Since writing this post and as you may see from later posts from both my colleague here, and myself, our studies have advanced a little, most notably with ‘Acts of the Chresmologoi: the Role of Oracles and Chronicles in the Creation of Divine Men’, which hypothesises that in the first century of this era were commercial fortune-tellers, perhaps associated with the Greco-Roman elite:

a. They operated outside the law.
b. They invoked ‘Chrest’ in their magical spells and at least once, ‘Jesus Chrest’.
c. They were known as ‘Chrestians’.
d. The origin of this term is perhaps the Greek for ‘oracles’.
e. In the second century, they – the personages, magic rites, offices and accounts of their activities – became the basis for the New Testament and Christian Church.
f. This transition was begun with the authority of Hadrian, probably long before he became emperor – that is, in the late 1st century, and culminated with the sacrifice and resurrection of Antinous.

I am writing this note, now, to record that our studies are running into something of a wall: the need to examine the original texts of the New Testament and our difficulty in so doing.

- We need to know how ‘Christ’ is written in the NT.
- We have been told that in a number of instances, it is ‘Chrest’.
- Though we can see numerous NT texts, we are struggling to see those passages in which ‘Christ’ may be written ‘Chrest’.

It is being claimed, recently as far as I can see, that ‘Chrest’ is the Greek for ‘Christ’, which seems a new claim to me and a convenience in anticipation of what we may find. I hope that I am wrong in this regard.

Meanwhile, as we try to view images of the original text, I have begun to catalogue instances of ‘Chrest’ in the first century based, as much as possible, on the artefacts and once it is in good shape, intend to publish this record.

Best regards,
John