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

earliest scholarly study of the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jgibson
    Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at least the third
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 28, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not
      a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at
      least the third century CE, beginning, so far as we know, in the Latin
      West somewhere between the years 200 and 206 with Tertullian in his De
      Oratione (On Prayer). And it has continued until this day. But as it
      was assumed since Tertullian's time up until the modern period that
      “there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire Gospel” (ut
      re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur), and
      given that the LP was regarded as the basic tool, along with the Creed
      and the Decalogue, for teaching Christian doctrine and achieving a
      “Christ centered life”, almost all of this discourse and commentary was
      not concerned with establishing what the original (or even the
      evangelistic) meaning and intent of the LP might have been. And even
      when exegesis was undertaken, it was done so in order to fit the
      meaning of the prayer within the context of a presumed unified biblical
      witness to theological apriorii and under the hermeneutical assumption
      that of Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).

      But of course, this changed with the realization that -- to use
      Krister Stendahl's words – "the Bible contains revelation that could be
      grasped in the clear form of eternal truth unconditioned and
      uncontaminated by historical limitations, could no longer be maintained
      and that grasping both what a Biblical text meant, as well as what it
      might mean, could only be determined by reading that text from within
      the historical and cultural and religious context in which it had been
      produced".

      So today, with perhaps the devotional commentaries on the LP as the
      exception, virtually everyone who discusses the LP does so with the
      intent, and through the use of historical critical methodologies, to
      uncover what Jesus (or the evangelists who record the LP) saw as that
      prayer's aim and original meaning.

      I note all of this because I am interested in discovering is who it was
      who, under this realization, first moved away from the pre-modern
      understanding of what the LP was all about, and produced the first
      historical critical commentary on/discussion of the LP? Does anyone know?

      With thanks in advance,

      Jeffrey




      -- --- Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon. 1500 W. Pratt Blvd Chicago, IL
      jgibson000@...


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jgibson
      Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at least the third
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 28, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Discourse about, and commentary upon, the LP is, as is well known, not
        a modern phenomenon. It is something that has been engaged in since at
        least the third century CE, beginning, so far as we know, in the Latin
        West somewhere between the years 200 and 206 with Tertullian in his De
        Oratione (On Prayer). And it has continued until this day. But as it
        was assumed since Tertullian's time up until the modern period that
        “there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire Gospel” (ut
        re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur), and
        given that the LP was regarded as the basic tool, along with the Creed
        and the Decalogue, for teaching Christian doctrine and achieving a
        “Christ centered life”, almost all of this discourse and commentary was
        not concerned with establishing what the original (or even the
        evangelistic) meaning and intent of the LP might have been. And even
        when exegesis was undertaken, it was done so in order to fit the
        meaning of the prayer within the context of a presumed unified biblical
        witness to theological apriorii and under the hermeneutical assumption
        that of Scriptura sui ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter).

        But of course, this changed with the realization that -- to use
        Krister Stendahl's words – "the Bible contains revelation that could be
        grasped in the clear form of eternal truth unconditioned and
        uncontaminated by historical limitations, could no longer be maintained
        and that grasping both what a Biblical text meant, as well as what it
        might mean, could only be determined by reading that text from within
        the historical and cultural and religious context in which it had been
        produced".

        So today, with perhaps the devotional commentaries on the LP as the
        exception, virtually everyone who discusses the LP does so with the
        intent, and through the use of historical critical methodologies, to
        uncover what Jesus (or the evangelists who record the LP) saw as that
        prayer's aim and original meaning.

        I note all of this because I am interested in discovering is who it was
        who, under this realization, first moved away from the pre-modern
        understanding of what the LP was all about, and produced the first
        historical critical commentary on/discussion of the LP? Does anyone know?

        With thanks in advance,

        Jeffrey




        -- --- Jeffrey B. Gibson D.Phil. Oxon. 1500 W. Pratt Blvd Chicago, IL
        jgibson000@...


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.