neilgodfrey

I recently finished reading Jon D Levenson's "The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (or via: amazon.co.uk)" where he argues that the "beloved son" and (in the Hebrew, yachiyd) "only begotten" son, could be almost technical terms for a favoured son who was destined to be literally or symbolically sacrificed. The proclamation that Jesus was the "beloved son" of God was possibly intended to be closely associated with the Hebrew Biblical idea of "only begotten son", and may well be "midrashically" linked with the OT stories of "beloved sons" and "only begotten sons" such as Isaac and Joseph. Levenson also thinks that some late Second Temple Jewish interpretations moved to the point where Isaac really was sacrificed and resurrected.

In short, the significance of Jesus being the beloved son of God was bound up not so much with divine origin, but rather with the atoning meaning of his sacrificial death. (Anyone interested in the details can see my book notes here.)

If so, then this could further explain why some groups rejected the idea of Jesus' sonship. As per the OP, they did not see Jesus' as a saviour figure. His saving death was a consequence of his "beloved son of God" status.

Neil

J.F. Gaul

I would rephrase that to: The gospel of Matthew wasn't called the gospel of Matthew until the late 2nd century.

aa5874

My point is that if the Ebionites did not regard Jesus as the Son of God, and this sect predated the Jesus stories, it does not make sense for the Ebionites decades later to use a gospel that clealy depicted Jesus as the Son of God.

It would seem reasonable to expect that the Ebionites would have had a text that was strictly compatible with their beliefs about their God.

J.F. Gaul

As I've already said, the language regarding Jesus in the gospel of Matthew does not contradict Ebionism.

aa5874

But, you need to show that what you say is true.

I have shown you that Matthew 16.16 contradicts the doctrine of the Ebionites, where Peter claimed Jesus is the Son of the living God.

In the previous verses, Matthew 16.14, we can clearly see that when the other disciples claimed people called Jesus, John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the porphets or just a human, that Jesus was still not satisfied and he asked his disciples again, "Whom say ye that I am?"

"Thou art the Son of the living God".

Matthew 16.13-14 Matthew 16.14 can be in agreement with the Ebionites but not Matthew 16.16. Peter has gone from the human realm to the divine.

Matthew 16.15-16

Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" was an honorific for Davidic kings. It did not imply literal divine descent.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that you are equivocating with respect to the meaning of Son of God, what is your proof that the Ebionites didn't think the title "son of God" should be used of Jesus or that they themselves never used it of him?

It is reasonable if and only if for 1st century Jews "Son of God" meant or was used with the sense of "genetically engendered by God" -- an assumption that you have produced not one whiff of data to substantiate or have ever shown to be the case.

Moreover, you seem to be unaware of the evidence in the Gospel of the Ebionites that the Ebionites did call Jesus "Son of God" and had no problems doing so even in the face of their denial that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Jeffrey

aa5874

Matthew 16.16 in context is not reference to a king.

The Jesus story in gMatthew is to established that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews who was crucified for the sins of man, rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Matthew 8.28-29 Devils are not tormented by kings. Devils are tormented by Gods, according to the NT, Matthew's devils claimed Jesus was the son of God.

Jeffrey Gibson

May we have some documentation for this claim, please, as well as for its converse, i.e., that "devils" are never presented in ancient literature as tormented by anyone except gods?

Jeffrey

aa5874

ACCORDING TO THE NT. MATTHEW 8.29