Chrestians/Christians?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians? Xristos and Xrhstos in NT and LXX

Post by mlinssen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 2:39 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 9:50 pm But love your enemies, do good [to them] , and lend [to them] , expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

Be kind [and] tender-hearted to one another, forgiving each other just as in Christ God forgave you.
Good point. The word "kind" does cover more of the uses of the word.
Don't forget to skim Justin as well:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10526

and

viewtopic.php?p=152352#p152352

χρηστ as a search should do the trick

Then we have the NT, Greek:

viewtopic.php?p=136892#p136892

With a full elaboration on that, as well as Xristos:

viewtopic.php?p=139563#p139563

A fair amount of χρηστὸς in the LXX as well:

viewtopic.php?p=132090#p132090

And then we have the marvellous nomen sacrum for XS in the LXX that is meant to convey the sense of 'anointed' and if on post with the Hebrew for Messiah, going by the MT - IIUC

viewtopic.php?p=151684#p151684

Oh and do note that none of these gets "confused" with xreistos, xreistos, or xristos - yet it would be very interesting to go by INTF and have a look at the variants
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians? Xristos and Xrhstos in NT and LXX

Post by dbz »

mlinssen wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:25 am And then we have the marvellous nomen sacrum for XS in the LXX that is meant to convey the sense of 'anointed' and if on post with the Hebrew for Messiah, going by the MT - IIUC

viewtopic.php?p=151684#p151684
mlinssen wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:35 pm Καὶ ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ἐπικεχυμένου ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ ἐλαίου τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ τετελειωμένου ἐνδύσασθαι τὰ ἱμάτια, τὴν κεφαλὴν οὐκ ἀποκιδαρώσει καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια οὐ διαρρήξει,

The priest who is highest among his brothers, who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair hang loose or tear his garments

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

κα[ι] ο ϊερευϲ ο μεγαϲ
απο̣ των αδελφω
αυτου του επικε
χυμε̣[ν]ου επι τη̣ν
κεφ[α]λ̣ην του ελαι
ου τ̣ο̣υ χυ

Alexandrinus: left page second column line 10 from the top

https://images.csntm.org/IIIFServer.ash ... native.jpg
CSNTM Image Id: 142304 Location: London, British Library CSNTM Image Name: GA_02_0072b.jpg

(...) και ο ιερευσ ο µεγασ
απο των αδελφων αυτου του
επικεχυµενου επι την κεφα
λην του ελαιου του χριστου
  • Does anointing always abbreviate as χυ, χν, χω when it is abbreviated? But not as Χς, i.e. XS in the LXX.
Proper noun
Χριστού • (Christoú) m
  • Genitive form of Χριστός (Christós).

"Χριστού". Wiktionary. 12 July 2022.
Χριστόν • (Christón) m
  • form of Χριστός (Christós).

"Χριστόν". Wiktionary. 12 July 2022.
χρῑ́ω • (khrī́ō)
  1. to smear with [+dative = something], rub [+dative = something] on something; to anoint with olive oil
  2. (middle) to anoint oneself, usually with olive oil
  3. (biblical, in the Septuagint) to anoint someone ceremonially to consecrate them as king, priest, etc.

"χρίω". Wiktionary. 18 March 2023.
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by dbz »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:13 am Do you have any idea whether this specific nomina sacra in the "LXX" for the anointed one shows up in other Greek manuscripts, early or late?
  • I also wonder about the LXX MSS timeline per the appearances of χυ, χν, χω, etc.. Is it correct that said appearances always appear in MSS dated before any MSS that use the complete spelling?
mlinssen wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:01 pm [T]his is all costing oceans of time.
[...]
So what am I saying? I'm saying that the NT is "a true inheritance", and the LXX evidently PRODUCED after that: no one can look at the previous examples in Sinaiticus and claim that that literally says what it should say, that literal text is just as anachronistic as the TF is, it never can have existed in that exact way

And what we find in SInaiticus essentially is identical to what we see in Kenyon's Chester Beatty Biblical Papyrus V (TM 61934 / LDAB 3091 / Rahlfs 963): Numbers and Deuteronomy, try-outs with nomina sacra, and most importntly assigning Joshua of Nun the name of IHS. And the funny thing is that this must have been an early experiment, as they still used IHS instead of IS

viewtopic.php?p=150146#p150146
  • So the possibilities are..
Our extant LXX MSS derive from an IS XS devotee(s) of the NT, whom:
  1. from the ground up translated the Jewish scriptures
  2. sourced previously translated Jewish scriptures
  3. some combination of the first two
and added idiosyncratic emendations that would likely be associated with an IS XS devotee(s) of the NT.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrestians/Christians? Xristos and Xrhstos in NT and LXX

Post by mlinssen »

dbz wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 10:45 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:25 am And then we have the marvellous nomen sacrum for XS in the LXX that is meant to convey the sense of 'anointed' and if on post with the Hebrew for Messiah, going by the MT - IIUC

viewtopic.php?p=151684#p151684
mlinssen wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 12:35 pm Καὶ ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας ἀπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ἐπικεχυμένου ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ ἐλαίου τοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ τετελειωμένου ἐνδύσασθαι τὰ ἱμάτια, τὴν κεφαλὴν οὐκ ἀποκιδαρώσει καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια οὐ διαρρήξει,

The priest who is highest among his brothers, who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair hang loose or tear his garments

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu ... omSlider=0

κα[ι] ο ϊερευϲ ο μεγαϲ
απο̣ των αδελφω
αυτου του επικε
χυμε̣[ν]ου επι τη̣ν
κεφ[α]λ̣ην του ελαι
ου τ̣ο̣υ χυ

Alexandrinus: left page second column line 10 from the top

https://images.csntm.org/IIIFServer.ash ... native.jpg
CSNTM Image Id: 142304 Location: London, British Library CSNTM Image Name: GA_02_0072b.jpg

(...) και ο ιερευσ ο µεγασ
απο των αδελφων αυτου του
επικεχυµενου επι την κεφα
λην του ελαιου του χριστου
  • Does anointing always abbreviate as χυ, χν, χω when it is abbreviated? But not as Χς, i.e. XS in the LXX.
Proper noun
Χριστού • (Christoú) m
  • Genitive form of Χριστός (Christós).

"Χριστού". Wiktionary. 12 July 2022.
Χριστόν • (Christón) m
  • form of Χριστός (Christós).

"Χριστόν". Wiktionary. 12 July 2022.
χρῑ́ω • (khrī́ō)
  1. to smear with [+dative = something], rub [+dative = something] on something; to anoint with olive oil
  2. (middle) to anoint oneself, usually with olive oil
  3. (biblical, in the Septuagint) to anoint someone ceremonially to consecrate them as king, priest, etc.

"χρίω". Wiktionary. 18 March 2023.
Greek, like Latin, Russian, German and quite a few other pesky languages knows declensions: nominative, genetive, dative, accusative (, ablative for Latin, I believe Russian has even 6 o' 'm)

The verbs have conjugations along with that so for every tense you have 2 times 4 forms (singular & plural). That's why some half-brain invented English so even the stoopidest idiot can speak and write it - oh wait, then the Americans came LOL

So the answer to your question is no, any word in Greek gets declined although there are special cases in our case, in the NT, where e.g. Iakobos staus the same which is a grammatical error if you'd want to nitpick - but an exception it is for sure
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Chrestians/Christians? Xristos and Xrhstos in NT and LXX

Post by dbz »

mlinssen wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 2:23 pm That's why some half-brain invented English so even the stoopidest idiot can speak and write it - oh wait, then the Americans came LOL
  • ZING
What will they rename next, in response to that gibe? stoopidest waffles :cheeky:
Image
On March 11, 2003, Republican U.S. . . . change[d] all references to French fries and French toast on menus, and replace them with Freedom fries and Freedom toast, respectively.
"Freedom fries". Wikipedia. 13 March 2023.
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 18, 2023 6:53 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 4:29 amTertullian points to the mispronunciation but he makes clear that the underlying words are two different ones: from Xristos, anointed, and Xrhstos, good.
Martyr counts himself among the Chrestians and doesn't even talk of Xristos in that context, he just makes a case for Chrestians being called that way because of the word Xrhstos - and, very importantly, even spelled it like that although the 14th CE MS says Christians.
But the pivotal point is that he talks about an "us Chrestians"
Justin is making a pun by meaning "us excellent people" since the pagans were calling them "Chrestians". Tertullian supports that view as far as I can see.
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 4:29 amAnd the takeaway from that all is that Chrestians preceded Christians, which in fact is my case. Philip loudly attests to that
I looked through your 41 page pdf "From Chrestian to Christian: Philip beyond the grave" and compared it with the Gospel of Philip.

I take your point about the use of "Chrestian" being used throughout, but I see something else going on, based on the content of the Gospel of Philip. I'll note that I have no knowledge of the ancient language involved nor have I studied the Gospel of Philip.

It seems to me that the author refers to Christians who are baptised as "Chrestians". There is a higher level for Christians to be obtained: that of "Christ", which is done through the application of "chrism", the oil of anointing. The author seems to me to take this as a metaphorical application as much as a literal one. The metaphorical application is anointing through light and fire and death. Those anointed become Christ.

So: Baptised = "Chrestian"; Anointed with chrism: "Christian", with the latter being associated with resurrection and death, though not in a literal sense.

Snippets from the Gospel of Philip:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... hilip.html

It is through water and fire that the whole place is purified - the visible by the visible, the hidden by the hidden. There are some things hidden through those visible. There is water in water, there is fire in chrism.
...
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.
...
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.
...
The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber.
...
Philip the apostle said, "Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross." But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.
...
Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way. There is a rebirth and an image of rebirth. It is certainly necessary to be born again through the image. Which one? Resurrection. The image must rise again through the image. The bridal chamber and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. 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.
...
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.
...
As long as it is hidden, wickedness is indeed ineffectual, but it has not been removed from the midst of the seed of the Holy Spirit. They are slaves of evil. But when it is revealed, then the perfect light will flow out on every one. And all those who are in it will receive the chrism.

My conclusion:

1. Justin Martyr and Tertullian tell us that Christians were being called "Chrestians" by the pagans. They point to it meaning something like "the excellent" or "pleasing". Justin joked that he himself was an excellent person.

2. The author of GoP seems to use "Chrestian" in relation to those who have been baptised. He doesn't draw any negative connotations from the term. However pagans who hear the term "Chrestian" being used "will tremble".

3. The author claims that there is baptism and there is chrism. "Chrism" is the oil used for anointing, though he also describes it metaphorically as "fire" and "light". It is metaphorically derived from the cross on which Christ was crucified.

4. The chrism is superior to baptism. Those who have been anointed by chrism are "Christians". From this, I infer that those who have not been anointed but have been baptised are being called "Chrestians".
GakuseiDon wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 2:51 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 11:18 pm
1. Justin Martyr and Tertullian tell us that FOLLOWERS OF IS XS were being called "Chrestians" by the PEOPLE. They point to it meaning something like "the excellent" or "pleasing" WHICH PRECISELY IS THE MEANING OF XRHSTOS - AND CERTAINLY NOT XRISTOS.
Sure, but as Tertullian writes, when they use XRHSTOS, they are using a faulty pronunciation:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html

The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. 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.

That is the implication in Justin Martyr also, since in his Second Apology, Justin writes that "Christ" is in reference to him being "anointed":
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed...

If there was a separate group of "Chrestians" who were being persecuted for being called "Chrestians", then I'd expect "Christians" to want to be separated from them in the public's mind! And vice versa. But Justin Martyr and Tertullian see both terms as applying to a single group, as far as I can tell.
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 11:18 pm4. The chrism is superior to baptism. Those who have been anointed by chrism are "Christians". From this, I infer that those who have not been anointed but have been baptised are being called "Chrestians". AS LONG AS THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT, YES
Doesn't that collapse your theory though? Like Justin Martyr and Tertullian, the author of the Gospel of Philip doesn't seem to be suggesting there are two separate groups. Rather, there is at least a two-stage process:

(1) Baptism, which makes one "Chrestian" ("good" people?)

(2) Chrism, the anointing oil, which makes one "Christian". As the author 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"."
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 11:18 pm
I keep away from gnostic writings because they are headache inducing texts. I could be entirely wrong about the above. There are probably layers of complexity behind the writer's views that I am missing. But my conclusion is that the author is expressing a gnostic view that there is more to being a "Christian" than just baptism.
Your last sentence doesn't make sense: how is that view gnostic?
Because the author seems to identify levels of initiation:

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

One progresses from a baptism, to a chrism, etc. At the end is the bridal chamber, which seems to have been a mystery within gnosticism. The author writes:

Indeed, one must utter a mystery. The Father of everything united with the virgin who came down, and a fire shone for him on that day. He appeared in the great bridal chamber. Therefore his body came into being on that very day. It left the bridal chamber as one who came into being from the bridegroom and the bride. So Jesus established everything in it through these. It is fitting for each of the disciples to enter into his rest.

Those are gnostic concepts. Given the author also uses terms like "Aeon" and "Pleroma", the Gospel of Philip seems to be a gnostic text.

If these are stages of initiation, then a Chrestian is someone who has been baptised but not anointed. The person who is anointed becomes a Christ, and therefore can call themselves a Christian. The final stage is to reach the bridal chamber where they can rest.

The author is clear about the progression from baptism ("Chrestian") to chrism ("Christian"):

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.
...
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.
...
But you saw something of that place, and you became those things. You saw the Spirit, you became spirit. You saw Christ, you became Christ. You saw the Father, you shall become Father...
...
And again when he leaves the world, he has already received the truth in the images. The world has become the Aeon (eternal realm), for the Aeon is fullness (Pleroma) for him. This is the way it is: it is revealed to him alone, not hidden in the darkness and the night, but hidden in a perfect day and a holy light.

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 4:02 pm
dbz wrote: Fri May 19, 2023 11:05 amIt seems to me that the bonâ fide devotee receives the first i.e. proto-gnosis upon baptism. The devotee can then expect to receive superior gnosis later.

Likely this proto-gnosis was a psychological acceptance of the dyad as a redeemer of said devotee. The devotee is thus willing to accept but not necessarily willing to suffer!
Yes, that seems to be the progression AFAICT. To become a "Christ"ian, one must be anointed with chrism, which is a product of the tree upon which the crucifixion took place. This is consistent with the idea that to be a "Christian" one must become a Christ, and presumably suffer in some metaphorical way.

The more I look at GoP, the more I think that the author is using "Chrestians" to refer to the orthodox Christians. They've received the baptism, but haven't suffered to become Christ.

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

Surely that is consistent with the beliefs of the orthodox Christians of that time, around the end of the Second Century CE?

On the chrism:

Philip the apostle said, "Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross." But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.

So: the father, a carpenter, planted the tree of life upon which his son was crucified. It is from the tree that we get the chrism, and thus, the resurrection. The Demiurge is often represented as a carpenter, though GoP doesn't appear to have the Good God and Ignorant God duality seen in some gnostic texts.

Also:

In the place where I will eat all things is the Tree of Knowledge. That one killed Adam, but here the Tree of Knowledge made men alive. The law was the tree. It has power to give the knowledge of good and evil. It neither removed him from evil, nor did it set him in the good, but it created death for those who ate of it. For when he said, "Eat this, do not eat that", it became the beginning of death.

The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil are themes that often pop up in gnostic texts IIRC.

Anyway: my best guess is that the author is using "Chrestian" to refer to orthodox Christians who have been baptised; and "Christian" to refer to those Christians who have been anointed with chrism, i.e. some kind of suffering or knowledge or perfect understanding that makes them into a Christ.
GakuseiDon wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 12:41 am I agree that we need to be careful of the difference between "early" and "orthodox". But FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GoP AUTHOR: he/she seems to believe that his/her version of Christianity was there from the beginning:

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.

So the author believes that his/her Christianity was there from the start. And that includes the Chrestians. There was no "Chrestians first, and then Christians". There was always "Christians", and from the very start. But it just so happens to some "Chrestians", Christians who have been baptised but not anointed with chrism. I argue that these include those Christians whom in the GoP author's time were "orthodox" Christians.

I hope that clarifies my thinking there.
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.
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 3:06 am
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!
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.
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 9:06 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 7:55 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 4:24 pmI'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
Yes, I've read through it, thanks. It doesn't answer the questions I have above though, IFAICS. I'm happy to go through your key logia one-by-one. Can we start by looking at Logion 6, please? My question is at the end:
________________________________
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: Fri May 26, 2023 9:08 pm 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
GakuseiDon wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:30 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 9:08 pmXS 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"?
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 3:09 pm
billd89 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 5:09 pm
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".
Thanks again to GakuseiDon for figuring out this part of the Gospel of Philip here and patiently explaining it.

And thanks to Martijn for this data and his paper: https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:02 pmThanks again to GakuseiDon for figuring out this part of the Gospel of Philip here and patiently explaining it.
No worries. I'll remind everyone I have no knowledge of ancient languages, so I'm working on English translations. Also, while I think my analysis makes sense, it is also based on little data. If my analysis is on the right track, then I'd predict that where a text refers to "chrism", then we are more likely to find the term "Chrestian".
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: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:53 pm If my analysis is on the right track, then I'd predict that where a text refers to "chrism", then we are more likely to find the term "Chrestian".
Why's that?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by davidmartin »

in light of this doesn't "Christ" have the meaning of 'annointed' rather than a messianic reading?
which makes the difference between Chrestian and Christian rather slight... except when given a different spin

is this right - originally there was the concept of the messiah (Christ in Greek) which came to represent the stock king messiah
but in Christianity this concept is on an anointed man which for all we know maybe was an alternative concept of the messiah previously

the odes seem to be connecting the 2 concepts together with the christian concept primary, but of course there the messiah fulfills the prophecies in his life - no second coming needed, cause isreal hasn't been destroyed by the 2 wars yet...
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:00 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:53 pm If my analysis is on the right track, then I'd predict that where a text refers to "chrism", then we are more likely to find the term "Chrestian".
Why's that?
My analysis is: for the GoP gnostics, "Chrestian" = Christians who had been baptised only.

"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."

That would include proto-orthodox Christians who had been baptised, or any other group of Christians who hadn't undergone the rite of "chrism".

Whereas, "Christian" = anointed with "chrism" (whatever that entails.)

"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."

If that's the case, then other gnostic texts might have followed the same pattern.
Post Reply