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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.