Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2705
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Jesus the Chrest - Nomina Sacra in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:18 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2022 10:36 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 10:59 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:13 pm https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus ... di_Library

Jesus the Chrest - Nomina Sacra in the Nag Hammadi Library

////

There is a giant abundance of Chrest and Chrestians in Coptic texts when it is compared to the gaping void of Christ and Christians - and the exact same holds true for Greek texts. And Latin ones - but I'll take Traube's word on the latter, I have done enough for one week I think
Yes quite a comprehensive study !! One which should get people thinking outside the square of itacism which cannot explain the distribution and pattern of the evidence as documented in your review.

Something else is needed to explain Chrestos and Chrestians prior to the monopoly business of Christos and the Christians. Whatever that explanation will be must also make sense of the Gospel of Philip where the terms are EXPLICITLY mixed. Itacism cannot cut it.

This is IMO some form of scribal convention where Chrestos dominates the manuscripts inside and outside the NHL. Chrestos already had its root in the Hellenistic world and if the story books of the canonical gospels and the gospels of Thomas and Philip were circulating in the world of the first four centuries, it was a strange scene of "Hidden Codes". Why write a book using runes? What were the meanings behind the scribal runes? What were they thinking? What was the religio-political environment?

The data has been collected. Now it must be explained.
Thanks Pete, agreed to all that but I'll disagree with the latter.

All we need to do is use it to demonstrate the obvious Churchian takeover of Chrestianity
I am at a loss here because I can't see how anyone can demonstrate anything until they can explain what that thing is. I must admit that IDK what "Chrestianity" was. At the moment to me this stuff remains a paradox.

The term "Churchian takeover" needs to be defined and IMO specific with some possible reference to the political history of Constantine's Supreme Rule (325-337) and with reference to the Christian Revolution of the 4th century (325-381 CE)
- the idle and futile attempt of trying to find the meaning behind XS and XRHSTOS will not help us there
I disagree that the attempt of trying to find the meaning behind XS and XRHSTOS is futile. I can agree that is often idle. But not always. You have not been idle. Scholarship is faced with a dilemma IMO. They do not have any general theory for these "nomina sacra". You have dug these runes out of the Nag
There is only one primary goal
My primary goal (as an investigator) is to ask questions. What is yours?
To provide answers, of course
Any idiot can ask questions

Oh wait
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Questions have to be asked before they are answered.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning." (Albert E.)

I am leaning towards the answer of "Why Chrestos" in terms of a story book all about "Jesus the Good" and the Twelve Really Good Guys and the very important "Good News". Perhaps the first Christian stories were all simply just Good Chrestian stories for the masses? Everyone in antiquity could have understood the Good and Divine Hero. This could have been in any century 1, 2, 3 or early 4th.

Some time later the church industry wanted to get rid of this simplistic and transparent invention of "Jesus the Good [Chrestos]" and decided to ramp up the Christos Story as the Registered Trade Mark of the canonical books with a Patent Pending. The time period for this Business Model Shift seems to be from the mid 4th century onwards. In fact if I were able to place a wager on the source for this development I would back the Latin church industry which came into existence with Damasus and his pupil Jerome's Vulgate. Here (as far as I am aware) in the Latin, Jesus as IS becomes IHS and Chrestos as XS becomes XRS.

Of course the chronology here assumes the standard hypothetical chronology for the three great Greek codices and for Bezae. But this could be wrong by many centuries, which pushes the timeframe towards the early middle ages.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2705
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:20 pm Questions have to be asked before they are answered.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning." (Albert E.)

I am leaning towards the answer of "Why Chrestos" in terms of a story book all about "Jesus the Good" and the Twelve Really Good Guys and the very important "Good News". Perhaps the first Christian stories were all simply just Good Chrestian stories for the masses? Everyone in antiquity could have understood the Good and Divine Hero. This could have been in any century 1, 2, 3 or early 4th.

Some time later the church industry wanted to get rid of this simplistic and transparent invention of "Jesus the Good [Chrestos]" and decided to ramp up the Christos Story as the Registered Trade Mark of the canonical books with a Patent Pending. The time period for this Business Model Shift seems to be from the mid 4th century onwards. In fact if I were able to place a wager on the source for this development I would back the Latin church industry which came into existence with Damasus and his pupil Jerome's Vulgate. Here (as far as I am aware) in the Latin, Jesus as IS becomes IHS and Chrestos as XS becomes XRS.

Of course the chronology here assumes the standard hypothetical chronology for the three great Greek codices and for Bezae. But this could be wrong by many centuries, which pushes the timeframe towards the early middle ages.
And yet you assert that the Chrestus texts were fabricated by the Church after they had patented theirs?
The Latin has Christianos, at least Bezae has - why would they create Greek Christian MSS with Chrestianos and Chrestianos after that?
And why create apocryphal texts with Chrestos after even that?

What is your theory now, that the fabrications by the Church actually were reflections of earlier writings but just more, errrr, fabricated?!
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2103
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 11:28 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:20 pm Questions have to be asked before they are answered.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning." (Albert E.)

I am leaning towards the answer of "Why Chrestos" in terms of a story book all about "Jesus the Good" and the Twelve Really Good Guys and the very important "Good News". Perhaps the first Christian stories were all simply just Good Chrestian stories for the masses? Everyone in antiquity could have understood the Good and Divine Hero. This could have been in any century 1, 2, 3 or early 4th.

Some time later the church industry wanted to get rid of this simplistic and transparent invention of "Jesus the Good [Chrestos]" and decided to ramp up the Christos Story as the Registered Trade Mark of the canonical books with a Patent Pending. The time period for this Business Model Shift seems to be from the mid 4th century onwards. In fact if I were able to place a wager on the source for this development I would back the Latin church industry which came into existence with Damasus and his pupil Jerome's Vulgate. Here (as far as I am aware) in the Latin, Jesus as IS becomes IHS and Chrestos as XS becomes XRS.

Of course the chronology here assumes the standard hypothetical chronology for the three great Greek codices and for Bezae. But this could be wrong by many centuries, which pushes the timeframe towards the early middle ages.
And yet you assert that the Chrestus texts were fabricated by the Church after they had patented theirs?
No since the Chrestos Greek texts (325 CE) preceded the Christos Latin texts (380 CE). The Trade Marks and Patents were sought by the Latin Church industry because their PETER-WAS-HERE-IN-ROME business model was so lucrative.
The Latin has Christianos, at least Bezae has - why would they create Greek Christian MSS with Chrestianos and Chrestianos after that?
The empire split. The church industry of Byzantine East continued with and preserved the Greek. The church industry of the west continued with and preserved the Latin. They went their separate ways for a while.
And why create apocryphal texts with Chrestos after even that?
The apocryphal texts were not authored by the church industry but rather by another group which might be called the pagan resistance. The authorship of the apocrypha finishes somewhere in the 4th century. Some were preserved by the church (like the Clementines) because they were extremely well devised in the fabrication of intricate details not mentioned in the orthodox gospels etc. But most were burned and placed on the Index of Prohibited Books. The pagan resistance buried what they could before it was all over.
What is your theory now, that the fabrications by the Church actually were reflections of earlier writings but just more, errrr, fabricated?!
I don't know what you mean by that.
Post Reply