Editing Lord's Prayer (section)

== Relationship between the Matthaean and Lucan texts ==
In [[biblical criticism]], the absence of the Lord's Prayer in the [[Gospel of Mark]], together with its occurrence in Matthew and Luke, has caused scholars who accept the [[two-source hypothesis]] (against other [[Synoptic problem|document hypotheses]]) to conclude that it is probably a ''[[Logia|logion]]'' original to the [[Q source]].{{Sfn|Farmer|1994|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=KkO4qzxHrsEC&pg=PA49 49]}} According to [[W.D. Davies]] and [[Dale Allison]], it is also possible than one version was present in Q and another from the [[M source]] or the [[L source]], though they do not view the notion that Luke's version used Matthew as plausible.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Davies |first1= W.D. |author-link1= W.D. Davies |last2= Allison |first2= Dale |author-link2= Dale Allison |title= A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew |publisher= T&T Clark |page= 592 |isbn= 978-0567094810}}</ref> The common source of the two existing versions, whether Q or an oral or another written tradition, was elaborated differently in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Marianus Pale Hera considers it unlikely that either of the two used the other as its source and that it is possible that they "preserve two versions of the Lord's Prayer used in two different communities: the Matthean in a Jewish Christian community and the Lucan in the Gentile Christian community".{{Sfn|Hera|2019|pp=80–81}} Davies and Allison find this theory to be possible as well.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Davies |first1= W.D. |author-link1= W.D. Davies |last2= Allison |first2= Dale |author-link2= Dale Allison |title= A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew |publisher= T&T Clark |page= 591 |isbn= 978-0567094810}}</ref>

While there is no reason to doubt the origin of the Lord's Prayer with Jesus, the prayer differs between Luke and Matthew.<ref>{{cite book |last= Betz |first= Hans |author-link= Hans Dieter Betz |title= The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (Hermeneia) |publisher= Fortress Press |page= 370 |isbn= 978-0800660314}}</ref> Luke's is not as long and closer in wording,{{what|date=February 2025}}{{fix|text=closer to what}} while Matthew's is thematically more similar to the original.{{what|date=February 2025}}{{fix|text=which text is the original}}<ref>{{cite book |last= Nolland |first= John |author-link= John Nolland |title= The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC)) |publisher= Eerdmans |page= 283, 609 |isbn= 978-0802823892}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Hagner |first= Donald |author-link= Donald Hagner |title= Matthew 1-13, Volume 33A (33) (Word Biblical Commentary) |publisher= Zondervan Academic |page= 145 |isbn= 978-0310521983}}</ref> If either source built on the other, [[Joachim Jeremias]] attributes priority to Matthew on the grounds that "in the early period, before wordings were fixed, liturgical texts were elaborated, expanded and enriched".{{Sfn|Jeremias|1964|p=11}} On the other hand, Michael Goulder, Thomas J. Mosbo and Ken Olson see the shorter Lucan version as a reworking of the Matthaean text, removing unnecessary verbiage and repetition.{{Sfn|Olson|2015|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WQ90BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA101 101–118]}}

The Matthaean version has completely ousted the Lucan in general Christian usage.{{Sfn|Leaney|1956|p=104}} The following considerations are based on the Matthaean version.