The Oldest Reference to Christians in Egypt = Chrestianoi

[Secret Alias]

Of course a proper examination of Justin's comments destroys the claim that the Roman testimonies to Christians are not to Christians (i.e. that Chrestus is just some Jew). I remember bringing up some book I found on line once to Trobisch which claimed that Chrestos and Chreistos massively outweigh Christos in epigraphic evidence. Trobisch noted the book was old. But still you'd think the numbers would hold up.

[Peter Kirby]

Justin must have written Χρηστιανοὶ and so on here.

I don't think so. Chrestian would be Latinized (barbaric) Greek meaning 'those of someone named Chrestos.'

Well, it had to happen sometime (the word Χρηστιανοὶ). What better place than Rome, where Justin is? What better time than the second century?

I think the passage suggests instead xρηστοὶ (= the class of people who are 'good,' the aristocracy). In other words, I am not sure that Justin's comments necessarily suggest that a person named Chrestos is behind the Roman persecutors error. He is merely saying 'we are followers of the excellent (one) or useful (one) good (one) sweet (one) but you make us disown our association with him therefore you skew your assessment of Christians in favor of bad (ones), foul (ones) etc.;

(This is just possible, but I can't say that I believe it actually improves your thesis or that I believe it is probable. I consider it dead-weight speculation. I'd advise against including this particular opinion of yours if you publish. We have plenty of examples of the Greek form Χρηστιανοὶ or Latin form Chrestiani in this context. Yes, the word was carried into Greek [Χρηστιανοὶ] from Latin [Chrestiani] from Latin [Chrestus] from Greek [χρηστὸς]. That's a true fact, so I'd just suggest getting over it. YMMV, of course.)

On the bright side, I will say that I have been lately struck, in this connection, by the concept of the χρηστὸς ἀνήρ (alternately χρηστὸς as a substantive adjective) in the Greek tradition, especially in funerary inscriptions. I know that you focus on the Hebrew side of this equation (of the names) generally speaking. But there were also people who knew only Greek, and they'd be able to accept a doctrine about a special "Good Man" (χρηστὸς ἀνήρ) or "Good One" (χρηστὸς) with very little difficulty.

Of course a proper examination of Justin's comments destroys the claim that the Roman testimonies to Christians are not to Christians (i.e. that Chrestus is just some Jew). I remember bringing up some book I found on line once to Trobisch which claimed that Chrestos and Chreistos massively outweigh Christos in epigraphic evidence. Trobisch noted the book was old. But still you'd think the numbers would hold up.

I've reviewed a lot of the epigraphic record myself personally, and the claim holds up very well.

[Secret Alias]

You know I am never going to publish a thesis. Too lazy. And besides I don't have a 'thesis' per se. Just a theory about the nomen sacrum IC which I vigorously defend for now.

We have plenty of examples of the Greek form Χρηστιανοὶ or Latin form Chrestiani in this context. Yes, the word was carried into Greek [Χρηστιανοὶ] from Latin [Chrestiani] from Latin [Chrestus] from Greek [χρηστὸς]. That's a true fact, so I'd just suggest getting over it. YMMV, of course.)

But all of these date back to a person named Chrestos no? I am not sure that the context of the apology supports that. I think Justin is talking about an excellent or good person.

[Secret Alias]

I guess if the person the Christians or Chrestians are named after was called Chrestos you might have a point. But does the context suggest that Justin has this title in mind? I don't know. Isn't Justin's point sort of Platonic that IC is the 'good' behind all goodness. Maybe I am not reading it correctly or perhaps Justin has the name Chrestos in the back of his mind without directly saying it. Maybe I am making too big a deal about it. He could be just referencing the Roman practice of identifying the followers of Jesus as Chrestiani or those of someone named Chrestus.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd suggest that the word appeared already in the early second century, when it was being used by Tacitus and Suetonius and Pliny (and also 1 Peter), as "the name" under which the "Chrestiani" were being convicted.

We can leave slightly to one side the question of whether they were called "Chrestiani" due to pagan misunderstanding (of the word for Christ) or simply because that was the way it was in the early second century (with there being a central figure of χρηστὸς or Chrestus).

By the time of Justin, then, it would be firmly lodged in use as the 'name' ascribed to them.

You know I am never going to publish a thesis. Too lazy. And besides I don't have a 'thesis' per se. Just a theory about the nomen sacrum IC which I vigorously defend for now.

We have plenty of examples of the Greek form Χρηστιανοὶ or Latin form Chrestiani in this context. Yes, the word was carried into Greek [Χρηστιανοὶ] from Latin [Chrestiani] from Latin [Chrestus] from Greek [χρηστὸς]. That's a true fact, so I'd just suggest getting over it. YMMV, of course.)

But all of these date back to a person named Chrestos no? I am not sure that the context of the apology supports that. I think Justin is talking about an excellent or good person.

Why should this be a contradiction?

Tertullian has essentially the same response as Justin here (but Justin says all this without correcting the pagans about the name Χρηστιανοὶ):

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/mayo ... lation.htm

In each case the reform effected by the name of Christian is the ground of offence. Goodness is not of such account as hatred of the Christians. Now therefore if it is a name that is hated what charge can there be against a name, what prosecution of words, unless it be that a particular utterance of a word has a barbarous or ill-omened or a scurrilous or immodest sound? The name Christian indeed, so far as its meaning is concerned, is derived from 'anointing.' And even when it is wrongly pronounced 'Chrestian' by you--for neither is there any real knowledge of the name among you--it is made up from sweetness or kindness. And thus even an innocent name gets hated in the case of innocent men.

Likewise Justin but with an important difference (and, thus, a different implied spelling):

For we are accused of being Chr[e]stians, and to hate what is excellent (chrestos) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Chr[e]stian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Chr[e]stian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses and of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is." (1 Apol 4) [no parallel statement about anointing]

[Secret Alias]

Right and you can see the 'habit' of these ancient manuscripts to suddenly introduce the 'Christ' concept into sections of text where something else is being spoken about in relation to IC and XC. My only bone of contention was whether the Latinized Greek ending -ianoi was confined to gentilic collective plurals.

[Secret Alias]

With respect to gentilic collective plurals the question was always raised in my mind - why are Christians named after 'Christ' rather than 'Jesus' if Jesus was the person who founded the cult. But I have already argued elsewhere there is evidence that 'Essene' comes from IC. But notice the paucity regarding 'Jesusanity' or the like. You'd expect Christians to be called 'those of Jesus'

[Peter Kirby]

With respect to gentilic collective plurals the question was always raised in my mind - why are Christians named after 'Christ' rather than 'Jesus' if Jesus was the person who founded the cult. But I have already argued elsewhere there is evidence that 'Essene' comes from IC. But notice the paucity regarding 'Jesusanity' or the like. You'd expect Christians to be called 'those of Jesus'

Tacitus and Suetonius and Pliny refer to the name Christus/Chrestus only. There's your clue. It's apparently a later, pagan, Latin appellation for the group.

Notice also its complete absence in the earliest texts such as Paul and Mark. Of the New Testament books, only Acts and 1 Peter in fact show it.

PS - I once wrote a little skit on this theme (obviously, not serious in all the particulars):

http://peterkirby.com/a-chance-meeting-in-90-ad.html

[Secret Alias]

So Justin didn't refer to his community as Christianoi/Chrestianoi but one of these was the Roman term for the group? I can live with that.

[MrMacSon]

... ie. that Chrestus is just some Jew.

or some pagan; or a nebulous, spiritual/heavenly character?

I remember bringing up some book I found on line once to Trobisch which claimed that Chrestos and Chreistos massively outweigh Christos in epigraphic evidence. Trobisch noted the book was old. But still you'd think the numbers would hold up.

I think a few old books suggest this was looked at and contemplated more in the 1700s/1800s and early 1900s than in the last 50 yrs or so.