- Messages
- 3,452
- Reaction score
- 1,662
- Points
- 108
Why did you say this?
Notes on God in the Gospel of John
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
TheLightWithin quoted Enoch in post #108: “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”
TheLightWithin then asked: “The Son of Man. Is this the same?”
Clear responded: “I don’t understand the question. IF you are asking if the Son of Man (the son) is the same as “the Lord of Spirits” (the Father) who chose the son to be the Messiah, then no, they are not the same.
IF you as asking if the Hebrew “Son of Man” in the narrative is the same as the Christian “Son of Man” in the New Testament text, I believe he is though I cannot tell how the two groups (writers of OT/Jahwists and this Jewish text of 300 b.c.) viewed this special person.
TheLightWithin responded: “I'm not at all remembering quoting Enoch. I don't have any copies of Enoch and don't read it.”
In Post #108 – You quoted me and then asked a question, but the quote comes from Enoch 46:3-4
TheLightWithin asked: Was I quoting someone else who may have quoted Enoch and then asked my question - based in that context?
You are correct. When you quoted Enoch, you were quoting me and I assumed when you quoted enoch your question”: The Son of Man. Is this the same?” related to the words “Son of Man” inside your quote of Enoch.
TheLightWithin said: “I am nearly certain I was not directly quoting Enoch as if I had read it or something, which I haven't.”
When you quoted me in your post, whether you realize it or not, the quote came from Jewish Enoch (1st Enoch).
TheLightWithin said: “I was trying to locate what post it was in but scrolling back and forth and up and down wasn't getting me anywhere.”
In post #108, You quoted Enoch from my prior post and then asked your question. I assumed your question had to do with the quote you offered (a cut and paste from my prior post).
Clear said: “Good luck coming up with your own logical models of what God is doing and why.”
TheLightWithin asked: “Why did you say this?”
Most religious individuals are trying to come to an understanding of what God is like and what he is trying to accomplish by placing mankind on the earth.
The better one is able to understand what God ultimately desires for us and the better one is able to understand how they can best engage in Gods’ ultimate plan.
The better one understands Gods plan, the more intelligently and efficiently they can accurately engage in and support Gods plan for mankind.
I hope you are able to develop your own models and paradigms regarding what God is doing and that your model improves as you are able to discover both error and truths in your model.
My good desires for you were well meant. I hope your religious journey is wonderful and insightful.
TheLightWithin then asked: “The Son of Man. Is this the same?”
Clear responded: “I don’t understand the question. IF you are asking if the Son of Man (the son) is the same as “the Lord of Spirits” (the Father) who chose the son to be the Messiah, then no, they are not the same.
IF you as asking if the Hebrew “Son of Man” in the narrative is the same as the Christian “Son of Man” in the New Testament text, I believe he is though I cannot tell how the two groups (writers of OT/Jahwists and this Jewish text of 300 b.c.) viewed this special person.
TheLightWithin responded: “I'm not at all remembering quoting Enoch. I don't have any copies of Enoch and don't read it.”
In Post #108 – You quoted me and then asked a question, but the quote comes from Enoch 46:3-4
TheLightWithin asked: Was I quoting someone else who may have quoted Enoch and then asked my question - based in that context?
You are correct. When you quoted Enoch, you were quoting me and I assumed when you quoted enoch your question”: The Son of Man. Is this the same?” related to the words “Son of Man” inside your quote of Enoch.
TheLightWithin said: “I am nearly certain I was not directly quoting Enoch as if I had read it or something, which I haven't.”
When you quoted me in your post, whether you realize it or not, the quote came from Jewish Enoch (1st Enoch).
TheLightWithin said: “I was trying to locate what post it was in but scrolling back and forth and up and down wasn't getting me anywhere.”
In post #108, You quoted Enoch from my prior post and then asked your question. I assumed your question had to do with the quote you offered (a cut and paste from my prior post).
Clear said: “Good luck coming up with your own logical models of what God is doing and why.”
TheLightWithin asked: “Why did you say this?”
Most religious individuals are trying to come to an understanding of what God is like and what he is trying to accomplish by placing mankind on the earth.
The better one is able to understand what God ultimately desires for us and the better one is able to understand how they can best engage in Gods’ ultimate plan.
The better one understands Gods plan, the more intelligently and efficiently they can accurately engage in and support Gods plan for mankind.
I hope you are able to develop your own models and paradigms regarding what God is doing and that your model improves as you are able to discover both error and truths in your model.
My good desires for you were well meant. I hope your religious journey is wonderful and insightful.
And I have pointed you to it, numerous times.
With regard to the determination of ancient texts, especially the question of attribution, we are, in the end, reliant upon the work of scholars to assist us in our deliberations. Their reasoning was internal consistency and provenance. Thus Hebrews is not consistent with Paul, for example, and as early as Origen, the Pauline authorship of the Letter was disputed.
To my knowledge, no scholar supports the idea that Timothy I of Alexandria (died 384) was the author of the Investiture of Abbaton, and the arguments against it are discussed in the texts I have cited and the references supplied.
Perhaps you might offer your evidence – other than the document itself – in support of your claims?
Which is why I cited the reasoning against, and listed references. If you choose to ignore them, that's up to you, but please don't accuse me of being parsimonious with references, when you have offered nothing.
Again, please offer your supporting evidence.
And I have shown this is not the library pseudo-Timothy refers to.
If such a library or writings existed, then they would have been referenced by other sources, as being the foremost books of the Church and would have been considered canonical ... no one mentions their existence, whereas there is ample mention of lost works – but not the supposed works housed here.
Please do not distort my arguments. Straw Man.
Do you think it logical that because libraries exist, the one pseudo-Timothy is supposed to have reference must have?
Yes, and discussed by scholars who make those distinctions – none, AFAIK, support your thesis.
1) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
You've mentioned the "Scholars claim".
What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
You say you provided actual evidence underlying their 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?
And I have pointed you to it, numerous times.
You have repeatedly implied “Scholars say”, but, WHERE have you offered the actual evidence underlying the opinion of others (“scholars”)? WHAT evidence are you referring to?
2) ATTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT TEXTS VS DOCTRINES WITHIN ANCIENT TEXTS
Thomas said: “With regard to the determination of ancient texts, especially the question of attribution, we are, in the end, reliant upon the work of scholars to assist us in our deliberations. “
I am not deliberating attribution but am deliberating doctrine.
Since no scholar has ever been able to determine attribution of even our biblical texts, this is not my interest (others may be interested in this).
My interest is in the ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines rather than attribution. If you are interested in attribution of biblical texts, this is fine. I am interested in their early doctrines and beliefs.
For example, no one knows who wrote the biblical book of Hebrews in the same way no scholar knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. However, this does not mean these pseudepigraphical books do not represent early Christian theology. They do and they are incredibly valuable to study regardless of attribution of authorship.
If you want to study attribution, do so. You could be the first person in the entire world that discovers and confirms correct attribution.
Thomas said: "To my knowledge, no scholar supports the idea that Timothy I of Alexandria (died 384) was the author of the Investiture of Abbaton, and the arguments against it are discussed in the texts I have cited and the references supplied."
I also do not attribute Coptic Abbaton to Timothy. It is a later text.
My claim is that the copts claim their source text came from an earlier narrative purported to originate with Timothy.
Will you provide some actual evidence that the Copts were lying when they say they used a prior source text as they claimed?
Even a little bit of evidence could be helpful.
Thomas said: “Perhaps you might offer your evidence – other than the document itself – in support of your claims?”
This is a strange request.
It makes no sense to ask that we avoid the most obvious and most original evidence for the text which is the text itself.
Intentionally avoiding historical evidence is counterproductive (unless the purpose IS to avoid historical evidence).
This is a very simple issue. The Copts themselves say they used a source text. You say they did not use a source text.
What is your evidence they did not use a source text as they claimed?
If you reply “Scholars say…” then can you provide some evidence from the scholars you are referencing?
If you can provide even a small bit of evidence, this would be helpful.
3) MAKING CLAIMS WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS NOT PARTICULARLY "RUDE", BUT IT DOES FEEL SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTING AND UNFAIR
Thomas said: “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.
Clear replied: “I don’t think it is rude (per se), to simply make a claim and then not offer evidence for your claim, but it does feel somewhat unfair ask me for literary evidence for ancient Jewish beliefs when you either refuse or cannot offer actual evidence to support your theory
At some point, even your theories behind the statement “scholars say”, will require actual evidence as to why they say what they say…Is there any way you can provide some sort of evidence for this claim before you abandon this conversation?
Thomas replied: “Which is why I cited the reasoning against, and listed references.
Reasoning?
Reasoning involves the use of information (i.e. evidence).
But, you have not provided any evidence other than to offer the opinions of others you call "scholars".
However I am asking for the data, the evidence upon which you, or those scholars you quote are basing their opinions.
Even a small amount of actual evidence would be helpful in this case.
4) EITHER THE COPTS USED A SOURCE TEXT AS THEY CLAIM OR THEY DID NOT USE A SOURCE TEXT AS THEY CLAIMED
This is very simple, the copts say they used a source text and cited the text they used.
You say they didn’t use a source text and they say the did use a source text.
I’m simply asking for actual evidence as to how you know the copts are lying, and did not use a source text.
References?
While you provided “references” where you think the evidence exists, you did not provide actual evidence itself.
I admit that I could take the time to read the articles to try to find actual evidence you think exists. However, since YOU made the claim that the Copts did not use a source text, I assume you have some burden for supporting YOUR claim with some sort of evidence rather than references where you think the evidence exists.
Thomas said: “If you choose to ignore them, that's up to you, but please don't accuse me of being parsimonious with references, when you have offered nothing.”
You are confused.
I am NOT accusing you of not providing references, I am accusing you of providing references instead of evidence.
Evidence is different than references where evidence may, or may not exist.
If one claims: “Methodism is the correct religion" and when asked for evidence, the claimant can simply says “read the bible”.
The problem is that the reference is non-specific, and it doesn’t represent specific evidence to support the claim.
THIS is the problem I am having with your “references” that do not contain specific evidence to support the claim you are making.
5) THE COPT CLAIM IS THAT THEY USED A SOURCE TEXT FOR THEIR COPTIC NARRATIVE
Thomas said: “Again, please offer your supporting evidence.”
The text of Abbaton itself relates of Timothy that “he went into Jerusalem”…”and searched through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem”…”until he discovered [the account] of the creation of Abbaton, with an aged elder who was a native of Jerusalem” (chapter one, verse 4).
6) THE CLAIM THAT TIMOTHY COULD NOT HAVE USED A JERUSALEM LIBRARY
Thomas claimed: “And I have shown this is not the library pseudo-Timothy refers to.”
Of course you did not prove the Jerusalem library was not the library Timothy used. What you have done is simply to make a claim that Timothy did not use the Jerusalem library described by the copts in their narrative. Do you actually have any real evidence? Even a small bit of actual evidence would be fine.
Do you have actual evidence that there was no library Jerusalem despite eusebius and others telling us there were libraries there?
7) THE CLAIM THAT FOR THE JERUSALEM LIBRARY TO HAVE EXISTED, IT MUST BE REFERENCED BY MULTIPLE OTHER SOURCES
Thomas claims: “If such a library or writings existed, then they would have been referenced by other sources, as being the foremost books of the Church and would have been considered canonical ...”
This is yet another strange claim. Do you have ANY evidence for the claim that books in this library would have been "considered canonical" at that time period?
Can you provide actual evidence for this claim that this specific library would have been referenced by other extant sources in ancient literature?
The number of claims you are making are piling up. Do you have any actual evidence for such claims?
8) IS IT LOGICAL TO ASSUME THE CITY OF JERUSALEM AND IT'S SYNAGOGUES DID NOT POSSESS LIBRARIES?
Clear asked: “Why do you think it is logical to assume Jerusalem and even its’ various synagogues did not possess libraries? Can you offer any actual evidence for your claim that there was no Library in Jerusalem?
Thomas asked: “Please do not distort my arguments. Straw Man.”
Please be at peace, I am not trying to distort your argument.
I am trying to point out that it is illogical to assume Jerusalem did not have libraries (multiple libraries) in order to try to show the Copts did not use a source text as they claimed to have done.
Whether this assumption is logical or illogical, do you have any specific evidence that the copts did not use a source text?
Clear asked: “Do you think it is even logical to assume ancient Synagogues or ancient churches did not gather and copy sacred literature anciently as modern synagogues and churches collect texts?”
Thomas responded: “Do you think it logical that because libraries exist, the one pseudo-Timothy is supposed to have reference must have?”
No, I do not think the fact that multiple libraries have existed is strict evidence that the specific one described in the story existed.
Historical narratives are full of evidential impasses that cannot be proven.
You cannot prove Jerusalem did not have a library mentioned and I cannot prove they did. However, my point was never that a library did or did not exist, but my point was that a specific doctrine existed regarding a messiah that paralleled ancient Jewish doctrine regarding the messiah.
9) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"
Clear said: "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
What this means for biblical interpretation
This distinction is important for biblical studies and is a source of ongoing debate among scholars.
Thomas replied: “Yes, and discussed by scholars who make those distinctions – none, AFAIK, support your thesis.
My Thesis is that the ancient Hebrew literature describes a belief in a God, and in a Savior/Messiah/The word, and in a Spirit of God.
The fact that the biblical library is, itself, pseudepigraphical and no one can confirm their authorships, is not an issue for me since my interest is in ancient Judeo-Christian religion and beliefs, as they describe in their ancient Judeo-Christian literature.
IF readers simply google:
Did ancient Hebrews believe in a god?
Did ancient Hebrews believe in a Messiah?
Did ancient Hebrews believe in a spirit of god?
Each answer will be “yes”.
The ancient literature confirms this and abbaton is simply one version of the interaction with God his father in the beginning.
You've mentioned the "Scholars claim".
What I asked for what for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim?
You say you provided actual evidence underlying their 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?
And I have pointed you to it, numerous times.
You have repeatedly implied “Scholars say”, but, WHERE have you offered the actual evidence underlying the opinion of others (“scholars”)? WHAT evidence are you referring to?
2) ATTRIBUTION OF ANCIENT TEXTS VS DOCTRINES WITHIN ANCIENT TEXTS
Thomas said: “With regard to the determination of ancient texts, especially the question of attribution, we are, in the end, reliant upon the work of scholars to assist us in our deliberations. “
I am not deliberating attribution but am deliberating doctrine.
Since no scholar has ever been able to determine attribution of even our biblical texts, this is not my interest (others may be interested in this).
My interest is in the ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines rather than attribution. If you are interested in attribution of biblical texts, this is fine. I am interested in their early doctrines and beliefs.
For example, no one knows who wrote the biblical book of Hebrews in the same way no scholar knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. However, this does not mean these pseudepigraphical books do not represent early Christian theology. They do and they are incredibly valuable to study regardless of attribution of authorship.
If you want to study attribution, do so. You could be the first person in the entire world that discovers and confirms correct attribution.
Thomas said: "To my knowledge, no scholar supports the idea that Timothy I of Alexandria (died 384) was the author of the Investiture of Abbaton, and the arguments against it are discussed in the texts I have cited and the references supplied."
I also do not attribute Coptic Abbaton to Timothy. It is a later text.
My claim is that the copts claim their source text came from an earlier narrative purported to originate with Timothy.
Will you provide some actual evidence that the Copts were lying when they say they used a prior source text as they claimed?
Even a little bit of evidence could be helpful.
Thomas said: “Perhaps you might offer your evidence – other than the document itself – in support of your claims?”
This is a strange request.
It makes no sense to ask that we avoid the most obvious and most original evidence for the text which is the text itself.
Intentionally avoiding historical evidence is counterproductive (unless the purpose IS to avoid historical evidence).
This is a very simple issue. The Copts themselves say they used a source text. You say they did not use a source text.
What is your evidence they did not use a source text as they claimed?
If you reply “Scholars say…” then can you provide some evidence from the scholars you are referencing?
If you can provide even a small bit of evidence, this would be helpful.
3) MAKING CLAIMS WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IS NOT PARTICULARLY "RUDE", BUT IT DOES FEEL SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTING AND UNFAIR
Thomas said: “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.
Clear replied: “I don’t think it is rude (per se), to simply make a claim and then not offer evidence for your claim, but it does feel somewhat unfair ask me for literary evidence for ancient Jewish beliefs when you either refuse or cannot offer actual evidence to support your theory
At some point, even your theories behind the statement “scholars say”, will require actual evidence as to why they say what they say…Is there any way you can provide some sort of evidence for this claim before you abandon this conversation?
Thomas replied: “Which is why I cited the reasoning against, and listed references.
Reasoning?
Reasoning involves the use of information (i.e. evidence).
But, you have not provided any evidence other than to offer the opinions of others you call "scholars".
However I am asking for the data, the evidence upon which you, or those scholars you quote are basing their opinions.
Even a small amount of actual evidence would be helpful in this case.
4) EITHER THE COPTS USED A SOURCE TEXT AS THEY CLAIM OR THEY DID NOT USE A SOURCE TEXT AS THEY CLAIMED
This is very simple, the copts say they used a source text and cited the text they used.
You say they didn’t use a source text and they say the did use a source text.
I’m simply asking for actual evidence as to how you know the copts are lying, and did not use a source text.
References?
While you provided “references” where you think the evidence exists, you did not provide actual evidence itself.
I admit that I could take the time to read the articles to try to find actual evidence you think exists. However, since YOU made the claim that the Copts did not use a source text, I assume you have some burden for supporting YOUR claim with some sort of evidence rather than references where you think the evidence exists.
Thomas said: “If you choose to ignore them, that's up to you, but please don't accuse me of being parsimonious with references, when you have offered nothing.”
You are confused.
I am NOT accusing you of not providing references, I am accusing you of providing references instead of evidence.
Evidence is different than references where evidence may, or may not exist.
If one claims: “Methodism is the correct religion" and when asked for evidence, the claimant can simply says “read the bible”.
The problem is that the reference is non-specific, and it doesn’t represent specific evidence to support the claim.
THIS is the problem I am having with your “references” that do not contain specific evidence to support the claim you are making.
5) THE COPT CLAIM IS THAT THEY USED A SOURCE TEXT FOR THEIR COPTIC NARRATIVE
Thomas said: “Again, please offer your supporting evidence.”
The text of Abbaton itself relates of Timothy that “he went into Jerusalem”…”and searched through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem”…”until he discovered [the account] of the creation of Abbaton, with an aged elder who was a native of Jerusalem” (chapter one, verse 4).
6) THE CLAIM THAT TIMOTHY COULD NOT HAVE USED A JERUSALEM LIBRARY
Thomas claimed: “And I have shown this is not the library pseudo-Timothy refers to.”
Of course you did not prove the Jerusalem library was not the library Timothy used. What you have done is simply to make a claim that Timothy did not use the Jerusalem library described by the copts in their narrative. Do you actually have any real evidence? Even a small bit of actual evidence would be fine.
Do you have actual evidence that there was no library Jerusalem despite eusebius and others telling us there were libraries there?
7) THE CLAIM THAT FOR THE JERUSALEM LIBRARY TO HAVE EXISTED, IT MUST BE REFERENCED BY MULTIPLE OTHER SOURCES
Thomas claims: “If such a library or writings existed, then they would have been referenced by other sources, as being the foremost books of the Church and would have been considered canonical ...”
This is yet another strange claim. Do you have ANY evidence for the claim that books in this library would have been "considered canonical" at that time period?
Can you provide actual evidence for this claim that this specific library would have been referenced by other extant sources in ancient literature?
The number of claims you are making are piling up. Do you have any actual evidence for such claims?
8) IS IT LOGICAL TO ASSUME THE CITY OF JERUSALEM AND IT'S SYNAGOGUES DID NOT POSSESS LIBRARIES?
Clear asked: “Why do you think it is logical to assume Jerusalem and even its’ various synagogues did not possess libraries? Can you offer any actual evidence for your claim that there was no Library in Jerusalem?
Thomas asked: “Please do not distort my arguments. Straw Man.”
Please be at peace, I am not trying to distort your argument.
I am trying to point out that it is illogical to assume Jerusalem did not have libraries (multiple libraries) in order to try to show the Copts did not use a source text as they claimed to have done.
Whether this assumption is logical or illogical, do you have any specific evidence that the copts did not use a source text?
Clear asked: “Do you think it is even logical to assume ancient Synagogues or ancient churches did not gather and copy sacred literature anciently as modern synagogues and churches collect texts?”
Thomas responded: “Do you think it logical that because libraries exist, the one pseudo-Timothy is supposed to have reference must have?”
No, I do not think the fact that multiple libraries have existed is strict evidence that the specific one described in the story existed.
Historical narratives are full of evidential impasses that cannot be proven.
You cannot prove Jerusalem did not have a library mentioned and I cannot prove they did. However, my point was never that a library did or did not exist, but my point was that a specific doctrine existed regarding a messiah that paralleled ancient Jewish doctrine regarding the messiah.
9) REGARDING THOMAS' INTIMATION THAT PSEUDEPIGRAPHA ARE "FICTIONAL". REMEMBER, THE BIBLE ITSELF IS "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"
Clear said: "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.
Thomas replied: “Yes, and discussed by scholars who make those distinctions – none, AFAIK, support your thesis.
My Thesis is that the ancient Hebrew literature describes a belief in a God, and in a Savior/Messiah/The word, and in a Spirit of God.
The fact that the biblical library is, itself, pseudepigraphical and no one can confirm their authorships, is not an issue for me since my interest is in ancient Judeo-Christian religion and beliefs, as they describe in their ancient Judeo-Christian literature.
IF readers simply google:
Did ancient Hebrews believe in a god?
Did ancient Hebrews believe in a Messiah?
Did ancient Hebrews believe in a spirit of god?
Each answer will be “yes”.
The ancient literature confirms this and abbaton is simply one version of the interaction with God his father in the beginning.
Yes ... probably equally fictional.
I am increasingly of the opinion that you simply ignore any evidence I offer, contrary to your own opinion. You never mention it nor refute it, so I am inclined to think you either haven't read it, or cannot refute it ...
I am not prepared to entertain your baseless and circuitous arguments beyond this post, until you provide some actual reasoned evidence in support of your thesis.
It may not be your interest, but you make a overgeneralisation which is wrong. We can attribute books to Paul, for example.
If you cannot argue or evidence attribution, you cannot argue 'early' or late' belief.
Again, overgeneralisation.
It is scholars who have argued, convincingly, often against Tradition, the anonymity of the Gospels, of Hebrews and other texts. They also argue, equally convincingly, that Paul, for example, was not the author of all the Pauline letters, that the same John was not the author of all the Johannine literature.
And by the same token, that the apostle John was not the author of the 10th century Coptic text the Investiture of Michael.
So while you accept scholars argue for anonymity, you seem not to accept scholars when they argue pseudepigraphic attribution.
Agreed. the Coptic pseudepigraphia give an insight into the Coptic world prior to and after the Arabian conquest, from about the 6th to the 10th centuries.
And you accept that without question?
The range of the pseudepigraphia is evidence in itself.
It really is not ...
Then I fall back on questioning your credulity.Then look at all the evidence, and re-evaluate. Your error, not mine.
1) WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE COPTIC VERSION OF ABBATON WAS NOT TAKEN FROM A PRIOR NARRATIVE AS THE TEXT ITSELF CLAIMS?
Clear said: “You've mentioned the "Scholars claim".
What I asked for was for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim.
You say you provided actual evidence underlying their 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?”
Thomas replied: I am increasingly of the opinion that you simply ignore any evidence I offer, contrary to your own opinion.
Again, one asks: “WHAT Evidence” have you provided that shows Coptic Abbaton was not taken from a prior source text as the Copts claimed?
You have offered vague references where you seem to think evidence exists, but you have not offered readers the actual evidence itself.
2) DID THE COPTS USE A SOURCE TEXT OR NOT?
Clear quoted the copts claim directly from their text: “The text of Abbaton itself relates of Timothy that “he went into Jerusalem”…”and searched through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem”…”until he discovered [the account] of the creation of Abbaton, with an aged elder who was a native of Jerusalem” (chapter one, verse 4).”
Thomas said : “I am not prepared to entertain your baseless and circuitous arguments beyond this post, until you provide some actual reasoned evidence in support of your thesis.”
The evidence I gave included:
Actual Quotes from the actual translated, coptic text itself. These quotes tell us they used a source.
The actual text itself describes the prior source they used for their narrative.
I described Specific parallels in their text exists in other texts from the time period they claim their source came from.
If the definition of a circuitous argument is “a logical fallacy that uses indirect, lengthy, or convoluted reasoning to make a point, often by assuming the conclusion in its own premises” then the Coptic claim is not circuitous, but straight-forward. Their claim is not indirect, but it is direct. Their claim is not lengthy or convoluted, but it is short and simple and clear.
How does this claim help your theory that the copts did not use a source text as they claimed?
3) CAN ONE PROVE WHICH SPECIFIC ANCIENT LIBRARY TIMOTHY USED?
Thomas claimed: “And I have shown this is not the library pseudo-Timothy refers to.”
This is another silly claim. You did not prove Timothy did not use a Jerusalem Library.
You simply showed that we do not know which library Timothy may have used.
I certainly agree with this.
We do not actually know which specific library Timothy used since we have insufficient data to identify it.
How does this help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed?
4) REFERENCES WHERE ONE MAY FIND EVIDENCE (OR NOT) ARE NOT, THEMSELVES, EVIDENCE
Regarding the references offered: Thomas said: “You never mention it nor refute it, so I am inclined to think you either haven't read it, or cannot refute it ...”
You are confused.
I do not dispute the references are correct. The problem is that references to where potential evidence may or may not be found is not the evidence itself. For example, your rebuttal for #7 below is: "“The range of the pseudepigraphia is evidence in itself.” The problem with such vague references is that it is so non-specific that one can't tell what specific facts the vague reference refers to. IF you can be more specific and provide specific evidence this can be beneficial to your claim. If you cannot be specific in any way, this undermines your claim and cause credibility issues if the pattern continues.
What I am asking for is the evidence that you think is contained in your references. For example, you often say “Scholars say” or “Scholars say”, but then you never provide the actual evidence they are basing their opinions on.
For example, IF you are going to claim that Scholars feel there is no source text as the copts claim, then what actual evidence are these scholars using to create that opinion. THAT evidence is what readers may like to see.
What actual evidence do you have to show the copts did not use a source text as they claimed to have done?
5) ATTRIBUTION OF AUTHORSHIP VS DOCTRINES WITHIN ANCIENT TEXTS
Clear said: “Since no scholar has ever been able to determine attribution of even our biblical texts, this is not my interest (others may be interested in this).”
Thomas replied: “It may not be your interest, but you make a overgeneralisation which is wrong. We can attribute books to Paul, for example.”
OK, give us actual, objective, evidence that proves Paul wrote the books you are referring to.
As I said, You can be the first person in history to be able to do this. You will be famous if you can do this.
How does this additional claim of yours on attribution help your theory that the copts did not use a source text?
6) ATRIRIBUTION OF THE AUTHOR IS NOT THE SAME AS DATING OF ANCIENT TEXTS
Clear said: “My interest is in the ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines rather than attribution. If you are interested in attribution of biblical texts, this is fine. I am interested in their early doctrines and beliefs.”
Thomas said: “If you cannot argue or evidence attribution, you cannot argue 'early' or late' belief.”
This is yet another unusual and strange theory on ancient texts.
While it is correct that one cannot prove attribution of ancient texts (such as biblical texts), rough dating can often be done without knowing the author. Sometimes one is lucky enough to have a date the text is written in the text itself. However, this isn't the only way to date ancient texts.
For example, palographers can often roughly date certain texts by content and characteristics. If the text mentions an extant temple or a current conflict or historical event, then the text was written during the time a temple exists, or when a conflict or historical even was happening.
There are other characteristic which provide an ability for a palographer to date text itself. For example, if a Greek text is miniscule, then it is after the 9th century when miniscules started to exist. If a hebrew text has superscript vowels, this helps date a text. While I am not a paleographer, they are able to date texts by characteristics and content and carbon dating and other methods. None of these methods require knowing who the author was.
How does this new and strange claim of yours help your theory that the copts did not use a source text?
Clear said: “For example, no one knows who wrote the biblical book of Hebrews in the same way no scholar knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.”
Thomas replied: “Again, overgeneralisation.”
Overgeneralization? Can you give us a single, human, exception? Even a single one?
Whether your theory on attribution turns out to be true OR false, how would this help your theory that the copts did not use a source text as they claimed?
Thomas said regarding scholars: “They also argue, equally convincingly, that Paul, for example, was not the author of all the Pauline letters, that the same John was not the author of all the Johannine literature.”
I happen to agree with you on this point that NONE of the biblical texts have confirmed authorship or attribution.
However, again, this is another example where your reference is to vague and unnamed "scholars" and you do not provide any actual evidence the scholars are using for their opinion. Do you see the difference between a vague reference to an opinion and actual evidence the scholars used to create the opinion?
How does this claim help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed?
Thomas said: “So while you accept scholars argue for anonymity, you seem not to accept scholars when they argue pseudepigraphic attribution.”
This is another bizarre conclusion.
It was me that pointed out most ancient Religious texts are written by anonymous individuals and their attributions are, almost always pseudepigraphic in nature.
This does not mean they are not historically, and theologically, incredibly important to all of us interested in their messages.
How does this additional, strange, claim help your theory that the copts did not use a source as they claimed to have done?
Clear said: “I also do not attribute Coptic Abbaton to Timothy. It is a later text.
My claim is that the copts themselves tell us they used a source text from an earlier narrative.”
Thomas asked: “And you accept that without question?”
Certainly it can be questioned.
However, one should have some sort of evidential data and reasoning based on that data to confirm OR to question.
The data we have is the Coptic claims and description that they took their narrative from a prior source.
Without conflicting facts/data/evidence, one cannot refute their claim nor confirm.
You have, so far, not given us, facts/data/evidence to refute their claim that they took their narrative from a prior source.
How does this lack of evidence help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claim to have done?
7) "VAGUE REFERENCES" ARE NOT THE SAME AS "SPECIFIC EVIDENCE"
Clear asked: “Will you provide some actual evidence that the Copts were lying when they say they used a prior source text as they claimed? Even a little bit of evidence could be helpful.”
Thomas replied: “The range of the pseudepigraphia is evidence in itself.”
Again, you are providing a vague reference that is, itself, void of specific evidence.
It reminds me of offering the stock phrase "Scholars say" without actually giving us the evidence the scholars used to create their opinion.
Can you clarify with any actual, and specific evidence rather than a vague reference?
8) DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO AVOID THE MOST OBVIOUS AND MOST ORIGINAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR A HISTORICAL CLAIM?
Clear said: “It makes no sense to ask that we avoid the most obvious and most original evidence for the text which is the text itself.”
Thomas replied: “Then I fall back on questioning your credulity.”
The problem with this sort of tactic is that readers can check my claims to see if they are, in fact, correct.
They can examine every single evidential quote I have offered from my own references to see if I am quoting them correctly.
How does questioning my credulity help YOUR claim that the copts did not use a source as they claimed?
Clear pointed out: “Intentionally avoiding historical evidence is counterproductive (unless the purpose IS to avoid historical evidence).”
Thomas replied: “Then look at all the evidence, and re-evaluate.”
This is wonderful and good advice.
Readers can see what evidence the narrative provides that the copts took their narrative from a prior source.
Readers can see that there are other ancient narratives that coordinate with this narrative.
Readers can check the time periods of the earlier ancient Judeo-Christian texts relating to this narrative.
Thus, readers can example a preponderance of textual evidence that supports the Coptic claim they used a source as they claimed to have done.
The problem is that you have not offered actual countering evidence that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed.
You have often used the stock phrase: “scholars say” in a non-specific and summary way that does not actually give readers specific evidence upon which their opinion is based. THIS specific evidence is lacking.
IF you refuse to, or cannot, offer this specific countering evidence, then we cannot actually “LOOK at all the evidence, and re-evaluate”.
IF you will not provide countering evidence, how does this help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed they did?
Thomas said: “Your error, not mine.”
It could be that I am in error when I say the copts claim they took their narrative from a prior source.
The problem for this claim is that the coptic text itself tells us they DID use a prior source.
However, IF you will not or cannot provide evidence for your counter claim, how can anyone tell the copts lied? (i.e. they are in error)
How does this simple ad hominem help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed to have done?
Clear said: “You've mentioned the "Scholars claim".
What I asked for was for you to provide the actual evidence for this claim.
You say you provided actual evidence underlying their 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?”
Thomas replied: I am increasingly of the opinion that you simply ignore any evidence I offer, contrary to your own opinion.
Again, one asks: “WHAT Evidence” have you provided that shows Coptic Abbaton was not taken from a prior source text as the Copts claimed?
You have offered vague references where you seem to think evidence exists, but you have not offered readers the actual evidence itself.
2) DID THE COPTS USE A SOURCE TEXT OR NOT?
Clear quoted the copts claim directly from their text: “The text of Abbaton itself relates of Timothy that “he went into Jerusalem”…”and searched through the books which were in the library of Jerusalem”…”until he discovered [the account] of the creation of Abbaton, with an aged elder who was a native of Jerusalem” (chapter one, verse 4).”
Thomas said : “I am not prepared to entertain your baseless and circuitous arguments beyond this post, until you provide some actual reasoned evidence in support of your thesis.”
The evidence I gave included:
Actual Quotes from the actual translated, coptic text itself. These quotes tell us they used a source.
The actual text itself describes the prior source they used for their narrative.
I described Specific parallels in their text exists in other texts from the time period they claim their source came from.
If the definition of a circuitous argument is “a logical fallacy that uses indirect, lengthy, or convoluted reasoning to make a point, often by assuming the conclusion in its own premises” then the Coptic claim is not circuitous, but straight-forward. Their claim is not indirect, but it is direct. Their claim is not lengthy or convoluted, but it is short and simple and clear.
How does this claim help your theory that the copts did not use a source text as they claimed?
3) CAN ONE PROVE WHICH SPECIFIC ANCIENT LIBRARY TIMOTHY USED?
Thomas claimed: “And I have shown this is not the library pseudo-Timothy refers to.”
This is another silly claim. You did not prove Timothy did not use a Jerusalem Library.
You simply showed that we do not know which library Timothy may have used.
I certainly agree with this.
We do not actually know which specific library Timothy used since we have insufficient data to identify it.
How does this help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed?
4) REFERENCES WHERE ONE MAY FIND EVIDENCE (OR NOT) ARE NOT, THEMSELVES, EVIDENCE
Regarding the references offered: Thomas said: “You never mention it nor refute it, so I am inclined to think you either haven't read it, or cannot refute it ...”
You are confused.
I do not dispute the references are correct. The problem is that references to where potential evidence may or may not be found is not the evidence itself. For example, your rebuttal for #7 below is: "“The range of the pseudepigraphia is evidence in itself.” The problem with such vague references is that it is so non-specific that one can't tell what specific facts the vague reference refers to. IF you can be more specific and provide specific evidence this can be beneficial to your claim. If you cannot be specific in any way, this undermines your claim and cause credibility issues if the pattern continues.
What I am asking for is the evidence that you think is contained in your references. For example, you often say “Scholars say” or “Scholars say”, but then you never provide the actual evidence they are basing their opinions on.
For example, IF you are going to claim that Scholars feel there is no source text as the copts claim, then what actual evidence are these scholars using to create that opinion. THAT evidence is what readers may like to see.
What actual evidence do you have to show the copts did not use a source text as they claimed to have done?
5) ATTRIBUTION OF AUTHORSHIP VS DOCTRINES WITHIN ANCIENT TEXTS
Clear said: “Since no scholar has ever been able to determine attribution of even our biblical texts, this is not my interest (others may be interested in this).”
Thomas replied: “It may not be your interest, but you make a overgeneralisation which is wrong. We can attribute books to Paul, for example.”
OK, give us actual, objective, evidence that proves Paul wrote the books you are referring to.
As I said, You can be the first person in history to be able to do this. You will be famous if you can do this.
How does this additional claim of yours on attribution help your theory that the copts did not use a source text?
6) ATRIRIBUTION OF THE AUTHOR IS NOT THE SAME AS DATING OF ANCIENT TEXTS
Clear said: “My interest is in the ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines rather than attribution. If you are interested in attribution of biblical texts, this is fine. I am interested in their early doctrines and beliefs.”
Thomas said: “If you cannot argue or evidence attribution, you cannot argue 'early' or late' belief.”
This is yet another unusual and strange theory on ancient texts.
While it is correct that one cannot prove attribution of ancient texts (such as biblical texts), rough dating can often be done without knowing the author. Sometimes one is lucky enough to have a date the text is written in the text itself. However, this isn't the only way to date ancient texts.
For example, palographers can often roughly date certain texts by content and characteristics. If the text mentions an extant temple or a current conflict or historical event, then the text was written during the time a temple exists, or when a conflict or historical even was happening.
There are other characteristic which provide an ability for a palographer to date text itself. For example, if a Greek text is miniscule, then it is after the 9th century when miniscules started to exist. If a hebrew text has superscript vowels, this helps date a text. While I am not a paleographer, they are able to date texts by characteristics and content and carbon dating and other methods. None of these methods require knowing who the author was.
How does this new and strange claim of yours help your theory that the copts did not use a source text?
Clear said: “For example, no one knows who wrote the biblical book of Hebrews in the same way no scholar knows who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.”
Thomas replied: “Again, overgeneralisation.”
Overgeneralization? Can you give us a single, human, exception? Even a single one?
Whether your theory on attribution turns out to be true OR false, how would this help your theory that the copts did not use a source text as they claimed?
Thomas said regarding scholars: “They also argue, equally convincingly, that Paul, for example, was not the author of all the Pauline letters, that the same John was not the author of all the Johannine literature.”
I happen to agree with you on this point that NONE of the biblical texts have confirmed authorship or attribution.
However, again, this is another example where your reference is to vague and unnamed "scholars" and you do not provide any actual evidence the scholars are using for their opinion. Do you see the difference between a vague reference to an opinion and actual evidence the scholars used to create the opinion?
How does this claim help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed?
Thomas said: “So while you accept scholars argue for anonymity, you seem not to accept scholars when they argue pseudepigraphic attribution.”
This is another bizarre conclusion.
It was me that pointed out most ancient Religious texts are written by anonymous individuals and their attributions are, almost always pseudepigraphic in nature.
This does not mean they are not historically, and theologically, incredibly important to all of us interested in their messages.
How does this additional, strange, claim help your theory that the copts did not use a source as they claimed to have done?
Clear said: “I also do not attribute Coptic Abbaton to Timothy. It is a later text.
My claim is that the copts themselves tell us they used a source text from an earlier narrative.”
Thomas asked: “And you accept that without question?”
Certainly it can be questioned.
However, one should have some sort of evidential data and reasoning based on that data to confirm OR to question.
The data we have is the Coptic claims and description that they took their narrative from a prior source.
Without conflicting facts/data/evidence, one cannot refute their claim nor confirm.
You have, so far, not given us, facts/data/evidence to refute their claim that they took their narrative from a prior source.
How does this lack of evidence help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claim to have done?
7) "VAGUE REFERENCES" ARE NOT THE SAME AS "SPECIFIC EVIDENCE"
Clear asked: “Will you provide some actual evidence that the Copts were lying when they say they used a prior source text as they claimed? Even a little bit of evidence could be helpful.”
Thomas replied: “The range of the pseudepigraphia is evidence in itself.”
Again, you are providing a vague reference that is, itself, void of specific evidence.
It reminds me of offering the stock phrase "Scholars say" without actually giving us the evidence the scholars used to create their opinion.
Can you clarify with any actual, and specific evidence rather than a vague reference?
8) DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO AVOID THE MOST OBVIOUS AND MOST ORIGINAL HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR A HISTORICAL CLAIM?
Clear said: “It makes no sense to ask that we avoid the most obvious and most original evidence for the text which is the text itself.”
Thomas replied: “Then I fall back on questioning your credulity.”
The problem with this sort of tactic is that readers can check my claims to see if they are, in fact, correct.
They can examine every single evidential quote I have offered from my own references to see if I am quoting them correctly.
How does questioning my credulity help YOUR claim that the copts did not use a source as they claimed?
Clear pointed out: “Intentionally avoiding historical evidence is counterproductive (unless the purpose IS to avoid historical evidence).”
Thomas replied: “Then look at all the evidence, and re-evaluate.”
This is wonderful and good advice.
Readers can see what evidence the narrative provides that the copts took their narrative from a prior source.
Readers can see that there are other ancient narratives that coordinate with this narrative.
Readers can check the time periods of the earlier ancient Judeo-Christian texts relating to this narrative.
Thus, readers can example a preponderance of textual evidence that supports the Coptic claim they used a source as they claimed to have done.
The problem is that you have not offered actual countering evidence that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed.
You have often used the stock phrase: “scholars say” in a non-specific and summary way that does not actually give readers specific evidence upon which their opinion is based. THIS specific evidence is lacking.
IF you refuse to, or cannot, offer this specific countering evidence, then we cannot actually “LOOK at all the evidence, and re-evaluate”.
IF you will not provide countering evidence, how does this help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed they did?
Thomas said: “Your error, not mine.”
It could be that I am in error when I say the copts claim they took their narrative from a prior source.
The problem for this claim is that the coptic text itself tells us they DID use a prior source.
However, IF you will not or cannot provide evidence for your counter claim, how can anyone tell the copts lied? (i.e. they are in error)
How does this simple ad hominem help your claim that the copts did not use a source for their narrative as they claimed to have done?
Last edited: