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

explanations for the two versions of the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    With apologies for cross posting I m working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      With apologies for cross posting

      I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of
      why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with
      Lk. 11:2-4).

      I've schematized the answers in this fashion:

      1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
      later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
      in prayer.
      2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
      probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
      3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
      modified by Luke for his audience
      4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
      liturgically expanded in Matthew
      5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
      diverse worshiping communities



      Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?

      I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of who has
      stood where vis a vis these positions.

      I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ('The Composition of
      the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963) 32-45;
      Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form
      Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14 [1972]; J.C.
      O'Neil, Hal Taussig.

      2. by J. Van Bruggen ("Abba, Vader"); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on
      Luke, p, 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of Jesus, 93;
      The Lord's Prayer, 14).

      3. by Lohmeyer (Lord’s Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer:
      Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951]
      27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his Recherches,
      30-52).

      4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with
      respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original with regard to
      wording.' -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and
      R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer, 218).

      Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?

      With thanks in advance for assistance with this,

      Jeffrey
      ---

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson On: LP in NT From: Bruce I don t at all deprecate surveys of previous scholarship such as the LP one that
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 28, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG
        In Response To: Jeffrey Gibson
        On: LP in NT
        From: Bruce

        I don't at all deprecate surveys of previous scholarship such as the LP one
        that Jeffrey has embarked on; quite the contrary. I am glad to have them. I
        plan to look up a few of the articles mentioned, which is not going to be
        easy at my institution. My own primary interest, though, remains in solving
        the problem, and I can't help responding in that sense to Jeffrey's
        preliminary list of scholarly positions so far surveyed. Thus:

        JG 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed later
        on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity in prayer.

        EBB: Red herrings galore. It suffices to posit that the LP did not originate
        with Jesus. What it *was* based on involves a second positing. Confining
        ourselves to Mark for the moment (for reasons heretofore mentioned), I note
        that Jesus is several times shown at prayer, and that none of them has the
        slightest typological resemblance to the LP. My hunch is that this basic
        position is correct, but that the actual sources of the LP might well remain
        unspecified for the moment.

        JG 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier probably
        preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.

        EBB: This type of explanation is very familiar to me; it is used by Han
        dynasty commentators (that would be around the end of the 2nd century AD) to
        account for diverse doctrines in the supposedly consistent Analects of
        Confucius. In my field we call it the multidisciple hypothesis. Explanations
        of this type tend to be too easy. Absent a more specific formulation, indeed
        a scenario, they don't carry much convincement. I now take up the scenario
        itself. Suppose Jesus had dictated the prayer twice, would he have forgotten
        his own wording in the meantime? There is no a priori answer to that; we
        need to examine the actual differences in the wording. The Mt version, as I
        think many will agree, is a sort of footnoted version of the Lk version. So
        the idea that Mt is the earlier version will not very readily withstand
        scrutiny of the respective texts. For the other aspect, see next.

        JG 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
        modified by Luke for his audience.

        EBB: As before, the Lk version is manifestly primary, and the Mt version is
        an expanded gloss on it. The Lk version is definitely in line with Lk's
        preferences elsewhere, but that the Lk LP was produced by diminution from
        the Mt LP doesn't have literary probability. I have already suggested that
        Lk was a church member, not a visiting correspondent, and he will have known
        the primary LP from his own membership experience. He didn't have to look it
        up in some book (whether or not by Matthew) and then cut it to suit his
        agenda preferences. It will have been a given for him.

        JG 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
        liturgically expanded in Matthew.

        EBB: On the literary merits of the two versions, I think this is the only
        tenable inference. But again, it is here bundled with the idea that the LP
        stems direct from Jesus. That is two ideas in one hypothesis, and it is not
        best procedure. The relation between the two versions is logically separate
        from the question of the origin of the earlier version.

        JG 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two diverse
        worshiping communities.

        EBB: Note that this is not inconsistent with the preceding (at least as
        slimmed down in my restatement), save that the development in the Lk version
        may easily be assumed to be zero.

        Note that the basic statement in #1 is at bottom compatible with certain
        senses of #4 and #5. The only really irreconcilable points are #2 and #3.
        This being so, I would find it easier to take Jeffrey's summary if the
        options were arranged accordingly. Perhaps:

        1. Jesus did not teach the LP; it was a later creation
        a. The Mt/Lk forms evolved separately
        b. The Mt Lk forms are mutually dependent, and
        b1. The Mt form is original
        b2. The Lk form is original

        2. Jesus did teach the LP
        a. He gave it in two forms, respectively preserved in Mt and Lk
        b. He gave it in one form, of which
        b1. The Mt form is original and Lk is derivative
        b2. The Lk form is original and Mt is derivative

        Notice the symmetry. Isn't this easier? It is for me.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      • Ron Price
        ... Bruce, Surely there s a fundamental methodological error here in having the major division centred around whether or not Jesus taught the LP. Our primary
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Bruce Brooks wrote:

          > ....... I would find it easier to take Jeffrey's summary if the
          > options were arranged accordingly. Perhaps:
          >
          > 1. Jesus did not teach the LP; it was a later creation
          > a. The Mt/Lk forms evolved separately
          > b. The Mt Lk forms are mutually dependent, and
          > b1. The Mt form is original
          > b2. The Lk form is original
          >
          > 2. Jesus did teach the LP
          > a. He gave it in two forms, respectively preserved in Mt and Lk
          > b. He gave it in one form, of which
          > b1. The Mt form is original and Lk is derivative
          > b2. The Lk form is original and Mt is derivative
          >
          > Notice the symmetry. Isn't this easier? It is for me.

          Bruce,

          Surely there's a fundamental methodological error here in having the major
          division centred around whether or not Jesus taught the LP. Our primary
          evidence involves working backwards from extant written texts, hence the
          major division should relate to the first step (what is immediately behind
          the gospel texts) and not the last step.

          I would categorize the major options for the first step behind the LP as
          follows:

          (a) Many traditionalists appear to hold this view, and as far as I can see
          it is also essentially the viewpoint of Mark Goodacre on the LP.

          oral_source_1 --> Luke

          oral_source_2 --> Matthew

          (oral_source_3 --> Mark)

          Exploring further back there seem to be three main sub-options: the LP does
          not go back to Jesus; the LP goes back to a single saying of Jesus; the
          synoptic variations are explained by the LP going back to multiple sayings
          of Jesus.

          (b) The majority of modern critical scholars hold the view that the LP was
          incorporated in:

          { --> Luke
          a single_written_source { --> Matthew
          ( { --> Mark )

          Probing back a step further there are four sub-options:
          (i) it represents the culmination of a series of editorial changes, each
          stage being in Greek (Kloppenborg et al.)
          (ii) it was composed in Greek in a form more or less identical to the forms
          used by Matthew and Luke (Fleddermann et al.)
          (iii) it was composed in Aramaic, then translated into Greek, in which form
          the synoptic writers made use of it
          (iv) it was composed in Aramaic and translated directly into Greek by each
          synoptic writer (my own conclusion, and the only sub-option with patristic
          support)

          The last two sub-options would make an origin with Jesus more credible.

          (c) Michael Goulder and perhaps a tiny minority propose the following view:

          Mark --> Matthew --> Luke

          As these are all written sources, and oral input is deemed unnecessary to
          explain the later synoptic developments, this model rules out Jesus as the
          originator.

          Ron Price

          Derbyshire, UK

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • E Bruce Brooks
          To: Synoptic In Response To: Ron Price On: Arranging LP Explanations From: Bruce I had suggested that there was a more transparent way of arranging previously
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            To: Synoptic
            In Response To: Ron Price
            On: Arranging LP Explanations
            From: Bruce

            I had suggested that there was a more transparent way of arranging
            previously published LP theories than the one that Jeffrey Gibson had
            previously displayed.

            RON: Surely there's a fundamental methodological error here in having the
            major division centred around whether or not Jesus taught the LP.

            BRUCE: If so, the quarrel is with the people who wrote the papers, not with
            me. Jeffrey surveyed them, and I rearranged his findings. The structure is
            in the material. If I were proposing a method of study for the LP de novo, I
            would probably take into account the texts on which the various theories
            were based, somewhat as Ron goes on to suggest. It is obvious to me that
            here as elsewhere (see my previous note), people have been mixing the
            Gospels together as evidence; I don't think that is valid. But the task here
            is arranging other people's theories, no matter how, or how validly, they
            were arrived at.

            Bruce

            E Bruce Brooks
            Warring States Project
            University of Massachusetts at Amherst
          • David Mealand
            Several of the ?explanations? of the different versions on the LP are already adumbrated by Bengel, and I am fairly sure he is not the first to make most of
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 4, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Several of the ?explanations? of the different versions on the LP are
              already adumbrated by Bengel, and I am fairly sure he is not the first
              to make most of these points. (With apologies for delay in responding
              to the thread.)

              This is what is in my 1855 copy of the 3rd Edition of Bengel?s Gnomon
              on p.248 ad Luc. xi.2 (1st ed was 1742).

              Formulam incomparabilem alio tempore Matthaeus populo pluribus verbis;
              alio Lucas discipulis rogantibus brevius praescriptam recenset.
              Itaque summa orationum semper est eadem: sed alio tempore omnia
              aitemata sive capita precum, alio quaedam ex omnibus, libero verborum
              rerumque delectu exercentur. Neque necesse habuit Lucas in numero
              rogationum, cum Matthaeo, qui tamen non expresse eas septem esse ait,
              congruere. nam idem beatitudines cap. 6,20. fs. aliter ac Matthaeus;
              idem decalogum aliter ac Moses, enumerat.

              Quick rough summary
              Different audiences at different times, Luke more concise, gist the
              same, sometimes all the petitions sometimes some, using free choice of
              words and topics. Luke didn?t have to agree with Matthew in the number
              of petitions, and anyway M doesn?t expressly number them as seven, and
              anyway Luke enumerates the beatitudes differently compared with
              Matthew, and he numbers the decalogue differently compared with Moses.

              Plus ca change?

              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.