Philo, Paul, and the Gospels (salvation, disciples, hell, prophecies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that Jesus' messianic spirit is divine in that it came from heaven (and went back there) in Paul, but it is Not God. That would have been anathema to Paul. I think that his Son of David argument is part of the heavenly messianic spirit claim. This spirit (which to me looks as though it is Adam's spirit, atoning by obedience to death for the original disobedience and thus wiping out Sin -death (1) is part of his whole agenda of gaining salvation for Jesus -believers without the need for the Mosaic laws. It was intended to appeal to the Gentiles, not to appeal to the Jews.
Matthew is certainly interested in the OT, but not because of Paul's theology. Indeed I doubt that he knew much about Paul. Luke on the other hand knew all about Paul, but he didn't bother (as you say) about the theology. In his day, Christianity was spreading and the creed didn't need proving but pushing.
In John as you say, Jesus is a shell of a human containing the almost visible spirit of God.
(1) this is the explanation of 'how can the messiah be David's son?'. Which actually the gospel -writers don't seem to understand. When posed in the gospels it would seem to prove that the messiah (Jesus) cannot be David's son. But it's enough for the writers that it's a Sanhedrin -stumper.
Paul said that he changed the slant of his story according to whether he was speaking to Jews or Gentiles.
When speaking to the Gentile residents of Philippi, in far northern Greece, Paul presents Jesus as pre-existent and divine.
Quote:
Philippians 2
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men
Likewise, when writing to the Gentiles in Colossae in Anatolia, Paul made it clear that Jesus was pre-existent and possessed divine power.
Quote:
Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
This description is exactly that given by Philo of Alexandria to his Son of God, aka Logos.
Example: https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H9
Paul writes many times that God sent his Son, implying that Jesus came from heaven.
But when writing to the mostly Jewish community in Rome, Paul changes the story around.
Quote:
Romans 1
3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord
Jesus is now the Jewish Messiah descended from David as required and did not become the Son of God in a more than human sense until the resurrection.
Matthew was very aware of Paul and recognized the problem with a divine Jesus for his Jewish Christian community. Matthew cleverly invokes other writings of Philo to solve the problem. I have written a sizable post concerning that elsewhere that also addresses how Jesus can be both the literal Son of God and a legitimate descendent of David. https://www.city-data.com/forum/reli...l#post58292952
In short, Matthew refers to OT passages invoked by Philo that (in Philo’s exegesis) have certain women conceiving though the influence of God, with virgins the most appropriate choice, but ‘because God does not need anything’ they become the legitimate offspring of the nominal father. So Jesus is both the Son of God and a real descendant of David as per the elaborate and forceful genealogy given by Matthew.
Concerning Luke, I see his Gospel, and all of the Gospels for that matter, not as means of proselytizing but as addressed to existing believers for various purposes. In the case of Luke, it is to counter certain aspects of Matthew that are problems for Luke’s Gentile community. But that is a supersize topic in itself.
The Logos prolog in John is very much in line with Philo.
Quote:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In Philo, the Logos (Word) aka Son of God has always existed. The words of God are actions. The Word is the means by which the world was created. This is related to Philo’s use of Platonic philosophy in which God is so pure he could not have anything to do with messy matter. God used an intermediate entity called the demiurge to make the world. In Philo this intermediate figure is God and is also an extension of God.
Ok. I don't have any problem with this, other than the implication that Luke knew Matthew's gospel. I don't think he knew it when he wrote his, but he may still have been dealing with the problems you mention. And I agree that Paul saw Jesus as a divine being from heaven, but it wasn't actually God. More akin to an angel, except that it has gone to heaven, not been created there.
Ok. I don't have any problem with this, other than the implication that Luke knew Matthew's gospel. I don't think he knew it when he wrote his, but he may still have been dealing with the problems you mention. And I agree that Paul saw Jesus as a divine being from heaven, but it wasn't actually God. More akin to an angel, except that it has gone to heaven, not been created there.
As I see it, the problems Luke found in Matthew were that the Law still needed to be followed in full and the depiction of Jesus having a militaristic flavor - not a good thing considering how terrible the messianic inspired Jewish War was.
Luke borrows numerous themes from Matthew and pulls them inside out.
Matthew emphasized the kingly Davidic descent of Jesus via Joseph, with Mary being a mostly cardboard figure. Luke put Mary in center stage and the main mention of Joseph is to give a non-kingly genealogy that is the inverse of Matthew’s in just about every way.
Matthew has Jesus be the rightful King of the Jews in opposition to Herod the false Roman appointed king and this is even recognized in foreign lands. Luke has Jesus born in a very humble setting.
Luke begins his story with Herod’s name and never mentions Herod again. In fact, he has the timing of the birth of Jesus coincide with an event that took place long after Herod was dead. That event, the tax census, was the cause of the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the birth of the Zealot movement, ultimately leading to the War of 67 CE. But Luke has angels sing of peace while the revolt starts. Nothing to do with Jesus.
Matthew had Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem, where the Messiah has to be born (not really but Matthew loves being literal). After Jesus is born, they flee from Herod to Egypt and return when Herod is dead. The circumstances and the prophecies suggest Moses, Matthew’s first association of Jesus with the Law-giver. But since Herod’s son is now in charge, they go to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem.
Luke’s version of this is that Mary and Joseph always lived in Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem because of the aforementioned census. (A rather incredible story but Luke gets to emphasize the census.) After Jesus is born, they go back home to Nazareth. No Egypt, no Law association.
Matthew had the people in the synagogue displeased with Jesus because he is just too learned for the carpenter’s son, similar to Mark’s account. Luke has the people respect Jesus for being so knowledgeable but become angry with him when he starts citing examples of God preferring Gentiles over Jews.
Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, a rather transparent image making Jesus into a new Moses, emphasizes adherence to the Law only not just the letter of the Law (which is necessary) but its intent of being moral in one’s heart as well. Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, with Jesus at the same level as everyone, has parts of Matthew’s sermon – but no Law – and scatters other parts throughout his Gospel. Luke’s description of where the people came from suggests a more Gentile audience than Matthew.
Matthew has Jesus spend the bulk of his ministry in Galilee and surrounding areas. Galilee was a hotbed of revolution, where trouble often started from the 6 CE tax revolt up to the start of the War in 67 CE. While Matthew has the journey to Jerusalem occupy a couple of sentences, Luke has Jesus set his mind on Jerusalem very early, making virtually the whole ministry in a sense the journey to Jerusalem.
After the resurrection of Jesus, Matthew has the disciples go to Galilee. Luke has them stay in Jerusalem, yet another example of Luke calling attention away from Galilee.
As I see it, the problems Luke found in Matthew were that the Law still needed to be followed in full and the depiction of Jesus having a militaristic flavor - not a good thing considering how terrible the messianic inspired Jewish War was.
Luke borrows numerous themes from Matthew and pulls them inside out.
Matthew emphasized the kingly Davidic descent of Jesus via Joseph, with Mary being a mostly cardboard figure. Luke put Mary in center stage and the main mention of Joseph is to give a non-kingly genealogy that is the inverse of Matthew’s in just about every way.
Matthew has Jesus be the rightful King of the Jews in opposition to Herod the false Roman appointed king and this is even recognized in foreign lands. Luke has Jesus born in a very humble setting.
Luke begins his story with Herod’s name and never mentions Herod again. In fact, he has the timing of the birth of Jesus coincide with an event that took place long after Herod was dead. That event, the tax census, was the cause of the revolt of Judas of Galilee and the birth of the Zealot movement, ultimately leading to the War of 67 CE. But Luke has angels sing of peace while the revolt starts. Nothing to do with Jesus.
Matthew had Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem, where the Messiah has to be born (not really but Matthew loves being literal). After Jesus is born, they flee from Herod to Egypt and return when Herod is dead. The circumstances and the prophecies suggest Moses, Matthew’s first association of Jesus with the Law-giver. But since Herod’s son is now in charge, they go to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem.
Luke’s version of this is that Mary and Joseph always lived in Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem because of the aforementioned census. (A rather incredible story but Luke gets to emphasize the census.) After Jesus is born, they go back home to Nazareth. No Egypt, no Law association.
Matthew had the people in the synagogue displeased with Jesus because he is just too learned for the carpenter’s son, similar to Mark’s account. Luke has the people respect Jesus for being so knowledgeable but become angry with him when he starts citing examples of God preferring Gentiles over Jews.
Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, a rather transparent image making Jesus into a new Moses, emphasizes adherence to the Law only not just the letter of the Law (which is necessary) but its intent of being moral in one’s heart as well. Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, with Jesus at the same level as everyone, has parts of Matthew’s sermon – but no Law – and scatters other parts throughout his Gospel. Luke’s description of where the people came from suggests a more Gentile audience than Matthew.
Matthew has Jesus spend the bulk of his ministry in Galilee and surrounding areas. Galilee was a hotbed of revolution, where trouble often started from the 6 CE tax revolt up to the start of the War in 67 CE. While Matthew has the journey to Jerusalem occupy a couple of sentences, Luke has Jesus set his mind on Jerusalem very early, making virtually the whole ministry in a sense the journey to Jerusalem.
After the resurrection of Jesus, Matthew has the disciples go to Galilee. Luke has them stay in Jerusalem, yet another example of Luke calling attention away from Galilee.
There is more, but enough for tonight.
Holy cow! I already went off topic!
While I may agree with the issues that you say Luke deals with, he did not know Matthew when he wrote his gospel. If he had, he would not have contradicted it so much. You say it yourself; Mary and Joseph always lived in Nazareth; in Matthew they already lived there and the Herod plot was designed to shift them so they moved to Nazareth. If Luke had seen Matthew he would have of course have used Matthew's Nativity. Perhaps trying to tidy -up the problems, but he'd never have contradicted him so utterly. And the same with the resurrection.
Again this 'New Moses' idea. Tell me, do you work this out for yourself or is there some Authority or other that propounds this idea? I don't disagree with it, mind, but it is something I hear again and again in discussions of this type. And also that 'Luke was based on Matthew' when really, it couldn't be.
When you say that Luke 'sets his mind on Jerusalem very early' isn't that because the Galilee material is shorter because it doesn't have half the Sermon on the mount and none of the material associated with the Other feeding of the 4,000? This is the same with John who surprisingly, has pretty much nothing between the healing of the Ruler's son and the feeding at Bethsaida. This is because the Synoptics added is a lot of healings, (one of which - the paralytic - turns up in Jerusalem in John), preachings, parables (John has none) and wrangles with Pharisees (John has plenty of those, but they are in Jerusalem). So that makes Luke quite long in comparison to John, but the additional stuff common to Mark and Matthew makes all that far longer still.
The reason that Luke has the disciples remain in Jerusalem is that he knew that they did, because he knew Paul's letters Matthew didn't. Originally the synoptic gospels had the angelic message at the tomb to go to Galilee where Jesus has gone. Luke knew that they hadn't, so he altered the message to what Jesus told them when he was in Galilee. Now, if he'd seen Matthew, he could have had the disciples go to Galilee to get the 40 days' teachings, and come back, which is what one apologist argued. But he didn't know that Matthew had contradicted him. So he just changed it.
You also note (good stuff this) the addition by Luke to the rejection at Nazareth as in both Mark and Matthew. But look at what he does with it - shift it to the start of his mission to announce his messiahship. And he can't resist having them try to murder Jesus. In view of the other glaring contradictions, can one suppose that Luke knew what Matthew had and just rewrite it and damn the torpedoes? I rather suppose that he thought the gospel in front of him was the only one and if he 'corrected' it, nobody would be any the wiser.
Again the cocky young dick lecturing the Experts on the Law in the Temple is in Luke, not because Luke wanted to show that Jesus was focussed on Jerusalem, but because Luke knew Josephus (1) and the remark in his Life shows the young Josephus advising the teachers of the Law. It was too good for Luke to pass up.
Spread yourself. I know the Mods will allow a lot of leeway if they like the discussion. This is likely to be a limited thread and perhaps they'll leave us be.
(1) which is where he gets the Nativity -census, and Gamaliel's speech and (in Acts) the death of Herod Agrippa. And, I can't resist adding, perhaps Luke 13.1- an event lost to history, both from Josephus and Philo.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-09-2020 at 09:56 PM..
Ok. I don't have any problem with this, other than the implication that Luke knew Matthew's gospel. I don't think he knew it when he wrote his, but he may still have been dealing with the problems you mention. And I agree that Paul saw Jesus as a divine being from heaven, but it wasn't actually God. More akin to an angel, except that it has gone to heaven, not been created there.
Whatever makes you feel that you are scoring Brownie point with your imaginary god by scrawiing graffiti on a Bible - criticism discussion, since you have long since been unable to contribute anything worth hearing.
Doesn't it ever cause you sleeplness nights that you people look so bad in your posting and your general demeanour after you've shot your bolts on the usual Apologetics?
While I may agree with the issues that you say Luke deals with, he did not know Matthew when he wrote his gospel. If he had, he would not have contradicted it so much.
Of course he would. When the gospels were first written, they were done so to 'correct' the theology of the earlier ones. Matthew wanted to replace Mark, just as Luke wanted to replace the first two, and John wanted to replace all three.
They are competing theologies, that is why the contradict each other. It was not until the Marcion crisis that they were collected along with other works, and presented as as a unit.
To keep the size of my posts not outrageously large and to not keep you waiting until I finish it all, I will post in installments. Here is the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
While I may agree with the issues that you say Luke deals with, he did not know Matthew when he wrote his gospel. If he had, he would not have contradicted it so much. You say it yourself; Mary and Joseph always lived in Nazareth; in Matthew they already lived there and the Herod plot was designed to shift them so they moved to Nazareth. If Luke had seen Matthew he would have of course have used Matthew's Nativity. Perhaps trying to tidy -up the problems, but he'd never have contradicted him so utterly. And the same with the resurrection.
Contradiction of certain aspects of Matthew is the reason Luke wrote his Gospel in the first place. If he was just going to parrot Mark and Matthew, why bother? Each of the Gospel writers had a reason for writing.
Mark wrote to revive belief in a near-term return of Jesus, long overdue, in accordance with Paul’s theme, using the destruction of the Temple as a means of ‘resetting the clock’.
Matthew wrote to reinforce the boundaries between his Jewish Christian community and Law-rejecting Pauline Christianity on one side and Jesus-rejecting Rabbinic Judaism on the other. He also represents Jesus as the genuine King of the Jews in opposition to Herod the false Roman appointed King of the Jews, hinting at the then popular concept of a messiah, someone who would oust the Romans and establish a Jewish Israel.
Luke wrote to counteract themes of Matthew problematic for his Gentile community: the requirement for adherence to the Law, and the hint of a revolutionary Jesus – a bad idea considering the disastrous Jewish war of recent memory.
John wrote to divert attention from the (by then very hard to believe) near-term return of Jesus, by omitting any timeframe reference and concentrating on faith in the divine Jesus. Jesus would return but not tomorrow.
Back to Luke:
We see from the outset that Luke has contradicting Matthew in mind when he begins his narrative with “In the days of Herod, king of Judea” (Lk. 1:5) and never mentions Herod again. Herod, king of Judea is an essential element in Matthew’s narrative. And not only does Luke ignore Herod after that first verse, he connects the birth of Jesus to an event that took place long after Herod was dead, “the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. (Lk 2:2) That Luke mentions Herod at all and then contradicts that expectation suggests that not only has Luke read Matthew but he expects that his readers have as well. And furthermore, Luke is alerting his readers that he intends to contradict Matthew.
Matthew has a Nativity narrative. Luke has a Nativity narrative that is totally different from and even the opposite of Matthew’s. No one else has a Nativity narrative. What elements does Matthew’s narrative have that would not sell well with Luke’s audience? Jesus as King of the Jews, a reminder of the War, and Jesus as Moses, a reminder of the Law. Luke’s Jesus is born in humble circumstances accompanied by angels singing of peace as the tax revolt begins, the first major domino in the line that ended in the War.
Matthew has a genealogy of Jesus. Luke has a genealogy of Jesus that is totally different from and even the opposite of Matthew’s. No one else has a genealogy of Jesus. What elements does Matthew’s genealogy have that would not sell well with Luke’s audience? Jesus as being exclusively Jewish (implicitly requiring the Law), with the genealogy beginning with Abraham and from a Kingly line i.e. via Solomon (a hint of revolution again). Luke’s genealogy is very different from Matthew’s in a number of ways. But important elements include Luke’s bypassing King Solomon using his brother Nathan instead and going back to Adam, who he calls ‘son of God’. Jesus had just been baptized and recognized as the Son of God. That is, as descendants of Adam, we are all sons of God. As in Luke’s Nativity narrative, the human aspect of Jesus is shown in his genealogy.
Notice that Luke does not deny Davidic descent. It is not Judaism that Luke has a problem with. It is only some implications of Matthew. Luke goes into great depth about Jesus and his family being Jewish, as in the circumcision of Jesus and later his ritual presentation at the Temple along with Mary’s purification there. And later still Jesus and family are seen to make the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem. In addition to highlighting Jesus as Jewish, this also helps associate Jesus with Jerusalem as opposed to Galilee.
Matthew has a Sermon on the Mount, a rather Moses like image, especially as Matthew has Jesus require that the Law be followed in detail. Some of the language surrounding this Sermon and in it appears in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain. There is no mention of the Law in Luke’s version. Also, some other parts of Matthew’s Sermon appear elsewhere in Luke where he finds better use for them. And again, no one else has a comparable Sermon.
Luke deals with themes otherwise found only in Matthew – Nativity, Genealogy, Sermon, and others not yet dealt with – but Luke changes them around, even to the point of contradicting Matthew. It is always the issues that would be problems for Luke’s Gentile audience, the requirement for adherence to the Law and the ‘flavor’ of revolutionary thoughts, i.e., the real King of the Jews idea and the association with rebellious Galilee.
In Matthew, Mary and Joseph originally lived in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. They went to Egypt to hide Jesus from Herod who was killing all the male babies in Bethlehem. Just like Moses was hidden from Pharaoh who wanted to kill all the Jewish male babies in Egypt. (Jesus = Moses) When Herod died, they came back. Matthew quotes Hosea 11:1 (God speaking) “Out of Egypt I have called my son”. Who was it who led the Israelites out of Egypt? Moses. Who is God’s son in Matthew? Jesus. (Jesus = Moses) But Joseph discovered that Herod has been replaced by his just-as-bad son and did not go back to their home but to Nazareth in Galilee, out of the jurisdiction of Herod Archelaus. By contrast, Luke has the family start in Nazareth, go to Bethlehem as ‘required’ by that census (that census after Herod is dead) and return to Nazareth. No sojourn to Egypt. No connection with Moses. No implicit connection with the Law.
Matthew and Luke both have stories about the young Jesus, both involving Bethlehem. No one else has such stories or otherwise mentions Bethlehem. But the story told by Luke is literally the opposite of Matthew’s.
More on the Jerusalem versus Galilee later on when I reply to further sections of your post. I will just deal with the resurrection issue for now since you already mentioned it.
Mark has a young man in a white robe at the tomb announcing that Jesus has risen from the dead. Tell the disciples to go to Galilee to meet him. Mark has nothing further to say. To alleviate the obvious suspicion of the body being stolen, a story Matthew mentions was going around, Matthew has guards posted to prevent that and a really impressive angel (“His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow”) and presumably a more credible source to do the announcing. Followed immediately by Jesus himself doing the very same announcing, which seems a bit awkward, doesn’t it? Didn’t Jesus already go to Galilee? Luke has two individuals do the announcing, first identified as men “in dazzling apparel” and later identified as angels. Luke’s announcing does not involve Galilee.
Mark has one man in white. Matthew has an angel looking like lightning and dressed in snow white clothing. Luke has two (2) men/angels in dazzling duds. Not only does Luke expect his readers to have read Matthew but also Mark.
In Mark, Jesus does not put in a. post-resurrection appearance, raising suspicions. Matthew has Jesus appear at the tomb, resolving those suspicions but also making it awkwardly redundant since he just repeats what the angel said. Matthew is using Mark’s account but expanding on it. Awkwardly. Luke sidesteps the stolen body suspicions by having men/angels do the announcing but having Jesus appear not at the tomb but miles away and then eventually in Jerusalem with the disciples. Much less awkward.
But the really big thing here is that Matthew has the disciples go to Galilee to see Jesus, as Mark has them told to do, but Luke has Jesus tell them not to leave Jerusalem. Luke even mentions Galilee here as the place that Jesus and the disciples came from. Luke again saying he read Matthew.
It is clear that Luke read Matthew and is intentionally not just reversing the Galilee/Jerusalem thing here (as he has done elsewhere) but cleaning up Matthew’s touch of clumsiness.
Luke not only had read Matthew but intentionally contradicts certain themes of Matthew that would be problems for Luke’s Gentile audience.
Of course he would. When the gospels were first written, they were done so to 'correct' the theology of the earlier ones. Matthew wanted to replace Mark, just as Luke wanted to replace the first two, and John wanted to replace all three.
They are competing theologies, that is why they contradict each other. It was not until the Marcion crisis that they were collected along with other works and presented as a unit.
Your penchant for "knowing" the INTENT of these ancient writers is remarkable and completely unsupportable.
Ok . I see that we are not gong to agree on this. I take the view that the contradictions pop up because each writer was doing whatever he needed to do and was unaware that there were other gospels out there that would contradict him.
You and Harry take the view that they knew they were writing contradictory material and they were quite happy that they would contradict. This is a difference of opinion of how they worked and I don't see that further discussion will do anything to change our views on this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it, nobody would be any the wiser.
