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
MrMacSon
Posts: 8093
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 1:44 pm ... changing language as a result of changing pronunciation and spelling in late antiquity ... ie. moves from predominant use of η (eta) and ε (epsilon) to ι (iota) - through use of ει together eg. 'Chrειstianos', etc., - to eventual main use of ι
= a phenomenon called itacism
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Jair wrote: Tue Mar 29, 2022 12:05 pm So I’m a little bit lost as to what people mean when they talk about when it was Chrestianity before Christianity. What does that mean?
imho you have to distinguish few things. MrMacSon has mentioned a lot of it above already.

- there was a serious play on words in Greek (Christos - Chrestus)
- there was probably an ironic play on words in Latin/Greek (Christus – Chrestus, the people mentioned in Annales of Tacitus ???)
- there was change of pronunciation and spelling in Greek (Chreist … – Christ ….)
- there was perhaps some confusion among some writers (Suetonius ???)
- there was perhaps some confusion among some scribes

Pack it all up and have fun with it
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2715
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Chrest vs Christ: why iotacism is a fallacy

Post by mlinssen »

The Gospel of Philip is our most essential witness here:

viewtopic.php?p=129172#p129172

What all the fans of iotacism so very conveniently leave out is the fact that Chrest-xyz is the earliest use of the word - when it's not simply XS or XRS as Lane correctly has stated - and we don't encounter Christ-xyz until the 4th/5th CE at the earliest, save for 1 unique occurrence in P72

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Pap.Bodmer.VIII/0013

The entire Nag Hammadi Library speaks solely of Chrest-xyz, with Philip as the only exception:

viewtopic.php?p=129654#p129654

Iotacism undoubtedly is a thing, and Coptic attests to that in abundance, check e.g.

https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C10993

Yet iotacism can not, does not and will not explain the change from Chrest to Christ (or vice versa, if you like) simply because these are, were, and always have been two existing words at any time

If iotacism were a true explanation then we would e.g. have a word Chrest meaning blahblah and we would see over time that the word would change into Christ and still mean blahblah - but that surely is not the case.
What we do see in the Coptic example above is that we have either i or ei and those are used interchangeably without effecting the meaning of the word.
What we see in the entire Chrest-Christ evolution is that the first centuries predominantly if not solely use the word Chrest, and we don't see the appearance of the word Christ until 4th/5th CE - and after that we don't see any appearance of Chrest, and we find ourselves not only with a new word but also with a new meaning

Needless to say, the whole iotacism fallacy is one of the many feeble attempts to explain away the fact that there was something prior to Christianity, and that such wasn't anything like Judaism, Essenism or whatnot: it was full blown Chrestianity and one could refer to it as Marcionism, Gnosticism or whatever

But wait for a few weeks and I'll have it all spelled out
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Another element to be packaged into all this are the instances (in the letters of John) of the term "AntiChrist" which is always, in the oldest codices, with the iota and never AFAIK as "Antichrest". The mix of the terms in the Gospel of Philip (NHC 2.3) is a new and significant "discovery" also to be unpacked. What does it mean is a good question.

Another good question relates to the actual date of the oldest 3 or 4 Greek NT codices. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, The 4th and 5th centuries are bandied about by church tradition. But hardly authoritative enough. One was found in a church rubbish bin. One was a "gift" to King Charles I of England from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

A C14 date would be of great value. The British Museum won't entertain this atm. What C14 did for the shroud it could also do for these "early codices".
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 15576
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Chrest vs Christ: What does it mean?

Post by Secret Alias »

Itacism.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2715
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chrest vs Christ: Bezae etc and Philip

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:20 am Another element to be packaged into all this are the instances (in the letters of John) of the term "AntiChrist" which is always, in the oldest codices, with the iota and never AFAIK as "Antichrest". The mix of the terms in the Gospel of Philip (NHC 2.3) is a new and significant "discovery" also to be unpacked. What does it mean is a good question.

Another good question relates to the actual date of the oldest 3 or 4 Greek NT codices. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, The 4th and 5th centuries are bandied about by church tradition. But hardly authoritative enough. One was found in a church rubbish bin. One was a "gift" to King Charles I of England from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

A C14 date would be of great value. The British Museum won't entertain this atm. What C14 did for the shroud it could also do for these "early codices".
1) Publishing this coming week so stay tuned.
2) From that very paper:

Codex Vaticanus:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403 Left column, from the bottom, line 5: χρειϲτιανουϲ (Acts 11:26) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426 Left column, from the top, line 11: χρειϲτιανον (Acts 26:28) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: χρειϲτιανοι (1 Peter 4:16)

Codex Vaticanus and "antiChrist":

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:18) Third column, from the bottom, line 14: αντιχρειϲτοι (1 John 2:18). It says χρειϲμα at the bottom of the page https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Left column, from the top, line 11: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:22) https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444 Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: αντιχρ[ε]ιϲτου (1 John 4:3).
There is clearly ample room there, and it should be an epsilon but beware that it's not the letter on the other side of the leaf.
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446 Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (2 John 1:7)

Codex Bezae:

https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/755 και ως συντυχων παρεκαλεσεν ⸆ ελθειν εις αντιοχειαν οιτινες παραγενομενοι ενιαυτον ολον συνεχυθησαν οχλον ϊκανον και τοτε πρωτον εχρηματισεν εν αντιοχεια οι μαθηται χρειστιανοι (⸆ - αυτον is suffixed at the end of the verse) (Acts 11:26)

Codex Sinaiticus:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=18 (1 John 2:18, both counts) - αντιχριϲτοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=22 (1 John 2:22) - αντιχριϲτοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... =4&verse=3 (1 John 4:3) - αντιχριϲτου https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... =1&verse=8 (2 John 1:7) - αντιχριϲτοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 1&verse=26 (Acts 11:26) - χρηϲτιανουϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 6&verse=28 (Acts 26:28) - χρηϲτιανον https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 4&verse=16 (1 Peter 4:16) - χρηϲτιανοϲ

3) The dates are rubbish, yet none of the dates are relevant - precedence is the only thing that counts and only textual criticism is useful there. What use is it to print Shakespeare today and then C14 it?

4) While I'm at it, here's the super-mega-ultra concise version of Philip:

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
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2715
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Jesus the Chrest - Nomina Sacra in the Nag Hammadi Library

Post by mlinssen »

https://www.academia.edu/84288595/Jesus ... di_Library

Jesus the Chrest - Nomina Sacra in the Nag Hammadi Library

We're well under way in the Discussion and as usual I've used it to identify some additional research.
A crude copy and paste of all of it right here, as it is rather explosive - there will be pointers to the Discussion, please ignore. As usual I will publish the Discussion Content after it has ended, but this may be a long ride so here it is

Codex I

4) The Treatise on the Resurrection
I,4: 43.25-50.18
M. L. Peel

43:37 ϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ
Savior, our Lord *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2191
48:19 ⲓⲏⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ
Jesus +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2211
50:1 ϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲏⲥ[...]
Jesus +IS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHS[...]+
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2730

An extreme consistency in the full "our Savior / our Lord Jesus the Chrest", yet like Thomas IS as well as IHS - where Thomas has no Chr?st whatsoever though

5) The Tripartite Tractate
I,5: 51.1-138.27
H. W. Attridge & E. Pagels

87:9 ⲡ ⲭⲥ
“the one to whom prayers have been offered” and “the Christ” +XS+and
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2743
117:15-6 ⲓⲏⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲥ
promise of Jesus +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRS+ was set up, whom we have
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2131
122:19 ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ
every place, the Christ +XRHSTOS+ came for her sake
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2143
132:18 ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲥ
which is in *{the}* Christ +XRS+, <we> escaped from= {*which is in the XRS, did they escape from}*
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2225
132:28 ⲡⲉ ⲭⲥ
*{the}* Christ +XS+ is all in all
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2225
134:13 ⲡⲉ ⲭⲥ
*{the}* Christ +XS+, of whom they thought
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2169
136:1 ⲡⲉ ⲭⲣⲏⲥ
*{the}* Christ +XRHS+ is the one with her
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2132
136:11 ⲡⲉ ⲭ[...]
just as *{the}* Christ +X[...]+ [did] his
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2132

I've copied the entire English sentence for The Tripartite, I'll ask myself why and when I have the answer to that I'll let you know - tedious work that deafens the brain this is!
Do note the little mishap with numbering: the English to the Coptic 117:16 is numbered 117:15, hence why it's also faulty in my previous paper

I have just taken them all, while I was there, and just jotted down the Coptic, saves me (and perhaps you also) some time and it is absolutely objective and neutral, and this way all is fully traceable and verifiable this way, as all my work is and must be.
You'll likely know or notice that this Codex has yet another different setup, what they tried was a 'scriptio continua' English transcription or something, I don't really know.

Do notice the inserted <we> that replaces the <they> somehow; this really needs a deeper study as the escaping here may be a passive.
Do notice the ever so slightly more consistent translation of "the Christ" instead of just Christ, I like to think that Elaine had some say in that LOL. Ah, the things we wish for! And know better about...
Do notice 136:1 which really says XRHS! including superlinear that naturally doesn't cover the whole word; this is an early text and those have either no superlinears or only partial ones

Yes, that is not known to many if any but read logion 55 of my Commentary and you'll eat your heart out, as I have located all Christian and Chrestian staurograms and stirograms (sic) there: 10-14 is the score, and the exact same applies - and seems to suggest that the Codices are placed in chronological order.
But I digress

Well, this is it: all xrhstos from the NHL including "related", and please do realise that I did all this by merely going through the indices: I haven't checked the full 5,000 Brill pages or all the Coptic leaves.
Because I am just one single guy with a 40-hour workweek in IT, which currently is around 50-60 - but that will pass, as everything will

So, any takers? Three posts now that handle these, I have learned over the years that long threads are very unpleasant to handle from a performance point of view, so feel free to start any new one and just point to any of them: there is a time indication below the name of the person who started it, you can copy that link address and paste it.

Codex XI
1. The Interpretation of Knowledge (1:1-21:35)

1:20 without having] heard [that the Christ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2511
1:23 even believe that the Christ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2511
5:38 For (gar) Jesus +IHS+ is for us a [likeness] on account of
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2701
15:17 Christ +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός) removed himself [from]
- Unable to locate
17:36
generous (φθονειν), and kind +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός). Here he
- Unable to locate

Please do note that this last bit says, literally, going by the transcription and without being able to verify any of that:

17:35 ⲟⲩ ⲣⲙⲙⲁⲟ ⲛⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲧ
A rich-man _indeed is the-Logos [al]-without
17:36 ⲣⲫⲑⲟⲛⲉⲓ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲟⲩⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ϥ
make-be-envious and a-xrhstos is he

I don't know what to do with the ⲛ in ⲛⲅⲁⲣ, but 'generous' is a far-fetched interpretation. The [al] stands for [adjective linker]. Note that such is not present for XRHSTOS, that is even preceded by the indefinite article: this most certainly is a substantive, a noun, and not an adjective: "he is a Chrest" is an alternative translation, that certainly could not say "he is a Chrestian" as that would be XRHSTIANOS.
But to "translate" this with the adjective kind is most definitely wrong

Do note the note to leaf 1: the papyri were swapped, and CCDL were swift to take my remark there into account but they couldn't change the photograph.
Both entries on leaf 1 are completely lacunose, and I have no idea how these were so magnificently restored, and there is nothing on that in the Brill book save for a minor note in the Preface on page XI:

>>>
In the case of Codex XI the restorations are based on extensive work with ancient parallels.
The rationale for the restorations appears in the critical notes. In all instances restorations appear in the translation enclosed in square brackets ([ ]) and written in italics as a caution to the reader.
Others have contributed in more direct and substantial ways and are due special recognition for their scholarship and material services. Many refinements in transcription and translation stem from Klaus Baer’s reading of preliminary drafts of Codices XI and XIII. Stephen Emmel has been responsible for transcriptional
improvements by his ultraviolet collations of the papyrus manuscripts. To Rodolphe Kasser is extended appreciation for his insightful transcriptional suggestions to XI,1 and 2
<<<

"extensive work with ancient parallels" - I am quite sure that such doesn't even come close to any academic or scientific bar, let alone that it passes it; but let's see how exactly that is implemented shall we?
The notes by Pagels and Turner start at page 77; notes to 1:20 and 1:23 mention the following, and I have not taken the effort to transcribe the font that doesn't come along, for reasons that will become quickly apparent:

>>>
1,16-38 The underlined letters in the following words from Coptic p. I have been preserved by their having been “blotted” onto the facing page, i.e., flyleaf B: 1,16 e x A ^ ^ c o n e ; 1,21 cx^tyEpoY]; 1,22 [rJeNeA tjnHx; 1,25 [u^cDlire; i ,2 ^ [2 Y ]i7 0m onh; 1,30 [n lo y ^ e i; 1,31 [ ^ iT q p n ic x e y e ; ^ [ A n i c f i ^ i ; 1,33 o y n a 6; 1,34 NNOYpojMe; 1,35 nicxijc]; 1,36 exe [nicoc]Moc ne; 1,37 [Nx]FiNXAXNA2xe; 1,38 [elpenMoy.
1,18-21 iv ifio X ij perhaps irpo^oA??, “emanation.” One may infer that faith which depends on visible means of perception is being contrasted here with that which is received through a vision {decopia): cf. Apoc. P et. ¥11,5:70,14-80,13; for discussion, see: Koschorke, Die Polemik, 23-27
<<<

While the blotting onto flyleaf B appears to be a credible argument and method, I can't find 1:20 and 1:23 in this specific set nor can I locate the flyleaf in the CCDL. Do note that 1:21 is present, as is 1:22 and 1:25 - but not 1:20 and 1:23 that allegedly contain the word XRHSTOS.
I don't have the facsimile for this specific volume so I have no other choice but to reject both forms of XRHSTOS in this instance - this is pure fantasy. And using Origen and Romans (which is on this same page but not pertaining to these lines) to restore a text from the NHL requires a most extensive and elaborate demonstration first that one came before the other - this is biblical academic circular reasoning at its very worst

Yet here we have two restored forms of XRHSTOS from lacunae without a story at all, while we can clearly observe that they are not among the notes supplied to this very leaf and even the adjacent lines, and I am quite sure that when I would have provided the exact same I would have been mocked, ridiculed and burned down to the ground - and the only difference between me and Pagels is that I am an amateur and she a most renowned scholar of great and grand reputation, and a very warm and pleasant person at that in my experience - yet it is argumentation that matters in academics and science, and there is none of that here

I'll continue the remainder later: Codex I,4 The Treatise on the Resurrection 43–50 as well as 5 The Tripartite Tractate 51–140, so we have all xrhs... forms in the NHL

NHL CODEX XI 2 A Valentinian Exposition 22–44 (including the sub texts!)

ⲓⲏⲥ: 17
ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ 11
ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ 2

Tractates with leaf:line number:

2. A Valentinian Exposition (22:1-39:39)
- a. On the Anointing (40:1-29)
- b. On Baptism A (40:30-41:38)
- c. On Baptism B (42:1-43:19)
- d. On the Eucharist A (43:20-38)
- e. On the Eucharist B (44:1-44:37)

Going by the index, here are the stats:

ⲓⲏⲥ: 33:18, 35:[10],14,30, 36:17,21, 37:22, 39:14,19,23,29, 40:[13],33, 41:[20], 43:[22],32,37

ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ: 26:23, 28:[23], 33:[17], 39:30, 40:13,33, 41:17, 42:[32], 43:[22],32,37

ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ: 23:34, 31:[29]

The text from the Brill NHL series is *{corrected for the real meaning}* with +THE LITERAL COPTIC+ transcribed as well.
If more than just a word is omitted, the entire sentence follows after =

23:34, and his goodness (χρηστός) +MNT-XRHSTOS+ and his
- Unable to locate
26:23, [sent] *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+ [forth to]
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2428
28:23, say] that Christ = {*did he say it, namely the}* +XRHSTOS+
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2590
31:29 [goodness (χρηστός) +MNT-XRHSTOS+] him. Life
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2581
33:17, Christ (χρηστός) +XRHSTOS+ and the seeds (sperma)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/1852
33:18, Jesus of the Cross = +IHS+ *{of the wood}*
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/1852
35:10, Indeed (men) [Jesus +IHS+ and] Sophia
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2527
35:14, Jesus +IHS+ [contrived (epinoein)] a creature (ktisis) of this
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2527
35:30, things. Moreover, this Jesus +IHS+ created
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2527
36:17, in Jesus +IHS+ for the sake of [him who] inscribed
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2547
36:21, After Jesus +IHS+ brought [forth further]
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2547
37:22, of Jesus +IHS+ who
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2547
39:14, and Sophia and Jesus +IHS+ and [the angels (aggelos)]
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2550
39:19, and Jesus +IHS+ and [Sophia] and the [angels (aggelos)]
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2550
39:23, the seeds (sperma)] and Jesus +IHS+ [are] those of [Silence (sigh)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2550
39:29, her consort (suzugos) and Jesus +IHS+
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2550
39:30, receives the Christ (χρηστός) +XRHSTOS+ and the seeds (sperma)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2550
40:13, [Jesus] +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+ and anoint
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2717
40:33, our Lord Jesus +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2717
41:17, of the Christ (χρηστός) +XRHSTOS+ [which]
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2556
41:20, For (gar) the of Jesus +IHS+
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2556
42:32, [the remnant] for which the Christ +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2581
43:22, for the sake of] thy Son [Jesus +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2410
43:32, [through the] name of Jesus +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2410
43:37, [and] thy Offspring Jesus +IHS+ *{the}* Christ +XRHSTOS+ (χρηστός)
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2410

I mistook the Codex number for a Tractate one in the case of ⲙⲛⲧ-ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ - my apologies, this is tedious work and error-prone

What remains is the most interesting treaure of this trove:
XRHSTIANOS

It occurs almost exclusively in Philip, and that also is the sole location where we encounter the ONLY form of "Christian" in all Coptic, Greek and Latin texts

2) The Gospel of Philip
II,3: 51:29-86:19
W. W. Isenberg

52:24 ⲛ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
Christians we had both father and mother
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2825
62:32-33 ⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
Christian,” the [... ] will tremble. Would
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2846
64:24-25 ⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
having received
anything and says, “ I am a Christian.”
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2829
67:26 ⲟⲩ [ⲭⲣⲏ]ⲥⲧ[ⲓ]ⲁⲛⲟⲥ
— For this person is no longer a Christian but
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2954
74:14 ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
that we have been called “ Christians,” certainly not because
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2967
74:27 ⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
[ ... ” ... ] because [ ... ] a Christian
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2967
75:34 ⲛ ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
Christian(s) [... ]
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/2958

No special annotations or context needed hence none provided by me. To make matters perfectly clear: Philip narrates about his group, "we Chrestians" who already busied the full baptism in the name of the father, son and holy spirit, and only subsequently receiving said Spirit during baptism entitled one to call himself Chrestian.
Near the end of his text, and it is highly likely that he narrates his story in a chronological order, does "Christian" appear and it is not hard to see why: Philip narrates how it is due to the XRISMA that Chrestians were entitled to call themselves Christians: the XR(E)ISMA prevails over the full Chrestian baptism ritual.
I have taken the (very colourful) translation of Thomas Paterson Brown from

https://metalogos.org/files/philip.html

yet transcribed the Greek loanwords in CAPITALS

>>>
101. The XREISMA is made lord over the Baptism. For from the XRISMA we are called XRISTIANOS(, and) not because of the Baptism. And (he) was called the XS because of the XRISMA. For the Father anointed the Son, yet the Son anointed the APOSTOLOS, yet the APOSTOLOS anointed us. He who has been anointed has the totality—he has the ANASTASIS, the light, the cross, the Sacred Spirit. The Father bestowed this upon him in the NYMPhWN (and) he received.

103. Excellently did the Lord say: Some have attained the Sovereignty of the Heavens laughing, and they came forth [rejoicing from the world]. The XRHSTIANOS [...] who went down into the water immediately came forth as master over everything, because [he did not consider (the Baptism) a] game, but rather he disdained this [changing world for] the Sovereignty of the Heavens. If he disdains (the world) and scorns it as a game, he [shall] come forth laughing.

108. A horse naturally begets a horse, a human begets (a) human, a god begets (a) god. Thus it is, regarding the NYMPhIOS within the NYMPhH—[their Sons] came forth in the NYMPhWN. (The) IOYDAIOS had not derived [...] from the Greeks, [...] and [we XRISTIANOS do not derive] from the IOYDAIOS.b [...] And these were called [...] the chosen generation of the [Sacred Spirit]—the True Man and the Son of Mankind and the seed of the Son of Mankind. This generation is named true in the world. This is the place where the Sons of the NYMPhWN are.
<<<

One last occurence of XRHSTIANOS can be found:

Codex IX

3) The Testimony of Truth
IX,3: 29:6-74:30

31:25 ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ
are Christians (χριστιανός),” in
https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/coll ... ha/id/3505

And that concludes all of the NHL: 6 counts of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ, 2 counts of ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲓⲁⲛⲟⲥ

To finish it all off, we do encounter forms of Chr?stianos in Greek writings, yet none of those in the gospels - but in the letters and Acts, and late letters at that: 1 Peter and 1/2 John.
And before we continue we should read the sentence above again, slowly. Perhaps even more slowly

No Chr?stian in the gospels.
No Chr?stian in the letters.
Only Chr?stian in the late letters.
Only Chr?stian in Acts

It is very plausible and reasonable that there first is a story, and then a movement - and never the other way around. So early sources aren't expected to talk of Chr?stians, only later ones.
Which evidently makes Acts and 1 Peter & 1/2 John late - yet if 1 Peter & 1/2 John are late, what about the letters themselves?

The letters would appear to be the first exercise in Churchianity, namely retrofitting history prior to the texts. Acts obviously is the glue between the letters and the gospels so it must be later than all of them.
For the textual traces of Acts being a really fine 'fusion' between the giant gap in words, meanings and definitions between gospels and letters, please consult all of

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... =titleonly

I have lined up more than a few keywords across all of the NT, and these are all based on Berean Literal, the least unfaithful NT translation available at the moment - it for instance neatly translates Matthew's 'kingdom of the heavens' with exactly that, identical to what Thomas uses.
But if you look at what the gospels have and what the letters don't have, they evidently are not two of a kind.
Yet somehow magically, Acts contains a nice and well-balanced mix of both sides of the fence - so it doesn't come as a surprise to me that we encounter Chr?stianos only in the latest NT material

Having said all that (apologies, I can be very longwinded sometimes, just ask James David Audlin), here is what the NT has, collected from the earliest NT texts: Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Bezae - and Bezae ends abruptly in Acts so contains only one occurrence, hence why I have provided the full transcription of that.
Instructions must accompany Vaticanus as oddly there still isn't a transcription or easy navigation available, unlike the others. Sadly, currently the Bezae transcription is broken but they have been notified so please bear with them

The part below is divided into two: one for Chr?st and one for anti-Chr?st. Again, no need to provide context I think.
Please do also note that some of these manuscripts have been subjected to "corrections" and "fixes" in order to try to erase any e-sound present. Contemporary scholars can wave the non-applicable iotacism flag all they want, but it is evident that Roman scribes over a few centuries ago had quite different opinions about that: all of these simply had to say Christian, apparently.
Oddly, no Greek or Christian text has been found where Christian was actually "corrected" into Chrestian

1) Codex Vaticanus (4 th CE):
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403 Left column, from the bottom, line 5: χρειϲτιανουϲ (Acts 11:26)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426 Left column, from the top, line 11: χρειϲτιανον (Acts 26:28)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: χρειϲτιανοι (1 Peter 4:16)

Codex Vaticanus and "antiChrist":

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:18)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Left column, from the top, line 11: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:22)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444 Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: αντιχρ[ε]ιϲτου (1 John 4:3).

(There is clearly ample room there, and it should be an epsilon but beware that it's not the letter on the other side of the leaf)

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446 Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (2 John 1:7)

2) Codex Sinaiticus: (4 th -5 th CE)

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 1&verse=26 (Acts 11:26) - χρηϲτιανουϲ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 6&verse=28 (Acts 26:28) - χρηϲτιανον

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 4&verse=16 (1 Peter 4:16) - χρηϲτιανοϲ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=18 (1 John 2:18, both counts) - αντιχριϲτοϲ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=22 (1 John 2:22) - αντιχριϲτοϲ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... =4&verse=3 (1 John 4:3) - αντιχριϲτου

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... =1&verse=8 (2 John 1:7) - αντιχριϲτοϲ

Codex Bezae: (5 th CE)

https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/755
και ως συντυχων παρεκαλεσεν ⸆ ελθειν εις αντιοχειαν οιτινες παραγενομενοι ενιαυτον ολον συνεχυθησαν οχλον ϊκανον και τοτε πρωτον εχρηματισεν εν αντιοχεια οι μαθηται χρειστιανοι (⸆ - αυτον is suffixed at the end of the verse) (Acts 11:26)

And that's that:

χρειστιανοϲ in Vaticanus
χρηϲτιανοϲ in Sinaiticus and
χρειστιανοϲ in Bezae

and its counterpart,

αντιχρειϲτοϲ in Vaticanus and
αντιχριϲτοϲ in Sinaiticus - and this one poses many, many questions of course

Is that all?
Yes, that is really, really all.
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
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

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.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2715
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: 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 - the idle and futile attempt of trying to find the meaning behind XS and XRHSTOS will not help us there

There is only one primary goal
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

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

Post by Leucius Charinus »

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 Hammadi Codices (and elsewhere) and they do not support the Christian Big Bang theory. Some extreme anomalies are evident. They will soon attempt to explain these anomalies. That's when the fun will begin.
There is only one primary goal
My primary goal (as an investigator) is to ask questions. What is yours?

Be well. I am reminded of a quote by my favorite author:
There are three versions of "The Road Goes Ever On" in The Lord of the Rings. The first is in The Fellowship of the Ring, Book I, Chapter 1. The song is sung by Bilbo when he leaves the Shire. He has given up the One Ring, leaving it for Frodo to deal with, and is setting off to visit Rivendell, so that he may finish writing his book.[T 2]


The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_ ... _On_(song)

Post Reply