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

Goulder and the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    Below is a draft of a summary of why Goulder came to the conclusion he did (i.e., no ) with respect to the question of whether or not Matthew s version of
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Below is a draft of a summary of why Goulder came to the conclusion he
      did (i.e., "no") with respect to the question of whether or not
      Matthew's version of the LP can be taken as an accurate reproduction in
      Greek of what, according to Matthew Jesus gave his disciples to use as
      their (model) prayer.

      I'd be grateful to hear what you think of the accuracy of my summary.


      Jeffrey

      ********

      Is what we have at Matt. 6:9-3 is an accurate and trustworthy
      representation of the prayer that Jesus gave to his disciples? On
      this question scholars are with, few exceptions, united in saying
      no, he does not.: But they are, however, severely divided with
      respect to the grounds we have for saying no. For some, the reason
      for saying no is the conclusion that Jesus never gave to his
      disciples a prayer text that in any way resembled what we now find
      at Matt. 6:9-13 (or at Lk. 11:2-4). So there was nothing from Jesus
      for Matthew (or Luke) to reproduce. Others say no because of their
      belief that Jesus did indeed give his disciples a prayer text just
      as Matthew (and Luke) say he did, but that in length and form, if
      not also, at least at some points, in wording, it was closer to the
      version of "The Disciples' Prayer" that we find in Luke than what we
      find in Matthew, and therefore that Matthew (or his source) has
      added things to the prayer.

      The conclusion that the Jesus never gave to his disciples anything
      like what we now call the lords prayer -- i.e., a coordinated prayer
      consisting of an address to God as Father and a series of connected
      petitions about God's name, his kingdom, his will, his sons'
      "bread", their debts, and a "testing" -- was first given voice by
      British New Testament scholar Martin Goulder. He reached his
      conclusion after becoming convinced, primarily on the basis of the
      curious absence of knowledge of The Prayer, even in it's shorter
      Lukan form, in both Mark's Gospel as well as in any other New
      Testament writing apart from Matthew and Luke and the observation
      that the Prayer is "preserved" in a different form in Matthew than
      it is in Luke, that none of what he noted are the fundamental
      assumptions underlying the scholarly claim that the Lord's Prayer
      originates with Jesus "can be called satisfactory" and that "some
      of them are in fact highly odd." Should we not expect, he asked,
      if, as the "accepted history of the Lord's Prayer" supposes is the
      case, Jesus composed a prayer for his disciples to recite by heart
      (something which Goulder also thinks was uncharacteristic of Jesus)
      and to pass on to others, that the prayer would have been known to
      and used by other writing members of the early church, especially
      composers of Gospels, and especially composers who, like Mark,
      record teaching very close to the Lord's Prayer (cf. MK. 11:25-26)
      and thus produce a context where the reproduction of the prayer
      would have been fitting? And should it not be the case, given the
      presumed origin and the sacred quality and the intent behind the
      giving of the Prayer, that when those who did reproduce it, they
      would do so in forms that were both consistent with one another and
      in conformity with what the disciples had ultimately passed on to
      them to as one of the most important teaching that Jesus ever
      gave? And yet, according to Goulder, the prayer is not widely
      known to, or used by, any NT author other than the the first and
      third evangelist. And its reproductions are, as we have already
      seen, at variance with one another. Moreover, the form and language
      and emphases of the variances that appear in Matthew's version of
      the opening address to the prayer and in the petitions that are
      peculiar to his version of it (about God's Will and rescue from
      [the] evil [one]) are as redolent of, and in conformity with, his
      style and theological concerns as is the structuring and wording of
      the Lukan versions of two of the petitions that they have in common
      (the ones about bread and forgiveness) are of Luke's, that we have
      little choice but to conclude not only that both Matthew and Luke
      have felt free to make their own editorial contributions to the form
      and wording of the Prayer, but that they too were not aware of Jesus
      ever having given anything like the Lord's Prayer to his disciples.
      Would they really have had "the effrontery" to change the form and
      wording of the prayer if it was indeed "the one piece of liturgy
      composed by the Lord himself"? Would the churches for which
      (presumably) Matthew and Luke wrote have accepted, as they seem to
      have done, what would clearly appear to them as amendments to the
      Prayer, if, as the accepted history of the Prayer assumes, "the
      Prayer had been part of every Christian's catechism, and had been
      used (on a conservative estimate) for forty-five years?"



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



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      Jeffery, For Martin Goulder read Michael Goulder. And isn t the best summary of MG s view of the LP simply his own short paper on the subject? Journal of
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffery,

        For "Martin Goulder" read "Michael Goulder.

        And isn't the best summary of MG's view of the LP simply his own short paper
        on the subject? Journal of Theological Studies v14 pt 1 (April 1963) 32-45.

        Bruce

        Michael was still "Rev" in those bygone days.
      • Mark Goodacre
        Here s Michael s summary from Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 298: the Lord s Prayer did not stand in Q, M, L or oral tradition but is: a prayer composed by
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Here's Michael's summary from Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 298:
          the Lord's Prayer did not stand in Q, M, L or oral tradition but is:

          "a prayer composed by the evangelist from the traditions of the
          prayers of Jesus in Mark, amplified from the Exodus context of the
          Sermon, and couched in Matthean language".

          For a brief critique of the case from the language of the prayer, see
          my Goulder and the Gospels, 53-5; and see 19 for its context in
          Goulder's career.

          All best
          Mark
          --
          Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
          Associate Professor
          Duke University
          Department of Religion
          Gray Building / Box 90964
          Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
          Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

          http://NTGateway.com/goodacre
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Ooops. ... What I asked you to comment on was something that is intended to be part of a summary in my own words of the reasons why scholars have come to
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            E Bruce Brooks wrote:
            > Jeffery,
            >
            > For "Martin Goulder" read "Michael Goulder.
            >
            Ooops.
            > And isn't the best summary of MG's view of the LP simply his own short paper
            > on the subject? Journal of Theological Studies v14 pt 1 (April 1963) 32-45.
            >

            What I asked you to comment on was something that is intended to be part
            of a summary in my own words of the reasons why scholars have come to
            the negative conclusions they have come to vis a vis the question of
            whether Matthew's version of the LP is an accurate reproduction of the
            prayer that Jesus reputedly gave to his disciples. I can hardly
            reproduce the entirety of Goulder's article -- much of which, BTW, is
            not devoted to matter at hand, but to showing that the LP is as
            Matthean creation that is worked up from bits of data in GMark -- in a
            personal summary of why he has said that there was no prayer for Matthew
            to reproduce, can I?.

            Was what I was up to not clear?

            Jeffrey

            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
            Chicago, Illinois
            e-mail jgibson000@...
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... Thanks for this. But I m not concerned so much with what Goulder says the prayer is as I am with the reasons he has for saying that there was no actual
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Mark Goodacre wrote:
              > Here's Michael's summary from Midrash and Lection in Matthew, 298:
              > the Lord's Prayer did not stand in Q, M, L or oral tradition but is:
              >
              > "a prayer composed by the evangelist from the traditions of the
              > prayers of Jesus in Mark, amplified from the Exodus context of the
              > Sermon, and couched in Matthean language".
              >
              > For a brief critique of the case from the language of the prayer, see
              > my Goulder and the Gospels, 53-5; and see 19 for its context in
              > Goulder's career.
              >
              > All best
              > Mark
              >
              Thanks for this. But I'm not concerned so much with what Goulder says
              the prayer is as I am with the reasons he has for saying that there was
              no actual prayer of Jesus that in form and wording was like what we now
              find in Mt. 6:9-13 for Matthew to reproduce.

              Is what I've written an accurate summary of what he says it was that
              led him to the conclusion that there was no prayer for Matthew to
              reproduce, accurately or otherwise?



              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]
            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
              Jeffrey, just a minor point:   The Prayer, even in it s shorter Lukan form...   You ll want to correct it s to its.   Jeffery Hodges [Non-text
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeffrey, just a minor point:
                 
                "The Prayer, even in it's shorter Lukan form..."
                 
                You'll want to correct "it's" to "its."
                 
                Jeffery Hodges

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                Bruce, I think that you meant Jeffrey (not Jeffery ) -- you must have been overcorrecting from often having to spell my name s odd orthographic form.  
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bruce, I think that you meant "Jeffrey" (not "Jeffery") -- you must have been overcorrecting from often having to spell my name's odd orthographic form.
                   
                  Jeffery Hodges

                  --- On Fri, 1/30/09, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:

                  From: E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...>
                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Goulder and the LP
                  To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                  Cc: "Synoptic" <synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                  Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 1:07 PM

                  Jeffery,

                  For "Martin Goulder" read "Michael Goulder.

                  And isn't the best summary of MG's view of the LP simply his own short
                  paper
                  on the subject? Journal of Theological Studies v14 pt 1 (April 1963) 32-45.

                  Bruce

                  Michael was still "Rev" in those bygone days.


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

                  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
                  ... First, thanks. Second, was I really as unclear about what I was doing as Bruce s response implies I was? I sometimes wonder about his ability to grasp
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                    > Jeffrey, just a minor point:
                    >
                    > "The Prayer, even in it's shorter Lukan form..."
                    >
                    > You'll want to correct "it's" to "its."
                    >
                    First, thanks.

                    Second, was I really as unclear about what I was doing as Bruce's
                    response implies I was? I sometimes wonder about his ability to grasp
                    what's actually in front of him.

                    Hope all is well.

                    Jeffrey

                    --
                    Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                    1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                    Chicago, Illinois
                    e-mail jgibson000@...
                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                    ... Very red faced. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Chicago, Illinois e-mail jgibson000@comcast.net [Non-text portions of this
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                      > Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                      >
                      >> Jeffrey, just a minor point:
                      >>
                      >> "The Prayer, even in it's shorter Lukan form..."
                      >>
                      >> You'll want to correct "it's" to "its."
                      >>
                      >>
                      > First, thanks.
                      >
                      > Second, was I really as unclear about what I was doing as Bruce's
                      > response implies I was? I sometimes wonder about his ability to grasp
                      > what's actually in front of him.
                      >
                      > Hope all is well.
                      >
                      > Jeffrey
                      >
                      >
                      Very red faced.

                      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]
                    • Tony Buglass
                      Jeffrey: Very red faced. Despite the OFFLIST in the subject line, this has been very much onlist, but of course it is always encouraging to those of us
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jeffrey: "Very red faced."

                        Despite the "OFFLIST" in the subject line, this has been very much onlist, but of course it is always encouraging to those of us with only one or two degrees to see how the Great Ones struggle with the same things as we do. Like typos which you never see until it's gone to print, or out to a million inboxes.

                        And as for the apostrophe - there was something on our radio news this morning about someone recommending that it should be no longer used, to much harrumphing about "dumbing down." Perhaps the ancients had the right idea, doing without punctuation?

                        Just a thought,
                        Cheers,
                        Rev Tony Buglass
                        Superintendent Minister
                        Upper Calder Methodist Circuit

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • E Bruce Brooks
                        To: Crosstalk In Response To: Jeffery [sic] Hodges On: Spelling From: Bruce JEFFERY: Bruce, I think that you meant Jeffrey (not Jeffery ) -- you must have
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 30, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To: Crosstalk
                          In Response To: Jeffery [sic] Hodges
                          On: Spelling
                          From: Bruce

                          JEFFERY: Bruce, I think that you meant "Jeffrey" (not "Jeffery") -- you must
                          have been overcorrecting from often having to spell my name's odd
                          orthographic form.

                          BRUCE: Right. Clear case of an effortful correction spilling over into other
                          territory. No need to study the NT scribes, we can learn all about it simply
                          by observing ourselves. In my case, there is a further complication from the
                          half dozen local businesses named after Lord Jeffery [sic] Amherst. Plus,
                          the radon level is high here, and we are in a funny zone in terms of M/F
                          birth ratios. Case is probably hopeless.

                          We look for great things, though, spellingwise and otherwise, from those
                          situated in more felicitous climes.

                          Bruce

                          E Bruce Brooks
                          Warring States Project
                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.