Notes on God in the Gospel of John

[Clear]

Hi Longfellow

1) WHEN DID CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY (I.E. THE PROMISE OF A MESSIAH/CHRIST) BEGIN?

Longfellow said : “Oh. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about Jewish beliefs. When you say "early Judeo-Christian," how early is that? Before His ascension, or after?”

The term “Judeo-Christian” refers to literature and theology that interconnects or bridges “Jewish” and “Christian” theology and traditions.

The specific “origin” of Christianity (or proto-christianity) depends on what literature one uses as historical context.

For example, one can use the early Jewish and Christian literature where Adam himself was educated regarding and promised a Messiah; a Christ. IF this is correct, then a form of Christianity or Messiahism existed from the very beginning.

For example, the apostolic Father Ignatius taught Christians of his day that “It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity,...” Ignatius to the Magnesians 10:3 and Ignatius would have good reason to claim if he was familiar with Judeo-Christian literature of the early era.

For example, the promise and belief in a Christ/Messiah was present long before Jesus’ birth.

This seemed to be the case in ancient Judeo-Christian literature. I gave an example from Biblical, Jewish 1 Enoch in post #14 where pre-rabbinic Judaism described The Son of Man or Messiah thusly: “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells…for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness.” (1st Enoch 46:1-6)


Early Christian Literature also describe many examples where they believed Adam was promised a Christ (i.e. a Messiah). Seth, the son of Adam relates the promise of a Christ, given to Adam when Seth says:

“He (Adam) spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam do not fear […] I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead.... And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you.” (Testament of Adam 3:1-4)

Another example comes from the syncretic Judao-christian witness of Enoch where God relates to the prophet enoch what he (God) said to Adam : “And I said [to him], ‘You are earth, and into the earth once again you will go, out of which I took you. And I will not destroy you, but I will send you away to what I took you from. Then I can take you once again at my second coming. And I blessed all my creatures….” 2nd Enoch 31:2-8, 32:1

Another example from the early text Apocalypse of Adam relates Adams interaction with Three angel who relate the promise of a future Christ. Adam says : “The men [spoke] , saying to me, ‘Rise up, Adam, from the sleep of death, and hear about the aeon and the seed of that man to whom life has come, the one who came forth from you and from Eve your wife…Now then, my son Seth, I will reveal to you what was revealed to me by those men whom I once saw before me. The Apocalypse of Adam 2:1-6-7, ch 3:1;

The Life of Adam and Eve (apo) text relates the same promise of a Christ to Adam thusly: “And the Lord turned and said to Adam, ‘From now on I will not allow you to be in Paradise. And Adam answered and said, ‘Lord, give me from the tree of life that I might eat before I am cast out.’ Then the Lord spoke to Adam, ‘You shall not now take from it…But when you come out of Paradise, if you guard yourself from all evil, preferring death to it, at the time of the resurrection I will raise you again and then there shall be given to you from the tree of life, and you shall be immortal forever.” 28:1-4

Another example of this promise to Adam appeared in earlier chapters of the same text:

“Seth, man of God, do not labor, praying with this supplication about the tree from which the oil flows, to anoint your father Adam; it shall not come to be yours now (but at the end of times. Then all flesh from Adam up to that great day shall be raised, such as shall be the holy people; then to them shall be given every joy of Paradise and God shall be in their midst and there shall not be any more sinners before him, for the evil heart shall be removed from them, and they shall be given a heart that understands the good and worships God alone Life of Adam and Eve (Apocalypse) 13:2-6;

Another version of this promise to Adam is in later chapters:

“And the Lord said to him, “I told you that you are dust and to dust you shall return. 3 Now I promise to you the resurrection; I shall raise you on the last day in the resurrection with every man of your seed.” Life of Adam and Eve (apocalypse) 41:1-3;

The early Hellenistic Synagogal prayers reflect this same belief. The narrative of prayer #12 reads, regarding Adam:

“But having subjected to him the creation, You have given to him, through sweat and hard labors, to provide by himself the nourishment for his own family, while you are causing all things to grown, and to ripen. And in time, having caused him to fall asleep for a while, you called (him) by an oath to a new birth; having dissolved the boundaries of death, you promised life by resurrection! 51 And not only this; but also those who poured forth from him… Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers (Prayer #12)



Jewish literature such as the Haggadah also confirms this ancient belief. This Jewish version reads: “Also, Adam’s prayer, to be given of the fruit of the Tree of Life, was turned aside, with the promise, however, that if he would lead a pious life, he would be given of the fruit on the day of resurrection, and he would then live forever. The Haggadah (The Punishment);

Yet another version of this Story concerning Adam and Seth comes from the Christian literature, Gospel of Nicodemus. The text begins with the Angel saying to Seth: ‘What do you desire, Seth? Do you desire, because of the sickness of your father, the oil that raises up the sick, or the tree from which flows such oil? This cannot be found now. Therefore go and tell your father than after the completion of fifty-five hundred years from the creation of the world, the only-begotten son of God shall become man and shall descend below the earth. And he shall anoint him with that oil. And he shall arise and wash him and his descendants with water and the Holy spirit. And then he shall be healed of every disease. But this is impossible now. Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell

Such literature from both Jewish sources and Christian sources that agree on certain theological points are called "Judeo-Christian" literature.

The point here is that IF such early Judeo-Christian beliefs are correct, then Adam was the first Christian and person who was taught concerning a future Christ or Messiah. This early belief does not, typically, coordinate with modern Christian assumptions. Christians tend to believe the early Prophets referred to a Messiah, but the connection between old testament promises of a Messiah and to the arrival of that Messiah as Jesus are more tenuous than ancient Judeo-Christianity.

 

[Clear]

Hi Thomas

1) CHRISTIANS AND JEWS HAVE ALWAYS PRODUCED SACRED/HOLY LITERATURE (αγιαγραφε - hagiagraphy) THAT DESCRIBES THEIR ANCIENT BELIEFS

Thomas quoted: "A. Suciu and I. Saweros classify The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death among the Pseudo-Apostolic Memoirs (p. 529)... The portrait that emerges is a collection of works which were either intended as hagiographies (especially the Pseudo-Apostolic Memoirs and the various Acts) or else works which could be readily adopted for that purpose."
I agree with this.
Such literature as the various versions of biblical literature and all other early literature were meant to be hagio/graphies (sacred / writings) to those who created them and to those for whom they were sacred.



Thomas quoted: "Coptic Christians in post-Chalcedonian Egypt created a genre of literature known today as “pseudo- apostolic memoirs.” These feature tales of various early Christian figures in texts that, the authors claim, were hidden away in a house or library in Jerusalem until they were rediscovered by illustrious fourth-century homilists.”
I don’t think most early Judeo-Christian literature was “hidden” from others. (Some was)

While the Nag Hamadi literature was buried (presumably when persecution of those using non-church approved texts arose) and the Dead Sea Scrolls were “hidden” (presumably to protect the library from invading romans around 70 a.d.), most of the literature was not “hidden” but merely “undiscovered”.

For example Sinaiticus (arguably the most important New and Old Testament Uncial known, was simply discovered by Tischendorf by serendipity. (It’s a wonderful story) and others such as the Brooklyn papyria, Lawrences Enoch, by sheer diligent effort or by almost accidental discovery.

Remember. Even the biblical writings are pseudographic (i.e. the authorship is unknown) to the extent that no one knows or can tell us who wrote any of the various biblical and non-biblical texts in the earliest periods.

The New Testament (and certainly the old testament) writings were simply created under conditions that the authorships cannot be determined.



2) REGARDING THE “TWO POWERS” AND “THREE POWERS” MODEL INTRODUCED BY THOMAS

Thomas said in post #35: “Also nonsense is your attribution of the "Two Powers" model to me.”

Thomas, you, yourself claimed, in post #25 “I also accept the Two Powers hypothesis. But I do not see any Three Power hypothesis.” (post #25).

When you said you “accept the Two Powers hypothesis”, I assumed this meant that you “accept the Two Powers hypothesis.”

If you mis-spoke, or I misunderstood, you will have to explain why you now do not accept the "Two Powers" model..
Can you also explain the “Two Powers” and the “Three Powers” model. (as I requestion earlier)



3) EARLY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS ARE INDEPENDENT OF LATER, CONFLICTING THEOLOGICAL MODELS

Clear said : “Whether your model of “two powers” is correct, or whether the ancient Christian model of three individuals in the trinity is correct, it is irrelevant to the fact that the ancient Judeo-Christians themselves, did believed in God, his Son, and in the Holy Spirit since they witness to their belief in their literature.”
Thomas replied: “Nonsense. You have argued yourself that context is important to understanding what they thought and what they were saying.”

You are confused.

Historical context IS very important to understanding historical Judeo-Christianity. Whatever theories you and I generate, they do not change the historical beliefs of the early Judeo-Christians. History does not “run backwards” nor does it change.

This historical principle doesn’t mean their theology was correct, and yours is incorrect.

However, IF you claim your theories are “better” or “more correct” than the theology of the ancient Judeo-Christians, the question follows as to why you think your beliefs are to take priority over or to be preferred to the beliefs of the ancient Judeo-Christians.

For example, Clement was the convert of the apostle Peter and the co-worker of the apostle Paul. Why would your theology be preferred over than of Clement, who was taught the earliest and most authentic form of Christianity by the apostles themselves?



4) ANCIENT CHRISTIANS CREATED LITERATURE OF MULTIPLE KINDS

Thomas said: "Coptic Christians in post-Chalcedonian Egypt created a genre of literature known today as “pseudo-apostolic memoirs.”

Historians have made the exact same point about all of the biblical texts.
No one knows who wrote any of the books and thus, the real authors are unknown and thus they are all pseudoepigraphs.



Thomas said: “These feature tales of various early Christian figures in texts that, the authors claim, were hidden away in a house or library in Jerusalem until they were rediscovered by illustrious fourth-century homilists – though these attributions too are fictions. “
Firstly, While Archbishop Timothy simply claims he found his source texts in the Jerusalem library. If you know this is untrue, can you quote where he makes any claim that his source texts were “hidden”.

Secondly, thank you for updating your New (and more correct) attribution of Abbaton as being discovered in the 4th century. This is more correct than your prior claim of it’s origin in the 700s.

Thirdly, such texts were not “hidden” in the Jerusalem library just as 4th century Sinaiticus was not “hidden” in St. Mary’s monastery. They were simply there and undiscovered. This contrasts with such texts as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library that WERE hidden away.

I do agree that almost all Christian literature, including the New Testament were written (partly) to create a distinct identity for Christianity and distinguish it from second Temple Judaism.



5) MORE INACCURATE DATING. WHAT IS THE MOTIVE TO INTRODUCE ERRORS IN DATING?

Thomas said: “The oldest text dates from the 10th century. Its origin is somewhere between the 5th and 7th centuries.”

This is a silly and inaccurate Statement. You realize that readers can simply google the dates for various early literature?

For example, we’ve already corrected your dating of Abbaton since it’s introduction by Bishop Timothy was written in the 300s a.d. (he died in the 380s). Timothy could not have written the introduction in the 700s.

There is a great deal of Judeo-Christian literature written in the early centuries that describe early Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices. For example, I quoted Christian Abbaton from the 300s where god left Adams body for 40 days without putting Adams spirit into his body.

Instead of quoting the story from 4th century Abbaton ” and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. “ I could simply have quoted from the Nag Hamadi library (of the third century a.d.) version that also references that God “left his molded body forty days without soul”. And he withdrew and left him.” (On the origin of the world) The point is that there are, typically, multiple specific references to certain early beliefs in multiple types of early literature.

We have MANY, MANY texts from the earliest period, written by the Judeo-Christians themselves, describing their early beliefs, that come from much earlier periods than those you seem familiar with.

For examples: The testament of the twelve patriarchs was written in the First or second century b.c. 1 Enoch was written in the second or third century b.c. Barnabas was late first (or early second) century a.d. The Didache and 1st Clement were both written close to the same time as John was writing revelations. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls I have quoted come from about 150 b.c. and no later than approx. 70 a.d. Jubilees comes from 2nd century b.c.

MANY of these early Judeo-Christian texts come from and represent the very early periods of Judeo-Christian literature.
My two volumes of Charlesworth Jewish epigraphs are about two thousand pages of early Jewish Literature that mostly come from the b.c. era. The Talmudic quotes I usually offer from the mishna come from approx. 200 a.d. and quotes I typically use from the Palestinian Talmud are from approx 400-450 a.d. The Brooklyn Papyri and it’s temple correspondence date from approx 450 B.C.
Your claim that the oldest texts dating from the 10th century is strange (to me).

Remember also, that While YOUR bible doesn’t have such texts, your bible is NOT the same bible as the ancients had.
You and I have already BOTH confirmed this in our discussion of John 1:18 in it’s early and later versions which are not the same.

Not only was the early text different than our modern versions, the early bibles were different in other ways. For example, 4th century Sinaticus contained Barnabas and Hermas; Both the ancient and modern eastern Tawedo bible contains Jubilees (2nd century B.C.), Baruch (2nd century B.D.) and other epigraphs such as Enoch (3th century B.C. – 1st century A.D. - syncretic)

For example, if we want greater context regarding what early Judeo-Christian beliefs were regarding Adam and his fall, we could reference Baruch, or Jubilees and other early Texts.

None of these are among the texts you claimed : “The oldest text dates from the 10th century. But instead all are much earlier (Enoch is 1300 years earlier than the 10th century…)



6) EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TEXTS HELP FILL IN THE GAPS IN BIBLICAL NARRATIVES
Thomas said: “There is no Scriptural record of the dialogue between Jesus and the disciples on the Mount of Olives as the Abbaton states, nor did the book supposedly seen by Timothy, nor the Jerusalem Library of the Apostles actually exist.”

I agree that our current western English versions of the bible do not describe what Jesus taught the disciples and others during the 40 days he spent with them. Nor does the modern, western text most in the west grow up with, describe what happened to Jesus during the 3 days his Body lay in the tomb while his spirit remained alive.

Biblical John 21:25 reminds us that There is much that is missing from the Biblical Narrative when it says : "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

This is why I said that, if historians want to know what the early Christians believed Jesus taught during those 40 days that are missing from the modern bibles, one must turn to other literature created by the early Judeo-Christians where they themselves describe their early beliefs.

The same is true if Christians want to know what early Judeo-Christians believed happened to Jesus’ Spirit while his body lay in the tomb. They must turn to other ancient Christian literature describing their ancient beliefs on such subjects.

Perhaps I misunderstood your claim regarding the "Two Powers" versus "Three Powers" theories.
Can you explain these theories and explain what they have to do with John 1:1 or is the discussion evolving into a different discussion?

My interest lies in early Judeo-Christianity so I will not be familiar with many modern theories and so, you will know much more about these two theories than I will and I appreciate your explanation and why they are relevant.

Thank you in advance for the explanation Thomas.

 

[Thomas]

... a moment gained ... picking up from where I left off from #39

7) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “GOD” AND A “GOD LIKE” BEING
Thomas said: “There you go then ... by that token, we can then include angels and other theophanic appearances and we're into multiple deities.
If you include angels as “deities”, then I would agree that your theory includes multiple deities.
I don’t know your definition of “deities” it is a bit difficult for me to apply your theory accurately to the ancient texts.ibe, repeatedly, those who are in heaven and are “God-like” or “like-God” and are thus “divine” beings. I don’t know if this is what you are referring to or if you are referring to something else?
You're right to point out that deities covers a range of understanding, and is probably worth a thread of its own. It's also the case that in the era we're discussing, early JudeoChristian, which I would put as a couple of centuries either side Christ, there was no single, over-arching theology, rather a range of theologies.

In general however, it can be said that the idea of the manifestations of God, the kind of think spoken about in Genesis and Exodus, were considered by Jews a thing of the past, and not the kind of thing that happened in their day. Rather, the belief of many Jewish and Christian thinkers was that the Logos or Memra of the Almighty God – the mediating divine principle in and through which the Father expressed himself in creation – was the source of all the theophanies and divine visitations spoken of in the Hebrew scripture.

God the Father, God the Most High, was held as being utterly transcendent and beyond all immediate contact with the created order. Thus we have a series and hierarchy of heavens, for example, all the station and order of a hierarchy of divine, semi-divine or angelic beings. 'Heavens' are mentioned by Paul (2 Corinthians 2:12) and, of course, in the Enoch literature.

We have the appearance of the school of Merkabah 'chariot' Mysticism, circa 100BCE, centring on the theophanic visions of Ezekiel and others. And this overlapped and was followed by the Hekalot 'palaces' Literature.

HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO YOUR THEORY REGARDING JOHN?

In the way that Boyarin can say that The Prologue would not be considered offensive to Jewish ears, and many would see it as a midrash on Genesis 1.

 

[Thomas]

8) THOMAS DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THE JEWS BELIEF IN A TRINITY OF INDIVIDUALS (GOD,MESSIAH,HOLY SPIRIT)
Thomas said: “Well there is an open question ... But the Jews never arrived at a trinitarian doctrine in light of that, as far as I know.”
I agree, you don’t seem to know about or recognize the Jewish description of God the Father, his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
However, can you explain why you say this?
If you read the early Jewish Texts, they did believe in God the Father, and in the Messiah, and in the Holy spirit, a trinity of individuals.

I'm not aware of any early Jewish text that speaks of God the Father, his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
If you can point out the early Jewish texts that speak of a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or Father, Messiah (as a divine being) and Holy Spirit, that would be helpful.

 

[Thomas]

9) IS “THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD” ILLOGICAL OR LOGICAL. IS THE CONFUSION DUE TO SEMANTICS OR DUE TO THE THEORY ITSELF?

Thomas said: “The formula is Three Persons in One God, not Three Persons in One Person – your wording confuses the issue.”
From my standpoint, YOUR wording of “three Persons in One God” (a 3=1 God) is confusing ...

So it would appear.

... and is, historically, anachronistic. For example, we are speaking of your modern version and theory of God while using ancient texts in which the early Judeo-Christians describe a “Three persons in Three individuals) (3=3 divinities). Furthermore, your “two powers” in heaven instead of “three powers” in heaven also seems historically, incoherent (to me).

I rather think your logic is flawed here. The 'Two Power' hypothesis is not mine, but recognised Jewish scholarship.
That you think it anachronistic I think mistaken, and that you think might be a result of that.

Maybe you can clarify your theory of “Two Powers” in heaven and how it relates to the text of John?

Oh, that's easy, I'm surprised you missed it. In John (and, indeed the Synoptics), Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (cf eg 1:51, 3:13 5:27), a direct reference to Daniel 7:13 – and His audience would have made that connection.

 

[Thomas]

10) BELIEF IN THE THREE POWERS HYPOTHESIS OF A LATER AGE VERSUS THE MORE ANCIENT JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VERSION.
Thomas said: “I believe in the Christian Trinitarian Three Powers hypothesis as formulated in the Councils ... “
I understand.
While your historical context comes from the theory of God formulated “in the councils”, my historical context comes from the ancient Judeo-Christian literature where the ancient Judeo-Christians describe THEIR beliefs.
We are describing different theories about God at different time periods and created by different people.

Indeed.

I think we should drop the 'Three Power Hypothesis' as it's your own nomenclature and its misleading.

I agree that the Trinity doctrine that emerged in the 4th century differs from the early inchoate ideas, nevertheless the trinitarian idea was there from the beginning in Christian communities, in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20), in the early Church baptismal formula, well established by the close of the 1st century, and the idea of Trinity as such is argued principally from the Gospel of John.

 

[Thomas]

11) WHAT IS THE “THREE POWERS” VERSUS “TWO POWERS” HYPOTHESES AND HOW DO THEY RELATE TO THE THREAD ON JOHN?
Thomas asked: “…can you show me a Jewish 'Three Powers hypothesis' spoken of by Segal, Heiser, Boyarin, or indeed elsewhere?”
You haven't explained your hypothesis in any detail so far.
Can you explain what you mean by a “Three Powers hypothesis”?

That term is yours, not mine. I do not think there is a Jewish Three Power Hypothesis – I thought you did?

Can you then explain your “two powers hypothesis” so that I can understand what you mean?

I refer you to the discussion here.

 

[Thomas]

12) CHANGING THE TEXT IS ITSELF AN INDICATION OF A DESIRE TO CHANGE THE TEXT.
Thomas said : There is no evidence, therefore no fact, of theological pressure to change the text – unless you can provide evidence.”
The simple and obvious fact that translators felt the need to change indicates some theological motive to change the text. If there was no motive to change the text, then one assumes they would leave the text alone.

I fail to see what the theological pressure was, and what the change sought to achieve, in that regard?

What did the change achieve, d'you think?

 

[Thomas]

13) CHANGING THE HISTORICAL QUESTION DOES NOT CHANGE HISTORY ITSELF
Thomas said: “Your question could well be how can 'God', the only-begotten One, be in the bosom of 'the Father', who also must be God?”
Not really.
The ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs make perfect sense historically, and in the context of ancient Judeo-Christian religion, for the Son, as a begotten God, to be described as being in the bosom of God the Father, an unbegotten God.

Perfect sense when one accepts it was not a belief in two Gods, in the same way that the Holy Spirit is not yet another God – rather the begotten (Son of) God was a manifestation of God (the Father) – that was how the community saw it.

That was the root of the Marcion (85-160CE) heresy, the idea that Jesus, or the Father who begat the Son was not the God of the Hebrew Scriptures, was soundly refuted.

 

[Thomas]

14) DOES AN ILLOGICAL THEORY BECOME LOGICAL SIMPLY BY DESCRIBING THE ILLOGICAL?
Thomas said: ‘So the point rather is, the doctrine of the Trinity explains what to some might appear illogical, in a logical manner, ie same in essence, different in relation.
I agree. Because some versions of the trinity are illogical, this causes endless debates and arguments over the nature of the trinity.

Well people overlook the principle that the interior nature of God is not determined nor delineated by, nor accessible to, human logic.

It is well understood, indeed it is axiomatic to the serious inquirer, that the 'internal nature' of the Trinity, what the traditional called the 'Immanent Trinity', can only be spoken of in analogy, and its reality transcends human understanding. The work of God in relation to the temporal world – the Cosmos – they called the 'Economic Trinity' (from the Gk οἰκονομία oikonmia, 'household dispensation).

I would go so far as to say to expect the Immanent Trinity to be logical is itself, illogical.

 

[Thomas]

15) EXAMPLES OF ANACHRONISMS?
Thomas said: “I'm suggesting you are being anachronistic, reading a doctrine onto the ancient text.”
Could be. Can you explain which quote I used from the Judeo-Christian literature that was anachronistic and why you think it was anachronistic?

As far as IU recall, you haven't used any quotes to demonstrate a 'Jewish Trinity'?

 

[Thomas]

16) THERE ARE MULTIPLE EARLY EXAMPLES DEMONSTRATING THE ANCIENTS BELIEVED IN GOD, AND IN HIS SON, AND IN THE HOLY GHOST AS A TRINITY OF THREE CHARACTERS.

Are you trying to prove the Christian Trinity to me?

 

[Clear]

1)THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “GOD” AND A “GOD LIKE” BEING

Thomas said: “There you go then ... by that token, we can then include angels and other theophanic appearances and we're into multiple deities.
Clear replied: "If you include angels as “deities”, then I would agree that your theory includes multiple deities.
I don’t know your definition of “deities” it is a bit difficult for me to apply your theory accurately to the ancient texts.ibe, repeatedly, those who are in heaven and are “God-like” or “like-God” and are thus “divine” beings. I don’t know if this is what you are referring to or if you are referring to something else?
Thomas responded: “You're right to point out that deities covers a range of understanding, and is probably worth a thread of its own. It's also the case that in the era we're discussing, early JudeoChristian, which I would put as a couple of centuries either side Christ, there was no single, over-arching theology, rather a range of theologies.

Thomas, I agree (mostly) with your wonderful insight, that in ancient Judaism (just as in modern Christianity), there were multiple Judeo-Christian movements and not just one Judaism, or one Christianity.
I think there were certain basic principles that characterized Christianity (e.g. the belief that Jesus was, in some way, special or divine), but that there were multiple Jewish and multiple Christian movements. (If that is what you mean).


Thomas pointed out: “the belief of many Jewish and Christian thinkers was that the Logos or Memra of the Almighty God – the mediating divine principle in and through which the Father expressed himself in creation – was the source of all the theophanies and divine visitations spoken of in the Hebrew scripture.”

Do you mean that the Father remains “unseen” (αορατοσ) while the Logos administrated the Fathers Plan and is responsible for all (or most all) theophanies and divine visitations? (other than angelic visitations)
IF I understand you correctly, I agree with this as well.


Clear asked: “HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO YOUR THEORY REGARDING JOHN?”
Thomas replied: “In the way that Boyarin can say that The Prologue would not be considered offensive to Jewish ears, and many would see it as a midrash on Genesis 1.”

O.K. You believe that Johns Prologue would not be offensive to Jews and it has midrashic characteristics. Is there a deeper point that you want to make or is that it?



2) THE JEWISH LITERATURE THAT DESCRIBES JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE LOGOS (SON/MESSIAH), AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Thomas said: “I'm not aware of any early Jewish text that speaks of God the Father, his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If you can point out the early Jewish texts that speak of a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or Father, Messiah (as a divine being) and Holy Spirit, that would be helpful.”

We have already gone over this but I am happy to do so again. Here are some prior quotes:

a)THE JEWS DESCRIBE THEIR BELIEF IN A GOD AND SON IN HEAVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED

In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah: “At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”

Enoch then asks the angel with him regarding who the person was who accompanied the Father and why he was with the Father saying:

“And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship.” (1st Enoch 46:1-6)

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



b)THE JEWS BELIEVED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD AS WELL

The Prophet Ezra’s prayer says: “If then I have found favor before you, send the Holy Spirit to me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in your Law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live.” Fourth Book of Ezra 14:22;

“1 Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer” (AposCon 7.39.2-4) (While synagogal prayers originate in Jewish Synagogues, they have been adapted by later Christians so it is difficult to separate their “Jewishness” from their “Christianity”)

Another Hellenistic prayer reads: “You have sent forth the Christ to men as a man, being uniquely born God; you have caused the Paraclete to live in us (AposCon 7.38.1-8);

The following texts from the Dead sea Scrolls describing their belief in the spirit, are (obviously) Jewish in origin.

The Jewish Dead Sea Scrolls also witness to us that the ancient temple centric Jews also believed in the Holy Spirit: “I give thanks to You, O LORD, for You have sustained me with your strength, and your Holy Spirit. 4Q429 Frag. 1 Col. 15:6

4Q427 of the Dead Sea Scrolls relates this same Jewish Doctrine: “And I, the instructor, have known you, O my God, by the spirit which you gave me, and I have listened faithfully to your wondrous council by your holy spirit.

In the dead sea scrolls THANKSGIVING PSALMS (Frags. 10, 24, 42 + 4Q427 Frag. 3 Col. 20) describes their belief in the Holy Spirit, saying : “Over the humble His spirit hovers, and He renews the faithful in His strength.

The import of the spirit for the temple centric Jews is described by their textual witnesses saying : "For only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways, all of his iniquities; thus only can he gaze upon the light of life and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col. 3

The ancient Jews expressed both their belief in and gratitude for the spirit thusly: “Indeed, You have poured out Your holy spirit upon us, bringing your blessings to us. 4Q504 Col. 5

The texts do not tell us other details but it is obvious that temple-centric Judaism believed in God the Father, and in the Messiah, and in the Holy Spirit since they describe all three in their literature.



3) THE “TWO” VERSUS “THREE” POWERS DISCUSSION

Clear said: “From my standpoint, YOUR wording of “three Persons in One God” (a 3=1 God) is confusing and is, historically, anachronistic. For example, we are speaking of your modern version and theory of God while using ancient texts in which the early Judeo-Christians describe a “Three persons in Three individuals) (3=3 divinities). Furthermore, your “two powers” in heaven instead of “three powers” in heaven also seems historically, incoherent (to me).

Maybe you can clarify your theory of “Two Powers” in heaven and how it relates to the text of John?

Thomas said: “The 'Two Power' hypothesis is not mine, but recognised Jewish scholarship.”

The claim that it is recognized Jewish Scholarship has to be a qualified statement since the Jewish Talmud itself, tells us the “two Powers” is heresy in orthodox Judaism, saying, "The mouths that declare that there are two Powers shall be cut off and die".

I am not sure that Jews ever believed in JUST two individuals (i.e. Father and Messiah) but I their early texts also describe their belief in a Spirit of God as my examples from their literature demonstrate.



Thomas said: “I think we should drop the 'Three Power Hypothesis' as it's your own nomenclature and its misleading.”

If you remember, YOU brought up the “Three Power Hypothesis” in post #27 when you said : “I believe in the Christian Trinitarian Three Powers hypothesis as formulated in the Councils .” Because I had not heard of a "three powers hypothesis", I asked you to explain the “Two Power” and “Three Power” hypotheses. If you think it is "misleading", why did you bring up this terminology?



Thomas said (post #46): “I agree that the Trinity doctrine that emerged in the 4th century differs from the early inchoate ideas, nevertheless the trinitarian idea was there from the beginning in Christian communities…”
I think you are perfectly correct on this point if I understand your meaning correctly.



Thomas said (post #47): “I do not think there is a Jewish Three Power Hypothesis – I thought you did?”
As I pointed out, YOU brought up a "Three Power Hypothesis", not me. This is why I asked you to explain what you meant by “Two Power” and “Three Power” Hypotheses. If you had explained these hypotheses, I could have either agreed or disagreed. I simply did not know what you meant when you used the terms.

It may be that my comments were supportive of Three Powers in heaven since I do believe in God (as one power), the Son, the Word (as a second power) and the Holy Spirit (as a third power)? Your impression may be correct but I can’t tell until you explain what you meant by either a Two power, or a Three power hypothesis.



4) CHANGING THE TEXT IS ITSELF AN INDICATION OF A DESIRE TO CHANGE THE TEXT.

Thomas said: There is no evidence, therefore no fact, of theological pressure to change the text – unless you can provide evidence.”
Clear replied: “The simple and obvious fact that translators felt the need to change indicates some theological motive to change the text. If there was no motive to change the text, then one assumes they would leave the text alone.”
Thomas replied: “I fail to see what the theological pressure was, and what the change sought to achieve, in that regard?”

I assume you are still referring to the change in John 1:18 where the earlier text read “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father” and was subsequently changed to “The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father”?

IF there was no motive to change the text, one assumes the text would have been left as it was.
As I mentioned, I assume the dissonance caused by the belief that God the Father was an “unbegotten” God while the text speaks of a “begotten” God and translators felt like they were “clarifying” the text such that it is not appear to refer to two types of Gods (An “unbegotten” God and a second “begotten” God), but instead referring to the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father.


Thomas asked: “What did the change achieve, d'you think?”

I currently think the change was intended to better support the most popular theology of the time when the text was translated (i.e. “how the community saw it”, as you describe it).
IF this tentative assumption is correct, I think it accomplished this purpose at the expense of textual corruption.
So, while it affects regular "sunday school" christians who assume they are reading the authentic biblical text, it doesn't change the reading for religious historians who read greek and are familiar with the early versions of the New Testament.



5) DOES AN ILLOGICAL THEORY BECOME LOGICAL SIMPLY BY DESCRIBING THE ILLOGICAL?
Thomas said: (post #50) ‘So the point rather is, the doctrine of the Trinity explains what to some might appear illogical, in a logical manner, ie same in essence, different in relation.
Clear replied: “I agree. Because some versions of the trinity are illogical, this causes endless debates and arguments over the nature of the trinity
Thomas remarked: “Well people overlook the principle that the interior nature of God is not determined nor delineated by, nor accessible to, human logic.”

I think you are correct that some individuals tell themselves some version of "God is immune to human logic".

I’ve wondered it this claim is, in fact, true.

For example, It may simply be our lack information and understanding that is the root problem rather than God not being “accessible to, human logic.”

For example, to an aborigine, a helicopter may defy all logic they are aware of. Yet, take the same aborigine and give them some modern education, and afterwards, the flying helicopter falls within their logical ability.
In such a case it is not an immunity to logic that is the problem, but the lack of knowledge and understanding.
My assumption is that sufficient knowledge would allow us to logically understand God.


The assumption that God is immune to logic may be the reason you said: “I would go so far as to say to expect the Immanent Trinity to be logical is itself, illogical.” (post #50)

So, you seem to assume God is beyond our logic and I assume we lack knowledge and understanding rather than God being beyond logic. I cannot tell which of our assumptions is correct.



6) DID THE JEWS AT THE TIME OF JESUS BELIEVE IN A GOD, IN A MESSIAH (HIS SON), AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Thomas said: “As far as IU recall, you haven't used any quotes to demonstrate a 'Jewish Trinity'?”

See #2 and 3 above. These are all quotes I’ve given you that demonstrate the Jews before Christ believed in God, in the Messiah (the word of Christian theology) and in the Holy Spirit.


Thomas asked: “Are you trying to prove the Christian Trinity to me?”

No, I am not trying to prove the Christian trinity to you.

I have merely pointed out that the early Christians themselves describe their belief in three beings in their literature: God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ (the “word” described by John), and they believed in a Holy Spirit.
This is three beings (i.e. a “trinity”) having special characteristics.

 

[Thomas]

1) CHRISTIANS AND JEWS HAVE ALWAYS PRODUCED SACRED/HOLY LITERATURE (αγιαγραφε - hagiagraphy) THAT DESCRIBES THEIR ANCIENT BELIEFS
Thomas quoted: "Coptic Christians in post-Chalcedonian Egypt created a genre of literature known today as “pseudo- apostolic memoirs.” These feature tales of various early Christian figures in texts that, the authors claim, were hidden away in a house or library in Jerusalem until they were rediscovered by illustrious fourth-century homilists.”
I don’t think most early Judeo-Christian literature was “hidden” from others. (Some was)

The point rather is, according to scholars, neither the book the PseudoTimothy supposedly saw, nor the library in which it was held, actually existed. If it did, why does no-one else draw on such a resource of apostolic writings?

2) REGARDING THE “TWO POWERS” AND “THREE POWERS” MODEL INTRODUCED BY THOMAS

Thomas said in post #35: “Also nonsense is your attribution of the "Two Powers" model to me.”
Thomas, you, yourself claimed, in post #25 “I also accept the Two Powers hypothesis. But I do not see any Three Power hypothesis.” (post #25).
When you said you “accept the Two Powers hypothesis”, I assumed this meant that you “accept the Two Powers hypothesis.”

Yes I did, at the time, but that does not make it 'my' hypothesis – that would be plagiarism.

Now, I am not so sure ...

If you mis-spoke, or I misunderstood, you will have to explain why you now do not accept the "Two Powers" model..

Because I've looked further afield, touched on critical reviews. I am reading and re-reading Peter Schafer's withering critique of Boyarin in an article in The New Republic. He rebuts many of the Two Power assumptions. This quote I thought was apposite:
"As the younger Talmud professor in the acclaimed Israeli movie Footnote says to his hapless student, 'There are many correct and new aspects in your paper—only what is new isn’t correct and what is correct isn’t new'."

Can you also explain the “Two Powers” and the “Three Powers” model. (as I requestion earlier)

My explanation now would be that the Two Powers model is perhaps a flawed interpretation of Daniel, and by 'Three Powers' I was referring to Christian trinitarian theology.

However, IF you claim your theories are “better” or “more correct” than the theology of the ancient Judeo-Christians, the question follows as to why you think your beliefs are to take priority over or to be preferred to the beliefs of the ancient Judeo-Christians.

I do not lay claim to any theological theories being discussed here as 'mine'.

For example, Clement was the convert of the apostle Peter and the co-worker of the apostle Paul. Why would your theology be preferred over than of Clement, who was taught the earliest and most authentic form of Christianity by the apostles themselves?

Was he though?
"We know nothing certain about his life. Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul – an identification apparently made first by Origen, and after him repeated by a great many writers. But the identification is, to say the least, very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement in a very common name deserves little consideration. It was quite customary in the early Church to find Paul’s companions, whenever possible, in responsible and influential positions during the latter part of the first century... Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very prominent position in the early Roman church, and wrote an epistle to the Corinthians which is still extant."
(Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II, Volume I, "Church History of Eusebius", Book III, Chapter 4, footnote 19.)

4) ANCIENT CHRISTIANS CREATED LITERATURE OF MULTIPLE KINDS
Thomas said: "Coptic Christians in post-Chalcedonian Egypt created a genre of literature known today as “pseudo-apostolic memoirs.”
Historians have made the exact same point about all of the biblical texts.
No one knows who wrote any of the books and thus, the real authors are unknown and thus they are all pseudoepigraphs.

OK. Scholars do their best, however ...

Secondly, thank you for updating your New (and more correct) attribution of Abbaton as being discovered in the 4th century. This is more correct than your prior claim of it’s origin in the 700s.

Scholarship places the text as originating in a Coptic monastery, sometime between the 5th and 7th century.

Thirdly, such texts were not “hidden” in the Jerusalem library just as 4th century Sinaiticus was not “hidden” in St. Mary’s monastery. They were simply there and undiscovered. This contrasts with such texts as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library that WERE hidden away.

OK. But the point remains that it is highly unlikely that the discourse between Jesus and the disciples that forms the content of the abbaton, ever took place.

5) MORE INACCURATE DATING. WHAT IS THE MOTIVE TO INTRODUCE ERRORS IN DATING?
Thomas said: “The oldest text dates from the 10th century. Its origin is somewhere between the 5th and 7th centuries.”
This is a silly and inaccurate Statement. You realize that readers can simply google the dates for various early literature?

Go ahead.

For example, we’ve already corrected your dating of Abbaton since it’s introduction by Bishop Timothy was written in the 300s a.d. (he died in the 380s). Timothy could not have written the introduction in the 700s.

Scholars are pretty sure Timothy didn't write it. It's a spurious attribution.

Unless you have firm evidence otherwise, I'll rest on scholarship.

 

[Clear]

Hi Thomas. Thank you so much for providing more context for the "Two" and "Three" power theories. Am I correct to assume your comment in the last post mean that you now do not now hold to the "Two Power" theory you discussed earlier?

Thomas said: “The point rather is, according to scholars, neither the book the PseudoTimothy supposedly saw, nor the library in which it was held, actually existed. If it did, why does no-one else draw on such a resource of apostolic writings?”

This is very interesting and is are theories I’ve never heard before.

Archbishop Timothy claims he found the text in a library in Jerusalem in the 300s. Can you provide some evidence to support the claim that neither the original source text nor a library existed in Jerusalem in the 300s?



Clear said : “For example, we’ve already corrected your dating of Abbaton since it’s introduction by Bishop Timothy was written in the 300s a.d. (he died in the 380s). Timothy could not have written the introduction in the 700s.”

Thomas replied: “Scholars are pretty sure Timothy didn't write it. It's a spurious attribution.
Unless you have firm evidence otherwise, I'll rest on scholarship.”

While the current extant text may date from the 700s, scholars used to date that version from 300s in the same way that the original 1Enoch was from 3-400 b.c. while extant versions were dated later. The theory that Timothy did not write the original "discourse on Abbaton" and that no library existed in Jerusalem is also interesting and is also theory I’ve not heard before.

Can you give us a summary of scholarship that tells us Archbishop Timothy (of the 300s) did not write an earliest version of the Abbaton text?

 

[Clear]

Hi Thomas. I think I should clarify the above.

I have heard of the observation that almost all texts of the early period (peri c.e.) are pseudographic, including all of the Old and New Testament books since no one knows who wrote any of these books. For example, no one know who wrote Old testament Genesis, or any of the books of the old Testament. The same is true of the New Testament. No one know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or any other books of the New Testament. Instead. they are attributed by tradition. The same is true of almost all pseudographia.

The problem is that much of what we have are copies of copies and we cannot tell accurately regarding the underlying source text. While we know there were underlying source texts that our current texts come from such as stories from Joshua coming from sefir Jasher, still, we know even less about sefir Jasher. We know that the source text for our 4th century A.D. Enoch text had a 3-4th century B.C. source text (which is not extant) and it was the most common Dead Sea Scroll sacred text outside of the pentateuch and psalms.

We know that the current written form of Discourse on Abbaton is a copy from perhaps the 10th century, but we also know it is not the original source text and we know the tradition of this story where God left the body of Adam without spirit for 40 days exists in 3rd century texts such as found in the Nag Hamadi library from the late 3rd century. The point is that the story exists in part in the 3rd century in other texts and so the since the story exists in multiple versions, and at least one of the versions is from the 3rd century, to prove that the story is a 10th century product is strange.

While I can certainly agree that Timothy did NOT write the source text, I'd like to know the mechanism for assuming the source text is a product of later centuries.

 

[Thomas]

1)THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “GOD” AND A “GOD LIKE” BEING
I think there were certain basic principles that characterized Christianity (e.g. the belief that Jesus was, in some way, special or divine), but that there were multiple Jewish and multiple Christian movements. (If that is what you mean).

I think we concur on a number of points in your post #53. I'll only address the points of divergence:

O.K. You believe that Johns Prologue would not be offensive to Jews and it has midrashic characteristics. Is there a deeper point that you want to make or is that it?

That was from Boyarin. I am about to offer a critique of Boyarin, so will leave discussions at that for the moment.

2) THE JEWISH LITERATURE THAT DESCRIBES JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN GOD, IN THE LOGOS (SON/MESSIAH), AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Thomas said: “I'm not aware of any early Jewish text that speaks of God the Father, his Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit. If you can point out the early Jewish texts that speak of a trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or Father, Messiah (as a divine being) and Holy Spirit, that would be helpful.”
We have already gone over this but I am happy to do so again. Here are some prior quotes:

But as far as I can see, none of the quotes speak of three as a triune of three persons?

a)THE JEWS DESCRIBE THEIR BELIEF IN A GOD AND SON IN HEAVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS CREATED

In post #14 I gave the example from Jewish Enoch of 300 b.c. where the Prophet says he sees God the Father walking together with his son, the Messiah:“At that place, I saw “he who is of primordial days,” and his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels.”

I recall the idea in Jewish thought, that the Messiah was not the Son of God, but a man, chosen by God. The phrase 'Son of Man' in Daniel and elsewhere has been said to mean, prior to the advent of Hebrew Hekalot literature and its Merkavah mysticism, an individual messiah of the line of David, or the people of Isreal.

But I don't see the texts you offer of Enoch showing the Son of Man present with God at the creation of the world, although I can see that the assumption is not invalid, as the heavens in which they reside are outside the normal time-space we exist in.

Personally, I would have though the closest to that is חָכְמָה Hakma, Wisdom (Sophia in the Greek), in The Commendation of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 – the 'I' statements from v12-21, eg: "I wisdom dwell with prudence (v12), Counsel is mine (v14) and so on ... and then we have:
22 "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.
23: "I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
27: "When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:
30: "I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times;
35: "He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord:
36: "But he that shall sin against me, shall hurt his own soul. All that hate me love death."

b)THE JEWS BELIEVED IN THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD AS WELL

I don't question that. I just don't see evidence of the Holy Spirit as a Person, nor do I know of any commentary that does?

(You quote from the Apostolic Constitutions, but that is a Christian text, not a Jewish one.)

4) CHANGING THE TEXT IS ITSELF AN INDICATION OF A DESIRE TO CHANGE THE TEXT.
IF there was no motive to change the text, one assumes the text would have been left as it was.
As I mentioned, I assume the dissonance caused by the belief that God the Father was an “unbegotten” God while the text speaks of a “begotten” God and translators felt like they were “clarifying” the text such that it is not appear to refer to two types of Gods (An “unbegotten” God and a second “begotten” God), but instead referring to the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father.

Possibly.

Thomas asked: “What did the change achieve, d'you think?”
I currently think the change was intended to better support the most popular theology of the time when the text was translated (i.e. “how the community saw it”, as you describe it).
IF this tentative assumption is correct, I think it accomplished this purpose at the expense of textual corruption.
So, while it affects regular "sunday school" christians who assume they are reading the authentic biblical text, it doesn't change the reading for religious historians who read greek and are familiar with the early versions of the New Testament.

I can go along with that. But it does not affect the understanding of the Trinity as Three Persons, One God for either party.

5) DOES AN ILLOGICAL THEORY BECOME LOGICAL SIMPLY BY DESCRIBING THE ILLOGICAL?
Thomas said: (post #50) ‘So the point rather is, the doctrine of the Trinity explains what to some might appear illogical, in a logical manner, ie same in essence, different in relation.
Clear replied: “I agree. Because some versions of the trinity are illogical, this causes endless debates and arguments over the nature of the trinity
Thomas remarked: “Well people overlook the principle that the interior nature of God is not determined nor delineated by, nor accessible to, human logic.”
I think you are correct that some individuals tell themselves some version of "God is immune to human logic".

I’ve wondered it this claim is, in fact, true.

As God is understood to transcend the intellect, the intellect cannot encompass God.

We can speculate on the nature of God, and we can make logical arguments for, as Aquinas did with his Five Ways, but they are not proofs, and certainly not of the God of Scripture.

That's how I understand it.

 

[Longfellow]

Hi Thomas. I think I should clarify the above.

I have heard of the observation that almost all texts of the early period (peri c.e.) are pseudographic, including all of the Old and New Testament books since no one knows who wrote any of these books. For example, no one know who wrote Old testament Genesis, or any of the books of the old Testament. The same is true of the New Testament. No one know who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or any other books of the New Testament. Instead. they are attributed by tradition. The same is true of almost all pseudographia.

The problem is that much of what we have are copies of copies and we cannot tell accurately regarding the underlying source text. While we know there were underlying source texts that our current texts come from such as stories from Joshua coming from sefir Jasher, still, we know even less about sefir Jasher. We know that the source text for our 4th century A.D. Enoch text had a 3-4th century B.C. source text (which is not extant) and it was the most common Dead Sea Scroll sacred text outside of the pentateuch and psalms.

We know that the current written form of Discourse on Abbaton is a copy from perhaps the 10th century, but we also know it is not the original source text and we know the tradition of this story where God left the body of Adam without spirit for 40 days exists in 3rd century texts such as found in the Nag Hamadi library from the late 3rd century. The point is that the story exists in part in the 3rd century in other texts and so the since the story exists in multiple versions, and at least one of the versions is from the 3rd century, to prove that the story is a 10th century product is strange.

While I can certainly agree that Timothy did NOT write the source text, I'd like to know the mechanism for assuming the source text is a product of later centuries.

I think we concur on a number of points in your post #53. I'll only address the points of divergence:


That was from Boyarin. I am about to offer a critique of Boyarin, so will leave discussions at that for the moment.


But as far as I can see, none of the quotes speak of three as a triune of three persons?


I recall the idea in Jewish thought, that the Messiah was not the Son of God, but a man, chosen by God. The phrase 'Son of Man' in Daniel and elsewhere has been said to mean, prior to the advent of Hebrew Hekalot literature and its Merkavah mysticism, an individual messiah of the line of David, or the people of Isreal.

But I don't see the texts you offer of Enoch showing the Son of Man present with God at the creation of the world, although I can see that the assumption is not invalid, as the heavens in which they reside are outside the normal time-space we exist in.

Personally, I would have though the closest to that is חָכְמָה Hakma, Wisdom (Sophia in the Greek), in The Commendation of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 – the 'I' statements from v12-21, eg: "I wisdom dwell with prudence (v12), Counsel is mine (v14) and so on ... and then we have:
22 "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.
23: "I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
27: "When he prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the depths:
30: "I was with him forming all things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times;
35: "He that shall find me, shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord:
36: "But he that shall sin against me, shall hurt his own soul. All that hate me love death."


I don't question that. I just don't see evidence of the Holy Spirit as a Person, nor do I know of any commentary that does?

(You quote from the Apostolic Constitutions, but that is a Christian text, not a Jewish one.)


Possibly.


I can go along with that. But it does not affect the understanding of the Trinity as Three Persons, One God for either party.


As God is understood to transcend the intellect, the intellect cannot encompass God.

We can speculate on the nature of God, and we can make logical arguments for, as Aquinas did with his Five Ways, but they are not proofs, and certainly not of the God of Scripture.

That's how I understand it.

I'm hoping that it's okay if I intrude here. I'm interested in your comments on some new thoughts that I've had about this.

"Theos" does not always mean YHWH. There are terms that refer exclusively to YHWH, and they are never applied to Jesus.

My understanding of "Son of God" applied to Jesus has always been the king that God promised to raise up from the line of David,

I have a new understanding now that "Son of Man" applied to Jesus refers to Daniel and Ezekiel at the same time and means the Shekhina (presence of God) in the form of a man. One *like* a son of man, but more than that, the presence of God at the same time. He is the presence of God and at the same time the lowliest of men. Also, like Ezekiel, He is acting out a message from God. He's a prophet like Ezekiel, but also the presence of God at the same time. "Son of man" refers to HIs lowliness. "Son of God" refers to His regency as the ruler of God's kingdom.

 

[Thomas]

Archbishop Timothy claims he found the text in a library in Jerusalem in the 300s. Can you provide some evidence to support the claim that neither the original source text nor a library existed in Jerusalem in the 300s?

There is no record of the existence of any such library. Surely if there were, it would have been mentioned by the Fathers, and the writings of the apostles contained therein would have been referenced?

For example, we’ve already corrected your dating of Abbaton since it’s introduction by Bishop Timothy was written in the 300s a.d. (he died in the 380s). Timothy could not have written the introduction in the 700s.

And I've already offered scholarly opinion that the text is a pseudonymous attribution to Timothy, and that in fact it was the work of Coptic monks at least two centuries after Timothy died.

While the current extant text may date from the 700s, scholars used to date that version from 300s...

If you could provide the scholarly references, that would help convince me.

The theory that Timothy did not write the original "discourse on Abbaton" and that no library existed in Jerusalem is also interesting and is also theory I’ve not heard before.
Can you give us a summary of scholarship that tells us Archbishop Timothy (of the 300s) did not write an earliest version of the Abbaton text?

In post #34 I offered:
"Finally, A. Suciu and I. Saweros classify The Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death among the Pseudo-Apostolic Memoirs (p. 529)... The portrait that emerges is a collection of works which were either intended as hagiographies (especially the Pseudo-Apostolic Memoirs and the various Acts) or else works which could be readily adopted for that purpose."
"New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures" (Vol. 1), Tony Burke and Brent Landau, Eerdmans, 2016, p585)

"Coptic Christians in post-Chalcedonian Egypt (post-451CE) created a genre of literature known today as “pseudo- apostolic memoirs.” These feature tales of various early Christian figures in texts that, the authors claim, were hidden away in a house or library in Jerusalem until they were rediscovered by illustrious fourth-century homilists – though these attributions too are fictions. The Berlin-Strasbourg Apocryphon, the Investiture of Abbaton, and the encomia on John the Baptist and Mary Magdalene are all examples of this literature. Alin Suciu believes they were written to create a distinct identity for Coptic Christianity ... " (ibid. xxix)

New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (Vol. 1), Tony Burke and Brent Landau, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans, 2016, 585 p. ISBN : 978-0-8028-7289 extracts from a review here)

+++

"Timothy Aelurus, the Miaphysite patriarch of Alexandria to whom are attributed the homilies on Abbaton and on Michael, died in 477. Thus, the earliest possible date for the composition of the two texts is the second half of the 5th century, although they might be even later."

"The introductory study and the commentary explore the literary and the cultural setting in which the Apocryphon Berolinense/Argentoratense was written. Here I suggest that the text is one of the numerous pseudo-apostolic memoirs probably composed in Coptic during the 5th-6th century. Finally, my reading of the text contains several improvements to the previous editions of the three manuscripts."

The above are taken from the online thesis of Dr Alin Suciu in which he discusses the pseudo-apostolic memoirs, listing no less than 20 with a homiletic framework, nine without a homiletic framework, and three more unidentified memoirs. A woprd-search shows Abbaton mentioned 25 times. Rather than list every occurance, I've linked the document, so you can get a sense of the Abbaton in its place in the Coptic literature of the 5th-th centuries, when the Coptic Church was establishing its own identity in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

+++

Other features (of the Coptic pseudo-apostolic literature) change noticeably over time. One such feature is the framing of the apocryphal texts. While the earliest Coptic apocrypha are usually attributed directly to an apostle, evangelist, or another figure from the biblical storyworld, in the later centuries there is a tendency to embed such traditions within more or less elaborate frames. A highly common framing device is that of homilies pseudepigraphically attributed to patristic figures from the fourth to the sixth century with a high standing in the miaphysite Coptic tradition. In these homilies, the pseudonymous author often claims authority for the apocryphal contents of his sermon by explaining how his teachings derive from apostolic books found in Jerusalem, sometimes the discovery location is even specified as the ‘library of the apostles’. In the Encomium on Abbaton, the Angel of Death, for instance, Pseudo-Timothy states in the homiletic frame that he acquired a book concerning the Investiture of Abbaton, the Angel of Death on a trip he made to Jerusalem to celebrate Easter. The major part of Pseudo-Timothy’s homily is then simply an extended quotation from this fictitious book, itself framed as a post-resurrection dialogue between Christ and the apostles, with Christ explaining the history and role of the angel of death in relation to topics ranging from a discussion of Abbaton’s role in the creation of Adam, to the more contemporary issue of his role in the death of every single human being and the collection of their souls.

"The fact that not only the production, donation, and use of manuscripts containing apocrypha, but also the composition of apocryphal narratives was seen by some as a pious activity is attested to by the Homily on the Passion and Resurrection, pseudepigraphically attributed to Evodius of Rome:
"The king will not find fault if embroideries are added to his garments, but he will greatly commend those who have added them, so that everyone might praise the garment because of the embroideries which are on it. Thus the Lord Jesus will not find fault with us if we add adornments to the Holy Gospels, but he will instead greatly commend us, and bless those who will bear fruit through them."
By this clever metaphor the homily argues that expanding on the biblical narratives should not be regarded as an objectionable activity, but rather the opposite, as such embellishments could only reflect positively on the canonical gospels, and thus be pleasing to God, not least because it might help people in their faith, a point we also saw being made in the Encomium on Abbaton."
The Fluid Transmission of Apocrypha in Egyptian Monasteries Hugo Lundhaug - University of Oslo.
Again, this document has multiple references to the Abbaton, so I link to it.

There's a discussion by Hugo Lundhaug, a podcast is available here, and the text available here of the abbaton.

Hi Thomas. I think I should clarify the above.

We know that the current written form of Discourse on Abbaton is a copy from perhaps the 10th century, but we also know it is not the original source text and we know the tradition of this story where God left the body of Adam without spirit for 40 days exists in 3rd century texts such as found in the Nag Hamadi library from the late 3rd century.

A reference would be useful.

The point is that the story exists in part in the 3rd century in other texts and so the since the story exists in multiple versions, and at least one of the versions is from the 3rd century, to prove that the story is a 10th century product is strange.

Not really. There are elements going back to antiquity – the creation – but the story itself, the record of a dialogue between Jesus and the Apsotles, is most likely a fiction.

While I can certainly agree that Timothy did NOT write the source text, I'd like to know the mechanism for assuming the source text is a product of later centuries.

That is detailed in the links provided above. It shows how many of these texts are inter-dependent, and the reason nfor their production, and their later reception.

 

[Longfellow]

I’ve been thinking about the Shekhina, and elohim, and theos, and the logos, and I have a new idea. When John says “theos was the logos,” maybe he’s explaining that the presence of God that the Jews call “elohim” is the same as what the Greeks call “the logos.”