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?
1) Regarding the dictionary meaning of the word “trinity” meaning “three people or things”.
Thomas replied: “Ah! I see! You're talking in the general sense, but applying it in a theological context.”
The word "trinity" is not specifically, a "theological" word. A "trinity" of three people or things can be used in any sense that applies to three people or things.
It can be used politically such as a a trinity of the three best presidents.
It can be used geologically such as a trinity of the three tallest mountains.
It can be used to describe a trinity of the most common ice cream flavors.
The word “trinity” is not simply a theological concept.
2) Regarding the fact that the ancient Hebrews believed in a trinity of important individuals (God, the Messiah, and the Spirit)
Thomas said: “Nevertheless, I see no reference in Jewish literature equivalent to the Trinity in Christian literature.”
Yes, I agree that you've already mentioned multiple times that you do not see a trinity in the Jewish belief in the trinity of God, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit.
3) The Hebrew Literature describes their belief in a God, and in a Messiah, and In the Spirit of God
Thomas said: “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?”
Clear replied: 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) (While synagogal prayers originate in Jewish Synagogues, they have been adapted by later Christians so it is difficult to separate their “Jewishness” from their “Christianity”)
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.
4) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
While I have to allow that the original version may have been in a different language (Archbishop Τιμοθεος has a Greek name and it was a common language used in Christian literature in the 300s but certainly he could have written his original text in Latin).
Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”
What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?
5) ALL ANCIENT RELIGIOUS TEXTS ARE PSEUDOGRAPHIA SINCE NO ONE KNOWS WHO AUTHORED THEM NOR CAN ANYONE PROVE WHO AUTHORED THEM - WE ATTRIBUTE ANCIENT WRITINGS BY TRADITION RATHER THAN BY FIRM EVIDENCE
Thomas said: “And as I have shown, with references, that scholars consider it among the Coptic pseudographia.”
This is correct and you’ve said it before. However, what is the import of your claim since ALL early literature, including the Old and New Testament are pseudographic to the extent that no one knows nor can anyone prove who wrote any of this ancient Judeo-Christian literature.
6) THE COPTIC HISTORY IN "ABBATON" EXISTED IN THE THIRD CENTURY, JUST AS THE WRITERS OF ABBATON CLAIMED
Thomas said: “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.”
Firstly: While we have fragments of "Origin" in Coptic, like "Abbaton", the Coptic version of "Origin" originated in an earlier Greek text which no longer exists. Thus the claim of the Coptic authors that their version of Abbaton came from an earlier text (whether greek or hebrew or latin) is not an unusual situation.
Secondly: It is correct to say we do not have any original writings for many ancient texts (such as the Old Testament and the New Testament). Almost all of the early writings claim to have come from earlier texts. This doesn't mean that the later writers of such documents as the New Testament simply made up their history, it simply means we do not have the originals.
Thirdly: The historical point is not what writings are physical extant but what historical doctrines and historical beliefs the historical documents describe were present and in what form. For example, it doesn't matter that we don't have any original biblical texts, but historically, it matters what doctrines were present and in what form in specific time periods.
For example, the value of early religious texts tell us that the Jewish traditions from both texts originate in the period prior to the 3rd century.
The Copts who wrote extant Abbaton (6-7th centuries) were using written traditions from prior centuries and many of them were translations from prior literature just as the English bible you now read is a translation of prior autographs that no longer exist. The same principle exists today. IF you and I quote scriptures from the bible, we are not creating new content or new doctrines. We are simply using and quoting from text that describe doctrines from the time the text was written.
7) UNAWARENESS OF TEXTS DOES NOT MEAN NON-EXISTENCE OF TEXTS.
Thomas said: “ I am unaware of any that parallel the dialogue between Death and Jesus in the tomb.”
I agree, you do seem unaware of such histories and parallels in ancient literature.
Perhaps you could do just a bit of research and read some ancient texts such as the The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (start with chaps 6 and 7); You could read The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one, or the gospel of Nicodemus, Read polycarp to the Phillipians, or read the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (chapter 9). See what you find there.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful and insightful Thomas
Thomas replied: “Ah! I see! You're talking in the general sense, but applying it in a theological context.”
The word "trinity" is not specifically, a "theological" word. A "trinity" of three people or things can be used in any sense that applies to three people or things.
It can be used politically such as a a trinity of the three best presidents.
It can be used geologically such as a trinity of the three tallest mountains.
It can be used to describe a trinity of the most common ice cream flavors.
The word “trinity” is not simply a theological concept.
2) Regarding the fact that the ancient Hebrews believed in a trinity of important individuals (God, the Messiah, and the Spirit)
Thomas said: “Nevertheless, I see no reference in Jewish literature equivalent to the Trinity in Christian literature.”
Yes, I agree that you've already mentioned multiple times that you do not see a trinity in the Jewish belief in the trinity of God, the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit.
3) The Hebrew Literature describes their belief in a God, and in a Messiah, and In the Spirit of God
Thomas said: “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?”
Clear replied: 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) (While synagogal prayers originate in Jewish Synagogues, they have been adapted by later Christians so it is difficult to separate their “Jewishness” from their “Christianity”)
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.
4) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Thomas said: “all the evidence points to the fact that no such Greek original existed ...”
Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
While I have to allow that the original version may have been in a different language (Archbishop Τιμοθεος has a Greek name and it was a common language used in Christian literature in the 300s but certainly he could have written his original text in Latin).
Since the text begins with the Copts themselves relating they are writing the narrative that is “The discourse which Ara Timothy…pronounced on the making of Abbaton…” (the angel of death) and they write that “…the Archbishop…went into Jerusalem to worship” and “search through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem, and which had been made by our holy fathers the Apostles, and deposited them therein…”
What actual evidence do you have that they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claim they did?
5) ALL ANCIENT RELIGIOUS TEXTS ARE PSEUDOGRAPHIA SINCE NO ONE KNOWS WHO AUTHORED THEM NOR CAN ANYONE PROVE WHO AUTHORED THEM - WE ATTRIBUTE ANCIENT WRITINGS BY TRADITION RATHER THAN BY FIRM EVIDENCE
Thomas said: “And as I have shown, with references, that scholars consider it among the Coptic pseudographia.”
This is correct and you’ve said it before. However, what is the import of your claim since ALL early literature, including the Old and New Testament are pseudographic to the extent that no one knows nor can anyone prove who wrote any of this ancient Judeo-Christian literature.
6) THE COPTIC HISTORY IN "ABBATON" EXISTED IN THE THIRD CENTURY, JUST AS THE WRITERS OF ABBATON CLAIMED
Thomas said: “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.”
Firstly: While we have fragments of "Origin" in Coptic, like "Abbaton", the Coptic version of "Origin" originated in an earlier Greek text which no longer exists. Thus the claim of the Coptic authors that their version of Abbaton came from an earlier text (whether greek or hebrew or latin) is not an unusual situation.
Secondly: It is correct to say we do not have any original writings for many ancient texts (such as the Old Testament and the New Testament). Almost all of the early writings claim to have come from earlier texts. This doesn't mean that the later writers of such documents as the New Testament simply made up their history, it simply means we do not have the originals.
Thirdly: The historical point is not what writings are physical extant but what historical doctrines and historical beliefs the historical documents describe were present and in what form. For example, it doesn't matter that we don't have any original biblical texts, but historically, it matters what doctrines were present and in what form in specific time periods.
For example, the value of early religious texts tell us that the Jewish traditions from both texts originate in the period prior to the 3rd century.
The Copts who wrote extant Abbaton (6-7th centuries) were using written traditions from prior centuries and many of them were translations from prior literature just as the English bible you now read is a translation of prior autographs that no longer exist. The same principle exists today. IF you and I quote scriptures from the bible, we are not creating new content or new doctrines. We are simply using and quoting from text that describe doctrines from the time the text was written.
7) UNAWARENESS OF TEXTS DOES NOT MEAN NON-EXISTENCE OF TEXTS.
Thomas said: “ I am unaware of any that parallel the dialogue between Death and Jesus in the tomb.”
I agree, you do seem unaware of such histories and parallels in ancient literature.
Perhaps you could do just a bit of research and read some ancient texts such as the The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (start with chaps 6 and 7); You could read The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one, or the gospel of Nicodemus, Read polycarp to the Phillipians, or read the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (chapter 9). See what you find there.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful and insightful Thomas
Last edited: