rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:07 am
I disagree with Vinzent's assessment of the Lord's Prayer. The Lord's Prayer is clearly evocative of the prayers and sermons we find in Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans, which also praise the Father and address legal concerns.
I don't think Vinzent has commented on where
Marcion got [
his version of what became known as]
The Lord's Prayer from
: afiak, Vinzent has only ever commented on the Lord's Prayer (1) in relation to Tertullian commenting about it wrt to Marcion (and, even them, favourably); and (2) wrt to the Synoptic Problem (see https://www.academia.edu/45436831/Metho ... rds_Prayer
But you raise and interesting point (your post slightly reconfigured here):
rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:07 am
... The Lord's Prayer is clearly evocative of the prayers and sermons we find in Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans, which also praise the Father and address legal concerns. For example:
Ephesians 4:32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.
13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands.
Luke 11:4 And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial.
And note that Ephesians/Laodiceans is a running collection of prayers. Both Colossians and Ephesians/Laodiceans are sermons that were meant to be read aloud to congregations, instructing them on how to pray.
Luke 11:4 is attested in Marcion's Euangelion according to BeDuhn and Vinzent (I don't have access to Klinghardt at present):
BeDuhn, The First New Testament Canon
, 2013, pp. 109; 157-9:
.....1 ... When he was in a certain place invoking,
........when he stopped, a certain one of his pupils said to him,
..........“Teach us to invoke, Master, just as John also taught his pupils.”
.....2 .Then he said to them, “Whenever you may invoke, say,
..........‘Father, let your sacred spirit come upon us ... Let your realm come.
.....3 ...‘Give us your sustaining bread day by day.
.....4 ...‘And dismiss for us our misdeeds. And do not permit us to be brought to a trial’.”
11.1 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
11.2 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
The Evangelion is one of a handful of witnesses to what are generally regarded as original and better readings within this passage, while also showing some rare readings whose standing in the textual tradition is actively debated. The most likely reconstruction of the Evangelion’s text of the prayer has a clear pattern: a pair of couplets with repeated verbs in the primary position (elthetō + elthetō; aphes + aphes) framing a middle clause with the verb following its object phrase (this pattern is missed by Delobel, “Extra-Canonical Sayings of Jesus,” 296 and Amphoux, “Les premières editions de Luc,” 110, both cited below).
The Evangelion read simply “Father,” lacking “our ... who is in heaven,” in agreement with P75, several other key Greek manuscripts (including ms 700), the SSyr, and Origen; the longer text derives from Matt 6.9–10 (and is given in this form in the Diatessaron). Based on Tertullian’s reference, the Evangelion lacked “Hallowed be thy name,” and instead had a request concerning “your spirit” as the first petition, followed by the request for God’s realm to come. This reading seems to be related, but not identical, to that found (in slightly varying forms) in the Gk mss 700 (eleventh century) and 162 (twelfth century), Gregory of Nyssa, De oratione dominica, 3.737f. (PG 44, col. 1157C) (fourth century), and Maximus the Confessor, Expositio orationis dominicae 1.350 (PG 110, col. 884B) (seventh century), all of which have a petition for the spirit following “Hallowed be thy name” and instead of a request for the God’s realm to come. Delobel is correct to fault citing Marcion as a witness to this latter reading without further qualification (“The Lord’s Prayer in the Textual Tradition,” 296–98). ... [continues] ...
11.3 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
The Evangelion read “your ... bread” rather than “our bread” according to Origen; the SSyr and CSyr have simply “the bread,” which may be the reading Tertullian had before him.
11.4 Tertullian, Marc. 4.26.1–5; Origen, Fr. Luc. (Rauer) 180.
The justifying clause, “for we ourselves also forgive everyone that is in debt to us,” is unattested for the Evangelion. It also had the probably more original shorter text omitting “but deliver us from evil” found in many manuscripts of Luke borrowed from Matthew; likewise P75, Sinaiticus, 700, and other Greek manuscripts, SyriacS, the Coptic and Armenian versions, and Origen. Harnack reconstructed the wording “Do not permit us to be brought,” which would be a pious emendation from the more original “do not bring us” attested as early as Pol.Phil 7.2.
But Schmid, “How Can We Access Second Century Gospel Texts?” 143–44, argues against this reconstruction, maintaining that Tertullian’s rephrasing of the text into a rhetorical question masks the original wording, and brings it into line with his own pious exegesis of this phrase of Luke elsewhere in his writings. While Schmid’s observations are perfectly valid, it cannot be ruled out that both Tertullian and the redactor of the Evangelion embraced a widespread avoidance of directly attributing testing to God (all the more so if Marcion was that redactor, but I do not assume that). The clear parallelism of structure with the repeated use of aphes matching the prior repetition of elthetō, inclines me to follow Harnack’s reconstruction.
For Vinzent's reproductions and side-by-side comparisons of Mcn
11:1-4, Luke 11:1-4, Matt 6:5-13, Didache
8,2-3 9 and Q 11:2b-4), see pp.216-9 here: https://www.academia.edu/45436831/Metho ... rds_Prayer
[I may reproduce Vinzent's table here]