Chrestians/Christians?

[mlinssen]

[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...

That is a good question, dbz. Philip certainly comes after Mark with regards to the resurrection, yet after LukeMatthew with regards to the virgin birth - although there are other texts that relate both events

Chrestianity is what *Ev contained, a movement free from Judaics and Judaism just like Philip describes: Hebrews, not Judeans or Judaics is what they were

[mlinssen]

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.

Good points Don!
You should drop the word "pagan", as that word is very biased

Here is your post, FIXED:

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 PEOPLE who are baptised as "Chrestians". There is a higher level to be obtained: that of "Christians", 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 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.

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". AS LONG AS THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT, YES

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?

[mlinssen]

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

The question should arise WHY they all translate colostrum with leaven. Just like Gathercole's Commentary and the Brill work of Attridge raise the question WHY they so desperately need to first emend the Greek and then bend / break the Greek as well as the Coptic so the restoring English for both is nearly identical?

Koepke is the exception there, by the way: his says colostrum

[davidmartin]

Phillip

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 Spiri

John

All that belongs to the Father in is mine, that is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you

Spirit=Chrism (Phillip "But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift")

Same idea

[mlinssen]

Phillip

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 Spiri

John

All that belongs to the Father in is mine, that is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you

Spirit=Chrism (Phillip "But if he receives the Holy Spirit, he has the name as a gift")

Same idea

Exactly, david. And once again I point to the NHL where there basically are only three nomina sacra: Spirit, IS and XS: everything in early xtianity evolved around the Spirit, and nothing but the Spirit. No nomina sacra for father, STROS, man, and so on - and not even full superlinears for PNEUMA

It is John who started the explicit association of said Spirit with IS, and it is Mark who combined that with the fully fledged baptism of Christianity / Philip - and ensured that the Spirit left IS with his last breath as witnessed by the centurion standing opposite of him: Jesus died but the Spirit lives, hence the impersonal reference by the angel in the tomb in 16:7

Why Mark changes the singular of "laid" into a plural remains a mystery

[GakuseiDon]

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.

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". 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"."

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.

It seems to me that there was no separate "Chrestian" group as you propose, but rather the term was applied by gnostic Christians as a level of initiation or awareness. Conceivably, the author meant the term to refer to orthodox Christians: those who had been baptised, but hadn't received the anointing that gnostics thought was required to become "real" Christians (i.e. gnostics). But again, that's only my guess.

[davidmartin]

No nomina sacra for father

There's a reluctance to name the actual name (in John the talk of 'the name', the Odes never say what the name is)
Wonder how that effects nomina sacra?

I think they were saying that what mattered was the meaning of the name, not the actual name at all
Riffing along you could guess the meaning of the name is the spirit, "The Name" as a hypostasis, not able to be said or written

In the gospel of truth it has "The name of the father is the son"
"The father opens his bosom, and his bosom is the holy spirit. He reveals his hidden self, which is his son" (taken from Ode 19 I'll bet)
the funny thing is if the father is the son, the spirit is pretty much everything since the son is only the son because of the spirit, what is being suggested here? That Father seems very familiar!

It seems to me that there was no separate "Chrestian" group as you propose, but rather the term was applied by gnostic Christians as a level of initiation or awareness

I think he's suggesting guys existed before other, different guys existed

[dbz]

If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian [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.

---

"Gospel of Philip". earlychristianwritings.com.

[M]y 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?

It 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!

[mlinssen]

If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything, and says "I am a Christian [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.

---

"Gospel of Philip". earlychristianwritings.com.

[M]y 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?

It 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.

Agreed, dbz

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!

The funny thing is that in Coptic the word ϩⲓⲥⲉ, whether verb or noun, means 'toil' as well as 'suffer'. There is no suffering in Thomas but only toiling:

ϩⲓⲥⲉ toil Noun masculine 8
ϩⲓⲥⲉ toil Verb 58, 97, 107

8 - The fisherman effortlessly - exempt from toil - chooses the great (and no longer good) fish, which will lead to a journey filled with toiling yet one that will make him free of suffering

58 - The human who has toiled "fell to" life - and again this is very different from 'finding', it is properly discovering something

97 - The woman is on the path, which is mistake number one: the paths lie on the outside (Logion 64) and the outside is inherently bad (Logion 40, 99). Thomas stresses that by also saying that she's "being distant", the exact phrase of Logion 82. The ear of the jar breaks, malfunctions, indicating that her own ears don't function - which is how she got to be on the path, of course. The flour pours out behind her - on the path, indeed. She doesn't know that? Didn't she understand how to toil?
Nope. And to make matters worst, Thomas explicitly states that she splits into her house: how obvious must it all become before people notice the multitude of messages here?
And only when she "places the jar downward" does she fall to him being empty

107 - The shepherd goes astray, exactly like the sheep, and dismisses the ninety nine just like it does. The sheep explicitly disagrees with the "heart / mind" of the ninety nine.
Yet the shepherd falls to (!) that One, which apparently requires toiling

On topic again: the Chrestians had their fully fledged baptism, rite of initiation, spiritual rebirth. They inherited the Chrism from the Greek(s) which indeed supplemented the ritual - and while the original one entitled them to the name Chrestian, the final one entitled them to the name Christian

Dyad?

[dbz]

Dyad?

if you ask me dbz all religions have a monad+dyad its just the dyad appears differently and your conceptual use of this term is interesting
Take Judaism, the Torah functions as the dyad the moment it's not just a book of laws, even personified as feminine on occasion.
Christianity says Jesus is the dyad (that's what "Jesus is Lord" means?!) but my point is Jesus doesn't appear to say he is the dyad literally in John

ha, so in your terminology Paul is saying the Jewish dyad doesn't save, only convicts of sin... that's the different religion right there!
Is 'religion' the claim to unique possession of that which cannot be uniquely possessed? Wouldn't surprise me at all

I use the terms "monad", "dyad" as monikers for the Jewish two powers in heaven, the Middle Platonic understanding of the first, second god/power/principle hierarchy, the supernatural Gnostic good redeemer+Father, etc..

I do not expect the material to necessarily spell it out, since it likely was originally intended for consumption by the unsophisticated masses. I suspect the more sophisticated inner secret mysteries of the organization were more unambiguous and were masticated into something more palatable for the outer circle of initiates.

• I index the gods/principles by the common attributes imparted to the Middle Platonic understanding of first, second, and sometimes third god.

• Plutarch imparts "Negative Demiurgy" to third-god.

• IMO, "Negative Demiurgy" is imparted by Philo, Plutarch, Marcion, to a third principle who may or may not be named "Demiurge" per se, but the imperfection of the world is somehow connected to this "third principle".

Some insight can be gained from the myth of Isis and Osiris, which Plutarch presents as an analogy to the world creation in his De Iside et Osiride. Osiris is a divine intellect that brings everything into being by being sown in matter, that is, in Isis, the reasons (logoi) of himself (De Iside 372E-F), eventually producing Horus, i.e. the cosmos (ibid. 374A, De an. procr. 1026C). Osiris is identified with the good itself (372E), to which Isis always inclines, offering herself to be impregnated “ with effluxes and likenesses in which she rejoices” (ibid. 373A). Apparently Osiris stands for the demiurge of the Timaeus and also the Form of the Good of the Republic (cf. De an. procr. 1017 A-B) —which explains why Osiris constitutes the object of desire by nature and Isis (De Iside 372E-F; cf. De facie 944E) and Isis stands for the receptacle (De Iside ibid., De an. procr. 1026C; Timaeus 49a, 51a). This suggests that Plutarch probably maintained the existence of the Forms in God (cf. Timaeus 39e), as did several other Platonists in late antiquity (e.g. Alcinous, Didascalikos 163.11–17, with Dillon 1993, 93–96). This is supported by the fact that for Plutarch Osiris is both the intellect and the logos present in the world soul (De Iside 371A, 376C, De an. procr. 1023C–D) and by Plutarch's claim that God is the totality of Forms (paradeigma; De sera 550D; see Helmig 2005, 20–26).

---

--Karamanolis, George (2020). "Plutarch". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

• I think that perhaps Marcion and others saw how Plutarch's Osiris stood for the demiurge/logos and "Negative Demiurgy" and became adversarial to Yahweh as well.