Hey all, I really haven’t been around here much lately. I’ve been hanging out on Quora. And there is a poster there who is confusing the fuck out of me. I initially started following him because he made interesting posts … and then unfollowed him because of his repetitive nonsense.
Basically, he posts at every opportunity to claim that “Christ” was originally “Chrest”, and that “Christianity” was originally “Chrestianity”, and that these two things were completely different religions.
I decided to look into what he was going on about, and my Googling turned up nothing but a single paragraph on Wikipedia, regarding an apparent typo in something Tacitus wrote.
And this guy just goes on and on and on about this, like it’s a conspiracy, while claiming to be a serious archaeologist …
Tacitus wrote about a bunch of Jewish people making trouble in Rome “because of Chrestus”. Most people think that was probably really “Christus” and the Jews he was talking about were early Christians. Vowel transpositions when writing down stuff you *heard *are hardly unknown.
I suppose you could get a nice little segue into a “Jesus never existed” conspiracy theory if you squint hard. But probably all it means is “those Jewish dudes had an accent”
Seutonius used “Chretus,” too (though there’s some argument as to the accuracy of his understanding of events). Looks like this theologian argues “Chrestians” was widely used in the second century. Does not argue that it’s a different group or different individual, just a different spelling, so far as I can tell. Codex Sinaiticus apparently used “Chrestianoi” where English uses “Christian” in the bible.
I’ve seen Chrestian used in fiction too - In Pohl’s “Waiting for the Olympians,” which is an alternative history in which Christianity didn’t flourish, 2000 years later, “Chrestianity” is an obscure historical oddity known to only a few.
I remember in school (few years ago)we learned anout Moslims, it was many years later I heard the term Muslims, I thought it was a branch of the religious group adopted by prison inmates. I now understand it. I am a little slow sometimes.
Actually, Beckdawrek, the two terms are Moslem and Muslim. They are just different ways of spelling the word in the Latin alphabet (since it’s a word from Arabic and hence was originally spelled in the Arabic alphabet). Moslem was once the more common spelling, but now Muslim is the more common spelling. I tend to spell it Moslem, but then I’m a hopeless Luddite:
Older than that, actually. It originally referred to typesetting errors, i.e., errors at the printing shop. Typography includes both, but writing machines are newer than set type. Tacitus didn’t use either one, but copying mistakes did happen.
Let us not forget the now very-uncool term “Mohammedan”, i.e. adherent of Mohammed. I recall that from 1960s and prior encyclopedias and [intro to world religions for kids] books.
I never heard it spoken and could never decide for myself whether it was pronounced Mo-HAM-ed-uhn or MO-hahm-uh-Dun.
Actually, Beckdawrek, the two terms are Moslem and Muslim. They are just different ways of spelling the word in the Latin alphabet (since it’s a word from Arabic and hence was originally spelled in the Arabic alphabet). Moslem was once the more common spelling, but now Muslim is the more common spelling. I tend to spell it Moslem, but then I’m a hopeless Luddite:
“Latin Alphabet” and “Roman Alphabet” are terms used to describe the alphabet English is written in, which is an alphabet shared with other languages, such as Italian, French, Spanish, German, and more.
Since the error may have occurred during translation or copying of Tacitus’ work - I haven’t read the earliest copy of the text, but my understanding is that there are 11th century translations of the work that have evidence of the “e” - probably still in Latin - certainly not in modern English, since that wouldn’t exist for another 300 or 400 years. If so, this would have nothing to do with English, but everything to do with the Latin alphabet.