Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Mark
21 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by jimwalton » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:01 pm
Great question, but that's not actually a parallel saying. The context of Matthew 18 is specifically about conflict in the church, an emphasis on mercy and forgiveness, but the necessity of discipline in some cases of impenitence. First, try to resolve the matter privately (18.15). Then take two or 3 witnesses, as the law demands (Dt. 19.15). Then take it to the community (probably via the elders). The decisions of the church via its elders is regarded as authoritative (Mt. 18.18). The statement of v. 19 is in this context, meaning that if the proper procedures have been followed, and the church has done due diligence with intent to restore and forgive, but if the person is still unrepentant, then on the basis of that process, God will also find them guilty or forgiven (18.19). In other words, what it means is that godly decisions on Earth will be ratified in heaven.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by Yellow Highlighter » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:24 pm
> All writing, not to mention all communication, requires interpretation.
Yes, but as soon as you derive context that is not closely apparent, you run the risk of creating context that isn't there. It happens all the time with literary interpretation. People make assumptions about a piece of work and then ask the writer and the writer says something totally different. Why? Because the writer had no nuances imbedded in the piece of writing to begin with.
However, the gospels are wraught with symbolism and metaphorical language which is very suspicious considering that Jesus was not supposedly speaking to an audience of intellectuals.
Nevertheless, if metaphorical speech was common and Jesus was speaking to his direct audience about a metaphorical movement of mountains then his existence as a man/son of God becomes questionable. That throws the whole real point of Christianity out of the basket.
Jesus is clearly trying to persuade his followers to risk their lives and give up everything and have faith in possibility that they will get everything back including their lives. That's akin to moving a mountain literally. That's the greatest conquering of natural order in hypothetical existence.
> But this is NOT the point. "Moving mountains" was a cultural idiom and not to be taken literally. We have many such sayings also. "He was just bustin' my chops." "He was pulling my leg."
The irony of you exclaiming this as an idiom when the entire testament and the one before is all about defying natural order which is proof of God's power. Jesus came to reveal his power to defy nature as with his turning water into wine, healing lepers, multiplying matter, and resurrecting from the dead!
If moving mountains is an idiom then why bother addressing your audience meant to believe in your power as a son of God with a weak metaphor that implies you only have the power to move mountains metaphorically?
> Jesus never moved a mountain (a geological formation). Neither did any disciple, ever. They healed people, and they preached, but they never even tried to defy natural order. That's not how they understood it.
Are we reading two different Gospels?
> It's all part of the understanding of what Jesus was really talking about.
How would you know exactly what he was talking about to a bunch of uneducated lowly men and women unless Jesus was talking symbolically for that indirect audience he knew he was going to be addressing?
> Yep, no problem with interpreting the text. It's necessary.
Not the way you are addressing it because you are creating mountains out of mole hills
Do you believe in a literal son of God or a metaphorical one?
Yes, but as soon as you derive context that is not closely apparent, you run the risk of creating context that isn't there. It happens all the time with literary interpretation. People make assumptions about a piece of work and then ask the writer and the writer says something totally different. Why? Because the writer had no nuances imbedded in the piece of writing to begin with.
However, the gospels are wraught with symbolism and metaphorical language which is very suspicious considering that Jesus was not supposedly speaking to an audience of intellectuals.
Nevertheless, if metaphorical speech was common and Jesus was speaking to his direct audience about a metaphorical movement of mountains then his existence as a man/son of God becomes questionable. That throws the whole real point of Christianity out of the basket.
Jesus is clearly trying to persuade his followers to risk their lives and give up everything and have faith in possibility that they will get everything back including their lives. That's akin to moving a mountain literally. That's the greatest conquering of natural order in hypothetical existence.
> But this is NOT the point. "Moving mountains" was a cultural idiom and not to be taken literally. We have many such sayings also. "He was just bustin' my chops." "He was pulling my leg."
The irony of you exclaiming this as an idiom when the entire testament and the one before is all about defying natural order which is proof of God's power. Jesus came to reveal his power to defy nature as with his turning water into wine, healing lepers, multiplying matter, and resurrecting from the dead!
If moving mountains is an idiom then why bother addressing your audience meant to believe in your power as a son of God with a weak metaphor that implies you only have the power to move mountains metaphorically?
> Jesus never moved a mountain (a geological formation). Neither did any disciple, ever. They healed people, and they preached, but they never even tried to defy natural order. That's not how they understood it.
Are we reading two different Gospels?
> It's all part of the understanding of what Jesus was really talking about.
How would you know exactly what he was talking about to a bunch of uneducated lowly men and women unless Jesus was talking symbolically for that indirect audience he knew he was going to be addressing?
> Yep, no problem with interpreting the text. It's necessary.
Not the way you are addressing it because you are creating mountains out of mole hills
Do you believe in a literal son of God or a metaphorical one?
- Yellow Highlighter
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by jimwalton » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:25 pm
> as soon as you derive context that is not closely apparent you run the risk of creating context that isn't there.
True. But the greater context can be pertinent as much as the immediate context is. The Gospel writers wrote with a theme and an agenda. All interpretive work must be done circumspectly.
> However, the gospels are wraught with symbolism and metaphorical language which is very suspicious considering that Jesus was not supposedly speaking to an audience of intellectuals.
An interesting assertion. He certainly spoke in a wide variety of rhetorical devices, but to me that doesn't invalidate the account. The Jewish community has long been known for literacy. It's endemic to Judaism that each generation be trained to read the Torah, and often to memorize large portions of it. The first century seems to have been no different. We have a number of indicators that the population was abnormally literate for the time:
1\. The letter from Babatha, and many common documents of normal business
2\. Minted coins with messages on them
3\. Many personal inscriptions on various and sundry articles
4\. Ossuary inscriptions
5\. Potsherds with school exercises on them
6\. Luke sought out reliable sources for his Gospel, so they must have existed.
7\. Letters of Paul prove writing was current in the early decades of the church
8\. Zechariah wrote on a wax tablet (Lk. 1)
9\. The Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes were literate (Mt. 12.3, 5)
10\. Recent studies of graffiti in locations like Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Smyrna establish the literacy of the poorly-educated lower classes.
11\. Brian J. Wright’s historical research (Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus) shows that communal reading was widely practiced in the first century. Communal reading events were widespread socially and geographically. They happened in both formal and informal venues. All sorts of people were reading and reciting literary works. Public reading was a trend of the day as smartphones are now. There are accounts of teachers in the 1st century complaining about students trying to fast track their schooling so they could participate in the reading culture. People were even quick to correct a speaker who was making a mistake (Jn. 12.32-34). There are other 1st-c. accounts where someone in the audience would stand up and object to some detail being shared in a communal reading event because it differed from what they had been hearing elsewhere. There are countless examples after the 1st century of somebody standing up to read, and there’s an uproar in the congregation over one word that had changed because of a new translation. But this is also true in the 2nd and 1st centuries.
12\. Martial, 1st-c. writer, speaks of how annoying it was when people were reading everywhere to everyone, even while he was in a public bathroom.
The upshot is that we can't easily dismiss Jesus's rhetorical devises as contrived or fictional.
> his existence as a man/son of God becomes questionable.
The "Son of Man" was a well-known reference to a passage in Daniel 7.13. I don't understand why using a common figure of speech makes his claims to deity questionable.
> Jesus is clearly trying to persuade his followers to risk their lives and give up everything and have faith in possibility that they will get everything back including their lives. That's akin to moving a mountain literally. That's the greatest conquering of natural order in hypothetical existence.
You're right that he is trying to persuade them to give up any human quest and instead follow him in the great spiritual adventure of a life connected with God. Then you confuse me: You say it's akin to moving a mountain *literally* which is conquering in *hypothetical* existence. That you have to explain. Instead, Jesus is talking about moving the mountain metaphorically which is conquering very literally in the spiritual realm.
> The irony of you exclaiming this as an idiom when the entire testament and the one before is all about defying natural order which is proof of God's power. Jesus came to reveal his power to defy nature as with his turning water into wine, healing lepers, multiplying matter, and resurrecting from the dead!
You seem to be quite stuck on "defying natural order," which I don't see in the text at all. Proof of God's power is not defying natural order but rather living in a different reality.
> Jesus came to reveal his power to defy nature as with his turning water into wine, healing lepers, multiplying matter, and resurrecting from the dead!
It's true that His miracles are supposed to be signs of his identity (Jn. 10.25), but he didn't come to defy nature. He came to cleanse people from sin and to destroy death.
> If moving mountains is an idiom then why bother addressing your audience meant to believe in your power as a son of God with a weak metaphor that implies you only have the power to move mountains metaphorically?
Mountains are pretty much the biggest thing on the planet. Moving a mountain is an apt metaphor, especially in contrast to a mustard seed (another common metaphor in their culture), for something incomparably difficult.
> Are we reading two different Gospels?
No, not that I know of. If you have a reference about Jesus or a disciple shifting a mountain from its place, I'll be glad to read it. Other than healing people, which I mentioned, where do we see the disciples defying natural order?
> to a bunch of uneducated lowly men and women
I already dealt with the literacy question. I think you are misjudging the population of 1st-c. Palestine here.
> Do you believe in a literal son of God or a metaphorical one?
It depends what you mean by "literal." Jesus was a literal historical person who was literally divine. As far as being a literal "son," it's not that God and Mary copulated. But the child in her was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, so in that sense Jesus is the son of God as well as literally the son of a human. "Son of God" was a prophetic title from Ps. 2.7. So it depends what you mean.
True. But the greater context can be pertinent as much as the immediate context is. The Gospel writers wrote with a theme and an agenda. All interpretive work must be done circumspectly.
> However, the gospels are wraught with symbolism and metaphorical language which is very suspicious considering that Jesus was not supposedly speaking to an audience of intellectuals.
An interesting assertion. He certainly spoke in a wide variety of rhetorical devices, but to me that doesn't invalidate the account. The Jewish community has long been known for literacy. It's endemic to Judaism that each generation be trained to read the Torah, and often to memorize large portions of it. The first century seems to have been no different. We have a number of indicators that the population was abnormally literate for the time:
1\. The letter from Babatha, and many common documents of normal business
2\. Minted coins with messages on them
3\. Many personal inscriptions on various and sundry articles
4\. Ossuary inscriptions
5\. Potsherds with school exercises on them
6\. Luke sought out reliable sources for his Gospel, so they must have existed.
7\. Letters of Paul prove writing was current in the early decades of the church
8\. Zechariah wrote on a wax tablet (Lk. 1)
9\. The Pharisees, chief priests, and scribes were literate (Mt. 12.3, 5)
10\. Recent studies of graffiti in locations like Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Smyrna establish the literacy of the poorly-educated lower classes.
11\. Brian J. Wright’s historical research (Communal Reading in the Time of Jesus) shows that communal reading was widely practiced in the first century. Communal reading events were widespread socially and geographically. They happened in both formal and informal venues. All sorts of people were reading and reciting literary works. Public reading was a trend of the day as smartphones are now. There are accounts of teachers in the 1st century complaining about students trying to fast track their schooling so they could participate in the reading culture. People were even quick to correct a speaker who was making a mistake (Jn. 12.32-34). There are other 1st-c. accounts where someone in the audience would stand up and object to some detail being shared in a communal reading event because it differed from what they had been hearing elsewhere. There are countless examples after the 1st century of somebody standing up to read, and there’s an uproar in the congregation over one word that had changed because of a new translation. But this is also true in the 2nd and 1st centuries.
12\. Martial, 1st-c. writer, speaks of how annoying it was when people were reading everywhere to everyone, even while he was in a public bathroom.
The upshot is that we can't easily dismiss Jesus's rhetorical devises as contrived or fictional.
> his existence as a man/son of God becomes questionable.
The "Son of Man" was a well-known reference to a passage in Daniel 7.13. I don't understand why using a common figure of speech makes his claims to deity questionable.
> Jesus is clearly trying to persuade his followers to risk their lives and give up everything and have faith in possibility that they will get everything back including their lives. That's akin to moving a mountain literally. That's the greatest conquering of natural order in hypothetical existence.
You're right that he is trying to persuade them to give up any human quest and instead follow him in the great spiritual adventure of a life connected with God. Then you confuse me: You say it's akin to moving a mountain *literally* which is conquering in *hypothetical* existence. That you have to explain. Instead, Jesus is talking about moving the mountain metaphorically which is conquering very literally in the spiritual realm.
> The irony of you exclaiming this as an idiom when the entire testament and the one before is all about defying natural order which is proof of God's power. Jesus came to reveal his power to defy nature as with his turning water into wine, healing lepers, multiplying matter, and resurrecting from the dead!
You seem to be quite stuck on "defying natural order," which I don't see in the text at all. Proof of God's power is not defying natural order but rather living in a different reality.
> Jesus came to reveal his power to defy nature as with his turning water into wine, healing lepers, multiplying matter, and resurrecting from the dead!
It's true that His miracles are supposed to be signs of his identity (Jn. 10.25), but he didn't come to defy nature. He came to cleanse people from sin and to destroy death.
> If moving mountains is an idiom then why bother addressing your audience meant to believe in your power as a son of God with a weak metaphor that implies you only have the power to move mountains metaphorically?
Mountains are pretty much the biggest thing on the planet. Moving a mountain is an apt metaphor, especially in contrast to a mustard seed (another common metaphor in their culture), for something incomparably difficult.
> Are we reading two different Gospels?
No, not that I know of. If you have a reference about Jesus or a disciple shifting a mountain from its place, I'll be glad to read it. Other than healing people, which I mentioned, where do we see the disciples defying natural order?
> to a bunch of uneducated lowly men and women
I already dealt with the literacy question. I think you are misjudging the population of 1st-c. Palestine here.
> Do you believe in a literal son of God or a metaphorical one?
It depends what you mean by "literal." Jesus was a literal historical person who was literally divine. As far as being a literal "son," it's not that God and Mary copulated. But the child in her was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, so in that sense Jesus is the son of God as well as literally the son of a human. "Son of God" was a prophetic title from Ps. 2.7. So it depends what you mean.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by Koine » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:53 am
> Great question, but that's not actually a parallel saying.
It literally is, even in terms of form/syntax. Compare Matthew 18:19: if "two among you" agree (Great question, but that's not actually a parallel saying.
It literally is, even in terms of form/syntax. Compare Matthew 18:19: if "two among you" agree (περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γενήσεται αὐτοῖς) concerning any matter they might ask for, it will be done for them, with Mark 11:24: πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε . . . ἔσται ὑμῖν.
all things you prayerfully ask for . . . it will be done for you.
That prayer is implicit in Matthew 18:19 is clear. Davies and Allison note:
Compare Ignatius, Eph. 5.2 ('if the prayer of one or two has so much force'). The notion that the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one was probably a commonplace (cf. S[track]B[illerbeck] 1, pp. 793-74).
Further, the saying immediately before this in Matthew, 18:18, is already generalizing; the fact that 18:19 follows upon this almost guarantees that it's similar, too. Larson notes that...
France . . . recognizes that the wording of Mt. 18:19 makes it applicable to a broader set of issues than what is found in Mt. 18:15-18. His statement that Mt. 18:19 "may not originally have been linked to this context" expresses a sentiment common among other scholars. Luz says that "Verses 19-20 appear to have no connection either to vv. 15-18 or to vv. 21-22." Davies and Allison's commentary says that Matthew 18:19-20 has been added to the section on reproof and says that "As it stands, v. 19 clarifies v. 18 by stating that agreement among believers on earth will have its sure effect in heaven. But v. 19, which, detached from its context, would concern communal prayer in general, originally had a wider scope than v. 18, which is about communal discipline in particular. It is likely that v. 19 at one time offered assurance or encouragement: even if only two agree on something, it will be done for them". Allen wrote that Mt. 18:19 "cannot be in an original connection."
It literally is, even in terms of form/syntax. Compare Matthew 18:19: if "two among you" agree (Great question, but that's not actually a parallel saying.
It literally is, even in terms of form/syntax. Compare Matthew 18:19: if "two among you" agree (περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γενήσεται αὐτοῖς) concerning any matter they might ask for, it will be done for them, with Mark 11:24: πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε . . . ἔσται ὑμῖν.
all things you prayerfully ask for . . . it will be done for you.
That prayer is implicit in Matthew 18:19 is clear. Davies and Allison note:
Compare Ignatius, Eph. 5.2 ('if the prayer of one or two has so much force'). The notion that the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one was probably a commonplace (cf. S[track]B[illerbeck] 1, pp. 793-74).
Further, the saying immediately before this in Matthew, 18:18, is already generalizing; the fact that 18:19 follows upon this almost guarantees that it's similar, too. Larson notes that...
France . . . recognizes that the wording of Mt. 18:19 makes it applicable to a broader set of issues than what is found in Mt. 18:15-18. His statement that Mt. 18:19 "may not originally have been linked to this context" expresses a sentiment common among other scholars. Luz says that "Verses 19-20 appear to have no connection either to vv. 15-18 or to vv. 21-22." Davies and Allison's commentary says that Matthew 18:19-20 has been added to the section on reproof and says that "As it stands, v. 19 clarifies v. 18 by stating that agreement among believers on earth will have its sure effect in heaven. But v. 19, which, detached from its context, would concern communal prayer in general, originally had a wider scope than v. 18, which is about communal discipline in particular. It is likely that v. 19 at one time offered assurance or encouragement: even if only two agree on something, it will be done for them". Allen wrote that Mt. 18:19 "cannot be in an original connection."
- Koine
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by jimwalton » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:51 am
Good, let's talk about that. Syntactical similarity, even identicality, doesn't mandate parallelism. But your examples actually play against your point. You'll notice the Greek phrases from Mt. 18.19 and Mk. 11.24 have little in common.
περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γενήσεται αὐτοῖς
πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε . . . ἔσται ὑμῖν
They are separate sayings with completely distinct contexts. When I'm going to the store and I say, "I'm leaving," that phrase has an entirely different meaning when, after a fight with my spouse, I say, "I'm leaving." It's certainly not only syntactically similar, but also identical! The context shows the meaning.
> Compare Ignatius, Eph. 5.2 ('if the prayer of one or two has so much force'). The notion that the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one was probably a commonplace (cf. S[track]B[illerbeck] 1, pp. 793-74).
Oh my. This is a distortion. Ignatius (Eph. 5.2) wrote, "Let no man be deceived. If anyone be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread [of God]. For, if the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church." It has nothing to do with Matthew 18.19.
> the saying immediately before this in Matthew, 18:18, is already generalizing; the fact that 18:19 follows upon this almost guarantees that it's similar, too. Larson notes that
Yeah, I quite strongly disagree. The text holds together thematically as a unit. I have a quote from France that explains the binding and loosing as "The Church pronounces what is or is not sin, rather than the condemnation or forgiveness of the sinner" (France p. 275). Keener says it's about the legislative authority of the Church in discipline issues.
And I certainly disagree with Luz. I don't know on what basis he thinks it "may not have been linked to this context." I'd have to have a chance to examine and diagnose his case to know that. But the text sure does hold together as a unified whole:
15: If something between you and a "brother," work it out privately if possible
16: If it can't be worked out privately, take others along as witnesses of the attempts to reconcile.
17: If he refuses to reconcile when it should be reconciled, his continuance in sin might be worthy of church discipline
18: If the church disciplines or forgives, according to the mind of God, God will concur with the verdict and action
19: The rule of "two witnesses" (Dt. 19.15) is valid in these church discipline situations just as they were in ancient courts (Dt. 19.15-21).
20: Where the judgments of the Church are valid exercises to maintain holiness, God will dwell in the midst of that congregation.
I see a clear connection between 19-20 with 15-18. And it's connection with 21ff. is also plausible. Having just talked about conflict resolution in the church with an effort towards mercy and forgiveness, Peter then inquires about forgiveness. I don't see a problem here.
It's impossible for me to evaluate Luz's point without seeing his exegesis, but there's no intrinsic reason to disassociate vv. 18-20 from 15-17. I'm not so sure I agree with Larson, France, Luz, Davies and Allison, or Allen. Sure, I understand you're piling up scholars to give credence to your case, but I'm not so sure.
The binding and loosing language is similar to the language in Mt. 16.19 (again: syntactical similarity doesn't mean parallelism), but it couldn't show that such vernacular was Jesus-ian—it's the way he talked, giving evidence that it's a valid saying of Jesus rather than an add-on redacted later.
περὶ παντὸς πράγματος οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, γενήσεται αὐτοῖς
πάντα ὅσα προσεύχεσθε καὶ αἰτεῖσθε . . . ἔσται ὑμῖν
They are separate sayings with completely distinct contexts. When I'm going to the store and I say, "I'm leaving," that phrase has an entirely different meaning when, after a fight with my spouse, I say, "I'm leaving." It's certainly not only syntactically similar, but also identical! The context shows the meaning.
> Compare Ignatius, Eph. 5.2 ('if the prayer of one or two has so much force'). The notion that the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one was probably a commonplace (cf. S[track]B[illerbeck] 1, pp. 793-74).
Oh my. This is a distortion. Ignatius (Eph. 5.2) wrote, "Let no man be deceived. If anyone be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread [of God]. For, if the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church." It has nothing to do with Matthew 18.19.
> the saying immediately before this in Matthew, 18:18, is already generalizing; the fact that 18:19 follows upon this almost guarantees that it's similar, too. Larson notes that
Yeah, I quite strongly disagree. The text holds together thematically as a unit. I have a quote from France that explains the binding and loosing as "The Church pronounces what is or is not sin, rather than the condemnation or forgiveness of the sinner" (France p. 275). Keener says it's about the legislative authority of the Church in discipline issues.
And I certainly disagree with Luz. I don't know on what basis he thinks it "may not have been linked to this context." I'd have to have a chance to examine and diagnose his case to know that. But the text sure does hold together as a unified whole:
15: If something between you and a "brother," work it out privately if possible
16: If it can't be worked out privately, take others along as witnesses of the attempts to reconcile.
17: If he refuses to reconcile when it should be reconciled, his continuance in sin might be worthy of church discipline
18: If the church disciplines or forgives, according to the mind of God, God will concur with the verdict and action
19: The rule of "two witnesses" (Dt. 19.15) is valid in these church discipline situations just as they were in ancient courts (Dt. 19.15-21).
20: Where the judgments of the Church are valid exercises to maintain holiness, God will dwell in the midst of that congregation.
I see a clear connection between 19-20 with 15-18. And it's connection with 21ff. is also plausible. Having just talked about conflict resolution in the church with an effort towards mercy and forgiveness, Peter then inquires about forgiveness. I don't see a problem here.
It's impossible for me to evaluate Luz's point without seeing his exegesis, but there's no intrinsic reason to disassociate vv. 18-20 from 15-17. I'm not so sure I agree with Larson, France, Luz, Davies and Allison, or Allen. Sure, I understand you're piling up scholars to give credence to your case, but I'm not so sure.
The binding and loosing language is similar to the language in Mt. 16.19 (again: syntactical similarity doesn't mean parallelism), but it couldn't show that such vernacular was Jesus-ian—it's the way he talked, giving evidence that it's a valid saying of Jesus rather than an add-on redacted later.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by Koine » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:13 pm
> You'll notice the Greek phrases from Mt. 18.19 and Mk. 11.24 have little in common.
Why would I agree with that? I'm literally the one who quoted the Greek texts and mentioned how they were similar in form and language. Do you think I just pretended to know Greek or something?
Both verses use middle αἰτέω, with the result indicated by γίνομαι/εἰμί + the one asking/praying as dative object (ἔσται ὑμῖν and γενήσεται αὐτοῖς). This is an extremely rare construction that's not at all likely to be a coincidence.
> Oh my. This is a distortion. Ignatius (Eph. 5.2) wrote, "Let no man be deceived. If anyone be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread [of God]. For, if the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church." It has nothing to do with Matthew 18.19.
I think that non-Biblical scholars misunderstand how Biblical "context" works. It doesn't mean that absolutely every verse in the New Testament is directly related to the verse that came before it and the one that comes after it, or things like that. Biblical scholars regularly recognize topical transitions, diversions, parenthetical remarks, and so on.
In fact, just a couple of days ago I had to clarify this for someone who was trying to do much the same of what you're trying to do, this time for passages in 1 Timothy 5.
The passage from Ignatius is relevant here because, as Davies and Allison suggest, it bears some relation to a Jewish tradition in which "the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one." This isn't in debate. Ironically though, Ignatius' own apparent reference to this tradition doesn't really bear a natural relation to its context, either. He employs this tradition just as an arbitrary illustrative example: that Christians should continue in faithfulness to the Church and bishops, because (by analogy) if even the prayers of a single person or two have great prayer, how much more spiritual power/benefit does the Church gathered as a whole have?
Again, if you read the whole passage in Ignatius, it actually has nothing to do with prayer, and this prayer tradition is brought in solely for the analogy of his argument. (In traditional Jewish terminology, we call this a qal vahomer argument; in Latin, a minore ad maius. You can find this sort of argument elsewhere in the New Testament itself, like in Matthew 7:11.)
The question isn't whether you or even the Matthean author can (perhaps imaginatively) link the traditions/verses in question together, to limit them all to a specific situation. (For an extremely implausible attempt, see that of Derrett; also Keener.)
The question is whether it's more likely that the tradition/saying in 18:19 (or perhaps even 18:18, too) has a longer pre-history that predates its current literary context. I think Matthew 18:18 broadens the scope of what came before that to make a more general statement that may indeed be related to the "judicial" authority of the Church. Whatever the case though, 18:19 brings us even further afield, now making a very general statement about the power of fulfillment in terms of "anything they ask."
And again, this is made all the more plausible by how close Matthew 18:19 is to Mark 11:24 — which by any measurable standard is said in a different context than a judicial one — and other passages. Hell, it's even related to the famous Matthew 7:7, which also uses αἰτέω, then again with the verb + dative object: (καὶ) δοθήσεται ὑμῖν. (Compare again ἔσται ὑμῖν in Mark 11.) There may also be connections with things like James 4:2-3.
Also, γενήσεται from Matthew 18:19 also reappears in 21:21, which is of course the direct parallel to Mark 11:23. It's used in John 15:7, too (ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν), which is directly related.
Why would I agree with that? I'm literally the one who quoted the Greek texts and mentioned how they were similar in form and language. Do you think I just pretended to know Greek or something?
Both verses use middle αἰτέω, with the result indicated by γίνομαι/εἰμί + the one asking/praying as dative object (ἔσται ὑμῖν and γενήσεται αὐτοῖς). This is an extremely rare construction that's not at all likely to be a coincidence.
> Oh my. This is a distortion. Ignatius (Eph. 5.2) wrote, "Let no man be deceived. If anyone be not within the precinct of the altar, he lacketh the bread [of God]. For, if the prayer of one and another hath so great force, how much more that of the bishop and of the whole Church." It has nothing to do with Matthew 18.19.
I think that non-Biblical scholars misunderstand how Biblical "context" works. It doesn't mean that absolutely every verse in the New Testament is directly related to the verse that came before it and the one that comes after it, or things like that. Biblical scholars regularly recognize topical transitions, diversions, parenthetical remarks, and so on.
In fact, just a couple of days ago I had to clarify this for someone who was trying to do much the same of what you're trying to do, this time for passages in 1 Timothy 5.
The passage from Ignatius is relevant here because, as Davies and Allison suggest, it bears some relation to a Jewish tradition in which "the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one." This isn't in debate. Ironically though, Ignatius' own apparent reference to this tradition doesn't really bear a natural relation to its context, either. He employs this tradition just as an arbitrary illustrative example: that Christians should continue in faithfulness to the Church and bishops, because (by analogy) if even the prayers of a single person or two have great prayer, how much more spiritual power/benefit does the Church gathered as a whole have?
Again, if you read the whole passage in Ignatius, it actually has nothing to do with prayer, and this prayer tradition is brought in solely for the analogy of his argument. (In traditional Jewish terminology, we call this a qal vahomer argument; in Latin, a minore ad maius. You can find this sort of argument elsewhere in the New Testament itself, like in Matthew 7:11.)
The question isn't whether you or even the Matthean author can (perhaps imaginatively) link the traditions/verses in question together, to limit them all to a specific situation. (For an extremely implausible attempt, see that of Derrett; also Keener.)
The question is whether it's more likely that the tradition/saying in 18:19 (or perhaps even 18:18, too) has a longer pre-history that predates its current literary context. I think Matthew 18:18 broadens the scope of what came before that to make a more general statement that may indeed be related to the "judicial" authority of the Church. Whatever the case though, 18:19 brings us even further afield, now making a very general statement about the power of fulfillment in terms of "anything they ask."
And again, this is made all the more plausible by how close Matthew 18:19 is to Mark 11:24 — which by any measurable standard is said in a different context than a judicial one — and other passages. Hell, it's even related to the famous Matthew 7:7, which also uses αἰτέω, then again with the verb + dative object: (καὶ) δοθήσεται ὑμῖν. (Compare again ἔσται ὑμῖν in Mark 11.) There may also be connections with things like James 4:2-3.
Also, γενήσεται from Matthew 18:19 also reappears in 21:21, which is of course the direct parallel to Mark 11:23. It's used in John 15:7, too (ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσασθε καὶ γενήσεται ὑμῖν), which is directly related.
- Koine
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by jimwalton » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:13 pm
> Do you think I just pretended to know Greek or something?
I have no idea who you are or what you know. Since you know Greek, we can go there.
The similarities:
* λέγω ὑμῖν.
* παντὸς/πάντα
* αἰτέω
* Praying: Mk. specifies "in prayer"; Mt. implies that the asking is an act of prayer
To me the differences are more stark, and create what I consider to be my case.
* ἐὰν δύο … ἐξ ὑμῶν. Matthew is distinctly talking about "two", which clearly ties back to his mention of witnesses in v. 16.
* συμφωνέω. Matthew is distinctly talking about agreeing about the issues at hand, which is conflict in the church.
* ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Matthew is distinctly talking about something on earth requiring the ratification of heaven.
* παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς. Matthew is distinctly talking about the Father in heaven ratifying something done on Earth.
* πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε. Mark is distinctly talking about faith in prayer.
I think the differences outweigh the similarities. You speak of an "extremely rare construction," and yet they two sentences are constructed differently.
> I think that non-Biblical scholars misunderstand how Biblical "context" works.
And why would you think I'm a non-biblical scholar?
> The passage from Ignatius is relevant here because, as Davies and Allison suggest, it bears some relation to a Jewish tradition in which "the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one."
I can see this, but I'm not sure it's a biblical teaching. James 5.16 is a case in point.
> if even the prayers of a single person or two have great prayer, how much more spiritual power/benefit does the Church gathered as a whole have?
I know the Church acts this way, but I'm not convinced I see any teaching to this effect in Scripture. I can't think of a single place where it endorses the idea that more people in quantity praying increases the chances of being answered. If you know of a text, I'd be interested to see it.
> The question is whether it's more likely that the tradition/saying in 18:19 (or perhaps even 18:18, too) has a longer pre-history that predates its current literary context.
And this is extremely difficult to discern. Form criticism is an interesting discipline, but its reliability has been repeatedly called into question in numerous studies.
> I think Matthew 18:18 broadens the scope of what came before that to make a more general statement that may indeed be related to the "judicial" authority of the Church. Whatever the case though, 18:19 brings us even further afield, now making a very general statement about the power of fulfillment in terms of "anything they ask."
I understand that's your position, but I don't see it. To me the Πάλιν is an indicator that he is doubling back on a point already made rather than expanding into a new one. The "anything," then, contextually refers to whatever matter of discipline comes before the church.
> this is made all the more plausible by how close Matthew 18:19 is to Mark 11:24 — which by any measurable standard is said in a different context than a judicial one — and other passages
Certainly Mk. 11.24 is not in a judicial context, but the distinct divergence of the two texts as already explained put Mt. 18.15-20 firmly in one.
> it's even related to the famous Matthew 7:7, which also uses αἰτέω, then again with the verb + dative object: (καὶ) δοθήσεται ὑμῖν.
No surprise. αἰτέω was the common generic word for ask or request. And of course it's going to have a dative object. That doesn't mean the texts or their meanings are related. The context of Mt. 18.15-20 is specific to church discipline, and so in that particular case, I see the referent to be restricted to that frame of reference. There were indubitably times when Jesus said, "Ask for what you want in prayer and you'll receive it." This one in Matthew is restricted to the context of juridical action in the churches.
I have no idea who you are or what you know. Since you know Greek, we can go there.
The similarities:
* λέγω ὑμῖν.
* παντὸς/πάντα
* αἰτέω
* Praying: Mk. specifies "in prayer"; Mt. implies that the asking is an act of prayer
To me the differences are more stark, and create what I consider to be my case.
* ἐὰν δύο … ἐξ ὑμῶν. Matthew is distinctly talking about "two", which clearly ties back to his mention of witnesses in v. 16.
* συμφωνέω. Matthew is distinctly talking about agreeing about the issues at hand, which is conflict in the church.
* ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Matthew is distinctly talking about something on earth requiring the ratification of heaven.
* παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν οὐρανοῖς. Matthew is distinctly talking about the Father in heaven ratifying something done on Earth.
* πιστεύετε ὅτι ἐλάβετε. Mark is distinctly talking about faith in prayer.
I think the differences outweigh the similarities. You speak of an "extremely rare construction," and yet they two sentences are constructed differently.
> I think that non-Biblical scholars misunderstand how Biblical "context" works.
And why would you think I'm a non-biblical scholar?
> The passage from Ignatius is relevant here because, as Davies and Allison suggest, it bears some relation to a Jewish tradition in which "the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one."
I can see this, but I'm not sure it's a biblical teaching. James 5.16 is a case in point.
> if even the prayers of a single person or two have great prayer, how much more spiritual power/benefit does the Church gathered as a whole have?
I know the Church acts this way, but I'm not convinced I see any teaching to this effect in Scripture. I can't think of a single place where it endorses the idea that more people in quantity praying increases the chances of being answered. If you know of a text, I'd be interested to see it.
> The question is whether it's more likely that the tradition/saying in 18:19 (or perhaps even 18:18, too) has a longer pre-history that predates its current literary context.
And this is extremely difficult to discern. Form criticism is an interesting discipline, but its reliability has been repeatedly called into question in numerous studies.
> I think Matthew 18:18 broadens the scope of what came before that to make a more general statement that may indeed be related to the "judicial" authority of the Church. Whatever the case though, 18:19 brings us even further afield, now making a very general statement about the power of fulfillment in terms of "anything they ask."
I understand that's your position, but I don't see it. To me the Πάλιν is an indicator that he is doubling back on a point already made rather than expanding into a new one. The "anything," then, contextually refers to whatever matter of discipline comes before the church.
> this is made all the more plausible by how close Matthew 18:19 is to Mark 11:24 — which by any measurable standard is said in a different context than a judicial one — and other passages
Certainly Mk. 11.24 is not in a judicial context, but the distinct divergence of the two texts as already explained put Mt. 18.15-20 firmly in one.
> it's even related to the famous Matthew 7:7, which also uses αἰτέω, then again with the verb + dative object: (καὶ) δοθήσεται ὑμῖν.
No surprise. αἰτέω was the common generic word for ask or request. And of course it's going to have a dative object. That doesn't mean the texts or their meanings are related. The context of Mt. 18.15-20 is specific to church discipline, and so in that particular case, I see the referent to be restricted to that frame of reference. There were indubitably times when Jesus said, "Ask for what you want in prayer and you'll receive it." This one in Matthew is restricted to the context of juridical action in the churches.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by Yellow Highlighter » Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:27 am
> We have a number of indicators that the population was abnormally literate for the time
For being so literate you would think that there would be more literary work left behind specifically from that area than Paul's letters and gospels written in Greek especially with regards to Jesus divinity. You cannot dismiss the absence with a reliance on oral tradition if all seem to be so keen on literacy. But this is leading off tangent.
> The Gospel writers wrote with a theme and an agenda. All interpretive work must be done circumspectly.
Certainly, but truth doesn't have an agenda and neither should Jesus to spread the truth of his divinity and motivations. Am I to believe Jesus actually said these exact words in Hebrew to his followers and focused on overarching themes in his speech?
> The upshot is that we can't easily dismiss Jesus's rhetorical devises as contrived or fictional.
But we should question his motivations for using such devices in light of his supposed divine power. I mean unless you are simply reading the text as any fictional piece of literature. If they are simply motivational speeches where does the actual divine nature and the power of the Holy Spirit fall into play with this kind of poetry?
This is meant to be recognized as a written account of actual events. This audience would be familiar with Moses and Abraham and Elijah and miracles related to them but also familiar with Jesus doing the impossible. If all these individuals are fictional and their connection to the divine not factual what is the point of faith that symbolically moves mountains?
Faith without actual substance in the miraculous work of Jesus spread like a mustard seed and capable of moving mountains metaphorically is propaganda. I don't see what the point would have been to bolster his audience with that kind of talk at the same time knowing fully well they would be placing themselves in dangerous situations that would lead to their deaths. If Jesus' agenda was merely political then he and these writers are manipulating people into believing and dying for bullshit.
> The "Son of Man" was a well-known reference to a passage in Daniel 7.13. I don't understand why using a common figure of speech makes his claims to deity questionable.
That's not what I wrote. Son of God. As in a direct lineage to a divine being as opposed to all other homo sapiens.
> You say it's akin to moving a mountain literally which is conquering in hypothetical existence. That you have to explain. Instead, Jesus is talking about moving the mountain metaphorically which is conquering very literally in the spiritual realm.
Again it's straightforward. Praying to a divine being to simply conquer some kind of spiritual realm so great it can only move mountains metaphorically is the act of psychological manipulation. It renders miracle work as a medium for trickery to change people's behaviour rather than prepare them for any kind eternal existence.
> No, not that I know of. If you have a reference about Jesus or a disciple shifting a mountain from its place, I'll be glad to read it. Other than healing people, which I mentioned, where do we see the disciples defying natural order?
No, Jesus didn't literally move a mountain but apparently he didn't just heal people spiritually. The act of resurrecting physically from a state of cellular death and still being the same person with the same memories and personality is far more improbable than moving a mountain literally because mountains actually do move albeit incredibly slowly. To address his audience and persuade them to think they can achieve anything if they have enough faith without bearing that mind is exceptionally sinister.
> I already dealt with the literacy question. I think you are misjudging the population of 1st-c. Palestine here
It's not about literacy it's about intelligence and knowledge of how the world works. Literacy doesn't guarantee the disbelief of casting out demons or the belief of supernatural beings or humanity's special existence with regards to divine beings. Literacy on it's own is not ensuring this audience cannot be manipulated into thinking they be resurrected from death.
But since you assert they were literate why bother not writing anything down in the original language Hebrew where the context is better understood and Jesus use of symbolism is clearer? Hebrew and Greek are not exactly sisters in their use of language. Anything at all? Why is Greek the only thing that survives. Torah has survived longer right?
> It depends what you mean by "literal." Jesus was a literal historical person who was literally divine. As far as being a literal "son," it's not that God and Mary copulated. But the child in her was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, so in that sense Jesus is the son of God as well as literally the son of a human. "Son of God" was a prophetic title from Ps. 2.7. So it depends what you mean.
I mean do you believe in a divine being with a human avatar who came down to Earth to provide humanity with something more than just an education on the importance of an invisible self they cannot sense that is more significant than it's own physical existence on Earth? What is this spiritual realm you are talking about and how does the literate population of this time and place make sense of it? I can't even make sense of it with my education in human neurobiology, physics, astronomy and the like.
Why would a man leave his family and possessions behind just to die for a cause that could be reached with far less brutality? What is the significance of having faith so big that you believe you can accomplish anything through prayer when it doesn't guarantee actual physical results?
For being so literate you would think that there would be more literary work left behind specifically from that area than Paul's letters and gospels written in Greek especially with regards to Jesus divinity. You cannot dismiss the absence with a reliance on oral tradition if all seem to be so keen on literacy. But this is leading off tangent.
> The Gospel writers wrote with a theme and an agenda. All interpretive work must be done circumspectly.
Certainly, but truth doesn't have an agenda and neither should Jesus to spread the truth of his divinity and motivations. Am I to believe Jesus actually said these exact words in Hebrew to his followers and focused on overarching themes in his speech?
> The upshot is that we can't easily dismiss Jesus's rhetorical devises as contrived or fictional.
But we should question his motivations for using such devices in light of his supposed divine power. I mean unless you are simply reading the text as any fictional piece of literature. If they are simply motivational speeches where does the actual divine nature and the power of the Holy Spirit fall into play with this kind of poetry?
This is meant to be recognized as a written account of actual events. This audience would be familiar with Moses and Abraham and Elijah and miracles related to them but also familiar with Jesus doing the impossible. If all these individuals are fictional and their connection to the divine not factual what is the point of faith that symbolically moves mountains?
Faith without actual substance in the miraculous work of Jesus spread like a mustard seed and capable of moving mountains metaphorically is propaganda. I don't see what the point would have been to bolster his audience with that kind of talk at the same time knowing fully well they would be placing themselves in dangerous situations that would lead to their deaths. If Jesus' agenda was merely political then he and these writers are manipulating people into believing and dying for bullshit.
> The "Son of Man" was a well-known reference to a passage in Daniel 7.13. I don't understand why using a common figure of speech makes his claims to deity questionable.
That's not what I wrote. Son of God. As in a direct lineage to a divine being as opposed to all other homo sapiens.
> You say it's akin to moving a mountain literally which is conquering in hypothetical existence. That you have to explain. Instead, Jesus is talking about moving the mountain metaphorically which is conquering very literally in the spiritual realm.
Again it's straightforward. Praying to a divine being to simply conquer some kind of spiritual realm so great it can only move mountains metaphorically is the act of psychological manipulation. It renders miracle work as a medium for trickery to change people's behaviour rather than prepare them for any kind eternal existence.
> No, not that I know of. If you have a reference about Jesus or a disciple shifting a mountain from its place, I'll be glad to read it. Other than healing people, which I mentioned, where do we see the disciples defying natural order?
No, Jesus didn't literally move a mountain but apparently he didn't just heal people spiritually. The act of resurrecting physically from a state of cellular death and still being the same person with the same memories and personality is far more improbable than moving a mountain literally because mountains actually do move albeit incredibly slowly. To address his audience and persuade them to think they can achieve anything if they have enough faith without bearing that mind is exceptionally sinister.
> I already dealt with the literacy question. I think you are misjudging the population of 1st-c. Palestine here
It's not about literacy it's about intelligence and knowledge of how the world works. Literacy doesn't guarantee the disbelief of casting out demons or the belief of supernatural beings or humanity's special existence with regards to divine beings. Literacy on it's own is not ensuring this audience cannot be manipulated into thinking they be resurrected from death.
But since you assert they were literate why bother not writing anything down in the original language Hebrew where the context is better understood and Jesus use of symbolism is clearer? Hebrew and Greek are not exactly sisters in their use of language. Anything at all? Why is Greek the only thing that survives. Torah has survived longer right?
> It depends what you mean by "literal." Jesus was a literal historical person who was literally divine. As far as being a literal "son," it's not that God and Mary copulated. But the child in her was conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit, so in that sense Jesus is the son of God as well as literally the son of a human. "Son of God" was a prophetic title from Ps. 2.7. So it depends what you mean.
I mean do you believe in a divine being with a human avatar who came down to Earth to provide humanity with something more than just an education on the importance of an invisible self they cannot sense that is more significant than it's own physical existence on Earth? What is this spiritual realm you are talking about and how does the literate population of this time and place make sense of it? I can't even make sense of it with my education in human neurobiology, physics, astronomy and the like.
Why would a man leave his family and possessions behind just to die for a cause that could be reached with far less brutality? What is the significance of having faith so big that you believe you can accomplish anything through prayer when it doesn't guarantee actual physical results?
- Yellow Highlighter
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by jimwalton » Thu Feb 14, 2019 10:17 am
> For being so literate you would think that there would be more literary work left behind specifically from that area than Paul's letters and gospels written in Greek especially with regards to Jesus divinity. You cannot dismiss the absence with a reliance on oral tradition if all seem to be so keen on literacy.
We're remarkably fortunate to have even what we do. The majority of writings have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's Mediterranean History is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his Universal History in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost. The dearth of remaining manuscripts can't be the proof that they didn't write.
> but truth doesn't have an agenda and neither should Jesus to spread the truth of his divinity and motivations.
Of course truth has an agenda. No one can write everything that needs to be written. All writing, whether science, history, philosophy, or anything else, is selective to the writer's perspective and purpose. There is never time or space to tell the whole of any story. The details we include reflect our views and priorities. Historians select data because of their relevancy to the particular historians, and these become evidence for building the historian’s case for a particular hypothesis. Being selective as a writer to conform to a particular thesis is not only common but also accepted.
> Am I to believe Jesus actually said these exact words in Hebrew to his followers and focused on overarching themes in his speech?
No. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the NT was written in Greek, so most of the time we don't have his exact words. And it was the Gospel writers who assembled the material, not in chronological order, but in themes according to their purpose in writing.
> But we should question his motivations for using such devices in light of his supposed divine power. I mean unless you are simply reading the text as any fictional piece of literature. If they are simply motivational speeches where does the actual divine nature and the power of the Holy Spirit fall into play with this kind of poetry?
I have no problem with Jesus being an accomplished public speaker, using a variety of rhetorical methods to communicate his point. The Bible wasn't written to show us poetic form, but to reveal God, and yet I have no problem with it containing beautiful poetry, poignant story-telling, and riveting plot lines. The excellence of the medium can help to convey the significance of the message. These are assuredly not simply motivational speeches but the revelation of his identity couched in an attractive rhetorical form.
> This is meant to be recognized as a written account of actual events. This audience would be familiar with Moses and Abraham and Elijah and miracles related to them but also familiar with Jesus doing the impossible.
Correct.
> If all these individuals are fictional and their connection to the divine not factual what is the point of faith that symbolically moves mountains?
The individuals are not fictional, and their connection to the divine is faction. I have no problem with the use of symbolism to make a point as a literary and rhetorical device. In my mind it doesn't detract from the the import of the message, but also makes it easy to understand and interesting to listen to.
> Faith without actual substance in the miraculous work of Jesus spread like a mustard seed and capable of moving mountains metaphorically is propaganda.
Faith has actual substance. Somehow we seem to be talking past each other (NOTE: that was a symbolic rhetorical device I just used). The symbol of the mustard seed doesn't mean faith isn't real or that its object is fictional, but rather that even faith that seems small and insignificant can be vibrant and adequate. Like electricity, it's not the size of the connection that matters, but the quality of the connection. Even the smallest connection, properly set, will make electricity flow with power, and a large one, corroded, will stop it cold.
A symbol of moving mountains is not propaganda, but rather a word picture that obstacles to us are not obstacles to God.
> I don't see what the point would have been to bolster his audience with that kind of talk at the same time knowing fully well they would be placing themselves in dangerous situations that would lead to their deaths.
Jesus was teaching them to think differently. They needed to have eyes beyond our physical life, our circumstances, and what we consider to be obstacles. If they could learn to live above life and to connect with God in very real ways, they would be able to accomplish great spiritual tasks by the power of God in them and working through their humanity.
> If Jesus' agenda was merely political then he and these writers are manipulating people into believing and dying for bullshit.
Wow, another misunderstanding. Writers can have a thesis to communicate truth. Jesus's speeches weren't just motivational. Jesus using symbolism doesn't mean he's denying divine power. The prophets of old are not fictional. Faith has substance. Moving mountains is not propaganda. And now let me say: Jesus's agenda was not merely political. It was decidedly apolitical, though many things he said had political repercussions when extended into life. Therefore the writers were not manipulating people with BS.
I'm glad we're having this conversation.
> That's not what I wrote. Son of God.
Yeah, my bad. Sorry.
> Praying to a divine being to simply conquer some kind of spiritual realm so great it can only move mountains metaphorically is the act of psychological manipulation. It renders miracle work as a medium for trickery to change people's behaviour rather than prepare them for any kind eternal existence.
"Moving mountains" is a metaphor for real-life obstacles, challenges, and "impossibilities." It is not manipulative to understand that our relationship with God can actually make a real-world difference about these obstacles, because it can. It's a statement of reality that our relationship with God, the Holy Spirit inside of us, and the real spiritual power at work can authentically "move" these obstacles, impossibilities, and meet the challenges. There's no "trickery" about it; a relationship with God makes a difference in real life.
> The act of resurrecting physically from a state of cellular death and still being the same person with the same memories and personality is far more improbable than moving a mountain literally because mountains actually do move albeit incredibly slowly.
This is true. It's what makes the physical resurrection of Jesus such a stunning event.
> To address his audience and persuade them to think they can achieve anything if they have enough faith without bearing that mind is exceptionally sinister.
There's nothing sinister about it since it's true. The Spirit of God in us and at work in the world does accomplish some "mountain moving" things. For example, the fall of the USSR in 1989 was by-and-large the result of Christians in the streets effecting non-violent political change. It's certainly not the way the press portrayed it, but those who were there tell the story that it was a movement of God.
> It's not about literacy it's about intelligence and knowledge of how the world works.
Correct. That's the difference between illiterate and non-literate. My travel in foreign countries, and my reading of history, shows me how intelligent these people are/were, even though sometimes they can't read. I am continually amazed at what the ancients figured out and what they were able to accomplish.
> why bother not writing anything down in the original language Hebrew where the context is better understood and Jesus use of symbolism is clearer?
Greek is actually a more clear language than Hebrew. It has a wider variety of verb forms and a larger vocabulary.
> Why is Greek the only thing that survives. Torah has survived longer right?
Greek isn't anywhere near the only thing that survives. We have plenty of Hebrew, Sumerian, Akkadian, Proto-Hebrew, Canaanite, hieroglyphics, and hundreds of others. Not sure what your point is here.
> I mean do you believe in a divine being with a human avatar who came down to Earth to provide humanity with something more than just an education on the importance of an invisible self they cannot sense that is more significant than it's own physical existence on Earth?
Yes, but I would correct some of your terminology to try to refine this statement. But basically I think I'm in agreement with what you said.
> What is this spiritual realm you are talking about and how does the literate population of this time and place make sense of it?
It doesn't take literacy to make sense of the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is the reality of God and the actions He takes in the cosmos, in human history, and in human lives. It is accessible to the adult and the child, the slave and the free, male and female, the scholar and the aborigine.
> I can't even make sense of it with my education in human neurobiology, physics, astronomy and the like.
Dr. Evandro Agazzi, President of the International Academy of Philosophy and Science in Brussels, gave a lecture about our modern conception of existence. He said that in the realm of science we will make flat statements that the world exists, yet the same person would say they *believe* God exists. Why should we use different wording? He says it goes back to a principle of authority. Our view of science as an authority causes us to talk about material things as existence, but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. And yet the moral law within us exists just as surely as the stars in the heavens (reflecting with Kant). He said that space is filled with places that have a particular purpose and therefore they exist—they are impregnated with meaning that differentiates each place from the other. There is material homogeneity (made up of atoms, molecules), but not homogeneity of purpose or role. He then moved to the issue of time. Time also has places, and in time we have distinct events that each has its own purpose. Special events have no homogeneity—each is unique as it exists in a moment in time. In space and time the distinctive places that exist are identified in relative terms. They all exist relative to the person. In time, you cannot speak about the present unless there is a subject who says "now". So, in the same way, time is relative to us. Present, past and future do not exist in Physics (he says, and he is convincing); they exist in our experience only in relation to us. Heaven, earth and time all have a religious sense and a personal sense—and that is why they really exist. Principles of Physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity. It cannot and does not cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of Physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.
> Why would a man leave his family and possessions behind just to die for a cause that could be reached with far less brutality?
Are you certain that it can be? If the cause is authentically true and worthy, the reaction of fellow humans are not only immaterial, but also possibly part and parcel of the "journey". Sometimes truth is established not only by its proponents but also by its enemies.
> What is the significance of having faith so big that you believe you can accomplish anything through prayer when it doesn't guarantee actual physical results?
The point of prayer is mostly to develop the relationship with God, not to get stuff. A study of the NT shows that more than 90% of what are to pray for is spiritual things (understanding, wisdom, love, depth of knowledge) rather than physical results.
We're remarkably fortunate to have even what we do. The majority of writings have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's Mediterranean History is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his Universal History in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost. The dearth of remaining manuscripts can't be the proof that they didn't write.
> but truth doesn't have an agenda and neither should Jesus to spread the truth of his divinity and motivations.
Of course truth has an agenda. No one can write everything that needs to be written. All writing, whether science, history, philosophy, or anything else, is selective to the writer's perspective and purpose. There is never time or space to tell the whole of any story. The details we include reflect our views and priorities. Historians select data because of their relevancy to the particular historians, and these become evidence for building the historian’s case for a particular hypothesis. Being selective as a writer to conform to a particular thesis is not only common but also accepted.
> Am I to believe Jesus actually said these exact words in Hebrew to his followers and focused on overarching themes in his speech?
No. Jesus spoke in Aramaic and the NT was written in Greek, so most of the time we don't have his exact words. And it was the Gospel writers who assembled the material, not in chronological order, but in themes according to their purpose in writing.
> But we should question his motivations for using such devices in light of his supposed divine power. I mean unless you are simply reading the text as any fictional piece of literature. If they are simply motivational speeches where does the actual divine nature and the power of the Holy Spirit fall into play with this kind of poetry?
I have no problem with Jesus being an accomplished public speaker, using a variety of rhetorical methods to communicate his point. The Bible wasn't written to show us poetic form, but to reveal God, and yet I have no problem with it containing beautiful poetry, poignant story-telling, and riveting plot lines. The excellence of the medium can help to convey the significance of the message. These are assuredly not simply motivational speeches but the revelation of his identity couched in an attractive rhetorical form.
> This is meant to be recognized as a written account of actual events. This audience would be familiar with Moses and Abraham and Elijah and miracles related to them but also familiar with Jesus doing the impossible.
Correct.
> If all these individuals are fictional and their connection to the divine not factual what is the point of faith that symbolically moves mountains?
The individuals are not fictional, and their connection to the divine is faction. I have no problem with the use of symbolism to make a point as a literary and rhetorical device. In my mind it doesn't detract from the the import of the message, but also makes it easy to understand and interesting to listen to.
> Faith without actual substance in the miraculous work of Jesus spread like a mustard seed and capable of moving mountains metaphorically is propaganda.
Faith has actual substance. Somehow we seem to be talking past each other (NOTE: that was a symbolic rhetorical device I just used). The symbol of the mustard seed doesn't mean faith isn't real or that its object is fictional, but rather that even faith that seems small and insignificant can be vibrant and adequate. Like electricity, it's not the size of the connection that matters, but the quality of the connection. Even the smallest connection, properly set, will make electricity flow with power, and a large one, corroded, will stop it cold.
A symbol of moving mountains is not propaganda, but rather a word picture that obstacles to us are not obstacles to God.
> I don't see what the point would have been to bolster his audience with that kind of talk at the same time knowing fully well they would be placing themselves in dangerous situations that would lead to their deaths.
Jesus was teaching them to think differently. They needed to have eyes beyond our physical life, our circumstances, and what we consider to be obstacles. If they could learn to live above life and to connect with God in very real ways, they would be able to accomplish great spiritual tasks by the power of God in them and working through their humanity.
> If Jesus' agenda was merely political then he and these writers are manipulating people into believing and dying for bullshit.
Wow, another misunderstanding. Writers can have a thesis to communicate truth. Jesus's speeches weren't just motivational. Jesus using symbolism doesn't mean he's denying divine power. The prophets of old are not fictional. Faith has substance. Moving mountains is not propaganda. And now let me say: Jesus's agenda was not merely political. It was decidedly apolitical, though many things he said had political repercussions when extended into life. Therefore the writers were not manipulating people with BS.
I'm glad we're having this conversation.
> That's not what I wrote. Son of God.
Yeah, my bad. Sorry.
> Praying to a divine being to simply conquer some kind of spiritual realm so great it can only move mountains metaphorically is the act of psychological manipulation. It renders miracle work as a medium for trickery to change people's behaviour rather than prepare them for any kind eternal existence.
"Moving mountains" is a metaphor for real-life obstacles, challenges, and "impossibilities." It is not manipulative to understand that our relationship with God can actually make a real-world difference about these obstacles, because it can. It's a statement of reality that our relationship with God, the Holy Spirit inside of us, and the real spiritual power at work can authentically "move" these obstacles, impossibilities, and meet the challenges. There's no "trickery" about it; a relationship with God makes a difference in real life.
> The act of resurrecting physically from a state of cellular death and still being the same person with the same memories and personality is far more improbable than moving a mountain literally because mountains actually do move albeit incredibly slowly.
This is true. It's what makes the physical resurrection of Jesus such a stunning event.
> To address his audience and persuade them to think they can achieve anything if they have enough faith without bearing that mind is exceptionally sinister.
There's nothing sinister about it since it's true. The Spirit of God in us and at work in the world does accomplish some "mountain moving" things. For example, the fall of the USSR in 1989 was by-and-large the result of Christians in the streets effecting non-violent political change. It's certainly not the way the press portrayed it, but those who were there tell the story that it was a movement of God.
> It's not about literacy it's about intelligence and knowledge of how the world works.
Correct. That's the difference between illiterate and non-literate. My travel in foreign countries, and my reading of history, shows me how intelligent these people are/were, even though sometimes they can't read. I am continually amazed at what the ancients figured out and what they were able to accomplish.
> why bother not writing anything down in the original language Hebrew where the context is better understood and Jesus use of symbolism is clearer?
Greek is actually a more clear language than Hebrew. It has a wider variety of verb forms and a larger vocabulary.
> Why is Greek the only thing that survives. Torah has survived longer right?
Greek isn't anywhere near the only thing that survives. We have plenty of Hebrew, Sumerian, Akkadian, Proto-Hebrew, Canaanite, hieroglyphics, and hundreds of others. Not sure what your point is here.
> I mean do you believe in a divine being with a human avatar who came down to Earth to provide humanity with something more than just an education on the importance of an invisible self they cannot sense that is more significant than it's own physical existence on Earth?
Yes, but I would correct some of your terminology to try to refine this statement. But basically I think I'm in agreement with what you said.
> What is this spiritual realm you are talking about and how does the literate population of this time and place make sense of it?
It doesn't take literacy to make sense of the spiritual realm. The spiritual realm is the reality of God and the actions He takes in the cosmos, in human history, and in human lives. It is accessible to the adult and the child, the slave and the free, male and female, the scholar and the aborigine.
> I can't even make sense of it with my education in human neurobiology, physics, astronomy and the like.
Dr. Evandro Agazzi, President of the International Academy of Philosophy and Science in Brussels, gave a lecture about our modern conception of existence. He said that in the realm of science we will make flat statements that the world exists, yet the same person would say they *believe* God exists. Why should we use different wording? He says it goes back to a principle of authority. Our view of science as an authority causes us to talk about material things as existence, but non-material things as simply our opinions or beliefs. And yet the moral law within us exists just as surely as the stars in the heavens (reflecting with Kant). He said that space is filled with places that have a particular purpose and therefore they exist—they are impregnated with meaning that differentiates each place from the other. There is material homogeneity (made up of atoms, molecules), but not homogeneity of purpose or role. He then moved to the issue of time. Time also has places, and in time we have distinct events that each has its own purpose. Special events have no homogeneity—each is unique as it exists in a moment in time. In space and time the distinctive places that exist are identified in relative terms. They all exist relative to the person. In time, you cannot speak about the present unless there is a subject who says "now". So, in the same way, time is relative to us. Present, past and future do not exist in Physics (he says, and he is convincing); they exist in our experience only in relation to us. Heaven, earth and time all have a religious sense and a personal sense—and that is why they really exist. Principles of Physics are delimited for the sake of objectivity. It cannot and does not cover the whole of reality. Metaphysics have always existed alongside of Physics and are needed to fill in the totality of reality. Never in history were these things seen as in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.
> Why would a man leave his family and possessions behind just to die for a cause that could be reached with far less brutality?
Are you certain that it can be? If the cause is authentically true and worthy, the reaction of fellow humans are not only immaterial, but also possibly part and parcel of the "journey". Sometimes truth is established not only by its proponents but also by its enemies.
> What is the significance of having faith so big that you believe you can accomplish anything through prayer when it doesn't guarantee actual physical results?
The point of prayer is mostly to develop the relationship with God, not to get stuff. A study of the NT shows that more than 90% of what are to pray for is spiritual things (understanding, wisdom, love, depth of knowledge) rather than physical results.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Mark 11:24 is reckless and false
by Koine » Sun Feb 17, 2019 2:35 pm
> I think the differences outweigh the similarities. You speak of an "extremely rare construction," and yet the two sentences are constructed differently.
You've glossed over the fact that the agreement is specifically on matters οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, which takes it out of the realm of disciplinary action in the Church and into the realm of petition(ary prayer) more broadly.
If we're talking about publicly confronting a sinner in the Church or eventually excommunicating then, the idea that God may give divine approval/ratification for such a terrestrial decision certainly makes sense -- which I think 18:18 builds on (a verse which of course also finds a reflection in Matthew 16:19 and elsewhere)
But asking God for something in this situation doesn't. Derrett suggested that the request was actually a human one, for the "payment of a monetary debt," but I think is impossible. Donald Hagner suggests the petition is a divine one "for guidance," but I think this is similarly untenable.
In any case, that's why 18:19 is more easily understandable as an even more generalizing statement/principle that builds on 18:18. And then, just as 18:19 may "riff on" 18:18, it seems like 18:20 then riffs on 18:19 itself: the idea that the divine presence is also there where there's a gathering of believers.
The more I think about it, though, I wonder if the form of the saying in 18:19 isn't actually the product of two sorts of traditions and/or rhetorical conventions in combination: the device of rhetorically exaggerating the importance of even mundane human acts (see something like Luke 15:10), + this more general tradition which I've been referring to, of all petitions being answered.
Read this way, 18:19 shouldn't be understood like "as long as there are a minimum of two who agree," but rather "even if there are only two who agree" (cf. Davies and Allison, "even if only two agree on something, it will be done for them"). But again, if the point is simply to emphasize the power of mundane human acts, then even this aspect of two people may be more rhetorical than anything, and may just be intended to illustrate the power of human petition in general.
I had mentioned Luke 15:10 above in this regard ("there is joy before the angels of God over [even] one sinner who repents"). To this we might add something like Genesis 18:26-32. But most importantly, Matthew 17:20 itself is relevant here, too: "if you have faith [even only] like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."
So yeah, I guess maybe we could rethink the idea of bearing some relation to this purported Jewish tradition of "the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one."
You referred to James 5:16, which I had also thought of too; but there are also things like Gospel of Thomas 48: "If two make peace with one another within a single house they will say to a mountain 'go elsewhere' and it will go elsewhere." This is evidence already in the early/mid second century for the joint reading of Matthew 18:19 with Matthew 17:20/21:21 and/or Mark 11:23-24.
As for how and why Thomas diverges from Matthew's phraseology here, it's anyone's guess; Gathercole comments on this here. In any case though, we also find something similar in the third century Didascalia (§15), which also brings Matthew 18:19 directly into conjunction with Matthew 17:20/21:21 and/or Mark 11:23-24.
Just as a tangential note, Nolland suggests that "The numerical agreement with the uses of 'two' in Mt. 18:16 is fortuitous. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:788, speculate about a possible original link between the 'two' in v. 19 and the 'two by two' for the sending out of the missionaries in Mk. 6:7."
You've glossed over the fact that the agreement is specifically on matters οὗ ἐὰν αἰτήσωνται, which takes it out of the realm of disciplinary action in the Church and into the realm of petition(ary prayer) more broadly.
If we're talking about publicly confronting a sinner in the Church or eventually excommunicating then, the idea that God may give divine approval/ratification for such a terrestrial decision certainly makes sense -- which I think 18:18 builds on (a verse which of course also finds a reflection in Matthew 16:19 and elsewhere)
But asking God for something in this situation doesn't. Derrett suggested that the request was actually a human one, for the "payment of a monetary debt," but I think is impossible. Donald Hagner suggests the petition is a divine one "for guidance," but I think this is similarly untenable.
In any case, that's why 18:19 is more easily understandable as an even more generalizing statement/principle that builds on 18:18. And then, just as 18:19 may "riff on" 18:18, it seems like 18:20 then riffs on 18:19 itself: the idea that the divine presence is also there where there's a gathering of believers.
The more I think about it, though, I wonder if the form of the saying in 18:19 isn't actually the product of two sorts of traditions and/or rhetorical conventions in combination: the device of rhetorically exaggerating the importance of even mundane human acts (see something like Luke 15:10), + this more general tradition which I've been referring to, of all petitions being answered.
Read this way, 18:19 shouldn't be understood like "as long as there are a minimum of two who agree," but rather "even if there are only two who agree" (cf. Davies and Allison, "even if only two agree on something, it will be done for them"). But again, if the point is simply to emphasize the power of mundane human acts, then even this aspect of two people may be more rhetorical than anything, and may just be intended to illustrate the power of human petition in general.
I had mentioned Luke 15:10 above in this regard ("there is joy before the angels of God over [even] one sinner who repents"). To this we might add something like Genesis 18:26-32. But most importantly, Matthew 17:20 itself is relevant here, too: "if you have faith [even only] like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."
So yeah, I guess maybe we could rethink the idea of bearing some relation to this purported Jewish tradition of "the prayer of several outweighs the prayer of one."
You referred to James 5:16, which I had also thought of too; but there are also things like Gospel of Thomas 48: "If two make peace with one another within a single house they will say to a mountain 'go elsewhere' and it will go elsewhere." This is evidence already in the early/mid second century for the joint reading of Matthew 18:19 with Matthew 17:20/21:21 and/or Mark 11:23-24.
As for how and why Thomas diverges from Matthew's phraseology here, it's anyone's guess; Gathercole comments on this here. In any case though, we also find something similar in the third century Didascalia (§15), which also brings Matthew 18:19 directly into conjunction with Matthew 17:20/21:21 and/or Mark 11:23-24.
Just as a tangential note, Nolland suggests that "The numerical agreement with the uses of 'two' in Mt. 18:16 is fortuitous. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:788, speculate about a possible original link between the 'two' in v. 19 and the 'two by two' for the sending out of the missionaries in Mk. 6:7."
- Koine
21 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests