Q 11:2b-4, The Lord's Prayer

Abstract

Q 11:2b4, The Lord's Prayer, by Shawn Carruth and Albrecht Garsky, ed. Stanley D. Anderson. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated. Leuven: Peeters, 1996. Pp. xii + 206. N.P. Q 12:49-59, Children against Parents, Judging the Time, Settling out of Court, by Albrecht Garsky, Christoph Heil, Thomas Hieke, and Josef E. Amon, ed. Shawn Carruth. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Pp. xvii + 434. N.P. Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated, with a projected thirty-one volumes, began in the middle, with publication in 1996 of Q 11:2b-4, The Lord's Prayer. This 200-page volume admirably illustrates the approach of the entire International Q Project, a multiyear review of scholarship and annotated reconstruction of the hypothetical Gospel source The result is a valuable resource: the data base for each passage thought to be in plus a detailed set of arguments for the probable Greek wording of the tradition when it was inherited by Matthew and Luke. The final product, yet to be published in a single volume, is a critical text in Greek of reconstructed That text is appearing piecemeal in Documenta which prints Matthew's and Luke's wording of shared passages in parallel columns on either side of the critical text of Q. The Q wording is proposed by the general editors of Documenta James M. Robinson of Claremont Graduate University, Paul Hoffmann of the University of Bamberg, and John S. Kloppenborg of the University of St. Michael's College, taking into account the work of the data base authors and evaluators of each passage, as well as the discussions of the International Q Group. The material relating to each biblical passage, following Luke's order, is gathered into a Documenta Q volume by a managing editor. For each passage, a data base author reviews journal articles, monographs, and commentaries since 1863 that have applied the two-source hypothesis (listed in the bibliography included in each volume). Wherever Matthew and Luke disagree in placement or wording, scholarly opinion is presented in four sections: arguments that Luke preserves that Luke does not preserve that Matthew preserves and that Matthew does not preserve Q. Both the data base author and several additional evaluators make a judgment call on each variant as to which version is more likely Q, give reasons for their choices, and rate how confident they are in it by assigning a letter from A = virtual certainty to D = slight inclination. This procedure lays out a great deal of data in a verse-by-verse format, for which current researchers can be grateful. Its downside is the inevitable repetition of key arguments, which appear repeatedly in the data base and often in the evaluators' supporting arguments. Texts have superscripts marking variants with numbers in chronological order. The first variant is always a zero, indicating whether the passage existed in Q. The number 1 usually indicates the position of the passage (following Matthew's order, Luke's order, or neither). …