Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 9:04 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 4:18 am I guess that for the author being anointed with chrism is some kind of suffering that brings knowledge.

Or toiling, something that the inferior gnosis chrestian was expected to do before they would be would be recognized as a superior gnosis chrestian, i.e. a "christian".

The heresy was to represent the devotee as a "christian" without needing to toil/suffer!

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 am**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 3:10 am Looks like the Gospel of Philip has the world created by a Demiurge after all!

The world came about through a mistake. For he who created it wanted to create it imperishable and immortal. He fell short of attaining his desire. For the world never was imperishable, nor, for that matter, was he who made the world.

Add to this the use of terms like "Aeon" and "Pleroma" and there's no doubt that the text was written by a gnostic. Looking through it, I find that it contains passages that disparage apparent orthodox Christian beliefs:

Some said, "Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit." They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said "My Father who is in Heaven" (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply "My father".

"Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit" is an orthodox position which is found in the Gospels. So the author is rejecting some of the Gospels at the least.

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.

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.

"Die first and then rise" is also a Second Century orthodox Christian position. Gnostics believe that they must receive the resurrection while they are alive.

The saints are served by evil powers, for they are blinded by the Holy Spirit into thinking that they are serving an (ordinary) man whenever they do so for the saints. Because of this, a disciple asked the Lord one day for something of this world. He said to him, "Ask your mother, and she will give you of the things which are another's."...
...
He who has knowledge of the truth is a free man, but the free man does not sin, for "He who sins is the slave of sin" (Jn 8:34). Truth is the mother, knowledge the father. Those who think that sinning does not apply to them are called "free" by the world. Knowledge of the truth merely makes such people arrogant, which is what the words, "it makes them free" mean. It even gives them a sense of superiority over the whole world.

Again, this seems to be an attack on the orthodox Christian position.

The author seems to imply that the apostles had some kind of secret knowledge:

The apostles said to the disciples, "May our entire offering obtain salt." They called Sophia "salt". Without it, no offering is acceptable.

It seems clearer to me now that the "Chrestians" are the orthodox Christians. Perhaps this is linked to Justin Martyr's and Tertullian's comments after all. They are in no doubt that "Christian" comes from "Christ", but that Christians were also being called "Chrestians".

I speculate that the gnostics used the term as a minor smear against orthodoxy. The orthodox had had the baptism so they will be redeemed, but they won't be "Christ"-ians until the chrism has anointed them. Only the gnostics become Christs so were worthy of the title "Christian"!

If I am right, then we might find in other gnostic writings the term "Chrestian" being used to refer to orthodox Christians.

It is mind boggling how you can give all these correct examples of refuting orthodox Christianity and yet call the Chrestians orthodox.
Is it not evident to you that Philip narrates about Chrestianity at large, how they came to be from Hebrews (and not Judeans or Judaics), developed a full Monty baptism that allowed them to call themselves Chrestians?
And that after that they topped it off with the chrism, which indeed enabled them to call themselves Christians?

Philip is about Chrestians who have become Christians in the infancy stage of Christianity - do you realise the humongous uniqueness and implications of that?

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 2:50 pm**

dbz wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 9:04 am
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 4:18 am I guess that for the author being anointed with chrism is some kind of suffering that brings knowledge.
Or toiling, something that the inferior gnosis chrestian was expected to do before they would be would be recognized as a superior gnosis chrestian, i.e. a "christian".

The heresy was to represent the devotee as a "christian" without needing to toil/suffer!

Yep, though the gnostic author isn't calling those "Chrestians" who only knew baptism as heretics per se, rather merely that they lacked knowledge that those who had been anointed by chrism had.

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 3:14 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amIt is mind boggling how you can give all these correct examples of refuting orthodox Christianity and yet call the Chrestians orthodox.

I'm not sure what you mean, I'm sorry. My suggestion is:

1. The author is a gnostic.
2. The author attacks certain positions (Mary was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit, they wish to rise from the flesh) which are consistent with orthodox beliefs.
3. The attacks appear to be directed at those who have only undergone baptism. These are called "Chrestians".
4. The author believes that the chrism is superior to baptism.
5. The author believes that one needs to undergo anointing by chrism in order to become "Christian"

Thus: Since the orthodox Christians have only the baptism, the gnostic author is calling them "Chrestians".

What do you disagree with above? I think my points are defendable. Let's have a serious argument. If you want to rant, then go ahead, rant. But I won't be participating.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amIs it not evident to you that Philip narrates about Chrestianity at large, how they came to be from Hebrews (and not Judeans or Judaics), developed a full Monty baptism that allowed them to call themselves Chrestians?

No, but that sounds interesting. Can you quote the author where he/she writes that they "developed a full Monty baptism that allowed them to call themselves Chrestians"?

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amAnd that after that they topped it off with the chrism, which indeed enabled them to call themselves Christians?

Exactly.

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?

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amPhilip is about Chrestians who have become Christians in the infancy stage of Christianity - do you realise the humongous uniqueness and implications of that?

It means that orthodox Christians were there in the infancy stage of Christianity!

Actually: IIUC, the author's "Christians" (anointed with chrism) had been there from the infancy stage of Christianity. It's just that some Christians have never gone beyond the baptism stage, so weren't "Christians". But the baptised were still on the path:

The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber.
...
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.
...
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.

All my arguments above have been made in good faith (other than any 'humorous' comments of course). I think they make sense. You can either engage with them in good faith or rant some more. It's up to you.

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 3:22 pm**

Add to this the use of terms like "Aeon" and "Pleroma" and there's no doubt that the text was written by a gnostic

These terms are also found in the NT.. the GoP just doesnt have enough dualism

It seems to oppose more hardcore gnostics who really were dualistic over the spirit/flesh:

I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh

The GoP guys are not orthodox either, not Pauline or Ebionite

I think they derive from the more earlier form of what became Christianity
The positive view of Magdalene is also not found in hardcore gnostic texts (she becomes fallen Sophia and blameworthy.. cause Magdalene was the earliest leader of what would in distorted form become orthodoxy.. which they mythologised into Sophia's mistake)

Anyway, this evidence of an early type of Christian that isn't gnostic or orthodox is really evidence for the original look and feel of the actual first 'Christians'... ok... granted that the GoP is probably developed on a bit from the very earliest days, it's not first century but reflects something of the origins that existed pre-Paul. Chrestians is a good a name for them as any

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 4:31 pm**

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 3:22 pm
Add to this the use of terms like "Aeon" and "Pleroma" and there's no doubt that the text was written by a gnostic
These terms are also found in the NT.. the GoP just doesnt have enough dualism

It seems to oppose more hardcore gnostics who really were dualistic over the spirit/flesh:
I find fault with the others who say that it will not rise. Then both of them are at fault. You say that the flesh will not rise. But tell me what will rise, that we may honor you. You say the Spirit in the flesh, and it is also this light in the flesh
The GoP guys are not orthodox either, not Pauline or Ebionite

I think they derive from the more earlier form of what became Christianity
The positive view of Magdalene is also not found in hardcore gnostic texts (she becomes fallen Sophia and blameworthy.. cause Magdalene was the earliest leader of what would in distorted form become orthodoxy.. which they mythologised into Sophia's mistake)

Those are great points.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 3:22 pmAnyway, this evidence of an early type of Christian that isn't gnostic or orthodox is really evidence for the original look and feel of the actual first 'Christians'... ok... granted that the GoP is probably developed on a bit from the very earliest days, it's not first century but reflects something of the origins that existed pre-Paul. Chrestians is a good a name for them as any

"Gnostic" and "orthodox" are artificial categories anyway, at least in the Second Century. For example, Marcion and Valentinus were part of the main church for a while, so they had to have seen some kind of continuity between 'orthodoxy' and 'gnosticism' until they were ejected from the main church and deemed heretics. I think we see that continuity in GoP. There was a path -- from baptism, to chrism and finally a bridal chamber -- that progressed with the acquisition of secret knowledge. 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. They haven't received the metaphorical chrism of the wood of the cross.

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 5:25 pm**

davidmartin wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 3:22 pm Anyway, this evidence of an early type of Christian that isn't gnostic or orthodox is really evidence for the original look and feel of the actual first 'Christians'... ok... granted that the GoP is probably developed on a bit from the very earliest days, it's not first century but reflects something of the origins that existed pre-Paul. Chrestians is a good a name for them as any

dbz wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 3:52 pm I propose the following terminology:
inferior gnosis Chrestian == water "baptism" ritual == colloquially labelled Chrestian

superior gnosis Chrestian == scented-oil anointing "chrism/myróchristos" ritual [n.b. predicated on prior baptism ritual] == colloquially labelled Christian

marriage/unification gnosis Chrestian == ultimate gnosis level/rank.

proto-orthodox Christian == fl. early first century C.E. or possibly even B.C.E. A Chrestian with any gnosis level/rank.

pseudo-orthodox Christian == fl. first century C.E. or possibly second century C.E. Seen as heretical by proto-orthodox Christians because they award the title of "Christian" to those not worthy of that title. They do not evidence the original look and feel of the actual first 'Christians', i.e. a Chrestian with any gnosis level/rank.

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 8:15 pm**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 3:10 am
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.

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 9:51 pm**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 3:14 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amIt is mind boggling how you can give all these correct examples of refuting orthodox Christianity and yet call the Chrestians orthodox.
I'm not sure what you mean, I'm sorry. My suggestion is:

1. The author is a gnostic.
2. The author attacks certain positions (Mary was made pregnant by the Holy Spirit, they wish to rise from the flesh) which are consistent with orthodox beliefs.
3. The attacks appear to be directed at those who have only undergone baptism. These are called "Chrestians".
4. The author believes that the chrism is superior to baptism.
5. The author believes that one needs to undergo anointing by chrism in order to become "Christian"

Thus: Since the orthodox Christians have only the baptism, the gnostic author is calling them "Chrestians".

What do you disagree with above? I think my points are defendable. Let's have a serious argument. If you want to rant, then go ahead, rant. But I won't be participating.

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amIs it not evident to you that Philip narrates about Chrestianity at large, how they came to be from Hebrews (and not Judeans or Judaics), developed a full Monty baptism that allowed them to call themselves Chrestians?
No, but that sounds interesting. Can you quote the author where he/she writes that they "developed a full Monty baptism that allowed them to call themselves Chrestians"?

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amAnd that after that they topped it off with the chrism, which indeed enabled them to call themselves Christians?
Exactly.

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?

mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 11:29 amPhilip is about Chrestians who have become Christians in the infancy stage of Christianity - do you realise the humongous uniqueness and implications of that?
It means that orthodox Christians were there in the infancy stage of Christianity!

Actually: IIUC, the author's "Christians" (anointed with chrism) had been there from the infancy stage of Christianity. It's just that some Christians have never gone beyond the baptism stage, so weren't "Christians". But the baptised were still on the path:

The Lord did everything in a mystery, a baptism and a chrism and a eucharist and a redemption and a bridal chamber.
...
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.
...
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.

All my arguments above have been made in good faith (other than any 'humorous' comments of course). I think they make sense. You can either engage with them in good faith or rant some more. It's up to you.

Rant? Can you define the meaning of that please, and point out where I engaged with it - thanks

"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

"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.
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'.

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)?

Posted: **Mon May 22, 2023 10:07 pm**

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 4:31 pm 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

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:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Rising in Flesh?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?

Re: Chrestians/Christians?