the disciples were first called Chrestians (not Christians)

[arnoldo]

Description

Detail of the 2nd Medicean manuscript of Tacitus (Codex Mediceus 68 II fol. 38 r: Annales 15:44.). showing the word Christianos.
The large gap between the 'i' and 's' has been highlighted; under ultraviolet light an 'e' is visible in the gap, replacing the 'i'.

To return to the OP, the sequence of events regarding the original use of the term "Chrestian" and its historical alteration to the term "Christian" may be described as something like this progression. . .

Is the etymology of the word “cretans” in Titus 1:2( Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.) similar to the use of the word “christians” used in Acts 11:26 ( And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.) in the original Greek?

[avi]

That's from Mediaeval Latin "Chrestianus". The Medicee Tacitus was copied in the 11th century when the form was in vogue. This means we have no idea what the earliest form of the word really was. It has certainly been changed from "Chrestianos" to "Christianos". However, we don't know whether it was due a mistake by the scribe inadvertantly using the Mediaeval form or if someone in charge decided to change it to reflect what he thinks it must/should have been originally. We therefore don't know what form the copying scribe found in the source manuscript.

Of course, you are correct, spin, we don't "know". I don't even know, whether or not I shall awaken in the morning.

We can surmise, however, that the original text contained "χρηϲτιανοϲ" [ Codex Sinaiticus, 1 Peter 4:16] Here is the link: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus ... #53-4-16-5

Walter Shandruck (for all I know, another alias of "spin") has published a nifty article on this question in Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists: 47:205-220 (2010)
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod ... 6.0047.001

Of particular interest is the distribution of usage according to an insider/outsider breakdown. The earliest examples of the term “Christian” in the papyri are as labels by outsiders. The term itself, insofar as one can tell from the apologetic responses by Justin Martyr, et al., and Pliny’s own hesitation as to whether the name itself should be punishable, was construed early on as a negative moniker. Whether the term itself originated in fully hostile circles has been a matter of debate.
However, morphologically, its Latinate origins are clear. It is an adjective formed with the -ianus ending to refer to the followers of Christ and was subsequently taken over into Greek (see note 16). The complete lack of a purely Greek formation indicates that at the time it was coined it had no internal use as a moniker for self-description by Christians.

[Peter Kirby]

Is the etymology of the word “cretans” in Titus 1:2( Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.) similar to the use of the word “christians” used in Acts 11:26 ( And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.) in the original Greek?

Nope.

Also, the statement about the Cretans is easily sourced.

Epimenides paradox

Epimenides was a 6th Century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica

[stephan happy huller]

Beat me to it.

[Peter Kirby]

That's from Mediaeval Latin "Chrestianus". The Medicee Tacitus was copied in the 11th century when the form was in vogue. This means we have no idea what the earliest form of the word really was. It has certainly been changed from "Chrestianos" to "Christianos". However, we don't know whether it was due a mistake by the scribe inadvertantly using the Mediaeval form or if someone in charge decided to change it to reflect what he thinks it must/should have been originally. We therefore don't know what form the copying scribe found in the source manuscript.

Of course, you are correct, spin, we don't "know". I don't even know, whether or not I shall awaken in the morning.

We can surmise, however, that the original text contained "χρηϲτιανοϲ"

We can surmise a lot of things, not all of them consistent with each other or the truth.

When spin says "we therefore don't know," in the context above, it isn't a reference to a philosophical stance of extreme skepticism, as you decide to spin it. It's just a simple statement that the surmise is not well-founded on the evidence.

Still, it is possible that Tacitus refers to Chrestians in Latin. The classicists that have studied it have concluded that, if this were the original reading, then Tacitus is contrasting the ignorance of the crowd with his own better-informed knowledge about the founder of the name, Christus, and by implication the proper name given to this group.

I'm sure some will surmise that the passage (or all of Tacitus) is a forgery.

What the text did not contain is "χρηϲτιανοϲ." Of this we can be fairly certain. That's Greek.

[avi]

What the text did not contain is "χρηϲτιανοϲ." Of this we can be fairly certain. That's Greek.

haha. Very good!.. Unfortunately, however, I was responding to the OP, not to the diversion about Tacitus, whose original text is claimed, without evidence, to have been written in Latin. I doubt that supposition, but I have no evidence to support my belief that Tacitus wrote originally in Greek, like most of the rest of the Roman officials, working in the former Greek empire, in that era.

The question here, is NOT, what did Tacitus write. The question is, what was the ORIGINAL spelling and meaning of the word, known today as χρηϲτιανοϲ? Did it originally mean, "The good", or "the anointed"? Codex Sinaiticus is the gold standard, for it is universally acknowledged to represent a fourth century CE composition, and in this important witness, the Greek word, χρηϲτιανοϲ, appears, whereas, the sole copy of Tacitus' Annals, to which you have referred, was fabricated in a monastery in Italy in the middle ages, a millenium after Codex Sinaiticus.

I notice that most of your rejoinders to my posts, maybe it has been too small a sample, seem to combine a titch of light hearted contempt, mixed with a sprinkle of overt hostility. Why not, for a change, try to focus on the issues, raised by my submission to the forum:

a. The text of Codex Sinaiticus--its significance, if any, (in your opinion) to the question raised in the OP, spelling and meaning of χρηϲτιανοϲ, and
b. The provocative thoughts of Walter Shandruck, whose opinion coincides with your own, Peter, i.e. that the original word χρηϲτιανοϲ is derived from Latin, not Greek. So, does this imply that Tertullian's input to the creation of Codex Sinaiticus represents not simply that of another heretic gone astray, but rather a voice corresponding to that of co-architect of the canon? Do we have any other author, before publication of Codex Sinaiticus, writing in Latin, to explain the concept of χρηϲτιανοϲ, as it appears in context in mid 4th century ? Is there any other single word, of greater significance to the evolution of the Christian tradition, than χρηϲτιανοϲ, as it appears in Codex Sinaiticus?

[Peter Kirby]

What the text did not contain is "χρηϲτιανοϲ." Of this we can be fairly certain. That's Greek.

haha. Very good!.. Unfortunately, however, I was responding to the OP, not to the diversion about Tacitus, whose original text is claimed, without evidence, to have been written in Latin. I doubt that supposition, but I have no evidence to support my belief that Tacitus wrote originally in Greek, like most of the rest of the Roman officials, working in the former Greek empire, in that era.

This understanding of "Roman officials" in second century Rome and the prevailing use of Greek or Latin looks confused.

The question here, is NOT, what did Tacitus write. The question is, what was the ORIGINAL spelling and meaning of the word, known today as χρηϲτιανοϲ? Did it originally mean, "The good", or "the anointed"? Codex Sinaiticus is the gold standard, for it is universally acknowledged to represent a fourth century CE composition, and in this important witness, the Greek word, χρηϲτιανοϲ, appears, whereas, the sole copy of Tacitus' Annals, to which you have referred, was fabricated in a monastery in Italy in the middle ages, a millenium after Codex Sinaiticus.

χρηϲτοϲ is "good." χριϲτοϲ is "anointed."

I notice that most of your rejoinders to my posts, maybe it has been too small a sample, seem to combine a titch of light hearted contempt, mixed with a sprinkle of overt hostility. Why not, for a change, try to focus on the issues, raised by my submission to the forum:

a. The text of Codex Sinaiticus--its significance, if any, (in your opinion) to the question raised in the OP, spelling and meaning of χρηϲτιανοϲ, and

It lends weight to the contention that the two spellings continued to be confused later than the second century when Tacitus wrote and, further, by Christian scribes.

One possible conjecture, following the confession by Justin Martyr that Marcionites are also known as Christians, and the further contention that the higher God of Marcion was known as "the Good," a Platonist concept, is that the Marcionites had a hand to play in the origin of the term χρηϲτιανοϲ as a reference to Christians but specifically to Marcionite Christians (originally, Chrestians). This explains also why the spelling χρηϲτιανοϲ could be prior to the other, which is created to make distance between Christians and the Marcionites. They may have competed for centuries to be the dominant pronunciation and spelling, on this understanding of the etymology.

b. The provocative thoughts of Walter Shandruck, whose opinion coincides with your own, Peter, i.e. that the original word χρηϲτιανοϲ is derived from Latin, not Greek. So, does this imply that Tertullian's input to the creation of Codex Sinaiticus represents not simply that of another heretic gone astray, but rather a voice corresponding to that of co-architect of the canon?

He's got a good point. That could also explain Latinate confusion over the exact stem of the word, imported from Greek.

Do we have any other author, before publication of Codex Sinaiticus, writing in Latin, to explain the concept of χρηϲτιανοϲ, as it appears in context in mid 4th century ?

I'm not sure exactly how you are attempting to qualify your question for a specific answer, so if this comment below doesn't answer your question, perhaps it answers another one.

Tertullian wrote in Latin and attests to the pronunciation Chrestianos (thus, he says, witnessing to the goodness of the Christian).

Suetonius wrote in Latin and mentions Chrestus under Claudius. A conjectural emendation might make him refer to Chrestians being persecuted by Nero.

Is there any other single word, of greater significance to the evolution of the Christian tradition, than χρηϲτιανοϲ, as it appears in Codex Sinaiticus?

Not sure. Gospel, maybe. Apostle, maybe. Gnosis, maybe. Catholic, maybe. Bishop, maybe. But, no, that one is definitely up there too. Tough call.

[arnoldo]

Is the etymology of the word “cretans” in Titus 1:2( Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.) similar to the use of the word “christians” used in Acts 11:26 ( And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.) in the original Greek?

Nope.

Also, the statement about the Cretans is easily sourced.

Epimenides paradox

Epimenides was a 6th Century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica

FWIW, the Apostle Paul allegedly quotes Epimenides again in Acts 17:28.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

[Peter Kirby]

Titus 1:2( Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.)

Epimenides paradox

Epimenides was a 6th Century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.
— Epimenides, Cretica

FWIW, the Apostle Paul allegedly quotes Epimenides again in Acts 17:28.

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Fascinating connection for people who see the same author behind the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to Titus.

[MrMacSon]

χρηϲτοϲ is "good." χριϲτοϲ is "anointed."

χρηϲτοϲ is "good", or also 'useful', and was often used in relation to slaves; which I've often thought is interesting given many Jews in the Diaspora were enslaved.

χριϲτοϲ is "anointed", or also 'chosen one' (kinda the same thing, but given the various uses, that may have some significance somewhere).