Who Is Timothy Of Jerusalem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fineca
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fineca

Guest
WHO is this Timothy of Jerusalem that is often quoted in support of the Assumption- even the Catholic encyclopedia newadvent.org makes absolutely no mention of him , and when I write his name in google only the quotation about the assumption comes up, and estimates of when he lived vary from 350 to the 8th century! - what is this all about - and who was this guy?
Thanks!
 
fineca said:
WHO is this Timothy of Jerusalem that is often quoted in support of the Assumption- even the Catholic encyclopedia newadvent.org makes absolutely no mention of him , and when I write his name in google only the quotation about the assumption comes up, and estimates of when he lived vary from 350 to the 8th century! - what is this all about - and who was this guy?
Thanks!
Click to expand...

This:​

  1. For a critique of the teaching of Timothy of Jerusalem and the various manuscripts in which his doctrine may be found, cf. M. Jugie, La mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge (Citta del Vaticano, 1944), p. 70ff. Cf. B. Capelle, Les homilies liturgiques du pretendu Timothee de Jerusalem, in *Ephemerides Liturgicae, *Vol. 63, 1949, pp. 5-26. After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23).
which I found here: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=469

seems to be about as much as is known of him.

See also note 3 here: isidore-of-seville.com/goudenhoorn/51dirk.html (which refers to an equally obscure “Timothy of Antioch” - you might try searching for him) 🙂 ##
 
I’d like to know what are the bases for dating him between 350 and 450 AD then…why don’t we find him included in the writings of the Fathers?

What about Epiphanius of Salamis? He is sometimes quoted in support of the assumption but on the other hand it is often said that St.Gregory of Tours (200 yrs later) was the first to write about it…??

Thanks!
 
St. Gregory Nazianzus makes mention of the fact that
St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker (pre-Nicea) had
an apparition of the Blessed Mother, so I guess belief in the Assumption is at least as old as that.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
fineca, I’ll look thru my book this week.
I *** think *** it is in one of my Books of the Saints.
I’m not sure which one, but it was definitely stated.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
Sorry it was Gregory of NYSSA, not Gregory Nazianzus, who related Gregory the Wonder-worker’s apparition of the blessed Virgin Mary.
Now I feel like an idiot…

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)
 
Hi&thanks!

I heard from some Orthodox friends that as soon as Christianity became a state religion in the 300s the feast calendar was set - including the Dormition (Assumption). It’d be good to find some sources on this - sounds like good evidence.

But I’m still confused - we’re saying the Assumption is a REVEALED dogma, and REVELATION comes to us in Scripture and Tradition, and no new revelation has come since the death of the last apostle. BUT the Assumption is not explicitly revealed in the Bible (it can be supported, but so can many non-revealed false dogmas) and it is not clearly revealed in Apostolic Tradition (the only one that counts, since later man-made traditions aren’t revelation), or well, none of the apostolic fathers talk about it, and the first reference to it as an article of faith comes from, to my understanding, the 6th century from St.Gregory of Tours, before that it appears in apocryphal / heretical writings but no earlier than the 300s if I’m right. This sounds like an apocryphal myth rather than an apostolic teaching universally accepted and binding on christians, part of the gospel…
I’m convinced the Assumption is true (no relics of Mary, the Apparitions at Fatima, the Teaching of the Church, the faith of the Orthodox Churches, etc…) - but anyway I don’t understand why it’s considered revelation if it’s not in revelation, and it seems very hard to convince non-catholics of this truth given the obscure evidence…
Could it be that only the apostles knew about the Assumption, or perhaps only John, and then didn’t place much emphasis on it, so that it was revealed through him but not mentioned later, and then the Holy Spirit led the Church to understand what was revealed but not appreciated enough…or what do you think happened?
Thanks for your help! Emil
 
fineca said:
I’d like to know what are the bases for dating him between 350 and 450 AD then…why don’t we find him included in the writings of the Fathers?

What about Epiphanius of Salamis? He is sometimes quoted in support of the assumption but on the other hand it is often said that St.Gregory of Tours (200 yrs later) was the first to write about it…??

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Possibly because Timothy of Jerusalem (or Antioch) may be the same person as St.Leontius of Byzantium (who is a Father) 🙂 As to the details of why Timothy of Jerusalem has been dated from 350 to 450, I can’t help you, I’m afraid.​

If an author is very shadowy, one can’t really accord him the dignity of being considered a solidly & verifiably individual author: especially if he may be someone else.

This kind of uncertainty is not uncommon.

As for the references to Epiphanius & to Gregory of Tours: both authors have long been quoted on the Assumption. One is first in the East, the other is first in the West (AFAIK) 🙂 ##
 
Just thought I’d throw this out there. I’m kind of new at all this
but over at Scott Hahns site there some really good stuff… Mary was full of Grace…perfect grace–the kind that always was, always will be. The wages of sin is Death… She was without sin…grace and sin cannot reside together
… she was assumed because of her sinless nature granted by God.
 
Dear Emil:
The doctrines of the Catholic Church don’t need to be clearly formulated in Scripture; rather, they should be contained in Scripture, even in a hidden form. Rev 12 is close enough in terms of implying the cosmic role of the Mother of the Messiah, and her entry into glory.
 
fineca said:
I’d like to know what are the bases for dating him between 350 and 450 AD then…why don’t we find him included in the writings of the Fathers?

What about Epiphanius of Salamis? He is sometimes quoted in support of the assumption but on the other hand it is often said that St.Gregory of Tours (200 yrs later) was the first to write about it…??

Thanks!
Click to expand...
You might be interested in this thread: Mary’s Assumption in the Doctrine of the Pre-Nicene Church

**EDIT :: Aww, jeepers. I didn’t realize this thread was over seven years old before Adrianfcm revived it. Well, this post will probably be deleted now. 🤷

(Is that how the mods do things?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top