Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 08-14-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

It would be fascinating to find a link to a French site displaying the oldest extant manuscript, bearing his name, to better understand this linguistic evolution from chrestien to christian.

Christus is attested by Paul well before there is any attestation of Chrestos. Christos is also common in the LXX. I would argue that the Tacitus passage, in itself, shows that people were simply mishearing "Christos" as "Chrestos."

Paul is over-rated as a source of "attestations" - he is virtually a ghost, apart from increasingly-disputed writings attributed to him.

Besides, where did he really get his information from, other than claims of "from God"??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Tactitus was correcting the "Chrestiani" misconception by explaining that it was actually from one called "Christus."

I think your attempts to claim that Christus was not technically a name presume way too much pedantic exactitude and knowledge on the part of the pagan rabble.

Christ was written in two forms in the day - one meaning "annointed" and the other meaning 'useful' or 'good', often in relation to servants or slaves.

Many messiahs in that messianic age were probably referred to as "annointed", or called Christ as a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Chrestien de Troyes

It would be fascinating to find a link to a French site displaying the oldest extant manuscript, bearing his name, to better understand this linguistic evolution from chrestien to christian.

One would have thought that the south of France, under control of the Romans, where Irenaeus is supposed to have lived, could have had a more accurate rendering of the word, than the north of France, under control of the Goths and other "barbarian" tribes.

The linguistic evolution of the name started in the south-east of Gaul, Christian, and evolved to Chrestien in the north, and probably later.

There were probably many linguistic interactions over many regions over the many years taken for the stories to become canonized.
.

stephan huller · 08-14-2012, 04:05 PM

I was noticing in Roger Pearse's translation of the Life of Mar Aba that the Syriac Church had two names for Christians - one which sounded like Chrestiani and the other which meant 'those of the anointed ones' in Syriac. Mar Aba tries to make the other name = 'anointed one.' But it seems to have the 'e' sound

aa5874 · 08-14-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

It would be fascinating to find a link to a French site displaying the oldest extant manuscript, bearing his name, to better understand this linguistic evolution from chrestien to christian.

Christus is attested by Paul well before there is any attestation of Chrestos. Christos is also common in the LXX. I would argue that the Tacitus passage, in itself, shows that people were simply mishearing "Christos" as "Chrestos."

Paul does NOT attest anything. No one can ATTEST the Pauline writings and letters to corroborate Paul in the time of Seneca have been deduced to be forgeries or manipulated.

The NT Canon is NOT a Credible historical source.

No-one HEARD of Christus in Tacitus ANNALS up to the 5th century and beyond.

Tacitus Annals with Christus MAGICALLY FELL from the Sky hundreds of years after Annals was written.

Diogenes the Cynic · 08-14-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Christus is attested by Paul well before there is any attestation of Chrestos. Christos is also common in the LXX. I would argue that the Tacitus passage, in itself, shows that people were simply mishearing "Christos" as "Chrestos."

Paul is over-rated as a source of "attestations" - he is virtually a ghost, apart from increasingly-disputed writings attributed to him.

Besides, where did he really get his information from, other than claims of "from God"??

It doesn't matter where he got it, the point is that he called Jesus Christos before anyone else called him Chrestos.

Quote:

Christ was written in two forms in the day - one meaning "annointed" and the other meaning 'useful' or 'good', often in relation to servants or slaves.

This is factually incorrect. Christos means literally "oiled," or "oily." It is a direct translation of the Hebrew, Mosiach (Aramaic Meshia or Messiah) meaning "smeared" or "spread" as with ointment.

Chrestos means "fit for use" or "good." It actually appears several time in the New Testament.

Quote:

Many messiahs in that messianic age were probably referred to as "annointed", or called Christ as a result.

Yes they were. All Kings and High Priests were "Messiahs," or Christoi in the Greek Septuagint. The title did not acquire a unique connotation for the Davidic heir until the Christian era.

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

08-14-2012, 04:05 PM	#92
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I was noticing in Roger Pearse's translation of the Life of Mar Aba that the Syriac Church had two names for Christians - one which sounded like Chrestiani and the other which meant 'those of the anointed ones' in Syriac. Mar Aba tries to make the other name = 'anointed one.' But it seems to have the 'e' sound

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.