Disillusioned JW, thanks for your research on the origin of the use of
Chrestos instead of Christos. However, it isn't as clear as it first seems to be.
First of all, your last post relates to the use of chrestos by
Marcion. It
says
At this early time, there is some confusion about the correct spelling for
"Christian." It is known that Marcion preferred to call Jesus the
"Chrestos" (which means the Kind or Helpful One). "… [T]he
spelling for 'Chrestos' (=the Good one) [is] derived from an ancient
inscription to a Marcionite synagogue" (Daniel Jon Mahar. English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians. p.
1).
The book by Daniel Mahar, English Reconstruction and Translation of Marcion's version of To The Galatians, renders Marcion's version of Galations 1:1 as "Paul an apostle, not of men nor through man, but through Isu Chrestos ...", but in fact that is not what Marcion wrote.
The earliest record we have of what Marcion wrote is by Tertullian in his treatise "Against Marcion". There he writes (in Latin) in book 5, chapter 1, para.3 that according to Marcion, Paul claims to be "an apostle not of men,
nor by man, but by Jesus Christ [Iesum Christum]".
Why, then, does Mahar render it as Isu Chrestos? He says in his introduction:
The English translation itself is admittedly conjectural in places,
as also are the notes.
One such creative liberty is the name for the Marcionite Savior, "Isu
Chrestos" - "Isu" derived on the designation of Syrian Marcionites,
the spelling for "Chrestos" (=the Good
one ) derived from an
ancient inscription to a Marcionite synagogue.
So his claim that Marcion used the term Chrestos is only conjecture based on an inscription to a "Marcionite synagogue" which he does not identify.
I will try to address the other points you raise in a future post.