Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE EARLY HEBREW BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE MESSIAH, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD (I.E. A TRINITY OF INDIVIDUALS)

Clear said: "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.”

Thomas replied: Actually I think you'll find that scholars believe that the Book of Parables (Enoch chapters 37-71), are from the 1st century CE, not the 3rd BCE. Scholars point out that these chapters were not found among the Enoch materials at Qumran, and that the parables shows a development of ideas in the Book of The Watchers ... but all this is incidental.

You asked for data supporting my claim that the Hebrews believed in God, they believed in the Messiah and They believed in the Spirit of God. Obviously they did from their textual descriptions of their belief in God, in the Messiah, and in the Spirit of God.

Having said that, I agree your comments of dating are incidental to and do not affect actual Hebrew doctrines on the Father, the Messiah, and the Spirit of God.

Though scholars date the oldest portions of Hebrew 1 Enoch from 2-300 b.c., Extant Enoch is, (as I’ve mentioned), a syncretic document, and other parts come from other eras and other writers, this is true of modern bibles as well.



2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON 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 ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”

You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?



3) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “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?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”

I agree with the logic that not all things are as they seem.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
What is YOUR evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?


4) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"

Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.
This can turn into a theological rabbit hole very quickly because such criteria has been equally applied to biblical texts as well since they are also pseudepigraphic.

For example, the specific criticism that scholars tend to view certain sacred, ancient text as uninspired because one cannot tell who wrote it applies to biblical literature.

If you simply google the sentence: “Do scholars believe the bible is pseudepigraphical” the following AI comments returns the following answer:

"Yes, many scholars consider some books within the Bible to be pseudepigrapha, particularly certain New Testament letters attributed to Paul, such as Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. While the gospels and other anonymous books are not considered pseudepigrapha, the letters of the New Testament that state an author but are widely believed to have been written by someone else are. Conservative scholars may not consider any biblical books pseudepigrapha, as they accept the traditional authorship.

New Testament examples
Letters attributed to Paul:
Many scholars consider Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus to be pseudepigraphal because they were likely written by a later author in Paul's name.

Anonymous books:
Books like the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not considered pseudepigrapha because they were written anonymously, and the attributions came later. Similarly, the Epistle of James and Hebrews are considered anonymous, not pseudepigraphal.

Old Testament examples

• Some books of the Old Testament, such as Daniel and parts of Isaiah, are considered by some scholars to have been written later than the purported authors, but not necessarily pseudepigraphal, according to Reddit users.
• Other Old Testament works like the Testament of Job, which is not included in the Bible, are considered pseudepigrapha, notes Text & Canon Institute.

What this means for biblical interpretation

• Whether or not a book is considered pseudepigraphal does not necessarily mean it contains false information, but that the authorship is different from the one traditionally associated with it.
• Some scholars differentiate between pseudepigrapha (falsely ascribed) and anonymity (absence of author's name), says Faith Pulpit, notes Quora.

This distinction is important for biblical studies and is a source of ongoing debate among scholars.


SO, while such phrases as "Scholars Say" or "Scholars believe", can be bantered about, the really important claim is: "What actual evidence do Scholars have for making a specific claim."
"Scholars say..." is not actual evidence, but merely the opinion of someone who feels they have evidence for their opinion.
I am asking for actual evidence for your claims.

What actual evidence do you have for your opinions that Coptic Abbaton was not taken from an earlier text as the authors claimed?

 

[Longfellow]

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.

Yeah, my theory is shattered, and it’s just as well. I was forgetting that no theory can capture or encompass what God says about Himself, His actions, and our relationships with Him.

(later) I still feel that it’s just as important for people to be aware of the distinctions as to be aware of the oneness.

 

[Thomas]

@TheLightWithin – I wanted to continue on the theme addressed to you above:

Expanding the biblical storyworld

An important effect (whether intended or not) of these narratives was to contribute to expansion of the Christian storyworld. In receipt of their catechetic teachings, and biblical readings, and following the liturgical cycle, the reader constructs a world in which the stories are told. This storyworld is based on canonical texts, and it is this world in which the reader will locate the later narratives, effectively expanding it. The works are more often supernatural in flavour, of events before the Fall, or discourses of Jesus on the Mount of Olives between his resurrection and ascension. Another takes us on a spiritual journey with the Apostle John, in the company of the Archangel Michael.

These works, by nature trans-narrative and trans-authorial, enlarge the storyworld and add depth, making it, in a sense, more real.

They are notably linked to the Liturgical Cycle, to the feast-days and festivals in the life of the community, and so serve to build a particular sense of Coptic identity and awareness, a sense of belonging to that world. Their primary purpose, I would suggest, is pastoral and pedigogic.

The more Coptic narratives, the richer the Coptic storyworld.

These books were not so much inspired, as intended to inspire the religious imagination.

Invested with patristic as well as apostolic authority, they offer their readers access to the apostles’ own accounts, and would provide a means by which readers might be transported into the biblical storyworld far more effectively than through sermons and exhortations of the presbyter.

Importantly, we might expect this effect to have been significant even among those readers who realised that the pseudodocumentary accounts were not literally true.

 

[Thomas]

Yeah, my theory is shattered ...

Hey, look at it not so much as 'shattered' but as a seedcase or nut which has cracked open to allow something to grow.

Or maybe a lump of stuff that's shattered to reveal a jewel ... actually ...

Look on it not as shattering but polishing jewels.

That's how we grow,
Rubbing shoulders with what we know.
Hey-ho,
And on we go.

(I'll shut up now)

 

[Thomas]

Hi Clear –

Really, I'd like to bring large segments of this to a close, as we're re-walking old ground, in circles.

So from here on, if I do not reply, it's not rudeness, but simply because I don't think there's any more fruit to be had.

1) REGARDING THE EARLY HEBREW BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE MESSIAH, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD (I.E. A TRINITY OF INDIVIDUALS)

I accept the Jews believe in God, in the messiah, and the spirit of God. I do not accept that the Messiah is necessarily a divine being, as Rabbinical Judaism is insisted he will be a purely human being. While Daniel presents a possibly-divine figure, and Enoch declares himself as the Son of Man, Jewish commentaries also regarded the 'Son of Man' as a designation of the Archangel Michael, and also of the People of Israel, so there were a variety of beliefs.

Most references to the Spirit of God infer a power, rather than an individual, possessing personal characteristics, although God and His Holy Spirit were often described in anthropomorphic terms.

If you can show me a Jewish text with all three in a particular relation, akin to the Christian Trinity, then we have something to discuss.

In the absence of such, I see that we have different opinions, and see no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Adrian Mole]

I'm just curious about Thomas and his time travelling. It's now 3:38 pm but Thomas' last three posts are timed at 5:13 pm, 5:27 pm and 7:17 pm (today).

Is the gift of travelling to the future a 'prize' awarded when you get 100+ Points?

(OK - Maybe my profile is set to UTC+6, because that's the time-zone in which I first signed up to this forum.)

 

[TheLightWithin]

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.

Is there anything in the Jewish literature to suggest that G-d, Mosiach, and the Holy Spirit are considered a trinity?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Thomas said: “Nevertheless, I see no reference in Jewish literature equivalent to the Trinity in Christian literature.”

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:

Did the Jewish tradition actually see Mosiach as G-d's son? Is that NOT a later Christian development?

“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

The Son of Man. Is this the same?

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.

Again, the Son of Man.

This scripture describes their belief in The Father and his Son, the messiah/Christ in the Heavenly realm.

Does it?

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.

The Holy Spirit being the power of G-d rather than a distinct personality as a member of a Trinity. Was that not a later Christian development?

 

[TheLightWithin]

@TheLightWithin – I wanted to continue on the theme addressed to you above:

Expanding the biblical storyworld

An important effect (whether intended or not) of these narratives was to contribute to expansion of the Christian storyworld. In receipt of their catechetic teachings, and biblical readings, and following the liturgical cycle, the reader constructs a world in which the stories are told. This storyworld is based on canonical texts, and it is this world in which the reader will locate the later narratives, effectively expanding it.

Yes, that's definitely what I think is happening when people quote passages from the bible and then are puzzled when others do not know what they are trying to say. It's as if the person quoting the bible is using the context of a storyworld that is in their mind, maybe the minds of many in their own community, but I or others may not be immersed in this storyworld.

This reminds me of something - when I was a really little girl, I heard somebody talking about the bible and asked my mom what the bible was.
She told me "It is a storybook"
I asked if she could read it to me, and she said it was long and confusing and did not have pictures.
But she did find a children's bible with pictures for me to look at.

 

[Longfellow]

Hey, look at it not so much as 'shattered' but as a seedcase or nut which has cracked open to allow something to grow.

Or maybe a lump of stuff that's shattered to reveal a jewel ... actually ...

Look on it not as shattering but polishing jewels.

That's how we grow,
Rubbing shoulders with what we know.
Hey-ho,
And on we go.

(I'll shut up now)

Going back to another topic between us, I’ve said before that I think that what Jesus wants most for us and the best life we can live is in service and obedience to Him, learning together to live the way He says to live. As I understood it then, you don’t agree with thinking of Jesus as a person to serve and obey. I’ll say it differently, although for me it’s equivalent. I think that what God wants most for us and the best life we can live is in service and obedience to Him, learning together to live the way He says to live. The way we know how to do that is from Jesus. One disagreement among people who agree with that might be in *how* to learn from Jesus, for example what role Paul, churches and church traditions play in that. Currently I’m thinking that one good way is in small group study circles using spiritual growth materials from Christian bookstores.

(later) Another way is with mentoring. We can all be mentors for each other, and that’s one way that everyone can benefit from study circles even if they don’t participate in them.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Longfellow —

I think God wants our love. Wants us to come to Him, much like the prodigal son. Service and obedience falls in line with that, but if one comes from a place of love, then service and obedience take on a different light.

I might well be over-thinking it.

 

[Thomas]

More on the Coptic apocrypha –

While the upside view of this, from a contemporary perspective, is the creation of a Coptic storyworld for a community that needed some sense of identity to survive – the break with the larger communion after Chalcedon (451) and then the encroaching Islamic expansion, which saw local dialects (eg Aramaic, Coptic) displaced by Arabic, this is not to say that anything written was received whole-heartedly.

There are also references in the apocrypha to works that are known to have existed, but it is not clear that the reference is actually based on knowledge of the text, or whether the 'content' of the referred-to text is assumed or made up by the scribe.

The 21st Exegesis on the Virgin Mary, attributed pseudepigraphically to Cyril of Jerusalem, but probably originating in Egypt at least a couple of centuries later. In this text, pseudo-Cyril confronts a heretical monk who is said to be using the Gospel of the Hebrews to teach that the Virgin Mary was not a human being, but rather a heavenly power.

While a text known as the Gospel of the Hebrews is quoted by much earlier authorities, the passage quoted in this homily is almost certainly an invention of this particular work, as it bears no resemblance to earlier references to, or quotations from, any work by this title.

Not only does pseudo-Cyril condemn the Gospel of the Hebrews as heretical, there is also an anti-Jewish polemic which was quite common in contemporary Coptic pseudepigraphical homilies.

Shenoute of Atripe, archimandrite of the so-called White Monastery, in the late 4th/early 5th centuries, refers to a "Gospel of Jesus, the Son of God, the Offspring of the Angels" in his anti-heretical treatise known as "I Am Amazed." Polemics against the use of apocrypha is one of its main features. It seems he found fault enough with the title, the idea that Christ was an offspring of angels, to declare the book profoundly heretical. Since Shenoute says nothing about its contents, it could be that this book never actually existed outside his own polemics.

Around 600CE, John of parallos, a bishop in Lower Egypt, argued that apocryphal literature should be banned. He describes his heretical opponents:
"... these blasphemous people are truly more evil than the Jews and the lawless unclean pagans. For they have written books with all sorts of blasphemies, such as these: The (book) called the Investiture of Michael (also by ps-Timothy, along with the "Abbaton"), the Teachings of John, the Laughter of the Apostles, the Doctrines of Adam, and the Counsel of the Savior, and all the blasphemous words they have written down. They have abandoned the light of the Holy Scriptures by which the prophets and the apostles and all the fathers, the teachers of the church, have strengthened the orthodox faith."
(John of Parallos, On the Archangel Michael and on the Heretical Books that are read in the Churches of the Orthodox)

It's quite probable that these texts actually existed, as we have a copy of the Investiture of the Archangel Michael, and John of Parallos’ description of its contents matches the version now held.

Among the ideas in the Investiture of Michael which John of Parallos regarded as heretical, was that of Michael being invested in place of the Devil, who allegedly had this position originally, but who lost it due to his refusal to worship Adam.

In a pseudepigraphical work attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus, said to have been written in response to a question from an archimandrite named Eusebius, who is supposed to have resided in a monastery at Mt. Ararat in Armenia, Ps-Gregory attributes this idea to the arch-heretic Mani, and goes on to refute this idea by arguing that the Devil fell prior to the creation of Adam.

While Ps-Gregory refutes what he claims to be Mani’s heretical teachings, he also engages in his own apocryphal embellishments of this part of the biblical storyworld at the same time as he claims that this part of history was not known to the apostles. However, rather than attributing this information to a written work, this text appeals instead to direct revelation following intense prayer.

Similarly, in Ps-Peter of Alexandria’s homily, On Riches, the idea that Michael replaced the Devil is attributed to the heretic Enotes, and a book of "Genesis" this heretic is supposed to have written, in opposition to the true Book of Genesis, written (as was then assumed) by Moses. While the idea that the devil refused to worship Adam is attributed to another heretic named Sietes.

+++

We can see from this that arguments over the correct teaching raged in both apocryphal and non-apocryphal works, and with references to both real and fictional heretical books and their supposed authors.

One might suggest that as long as an apocrypha did not actually contradict orthodox doctrine, then that was OK. Clearly, where the apocrypha does just that, then the monastic houses, often sources of their own apocryphal writings, speak out against it.

 

[Thomas]

It is not always easy to distinguish between books that never existed, and books that are simply lost to us, but which might have existed at the time they were being referred to.

The question, however, is what difference it makes.

Fictional books might not exist in the world, but they do in people’s imagination. Moreover, things that only exist in people’s imagination can sometimes have an impact on their attitudes, beliefs and emotions that may be just as powerful as references to things that exist in reality.

Research has shown that stories about "invented characters in imaginary situations influence readers’ judgments about people, problems, and institutions in the everyday world."

I am reminded of a story told by an actor who played a villain in a long-running and hugely popular soap on TV. Someone crossed the road to confront him about his conduct in recent episodes of the programme. He explained that he was an actor, playing a part in a tv show, only to be told, in no uncertain terms that, nevertheless, he was an awful man and ought to be in prison.

A scholar points out: "Once in memory, storyworld assertions may migrate to a reasoner’s real-world belief space when they are temporarily dissociated from the nonfactive context in which they are embedded." In other words, fictional references to books, or references to fictional books, could easily influence impressions of the existence and availability of additional literature and their contents and authorship.

 

[Thomas]

2) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON 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 ...”
Clear replied: "Evidence? What actual evidence are you referring to? You've offered claims, but what evidence are you referring to?
Thomas replied: “The argument of the scholars' view of the Coptic pseudepigrapha .”

You've mentioned the Scholars claim. What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?

Which I did.

What is the actual evidence you are using from the Scholars to show the Copts were not using a prior source text as they claimed to have done?

Which I did.

3) THE COPTS WHO WROTE THE NARRATIVE, TELL US THEY TOOK THE NARRATIVE FROM EARLIER WRITINGS.
Clear said: “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?”
Thomas replied: “Just because a painting has 'Picasso' written on the bottom, that does not make it a Picasso.”

I agree with the logic that not all things are as they seem.
However, what I asked for was your actual evidence to support your claim.
What is YOUR evidence they did not take their narrative from prior writings as they claimed to have done?

Because there is no reference to a library of apostolic writings anywhere prior to the Coptic apocrypha.

If, for example, Bishop Timothy is supposed to have seen the text and delivered a homily based on it, why did no source, not even those Coptic sources, produce a copy of an apostolic work to stand in its own right, to be read and studied by others, and not simply a reference framed in a homily.

For example, Polycarp of Smyrna, supposedly a disciple of 'John' (which John we are not sure), quotes from 1 John around 155CE. Papias of Hierapolis (2nd century) mentions an epistle, while Irenaeus (2nd c) attributes letters to John.

But no mention of the apostolic writings of John, mentioned in the Coptic apocrypha, by any of the Fathers.

4) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"

Regarding your discussion of pseudepigrapha, remember, your point applies to ALL ancient literature, including the bible.
The criticisms that apply to ancient, sacred, literature applies to almost all of sacred literature.

Indeed it does. So how do we proceed?

Much in the same way we have done since the 2nd century on. The first step is 'internal evidence' – does a text in question match the language and style of the author, known from other texts attributed to him? Thus we have Fathers in the 2nd/3rd century already disputing traditional sources. Hebrews, for example, traditionally ascribed to Paul, was questioned by the 3rd century. Origen said: "But as to who wrote the epistle, only God knows the truth."

So Tradition is a good but not infallible witness.

Another marker is provenance. Papias speaks of this with regard to the Gospels. The question of the oldest version of John 1:18 is something we have discussed, and which the Fathers were aware of. Indeed, we can trace from the Fathers the fact that both versions were extant and ancient.

My question would be, if Timothy visited a library of apostolic writings, that is a library of eye-witness materials authored by the Apostles, why did no-one else in all of Christendom ever visit this library, or even mention its existence?

Was it Timothy's secret, an accidental discovery? And once he'd mentioned it in his homily, which being bishop of Alexandria would have received a wide, scholarly audience, was there not a pilgrimage of scholars to visit the apostolic library and bring forth this cornucopia of apostolic writings to the world?