Perhaps not to the Romans or even Greeks. It is when the anointing is done to consecrate someone as a king or ruler, as was the case with the Judean people. Considering the Jewish revolt of 66-73 CE, especially since one of the early leaders, Manachem, clearly had royal ambitions, and was killed while attempting to force his way into the temple, wearing royal purple, to have the High priest consecrate him as king. Romans and Greeks could reasonably be aware of such Jewish customs.
Josephus, Jewish War, book 2 wrote:433 In the meantime, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,) took some of the men of note, with him, and retired to Masada,
434 where he broke open King Herod's armoury, and gave arms not only to his own people, but to other robbers also. These he made use of for a guard, and returned in the state of a king to Jerusalem; he became the leader of the sedition, and gave orders for continuing the siege;
...
442 Now the overthrow of the places of strength [formerly held by the Romans and King Agrippa], and the death of the high priest Ananias, so puffed up Manahem, that he became barbarously cruel; and, as he thought he had no antagonist to dispute the management of affairs with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant:
443 but Eleazar [son of Ananias, the captain of the temple] and his party, ... made an assault upon him in the temple;
444 for he went up there to worship in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments, and had his followers with him in their armour.
445 But Eleazar and his party fell violently upon him, as did also the rest of the people; and taking up stones to attack him with, they threw them at the sophister, and thought, that if he were once overthrown, the entire sedition would be crushed.
446 Now Manahem and his party made resistance for a while; but when they perceived that the whole multitude was attacking them, they fled every which way anyone was able to go; those who were caught were slain, and those who hid themselves were searched for.
...
448 As for Manahem himself, he ran away to the place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in secret; but they [the "Robbers" (λῃστῶν)] took him alive, and drew him out before them all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments, and after all slew him, as they did by those who were captains under him also, and particularly by the principal instrument of his tyranny, whose name was Apsalom.
The power vacuum occasioned by the killing of the existing High Priest Ananias by the "Robbers," including his brother and thus likely successor Hezekiah, was enough for Manahem to think he could force the appointment of a High Priest favorable to his royal agenda or perhaps force Eleazar himself, as acting commander and chief of the priestly hierarchy, to anoint him as king.
That sort of royal ambition, which led to the ambush and execution of the surrendering Roman garrison, surely left a very bad taste in their mouths. "'Anointed one' my ass! Unless WE appoint a king or High Priest, kill all pretenders and those who support them!"
DCH
Huon wrote:Peter Kirby wrote:
χρηϲτοϲ is "good." χριϲτοϲ is "anointed."
Tertullian wrote in Latin and attests to the pronunciation Chrestianos (thus, he says, witnessing to the goodness of the Christian).
What was the signification of "anointed" in Italy, during the reigns of Octavius Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius?
Nothing special, nothing related to political power in the Roman Empire.
