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

first modern scholar to note the shorter and longer forms of the LP

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    With apologies for cross posting: Today no one (save perhaps some KJV advocates) accepts the testimony of the TR and the translations based upon it that text
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      With apologies for cross posting:

      Today no one (save perhaps some KJV advocates) accepts the testimony of
      the TR and the translations based upon it that text of the Lord's Prayer
      as Luke gave it at Lk. 11:2-4 was basically, sans the doxology in Mt.
      6:14, the text of Mt. 6:1-14.

      But when did this change of view, this awareness that the LP has come
      down to us in two forms/versions, occur? Who was the first modern
      scholar to argue that the TR was wrong in its presentation of the text
      of Lk 11:2-4? and that what Luke gave us was quite different from what
      Matthew recorded? Anyone know?

      Jeffrey

      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • sarban
      Hi Jeffrey Given that the Vulgate broadly agrees with the modern critical text I would expect that most Roman Catholic scholars would have always rejected the
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 8, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        
        Hi Jeffrey
         
        Given that the Vulgate broadly agrees with the modern critical text
        I would expect that most Roman Catholic scholars would have always
        rejected the TR version of the LP in Luke
         
         
        IMS Heloise Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux were involved in an
        argument about the differences between the LP in Matthew and Luke
        (according to the Latin text)
        and again IMS Erasmus discusses whether the Latin or Greek version
        of the LP in Luke should be preferred.
         
        Andrew Criddle
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 11:00 PM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] first modern scholar to note the shorter and longer forms of the LP

        With apologies for cross posting:

        Today no one (save perhaps some KJV advocates) accepts the testimony of
        the TR and the translations based upon it that text of the Lord's Prayer
        as Luke gave it at Lk. 11:2-4 was basically, sans the doxology in Mt.
        6:14, the text of Mt. 6:1-14.

        But when did this change of view, this awareness that the LP has come
        down to us in two forms/versions, occur? Who was the first modern
        scholar to argue that the TR was wrong in its presentation of the text
        of Lk 11:2-4? and that what Luke gave us was quite different from what
        Matthew recorded? Anyone know?

        Jeffrey

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

      • George F Somsel
        The Didache in 8.2 seems to give an abbreviated version of the doxological ending [ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 8, 2008
        • 0 Attachment

          The Didache in 8.2 seems to give an abbreviated version of the doxological ending [ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας].  A quick review seems to indicate that Tertullian in his "On Prayer" did not include it.  Cf the Solomonic prayer in 1 Chr 29.11-13

           

          11 Yours, O Lord, are the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heavens and on the earth is yours; yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.

           
          The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1989 (1 Ch 29:11). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

           
          george
          gfsomsel


          … search for truth, hear truth,
          learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.


          - Jan Hus
          _________


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000@...>
          To: biblical-studies <biblical-studies@yahoogroups.com>
          Cc: Textual Criticism List <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>; NewSynoptic <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>; Crosstalk2 <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 6:00:54 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] first modern scholar to note the shorter and longer forms of the LP

          With apologies for cross posting:

          Today no one (save perhaps some KJV advocates) accepts the testimony of
          the TR and the translations based upon it that text of the Lord's Prayer
          as Luke gave it at Lk. 11:2-4 was basically, sans the doxology in Mt.
          6:14, the text of Mt. 6:1-14.

          But when did this change of view, this awareness that the LP has come
          down to us in two forms/versions, occur? Who was the first modern
          scholar to argue that the TR was wrong in its presentation of the text
          of Lk 11:2-4? and that what Luke gave us was quite different from what
          Matthew recorded? Anyone know?

          Jeffrey

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


        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... Where may this discussion be found? ... Where does he do this? With thanks, Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Chicago,
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 9, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            sarban wrote:
            
            Hi Jeffrey
             
            Given that the Vulgate broadly agrees with the modern critical text
            I would expect that most Roman Catholic scholars would have always
            rejected the TR version of the LP in Luke
             
             
            IMS Heloise Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux were involved in an
            argument about the differences between the LP in Matthew and Luke
            (according to the Latin text)
            Where may this discussion be found?
            and again IMS Erasmus discusses whether the Latin or Greek version
            of the LP in Luke should be preferred.
            Where does he do this?

            With thanks,

            Jeffrey
            -- 
            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
            Chicago, Illinois
            e-mail jgibson000@...
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... Yes, but the originality of the doxology is not (at present) the question I want to deal with. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500 W. Pratt
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              George F Somsel wrote:

              The Didache in 8.2 seems to give an abbreviated version of the doxological ending [ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας].  A quick review seems to indicate that Tertullian in his "On Prayer" did not include it.  Cf the Solomonic prayer in 1 Chr 29.11-13

               

              Yes, but the originality of the doxology is not (at present) the question I want to deal with.

              Jeffrey
              -- 
              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
              Chicago, Illinois
              e-mail jgibson000@...
            • sarban
              ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] first modern scholar
              Message 6 of 6 , Aug 10, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 3:13 PM
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] first modern scholar to note the shorter and longer forms of the LP

                
                IMS Heloise Abelard and Bernard of Clairvaux were involved in an
                argument about the differences between the LP in Matthew and Luke
                (according to the Latin text)
                Where may this discussion be found?
                 
                 
                The evidence is a letter of Abelard to Bernard
                Letter 10 in the Collected Letters of Abelard
                 
                 

                and again IMS Erasmus discusses whether the Latin or Greek version
                of the LP in Luke should be preferred.
                Where does he do this?
                 
                 
                I have been unable to confirm this, but I THINK it is in
                Erasmus Annotations on the New Testament the
                section covering the Lord's Prayer in Luke.
                 
                Andrew Criddle
                .

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