Posted: Feb 27, 2014 3:09 am
scott1328 wrote:Check this out and then tell me why this morphological change, if it occurred at all, isn't simply due to reanalysis
http://www.slideshare.net/dr.shadiabanj ... esentation
scott1328 wrote:How about this one :
Even if your hypothesis is true, why can't the explanation simply be that the spelling change is due to word reanalysis. This is a well documented phenomenon in languages.
messiah means anointed. christ- means anointed. The root Chrest- is obscure and Christ- makes more sense when referring to messiah.
This example of word reanalysis sounds fine, and may provide a good reason WHY the change took place.
However the big question relates to the previously UNKNOWN [hypothetical] operation of the "Church Industry" under the business name of "Chrestian Church" for a number of centuries in antiquity and the early middle ages.
If this is the historical truth, then the "Church Organisation" has purposefully obscured its history by forgery.
NOTE: Epigraphic Evidence for the early use of "Chrestian" and NOT "Christian"
Just to be clear, in the OP I listed the manuscript evidence only and provided a link to the source tabulation of ancient historical evidence items. This tabulation also contains numerous references to epigraphic attestation to the use of "Christian" and/or to the term "Jesus the Good" [Jesus Chrestos]. Here is the link again:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/c ... stians.htm