Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 10-11-2011, 04:35 AM

Quick question: Why would a Christian interpolater have written 'Chrestians' ?

He (she?) wouldn't.

So, who were Chrestians then? Any traces of a Chrestian cult?

Parsimony sandwich, anyone?

Btw, one of the things I like about discussing interpolators is the way when the passage seems like the original writer, it was a clever interpolator, but when it doesn't, it was a stupid one. I'm not entirely convinced of the reasoning process involved to explain varieties.

Maybe, it was the same guy on different occasions, and some days, he hadn't had enough sleep the night before. All that guilt, keeping him awake.

Iskander · 10-11-2011, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

On the other side of the coin, there is Roger pearse:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

I trust Roger, when in doubt check Roger’s site. That’s one of my many mottos

mountainman · 10-11-2011, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quick question: Why would a Christian interpolater have written 'Chrestians' ?

He (she?) wouldn't.

So, who were Chrestians then? Any traces of a Chrestian cult?

Have a wade through 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.

mountainman · 10-11-2011, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Parsimony sandwich, anyone?

Btw, one of the things I like about discussing interpolators is the way when the passage seems like the original writer, it was a clever interpolator, but when it doesn't, it was a stupid one. I'm not entirely convinced of the reasoning process involved to explain various interpolations.

Just think of the common practice of common forgery at an epoch when books were hand-copied. It shouldn't be too difficult to envisage.

Quote:

Maybe, it was the same guy in all cases, and some days, he hadn't had enough sleep the night before. All that guilt, keeping him awake. It's plausible.

Did the same guy also work on tombstones in Phrygia? There is evidence of interpolated inscriptions - have a look though my notes and review of Elsa Gibson's The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia

MCalavera · 10-11-2011, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Maybe, it was the same guy on different occasions, and some days, he hadn't had enough sleep the night before. All that guilt, keeping him awake.

That could be it. How else could the mythicist prevail?

MCalavera · 10-11-2011, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

On the other side of the coin, there is Roger pearse:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

I trust Roger, when in doubt check Roger’s site. That’s one of my many mottos

In Roger we trust. Whoever he is.

archibald · 10-11-2011, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

On the other side of the coin, there is Roger pearse:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

I trust Roger, when in doubt check Roger’s site. That’s one of my many mottos

In Roger we trust. Whoever he is.

That seems...a little bit rash.

archibald · 10-11-2011, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Parsimony sandwich, anyone?

Btw, one of the things I like about discussing interpolators is the way when the passage seems like the original writer, it was a clever interpolator, but when it doesn't, it was a stupid one. I'm not entirely convinced of the reasoning process involved to explain various interpolations.

Just think of the common practice of common forgery at an epoch when books were hand-copied. It shouldn't be too difficult to envisage.

Quote:

Maybe, it was the same guy in all cases, and some days, he hadn't had enough sleep the night before. All that guilt, keeping him awake. It's plausible.

Did the same guy also work on tombstones in Phrygia? There is evidence of interpolated inscriptions - have a look though my notes and review of Elsa Gibson's The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia

mm, I hope you're not thinking that I am suggesting that there weren't, generally speaking, interpolators making interpolations?

archibald · 10-11-2011, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quick question: Why would a Christian interpolater have written 'Chrestians' ?

He (she?) wouldn't.

So, who were Chrestians then? Any traces of a Chrestian cult?

Have a wade through 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.

That all seems to suggest confusion over spelling of the word, because of a Greek root, rather than there being a separate cult in Rome.

Also, doesn't the Suetonius text say 'Jews, at the instigation of Chrestus?'

MCalavera · 10-11-2011, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

In Roger we trust. Whoever he is.

That seems...a little bit rash.

Sorry, he sounds like a cool guy. Just need to know him, I guess.

I'm relatively new to the HJ/MJ community. Only yesterday did I find out about this Tim O'Neil guy and about other forums with the same usernames that are found here. And just as passionate.

Some of you guys here really need a life outside of discussing Jesus :P

But then again, look who's speaking.

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

10-11-2011, 04:35 AM	#771
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Quick question: Why would a Christian interpolater have written 'Chrestians' ? He (she?) wouldn't. So, who were Chrestians then? Any traces of a Chrestian cult? Parsimony sandwich, anyone? Btw, one of the things I like about discussing interpolators is the way when the passage seems like the original writer, it was a clever interpolator, but when it doesn't, it was a stupid one. I'm not entirely convinced of the reasoning process involved to explain varieties. Maybe, it was the same guy on different occasions, and some days, he hadn't had enough sleep the night before. All that guilt, keeping him awake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.