Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 10-04-2008, 12:07 PM

I'm back at work on a paper I'm to present at the upcoming SBL the abstact of which is as follows:

Quote:

This paper challenges the validity of two claims made by many commentators on the Lord’s Prayer (1) that the thematic and theological matrix of this prayer -- the setting from which its form, its themes, its sentiments, and even the materials within it are drawn -- is the liturgy of the Jewish synagogue, and more particularly the prayers of this liturgy known as the Amidah, the Kaddish, and the Evening Prayer; and (2) that the assumption of such a matrix for the Lord’s Prayer necessarily entails that the prayer be seen as “eschatological” in orientation and aim.

I'd like feedback on whether or not I've laid out fully and correctly in the text below the assumptions that stand behind this claim.

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

****
A claim made with great frequency by commentators on the LP -- and
especially by those who view the LP as an eschatological prayer (i.e.,
one whose aim is to pray down into "the now" things that, from first
century Jewish assumptions about time, properly belong to the "age to
come" -- is that the matrix of this prayer -- the setting from which
its form, its themes, its sentiments, and even the materials within it
are drawn -- is the liturgy of the Jewish synagogue, and more
particularly the prayers of this liturgy known as the Amidah, the
Kaddish, and the Evening Prayer.

The claim is grounded in five assumptions.

1. that Jesus not only came, from a people who knew how to pray, who did
so according to fixed patterns, and who were disciplined in its
practice at home and within the synagogue from early youth on, (so J.
Jeremias, "Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church"
in his The Prayers of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (SCM), 66-67), but that since he himself
presumably matured within the influence of the synagogue (as Luke 4:16
indicates), his understanding of the forms and language in which prayer
should be uttered would have been guided and shaped by what, through
"sacred association", he had learned there about these matters.

Cf. C.M. Laymon, The Lord's Prayer in its Biblical Setting (or via: amazon.co.uk)
[Nashville & New York, Abinbgdon (1968), 32-33 -- "Just as most
present day Christians who are reared in the Church have their
conception and practice of prayer influenced by this fact, Jesus'
thought of prayer and his own prayer life must have been affected by
the Synagogue"

2. that in the first century the Jewish -- and particularly the
Galilean -- synagogue was not only a place of prayer but that it had an
established liturgy.

3. that the Amidah, the Kaddish, and the Evening Prayer as we have come
to know them from 2nd century testimony about their shape and wording
played prominent parts within it

4. that the orientation of these prayers is eschatological

5. that there are resemblances between the form and language of the
Lord's Prayer on the one hand and that of the liturgical prayers of the
synagogue and that these resemblances are too close to be mere coincidence.

Clivedurdle · 10-04-2008, 01:05 PM

What is this assumption of a "liturgy of the Jewish synagogue?

Quote:

The largest and most important Jewish settlement in the Diaspora was in Egypt. There is evidence (papyri) of a Jewish military colony at Elephantine (Yeb), Upper Egypt, as early as the 6th century bce. These papyri reveal the existence of a Jewish temple—which most certainly would be considered heterodox—and some syncretism (mixture) with pagan cults. Alexandria, the most populous and most influential Hellenistic Jewish community in the Diaspora, originated when Alexander the Great assigned a quarter of the city to the Jews. Until about the 3rd century bce the papyri of the Egyptian Jewish community were written in Aramaic; after that, with the exception of the Nash papyrus in Hebrew, all papyri until 400 ce were written in Greek. Similarly, of the 116 Jewish inscriptions from Egypt, all but five are written in Greek. The process of Hellenistic acculturation is thus obvious.
The most important work of the early Hellenistic period—dating, according to tradition, from the 3rd century bce—is the Septuagint, a translation into Greek of the Hebrew Scriptures, including some works not found in the traditional Hebrew canon. The name of the work (from the Latin septuaginta, “70”) derived from the belief that 72 translators, 6 from each of the 12 tribes, worked independently on the entire text and produced identical translations. As revealed in the Letter of Aristeas and the works of Philo and Josephus, the Septuagint was itself regarded by many Hellenized Jews as divinely inspired. The translation shows some knowledge of Palestinian exegesis and the tradition of Halakhah (the Oral Law); but the rabbis themselves, noting that the translation diverged from the Hebrew text, apparently had ambivalent feelings about it, as is evidenced in their alternate praise and condemnation of it, as well as in their belief that another translation of the Scriptures into Greek was needed. The fact that “Torah” was translated as nomos (“law”) and tzedaqa as dikaiosynē (“justice”) indicates how deeply the authors of the Septuagint believed that Judaism could be accurately expressed using Greek concepts.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref299213

Quote:

Deutero-Isaiah saw in the miraculous restoration of Israel a means of converting the whole world to faith in Israel’s God. Israel would thus serve as “a light for the nations, that YHWH’s salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” In his conception of the vicarious suffering of God’s servant—through which atonement is made for the ignorant heathen—Deutero-Isaiah found a handle by which to grasp the enigma of faithful Israel’s lowly state among the Gentiles. The idea was destined to play a decisive role in the self-understanding of the Jewish martyrs persecuted by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164 bce)—as recounted in the Book of Daniel—and later again in the Christian appreciation of the death of Jesus.

If xianity is a Judaic sect, it is likely that ideas used by its early writers used Jewish themes.

the Lord's Prayer is an early summary statement of belief and practice - as I assume it is agreed it was not delivered new into the world there may be links to earlier practices and beliefs. Your references as xian ones are limited - you need to quote how Jews understand this, and that there is not a coherent "Jewish " viewpoint.

It is unclear what it is you are challenging - a narrow specifically evangelical xian view of the Lord's Prayer? - and what you are putting in its place.

Quote:

In the early part of the 2nd century bce, Hellenizing Jews took control of the high priesthood itself. As high priest from 175 to 172, Jason established Jerusalem as a Greek city, with Greek educational institutions. His ouster by an even more extreme Hellenizing faction, which established Menelaus (died 162 bce) as high priest, occasioned a civil war in which Menelaus was supported by the wealthy aristocrats and Jason by the masses. The Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who initially granted exemptions and privileges to the Jews, intervened at the request of Menelaus’s party. Antiochus’s promulgation of decrees against the practice of Judaism led in 167 bce to the successful revolt of the priest Mattathias (died 166 bce) and his five sons—the Maccabees (Hasmoneans; see also Hasmonean dynasty). It has been conjectured that one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, mirrors the fierceness of this struggle.
The extreme tactics employed by the Hasmoneans in their struggle with Hellenizing Jews, whose children they forcibly circumcised, indicate the inroads that Hellenism had already made.

Which Jewish strands would you argue led to the Lord's Prayer? Hellenistic from Egypt or Greece or local ones?

Jeffrey Gibson · 10-04-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

It is unclear what it is you are challenging - a narrow specifically evangelical xian view of the Lord's Prayer? - and what you are putting in its place.

I guess I should have added that I'd like to have responses only from those who have actually done some work in the scholarly literature on the LP and the history of the Synagogue and of the Amidah, etc. (such as is set out in the extensive bibliography on the LP found in The Lord's Prayer and Other Prayer Texts from the Greco-Roman Era (or via: amazon.co.uk) by James H. Charlesworth (Editor), Mark Harding (Editor), Mark Kiley (Editor) or found in, say, The Lord's Prayer and Jewish Liturgy, Jakob Josef Petuchowski, Michael Brocke, eds.), and not from someone who thinks -- especially after I have cited Jeremias as a holdder of it -- that the view of the LP as something whose matrix is the liturgy of the Galilean synagogue is a "narrow specifically evangelical xian view of the Lord's Prayer".:rolling::rolling:

As to what I'm putting in its place, see my article in the Autumn 2001 edition of the Biblical Theology Bulletin entitled "Matthew 6:9-13//Luke 11:2-4: an eschatological prayer?".

Quote:

Which Jewish strands would you argue led to the Lord's Prayer? Hellenistic from Egypt or Greece or local ones?

What is it about the expressions "liturgy of the Galilean synagogue" and "the Amidah, Kadish, and Evening Prayer" that is unclear to you?

Jeffrey

neilgodfrey · 10-05-2008, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

As to what I'm putting in its place, see my article in the Autumn 2001 edition of the Biblical Theology Bulletin entitled "Matthew 6:9-13//Luke 11:2-4: an eschatological prayer?".

At the risk of cheapening, in the eyes of some, the value of the information contained in this article, it is not necessary to search for it in a library or acquire it via interlibrary loan service. It is freely available to anyone using nothing more than the internet:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=artBody;col1

or

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-27330329_ITM

A quick copy and paste from the abstract or from one or two other paragraphs would have also offered a much easier way of conveying an answer to the question. Perhaps too easy?

Neil Godfrey

judge · 10-06-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Perhaps too easy?

Neil Godfrey

Yes, everybody must suffer.

andrewcriddle · 10-06-2008, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'm back at work on a paper I'm to present at the upcoming SBL the abstact of which is as follows:

Quote:

This paper challenges the validity of two claims made by many commentators on the Lord’s Prayer (1) that the thematic and theological matrix of this prayer -- the setting from which its form, its themes, its sentiments, and even the materials within it are drawn -- is the liturgy of the Jewish synagogue, and more particularly the prayers of this liturgy known as the Amidah, the Kaddish, and the Evening Prayer; and (2) that the assumption of such a matrix for the Lord’s Prayer necessarily entails that the prayer be seen as “eschatological” in orientation and aim.

I'd like feedback on whether or not I've laid out fully and correctly in the text below the assumptions that stand behind this claim.

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

****
A claim made with great frequency by commentators on the LP -- and
especially by those who view the LP as an eschatological prayer (i.e.,
one whose aim is to pray down into "the now" things that, from first
century Jewish assumptions about time, properly belong to the "age to
come" -- is that the matrix of this prayer -- the setting from which
its form, its themes, its sentiments, and even the materials within it
are drawn -- is the liturgy of the Jewish synagogue, and more
particularly the prayers of this liturgy known as the Amidah, the
Kaddish, and the Evening Prayer.

The claim is grounded in five assumptions.

1. that Jesus not only came, from a people who knew how to pray, who did
so according to fixed patterns, and who were disciplined in its
practice at home and within the synagogue from early youth on, (so J.
Jeremias, "Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church"
in his The Prayers of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (SCM), 66-67), but that since he himself
presumably matured within the influence of the synagogue (as Luke 4:16
indicates), his understanding of the forms and language in which prayer
should be uttered would have been guided and shaped by what, through
"sacred association", he had learned there about these matters.

Cf. C.M. Laymon, The Lord's Prayer in its Biblical Setting (or via: amazon.co.uk)
[Nashville & New York, Abinbgdon (1968), 32-33 -- "Just as most
present day Christians who are reared in the Church have their
conception and practice of prayer influenced by this fact, Jesus'
thought of prayer and his own prayer life must have been affected by
the Synagogue"

2. that in the first century the Jewish -- and particularly the
Galilean -- synagogue was not only a place of prayer but that it had an
established liturgy.

3. that the Amidah, the Kaddish, and the Evening Prayer as we have come
to know them from 2nd century testimony about their shape and wording
played prominent parts within it

4. that the orientation of these prayers is eschatological

5. that there are resemblances between the form and language of the
Lord's Prayer on the one hand and that of the liturgical prayers of the
synagogue and that these resemblances are too close to be mere coincidence.

Hi Jeffrey

Given the claims a/ that the Lord's prayer is based on the Synagogue Liturgy and b/ that a/ requires the Lord's prayer to be eschatological then the Assumptions listed seem both excessive and insufficient.

Neither claim a/ nor b/ require the Lord's prayer to be genuinely dominical hence Assumption 1 is unnecessary in the form stated. In fact Assumption 5 on its own (if rigidly established) seems probably sufficient to establish claim a/. I think we can ignore the formal possibility that the synagogue liturgy is based on the Lord's prayer.

The claims that the synagogue liturgy is eschatological and that the Lord's prayer is based on the synagogue liturgy do not necessarily establish that the Lord's prayer is eschatological. (Compare the (invalid) argument 1/ The Gospel of Thomas is based on the Synoptics 2/ The Synoptics are eschatological therefore the Gospel of Thomas is eschatological.) Hence the listed Assumptions are insufficient to establish claim b/.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.