stephan huller

Theophilus of Antioch uses Christianoi seven times but notice that Ad Autolycus is yet another text which demonstrates that Christianoi is a name used as much by outsiders to define the Jesus cult as a name originally associated with the sect:

These are the first two references, these are followed by two more:

What is curious about this reference is that one would expect the Greek to have been Christoi rather than Christianoi if Theophilus was looking for a word which meant 'anointed with oil.' Was the original text corrected?

I will ignore reference 5 because it isn't that interesting. But look at reference 6 and notice that it comes during the course of Theophilus making reference to many of the arguments in Celsus's text:

Yet notice also that there are more chrestos references than Christianoi references here some coming side by side. Let's go back to the first paragraph and notice that Theophilus may well have

and this is followed by:

and then we are back to our next Christianoi references side by side again chrestos references:

I am not trying to make too much of this but it seems that Theophilus is introducing the concept of 'Christianoi' on top of the pre-existent identification of the members of the Jesus sect as chrestoi. This also helps explain the strange introduction of members of the cult as christoi undoubtedly again a new term which sounds like the old term chrestoi.

I see increasing reason for believing that Christianoi was introduced in the middle of the second century as a replacement of the older term chrestoi. Let's see what else we can find in the early writers.

tanya

Thank you for your candor. Most of us err, once in a while, and some of us, (me) err quite often.

The issue which you have tackled, nomina sacra, in my opinion, is a worthy one, I am grateful for your references, and excellent interaction with Mountainman. Well done.

I am wondering out loud, if Greek acronyms, with a bar over the initials, always indicated reference exclusively to Iesous Christou, or, conversely, if these abbreviations had also been employed simply as scribal conventions, either to save time, or save papyrus, or both, when seeking to represent other folks' proper names, or for ordinary words, as we here, on the forum, might write, for example, JtB, or RTFM?

Thank you. First rate research, well done, in my opinion. I have not used the search engine of the forum, but I suppose that, perhaps, spin, or David, or Roger, or Andrew, or Joe, among many others, may have engaged in similar inquiries, in years gone by.....Didn't Jeffrey write something on this topic, years ago???

Certainly this issue of Chrestianoi has appeared in previous threads, particularly in view of the forgery, which both spin and Mountainman have elaborated-->thank you spin, thanks Pete!

All in all, a very entertaining, useful, informative, and highly educational thread, greatly appreciated.

mountainman

This was directed in response of what you wrote above:

The enigma is why those who were classed as heretics for preserving the non canonical new testament literature also used "nomina sacra" in the Coptic language as evidenced with the Nag Hammadi Codices (the NHC). Pachomius himself has often been suggested as the overseer of the scribal project responsible for the manufacture of the NHC.

The above author John Lamb LASH suggests that.

Maklelan

Again, relevance? The actions of a group in the fourth century have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the development of a practice that originating in the first century.

No, it's not an enigma at all. It was a literary convention quite closely associated with Christian piety. Why wouldn't those groups adopt it?

Please cite the publications in which this ridiculous suggestion appears.

But this ignores the fact that Matthew says his name is Jesus explicitly because of the salvation he will bring to his people (Matt 1:21: καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν). Jesus comes from a Hebrew name meaning "Yhwh is salvation." The name unquestionably was Jesus from the very beginning. You have to simply ignore this in order to continue to assert your goofy ideas.

mountainman

Many people conjecture that Acts was written in the 2nd century, not the first, but almost everyone agrees that the name of "Christians" was first mentioned as the name of the new class of religious people first at Antioch, according to Acts 11:26. But when we read Sinaiticus Acts 11:26 we do not find the name of the "Christians" mentioned at all, but rather the name "Chrestians". What scenarios account for this?

stephan huller

The original term wouldn't have been Chrestianos. This would have implied an association with an individual named Chrestos, a common slave name. The problem again is the -ianus suffix. We have to chose between Christianoi or Christoi (Ad Auto 3.4) or Chrestoi (Strom 2.4.18). Chrestianoi isn't even in the running unless you think that the founder of Christianity went was really named Chrestos or Chrestus rather than Jesus. Chrestos isn't a pre-existent title in the way Christos is. And you'd have to believe that this Latinized form of Greek was original. It wasn't. It is very strange.

Why do take such an interest in this argument? It doesn't further your fourth century nonsense one bit. Again your arguments seem to be developed from anything which might question or 'expose' errors in the transmissions of ideas and texts from Christian antiquity. Yet when you really think about it, it isn't at all strange that such errors did occur. Human beings make mistakes and scribes are - despite your apparent enmity towards them and their tradition - mere human beings.

Maklelan

I've already described the logic behind the adoption of that epithet, mountainman. I've also shown that it cannot at all be argued to be original. What possible track could you be laying by asking what scenarios account for that if you've at all been paying attention to my arguments? As I've stated before, when you don't address the arguments, and instead just reassert things you've previously said (that, by the way, have already been directly addressed), it's a pretty good indicator that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Your continued deference to History Hunters International is another indicator of the same.

mountainman

We are looking for credible ancient historical sources that make explicit mention of "Jesus Christos" and/or "Jesus Chrestos" and/or "Christians" and/or "Chrestians" and so far you have pointed at a 4th century codex. I have also produced the claim that we have evidence of "Jesus Chrestos" in the recently discovered and translated Manichaean writings dating to the end of the 4th century. The task is to cite items of evidence by which the two forms of "Christ" and "Chrest" may be compared and disambiguated, and to note the chronology of such evidence.

What is the date of the earliest physical manuscript or inscription that explicitly mentions each of these variants - "Jesus Christos" and/or "Jesus Chrestos" and/or "Christians" and/or "Chrestians"? As far as I can determine these (i.e EXPLICIT mentions) are quite late.


You on the other hand simply assert ....

This assertion was then supported by citation of the LXX from the late 4th century. This is late.

In that case provide some direct physical evidence other than the wink wink nod nod I am supposed to read into the inscription of Abercius (which does not explicitly mention any of these terms). What is the earliest physical evidence that we have for the appearance of each of these terms in antiquity? Do you understand the question being debated hinges on the specific chronology of physical manuscripts and/or inscriptions, etc?

mountainman

Because it is a very strange situation.


My arguments are developed from the massive integrity exceptions that I perceive in the contemporary hegemonic narrative of "Early Christian Origins" when compared against the ancient historical evidence of two separate time epochs - a) 000-325 CE and b) 325-444 CE.

Maybe Jesus was originally known as "Jesus the Good" and his followers were called "The Good Guys"? You have evidence supporting such a far-out hypothesis, and the Manichaean manuscript evidence dated late 4th century supports the identification of "Jesus Chrestos".

It's just rather strange to be aware of the supposed fact that the supposed Christians first supposedly called themselves "Christians" in Antioch according to Acts, but one of the oldest sources (late 4th century) reveals them to have called themselves "Chrestians". Sure, scribes do make mistakes. We all make mistakes. I have no enmity towards those who make honest mistakes. I might be making a mistake with the 4th century "Big Bang" hypothesis, and you might be making a mistake with the Marcionite origins. I can live with that and without enmity. Can you?

Maklelan

I have also pointed out that the entire New Testament, from the beginning, used the names Jesus and Christ. It's is fundamental to the entire gospel presented throughout the New Testament. Whenever you date the composition of the New Testament, that's when Jesus and Christ start. Chrestos is demonstrably secondary. I've also shown elsewhere that we have New Testament texts that unquestionably date to the second or third century. They are so dated by the very scholar cited in defense of the notion that paleographic dating doesn't work.

That may be your task, but it's certainly not mine. I don't care how the Manichaeans changed the names. My point is that this ludicrous notion that Jesus and Christ were secondary is demonstrably false. I've proven that.

Yeah, quite late. Unfortunately for your argument, Jesus and Christ are demonstrably original to the New Testament. Their use dates to the original composition of the gospels. Chrestos is secondary.

No, I have proven that the names Jesus and Christ were unquestionably original to the gospels and the rest of the texts of the New Testament. Whenever you date their composition, which at the absolute latest must be the early second century, Jesus and Christ were demonstrably original.

Don't pretend to lecture me about method. Your argument started with Sinaiticus. I've shown Christ and Jesus underlie the nomina sacra. We have at least two NT papyri dating to the second or third century CE that witness to the text of the New Testament, so the names Jesus and Christ date to then as well. Simply put, the names Jesus and Christ are demonstrably original to the very composition of the gospels. Whenever you decide to date them, that's where the names go. Chrestos is undeniably secondary.