Talk:Matt 6:1-18

On tension in v. 5

Nice use of the word tension, Joe. Not surprisingly, I think Isaiah is a very important background text for Christ's teachings on hyprocisy. Most important I think is Isa 29:13, which is I think a continuation of the woes that start in Isa 28 (there are many common themes about this I'm planning to explore in the long-term here—for example, I think there's an interesting connection to be explored between sacrificial blood and the wine that the drunkards of Ephraim are drunk on, so the hypocrisy is inherently tied to worship and the use of the priesthood, which of course is the central point of praying in private vs. doing works in public; in fact, also I'd like to study the symbolism of the sacrament relating to feast imagery, including drunkeness, more). Other passages in Isaiah that I think are related to hypocrisy include: Isa 1:11-15 (God hates the sacrifices, feasts and prayers b/c they are "vain oblations"); Isa 3:16-24 (the haughty daughters of Zion "with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes" after which "the Lord will discover their secret parts"); Isa 5:11-12 (drunkards "regard not the work of the Lord), 21 ("woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own site" which is parallel in verse 22 to "them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink"), 24. Of course this is also related to the work on unity and the Godhead/trinity that you've being doing in 3 Ne (if our worship is sincere then we become one with God and our works are blessed, otherwise we are under the condemnation of hyprocisy Christ is talking about here) , so I see all these projects as quite relevant to each other.... --RobertC 15:34, 21 Sep 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderful tying together of all of these themes. I have to take some time to digest each point, and I'd like to do so in commentary. Expect some on that. Thanks for your sustained attention in the theme of wine. I wondered if it would bear fruit, but I see now the ways in which it will. Onward. --Joe Spencer 17:13, 21 Sep 2006 (UTC)

A further note on these questions. See my commentary here and on verse 6 that I added today. I tried to ground hypocrisy within a broader context (that of the logic of superabundance). Some work remains to be done on that contextualization, but I think it should be worked out in 6:1. Further, I see the possibility of working out the trinity theme in verse 6 here, and perhaps again in the Lord's prayer, where Jesus makes this relation of prayer a question of one's relation to the Father. As far as the Isaiah references go, I think this again points us in the direction of doing work on Isaiah 28, especially, as you suggest, with an eye to Isaiah 29 (there are other reasons to work out the relation between those two chapters: Nephi quotes almost all of chapter 29 in a radical interpretation/adaptation of Isaiah, and he mingles it with quotations from chapter 28... he seems to have seen those two chapters as reflecting, better than anything else in the OT he had, the last days he had seen in vision). On to Isaiah 28 (and, then, Psalm 23). --Joe Spencer 14:18, 22 Sep 2006 (UTC)

In Jim F.'s philosophy class we've just been talking about Maritain and Marcel who I think both prefigure in interesting ways this superabundance notion that Ricouer takes up—very interesting. I like what you've written (even if others might not like or appreciate some of the philosophically-laden verbiage...). It reminds me of yet another connection I'd like to eventually make and explore more regarding community vs. individual responsibility and their parallels in the Sinai vs. Davidic covenant (which is in turn related to the discussion of kingship vs. judges you were working on in Mosiah...). My sense is that law, justice, and the Sinai covenant are more communally-based and that Chist's teachings, mercy and the Davidic covenant (which I take as a Messianic covenant) are more individually/privately based, but it's the relationship that I think is intriguing and I think Isaiah 6 and Enos provide and interesting and consistent pattern: we are born into communal sin (original sin?), seek mercy/atonement individually, then seek to help the community obtain mercy also (by preaching, praying for others, etc.). In this sense, I think that justice and mercy are closer to being two-sides of the same coin rather than two juxtaposed forces/concepts (justice/judgment is what motivates us to individually seek a turn from the fallen community by seeking mercy)....

Here are some more related links/pages for my personal reference more than anything: Talk:Mosiah 29:36-40; Talk:Mosiah 25:16-20; Mosiah 25:1; Mosiah 29:36; Mosiah 1:1; Talk:Mosiah 1:1-5; T&S comment; another T&S comment; another T&S comment; Deut 7:6-10 (on intergenerational responsibility); Josh 7:13 (Achan's sin causes defeat in battle); Deut 5:9-10 (intergenerational note and x-refs). --RobertC 21:05, 22 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Radical subjectivity, "our" and superabundance - v 6-10

Joe, I really like the point you raise about the tension between the admonition to pray privately and the example using the communal 1st person plural. I'm ashamed to say I hadn't really thought about this before....

I think I understand why you say the radical subjectivity of prayer could/should be explored in Habakuk (the comments you posted at Hab 1:2 hint at this and the fact that Habakuk is written in the form of a prayer suggest this). However, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at regarding Jonah. Can you elaborate a bit?

The problem may simply be that I'm not well-read enought to appreciate your use of the phrases radical subjectivity and Christian superabundance. I'm reading radical subjectivity probably in a more vague sense then you mean it, referring roughly to a Buberian I-thou or Levinasian ethical-other sense (that is, a personal relation as opposed to impersonal; the problem with the term personal of course is that it implies a one-on-one relationship and it seems many of the most intriguing issues you raise have to do with the extent to which a community can have this type of relationship—hence the relevance of the question about the unity of Godhead; I should state that I have John 17 in the back of my mind in all of this and think that is probably the most relevant text...). And I'm reading superabundance in the sense that you've hinted at in our Isa 6 discussions (and in the sense that French philosophy seems to address this, though I'm not very clear on this yet): that is, God's glory is beyond comprehension (and it is this fact that makes Isaiah's becoming undone so significant, and the notion of humbling ourselves before God the only way to really begin to comprehend God's glory—and this is what I think we're both trying to explore in Isa 28, how God's literal overflowing/superabundancing/drowning Israel's pride by the Assyrians serves as a type of conversion at a personal and communal level; that is, only throught he humility that accompanies this type of superabundancing/undoing can we begin to comprehend God's glory...).

Oops, I didn't mean to make that paragraph that long. Having written it, I do see a rich parallel with the arising/descending theme in Jonah. That is, the overflowing/drowning of Jonah (e.g. Jonah 2:5) seems closely related to this superabundance notion, though I still can't guess what you mean by radical subjectivity in Jonah. --RobertC 16:02, 23 Sep 2006 (UTC)

In trying to work out a simple response, Robert, I am realizing how foreign this idea might be to most. You are right to look to the commentary I've worked out in our discussion of Isaiah 6, but I'm realizing that perhaps even there I have been too obscure. I'm not sure exactly how to put this clearly without writing at least a short paper on "Kant, the Law of Moses, and Christian Superabundance" or some such thing. I can't point vaguely to Marion and Henry (perhaps Levinas, though I'm still not sure how to read him on this subject), but I don't know that that is getting my point across. I should probably point out that I am at some important distance, at any rate, from Buber. Superabundance...

To make matters worse, I think I see Jonah as the ground for this whole discussion. Perhaps before this business of prayer can be worked out, Jonah must be worked out at some length. I'm realizing more all the time how fundamental that book is to understanding any and all of the prophets. That sounds like a radical claim, and perhaps it deserves full attention (book-length attention?). Jonah, I think, is not so much a question of prayer until chapter 4, but it is a question of radical subjectivity and superabundance from the very beginning and right through to the end. There is something profound at work through that whole book.

Perhaps the way to make the tie to Jonah clear is to say this: 1) The Book of Jonah is specifically an exploration of the role of radical subjectivity in the phenomenon of prophecy. 2) Christianity is, broadly speaking, a universal call to prophecy (every Christian is called to be a prophet). 3) Hence, the Book of Jonah is an exploration, quite profoundly, of the nature of Christianity--especially the radical subjectivity that grounds it, and the associated superabundance of grace, manifested in the call. Something like that, anyway. I'll have to turn to Jonah. And to Isaiah 28. I see two major projects in those two texts. --Joe Spencer 16:41, 23 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I reread the commentary you posted and I now realize I hadn't paid enough attention to the following sentence your wrote:

"The starting point, of course, for any question of radical subjectivity is its origin, that is, how it is that a radical subjectivity comes into being in the first place. Two answers immediately present themselves, two answers that are, in the end, closely tied: there must be a naming of the subject, and the subject must be called."

I still maintain that I'm probably not familiar enough with Kant and other philosophical concepts to fully grasp what your getting at (so I am anxious to hear you work this out in Jonah), but rereading thisquote coupled with your response above helps me realize where I was missing your point. By the way, a google search of "radical subjectivity" turned up this SEP blurb regarding Nishitani's book The Philosophy of Radical Subjectivity. I have mostly just an unexplored curiosity about Asian thought, but I think Nishitani's notion is actually closer to what I was thinking you meant than what you actually meant. That is, I was thinking of radical subjectivity more in terms of requiring what the article is describing as an emptying of oneself (and what I think of in terms of humbling oneself, being undone, being overcome, all of which I am trying to link to the "overflowing" in Isa 28 and the drowning and effort-to-hide-from-God themes in Jonah). At any rate, I hope my misreading doesn't discourage you from posting your very interesting thoughts and insights here (I appreciate that it's harder and more time-consuming to explain your thoughts to a misunderstanding audience than it is to just keep notes for yourself...). --RobertC 01:01, 24 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I don't know exactly that I followed the summary of Nishitani's work, but I do think that reference to Meister Eckart as a thinker of radical subjectivity would be along the lines of my thought here. I am not as familiar with him as I would like to be, but what little I do know of him gives me that impression. His influence on both Heidegger and Marion is unmistakable. I'll continue most of this work under Jonah, I think, but as it bears back on this question, I'd like to resume this discussion in terms of prayer and the instantiation of the Abrahamic Covenant. --Joe Spencer 22:05, 24 Sep 2006 (UTC)

JST - v 11-15

I'd like suggestions as to why the JST is only in the Bible & not included in the Book of Mormon. This seems like a great argument against the divinity of the Book of Mormon, that it excludes Joseph Smith's changes in Matthew and adds the questionable last line.--Nanette 01:05, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Hey Nanette, I remember reading somewhere on this question. There has to be a FARMS article on this question somewhere. I'll try to go looking for it. In the meantime here are some thoughts. First it seems clear that Book of Mormon quotations of the bible are often in the words of the KJV. Maybe the reason for this is so that it is clear that the Bible is being quoted. The translation into English (into the language of the people at the time Joseph translated into English) makes the connection the the Bible by using the same wording as the Bible. If you are Joseph Smith the translator the way you do this is by picking up the KJV and reading it. Of course, this ignores the fact that there are still a lot of differences from the KJV. This is hardly a complete answer, but I hope it is something of a start for thinking about why there would be errors from the KJV reproduced in the Book of Mormon. --Matthew Faulconer 17:07, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

"This seems like a great argument against the divinity of the Book of Mormon." Only if one works on the presupposition that Jesus can't say one thing in the New World and another in the Old World. If apologetics, as Hugh Nibley pointed out again and again, really only amounts to showing that the gospel is not "impossible," then all apologetics can do is to say that it is not impossible that God would be behind these two texts, however they turned out. There is hardly an absolute argument against the divinity of the Book of Mormon here, one that confirms an undeniable impossibility at work. We simply have the task of interpreting. --Joe Spencer 18:09, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Not surprisingly, I agree with Joe (I need to try to find more to disagree with him over so I'm not just his lackey! And I'm sure Joe would enjoy nothing more, it's just I'm not sure I'm up to the taks since it'll take me a lot of work to think carefully enough about something to truly disagree over!). One thought, which I'm likely stealing from someone else (I think we discussed this a bit on the blog), is that this is a good invitation to think about the different audiences that Jesus was addressing. For example, in the New World, it seems all or at least most of the wicked were destroyed whereas there might've been more unrighteous lurkers which prevented Jesus from teaching the most-celestial version of the sermon.... --RobertC 19:37, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Good answers, Gentlemen, however, only Matthew's really touches the real question here. The point is that the NT version scholarship believes the additions were added by a scribe, a human error, not God. So, unless the point was to make it MATCH the KJV, which I can't really buy, then the BofM version was likewise "tampered with" since it is per NT pre JST. I think it's a perfectly adequate springboard for anti's to use in saying JS didn't receive revelation but rather plagerized...now this is based upon his plagerizing being BAD. I think plagerizing under the direction of the Spirit is fine and just an economy of effort, kinda like evolution. I just wonder why bother allowing the discrepancy when the lost pages per Martin Harris incident was so well resolved to prevent such discrepancies--now I know they're not exactly the same, but somewhat similar. You can see the connection, I'm sure.

Joe, your points about the different audiences are worthwhile and I see that reflected in the sermons at large, but in this prayer I think the point is not relevant because of the "scribe" factor.

Matthew, I would GREATLY appreciate any further LDS scholarship you have on this issue before Sunday's mtg. (or after). --Nanette 20:23, 4 April 2007 (CEST)

Let me restate my point, because I'm not sure it was caught. I'm not (entirely) suggesting that this provides us with an interesting place to think about audiences, but that one only puts the text in question when one regards it critically (passes judgment on it). Over against this, I understand the text to be calling me into question, to be passing judgment on me, to be critically regarding me. The reason this passage provides an impetus to studying contexts for the teachings of Jesus is because it calls me to study how Jesus speaks to us, a call I might well miss if I am calling it to play a role in some critical/"objective" scheme. --Joe Spencer 03:01, 5 April 2007 (CEST)

Nanette, I think a good place to start to think about your question is Royal Skousen's post on T&S. At heart I think this question is about 1) what the Book of Mormon translation is, and 2) what to make of the KJV. For me this raises more questions than answers, but I love it. (Though I'm not sure what to make of the black and white distinction between revealed and human behind 4f). I'll keep looking. This is an interesting question. Anyone want to ask Skousen? I think he would have an interesting view on this question. --Matthew Faulconer 05:35, 6 April 2007 (CEST) and also this FARMS article. Good stuff but I'd prefer a direct discussion of the topic rather than a response to an attack which by nature then turns into a defense. --Matthew Faulconer 06:15, 6 April 2007 (CEST)