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

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

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    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
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 28, 2012
      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]
    • Jgibson
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 28, 2012
        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@...
      • Keith Yoder
        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
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
          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]
        • Jgibson
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
            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@...
          • David Inglis
            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
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
              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]
            • Bob Schacht
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                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]
              • Ken Olson
                ... 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
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                  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]
                • Chuck Jones
                  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
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                    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]
                  • Ken Olson
                    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
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                      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]
                    • Chuck Jones
                      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
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                        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]
                      • David Mealand
                        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
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
                          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.
                        • Jgibson
                          ... 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
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
                            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]
                          • will
                            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
                            Message 13 of 19 , Dec 2 2:32 AM
                              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@...
                              >
                              >
                            • Jack Kilmon
                              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
                              Message 14 of 19 , Dec 2 8:25 AM
                                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
                              • David Inglis
                                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
                                Message 15 of 19 , Dec 2 9:31 AM
                                  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-compared-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]
                                • Jack Kilmon
                                  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
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Dec 2 10:33 AM
                                    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-compared-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
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.