Does anyone consider it at all important that Jesus offers this prayer while he is still alive, before he has made his personal sacrifice? (Presumably, within the Christian tradition, this event is rather pivotal in altering the nature of salvation, but here it has not yet happened.) In the current debate, I think a rather large structure is being proposed on a very small foundation.
Robert said
You claim that Mark was aware of the Our Father in its Matthean and Lukan versions but removed it.
That’s separate to this discussion. Here I’m only claiming that it is more likely for the our father to be removed rather than added to a second edition of the gospel.
The use of the Our Father greatly increases over time among gentile Christians. You have not pointed to a single instance of gentile Christians ever objecting to the prayer. Yet you hypothesize, without any evidence whatsoever, that Mark objected to it, even ‘though we know for a fact that he agreed with some of its most important elements.
I don’t think I need to. For present purposes its enough to show there was a tendency over time towards equalizing the worship of father and of the son over time, and away from worshipping the father solely.
If Matthew came across the verse “baptize them in the name of the father and the holy spirit” it could be shown that he agrees with everything in it. However it would be incorrect to say he’s unlikely to change it. The implication would be that the son is excluded. Same for the our father. Mark might agree with everything in it but the implication, especially for a Jewish christian previously brought up with the idea, that worship should be towards the father alone.
JAS said
Does anyone consider it at all important that Jesus offers this prayer while he is still alive, before he has made his personal sacrifice?
Yes.
There is nothing particularly objectionable to Jewish orthodoxy in the prayer. To be a Jewish Christian and say the prayer after the resurrection is to imply that nothing has changed or was achieved by Jesus’s life and death.
Robert said
When you say “a second addition of the gospel,” are you speaking of a second edition of the same gospel by the same author?
Either. Either a second edition by the same author or an author using an original gospel as a basis for his new one. In either case the more likely scenario is an increase in the equality of worship of the father and of the son.
For present purposes its enough to show there was a tendency over time towards equalizing the worship of father and of the son over time, and away from worshipping the father solely.
Go ahead and try to demonstrate that
I thought you already conceded this in comment 230?
In ether case, be aware that there Direct evidence to the contrary of your hypothesis. We actually know that later scribes were inclined to increase the length of the Our Father with additional singular prayer/worship to/of the Father in the singular:
Ok. Are you claiming the tendency over time was to increase the singular worship of the father to the exclusion of son, or the tendency was to increase the equality of worship of the father with that of the son, or there was no tendency in either direction?
brenmcg said
JAS said
Does anyone consider it at all important that Jesus offers this prayer while he is still alive, before he has made his personal sacrifice?
Yes.
There is nothing particularly objectionable to Jewish orthodoxy in the prayer. To be a Jewish Christian and say the prayer after the resurrection is to imply that nothing has changed or was achieved by Jesus’s life and death.
I do not think that the prayer addresses the question of salvation, merely living, but we necessarily digress into theology at this point. And it might be noted that theology is often pretty flexible on these matters, and not so easily put into neat boxes. Even if we address the question of forgiveness of sins, it is still God who forgives, even if the mechanism is the sacrifice made by Jesus. See how flexible it all is?
Robert said
brenmcg said
I thought you already conceded this in comment 230?
Over the course of centuries, sure, but not during the 10-15 years between the time of the gospels of Mark and Matthew being written (70-85 CE), during which time there were still many communities that were more and less Jewish in orientation. And demonstrably not with respect to the Our Father.
Ok. Are you claiming the tendency over time was to increase the singular worship of the father to the exclusion of son, or the tendency was to increase the equality of worship of the father with that of the son, or there was no tendency in either direction?
Neither. I am merely noting specific concrete data contrary to your unsubstantiated hypothesis. Don’t assume I just multiply hypotheses like you.
In the first response you say you agree there was a tendency to equalize the worship of father and son over time but in your second response you seem to deny that you agree?
. . . or perhaps the butler did it, or a suspect that won’t be introduced until the last few pages of the story. (That was meant for a comment about witnesses . . . possibly from another page)
Wow, from way back on page 1 . . . I am late to that party! (No wonder all of the nachos and guacamole dip are nowhere to be found.)
But you would agree that this tendency also existed in early christianity? From 30 CE during the life of Jesus say to when the letters of the NT were being written? mid-1st to early second century say?
So there’s some evidential value in looking at passages which give praise to the father alone?
Robert said
Sure, especially when you start the period during the life of Jesus, but no, this trend has no evidentiary value when applied to the synoptic gospels because of the specific nature of the evidence contained therein.
The evidence contained in Mark is that he believes Jesus is the Son of god, Lord, heir to the kingdom, and will come back on the clouds of heaven to gather his chosen ones for entry to the kingdom of heaven.
The argument is not the there’s anything particular that Mark objects to in the our father, but that he like all christians would have an aversion to saying it to the exclusion of worship of the son.
So the tendency does have evidentiary value even for the synoptics.
For an additional example of why this hypothetical argument does not work when applied to the evidence of Mark’s gospel, consider his strong endorsement of the the Jewish foundational confession contained in the Shema.
Mark hear is just highlighting the more subtle claim contained in Matthew. Both think Jesus is Lord and both think the Lord is God.
“the Lord our God” “David calls him Lord”.
God is one, and the Markan Jesus objects to even being called good for God alone is good. It is Matthew that weakens this affirmation.
How does Matthew weaken it? He says “Only one is good”. This could itself be construed as Jesus denying being good. Not a clear weakening.
Better is to understand the Mark/Luke change as an instance of the motif of “who is Jesus?”
“Why do you call me good?” “What kind of man is this?” “Who can forgive sins if not god alone?”
Questions:
In Mark 14:61 the high priest asks Jesus “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (NRSV) Is this a good translation? Is there anything in pre-NT prophecy that equates the Messiah with the son of Yahweh? Is “Blessed One” necessarily Yahweh in pre-NT Judiasm?
What is the basis for the claim (if there is such a claim) that when Jesus referenced the Son of Man in the following verse that he was talking about himself?
Robert said
Matthew believes exactly these same things about Jesus and he does not delete the Our Father so these same views cannot be evidence for your belief that Mark deleted the Our Father.
This isn’t good logic. Matthew might have an aversion to X but still include for historical accuracy. Later editions increase the chance of X being removed.
That both Mark and Matthew endorse the the Jewish foundational confession contained in the Shema suggests that they would also not object to Jesus praying the singular Father without having Jesus also praying to himself. We know this to be true of Matthew and it is thus a reasonable inference for Mark.
Its reasonable to conclude the possibility of Mark including the our father. Its not reasonable to conclude the chance of later writers removing the our father no longer applies to Mark. An editor of Matthew has an extra chance to edit out passages they have an aversion to. Even if they agree with everything the first writer does.
Mark has Jesus object to someone calling him good because no one is good except one, namely God, thus Jesus is not God in this story and is not even worthy to be called good.
No he doesn’t. There’s nothing apart form that interpretation of this passage which would suggest Jesus doesn’t think of himself as good. John is unworthy to stoop down and untie his sandals, God is “well pleased” with him.
Better to understand it as Jesus giving the young man a chance to reconfirm his claim that Jesus is good, which he declines. (this is the young man who ends up leaving upset).
In Matthew the young man does not call Jesus good, but merely asks him about a specific good deed, thus Matthew’s Jesus does not object to anyone calling him good, nor does he oppose his own person to the unique goodness of the one God. Rather he merely opposes a question about a specific good thing to do with the unique goodness of God who gave the commandments.
Mark has Jesus ask “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone”
Where does Mark have Jesus say “Don’t call me good, only God is good”
You consider it good to obfuscate the obvious secondary character of Matthew’s changes to Mark’s text here. And you’re also obfuscating the accusation of blasphemy by the scribes in Mk 2,7. Mark’s Jesus does not accept the scribes accusation; he does not claim to be God; rather he clarifies that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. The Son of Man, not God. Jesus is not claiming to be God here.
Matthew also has the line “When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men” which is missing from Mark.
Better to understand this as a removal by Mark so that the Son of Man simply has the authority and wasn’t given it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)