One of the things which I think is very interesting is that a number of artifacts (ones which don't contain a biblical verse) written in Greek which contain the word Chrestian also contain both the name Jesus and a Greek transliteration of the divine name (as IAO) in a rite/incantation for expelling demons! Sometimes those texts also say "holy spirit". The end of the Mathew 28:19 says to baptize in the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit.
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Disillusioned JW
-
Earnest
Disillusioned JW : The site mentioned above says (and shows) that the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Beza each say "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch ..."
Interestingly, these codices do not all read the same. Codex Sinaiticus reads chrestian in the three places the word "christian(s)" occurs (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). But codex Vaticanus and codex Bezae read chreistian, and codex Alexandrinus reads christian. All three words sound much the same but there was obviously some confusion about the term used.
Harnack discusses the use of chrestians by Tacitus in his Mission and Expansion of Christianity, pp.410-414
We now come to the name "Christians," which became the cardinal title of the faith. The Roman authorities certainly employed it from the days of Trajan downwards (cp. Pliny and the rescripts, the "cognitiones de Christianis"), and probably even forty or fifty years earlier (1 Pet. iv.16; Tacitus), whilst it was by this name that the adherents of the new religion were known among the common people (Tacitus; cp. also the well-known passage in Suetonius).
A word in closing on the well-known passage from Tacitus (Annal., xv. 44) ... Hitherto, however, the statement of Tacitus has appeared rather unintelligible, for he begins by ascribing the appellation of "Christians" to the common people, and then goes on to relate that the author of the name was Christ, in which case the common people did a very obvious and natural thing when they called Christ's followers "Christians." Why, then, does Tacitus single out the appellation of "Christian" as a popular epithet? ... in my judgment the enigma has now been solved by means of a fresh collation of the Tacitus MS. which shows, as I am convinced from the facsimile, that the original reading was "Chrestianos," and that this was subsequently corrected (though "Christus" and not "Chrestus" is the term employed ad loc.). This clears up the whole matter. The populace, as Tacitus says, called this sect "Chrestiani," while he himself is better informed (like Pliny, who also writes "Christian"), and silently corrects the mistake in the spelling of the names, by accurately designating its author as "Christus". Blass had anticipated this solution by a conjecture of his own in the passage under discussion, and the event has proved that he was correct.
My conclusion is that while they were initially called "christians" at Acts 11:26, as the expression became common others who heard it adapted it to "chrestions" as they misheard and didn't understand the origin of the term. If the writer of Acts had used any term other than "christians", it would not have made sense that the appellation was "by divine providence".
-
Disillusioned JW
I realize that codex Alexandrinus reads Christians instead of Chrestians, which is why I did not claim it reads Chrestians (nor Chreistians). We agree that the Codex Sinaiticus says "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch".
Regarding your other comments in your most recent post in this topic I intend to respond to them later.
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: Though in my prior post and an earlier one I said Codex Sinaiticus says "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch" I had in mind Chrestians in regards to Codex Sinaiticus (or at least I should have had such in mind). At least I was correct in saying the following. 'https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/christian.html [It says the following. "In all three New Testament passages the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus reads "Chrestian." '
We agree that the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Beza both say "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch". You are correct that I made the mistake of thinking they said Chrestians (even though I correctly wrote Chreistians).
-
Disillusioned JW
The expression of "by divine providence" is the wording of the WT's NWT. The WT claims that a Greek word in the verse means (or implies) "by divine providence called" instead of simply "called", but to my knowledge "by divine providence" (or an equivalent wording) is not used in any other English Bibles for Acts 11:26. For example "by divine providence" (or an equivalent wording is not used in the NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASV, ARV ("American Revised Version" of 1898), RV ("Revised Version" of 1881-1885, 1895), NRSV, RSV, NIV, TNIV, REB ("Revised English Bible"), "Emphatic Diaglott", NLT ("New Living Translation"), NAB (a Catholic Bible called the "New American Bible"), "The Complete Bible: An American Translation" (commonly called the Goodspeed and Smith Bible), "The Twentieth Century New Testament", "The New Testament in Modern Speech", "Centenary Translation of the New Testament" (also called the Montgomery New Testament), the Moffatt translation of the Bible, and "The Bible in Living English" (also known as the Byington Bible, a Bible which the WT is the copyright owner and the sole publisher).
See also the "Complete Bible In Modern English" by Ferrar Fenton, which in addition to not specifying that God's providence brought about the name, it also totally leaves out the idea that non-Christians first started calling Christ's followers Christians. That is because that Bible says the disciples "at Antioch first called themselves Christians." But I don't think the scripture verse should be worded in such a way which leaves out the possibility that non-Christians were the ones who first started calling Christ's followers Christians.
All of the above mentioned translations of the Bible are ones which I own a copy of and have included in my personal library.
Obviously the translators of most English Bibles don't think that verse warrants using the expression "by divine providence" in the translation of Acts 11:26.
-
Disillusioned JW
Update: In my prior post's first paragraph I wished to insert "The New Testament In The Language Of The People" (also known as the Williams New Testament) into the list, but I ran out of time. In that same paragraph where I said "(or an equivalent wording is not used in the ..." I should have said "(or an equivalent wording) is not used in the ...".
Furthermore, I wished to insert the following paragraph in between the second and third paragraphs of my prior post but I ran out of time.
A scholar who is a Jewish Historian of Christian Beginnings, named Hugh J. Schonfield, (who has the conviction that Jesus fulfilled the role of the Messiah [but was only a human, not a divine being, nor someone who had a prehuman existence in heaven], though I am not sure the scholar thinks of himself as a Christian) has a New Testament translation called "The Original new Testament". His translation of the latter part of Acts 11:26 is the following. "It was at Antioch too that the disciples first received the designation of Christani." The footnote for "first received" says 'Or "first gave themselves".' Due to reading that footnote a moment ago I now think that maybe Fenton's translation of "first called themselves ..." might be a legitimate translation.
-
Earnest
Disillusioned JW : The expression of "by divine providence" is the wording of the WT's NWT.
That will teach me to compare translations before quoting what I am familiar with. I did find that Young's Literal Translation (1898) reads similarly to the NWT - "the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians" - but certainly most translations make no reference to divinity in that passage.
I wondered why the NWT read differently and found a Question from Readers which discussed it. There it says :
The translation so reads because that is what the original Greek word seems to mean. The verb chrematízo in question occurs nine times and the noun chrematismós occurs once, and by referring to these occurrences and noting how the translation reads in each one, you will appreciate that these Greek words are always used in connection with what is from God and hence divine in that sense. See Matthew 2:12, 22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; 11:26; Romans 7:3; Hebrews 8:5; 11:7; 12:25, and Romans 11:4.
In Vincent's Word Studies it says that chrematísai originally meant to transact business, to have dealings with; thence, in the course of business, to give audience to, to answer, from which comes its use to denote the responses of an oracle; a divine advice or warning. See Acts 10:22; and compare Matthew 2:12; Hebrews 11:7. Later, it acquires the meaning to bear a name; to be called, with the implication of a name used in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men; the name under which one passes.