Did Jesus Oppose the prosbul in the Forgiveness Petition of the Lord’s Prayer?
In: Novum TestamentumSearch for other papers by Lyndon Drake in
Current site
Google Scholar
The forgiveness petition of the Lord’s Prayer includes the condition that the petitioner must forgive their own “debtors,” widely taken to be a metaphorical reference to sin-forgiveness. In this article, I argue that to Jesus’ contemporaries “debt” would have been an unusual way of referring to sin, and that the choices made by the Matthean and Lukan redactors show that they understood the Jesus-saying to enjoin debt-forgiveness as well as sin-forgiveness. The prosbul was the only way for pious contemporaries to avoid the Torah’s requirement to periodically forgive debts, and so Jesus opposed the prosbul by enjoining precisely the behaviour which the prosbul made unnecessary.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (trans. James E. Crouch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 322.
-
4
Betz, The Sermon on the Mount, 372; Luz, Matthew 1-7, 311; Christopher M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 152; Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7, 592-593; Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary, trans. O.C. Dean (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) 108. Goulder doubts that any part of the Lord’s Prayer is authentic (M.D. Goulder, “The Composition of the Lord’s Prayer,” jts 14/11 [1963]), but see Goodacre’s critique (Mark S. Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm [jsnts; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996] 53-55).
-
6
Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 140; Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7, 611; R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (nicnt; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007) 250, n. 72.
-
7
Luz, Matthew 1-7, 311; Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7, 611-612.
-
9
Douglas E. Oakman, Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1986) 154.
-
10
Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 254.
-
12
Samuel Tobias Lachs, “On Matthew vi.12,” NovT 17/ 1 (1975) 6-8; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009) 222, n. 179.
-
14
Christopher J.H. Wright, “Sabbatical Year,” ABD 5 (1992) 857.
-
16
Jeffrey H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996) 145; Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 162-166.
-
18
J.J.M. Roberts, “Melchizedek (11Q13 = 11QMelchizedek = 11QMelch),” in Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 264, 267.
-
22
Aaron Rothkoff, “Prosbul (Heb. פרוזבול or פרוסבול ),” EncJud 13:1182.
-
23
Gunter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (trans. Markus Bockmuehl; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996) 64.
-
24
Alexander Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 98.
-
25
Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 117-120; Solomon Zeitlin, “Prosbol: A Study in Tannaitic Jurisprudence,” jqr 37/4 (1947) 341-362; Daniel R. Schwartz, “Hillel and Scripture: From Authority to Exegesis,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. James H. Charlesworth and L. Johns Loren; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 333; David Innstone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament, Vol. 1: Prayer and Agriculture (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2004) 249. See also Jacob Neusner, “From Exegesis to Fable in Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees,” jjs 25/2 (1974) 263-269; C. Safrai, “Sayings and Legends in the Hillel Tradition,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. James H. Charlesworth and L. Johns Loren; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997).
-
30
Goodman, “The First Jewish Revolt,” 419; Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea, 58.
-
33
Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 140. See also Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology (London: scm, 1971) 6, n. 15; Koehler, Baumgartner, and Stamm, חוב, halot 1:295. See also Willem A. VanGemeren, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997) 39.
-
37
Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2010).
-
38
Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Exodus (Denver: Ktav, 1990) 313.
-
44
Sjef van Tilborg, The Sermon on the Mount As an Ideological Intervention: A Reconstruction of Meaning (Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1986) 122.
-
50
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, 214; tentatively, Luz, Matthew 1-7, 327.
-
52
G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 115; Goodacre, Goulder and the Gospels, 200. The parable is “almost universally reckoned an authentic parable of Jesus” (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 8-18: A Commentary [icc; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991] 794); Davies and Allison, Matthew 1-7, 610; Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount, 120-121; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 249.
-
53
Ernst Fuchs, “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant,” Studia Evangelica 1 (1958).
-
54
Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18, 803; D.A. Carson, “The ΟΜΟΙΟΣ Word-Group As Introduction to Some Matthean Parables,” nts 31/2 (1985) 277-282.
-
62
Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics, 114-115; Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX, 637.
-
64
John S. Kloppenborg, “The Dishonoured Master (Luke 16, 1-8A),” Biblica 70/4 (1989) 474-495; David Landry and Ben May, “Honor Restored: New Light on the Parable of the Prudent Steward (Luke 16:1-8A),” jbl 119/2 (2000) 287-309.
-
66
Hays, Luke’s Wealth Ethics, 158. See also Anthony J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988) 284, 296.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 543 | 96 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 188 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 111 | 15 | 0 |
Did Jesus Oppose the prosbul in the Forgiveness Petition of the Lord’s Prayer?
In: Novum TestamentumSearch for other papers by Lyndon Drake in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The forgiveness petition of the Lord’s Prayer includes the condition that the petitioner must forgive their own “debtors,” widely taken to be a metaphorical reference to sin-forgiveness. In this article, I argue that to Jesus’ contemporaries “debt” would have been an unusual way of referring to sin, and that the choices made by the Matthean and Lukan redactors show that they understood the Jesus-saying to enjoin debt-forgiveness as well as sin-forgiveness. The prosbul was the only way for pious contemporaries to avoid the Torah’s requirement to periodically forgive debts, and so Jesus opposed the prosbul by enjoining precisely the behaviour which the prosbul made unnecessary.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 543 | 96 | 5 |
| Full Text Views | 188 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 111 | 15 | 0 |
