--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@h...> wrote:
> As List members have been reminded frequently (I hope not ad
> one of my main research interests is the Lord's Prayer. You'll also
> recall that I'm in negotiations with Paulist Press about writing a
> on the LP for their What Are They Saying About Series. Part of what
> was asked to do before any decision was made about giving me a
> was not only to work up an outline of topics that I would discuss in
> book, but to flesh out how I would deal with the topics that
> of the LP are saying something about.
> What follows below is an attempt to do just that. I would be
> for any comments on the outline. I'd also be interested in hearing
Please excuse this intrusion from a "newbie" who has been lurking
in balance ever since I discovered this site through the recnet
on-line "Dunn Seminar," but I have a question here, one which may well
show that I have not yet read your synopsis are carefully as I should
have - will you be considering any formal literary criticism,
considering that the LP is formatted according to the canons of Hebrew
poetry? I am drawing upon study I did forty years ago, but if I am
remembering things correctly, such analysis works out quite well at
least as foundation for exegeting meanings in their present form. So
where do you plan to include such? Or would you be intending to
include such an analysis? Or have I just not read your proposal
Clive F. Jacks (aka "exPCman@...
"), Pikeville College (ret.)
> you think I've left out. Whose views need to be discussed. What
> of the modern study of the prayer have I neglected to include?
> Jeffrey Gibson
> 1. Original Version
> I would begin this chapter by pointing out that contrary to what
> be known given centuries of Liturgical usage of the LP in which a
> variant of the Matthean version of the LP holds pride of place, we
> actually have not one but three versions of the LP, that of Matthew,
> that of Luke, and that found in the Didache. I would set these
> alongside one another in a synopsis and then note that the
> of form, content and wording are best explained in terms of a
> relationship. From this, I would move on to a discussion of what LP
> scholars are saying about;
> a) the literary relationship that presumably exists between these
> versions, and
> b) which of these versions is thought to be the source of the
> keeping in mind that some scholars argue that the versions have no
> literary relationship with one another, but should each be viewed as
> recollections of teaching that Jesus gave on different occasions.
> I would then note how in the minds of LP scholars who DO see a
> relationship, that three things ring true
> (a) that the version of the LP in the Didache -- in which a
> concludes the LP -- is a secondary version and probably dependent
> Matt. 6:9-13;
> (b) that with the exception of those who hold to the
> Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre hypothesis (i.e., Luke knew and used
> the versions ultimately go back to a source (Q) which Matthew and
> used independently of one another, and
> (c) that the old consensus that Luke has better preserved the
> form and the wording of the prayer (and therefore that what is
> to Matthew is Matthean redaction) is not as strong as it once was,
> taking up the challenges that Michael Goulder has raised over
> there is a contradiction in the methodology of the International Q
> project for ascertaining the text of Q.
> 2. Authenticity and Origins.
> I would begin this section by noting that the traditional view of
> prayer is that what lies at the heart of its Matthean and Lukan
> something that Jesus himself actually spoke. I would then go on to
> discuss, how under this and a collateral assumption that Jesus'
> tongue was Aramaic, scholars such as Dalman, Torrey, and Jeremias go
> to reconstruct the original form and wording of the prayer. After
> I would examine how this consensus about the origin and authenticity
> the prayer has been challenged by Goulder, O'Neil, Crossan, and
> who have argued that the prayer as it appears in the canonical
> and Luke is a post resurrection composite of originally individual
> petitions, only some of which go back to Jesus himself. Singled out
> for close inspection would be the work of the Jesus Seminar and Hal
> 4. Its Relation to Jewish Prayers
> The issues to be discussed here is what scholars have been saying
> regarding the relationship, if any, of the LP with first century
> prayers. There is a prima facie case to be made that since Jesus was
> Jew, he would have cast any prayer he uttered along the lines of the
> Jewish prayers with which he was familiar. But at stake here in
> identifying in what way Jesus' prayer is like Jewish prayers is
> what prayers were common in Palestinian Judaism in the 1st Cent. CE.
> any discussion of the issue of the relation of the LP to Jewish
> will have to spend some time in outlining the debate between (a)
> who see the prayers that the LP reputedly resembles (the 18
> Benedictions, the Kaddish, etc.) as in existence in the 1st century
> pretty much the same form that they are known to us from the 2nd
> onwards and (b) those who have no confidence in attributing a 1st
> century CE date to those prayers with which the LP has thematic and
> formal parallels. Along with this, I will note what Jewish prayer
> scholars are saying regarding the type of prayer the LP is and how
> shapes the meaning of the prayer. Scholars whose works will be
> are I. Abrahams, JJ Pertrwoski, and Joseph Heinemann.
> 5. General Meaning: An Eschatological Prayer?
> Since Weiss, the LP has been interpreted as having an
> focus. That is to say, the majority of contemporary scholars (among
> E. Lohmeyer , R.E. Brown, J.P. Meier, D. Hagner W.D. Davies and D.
> Allison, Zahn, Schweitzer, Eisler, Bultmann, Greeven, Michaelis,
> Bornkamm, Grundmann, Schürmann, Schulz, Vögtle, and Beasley-Murray)
> hold to the view, articulated by Jeremias, that for Jesus the
> aim of the prayer was to encourage his disciples to take advantage
> "the privilege" that was theirs by virtue of their having been
> designated "sons" of the father to whom they pray, "... of
> forth their hands to grasp the glory of the [future] consummation
> right into their ... lives, even now, even here, today". So here I
> examine what reasons the "eschatologists" offer for saying that the
> is an eschatological focus, using the work of R.E, Brown, J.P.
> Jeremias, and Lohmeyer as representative voices for this position.
> recently there have been a few scholars who have put forward the
> argument that the LP is not so much focused on bringing the eschaton
> into the now as it is keeping the disciples who are to pray the
> from becoming members of the group Jesus calls "this generation. The
> to seeing this, they argue, is to see that the LP is throughly
> with themes and imagery from the OT Massah tradition. So in this
> I would also examine the views of C.B. Houk, R.F. Cyster, and
> 6. Meaning of Individual Petitions
> My intention in this chapter would be to go down the list of
> one by one and catalogue what the major interpreters of the LP have
> about the meaning of each of them. Surprisingly, there is not as
> variety in this as one might expect, so the chapter would not be
> cumbersome. There are, for instance, only two or three
> positions about the Kingdom Come petition, and only four at most for
> PEIRASMOS petition.
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
> 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
> Chicago, Illinois 60626
> e-mail jgibson000@h...