Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 06-03-2013, 07:12 AM

No obviously you don't have to consider the Alexandrian belief described by Davis. I just thought - for the sake of truthfulness - that you as a participant in the forum and someone interested in truth, might want to look at other possibilities.

You begin the book assuming that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and that the Disciple's Prayer was developed within a context of a teacher giving something to his students (although I don't recall whether you made this explicit - I'd have to read it again). Again if your book is directed at scholars this isn't necessary. But for average readers (the people who want or need those 'boxes') I think to appeal to them, you might want to address a historical context for the giving of the prayer in the first place (i.e. who was Jesus? what purpose/context was the prayer given to the disciples in 30 AD)? My only point here was that it is a rather sudden assumption to turn around and say - 'the Disciple's Prayer is about the testing of God and Jesus is God.' It seems rather unusual to imagine a Palestinian teacher to have given his students this prayer for that purpose.

Having read almost to the end of your book as it is now (you mention 'chapter X' at one point but I only saw six chapters) I thought the one scenario you left out - i.e. the parallels with the magic papyri - might work better for your assumptions. If for instance Jesus was a Palestinian teacher who incorporated magical practices into his teaching then it might make more sense to assume the identification of Jesus as 'God' here. I just don't see how the disciples would have taken the prayer to be about Jesus as God any other way.

In addition to this, if Jesus was a Palestinian magician then one might want to include the Coptic/Alexandrian idea of 'being ensouled with God' in the book. After all in some sense the Disciple's Prayer has to be about 'us' (= the disciples) otherwise why do we keep saying it? In that sense it might not be a mistake to apply the prayer to 'us.' It might be about keeping the God within it from being tested. Sort of like Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Do you not know that you are God's Sanctuary, and that the Spirit of God has His home within you?"

Again these ideas are just things that popped into my head from reading your book. They don't represent 'hobby horses' in any sense of the word. I don't normally talk about Jesus as a magician but if we are to explain the historical context of these things coming from a Palestinian teacher, I don't see how they can be avoided.

stephan huller · 06-03-2013, 07:36 AM

Another point. When you bring up the Gethsemane context it should be noted that it has been argued that Polycarp in his letter connects the story of Gethsemane and the Disciple's Prayer (7:2; cf. 6:1). Might be worth mentioning that.

stephan huller · 06-03-2013, 07:42 AM

Morton Smith does bring up the Lord's Prayer in his discussion of Jesus the Magician:

Quote:

When we look at "the Lord's prayer" (all purpose) as it stands in Mt. 6.9ft". and Lk. 11.2ff. we find that: The reference to a god as "father" and his location "in the heavens" are familiar in magical material. "Hallowing" the Name in Matthew and Luke, and "glorifying" it in John mean the same thing — making the god's Name famous, demonstrating its power by miracles, obedience, etc., so that outsiders will know and revere it. For John this was Jesus' chief function; in his final prayer to the Father before the beginning of the passion Jesus says: "Father, . . . glorify your son that your son may glorify you ... I have glorified you on earth completing the task you gave me ... I have revealed your Name to the men whom you gave me etc ... (p. 132)

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

p. 61

I am not sure you offer any evidence to support the idea that self-denial isn't supposed to be connected with asceticism. You just assert that it isn't.

I do?

Quote:

Not that it matters necessarily (I haven't gotten through to the end of the book). But I found this jarring because it goes against everything ever written on the subject without so much as a footnote or an argument.

Everything ever written??? Have you mastered all of this including what the critical commentaries on Matthew and Mark have said about the phrase -- not to mention how Jesus is said to go on and define self denial (which has nothing to do with asceticism).

Have you read the entries on ἀπαρνέομαι in LSJ and BDAG, or on ἀρνέομαι in TDNT or these studies of the expression?

A Fridrichsen, ‘selbst verleugnen’: Con. Neot. 2, ’36, 1-8. 6, ’42, 94-6, Sv. exeg. Årsbok 5, ’40, 158-62; JLebreton, La doctrine du renoncement dans le NT: Nouv. Rev. théol. 65, ’38, 385-412 or what E. Best says on it on pp. 37-38 in his Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (The University of Sheffield (J.S.O.T. Press, 1981)37–38?

How about what Chrysostom has to say on the expression in his Homilies on Matthew 55 (MPG, 58, 542)

As to a footnote, see what is said here:

Quote:

Deny himself is without doubt one of the most difficult expressions in all of Mark to translate adequately. Unfortunately, too many people have taken this expression to mean ‘to deny oneself certain pleasures or objects,’ while actually the meaning is a denial of one’s own presumed prerogatives or personal interests. The different ways of expressing this concept in various languages are highly illuminating, e.g. ‘to not accept self’ (Tetelcingo Aztec), ‘to forget self’ (Ifugao, Bolivian Quechua), ‘to have no regard for oneself’ (Barrow Eskimo), ‘not bother oneself about oneself’ (South Toradja), ‘to cover up oneself’ (Mazatec), ‘to not worship oneself’ (Mixtec), ‘to stop doing what one’s own heart wants’ (Tzeltal), ‘to not belong to oneself any longer’ (Conob), ‘to let go that which he wants to do himself’ (Kiyaka), ‘says, I will not do just what I want to do’ (Cashibo), ‘to let him say, I do not serve for anything,’ in the sense of having no personal value (Tzotzil), ‘to not do what is passing through his mind’ (Putu), ‘to not take constant thought for himself’ (Mazahua), ‘to quit what he himself wants’ (Chontal of Tabasco), ‘to undo one’s own way of thinking’ (Totonac), ‘to put his own things down’ (Gio), ‘to despise himself’ (Kekchi), ‘to refuse himself’ (Kituba), ‘to turn his back on himself’ (Javanese), ‘to disobey himself,’ in the sense of denying one’s own wishes (Black Bobo), ‘to leave himself at the side’ (Huastec), ‘to leave his own way’ (Trique), ‘to take his mind out of himself completely’ (Loma), ‘to say, I do not live for myself’ (Huanuco Quechua), and ‘to say No to oneself’ (Mitla Zapotec). Bratcher, R. G., & Nida, E. A. (1993], c1961). A handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Mark, 1961. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (265). New York: United Bible Societies.

and here:

Quote:

The call to take up the cross is preceded by ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτόν, a phrase not paralleled in the gospel tradition. The verb ἀπαρνέομαι is particularly associated with Peter’s eventual denial not of himself but of his master; in that context it means to dissociate oneself completely from someone, to sever the relationship. So the reflexive use implies perhaps to refuse to be guided by one’s own interests, to surrender control of one’s own destiny. In 2 Tim. 2:13 ἀρνήσασθαι ἑαυτόν (of God as subject) means to act contrary to his own nature, to cease to be God. What Jesus calls for here is thus a radical abandonment of one’s own identity and self-determination, and a call to join the march to the place of execution follows appropriately from this. Such ‘self-denial’ is on a different level altogether from giving up chocolates for Lent. ‘It is not the denial of something to the self, but the denial of the self itself. France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark : A commentary on the Greek text (340). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

And especially here:

Quote:

Self-Denial

Ἀπαρνεῖσθαι in connection with the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτόν is a new linguistic creation in Mark 8:34*. The basic meaning of the verb ἀρνέομαι is “to say no,” “to refuse.” The compound verb ἀπαρνεῖσθαι is intensive or identical in meaning to the simple verb. In a religious sense, with reference to gentile gods, the simple verb was used almost exclusively in Hellenistic Judaism.27 In the synoptic tradition it is rooted in the logion about confessing (Luke 12:8–9*) and in the story of Peter’s denial (Mark 14:66–72*). “To deny oneself” was presumably created as a counter-formulation to “to deny Christ.” Since the expression is new, only the context in Mark (and Matthew) can determine its meaning. It refers to the negative side of what is positively expressed with “to confess Christ” or “to follow.” Thus it is not a general ascetic ideal. To what, however, must one say “no”? The imperative aorist that is striking when used along with ἀκολουθείτω28 could indicate that it is a single act at the beginning of an ongoing way to the cross, thus, for example, a baptismal promise. In the Markan as in the Matthean context it probably means the decision no longer to make one’s own life principle “wanting-to-save-one’s-life” (Mark 8:35a*) and to abandon one’s own “I standpoint.”29 Mark 8:36* appears to indicate that it involves giving up the “winning” of possessions. Thus suffering and the willingness to renounce go together.30

The call to “self-denial” in connection with our logion has had a rich history that we will not trace here in detail.31 It was often combined with an ego- and world-denying asceticism. In a standard Catholic ethical work produced in the second half of our century, the “mortification of the imagination, of the feelings, of the emotions, and the senses” was still decisive for the “voluntary acceptance of renunciation and affliction.”32 More recently one seems to have repressed this problematic heritage of Christian tradition, at least in theology if not necessarily everywhere in church praxis.33 Only a quarter of a century later in a standard ecumenical ethical work “self-denial” is not even mentioned, and scarcely anything is said about the entire area of a special Christian lifestyle or a special ethic of the Christian church that is different from the world. Christian ethics here knows that it must answer “before the forum of critical reason” and aims at “universality.”34 The change in direction is truly fundamental,35 and in view of the way a completely secular lifestyle of a once-Christian society is taken for granted it is alarmingly conforming to me. In this situation in which the number of religious people with which a Christian tradition hostile to body and life must cope is rapidly diminishing, I have no desire to join in the general chorus about this tradition which is such a burden on us. Instead, as an exegete who at the same time is an advocate of his texts for the present, I would like to remind us of the substance that Matthew meant. “Self-denial … is not suicide, for there is an element of self-will even in that. To deny oneself is to be aware only of Christ and no more of self, to see only him who goes before and no more the road which is too hard for us.” This deliberate decision for a different orientation of life that is not focused on the ego is fundamental for all gospels. It is not a matter of practicing Christian laws or ascetic self(!)-perfection but of an alternate form of life that is not oriented toward the ego and that is made possible only by being bound to Jesus, that is, in discipleship and in the community of the followers he has created.36 One presupposes that such a life is voluntary, free of any church coercion; the twice-used θέλειν in vv. 24–25* presumably indicates a potential meaning of our text for the present. However, a “Christianity [which] has ceased to be serious about discipleship” and “can no longer see any difference between an ordinary human life and a life committed to Christ”37—which has become almost commonplace at least in Protestant national churches—probably stands about where Peter stood according to v. 22* and will also have to hear what Peter heard in v. 23*.

27 Harald Riesenfeld, “The Meaning of the Verb ἀρνεῖσθαι,” 207–19, 210–11; Spicq, Lexicon, 1.202.
28 Grammatical parallels in Mayser, Grammatik 2/1.149–50.
29 Markusevangelium 1.581. He formulates significantly that “self-denial” stands not against “self-finding,” but against the externally perhaps aggressive but finally fearful self-preservation of those who live fixated on their own ego. Good also is Bovon, Lukas 1.483: “… to bring to light one’s actual, sober, fragile ego in relation to Christ.”
* 30 Erich Fromm’s distinction “to have or to be” (To Have or to Be [New York: Harper & Row, 1976]) has a great deal to do with the issue here. Cf., e.g., pp. 155–57 (in the 1981 Bantam paperback edition). Fromm wants to remind us here that while the life-form that is identified with self-denial and the way of the cross is demanded by Jesus and is made possible through fellowship with him, it is at the same time more than a mere Christian specialty; it is rather the possibility of “finding life” in the full sense of the word (cf. v. 25*).
31 Cf. above, II C 3.3 on the history of interpretation of 10:38–39* and Louis Beirnaert, LThK 9 (1964) 630–31.
32 Bernhard Häring, The Law of Christ: Moral Theology for Priest and Laity (3 vols.; Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1966–68) 3.44, 48. Cf. above, II C 3.3 Summary (a) on the trajectory of our text.
33 Drewermann (Markusevangelium 1.574–77) offers impressive examples from the practice of marital counseling in his church which declares every marriage as indissoluble. Perhaps the problems are somewhat different in a Protestant national church in which the “law of Christ” has paled for a long time. Here it is more likely that the dominant ethos takes possessions and consumerism for granted and, if need be, justifies them as “self-actualization.” Matt 16:24* is directed against this kind of self-actualization but not against authentic “living” (v. 25*!).
34 Anselm Hertz, Wilhelm Korff, Trutz Rendtorff, and Hermann Ringeling, eds., Handbuch der christlichen Ethik (2 vols.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1979) 1.6. Missing in the index is not only “self-denial,” but also, e.g., “Sermon on the Mount,” “prayer,” or “monasticism.” Is that accidental? Yet see now Christofer Frey, Theologische Ethik (Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), s.v. “Bergpredigt” (esp. 10ff., 15ff., 159ff.).
35 Contrast Calvin’s interpretation (above, nn. 20 and 21), which begins by saying that human reason is not neutral but as “wisdom of the flesh” is an instrument of its desire for life.
36 Cf. Ulrich Luz, “Selbstverwirklichung? Nachdenkliche Überlegungen eines Neutestamentlers,” in Friedrich de Boor, ed., Selbstverwirklichung als theologisches und anthropologisches Problem (Halle: Martin Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 1988) 132–52.
37 Quotations from Bonhoeffer, Cost, 77–78.

Luz, U., & Koester, H. (2001). Matthew : A commentary. Translation of: Das Evangelium nach Matthaus.; Vol. 2 translated by James E. Crouch ; edited by Helmut Koester.; Vol. 2 published by Fortress Press. (383). Minneapolis: Augsburg.

I think you are letting your bias that 3rd century readings of synoptic texts are determinative of their first century meaning, not to mention what appears to be a fundamental lack of acquaintance with the critical literature/scholarship on the Gospels, show through here.

I wish you'd stop this when it comes to evaluating what I've written. It is methodologically unsound and it borders on hobby horse riding.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

My only point here was that it is a rather sudden assumption to turn around and say - 'the Disciple's Prayer is about the testing of God and Jesus is God.'

But I don't say this!

Quote:

Having read almost to the end of your book as it is now (you mention 'chapter X' at one point but I only saw six chapters) I thought the one scenario you left out - i.e. the parallels with the magic papyri - might work better for your assumptions.

Why? What is/are the date(s) and provenance(s) of the papyri in which the LP/DP is referenced?

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 06-03-2013, 08:13 AM

"Everything ever written" meaning ancient writers.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

"Everything ever written" meaning ancient writers.

Names and citations, please.

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 06-03-2013, 08:21 AM

And I'm not dragged into an argument. I quite liked your book and found it illuminating. I just mention things I thought you left out or didn't give a fair enough shake. I don't know what we are supposed to be doing here? Acting as cheerleaders?

One of the strengths of the book is that it doesn't get bogged down in abstractions. You want to get to your big revelation but I think sometimes you push aside opposing arguments too quickly or pretend things are settled through a paragraph. Not a big deal.

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-03-2013, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And I'm not dragged into an argument. I quite liked your book and found it illuminating. I just mention things I thought you left out or didn't give a fair enough shake. I don't know what we are supposed to be doing here? Acting as cheerleaders?

Not at all. But why I have to give a fair shake to things you've misrepresented and/or are irrelevant/anachronistic to what I'm arguing is beyond me.

I do thank you for offering suggestions, but I'd be grateful if you'd limit them to informed and relevant ones and to make sure that what you see are "opposing arguments" really have any weight or merit.

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 06-03-2013, 08:36 AM

Well, as I am about to run out the door, let's start with the question of what audience you have in mind for the book. You start off with those boxes and then they disappear after forty pages or so. I think - as a suggestion - that if you average people in mind I think they are probably going to walk away with the same questions that I had about the historical context of Jesus introducing the prayer to his disciples. You don't have to do this for a strictly academic publication. They are aware of all or most of the things that have been written and are happy to stay within that bubble suspending the need to go back to basic questions like 'what does this say about Jesus and his disciples?'

But one of the things about developing a book about the 'Lord's Prayer' is that people are so intimate with it. They literally imagine themselves participating with Jesus and the disciples when they say it together as a 'timeless event.' People have very strong preconceived notions about what this all means.

Most of the scholars I have been read lately push aside the historical nature of the prayer - i.e. they are willing to say it was invented by the gospel writers and might not have anything to with the historical Jesus. This leaves them free to ignore the greater historical questions of who Jesus was. But because you spend a chapter or two investigating the historical Jesus, his relationship with the synagogue etc. I think the reader - assuming your readership includes non-scholars - is going to expect some more fleshing out of the historical context of the giving of the prayer.

Now I haven't finished the book. So maybe you should give me a few hours, I will get home later and read the handful of pages I haven't read yet. That would probably be the best thing to do.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2013, 07:12 AM	#31
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No obviously you don't have to consider the Alexandrian belief described by Davis. I just thought - for the sake of truthfulness - that you as a participant in the forum and someone interested in truth, might want to look at other possibilities. You begin the book assuming that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew and that the Disciple's Prayer was developed within a context of a teacher giving something to his students (although I don't recall whether you made this explicit - I'd have to read it again). Again if your book is directed at scholars this isn't necessary. But for average readers (the people who want or need those 'boxes') I think to appeal to them, you might want to address a historical context for the giving of the prayer in the first place (i.e. who was Jesus? what purpose/context was the prayer given to the disciples in 30 AD)? My only point here was that it is a rather sudden assumption to turn around and say - 'the Disciple's Prayer is about the testing of God and Jesus is God.' It seems rather unusual to imagine a Palestinian teacher to have given his students this prayer for that purpose. Having read almost to the end of your book as it is now (you mention 'chapter X' at one point but I only saw six chapters) I thought the one scenario you left out - i.e. the parallels with the magic papyri - might work better for your assumptions. If for instance Jesus was a Palestinian teacher who incorporated magical practices into his teaching then it might make more sense to assume the identification of Jesus as 'God' here. I just don't see how the disciples would have taken the prayer to be about Jesus as God any other way. In addition to this, if Jesus was a Palestinian magician then one might want to include the Coptic/Alexandrian idea of 'being ensouled with God' in the book. After all in some sense the Disciple's Prayer has to be about 'us' (= the disciples) otherwise why do we keep saying it? In that sense it might not be a mistake to apply the prayer to 'us.' It might be about keeping the God within it from being tested. Sort of like Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 3:16 "Do you not know that you are God's Sanctuary, and that the Spirit of God has His home within you?" Again these ideas are just things that popped into my head from reading your book. They don't represent 'hobby horses' in any sense of the word. I don't normally talk about Jesus as a magician but if we are to explain the historical context of these things coming from a Palestinian teacher, I don't see how they can be avoided.

06-03-2013, 07:36 AM	#32
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Another point. When you bring up the Gethsemane context it should be noted that it has been argued that Polycarp in his letter connects the story of Gethsemane and the Disciple's Prayer (7:2; cf. 6:1). Might be worth mentioning that.

06-03-2013, 08:13 AM	#36
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	"Everything ever written" meaning ancient writers.

06-03-2013, 08:21 AM	#38
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And I'm not dragged into an argument. I quite liked your book and found it illuminating. I just mention things I thought you left out or didn't give a fair enough shake. I don't know what we are supposed to be doing here? Acting as cheerleaders? One of the strengths of the book is that it doesn't get bogged down in abstractions. You want to get to your big revelation but I think sometimes you push aside opposing arguments too quickly or pretend things are settled through a paragraph. Not a big deal.

06-03-2013, 08:36 AM	#40
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well, as I am about to run out the door, let's start with the question of what audience you have in mind for the book. You start off with those boxes and then they disappear after forty pages or so. I think - as a suggestion - that if you average people in mind I think they are probably going to walk away with the same questions that I had about the historical context of Jesus introducing the prayer to his disciples. You don't have to do this for a strictly academic publication. They are aware of all or most of the things that have been written and are happy to stay within that bubble suspending the need to go back to basic questions like 'what does this say about Jesus and his disciples?' But one of the things about developing a book about the 'Lord's Prayer' is that people are so intimate with it. They literally imagine themselves participating with Jesus and the disciples when they say it together as a 'timeless event.' People have very strong preconceived notions about what this all means. Most of the scholars I have been read lately push aside the historical nature of the prayer - i.e. they are willing to say it was invented by the gospel writers and might not have anything to with the historical Jesus. This leaves them free to ignore the greater historical questions of who Jesus was. But because you spend a chapter or two investigating the historical Jesus, his relationship with the synagogue etc. I think the reader - assuming your readership includes non-scholars - is going to expect some more fleshing out of the historical context of the giving of the prayer. Now I haven't finished the book. So maybe you should give me a few hours, I will get home later and read the handful of pages I haven't read yet. That would probably be the best thing to do.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.