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

Re: [XTalk] LP book

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 2:52 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] LP book ... WSas there
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 2:52 AM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] LP book


      > At 12:32 PM 5/31/2006, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      >>With apologies for cross posting.
      >>
      >>I am finally beginning work in earnest on my book on the Lord's Prayer
      >>for Paulist Press' _What Are They Saying About_ Series.
      >>
      >>I have drawn up (and include below) a preliminary outline of the topics
      >>that I think are at the center of current discussions of the LP and that
      >>I will need to deal with.
      >>
      >>But I'd be grateful if List Members would let me know whether you think
      >>there are **other** topics that I've overlooked and/or that I should
      >>not neglect given the aim of the book .
      >
      > Isn't the LP in the Didache? IIRC, that might provide reason to discuss
      > * What role it played in the community that used the Didache
      > * Whether the Didache version is derivative (e.g., from Matthew) or not
      > (e.g., Crossan considers it early)
      > There have been a bunch of ~new books on the Didache in the past 10 years
      > or so.
      >
      > Bob

      WSas there not a publication by Oxford University Press about 10 years ago
      of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which included a version of ther LP?

      Jack

      Jack Kilmon
    • Tony Buglass
      James Spinti wrote: By early, Milavec means first century, note the subtitle: 50-70 C.E. That seems a bit unconventional. Most would date it early 2nd century
      Message 2 of 27 , Jun 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        James Spinti wrote:
        By early, Milavec means first century, note the subtitle: 50-70 C.E.
        That seems a bit unconventional. Most would date it early 2nd century or
        later. What does Crossan mean by early?

        Crossan discusses the Lord's Prayer in The Historical Jesus p.293, and
        refers to the Didache's version. He thinks it is an "independent rendition"
        of the version known to Matthew. He thinks Luke has used the version in Q,
        and Matthew has replaced it with the version used in his own community. As
        far as the Didache himself is concerned, he includes it in his
        stratification of the Jesus Tradition (p.427f). He places the first part of
        it in his 3rd stratum (80-120) - that is Did.1:1-3a, 2:2-16:2. He thinks
        1:3b-2:1 is a later insertion, independent of the intracanonical gospels.
        He suggests also that the apocalyptic source behind Did.16:3-5 "may have
        been known by Mk.13 or more likely by Mt.24." He places Did.1:3b-2:1 in the
        4th stratum (120-150).

        Cheers,
        Rev Tony Buglass
        Superintendent Minister
        Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
      • johnestaton
        ... JES Lisbeth, Sorry I am not Jeffrey, but the link between the LP and the Kaddish is widely acknowledged by scholars. I believe the majority think the
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Dear Jeffrey,
          >
          > What is the relationship between the LP and the Kaddish? They sound very
          > similar to me.
          >
          > What is the age of the kaddish?
          >
          > Liz Fried
          >
          > Ann Arbor

          JES
          Lisbeth,
          Sorry I am not Jeffrey, but the link between the LP and the Kaddish is
          widely acknowledged by scholars. I believe the majority think the
          kaddish predates Jesus and that the LP is a variation on the Jewish
          prayer. I would see this link as one of the most powerful arguments
          for its early provenance.

          Best Wishes

          JOHN E STATON (BA Sheffield; DipTheol. Bristol)
          Penistone, Sheffield UK
          www.christianreflection.org.uk
        • Mark Preece
          ... And if you touch on this, please remember to mention that part of the problem with this whole discussion is that daddy means different things to
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 6, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:50 AM 6/1/2006, Jeff Peterson wrote:
            >It may not be more than a footnote, but James Barr's JTS article
            >"Abba Isn't Daddy" is important in assessing Jesus' attitude towards
            >God, which Jeremias maintains the prayer expresses.

            And if you touch on this, please remember to mention that part of the
            problem with this whole discussion is that "daddy" means different things
            to different people in English. I haven't read Barr's article, at least not
            that I remember, but this point often gets lost in this discussion. There's
            more to "daddy" as a form of address than how intimate it is.

            I was raised in a culture where calling my father "daddy" was considered
            not only intimate but infantile -- I'm sure I stopped well before I was 8.
            I would be uncomfortable praying to God as "daddy" for the same reason I
            would be uncomfortable putting the rest of the prayer into baby talk. (I
            guess I could imagine calling God "dad".) On the other hand, I've known
            people (especially from the south) who referred to their fathers as "daddy"
            to the end of their lives.

            Peace,

            Mark.

            The Rev. Mark Preece
            Trinity Church, Gulph Mills
            King of Prussia, PA
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: Mark Preece To: ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 06,
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 6, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Mark Preece" <mwmp@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Cc: <mwp@...>
              Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:02 AM
              Subject: Re: [XTalk] LP book


              > At 11:50 AM 6/1/2006, Jeff Peterson wrote:
              >>It may not be more than a footnote, but James Barr's JTS article
              >>"Abba Isn't Daddy" is important in assessing Jesus' attitude towards
              >>God, which Jeremias maintains the prayer expresses.
              >
              > And if you touch on this, please remember to mention that part of the
              > problem with this whole discussion is that "daddy" means different things
              > to different people in English. I haven't read Barr's article, at least
              > not
              > that I remember, but this point often gets lost in this discussion.
              > There's
              > more to "daddy" as a form of address than how intimate it is.
              >
              > I was raised in a culture where calling my father "daddy" was considered
              > not only intimate but infantile -- I'm sure I stopped well before I was 8.
              > I would be uncomfortable praying to God as "daddy" for the same reason I
              > would be uncomfortable putting the rest of the prayer into baby talk. (I
              > guess I could imagine calling God "dad".) On the other hand, I've known
              > people (especially from the south) who referred to their fathers as
              > "daddy"
              > to the end of their lives.
              >
              > Peace,
              >
              > Mark.
              >
              > The Rev. Mark Preece
              > Trinity Church, Gulph Mills
              > King of Prussia, PA


              I would like to see a precedent in 1st century Judean Aramaic that )b)
              (abba) represents a lesser formality than "father" and not the 1st person
              plural pronomial suffix -a added to ab rather than being the status
              emphaticus which lost its significance by the 1st century (Jeremias, Theol.
              Literaturzeitung 1949, 9, 530). This construction can also be seen in the
              phrase marana tha "OUR master, come." Accordingly I would expect a personal
              or more intimate use to be "aby" (MY father).

              Is there an orthographic tree I am not seeing for the forest here?

              Jack

              Jack Kilmon
              San Marcos, Texas
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.