The Historical Jesus III

[maximara]

Tertullian talked about Christians being called "Chrestians". He doesn't appear to be aware of a separate group by that name, and seems to be assuming that "Chrestians" referred to "Christians".

From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian06.html

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense. Surely, surely, names are not things which deserve punishment by the sword, or the cross, or the beasts.​

I'm not aware of evidence for a non-Christian group called "Chrestians", if that is what is being argued.

The possible evidence (the 134 CE Hadrian to Servianus letter) of a non-Christian group called "Chrestians" has been presented several times:

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis [Osiris] (here) are called Chrestians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Chrestus are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Chrestian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle"

Many 19th century apologists quoted this but replaced Chrestian with Christian and Chrestus with Christ which when you stop to think about it causes the passage to make less sense.

Also there is 3rd/4th century inscription that has "Chrestians for Christians" (Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, pages 33-35) show that Chrestians and Christians were two separate groups.

I would like to point out that Tertullian claimed "We read the Lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith." But that is NOT what Suetonius says in the passage that references Christians. Tall he does show is Christians are just one of the "many abuses" that were "severely punished and put down", i.e. part of a general house cleaning of Rome.

Suetonius gives no indication that any of the groups were killed. The inflicted punishment is disclosed only in the case of 'the pantomimic actors and their partisans' (banishment). The Christians could have simply been driven from Rome as had been the case with Jewish and Egyptian worshipers under Tiberius in 19 CE.[1] Their lands and wealth could have been confiscated for the good of the state, they may have been enslaved, or subject to some other kind of non-capital punishment.

Tertullian also don't know of the famous Testimonium Flavianum either nor of the passage about Christ in Tacitus so the door swings both ways.

.
It is Chrestians in Acts 11:26 in the Codex Sinaticus <- that is a direct link to an image of the original and translation of it.

All 3 mentions in Codex Sinaiticus are to 'Chrestians': Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16.

The author/s may not have known about the specific etymology of the word.

Actually the author may have very well known about the specific etymology of the word:

* chresterion: "the seat of an oracle" and "an offering to, or for, the oracle.''
* Chrestes: one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer;"
* chresterios: one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"

Again don't those variants of Chrestos far better fit the view of Jesus we have in what became our NT then Christ?

"the seat of an oracle" check

"an offering to, or for, the oracle.'' via crucifixion check

"a prophet, a soothsayer;" most definitely a check

"one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"" depending on the sect of Christianity check.

In fact, "chresterios" ("one who is in the service of a god") may show the author knew EXACTLY what the specific etymology of "Chrestians" was.

 

[GDon]

The possible evidence (the 134 CE Hadrian to Servianus letter) of a non-Christian group called "Chrestians" has been presented several times:

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis [Osiris] (here) are called Chrestians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Chrestus are, in fact, devotees of Serapis..."

Yes, but even assuming the letter to be genuine, Hadrian had just called the Egyptians "wholly fickle and inconsistent". Doesn't this suggest that worshippers of Serapis being called Chrestians is an odd situation, one only found in Egypt? And that it is more to do with the hypocrisy of the worshippers of Serapis and Christ, rather than referring to distinct beliefs of those groups?

Note that both Justin Martyr and Tertullian attested that pagans sometimes called Christians "Chrestians".

Also there is 3rd/4th century inscription that has "Chrestians for Christians" (Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, pages 33-35) show that Chrestians and Christians were two separate groups.

What do you make of that? I see that Van Voorst then mentions the pun by Justin Martyr that "Christianoi" (Christians) were "Chrestianoi" (good people). So "Chrestians for Christians" could simply be along the same lines.

Tertullian also refers to Serapis 10 times in his "Apology" and "Ad nationes", without associating them with Christians. Given that he is aware that pagans sometimes called Christians "Chrestians", it is odd that he didn't try to disassociate Christianity from Chrestian groups, if they were different ones.

 

[dejudge]

GDon seems to have forgotten that people here have access to writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus.
There were multiple heretical cults which did not believe the Jesus stories and were called christians.
GDon argues that christians were called chrestians so heretics were also called chrestians.
In any event, chrestians/christians stated their Jesus was God creator, born of a ghost without a human father who transfigured after he walked on water.
Chrestians/christians worshipped a myth /fiction Jesus.

 

[Leumas]

GDon seems to have forgotten that people here have access to writings attributed to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus.
There were multiple heretical cults which did not believe the Jesus stories and were called christians.
GDon argues that christians were called chrestians so heretics were also called chrestians.
In any event, chrestians/christians stated their Jesus was God creator, born of a ghost without a human father who transfigured after he walked on water.
Chrestians/christians worshipped a myth /fiction Jesus.

Who according to the fables was also a DELUSIONAL BLASPHEMING HOBO... much like many of the hobos we see in parks in big cities spouting their delusions and insanities while smelling like hell.... maybe that is why according to the fables demons ran away from him by the legions ... his smell reminded them of the place they came down/up to earth to run away from.

Anyway... if any onlookers in this thread need to see how a REASONING person who is capable of evaluating evidence OBJECTIVELY and rationally without a pall on a vitiated brain due to cultural biases and inculcations and indoctrinations and brainwashing then this video would be quite interesting.

 

[Craig B]

You avoid the point in my reply:

Remember Chrestus was also used as a title nearly as long as it had been used as a name.

"CHRESTOS PROTOS THESSALOS LARISSAIOS PELASGIOTES ETON IH

"Chrestos, the first, a Thessalonian from Larissa, Pelasgiot 18 years old Hero."

Dr. Clarke shows, the word Chrestos is found on the epitaphs of almost all
the ancient Larissians; but it is preceded always by a proper name."


Move over we have a

* a record of baptism involving "Chrest" in a Cemetery of Callisto's sepulchral inscription (268 CE)

* the Deir Ali Inscription (318 CE) to "Lord and Saviour JS the Good (χρηστοu)

* PGM IV. 3007-86 (c 4th century): "Hail, God of Abraham; hail, God of Isaac; hail, God of Jacob; Jesus Chrestos..."

* The Manichaean Manuscripts (4th century): "I Mani, the Apostle of [Je]su Chrestos (xphctoc) and all the other brethren that are with me ...."

Your post is NOT a reply to my question:

Do you believe that when, for example, Acts 11:26 informs us that the word in the earliest versions was "Chrestians" and that the author intended it to be inferred that the disciples were followers of an individual called by the personal name "Chrestus"?

 

[dejudge]

It is documented in the myth fables called the new testament that the blasphemer was the Lord from heaven. There's no historical evidence to contradict the myth fables of Jesus the son of God.

 

[Craig B]

It is documented in the myth fables called the new testament that the blasphemer was the Lord from heaven. There's no historical evidence to contradict the myth fables of Jesus the son of God.

So you believe the myth fables of Jesus the son of God, even though they are physically impossible? Have you gone bananas? You believe impossible stories as long as they are not contradicted by historical evidence?

Aladdin's magic lamp isn't contradicted by historical evidence. So you believe it?

 

[dejudge]

So you believe the myth fables of Jesus the son of God, even though they are physically impossible? Have you gone bananas? You believe impossible stories as long as they are not contradicted by historical evidence?

Aladdin's magic lamp isn't contradicted by historical evidence. So you believe it?

You believe and actually use the myth fables called the new testament to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was really real. Without the myth fables called the new testament from the second century and later you would have nothing about Jesus of Nazareth.
You believe Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter and had siblings because there are questions in gMark about Jesus of Nazareth who was a water walking transfiguring son of a God.

 

[Craig B]

Jesus of Nazareth who was a water walking transfiguring son of a God.

Dear me. I think he was a carpenter. But you are a holy believer, while I am a mere atheist.

 

[Leumas]

So you believe the myth fables of Jesus the son of God, even though they are physically impossible? Have you gone bananas? You believe impossible stories as long as they are not contradicted by historical evidence?

Aladdin's magic lamp isn't contradicted by historical evidence. So you believe it?

The thing that is bananas is to try to wring out a historical character out of fables and myths by CHERRY PICKING and bare assertions and hand waving and wishful thinking and assumptions.

Good thing you mention Aladdin.... what you are doing is saying that the magic lamp is impossible thus let's dismiss that part of the story and then take the fact that he had a mother and a dead father as proof that Aladdin was a real Baghdadian long long ago albeit without the lamp and genie.

So it is not Dejudge who has gone bananas for pointing out the banana illogic you are utilizing in constructing a historical man out of Aladdin Jesus... you are the one who is making Aladdin Jesus real right out of fables and myths.

But on top of all the banana illogic of dismissing the magic of Jesus' fables you also dismiss the bits that are not at all magic just because you do not WISH they were true and for no other valid reason whatsoever.

You keep asserting that real man Jesus was an "observant Jewish preacher" despite the fact the ENTIRE FABLES claim he was a DELUDED BLASPHEMER and none of that is impossible nor magical nor mentioned only in one little part of the fables or in a part that we know was an interpolation.

The facts that demonstrate that Jesus was a deluded blasphemer are indicated by many different actions and sayings and incidents THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE NT.... they were all totally possible things that people do and say all the time even today... it was not any additional fairy tale interpolations into the original fables... no magic no impossible stuff and no reason to take them as fabrications any more than the rest of the whole fabricated fairy tale in the first place.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL BASIS and it would be utterly bananas to EXTRUDE a man Jesus who was an observant Jewish preacher out of the NT just as much as anyone would be bananas trying to OOZE a historical Sinbad out of 1001 Arabian Nights.

So if there is anyone who has gone bananas it would be people who want to convince us that using the NT is a valid way to WRING OUT a Jesus of any sort that could have been anything we could ever know other than with UTTER ILLOGIC and WISHFUL THINKING only.

 

[Leumas]

Dear me. I think he was a carpenter. But you are a holy believer, while I am a mere atheist.

 

[maximara]

Yes, but even assuming the letter to be genuine, Hadrian had just called the Egyptians "wholly fickle and inconsistent". Doesn't this suggest that worshippers of Serapis being called Chrestians is an odd situation, one only found in Egypt?

No because remember chresterios means "one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"" and Chrestes is "one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer""

Having Chrestians as some variant of chresterios makes far more linguistic sense then must of the other idea I have seen kicked around.

Note that both Justin Martyr and Tertullian attested that pagans sometimes called Christians "Chrestians".

Given the connotation of chresterios this would makes sense. The plural of "chresterios" would be 'those who are in the service of a god'. So what if it was Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the others in their faith that were ignorant of that possible connection and misunderstood the term to be "Chrestians"? What if Chrestians was from a mishearing of a general genetic term of the follower of a god that this cult eventually ran with?

Tertullian also refers to Serapis 10 times in his "Apology" and "Ad nationes", without associating them with Christians. Given that he is aware that pagans sometimes called Christians "Chrestians", it is odd that he didn't try to disassociate Christianity from Chrestian groups, if they were different ones.

Don't you find it odd that Tertullian claims that the Lives of the Cæsars showed that Nero "stained with blood the rising faith" when no such passage exists in the work? Or that he knows nothing of the either the Testimonium Flavianum nor of the passage about Christ in Tacitus?

Also does Tertullian comment on how followers of Serapis are confused with Chrestians in Egypt? If not then this non mention is as curious as the other lapses mentioned.

 

[Mcreal]

Christos and Chrestus have different etymologies.

Christos Χριστός (derived from xríō - χρίω - 'anoint with olive oil') essential meant 'the anointed one': Priests and Kings were literally anointed with oil or similar.

Also, chrisma χρίσμα = anointing; referring to the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, guiding the receptive believer into fullness of God's 'preferred-will'.
.

Chrestus χρηστός meant 'good', 'useful', kind, or gentle; and was often applied to slaves. It was, at various stages, uses as an adjective and a name.

Strong's Concordance has χρηστότης as chréstotés: 'goodness', 'uprightness', 'kindness', 'gentleness'.

Various examples are given in posts above.

One ought to also consider the possible use of sarcasm or parody in applying these terms, especially as names or descriptors.

_______________________________________________

The terminology of various groups of the early Christian period has been somewhat simplistic - the literature and discussions tend to refer to Jews, Gentiles, or pagans. Yet pagans are Gentiles and, theologically, there were various sub-groups or sub-categories. Mithraism started inland in the east and spread in the 1st century to peak in the 3rd/4th century, particularly around Rome. Roman and Greek religions likely persisted in various locations; perhaps more locally to their origins. Various BC/BCE Egyptian religions were also still spreading in the eastern Mediterranean the 1st to 3rd centuries. Serapis was allegedly called Chrestus. There is evidence various serapea in various locations were taken over as Christian churches at some stage.

_______________________________________________

The term/name 'Chrestians' is in Codex Sinaiticus; it's in an 11th-14th C version of Tacitus's Annales 15.44.

Theophilus's Apology to Autolycus. Book 1 (written ~150-180 AD/CE)

CHAP. I.--Autolycus an idolater and scorner of Christians

... you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God. For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him.


CHAP. XII.--Meaning of the name Christian

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.

__________________________________________________

Christianity was never uniform. It likely had various dimension in various locations.

Arianism and other Christologies created issues. The Council of Nicea only dealt with two dimensions of the nature of god (it affirmed the view that Jesus, the Son, was equal to the Father, one with the Father, and of the same substance (homoousios, in Greek) cf. the teachings of the Arius: that 'the Son was a created being and inferior to God the Father').

But Arianism and various other Christologies persisted until the 2nd ecumenical council in 381 AD/CE - the first Council of Constantinople - under the auspices of Theodosius, where the Holy Spirit was further defined.

It was around this time that key remaining serapea were destroyed, and probably places of worship of other religions such as mithraea.

It is likely that, during the development of Christianity, various Christologies developed out of various other theologies.

.

 

[GDon]

No because remember chresterios means "one who belongs to, or is in the service of, an oracle, a god, or a "Master"" and Chrestes is "one who expounds or explains oracles, "a prophet, a soothsayer""

Having Chrestians as some variant of chresterios makes far more linguistic sense then must of the other idea I have seen kicked around.

Okay. That's very interesting. I'll need to investigate that further.

Given the connotation of chresterios this would makes sense. The plural of "chresterios" would be 'those who are in the service of a god'. So what if it was Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the others in their faith that were ignorant of that possible connection and misunderstood the term to be "Chrestians"? What if Chrestians was from a mishearing of a general genetic term of the follower of a god that this cult eventually ran with?

I guess it's possible, but I'm wary of the strength of such propositions. Many of the Second Century apologists complained about being persecuted just for having the name "Christian". Some also noted the confusion of pagans between "Chrestians" and "Christians" by making puns of Christians being "good". But I don't see any apologist concerned with Christian being confused with "one in the service of an oracle/god/Master". Still, it is food for thought.

Don't you find it odd that Tertullian claims that the Lives of the Cæsars showed that Nero "stained with blood the rising faith" when no such passage exists in the work? Or that he knows nothing of the either the Testimonium Flavianum nor of the passage about Christ in Tacitus?

No. It is an Argument from Incredulity, because we don't know whether "he knows nothing" about such passages or he just doesn't mention them. Christ's existence was not in doubt by the Second Century, so there would need to be a good reason why we would expect Tertullian to mention those things, and have those writings survive.

Also does Tertullian comment on how followers of Serapis are confused with Chrestians in Egypt? If not then this non mention is as curious as the other lapses mentioned.

If it were something localized to Egypt -- which appears to be the case according to Hadrian's letter -- then you would need to show why Tertullian should have referred to that. Again, it is an Argument from Incredulity.

 

[Mcreal]

Many of the Second Century apologists complained about being persecuted just for having the name "Christian". Some also noted the confusion of pagans between "Chrestians" and "Christians" by making puns of Christians being "good".

There may have been a number of issues beyond confusion of between "Chrestians" and "Christians".

There may have been different theologies in different groups, and some groups may have had more pagan origins than others. Some groups may have had intermediate theologies.

Claims of persecution are fraught with issues too. It's possible various Chrestian or Christian groups were attacking each other over variations in theology, besides non-Christians attacking Christians.

Nazoreans, Galileans, Essenes, etc would have been in the mix too. As well as followers of the pagan religions and cults.

 

[Mcreal]

Don't you find it odd that Tertullian claims that the Lives of the Cæsars showed that Nero "stained with blood the rising faith" when no such passage exists in the work?

Maybe he saw a different version, no longer extant. Or his work was edited.

Or that he knows nothing of the either the Testimonium Flavianum nor of the passage about Christ in Tacitus?

It seems no one in those times knew about the passage about Christ in Tacitus's Annales 15.44. I'm not sure anyone knew about any of Annales before the 14th century.

Also does Tertullian comment on how followers of Serapis are confused with Chrestians in Egypt? If not then this non mention is as curious as the other lapses mentioned.

Hadrian may not have confused them. He may have been alluding to them as followers of Serapis alone.

Tertulian may not have been aware of the passage, or not given any credence to it.

 

[dejudge]

Again, GDON, it is illogical to assume that the word christus could only refer to Jesus of Nazareth.
How many times are you going to repeat the same absurdities?
The evidence will not magically disappear.
The word christus was applied to multiple persons before and after the times of Pilate.
Please stop the obvious propaganda.
The supposed historical Jesus of Nazareth is a product of myth/fiction.
Christus was also God in christians writings of antiquity.

 

[Leumas]

...

Christianity has never been a uniform religion (other than perhaps in Western Europe ~500 AD/CE until the Reformation).

Early Christianity never developed via a binary of Jews v 'Gentiles'.
.

You're not kidding and the book below illustrates the history most excellently.

By the way all this wrangling going on in this thread about Chrestos or Christos reminds me of the WARS and BATTLES and many killings that Christians did to each other in the 4th century when they quarreled about ONE LETTER too and IRONICALLY it was an i too just like the code to create the irony meter below.

Christians killed each other fighting about whether Jesus and god were Homoousios or Homoiousios​

Yes... wars and killings and hatreds and politicking just because of an i.

And today 1700 years later we have ATHEISTS fighting amongst each other just as venomously and irrationally over whether Jesus was Chrestos or Christos.

• Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years

​

 

[dejudge]

It is most bizarre that CraigB claims to be atheist but still believe the word of God according to the Church. It is documented that Jesus the son of the ghost was baptized by John yet CraigB still believes Jesus was really baptized.
It is most fascinating that people today still accept the Christian Bible as an historical source.
The absurdity of the HJ argument has been exposed.
It cannot be shown that Jesus of Nazareth was not a figure of myth/fiction.

 

[maximara]

It seems no one in those times knew about the passage about Christ in Tacitus's Annales 15.44. I'm not sure anyone knew about any of Annales before the 14th century.

Oh they knew about the Annales well before the 14th century. Like Josephus Jewish Antiquities no one place has all of the works.

Annales 1-6 date from 850 CE (MS. plut. 68.1). The Annales 11-16 and Historiae are what are later and this is where that matter about Chrestians exist.