ra y ers :ateesus =

OF mS

clea oh wan’ Jeremi

Gas =

| JAI
The Prayers of Jesus

JOACHIM JEREMIAS

Studies in Biblical Theology - Second Series

6
 bows the Anibor’
JOACHIM JEREMIAS, Dr Phil. (Leipzig), D.Theol.h.c. (Leipzig),
D.D. (St Andrews), Dr Theol.h.c. (Uppsala), was born in Dresden in
1900. Since 1935 he has occupied the chair of New Testament and Late
Jewish Religion in the University of Gottingen. He made two contribu- —
tions to the First Series of Studies in Biblical Theology: No. 20 (with W.
Zimmerli) on The Servant of God and No. 24—Jesus’ Promise to the Nations.
Other books published in English include: The Eucharistic Words ofJesus,
- Oxford 1955 (revd. ed., London 1966); Unknown Sayings of Jesus, London
1957; Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, London 1961; The Origins of
Infant Baptism, London 1963; The Parables ofJesus, revised edition, London
1963; The Central Message of the New Testament, London Bt Rediscovering
the Parables, London 1966. e:
THE PRAYERS OF JESUS
 STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

A series of monographs designed to provide clergy and laymen with the best
work in biblical scholarship both in this country and abroad

Advisory Editors:
C.F. D. Moute, Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge
J. Barr, Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures
University of Manchester
Perer ACKROYD, Samuel Davidson Professor of Old Testament Studies
University of London
Fioyp V. Fixson, Professor of New Testament Literature and History
McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago
G. Ernest Wricur, Professor of Old Testament History and Theology
at Harvard University ;
 STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Second Series - 6

THE PRAYERS OF JESUS

JOACHIM JEREMIAS

hac Rh. ALLENSON, INC.

635 EAST OGDEN AVENUE
NAPERVILLE, ILL.
 uw wl! het 4 7 uke

is
Chapters I and IV translated by John Bowden, and Chapter II by
Dr Christoph Burchard in G6ttingen, from the German Abba. Studien
zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, Géttingen 1966), pp. 15-67 (‘Abba’), 67-80 (‘Das tagliche
Gebet im Leben Jesu und in der 4ltesten Kirche’), 145-52 (‘Kenn-
zeichen der ipsissima vox Jesu’).
Chapter III, with some revision, reprinted by kind permission of
Fortress Press, Philadelphia, from The Lora’s Prayer, Facet Books,
Biblical Series, 8, translated by John Reumann (Philadelphia 1964,
1966) (German original: Das Vater-Unser im Lichte der neueren Forschung,
Calwer Hefte 50, Stuttgart, Calwer Verlag, 1962 = 31965, also in
Abba, pp. 152-171).

FIRST PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH IN THIS EDITION 1967

© CHAPTERS: Io lleANDELY = GMEPRIES Si isd 1967
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
ROBERT CUNNINGHAM AND SONS LTD
ALVA
 CONTENTS

Preface
Abbreviations
I Abba
1. God as ‘Father’ in the Old Testament
2. God as ‘Father’ in ancient Palestinian Judaism
(i) The evidence
(ii) The meaning
3. Jesus
A. ‘Father’ as a title for God in the sayings of Jesus
(i) The tradition
(ii) The significance of the title ‘Father’ for God in
the sayings of Jesus
(2) The Father (without personal pronoun)
(6) Your Father
(c) My Father
B. ‘Father’ as an address in the prayers of Jesus
(i) The tradition
(ii) The significance of ‘Abba’ as an address to God
II Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive
Church
II The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research
1. The Lord’s Prayer in the Ancient Church
2. The Earliest Text of the Lord’s Prayer
(a) The two forms
(b) The original form
3. The Meaning of the Lord’s Prayer
(a) The address ‘Dear Father’ (abba)
(b) The two “Thou-petitions’
(c) The two ‘We-petitions’
(d) The conclusion: the Petition for Preservation
IV Appendix: Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Selected Biblical References E27

5
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2023 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/prayersofjesusOO00unse_m1d1
 PREFACE

A LARGE collection of articles by Professor Jeremias was pub-

lished by Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in 1966 under the title
Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte. As
well as older work, it contained two fresh studies, one of them of
considerable length. For various reasons, it has proved impracti-
cable to translate the volume as it stands, and in any case some of
its contents are at present readily available in English versions
elsewhere. It did, however, seem important to make available as
soon as possible the two hitherto unpublished studies and two
others, which have a related theme and are of more than purely
specialist interest. A further selection from Abba, to include more
recent work by Professor Jeremias published after the German
volume, is planned for a later date.
Passages from ‘Abba’, the first article, have appeared in con-
densed form in The Central Message of the New Testament (SCM
Press 1965), but the present book is offered to a rather different
audience, and in any case provides an immense amount of docu-
mentation and specific comment which was out of place in the
eatlier work. The four articles of this volume overlap in a few
places; this was not altered so as to keep each article readable by
itself. The final study partly goes beyond the scope of the collec-
tion, but as ‘Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu’? has become
something of a classic of New Testament scholarship, it seemed a
pity to omit it.
The translations come from three different hands, but they have
all been supervised by Professor Jeremias and his assistant, Dr
Christoph Burchard, with their usual meticulous care. Dr Burchard
himself made the translation of the second article.

Bloomsbury Street, Lonaon

November 1966
 “cete
een aweioge 3
tert as cy dew hue site strive Be
esi ‘is os rep Wf eos fies ace pe

Sa fle A oy oh pet) ee re
opr keeS Et brie eOmBEA corr Sak ote
- ures ome rons ae ae) arp eee eet :

- =,
- “al as
; art be | ~
~
ms nr
2 ¢
: ry -
— : My 3 \
~ ans , *
} oat! a
wR

i
‘
*

a * ‘
 ABBREVIATIONS

BFCT Beitrage zur Foérderung christlicher Theologie,

Giitersloh
Billerbeck H. L. Strack-P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, Munich, I 1922,
IT 1924, NI 1926, IV 1928, V 1956, VI 1961
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester
Blass- F, Blass-A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Debrunner- Testament and other Early Christian Literature. A
Funk Translation and Revision of the ninth-tenth German
edition by R. W. Funk, London-Chicago 1961
Charles R. H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Old Testament in English, Oxford 1913; reissued
1963
ei & English Translation
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments, Gottingen
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati, Ohio
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Tubingen
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, Pa.
JOR The Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia, Pa.
NGG Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gottingen
NovT Novum Testamentum, Leiden
NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch, Géttingen
New Testament Studies, Cambridge
J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca,
Paris
Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tabingen
Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses, Paris
Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, Gét-
tingen
Io Abbreviations
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung, Berlin
TWNT G. Kittel (ed.), Theologisches Weérterbuch zum Neuen
Testament, Stuttgart, 1933ff. (The English version
now being prepared and translated by G. W. Bromi-
ley, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1964ff., has virtually the
same pagination)
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Tes-
tament, Tiibingen
ZNW Zeitschrift fir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die
Kunde der alteren Kirche, Giessen, Berlin
LAK Zeitschrift fir Theologie und Kirche, Tabingen
 I
ABBA

I. GOD AS ‘FATHER’ IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

From earliest times, the Near East has been familiar with the
mythological idea that the deity is the father of mankind or of
certain human beings.! Peoples, tribes and families picture them-
selves as being the offspring of a divine ancestor. Particularly, it is
the king, as representing his people, who enjoys a special share of
the dignity and power of a divine father. Whenever the word
‘Father’ is used for a deity in this connection it implies fatherhood
in the sense of unconditional and irrevocable authority.
All this is a mere commonplace in the history of religion. But
it is less well known that from a very early stage the word ‘Father’
as an epithet for the deity also has another connotation. In a
famous Sumerian and Accadian hymn from Ur, the moon god
Nanna, or, by his Accadian name, Sin, is invoked as

Begetter, merciful in his disposing,

who holds in his hand the life of the whole land.?
And it is said of the Sumerian-Babylonian god Ea:
His wrath is like the deluge,
his being reconciled like a merciful father.
For orientals, the word ‘Father’, as applied to God, thus
encompasses, from earliest times, something of what the word
‘Mother’ signifies among us.
Both these aspects of fatherhood, absolute authority and
1W. Marchel, Abba, Pére! La priére du Christ et des Chrétiens (Analecta
Biblica 19), Rome 1963, pp. 9-44.
2 German translation: A. Falkenstein, in: A. Falkenstein-— W. von Soden,
Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (Bibliothek der Alten Welt. Der
Alte Orient), Ztirich-Stuttgatt 1953, p. 223; ET by Ferris J. Stephens, in:
J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament?,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1955, p. 385.
3 yon Soden, op. ci#., p. 298.
II
 £2 The Prayers of Jesus
tenderness, are also characteristic of the Old Testament statements
about God as ‘Father’. God is seldom spoken of as ‘Father’ in the
Old Testament, in fact only fifteen times.* By being called ‘Father’,
God is honoured as the Creator:
Is not he your father, who created you,
who made you and established you? (Deut. 32.6)
Have we not all one father?
Has not one God created us? (Mal, 2.10)5

As the Creator, God is the Lord. His will prevails. He can

expect to be honoured by obedience.® On the other hand, the
epithet ‘Father’ is also used to praise God for his tenderness:
As a father pities his children,
so the Lord pities those who fear him.
For he knows our frame;
he remembers that we are dust. (Ps. 103.13f.)”

Tt is quite obvious that the Old Testament reflects the ancient

oriental concept of divine fatherhood. Still, there are fundamental
differences. Not the least of them is that in the Old Testament,
God the Father and Creator is not thought of as ancestor or
progenitor. There is nothing in the Old Testament comparable to
an address like
O father begetter of gods and men;

a passage such as Ps. 2.7 which states that God has ‘begotten’ an
individual, the king, refers to an act of adoption rather than to any
physical relationship. It is even more important that in the Old
EDeutes2 Geel oaniegata ipatwly Chrome.3362 2.16re2 s10) eb smOsess
89.26; Isa. 63.16 (bis); 64.8; Jer. 3.4, 19; 31.9; Mal. 1.6; 2.10. (These are only
the passages in which God is ca//ed ‘Father’, not those in which he is compared
with an earthly father (e.g. Deut. 1.31; 8.5; Ps. 103.13 ; Prov. 3.12) ot in which
Israel is called his son (e.g. Hos. 11.1) or his firstborn (e.g. Ex. 4.22). The
actual use of the title ‘Father’ for God seems to have been more widespread
than these examples show, as is suggested by personal names which contain
AN as a theophorous element (ANP SWAIN, cf. the sutvey in Marchel,
op. cit., pp. 27f.). Non-Israelite influences may have had some effect here (cf.
‘Father’ as an address to a foreign god in Jer. 2.27).
5 Cf, also Isa. 64.8f. (see below, p. 14).
6 Deut. 14.1; Mal. 1.6 etc. (see below, p. 14).
7 Cf. also ‘father of the fatherless’ (Ps. 68.5).
8 In the hymn to the moon-god cited above (Falkenstein, op. cit., p. 2233;
Pritchard, ANET, p. 385).
 Abba 13
Testament, divine fatherhood is related to Israel alone in a quite
unparalleled manner. Israel has a particular relationship to God.
Israel is God’s first-born, chosen out of all peoples (Deut. 14.1f.).
Moses is to tell Pharaoh:
Israel is my first-born son. (Ex. 4.22)
In Jer.31.9,, we tind:
For I am a father to Israel,
and Ephraim is my first-born.
The decisively new factor here is that the election of Israel as
God’s first-born has been made manifest 7” @ historical action, the
Exodus from Egypt.° Combining God’s fatherhood with a
historical action involves a profound revision of the concept of
God as Father. The certainty that God is Father and Israel his son
is grounded not in mythology but in a unique act of salvation by
God, which Israel had experienced in history. Down the centuries,
Israel’s sonship on this basis has been felt to be Israel’s greatest
privilege. Paul, too, mentions EISSN first among God’s
gracious gifts to Israel, in Rom. 9.4: dv 7% viobecia.
It was not, however, until the prophets that the concept of God a
_as Father gainedits full significance in the Old Testament, that the
profundity of the relationship and the seriousness of the demands
contained in it were brought out. Again and again, the prophets
|

ate obliged to say that Israel repays God’s fatherly love with
constant ingratitude. Most of the prophetic statements about God
as Father passionately and emphatically point to the obvious
contradiction between Israel’s sonship and its godlessness.
Have you (Israel) not just now called to me,
‘My father, thou art the friend of my youth—
will he be angry for ever,
and will he be indignant to the end?’
Behold, you have spoken,
but you have done all the evil that you could. (Jer. 3.4f.)
I thought how I would set you (Israel) among my sons
and give you a pleasant land...
And I thought you would call me ‘My Father’,
and would not turn from following me.
But surely ... you have been faithless to me, O house of Israel,
says the Lord. (Jer. 3.19f.)
Vsar G2 1Os ets 3.19; LOS. 11.1.
 14 The Prayers of Jesus
fr So Israel is put on trial.
His children have dealt corruptly with him...
they are a perverse and crooked generation.
Do you thus requite the Lord,
you foolish and senseless people?
Is not he your father, who created you,
who made you and established you? (Deut. 32.5f.)
Have we not all one father?
Has not one God created us?
Why then are we faithless to one another,
profaning the covenant of our fathers? (Mal. 2.10)
A son honours his father,
and a servant his master.
If then I am a father, where is my honour?
and if I am a master, where is my fear? (Mal. 1.6)
Israel’s constant answer to this call to repentance is the cry:
Thou art my (or: our) father TAN GD "AN
In Third Isaiah, this cry, which is obviously a stereotyped
phrase because it occurs several times and in different contexts,10
is elaborated into a final appeal for God’s mercy and forgiveness:
Look down from heaven and see,
from thy holy and glorious habitation.
Where are thy zeal and thy might?
The yearning of thy heart and thy compassion?
Do not withhold from me,
for thou art our Father,
though Abraham does not know us
and Israel does not acknowledge us;
thou, O Lord, art our Father,
‘our Redeemer’ from of old is thy name. (Isa. 63.15f.)
Yet, O Lord, thou art our Father;
we are the clay, and thou art our potter;
we are all the work of thy hand.
Be not exceedingly angry, O Lord,
and remember not iniquity for ever. (Isa. 64.8f.)
God always answers this appeal of Israel with forgiveness.
Hos. 11.1-11 draws a touching picture of this. God is compared
to a father who taught his little son Ephraim to walk and carried
him in his arms:
19 With "AN: Jer. 3.4; Ps. 89.26 (see below, p. 21); cf. Jer. 2.27; with
WAN: Isa. 63.16 (bis); 64.8 (see below, p. 24).
 Abba 15
Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them up in my arms...
How can I give you up, O Ephraim!
How can I hand you over, O Israel! (Hos. 11.3, 8)
The prophet Jeremiah expresses God’s forgiveness in the most
moving way. Here God is appealing to his ungrateful people, who
have broken faith with him despite all the tokens of his grace:
_Return, O faithless sons,
~~ II will heal your faithlessness. (Jer. 3.22)
With weeping they shall come,
and with consolations I will lead them back,
I will make them walk by brooks of water,
in a straight path in which they shall not stumble;
for I am a father to Israel,
and Ephraim is my first-born. (Jer. 31.9)
God’s fatherly mercy exceeds all human comprehension and
must prevail:
Is Ephraim my dear son?
Is he my darling child? .
Therefore my heart yearns for him;
I must have mercy on him, says the Lord. (Jer. 31.20)
This is the Old Testament’s final word about the divine father-
hood: God’s incomprehensible mercy and forgiveness must be
exercised.
2. GOD AS ‘FATHER’ IN ANCIENT PALESTINIAN JUDAISM!
(1) The evidence
Although one still frequently comes across the assertion that
‘Father’ was a common designation for God in the Judaism of the
time of Jesus,” there is no evidence for it in the sources—at any
rate, those of Palestinian Judaism. On the contrary, there are
amazingly few instances before the New Testament period. God is
described as ‘Father’ in only four passages in the Apocrypha—
that is, those which come from Palestine?—and two of these are
uncertain and should probably be deleted.* Similarly, there are
1T, W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus?, Cambridge 1935 = 1948, pp. 92f.;
G. Schrenk, rarnp A, C-D, TW NT V (i954), p. 977. 28ff.; Marchel, op. cit.,
pp. 83-97.
7 B.g. o V. McCasland, ‘Abba, Father’, JBL 72 (1953), p. 84. His whole
investigation is based on this erroneous ptesupposition.
3 T.e. leaving aside III Macc. 5.7; 6.3, 8; 7.6; Wisdom 2.16; 11.10; 14.3.
+ Tobit 13.4: ‘Because he is our Lord and God: he is our Father for ever.’
Sirach 51.10 (Hebrew): ‘I praised the Lord: Thou art my Father.’ Sirach
23.1, 4 ate doubtful (see below, pp. 28f.).
 16 The Prayers of Jesus
only quite isolated examples in the Pseudepigrapha,* and so far
the Qumran literature has produced only one instance: 1QH 9.35.°
In Pseudo-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, God is never
addressed or described as ‘Father’ and is not even compared with
a father.”
There are rather more instances in Rabbinic literature. This
development is evidently connected with the emergence of a new
vocabulary. Johanan b. Zakkai, a contemporary of the apostles,
who taught ¢. AD 50-80, seems to be the first to use the designation
‘heavenly Father’ (‘our heavenly Father’, or ‘Israel’s heavenly
Father’) for God; it is associated with him twice.® That does not,
of course, mean that Johanan himself coined this phrase; the
extent to which it occurs in the gospel tradition (Mark 11.25;
Matt. 20 times; cf. Luke 11.13, see below, p. 37; Gospel of the
Nazareans, see below, p. 34) suggests the contrary. But Johanan
may well have had a decisive influence in the introduction of the
popular phrase? into theological language. It is certainly not a
coincidence that the considerable increase in the use of the
5 Jub. 1.24f., 28 (see below, pp. 20f.); 19.29 (see below, p. 21, n. 37). There
is a suspicionthat Test. Levi. 18.6 (fwv7 matpixy) and Test. Juda 24.2 (e€xyéat
mvedua evAoylav matpos ayiov) may be Christian.
S'See belowsap. 19.
7 Report by Pastor Dr C. Dietzfelbinger (Letter of 5 June 1964).
8 Mek, Ex. on 20.25 par. Siphra Lev. on 20.16 and Tos. B.O. 7.7 (358.16f.,
here anonymous). The stones of the altar ‘create peace between (the) Israel
(ites) and DOWAY OMAN’; Tos. Hag. 2.1 (234.2-6) pat.7.Hag. 2.774. 52-54:
‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who has given our father Abraham
a son (viz. Eleazar b. Arak) who can study and understand the glory of IWAN
yaa war
9It might be supposed that the description of God as ‘heavenly’ father
came from children’s language. Jn itself, such a theory is quite possible, but
there is no evidence for it outside the New Testament. P. Winter, “Le 2.49
and Targum Yerushalmi’, ZNW 45 (1954), pp. 145-79 (and an addendum,
ZNW 46, 1955, pp. 140f.), thought that he could demonstrate that children
had been taught to speak of God as their father before Jesus and his time,
and referred to Targ. Jerus. II (Fragment Targum) Ex. 15.2, which says that
after the Exodus, infants at the breast made signs to their fathers and called to
them: JAN Nit PT (God), and to Luke 2.49, where the twelve year old
Jesus speaks of remaining év tots tod matpos wou. But the clause 73
JNAN NIT in Targ. Jerus. I Ex. 15.2 is hardly as ancient as Winter claims, as the
whole passage about the infants is lacking in Cod. Paris. 110, which M. Gins-
burger used as the basis for his edition of the Fragment Targum (Berlin 1899).
Moreover, as Dr B. Schaller reports, Targ. Neofiti I Ex. 15.2 does not have it
either in the text or in the marginalia. The passage is thus undoubtedly a
decorative addition.
 Abba 17
designation ‘heavenly Father’ in the tradition of the words of
Jesus, as it is reflected in the Gospel of Matthew, comes at the
time when Johanan was most active (50-80); the tradition which
Matthew took over was moulded in the decades before ap 80.
The new terminology soon found acceptance. It recurs in the great
teachers at the end of the first century: Gamaliel II,!° Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus!' and Eleazar b. Azariah,!? and throughout the following
period.'? Wherever the Rabbis speak of God as ‘Father’, they regularly
add the complement ‘heavenly’ (literally, ‘who (is) in heaven’)"*; it
also finds its way into the Fragment Targum'> and the Kaddish.'6
There can, however, be no question of saying that ‘heavenly
Father’ had become the predominant designation for God. Two
things speak against that. First, the relative sparsity of occurrences
continues. There are only seven in the Mishnah, eleven in the
Tosephta,’’? four in Mek. Ex.,!® five in Siphra Lev.,!9 and none at
all in Gen. Rabbah.*° In the Targum on the Prophets there is, indeed,
a marked reluctance to apply the title ‘Father’ to God*!: "AN in the
Old Testament is twice rendered as "112'0”? and in other passages
10 Thus at least in the late Midr. Esth. 1.1: The cause of the persecution in
the days of Ahasuerus (= Xerxes) was that ‘the beloved sons angered their
heavenly Father’ (the name of Gamaliel is missing in the parallel, Midr. Abba
Gorion, beginning, Billerbeck I, p. 219).
1 Sotah 9.15: “On whom can we depend? (Only) on our Father in heaven’;
Midr. Ps. 25 §13 (ed. Buber, Wilna, 1891, p. 214) on 25.14: ‘May it be
pleasing before our heavenly Father.’
12 Sipbra Lev. on 20.26: ‘My Father in heaven so provided for me.’
13R, Ishmael (died 135) and his pupils: R. Akiba (died after 135); R.
Simeon b. Yohai (¢c. 150); R. Eliezer b. Jose (¢. 150); R. Nathan (. 160);
R. Phineas b. Jair (¢. 180); R. Simeon b. Eleazar (¢. 190); R. Judah b. Tema
(uncertain, before 200). This list, which is based on the investigations by
A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, 1, London 1927, pp. 56-62,
136, should be complete for the Tannaitic period. Notice that a relatively
small number of teachers use the phrase ‘heavenly Father’; notice, too, that
we have only one, or at most two, instances for each of the persons named.
1¢ Billerbeck I, p. 393.
TD AES, SG: IIE, OSG), PUB AGO
16 The petition for prayers to be heard NIWA RNIN OF is an expansion;
cf. I. Elbogen, Der jidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung,
Frankfurt 1931 = *Hildesheim 1962, p. 94.
17 This does not include two passages (Ta‘an. 3.8 (see below, n. 48) and
Tos. Men. 7.9 (522.8)) in which God is compared with an earthly father.
18 Marmorstein, op. cit., pp. 121f. (also a fifth passage, a varia Jectio).
ENO}, GHicn 0 WES 10's ASE MW OVO Gin Jb WANE.
21 G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1, ET, Edinburgh 1902, p. 191; Marchel,
op. cit., pp. r10f.
22 Targ. Jer. 3.4, 19.
Pj B
18 The Prayers ofJesus
WAX in the Old Testament is paraphrased metaphorically.?%
Outside normative Judaism—for example in the Hebrew [III]
Enoch—it is quite unheard of for God to be spoken of as Father
after the New Testament period. Titles which describe God’s
power and holiness stand in the foreground. Secondly, a frequent
use of this particular title is made unlikely by the fact that when
the designation ‘heavenly Father’ is used, the sense of the words is
always remembered, which is not the case with other periphrases
of the divine name.

(it) The meaning

With very few exceptions, two convictions, both connected
with the message of the prophets, are expressed in any mention of
the Fatherhood of God. First to be felt is the obligation to obey God,
and in practice that means adherence to the Torah. A few repre-
sentative examples out of many may be cited. Eleazar b. Azariah
(¢. AD 100) taught:
Do not say: ‘I have no desire to wear (clothing made of different
sorts of stuff), to eat pork, to have intercourse with a woman within the
prohibited degrees (because of incest, Lev. 18.6-18)’, but (say): ‘I do
(indeed) desire these things (but) what shall I do, seeing that my
heavenly Father has prohibited them?’ (Szphra Lev. on 20.26)%
The obligation to obey the heavenly Father even extends to
martyrdom. In an account of Hadrian’s persecution by R. Nathan
(c. 160), we read the following:
Why will you be scourged?... These blows are the occasion of my
being loved by my heavenly father. (Mek, Ex. on 20.6)?°
Only those who are obedient in this way can be certain of God’s
Fatherhood. R. Simeon b. Eleazar (¢. 190) remarks:
23 Targ. Isa. 63.16 (bis); 64.7 (see below, p. 20). Cf. also how Jer. 31.9 ‘For I
am a father to Israel’ is tendered ‘For my memra is like a father to Israel’
(Targ. Jer. 31.9) and Mal. 1.6 ‘If lama father’ is rendered ‘If Iam /ke a father’
(Targ. Mal. 1.6).
24 G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 11, Cam-
bridge 1927, p. 204.
25 Further instances of the obligation to obey the heavenly Father: Pirk.
Ab, 5.20 (see below, p. 22); Ki/. 9.8; Tos. Kil. 5.21 (80.26); Tos. Dem. 2.9
(47.29-48.1); Pesik. R. 27; Midr. Esth. 1.1 (see above, p. 17, n. 10) etc.
26 The parallel passages Lev, R. 32 on 24.10 and Midr. Ps. 12 §5 (ed.
Buber, Wilna 1891, pp. 108f.) on Ps. 12.9 give R. Nehemiah (¢. 150) as the
author.
 Abba 19
Anyone who wears clothes of different sorts of stuff ‘transgresses and
makes his Father in heaven transgress’.27
R. Eleazar b. Jose (¢. 180) says:
All good deeds and works of love which the Israelites have practised
in this world are great peace(makers) and great advocates between
them and their heavenly Father.?8
And there is an anonymous saying:
Although all things are the work of my hands, I will reveal myself
as father and maker only to him who does my will.?9
These passages clearly show that fulfilling the Torah brings a
man near to God, makes him a child of God, and that disobeying
the Torah alienates the child from his father. There are, however,
objections to this attitude:
R. Judah (¢. 150) said:
If you behave like children,
you are called children;
If you do not behave like children,
you are not called children.

But R. Meir (¢. 150) said:

Rither way—you are called children.?°
For R. Meir, sin cannot dissolve the relationship in which man
is a child of God. But his is just one isolated voice. The dominant
thought is that God is the father of the righteous; ideas of merit
obscure the idea of the father.
The use of the name ‘Father’ for God in Palestinian Judaism
expresses a second certainty: God is the one who helps in time of
need; he is the only helper, when no-one else can help. One
example of this is the text from the Qumran literature to which
reference has already been made, 1QH 9.35f.:
My father knows me not
and in comparison with thee my mother has abandoned me.
But thou art a father to all [the sons] of thy truth
and as a woman who tenderly loves her babe
so dost thou rejoice in them:
and as a foster-father bearing a child in his lap,
so carest thou for all thy creatures.
27 Kil, 9.8. 28 >, B.B. 10a (Bat.) par. Tos. Pea 4.21 (24.31-25.3).
29 Bx, R. 46 on 34.1.
30 b, Qid. 36a (Bar.). Cf. also Moore, op. cit., p. 203, n. 4.
20 The Prayers of Jesus
With God the ‘true sons’—and, of course, only they—are safe, as
with father and mother. And R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (¢. 90) ends
his lament at religious decline since the destruction of the Temple
with the question:
On whom can we depend?
(Only) on our heavenly Father.*}

God’s goodness is especially expressed in his fatherly forgive-

ness. R. Meir (¢. 150)3 has the prophet Jeremiah speaking in God’s
name to Israel like this:
My sons, if you return,
will you not return to your Father ?35

God’s mercy towards Israel is greater than that of an earthly

father:
Thou att he whose mercy towards us is greater than that of a father
towards his sons.**

This mercy must also be the standard for the conduct of the sons:
Be merciful on earth,
as our Father in heaven is merciful.35

Here we cannot fail to recognize the nucleus of the message of the

prophets, even if it is embedded in legalistic thought.
On the other hand, there are only quite isolated hints of the
elements of the prophetic message which speak of God as Father
in the future, as in Hosea 1.10 (‘It shall be said to them, ‘‘Sons of
the living God’’’) and the prophecy of Nathan in II Sam. 7.14
(‘I will be his father and he shall be my son’). These are echoed,
for example, in Jub. 1.24: ‘I will be their father and they shall be
31 Sotah 9.15.
32 He has just been mentioned in connection with an analogous statement.
33 Deut. R. 2.24 on 4.30, Further instances: Yoma 8.9 (‘R. Akiba said,
“Happy are you Israel! Who is it before whom you become clean? And who
is it that makes you clean? Your heavenly father.” ’ See Ezek. 36.25; Jer.
17.13); Rosh. Hash. 3.8; Mek. Ex. on 15.25; Ex. R. 21 0n 14.153; 46 on 34.1;
Midr. Esth. on 4.17; Targ. Jerus. I Ex. 1.19; Deut. 28.32; Targ. Jerus. II Ex.
1.19; Num. 21.9 etc.
34 Targ. Isa. 63.16, cf. 64.7.
35 Targ. Jerus. I Lev, 22.28, an exact parallel to Luke 6.36, which suggests
that it is an ancient saying (M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and
Acts?, Oxford 1954, p. 138). But/. Ber. 5.9c.21 reads ‘I’ for ‘our Father’ and
#, Meg. 4.75c.12 has ‘we’.
 Abba 21
my children’; 25: ‘they shall know that these are my children, and
that I am their father in uprightness and righteousness, and that
I love them’; 28: ‘all shall know that I am the God of Israel and
the father of all the children of Jacob.’ There seem to be no
eschatological connotations at all to ‘Father’ as a divine title in
Rabbinic literature.
What new features are there here which are not to be found in
the Old Testament ?It is perhaps most significant that God is now
repeatedly spoken of as the father of the individual Israelite, in
other words, that the relationship with God the Father is also
understood to be a personal one. In the Old Testament, the
relationship is always between God and Israel. The only excep-
tion is when from time to time the king is said to have a personal
relationship to God, as his father:
I will be his father (II Sam. 7.14)
He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father,
my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ (Ps. 89.28)?6
When God is spoken of as Father in Palestinian Judaism, the
saying is predominantly understood in a collective sense. God is
the father of Israel, his covenant people, and the Israelites are his
sons: éva matépa eyopev Tov Oedv say the Jews in John 8.41.37 But
alongside this we now have repeated sayings which relate the
individual to God. The first is probably Sirach 51.10, where the
person who prays calls INN "AN; after this it occurs in phrases
36 Cf, also Ps. 2.7 and the parallels to II Sam. 7.14 (see above, p. 12, n. 4).
—Of course, there are two other examples of the appeal to God ‘You are my
Father’ in the Old Testamc..: as well as Ps. 89.27, at Jer. 2.27 and 3.4 (see
above, p. 14); but a personification of the people is the subject of both
passages, so that the sense is roughly the same as “Thou art our father’, Isa.
63.163; 64.8 (see p. 14).
37In Jub. 19.29, Abraham blesses his grandson Jacob with the words:
‘And may the Lord God be a father to thee and thou the first-born son, and
to the people alway.’ In Tobit’s hymn of praise (Tobit 13.4) we have: adrds
Tathp hav eis mavras Tovs aidvas and in Jos., Antt. 5.93: 6 Jeds, marHp
Kat deamré77s Tod ‘EBpaiwv yévous. Thete is often the significant phrase, ‘(the)
Israel(ites) and their Father in heaven’ (see above, p. 16, n. 8); Mek. Ex. on
20.25 par. Tos. B.Q. 7.6f. (358.13f., 16f.); Tos. Shab. 13 [14]. 5 (129.9) par.
b. Shab. 116a (Bar.); Tos. Shek. 1.6 (174.8). The JNANX which Targ. Jerus. I
Deut. 6.4 inserts into the credo which is to be prayed each day is also a signifi-
cant one: ‘Hear, Israel, our father, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one’ (ed.
M. Ginsburger, Berlin 1903, p. 313.4). See also p. 16, n. 8 (second quotation).
Further passages in Schrenk, op. cit., p. 978, n. 206.
38 See below, p. 23, n. 51.
22 The Prayers of Jesus
like ‘his heavenly father’ or, quite rarely,?9 ‘your heavenly
Father’4? and ‘my heavenly Father’. Here are two examples:
R. Judah b. Tema (exact date unknown, but before 200) used to
say:
Be as bold as a leopard,
as swift as an eagle,
as fleeting as a gazelle,
and as brave as a lion,
to do the will of your Father in heaven.*?
R. Nathan (¢. 160), or, according to others, R. Nehemiah (same
period) says in an account of the martyrs of Hadrian’s persecution
(its conclusion has already been quoted on p. 18):
Why do you go out to be killed?
Because I circumcised sons of Israel.
Why do you go out to be burnt?
Because I read in the Law.
Why do you go out to be crucified?
Because I ate unleavened bread.
Why will you be scourged?
Because I received the festal bunch (at the Feast of Tabernacles)
(cf. Zech. 13.6).
These blows are the occasion of my being loved
by my heavenly father.
This personal reference to God as the heavenly Father repre-
sented an essential deepening of the relationship with God. Of
course we must not forget that the instances are few (‘my heavenly
Father’ occurs in only two passages, see above, n. 41)** and that
the phrase D’72VIWV "IN (Hebrew!) did not have the same
familiar sound that ‘my heavenly Father’ has for us. In the col-
39 Tos. Hull. 2.24 (503.20f., referring to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, c. 90); Siphra
Deut. 48 on 11.22 (said by R. Simeon b. Yohai, ¢. 150; acc. to Yalkut Ha-makiri
on Prov. 23.13 said by R. Simeon b. Menasya, ¢. 180); K#/. 9.8 par. Tos. Ki/. 5.21
(80.25, R. Simeon b. Eleazar, ¢. 190); Gen. KR. 71 on 29.32 (R. Jose b. Hanina,
¢. 270); anon.: b. Ber. 30a; Targ. Jerus. II Num. 21.9; Targ. Esth. II 1.1 etc.
40 Pirk. Ab. 5.20 (quoted in what follows). In the New Testament, Matthew
alone offers an analogy to this ‘thy Father’ (6.4, 6, 18). 7. Ma‘as. 3.50c.11
‘yout heavenly Father’ (plural) also properly belongs here (said to two
individual Israelites).
1 Mek, Ex. on 20.6 (par. Lev. R. 32 on 24.10; Midr. Ps. 12 §5); Sipbra Lev.
on 20.26 (both passages are quoted here and on p. 18): O’QWAY AN. (For
Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah 28 see below, p. 28, n. 65).
42 Pirk. Ab. 5.20 par. b. Pes. 112a (Bar.).
43 Mek, Ex. on 20.6 (see above, p. 18, n. 26).
‘4 Marchel, op. cit., p. 90, says quite wrongly: ‘ces affirmations sont assez
fréquentes’.
 Abba 23
loquial language of Palestine, "8 had entirely given way to NAN,
both in Aramaic and in Hebrew.*> One can see this in the Mishnah:
NAN is always used for ‘my father’, and never "2N*6; the same is
true, with one exception,*? for the Tosephta. In the title "2N
D°7AWAWV, not only theaddition ‘who is in heaven’ butalso the form
"AN, which is obsolete, and so has a time-honoured and solemn
sound, express the distance which was still felt to exist between
God and man even where God was described as ‘my Father’.
Similarly, there is no trace in Palestine*® of the tendency, which is
noticeable in Hellenistic Judaism,*® to elaborate the child-father
relationship between man and God and to make it a subjective
one in an almost sentimental way. When the individual calls
God his heavenly Father, it is always because God is the
heavenly Father of Israel and because the individual knows that he
is a member of the people of God.5°
Once the divine fatherhood is understood in a personal way, it
follows that God can be addressed directly as ‘Father’ in prayers.
There are only mere suggestions of God being addressed as
‘Father’ in the Old Testament. Of course, the cry AN "AN
(Ps. 89.27 as the prerogative of the king; Sirach 51.10, Heb.*) and
45 See below, pp. 58f.
46 G. Kittel, Die Religionsgeschichte und das Urchristentum, Gitersloh 1932,
pp. 92ff.
47 Tos. Sheb. 5.6 (452.1), MSS Erfurt and Vienna; the printed editions have
NIN here as well.
48 In Palestine, there ate at best hints of a more familiar use of the name
‘father’. J. Leipoldt, Das Gotteserlebnis Jesu im Lichte der vergleichenden Religions-
geschichte, Leipzig 1927, p. 5, refers to Test. Levi 17.2, which says of the priest
of the first jubilee (Moses ?) that he will speak with God “as with a father’ and
to the prayer for rain by Onias the Circle-maker (see p. 61) Ta‘an. 3.8:
‘Master of the world, thy children have turned their faces to me, for that Iam
like a son of the house before thee.’
*9 Cf. e.g. Joseph and Aseneth 12. 14f. (edgy Pe: Batiffol, Studia Patristica, Paris
1889- 90, p. 56. 19f.): ov povos el, KUple, ma77p yrucds Kat ayalos Kat ém-
exns. Tis yap Erepos 7aT7)p yAvKos Kal ayablos ws at, KUpre; also 12.8 (p.
55-18tf.): Aseneth compares God with a father who takes his small child into
his arms whenever it is frightened and holds it to his breast, and prays God to
take her in his arms.
50 The cosmo-genealogical use of the title ‘Father’ which can be found in
Philo, for example, is alien to Palestinian Judaism proper (cf. A. Schlatter,
Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus, BFCT II 26, Giitersloh
1932, pp. 24f.; Schrenk, op. cit., p. 978).
51 Sirach 51.10 Heb.: ‘And I praised Yahweh (saying), ““Thou art my
father; thou att the mighty one of my salvation.” ’ This cry derives from
Ps. 89. 26 (see p. 21); the , Septuagint translation is very strange: émexade-
odpnv Kvpiov Tarépa Kupiov pov, and is presumably influenced by Ps. 110.1.
 24 The Prayers of Jesus
the people’s lament MANX WA (Isa. 64.7 and 63.16 (bis) with the
words in revetse order), or once in the singular "IYI YPN "aN
DN (‘My father, thou art the friend of my youth’, Jer. 3.4), come
very near to addressing God as ‘Father’, but in every case we have
a statement, and not a vocative.*? True, there is a vocative in the
divine reproach in Jer. 3.19: ‘And I thought you would call me,
My Father, and would not turn from following me’, but we
should not fail to notice that the saying does not blame Israel for
failing to call God Father but, as the parallel clause and the context
show, for denying that it is a child. The fact that one looks in vain
for God to be addressed as Father anywhere in the Psalter or in
any other prayer in the Old Testament shows how careful we
must be in arguing from any of the passages which have been
cited.*3 David’s hymn of praise in I Chron. 29.10: AX YIN
n2iY- TY) OVD IAN PNW? TPN TT? does not belong
here at all. For we should not follow the LXX in translating it:
Blessed be thou, Yahweh, God of Israel, our father,
from eternity to eternity,
but translate it:
Blessed be thou, Yahweh, God of our ancestor Israel,5*
from eternity to eternity.
We first meet the title ‘Father’ as a direct address in prayer in
ancient Judaism; but there are only isolated instances in Palestine.
In the Diaspora there are rather more. By and large other titles for
God are far more frequent in Jewish prayers. From the first two
centuries AD we can mention with certainty on/y two prayers from
Palestine which address God as Father. The oldest example is
likely to be the prayer 1.27 1As18 (the second of the two benedic-
tions which introduced the morning S¢ma‘), which had probably
°2 It is not clear whether "AX is a statement or a vocative in Jer. 3.4. Com-
parisons with Isa. 63.16; 64.7 on the one hand, and Jer. 2.27 on the other?
suggest that it is a statement. So too LXX.
53 This restraint may possibly be connected with the fact that the cry
NOX AN had undesirable overtones, as Jer. 2.27 shows: ‘... who say toa
tree NNN "AN and to a stone, “You gave me birth” ’, cf. G. Quell, zarjp B,
TWNT V (1954), p. 967.
54 Cf. Joseph and Aseneth 8.9 (p. 49.18f. Batiffol): Kpue 6 Beds Tod marpds
pov *Iapana.
 Abba 25
been part of the ancient priests’ liturgy, used in temple worship,
before thats; it runs:
Our Father, our King (11977) 1.3),
for the sake of our fathers,
who trusted upon thee
and whom thou taughtest the statutes of life—
have mercy upon us and teach us.°6
The Litany for the New Year uses the same address; with an
impressive monotony, all its verses begin 1377) IWAN. Although
this Litany was later extended in many places, we can see the
extreme age of its basic material, as R. Akiba (died after ap 135)
quotes its beginning and its end during a drought:
Our Father, our king,
we have no other king but thee;
our father, our king,
for thine own sake have mercy upon us.57
55 The facts about the use of 11 MANN in the Temple are very compli-
cated. The question is what is meant by the ‘praise’ (no further details are
given) which the priests spoke at the daily morning service in the Temple
before the recitation of the Decalogue and the Sema‘ according to Tam. 5.1.
Mar Samuel (died 254) says in b. Ber. 11b that this praise was the 729 NAAN;
but in 7. Ber. 1. 3.24, 34 the tradition is that Samuel taught that it was the
‘Torah benediction’. This could refer to the so-called “Benediction over the Torah’
(text in Billerbeck I, p. 397), but probably refers to 7.2) MANN as characterized
by its content (I. Elbogen, Studien zur Geschichte des jiidischen Gottesdienstes,
Berlin 1907, pp. 17f., 25; éd. Der jidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Ent-
wicklung’, Frankfurt 1931 = *Hildesheim 1962, p. 25; Billerbeck IV, p. 192,
n.1). Samuel’s contemporary R. Simeon b. Lakish puts forward a different view
about the ‘praise’ of Tam. 5.1; his opinion is that it refers to the prayer
IN ISP (b. Ber. 11b). The texts are collected in Billerbeck I, pp. 397f. The
Babylonian Talmud opts for 139 MANN at b. Ber. 11b, and most modern
scholars accept this (Elbogen, Der jidische Gottesdienst, ibid.; Billerbeck IV,
p- 192, n. 1; I. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus*, Cambridge 1935 = 1948,
mO2)e
Pay Sader Sephath Emeth, ed. W. B. Heidenheim, Rédelheim 1886 (cited
from now on as Heidenheim), p. 17a.13f. According to L. Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge der Juden®, Frankfurt-M. 1892, pp. 382f., the words
which come immediately afterwards: ‘Our Father, merciful Father, have
mercy upon us...’ (p. 17a.14f.) are a later addition.
57 b, Ta‘an. 25b. In view of all that we know about the regularity of liturgi-
cal usage, it is erroneous to conclude that the litany developed out of R.
Akiba’s prayer (so P. Fiebig, Rosch ha-schana, Giessen 1914, p. 62; Elbogen,
Der jiidische Gottesdienst, pp. 147, 276). On the contrary, R. Akiba is quoting
the beginning and end of a litany which is already in use (thus K. G. Kuhn,
Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim, WUNT 1, Tubingen 1950, p. 9).
H. Kosmala, Hebraer—Essener—Christen (Studia post-biblica 1), Leiden 1959,
p. 191, n. 3, also rightly concludes that the prayer ‘in its simplest form goes
back at least to the first century AD, and may be even older’.
26 The Prayers of Jesus
It is clear that both instances are liturgical passages; it is the
community which calls upon God as ‘our Father’. Moreover, in
both instances IWIN is connected with 133%: the father to
whom the community prays is thus the heavenly king.
God is often addressed as D977) WAN again at a later date, in
particular in the ‘prayers of imploration’ (Tabanunim) with which daily
morning prayer ends, passages which come from different times and
which have been altered in different ways, but which even in their oldest
form can hardly be as old as the two examples which have been quoted.°®
Otherwise, there is a simple JIN in several petitions of the Eighteen
Benedictions; this, however, is always an addition,°9 as is the ION
IPAN in the third benediction of the grace after meals.°°
But the two prayers which have just been quoted are by no
means the only evidence for the antiquity of the use of the
address ‘Father’ to God in prayer. In investigating a form of
address used in prayer we must not limit ourselves to dating the
prayers in which it occurs; we must also take into consideration
the fact that forms of address in prayer stand in a liturgical tradi-
tion and can therefore be older than the particular prayer in which
they appear. This could also be true of the address O°7VAV IWAN.
True, it appears only ina few Jewish prayers of quite a late date,®
but the address in the Matthaean version of the Lord’s Prayer
(6.9: mdtep judy 6 ev Tots odpavots) Shows that it was used as early
as the first century ap. On the other hand, the address IN
58 Heidenheim, pp. 23bff.; on this question see Elbogen, Der jidische
Gottesdienst, pp. 73-81.
59 Marchel, op. cit., p. 86, has not noticed this. The address 12948 occurs
(a) in the fourth benediction (Pal.), but not in the Babylonian recension,
(d) in the fifth benediction (Bab.), but not in the Palestinian recension, (¢) in
the sixth benediction (Pal. and Bab.), but here the way in which it spoils the
rhyme shows that it is an addition. Furthermore, the address IPAN does not
appear in any of the three cases in the Eighteen Benedictions as quoted in
Jj. Ber. 4d.52ff. (though there, of course, they are in an abbreviated form).
Thus the address is an addition in all three benedictions (Kuhn, op. cit.,
pp. 13-5). In the Siddur according to the German rite, the address has also
found its way into the nineteenth benediction (Bab.), cf. G. Dalman, Dée
Worte Jesu, 1', Leipzig 1898, appendix ‘Messianic texts’, p. 304, n. 3.
60 L, Finkelstein, “The Birkat Ha-Mazon’, JOR 19 (1928-9), pp. 211-62;
J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, ET*, London 1966, p. 110, n. 12.
61 B.g. in the late (Elbogen, op. cit., p. 92) section XIN ANN from the
morning prayers (Heidenheim, p. 3b.2f.); in a late introduction to the Hymn
of Moses (G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1’, Leipzig 1930, p. 296, Aramaic);
several times in the still later (see below, p. 28) Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah (ed.
Friedmann, Vienna 1902), ch. 7 (p. 33.2); ch. 18 (#er) (pp. 112.18, 213 115.6);
also in the Warsaw edition, 1883: ch. 21 (p. 188.5).
 Abba 27
O°793711,6?which a similar argument (cf. II Cor. 1.3) proves to be
an ancient one,® does not belong here; in this case God is not
addressed as ‘Father’, with the genitive characterizing the
‘Father’ as being merciful, but ‘Father’ is a specifying word, by
which a property is attributed to someone as his dominant
characteristic: “Thou embodiment of mercy.’
The two earliest instances of God being addressed as ‘Father’
ran, “Our Father, our King’. It is most important to discover
whether God is also addressed as ‘my Father’ in early Palestinian
Judaism. It is certain that God was addressed as wdrep in Diaspora
Judaism, ** which followed the example of the Greek world here.

62 The address O95 AX occurs twice in the liturgy which frames the
teading of the Torah, which is still unknown to Talmudic sources (Elbogen,
op. cit., p. 198), namely in the two prayers which begin similarly DANIAN AN
(Heidenheim, p. 274.3 = 53b.28 and p. 554.14); in fact, the second of these
ptayers was only introduced after the Crusades (Elbogen, op. cit., p. 203); it
also occurs in the passage 1795 7 which has been inserted into the second
petition of the Eighteen Benedictions (Heidenheim, p. 19b.5) and is first attested
in the ninth century (Elbogen, op. cit., p. 45); finally, it is used twice in the
Habhdala at the end of the Sabbath in the prayer O°N91YT 7125 (Heidenheim,
p. 90b.2, 17), of uncertain date (hardly identical with the prayer 129
o°7197 mentioned by R. Johanan (died 279) inb. Yoma 87b, which was appoint-
ed for the eve of the Day of Atonement. Prayers beginning a”iyn YD 729
or ody by 712 occur repeatedly, cf. Elbogen, op. cit., Index, *p. 617 = ‘p.
633). There are a number of other occasions in the same prayer JI34
n° 9971 in which God is addressed as 7277 ANA (Heidenheim, p. gob.9), but
these are later additions. They ate also to be found in the prayer 8.29 NAAN
mentioned above, in the prayer WONW 7193 (Heidenheim, p. 7b.26; Elbogen,
op. cit., pp. 83f.) which is first mentioned in the ninth century, and in the
prayer 70M (Heidenheim, p. 244.1), which belongs to the Tahbanunim (see
above, p. 26), which is also of uncertain date.
63 Of course the phrase 6 maTi7p TH oikTippa@v in II Cor. 1.3, a Semitism
which is not attested elsewhere outside the prayers mentioned in n. 62, is not
used as an address in prayer by Paul, but is part of a eulogy with stereotyped
formulas. This suggests that it was not composed by the apostle for the
occasion, but was already to hand.
64 TIT Macc. 6.3, 8; Apocryphon Ezek. frag. 3 (quoted I Clem. 8.3, without
mentioning the source, and in Clem. Alex., Paed. I, 91.2 [I, p. 143.20 Stahlin));
Wisdom 14.3. The inscription on a Jewish tomb, J.-B. Frey, Corpus In-
scriptionum Iudaicarum (Sussidi allo studio delle antichita cristiane 1), Rome
1936, pp. 135f., no. 193 (Rome, undated): [... vo]uowabs [...] audavros
[elnoev érn...] Hycpas of’ [...Jae piunow (= péuvynoo) marep [pera
mavrTw ?\v Tdv Suxaiwv does not belong here. There is no analogy to the use
of wdtep as an address to God on an inscription (in any case, direct addresses
are rare). Presumably the dead person is being addressed here (Frey, op. cit., p.
cxxxvii). God is not addressed as mdrep in Josephus (A. Schlatter, Die
Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus, BFCT I 26, Gitersloh 1932,
p. 24) or in Philo.
28 The Prayers of Jesus
In Palestine, however, we have only one double example, in
Sirach 23.1, 4 (beginning of the second century Bc):

KUpte matep Kal SéomoTa Cwis pov

KUpte TAaTEp Kal Dee Cwis wou

(the Seder Eliyyabu Rabbah, in which God is frequently addressed

in the singular as ‘my Father in heaven’, Hebrew O72WIV AN,65
is excluded because of the late date of its composition [¢. AD 974],°°
and the place of its origin [Southern Italy]). Here, and only here,
God is addressed by a writer from ancient Palestinian Judaism as
‘my Father’, and we would have to commend this passage as a
prologue to the Gospel*7—were not the wording given by the
LXX extremely doubtful. Sirach 23 is one of the parts of the book
of Sirach for which we do not have the original Hebrew text.
We do, however, possess a prosodic Hebrew paraphrase (of
course, a late one) of the passage (MS Adler 3053). In this, xvpre
marep is represented by "2X 8,68 but that means ‘God of my
father’, and not “God, my Father’! Now as the address ‘God of my
father’ appears in Sirach and, indeed, in the form °2N "MN in the
extant Hebrew text of ch. 51 (v. 1),°9 and also elsewhere,7° we are

65 The address D°AWAW "AN occurs in ch. 10 (ed. Friedmann, p. 51.10);

ch. 17 (p. 83.24); ch. 18 (p. 100.10); in ch. 19 six times according to Fried-
mann’s edition (p. 110.10; I11.27; 112.3, 6, 9, 14) and ten times according to
the Warsaw edition, 1883; ch. 20 (ed. Friedmann, p. 121.20) and ch. 28
(p. 149.9). In the last-mentioned passage the address ‘my Father in heaven’ is
even anachronistically put in the mouth of R. Zadok (50-80). The quite
singular and frequent appearance of the address in the mediaeval Midrash
can only be explained as a peculiarity of its author. As he lived in Southern
Italy, Christian influence may well be possible. Note that the address is "AN
and not NAN.
66 Zunz, op. cit., p. 119. J. Mann, ‘Changes in the Divine Service of the
Synagogue due to Religious Persecutions’, HUCA 4 (1927), pp. 241-310,
here pp. 302-10 (‘Appendix. Date and Place of Redaction of Seder Eliyahu
Rabba and Zutta’), has argued for a rather earlier date (second half of the
fifth century). I. Ziegler, ‘Tanna débe Elijahu’, Jidisches Lexikon V (1930),
cols. 864f., simply reports both views, but seems to suggest that he agrees
with Zunz (with editorial assent from I. Elbogen).
67 This phrase comes, I think, from P. Batiffol.
68 J, Marcus, ‘A Fifth MS of Ben Sira’, JOR 21 (1930-1), p. 238.
69 The parallelism confirms that there is a construct, and not a vocative
(‘God, my father’) in Sitach 51.1: ‘I will give thanks to thee, O God of my
salvation (cf. Ps. 18.46 "yy? *1N), I will praise thee, O God of my father
(cf. Bx. 15.2 °AN ORY.
 Abba 29
forced to conclude that the Hebrew text of Sirach 23.1, 4 had the
phrase ‘God of my father’, which comes from Exod. 15.2, and not
‘Lord, my Father’.71 In short, although the community prays to
Godas Father in the words 1197) IWIN, although the individual
occasionally speaks of God as his heavenly Father: D72WAV "AN,
there is as_yet no evidence in the literature of ancient Palestinian Judaism
that ‘my Father’ is used as a personal address to God.
70 “God of my father’ in the vocative: Gen. 32.9 (bis); Esther 4.17m A;
Judith 9.2, 12; cf. (not in the vocative): Gen. 31.5, 42; Ex. 15.2; 18.4. The
plural form of the address is more frequent: ‘God of my fathers’ (Dan. 2.23;
I Esdr. 8.25 v./.3 7. Ber. 4.7d.29, 32), ‘God of our fathers’ (I Chron. 29.10, 18;
II Chron. 20.6; Dan. 3.26, 52; Tobit 8.5; Pire. Ab. 5.20c) or simply “God of
the fathers’ (Wisdom 9.1; I Esdr. 4.60). Very frequent outside the vocative,
e.g. Acts 5.30; 22.14. (It is difficult to decide between nominative and
vocative in 1QM 13.7: ‘But [thou] (art?) God of our fathers’.)
71 Note that according to the translation rules of the translator of Sirach
it is extremely probable that the xvpe 7arep of the Septuagint (Sirach 23.1, 4)
represents a "28 "MON, as LXX Sirach on an overwhelming number of
occasions renders O°NX with «Upros (nineteen times, and only four times
with Oeds). The Septuagint understood "38 "718 as a double vocative in-
stead of as a single vocative composed of a noun in the construct and a
genitive. The same mistake crept in at Sirach 51.1, where it translates "TON
"AN as KUpe BaciAcd and not as Kvpie TOD raTpds pov (see above, n. 69).

3. JESUS

A. ‘Father? as a title for God in the sayings of Jesus

(7) The tradition
No less than one hundred and seventy times in the gospels, we
find the word ‘Father’ for God on the lips of Jesus. At first glance
there does not appear to be the least doubt that for Jesus ‘Father’
was the designation for God. But is this really true? When we
tabulate the number of instances in which the name ‘Father’ is
used by Jesus in the gospels, we find that the result is startling.
The occurrences are distributed as follows:
Mark 4 Matthew! 42
Luke’* 15 John 109
How are we to explain this extremely striking difference in the
figures?
1 In Matt. 11.27 pat. Luke 10.22 in which armp occurs three times, only the
first warp is counted, for reasons which will be given later (see below,
pp. 47f.). This should also be remembered in the other figures which follow.
 30 The Prayers of Jesus
The problem becomes even more acute if, first, we exclude the
passages in which God is addressed as ‘Father’ in prayers, which
require separate treatment (see pp. 5 4ff.; in that case we lose one
example from Mark, six from Luke, five from Matthew and nine
from John, see the table on p. 54) and secondly, if we subdivide
the table so that parallel texts appear only once (thus in the follow-
ing table the instances in which Matthew and Luke have taken
over the title ‘Father’ from Mark are only counted under Mark,
and the instances common to Matthew and Luke are listed as a
separate group). The result is the following enumeration of
instances of the use of the title ‘Father’ for God in the words of
Jesus:
Mark Y
Common to Matthew and Luke 4
Additional instances peculiar to Luke 4*
Additional instances peculiar to Matthew 315
John 100

This table shows that there was a growing tendency to introduce the
title ‘Father’ for God into the sayings of Jesus. Mark, the sayings
tradition and the special Lucan material all agree in reporting that
Jesus used the word ‘Father’ for God only in a few instances.
Only in Matthew is there a noticeable increase, and in John ‘the
Father’ has almost become a synonym for God.6
As the number of instances begins to increase with Matthew, the
question is whether the evangelist himself is responsible for them
or whether the process had already begun in the tradition at his
disposal. In fact, both alternatives apply.
All in all, Matthew has the name ‘Father’ forty-two times on the lips
of Jesus, and five of these times it is used as an address to God. Of the
remaining thirty-seven instances, he has taken over two from Mark?
and has a further four in common with Luke.® Thus thirty-one instances
peculiar to Matthew remain. Some of these additional examples
2 Mark 8.38 (par. Matt. 16.27; Luke 9.26); 11.25; 13.32 (par. Matt. 24.36).
3 Matt. 5.48 (par. Luke 6.36); 6.32 (par. Luke 12.30); 7.11 (par. Luke
11.13); 11.27 (par. Luke 10,22). For the last passage see n. 1.
SWukes2. 40s 12.3 20022.20 5024.40
5 Matt. 5.16, 45; 6.1, 4, 6a, 6b, 8, 14, 15, 18a, 18b, 26; 7.21; 10.20, 29, 32,
33; 12.50; 13.43; 15.13; 16.175 18.10, 14, 19, 35 ; 20.23; 23.9; 25.34; 26.29, $33
28.19.
6 Praentallys this development shows the inappropriateness of regarding
Mark as an excerpt from Matthew.
7 Matt. 16.273 24.36. 8 See above, n. 3.
 Abba 31
cettainly derive from Matthew himself: he has inserted zar7jp into the
Marcan material four times,? and the interpretation of the parable of
the tares, which was in all probability written by Matthew himself,!°
ends with tod warpds adrév. (Matt. 13.43). But the very restraint
which Matthew imposes upon himself in inserting zarjp into the
Marcan material (only four instances!) makes it highly unlikely that
all thirty-one special Matthaean instances derive from Matthew
himself. Time and again, in fact, it can be demonstrated that the
key-word ‘Father’ was already provided for him by the tradition:
that this was so in Matt. 6.14f.; 18.35 can be seen from a com-
parison with Mark 11.25, and in Matt. 10.32f. from a comparison
with Mark 8.38.
We can confirm this conclusion by confining our attention for a
moment to the phrase ‘heavenly Father’. Matthew is distinctive not
only in the frequency with which he designates God as ‘Father’ in
general, but also, more particularly, in the frequency of his use of the
phrase ‘heavenly Father’. It occurs no less than twenty times! in his
wotk as compared with once elsewhere in the New Testament, at
Mark 11.25 (cf. also Luke 11.13 6 warip 6 e& odpavod). This ratio alone
might lead one to suppose that in every single Matthaean passage the
phrase ‘heavenly Father’ should be attributed to the evangelist. The
following observations, however, all agree in indicating that such a
conclusion would be a false one: (2) Mark (11.25) and the pre-Lucan
tradition (Luke 11.13, see below, p. 37) know the phrase, so it is not
newly created by Matthew. (4) While Matthew has indeed inserted the
word ‘Father’ at four points in the Marcan text (see this page, n. 9),
‘my heavenly Father’ occurs in only one of them (Matt. 12.50); the
others merely have ‘my Father’ (Matt. 20.23; 26.29, 42). Even the
interpretation of the parable of the tares (13.36-43), which bears such
strong traces of Matthaean linguistic peculiarities that, as has been said
above, it may be attributed to Matthew himself, simply has rod marpos
adrav, without any addition, in 13.43. (¢) Furthermore, there is the
variety of formulations:

6 marnp (Lov, NuaY, Budv) 6 ev Tots ovpavois eight times!?

6 TraTnp (nov, bay) o ev ovpavots five times
e \ ¢€ ~ F159. ? a fi M 13

6 Tarp (pov, bpav) 6 ovpdvios seven times!4

9 Matt. 12.50; 26.29 (for 6 Beds Mark 3.35; 14.25); 20.23 (addition);
further, there is one use of the address wdrep ov in a prayer (26.42, in a
repetition of the prayer Mark 14.36 par. Matt. 26.39).
10 J, Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, ET?, London 1963, pp. 81-5.
uMyvmeavenly Father’ nine times: 7.21; 10.32f.; 12.50; 15.133 16.17;
18.10, 19, 35; “Your heavenly Father’ ten times: 5.16, 45, 48; 6.1, 14, 26, 32;
7.11; 18.14 (on the variant reading prov see below, p. 38, n. 49); 23.9; once ina
ptayer ‘Our heavenly Father’: Matt. 6.9.
SE Nate 5. 1Gs O:1,.0 527-115, 21;. 19.325 335,10:17.
13 Matt. 5.453 12.50; 18.10, 14, 19.
PMA as eA 81 OnUAai20.032 5 15).113)3) Lonaye 5.0.
32 The Prayers of Jesus
which makes mock of any attempt at discoveting a regular pattern; as a
result, it seems likely that these are variant traditions which ante-date
Matthew. (d) Finally, one ought to draw attention to the addiess arep
jdv 6 év Tots odpavois in the Lord’s Prayer, which is an elaboration of
the short form mdrep (Luke 11.2). As it is hardly conceivable that
Matthew should have ventured to alter the Lord’s Prayer on his own
authority, we have a hint of traditional liturgical material in the ex-
panded address. The occurrence of a similar expanded address, though
with the singular év + ovpav@, in the Didache (8.2), may serve as
confirmation.
All this shows that when the Matthaean sayings speak of God as
‘Father’ withthe addition of the epithet ‘heavenly’, the evangelist
himself was at work only in individual instances (as in Matt. 12.50).
In most cases he found the phrase ‘heavenly Father’ already before him
in the tradition. Thus our earlier (see above, p. 30) conclusion has been
confirmed: the considerable increase in the use of the title ‘Father’ for God in
the tradition of the words of Jesus had already begun in the stratum which
was available to Matthew.

So strong is the tendency of the tradition to introduce the word

matnp into the sayings of Jesus (compare again the table on p. 30
above), that it seems in principle far more probable that we should
assume secondary elaboration in all thirty-one instances in which
Matthew is the only witness for the word ‘Father’. This is
particularly true of the eight sayings common to Matthew and
Luke in which Matthew has the word ‘Father’? but Luke does
not.!5 That does not, however, exclude the possibility that ancient
‘Father’ sayings may be concealed in the special Matthaean
material, though on analogy with the other synoptic strata there
will only be very few of them. The sayings most likely to fall into
this category are Matt. 6.14f.; 18.35 (cf. Mark 11.25) and 10.32f.
(cf. Mark 8.38).
The New Testament development comes to its logical con-
clusion in John: in the Gospel of John, ‘the Father’ is the pre-
dominant title for God on the lips of Jesus (100 instances,
including 9 as an address in prayers). There are two characteristic
features of the Fourth Gospel in addition to the peculiar fre-
quency with which the title occurs. First, whereas ‘my Father’
occurs frequently on the lips of Jesus (25 instances), ‘your Father’

15 Matt. 5.45 (par. Luke 6.35); 6.26 (par. Luke 12.24), on which see below,
p. 40; 7.21 (par. Luke 6.46), on which see p. 44; 10.20 (par. Luke 12,12),
29 (par. Luke 12.6), 32f. (par. Luke 12.8f.), on which see pp. 44f.; 18.14
(par. Luke 15.7), on which see p. 39.
 Abba 33
fades right into the background (only 20.17, to the disciples, and
8.42, to the Jews). It is important to have noted the tendency of
the later tradition to suppress ‘your Father’ almost to vanishing
point when one is assessing the instances when ‘my Father’ and
‘your Father’ alternate in parallel sayings in the synoptic tradition.
Here ‘your Father’ consequently has the greater claim to priority
(thus Mark 11.25 / Matt. 6.14f. over against Matt. 18.35; Matt.
18.14 NUD judy over against BOd pov). Secondly, 6 zarzp, used
absolutely by Jesus (73 instances), dominates the Gospel of John;
before John, there are only quite isolated examples in the Gospels
(Mark 13.32 par. Matt. 24.36; Matt. 28.19; Luke 9.261°), but it
occurs fifteen times in the Johannine epistles and is a favourite
designation for God subsequently in the Apostolic Fathers. It is
clear that the Johannine writings led to 6 zarjp, in the absolute,
becoming ¢he name of God in Christendom.17
The evidence in the Gospel of Thomas corresponds to the picture that
we find in the Gospel of John, even down to individual details. Here,
too, the title ‘Father’ is the most prominent (20 instances in the 114
logia); indeed, if we exclude two logia which derive from the synoptic
tradition!® and one occurrence of ‘the Living One’,!9 it is the only title
for God. ‘My Father’ also stands out in the Gospel of Thomas (4
examples), while ‘your Father’ fades into the background (2 examples)” ;
‘the Father’, used absolutely, holds pride of place (12 examples).”?

How did the title ‘Father’ for God come to dominate the scene
in this way ?We can mention some factors which contributed to
this development (though they were certainly not the only ones).
The first suggests itself if we trace the origin of the phrase
‘heavenly Father’. It is a semitism, as is shown by the regular use of
the plural of odpavoi (Mark 11.25 ; always in Matthew; the singular
6 maTip 6 €€ odpavod occurs once, at Luke 11.13). Now we have
already seen that the first evidence of God being called ‘heavenly
Father’ in Palestinian Judaism comes from the first century (with
16 Ror Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22, see above, p. 29, n. I.
17'T, W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus?, Cambridge 1935 = 1948, pp. 99f.
18 “God’ occurs twice in Logion 100, cf. Mark 12.17 pat., and ‘the Lord’ in
Logion 73, cf. Matt. 9.38.
19 In Logion 37, Jesus is called ‘the Son of the Living One’. In Logion 59,
however, ‘the Living One’ probably refers to Jesus.
20 Logia 61, 64, 99 (bis).
21 Logia 15, 50.
22 Logia 27, 40, 44, 57, 69a, 76, 79, 83, 96, 97, 98, 113. “The living Father’
also occurs twice (3, 50).
PJC
34 The Prayers of Jesus
Johanan b. Zakkai (¢. 50-80)#3) and that it quickly established
itself. As the tradition used by Matthew was shaped over the same
period, it follows that Palestinian Christianity also shared in this
process within Judaism. In Gentile Christian areas, however, the
phrase ‘heavenly Father’ made no headway; it is not to be found
in the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Thomas, though it survived
in Jewish Christianity.?+
A second factor operating within Christianity can be seen from
the distribution of the title ‘Father’ in the Gospel of Matthew: the
thirty-one instances peculiar to the First Gospel are concentrated
in speeches (the passage about the piety of the Pharisees in 6.1-18
(9 instances), the prophecy of persecution in the address when the
twelve are sent out in 10.17-39 (4 instances) and the address about
the duties of the leaders of the community in 18.10-3 5 (4 instances)),
in eschatological sayings*> and in instructions.?° In other words,
the increasing occurrence of the title ‘Father’ in the sayings of
Jesus is evidently connected with its use in catechesis. The
phenomenon betrays a concern to make the message of Jesus the
personal possession of the faithful. But the starting point for this
catechetical extension of the use of the title ‘Father’ for God is to
be seen in prayer, and above all in the Lord’s Prayer. Pauline
linguistic usage points to this. In the Pauline corpus of letters, the
title ‘Father’ for God occurs almost without exception in liturgical
phrases and in prayers: in the introductions of the letters, par-
ticularly in the benedictions of the sa/utatio, in prayers of thanks-
giving and intercession, in doxologies, in credal formulas, in texts
with a hymnic ring, and in the spirit-inspired cry ‘Abba’. The /ex
orandi thus determined the /ex credendi.?7
Thirdly, and finally, the strong increase in the occurrence of the
title ‘Father’ which is reflected in the Gospel of John and the
Gospel of Thomas involves a factor which can be traced in
Rev. 2.27; 3.5, 21. Here the exalted Christ speaks of God as ‘my
Father’. In other words, Christian prophets, who spoke in the name

23 See above, p. 16.

24 Gospel of the Hebrews 7b, 26 (E. Klostermann, Apocrypha, 113, Kleine
Texte 8, Berlin 1929, pp. 7, 12). P. Vielhauer rightly assigns both logia to the
Gospel of the Nazaraeans (in: E. Hennecke—W. Schneemelcher—R. McL.
Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, 1, ET, London 1963, pp. 147, 150).
Zo Mattn qa s W343 ssn w2Ow2 sean aAen ZOO.
ZoMatts SlGy45 312300, Chaal2nsOs
27 This statement will be confirmed below, p. 36.
 Abba 35
of the exalted Lord and with his words, contributed to the increase
in the use of the title ‘Father’ for God in the tradition of the
words of Jesus.
In view of the demonstrable tendency of the tradition to
introduce the name ‘Father’ for God into the sayings of Jesus to
an ever increasing extent, it might appear doubtful whether Jesus
ever used it at all. But we shall see that such scepticism does not
do justice to the facts when we discuss the way in which God is
addressed as ‘Father’ in the prayers of Jesus.?®

(ii) The significance of the title ‘Father’ for God in the

sayings of Jesus
The sparsity of the instances in which God is called ‘Father’ in
Mark (3), in the Matthew-Luke sayings material (4) and in the
Lucan special material (4) (see the table on p. 30 above) showed
us that we must look for the oldest tradition of our theme in the
area of these three synoptic strata. Evidently the material available
to the second and third evangelists had already found its way into
a Hellenistic milieu and had been stabilized there at the time when
the process of the increase of the occurrence of the title ‘Father’
for God in the sayings of Jesus, reflected in the first Gospel, and
more strongly in the Fourth, began in the Jewish Christian area.
That being so, it is advisable for us to begin our investigation
with the instances of the title ‘Father’ which occur in Mark, in the
Matthew-Luke sayings material, and in the special Lucan material.
We are concerned with 11 passages, which are listed above on
p. 30, notes 2-4.?7° First, however, we must make two qualifica-
tions. On the one hand, one or two old sayings may be concealed
among the 31 instances peculiar to Matthew and the 100 peculiar
to John. Of course, they are only recognizable in isolated in-
stances,3° and their number will not be proportionally much
greater than the number of instances in the three synoptic strata
from which we begin. On the other hand, the 11 instances from
28 See below, pp. 5 4ff.
29 The present work thus makes a much mote radical investigation than,
say, G. Schrenk in his article warijp A,C-D, TV NT V (1954), pp. 946-59,
974-1016, with which it has a number of points of contact in the exegesis.
30 See above, p. 30: for example, Mark 11.25 shows that the word ‘Father’
in Matt. 6.14f. is pre-Matthaean, and Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22 shows that
the word ‘Father’ in John 10.15a is pre-Johannine.
36 The Prayers of Jesus
which we begin cannot be regarded as authentic sayings of Jesus
without a critical examination.
The 11 instances fall into three groups:
(2) Sayings which designate God as 6 zarjp without a personal
pronoun;
() Sayings which speak of God as ‘your Father’;
(c) Sayings in which Jesus calls God ‘my Father’. The phrase
‘the Father of the Son of Man’ (Mark 8.38 par. Matt. 16.27) is
also to be included in the last group.
(a) The Father (without personal pronoun). The total number of
instances ate distributed as follows:
Mark es
Matthew and Luke together —2
Additional instances peculiar to Luke a
Additional instances peculiar to Matthew rf
John 73
The astonishing discrepancy in number between the Synoptics and
John shows at a glance that 6 warp, used absolutely, was established as
the designation for God only at a very late stage; the triadic baptismal
formula in Matt. 28.19 suggests that the liturgy played an essential part
in this process. Add to this the fact that of the five instances of 6 warzjp
used absolutely in the Pauline writings (I Cor. 8.6; Rom. 6.4; Col. 1.12;
Eph. 2.18; 3.14) the first occurs in a credal formula and the third and
fifth in a prayer, and we have confirmation that as far as the early
Christian practice of calling God ‘Father’ is concerned, the /ex orandi
determined the /ex credendi (see above, p. 35). Of the four synoptic
instances listed in the table above, Matt. 28.19 is to be discarded as a late
liturgical formula, and the absolute 6 zarnp in Luke 9.26 goes back toa
Lucan redaction of Mark 8.38. Thus only two passages remain to be
examined for the possibility of traces of ancient tradition: Mark 13.32
and Luke 11.13.
In Mark 13.32 (rept S€ ris Hyucpas exelvns 7)THS Wpas oddels older,
ovd€ of dyyeAat ev odpave@ ovd€ 6 vids, Et jx7) 6 TaTHp) par. Matt. 24.36,
6 vids and 6 zaryp, both used absolutely, stand side by side. 6 vids
used in this way is a christological title which became established
rather late in the history of the early church: it occurs for the
first time in Paul, but only once (I Cor. 15.28) and is used only
31 Mark 13.32 par. Matt. 24.36.
32 6 marnp, twice used absolutely in Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22, does not
belong in the list, as the article here is intended in a generic sense (see below,
pp. 47f.).
SS ukei9:203811.13). 34 Matt. 28.19.
 Abba 37
rarely in subsequent decades (Matt. 28.1935; Heb. 1.8). Only in the
Johannine literature? does it come to the fore. As 6 vids used
absolutely in this way as a title is not a designation for the
Messiah in Palestinian linguistic usage,37 Mark 13.32 can have
reached its present form only in the context of the Hellenistic
community.38 If, however, we compare the passage with Acts 1.7,
and venture the suggestion that oddé 6 vids is an addition, then
6 watyp in Mark 13.32 appears in a new light. The linguistic
objections to 6 vids do not arise in the case of 6 warip, as the cor-
responding word in Aramaic, NN, regularly meant ‘my father’ as
well as ‘the father’.*° Thus if od5é 6 vids may be regarded as an
addition, Mark 13.32 is to be included among the ‘my Father’
sayings (see below, p. 52).
The second instance of 6 warjp (without a personal pronoun)
to be investigated occurs in Luke 11.13.
Luke rrr
meow paAAov 6 TraTnp 6 €€ ovpavod Swoer mvetpua ayiov Tots
, a « A | oe 3 > ~ , ~ o ”~

alrotow avtov
par. Matt. 7.11:
meow paAdov 6 TaTip duav 6 ev Tois odpavots SHcer ayaba
/ ~ ¢ A a ~ ee cal > a
Tots
/, > \ cal

aitodow adrov
The Matthaean version differs from the Lucan in having a judy
after the 6 zarjp. But this dudv is hardly original. If, as is probable,*°
this saying was addressed to the opponents of Jesus, ‘your’ is
hardly appropriate, as the phrase ‘your Father’ is reserved for the
disciples of Jesus in the earliest stratum of the tradition (see below,
pp. 42f.). The phrase 6 warip 6 éé odpavod in Luke is striking; one
35 Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22 does not belong here, as in this passage the
article before vids is meant in a genetic sense (see below, pp. 46f.).
36 17 in the Gospel, 7 in the Epistles.
37 There is evidence for the absolute use of J only as a designation for
Israel (Mek. Ex. on 12.1).
38B, M. F. van Iersel, ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesusworten, Christus-
bezeichnung der Gemeinde oder Selbsthezeichnung Jesu? (Supplements to NovT 3),
Leiden 1961, regards ‘the Son’, in the absolute, at Mark 12.1-9 par., 13.32 and
Matt. 11.27 par. to be authentic on the lips of Jesus. But he omits to examine
Palestinian linguistic usage. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether one
should appeal to Mark 12.1-9 (parable) and Matt. 11.27 par. (see below p. 46f.).
39 See below, p. 58.
40 J, Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, ET?, London 1963, pp. 144f. (following
A. T. Cadoux).
38 The Prayers of Jesus
would expect éy rather than é¢. This e€ is an instance of the
attraction of a preposition as a result of the presence of Swécev; it
is a classical usage, and there are also instances of it in the Septua-
gint*! and the New Testament (Matt. 24.17; Col. 4.16). In view of
the decided Hellenistic preference for periphrases with éx,*? we
must assume that the author of the Lucan Vorlage himself used
this attraction to demonstrate his literary education.4? The
flourish—and it is no more—does not in any way justify our taking
the phrase é¢ odpavod with the verb (SwWoer).** The preceding article
makes that quite impossible. The qualification ‘heavenly’ also goes
with 6 marjp because of its content, and this is confirmed by
Matthew: the contrast is not between earthly gifts and heavenly
gifts, but between earthly fathers and the heavenly Father. The
saying speaks of the heavenly Father (X°72W2T NAN) as the giver
of ‘good gifts’ (so Matthew) ;these are not, however, the means of
subsistence but the gifts of the age of salvation (in accordance with
established eschatological linguistic usage).45 The Lucan mvedpa
dyvov is hardly original, but it has preserved this dimension. There
is no reason at all to doubt that both the phrase N’OV2IT NAN and
the argument from the conduct of an earthly father to the love of
God go back to Jesus himself (cf. Luke 15.11-32).
(b) Your Father. A survey of the evidence reveals the following
distributions:
Mark r48
Common to Matthew and Luke ae
Additional instances peculiar to Luke ro
Additional instances peculiar to Matthew t2*?
John oo
“W/7. F. Arndt—F. W. Gingrich-W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament, Cambridge-Chicago 1957, p. 236.
o2yit Radermacher, Neutestamentliche Grammatik (ANT 1)?, Tiibingen
1925, p. 26: ‘thoroughly Hellenistic’.
43 A. Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas, Stuttgart 1931 = ?1960, p. 506.
44 Against T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Lucas?.*, Leipzig-Erlangen 1920,
Pp. 454, n. 27; E. Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5)?, Tiibingen
1929, p. 126 (as a possibility).
45 Rom. 3.8; 10.15 (quoting Isa. 52.7 LX X); Heb. 9.11; 10.1; this connota-
tion is also to be found in Luke 1.53. SouMiarleven: 25)
47 Matt. 5.48 (par. Luke 6.36); 6.32 (par. Luke 12.30).
toipukert2.32%
49 Matt. 5.16, 45; 6.1, 8, 14, 15, 263; 7.113 10.20, 29; 18.14 (where the
variant reading pov must be regarded as secondary, as ov was on the increase,
see above, pp. 32f; wov will be an assimilation to 18.10, 19, 35); 23.9.
50 John 8.42; 20.17.
 Abba 39
Matthew again disturbs the pattern (see above, pp. 2o0f.). We need to
be even more careful about the frequency of the instances in his writing
(2+12 = 14), as this time even John (only two instances) is against
him. We do, however, have a means of control. We have synoptic
parallels or comparable texts for no fewer than nine of the twelve
passages (listed in n. 49) in which Matthew alone writes 6 rarip tudv:
Matt. 5.45 (par. Luke 6.35); 6.8 (cf. Matt. 6.32 par. Luke 12.30), 14
(par. Mark 11.25), 15 (cf. Mark 11.25), 26 (par. Luke 12.24); 7.11 (par.
Luke 11.13); 10.20 (par. Luke 12.12), 29 (par. Luke 12.6); 18.14 (par.
Luke 15.7). Of these nine passages, comparable texts which also read
‘your Father’ can be found for only three (Matt. 6.8, 14, 15); the
parallel to Matt. 7.11 (Luke 11.13) does indeed also speak of ‘the
Father’, but it omits judy, probably (as we saw above, pp. 37f.) rightly.
In the remaining five instances (Matt. 5.45; 6.26; 10.20, 29; 18.14) the
Lucan parallels have completely different designations for God*; both
the ratio of instances in the table above and the fact that Matthew has
twice replaced 6 feds with ‘my Father’ in his redaction of Mark (Matt.
12.50; 26.29) suggest that the Lucan parallels are more trustworthy in
these five passages.°* The remaining three passages of the twelve in
which Matthew is the only one to have 6 marip tudv (5.16; 6.1; 23.9)
belong to his special material; but by analogy it seems by far the most
probable explanation that here, too, the designation of God as ‘Father’
is secondary. Only in Matt. 23.9b is it firmly rooted in the text, and
guaranteed by the protasis. So the majority of the Matthaean instances
are to be regarded as secondary.
We should also leave on one side the two instances of 6 rarjp tudv
in the Fourth Gospel. John 20.17, a saying of the risen Christ, lies
outside the scope of our investigation, which is limited to the earthly
life of Jesus. John 8.42 is also to be excluded: while it is quite con-
ceivable that Jesus denied his Jewish opponents the right to call God
their Father, we have no synoptic parallels for the point of the con-
versation, that the devil, and not God, is their true father (6 warip tuadv
v. 41). One cannot appeal to the threat yervyjuara éysdvaev (Matt. 12.34;
23.33); exvdvev is plural, and is not a periphrasis for the devil.
So once again the number of passages to be investigated has shrunk
to a fraction of the original list.
Mark has ‘your Father’ in only one passage, in a saying which
concludes the teaching on prayer which follows the pericope
about the withered fig-tree: Kal drav orjKete mpocevydpevot,??
5t Luke 6.35: tybuoros; 12.6, 24: 6 Beds; 12.12: aytov (mvedua); 15.7: ev
TH ovpava.
52 Additional reasons for preferring the Lucan designations for God are:
in the case of Luke 12.24 (par. Matt. 6.26), the context (see below, p. 40); in
the case of Luke 15.7 (par. Matt. 18.14), a comparison with Luke 15.10; in
the case of Luke 12.12 (par. Matt. 10.20), a comparison with Mark 13.11.
53 These words of transition could come from Mark himself. He is the only
synoptist to use orjKw (3.31; 11.25) and ray with indicative (3.11 (summary) ;
11.19, 25; cf. Blass— Debrunner—Funk, §382.4).
40 The Prayers of Jesus
adiere ...tva kai 6 marip tuav 6 ev Tots obpavots adh duiv (Mark
11.25). There is support for the phrase ‘your heavenly Father’ in
passages witha parallel content, Matt. 6.14 6 marjp tudv 6 obpavios**
and 18.35 (here changed secondarily to 6 marjp pou 6 odparvios®®).
The saying is addressed to the disciples, as can be seen from its
similarity to the petition for forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer.*°
The disciples must be ready to forgive if they are to pray rightly.
God shows himself to be the Father of the disciples through his
forgiveness.
There are only two passages in the whole of the sayings-material
common to Matthew and Luke in which both gospels agree in
having ‘your Father’ (see the table above). The first is Matt. 6.32
(olSev yap 6 marip dudv 6 ovpdvios Ott ypylere ToOUTWY amdvTwy) pat.
Luke 12.30 (judv dé 6 matip olde btu ypybete TovTwv). Another
tradition of the saying, in Matt. 6.8, which is quite independent
fromaliterary point of view (ofSev yap 6 ratijp tudv dv ypelav éxere
mp Too buds aitjoar adrdv), confirms the occurrence of the phrase
‘your Father’, as, above all, does the context. In the Lucan version
the terminology changes to suit the content: 6 eds (Luke 12.24:
God cares for the ravens), 6 eds (v. 28: God cares for the flowers)
and then jpudv S€ 6 warp (v. 30; your Father cares for you). It is
typical of Matthew that he destroys the symmetry and the climax
of this triad; in his version, 6 rarijp tudv 6 odpavos occurs in the
very first passage, about the birds (6.26), 6 feds in the passage
about the flowers (v. 30), and 6 zarijp tudv 6 odpdmos again in the
case of the disciples (v. 32). The premature appearance of 6 marnp
bu@v 6 odpdvos in Matthew at v. 26 is therefore secondary. On the
other hand, 6 warjp tudv in v. 32 (par. Luke 12.30, cf. Matt. 6.8)
seems to belong there. It is hardly a coincidence that this saying
(like Mark 11.25, which we have just discussed) deals with prayer.
God is called the Father of the disciples because he knows what
they need before they ask him, and gives it to them.—The other
passage in the sayings material in which Matthew and Luke agree
in attesting the phrase ‘your Father’ is Matt. 5.48 (cece ov tpeis
TéAELor Ws 6 TAaTHp Budv 6 odpdvios TéAEwds eoriv) par. Luke 6.36
(yiveaGe oixrippoves Kabws 6 TrraTip tudv otkTipuwy éoriv). Here, the

54 The antithesis at Matt. 6.15 has the shorter form 6 rratip byudv.
55 See above, pp. 32h:
56 For the Lord’s Prayer as a prayer of the disciples see below, p. 53, n. 107,
and pp. 63f.
 Abba 41
Lucan otkripywy may well be original,57 and the Matthaean réAevos
is probably a paraenetic generalization.5* Once again, it is the
goodness of God the Father which is stressed. Its boundlessness
is to be a pattern for the disciples of Jesus and is to spur them on.
There is only one passage with ‘your Father’ in the special
Lucan material, the word of comfort (12.32) which, taking up
Dan. 7.27,5° promises an eschatological change of fortune for the
little flock. Its language is old.6° In Dan. 7.27, the subject of the
action appeats only in a concealed form, in the passive; here,
however, it is quite explicitly God the Father who gives the king-
dom to the oppressed little flock. The reason for this difference
may at least be that Jesus is speaking of a gift of God, the action
which, next to his forgiveness, is most characteristic of his
fatherly nature (cf. Matt. 7.11 part.).
Finally, we have one more passage to discuss, from the special
Matthaean material®: 23.9 (kal marépa pur) KaAgonte dpcav emt Tis
ys: els yap éorw budv 6 matp 6 obpavios).
The text of the first clause xai marépa pi) Kadgonre tudv et ris yijs, is
difficult, because the second accusative which xadetv needs when it
means ‘address as, designate as’ is not formally expressed. My has to be
understood as yndéva. A further difficulty is the uncertainty whether
tudv is to be taken with warépa or with uy. Matt. 12.27 (adrol «pirat
€oovrat tuav) would be relevant to the first possibility (“And you shall
call no-one on earth your father’); here, too, the personal pronoun,
placed afterwards, is separated by the verb from the word to which it
refers. To support the second possibility (“And you shall call none of
your number “‘father”’ on earth’) one can refer to Acts 21.16 (cuvADov
dé Kai THv pabnrdv) where the simple genitive (without éx) is also used
in a partitive sense.* The first instance would be a total prohibition
against using the courtesy title ‘father’ at all (there is no question here
of addressing a physical father); the second instance would be a partial
prohibition: the disciples are to avoid the polite address ‘father’ only in
57 Cf. Targ. Jerus. I Lev. 22.28 (Billerbeck I, p. 159), quoted above, p. 20;
cf. n. 35 there.
58R, Schnackenburg, ‘Die Vollkommenheit des Christen nach den
Evangelien’, Theologisches Jahrbuch, Leipzig 1961, pp. 71f.
59 Aodvar tiv Baorciay (Luke 12.32) = NAN... mmip>n (Dan. 7.27).
60 J. Jeremias, rounv KrA., TWNT VI (1959), p. 500, n. 20.
61 We have already discussed four of the other eleven passages in which
Matthew alone has ‘your Father’ (6.8 (see above, p. 40), 14, 15 (see above,
pp. 39f.); 7.11 (see above, pp. 37f.)). For the remaining seven, see above,
P. 39:
62 F, Schulthess, ‘Zur Sprache der Evangelien’, ZNW 21 (1922), pp. 216-36,
241-58, here pp. 226f., also refers to LXX I Sam. 14.45; Il Sam. 14.11;
II Kings 10.23.
42 The Prayers of Jesus
converse among themselves. E. Haenchen decides for the second
translation and argues as follows: it is impossible that the disciples
should have been regarded as teachers and have been addressed with
the titles of Palestinian teachers of the law while Jesus was alive; but it
is conceivable that Rabbis who attached themselves to the primitive
community continued to claim their old titles of honour, like Rabbi,
Abba. The community attacks such claims to titles in Matt. 23.8-10,
verses which it created.© This presupposes that the addresses ‘Rabbi’
and ‘Abba’ were reserved for scholars. But this assumption is erroneous.
‘Rabbi’ (‘my Lord’) was de facto a polite form of address used quite
generally in the first century AD, to Rabbis, among others; but there
are no examples of ‘Abba’ being used as a form of address to Rabbis.®©
It was rather used in conversation with old men.®® Thus the limitation
of the prohibition against using the courtesy title ‘Abba’ to the circle of
the disciples (the second translation) is not to be explained by an influx
of Rabbis into the primitive community and their desire for titles. There
are two further considerations which go decisively against this limita-
tion of the prohibition. First, emi rs y#s only makes sense in the con-
text of a total prohibition such as we find with the first translation ‘And
you shall call no-one on earth your father’ ;emi ri}s yijs is to be taken with
pn (= pydeva) and means ‘no-one on earth’, ‘no man’. This all-em-
bracing significance ‘no man’ cannot possibly be limited. Even if the
contrast emt ris ys | 6 ouparos was added later—and this could be quite
conceivable in view of v. 8ab—the active p11) Kadk€onre would go against
a partial prohibition. This is the second consideration. If we recognize
that Matt. 23.10 is secondary, formed by analogy with v. 8,°7 the
progress of thought from the passive (v. 8: 7) KAnOfre) to the active
(v. 9: pp) KaAgonze) emerges clearly: the disciples are not to allow them-
selves to be called ‘my lord’ (say, by grateful people whom they have
healed) (v. 8) and for their part they are to address no old man as ‘my
63 “Matthdus 23’, ZIK 48 (1951), pp. 42-5. Now too in zd., Gott und Mensch.
Gesammelte Aufsaétze, Tibingen 1965, pp. 33-6.
6 G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus I, ET, Edinburgh 1902, p. 335.
® Dalman remarked as early as 1898 that ‘We never find NAN as an address
to a teacher’, op. cit., p. 339; similarly, Billerbeck I, p. 919.—Siphre Deut. 34
on 6.7: “Thus just as the pupils are called sons, so the master is called father’
is out of place here; as the context shows, the sentence merely states that in
biblical terminology the nouns ‘sons’ and ‘father’ occur in a figurative sense.
66 The earliest example from the first century Bc (b..Ta‘an. 23b), which has
so far been passed over, is noted on p. 61 below:7.Nidd. 1.49b.42f.(Bar.): ‘In
the house of Rabban Gamaliel (II, ¢. aD 90) they called the slaves and maid-
servants “Abba Tabhi, Imma Tabhitha”’ (par. b. Ber. 16b (Bar.): ‘Abba
N.N., Imma N.N.’), though this address was prohibited for male and female
slaves. Cf. further Ps.-Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 53.3 (Samuel
addresses Eli as pater). There is a Hellenistic- Jewish example at IV Macc. 7.9.
67 Matt. 23.10 is the only passage in the four gospels in which 6 Xpiords
(with the article) occurs as a self-designation on the lips of the earthly Jesus
(it occurs without the article at Mark 9.41; John 17.3, which are equally
secondary).
 Abba 43
father’, because the honour of the name ‘father’ is to be reserved for
God alone (v. 9). Just as it would be nonsense to limit the prohibition
to the conversation of the disciples among themselves in the case of the
passive (v. 8), because while the disciples addressed Jesus’ as ‘Rabbi’
they did not use the title among themselves, so too, only the total
prohibition makes any sense in the case of the active (v. 9).
“Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who
is in heaven.’ The prohibition against the disciples’ using the
everyday, unexceptionable courtesy title ‘Abba’ loses its strange-
ness when we consider the unique way in which Jesus addressed
God as ‘Abba’, a fact which is still to be discussed (see below,
Pp. 54ff.). This factor alone makes it possible to understand why
Jesus protects the address ‘Abba’ from profanation. And that in
turn means that in all probability the saying is authentic.
* * *

There are no serious reasons for disputing that any of the five
‘your Father’ sayings which we have just discussed go back to
Jesus. He therefore spoke of God as ‘your Father’, though only
to the disciples®®; he never seems to have spoken of God as
Father to outsiders except in parables and metaphors, never, at
any rate, as ‘your Father’. “Your Father’ is thus one of the
characteristic phrases in the didache given to the disciples. What
content is associated with this phrase ?God shows himself to be the
Father of the disciples by forgiving them, visiting them with his
tenderness and care, and preparing their salvation. The similarity
between this and the use of the word ‘Father’ in the prophets is
quite plain. But the new element should be stressed; the expres-
sions of God’s fatherly goodness are eschatological events (cf.
Matt. 7.11 par.; Luke 12.32).

68 Mark 9.5; 11.21; 14.45 (par. Matt. 26.49); Matt. 26.25; John 4.31; 9.2;
D1.9.
69 This is supported by John 20.17 and also 8.42, where in a dispute Jesus
denies the Jews the right to call God their Father: ef 6 eds mratijp tudv
hv, nyamare av ee.
79 Most recently, H. W. Montefiore, ‘God as Father in the Synoptic
Gospels’, NTS 3 (1956-7), pp. 31-46, has attempted to demonstrate that
Jesus nevertheless taught the ‘Universal Fatherhood’ of God (most clearly
in the ‘Father’ sayings in the Sermon on the Mount). Montefiore’s work
suffers from two basic weaknesses: he does not pose the question of authen-
ticity radically enough, and he asks whether the idea of the universal Father-
hood of God can be reconciled with the texts, instead of first interpreting them
within the framework of Jesus’ sayings about the Father.
44 The Prayers of Jesus
(c) My Father. Once again, a survey of the material:
Mark 12)
Common to Matthew and Luke a
Additional instances peculiar to Luke ec
Additional instances peculiar to Matthew 537%
John 25
The way in which the number of instances increases once again
warns us to be careful in Matthew, and even more so in John. There is
confirmation of the need for this care in the fact that Matthew has twice
replaced 6 Oeds in the Marcan text (3.35; 14.25) with “my (heavenly)
Father’ (Matt. 12.50; 26.29) and that he has added wo rod tarpds prov to
Mark 10.40 on his own initiative (Matt. 20.23). Under these circum-
stances, one will certainly prefer the Lucan versions in the parallels to
Matt. 7.21 (par. Luke 6.46) and 10.32f. (par. Luke 12.8f.), in neither of
which does ‘my heavenly Father’ occur. Two further Matthaean
passages may be left out of account for other reasons. In Matt. 18.35,
‘my Father’ corresponds with a ‘your Father’ in passages with a similar
content (Mark 11.25; Matt. 6.14f.); in such cases, as we saw on p. 33
above, ‘your Father’ has the claim to priority. Moreover, if Matt. 18.10
was originally addressed to Jesus’ adversaries, as the ju1) karadpovnoate
might suggest, one would not expect God to be called ‘my heavenly
Father’ here; so this instance, too, will not belong to the oldest tradi-
tion. Of the five remaining instances of ‘my (heavenly) Father’ peculiar
to Matthew (15.13; 16.17; 18.19; 25.34; 26.53), 16.17 has the greatest
claim to originality because of the similarity of its content to 11.27
(par. Luke 1o.22).
We must also disregard Mark 8.38, where it is said of the Son of
Man: drav €dAOn ev 7H 86€n Tob maTpos adrob peta TOV ayyéAwy TOV ayiwv.
In this saying the evamov trav ayyéAwv (without 70d Je0d!) of Luke 12.9
is probably original. This conclusion is supported by the pre-Matthaean
tradition, which also introduces the name ‘Father’ elsewhere (see
below, pp. 30f.); it says eumpoobev tod matpds pov Tod ev ovpavois
(Matt. 10.33). The érav clause in Mark 8.38 looks like a combination of
these two phrases.—On the other hand, Mark 13.32 par. Matt. 24.36
(6 warnp) is to be added to the instances of ‘my Father’ given in the
table above, if, as suggested on p. 37, odd€ 6 vids may be regarded as an
addition, and the absolute 6 zarnp corresponds to an ‘Abba’ in the sense
of ‘my father’.
Of the three passages from the Lucan special material (2.49; 22.29;
24.49), the first belongs to the infancy narratives and the third to the
71 Mark 8.38 par. Matt. 16.27: ro0 marpds atdrod, viz. of the Son of Man.
This passage can only be included among the instances of ‘my Father’ with
reservations.
72 Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22. 73 Luke 2.49; 22.29; 24.49.
M Matt.” 7.23 3°10.52h)) %.27$03. 09213 9)LOstgs LG, 10) 09, 23551 20.235 255.45
26.29, 53.
 Abba 45
resurrection stories; neither of them therefore falls within the scope of
our investigation.
So only four passages in all remain for us to examine: Mark 13.32
(par. Matt. 24.36); Matt. 11.27 (par. Luke 10.22); Matt. 16.17; Luke
22.20.
The authenticity of the saying Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22
We shall begin with Matt. 11.27 (par. Luke 10.22).75 First of all,
something should be said about the age of the tradition.
Karl von Hase, who in the last century was professor of church
history at Jena, in his book on the life of Jesus coined the famous
simile that this synoptic saying ‘gives the impression of a thunder-
bolt fallen from the Johannine sky’.7° Two things above all in this
text appeared Johannine: first, the phrase about mutual know-
ledge which was regarded as a technical term drawn from
Hellenistic mysticism, and second, the designation of Jesus as
6 vids, which is characteristic of Johannine christology (Gospel
15 times, Epistles 8 times). Before John, this absolute 6 vids, with
the article, occurs only at I Cor. 15.28; Mark 13.32 par. Matt.
24.36; Matt. 28.19; Heb. 1.8. Moreover, the use of the absolute
6 TaTyp as a title for God is, as we saw on p. 33 above, almost a
hallmark of the Johannine writings.
These objections have been repeated constantly. Fora long time
it was considered certain that Matt. 11.27 par. was a late product
of Hellenistic Christianity.’’ In the last decades, however, the tide
has begun to turn.78 The objections mentioned above are in fact
quite untenable. The explicitly semitic character of the saying,
which is clear both from its language and its style, tells against the
description of it as a ‘Hellenistic revelation saying’.7°
75 Literature in Schrenk, op. cit., p. 993, n. 228, and in F. Hahn, Christo-
logische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im friihen Christentum (FRLANT 83),
Gottingen 1963 = 71964, pp. 321-30.
76K. A. von Hase, Die Geschichte Jesu?, Leipzig 1876, p. 422.
77 Thus, though formulated very carefully (‘redaction of authentic words
of Jesus’), even Schrenk, op. cit., p. 994.
78 English scholars, in patticular, have protested strongly here. T. W.
Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, London 1949 = 1950 (19371), p. 79: ‘The
passage is full of Semitic turns of phrase, and certainly Palestinian in origin’ ;
id., The Teaching of Jesus?, Cambridge 1935 = 1948, pp. 109-12; W. L. Knox,
Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (Schweich Lectures 1942),
London 1944, p. 7: ‘If we reject it, it must be on the grounds of our general
attitude to the person of Jesus, not on the ground that its form or language
are “hellenistic” in any intelligible sense.’
79R, Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, ET, Oxford 1963,
p. 159.
46 The Prayers of Jesus
Vocabulary: odSels |et jj, oF od8S€ |ed pj corresponds to a NON In
(typically Aramaic®° paraphrase for ‘only’); the meaning ‘reveal’ for
aroxadvrrrew is not Greek.*! Semitic sty/e is to be seen in the asyndeton
at the beginning; in the repetition of the verb in the second and third
lines, which Greek taste found ugly (Luke therefore avoided it); in the
synthetic parallelism of the second and third lines which serves to
replace the defective reciprocal pronoun (see below); and in the
structure of the four line stanza which is exactly paralleled in Matt.
11.25f.: both four line stanzas mention the theme first, in line 1, then
elaborate it with two parallel clauses in the second and third lines, the
second line being subordinate to the third, despite the formal parataxis
in each case (see below), and end in the fourth line with an emphatic
last clause. Finally, the differences between Matt. 11.27 and the parallel
version in Luke 10.22 should be noted: in the second line Luke has the
simple ywoorer (Matt.:éruywesoxer) and has an indirect question in the
second and third lines instead of the object; he has cai at the beginning
of the third line (Matt. ovS¢) and, as has been remarked above, avoids
repeating the verb. This last divergence is likely to be a stylistic cor-
rection by Luke. On the other hand, the cai at the beginning of the
third line cannot be attributed to Luke’s editing, as Luke cuts down on
the frequent use of cai in his material’? and never alters an oddé in the
text of Mark to xai. So at least in this cai we have a variant tradition or
translation; in the latter case it would be a pointer to an Aramaic
original underlying both versions. The only strange point is the
introduction of the subject with imé after a passive (waped0n). This is
not impossible for Palestinian Aramaic, but it is unusual,83 and to be
regarded as a Graecism.

Language, style and structure thus clearly assign the saying to a

Semitic-speaking milieu. The two arguments for an allegedly
Hellenistic origin mentioned initially (‘mystical’ knowledge and
the use of 6 vids and 6 marjp as titles) can beanswered on linguistic
grounds. True, Hellenistic mysticism and Gnosticism offer
expressions similar to the contrast of (ému)ywaoxew used twice in
the active (Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22: lines 2 and 3), but so far
no exact parallel has been indicated in this context. I shall shortly
draw attention to an exact formal analogy in the book of Tobit,

80K, Beyer, Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament, 1 1 (SUNT 1), Gottingen

1962, p. 105.
a1 A. Brie KaAvTTw KTA., TV NT III (1938), p. 568.19f. (Cf. on the other
hand in Judaism: Sirach 3.19: Hebrew 1710 may ony, LXX Tpacow
dmoxadvnrer TA pLVOTHpLA avTOD.)
82H. J. Cadbury, The Style and Literary Method of Luke (Harvard Theo-
logical Studies 6), Cambridge 1920, pp. 142f.
83 G. Dalman, The Words of Jesus, 1, ET, Edinburgh 1902, p. 284, n. 1.
 Abba 47
which has not yet been noticed, as far as I am aware. So it can no
longer be said that while ‘the idea of such mutual knowledge can-
not be excluded’ in Judaism, there are ‘no actual examples’.**
Such contrasts with verbal repetition are idiomatic semitic usage.
What seems to us to be a roundabout way of expression is a
common device for expressing a reciprocal relationship. As
semitic languages lack a reciprocal pronoun (‘one another’,
‘each other’), they either have to help themselves out with peri-
phrases (e.g. PHN WR = addirous, cf. Matt. 18.35 éxaoros TO
adeAf@ adrod) or take refuge in repetitions, as for example: ‘the
first will receive the last ... and the last those whom they have
heard to have gone before them’ (for: first and last will receive
each other)®> or: ‘these agree with those and those agree with
these’ (for: they agree together)*®° or: ‘these gave reasons for their
views and those gave reasons for their views’ (for: each gave the
other their reasons),®” or a quite striking parallel to the present
logion:
avTos od yuwoKeEL [LE
Kal eya od ywwoKkw adtov
(for: we do not know each other).88 As G. Dalman recognized,®9
Matt. 11.27 is an exact parallel; the monotony of the parallel lines
ovdels emuywwaKet TOV vioV El [47 6 TATIP,
ovd€ Tov Tatépa Tis emuywooker El p11) 6 vids
is simply an oriental periphrasis for a mutual relationship: only
father and son really know each other.
This also does away with the second objection, that the use of
6 vids and 6 marip in the absolute shows that Matt. 11.27 is
Hellenistic. If Matt. 11.27 has nothing to do with Hellenistic
mysticism, but rather belongs in a Semitic-speaking milieu (see
above p. 45), then we are not to understand 6 vids as a title; for
there are no instances of 6 vids being used in the absolute as a
Messianic title either in ancient Judaism? or in the pre-Hellenistic
strata of the New Testament. In the light of semitic linguistic
usage, the articles before vids and before zarjp are to be under-
84 Hahn, op. cit., p. 324. 85 Syr. Bar. 51.13 (Violet).
86 7, Rosh. Hash, 2.58b.20f. (noted by Dalman, op. cit., p. 283, n. 1).
OT EG Mia Tpit Cob Vighig
88 Tobit 5.28; cf. also Test. Naph. 7.3 (Jacob, about Joseph): od BAézw oe,
Kal ov ody opds *laxwB Tov yevyvyoarrd ce (references from Dr C. Burchard).
89 Dalman, op. cit., p. 283. 9° See above, p. 37.
48 The Prayers of Jesus
stood in a generic sense.°! Thus Matt. 11.27b-d was originally
meant as a statement of general experience. There is a completely
analogous statement of general experience, also concerned with
the father-son relationship, in John 5.19-20a, if C. H. Dodd is
right. He believes that this passage is ‘une parabole cachée’, i.e.
that it was originally an everyday metaphor of the son as his
father’s pupil.°? (That the evangelists understood 6 vids as a title
both in Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22 and in John 5.19-20a is quite
another question; we ate here concerned with the original sense
of the sayings.)
One final word about the allegedly ‘Johannine’ ring of this
passage. It would be quite unparalleled if a Johannine logion had
found its way into the synoptic corpus. Moreover, the fact that
both émuywacxewv (so Matthew) and dmoxadvrrew arte not Johannine
words tells against this assumption; émvywaoxew does not occur at
allin the Johannine writings, and dzoxadvmrew occurs only once,
ina quotation from the LX X (John 12.38, quoting Isa. 53.1 LXX).
Nor is wapaSidévar used with God as subject in John, as it is in
Matt. 11.27 par. On the other hand, we can easily understand how,
once the absolute 6 vids was taken as a title, this passage could
have been an important stimulus to Johannine christology and its
remarks about knowledge (cf. John 10.15). Indeed, without such
points of departure in the synoptic tradition it would be an
eternal puzzle how Johannine theology could have originated at
all.
If, then, there is nothing against the authenticity of our logion,
the intrinsic connection it has with the way in which Jesus
addressed God as ‘Abba’ is decisively in its favour.
The meaning of the saying Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22
The exegesis of the saying must begin from its structure.%
It is a four-line stanza:
1 See e.g. H. F. W. Gesenius—E. Kautzsch-A. E. Cowley, Hebrew
Grammar, ET*, Oxford 1910, §126 /.
%2 C, H. Dodd, ‘Une parabole cachée dans le quatritme Evangile’, RHPR
42 (1962), pp. 107-15; this was seen at the same time, and apparently inde-
pendently of Dodd, by P. Gaechter, ‘Zur Form von Joh. 5,19-30’, in:
J. Blinzler-O. Kuss—F, Mussner, Neutestamentliche Aufsdtze (J. Schmid
Festschrift), Regensburg 1963, pp. 65-8, here p. 67.
°° Like D. F, Strauss before him, E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, Berlin 1913
= 71923 = Darmstadt 1956, pp. 277-308, wanted to see Matt. 11.25-30 as an
original unity; he pointed out that Sirach 51.1-30 had an analogous structure
 Abba 49
1. ITdvra poe wapedd0n bd Tob matpos pov,
2. Kal ovdels emuywaoket TOV vidv el 147) 6 TATHp,
3. ovde TOV TaTEpa TIS emLyWwoKeL El [1) O ULOS
4. Kat @ édv BovAnrat 6 vids dmoxadvysar. (Matt. 11.27)

The Lucan version (10.22), which differs only slightly, shows faint
signs of Greek influence in the omission of the verb in the third
line.
As we have seen, the first line introduces the theme: ‘My Father
has%* given me all things.’ Matt. 28.18 should not mislead us into
supposing that zavra refers to lordly power; this would not fit the
context of vv. 25f. and 27b-d, where only the revelation of God is
mentioned. As zrapadiSdvar (= VOM) is used as a technical term for
the transmission of doctrine, knowledge and holy lore, zavra
refers to knowledge of God, just as raira in v. 25 designates the
mystery of revelation. Thus in v.27a, Jesus is saying: God has
given me a full revelation.
The second line (kat oddels emuywaoKer Tov vidv ec p17) 6 TaTNp)
seems at first sight to be completely irrelevant to its context,
which is simply concerned with knowledge of God (and not of
the son!). This apparent break in the train of thought has led to
the deletion or transposition of the second line, right up to
modern times.?* But to do this is completely to misunderstand the
structure of the saying. As in Matt. 11.25f., which has a similar
structure, the clause which gives the theme of Matt. 11.27 is
followed by two lines, linked in parallelism, which elaborate it:

and argued that in both passages we have the same type of religious propa-
ganda. But neither Sirach 51.1-30 nor Matt. 11.25-30 originally formed a
unity. Sitach 51.1-12 is a hymn of thanksgiving to which an alphabetical
acrostic has been attached (vv. 13-30). The unity of Matt. 11.25-30 is equally
doubtful. Luke does not have vv. 28-30, and although the two remaining
fout-line stanzas (vv. 25f. and v. 27) have the same structure, it is questionable
whether they originally belonged together, because Luke has his own intro-
duction to each of them (Luke 10.21, 22); they may have been connected by
catchword association, because amoxaAvmrew occurs in each of them.
94 T have translated this in the active, as the passive is a periphrasis for the
action of God.
95 J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, ET?, London 1966, pp. 101,
ZO2.
96 See most recently P. Winter, ‘Matthew XI 27 and Luke X 22 from the
First to the Fifth Century’, NovT 1 (1956), pp. 122-48, here especially pp.
129-34.
PJD
50 The Prayers of Jesus
Kal ovdels emLywwoKEL TOV VLOV EL [7] O TATHP,
‘ 9 \ > (4 | ey > A ¢ 4

ovde TOV TATEpa TIS emLYWwOKEL El [L7) O ULOS.

> € Lh

In these two lines, we have a formal parataxis combined with a

logical hypotaxis.°7 We can see this most clearly from v. 25be.
The thanksgiving in v. 25 is not about the concealment of know-
ledge, but about its revelation. So Matt. 11.25 must be translated
with the second line subordinate to the third:
(I thank thee)
that while thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understand-
ing, thou hast revealed them to babes.
In v. 27, the second line is subordinated in just the same way to
the third, which has the emphasis (weight at the end). Add to this
the fact that, as we saw on pp. 47f. above, 6 vids and 6 zarip are to
be understood generically, the two parallel lines in v. 27bc making
a picture from everyday life, and to match the sense we should
translate:
Just as only a father really knows his son,
so only a son really knows his father.
The correctness of this translation is confirmed by John 10.15:
Kabws ywooKer Le 6 TATHP
Kayw ywwokw Tov TaTépa.
The final line (kat & édv BovAnrar 6 vids droxadvysar) continues the
imagery (6 vids is again to be understood generically) and follows
on smoothly from what precedes it: because only a son really
knows his father, he alone is in a position to pass this knowledge
on to othets.
Now it is important to realize that the father-son comparison is
used in Palestinian apocalyptic as an illustration of how revelation
is transmitted. Here are some examples. ‘Every secret did I (God)
reveal to him (Mefatron) as a father’ (Hebrew [III] Enoch 48C.7).
‘Rabbi Ishmael said: Mefatron said to me: Come, I will show you
the curtain of God which is drawn before the Holy One (blessed
be He), on which all the generations of the world and all their
doings... are woven. (2) And I went, and he showed me with
the fingers of his hands—like a father who is teaching his son the
letters of the Torah’ (Hebrew Enoch 45.1£. MS E). The metaphor of
°7 Norden, op. cit., pp. 286f.
 Abba 51
the son as the pupil of his father, understood in its original sense,98
also belongs here: “Truly, truly, I say to you: a son can do nothing
of his own accord, (but) only what he sees his father doing; for
whatever he does, his son does likewise. For a father loves his son,
and shows him all that he himself is doing’ (John 5.19-20a).
Thus, in interpreting the theme ‘The Father has transmitted all
things to me’ with the aid of this father-son comparison, what
Jesus wants to convey in the guise of an everyday simile is this:
Like a father who personally devotes himself to explaining the
letters of the Torah to his son, like a father who initiates a son into
the well-preserved secrets of his craft, so God has transmitted to
me the revelation of himself, and therefore I alone can pass on to
others the real knowledge of God.
Matt. 11.27 is a key statement by Jesus about his mission. But
it does not stand isolated in the gospels. There are numerous
parallels®® in the gospels to the consciousness of being in a
singular way the recipient and mediator of knowledge of God
which is expressed in Matt. 11.27: Mark 4.11 (Jesus passes on the
pLvoTTpLov THS Baotrelas TOU O08) ; Matt. 11.25 (Jesus possesses and
teaches raira; God reveals it through him); Luke 10.23f. (the
disciples can see and hear what has not been granted to prophets
and kings); Matt. 5.17 (Jesus brings the final revelation); Luke
15.1-7, 8-10, 11-32 (Jesus’ actions reflect God’s attitude to sinners),
etc.10

According to a special tradition, Matt. 11.26 also belongs here.1®%

The Gnostic sect of the Marcosians handed down Matt. 11.26 in the
following version!®:
ie 3G , e ” 6 , 35 , oy
ova, Oo TAaTYpP pov, OTL ELLTPODVEV GOV EVOOKLa [Ol EVEVETO.

This form of the saying undoubtedly goes back to an Aramaic tradition.

The evidence for this is: (2) odd = J] = Oh! is an Aramaic exclamation

98 See above, pp. 47f.

99 Cf. L. Cerfaux, ‘La connaissance des secrets du Royaume d’aprés Matt.
XIII 11 et paralléles’, NTS 2 (1955-6), pp. 242f.
100 G. Jeremias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2), Gottingen 1963,
. 319f., esp. p . 327f., 336ff.
PP okse Mere Des Cinesbun Matthaeus nach der syrischen im Sinaikloster
gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift (Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem
altesten bekannten Texte II 1), Berlin 1902, p. 200. For what follows see
W. Grundmann, Die Geschichte Jesu Christi, Berlin 1957, p. 80 and n. 1.;
id., ‘Die vijmoe in der urchristlichen Paranese’, NTS 5 (1958-9), pp. 2o2f.
102 Text in Irenaeus, Haer. I 13.2.

17599
i ion Y a | er j
52 The Prayers of Jesus
of triumphant joy;,() The vocative 6 war7ip pov is a rendering of NAN;
(c) por eyévero = "? 1114] is semitic; moreover, éyévero is a paraphrase
for the action of God; (d) the Marcosians have the plural r&v odpavav
at the beginning of the cry of joy in contrast to the singular rod odpavod
of Matt. 11.25 par. Luke 10.21. So according to the tradition of the
Marcosians, the cry of Jesus ran:
‘O my Father, that good pleasure was granted me before thee!’
According to this ancient variant, Jesus counted himself among the
vio. mentioned immediately beforehand in Matt. 11.25 par. Luke
10.21. He rejoices that he is the vjmos of God, his beloved child, to
whom the revelation has been given. Even though this variant form of
the tradition of Matt. 11.26 is secondary, it strikes the original note of
Jesus’ joy over the revelation granted to him, a joy which also per-
meates the present text.
We do not know when and where Jesus received the revelation
in which God allowed him to participate in complete divine
knowledge—as a father allows his son to share in knowledge.
The aorist indicates one particular experience. Perhaps we should
think of the baptism.
The remaining passages
We need spend little time on the remaining passages in which
Jesus calls God his Father. Matt. 16.17 (cdpé kal afwa ode amexdAurpev
got GAN 6 marHp pov ev Tots odpavois) is closely related to Matt. 11.27
par.; here, too, ‘my Father’ is spoken in the context of the self-
revelation of God. Mark 13.32 stands equally close to Matt. 11.27
par. Here, however, the extent of the revelation is said to be
limited—an indication of considerable antiquity: only the Father
is omniscient.1°? Luke 22.29 (dv€Berd por 6 maTHp ov Baowreiav)
takes up Dan. 7.14: 19 °2791 72") OPW WT? 12. Bacwrela without
the article in Luke 22.29 designates the kingly might (not the
realm) which Jesus is promised by his Father. Luke 22.29 is also
close to Matt. 11.27; to the present gift of the Father, revelation, is
added the promise of his future gift: royal estate.
aK * *

All the ‘my Father’ sayings we have discussed deal with the
unique revelation and authority which have been given to Jesus.
In the earliest stratum, they are strictly limited to the specific
103 Tf ode 6 vids may be regarded as an addition (see above, p. 37), there is
nothing to prevent us seeing an old tradition in Mark 13.32.
 Abba 53
relationship of Jesus to God.1% The sparseness of the instances in
the earliest stratum of the tradition shows that Jesus did not often
speak of the ultimate mystery of his mission, and their limitation
to words addressed to the disciples shows that they belong to the
esoteric teaching of Jesus.!°° In his public preaching, Jesus
clarified the nature and action of God in parables about the
conduct of an earthly father!°°; he kept the direct designation of
God as ‘my Father’ for his teaching to the disciples. The esoteric
teaching is indeed the reason for the selection of the group of
disciples.17
Jesus bases his authority on the fact that God has revealed
imself to him like a father to his son. ‘My Father’ is thus a word
of revelation. It represents the central statement of Jesus’ mission.
In making Jesus’ communion with the Father and the authority
based on it the central point of Jesus’ message, the Gospel of John
has preserved a historical fact, despite the way in which it has
increased the number of instances and despite its ignorance of the
way in which the message was limited to the group of disciples.
There is nothing in Rabbinic literature which corresponds to
this use of ‘my Father’ by Jesus. The two Tannaitic instances of
the phrase ‘my heavenly Father’ cited on pp. 18 and 22 above are
of a different kind. They apply to all Israelites, or to all Israelites
involved in persecution, and therefore apply quite generally,
whereas ‘my Father’ on the lips of Jesus expresses a unique
104 This can also be seen in the way in which Jesus never associates himself
with the disciples in the phrase ‘our Father’, not even in the Lord’s Prayer,
where the shorter form of address (adrep Luke 11.2) is original. Cf. ‘The
Lord’s Prayer’, below, pp. 85-93.
105 This was first recognized by T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus?,
Cambridge 1935 = 1948, p. 102.
106 Tuke 15.11-32; Matt. 7.9-11 par. Luke 11.11-13 etc.
107 In objecting that: ‘In my opinion, Abba should not be taken as a mark
of Jesus’ esoteric teaching; this is impossible, simply by virtue of the Lord’s
Prayer’, F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel (FRLANT 83), Gottingen 1963 =
21964, p. 320, n.3, fails to understand that the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer for the
disciples. It was not reserved for the baptised only at a later stage in the
ancient church; this also happened at an early period, as can be seen from
the structure of the Didache: pre-baptismal instruction (1-6) is followed by
baptism (7), and only then do the Lord’s prayer (8) and the Lord’s supper
(9-10) follow. Cf. T. W. Manson, “The Lord’s Prayer’, BJRL 38 (1955-6),
pp. ro1f., and below, pp. 83f. In view of the numerous references to baptism
in I Peter, it has frequently been conjectured that I Peter 1.17 (et warépa
émkadciabe Tov...) refers to the tradition of the Lord’s Prayer at baptism.
This is illuminating. For the Lord’s Prayer as a prayer of the disciples, see
further pp. 63f.
54 The Prayers of Jesus
relationship with God.1°* If we are looking for any prefigure-
ments we must go back to the Old Testament, and recall the
prophecy of Nathan, which promises to the descendant of David:
‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ (II Sam. 7.14 par.
I Chron. 17.13), and to the words about the king in Ps. 2.7;
$9.26;1°?
108H, Braun, Spatjidisch-hdretischer und friibchristlicher Radikalismus, 1
(Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 24 I), Tubingen 1957, p. 127, n. 2, has
challenged this by remarking that we “do in fact have three Rabbinic passages
which refer to “‘my Father” ’. But he overlooks two things: (1), that the two
Tannaitic examples, as has been pointed out above in the text, have a general
application, and (2) that the third instance produced by Braun from Billerbeck
I, p. 394, in which R. Zadok (ap 50-80) is said to have addressed God as ‘my
heavenly Father’, is a historically worthless anachronism, as it derives from a
writing produced in South Italy in the tenth century (see above, p. 28 on the
Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah).
109 The promise given to the priestly Messiah that God will speak to him
with ‘the voice of a father’ (Test. Levi 18.6) and the promise to the Messiah
of Judah that the ‘blessing of the holy Father’ will be poured out on him
(Test. Juda 24.2) are both suspect of being due to Christian influence.

B. ‘Father’ as an address in the prayers of Jesus

(7) The tradition
The result of the above investigation of the sayings of Jesus is
confirmed and becomes even more profound when we turn to his
prayers. We now move on from the designation of God as Father in
the words of Jesus to the addressing of God as Father in his
prayers.
All five strata of the Gospel tradition agree that Jesus addressed
God as Father in prayer. The instances are distributed as follows:
Mark t
Common to Matthew and Luke -
Additional instances peculiar to Luke 2°
Additional instances peculiar to Matthew 1
John 9°
A critical scrutiny of the instances shows that the earliest layer
of tradition is represented by the Lord’s Prayer (in the Lucan
1 Mark 14.36 (par. Matt. 26.39; Luke 22.42).
2 Matt. 6.9 (par. Luke 11.2); 11.25, 26 (par. Luke 10.21ab).
3 Luke 23.34, 46.
+ Matt. 26.42 (repetition of 26.39 par. Mark 14.36).
° John 11.41; 12.27f.; 17.1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25, two of these with an adjectival
attribute: 17.11 (mdrep aye), 25 (waTep diKaue).
 Abba 55
version),® the cry of jubilation, which is thoroughly semitic both
in language and style (Matt. 11.25f. par. Luke 10.21), and the
prayer in Gethsemane with its address ‘Abba’ (Mark 14.36). This
does not, however, rob the other instances of their value. For
only if one takes them into consideration does a most significant
fact become clear: not only do the five strata agree that Jesus did
in fact use the address ‘Father’, but they are also at one in making
Jesus use this address in a// his prayers, with one exception. The
cry from the cross, Mark 15.34 par. Matt. 27.46, is: ‘My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ Here the form of address ‘my
God’ was supplied by the text of the psalm quoted. This constancy
of the tradition shows how firmly the address ‘Father’ was rooted
in the tradition of Jesus, quite apart from the question of the
authenticity of the individual prayers themselves.
It is still more significant that we see that Jesus used the
Aramaic word N2N (accent on the final syllable)? when he
addressed God as Father. While this occurs explicitly in the
Gospels only at Mark 14.36, two other points confirm it. First, we
should remember that the primitive church also addressed God as
‘Abba’; Paul bears witness to this not only in the case of the com-
munities in Galatia, which he founded (Gal. 4.6), but also in the
case of the Roman church, which was still unknown to him
(Rom. 8.15). This quite striking use of an alien Aramaic word in
the prayer of the Greek-speaking communities goes back to the
example of Jesus, as is certainly shown by the uniqueness of the
linguistic usage.* This presupposes that Jesus frequently used
‘Abba’ as a form of address to God. Secondly, the variation in the
form of the vocative between mdrep,° mdtep pov,!? 6 warjp!! and
maryp'? should also be noted.
These variations occur at different levels. The use of the nomi-
6 See ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, pp. 89-94.
7 With very few exceptions, Galilean Aramaic has the stress on the last
syllable.
8 See below, pp. 57.
9 Matt. 11.25 pat. Luke 10.21; Luke 11.2; 22.42; 23.34, 46; John 11.41;
L227 2 Oo Mla snys bUgke i524) 256
10 Matt. 26.39, 42.
11 Mark 14.36; Matt. 11.26 par. Luke 10.21; Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6.
12 John 17.5 D* 11 BN, 21 BDW pe, 24 BA pe, 25 BA pe. K. Aland (in:
E. Nestle-K. Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece”®, Stuttgart 1963; Synopsis
Quattuor Evangeliorum, Stuttgart 1964) takes mrarep to be the original reading in
John 17.1, 5,11 and waryp in vv. 21, 24, 25. The latter can hardly be right.
 56 The Prayers of Jesus
native zarjp without the article as a form of address is a piece of
vulgarity (‘scribal faux-pas’). It comes about, as the papyri show, by
the occasional suppression of the special vocative form in the third
declension by the nominative (rari, uxjrnp, Ovyarnp) in popular usage.'4
The variation of the manuscripts between zdrep and marjp (John 17.5,
II, 21, 24f.) is thus a variation purely within the Greek, like their
variation between Ovyarep and Ouyarnp (Matt. 9.22; Mark 5.34; Luke
8.48; John 12.15). The variation between warep, 6 marnp and marep pov
is a different matter. The use of the nominative with the article as a
vocative in addressing God (6 warjp Mark 14.36; Matt. 11.26 par.
Luke 10.21; Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6) is not Attic!S and must be regarded
as a Semitism; in all three passages in the New Testament in which
aBBa occurs (Mark 14.36; Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6) it is glossed as 6 warjp,
and in Mark 5.41 the vocative Nn? is similarly rendered r6 kopdovov.
ITdrep pou (Matt. 26.39, 42) is a correct rendering of the original é8Ba
(6 marnp) of Mark 14.36. Finally, the juxtaposition of mdrep and 6 warnp
when they follow each other in the same prayer (Matt. 11.25, 26 par.
Luke 10.21 beginning, end) shows that an Aramaic NAN also underlies
marep in Jesus’ prayers. The position is very clearly illustrated by the
tradition of the prayer in Gethsemane: the a88a used by Jesus according
to Mark 14.36 is rendered 6 rarnp by Mark (14.36), warep wou by Matthew
(26.39), and marep by Luke (22.42).1°
The variation between rdrep, 6 warjp and marep pov inaddressing
God in the Greek tradition of the prayers of Jesus can thus be
explained as the result of variant translations. The reasons for
them is that in the Palestinian Aramaic of the first century ap NAN
was used not only as a form of address, but also for the emphatic
state and for the form with the first person singular suffix, as we
shall see shortly.7 It is clear from this that the addressing of God
as father goes back directly or indirectly to N2N not only at Mark
14.36, where the Aramaic equivalent a88a is explicitly mentioned,
but in the other passages as well. There can be no doubting this
conclusion, as there was no other equivalent of the address ‘my
father’ available either in Aramaic or in Hebrew, as spoken in
Palestine in the time of Jesus.1® We need not trouble ourselves in
13 Blass-Debrunner-Funk, §147.3.
14 Instances in Blass-Debrunner-Funk, zbid,
15 Blass-Debrunner-Funk, zbid.; the nominative with the article is used in
Attic only as an abrupt form of address to underlings.
16 WW, Marchel, Abba, Pére! La priére du Christ et des Chrétiens (Analecta
Biblica 19), Rome 1963, p. 138.
17 See below, pp. 5 8f.
18 See above, pp. 58f, with notes 32 and 34.
 Abba 57
any detail over the question whether the sixteen (twenty-one,
including parallels) passages!® in which God is addressed as
‘Father’ in the prayers of Jesus are authentic or not beyond what
has already been said on pp. 54f. The important thing is that we
have discovered that all five strata of the Gospel tradition report
unanimously and without any hesitation that Jesus constantly
addressed God as ‘my Father’ (with the exception of Mark 15.34 par.
Matt. 27.46), and show that in so doing he used the Aramaic form NAN.

(a) The significance of ‘Abba’ as an address to God

In the second part of this work we have seen that in the litera-
ture of early Palestinian Judaism there is no evidence of ‘my
Father’ being used as a personal address to God (see above
Pp. 27-29). For Jesus to address God as ‘my Father’ is therefore
something new. Whereas, for example, in the Old Testament and
inter-Testamental period the traditional formula of thanksgiving
‘I praise thee’ is followed by the address ‘Yahweh’,?° ‘my Lord,
my God’! or simply ‘my Lord’? or “(my) God’,# or with ‘God
of my father’,** there is no precedent for Jesus’ saying é£opodoyotpai
ool, TaTEp, KUpLE TOD Opavod Kal THs ys (Matt. 11.25 par. Luke 10.21).
Of course, there are instances of God being addressed as warep
in the milieu of Hellenistic Judaism. But this is under Greek
influence, and the instances are few.?° We can say quite definitely
that there is #0 analogy at all in the whole literature of Jewish prayer
for God being addressed as Abba. This assertion applies not only
to fixed liturgical prayer, but also to free prayer, of which many
examples have been handed down to us in Talmudic literature.
We are thus confronted with a fact of the utmost significance.
Whereas there is not a single instance of God being addressed as
Abba in the literature of Jewish prayer, Jesus always addressed
him in this way (with the exception of the cry from the cross,
Mark 15.34 par.). So we have here a quite unmistakable char-
acteristic of the ipsissima vox Jesu.

19 They are listed above on p. 54, notes I-5.

ZOTsaal2ebs PETES, Osa
22 1QH 2.20, etc. Cf. G. iS remias, Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit (SUNT 2),
Gottingen 1963, p. 184, n.
23 tOH 11.3, 15 (PN); Ps.Gal, 16.5 (6 Beds).
24 Sirach 51.1 (Hebrew), see above, p. 28, n. 69.
25 See above, p. 27, n. 64.
58 The Prayers of Jesus
Philology reveals the reason for the striking silence of Jewish
ptayer literature on this point. One constantly comes across the
assertion in New Testament literature that abba, meaning “my
father’, is an emphatic state (‘the father’) which has secondarily
taken over the function of the forms with the first person suffix
(‘my father’, ‘our father’). In reality, however, the development
took place in exactly the opposite direction. The @ in abba was not
originally an appended article,?° as in Aramaic the emphatic state
is abha.?’ In origin, abba is a pure exclamatory form, which is not
inflected and which takes no possessive suffixes ;28 the gemination
is modelled on the way in which a child says ‘wma to its mother
(the reason being that a small child says ‘Mama’ more often than
‘Dada’).2° This form abba, deriving from children’s speech,?° had
made considerable headway in Palestinian Aramaic in the period
before the New Testament. Abba first suppressed the “Imperial
Aramaic’! and biblical-Hebraic form of address abhi all along the
line3?; there is, so far as I know, only one certain instance of its
26 T. Ndldeke, Supplement to F. Schulthess-E. Littmann, Grammatik des
christlich-palastinischen Aramdisch, Tiibingen 1924, p. 156, cf. G. Schrenk,
matynp A,C-D, TY NT V (1954), p. 984.24 and n. 248.
27, Littmann, Orientalia 21 (1952), p. 389.
28 Noldeke, zbid.
29'T. Néldeke, ‘Ausgleichungen in den semitischen Wo6rtern fiir “Vater”
und “Mutter” ’, in: T. Noldeke, Beitrdge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft,
Strasbourg 1904, pp. 69-72, here p. 71. G. Dalman differs (Grammatik des
judisch-palistinischen Aramdisch*, Leipzig 1905 = Darmstadt 1960, p. 90 and
n. 1). He sees the final @ of abba as a diminutive ending which has arisen by
the contraction of ai to a short @ (*abbai became abba); for the allegedly
original *abbai he refers to diminutive forms of proper names like Johai
(from Johanan), Zakkai (from Zechariah), Mattai (from Mattaniah or
Mattathiah), Abbai (from Abbaiah) (0p. cit., pp. 178-80, where there are many
more examples).
30 Note that in the chronological survey of the instances of abba as a voca-
tive in n. 32 the two earliest examples are from children’s talk.
31 1QGen.Ap. 2.24: "79 N1°AN N? (the particle yz = oh! had until then
been found only in Syriac, and not in Palestinian Aramaic).
32 b, Ta‘an. 23a (Bar.) (‘abba, put me in a warm bath’, Simeon b. Shatah,
¢. 90 BC), 23b (‘abba, abba, give us rain’, Hanin ha-Nehba, end of the first
centuty BC); Gal. 4.6 (AD 49-50); Rom. 8. 15 (AD 55); ‘Ed. 5.7 (abba, commend
me to your colleagues’, son of “Akabiah b. Mahalalel, ¢. ap 70); Mark 14.36
(after 70); Gen. R. 26 on 6.1 (‘abba, bless me’... ., ‘abba, bless me’, . . . ‘abba,
you have cursed me’, the daughter of Gamaliel I, ¢. ap 90); Tos. Pea 3.8
(22.2) (‘abba, what ails you?’, undated, before 200); Targ. Onk. Jerus. I II
(MS Vat. Neofiti 1) Gen. 22.7; 27.18, 31, 34, 38 (b¢5); 48.18; Targum on the
Prophets, Judg. 11.36; Isa. 8.4.—Palestinian Syriac: Gen. 22.7; Matt. 26.39,
42; Luke 10.21 (bis); 15.12; 18, 21; 16.24, 27, 30; 23.34, 46; John. 11.41:
ieRe Taper Ata se, Cents Oily babe
 Abba 59

survival (apart from the mediaeval Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah, see

above, p. 28, n. 65).33 In addition, abba took over the non-vocative
use of the form with the first person singular suffix3+ and replaced
the emphatic state abha*>; abba can also stand for ‘his father’36
and ‘our father’.37 Moreover, even in the pre-Christian period,
abba is attested as a respectful address to old men.38 This process
of the extension of the use of abba had already come to an end in
the New Testament period.3® But despite the degree of the
extension, it was never forgotten that abba derived from the
language of small children. The Talmud says, ‘When a child
experiences the taste of wheat (i.e. when it is weaned) it learns to
say abba and imma (i.e. these are the first sounds which it makes)’.*°
The Targum renders Isa. 8.4: “Before the child learns to call abba
and imma.’ Moreover, the church fathers Chrysostom, Theodore
of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus, born in Antioch of
well-to-do parents and probably growing up under the super-
vision of Syrian nurses and nurserymaids, report from their own

33 Fx, R. 46 on 34.1 (see below, n. 48).

34 Whereas in imperial Aramaic (Dan. 5.13; 1QGen. Ap. 2.19; 6Q8 1.4)
and even later in Edessene Syriac (see below, pp. 63f.), abh(z) was used for
‘my father’, in Palestinian and Babylonian Aramaic, abba took its place. This
Aramaic abba, ‘my father’, even found its way into earlier Mishnaic Hebrew
and is in fact used exclusively there, as is shown by the Mishnah and the
Tosephta (see below, note 39). Here is one example out of many, Tos.
Sanh, 9.11 (429.30f.): ‘R. Eleazar b. Zadok (born ¢. av 35) said, “When I was
still a boy, I watched a priest’s daughter being burnt, sitting on abba’s
shoulders.” ’ E. Littmann, ‘Anredeformen in erweiterter Bedeutung’, NGG
Phil.-hist. Klasse 1916, pp. 94-111, has produced numerous instances of such
transferences of the form of address to the other cases, which are frequent in
semitic languages.
35 This explains why the vocative abba repeatedly is rendered by 6 trarrip
instead of by wdrep (j0v) in the New Testament (see the passages above, p. 55,
my THY}
36 Pea 2.6; Tos. Yoma 1.8 (181.8).
37 Fr, 6.2; B.B. 9.3; Sheb. 7.7; Tos. Yoma 2.5 (184.7), 6 (184.19), 8 (185.4);
Tos. B.Q. 10.21 (368.22).
38 See above, p. 42, n. 66.
39 This is shown by the pre-Christian instances b. Ta‘an. 23a (Bat.) (begin-
ning of the first century Bc, see above, p. 61, n. 32, b. Ta‘an. 23b (end of the
first century Bc, see below, p. 58) and the New Testament (Mark 14.36;
Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6), as well as by the fact that the authorities cited in the
Mishnah and the Tosephta, including those who lived in Jerusalem before
the destruction of the Temple, like R. Hanina the Captain of the Temple
(Zeb. 9.3) and R. Eleazar b. Zadok (see above, n. 34) use abba without
exception, and never abhi, when they speak of their fathers.
40 b, Ber. 40a (Bar.) par. b. Sanh. Job (Bar.).
60 The Prayers of Jesus
experience that small children used to call their fathers abba.
But one should note that at the time of Jesus to address one’s
father as abba was no longer a practice limited to small children.
The extension of the significance of abba which we have just out-
lined meant that grown up children, too, no longer addressed
their father in everyday conversation as abhi,#* but used abba
instead.43 Only when being particularly obsequious did they
address their father as ‘my lord’,** like the son who was later dis-
obedient, in the parable of the two sons (Matt. 21.29: éyw Kupte).
The story of the spoilt son who is thrown out by his father
because he greets a charlatan with, ‘Hail, my lord, my master, my
father’ CAN 7779 #N12 -"1)?) is about respectful behaviour, and
not about everyday language.*® The old-fashioned ab/i further
serves to underline the obsequiousness. So we can see that to
address a father as abba is a mark of the everyday language of the
family.
As we have already pointed out, there is no instance in Jewish
prayer literature of the vocative abba being addressed to God. But
even the application of abba to God in the form of a statement was
deliberately avoided. The Targum renders two of the three Old
Testament passages in which God is called ‘my father’ (abhz) with
"N27 (Targ. Jer. 3.4, 19) and only one with abba (Targ. Ps. 89.27:
DN NaN N"V/?”); evidently the translator felt it impossible to
paraphrase the biblical text at this point. There is only one other

"T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rémer*, Leipzig-Erlangen 1925,
p. 396, n. 93. The passages are: Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Rom. 14 on 8.15
(PG60, 1862, col. 527: 67ep TOV Tratdiwv uddLoTa eoTe TOY yynolwv mpods TaA-
Tépa phys); Theodore of Mopsuestia, Comm. on Rom. 8. 15 (PG 66, 1864, col.
824: THY vyTiwv ididve€oTt TO ABBA Kadety Tods TraTépas); Theodoret of
Cyrus, Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, on Rom. 8. 15 (PG 82, 1864, col. ian
Ta yap TOU mavoia, mAetove Trappnote KEXpnpeva. ™pos Tous marépas —
ovderw yap tehetav THhv Sudkpiow exer — ovxvorepov mpos adrods THSE
Kéxpyntar TH pwvh).
42 Thus still 1QGen. Ap. 2.24 (see above,p. 58, n.31).
43 *Fid. 5.7 (son); Tos. Pea 3.8 (22.2) (son); can R. a 6.1 (¢er) (daughter).
For more on these passages see above, p. 58, n. 32.
“Thus a grown-up daughter: Gen. 31.35 “ITN (compared with Judg.
11.36 °2N). Hellenistic Judaism: Joseph and Aseneth 4.3 (p. 43.21 Batiffol):
KUpLE} 4.6 (p. 44. BN : KUpLE marep; 4.9 (p. 44. 15): KUpté ov marep; Test. Job
46.2: KUpte dTEp pay (compare 47.1: mdrep).
*5 Read NID "7? (Kvpve, xaipe), see Billerbeck II, p. 216, n. 2.
40 ix, K. AG On be1%
 Abba 61
passage in the whole of the Targum in which abba is applied to
God (Targ. Ma/. 2.10: NI?71D9 TM NIN N21); here too, the
Hebrew original made the rendering abba necessary. The position
is exactly the same in Rabbinic literature outside the Targum. In
the two passages in Tannaitic literature in which God is called
D°NWAW °IN,*7 abhi, which had virtually died out in everyday
language, is used.*® Abba, on the other hand, is only used of God
in one passage, apart from two secondary expansions of the text.*9
This is a story which is told of Hanin ha-Nehba, a grandson of
Onias the Circle-maker, famous for his prayers for rain (so called
because he once drew a circle around himself and swore that he
would not leave it until God gave rain).°° As Onias was murdered
in 65Bc,°! we should put his grandson at the end of the first
century Bc.°? The text reads:
Hanin ha-Nehba was the son of the daughter of Onias the Circle-
maker. When the world needed rain, our teachers used to send school-
children to him, who seized the hem of his coat®? and said to him,
‘Daddy, daddy, give us rain (abba, abba*+ habh lan mitra)! He said to
Him (God): ‘Master of the world, grant it (the rain) for the sake of
these who ate not yet able to distinguish between an abba who has the
power to give rain and an abba who has not.’
Abba is here used as a child’s word. Hanin wants to appeal to
God’s mercy by using the trustful ‘abba, abba’ which the school-
children cry out to him in chorus and describes God in the
children’s language as the ‘abba who has the power to give rain’,
But note that Hanin does not in any way address God himself as
abba; his address is ‘Master of the world’. So the story does not
47 The two passages are cited on pp. 18 and 22.
48 See above, p. 58. "2N occurs in secular usage only sporadically: Tos.
Sheb. 5.6 (452.1; v./. see above, p. 23, n. 47); Ex. R. 46 on 34.1 (see above,
p. 59); a manuscript variant on Targ. Esth, II 1.1 (noted by G. Dalman, The
Words of Jesus, 1, ET, Edinburgh 1902, p. 192, n. 1).—Palestinian Syriac:
Matt. 8.21 v./. (AB).
49 Targ. Job 34.36 ./.; Lev. R. on 24.10. For these two passages see Jeremias,
‘Characteristics of the 7psissima vox Jesu’, below, pp. roof.
50 Ta‘an, 3.8. 51 Josephus, Antz. 14.22-24.
52 Billerbeck IV, p. 110 (‘roughly contemporaneous with Jesus’), dates
Hainin ha-Nehba too late.
53 A gesture of urgent supplication, cf. Mark 5.27.
54 The earliest instance of abba as a respectful form of address (see above,
Pp. 42, n. 66).
55 b, Ta‘an. 23b (cited from the Frankfurt edition, 1721). This passage was
first pointed out by J. Leipoldt, Jesu Verhdlinis zu Juden und Griechen, Leipzig
1941, pp. 136f.
 62 The Prayers of Jesus
affect the assertion that there is not a single instance of God being
addressed as abba in Jewish prayers.°°
We can see from all this why God is not addressed as Abba in
Jewish prayers: to the Jewish mind it would have been dis-
respectful and therefore inconceivable to address God with this
familiar word. For Jesus to venture to take this step was some-
thing new and unheard of. He spoke to God like a child to its
father, simply, inwardly, confidently, Jesus’ use of abba in
addressing God reveals the heart of his relationship with God.
One often reads (and I myself believed it at one time) that when
Jesus spoke to his heavenly Father he took up the chatter of a
small child. To assume this would be a piece of inadmissible
naivety. We have seen that even grown-up sons addressed their
father as abba. So when Jesus addresses God as abba the word is
by no means simply an expression of Jesus’ familiarity in his con-
verse with God. At the same time, it shows the complete surrender
of the Son in obedience to the Father (Mark 14.36; Matt. 11.25f.).
Indeed, the address means even more. We can see this already
from the way in which Jesus never allies himself with his dis-
ciples in saying ‘our Father’ when he prays,>’ and distinguishes
between ‘my Father’ and ‘your Father’ in what he says. This
consistent distinction shows that what we established in the case
of the sayings is also true of the prayers of Jesus>®: Jesus’ use of
abba expresses a special relationship with God. It is certainly no
coincidence that both in Jesus’ prayer to the Father (Matt. 11.25f.
par. Luke 10.21) and in his saying about the Father’s action
(Matt. 11.27 par. Luke 10.22) there is a recurrence of the verb
amoxadvnrew, which probably was also the key word which
brought the two stanzas together, and that in both sayings the
content of the revelation is only hinted at in veiled language, in

56]It is hard to understand how H. Braun, Spétjiidisch-haretischer und

frithchristlicher Radikalismus, Il (Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 24 II),
Tubingen 1957, p. 127, n. 2, can assert that “there is no essential theological
difference between the Hebrew form abhi and the Aramaic abba of Jesus’, in
view of the clear linguistic evidence. He gives no reasons for this assertion.
H. Conzelmann, ‘Jesus Christus’, RGG? III (1959), col. 632, refers to Braun,
and concludes from Rom. 8.15 that the use of the address ‘abba’ to God was
not exclusive to Jesus, But in view of the total silence of Jewish prayer
literature, Rom. 8.15 can only be understood as an echo of Jesus’ prayer.
How else could Paul take the cry ‘Abba’ to be a mark of childhood and the
possession of the spirit in both Rom. 8.15 and Gal. 4.6!
57 See above, p. 53, N. 104. 58 See above, pp. 52-54.
 Abba 63
each case in the same way (Matt. 11.25 par. radra, Matt. 11.27 par.
mavra). Matt. 11.27 par. makes it quite clear that in the cry of joy
too, Jesus’ use of abba expresses his certainty that he is in posses-
sion of the revelation because the Father has granted him com-
plete divine knowledge. In Jesus’ prayers too, abba is not only an
expression of obedient trust (Mark 14.36 par.) but also at the same
time a word of authority.
Only against this background can one assess the significance of
Jesus’ having commended the use of the address abba to his
disciples, a fact which is demonstrated by the shorter Lucan
version of the Lord’s Prayer (which has been preserved in its
entirety in the Matthaean version and thus must be regarded as
the earlier version)5? and confirmed by Paul (Gal. 4.6; Rom.
8.15).°° When one considers that in the Judaism of the time of
Jesus it was a characteristic of individual religious groups to have
their own customs and practice of prayer® (we know that this is
true of the Pharisees,®? the Essenes,®? and the disciples of John
(Luke 11.1)), in other words, that the anonymous disciple who
appeals to the precedent of John the Baptist (Luke 11.1) is asking
Jesus for a prayer to unite and to characterize the disciples as the
community of the time of salvation, and further, if one realizes
that the Lord’s Prayer in fact represents a brief summary of the
central elements of Jesus’ preaching, it is possible to conclude
that the giving of the Lord’s Prayer to the disciples authorized
them to say ‘Abba’, just as Jesus did. In this way, Jesus gave them
a share in his relationship with God.
Jesus did not, however, stop at this authorization. At the same
time he protected the new form of address to God by forbidding
the disciples to use the address abba in everyday speech as a
courtesy title (Matt. 23.9).© They are to reserve it for God.
The Aramaic speaking primitive church retained abba as a form
of address to God, and the Greek-speaking communities took it
59 See ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, below, pp. 89-94. 50 See above, p. 62, n. 56.
61K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD 3)°, Géttingen 1962,
pp. 143f. on 11.1.
62 See ‘Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church’, below,
Pp. 69-72, 76f.
63 An unedited text from Cave 4 gives the morning and evening prayers of
the Essenes for each day, cf. the preliminary report by C.-H. Hunzinger, ‘Aus
der Arbeit an den unverGffentlichten Texten von Qumran’, TLZ 85 (1960),
cols. 151f.
64 See ‘The Lotd’s Prayer’, below, pp. 94-107. 5 See above, pp. 41ff.
64 The Prayers of Jesus
overt even outside the sphere of Pauline influence (Rom. 8.15;
Gal. 4.6). While it does not appear in the Greek-speaking milieu
after Mark®°—in contrast to the survival of other alien words in
liturgy like duny, adddnAovid, doavvd—it remained in use in the
Eastern communities, as can be seen from the ancient Syriac
versions of the gospels. In Eastern Syriac, the father is addressed
as "N67 as in imperial Aramaic,*®* and this is the word used to
render the vocative wdrep throughout the gospels by sycur- sin
when it is not used as an address to God.*? When, on the other
hand, it is addressed to God, the Diatessaron7® and the two
witnesses of the ancient Syriac version sometimes translate it with
the usual "2X71 and sometimes with NAN, which derives from
Palestinian Aramaic, but is alien to classical Syriac.7* The fact that

66 Abba does not seem to occur in early Christian writings in Greek and
Latin outside the New Testament apart from quotations of the three New
Testament passages (Gal. 4.6; Rom. 8.15; Mark 14.36). We are indebted for
this observation to S. V. McCasland, ‘Abba, Father’, JBL 72 (1953), pp. 90f.,
who thereby contradicts his own thesis that Abba was such a frequent
metonym for God among Jews (!) and Greek-speaking primitive Christians
that it should be translated ‘O God’. It only reappears later, e.g. in a prayer
from the legend of Irene: ABBa 6 rarnp 6 dppayrjs DepwéAtos, 6 7Avos THs
Suxaroovyys, 7 aadAevTos TeTpa, 7) abaTtos Svvayis ...(A. Wirth, Danae in
christlichen Legenden, Vienna-Prague-Leipzig 1892, p. 127.135).
67 The sufhxy is written, but not spoken. 68 See above, p. 58.
69 Luke 15.12, 18, 213; 16.24, 27, 30 (syc¥r is defective in the last three
passages).
70 As a result of the discovery of the original Syriac text of Ephrem’s
Commentary on the Diatessaron, we now know how Tatian translated ‘my
Father’, when it was addressed to God by Jesus, in at least three passages
(see below, nn. 71 and 72), cf. W. Marchel, Abba, Pére! (Analecta Biblica 19),
Rome 1963, p. 140, after a communication by L. Leloir. The useful tables
given by Marchel on pp. 140f. need to be corrected. Twelve instances from
sycr should be deleted (Matt. 26.39, 42; Mark 14.36; John 11.41; 12.27f.;
17.1, 5, II, 21, 24f.), because the text of the Curetonian is not preserved in
their case.
1 Diatessaron: John 17.11. Sy°%: Matt: 11.26; Luke ro.21b; 22.42:
23.34. Sysin: Matt. 11.26; 26.39, 42; Mark 14.36; Luke 10.21b; John 17.1, 5,
Taligg 2 e253
72 Diatessaron: Matt. 11.25; Luke 23.34. Syr: Matt. 11.25; Luke 10.214;
23.46.-Sy%;, Matt.. 11.26; Luke 10,2143 (1.25 22.425.23.465 John 3147;
12.27f.; 17.24. SyPesh; Matt. 11.25; Mark 14.36; Luke 22.422 23.34; John
11.41; 12.28; 17.11, 24; Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6.—F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion
da-Mepharreshe, Cambridge 1904, Il, p. 47, suggests that abba was also the
usual form for ‘my father’ ‘in Edessene, as in most forms of Palestinian
Aramaic’, and that the instances in which the ancient Syriac translations of the
Gospels render ‘my Father’ as abba are the last traces ‘of a vanishing idiom’.
This hypothesis, which has no support in other classical Syriac texts (cf.
M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts?, Oxford 1954, p. 218),
 Abba 65
the language used by Jesus has been preserved in many passages
although it will have sounded strange to the ears of the Syrians of
Edessa shows how established abba was in liturgical usage.73
With the simple “Abba, dear father’, the primitive church took
over the central element of Jesus’ faith in God. Paul explained
what the address ‘Abba’ meant for earliest Christianity in the
Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, tersely, but clearly; the
words are different, but their content is the same. “That7* you are
really children of God—God has sent the Spirit of his Son into
our hearts, crying, ““Abba! Father!’ (Gal. 4.6). ‘When’5 we cry,
“Abba! Father!” it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our
spirit that we are children of God’ (Rom. 8.15b-16). Both
remarks show how the cry of ‘Abba’ is beyond all human capabili-
ties, and is only possible within the new relationship with God
given by the Son (Gal.: 76 veda Tob viob adrob, Rom.: mvedua
viobecias). It is effected by God himself through the Spirit and
actualizes the divine sonship whenever it is spoken. Or, to put it
more simply: whenever you cry abba—Paul says to his readers in
each passage in the same way—God assures you that you can be
absolutely certain that you really are his children. The mere fact
that the communities accepted this alien word into their prayers
shows how conscious they were of the new element which had
been given them in the cry of ‘Abba’. For them, the privilege of
repeating Jesus’ ‘Abba’ amounted to an anticipation of the fulfil-
ment of the promise: ‘I will be your father, and you will be my
sons and daughters’ (II Cor. 6.18 = II Sam. 7.14, free quotation).
stands the evidence on its head: these are not traces of an old Syriac idiom,
but evidence for the infiltration of a Palestinian linguistic idiom.
73 As it was an established Jewish custom to call prayers after their opening
word, it is worth considering the old suggestion that ¢BBa 6 matjp (Rom.
8.15; Gal. 4.6) could be a reference to the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer
(A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Leipzig 1903 = Munich 1966,
p. 243; T. Zahn, Der Brief an die Rémer*, Leipzig-Erlangen 1925, pp. 396f.;
F, J. Délger, Antike und Christentum, \1, Minster 1930, pp. 152f.).
74”Ort is to be understood as declarative (‘that’) here, and not as a causal
conjunction (‘because’). Understood causally, it would make the gift of the
Spirit dependent on the person being received as a child, whereas for Paul
the two things go together (Rom. 8.15); furthermore, to interpret the con-
junction causally would make the transition from the second person (€oré) to
the first (77u@v) incomprehensible: “because you are children of God, God has
sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts’ is nonsense.
75 A full stop should be put after vfofecias (v. 15b) and a comma after
6 matnp (end of v. 15). To begin the sentence at v. 16 would produce a very
harsh asyndeton.
PJ E
 II
DAILY PRAYER IN THE-LIFE*OFPS) BSUS
AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH*

I
Jesus came from a people who knew how to pray. The meaning of this
statement is best understood if we consider for a moment the
world surrounding Israel. At no other point does the inner
corruption and decay of the Hellenistic world—especially of the
Levant—in New Testament times become so apparent as in the
sphere of prayer. Measured by biblical standards, Greek prayer
was lacking in seriousness and reverence even in the pre-Hellenistic
period. This is evident, for example, in the fact that from ancient
comedy onwards, parodies of prayer had become a stock con-
vention for comedians. Such parodies are to be found above all in
Aristophanes (446-385 BC). Foolish, immoral, ridiculous, and even
obscene prayers are woven into the action of the play and provoke
the audience to uproarious laughter. H. Kleinknecht has devoted
an entire book to this phenomenon.! In Hellenistic times,
philosophy becomes the gravedigger of prayer. The Stoics largely
disrupt belief in God. Seneca, for instance, identifies the gods and
nature. Is there any sense in praying to nature? ‘Why do you lift
your hands towards heaven? ... God is within you’, he exclaims.?
Like the Stoics, the Epicureans, too, assert the futility of prayer.
Thus scepticism overshadows people’s praying. Men pray for
contradictory things. How can God hear all of them? And in that
* Completely revised and expanded form of a lecture delivered during the
VIIIe Semaine d’Etudes Liturgiques at the Institut de Théologie Orthodoxe
Saint-Serge, Paris, 3rd-7th July, 1961. The lecture appeared in French, ‘La
priére quotidienne dans la vie du Seigneur et dans |’Eglise primitive’, in:
Monseigneur Cassien—B. Botte, La priére des heures (Lex otandi 35), Paris
1963, pp. 43-58.—I am grateful to my Assistent, Dt B. Schaller, for valuable
references.

1 Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike (Tubinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissen-

schaft 28), Stuttgart-Berlin 1937. 2 To Lucilius TV 12.1 (Letter 41.1).
66
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 67
case, what is the use of prayer? Prayer is undermined from yet
another side by the mystery cults and by mysticism. Here man is
deified: ‘Thou art I and I am thou.’3 The initiate, reborn, talks
with God as a god. That is the death of prayer. This crisis of
prayer among the educated has its effects on the people. To be
sure, prayer does not cease. But men become unsure of themselves,
and the infiltration of foreign religions, especially oriental cults,
contributes to this uncertainty. People do not know to which
deity they should pray in particular circumstances—hence the
altars for the ‘unknown gods’, dyvworor Oeoi (cf. Acts 17.23). Even
if one knows to which deity to turn, one cannot be sure of a
favourable heating—how can one know for certain the right name
by which the deity desires to be invoked? The thousands of
magical papyri with their masses of abstruse names and epithets
are moving tokens of how men had become uncertain about the
efficacy of prayer. At the same time, these magical texts demon-
strate something else: in a crisis about prayer, superstition grows.
Prayer turns into magic everywhere. Men want to induce the
deity to comply with their wishes by using mysterious names,
they wear out the gods (deos fatigare),* they even threaten them.
There is no more telling symptom of the decadence of the
Levantine countries in early Christian times than this acute crisis
into which prayer has fallen.
In Judaism all this is different, especially in the motherland, in
Palestine. Here prayer maintains unshaken its position in the
religious life of the people, here there is a fixed pattern for prayer,
here prayer is a discipline from early youth on.
The foundation of this pattern and discipline of prayer is
provided by the times fixed for daily prayer. How many of these
were thete ?How did they originate ?Neither of these questions is
particularly easy to answer.

1. The recital of the Shema‘ in the morning and in the evening

The fifth book of Moses, chapter 6, contains a phrase which was
regarded as the basic creed throughout the Jewish world of the
time of Jesus: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord’
(v. 4).° To this is added the divine commandment:
3 Papyrus Leidensis W, 795 (ed. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die
griechischen Zauberpapyri, 1, Leipzig-Berlin 1931, p. 123). * Cf. Matt. 6.7.
5 The verse is thus understood as a confession of monotheism. Such was
68 The Prayers of Jesus
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with
all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I
command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach
them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them

when you sit in your house,

and when you walk by the way,
and when you lie down,
and when you rise. (Deut. 6.5-7)

The last mentioned injunction to teach these words to the

children and to talk of them at every turn recurs almost identically
in Deut. 11.19. It is probably from the last words of this injunc-
tion, ‘when you lie down and when you rise’, that the custom of
beginning and ending each day with the confession of the one
God derives. It became a general Jewish practice in pre-Christian
times. “I'wice a day, at its beginning and when the hour of sleep
approaches, it is fitting to remember in gratitude before God the
gifts which he gave (us) after the deliverance from Egypt’, re-
marks Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities.© The custom of reciting
the creed in the morning between dawn and sunrise’ and in the
evening after sunset is first attested in the second century Bc by
the Letter of Aristeas (145-100 BC).° It was observed in Palestine?°
as well as in the Diaspora.1! The Essenes!? and the Therapeutae,'3
too, had prayers at sunrise and in the evening. The texts recited
were the creed of Deut. 6.4 followed by the subsequent verses 5-9;

the interpretation given to it by the Septuagint and earlier Rabbinic exegesis

(R. Eleazar b. Azariah, c. AD 100, b. Flag. 3a). Earlier exegesis thus stresses
that there is no other God than Yahweh. Only after aD 300 is an alternative
interpretation of the text put forward by many scholars: “The Lord is our
God, the Lord alone.’ This stresses that Yahweh, and no other God, is the
God of Israel. cf. Billerbeck I, pp. 28-30.
SPAT MAL
2 toe
7 Wisdom 16.28: “We must rise before the sun to give thee thanks.’
8 Ber. 1.1: from sunset to ten o’clock in the evening (Rabbi Eliezer, ¢. ap
90, representing the older tradition).
° 160, The morning prayer is also mentioned by itself at 304f.
10 Billerbeck IV, pp. 189-207.
11 Pseudo-Aristeas 160; Philo, De spec. leg. 4.141. Fot morning prayer alone
cf. Ps.-Aristeas 304f. (see n. 9); Wisdom 16.28; S7b. Or. 3.591f.
221QS ro. 1-3, 9, 11, 13f.; 1QH 12.4-7. An unpublished papyrus manu-
script from Cave 4 (¢. 100-50 BC) contains the benedictions of the morning
and evening prayers for each day of the month (C.-H. Hunzinger, ‘Aus der
Arbeit an den unveréffentlichten Texten von Qumran’, TLZ 85, 1960
col. 152). 13 Philo, De vita contempl. 27. :
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 69
then came Deut. 11.13-21, because the clause ‘when you lie down
and when you rise’ (6.7: see above) recurs in 11.19; as a conclu-
sion, there was Num. 15.41, a solemn self-declaration of God.*
The creed, called Shema‘, ‘Hear’, after the opening words of Deut.
6.4, ‘Hear, O Israel’, had benedictions before it and after it. All
men, and boys from their twelfth birthday upwards, had to recite
the Sh¢ma‘ regularly, whereas women, children and slaves were
free from this obligation (as well as from all others that had to be
performed at specific times, because their time was not at their
own disposal).!5 Boys were taught the words as soon as they could
speak.1®© To recite the Sh*ma‘ twice a day was considered the
minimum of religious practice. Evading this custom meant
separating oneself from the religious community. R. Eliezer b.
Hyrcanus (¢. AD 90) said: ‘Who is an Y)NI OY (i.e. an unreligious
brute) ?He who does not recite the Sh’ma‘ in the morning and in
the evening.’!”
2. The three hours ofprayer
Curiously enough, we find an analogous yet quite different
custom alongside the twofold recitation of the Sh*ma‘ : the custom
of praying ¢hree times a day. It is first attested in the book of
Daniel, 6.11 (cf. also v.14), that is in the year 164 BC. Here it is said
that Daniel had windows in his upper room which opened in the
direction of Jerusalem and that he used to kneel down three times
a day, to pray, and to praise God.'8 Of these three hours of prayer
—morning, afternoon and evening!°—the first to be attested
individually is the afternoon prayer, which was made at 3 p.m.,
when the daily afternoon sacrifice was offered in the Temple. The
book of Ezra, which took its present form towards the end of the
third century Bc, already says that Ezra uttered his great peni-
tential prayer ‘at the evening sacrifice’ (9.5). Daniel, too, made his
penitential prayer ‘at the time of the evening sacrifice’ (9.21). The
14Num. 15.41 is an ancient element of the Sh¢ma‘, as is borne out by
Josephus, Antt. 4.212. By contrast, Num. 15.37-40 is presumably a later
addition (I. Elbogen, Studien zur Geschichte des jiidischen Gottesdienstes, Schriften
der Lehranstalt fiir die Wissenschaft des Judentums 1, Berlin 1907, pp. 17f.;
id., Der jiidische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Frankfurt-M.
1931 = *Hildesheim 1962, pp. 24f.).
15 Ber 3.3): ‘6 b, Sukka 42a (Bat.). 17 b, Ber. 47b (Bar.).
18 It is doubtful whether the three fixed times are already presupposed by
Ps. 55.17, where the suppliant says: ‘Evening and morning and at noon I
utter my complaint and moan, and he will hear my voice.’ tO Bers acl;
Jo The Prayers of Jesus
same time is mentioned for Judith’s prayer (9.1, ¢. 150 BC). This
means that while in the Holy City the crowds gathered in the
Temple to be present at the offering of the afternoon sacrifice
(Acts 3.1), people outside Jerusalem united in prayer with the
community assembled in the Temple. We shall return later to this
connection of the afternoon prayer with the Temple cult.
One might conclude from all this that the three hours of prayer
came about through the addition of the afternoon prayer to the
morning and the evening Sh*ma‘.2° However, such a conclusion
cannot be sustained. The prayer said at the three fixed hours is of a
completely different character from the Sh*¢ma‘. The latter is not a
prayer at all, but a creed, surrounded by benedictions. As a matter
of fact, Rabbinic literature never speaks of ‘praying the Sh*ma"’,
but always of ‘reciting the Sh¢ma? (YIU NNT/?).22 By contrast,
the three hours of prayer were strictly devoted to prayer. The
prayer used on these occasions was the T°pbil/a, i.e. “The Prayer’,
the Grand Benediction. The T°*phi//a is a hymn consisting of a
string of benedictions. At the end of the first century ap their
number was fixed at eighteen, and consequently the T°*phi//a was
also called the ‘Eighteen Benedictions’.?? To these, the person who
prayed added his or her private petitions.23 There is a further
indication of the difference in character between the Sh?¢ma‘* and
the T*philla: as mentioned above, only free men were obliged to
recite the Sh°ma‘, whereas the T*philla was to be said by all,
including women, children, and even slaves.
As a matter of fact, the custom of praying three times a day had
quite a different origin from the twofold recital of the Sh*ma*.
We have already seen from various pieces of evidence that the
afternoon prayer was said at the time of the afternoon sacrifice.
In all probability, there must therefore be a connection between
this prayer and the institution of the so-called ‘standing posts’
(Hebrew N177)¥72). In order to understand this, one has to
remember a ae fact about the organization of the Jerusalem
Temple cult. Apart from a number of superior priests and officials,
the rank and file of priests and levites who served in the Temple
were not permanently in residence. Neither priests nor levites were

20] myself expounded this view in the lecture mentioned above, p. 66, n. *.
21 Billerbeck IV, p. 189.
22 Billerbeck IV, pp. 208-49. 23 Billerbeck IV, pp. 233f.
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 71
members of a profession, but were hereditary classes into which a
man was born, whose members lived scattered all over Palestine.
After the exile, they had been organized into twenty-four courses
(iwi), each of which in turn had to go up to Jerusalem for a
week of service. Each of these courses had a lay group called a
‘standing post’ (TY). Part of it accompanied the priests and
levites to Jerusalem and was present during the sacrifice as
representatives of the people (PHI), The other part remained
at home, and during its priestly course’s week of service assembled
in the synagogue to read the scriptures and pray, thus participating
in the Temple service from a distance. These men would gather
three times a day: in the morning at the time of the morning burnt
offering, in the afternoon at three o’clock when the afternoon
sacrifice was burnt, and in the evening at sunset ‘when the Temple
gates were closed (J M3) 24 There can be no doubt that it was
above all the members of the Pharisaic groups who volunteered to
setve in the NITY and to pray in lieu of the people of their
district. Presumably the Pharisees, too, were responsible for
extending the prayers said daily by the ‘standing posts’ during their
week of service over the whole year.’ They probably also
extended the obligation of saying the T*phi//a to all members of a
household, including women, children and slaves.?6
The Psalms of Solomon, which were composed about 50 BC in
Pharisaic circles, contain a moving appeal to take this duty
seriously and to praise God ‘at his awakening’:
Why sleepest thou, O my soul,
and blessest not the Lord?
Sing a new song,
unto God who is worthy to be praised.
Sing and be wakeful at his awakening. (Ps. Sal. 3.1f., Charles II, pp. 63 4f.)

24 Ta‘an. 4.4. The rabbi quoted as an authority in the discussion, R. Joshua

b. Hananiah, had himself served as a Levitic singer in the Temple (b. ‘Arak.
11b (Bar.); Siphre Num. 116 on 18.3).
25 This is suggested by the fact that the book of Judith, which knows the
three hours of prayer (morning prayer: 12.5f.; prayer at the time of the
afternoon sacrifice: 9.1; evening prayer: 13.3), is of Pharisaic origin. Further
evidence is provided by Matt. 6.5f.: the prayer in public to which Jesus takes
exception occurs at one of the three fixed hours, and all of Matt. 6.1-18 is
antipharisaic.
ae Ber, 333,
me The Prayers of Jesus
Psalm 6.4f. tells how the father of a family intercedes in his
morning prayer for all his house:
He ariseth from his sleep and blesseth the name of the Lord:
When his heart is at peace, he singeth to the name of his God,
And he entreateth the Lord for all his house. (Ps. Sal. 6.4f., Charles I,
p- 639)
By New Testament times, the custom of praying three times a
day seems to have become a general rule, to judge from Acts 3.1;
10.3, 30; Didache 8.3. The two customs of reciting the Sh°md
twice a day and praying three times a day were fused in the
following manner: In the morning, the pious Jew would combine
the T*philla with the Sh*ma‘.2’7 In the afternoon he would pray
only the T*phi//a (this hour was called ‘the hour of the Prayer’,
Acts 3.1). In the evening, he would again recite the Sh’ma‘ and
pray the T*phil/a. Of all these obligations, only the evening prayer
seems to have met with some opposition. At the end of the first
century AD scholars still debated whether it was a general obliga-
tion to pray the T*phi//a in the evening in addition to the Sh¢ma‘,8
but practice had long defeated theory on this point.?9
Thus we see that sunrise, afternoon (3 p.m.) and sunset were the
three daily times of prayer for the Jews of the New Testament era.
In the morning and in the evening, they would recite the Sh*ma*,
framed by benedictions and followed by the T*phi//a; in the after-
noon the latter was prayed alone. These three hours of prayer,
together with the benedictions said before and after meals, were
Israel’s great treasure, the skeleton framework for an education
in prayer and for the practice of prayer for everyone from their
youth upwards.

f
II
A

About the prayer ofJesus we know little. If we search the Synoptic

Gospels, we encounter only two prayers of Jesus—apart from the
three exclamatory prayers in the crucifixion narrative. These two
ptayers are the cry of jubilation (Matt. 11.25f. par.) and the prayer
in Gethsemane (Mark 14.36 par.). The Gospel of John adds three
27 Billerbeck II, pp. 7oof.
28 Billerbeck I, pp. 151, 697; 1V, pp. 220f. The rabbis found it hard to find
proof from scripture for the evening T¢philla (7. Ber. 4.7b.3).
29 Billerbeck IV, p. 220.
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 73
mote: the short prayer in the story of Lazarus (11.41f.), the equally
short prayer in the Temple forecourt (the Johannine Gethsemane
prayer 12.27f.), and the High Priestly prayer (17), of which at
least the last is coloured to a high degree by the language and
style of the evangelist. This is little enough material. We can adda
number of general references to the praying of Jesus, especially
to his prayers in solitude (Mark 1.35; 6.46 par. Matt. 14.23, and
above all in Luke: 3.21; 5.16; 6.12; 9.18, 28f.),°° a saying of Jesus
about his prayer for Peter (Luke 22.31f.) and finally his instruc-
tions to the disciples on prayer, which are dominated by the
Lord’s Prayer. How we would like to know more!
Actually we do know more! We know that Jesus was brought
up in a devout home (Luke 2, cf. 4.16); we know therefore that he
participated in the liturgical heritage of his people, and conse-
quently we know the prayers which the child Jesus was taught in
his parental home and which accompanied the man Jesus through-
out his life. The three hours of prayer in particular were so
universally observed among the Jews of Jesus’ time that we are
justified in including them in the comment ‘as his custom was’,
which is made in Luke with reference to Jesus’ attendance at
Sabbath worship (Luke 4.16).
But we are not limited to this conclusion alone; particular
references are not lacking. In Mark 1.35 we find Jesus at prayer
before sunrise (‘in the early morning, a great while before day’).
After the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus ascends a mountain
in the evening to pray (Mark 6.46), and when Luke relates that
Jesus continued all night in prayer before the choosing of the
twelve apostles (7 dvavuxrepedwy ev TH mpooevyH Tod Geob, Luke
6.12), this is evidently the evening prayer which he has extended
till dawn. Luke 10.26 should also be mentioned in connection with
the daily morning and evening prayer of Jesus. When Jesus asks
the scribe 7s avaywdoxers ;here, and the scribe answers with the
commandment from the Sh*’ma‘ to love God (Deut. 6.5), the
question does not (ox, originally did not) mean ‘How do you
read >’, for dvaywacxew here represents Xj, meaning ‘to recite’.
With his question ‘How do you recite ?’, Jesus takes it for granted
that the daily recital of the creed is a common practice. There is
confirmation of this in the report in Mark 12.29f. that Jesus
answered the question about the greatest commandment not only
30 On the Lucan passages see below, p. 76.
74 The Prayers of Jesus
with the commandment to love God (Deut. 6.5), but in addition,
with the preceding verse as well: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our
God is one Lord. . .’, so accustomed is he to reciting the Sh*ma'‘.
Two passages show that Jesus was also accustomed to the other
time of prayer, the third, in the afternoon. Luke 18.9-14 describes
two men who went up into the Temple to pray, no doubt at the
regular ‘hour of prayer’, at 3 p.m. (Acts 3.1). The allusion to the
afternoon prayer is even clearer in Matt. 6.5, where Jesus rebukes
the hypocrites who pray publicly on the street corner. This can
hardly mean that the Pharisees regularly posted themselves in the
market-place to pray. We have rather to remember that at the
moment in the afternoon sacrifice when the whole congregation
prayed, loud trumpets were sounded from the Temple over the
city of Jerusalem (Sirach 50.16; Tam. 7.3) to mark the hour of
prayer for its inhabitants. So what happens is that the Pharisees
whom Jesus rebukes contrive—apparently quite unintentionally
and by chance—to be at that moment in the midst of the crowds,
and so to be obliged to pray in public. There is one indirect piece
of evidence for supposing that Jesus not only knew but also him-
self observed this afternoon prayer. The first benediction of the
T*philla—this benediction dates from before the destruction of
the Temple in ap 703!—contains two strikingly solemn invoca-
tions of God. What is presumably the oldest form of this bene-
diction runs as follows*?:

Blessed be thou, Lord (our God and the God of our fathers),
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob
(God great, mighty and fearful),
most high God,
master33 of heaven and earth,
our shield and the shield of our fathers (our trust in every genera-
tion).
Blessed be thou, Lord, the shield of Abraham.

31 Billerbeck I, pp. 406f.

32 Billerbeck IV, p. 211, following the text of Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I',
Leipzig 1898, p. 299; Palestinian recension, later additions in brackets.
33 The invocation PN) OVW fP is taken from Gen. 14.19, 22. In that
passage, 111)? does not mean “to acquire, possess’, as usually in the O.T., but
‘to create’ (as in Deut. 32.6; Ps. 139.13; probably there were originally two
independent roots). Ancient Judaism in practice ignored this sense so that
the invocation was taken to mean ‘Master of heaven and earth’ (cf. 1QGen.Ap.
22.16, 21 XYININ AY T4N yroy 5x; Targ. Onk. Gen. 14.19, 22 ANDY ON
RYAN NNW MPIPT; so too Matt. 11.25 par. cvpve Too ovpavod Kat THS ys).
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 75
When Jesus speaks of God as the God of Abraham and the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob (Mark 12.26 par.) and when he,
ordinarily so sparing in the use of divine names, calls God ‘Lord
of heaven and earth’ in Matt. 11.25, this twofold coincidence with
the wording of the first benediction of the T*phi//a indicates
Jesus’ familiarity with it. This conclusion is enforced not only by
the fact that each of these two invocations of God occurs only in
one pericope in the Old Testament (Ex. 3.6, 15, 16 and Gen. 14.19,
22), but also by the fact that they were not in use in Palestinian
Judaism outside the T*phil/a. Moreover, as we shall see shortly,
these three times of prayer were firmly established in the primitive
church; the observance of afternoon prayer in particular is
attested in Acts 3.1. It is highly improbable that the early church
would have kept the hours of prayer if Jesus had rejected them.
So we may conclude with all probability that no day in the life
of Jesus passed without the three times of prayer: the morning
prayer at sunrise, the afternoon prayer at the time when the after-
noon sacrifice was offered in the Temple, the evening prayer at
night before going to sleep. We can sense from this something of
the hidden inner life of Jesus, something of the source from which
he daily drew strength.
Only when we have appreciated the position of Jesus within the
liturgical tradition and the way in which the three times of prayer
were a daily habit with him can we see the other side as well, the
extent to which Jesus’ prayer shatters custom.
The first thing to be noticed is that Jesus is not content with the
pious practice of liturgical prayer three times a day. The most
important passages are:
Mark 1.35: ‘And in the morning, rising up a great while before
day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place.’

Simon and those with him notice Jesus’ absence, and prepare to
look for him, so long is he gone.
Mark 6.46: ‘And when he had sent them away he departed into a
mountain to pray.’

Again it must have been a long prayer in solitude; it is only about

the fourth watch of the night (3-6 a.m.) that the disciples catch
sight of him (v. 48).
76 The Prayers of Jesus
Luke 6.12: ‘He went up into a mountain to pray, and continued
all night in prayer to God.’
Now it is very probable that parts of the passages in the gospels
which mention Jesus’ prayer are to be attributed to the editing of
the evangelists. Thus Luke repeatedly adds the motif of the
ptaying Lord to the text of Mark (5.16; 6.12; 9.18, 28; cf. 3.21).
But even so, the question remains: what induced Luke to add this
motif to the Marcan text ?The most likely answer is the existence
of a firmly established tradition about Jesus’ prayer in solitude by
night. This answer, moreover, commends itself to us because we
do in fact have an old tradition describing how Jesus, outside the
regular time of prayer, invokes his Father in the middle of the
night: Gethsemane (Mark 14.32-42 par.).
Another feature shows how far Jesus departs from custom.
The Sh°ma‘ and the T*philla are Hebrew prayers.** It is true that
the Kaddish which served to round off the synagogue service is in
Aramaic, but this is an exception due to the fact that the Kaddish
is the prayer with which the preacher ended his sermon, which was
delivered in Aramaic. In contrast with the Sh°ma‘ and the T*philla,
the Lord’s Prayer is an Aramaic prayer. This is shown by the
words ddetAnua | ddetAew which are typical Aramaisms, and by the
way in which the first two petitions directly echo the Kaddish.3°
Moreover, the invocation of God as ‘Abba’,?* coined by Jesus, is
also Aramaic, as is finally the cry from the cross (Mark 15.34).
Thus Jesus not only prayed in his native tongue in his private
prayers, he also gave his disciples a formal prayer couched in the
vernacular when he taught them the Lord’s Prayer. In so doing,
he removes prayer from the liturgical sphere of sacred language
and places it right in the midst of everyday life.
Jesus’ prayer breaks the confines of religious custom not only
in the times and in the language of prayer, but above all in its
content. Let us start with Luke 11.1. According to this passage,
the occasion for teaching the Lord’s Prayer was the request of one
34 Theoretically, both the Sh¢ma‘ (Billerbeck IV, p. 196) and the Tephilla
(Billerbeck IV, p. 220) might be said in any language. But it is hardly an
accident that both texts have come down to us only in Hebrew, not in
Aramaic. Moreover, the benedictions to be said before and after the Shema‘
ate Hebrew, as are also the Essene benedictions to be said in the morning
and in the evening (see above, n. 12).
35 Cf. “The Lord’s Prayer’ below, pp. 98ff.
36 See above, pp. 54-65.
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 77
of the disciples: ‘Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
disciples.’ What is meant by this ‘teach us to pray’? Surely not that
the anonymous disciple wanted to assert that the twelve had never
learned how to pray and had first to be taught how to do it.
Rather, one needs to remember that religious groups were dis-
tinguished among other things by their characteristic prayers.37
We know this of the Pharisees (as we have seen, the custom of the
three daily times of prayer is probably originally Pharisaic); we
can now observe it with the Essenes?®; and we learn from Luke
11.1 that the disciples of John had their own prayers, too. So we
must conclude that the disciples asked for a prayer to be a
characteristic of Jesus’ followers, i.e. to be a distinguishing
formula to be used either in addition to the traditional prayers or
actually as a substitute for them. At any rate, as we shall see shortly,
the Church regarded the Lord’s Prayer as a substitute for the three
daily Jewish prayers long before the gospels were composed.
As we know from Didache 9-10, the Church also had its own
grace before and after meals, and in so doing probably follows the
example of Jesus. From all this, it follows that in Luke 11.1 Jesus
is asked for a fixed prayer which will correspond to his message.
“Teach us to pray as men should pray who are already partakers
of the coming reign of God.’ The Lord’s Prayer is in fact a brief
summary of the fundamentals of Jesus’ proclamation, with the
address ‘Father’, the prayer for the final redemption (the two
petitions in the second person), the prayer for the present realiza-
tion—here and now—of the saving gifts of God (the two petitions
in the third person), and the last petition for preservation from
apostasy in the last terrible hour of temptation.
But if Jesus gave his disciples a new prayer of their own, it may
be supposed that he himself was not content with the liturgically
prescribed texts, the Sh*ma‘* and the T*pdi//a. The tradition that
Jesus prayed alone for long hours and through whole nights is in
itself evidence of this. And there is a further consideration to
support the suggestion. All the prayers of Jesus in all four gospels
have this in common, that except for the cry on the cross "2X "2X
"INP av 5179°?, where the invocation is taken from Ps. 22.1,39
37K, H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD 3), Gottingen 1962,
pp. 143f. ad loc.
38'See above, n. 12.
39 For the wording, cf. J. Jeremias, ‘Das Gebetsleben Jesu’, ZNW 25
(1926), pp. 123-40, here p. 130, n. 8.
78 The Prayers of Jesus
they all invoke God as ‘Father’.4° From a comparison of Mark
14.36 with Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6 on the one hand, and from the
variation between mdrep, matep pov, 6 watnp which are alternative
translations, on the other hand, we can conclude that Jesus
always used the word NAN. This Aramaic ‘Abba’, which is a
colloquialism originally stemming from the language of children,
is nowhere attested in Jewish prayers. It definitely represents
Jesus’ own most characteristic mode of speech and it is the pro-
foundest expression of his authority and of his consciousness of
his mission (Matt. 11.27). It is hardly conceivable that this ‘Abba’
could have been absent from his daily prayers during the three
hours of prayer.
A new way of praying is born. Jesus talks to his Father as
naturally, as intimately and with the same sense of security as a
child talks to his father. It is a characteristic token of this new
mode of prayer that it is dominated by thanksgiving. The only
personal prayer of Jesus of some length from the time before the
passion is a thanksgiving in spite of failure (Matt. 11.25 par.
Luke 10.21). An echo of this predominance of thanksgiving is
preserved in John 11.41, where Jesus gives thanks before being
heard. There is a profound reason for this predominance of
thanksgiving in Jesus’ prayer. A fine saying from Tannaitic
times: runs**:

In the world to come all sacrifices will cease, but the thank-offering
will remain for ever; likewise all confessions will cease, but the con-
fession of thanks will remain for ever.

Thanksgiving is one of the foremost characteristics of the new

age. So when Jesus gives thanks he is not just following custom.
There is more to it than that; he is actualizing God’s reign here
and now.

TIT
The picture which emerges from our examination of the gospels
is repeated when we turn to the early church. Here too, as in con-
© For a full treatment see ‘Abba’, above, pp. 54-65.
41 rst-2nd century AD.
42 Pesik. 79a.17-19 (ed. S. Buber, Lyck 1868).
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 79
temporary Judaism and as in the life of Jesus, we find the three
hours of prayer to be a firmly established practice. Didache 8.3,
which says, referring to the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Three times a day
you shall pray thus’, is particularly important. The Acts of the
Apostles twice refers to the afternoon prayer at 3 p.m. (Acts 3.1;
10.3, 30). Paul also should be mentioned here. When he says that
he prays ‘continually’, ‘without ceasing’, ‘always’, ‘day and night’,
we are not to think of uninterrupted praying but of his observance
of the regular hours of prayer. The phrase ‘to be instant in prayer’
(mpockaprepety TH mpocevyn Rom. 12.12; Col. 4.2) is to be under-
stood in a similar way, for mpooxaprepeiv here means ‘faithfully to
observe a rite’ (as in Acts 1.14; 2.46; 6.4).
But the early church, too, is not content with liturgical custom.
Peter prays at twelve noon (Acts 10.9), outside the regular time,
and the Jerusalem Church prays at night for the imprisoned
Apostle (12.5, 12); Paul and Silas praise God in prison at mid-
night (16.25). Vigils, i.e. the extension of evening prayer far into
the night, even right through the night, are often held, as is shown
by the passages in which Paul talks of his dypumvia, his vigils
(I Cor. 6.5; 11.27). In Eph. 6.18 the readers are summoned to
aypurvety in prayer (cf. Luke 21.36 dypumveire dé ev marti Kapa
deduevor iva ...). The nocturnal Passover celebration of the
Quartodecimans, during which prayers were offered for Israel
in expectation of the parousia of the Kyrios at midnight, shows
that the Easter vigil, i.e. the service of intercession for Israel
during the night of the 14th-15th Nisan, dates back to very early
times.*
Like Jesus, the early church breaks through the bonds of
ancient Jewish custom not only in the case of the fixed times of
prayer but also in the prayers which were said at them. We can see
this from the way in which Deut. 6.5, “You shall love the Lord
yout God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all
your might’, is quoted in the first three gospels (Mark 12.30, 33;
Matt. 22.37; Luke 10.27).4* These quotations present an exceed-
ingly striking, even enigmatic, picture. A table may make this
clear:

43Cf. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, ET?, London 1966,

p. 122-5, 212-14.
44 For what follows, see J. Jeremias, ‘Die Muttersprache des Evangelisten
Matthaus’, ZNW 50 (1959), 270-4 (Abba, Gottingen 1966, pp. 255-60).
80 The Prayers of Jesus
Deut eo7 Deut: Mark Mark Matt. Luke
6.5 6.5 LXX 12.30 12.33 F229 10s 7

heart heart heart heart heart heart

(Breser. mind)

soul soul soul understanding soul soul

mind mind
strength might strength strength strength
(AMos:
strength) mind

The first thing to be noted is that all four of these quotations

deviate from the Old Testament text. In the second place, it must
be observed that they also deviate from each other, in Mark even
within one and the same pericope. In Mark 12.30 and Luke 10.27,
the tripartite form has given way to a four part one which may
well have arisen from the insertion of ‘mind’ as an alternative
translation for sana ‘heart’, which stands first in the Massoretic
text. In Mark, however, it occupies the third place, whereas Luke
has it in the fourth. In Mark 12.33 and Matt. 22.37, on the other
hand, the tripartite structure of the saying is preserved, but the
wording differs from the Old Testament text. In Mark 12.33,
‘soul’ is represented by ‘understanding’, whereas the parallels,
including the Septuagint, read ‘soul’. In Matt. 22.37, ‘mind’
occupies third position and ‘strength’ is omitted (no doubt this
is an abbreviation of Mark 12.30).
These divergences of the four quotations both from the biblical
text and from each other are puzzling, because we have to do not
with a random saying but with an important liturgical text, in fact
with the most important text in all Jewish literature, the beginning
of the creed which was recited twice every day. Curiously enough,
the problem which is raised here has not even been noticed by the
commentaries. As far as 1am awate, the only one to have drawn
attention to it was T. W. Manson, and he was.courageous enough
to confess that, ‘Mk. XII. 29f. (Deut. VI. 4f.) presents a very
complex textual problem, which I am unable to solve’.*5
In my opinion, there is no other explanation for this phenome-
non than that the Greek Sh*ma‘ was not a regularly recited liturgi-
cal text for any of the three synoptic evangelists. At least at the
*5°The Old Testament in the Teaching of Jesus’, BJRL 34 (1951-2),
Pp. 312-32, here p. 318.
 Daily Prayer in the Life of Jesus and the Primitive Church 81
time of the composition of the synoptic gospels, that is to say
after the fall of Jerusalem, the Sh*ma‘ was no longer recited three
times daily in the Greek-speaking church.
What prayers then did the church say at the three appointed
times each day? The answer to this question comes from the
instructions about the Lord’s Prayer which are given in the
Didache, 8.3 (see above): “Three times daily you shall pray thus.’
The prayer said at the three hours of prayer was the Lord’s Prayer.
The extent to which the informal prayers spoken on these
occasions were also filled with a totally new meaning is shown by
Paul’s remarks about the pveia, the regular prayer of intercession
(e.g. I Thess. 1.2; Phil. 1.3-6; Rom. 1.9f.). Paul did not confine
this to his own communities, but also included churches not
founded by him, such as the chutch of Rome (Rom. 1.9f.) and the
church of Colossae (Col. 1.9, cf 2.1-3).
To sum up: both the prayers of Jesus and those of the early
church stand in the liturgical tradition. The custom of praying
three times a day is taken over from Judaism, but the new life
bestowed through the gospel shatters the fixed liturgical forms,
especially with regard to the content of prayers.
What is new here can be summed up in one word, ‘Abba’.

PJ F
 II
THE LORD’S-PRAYER IN THE LIGHT
OF RECENT RESEARCH

I. THE LORD’S PRAYERIN THE ANCIENT CHURCH!

DuRING the time of Lent and Easter in the year AD 350, a
Jerusalem presbyter, Cyril by name, who was consecrated as
bishop a year later, presented his celebrated twenty-four Cate-
chetical Lectures in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. These
lectures, which have been preserved for us through the short-
hand notes of one of Cyril’s hearers,? fall into two parts. Those in
the first part prepared the candidates for the baptism which they
wete to receive on Easter Eve. The focal point of these pre-
baptismal lectures was the exposition of the confession of faith,
the Jerusalem Creed. The last five lectures, however, were pre-
sented during Easter week. These postbaptismal lectures instructed
the newly baptized about the sacraments which they had received.
For this reason they were called ‘mystagogical catechetical
lectures’, that is, lectures which introduced the hearers to the
‘mysteries’ or sacraments of the Christian faith. In the last of these
mystagogical lectures, Cyril explains for his hearers the liturgy of
the Mass, or Service of Holy Communion, especially the prayers
which are spoken there. Among these is the Lord’s Prayer.
This final (twenty-fourth) Catechetical Lecture by Cyril of
Jerusalem is our earliest proof for the fact that the Lord’s Prayer
was tegularly employed in the Service. The position in the
Service where the Lord’s Prayer was prayed is to be noted: it came
1 See P. Fiebig, Das Vaterunser, Gitersloh 1927; E. Lohmeyer, The Lord’s
Prayer, ET, London 1965 (however, Lohmeyer’s obsetvations on the
Aramaic original of the Lord’s Prayer are untenable); T. W. Manson, ‘The
Lord’s Prayer’, BJRL 38 (1955-6), pp. 99-113, 436-48; H. Schiirmann, Das
Gebet des Herrn, Leipzig 1957.
2'The Greek text and an English translation are conveniently given in
F. L. Cross ed., St Cyril of Jerusalem’s Lectures on the Christian Sacraments (Texts
for Students 51), London 1951, or, translation alone, in W. Telfer ed., Cyri/
of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa (The Library of Christian Classics IV),
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1955.
82
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 83
immediately before the Communion. As a constituent part of the
Communion liturgy, the Lord’s Prayer belonged to that portion
of the Service in which only those who were baptized were per-
mitted to participate, ie., it belonged to the so-called missa
fidelium or ‘Service for the baptized’. The late Professor T. W.
Manson? has shown that this leads to the conclusion that know-
ledge of the Lord’s Prayer and the privilege to use it were reserved
for the full members of the church.
What we have demonstrated for Jerusalem holds for the ancient
church as a whole. Everywhere the Lord’s Prayer was a con-
stituent part of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and every-
where the Lord’s Prayer, together with the creed, belonged to
those items in which the candidates for baptism were instructed
either just before baptism or, as we saw in the case of Cyril, in the
days directly after baptism. Petition by petition, the Lord’s Prayer
was elucidated, and then the whole recapitulated in an address to
the converts. Thus those seeking baptism or those newly baptized
learned the Lord’s Prayer by heart. They were allowed to join in
praying it for the first time in their first Service of Holy Com-
munion, which was attached to the rite of their baptism. Hence-
forth they prayed it daily, and it formed a token of their identifica-
tion as Christians. Because the privilege of praying the Lord’s
Prayer was limited to the baptized members of the church, it was
called the ‘prayer of believers’.
The connection of the Lord’s Prayer with baptism can be traced
back to early times. In the beginning of the second century, we
find a variant to Luke 11.2 which reads: “Thy Holy Spirit come
upon us and cleanse us.’ The heretic Marcion (about ap 140) had
this instead of the first petition. His wording of the Lord’s Prayer
seems to have been as follows: ‘Father, Thy Holy Spirit come
upon us and cleanse us. Thy kingdom come. Thy bread for the
morrow give us day by day. And forgive us our sins, for we also
forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not allow us to be
led into temptation.’ Two of the Greek minuscule manuscripts
(numbers 162, 700) and two late church fathers (Gregory of Nyssa
+394, and Maximus Confessor +662) have the petition for the Holy
Spirit instead of the second petition. It is quite improbable that
the petition for the Holy Spirit should be the original text; its
attestation is much too weak. From where, then, does this petition
3 *The Lord’s Prayer’, pp. 99-113, 436-48.
84 The Prayers of Jesus
originate? We know that it was an old baptismal prayer, and we
may conclude that it was added to the Lord’s Prayer when this
was used at the baptismal ceremony. One may compare the fact
that the Marcionite version of the Prayer, quoted above, has, in
the petition for bread, “Thy bread’. This is probably an allusion to
the Lord’s Supper; thus Marcion has both sacraments in view,
baptism in this first petition and the Lord’s Supper, which fol-
lowed baptism, in his phrase “Thy bread’.
But we must go even one step further back. The connection of
the Lord’s Prayer with baptism which we have found already in
the first part of the second century can be traced back even into
the first century. It is true that at first glance, we seem to get a
completely different picture when we turn to the Didache, or
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Thisdocument is the oldest ‘church
order’, the basic part of which is dated by its most recent com-
mentator, perhaps somewhat too optimistically, as early as AD
50-70,* but which in all likelihood does nonetheless belong in the
first Christian century. In the Didache (8.2), the Lord’s Prayer is
cited, word for word, introduced by the admonition, ‘Do not
pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in his gospel,
thus pray ye.’ The Prayer concludes with a doxology consisting of
two terms, ‘for thine is the power and the glory for ever’. There
then follows (in 8.3) the advice, ‘Three times a day, pray thus.’
Here, in the earliest period, regular use of the Lord’s Prayer is
therefore presupposed, though without any apparent connection
with the sacraments. Yet this impression is false. The matter
becomes clear if one notes the context in which the Lord’s Prayer
stands in the Didache.> The Didache begins with instruction in the
‘Two Ways’, the Way of Life and the Way of Death (chapters 1-6);
this teaching no doubt belonged to the instruction of candidates
for baptism. Chapter 7 treats baptism; and then begin the sections
which are important for those who are baptized: fasting and
prayer (including the Lord’s Prayer) are treated in chapter 8, the
Lord’s Supper in chapters 9-10, and church organization and
church discipline in chapters 11-15. For us it is important to note
4 J.-P. Audet, La Didaché: Instructions des Apétres (Etudes Bibliques),
Paris 1958, p. 219.
5 A. Seeberg, Die vierte Bitte des Vaterunsers, Rostock 1914, pp. 13h,
reprinted in R. Seeberg ed., D. Alfred Sceberg. Worte des Gedachtnisses an den
Heimgegangenen und Arbeiten aus seinem Nachlass, Leipzig 1916, pp. 69-82;
T. W. Manson, ‘The Lord’s Prayer’, pp. rorf.
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 85
that the Lord’s Prayer and the Lord’s Supper follow upon
baptism. Thereby the point we made at the beginning is corrobo-
rated: the Lord’s Prayer was intended in the early church—
beginning already in the first century, as we can now add—only
for those who were full members of the church.
All this leads to a very important result which, again, T. W.
Manson has pointed out most lucidly.6 Whereas nowadays the
Lord’s Prayer is understood as a common property of all people,
it was otherwise in the earliest times. As one of the most holy
treasures of the church, the Lord’s Prayer, together with the Lord’s
Supper, was reserved for full members, and it was not disclosed
to those who stood outside. It was a privilege to be allowed to
pray it. How great was the reverence and awe which surrounded
it is best seen by the introductory formulae found both in the
liturgies of the East and in those of the West. In the East, in the
so-called Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which even today is still
the usual form of the mass among the Greek and Russian Ortho-
dox, the priest prays, at the introduction of the Lord’s Prayer,
‘And make us worthy, O Lord, that we joyously and without
presumption may make bold to invoke Thee, the heavenly God,
as Father, and to say: Our Father.’ The formula in the Roman
mass in the West is similar: “We make bold to say (audemus dicere) :
Our Father.’
This awesome reverence before the Lord’s Prayer was a reality
in the ancient church, which, unfortunately, has been lost to us
today for the most part. That should disquiet us. We ought there-
fore to ask ourselves whether we can again discover why the early
church surrounded the Lord’s Prayer with such reverence, so that
they said, ‘We make bold to say: Our Father.’ Perhaps we may
regain an inkling of the basis for this awe if, with the aid of the
results of recent New Testament research, we try to discover, as
best we can, how Jesus himself meant the words of the Lord’s
Prayer.
2. THE EARLIEST TEXT OF THE LORD’S PRAYER

We must first clear up a preliminary question, namely that of

the earliest text of the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer has been
handed down to us at two places in the New Testament, in
Matthew as part of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6.9-13), and
6 Ibid.
 86 The Prayers of Jesus
in Luke in chapter 11 (Luke 11.2-4). Before trying to consider the
original meaning of the petitions of the Prayer, we must face the
strange fact that the two evangelists, Matthew and Luke, transmit
it in slightly different wordings. It is true that in the Authorized
Version the differences are limited, the main divergence being
that in Luke the doxology is absent, i.e., the concluding words:
‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
ever.’ Likewise in the older editions of the Luther Bible in
German the two versions agree with one another, save for trivial
variations and the absence of the doxology in Luke. But as a
matter of fact, the divergences are greater than this. In the Revised
Standard Version or in the New English Bible translation, just
as in the Ziircherbibel, we read a form of the Lord’s Prayer at
Luke 11.2-4 which is briefer than that found in Matthew.
It is well known that in the last one hundred and twenty years
research into the oldest text-form of the New Testament has gone
forward with great energy, first in Germany, and then in England,
and in the last decades also in America, and admirable results
have been achieved in recovering the oldest text. This work was
triggered by the discovery of numerous manuscripts of the New
Testament, often very ancient ones. In 1963 the number of New
Testament manuscripts in Greek alone totalled 4,903. By com-
paring and classifying these manuscripts, scholars have succeeded
in working out an earlier text than that which the translators
of the AV or Luther possessed. While for the 1611 translators or
for Luther the text-form was available much as it had been
developed at the end of the fourth century in the Byzantine
church, we today know the text of approximately the second
century. One can say, without exaggeration, that this chapter in
research is essentially concluded and that we today have attained
the best possible Greek text of the New Testament. With regard
to the Lord’s Prayer, the results are as follows: At the time when
the gospels of Matthew and of Luke were being composed (about
AD 75-85) the Lord’s Prayer was being transmitted in two forms
which agreed with each other in essentials, but which differed in
the fact that the one was longer than the other. The longer form
appears in Matthew 6.9-13 and also, with insignificant variations,
in the Didache, at 8.2; the briefer form appears at Luke 11.2-4.
While the Matthaean version agrees with that form which is
familiar to us, a form of the Prayer with seven petitions (only the
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 87
doxology is lacking in Matthew’), the Lucan version has only five
petitions according to the oldest manuscripts. It runs:
Father,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Give us each day our bread for tomorrow.
And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive
everyone who is indebted to us.
And let us not fall into temptation.
Two questions now arise. (1) How is it that about the year
AD 75 the Lord’s Prayer was being transmitted and prayed in two
forms which diverged from one another? And (2), which of the
two forms is to be regarded as the original?

(a) The two forms

The answer to the first question, namely, how it is to be
explained that the Lord’s Prayer was transmitted in two forms,
emerges when we observe the context in which the Lord’s Prayer
occurs in Matthew and Luke. In both cases the Lord’s Prayer
occuts with words of Jesus which treat prayer.
In Matthew we read, in the section 6.1-18, a discussion which
opposes the type of piety practised in the lay circles which formed
the Pharisaic movement. The Lord reproves the fact that they
offer their alms (6.2-4) and their prayers (6.5f.) and conduct their
fasts (6.16-18) publicly for show and thus use them to serve their
ctaving for approval and to feed their own self-conceit. In con-
trast he demands of his disciples that their almsgiving and prayer
and fasting shall take place in secret, so that only God beholds it.
The three units are symmetrically constructed: in each instance
false and right conduct are contrasted with each other through
two ‘when’—clauses. But the middle unit, which deals with
prayer (6.5f.), is expanded through three further words of Jesus
about prayer, so that the following structure arose: (a) The
foundation was provided by the admonition of Jesus that his
disciples were not to be like the Pharisees who arrange things so
that they find themselves in the midst of the tumult of the market
place when trumpet blasts from the Temple announce the hour of
prayer, with the result that, evidently to their complete surprise,
7 On the doxology, see further below, pp. 106f.
88 The Prayers of Jesus
they have to pray amid the throng of men. No, Jesus’ disciples are
to ptay behind closed doors, even, if need be, in so worldly a place
as the storeroom (Greek, raysefov; RSV, ‘your room’; 6.5f.).
(b) To this there is joined Jesus’ admonition not to ‘heap up empty
phrases as the Gentiles do’. As children of the heavenly Father, his
disciples do not need to employ ‘many words’ (6.7f.). (¢) The
Lord’s Prayer follows as an example of brief prayer (6.9-13). As a
matter of fact, this prayer from the Lord is distinguished from
most prayers in ancient Judaism by its brevity. (¢) Emphatic in its
position at the end of this middle section is a saying of Jesus about
inner disposition in prayer, a saying which connects with the
petition on forgiveness: only he who is himself ready to forgive
has the right to petition God for forgiveness (6.14f.). We thus
have before us in Matthew 6.5-15 a catechism on prayer, put to-
gether from words of Jesus, a catechism which would be em-
ployed in the instruction of the newly baptized.
In Luke, too, the Lord’s Prayer occurs in such a catechism on
prayer (Luke 11.1-13). This indicates how important the primitive
church considered the instruction of its members in the right kind
of prayer. In Luke, however, the catechism on prayer is of a very
different sort from that found in Matthew. But it too falls into
four parts: (a) There is prefixed a picture of the Lord at prayer as
a prototype for all Christian prayer, and the request of the disciples,
‘Lord, teach us to pray’ (11.1). Jesus fulfils this request with the
Lord’s Prayer (11.2-4). (¥) The parable about the man who knocks
on his friend’s door at midnight is added here. In its present con-
text it presents an admonition to persist in prayer, even if one’s
prayer is not heard immediately (11.5-8). (¢) The same admonition
then follows in imperative form: ‘Ask, and it will be given you’
(11.9f.). (2) The conclusion is formed by the picture of the father
who ‘gives good gifts’ to his children (11.11-13).
The differences in these two primers on prayer are to be
explained by the fact that they are directed at very different groups
of people. The Matthaean catechism on prayer is addressed to
people who have learned to pray in childhood but whose prayer
stands in danger of becoming a routine. The Lucan catechism on
prayer, on the other hand, is addressed to people who must for
the first time learn to pray and whose courage to pray must be
roused. It is clear that Ma:thew is transmitting to us instruction
on prayer directed at Jewish-Christians, Luke at Gentile-Christ-
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 89
ians. About AD 75, therefore, the Lord’s Prayer was a fixed element
in instructions on prayer in all Christendom, in the Jewish-
Christian as well as in the Gentile-Christian church. Both churches,
different as their situations were, were at one on this point: that a
Christian learned, from the Lord’s Prayer, how to pray.
For our question then of how it is to be explained that in
Matthew and Luke we find two forms of the Lord’s Prayer which
vary from each other, the conclusion is that the variations can in
no case be traced back to the caprice of the evangelists—no author
would have dared to make such alteration in the Prayer on his
own—but rather that the variations are to be seen within a broader
context: we have before us the wording for the Prayer from two
churches, that is, different liturgical wordings of the Lord’s
Prayer. Each of the evangelists transmits to us the wording of the
Lord’s Prayer as it was prayed in his church at that time.
(b) The original form
Now we can deal with the second question: which of the two
forms is to be regarded as the original?
If we compare the two texts carefully, the most striking diverg-
ence is the difference in length. The Lucan form (see p. 87) is
shorter than that of Matthew at three places. First, the invocation
is shorter. Luke says only ‘Father’, or properly ‘dear Father’, in
Greek warep, in Aramaic abba, whereas Matthew says, according
to the pious and reverent form of Palestinian invocation, ‘Our
Father who art in heaven’. Second, whereas Matthew and Luke
agree in the first two petitions—the “Thou-petitions’ (‘Hallowed
be thy name, thy kingdom come’)—there follows in Matthew a
third “Thou-petition’: “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in
heaven.’ Third, in Matthew the last of the following “‘We-petitions’
has an antithesis. Luke has only: ‘And let us not fall into tempta-
tion’, but Matthew adds: ‘but deliver us from evil’.
Now, if we ask which form is the original—the longer form of
Matthew or the shorter form of Luke—the decisive observation,
which has not yet been mentioned, is the following: the shorter
form of Luke is completely contained in the longer form of
Matthew. This makes it very probable that the Matthaean form
is an expanded one, for according to all that we know about the
tendency of liturgical texts to conform to certain laws in their
transmission, in a case where the shorter version is contained in
go The Prayers of Jesus
the longer one, the shorter text is to be regarded as original. No
one would have dared to shorten a sacred text like the Lord’s
Prayer and to leave out two petitions if they had formed part of
the original tradition. On the contrary, the reverse is amply
attested, that in the early period, before wordings were fixed,
liturgical texts were elaborated, expanded, and enriched. This
conclusion, that the Matthaean version represents an expansion, is
confirmed by three supplementary observations. First, the three
expansions which we find in Matthew, as compared with Luke,
ate always found toward the end of a section of the prayer—the
first at the end of the address, the second at the end of the ‘Thou-
petitions’, the third at the end of the ‘We-petitions’. This again is
exactly in accordance with what we find elsewhere in the growth
of liturgical texts; they show a proclivity for sonorous expansions
at the end.
Second, it is of further significance that in Matthew the stylistic
structure is more consistently carried through. Three “Thou-
petitions’ in Matthew correspond to the three ‘We-petitions’ (the
sixth and seventh petitions in Matthew were regarded as one
petition). The third ‘We-petition’, which in Luke seems abrupt
because of its brevity, is in Matthew assimilated to the first two
‘We-petitions’. To spell this out, the first two ‘We-petitions’ show
a parallelism:
Our bread for tomorrow / give us today.®
Do Thou forgive us / as we forgive.

In Luke, however, the third “We-petition’ is shorter, apparently

intentionally:
And lead us not into temptation.

But Matthew offers a parallelism here too:

And lead us not into temptation / but deliver us from evil.

This endeavour to produce parallelism in lines (parallelismus

membrorum) is a characteristic of liturgical tradition. One can see
the point especially well if one compares the various versions of
the words of institution at the Lord’s Supper.
Third, a final point in favour of the originality of the Lucan
* On this two-part (or two half-lines) division of the petition for daily
bread, see below, pp. 91ff. and gof.
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 91
version is the reappearance of the brief form of address ‘dear
Father’ (abba) in the prayers of the earliest Christians, as we see
from Rom. 8.15 and Gal. 4.6. Matthew has a sonorous address,
“Our Father who art in heaven’, such as corresponded to pious
Jewish-Palestinian custom. We shall see that the simple abba was
a unique note in Jesus’ own prayers. Thus we must conclude that
this plain abba was the original address.
All these observations lead us, then, in the same direction. The
common substance of both texts, which is identical with its Lucan
form, is the oldest text. The Gentile-Christian church has handed
down the Lord’s Prayer without change, whereas the Jewish-
Christian church, which lived in a world of rich liturgical tradition
and used a variety of prayer forms, has enriched the Lord’s Prayer
liturgically.? Because the form transmitted by Matthew was the
more richly elaborated one, it soon permeated the whole church;
we saw above!® that the Didache presents this form too.
Of course, we must be cautious with our conclusions. The
possibility remains that Jesus himself spoke the ‘Our Father’ on
different occasions in a slightly differing form, a shorter one and a
longer one. But perhaps it would be safer to say that the shorter
Lucan form is in all probability the oldest one, whereas Matthew
gives us the earliest evidence that the Lord’s Prayer was used
liturgically in worship. In any case, the chief thing is that both
texts agree in the decisive elements.
Nonetheless the question about the original form of the Lord’s
Prayer is still not completely answered. We have thus far directed
our attention only to the varying lengths of the two versions. But
in the lines where they share a common wording these versions
also exhibit certain—admittedly, not very significant—variations,
specifically in the second part, the ‘We-petitions’. To these
differences we now turn briefly.
The first ‘We-petition’, for daily bread, reads in Matthew, ‘Give
us this day our bread for the morrow’. As we shall see later, the
contrast, ‘this day—for the morrow’, sets the whole tone for the
verse. In Luke, on the other hand, it reads, ‘give us each day our
bread for the morrow’. Here the term ‘this day’ is expanded into

9 This was done gradually, as can be gathered from the fact that in Matthew
the word ‘heaven’ is in the plural in the address (semitic usage), whereas it is
in the singular in the third petition (Greek usage).
10:P. 86.
92 The Prayers of Jesus
‘each day’; the petition is thereby broadened into a generalized
saying, with the consequence that the antithesis ‘this day—for the
morrow’ drops out. Moreover, in Luke the Greek word for ‘give’
now had to be expressed with the present imperative (didov,
literally ‘keep on giving!’), whereas elsewhere throughout the
Prayer the aorist imperative is used, which denotes a single action.
Matthew also has the aorist imperative in this petition: dds, ‘give’!
From all this it may be concluded that the Matthaean form of the
petition for daily bread is the older one.
In the second ‘We-petition’, for forgiveness, Matthew has
‘Forgive us our debts’, while Luke has ‘Forgive us our sins’. Now
it was a peculiarity of Jesus’ mother tongue, Aramaic, that the
word hobha was used for ‘sin’, though it properly means a debt,
‘money owed’. Matthew translates the word quite literally with
‘debts’, ofewjpara, a word which is not usual in Greek for ‘sin’;
this enables one to see that the Lord’s Prayer goes back to an
Aramaic wording. In the Lucan version, the word ‘debts’ is re-
presented by the usual Greek word for ‘sins’, dwapriar; but the
wotding in the next clause (‘for we ourselves forgive everyone
who is indebted to us’) makes it evident that in the initial clause
‘debts’ had originally appeared. In this case, too, Matthew there-
fore has the older wording.
The same picture results when one focuses attention on yet a
final variation in wording. We read in Matthew (literally trans-
lated), ‘as we also have forgiven (dd7jxapev) our debtors’, while in
Luke we read, ‘for we also ourselves forgive (adiouev) everyone
who is indebted to us’. When we ask which formulation is the
older, the past tense in Matthew or the present tense form in Luke,
it is readily seen that Matthew has the more difficult form, and in
such cases the more difficult form is to be regarded as the more
original. Matthew’s is the more difficult form, because his wording
(‘as we have forgiven’) could lead to the mistaken impression that
not only must our forgiving precede forgiveness on God’s part,
but that it also provides the standard for God’s forgiving us:
‘forgive us thus, as we have forgiven’. In actuality, however, there
lies behind Matthew’s past tense form what is called in Semitic
grammar a perfectum praesens, a “present perfect’, which refers to an
action occurring here and now. The correct translation of the
Matthaean form would therefore run, ‘as we also herewith forgive
our debtors’. By its choice of the present tense form, Luke’s
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 93
version was intended to exclude a misunderstanding among
Greek-speaking Christians, since it says (and this catches the sense):
‘for we also ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us’.
Moreover, in the Lucan form, the petition on forgiveness is
broadened by the addition of the word ‘everyone’, which repre-
sents a sharpening of the meaning, in that it permits no exceptions
in our forgiving.
Comparison of the wording of the two forms of the Lord’s
Prayer therefore shows that, over against Matthew, the Lucan
form has been assimilated at several points to Greek linguistic
usage. Viewed as a whole, our results may be summarized thus:
the Lucan version has preserved the oldest form with respect to
length, but the Matthaean text is more original with regard to
wording.
In our consideration of the petition for forgiveness, we have
just observed that the Matthaean phrase ‘our debts’ enables one to
see that the Lord’s Prayer, which is of course preserved for us only
in Greek, goes back to an original Aramaic version. As we shall
see later,!! this observation is confirmed by the fact that the two
“Thou-petitions’ relate to an Aramaic prayer, the Kaddish. When
one attempts to put the Lord’s Prayer back into Aramaic, Jesus’
mother tongue, the conclusion begins to emerge that, like the
Psalter, it is couched in liturgical language. Even the person who
brings no knowledge of the Semitic languages to his reading of the
following attempt at retranslation can easily spot the characteristic
features of this solemn language. We should note three features
especially: parallelism, the two-beat rhythm, and the rhyme in
lines two and four, which is scarcely accidental. The Lord’s
Prayer in Jesus’ tongue sounded something like this (the accents
designate the two-beat rhythm)’:

11 Below, p. 98.
12 On the problem of the original Aramaic form and attempts at retransla-
tion of the Lord’s Prayer into Aramaic, cf. C. C. Torrey, ‘The Translations
made from the Original Aramaic Gospels’, in: Studies in the History of Religions
presented to Crawford Howell Toy by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, New York
1912, pp. 309-17; éd., The Four Gospels, New York 1933, p. 292; E. Littmann,
‘Torreys Buch iiber die vier Evangelien’, ZNW 34 (1935), pp. 20-34, especi-
ally pp. 29f.; C. F. Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord, Oxford 1925, pp. 112f.;
G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I?, Leipzig 1930, pp. 283-365 (Appendix on ‘Das
Vaterunser’ which is not in the ET of the 1st edition. The Words of Jesus,
Edinburgh 1902); K. G. Kuhn, Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim
(WUNT 1), Tiibingen 1950, pp. 32f.
94 The Prayers of Jesus
? Abbd
yithqadddsh sh¢mdkh | tethé malkhuthdkh
lahman d*limbdr | habh lin yoma dhén
ushtbhog lan hobhatn | k¢dbish*bhdqnan l*hayyabhain
wla tha‘elinnan lnisyon.

3. THE MEANING OF THE LORD’S PRAYER

Having considered what can be said about the original wording,

we ate prepared to face the main question. What was, as far as we
can judge, the original meaning?
Luke reports that Jesus gave the Lord’s Prayer to his disciples
On a quite specific occasion.
He was praying in a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his
disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his
disciples.’ (11.1)
That the unnamed disciple appealed to the example of John the
Baptist is important for our understanding of the Lord’s Prayer,
since we know that at the time of Jesus individual religious groups
were marked by their own prayer customs and forms. This was
true of the Pharisees, the Essenes, and, as we perceive from Luke
11.1, the disciples of John as well. A particular custom in prayer
expressed the particular relationship with God which bound the
individuals together. The request at Luke 11.1 therefore shows
that Jesus’ disciples recognized themselves as a community, or
more exactly as the community of the age of salvation, and that
they requested of Jesus a prayer which would bind them together
and identify them, in that it would bring to expression their chief
concern. As a matter of fact, the Lord’s Prayer is the clearest and,
in spite of its terseness, the richest summary of Jesus’ proclama-
tion which we possess. When the Lord’s Prayer was given to the
disciples, prayerin Jesus’ name began (John 14.13f.; 15.16; 16.23).13
The structure of the Lord’s Prayer is simple and transparent.
We present once again what is presumably the oldest wording
(following the short form according to Luke, but where there are
minor variations of wording that of Matthew):
Dear Father,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
13K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD 3)°, Gottingen 1962,
p. 144.
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 95
Our bread for tomorrow / give us today.
And forgive us our debts / as we also herewith forgive our debtors.
And let us not succumb to temptation.
The structure of the Lord’s Prayer then consists of: (1) the
address; (2) two “Thou-petitions’ in parallel (in Matthew, three);
(3) two ‘We-petitions’ in parallel, both forming, as we shall see,
an antithesis; (4) the concluding request. We also observe what
seems to be an apparently insignificant point: while the two ‘Thou-
petitions’ stand side-by-side without any ‘and’, the two parallel
“We-petitions’ are connected by an ‘and’.

(a) The address ‘Dear Father’ (abba)

When we trace back to its earliest beginnings the history of the
invocation of God as father, we have the feeling of descending
into a mine in which new and unexpected treasures are disclosed
one after another. It is surprising to see that already in the ancient
Orient, as early as the third and second millennia Bc, we find the
deity addressed as father. We find this title for the first time in
Sumerian prayers, long before the time of Moses and the prophets,
and there already the word ‘father’ does not merely refer to the
deity as procreator and ancestor of the king and of the people and
as powerful lord, but it also has quite another significance: it is
used for the ‘merciful, gracious father, in whose hand the life of
the whole land lies’ (a hymn from Ur to the moon god Sin).4
For Orientals, the word ‘father’, as applied to God, thus encom:
passes, from earliest times, something of what the word ‘mother’
signifies among us.
When we turn to the Old Testament, we find that God is only
seldom spoken of as father—in fact only on fourteen occasions,
but all these are important. God is Israel’s father, but now not
mythologically as procreator or ancestor, but as the one who
elected, delivered, and saved his people Israel by mighty deeds in
history. This designation of God as father in the Old Testament
comes to full fruition, however, in the message of the prophets.
God is Israel’s father. But the prophets must make constant
accusation against God’s people that Israel has not given God the
honour which a son should give to his father.
14 See J. B, Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testa-
ment®, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955, p. 385.
96 The Prayers of Jesus
A son honours his father,
and a servant his master.
If then I am a father,
where is my honour?
And if Iam a master,
where is my fear?
says the Lord of hosts.
(Mal..1.6; cf. Deut. 32:5f.3 Jer.*3:198:)
And Israel’s answer to this rebuke is a confession of sin and the
ever-reiterated cry, Abhinu atta, “Thou art our father’ (Isa. 63.15f.;
64.7f.; Jer. 3.4). And God’s reply to this cry is mercy beyond all
understanding:
Is Ephraim my dear son?
Is he my darling child?...
Therefore my heart yearns for him;
I must have mercy on him,
says the Lord. (Jer. 31.20)
Can there be any deeper dimension to the term ‘father’ than this
compulsive, forgiving mercy which is beyond comprehension?
When we turn to Jesus’ preaching, the answer must be: Yes,
here there is something quite new, absolutely new—the word
abba. From the prayer in Gethsemane, Mark 14.36, we learn that
Jesus addressed God with this word, and this point is confirmed
not only by Rom. 8.15 and Gal. 4.6, but also by the striking
oscillation of the forms for the vocative ‘O father’ in the Greek
text of the gospels, an oscillation which is to be explained only
through the fact that the Aramaic term abba lies behind all such
passages. With the help of my assistants I have examined the
prayer literature of ancient Judaism—a large, rich literature, all too
little explored. The result of this examination was that in no place
in this immense literature is this invocation of God as abba to be
found. How is this to be explained? The church fathers Chry-
sostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus who
otiginated from Antioch (where the populace spoke the West
Syrian dialect of Aramaic) and who probably had Aramaic-
speaking nurses, testify unanimously that abba was the address of
the small child to his father. And the Talmud confirms this when
it says: ‘When a child experiences the taste of wheat [i.e. when it is
weaned], it learns to say abba and imma [‘dear father’ and ‘dear
mother’].’15 Abba and imma are thus originally the first sounds
155, Ber. 40a; b. Sanh. Job.
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 97
which the child stammers. In Jesus’ days they were no longer
restricted to children’s talk; they were also used by grown-up
sons and daughters to address their parents. Yet their humble
origin was not forgotten. Abba was an everyday word, a homely
family-word. No Jew would have dared to address God in this
manner. Jesus did it always, in all his prayers which are handed
down to us, with one single exception, the cry from the cross:
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mark 15.34;
Matt. 27.46); here the term of address for God was prescribed by
the fact that Jesus was quoting Ps. 22.1. Jesus thus spoke with
God as a child speaks with his father, simply, intimately, securely.
But his invocation of God as abba is not to be understood merely
psychologically, as a step toward growing apprehension of God.
Rather we learn from Matt. 11.27 that Jesus himself viewed this
form of address for God as the heart of that revelation which had
been granted him by the Father. In this term abba the ultimate
mystery of his mission and his authorityisexpressed. He, to whom
the Father had granted full knowledge of God, has the messianic
prerogative of addressing him with the familiar address of a son.
This term abba is an ipsissima vox'* of Jesus and contains im nuce his
message and his claim to have been sent from the Father.
The final point, and the most astonishing of all, however, has
yet to be mentioned: in the Lord’s Prayer Jesus authorizes his
disciples to repeat the word abba after him. He gives them a share
in his sonship and empowers them, as his disciples, to speak with
their heavenly Father in just such a familiar, trusting way as a
child would with his father. Yes, he goes so far as to say that it is
this new relationship which first opens the doors to God’s reign:
‘Truly, I say to you, unless you become like children again,!? you
will not find entrance into the kingdom of God’ (Matt. 18.3).
Children can say ‘abba’! Only he who, through Jesus, lets himself
be given the childlike trust which resides in the word abba finds
his way into the kingdom of God. This the apostle Paul also under-
stood; he says twice that there is no surer sign or guarantee of the
possession of the Holy Spirit and of the gift of sonship than this,
that a man makes bold to repeat this one word, ‘Abba, dear Father’

16 Ipsissima vox of Jesus = Jesus’ own original way of speaking (cf.

‘Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu’, below, pp. 108-115).
17 As it might be translated from the Aramaic. The translation which is
familiar to us remains possible: ‘unless you turn and become like children’.
PJG
98 The Prayers of Jesus
(Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6). Perhaps at this point we get some inkling
why the use of the Lord’s Prayer was not a commonplace in the
early church and why it was spoken with such reverence and awe:
‘Make us worthy, O Lord, that we joyously and without pre-
sumption may make bold to invoke Thee, the heavenly God, as
Father, and to say, Our Father.’
(b) The two ‘Thou-petitions’
The first words which the child says to his heavenly Father are,
‘Hallowed be thy name Thy kingdom come.’ These two petitions
ate not only parallel in structure, but they also correspond to one
another in content. They recall the Kaddish (‘Holy’), an ancient
Aramaic prayer which formed the conclusion of the service in the
synagogue and with which Jesus was no doubt familiar from
childhood. What is probably the oldest form of this prayer (later
expanded) runs:
Exalted and hallowed be his great name
in the world which he created according to his will.
May he let his kingdom rule
in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime
of the whole house of Israel, speedily and soon.
And to this, say: amen.
It is from this connection with the Kaddish that we can explain the
way in which the two “Thou-petitions’ (in contrast with the two
parallel ‘We-petitions’) stand alongside each other without any
connecting word; for in the earliest texts of the Kaddish the two
petitions about the hallowing of the name and the coming of the
kingdom appear not to be connected by an ‘and’.
Comparison with the Kaddish also shows that the two petitions
are eschatological. They make entreaty for the revelation of God’s
eschatological kingdom. Every accession to power by an earthly
ruler is accompanied by homage in words and gestures. So it will
be when God enters upon his rule. Then men will do homage to
him, hallowing his name: ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God
Almighty, who was and is and is to come’ (Rev. 4.8); then they
will all prostrate themselves at the feet of the King of kings, ‘We
give thanks to thee, Lord God Almighty, who art and who wast,
that thou hast taken thy great power and begun to reign’ (Rev.
11.17). The two “Thou-petitions’, to which in Matthew there is
added yet a third one of like meaning (‘Thy will be done, on earth
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 99
as it is in heaven’), thus make entreaty for the final consummation.
Their contents strike the same note as the prayer of the early
church, Maranatha (I Cor. 16.22), ‘Come, Lord Jesus’ (Rev. 22.20).
They seek the hour in which God’s profaned and misused name
will be glorified and his reign revealed, in accordance with the
promise, ‘I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has
been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned
among them; and the nations will know that I am the Lord, says
the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before
their-eyes’ (Ezek. 36.23).
These petitions are a cry out of the depths of distress. Out of a
world which is enslaved under the rule of evil and in which Christ
and Antichrist are locked in conflict, Jesus’ disciples, seemingly a
prey of evil and death and Satan, lift their eyes to the Father and
cry out for the revelation of God’s glory. But at the same time
these petitions are an expression of absolute certainty. He who
prays thus, takes seriously God’s promise, in spite of all the
demonic powers, and puts himself completely in God’s hands,
with imperturbable trust: “Thou wilt complete Thy glorious work,
abba, Father.’
These are the same words which the Jewish community prays
in the synagogue at the end of the service in the Kaddish; yet the
two “Thou-petitions’ are not the same as the Kaddish, in spite of
the similar wording. There is a great difference. In the Kaddish the
prayer is by a congregation which stands in the darkness of the
present age and asks for the consummation. In the Lord’s Prayer,
though similar words are used, a congregation is praying which
knows that the turning point has already come, because God has
already begun his saving work. This congregation now makes
supplication for full revelation of what has already been granted.
(c) The two ‘We-petitions’
The two ‘We-petitions’, for daily bread and for forgiveness,
hang together as closely as the two “Thou-petitions’. This con-
nection of the two ‘We-petitions’ with one another is seen immedi-
ately in the structure through the fact that both of them, in
contrast to the “[hou-petitions’, consist of /wo half-lines each:
Our bread for tomorrow / give us today.
And forgive us our debts / as we also
herewith forgive our debtors.
100 The Prayers of Jesus
If it is correct that the two “Thou-petitions’ recall the Kaddish,
then we must conclude that in the Lord’s Prayer the accent lies
completely on the new material which Jesus added, that is, on the
two ‘We-petitions’. They form the real heart of the Lord’s Prayer,
to which the two “Thou-petitions’ lead up.
(2) The first of the two ‘We-petitions’ asks for daily bread
(Greek, dpros émovatos). The Greek word émovavos, which Luther
rendered as ‘tiglich’ (‘daily’) and Tyndale in 1525 and the Author-
ized Version as ‘daily’, has been the object of lengthy discussion
which is not yet finally settled. In my opinion, the decisive fact is
that the church father Jerome (¢. AD 342-420) tells us that in the
lost Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes the term mahar appears,
meaning ‘tomorrow’, that here therefore the reference was to
bread ‘for tomorrow’.1® Now it is true that this Gospel of the
Nazarenes is not older than our first three gospels; rather it rests on
our Gospel of Matthew. Nonetheless the Aramaic wording of the
Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of the Nazarenes (‘bread for tomorrow’)
must be older than the Gospel of the Nazarenes and older even than
our gospels. For in first-century Palestine the Lord’s Prayer was
prayed in uninterrupted usage in Aramaic, and a person translating
the Gospel of Matthew into Aramaic naturally did not translate
the Lord’s Prayer as he did the rest of the text. Instead, when the
translator came to Matt. 6.9-13, he of course stopped translating;
he simply wrote down the holy words in the form in which he
prayed them day by day. In other words, the Aramaic-speaking
Jewish-Christians, among whom the Lord’s Prayer lived on in its
original Aramaic wording in unbroken usage since the days of
Jesus, prayed, ‘Our bread for tomorrow give us today.’
Jerome tells us even more. He adds a remark telling how the
phrase, “bread for tomorrow’ was understood. He says: ‘In the so-
called Gospel according to the Hebrews [i.e., the Nazarenes] ... I
found mabar, which means “for tomorrow’’, so that the sense is,
“Our bread for tomorrow—that is, our future bread—give us
today.” ’ Asa matter of fact, inancient Judaism mabar, ‘tomorrow’,
meant not only the next day but also the great Tomorrow, the
final consummation. Accordingly, Jerome is saying, the ‘bread
for tomorrow’ was not meant as earthly bread but as the bread of
18 Commentary on Matthew, on Matt. 6.11 (text, E. Klostermann,
Apocrypha II?, Kleine Texte 8, Berlin 1929, p. 7; ET, M. R. James, The
Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1924, p. 4).
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research IOI
life. Further, we know from the ancient translations of the Lord’s
Prayer, both in the East and in the West, that in the early church
this eschatological understanding—‘bread of the age of salvation’,
‘bread of life’, ‘heavenly manna’—was the familiar, if not the
predominant interpretation of the phrase ‘bread for tomorrow’.
Since primeval times, the bread of life and the water of life have
been symbols of paradise, an epitome of the fullness of all God’s
material and spiritual gifts. It is this bread—symbol, image, and
fulfilment of the age of salvation—to which Jesus is referring when
he says that in the consummation he will eat and drink with his
disciples (Luke 22.30) and that he will gird himself and serve
them at table (Luke 12.37) with the bread which has been broken
and the cup which has been blessed (cf. Matt. 26.29). The eschato-
logical thrust of all the other petitions in the Lord’s Prayer speaks
for the fact that the petition for bread has an eschatological sense
too, 1.e., that it entreats God for the bread of life.
This interpretation may perhaps be a surprise or even a dis-
appointment for us. For so many people it is important that at
least one petition in the Lord’s Prayer should lead into everyday
life, the petition for daily bread. Is that to be taken away from us?
Is that not an impoverishment? No, in reality, application of the
petition about bread to the bread of life is a great enrichment. It
would be a gross misunderstanding if one were to suppose that
here there is a ‘spiritualizing’, after the manner of Greek philo-
sophy, and that there is a distinction made between ‘earthly’ and
‘heavenly’ bread. For Jesus, earthly bread and the bread of life
are not antithetical. In the realm of God’s kingship he viewed all
earthly things as hallowed. His disciples belong to God’s new age;
they are snatched away from the age of death (Matt. 8.22). This
fact manifests itself in their life down to the last details. It expresses
itself in their words (Matt. 5.21f., 33-37), in their looks (5.28),
in the way they greet men on the street (5.47); it expresses itself
also in their eating and drinking. For the disciples of Jesus there
are no longer ‘clean’ or ‘unclean’ foods. ‘Nothing that a man eats
can make him “unclean” ’ (Mark 7.15); all that God provides is
blessed. This ‘hallowing of life’ is most clearly illustrated by the
picture of Jesus at table for a meal. The bread which he proffered
when he sat at table with publicans and sinners was everyday
bread, and yet it was more: it was bread of life. The bread which
he broke for his disciples at the Last Supper was earthly bread,
102 The Prayers of Jesus
and yet it was more: his body given for many in death, the gift of
a portion in the atoning power of his death. Every meal his
disciples had with him was a usual eating and drinking, and yet it
was more: a meal of salvation, a messianic meal, image and
anticipation of the meal at the consummation, because he was the
master of the house. This remained true in the primitive church:
their daily fellowship meals were the customary meals for susten-
ance, and yet at the same time they were a “Lord’s supper’ (I Cor.
11.20) which mediated fellowship with him and linked in fellow-
ship witb one another those sitting at table (I Cor. 10.16f.). In the
same way, for all his followers, every meal is a meal in his pre-
sence. He is the host who fills the hungry and thirsty with the
fullness of his blessings.
It is in this sense too that the petition about ‘bread for to-
morrow’ is intended. It does not sever everyday life and the
kingdom of God from one another, but it encompasses the totality
of life. It embraces everything that Jesus’ disciples need for body
and soul. It includes ‘daily bread’, but it does not content itself
with that. It asks that amid the secularity of everyday life the
powers and gifts of God’s coming age may be active in all that
Jesus’ disciples do in word and deed. One can flatly say that this
petition for the bread of life makes entreaty for the hallowing of
everyday life.
Only when one has perceived that the petition asks for bread
in the fullest sense, for the bread of life, does the antithesis
between ‘for tomorrow’ and ‘today’ gain its full significance.
This word ‘today’, which stands at the end of the petition, gets
the real stress. In a world enslaved under Satan, in a world where
God is remote, in a world of hunger and thirst, the disciples of
Jesus dare to utter this word ‘today’—even now, even here,
already on this day, give us the bread of life. Jesus grants to them,
as the children of God, the privilege of stretching forth their
hands to grasp the glory of the consummation, to fetch it down,
to ‘believe it down’, to pray it down—right into their poor lives,
even now, even here, today.

(b) Even now—this is also the meaning of the petition for

forgiveness, “And forgive us our debts as we also herewith forgive
our debtors.’ This request looks toward the great reckoning
which the world is approaching, the disclosure of God’s majesty
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 103
in the final judgment. Jesus’ disciples know how they are involved
in sin and debt; they know that only God’s gracious forgiveness
can save them from the wrath to come. But they ask not only for
mercy in the hour of the last judgment—trather they ask, again,
that God might grant them forgiveness already today. Through
Jesus their lord, they, as his disciples, belong to the age of
salvation. The age of the Messiah is an age of forgiveness. For-
giveness is the one great gift of this age. ‘Grant us, dear Father,’
they pray, ‘this one great gift of the Messiah’s time, already in this
day and in this place.’
This second ‘We-petition’ also has two parts, two half-lines,
like the petition for daily bread. There is an antithesis, contrasting
“Thow’ and ‘we’: ‘forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.’
The second half-line, about forgiving our debtors, makes a quite
striking reference to human activity. Such a reference occurs
only at this point in the Lord’s Prayer, so that one can see from
this fact how important this second clause was to Jesus. The
wotd ‘as’ (in ‘as we forgive’) does not imply a comparison; how
could Jesus’ disciples compare their poor forgiving with God’s
mercy? Rather, the ‘as’ introduces a declaration, for, as we have
already seen,!? the correct translation from the Aramaic must be,
‘as we also herewith forgive our debtors’. With these words he
who prays reminds himself of his own need to forgive. Jesus again
and again declared this very point, that you cannot ask God for
forgiveness if you ate not prepared to forgive. God can forgive
only if we are ready to forgive. ‘Whenever you stand praying,
forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that poe
Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses’
(Mark 11.25). At Matt. 5.23f. Jesus even goes so far as to say that
the disciple is to interrupt his presentation of the offering with
which he is entreating God’s forgiveness, if it occurs to him that
his brother holds something against him; he is to be reconciled
with his brother before he completes the offering of his sacrifice.
In these verses Jesus means to say that the request for God’s
forgiveness is false and cannot be heard by God if the disciple has
not on his part previously cleared up his relationship with the
brother. This willingness to forgive is, so to speak, the hand
which Jesus’ disciples reach out toward God’s forgiveness. They
say, ‘O Lord, we indeed belong to the age of the Messiah, to the
19 Above, pp. 92f.
104 The Prayers of Jesus
age of forgiveness, and we are ready to pass on to others the for-
giveness which we receive. Now grant us, dear Father, the gift of
the age of salvation, thy forgiveness. We stretch out our hands,
forgive us our debts—even now, even here, already today.’
Only when one observes that the two ‘We-petitions’ are both
directed toward the consummation and that they both implore its
gifts for this present time, only then does the connection between
the two “Thou-petitions’ and the two ‘We-petitions’ really become
clear. The two ‘We-petitions’ are the actualization of the “Thou-
petitions’. The “Thou-petitions’ ask for the revelation of God’s
glory. The two ‘We-petitions’ make bold to ‘pray down’ this
consummation, even here and even now.

(d) The conclusion: the Petition for Preservation

Up to this point, the petitions have been in parallel to one
another, the two ‘Thou-petitions’ as well as the two ‘We-petitions’.
Moreover the two ‘We-petitions’ each consisted of two half-lines.
Hence even the form makes the concluding petition, which
consists of only a single line, stand out as abrupt and harsh:

And let us not fall into temptation.

It also departs from the pattern of the previous petitions in that it

is the only one formulated in the negative. But all that is inten-
tional; as the contents show, this petition is supposed to stand out
as harsh and abrupt.
Two preliminary remarks about the wording must be inserted,
however. The first concerns the verb. The Greek text (literally,
‘and do not lead us into temptation’) could be taken to imply that
God himself tempts us. The Letter of James had already rigorously
rejected this misunderstanding when—probably with direct
reference to our petition—it said, ‘Let no one say when he is
tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted
with evil and he himself tempts no one’ (James 1.13). How the
verb is really to be construed is shown by a very ancient Jewish
evening prayer, which Jesus could have known and with which
he perhaps makes a direct point of contact. The pertinent part
(which recurs, incidentally, almost identically worded in the
morning prayer) runs as follows:
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 105
Lead my foot not into the power of sin,
And bring me not into the power of iniquity,
And not into the power of temptation,
And not into the power of anything shameful.?°
The juxtaposition of ‘sin’, ‘iniquity’, ‘temptation’, and ‘anything
shameful’, as well as the expression ‘bring into the power of’,
show that this Jewish evening prayer has in view not an unmedi-
ated action of God but his permission which allows something
to happen. (To put it in technical grammatical terms: the causative
forms which are here translated ‘lead’ and ‘bring’ have a per-
missive nuance.) The meaning therefore is, “Do not permit that I
fall into the hands of sin, iniquity, temptation, and anything
shameful.’ This evening prayer thus prays for preservation from
succumbing in temptation. This is also the sense of the concluding
petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Hence we must render it, “Let us not
succumb to temptation.’ That this reference in the final petition of
the Lord’s Prayer is indeed not to preservation from temptation
but to preservation z# temptation, is corroborated by an ancient
extra-canonical saying of Jesus which, according to ancient tradi-
tion, Jesus spoke on that last evening, prior to the prayer in
Gethsemane:
No one can obtain the kingdom of heaven
who has not passed through temptation.”

Hete it is expressly stated that no disciple of Jesus will be spared

testing through temptation; it is only the overcoming of tempta-
tion that is promised the disciple. This saying also testifies to the
fact that the concluding petition of the Lord’s Prayer does not
request that he who prays may be spared temptation, but that
God may help him to overcome it.
All this becomes fully clear when we ask, secondly, what the
word ‘temptation’ means. This word (zeupacpds in Greek) does not
mean the little temptations or testings of everyday life, but the
final great Testing which stands at the door and will extend over
the whole earth—the disclosure of the mystery of evil, the revela-
tion of the Antichrist, the abomination of desolation (when Satan
stands in God’s place), the final persecution and testing of God’s
20 5, Ber. Gob.
21 Tertullian, De baptismo 20.2 (cf. J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus*,
London-Greenwich, Connecticut, 1964, pp. 73-5).
106 The Prayers of Jesus
saints by pseudo-prophets and false saviours. What is in danger,
is not moral integrity, but faith itself. The final trial at the end is—
apostasy! Who can escape?
The concluding petition of the Lord’s Prayer therefore says,
‘O Lord, preserve us from falling away, from apostasy.’ The
Matthaean tradition also understood the petition in this way when
it added the petition about final deliverance from the power of
evil, which seeks to plunge men into eternal ruin: “But deliver us
from evil.’
Now, perhaps, we understand the abruptness of this last peti-
tion, why it is so brief and harsh. Jesus has summoned his disciples
to ask for the consummation, when God’s name will be hallowed
and his kingdom come. What is more, he has encouraged them in
their petitions to ‘pray down’ the gifts of the age of salvation into
their own poor lives, even here and now. But with the soberness
which characterizes all his words, Jesus warns his disciples of the
danger of false enthusiasm when he calls them abruptly back to
the reality of their own threatened existence by means of this
concluding petition. This final petition is a cry out of the depths
of distress, a resounding call for aid from a man who in affliction
prays*?: “Dear Father, this one request grant us: preserve us from
falling away from Thee.’ It is surely no accident that this con-
cluding petition has no parallels in the Old Testament.
The doxology, ‘For thine is the kingdom and the power and the
glory, for ever. Amen,’ is lacking completely in Luke, and in
Matthew it is absent from the oldest manuscripts. We encounter
it first in the Didache.?> But it would be a completely erroneous
conclusion to suppose that the Lord’s Prayer was ever prayed
without some closing words of praise to God; in Palestinian
practice it was completely unthinkable that a prayer would end
with the word ‘temptation’. Now, in Judaism prayers were often
concluded with a ‘seal’, a sentence of praise freely formulated by
the man who was praying.** This was doubtless also what Jesus
intended with the Lord’s Prayer, and what the congregation did
in the earliest period: conclude the Lord’s Prayer with a ‘seal’,
i.e. a freely formulated doxology by the person praying. After-
wards, when the Lord’s Prayer began to be used increasingly in
22 Cf. H. Schiirmann, Das Gebet des Herrn, p. 90.
23 See above, p. 83f.
4 A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, Stuttgart 1929 = °1963, p. 217.
 The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Recent Research 107
the service as a common prayer, it was felt necessary to establish
a fixed formulation of the doxology.
If one ventures to summarize in one phrase the inexhaustible
mystery of the few sentences in the Lord’s Prayer, there is an
expression pre-eminently suitable which New Testament research
has especially busied itself with in recent decades. That phrase is
‘eschatology becoming actualized’ (sich realisierende Eschatologie).
This expression denotes the age of salvation now being realized,
the consummation bestowed in advance, the ‘in-breaking’ of
God’s presence into our lives. Where men dare to pray in the
name of Jesus to their heavenly Father with childlike trust, that
he might reveal his glory and that he might grant to them already
today and in this place the bread of life and the blotting out of
sins, there in the midst of the constant threat of failure and
apostasy is realized, already now, the kingly rule of God over the
life of his children.
 Appendix

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IPSISSIMA

VOX JESU*
Ir is clear that the testimony of the Fourth Gospel to the Christ
is retrospective—i.e. that it is conditioned by the internal and
external situation of the church in Asia Minor at the end of the
first century. So in an analysis of the discourses in the Gospel of
John we come up against the same thing again and again: sayings
of Jesus from the earlier tradition are elaborated, after the fashion
of a Midrash, into homilies which take the form of a prose hymn.
To a lesser degree this is also true of the synoptic gospels; they
too have retrospective features, and do not disguise the fact that
they were written in a post-Easter situation. These considerations
have led to a considerable degree of scepticism; scholars doubt
whether we are in a position to get back to the zpsissima vox Jesu
and consequently are resigned to the position that the gospels
give us the ‘kerygma’—‘didache’ would probably be a better
word!—of the primitive church. We shall attempt to show that
this scepticism towards the historical evidence is unjustified by
pointing to two linguistic characteristics of the zpsissima vox Jesu.
I

According to the unanimous testimony of the four gospels,

Jesus at all times—with the sole exception of Mark 15.34 par.
Matt. 27.46, which is a quotation from the Old Testament—
addressed God as ‘Father’.! Jesus almost always used this address
‘Father’ without any addition; the only passages in which an
* From: Synoptische Studien Alfred Wikenhauser zum siebzigsten Geburtstag
dargebracht, Munich 1954, pp. 86-93 (Abba, Gottingen 1966, pp. 145-52).
Details from the first section of this article ate incorporated in the first essay
of the present collection.
1 Mark 14.36 (par. Matt. 26.39; Luke 22.42); Matt. 11.25, 26 (par. Luke
10.21 (bis)); Matt. 26.42; Luke 23.34, 46; John 11.41; 12.27, 28; 17.1, 5, 11,
21, 24, 25. All five strata of the gospel tradition (Mark, Logia, special
Matthaean material, special Lucan material, John) agree here.
108
 Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu 109
epithet appears alongside it are Matt. 11.25 (par. Luke 10.21)
KUpte TOG odpavod Kal THs ys, and John 17.11 dyve, 17.25 Sixare.?
Mark 14.36 explicitly attests that in so doing he used the Aramaic
vocative NIX, and this is confirmed by the echo of the primitive
church (Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6).3 This abba (‘my father’) is not, as is
frequently but erroneously asserted, a determinative form (= ‘the
father’) which also represented the form with the pronominal
suffix of the first person singular‘; rather it is a vocative form,
originally a piece of childish chatter, which then came to be used
generally for the determinative form and the forms with the
pronominal suffixes of the first person, although the memory of
its humble origin was never lost.>
The result of a search for Jewish parallels to the use of abba asa
form of address in prayers proves completely negative. As far as I
can see, only three instances of the application of the Aramaic abba
(without suffixes) to God can be found.®
1. In 1881, J. Levy drew attention to a variant to the Targum
on Job 34.36, which occurs in a manuscript of the Bible, with
Targum, written in the year 1238.7 Whereas the editions of the
2 The Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11.2: wdrep without any addition, cf. Matt.
6.9: matep Hudy 6 év Tots odpavois) is relevant only as a supplement to our
investigations, as it is a prayer for the disciples.
3 A further confirmation is the occasional rendering of Jesus’ address to
God as 6 rarijp (Mark 14.36, cf. Matt. 11.26; Luke 10, 21; without the article:
John 17.11 o./., 21 v./., 24 0./., 25 v./.). This absolute vocative 6 arTjp has no
connection with the replacement of the vocative with the nominative (with
the article) in Attic Greek; it is a rendering of the Aramaic vocative abba,
wrongly understood as a determinative form. This is clear (a) from the fact
that the Attic idiom is limited to remarks addressed to underlings (Blass-
Debrunnet-Funk, §147.3), (b) from Mark 14.36; Rom. 8.15; Gal. 4.6:
aBBa 6 marjp, and (c) from the absence of the absolute vocative 6 waryp in
the LX X, which did not find abba in the Hebrew or Aramaic original.
+ Thus G. Kittel, aBBa, TW NT I (1933), p. 4. This assertion has often been
repeated without it being noted that Kittel himself corrected it, a very short
while afterwards, in fact in 1932, in: Die Religionsgeschichte und das Urchristentum,
Giitersloh n.d., p. 146, n. 214.
5 See above, pp. 58f. I have abandoned the view expressed in the first
edition of this article in German, that the vocative form abba has arisen
through a contraction of the diminutive form *abbdi, as suggested by
G. Dalman, Grammatik des jidisch-palistinischen Aramdisch*, Leipzig 1905 =
Darmstadt 1960, 9 §14.7d and f, pp. 9of.
6 Apart from Targ. Ps. 89.27 (DN NAN) and Targ. Ma/. 2.10 (M95 TM NIN).
In both these passages the Hebrew text determined the choice of wording.
1 Chalddisches Worterbuch uber die Targumim>, Leipzig 1881, p. 1b. Levy’s
reference was taken up by Billerbeck II, p. 50, who is followed by G. Kittel,
GBB, p. 5.
110 The Prayers of Jesus
Targum® read: APN INAMTRYA (‘I wanted Job to be
proved’), the MS of 1238 reads: JN” NAVAT NANT PIP RPI
JPN (‘I longed for my Father in heaven to prove Job’). This
isolated, late addition cannot possibly be the original text of the
Targum to Job 34.36.
2. In 1898, G. Dalman drew attention to a second instance.?
Referring to theH adrianic persecution, Lev. R. 32 on 24.10 says:
‘Why will you be scourged? D°AWVAV NIN PIS -NVIY OY
(because I have done the will of my heavenly Father).’ But a
comparison with the parallels shows that this instance too is a
later addition to the text of the tradition. The passage does not
occur in the earlier parallel Mek. Ex. 20.6.1°
3. Far more important than these two late additions to the text
is a third instance of the application of abba to God, which was
pointed out by J. Leipoldt in 1941.1 Its greater importance lies
already in the fact that it contains the word abba without any
addition—the two passages we have just discussed have the
liturgical phrase ‘Father in heaven’. But above all, it is particularly
significant because of its age: it takes us into the first century BC.
It is a story which is told of a grandson of Onias the Circle-maker,
who was famous for his successful prayers for rain. Onias was a
contemporary of the scholar Simeon b. Shatah, who lived during
the reigns of King Alexander Jannaeus (104-76 Bc) and Queen
Salome Alexandra (76-67 Bc). He was killed in 65 Bc, as we know
from Josephus.!? His grandson must therefore have lived in the
last decades of the first century Bc. The text (b. Ta‘an. 23b) runs}:
8 Venetian Rabbinic Bible of the year 1568; P. de Lagarde, Hagiographa
Chaldaice, Lipsiae 1873; Bible with Targum, Wilna 1893.
° The Words of Jesus, 1, ET, Edinburgh 1902, p. 188; G. Kittel, dBB4, p. 5.
10 Midr. Tehillim 12.5 has the addition, but with ’abhi instead of abba.—For
the sake of completeness it should be noted that G. Dalman, Die Worte
Jesu, 14*, pp. 152-4, also adduces a number of examples of the religious use of
abba with suffixes: NYVATPMAN (Midr. Abba Gorion 1.1); °TPIMAN
NWA (Kaddish); WMWATPDIANY (7. Ma‘as. 3.50c. 11); NWT MIN
(Aramaic Haggadah for the feast of Pentecost). In each case God is dis-
tinguished from an earthly father as the father ‘in heaven’ or by other addi-
tions. Examples from the Targum in Billerbeck I, pp. 395f.; these instances
from the Targum can be increased, cf. G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu I, pp.
296-304, passim. Only in the two passages mentioned in n. 6, however, do
we have the form abba (without a suffix) with which we are exclusively
concerned.
11 Jesu Verhaltnis zu Juden und Griechen, Leipzig 1941, pp. 136f.
12 Antt. 14.22-24,
13 According to the 1721 Frankfurt edition of the Babylonian Talmud.
 Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu 111
‘Hanin ha-Nehba was the son of the daughter of Onias the
Circle-maker. When the world needed rain, our teachers used to
send schoolchildren to him, who seized the hem of his coat!* and
implored him: “Abba, abba, habh lan mitra (Daddy, daddy, give us
rain).”’ He said to Him (God): “Master of the world, grant it (the
rain) for the sake of these who are not yet able to distinguish
between an abba who has the power to give rain and an abba
who has not.”’’
Here God is designated by Hanin as abba in a quite unliturgical
way. Note, however, that he is simply repeating what the children
say! Hanin is appealing to God’s mercy by taking up the ‘abba,
abba’ of the school children and describing God as the ‘abba who
has the power to give rain’.
This exhausts the evidence for the application of abba (without
a suffix) to God, and so we can go on to draw the conclusion.
There is not a single example of the use of abba (without a suffix) as an
address to God in the whole of Jewish literature. God is not addressed
as abba in any of the three passages we have discussed. The
reason for this has been recognized by G. Dalman’ and T. Zahn,*®
and the final passage, discussed above, from b. Ta‘an. 23b con-
firms their judgment: abba is familiar language.!7 Abba (‘my
father’) is in fact derived from the chatter of children.1® When a
child has begun to ‘eat bread’ (i.e. soon after it has been weaned)
it learns to say abba and imma.’® Although abba was no longer
restricted to children’s talk in Jesus’ time, it nevertheless remained
a familiar word with which no-one would have dared to address
God. No Jew ever called God abba, yet the evangelists record that Jesus
always called God abba, ‘my Father’ (except for the cry from the
cross, Mark 15.34). We have thus established the emergence of a
completely new manner of speaking which at the same time

14 A gesture of urgent supplication, cf. Mark 5.27.

15 The Words of Jesus, 1, ET, Edinburgh 1902, pp. rgrf.
16 T, Zahn-F, Hauck, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rémer*, Leipzig-Erlangen
1925, p. 396, 1. 93.
17 T, Zahn (see preceding note) pointed out that the church fathers Chry-
sostom, Theodore and Theodoret, who were brought up in Antioch probably
under the supervision of Syriac speaking nurses and nursery-maids, unani-
mously bear witness that small children used to address their fathers as “abba’.
G. Kittel, dBBa, p. 5, deserves credit for indicating the importance of this
statement. 18 More details above, n. 5.
19b, Ber. 40a; b. Sanh. ob (G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu I*, Leipzig 1930,
pirgo2):
112 The Prayers of Jesus
reflects a most profound new relationship with God. We cannot
be sure of the authenticity of each of the 15 passages?° in which it
occurs, but the address itself is without question an incontestable
characteristic of the ipsissima vox Jesu.

It has been pointed out almost ad nauseam! that a new use of

the word amen emerges in the four gospels which is without analogy
in the whole of Jewish literature and in the rest of the New Testament.
Whereas according to idiomatic Jewish usage the word amen is
used to affirm, endorse or appropriate the words of another
person,?? in the tradition of the saying of Jesus it is used without
exception to introduce and endorse Jesus’ own words. The
formula is always dujv A¢yw byiv (cor) in the Synoptics, and dujy,
dunv Aéyw duty (cor) in John. There are 13 instances in Mark, 30
in Matthew (+18.19 v./.), 6 in Luke and 25 in John. So we have a
completely new manner of speaking, strictly limited to the gospels and
here again limited to the sayings of Jesus. Here the amen serves to
replace oath-like formulae of asseveration which Jesus forbids in
Matt. 5.33-37 because they are a misuse of the divine name; it is
even more likely that the formula amen should be seen as an
alternative to the authoritative prophetic formula “Thus says the
Lord’, which avoids using the divine name.”
The only question is whether it is probable that on occasion the
tradition has introduced this amen into the sayings of Jesus. After
all, Matthew has the phrase twice where it does not occur in the
Marcan parallel (Matt. 19.23; 24.2), and the 25 Johannine
passages indicate that it was used as a formula in the tradition of
the primitive church. But the Gospel of John can be passed over
for the moment, as the doubling of the amen, which is always
20 19 instances including parallels (see n. 1). They are examined in ‘Abba’,
above, pp. 54-63.
ZG: Dalen The Words of Jesus, 1, ET, Edinburgh 1902, pp. 226-9, with
Appendix to Die Worte Jesu, V2, Leipzig 1930, p. 383; éd., Jesus-Jeshua, London
1929, p. 30; Billerbeck I, pp. 242-4; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthéus,
Stuttgart 1929 = °1963, p. 1553 H. Schlier, dunv, TW NT I (1933), pp. 339-42.
22 Rven Jer. 28.6: ‘And the prophet Jeremiah said, “Amen! May the Lord
do so”’, is no exception. The amen is not prefixed to strengthen Jeremiah’s
own remarks: it is his answer to the previous words of the prophet Hananiah
of Gibeon. The same is true of Sofah 2.5. “To end one’s own prayer with
dmén was considered to be a sign of ignorance’ (G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, ibid.).
23'T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus*, Cambridge 1935 = 1948, p. 207.
 Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu {1%
strictly observed, is a special usage there. In the synoptic tradition,
on the contrary, we notice an increasing tendency to delete the
phrase with amen or to translate it. This tendency has already
begun with Mark, as can be seen from a comparison of Mark 6.4
with Luke 4.24 (+ dui A€yw dyiv).** The tendency is even stronger
in Matthew: the words Aé€yw dyiv (cou) are kept, but duzjv is trans-
lated vai?5 or replaced by wAjv,?6 dia. robro?7 and S€?8; three times a
simple xai takes the place of the whole phrase dyiv Adyw byitv.?9
Luke goes even further. He has only kept the phrase with amen
six times (three times in the Marcan material>° and three times in
his special material"); he translates dyzjv with vai,3? ddnOds,33
em aAnbeias,** replaces it with yap*> or omits it?°; the whole phrase
apnv Aéyw dpiv is repeatedly replaced by a simple xat,>7 d¢,38 zAjv,39
ot Aj idov,4° or completely omitted.*4 In view of this, it
becomes an urgent question whether in a whole series of synoptic
Aéyw byiv (cor) passages an original du7y has not fallen out or been
replaced, although there are no parallels with durjv to support such
a suggestion; most of the passages occur in special material, i.e.
sayings for which we have no parallels to serve as comparisons.*?
Only in John do we have a movement in the opposite direction,
where the formula with a double amen, which has an almost
24 In view of Luke’s avoidance of dy it is extremely unlikely that the aynv
in Luke 4.24 is an addition.
2>Matty 11.9: Bost 22ue2 da(Chat Osi5 5820104).
27 12.31 (cf. Mark 3.28). 28 26.29 (cf. Mark 14.25).
29 12.32 (cf. Mark 3.28); 12.39; 16.4 (cf. Mark 8.12).
IO), AOS Pree 31 See below, n. 43.
s2nleukeue2Oem. sili(Cha latt. 23630) set2s5e
33 9.27 (cf. Mark 9.1); 12.44 (cf. Matt. 24.47); 21.3 (cf. Mark 12.43).
3 AAG (Cin Vy B20). 35 22,16, 18 (cf. Mark 14.25).
36 7.9 (cf. Matt. 8.10); 7.28 (cf. Matt. 11.11); 10.12 (cf. Matt. 10.15); 10.24
(cf. Matt. 13.17); 12.59 (cf. Matt. 5.26); 15.7, 10 (cf. Matt. 18.13); 22.34 (cf.
Mark 14.30).
37 11.29 (cf. Mark 8.12); 12.10 (cf. Mark 3.28).
38 16.17 (cf. Matt. 5.18); 22.28 (cf. Matt. 19.28).
39 r0.14 (cf. Matt. 10.15). 40 22.21 (cf. Mark 14.18).
4113.25 (cf. Matt. 25.12); 17.6 (cf. Matt. 17.20).
42 The following passages are relevant, though it is impossible to come toa
decision in each individual case: Mark: 9.13; 11.24 (cf. v. 23!). Matt.: 5.20;
G:25,720, 6.41, 792-0, 36;716,18; 17-123 18:105719.9; (21.43); 23.39. Luke:
7.47: 118,195 12.4 (ct. v.$ 1), 8, 22, 27; 15.24, 353.14.243 16.95 17.34; 18.8,
14; 19.26, 40; 22.37. In particular, the endings of the Lucan parables with
Aéyw bpiv (Luke 11.8; 13.24; 14.24; 15.7, 10; 18.8, 14; 19.26) should be
compared with the du7jv A€yw dytv (cor) of the Matthaean endings (Matt. 5.26;
21.31; 25.123 cf. 25.40, 45); it is probable that Matthew has the older tradition
here because the simple Aéyw dyiv is a characteristic of Luke.
PJ H
114 The Prayers of Jesus
liturgical ring, now begins to occupy a considerable place. As
the primitive church retained the Jewish custom of endorsing
the words of a spokesman with amen in its services and in-
creasingly eliminated the amen from the tradition of the sayings of
Jesus in the decades after it had moved into a Hellenistic milieu,
we may conclude that amen has been introduced only in isolated
instances.**
An examination of the thirteen dui Aéyw div (cor) sayings in
the Gospel of Mark confirms this conclusion; without exception
they show signs of primitiveness, e.g. in their emphaticeschatology
and the sharpness of the opposition to the Pharisees.
3.28: The unforgiveable sin
8.12: The refusal of signs
9.1: Some of those standing here will not die before the
parousia
9.41: The cup of cold water
10.15: Only the childlike will enter the kingdom
10.29: The hundredfold recompense
11.23: Faith that will move mountains
12.43: The poor widow made the greatest sacrifice
13.30: This yeved will not pass away until all is fulfilled
14.9: In the final judgment the act of the woman will be
mentioned before God’s throne, so that God will
remember her graciously*®
14.18: One of you will betray me
14.25: The avowal of abstinence*®
14.30: The prophecy of Peter’s denial
The 18 amen sayings which occur in Matthaean saying-material
which is not included in Mark give equal signs of being primitive:
5.18 (probably to be related to the prophecies, particularly the
*31 Cor. 14.16; II Cor. 1.20; Rev. 5.14; 7.123 19.4; Justin, Apo/. I 65.3;
67.5. The strength of the influence of the liturgical heritage can be illustrated
from a single remark. The church’s decorated Amen derives from the liturgy
of the Synagogue, which had the following rule: ‘If a man lengthens the
amen, his lifetime will be lengthened (by God)’ (. Ber. 47a, saying of Ben
Azzai, ¢. AD IIo).
44 Perhaps Matt. 19.23; 24.2 (see above).
‘5 For a justification of this interpretation of the passage see my article on
“Mc 14.9’, ZNW 44 (1952-3), pp. 103-7 (revised version in Abba, pp. 115-20).
*© Cf. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, ET?, London 1966,
pp. 207-18 (‘Jesus’ avowal of abstinence’).
 Characteristics of the ipsissima vox Jesu 15
prophecies of suffering in the Old Testament); 5.26; 6.2, 5, 16;
STO seTOspene soil 015. 13.1757 36.14, 182) 21,515 23.40s 2447
25.12, 40, 45.77
So in the amen sayings, too, we have the emergence of a new
and completely unique manner of speaking. And once again, the
new form is matched by a new content. Here is a consciousness of
rank which lays claim to divine authority. Once again, we have
here without question an incontestable linguistic characteristic of
the spsissima vox Jesu.

2)
In conclusion, here are a few further peculiarities of the gospel
tradition which may be regarded as characteristics of the way
Jesus spoke, both because they appear to the same degree in
different strata of tradition and because they are unique (or far
mote frequent) in comparison with contemporary sources: the
parables,*® the character of Jesus’ use of rhythm (four-stresses for
the instruction of the disciples, three-stresses to mark particular
sentences in Jesus’ preaching, the Kinah metre [3 + 2] for strongly
emotive sayings)*? and the periphrasis of the divine name with the
passive, which occurs strikingly often. Both antithetic parallelism*°
and also, probably, the tripartite structure of sayings*! call for
closer investigation in this direction, in comparison with the
literature of the time.
47 It is not clear whether we should count Matt. 19.28 as a nineteenth
saying, because the ayunv Aéyw viv here could come from Mark 10.29; Matt.
18.19 could be counted as a twentieth if the reading +apny is regarded as
original. Se ate only three amen sayings in the Lucan special material:
4.245 12.37; 23.4
eo }esjetenmlas, The Parables of Jesus, ET?, London 1963, pp. 11f.
49°C. F, Burney, The Poetry of Our Lord, Oxford 1925, pp. 100-46,
5° Ibid., pp. 71-88. This eminent specialist concludes that in antithetic
parallelism like Matt. 10.39, we have the ipsissima verba of Jesus ‘more nearly
than in any sentence otherwise expressed’ (p. 84).
51 J, Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (BFCT 33.4), Gtitersloh 1930, p. 21,
n. 1 (the list simply contains instances from a far greater range of material;
Mark 2.18-22 should be deleted).
 or at ” aye
Pa -

eA) Sd
‘ a
‘ . a Y
—

: ‘
s ‘
-
fy a
INDEXES
 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Aland, K., 55 Ginsburger, M., 16, 21

Arndt, W. F., 38 Grundmann, W., 51
Audet, J.-P., 84
Haenchen, E., 42
Batiffol, P., 23f. Hahn, F., 45, 47, 53
Bauer, W., 38 Hase, K. A. von, 45
Beyer, K., 46 Hauck, F., 111
Billerbecks PD selqsa2 5s 4 ite Say OOtey Heidenheim, W. B., 25ff.
68, 70, 72, 74, 100f. Hennecke, E., 34
Black, M., 20, 64 Hunzinger, C.-H., 63, 68
Blass, F., 39, 56, 109
Blinzler, J., 48 lersel, B. M. F. van, 37
Botte, B., 66
James, M. R., 100
Braun, H., 54, 62
JereniiasGrwestenss7
Buber, S., 17£., 75
\Sremnes, I, AO, BS Bis Zits ZO, Gre.
Bultmann, R., 45
Burchard, C., 47 77> 79> 105, 114f.
Burkitt, F. C., 64 Kautzsch, A. E., 91
Kittel, G., 23, 109
Cadbury, H. J., 46 Kleinknecht, H., 66
Cadoux, A. T., 37 Klostermann, E., 34, 38, 100
Gerfaux le) 51 Knox, W. L., 45
Conzelmann, H., 62 Kosmala, H., 25
Cowley, A. E., 48 Kuba Ge ste.o3
Grassy. S2 Kuss, O., 48
Dalman, G., 17, 26, 42, 46, 58, 61, Lagarde, P. de, 110
74, 76, 93, 109ff., 112 Leipoldt, J., 23, 61
Debrunner, A., 39, 56, 109 Leloir, L., 64
Dietzfelbinger, C., 16 IEA ky es
Dodd, C. H., 48 Littmann, E., 58f., 93
Délger, F., 65 Lohmeyer, E., 82

Elbogen, I., 17, 25ff., 28, 69 McCasland, S. V., 15, 64

Mann, J., 28
Falkenstein, A., 11f. IMbevowyoyay, bs Wiss 3s On Bey 2 Soe
Biebign p25, 102 80, 82ff., 112
Finkelstein, L., 26 Marche aes Tit malsenti7se22see ONnSO)
Frey, J.-B., 27 Marcus, J., 28, 64
Funk, R. W., 39, 56, 109 Marmortstein, A., 17
Merx, A., 51
Gaechter, P., 48 Montefiore, H. W., 43
Gesenius, H. F. W., 48 Moore, G. F., 18f.
Gingrich, F. W., 38 Mussner, F., 48
119
120 Index of Modern Authors
Nestle, E., 55 Schiirmann, H., 82, 106
Noldeke, T., 58 Seeberg, A., 65, 84
Norden, E., 48, 50 Seeberg, R., 84
Soden, W. von, 11
Oepke, A., 46 Stahlin, G., 27
Strauss, D. F., 48
Preisendanz, K., 67
Pritchard, J. B., 11f., 14 Telfer, W., 82
Motrey,.C1G.5193
Quell, G., 24
Vielhauer, P., 34
Radermacher, L., 38
Rengstorf, K. H., 63, 77, 94
Wilson, R. McL., 34
Schaller, B., 16, 67 Winter, P., 16, 49
cbiattctaeAcs 234257483 Se LOO. 2 Wirth, A., 64
Schlices Heir
Schnackenburg, R., 41 Zann, I., 38, 60, 65, 11x
Schneemelcher, W., 34 Ziegler, I., 28
Schulthess, F., 41, 58 ZUNZ, lew 255028
 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Genesis Judges Proverbs

14.19 74; 75 11.36 58, 6o I2
14.22 74, 75 22
225), 58 I Samuel
27.34 58 14.45 41
27.38 58 58, 59
31.5 29 II Samuel 12.1 57
31.35 60 38
7-14 12,20,21,54,
31.42 29 48
65
32.9 29 14.11 41 14, 96
1253 elds
II Kings 18, 20, 21, 24
Exodus
10.23 41 18, 20, 24
3.6 75 96
3.15 75 2 iA
3.16 75 I Chronicles
12
4.22 10 5} opie 12, 54
15.2 28, 29 22.10 12
28.6 12 Jeremiah
18.4 29
29.10 24, 29
2.27 TZ A 2 aoa
20.6 18
29.18 29 3.4
Leviticus 3.4f
IT Chronicles 12, 13, 24,60
18.6-18 18 3.19
20.6 29
20.26 18 3.19f 13, 96
Exra
3.22 15
28.6 112
Numbers 9-5 69 31.9 T2L3 el 5S
15.37-40 69 31.20 15, 96
15.41 69 Job
34.36 110 Ezekiel
Deuteronomy 36.23
Ae3i 12 Psalms
6.4 68, 69 2.7 12, 21, §4 Daniel
6.5 73> 743 79, 80 12.6 18 2.23
6.5-7 68 18.46 28 6.11
6.5-9 68 2.2.1 77> 97 6.14
6.7 69 $5.17 69 7-14
8.5 12 68.5 12 7-27
I1.13-21 69 86.12 57 9.21
11.19 69 89.26 12, 14, 54
14.1 12 89.27 21, 23, 60 Hosea
14.1f 13 103.13f 12 I.10
$2.55 14, 96 110.1 23 RIL
32.6 12, 74 139.13 74 II.I-11
LOPZaE
 I22 Index of Biblical References
Hosea Matthew Matthew
Eie3 T5 6.29 113 12.36 113
11.8 T5 6.30 40 12.39 113
6.32 38, 12.50
Zechariah 30, 3r, 30, 31, 32,

13.6 22
39, 40 34, 39, 44
53 E3517) LEZ, 115
Malachi 30, Bue 37, 13.36-43 31
1.6 12,14, 18,96 38, 39, 41, 13.43 30, 31, 34
2.10 107, 5s Out 14.23 73
Wood: D> 15.13 30, 31, 34,44
Matthew 16.4 113
5.16 30, 31, 34, 8.10 16.17 305 31, 44,
38, 39 8.11 45, 52
5:17 51 8.22 16.18 113
5.18 113, 114 9.22 16.27 30, 36, 44
5.20 113 9.38 gyfair 113
IOI 10.15 17.20 113
103 10.17-39 18.3 97
LEZ, Lr4 10,20 38, 18.10 30, 31, 38,
IOlL
44, 113
WORi, ihe 10.23 18.10-35 34
30, 31, 32, 10.29 38, 18.13 113, 115

34, 38, 39 18.14 30, 31, ges

IOI 10.32 32, 33, 38, 39
on 30, 31, 38 vied)7) 113
30, 31, 38, 39 10.33 32, 18.18 Ig
co 34, 71, 87 18.19 30, 31, 38,
114 10.39 44, 112, I15
>
_ 87 11.9 ime) 18.29 113
RE
HH 22, 30
Rew Tene ORS LS 18.35 30, 31, 32,
74, 114 T122 113 33, 38, 40,
la Oile OS 11.24 113 44, 47
'>»
Lal
wr 88 TTS 5Op) 515.32 19.9 113
54, 55, 56, 19.23 II2, 114
$71. O37 04 19.28 113, 115
Ths) 78s 10n¢ 20.23 30, 31, 34, 44
(Cy
ot
Oe
‘i aca 395 109 21.29 60
46, 49, 55> 21.31 LEZ, DIS
HDBARAAARAAARARAARAYY
Xo) 54; 62, 72 2s 2 113
I1.25-30 48, 49, 50 21.43 113
6.9-13 88, 11.26 §ix 525 545 22.37 79, 80
552559; 64, 23.8-10 42f
6.11 108, 109 23.9 390, 31, 34,
6.14f 32, 29, 30,
33, 38, 39, 41, 63
38, 35, 36, 37> 23.33 39
41, 41, 44, 45, 23.36 I13, I1§
46, 47, 48, 23.39 113
6.16 492 ($9.0 152s 24.2
6.16-18 62, 63, 78, 97 24,17
6.18 T2426 113 24.36 30, 33, 36,
6.25 Donal 113 44, 45
6.26 30, 31, 545 T2232 13) 24.47 113, 115
38, 39, 40 12.34 39 25.12 113, 115
 Index of Biblical References 123
Matthew Mark Luke
25.34 30, 34, 44 12.17 33 10.22 44, 45, 46,
25.40 WA 1 15 12.26 75 48, 49, 62
25.45 Ugee 0955) ii2720fem 73 Osho 51
26.25 43 12.30 79, 80 10.24 113
26.29 305, 3.05) 345 12.33 79, 80 10.27 79, 80
39, 44, 101, 12.43 113 11.1 63576, 775
Ls 13.11 39 88, 94
26.39 514 Sees Se Os Bone 3 OWE 2 ees On II.I-13 88
58, 64, 108 37,44,45,52 | 11.2 32, 53, 54,
20.42.5955 335, $4,555 14.18 113 55, 64, 83
56, 58, 64, 14.25 Ble Adalt3 II.2-4 86, 88, 109
108 14.30 113 I1.5-8 88
26.49 43 14.32-42 76 11.8 113
26.53 30, 44 CPEs DL EYView ree frees8 113
26.64 113 Ho, ot) tier 11.9f 88
27.46 55> 57> 97> 62, 63, 64, IT.1I-13 53; 88
108 J2sme os 903 Ts LO 3OMe sire
28.18 49 108, 109 33, 36, 37, 39
28.19 30, 33, 36, | 14.45 43 11.29 113
37. 45 1§-34 55, 57, 75; TiS 813
97, 108, III 12.4 113
Mark T2s5 113
1.35 WB 75 Luke 12.6 32139
2.18-22 5 ELS oie 38 12.8 113
Bynes 39 ch, 2 73 12.8f 32, 44
3.28 113 2.49 16, 30, 44 12.9 44
Baa 39 Bear 5h Te 12.10 113
3.35 31, 44 4.16 73 12.12 32, 39
4.11 51 4.24 LUZ LUG WAP 113
Soot (iy 16 4.25 113 12.24 32, 39, 40
5-34 56 5.16 73, 76 12.27 113
6.4 113 6.12 oe Ue iGaighe — (yl
6.46 73> 75 6.35 32, 39 12.28 40
6.48 75 6.36 20, 30, 38,40 | 12.30 30,38, 39, 40
Tats IOI 6.46 32, 44 12332 30, 38, 41, 43
8.10 113 7:9 113 12.37 IOI
8.12 113 7.26 113 12.44 113
8.38 RO, Bits BA 7.28 113 12.59 113
36, 44 7-47 113 13.24 113
9.1 113 8.18 76 £3025 113
9.5 43 8.28 76 14.24 Oe)
9.13 113 8.48 56 TiSok 77 eS
9.41 42 9.18 73 US Wray EXapy see)
10.40 44 9.26 30, 33, 36 15.8-10 51
II.19 39 9.27 113 15.10 39, 113
Greed 43 9.28f 73 T5-L1-32 39, 515053
Te23 113 10.12 113 Liste 58, 64
11.24 113 10.14 113 15.18 58, 64
11.25 16, 30, 31, 32, 10.21 49, §2, 54, 15.21 58, 64
33,35, 38,39, 55, 56, 57, | 16.9 113
40, 44, 103 58, 62, 64, 16,17 113
T2010) 37 78, 108, 109 16.24 58, 64
 124 Index of Biblical References
Luke John I Corinthians
16.27 58, 64 17.3 42 15.28 36,45
16.30 58,64 17.5 54, 55s 58, 10:225 8 90
GSS 113 58, 64, 108
17.34 11 T7.1U $4, 559.059; II Corinthians
18.8 113 58, 108, 109 ig 27
18.9-14 74 17.21 545. S$p 55Gs 1.20 114
18.14 13 6.5 79
19.26 113 6.18 65
19.40 113 L724. 90-54 “355.556; 127 79
2153 113
21.36 79 Galatians
21.37 .9S) 17.25 64505552 505 4.6 55, 56, 58,
22.16 113 59, 62, 63,
22.18 113 109 64, 65, 78,
2DEoT. 113 20.17 33, 38, 39, 43 91, 96, 98,
22.28 113 109
22.29 Acts
30,44,
45, 52 Ephesians
22.30 101 1.7 37
22.31f 1.14 79 2.18 36
73 2.46 79
22.34 113 3.14 36
225377 113 3-1 7°, 72, 74; 6.18 79
22.42 545. $5, ©5685 75> 79
64, 108 5-30 29 Philippians
6.4 79 1.3-6 81
23.34 545. 55, 58,
64, 108 10.3 72, 79
10.9 79 Colossians
23.43 I1§
10.30 72, 79 1.9 81
23.46 54, 55, 58,
12.5 79 1.12 36
64, 108
Tobe 79 2.1-3 81
24.49 30, 44 16.25 79 4.2 79
G/B 67 4.16 38
John
4.31 21.16 4!
43 I Thessalonians
5.19-20a 22.14 29
48, 51 haz 81
8.41 21, 39
Romans
8.42 33, 38, 39, 43 1.9f 81 Hebrews
9.2 43
10.15
3.8 38 1.8 37> 45
35, 48, 50 6.4 36 9.11 38
11.8 43
11.41 8.15 55, 56, 58, 10.1 38
54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 62,
64, 78, 108 I Peter
11.41f
63, 64, 65,
78, 91, 96, 1.17 53
12.15
12.27 98, 109
8.15b-16 65 Revelation
12.27£ 54, 55, 58, 9.4 13 2.27 34
64,72 10.15 38 3-5 34
12.28 64, 108 Tp 79 3-21 34
12.38 48 4.8 98
14.13f 94 I Corinthians §-14 114
15.16 94 8.6 36 Welz 114
16.23 94 10.16f 102 Wak 98
L7ar 54, 55, 58, 11.20 102 19.4 T14
64, 108 14.16 115
 ii
CINCINNATI BIBLE COLLEGE & SEM. LIBRARY
232.901 J472 main
mias, iii ers of Jesus

3 4320 00073 5128

 os
@
|6
a
= MS XN
o¢.|| £2
“ie
5 | >|
42| S| =| *|=
S|&
=
THE CINCINNATI BIBLE
SEMINARY LIBRARY
MeN 8 ee)
DLD NO ASA AOL
SEA Re