The evolution of christian cultic vocabulary

[Secret Alias]

Why do persist in arguing that there is only one model for early Christianity? It's not like you're saying 'yes there is this other tradition but I care not to investigate' you insist that it isn't even worth considering. What do attribute that obstinacy to?

[spin]

Why do persist in arguing that there is only one model for early Christianity? It's not like you're saying 'yes there is this other tradition but I care not to investigate' you insist that it isn't even worth considering. What do attribute that obstinacy to?

I don't. You crap on about models of early christianity, when I'm looking at the meanings of words before the texts, during the texts, and after the texts. This is actually something we can talk about.

[spin]

Yes but my point is that there are two basic models for the development of earliest Christianity - the orthodox and the heretical one. The orthodox model is what you believe in (even though you no longer believe in God per se). You basically accept the idea that there were 'apostles' or said to be twelve guys who met Jesus etc etc.

What I am saying is that the other tradition of early Christianity - best summed up by the Marcionite tradition - understands there to be ONE apostle. And what's more there can only be one apostle. This necessarily means that there is something special about ho apostolos IN THIS TRADITION. I have laid out why it makes sense to put 'THE Apostle' in the heretical tradition with 'THE Apostle Moses' in the Samaritan tradition - viz. the fact that the Church Fathers tell us that the earliest heresies were Samaritan.

To this end if you will just agree that there are TWO models for what apostle means and likely two models for what all the terms mean then we are in agreement. Follow your continued pimping of the tradition of your ancestors by all means. But at least agree that Paul was THE Apostle for many early Christians because he was the second Moses.

If I could only find my set of crayons: I could make this easier for you. I have tried to explain the topic to you, a clearly definable diachronic linguistic issue, and you waffle on with this dyspepsia as though you understand the topic. You plainly don't. You refuse to contemplate that the topic is not the one you have projected onto this thread. From now on, I hope you don't mind but I will ignore you until you start showing some comprehension.

[Secret Alias]

But can you answer two questions?

1. Do you think that the orthodox model for the origins of Christianity is basically correct?
2. Do you even think that the heretical epithet 'THE Apostle' is related to the title of Moses in Samaritanism?

[andrewcriddle]

One example may be DIAKONOS which originally meant a helper or servant but which becomes a technical term for a Christian official. In some NT passages it is disputed which of these meanings is involved.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

And of course spin isn't going to answer the questions. The basic truth of early Christianity is already established for him by the orthodox. He cobbles together a bunch of texts handed to him by the Church and then tries to define the terminology of early Christianity according to these 'received texts' and traditions AND he won't consider Hebrew or Aramaic etymologies. Why so? Because the received texts show no signs or contact with Semitic sources. But again, are the received texts and traditions the original ones? How can he be so sure? Because quite frankly it is EASIER to assume that this is true than the alternative. It allows for more definitive answers. But that's hardly an argument just a convenience.

[MrMacSon]

I could briefly mention the term "christ", which originally meant "ointment"/"what is spread on" etc. As a loan translation from Hebrew it gained the meaning "messiah" in Jewish Greek cultic contexts. But it already had cultic use for Paul to continue in his religious efforts.

• Didn't the religious use of 'christ' arise or derive via the act of anointing Kings or High Priest(with oil)?

That is the origin of the Hebrew word messiah (which is derived from a verb "to smear"/"to anoint" and is used to indicate that which is anointed). Diaspora Jews needed a word in Greek to substitute for messiah and came up with a similar derivation of a verb "to rub"/"to anoint", but the word they formed already had the significance in Greek of "that which is anointed"/"ointment".

• What is the 'word they formed'?

[Charles Wilson]

1.

What is the nexus between Secret's "Christos or Chrestos?" and Mt 11:30. C'mon horse, drink. (That's also rhyming slang.)

+1000, Spin. Great. For those who think ANW is a root beer, be aware that Spin gets it. PS: ANW ain't a root beer.

2. I'm one of those who are trying to be helpful here (Police Officer to kids: "Ya' see, the problem with your helping this little old lady across the street is that the little old lady didn't WANT to go across the street..."). I happen to agree with the Thesis. In fact, I believe that the Accretion of New Meanings to a Standard Language is something the authors were counting on occuring. Most of what I do is based on precisely that idea. The Sources for the "Jesus Stories" were, to me, not about a "Jesus". If an event becomes "Personalized" as something terrible that happened to the "Lamb of God" and you believe that the "Lamb of God" was in fact a person, anything I could offer regarding "The sixteenth Mishmarot Service Group" is a non-starter from the beginning.

3. Others here have offered examples, sometimes words of non-Greek origin (NOTE to SA: Have you looked at Alexander Jannaeus as someone who DID CARE about the "House of Israel"? Gerizim? Shechem? Samaritans?).
Let me offer a few more:

3A. Herod, probably from Nicholas of Damascus, orders the Herodian Court on Greek Hierarchy of "Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm" and "Kinsmen". Was this idea translated into Aramaic/Hebrew and then translated back into Greek? (See: "The Banquet", where you move up to a more important seat and get "honored" by your "friends"

3B. "You must be born again": I believe that is a Semitic Idiom, possibly going back 1000 years from Biblical Times to Sumer. Nicodemus, "...a Ruler of Jews...", understands the words perfectly. He wants to know if he should re-enter his mother's womb in order to be born again - Idiom! The Sumerian word "Amargi" was the first known instance of the word "Freedom" and it means "Return to the Mother". It was used in Akkadian to mean the manumission of slaves. This, if True, gives a tremendous In-Joke to mebbe 2 or 3 people. The "Jesus" character is telling Nicodemus to end his own slavery, even though Nicodemus is a Ruler. It is Transvalued (THAT'S the word I've wanted to use!). Once the Transvaluation is achieved, its development CHANGES in the manner you are describing.

3C. "Living Water": In this very important Passage in John, we are given some important Data on the "Roman Warming". The Well was used to feed Jacob's sons and cattle. Now, it is deep and you need to supply your own gourd. The other thing about this is the Transvaluation of the term "Living Water". It means "Flowing Stream" or "Flowing River" (Berakoth 28A: "Your water is cave water and your ashes are oven ashes..." See note). Once again, the original meaning, quite plain to the Priests and early Rabbis, is Transvalued into a promise of "Living Water", something else entirely.

4. If you want to limit your research to Greek, go for it. If it's Latinized-Greek, you may be onto something better still. "Who would have thought in Latin and composed (a new Religion) in Greek?" (Let's see...Nicholas of Damascus, Mucianus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus. A few Linguistic Masterminds in the Roman Court...)

All the Best,

CW

[spin]

CW

"Who would have thought in Latin and composed (a new Religion) in Greek?"

Not my claim. I don't think the Marcan writer "thought in Latin". He wrote to an audience that understood the Latin perspective, which probably means that the author and audience lived in Rome, the only center with a sufficient population of people with such a linguistic context to warrant the production of such a text. He explains things to those who would appreciate two lepta as a quadrans, a palace as a praetorium, Phoenician as Syro-Phoenician, none of which were necessary or meaningful to the eastern Mediterranean. So no claim of thinking in Latin, just a Latin perspective, as could be developed in Rome.

..

And what's the nexus between spats, fungus and Jn 11:35?

[spin]

I could briefly mention the term "christ", which originally meant "ointment"/"what is spread on" etc. As a loan translation from Hebrew it gained the meaning "messiah" in Jewish Greek cultic contexts. But it already had cultic use for Paul to continue in his religious efforts.

• Didn't the religious use of 'christ' arise or derive via the act of anointing Kings or High Priest(with oil)?

That is the origin of the Hebrew word messiah (which is derived from a verb "to smear"/"to anoint" and is used to indicate that which is anointed). Diaspora Jews needed a word in Greek to substitute for messiah and came up with a similar derivation of a verb "to rub"/"to anoint", but the word they formed already had the significance in Greek of "that which is anointed"/"ointment".

• What is the 'word they formed'?

First, an example.

An ordinary phrase in Italian: "Faccio una domanda". Let's convert that into English: "Make a demand"... oops, that's not right. The actual meaning of the Italian is "Ask a question". The initial "translation" looks ok, but it is working from errors due to the differences between languages.

The 'word they formed' was χριστος which looks OK, but doesn't mean to a Greek what the Jewish coiners of the word intended. Rather than the one who is smeared, it meant the stuff that is smeared.