FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1569405835> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1569405835 endingPage "146" @default.
• W1569405835 startingPage "126" @default.
• W1569405835 abstract "Becoming an Exemplar for GodThree Early Interpretations of Forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer John Gavin SJ (bio) If then the accomplishment of the divine counsel is the deification of our nature, and if the goal of the divine thoughts is the completion of what we ask for in our life, then it is profitable to know the full importance of the Lord’s Prayer, to put it into practice and to write about it properly.1 The Lord’s Prayer has always been the model of Christian prayer, since it comes from the teachings of Jesus himself: “Therefore you are to pray in this way” (Mt 6:9). The Church made it part of its liturgical life early on, even reserving the sacred words to the baptized faithful.2 Its importance in the life of the Church led such Fathers as Origen of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, and Maximus the Confessor to compose rich meditations to help the faithful to appropriate and live out this holiest of orations. The Lord’s Prayer contains many grammatical and hermeneutical problems even for the modern exegete. This article considers one of these issues, the second “we” petition regarding the forgiveness of debts or sins, by examining the three early commentaries of Origen of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor. While [End Page 126] these Fathers did not share all of the tools available to contemporary scripture studies, their attentive reading of the prayer and spiritual acuity allowed them to provide important—even radical—insights into the significance of this petition for Christian life. I. Problems in the Interpretation of the Texts of Matthew and Luke Before examining the petition in the light of these three fathers, some significant differences between the two versions of the prayer must be taken into account. Scholars tend to hold that the Lukan version, written for a Gentile audience, represents the original structure and length of the Aramaic, while the Matthean offers a more developed version of the prayer for liturgical use in a Jewish-Christian community. Yet, Matthew seems to have preserved a wording closer to the Aramaic, while Luke adapted the vocabulary for his non-Jewish audience.3 Note some of the key differences in the second “we” petition of the prayer: Matthew 6:12 Luke 11:4 καὶ ἄϕϵϛ ἡμῖν τὰ òϕϵιλήματα ἡμῶν ὡϛ καὶ ἡμϵῖϛ ἀϕήκαϵν τoῖϛ ỏϕϵιλέταιϛ ἡμῶν καὶ ἄϕϵϛ ἡμῖν τὰϛ ὰμαρτίναϛ ἡμῶν, καὶ γάρ αủτoὶ ἀϕίoμϵν παντὶ ὀϕϵίντι ἡμῖν And forgive us our debts, as we too forgave (have forgiven) our debtors. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive each one who is in debt to us. For the purposes of this article, there are three variants of particular note. First, both Matthew and Luke use the verb ἀϕίημι for “forgive,” but they use different tenses of the verb in the apodosis of the petition: “as we too forgave/have forgiven” and “for we ourselves also forgive.” Matthew has an aorist “we forgave,” implying an action [End Page 127] anterior to that of God’s forgiveness4; Luke uses the present, “we forgive,” implying a continuous action simultaneous with God’s act of mercy. Thus in the Matthean variant, if one assumes the force of the aorist active, it seems that the petitioner must perform the act of forgiveness before God can respond in kind.5 In the Lukan variant, however, the present active implies a continuous act of forgiveness that accompanies the definitive act of forgiveness on the part of God (aorist imperative). Second, Matthew refers to the forgiveness of “debts” and “debtors,” a possible reflection of the Aramaic (hôbâ), which could mean both debt and sin.6 Luke, however, perhaps attempted to express the double meaning of the Aramaic for the gentile audience by first using the word “sin” (ἁμαρτία), and then using the participle for the verb “to owe” or “to be in debt” (ὀϕϵίλω).7 The implied relationship between debts and sins would become a key part of the Fathers’ reflection upon this verse. Finally, the main problem addressed in this article emerges from the relationship between the protasis (“forgive us our debts”) and apodosis (“as we too forgave,” “for we also forgive”). Matthew creates a very strict relationship between the two by ὡϛ καί “as..." @default.
• W1569405835 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1569405835 creator A5082735046 @default.
• W1569405835 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W1569405835 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1569405835 title "Becoming an Exemplar for God: Three Early Interpretations of Forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer" @default.
• W1569405835 cites W1535050022 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W1563206215 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W1575412754 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W1592135742 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W1601148381 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W2031578376 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W2331533384 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W2597468650 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W2796102325 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W2904244334 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W3159108372 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W409010726 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W584050635 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W604063927 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W633739857 @default.
• W1569405835 cites W637565254 @default.
• W1569405835 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/log.2013.0023" @default.
• W1569405835 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1569405835 type Work @default.
• W1569405835 sameAs 1569405835 @default.
• W1569405835 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1569405835 countsByYear W15694058352017 @default.
• W1569405835 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1569405835 hasAuthorship W1569405835A5082735046 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C2777477151 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C2778731027 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C516783827 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C124952713 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C138885662 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C142362112 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C27206212 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C2777477151 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C2778731027 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C41895202 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C516783827 @default.
• W1569405835 hasConceptScore W1569405835C554936623 @default.
• W1569405835 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1569405835 hasLocation W15694058351 @default.
• W1569405835 hasOpenAccess W1569405835 @default.
• W1569405835 hasPrimaryLocation W15694058351 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W1526533858 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W1569405835 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2036558175 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2103523397 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2616829411 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2969467478 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W2995799794 @default.
• W1569405835 hasRelatedWork W4214812920 @default.
• W1569405835 hasVolume "16" @default.
• W1569405835 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1569405835 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1569405835 magId "1569405835" @default.
• W1569405835 workType "article" @default.