Hi Thomas
1) REGARDING WHETHER JERUSALEM HAD A LIBRARY
Clear said: “Archbishop Timothy claims he found the text in a library in Jerusalem in the 300s. Can you provide some evidence to support the claim that neither the original source text nor a library existed in Jerusalem in the 300s?”
Thomas replied: “There is no record of the existence of any such library.
Clear replied: “If you READ Eusebius (book 6, chapt 20), he describes the Jerusalem library founded by Bishop Alexander of the third century. Eusebius even describes this library as containing works by famous works of Beryllus, Hippolytus and a dialogue of Caius.
Though Jerusalem was the central, “Holy City” of Judaism, other cities had libraries during this time as well. For example, Caesarea had a theological library established by Origen in the 3rd century as well and Pamphilus was reported to have expanded it to 30,000 manuscripts.
The Qumran Library of 70 a.d. had almost 1000 different texts (and in addition to that, multiple copies of certain texts) around 1,200 different texts altogether. Many Scholars believe this was part of Jerusalems theological library since no one knows where the texts came from and who produced them.
Your assumption that Jerusalem had no library is (to me) a very strange and naïve assumption.
Why would Jerusalem not have archives of public records, books, legal records, etc?
IF there were no libraries with multiple texts such as copies of the Pentateuch, why were so many scribes needed near the time of Christ and what was their purpose?
Even Jewish synagogues themselves had libraries of scrolls (just like churches typically have libraries). For example, in the single Cairo Geninza, 400,000 (four hundred Thousand) manuscript fragments were found, representing multiple books that is even called the “Nag Hamadi Library”.
2) IS IT LOGICAL TO EXPECT SACRED TEXTS TO DESCRIBE A LIBRARY IN ANY TOWN?
Thomas said : “Surely if there were, it would have been mentioned by the Fathers, and the writings of the apostles contained therein would have been referenced? "
Clear responded: "This is (to me), strange logic.
WHY would the apostolic Fathers or the apostles care to describe a diary?
I’ve written a lot of letters but was never excited enough about a library to describe it in a lettter. .
Has any reader here mentioned a local library as an important part of their evangelizing?
Thomas responded: "Now you're being silly."
I apologize Thomas if it seemed silly to you. I am not trying to be silly.
I am simply trying to demonstrate that whether a library existed or not doesn't seem to be a priority in ANY sacred texts.
For example, I don't think the word "library" (or an equivalent) appears in the entire corpus of Old Testament and New Testament text. The priority for the text seems to be one of telling a sacred history, evangelizing and witnessing rather than even mentioning the various libraries that existed anciently.
3) WILL YOU PROVIDE ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY THAT ABBATON WAS THE WORK OF COPTIC MONKS IN LATER CENTURIES?
Thomas said regarding the “discourse on abbaton” text : “ it was the work of Coptic monks at least two centuries after Timothy died.”
Clear said: " O.K. lets look at your theory.
Will you describe the data you are basing this theory on?
You say monks did this. Which monks and where did they accomplish this?
Did they use source text or did they make up the text. IF they made up the text then why do parts of the abbaton narrative appear in Judeo-Christian literature that comes from the very period Timothy describes (late 300s)? (literature from the Cairo Geninza)
I'm not sure why this specific theory of this specific text is so important to you, but Will you provide some actual, very basic evidence for this theory?
Thomas quoted from the extant version of Abbaton: "Remember of your charity Theopistus…every one who shall read in this book…Written on the eleventh day of the month of Thoth, in the Third Indiction, of the six hundred and ninety-eighth year of the Era of the Martyrs (i.e. a.d. 698).
and
“This little book was made by the zeal and care of the God-loving brother, Etout (?) Khael…and gave it to the Monastery of St. Mercurius ... "
You seem to be assuming your quotes come from the Original version of the narrative found in Abbaton. Is my assumption correct?
Thomas, remember, you are providing quotes from the COPTIC version created many years AFTER the original GREEK version of Abbaton.
You are NOT quoting from the original Greek Abbaton which Timothy claimed to have written.
I agree with you that the later coptic version of this story seems to from the 7th century was produced by later scribes.
My request for data did NOT relate to any later versions, but rather, my request for data and evidence has to do with the ORIGINAL greek version of Abbaton. Do you have ANY evidence that the original Greek Abbaton was no written by Timothy who claims in the introduction, that he wrote it?
You must understand that there are many ancient source texts that say either the same thing as we discussed with Christian ApoConst and the Jewish Synagogal prayers. Some of the later ones are using earlier ones as source text. In this case, you seem to be conflating your late, Coptic version, with an earlier Greek version.
This seem (to me) to be a basic historical mistake.
Thomas said: “As Eusebius makes no mention of writings of the Apostles – and he surely would have done had they existed – one can assume this is a different library.
If you READ Eusebius, he mentions almost ALL of the apostolic writings.
He mentions the gospels, the acts, the epistles, (He specifically mentions 2Peter and Revelations which he points out some rejected). Remember, the word βιβλια MEANS “the books”, a collection of texts, which is the meaning of the greek for “library” (The Greek for library IS βιβλιοθεκε).
It can certainly BE correct that the various Libraries Eusebius describes are not the one referred to by Archbishop Timothy. That was not my claim.
I was responding to your claim that no libraries existed in Jerusalem when in fact Jerusalem and the various Synagogues had collections of Books, both sacred and secular.
Thomas said: “One can assume any structure used by the Apostles in Jerusalem was destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70CE. Only a couple of buildings survived…”
I don’t understand the underlying logic here that because in 70 a.d. buildings were destroyed, buildings would not have been built in the 314 intervening years.
For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls library is evidence that, though buildings were destroyed, the library of books itself were sequestered and hidden away and survived. Destruction of a “building” is not the same as destruction of it’s library or books.
The bible itself IS a library of 66 or 72 or 81 books (depending on which bible one uses). As I pointed out, Even the word “τα βιβλια” MEANS the “books’ and it represents a library of multiple texts.
Why assume that though in 70 a.d. a library was destroyed, that 314 years later, no library had been rebuilt? America is not yet 314 years old and much has changed and been built since its inception. Benjamin Franklins subscription library existed since before U.S. was a country (i.e.1731) and his library formed the seed literature for the 1790 Massachusetts public library (14 years after the declaration of independence). Given 314 years, I think Jerusalem would certainly have re-formed many sacred libraries.
4) THE EARLY HEBREWS BELIEVED IN GOD THE FATHER, A DIVINE MESSIAH AND IN A HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD.
Thomas said: “ But Jews who were not Christrian had no version of a trinity as far as I can see, nor do I see any Jewish scholarship supporting that idea.”
It helps to read the early literature where the ancient Jews describe their beliefs:
We have already gone over this but I am happy to do so again. Here are some prior quotes:
A)THE JEWS DESCRIBE THEIR BELIEF IN A GOD AND SON IN HEAVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED
In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”
Enoch then asks the angel with him regarding who the person was who accompanied the Father and why he was with the Father saying:
“And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship.” (1st Enoch 46:1-6)
This scripture describes their belief in The Father and his Son, the messiah/Christ in the Heavenly realm.
b)THE JEWS BELIEVED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD AS WELL
The Prophet Ezra’s prayer says: “If then I have found favor before you, send the Holy Spirit to me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in your Law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live.” Fourth Book of Ezra 14:22;
“1 Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer” (AposCon 7.39.2-4)
Another Hellenistic prayer reads: “You have sent forth the Christ to men as a man, being uniquely born God; you have caused the Paraclete to live in us (AposCon 7.38.1-8);
The following texts from the Dead sea Scrolls describing their belief in the spirit, are (obviously) Jewish in origin.
The Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls also witness to us that the ancient temple centric Jews also believed in the Holy Spirit: “I give thanks to You, O LORD, for You have sustained me with your strength, and your Holy Spirit. 4Q429 Frag. 1 Col. 15:6
4Q427 of the Dead Sea Scrolls relates this same Jewish Doctrine: “And I, the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit.
In the dead sea scrolls THANKSGIVING PSALMS (Frags. 10, 24, 42 + 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 20) describes their belief in the Holy Spirit, saying : “Over the humble His spirit hovers, and He renews the faithful in His strength.
The import of the spirit for the temple centric Jews is described by their textual witnesses saying : "For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col. 3
The ancient Jews expressed both their belief in and gratitude for the spirit thusly: “Indeed, You have poured out Your holy spirit upon us, bringing your blessings to us. 4Q504 Col. 5
The texts do not tell us other details but it is obvious that temple-centric Judaism believed in God the Father, and in the Messiah, and in the Holy Spirit since they describe all three in their literature.
Thomas said: “But I don't see the texts you offer of Enoch showing the Son of Man present with God at the creation of the world, although I can see that the assumption is not invalid, as the heavens in which they reside are outside the normal time-space we exist in.
Clear pointed out: “It would help if you would READ Enoch.”
Thomas acknowledged: “Acknowledged. I should have.”
This is perfectly fine Thomas. I do not expect you to "see the texts" as "showing the Son of Man present with God at the creation of the world" since you have not read the text. One cannot "see" what one has not actually looked at.
It seem we both have a historical interest to a certain extent.
My interest is, mainly, in the earliest form of Judeo-Christian religion described by the ancient Judeo-Christians in their own descriptions in their own literature representing their own witnesses.
Thus, we won’t have the same knowledge bases. I, for example, have no real knowledge of your "two" and "three" power hypotheses (thus I asked you to explain them...)
This is not altogether a bad thing since I am introduced to new concepts and learn from your knowledge base as well.
The down side is that if you are not familiar with such ancient texts, we do not have a shared context on these specific texts and on what the earlies Judeo-Christians say they, themselves believed.
Thomas asked: “Again, can you point to any Jewish exegetical writings that support that thesis?”
Yes, read the early texts such as: Jewish Enoch; the dead sea scrolls (especially 1QH, + 4Q 428; 4Q491 and 4q369 Frag.1 Col. 1) , the Epistles of Ignatius to the Ephesians and to the tralians, the epistle of barnabas, the epistle to Diognetus, the apocalypse of Sedrach, the gospel of phillip, the gospel of bartholemew; the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (syncretic and redacted); the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (especially prayers #1, #4, #5, #12; 1st Clement;
5) THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT A HUMAN "PERSON"
Thomas said : “I just don't see evidence of the Holy Spirit as a Person, nor do I know of any commentary that does?”
Clear responded: “The reason you don’t see evidence of that is because they did not seem to believe the Holy Ghost was a person.”
Thomas responded: “Quite ... my whole point.”
O.K.
I didn’t realize from prior comments that you were trying to make the point that the Holy Spirit was not a person. We agree on this point.
6) REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE THE HOLY SPIRIT
Clear said: “I use the term “individual” (or sometimes “person” like you have done). My motive is to avoid using more nebulous terms such as “character” or “entity”, or “power”, etc.”
Thomas said: “I prefer, for the sake of clarity, to remain within contextual norms. One could use the term hypostasis, rather than person, but then one would need to discuss the meaning of hypostasis and prosopon in detail, as they are not the same ...
I certainly agree that υποστασεως would be even more confusing than “individual” when describing the Holy Spirit. If you want to use “person”, or "individual", or some other term, it is mostly irrelevant to me. "υποστασεωσ" however, is a non-starter.
7) THE CHRISTIAN APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS HAVE RELATIONSHIPS AND OFTEN QUOTE THEIR JEWISH VERSIONS
Thomas said : “You quote from the Apostolic Constitutions, but that is a Christian text, not a Jewish one.”
Clear responded: “Yes, I did.
If you research just a bit, you will see that the the Christian apostolic constitutions quote from earlier Jewish texts.
For example, the JEWISH Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers are quoted in the CHRISTIAN Apostolic Constitutions.
For example, Prayer #9 of the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer of the Jews appears in the Apostolic Constitutions 8.5.1-4 & related to 9:1-13. One can thus quote EITHER synagogal prayer #9 OR ApoConst and get the same text.
As I’ve already pointed out and given some examples of, there are often multiple Jewish AND Christian versions of the same ancient narratives.
Thomas responded: “I don't dispute that, on general terms. But there are specific Christian elements to the work.”
I agree
8) REGARDING THE THEORY THAT THERE WAS NO EARLY VERSION OF ABBATON, BUT THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF THE 900S WAS THE ORIGINAL
Clear said : “IF they made up the text then why do parts of the abbaton narrative appear in Judeo-Christian literature that comes from the very period Timothy describes (late 300s)? (literature from the Cairo Geninza)
Thomas said: “Can you reference the particular texts?”
Read “On the origin of the World from the Nag Hamadi Library”, this version of the narrative starts just over half-way through the text. For example, even though this text describes that “For this reason he left his modelled form forty days without soul, and he withdrew and abandoned it.”, this version has more specific context regarding the fear surrounding placing the spirit of life into Adam but the language is more gnostic. Having said this, there are also bits and pieces of the themes found in multiple early texts. (Enoch, barnabas, etc.)
9) ANCIENT CITIES HAD LIBRARIES. RELIGIOUS CITIES AND SYNAGOGUES HAD LIBRARIES. THE BIBLE IS A LIBRARY OF BOOKS.
Clear said : “Though Jerusalem was the central, “Holy City” of Judaism, other cities had libraries during this time as well. For example, Caesarea had a theological library established by Origen in the 3rd century as well and Pamphilus was reported to have expanded it to 30,000 manuscripts.
Thomas said: “Yep. And neither of those claim to house any writings of the Apostles.”
This seems to be a strange requirement that a “theological library” such as Origens (remember Origen was the head of a theological school) had to specifically claim they housed “writings of the apostles” when they had various apostolic writings (some from the biblical library) which were, themselves, a library.
My modern, protestant bible has 66 books in it. It IS, by definition, a library of books.
I notice that the library in city in which I live also doesn’t “claim to house writings of the apostles”, yet it does contain bibles and other sacred literature.
I don’t follow the logic that a library must claim specifically, to have these writings, else they do not have them.
Clear pointed out: “The Qumran Library of 70 a.d. had almost 1000 different texts (and in addition to that, multiple copies of certain texts) around 1,200 different texts altogether. Many Scholars believe this was part of Jerusalems theological library since no one knows where the texts came from and who produced them.”
Thomas responded: “Have any been identified as the writings of the Apostles?”
Not that I know of.
However, remember that the current biblical narrative also doesn't contain any text that can be confirmed to have been written by an apostle.
My response was specifically to your claim that no library would have existed in Jerusalem that the Bishop in Jerusalem could have accessed. The point was that libraries (especially theological libraries) were important in the ancient world and we have evidence of multiple sacred libraries existed, whether they were in city buildings, private collections, and synagogal libraries.
Thomas said: “Can you offer any evidence to refute the detailed work of the scholars I cited?”
You have offered several descriptive claims made by scholars who make claims that you, presumably, have adopted as your own position, BUT, I don’t seen that you have offered much of their actual “work” done in the form of data/evidence they used in making their claims.
Can you offer the specific “work” you think needs further refutation than has already been given?
Thanks for your insights Thomas
