Chrestians/Christians?

[Ken Olson]

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

This is nonsensical

Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ, Messiah, 'anointed one'.

[dbz]

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...

And virtually indistinguishable to any out group, except those who were predisposed to using the concept of ritual christing like Jews, mystery religion devotees, etc.

[davidmartin]

What I mean is the concept of the messiah
it can = an earthly king who liberates Isreal and spreads the knowledge of God over the world, inaugurating a reign of peace
this is how I hear rabbi's speak of the messiah and it seems to have been the same in the late 2nd temple period

but Christianity introduces a different concept to this under the term 'Christ' - which is etymologically the same as the Hebrew word Messiah - but the concepts differ, even though the word is the same and the Christian term makes much of the anointing aspect

So... if Chrest relates to an anointing chrism and Christ in the Christian definition relates to his anointing then these two are almost interchangeable - and it seems they were going by this thread, yet developed certain nuances that ML is trying to untangled

The point about the Odes is that the Christian concept of Christ is found in them + many of the aspects of the Judaic Christ who needs no second coming to fulfill them

[dbz]

The point about the Odes is that the Christian concept of Christ is found in them...

Paul's concept of Christ appears to be in the context of ritual christing sans any Jewish implication of the term.

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

  When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”
  
  (p. 32–33)

  ---

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

  Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see:
  • Godfrey, Neil. "Christ Among the Messiahs (Novenson)". Vridar.
  • N.B. For all we know, Paul's Lord, IS XS may of actually been "Lord Redeemer the Chrism Bringer".
  • The Greek Septuagint may be reliant on the terminology of Paul's Lord, IS XS.

  [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.

[davidmartin]

It would be interesting to see the Pauline references (allusions as well) to the Jewish messiah idea
I found maybe a couple, there's one in Romans. So far I'm left feeling it isn't a big part of his sales pitch or an afterthought
It's interesting the odes seem to more clearly refer to the messiah's role than paul does
which dovetails into their dating... to proclaim the age of peace has come prior to the roman/jewish wars is one thing, but to do so afterwards is impossible.. and the odes do specifically refer to the geography of Isreal here
maybe it's possible to put it like this:
Jesus isn't the messiah (as you expect him), the messiah is Jesus (not as expected)
both the odes and paul have that in common before they go their separate ways?

[Ken Olson]

Tertullian 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.

And 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".

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.

Sorry to be so late in commenting on this, GakuseiDon, but I think it's a really good post. I wonder if I might suggest a possibility on the interpretation of this bit:

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.

I'm not sure Baptism and the reception of the Chrism are separate rituals. I think the author might be saying that some who undergo Baptism really receive the Holy Spirit (the Chrism) during the ritual, while others do not, hence the Christs and the Chrestians.

As a modern analogy, I know some Christians who argue that apostates from Christianity never really received the holy spirit even though they went through the ritual of Baptism, so apparently they think there are dud Baptisms.

Best,

Ken

[dbz]

I'm not sure Baptism and the reception of the Chrism are separate rituals.

101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called Christic(s,and) not because of the Baptism. And (he) was called the Christ because of the Chrism.

---

"Philip 101". metalogos.org.

98. ...the olive tree, from the heart of which the Chrism came...

---

"Philip 98". metalogos.org.

[Ken Olson]

I'm not sure Baptism and the reception of the Chrism are separate rituals.

101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called Christic(s,and) not because of the Baptism. And (he) was called the Christ because of the Chrism.

---

"Philip 101". metalogos.org.

98. ...the olive tree, from the heart of which the Chrism came...

---

"Philip 98". metalogos.org.

Sorry I haven't responded to this and it demands a fuller answer than I can give right now.

I don't think the first quotation undermines the point I was making. I am understanding receiving the Chrism as the same as receiving the Holy Spirit during Baptism - some of those who are Baptized do not receive the Holy Spirit, but others do.

ETA: On this reading, the ritual would be a Baptism for all participants, but a Chrism for only some. But the Chrism is the more important ('Lord over the Baptism') and the part from which the group takes their name.

The second quotation undermines my point if we understand it to be saying that the Chrism is a physical anointing with olive oil. That is a plausible reading of the text, so I may be wrong.

A fuller answer would involve looking at all the uses of Chrism in the Gospel of Philip and then at canonical parallels (in John's Baptism with water as opposed Jesus' Baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire) and then at the concept of participation in Christ through Baptism in Paul (especially Gal 2 and Rom 6 - maybe a bit of 1 Cor 6 as well). Unfortunately, i don't have time to write out the analysis at the moment. Too much else gong on.

If I am indeed wrong about Baptism and Chrism not being separate rituals, I would still agree with GakuseiDon's observation that GPhilip seems to be very close to orthodox Christianity on a great deal Perhaps we might say they have shared foundations in Baptism and the Holy Spirit, but GPhilp has additional doctrines not documented (or are they) in orthodox Christianity.

Best,

Ken