Gethsemane primary song

[blueglass]

Our recent primary program included the popular song by Melanie Hoffman entitled "Gethsemane" and when I have substituted in primary to help with piano and music direction I have noticed that the kids really like the song.  the primary president loves the song, and the music leader holds the song out as a reward if they are well behaved through the rest of the music training then they will get to sing their favorite song, "Gethsemane". 

I mentioned to my kids that gethsemane, gath + shemen refers to a wine or oil press, #1660 + #8081 so they could substitute "wi  -eyne ne press!,  "wi, ine press!" as they sing the song. 

At first I thought this was a popular song, but was not doctrine officially reviewed for addition to our music canon for teaching children about the atonement.  However, I was wrong.  It is officially on the website and promoted for use.  Hoffman retains copyright.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2018/03/gethsemane?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media-library/video/2018-03-0020-gethsemane?lang=eng

Many times on the mission in the south, people would say that we did not believe in the power of the cross 1 Cor 1:18 and had substituted the cross with gethsemane.  https://www.mrm.org/gethsemane

A helpful FAIR article released countering the idea that we believe only in gethsemane has a number of quotes by Hinckley and others emphasizing the cross and resurrection.  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jesus_Christ/Atonement/The_garden_and_the_cross

Also included is an extensive list of hymns which include lyrics referring to the cross

"It was the redemption which He worked out in the Garden of Gethsemane and upon the cross of Calvary which made His gift immortal, universal, and everlasting. "   Ensign (December 1997) Emphasis in the original post by fair.

The most recent 2018 Preach my gospel teaches under Lesson2, Plan of Salvation "The Savior’s Atonement included His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and His suffering and death on the cross, and it ended with His Resurrection."

1)  What is the best approach to teach the atonement doctrine to our children through music?   How can we balance out the music which emphasizes one aspect of the atonement over all others?  

2)  Does the restoration or LDS Christianity require emphasis on gethsemane?  “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”   Joseph refers to the death of Christ first not the suffering in the garden as a fundamental principle. 

3)  Luke 22:43-44 is not found in most of the earliest and best greek manuscripts of the NT.  One of the problems with our use of the KJV as noted by Wayment is that we lose the insight gained from the best scholarship on the new testament in our English bibles.  For example most modern translations such as ESV and NRSV based on NA ver27, 28 will bracket and footnote the spurious John 7:53 - 8:11 story of the woman taken in adultery and the bloody sweat passages of Luke 22:43-44. 

4)  How should LDS Christians engage with the latest NT scholarship when it comes in conflict with Book of Mormon Mosiah 3:7/D&Cov 19:18  NT intertextual dependencies?

 

 

 

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

3)  Luke 22:43-44 is not found in most of the earliest and best greek manuscripts of the NT.  One of the problems with our use of the KJV as noted by Wayment is that we lose the insight gained from the best scholarship on the new testament in our English bibles.  For example most modern translations such as ESV and NRSV based on NA ver27, 28 will bracket and footnote the spurious John 7:53 - 8:11 story of the woman taken in adultery and the bloody sweat passages of Luke 22:43-44. 

4)  How should LDS Christians engage with the latest NT scholarship when it comes in conflict with Book of Mormon Mosiah 3:7/D&Cov 19:18  NT intertextual dependencies?

I mentioned this in another post (for a different reason, here), but Lincoln H. Blumell gives a convincing argument for why Luke 22:43-44 was the original reading, and explains the reasons that Christian apologists omitted this verse in some text (rather than added later).  See his journal article, Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?, (available here:  http://jbtc.org/v19/TC-2014-Blumell.pdf).    The idea that Jesus was in "agony" in the garden and was strengthened by an angel was something that the apologists found hard to defend, and so the verses were removed in some manuscripts.

His conclusion is as follows:

Quote

Conclusion
       In closing, Luke 22:43–44 is admittedly one of the thorniest text-critical problems in the entire New Testament. Modern scholarship on this passage spans three centuries and any text critical assessment of this passage can involve a number of complex variables. The present investigation has focused almost exclusively on external factors in an attempt to establish a plausible context in which this passage could have been removed from select copies of Luke sometime after the middle of the second century and before the end of the third century as a result of anti-Christian attacks and a Christian failure to achieve a convincing consensus interpretation of this passage. While this thesis is admittedly built upon some circumstantial evidence it is no more circumstantial than the argument that this passage represents an interpolation that was added to Luke as part of an anti-docetic polemic. In fact, the present argument for the deliberate omission of the passage has an inherent advantage over the anti-docetic interpolation theory since it more closely conforms to the extant manuscript and patristic evidence. All of the earliest evidence from the middle and latter half of the second century establishes that Luke 22:43–44 was otherwise known (i.e. Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian [?]), as well as the earliest extant fragment of Luke (0171), from the late second or early third century, whereas it is not until some time in the third century, and potentially even the latter part of the third century, when this passage is not attested (𝔓69vid, 𝔓75). Given the nature of the evidence, it favors the interpretation that the passage was present and was then omitted, thus following the contours of the extant evidence, and not that it must necessarily have been added sometime in the early second century prior to its first attestation by Justin Martyr as Ehrman and others suppose. Furthermore, from Epiphanius there is direct evidence that this passage had a troublesome interpretive history through the fourth century and was indeed excised by “orthodox” Christians at this time. In sum, therefore, there are legitimate grounds for both seriously questioning the whole anti-docetic interpolation theory as well as taking seriously the theory for the early excision of Luke 22:43–44 from select manuscripts.

It is worth reading his journal article.

Edit:  There are several alternate sources for Blumell's article, including here:  https://bibil.unil.ch/bibil/public/indexDisplayDetails.action?pid=bibil:237601, and the textual problem with the Luke 22:43-44 passage is discussed in this textual criticism post:  http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-drops-of-blood-and-angel-in-luke.html

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by InCognitus

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

1)  What is the best approach to teach the atonement doctrine to our children through music?   How can we balance out the music which emphasizes one aspect of the atonement over all others?  

We have that balance already, don't we?   The atonement for our sins took place in Gethsemane, and it was finished on the cross.  It seems to me that our music has more references to the cross than it does to Gethsemane.  Just look up most any sacrament hymn, such as Reverently and Meekly Now, Thy Will, O Lord, Be Done, While of These Emblems We Partake, In Humility, Our Savior, and the obvious, Upon the Cross of Calvary.  And In Memory of the Crucified mentions both Gethsemane and the cross as follows:

1. Our Savior, in Gethsemane,
   Shrank not to drink the bitter cup,
   And then, for us, on Calvary,
   Upon the cross was lifted up.

The cross is also highlighted in a number of our children's songs, such as Help Us, O God, to Understand, and To Think about Jesus.  So I don't really understand what you are saying here.

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

2)  Does the restoration or LDS Christianity require emphasis on gethsemane?  “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it”   Joseph refers to the death of Christ first not the suffering in the garden as a fundamental principle. 

Joseph was obviously paraphrasing Paul from 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 in that quote.  I don't see how that statement would eliminate or minimize what Jesus did in Gethsemane.   Do you think otherwise?

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/28/2019 at 10:58 AM, blueglass said:

A helpful FAIR article released countering the idea that we believe only in gethsemane has a number of quotes by Hinckley and others emphasizing the cross and resurrection.  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Jesus_Christ/Atonement/The_garden_and_the_crossAlso included is an extensive list of hymns which include lyrics referring to the cross.

A while back I posted an essay here entitled “Looking for the Cross in all the Wrong Places.” It was in response to criticisms that we LDS don’t venerate the Cross adequately. I pointed out our sacrament hymns (with a comprehensive list and quotes) and sacrament service as the right place to look for our feelings about the Cross, not what we put on our walls or wear as jewelry. I would be supremely happy if someone at FAIR had noticed it and incorporated it in their article!

Edited November 29, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, blueglass said:

4)  How should LDS Christians engage with the latest NT scholarship when it comes in conflict with Book of Mormon Mosiah 3:7/D&Cov 19:18  NT intertextual dependencies?

I would use it as a missionary opportunity to invite them to pray about the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. 

[mnn727]

On 11/28/2019 at 12:58 PM, blueglass said:

 

I mentioned to my kids that gethsemane, gath + shemen refers to a wine or oil press, #1660 + #8081 so they could substitute "wi  -eyne ne press!,  "wi, ine press!" as they sing the song. 

 

Not sure why you would  tell the kids it was OK to substitute "Wi ine Press"

While Gethsemane may in fact mean wine or olive press, the word Gethsemane has meanings that 'Wine Press' does not.

It would sound very inappropriate to me if the children substituted it.

Edited November 29, 2019 by mnn727

[Amulek]

On 11/28/2019 at 12:58 PM, blueglass said:

Many times on the mission in the south, people would say that we did not believe in the power of the cross 1 Cor 1:18 and had substituted the cross with gethsemane.  https://www.mrm.org/gethsemane

Here's the thing: the atonement had to actually happen in space and time. Once you realize that, it's all just a matter of conjecture as to "when" the atonement transpired.

Did it begin and end exclusively on the cross? And if so, when? Before or after he was offered vinegar? Before, during, or after the seven sayings? Maybe it didn't start until he was being raised on the cross? Or was it when he was being affixed to the cross? Or when he was carrying the cross? 

Did it begin before or after his suffering at the hands of the Romans? When he was judged by Pilate? By the Sanhedrin? At his arrest? During his agony in the Garden? The Last Supper? His anointing? Cleansing of the Temple? Triumphal entry into Jerusalem? At the beginning of his ministry? At his birth? Or maybe it doesn't start until Adam partakes of the fruit and completes the Fall? 

Honestly, it's all just speculation. There's no date-time-stamp for the atonement. 

Whenever I have been asked by friends (here in the South) about the roll of the Garden, I simply turn it around and ask them the logical questions that have always personally come to mind when pondering the atonement. So, what on earth do you think could have caused so much stress and trauma as to cause the Savior to sweat drops of blood? Do you honestly think the anticipation of the atonement was more painful than the actual atonement? Nonsense.

It seems obvious that something pertaining to the atonement took place in the Garden. You can quibble about what that may have been (his commiting his will, his taking upon himself the sins of mankind, etc.), but it seems pretty clear that the Garden is relevant.

And it seems pretty silly to try and rag on Saints for not properly venerating "the cross" and to try and make us out as not fully embracing Christ merely because, when it comes to the most magnificent, infinite, ineffable gift that God has ever bestowed upon mankind, we don't necessarily agree on the start time.

 

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Not sure why you would  tell the kids it was OK to substitute "Wi ine Press"

While Gethsemane may in fact mean wine or olive press, the word Gethsemane has meanings that 'Wine Press' does not.

It would sound very inappropriate to me if the children substituted it.

Also, it messes up the rhyme.

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Amulek

[InCognitus]

I like the questions raised in the OP, and I agree with the need for Latter-day Saints to have more access to scholarship on textual variants in Bible manuscripts.  I don't think it's the church's job to provide us that information, but we should all be more aware that variants exist and know how to find out about them.

But in delving into this realm of study, we should also develop some idea about how decisions are made as to which readings are more likely to be original, and who it is that makes those decisions.  I say this because sometimes a variant, like this one in Luke 22:43-44, may have implications related to restoration scripture.  

So how do we deal with these things when they come up?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that we shouldn't be surprised at all. We should be all aware that the Book of Mormon says that after the Bible (the "book") goes forth to the Gentiles from the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, that there are many "plain and precious things taken away" from it, and "many covenants of the Lord" are taken away (1 Nephi 13:26-28). And Joseph Smith became aware of the same thing: "From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.9–10 ).  So this is the kind of thing we should expect to find, right?

Secondly, we need to be aware that the scholars who compile the Bible manuscripts make choices on which texts to include and which texts are likely authentic, and their decisions are not the final say on the matter.  Their decisions may be based on incorrect assumptions, and they may be revised as time goes on.  I like this statement in the blog post I referenced above related to the Luke 22:43-44 text (here https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-drops-of-blood-and-angel-in-luke.html)

Quote

Scholarly opinion
Nothing as nebulous as the consensus of the scholarly world. When somebody has published an article, and nobody writes a rebuttal in 10 or 20 years, it is a fallacy to assume that therefore everyone agrees with you (people who know the literature on this variant may recognize this). There have been voices in favour of its authenticity and also against. 

And this leads me to the third thing that comes to mind. If we have a testimony of the restored gospel and the truth of the restoration scriptures (i.e. Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price), and we find in them teachings related to a potential Bible variant, then why worry?  If our restoration scripture contains the word of God, then there are good reasons that such teachings are included. That doesn't mean that we need to quit searching for answers on the matter, but we certainly don't need to worry about it. It's just a matter of time before it will all work itself out.  This is why having a personal confirmation from God of the restored gospel is so important. But even so, I have been amazed through the years about how many of these supposed potential problems with our scripture HAVE worked themselves out through modern scholarship and new findings.  It makes for a really interesting and fulfilling faith, both spiritually and intellectually.