THE NAME OF CHRISTIANS

The origins of the name Χριστιανοί are narrated in the Acts of the Apostles as follows. After Stephen’s martyrdom, some believers from Cyprus and Cyrene, who had left Jerusalem, preached at Antioch. Their success became known at Jerusalem, and “the community which was in Jerusalem” sent Barnabas to Antioch. Barnabas in turn brought Paul from Tarsus. For a whole year they worked together and taught many people. Ἐγένετο δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν ὅλον συναχθῆναι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καὶ διδάξαι ὄχλον ἱκανόν, χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς χριστιανούς (Αχτ, Απ. 11, 26).1

I

Modern commentators mostly understand the passage as saying that the new name was given (in jest) to the disciples of Jesus by the heathen population of Antioch.2 Some scholars assume that the name Christians, having the Latin ending -ianus, must have been given to the new sect by Roman authorities at Antioch or even at Rome.3 The verb χρηματίζω, used in Acts, seems to confi rm this interpretation. For, as it has been recently stressed,4 this verb indicates offi cial or legal style. This latter observation is, of course, exact. When a contemporary of the Apostles signs his petition5 as Λιμναῖος Λιμναίου κ(αὶ) ὡς χ(ρηματίζω) he does not refer to any nickname he may have, but to his title of deputy-sec- retary (ἐπίτροπος γραμματέως). Although critics are not agreed whether the Roman administration or the population of Antioch bestowed the new name on the followers

1 Mss. Variants are not noted since they have no relevance to our subject. 2 See, beside the commentaries and the articles in biblical dictionaries, H.J. Cadbury, in The Beginnings of Christianity V, 1933, 383–86 (who gives additional bibliographical items): A. v. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 4th ed. 1924, I, 424–7; Th. Zahn. Introduction to the N.T. II, 1909, 191. 3 The theory that the name really began at Rome comes from Bruno Bauer, quoted in Zahn, l.c., while R. Paribeni, suggested the formation of it in the offi cium of the Roman governor of Syria. See E. Peterson, in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati I, 1946, 8. 4 E. Peterson, op. cit., 3. 5 P. Osloenses II. 21 (71 A.D.). Cf. F. Zucker, Gnomon, 1933, 655.

Bickerman_f34_794-808.indd 794 5/9/2007 7:06:43 PM the name of christians 795

of the Nazarene, they all agree that the term was invented by non- Christians. That means that the commentators tacitly assume the passive meaning (“were called”) of the active aorist χρηματίσαι. This postulate goes back to Guillaume Budé, the illustrious restorer of Greek studies in France (1467–1540). Accepted by Henri Estienne in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae (1572) s.v., it acquired, one might say, canonical authority in the course of time.6 But is Budé’s interpretation right? I think not, on grounds both grammatical and lexicographical. First the lexicographical matter. The verb χρηματίζω, negotiari, which already was a technical term of the Athenian chancellery in the time of Pericles,7 acquired later, as one of its numerous meanings, the signifi cation of an offi cial designation. With this sense, the verb (in the extant Greek literature) occurs for the fi rst time in Polybius. He says, for instance, that Prince Achaeus, in revolt against Antiochus III, proceeded to Laodicea in Phrygia, where “he put on the diadem and also for the fi rst time ventured to bear the title of king and to write (sc. as basileus) to cities.”8 We know the Hellenistic ceremonial referred to by Polybius.9 A new king was installed in his offi ce, when, wearing his regalia, he was shown to the multitude and proclaimed basileus. It is evident, on the other hand, that when Antiochus III protested to the same Achaeus ἐπὶ τῷ τετολμηκέναι διάδημα περιθέσθαι καὶ βασιλέα χρηματίζειν, he remonstrated against Achaeus’ taking of the royal title offi cially.10 That takes care of all other instances where χρηματίζω refers to the royal style.11 The verb does not mean that someone was called “king,” but that he offi cially has assumed the title.12 The other group of passages deals with official designation of citizenship. For instance, Flavius Josephus asserts that Alexander’s

6 I did not regard it necessary to follow the history of interpretation. I only note that as late as 1828, S.T. Bloomfi eld, Recensio Synoptica Annotationis Sacrae IV, 376, presents the now common explanation as a novelty. 7 See, e.g., IG I, 57; 63, etc. On the same word in the meaning “give an oracle” cf. L. Robert, Hellenica I, 1940, 72 and II, 1946, 1948. 8 Pol. V, 57, 5: διάδημά τε περιέθετο καὶ βασιλεὺς τοτε πρῶτον ἐτόλμησε χρηματίζειν καὶ γράφειν πρὸς τὰς πόλεις. 9 See on this ἀνάδειξις my note, above, 631–637. 10 Pol. V, 57,2. 11 See, e.g. Diod. I, 44,1: XX, 53,2; Plut., Anton. 54; Jos., Ant. VIII, 157; XIII, 318; Euseb., V. Const. 18; H.E. I, 7,12; Philostr., V. Apoll. V, 35: ὥσπερ αὐτοκράτωρ χρηματίζων τε καὶ πράττων. 12 Cf., e.g., Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 346: Caligula decided to introduce his cult at the Temple of Jerusalem ἵνα ∆ιὸς Ἐπιφανοῦς Νέου χρηματίζῃ Γαΐου.

Bickerman_f34_794-808.indd 795 5/9/2007 7:06:45 PM