- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 1,665
- 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:
OK, Clear –
Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
If you have any actual proof to the contrary, bring it on.
If not, we're done.
Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
If you have any actual proof to the contrary, bring it on.
If not, we're done.
Hi Thomas
1) CONFLICTING CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIES SEE EACH OTHER AS "FICTIONAL" OR "ERRONEOUS"
Thomas responded: “Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
Yes. In the same way that various modern conflicting Christianities view other Christianities as believing in fictional doctrines, (while their own doctrines feel correct), you may view ancient Christianity as having fictional beliefs and ancient Christians may view your Christianity as having fictional errors and lacking in knowledge.
The athiests claim almost all metaphysical Christian narratives are simply fictional.
While some ancient AND modern Christian beliefs probably are fictional, many ancient AND modern Christian beliefs are not fictional. However, whether ancient Christianity was true or false, still, the ancient Christians believed what they said they believed.
2) ANCIENT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY LOOKS DIFFERENT TO THE HISTORIAN WHO STUDIES IT THAN IT DOES TO THE AVERAGE "SUNDAY SCHOOL CHRISTIAN"
Ancient Christianity looks different as seen through the lens of the historian of ancient Judeo-Christian literature than it will to the average “Sunday school Christian”. Ancient Christianity is richer and more detailed and (to me) feels like it is a more logical and rational theology than later Christian movements.
And their ancient texts describe their belief that the Christ/Messiah/The Word described in John 1:1 was not inert during this time period with God, but instead, The Word/Christ/Messiah was, even then, active in assisting the Father in carrying out God the Fathers plan for mankind whereas most modern movements have little idea what the Messiah/The Word/Jesus was actually DOING "in the beginning with God" (John 1:1).
Ancient Christianity seems so much richer and more detailed regarding what “the Word”/Messiah/Savior was actually DOING in the beginning with God and why his close association with the Father existed.
3) AUTHENTIC THEOLOGY WITHIN PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC LITERATURE
Ancient Jewish literature, ancient Christian literature, and ancient Islamic literature have certain shared “crossroads” doctrines (e.g. the controversies and motives underlying Satans evolution from angel to enemy of God) that were taught over large swaths of time and large geographical areas and described in the ancient literature of all three Abrahamic religions. Theological principles which exist over large geographical areas and over large swaths of time were characteristics of ancient orthodoxy.
4) THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY “TRUE” VERSUS WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IS TRUE. (i.e. knowledge of facts vs faith in theology)
The historical principle is not “all religious metaphysical claims are true”, but rather ancient Judeo-Christian literature describes what Christianity believed to be true. Religion was a matter of faith anciently, just as religion is mostly a matter of faith nowadays.
So, while it is perfectly fine to doubt the claims and beliefs of the ancient Judeo-Christians that the Messiah/Christ/Jesus/The Word was with God in the beginning (as John 1:1 tells us), the various and abundant ancient texts written by the Judeo-Christians leave us with a clear description of their belief and faith that Jesus/Christ/Messiah/The Word WAS with God in the beginning.
Thus, it is understandable and fair if you see ancient Christianity as “fictional” just as it is understandable and fair for the ancient Christians to view your modern Christian theology as “fictional” and “anemic” and “empty” of the rich historical details that characterized their ancient Christian beliefs.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and enjoyable Thomas.
1) CONFLICTING CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIES SEE EACH OTHER AS "FICTIONAL" OR "ERRONEOUS"
Thomas responded: “Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
Yes. In the same way that various modern conflicting Christianities view other Christianities as believing in fictional doctrines, (while their own doctrines feel correct), you may view ancient Christianity as having fictional beliefs and ancient Christians may view your Christianity as having fictional errors and lacking in knowledge.
The athiests claim almost all metaphysical Christian narratives are simply fictional.
While some ancient AND modern Christian beliefs probably are fictional, many ancient AND modern Christian beliefs are not fictional. However, whether ancient Christianity was true or false, still, the ancient Christians believed what they said they believed.
2) ANCIENT CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY LOOKS DIFFERENT TO THE HISTORIAN WHO STUDIES IT THAN IT DOES TO THE AVERAGE "SUNDAY SCHOOL CHRISTIAN"
Ancient Christianity looks different as seen through the lens of the historian of ancient Judeo-Christian literature than it will to the average “Sunday school Christian”. Ancient Christianity is richer and more detailed and (to me) feels like it is a more logical and rational theology than later Christian movements.
And their ancient texts describe their belief that the Christ/Messiah/The Word described in John 1:1 was not inert during this time period with God, but instead, The Word/Christ/Messiah was, even then, active in assisting the Father in carrying out God the Fathers plan for mankind whereas most modern movements have little idea what the Messiah/The Word/Jesus was actually DOING "in the beginning with God" (John 1:1).
Ancient Christianity seems so much richer and more detailed regarding what “the Word”/Messiah/Savior was actually DOING in the beginning with God and why his close association with the Father existed.
3) AUTHENTIC THEOLOGY WITHIN PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC LITERATURE
Ancient Jewish literature, ancient Christian literature, and ancient Islamic literature have certain shared “crossroads” doctrines (e.g. the controversies and motives underlying Satans evolution from angel to enemy of God) that were taught over large swaths of time and large geographical areas and described in the ancient literature of all three Abrahamic religions. Theological principles which exist over large geographical areas and over large swaths of time were characteristics of ancient orthodoxy.
4) THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT IS OBJECTIVELY “TRUE” VERSUS WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IS TRUE. (i.e. knowledge of facts vs faith in theology)
The historical principle is not “all religious metaphysical claims are true”, but rather ancient Judeo-Christian literature describes what Christianity believed to be true. Religion was a matter of faith anciently, just as religion is mostly a matter of faith nowadays.
So, while it is perfectly fine to doubt the claims and beliefs of the ancient Judeo-Christians that the Messiah/Christ/Jesus/The Word was with God in the beginning (as John 1:1 tells us), the various and abundant ancient texts written by the Judeo-Christians leave us with a clear description of their belief and faith that Jesus/Christ/Messiah/The Word WAS with God in the beginning.
Thus, it is understandable and fair if you see ancient Christianity as “fictional” just as it is understandable and fair for the ancient Christians to view your modern Christian theology as “fictional” and “anemic” and “empty” of the rich historical details that characterized their ancient Christian beliefs.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and enjoyable Thomas.
Last edited:
Hi Clear —
As you note I said:
Thomas responded: “Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
And as you have not brought forward any evidence in support of the authenticity either of the homily attributed to Timothy, nor the apostolic writing – a dialogue with Christ on the Mount of Olives – on which it is supposed to be based, then our positions remain unchanged.
Even when ancient beliefs differ radically from my own, such as the rejection of a belief in Incarnation or Resurrection, or a strict Jewish belief in an absolute Torah observance, or a radical dualism inherent in some Gnostic schools, I do not dismiss them tout court, but rather try and locate them within an historical context and process. I find in so doing it brings them alive.
"Fictions" necessarily brings up a different set of issues altogether – not so much a question of doctrine as a question of authenticity and therefore reliability. The origin and provenance of the many childhood narratives of Jesus, for example.
And I have trouble accepting the claims in various Gnostic-Christian writings that Jesus took them aside and told them they alone 'got it', as it were – something he did to three individuals at least!
The same rule applies to the canonical Gospels. Did such-and-such actually happen, or is that a narrative device of the Gospel scribe to make a theological point? Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? Did it actually matter? (John clearly thought not.)
In the Gospels, we sometimes have two or three different accounts of what would appear to be the same event, some differences are slight, some are significant. Often they are placed in a different frame in the arc of Jesus' overall ministry – the Cleansing of the Temple occurs at the start of his ministry in John, and at the end in the Synoptics. What are we to make of that?
That said, the more I understand the background ideas that informed the Ancient World, the closer I feel at home there, whereas my own seems to be investing in its own fictions to an alarming degree.
As you note I said:
Thomas responded: “Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
And as you have not brought forward any evidence in support of the authenticity either of the homily attributed to Timothy, nor the apostolic writing – a dialogue with Christ on the Mount of Olives – on which it is supposed to be based, then our positions remain unchanged.
To clarify my position, I rarely think 'ancient Christianity' has fictional beliefs – rather I treat them as matters of interpretation. I rather think all beliefs arose out of mystical, philosophical and theological speculation, and all have something important and valuable to say ... hence my views on Neoplatonic Philosophy, for example.
Even when ancient beliefs differ radically from my own, such as the rejection of a belief in Incarnation or Resurrection, or a strict Jewish belief in an absolute Torah observance, or a radical dualism inherent in some Gnostic schools, I do not dismiss them tout court, but rather try and locate them within an historical context and process. I find in so doing it brings them alive.
"Fictions" necessarily brings up a different set of issues altogether – not so much a question of doctrine as a question of authenticity and therefore reliability. The origin and provenance of the many childhood narratives of Jesus, for example.
And I have trouble accepting the claims in various Gnostic-Christian writings that Jesus took them aside and told them they alone 'got it', as it were – something he did to three individuals at least!
The same rule applies to the canonical Gospels. Did such-and-such actually happen, or is that a narrative device of the Gospel scribe to make a theological point? Was Jesus born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? Did it actually matter? (John clearly thought not.)
In the Gospels, we sometimes have two or three different accounts of what would appear to be the same event, some differences are slight, some are significant. Often they are placed in a different frame in the arc of Jesus' overall ministry – the Cleansing of the Temple occurs at the start of his ministry in John, and at the end in the Synoptics. What are we to make of that?
Well, as there are no ancient Christians around, I'll leave that point there.
That said, the more I understand the background ideas that informed the Ancient World, the closer I feel at home there, whereas my own seems to be investing in its own fictions to an alarming degree.
Indeed they do, and shame on them!
And who are we to suggest they didn't believe what they said they believed?
And to me.
I don't know what you mean by 'modern movements'. Generally I tend to agree, as my theological interests lie largely in the Patristic Era, and in the ressourcement theologie of my younger years.
Having said that, there are some really exciting insights and intuitions with regard to that very topic among a few, a very few, contemporary theologians, so I would discern among 'modern movements'.
Modern insights into the interpretation of St Maximus the Confessor with regard to Creation and Incarnation being a case in point.
No issue with that. I would further say that pseudepigraphic literature opens a widow on the ancient World and gives us an insight into what was happening.
In the Coptic Pseudepigraphia, for example, I see insights into the particular issues facing Christians in the Coptic world with regard to their faith, the schism with the broader church after Chalcedon, and the desire to affirm and bolster their Coptic identity in the face of the loss of language and the change of culture in the wake of Islamic conquest.
The Pseudo-Clementine literature, as discussed elsewhere, offers the same with regard to tensions in the relations between various Jewish, Christian and Jewish-Christian movements in the 4th century, especially in Syria under the lurking influence of 'Babylonianism' or its appearance in Syrian Gnosticism – highlighting something that @Ahanu and I have discussed at length, that 'Orthodoxy' emerges centuries down the line, and was not a given in the early Christian era.
As is the case in all traditions. Even modern science, which is occasionally required to re-evaluate its assumptions.
A belief which, thankfully, continues in 98% of the Christian world, if the statistics are to be believed.
I happen to share their faith and their belief.
Is that how you interpret what I've said? How strange. You couldn't be further off the mark.
Well, thankfully, my Christian theology might be modern, but it is rooted in the past, and give me 5 minutes with an ancient Christian and there would be do doubt that my Christianity is neither 'fictional', nor 'anaemic' nor 'empty' of historical detail, rather on that score it's full-blooded, full-blown and hungry for more.
(As a friendly aside, I'd be cautious in this forum of couching what might be taken to be unwarranted or opinionated criticisms in 'quotes', as we do endeavour to keep everything on an even keel.)
And yours likewise.
1) ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE HAS SOMETHING IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE TO SAY
Thomas clarifies: “To clarify my position, I rarely think 'ancient Christianity' has fictional beliefs – rather I treat them as matters of interpretation. I rather think all beliefs arose out of mystical, philosophical and theological speculation, and all have something important and valuable to say.”…
I think this is a very wise and thoughtful approach to ancient Judeo-Christian literature Thomas.
Not all who study ancient Judeo-Christian do so for the same reasons.
My personal reason is to learn about the earliest Christianity and it’s beliefs and practices while someone else may be interested in the evolution of the language of ancient Judeo-Christianity and it’s evolution, while others may have yet other interests.
I do not know what your specific interest in ancient Judeo-Christian literature is, but I like this philosophical position you seem to be describing.
2)TRYING TO KEEP HISTORICAL TEXTS IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT IS WISE AND IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DISCOVER THEIR HISTORICAL INSIGHTS
Thomas explained: “Even when ancient beliefs differ radically from my own, such as the rejection of a belief in Incarnation or Resurrection, or a strict Jewish belief in an absolute Torah observance, or a radical dualism inherent in some Gnostic schools, I do not dismiss them tout court, but rather try and locate them within an historical context and process. I find in so doing it brings them alive.”
Again, I think this is a wonderfully approach to ancient sacred literature.
The ancient Judeo-Christians seemed (to me) to be as faithful and as spiritual and as smart as the modern Judeo-Christians but they used historical terms and speak in historical contexts and idioms that are no longer shared and often, when non-historians are introduced to ancient narratives, the modern Christians can be disoriented and confused by such texts.
I agree with your attitude that the fact that historical texts are disorienting, does not mean they are not correct or do not have anything to teach us.
3) ONE DIFFICULTY WITH “FICTION” VERSUS “AUTHENTICITY” AND “RELIABILITY”
Thomas explained: "Fictions" necessarily brings up a different set of issues altogether – not so much a question of doctrine as a question of authenticity and therefore reliability.”
I agree to a certain extent.
For example, Many rabbinic parables were not included in a narrative because they were, technically, true, but as a method of explaining a point.
For example, the famous parable of the two beggars in the kings garden, one blind (but physically strong and representing the body) and the other lame (but has sight and representing our spirit in the body).
The lame sits on the shoulders of the blind man and thus they are able to steal fruit from the kings trees. When the king discovers fruit gone, the men claim that neither are guilty because each individual alone is unable to find and pick the fruit that is stolen.
The king wisely determines that they worked together in their sin and thus the point is that God, like the wise king, judges both body and spirit together when determining responsibility for sin.
Here, it is difficult to tell IF the story is fiction created as a vehicle to teach a true principle or if it is based on a true story to which an ancient belief is being applied to make a specific point.
Thus some will concentrate on whether the story itself is “true” and others (such as myself) concentrate on the historical doctrine that the narrative represents.
4) JUST AS DOCTRINAL CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN MULTIPLE MODERN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS., CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN MODERN MOVEMENTS AND THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT.,
Clear pointed out: “In the same way that various modern conflicting Christianities view other Christianities as believing in fictional doctrines, (while their own doctrines feel correct), you may view ancient Christianity as having fictional beliefs and ancient Christians may view your Christianity as having fictional errors and lacking in knowledge.”
Thomas replied: “Well, as there are no ancient Christians around, I'll leave that point there.
Though ancient Christians no longer live, they left us many, many, many written witnesses regarding what they believed and how their ancient Christian religion differs from modern Christian movements.
One can get a feel for the greater richness of ancient Christianity by comparing the typical Modern Christian “knowledge base” versus the ancient Christian “knowledge base”.
5) JOHN 1:1 - THE MESSIAH/WORD/CHRIST "WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD". WHAT DOES MODERN CHRISTIANITY DESCRIBE THE MESSIAH AS ACTUALLY "DOING" WHILE EXISTING IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD THE FATHER?
For example, the thread deals with John 1:1 and the concept that the Word/Messiah/Christ “was in the beginning with God”. The text says he is there with God in the beginning, but the text doesn’t tell us what the Messiah was actually DOING during this time period with God in the beginning.
Such missing historical traditions concerning what the Word/Messiah/Christ was doing during this time period are described in much greater detail in ancient Judeo-Christianity than in modern Christianity. Some of this is due to the Talmudic prohibition against orthodox rabbinic Jews speaking of or studying or asking about this specific time period.
The result is that ancient Jewish literature describes pre-creation Messiah and what he was doing while post Talmudic Jewish literature no longer references such histories.
If one wants to compare the richness of early Judeo-Christian theology, one can simply ask what modern Judeo-Christianity can tell us about the pre-creation role of the Messiah/Christ/the Word and compare that to the very rich ancient pre-creation histories describing what 'the Word" was doing and accomplishing in the beginning with God.
I believe ancient Judeo-Christianity was much richer, much more intuitive, and more logical than modern Judeo-Christianity that no longer has much knowledge of these early concepts.
6) THE HISTORIANS CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE TYPICAL CHRISTIANS CHRISTIANITY
Clear said: “Ancient Christianity looks different as seen through the lens of the historian of ancient Judeo-Christian literature than it will to the average “Sunday school Christian”. Ancient Christianity is richer and more detailed and (to me) feels like it is a more logical and rational theology than later Christian movements.
And their ancient texts describe their belief that the Christ/Messiah/The Word described in John 1:1 was not inert during this time period with God, but instead, The Word/Christ/Messiah was, even then, active in assisting the Father in carrying out God the Fathers plan for mankind whereas most modern movements have little idea what the Messiah/The Word/Jesus was actually DOING "in the beginning with God" (John 1:1).”
Thomas replied: “I don't know what you mean by 'modern movements'. Generally I tend to agree, as my theological interests lie largely in the Patristic Era, and in the ressourcement theologie of my younger years.”
I apologize the such a non-specific terms as “modern movements”.
I simply mean the time period after their first two centuries when Christianity began to seriously schism into multiple, conflicting movements, especially the middle ages and afterwards when many of our modern Christian movements began to appear and create different doctrines based on different interpretations.
We both are concentrating on "ressourcement theologie" but merely concentrating on somewhat different eras, and looking at different historical principles though the literature we are looking at is somewhat similar.
I LIKE your specialized data set and suspect, as a historian, you frequently feel that your specific historical data set, (which is very, very important to a study of the time period you are interested in) may seem irrelevant and unimportant to many modern, typical, Christians. It almost takes another historian to appreciate the import of your studies.
I think one reason for the impasse or difficulty in our discussion is that your historical interest and time period is of interest is someone different than mine rather than my area of study being more or less important than your area of study.
This is a good thing since we can learn new things from each other that we might not discover on our own. I also appreciate the diligence that it takes for you to study an area of Judeo-Christian history that few appreciate the import of.
Thank you so much for your wonderful insights Thomas.
Thomas clarifies: “To clarify my position, I rarely think 'ancient Christianity' has fictional beliefs – rather I treat them as matters of interpretation. I rather think all beliefs arose out of mystical, philosophical and theological speculation, and all have something important and valuable to say.”…
I think this is a very wise and thoughtful approach to ancient Judeo-Christian literature Thomas.
Not all who study ancient Judeo-Christian do so for the same reasons.
My personal reason is to learn about the earliest Christianity and it’s beliefs and practices while someone else may be interested in the evolution of the language of ancient Judeo-Christianity and it’s evolution, while others may have yet other interests.
I do not know what your specific interest in ancient Judeo-Christian literature is, but I like this philosophical position you seem to be describing.
2)TRYING TO KEEP HISTORICAL TEXTS IN THEIR HISTORICAL CONTEXT IS WISE AND IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DISCOVER THEIR HISTORICAL INSIGHTS
Thomas explained: “Even when ancient beliefs differ radically from my own, such as the rejection of a belief in Incarnation or Resurrection, or a strict Jewish belief in an absolute Torah observance, or a radical dualism inherent in some Gnostic schools, I do not dismiss them tout court, but rather try and locate them within an historical context and process. I find in so doing it brings them alive.”
Again, I think this is a wonderfully approach to ancient sacred literature.
The ancient Judeo-Christians seemed (to me) to be as faithful and as spiritual and as smart as the modern Judeo-Christians but they used historical terms and speak in historical contexts and idioms that are no longer shared and often, when non-historians are introduced to ancient narratives, the modern Christians can be disoriented and confused by such texts.
I agree with your attitude that the fact that historical texts are disorienting, does not mean they are not correct or do not have anything to teach us.
3) ONE DIFFICULTY WITH “FICTION” VERSUS “AUTHENTICITY” AND “RELIABILITY”
Thomas explained: "Fictions" necessarily brings up a different set of issues altogether – not so much a question of doctrine as a question of authenticity and therefore reliability.”
I agree to a certain extent.
For example, Many rabbinic parables were not included in a narrative because they were, technically, true, but as a method of explaining a point.
For example, the famous parable of the two beggars in the kings garden, one blind (but physically strong and representing the body) and the other lame (but has sight and representing our spirit in the body).
The lame sits on the shoulders of the blind man and thus they are able to steal fruit from the kings trees. When the king discovers fruit gone, the men claim that neither are guilty because each individual alone is unable to find and pick the fruit that is stolen.
The king wisely determines that they worked together in their sin and thus the point is that God, like the wise king, judges both body and spirit together when determining responsibility for sin.
Here, it is difficult to tell IF the story is fiction created as a vehicle to teach a true principle or if it is based on a true story to which an ancient belief is being applied to make a specific point.
Thus some will concentrate on whether the story itself is “true” and others (such as myself) concentrate on the historical doctrine that the narrative represents.
4) JUST AS DOCTRINAL CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN MULTIPLE MODERN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENTS., CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN MODERN MOVEMENTS AND THE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT.,
Clear pointed out: “In the same way that various modern conflicting Christianities view other Christianities as believing in fictional doctrines, (while their own doctrines feel correct), you may view ancient Christianity as having fictional beliefs and ancient Christians may view your Christianity as having fictional errors and lacking in knowledge.”
Thomas replied: “Well, as there are no ancient Christians around, I'll leave that point there.
Though ancient Christians no longer live, they left us many, many, many written witnesses regarding what they believed and how their ancient Christian religion differs from modern Christian movements.
One can get a feel for the greater richness of ancient Christianity by comparing the typical Modern Christian “knowledge base” versus the ancient Christian “knowledge base”.
5) JOHN 1:1 - THE MESSIAH/WORD/CHRIST "WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD". WHAT DOES MODERN CHRISTIANITY DESCRIBE THE MESSIAH AS ACTUALLY "DOING" WHILE EXISTING IN THE BEGINNING WITH GOD THE FATHER?
For example, the thread deals with John 1:1 and the concept that the Word/Messiah/Christ “was in the beginning with God”. The text says he is there with God in the beginning, but the text doesn’t tell us what the Messiah was actually DOING during this time period with God in the beginning.
Such missing historical traditions concerning what the Word/Messiah/Christ was doing during this time period are described in much greater detail in ancient Judeo-Christianity than in modern Christianity. Some of this is due to the Talmudic prohibition against orthodox rabbinic Jews speaking of or studying or asking about this specific time period.
The result is that ancient Jewish literature describes pre-creation Messiah and what he was doing while post Talmudic Jewish literature no longer references such histories.
If one wants to compare the richness of early Judeo-Christian theology, one can simply ask what modern Judeo-Christianity can tell us about the pre-creation role of the Messiah/Christ/the Word and compare that to the very rich ancient pre-creation histories describing what 'the Word" was doing and accomplishing in the beginning with God.
I believe ancient Judeo-Christianity was much richer, much more intuitive, and more logical than modern Judeo-Christianity that no longer has much knowledge of these early concepts.
6) THE HISTORIANS CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE TYPICAL CHRISTIANS CHRISTIANITY
Clear said: “Ancient Christianity looks different as seen through the lens of the historian of ancient Judeo-Christian literature than it will to the average “Sunday school Christian”. Ancient Christianity is richer and more detailed and (to me) feels like it is a more logical and rational theology than later Christian movements.
And their ancient texts describe their belief that the Christ/Messiah/The Word described in John 1:1 was not inert during this time period with God, but instead, The Word/Christ/Messiah was, even then, active in assisting the Father in carrying out God the Fathers plan for mankind whereas most modern movements have little idea what the Messiah/The Word/Jesus was actually DOING "in the beginning with God" (John 1:1).”
Thomas replied: “I don't know what you mean by 'modern movements'. Generally I tend to agree, as my theological interests lie largely in the Patristic Era, and in the ressourcement theologie of my younger years.”
I apologize the such a non-specific terms as “modern movements”.
I simply mean the time period after their first two centuries when Christianity began to seriously schism into multiple, conflicting movements, especially the middle ages and afterwards when many of our modern Christian movements began to appear and create different doctrines based on different interpretations.
We both are concentrating on "ressourcement theologie" but merely concentrating on somewhat different eras, and looking at different historical principles though the literature we are looking at is somewhat similar.
I LIKE your specialized data set and suspect, as a historian, you frequently feel that your specific historical data set, (which is very, very important to a study of the time period you are interested in) may seem irrelevant and unimportant to many modern, typical, Christians. It almost takes another historian to appreciate the import of your studies.
I think one reason for the impasse or difficulty in our discussion is that your historical interest and time period is of interest is someone different than mine rather than my area of study being more or less important than your area of study.
This is a good thing since we can learn new things from each other that we might not discover on our own. I also appreciate the diligence that it takes for you to study an area of Judeo-Christian history that few appreciate the import of.
Thank you so much for your wonderful insights Thomas.
1) INTERPRETING THE STATEMENT THAT EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS "PIOUS FICTION"
Thomas responded: “Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
Clear responded: “…it is understandable and fair if you see ancient Christianity as “fictional” just as it is understandable and fair for the ancient Christians to view your modern Christian theology as “fictional” and “anemic” and “empty” of the rich historical details that characterized their ancient Christian beliefs.
Thomas replied: “Is that how you interpret what I've said? How strange. You couldn't be further off the mark.”
Perhaps. I assumed since you think the investiture of Abbaton is a “pious fiction” that you actually thought their theology on this point was a “pious fiction”.
The point was that such opinions are in the eye of the beholder and “subjective”.
While you may view aspects of ancient Christian religion as “fiction”, they, in turn may view your conflicting religion as “fiction” and since it does not possess as many historical details, it may be viewed as more “anemic” and as having less knowledge than the ancient Judeo-Christian religion possessed.
2) THE CONCEPT THAT ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIANS WERE MORE RICH AND DETAILED IN THEIR BELIEFS DESCRIBED IN THEIR LITERATURE
Thomas remarked: “Well, thankfully, my Christian theology might be modern, but it is rooted in the past, and give me 5 minutes with an ancient Christian and there would be do doubt that my Christianity is neither 'fictional', nor 'anaemic' nor 'empty' of historical detail…”
What I meant was that the ancient Judeo-Christians had many more doctrinal details and more detailed beliefs concerning the Word/Messiah/Christ than modern Christianities. They had more doctrinal reasons to honor the Messiah/Word/Christ since they were aware of more things the Messiah accomplished for mankind besides simply being "their savior". They honored the Messiah for many other things he accomplished for mankind.
For example, can you tell readers details concerning what “the Word” was actually DOING while “the Word was in the beginning with God?"
What were the accomplishments of the Word during this time period he spent with God?
What tasks were given him by the Father and How did the word accomplish these tasks?
How did the Word become chosen to be the Messiah?
Why was the Word chosen to be the Messiah by the Father?
What was the interaction between the Word and God as well as the interactions between the Word and Satan during this time period?
The point is that ancient Judeo-Christianity possessed very detailed answers and beliefs concerning such questions which most modern Christian movements lack.
Compared to ancient Judeo-Christian religion, modern religion is much less detailed and with the lack of details comes greater speculation, greater tendency for differences in textual interpretation, greater ignorance in it’s faith, less ability to answer important theological questions, less ability to justify injustice and suffering in the world (during mortality), etc.
This is why I think the ancients would view modern Christianity as theologically “anemic” compared to their religion that had richer and more detailed beliefs.
Thomas responded: “Let's cut to the chase. I happen to think the The Investiture of Abbaton is a pious fiction, written somewhere in the 6th-10th centuries, for pastoral and pedagogic purposes.
Clear responded: “…it is understandable and fair if you see ancient Christianity as “fictional” just as it is understandable and fair for the ancient Christians to view your modern Christian theology as “fictional” and “anemic” and “empty” of the rich historical details that characterized their ancient Christian beliefs.
Thomas replied: “Is that how you interpret what I've said? How strange. You couldn't be further off the mark.”
Perhaps. I assumed since you think the investiture of Abbaton is a “pious fiction” that you actually thought their theology on this point was a “pious fiction”.
The point was that such opinions are in the eye of the beholder and “subjective”.
While you may view aspects of ancient Christian religion as “fiction”, they, in turn may view your conflicting religion as “fiction” and since it does not possess as many historical details, it may be viewed as more “anemic” and as having less knowledge than the ancient Judeo-Christian religion possessed.
2) THE CONCEPT THAT ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIANS WERE MORE RICH AND DETAILED IN THEIR BELIEFS DESCRIBED IN THEIR LITERATURE
Thomas remarked: “Well, thankfully, my Christian theology might be modern, but it is rooted in the past, and give me 5 minutes with an ancient Christian and there would be do doubt that my Christianity is neither 'fictional', nor 'anaemic' nor 'empty' of historical detail…”
What I meant was that the ancient Judeo-Christians had many more doctrinal details and more detailed beliefs concerning the Word/Messiah/Christ than modern Christianities. They had more doctrinal reasons to honor the Messiah/Word/Christ since they were aware of more things the Messiah accomplished for mankind besides simply being "their savior". They honored the Messiah for many other things he accomplished for mankind.
For example, can you tell readers details concerning what “the Word” was actually DOING while “the Word was in the beginning with God?"
What were the accomplishments of the Word during this time period he spent with God?
What tasks were given him by the Father and How did the word accomplish these tasks?
How did the Word become chosen to be the Messiah?
Why was the Word chosen to be the Messiah by the Father?
What was the interaction between the Word and God as well as the interactions between the Word and Satan during this time period?
The point is that ancient Judeo-Christianity possessed very detailed answers and beliefs concerning such questions which most modern Christian movements lack.
Compared to ancient Judeo-Christian religion, modern religion is much less detailed and with the lack of details comes greater speculation, greater tendency for differences in textual interpretation, greater ignorance in it’s faith, less ability to answer important theological questions, less ability to justify injustice and suffering in the world (during mortality), etc.
This is why I think the ancients would view modern Christianity as theologically “anemic” compared to their religion that had richer and more detailed beliefs.