Sukie Curtis wrote:
> > Steven Craig Miller wrote:
> > > ... I thought Dunn's point concerning
> > > the (so-called) Lord's Prayer had merit. Dunn suggests that most likely
> > > Matthew and Luke did not derive their version of the Lord's Prayer from
> > > redacting a common Q source, but rather that it is more likely that both
> > > received their version of the Lord's Prayer from "the living liturgy of
> > > community worship." This suggestion doesn't seem reasonable to you?
> To which Tim Reynolds responded:
> > Quite. This is a special case, though, a formula that (I
> > suppose) existed in
> > some form in all churches. I didn't learn it from the Bible, I
> > learned it from
> > my great-grandmother.
> Well, of course, since the version that most churches use is not found in
> either Matthew or Luke.
> Is it not also clear that Matthew, at least, has put some of his own
> fingerprints on his version of the 'Lord's Prayer' in such phrases as "in
> the heavens." Is it reasonable to imagine that Matthew just happened to
> have contact with a version of the LP that fit his "heavenly vocabulary"
> rather than that he made some of his own adaptations?
I imagine these are the fingerprints of Matthew's milieu, not personal quirks.
> > > ... it would be improper to ignore the fact that in a good
> > > number of cases, illustrated above, the more natural explanation for the
> > > evidence is 'not' Matthew's or Luke's literary dependence on Mark, but
> > > rather their own knowledge of oral retellings of the same stories (or,
> > > alternatively, their own retellings of the Markan stories). We
> > really must
> > > free ourselves from the assumption that variations between parallel
> > > accounts can only be explained in terms of literary redaction.
> > After all,
> > > it can hardly be assumed that the first time Matthew and Luke
> > heard many of
> > > these stories was when they first came across Mark's Gospel >>
> > (305-306).
> And yet where large numbers of verses show considerable _verbatim agreement_
> as well as signs of favorite redactional preferences, the case for literary
> redaction of a common source, rather than (or perhaps in addition to)
> preserved memory of oral tradition, becomes much stronger, does it not?
The problem in the triple tradition is precisely that "large numbers of verses
[not all of them] show considerable [not routine] _verbatim agreement_". The
texts are too different to be copying and too similar to be independent. We
are looking for a model that will generate such texts. #717 in the archives is
an introduction such a model, as well as an explanation of what I meant by
"memory" in this context-- short term, not oral trad.
932 E. Second St., #27
Long Beach CA 90802
> Sukie Curtis
> Cumberland Foreside, Maine
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...