The missionary work of the Church was about to begin from Antioch as its starting-point.
There a considerable church had been formed by the united labours of Barnabas and Saul. Driven from Jerusalem by persecution, disciples had gone to Cyprus and preached to the Jews there. Thence some came over to Antioch and preached to ' Greeks also ' ("EXK-qvas ; another reading has 'EW-qv Lards, ' Grecian Jews '), with the result that ' a great number believed.' Barnabas came from Jerusalem on an errand of inquiry, and under his ministry 'much people was added to the Lord.' Barnabas then fetched Saul from Tarsus ; both laboured in Antioch 'a whole year' and tauglit 'much people' {6-x\ov iKavov). Here Avas the first considerable church on Gentile soil ; a common name was necessary and was forthcoming — provi- dentially, we cannot doubt, but how is not so clear.
The city of Antioch (q.v.), the capital of Syria, a splendid centre of Greek life and culture, became after the Fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) a second home of the Church and the mother-church of Gentile Christianity. Although it does not figure promi- nently in the NT, in subsequent history it plays a great part as a rival of Alexandria, Rome, and Constantinople. Chrysostom, the prince of early Christian preachers, won his first fame there. This Antioch school of theology represented a type of interpretation more akin to modern thought than any other in those days. Ignatius, martyr and writer of the famous letters, was bishop of Antioch. Chrysostom writes : ' As Peter Avas the first among the apostles to preach the Christ, so was this city the first to be crowned with the name of Christian as a diadem of wondrous beauty.'
As to the mode in which the name ' Christian ' originated, there is great difierence of opinion. We seem compelled to accept one of three explana- tions. (1) All agree that the name did not origin- ate with the Jews. On their lips it would have been a tacit acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus. While the first disciples were Jews, the Jewish element soon became a diminishing quantity in the Church. Their name for believers in Christ was Nazarenes. Their attitude, as we see in the Acts, was increasingly one of estrangement and hostility.
(2) The suggestion has been made that the designation originated with Christians themselves. Eusebius (4th cent.), usually well-informed and trustworthy, supports this view. An argument in its favour is its eminent approjiriateness. Nothing could better signalize the central position of Jesus in Christianity. St. Paul's attitude on this ques- tion represents the Church of all ages. Systems like Muhainmadanism and Buddhism, once estab- lished, are independent of their founders. Not so Christianity: ' Christianity is Christ.' His person, life, and work are the key-stone of the arch, the alpha and omega of the gospel. Yet, if this opinion were correct, we should expect some in- timation to this efiect in Ac 1 1-^. Still more, the name is not found in the NT outside the three passages mentioned, and, as far as records go, for some time afterwards. In writers of the 2nd cent. it is of common occurrence — in pagan writers, the Apologists, the author of the Didache, and so on. Speaking of the Neronian persecution, Tacitus (A.D. 116) says: 'They whom the populace (ot/Z^'m*) called Christians {Christianos).^ Suetonius (a.d. 120) and Pliny (A.D. 112) use the same designation. P. W. Schmiedel (EBi s.v.) says that Christian writers did not use it because they did not need it. ' Saints,' ' brethren,' etc., served their purpose. ' It follows that, notwithstanding its absence from their writings, the name of Christian may very well have originated at a comparatively early time.' As we have seen, Ac 26-^ and 1 P 4'^ imply that the term was in use. As to scanty references, many early Christian writings have perished.
200
CHRISTIAN
CHRISTIAN LIFE
(3) The opinion most in favour is that the term originated in Gentile circles outside the Church. The people of Antioch with their quick wit had a reputation for the invention of party names. A title so apt, almost obvious, once sug- gested, would persist with a vitality of its own. Coming from outside, it was not at once accepted by believers, but slowly grew in favour. This ex- planation on the whole presents the fewest diffi- culties and fits the circumstances of the case. We need not accept the view that the title was used at first derisively. There is nothing of this char- acter in the title itself, although Conybeare- Howson and others think that it was so meant. A. Carr in an essay in his Horce Bibliccs takes this view. He thinks that St. Paul's preaching of the Kingdom, carrying with it the idea of Chris- tians as an army, would suggest comparison with the followers of great military leaders (Pompeians, Herodians), greatly to the discredit of Christ and Christians. This meaning is not expressed in the term itself, but, if it were a fact, would arise out of the memory of the Crucifixion. Antioehene in- genuity could certainly have discovered a better expression for such an idea. At a much later date the Emperor Julian saw nothing discreditable in the name, for he forbade its use and replaced it with Galiltean. (The incidental character of the origin of a great name is not without analogy. In v.^'' of the same chapter we have the first mention incidentally of ' presbyters ' — the office out of which the countless forms of church polity have groAvn. So again with regard to deacons in Ac 6^)