Adam

With my eager acceptance of Higher Criticism in the 1960's that led me into disparate ecclesiastical paths including those in which the doxology at the end of the Disciples Prayer (as you call it, Jeff) is excluded, I can readily accept that they are supposed to be praying not to put God to the test, that they not be tempted to tell God what to do (Wow, are Pentecostal evangelists in trouble!). I appreciated your swat on page 73 that the Disciples Prayer is not the conversion experience of accepting Jesus as personal savior nor Anselm's Penal Substitution. Classic Protestantism has always repelled me.

I could not find on your blog where I can post comments, so I'll note here some proof-reading. On pg. 82 the word disciples in italics is missing the first "i". Chapter 5 starts on pg. 54, but Chapter 5 starts on pg. 91 even though the bottom of 91 seems to be answering the questions posed on the top to be discussed in the next chapter.

You have no bibliography there yet, and your footnote to Gerhardson's undated article in PERASMOS (Greek font) left me wondering whether he got his idea from your 2003 article (1st item on your blog I read before the in-process book) or you got the idea from his possibly earlier article.

I was surprised how little attention you paid to how much the conflicting texts in Mt and Luke would simply be due to the perils of independent translations from the original Aramaic Q1 text. Yes, parts of the Double Tradition (Mt and Luke) are almost verbally exact, but these are surely Q2 portions where both these gospels drew from the same Greek text (or copied from one another, which is argued both ways, but I'm sure is not what happened--I used to like Boismard's case for Matthew 23:23-24:51 being copied from Luke). I am convinced that an Aramaic Q1 (itself an over-simplification) explains what an oral tradition cannot possibly do. Surely you need to deal with Maurice Casey's attempts at translating Q back into Aramaic.

Jeffrey Gibson

The work is unfinished. In fact it has changed somewhat in some sections between yesterday when I uploaded my draft and now. As I've rewriting things and adding points and sections, I've not paid as much attention to enumeration and subtitles as I should -- and will do. So thanks for pointing these errors out.

Gerhardson's work on Peirazo (with respect to Matt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-3) predated my own. And while I think he's read my Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity, I can't for say that he has. On what page does my undated reference to him appear?

Did you read the whole thing?

Jeffrey

jakejonesiv

Father,
May your name be revered.
May your Spirit come upon us and sanctify us.
Give us each day your bread.
And forgive us our sins,
For we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And deliver us from the evil angel's test.

Adam

RE: Post #22:
That was right near the (current) end, page 117. My glitch, it was Korn in Peirazo, it was Gerhardson's book The Testing of God's Son (pg. 28).

Also note my added paragraph with my insistence on a written Aramaic original.

I read a lot, Jeff, but I skipped chapter 3, pg. 34-53.

Adam

My own summary of the Lord's Prayer for my own personal prayer use:
God be praised,
God's peace be with us,
Love one another through the power of God.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure why you are posting this. I'm even less sure where and how you get "Give us each day "your bread" from τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθʼ ἡμέραν· Let alone "deliver us from the evil angel's test" from καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν. especially since, with your reproduction of Father, instead of "our father" and of the "spirit clause, you seem to be basing this on the form of Luke 11:2-4 that appears in some 5th century MSS witnesses.

In any case, it's obvious that you haven't read what I have to say about καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, let alone the meaning of the Matthean ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ ("but deliver us from (the) evil (one).

Do you read Greek, Jake?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I want to deal with the texts we have, not hypothetical ones including back translations whether by Casey or Dalmann, or Jeremias or Carmignac - each of which I know about.

Jeffrey

Vorkosigan

As always, Jeff, thanks for posting this here. Sorry I have nothing intelligent to say about it.

Vorkosigan

Adam

I am Reading Chapter 3 now, and you have omitted "not" on pg. 45 in what should read
" Amidah...does not come into being until the Fall of the Temple in 70 CE." Why was not "Jewsih" on page 47 automatically corrected on spell checker? On pg. 50 you presumably did not intend to reposition the apostrophe in the same sentence where you twice use your standard "Disciples' Prayer". Bottom of pg. 50 as well.
Spell-check maybe could not alert you on pg. 54 to "demurals" as if referring to shy and overly proper (or maybe the defacing of a wall-painting?) instead of your intended "demurrals" meaning "protestations"--as I at least would take it if you are referring to Luke 3:1-4 instead where the Devil made you do it at Luke 4:1-4.
A name and date would helpfully accompany the footnote on pg. 55 to "Jesus and the Victory of God" as not everyone would pick up on your personal familiarity with "Tom Wright" the Bishop of Durham known to the scholarly world as "N. T. Wright." Many other footnotes are missing dates in the pages coming after Chapter 3.
I would like to see you uniformly list the author in the footnote even where he is stated in the above text, as with "Darrel Bock"
on pg. 84 and Moule on pg. 113 and 109. There are four on pg. 97, particularly necessary because your footnote may just say "Sermon on the Mount" when Jesus is not the specified author but H. D. Betz is, but I guess Tertullian is just as well left only in the text on pg. 96.

Jeffrey Gibson

Thanks for your sharp eye.

Jeffrey