When was the term "christian" first used?

[spin]

To Pervo, Tyson and the rest of the Westar gang, the book of Acts was a second century composition, a position that a lot of us already held. If they are correct, it means that the traditions the book contains cannot be related to the first century. This includes the claim that the term "christian" was first used at Antioch in a time frame that Acts was thought to indicate the middle of the 1st century. Such a dating can no longer be accepted. Beside a second use in Acts 26:28 which puts the word in the mouth of Agrippa, the only other new testament usage is 1 Peter 4:16, another text which asks us to date it in the 2nd century. This means that the term "christian" cannot be connected with the 1st century at all.

We then need to deal with the two Roman historians, Tacitus and Suetonius, whose works now mention "christians" in relation to the 1st century.

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, this is a point that Verenna mentions in a footnote to his essay in the book he edited (which I'm now working through).

Two points:

- It is helpful to distinguish between "chrestian" and "christian," isn't it? (Until shown that it isn't, of course.)
- I'll give you Josephus, go half-way with you on Tacitus (can't be sure of much I suppose), but if you need to controvert both the text of Suetonius and Tacitus to proceed onto an argument from silence, then I guess we'd have to part company. I'd rather keep my eyes open and then try to form a hypothesis than the opposite. Be careful of merely "dealing with" evidence (i.e., the mountainman-a_nony_mouse disease).

[Huon]

- It is helpful to distinguish between "chrestian" and "christian," isn't it? (Until shown that it isn't, of course.)

Opinion of a Frenchman :
In french, a "christian" was "un chrestien" in the Middle Ages. I think that the West Europeans did not speak greek, and would not make a difference between these two words. If a western copyist wrote a mistake, he could have corrected it quickly.

Secondly, if "chrestian" means "good", why not being a "good one" AND a "christian" ?

Thirdly, "christos" means "anointed". But "anointed" does not necessarily mean "future king". Possibly, "anointed" is simply a medical word, for a cure with an anointment...

In Gaul, the first anointed king was Clovis, in 500 CE.

[ficino]

Probably many on here already know this, but I point out that "chrestianos" in manuscript Laurentianus 68.2 (mid-11th cent.) of Tacitus' Annales was altered by erasure to "christianos." On the other hand, "christus" in the next line seems to be the original ms. reading, from what I can tell from the photo on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MII.png

Koestermann's Teubner edition of the Annales follows suit, printing "Chrestianos" but "Christus."

[spin]

Probably many on here already know this, but I point out that "chrestianos" in manuscript Laurentianus 68.2 (mid-11th cent.) of Tacitus' Annales was altered by erasure to "christianos." On the other hand, "christus" in the next line seems to be the original ms. reading, from what I can tell from the photo on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MII.png

Koestermann's Teubner edition of the Annales follows suit, printing "Chrestianos" but "Christus."

There are at least two possibilities with the evidence, as I have explained elsewhere a number of times.

1. The source text used featured "chrestianos", the copyist copied it as is, and the corrector had the text brought into line with christian standards; or
2. The source text used featured "christianos", the copyist wrote "chrestianos", which was a common form in the 11th c., and the corrector, returned the text to reflect the source.

The ability to decide which is correct is beyond the available evidence.

[spin]

- It is helpful to distinguish between "chrestian" and "christian," isn't it? (Until shown that it isn't, of course.)

I think "chrestian" is a red herring.

- I'll give you Josephus,

Thanks, but he's not relevant here.

go half-way with you on Tacitus (can't be sure of much I suppose),

I'm sure I can do better than that.

but if you need to controvert both the text of Suetonius and Tacitus to proceed onto an argument from silence, then I guess we'd have to part company.

To my reckoning I've already "controverted" the two witnesses. The issue of the use of "christian" in them only adds to the evidence.

Do you find the following kosher?

Suetonius, Nero, XVI.
He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments be erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought; and these he put up at his own cost. He had also planned to extend the walls as far as Ostia and to bring the sea from there to Rome by a canal. During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made:

1. a limit was set to expenditures;
2. the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food,
3. the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale.
4. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians [ie they were executed], a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
5. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people.
6. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.

Nearly all these were about public order and controlling rowdy behavior. What does the execution of christians have to do with the rest of this list? Note that the term for executing the christians here (afflicti suppliciis) is quite similar to that used in Annals 15.44 (supplicio adfectus). I think the use of "punishment" is tendentious, as it covers up the non-homogeneity of the list. This is where I would love to be able to find the article which shows that a later user of Suetonius attests to the exact same term in this context, but I'll keep looking.

I'd rather keep my eyes open and then try to form a hypothesis than the opposite. Be careful of merely "dealing with" evidence (i.e., the mountainman-a_nony_mouse disease).

Tertullian who clearly knew Tacitus could only cite the legendary executions of Peter and Paul for the Neronian persecution of christians (Prescrip. Heresies, 36). The same is true in Eusebius EH 2.25. We have to wait for Sulpicius Severus to get some substance for the persecution in words reminiscent of the current texts of Annals 15.44. It was clearly in the interest of the christians to have a witness to the sort of wholesale persecution now present in Annals 15.44. Yet there are so many problems with the TT, which I had up for years in a blog at the old forum.

[spin]

We almost never see the whole passage that the TT comes from. Here it is with a little commentary....

Annals Bk 15	Comments
38. A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. It had its beginning in that part of the circus which adjoins the Palatine and Caelian hills, where, amid the shops containing inflammable wares, the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus. For here there were no houses fenced in by solid masonry, or temples surrounded by walls, or any other obstacle to interpose delay. The blaze in its fury ran first through the level portions of the city, then rising to the hills, while it again devastated every place below them, it outstripped all preventive measures; so rapid was the mischief and so completely at its mercy the city, with those narrow winding passages and irregular streets, which characterised old Rome. Added to this were the wailings of terror-stricken women, the feebleness of age, the helpless inexperience of childhood, the crowds who sought to save themselves or others, dragging out the infirm or waiting for them, and by their hurry in the one case, by their delay in the other, aggravating the confusion. Often, while they looked behind them, they were intercepted by flames on their side or in their face. Or if they reached a refuge close at hand, when this too was seized by the fire, they found that, even places, which they had imagined to be remote, were involved in the same calamity. At last, doubting what they should avoid or whither betake themselves, they crowded the streets or flung themselves down in the fields, while some who had lost their all, even their very daily bread, and others out of love for their kinsfolk, whom they had been unable to rescue, perished, though escape was open to them. And no one dared to stop the mischief, because of incessant menaces from a number of persons who forbade the extinguishing of the flames, because again others openly hurled brands, and kept shouting that they 'had their instructions', either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders.	Introduction to Tacitus's fire story with his first aspersion against the emperor, stating that it was uncertain whether the fire started by chance or by some act of the emperor. It later talks of those perpetrating the mayhem having instructions and later that they were 'obeying orders'. This is part of his build up to the fact that there was only one person seen to be the one who gave the order. However, these people acting under orders may have been state firefighters whose task was to create a break through back-burn in order to stop the fire's progress.1
39. Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Maecenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity.	Attempt to say Nero didn't return until he was about to lose his newly built house, which would have been obviously too late. T. suggests N. accidentally burnt his own new house down. At the same time we see N working to deal with the fire and its effects.
40. At last, after five days, an end was put to the conflagration at the foot of the Esquiline hill, by the destruction of all buildings on a vast space, so that the violence of the fire was met by clear ground and an open sky. But before people had laid aside their fears, the flames returned, with no less fury this second time, and especially in the spacious districts of the city. Consequently, though there was less loss of life, the temples of the gods, and the porticoes which were devoted to enjoyment, fell in a yet more widespread ruin. And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name. Rome, indeed, is divided into fourteen districts, four of which remained uninjured, three were levelled to the ground, while in the other seven were left only a few shattered, half-burnt relics of houses.	Fire comes to an end, though T. accuses N. of prolonging it for more damage. The size of the fire damage is explained.
41. It would not be easy to enter into a computation of the private mansions, the blocks of tenements, and of the temples, which were lost. Those with the oldest ceremonial, as that dedicated by Servius Tullius to Luna, the great altar and shrine raised by the Arcadian Evander to the visibly appearing Hercules, the temple of Jupiter the Stator, which was vowed by Romulus, Numa's royal palace, and the sanctuary of Vesta, with the tutelary deities of the Roman people, were burnt. So too were the riches acquired by our many victories, various beauties of Greek art, then again the ancient and genuine historical monuments of men of genius, and, notwithstanding the striking splendour of the restored city, old men will remember many things which could not be replaced. Some persons observed that the beginning of this conflagration was on the 19th of July, the day on which the Senones captured and fired Rome. Others have pushed a curious inquiry so far as to reduce the interval between these two conflagrations into equal numbers of years, months, and days.	Counting the losses.
42. Nero meanwhile availed himself of his country's desolation, and erected a mansion in which the jewels and gold, long familiar objects, quite vulgarised by our extravagance, were not so marvellous as the fields and lakes, with woods on one side to resemble a wilderness, and, on the other, open spaces and extensive views. The directors and contrivers of the work were Severus and Celer, who had the genius and the audacity to attempt by art even what nature had refused, and to fool away an emperor's resources. They had actually undertaken to sink a navigable canal from the lake Avernus to the mouths of the Tiber along a barren shore or through the face of hills, where one meets with no moisture which could supply water, except the Pomptine marshes. The rest of the country is broken rock and perfectly dry. Even if it could be cut through, the labour would be intolerable, and there would be no adequate result. Nero, however, with his love of the impossible, endeavoured to dig through the nearest hills to Avernus, and there still remain the traces of his disappointed hope.	The building of Nero's new palace, the Domus Aurea, and T's criticism of the project. Attempts at a canal to supply water.
43. Of Rome meanwhile, so much as was left unoccupied by his mansion, was not built up, as it had been after its burning by the Gauls, without any regularity or in any fashion, but with rows of streets according to measurement, with broad thoroughfares, with a restriction on the height of houses, with open spaces, and the further addition of colonnades, as a protection to the frontage of the blocks of tenements. These colonnades Nero promised to erect at his own expense, and to hand over the open spaces, when cleared of the debris, to the ground landlords. He also offered rewards proportioned to each person's position and property, and prescribed a period within which they were to obtain them on the completion of so many houses or blocks of building. He fixed on the marshes of Ostia for the reception of the rubbish, and arranged that the ships which had brought up corn by the Tiber, should sail down the river with cargoes of this rubbish. The buildings themselves, to a certain height, were to be solidly constructed, without wooden beams, of stone from Gabii or Alba, that material being impervious to fire. And to provide that the water which individual license had illegally appropriated, might flow in greater abundance in several places for the public use, officers were appointed, and everyone was to have in the open court the means of stopping a fire. Every building, too, was to be enclosed by its own proper wall, not by one common to others. These changes which were liked for their utility, also added beauty to the new city. Some, however, thought that its old arrangement had been more conducive to health, inasmuch as the narrow streets with the elevation of the roofs were not equally penetrated by the sun's heat, while now the open space, unsheltered by any shade, was scorched by a fiercer glow.	Grandiose plans for fire prevention including building regulations, the removal of rubble, and T.'s criticisms.
44. Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the temple and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.	Conclusion of the fire narrative, saying nothing could shake the accusation that the fire was started by an order (linking back to #38 and the men obeying orders). This is followed by the story of Nero scapegoating the christians and their resulting horrid deaths.
The fire, The damage, After the fire, Conclusion	Key

Where exactly does the fire narrative end?

---

1 See Gregory N. Daugherty, "The Cohortes Vigilum and the Great Fire of 64 AD", The Classical Journal, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Feb. - Mar., 1992), p.234.

[Andrew]

spin wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:
but if you need to controvert both the text of Suetonius and Tacitus to proceed onto an argument from silence, then I guess we'd have to part company.

...

Nearly all these were about public order and controlling rowdy behavior. What does the execution of christians have to do with the rest of this list? Note that the term for executing the christians here (afflicti suppliciis) is quite similar to that used in Annals 15.44 (supplicio adfectus). I think the use of "punishment" is tendentious, as it covers up the non-homogeneity of the list. This is where I would love to be able to find the article which shows that a later user of Suetonius attests to the exact same term in this context, but I'll keep looking.

Perhaps the Christians were thought to be disruptive of public order? Maybe they were constantly preaching in the streets and made everyone really grumpy...

[spin]

spin wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:
but if you need to controvert both the text of Suetonius and Tacitus to proceed onto an argument from silence, then I guess we'd have to part company.

...

Nearly all these were about public order and controlling rowdy behavior. What does the execution of christians have to do with the rest of this list? Note that the term for executing the christians here (afflicti suppliciis) is quite similar to that used in Annals 15.44 (supplicio adfectus). I think the use of "punishment" is tendentious, as it covers up the non-homogeneity of the list. This is where I would love to be able to find the article which shows that a later user of Suetonius attests to the exact same term in this context, but I'll keep looking.

Perhaps the Christians were thought to be disruptive of public order? Maybe they were constantly preaching in the streets and made everyone really grumpy...

I'm sure you can think of all sorts of half-assed excuses to squeeze them in, but you wouldn't believe any of them. Being "a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition" does not provide any indication of a disturbance to public order, let alone of a cause for execution.

[stephan happy huller]

Getting back to the original point of the thread, I am not sure whether a second century writer can be used to firmly date collective names in another period. For instance we might speak of 'Renaissance writers,' 'Impressionists' or any number of groups whose name was established after the group in question to describe the original group. I don't know if these are good examples. Let me think of one. Well, let's say, up until recently native Americans were called 'Indians' even when describing their culture before Colombus. We know that they didn't call themselves 'Indians' but a historian attempting to describe their ways before the appearance of Europeans would probably have described this or that 'Indian' tribe with respect to their list of kings even though the name clearly did not pre-date Colombus.