Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-21-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

This source presents very well the working principals and actions
of the Χρηςμολογιa of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.
'Chrestianity' was -not- 'Christianity', and began without a Ἰησοῦς

I have been gradually meandering through this series of articles, and am wondering whether any other readers have followed up on this subject. As far as I can see, having already spent some time examining the various forms of the "Chrestos" and "Christos" issue, and participating in discussions, the series of articles at this site appears to be researched to a far greater depth than I have previously seen anywhere else - previous discussions here included. Archaeological evidence is abundantly presented. At this page Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men, their (historyhuntersinternational) postion might be first approximated by the following:

Quote:

HHI has been studying the historical and archaeological record tracing the origin of Christian papyri and artifacts back to the second century CE. We asserted that pushing the origin of a Jesus-centered Christianity further into the first century is, given the state of the present evidence, not valid science.

Those readers who are familiar with Greek will be able to ascertain the academic standard of the arguments made in this article, which seems to be based about the term Χρησμολογιa (chresmologia).

Quote:

Χρησμολογιa (chresmologia): the delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle, as well as that practitioner of this form of divination - the Χρησμολoγος (chresmologos).

They then provide what appears to be a comprehensive analysis of the greek root to the common verb χράω. It's stated to be dated 1828 but not much may have changed in Greek roots since then :

Quote:

The below examples are taken from page 605 of Rev. John Groves’ Greek-English Dictionary (Classical and New Testament Usages) imprinted 1828. The major element of notice is that each of these lexemes derives its root from a common verb form: χράω. On this page is calqued a family of words whose meanings convey concepts related to oracles, divination, prophecy, prophets, money lending, loans, etc. As can be seen in the first example, we also have not only the idea of usefulness, profit, and loans, but also the ideas of oracle, quotation, extract, passages taken from textual sources:

Χρη̃̃σις –ιος, Att. – εως, ή (fr. χράω to use) use, utility, profit; a loan, an oracle, response; a quotation, extract, passage from another writer a χρησιν.
Χρησμολογίω - ω̄, (fr. Χρηςμὸς an oracle, and λέγω to speak) to speak oracles, prophesy, foretell; to interpret omens, explain oracles.
Χρησμολογίa –ας ή (fr. same) delivery of an oracle, prophecy, divination, foretelling; interpretation or application of an oracle.
Χρησμολόγος, -ου ό ή (fr. same) a deliverer of oracles, a diviner, prophet; an interpreter or expounder of oracles.
Χρησήρ, -η̃ρος, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) giving oracles, oracular.
Χρηστήριος, - ον, ό (fr. χράω to deliver oracles) oracular, foreboding, prophetic.
Χρήστης, -ου, ό (fr. χράω to lend) a creditor, lender of money, usurer; a debtor, borrower; a declarer of oracles, prophet.

They summarise the issues dealt with in this article with this:

Quote:

To frame the question more simply: at what point in history does it become possible for givers of oracles and money lenders to become anointed and Christians? Second, and just as important, when and why 'Jesus Christ' vice 'Jesus Chrest'?

While this may appear to be just another "Chrestos/Christos" thread, because of the quality of the articles presented at this site, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that discussion of the claims and detailed material presented here, will move this old discussion into new territory that has not been anywhere before addressed here in discussion.

Thanks Sheshbazzar for pointing this resource out.
What do the Greek experts think of this article?

Best wishes,

Pete

gurugeorge · 02-24-2011, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have been gradually meandering through this series of articles, and am wondering whether any other readers have followed up on this subject.

Fascinating stuff. A glimpse of how far down the rabbit hole we might have to go to really understand what was going on then.

But doesn't this go rather against your main thesis mountainman? It would seem to show that there was indeed something "Christian" going on before Constantine - albeit not familiarly, orthodoxly Christian.

The absence of much of the familiar Jesus stuff in the second century apologists has often made me think along these lines: that there was a broader movement in antiquity, a sort of cross between an exotericisation of the mysteries and a philosophical theurgic cult, that was "Christian" or "Chrestian" but that didn't have the familiar Jewish figure "Jesus Christ" as its central figure.

That was a later hijack, or perhaps "retcon", by a sub-sect of the broader movement having the ear of the Roman authorities at the right time, with them puporting to the authorities to represent the whole - a sort of cultic metonymy.

This passage from the webpage is particularly striking:-

Quote:

Like any good oracle and this would allow continued use of these texts by the chresmologoi. The 1 Corinthians passage suggests that several factions of chresmologoi whose authorities held substantial, but not necessarily overpowering reputations in the narrative’s historical present (Chloe, Cephas, Apollo, and Paul), were quarreling over prestige, money, and/or followers-market share in Corinth. Ultimately the problem was settled by back-referencing the power of a Christ, or divine authority, based on a Galilean peasant situated one hundred years earlier in the Golden Age of Augustus. That is to say, the texts that flesh this Christ out were written in the second century, for chresmological purposes, to enhance the authority, allure, and market share of the secret society brought to light briefly by Pliny circa 112 CE.

mountainman · 02-27-2011, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have been gradually meandering through this series of articles, and am wondering whether any other readers have followed up on this subject.

Fascinating stuff. A glimpse of how far down the rabbit hole we might have to go to really understand what was going on then.

But doesn't this go rather against your main thesis mountainman? It would seem to show that there was indeed something "Christian" going on before Constantine - albeit not familiarly, orthodoxly Christian.

Hi gurugeorge,

The way I see this data is that it shows that there was something "Chrestian" going on before and during the epoch generally considered as covering "Christian origins". Two things might be perceived about these thngs "Chrestian". Firstly, they were not "Christian" and had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Secondly, many of the "Church Fathers" and personalities of the orthodox church, in the epoch before Constantine, in the epoch of Constantine, and in the epoch after Constantine, went out of their way to conflate the two terms. This practice of (Chrestos/Christos) conflation is still evident in the Medici manuscript, where scribes change "Chrestian" to "Christian".

This suspicious activity of conflating the two terms is not good for the overall authenticity of the "Christian History". In the most critical case it might be seen as fraudulent misrepresentation of history. The orthodox were rewriting history.

Quote:

The absence of much of the familiar Jesus stuff in the second century apologists has often made me think along these lines: that there was a broader movement in antiquity, a sort of cross between an exotericisation of the mysteries and a philosophical theurgic cult, that was "Christian" or "Chrestian" but that didn't have the familiar Jewish figure "Jesus Christ" as its central figure.

Yes - the data suggests the movement was just "Chrestian".

Quote:

That was a later hijack,

Yes - I think there is a case to see it as a hijack via the purposeful (and fraudulent) conflation of the terms. The "Christian" term needed a history in the 4th century to make it even more respectable than it already was. So the "Chrestian" term was appropriated as having "something to do" with the earliest "Christians".

Quote:

or perhaps "retcon", by a sub-sect of the broader movement having the ear of the Roman authorities at the right time, with them puporting to the authorities to represent the whole - a sort of cultic metonymy.

This passage from the webpage is particularly striking:-

Quote:

Like any good oracle and this would allow continued use of these texts by the chresmologoi. The 1 Corinthians passage suggests that several factions of chresmologoi whose authorities held substantial, but not necessarily overpowering reputations in the narrative’s historical present (Chloe, Cephas, Apollo, and Paul), were quarreling over prestige, money, and/or followers-market share in Corinth.

Ultimately the problem was settled by back-referencing the power of a Christ, or divine authority, based on a Galilean peasant situated one hundred years earlier in the Golden Age of Augustus.

That is to say, the texts that flesh this Christ out were written in the second century, for chresmological purposes, to enhance the authority, allure, and market share of the secret society brought to light briefly by Pliny circa 112 CE.

Yes they are striking, because they have some evidence behind them. The evidence indicates that there were a group of people who were known as "Chrestians", who had nothing to do with any "Christians", but who were, at a later stage, roped into the fabrication of "Christian History" because of the similar sounding nature of the two equivalent Greek words "Christian" and "Chrestian" and because the term "Chrestian" may have simply meant "the Good", which was a desirable attribute to acquire for the new and strange "Christian" religion.

This group of "Chrestian" may have been responsible for artefacts such as this:

Also, we see the reference to "Chrestian" again in P.Oxy 3035.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3035 (or P. Oxy. XLII 3035) is a warrant for the arrest of a Christian, issued on 28 February 256 AD, by the authorities of the Roman Empire. This is one of the earliest uses of the word Christian attested on papyrus.

The problem is the word "Christian" is not on the papyrus. But such is the INSIDIOUS conflation of the two terms that some people do not differentuate between them. As you probably know, both these relics are being described as "Christian relics" on the basis of unjustifiably conflating the evidential "Chrestian" with "Christian". Additionally, the term "Jesus Chrestos" may have been used by the later 4th century Manichaeans in a polemical conflation of the political Nicaean "Jesus Christ". The Manichaeans seemed to have preferred the "Chrestos" version - at least in their later 4th century texts.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 03-09-2011, 07:37 AM

An update from historyhuntersinternational.org about ... Archaeology of ‘Chrest’

Quote:

Introduction

There are a number of archaeological references to ‘Chrest’ and ‘Chrestiani’ in the first century, which we note here and, as noted in our article Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men, the terms ‘Christ’ and ‘Christian’ in the New Testament derive most probably from the Greek ‘Chrest’.

Those making claims have a duty to support them with reliable evidence and cogent argument, in which greater weight is given to reliable data and primary sources. As no such data has ever been available to support the tradition of a first-century Jesus Christ, the burden of proof for historicity has fallen on texts. Examination of the earliest texts shows a history quite different to that of tradition.

An earlier attempt (by the author, below) at interpreting the use of Chrest, whilst good, makes the basic error of assuming that there is evidence for a (Jesus-centred) Nazarene cult in the first decades of the first century of the modern era:

All this is evidence that the terms Christ and Christians, spelt originally Chrest and Chrestians [chrestianoi] were directly borrowed from the Temple terminology of the Pagans, and meant the same thing. The God of the Jews was now substituted for the Oracle and the other gods; the generic designation “Chrestos” became a noun applied to one special personage; and new terms such as Chrestianoi and Chrestodoulos “a follower or servant of Chrestos” — were coined out of the old material. This is shown by Philo Judaeus, a monotheist, assuredly, using already the same term for monotheistic purposes. For he speaks of theochrestos “God-declared,” or one who is declared by god, and of logia theochresta “sayings delivered by God” — which proves that he wrote at a time (between the first century B. C., and the first A. D.) when neither Christians nor Chrestians were yet known under these names, but still called themselves the Nazarenes. The notable difference between the two words [chrao] — “consulting or obtaining response from a god or oracle” (chreo being the Ionic earlier form of it), and chrio “to rub, to anoint” (from which the name Christos), has not prevented the ecclesiastical adoption and coinage from Philo’s expression [Theochrestos] of that other term [Theochristos] “anointed by God.” Thus the quiet substitution of the letter, ['i'] for ['e'] for dogmatic purposes, was achieved in the easiest way, as we now see.

– The Esoteric Character of the Gospels, Studies in Occultism by H. P. Blavatsky, Theosophical University Press Online Edition

Various apologist arguments are made to try and explain away the growing realisation that there is no Christ in the first century, but rather ‘Chrest’. However, these fail to address:

1.The common usage of the word ‘Chrest’ in the first centuries of this era are most-often associated with theurgy, the practise of Greek low magic, as we see here with the ‘Chrest Magus’ bowl and the ‘Jesus Chrest’ spell.

2.The Christian Church tried to obliterate Chrest, changing the biblical texts to read ‘Christ’. This has not been noticed until very recently.

The association of Chrest and Chrestians with magic is in accord with the our interpretation of much Christian liturgy and ritual as magical in character.

Catalogue of Chrest archaeology

Then follows a Catalogue of Chrest archaeology. It tracks everything I have seen discussed here, and goes further. Anyone examining the conflation of "chrestos" and "christos"; "chrestian" and "christian" should take some time to have a good look through this catalogue of "Chrest" archaeology.

mountainman · 03-09-2011, 06:51 PM

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

Quote:

Not a single artefact of any medium – including textual – and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus River to the Nile and north to Britain.

Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify terms.

There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as though it is Christian.

There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term ‘Christian’.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.