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

Re: [XTalk] explanations for the two versions of the LP

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.