Is this Ultimate Proof that "Christian" Derives from Chrestos?

[Secret Alias]

No. We've got to get beyond the " question" of interpolation in the earliest Christian texts. Richard Gere was the only John who miraculously found a prostitute on her first night on the street corner. All these texts are sloppy seconds, thirds and so on. Look at Ignatius and then read what Marcion said about the gospel and the letters of Paul. Lots of added material. Like those towels at a massage parlor. The Dialogue of Justin. No one disputes added material.

[davidmartin]

The basic approach here is based on a fallacy. Trying to discount evidence-against doesn't create evidence-for. There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters didn't write about "Christos." But we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters didn't write about "Elvis" But we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

[Peter Kirby]

The basic approach here is based on a fallacy. Trying to discount evidence-against doesn't create evidence-for. There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters didn't write about "Christos." But we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters didn't write about "Elvis" But we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters wrote about "Chrestos" (instead of "Christos") in its repeated name for Jesus, but we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

The "Elvis" analogy, if it has any relevance, cuts against the interpretation that doesn't present evidence-for. And, based on your response, you're allowing that you don't have evidence-for and use only a count of the amount of evidence-against.

However, the "Elvis" analogy is a very poor one. The rhetorical force of the analogy should be that "Elvis," "Bigfoot," or "Christ" are random names of things that are foreign to the text. That is the nature of things for "Elvis" or "Bigfoot," but it is not the nature of things for "Christ." The word that would be "Christ" appears hundreds of times in the letters. The question is practically a binary one - is it this word being written ("Christos"), or is it this other one ("Chrestos") - because nothing else rises to a minimum of plausibility and comportment to the remains of the past. For this question, neither option can be accused of being suggested for the text randomly and spontaneously. They are both ancient, attested forms of the name that is known to be in the letters of Paul. One just happens to have substantial evidence to be the word being written.

I can't make anyone here care about having evidence for their views. But I will point out the fact that they're not even trying to present any, something that hasn't even been disputed, given that the responses have doubled down on not presenting any evidence for these views.

[davidmartin]

There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters wrote about "Chrestos" (instead of "Christos") in its repeated name for Jesus, but we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

The "Elvis" analogy, if it has any relevance, cuts against the interpretation that doesn't present evidence-for. And, based on your response, you're allowing that you don't have evidence-for and use only a count of the amount of evidence-against.

However, the "Elvis" analogy is a very poor one. The rhetorical force of the analogy should be that "Elvis," "Bigfoot," or "Christ" are random names of things that are foreign to the text. That is the nature of things for "Elvis" or "Bigfoot," but it is not the nature of things for "Christ." The word that would be "Christ" appears hundreds of times in the letters. The question is practically a binary one - is it this word being written ("Christos"), or is it this other one ("Chrestos") - because nothing else rises to a minimum of plausibility and comportment to the remains of the past. For this question, neither option can be accused of being suggested for the text randomly and spontaneously. They are both ancient, attested forms of the name that is known to be in the letters of Paul. One just happens to have substantial evidence to be the word being written.

I can't make anyone here care about having evidence for their views. But I will point out the fact that they're not even trying to present any, something that hasn't even been disputed, given that the responses have doubled down on not presenting any evidence for these views.

well slightly humerous reply intended
The epistles define what they mean by XS and how they define XS I don't think changes whether it is Chrest or Christ. It's the same XS that's always been there!

So the question is, is this XS also the Messiah? Now the difference does start to matter
The thing is there isn't all that much that says XS is the Messiah explicitly compared to the gospels and Acts
Evidence occurs around the Marcionite area where we find a bunch that uses the same texts and doesn't think XS is the Messiah
So one can argue, right or wrong, the epistles didn't originally see XS as the Messiah just like the Marcionites, who used the same texts, didn't. That argument could end up being wrong but it's based on something historical as a kind of Marcionite priority argument
The word count comes into it only as part of the Marcionite priority argument to present the epistles as having some form of extreme Hellenistic ideas that reject Judaic elements including the Messiah
I'm saying exactly nothing new just what's already been said and argued over with evidence

Sure, they rejected a bit too much but that got fixed by the church easily enough with a sprinkling of redactions to confirm to the original Messianic message.

[dbz]

There could be evidence for the conclusion that the Pauline letters wrote about "Chrestos" (instead of "Christos") in its repeated name for Jesus, but we're not going to get it by counting the amount of evidence-against.

The "Elvis" analogy, if it has any relevance, cuts against the interpretation that doesn't present evidence-for. And, based on your response, you're allowing that you don't have evidence-for and use only a count of the amount of evidence-against.

However, the "Elvis" analogy is a very poor one. The rhetorical force of the analogy should be that "Elvis," "Bigfoot," or "Christ" are random names of things that are foreign to the text. That is the nature of things for "Elvis" or "Bigfoot," but it is not the nature of things for "Christ." The word that would be "Christ" appears hundreds of times in the letters. The question is practically a binary one - is it this word being written ("Christos"), or is it this other one ("Chrestos") - because nothing else rises to a minimum of plausibility and comportment to the remains of the past. For this question, neither option can be accused of being suggested for the text randomly and spontaneously. They are both ancient, attested forms of the name that is known to be in the letters of Paul. One just happens to have substantial evidence to be the word being written.

I can't make anyone here care about having evidence for their views. But I will point out the fact that they're not even trying to present any, something that hasn't even been disputed, given that the responses have doubled down on not presenting any evidence for these views.

well slightly humerous reply intended
The epistles define what they mean by XS and how they define XS I don't think changes whether it is Chrest or Christ. It's the same XS that's always been there!

So the question is, is this XS also the Messiah?

• And is this XS also a religious syncretism

...gnostic writings began as philosophical (Platonic) abstractions from the canonical writings.

Part of the Soul	Early Platonism	Middle Platonism
Rational	Highest and most important, responsible for reason	Nous, or intellect
Spirited	Responsible for courage, will, and ambition	Psyche, or soul
Appetitive	Responsible for desires, passions, and bodily appetites	Pneuma, or spirit (ghost-wind in the shell)

This is found in the extract of Plato's "Republic" at NHC 6.5 in the NHL. FWIW I believe this to be a purposeful mistranslation into Coptic from the Greek.
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Plato ... ammadi.htm

	Plato_v1.0	Gnostic dualism	Plato_v2.0 (eclectic amalgam of Plato_v1, Stoicism, Neopythagoreanism)
Evil is	Material World/Ignorance of the Immaterial	The anti-father	Sans virtues in the chain of being
Good is	Gnosis	The father (+mother Dyad possibly)	The Monad
Humans can transcend	Rather become enlightened	Yes	Yes, to reintegrate with the Monad
Transcend via ...	Self perfection	Logos
Earth formed by	Neutral Demiurge	Evil Demiurge	Inadvertent Negative Demiurgy

[davidmartin]

dbz, i think the problem is that in the case the epistle's aren't Messianic and date a little later it begs the question - what about the messianic original movement? was there one, or did the church frame it that way in the gospels and acts?

i'm just disagreeing with everyone. i flat out think there was a historical messianic movement in existence at the start of some kind
but, to preserve the historicity the only way is to date the gospels before the epistles at least one or more of them anyway
because if the epistles are dated a bit later and the gospels still post-date them, it all falls apart how can the first writing be non-messianic and the next ones be the opposite. it's the other way round. the scholarly consensus has got it the wrong way round and their dating is messed up

[Peter Kirby]

well slightly humerous reply intended
The epistles define what they mean by XS and how they define XS I don't think changes whether it is Chrest or Christ. It's the same XS that's always been there!

So the question is, is this XS also the Messiah? Now the difference does start to matter
The thing is there isn't all that much that says XS is the Messiah explicitly compared to the gospels and Acts
Evidence occurs around the Marcionite area where we find a bunch that uses the same texts and doesn't think XS is the Messiah
So one can argue, right or wrong, the epistles didn't originally see XS as the Messiah just like the Marcionites, who used the same texts, didn't. That argument could end up being wrong but it's based on something historical as a kind of Marcionite priority argument
The word count comes into it only as part of the Marcionite priority argument to present the epistles as having some form of extreme Hellenistic ideas that reject Judaic elements including the Messiah
I'm saying exactly nothing new just what's already been said and argued over with evidence

Sure, they rejected a bit too much but that got fixed by the church easily enough with a sprinkling of redactions to confirm to the original Messianic message.

Those assumptions above are possible. But they are not quite evident, and they are certainly not minor or irrelevant. We have seen that these assumptions have consequences, e.g. RG Price looking for pre-Messiah-interpolation gospels, or you looking for pre-epistle gospels (or entirely post-gospel epistles, which is another way of saying the same thing):

i flat out think there was a historical messianic movement in existence at the start of some kind
but, to preserve the historicity the only way is to date the gospels before the epistles at least one or more of them anyway
because if the epistles are dated a bit later and the gospels still post-date them, it all falls apart how can the first writing be non-messianic and the next ones be the opposite.

"The only way" (?) ... unless we revisit and question the assumptions above.

[Secret Alias]

I think Boid's idea about Shilo = Chrestos is like this. Moses wrote about "one who is stored up" who would come in the future. It would be, according to the earliest interpretations, a returning Moses figure. Jesus was the returning Moses figure. I would add, maybe if "Jesus" was read "man" he was an Adamic heavenly figure who would restore humanity to its original glory. He was ho Chrestos because this was both a kind act and a useful act. In short, he was "stored up" for "use" by humanity. The Samaritans get to this idea about Shilo because they believed that Moses was "the Man" i.e. the man in the beginning.

So it goes something like this.

1. when Moses went up to the mountain he met "the Man" (= Ish) and was subsequently called "Moses the God Man"
2. Moses does his thing, is taken to be God, is occultated.
3. the Pentateuch prophesies his coming by means of Shilo (which = 345 = Moses)
4. Jesus/Ish (remember my theory) comes at the end of time from heaven as someone BETTER THAN MOSES

His character as "THE Chrestos" is because the "stored up one" appears for the "use" of humanity to attain the same status as Moses. The comparison between Jesus and Moses is everywhere in early Christianity and it comes from the Shilo expectation.

[rgprice]

dbz, i think the problem is that in the case the epistle's aren't Messianic and date a little later it begs the question - what about the messianic original movement? was there one, or did the church frame it that way in the gospels and acts?

i'm just disagreeing with everyone. i flat out think there was a historical messianic movement in existence at the start of some kind
but, to preserve the historicity the only way is to date the gospels before the epistles at least one or more of them anyway
because if the epistles are dated a bit later and the gospels still post-date them, it all falls apart how can the first writing be non-messianic and the next ones be the opposite. it's the other way round. the scholarly consensus has got it the wrong way round and their dating is messed up

There are certainly complex issues in the material. I think the biggest problem is assuming that the provenance of the material is much cleaner and simpler than it really was.

But there are a few things that do stand out to me.

#1) It must be that passages in the Gospel of Mark post-date some passages in the Pauline letters.
#2) It must be that passages in essentially all known Gospels are dependent on/derived from, passages that can now be found in the Gospel of Mark.

But there is nothing to say that there were not many asynchronous revisions to these various materials over time that greatly confound any attempt to define clear relational dependencies.

The church fathers put forth a set of claims about where these material came from and how they were produced, and much of the case of orthodoxy is actually dependent on their claims about the provenance of the documents, and so there has been significant academic resistance to challenging the fundamental claims of the church fathers, given that the overwhelming majority of academics in this field are faithful Christians working through Christian institutions.

Essentially, the claims of the church fathers are taken as true starting assumptions that require significant evidence to overturn.

What I have concluded is that the church fathers were drastically wrong about the provenance of these writings. As such, the starting assumptions established by the church fathers have greatly misled people. My personal view is that the church fathers were mostly simply misled or lacked a sophisticated enough understanding of the material.

I think many people are of the view that surely the church fathers couldn't have been that far off. So it is a common view that if the church fathers weren't aware of some writing then it must not have existed. If we don't see acknowledgment of a certain version of a document, then it must not have existed. This is used against Q sometimes, and I've used this argument myself in teh past, but I really think it is not valid, because the church father really didn't know what they are talking about and it seems they only had knowledge of the tip of the iceberg.

The church fathers thought that the four canonical Gospels came into existence fully formed and there were no earlier writings that existed prior to the four canonical Gospels. This was key to the claims of orthodoxy, because this was an essential part of "proving" that their documents were authentic and everyone else's were forgeries that were derived from theirs.

But in fact this isn't the case. The four canonical Gospels actually are later works that have gone through many layers of derivation and revision. Yet many modern scholars still think about the canonical Gospels as being original documents that, even if they weren't produced by the claimed authors, they were created by a single person at a point in time and then they were just added to the canonical collection as they were without revision, etc., so they think of relationships between these materials in terms of simple direct relationships, like A was derived from B and that's it, or maybe there is just some minor scribal post-collection conformity that took place.

But really I think there were many versions of these writings that have been completely lost and were unknown to the church fathers, in part because I think may of these works were originally produced within secretive mystery cults that did not publish out their writings. I think what happened was writings got leaked out into the public and then took on a life of their own, but what got leaked out was already many layers removed from the origin. A writing may have originated within the mystery cult and undergone several revisions within the cult before any version of it ever saw the light of day, and then that version was further modified and built upon, etc. and integrated with other works that emerged from secrecy, so that the works within the public sphere already had multiple layers of interdependencies across them through documents that were unknown to the broader public and have become entirely lost.

[dbz]

[T]he "stored up one" appears for the "use" of humanity to attain the same status as Moses.

• A redeemer figure that bestows the chrism material needed for transcendence by devotees?