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

explanations for the two versions of the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    I m working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with Lk. 11:2-4). I ve
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of
      why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with
      Lk. 11:2-4).

      I've schematized the answers in this fashion:

      1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
      later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
      in prayer.
      2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
      probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
      3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
      modified by Luke for his audience
      4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
      liturgically expanded in Matthew
      5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
      diverse worshiping communities



      Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?

      I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of what has
      stood where vis a vis these positions.

      I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ('The Composition of
      the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963) 32-45;
      Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form
      Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14 [1972]; J.C.
      O'Neil, Hal Taussig.

      2. by J. Van Bruggen ("Abba, Vader"); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on
      Luke, p, 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of Jesus, 93;
      The Lord's Prayer, 14).

      3. by Lohmeyer (Lord’s Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer:
      Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951]
      27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his Recherches,
      30-52).

      4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with
      respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original with regard to
      wording.' -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and
      R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer, 218).

      Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?

      With thanks in advance for assistance with this,

      Jeffrey

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Crosstalk2 Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:40 AM Subject: [XTalk]
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 26, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
        To: "Crosstalk2" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:40 AM
        Subject: [XTalk] explanations for the two versions of the LP


        > I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of
        > why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with
        > Lk. 11:2-4).
        >
        > I've schematized the answers in this fashion:
        >
        > 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
        > later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
        > in prayer.
        > 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
        > probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
        > 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
        > modified by Luke for his audience
        > 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
        > liturgically expanded in Matthew
        > 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
        > diverse worshiping communities
        >
        >
        >
        > Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?
        >
        > I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of what has
        > stood where vis a vis these positions.
        >
        > I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ('The Composition of
        > the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963) 32-45;
        > Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form
        > Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14 [1972]; J.C.
        > O'Neil, Hal Taussig.
        >
        > 2. by J. Van Bruggen ("Abba, Vader"); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on
        > Luke, p, 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of Jesus, 93;
        > The Lord's Prayer, 14).
        >
        > 3. by Lohmeyer (Lord’s Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer:
        > Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951]
        > 27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his Recherches,
        > 30-52).
        >
        > 4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with
        > respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original with regard to
        > wording.' -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and
        > R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer, 218).
        >
        > Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?
        >
        > With thanks in advance for assistance with this,
        >
        > Jeffrey
        >
        > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
        > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        > Chicago, Illinois
        > e-mail jgibson000@...


        I reject #1 because Matthew and Luke BOTH use a source document (Q) that is
        probably pre-destruction. The timing, therefore, can place the LP on the
        lips of Jesus and its Aramaic sub-stratum in the language of Jesus. I think
        "follow the Aramaic" is a better tool than Goulder's "follow the midrash."

        I reject #2 because Matthew and Luke both modify a single source giving us
        multiple attestation of that document. I have no doubt that Jesus may have
        taught the prayer to the folks in K'far Nahum and the folks in Judea and
        elsewhere and that one of his followers wrote it down..... hence:

        reject #3 since both Matthew and Luke contain genuine Yeshuine components
        from the source document but both "had their way" with the prayer. I think
        Matthew had a Greek translation of the source document and Luke had an
        Aramaic document. Matthew embellished the prayer for "what father" (in
        Heaven), "rule where?" (heaven and earth). I consider any claims about
        Hebrew as the original tongue of anything Jesus said as ludicrous.

        I accept #4 since Jeremias deals with the original language of the prayer.
        Even the Jesus Seminarians erred, IMO, in this and many other assessments
        because they did NOT consider Aramaic idiom and interference in the Greek
        renditions by Matthew and Luke. They take the "daily bread" petition as
        literal rather than idiomatic and commit the same mistake in the petition
        for "debts" blaming Luke for not completing the transition to "sins" when,
        in fact, Luke was clarifying the idiom.

        I think Aramaic competent Luke preserves a shorter and more original form of
        the prayer taking license only to explain to his Greek speaking audience
        the "bread/teaching" idiom and the "debts/sins" idiom.

        I choose #4.

        Jack


        Jack Kilmon
        San Antonio, TX
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Jack, Thanks for this (and what I ve snipped). But I m not interested right now in which of the options I ve listed is correct. Nor do I want listers to
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 26, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Jack Kilmon wrote:
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
          > To: "Crosstalk2" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:40 AM
          > Subject: [XTalk] explanations for the two versions of the LP
          >
          >
          >
          >> I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of
          >> why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with
          >> Lk. 11:2-4).
          >>
          >> I've schematized the answers in this fashion:
          >>
          >> 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
          >> later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
          >> in prayer.
          >> 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
          >> probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
          >> 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
          >> modified by Luke for his audience
          >> 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
          >> liturgically expanded in Matthew
          >> 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
          >> diverse worshiping communities
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?
          >>
          >> I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of what has
          >> stood where vis a vis these positions.
          >>
          >> I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ('The Composition of
          >> the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963) 32-45;
          >> Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form
          >> Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14 [1972]; J.C.
          >> O'Neil, Hal Taussig.
          >>
          >> 2. by J. Van Bruggen ("Abba, Vader"); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on
          >> Luke, p, 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of Jesus, 93;
          >> The Lord's Prayer, 14).
          >>
          >> 3. by Lohmeyer (Lord’s Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer:
          >> Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951]
          >> 27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his Recherches,
          >> 30-52).
          >>
          >> 4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with
          >> respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original with regard to
          >> wording.' -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and
          >> R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer, 218).
          >>
          >> Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?
          >>
          >> With thanks in advance for assistance with this,
          >>
          >> Jeffrey
          >>
          >> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
          >> 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          >> Chicago, Illinois
          >> e-mail jgibson000@...
          >>
          >
          >
          > I reject #1 because Matthew and Luke BOTH use a source document (Q) that is
          > probably pre-destruction. The timing, therefore, can place the LP on the
          > lips of Jesus and its Aramaic sub-stratum in the language of Jesus. I think
          > "follow the Aramaic" is a better tool than Goulder's "follow the midrash."
          >
          Jack,

          Thanks for this (and what I've snipped). But I'm not interested right
          now in which of the options I've listed is correct. Nor do I want
          listers to say which one is correct -- although I don't mind if they do
          so. I'm interested in knowing IF the options I've listed are ALL of the
          ones that have been put forward to explain why we have two versions of
          the LP, and who of **published** LP scholars and commentators on Matthew
          and Luke has stood where vis a vis these (or any non listed)
          explanations of this fact.

          Sorry if that wasn't clear.

          Jeffrey



          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Chicago, Illinois
          e-mail jgibson000@...



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Hindley
          Jeffrey, Have you looked at _Q 11: 2b-4_ by Shawn Carruth, Albrecht Garsky, Stanley D. Anderson, International Q Project Contributor Albrecht Garsky, Published
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 26, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeffrey,

            Have you looked at _Q 11: 2b-4_ by Shawn Carruth, Albrecht Garsky, Stanley D. Anderson, International Q Project
            Contributor Albrecht Garsky, Published by Peeters Publishers, 1996, ISBN 9068317881, 9789068317886, 206 pages?

            http://books.google.com/books?id=OtSDe8jt96AC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%226:9-13%22+%2211:2-4%22+versions&source=web&ots=sOwl6GiSsn&sig=K
            gJKu2fe445fCQfAjUCgG1-ZlaE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA32,M1

            While this book looks at the issue from the perspective of the form the LP might have had in a reconstructed Q, the authors examine
            the positions of critics back to Holtzmann, in the original languages. In the process, explanations for the differing versions are
            sure to be presented in (or inferred by reading) these snippets.

            There also might be something in Didache research, since the version in Didache 8:2 is closest to the Matthean version, with the
            additions at the end found in the later mss. Didache 8:2 gets a fair amount of attention in _The Didache in Modern Research_ (Brill,
            1996). The gist of this interest seems to center on the idea that the Matthean version of the LP serves as a uniquely Christian, as
            opposed to a Jewish, confession of faith.

            Finally, I have seen a couple web sites that suggest these passages (Mt 6:9-13 & Lk 11:2-4) may go back to a declaration of a
            Jubilee year on the part of Jesus. Specifically:

            "Sharon Ringe, professor of New Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary, sees in the Lord’s Prayer "the centrality of Jubilee
            images."" [was the author of this page as thinking of _Jesus, Liberation, and the Biblical Jubilee: Images for Ethics and
            Christology_ by Sharon H. Ringe?]

            "Samuel Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary on the NT) suggests that behind Jesus' saying on forgiveness of debts lay the ancient Jewish
            tradition of the release of all debts in the year of Jubilee. This would fit with the way Luke portrays Jesus’ inaugural address in
            the Nazareth synagogue:

            "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
            the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour." (Luke
            4:18-19)"

            et cetera

            Respectfully,

            Dave Hindley
            Newton Falls, Ohio USA


            -----Original Message-----
            From: sentto-1061475-22801-1219761625-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
            [mailto:sentto-1061475-22801-1219761625-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of Jeffrey B. Gibson
            Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:40 AM
            To: Crosstalk2
            Subject: [XTalk] explanations for the two versions of the LP

            I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt.
            6:9-13 with Lk. 11:2-4).

            I've schematized the answers in this fashion:

            1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
            later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
            in prayer.
            2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
            probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
            3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
            modified by Luke for his audience
            4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
            liturgically expanded in Matthew
            5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
            diverse worshiping communities



            Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?

            I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of what has stood where vis a vis these positions.

            I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ('The Composition of the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963)
            32-45; Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14
            [1972]; J.C.
            O'Neil, Hal Taussig.

            2. by J. Van Bruggen ("Abba, Vader"); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on Luke, p, 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of
            Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14).

            3. by Lohmeyer (Lord’s Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer:
            Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951] 27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his
            Recherches, 30-52).

            4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original
            with regard to wording.' -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an
            Eschatological Prayer, 218).

            Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?

            With thanks in advance for assistance with this,

            Jeffrey

            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
            Chicago, Illinois
            e-mail jgibson000@...



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


            ------------------------------------

            The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

            To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

            To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com

            Yahoo! Groups Links




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... An excellent suggestion, David. I had intended to do this,. But I m grateful for the reminder. ... I ll look this up. I also have to have a good browse
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              David Hindley wrote:
              > Jeffrey,
              >
              > Have you looked at _Q 11: 2b-4_ by Shawn Carruth, Albrecht Garsky, Stanley D. Anderson, International Q Project
              > Contributor Albrecht Garsky, Published by Peeters Publishers, 1996, ISBN 9068317881, 9789068317886, 206 pages?
              >
              > http://books.google.com/books?id=OtSDe8jt96AC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%226:9-13%22+%2211:2-4%22+versions&source=web&ots=sOwl6GiSsn&sig=K
              > gJKu2fe445fCQfAjUCgG1-ZlaE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA32,M1
              >
              > While this book looks at the issue from the perspective of the form the LP might have had in a reconstructed Q, the authors examine
              > the positions of critics back to Holtzmann, in the original languages. In the process, explanations for the differing versions are
              > sure to be presented in (or inferred by reading) these snippets.
              >
              An excellent suggestion, David. I had intended to do this,. But I'm
              grateful for the reminder.
              > There also might be something in Didache research, since the version in Didache 8:2 is closest to the Matthean version, with the
              > additions at the end found in the later mss. Didache 8:2 gets a fair amount of attention in _The Didache in Modern Research_ (Brill,
              > 1996). The gist of this interest seems to center on the idea that the Matthean version of the LP serves as a uniquely Christian, as
              > opposed to a Jewish, confession of faith.
              >
              I 'll look this up. I also have to have a good browse of the Hermeneia
              commentary on the work.
              > Finally, I have seen a couple web sites that suggest these passages (Mt 6:9-13 & Lk 11:2-4) may go back to a declaration of a
              > Jubilee year on the part of Jesus. Specifically:
              >
              > "Sharon Ringe, professor of New Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary, sees in the Lord’s Prayer "the centrality of Jubilee
              > images."" [was the author of this page as thinking of _Jesus, Liberation, and the Biblical Jubilee: Images for Ethics and
              > Christology_ by Sharon H. Ringe?]
              >
              > "Samuel Lachs (Rabbinic Commentary on the NT) suggests that behind Jesus' saying on forgiveness of debts lay the ancient Jewish
              > tradition of the release of all debts in the year of Jubilee. This would fit with the way Luke portrays Jesus’ inaugural address in
              > the Nazareth synagogue:
              >
              > "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
              > the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour." (Luke
              > 4:18-19)"
              >
              > et cetera
              >
              >
              Sounds very Yoderian.

              Jeffrey

              --
              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
              Chicago, Illinois
              e-mail jgibson000@...
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Jeffrey, Are you including the Jesus Seminar under category 3, because in The Five Gospels, p. 149, while attributing the LP to Q, Matthew s version of the
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                At 04:40 AM 8/26/2008, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

                >I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of
                >why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with
                >Lk. 11:2-4).
                >
                >I've schematized the answers in this fashion:
                >
                > 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
                > later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
                > in prayer.
                > 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
                > probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
                > 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
                > modified by Luke for his audience
                > 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
                > liturgically expanded in Matthew
                > 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
                > diverse worshiping communities

                Jeffrey,
                Are you including the Jesus Seminar under category 3, because in The Five
                Gospels, p. 149, while attributing the LP to Q, Matthew's version of the
                petitions for daily bread and debts appear to be more original, and that
                Luke modified them?

                It is interesting that your categories do not include a "The Lord's Prayer
                derives from Q". Why? Or do you see one of your five categories as
                including Q? Please explain.

                Thanks,
                Bob Schacht
                University of Hawaii



                >Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?
                >
                >I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of what has
                >stood where vis a vis these positions.
                >
                >I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ('The Composition of
                >the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963) 32-45;
                >Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form
                >Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14 [1972]; J.C.
                >O'Neil, Hal Taussig.
                >
                >2. by J. Van Bruggen ("Abba, Vader"); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on
                >Luke, p, 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of Jesus, 93;
                >The Lord's Prayer, 14).
                >
                >3. by Lohmeyer (Lord's Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer:
                >Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951]
                >27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his Recherches,
                >30-52).
                >
                >4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with
                >respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original with regard to
                >wording.' -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and
                >R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer, 218).
                >
                >Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?
                >
                >With thanks in advance for assistance with this,
                >
                >Jeffrey
                >
                >Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                >1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                >Chicago, Illinois
                >e-mail jgibson000@...
                >
                >
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >------------------------------------
                >
                >The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                >
                >To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                ... My understanding is that the JS actually accepted Hal Taussig s claims ( **Behind and Before the Lord s Prayer /Fourth R/ 11) that the LP is made up of
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 29, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bob Schacht wrote:
                  > At 04:40 AM 8/26/2008, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >> I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of
                  >> why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with
                  >> Lk. 11:2-4).
                  >>
                  >> I've schematized the answers in this fashion:
                  >>
                  >> 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed
                  >> later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity
                  >> in prayer.
                  >> 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier
                  >> probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
                  >> 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later
                  >> modified by Luke for his audience
                  >> 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was
                  >> liturgically expanded in Matthew
                  >> 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two
                  >> diverse worshiping communities
                  >>
                  >
                  > Jeffrey,
                  > Are you including the Jesus Seminar under category 3, because in The Five
                  > Gospels, p. 149, while attributing the LP to Q, Matthew's version of the
                  > petitions for daily bread and debts appear to be more original, and that
                  > Luke modified them?
                  >
                  My understanding is that the JS actually accepted Hal Taussig's claims
                  ("**Behind and Before the Lord's Prayer" /Fourth R/ 11) that the LP is
                  made up of independent prayer fragments that were first assembled by the
                  "author" of Q.

                  It is unlikely, in the judgment of the Fellows, that Jesus taught
                  his disciples the prayer as a whole, even in its reconstructed form.
                  They think it is more likely, given the conditions under which oral
                  discourse is transmitted, that he employed the four petitions from
                  time to time but as individual prayers. He, of course, frequently
                  used "Abba" to address God. Someone in the Q community probably
                  assembled the prayer for the first time; Matthew and Luke then
                  copied the Q version, while editing and revising it at the same
                  time. [p. 327]

                  So they actually go under option 1

                  > It is interesting that your categories do not include a "The Lord's Prayer
                  > derives from Q". Why? Or do you see one of your five categories as
                  > including Q? Please explain.
                  >
                  >
                  Number 1 does in the expression "composed later on". And so, I
                  suppose, does # 3 when one asks where Matthew got his version of the LP
                  from and if one accepts the existence of Q.

                  Jeffrey

                  --
                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                  Chicago, Illinois
                  e-mail jgibson000@...



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • david cook
                  Michael Goulder - your view 1 - was a little more developed than your outline, as I recall from conversations some years ago. LP is Mt; to Michael, of course,
                  Message 8 of 9 , Sep 2, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Michael Goulder - your view 1 - was a little more developed than your outline, as I recall from conversations some years ago. LP is Mt; to Michael, of course, Lk is rewriting Mt at this point.
                    David Cook



                    or the two versions of the LP




                    Bob Schacht wrote:> At 04:40 AM 8/26/2008, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:>> >> I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of>> why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with>> Lk. 11:2-4).>>>> I've schematized the answers in this fashion:>>>> 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed>> later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his activity>> in prayer.>> 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier>> probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.>> 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later>> modified by Luke for his audience>> 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was>> liturgically expanded in Matthew>> 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two>> diverse worshiping communities>> >> Jeffrey,> Are you including the Jesus Seminar under category 3, because in The Five > Gospels, p. 149, while attributing the LP to Q, Matthew's version of the > petitions for daily bread and debts appear to be more original, and that > Luke modified them?> My understanding is that the JS actually accepted Hal Taussig's claims ("**Behind and Before the Lord's Prayer" /Fourth R/ 11) that the LP is made up of independent prayer fragments that were first assembled by the "author" of Q.It is unlikely, in the judgment of the Fellows, that Jesus taughthis disciples the prayer as a whole, even in its reconstructed form.They think it is more likely, given the conditions under which oraldiscourse is transmitted, that he employed the four petitions fromtime to time but as individual prayers. He, of course, frequentlyused "Abba" to address God. Someone in the Q community probablyassembled the prayer for the first time; Matthew and Luke thencopied the Q version, while editing and revising it at the sametime. [p. 327]So they actually go under option 1> It is interesting that your categories do not include a "The Lord's Prayer > derives from Q". Why? Or do you see one of your five categories as > including Q? Please explain.>> Number 1 does in the expression "composed later on". And so, I suppose, does # 3 when one asks where Matthew got his version of the LP from and if one accepts the existence of Q.Jeffrey-- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)1500 W. Pratt Blvd.Chicago, Illinoise-mail jgibson000@...[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Get all your favourite content with the slick new MSN Toolbar - FREE
                    http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354027/direct/01/

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Mike McLafferty
                    Alan Garrow argues [_The Gospel of Matthew s Dependence on the Didache_, Continuum, 2004] that Matthew edited the LP from Did. 8.2ff (implying that Luke
                    Message 9 of 9 , Sep 3, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Alan Garrow argues [_The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache_,
                      Continuum, 2004] that 'Matthew' edited the LP from Did. 8.2ff (implying that
                      'Luke' subsequently re-edited). This doesn't exactly speak to your question
                      of why the differing versions in M & L, but thought I might offer it since
                      Garrow's thesis doesn't seem to fit into your five schema (unless it be #1
                      or #3, but I believe he's agnostic on whether the Didache preserves the
                      ipsissima verba jesu).

                      --M. McLafferty
                      (no affiliation)
                      Portland, OR

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      To: Crosstalk2
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:40 AM
                      Subject: [XTalk] explanations for the two versions of the LP

                      > I'm working on what scholars have had to say
                      > regarding the question of why we have two
                      > versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13
                      > with Lk. 11:2-4).
                      >
                      > I've schematized the answers in this fashion:
                      >
                      > 1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus
                      > but was composed later on the basis of Jesus'
                      > teaching about prayer and his activity in prayer.
                      > 2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions,
                      > the earlier probably preserved in Matthew, the
                      > later in Luke.
                      > 3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus,
                      > which were later modified by Luke for his audience.
                      > 4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer
                      > of Jesus which was liturgically expanded in Matthew.
                      > 5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent
                      > developments in two diverse worshiping communities.
                      >
                      > Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations
                      > that I've missed?
                      >
                      > [...]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.