The Interpretation of the Lord's Prayer, Q 11:2b-4, in the Formative Stratum of Q According to the

302 Pages·2016·2.03 MB·English

by  Richard Wendel

LLooyyoollaa UUnniivveerrssiittyy CChhiiccaaggoo
LLooyyoollaa eeCCoommmmoonnss
Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
2010
TThhee IInntteerrpprreettaattiioonn ooff tthhee LLoorrdd''ss PPrraayyeerr,, QQ 1111::22bb--44,, iinn tthhee FFoorrmmaattiivvee
SSttrraattuumm ooff QQ AAccccoorrddiinngg ttoo tthhee LLiitteerraarryy aanndd CCuullttuurraall PPeerrssppeeccttiivveess
AAffffoorrddeedd bbyy tthhee AAffiffixxeedd AApphhoorriissmmss,, QQ 1111::99--1100,, 1111--1133
Richard Wendel
Loyola University Chicago
Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Wendel, Richard, "The Interpretation of the Lord's Prayer, Q 11:2b-4, in the Formative Stratum of Q
According to the Literary and Cultural Perspectives Afforded by the Affixed Aphorisms, Q 11:9-10, 11-13"
(2010). Dissertations. 79.
https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/79
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons.
It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 2010 Richard Wendel
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LORD’S PRAYER, Q 11:2b-4, IN THE
FORMATIVE STRATUM OF Q (Q¹) ACCORDING TO THE LITERARY AND
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES AFFORDED BY THE AFFIXED APHORISMS,
Q 11:9-10, 11-13

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

PROGRAM IN THEOLOGY

BY

RICHARD WENDEL

CHICAGO, IL

DECEMBER 2010
Copyright by Richard Wendel, 2010
All rights reserved
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

While I was an undergraduate at Penn State University, I had the great privilege
and pleasure to have studied under Dr. Lewis Ford. He taught me to think critically and to
explore aspects of Christian tradition. Dr. Ford was also instrumental in guiding me to
Princeton Seminary. At the time, the farthest thing from my mind was biblical studies.
Yet by taking required courses at Princeton with Drs. Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, J.
Christiaan Beker, and Donald Juel seeds were planted and a never ending curiosity
began. I wish to recognize their influence and my gratitude.
Through decades of private study, I became increasingly interested in the
earliest layer of gospel tradition, the Sayings Gospel Q. The theology faculty of Loyola
University Chicago was most welcoming and from my first meetings, I knew it would be
a place to sharpen my mind and help me understand the evidence in its own time. Dr.
Gregory Dobrov impressed me with the importance of language and especially the impact
of Greek traditions on the entire Mediterranean basin in the era of my study. Dr. Robert
Di Vito taught me to appreciate the diversity of Judeo-Christian communities in late
Second Temple Judaism and to critically look beyond the words of the traditions to the
ideological interests of ancient writers. One of the first scholars I spoke with at Loyola
was Dr. Wendy Cotter. In every way, she has directed my studies and helped me
appreciate the social desires and needs of the first century Christian
iii
communities. I express my immense gratitude to her for her wisdom, patience, and
support.
Lastly, I wish to thank my wife, Mina (“MK”) Dulcan who experienced my
absence when I was in class, in my “study,” or writing, and had to endure long-suffering
conversations about the origins of Christianity.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT vii

CHAPTER ONE: THE STATUS QUAESTIONIS 1
Introduction 1
Major Scholarly Contributions of the Lord’s Prayer:
Matthew 6:9-13/Luke 11:2b-4 2
Chapter Summary and the Problem of Interpreting the Lord’s Prayer 53

CHAPTER TWO: THE Q DOCUMENT: FOUNDATIONS,
RECONSTRUCTION, AND THE SCHOLARSHIP THAT LOCATES THE
PRAYER SPEECH WITHIN THE FORMATIVE STRATUM OF Q 55
Introduction 55
The History of the Investigations of Q 56
The Synoptic Problem: The Relationships of the Synoptic Gospels 61
Challenges to the Two-Document Hypothesis: The Griesbach
Hypothesis Revisited and Markan Priority without Q 70
The Modern Reconstruction of the Sayings Gospel Q 72
The Composition and Redaction of Q 86
From Redaction to Compositional History 108
Q as Expanded Instruction 109
Chapter Summary and Implications for the Dissertation 113

CHAPTER THREE: THE STRUCTURE, FORM, AND RELATIONSHIP
OF THE Q CLUSTER Q 11:9-10, 11-12, 13 114
Introduction 114
The Form, Relationship, and Message of Q 11:9-10 115
The Form, Components, Relationship, and Message of Q 11:11-12, 13 126
Ronald Piper and the Four Step Argument of Q’s Sapiential Clusters 130

CHAPTER FOUR: INTERPRETING THE LORD’S PRAYER
IN THE Q¹ SPEECH: Q 11:2B-4, 9-13 136
Introduction 136
Interpretations that Do Not Observe the Stratigraphy Establishing Q 137
An Interpretation of the Prayer in Q 138
Chapter Summary 163

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY 165
Brief Summary of Conclusions 165
v
APPENDIX A: ASKING AND SEEKING IN GRECO-ROMAN AND
JEWISH PRAYER AND WISDOM LITERATURE 172

APPENDIX B: GOD AS FATHER IN JEWISH LITERATURE OF THE PERIOD 189

APPENDIX C: GOD AS FATHER IN GRECO-ROMAN LITERATURE 206

APPENDIX D: THE FORM CRITICISM OF GRECO-ROMAN
AND JEWISH PRAYERS 232

APPENDIX E: THE PROBLEM OF ASSOCIATING THE LORD’S PRAYER
WITH JEWISH STATUTORY PRAYERS 265

BIBLIOGRAPHY 272

VITA 293
vi
ABSTRACT

The Lord’s Prayer is one of the most discussed texts within the Christian scriptures
(Matt 6:9-13/Luke 11:2b-4). Most commentators have focused on the Matthean version
of the prayer and have overlooked the source from which it comes: Q and its context.
Both canonical versions of the prayer alter it and place it in different literary settings.
This re-contextualizing of the original prayer has produced interpretations that either
obscure or reinterpret the message from Q. These efforts have been overly influenced by
extraneous source material, often subject to certain interpretative tendencies involving
Jewish prophetic, Jewish intertestamental apocalyptic literature, and/or Christian
eschatological pronouncements. However, recent scholarship on the Q Prayer Instruction
(Q 11:2b-4, 9-13) has shown that the attached aphoristic commentary (Q 11:9-13)
provides both interpretative guidelines and controls that limit the range of possible
outcomes and points to how the community understood the prayer. Specifically, Ronald
Piper has established that the aphoristic clusters in the formative stratum of Q exhibit an
intentional and identifiable literary design with the last verse, in this case Q 11:13,
serving as the “interpretative key” to the entire speech. This dissertation, following
Piper’s work, has examined the images within Q 11:9-13, especially v. 13, in order to
highlight its climatic function in the set of aphorisms. Within Q 11:9-13, each subunit
vii
(11:9-10, 11-12, and 13) builds to the conclusion (v.13). Q 11:13, therefore, controls the
meaning of the entire Prayer Instruction (Q 11:2b-4, 9-13). Thus, it is the imagery of v.
13 that determines the parental behavior expected in vv. 11-12. This image is the
attentive, providing, and protective parent. The meaning of and expected behaviors of the
“father” in the invocation is defined by the responsive and generous parent of v. 13. Thus,
in order to understand the Q “prayer” within its setting, (11:2b-4, 9-10, 11-12, 13) it is
necessary to start with the attached aphorisms and grasp their contextual force and full
meaning. This study argues that the complier of the Q speech intentionally attached the
aphorisms to the prayer and structured them in a specific and progressive way in order to
provide the lens through which the entire speech should be seen.

viii
CHAPTER ONE

THE STATUS QUAESTIONIS

Introduction
The prayer ascribed to Jesus in Q (Luke) 11:2b-4, but usually quoted as the
Lord’s Prayer from Matthew 6:9-13, has received a great deal of scholarly commentary.
As a result, it is the Matthean perspective and context that controls the interpreter’s
understanding of the praise and petitions that belong to Matthew’s version. One of the
chief differences between the Matthean and Lukan forms of the prayer is the immediate
contextual placement of the material. Luke creates a larger speech than is found in Q by
inserting the “Friend at Midnight” pericope (11:5-8) in between the prayer (11:2b-4) and
the accompanying aphorisms (11:9-13). These units are interrelated and create a unified
message in the Luke’s gospel. In the reconstruction efforts of the Q Seminar, scholars
view 11:5-8 as a Lukan insertion to an otherwise intact Q speech: the Q Prayer
Instruction. Matthew, however, separates the prayer (Matt 6:9-13) from the sapiential
cluster (7:7-11), thus disturbing the unity of the speech and the aphorisms that were
designed to control the interpretative range of the entire unit. This will be discussed more
fully in Chapter Three. Although Luke’s gospel disturbs the setting of the Q Prayer
Speech less than Matthew, his insertion of the “Friend at Midnight” parable (Luke 11:5-
8) also separates the direct influence of vv. 9-13 on the prayer Q 11:2b-4. Scholars who
discuss the Lukan version, likewise, address Lukan theology due to the placement of the
prayer in his gospel, as will be more fully explained. Furthermore, there are many
1