From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave

[mlinssen]

The Discussion has been launched today, December 21st 2022

https://www.academia.edu/s/faa7f58532

I invite everyone to participate in what is one of my most important Discussions ever regarding Christian origins

The session is open to all, free of charge.
My opening statement:

Dear all,

the timing for this Discussion is not all that fortuitous, as one may have contemplated already

A little over a year ago I stumbled onto the ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ in Philip, and it became clear to me that the 5 occurrences of that and the 2 occurrences of ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ were intentional, and telling a coherent and chronological story about one evolving into the other.
The discovery of that resulted in the immediate release of my "Gospel of Thomas Unicode transcription / Chrestians in the "apocryphal" Gospel of Philip" - possibly the most long-winded title ever, my apologies

What followed was a complete inventory of all variants of ⲭⲥ/ⲭⲣⲥ and their variants, e.g. 'Chrestos-ness', in the entire NHL: "ChrEstian all over the Nag Hammadi Library"

As Thomas doesn't contain any of those words, but merely ⲓⲥ/ⲓⲏⲥ, I decided to include those two as well, and also expanded the inventory with Codex leaf and line number for each entry: that I published under "Jesus the Chrest - Nomina Sacra in the Nag Hammadi Library 2.0"

The picture that arose was a quite vivid one, and one that attested to an abundance of occasions where a Jesus the Chrest was mentioned, addressed, or spoke himself - and in none of the 52 Nah Hammadi texts could a Jesus Christ be found: the word Christ simply doesn't exist in the NHL.
I started to study Traube, and Paap, and related research, and rather quickly and easily found out that the word Christ, or Jesus, doesn't exist in any text: be that Coptic, Greek or Latin.
Chrestianity had become a reality at that point, and I published "The inevitable emergence of Christianity" which is the most tentative paper I have ever published

I came at a total of 95 pages for all those, and still I hadn't delivered on the initial findings.
So now I present these, and they comprise an 38 additional pages which form the culmination of the four papers above.
As always, the sources presented and used by me are freely accessible and openly available, and can be consulted via a mere mouse click - the argumentation to my claims must as always be fully traceable, and objectively verifiable by all

Chrestianity is a fact, and it has been a fact for almost two millennia. How biblical academic has managed to be oblivious to that is something that must be asked and answered by the field itself - yet I question whether that will be addressed in a satisfactory or timely manner without outside aid. The deliberate obfuscation of Philip, demonstrated via the complete and utter absence of even noticing the various distinctions in the text, is fully in line with that of Thomas, and the NHL amply attests to what I call Christification: blind confirmation bias drives the Christian "translators" of these texts, and even Philip Schaff doesn't hesitate to falsify the Latin of Tertullian where and when it serves Schaff. It is not a question whether the manuscripts that we have can be trusted: the very question is whether those that handle them, inspect them, present them and "translate" them for us can be trusted, or relied upon - and the answer to that last question is an unequivocal 'no'

Chrestianity precedes Christianity, such is for sure. Mark started the movement that countered what Thomas, John and then Marcion had set in motion, and as we can see it wasn't until around 500 CE that texts testify to Christianity gaining the upper hand over Chrestianity - and it has also become evident how, well over 500 years after that, the latter still was a legacy that got attested to at will, freely and openly

Will all this upset or even stir research into Christian origins, New Testament studies, or Second Temple Judaism, to name just a few?

[mlinssen]

I am very exited about Martijn’s “From Chrestian to Christian—Philip beyond the grave.” In my chapter “Bart Ehrman and the Crucified Messiah” (Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth, Ed. Frank R. Zindler and Robert M. Price, American Atheist Press, 2013, pp. 423–457) I amass a considerable amount of epigraphic evidence attesting the evolution of ChrEstianos/Chreistianos into Christianos, but I was able to find little textually important examples other than the Chreistos of the Sibylline Oracles. Martijn really seems indeed to have found a Rosetta Stone for unlocking the mystery of Christian origins.


I am intrigued by the notion that the chrism ritual came after (and superseded ?) “the old” baptism. If “Christianity” began after some degree of fusion had occurred between a mystery ChrEstos/Chreistos cult and a messianic Yeshua/Joshua cult, then it would seem that anointing with oil would mark the itacistic evolution of ChrEstos/Chreistos into Christos. Before the chrism ritual there was ChrEstianity in the early stages of melding with Messianic movements.

In my article “A New Paradigm for the Study of Christian Origins: Replacing the Dendritic Model” (SHERM, Vol. 4, No. 1, Summer 2022) I speculate that the Christianities for which we have early evidence represented different fusions of a Greek ChrEstos/Christos mystery cult with a Messianic Yeshua/Joshua cult and that this was possible only after itacistic evolution of the Greek language had altered the pronunciation of ChrEstos/Chreistos to sound like Christos. That is to say, itacism was a necessary cause for the cult fusions but not a sufficient cause. In the same article I argue that the precession of the vernal equinox from Aries into Pisces was somehow a catalyst in bringing about that fusion.

I’m not sure I understand how virgin birth came into this discussion but as a biologist I must note that if Jesus had been born from a virgin mother (s)he would have had to have been female. In mammals the Y chromosome needed to be male comes only from the father. The mother can donate only X chromosomes. To be male, Jesus had to have a Y chromosome. As for the LXX passages relating to this question, I argued way back in 1993 in my annotated edition of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason Part Three: Examination of the Prophecies (American Atheist Press, Austin) that the LXX verses in question were Christian interpolations. The LXX, after all, was preserved in Christianity, not in Judaism.

It would be helpful to learn what Jason BeDuhn ‘s take is on all of these issues. As an authority on Marcion (and thus, early Christianity) I think his constructive criticism would be quite valuable. Is there any way to contact him and invite his participation?

https://www.academia.edu/s/faa7f58532#comment_1277290

[yakovzutolmai]

I take it that a "nationalist" is ἐθνικός (éthnos, “tribe, country, nation”) ? Isenberg, Barnstone and Meyer translates it as "Gentile". Which is the term Christians through to Eusebius (perhaps further) used to mean the Hellenes or the graeco-Roman "nation". The Christians saw the Hebrews as a nation and also saw themselves as a nation. Eusebius uses the term the nation of the Christians here and there, and in Josephus.

Philip introduces the abbreviation ⲭⲥ̅ by telling the reader that the system of these abbreviations in invented / created. What does this mean? It looks like Philip is discussing the ⲭⲥ̅ with reference to an invented system of runes.

What does "the cities are constructed, the dead carried out" mean? Who precisely was " in danger of dying" ?

A Christian interpretation of this might allude to the persecution of Christians. Another interpretation might allude to the persecution and intolerance of the Christians against the Hellenes during the Christian revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE). The NHL is dated to around the mid 4th century. When did Philip write?

The day the ⲭⲥ̅ came ?

Is Philip referring to the day that the Constantine NT Bible codex appeared to the "pagan" elites in the eastern empire? The day that the eastern empire first beheld the ⲭⲥ̅ in an imperially circulated Greek codex?

This is triggering some major elements of my most favorite locus.

There is a region of Mesopotamia which is semi-arid and is traditionally the herding grounds of migratory Semites which have included the founders of Babylon and Israel. Notably, it lies between the more urbanized, temperate areas where the "Syrians" of antiquity lived, and the extremely arid deserts of the camel riding "Arabs".

The political power of Izates and Munbaz of Adiabene, I have assumed, lies among this people which seems to include exilic Jews and Samaritans, including Semites of the Transjordan, Edessa, Harran, Nisibis, the Euphrates valley and Adiabene.

I think there is a strong case that Osroes the usurper of Parthia who inspired Trajan's invasion of Babylon was the son of Izates. In the first place, Osroes sells Edessa to a cousin, connecting him to that throne. Secondly, Osroes exploits in Armenia forms a locus that connects the legendary Armenian Sanatruk with the Hatran royal Sinatruces line, which all intersect in Adiabenian royalty. Finally, Izates married the princess of Charax-Spasinau. This makes his son a tremendously powerful candidate for the Babylonian throne which Parthia occupies.

The Eastern theatre of the Kitos uprising seems to have involved a massive population of these Eastern "Jews" defending Osroes and his throne.

Just now I finished a post about the disappointment from loss in this conflict may have inspired the Elchasite faith, whose locus in Tranjordan, Edessa and Arbela completely matches.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10276

Alcibiades said:

there was preached unto men a new remission of sins in the third year of Trajan's reign.

I interpret this as a shift from a messianic expectation, the immanent eschaton, to looking back into history for a "secret" messiah already come.

What does "the cities are constructed, the dead carried out" mean? Who precisely was " in danger of dying" ?

The nation is the Hebrews of Mesopotamia, the Semitic herders, raiders, mercenaries, traders of the steppe. The nation is what Izates and Munbaz tried to build in alliance with Herod Agrippa and perhaps earlier Aretas III. The dead carried out is the loss in Kitos. The cities are the walls of Edessa and Hatra.

Philip is transforming the Nazorean cult surrounding Izates into Christianity. Let us define the Nazorean cult as the state religion of Jewish Assyria. There are reasons why, for instance, the Quqites had such an eclectic syncretism of beliefs. Why Mary is the Queen of Heaven mother of Ichthys, just like the Syrian Goddess. Why "fishermen" apostles invokes the cult of Atargatis, where we see sacred fish ponds associated with the Queen of Heaven in Herod's ancestral Ashkelon and also in Edessa. Why John the Baptist seems to invoke the fish-cult of Oannes of Assyria, which ends up all the way back squarely in the heart of Assyria from the Jordan valley in the form of the Mandeans.

This is the religion of "the lost tribes of Israel". These are the sheep of Israel, not Judea, to whom Jesus directs his ministry.

[mlinssen]

I take it that a "nationalist" is ἐθνικός (éthnos, “tribe, country, nation”) ? Isenberg, Barnstone and Meyer translates it as "Gentile". Which is the term Christians through to Eusebius (perhaps further) used to mean the Hellenes or the graeco-Roman "nation". The Christians saw the Hebrews as a nation and also saw themselves as a nation. Eusebius uses the term the nation of the Christians here and there, and in Josephus.

Philip introduces the abbreviation ⲭⲥ̅ by telling the reader that the system of these abbreviations in invented / created. What does this mean? It looks like Philip is discussing the ⲭⲥ̅ with reference to an invented system of runes.

What does "the cities are constructed, the dead carried out" mean? Who precisely was " in danger of dying" ?

A Christian interpretation of this might allude to the persecution of Christians. Another interpretation might allude to the persecution and intolerance of the Christians against the Hellenes during the Christian revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE). The NHL is dated to around the mid 4th century. When did Philip write?

The day the ⲭⲥ̅ came ?

Is Philip referring to the day that the Constantine NT Bible codex appeared to the "pagan" elites in the eastern empire? The day that the eastern empire first beheld the ⲭⲥ̅ in an imperially circulated Greek codex?

This is triggering some major elements of my most favorite locus.

There is a region of Mesopotamia which is semi-arid and is traditionally the herding grounds of migratory Semites which have included the founders of Babylon and Israel. Notably, it lies between the more urbanized, temperate areas where the "Syrians" of antiquity lived, and the extremely arid deserts of the camel riding "Arabs".

The political power of Izates and Munbaz of Adiabene, I have assumed, lies among this people which seems to include exilic Jews and Samaritans, including Semites of the Transjordan, Edessa, Harran, Nisibis, the Euphrates valley and Adiabene.

I think there is a strong case that Osroes the usurper of Parthia who inspired Trajan's invasion of Babylon was the son of Izates. In the first place, Osroes sells Edessa to a cousin, connecting him to that throne. Secondly, Osroes exploits in Armenia forms a locus that connects the legendary Armenian Sanatruk with the Hatran royal Sinatruces line, which all intersect in Adiabenian royalty. Finally, Izates married the princess of Charax-Spasinau. This makes his son a tremendously powerful candidate for the Babylonian throne which Parthia occupies.

The Eastern theatre of the Kitos uprising seems to have involved a massive population of these Eastern "Jews" defending Osroes and his throne.

Just now I finished a post about the disappointment from loss in this conflict may have inspired the Elchasite faith, whose locus in Tranjordan, Edessa and Arbela completely matches.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10276

Alcibiades said:

there was preached unto men a new remission of sins in the third year of Trajan's reign.

I interpret this as a shift from a messianic expectation, the immanent eschaton, to looking back into history for a "secret" messiah already come.

What does "the cities are constructed, the dead carried out" mean? Who precisely was " in danger of dying" ?

The nation is the Hebrews of Mesopotamia, the Semitic herders, raiders, mercenaries, traders of the steppe. The nation is what Izates and Munbaz tried to build in alliance with Herod Agrippa and perhaps earlier Aretas III. The dead carried out is the loss in Kitos. The cities are the walls of Edessa and Hatra.

Philip is transforming the Nazorean cult surrounding Izates into Christianity. Let us define the Nazorean cult as the state religion of Jewish Assyria. There are reasons why, for instance, the Quqites had such an eclectic syncretism of beliefs. Why Mary is the Queen of Heaven mother of Ichthys, just like the Syrian Goddess. Why "fishermen" apostles invokes the cult of Atargatis, where we see sacred fish ponds associated with the Queen of Heaven in Herod's ancestral Ashkelon and also in Edessa. Why John the Baptist seems to invoke the fish-cult of Oannes of Assyria, which ends up all the way back squarely in the heart of Assyria from the Jordan valley in the form of the Mandeans.

This is the religion of "the lost tribes of Israel". These are the sheep of Israel, not Judea, to whom Jesus directs his ministry.

ⲥⲉ ⲥⲱⲛⲧ ⲙ‌ ⲡ ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲥⲉ ⲣ‌ ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲉⲓ ⲛ ⲙ‌ ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲓⲥ ⲥⲉ ϥⲓ ⲙ‌ ⲡⲉⲧ ⲙⲟⲟⲩⲧ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
ⲥⲉ- ⲥⲱⲛⲧ ⲛ- ⲡ- ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲟⲥ ⲥⲉ- ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲕⲟⲥⲙⲉⲓ ⲛ- ⲛ- ⲡⲟⲗⲉⲓⲥ ⲥⲉ- ϥⲓ ⲛ- ⲡⲉⲧ- ⲙⲟⲩ+ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
They create [dop] the World they make-be Decorate [dop] the(PL) city they carry [dop] he-who be-dead outward

THEY CREATE THE KOSMOS, THEY KOSMOS-ISE THE CITIES, THEY CARRY THE DEAD(SG) OUTWARD

Your opinions are worthless, but also entirely unrelated to the topic at hand

[yakovzutolmai]

Your opinions are worthless, but also entirely unrelated to the topic at hand

I'll leave you to your orb-gazing, sir. Maybe one day your crossword puzzle solution will win you an award.

EDIT: I see I may have fallen victim to heightened enervation stemming from a conversation in which I was not taking part. I'll give the good scholar the benefit of the doubt on that.

Now, before I leave the thread for good as a courtesy, from the academic discussion of this paper off-site, per the good scholar:

I am very happy to see that Jason BeDuhn has joined, and have always been intrigued by the closing sentence to his Introduction to The Evangelion:

"Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the latter point is the conclusion that the community and ideology of the Evangelion is not necessarily Marcionite, but possibly reflects a particularly early Asian “Gentile” form of Christianity not yet subject to the developments of the second and later centuries."

@Jason, have you ever considered Philip to lift the veil on this 'early Asian “Gentile” form of Christianity'? And if not, would you do so now?

One would have to be a very bad scholar, I think, to conclude that a massive Jewish uprising among the Babylonian and Transjordan community associated with the Nazoreans leading to a humiliating loss, inspiring the revelation of "a new remission of sins", would be entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Leucius Charinus]

The Gospel of Philip can rightfully claim to be some sort of "Rosetta Stone" in the puzzle of the use of the terms "Chrestian" and "Christian" in antiquity. Martijn's revised translation has had an effect of brushing away the dirt from the face of an inscription. Past translators of Philip (and the rest of the NHL tracts) have not removed their 20th/21st century "Christian Glasses".

However the question remains, of course, as to when the Gospel of Philip was authored. This question must necessarily involve historical analysis and reconstruction. The following article argues Philip was authored in a post Nicene context.

What does this imply for the historical context of the juxtaposed use of the two terms Chrestian and Christian in Philip? It implies a context after 325 CE and thus a context after the Nicene Council and the beginning of the Christian revolution of the 4th century.

Our picture of early Christianity can be likened to a jigsaw puzzle, and a very large and complicated puzzle at that. Unfortunately it is a puzzle that lacks most of its original pieces, so we have to assemble it to the best of our abilities using the very few pieces available to us. Inevitably, given the lack of pieces, those we do have are sometimes placed in erroneous locations where they are allowed to distort the overall picture and influence the placement of other pieces. Moreover, the longer they stay in the wrong place, the harder they are to dislodge. It is thus important to identify such erroneously placed pieces and move them as quickly as possible to their proper locations, or at the very least away from obviously false ones. The problem often encountered in trying to do so, however, is that once pieces have been placed, they tend to stick, and moving them becomes ever more difficult as scholars become used to seeing them in certain locations, especially since additional pieces may even have been modified or hammered into place to fit into adjacent positions.

The Gospel of Philip is one such piece in the metaphorical puzzle of early Christianity which I believe has been put in the wrong place and allowed to stay there for too long. It has routinely been regarded as evidence not only for such unfortunate scholarly constructs as “Gnosticism” or “Valentinianism,” but also for second- or third-century Christianity in general. I will argue here, however, that this particular piece is more properly at home in fourth- or even fifth-century Christianity in Egypt, the context of the manuscript in which it has actually been preserved.

Begotten, Not Made, to Arise in This Flesh:
The Post-Nicene Soteriology of the Gospel of Philip
by HUGO LUNDHAUG

https://www.academia.edu/5895809/Begott ... hilip_2013

[Secret Alias]

What "puzzle" is this? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/itacism#English

[Leucius Charinus]

What "puzzle" is this? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/itacism#English

The "puzzle" is that you don't read what you criticise. Iotacism or itacism is the process of vowel shift in post classical Greek. What we have in Philip is not a process of vowel shift. Rather it is a repeated and explicitly juxtaposed use of two different terms - Chrestian and Christian. Philip uses both terms and writes various different things about both of them. You should try reading what you criticise once in a while.

[Leucius Charinus]

I am still none the wiser why your analysis of the occurrences of ⲓⲥ̅, ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ, ⲭⲥ̅, ⲭⲣⲥ̅, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ and ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ in Philip omits the first appearance of ⲭⲥ̅.

Philip is telling us about the day the ⲭⲥ̅ first appeared.
What is this ⲭⲥ̅ which has the priority in Philip's exposition?

The Day the ⲭⲥ̅ first appeared


4. An unbeliever / heathen [1] does not die
for he has never lived
so that he could die
whoever has trusted the truth (became) alive
and this-one is in danger of dying
for he is alive (to the truth)

since the day that the ⲭⲥ̅ [2] came
5. they create the (lawful) order [3]
they (lawfully) order / govern [4] the cities
they carry the dead (sg) outward.

6. When we were Hebrew we were made orphan;
we had only our mother.
Yet after we became Chrestian [5],
father came to be with mother to us.


[1] C11078 ϩⲉⲑⲛⲓⲕⲟⲥ - unbelieving, worldly, pagan, heathen
examples assocated with "tax collectors"

[2] ⲭⲥ̅ - First mentioned ligature for "Christos" / "Chrestos" in Philip
(Second mentioned ligature in Philip is XRS)

[3] κόσμος (kósmos) n. - order; lawful order, government;
mode, fashion; ornament, decoration; honour, credit; ruler;
world, universe, the earth; mankind

[4] "kosmos-ise" (verb) - order; lawfully ordered, via government

[5] https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave

What precisely is this XS? The Greek Logos? If we do not understand the ligature building blocks, or what they are intended to represent, then how can we understand the "Chrestian" and "Christian"?

ⲭⲥ̅ or XS in Philip

4 An unbeliever / heathen does not die, for he has never lived so that he could die. Whoever has trusted the truth (became) alive — and this one is in danger of dying (as a martyr), for he is alive since the day that the XS came.

5 The system is invented: , the cities are constructed, the dead carried out.

15 Before the XS came, there was no bread in the world as (there had been) in paradise°, the place where Adam was. ///
But the XS was sent, the perfect° person. He brought bread from heaven, so that humankind could be nourished with the food of humankind.

20 ‘Yeshúa’ is a personal name, ‘the XRS’ is a common noun.a Thus ‘Yeshúa’ indeed does not occur in any (other) languages, but rather his name is ‘Yeshúa’ as he is called. Yet his name ‘XRS’ in Aramaic° is ‘Messiah°’, but in Ionian° is: XS.

21 The XS has everything within himself—whether human or angel° or mystery°, and (also) the Father.

48 But in the truth it is thus—thou saw something of that place, thou came to be among those there. Thou saw the Spirit,b thou became spiritual; thou saw the XS thou became XS like; thou saw [the Father, thou] shall become paternal.

51 The Apostles who preceded us called (him) thus: Yeshua the Nazirite° Messiah—this is Yeshua the Nazirite XS. The last name is the XS, the first is Yeshua, that in the middle is the Nazirite. ‘Messiah’ has two refe-rences: both the XRS and also the measured°. ‘Yeshua’ in Hebrew is the atonement. ‘Nazara’ is the truth, therefore the Nazirite is the true. The XS is the measured, the Nazirite and Yeshua are the measurement.

59 The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels.a And the companion° of the [XS] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth]

75 Before XS some came forth. They were no longer able to enter into whence they emerged, and they were no longer able to exit from whither they entered. Yet the XS came. Those who had gone in he brought out, and those who had gone out he brought in.

80 Thru the Sacred Spirit we are indeed born, yet we are reborn thru the XS. In both we are anointed thru the Spirit—(anda) having been begotten, we were mated.

90 Adam came into being from two virgins—from the Spirit and from the virgin earth. Therefore XS was be-gotten from a virgin, so that the stumbling which occurred in the beginning shall be rectified.

101 101. The XREISMA is made lord over the Baptism. For from the XRISMA we are called XRISTIANOS(s, and) not because of the Baptism. And (he) was called the XS because of the XRISMA. For the Father anointed the Son, yet the Son anointed the Apostles, yet the Apostles anointed us

124 This is Yeshua the XS — he beguiled the entire place and did not burden anyone. Therefore, blest is this perfected person of this kind; for this one is the Logos

[mlinssen]

I am still none the wiser why your analysis of the occurrences of ⲓⲥ̅, ⲓ̅ⲏ̅ⲥ, ⲭⲥ̅, ⲭⲣⲥ̅, ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ and ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ in Philip omits the first appearance of ⲭⲥ̅.

Philip is telling us about the day the ⲭⲥ̅ first appeared.
What is this ⲭⲥ̅ which has the priority in Philip's exposition?

The Day the ⲭⲥ̅ first appeared


4. An unbeliever / heathen [1] does not die
for he has never lived
so that he could die
whoever has trusted the truth (became) alive
and this-one is in danger of dying
for he is alive (to the truth)

since the day that the ⲭⲥ̅ [2] came
5. they create the (lawful) order [3]
they (lawfully) order / govern [4] the cities
they carry the dead (sg) outward.

6. When we were Hebrew we were made orphan;
we had only our mother.
Yet after we became Chrestian [5],
father came to be with mother to us.


[1] C11078 ϩⲉⲑⲛⲓⲕⲟⲥ - unbelieving, worldly, pagan, heathen
examples assocated with "tax collectors"

[2] ⲭⲥ̅ - First mentioned ligature for "Christos" / "Chrestos" in Philip
(Second mentioned ligature in Philip is XRS)

[3] κόσμος (kósmos) n. - order; lawful order, government;
mode, fashion; ornament, decoration; honour, credit; ruler;
world, universe, the earth; mankind

[4] "kosmos-ise" (verb) - order; lawfully ordered, via government

[5] https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave

What precisely is this XS? The Greek Logos? If we do not understand the ligature building blocks, or what they are intended to represent, then how can we understand the "Chrestian" and "Christian"?

ⲭⲥ̅ or XS in Philip

4 An unbeliever / heathen does not die, for he has never lived so that he could die. Whoever has trusted the truth (became) alive — and this one is in danger of dying (as a martyr), for he is alive since the day that the XS came.

5 The system is invented: , the cities are constructed, the dead carried out.

15 Before the XS came, there was no bread in the world as (there had been) in paradise°, the place where Adam was. ///
But the XS was sent, the perfect° person. He brought bread from heaven, so that humankind could be nourished with the food of humankind.

20 ‘Yeshúa’ is a personal name, ‘the XRS’ is a common noun.a Thus ‘Yeshúa’ indeed does not occur in any (other) languages, but rather his name is ‘Yeshúa’ as he is called. Yet his name ‘XRS’ in Aramaic° is ‘Messiah°’, but in Ionian° is: XS.

21 The XS has everything within himself—whether human or angel° or mystery°, and (also) the Father.

48 But in the truth it is thus—thou saw something of that place, thou came to be among those there. Thou saw the Spirit,b thou became spiritual; thou saw the XS thou became XS like; thou saw [the Father, thou] shall become paternal.

51 The Apostles who preceded us called (him) thus: Yeshua the Nazirite° Messiah—this is Yeshua the Nazirite XS. The last name is the XS, the first is Yeshua, that in the middle is the Nazirite. ‘Messiah’ has two refe-rences: both the XRS and also the measured°. ‘Yeshua’ in Hebrew is the atonement. ‘Nazara’ is the truth, therefore the Nazirite is the true. The XS is the measured, the Nazirite and Yeshua are the measurement.

59 The wisdom which (humans) call barren is herself the Mother of the Angels.a And the companion° of the [XS] is Mariam the Magdalene. The [Lord loved] Mariam more than [all the (other)] Disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth]

75 Before XS some came forth. They were no longer able to enter into whence they emerged, and they were no longer able to exit from whither they entered. Yet the XS came. Those who had gone in he brought out, and those who had gone out he brought in.

80 Thru the Sacred Spirit we are indeed born, yet we are reborn thru the XS. In both we are anointed thru the Spirit—(anda) having been begotten, we were mated.

90 Adam came into being from two virgins—from the Spirit

It doesn't

logion 8 and 86 have him ‘come’ only, they state a mere ⲁ ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲥ ̆ ⲉⲓ: ‘did the ΧΡΣ come’.

Page 6

I could have added logion 4, but the paper is not about all occurrences of XS, it would have become way too long.
The Discussion addresses it all, to which I have tentatively added Brown's dubious restoration of logion 59

A very concise overview of the relevant ligatures in Philip:

4. XS
6. XRηSTIANOS
8. XRS
15. XS XS
20. IS XRS IS IHS XRS XS
21. XS
25. IS
29. IS
48. XS XS
51. IHS IHS XS XS IS XRS IS XS IS
53. XRηSTIANOS
57. IS IS
59. [XS]
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. [XRη]S[TI]ANOS XRS
75. XS XS
80. XS
86. XRS
88. IS
89. IS
90. XS
98. IHS
99. IS
101. XRiSTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRiSTIANOS
113. IS
115. IS
124. IS XS
133. IS

IS = 16
IHS = 4
XS = 16 + [1]
XRS = 6
XRηSTIANOS = 5
XRiSTIANOS = 2