Thu Jun 13 10:47:35 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun 13 10:47:35 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA09750; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:46:01 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:42:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2)
In-Reply-To: <199606121824.OAA16684@r02n05.cac.psu.edu>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1101

A very interesting piece from Wm. Petersen on early citations of Mt 
19:17.  Thanks to Bill for taking time to log all the 
citations/references.  
	I do, however, want to log a much more modest contribution of my 
own, by way of a hesitation to accept right away Bill's proposal for the 
cause/meaning of the variation twixt some of the early Fathers and the 
majority of surviving mss evidence.  First, I fail to see how the 
variation between "God" and "my Father in heaven" reflects any major 
christological variation, Bill.  I think your shooting at shadows here.
	I do,however, find it interesting that the latter variant is 
simply the *well known* opening address of the Paternoster, with the 
substituion of "mou" for "hemon".  Seems entirely likely to me that 
Justin, et alia, simply (and freely) preferred that more familiar 
liturgical phrase, thus making their piety/usage more directly connected 
with Jesus' own.  And this esp. in the Dial. 101 context, where Justin's 
point is to emphasize Jesus' humility (citing Ps 21/22 extensively).

Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba 

Back