The objections made to the statement of Ac 1136 are based ultimately upon the theory which discredits the authority of that book as a comparatively late document. If we re^'ard the Acts as the work of St. Luke, the account it gives of the origin of the name 'Christian' is invested with the authority of con- temporary evidence, which cannot lightly be set aside on account of apparent difficulties. The objections which have been raisea on the score of these difficulties may be gathered under three heads, (a) Baur {Paid, His Life and Work, i. 04, footnote, Eng. tr. 1873) says that the termination is Latin, and eeems to think that the name arose in Rome. The temiiriirtion tanxu was used in Latin during the time of the civil wars to denot« ' followers of ' (e.rf. ' Csesariani,' Hint. Bell. Afr. 13 ; * Ponipeiani,' Caesar, Hell. Cieil, iii. 44 et pass.), and acquired this meaning from the adjectival sense ' belonging to,' which the form already possessed, although it w.ia very seldom used, e.g. Tamphiliana donms (from 'Tamphilus'), Nep. Att. xiii. 2; Cajsarianura helium, ib. vii. 1 ; Catoniana familia, Cic. ad Q. Frat. IV. vi. 5; Miloniana tempera, Balbus ap. Cic. E. a. Att. IX. 7, B2. The adoptive names in -lanM-sare not parallel because the 'i' in these cases belongs to the stem of the gentile name, f .i7. ^milianus, .Euiilius. So far, then, Baur was justified. The termination -iamut was common in Latin of this period. But a& names like Cajsariani, Pompeiani, etc., were known and used throughout the whole Rom. Empire, it seems to have become the fashion in Greek-speaking countries also to form other words on the same analogy. Thus (omitting ' Herodiani,' which may have originated in Roman official circles) we find names such aa those mentioned in Hcgesipjius (ap Eus. Ecel. Hist. iv. 22),
^tUAiti»*»i, Ko:^T0x^<ETiA*OJ. 0^acAl,Ti, lavoi, BacffAffStacw, ^Satnpwf
Xiavoi. The theory that this -<«►« is a native ' Asiatic type ' of termination is not borne out by the instances quoted, in which either the 'i' belongs to the stem, e.g. 'Ain&.»6< ('Aria) ^apii- akcf (^eiphtit), Or the words are late enoujjh to have been copied from the Latin termination. But the instances quoted above show that, whether derived from the Latin or not, the tennina- tion became common enough in Greek, and therefore there is no necessity to ascribe to tiie name Xfiimafof a Roman origin.
(It) Hausrath (A'.T. Timet: Apostles, ii. pp 211, 212, tng. tr. ISlt.^i) objects to Ac ll^s that we find no trace of the word 'Christian' in contemporary literature until the time of Trajai* But until the Neronian persecution the sect cai scarcely have attracted much attention in the Roman literary cJose, and from the year 64 to the time of Trajan the extant literature Is ex- tremely scanty, and so in both cases we are not justified in arguing ex silentio. On the other hand, however, passages in Tacitus and Suetonius furnish us with an indirect argiiraent that the name was known and used in Rome in the year 64. Tacitus (-Inn. xv. 44) says, 'nuos . . . vulgus Christianos appellahat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus,' etc. The imperfect 'appvllahat* is significant when we remember that Tacitus was prol»abIy living in Rome in 64, and an eye-witness of the Neronian persecution. It is quite probable that he is recording a circumstance which he remembered in connexion with these events, viz. that the word 'Christiani' was in everj-body's mouth, and he somewhat naturally believed Christ Himself to have been the author (auctor) of tiie name. Suetonius, writing only a year or two later than Tacitus, also introduces the nam< 'Christiani' into his reference to this persecution (A^ew, 18,
CHRISTIAN
CHRISTIAN
385
'afflirtl iuppli''iia Christiani, genua liominnm Buperetitionis novB ac mftletl..-:!*'). Some have found additional evidence (or an early UMe of the name in the supposed occurrence of the worU in an inscription at Foiupeii, i.e. dating before a.d. 79. But thi» inKription (OIL iv. 679), which w merely a few line* Bcribhled upon a wall, cannot be deciphered uith any certainty. The letters -KISTIANl are fairly plain, and before the U are two faint perpendicular strokes, probably 11 ( b KX U they are meant for li the horizontal stroke has quite dis- appeare^l. The drift of the whole ins'-ription is a.^ uncertain .13 the rea/ling of this word. See V. Schuize in ZKfr iv. 12.'^ fT. ; JMedlander, DarttfUuiigen att» rf«- Sittcnffe4cfi. iiotntfi iii. 045, n. 3 : C. F. Arnold, SeTon. Chriftenver/ota. p. 64.
Efiually indecisive is the mention of the name in Josephus (AnL mil. iii. 3), li'riTi n »?► rjt Xfiir^ixrvi ire rtuii ittu^r- uiw> tim iviAjvi T# 9vy»w. This flection is deservedly suspected by the great bulk of modem acholanj to be entirely or partly a lat*r forgery. The latest editor, Niese (Flavii Jotephi Op^ra, B«rtin, lby2, Intnyl. to vol. iii.), rejects the whole section as an interpolation. Others (e.g. Q. A. Miiller, Chrutxu t>ri F. Joufphut) incline to accept a suljetrmtum of authentic matter. The i»aa- •af^e is not found at all until it occurs in a quotation bv Kuse- biua {tlUt. Eeel. L 11 ; Dein. Ecang. iii. 5), sinc« whose time the whole ifl repeated (exceptinif quite unimportant divergences) in all MSS and other evidence for the text of this part of josephus' works. (Besidefl the liooks referred to aliove, see also on Ihia subject C. AnioUl, .V.VA' KpititoUM df F. jMfphi tettimonio qwHt Jtru Chritto trihtiit, \Wl ; C. Daubut, Pro tegtimonio F. Jotrphi dt Jtnt Chrittn, 17(16 ; F. H. Schnidel, F. Jot. rf« Jfxa Chrulotatatwi, 184(l ; Oieseler, Lthrb. d. Kirchftu/ttch. 1B24, i. K> ; Langen, TA. <juartaitchri/t, 1865,1 ; Schurer, If J J' 1. ii. 14311.).