the disciples were first called Chrestians (not Christians)

[stephan happy huller]

This is not a sound etymology. The suffix is ianus and it means 'of' or 'belonging to.' I am pretty sure that the suffix anus is only used with in inanimate objects. But Latin is not my strong suit. On a more interesting note has anyone actually looked up the Latin meaning of antithesis? Lewis and Short has:

antĭthĕsis , is, f., = ἀντίθεσις, a gram. ng.,
I.the putting of one letter for another (e. g. olli for illi, impete for impetu), Charis. p. 249 P.; Diom. p. 437 P.

[Peter Kirby]

This is not a sound etymology. The suffix is ianus and it means 'of' or 'belonging to.' I am pretty sure that the suffix anus is only used with in inanimate objections. But Latin is not my strong suit.

Neither mine. To avoid the analogue of a pub trivia argument, perhaps it would be better to seek out a few opinions from people that have more experience with the language and might give us a straight answer.

Although I have just started teaching myself Latin from Lingua Latina, this kind of thing really does call for an expert's opinion.

[stephan happy huller]

But look at what I found in Lewis and Short. Chrestus to Christus would be an 'antithesis' in Latin. Interesting. From another source:

Metathesis transposes a letter or syllable; as accerso for arcesso. Antithesis puts one letter for another; as faciundum for faciendum.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LXkBAA ... 22&f=false

or

Antithesis puts one letter for another ; as, Olli, for illi. 8. Metathesis changes the order of the letters of a word; and % properly a Greek figure ; as, Pistris, foi firistis

[stephan happy huller]

I was wrong about "anus" and "ianus." Apparently both can be used with names:

http://books.google.com/books?id=36QAAA ... 22&f=false

[stephan happy huller]

More on the proper meaning of 'antithesis' in Latin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5-Fffr ... 22&f=false

[Peter Kirby]

Okay, yes. That is interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it might just be relevant.

I was wrong about "anus" and "ianus."

There's a joke there somewhere.

[stephan happy huller]

I think an 'antithesis' was something different in Latin and in Greek. As Quintillian notes in Oratory 9.3.81:

Contraposition, or, as some call it, contention—it is termed by the Greeks ἀντίθετον (antitheton)—is effected in several ways, for it occurs when single words are opposed one to another, as in the example which I used a little above, Vicit pudorem libido, timorem audacia, or when two are opposed to two, as, Non nostri ingenii, vestri auxilii est, "It depends not on our ability, but your aid," or when sentences are opposed to sentences, as, Dominetur in concionibus, jaceat in judiciis. 82. This species of antithesis is very properly joined with that we have termed distinction: Odit Populus Romanus privatam luxuriam, pulicam magnificentiam diligit, "The Roman people detest private luxury, but love public magnificence," and that in which words of similar termination, but of dissimilar meaning, are placed at the end of different clauses, as, Quod in tempore mali fuit, nihil obsit, quin, quod in causa boni fuit, prosit, "So that what was unfortunate in the time may not prevent what was good in the cause from being of advantage." 83. Nor is the second term always immediately subjoined to that to which it corresponds, as in this passage, Est igitur, judices, non scripta, sed nata lex, "It is a law, therefore, judges, not written for us, but inherent in us by nature." But as Cicero says, there may be a correspondence between several preceding and subsequent particulars, as in the sequel of the passage to which I have just referred, Quam non didicimus, accepimus, legimus, verum ex natura ipsa accepimus, hausimus, expressimus, "A law which we have not learned, or acquired, or read, but which we have imbibed, and derived, and received from nature herself." 84. Nor is that which is opposed to what precedes always presented in the antithetic form, as in these words, cited by Rutilius Lupus, Nobis primum dii immortales fruges dederunt; nos, quod soli accepimus, in omnes terras distribuimus: "To us the immortal gods first gave corn; that which we alone received, we have distributed through every region of the earth." 85. An antithesis is also produced with the aid of that figure in which words are repeated with variations in case or tense, and which is called by the Greeks ἀντιμεταβολή (antimetabole): as, Non, ut edam, vivo; sed, ut vivam, edo; "I do not live that I may eat, but eat that I may live." There is an example of this in Cicero, which is so managed that, though it exhibits a change in cases, the two members have a similar ending: Ut et sine invidia culpa plectatur, et sine culpa invidia ponatur, "That both guilt may be punished without odium, and odium may be laid aside without guilt." 86. The members may also terminate with the very same word, as in what Cicero says of Roscius, Etenim, quum artifex ejusmodi sit, ut solus dignus videatur esse qui scenam introeat, tum vir ejusmodi sit, ut solus videatur dignus qui eo non accedat, "For, while he is an actor of such powers that he alone seems worthy to enter on the stage, he is a man of such a character that he alone seems worthy to be exempted from entering on it." There is also a peculiar grace in the antithetic opposition of names, as, Si consul Antonius, Brutus hostis; si conservator reipublicae Brutus, hostis Antonius, "If Antony is a consul, Brutus is an enemy; if Brutus is a preserver of his country, Antony is an enemy."

[Leucius Charinus]

Yes, the original construction needs an explanation. Yes, Marcionites are not the only candidates. If your explanation is plausible, then that is one plausible explanation. Another explanation is the usage of "chrestus" by another group within the larger movement. Another explanation is ignorance, confusion, apathy, and/or intentional mockery on the part of the people who first termed these people Chrestiani.

I have not offered an explanation for the original construction, but in examining your hypothesis must note that it has more than a little reliance upon the manuscripts of Tacitus and Pliny which remained unattested in antiquity and the middle ages until they both "suddenly appeared" in the 15th century. If we were to set aside for the moment any hypothesis for the original construction of the terms "Chrestian" and "Christian", is it possible to at least reach some agreement as to the chronological order of appearance of the two terms.

The OP contained link to the detailed evidence and also a suggestion as to the possible sequential order of the appearance of these two terms as follows:

• SUGGESTION for DISCUSSION: The Progressive Chronological Change of the original term "Chrestians" to the present term "Christians"
  
  * 1. Before c.316 CE: There appears to have been a class of people in antiquity who were referred to as "Chrestians".
  
  * 2. After c.316 CE: Constantine uses this name as the name of the "Chrestian State Religion", associated with the sacred code "Chi-Rho".
  
  * 3. Until Alexandrinus: the "Chrestian State Religion" continues for a number of centuries ...(How many? 1, 2,3,4,5 or more? C14 would help!!)
  
  * 4. After Alexandrinus: the "Chrestian State Religion" decided to make themselves the "Christian State Religion". (See the "mopping up" in Tacitus' Annals)

Do you agree or disagree with this chronological sequence? If you disagree, then what do you offer as the sequence of events?


.

[Peter Kirby]

I have not offered an explanation for the original construction, but in examining your hypothesis must note that it has more than a little reliance upon the manuscripts of Tacitus and Pliny which remained unattested in antiquity and the middle ages until they both "suddenly appeared" in the 15th century.

Do you agree or disagree with this chronological sequence? If you disagree, then what do you offer as the sequence of events?

I've already sketched some ideas in the several paragraphs that you've now decided not to engage directly. If you're interested, refer back to that.

[spin]

I was wrong about "anus" and "ianus."

There's a joke there somewhere.

Ianus, from whom Ianuarius is named, was the god with two faces who looked both ways.