No, as I do not believe an 'early GREEK version' of the Abbaton exists.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Notes on God in the Gospel of John
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
“Elohim” and “Theos” can both refer to others besides YHWH, so Jesus approving Thomas calling Him “theos” doesn’t mean that Jesus is YHWH. In fact if Thomas had meant YHWH, he would have used the article or a qualifier that signifies YHWH.
I’m saying that “theos was logos.” in John 1:1 is a definition. It’s what “theos” without the article *means* in terms of Greek theology as it was understood by Philo. “Elohim” in the Tanakh, when it refers to YHWH’s actions in the world, functions in the same way as “logos” in Philo’s understanding of Greek philosophy. “Theos” without the article, when it translates “elohim” in that context, is what Greeks call “logos.” John 1:1 is saying the same thing that Philo says. “Theos” in “theos was logos” is not qualitative. It’s an identity, but not between YHWH and logos. It’s an identity between “theos” without the article, which is *not* YHWH, and the logos. It’s YHWH’s creative word, which is personified in Jesus.
(kater) My current reading of John 1:1 is that he’s saying that in the Greek, when you see “theos” without the article, that’s what Greeks call “the logos,” and it’s that same logos that was personified in Jesus. God’s creative word, what the Greeks call “the logos,” became embodied in a person, and that person was Jesus.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,415
- Reaction score
- 1,649
- Points
- 108
This thing is amazing. Is it indeed ancient and authentic?
By that I mean not anything like a modern extrapolation or anything
(I know now there is no way of determining exact authors oftentimes, esp of ancient txts, and definitely know way to know if something is "inspired" or even to define what inspired means exactly... but... are there people in that Coptic community who consider this work inspired?)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,415
- Reaction score
- 1,649
- Points
- 108
What is your definition of Judeo-Christians? Judeo-Christian tradition is often spoken of, but worded that way it sounds like you are talking about people or practitioners of faith... few people today would be described as Judeo-Christians, nor any that I can think of - maybe the early Jewish Christians of the earliest Christian communities could be described that way?
Within Christianity the Messiah and Son are considered the same person, but AFAIK in Judaism the idea of Mosiach being the "son of God" or a personality of G-d, is not accepted. The idea of the Lesser Yahweh or Two Powers in Heaven (spoken of earlier both in this thread by at least you and Thomas if not everyone else too and also in another thread on that very topic) I don't think Lesser Yahweh was thought of as being Mosiach. Was that association made in ancient Judaism? If it was indeed, can you post a link? (I will skim the above to see if you already have)
Also in Judaism, the Holy Spirit is not considered a separate person. If I understand from your posts above, it sounds like you are saying it was? But I'm not sure I understand the case for that...
Forgive me if I've glossed over / missed / misstated anything already covered. I have read through this very interesting exchange, but there is a lot of material between the both of you - In addition to some good expansions by others - about - many concepts with which I am broadly familiar yet not necessarily well versed in the fine scholarly details, if that makes sense.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,415
- Reaction score
- 1,649
- Points
- 108
But he does use the article:
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου
Hart's translation of the NT offers this commentary:
Here Thomas addresses Jesus as "ho theos", which unambiguously means "God" in the absolute sense. … He addresses him also as "ho kyrios", again, with the honorific article, which also happens to be the Greek rendering of the Hebrew Adonai in the Septuagint, the preferred circumlocution for God's unutterable name, the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Thomas's words here, then, appear to be the final theological statement of the Gospel at its "first ending."
OK. I'm not entirely sure I follow, but OK.
I'm not disputing your point, but I think we'd have to discuss it against the wider idea of Jewish thinking in the 1st century, and 2nd Temple Judaism especially, that regarded the One True God – Jahweh – as utterly transcendent, and that divine manifestations since the days of Moses have been more discreet, and more in the line of oracular and prophetic theophanies, albeit none matching the glory of pillars of fire or columns of smoke, of plagues against particular Egyptian deities, and stuff like that.
Coupled with the idea that 'it's pneuma all the way down' – and we get something akin to the idea of the Christian essence and energies, each distinct with regard to the other, one being God in Himself and the other God as He reveals Himself in the Cosmos, but both being God.
Is it written by Bartholemew, one of the Twelve Disciples? No.
It would seem the view among the monastic communities that it was good exegesis, rather than 'divinely inspired'.
The Coptic Church had broken away from the broader church after the Council of Chalcedon in 451CE. Such works as these were seen as exegetical and pastoral, helping to create a distinct identity for the Coptic Church. Thus The Abbaton, the Angel of Death, is celebrated in the month of Hathor, a calendar name from the old Egyptian, and one of the many feast-days of the Coptic Church.
Likewise The Resurrection speaks of Amente, an Old Egyptian word (from the hieroglyph) meaning the far bank of the Nile, the otherworld. This use of Egyptian, rather than Hebrew (Sheol) or Greek (Hades), or even Biblical Greek (Gehenna) shows the desire to express their own belief in their own terms.
A further note on the Prologue is the idea, held by many scholars, that the author of the Gospel works a pre-existing Christian hymn into the Prologue.
Matthew Gordley, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. 128, No. 4 (Winter, 2009), pp. 781-802, The Society of Biblical Literature) wrote: The Johannine Prologue and Jewish Didactic Hymn Traditions: A New Case for Reading the Prologue as a Hymn
In John the Theologian and his Paschal Gospel: A Prologue to Theology, Part II, section 5 is entitled The Prologue as a Paschal Hymn:
On the basis of the analysis of the Gospel of John given so far, and in particular the celebration of Pascha that began with him, this chapter offers a radically new interpretation of the Prologue to the Gospel of John. Rather than a pre-existing hymn to the Word adopted and modified by the Evangelist, or a Prologue to the Gospel written by the Evangelist himself, explaining how the Word became flesh as the prelude to the narrative that follows, it is argued that the Prologue is best understood as a Paschal hymn in three parts. The first verse celebrates the one who is in first place, the crucified and exalted Jesus Christ, on his way to God, and as himself God. Verses 1:2—5 speak not of creation and the presence of the Word in creation before his sojourn on earth, but of how everything that occurs throughout the Gospel happens at his will, specifically the life that comes to be in him, a light which enlightens human beings, that is, those who receive and follow him. The third part, verses 1:6—18, are a chiastically structured celebration of what has come to be in Christ, where 1:14, ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt in us’ refers to the Eucharist, the flesh that he now offers to those who receive him and so become his body, following on from baptism in verses 1:12–13; the chiastic center of this section is 1:10–11, his rejection by the world but reception by his own, and the beginning and end of this section is the witness provided by John the Baptist.
Matthew Gordley, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. 128, No. 4 (Winter, 2009), pp. 781-802, The Society of Biblical Literature) wrote: The Johannine Prologue and Jewish Didactic Hymn Traditions: A New Case for Reading the Prologue as a Hymn
In John the Theologian and his Paschal Gospel: A Prologue to Theology, Part II, section 5 is entitled The Prologue as a Paschal Hymn:
On the basis of the analysis of the Gospel of John given so far, and in particular the celebration of Pascha that began with him, this chapter offers a radically new interpretation of the Prologue to the Gospel of John. Rather than a pre-existing hymn to the Word adopted and modified by the Evangelist, or a Prologue to the Gospel written by the Evangelist himself, explaining how the Word became flesh as the prelude to the narrative that follows, it is argued that the Prologue is best understood as a Paschal hymn in three parts. The first verse celebrates the one who is in first place, the crucified and exalted Jesus Christ, on his way to God, and as himself God. Verses 1:2—5 speak not of creation and the presence of the Word in creation before his sojourn on earth, but of how everything that occurs throughout the Gospel happens at his will, specifically the life that comes to be in him, a light which enlightens human beings, that is, those who receive and follow him. The third part, verses 1:6—18, are a chiastically structured celebration of what has come to be in Christ, where 1:14, ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt in us’ refers to the Eucharist, the flesh that he now offers to those who receive him and so become his body, following on from baptism in verses 1:12–13; the chiastic center of this section is 1:10–11, his rejection by the world but reception by his own, and the beginning and end of this section is the witness provided by John the Baptist.
Regarding the Gordley article mentioned above, for those who don't have a jstor login, here is part of the conclusion to the essay:
In the end, the major shortcoming of Boyarin’s proposal (of the prologue as midrash) is that it does not do justice to the hymnic and highly stylized nature of the prologue. My proposal does account for those readily recognizable features, while at the same time allowing for the narrative, interpretive, and intertextual dynamics that Boyarin brings to our attention. For example, my reading allows for close connections between the prologue and earlier Jewish tradition. Whether the prologue is a midrash with commentary and expansion or a didactic hymn employing midrashic techniques, the prologue does indeed link the story of the Gospel with the Jewish theological heritage as well as grounding it in a cosmological framework.
Further, my reading lends clarity regarding the role of the prologue in the Gospel as a whole. The prologue sets the stage for the discourse that will follow, placing the life and ministry of Jesus within the Jewish traditions of creation discourse, Mosaic discourse, and wisdom discourse. It places the story of Jesus Christ in the context of God's creative and redemptive work throughout history, and invites the reader to draw the conclusion that the coming of Christ and the establishment of communities of his followers are not simply recent historical phenomena. Rather they are rooted in the life-creating and light-giving nature of God, which has been experienced by humanity in a number of ways throughout history. On this point, our readings may be evenly matched as well.
In the end, the major shortcoming of Boyarin’s proposal (of the prologue as midrash) is that it does not do justice to the hymnic and highly stylized nature of the prologue. My proposal does account for those readily recognizable features, while at the same time allowing for the narrative, interpretive, and intertextual dynamics that Boyarin brings to our attention. For example, my reading allows for close connections between the prologue and earlier Jewish tradition. Whether the prologue is a midrash with commentary and expansion or a didactic hymn employing midrashic techniques, the prologue does indeed link the story of the Gospel with the Jewish theological heritage as well as grounding it in a cosmological framework.
Further, my reading lends clarity regarding the role of the prologue in the Gospel as a whole. The prologue sets the stage for the discourse that will follow, placing the life and ministry of Jesus within the Jewish traditions of creation discourse, Mosaic discourse, and wisdom discourse. It places the story of Jesus Christ in the context of God's creative and redemptive work throughout history, and invites the reader to draw the conclusion that the coming of Christ and the establishment of communities of his followers are not simply recent historical phenomena. Rather they are rooted in the life-creating and light-giving nature of God, which has been experienced by humanity in a number of ways throughout history. On this point, our readings may be evenly matched as well.
1) WHO IS THE “WE” THAT REFER TO A “TRINITY” AS A GROUP OF “THREE” THINGS OR INDIVIDUALS
Clear said: “God, the Father; the Messiah/Son; and the Holy Spirit, seem to have special meaning to ancient Jews and to the Christians in their ancient literature. Because there are “THREE” most special individuals, mentioned repeatedly, we call that a “trinity” of individuals.”
Thomas replied: “... can you reference the "we" in this partcilar instance?”
Sure.
Since the word “trinity means “a group of three people or things”, the “we” I am referring to are logical, English speakers who use the dictionary definition of “trinity”.
For example, if you have three individuals who are all musketeers, then you have a “trinity” of musketeers.
If I have three ice cream cones, I therefore have a “trinity” of Ice cream cones.
2) REGARDING THOMAS' CLAIM THAT ARCHBISHOP TIMOTHYS’ ORIGINAL ABBATON HISTORY WAS A COPTIC CREATION
Clear said: “You made multiple statements that apply to the later COPTIC version of Abbaton, but (as far as I can see), none of your criticisms apply to the earlier GREEK version of Abbaton that the text says Archbishop Timothy created in the 4th century.
Are we in agreement that your criticisms do not apply to early GREEK Abbaton, but they apply to the later COPTIC Abbaton instead?”
Thomas replied: “No, as I do not believe an 'early GREEK version' of the Abbaton exists.”
Correct the original narrative is not, currently extant. We only know of it's existence because the text tells us the Copts are taking their narrative from Timothy just as the coptic reference to this history that appears in the coptic "origin of the world" (of the 3rd century a.d.) from the Nag Hamadi library exists in Coptic, but it is translated from an earlier greek text.
However, I have to offer that by the 4th century, despite τιμοθεος/Timothy being a Greek name, he may have been writing the original text in Latin (and not Greek).
The important point is that the Coptic version is not the original story created by 7th century Copts, but they are relating a prior written history and the text refers to multiple prior traditions including the history of the fall of Satan from heaven that was described in earlier Jewish, Christian and also appears in the Islamic literature which all agree on the history of the fall of Satan and details concerning why he became an enemy to God and Adam.
Clear said: “God, the Father; the Messiah/Son; and the Holy Spirit, seem to have special meaning to ancient Jews and to the Christians in their ancient literature. Because there are “THREE” most special individuals, mentioned repeatedly, we call that a “trinity” of individuals.”
Thomas replied: “... can you reference the "we" in this partcilar instance?”
Sure.
Since the word “trinity means “a group of three people or things”, the “we” I am referring to are logical, English speakers who use the dictionary definition of “trinity”.
For example, if you have three individuals who are all musketeers, then you have a “trinity” of musketeers.
If I have three ice cream cones, I therefore have a “trinity” of Ice cream cones.
2) REGARDING THOMAS' CLAIM THAT ARCHBISHOP TIMOTHYS’ ORIGINAL ABBATON HISTORY WAS A COPTIC CREATION
Clear said: “You made multiple statements that apply to the later COPTIC version of Abbaton, but (as far as I can see), none of your criticisms apply to the earlier GREEK version of Abbaton that the text says Archbishop Timothy created in the 4th century.
Are we in agreement that your criticisms do not apply to early GREEK Abbaton, but they apply to the later COPTIC Abbaton instead?”
Thomas replied: “No, as I do not believe an 'early GREEK version' of the Abbaton exists.”
Correct the original narrative is not, currently extant. We only know of it's existence because the text tells us the Copts are taking their narrative from Timothy just as the coptic reference to this history that appears in the coptic "origin of the world" (of the 3rd century a.d.) from the Nag Hamadi library exists in Coptic, but it is translated from an earlier greek text.
However, I have to offer that by the 4th century, despite τιμοθεος/Timothy being a Greek name, he may have been writing the original text in Latin (and not Greek).
The important point is that the Coptic version is not the original story created by 7th century Copts, but they are relating a prior written history and the text refers to multiple prior traditions including the history of the fall of Satan from heaven that was described in earlier Jewish, Christian and also appears in the Islamic literature which all agree on the history of the fall of Satan and details concerning why he became an enemy to God and Adam.
Ah! I see! You're talking in the general sense, but applying it in a theological context.Nevertheless, I see no reference in Jewish literature equivalent to the Trinity in Christian literature.
Just as a matter of interest, can you point me to any Jewish literature that mentions the three most special individuals in a particular relation?
Because all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...
And as I have shown, with references, that scholars consider it among the Coptic pseudographia.
We have actual fragments of the Origin from the 3rd century. We don't have such for the Abbaton, so the 'just as' doesn't hold.
There are close parallels between the Origin and the Hypostasis of the Archons aka The Reality of the Rulers. Again, the codex is Coptic, but it's believed to be originally written in Greek in the 2nd/3rd century CE.
Scholars reckon the codex was likely compiled by followers of Valentinus. What survives was written around 400CE. The original can be as late as the end of the 3rd century, while John Turner, in "Sethian Gnosticism: A Literary History" proposes 185-200CE, based on an earlier Jewish version from 100-125CE.
I only mention this because these dates, sources and influences are all highlighted by scholars.
No scholars argue for an early date, Greek original, or Timothy's authorship of the Abbaton.
Obviously, as no text exists in a cultural void. The author of Abbaton drew on such resources in creating his fiction, although I am unaware of any that parallel the dialogue between Death and Jesus in the tomb.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
Today I realized that the word “God” in English translations of the Bible needs to be understood differently in different contexts, because it’s a translation of different words with different meanings in the original languages. With that understanding, I can agree more easily with saying that Jesus is God, but I still object to it because of the misunderstandings that it facilitates. I think that it would be better to always say rather that they are one in essence.
I'm not sure how you arrive at this?
The argument that they are 'one in essence' is a theological distinction, rather than a biblical one?