spin

I've just had a doubt. What is the etymology of the word "Christian"? It looks to me like Latin (Christianus) -- specifically, the affix -ian-, rather than Greek, which I would expect to give say, christaios or christEnos or similar. Though this analysis seems logcal, it doesn't make practical sense, so if anyone has decent access to Greek works, can they give a few examples of such an affix -ian- used in Greek literature?

Also, there is a notion that the term Christian was first used in Greek in Antioch, because Acts 11:26 says so, whenever Acts was written (though I think well into the 2nd c.). It seems to be thought that the term was used by pagans to describe Christians, but why would native Greek speakers use a term, if such were constructed in Greek, that shouldn't make sense to them? The unguent-ish?

I have a nasty suspicion which needs to be allayed and that is that "Christian" may have been a Roman term imported into Greek. Can someone please remove this suspicion? Thanks.


spin

The Evil One

The Oxford English Etymology Dictionary confirms the direct source of "Christian" as Latin "christianus".

Looking up "-ian", the sole derivation given is Latin "-ianus", with no mention of any Greek parallel suffix. The entry actually gives "Christian" (alongside "Vergilianus > Virgilian") as examples of Latin use of this suffix (before going on to list the uses it has acquired since being borrowed into English).

So, yes... looks Latin to me. There may of course have been a parallel form in Greek (possibly with a different suffix) that has not influenced the English.

In any case, one suspects that "Christians" would have sounded to early ears very much as "Anointeders" would sound to us today.

"Who's making that racket, Gaius?"

"Oh, just the Anointeders praying to their god again..."

Peter Kirby

Bart Ehrman said that it would sound, literally, something like "Christ lackey," and the BDAG suggests "Christ partisan." Analogues exist, such as 'Hrodianoi and Kaisarianoi. "Christ" would be understood here primarily as a name and not in terms of its underlying meaning. The Greek word found in Acts (11:26, 26:28) and 1 Peter (4:16) is Xristianos. It is also found in the Didache, the letters of Ignatius, the Epistle of Diognetius, Aristides, Athenagoras, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, the Preaching of Peter, and the Acts of Paul. The earliest occurences in pagan Greek are in Lucian of Samosata (Alex. 25; 38, M. Peregr. 11; 12; 13; 16). Celsus also seems to use it (e.g., Origen, Contra Celsum 1.26). It also appears in Latin in Suetonius, Tacitus (with an etymology here), and Pliny the Younger as well as in the Greek of Ant. 18.3.3.

Theophilus of Antioch attempts an explanation of the name: "And about your laughing at me and calling me 'Christian,' you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God." (Ad Autolycum 1.12)

The Gospel of Philip seems to agree: "The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word 'Chrism' that we have been called 'Christians,' certainly not because of the word 'baptism'. And it is because of the chrism that 'the Christ' has his name."

And Tertullian writes (Apology, ch. 3):

What are we to think of it, that most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name; that when they bear favourable testimony to any one, they mingle with it abuse of the name he bears? "A good man," says one, "is Gaius Seius, only that he is a Christian." So another, "I am astonished that a wise man like Lucius should have suddenly become a Christian." Nobody thinks it needful to consider whether Gaius is not good and Lucius wise, on this very account that he is a Christian; or a Christian, for the reason that he is wise and good. They praise what they know, they abuse what they are ignorant of, and they inspire their knowledge with their ignorance; though in fairness you should rather judge of what is unknown from what is known, than what is known from what is unknown. Others, in the case of persons whom, before they took the name of Christian, they had known as loose, and vile, and wicked, put on them a brand from the very thing which they praise. In the blindness of their hatred, they fall foul of their own approving judgment! "What a woman she was! how wanton! how gay! What a youth he was! how profligate! how libidinous!--they have become Christians!" So the hated name is given to a reformation of character. Some even barter away their comforts for that hatred, content to bear injury, if they are kept free at home from the object of their bitter enmity. The wife, now chaste, the husband, now no longer jealous, casts out of his house; the son, now obedient, the father, who used to be so patient, disinherits; the servant, now faithful, the master, once so mild, commands away from his presence; it is a high offence for any one to be reformed by the detested name. Goodness is of less value than hatred of Christians. Well now, if there is this dislike of the name, what blame can you attach to names? What accusation can you bring against mere designations, save that something in the word sounds either barbarous, or unlucky, or scurrilous, or unchaste? But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you "Chrestianus" (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name. But the special ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder. Is there anything new in a religious sect getting for its followers a designation from its master? Are not the philosophers called from the founders of their systems--Platonists, Epicureans, Pythagoreans? Are not the Stoics and Academics so called also from the places in which they assembled and stationed themselves? and are not physicians named from Erasistratus, grammarians from Aristarchus, cooks even from Apicius? And yet the bearing of the name, transmitted from the original institutor with whatever he has instituted, offends no one. No doubt, if it is proved that the sect is a bad one, and so its founder bad as well, that will prove that the name is bad and deserves our aversion, in respect of the character both of the sect and its author. Before, therefore, taking up a dislike to the name, it behoved you to consider the sect in the author, or the author in the sect. But now, without any sifting and knowledge of either, the mere name is made matter of accusation, the mere name is assailed, and a sound alone brings condemnation on a sect and its author both, while of both you are ignorant, because they have such and such a designation, not because they are convicted of anything wrong.

best,
Peter Kirby

Chili

Thanks Peter and that is just something Tertulius would say. Very distinct, if I remember correctly.

My name is Lambertus in the good old Catholic tradition.

spin

Thanks for your comments, Peter.

Obviously Kaisarianoi is a translation of the Latin Caesariani as people of Caesar's party were called. The long affiliation with Rome that Herod and his family had also makes the source of 'Hrodianoi in doubt. I'm afraid what is necessary for my troubled mind is an unassailably Greek source, preferably in a Hellenistic or earlier source. (And I have been looking. I can rule out all nationalities we use in English ending in "-ian". I've been trying to think of Greeks whose names have provided a school and the closest thing that comes to mind is a follower of Aristotle, unlike English, aristothleios)

As I pointed out long ago, "Christ" did not mean the "anointed one" in the pre-xian world. The noun derived from the verb xriw "rub, anoint with scented unguents or oil" is xristos "(that which is) rubbed on". From Euripedes "Hippolytos" (7.84),

potera de xriston E poton to farmakon;

This drug, is it an ointment or a potion?

So, how would the term be understood primarily? Why would our theoretical Antiochenes (or any other pagan) think of xristos primarily as a name?

Dating and occurrence become essential considerations to attestation of the word. While prior to the xian era -ian- was seen to be productive in Latin, we need to see the same for Greek. The first datable texts as I understand them are the Latin texts you cite below:

The veracity of Ant 18.3.3 has been under dispute for a long time, as has the Tacitus citation, though perhaps we can see an emergence of the use of the word in the second or third decade of the second century in Latin.

With the possible exception of Acts all the Greek texts are from the 2nd century. The Celsus of Contra Celsum is not the philosopher so we don't really know when that writer worked prior to Origen.

Theophilus of Antioch is placed in the 170s CE. I therefore cannot see the relevance of citing him on the issue other than to be complete in coverage.

Next, can one date the Gospel of Philip? Isn't it attributed to a gnostic writer of the 2nd century?

And lastly, Tertullian a good Latin writer whose linguistic skills have proven to be questionable doesn't seem to be a useful witness either, unless I'm missing something.

My query is purely in historical linguistics. Is the name "Christian" Greek or Latin in origin, and an entailed question, is -ian- a productive affix in Greek prior to the Roman era?


spin

Peter Kirby

I've pointed that out long ago too. But I got the fact from Kelly Wellington (of JesusMysteries). Not sure where he got it from.

I used the example you gave and another one:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=965432
Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound (ed. Herbert Weir Smyth, Ph.D.) line 478 (1.57)
Hear the rest and you shall wonder the more at the arts and resources I devised. This first and foremost: if ever man fell ill, there was no defence--no healing food, no ointment [christon], nor any drink--but for lack of medicine they wasted away, until I showed them how to mix soothing remedies with which they now ward off all their disorders.

They would have already had the understanding of the word as "ointment." This could be called the primary understanding. But there was a group of people in the 1st-2nd century who were singing hymns to a Christus, as Pliny tells us. Apparently their founder/god had a Greek name, which happened to mean "ointment." And they often preferred to worship him than to worship Caesar. So they got dubbed partisans of this Christ, i.e., Christians.

But it's no big deal to me...what do you think about it?

"The veracity of Ant 18.3.3 has been under dispute for a long time" -- Agreed!

"as has the Tacitus citation" -- Agreed, although it hasn't been as prominent an issue as Josephus.

"With the possible exception of Acts all the Greek texts are from the 2nd century" -- I would give 1 Pet. a possible exception too.

"Next, can one date the Gospel of Philip? Isn't it attributed to a gnostic writer of the 2nd century?" -- I am lead to believe that the 3rd century is the consensus.

"And lastly, Tertullian a good Latin writer whose linguistic skills have proven to be questionable doesn't seem to be a useful witness either, unless I'm missing something." -- I'm not making any case.

Let me know if you find the answer, as I am interested and have no clue (except perhaps what you have already point out). I just thought I might provide some grist for your mill. I guess, though, not what you were looking for.

best,
Peter Kirby

edit: Pliny the Younger mentions hymns to Christ, not Suetonius.

spin

Thanks, Peter, I've got the idea now. I just couldn't figure out the direction of your post.


spin

joedad

Chrestus (or Christus) is another name for Serapis, according to this link.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/serapis.htm

Peter Kirby

Christos is a Greek word for ointment (applied to a Messiah figure in the Septuagint and NT). Chrestos is a Greek word meaning "useful." Chrestos was a Greek name, common enough particularly among slaves. The author gives no evidence that Chrestos (or translated into Latin Chrestus) was applied to Serapis (I really don't know either way, but the author gives no evidence). Even if it were, though, it is a clear fallacy to assume then that Christos was applied to Serapis.

best,
Peter Kirby

spin

I just thought I'd comment on this bit I missed:

My basic question is who dubbed them "partisans of this Christ"? It seems to me that it wasn't a Greek construction, but Latin. You may see that while there are examples in Greek from Latin sources for a "partisans of ..." construction (ie simple Greek transliteration), you haven't found any from Greek sources. If correct, it means that the term "Christian" was constructed in Latin from a Greek free morpheme with a Latin bound morpheme supplying the "partisans of..." content. Such would mean, for example, that there is no historicity for the Antioch story, unless you'd like to posit that -ian- was productive in Greek as well, which your data doesn't allow you to do.


spin