stephan huller

The key bit of information to go along with this is that the Marcionites denied that Jesus was the messiah, the son of David etc. Of course Christians have learned to accept the idea of a messiah (= Christ) who has nothing to do with Judaism or isn't the kind of figure expected by the Jews, but in 140 CE after and before the Bar Kochba revolt, could this sort of delusion have existed (i.e. a Christ that wasn't the Jewish messiah or the kind of messiah expected by the Jews)? It seems improbable to me.

Notice how Aquila also avoids translating Daniel 9:26 naturally (as Symmachus for instance). Messiah means Christ and Christ means Messiah and the two words only mean Anointed and the usual referent is a secular king. As you must know the Queen was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland at her coronation. Of course, there is no Greek word Christos unambiguously meaning what Christian theology uses it to mean. The altar was “christos” when olive oil was poured on it. Flour is “christos” when olive oil is poured on it. Grass is “christos” when the sprinkler is turned on. If it means someone special, then it means any king of any country at any time.

Aside from this, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word “Messiah”. This is an ARTIFICIAL word only existing in late modern English. There is the Hebrew word משיח Mashiach (approximate pronunciation) and the Aramaic Meshiach (approximate pronunciation) and definite Meshicha (approximate pronunciation) and the Greek phonetic transcription Messias (where the 's' is a Greek suffix). French correctly renders both Mashiach and Messias as “Messie”. German has “Messias” for both.

I don't see how any of this could be compatible with the Marcionite understanding of a heavenly being dropping in from the sky in the year 6000 AM.

Tenorikuma

Every, or nearly every, extant reference to Christ and Christians in the first three centuries (including Codex Sinaiticus) uses Chrestos and Chrestianoi (or their Latin equivalents) instead.

The French language also retains "chrestian" in the word "chrétien". (The acute accent indicates a no-longer-pronounced 's' in the word.)

Bingo the Clown-O

Yep. Those are my thoughts too.

Also note that in Acts 11:19-26 the rationale for calling the disciples “Chrestians” is that Barnabas was a good man.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...26&version=NIV

And we need to know why Matthew changed “Why to you call me good” to “Why do you ask me about what is good?”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...17&version=NIV

So it is not just a “Gosh, what vowel will I use today?” issue.

- Bingo

mountainman

An excellent response Tenorikuma. This summarises my own research in this matter of so-called "early chrestian inscriptions", including a number of in depth analyses such as The Christians for Christians Inscriptions of Phrygia - a review of data presented by Elsa Gibson.

All this evidence supports the little discussed contention that the first Christians were known (by themselves and others) as "Chrestians" and that when the religion became the state religion, these first "Chrestians" could have called themselves by the simple name of "THE GOOD GUYS", lead by the story of "JESUS THE GOOD".

Later generations of this victorious regime then decided to get rid of this simplistic name by changing the E to an I, which gave the regime a far more distinctive pedigree.


Again to return to the OP, there are a number of so-called early inscriptions which Christian academics and scholars have cited as evidence, dated before the 4th century. A list of such inscriptions may be inspected here. Most if not all of these inscriptions will have images that can be posted here and discussed.


As far as I am concerned all of these are either highly suspect or have sufficient ambiguity to be set aside.

This action brings us to the 4th century, when Chrestian and Christian inscriptions start to explode.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

I think I found what might be an intimation that Marcionites used Chrestos for Christ in Book Three of Against Marcion by Tertullian. In the middle of a discussion where Tertullian acknowledges the Marcionites deny that the Christ was to be named Jesus, Tertullian makes the following statement:

Whenever these are wanting, there occurs what the Greeks call the katachresis of a term, by its improper application to what does not belong to it.

Quibus deficientibus si quando, nunc Graeca catachresis de alieno abutendo succurrit. [3.16]

χρησιν is related to the title χρηστος