A "Messianic" Use of Chrestos in Against Celsus

[MrMacSon]

Lost in all of this nonsense is my original point.

Ἐπὶ μεγάλοις τετήρηται πράγμασι καὶ μεγίσταις μεταβολαῖς τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀνατέλλειν τοὺς τοιούτους ἀστέρας, σημαίνοντας ἢ μεταστάσεις βασιλειῶν ἢ πολέμους ἢ ὅσα δύναται ἐν ἀνθρώποις συμβῆναι, σεῖσαι τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς δυνάμενα. Ἀνέγνωμεν δ' ἐν τῷ περὶ κομητῶν Χαιρήμονος τοῦ στωϊκοῦ συγγράμματι, τίνα τρόπον ἔσθ' ὅτε καὶ ἐπὶ χρηστοῖς ἐσομένοις κομῆται ἀνέτειλαν, καὶ ἐκτίθεται τὴν περὶ τούτων ἱστορίαν. Εἴπερ οὖν ἐπὶ βασιλείαις καιναῖς ἢ ἄλλοις μεγάλοις συμπ τώμασιν ἐπὶ γῆς ἀνατέλλει ὁ καλούμενος κομήτης ἤ τις τῶν παραπλησίων ἀστήρ, τί θαυμαστὸν ἐπὶ τῇ γενέσει τοῦ καινοτομεῖν μέλλοντος ἐν τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίαν ἐπεισάγειν οὐ μόνον Ἰουδαίοις ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἕλλησι πολλοῖς δὲ καὶ τοῖς βαρβάρων ἔθνεσιν ἀστέρα ἀνατεταλκέναι

In great and greatest affairs on earth, such stars rise, indicating changes in kingdoms, wars, or whatever may happen among humans, capable of shaking earthly powers. We have read in the work of the Stoic philosopher Chairemon regarding comets, how and under what circumstances comets have appeared even during the right [original translation: favorable] times, and he recounts the history of these phenomena. Therefore, if [rises] a comet, or any similar star [ἀστήρ], in conjunction with new kingdoms or other significant events on earth, what wonder will it bring upon the birth of an innovator in the human race, and introduce teaching not only to the Jews but also to many Greeks and even to the nations of barbarians?

Clearly Chrestos can mean "the right one" i.e. one who appears at the right time viz. the end times, times of conflagration.

• I think a lot of these passages need more forensic translations and better transliterations ...

I'd say that, here, the Stoic philosopher Chairemon was invoked re a trope whereby/when χρηστοῖς was/will be like a comet [which] rose (or; will rise) [+/- on the horizon]:

τίνα : who[m] : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B1

---

τρόπον : tropos : trope : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%C ... ient_Greek

---

ἔσθ' : [apocopic] form of ἔστε (éste) which is the second-person plural present active imperative of εἰμί (eimí): [to] be

---

ὅτε

1. (of time) when
2. (casual sense) whereas / whereby
3. (absolute) sometimes, now and then

---

ἐπὶ : on, upon : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%AF

---

χρηστοῖς : chrestois :

---

ἐσομένοις : future middle participle of εἰμί (eimí); will be

---

κομῆται

1. comet
2. long-haired
3. feathered (of an arrow)

---

ἀνέτειλαν : rise/rose [up] / appear[ed] on the horizon

[Secret Alias]

This also seems to have a similar sense:

Καὶ ἐν ἀκαθάρτοις παρὰ Μωϋσεῖ ἐστι λύκος καὶ ἀλώπηξ καὶ δράκων ἀετός τε καὶ ἱέραξ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις. Καὶ ὡς ἐπίπαν οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις εὕροις ἂν ταῦτα τὰ ζῷα εἰς παράδειγμα τῶν κακίστων παραλαμβανόμενα, οὐδέ ποτε δὲ εἰς χρηστὸν πρᾶγμα ὀνομαζόμενον λύκον ἢ ἀλώπεκα.

And, generally speaking, you will find that not only in the law, but also in the prophets, these animals are employed as examples of all that is most wicked; and that a wolf or a fox is never mentioned for a good purpose.

"Good purpose" seems to mean "good end" similar idea to what Boid is talking about.

[Secret Alias]

There is another play on words in the Jew of Celsus:

Ὡς γὰρ ἐν ἐκείνοις πολλάκις μοχθηροὶ ἄνθρωποι ἐπιβαίνοντες τῇ ἰδιωτείᾳ τῶν εὐεξαπατήτων ἄγουσιν αὐτοὺς ᾗ βούλονται, οὕτως φησὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς γίνεσθαι. Φησὶ δέ τινας μηδὲ βουλομένους διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν λόγον περὶ ὧν πιστεύουσι χρῆσθαι τῷ "Μὴ ἐξέταζε ἀλλὰ πίστευσον" καὶ "Ἡ πίστις σου σώσει σε." Καί φησιν αὐτοὺς λέγειν· "Κακὸν ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ σοφία ἀγαθὸν δ' ἡ μωρία."

"For just as among them, many wicked people, taking advantage of the simplicity of the naive, lead them wherever they wish, so it is said to happen among Christians (Χριστιανοῖς). And it is said that some do not even want to give or receive a reason for what they believe, but rather make use of (χρῆσθαι τῷ), 'Do not investigate, only believe,' and 'Your faith will save you.' And they are said to say, 'Worldly wisdom is evil, but foolishness is good.'"

which is immediately followed up with:

In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those statements about faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful thing for the multitude (ὡς χρήσιμον τοῖς πολλοῖς), we admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons, who are unable to abandon all other employments, and give themselves to an examination of arguments; and our opponents, although they do not acknowledge it, yet practically do the same.

[Secret Alias]

Another possible explanation for why Jesus was called "Chrestos":

Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ ἐπαγγελλόμενος εἰδέναι τὰ τοῦ λόγου πάντα Κέλσος ὀνειδίζει τῷ σωτῆρι ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει ὡς μὴ βοηθηθέντι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ μὴ δυνηθέντι ἑαυτῷ βοηθῆσαι, παραθετέον ὅτι τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ ἐπροφητεύετο μετὰ τῆς αἰτίας, ὅτι χρήσιμον ἦν ἀνθρώποις τὸ ἐκεῖνον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανεῖν καὶ μώλωπα τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ καταδεδικάσθαι παθεῖν.

"But since Celsus, who professes to know all about the Word, reproaches the Savior on the ground of His sufferings, alleging that He was forsaken by the Father or was unable to help Himself, we have to show that His passion was predicted along with its cause, because it was useful for men that He should die on their behalf, and endure the contumely which fell on Him from the tribunal."

It resurfaces time and again in Against Celsus.

Οὐκ ἔστι δ' ἀγεννὲς τὸ μετ' οἰκονομίας περιϊστάμενον τοὺς κινδύνους μὴ ὁμόσε αὐτοῖς χωρεῖν, οὐ διὰ φόβον θανάτου ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ τοῦ χρησίμως αὐτὸν τῷ βίῳ ἐπιδημοῦντα ἑτέρους ὠφελεῖν, ἕως ἐπιστῇ ὁ ἐπιτήδειος καιρὸς τοῦ τὸν ἀνειληφότα ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ἀνθρώπου θάνατον ἀποθανεῖν, ἔχοντά τι χρήσιμον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ὅπερ δῆλόν ἐστι τῷ νοήσαντι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἀποθανεῖν· περὶ οὗ κατὰ δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων εἴπομεν.

Now, if Celsus had seen this, he would not have said: But if, then, this was done in order that you might not reign in his stead when you had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach that estate, do you not become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering about in so mean a condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a miserable life up and down? Now, it is not dishonourable to avoid exposing one's self to dangers, but to guard carefully against them, when this is done, not through fear of death, but from a desire to benefit others by remaining in life, until the proper time come for one who has assumed human nature to die a death that will be useful to mankind. And this is plain to him who reflects that Jesus died for the sake of men — a point of which we have spoken to the best of our ability in the preceding pages.

And the Christian = chrestos reference is repeated yet again Book Two:

Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that the disciples of Jesus wrote such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told against him: as if, he says, any one were to say that a certain person was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was immortal, and yet was dead; subjoining to all these statements the remark that he had foretold all these things. Now his illustrations are at once seen to be inappropriate; for there is no absurdity in Him who had resolved that He would become a living pattern to men, as to the manner in which they were to regulate their lives, showing also how they ought to die for the sake of their religion, apart altogether from the fact that His death on behalf of men was a benefit to the whole world (χωρὶς τοῦ χρήσιμόν τι τῷ παντὶ γεγονέναι τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν), as we proved in the preceding book.

And once again in 2.23:

And in the preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race (ἐκ τοῦ αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἀποθανεῖν τῷ παντὶ χρήσιμον).

And again at 2:24:

But if, as Celsus would allege, nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing, how could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing?

And again in 2:25

But if, as Celsus would allege, nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing, how could men afterwards use the Jesus (χρήσασθαι Ἰησοῦ) as enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing?

[Secret Alias]

Each "advent" is associated with "use":

Φθάσαντες δ' ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέρω εἰρήκαμεν περὶ τοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν προφητεύεσθαι δύο ἐπιδημίαις χρησόμενον εἰς τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος

"And having reached the points mentioned earlier, we have spoken about Christ being prophesied to appear twice for the sake of humanity."

[mbuckley3]

Another possible explanation for why Jesus was called "Chrestos":

Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ ἐπαγγελλόμενος εἰδέναι τὰ τοῦ λόγου πάντα Κέλσος ὀνειδίζει τῷ σωτῆρι ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει ὡς μὴ βοηθηθέντι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ μὴ δυνηθέντι ἑαυτῷ βοηθῆσαι, παραθετέον ὅτι τὸ πάθος αὐτοῦ ἐπροφητεύετο μετὰ τῆς αἰτίας, ὅτι χρήσιμον ἦν ἀνθρώποις τὸ ἐκεῖνον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν ἀποθανεῖν καὶ μώλωπα τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ καταδεδικάσθαι παθεῖν.

"But since Celsus, who professes to know all about the Word, reproaches the Savior on the ground of His sufferings, alleging that He was forsaken by the Father or was unable to help Himself, we have to show that His passion was predicted along with its cause, because it was useful for men that He should die on their behalf, and endure the contumely which fell on Him from the tribunal."

It resurfaces time and again in Against Celsus.

Οὐκ ἔστι δ' ἀγεννὲς τὸ μετ' οἰκονομίας περιϊστάμενον τοὺς κινδύνους μὴ ὁμόσε αὐτοῖς χωρεῖν, οὐ διὰ φόβον θανάτου ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ τοῦ χρησίμως αὐτὸν τῷ βίῳ ἐπιδημοῦντα ἑτέρους ὠφελεῖν, ἕως ἐπιστῇ ὁ ἐπιτήδειος καιρὸς τοῦ τὸν ἀνειληφότα ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ἀνθρώπου θάνατον ἀποθανεῖν, ἔχοντά τι χρήσιμον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ὅπερ δῆλόν ἐστι τῷ νοήσαντι τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἀποθανεῖν· περὶ οὗ κατὰ δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων εἴπομεν.

Now, if Celsus had seen this, he would not have said: But if, then, this was done in order that you might not reign in his stead when you had grown to man's estate; why, after you did reach that estate, do you not become a king, instead of you, the Son of God, wandering about in so mean a condition, hiding yourself through fear, and leading a miserable life up and down? Now, it is not dishonourable to avoid exposing one's self to dangers, but to guard carefully against them, when this is done, not through fear of death, but from a desire to benefit others by remaining in life, until the proper time come for one who has assumed human nature to die a death that will be useful to mankind. And this is plain to him who reflects that Jesus died for the sake of men — a point of which we have spoken to the best of our ability in the preceding pages.

And the Christian = chrestos reference is repeated yet again Book Two:

Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that the disciples of Jesus wrote such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told against him: as if, he says, any one were to say that a certain person was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was immortal, and yet was dead; subjoining to all these statements the remark that he had foretold all these things. Now his illustrations are at once seen to be inappropriate; for there is no absurdity in Him who had resolved that He would become a living pattern to men, as to the manner in which they were to regulate their lives, showing also how they ought to die for the sake of their religion, apart altogether from the fact that His death on behalf of men was a benefit to the whole world (χωρὶς τοῦ χρήσιμόν τι τῷ παντὶ γεγονέναι τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν), as we proved in the preceding book.

Jerome, drenched in Origen, seems to perpetuate this, with bilingual wordplay in his commentary on Matthew, in the appearance before Pilate.

On 27.22, Jerome glosses 'What then shall I do about Jesus who is called Christ ?' with "that is, who is your king". So, Jesus as Χριστος.

But on 27.13-14, Jerome writes : "But Jesus was unwilling to respond anything. For had he explained away the charge, he would have been released by the governor, and the utility/benefit of the cross would have been postponed"/ Jesus autem nihil respondere voluit ne crimen diluens a praeside dimitteretur et crucis utilitas differretur.

'Surely', utilitas = χρηστοτης.

[Secret Alias]

This is another interesting one. 3.12:

In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that when Christians

had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party; and further, that being thus separated through their numbers, they confute one another, still having, so to speak, one name in common, if indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are yet ashamed to abandon (Καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἐγκαταλιπεῖν ὅμως αἰσχύνονται), while other matters are determined in different ways by the various sects (τὰ λοιπὰ δ' ἄλλοι ἀλλαχῇ τετάχαται).

Any teaching which has had a serious origin, and is to life useful (χρήσιμος), has caused different sects. For since medicine is useful (χρήσιμος) and essential to mankind, and there are many problems in it as to the method of curing bodies, on this account several sects in medicine are admittedly found among the Greeks, and, I believe, also among the barbarians such as profess to practice medicine (χρῆσθαι ἰατρικῇ).” [Book III, chapter 12]

Are we again supposed to see the "common name" held by the Christians as having nothing to do with Chrestos?

[Secret Alias]

And then Origen, still in Book 3, goes on with this identification of the name XC = Chrestos by saying at the end of 3.19:

But if he should assert this (that Jesus was like the dogs and cats worshipped by the Egyptians) — and I do not think that he will maintain anything else — we shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding pages at greater length in defense of those charges affecting Jesus, showing that what appeared to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature, was fraught with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole world (συμβεβηκέναι χρησίμως γέγονεν τῷ παντὶ καὶ σωτηρίως τῷ ὅλῳ κόσμῳ).

The "use" that Jesus had for the world is paralleled by the "use" that he made of the apostles to become martyrs and teach his doctrine:

And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus wished to use such persons as teachers of His doctrines (Οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τοῦτο βεβουλῆσθαι διδασκάλοις τοῦ δόγματος χρῆσθαι τοιούτοις), viz., that there might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power, which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences, accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.

But Celsus seems to argue that these Christians are "chrestos" only in name:

He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is really good and righteous (ἄνδρα τῷ ὄντι χρηστὸν καὶ δίκαιον προσάγεσθαι δυνάμενοι), and therefore open our gates to the most unholy and abandoned of men.

To which Origen replies immediately:

But when we consider that those discourses, which Celsus terms vulgar, are filled with power, as if they were spells, and see that they at once convert multitudes from a life of licentiousness to one of extreme regularity, and from a life of wickedness to a better (ν καὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀδίκων εἰς τὸν χρηστότερον), and from a state of cowardice or unmanliness to one of such high-toned courage as to lead men to despise even death through the piety which shows itself within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they contain?

Book 3 is an extended discussion on the meaning of the name Christian as "chrestos" and whether it is valid.

[Secret Alias]

Again the use of "use" in Book Three:

After this he again slanders the ambassador of Christianity, and gives out regarding him that he relates ridiculous things, although he does not show or clearly point out what are the things which he calls ridiculous. And in his slanders he says that no wise man believes the Gospel, being driven away by the multitudes who adhere to it ... [but Origen responds] For just as in these matters, according to what seems useful (χρήσιμον) to them, legislators have made them adopt such conduct and laws, so also God, legislating through Jesus Christ for men in all parts of the world, brings to Himself even those who are not wise in the way in which it is possible for such persons to be brought to a better life.

And again a few lines later countering the argument that Christianity just makes the ignorant afraid Origen again invokes the idea that Christianity is the most useful religion:

Nay, even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to which, because it is useful (χρήσιμον) to the many, the Gospel encourages those who are not yet able to choose that which ought to be chosen for its own sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and one above all promise; for this principle cannot be implanted in him who prefers to live in wickedness.

And again in the next paragraph:

But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who believe the word, and should charge our doctrine with making men superstitious, we shall answer him by saying that, as a certain legislator replied to the question of one who asked him whether he had enacted for his citizens the best laws, that he had not given them absolutely the best, but the best which they were capable of receiving; so it might be said by the Father of the Christian doctrine, I have given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of morals of which the many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary labours and chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to be applied for the correction of those who offer resistance, although they do not at all understand the object of him who inflicts the punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine of punishment is both attended with usefulness (χρήσιμον), and is agreeable to truth, and is stated in obscure terms with advantage.

That Celsus understands the term Chrestoi to be the name Christians fight over is clear a few paragraphs later when Origen notes what he wrote:

I do not know how it is, that after the foolish remarks which he has made upon the subject which we have just been discussing, he should add the following, that God does not desire to make himself known for his own sake, but because he wishes to bestow upon us the knowledge of himself for the sake of our salvation, in order that those who accept it may become Chrestoi and be saved (ἵν' οἱ μὲν παραδεξάμενοι αὐτὴν χρηστοὶ γενόμενοι σωθῶσιν), while those who do not accept may be shown to be wicked and be punished.

[Peter Kirby]

At some level, do we not need to consider that this also functions as a word that can appear in many contexts, not only in Chrestos-Jesus-focused literature?