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

Luke 11: the LP

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    In Luke 11:1 we read, ... Matthew s version presents the LP as part of the sermon on the mount, unprompted by any questions, or references to John. [Has anyone
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In Luke 11:1 we read,
      >He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
      >disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples."

      Matthew's version presents the LP as part of the sermon on the mount,
      unprompted by any questions, or references to John. [Has anyone compared
      the the SOTM to John's farewell discourses? But I digress...]

      What exactly did the disciple [or, perhaps, Luke] mean by his question?
      The usual assumption seems to be that the request was for *words*,
      especially because that is how Luke's Jesus appears to respond. But its not
      like Jews (or even Galileans, for that matter) didn't know any words for
      prayers. So the question occurs (to me, at least) whether the disciple [or
      Luke] was asking not about what words to use, but about method and
      attitude. Of course, there is plenty elsewhere about method, many of which
      are summarized in the SOTM.

      First, what do we know about what John taught his disciples about how to
      pray, which is what the petitioner had in mind that prompted the question?
      I suspect that J the B was as much concerned about attitude and method as
      he was by precise words. When he called for repentance, was that meant to
      be an act of prayer, or a social act of some kind (e.g., making amends)?

      Second, text transmission tends to lose the non-verbal parts of the story,
      unless the narrator takes the time to describe the scene in a way that Luke
      seldom does. What possibility is there that the question referred to some
      kind of charism of prayer, such as trance or ecstasy, and the proper
      methods for initiating this charism?

      Just wondering, because this passage came up in the lectionary today, and I
      have most of my Bible study books boxed up for my move to Hawaii....

      Bob
      Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
      Northern Arizona University
      Flagstaff, AZ

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jim West
      ... I think you are right to wonder about the significance here. Clearly the disciples would have known one or two prayers. But the essence of prayer may
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:30 PM 7/25/2004, you wrote:
        >In Luke 11:1 we read,
        > >He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
        > >disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
        > disciples."
        >
        >prayers. So the question occurs (to me, at least) whether the disciple [or
        >Luke] was asking not about what words to use, but about method and
        >attitude.

        I think you are right to wonder about the significance here. Clearly the
        disciples would have known one or two prayers. But the "essence" of prayer
        may have eluded them (as it does many who simply repeat by rote). Maybe
        the real statement is something like "Lord, we need to know how to really
        pray."

        >Just wondering, because this passage came up in the lectionary today, and I
        >have most of my Bible study books boxed up for my move to Hawaii....

        Ack! That's a long way. But it's pleasant there.

        Jim


        ++++++++++++++++++++

        Jim West, ThD
        Pastor, First Baptist Church Petros
        http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources
      • Bob MacDonald
        Bob It seems to me the juxtaposition in Luke may be helpful - the Oratio Domini occurs just after Mary and Martha - the Mary who has chosen the better part;
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob

          It seems to me the juxtaposition in Luke may be helpful -
          the Oratio Domini occurs just after Mary and Martha - the
          Mary who has chosen the better part; and just before the
          three loaves and the 'ask and it will be given' pericope.
          See the colour coded version at
          http://bmd.gx.ca/synoptic/tuel_only_x.htm#185

          Matthew's context is in contrast to Luke's. Matthew's is
          between 'not like the hypocrites' and 'not like the
          Gentiles' and it includes Mark's serious warning about
          forgiveness.

          Bob

          Bob MacDonald
          http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
          Victoria, B.C., Canada

          Catch the foxes for us,
          the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
          for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
          http://peleyah.ca
        • William Arnal
          ... What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert to naive
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Bob et al.:

            >In Luke 11:1 we read,
            > >He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
            > >disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
            >disciples."
            >
            >Matthew's version presents the LP as part of the sermon on the mount,
            >unprompted by any questions, or references to John. [Has anyone compared
            >the the SOTM to John's farewell discourses? But I digress...]
            >
            >What exactly did the disciple [or, perhaps, Luke] mean by his question?

            What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to
            tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert
            to naive speculations about the personal motivations of "individuals" whose
            existence we only know of through texts? Shall we set aside source
            criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and every other interesting
            thing generations of scholars have conjured up, and return instead to
            "interpreting" biblical aporiae by adducing speculative details of fact
            which the author (or rather, *recorder*) neglected to convey, thereby
            rendering his otherwise-accurate tale narratively bumby? The question is
            framed in exactly the wrong way. And in fact the answer is already contained
            in your observations about the text's parallel in Matthew. What follows is
            just elementary source criticism . . .

            No matter which of the three major source-critical hypotheses one subscribes
            to, Luke's Lord's Prayer is derivative of some other text. By the 2-source
            hypothesis, that text is Q. By either the Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis (I
            LIKE that -- I'm gonna start calling it that), OR the Griesbach-Farmer
            hypothesis, radically different though they may be, Luke is dependent on
            Matthew for this text. In any of the three cases, moreover, Luke's source
            has the prayer embedded in speech material -- since Matthew has it in the
            larger Sermonic discourse, and since Q is more or less a sayings source in
            toto. If, therefore, Luke wants to give the prayer a narrative context, he
            is forced to INVENT that context. And so the question becomes, NOT What did
            Jesus' interlocutor intend? but What did the author of Luke intend by the
            question? There's no "perhaps" about it.

            As for the problem you identify . . .

            >The usual assumption seems to be that the request was for *words*,
            >especially because that is how Luke's Jesus appears to respond. But its not
            >like Jews (or even Galileans, for that matter) didn't know any words for
            >prayers.

            This is not so much a problem if one reframes the question I as have, since
            we are not dealing anymore with Galilean Jews, or any Jews at all, but an
            urban Gentile of the late first century or even later. As my Doktorvater is
            once reputed to have said, "Luke wouldn't know a Samaritan if one bit him on
            the ***." I suspect his knowledge of Galileans and Judeans was comparable.

            But I actually don't think that is the solution to your problem. What I
            think is going on here -- and this could be applied to your original
            question as much as my reframing of it as a literary issue -- is that the
            disciple is asking for a SECTARIAN prayer. This is implied by the reference
            to John. The point intended by Luke is not: "how should one pray?" but: "how
            should WE, i.e., Jesus-people, pray, as distinct from other people?" Jesus'
            response is to offer a short prayer with few sectarian markers, and so to
            demonstrate his distinction -- and the distinction of his movement -- from
            other sectarian groups. That, at least, seems to me what Luke has in mind,
            and doesn't require us to speculate about the motives of anonymous (and
            probably non-existent) people, although, as I say, this explanation COULD
            apply to a real person as much as to a literary character -- it's just that
            this text gives us no reason to posit such a real person.

            regards,
            Bill
            ______________________
            William Arnal
            University of Regina

            _________________________________________________________________
            Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound
            e-mail and attachments.
            http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
            Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the
            first two months FREE*.
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you ve been roused out of lurk mode, and I m happy to be the one to do it, but aren t you over-reacting just a wee bit
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:11 PM 7/25/2004, William Arnal wrote:

              >Hello Bob et al.:
              >
              > >In Luke 11:1 we read,
              > > >He was praying in a certain place, and after he had finished, one of his
              > > >disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
              > disciples."
              > >
              > >Matthew's version presents the LP as part of the sermon on the mount,
              > >unprompted by any questions, or references to John. ...
              > >
              > >What exactly did the disciple [or, perhaps, Luke] mean by his question?
              >
              >What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to
              >tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert
              >to naive speculations about the personal motivations of "individuals" whose
              >existence we only know of through texts? Shall we set aside source
              >criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and every other interesting
              >thing generations of scholars have conjured up, and return instead to
              >"interpreting" biblical aporiae by adducing speculative details of fact
              >which the author (or rather, *recorder*) neglected to convey, thereby
              >rendering his otherwise-accurate tale narratively bumby? The question is
              >framed in exactly the wrong way.

              Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you've been roused out of lurk mode, and
              I'm happy to be the one to do it, but aren't you over-reacting just a wee
              bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source, but you're reacting as
              if I'm a Biblical literalist, ignoring the hedge. And we've known each
              other (on XTalk and its precursor) for long enough that, unless you're
              afflicted by some form of premature dementia, that's not my stance. So why
              the blunderbuss?

              >And in fact the answer is already contained
              >in your observations about the text's parallel in Matthew. What follows is
              >just elementary source criticism . . .
              >
              >No matter which of the three major source-critical hypotheses one subscribes
              >to, Luke's Lord's Prayer is derivative of some other text.

              But this critical model, as you've presented it, is that *only* texts can
              be a source. To which I say, sir, um, that I beg to differ.

              >By the 2-source hypothesis, that text is Q. By either the Goulder-Goodacre
              >hypothesis (I
              >LIKE that -- I'm gonna start calling it that), OR the Griesbach-Farmer
              >hypothesis, radically different though they may be, Luke is dependent on
              >Matthew for this text.

              This ignores the *possibility* that, by G-G or G-F, or Q, Luke blended one
              of his own sources with a known literary source (Matthew or Q)

              Furthermore, it has been obvious for a long time that Matthew's SOTM is a
              compilation of sayings scattered in time and space, stripped of their
              original narrative frame, so how can you be so sure that it is Luke who
              adds, rather than Matthew who subtracts?

              >In any of the three cases, moreover, Luke's source
              >has the prayer embedded in speech material -- since Matthew has it in the
              >larger Sermonic discourse, and since Q is more or less a sayings source in
              >toto. If, therefore, Luke wants to give the prayer a narrative context, he
              >is forced to INVENT that context.

              Oh, foo. Again, you are portraying a context in which Luke has no sources
              other than Mark and Q (or Matthew, if you prefer), despite his claim at the
              opening of his Gospel. You may be right, but you cannot prove it. I suppose
              that, by your reasoning, Special Luke is 100% authorial creation. I don't
              buy it. In fact, I reject both extremes: that Special Luke is either 0% or
              100% authorial creation.

              >And so the question becomes, NOT What did
              >Jesus' interlocutor intend? but What did the author of Luke intend by the
              >question?

              It may have escaped your notice that was included in my question.

              >There's no "perhaps" about it.

              I beg to differ, as outlined above.


              >As for the problem you identify . . .
              >
              > >The usual assumption seems to be that the request was for *words*,
              > >especially because that is how Luke's Jesus appears to respond. But its not
              > >like Jews (or even Galileans, for that matter) didn't know any words for
              > >prayers.
              >
              >This is not so much a problem if one reframes the question I as have, since
              >we are not dealing anymore with Galilean Jews, or any Jews at all, but an
              >urban Gentile of the late first century or even later. As my Doktorvater is
              >once reputed to have said, "Luke wouldn't know a Samaritan if one bit him on
              >the ***." I suspect his knowledge of Galileans and Judeans was comparable.
              >
              >But I actually don't think that is the solution to your problem. What I
              >think is going on here -- and this could be applied to your original
              >question as much as my reframing of it as a literary issue -- is that the
              >disciple is asking for a SECTARIAN prayer. This is implied by the reference
              >to John. The point intended by Luke is not: "how should one pray?" but: "how
              >should WE, i.e., Jesus-people, pray, as distinct from other people?" Jesus'
              >response is to offer a short prayer with few sectarian markers, and so to
              >demonstrate his distinction -- and the distinction of his movement -- from
              >other sectarian groups. That, at least, seems to me what Luke has in mind,
              >and doesn't require us to speculate about the motives of anonymous (and
              >probably non-existent) people, although, as I say, this explanation COULD
              >apply to a real person as much as to a literary character -- it's just that
              >this text gives us no reason to posit such a real person.

              This is a reasonable framing, especially if one dates Luke late, since by
              then the issue of a corporate identity (18th Benediction or not) different
              from Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah would have been
              more pressing. The issue then would not be, as I asked, one of attitude or
              method, but one of corporate identity.

              Despite the [unnecessary, in my view] scolding, it is good to hear from you
              again <g>.
              Bob


              Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
              Northern Arizona University
              Flagstaff, AZ

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • William Arnal
              ... Precisely BECAUSE I figured you weren t a biblical literalist, nor were arguing for such a position, but then in fact included the OBVIOUS first (literary)
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Howdy again Bob:

                >Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you've been roused out of lurk mode, and
                >I'm happy to be the one to do it, but aren't you over-reacting just a wee
                >bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source, but you're reacting as
                >if I'm a Biblical literalist, ignoring the hedge. And we've known each
                >other (on XTalk and its precursor) for long enough that, unless you're
                >afflicted by some form of premature dementia, that's not my stance. So why
                >the blunderbuss?

                Precisely BECAUSE I figured you weren't a biblical literalist, nor were
                arguing for such a position, but then in fact included the OBVIOUS first
                (literary) question only as a parenthetic aside. Moreover, the framing of
                your question/problem -- wouldn't a first-century Jew, even a Galilean know
                better -- took for granted the literalist (i.e., historical) reading of the
                text and backgrounded the textual reading of the text. But look, if I
                misread you, apologies all around -- obviously you're in a better position
                to know what you meant than I am.

                >But this critical model, as you've presented it, is that *only* texts can
                >be a source. To which I say, sir, um, that I beg to differ.

                Not at all my point. It is obvious that Luke has either oral or at least
                no-longer-extant (in addition to Q) written sources, because of all that "L"
                stuff in the middle of the Gospel, which I do NOT think Luke simply made up
                (and for good reasons -- he often seems unable to effectively interpret or
                use this material, which suggests he derived it from a source and did the
                best he could with it). Rather, it's that when we HAVE an obvious source
                from which Luke has derived text x, then in the absence of a sustained
                argument, or evidence, to the contrary, we must assume that Luke has
                introduced the changes to this source where he differs from it. It is not
                that the alternative CANNOT be the case, but that Lukan alteration is the
                simplest and most elegant explanation -- again, barring any evidence or
                argument to the contrary. I see no such evidence for the Lord's prayer, nor
                have heard any argument from you about why Luke must have had a source other
                than Q (or Matthew). So it seems that with this text -- and only with this
                text -- we'll have to assume Luke introduced the changes. Unless one can
                show otherwise. It would be a total misrepresentation of my argument here,
                however, to claim that I am suggesting that Luke had no other sources,
                period. By my reading (i.e., as a Q proponent), he must have had at least
                three. At least. But not three different sources for this single pericope!

                >Furthermore, it has been obvious for a long time that Matthew's SOTM is a
                >compilation of sayings scattered in time and space, stripped of their
                >original narrative frame, so how can you be so sure that it is Luke who
                >adds, rather than Matthew who subtracts?

                Because if Luke is literarily dependent on Matthew, then he is dependent on
                the SOTM in its Matthean form, whether that form is secondary or not.

                >Oh, foo. Again, you are portraying a context in which Luke has no sources
                >other than Mark and Q (or Matthew, if you prefer), despite his claim at the
                >opening of his Gospel. You may be right, but you cannot prove it. I suppose
                >that, by your reasoning, Special Luke is 100% authorial creation. I don't
                >buy it. In fact, I reject both extremes: that Special Luke is either 0% or
                >100% authorial creation.

                As I state above, this is a significant misrepresentation of my argument.
                "Special Luke" is by definition constituted by unparalleled pericopes -- it
                is not Lukan redactional emendation of material whose sources have been
                identified (i.e., Mark and Q; or Mark and Matthew, depending on your source
                hypothesis). It is of course possible that material unique to Luke -- oral
                or written -- has overlapped with material derived from other sources and
                has influenced Luke's redaction of those sources -- there are, in my view,
                several instances of Mark-Q overlap, for example. BUT: 1) those overlaps
                must be demonstrated, not posited in the absence of evidence; and 2) EVEN if
                such sources existed, why assume that THEY are any more historically
                "authentic" than Luke is? In other words, even if Luke didn't himself invent
                this interlocutor (which he surely did!), there's no reason to assume this
                narrative is authentic. But Luke did invent this narrative frame.

                >This is a reasonable framing, especially if one dates Luke late, since by
                >then the issue of a corporate identity (18th Benediction or not) different
                >from Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah would have been
                >more pressing. The issue then would not be, as I asked, one of attitude or
                >method, but one of corporate identity.

                Precisely! And in fact, I would think this explanation would serve even in
                the extremely unlikely event that the episode actually happened. But you're
                right -- it works better in Luke's historical context than elsewhere. This
                is yet another indication, I would think, that the whole framing is a Lukan
                creation.

                >Despite the [unnecessary, in my view] scolding, it is good to hear from you
                >again <g>.

                Likewise. Great news about Hawaii, I would think. Did I hear/read that
                right?

                cheers,
                Bill
                ______________________
                William Arnal
                University of Regina

                _________________________________________________________________
                Share a single photo or an entire photo slide show right inside MSN�
                Messenger.
                http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the
                first two months FREE*.
              • Joseph Weaks
                ... True, and hedging on source is an acceptable suspension of some questions for the sake of exploring others, but it is a good reminder that searching for a
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Jul 25, 2004, at 8:52 PM, Bob Schacht wrote:
                  > At 05:11 PM 7/25/2004, William Arnal wrote:
                  >> ...Shall we set aside source
                  >> criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, and every other
                  >> interesting
                  >> thing generations of scholars have conjured up, and return instead to
                  >> "interpreting" biblical aporiae by adducing speculative details of
                  >> fact
                  >> which the author (or rather, *recorder*) neglected to convey, thereby
                  >> rendering his otherwise-accurate tale narratively bumby? The question
                  >> is
                  >> framed in exactly the wrong way.
                  >
                  > Well, gee, Bill, it is great that you've been roused out of lurk mode,
                  > and
                  > I'm happy to be the one to do it, but aren't you over-reacting just a
                  > wee
                  > bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source...

                  True, and hedging on source is an acceptable suspension of some
                  questions for the sake of exploring others, but it is a good reminder
                  that searching for a hermeneutic based upon an
                  story-at-historical-face-value offers little more than a creative
                  exercise.

                  >> And in fact the answer is already contained
                  >> in your observations about the text's parallel in Matthew. What
                  >> follows is
                  >> just elementary source criticism . . .
                  >>
                  >> No matter which of the three major source-critical hypotheses one
                  >> subscribes
                  >> to, Luke's Lord's Prayer is derivative of some other text.
                  >> By the 2-source hypothesis, that text is Q. By either the
                  >> Goulder-Goodacre
                  >> hypothesis (I
                  >> LIKE that -- I'm gonna start calling it that),

                  Me, too. I've already adopted the habit of calling it Goulder-Goodacre
                  hypothesis in my last course as well.

                  >> But I actually don't think that is the solution to your problem. What
                  >> I
                  >> think is going on here -- and this could be applied to your original
                  >> question as much as my reframing of it as a literary issue -- is that
                  >> the
                  >> disciple is asking for a SECTARIAN prayer.

                  You may accuse me of being a form critical reductionist here, but I
                  would argue that the introduction to the Lord's Prayer in Luke has
                  significance exactly equal to zero. There was this tradition of a
                  Lord's Prayer, that Luke knew from Matthew or Q and his own church
                  perhaps as well, and wanted it included in his telling of the gospel,
                  so he simply used this brief context to introduce the prayer. It's
                  like... "A guy walks into a bar..." Well, who cares WHY the guy walked
                  into the bar, or what bar he walked into. It's just filler, a segue
                  (and not a very smooth one, as was noted).

                  I really like focusing on the Lord's prayer, cause it makes an
                  interesting study regarding its traditional use in contemporary
                  churches.
                  In my sermon this morning, I spoke about the way these versions of the
                  Lord's Prayer offer exemplify that tradition affects how it is we speak
                  to God, even in the midst of Luke's context, where prayer is offered as
                  the means of getting out of our ruts (beds) and continually being
                  renewed by our ongoing conversation with God.

                  Cheers,
                  Joe

                  **************************************************************
                  Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                  Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                  Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                  j.weaks@...
                  **************************************************************
                • William Arnal
                  Hi again, all. ... That s NOT an accusation I would be likely to make! ... In terms of Lukan style, this is eminently plausible. Consider Luke s introduction
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi again, all.

                    Joseph Weaks wrote:

                    >You may accuse me of being a form critical reductionist here, but I

                    That's NOT an accusation I would be likely to make!

                    >would argue that the introduction to the Lord's Prayer in Luke has
                    >significance exactly equal to zero. There was this tradition of a
                    >Lord's Prayer, that Luke knew from Matthew or Q and his own church
                    >perhaps as well, and wanted it included in his telling of the gospel,
                    >so he simply used this brief context to introduce the prayer. It's
                    >like... "A guy walks into a bar..." Well, who cares WHY the guy walked
                    >into the bar, or what bar he walked into. It's just filler, a segue
                    >(and not a very smooth one, as was noted).

                    In terms of Lukan style, this is eminently plausible. Consider Luke's
                    introduction to yet another (I would argue) Q passage, the business about
                    faith as a grain of mustard seed (Luke 17:5-6; Matt 17:20; and various
                    doublets). Matthew integrates this into a Markan story. Luke slaps it into
                    an extended discourse with the rather sad segue, "The apostles said to the
                    Lord, 'Increase our faith!' And the Lord said . . ." (Luke 17:5-6).
                    Similarly, Luke/Q 17:35-37: "There will be two woman grinding together; one
                    will be taken and the other left. [. . .] *And they said to him, 'Where,
                    Lord?'* He said to them, 'Where the body is, there the vultures will be
                    gathered together." The "where, Lord?" doesn't even really make sense -- it
                    certainly is a not reasonable response to what Jesus is saying, and is
                    obviously only tossed in here to provide narrative segue to yet another Q
                    saying.

                    I would argue, though, that even if the point of all of these (and other)
                    Lukan narrative transitions is really just to serve as narrative
                    transitions, it is in some cases clear that Luke had something in mind --
                    that he framed things one way, as opposed to another way, for some sort of
                    reason. Thus, for instance, the "increase our faith" -- certainly a
                    throw-away line -- is still a clear manifestation of Luke's desire to
                    present the disciples (NB, here, "apostles"!) in a positive light. And so
                    the saying about faith becomes an instruction, rather than an indictment. In
                    short, I do think you're right that the main point of Luke 11:1 is precisely
                    to introduce the specific sayings material on prayer, and not much else. But
                    there is still, in the specific framing Luke gives it, some trace of Luke's
                    own concerns, e.g., classically, with prayer; but also, I would say, with
                    "sectarian" identity, manifested here in the reference to John's disciples.

                    regards,
                    Bill
                    ______________________
                    William Arnal
                    University of Regina

                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft�
                    SmartScreen Technology.
                    http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
                    Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN� Premium right now and get the
                    first two months FREE*.
                  • Bob Schacht
                    ... Gee, I had no idea that parentheses were so demeaning . I did not mean the parentheses to be a mere aside, but rather an alternative of equivalent value
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 07:35 PM 7/25/2004, Bill Arnal wrote:

                      >Howdy again Bob:
                      >
                      > >... aren't you over-reacting just a wee
                      > >bit here? Obviously, I was hedging about the source, but you're reacting as
                      > >if I'm a Biblical literalist, ignoring the hedge. ...
                      >
                      >Precisely BECAUSE I figured you weren't a biblical literalist, nor were
                      >arguing for such a position, but then in fact included the OBVIOUS first
                      >(literary) question only as a parenthetic aside.

                      Gee, I had no idea that parentheses were so demeaning <g>. I did not mean
                      the parentheses to be a mere aside, but rather an alternative of equivalent
                      value (which probably won't satisfy you).

                      >Moreover, the framing of
                      >your question/problem -- wouldn't a first-century Jew, even a Galilean know
                      >better -- took for granted the literalist (i.e., historical) reading of the
                      >text and backgrounded the textual reading of the text. But look, if I
                      >misread you, apologies all around -- obviously you're in a better position
                      >to know what you meant than I am.

                      Again, I did not mean to privilege a literalist reading. To avoid other
                      distractions, then, why did Luke frame the LP with a disciple's question,
                      and why did he include J the B as a point of reference?


                      > >But this critical model, as you've presented it, is that *only* texts can
                      > >be a source. To which I say, sir, um, that I beg to differ.
                      >
                      >Not at all my point. It is obvious that Luke has either oral or at least
                      >no-longer-extant (in addition to Q) written sources, because of all that "L"
                      >stuff in the middle of the Gospel, which I do NOT think Luke simply made up
                      >(and for good reasons -- he often seems unable to effectively interpret or
                      >use this material, which suggests he derived it from a source and did the
                      >best he could with it).

                      Thanks for the clarification.

                      >Rather, it's that when we HAVE an obvious source
                      >from which Luke has derived text x, then in the absence of a sustained
                      >argument, or evidence, to the contrary, we must assume that Luke has
                      >introduced the changes to this source where he differs from it.

                      But for a Q proponent, as I understand you to be, it is building castles in
                      the air to suppose that we know how Q was written, so that therefore we
                      know how Luke changed it. The matter of how the LP was framed in Q, while
                      the object of formidable scholarship, is still conjectural, especially
                      since the IQP often seems to lean to Luke rather than Matthew in its
                      reconstruction.

                      >It is not that the alternative CANNOT be the case, but that Lukan
                      >alteration is the
                      >simplest and most elegant explanation -- again, barring any evidence or
                      >argument to the contrary.

                      It is, if we agree that the wording of Q lacked Luke's frame. But I am
                      concerned that there may be something akin to question-begging here.

                      >I see no such evidence for the Lord's prayer, nor
                      >have heard any argument from you about why Luke must have had a source other
                      >than Q (or Matthew).

                      "Must" is stronger than I meant. "May" is what I had in mind. If the Lukan
                      frame can be shown to be in line with known Lukan editorial tendencies,
                      then the likelihood of Lukan authorial creativity rises. But if the frame
                      seems independent of those tendencies, then the likelihood of an unknown
                      Lukan source rises.

                      >So it seems that with this text -- and only with this
                      >text -- we'll have to assume Luke introduced the changes. Unless one can
                      >show otherwise.

                      It is one thing to assert that Luke introduced the changes. It is another
                      to allege that the changes were not based on other sources, and were merely
                      authorial creation.

                      >It would be a total misrepresentation of my argument here,
                      >however, to claim that I am suggesting that Luke had no other sources,
                      >period.

                      I am relieved <g>.

                      >By my reading (i.e., as a Q proponent), he must have had at least three.
                      >At least.

                      i.e., Q, Mark, and Special Luke?

                      >But not three different sources for this single pericope!

                      Two would be quite sufficient <g>


                      > >Furthermore, it has been obvious for a long time that Matthew's SOTM is a
                      > >compilation of sayings scattered in time and space, stripped of their
                      > >original narrative frame, so how can you be so sure that it is Luke who
                      > >adds, rather than Matthew who subtracts?
                      >
                      >Because if Luke is literarily dependent on Matthew, then he is dependent on
                      >the SOTM in its Matthean form, whether that form is secondary or not.

                      I had in mind Q here. Why is the IQP so sure that it is Luke who added,
                      rather than Matthew who subtracted?


                      >... It is of course possible that material unique to Luke -- oral
                      >or written -- has overlapped with material derived from other sources and
                      >has influenced Luke's redaction of those sources -- there are, in my view,
                      >several instances of Mark-Q overlap, for example. BUT: 1) those overlaps
                      >must be demonstrated, not posited in the absence of evidence; and 2) EVEN if
                      >such sources existed, why assume that THEY are any more historically
                      >"authentic" than Luke is? In other words, even if Luke didn't himself invent
                      >this interlocutor (which he surely did!), there's no reason to assume this
                      >narrative is authentic.

                      Well, I do not presume to have demonstrated anything; I just raised the
                      question. And regardless of the sources (or lack thereof), why this
                      *particular* Lukan frame?

                      >But Luke did invent this narrative frame.

                      Well, that may be "fact" to you, but not to me.


                      > >This is a reasonable framing, especially if one dates Luke late, since by
                      > >then the issue of a corporate identity (18th Benediction or not) different
                      > >from Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah would have been
                      > >more pressing. The issue then would not be, as I asked, one of attitude or
                      > >method, but one of corporate identity.
                      >
                      >Precisely! And in fact, I would think this explanation would serve even in
                      >the extremely unlikely event that the episode actually happened. But you're
                      >right -- it works better in Luke's historical context than elsewhere. This
                      >is yet another indication, I would think, that the whole framing is a Lukan
                      >creation.

                      Perhaps. But we're still left with the question of the purpose of Luke's
                      frame. The group identity issue serves this purpose, as previously
                      discussed. But does that argument rise above mere plausibility?


                      > >Despite the [unnecessary, in my view] scolding, it is good to hear from you
                      > >again <g>.
                      >
                      >Likewise.

                      Indeed. I have not had a good argument for a while, so I might be getting
                      rusty <g>.

                      >Great news about Hawaii, I would think. Did I hear/read that
                      >right?

                      Yep.

                      Bob


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Joseph Weaks
                      ... You are, of course, positively correct. I shouldn t have been so hyperbolic. There are some tidbits to be gleaned even from such throw away intros. For
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 25, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Jul 25, 2004, at 10:44 PM, William Arnal wrote:
                        >> I would argue that the introduction to the Lord's Prayer in Luke has
                        >> significance exactly equal to zero... It's just filler, a segue
                        >> (and not a very smooth one, as was noted).
                        >
                        > In terms of Lukan style, this is eminently plausible... I would argue,
                        > though,
                        > that even if the point of all of these (and other)
                        > Lukan narrative transitions is really just to serve as narrative
                        > transitions, it is in some cases clear that Luke had something in mind
                        > --
                        > that he framed things one way, as opposed to another way, for some
                        > sort of
                        > reason.
                        ...
                        > In short, I do think you're right that the main point of Luke 11:1 is
                        > precisely
                        > to introduce the specific sayings material on prayer, and not much
                        > else. But
                        > there is still, in the specific framing Luke gives it, some trace of
                        > Luke's
                        > own concerns, e.g., classically, with prayer; but also, I would say,
                        > with
                        > "sectarian" identity, manifested here in the reference to John's
                        > disciples.

                        You are, of course, positively correct. I shouldn't have been so
                        hyperbolic. There are some tidbits to be gleaned even from such "throw
                        away" intros. For instance, the mention of J the B might offer some
                        hint regarding competing traditions known in 80 CE.

                        Cheers,
                        Joe

                        **************************************************************
                        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                        Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                        Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                        j.weaks@...
                        **************************************************************
                      • Ron Price
                        ... Bob, Good point. If you want to see the original context of the LP in a reconstruction of the original sayings source which is based more on Matthew than
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bob Schacht wrote:

                          > The matter of how the LP was framed in Q, while
                          > the object of formidable scholarship, is still conjectural, especially
                          > since the IQP often seems to lean to Luke rather than Matthew in its
                          > reconstruction.

                          Bob,

                          Good point. If you want to see the original context of the LP in a
                          reconstruction of the original sayings source which is based more on Matthew
                          than on Luke, see the saying "C1" on the following page:

                          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_sQet.html

                          Ron Price

                          Derbyshire, UK
                        • Mark Preece
                          ... [...] ... Might not Luke have intended us to imagine motivations for his characters, whether of not the individuals actually existed in history? After all,
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 08:11 PM 7/25/2004, William Arnal wrote:
                            >What do you mean, what did he [the disciple] mean? Have we now sunk to
                            >tossing over 100 years of scholarship out the window, so that we can revert
                            >to naive speculations about the personal motivations of "individuals" whose
                            >existence we only know of through texts?
                            [...]
                            > And so the question becomes, NOT What did
                            >Jesus' interlocutor intend? but What did the author of Luke intend by the
                            >question? There's no "perhaps" about it.

                            Might not Luke have intended us to imagine motivations for his characters,
                            whether of not the individuals actually existed in history? After all, he's
                            just had a dialogue between Jesus and a lawyer in which the (possibly
                            non-existent) lawyer has tried to "test" Jesus and to "justify" himself.
                            Plenty of motivation ascribed to a fictional character there. I don't think
                            the original question about what the disciples intended needs to imply that
                            we're throwing away 100 years of scholarship, it just has to be understood
                            as implying "within the context of Luke's narrative."

                            Peace,

                            Mark.
                          • Ken Olson
                            ... pray, which is what the petitioner had in mind that prompted the question? I suspect that J the B was as much concerned about attitude and method as he was
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 26, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On July 25, 2004, Bob Schacht asked:

                              >>First, what do we know about what John taught his disciples about how to
                              pray, which is what the petitioner had in mind that prompted the question?
                              I suspect that J the B was as much concerned about attitude and method as
                              he was by precise words. When he called for repentance, was that meant to
                              be an act of prayer, or a social act of some kind (e.g., making amends)?<<

                              Bob,

                              I would approach this question in terms of Luke's general attitude towards
                              the form of Judaism claiming John as its founder and its relationship to
                              Luke's own form of Christianity. The two puzzling passages in Acts
                              18.24-28, 19.1-7 suggest to me that the two groups were in some sense parts
                              of a larger movement within Judaism and that Luke was concerned to bring
                              "Johannine Christianity" (to borrow Conzelmann's term) into conformity with
                              what he regarded as normative Christianity. The use of a specific prayer in
                              Lk. 11.1-4, like baptism in the Holy Spirit in Acts 19, may have been part
                              of this process. So I would agree with William Arnal that Luke's concern in
                              the introduction to the LP has to do with constructing a sectarian identity.

                              Best Wishes,

                              Ken

                              kaolson@...
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.