Cesc

Dont know if its relevant, but the Ptolemies of the centuries leading up to the turn of the era used the Chi-Rho (XP) which we are told was invented as a symbol for the Greek title "chrestos". Around the time that Ptolemy III was supporting the writing of the Septuagint, in which the translators were using "chrestos" some 30-40 times to translate "messiah", Ptolemy himself was using the Chi-Rho.



Perhaps if you can find out why, you'll take a step in the right direction. If you find out, please let me know!

FWIW, Zecheriah referred to Jesus son of Jehozadak as a "messiah" (4:14, he led the Israelites back to Jerusalem from Babylon after the Restoration), probably translated as "chrestos" in the LXX, I dont know. That would be a Jesus Christ in principle. Not what you're looking for, I suppose.

Toto

The Greek name "Chrestos" means "the good" and was a common name for slaves. Please don't confuse it with "Christos" meaning "the annointed."

The idea that Ptolemy of some number supported the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek is probably legendary. The translators used the term "christos."

Labarum: this article claims that chi represents the cross of the

stonewall1012

I must admit the discussion here is interesting. As to Christ being the same as Chronos there is very little evidence to suppose that Jews in the 1st century were so enamored with Hellenism that they merged their belief with a single unified God with the hellenistic Chronos. You stand a much better chance of merging the LOGOS from John 1:1 with the Christ figure than you do of Chronos. Philo provides us a much better image of this philosophical merging than merging Chronos with Christos.
If you believe this merging is possible you haven't read much about the Hasmonean revolt or understood the cultural problems the Jews were facing in the 1st century. Hellenism was a constant sore spot for Jews (how much to compromise with Greek philosophy and still remain "Jewish") By the second century CE the Jewish Temple was gone and the party that WAS willing to compromise with the Greeks, mainly Sadducees, lost their place and meaning.
Philo is an excellent example as to how Jews merged Hellenism with Jewish belief. When the Emperor attempted to erect his statue in the Jews Holy Temple this Jewish Hellenist was indignant right along with the strictly orthodox Jews.
Christ does mean anointed. However to slavishly adhere to meaning apart from context is stupid. Example: "I am President." The President is the leader of the United States but he also could be the head of any group or organization. So when I claim that "I am President" the context of the statement MUST be taken into consideration other wise no matter what I say I'm lying because "objectively" President means: Leader of the United States. My goodness where did you people learn about history and how to do it? Just because a person might have carried the title "Christ" which translates to "anointed" it does not follow that the person was claiming the same title that Christians give to Christ or Jews for the messiah for that matter.
finally
Toto if the LXX ascription to Ptolemy II of translating the "Hebrew Scriptures into Greek is probably legendary" than you should provide better proof than "probably legendary"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
took about 3 seconds to find it on the internet. I know the Ptolemy’s ruled Egypt until early- mid 1st century BCE and the Septuagint came from Alexandria. If it wasn't under Ptolemy II you'd better provide better evidence than "probably legendary".
Philo quoted it, making it at least before 20 BCE. and common in Egypt.
Unless you’re using some other method of historical criticism than I am aware of hoping and wishing it was "legendary" is not a method. If you have better evidence that it was legendary I would like to know about it.

Toto

Stonewall: No need to get into a dander. I am only suggesting that Ptolemy's role in commanding the translation might be a bit of embellishment. The time frame is probably correct, but the idea that Ptolemy himself commanded the translation only comes from the Letter of Aristeas. The story here is probably legendary, unless you believe in miracles. The Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible, which you can view in google books, states that "the kernel of the story may be true" but that it is more likely that the Jewish population at Alexandria produced the translation for its own needs.

The only "historical criticism" I follow is to be skeptical of old stories.

Cesc

OMFG! I mean, excuse my French, but thank you for posting that, I knew it! PLATO already philosiphizing about the equinoctial cross. A fact single-handedly reinforcing the proposition that this great celestial cross held a mystical meaning long before the advent of Christianity.

If it was a symbol for several solar dieties, as Clive Durdle’s source tells us, and if the rho of Ptolemy’s chi-rho indeed represented Harpocrates, then it was a symbol of spring equinox. Simply a representation of the sun on the cross. The crossover from death (autumn/winter below equator) to life (spring/summer above equator), the fertility resurrection from the Great Mysteries.
Spring equinox being the beginning of the new year and the end of the old, as it was, representing the cycle of time and everlasting cycle of resurrection. Making it a fitting representation of allegedly Chronos as well as Jesus, “the Alpha and Omega”. Was this why Constantine chose the symbology of that passage for his Christian chi-rho?



If the rho of the alleged “solar chi-rho” represented the sun that could have big implications for our understanding of Christianity, as I see it. (The sun here being Harpocrates, child Horus) I need to find out if the rho on the equinoctial cross (the chi) represented the sun.
Eusebius’s tale of the Christian chi-rho has it that “Constantine saw a cross of light imposed over the sun.” Well, thats a start, I'd say!
http://www.answers.com/topic/labarum

If it was a solar diety symbol, who were the solar dieties? “Sol Invictus”? Mithras? Mithras’s two torch bearers most probably form the two equinoxes with the crossing of their legs.

The spring equinox is the gateway to heaven, ascending to summer solstice the most Northern point of the ecliptic (and then further North even, that is, beyond the lion gates of Leo to the realm of God in the North)
The gateway whose keys the Papacy hold, the keys to heaven. So if the rho also represents the sun, the picture painted by Eusebius ("On the Life of Constantine," ca 337‑339), then this is some amazing piece of mystical symbology.



Compare autumnal equinox?

MerryAtheist

Dan Brown, call your office.

mountainman

from Robin Lane-Fox:


What does Fox mean when he says:
"this authority is too boldly emphasised
to be the Bishop's deceit."?



Here are what spme other ancient historians think
about Constantine's (ahem) "conversion" ...

Michael Grant:

"Trances and visions and hallucinations were a feature of the age.
Perhaps Constantine had seen a rare cross-like natural phenomenom,
produced by the sun. At any rate, whatever the explanation,
Constantine was able to convince himself that he
had been granted a supernatural experience."

p.354. The Ancient Historians - Michael Grant




Arnaldo Momigliano:

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

— Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987),
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D; (1960)]

Cesc

Interesting. I'm perfectly aware that the Constantine's "conversion" is highly controversial, if thats the proper word to use.
But the point was that Eusebius wrote about the chi-rho that it came from "a cross imposed over the sun". Exactly the representation I was arguing for that symbol. I have also argued that the rho of pre-Christian versions was a hellenistic mystical symbol for Harpocrates, the young sun (of spring arguably), speculating that the chi in that context really was a mystical representation of the equinoctial cross. And the latter assertion is infact backed up by the writings of non other than Plato.

Making the chi-rho a symbol for the equinox, spring equinox which was so important to the ancients. It has also been argued, btw, that the Ankh symbol is an even older representation of spring equinox. A development of the sun (loop) in the sign of Taurus (Tau-cross), the same as the sundisk between the horns of the bull/cow.

My point being that the equinoctial cross in itself then would have had a symbolic meaning centuries before Paul's highly developed resurrection theology on the theme of the crucifixion.

Surely the ridiculously obvious symbology would not have been lost on either Paul nor John and the Christian myth-makers, that Jesus was on the cross and ascended to heaven at the time of Passover, spring equinox. The very day that the sun is on the celestial cross and subsequently ascends to heaven, thus instigating single-handedly the springing back to life - or resurrection - of all of nature (and the sun itself, arguably), the exact theme celebrated in the initiations of the Mysteries centuries, perhaps even millinia, before the rampant revival of the mystery cults around the time leading up to the turn of the era. The resurrection instigated after the "crucifixion" of the sun and by its subsequent ascending, a very real and scientific fact itself, then as now. A recognized fact since the introduction of advanced agriculture.


LoL, yeah I wi$h.

stonewall1012

I do not disupte that there are interesting cross overs(no pun intended) However, some questions come to my mind.. I'm not sure how you're seeing this... so i need help
Are you saying that Constintine "mistook" the equinox "symbol" and confused it with the already existant christian "Myth" or are you saying that Constantine used the equinox "experience" to create a new myth one that we now call christianity?

If that is the case where is your evidence that constantine "created" the christian "Myth" verses appropriating it?

I see how you could "connect the dots".. so to speak and view it like this... my problem is that I have problems seeing how it would flesh out and still account for the evidence we have?

It's like alien seeding.. I see how people could believe life on earth was seeded by aliens but we're missing the evidence that it occured. The problem here is even more complex becuase its not just gettig positive evidence for it .. its accounting for the evidence that already exists...
Can you help me see this through your eyes.
(p.s.I get how you see this connection what I don't see is how it works in your mind)

Cesc

I'd be more than happy to clarify. You completely misunderstand what I'm talking about. Forget Constantine. The only reason I mention him is because of trying to understand the symbol of the pre-Christian chi-rho. Thats it. I dont care if he had anything at all to do with the Christian chi-rho or if and when he became a Christian etc., its irrelevant.

What I'm arguing, successfully or not, is firstly that the chi-rho was a symbol for the sun on the cross - the equinox - centuries before the time of Christianity. And the implications of that symbology of the cross in relation to the profound meaning of the crucifixion in Christianity. What I did imply was that the Vatican later grasped the symbology, but what that tells us is really not relevant either to my point.


Im not arguing that Constantine 'saw the connection' and changed some existing myth or something Dan Brownish like that. I never said anything remotely to that effect, you've seen too much Da Vinci Code

No, Im arguing that the inventors of Christianity (NT) had certain most central elements of their myths and theologies indirectly based on, but ultimately "dependant on", the universal equinox/resurrection, celebrated since the time of the oldest stone monuments.
Most likely on top of an historical event of a crucifixion at some or other point in history, but perhaps not. That matters little, imo. You see more clearly my proposition?

Im trying to illuminate some aspects that can possibly help us better understand the origins of Paul's all-important crucifixion theology and what the various Christian myth-makers meant with their NT character Jesus.
Is there anyone who catches my drift?