A "Messianic" Use of Chrestos in Against Celsus

[Secret Alias]

Bingo. Just when you wrote that. From Celsus's own mouth:

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.

A lot of this in instinctive. It's like scoring goals in a sport. The problem is that fucking garbage Greek term Christianoi. Not even real Greek. It was always Chrestoi. That's the name the Christian sects fight over in chapter 3 according to Celsus. Chrestoi.

[Secret Alias]

And continuing in 4.9 Origen responds:

There came, then, although Celsus may not wish to admit it, after the numerous prophets who were the reformers of that well-known Israel,
ὁ Χς, the Reformer of the whole world, who did not need to use (χρήσεως) against men whips, and chains, and tortures, as was the case under the former economy. For when the sower went forth to sow, the doctrine sufficed to sow the word everywhere. But if there is a time coming which will necessarily circumscribe the duration of the world, by reason of its having had a beginning, and if there is to be an end to the world, and after the end a just judgment of all things, it will be incumbent on him who treats the declarations of the Gospels philosophically, to establish these doctrines by arguments of all kinds, not only derived directly from the sacred Scriptures, but also by inferences deducible from them; while the more numerous and simpler class of believers, and those who are unable to comprehend the many varied aspects of the divine wisdom, must entrust themselves to God, and to the Saviour of our race, and be contented with His ipse dixit, instead of this or any other demonstration whatever.

In a nice way of course. Israel, that is Jacob, was not the Christ. In chapter 15 Origen picks up on who XC is:

And with respect to His having descended among men, He was previously in the form of God; and through benevolence, divested Himself (of His glory), that He might be capable of being received by men. But He did not, I imagine, undergo any change from good to evil, for He did no sin; nor from virtue to vice, for He knew no sin. Nor did He pass from happiness to misery, but He humbled Himself, and nevertheless was blessed, even when His humiliation was undergone in order to benefit our race. Nor was there any change in Him from best to worst, for how can goodness and benevolence be of the worst (ποῦ γὰρ πονηρότατον τὸ χρηστὸν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον)?

[Peter Kirby]

Bingo. Just when you wrote that. From Celsus's own mouth:

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.

A lot of this in instinctive. It's like scoring goals in a sport. The problem is that fucking garbage Greek term Christianoi. Not even real Greek. It was always Chrestoi. That's the name the Christian sects fight over in chapter 3 according to Celsus. Chrestoi.

Thanks! That is indeed a compelling reference, given the context of "become and be saved." It stands alongside other references in Philemon, Ephesians, 1 Clement, Clement of Alexandria, and the fourth century syn-Chrestoi letter references to begin to look like it may add up to something.

[Peter Kirby]

Quoted in part, to comment further:

And continuing in 4.9 Origen responds:

There came, then, although Celsus may not wish to admit it, after the numerous prophets who were the reformers of that well-known Israel, ὁ Χς, the Reformer of the whole world, who ....

Israel, that is Jacob, was not the Christ.

One thing that I noticed is that Romans 9:5 and Galatians 3:16 do not refer specifically to David (unlike Romans 1:1-4, which I consider to be more clearly interpolated).

I am curious whether you would be able to offer an interpretation of Romans 9:5 and Galatians 3:16 on the assumption (which could of course be incorrect and which you need not agree with) that they were part of the letters as first written. I am curious how they would fit into your views here.

I understand that they are parts that are alleged not to be accepted as part of the letters of Paul in the anti-Marcionite propaganda.

[billd89]

... τίνα τρόπον ἔσθ' ὅτε καὶ ἐπὶ χρηστοῖς ἐσομένοις κομῆται ἀνέτειλαν ...
"how and under what circumstances comets have appeared even during the right [original translation: favorable] times"

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

'Good' is too often like 'nice' in English: degraded language, baby-talk. Oracular science uses terminology, and an omen will be (in-/) auspicious.

Here χρηστοῖς means "auspicious", i.e. 'boding well," in this case:
"...how comets appeared even on auspicious occasions..."

Liddell-Scott, p.1674: "Herodotus 5.44: of victims and omens, boding good, auspicious, lucky ..."

ἐπείτε οἱ τὰ ἱρὰ οὐ προεχώρεε χρηστὰ θυομένῳ ἐπὶ Κρότωνα, so

5.44: ''when the sacrifices did not prove favourable auspicious"
"he did not find the victims favorable to Sybaris."
"since the sacred offerings to Sybaris did not proceed favorably auspiciously"

[Secret Alias]

And the messiah isn't auspicious.

[MrMacSon]

Bingo. Just when you wrote that. From Celsus's own mouth:

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.

Deepl gives

For those who accept it, being of good use, shall be saved.

• (Deepl is of variable use with Koine Greek)

eta:
γενόμενοι = become, so 'become Chrestoi' is more reasonable

[davidmartin]

Anyone can see David is not in the epistles or pastorals

It as actually possible to simplifiy this - The gospels and Acts are Davidic and the rest isn't, bar Revelation of course

Anyone can see the Jesus of the gospels has a long shot of being the Messiah if he is really masterful at it. It's at least worth considering like say you have to judge whether a painting is a real Rembrandt. A good fake would be worth studying to see it might be real, but a crude drawing in biro can be dismissed instantly.
The Jesus of the epistles can never be the Messiah and it's not even worth considering because, the Jesus of the epistles doesn't teach or do the least Messianic thing at all. The portrayal of Jesus in the epistles invalidates any idea the authors thought he was the Messiah, and its totally obvious
The epistles, as ML's book shows, post-date the gospels

[andrewcriddle]

Anyone can see David is not in the epistles or pastorals

It as actually possible to simplifiy this - The gospels and Acts are Davidic and the rest isn't, bar Revelation of course

Anyone can see the Jesus of the gospels has a long shot of being the Messiah if he is really masterful at it. It's at least worth considering like say you have to judge whether a painting is a real Rembrandt. A good fake would be worth studying to see it might be real, but a crude drawing in biro can be dismissed instantly.
The Jesus of the epistles can never be the Messiah and it's not even worth considering because, the Jesus of the epistles doesn't teach or do the least Messianic thing at all. The portrayal of Jesus in the epistles invalidates any idea the authors thought he was the Messiah, and its totally obvious
The epistles, as ML's book shows, post-date the gospels

This assumes that Romans 1:2-4

2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

is not original and probably the same goes for Romans 9:4-5

4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

Another lengthy discussion of the Christian "use" of Jesus.

Celsus has made a statement regarding evils of the following nature, viz., that although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no means certain that it is so; for you do not know what is of advantage to yourself, or to another, or to the whole world. Now this assertion is made with a certain degree of caution; and it hints that the nature of evil is not wholly wicked, because that which may be considered so in individual cases, may contain something which is of advantage to the whole community. However, lest any one should mistake my words, and find a pretence of wrongdoing, as if his wickedness were profitable to the world (αὐτοῦ χρησίμου τυγχα νούσης τῷ παντὶ ἢ δυναμένης γε εἶναι χρησίμου), or at least might be so, we have to say, that although God, who preserves the free-will of each individual, may make use (συγχρήσηται) of the evil of the wicked for the administration of the world, so disposing them as to conduce to the benefit of the whole (κατατάσσων αὐτοὺς εἰς χρείαν τοῦ παντός); yet, notwithstanding, such an individual is deserving of censure, and as such has been appointed for a use, which is a subject of loathing to each separate individual, although of advantage to the whole community (οὐδὲν ἧττον ψεκτός τε ἐστὶν ὁ τοιόσδε καὶ ὡς ψεκτὸς κατατέτακται εἰς χρείαν ἀπευκταίαν μὲν ἑκάστῳ χρήσιμον δὲ τῷ παντί). It is as if one were to say that in the case of a city, a man who had committed certain crimes, and on account of these had been condemned to serve in public works that were useful to the community, did something that was of advantage to the entire city (χρήσιμα τῷ παντὶ καταδικαζόμενον ποιεῖν μέν τι χρήσιμον τῇ ὅλῃ πόλει), while he himself was engaged in an abominable task, in which no one possessed of moderate understanding would wish to be engaged. Paul also, the apostle of Jesus, teaches us that even the very wicked will contribute to the good of the whole ( διδάσκων ἡμᾶς συνοίσειν μὲν τῇ χρείᾳ τι τοῦ παντὸς καὶ τοὺς φαυλοτάτους), while in themselves they will be among the vile, but that the most virtuous men, too, will be of the greatest advantage to the world (χρησιμωτάτους δ' ἔσεσθαι καὶ τοὺς σπουδαιοτάτους τῷ παντί), and will therefore on that account occupy the noblest position (παρ' ἑαυτῶν αἰτίαν ἐν καλλίστῃ χώρᾳ ταχθησομένους). His words are: But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work. These remarks I have thought it necessary to make in reply to the assertion, that although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no means certain that it is so, for you do not know what is of advantage either to yourself or to another, in order that no one may take occasion from what has been said on the subject to commit sin, on the pretext that he will thus be useful to the world (πρὸς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ὡς χρήσιμος τῷ ὅλῳ διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐσόμενος).

But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful (χρήσιμα) for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him).