EXCURSUS TO THE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE TITLES XPIΣTOΣ AND XPHΣTOΣ AND XPEIΣTOΣ

[Secret Alias]

By I R M Boid

The evidence of forms of words derived from Chrēstós or Chreistós in mss. of
the NT is not mentioned in standard handbooks or the most commonly used critical
editions. The data in the Nag Hammadi texts are always hidden away in the critical
apparatus of a few editions, with false translation. All translations of the Gospel of
Philip in all languages transcribe the Coptic forms of Chrestians and Christians
correctly in the critical apparatus while using the same translation, Christians, always
without letting on. Chrestians occurs four or five times in this book, but Christians
occurs twice. Proper scholarly practice would be to print what is written in the
manuscript and is clearly not a mistake. There are numerous other forms treated as the
word “Christian”. The Coptic equivalent of the form Chrēstós itself is attested. See the
complete survey by Martijn Linssen, Jesus the Chrest --- Nomina Sacra in the Nag
Hammadi Library, [Thomas Miscellaneous, Part V], 2022, on the Academia website.
The form Chrēstós quoted by Pagan authors is always dismissed as a mistake, with
nary a mention of the Christian attestation, or the Nag Hammadi attestation. It is never
mentioned that the title Christós is never ever written out in full anywhere in any ms.
of the NT, and the vowel is often not put in. Here is a gem found by Martijn Linssen.
In ch. 4 of Justin’s First Apology the sole extant manuscript has Christianói in
sentence 5, but the argument assumes not only the appropriateness, but also the
correctness, of the term Chrēstianói. Notice that unlike Tertullian later on, Justin
never says the wrong name is being used. Tertullian copies a long argument taken
from Justin saying that persecution of Christians without any criminal charges is
happening because of the name, saying this is senseless. Justin niftily skates over the
question of whether there could be some other reason by distracting the reader by
saying any individual Christian that commits a crime ought to be prosecuted.
Tertullian takes Justin’s whole argument including the deliberate distraction over
while flatly contradicting him over what the name ought to be. (To the Nations Book I
ch. 3 end. Any edition will do). He writes in Latin, but makes it clear that he regards
the forms Christianói and Chrēstianói as different words. He says he knows Pagans
always use the second, but says Christians don’t. The official change of name must
have been very recent. He glosses over the obvious question of how it is that all
Pagans could get the name wrong, while saying the name Chrestiani is appropriate
even if wrong. From these two passages a time period can be established for the
official change of name. (Imposing it took longer, as can be seen from mss. of the NT.
Remember there was still a three-way phonemic difference between and [ɛ:] and
[i:] for a few more centuries, so changes by scribes can’t explain evidence of the titles
Chrēstós [xrɛ:stɔs] and Chreistós [xri:stɔs]). I think it can be narrowed down a bit
further. The first chapters of the First Apology can be dated very early, when Justin
was still living in Neapolis. The Dialogue, with its length and complexity, and with
the internal contradictions in ch. 120 showing use of material from different stages of
his missionary work that were proven above in Part II, would have been written when
he was mature. What is remarkable is that in the Dialogue Justin does not say Jesus
has been made an anointed king. This argument is stronger than it might seem, since a
mention of an anointed king would have been expected to have come up in ch. 52 and
ch. 120, where the argument is that Jesus was the king from the tribe of Judah
promised in the Torah. It follows that the official change of name came after Justin’s
unsurprising execution in 165. The official change of name can be explained as a sign
of rejection of a form of doctrine using the term Chrēstós or its near-synonym
271
Chreistós. The policy of using the power of the state against the Samaritan form of the
religion of Israel is first expressed by Justin, but he must have represented a powerful
movement or faction. Rejecting Jewish Christianity and Samaritan Christianity would
be consistent with this. The ending of the persecutions in the reign of Commodus
when Severus became emperor in 193 A.D. would fit a need to be seen to be different
to Jewish Christians and Samaritan Christians, with a different official designation.
The translation ܐ ܡܫܝܚ in the Peshitta does not have to reflect Christós, and even if
it did by then, it did not mean a king to the authors of the gospels or Paul or the
framers of the Nicene Creed. Now for the attestations of the other two titles. A few
occurrences of forms of derivations from Chrēstós or Chreistós in the New Testament
are not abbreviated: Codex Sinaiticus Chrēstianói singular or plural at Acts XI:26;
XXVI:28; I Peter IV:16; Codex Vaticanus Chreistianói singular or plural at all three
places; Codex Bezae Chreistianoi at the first place; Codex Vaticanus Antichréistos
singular or plural at I John II:18; II:22; IV:3 (uncertain); II John I:7. The vowel of
Chreistianói and Antichréistos is certainly meant to be [i:] in the spelling of this
period: the length is phonemic and the spelling could not be a mistake. A big minority
of minuscules have chrēs, but no-one tells you that. (Remember Christós is never
written out in full in any ms. whether uncial or minuscule). In line with this, the form
Chrēstós quoted by Pagan authors is always dismissed by church historians as a
mistake. It is dishonestly used as evidence that Roman authorities did not know much
about Christianity, and then come bad guesses about how they regarded it. All the
examples from manuscripts of the NT and the Nag Hammadi writings just quoted
show a policy of suppression of data for the sake of ideology, a collective breach of
scientific method. Policy is dictated by academics with jobs in universities requiring
them not to say the wrong thing and offend the administrators or other academics or
the vocal general public. This is not imagination. Think of the attacks by academics
on Morton Smith, sinking to the depths of mentioning in writing that he was bald
(yes, really) and making sny written suggestions about his sexuality, and his heartfelt
expression of thankfulness that he had tenure in the foreword to his best-known
publication. Then there is the well known story of the university in the USA that
appointed Bertrand Russell to an academic position and then broke the contract when
members of the management board heard he had written a little book called “Why I
am not a Christian”. I mention Bertrand Russell to show how behaviour has been
consistent over time. This kind of danger now takes a new form, less blatant but more
harmful. A lot of the policy-makers in any country behind publications touching on
the NT barely marginally, or often even Judaism which is treated as a tool for the
study of Christiaity, are ordained Christian clergy, and the rest are nearly all Christian.
This includes people doing peer review. The policy of hiding information can be seen
in all translations and studies of the Nag Hammadi texts by academics, Christians to a
man, and often ordained. But putting that aside, you have to wonder whether they
understand their own religion. Paul saw that deriving the christological predicates
from a unique king of Israel would be a fallacy, and never tried. When he talks about
the exalted status of Christ, the word “king” does not come up, even where the
concept of a heavenly ruler is used. Such a derivation had been tried out in the
composition of Matthew and Luke, but neither of these gospels builds on it. John’s
gospel cleverly thoroughly rejects it without actually mentioning it. Mark’s gospel
leaves it out. The verse from Genesis about rulers from Judah used by Justin is not
used in the NT. He still does not make any connection with the title Christós. The title
Christós is not used to mean “king” in the Nicene Creed. Not even the later term
Christós Pantokrátōr was devised this way. Christianity has always had the difficulty
272
of how to use the authority of what it calls the Old Testament while contradicting the
religion of Israel. The argument that Christós translates the Hebrew word משיח and
this word is sometimes applied to a king in what is called the Old Testament starts
much later than the NT. It was not known before Jerome. It is unthinkingly assumed
these days that the NT uses the argument. I have heard it said by Christian clergy,
without knowing what to quote. This argument can be heard constantly from Christian
missionaries to Jews and is their favourite first approach. One of the two main
conversionary organisations calls itself Messianic Judaism, with the assumption that
the title is self-evidently accurate. None of these set-ups understand either Judaism or
Christianity. The title of Handel’s oratorio shows deep ignorance of both, but most
Christian clerics don’t see why. After the disputation at Barcelona, the Ramban said
privately to the king “Even if someone could prove Jesus was the Mashiach, I could
not be a Christian”. Actually, in the couple of connections of Jesus with David in
Matthew and Luke with the suggestion of kingship, the term is not used in the
argument. (The use of the term Messias in John IV:25 has no bearing. It was shown at
length in Part II of this book that it is part of a way of rejecting the concept of a
special king of the line of David). Incompatibility with what Paul or the Nicene Creed
say or don’t say has been skated over by reading Luke I:33 a new way, so that it has
changed from saying Jesus would be king of Israel to king of the universe, and instead
of him being a unique king with unique God-given qualities, being a supernatural or
divine power. Luke I:33 is now a new explanation of the present Greek text of Luke
I:35, with its invention of a pagan divine father for Jesus, with more information
constantly read into verse 33 than is actually written. This argument is only a couple
of centuries old. Handel’s oratorio without the words “over the house of Jacob” in its
interminable misquoting and misuse of “he shall reign for ever and ever” from Luke
I:33 is hard to avoid every Christmas, and promoted by all denominations with
acceptance of the accuracy of the quotation and insistence on the correctness of the
use of it. Anyway, this is all only said because the information is indirectly useful in
uncovering the history of Samaritan thought. סוף סוף . The question of whether the
Ebionites used the term Christós or Chrēstós or its near-synonym Chreistós or all
three is important, but there is no answer yet. The second two would have fitted their
main doctrine of the need for everyone and everything to gradually become how they
ought to be. There could have been a play on words by Greek-speaking members.
Such play on words by the Ebionites is made highly likely by the new policy of the
un-Israelite church. The Church decided to plump for Christós instead of Chrēstós and
Chreistós, or go from using all three to only using Christós. The old term Christós
meaning inspired was given a Pagan meaning, while making out nothing had ever
changed. The rewording of Luke I:35 marking the end of any resemblance of
Christianity to the religion of Israel, proven in section 4 of the Bibliography and on p.
68, was likely done at the same time, and so too the additions mentioned on p. 69, but
Church history for its own sake is not relevant to this book.

[MrMacSon]

Remember there was still a three-way phonemic difference between * and [ɛ:] and
[i:] for a few more centuries, so changes by scribes can’t explain evidence of the titles
Chrēstós [xrɛ:stɔs] and Chreistós [xri:stɔs]).

* (inserted by me) = '{i}' where '{' and '}' replace all '[' and ']'. This site has missed the '{i}' and italicized the text thereafter.

So it should read:

Remember there was still a three-way phonemic difference between {i} and {ɛ:} and {i:} for a few more centuries, so changes by scribes can’t explain evidence of the titles Chrēstós {xrɛ:stɔs} and Chreistós {xri:stɔs}).

Re

... The rewording of Luke I:35 marking the end of any resemblance of Christianity to the religion of Israel, proven in section 4 of the Bibliography and on p.68, was likely done at the same time, and so too the additions mentioned on p.69 ...

Below is most of pp.68-9f (paragraphed more here. [...] = a Hebrew word that did not copy properly).

But first:

Warning is needed straight off to forestall one mistake already made by some readers. This book is a study of Samaritan religion. It is not a study of Christianity, not even as a secondary theme. If some Christian writings are used, it is only for historical data on Samaritans, like all the Samaritan and Jewish writings used, or archaeological findings. If some aspects of Christian doctrine or the policy of the Christian Church are traced, it is only to show how Samaritans were affected. Very much of what was worked out about the Christian Church and Christianity in the course of investigation of the real subject turned out to be original, but it was only followed up as far as needed for the purpose of the book.

The Ebionite doctrine does not make Jesus unique in essence, only the forerunner. The description by Epiphanios could be taken to mean the Ebionites had changed their theory and considered Jesus unique, but he was thinking in Christian terms. Andrew’s wording in John I:41 shows there was an expectation of such a person, recognisable on observation. Regardless of the details, it is certain that the term and concept Christós [...] [is] totally unrelated to kingship and meaning a person perfected by working with God is older than Jesus. Neither the gospels or Paul ever use the term Christós with any connotation of kingship. (Matthew I:16 is not an exception if read without preconceptions. If it is an exception, it is pretty vague).

Christian theologians thought this up much later because the term Christós demanded an explanation. Such a usage is now commonly thought to be in the NT. This is one of the favourite blunders by Christian missionaries to Jews, though not the worst. Now see Luke I:9 – 10 and 21 – 22. If Zechariah had to go inside a building, explicitly called the naós not hierón, to offer incense, out of sight, he must have been officiating at the Samaritan sanctuary.

This was observed by Heinrich Hammer (pp.39–40), using the details of the lay-out in the Samaritan Pentateuch. Here is what he did not know. A.F. [Abu ’l-Fateḥ, History of the Events of the Ancestors] at 39:7 confirms the incense altar was inside the Tabernacle in the Time of Favour, when he describes the occultation of the apparatus; and the Arabic Joshua book ch. 42 assumes it was behind the curtain. The Arabic Joshua book ch. 24 end says the Tabernacle was housed in a temple in the Time of Favour that only priests ever went into. (Juynboll correctly translates kanîsah as “Templum”. See note 23 on p. 102). The modern building with its grounds would have had to be the same in lay-out.

The Epistle to the Hebrews assumes something like this arrangement at IX:6 and7, but with Jewish influence.

If John the Baptist had a Samaritan father and Mary had Samaritan relatives by marriage, Galilean Jews and Samaritans must have been in close contact. Close contact is confirmed by Luke XVII:16.

Hammer showed that Jesus’s home at the time of his early ministry was inside Samaria. (Chapters VI and VII. Some parts of the argument are untenable, but there is enough to show strong plausibility. The whole argument is marred by his belief that Jesus was a Samaritan and needs very careful reading. His argument for the location of the real Nazareth is convincing, especially if it is borne in mind that there are indications that the place now called Nazareth was founded after the time of Jesus or perhaps just renamed. The difficulties with the historicity of the identification of the town later called Nazareth are well known. The question can’t be summarised here).

It was shown at the start of this section that there were a lot of Jews in Samaria later on in the time of Hadrian.

Straight after Jesus’s death a foreign system pretending to be Israelite was slipped in by replacing the concept of his conjunction συνάφεια by something like fusion. John X:30: “I and the Father are one”. The concept of a human teacher and guide for working on gradual freedom from fault and dissolution and eventual perfect freedom from fault with God’s help (though still passing through death) was replaced by making Jesus unique in essence and divine and belief in him necessary. With this change we see the exact start of Christianity. John XI:25 – 27: “He that believeth in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die”. John XIV:6: “No man cometh unto the Father but by me”.

The numerous Samaritan Ebionites show it was not Jesus that made the change. Unde? There are some strong indications of where Christianity came from in some anomalies that have never been honestly addressed. There was no Aramaic-speaking church for a long while. The gospels were only published in Greek. Early Christian authors don’t know the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew. There is ignorance of Judaism leading to unbelievable pseudo-Judaism, such as confusion between an extinct form of vitiligo called [...] and some infectious skin disease, with the belief that anyone with this condition was isolated, or there is the belief that adultresses could be stoned, or there is the belief that babies had to be brought into the Jerusalem temple.

Utterances attributed to Jesus are not understood out of ignorance of Judaism. See for example my article Antiquité on Mark VII. Jesus reminds the disciples of what they already know: that anything eaten must necessarily stop being unclean because of chemical change by the time it gets to the small intestine. An old floating tradition has been taken over without being understood, as the two mistranslations of the important word into Greek show. The editors of this gospel in Greek really did think Jesus rejected the categories of kosher and unkosher animals. When Montefiore explained he was attacked for attributing Jewish thought and argument to Jesus. He was attacked by Evangelicals for proving Jesus did not reject the categories of kosher and unkosher animals in this passage. He was attacked most because he showed the editors of the gospel did not understand Jesus’s words.

I suppose this has inconvenient implications for the origin of Christianity. Most modern translations wilfully ignore the facts because they don’t suit the church. They have to ignore the neuter gender of the participle in Jesus’s words as well. The unidentifiable pagan religion is said to be a departure from the religion of Israel in John VI:35 to the end, with unique inexplicable honesty.

The Samaritan Ebionites’ usage of the combination of “the Christ” and “the son of God” in a specific meaning seems old. The reading in MarkI:1 adding “son of God” after “Christ” is secondary but very early and shows knowledge. The old insertion of “son” before “God” in Luke IX:20 shows the same knowledge. Later on and for ever after the intention was thwarted on purpose. “I believe thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world” (JohnXI:27). In the context of John’s gospel, the last phrase can only mean the final editor actually identified Jesus with the Word. In Matthew XVI:13 – 20 the change-over is recorded. It is said that everyone sees Jesus as a prophet. Then Jesus is said to have asked Peter what he thinks. Peter says: “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God”.

Old words have been given a new meaning, and the new meaning is a new concept. The son of God has turned into God the Son, regardless of syntax. When the High Priest says the innocuous term “the Christ the son of God” is blasphemy, in Matthew XXVI:65, the story is deliberately anachronistic. The meaning of the title in Judaism would not have been blasphemy. The reader is expected to know the newly made up meaning and the doctrine behind it. In verses 17 and 18 in ch. XVI, Jesus is said to have announced the importance of the exact phrase and says it is to be the foundation of the community he is to form. Translating ἐκκλησία as “Church” is not anachronistic.

I observe as a historian that what Rome finds in [Matt XVI] verse 18 is wilful misreading. The death and resurrection of Jesus is announced in verse 21. The reader is meant to know the new doctrines associated. The Church asserted Paul’s authority supposedly given by Jesus, over-riding the original set-up under James the Just. The newly sprung church claimed the authority of Peter while keeping Paul’s boast of having rejected Peter’s teaching to his face. Paul’s impressive invention was how to deny the divine authority of the Torah while asserting its divine origin.

The new un-Israelite religion is mostly built on theorising about the incarnation of the Word in Jesus and his resurrection. The doctrine of the Atonement, however, might be a Pagan rewriting of a Samaritan Christian doctrine. The Sebuaeans and Dositheans each used their own separate arguments that sacrifices were forbidden in the Fẩnûtå, but the thought of the Fẩnûtå must have been uncomfortable to sensitive minds. The Epistle to the Hebrews has a new version of the Fẩnûtå that might seem worth considering by Samaritans, but then Jews as well. It says that sacrifices were needed year after year on the Day of Atonement because no earthly High Priest was perfect, but the need for all sacrifices ended with the perfect heavenly High Priest not descended from Aaron. This is an argument from the Torah itself, more formidable than misusing the term [...]. The new Pagan concept of Jesus as a sacrifice woven into this theme wipes out everything about the heavenly High Priest bringing the people closer to God. Now he just sits.

Now that a wide-spread form of Samaritan Christianity that accepted some version of Simon’s basic principle of gradual perfection with God’s help has been detected, it is time to ask whether there were Jewish Christian sects like this. This will take work. The question of Samaritan or Jewish identity was not clearly thought about by Christian authors. Epiphanios knew the Ebionites observed the Torah, but at first thought that meant they must be Jews. He had heard they resembled Samaritans in practice, but had not seen the implications. One precise accurate description not defining the Ebionites as either Samaritans or Jews is quoted in incomplete form by Hippolytus. Irenaeus says at I.26.2 the Ebionites study the books of the prophets and accept Jerusalem, but I think he has heard they followed the Torah and, like Epiphanios, has assumed that meant they must be Jews, and the rest is padding. The Nazoraeans were Jewish Christians, but their system of thought is not know [...].

Most of the Samaritan Christians that had accepted some part of the new concept called Christ were reabsorbed into Israel. The authors of the first recension ofthe Epistle of the Apostles make it clear they have lost massive numbers, apparently most members. Some members have fully accepted the offer of the Samaritan government, described as propagation of Simon’s teaching. Some have become members of the school of Kērinthos. This seems to have enabled them to give Jesus some special position, along with full adherence to the Torah. These would have been reabsorbed into Israel in the end. The remnant left have joined the de-Judaised and de-Samaritanised Church by the time of composition of the second recension ...

It has been amply demonstrated, even if indirectly, that the Samaritan Ebionites followed a system developed from Simon’s. The fore-runner, the Christós, identified with Jesus, has shown that anyone can become like Moses, even if not equal to him by definition. The concept is used by Paul in I Corinthians XIII:12. His use of it is explained in detail below at the end of section 4, p.144. Samaritan Christians were important and numerous, but they mostly disappeared very early, systematically reabsorbed into Israel. (It is uncertain whether Epiphanios met some Ebionites on Cyprus). Hebrews VI:1 – 8 reflects this, though not as dramatically as the later Epistle of the Apostles. The campaign of reabsorption used the book attributed to Simon. It has been seen that there are numerous indications that Simon’s work was read and studied by all Samaritans and a great many foreigners, including serious-minded people acquainted with Christianity. Marius Mercator’s source gives direct evidence that the book was read by Christians in the late Apostolic period. The glossator was well acquainted with Christianity, but looked at it critically.

Simon’s system is compatible with Jesus’s call to work on entering the Kingdom of Heaven, as well as John the Baptist’s formulation. It seems that the oldest of the ingredients in the invention of Christianity was something akin to the system attributed to Simon, but this was later recast in a system incompatible with the religion of Israel and offensive to Pagan and Israelite rationalism. I think the Church tried to thwart the attraction by incorporating its own version of Stoicism, starting with Paul. Simon’s system already had superficial resemblance to Stoicism.

In the end a clever compilation of Justin’s canonised fiction and real quotation and summary was published, which has worked nicely on uncritical readers ever since. The thinking behind the openly announced manoeuvring by Justin to wipeout Samaritan religion, as well as the Church’s efforts over centuries to wipe out Samaritans themselves to the extent needed, can now be seen more sharply ...

via https://www.academia.edu/107921212/Boid ... st_version

[StephenGoranson]

What is the source publication (?) for the excerpt in the first post?
The "academia.edu" link in the second post does not work for me.

[Secret Alias]

He took down the link or maybe it was only directed at those who expressed interest in the project. I can send you an email of the 300 page book he is preparing. It's on the Samaritans. A SAMARITAN PLAN OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY. His previously published book on the Samaritans was very much liked by Schiffman who remembered it was the only book he ever remembers seeing addressed to the author's "ex-wife."

His command of languages and ancient languages is unprecedented.

[lclapshaw]

What is the source publication (?) for the excerpt in the first post?
The "academia.edu" link in the second post does not work for me.

I get a 404 page not found as well.

[Secret Alias]

He's a really smart guy but he's really particular. Maybe he shared it with me because we're friends. Would you like me to email you a copy?

[lclapshaw]

He's a really smart guy but he's really particular. Maybe he shared it with me because we're friends. Would you like me to email you a copy?

Me? Sure. Thank you.

[lclapshaw]

Martjn has asked me to link to Boid's most recent contribution https://www.academia.edu/107952789