I'm fairly convinced that Christians and
Chrestians are NOT identical. Although the ancient writers themselves address the confusion, the distinction(s) may have been poorly understood by outsiders across the Empire even then. This situation seems very complex.
Here is an outstanding resource, not sure it has been cited elsewhere in the forums - it certainty hasn't been on
this thread:
https://stellarhousepublishing.com/jesu ... estians-2/
Beyond that (more material for this thead) I was just looking at W.M. Ramsay, "The Tale of Saint Abercius"
The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol.3 [1882], p.350:
“It is interesting to observe that the early Christians of Phrygia did not sever themselves by a social barrier from their pagan neighbours. On their tombs they employ some of the common pagan formulas; their tombs are made in the usual pagan form of the sepulchral altar, as has been remarked about the epitaph of Alexandros quoted above; and they place their tomb under the protection of the public law. The word χρηστιανός {=chrestianos}, which is sometimes employed on their tombs*, is probably intentionally as much as possible assimilated to the ordinary pagan χρηστός {=chrestos}. In later time, when Christianity had finally triumphed,
the spelling χρηστιανός {=chrestianos} was proscribed as heretical.”
* Citing Le Bas and W. H. Waddington,
Inscriptions grecques et latines recueillés en Gréce et en Asie Mineure [1870], no. 727.
That’s a queer interpretation. Let’s try an analogy. Imagine you visit an interfaith cemetery in 2035; you know nothing of a man named “Elliott Gould” and see something ‘discreetly Jewish’ carved on his gravestone. Would you assume – by his Yankee name – the Jewish bit was only carved to “assimilate to” his dead neighbors? Another example: you find different grave in some municipal cemetery. One “Hyman Goldfarb” has a cross on his grave marker. Would you assume that Christian symbol was a mistake, or employed merely to “assimilate to” the graves nearby?
On the contrary! Outlier exceptions prove the rule, and the simplest explanation is that variant words/symbols actually mean what they signify: variance. By time, place, etc. But my attention was drawn to the 'heretical proscription'
against Chrestianos ... I would greatly appreciate some clarification and more evidence, please.
My initial opinion? I suppose the Judean-inflected term
christianos wasn't the same as the ('formerly-'/'Not Jewish') pagan/gnostic 'chrestianos'. And - as a separate issue - 'Chrestianos' does seem indicative of the Serapis cult as the OP suggested, IMO. But I am still reading differing arguments, undecided; this debate is unsettled.
a) One 'proof' - that a few of the most ancient manuscripts
were obviously edited to erase the 'Chrestianos'- has been addressed number of recent studies. I keyword searched the following content (some recent) and its also missing on this thread (e.g. Erik Zara's definitive report:
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents ... tianos.pdf). For example(s), the oldest copy of
Tacitus Annales 15:44 M.II Folio 38r reveals “Chrestianos” in the original. This troublesome fact was first noted by Georg Andresen in 1902 but rarely pops up against the Xtian chatter since. (Erasures damn the lying Xtian censors and expose the folly of their dupes.)
b) The oldest confirmed example of the term
Chrestiani is from an inscription prior to 37 AD (“Jucundus Chrestianus” = Mr. Happy Goodman), therefore pre-Christian. (If there's a surviving example from c.25 AD the typology should be 50-100 yrs older, at least.) Also: a freed slave's name; the Serapis cult was wildly popular with slaves. When Jews were defeated and carried off as slaves c. 70 AD, 115 AD, etc. where did they turn?
c) A number of finer points may be argued. “The coexistence of 'Chrestiani' and 'Christus' is not impossible: Tacitus would be drawing a muted contrast between the common (i.e. pagan) name for the sect… and the true origins of the name” (A.J. Woodman, trans.
Tacitus: The Annals [2004], p.325 n.53) may be only partly correct. Tacitus and others conflated what they didn't understand, and/or repeated muddle information (exactly as we do); can't you see multiple possibilities here?
d) Sight unseen: “Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: a Second Century Anachronism?”,
Vigiliae Christianae (2020), pp.253-6. Anyone have a compete copy?
Quite abit more to process on this excellent controversy, thank you!