Here is the discussion of the term Christ starting at 1.45.1.
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions has an argument here that there was a special "pure uncompounded" ointment, made from "oil that had been taken from the tree of life." With this argument, the author of Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions is able to maintain that "he is called Christ especially through the ritual of the fear of God," with reference to Jewish ritual: "Thus also ‘Christ’ is [particular] to the Jews." That's the argument that is apparent on the surface.
In developing it, however, the author has made reference to ideas that are different. One noteworthy thing about these different ideas (something we also notice in the anti-Marcionite discussion) is that the supposed misunderstanding about the Christ, argued against here, is compatible with Jewish ideas. This is indeed how the arguments of Against Marcion can be also deployed against the Jews in another of Tertullian's texts. The ideas referenced here in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions could have been those of other Christians, who agreed with Jews about the nature of the Christ. In both cases, the ideas appear in the form of an argument that Jesus is not the Christ, i.e.:
And therefore, since there was no chrism in the beginning, he (Jesus or "the prophet") is not the Christ. Notice that 1.47.1 presents this in the form of Clement wondering about the correct understanding of Jesus, suggesting strongly in favor of a reading where other Christians/Chrestians were maintaining that Jesus, the true prophet, is not the Christ:
And if we want to understand better how these other Christians would have understood the term, what has been highlighted so far (such as in the post just previous) is sufficient to suggest that they believed Jesus to be "the good one," the Chrēstos, among other titles. And as such, they may relate Jesus being "the good one" not to his anointing but rather to his being "the first man":
The one man, who is the good one, appointed over men:
The one in the beginning, the Son of God, who came as the first man:
Such an understanding of Jesus, the man, the good one, as the true prophet has been Christ-ianized in this text.
| Syriac translation | Armenian translation | Latin translation |
|---|---|---|
| (1.45.1) Now Peter began to speak as follows: "God, who made the world and who is lord of everything, appointed chiefs over everything, even over plants and rocks, springs and rivers, and every creature. For there are many that I might enumerate like them. (2) Thus, he appointed as chiefs an angel over the angels, a spirit over the spirits, a star over the stars, a bird over the birds, a beast over the beasts, an insect over the insects, a fish over the fish, and over humans, a human, who is the Christ. | (1.45.1) Then Peter began to teach me in this manner: "When God made the world, as the lord of all he established chiefs for all the creatures, even for trees, mountains, springs, and rivers and, as we said, for everything that he made. For it would be excessive to go through everything individually. (2) Well then, he established an angel as the chief for the angels, a spirit for the spirits, a star for the stars, a demon for the demons, a bird for the birds, a beast for the beasts, a serpent for the serpents, a fish for the fish, and for the humans a human, who is Christ Jesus. | |
| (3) Now, he is called Christ especially through the ritual of the fear of God. For with all chiefs there is a shared name and a distinctive name. Now the appellation ‘king’ is shared, but what is particular to the Parthians is ‘Arsac’, to the Romans, ‘Caesar’. Thus also ‘Christ’ is [particular] to the Jews. | (3) But he is named Christ because of a rite of piety. For to all powers there is one name that is common and one that is distinctive. A common name as king for the Parthians is Arsac, for the Romans it is Caesar, and thus for the Jews it is Christ. | (3) He is called Christ by virtue of a special rite of piety. For just as there are common names of kings, Arsaces among the Persians, such as Caesar among the Romans, and Pharaoh among the Egyptians, thus among the Jews the king is called by the common Christ. |
| (4) The reason that he might be called Christ is that he was the Son of God and became human. And because he was the first chief, his Father anointed him in the beginning with the oil that comes from the tree of life. | (4) But this is the reason for giving him the name Christ: though he was the Son of God, he came, became a human, and the one [who was] in the beginning became the beginning. In the beginning the Father anointed him. Just as he was anointed from the tree of life, | (4) Now this is the reason for this appellation: precisely because though he was the Son of God and the beginning of all, he became a human, him the Father first anointed with oil that had been taken from the tree of life. On the basis of that ointment, therefore, he is called Christ. |
| (5) Thus, in the same way, according to the predestination of his Father for the righteous, when they have come there, just as they have traveled a difficult road because of their toil, thus also for their rest he too will anoint with the same oil those who are like him. Thus, they will shine forth as light, receive the Holy Spirit, and be immortal in life everlasting. | (5) he himself will anoint from it with oil, according to the predestination of the Father, the pious similar to him when they have arrived there after having passed through difficult paths, according to the hardship of labors unto their rest. Thus, shining as light and receiving the Holy Spirit, they will become immortal. | (5) Hence then even he, according to the predestination of the Father, will anoint every one of the pious with similar oil for the refreshment from labor when they have attained to his will one of kingdom as ones who have prevailed over a difficult road. Thus both their light will shine and, filled with the Holy Spirit, they will be granted immortality. |
| [skipping ahead] ... (1.47.1) I, Clement, answered him, "I recall that you, Peter, told me concerning the first man who came into being that he was a prophet. But you did not tell me that he was anointed. (2) Now, if no one is a prophet without the unction, how was the first man a prophet though he was not anointed?" | [skipping ahead] ... (1.47.1) (1.47.1) | responded to these things, "I recall, Peter, that you said regarding the first human that he was a prophet, but you did not say that he was anointed. (2) Therefore, if no one is a prophet without the ointment, how was the first human a prophet, though he was not anointed?" | |
| (3) Peter laughed and answered me, "If the first man prophesied, it is also clear that he was anointed. Therefore, because the high priest who recorded the law was silent about his [sc. the first man’s] anointing, this matter is revealed to us. (4) For example, if he had shown that he was anointed, then we would know that the one who was anointed is a prophet because of the unction, even if it were not so written. Because he showed that he was a prophet, it is clear to us that he was also anointed. For without the unction, he would not have been a prophet. (5) Now, it would have been appropriate for you to say, ‘If the unction was fabricated by Aaron through a craft involving spices, how was the first man anointed with the craftsman’s ointment when the crafts did not exist?’" | (3) Smiling, Peter responded, "If the first human prophesied, it is certain that he was anointed. For it is clear that the one who recorded the law in pages was silent about his anointing, yet he evidently left it for us to understand these things. (4) For just as if he had said that he had been anointed, then there could have been no doubt that he was also a prophet, even if it had not been written in the law, thus, since it is certain that he was a prophet, it is similarly certain that he was also anointed, because he would have not been able to prophesy (5) Yet it was more proper for you to have said, ‘If the chrism was compounded with the science of perfumers by Aaron, how was the first human able to have been anointed with ointment from a developed science, when the sciences had not yet been discovered?’" | |
| (6) I answered him, "Do not turn me aside, Peter, for I am not talking about that temporal, fabricated ointment but about the pure uncompounded [ointment] that is eternal and with God and in the likeness of which, you say, this [ointment] was fabricated." | (6) And I responded, "Do not lead me astray, Peter, for I am not talking about the composite ointment and the temporal oil but about the one that is simple and eternal that you taught to have been made by God and in the image of which you say this one was compounded by humans." | |
| (1.48.1) Peter was angry, | think, and he said, "Why are you, Clement, supposing that everyone is able to know everything ahead of time? (2) But now, in order that we not abandon the issue that lies before us, | shall speak to you also about this plainly at another time when you have more experience. (3) But the high priest was anointed with the fabricated ointment and was esteemed worthy of the office of prophet. He kindled the altar fire, raised up fire, and showed it to the whole world. (4) Now after Aaron the high priest, the one who sprang forth from water also arose. | am speaking not about Moses, but rather about the one who was called the Son, Christ, through baptism. (5) He was also called Jesus. He extinguished the altar that was burning there for sins, (6) for when he appeared, the unction of the high priesthood, prophecy, and kingship ceased. | (1.48.1) Peter responded seemingly indignant at these things, "Do you suppose that we are all able to know everything ahead of time? (2) But that we not now draw back from the proposed issue, we will clearly explain to you other matters in this regard when your progress becomes more apparent. (3) Now when the high priest or the prophet had been anointed with the composite oil and lit the altar of God, he was renowned in the entire world. (4) But after Aaron, who was high priest, another is enlisted from the water. | am speaking not of Moses but of the one who was called Son by God in the baptismal water. (5) For Jesus is the one who by the grace of baptism extinguished the fire that the high priest had lit for sins. (6) For when he appeared, the chrism ceased through which the office of high priest, prophet, or king was conferred. |
Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions has an argument here that there was a special "pure uncompounded" ointment, made from "oil that had been taken from the tree of life." With this argument, the author of Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions is able to maintain that "he is called Christ especially through the ritual of the fear of God," with reference to Jewish ritual: "Thus also ‘Christ’ is [particular] to the Jews." That's the argument that is apparent on the surface.
In developing it, however, the author has made reference to ideas that are different. One noteworthy thing about these different ideas (something we also notice in the anti-Marcionite discussion) is that the supposed misunderstanding about the Christ, argued against here, is compatible with Jewish ideas. This is indeed how the arguments of Against Marcion can be also deployed against the Jews in another of Tertullian's texts. The ideas referenced here in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions could have been those of other Christians, who agreed with Jews about the nature of the Christ. In both cases, the ideas appear in the form of an argument that Jesus is not the Christ, i.e.:
If the chrism was compounded with the science of perfumers by Aaron, how was the first human able to have been anointed with ointment from a developed science, when the sciences had not yet been discovered?
And therefore, since there was no chrism in the beginning, he (Jesus or "the prophet") is not the Christ. Notice that 1.47.1 presents this in the form of Clement wondering about the correct understanding of Jesus, suggesting strongly in favor of a reading where other Christians/Chrestians were maintaining that Jesus, the true prophet, is not the Christ:
I, Clement, answered him, "I recall that you, Peter, told me concerning the first man who came into being that he was a prophet. But you did not tell me that he was anointed. (2) Now, if no one is a prophet without the unction, how was the first man a prophet though he was not anointed?"
And if we want to understand better how these other Christians would have understood the term, what has been highlighted so far (such as in the post just previous) is sufficient to suggest that they believed Jesus to be "the good one," the Chrēstos, among other titles. And as such, they may relate Jesus being "the good one" not to his anointing but rather to his being "the first man":
I recall that you, Peter, told me concerning the first man who came into being that he was a prophet. But you did not tell me that he was anointed.
The one man, who is the good one, appointed over men:
over humans, a human, who is the Chr_stos
The one in the beginning, the Son of God, who came as the first man:
But this is the reason for giving him the name Chr_stos: though he was the Son of God, he came, became a human, and the one [who was] in the beginning became the beginning.
Such an understanding of Jesus, the man, the good one, as the true prophet has been Christ-ianized in this text.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:35 pm