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

Matt. 6:9//Lk. 11:2

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Gibson
    B-Greeks and Synoptic friends, Here s yet another LP question, this time regarding the meaning of Matt. 6:9//Lk. 11:2 - the petition that God s name be
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 20, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      B-Greeks and Synoptic friends,

      Here's yet another LP question, this time regarding the meaning of Matt.
      6:9//Lk. 11:2 - the petition that God's "name" be "hallowed".

      The question is: who is envisaged here as doing the "hallowing"? Until
      recently I (and I think the majority of commentators) have thought that
      it is to be everyone in the world, for, at first glance, "Let your name
      be hallowed (hAGIASQHTW TO ONOMA SOU) has an apparent universalistic ring
      and seems to say "may it come about (soon?) that everyone in the
      world "hallows" your name, that everyone acknowledges you as God and acts
      accordingly".

      However, given my recent wonderings if the *whole* prayer, and not just the
      final petition" (a) presupposes a perception on Jesus part that his disciples
      are in grave danger of becoming like the "this generation" (a modern
      example of the rebellious Wilderness generation) and (b) is urged upon
      the disciples as a plea to God for protection against engaging in
      apostasy, I am now beginning to question whether Matt. 6:9//Lk. 11:2
      should be, or was intended to be, interpreted in this way.

      Might it not be the case that here those who are to hallow God's name are
      really *only* the disciples? In other words, does the petition make better
      sense if it is viewed as intending something like: "Father, we who are
      Sons, ask help in ensuring that *we* remain faithful to what you ask of
      us. After all, in the biblical tradition, those who are called to
      "hallow the name" are only those who have entered into a covenant
      relationship with God. Moreover, there too, what does *not* "hallowing"
      God's "name" - the presumed possibility behind the petition - actually
      involve except a covenated group refusing to make manifest through
      behaviour what God has called them to do?

      Comments, please!

      Yours,

      Jeffrey Gibson
      jgibson@...
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... I believe Matthew was using a Greek translation from a sayings source while Luke used an original Aramaic record. Matthew created some extensions but seems
      Message 2 of 8 , Feb 20, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
        >
        > B-Greeks and Synoptic friends,
        >
        > Here's yet another LP question, this time regarding the meaning of Matt.
        > 6:9//Lk. 11:2 - the petition that God's "name" be "hallowed".
        >
        > The question is: who is envisaged here as doing the "hallowing"? Until
        > recently I (and I think the majority of commentators) have thought that
        > it is to be everyone in the world, for, at first glance, "Let your name
        > be hallowed (hAGIASQHTW TO ONOMA SOU) has an apparent universalistic ring
        > and seems to say "may it come about (soon?) that everyone in the
        > world "hallows" your name, that everyone acknowledges you as God and acts
        > accordingly".
        >
        > However, given my recent wonderings if the *whole* prayer, and not just the
        > final petition" (a) presupposes a perception on Jesus part that his disciples
        > are in grave danger of becoming like the "this generation" (a modern
        > example of the rebellious Wilderness generation) and (b) is urged upon
        > the disciples as a plea to God for protection against engaging in
        > apostasy, I am now beginning to question whether Matt. 6:9//Lk. 11:2
        > should be, or was intended to be, interpreted in this way.
        >
        > Might it not be the case that here those who are to hallow God's name are
        > really *only* the disciples? In other words, does the petition make better
        > sense if it is viewed as intending something like: "Father, we who are
        > Sons, ask help in ensuring that *we* remain faithful to what you ask of
        > us. After all, in the biblical tradition, those who are called to
        > "hallow the name" are only those who have entered into a covenant
        > relationship with God. Moreover, there too, what does *not* "hallowing"
        > God's "name" - the presumed possibility behind the petition - actually
        > involve except a covenated group refusing to make manifest through
        > behaviour what God has called them to do?
        >
        > Comments, please!

        I believe Matthew was using a Greek translation from
        a sayings source while Luke used an original Aramaic record.
        Matthew created some extensions but seems to have preserved
        the original version imbedded therein. Luke seems to have
        theologised a bit but saw fit to explain the Aramaic idiom.

        In any event, <Heb>ytqd$ $mk..and in Aramaic nytqd$ $mk translates as
        "Holy is your name." This was a standard
        formula in Jewish prayer forms.

        Jack

        --
        D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
        Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


        http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net
      • Jeffrey Gibson
        ... [Snip] ... Jack, Though I appreciate your sharing your views on the origins of the Matthean and Lukan forms of the LP, I wasn t asking a source critical
        Message 3 of 8 , Feb 20, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:

          > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
          > >
          > > B-Greeks and Synoptic friends,
          > >
          > > Here's yet another LP question, this time regarding the meaning of Matt.
          > > 6:9//Lk. 11:2 - the petition that God's "name" be "hallowed".
          > >
          > > The question is: who is envisaged here as doing the "hallowing"? Until
          > > recently I (and I think the majority of commentators) have thought that
          > > it is to be everyone in the world, for, at first glance, "Let your name
          > > be hallowed (hAGIASQHTW TO ONOMA SOU) has an apparent universalistic ring
          > > and seems to say "may it come about (soon?) that everyone in the
          > > world "hallows" your name, that everyone acknowledges you as God and acts
          > > accordingly".

          [Snip]
          > > Might it not be the case that here those who are to hallow God's name are
          > > really *only* the disciples? In other words, does the petition make better
          > > sense if it is viewed as intending something like: "Father, we who are
          > > Sons, ask help in ensuring that *we* remain faithful to what you ask of
          > > us. After all, in the biblical tradition, those who are called to
          > > "hallow the name" are only those who have entered into a covenant
          > > relationship with God. Moreover, there too, what does *not* "hallowing"
          > > God's "name" - the presumed possibility behind the petition - actually
          > > involve except a covenated group refusing to make manifest through
          > > behaviour what God has called them to do?
          > >
          > > Comments, please!
          >
          > I believe Matthew was using a Greek translation from
          > a sayings source while Luke used an original Aramaic record.
          > Matthew created some extensions but seems to have preserved
          > the original version imbedded therein. Luke seems to have
          > theologised a bit but saw fit to explain the Aramaic idiom.
          >
          > In any event, <Heb>ytqd$ $mk..and in Aramaic nytqd$ $mk translates as
          > "Holy is your name." This was a standard
          > formula in Jewish prayer forms.
          >
          Jack,

          Though I appreciate your sharing your views on the origins of the
          Matthean and Lukan forms of the LP, I wasn't asking a source critical
          question. So your comments don't really seem to be to the point.

          Further, whatever the putative Aramaic original behind Matt. 6:11//Lk.
          11:2 might have been (and it's hard to see that your claim can be correct
          here. How did a doxology [a statement] become an imperative let alone a
          petition? And if "Holy is your name" was indeed what Jesus actually said,
          then whoever translated the doxological statement into Greek, whether a
          tradent of the Q community or Matthew or Luke, woefully misunderstood what
          Jesus said) --- what ever the putative Aramaic original was, I was asking
          about the meaning of the Greek text. The Greek text of Matthew and Luke,
          with its petition that God's name "be made holy" implies a "hallower".
          Who according to Matthew or Luke (or Q) is this "hallower"?

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson
          jgibson@...
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... I see your focus now. I have a tendency to view various pericopes from the standpoint of what was on the mind of Jesus rather than his Greek translators.
          Message 4 of 8 , Feb 21, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
            >
            > On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:
            >
            > > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
            > > >
            > > > B-Greeks and Synoptic friends,
            > > >
            > > > Here's yet another LP question, this time regarding the meaning of Matt.
            > > > 6:9//Lk. 11:2 - the petition that God's "name" be "hallowed".
            > > >
            > > > The question is: who is envisaged here as doing the "hallowing"? Until
            > > > recently I (and I think the majority of commentators) have thought that
            > > > it is to be everyone in the world, for, at first glance, "Let your name
            > > > be hallowed (hAGIASQHTW TO ONOMA SOU) has an apparent universalistic ring
            > > > and seems to say "may it come about (soon?) that everyone in the
            > > > world "hallows" your name, that everyone acknowledges you as God and acts
            > > > accordingly".
            >
            > [Snip]
            > > > Might it not be the case that here those who are to hallow God's name are
            > > > really *only* the disciples? In other words, does the petition make better
            > > > sense if it is viewed as intending something like: "Father, we who are
            > > > Sons, ask help in ensuring that *we* remain faithful to what you ask of
            > > > us. After all, in the biblical tradition, those who are called to
            > > > "hallow the name" are only those who have entered into a covenant
            > > > relationship with God. Moreover, there too, what does *not* "hallowing"
            > > > God's "name" - the presumed possibility behind the petition - actually
            > > > involve except a covenated group refusing to make manifest through
            > > > behaviour what God has called them to do?
            > > >
            > > > Comments, please!
            > >
            > > I believe Matthew was using a Greek translation from
            > > a sayings source while Luke used an original Aramaic record.
            > > Matthew created some extensions but seems to have preserved
            > > the original version imbedded therein. Luke seems to have
            > > theologised a bit but saw fit to explain the Aramaic idiom.
            > >
            > > In any event, <Heb>ytqd$ $mk..and in Aramaic nytqd$ $mk translates as
            > > "Holy is your name." This was a standard
            > > formula in Jewish prayer forms.
            > >
            > Jack,
            >
            > Though I appreciate your sharing your views on the origins of the
            > Matthean and Lukan forms of the LP, I wasn't asking a source critical
            > question. So your comments don't really seem to be to the point.
            >
            > Further, whatever the putative Aramaic original behind Matt. 6:11//Lk.
            > 11:2 might have been (and it's hard to see that your claim can be correct
            > here. How did a doxology [a statement] become an imperative let alone a
            > petition? And if "Holy is your name" was indeed what Jesus actually said,
            > then whoever translated the doxological statement into Greek, whether a
            > tradent of the Q community or Matthew or Luke, woefully misunderstood what
            > Jesus said) --- what ever the putative Aramaic original was, I was asking
            > about the meaning of the Greek text. The Greek text of Matthew and Luke,
            > with its petition that God's name "be made holy" implies a "hallower".
            > Who according to Matthew or Luke (or Q) is this "hallower"?

            I see your focus now. I have a tendency to view various pericopes
            from the standpoint of what was on the mind of Jesus rather than his
            Greek translators. In this respect, I oftimes think that Greek studies
            neglect the source critical standpoint. In my mind, the Aramaic idiom
            is critical to understanding the Greek. One aspect of AGIAZW, closer
            to kd$, denoting holiness and purity....is to *separate* one from that
            which is impure or unholy, therefore made unprofane or consecrated by
            the
            holiness/hallowedness that passes from God to anyone or anything
            connected
            to God. In this aspect, God is the hallower of all who declare his name
            sacred.

            Jack

            --
            D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA
            Jack Kilmon (jpman@...)


            http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net
          • Jim Deardorff
            ... Jeffrey, Here s a different, alternative solution to the problem. Notice in Mt 6:5-6 that the admonition is not to pray in public. Yet the LP is a
            Message 5 of 8 , Feb 21, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:07 PM 2/20/98 -0600, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
              >
              >On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Jack Kilmon wrote:
              >[...]
              > How did a doxology [a statement] become an imperative let alone
              >a petition? And if "Holy is your name" was indeed what Jesus actually said,
              >then whoever translated the doxological statement into Greek, whether a
              >tradent of the Q community or Matthew or Luke, woefully misunderstood what
              >Jesus said) --- what ever the putative Aramaic original was, I was asking
              >about the meaning of the Greek text. The Greek text of Matthew and Luke,
              >with its petition that God's name "be made holy" implies a "hallower".
              >Who according to Matthew or Luke (or Q) is this "hallower"?
              >
              >Yours,
              >
              >Jeffrey Gibson

              Jeffrey,

              Here's a different, alternative solution to the problem. Notice in Mt 6:5-6
              that the admonition is not to pray in public. Yet the LP is a "we-our"
              prayer -- public. This contradiction indicates that significant redaction
              was done upon the source. The original prayer within the source document
              could well have been a private prayer directed to one's own spirit, which
              the writer of Matthew would have found unacceptable and in need of heavy
              redaction, so as to turn it into a prayer to God for a group within a
              church. If so, the hallower of one's spirit was meant to be one's own
              conscious self.

              Then, the mentions of "Father" would be Matthean redactions also. This is
              suggested by the lack of any need for a LP if, as in Mt 6:8b, "your Father
              knows what you need before you ask him."

              Jim Deardorff
            • Mahlon H. Smith
              ... Dear Jeffrey: Pardon this intrusion from an eavesdropper. But Jack s comments on an Aramaic protype of the LP are NOT irrelevant to your question. For the
              Message 6 of 8 , Feb 21, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                >
                > Jack,
                >
                > Though I appreciate your sharing your views on the origins of the
                > Matthean and Lukan forms of the LP, I wasn't asking a source critical
                > question. So your comments don't really seem to be to the point.
                >
                > Further, whatever the putative Aramaic original behind Matt. 6:11//Lk.
                > 11:2 might have been (and it's hard to see that your claim can be correct
                > here. How did a doxology [a statement] become an imperative let alone a
                > petition? And if "Holy is your name" was indeed what Jesus actually said,
                > then whoever translated the doxological statement into Greek, whether a
                > tradent of the Q community or Matthew or Luke, woefully misunderstood what
                > Jesus said) --- what ever the putative Aramaic original was, I was asking
                > about the meaning of the Greek text. The Greek text of Matthew and Luke,
                > with its petition that God's name "be made holy" implies a "hallower".
                > Who according to Matthew or Luke (or Q) is this "hallower"?
                >
                Dear Jeffrey:

                Pardon this intrusion from an eavesdropper. But Jack's comments on an
                Aramaic protype of the LP are NOT irrelevant to your question. For the
                first petition of the LP is simply a variant of a common Jewish prayer
                formula eventually fossilized for posterity in the prayerbook of the
                synagogues. In fact, the opening of the LP appears to have a common
                ancestry with the prayer commonly referred to simply as the Qaddish
                (lit.: the "hallowing" -- i.e., invoking the name of the Holy One). As
                Jack's essay on the LP notes, the Qaddish begins:

                "High & holy be his [great] name [in the world he created] according to
                his will. May he establish his kingship [in your life and in your days]
                very soon [and in the coming season]. And you say: Amen!"

                If one brackets out the words in [], one has not only a close parallel
                to the the first two petitions of the LP but a probable pretext for
                Matthew's insertion of "your will be done" as the third petition.

                While Jewish sources do not refer to the Qaddish before the 6th c. CE it
                certainly has ancient roots in the prayer life of Judaism. For it is
                hardly plausible that Jews in the late Roman empire would have mimicked
                a prayer ascribed to Jesus by the imperial church! In fact, the LP is
                pretty good evidence that the core of the Qaddish was the communal
                prayer favored by Jesus' Jewish disciples. Matthew's version of the LP,
                in fact, brings it more in line with other prayer formulae that were
                common in the synagogue (Abinu d' b' Shamayim, "your will be done" &
                "deliver us from evil") which probably antedated Jesus.

                This raises the thorny historical question of whether Jesus himself
                formulated the LP or whether it was a community product with petitions
                traceable to Jesus (like give us our daily bread & forgive us our debts)
                inserted by his disciples (along with other familiar elements) into the
                framework of the Qaddish which they had known since they were children.
                Jesus, after all, was not the first Jew to hallow the Deity's name or to
                invoke the divine *malkuth* or to submit to the divine will or to call
                for protection from testing & evil.

                After much heated discussion of the pros & cons of Jesus' responsibility
                for the LP, the majority of the Jesus Seminar concluded (over Dom
                Crossan's objections) that Q's presentation of a variant of the Qaddish
                formula as Jesus' prayer probably had some historical basis, even though
                community use of that formula precluded knowing the precise
                circumstances in which he used or commended it. Hence, elements common
                to the LP & the Qaddish were voted pink. Elements of the LP demonstrably
                characteristic of genuine Jesus sayings (Abba, the petitions for bread &
                forgiveness) were voted redder. Other elements fell towards the black.

                How does this relate to your question about the hallowing of *ha Shem*?
                If a primitive Jewish Qaddish formula is at the base of the LP, then Q's
                hAGIASQHTW has to be read as translation Greek. In Hebrew or Amaraic it
                is taken for granted that an adjective or a noun is derived from a verb.
                To be holy (*qadosh*) something must be consecrated, set apart (*qadash*
                - Qal, 3rd person sing.); even the divine name. The Greek imperative
                assumes that. [Unfortunately, my copy of the Qaddish in the original is
                elsewhere, so I leave it to Jack K. to exposit the exact form of the
                Semitic root]. The following petition in the Qaddish is analogous:

                "Blessed, praised and glorified, raised, exalted & revered be the name
                of the Holy One, blessed be he! though he is high above all blessings,
                hymns, praises and honors uttered in this world. And you say: Amen!"

                As to who does the hallowing, blessing, praising, glorifying, etc.: that
                is left open. Of course this is the petition of the prayer leader & the
                community. But as the petition above makes clear, in a Jewish context
                an invocation of the hallowing or blessing of the divine Name is never
                restricted to a particular person or group. Though only a few devotees
                may recite the invocation, it envisions a universal situation. The
                invocation implies: this is the way it should be.

                Since the hAGIASQHTW formula can be traced to Q, which probably included
                explicit openings to those outside Israel, I fail to see how whoever
                Matthew or Luke thought did the hallowing has relevance to the issue.
                Even if one dispenses with Q & maintains the priority of the Matthean
                LP, one is still faced with the concept of a universal God who in the
                end authorizes Jesus to command his disciples to go & "make disciples of
                PANTA TA EQNH...teaching them to treasure all" of Jesus' instructions.
                Presumably the LP was included.

                Shalom!

                Mahlon
              • Jeffrey Gibson
                ... Jim, Two responses. For your claim to be true, it must be the case that Luke used Matthew. If not, then the fact that the Luke s version of the LP is
                Message 7 of 8 , Feb 21, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote:

                  >
                  > Jeffrey,
                  >
                  > Here's a different, alternative solution to the problem. Notice in Mt 6:5-6
                  > that the admonition is not to pray in public. Yet the LP is a "we-our"
                  > prayer -- public. This contradiction indicates that significant redaction
                  > was done upon the source. The original prayer within the source document
                  > could well have been a private prayer directed to one's own spirit, which
                  > the writer of Matthew would have found unacceptable and in need of heavy
                  > redaction, so as to turn it into a prayer to God for a group within a
                  > church. If so, the hallower of one's spirit was meant to be one's own
                  > conscious self.
                  >
                  > Then, the mentions of "Father" would be Matthean redactions also. This is
                  > suggested by the lack of any need for a LP if, as in Mt 6:8b, "your Father
                  > knows what you need before you ask him."

                  Jim,

                  Two responses. For your claim to be true, it must be the case that Luke
                  used Matthew. If not, then the fact that the Luke's version of the LP is
                  indisputably a community prayer, meant to be said *by the community*,
                  would seem to tell against what I understand to be your claim your that
                  the prayer was originally something intended for an individual to say for
                  him/herself and was only later redacted by Matthew into a "community"
                  prayer. With both evangelists independently testifying to the community
                  nature of the prayer, we can be sure that that's what it was from the
                  start. But if not, and if Matthew found the we-our contardiction
                  unacceptable, why did he not reproduce the LP as it was with a heading
                  that said something like, and when you (singular) pray do it indoors and
                  like this "My Father ... give me ... forgive me... let me ... ?

                  Second, and more importantly, if I understand you correctly, you seem to
                  assume that Matthew assumes that the only kind of "private prayer" that
                  there is that which is said by an *individual* (silently?) in the
                  solitude of his or her own room. Now while Matthew does obviously
                  recognize that individuals pray privately (Matt. 6:6), the
                  distinction he makes between "private" and "public" prayer is not
                  between individual and group prayer, with individual prayer=private
                  prayer and group prayer=public prayer, but between two types of
                  group prayer, one that is intentionally and conspicuously said in
                  front of a group which is not of one's prayer community for the
                  purpose of gaining notoriety for piousness, and one that is said
                  out of the general public's hearing on the other.

                  And do I take you to imply that because there is an apparent
                  contradiction between Matt. 6:8b and the fact that in the LP Jesus
                  urges disciples to ask God for things as if God does not know what
                  they need, that the LP is wholly a Matthean construction? Well,
                  even if this were the case (and even Goulder and O'Neil don't go
                  that far), this still doesn't tell us anything about how Matthew
                  intended his construction to be understood.

                  To my mind the contradiction is more apparent than real. The contrast is
                  between asking for what one thinks one needs and asking that one is
                  conformed to God's will, much like the Gethsemane utterance, "not my
                  will, but yours be done".

                  In any case, Matthew's present text of Matt. 6:9 (Let your name be made
                  holy) assumes that someone is to hallow *God's name*, not one's own
                  spirit. So who is it who is seen here as the intended hallower?

                  Yours,

                  Jeffrey Gibson
                  jgibson@...
                • Jim Deardorff
                  ... used Matthew. [...] Jeffrey, This is certainly my belief -- that the writer of Luke (not the physician known to Paul) used Matthew when it was still in
                  Message 8 of 8 , Feb 22, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 01:28 PM 2/21/98 -0600, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >On Sat, 21 Feb 1998, Jim Deardorff wrote:
                    >
                    >>
                    >> Jeffrey,
                    >>
                    >> Here's a different, alternative solution to the problem. Notice in Mt 6:5-6
                    >> that the admonition is not to pray in public. Yet the LP is a "we-our"
                    >> prayer -- public. This contradiction indicates that significant redaction
                    >> was done upon the source. The original prayer within the source document
                    >> could well have been a private prayer directed to one's own spirit, which
                    >> the writer of Matthew would have found unacceptable and in need of heavy
                    >> redaction, so as to turn it into a prayer to God for a group within a
                    >> church. If so, the hallower of one's spirit was meant to be one's own
                    >> conscious self.
                    >>
                    >> Then, the mentions of "Father" would be Matthean redactions also. This is
                    >> suggested by the lack of any need for a LP if, as in Mt 6:8b, "your Father
                    >> knows what you need before you ask him."

                    >Jim,
                    >
                    >Two responses. For your claim to be true, it must be the case >that Luke
                    used Matthew. [...]

                    Jeffrey,

                    This is certainly my belief -- that the writer of Luke (not the physician
                    known to Paul) used Matthew when it was still in
                    Hebrew or Aramaic form.

                    >Second, and more importantly, if I understand you correctly, you seem to
                    >assume that Matthew assumes that the only kind of "private prayer" that
                    >there is that which is said by an *individual* (silently?) in the
                    >solitude of his or her own room. Now while Matthew does obviously
                    >recognize that individuals pray privately (Matt. 6:6), the
                    >distinction he makes between "private" and "public" prayer is not
                    >between individual and group prayer, with individual prayer=private
                    >prayer and group prayer=public prayer, but between two types of
                    >group prayer, one that is intentionally and conspicuously said in
                    >front of a group which is not of one's prayer community for the
                    >purpose of gaining notoriety for piousness, and one that is said
                    >out of the general public's hearing on the other.

                    I still regard the admonition of Mt 6:6 for an individual "you" to go pray
                    privately or in secret as to do just that -- pray privately and not
                    publicly. The meaning just isn't there to pray publicly. Yet, when a
                    person prays privately he or she would normally pray in the 1st-person
                    sense: "My Father... Give me this day... forgive my debts... lead me not
                    into temptation..." Yet the LP is as group would say it, as you agree. So
                    I regard this as the kind of inconsistency that easily develops out of
                    redaction of a more original text.

                    If you want to pray to stay out of trouble, you have to be concerned that
                    you yourself don't fall into some troubling temptation. Just praying that
                    the group you're in avoid temptations won't get the job done, since each
                    person has different temptations and under different circumstances. So it's
                    plausible to me that the original of the LP was a private prayer, involving
                    the individual's responsibility.

                    >And do I take you to imply that because there is an apparent
                    >contradiction between Matt. 6:8b and the fact that in the LP Jesus
                    >urges disciples to ask God for things as if God does not know what
                    >they need, that the LP is wholly a Matthean construction?

                    I don't go so far as to believe that the LP was wholly a Matthean
                    construction. I believe that the source document contained the original
                    prayer, which was a prayer for the individual, and that it provided the
                    incentive for the compiler of Matthew to alter it into the LP and thus make
                    it suitable as a group prayer that a church group could recite. It is
                    easier for a redactor or editor to alter something already present in a text
                    front of him than to invent something novel himself.

                    >Well,
                    >even if this were the case (and even Goulder and O'Neil don't go
                    >that far), this still doesn't tell us anything about how Matthew
                    >intended his construction to be understood.
                    >
                    >To my mind the contradiction is more apparent than real. The contrast is
                    >between asking for what one thinks one needs and asking that one is
                    >conformed to God's will, much like the Gethsemane utterance, "not my
                    >will, but yours be done".

                    Now there's a private prayer, which makes sense. And whether "one" asks for
                    what "one" thinks 'one" needs, or asks that "one"
                    conform to God's will, that "one" is the individual, not a group.

                    >In any case, Matthew's present text of Matt. 6:9 (Let your name be made
                    >holy) assumes that someone is to hallow *God's name*, not one's own
                    >spirit. So who is it who is seen here as the intended hallower?

                    It seems futile to me to dwell upon what an inconsistency means that a
                    redactor caused through his editorial actions. If a redactor changes a
                    recommended prayer for an individual into one for a group, it is
                    understandable that problems or inconsistencies would arise.

                    So I'll assume that you continue to assume that no redaction is present
                    there, and that the verses stand as in the original. In that case my
                    comments won't make any sense!

                    Jim Deardorff
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.