19971017.00
I agree with Steven Fagerhaug that none of us is able to
state conclusively an objective meaning in the text that he
cited. I suspect however, that this text means much to many list-
members. It certainly means much to me.
I should be the first to admit, - no, not to admit but to
assert, - that this meaning is subjective to each individual. I
happen also to think that Kierkegaard meant what he said when he
stated that subjectivity is the truth. I believe that all
purported objectivity of meaning is illusory; that even the force
of the "laws" of physics and mathematics is similarly subjective.
but the exposition of that belief belongs in a different
discussion, perhaps on a different discussion list.
The text of Matt 6:12 which Steven Fagerhaug uses as an
illustration of (objective) undecidability presents a series of
interesting and important issues.
============
I have three comments:
1) In a philological perspective, I find the Greek text
as printed in the edition I use (Nestle, Stuttgart 1951)
quite unambiguous:
kai aphes h^emin ta opheil^emata h^em^on,
^os kai h^emeis aph^ekamen [ta opheilemata]
tois opheiletais h^em^on.
Greek New Testament
Likewise the various translations on my bookshelf:
Et dimittite nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus [debita] debitoribus nostris.
Vulgata
And forgive us our debts,
as we forgive [the debts of] our debtors.
King James Version
Vnd vergib vns vnsere Schulde /
wie wir vnseren Schueldigern [jhre Schulde] vergeben.
Martin Luther's translation
The words in brackets [ ... ] have been supplied by me as
being implied by the grammar of the text. We pray that God
should forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors their debts
to us. In the "original" Greek, and in the Latin version as well
as in Luther's translation, the debt which is to be forgiven by
God is stated in the accusative case: ta opheil^emata, debita,
Schulde; while the reference to us who are the anticipated
beneficiaries of that forgiveness is in the dative case (h^emin,
nobis, uns). That our debtors are not the objects but the
beneficiaries of the dismissal (forgiveness) to be granted by us
is unambiguously indicated by the dative case (tois opheiletais,
debitoribus, Schueldigern) by which they are denominated. The
objects of our dismissals are not our debtors, but the debts
which our debtors owe to us. The misunderstanding which Steven
Fagerhaug articulates reflects the circumstance that in English
the dative and accusative plural of the personal pronoun are
expressed by a single word: "us".
2. I agree with Steven Fagerhaug that this text, is
susceptible to interpretations the diversity of which is limited
only by the imagination and the personality of the reader. But
in this respect this particular biblical passage is no different
from other biblical passages, no different for that matter from
all literature. Even modest messages on this maillist are
subject to diverse (mis)interpretations. Indeed it has been
argued, - and I have been persuaded - that all writing derives
its ultimate meaning from the interpretation of the reader. I am
reminded of the set of prefaces, each a parody of the preceding,
with which Kierkegaard introduced his "Opbyggelige Taler"
(Edifying discourses). There Kierkegaard says that his writing
goes forth like an emissary to seek that individual reader (hiin
enkelte) who will understand it, without whose understanding the
text remains meaningless.
3. The fact, however, that many diverse interpretations are
possible, should not be extrapolated to mean that therefore these
potentially contradictory interpretations invalidate one another.
That because many interpretations are possible, the text is
devoid of meaning. It is, I think, an error to presume that
there is, - or should be,- a single dogma binding many
individuals with its unitary meaning. It is its unique
reflection in the life of each thoughtful reader which gives
validity to the text cited by Steven, as well as to all other
texts.
4. Over the years that I have thought about it, I have
become increasingly fond of the verses which are commonly
referred to as "the Lord's Prayer; although that designation
seems to me to add nothing, and perhaps to distract somewhat from
the profundity of the text. I prefer the less assuming, simple
textual reference of the Latin "Pater Noster" or the German
"Vaterunser", merely quoting as it does the two introductory
words to identify the prayer.
I interpret this prayer not as a recitation of what exists;
nor a recitation of what shall exist, but a recitation of what is
not; I read it as an account of the impossible. I read this
prayer, exemplary as it is of all prayer, as a recapitulation of
the calamitous state of human existence.
We are told that God made man in his own image; As man was
made in God's likeness so God exists in our imagination, in our
prayers, if you wish, in the likeness of man; and only a cursory
acquaintaince with theology suffices to suggest that the
attributes that we assign to deity are unavoidably
anthropomorphic. And if the divine person is understood in terms
derived from our understanding of ourselves, then it is plausible
to argue that God's relationship to the world is a modified image
of man's relationship to the world. I find a photographic
analogy useful. Man's fate, sein Schicksal, is like a
photographic negative; and prayer is analogous to displaying
before the mind's eye a positive image of the human negative.
If our father is in heaven, then, clearly, he is not on
earth. On earth man is fatherless and forlorn. To implore over
and over again that his name be hallowed, suggests most
persuasively that in the ordinary course of our business instead
of being hallowed, God's name is mocked and defiled. Every
tarnished penny in my wallet, Every dirty dollar bill, bears the
legend "In God we trust." Does any one on this list really
believe that we trust in God, rather than in landmines, in
hydrogen bombs, in chemical and biological warfare, in death by
electrocution, hanging or lethal injection, in coronary bypass
surgery, in Nielsen ratings and television advertising?
Obviously if our public pronouncements on the subject are
perennial lies, it makes a lot of sense that we should pray as
fervently as we are able "Hallowed by thy name," provided that we
not deceive ourselves into believing that our prayer has
succeeded in hallowing that which is perneially desecrated.
Our prayer, Thy Kingdom come, means that that Kingdom is not
here, has not come, and has not come any closer in the two
thousand years since the prayer was first prescribed.
An analogous observation may be made concerning the plea:
"Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That God's will
is being done even now in heaven is an inference which flows
immediately from the existence of God: a candidate whose will was
flouted in heaven, obviously would not be God. But here on
earth, it is another matter. From one perspective, everything
that happens on earth is an expression of the will of God; and as
every good Calvinist knows, even the most despised sinner sins
according to God's purpose and plan. From another prespective,
however, we humans, at any rate, are quite imperfect, and are in
fact unable to do God's will on earth; and in this perspective
the imprecation, Thy will be done ... is more than anything else
an eloquent affirmation of man's forlorn and pitiful existence.
The next prayer: give us this day our daily bread, appears
to be different from the preceding, but is only superficially so.
It is not only bread for which this prayer aims, but the entirety
of the physical preconditions for our earthly existence. The
implication that we should be nourished, that our life should be
sustained by God on a day by day basis, implies to me the
weakness, the frailty of our existence, dependent as it is upon
unremitting divine support.
This consideration then introduces the prayer concerning
whose meaning Steven was uncertain: "And forgive us our debts, as
we forgive our debtors." As I explained above, philologically,
this passage is quite unambiguous.
kai aphes h^emin ta opheil^emata h^em^on, ^os kai h^emeis
aph^ekamen [ta opheilemata] tois opheiletais h^em^on.
In my copy of the King James Version, the translation is
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
The Parallel passage (Luke 11:2-4) is:
kai aphes h^emin tas hamartias h^em^on,
kai gar autoi aphiomen panti opheilonti h^emin.
where hamartias is usually translated as "sins", although it is
used to denote (innocent) error or failure.
It does not surprise me that the translation was amended to
read:
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who
trespass against us.
Obviously it is most embarrassing, in a culture, where
commerce plays so prominent a role, to be required to forgive
ones debtors their debts, where the diligent collection of such
debts constitute ones livelihood. It is interesting and perhaps
important that in the German translation "Schuld" means both
"debt" and "fault." "Es ist meine Schuld." can mean either it is
my debt or it is my fault; though more commonly the latter. In
any event the correct translation of the Greek of St. Matthew is
"debt", we must consider the implications of what it means to be
required to forgive ones debtors their debts.
The fact that human beings are social creatures has been
systematically overlooked, - or denied, - by Christian theology,
which deals with the conscience (consciousness) of the individual
as a single, isolated entity in its relationship with God.
Christian theology has little to say about the social context of
human existence, and what it does say, e.g. to love ones
neighbor as oneself is misleading in its simplicity.
The question that presents itself is what it means to live,
- or to try to live in a debtless society, in a society where
debts are forgiven as a matter of principle, where laws of
contract and tort are nonexistent or void or meaningless.
There have been societies without property (rights) but
these societies have not been particularly creative, productive
or otherwise successful. They have not survived. The most
recent effort to establish a social order not dominated by
property was Marxist communism, whose program, to put it mildly,
did not succeed in its professed purpose of creating human
happiness.
Competition and the adversary relationship which it
engenders appear, at least from the vantage point of contemporary
culture, as inescapable and unavoidable characteristics of human
nature. The prayer, forgive us our debts as we forgive our
debtors, reflects therefore the same order of unreality as the
imprecations that preceded it. Just as God's kingdom does not
exist, and his will is not done on earth, so we do not forgive
one another our debts, if only for the simple reason that we are
unable to do so. And therefore our debts are not forgiven us,
and we remain immersed and enmeshed in our sins; and it is the
recognition of this fact that causes us to pray: and deliver us
from evil.
The Lord's Prayer as a negative (dialectic) of human
existence. Buechneresque forlornless... the father as protector,
but not here, in heaven, in a place inaccessible and remote;
geheiligt werde dein Name; the recapitulation of the first and
greatest commandment; subjectified. was heiszt geheiligt other
than to be touched with thea passion of inwardness. holiness
expressed in ritual... the optative implies that it is not (yet)
hallowed. that to hallow it is a continuing (hopeless) struggle
effort.
Mirrors differ; they color and distort, magnify and reduce.
they may make unrecognizable. The same object, Jesus, God,
Christiannity Judaism, in different mirrors different, sometimes
irreconcibaly so. As in our day the religious right, the
religious liberals etc.
So much for the easy part. The difficult part is complying
with the injunction. The debt that I am required to forgive is
not the trivial theft by the neighbor who absconded with my
dilapidated trash can two nights ago; the trespass that I am
required to forgive is the crime that destroys my happiness, my
health, that mutilates me to the point of death. And it is on
this score that Jesus commands me: Judge not that ye be not
judged.
The demand of the paradox, of the impossible, of the
antithesis, as an assertion of the imperfection of the thesis,
that it does not work.
Geheiligt werde dein Name, nicht dein Tempel. Hallowed be
thy name, not thy tempel. It is by sanctification that God is
established. The sanctity of God's name is an escape from the
unholiness of the world. hallowed be thy name, not thy shrine,
not the altar or what is sacrificed on it, but the concept of
thee that lives in human minds. intellectualism, the essence of
Judaism God as mind, as reason, as nous: where Greek and Semitic
religious experience converge.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. The
presumption that Gods will is done in heaven, that as he rules in
a transcendent kingdom so should he rule on earth where obviously
right now he does not rule at all.
our daily bread, symbolic for all bodily needs: the
biological dependence on food, water air, warmth
then the righting of the social world: forgive us as we
forgive.
Nicht "the _Lord's_ Prayer", denn aus der Niedrigkeit will
er sie all zu sich ziehen, und die Niedrigkeit ist mit der
Herrlichkeit unvereinbar. Das Vater unser also, und der Anruf
unser Vater bestaetigt, dasz wir auf Erden keinen Vater haben,
dasz wir im Sinne Buechners hier vaterlos und verloren sind. Und
deshalb erfinden und pflegen wir (and nourish) die
Phantasiegestalt des unerreichbaren und doch allgegenwaertigen
Vaters "im Himmel". Dieser Himmel jedoch wurde erdacht als die
Luefte nur den Spatzen gehoerten, und das was jenseits der
Luefte, unerkannt, unerforscht, unerreichbar, - und dem gemaesz
ein gehoeriges Bereich des unbedingt Notwendigen und dennoch des
unbedingt Unmoeglichen, des Goettlichen. Die neuzeitliche
Luftschifffahrt, und mehr noch, die neuzeitliche
Weltraumforschung hat offensichtlich die Gottesvorstellung ihrer
jahrtausendalten Wohnung im Himmel beraubt; und es ist vielleicht
deshalb kein Zufall, dasz gerade heutzutage die Oertlichkeit des
Goettlichen ins "Innere" des Menschen, in die Subjektivitaet
verlegt ist. God has been evicted from the heavens and has moved
into the subjectivity of man. Das Gebet "du bist im Himmel" ist
heutzutage entsprechend kompliziert, denn in dem mit Raumproben
durchdrungenen Aether ist fuer Gott ebensowenig Platz wie auf der
an allen Orten entdeckten, durchstoeberten und entheiligten Erde.
Umso bedeutender ist das Gebet, geheiliget sei dein Name.
Hagiasth^et^o to onoma sou sanctficetur nomen tuum Ich deute diesen
Satz darauf hin, dasz der Name Gottes an sich keineswegs heilig
ist, oder, dasz wenn er heilig war, dieser Name doch stets durch
menschliches Betragen (Gebaeren?) verunreinigt (verunheiligt)
worden ist und wird; dasz das Heiligen des Gottesnamens letzten
Endes Menschenaufgabe ist, und wenn dies der Fall ist, eine
jedenfalls objektiv hoffnungslose eine unmoeglich zu
vollbringende.
An dieser Stelle musz bemerkt sein, dasz dies Gebet ein
quasi-oeffentliches ist. Hout^os oun proseuchesthe humeis: Sic
ergo vos orabitis: lautet es; offensichtlich nicht an ein Du
sondern an ein Ihr, nicht an einen Einzelnen, sondern an eine
Gruppe gerichtet. So besteht jedenfalls die Moeglichkeit, dasz
der Name Gottes im Inneren des Menschen heilig ist, ja, dasz er
dort niemals verunreinigt worden ist; dasz er dort niemal
verunreinigt werden kann.
Das Gebet faehrt aber fort:
elthat^o h^e basileia sou
Adveniat regnum tuum
Dein Reich komme
Thy kingdom come.
Das alles heiszt unzweideutig, dasz dies Reich noch nicht
hier ist, dasz es noch nicht besteht, dasz es ersehnt, erwuenscht
und erwartet wird. Und damit wird dann wieder auf die
Duerftigkeit unserer gegenwaertigen Existenz hingewiesen. Diese
Unzulaenglichkeit unserer Welt wird noch eindringlicher im
folgenden betont:
gen^eth^et^o to thel^ema sou,
^os in ouran^oi kai epi g^es.
Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in caelo, et in terra.
Dieses Gesuch mahnt eindringlicher als alles andere an die
Gebrechlichkeit Gottes, dann was fuer ein Herrscher ist es, der
ohnmaechtig ist, seinen Willen durchzusetzen. Die Vorstellung
ist, dasz Gott schon heute im Himmel regierte, und morgen, dem
Gebet entsprechend, also auch auf Erden. Warum aber erst morgen?
Und wenn er heute ohnmaechtig ist, auf Erden zu regieren, ja dann
ist es ja auch fraglich, ob er heute auch tatsaechlich im Himmel
regiert, und ob nicht das Ganze ein Traum, eine Einbildung, eine
Vorstellung, ein Wunschbild unsererseits ist.
Die Frage ist dringender, insofern wir uns von ihm abhaengig
fuehlen. Wir sollen beten:
Ton arton h^emon ton epiousion dos h^emin s^emeron.
Panem nostrum superstantialem da nobis hodie.
Ich deute diesen Satz sich nicht nur auf das Brot, nicht nur auf
die Speise im allgemeinen, zu beziehen, sondern auf unsere
allgemeine Abhaengigkeit von der Welt, auf ein Leben das ueberaus
und fast unertraeglich zufaellig ist. Wir sind bestrebt unsere
Existenz zu befestigen, indem wir die Zufaelligkeit unserer
Beziehung zur Welt bei Gott versichern. Deshalb wuenschen wir
unser taegliches Brot statt vom Zufall, von seinen (Gottes)
Haenden zu empfangen.
Auf diese Ausfuehrungen hin wird die Bitte um die Vergebung
der Schuld umso bedeutungsreicher. Denn vorausgesetzt ist, dasz
die Schuld in doppelter Form besteht, in der Beziehung zwischen
dem Einzelnen und dem Gott und wiederum in der Beziehung des
Einzelnen zu seinem Mitmenschen. Vorausgesetzt ist, dasz wir
Menschen erstens einander, und zweitens Gott gegenueber Schuld
tragen; und gebetet wird um eine Vergebung unserer Schuld von
Seiten Gottes, wofuer als Gegenleistung der Betende verspricht
dem Mitmenschen seine Schuld zu vergeben. Aber ein solches
menschliches Vergeben der Schuld, und dies ist das Wesentliche,
hat sich im Laufe der Geschichte als unmoeglich erwiesen, und
erweist sich auch hinfort von Jahr zu Jahr und von Tag zu Tag als
unmoeglich. Denn das Gesellschaftsleben besteht uns aus
vertraglichen Bindungen und aus dem Vergelten von vermeintem
Unrecht, aus Rache also. Von Zeit zu Zeit haben die Menschen es
versucht eine Gesellschaftsordnungs auszerhalb des Begriffes der
Verschuldung einzufuehren. Diese Versuche haben aber alle, so
wie ich es verstehe, zu einer wesentlichen Einengung
persoenlicher Freiheit gefuehrt. Eine Gesellschaft bar der
Verschuldung waere einegeldlose Gesellschaft. Wie Georg Simmel
in seinem Buch ueber das Geld betont, ist aber das Geld ein
unentbehrliches Mittel gesellschaftlicher Freiheit. Tatsache ist
naemlich dasz, wie der Austausch von Diensten und Guetern unter
den Menschen unvermeidbar ist, so dient das Geld die
unvermeidlichen Verpflichtungen der Menschen gegeneinander zu
verwandeln, zu rationalisieren, ertragbarer zu machen, und somit
die Menschen frei, - oder jedenfalls weniger unfrei von einander
zu machen.
Aber gerade darum, wegen der Unentrinnbarkeit der
Unvermeidbarkeit, der Unerlaeszlichkeit der Schuld unter den
Menschen, ist auch die Schuld Gott gegenueber unerlaeszlich. Ich
finde es bezeichnend, dasz Christus, trotzdem er gekommen war die
Welt von ihrer Suende zu erloesen, es dennoch fuer notwendig
betrachtete sie zu lehren um Vergebung zu beten, und ins
besondere um Vergebung zu einem dem Menschengeschlecht
unmoeglichen Preise.
Auf diese unmoeglich zu erfuellende Klausel des Gebets folgt
das Bekenntnis allgemeiner menschlicher Unzulaenglichkeit und
Schwaeche. "Fuehre uns nicht in Versuchung," heiszt es,
selbstverstaendlich weil wir zukuenftig unfaehig sein werden der
Versuchung zu widerstehen wie wir es in Vergangenheit waren.
Deshalb ist es notwendig um Erloesung von dem Boesen, dem wir
laengst verfallen sind, zu beten.
Der Schluszsatz dann, welcher unterschiedlich nur in einigen
Manuscripten erscheint: Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und
die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit, dieser Satz ist ein ausdrueckliches
Fortwenden von der suendenbeladenen Misere menschlichen Daseins
zu jenen Regionen, ertraeumt, erdichtet, eingebildet, oder vom
Glauben ergriffen, wo das Nichtmenschliche, das Uebermenschliche,
das Goettliche herrscht, zu dem dies Gebet, wie jedes gueltige
Gebet die Richtung zeigt, den Weg aber als eine Unmoeglichkeit
erweist.
* * * * *
Zurueck
Weiter
Inhaltsverzeichnis