When was the term "christian" first used?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: When was the term "christian" first used?

Post by andrewcriddle »

arnoldo wrote:The source could be a forgery however other parts of this book support it's authenticity. FWIW, Mark (aka,the Boukalou/Buffalo) was allegedy martyred during a festival dedicated to Serapis (the bull)in Alexandria.

Source: The African Memory of Mark: Reassessing Early Church Tradition By Thomas C. Oden
The Source is Historia_Augusta it is an ancient claim but it occurs in one of the more dodgy parts of a generally dodgy work. (Basically Hadrian didn't say it.)

Andrew Criddle
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

Re: When was the term "christian" first used?

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Andrew,

Good description of Historia Augusta. But then again, isn't every work connected to early Christianity dodgy?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
andrewcriddle wrote:
arnoldo wrote:The source could be a forgery however other parts of this book support it's authenticity. FWIW, Mark (aka,the Boukalou/Buffalo) was allegedy martyred during a festival dedicated to Serapis (the bull)in Alexandria.

Source: The African Memory of Mark: Reassessing Early Church Tradition By Thomas C. Oden
The Source is Historia_Augusta it is an ancient claim but it occurs in one of the more dodgy parts of a generally dodgy work. (Basically Hadrian didn't say it.)

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: When was the term "christian" first used?

Post by arnoldo »

*spoken in a sheepish voice*

Yes, but even the dodgy works may have a kernel of historical truth.


The first paragraph to the introduction of the following book,Apocalypse of the Alien God, supports the hypothesis that the lines between "christianity" and other religions may've been blurred in the second century. Does this mean that Hadrian considered Christians worshippers of Serapis? I don't know. However, it is interesting to note that Porphory/Plotinus also seems to blur the lines between Christians and gnostics in the quote below.
At that time there were many Christians, among whom were prominent sectarians who had given up the ancient philosophy (of Plato and Pythagoras), such as Adelphius and Aquilinus. They esteemed and possessed the greater part of the works of Alexander of Lybia, of Philocomus, of Demostrates and of Lydus. They advertised the Revelations of Zoroaster, of Zostrian, of Nicotheus, of Allogenes, of Mesus, and of several others. These sectarians deceived a great number of people, and even deceived themselves, insisting that Plato had not exhausted the depths of intelligible "being," or essence. That is why Plotinos refuted them at length in "Against the Gnostics."
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: When was the term "christian" first used?

Post by ficino »

On Tacitus, Annales 15.44, worthwhile reading Smith's article, which I cited above; on Tacitus see pp. 525-39 of volume 20 of The Monist (1910):

http://books.google.com/books?id=UKsLAA ... &q&f=false

It's interesting that Smith a century ago took the line, we don't have a human Jesus about whom the Christ of Faith legend grew up; we start with a cult promoting a celestial, divine Christ, to which was later grafted a story of a human Jesus. Sounds familiar.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: The first witness to the TT

Post by ficino »

spin wrote: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).

AnnalsSulpicius 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.
I thought of the TT's fuller version of purported Neronian persecution, as compared to that in Sulpicius Severus, when I read this today about the Gospel of John vs. Luke:

"It is usually accepted that stories usually become more elaborate as they are copied. In each case, John's story is more elaborate than Luke's story, so John copied Luke, not the other way around. Luke's Gospel has quite close parallels to Mark's Gospel and the Q document, from which it was copied."

from this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_two_sour ... his_Gospel

Given tendencies of epitomization, can we put a lot of weight on usually in the above claim that "stories usually become more elaborate as they are copied"?
Post Reply