Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor from 161-180CE, wrote his "Meditations", in Greek, not Latin.
In Greek, the distinction between χρίω (anoint), and χρη (good) is significant. In English, we look at the vowels, and sigh, "why"? What's the fuss about?
We tend to discount the significance of these two distinctly different vowels, because, in my opinion, we native English speakers have such mediocre linguistic hygiene. We English speakers slur vowels, routinely; we are as a group, an uneducated lot.
Simple example: The apostle, Thomas. How is his name pronounced in English? TAHMIS, instead of TOEMAHS. Our own confusion about pronunciation underlies this controversy about the original Greek text. Marcus Aurelius had no such problem with understanding the distinction between "anoint" versus "good". He may well have read Exodus 30:22-38 in Koine Greek:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/exodus/30.htmHaving fought the Parthians for decades, in the Eastern empire, Aurelius would likely have known of the Zoroastrian tradition of anointing with Rose petals. Whether with olive oil or other precious ointments, the process of anointment represents public acknowledgement of a great man.
Juxtaposed to this famous individual, who receives widespread acclaim for his accomplishements, with a public ceremony: anointment, χρίω, the "chrestian" tradition focuses on an unheralded "nobody", who is performing good deeds in obscurity, without public approval, in the tradition of Asclepius', Apollonius', Hippocrates' and Galen's therapeutae. This distinction between χρίω and χρη, would have been very clear to Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
The difference in meaning is further clarified by consulting Lidell and Scott's lexicon, which provides several examples of the use of χρη. The lexicon clarifies that in addition to "good", χρη also implies, based on context, "duty", i.e. one's proper code of conduct. One should do good deeds, even if public acknowledgement of the effort is absent--that is, without reward--χρη.
So, did Marcus Aurelius, a prominent politician, soldier, and emperor, i.e. one who himself had experienced anointment-- χρίω, encounter small groups of ordinary citizens who believed in various supernatural entities? Perhaps. Were the accomplishments of such groups, possessed of such notoriety that he felt compelled to acknowledge them, in his memoirs? Maybe? Were Emperor Aurelius' writings preserved in Greek, exactly as he had written them, for 1500 years? Maybe not.
What interests me, in this debate, is to understand why, someone on this forum imagines that Marcus Aurelius had taken the time and trouble to document an encounter he may have had, with a small group of Roman citizens claiming to believe that a Jew from Roman Palestine had risen from the dead. We know that Commodus, son of Aurelius, and successor to him as Emperor, amused himself by re-enactment of Mithraic practices with a homicidal twist. Perhaps Marcus Aurelius had an inclination towards Mithraic practices? Did he visit the Mithraic temple in Dura Europos?