My Jewish annotated NT (yes, there actually is such a thing), makes no special comment on the temptation part. It does note that “Hallowed be thy name” is similar to “Glory in his holy name” with some implication of being like an Aramaic Kaddish prayer, which it notes became “more common during the Talmudic era.” It also mentions “May his great name grow exhalted and glorified” with references to Lev. 22.32, Isa 22.23, Ezek 36.23, PS 113.2 and Deut 32.3. It also notes for “Thy will be done,” that “rabbis emphasize obedience to divine will.” I am not sure how useful any of that is, but there it is.
brenmcg said
Christian theology is hardly some big secret that’s impossible for outsiders to understand.
It is not impossible for outsiders to understand . . . if they wish to do so. Clearly, he does not. He is using the same kind of labored reading and reasoning that apologists often use, just turned on its head.
I do wish him good luck in dealing with aggressive evangelicals in Israel. They must be as bad there as they are here.
Robert said
brenmcg said
The point is that any understanding of the our father that implies a difficult reading for orthodox christian theology is evidence for Matthean priority.
No, that is merely your interpretation of the evidence. Don’t confuse evidence with interpretation of evidence.
But you do accept the claim that harsher readings in one text is evidence for it being an older version? and that it necessarily follows that if the our father is given a harsher reading christololgically speaking then this is evidence for Matthew being earlier than Mark?
Harsher reading here meaning being closer to its pre-christian Jewish origins than Mark wanted for his gospel.
Yes you’re making the same mistake here as you made there. You’re making demands of evidence for Matthean priority that aren’t made for Markan priority.
That if Markan priority can accomodate an observation then the observation can’t count as evidence for Matthean priority.
That because the change from a Jewish to Gentile dominated church wasn’t entirely continually linear a later gospel may well have been more Jewish than an earlier one.
This may well be true but doesn’t negate the fact that a more Jewish oriented passage in a gospel is evidence for a gospel being earlier.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)