Dutch_labrat

I think it is quite related. Asking about early christians in Palestine may get you in a nasty sema(n)tic mess. If a contemporary source mentions christians what does he mean?

dog-on

Ointment may have some relevance if used to annoint. Perhaps.

spin

As I understand it the diaspora Jews used the Greek verb equivalent χριω of mashach ("to anoint") and constructed the equivalent to messiah, noun from the verb, only in Greek the result is not the "one who is anointed" but "what is used to anoint". It was originally a faulty translation from Hebrew to Greek.


spin

mountainman

Are we to consider the non-christian Greek authors (and by this I would focus on those "academics" and "priesthoods" etc who acted as the authors and preservers of Greek literature) as being inside or outside the limits of this Judeo-christian religious thought? I think outside -- the non-christian Greek priesthood were part of the "Gentiles" (on the outside) to whom the new Judeo-christian (on the inside) religious thought was being "pitched".

My research suggests that the Greek class of people whom Josephus and Philo refer to as the therapeutae (as distinct from the Essenes) may in fact be the same class of people as the "therapeutae" who staffed and served in the ubiquitous temples dedicated to the Graeco-Roman healing god of the Roman Empire Ascelpius. See Galen, etc, etc.

These people carried around healing ointments, and unguents as a matter of practice. In fact, their practice is characterised by the use of an "unguent box" and by annointing for various reasons related to medical healing and/or perhaps the completion of ascetic practices.

A direct mention of an "unguent box" exists at Nag Hammadi -- Lithargoel or his assistant physician carry one about in the text "The Acts of Peter and the 12 apostles". Did Jesus carry one around? Not likely, since he was a different type of "physician", a different type of partial ascetic, a different type of holy man who was drank intoxicting substances, a different type of holy man who gnawed on the blood and bones of dead animals. The Christian picture is a distortion - Jesus healed by "miracles", not by the proto-medical knowledge of the Greek physicians and their priesthoods in Asclepius.

The diaspora Jews seem to have authored the DSS, but this stuff has absolutely nothing to do with the new testament and jesus and christianity. The reality of the evidence sees Nag Hammadi as a refuge for "diaspora Greeks" (that is, Greeks in exile hundreds of miles up the Nile from Alexandria).

This has wandered away from Palestine, sorry, and I notice you have not yet removed Josephus (TF) from your list as a 1st century reference to "christians" in Palestine. The Josephus reference was not authored in the 1st century. Ancient historians appear agreed it is much later - typically the 4th.

And the original "faulty translation" was made in an unknown century right? Perhaps as early as the 3rd century BCE and perhaps a lot later? Do we really know who and when did the Hebrew to Greek translations to the LXX? What does Origen's 3rd century CE hexapla have to say about the distribution of the "faulty" translations of this term?

dog-on

Aren't Christians supposedly annointed with the spirit of Jesus Christ?

Isn't such a concept fairly evident in Paul?

gurugeorge

Tell us more spin! Did people mention this, or was there any embarrassment about it at the time, or is it something that passed unnoticed until modern-day academics noticed it? I mean, is it such a recondite little corner of ancient Greek grammar that people could feasibly have persisted in the error without being aware of it for a long time? Or is it an obvious howler that they just bloody-mindedly went with despite native Greek speakers laughing at them (kind of thing)?

To me, there's something a bit fishy (if you'll pardon the pun ) going on with this "Chrest/Christ" business, what with antecedents in oracles (chres-something), the Mysteries, the apparent confusion between the two words amongst some early Christians (Chrestians?), etc., etc. I know the source for the idea that "Christ" (or was it "Chrest"?) was a term used for initiates in the mysteries is Blavatsky, and therefore suspect, but is there anywhere at all where she could have gotten this idea from?

And doesn't one of the earliest known archaeological finds have an inscription for "Chrestus" or "Chrestian" or something - plus one (or is it two, if you accept that text of one of them has been altered?) of the famous Roman sources shows "Chrestian" too doesn't it? Shouldn't we be taking that more seriously? (AFAIK there was a Church Father who commented about the confusion - but how much should we trust his view that "Christian" is the right word, and not "Chrestian" - perhaps the confusion - or obfuscation - was the other way round?)

aa5874

There is one writer who claimed he was a Christian but was anointed with the oil of God, NOT the spirit of Jesus.

"Theophilus to Autolycus" It was certainly not necessary to believe in Jesus to be called a Christian.

mountainman

The class of people who performed the annointing in the gymnasia, which were commonly associated with temples of Asclepius, were the "Therepeutae of Asclepius". When they had to travel outside of the temples (which were often associated with gymnasia) they carried the ointments in unguent box. Special divisions of these peope were associated with the Roman army -- as the medics to the soldiers.

Lithargoel -- whom every man and his dog associates and identifies with "Jesus Henry --- in NHC 6.1 "TAOPATTA" carried an unguent box, is a physician and healer of the empire who instructs the apostles. The author of NHC 6.1 is a non christian. The 6th codex is one of the 3 (of 12, 13) codices with relatively expensive bindings, containing exclusively the non-christian texts.

aa5874

Philo did not mention Asclepius when he wrote about the Therapeutae. And Philo worship only the God of the Jews based on his writings.

mountainman

Based on the writings preserved by "chrestians". Asclepius has a vast abundance of architecture and literary references as may be seen in this resource to the therapeutae of Asclepius. Perhaps Philo simply forgot, or the christians citing/quoting Philo only preserved the Jewish bits.

Moreover coins minted from the time of Nero in 54 CE through to Licinius in 324 CE depict Asclepius or Salus -- include a total of forty-six emperors (listed below). It is notable that the tradition ceases with the rise to supremacy of the emperor Constantine.