Chrestians/Christians?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by GakuseiDon »


Logion 72

Not only must those who produce the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, do so, but have produced them for you. If one does not acquire them, the name will also be taken from him. But one receives the unction of the [...] of the power of the cross. This power the apostles called "the right and the left." For this person is no longer a Chrestian but a Christ.

I think this is self-explanatory. The unction (anointing of oil) of the power of the cross turns one from a Chrestian into a Christ, and so worthy of the name "Christian". The implication seems to be that secret knowledge, or suffering, or perfect obedience to God, equates to what Christ went through. It's the next step beyond baptism for the gnostics.

The GoP also has: "You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father..."

Logion 101

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". And it is because of the chrism that "the Christ" has his name. For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift). The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. This is the Kingdom of Heaven.

I think I've covered this already.

Logion 103

The Lord said it well: "Some have entered the Kingdom of Heaven laughing, and they have come out [...] because [...] a Chrestian, [...]. And as soon as [...] went down into the water, he came [...] everything (of this world), [...] because he [...] a trifle, but [...] full of contempt for this [...] the Kingdom of Heaven [...] If he despises [...], and scorns it as a trifle, [...] out laughing. So it is also with the bread and the cup and the oil, even though there is another one superior to these.

There are gaps so hard to make out what the author is saying. It sounds vaguely critical of some Chrestians, at least a group that uses bread and a cup and oil in their ceremonies. I think I know to whom the author is referring, but I'll admit I'm biased in that regard!

Logion 108

A horse sires a horse, a man begets man, a god brings forth a god. Compare the bridegroom and the bride. They have come from the [...]. No Jew [...] has existed. And [...] from the Jews. [...] Christians [...] these [...] are referred to as "The chosen people of [...]," and "The true man" and "Son of Man" and "the seed of the Son of Man". This true race is renowned in the world [...] that the sons of the bridal chamber dwell.

The "bridal chamber" has a meaning I don't understand. It sounds very important to the author since he uses the phrase a few times. I'm not sure what to make of this Logion.

--------------

There are the other passages I've reproduced earlier in this thread, in which the author appears to be attacking orthodox positions. E.g. the GoP author writes:

"Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying."

Compare with Matthew 1:20: "the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

Also, the GoP: "Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error".

Dying first and then rising was the view of Second Century orthodox Christians.

The GoP author may or may not be referring to those Christians above, but it sounds like it to me. I'll note that in GoP the author doesn't directly connect the term "Chrestian" to my proposed orthodox Christians, so that is my guess work. But it fits AFAICS.

I hope people found my analysis above interesting, even if not convincing!
davidmartin
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by davidmartin »

But Christians have secret knowledge -- from the metaphysical chrism, extracted from the wood of the cross upon which Christ was crucified
All this secret knowledge seems to be is knowing the holy spirit, plain and simple. Very different from a real gnostic text like the Apoc. of John?

I'm not sure I see much of a distinction between Chrestians and Christians, almost like both are acknowledged as their names, mlinssen says Chrestians is original. He could be right on this, I never quite got too much into this aspect to really have an opinion, I don't have a clue. It's a very useful name though because i'm convinced there's a missing category that isn't orthodox or gnostic or ebionite

I now realise the merit in not using the label 'gnostic'. It obscures too much
The GoP, GoT, Mary, Thunder, Exegesis on the soul, Dialog of Savior, Eugnostos, Trimorphic P's first layer and a number of other NHL texts are not properly gnostic which to me means the sophia myth and yaltabaoth. The Valentinians are borderline gnostic, the GoP isn't really Valentinian though
There is no name for a non-gnostic, mystical branch of Christianity even though it leaves traces everywhere, why is that?

The implication that the opponents to Phillip did not know the holy spirit would make them complete outsiders, not even Chrestians or Christians
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by mlinssen »

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.
Thanks Don, nice exercise

You start the post explaining very well that you have an impression of what the entire situation ought to be, and then begin reading - with predictable results

6. The father could be any father or Father, you have nothing in the text to go on for supporting your claim

53. Trembling can occur for many reasons, let's stick to the possible ones: admiration, fear, awe - it's an extreme physical reaction of the body, but that says nothing about what drives it; likewise for crying, for example. You have nothing in the text to go on for supporting your claim

63. Calling yourself something different has echoes in the gospels? Using the name Chrestian has echoes in the gospels?

Baptism in the name of the father, son and spirit-that-is-pure can allow someone to call himself Chrestian if - and only if - he has received the spirit-that-is-pure. If one hasn't but uses the name anyway, he'll get cut.
The chrism comes (much?) later, and shares a slightly similar protocol: nothing needs to be received, but after the chrism one is allowed to call himself Christian - no repercussions for anything

Dear Don, you see differences where there are none.
And you see similarities where there great differences
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:24 am There is no name for a non-gnostic, mystical branch of Christianity even though it leaves traces everywhere, why is that?
"Marcion"
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by dbz »

davidmartin wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 11:19 pm [Per] the hellenistic sources which i'm not too familiar with, what do you make of the Odes in that light?
There's a couple of things maybe are hellenistic, or jewish takes on hellenism maybe, in them (eg as above, so below... the claim that nothing is really below, its an illusion, everything is above and to think the things below are real is an illusion based on ignorance)

Irish1975 wrote: Thu May 30, 2019 2:58 pm Lattke's summary of what he believes to be the place of the Odes "in Antique Religion and Literature" is worth close attention.
[...]
Gnostic "tinge"--
  • "...the gnostic origin and character of a considerable portion of its imagery and metaphorical language cannot be doubted" (Helmut Koester)
  • "...there is no denying the parallels with passages in the Nag Hammadi tractates, especially with the Gospel of Truth."
  • Middle Platonism
To which Stevan Davies replies,
"All that, and yet there is not one quotation or clear allusion from any of those texts in any of the Odes!"
Spirit Possession & the Origins of Christianity, "On the Odes of Solomon as Evidence for a Pre-Christianity" (Bardic Press, 2014), p. 270.

Giuseppe wrote: Fri May 12, 2017 8:31 am So Stevan Davies:
I propose that the following occurred:
A: Before 25 C.E. there was a network of communities stretching from Jerusalem to Damascus whose religious ideas are to some degree preserved for us through some of the hymns they chanted, the Odes of Solomon. Those communities believed that humans could be transformed into Christ or the Son of God through an experience understood in terms of the Spirit that we can understand in terms of the generic category of spirit possession.

B: Jesus of Nazareth was affiliated with or influenced by one of those communities. He came to understand himself as one transformed into Son of God and Christ through an experience understood in terms of the Spirit. He was rather widely regarded as one transformed into Son of God or the Holy Hone of God and thereby was able to have a brief but very successful career as an exorcist-healer and to gather a cadre of associates who regarded him as being, uniquely, Christ and Son of God.

C: The communities of Odes Judaism were persecuted through Judean police power and Paul carried out such persecution. However, Paul, to his surprise, spontaneously experienced what those communities advocated, believed that the Son of God had been revealed in him, and he began to spread their form of religion into Gentile areas. Paul understood the Odes religion in reference to the much more public career of Jesus of Nazareth, whose associates identified him as crucified and risen Christ. Paul conflated the Odes religion with the idea that Jesus is Christ to produce a form of Christianity that offered people the possibility of identification through the Spirit with Jesus Christ crucified.

D: Jesus' associates, who eventually came to understand him to have been the unique Son of God and to have been the only Christ, initially had ''pentecostal'' experiences of Spirit possession that were thought to derive from Jesus Christ now in heaven with God. The success of Christianity in spreading throughout the Roman Empire was based largely on the success of Christian missionaries in inducing Spirit possession in people in diverse areas, presumably through methods similar to those that are utilized by Pentecostal missionaries today.

E: Johannine Christians believed that possession by the spirit Paralcete would transform them so that they might believe that Jesus dwells in them and that they can speak words of the Spirit, understood to be Jesus'words recalled to them. Their experiences meant to them that they are now the presence of the Son of God, Jesus, on the earth; it is possible that some of the communities of Odes Judaism became JOhannine Christian Churches. The Johannine community may be the principal form in which Odes Judaism continued to exist after the rise of Christianity oriented to Jesus of Nazareth.
(Stevan Davies, On the Odes of Solomon as Evidence for a Pre-Christianity, in Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, p. 281-282, my red)

I see that Gordon Rylands shared the same ideas of Stevan Davies about the Odes of Solomon and the origins of Johannine communities (more in general, of the Christian gnosticism).
The Odes along with John's gospel,
  • "In keeping with the times, both exhibit a blend of Jewish and Hellenistic influences."
Introduction
Sorting one day through a pile of miscellaneous manuscripts lying in a corner of his office, the early twentieth-century biblical scholar, Rendel Harris, realized that he unknowingly had in his possession an almost complete text of the previously lost, Odes of Solomon. His first annotated edition of the original text, together with an English translation, was subsequently published the following year, in 1909. Since that date this collection of beautiful odes has been the subject of a considerable number of scholarly translations and discussions. Harris himself remained intrigued and enchanted with the Odes, publishing the last of a number of revised editions of his work in 1920, in collaboration with his friend and fellow scholar, Alphonse Mingana.

The Odes of Solomon is a collection of forty-two devotional and mystic poems composed very early in the Christian era, possibly around 100 AD or even earlier, probably in or around the city of Antioch. The original language of composition was almost certainly Greek or Syriac, though a case has also been made for Aramaic, a language akin to Syriac. It is also possible that - like many in those times - the original writer was bilingual, writing the Odes in both Greek and Syriac, or supervising their translation from one to the other at an early date.

The Odes of Solomon survive in only two main manuscripts, both in Syriac. The first - the one found by Rendel Harris-dates from the fifteenth century, and contains all the odes except 1, 2 and the beginning of 3. The second dates from the tenth century, and is lacking its earlier part, beginning in the middle of Ode 17. Ode 11 is also known from a third-century Greek papyrus. Five other odes (1, 5, 6, 22 and 25) are extant in Cop tic, embedded in a well-known gnostic text, the fourth- century Pistis Sophia. Pooling these resources, only Ode 2 and the beginning of Ode 3 are entirely missing.

Neither of the two Syriac manuscripts are of an early date, and there are differences between these texts, often minor, sometimes significant. One of these two also has occasional verses missing due to the inattention of the scribe. It is certain, therefore, that the extant texts are not entirely as originally penned, and the possibility of significant editing having taken place in some of the odes cannot be ruled out. However, generally speaking, the consistency of the odes suggests that they are largely as the original author intended.

The renderings offered here are new, based upon the work of earlier scholars, notably J.R. Harris (1909, 1911, 1916), J.H. Bernard (1912), J.R. Harris and A. Mingana (1920), J.H. Charlesworth (1973,1983) and j.A, Emerton (1985). Consideration has also been given to a number of French and German translations and studies. It is noteworthy that the translations subsequent to the original work of Rendel Harris have been considerably influenced by him, as has the present work.

There are a number of places where the translation or interpretation is uncertain. All the scholars involved have acknowledged this. Since the purpose of the present book is to place the Odes before the general reader in an enjoyable format, without scholarly notes and commentary, I have had to make a decision, on each occasion, which meaning to go for. While taking account of the technical aspects of the available texts, I have generally opted for the most plausible rendering, given the odist's flow of thought in that particular ode. The division of the Odes into stanzas has also been added in the present rendering.

The attribution of the Odes to Solomon reflects a common literary device of ancient times. Writings were ascribed to an individual from history or mythology who - it was considered - represented the ideals and doctrines of that particular text. Traditionally, Solomon represented spiritual and human wisdom, as well as the divine Wisdom or creative Power of God as portrayed in Proverbs, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach and other literature of the period. Further, the name 'Solomon' (Shelomo in Hebrew) has been derived from the Hebrew 'Shalom: meaning 'peace' or 'rest'. In a spiritual context, 'rest' is a term used throughout Jewish, Christian and other literature for the peace and bliss of eternity. Ode 26 even speaks of the "Odes of His Rest", probably as a play on the name Solomon, and some scholars have consequently considered the possibility that the Odes were originally named the "Odes of His Rest". The ascription of the Odes to Solomon indicates, there- fore, that their subject matter is spiritual and mystical.

A study of the Odes soon reveals that their underlying theme, their choice of metaphors and their linguistic style have much in common with John's gospel. Both writers take the Creative Word or Logos to be the fundamental reality of their mystical understanding. In keeping with the times, both exhibit a blend of Jewish and Hellenistic influences. Both are fond of wordplay and double entendre, and there are many passages that contain both an outer meaning as well as an inner, mystic meaning. Both also like to echo passages from the Jewish Wisdom literature (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon and so on). In fact, many of the Odes contain allusions and references either to John's gospel, or to the Wisdom literature, or to other biblical texts, many of which have been identified by the various scholarly commentators. There are a number of places where the odist clearly has one of the biblical Psalms or some passage from the Wisdom literature in mind, forming his literary inspiration for that passage, or sometimes for an entire ode.

The Odes also have affinities with texts such as the hymns found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and the pre-Christian Psalms of Solomon, both of which employ a variety of terms when speaking of the Creative Word of God. From the wealth of mystic literature of this kind, stemming from the centuries immediately before and after Jesus, it must be presumed that mystics who taught the path of the Word or Logos were active at that time in Palestine and Asia Minor.

There appear to be two main kinds of odes in the collection. There are the simple ones, full of gratitude, love and praise of God; and there are those where the symbolism and imagery is more complex. At times, it is tempting to think that contributions from two authors are present. It would not be without precedent for the Odes to contain the work of more than one writer. This is true of the biblical Psalms and the book of Proverbs, for instance. All the same, there is a unity in the imagery and style that prevails throughout. It is likely that some odes have received the editorial attention of later Christians, explaining why a few are more specifically Christian than others. But in these and other odes it is also evident that the author - as in John's gospel - is trying to indicate the symbolic mystical meaning hidden within the beliefs and myths of early Christian dogma. All in all, then, the general conclusion is that the Odes are primarily the work of one writer.

Like John's gospel, the essential theme of the Odes is that of salvation and the attainment of immortal life through the primary, creative Power of God, which the odist calls the Word, the Word of Truth, the Word of Knowledge, Wisdom, the Truth, His Thought, Living Water, the Spring or Fountain, His Right Hand, His Name, and by other similar terms and epithets. All of these names are used in earlier biblical and apocryphal literature, as well as later in early Christian and other allied texts. The poet also speaks of a "Helper", whom he equates with the Word, but also identifies as a living human being. This is clearly his Saviour or Master, whom he believes to be an incarnation or manifestation of the Word.

In common with many other mystic writers of the time, direct experience of God is called Knowledge or Gnosis of God. The writer also speaks of love, faith, refuge, rest and many other aspects of the devotional, mystic path associated with the Word. All the Odes end with the word 'Hallelujah', which means 'praise the Lord', a common expression of the times that has survived the centuries.

The majority of the metaphors and images used in the Odes also occur in other literature of the period. Like many poets before and since, one of the odist's most frequent devices is to open a poem with an image, and then to expand upon this image in the remainder of the poem.

At times, it is the devotee who speaks, and at others, the odist assumes the voice of the Messiah or Saviour. In some poems, the two alternate, but the poet has left it up to the reader to figure out who is speaking at any particular point or in any particular ode. Sometimes, it could be either. As in John's gospel, Isaiah and many other biblical books, writing in the name of the Saviour, the Word or the Lord himself was a common literary practice of the period.

The meaning of many of the metaphors will usually be clear to the reader, but some will be more obscure than others. The ones that may be the most difficult to appreciate in modern times are those associated with the human body. This imagery is in keeping with the odist's era. The creative Power, for instance, is God's 'Right Hand'; his soul has limbs or 'members' - meaning all parts of his being; souls are also described as God's 'members', being parts of him. The poet's inner attitude of devotion and supplication is described metaphorically as turning his 'face' to God and 'stretching out his arms in prayer'. The soul's fallen condition in this world is described as one of 'sickness'; the soul is 'blind', 'deaf', 'crippled' and 'paralysed', in need of 'healing' and being made to 'stand upright'. The spiritual sustenance that flows from God to the soul is described as milk and honey, the former even being depicted as coming from the 'breasts' of the Lord.

Water, too, is a favourite source of metaphors for the odist. In a hot and arid region of the world, the significance of water to life is readily appreciated. This is the origin of the metaphor, 'Living Water', meaning the creative Power, an expression that can even be traced to Sumerian times of the third millennium BC. To the poet, the Living Water arises from the 'Lord's Spring'. It flows in 'rivers' or falls as 'dew', watering the plant or flowers of his soul. As a result, he 'blossoms' and 'bears fruit'.

Who the author was is unknown. Whether or not he was a direct disciple of Jesus is difficult to say. Perhaps he was, though it is more likely that he was not. For many of the mystical writers of that period, however, Jesus became a kind of new Solomon, so to speak. Set as the focus or lead character of a story, Jesus rapidly became a traditional vehicle for conveying mystic teachings, as in the many apocryphal Acts, gospels and revelations that appeared in the first few centuries of the Christian era.

It is possible, for example, that even John's gospel was written by the disciple of a mystic other than Jesus, and that the writer only used the gospel story - in his own allegorized way - to convey the mystic teachings of the Creative Word or Logos. He also wished to correct some of the misunderstandings that he saw creeping into the nascent Christian religion, and present in the already extant gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. As a number of scholars have pointed out, John's gospel is really an extended discourse on its opening verses concerning the Word or Logos. Hence, the T who speaks as Jesus is speaking - in the words of the author - as an incarnation of the Logos. The majority of the discourses, dialogues and stories were thus not intended to be a historical record of Jesus' actual words and deeds. Some early Christians even believed that John's gospel had been written by the gnostic Cerinthus (fl.c.IOO AD), while others thought that it had been written to refute Cerinthus. Whatever the truth of the matter, it seems certain that the writers of both the Odes and John's gospel were of the same school of thought. They certainly share a similarity of expression, and both imply in their writings that Jesus had been an incarnation of the Logos. But whether Jesus was actually their Master, or they were just using the dawning Christian tradition as a literary vehicle remains open to debate.

Some help is required to appreciate the depths hidden in the ancient imagery of the Odes. Yet this needs to be done without intrusion into their intrinsic atmosphere or mood, since the nature of the divine and mystic love expressed in these odes is often of a sublime character. I have experimented with a number of ways of providing this assistance. In the end, I have opted for an introductory summary of the ode's main features, together with a mirror, a parallel or a paraphrase of the ode in modern English. The parallel also contains extracts from allied biblical and other literature of the period. The intention is to illuminate the meaning without the heaviness of definitive explanation.

These parallels should be taken as personal interpretations only, as a help to the reader, not as definitions of the whole meaning. Good poetry such as the Odes simultaneously conveys a colourful spectrum of hidden, subtle meanings that vanish as soon as the attempt is made to capture them. Sunshine cannot be caught in a bottle. The Odes will also strike each person differently, the impact varying according to their mood and bent of mind. This is the power of poetic imagery, and is another reason why I have avoided direct explanation.

To my mind, therefore, a good way to enjoy the Odes might be to read the original, to seek assistance from the summary and parallel to understand any obscurities, and then to reflect upon the meanings and the images as they come into one's mind. I would also suggest proceeding at a slow pace, maybe taking just one or two odes at a time. The Odes are too rich to be hurried through.
--Davidson, John (2004). The Odes of Solomon: Mystical Songs from the Time of Jesus. Clear Press Ltd. ISBN 978-1-904555-06-3.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by Irish1975 »

“from the time of Jesus,” hmmm.

They’re generally dated to ~125 CE. To call that the time of Jesus is an interesting choice.
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by dbz »

davidmartin wrote: Wed May 24, 2023 11:19 pm There's a couple of things maybe are hellenistic, or jewish takes on hellenism maybe, in them (eg as above, so below... the claim that nothing is really below, its an illusion, everything is above and to think the things below are real is an illusion based on ignorance)
I can picture some devotees being initiated to the inner circle mysteries. Which now supersedes their previous reality of the spirit being imprisoned on Earth and trying to escape and reunite with the monad. Being told this previous riffing on Middle Platonism is a "noble lie" based on baby stepping the unsophisticated outer circle towards enlightenment, a propaganda for the public. Now the truth for the "mature" is .. the personal self is an illusion, a perceived separation from the monad is is an illusion, the I is everything and everything is I, no seeking is required.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by GakuseiDon »

mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 amThanks Don, nice exercise

You start the post explaining very well that you have an impression of what the entire situation ought to be, and then begin reading - with predictable results
Well, if I'm right, the results will be predictable also. If I'm wrong, hopefully you'll be able to point out where I'm wrong. If it can go either way, that would be useful to know as well. I would like to know your own interpretation of what is happening in the logia.
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 am6. The father could be any father or Father, you have nothing in the text to go on for supporting your claim
In fact, it doesn't matter. My point is that the author refers to "Chrestians" as "we", and seem to suggest that "we" came after Christ came:

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.

Compare that to his later statement: "For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us."

"We"/"us" are Chrestians AND Christians. And that is consistent with what we see in the Gospels: baptism first, then anointing with chrism. I'll expand on that below.

What do you think of the apparent timing for when "we" Chrestians gained a father in Logion 6? Do you agree that "we" Chrestians came about as a result of Christ coming?
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 am53. Trembling can occur for many reasons, let's stick to the possible ones: admiration, fear, awe - it's an extreme physical reaction of the body, but that says nothing about what drives it; likewise for crying, for example. You have nothing in the text to go on for supporting your claim
True. That's why I went to Justin Martyr and Tertuliian, near contemporaries. The GoP author, IMHO, is playing up on the 'fear' that pagans felt at the name, such that they complained about being persecuted for the name.

Why do you think pagans were trembling at the words "I am a Chrestian"? And what do you use in the text to support that claim?
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 am63. Calling yourself something different has echoes in the gospels? Using the name Chrestian has echoes in the gospels?

Baptism in the name of the father, son and spirit-that-is-pure can allow someone to call himself Chrestian if - and only if - he has received the spirit-that-is-pure. If one hasn't but uses the name anyway, he'll get cut.
The chrism comes (much?) later, and shares a slightly similar protocol: nothing needs to be received, but after the chrism one is allowed to call himself Christian - no repercussions for anything
Yes, that is so. Those names are being used from the GoP author's perspective. These are the echoes in the Gospels I mean. First, from GoP:

"The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber."

This follows a theme that arguably plays out in the Gospels: Jesus was baptised, then "anointed with chrism" (crucified), then became the eucharist, and finally ended up in the bridal chamber, whatever that means. That's the path laid out by the GoP author for his Christians. But the name "Christian" doesn't come with baptism:

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...
...
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".


I don't think that can be any clearer personally. From the GoP author's perspective, those Christians who have only been baptised are "Chrestians". It may only be the author's in-group that called themselves that (i.e. those in-group members who have been baptised but not yet undergone the 'anointed with chrism' process), but I think it is reasonable that they might also have referred to other groups of Christians in the same way.

I'm not saying my reading is a slam-dunk by any means. I do think it is consistent internally, which lends weight to my reading. So if you think I'm wrong on any of it, please let me know why. Please quote GoP as well to show me where I am wrong.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:06 am I hope people found my analysis above interesting, even if not convincing!
It seems convincing to me.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 4:24 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 amThanks Don, nice exercise

You start the post explaining very well that you have an impression of what the entire situation ought to be, and then begin reading - with predictable results
Well, if I'm right, the results will be predictable also. If I'm wrong, hopefully you'll be able to point out where I'm wrong. If it can go either way, that would be useful to know as well. I would like to know your own interpretation of what is happening in the logia.
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 am6. The father could be any father or Father, you have nothing in the text to go on for supporting your claim
In fact, it doesn't matter. My point is that the author refers to "Chrestians" as "we", and seem to suggest that "we" came after Christ came:

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.

Compare that to his later statement: "For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the apostles, and the apostles anointed us."

"We"/"us" are Chrestians AND Christians. And that is consistent with what we see in the Gospels: baptism first, then anointing with chrism. I'll expand on that below.

What do you think of the apparent timing for when "we" Chrestians gained a father in Logion 6? Do you agree that "we" Chrestians came about as a result of Christ coming?
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 am53. Trembling can occur for many reasons, let's stick to the possible ones: admiration, fear, awe - it's an extreme physical reaction of the body, but that says nothing about what drives it; likewise for crying, for example. You have nothing in the text to go on for supporting your claim
True. That's why I went to Justin Martyr and Tertuliian, near contemporaries. The GoP author, IMHO, is playing up on the 'fear' that pagans felt at the name, such that they complained about being persecuted for the name.

Why do you think pagans were trembling at the words "I am a Chrestian"? And what do you use in the text to support that claim?
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 8:00 am63. Calling yourself something different has echoes in the gospels? Using the name Chrestian has echoes in the gospels?

Baptism in the name of the father, son and spirit-that-is-pure can allow someone to call himself Chrestian if - and only if - he has received the spirit-that-is-pure. If one hasn't but uses the name anyway, he'll get cut.
The chrism comes (much?) later, and shares a slightly similar protocol: nothing needs to be received, but after the chrism one is allowed to call himself Christian - no repercussions for anything
Yes, that is so. Those names are being used from the GoP author's perspective. These are the echoes in the Gospels I mean. First, from GoP:

"The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber."

This follows a theme that arguably plays out in the Gospels: Jesus was baptised, then "anointed with chrism" (crucified), then became the eucharist, and finally ended up in the bridal chamber, whatever that means. That's the path laid out by the GoP author for his Christians. But the name "Christian" doesn't come with baptism:

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...
...
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".


I don't think that can be any clearer personally. From the GoP author's perspective, those Christians who have only been baptised are "Chrestians". It may only be the author's in-group that called themselves that (i.e. those in-group members who have been baptised but not yet undergone the 'anointed with chrism' process), but I think it is reasonable that they might also have referred to other groups of Christians in the same way.

I'm not saying my reading is a slam-dunk by any means. I do think it is consistent internally, which lends weight to my reading. So if you think I'm wrong on any of it, please let me know why. Please quote GoP as well to show me where I am wrong.
From Chrestian to Christian - Philip beyond the grave contains my analysis of these pivotal XS/XRS / Chrestian / Christian logia in Philip
Post Reply