I'm thinking about Suetonius' Claudius at the moment. Maybe this is a bad idea. However, it raised a series of questions for me:
1) What is the earliest occurrence of the full form χριστος in a Greek NT ms?
2) What is the earliest occurrence of the full form χριστος in any ms?
3) What is the earliest occurrence of the form χρηστος in a Greek NT ms? Does it even occur?
4) What is the earliest occurrence of the form χρηστος in any ms?
I think you can guess where I'm heading.
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
I don't know if we have any LXX msss that preserve the full form of Christos. But if we don't, I think we have to assume that there were plenty of them out there prior to the advent of NS.
ReplyDeleteIn all of Sinaiticus (which misses roughly half of its LXX), there are only 5 instances of a full "Christ"; what follows is firsthand alone. Vaticanus and Alexandrinus also contain in plene forms
DeleteLeviticus 21:12 και εκ τω¯ αγιων ο̣υκ εξελευϲεται και ου βεβηλωϲει̣ τ̣ο ηγιαϲμενο¯ του θ̅υ ̅ αυτων οτι το αγιον ελαιον το χριϲτον του θ̅υ ̅ επ αυτω εγω κ̅ς ̅ (Scribe A)
Habakkuk 3:13 εξηλθεϲ ειϲ ϲωτηριαν λαου ϲου · του ϲωϲαι τον χριϲτον ϲου . βαλιϲειϲ καιφαλαϲ ανομων θανατο¯ ·εξηγιραϲ δεϲμουϲ εωϲ τραχηλου διαψαλμα (Scribe B2)
1 Chronicles 16:22 μη αψηϲθε των . χρειϲτων μου τοιϲ προφηταιϲ μου μη πονηρευεϲθαι (Scribe A)
Psalms 104:15 μη απτεϲθαι των χρειϲτων μου και εν τοιϲ προφηταιϲ μου μη πονηρευεϲθε (Scribe A)
Revelation 12:10 και ηκουϲα φωνην μεγαλη¯ εν τω ουνω λεγουϲαν αρτι εγενετο η ϲωτηρια και η δυναμιϲ και η βαϲιλια του θ̅υ ̅ ημω¯ και η εξουϲια του χριϲτου αυτου οτι εβληθη ο κατηγοροϲ των αδελφω¯ ημων ο κατηγορων αυτων ενωπιον του θ̅υ ̅ ημω¯ ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ (Scribe A)
What are you looking for in #4? I assume that occurrences of the word chrestos don't count unless they are using it as a proper noun right?
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, I guess the same qualification needs to be made for christos too.
ReplyDeleteAnother question would be how well attested is Chrestos as a common name? It is always helpful to remember with this name that Suetonius (properly pronounced by the Roman historians I knew as Swee TO nius) wrote his De vita caesarum under Hadrian and relied upon a number of sources. We have no reason to assume that he had any contact with Christians to inform him about this issue. He was born after the events under discussion. It would be easy to have a corruption here in the midst of a number of sources who knew nothing of Jewish eschatology, but who might have been familiar with a common name 'Chrestos'. A Romodox corruption...
ReplyDeleteSorry, of course I mean all these questions only in regard to forms used a proper name referring to Christ.
ReplyDeleteChristian, I know the usual lines on Suetonius. I'm thinking something rather more radical. What if Chrestians sometimes did actually call Christ 'Chrestos'? Why do we always 'expand' the nomen sacrum χς to a form with an iota in the middle?
Isn't this simply a result of conjecture?
(sorry for having such a naughty idea)
It most certainly is plain conjecture, as there is no basis at all in e.g. the Christian Gospels to assume that χς means χριστος: the vast majority of related verbs and nouns uses the regular words for Anointing such as ἀλείφω. The Christian LXX on the contrary contains many dozens of the associated verb and noun, and the Epistles sit somewhere in between.
DeleteWhen it comes to the Nag Hammadi Library however, evidently the only possible interpretation is ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ, as the dozens of occurrence of that word attest to. Even in the derived name does Chrestos easily outnumber the alternative, although the latter does provide the only two occurrences in all of the NHL where a iota is present, both of which concentrated in the end to the gospel of Philip alone:
https://ibb.co/R2zG7wq
PJW, also have a look in my dissertation on p. 48 and the common wordplay in early Christianity XRHSTOS / XRISTOS, and cf. the reading of P72 in 1 Pet 2:3.
ReplyDeleteTommy, I liked that section very much. Could the wordplay even be part of the original intention in 1 Pet. 2:3?
ReplyDeleteWell, with regard to the rule of supplying iota instead of eta, is the nomen sacrum XS only used of Jesus? I have to admit I don't know personally, but from what I've seen of other nomina sacra, I doubt it (then again, in Christian lit. there probably aren't many opportunities to find the word used in reference to anything else). So if we find it in other places where we know it stands for the word christos, then we have confirmation of the conjecture. Occurrences of XS in our LXX mss in place of meshiach in the Hebrew must also qualify as confirmation.
ReplyDeletePJW: "Could the wordplay even be part of the original intention in 1 Pet. 2:3?"
ReplyDeletePossibly. It can hardly have escaped the author that XRHSTOS/XRISTOS sounds alike. Further, it is clear from the context of 1 Pet that the KURIOS of the psalm here is Christ—a natural and self-evident change for the author and addressees, which needs not be argued for.
Dear Tommy Wasserman... Can you please get me the title of your dissertation and when i can found her ? Even possible if you allowed the pdf version in public ?
DeleteI recall reading somewhere that XRHSTOS was a common name for slaves and donkeys, with the connotation "useful," hence the "Alexamenos..." graffiti of a crucified donkey-headed man, but where, unfortunately, I can't recall.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick comment.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, some manuscripts of Tacitus, Annals 15,44 also record Chrestus as a reading, but, generally, Christos is read in.
Tertullian deals this point rather summarily in his Apologeticus 3,5 in which he attributes the error to a mispronunciation on the part of Latin speakers.
Peace,
Phil
According to Fisher's edition the single ms of Tacitus (Annales 15.44) supports Christianos and Christus.
ReplyDelete"I think you can guess where I'm heading."
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure if I can guess it. Are you going to come right out and tell us? Or is this a pre-publication teaser?
Alas, no publication due. I was merely toying with whether the spelling χρηστος might have been an approved Christian spelling of 'Christ' at the earliest period and even one used in the autographa of NT texts. Though the idea would raise other problems (since such a spelling would be irrecoverable—and I wouldn't like that) it would allow Suetonius to have been right in talking of Chrestus while meaning 'Christ'. Sorry, I just had to get the thought out of my system.
ReplyDeleteDear PJW,
Deletethe Nag Hammadi Library consists almost entirely of Xrhstos:
1 ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ,
36 + [4] ⲓⲏⲥ,
156 + [3] ⲓⲥ,
1 ⳩,
1 ⲭ[,
32 + [1] ⲭⲣⲥ,
135 + [6] ⲭⲥ,
2 ⲭⲣⲏⲥ,
12 + [6] ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ,
8 + [1] ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ,
3 ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲥ,
2 + [1] ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲥ,
5 + [1] ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ,
2 ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
Philip has those 5 + 2 that immediately attract everyone's attention, and The Testimony of Truth contains the remaining Xrhstos.
Philip indeed narrates of Chrestians becoming Christians - and they do so solely via the Chrism.
Naturally all NHL translations have been christified, but for a quick overview of the correct Philip transcription please see https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=140226#p140226
For the NHL research:
https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus_the_Chrest_Nomina_Sacra_in_the_Nag_Hammadi_Library
Dear PJW, by accident I find myself here again, after another year. My newest research into Chrestos was published half a year ago, and Justin Martyr is caught red-handed when he confesses to be a Chrestian:
DeleteJustin Martyr, First Apology Chapter 4 (notice that verses are skipped)
1. Ὀνόματος μὲν οὖν προσωνυμία οὔτε ἀγαθὸν οὔτε κακὸν κρίνεται ἄνευ τῶν ὑποπιπτουσῶν τῷ ὀνόματι πράξεων" ἐπεί, ὅσον γε ἐκ τοῦ κατηγορουμένου ἡμῶν ὀνόματος, χρηστότατοι ὑπάρχομεν.
5. Χριστιανοὶ γὰρ εἶναι κατηγορούμεθα· τὸ δὲ χρηστὸν μισεῖσθαι οὐ δίκαιον.
1. By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are most GOOD (χρηστότατος, superlative of χρηστός, "GOOD") people.
5. For we are accused of being CHRESTIANS (Χρηστιανος, from χρηστός: "GOODians", literally speaking), and to hate what is GOOD (χρηστός, "GOOD") is unjust.
χρηστός can have different meanings: useful, good of its kind, serviceable / good, honest, worthy, trusty. In the NT is gets translated good, mild, kind, kindly - I just picked GOOD in my capitalised elaborations above. The usual Greek (Roberts-Donaldson) really is a very inaccurate translation.
Of course Parisinus Graece 450 (14th CE) says Christians now, but this paragraph can only work when it contains the unredacted 'Chrestianoi'
For the full article - open access - that also contains Tertullian, Tacitus', and a statistical deep dive into Suetonius', please access
https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_Chrestian_to_Christian_Philip_beyond_the_grave
The main find of the paper indeed is that Philip talks to us on the brink of Chrestianity turning into Christianity, and is a follow up of the paper I talked about earlier here.
I have coined it Chrestianity for now, yet it absolutely feasible that Chrestianity existed prior to Christianity - and the Patristics not only attest to that, but they unequivocally establish the fact that xristos and xrestos had nothing to do with iotacism and were two very different words (which of course they were, and always had been; while true iotacism is a thing and very evident in Coptic as well, it is impossible to apply to two words that exist simultaneously). Timmy might agree there!
I guess I would just stick with the old standby myself, which is that, yes, Seutonius spelled the name wrong, but that it was a very understandable misspelling, and probably one that occurred from time to time among Christians themselves for the reasons you've given.
ReplyDeleteBut to get to the meat of your initial question, I think another path to take would be to look at the occurrences of christos and chrestos when they are not talking about Jesus in Christian mss and to see if either of them is ever represented by a NS in such cases. My intuition is that christos is still sometimes represented that way in some cases where it is not about Jesus and the chrestos never is.
What would be the difference between the title crestus and the title Christos? Is one Greek the other Latin or...? Also don't these terms precede Christianity?
ReplyDelete