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.
