GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:32 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 1:44 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 12:41 am
I hope that clarifies my thinking there.
It certainly does Don, thanks.
I disagree with your conclusion. The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end, and
it mentions Chrestians 5 times first, and Christians 2 times towards the end:
6. XRηSTIANOS
53. XRηSTIANOS
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. XRηSTIANOS XRS
101. XRISTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRISTIANOS
What you are doing is ignoring that order, and rehashing your own story of Philip, freely inserting Christians whenever that suits you. Yes, if you rewrite the story that way you will surely arrive at a different analysis of it.
Is there a consistent narrative that reads from beginning to end, though? It seems to be a collection of disparate logia, not necessarily connected to each other. Anyway, it's not important for this exercise. I'll go through each of them in the order presented, and make my analysis from that. I'll split this over a couple of posts. For convenience, I'll assume the author is male.
My interest in GoP came when I read that the text was thought to be a Valentinian gnostic one. We only ever get the "orthodox" view of heretics. We don't often get the heretics' view of the orthodox. As I like to say: you can't have heresy without orthodoxy, and you can't have orthodoxy without power. Early heretics like Marcion and Valentius were part of the main church early on, so the main church must have been a mish-mash of beliefs until one stream gained power and started to push the others out.
So when I read a gnostic text like GoP, I think "these gnostics call themselves Christians, they trace their origin back to the apostles and Christ himself. So how did they view other groups like the orthodox of their time?"
If GoP was written around 200 CE, then it is contemporary with orthodox groups and others. Most of them called themselves "Christians". But what did gnostics call them? It seems to me that "Chrestian" would be a solution. So I'll happily admit to reading GoP with that bias included. But my point stands even if the Chrestians weren't meant to be the orthodox. The Chrestians were groups who had been baptised but not anointed with metaphysical chrism. I think we both agree here. They may or may not refer to the orthodox groups of 200 CE, but I'd argue the Chrestians are consistent with them.
With that in mind, let's look at the first logion (note I'm using the earlychristianwritings text except for the spelling of "Chrestian"):
Logion 6
A Gentile does not die, for he has never lived in order that he may die. He who has believed in the truth has found life, and this one is in danger of dying, for he is alive. Since Christ came, the world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Chrestians, we had both father and mother.
Who is the 'father'? Based on the rest of GoP, it can only be the Father who sent the Son. So the implication is that Chrestians came about AFTER Christ came. And notice his use of "we". He is including his own group here.
Where else does he use "we/us"? Here:
"For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us."
They are all part of the same group that started from Christ and the apostles. Like all early Christian groups, the author ties his own group back to the apostles. The author is a gnostic and provides the path in which one needs to proceed:
"The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber."
Chrestians seem only have the baptism, as we will see in Logion 63. And that doesn't allow them to be called "Christian", at least from the GoP author's perspective. As he writes:
The chrism is superior to baptism, for it is from the word "Chrism" that we have been called "Christians," certainly not because of the word "baptism".
Baptism is good, but being anointed with chrism is better.
I don't think you'll disagree with much of the above. The only point of disagreement would be who the author identifies as "Chrestians". For me, the GoP Christians and Chrestians are part of the same group. But Christians have secret knowledge -- from the metaphysical chrism, extracted from the wood of the cross upon which Christ was crucified -- that makes them Christs. And so they are worthy of the name "Christian".
Logion 53
If you say, "I am a Jew," no one will be moved. If you say, "I am a Roman," no one will be disturbed. If you say, "I am a Greek, a barbarian, a slave, a free man," no one will be troubled. If you say, "I am a Chrestian," the [...] will tremble. Would that I might [...] like that - the person whose name [...] will not be able to endure hearing.
We find the same descriptions of Chrestians in Justin Martyr and Tertullian. The name is hated, so that those who carry it are persecuted just for the name. From Tertullian's
Ad nationes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html
"No name of a crime stands against us, but only the crime of a name. Now this in very deed is neither more nor less than the entire odium which is felt against us. The name is the cause: some mysterious force intensified by your ignorance assails it...
Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness. You are therefore vilifying in harmless men even the harmless name we bear..."
Pagans hated the name "Chrestian", which perhaps explained why they trembled at the name.
I doubt that Tertullian called himself a Chrestian, but from the GoP author's perspective that's what Tertullian was: someone who hadn't been anointed with chrism. A Christian who was baptised only.
Logion 63
If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Chrestian," he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded. This is the way it happens to one when he experiences a mystery.
This has echoes of the Gospels. For example, John the Baptist in Matt 3:11
"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"
It reflects the importance of baptism in GoP's Christianity. But since there is no anointing with chrism, the author doesn't use "Chrestian".
The baptism puts the gnostic practitioner on the path. He/she hasn't become a Christ yet though, so not worthy of the name "Christian".
I'll break here and continue with the rest of the Logia in the next post.