When was the term "christian" first used?

[ficino]

William Benjamin Smith, "The Silence of Josephus and Tacitus," The Monist 20.4 (1910) 515-50, says (pp. 529-30) that the first reference by a Christian to enmity from Nero is in Melito of Sardis (ca. 170 CE) as quoted in Eusebius HE 4.26. Melito is quoted as saying only that Nero slandered "our doctrine" - the origin of which is located during the reign of Augustus. Nothing about persecution as such. Tertullian, Apologeticum 5, says that Nero raged w/ sword against Chrs., but doesn't describe what Tacitus describes. Tertullian does malign Tacitus in ch. 16 for his animosity toward the Jews, so you'd think he would quote the description of Nero's purported persecution of Christians, had he had access to it. Smith goes on (p. 532) to cite Lactantius and others for the story that Peter and Paul were martyred under Nero, but these authors do not refer to the events described in Annales 15.44. Those only come up first in the fourth century in the pseud. letters between Paul and Seneca (Epistle 12). Smith points out that, although Tacitus refers to animosity toward Jews, nothing in Josephus indicates a big persecution of Jews under Nero in 64 CE, so the Tacitean passage doesn't seem a corruption of THAT sort of account. Smith argues that Tacitus 43 passes naturally into ch. 45, as though 44 a later addition. It's not even clear what the Christians in ch. 44 were supposed to have "confessed." He adds that non-Christian historians of antiquity don't record the events of ch. 44, and he goes on to point out other problems in ch. 44 (not least the error that makes Pilate "procurator"). Smith doesn't hazard a guess about the genesis of this strange chapter except to deem it a later interpolation.

[spin]

It's not the full chapter that is problematic. Only the section starting "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt..." The section that precedes that is a succinct closure of the Tacitean discourse opened in #38, which includes "(disaster) whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor" going on to talk of agents who "kept shouting that they 'had their instructions', either seeking to plunder more freely, or obeying orders." This are answered in the conclusion with "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." The first section is necessary for the discourse, which does not say outright that Nero caused the first, but through the weight of negative opinions leads one nevertheless to conclude it must have been Nero. It is only after that that everything goes to shit with a loss of focus, basically forgetting about the fire and Nero, giving a nice succinct christian testimony and martyr story cloaked in negative tones to put it in the mouth of a non-christian.

[andrewcriddle]

Two points

a/ IMO a 2nd century date for 1 Peter is improbable. Apart from the use of Christian (which begs the question) its vocabulary and teaching seems rather early (earlier than Clement's letter to the Corinthians.)

What do you see in 1 Peter that would not be appropriate for Peregrinus's christians (as recorded by Lucian)?

In the account in Lucian Christianity is clearly an illegal organization, 1 Peter seems to be referring to less official forms of ill-treatment of Christian believers.

b/ The early uses of Christian do not indicate that it is a recent word. The claim in Acts that it goes back to Christianity in Antioch before 50 CE is probably wrong. However it does imply that the word has been around long enough (a number of decades) for such a claim to be plausible.

So if Acts was written in the 2nd c., the term could have been used for decades. I don't see anything more than another of your IMOs.

This requires a date of Acts later than say 120 CE. While Richard Pervo IIUC dates Acts betwwen 110 and 120 CE.

There is a general issue here. In order to make the origin of the word Christian 2nd century a whole number of controversial positions on dating and/or authenticity have all to be correct.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

Two points

a/ IMO a 2nd century date for 1 Peter is improbable. Apart from the use of Christian (which begs the question) its vocabulary and teaching seems rather early (earlier than Clement's letter to the Corinthians.)

What do you see in 1 Peter that would not be appropriate for Peregrinus's christians (as recorded by Lucian)?

In the account in Lucian Christianity is clearly an illegal organization, 1 Peter seems to be referring to less official forms of ill-treatment of Christian believers.

That idea doesn't reflect what is shown in the Death of Peregrinus. Christians had free passage and could visit Peregrinus in prison and bring him fine meals. And christians came from far away to lend support.

b/ The early uses of Christian do not indicate that it is a recent word. The claim in Acts that it goes back to Christianity in Antioch before 50 CE is probably wrong. However it does imply that the word has been around long enough (a number of decades) for such a claim to be plausible.

So if Acts was written in the 2nd c., the term could have been used for decades. I don't see anything more than another of your IMOs.

This requires a date of Acts later than say 120 CE. While Richard Pervo IIUC dates Acts betwwen 110 and 120 CE.

There is a general issue here. In order to make the origin of the word Christian 2nd century a whole number of controversial positions on dating and/or authenticity have all to be correct.

You seem to be arguing over, say, 10 years if both Pervo and your conjecture are correct. Westar shifts Acts at least 25-35 years closer to us. That in no way supports the veracity of the claim for Antioch being the place where "christian" emerged.

[spin]

Despite the fact that numerous church fathers had access to Tacitus, no-one before the 12th letter of the spurious Paul-Seneca correspondence relates Christians to the Neronian era fire and only Sulpicius Severus supplies enough information to clearly link with the Testimonium Taciteum. The silence in both the classical and christian sources is quite amazing, especially when the only explicit things that were known about the "Neronian persecution" were the legendary executions of Peter and Paul. The martyrdom of a truckload of christians should have been newsworthy from the beginning.

Here is a comparison between the Testimonium Taciteum and a related passage in the christian history of Sulpicius Severus (c. 400 CE).

Annals	Sulpicius Severus
ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat.	igitur vertit invidiam in Christianos, actaeque in innoxios crudelissimae quaestiones;
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those, hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace.	He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent.
auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.	-
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius by order of a procurator, Pontius Pilate, 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 center and become popular.	(no witness)
igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.	-
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.	(no arrest)
et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent aut crucibus adfixi [aut flammandi atque],	quin et novae mortes excogitatae, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent, multi crucibus affixi aut flamma usti, plerique in id reservati,
As they perished, mockeries were added: covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were crucified, [or were doomed to the flames and burnt,]	Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devoured by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose,
ubi defecisset dies, in usu[m] nocturni luminis urerentur.	ut cum defecisset dies, in usum nocturni luminis urerentur.
on the ending of the day, to serve as a nightly illumination.	that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night.
hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigae permixtus plebi vel curriculo insistens. unde quamquam adversus sontes et novissima exempla meritos miseratio oriebatur, tamquam non utilitate publica, sed in saevitiam unius absumerentur.	-
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.	(no Nero, no compassion)
-	hoc initio in Christianos saeviri coeptum.
(no Severan conclusion)	In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians.

What is interesting here is the fact that Sulpicius Severus does not read as a summary of the TT. It reads like a passage expanded upon via three additions. It would be strange for an epitomist to leave out either the arrest or the compassion for the martyrdoms of the poor christians. Yes, the writer has the voice of an anti-christian who still manages to get two important messages across: 1) a witness to the death of Jesus and 2) the horrid deaths of the christians. The exact words that are shared in common seem to be those least reflective of the Roman's taciturn style.

[ficino]

Interesting comparison. For the date of Sulpicius Severus, you mean c. 400, no? (Wikipedia says c. 403 for his Chronica.)

Spin, have you come across in the literature the suggestion that the Tacitean passage is a corruption of an account of persecution of devotees of Isis, which was an idea floated a few posts back? Your view seems to be, on the contrary, that someone simply expanded Sulpicius Severus into the Tacitean account that occupies 15.44.

[spin]

Interesting comparison. For the date of Sulpicius Severus, you mean c. 400, no? (Wikipedia says c. 403 for his Chronica.)

Yeah, typo. Fixed. Thanks.

Spin, have you come across in the literature the suggestion that the Tacitean passage is a corruption of an account of persecution of devotees of Isis, which was an idea floated a few posts back? Your view seems to be, on the contrary, that someone simply expanded Sulpicius Severus into the Tacitean account that occupies 15.44.

I noted your previous post and responded to it immediately below it. Whatever the TT is, it doesn't belong at the end of the fire story: it totally undercuts the effect of the conclusion to the fire.

[ficino]

Wm. Benjamin Smith, whose article on Tacitus and Josephus I mentioned above, inclined also toward your conclusion, spin, about the temporal priority of the Sulpician passage to the account of persecution in Annales 15.44; cf. "COMMENT BY WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH,"
The Monist , Vol. 21, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1911) , pp. 119-124: "far more likely," p. 119. He acknowledges that perhaps both may have "a common unknown origin," but later (p. 123) restates the conclusion that the TT postdates Sulpicius. To his arguments against the TT in the earlier article, Smith here (p. 122) adds this: the "Martyrdom of St. Paul," which he dates on authority of Zahn to 150-180, recounts Paul's execution by Nero in the midst of fierce persecution in Rome but says nothing about the story we find in Ann. 15.44. Smith argues that certainly the author of the Martyrdom would have used that material had he had access to it. He makes a similar argument about the Acts of Peter, c. 200-210, where Peter is executed by the prefect, Agrippa, for having alienated women from their Roman husbands by his preaching. "Here again, the Tacitean account is positively excluded."

In the same volume of The Monist from which I excerpted Smith's 1910 article above, this appears by Paul Carus: "THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. IN COMMENT UPON THE THEORY OF PROF. WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH," The Monist , Vol. 20, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1910) , pp. 633-638. Carus begins by informing the reader that Smith had for many years been a professor of mathematics at Tulane and that Smith "by preference" is (or aspires to be?) a theologian. In other words, Smith isn't a biblical scholar, so let's begin our confrontation with him from professional bias.

Smith published other stuff doubting the historical Jesus. I haven't seen any references to his work on any website.

It's fascinating how the field that we're trying to plow now is the very same one that these guys were plowing a century ago - and fascinating how readily some of their work seems to have been forgotten. We're going over a lot of the same ground.

edited to add:
a Wikepedia article on Smith here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Benjamin_Smith

It says that in books and articles, Smith argued that the early Christian sources, particularly Paul's epistles, "stress Christ's divinity at the expense of any human personality, and that this would have been implausible, if there had been a human Jesus. Smith therefore argued that Christianity's origins lay in a pre-Christian Jesus cult—that is, a Jewish sect had worshipped a divine being Jesus in the centuries before the human Jesus was supposedly born." "The Jesus" - a name meaning "savior," S. thought - was preached as a hellenized form of the monotheistic god; the stories about the man were later accretions. I don't think this is exactly the same as Doherty but it is a sort of mythicism.

The Wikipedia article also says that Smith was a white supremacist. !

[stephan happy huller]

Against andrewcriddle's identification of 1 Peter as early, we should consider the evidence of Tertullian:

It is also curious that Tertullian while describing the various 'instruments' in the canon (De Resurrect. 33, 38, 39, 40) finishes quoting passages from the Old Testament and continues: "This is enough from the Prophetic Instrument : I appeal now to the Gospels!" Passages from St Matthew, St Luke, and St John, follow in order. Afterwards comes a reference to the Apocalypse as contained in the Instrument of John ; and then a general reference to the Apostolic Instrument but no reference to any material from Mark.

The broad distinction of the different Instruments points to the existence of distinct groups of books, which may have been separately circulated.

In another treatise, probably of a somewhat earlier date (De Pudicitia, cc. 6, 12, 19) Tertullian observes a similar arrangement. First he quotes the Gospels, or rather as he calls it the Gospel; and then appeals to the Apostolic Instrument in which again he includes the Acts and the Epistles of St Paul. Afterwards - not to dwell always on Paul he notices the Apocalypse and first Epistle of St John, and speaks of a passage from the last chapter as the close of his writing. And then it is, when he has noticed the dis- cipline of the Apostles/ that he adds as it were over and above a testimony of a companion of the Apostles taken from the Epistle of Barnabas to the Hebrews. The absence of all mention of the first Epistle of St Peter is remarkable; and it has been supposed with some probability that he was not acquainted with it till the close of his life, and then only from the Greek. [Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament p. 238]

[Blood]

Wm. Benjamin Smith, whose article on Tacitus and Josephus I mentioned above, inclined also toward your conclusion, spin, about the temporal priority of the Sulpician passage to the account of persecution in Annales 15.44; cf. "COMMENT BY WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH,"
The Monist , Vol. 21, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1911) , pp. 119-124: "far more likely," p. 119. He acknowledges that perhaps both may have "a common unknown origin," but later (p. 123) restates the conclusion that the TT postdates Sulpicius. To his arguments against the TT in the earlier article, Smith here (p. 122) adds this: the "Martyrdom of St. Paul," which he dates on authority of Zahn to 150-180, recounts Paul's execution by Nero in the midst of fierce persecution in Rome but says nothing about the story we find in Ann. 15.44. Smith argues that certainly the author of the Martyrdom would have used that material had he had access to it. He makes a similar argument about the Acts of Peter, c. 200-210, where Peter is executed by the prefect, Agrippa, for having alienated women from their Roman husbands by his preaching. "Here again, the Tacitean account is positively excluded."

In the same volume of The Monist from which I excerpted Smith's 1910 article above, this appears by Paul Carus: "THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. IN COMMENT UPON THE THEORY OF PROF. WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH," The Monist , Vol. 20, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1910) , pp. 633-638. Carus begins by informing the reader that Smith had for many years been a professor of mathematics at Tulane and that Smith "by preference" is (or aspires to be?) a theologian. In other words, Smith isn't a biblical scholar, so let's begin our confrontation with him from professional bias.

Smith published other stuff doubting the historical Jesus. I haven't seen any references to his work on any website.

It's fascinating how the field that we're trying to plow now is the very same one that these guys were plowing a century ago - and fascinating how readily some of their work seems to have been forgotten. We're going over a lot of the same ground.

edited to add:
a Wikepedia article on Smith here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Benjamin_Smith

It says that in books and articles, Smith argued that the early Christian sources, particularly Paul's epistles, "stress Christ's divinity at the expense of any human personality, and that this would have been implausible, if there had been a human Jesus. Smith therefore argued that Christianity's origins lay in a pre-Christian Jesus cult—that is, a Jewish sect had worshipped a divine being Jesus in the centuries before the human Jesus was supposedly born." "The Jesus" - a name meaning "savior," S. thought - was preached as a hellenized form of the monotheistic god; the stories about the man were later accretions. I don't think this is exactly the same as Doherty but it is a sort of mythicism.

The Wikipedia article also says that Smith was a white supremacist. !

Professor of Math? His ideas can be dismissed under the "Argument From Having the Wrong Degree" for the Historical Jesus.