I not infrequently like to imagine a contrafactual Christian history in which Christianity had basically remained a unique option within Judaism, with Jesus as minimally a primary Sage of the Tradition alongside the likes of Shammai and Hillel, linking them to Yohanan b. Zakkai and Ishmael and Akiva and so forth, and perhaps moderately as a paradigmatic prophet-martyr, glorified like Moses and Elijah, and maximally as a divine messiah or something, but all still receiving Jesus' importance, whatever his credentials as an apocalyptic prophet, as a social prophet focused on this very pragmatic, earthly, halakhic question of how best to practice Torah & wisdom. Perhaps Christianity might not have come into being as a result, true, and some goods would have been lost; but perhaps also some evils avoided, and other goods gained.
You've said on more than one occasion that "you don't have a pastoral bone in your body," but this commentary is surely worth a thousand sermons.
Not much of it is new to me. It's either in the scholarship somewhere, or in your own writing somewhere (or, frankly, in the Greek everywhere). But I think we all need to admit that centuries of viewing things through the "infernalist lens" has made it hard for even the most committed universalist to unlearn the disastrous hermeneutical habits that view tends to inculcate. It's refreshing to be shocked (yet again) out of one's spiritual torpor by a commentary that so vividly captures the immensity of the moral imagination on offer in the Sermon.
You did pass over a verse that has, at various points in my life, just floored me: "for he makes his sun to rise on the wicked and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust."
Having rejected the ways of the wicked man and exhorted his followers to in no way imitate that man's ways, it is surely striking to be told that imitating the perfections of God includes imitating God's concern *for the wicked man.*
A hermit once told me something that I manage to forget several times a day: "You must understand that you -- you in particular -- are God's unique creation. And because that is so, you are the constant object of God's divine care and protection. The problem you must therefore confront at every moment is the fact that this is also true of everyone else."
"Leaves in the Wind." What a bargain. Now we don't have to wait for Hart's next book. (That said, get hold of Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief, Feb. 2022.)
Interesting. The historical Jesus spoke to everybody, even though I suppose it is true that the large majority of His listeners were poor. His moral teaching was certainly directed to everybody because in it we recognise our maker's voice. And because how obvious it becomes on the assumption that theism is true. What I found especially interesting in this audio clip is that, indeed, for the poor Christ’s moral teaching is not only true but moreover pragmatically useful. It is interesting to consider the relationship between the moral fabric of reality and poverty - that morality is more natural for the poor.
Here is a question I find intriguing and difficult to think about: In the Mountain Sermon Christ appears to teach us to kind of despise or ignore evil (don't return evil, love your enemies, offer the thief more than they want to take from you, don't be deceived by anger – live as if evil were not there). On theistic metaphysics this makes splendid sense, but I wonder sometimes what would actually happen in a society where a significant proportion (say 10%) of the population would literally follow Christ's precepts and live as if there were no evil. The immediate answer is that they would be eaten alive by the rest, but I am inclined to think that the rest would be moved to follow their example.
I agree with the comment by Stephen Ramsay that this talk was inspiring and simply marvellous. In my case, I enjoyed this interview more than anything else I have listened to in a long time. I had never thought about the references to court, or turning the other cheek, as practical advice in the face of a corrupt legal system. I also really liked the playful attitude such as telling God he was really virtuous today! And I thought the identification of the wicked one as a wicked man out to exploit the poor or a vulnerable wife gives the Sermon a real potency that is missing in the traditional way I’ve heard the story before. Thanks for doing this interview. If it is transcribed, I would love to obtain a copy. I am also anxious to see the revisions in the 2nd Ed. of the NT! Cheers from Canada.
"Leaves in the Wind." What a bargain. Now we don't have to wait for Hart's next book. (That said, get hold of Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief - Feb. 2022.)
I have seen a translation replacing the word "blessed" with "congratulations" and found that interesting which I thought was interesting especially from our current culture and how we use the word most often. Any thoughts ?
I not infrequently like to imagine a contrafactual Christian history in which Christianity had basically remained a unique option within Judaism, with Jesus as minimally a primary Sage of the Tradition alongside the likes of Shammai and Hillel, linking them to Yohanan b. Zakkai and Ishmael and Akiva and so forth, and perhaps moderately as a paradigmatic prophet-martyr, glorified like Moses and Elijah, and maximally as a divine messiah or something, but all still receiving Jesus' importance, whatever his credentials as an apocalyptic prophet, as a social prophet focused on this very pragmatic, earthly, halakhic question of how best to practice Torah & wisdom. Perhaps Christianity might not have come into being as a result, true, and some goods would have been lost; but perhaps also some evils avoided, and other goods gained.
This is just marvelous, David.
You've said on more than one occasion that "you don't have a pastoral bone in your body," but this commentary is surely worth a thousand sermons.
Not much of it is new to me. It's either in the scholarship somewhere, or in your own writing somewhere (or, frankly, in the Greek everywhere). But I think we all need to admit that centuries of viewing things through the "infernalist lens" has made it hard for even the most committed universalist to unlearn the disastrous hermeneutical habits that view tends to inculcate. It's refreshing to be shocked (yet again) out of one's spiritual torpor by a commentary that so vividly captures the immensity of the moral imagination on offer in the Sermon.
You did pass over a verse that has, at various points in my life, just floored me: "for he makes his sun to rise on the wicked and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust."
Having rejected the ways of the wicked man and exhorted his followers to in no way imitate that man's ways, it is surely striking to be told that imitating the perfections of God includes imitating God's concern *for the wicked man.*
A hermit once told me something that I manage to forget several times a day: "You must understand that you -- you in particular -- are God's unique creation. And because that is so, you are the constant object of God's divine care and protection. The problem you must therefore confront at every moment is the fact that this is also true of everyone else."
"Leaves in the Wind." What a bargain. Now we don't have to wait for Hart's next book. (That said, get hold of Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief, Feb. 2022.)
Interesting. The historical Jesus spoke to everybody, even though I suppose it is true that the large majority of His listeners were poor. His moral teaching was certainly directed to everybody because in it we recognise our maker's voice. And because how obvious it becomes on the assumption that theism is true. What I found especially interesting in this audio clip is that, indeed, for the poor Christ’s moral teaching is not only true but moreover pragmatically useful. It is interesting to consider the relationship between the moral fabric of reality and poverty - that morality is more natural for the poor.
Here is a question I find intriguing and difficult to think about: In the Mountain Sermon Christ appears to teach us to kind of despise or ignore evil (don't return evil, love your enemies, offer the thief more than they want to take from you, don't be deceived by anger – live as if evil were not there). On theistic metaphysics this makes splendid sense, but I wonder sometimes what would actually happen in a society where a significant proportion (say 10%) of the population would literally follow Christ's precepts and live as if there were no evil. The immediate answer is that they would be eaten alive by the rest, but I am inclined to think that the rest would be moved to follow their example.
I agree with the comment by Stephen Ramsay that this talk was inspiring and simply marvellous. In my case, I enjoyed this interview more than anything else I have listened to in a long time. I had never thought about the references to court, or turning the other cheek, as practical advice in the face of a corrupt legal system. I also really liked the playful attitude such as telling God he was really virtuous today! And I thought the identification of the wicked one as a wicked man out to exploit the poor or a vulnerable wife gives the Sermon a real potency that is missing in the traditional way I’ve heard the story before. Thanks for doing this interview. If it is transcribed, I would love to obtain a copy. I am also anxious to see the revisions in the 2nd Ed. of the NT! Cheers from Canada.
"Leaves in the Wind." What a bargain. Now we don't have to wait for Hart's next book. (That said, get hold of Tradition and Apocalypse: An Essay on the Future of Christian Belief - Feb. 2022.)
I have seen a translation replacing the word "blessed" with "congratulations" and found that interesting which I thought was interesting especially from our current culture and how we use the word most often. Any thoughts ?