Jeffrey Gibson

I'm working on what scholars have had to say regarding the question of why we have two versions of the LP in the NT (compare Mt. 6:9-13 with Lk. 11:2-4 in NA 27).

I've schematized the answers in this fashion:

1. The Lord's Prayer did not originate with Jesus but was composed later on the basis of Jesus' teaching about prayer and his
activity in prayer.
2. Jesus gave the Prayer on two distinct occasions, the earlier probably preserved in Matthew, the later in Luke.
3. Matthew preserves the original words of Jesus, which were later modified by Luke for his audience
4. Luke preserves the original form of the Prayer of Jesus which was liturgically expanded in Matthew
5. The forms in Luke and in Matthew represent developments in two diverse worshiping communities

Can anyone here think of any scholarly explanations that I've missed?

I'd also like to have your help in increasing my knowledge of who among LP scholars and scholarly commentators on GMatthew and GLuke has stood where vis a vis these positions.

I've see that position #1 is supported by Goulder ("The Composition of the Lord's Prayer," Journal of Theological, Studies 14 (1963) 32-45; Midrash and Lection in Matthew , 296-301); S. Van Tilborg ("A Form Criticism of the Lord's Prayer," Novum Testamentum 14 [1972]; J.C. O'Neil, Hal Taussig, and the Jesus Seminar.

2. by J. Van Bruggen (Abba, Vader! Tekst en toonhoogte van het Onze Vader, in: C. Trimp (red.), De biddende kerk. Een bundel studies over het gebed aangeboden bij gelegenheid van het 125-jarig bestaan van de Theologische Hogeschool te Kampen, Groningen, De Vuurbaak 1979, p. 9-42."); Wm. Hendriksen (Commentary on Luke [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978] 608) ; and J. Jeremias (cautiously) (The Prayers of Jesus [Fortress 1964] 93; The Lord's Prayer [Fortress, 1964] 14).

3. by Lohmeyer (Lord’s Prayer 27-28); C. F, Scott (The Lord's Prayer: Its Character, Purpose, and Interpretation [New York: Scribner's, 1951] 27-30); and Carmignac (in terms of a Hebrew original in his Recherches, 30-52).

4. by Jeremias ("The Lucan version' has preserved the oldest form with respect to length, but the Matthean text is more original with regard to wording." -- The Prayers of Jesus, 93; The Lord's Prayer, 14) and R.E. Brown ("The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer", 218).

Who else stands under #1, 2, 3, etc.?

And please, no hijacking of this thread by "there was no Jesus, there was no Christianity before Constantine, the NT is fiction" hobby horse riders.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Will you be considering the version in the Didache or strictly NT?

Jeffrey Gibson

Not at this point, since it's usually assumed that the Didache is based on the Matthean version of the LP. And save for the use of a different form of the verb for "forgive" in the forgiveness petition and the appending of a doxology to Mt. 6:13, it is, for all practical purposes, the longer form -- as is the version of the LP found in the Acts of Thomas.

Why do you ask?

Jeffrey

S.C.Carlson

FWIW, Alan J. Garrow, The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (or via: amazon.co.uk) (JSNTSS 254), 5 n.14 approvingly cites H. van de Sandt, "'Do not give what is holy to dogs'...," VC 56 (2002): 223-246, at 229 for the position concerning the LP and other passages that "The Didache . . . witnesses to an earlier stage of the Matthean tradition."

Stephen

Vorkosigan

Jeff... what role does Q play here? Why isn't there a (6) Matt and Luke both worked off a document (Q) and modified it?

Jeffrey Gibson

This seems to be an assumption built into -- or a sort of variation of -- the "Luke preserves the form, but Matthew preserves the wording" option. See the discussion of this in Documenta Q. Q 11:2-4.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

Just curious.

Thanks for the reference, Stephen.

S.C.Carlson

No prob. Be aware, however, that it is not a widely-held position (AFAIK).

Stephen