Chrestians/Christians?

[mlinssen]

Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh who are naked. It is those who [...] to unclothe themselves who are not naked. "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Co 15:50).

"Rising in the flesh" is the view of Second Century orthodox Christians.

So if "rising in the flesh" is the orthodox view of Second Century Christians, when did the idea begin?

Evidence in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.31.2 (c.180 AD) would logically suggest at least several generations earlier, ~100 years? c.90 AD. Clement of Rome (90 AD: The Epistle of S. CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS, 26) quotes Job 19:26 (c.550 BC? 300 BC?): Καὶ ἀναστήσεις τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην τὴν ἀναντλήσασαν ταῦτα πάντα {And Thou shall raise this my flesh which hath endured all these things}, which strongly suggests this was an old Jewish concept, pre-Christian, and acceptable. Isaiah 26:19: "Your dead will live; their bodies will rise." Etc. Ancient!

I can see how both 1st C. Gnostics & Christians (or Gnostic Christians) might accept this or that specific definition of palingensia, the topic was definitely debated long before the 2nd C. AD. And afterward. (Also beware the delusion of settled debates!) Not all in the 1st C. or 2nd C. who held one particular view that eventually proved "orthodox" were, categorically: there's the muddle.

So that's a poor litmus test for dating GoP.

"Flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" sounds Judeo-Hermetic to me.

"You say that the flesh will not rise, but tell me what it is that shall arise, so that we may honour you. You say, “The spirit in the flesh,” and “It is this other light in the flesh.” It is a Logos, “this other” that is “in the flesh,” because whatever you will say, you say nothing apart from the flesh. It is necessary to arise in this flesh, for everything is in it." GoP 57.10-19

As I understand it, the dominant Gnostic-Hermetic view held that the astral body rises, shedding layers at the Gates, returning the Psyche's dirty laundry to the Archons, etc. 'Resurrection of the Body' might not be the body/flesh you're thinking of.

A concise definition of enlightenment could be to be reborn in the flesh: old flesh, new spirit / state of being.
All over the texts the word is

ἀνάστασις ἀνίστημι

I.act. a raising up of the dead, Aesch.
2.a making men rise and leave their place, removal, as of suppliants, Thuc.; ἀν. τῆς Ἰωνίας the removal of all the Greeks from Ionia, Hdt.:— an overthrow, destruction, ruin, Aesch., Eur.
3.a setting up, restoration, τειχῶν Dem.
II.（ἀνίσταμαι) a standing or rising up, in token of respect, Plat.
2.a rising and moving off, removal, Thuc.
3.a rising up, ἐξ ὕπνου Soph.
4.a rising again, the Resurrection, NTest

And again (and again, again and again) we have a word that means A, B and C in regular Greek but Z in biblical Greek.
Uh-huh

Paul needs the resurrection as carrot for his Spiel of course, that's why he literalises it along with everything else from Chrestianity: spirituality gets turned into platitudes, covered with mainstream mulch for the masses.
Eternal life is the bait, likely a natural spin-off from Mark's invention of the resurrection of IS that was needed for the decisive twist to his story - and what Paul says right here is a simple refutation of the Chrestian Anastasis

"No, Anastasis does not mean that you get to be reborn spiritually! It means that you get to be reborn physically, that you actually rise from the dead - and live happily ever after, eternally"

The word in Philip is ⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ by the way, for Logion 22

[GakuseiDon]

If I am correct that the author is using "Chrestians" to mean those who have only been baptised, and that the author is referring to orthodox Christians with that term, then the author isn't rejecting 'orthodoxy' but simply thinks they don't yet possess the secret knowledge to progress along the path

All of the confusion stems from your use of the word orthodox in exactly this context

I agree. We may be talking past each other on this, so I'll answer this one first. My comments have been from the GoP author's perspective. So "orthodox" here means those Christians in the GoP's time -- say end of Second Century or early Third Century -- that were considered as supporting the later orthodoxy. So those Christians who were considered church Fathers, like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian.

How would the GoP author have regarded such Christians of his time, those who held that "Christian" meant baptised? I suggest he would have called them "Chrestian". This would have included "orthodox" Christians, if not a reference to them directly.

If early xtians are orthodox in your book, then what do you label the likes of Irenaeus, or what came to be around 500 CE after all the creeds and dogma?

"Early" and "orthodox" are words of entirely different categories; they may equate to each other, oppose one another, and anything in between. Wiki may help you here:

I agree that we need to be careful of the difference between "early" and "orthodox". But FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GoP AUTHOR: he/she seems to believe that his/her version of Christianity was there from the beginning:

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. The Father gave him this in the bridal chamber; he merely accepted (the gift). The Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. This is the Kingdom of Heaven.

So the author believes that his/her Christianity was there from the start. And that includes the Chrestians. There was no "Chrestians first, and then Christians". There was always "Christians", and from the very start. But it just so happens to some "Chrestians", Christians who have been baptised but not anointed with chrism. I argue that these include those Christians whom in the GoP author's time were "orthodox" Christians.

I hope that clarifies my thinking there.

[GakuseiDon]

"3. The attacks appear to be directed at those who have only undergone baptism. These are called "Chrestians"."

That is the flaw in your points above, and it would be good if you could back up your opinion here with arguments. Yet you take refutations of Christianity and place them with Chrestians, for no other reasons than your instinct I presume

Well, I've given my reasons a few times, quoting from GoP to do so. Here is one example: I think "those who say they will die first and then rise" are the "orthodox" Christians of the GoP author's time:

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

That sounds like it might be a comment about the "orthodox" Christians of the author's time who have been baptised. What do you think?

"author's "Christians" (anointed with chrism) had been there from the infancy stage of Christianity"

That's another unfounded assumption, free from arguments, and again conveys what you would like to think rather than what the text contains.

I'm using the text. See my last comment. "The Son anointed the apostles, the apostles anointed us", the "Christians". According to the author, his "Christians" were always there! If anything, the "Chrestians" came AFTER the Christians.

If you read Philip from start to end, you see that he starts with the origins, Hebrews, Chrestians. A quote from Wilson's:

no small part of its importance may lie precisely in the fact that it enables us to see a man of that period grappling, however inadequately, with the problems of Christian life and thought.
That he counts him self a Christian is clear: he can contrast his present state, and that of his readers, with the period before they became Christians (6, 102); he draws a distinction between Christians and the nations of this world (49), and he can distinguish the reality from the name (59). Indeed, he goes further, to speak of being not merely a Christian, but a Christ (67, cf. 44)). The derivation of the name 'Christian' from the chrism (95) he shares with other writers of the period, while his condemnations of idolatry and sacrifice also have their parallels. In 'saying' 95 he develops his own theory of'apostolic succession': 'the Father anointed the Son, the Son anointed the Apostles, and the Apostles anointed us'.

Yep, that all sounds good. ALL Christian groups tried to tie themselves back to the apostles. The GoP author is no different.

To answer your apparently largest question:

So, if there were non-gnostic Christians at the time the author wrote -- for example, and pulling this out at random, ORTHODOX CHRISTIANs, ones who hadn't topped it off with the chrism -- what would the author have called them?

He calls them Chrestians, and five times does he do so - are you aware of the fact that the text says Chrestians five times, and only Christians two times at the very end (103 / 108)?

So then, it sounds like we agree: the GoP author would have called the "orthodox" Christians of his time as "Chrestians"?

[mlinssen]

I hope that clarifies my thinking there.

It certainly does Don, thanks.
I disagree with your conclusion. The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end, and it mentions Chrestians 5 times first, and Christians 2 times towards the end:

6. XRηSTIANOS
53. XRηSTIANOS
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. XRηSTIANOS XRS
101. XRISTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRISTIANOS

What you are doing is ignoring that order, and rehashing your own story of Philip, freely inserting Christians whenever that suits you. Yes, if you rewrite the story that way you will surely arrive at a different analysis of it.
You wrap that as "That sounds like it might be a comment about the "orthodox" Christians of the author's time" but that is only after you have made the assertion about it

Let's agree to disagree Don, it'll save us both some time

[GakuseiDon]

I hope that clarifies my thinking there.

It certainly does Don, thanks.
I disagree with your conclusion. The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end, and it mentions Chrestians 5 times first, and Christians 2 times towards the end:

6. XRηSTIANOS
53. XRηSTIANOS
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. XRηSTIANOS XRS
101. XRISTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRISTIANOS

What you are doing is ignoring that order, and rehashing your own story of Philip, freely inserting Christians whenever that suits you. Yes, if you rewrite the story that way you will surely arrive at a different analysis of it.

I'll go through each logion, in the order that you have given above. I think it will support my case. It won't be for a day or two though, I'm afraid, due to time constraints.

You wrap that as "That sounds like it might be a comment about the "orthodox" Christians of the author's time" but that is only after you have made the assertion about it

So you keep saying. But I feel I've provided passages that support my view which you haven't responded to. For example: I think that "those who say they will die first and then rise" is a belief that is consistent with the beliefs of the "orthodox" Christians of the GoP author's time:

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

Do you agree with me there, that this sounds like something that "orthodox" Christians of the GoP's author's time believed?

[mlinssen]

I hope that clarifies my thinking there.

It certainly does Don, thanks.
I disagree with your conclusion. The text, like any text, reads from beginning to end, and it mentions Chrestians 5 times first, and Christians 2 times towards the end:

6. XRηSTIANOS
53. XRηSTIANOS
63. XRηSTIANOS
72. XRηSTIANOS XRS
101. XRISTIANOS XS
103. XRηSTIANOS
108. XRISTIANOS

What you are doing is ignoring that order, and rehashing your own story of Philip, freely inserting Christians whenever that suits you. Yes, if you rewrite the story that way you will surely arrive at a different analysis of it.

I'll go through each logion, in the order that you have given above. I think it will support my case. It won't be for a day or two though, I'm afraid, due to time constraints.

You wrap that as "That sounds like it might be a comment about the "orthodox" Christians of the author's time" but that is only after you have made the assertion about it

So you keep saying. But I feel I've provided passages that support my view which you haven't responded to. For example: I think that "those who say they will die first and then rise" is a belief that is consistent with the beliefs of the "orthodox" Christians of the GoP author's time:

Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

Do you agree with me there, that this sounds like something that "orthodox" Christians of the GoP's author's time believed?

No need to hurry at all Don, take your time

What do you intend to say with that last?
Let me just replace a few bits:

Those who BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTIAN FABLE ABOUT RESURRECTION are in error. If they do not first receive the SPIRITUAL resurrection while they PHYSICALLY live, when they PHYSICALLY die they will receive nothing. So also when speaking about baptism they say, "Baptism is a great thing," because if people receive it they will live.

First part first: I have modified the first sentence, and added to the next.
Starting with the latter, and at the end, it would seem that Philip believes in something after physical death - do note that I'm just reading the English here, no time to split the Coptic.
The two additions before that is how I read it: you resurrect spiritually in Chrestianity - via the baptism - and that is a spiritual death of the old you and a spiritual rebirth of the new you, which naturally happens "while in the flesh" but it is not a death or rebirth of the flesh.
First sentence then: Philip berates those, they are in error. What do they believe? That they will physically die and then physically rise, the thing that Mark invented for his IS so he could continue the story and fulfill a pseudo-prophecy.
That thought equates to Christianity, to orthodoxy - yes

Which Philip rejects - so how can you equate him with orthodoxy?

[StephenGoranson]

Whatever the author of the Gospel of Philip had in mind--given that some of the proposed "etymologies" or word meanings in the text are surely bogus [56.12-13; 62.8-17]--would it be naive to assume that many in the time of writing agreed with "Philip," and even more naive to retroject such to early origins of actual Christian history?

[mlinssen]

Whatever the author of the Gospel of Philip had in mind--given that some of the proposed "etymologies" or word meanings in the text are surely bogus [56.12-13; 62.8-17]--would it be naive to assume that many in the time of writing agreed with "Philip," and even more naive to retroject such to early origins of actual Christian history?

Oh please Stephen, do spell out the words you are referring to, and provide some argumentation

[StephenGoranson]

[a comment deleted. opps. wrong thread. my mistake. sorry!]

[StephenGoranson]

ML, I think you have the texts of gPhilip 56.12-13; 62.8-17.
And I would guess that you are a faster and better typist than I am.
Is gPhilip correct about e.g. Nazarene?
No.
If I may say so, better explanation is in Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Nazarenes."

PS Just hypothetically, if lexicographer W. E. Crum, graduate of Eton and Oxford, had lived long enough to offer a translation of gThomas, which would you imagine might have been closer to your evaluation:
a) well done, WEC
or
b) you falsifier!