Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 01-08-2008, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

"ascetic" is an inappropriate descriptor to apply to Jesus as depicted in the Gospels.

Someone whom Matthew says
teaches that fasting and prayer
are required for certain types of
"Healing"; and someone who
actually undertakes a fast for
40 days is usually described as
some type of ascetic.

It is thus not inappropriate to
examine some of these teachings
as relevant to known ascetic
practices. What's the big deal?

I am taking the time to examine the
presentation of the ascetic life of
Jesus Christ with respect to the
authority of the ancient ascetics.

What is so inappropriate about this?

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-08-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But you haven't shown that the "fasting" of Jesus noted in the story is an exercise in self discipline, let alone one that Jesus consciously chose to undertake. What is it specifically in the story that in your eyes indicates that it is?

Matthew 6:16
[ Fasting ]
"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do,
for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting.
I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

Nice dodge, Pete. I ask you to provide me with evidence from Matt. 4:1-13//Lk. 4:1-11 that shows that the "fasting" of Jesus noted in the story recounted in those specific verses is an exercise in self discipline that Jesus consciously and freely chose to undertake, and that the story that the story itself was constructed specifically with an eye to making fun of Asclepius. But do you do this? Nope. Instead you adduce a text that is not from that story and that has to do with people other than Jesus fasting in circumstances far different than those in which the wilderness "testing" story speaks of Jesus not eating, and you remain silent on the question of what it is within the "testing" story that evokes, recalls, can bee seen as burlesquing the traditions of Asclepius as a healer.

In other words, you are admitting that there's nothing in the wilderness "testing" story that supports your claims. If there were, you would have pointed it out.

Quote:

Matthew 6:18
so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting,
but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father,
who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I also note that you have yet to answer my question of why 1st century Jews fasted, which they did with some regularity. Was it or was it not for the same reasons that Hindu ascetics did so?

Quote:

Not a single one of them [i.e. your stubs that allegedly show that Asclepius was an ascetic] is, so far as I can see, a primary source. More importantly, not a single one of them presents Asclepius as an ascetic.

What specifically is your evidence that he was? Do the primary sources say that he was?

Quote:

The therapeutae and priests of Asclepius were healers, and ascetics.

I'm not interested in the priests of Ascelpius. I'm interested in Asclepius.

Quote:

See Philo.

Where does Philo speak of Asclepius? Do you know?

Quote:

Surely you understand that Ascepius is mythologically the son of Apollo.

Not according to Hesiod (see Catalogues fr. 50-- where he is noted to be the son of Arsinoe). But even if he was (as he is in Pindar), so what? It's irrelevant to the question at hand -- namely, whether he was ever depicted as an ascetic. Either there are ancient sources that describe this son of Apollo/Arsinoe as one who was an ascetic or there are not. Your claim that, whatever his parentage, Asclepius was known to have been an ascetic entails not only that ancient sources did describe him as such, but that you know what these sources are.

So what are they? "Chapter and verse", please.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-08-2008, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

"ascetic" is an inappropriate descriptor to apply to Jesus as depicted in the Gospels.

Someone whom Matthew says
teaches that fasting and prayer
are required for certain types of
"Healing"; and someone who
actually undertakes a fast for
40 days is usually described as
some type of ascetic.

Usually described? By whom?

Are Muslims who fast during Ramadan for the purpose of empathizing with the poor, ascetics?

At best, and especially since the "fast" that Jesus undertook in the wilderness
is not described in the accounts of that event as something Jesus voluntraily undertook, let alone as an exercise in self discipline that brings him some new insight into the true nature of the world or greater command of his impulses, the best that can be said is that Jesus prescribed what appear to be (but in a Jewish culture, were not considered to be) a particular "ascetic" practice which, notably, did not have the same end or goal or motivation as that which the practice of "fasting" normally has among Hindus who practice it.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 01-08-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Someone whom Matthew says
teaches that fasting and prayer are required for certain types of
"Healing"; and someone who actually undertakes a fast for
40 days is usually described as some type of ascetic.

Not if the fasting and prayer in question are quite clearly and explicitly presented in the context of Jewish tradition. By your clearly flawed reasoning, all Jews were ascetics.

mountainman · 01-08-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Someone whom Matthew says
teaches that fasting and prayer are required for certain types of
"Healing"; and someone who actually undertakes a fast for
40 days is usually described as some type of ascetic.

Not if the fasting and prayer in question are quite clearly and explicitly presented in the context of Jewish tradition.

The story in the gospels presents a Master and a flock
of Disciples. It presents a leader and some followers.
The leader instructs his followers in processes related
to healing which involve prayer and fasting. The Guru
himself fasts for 40 days. This is ascetic practice, if
one is Jewish, or if one is an Eskimo.

Quote:

By your clearly flawed reasoning, all Jews were ascetics.

I have provided a list of issues to be considered
when making reference to the term "ascetic".
In case you missed this clearly flawed list:

It may involve some or all of the following (eg)

* vegetarianism,
* yoga,
* various forms of self-discipline,
* food intake
* drug independence (of various forms)
* perhaps seclusion (monastic or otherwise)
* perhaps issues of renunciation of the TV, newspapers, etc
* perhaps issues related to "consumerism", etc.
* a vow of silence is a form of ascetism, for example.
* prayer may also seen to be a form of ascetic practice
* some see walking, swimming, surfing, etc - exercise as ascetic
* meditation of various forms, traditions
* this list is not intended to be definitive or complete or prioritised.

Your claim about flawed reasoning failed to make
reference to my groundwork. Who has the problem?

Clearly, if the Jewish tradition has someone fasting
one day a month, then this represents a small step
in the dimension of ascetic practice.

But we are not talking about anyone here, we are talking
about the central character presented by the gospel authors
who was supposed to be some form of "holy man" who,
as is the case in many if not all traditions, is associated
with various forms of ascetic practices, and as an ascetic
in general. Use Pythagoras or Buddha as examples if
you wish.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 01-08-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I ask you to provide me with evidence from Matt. 4:1-13//Lk. 4:1-11 that shows that the "fasting" of Jesus noted in the story recounted in those specific verses is an exercise in self discipline that Jesus consciously and freely chose to undertake

The psychoanalysis of Jesus is best left to the experts.
You appear to know what your doing. I assume you
have a degree in the relevant field.

I am simply interested in the degree of his asceticism as
might be assessed by an independent observer, as is
revealed by the authors of the gospels.

Quote:

In other words, you are admitting that there's nothing in the wilderness "testing" story that supports your claims. If there were, you would have pointed it out.

The "wilderness business" included a 40 day fast.
This is an exessively ascetic practice, and in all
likelihood requires a great deal of ascetic preparation
in order to actually survive it.

I dont have any medical reports handy right now on
my desk Jeffrey, but I imagine there has been some
scientific research done in this field at some stage.

Quote:

I also note that you have yet to answer my question of why 1st century Jews fasted, which they did with some regularity.

Philo tells us that the Essenic Jews were essentially "Pythagorean".
The Pythagoreans had defined ascetic practices.
The Essenic Jews (at least) followed the Pythagoreans.
All these people followed earlier traditions.
The Egyptians were well regarded in ascetic practices.

Quote:

Was it or was it not for the same reasons that Hindu ascetics did so?

Buddhist ascetics. Hindu ascetics. Egyptian ascetics.
Pythagorean/Hellenic ascetics. They are all known
for their tradition of asceticism. It involves in simplicity
their understanding of their embodied soul, which is
neither Hindu or Eskimo or Jewish, but is simply the
human condition.

Quote:

I'm not interested in the priests of Ascelpius. I'm interested in Asclepius.

The temple structure and its thousand year custodial
archaeological presence cannot be obviated by your
own interests in this.

Quote:

Surely you understand that Ascepius is mythologically the son of Apollo.

Not according to Hesiod (see Catalogues fr. 50-- where he is noted to be the son of Arsinoe). But even if he was (as he is in Pindar), so what? It's irrelevant to the question at hand -- namely, whether he was ever depicted as an ascetic. Either there are ancient sources that describe this son of Apollo/Arsinoe as one who was an ascetic or there are not. Your claim that, whatever his parentage, Asclepius was known to have been an ascetic entails not only that ancient sources did describe him as such, but that you know what these sources are.

So what are they? "Chapter and verse", please.

Despite your assertions to the contrary, my research work
The Ministry of the Ascetics - Essenes, Therapeutae and Asclepius
contains the sources for my claims. The table is hyperlinked to
individual citations and sources below it.

If you want me to quote just one of the many sources
compiled and cited under this tabulated index, here is
one by the Emperor Julian:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BULLBURNER

Against the Galilaeans

Asclepius: the Greatest Gift of the Helenes

I had almost forgotten the greatest of the gifts of Helios and Zeus. But naturally I kept it for the last. And indeed it is not peculiar to us Romans only, but we share it, I think, with the Hellenes our kinsmen. I mean to say that Zeus engendered Asclepius from himself among the intelligible gods, and through the life of generative Helios he revealed him to the earth. Asclepius, having made his visitation to earth from the sky, appeared at Epidaurus singly, in the shape of a man; but afterwards he multiplied himself, and by his visitations stretched out over the whole earth his saving right hand. He came to Pergamon, to Ionia, to Tarentum afterwards; and later he came to Rome. And he travelled to Cos and thence to Aegae. Next he is present everywhere on land and sea. He visits no one of us separately, and yet he raises up souls that are sinful and bodies that are sick.

Julian is talking about the appearance of the "Asclepia".
The Healing Centers of the Healing God Asclepius.

Asclepius was the "mythical originator".
See then Pythagoras and especially Hippocrates.

The people who staffed these "Asclepia" for the
period 500BCE to 500 CE were ascetics of various
degrees, as were the head priests. Irrespective of
whether the original (pre 500 BCE) Asclepius was
an ascetic, the thousand years full of his priests,
attendants and therapeutae were ascetics.

The asceticism and the documented "healing skills"
of the therapeutae of Asclepius were somehow closely
linked.

This is exactly the same message that the gospel authors
would present. The gospel authors present Jesus as
someone who heals by the use of fasting, and as one
who instructs his students in healing by making reference
to the activity of fasting (ie: one of the forms of ascetic
practice).

What I continue to ponder is why these same authors
portray Jesus as an adept of the spiritual path, who
advocates fasting to accumulate "healing power", but
who is clearly ALSO presented as meat-eating and wine
drinking --- thereby publishing the condonment of these
practices in antithesis to the ancient ascetic practices
shared by the therapeutae of Asclepius, to whom even
Eusebius reports, "thousands flocked".

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 01-08-2008, 02:56 PM

Fasting =/=

Asceticism

"Asceticism describes a life characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures (austerity)."

Fasting, on the other hand, is a temporary abstinence from food. It is practiced for religious reasons and also for health. In the low-tech ancient world, with few advanced medical treatments, fasting was a common response to various medical problems.

Does this clarify things? If you sleep for 8 hours a night, you are not a narcoleptic. If you fast for a day or two (or 40), you are not an "incomplete ascetic," just someone who fasts for a day or two.

What exactly is the point of this thread, since the premise of the OP is so clearly wrong? The NT does not portray Jesus as an ascetic.

Not everyone who practices some form of temporary abstaining can be labeled an ascetic.

Amaleq13 · 01-08-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Your claim about flawed reasoning failed to make reference to my groundwork. Who has the problem?

Your "groundwork" is irrelevant to the flawed reasoning involved in your insistence that Jesus be considered some sort of ascetic when that is clearly contradicted by the texts.

Quote:

Clearly, if the Jewish tradition has someone fasting one day a month, then this represents a small step in the dimension of ascetic practice.

Certainly too small a step to warrant the gargantuan leap you take to your assumption/conclusion.

Quote:

But we are not talking about anyone here, we are talking about the central character presented by the gospel authors who was supposed to be some form of "holy man" who, as is the case in many if not all traditions, is associated with various forms of ascetic practices, and as an ascetic
in general.

We are talking about a character who, despite any connection between his 40 day fast and asceticism, explicitly denies being an ascetic.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-09-2008, 09:31 AM

In the FWIW department:

Here's a (draft) section from my work on the Q version of the wilderness "temptation" narrative that deals with the question of the background of the text -- in which I argue that this background is most assuredly the story of Israel's wilderness testing as recounted in Deut. 6-9.

Once you have read this, Pete, I'd like like you to tell me: "yes" or "no" is the story of Israel's testing in the wilderness the primary background to Matt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13.

Jeffrey

Quote:

It is often claimed that form critically, the closest parallels to the Q temptation story are to be found in the accounts of disputations over the Law or the interpretation of Scripture in Haggadic midrash.

Cf. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), p. 254; E. Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu (Lund: Gleerup, 1953), p. 17; W.D. Davies and D.C. Allinson, Matthew, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), p. 352; Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, p. 90.

This is true so far as one's focus is limited primarily to the section of the story devoted to the episodes of temptation themselves, where the Devil petitions Jesus and Jesus responds with Scriptural quotations (i.e., Mt. 4.3-10//Lk. 4.3-12). But when we take the story in its entirety and consider form-critically and from a literary critical and thematic point of view, the shape given it by the notice of the baptism (Mt. 3.13, 16-17//Lk. 3.21-22) and the frame of Mt. 4.1-2, 11//Lk. 4.1-2, 13, then the story's closest and most complementary parallels are those stories in Biblical and related literature given over to portraying a "servant of God" or the pious man subjected to trials in order to determine or display the nature and extent of his faithfulness, prime examples of which are Gen. 22 (the testing of Abraham by God), Deut. 6-8 (the testing of Israel), Job 1-3 (the temptation of Job), Wis. 2.12-24 (the righteous man/"son of God'), T.Abraham. 12-13; TB Sanhedrin 89b, Genesis Rabba 56.4, Jubilees 17 (temptations of Abraham by Azazel, Satan, Sammael, and God respectively), T.Job (of Job by Satan), and Martyrdom of Isaiah 5 (temptation of Isaiah by Mastema).

For a full listing and discussion of these Pseudepigrapical and Rabbinic stories along with their Biblical antecedents, see J.H. Korn, πειρασμός: Die Versuchung des Glaubigen in der greischischen Bible (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1937), pp. 48-76. One should also consult the non-biblical examples of this type such as Samyutta-Nikaya 2.10 (text in J. Aufhauser, Buddah und Jesus in ihren Paralleltexten [Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Weber, 1926] pp. 27-28) and Vendidad 19.1 where Buddha Gautama and Zarathustra respectively are the servants of God in question.
The question then arises: Which, if any, of these stories forms the background and model of the Q temptation story or provides its interpretative key?

J. Dupont ("L'arriere-fond Biblique du Récit de Tentations de Jesus", NTS 3 (1956-1957), pp. 287-88.), B. Gerhardsson (The Testing of God's Son (Matt. 4:1-11 & Par) (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1966), G.H.P. Thompson ("Called - Proved - Obedient: A Study in the Baptism and Temptation Narratives of Matthew and Luke", JTS (N.S.) 11 (1960), pp. 1-12), and others have made the case that the background and model of the Q temptation story is to be sought in the account of the temptation of Israel in the wilderness as this is outlined in Deut. 6-8. Among the considerations which these scholars note as supporting this conclusion are:

(1) the basic themes of the Deuteronomic story (i.e., being led by the God, the wilderness, `hunger', temptation/testing of God's Son, the necessity of obedience to God's word) are repeated and are given places of prominence in the Q account;

(2) the wording of the introduction of the Q account (i.e., Mt. 4.1-2//Lk. 4.1-2) is reminiscent of that of Deut. 8.2 both in the Hebrew and LXX versions of that text;

(3) Jesus' temptations are parallel with those to which Israel was subjected according to Deut. 6-8;

(4) all of Jesus' responses to the Devil's petitions are derived from this unit of the Deuteronomic text (Deut. 8.2-3; 6.16; 6.13); and

(5) the fact that though they appear in Q in reverse order from their sequence in Deut. 6-8, Jesus' quotations from this passage nevertheless correspond to the order of the events to which they refer as recorded in the Old Testament (the provision of manna in the wilderness [Ex. 16], the testing at Massah [Ex. 17], the worship of the golden calf [Ex. 32] or, as I think more likely, the story of how Israel succumbed to fear when hearing the report of the men who had been sent into Canaan to `spy out' the land [Num. 13.25-33]) and thus, to use Dupont's words, seem to portray Jesus' experience as a `résume de l'historie de sa traverée du désert'. (Dupont, "L'arriere-fond biblique du Recit des Tentations de Jesus", p. 292)

This view is, however, not without its detractors. Its validity has been challenged on the grounds that for all that Mt. 4.1-3//Lk. 4.1-3 and the story of Israel's wilderness temptation in Deut. 6-8 have in common, there are three points at which the two accounts differ so significantly that the Israel/Jesus identification seems difficult to maintain: (1) in Deut. 6-8 Israel is tested by God, whereas in Mt. 4.1-11//Lk. 4.1-13 Jesus' πειρασμός is carried out by the Devil; (2) Israel was in the wilderness for forty years whereas Jesus is described as being there forty days; and (3) in substance the temptations of Jesus are different from the temptations of Israel in the wilderness in that they are addressed to a `son' depicted as having the power to perform miracles and center in whether or not he would exploit that power for his own benefit, while Israel's temptations are addressed to a `son' who has no such powers and bear only on Israel's faith and confidence in its God.

But none of these objections has any real weight. Given the import of the notice of the Spirit's activity in Mt. 4.1//Lk. 4.1-2, there is no doubt that in Q Jesus' πειρασμός, though noted as carried out by the Devil, is thought of as originating with, or determined by God, or as under God's direction.

On this, see F.C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), p. 208; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Göttingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), p. 57; K.H. Rengsdorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937), p. 52; and especially E. Fascher, Jesus und der Satan (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1949), p. 31.
Nor, as we have already seen when dealing with the meaning of `forty days' in Mk. 1:13, is there any real discrepancy between forty years and forty days.

See above, pp. 00-00. The lack of discrepancy has recently been upheld by W.L. Kyne, A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative of His People in Matthew (Larkham, New York, London: University Press of America, 1991), p. 30.
Finally, as we will see presently, the main assumption of the third objection - the presupposition that Jesus is depicted in Mt. 4.1-11//Lk. 4.1-13 as one having the power to work miracles - has no grounding in the text.

In the light of this it seems clear that the Q account of Jesus' wilderness temptation is intent to present Jesus' experience specifically in parallelism with, indeed, as the recapitulation of, the temptation which Israel, God's firstborn and υἱός, was subjected to during its wilderness wanderings, as this was recounted in Deut. 6-8.

Amaleq13 · 01-09-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But none of these objections has any real weight.

No kidding. Actual scholars put forth those objections? I can't imagine anyone with an established reputation offering such a transparently lame argument. Were they just trying to get some exposure in journals or something? Do they think the scriptural basis for Jesus' responses is just a coincidence?

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

01-08-2008, 02:56 PM	#67
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Fasting =/= Asceticism "Asceticism describes a life characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures (austerity)." Fasting, on the other hand, is a temporary abstinence from food. It is practiced for religious reasons and also for health. In the low-tech ancient world, with few advanced medical treatments, fasting was a common response to various medical problems. Does this clarify things? If you sleep for 8 hours a night, you are not a narcoleptic. If you fast for a day or two (or 40), you are not an "incomplete ascetic," just someone who fasts for a day or two. What exactly is the point of this thread, since the premise of the OP is so clearly wrong? The NT does not portray Jesus as an ascetic. Not everyone who practices some form of temporary abstaining can be labeled an ascetic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.