Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: Yet not my Will...

Thread: Kerygmania: Yet not my Will... Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000533

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Matthew 26: 36-46 for those who want to read along.

Jesus, in the garden of Gethsemane, with his disciples. Or rather, not with them. He takes the whole bunch to the garden, and tells them to sit down in one place. He then goes further on with Peter, James and John, and tells them to sit down there. He goes still further on and begins wailing. When he comes back to Peter et al., they are asleep - indicating that he was far enough out of earchot, that his cries did not disturb them. So, how do we know what Jesus prayed?

[ 21. November 2005, 11:30: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :

Jesus told them, possibly post-resurrection?

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :

Either that or they made it up out of whole cloth.

Personally I think he told his mum and she told the apostles after his ascension.

Posted by Matrix. (# 3452) on :

Wasn't it written inside the turin shroud?

kidding...

Maybe it was one of those many things that are not recorded but are part of the teaching Jesus gave following the resurrection and before the ascension.

Regards
M

Posted by 'Balaam' (# 4543) on :

Another possibility: The young man wearing the linen cloth (Mark 14:51-52, often believed to be John Mark, the writer of the gospel) heard what he said.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

C. S. Lewis suggested that they were within earshot, and the prayer we have is what Jesus said before they fell asleep.

Lewis said that in those days no one did anything silently. Since Jesus was very agitated, he probably spoke more loudly than usual.

Moo

Posted by lamb chopped (# 5528) on :

Sorry, finger hit too soon!

quote:
indicating that he was far enough out of earchot, that his cries did not disturb them.

Well, maybe, or it could just be that they'd just had a very good meal with plenty of wine [Devil]

And emotional overload, of course.

Lewis is right, they DID do everything out loud back then, even reading to one's self. It was quite a shock to one man to discover that Augustine could read silently. It *was* Augustine, wasn't it?

[deleted blank post]

[ 11. April 2004, 21:48: Message edited by: Scot ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

I think the common view of Scripture is that it is divinely revealed. The writer was inspired to know what Jesus said.

Posted by daisymay* (# 1480) on :

The bits that are written certainly don't last for several hours, even if we read them out loud - so I think that they weren't out of earshot, but heard some of what Jesus said to God and remembered enough of it (and maybe discussed it) to get it written down.

I like the idea of John Mark eavesdropping. Typical teenager, sneaking out at night, not bothering to dress properly....

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :

quote:
It was quite a shock to one man to discover that Augustine could read silently. It *was* Augustine, wasn't it?

To my memory, that was Julius Caesar...

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Nunc - that's what I heard too. People didn't want to sit next to him in the Senate because he could read without moving his lips and they thought that was creepy. Hence also the fuss made about Hannah in 1Samuel 1.

Posted by rewboss (# 566) on :

Maybe he was overheard. Maybe he told them afterwards. Maybe the Gospel writers made it up. Maybe the disciples, who'd known Jesus a long time, had a pretty good idea what was going through his mind. Maybe Jesus said to them along the way, "I have to do what God wants me to do, but I don't mind telling you, it scares me."

Maybe it was a combination of all of the above.

One thing's for sure; it wasn't a verbatim report of exactly what was said, just a brief summary.

How much does all of this really matter?

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rewboss:
How much does all of this really matter?

If it don't matter to you, then there's an easy answer: Don't read the thread.

quote:
Maybe the Gospel writers made it up.

That's, I guess my fear in it, and why it's suddenly become a big deal to me. I couldn't think of any way they knew, which left me with the suggestion that they made it up. So, if they made that up, then how much else is made up? How many other words/sentences/sermons did they put into Jesus' mouth, in order to 'show' some facet of him, or because he 'really should have said that'.

It was getting quite a big niggle to me.

Sarkycow

[ 13. April 2004, 13:38: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Balaam suggested:
Another possibility: The young man wearing the linen cloth (Mark 14:51-52, often believed to be John Mark, the writer of the gospel) heard what he said.

I hadn't thought of that. The account is very clear on what Jesus did with the disciples (in terms of who went where) but says nothing about anyone else with them. And certainly Mark was there.

quote:
Moo also suggested:
Lewis said that in those days no one did anything silently. Since Jesus was very agitated, he probably spoke more loudly than usual.

I didn't know that people didn't do silence back then. And that does lend credibility to the idea that the disciples would have heard at least part of what he was praying, in between their snoozing.

Sarkycow

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:

quote:
Maybe the Gospel writers made it up.
That's, I guess my fear in it, and why it's suddenly become a big deal to me. I couldn't think of any way they knew, which left me with the suggestion that they made it up. So, if they made that up, then how much else is made up?

You sound as though you are dismissing out of hand the idea of divine revelation. Is this really such an impossible concept? [Confused]

Posted by lamb chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
That's, I guess my fear in it, and why it's suddenly become a big deal to me. I couldn't think of any way they knew . . . .It was getting quite a big niggle to me.

I hope the past tense means that the niggle is somewhat resolved? [Smile]

It would freak me out too if I thought somebody was putting words in his mouth. Like pulling the rug out from under your feet.

But then, so much of what he says is SO unlikely, and so inconvenient to the self-interests of the disciples, the early church, etc. I think we've got a very reliable record, or otherwise tons of things would be omitted (like in other historical documents of the time, where the bias has obviously been laid on with a trowel). As a very minor textual scholar, I dearly love the Gospels for their reliability. [Axe murder]

Posted by rewboss (# 566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:

quote:
Originally posted by rewboss:
How much does all of this really matter?
If it don't matter to you, then there's an easy answer: Don't read the thread.

It was actually a serious question. I was asking how much it mattered.

But apart from that, how am I supposed to know which threads I should avoid if the subject line doesn't say, "Don't read this, rewboss"?

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rewboss:

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:

quote:
Originally posted by rewboss:
How much does all of this really matter?
If it don't matter to you, then there's an easy answer: Don't read the thread.
It was actually a serious question. I was asking how much it mattered.

Ah, sorry. I had already had the first person to whom I asked this question tell me that it didn't matter. I apologise for misreading you.

How much does it matter? It mattered a lot to me, the more I thought about it, because the longer I thought the less I could see any possible way that the gospel writers could have known. So I was left with either:

When Jesus woke them up, he said "Look, I've been praying that God would take all this away if He could. However, I'll do His will, not my own. And you're a bunch of lazy muppets, sleeping when I need you." However, the way the story is recorded leads me to think that it didn't happen like this.
So
Post Resurrection, Jesus had told them what He had prayed. But surely, by then it was a moot point, and not terribly useful for Him to have said "Oh, by the way, you remember when you were sleeping, just before I got arrested? Well, I prayed such-and-such - see the deep significance of it?" Again, that doesn't seem quite right.
So I was left with a final conclusion of
The gospel writers made it up, because they wanted to show that Jesus didn't want to die, but He was so terribly terribly obedient, and so He did what God asked of Him.

And if they made that up, then presumably the veracity of anything else Jesus said for which there are few/no witnesses should be doubted. It suddenly seemed rather important to me.

But now I have some plausible explanations for it, it's a much smaller niggle, and doesn't immediately repudiate the entire gospel [Biased]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So I was left with either:
When Jesus woke them up, he said "Look, I've been praying that God would take all this away if He could. However, I'll do His will, not my own. And you're a bunch of lazy muppets, sleeping when I need you." However, the way the story is recorded leads me to think that it didn't happen like this.
So
Post Resurrection, Jesus had told them what He had prayed. But surely, by then it was a moot point, and not terribly useful for Him to have said "Oh, by the way, you remember when you were sleeping, just before I got arrested? Well, I prayed such-and-such - see the deep significance of it?" Again, that doesn't seem quite right.
So I was left with a final conclusion of
The gospel writers made it up, because they wanted to show that Jesus didn't want to die, but He was so terribly terribly obedient, and so He did what God asked of Him.

Don't forget one more possibility:
4. What transpired was divinely revealed to the gospel writers.

Isn't this one possibility? How could they have known that an angel appeared to Jesus to comfort Him?

Surely there are many other things in the gospels that could not have been known by first hand experience. Who would have witnessed the conversation between Jesus and Pilate, or between Pilate and his wife? Who would have witnessed Jesus' temptations in the wilderness? Who would have known what Herod said secretly to the Wise Men? Couldn't they have been told by angels?

Maybe there are ways that all of these could have been known, but Christianity has traditionally assigned divine guidance to the writing of both the Old and New Testaments. The idea that the writers received material that they wrote down directly from angels or from God has been implicitly accepted since the beginning of the church.

It seems to me that this possibility is not unreasonable, and that it even solves many problems.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay*:
The bits that are written certainly don't last for several hours, even if we read them out loud - so I think that they weren't out of earshot, but heard some of what Jesus said to God and remembered enough of it (and maybe discussed it) to get it written down.

Now that I think about it, this is what I always pictured happening.

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :

I believe that the gospel of Thomas records a longer version of the Gethsemene prayer...
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep
If I should die before I wake
I pray the Lord my soul to take

Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :

The odd thing is, if the disciples did hear what Jesus was saying, how could they then fall asleep? If he really was so obviously troubled, and sweating blood and being cuddled by angels - what kind of friends were they to just fall asleep?

Whatever He had told them about His feelings and prayers, I don't think that it was clear to them exactly what was happening.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kiwigoldfish:
The odd thing is, if the disciples did hear what Jesus was saying, how could they then fall asleep? If he really was so obviously troubled, and sweating blood and being cuddled by angels - what kind of friends were they to just fall asleep?

Whatever He had told them about His feelings and prayers, I don't think that it was clear to them exactly what was happening.

Some people get tired and fall asleep in response to a very bad situation they don't know how to handle. Remember, Jesus told them to stay awake and watch. If he had told them to do something strenuous, that would have been much easier. Watching someone you love in extreme agony is excruciating. Sleep is an escape.

Moo

[ 14. April 2004, 11:46: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Don't you wonder what the source for this quote is?

quote:
3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." And they said, "What [is that] to us? You see [to it!"] 5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27

Did the chief priests and elders tell this story on themselves? Did Nicodemus report it? How about this one:

quote:
12 When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 saying, "Tell them, 'His disciples came at night and stole Him [away] while we slept.' 14 "And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and make you secure." 15 So they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. Matthew 28

Did one of the soldiers tell the truth, so the story got out?

I think that there are many parts of the Bible that are unlikely to have been known by normal channels of information. Even more so in the Old Testament.

Posted by rewboss (# 566) on :

There are two versions of Judas's death, and they don't quite match up. In the other version, Judas buys a field with the money, and then suffers some sort of fatal accident there. You can make them match, but you have to stretch a point or two to make it work.

We can fairly confidently say that:

a) Judas agreed to betray Jesus,
b) he died a short while later,
c) there is a field in Jerusalem called the Field of Blood,
d) and there is a prophecy about buying a field for thirty pieces of silver.

Both stories make sense of those four facts, but in slightly different ways: Matthew has Judas regretting his action, while Luke portrays him as getting his just deserts as he is enjoying the fruits of his ill-gotten gains.

Matthew and Luke seem to have had lots of different sources of information available to them, some of them dubious. A disciple who died shortly after betraying his master would certainly give rise to speculation and gossip.

But the exact historicity of these stories is probably less important than what the (divinely inspired) author was trying to say about God. Historical truth takes second place to spiritual truth, and it's important to read the Gospels as spiritual rather than historical documents.

But if we take Matthew's version as true, and we're wondering who reported what Judas said to the chief priests... Well, people can easily put two and two together. Consider the facts, Watson:

1. Judas is persuaded to betray Jesus, who is then executed.
2. We know Judas would have done anything for money. Obviously, he was bribed.
3. Shortly after the execution, Judas is seen paying a visit to the chief priests.
4. Apparently in a fit of remorse, Judas then commits suicide. The money is not found anywhere among his possessions.
5. The chief priests buy a field which becomes known as the Field of Blood.

We can guess what sort of angry exchange must have taken place between a remorseful Judas and the cold, calculating priests.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Ummm. The Judas thread is in Purgatory... [Paranoid]

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
It was quite a shock to one man to discover that Augustine could read silently. It *was* Augustine, wasn't it?

Actually, it was Augustine who was astonished to find that Ambrose could do it.

Timothy

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Don't forget one more possibility:
4. What transpired was divinely revealed to the gospel writers.

I've been trying to avoid answering you Freddy, because I don't want to give you heart failure, and it obviously seems very important to you that it was divine revelation.

But... I don't buy it. Maybe I'm just too rational, or whatever, but the idea of either:

An angel appearing and saying "Ok Mark, here's the gen on what happened in the garden. Y'know, when Jesus went off by himself, and the disciples all fell asleep?"
or
Mark having a dream about Jesus in the garden, praying His prayer, and waking up thinking "Right. So that's what happened then. Thank-you Lord for telling me."

It all seems just a leetle too far-fetched to me.

And ever-so-slightly pointless. The early church are writing down the stories of Jesus' life, before those who were there all die, and God's jumping up and down going "oooh, ooh, include this bit!"?

Somehow I don't see it....

Sarkycow

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
I've been trying to avoid answering you Freddy, because I don't want to give you heart failure, and it obviously seems very important to you that it was divine revelation.
But... I don't buy it. Maybe I'm just too rational, or whatever, but the idea of either:
An angel appearing and saying "Ok Mark, here's the gen on what happened in the garden. Y'know, when Jesus went off by himself, and the disciples all fell asleep?"
or
Mark having a dream about Jesus in the garden, praying His prayer, and waking up thinking "Right. So that's what happened then. Thank-you Lord for telling me."

That's OK. I'm not really set on that being the only explanation, only on it being taken seriously as a plausible option. Especially since the Bible claims repeatedly to be all about divinely revealed truths.

Dismissing this as a possibility seems to fly in the face of the Christianity's most basic assumptions. So Jesus was God's Son and did miracles, and saved us by dying on the cross, but it's not really possible for anything about it to have been learned from angels or in any other spiritual way. Does this mean that angels did not really appear at the tomb to the women? It sounds as though there is really no such thing as angels, or miracles, or visions, or, for that matter a "Son of God."

At the same time, I am perfectly happy to have virtually all of the Bible being written by people using, to all appearances, the usual means of recording stories told by witnesses or recounted second hand. It's just that Christians have always assumed the involvement of the hand of God and the reality of supernatural sources for what was written.

So I would think that they would at least be considered as one of several alternatives. Maybe not the most plausible alternative, but at least a legitimate possibility.

Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Some people get tired and fall asleep in response to a very bad situation they don't know how to handle. Remember, Jesus told them to stay awake and watch. If he had told them to do something strenuous, that would have been much easier. Watching someone you love in extreme agony is excruciating. Sleep is an escape.

Moo

Interesting - I had never noticed that they were "sleeping for sorrow" before. (Luke 22:44) I just can't imagine myself falling asleep in a tense situation (even if that's probably the best thing that I could do.) But I guess some people do.

If that was the case, then surely they had stayed awake some of the time and heard some of what was happening (I don't think they instantly dropped off to sleep when His back was turned.)

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :

I remember doing the falling-asleep-under-stress thing a few times as a teen.

Complete with wide-open, threat-display-like yawning in the face of my stressors.

Posted by lamb chopped (# 5528) on :

Thank you, Timothy! Got my saints mixed up.

quote:
Did the chief priests and elders tell this story on themselves? Did Nicodemus report it?

Regarding what would usually be considered "private" information and how it got into the Gospels, two things:

1. From the NT, it sure looks like an awful lot of servants became Christians, and very early. I mean, there's Joanna wife of Chuza, who was Herod's steward, there are various other people Paul refers to who were "in the household of [fill in the blank]", and there's the fact that Christianity was looked down upon by some people since women and servants were so attracted to it. Therefore, I think we can assume that at least some (most?) of these conversations took place within the earshot of a servant who was able to report it later. Probably several servants--exciting events lead to mass key-hole ear-ing (is that a word?). And I think we all know how certain people tend to forget that servants have ears and memories, and hold indiscreet conversations in front of them. Any former waiters/waitresses here who can testify to that one?

2. The ancient world had considerably different ideas of privacy than we have. Houses were much much smaller, and normally there'd be no glass in the windows to prevent outsiders from hearing what you say in the house (and probably often little yard to separate one's private space from the street). Also more people tended to live in/above/next to their places of business, producing even more potential witnesses.

Then and I'm told that near-perfect strangers sometimes had license to come and go in someone else's house at particular times. Sort of like having a public day, or a king holding an audience. Otherwise, how can you explain how the sinful woman got into a private dinner party to weep over Jesus' feet? And everyone sits around kvetching about it because of her reputation--NOT because she's invaded their space by entering the home.

Under such circumstances, I would imagine that it was harder to avoid witnesses than to have them. Which was the whole intention behind Jesus' late night arrest and trial. Look at how well THAT worked.

Posted by daynz (# 5681) on :

About the heard bits of it in between sleeping theory...surely if Jesus was loud enough, and distraught enough for you to hear bits of his loud and distraughtness while you were snoozing you would wake up enough to go and find out what was going on??

Posted by kiwigoldfish (# 5512) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daynz:
About the heard bits of it in between sleeping theory...surely if Jesus was loud enough, and distraught enough for you to hear bits of his loud and distraughtness while you were snoozing you would wake up enough to go and find out what was going on??

First of all, a big "Kia Ora mate" and welcome to the ship.

Now, to the point. That was kind of the thrust of my first post on this thread, but as has been pointed out people will face stressful situations by sleeping (shut down the system rather than face a reality you can't change.) And I was dubious until I saw the passage in Luke saying that they were sleeping because of sorrow. Which kind of blew every sermon I had heard on the passage out of the water because they were all saying "lazy disciples ... ignorant bunch ... insensitive oafs" kind of thing, whereas Luke states that they knew enough of what was going on, but lacked the fortitude to face reality.

I think they must have been close enough to hear - Jesus asked them to watch and pray, which suggests a degree of involvement. But He also told them to stay put. At least they got that part right.

They didn't hear all, but my best guess is that they got a reasonable idea of what He was praying about.

Posted by Dee-nz (# 5681) on :

quote:
Now, to the point. That was kind of the thrust of my first post on this thread, but as has been pointed out people will face stressful situations by sleeping (shut down the system rather than face a reality you can't change.) And I was dubious until I saw the passage in Luke saying that they were sleeping because of sorrow. Which kind of blew every sermon I had heard on the passage out of the water because they were all saying "lazy disciples ... ignorant bunch ... insensitive oafs" kind of thing, whereas Luke states that they knew enough of what was going on, but lacked the fortitude to face reality.

Hmmm

Nice point, I always felt vaguely bad about the verbal bashing that the disciples took over that one. Probably cause I am a bit of a "this-is-too-hard-I-think-I-will-sleep" person myself. Still it is an interesting question.

I think I quite like the eavesdropping teenager theory and have a bit of trouble streaching my sense of belief to the...he told us after the ressurection theory, still, maybe he did tell his Mum, they are always good for some tea and sympathy after you have taken a bashing that you did not ask for.

In the end I may have to consign it to the ask when I get to heaven basket...along with the great Adam, Eve and the belly button issue.

As a side issue...thanks for the Kia ora and interestingly on the subject of being an unsophisticated tosser, there is this pizza place down the road from where I live called Tossers Pizza...I always wondered what the implications were for pizza toppings in that name...scary stuff!

Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :

Sarky, just one indicator in the passage that would go against them having made it up is the 'criteria of embarassment' ie. it doesn't really make the disciples look very good, I think that there are enough plausible ways for them to have got the information for that not to be a problem either.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0