tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post5490592281539251051..comments2024-03-28T03:07:38.250-04:00Comments on <center> Ralph the Sacred River </center>: Did Josephus Call Jesus the Messiah?Edhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05188482189638751204noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-76623057544149488102013-03-08T02:51:05.750-05:002013-03-08T02:51:05.750-05:00I believe the actual extant manuscript of Tacitus ...I believe the actual extant manuscript of Tacitus reads "Chrestus" as well. And our oldest manuscripts of Acts (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus) read "Chrestians" as well.Paul D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13483419817200339955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9396860.post-82689096471270000912013-03-07T17:48:22.280-05:002013-03-07T17:48:22.280-05:00It might be worth nothing that "Chrestus"...It might be worth nothing that "Chrestus" in Latin would be a transliteration of Gk. <i>chrēstos</i> meaning "good, useful" -- as in the US southern expression "he's the good sort" or "of good stock", or even "You're a good man, Charlie Brown". Certainly Tacitus and Suetonius would have understood this connection -- so, I doubt the Latin authors, at least, would have thought of it as a foreign proper name. But you're right that Josephus, catering to that audience, doesn't seem to care to demonstrate the root is from <i>chriō</i> "to anoint" to rather than <i>chraomai</i> "to make use of". In other words, if this is legitimately by Josephus, he may even be intentionally obfuscating the question of "anointed" or "Messiah" by allowing the possibility that this name would be (naturally) misunderstood by Romans who knew some Greek to mean essentially "the good".<br /><br />Further to the point, the orthographical difference between "Christus" and "Chrestus" is interesting, given that these historians are virtually contemporary with one another. Barring some MSS error that I don't know about, could "Chrestus" in Suetonius signal a recognition of the phonological shift in Greek iotacism? Putting right what he might have thought was a transliteration error? I ask since, as you note, both "Chrēstos" and "Christos" would have been pronounced as "Chreestos" by this time. Perhaps the difference in orthography is merely accidental. Either way, I would argue both Latin authors are probably thinking "Chrēstos" as a natural Greek epithet, rather than "Christos" as a proper name.<br /><br />SFJAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com