Thu Jun 13 14:24:53 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Jun 13 14:24:53 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA11049; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 14:23:36 -0400
Message-ID: <31C05CD7.69243DDD@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 11:24:23 -0700
From: Alan Repurk 
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b3 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
CC: lars@repurk.mw.com, wlp1@psu.edu
Subject: Re: Theories of trans. (#2)
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2090

Larry W. Hurtado wrote:
> 
> 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

Gentlemen

First of all I would like to say that I thought that the citations
were extrordinary, and ask under what circumstances the citations
could be quoted, aside from looking up all the references myself,
which I just may do.

Also, in answer to your statement, Larry, that you don't see much
theological significance between the two renderings I would like to
relate that on more than one occasion I have used these passages
to attempt to show that Jesus was correcting the person that called
Him good to show that the title of 'good' was not to be applied to
himself, but only to His Father. In spite of what I think is very
clear language I could not get the other individual to agree to this
meaning.  Part of the reason is that the language as we have received
it is just ambiguous enough to allow for more than one interpretation.

I do not think this would be the case with the quotes that William
supplied.

-lars

Back