Mon Mar 25 01:16:51 1996

From majordom  Mon Mar 25 01:16:51 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA19200; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:16:51 +0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:16:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" 
X-Sender: jadair@scholar
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Mt 6:13
In-Reply-To: 
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2169
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote:

> (Jimmy Adair wrote in an earlier post):
> > To look at another example, the ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt 6:13 
> > ("for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.  Amen.") 
> > is present in the Majority Text, including several uncials, and many 
> > early versions.  However, it definitely looks like an early addition, 
> > probably from a liturgical setting (thus the "amen").  How does the 
> > Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading?
> 
> This one was answered well by both Burgon and Scrivener in the last
> century. In the liturgical practice of the early church the closing
> doxology was liturgically stated by the priest alone, and not by the
> laity.  It thus is not surprising to find that a minority of MSS leave out
> the words which may have been thought by the scribe wrongly to have been
> inserted into the exemplar he was copying to so as to liturgically "fill
> out" the prayer. Since the scribe "knew" that the laity did not say the
> closing doxology, it would not seem proper for these words to have
> originally been included in the instructions to the disciples as to how
> they (laity) ought to pray.  (I see no need to argue assimilation to the
> Lukan form of the prayer, which does not have the doxology in any
> texttype). 

I agree that the Lukan form of the Lord's Prayer can be ignored for the 
purposes of this variant.  Burgon and Scrivener may have answered this 
question, but not well, in my opinion.  Scribes omitted the ending 
because the laity did not say it?   If this had been an Alexandrian 
reading and such an argument had been offered, would Byzantine priority 
folks have accepted it?  I don't think so (I hope no Alexandrian-leaning 
eclectics would have, either!).  If the presumption of Byzantine priority 
is laid aside, the doxology doesn't have any feet to walk on.  Can any 
other arguments be offered in favor of the doxology?

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

Back