Messengers versus Prophets

[Operacast]

This seems to me a worthwhile query, and I'd be curious as to any response. It occurred to me this might occasion a useful discussion if I start with a distinction that I read on another board from another writer:

"For humanity to know about its creation, its reality as spiritual beings ("image of God") and the afterlife, there had to be mediaries between God and man to plant that seed of knowledge in us. I use "Messenger" rather than the word prophet because, while there have been hundreds (thousands?) of prophets, there have been a limited number of Messengers -- those who brought specific teachings and laws to mankind (ie., Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, et al.). The prophets were under the umbrella of those respective teachings/laws. We can never know how many Messengers there were before the written word introduced these few to history."

Well, this has gotten me to thinking. The distinction between Messenger and prophet raises an intriguing question.

I have to provide the framework/context for my query first here in order for my query -- a fairly straightforward one -- to be clear.

Framework/Context:

Now, scholars have recently taken to carefully scrutinizing the earliest texts relating to the most conspicuous pioneers who launched a new creed by introducing an altogether new spin on deity in tandem with an equally new ethics/morals angle as well. While many Messengers may agree on the Golden Rule, the practical lens through which they present it is, in each case, altogether novel and unprecedented. It's as if they're independent of any "school" and have instead brought their own spin -- on both deity and ethics -- out of their deepest inner experience, emerging with something startlingly and genuinely new.

In some cases, even those very earliest texts seem to already impart something distinctive and related to a deeply personal and direct encounter with deity. For instance, in the very earliest stratum of the Pali/Theravada texts for Buddha, even the earliest collection of all, the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya, we see Gautama/Buddha already saying "(from time to time) a Tath¤gata is born into the world, an Arahat, a fully awakened one, abounding, in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed One, a Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe -- including the worlds above with the gods, the M¤ras, and the Brahm¤s; and the world below with its Sama¼as and Brahmans, its princes and peoples; -- and he then makes his knowledge known to others." Gautama is assumedly presenting himself as a Buddha, so he is claiming, although not in a vainglorious way, this kind of direct encounter with ultimate reality for himself by passively describing what happens with others like him.

Similarly, in the most recent scholarship on the Gospels, the parallel Jesus sayings in Matthew and Luke have been taken as probably the earliest stratum in the Gospels, possibly taken from a common lost source for Jesus' original sayings, termed "Quelle" (German for "source"), or Q, for short. In Luke 10:22, generally taken as a Q passage, a similarly direct encounter with the source of all being seems implied: "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Again, this passage also seems to imply, as in the above Buddha passage, some kind of direct, deeply personal, encounter with the metaphysical.

One could undoubtedly amplify all this with similar additional passages from the earliest strata of the earliest texts for a few other Messengers as well. But what intrigues me chiefly in this context is Socrates, and this is where the Messenger/prophet distinction comes in.

If we take it that a hallmark of the Messenger is her/his direct encounter with the metaphysical, and if we keep in mind the two passages I already cited, then a similar vetting of the earliest texts for Socrates entails a general scholarly consensus that seems to emerge with the conclusion that Plato's earliest dialogues are sharp and concentrated recollections of the single individual for whom Plato reserved his deepest respect, Socrates, while Plato's later texts may instead be extrapolations where Plato puts into the mouth of his teacher additional philosophical trains of thought that Socrates himself may not have explicitly presented but merely implied.

So, the earliest and most directly biographical texts for Socrates are generally judged to be the three works directly surrounding the Socrates trial: Euthyphro/Apology/Crito. (The text depicting his final execution, Phaedo, is assumed to be much later.) So the Euthyphro/Apology/Crito trio are what most modern scholars concentrate on as the closest to being historical. Now, the Apology apparently recalls what Socrates actually said at his trial, and some even suspect that it may have been the very first dialogue Plato ever wrote. In that dialogue, Socrates says, "Some one may wonder why I go about in private giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the state. I will tell you why. You have heard me speak at sundry times and in divers places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do. This is what deters me from being a politician."

Query:

So finally, here's the question that intrigues me -- and I freely confess I don't know how I'd answer this myself. Applying the distinction between Messenger and prophet, and keeping in mind all three passages cited above, any thoughts on this board as to whether or not one takes Socrates to be a Messenger or a prophet? A rather roundabout way, on my part, to ask a reasonably direct question, but I figured I should place it in a clear context, and these three passages seemed one way of doing so.

Thanks,

Operacast

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Operacast!

So seldom we hear from you, but this is an excellent line of inquiry!

Originally Posted by Operacast

Well, this has gotten me to thinking. The distinction between Messenger and prophet raises an intriguing question.

OK, while my understanding is certainly not definitive, here is what I believe I understand: per the Old Testament, the word translated as "angel" means "messenger." "Prophet" on the other hand iirc is someone who proclaims or preaches G-d's word. I think this may set up some semantic confusion, which is why I started here.

Originally Posted by Operacast

"For humanity to know about its creation, its reality as spiritual beings ("image of God") and the afterlife, there had to be mediaries between God and man to plant that seed of knowledge in us.

This is an interesting consideration. Who or what would have made spirituality and afterlife known to neolithic cave dwellers huddled against the cold of an ice age? Who or what served as a mediary to hunter-gatherer societies to plant the seeds of knowledge?

The various cave paintings and iconic carvings suggest to me a metaphysical reach, but for what? And what drove them to begin this process, what made them choose to pursue the reach in the first place?

And then along comes agriculture and the mental pollution brought on by the diet of grain, and this primal link to the Divine became lost.

Originally Posted by Operacast

I use "Messenger" rather than the word prophet because, while there have been hundreds (thousands?) of prophets, there have been a limited number of Messengers -- those who brought specific teachings and laws to mankind (ie., Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, et al.). The prophets were under the umbrella of those respective teachings/laws. We can never know how many Messengers there were before the written word introduced these few to history."

Here is where we get into a bit of semantic difficulty. Moses was specifically considered a prophet, and by technical extension so would Jesus be. What is more, even these you wish to call messengers did not plop down into a vacuum and begin spreading their own brand of the good news. What I am trying to say is that, as best I can tell, they each were raised in a foundational culture with a set of morals and norms, from which they then "devised" a modified set of morals and norms to establish something new. In most cases, what was established wasn't particularly viewed as new even in the prophets lifetime, but after some time had passed and that new branch began being called by the prophet's name. In other words, Jesus was not *ever* a Christian, he was a Jew. Likewise, Moses was raised in the court of Pharoah as a good Egyptian pagan, but through a series of events came to understand his Jewish roots. My understanding of Buddhism is not as thorough, but I understand Gautama to have been Hindu, that Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. I understand less of Zoroaster and Krishna.

Originally Posted by Operacast

While many Messengers may agree on the Golden Rule, the practical lens through which they present it is, in each case, altogether novel and unprecedented. It's as if they're independent of any "school" and have instead brought their own spin -- on both deity and ethics -- out of their deepest inner experience, emerging with something startlingly and genuinely new.

How does one describe the indescribable?

Which part of the elephant does each hold on to?

Which is my way of trying to say that I respectfully disagree, their views were not novel or unprecedented, that their views were based in what they grew up in and precedent set before them. Now, where I agree with you here, is that each did seem to bring about their own unique "spin" on the matter that seemed to help illuminate things for others. What they were describing though was far from genuinely new, it was a novel take on an age old metaphysical experience.

Originally Posted by Operacast

Similarly, in the most recent scholarship on the Gospels, the parallel Jesus sayings in Matthew and Luke have been taken as probably the earliest stratum in the Gospels, possibly taken from a common lost source for Jesus' original sayings, termed "Quelle" (German for "source"), or Q, for short. In Luke 10:22, generally taken as a Q passage, a similarly direct encounter with the source of all being seems implied: "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." Again, this passage also seems to imply, as in the above Buddha passage, some kind of direct, deeply personal, encounter with the metaphysical.

Not to distract, but the whole "Q" document hypothesis is speculation. Even the Jesus Seminar people are reduced to voting on which Jesus sayings are and are not accurate and true. Having said this, why would a direct, deeply personal, encounter with the metaphysical seem so rare? Or why *should* it seem rare? If a metaphysical encounter is real, it is merely another experience waiting to be discovered, at least by someone in the proper state of mind and spirit. I think the question should be why we willingly surrender our ability to experience the metaphysical encounter and defer to another to do so for us? Why have we grown afraid of the experience? What are we hiding from (or so we think)?

Originally Posted by Operacast

what intrigues me chiefly in this context is Socrates, and this is where the Messenger/prophet distinction comes in.

If we take it that a hallmark of the Messenger is her/his direct encounter with the metaphysical, and if we keep in mind the two passages I already cited, then a similar vetting of the earliest texts for Socrates entails a general scholarly consensus that seems to emerge with the conclusion that Plato's earliest dialogues are sharp and concentrated recollections of the single individual for whom Plato reserved his deepest respect, Socrates, while Plato's later texts may instead be extrapolations where Plato puts into the mouth of his teacher additional philosophical trains of thought that Socrates himself may not have explicitly presented but merely implied.

So, the earliest and most directly biographical texts for Socrates are generally judged to be the three works directly surrounding the Socrates trial: Euthyphro/Apology/Crito. (The text depicting his final execution, Phaedo, is assumed to be much later.) So the Euthyphro/Apology/Crito trio are what most modern scholars concentrate on as the closest to being historical. Now, the Apology apparently recalls what Socrates actually said at his trial, and some even suspect that it may have been the very first dialogue Plato ever wrote. In that dialogue, Socrates says, "Some one may wonder why I go about in private giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the state. I will tell you why. You have heard me speak at sundry times and in divers places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do. This is what deters me from being a politician."

Query:

So finally, here's the question that intrigues me -- and I freely confess I don't know how I'd answer this myself. Applying the distinction between Messenger and prophet, and keeping in mind all three passages cited above, any thoughts on this board as to whether or not one takes Socrates to be a Messenger or a prophet? A rather roundabout way, on my part, to ask a reasonably direct question, but I figured I should place it in a clear context, and these three passages seemed one way of doing so.

Now we get to the good stuff!

Socrates is an interesting guy to me. Like the other "messengers" he is a product of his time, culture and environment. Yet, engulfed in a sea of superstitious paganism he invents rhetoric and logic.

I don't know as much about Socrates and Plato as I would like. I may have to look at wiki when this is done. I doubt anybody in Socrates lifetime, least of all the man himself, fully realized the impact that logic would have on the Western world.

Was this a metaphysical "G-dsend?" Did Socrates have some personal and intimate direct connect to the Divine? I doubt he had any more than you or me. But something inside his brain worked just a bit different, and he chose to view the world just a bit differently than the others around him. Not different for the sake of being different (different is not always better). Socrates came up with a better way of viewing things, a way that ultimately helps us discern what is true and what is not. True that is, in the material / physical / real sense.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Not to distract, but the whole "Q" document hypothesis is speculation. Even the Jesus Seminar people are reduced to voting on which Jesus sayings are and are not accurate and true.

I agree that this scholarship has -- recently -- been pursued in a sometimes arbitrary way. What I mean when I refer to Q is simply that batch of texts, sayings, interchanges, etc., that both Matthew and Luke have uniquely in common, and that is presented in each text in a textually similar way. That is a straightforward, uncomplicated way in which all can agree on a specific stratum that has clear boundaries. The fact that highly idiomatic, sometimes idiosyncratic, sometimes extremely colloquial, turns of Koine Greek are apparently shared at identical spots in these common passages suggests a common Greek source for all of them. It makes sense to me to bracket them separately and strictly and objectively on the practical identicality of their wording in both Gospels, without breaking them down even further into more/less authentic, which is ultimately a subjective exercise, not an objective one. I don't, as some do, concentrate solely on Q, even when defined according to the cut and dried parameters I've outlined. I simply view Q as -- most likely -- the earliest stratum among many in the Synoptic Gospels.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Having said this, why would a direct, deeply personal, encounter with the metaphysical seem so rare? Or why *should* it seem rare? If a metaphysical encounter is real, it is merely another experience waiting to be discovered, at least by someone in the proper state of mind and spirit. I think the question should be why we willingly surrender our ability to experience the metaphysical encounter and defer to another to do so for us? Why have we grown afraid of the experience? What are we hiding from (or so we think)?

I was essentially using the quoted poster's definition (quoted in my OP) as a point of departure from which to pose my own query. A direct encounter with deity is what that poster seems to imply when making _his_ distinction between Messenger and Prophet. Acc. to him -- and for the sake of argument -- a Messenger brings something altogether new to the culture, presumably due to deity having communicated something direct and new to the Messenger. A Prophet, however, uses the revelation already provided by a Messenger as a springboard for reinforcing that message in various ways of her/his own. I agree that sometimes it can seem amorphous when it comes to what things are new and what things inherited. But considering that the implication of the quoted poster is that Messengers are rarer than Prophets, that points to the kind of direct divine interaction of a Messenger that he is thinking of being indeed rare by a unique quality of direct encounter that may have a tangibility beyond mere feeling.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now we get to the good stuff!

Socrates is an interesting guy to me. Like the other "messengers" he is a product of his time, culture and environment. Yet, engulfed in a sea of superstitious paganism he invents rhetoric and logic.

I don't know as much about Socrates and Plato as I would like. I may have to look at wiki when this is done. I doubt anybody in Socrates lifetime, least of all the man himself, fully realized the impact that logic would have on the Western world.

Was this a metaphysical "G-dsend?" Did Socrates have some personal and intimate direct connect to the Divine? I doubt he had any more than you or me.

I hear what you're saying. Do you feel that Buddha or Confucius, say, had any more "close encounter" with the Divine?

Just to reiterate, so those reading don't need to scroll back:

A) Buddha's (implied) self-description is

"(from time to time) a Tath¤gata is born into the world, an Arahat, a fully awakened one, abounding, in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be led, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed One, a Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe -- including the worlds above with the gods, the M¤ras, and the Brahm¤s; and the world below with its Sama¼as and Brahmans, its princes and peoples; -- and he then makes his knowledge known to others."; while

B) Confucius's self-description (in Chapter 7 of the Analects) is

7:19 Confucius said: "I was not born with wisdom. I love the ancient teachings and have worked hard to attain to their level."

7:27 Confucius said: "There may be those who can act creatively without knowledge. I am not at this level. I listen widely, select the good and follow their ways. I observe broadly and contemplate. This is the second level of knowledge."; and

C) Socrates's self-description is

"And now, Athenians, I am not going to argue for my own sake, as you may think, but for yours, that you may not sin against the God by condemning me, who am his gift to you. For if you kill me you will not easily find a successor to me,
30e
who, if I may use such a ludicrous figure of speech, am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by God; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always
31a
fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you."; and

"You have heard me speak at sundry times
31d
and in divers places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do."

Originally Posted by juantoo3

But something inside his brain worked just a bit different, and he chose to view the world just a bit differently than the others around him. Not different for the sake of being different (different is not always better). Socrates came up with a better way of viewing things, a way that ultimately helps us discern what is true and what is not. True that is, in the material / physical / real sense.

When he defines the divinity that he's encountered as a voice that says "no", is that something culturally new at the time?

Best,

Operacast

[arthra]

In the Lawh i Hikmat Baha'u'llah considered Socrates tobe a "Divine Philosopher" and also that the early Greek philiosophers learned from the Prophets ... now according to legend I've heard that Pythagoras visted Mount Carmel and acquainted himself with teh school of the prophets there on his way to Egypt.

According to the Baha'i Writings tehre are independent Prophets and dependent Prophets.. So the Independent Prophets begin a cycle or epoch under Their influence and reveal a Holy Book..this is usually a civilization. The dependent Prophets are under Their (the Independent Prophets) influence.

- Art

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by arthra

In the Lawh i Hikmat Baha'u'llah considered Socrates tobe a "Divine Philosopher" and also that the early Greek philiosophers learned from the Prophets ... now according to legend I've heard that Pythagoras visted Mount Carmel and acquainted himself with teh school of the prophets there on his way to Egypt.

According to the Baha'i Writings tehre are independent Prophets and dependent Prophets.. So the Independent Prophets begin a cycle or epoch under Their influence and reveal a Holy Book..this is usually a civilization. The dependent Prophets are under Their (the Independent Prophets) influence.

- Art

And might one argue that the civilization that Socrates started was Academia, and that his holy book is the Dialogues of Plato?

Sincerely,

Operacast

[arthra]

Originally Posted by Operacast

And might one argue that the civilization that Socrates started was Academia, and that his holy book is the Dialogues of Plato?

Sincerely,

Operacast

One could.. however, I would think it would be only a slice of the pie...

- Art