Chrestians/Christians?

[GakuseiDon]

Where did you get this version of logion 6, Don? You've clubbed together parts of logion 4, 5 and 6

You're right, my mistake. I'd combined logion 5 & 6, when they should be separated, based on the text here. My apologies. But it doesn't affect my point at all. As you wrote back on page 15 in this thread: "The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end". While it isn't a coherent narrative by any means, someone had to order the logia when compiling the text. The text has "Christ" appearing before "Chrestian", for what that is worth. I'll repost my point above, separating the logia correctly this time.

[MrMacSon]

Easily 250 years are covered this way; 250 continuous years during which apparently “the writings of Marcion” formed a great enough problem to be addressed by Church Fathers in multiple volumes per Church Father. Something that size doesn’t attest to some heretic distorting orthodox writings and publishing his own version of the mainstream document(s) on the side, such instead attests to an enormously influential, popular and persistent movement that was nigh impossible to suppress

• Agree.
  I'm pretty sure there's good archaeological & literary evidence of Marcionte churches & communities persisting into the 5th c., at least.
  And that there's much more evidence for Marcionite churches and communities than for orthodox ones.

So when do we have the first text in which refuted heretics refute back at the orthodox?
[...]
Marcion gets refuted by e g. Justin Martyr; let's just suppose that Marcion really existed, for argument's sake (even though I argue the opposite in my theory) - did Marcion ever respond in writing, you think?

Did he, and was every single copy of it destroyed? Likely. Did he not? Then please motivate why not

• Apparently there's indications there was some dialogue discussion between Marcion and Justin Martyr eg. there's supposed to be a lost text or epistle of Justin's titled, 'On Marcion'

Likewise for all other heretics: did they ever return the favour dealt them by the FF?
No? Why not. Yes? Then what happened to it?

• It's likely that the 'heretics' ever knew of the attacks upon them, especially the 2nd century ones

[mlinssen]

Where did you get this version of logion 6, Don? You've clubbed together parts of logion 4, 5 and 6

You're right, my mistake. I'd combined logion 5 & 6, when they should be separated, based on the text here. My apologies. But it doesn't affect my point at all. As you wrote back on page 15 in this thread: "The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end". While it isn't a coherent narrative by any means, someone had to order the logia when compiling the text. The text has "Christ" appearing before "Chrestian", for what that is worth. I'll repost my point above, separating the logia correctly this time.

XS Don, not Christ.
No text in the entire world ever says Christ - although plenty of them say Chrest. I'll point you to the larger "concise Philip":

viewtopic.php?p=135571#p135571

4. XS
6. XRηSTIANOS
8. XRS
15. XS XS
20. XRS XRS XS
21. XS
48. XS XS
51. XS XS XRS XS
53. XRηSTIANOS
59. XS
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. XRηSTIANOS XRS
75. XS XS
80. XS
86. XRS
90. XS
101. XRISTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRISTIANOS
124. XS

That's what the text says, literally, objectively, verifiably

[Leucius Charinus]

But it doesn't affect my point at all. As you wrote back on page 15 in this thread: "The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end". While it isn't a coherent narrative by any means, someone had to order the logia when compiling the text. The text has "Christ" appearing before "Chrestian", for what that is worth.

G'Don is correct in pointing out that that the text introduces the term ⲭⲥ̅ before it introduces any of the other terms Chrestian or XRS or Christian. If Philip preserves any sense of "history" --- through the sequence of the introduction of these four terms --- then Philip's "history" starts with "the day the ⲭⲥ̅ came". This event happened in Philip's account before there were Chrestians or "XRS"'s or Christians on the scene. That's what the text says, literally, objectively, verifiably.

I interpret this to mean that the whole saga starts on the day upon which Philip witnesses the ⲭⲥ̅ (i.e. the "nomina sacra") turning up. I infer that the ⲭⲥ̅ turned up in a codex, and that everything else followed that event.

[StephenGoranson]

LC/mt.Pete, above, in part:
"....I interpret this to mean that the whole saga starts on the day upon which Philip witnesses the ⲭⲥ̅ (i.e. the "nomina sacra") turning up. I infer that the ⲭⲥ̅ turned up in a codex, and that everything else followed that event."

I suggest that that inference is not reliable. "Ever since Christ came...." (Wesley W. Isenberg translation) makes more sense to me.

[dbz]

"Ever since Christ came...." (Wesley W. Isenberg translation) makes more sense to me.

• Philip witnesses the ⲭⲥ̅ (i.e. the "nomina sacra" in Coptic script)

Uppercase	Lowercase	Letter Name	Greek equiv.	Translit.
Ⲥ	ⲥ	Seema	Σ, σ, ς	s
Ⲭ	ⲭ	Chi	Χ, χ	kh

Greek Suffix
-ουργός • (-ourgós) m or f (neuter -ουργον); second declension

• creates compound nouns or adjectives with the meaning of -worker ,-maker, -wright

Thus ⲭⲥ̅ may be the "Chrism Maker".

eta.
Greek Suffix
-φόρος • (-fóros) m

• -bearing

Thus ⲭⲥ̅ may be the "Chrism Bringer".

[GakuseiDon]

XS Don, not Christ.
No text in the entire world ever says Christ - although plenty of them say Chrest. I'll point you to the larger "concise Philip":

viewtopic.php?p=135571#p135571

Thank you. Yes, but doesn't "XS" in logion 4 mean "Christ"? I may be completely wrong on this, since I have no knowledge of any ancient language and don't want to mislead. I'll note that in your "From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave" pdf, you have presented logion 101 as follows:

"Indeed in the Chrism did they call us Christian, not because of the baptism. And have they called the ΧΣ because of the Chrism"

Isn't "ΧΣ" here "Christ", since he is named after the "Chrism"? If so, the same word seems to be used in logion 5:

"Since ΧΣ came, the world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out."

So wouldn't that read "Since Christ came"? Just want to make sure of that before continuing.

(ETA) I guess that, even if ΧΣ doesn't mean "Christ", it means something based on "Chrism", and that the ΧΣ in logion 101 is the same as the ΧΣ in logion 4. So, if the order in the GoP text is important, we still have ΧΣ appearing before "we Chrestians"?

[billd89]

"Indeed in the Chrism did they call us Christian, not because of the baptism. And have they called the ΧΣ because of the Chrism"

Perhaps of interest to others here, I don't see that anyone on this site has ever referenced this Chrism paper or its author:

This inquiry studies 1 John because it has the most explicit testimony in the New Testament to initiation by anointing and the unique word χρίσμα, "chrism." Chrism was — and in some churches still is — an ointment whose name is rooted in the verb χριειν, "to anoint." Critical studies have amply demonstrated that the title "Christ" had theological carriage in the first century, but rarely, if ever, has it been suggested that the theological title also had liturgical bearing. It seems almost too blithe a suggestion to posit that those who became members of the body of Christ, the "Anointed," in some of those earliest communities might themselves have been anointed with chrism, marked with oil as the anointed Messiah himself had been; if anything, in academic literature the denial of anointing as initiation (without baptism) is long-standing and, by some, vociferous;3 against this academic tradition, this essay hypothesizes that the community of 1 John and the passage about anointing with chrism in 2:18-27 might indeed reflect a rite of initiation, proposing an indication as to why the rite did not survive in the tradition.

[dbz]

"Christ," the divine title for Jesus, means the "anointed" and is omnipresent in the New Testament, used 529 times, 379 of those times in the correspondence of Paul (1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, Romans). Idem., "The Christ-Statements of the New Testament,"TDNT, volume 9:527-80, here at 528.

---

--Connell, M. F. (2009). On ‘Chrism’and ‘Anti-Christs’ in 1 John 2: 18-27: A Hypothesis.

Rather the term "Christ" was selected to translate the term in Jewish scripture for the "anointed". Prior to its usage in the Greek Septuagint—Christ was used to describe putting on scented hair oil for a night out on the town. Cf. Musgrave, Samuel, ed (1778). "Cyclops" (in Greek). ΕΥΡΙΠΙΔΟΥ ΤΑ ΣΩΖΟΜΕΝΑ (Euripidou ta sozomena - Euripides the saved) | Euripides, Quae extant omnia (All things extant). England: OUP|Clarendon Press. p. 3:80.

• The consensus is that for Paul—the term "Christ" is not the “messiah” of the Greek Septuagint

  When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”
  
  

  ---

  --Novenson, Matthew V. ( 2012). Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.

  Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see:
  • Godfrey, Neil. "Christ Among the Messiahs (Novenson)". Vridar.

  My study paints a clearer picture not only of the ritual itself but what it symbolically meant. The three themes are first, a literal anointing; second, a symbol for the reception of the Holy Spirit; and third, an endowment of knowledge or power.

  ---

  --Becerra, Daniel, "Three Motifs in Early Christian Oil Anointing" (2009). Faculty Publications. 3527.
  https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/3527

[GakuseiDon]

This inquiry studies 1 John because it has the most explicit testimony in the New Testament to initiation by anointing and the unique word χρίσμα, "chrism." Chrism was — and in some churches still is — an ointment whose name is rooted in the verb χριειν, "to anoint." Critical studies have amply demonstrated that the title "Christ" had theological carriage in the first century, but rarely, if ever, has it been suggested that the theological title also had liturgical bearing. It seems almost too blithe a suggestion to posit that those who became members of the body of Christ, the "Anointed," in some of those earliest communities might themselves have been anointed with chrism, marked with oil as the anointed Messiah himself had been; if anything, in academic literature the denial of anointing as initiation (without baptism) is long-standing and, by some, vociferous;3 against this academic tradition, this essay hypothesizes that the community of 1 John and the passage about anointing with chrism in 2:18-27 might indeed reflect a rite of initiation, proposing an indication as to why the rite did not survive in the tradition.

That's interesting, billd89. I was wondering about how often the word "chrism" was used in early texts. It's only appearance in the NT are, as the author points out, in 1 John:

2:20 But ye have an unction [chrisma] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
...
26 These things have I written unto you concerning them [anti-Christs] that seduce you.
27 But the anointing [chrisma] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing [chrisma] teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

If the author is right, then anointing with oil was an important part of the initiation in becoming a Christian, that was replaced with baptism only. Perhaps the gnostics kept that tradition going, leading to them calling those who have only the baptism as "Chrestians".