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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 19 , Nov 29, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 19 , Nov 30, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 19 , Dec 2, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 19 , Dec 2, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 19 , Dec 2, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 19 , Dec 2, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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.