# Mahler's Eighth Symphony: Eek, a ghost!



## millionrainbows

I am a bit ambivalent about *Mahler's Eighth,* with its "creator Hymn." This is about the Holy Spirit, in other words, Pentecostal, and that sort of demonstrative, physically animated extravagance makes me nervous. I remember a friend of mine saying "You gotta come with me to this church, you'll be surprised!" and I, indeed, was. It turned out to be a Pentecostal church, and this lady jumped up and started 'speaking in tongues.' It about scared the crap out of me.

Thus, having studied Carl Jung's ideas, I am nervous about 'the holy spirit' animating people. This is like the "God" archetype being activated psychically, and it becomes manifest in the person, like any archetype can. And when people in groups start 'activating archetypes,' like thwe Manson family did, it makes me nervous.

If Mahler had adhered to Judaism, he would have agreed that "God stopped talking directly to Man some time ago," and any good Christian would say that Christ was sent for this same reason, and while both views are different, at least The Holy Spirit is out of the picture, and Men are left to their own responsibilities and actions.

I don't know exactly what Mahler's intent was, but he surely made a very big deal out of it, both in the work itself and the people present at the premiers. Webern conducted it as well. Maybe this appeased the Christian elements in Germany at that time, but if this is true, it didn't work, because Mahler ended up quitting the Vienna opera and being 'run out of town' anyway. The growing political climate started gearing-up around this time, culminating in Nazi Germany, and the German people going along with this madness. I wonder, were they "full of the spirit" when this all happened?

I say this* Eighth Symphony *of Mahler's is a grim premonition, just as his *Sixth *was; only this time, Mahler was naïve enough to believe that Christians "filled with the Holy Spirit" would manifest their higher selves; instead, it seems that the flip-side of archetypes is revealed by what transpired later.

I know this is a rather far-fetched notion of mine, but no more far-fetched than the Holy Spirit entering people, and 'speaking in tongues.' Go ahead, have a field-day with it; I don't care.


----------



## Mahlerian

Mahler may have converted to Christianity,and he did believe in a higher power of some kind for sure, but he was anything but orthodox in his beliefs. He took an interest in a number of different kinds of mysticism over the course of his life, and it is notable that when he set Christian texts, he removed dogmatic elements. So the first problem with your interpretation is that it takes the literal view that Mahler believed in the Christian Holy Spirit.

The interpretation that I've seen most often, and the one that is indeed supported by Mahler's juxtaposition of the Latin hymn text with that of Goethe's Faust, Part 2 (which I have, at times, thought of as "Faust's adventures in purgatory"), is that he wanted to evoke the idea of the "creative spirit" and higher spirituality in general. The motifs associated with the "Veni creator" theme in the first movement return often throughout the second, and in fact the themes in the second movement are created out of those in the first.

It's also important to note that Mahler may have written the Eighth before he was forced to resign from his position at the Vienna State Opera, but he finished it afterwards. In fact, the premiere performance took place in the fall of 1910, at the point when all of the "Mahler as soothsayer" critics claim he was acutely aware of his own impending death and had already written two or three farewells to the world. Fortunately, he managed to be able to rehearse the orchestras and make the premiere of this complex work a resounding success, despite his own doomedness.

I don't see either Mahler's Eighth or his Sixth as "premonitions", but merely as expressions of his wide-ranging worldview, which could encompass everything from exultation to tragedy.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lotta reading for me, guys. I'll just say Mahler was capable of writing some of his happiest tunes during devastation in his private life. Escape? Maybe a little. But mostly, I'll just venture that he was a true professional. :tiphat:


----------



## Rhythm

Vaneyes said:


> Lotta reading for me, guys. I'll just say Mahler was capable of writing some of his happiest tunes during devastation in his private life. Escape? Maybe a little. But mostly, I'll just venture that he was a true professional. :tiphat:


Yes, and that needs repeating. Thank You. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

*Veni Creator Spiritus:* When the original Latin text is used, it is normally sung in Gregorian Chant. *As an invocation of the Holy Spirit, *in the practice of the Roman Catholic Church it is sung during the liturgical celebration of the feast of Pentecost (at both Terce and Vespers). (WIK)

Mahler had 'unorthodox beliefs,' but nonetheless, he was using this text, and the 1000-plus force of musicians and singers to "invoke the Holy Spirit," or some kind of spirit. In Jungian terms, regardless of belief and dogma,_* "if it walks like a God archetype, and quacks like a God archetype, then chances are, it's a God archetype."

*Mahler was attempting to "psychically activate an archetype" in Jungian terms;_ and the fact that his 'vague belief system' of spirit, as you call it (whatever it was ) was clothed in a ninth century Christian hymn, designed to invoke the Holy Spirit, is unsettling, to say the least.

It sounds like Mahler was playing with forces beyond his, or anyone's control.

Mysticism? Yes, this is 'magic' of sorts, just like it was in the ninth century, when Gregorian monks sang it not only as music, but as actual worship. _This hymn was music for religious purposes, and it still retains that purpose, no matter what excuses one makes for Mahler._ No wonder Adorno and other critics criticized this. Care to go into that aspect?

"Evoking spirits" can be an exceedingly dangerous business, and Mahler was playing with fire if he expected this use of the Latin hymn to be benign, or *NOT* to activate the belief systems of the audience who were not as "cosmopolitan" as he was, and who were ready to "chase out the Devil."

*Deliver me, O Lord, from eternal death on that awful day, when the heavens shall be moved, and the earth; when thou shalt come to judge the earth by fire.*


----------



## Jobis

Whether its dangerous or frightening really depends on your point of view; of course when you liken it to demonic possession it appears very negative, but that presumes you belief in the spiritual on a certain level, if you don't then there is nothing to fear.

I've been to pentecostal churches and witnessed people apparently receiving the holy spirit, but something I've realised is that its very often the people who really _want_ to experience the holy spirit who somehow end up having their wish fulfilled, (big surprise). Still; the entire point of the Pentecost was for the holy spirit to be given freely to all mankind; and ultimately it is that which allows us to form and govern our Churches without supernatural handouts from God the Father every other week (as seemed to be the running theme with Moses and his wandering Israelites). I don't pretend to fully understand it but I certainly think we have nothing to be afraid of from it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jobis said:


> Whether its dangerous or frightening really depends on your point of view; of course when you liken it to demonic possession it appears very negative, but that presumes you belief in the spiritual on a certain level, if you don't then there is nothing to fear.
> 
> I've been to pentecostal churches and witnessed people apparently receiving the holy spirit, but something I've realised is that its very often the people who really _want_ to experience the holy spirit who somehow end up having their wish fulfilled, (big surprise). Still; the entire point of the Pentecost was for the holy spirit to be given freely to all mankind; and ultimately it is that which allows us to form and govern our Churches without supernatural handouts from God the Father every other week (as seemed to be the running theme with Moses and his wandering Israelites). I don't pretend to fully understand it but I certainly think we have nothing to be afraid of from it.


People in groups wearing robes has always frightened me. And religion is best when used as a mirror to improve oneself. It's when this becomes a "projection" that it gets scary.


----------



## Carpentier

Mahlerian said:


> Mahler may have converted to Christianity,and he did believe in a higher power of some kind for sure


What is the source of this? I'm not trying to be critical, I'm genuinely wondering, I've often read that Mahler was an agnostic?


----------



## Mahlerian

Carpentier said:


> What is the source of this? I'm not trying to be critical, I'm genuinely wondering, I've often read that Mahler was an agnostic?


His letters, among other things. He may have been agnostic as regards organized religion and its attendant dogmas, but few who call themselves agnostic today would write to his future wife, who was an atheist:
"I'm so unhappy about [having to leave Vienna at this moment] and yet it's almost like the voice of the Master, the Teacher (I'm using these words in order not to say 'God', since we haven't discussed that subject fully enough and I couldn't bear a meaningless phrase to come between us)."

And later:

"Although I'm aware you don't yet know Him I pray God that He may guide your hand, my beloved, so that it may write the truth and not be moved by infatuation"

I'd also add that somewhere (probably in his conversations with Natalie Blauer-Lechner), he said that he thought of the finale of the 3rd Symphony, which was named "What Love Tells Me" in his program notes draft, as being equivalent to "What God Tells Me", which would complete, in his mind, the chain upwards to ever higher spheres of being that runs through the entire work.


----------



## Carpentier

Mahlerian said:


> "I'm so unhappy about [having to leave Vienna at this moment] and yet it's almost like the voice of the Master, the Teacher (I'm using these words in order not to say 'God', since we haven't discussed that subject fully enough and I couldn't bear a meaningless phrase to come between us)."
> 
> And later:
> 
> "Although I'm aware you don't yet know Him I pray God that He may guide your hand, my beloved, so that it may write the truth and not be moved by infatuation"


That's interesting, that would perhaps indicate an increase of religiosity with age, but his later music has always seems to me to be more secular or earthly... the odd one out maybe being the eighth. But certainly Das Lied von der Erde, you know, the clue being in the title.


----------



## Mahlerian

Carpentier said:


> That's interesting, that would perhaps indicate an increase of religiosity with age, but his later music has always seems to me to be more secular or earthly... the odd one out maybe being the eighth. But certainly Das Lied von der Erde, you know, the clue being in the title.


Like I said, Mahler was never "religious" in the traditional sense at any point in his life. There's no indication that he regularly attended mass after becoming Catholic, for example. I'd say that the spirituality of Das Lied is not very far off from that in the 3rd Symphony, which is often described as pantheistic in its outlook.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Like I said, Mahler was never "religious" in the traditional sense at any point in his life. There's no indication that he regularly attended mass after becoming Catholic, for example. I'd say that the spirituality of Das Lied is not very far off from that in the 3rd Symphony, which is often described as pantheistic in its outlook.


This implies that 'religiosity' or 'spirituality' or 'a sense of the sacred' is tied to dogma, text, or religious context; I say that it is _*not.*
_
*'Sacred music' *can operate* independently *of any dogma it contains, as long as the *sacred intent *of the composer is conveyed to the listener; and this operates *beyond the realm of text or dogma, on a purely psychological level, which conveys the universal experience of the sacred.

*My earlier point, which was apparently lost in discussion's attachment to dogma, was that Mahler did, indeed have a sacred intent with his Eighth symphony. The fact that he clothed this intent on the dogma of the Creator Hymn may have been well-intentioned, and in keeping with the Christian tradition in Western music, but due to some listeners' attachment to dogma, may have been interpreted beyond this sacred intent as a dogmatic declaration, as the text is decidedly Christian (no possible argument about that, is there?).

The events which took place in the supposedly Christian nation of Germany which followed, and Mahler's experiences with anti-Semitism and his subsequent exit, seem to confirm my worst fears about the "activation of the God archetype" and its misguided power when placed in the hands of believers who hold simplistic, fundamentalist beliefs, and are ready to act on those beliefs.

You see, *Mahler did have a sacred intent,* and I consider the Eighth to be a sacred work in the fullest sense. He was using music as it has always been used, as a 'spiritual technology' to activate the universal God archetype which is in all of us.

The 'spirit' which it invoked was not as Mahler intended, due to the fundamentalist and simplistic belief system of its audience. Thus, we see music as a two-way mapping and juxtaposing of experience; which works on a universal level, but fails or is misinterpreted when it becomes tied to dogma and fundamentalist belief.

*Such a shame!*


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> .
> 
> The events which took place in the supposedly Christian nation of Germany which followed, and Mahler's experiences with anti-Semitism and his subsequent exit, seem to confirm my worst fears about the "activation of the God archetype" and its misguided power when placed in the hands of believers who hold simplistic, fundamentalist beliefs, and are ready to act on those beliefs.
> 
> ![/B]


To relate those events to Christianity is to completely misread the teachings of Jesus and the whole New Testament.


----------



## DavidA

Jobis said:


> Whether its dangerous or frightening really depends on your point of view; of course when you liken it to demonic possession it appears very negative, but that presumes you belief in the spiritual on a certain level, if you don't then there is nothing to fear.
> 
> I've been to pentecostal churches and witnessed people apparently receiving the holy spirit, but something I've realised is that its very often the people who really _want_ to experience the holy spirit who somehow end up having their wish fulfilled, (big surprise). Still; the entire point of the Pentecost was for the holy spirit to be given freely to all mankind; and ultimately it is that which allows us to form and govern our Churches without supernatural handouts from God the Father every other week (as seemed to be the running theme with Moses and his wandering Israelites). I don't pretend to fully understand it but I certainly think we have nothing to be afraid of from it.


If you look in the pages of the New Testament you see the believers constantly received what you refer to as 'supernatural handouts from God'!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> To relate those events to Christianity is to completely misread the teachings of Jesus and the whole New Testament.


I have no quarrel with Jesus; but the apostles all have different accounts, and Paul is the man who really set things in motion. It is a well-known fact that there is a strain of anti-semitism which runs through Christianity in the years following Christ's death, and the subsequent establishment and spread of the Church.
The Inquisition is another, earlier example of the "God archetype" being activated.


----------



## TxllxT

Gustav Mahler was born in the sleepy southern Bohemian town Jihlava / Iglau. Educated people in Bohemia were looking at Vienna as the centre of culture and that means that things in Germany were actually happening behind their backs. I do not agree with the quickstep assumption, that people living in the Habsburg empire around 1900 were occupying themselves with Germany and all the nasty things that were boiling there. No, Germany was far away and Vienna was in love with itself. This is IMO still the case nowadays: I do not experience Vienna as a 'German' city, but simply as selfdefined 'Viennese'. Also with regard to religion the upper class of the Habsburg empire had an innate inclination towards syncretism. The Habsburg empire itself tried to keep many nations at peace under its wings with a syncretist political ideology. Gustav Mahler is a typical member of this upper class, combining Jewish, Christian 'Des Knaben Wunderhorn' and far oriental 'Lied von der Erde' materials into a delicate spiritual synchresis. I like Mahler's Jewishness in particular, which forces its way out with human voices praying aloud: "Veni Creator Spiritus" is one of these loud prayers, that somehow break out of the musical texture. In Des Knaben Wunderhorn there is a meeting with an angel: "Nein, du kannst mich nicht abweisen!!!" Such profound and true prayers keep ringing in my ears. Gustav Mahler adapted himself perfectly within the Viennese society, but never gave up this loud praying Jew. I thank the Lord for that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Music is a powerful tool, and Mahler knew this. I laud his celebration of the Creator and 'the spirit' which can be awakened in each of us; but even as I witnessed the Pentecostal lady being 'transported' by the spirit, and speaking in tongues, I was at the same moment suspicious of the purity of her possible intent, and its effect on those surrounding her. "How presumptuous," I was left thinking, after it was over.

Mahler was using the power of music to convey something ostensibly sacred, but I think he should have been more cautious in trying to "evoke" or describe the 'creator spirit,' and should have adhered more closely to the Jewish belief that God cannot be named or described, much less 'channeled' through' a segment of any society, no matter how sophisticated or delicate this sensibility might have supposed to have been. He shoulda stuck to oriental poetry.


----------



## millionrainbows

There is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the Gospels. Don't get me wrong, I value the good the Bible has brought to many through the ages. The roots of Christian anti-Semitism are what I see as the real problem. Since Christianity and Judaism are so closely entwined, I'm simply saying that Mahler was rather naïve in invoking this sentiment concerning God as a spirit, in light of the context he was stuck in, which later, by the 1930s, proved to be ultimately more hostile than many composers thought. And beyond that, I listen to it and ignore the text and its implications, no matter how flexible. In this sense, it is really no different than many other religious works. 

But I don't want to discuss theology; the Eighth Symphony concerns itself with matters of 'The Creator Spirit', and Mahler was free to express anything he wanted to, but in retrospect, it seems like he was trying too hard to be a part of the 'Western sacred music' tradition. The music itself should have been enough, and the religious ideological textual content (not the Goethe) could have been jettisoned, as far as I'm concerned. 

The 'Western sacred music tradition,' as far as it reflects dogma and belief systems, is just as flawed as those systems are; and it behooves us to sift through and separate-out those elements of this tradition we wish to keep, even if it means completely ignoring the necessity and presence of texts and religious content.

There is no doubt for me that Mahler had sacred intent when he wrote this Eighth Symphony, and in that regard it is certainly a sincerely sacred work, in the tradition of all great Western sacred music.


----------



## TxllxT

millionrainbows said:


> There is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the Gospels. Don't get me wrong, I value the good the Bible has brought to many through the ages. The roots of Christian anti-Semitism are what I see as the real problem. Since Christianity and Judaism are so closely entwined, I'm simply saying that Mahler was rather naïve in invoking this sentiment concerning God as a spirit, in light of the context he was stuck in, which later, by the 1930s, proved to be ultimately more hostile than many composers thought. And beyond that, I listen to it and ignore the text and its implications, no matter how flexible. In this sense, it is really no different than many other religious works.
> 
> But I don't want to discuss theology; the Eighth Symphony concerns itself with matters of 'The Creator Spirit', and Mahler was free to express anything he wanted to, but in retrospect, it seems like he was trying too hard to be a part of the 'Western sacred music' tradition. The music itself should have been enough, and the religious ideological textual content (not the Goethe) could have been jettisoned, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> The 'Western sacred music tradition,' as far as it reflects dogma and belief systems, is just as flawed as those systems are; and it behooves us to sift through and separate-out those elements of this tradition we wish to keep, even if it means completely ignoring the necessity and presence of texts and religious content.
> 
> There is no doubt for me that Mahler had sacred intent when he wrote this Eighth Symphony, and in that regard it is certainly a sincerely sacred work, in the tradition of all great Western sacred music.


1. I do not perceive the Gospels to be "Christian". The Gospels were written by Jews and originally meant for Jews who were familiar with the Scriptures. Thus the struggle between the followers of Rabbi Jesus and the followers of other Rabbis is an inner Jewish struggle. Also it is quite typical for Jews not to agree with each other (the Talmud reflects lots & lots of different outspoken opinions of various teachers).
2. The idea of anti-Semitism is often used as a foul mouthed kind of cursing. What we see in the Palestine under the Roman yoke are Jews in strife with Jews. Also the concept of 'Semitism' itself smells strange, it stinks: Arabs are said to belong to the 'Semitic' branch, Jews are said to belong to the same branch, so what does 'anti-Semitic' mean? 
3. Gustav Mahler saw Goethe as the wished for intellectualised synchresis between factioned religions.


----------



## millionrainbows

TxllxT said:


> 1. I do not perceive the Gospels to be "Christian".


I see the old testament as Jewish, and the new testament as Christian.



TxllxT said:


> The Gospels were written by Jews and originally meant for Jews who were familiar with the Scriptures. Thus the struggle between the followers of Rabbi Jesus and the followers of other Rabbis is an inner Jewish struggle.


This puts it in an exclusively Jewish context, but those who saw Christ as Messiah changed that context.



TxllxT said:


> The idea of anti-Semitism is often used as a foul mouthed kind of cursing.


Religion is often used to further an agenda.



TxllxT said:


> Gustav Mahler saw Goethe as the wished for intellectualised synchresis between factioned religions.


Yeah, but it didn't work, did it? He should have known better.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I have no quarrel with Jesus; but the apostles all have different accounts, and Paul is the man who really set things in motion. It is a well-known fact that there is a strain of anti-semitism which runs through Christianity in the years following Christ's death, and the subsequent establishment and spread of the Church.
> The Inquisition is another, earlier example of the "God archetype" being activated.


Comments like this dumbfound me. A 'well known fact'?? How can this be as all but one of the New Testament writers were Jews? It was Jeaus and not Paul who 'set things in motion' by the way. Paul built on what Jesus and the first disciples started. The strain of anti-semitism' that you claim runs through Christianity in the years following Christ's death is simply not there. As I said, all the early converts were Jews! Of course there were conflicts between the traditional Jewish teaching and the revolutionary message of Christianity but that was to be expected. Paul, for instance, had no problems with Jews following their own faith. To read into it anti-semitism is to misread it. The antisemitism rose years later by such misreading.
As for the Inquisition, it was a product of a politicised version of Christianity which had nothing to do with Jesus' teaching. Most of the victims of the Inquisition were Christians.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Comments like this dumbfound me. A 'well known fact'?? How can this be as all but one of the New Testament writers were Jews? It was Jeaus and not Paul who 'set things in motion' by the way. Paul built on what Jesus and the first disciples started. The strain of anti-semitism' that you claim runs through Christianity in the years following Christ's death is simply not there. As I said, all the early converts were Jews! Of course there were conflicts between the traditional Jewish teaching and the revolutionary message of Christianity but that was to be expected. Paul, for instance, had no problems with Jews following their own faith. To read into it anti-semitism is to misread it. The antisemitism rose years later by such misreading.
> As for the Inquisition, it was a product of a politicised version of Christianity which had nothing to do with Jesus' teaching. Most of the victims of the Inquisition were Christians.


Tell it to this guy. A strain of anti-Semitism has run through Christianity for many years. Spong treats this as a real problem, which needs reform, instead of being in denial about it. I have faith in him as a man of truth. Some of the points you make are true from certain perspectives, but this is not the perspective I wish to discuss or defend.







*Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile by John Shelby Spong

*My point is that Mahler was a naïve fool for messing with religion and triggering religious archetypes at this crucial juncture in history, which was proven later during WWII. His music is 'sacred' enough, by his intent, without the need of attaching it to any belief tradition. But such was his eagerness to accomplish something, to ostensibly establish some credentials. He was casting his pearls before swine, as I see it.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Tell it to this guy. A strain of anti-Semitism has run through Christianity for many years. Spong treats this as a real problem, which needs reform, instead of being in denial about it. I have faith in him as a man of truth. Some of the points you make are true from certain perspectives, but this is not the perspective I wish to discuss or defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile by John Shelby Spong
> 
> *My point is that Mahler was a naïve fool for messing with religion and triggering religious archetypes at this crucial juncture in history, which was proven later during WWII. His music is 'sacred' enough, by his intent, without the need of attaching it to any belief tradition. But such was his eagerness to accomplish something, to ostensibly establish some credentials. He was casting his pearls before swine, as I see it.


Oh for crying out loud! These same tired arguments!
Of course there was anti-semitism as Christianity developed away from the truth that Jesus and the early apostles taught into a political entity. But to say there was anti-semitism in the early church is just not true - a complete misreading of the New Testament, all but two books of which were written by Jews!


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> Oh for crying out loud! These same tired arguments!
> Of course there was anti-semitism as Christianity developed away from the truth that Jesus and the early apostles taught into a political entity. But to say there was anti-semitism in the early church is just not true - a complete misreading of the New Testament, all but two books of which were written by Jews!


WYSIWYG is very true when people read & interpret the Scriptures. When you dogmatically intend to see something 'Christian' during the reading of the Bible, what you get is this dogmatised pretext. It is much more fruitful to start from common ground: the apostle Paul was a pharisee and the fiercest opponents of 'Those from the Way' (this is how the first 'Christians' were actually named) were pharisees. Thanks to the Pharisees the books of the Old Testament were composed & written down in the town of Tiberias, after the temple was destroyed by the Romans. The apostle Paul is a shining example of the pharisee way of walking in the Law, only with this difference that he was forcefully re-orientated on Jesus himself (during his travel to Damascus). But also after this conversion Paul's method of arguing kept all the elements of the pharisee methods of thinking & arguing. The idea that Paul was a pharisee before his conversion and that after his conversion he (all of a sudden) was not, is not supported by fact. The pharisees believed in the raising from the dead, in angels and in the Spirit. Paul agreed with this wholeheartedly. The only thing he added, was pointing at Jesus.
Personally I read *all* the books of the New Testament as having been written by Jews, who were well-versed in the Hebrew language. (and therefore they had to study at the pharisee school of Tiberias). The New Testament Greek is a hebraistic kind of Greek. Especially the Gospel of John and the book of Revelations bear witness to this.

At the beginning of the 20th century there are many signs of a real dialogue between Jews and Christians. Gustav Mahler's music bears witness of this inner dialogue, that the composer was living in. He 'converted' towards Catholicism in order to make a career in Vienna. Does this mean, that all of a sudden he lost his Jewish roots? I keep hearing a Jewish voice in his compositions, in his way of composing.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> ...to say there was anti-semitism in the *early church *is just not true - a complete misreading of the New Testament, all but two books of which were written by Jews!


Christians have strayed very far from what Christ intended.

Antisemitism, slavery, subjugation of minority groups, war, are all deviations in interpretation.

There is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the Gospels, referring to* interpretations*, the same way Christians interpret certain facets of the Old Testament in light of the later belief that Christ was the Messiah.

There is a historical undercurrent of anti-Semitism, regarding Christianity and its interpretation of the scriptures. Or, if you wish, you could interpret the separation of Jews and Gentiles to be the blame. Jews regarded Gentiles as 'unclean' and as deviating from Jewish law.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Christians have strayed very far from what Christ intended.
> 
> Antisemitism, slavery, subjugation of minority groups, war, are all deviations in interpretation.
> 
> There is an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the Gospels, referring to* interpretations*, the same way Christians interpret certain facets of the Old Testament in light of the later belief that Christ was the Messiah.
> 
> There is a historical undercurrent of anti-Semitism, regarding Christianity and its interpretation of the scriptures. Or, if you wish, you could interpret the separation of Jews and Gentiles to be the blame. Jews regarded Gentiles as 'unclean' and as deviating from Jewish law.


I'll grant you there has been an anti-Semitic interpretation by people who completely misunderstood the New Testament and who interpreted the scriptures for their own bigoted ends. There is, though, no anti-Semitism in the gospels and in the new Testament writings themselves. There is also no separation of Jews and Gentiles in the new Testament. Rather the opposite. Paul clearly says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free. Rather all believers are one in Christ.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> 1. I do not perceive the Gospels to be "Christian". The Gospels were written by Jews and originally meant for Jews who were familiar with the Scriptures. Thus the struggle between the followers of Rabbi Jesus and the followers of other Rabbis is an inner Jewish struggle. Also it is quite typical for Jews not to agree with each other (the Talmud reflects lots & lots of different outspoken opinions of various teachers).
> .


This is of course a very narrow view. At least one of the gospels - Luke - was written by a Gentile for another gentile called Theophilus.
Marks Gospel was also certainly written with Gentiles in mind.
John's Gospel was written later at the end of the apostles life and again is certainly written with the whole Church in mind not just Jews.
Only Matthews Gospel can be said to be written mainly for a Jewish audience.


----------



## TxllxT

DavidA said:


> This is of course a very narrow view. At least one of the gospels - Luke - was written by a Gentile for another gentile called Theophilus.
> Marks Gospel was also certainly written with Gentiles in mind.
> John's Gospel was written later at the end of the apostles life and again is certainly written with the whole Church in mind not just Jews.
> Only Matthews Gospel can be said to be written mainly for a Jewish audience.


It is my intention to show, that the Bible itself deals with the basic antipole of Jews against the ***** (Nations, Gentiles), - which is in fact the way how Jews look at mankind -, and not the dogmatically construed antithesis of Jews against Christians. With regard to the New Testament books I do not agree with the classic view of Luke (and some others) having been Gentiles. Luke writes a kind of Greek that is deeply under influence of Hebrew and also his versatility in the 'Old Testament' Scriptures illuminates his Jewish education. But the novelty of the New Testament lies in the fact that a message originally intended for the elected people of Israel is being delivered into the hands of the Nations. Luke wants to show he is on this bandwagon.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> I'll grant you there has been an anti-Semitic interpretation by people who completely misunderstood the New Testament and who interpreted the scriptures for their own bigoted ends. There is, though, no anti-Semitism in the gospels and in the new Testament writings themselves. There is also no separation of Jews and Gentiles in the new Testament. Rather the opposite. Paul clearly says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free. Rather all believers are one in Christ.


from Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by J.S. Spong, p.22:

_"Jesus is depicted especially in the book of John as being guilty of what today we would surely call antisemitism. Paul said that Jews were possessed with "a spirit of stupor" that produced "eyes that should not see and ears that would not hear down to this very day" (Rom. 11:8).

The history of the church from Tertullian and John Chrysostom to Jerome to Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to this day has reflected a killing antisemitism that was rooted in the New Testament."
_


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> This is of course a very narrow view. At least one of the gospels - Luke - was written by a Gentile for another gentile called Theophilus.
> Marks Gospel was also certainly written with Gentiles in mind.
> John's Gospel was written later at the end of the apostles life and again is certainly written with the whole Church in mind not just Jews.
> Only Matthews Gospel can be said to be written mainly for a Jewish audience.


All the gospels were written with different audiences in mind. The Gospels also reflect different perspectives and abilities on the part of the authors. Mark was poor at Greek, and Luke frequently cleaned it up. Matthew was very sensitive to his Jewish audience, changing Mark's "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven," as the name of God was not to be spoken. Luke, writing as a gentile to a primarily gentile audience, systematically deleted from Mark words and names that would be unfamiliar to non-Jewish readers. The term Satan became 'the Devil,' and so on.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> from Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by J.S. Spong, p.22:
> 
> _"Jesus is depicted especially in the book of John as being guilty of what today we would surely call antisemitism. Paul said that Jews were possessed with "a spirit of stupor" that produced "eyes that should not see and ears that would not hear down to this very day" (Rom. 11:8).
> 
> The history of the church from Tertullian and John Chrysostom to Jerome to Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to this day has reflected a killing antisemitism that was rooted in the New Testament."
> _


Such idiotic nonsense! Paul and John were both Jews - Paul said he was a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' - who loved their race. Frankly anyone who has any understanding of the Jewishness of the New Testament knows Spong is writing rubbish. Spong's twelve theses have been described as embodying "confusion and misinterpretation" by scholars.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> All the gospels were written with different audiences in mind. The Gospels also reflect different perspectives and abilities on the part of the authors. Mark was poor at Greek, and Luke frequently cleaned it up. Matthew was very sensitive to his Jewish audience, changing Mark's "kingdom of God" to "kingdom of heaven," as the name of God was not to be spoken. Luke, writing as a gentile to a primarily gentile audience, systematically deleted from Mark words and names that would be unfamiliar to non-Jewish readers. The term Satan became 'the Devil,' and so on.


No problem with this, is there? Of course, as anyone who has studied 'The Synoptic Problem' knows, one cannot be definite about these things.


----------



## DavidA

TxllxT said:


> It is my intention to show, that the Bible itself deals with the basic antipole of Jews against the ***** (Nations, Gentiles), - which is in fact the way how Jews look at mankind -, and not the dogmatically construed antithesis of Jews against Christians. With regard to the New Testament books I do not agree with the classic view of Luke (and some others) having been Gentiles. Luke writes a kind of Greek that is deeply under influence of Hebrew and also his versatility in the 'Old Testament' Scriptures illuminates his Jewish education. But the novelty of the New Testament lies in the fact that a message originally intended for the elected people of Israel is being delivered into the hands of the Nations. Luke wants to show he is on this bandwagon.


I'm afraid you'll have your work cut out to convince people of your theory as it is simply untrue. The only way to 'prove' such a theory is to ignore much of the message of the New Testament (and Old Testament) which (eg) clearly states that Christ came to be a 'light to the Gentiles'.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> *Such idiotic nonsense! *Paul and John were both Jews - Paul said he was a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews' - who loved their race. Frankly anyone who has any understanding of the Jewishness of the New Testament knows Spong is writing *rubbish. *Spong's twelve theses have been described as embodying "confusion and misinterpretation" by scholars.


Paul_ *was* _a Jew, yet we see here that centuries-old symptom of self-hatred in his psychology.

Paul was human, a man of his times, and contained many contradictions, and seemed to be unaware of his own dark shadow.

He had terrible ideas about women, and never married; it is suspected by some scholars that he was a repressed homosexual.

Aside from that issue, to this day, homosexuality is seen as being bad in the Jewish law.

Leviticus is frequently used to scripturally defend this bias.

Don't you think that Christianity needs reform, to do away with these kinds of mean-spirited beliefs, which derived from Judaism?


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Paul_ *was* _a Jew, yet we see here that centuries-old symptom of self-hatred in his psychology.
> 
> Paul was human, a man of his times, and contained many contradictions, and seemed to be unaware of his own dark shadow.
> 
> He had terrible ideas about women, and never married; it is suspected by some scholars that he was a repressed homosexual.
> 
> Aside from that issue, to this day, homosexuality is seen as being bad in the Jewish law.
> 
> Leviticus is frequently used to scripturally defend this bias.
> 
> Don't you think that Christianity needs reform, to do away with these kinds of mean-spirited beliefs, which derived from Judaism?


Oh dear! These hoary old chestnuts! Don't you realise that Paul numbered women among his fellow ministers? It's not Paul who has the hang-ups but the people who misunderstand him.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Oh dear! *These hoary old chestnuts! Don't you realise *that Paul numbered women among his fellow ministers? It's not Paul who has the *hang-ups but the people who misunderstand him*.


* Oh, dear! *Hairy chests and nuts? Yes, that describes Paul's interests, according to some scholars.:lol:

Personally, I can't stand a lot of the things *Paul* said about women:

_"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Col. 3:18)

"...Let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)" (1 Cor. 11:6-9)

__"It is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:35)

_*It would be a pretty tough gig for a 'woman minister' to preach without speaking!*_ ~giggle~

_


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> * Oh, dear! *Hairy chests and nuts? Yes, that describes Paul's interests, according to some scholars.:lol:
> 
> Personally, I can't stand a lot of the things *Paul* said about women:
> 
> _"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." (Col. 3:18)
> 
> "...Let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)" (1 Cor. 11:6-9)
> 
> __"It is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Cor. 14:35)
> 
> _*It would be a pretty tough gig for a 'woman minister' to preach without speaking!*_ ~giggle~
> 
> _


Sorry mate but you can't just rip Paul's teaching out of its context. The Colossians Scripture is said in that context of mutual submission to each other. Paul's request for the wife is to respect her husband. He then follows this with the command that the husband must love his wife i.e. put her interests first in everything. The problem is many people read one bit without reading another you have done.

You have done a similar thing with the Corinthians Scriptures. The word for 'speak' here means to chatter. The women who were generally illiterate at the time were tending to talk among themselves as to what was being said by the speaker. Paul makes quite reasonable request that you have any questions they should ask their husbands at home rather than interrupt the service.
The fact that Paul had women ministers among his fellow ministers (such as Priscilla) as listed in Romans 16 proves he was not biased against women speakers. The problem is people wanna pick one or two versus out of the Scriptures and then try and paint Paul in the light of those. This is just purely bad exegesis. 
After the one on the veiling of women, it is exceedingly unclear what situation Paul was writing to. It may have been that in a city of vice and prostitution Paul wanted to distinguish the Christian women from the prostitutes. All of the commentators say different things about this scripture so it is unwise to put too much emphasis on this as to why a Paul said it. Some translations do not mention a veil at all but not the woman's hair is her covering. 
The problem is not what Paul said but that people totally misunderstand him


----------



## science

I stayed out of this thread until now because I thought you guys were serious, but now it looks like it's safe to insert a comment that if there is a ghost in Mahler's Eighth, why not? Everything else is in it already. I'm just surprised there's not a part for a choir of sixteen ghosts.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate but you can't just rip Paul's teaching out of its context. The Colossians Scripture is said in that context of mutual submission to each other. Paul's request for the wife is to respect her husband. He then follows this with the command that the husband must love his wife i.e. put her interests first in everything. The problem is many people read one bit without reading another you have done.
> 
> You have done a similar thing with the Corinthians Scriptures. The word for 'speak' here means to chatter. The women who were generally illiterate at the time were tending to talk among themselves as to what was being said by the speaker. Paul makes quite reasonable request that you have any questions they should ask their husbands at home rather than interrupt the service.
> The fact that Paul had women ministers among his fellow ministers (such as Priscilla) as listed in Romans 16 proves he was not biased against women speakers. The problem is people wanna pick one or two versus out of the Scriptures and then try and paint Paul in the light of those. This is just purely bad exegesis.
> After the one on the veiling of women, it is exceedingly unclear what situation Paul was writing to. It may have been that in a city of vice and prostitution Paul wanted to distinguish the Christian women from the prostitutes. All of the commentators say different things about this scripture so it is unwise to put too much emphasis on this as to why a Paul said it. Some translations do not mention a veil at all but not the woman's hair is her covering.
> The problem is not what Paul said but that people totally misunderstand him


Those are very good points, DavidA, and in fact, Spong uses these as examples of how people misinterpret scripture. Still, I see Paul as a very human leader, and unlike Christ, fallible.



DavidA said:


> *Such idiotic nonsense!....**Spong is writing rubbish.*


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Those are very good points, DavidA, and in fact, Spong uses these as examples of how people misinterpret scripture. Still, I see Paul as a very human leader, and unlike Christ, fallible.


Interesting, then how Spong gets these right but misinterprets the central message of the Bible!


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahler's use of choirs and overblown forces in presenting a pseudo-Christian Western 'religious' based message in his Eighth Symphony is disingenuous, in light of his 'distancing' himself from his own ethnic heritage, and his alignment with the prevailing religious sentiment in Vienna at that time. The whole thing seems insincere, and I raise a critical eyebrow at this symphony, certainly not one of his best.

I see it as 'cosmic justice' that he later resigned from his post and went to America to escape the prevailing attitude in Vienna.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Mahler's use of choirs and overblown forces in presenting a pseudo-Christian Western 'religious' based message in his Eighth Symphony is disingenuous, in light of his 'distancing' himself from his own ethnic heritage, and his alignment with the prevailing religious sentiment in Vienna at that time. The whole thing seems insincere, and I raise a critical eyebrow at this symphony, certainly not one of his best.
> 
> I see it as 'cosmic justice' that he later resigned from his post and went to America to escape the prevailing attitude in Vienna.


If any of this speculation has any basis in reality, it didn't stop Schoenberg, another Jew, and one who embraced his heritage openly, from seeing the Eighth Symphony as one of Mahler's greatest works.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> If any of this speculation has any basis in reality, it didn't stop Schoenberg, another Jew, and one who embraced his heritage openly, from seeing the Eighth Symphony as one of Mahler's greatest works.


That's a good point, but as I recall, Schoenberg didn't embrace his own Jewish heritage until events started heating up before WWII, and it became very obvious. He rejected Webern for not leaving, and staying in Austria.

Before this, Schoenberg was just as naïve as Mahler, in going to Vienna and trying to be part of the Viennese tradition, writing Pelleas and Transfigured Night.

I tear-up as I recall Mahler on his deathbed, saying "But who will take care of Schoenberg?" Mahler was thinking of him, even as he was dying! That says a lot about Mahler's character, and perhaps he saw that he did, indeed, have a bond with him.


----------



## Cosmos

millionrainbows said:


> That's a good point, but as I recall, Schoenberg didn't embrace his own Jewish heritage until events started heating up before WWII, and it became very obvious. He rejected Webern for not leaving, and staying in Austria.
> 
> Before this, Schoenberg was just as naïve as Mahler, in going to Vienna and trying to be part of the Viennese tradition, writing Pelleas and Transfigured Night.
> 
> I tear-up as I recall Mahler on his deathbed, saying "But who will take care of Schoenberg?" Mahler was thinking of him, even as he was dying! That says a lot about Mahler's character, and perhaps he saw that he did, indeed, have a bond with him.


If I recall, Strauss and Mahler were both friends and supporters of Schoenberg, even though they didn't care for his ideas/style


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> If any of this speculation has any basis in reality, it didn't stop Schoenberg, another Jew, and* one who embraced his heritage openly,* from seeing the Eighth Symphony as one of Mahler's greatest works.


Not exactly; that's misleading. Only later did he openly embrace his heritage and religion.

From Schoenberg's Journey by Allen Shawn, p. 4:

"...(Schoenberg) the seventeen-year-old described himself as a "nonbeliever"...

and p. 8:

"Influenced by a friend, Walter Pieau, who was an opera singer, Schoenberg, although still perhaps a 'nonbeliever,' converted to Lutheranism and was baptized on March 25, 1898, with Pieau present. WE can only speculate about his reasons. Thirty-five years later (this would be 1933), in Paris, after fleeing with his family from Nazi-dominated Austria, he converted back to Judaism in an official ceremony witnessed by Marc Chagall. Many of his greatest works from his final two decades were explicitly or implicitly sacred or Jewish. Among the many paradoxes and internal contradictions of Schoenberg's life was one he shared with many of the artistic comrades of his early life: the fact that his patriotic devotion to the culture of Germany and Austria from which he emerged did not prevent him from being forced from it as an outcast."
_______________________________________________________________________



Mahlerian said:


> ...it didn't stop Schoenberg...from seeing the Eighth Symphony as one of Mahler's greatest works...


That may be partially true, but it's misleading as well.The Seventh Symphony was the one held in highest esteem by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern,because of its progressive tonality.

In composing the Eighth, Mahler temporarily abandoned the more progressive tonal elements which had appeared in his most recent works. The symphony's key is, for Mahler, unusually stable; despite frequent diversions into other keys the music always returns to its central E-flat major.[SUP][/SUP]

Thus, I stand by the consensus conclusion of numerous other critics, and I think that Mahler's Eighth Symphony was somewhat naively misguided and disingenuous in its religious presentation.

While recognising its wide popularity, modern critics have divided opinions on the work; Theodor W. Adorno, Robert Simpson and Jonathan Carr found its optimism unconvincing, and considered it artistically and musically inferior to Mahler's other symphonies.

While it reflects Mahler's intellectual, cosmopolitan version of religion, it appears to also be an attempt to 'spin' his reputation to secure his place in the Western tradition, which originated from Christian roots. His subsequent resignation from the Vienna Opera


----------



## millionrainbows

Cosmos said:


> If I recall, *Strauss *and Mahler were both friends and supporters of Schoenberg, even though they *didn't care for his ideas/style*


That's being very charitable to *R. Strauss. *He ignored and disparaged *Schoenberg *as a weird 'outsider,' but I think that in reality he felt threatened by Schoenberg's harmonic adventurousness and knowledge as a pure musical thinker of awesome power. After Strauss had written _*Elektra*_ and *Metamorphosen,* he settled back as the 'composer laureate' of Nazi Germany to write music in a conservative Mozartian style, as in *Rosenkavalier* and the _*Oboe Concerto*_. Yawn....


----------

