 AM

Because we have no evidence of any sect being called Christians in 37 CE, and certainly such a sect would not have been so famous that someone named Jucundus would be known for being a Christian. Other Christian inscriptions are from 200 CE and younger.

spamandham · 06-16-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

Because we have no evidence of any sect being called Christians in 37 CE, and certainly such a sect would not have been so famous that someone named Jucundus would be known for being a Christian. Other Christian inscriptions are from 200 CE and younger.

Unless you believe in a Christian big-bang, it's very unlikely that there would be a cut-off point prior to which there are no inscriptions, and after which there are numerous inscriptions.

Under the assumption that Christianity grew just like any other cult grows, I think we expect early inscriptions to dot the historical record very sparsely, with increasing frequency as time progresses.

So, I don't think it's valid to reject this as a possible reference to Christianity merely because we don't start seeing more inscriptions until ~150 years later.

mountainman · 06-16-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyro

In all objectiveness, we cannot just ignore the statements by Lactantius and Tertullian that Christus/Christianus by non-Christians was pronounced Chrestus/Chrestianus. We cannot ignore Codex Sinaiticus, which has Chrestianou, Chrestianon and Chrestianos (Acts 11:26 and 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16). Indeed, Chrestianus in 37 CE cannot mean Christian, but in 256 CE noone claims there were no Christians, and I don't see what else this Chresianon could mean in the context. Why couldn't it mean Christian?

Dear Tyro,

For the record I am convinced (via Popperial falsifiability and pending further evidence) that there were no christians on the planet until the fourth century, but the discussion policy of this forum inhibits discussion of this option.

Quote:

What else would a Chresianon be?

A good research project.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 06-16-2009, 04:44 PM

The rules of this forum discourage the mindless repetition of the unsupported claim that there were no Christians before the 4th century.

Christian history, however falsified or forged, claims that the Christian movement was known to Paul as "the Way," and that Christians were first called Christians in Antioch during Paul's time. The standard dating from here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies, Yale University

The term "Christian" was first coined in Antioch probably some ten maybe even fifteen years after the death of Jesus. Now while this term Christian of course becomes the standard terminology for all later Christian traditions, and we think of it in much more lofty and positive terms, at the time that it was coined it was probably a slur. It was probably thrown at these early followers of Jesus as some derogatory designation of them. This is what we often see happening with new religious movements.... We often find in the sociology of sectarian groups that the group may have one self designation. They may call themselves "the way" or "the true light" or something like that because that's their religious self conception, but outsiders will often label them by the name of the leader or the name of some catchy element in their message that sparks their interest. So when we hear at Antioch that they're called "Christians" we have to think of that in more in the vein of them being called "Messianists" or "Christies."

A more radical view would place the term even later, but 37 CE is well before any mainstream scholar thinks that the followers of Jesus were known as Christian.

mountainman · 06-16-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christian history, however falsified or forged, claims that the Christian movement was known to Paul as "the Way,"

Who says?
Mr Eusebius?
The world's a big place.
Bethle-Rome is not its centre.
Ever heard of Lao Tsu?

The Way is Uncharted ...

TAO: A road, a path, the way by which people travel,
the way of nature and finally the Way of ultimate reality.

TE: Virtue, character, influence, moral force.
The "outward effect of a man and the inward effect of the self."

CHING: Change.

Fiction is not history. Archaeological parameters
suggest we are dealing with the following general
distribution of ancient historical evidence.

(1) extremely scant evidence citations before the 4th century,
none of which are 100% certain, and many of which are very
ambiguous to say the least,

(2) an explosion of all forms of evidence in the 4th CE.

When are we going to take the obvious question
for serious checking? Popperian falsifiability does
not require me to wear "Christian Glasses" and
refuse to tackle head on the "hard questions of
christian consciousness before Constantine".

Show me one christian church underneath the Constantinian
Basilicas instead of the foundations of Hellenic temples or
shrines and I'll not bother to make another post into this forum.

Until then it appears to me to be the case that:

"Plato's critical questioning is still a menace
to the state of this forum".

and that therefore there is a certain degree of truth in
Billy Connolly's account of the resurrection

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

06-15-2009, 07:51 PM	#54
Tyro Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: US Posts: 90	In all objectiveness, we cannot just ignore the statements by Lactantius and Tertullian that Christus/Christianus by non-Christians was pronounced Chrestus/Chrestianus. We cannot ignore Codex Sinaiticus, which has Chrestianou, Chrestianon and Chrestianos (Acts 11:26 and 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16). Indeed, Chrestianus in 37 CE cannot mean Christian, but in 256 CE noone claims there were no Christians, and I don't see what else this Chresianon could mean in the context. Why couldn't it mean Christian? What else would a Chresianon be?

06-16-2009, 10:39 AM	#56
Tyro Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: US Posts: 90	Because we have no evidence of any sect being called Christians in 37 CE, and certainly such a sect would not have been so famous that someone named Jucundus would be known for being a Christian. Other Christian inscriptions are from 200 CE and younger.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.