Celsus made something of it in his Alethes Logos. He refused to apply the term to Jesus, aiming to argue instead that Jesus was not the Christ. Celsus suggests first of all that the prophesies could have just as well applied to thousands of other people in the time since they were made. Then he argues that the Christ was supposed to be a glorious king, but Jesus was not.What would a Greek speaking pagan have made of the word "Christos", in your opinion? What about a pagan Christian?It could make sense to substitute "Messiah" (not anointed). That could prime the reader to think more of the pre-Christian meanings.
So Margaret Williams in Early Classical Authors on Jesus. Regarding Pliny, she suggests that Pliny had gotten involved in a problem of his own making, where his zeal for upholding traditional piety and the imperial cult had created an environment where accusations could be made usefully against others. The trouble came when Pliny began investigating anonymous accusations. Seeing that he had taken this too far, Pliny wrote to the emperor with the aim of persuading him to approve a more moderate approach, which was successful. Pliny, she says, casts "Christus" into the mold of a hero cult, similar to others (like Epicurus) who would be honored (eg by singing antiphonally) on a regular schedule. The phrase is not "god Christ" but rather "Christ, as to a god," meaning that Pliny regarded Christus as the name of a man being worshipped as a god, being deified.
Various references to "Chrestianoi" (in the third to fourth century non literary papyri) and "Chrestiani" (Tacitus, Tertullian) suggest that some people were hearing this as the name "Chrestos" or "Chrestus," a common name.
I believe that many if not most would have heard the common name "Chestos" or "Chrestus." Another group, such as the Latin Pliny, would have heard the fairly unique name "Christus," still treating it as a name. Either way, the large majority would have heard it as a name.
Greek speakers IMO would be even more likely than Latin speakers to identify it with the common name, Chrestos, because there was no phonological distinction in koine. And when they said it Chrestos, it wasn't heard as being a different word, like it was in Latin. This is reflected in the outsider references in the Egyptian papyri, which are consistent in being of the "Chrestianoi" type. Greek speaking pagans were most often hearing the name "Chrestos."
A very small minority with an unusual interest in Jewish or Christian thought would be able to identify it as the title to be used by one who fulfilled certain scriptural prophecy. It would not, of course, have been exactly the same for everyone.
What 'pagan [background] Christians' would think is shaped greatly by how we imagine early Christians to be like. It can't be answered briefly. But like Celsus, or like Justin Martyr, they can have been led to understand its reference to someone predicted by scripture, along with the associated spelling of Christos.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:16 am