| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
When reading the Psalms of the Old Testament with a sensibility attuned to modern poetry, one might well find it difficult to understand why they are classified as "poetry". They lack any particular novelty in the use of language or freshness of expression, nor do they resemble clever aphorisms.
By observing the annotations found here and there throughout the Psalms — such as "to the tune of 'Silent Dove Among Those Far Away'" (AMP) or "to the tune of 'Do Not Destroy'" — one comes to understand that these are indeed lyrics to songs. Furthermore, the fact that many of the psalms are designated as "A Psalm of David" reveals that they were hymns handed down from that era.
In Psalm 8 — renowned as a hymn of praise — the finite nature of humanity, expressed through the question "What is man ...?", is contrasted with the praise of God. In many psalms — such as Psalms 19, 51, and 77 — the praise offered to God is contrasted with an awareness of human sin, expressed in phrases like "who can discern their own errors?", "Surely I was sinful at birth" and "I would not be comforted."
In a "Song of Ascents" — such as Psalms 121 and 126 — restoration by the Lord Yahweh is contrasted with Israel's powerlessness, as seen in the words: "I lift up my eyes to the mountains — where does my help come from?"
In short, all the Psalms — or so I think — sing of hope in God within the dyadic relationship of "I and God"; God is praised not so much through an abundance of flowery rhetoric as through a contrast with human finitude, sinfulness, and the sense of emptiness.
Furthermore, in this context, God is not an inner presence but an entirely external one, and the Psalms — as songs of hope — are sung outward, ever outward. It can be said that this characteristic gives the Psalms, as hymns of praise, an upward-directed expressiveness.
The structure of the Old Testament hymn "Emptiness and Hope in God" can also be found in the New Testament. Matthew 11:20–24 depicts the scene where Jesus, having conducted his ministry in three towns in the northern region of the Sea of Galilee — Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum — begins to denounce them because the people failed to repent (verse 20).
Jesus lamented that, had the same deeds been performed in a Gentile land, far more repentance would have ensued; furthermore, regarding Capernaum
Mt. 11:24 "But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (NIV).
Mt. 11:25 "At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.'"
The abrupt shift here from a statement of despair to one of praise feels difficult to comprehend. Or does this perhaps stem from something like deficiencies in the source material of the Gospels?
If we look at the parallel passages in the Gospel of Luke, however, this question appears to be resolved. In Luke 10, the condemnation of the towns is recorded in verses 12–15, while the hymn of praise appears later, starting at verse 21; that is, Jesus’s despair and his praise are separated in Luke’s account.
In between these accounts is the story of the return of the seventy disciples whom Jesus had sent out. It describes how the disciples reported the results of their mission, and how Jesus then taught them about joy. In other words, Jesus’ praise does not represent a sudden shift from his denunciation of Capernaum and other cities, but is rather structured to arise naturally within the context of his instructions to the seventy disciples.
What, then, does this mean? Does it imply that the Gospel of Matthew lacks a passage that ought to be there — the one found in the Gospel of Luke describing the joyful return of the seventy disciples — and that, as a result, Jesus’s indignation and praise have been brought into an unnatural juxtaposition? Or could it be that Matthew’s sequence is the correct one, and that Luke, for some reason, inserted the account of the return of the seventy here?
I believe, for two reasons, that the form of the Gospel of Matthew represents the original development.
The first reason is based on the redactional character of the Gospel of Luke. Luke tended to modify source material he found difficult to understand into a more comprehensible form, and this passage may well be an instance of that tendency.
This conclusion is also derived from a principle of textual criticism: when discrepancies exist among various biblical manuscripts, the shorter reading—or the one that appears less natural—is considered the authentic one.
In the process of copying manuscripts, scribes may alter what they perceive as unnatural to make it sound natural or to add words. However, it is generally accepted that they would rarely make a natural sentence unnatural or deliberately delete original words.
Therefore, when comparing the passages in Matthew and Luke, Matthew’s account appears "shorter" because it lacks the story of the return of the seventy, and it seems "unnatural" because Jesus' anger and praise are so closely linked; consequently, this version is deemed to be the authentic one.
An example of a "natural modification" by Luke can also be found in the scene where John the Baptist — a prophet contemporary with Jesus — questions Jesus.
When John the Baptist sent messengers to Jesus to ask, "Are you the Messiah who is to come?", Jesus did not answer directly; instead, he simply instructed them to report the specific details of his ministry. This response from Jesus, which might at first glance seem difficult to comprehend, is a way of answering that presents material for re-evaluation rather than simply reiterating one's own belief; in fact, it is an entirely appropriate response. Therefore, the following account in Matthew is considered to be authentic.
Mt. 11:3 "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?"
Mt. 11:4 "Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see."
On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke reads as follows.
Lk. 7:20 "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?'"
Lk. 7:21 "At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. "
Lk. 7:22 "So he replied to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy a are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor.
Verse 21 is a passage not found in Matthew; regarding the fact that this is an insertion by Luke, the commentator Bultmann states the following.
"Luke, in particular, expressed this interpretation in a clumsy way by adding 7:21."
It is argued that Luke, finding the original source — which is thought to have resembled the Gospel of Matthew — difficult to understand, added verse 21 so that Jesus’ response would sound natural. However, this resulted in a redundant structure in Luke's account, wherein the actions of Jesus described in verse 21 are repeated — this time as Jesus's own words — in the latter half of verse 22.
The same inclination is also evident in the passage of the sudden shift from Jesus’ despair to His praise beginning at Matthew 11:20; here, Luke’s parallel article (Chapter 10) exhibits a similar structure, in which Jesus virtually echoes the words of the disciples in verse 17 in the first half of verse 19. The use of connecting phrases such as "at that time" (Luke 10:21) and "and that very hour" (Luke 7:21) further reinforces the impression that Luke added accounts of a similar nature at both of these points.
From this, it can be inferred that Luke inserted the passage beginning with "Then the seventy returned with joy, saying ..." after Jesus' lament, thereby linking the disciples' joy to Jesus' praise and mitigating the jarring nature of the sudden transition from lament to praise.
However, this may have resulted in the loss from the Gospel of Luke of the "truth hidden within what is difficult to understand" that is preserved in the Gospel of Matthew.
Just as we have seen, just as an important aspect of the Christian faith was hidden within the enigmatic portrayal of the apostles in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, so too does this abrupt shift from lament to praise hold the potential to reveal the very essence of praise.
Furthermore, a second basis for judging the Matthean account to be authentic is that the same pattern of "praise arising from despair" is also found in the letters of Paul, the convert. In Romans chapter 7, Paul writes as follows:
Rom. 7:24 "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?"
Rom. 7:25 "Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature d a slave to the law of sin."
The transition from verse 24 to verse 25 observed here is also extremely abrupt. The words in verse 24 mark the conclusion of a passage filled with self-loathing that has continued unbroken since verse 15 — written long before — where Paul states: "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."
Just as that finally comes to an end, the sudden shift to "Thanks be to God" does indeed feel abrupt and leaves the reader with a sense of bewilderment. There appears to be no reason here to prompt an expression of gratitude. Moreover, since this is a Pauline epistle, it is free from the complex textual issues associated with other epistles or the Gospels, and there is no dispute regarding its authenticity.
Thus, it is understood that praise, as seen in the cases of Jesus and Paul, actually arises abruptly from a state of despair, without any concrete glimmer of hope, and that this is the fundamental form of praise in the Bible.
"When it was beyond hope, he had faith in the hope" (Rom. 4:18 CEB)
Christian thanksgiving, conditioned by God's grace, resembles Kant's "hypothetical imperative", yet the act of praising God — regardless of actual circumstances — possesses an absoluteness akin to the "categorical imperative".
Unlike thanksgiving, praise is not a response to God's grace. Praise is a response to God's absoluteness. It is simply acknowledging God's truthfulness regardless of one's situation, and entrusting one's hope for oneself to God's truthfulness.
I once asked, "Can I sing when I am not happy?" and "Does it come from the heart?" But it is possible to have hope even in despair. Praise, that focuses on God's unchanging faithfulness, has a history that goes back to the Old Testament, as seen in the Psalms, and it has long been known that there is something in it that renews faith.
"Though the fig tree may not blossom, Nor fruit be on the vines; Though the labor of the olive may fail, And the fields yield no food; Though the flock may be cut off from the fold, And there be no herd in the stalls — Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength; He will make my feet like deer's feet, And He will make me walk on my high hills." (Hab. 3:17-19)