Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

first modern scholar to note the shorter and longer forms of the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    With apologies for cross posting: Today no one (save perhaps some KJV advocates) accepts the testimony of the TR and the translations based upon it that text
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      With apologies for cross posting:

      Today no one (save perhaps some KJV advocates) accepts the testimony of
      the TR and the translations based upon it that text of the Lord's Prayer
      as Luke gave it at Lk. 11:2-4 was basically, sans the doxology in Mt.
      6:14, the text of Mt. 6:1-14.

      But when did this change of view, this awareness that the LP has come
      down to us in two forms/versions, occur? Who was the first modern
      scholar to argue that the TR was wrong in its presentation of the text
      of Lk 11:2-4? and that what Luke gave us was quite different from what
      Matthew recorded? Anyone know?


      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson On: The Lukan Lord s Prayer From: Bruce I m afraid I can t help with Jeffrey s question as he puts it. I notice
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
        On: The Lukan Lord's Prayer
        From: Bruce

        I'm afraid I can't help with Jeffrey's question as he puts it. I notice that
        Fitzmyer ad loc gives some possibly helpful citations (eg, Jeremias), but
        these Jeffrey undoubtedly already knows. Perhaps somebody else can and will


        As to the LP itself, Fitzmyer after long discussion reconstructs an Aramaic
        original, in which (to my eye) what is basically the Lukan form is somewhat
        contaminated with Matthean parallelisms. Fitzmyer's Lukan Prayer reads as
        follows (2/896):

        May your name be sanctified!
        May your kingdom come!
        Give us each day our bread for subsistence
        Forgive us our sins,
        for we too forgive everyone who does wrong to us.
        And bring us not into temptation

        And his Aramaic version (in English translation, 2/901), with differences
        bracketed, is:

        May your name be sanctified!
        May your kingdom come!
        Give us [this] day our bread for subsistence.
        Forgive us our [debts],
        [as we have forgiven our debtors].
        And bring us not into temptation.

        As we say in Chinese, chabudwo (much of a muchness). But I can't think that
        any sonorousness which the Lukan version gains by these Matthean changes of
        Fitzmyer's is in the direction of historical accuracy. In particular
        (turning now unambiguously to Matthew), Matthew more completely equates the
        sins of man toward God with the peccadilloes of man toward man, by calling
        them both "debts," which is literarily neat (so much I would concede to
        Fitzmyer 2/897), but perhaps theologically doubtful. The scale may be
        different, or at least God might be thought by some to regard it as

        Fitzmyer finds the Matthean form of the LP more Jewish, and thus more
        plausibly original; he considers that Luke has revised it in a direction
        more suitable to his Gentile audience. I do not doubt that Matthew may
        represent something of a reversion in the traditional Jewish direction from
        the sometimes radical position taken by Jesus and his earliest converts (if
        Brother Jacob had written any of the Gospels, it would surely have been
        Matthew). All the same, I find it hard to ignore the verbal signs that the
        Lukan version is earlier, and the Matthean one derivative. This does not
        mean that Luke in general precedes Matthew; there are too many signs the
        other way. Luke on the whole follows Matthew in time, and he sometimes
        corrects Matthew's elaborations or redirections. But as I have earlier
        suggested, I do not think that the Lukan LP is a simplification made by Luke
        while looking with disapproval at his only source, the Matthean LP. I think
        that the Lukan LP was derived from Luke's memory of his community practice,
        which in turn antedates Matthew and supplied Matthew with the material for
        his more sonorous and fully glossed version.


        What interests me most about the LP (and I take the Lukan version as nearer,
        not to the wording of some prior "document," for Goodness' sake, but to the
        usage of believers in Luke's own community) is what we Chinese call the
        resonance theory of dealing with God. You can pray, meaning you can ask
        favors, but how do you give that prayer extra weight and efficacy? One is by
        killing an animal and letting God eat its flesh, which is a widespread
        notion but not one that the early Christians (following the later ethicizing
        Jewish prophets) seem to have adopted. Another way is by your own suffering,
        never mind by whom inflicted, so as to arouse the pity of God. There is a
        lot of that too, comparativistically speaking, and some of it turns up in
        later Christianity, though not as far as I know in the earlier versions.
        (Though if we rank poverty as a theologically potent form of suffering, then
        indeed it is present from the beginning, and was made much of in some
        branches of early Christianity, eg the Nazoreans/Ebionites; perhaps the
        mainstream of early Christianity).

        A third way is to arouse the ethical instincts of God by yourself behaving
        ethically, to sound the note C (so to speak; this is one example the Chinese
        use) on your little lute, thus evoking a mammoth diapason C from the
        heavens. That is, there is a resonance continuum existing between God and
        man, and it can in principle be evoked from either end: God can inspire
        ethical conduct in us, and we by our ethical conduct can also move God. The
        idea of giving God an ethical example of forgiveness by the petitioner, in
        the Lukan LP, relies (as I would think) on this principle. This seems quite
        different from the reliance on the power of faith as such, which is also
        much attested in the Gospels, including the later layers of Mark. (Not, I
        think, the earlier layers).

        Not that origins necessarily matter much, but for what it may be worth as a
        point of casual interest, I doubt that the possibility of alien influence,
        perhaps in the form of alien reinforcement, can be entirely ruled out.
        Lateral ethics (as I have called the human version of these two-ended
        relationships) seems to be considerably older in the East than in the
        Mediterranean West, and some details common to Mt/Lk read to my eye like
        translations from certain high-profile sayings or pronouncements in Chinese
        texts of from three to five centuries earlier.

        In the sense that, if the Mt/Lk versions were handed in to me as
        translations of those Chinese texts, I would give them an A.

        At the same time, it strikes me that analysts of the Mt/Lk LP spend too
        little time on what I might call the Markan proto-LP. Many of the elements
        of the later formulation can be seen, busily at work, here and there in
        Mark. May we not have here a collective witness to (1) the establishment of
        certain reciprocity concepts and Kingdom desiderata, as of Mark; (2) the
        reduction of a core group of those desiderata to a set form of prayer,
        reflected best in Luke; and (3) the literary elaboration of that prayer into
        a more sonorous and expanded form, in Matthew and perhaps even *by* Matthew?

        And having reached the end of my excursus, I note, somewhat along the lines
        of Jeffrey's request, that I will be doing an article on the classical
        Chinese counterparts of some of these early Christian ideas, for publication
        a year or so hence, and would welcome any criticisms or simply interested
        questions which would help to clarify the issues, or challenge my solutions
        to them.

        Off-list suggestions will be fine; I don't mean to take up bandwidth with


        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • David Mealand
        Wettstein (page 726) on Luke 11.2 cites Vulg Armen Marcion Origen Schol 36 & 38 then adds (in Greek) that Luke is silent on the ?in heaven? then on the
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 13, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Wettstein (page 726) on Luke 11.2 cites Vulg Armen Marcion Origen
          Schol 36 & 38 then adds (in Greek) that Luke is silent on the ?in
          then on the clauses about the kingdom W again cites versions,
          Augustine Enchirid. 116 Origen in Orat. D, gives the longer text in
          Greek and adds again (in Greek) that Luke falls silent. After the
          further discussion of the bread petition he adds probante H. Grotio,
          J. Clerico, J. Millio prol. 420 J.A.Bengelio

          I am not familier with all of W?s conventions but as expected it is
          clear that he knows the mss, versions, and Patristic discussions as
          well as the opinions of the ?moderns? from 1583 to the 18th C.:
          Grotius, Leclerc, Mill and Bengel.

          David M.

          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh

          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.