Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ch. 120 of the Apology as it stands has clear reference to the passages in
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra that Justin had quoted in chs. 71 to 73 and had said had
been cut out by the Jews. That means the chapter as it stands is addressed to Jews. It
can be shown that it looks like an adaptation of the address to Samaritans that ended
his membership of the community. The opening words are very much like what would
have been said to a Samaritan audience, that what he preaches does not depend on the
Jewish scriptures, but can be proven from what they accept, the Torah. It has not been
noticed by the editors of the Göttingen LXX that Justin quotes Gn XLIX:10 in two
different forms in ch. 120 of the Dialogue, with τὰ ἀποκóμεινα ἀυτῷ twice and ᾧ
ἀπόκειται twice. Although he does not quote the Hebrew, the dispute is over the
meaning of the word שלה .) Less well attested but still adequately attested full
spelling שילה . Details in von Gall. The Samaritan Targum has the defective spelling
in the extant mss. The MT has the full spelling). Altogether there are three Greek
translations of the Hebrew. Working out what LXX witnesses agree with the possible
translations of the Hebrew is impossible using the Göttingen edition of the LXX,
partly because it has not been noticed that Justin uses two translations in ch. 120 of
the Dialogue, partly because the editors have jumbled the two forms ὃ ἀπόκειται “he
that is stored up” and ᾧ ἀπόκειται “he for whom it is stored up” together. They have
not understood the theological concept behind the words ὃ ἀπόκειται, and thought the
omicron < o > to be a spelling mistake for omega < ω > due to late pronunciation.
45
Neither Wevers, the editor of the Göttingen edition, or Smit Sibinga have picked up
the reference to the well-documented Samaritan and Jewish concept of the
incorruptible body of Moses, hidden in an unfindable place by a space warp (to use
modern concepts) till it is time for him to re-enter his body and manifest himself. The
Greek verb corresponds to the adjective ספון in Dt XXXIII:21. The reference to Moses
is taken from the word מחקק” law-giver” in the same verse. It is never safe to say one
reading that makes sense is derived from a similar-looking reading that says
something else that makes sense. The similarity in appearance might just be by
accident, as it certainly is in this case. Brooke and McLean did not make this blunder.
The wording ὃ ἀπόκειται is too well attested to be a mistake. Smit Sibinga sets the
evidence out in detail, using the information from Brooke and McLean. The
Göttingen edition will be needed for what follows. There is a double translation in one
ms. that proves the genuineness of the wording ὃ ἀπόκειται “he that is stored up”. It is
τò ἀποκóμεινον ἀυτῷ ὃ ἀπόκειται “what is stored up for him that is stored up”. The
genuineness of ὃ ἀπόκειται is confirmed by the mistaken addition of ἀυτῷ “for him”,
which changes the meaning to “he for whom it is stored up”, in two text-witnesses
(though one of them omits [ho] by mistake). This is in fact what is done by translators
of Justin’s works]. In par. 4 of ch. 120 Justin says his audience reads the third clause
as “till what is stored up for him comes” τὰ ἀποκóμεινα ἀυτῷ and contrasts this with
what he says is the wording of the LXX, “till he for whom it is stored up comes” ᾧ
ἀπόκειται. Then he says that although he considers the translation in the LXX to be
the right one, he does not want the exposition diverted by something that won’t be
resolved, so he does not want to debate which is the correct translation. He then says
he will use the fourth and last clause of the verse, which is clear and will support his
contention. He explicitly contrasts the Greek wording of the third phrase of the verse
accepted by his audience with the LXX, which he names. He does not say they have
the wrong reading in the manuscripts of the LXX. He plainly says they don’t read the
LXX. The only conclusion is (o) that his audience read the Samaritikon, as was said
before. This might seem to be forcing the meaning of a simple rejection of a reading,
but he must really mean they don’t use the LXX, first because the reading he rejects
here τὰ ἀποκóμεινα ἀυτῷ is used by him in ch. 52 par. 2 of the Dialogue, though there
is a marginal correction to ὃ ἀπόκειται, and second because the reading ὃ ἀπόκειται is
used by him in other places, contrary to what he says in ch. 120 of the Dialogue is the
reading of the LXX. Allowance must be made for alteration of hōi to ho by scribes,
but the reading appears too many times to be explained this way. It occurs in the First
Apology twice in ch. 32, in par 1 and par. 2. It occurs in ch. 54 in the text, with a
variant hōi in the margin. It occurs in ch. 52 par. 2 in the margin. It occurs in the
Dialogue in ch. 52 par 2 as the marginal reading. It is true that the reading with hōi
occurs as well, in the First Apology ch. 32 par. 2, but this is the only place. The
reading with ho must have been used by him, simply because the change from ho to
hōi would be natural for a Christian, whereas the clause with the reading ho would
have been opaque to a Christian. In this case the majority reading τὰ ἀποκóμεινα
ἀυτῷ of the LXX in the extant mss. is the same as in the text used by his audience. In
46
par. 3 and par. 4 Justin first quotes the clause with the Greek wording τὰ ἀποκóμεινα
ἀυτῷ “what is stored up for him”, which he goes on to say is the wording accepted by
his audience and disagreeing with the wording of the LXX. At first sight, there seems
no reason for caring about the choice, since the readings rejected, τὰ ἀποκóμεινα
ἀυτῷ, the one known to his audience, and ὃ ἀπόκειται, the one normally used by him
himself, seem to mean much the same, though the second is ambiguous and could
mean “what is stored up” or “he that is stored up”. The answer is that the two readings
rejected could have suited the Samaritan interpretation of retribution on the tribe of
Judah for the sins of Solomon, and the new one “he for whom it is stored up” might
have been thought certain in meaning. Justin has departed from his own normal
reading for the purpose of argument. The new reading is not a success, since it can
still be taken to refer to Moses. This is in fact the original Samaritan interpretation of
the verse, with introduction of the consequences of the sins of Solomon coming later.
The first version of the Samaritan Arabic Translation has “the one it rightfully
belongs to” مستحقھ , that is, either Moses or the Prophet like Moses. (I think
something resembling this was what was meant by the term Chrēstós in Christianity,
before the thoroughly new doctrine of the Christós). The Targum leaves the word שלה
untranslated. I think this means it is a name of Moses. The full spelling of the word as
שילה has the numerical value of 345, the same as the name of Moses. The second
version of the Arabic, by Abu ’l-Ḥasan aṣ-Ṣûri, author of the Kitâb aṭ-Ṭubâkh, has
“till Solomon comes”, an explanatory translation of “till what is his comes”, meaning
two descendants of Judah will be kings over all Israel till Rehoboam loses kingship
over the North, and later on the line will lose kingship over the South, in agreement
with the rereading of the Samaritikon. The Asâṭîr at XI:12 -- 14 says the Babylonian
conquest was the consequence of the building of the Jerusalem temple, along with
Solomon’s other recorded breaches of the Torah, but makes it clear that the whole of
Judah was at fault. The apparently purposeless rewording in the LXX (p) was anti-Samaritan. This new wording is used by numerous early Christian authors, which is
what would have been expected. For the first time ever an agreement in wording
between the Samaritikon and the LXX has been found, in the words “what is stored up
for him”, but with the agreement in wording concealing two opposite interpretations,
and with the text-witnesses of the LXX divided. The third interpretation, “he that is
stored up” might well be a variant within the Samaritikon. In the LXX, the question of
which translation is original is unanswerable at the moment, because the meaning
originally intended by the words “what is stored up for him” for Jews is uncertain.
The Samaritans in Justin’s time gave the translation in the Samaritikon a new
meaning that could not have been the intention of the translators. The later intention
corresponds precisely to the words of the Asâṭîr in XI:12 -- 14. The first version of the
Arabic reflects a much older interpretation than the second version’s mention of the
damage wrought by the whole tribe of Judah. If the Targum does not translate the
critical word, then it is a name, but it means Moses, not Solomon. The full spelling of
the name, with the numerical value of 345, the same as the name of Moses, is more
likely to be original. Saying this chapter is a rewriting of an address to Samaritans is
47
not fanciful. He says at the end (q) that he intends to say what has to be said even if
then torn to pieces by his audience. He can’t be talking about the imaginary mildmannered Jews in the Dialogue, who had put up with vituperation aimed not only at
Jews in general, but personally at the three of them. This is (r) Justin’s own
recollection of the furore before his excommunication. What else could have got him
to drag in the reaction amongst the Samaritans to his dishonest attack on Simon’s
theology in the First Apology, written when he could still count himself a member of
the Samaritan genos? How can his three imaginary Jews be expected to know about
the First Apology and the Second Apology? How is it relevant here? Justin told the
Samaritans to do the opposite of divine decree of the loss of kingship by Judah
forever by telling them to accept this Jesus as king by using the recognised fact of his
descent from Judah and David as an argument. He must have known what he was
saying and the effect it would have. It seems from his self-satisfied dramatic squawk
that he set up a spectacular reaction and his dramatic excommunication on purpose.
He would have known that if he had claimed Jesus was Moses or the prophet
promised by Moses, while acknowledging his physical descent from Judah, his
audience would have disagreed but would not have been outraged. The Samaritan
Ebionites and the authors of the Epistle of the Apostles accepted this solution. There
were two possibilities for the return of Moses. The first is the reanimation of his body
when his soul returns to it, and then his appearance from nowhere. The second is the
appearance of a person born in the normal way, who might belong to any tribe. The
two possibilities are set out in John VII:26 and 27. Jesus never abrogates any mitsvot,
but he claims the authority to dismiss the application of them decided upon by the
religious authorities. This is clearly behind verse 26. This answers the old puzzle of
how he could be accused of breaking the Sabbath and could be so confident of his
rebuttal. Moses was expected by many, even if not by everyone. Justin’s own
knowledge (s) as a former nominal Samaritan made him see right to the depths of
why the Samaritan form of Israelite religion was a menace to the root of the
legitimacy of Christianity, of a different order to the Jewish form. This will be
explained just below. Compare pp. 108 – 111 on Zēnōn’s theological experiment of
trying to snaffle the status of the Samaritan sanctuary and the Mountaintop.

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

And no I don't think that it is true that today everyone in religious studies departments is necessarily religious. But it was likely true or almost totally true down to the 80s or 90s. There were exceptions of course. But people with new ideas weren't going to be heard.

Thank you for sharing all of this! Boid's work looks very interesting.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:56 amτὰ ἀποκóμεινα ἀυτῷ twice and ᾧ ἀπόκειται twice.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:56 amAltogether there are three Greek translations of the Hebrew

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:56 amthe editors have jumbled the two forms ὃ ἀπόκειται “he
that is stored up” and ᾧ ἀπόκειται “he for whom it is stored up” together.

Thank you, it's great to have a better understanding of the Greek phrases here.

κειμαι or κειται can be combined with different prefixes. For example, ὑποκειται has this LSJ entry (stem ὑπόκειμαι):

https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BD%91%CF%80%CF% ... E%B1%CE%B9

ἀπόκειμαι has this LSJ entry:

https://lsj.gr/index.php?title=%E1%BC%8 ... E%B1%CE%B9

And κεῖμαι has this LSJ entry:

https://lsj.gr/index.php?title=%CE%BA%C ... E%B1%CE%B9

I'm not sure how to interpret this data, but I will quote some parts that may be worth exploring further. Note that I am quoting from three different headwords, so these do not have equal weight here, and some may not be relevant.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:56 am They have not understood the theological concept behind the words ὃ ἀπόκειται, and thought the omicron < o > to be a spelling mistake for omega < ω > due to late pronunciation. Neither Wevers, the editor of the Göttingen edition, or Smit Sibinga have picked up the reference to the well-documented Samaritan and Jewish concept of the incorruptible body of Moses, hidden in an unfindable place by a space warp (to use modern concepts) till it is time for him to re-enter his body and manifest himself.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:56 amThere were two possibilities for the return of Moses. The first is the reanimation of his body when his soul returns to it, and then his appearance from nowhere. The second is the appearance of a person born in the normal way, who might belong to any tribe. The two possibilities are set out in John VII:26 and 27.

Back to the LSJ here:




The form ὃ ἀπόκειται “he that is stored up” would (also) most likely have acquired a connotation of “he that is buried” in a way that would both confirm and illustrate various concepts regarding Moses, his incorruptible body, and his return in this body.

Lucian of Samosata wrote:


Lucian is writing satire, and he could both be intentionally misrepresenting and/or mistaken. But if there were a form of Christianity that were connecting Jesus more directly with Moses, he might be closer than he's usually given credit for?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 5:56 am The first version of the Samaritan Arabic Translation has “the one it rightfully
belongs to” مستحقھ , that is, either Moses or the Prophet like Moses. (I think
something resembling this was what was meant by the term Chrēstós in Christianity,
before the thoroughly new doctrine of the Christós).

Without disputing the validity of this etymological explanation, it's worth pointing out that (in my opinion) it is not essential to the thesis. There's nothing stopping someone from being ὃ ἀπόκειται and acquiring other names/titles at the same time without an etymological derivation from ὃ ἀπόκειται itself.

Because ὃ ἀπόκειται could be connected to the supernatural Moses, any associations relevant to this figure could have hypothetically developed the use of "the term Chrēstós." And if this figure were also "the Man" (as you have suggested), any of those associations could also have surfaced. Etc.

My own pet theory here is that speculation regarding ὁ ἀγαθὸς and ὁ χρηστὸς developed as a result of a two powers in heaven perspective (something you have also remarked on). God always was associated with ὁ ἀγαθὸς because it is the noble good, in and of itself, that is proper to divinity, by definition. God was ὁ ἀγαθὸς prior to creation, and the divine person of God the Father exemplifies this trait. The notion of ὁ χρηστὸς (kind) is active and speaks to God's relationship with man. Unlike simply being good (ὁ ἀγαθὸς), kindness involves an object of this kindness. The creative instrument of God, this second power in heaven - under various other terms also: his Word, his Wisdom, his Son, etc. - brings God into relationship with his creation. That gives this second, creative power a divine aspect of kindness, ὁ χρηστὸς.

While I'm using the Greek terms, these ideas are widely comprehensible, and I don't assume that they are particularly technical aspects of Greek philosophy. For all I know, equivalent thoughts might have developed first in Hebrew or Aramaic, before being expressed in Greek. Or though it may have developed in Greek, it doesn't require a deep involvement with Greek philosophical thought. Which is to say, wherever there was theological speculation about two powers in heaven, there could also have developed ideas like these. And if that were among people for whom a kind of supernatural Moses-figure was being associated with this second power, then that's one way that ὃ ἀπόκειται (the one stored up, the one buried, the one awaited, referring to the creative instrument of God) could become ὁ χρηστὸς without any required etymological derivation.

I will get Boid to come here and hopefully develop his theory. Should be this weekend.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2024 8:43 pm My own pet theory here is that speculation regarding ὁ ἀγαθὸς and ὁ χρηστὸς developed as a result of a two powers in heaven perspective (something you have also remarked on). God always was associated with ὁ ἀγαθὸς because it is the noble good, in and of itself, that is proper to divinity, by definition. God was ὁ ἀγαθὸς prior to creation, and the divine person of God the Father exemplifies this trait. The notion of ὁ χρηστὸς (kind) is active and speaks to God's relationship with man. Unlike simply being good (ὁ ἀγαθὸς), kindness involves an object of this kindness. The creative instrument of God, this second power in heaven - under various other terms also: his Word, his Wisdom, his Son, etc. - brings God into relationship with his creation. That gives this second, creative power a divine aspect of kindness, ὁ χρηστὸς

yes this makes sense I agree. like Wisdom or Charis which seem to get a capital letter. but we might expect to find examples of χρηστὸς used in this manner elsewhere. someone gave me the apoc. of John as an example of XRS being a power. in the odes it's "unclear". there could be something there i don't know, i'm wondering about it on and off so i won't mention it, but still a big leap from here to XS of the epistles

And then another observation. Christians today essentially argue that their tradition shows more "reverence" or respect to the Jews because their ancestors basically took over the messiah calculation methodologies for THE Messiah and applied it to Jesus Christ. This is supposed to be "more respectful" than the Marcionites who agreed with the Jews that Jesus wasn't THE Christ. I don't get this. If I went on a prolonged trip and my best friend moved into my house and had sex with my wife and made babies, yes in some way he's "showing me respect" by finding my wife attractive enough to make babies, but I would find it more honorable and respectful if he stayed away from my wife.

I guess what I mean by this is, the Marcionites give a version of Judaism which to me at least seems to "respect" Judaism more than the orthodox Christians even if the orthodox Christians behave in a covetous way towards the promises of the Jews. Being covetous of Jewish things, then, isn't necessarily tantamount to behaving more respectfully toward Judaism, I have this employee (or independent contractor) who I learned came from a broken home where his mother was a prostitute and his father never recognize him and his brothers as sons. Of course, now he has made at least 10 babies out of wedlock and refuses to pay child support until the government took his license from him. He wanted to be a rapper/R&B singer at one point and is always writing "covetous" poetry about his love for anonymous women (but I feel it is posted on social media to entrap women into his web of lies).

Given the fact that his "love" ends up with the same equation, a bastard child who he quickly disowns, one has to ask whether all his love poetry really is expressive of a love of women or - as I would have it - that he really hates women but has learned to imitate the kinds of things they like and even adore in order to put himself in the position of his father, a figure of authority, the only person he respects in the world. In the same way, I've always been the kind of person that a woman in a relationship with ANYONE is off limits for me. Perhaps this is conditioned by the fact that (a) I don't have strong passions and (b) the threat of death or physical harm against my person is an overwhelming argument against covetousness. But the point is nonetheless that leaving something "over there" as NOT YOURS and distinguishing it from YOUR THINGS can be a sign of "respect" for the things that aren't yours. Covetousness isn't necessarily a sign of respect and usually is quite the opposite.