PhilosopherJay

Hi Spin,

Thanks for the interpretation.

I agree that linking the cup to the Chrestus of Suetonius or to Simon the Magician of Justin Martyr is a long stretch.

I do think that there is enough evidence in the written works for us to reconsider Tertullian's idea that Chrestus is just a mispronunciation of Christus. Christians naturally assume the Romans were wrong and Chrestus is an echo of the historical Christ of the gospels. We could consider the opposite, that Chrestus was the historical figure and Christ just a fictional echo written in the gospels, based loosely on him.


Warmly,

Philosoopher Jay

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

You make an exceedingly chrestos (good) point in the statement:

We could consider the opposite,
that Chrestus was the historical figure and
Christ just a fictional echo written in the gospels,
based loosely on him.

I just throught I'd amplify this point on account of the fact
that is precisely the point being made by certain archaeologists,
such as this review of the Archaeology of ‘Chrest’ .

Best wishes,


Pete

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the link.

This is just another case where we find find historical anomalies which don't match well with the "official story" of the rise of Christianity.

One more point which I think is important is that the gospel writers do not seem to be aware that Jesus is the Christ (the anointed one) when Mary Magdalene anoints him with oil.

Note John:
John
Mark:
There should be a punchline to this story, something like, from that day forward, he was known as Jesus the Christ (Jesus, the anointed) There isn't. Rather, the text goes out of its way to refer to the use of oils for cleansing a dead body in a burial ceremony.

The baptism by John the Baptist is also not an anointing for kingship. It is simply a sin cleansing ritual.

There is not a word in the gospels about the anointing of Jesus for kingship. When exactly did the anointed one get anointed? Why is there no reference to how Jesus got his name/title "the Anointed One".

This makes sense only if we assume that Jesus Christ (the Anointed one) was an element from outside the original gospel stories.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

This a very critical question - who and what we are to presume
in this very very key term "the Anointed one". Perhaps it can
be summarised by your question as to whether

Jesus Christ (the Anointed one)
was an element from outside
the original gospel stories.

Yes. Outside. I doubt whether
the original gospel stories have
an historical inside to them at all.

Several answers to this question might be entertained.

One such answer to this question is that the term may have been imported from the ascetic traditions, where anointing may have been used to indicate the passing of successively more difficult ascetic practices (and/or yoga related activities). This would explain a profound lack of archaeology for the "Christic cults", because the ascetic life was usually attached to no possessions. We have plenty of evidence for Panhellenic asceticism, perhaps starting with the lineage of Pythagoras, Plato and the lineages of the cults of Asclepius and their temples, etc. In other words, "anointing" was an earthly reward set aside in the ascetic traditions, to demarcate successful graduates of various ascetic disciplines. Additionally "anointing" as an ascetic ceremonial graduation may also be related to the "Chrestic cults" in the same manner.

That's just one for now.

A second might be related to the profession of medicine, and it may also be related to asceticism, but different in that the physicians in antiquity, as described in the sources, often carried around unguent boxes and anointing oil. See Lithargoel and his assistant physician in the NHC 6.1 "The Acts of Peter and the 12 Apostles", or the literature by the medical profession history on Galen and the "Therapeutae of Ascelpius". So this second answer is that "The Anointed One" somehow relates to the medical/physiological procedures on antiquity in which "Healing Ointments and Balms" were dispensed. Somehow related to healing.

Thirdly, quite in the opposite direction, the "anointed one" might be indicative of ritual preparation for physical death.
The storybook Jesus certainly fits this bill.

Best wishes - summer's on the way north.


Pete

stj

Simon Magus professed to possess the Power of God. As a theological concept, the Power (alternative translation, Energy) of God is closely related to the Spirit. Further, the Acts specifically states that Simon Magus was in contact with the Christian movement, trying to buy the real Spirit, presumably dissatisfied with his fraudulent Power.

Another Simon, Simon Peter, was supposed to possess the Spirit, and was supposed to be able to work miracles. Despite the cup, if there's any confusion, it would seem to be between Simon Magus and Simon Peter.

The New Testament books are very prone to multiplying personalites for the same limited set of names, Simon, James, John and, of course, Mary. This could be due to mythologizers imagining personalites for mere names, succeeded by rationalizers who try to make sense of the contradictions by positing different Marys and Simons. Or possibly apologists are explaining away embarrassing stories by attributing them to a nonexistent other person of the same name.