As many of you know,  a small number of witnesses to the text of Lk.

11:2 testify that the second petition in the Lukan version of the

version of the LP read not "May your Kingdom come" but "May your Holy

Spirit come upon us and purify us".



I'm wondering how one should assess this variant.  Is it original? Is it

commentary on what the kingdom petition is all about?  Or is it

something else?.



Any thoughts?



Jeffrey



--

---

Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

Chicago, IL

jgibson000@...







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:28 AM 11/28/2012, Jgibson wrote:

>As many of you know,  a small number of witnesses to the text of Lk.

>11:2 testify that the second petition in the Lukan version of the

>version of the LP read not "May your Kingdom come" but "May your Holy

>Spirit come upon us and purify us".

>

>I'm wondering how one should assess this variant.  Is it original? Is it

>commentary on what the kingdom petition is all about?  Or is it

>something else?.





How about another alternative? That these two versions are both

original, but with different factions within the followers of Jesus?

e.g., between the zealots who may have been allied with Bar Kochba on

the one hand, and the pentecostals of Acts and Paul on the other hand?



Bob Schacht

Northern Arizona University



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeffrey, you have probably already seen

Leaney, R., Nov.T. 1.2 (1956) 103-111.

Far from recent, but it puts the case,

and cites a lot of relevant evidence

for Gregory of Nyssa's text at this point.



David M.



---------

David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh





--

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in

Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On 11/28/2012 12:30 PM, David Mealand wrote:

> Jeffrey, you have probably already seen

> Leaney, R., Nov.T. 1.2 (1956) 103-111.

> Far from recent, but it puts the case,

> and cites a lot of relevant evidence

> for Gregory of Nyssa's text at this point.



I believe I have.  But my copy of the article is buried somewhere!



Jeffrey





--

---

Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

Chicago, IL

jgibson000@...

There is a nice online summary of this variant in Wieland Willker's Luke volume

of textual commentary, pages 295-296.� He also cites the Leaney article as well

as this comment by Streeter.

"Now in view of the immense pressure of the tendency to assimilate the two

versions of this specially familiar prayer, and of the improbability that

various orthodox Fathers should have adopted (without knowing it) the text of

Marcion, the probability is high that the reading of 700, 162, which makes the

Gospels differ most, is what Luke wrote."







Keith Yoder





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 11/29/2012 6:36 AM, Keith Yoder wrote:

> There is a nice online summary of this variant in Wieland Willker's Luke

volume of textual commentary, pages 295-296.  He also cites the Leaney article

as well as this comment by Streeter.

> "Now in view of the immense pressure of the tendency to assimilate the two

versions of this specially familiar prayer, and of the improbability that

various orthodox Fathers should have adopted (without knowing it) the text of

Marcion, the probability is high that the reading of 700, 162, which makes the

Gospels differ most, is what Luke wrote."

Fascinating.  Thanks!



If the variant is original,  it gives a new sense to the aim of the LP

(keeping the disciples from apostasy) .  And it shows,  to my mind at

least,  that the notion that the LP is made up of You petitions and We

petitions is a false one.



Jeffrey



--

---

Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

Chicago, IL

jgibson000@...

As Marcion has been mentioned WRT Lk 11:2, I think I should add this quote from

Klinghardt, where he is investigating “the major examples where Luke seems to

have a more primitive text than Matthew” (Mcn denotes Marcion’s gospel):







·         The same is true for the Lord’s prayer where the Matthean version

(6:9-13) is longer than Luke’s version with only five requests (11:2-4).

Furthermore, the address also shows a particular Matthean addition (πάτερ

ἡμῶν) ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Thus the judgment seems

inevitable that Matthew enlarged and re-edited the Lukan version.







·         But again, this version is already attested for Mcn, which then would

have contained the presumably oldest text of the Lord’s prayer. In his

discussion of the Lord’s prayer, Tertullian does not provide exact quotations

from his copy of Mcn but rather mere allusions to the text. Nevertheless, it is

sufficiently clear that there is no trace of the second and seventh Matthean

requests (on the fulfillment of God’s will and on the deliverance from evil).







·         As a side-effect, this reconstruction of the history of tradition

provides the solution for the old textual problem of Luke 11:2, where Mcn’s

first request did not ask for the kingdom to come but for the spirit. The

invocation of the spirit, which is attested for the early church and in some

medieval manuscripts, most probably represents the Lukan version, which later

was corrected according to the Matthean version. Since a textual influence from

Mcn on some medieval manuscripts is only imaginable if it was mediated through

bible manuscripts, this textual problem further corroborates the priority of

Mcn.







Also, I second Keith’s reference to Wieland Willker. He is always worth a look

where variants are concerned.







David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

Jgibson

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:50 AM

To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP



On 11/29/2012 6:36 AM, Keith Yoder wrote:

> There is a nice online summary of this variant in Wieland Willker's Luke

volume of textual commentary, pages 295-296. He also cites the Leaney article as

well as this comment by Streeter.

> "Now in view of the immense pressure of the tendency to assimilate the two

versions of this specially familiar prayer, and of the improbability that

various orthodox Fathers should have adopted (without knowing it) the text of

Marcion, the probability is high that the reading of 700, 162, which makes the

Gospels differ most, is what Luke wrote."

Fascinating. Thanks!



If the variant is original, it gives a new sense to the aim of the LP

(keeping the disciples from apostasy) . And it shows, to my mind at

least, that the notion that the LP is made up of You petitions and We

petitions is a false one.



Jeffrey



--

---

Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon.

1500 W. Pratt Blvd

Chicago, IL

jgibson000@... <mailto:jgibson000%40comcast.net>







   _____



No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2629/5425 - Release Date: 11/28/12







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:52 AM 11/29/2012, David Inglis wrote:

>...I second Keith’s reference to Wieland

>Willker. He is always worth a look where variants are concerned....





Willker has been a sometimes member of the XTalk

(and Synoptic-L?) email groups. Perhaps he can be enticed to comment.



Bob Schacht

Northern Arizona University



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David Inglis quoted Matthias Klinghardt ("Marcionite Gospel" NovT 50 2008):



>>The same is true for the Lord’s prayer where the Matthean version (6:9-13)

is longer than Luke’s version with only five requests (11:2-4). Furthermore,

the address also shows a particular Matthean addition (πάτερ ἡμῶν)

ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Thus the judgment seems inevitable that

Matthew enlarged and re-edited the Lukan version.<<



I don't see how either of these points makes the case. A later text could either

expand or abridge an earlier one (see Charlesworth The Lord's Paryer and Other

Prayer Texts from the Greco-Roman Era 1994 for examples). The "particular

Matthean addition" could alternatively be a Lukan subtraction. The first time

Luke has Jesus address the Father in Lk. 10.21, he calls him "Lord of Heaven and

Earth", but in every subsequent case the word Father is unmodified (n.b., the

second use in 10.21 has the article). And ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς

is not "particularly" Matthean. It's found as a description of the Father in

Jesus' instruction on prayer in Mk. 11.25.



















>>But again, this version is already attested for Mcn, which then would have

contained the presumably oldest text of the Lord’s prayer. In his discussion

of the Lord’s prayer, Tertullian does not provide exact quotations from his

copy of Mcn but rather mere allusions to the text. Nevertheless, it is

sufficiently clear that there is no trace of the second and seventh Matthean

requests (on the fulfillment of God’s will and on the deliverance from

evil).<<

Does "but again" presume some prior argument in Klinghardt that establishes Mcn

is earlier than Luke? Because otherwise the lack of reference to the second and

seventh position would follow quite naturally on the theory that Mcn used Luke

and Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer and would have no effect on the question

of whether Matthew expanded Luke's version or Luke abbreviated Matthew's.

Best wishes,

Ken

Ken OlsonPhD Candidate, ReligionDuke University







































   .





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ken,



By very, very quick count, Mt uses heaven just under 80 times to Lk's 25.  I

didn't check Mk because of its shorter overall length.  Much of the increase

comes from Mt changing "kingdom of god" into "kingdom of heaven."



Chuck



Rev. Chuck Jones

Atlanta, Georgia





Ken wrote:



 "And ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is not "particularly" Matthean.

It's found as a description of the Father in Jesus' instruction on prayer in Mk.

11.25." 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chuck,



Ok. 80 is bigger than 25. And 80 is even more times greater than the 1 example I

cited from Mk. 11.25.



But could you explain what would suggest to you that the number of times Matthew

uses the word heaven is more relevant to judging the relative priority of a

saying of Jesus in which he instructs his disciples in how to pray and includes

the entire phrase describing the father as "who is in the heavens" than the one

example in Mk. 11.25, which predates both Matthew and Luke?



And while you're looking at numbers, you might compare how many times Jesus uses

the unmodified (no appositive, article, or further descriptor) vocative PATER in

the various synoptic gospels.



Best,



Ken





To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

From: chuckjonez@...

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:32:49 -0800

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP





















































       Ken,







By very, very quick count, Mt uses heaven just under 80



times to Lk's 25.  I didn't check Mk because of its shorter overall length. 

Much of the increase comes from Mt changing "kingdom of god" into "kingdom of

heaven."







Chuck







Rev. Chuck Jones



Atlanta, Georgia







Ken wrote:







  "And ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is not "particularly" Matthean.

It's found as a description of the Father in Jesus' instruction on prayer in Mk.

11.25."







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ken,



You and I have access to the same data.  And I'm sure you're aware that a

standard interpretation of data like this is that it is more likely that Mt

added a favorite word to Lk than Lk omitted the phrase.  I can add nothing new

to the standard argument (which I find persuasive in this case).



Chuck



Rev. Chuck Jones

Atlanta, Georgia





________________________________

  From: Ken Olson <kenolson101@...>

To: "synoptic@yahoogroups.com" <synoptic@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:20 PM

Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP





 



Chuck,



Ok. 80 is bigger than 25. And 80 is even more times greater than the 1 example I

cited from Mk. 11.25.



But could you explain what would suggest to you that the number of times Matthew

uses the word heaven is more relevant to judging the relative priority of a

saying of Jesus in which he instructs his disciples in how to pray and includes

the entire phrase describing the father as "who is in the heavens" than the one

example in Mk. 11.25, which predates both Matthew and Luke?



And while you're looking at numbers, you might compare how many times Jesus uses

the unmodified (no appositive, article, or further descriptor) vocative PATER in

the various synoptic gospels.



Best,



Ken





To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

From: chuckjonez@...

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:32:49 -0800

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP





















































Ken,







By very, very quick count, Mt uses heaven just under 80



times to Lk's 25.  I didn't check Mk because of its shorter overall length. 

Much of the increase comes from Mt changing "kingdom of god" into "kingdom of

heaven."







Chuck







Rev. Chuck Jones



Atlanta, Georgia







Ken wrote:







"And ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is not "particularly" Matthean. It's

found as a description of the Father in Jesus' instruction on prayer in Mk.

11.25."







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





































[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Though I was not wholly persuaded by the 1956

article by Leaney, I was surprised at the range

of evidence he cited in favour of Gregory of

Nyssa's variant, and the fact that there is much

more to be said for it both in terms of its Jewish

context, and its place in early Christian practice.

I was surprised by the extent of the evidence, not

by the fact that Leaney did a thorough job on it -

though I only had time to give it a very quick read.



David M.



---------

David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh





--

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in

Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On 11/30/2012 4:40 AM, David Mealand wrote:

> Though I was not wholly persuaded by the 1956

> article by Leaney, I was surprised at the range

> of evidence he cited in favour of Gregory of

> Nyssa's variant, and the fact that there is much

> more to be said for it both in terms of its Jewish

> context, and its place in early Christian practice.

> I was surprised by the extent of the evidence, not

> by the fact that Leaney did a thorough job on it -

> though I only had time to give it a very quick read.

>

> David M.

>

> ---------

> David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh

>

>

I can't seem to locate the article in my files.. JSTOR has only the

first page of it available. Does anyone here has a scan of it?



Jeffrey



--

---

Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

Chicago, IL

jgibson000@...







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The same argument would suggest that Marcion’s (shorter) version of the LP

pre-dates the one in Lk, and if we had just Marcion’s gospel text (and not the

pleadings of Tertullian and Epiphanius regarding his supposed motives) then I

feel sure that is how it would be regarded. Anyway, I have written a fair amount

on the variants in the LP here 

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/marcion-s-gospel-comp\

ared-verse-by-verse-with-luke/lk-11 .







David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA







From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of

Chuck Jones

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:32 PM

To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP



Ken,



You and I have access to the same data.  And I'm sure you're aware that a

standard interpretation of data like this is that it is more likely that Mt

added a favorite word to Lk than Lk omitted the phrase.  I can add nothing new

to the standard argument (which I find persuasive in this case).



Chuck



Rev. Chuck Jones

Atlanta, Georgia







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Matthew, who was not competent in Hebrew or Aramaic, first used a Greek

translation of an Aramaic source and "tweaked" it a bit to expand/explain

certain petitions.  Luke used an Aramaic document which he translated

himself, also looked at Matthew and created a shorter version (as was the

original from Jesus' lips), but also tweaked a bit to explain Aramaic idiom

in one petition.  However we try to disentangle the Matthean and Lukan LP to

find a form critical version, if one does not appeal to the Aramaic that

left the lips of Jesus in the first place, one is paddling without an oar. I

give no credence to a mid second century dualist/docetist. Of course,

Marcion is the darling of the Jesus mythists.

Jack



Jack Kilmon

Houston, TX



-----Original Message-----

From: David Inglis

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 11:31 AM

To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP



The same argument would suggest that Marcion’s (shorter) version of the LP

pre-dates the one in Lk, and if we had just Marcion’s gospel text (and not

the pleadings of Tertullian and Epiphanius regarding his supposed motives)

then I feel sure that is how it would be regarded. Anyway, I have written a

fair amount on the variants in the LP here

https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/marcion-s-gospel-comp\

ared-verse-by-verse-with-luke/lk-11

.







David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA







From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

Of Chuck Jones

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:32 PM

To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP



Ken,



You and I have access to the same data.  And I'm sure you're aware that a

standard interpretation of data like this is that it is more likely that Mt

added a favorite word to Lk than Lk omitted the phrase.  I can add nothing

new to the standard argument (which I find persuasive in this case).



Chuck



Rev. Chuck Jones

Atlanta, Georgia







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







------------------------------------



Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links

There aren't any "You petitions or We petitions" in the prayers of Enoch and the

Angel [found in 1 Enoch] either.



The phrase "Hallowed be Thy name" occurs at the beginning of the Enochian prayer

[61.12] and "thy will be done" seems to me to be implied in the phrase "so shall

it be unto thee" [71.15].



So, is it possible that the original "first edition" of Jesus's "Lord's prayer"

is connected with Enoch?



--------------------------------------

[Enoch says]

God,

61.12: We bless, and glorify, and extol, and hallow Thy blessed name,

We glorify and bless Thy name for ever and ever.



61.13: For great is the mercy of God, and He is long-suffering,

And all His works and all that He has created

He has revealed to the righteous and elect In the name of God.



[The Angel says]

71.14: This [Enoch] is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness,

And righteousness abides over him,

And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.



71.15: He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of Heaven,

For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world,

And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever.



71.16: And all shall walk in his ways since righteousness never forsakes him:

With him will be their dwelling-places, and with him their heritage,

And they shall not be separated from him for ever and ever and ever.



71.17: And so there shall be eternal life with that Son of Man [Enoch],

And the righteous shall have peace and an upright way

In the name of God for ever and ever.

--------------------------------------



REF: The Book of Enoch - R. H. Charles





William Penrhiw

Cardiff, UK











----- Original Message -----

From: "Jgibson" <jgibson000@...>

To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP





> On 11/29/2012 6:36 AM, Keith Yoder wrote:

>> There is a nice online summary of this variant in Wieland Willker's Luke

>> volume of textual commentary, pages 295-296.  He also cites the Leaney

>> article as well as this comment by Streeter.

>> "Now in view of the immense pressure of the tendency to assimilate the two

>> versions of this specially familiar prayer, and of the improbability that

>> various orthodox Fathers should have adopted (without knowing it) the text of

>> Marcion, the probability is high that the reading of 700, 162, which makes

>> the Gospels differ most, is what Luke wrote."

> Fascinating.  Thanks!

>

> If the variant is original,  it gives a new sense to the aim of the LP

> (keeping the disciples from apostasy) .  And it shows,  to my mind at

> least,  that the notion that the LP is made up of You petitions and We

> petitions is a false one.

>

> Jeffrey

>

> --

> ---

> Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

> 1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

> Chicago, IL

> jgibson000@...

>

>

I think it is very likely, Will. I am convinced that Jesus was an Enochian,

not a Mosaic, Jew.  I think little brother Jimmy entered the fray after the

crucifixion to "rehabilitate" his big brother posthumously.

Jack



Jack Kilmon

Houston, TX



-----Original Message-----

From: will

Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2012 4:32 AM

To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP



There aren't any "You petitions or We petitions" in the prayers of Enoch and

the

Angel [found in 1 Enoch] either.



The phrase "Hallowed be Thy name" occurs at the beginning of the Enochian

prayer

[61.12] and "thy will be done" seems to me to be implied in the phrase "so

shall

it be unto thee" [71.15].



So, is it possible that the original "first edition" of Jesus's "Lord's

prayer"

is connected with Enoch?



--------------------------------------

[Enoch says]

God,

61.12: We bless, and glorify, and extol, and hallow Thy blessed name,

We glorify and bless Thy name for ever and ever.



61.13: For great is the mercy of God, and He is long-suffering,

And all His works and all that He has created

He has revealed to the righteous and elect In the name of God.



[The Angel says]

71.14: This [Enoch] is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness,

And righteousness abides over him,

And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.



71.15: He proclaims unto thee peace in the name of Heaven,

For from hence has proceeded peace since the creation of the world,

And so shall it be unto thee for ever and for ever and ever.



71.16: And all shall walk in his ways since righteousness never forsakes

him:

With him will be their dwelling-places, and with him their heritage,

And they shall not be separated from him for ever and ever and ever.



71.17: And so there shall be eternal life with that Son of Man [Enoch],

And the righteous shall have peace and an upright way

In the name of God for ever and ever.

--------------------------------------



REF: The Book of Enoch - R. H. Charles





William Penrhiw

Cardiff, UK











----- Original Message -----

From: "Jgibson" <jgibson000@...>

To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:50 PM

Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP





> On 11/29/2012 6:36 AM, Keith Yoder wrote:

>> There is a nice online summary of this variant in Wieland Willker's Luke

>> volume of textual commentary, pages 295-296.  He also cites the Leaney

>> article as well as this comment by Streeter.

>> "Now in view of the immense pressure of the tendency to assimilate the

>> two

>> versions of this specially familiar prayer, and of the improbability that

>> various orthodox Fathers should have adopted (without knowing it) the

>> text of

>> Marcion, the probability is high that the reading of 700, 162, which

>> makes

>> the Gospels differ most, is what Luke wrote."

> Fascinating.  Thanks!

>

> If the variant is original,  it gives a new sense to the aim of the LP

> (keeping the disciples from apostasy) .  And it shows,  to my mind at

> least,  that the notion that the LP is made up of You petitions and We

> petitions is a false one.

>

> Jeffrey

>

> --

> ---

> Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

> 1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

> Chicago, IL

> jgibson000@...

>

>







------------------------------------



Synoptic-L homepage: http://markgoodacre.org/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links

Jeffrey,



I don't have a USB handy to glance at the external evidence, but a look at the

internal evidence would suggest "May your holy spirit come upon us and purify

us" was the original reading.  First, it is the most difficult of the two

readings, and second, it fits with the rule of thumb that scribes tend to smooth

things out, not muddy them up.  Third, the phrase fits well with Lk's interests

as demonstrated by several L-only phrases, and L readings vis a vis their

parallels in Mk and Mt.



Chuck



Rev. Chuck Jones

Atlanta, Georgia





________________________________

  From: Jgibson <jgibson000@...>

To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com

Cc: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com; biblical-studies

<biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:28 AM

Subject: [Synoptic-L] Variant in Lukan version of LP





 

As many of you know,  a small number of witnesses to the text of Lk.

11:2 testify that the second petition in the Lukan version of the

version of the LP read not "May your Kingdom come" but "May your Holy

Spirit come upon us and purify us".



I'm wondering how one should assess this variant.  Is it original? Is it

commentary on what the kingdom petition is all about?  Or is it

something else?.



Any thoughts?



Jeffrey



--

---

Jeffrey B. Gibson  D.Phil. Oxon.

1500 W.  Pratt Blvd

Chicago, IL

jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]