In order to appreciate the mild irony of my title, one might recall the previous section on Economics, where the great Scotsman Adam Smith was one of our principal characters. Needless to say, except for the amusing verbal association, the present title has nothing to do with either Adam Smith or economics, for that matter. Here we are talking about religious prophets, from the first man Adam (was he a “prophet,” and what about Eve?) to the last reasonably authentic prophet of a legitimate religion: Joseph Smith of the Mormons. (I shall definitely ignore the claims of prophet status of institutional persons among the Mormons, and among other religions, as well as of wholesale religious sects and denominations bestowing this status on all members.)
There are several major controversies concerning the prophet status, and, surprisingly, they are not limited to the question of which religions are legitimate, and which are not. It is one thing to deny such a status to, say, Joseph Smith, by all those who reject the religious legitimacy of Mormonism, but quite another thing to have a sharp difference of opinions within the monotheistic cluster of Abrahamic religions, and even among the mainstream Christians themselves. These controversies and the resulting discrepancies point to the fact that, just like with the befuddled situation with the Christian Canon (please see my entry The Stumbling Stone Of The Christian Canon posted on January 16, 2011 as part of the mega-entry And When She Was… Good She Was Horrid), the very definition of a prophet has not been set to anybody’s satisfaction. (In fact, only those are satisfied with it who are blissfully ignorant about this matter.)
Before we move on with this, let us first consult our frequent source of short ‘official’ definitions, Webster’s Dictionary, on what it says is a “prophet.” Being totally unconcerned with figurative meanings, we dismiss them from our consideration, focusing exclusively on the literal religion-related meaning.---
"Prophet:
"1. A person who speaks for God or a god, or as though under divine guidance.
"2. A religious teacher or leader regarded as, or claiming to be, divinely inspired."
In addition to these two definitions (out of four, the other two being figurative) Webster’s Dictionary names Muhammad as the Prophet of Islam, and Smith as the Prophet of Mormonism, and also names the Prophets, or Neviim, as the writers of the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Can the reader see how demonstrably incomplete and helpless (as opposed to helpful) our Webster’s Dictionary proves itself to be in this case?…
I shall not argue in this entry about the ecumenical legitimacy of such non-Abrahamic prophets as Zoroaster and Mani of Persia or the Buddha or even Confucius of the Chinese, and others. Such a discussion would be beside the point. From this point on, I shall avoid any unnecessary controversy, to stay focused on my subject in its narrowest and ostensibly least controversial application, which, as the reader is about to find out, is no less controversial, to say the least.
In other words, from now on, I am limiting myself just to those Abrahamic Prophets who appear in the Old and New Testaments of Judaism and Christianity, and who are also recognized by the religion of Islam (yet not appearing exclusively in the Holy Koran).
Our far from trivial discussion will now focus on the principal characters of the Holy Bible, recognized as exceptional persons by all three great monotheistic religions, and yet only some of these are given the status of prophet by some, while not by others. The question is why?
Thus, we are starting with the first man of monotheism, Adam. He was directly created by God, and literally inspired by God, and he lived in constant communication with God, at least until the Fall. Apparently, such experience with God was not enough to qualify him as a Prophet in the eyes of the Jews and the Christians, because he only spoke to God and listened to God, but in the official Biblical record he never spoke for God and never delivered God’s message to the rest of humanity (which included his children and their progeny). Yet, Adam is recognized as the first Prophet of Islam, and I tend to agree, at least for the reason of Adam’s special relationship with his Creator and for the other reasons stated above. Although Adam is not a prophet in Christianity, he and his two sons, Abel and Seth, are counted as the earliest Saints in Orthodox Christian liturgy. Dante, the Roman Catholic, has him seated with Virgin Mary and Saint Peter in Paradise… This is probably even better than being a prophet, but still, in Christianity, even if it treats him better than Judaism does, Adam is not seen as a Prophet.
Our next Biblical character of interest is Enoch, described as greater than Abraham and holier than Moses. According to the Bible, he was taken to Heaven by God, body and soul, without experiencing death. There is too little information about him in the Bible proper, but from what the Bible says about him, it is possible to surmise that he did not keep God’s message to himself, but shared it with other people, thus qualifying as a bona fide prophet. Understandably and logically, he is a genuine prophet in Islam, but in Christianity there are opposing views as to his prophet status. Nevertheless, even though contested, he may be counted as the only pre-Abrahamic prophet in Christianity, but he is not counted as such in Judaism, where the list begins with Abraham as the first prophet of Judaism. (Out of forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses.) Reader, be not confused by the unofficial opinions, passing off several pre-Abrahamic personalities as Prophets of Judaism, which is not their authorized designation.
The most surprising omission of a bona fide prophet is that of Noah, who is unequivocally honored as such only in Islam (once again, be not confused by the unauthorized opinions that he is a prophet in the other two Abrahamic religions!), and that--- despite the fact that not only did Noah talk to God, but he also spoke for God to his wife, his sons, and their wives (we could probably assume that he did not speak on behalf of God to his curious neighbors), and thus he should qualify as a prophet in all religions of the Bible, and yet, so far, only the Koran has been consistent in its naming of the Biblical prophets.
Another great surprise is the omission of Daniel as a Prophet in Judaism (although he is honored as such in Christianity and in Islam). Apparently, there was a purely formal reason for his exclusion from the Neviim in the Jewish Bible, that is, because the Book of Daniel was written on the wrong side of the deadline used in closing the canon. Without denying legitimacy to Daniel himself, denying him the status of a Jewish prophet for this purely arbitrary chronological reason, best demonstrates the point that I am making in this entry.
Having parted ways with Judaism already, in the person of the Prophet Daniel, we are now in the domain of the New Testament, where Christianity, up to a (theological) point, keeps company with Islam. There are three Prophets in the New Testament: John the Baptist, or John the Forerunner; Jesus Christ; and John Theologos, or John of Patmos (so called because he spent the last years of his life exiled to the Greek island of Patmos). John the Baptist gets a particularly reverential treatment in Russian and other Orthodox Churches, who view him as the last of the Old Testament Prophets and who take a special notice of the following words of Jesus, in Luke 7:28: “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist…” (But then, how does one account for the end of this sentence?---) “…but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Does it mean that being a Prophet of God makes one less than the least in the kingdom of God? As far as my own take on this enigmatic sentence is concerned, without claiming an overall comprehension, I attribute this "smallness" to the Prophet’s overwhelming humility, his personal stature utterly dwarfed by the immenseness of God’s message, obliterating, by contrast, the separate identity of the messenger.
Having said that, I still cannot quite comprehend how come the Apostles of Jesus, Saint Paul prominently among them, have not been given the status of Prophets, although they have met every criterion to deserve that status? If that is to say that the status of Apostle is higher than that of the Prophet, I will agree with the possible explanation that a Prophet can be an involuntary mouthpiece of God, whereas the Apostle chooses to be one (the superiority of the apostle over the prophet is explicitly stated by Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 12:28), but still I would be stunned to find this to be the defining distinction. Was Jesus a Prophet of God, or was Moses one? The Prophet Jonah was by no means a will-less tool in God’s hands: at the end of his story in the Bible, he obviously makes the conscious choice of becoming God’s Prophet, overcoming his previous opposition. There is nothing involuntary in the actions of the Prophet Job either, etc.
I am truly perplexed by the enigma of the status of Prophet in the Bible, and I still cannot comprehend its deep, and probably inscrutable, mystery.
Was Jesus the Prophet less important to Christianity than Paul the Apostle, by exactly the same pattern as in the “latter days” Joseph Smith the Prophet was definitely less momentous to Mormonism than his “Apostle” Brigham Young? Although there is a big school of thought insisting on exactly this conclusion, I somehow refuse to accept this view, as detrimental to religion.
…As to Luke 7:28, I confess to being unable to solve this verse’s riddle, and I doubt that I ever will. Good luck to all brave interpreters of this verse, but I will never accept any of their interpretations as definitive.
“…And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:8-9.)
There are several major controversies concerning the prophet status, and, surprisingly, they are not limited to the question of which religions are legitimate, and which are not. It is one thing to deny such a status to, say, Joseph Smith, by all those who reject the religious legitimacy of Mormonism, but quite another thing to have a sharp difference of opinions within the monotheistic cluster of Abrahamic religions, and even among the mainstream Christians themselves. These controversies and the resulting discrepancies point to the fact that, just like with the befuddled situation with the Christian Canon (please see my entry The Stumbling Stone Of The Christian Canon posted on January 16, 2011 as part of the mega-entry And When She Was… Good She Was Horrid), the very definition of a prophet has not been set to anybody’s satisfaction. (In fact, only those are satisfied with it who are blissfully ignorant about this matter.)
Before we move on with this, let us first consult our frequent source of short ‘official’ definitions, Webster’s Dictionary, on what it says is a “prophet.” Being totally unconcerned with figurative meanings, we dismiss them from our consideration, focusing exclusively on the literal religion-related meaning.---
"Prophet:
"1. A person who speaks for God or a god, or as though under divine guidance.
"2. A religious teacher or leader regarded as, or claiming to be, divinely inspired."
In addition to these two definitions (out of four, the other two being figurative) Webster’s Dictionary names Muhammad as the Prophet of Islam, and Smith as the Prophet of Mormonism, and also names the Prophets, or Neviim, as the writers of the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Can the reader see how demonstrably incomplete and helpless (as opposed to helpful) our Webster’s Dictionary proves itself to be in this case?…
I shall not argue in this entry about the ecumenical legitimacy of such non-Abrahamic prophets as Zoroaster and Mani of Persia or the Buddha or even Confucius of the Chinese, and others. Such a discussion would be beside the point. From this point on, I shall avoid any unnecessary controversy, to stay focused on my subject in its narrowest and ostensibly least controversial application, which, as the reader is about to find out, is no less controversial, to say the least.
In other words, from now on, I am limiting myself just to those Abrahamic Prophets who appear in the Old and New Testaments of Judaism and Christianity, and who are also recognized by the religion of Islam (yet not appearing exclusively in the Holy Koran).
Our far from trivial discussion will now focus on the principal characters of the Holy Bible, recognized as exceptional persons by all three great monotheistic religions, and yet only some of these are given the status of prophet by some, while not by others. The question is why?
Thus, we are starting with the first man of monotheism, Adam. He was directly created by God, and literally inspired by God, and he lived in constant communication with God, at least until the Fall. Apparently, such experience with God was not enough to qualify him as a Prophet in the eyes of the Jews and the Christians, because he only spoke to God and listened to God, but in the official Biblical record he never spoke for God and never delivered God’s message to the rest of humanity (which included his children and their progeny). Yet, Adam is recognized as the first Prophet of Islam, and I tend to agree, at least for the reason of Adam’s special relationship with his Creator and for the other reasons stated above. Although Adam is not a prophet in Christianity, he and his two sons, Abel and Seth, are counted as the earliest Saints in Orthodox Christian liturgy. Dante, the Roman Catholic, has him seated with Virgin Mary and Saint Peter in Paradise… This is probably even better than being a prophet, but still, in Christianity, even if it treats him better than Judaism does, Adam is not seen as a Prophet.
Our next Biblical character of interest is Enoch, described as greater than Abraham and holier than Moses. According to the Bible, he was taken to Heaven by God, body and soul, without experiencing death. There is too little information about him in the Bible proper, but from what the Bible says about him, it is possible to surmise that he did not keep God’s message to himself, but shared it with other people, thus qualifying as a bona fide prophet. Understandably and logically, he is a genuine prophet in Islam, but in Christianity there are opposing views as to his prophet status. Nevertheless, even though contested, he may be counted as the only pre-Abrahamic prophet in Christianity, but he is not counted as such in Judaism, where the list begins with Abraham as the first prophet of Judaism. (Out of forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses.) Reader, be not confused by the unofficial opinions, passing off several pre-Abrahamic personalities as Prophets of Judaism, which is not their authorized designation.
The most surprising omission of a bona fide prophet is that of Noah, who is unequivocally honored as such only in Islam (once again, be not confused by the unauthorized opinions that he is a prophet in the other two Abrahamic religions!), and that--- despite the fact that not only did Noah talk to God, but he also spoke for God to his wife, his sons, and their wives (we could probably assume that he did not speak on behalf of God to his curious neighbors), and thus he should qualify as a prophet in all religions of the Bible, and yet, so far, only the Koran has been consistent in its naming of the Biblical prophets.
Another great surprise is the omission of Daniel as a Prophet in Judaism (although he is honored as such in Christianity and in Islam). Apparently, there was a purely formal reason for his exclusion from the Neviim in the Jewish Bible, that is, because the Book of Daniel was written on the wrong side of the deadline used in closing the canon. Without denying legitimacy to Daniel himself, denying him the status of a Jewish prophet for this purely arbitrary chronological reason, best demonstrates the point that I am making in this entry.
Having parted ways with Judaism already, in the person of the Prophet Daniel, we are now in the domain of the New Testament, where Christianity, up to a (theological) point, keeps company with Islam. There are three Prophets in the New Testament: John the Baptist, or John the Forerunner; Jesus Christ; and John Theologos, or John of Patmos (so called because he spent the last years of his life exiled to the Greek island of Patmos). John the Baptist gets a particularly reverential treatment in Russian and other Orthodox Churches, who view him as the last of the Old Testament Prophets and who take a special notice of the following words of Jesus, in Luke 7:28: “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist…” (But then, how does one account for the end of this sentence?---) “…but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” Does it mean that being a Prophet of God makes one less than the least in the kingdom of God? As far as my own take on this enigmatic sentence is concerned, without claiming an overall comprehension, I attribute this "smallness" to the Prophet’s overwhelming humility, his personal stature utterly dwarfed by the immenseness of God’s message, obliterating, by contrast, the separate identity of the messenger.
Having said that, I still cannot quite comprehend how come the Apostles of Jesus, Saint Paul prominently among them, have not been given the status of Prophets, although they have met every criterion to deserve that status? If that is to say that the status of Apostle is higher than that of the Prophet, I will agree with the possible explanation that a Prophet can be an involuntary mouthpiece of God, whereas the Apostle chooses to be one (the superiority of the apostle over the prophet is explicitly stated by Apostle Paul in I Corinthians 12:28), but still I would be stunned to find this to be the defining distinction. Was Jesus a Prophet of God, or was Moses one? The Prophet Jonah was by no means a will-less tool in God’s hands: at the end of his story in the Bible, he obviously makes the conscious choice of becoming God’s Prophet, overcoming his previous opposition. There is nothing involuntary in the actions of the Prophet Job either, etc.
I am truly perplexed by the enigma of the status of Prophet in the Bible, and I still cannot comprehend its deep, and probably inscrutable, mystery.
Was Jesus the Prophet less important to Christianity than Paul the Apostle, by exactly the same pattern as in the “latter days” Joseph Smith the Prophet was definitely less momentous to Mormonism than his “Apostle” Brigham Young? Although there is a big school of thought insisting on exactly this conclusion, I somehow refuse to accept this view, as detrimental to religion.
…As to Luke 7:28, I confess to being unable to solve this verse’s riddle, and I doubt that I ever will. Good luck to all brave interpreters of this verse, but I will never accept any of their interpretations as definitive.
“…And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:8-9.)
No comments:
Post a Comment