stephan huller

While this in no way is offered as a defense of the other posters here it does appear that Chrestos was used as an alternative to Christ in the early Alexandrian and Marcionite communities (assuming they were different). Just as Christos goes back to a Hebrew root meaning to anoint Chrestos in this application is derived from straight, upright, righteous and may well have been a name by which the Qumran community identified itself. Even though Christianoi came to be the authoritative name of the followers of Jesus in Rome it is an unusual formation. Chrestoi is used by Clement and is IMO more original, and likely reflective of the early tradition within the community which held that Jesus was wholly divine and descended from heaven to Jerusalem

That the title THE messiah is inappropriate for a figure like Jesus has been obvious to any Jew with a pulse since the beginning of the heresy which developed this formula

stephan huller

And just so as I can annoy everyone at this forum equally, let me say this about the term yesharim. Everyone is all for 'not offending' every group possible. I can see why this is and in some ways agree with it. Nevertheless one of the unfortunate by products of protecting various (vocal) minorities is that it dilutes the original conceptual framework of terms like 'straight.' We use the word today to mean 'not-gay' but in its original usage - yesharim - it meant 'upright' or 'righteous.' In other words, being 'straight' wasn't originally defined by sexual preference or a refusal to partake in certain forms of sexuality but rather a decision to follow 'the upright' path.

It was positively defined rather than - as is the case with the manipulation of language in the modern word - a 'default' position.

In this case of course 'the upright path' was originally defined by Jesus's visit to Jerusalem and environs at the beginning of the common era or Moses visit to Sinai. Yet when you really think about it following the path of righteous has very little to do with a belief in God at least theoretically. I bet that among the ancient religious Jewry (and Samaritans) following the 'straight' path was more important than 'believing in God' per se.

Look at Abraham. He actually meets God (or his angels) and he still isn't convinced. Why should anyone who hasn't met God be condemned for not believing in God. Condemnation in my mind was for departing the 'straight' path. You see this very much in evidence in the literature associated with Qumran. In the same way I think the manipulation of language for political correctness robs the 'straight' identity of its necessary moral dimension. I don't even think you have to believe in God in the strictest sense to be have one of the yesharim. Just abide outwardly by a set of principles which lead to 'uprightness.' Be caught in an act which proves one departed from the path - condemnation. It's very simple and doesn't have anything to do with whether you 'believe in God.' I have always thought that the Pentateuch cares more about 'trust' in what God set forth rather than 'faith' in God.

Don't know why I am mentioning any of this. Just thinking about the original sense of the word 'yesharim' (which might well be behind the figure of 'James the Just' as Jacob in Jewish tradition is very much connected with the concept of yashar).

Duvduv

I honestly don't see the difficulty involved according your view, Maklelan, that the original Nicean Creed could not have added "born of a virgin," and "crucified" if that is what they believed and if that is what their texts said. We are not talking about big changes. And what would have enabled the Antioch Creed(s) to add these couple of words just 15 years later?

Unless we are really talking about a situation where their theologies were derived from sources other than epistles and gospels, which they did not yet take seriously or consider more siginificant than their other earlier unwritten traditions.

Maklelan

I have been clear. The misunderstanding was yours.

I never said otherwise. Again you're not interacting with what I've actually stated.

I don't believe I stated that paleography is superior to C14 dating. I simply stated that it was not unilaterally inferior.

For the most part, but it's not entirely eliminated.

Can you provide some examples of such disparate interpretations? Also, you are aware, are you not, that C14 dates even from more recent artifacts often have larger date ranges. The Shroud of Turin, for instance, had 12 samples taken from it and tested in three different laboratories. The dates ranged from 591 +/- 30 yrs/bp to 795 +/- 65 yrs/bp. That's a potential range of 300 years.

The vast majority of the dates are mid-second to mid-third century. The one outlier is a remarkably early date that all specialists of which I know have rejected.

I never said it was certain. I only said it is not unilaterally inferior to C14 dating. It is a perfectly valid and trustworthy way to achieve a dating just as rough as those achieved by C14 dating.

Maklelan

Are you saying that you think the original Nicene Creed contains the absolute entirety of Christian doctrine from that time period? If it's not in the creed, specifically drawn up to respond to the specific question of the nature of Christ's generation from the Father, then it was not believed? Is this really your contention?

Any one of a number of things.

That's not at all what we're talking about. There's no reason whatsoever to jump to such an irrational conclusion.

Duvduv

Except that the Fourth Antioch Creed and the Istanbul Creed contained the fundamentals of what they thought their Christ was about. The first Nicene Creed apparently did too, but not elements found in the gospels or ideas mentioned in the epistles. Nothing irrational about my observations.

Maklelan

Nothing irrational about those observations, no, but to infer from those observations that anything not included in the creeds was just not believed is quite irrational, and it certainly doesn't constitute enough evidentiary leverage to insist that the numerous, numerous texts from before Nicea that discuss those very issues were fabricated after the fact.

The creeds were boundary maintenance. Where boundaries were not disputed there was no need to put up markers. Where boundaries suddenly became disputed there was reason to put up markers. Certainly you can agree that different issues cropped up at different times, in different places, and for different reasons.

aa5874

Well, it MUST be made known that Paleography is NOT certain and that scientific dating is potentially superior to Paleography because it tends to eliminate Bias and Subjectivity.

Maklelan

C14 dating is also not certain. The biases and subjectivity it putatively reduces is marginal, and the cumulative work of the academy vis-à-vis paleography also produces a reduction of bias and subjectivity. Line up the numerous dates for P46 and you have a pretty consistent range of dates. I'm not arguing C14 dating is no good, I'm just saying that you shouldn't poo-poo paleographic dating. To do so only betrays a rather naive bias.

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous. The dating of P 46 by Paleography show the serious potential problems with Bias and Subjectivity where Paleographers are critical of the initial late dating of P 46.

Paleographers may already know when a text to be dated was believed to have been written.

In radiocarbon testing it is the base material, the medium, a BLANK piece of material, that is tested so what is written, style , author , when it was believed to be written is IRRELEVANT and this tends to give virtually no bias or subjective results.