Lord’s Prayer

Matt. 6:9-15; Mark 11:25; Luke 11:1-4
(Huck 30, 146, 201b; Aland 62, 185, 275b; Crook 43-44, 210, 311)^[233]

Updated: 1 November 2024

וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתוֹ בִּמְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל וּכְכַלֹּתוֹ אָמַר לוֹ תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד מִתַּלְמִידָיו אֲדוֹנֵנוּ לַמְּדֵנוּ לְהִתְפַּלֵּל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיוֹחָנָן לִמֵּד אֶת תַּלְמִידָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כְּשֶׁאַתֶּם מִתְפַּלְּלִים אִמְרוּ אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם יִתְקַדֵּשׁ שִׁמְךָ תָּבֹא מַלְכוּתְךָ יֵעָשֶׂה רְצוֹנְךָ בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ אֶת לֶחֶם חֻקֵּנוּ תֵּן לָנוּ הַיּוֹם וּמְחוֹל לָנוּ עַל חוֹבֵינוּ שֶׁאַף אָנוּ מָחַלְנוּ לְחַיָּבֵינוּ וְאַל תְּבִיאֵנוּ בְּנִסָּיוֹן אֶלָּא הַצִּילֵנוּ מִן הָרָע

On one occasion, Yeshua was praying at a certain location. After he finished his prayers, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as Yohanan the Immerser taught his disciples to pray.” So Yeshua told them, “When you pray, say: ‘Heavenly Father, may you be praised throughout the earth by everyone—including us! Reign soon over everyone—and over us, as well! May your will be done everywhere—and in our lives, too! Give us what’s necessary for the day ahead, neither more nor less than we need! Forgive the things we can’t make up to you, since even we forgive the things others ought to make up to us. Don’t let us fall when we’re tested, but rescue us from bad things that might occur.’^[234]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of the Lord’s Prayer click on the link below:

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] See Knox, 2:60. ↩
• ^[2] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 92) classified Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer as more Semitic than Luke’s. ↩
• ^[3] We continue to maintain, however, that Luke 11:1-2a was copied from Anth. Thus, Luke 11:1-4 represents an exceptional case with respect to Luke’s treatment of his sources. Usually the author of Luke copied a pericope either from Anth. or FR, he rarely combined parallel versions, as did the author of Matthew, who frequently combined the wording of his parallel sources (Mark and Anth.). Even in this instance, the author of Luke did not weave together the wording of his sources, he switched from Anth. to FR for the text of the Lord’s Prayer. ↩
• ^[4] On the anti-Jewish tendency in Matthew’s treatment of his sources, see David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 552-560); idem, “Matthew’s ‘Verus Israel’” (Flusser, JOC, 561-574); idem, “Anti-Jewish Sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew” (Flusser, JSTP2, 351-353); R. Steven Notley, “Anti-Jewish Tendencies in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[5] Cf. Tomson, If This Be, 281. ↩
• ^[6] Robert Lindsey believed that in Double Tradition (DT) pericopae with high levels of verbal disparity, such as the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Lord’s Prayer, the verbal disparity is due to the use of different sources by the authors of Matthew and Luke. For his DT material, the author of Matthew relied on a highly Hebraic source that Lindsey dubbed the Anthology (Anth.), but for DT pericopae with high verbal disparity, the author of Luke relied on an epitome of Anth. with improved Greek style, which Lindsey referred to as the First Reconstruction (FR). In these DT pericopae with high verbal disparity, Lindsey supposed that Matthew’s version was usually closer to the wording of the early Greek translation of the conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua, and thus reflected an earlier version than Luke’s parallel text. ↩
• ^[7] For an introduction to the Didache, see Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew.” ↩
• ^[8] See Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 294-295. See also Huub van de Sandt, “The Didache and its Relevance for Understanding the Gospel of Matthew” under the subheading, “The Nature of the Agreements between Didache and Matthew.” According to Niederwimmer, “It is hard to suppose that the Didache [version of the Lord’s Prayer—DNB and JNT] quotes directly from the text of Matthew’s Gospel” (Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermenia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], 136). Cf. Betz, 371. ↩
• ^[9] See Plummer, Luke, 293-294; Davies-Allison, 1:591. ↩
• ^[10] On the Lukan context of the Lord’s Prayer, see Peter J. Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” in The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in Early Christianity (ed. Jonathan Draper; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015), 165-187, esp. 171-172. ↩
• ^[11] According to Plummer (Luke, 293), the author of Luke would not have invented this special incident on his own as an introduction to the Lord’s Prayer. ↩
• ^[12] See Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[13] See Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 268-273). ↩
• ^[14] The ἐν τῷ εἶναι + pronoun construction is found in Gen. 4:8; 1 Kgdms. 25:15; 2 Chr. 15:2; Ps. 62[63]:1; 104[105]:12; 141[142]:1. ↩
• ^[15] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1364-1367. ↩
• ^[16] See Dos Santos, 119. ↩
• ^[17] In LXX ἐν τόπῳ translates בְּמָקוֹם in Exod. 29:31; Lev. 4:24, 29, 33; 6:9, 18, 19, 20; 7:2, 6; 10:13, 14, 17; 14:13 (2xx); 16:24; 24:9; Num. 22:26; 1 Chr. 16:27; 2 Esd. 9:8; 14:14; Ps. 23[24]:3; 43[44]:20; Prov. 25:6; Isa. 22:23, 25; 45:19. ↩
• ^[18] In MT the phrase מְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי is followed by the adjective אַלְמֹנִי (’almoni, “a certain [one]”). In these instances, מְקוֹם is in the construct state before the indefinite pronoun פְּלוֹנִי. See Joüon-Muraoka, §129f, §147f; BDB, 48, 811. ↩
• ^[19] The betrothal is not valid because the agent did not follow the specific instructions of the sender, who told him to contract the marriage at a particular location. ↩
• ^[20] Other examples of the phrase מְקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי occur in m. Dem. 6:8 (4xx), 9 (4xx); m. Shev. 10:4; m. Bik. 3:3; m. Yev. 16:6; m. Ned. 10:7; m. Git. 3:1; 6:3 (4xx), 4; m. Naz. 1:6 (2xx); m. Kid. 2:4 (2xx); 3:3; m. Bab. Metz. 5:10; m. Sanh. 7:10; m. Mak. 1:4 (2xx); m. Meil. 6:3 (2xx); Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Pisḥa chpt. 13 (ed. Lauterbach, 1:73). ↩
• ^[21] For a discussion of this baraita, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction’ Addendum: Linguistic Features of the Baraita in b. Kid. 66a.” ↩
• ^[22] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1214. ↩
• ^[23] See Dos Santos, 168. ↩
• ^[24] In the Mishnah we have an example of גָּמַר in reference to completing the recitation of the Shema (m. Ber. 3:2), and we encounter הִפְסִיק in discussions of when it is permissible to interrupt the recitation of the Shema (m. Ber. 2:2; 3:5; 5:1), but neither of these verbs correspond to the situation described in Luke 11:1, which concerns prayer. ↩
• ^[25] Compare the LXX version of the conclusion to Solomon’s prayer to our GR in L3:

  וּכְכַלּוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל

  καὶ ὡς συνετέλεσεν Σαλωμων προσευχόμενος....

  And when Solomon finished praying.... (2 Chr. 7:1)

  Although LXX used a verb other than παύειν to translate כִּלָּה in 2 Chr. 7:1, the above example is otherwise very similar to our GR. ↩

• ^[26] In LXX ὡς + παύειν is the translation of כְּכַלּוֹת in Josh. 8:24; Jer. 50[43]:1. Cf. Josh. 10:20 where ὡς + καταπαύειν is used to translate כְּכַלּוֹת. Elsewhere, LXX uses ὡς + τελεῖν (2 Esd. 9:1) or ὡς + συντελεῖν (1 Kgdms. 24:17; 3 Kgdms. 8:54; 9:1; 2 Chr. 7:1; 20:23; 24:14; 29:29; 31:1) to translate כְּכַלּוֹת. ↩
• ^[27] Cf., e.g., t. Hag. 2:12 (Vienna MS); t. Meil. 1:5 (Vienna MS); t. Ohol. 5:11 (Vienna MS); t. Zav. 1:8 (ed. Zuckermandel, 677); Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Nezikin chpt. 4 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:381). Most of these examples are cited in Yohanan the Immerser’s Question, Comment to L9. ↩
• ^[28] The only examples of אֶחָד מִתַּלְמִידִים we have found in tannaic sources are in Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Nezikin chpt. 10 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:411); Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shabbata chpt. 2 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:501); Sifre Num. §107 (ed. Horovitz, 106). ↩
• ^[29] The noun תַּלְמִיד does not occur at all in the Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira, or in DSS. In the Mishnah, by contrast, תַּלְמִיד occurs over 40xx. On the term תַּלְמִיד, see Hurvitz, 239-240. ↩
• ^[30] The noun μαθητής does not occur in LXX except for three passages in Codex Alexandrinus (Jer. 13:21; 20:11; 26:9). See Karl Rengstorf, “μαθητής,” TDNT, 4:415-460, esp. 426. ↩
• ^[31] Most instances of μανθάνειν in LXX occur as the translation of לָמַד (lāmad, “learn,” “study”). See Hatch-Redpath, 2:895. The noun תַּלְמִיד derives from the same root as the verb לָמַד. ↩
• ^[32] For a discussion of the rabbinic concept of discipleship, see David N. Bivin, "First-century Discipleship." ↩
• ^[33] Text according to MS Jerusalem, Yad Harav Herzog 1. With the exception of a few differences in spelling, the text of MS Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II.1.8-9 is identical. See the National Library of Israel’s Rabbinic Manuscripts Online. ↩
• ^[34] Text according to MS New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, Rab. 15. MS Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Suppl. Heb. 1337 reads אד[ם] אחד מתלמידי ישו הנוצרי. See the National Library of Israel’s Rabbinic Manuscripts Online. ↩
• ^[35] On the use of “lord” as a title in first-century Hebrew, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[36] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:316-317. ↩
• ^[37] Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 171-172. ↩
• ^[38] See Shmuel Safrai, “Gathering in the Synagogues on Festivals, Sabbaths and Weekdays,” British Archaeological Reports (International Series) 449 (1989): 7-15, esp. 11; Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 175-183. ↩
• ^[39] See Kaufmann Kohler, “Lord’s Prayer,” JE, 8:183-184; Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 178. ↩
• ^[40] On παράπτωμα as “sin,” see Taylor, 467. ↩
• ^[41] Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 171; cf. Taylor, 467; Marcus, 2:787. ↩
• ^[42] For examples of ὦ before πάτερ, see Philo, Mut. §227; Ios. §183; Josephus, J.W. 4:628; Ant. 16:119. Instances of the vocative πάτερ without ὦ include Philo, Mut. §230 (2xx); Abr. §173; QG 1 4:227; Jos., J.W. 1:621, 630, 632, 633 (2xx), 634, 635; Ant. 6:126, 127, 209; 16:105. Neither author has instances of vocative πάτερ + possessive pronoun. ↩
• ^[43] According to Vermes (Authentic, 224), “The best explanation for the presence of the briefer form of address [in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer—DNB and JNT] is that this is the formula regularly used by Luke (see Luke 10:21, 22:42, [against Abba, Father, in Mark 14:36 and ‘My Father’ in Matt. 26:39]; Luke 23:34, 46). His habit of employing ‘Father’ accounts for the shortening of the original ‘Our Father who art in heaven.’” ↩
• ^[44] See, e.g., Jeremias, Prayers, 96; Fitzmyer, 2:902; Davies-Allison, 1:600; Bovon, 2:85; Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 168-169. ↩
• ^[45] See Dalman, 191-192; Gerhard Kittel, “ἀββᾶ,” TDNT, 1:6; Jeremias, Prayers, 55-57, 96. ↩
• ^[46] For the presumed obsolescence of אָבִי, see Jeremias, Prayers, 22-23, 56. Cf. Dalman, 192. ↩
• ^[47] Scholars differ on the dating of Tobit. Flusser suggested a date as early as the fifth to fourth century B.C.E., whereas Nickelsburg suggested a date around 200 B.C.E. See David Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; ed. Michael E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 551-577, esp. 556; George E. Nickelsburg, “Stories of Biblical and Early Post-Biblical Times,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; ed. Michael E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 33-87, esp. 45. ↩
• ^[48] On the dating of the Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns, see Devorah Dimant, “Qumran Sectarian Literature,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT II.2; ed. Michael E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 483-550, esp. 522-523. Additional examples of אָבִי in DSS are found in 4QTNaph (4Q215) 1 III, 7, 10; 4Q372 1 I, 16; 4Q460 5 I, 6; 4Q526 1 I, 1; 11QPs^a (11Q5) XIX, 17; XXVIII, 3. ↩
• ^[49] Jeremias was aware of this example, but he considered “My Father who is in heaven” to be a fossilized form that did not represent colloquial speech. See Jeremias, Prayers, 22-23. ↩
• ^[50] In the parallels to Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42 has the vocative πάτερ and Matt. 26:39 has πάτερ μου. ↩
• ^[51] Lindsey believed that the author of Mark often picked up words and phrases from the writings of Paul with which to embellish and dramatize the narratives and speeches in his Gospel. Since αββα ὁ πατήρ (“Abba, Father...”) appears twice in the Pauline Epistles (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6), the author of Mark may have picked up this phrase from the writings of Paul. See Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups”; idem, “From Luke to Mark to Matthew: A Discussion of the Sources of Markan ‘Pick-ups’ and the Use of a Basic Non-canonical Source by All the Synoptists.” See also Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups,” under the entry for Mark 14:36. ↩
• ^[52] In LXX the vocative form πάτερ (pater, “Father!”), with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of אָבִי (’āvi, “my father”) in Gen. 22:7; 27:18, 34, 38 (2xx); 48:18; 4 Kgdms. 2:12 (2xx); 6:21; 13:14 (2xx). Only in Judg. 11:36 is אָבִי translated with the vocative + possessive pronoun, πάτερ μου. ↩
• ^[53] In LXX the vocative form μῆτερ (mēter, “Mother!”), with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of אִמִּי (’imi, “my mother”) in Jer. 15:10. ↩
• ^[54] In LXX the vocative form υἱέ (huie, “Son!”), with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of בְּנִי (b^eni, “my son”) in Gen. 27:8; Prov. 1:8, 10; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 4:10, 20; 5:1; 6:1, 3, 20; 7:1; 23:15, 19, 26; 24:13, 21; 27:11. A more literal rendition of בְּנִי as υἱέ μου (huie mou, “my son”) is found in Gen. 27:1; 49:9; 2 Kgdms. 13:25; 18:22; 19:1 (5xx), 5 (2xx); 1 Chr. 22:11; 28:9; Eccl. 12:12. ↩
• ^[55] In LXX the vocative form θύγατερ, with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of בִּתִּי (biti, “my daughter”) in Ruth 2:2, 8, 22; 3:1, 10, 11, 16, 18. Only in Judg. 11:35 is בִּתִּי translated with the vocative + possessive pronoun, θύγατέρ μου. ↩
• ^[56] In LXX the vocative form ἄδελφε (adelfe, “Brother!”), with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of אָחִי (’āḥi, “my brother”) in Gen. 33:9; 2 Kgdms. 20:9; 3 Kgdms. 9:13; 13:30; Jer. 22:18. Only in 2 Kgdms. 1:26 and 13:12 is אָחִי translated with the vocative + possessive pronoun, ἄδελφέ μου. Likewise, in LXX the plural vocative form ἀδελφοί (adelfoi, “Brothers!”) is the translation of אַחַי (’aḥai, “my brothers”) in Gen. 19:7; 29:4; Judg. 19:23; 1 Chr. 28:2. ↩
• ^[57] In LXX the vocative form δέσποτα (despota, “Lord!”), with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of אֲדֹנִי (’^adoni, “my lord”) in Josh. 5:14; it is the translation of אֲדֹנָי (’^adonāi, “my lords”; usually in reference to God) in Gen. 15:2, 8; Jer. 1:6; 4:10; Dan. 9:15, 16, 17. Likewise, in LXX the vocative form κύριε (kūrie, “Lord!”), with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of אֲדֹנִי (’^adoni, “my lord”) in Gen. 23:6, 11, 15; 24:18; 31:35; 33:8, 15; 42:10; 43:20; 44:18, 19; Exod. 32:22; Num. 11:28; 12:11; Judg. 6:13; Ruth 2:13; 1 Kgdms. 1:15, 26; 22:12; 24:9; 25:26; 26:17; 3 Kgdms. 3:17, 26; 21:4; 4 Kgdms. 6:5, 15, 26; 8:5; Zech. 1:9; 4:4, 5, 13; 6:4; Jer. 44[37]:20; Dan. 10:16; 12:8. On the other hand, we find the more literal rendition κύριέ μου (kūrie mou, “my lord”) as the translation of אֲדֹנִי in Judg. 4:18; 1 Kgdms. 25:24; 2 Kgdms. 14:9, 19, 22; 16:4; 19:27; 3 Kgdms. 1:13, 17, 18, 20, 24; 2:38; 18:7; 4 Kgdms. 4:16; 6:12. (On אֲדוֹנִי, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L10.) Similarly, in LXX the vocative form κύριε, with no possessive pronoun, is the translation of אֲדֹנָי (’^adonāi, “my lords”; usually in reference to God) in Gen. 18:3, 30, 32; 19:18; 20:4; Exod. 4:10, 13; 5:22; 15:17; Num. 14:17; Deut. 3:24; 9:26; Josh. 7:7; Judg. 6:15, 22; 13:8; 16:28; 3 Kgdms. 8:53; 2 Esd. 11:11; Ps. 34[35]:17, 22; 37[38]:10, 16, 23; 43[44]:24; 50[51]:17; 54[55]:10; 56[57]:10; 58[59]:12; 61[62]:13; 68[69]:7; 70[71]:5; 72[73]:20; 78[79]:12; 85[86]:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15; 88[89]:50, 51; 89[90]:1; 108[109]:21; 129[130]:2, 3; 139[140]:8; 140[141]:8; Amos 7:2, 5; Isa. 6:11; 38:16; Jer. 14:13; 39[32]:17; Lam. 3:58; Ezek. 4:14; 9:8; 11:13; 21:5; Dan. 9:4, 7, 19 (2xx). The more literal rendition of אֲדֹנָי as κύριέ μου is found in 2 Kgdms. 7:18, 19 (2xx), 20, 22, 28, 29. ↩
• ^[58] Cf. Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 169. ↩
• ^[59] The reading ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ is one of the Didache’s variations from Matthew that suggests that the author of the Didache copied the Lord’s Prayer from a source other than the Greek text of Matthew. ↩
• ^[60] See Jeremias, Prayers, 89. ↩
• ^[61] David Flusser, “The Synagogue and the Church in the Synoptic Gospels” (JS1, 20-21). ↩
• ^[62] The phrase אָבִינוּ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם is found, for example, in m. Sot. 9:15 (3xx); y. Hag. 2:1 [9a]. Note these similar phrases:
  • אֲבִי שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם (“my Father in heaven”): Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BaḤodesh chpt. 6 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:325); Sifra, Kedoshim perek 11 (ed. Weiss, 93d)
  • אֲבִיכֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם (“your [plur.] Father who is in heaven”): m. Yom. 8:9
  • אָבִיךָ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם (“your [sing.] Father who is in heaven”): m. Avot 5:20
  • אֲבִיהֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם (“their Father who is in heaven”): m. Rosh Hash. 3:8; t. Peah 4:21 (Vienna MS); t. Shab. 13:5 (Vienna MS); t. Bab. Kam. 7:6, 7 (Vienna MS); Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek chpt. 2 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:268); Sifre Deut. §352 (ed. Finkelstein, 409); Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 17:6 (ed. Schechter, 66)
  • אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם (“their Father who is in heaven”): t. Shek. 1:6 (Vienna MS); Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ chpt. 1 (ed. Lauterbach, 1:227); Baḥodesh chpt. 11 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:353); Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 35:8 (ed. Schechter, 106)
  • אָבִיו שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם (“his Father who is in heaven”): m. Kil. 9:8; t. Kil. 5:21 (Vienna MS); t. Hag. 2:1 (Vienna MS); t. Hul. 2:24 (Vienna MS); Sifre Deut. §306 (ed. Finkelstein, 341)

  ↩

• ^[63] In Hebrew, “the name of the LORD” is an idiomatic way of saying “the LORD.” See David N. Bivin, “Blessed Be the ‘Name’!” ↩
• ^[64] See Jastrow, 1355. ↩
• ^[65] See Shmuel Safrai, “Martyrdom in the Teachings of the Tannaim,” in Sjaloom; ter nagedachtenis van Mgr. Dr. A.C. Ramselaar (Hilversum: B. Folkertsma Stichting voor Talmudica, 1983), 146-147; and idem, “Oral Torah,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 95. For an introduction to the concept of sanctifying the divine name, see Norman Lamm, “Kiddush Ha-Shem and Ḥillul Ha-Shem,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (ed. F. Skolnik and M. Birnbaum; 22 vols; 2d ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA; Jerusalem: Keter Publishing Ltd., 2007), 12:139-142. For a discussion of Qidush HaShem and the teachings of Jesus, see Joshua N. Tilton, Jesus’ Gospel: Searching for the Core of Jesus’ Message, 42-48. ↩
• ^[66] According to Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata chpt. 4 (ed. Lauterbach, 1:191), God sanctifies his own name by fighting on Israel’s behalf. ↩
• ^[67] For a discussion of the political aspect of Jesus’ message, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua,” under the subheading “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Teachings of Jesus: Political Aspect”; idem, Conduct in Town, Comment to L88. ↩
• ^[68] Rabbi Yehudah bar Yehezkiel was born ca. 220 C.E. See Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “Judah b. Ezekiel,” JE, 7:342-343. ↩
• ^[69] Rabbi Shimon ben Yehozadak was a first-generation Amora in the land of Israel (ca. 220 C.E.). See Jacob Z. Lauterback, “Simeon b. Jehozadak,” JE, 11:351. ↩
• ^[70] See Brad Young, “The Lord’s Prayer 4: ‘Thy Kingdom Come’ (Part 1),” under the subheading “Establishing the Kingdom.” ↩
• ^[71] On reconstructing ἔρχεσθαι with בָּא (bā’, “come”), see Demands of Discipleship, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[72] Cf. Allen, 58; Albright-Mann, 75. Already in Ezekiel we find that the exile of Israel led to the profanation of God’s name, because the Gentiles assumed Israel’s God must be impotent. Consequently, the return from exile would result in the sanctification of God’s name (Ezek. 36:20-24). On this aspect of sanctifying the divine name, see Harry G. Friedman, “Kiddush Hashem and Hillul Hashem,” Hebrew Union College Annual (1904): 193-214. ↩
• ^[73] See Stern, 1:201. On Roman responses to the defeat of Bar Kokhva, see Moshe David Herr, “Persecutions and Martyrdom in Hadrian’s Days,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 23 (1972): 85-125, esp. 115-116. To rebut the argument that the God of Israel must be weaker than the gods of the Romans, the sages claimed: “You will find that every people and kingdom that subjugated Israel also ruled the whole world from one end to the other, which is for the glory of Israel” (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, BeShallaḥ chpt. 2 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:132]). In other words, God only permitted world conquerors to subdue Israel, which shows that God actually defended Israel’s honor (and his own) by not allowing weak kingdoms to conquer Israel. The God of Israel was also scorned among Gentiles who regarded him as barbaric on account of the strange practices—most notably circumcision—he required Israel to observe (cf. Tacitus, Historiae 5:5; Origen, Cels. 5:25). They also ridiculed him, claiming that in the Jerusalem Temple the Jews worshiped an image with a donkey’s head (cf. Jos., Ag. Ap. 2:80). See Stern, nos. 28, 63, 247, 259, 281. ↩
• ^[74] Titus, the son of Emperor Vespasian, was the Roman general who oversaw the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. ↩
• ^[75] On the Gentiles’ recognition of God’s reign coinciding with the redemption of Israel, see Paula Fredriksen, “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2,” Journal of Theological Studies 42.2 (1991): 532-564, esp. 544-548. ↩
• ^[76] Compare the following requests in Ben Sira to the petitions in the Lord’s Prayer:

  הניף <יד> על עם נכר ויראו את גבורתיך כאשר נקדשת לעיניהם בנו כן לעינינו הכבד <בם> וידעו כאשר ידענו כי אין אלהים זולתך

  ἔπαρον τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπὶ ἔθνη ἀλλότρια, καὶ ἰδέτωσαν τὴν δυναστείαν σου. ὥσπερ ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ἡγιάσθης ἐν ἡμῖν, οὕτως ἐνώπιον ἡμῶν μεγαλυνθείης ἐν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἐπιγνώτωσάν σε, καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐπέγνωμεν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν σοῦ, κύριε.

  Lift up your hand against the foreign peoples, let them see your might. Just as you were sanctified before them in us, so be glorified before us in them. And make them know, just as we have known, that there is no God but you, O Lord. (Sir. 36:2-4[3-5])

  On the sanctification of God’s name and the coming of God’s Kingdom, see Moshe Weinfeld, “The Day of the LORD: Aspirations for the Kingdom of God in the Bible and Jewish Liturgy,” in his Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 68-89, esp. 85-86; idem, “Expectations of the Divine Kingdom in Biblical and Postbiblical Literature,” in Normative and Sectarian Judaism, 294-304, esp. 300-301. ↩

• ^[77] See David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua,” under the subheading “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Teachings of Jesus: Political Aspect.” ↩
• ^[78] On the use of שְׁאוֹר (sh^e’ōr, “leaven”) as a metaphor for the evil inclination, see Jastrow, 1505; Brad H. Young, “The Lord’s Prayer 6: ‘Thy Will Be Done,'” under the subheading “Overcoming.” ↩
• ^[79] Both rabbinic literature and the Synoptic Gospels typically lack a concept of personal salvation. Rather, individuals enjoy salvation as they participate in the redemption of Israel. Even the concept of the resurrection is not simply about personal salvation, it is rather a guarantee that the individual will be present when Israel is finally redeemed if he or she did not live to see God’s promises to Israel fulfilled in his or her lifetime. ↩
• ^[80] Prayers including the phrase יְהִי רָצוֹן are found, for instance, in m. Ber. 9:3 (2xx); m. Taan. 4:8; m. Avot 5:20; b. Ber. 16b. ↩
• ^[81] In LXX γενηθήτω is the translation of יְהִי in Gen. 1:3, 6; 9:27; 49:17; Exod. 10:21; Judg. 6:39; 4 Kgdms. 2:9; Ps. 34[35]:6; 68[69]:23; 108[109]:12, 13; 118[119]:76, 80. Likewise, γενηθήτω is the translation of תְּהִי in 1 Chr. 21:17; Ps. 68[69]:26; 79[80]:18; 108[109]:19; and of תִּהְיֶינָה in Ps. 129[130]:2. ↩
• ^[82] In LXX γίνεσθαι (ginesthai, “to be,” “to become”) usually translates הָיָה, but γίνεσθαι is the translation of qal forms of עָשָׂה in Gen. 42:25; 44:2; 50:20; Exod. 8:22; Num. 28:6; 3 Kgdms. 22:54; 2 Chr. 24:8; 2 Esd. 13:16; Prov. 24:6; Job 31:15 (2xx); Jer. 8:8; Ezek. 46:23. Likewise, γίνεσθαι is the translation of nif‘al forms of נַעֲשָׂה in Lev. 18:30; Num. 6:4; 15:24; Deut. 13:15; 17:4; Judg. 16:11; 2 Kgdms. 17:23; 3 Kgdms. 10:20; 4 Kgdms. 23:22, 23; 2 Chr. 9:19; 35:18; 2 Esd. 10:3; 15:18 (2xx); 16:16; Esth. 9:14; Eccl. 1:13; 4:1; Mal. 2:11; Isa. 46:10; Ezek. 9:4; Dan. 9:12 (2xx); 11:36. ↩
• ^[83] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:629. ↩
• ^[84] See Dos Santos, 196. ↩
• ^[85] For examples of עָשָׂה + רָצוֹן in MT, see Ps. 40:9; 103:21; 143:10; Ezra 10:11. In each of these instances the LXX renders עָשָׂה with ποιεῖν. ↩
• ^[86] Young writes, “The supplication ‘May your will be done’ has more to do with accomplishing God’s will than it does with merely discerning his will” (Brad H. Young, “The Lord’s Prayer 6: ‘Thy Will Be Done,’” under the subheading "Accomplishing"). ↩
• ^[87] See Lindsey, JRL, 109; Brad H. Young, “The Lord’s Prayer 6: ‘Thy Will Be Done,'” under the subheading “Rabbinic Illumination.” ↩
• ^[88] Metzger does not even discuss Matt. 6:10 in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. ↩
• ^[89] In a survey of all the instances of ὡς in the five books of Moses, we found that ὡς was supplied by the LXX translators in Gen. 31:15; Exod. 3:4; 36:31[39:24]; Lev. 25:35; 26:36; Num. 23:19 (2xx); Deut. 32:41. In these examples there is no word corresponding to ὡς in the Hebrew text. ↩
• ^[90] In LXX the combination ὡς ἐν occurs in Deut. 2:30; 4:20; Ps. 73[74]:6; 77[78]:15; 94[95]:8; 105[106]:9; Zeph. 3:17; Zech. 10:7; Isa. 51:9, 10; Jer. 51[44]:22; Lam. 2:7; Ezek. 16:47; Dan. 11:34. ↩
• ^[91] Rabbi Eliezer’s prayer in t. Ber. 3:7 (“May your will be done in heaven above, grant peace of mind to those who fear you [below]...”; see above, Comment to L14) might also envision a cosmic struggle. References to a battle in the heavenly realms that is also played out on earth are found, for example, in 1QM I, 8-17; Eph. 6:12; Rev. 12:7-12. ↩
• ^[92] In MT we find the formula בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ in Deut. 3:24; Joel 3:3; Ps. 113:6; 135:6; 1 Chr. 29:11; 2 Chr. 6:14. ↩
• ^[93] In DSS we find examples of בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ in 1QM X, 8; 1QH^a VIII, 3; 4Q216 [4QJub^a] VII, 5, 9; 4Q504 5 I, 6. ↩
• ^[94] The formula בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ occurs in m. Shevu. 4:13; Gen. Rab. 12:11 (4xx). ↩
• ^[95] In LXX בַּשָּׁמַיִם is translated ἐν οὐρανῷ/οὐρανοῖς in Josh. 2:11; 4 Kgdms. 7:2; 2 Chr. 6:14; 20:6; Ps. 2:4; 10[11]:4; Job 16:19; Jer. 10:13; Lam. 3:41. ↩
• ^[96] In LXX ἐπὶ γῆς/γῆν is the translation of בָּאָרֶץ in Job 24:18 and of עַל הָאָרֶץ in 1 Chr. 29:15; Ezek. 26:16. ↩
• ^[97] In LXX ἐν γῇ is the translation of בָּאָרֶץ in Job 14:8 and Jer. 7:7. ↩
• ^[98] Wheat bread, however, was preferable. Cf. Rev. 6:6; m. Ket. 5:8. See Zohary, 74-76. Broshi mentioned several reasons for the preference for wheat: “Barley flour does not rise well, its meal tastes bad, and it is difficult to digest.” See Magen Broshi, “The Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period—Introductory Notes,” Israel Museum Journal 5 (1986): 41-56, esp. 43. ↩
• ^[99] According to Safrai, “The meal of an ordinary person would have consisted of bread with a vinegar and/or olive oil dip in the morning, and bread with lentil soup and an egg or some other substitute in the evening.” See Ze’ev Safrai, “Agriculture and Farming” (OHJDL, 246-263, quotation on 252). Broshi estimated that bread supplied around half of an average person’s daily caloric intake (“Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period,” 42). ↩
• ^[100] Broshi, “Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period,” 43. ↩
• ^[101] The amount of work the breadmaking process requires is acknowledged in a rabbinic statement:

  בן זומא כשראה אוכלוסין בהר הבית או′ ברוך מי שברא את אלו לשמשני כמה יגע אדם הראשון ולא טעם לוגמה אחת עד שזרע וחרש וקצר ועמר ודש וזרה וברר וטחן והרקיד ולש ואפה ואחר כך אכל ואני עומד בשחרית ומוצא אני את כל אילו לפני

  Ben Zoma, when he saw a crowd [of people] on the Temple Mount, said, “Blessed is the One who created all these [people in the crowd] to serve me! How much the first Adam had to toil: he did not taste a mouthful until he sowed, and plowed, and harvested, and sheaved, and threshed, and winnowed, and cleared, and milled, and sifted, and kneaded, and baked and only then did he eat. But I rise in the morning and find all these [tasks already completed] before me.” (t. Ber. 6:2; Vienna MS)

  ↩

• ^[102] On grinding grain into flour, see Broshi, “Diet of Palestine in the Roman Period,” 44. ↩
• ^[103] See Shmuel Safrai, “Home and Family,” (Safrai-Stern, 2:728-792, esp. 740). ↩
• ^[104] See Werner Foerster, “ἐπιούσιος,” TDNT, 2:590-599. ↩
• ^[105] The reported attestations of ἐπιούσιος in Greek papyri and inscriptions have proven to be erroneous. See Bruce M. Metzger, “How Many Times Does ‘Epiousios’ Occur Outside the Lord’s Prayer?” Expository Times 69.2 (1957): 52-54; M. Nijman and K. A. Worp, “‘ΕΠΙΟΥΣΙΟΣ’ in a Documentary Papyrus?” Novum Testamentum 41.3 (1999): 231-234. ↩
• ^[106] See Origen, De oratione (Prayer) 27:7. ↩
• ^[107] See Joseph B. Lightfoot, On A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1891), 217-229; Colin Hemer, “ἐπιούσιος,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22 (1984): 81-94. ↩
• ^[108] Text cited according to Davies-Allison, 1:608 n. 45. ↩
• ^[109] Jerome evidently confused the Gospel of the Hebrews with the Gospel of the Nazarenes. See Philipp Vielhauer, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; English trans. ed. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963-66), 1:117-165, esp. 126-128. ↩
• ^[110] Translation according to Vielhauer, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 1:147. ↩
• ^[111] According to Vielhauer, “The GN [i.e., Gospel of the Nazarenes—DNB and JNT] was clearly an Aramaic version of the Greek Mt., but, as the fictional enlargements of canonical scenes, many corrections and deletions and the insertion of new sayings of the Lord show, it was no accurate translation, but a targumistic rendering of the canonical Gospel of Mt.” (Vielhauer, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 1:144). ↩
• ^[112] As Vielhauer states, “The Aramaic GN [i.e., Gospel of the Nazarenes—DNB and JNT]...assumes, at least here, the Greek text of Matthew” (Vielhauer, “Jewish-Christian Gospels,” 1:142). Cf. David Flusser, “Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparative Studies of Two Major Religious Leaders (ed. James H. Charlesworth and Loren L. Johns; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 71-107, esp. 72 n. 5. ↩
• ^[113] This line of argumentation is adopted by Jeremias (Prayers, 100); cf. Lightfoot, On A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, 237; Luz, 1:321. ↩
• ^[114] According to Jeremias, “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” (Prayers, 102). ↩
• ^[115] Jeremias, Prayers, 100. For a critique of Jeremias’ view, see Young, JHJP, 31-33. ↩
• ^[116] Jean Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer: An Historical Survey,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor (ed. Gary A. Tuttle; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 18-79, esp. 59. ↩
• ^[117] Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer,” 64. ↩
• ^[118] In MT לְמָחָר occurs in Exod. 8:6, 19; Num. 11:18; Josh. 7:13; Esth. 5:12. ↩
• ^[119] See Lev. 23:19-20. ↩
• ^[120] Commenting on Exod. 16:20, the sages said that those who tried to keep manna for the next day, contrary to Moses’ instructions, were the Israelites who lacked faith (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ chpt. 5 [ed. Lauterbach, 1:242]).

  A tradition concerning Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai provides further evidence against reconstructing with לַחְמֵנוּ לְמָחָר in the Lord’s Prayer:

  ר′ שמעון אומר מפני מה לא היה יורד מן לישראל בפעם אחד בשנה כדי שיהפכו את לבן לאביהם שבשמים משל למה הדבר דומה למלך שגזר על בנו להיות מפרנסו פעם אחת בשנה ולא היה מקביל פני אביו אלא בשעת פרנסתו. פעם אחת חזר וגזר עליו להיות מפרנסו בכל יום אמר הבן אפילו איני מקבל פני אבי אלא בשעת פרנסתי דיי לי. כך ישראל היו בביתו של אדם חמש זכרים או חמש נקבות היה יושב ומצפה ואומר אוי לי שמא לא ירד המן למחר ונמצינו מתים ברעב יהי רצון מלפניך שירד ונמצאו הופכים את לבם לשמים

  Rabbi Shimon says: Why did the manna not descend for Israel once a year? So that they would turn their hearts to their father in heaven. A parable: To what may the matter be compared? To a king who decreed concerning his son that his provision be given once in a year. But his father did not receive his company except at the time of his provision. One time he reconsidered and decreed concerning him that his provision be given every day. The son said, “Even if I visit my father only at the time of my provision, it is enough for me.” So with Israel. In the house of a man who had five boys or five girls, he would sit and look ahead [to the future] and say, “Woe to me! Perhaps the manna for the next day [לְמָחָר] will not descend, and we will be found dead from hunger. May it be pleasing before you that it will descend!” So they were found to turn their hearts toward heaven. (Sifre Num. §89 [ed. Horovitz, 90]; cf. b. Yom. 76a)

  Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s answer is that if a year’s worth of manna had been given all at once at the beginning of the year, the Israelites in the desert would have only prayed to God once a year. Since God enjoys the company of his children, however, he devised a plan so that Israel would pray to him every day. The remedy for worrying about tomorrow was for Israel to direct their hearts to their Father in heaven through prayer each day. The idea expressed in Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s answer is so similar to that in the Lord’s Prayer that it is likely both are based on a common tradition concerning daily prayer for the needs of the present day. ↩

• ^[121] The earliest example of לֶחֶם חֻקֵּנוּ in a Hebrew translation of the Lord’s Prayer dates from 1553. This translation was made by Johannes Isaac Levita, a Jewish convert to Christianity. The petition in question reads: לחם חקינו תן לנו היום. See Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer,” 33. Delitzsch’s influential Hebrew translation of the New Testament also has לֶחֶם חֻקֵּנוּ in the Lord’s Prayer. More recently, Brad Young has made the case for לֶחֶם חֻקֵּנוּ as the best Hebrew reconstruction of τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον. See Young, JHJP, 33; idem, “The Lord’s Prayer 7: ‘Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread,'” under the subheading “Hebrew Background.” ↩
• ^[122] A paraphrase of Jer. 37:21 is found in Pesikta Rabbati:

  ויצוה צדקיהו על ירמיהו ונתנו בית האסורים ונתן לו לחם ליום עד שכלה לחם מירושלים

  And Zedekiah gave a command concerning Jeremiah and they put him in prison and bread for the day was given to him [or, “bread was given to him daily”—DNB and JNT] until Jerusalem ran out of bread. (Pesikta Rabbati 26:4 [ed. Friedmann])

  ↩

• ^[123] Examples of לֶחֶם + first person plural pronominal suffix (לַחְמֵנוּ) are found in Num. 14:9; Josh. 9:12; Isa. 4:1; Lam. 5:9. In the Mishnah we find examples of לֶחֶם + pronominal suffix in m. Taan. 4:2 (לַחְמִי) and m. Men. 7:3, 5 (לַחְמָהּ), but no examples of לַחְמֵנוּ. ↩
• ^[124] See Lightfoot, On A Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, 226; Hemer, “ἐπιούσιος,” 83, 90. ↩
• ^[125] See Marshall, 459. ↩
• ^[126] See Jeremias, Prayers, 92; Fitzmyer, 2:904; Bovon, 2:88. ↩
• ^[127] Adolf Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans. J. R. Wilkinson; 1908; repr., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 65. ↩
• ^[128] See Demands of Discipleship, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission,” and Comment to L23. ↩
• ^[129] See David Flusser, “Jesus and Judaism: Jewish Perspectives,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University, 1992), 80-109, esp. 86; idem, “Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” 72; and idem, “‘Have You Ever Seen a Lion Toiling as a Porter?’” (JSTP2, 334 n. 12). See also Brad H. Young, “The Lord’s Prayer 7: ‘Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread.'” For a different view, see Randall Buth, “Language, Linguistics,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 432. ↩
• ^[130] On this passage see Menahem Kister, “Allegorical Interpretations of Biblical Narratives in Rabbinic Literature, Philo, and Origen: Some Case Studies,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity (ed. Gary A. Anderson, Ruth A. Clements, and David Satran; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 133-183, esp. 165-166. ↩
• ^[131] In Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Vayassa‘ chpt. 3 (ed. Lauterbach, 1:234-235) this saying is attributed to Rabbi Eliezer of Modiin, but as Flusser noted the parallels in b. Sot. 48b and Midrash ha-Gadol prove that this saying goes back to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. See David Flusser, “‘Have You Ever Seen a Lion Toiling as a Porter?’” (Flusser, JSTP2, 331-342, esp. 335 n. 15). ↩
• ^[132] On the necessity to give up one’s profession in order to become a full-time disciple, see Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L96-98. ↩
• ^[133] See Joshua N. Tilton, “Gentiles Demand All These Things.” ↩
• ^[134] On the parallels between Torah study in rabbinic literature and the Kingdom of Heaven in the Gospels, see Chana Safrai, “The Kingdom of Heaven and the Study of Torah” (JS1, 169-189). On “entering the Kingdom of Heaven” as a technical term for becoming a full-time disciple of Jesus, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “LOY Excursus: The Kingdom of Heaven in the Life of Yeshua,” under the subheading “The Kingdom of Heaven in the Teachings of Jesus: Jesus’ Band of Itinerating Disciples”; Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L64. ↩
• ^[135] Ancient Jewish sources also link “treasure in heaven” to almsgiving. See Jeffrey P. Garcia, “‘Treasure in Heaven’: Examining an Ancient Idiom for Charity.” There is no reason, however, why Jesus could not have fused the two traditions about treasure in heaven to form a dynamic new idea: when disciples sold their possessions and gave the proceeds to the poor in order to be free to follow Jesus, they not only made a huge investment in God’s heavenly bank account, they could also begin to draw on the interest in the form of manna (i.e., a day’s provision every day). Such a view is consistent with the rabbinic statement that acts of mercy are among those things whose interest a person can enjoy in this world while the principal is laid up for him or her in the world to come (m. Peah 1:1). ↩
• ^[136] For a reflection on the economic aspect of the petition for today’s bread in the Lord’s Prayer, see Joseph Frankovic, “Over and Under-Familiarity with Matthew 6:11.” ↩
• ^[137] If the petition for today’s bread alluded to the manna from heaven story, would Jesus have permitted his followers to pray the Lord’s Prayer on the Sabbath? Bivin notes that according to the story in Exodus God did not rain down manna on the Sabbath, but provided a double portion of manna on the day before the Sabbath (Friday). Might, then, the disciples have refrained from praying the Lord’s Prayer on the Sabbath since the Israelites in the desert had already received their bread for the Sabbath on the preceding day? ↩
• ^[138] Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977), 188. ↩
• ^[139] We also find that a variant form of Rabbi Liezer’s prayer (cited above, Comment to L14) begins with an imperative. See b. Ber. 29b. ↩
• ^[140] See Joseph Heinemann, “The Background of Jesus’ Prayer in the Jewish Liturgical Tradition,” in The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy (ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski and Michael Brocke; New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 81-89, esp. 85. ↩
• ^[141] In LXX the verb διδόναι (didonai, “to give”) is almost always the translation of נָתַן (nātan, “give”). See Hatch-Redpath, 1:317-327. ↩
• ^[142] Further examples of תֵּן לָנוּ are found in m. Shevu. 5:3; m. Avod. Zar. 5:7; Sifre Deut. §3 (ed. Finkelstein, 11); Gen. Rab. 81:2. ↩
• ^[143] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1264-1265. ↩
• ^[144] In Genesis alone, σήμερον is the translation of הַיּוֹם in Gen. 4:14; 21:26; 22:14; 24:12, 42; 30:32; 31:43; 40:7; 41:9; 42:13, 32; 47:23. ↩
• ^[145] See David Flusser, “A New Sensitivity in Judaism and the Christian Message” (JOC, 469-489); idem, “Jesus and Judaism,” 86; idem, “Jesus’ Place in First-century Judaism and His Influence on Christian Doctrine,” under the subheading “The Golden Rule.” ↩
• ^[146] Unfortunately, this passage is missing in the extant Hebrew fragments of Ben Sira. Another ancient example of the triangular relationship between a person, God and fellow human beings is found in the book of Tobit:

  μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπὸ παντὸς πτωχοῦ, καὶ ἀπὸ σοῦ οὐ μὴ ἀποστραφῇ τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ

  Do not turn your face away from any poor person, and the face of God shall not be turned away from you. (Tob. 4:7; NETS)

  ↩

• ^[147] Further examples of the triangular relationship between a person, God and fellow human beings are found in rabbinic sources, for instance:

  עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַמָּקוֹם יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר וְשֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין חֲבֵירוֹ אֵין יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַד שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ

  Sins that are between a person and the Omnipresent one—these the Day of Atonement covers. But sins that are between a person and his fellow—these the Day of Atonement does not cover until he appeases his fellow. (m. Yom. 8:9)

  וכל המעביר על מדותיו מעבירין לו על כל פשעיו שנאמר מי אל כמוך נושא עון ועובר על פשע למי נושא עון למי שעובר על פשע

  Whoso waives his right to retribution is forgiven all his sins, as it is stated, Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth the iniquity, and passeth by the transgression [Micah 7:18], [which means,] who is forgiven iniquity? He who passed by transgression [against himself]. (Derekh Eretz Zuta 8:3 [59a]; Soncino; b. Rosh Hash. 17a)

  This triangular relationship is also attested in NT outside the Gospels, cf., e.g., Col. 3:13; 1 John 4:20-21. On the reciprocity between forgiving others and receiving forgiveness from God, see Serge Ruzer and Mila Ginsburskaya, “Matt 6:1-18: Collation of Two Avenues to God’s Forgiveness,” in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting (ed. Has-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer; Paris: Gabalda, 2005), 151-177. ↩

• ^[148] See Jeremias, Prayers, 92; Marshall, 460-461; Fitzmyer, 2:906; Bovon, 2:91. ↩
• ^[149] See Lyndon Drake, “Did Jesus Oppose the prosbul in the Forgiveness Petition of the Lord’s Prayer?” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 233-244, esp. 242. ↩
• ^[150] On the agrarian basis of the first-century economy in the land of Israel, see Ze’ev Safrai, “The Agrarian Structure in Palestine in the Time of the Second Temple, Mishnah, and Talmud,” in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel (ed. Aren M. Maeir, Shimon Dar, and Ze’ev Safrai; BAR International Series 1121; Oxford: Archaeopress, 2003), 105-125. ↩
• ^[151] On the economic status of peasant farmers in the land of Israel in the first century, see Joseph Klausner, “The Economy of Judea in the Period of the Second Temple,” in The World History of the Jewish People: The Herodian Period (ed. Michael Avi-Yonah; New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1975), 179-205, esp. 189. ↩
• ^[152] On indebtedness as a major problem in first-century Jewish society in Israel, see Josephus, J.W. 2:427; Shimon Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine” (Safrai-Stern, 2:631-700, esp. 691-692); idem, “Judaea as a Roman Province; the Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt 2.8 (1977): 355-386, esp. 368-373; P. A. Brunt, “Josephus on Social Conflicts in Roman Judaea,” in his Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 282-287, esp. 285; Martin Goodman, “The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 417-427. ↩
• ^[153] Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Jerusalem: Magnes; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). ↩
• ^[154] Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel, 147-148; Giovanni Battista Bazzana, “Basileia and Debt Relief: The Forgiveness of Debts in the Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Documentary Papyri,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): 511-525. ↩
• ^[155] Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel, 45-56; idem, “The Counsel of the ‘Elders’ to Rehoboam and its Implications,” Maarav 3.1 (1982): 27-53. ↩
• ^[156] Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel, 57-74. ↩
• ^[157] See Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 246-255. ↩
• ^[158] On מָחַל (māḥal, “cancel debt,” “forgive”), חוֹב (ḥōv, “debt”) and חַיָּיב (ḥayāv, “debtor”), see David N. Bivin, “Hebraisms in the New Testament,” in Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (4 vols.; ed. Geoffrey Khan; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 2:198-201, esp. 200. ↩
• ^[159] The Didache, reading differently than both Matthew and Luke with τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἡμῶν (tēn ofeilēn hēmōn, “our debt [sing.]”; Did. 8:2), supports Matthew’s fiscal imagery. This reading is one of the variations from Matthew’s version which suggests that the author of the Didache did not copy the Lord’s Prayer from the Gospel of Matthew. ↩
• ^[160] See Bazzana, “Basileia and Debt Relief,” 514. ↩
• ^[161] Below are a few examples of the pairing of ἀφιέναι with ἁμαρτία (hamartia, “sin”) in LXX:

  Οὕτως εἴπατε Ιωσηφ Ἄφες αὐτοῖς τὴν ἀδικίαν καὶ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν αὐτῶν

  Say this to Joseph: “Forgive us our wickedness and our sin.” (Gen. 50:17)

  ἄφες τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ

  Forgive this people the sin.... (Num. 14:19)

  ἄφες πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας μου

  ...forgive all my sins. (Ps. 24:18)

  The pairing of ἀφιέναι with ἁμαρτία is also found in Pss. Sol. 9:7; Jos., Ant. 6:92; and in NT in Matt. 9:2-6 (and parallels); 12:31; Luke 7:47-49; John 20:23; Jas. 5:15; 1 John 1:9, 2:12. ↩

• ^[162] In addition to the examples already cited in Comment to L18, compare the following:

  ר′ ישמעאל ארבעה חלוקי כפרה הן עבר על מצות עשה ועשה תשובה אין זז ממקומו עד שמוחלין לו שנ′ שובו בנים שובבים ארפא משובתם

  Rabbi Ishmael [says], “There are four kinds of atonement: one who committed a transgression of the positive commandments [עבר על מצות] and who did repentance—he does not even move from his place before debt is forgiven him [עד שמוחלין לו], as it is said, Return, O faithless children, I will heal your faithlessness [Jer. 3:22]....” (t. Yom. 4:6; Vienna MS; cf. Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh chpt. 7 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:326]; Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A, 29:5 [ed. Schechter, 88])

  ר′ יוסה אומ′ חוטא אדם פעמים ושלש מוחלין לו ארבע אין מוחלין לו שנ′ נושא עון ופשע וחטאה ונקה עד כאן מנקה מיכן ואילך אין מנקה שנא′ כה אמר יי על שלשה פשעי ישראל וגו′‏

  Rabbi Yoseh says, “If a person sins [חוטא] two or three times the debt is forgiven him [מוחלין לו], but a fourth time the debt is not forgiven him [אין מוחלין לו], as it says, Forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin and declaring innocent [Exod. 34:7]. Up to this point he declares innocent, but beyond this point he does not declare innocent, as it is said, Thus says the LORD, ‘For three sins of Israel’ [Amos 2:6] etc.” (t. Yom. 4:13; Vienna MS)

  חסידים ואנשי מעשה היו מרקדין לפניהן באבוקות ואומרי′ לפניהם דברי תושבחות, מה היו אומרין, אשרי מי שלא חטא וכל מי שחטא ימחל

  The Hasidim and men of deeds would dance before them with flaming torches and would recite before them words of praise. What did they say? “Blessed is the one who has not sinned [שלא חטא], but all who have sinned [וכל מי שחטא] he will forgive the debt [ימחל].” (t. Suk. 4:2; Vienna MS)

  הרוגי בית דין יש להם חלק לעולם הבא מפני שמתוודין על עוונותיהם רחוק מבית הסקילה עשר אמות אומרין לו התוודה ומעשה באחד שיצא ליסקל אמרו לו התוודה אמ′ תהא מיתתי כפרה על כל עוונותי ואם עשיתי כן אל ימחל לי ויהא בית דין של ישר′ נקי וכשבא דבר לפני חכמ′ זלגו עיניהם דמעות אמרו להם להחזירו אי איפשר ואין לדבר סוף אלא הרי דמיו תלוי בצואר עדיו

  Those who are put to death by the court have a portion in the world to come because they confess their sins [עוונותיהם]. At a distance of ten cubits from the place of stoning they say to him, “Confess!” And there is an anecdote about someone who went out to be stoned. They said to him, “Confess!” He said, “May my death be an atonement for all my sins [עוונותי], but if I committed this [deed], may the debt not be forgiven me [אל ימחל לי] and may the court of Israel be innocent.” And when this word came before the sages, their eyes shed tears. They said to them, “To recall it [i.e., the sentence—DNB and JNT] is not possible and there would be no end to the matter, but behold: his blood hangs on the necks of those who testified against him.” (t. Sanh. 9:5 [ed. Zuckermandel, 429])

  יהא אדם שמח ביסורים יותר מן הטובה שאילו אדם בטובה כל ימיו אינו נמחל לו מעון שבידו ובמה נמחל לו ביסורין

  Let a person rejoice in trials more than from prosperity, for if a person enjoys prosperity all his days his debt will not be forgiven [אינו נמחל לו] for his iniquity [מעון]. And by what means is he forgiven? By means of trials. (Sifre Deut. §32 [ed. Finkelstein, 56]; cf. Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh chpt. 10 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:345])

  ואמר רבה בר חיננא סבא משמיה דרב כל העושה דבר עבירה ומתבייש בו מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו שנאמר למען תזכרי ובשת ולא יהיה לך עוד פתחון פה מפני כלמתך בכפרי לך לכל אשר עשית נאם ה′ אלהים

  And Raba bar Hinena the elder said in the name of Rab, “Everyone who commits a transgression [דבר עבירה] and is ashamed of it, [the debt of] all his sins [כל עונותיו] are forgiven him [מוחלין לו], as it is said, So that you will remember and be ashamed, and you will never again open your mouth because of your disgrace, when I atone for you and for all that you have done, says the Lord GOD [Ezek. 16:63].” (b. Ber. 12b)

  ↩

• ^[163] Text and translation according to Joseph H. Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (2d ed.; New York: Bloch, 1975), 162-165. Some of the Avinu Malchenu (“Our Father, Our King") petitions are attributed to Rabbi Akiva (cf. b. Taan. 25b), though not the specific petitions cited here. For a discussion of the origins of this prayer, see Simon Lauer, “‘Abhinu Malkenu: Our Father, Our King!’” in The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy (ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski and Michael Brocke; New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 73-80. ↩
• ^[164] See Samuel Tobias Lachs, “On Matthew VI.12,” Novum Testamentum 17.1 (1975): 6-8; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 294-295; Keener, 222-223; Nolland, Matt., 290; Richard A. Horsley, Covenant Economics: A Biblical Vision of Justice for All (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 155; Drake, “Did Jesus Oppose the prosbul in the Forgiveness Petition of the Lord’s Prayer?” 233-244. ↩
• ^[165] See Applebaum, “Economic Life in Palestine” (Safrai-Stern, 2:662); Goodman, “The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt,” 421-423; Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 31. ↩
• ^[166] This interpretation is based on a wordplay between the words “who birthed you” and “who forgives you.” ↩
• ^[167] The feminine plural form is also that which Young adopted in his reconstruction of the Lord’s Prayer. See Brad H. Young, “Hebrew Reconstruction of the Lord’s Prayer,” Jerusalem Perspective 18 (1989): 4 [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2330/]. ↩
• ^[168] But cf. nos. 54, 57. ↩
• ^[169] Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer: An Historical Survey,” 21-59. ↩
• ^[170] See Jastrow, 429. ↩
• ^[171] Some NT manuscripts read ἀφίεμεν (in agreement with Did. 8:2) or ἀφείομεν (in agreement with Luke 11:4) at Matt. 6:12 instead of ἀφήκαμεν (cf. Metzger, 16), but these variant readings appear to be scribal attempts to harmonize Matthew with the other versions. ↩
• ^[172] See Marshall, 461. ↩
• ^[173] See Bovon, 2:91. ↩
• ^[174] See Nolland, Luke, 2:617. ↩
• ^[175] On אַף (’af, “also”) as the MH equivalent of BH גַּם (gam, “also”), see Jastrow, 99, 251; Segal, 146 §302; Kutscher, 141 §243. On אָנוּ (’ānū, “we”) as the MH equivalent of BH אֲנַחְנוּ (’^anaḥnū, “we”), see Segal, 39-40 §68; Kutscher, 123 §201. Examples of אַף אָנוּ occur in m. Git. 6:7; m. Avod. Zar. 4:7; t. Naz. 5:2 (2xx); Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Amalek chpt. 2 (ed. Lauterbach, 2:263); Sifre Deut. §56 (ed. Finkelstein, 123); and the baraita about King Yannai in b. Kid. 66a. On אַף + personal pronoun to create emphasis, see Segal, 198 §404. ↩
• ^[176] In a survey of Genesis through 2 Chronicles we found that ὡς is the translation of אֲשֶׁר in Gen. 40:13; Exod. 8:8; 12:27; Num. 33:1; Deut. 1:31; 7:19; 11:4; 26:19; 29:15; Judg. 9:17; 1 Kgdms. 13:8; 15:2; 16:7; 18:15; 20:42; 24:11, 19; 26:23; 28:9; 2 Kgdms. 7:23; 14:26; 3 Kgdms. 2:32; 3:13, 19; 8:38; 11:27; 15:5, 30, 34; 16:13, 19; 18:31; 19:1; 20:25; 4 Kgdms. 4:17; 8:5; 14:6; 21:4; 1 Chr. 17:21; 2 Chr. 1:12; 2:7; 6:30; 10:2; 25:4. ↩
• ^[177] On causal clauses introduced with אֲשֶׁר see BDB, 83 (definition 8c). On causal clauses introduced with -שֶׁ, see Segal, 227 §482. Examples of -שֶׁ in the sense of “because” include:

  אָמְרוּ לוֹ כְּדַיִי הָיִיתָה לָחוֹב בְּעַצְמָךְ שֶׁעָבַרְתָּה עַל דִּבְרֵי בֵית הֶילֵּל

  They said to him, “You were deserving of your own guilt because you transgressed [שֶׁעָבַרְתָּה] the words of the school of Hillel.” (m. Ber. 1:3)

  כֵּיצַד מְבָרְכִין עַל הַפֵּירוֹת עַל פֵּירוֹת הָאִילָן הוּא אוֹ′ בּוֹרֵא פְרִי הַעֵץ חוּץ מִן הַיַּיִן שֶׁעַל הַיַּיִן הוּא אוֹמֵ′ בּוֹרֵא פְרִי הַגֶּפֶן וְעַל פֵּירוֹת הָאָרֶץ הוּא אוֹ′ בּוֹרֵא פְרִי הָאֲדָמָה חוּץ מִן הַפַּת שֶׁעַל הַפַּת הוּא אוֹמֵ′ הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ

  How do they bless over agricultural products? Over fruits from trees one says, “...who creates the fruit of trees,” except for wine because over wine [שֶׁעַל הַיַּיִן] he says, “...who creates the fruit of the vine.” And over fruits from the ground he says, “...who creates fruit of the ground,” except for a loaf of bread, because over a loaf [שֶׁעַל הַפַּת] he says, “...who brings forth bread from the earth.” (m. Ber. 6:1)

  הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ מָלִיחַ כַּתְּחִילָּה וּפַת עִמּוֹ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמַּלִיחַ וּפוֹטֵר אֶת הַפַּת שֶׁהַפַּת טְפֵילָה לוֹ

  If they brought him salted relish at first and a loaf with it, he blesses over the salted relish and he exempts the loaf, because the loaf [שֶׁהַפַּת] is secondary to it. (m. Ber. 6:7)

  הַמּוֹכֵר פֵּירוֹת בְּסוּרְיָיה וְאָמַר מִישֶּׁלְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵ′ הֵן חַיָּיב לְעַשֵּׂר מְעוּשָּׂרִּין הֵן נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִיתִּיר מִשֶּׁלִּי הֵן חַיָּיב לְּעַשֶּׂר מְעוּשָּׂרִין הֵן נֶאֱמָן שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִיתִּיר

  The one selling produce in Syria who said, “These are from the land of Israel,” his produce must be tithed. [If he said,] “...but they are already tithed,” he is trusted because the mouth [שֶׁהַפֶּה] that bound is the mouth that released. [If he said,] “It is my own,” it must be tithed. [If he said,] “I have tithed it already,” he is trusted because the mouth [שֶׁהַפֶּה] that bound is the mouth that released. (m. Dem. 6:11)

  עכשיו קבלו עליכם שכל התחלות קשות

  Take it upon yourselves now, because all beginnings are difficult. (Mechilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Baḥodesh chpt. 2 [ed. Lauterbach, 2:197])

  ↩

• ^[178] Excluding phrases such as -שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁ, examples of שֶׁאַף are found in m. Kid. 3:4; m. Hor. 1:5; m. Kel. 26:1; m. Toh. 1:6. ↩
• ^[179] See Plummer, Luke, 297. ↩
• ^[180] The framing of this rhetorical question in 1 Maccabees, with Abraham’s faithfulness in testing being linked to the verse "And he believed in [or, was faithful to] the LORD and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15:6), helps us understand why in James 2:21-24 Abraham’s offering of Isaac is linked to Gen. 15:6. The binding of Isaac was considered to be the ultimate trial of Abraham, and it was in this test that Abraham was found to be faithful. On Jewish traditions concerning Abraham’s faithfulness in the face of trials, see Joshua N. Tilton, “The Approval of Abraham: Traditions of God’s Acceptance of Abraham in Early Jewish and Christian Sources,” under the subheading “When He Was Tested, He Was Found Faithful.” ↩
• ^[181] A famous case of a first-century Jew who voluntarily apostatized from Judaism is that of Tiberius Julius Alexander, the nephew of Philo of Alexandria. He eventually became a Roman governor of Judea (46-48 C.E.; Jos., J.W. 2:220) and was Emperor Titus’ chief of staff during the war in Judea that led to the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. (Jos., J.W. 6:237). On Tiberius Julius Alexander, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “Philo, His Family, and His Times,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo (ed. Adam Kamesar; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 9-31, esp. 13-14. ↩
• ^[182] In rabbinic sources the principle that the duty to save a life takes precedence over the other commandments is called piqūaḥ nefesh. For a further discussion of the principle of piqūaḥ nefesh, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L13. ↩
• ^[183] The earliest example of a Hebrew translation of the Lord’s Prayer that renders καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν as וְאַל תְּבִיאֵנוּ לִידֵי נִסָּיוֹן dates from 1380 in a work entitled Even Boḥan by Shem Tov ben Isaac ben Shafrut. See Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer,” 24. For a recent reconstruction of the Lord’s Prayer using the phrase לִידֵי נִסָּיוֹן, see Brad Young, “The Lord’s Prayer 10: A Hebrew Reconstruction.” ↩
• ^[184] See Carmignac, “Hebrew Translations of the Lord’s Prayer,” 67. ↩
• ^[185] This parallel to the Lord’s Prayer was noted by David Flusser. According to Flusser, “Our assertion that the phrase אל תביאני בקשות ממני is akin to ‘and lead us not into temptation’ [in the Lord’s Prayer—DNB and JNT] is borne out by 1 Cor 10, 13: ‘God is faithful and will never cause you temptation beyond what you can bear; but He will provide with the temptation also a way to overcome it so that you can bear it.’” See David Flusser, “Qumran and Jewish ‘Apotropaic’ Prayers” (Flusser, JOC, 214-225, quotation on 222). ↩
• ^[186] Cf. the following statement in the Mishnah:

  עֲשָׂרָה נִיסְיוֹנוֹת נִיתְנַסָּה אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְעָמַד בְּכּוּלָּם

  With ten trials Abraham our father was tested, and he stood [firm] in them all. (m. Avot 5:3)

  ↩

• ^[187] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1254-1255. ↩
• ^[188] In LXX the imperative ῥῦσαι is the translation of imperatival forms of הִצִּיל in Ps. 7:2; 21[22]:21; 24[25]:20; 30[31]:16; 38[39]:9; 50[51]:16; 58[59]:3; 78[79]:9; 118[119]:170; 119[120]:2; 141[142]:7; 143[144]:7; Prov. 24:11. In Ps. 70[71]:2, however, the imperative ῥῦσαί με is the translation of תַּצִּילֵנִי. ↩
• ^[189] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1186-1188. ↩
• ^[190] See Dos Santos, 194. ↩
• ^[191] See Randall Buth, “Deliver Us From Evil,” under the subheading “The Meaning of Ra‘ in Ancient Jewish Prayers.” Likewise, according to Joosten, “While in Hebrew the expression ha-ra, ‘the bad’, never refers to evil persons or spirits, in Aramaic the equivalent expression bisha, ‘the bad’, is used of both humans and Satan.... From the textual material at our disposal, it appears therefore that if the Lord’s Prayer was originally formulated in Hebrew, Jesus would have meant ‘deliver us from evil’; but if it was formulated in Aramaic, he would have meant ‘deliver us from the evil one’.” See Jan Joosten, “Aramaic or Hebrew Behind the Greek Gospels?” Analecta Bruxellensia 9 (2004): 92-93. ↩
• ^[192] Some manuscripts add τῶν αἰώνων to the doxology after εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, thus yielding “...for ever and ever.” ↩
• ^[193] On using Vaticanus as the base text of our reconstruction, see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction,’” under the subheading “Codex Vaticanus or an Eclectic Text?” ↩
• ^[194] On the textual witnesses for and against the concluding doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, see Metzger, 16-17; Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 306-307. ↩
• ^[195] On the Didache’s version of the doxology, see Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 136-138. ↩
• ^[196] See above, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[197] See above, Comment to L9. ↩
• ^[198] Cf. Bultmann, 132. ↩
• ^[199] The similarity of Mark 11:25 to Matt. 5:23-24 was also noted by Evans (Mark, 193). ↩
• ^[200] In LXX παράπτωμα occurs 19xx, 14xx in books included in MT (Ps. 18:13; 21:2; Job 35:15; 36:9; Zech. 9:5; Ezek. 3:20; 14:11, 13; 15:8; 18:22, 24, 26 [2xx]; 20:27) and 5xx in the Apocrypha (Wis. 3:13; 10:1; Pss. Sol. 3:7; 13:5, 10). ↩
• ^[201] On ἵνα + subjunctive in Mark’s Gospel as largely a product of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[202] See Tomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” 170. Cf. Taylor, 467. ↩
• ^[203] The adjective οὐράνιος (ouranios, “heavenly”) is un-Hebraic and indicative of a Greek writer’s hand. Οὐράνιος is found once in Luke (Luke 2:13), 0xx in Mark, and 7xx in Matthew (Matt. 5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 15:13; 18:35; 23:9). In LXX οὐράνιος never occurs in books included in MT. ↩
• ^[204] See Segal, 230 §489; Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L90. ↩
• ^[205]

  Lord’s Prayer
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ προσευχόμενον ὡς ἐπαύσατο εἶπέν τις τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν κύριε δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι καθὼς καὶ Ἰωάνης ἐδίδαξε τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε πάτερ ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμεῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφείομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ καὶ προσηύξατο καὶ ὡς ἐπαύσατο εἶπέν τις τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν κύριε δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι καθὼς Ἰωάνης ἐδίδαξε τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ
  Total Words:	74	Total Words:	94
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	60	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	60
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	81.08%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	63.83%

  ↩

• ^[206] It is, of course, possible that it was the author of Luke himself who made these radical changes to the Lord’s Prayer, and that he relied on Anth. throughout Luke 11:1-4. Such a high level of redaction to his source, however, is inconsistent with Luke’s usual editorial practice. Accordingly, we prefer to attribute the differences between the Lukan and Matthean versions of the Lords prayer to the editorial activity of FR. ↩
• ^[207]

  Lord’s Prayer
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν ἀφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν		καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ καὶ προσηύξατο καὶ ὡς ἐπαύσατο εἶπέν τις τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν κύριε δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι καθὼς Ἰωάνης ἐδίδαξε τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ
  Total Words:	94	Total Words:	94
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	57	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	57
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	60.64%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	60.64%

  ↩

• ^[208] See, for example, Jeremias, Prayers, 89; Bundy, 344; Beare, Earliest, 161 §146. ↩
• ^[209] The notion that the author of Matthew Judaized the Lord’s Prayer is based on the assumption that Matthew’s Gospel was addressed to Jewish Christians and that the author of Matthew added Jewish elements to his Gospel for the sake of his intended audience. ↩
• ^[210] James H. Charlesworth, “A Caveat on Textual Transmission and the Meaning of Abba: A Study of the Lord’s Prayer,” in The Lord’s Prayer and Other Prayer Texts From the Greco-Roman Era (ed. James H. Charlesworth, Mark Harding, and Mark Kiley; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1994), 1-5. ↩
• ^[211] David Flusser, “Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew” (Flusser, JOC, 558). ↩
• ^[212] The following possessive pronouns are in the Hebrew position, i.e., following the noun: πάτερ ἡμῶν (“our Father”; L10); τὸ ὄνομά σου (“your name”; L12); ἡ βασιλεία σου (“your kingdom”; L13); τὸ θέλημά σου (“your will”; L14); τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν (“our bread”; L16); τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν (“our debts”; L19); τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν (“our debtors”; L21). ↩
• ^[213] Davies-Allison, 1:593. It is disappointing to see that Luz (1:311), too, cited אַבָּא and חוֹבָא as arguments in favor of an Aramaic original for the Lord’s Prayer. ↩
• ^[214] See James Barr, “’Abbā Isn’t Daddy,” Journal of Theological Studies 39.1 (1988): 28-47, esp. 30-32. For examples of אַבָּא as a Hebrew word, see m. Eruv. 6:2; m. Betz. 2:6; m. Ket. 2:10; 12:3; 13:5; m. Ned. 5:6; 9:5; 11:4, 11; m. Git. 7:6; 9:2; m. Naz. 4:7; m. Kid. 3:6; m. Bab. Bat. 9:3; m. Sanh. 3:2; 4:5; m. Shevu. 6:1; 7:7; m. Edu. 3:10; 5:7; m. Zev. 9:3; m. Tam. 3:8; m. Yad. 3:1. ↩
• ^[215] For suggested Aramaic reconstructions of the Lord’s Prayer, see Jeremias, Theology, 196; Fitzmyer, 2:900. ↩
• ^[216] The one exception to this rule are the prayers that are included in literary works of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, such as the prayers in the additions to Esther (Greek), the prayers in Tobit (Aramaic?), and the prayer of Levi in 4Q213 (4QTLevi^a ar 1 I, 10ff; Aramaic). Regarding prayers such as these, Flusser wrote: “The majority are prayers put into the mouths of biblical persons who figure in these apocryphal works and it is clear that at least in their present form the primary purpose was not liturgical” (Flusser, “Psalms, Hymns and Prayers,” 551). Regarding the prayers in Tobit, fragments of Tobit in Hebrew and Aramaic were discovered in Qumran, and scholars continue to debate which of these two languages was the one in which Tobit was originally composed. Buth has recently made a case for a Hebrew original for Tobit. See Randall Buth, “Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha” (JS2, 247-319, esp. 291-295). ↩
• ^[217] See Shmuel Safrai, “Oral Torah,” in The Literature of the Sages (ed. Shmuel Safrai; CRINT II.3; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 1:35-119, esp. 85; idem, “Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” under the subheading “Prayers.” ↩
• ^[218] See Dalman, 10; Luz, 1:311. ↩
• ^[219] See Jakob J. Petuchowski and Michael Brocke, eds., The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 59-61; Fitzmyer, 2:901; Shmuel Safrai, “Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus,” note 11. There may be indications of an earlier Hebrew version of the kaddish. According to Sifre on Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yose asks:

  מנין לעומדים בבית הכנסת ואומרים ברכו את ה′ המבורך שעונים אחריהם ברוך ה′ המבורך לעולם ועד

  Whence do we learn that when those who lead in the synagogue call out, “Bless ye the Lord, who is blessed,” the congregation must respond, “Blessed is the Lord, who is to be blessed, for ever and ever”? (Sifre Deut. §306 [ed. Finkelstein, 342]; trans. Hammer)

  This is similar to the congregational response in the Aramaic kaddish. Even closer to the kaddish is the following Hebrew prayer, which is repeated at various points in Seder Eliyahu Rabba:

  אבי שבשמים יהי שמך הגדול מבורך לעולם ולעולמי עולמים ותהא לך קורת רוח מישראל עבדיך

  My Father who is in the heavens, may your great name be blessed forever and ever, and may you have satisfaction from Israel your servants. (Eliyahu Rabba 11:2 [ed. Friedmann, 53])

  ↩

• ^[220] Of course, some have favored an Aramaic background to all of Jesus’ teachings, including the Lord’s Prayer, precisely because this distances Jesus from his Jewish contemporaries. Jeremias, for example, attached great importance to the supposed fact that the Lord’s Prayer was composed in Aramaic, since this “removes prayer from the liturgical sphere of sacred language and places it right in the midst of everyday life” (Prayers, 76). On the portrayal of Jesus’ use of Aramaic as a rejection of established Judaism, see Guido Baltes, “The Origins of the ‘Exclusive Aramaic Model’ in the Ninteenth Century: Methodological Fallacies and Subtle Motives” (JS2, 9-34, esp. 25-29). ↩
• ^[221] We are puzzled, therefore, by Luz’s discussion of the original language of the Lord’s Prayer, in which he states: “We assume that the original language is Aramaic. Some have suggested that the original language was Hebrew. However, there is no indication that this was the case except for the indisputable fact that most of the prayers in contemporary Judaism that we still have were written in Hebrew” (Luz, 1:311). ↩
• ^[222] The following private prayers are recorded in y. Ber. 4:2 [33a] and b. Ber. 16b-17a:

  בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שלא אקפיד כנגד חבירי ולא חבירי יקפידו כנגדי שלא נטמא את הטהור ולא נטהר את הטמא שלא נאסור את המותר ולא נתיר את האסור ונמצאתי מתבייש לעולם הזה ולעולם הבא וביציאתו מהו אומר מודה אני לפניך ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שנתת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ובתי כנסיות ולא נתת חלקי בבתי תרטיות ובבתי קרקסיות שאני עמל והן עמלים אני שוקד והן שוקדים אני עמל לירש גן עדן והן עמלים לבאר שחת שנאמר כי לא תעזוב נפשי לשאול לא תתן חסידך לראות שחת

  When [Rabbi Nehonyah ben ha-Kanah] enters [the house of study] what does he say? “May it be your will, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that I not be angry with my companions and that my companions not be angry with me, that we will not declare impure what is pure nor declare pure what is impure, that we will not forbid what is permitted, nor permit what is forbidden, and thus be found ashamed in this world and in the world to come.” And on his going out, what does he say? “I am giving thanks before you, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that you have set my portion among those who sit in the house of study and synagogues, and that you have not set my portion in the theatre houses or in the circus arenas, for I toil and they toil, I rise early and they rise early. I toil to inherit the Garden of Eden, but they toil for the pit of destruction, as it is said, For you will not abandon me to Sheol or let your faithful one see the Pit [Ps. 16:10].” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  ר″א היה מתפלל שלש תפילות לאחר תפילתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שלא תעלה שנאתינו על לב אדם ולא שנאת אדם תעלה על לבינו ולא תעלה קנאתינו על לב אדם ולא קנאת אדם תעלה על לבינו ותהא תורתך מלאכתנו כל ימי חיינו ויהיו דברינו תחנונים לפניך

  Rabbi Eleazar would pray three prayers after reciting the Prayer [i.e., the Amidah—DNB and JNT]. What would he say? “May it be your will, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that hatred of us may not arise in the heart of anyone, and that hatred for anyone may not arise in our hearts, and may jealousy of us not arise in the heart of anyone, nor jealousy of anyone arise in our hearts, and may your Torah be our vocation all the days of our lives and may our words be supplications before you.” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  ר′ חייא בר אבא מוסיף ותייחד לבבינו ליראה את שמך ותרחקנו מכל מה ששנאת ותקרבנו לכל מה שאהבת ותעשה עמנו צדקה למען שמך

  Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba adds [at the conclusion of his prayer], “And unite our hearts in the fear of your name and distance us from all that you hate and bring us near to all that you love and act mercifully toward us for the sake of your name.” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  דבית ר′ ינאי אמרין הנוער משנתו צריך לומר ברוך אתה ה′ מחיה המתים רבוני חטאתי לך יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי שתתן לי לב טוב חלק טוב יצר טוב חבר טוב שם טוב עין טובה ונפש טוב ונפש שפלה ורוח נמוכה אל יתחלל שמך בנו ואל תעשינו שיחה בפי כל הבריות ואל תהי אחריתינו להכרית ולא תקוותנו למפח נפש ואל תצריכנו לידי מתנת בשר ודם ואל תמסור מזונותינו בידי בשר ודם שמתנתם מעוטה וחרפתם מרובה ותן חלקנו בתורתך עם עושי רצונך בנה ביתך היכלך עירך ומקדשך במהרה בימינו

  Those of the house of Rabbi Yannai say, “The one waking up from sleep should say, ‘Blessed are you, O Lord, who makes the dead live. My master, I have sinned against you. May it be your will, O Lord my God, that you will give me a good heart, a good portion, a good inclination, a good companion, a good name, a good eye [i.e., a generous nature—DNB and JNT], a good soul, and a humble soul, and a lowly spirit. Do not let your name be profaned through us, and do not make us the subject of gossip among all your creatures, and do not let our end be for destruction, and do not let our hope end in disappointment, and do not let us be dependent on the benevolence of flesh and blood, and do not give our livelihood into the hands of flesh and blood, for their benevolence is limited and their intolerance is great. And set our portion in your Torah with those who do your will. Build your house, your temple, your city, and your sanctuary quickly and in our days.’” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  רבי חייא בר ווא מצלי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו שתתן בלבינו לעשות תשובה שלימה לפניך שלא נבוש מאבותינו לעולם הבא

  Rabbi Hiyya bar Vava prayed, “May it be your will, O Lord our God and the God of our fathers, that you will set our hearts to do complete repentance before you so that we will not be ashamed before our fathers in the world to come.” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  ר′ תנחום בר איסבלוסטיקא מצלי ויהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתשבור ותשבית עולו של יצר הרע מלבינו שכך בראתנו לעשות רצונך ואנו חייבים לעשות רצונך את חפץ ואנו חפצים ומי מעכב שאור שבעיסה גלוי וידוע לפניך שאין בנו כח לעמוד בו אלא יר″מ ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתשביתהו מעלינו ותכניעהו ונעשה רצונך כרצוננו בלבב שלם

  Rabbi Tanhum bar Isbalostika prayed, “And may it be your will, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that you will break the yoke of the evil inclination and cause it to cease from our hearts, for you created us to do your will and we are obligated to do your will. You desire it and we desire it and who prevents it? The yeast in the dough. It is revealed and known before you that we have not the strength to stand against it, but let it be your will, O Lord my God and God of my fathers that you will cause it to cease from us and that you will subdue it so that we may do your will as our own will with a whole heart.” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  ר′ יוחנן הוה מצלי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתשכן בפוריינו אהבה ואחוה שלום וריעות ותצליח סופינו אחרית ותקוה ותרבה גבולנו בתלמידים ונשיש בחלקינו בג″ע ותקנינו לב טוב וחבר טוב ונשכים ונמצא ייחול לבבינו ותבא לפניך קורת נפשינו לטובה

  Rabbi Yohanan would pray, “May it be your will, O Lord my God and God of my fathers, that you will cause love and brotherhood, peace and neighborliness to dwell in our lot, and make our final end and hope succeed, and increase our borders with disciples, and may we rejoice in our portion in the Garden of Eden, and confirm us with a good heart and good friend and possessions and may we find the desire of our hearts and may [our petition for] the satisfaction of our souls come before you for your approval.” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  אמר רבי אבון לאל שחלק לי דיעה ומעשה טוב

  Rabbi Abun said, “[I give thanks] to God who apportioned to me understanding and good deeds.” (y. Ber. 4:2 [33a])

  רבי אלעזר בתר דמסיים צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שתשכן בפורינו אהבה ואחוה ושלום וריעות ותרבה גבולנו בתלמידים ותצליח סופנו אחרית ותקוה ותשים חלקנו בגן עדן ותקננו בחבר טוב ויצר טוב בעולמך ונשכים ונמצא יחול לבבנו ליראה את שמך ותבא לפניך קורת נפשנו לטובה

  Rabbi Eleazar upon concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that you would cause love and brotherhood, peace and neighborliness to dwell in our lot, and increase our borders with disciples and make our final end and hope succeed, and set our portion in the Garden of Eden, and confirm us with a good companion and a good inclination in your world, and may we rise early and find what our heart longs for: to fear your name, and may [our petition for] the satisfaction of our souls come before you for your approval.” (b. Ber. 16b)

  רבי יוחנן בתר דמסיים צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שתציץ בבשתנו ותביט ברעתנו ותתלבש ברחמיך ותתכסה בעזך ותתעטף בחסידותך ותתאזר בחנינותך ותבא לפניך מדת טובך וענותנותך

  Rabbi Yohanan on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that you will look on our shame, and see our evil condition, and clothe yourself in your compassion, and cover yourself in your strength, and wrap yourself in your lovingkindness, and gird yourself with your graciousness, and let the attribute of your goodness and gentleness come before you.” (b. Ber. 16b)

  רבי זירא בתר דמסיים צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שלא נחטא ולא נבוש ולא נכלם מאבותינו

  Rabbi Zera on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that we not sin or shame or disgrace ourselves before our fathers.” (b. Ber. 16b)

  רבי חייא בתר דמצלי אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שתהא תורתך אומנותנו ואל ידוה לבנו ואל יחשכו עינינו

  Rabbi Hiyya on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that your Torah will be our occupation, and do not let our heart be faint and do not let our eyes be darkened.” (b. Ber. 16b)

  רב בתר צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שתתן לנו חיים ארוכים חיים של שלום חיים של טובה חיים של ברכה חיים של פרנסה חיים של חלוץ עצמות חיים שיש בהם יראת חטא חיים שאין בהם בושה וכלימה חיים של עושר וכבוד חיים שתהא בנו אהבת תורה ויראת שמים חיים שתמלא לנו את כל משאלות לבנו לטובה

  Rav on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that you will give us long life, a life of peace, a life of goodness, a life of blessing, a life that is provided for, a life of bodily vigor, a life that has in it the fear of sin, a life that has no shame or disgrace in it, a life of riches and honor, a life in which the love of Torah and the fear of Heaven will be in us, a life in which you will fulfill all the desires of our heart for good.” (b. Ber. 16b)

  רבי בתר צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו שתצילנו מעזי פנים ומעזות פנים מאדם רע ומפגע רע מיצר רע מחבר רע משכן רע ומשטן המשחית ומדין קשה ומבעל דין קשה בין שהוא בן ברית בין שאינו בן ברית

  Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi] on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God and God of our fathers, that you might deliver us from an impudent person and from impudence, from a bad person, from bad affliction, from the evil inclination, and from the destroying satan, from a difficult judgment and from a difficult opponent in the court, whether he is a son of the covenant or not a son of the covenant.” (b. Ber. 16b)

  רב ספרא בתר צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שתשים שלום בפמליא של מעלה ובפמליא של מטה, ובין התלמידים העוסקים בתורתך בין עוסקין לשמה בין עוסקין שלא לשמה וכל העוסקין שלא לשמה יהי רצון שיהו עוסקין לשמה

  Rav Safra on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that you will establish peace in the family that is above, and in the family that is below, and among the disciples who occupy themselves in your Torah, whether they are occupied with it for its own sake or whether they are not occupied with it for its own sake. But all who are not occupied with it for its own sake, may it be your will that they will come to occupy themselves with it for its own sake.” (b. Ber. 16b-17a)

  רבי אלכסנדרי בתר צלותיה אמר הכי יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהינו שתעמידנו בקרן אורה ואל תעמידנו בקרן חשכה ואל ידוה לבנו ואל יחשכו עינינו

  Rabbi Alechsandri on concluding his prayer said as follows, “May it be your will, O Lord our God, that you will make us stand in a lighted corner, but do not make us stand in a darkened corner, and do not let our heart be faint and do not let our eyes be darkened.” (b. Ber. 17a)

  רבא בתר צלותיה אמר הכי אלהי עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי ועכשיו שנוצרתי כאלו לא נוצרתי עפר אני בחיי קל וחומר במיתתי הרי אני לפניך ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה יהי רצון מלפניך ה′ אלהי שלא אחטא עוד ומה שחטאתי לפניך מרק ברחמיך הרבים אבל לא על ידי יסורין וחלאים רעים

  Raba on concluding his prayer said as follows, “My God, before I was formed I was not fit [to be formed], and now that I have been formed it is as if I had not been formed. I am dust while I am alive, and how much more so in my death. Behold, I am before you like a vessel full of shame and disgrace. May it be your will, O Lord my God, that I not sin again, and blot out what sins I have committed against you in the past in your great compassion, but not by means of suffering and severe illness.” (b. Ber. 17a)

  מר בריה דרבינא כי הוה מסיים צלותיה אמר הכי אלהי נצור לשוני מרע ושפתותי מדבר מרמה ולמקללי נפשי תדום ונפשי כעפר לכל תהיה פתח לבי בתורתך ובמצותיך תרדוף נפשי ותצילני מפגע רע מיצר הרע ומאשה רעה ומכל רעות המתרגשות לבא בעולם וכל החושבים עלי רעה מהרה הפר עצתם וקלקל מחשבותם יהיו לרצון אמרי פי והגיון לבי לפניך ה′ צורי וגואלי

  Mar the son of Rabina on concluding his prayer said as follows, “My God, preserve my tongue from evil and my lips from deceitful words. Toward those who curse me let my soul be silent, and let my soul be like dust to everyone. Open my heart with your Torah, and with your commandments pursue my soul, and rescue me from evil things, and from the evil inclination, and from an evil woman, and from all evils that threaten to come upon the world. And all those who plot evil against me, quickly cancel their plans and frustrate their schemes. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before you, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer!” (b. Ber. 17a)

  For further examples of Jewish private prayers, see Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns, 188-189. ↩

• ^[223] Heinemann, “The Background of Jesus’ Prayer," 81-89, esp. 88. Weinfeld also concluded that the Lord’s Prayer belongs to the category of private prayer. See Moshe Weinfeld, “The Biblical Origins of the Amidah Prayer for Sabbath and Holy Days," in his Normative and Sectarian Judaism in the Second Temple Period (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 137-156, esp. 153-156. ↩
• ^[224] Kittel, “ἀββᾶ,” TDNT, 1:6. On Kittel’s anti-Semitic worldview, see Robert P. Ericksen, “Genocide, Religion, and Gerhard Kittel,” in In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century (ed. Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack; New York: Berghahn, 2001), 62-78. ↩
• ^[225] Ibid. In this quotation Kittel used the word “familiar” in the sense of “informal”; he did not mean to imply that addressing God as “Abba” was commonplace. ↩
• ^[226] Jeremias, Prayers, 97; cf. idem, Theology, 67: “It would have seemed disrespectful, indeed unthinkable, to the sensibilites of Jesus’ contemporaries to address God with this familiar word.” ↩
• ^[227] On the prayer of Joseph in this text, see Eileen M. Schuller, “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 within the Context of Second Temple Prayer,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992): 67-79. ↩
• ^[228] Jeremias, Prayers, 29; cf. idem, Theology, 64. ↩
• ^[229] That Jeremias was aware that his entire argument hinged on the form “Abba” is clear from his statement that “We do not have a single example of God being addressed as ’Abbā in Judaism, but Jesus always addressed God in this way in his prayers” (Theology, 66; emphasis original). ↩
• ^[230] Although Jeremias (Theology, 65) cited the liturgical use of αββα ὁ πατήρ in Rom. 8:15 and Gal. 4:6 as evidence that Jesus himself addressed God as “Abba,” reasoning that “The unusual character of this form of address...shows that it is an echo of the prayer of Jesus,” in neither epistle does Paul attribute this practice to Jesus. According to Jeremias, the “use of an alien Aramaic word in the prayer of the Greek-speaking communities” is “quite striking” and must, therefore, go “back to the example of Jesus” (Prayers, 55). But a few pages later Jeremias demonstrates that “Abba” was not an alien term to many Greek speakers in the east, since several of the church fathers born in well-to-do families “probably growing up under the supervision of Syrian nurses and nurserymaids, report from their own experience that small children used to call their fathers abba” (Prayers, 59-60). In other words, in the east where Greek and Aramaic were both widely spoken, even in Greek-speaking families children called their fathers “Abba.” See Barr, “’Abbā Isn’t Daddy,” 36. If this was the case, then it is unnecessary to appeal to the example of Jesus to explain the use of “Abba” in Greek-speaking congregations. ↩
• ^[231] As Paula Fredriksen wrote, “some scholars have wanted to see in Jesus’ particular use of abba—less formal, more intimate and affectionate than the Hebrew ab—an indication of Jesus’ personal consciousness of his uniquely close relationship with and to God. This interpretation asks abba to bear the burden of later theological developments, which made particular claims about Jesus’ unique metaphysical nature as divine Son.” Fredriksen, From Jesus, 140. Cf. Betz, 374. ↩
• ^[232] See Vermes, Jew, 210-211; Shmuel Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim,” under the subheading “Father-Son Relationship.” ↩
• ^[233] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[234] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩