Chrestians/Christians?

[davidmartin]

And the takeaway from that all is that Chrestians preceded Christians, which in fact is my case. Philip loudly attests to that

which is also the case for anyone who think the original Christians were different from the later ones!
ie, that they were originally gnostics or Torah observant Jews, and both these opposites are believed in today by various folk

This theory isn't new, it's as old as the hills

- what mlinssen adds is that Thomas was their primary text and gives them a name

I think the question should not be "Is Thomas the source" but "what if it was". Perform that experiment

The problem obviously is, how to interpret Thomas being one of the most mystical texts ever found. Not easy
An obvious starting point is to suggest - the Chrestians were esoterics in whatever tradition they might be associated with and Christianity introduces doctrines that were not there before

[dbz]

Chrestians got expunged from the records of history although there are traces like these - and yes, whenever they talk about what we consider Gnostics these days, it is mostly Chrestians they talk about

And the takeaway from that all is that Chrestians preceded Christians, which in fact is my case. Philip loudly attests to that

Are Chrestians oriented in a monistic direction and what possible syncretism by the blending of religious/philosophical belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation of other beliefs did they likely engage in?

[04:50] What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction...

---

Lecture #18 by Arthur Holmes per the course, "A History of Philosophy" at Wheaton College, Illinois.
"A History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism". YouTube. @time:00:04:50.

[mlinssen]

Chrestians got expunged from the records of history although there are traces like these - and yes, whenever they talk about what we consider Gnostics these days, it is mostly Chrestians they talk about

And the takeaway from that all is that Chrestians preceded Christians, which in fact is my case. Philip loudly attests to that

Are Chrestians oriented in a monistic direction and what possible syncretism by the blending of religious/philosophical belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation of other beliefs did they likely engage in?

[04:50] What Middle-Platonism does decisively .. is to push from dualism in a monistic direction...

---

Lecture #18 by Arthur Holmes per the course, "A History of Philosophy" at Wheaton College, Illinois.
"A History of Philosophy | 18 Middle and Neo-Platonism". YouTube. @time:00:04:50.

There are no signs of that, the gospel of Philip contains what can be relied on - or rather, it is Philip who describes the story of Chrestians becoming Christians and that is what I go by for determining the content

In a nutshell, one could become an XRS, the nomen sacrum for Chrest / Christ, when one was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and holy / pure Spirit - and actually received said Spirit.
Philip contests and rejects the resurrection of the canonicals and it is obvious that his take on the word is solely to be applied in a spiritual context, one of mental rebirth. Likewise he rejects the virgin birth, and so on

Just for fun, the foreword to the translation by Andrew Phillip Smith:

A classic Gnostic scripture comes to life "The Gospel of Philip is a spiritual exercise, a collection of riddles and enigmas that should enable us to move above the level of the things that are revealed up to the level of the things that are hidden. Ideally, eventually, through our own effort, the perfect things will open to us.
Along with the hidden things of truth, the holies of holies will be revealed, and the bridal chamber will invite us in."
—from the foreword by Stevan Davies

For the proper translation of the pivotal parts, see

https://www.academia.edu/89583617/From_ ... _the_grave

[dbz]

[T]he gospel of Philip contains what can be relied on - or rather, it is Philip who describes the story of Chrestians becoming Christians...

• If the material is ordered as per the following, what material if any, is reliant on Philip. And vice versa, is Philip reliant on any of this material?

[T]he only objectively verifiable facts are in the texts - in the original MSS, in their original language.
All the rest is interpretation

Thomas, John, Marcion - and then Mark, and LukeMatthew.
That's the order, and all of it can be demonstrated...

[StephenGoranson]

Because the meaning of Septuagint and or LXX has been mentioned here (and because one poster cited dictionaries), the Oxford English Dictionary, on Septuagint:

"...3. The earliest and most influential Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), including the deuterocanonical books (or Apocrypha), made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries b.c. and adopted by the early Christian Churches; (also) a copy or edition of this text.
Represented by the Roman numeral LXX: see LXX n."

[dbz]

Because the meaning of Septuagint and or LXX has been mentioned here...

[16:54] [Music] [Panorama of ancient sculpture and building presented]

This is style you know. This is Greek culture as a style and it's a very important thing. The story of the Bible everybody wanted to be Greek and of course the Jews in these cities wanted to join in that too. There were Jews living in these cities hundreds of years before this library was born who were already only speaking Greek who were thinking in Greek ways they changed their name to Greek names. Simon was a very popular name was a sort of adaption of the old Hebrew Shimon and of course you'd expect the great Hebrew holy text, our Old Testament, to be translated into this new language for this new sort of Jewish person.

There's a lovely legend about it the story is that in Alexandria in Egypt in the second century before Christ seventy two scholars were engaged to translate the holy scriptures they were put on a sand Bank in the sea outside the city and little Hut's and they all sat down and they wrote out the holy Hebrew Scriptures and by the grace of God each one of their translations was the same as the other. The translation's called the Septuagint so the 72 of these scribes six for each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

So now lots of Jewish people only read their sacred books in Greek. The great numbers of them disapproved of the translation. They suddenly realized their heros; Abraham, Isaac, and all those other founding fathers—according to the lights and virtues of Hellenism—had been rather funny people. Cheats, sheep stealers, robbers, liars, thieves, butchers of guests .. it looked bad. Suddenly the Jewish cult had been exposed to what was really the desire the dream of everybody and it didn't look too good. It's a desire to join this wondrous new culture and all his riches and at the same time there's a sort of tension that you don't want to lose your Jewishness. [Music] [18:53]

---

"TESTAMENT with John Romer. Part 3 - Mightier Than The Sword". YouTube.

[dbz]

...the original Christians were different from the later ones!
ie, that they were originally gnostics or Torah observant Jews, and both these opposites are believed in today by various folk

• The viewpoint that Christianity began variously among Hellenized Jewish settlements throughout the Diaspora, with religious syncretism of Jewish elements and gnostic mythemes is held by Bolland, Rylands, Zindler.

Rylands’ view in short is that the Hellenic invasions brought foment in the religious world. Much syncretism and fusion took place especially due to Greek philosophy and Oriental theosophy impinging upon Judaism. Of the many Jewish sects that arose, Christianity was one. p. 22. Gnostic ideas arose in this foment, mostly from the philosophy and myths of the orient, which in turn gave rise to Christian ethics. Basically, the Christianity that first arose was deeply spiritual, i.e., Paul and John did not know of a human materialistic Christ. Catholic theologizing introduced the material aspect. The Gnostics really represented [the true] Pauline and Johannine thought. By 70 A.D. people were worshiping a sacrificed Jesus; these people were a sect, not a church initially. But they gained [the] upperhand. The Gnostics declined [because they refused] to abandon the primitive [high] Pauline and Johannine Christology. p. 272 “The Gnostic Christology was original, it adored a heavenly Christ, it had no knowledge of a human Jesus.” p. 279

(pp. 79–80, n. 3)

---

--Groningen, Gerard van (1967). "Christianity". First Century Gnosticism: Its Origin and Motifs. Brill Archive.

[Peter Kirby]

You should understand your case the best. You should already know its weaknesses. You should know the most plausible way in which it could be wrong. Since you should know all this, what does this look like? What is the best counter argument?

It all starts and ends with the 72 logia, that demonstrate Thomasine priority in the canonicals. I have copied a dozen of those here, the peculiar cases.
I haven't heard a single counter argument so far, Peter - and I don't even like my theory myself, it is a by-product of my research into Thomas, which is driven by wanting to understand Thomas. None of this here is any intended goal of mine, but it simply is where the evidence leads me

This is part of what I mean by it taking a long time and requiring a comprehensive approach to the subject. If I also have to evaluate Thomasine priority at the same time as I evaluate the very difficult question of the different references to "X" in the earliest period, the complexity of the required evaluation and the amount of relevant material encompassed becomes quite great. Indeed, I have still not settled on my own hypothesis of the relationship of the synoptics and of Thomas (and perhaps lost sources, or not). I regard it as one of the most difficult questions, perhaps the single thorniest question, of all the questions to be asked about early Xians.

I imagine I should have to work through this: https://www.academia.edu/40695711/Absol ... ory_manner

But I also have to work through this: https://www.amazon.com/Composition-Gosp ... 1107009049

And this: https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Gospels-T ... 0802867480

And this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1560654 etc.

This is incredibly complex and requires very careful study to shed light on. I can't do it in an evening or a weekend, and I'm also not a follower, so I may be at a stalemate with myself over this question for months or even years until I feel I have spent the time to work it out.

I say these things only because I hope I am seen as friendly enough to be someone who can also be honest with you. Good theories don't admit of simple proofs and refutations. You should take it as a compliment that I'm still considering your theory. It's a good one. I have no simple proofs or simple refutations. If you had any one clear piece of substantiating evidence, I would assent to it. But you don't. No more than anyone else has an easy way to disprove it. If you want that decent discussion, it's going to be hard and take a long time. It's a question of a balance of the evidence. And that requires a comprehensive approach to the subject.

You realise how you contradict yourself here, I hope

Not a contradiction. This is what I mean here:

	Worthy of Assent	Unworthy of Assent
Trivial Theory	Simple Proof	Simple Refutation
Strong Theory	Balance of Evidence in Favor	Balance of Evidence Against

Where the concept of a "strong theory" (as opposed to a trivial one) is what I meant by a "good theory."

I do have a very easy and clear cut one though, a matter of reading a dictionary: viewtopic.php?p=146602#p146602

Just stick to that post for now. Leaven or colostrum?

I will take a look. Do you believe it provides that "one clear piece of substantiating evidence" that demands assent to your theory?

Or will I still need to undertake the long process of making a thorough evaluation of all the available evidence and argument to have the full context for a judgment here?

[davidmartin]

Rylands’ view in short is that the Hellenic invasions brought foment in the religious world. Much syncretism and fusion took place especially due to Greek philosophy and Oriental theosophy impinging upon Judaism. Of the many Jewish sects that arose, Christianity was one. p. 22. Gnostic ideas arose in this foment, mostly from the philosophy and myths of the orient, which in turn gave rise to Christian ethics. Basically, the Christianity that first arose was deeply spiritual, i.e., Paul and John did not know of a human materialistic Christ. Catholic theologizing introduced the material aspect. The Gnostics really represented [the true] Pauline and Johannine thought. By 70 A.D. people were worshiping a sacrificed Jesus; these people were a sect, not a church initially. But they gained [the] upperhand. The Gnostics declined [because they refused] to abandon the primitive [high] Pauline and Johannine Christology. p. 272 “The Gnostic Christology was original, it adored a heavenly Christ, it had no knowledge of a human Jesus.” p. 279

Which is interesting as I'm currently working my way through Philo, about 15% in. i'm astounded and regret the time I wasted on Josephus!
This is the real deal. Here you can find all the seeds for numerous aspects of gnosticism and Johannine ideas, and Paul (minus the atonement), even the virgin birth
What I intend to convey is, much of the thought is present if not the exact same presentation or conclusion, or yet spelt out as doctrines

Philo liberally quotes pagan philosophers and considers himself an initiate in the sacred mysteries

As this pertains to Christianity it strikes me Philo is sort of speaking as the leader of a school that consists of a lot of branches and he opposes other viewpoints (he's no liberal). Given this variety, placing early Christianity among this movement is a good fit

Contrasting Philo with the Odes is really interesting. Here you can see the difference. Philo is all in the mind, the Odes are far more organic and earthy. More traditionally Jewish mindset. If Thomas can be connected to this you'd get something Jewish natively but opposed to the religious leadership of the time, even Philo

[GakuseiDon]

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.