BV 230 .

C47 1891
Chase, F. H. 1853-1925.
The Lord's prayer in the
early church

THE LOED'S PEAYER
IX

THE

EAELY CHUECH

BY

FREDERIC HENRY CHASE

B.D.

PRINCIPAL OF THE CLEKffY TRAINING SCHOOL
CA.Mnr.IDGE

CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1891
[All Rights reserved]

PRINTED BY

C. J.

CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

TO

JOHN PEILE

LiTT.D.

MASTER OF CHEIST'S COLLEGE

WITH

THE RESPECTFUL AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE
OF
A FORMER PUPIL.

C.

PREFACE.

TN

the following Essay I have treated the Lord's Prayer simply
from the point of view of criticism. Of the sacredness of the
Prayer, both because Christ taught it to His disciples and because
His disciples have used it 'from the first day until now/ I am
-*-

deeply conscious.
outside

the

But

I believe

that no subject however sacred

of the critic who regards
reverence and the endeavour after accuracy as elementary duties.
lies

rightful

province

Besides those obligations to others which are noted in the Essay
from time to time, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to
thank Professor Robertson Smith for answering several questions
as to the exact translation of the Arabic version of Tatian's Dia-

tessaron as to which I have no first-hand knowledge; also the
Rev. R. H. Kennett, Fellow of Queens' College, for valuable criticism in connexion with my references to the Syriac Versions and
for rescuing

portion of
for

my

'

me

a

from some of the perils which are the proverbial
learning '; he is however in no way responsible

little

arguments, conclusions and mistakes.

have given

Several other friends

me

the kindest help in the revision of the proof-sheets;
to them too my hearty thanks are due.

To one other debt

of a wholly different kind I must briefly
In the discussion of the petitions for Daily Bread and
for Deliverance I have treated of subjects previously handled by
allude.

Bishop Lightfoot.
fields of Biblical

For many generations to come workers in those
and Patristic literature, which he had made his

own, will recognise with reverent gratitude two characteristics of
his writings, their suggestiveness and their power of inspiration.

PREFACE.

Viii

the one hand they supply both a fiim foundation and a plan
on the other hand they quicken and invigorate
for future work
It is vain to try to formulate in a brief statement
the worker.

On

;

the manifold debt which the younger generation of students owes
But I venture to hope that this Essay may be an
to the Bishop.
illustration

which

I

however unworthy of

have

tlie

suggestiveness of his work to

referred.

have only to add that this Essay was accepted by the
Divinity Professors as an exercise for the degree of B.D., and that
I

have to thank the Regius Professor for giving me permission to
make a few slight additions and alterations before publication.
I

Christ's College, Cajibridge,
July, 1891.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
PAr.F.S

Introduction: The Church and the Synagogue.

1

— 14

The Synagogue-system adopted by

the Church [1, 2]. Evidence
Synagogue [3, 4]. Hellenistic as
well as Hebrew Synagogues of the Christians [5, 6]. Light thrown
by this on Acts vi. xv. [6, 7]. Bearing on (1) the origin of the
of the Christian use of the term

Synoptic Gospels
the

Church and

[8

its

the position of the Lord's Prayer in

10], (2)

form

original

public Prayers from the

first,

adapted for liturgical use [11

first

taught by Christ, used in

translated from Aramaic into Greek,

14].

Note on the Hellenistic Synagogues.

A.

Probability of Hellenistic

Synagogues

bearing on the persecutions under Nero and Domitian
bility that Christian Liturgies are

— 19

14

(Christian)

Rome;

at

Proba-

[15].

based on Greek Jewish Prayers

[15—19].

Note on the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels.

B.

I.

Our Father which
(1)

The

19

art in heaven.

longer form in St Matthew:

references to

Synoptic Gospels: the reading in the Bidache

[22, 23].

shorter form in St Luke: probable reference to

it

in

it

— 21

22

— 24

2.5

36

in the

(2)

The

Ahha Father

(Mc. Gal. Eom.) [23, 24].

II.

Hallowed be thy name.
(1)

Thy kingdom come

:

Thy kingdom
the reading

come.

iXdhu

to irvevna. crov k.t.X.

:

evidence of Cod. Ev. 604, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, Tertullian
[25
This prayer traced back through the Invocation in the
28].

Liturgies and 'Confirmation' Offices to the Apostohc Laying on of

Hands [28—31].

Vw

in Cod.

(2)

D

Hallowed be thy name:
(Lc. xi. 2) [31].

the

addition

of

Similar phrases in LXX.,
Jewish Prayers, Liturgies, Agathangelus, Bidache, Patristic glosses
i<f>'

[31

35].

Probably a Baptismal prayer [35,

36].

TABLE OF CONTEXTS.
for the

Note on Acta Thomae : evidence as to ancient prayers
Holy Spirit in Baptismal Offices.

A.

B.

Note on some Syrian Baptismal Prayers.

C.

Note on Agathangelus.

Thy

III.

Reminiscences

(1)

Aramaic

'And-let-there-be
earth, as

Give us

IV.

this

The

(1)

variations

N.T.

in

original

thy-wills'

it is

37, 38

(2)

[39,40].

39—41

in heaven.

variations

:

[39J.

yev^aOu,

{y€vr]0Tiru,

The Old Syriac reading
The connexion of 'in
(3)

two preceding petitions

in heaven' with the

it is

[40, 41].

42

day our daily bread.

variations

a-qfiepov,

56s,

8i8ov:

Kad'

to

^'^

38

will be done, in earth, as

yiv^adio):

3*^»

Aramaic word

Titxipav

[42—44].

[42].
(3)

(2)

— 53

The

The word

The original form of
position in the Prayer [44].
This petition
to-us'
give
[45].
of-the-day
'Om--bread
the petition
adapted for morning and for evening use in Hebrew and in
Hellenistic Synagogues [45, 46]. Through such adaptation eTrtoJcrios
its

€Triov<yio%;

represents

Evidence

'

[47_49], Ephrem

And

[49

General result

[52, 53].

V.

which

of-the-day,'

is

also translated by

for this supposed original
51],

Syriac Versions [51,

forgive us our debts, as

Syriac word 'debt'

the Didache

Kal

[55].

Jerome

we

54

forgive our debtors.

— 57

:

aiirol

[55].

and Greek words

The reading

(2)

'forgive '[54, 55];

rijc 6(pei\-!ji> ^ixQv

in

The variations 'our debtors,' 'every one
d<plo,aei',
[56].
(4) The variations ws Kal v/xeh
probable original form 'and we also will

(3)

indebted to us'

is

yap

remit'

52],

'Our debts' (Matt.) the original phrase rather than 'our

(1)

that

47].

in Jas.ii. 15

[53].

sins' (Lc): evidence of (a) Syriac
(6)

trrifiepov [46,

form of the petition

aiplosxiv

:

evidence for this

[56, 57].

Note on Syriac Versions of this clause.
Evidence of Aphraates, compared with that of Tertullian

57

59

[58, 59].

Prof. Marshall's explanation of variation (4) [59].

"VI.

And

60

bring us not into temptation.

The Sj-riac Versions
As to the words

[60].

suggest a possible original 'temptations'
/iij

dffeviyKT]^:

(I)

the Syriac equivalent

•and-do-not make-us-to-enter' connects this prayer with Matt. xxvi.
(H) Two
41, Ac: the elasticity of 'causative' voice [61—63].
the Old Latin texts: (1) ne nos patiaris induci in temptapassages from Augustine a starting point: [a) this gloss

glo.sses in

tionem:

found in Arnobius and Cj-prian (h) also in several MSS. (c) its
temporigin in devotional use implied by Tertullian [63—66]. (2) in
;

;

— 69

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

tationem quani ferre non possttmus

XI

passages from Hilary, Chro-

:

matius, Jerome, Augustine, Pseudo-Augustine [66

Traces of

68].

the former gloss in Dionysius Alex, and Agathangelus [68].
glosses to be traced to liturgical adaptation

from Liturgies of

tion

Note on the form

VII.
1.

But
The

A

:

Both

by quota-

this she\vii

different families [68, 69].

of this clause in the King's

Book.

70

deliver us from the evil one.

prepositions

and

cltto

71

— 167
71

iK after pvecrdai.

—85

The LXX. constructions
after pvea-dai: the constructions of 7^3 and of equivalents iu LXX.
In parallel clauses diro and iK interchanged [75, 76].
[73
75].
Conclusions [76, 77]. (2) pOeaSai and kindred verbs in N.T.


[77 —

priori distinction

[71,

72].

(1)

General conclusion, viz. that dwo and iK are generally

83].

interchangeable, differing only iu shade of meaning [84, 85].
2.

The

and use of 6 irovt)p6$ as applied to Satan.
Growth of conception expressed by the term O.T., exile,
Jewish literature, N.T. [85 89]. (b) meaning of the term 6
origin

(a)

later

85

— 101

:

irovrjpos:

in N.T.

LXX.

origin of word: classical use: in

meaning

of corresponding Ai-amaic

equivalent of yi:

word and use

of Greek
Jewish writings used of supernatural powers of evil
[89—94]. General conclusion [94, 95]. Use of the term in (1) N.T.
(a) Matt., (b) Pauline Epistles, (c) St John (Gospel and Epistle),

word

(d)

itself: in

other passages in some texts [95

Literature

— Barnabas,

97].

Letter of Vienne

(2)

Early Christian

and Lyons, Clem. Horn.,

Clement Alex. [98—101].
Note on the Yetser ha Ra,

The
the

extent of personification

:

Is

(i)

especially Lc. xxii.
(ii)

— 103

103

— 167

103

— 112

112

— 123

tico impulses.

ciTro Tou -irofrjpou masculine or neuter?
Evidence derived from the Gospels.
The Baptism and the Temptation [103—105].
(a)
Lord's Prayer [105—107]. (c) The Ministry and the

3.

101
the relation of the two ways to

28—46, John

xvii.

The

(b)

Passion,

[107—112].

Evidence derived from the Epistles.
2 Thess.

iii.

1

ff.,

2 Cor.

xii.

distinction between an ideal
1 Jn. V. 18

7

f..

Gal.

i.

and an actual

3

f..

Col.

state), 2

i.

Tim.

12
iv.

ff.

(the

16

ff.,

f.

locality in which the Lord's Prayer was given. [J. A. R.]
Evidence derived from early Christian literature.
The twofold value of such evidence [125]. Didache [126, 127],

Note on the

123

(iii)

125

Ep. Clement

[127, 128],

The Ancient Homily,

the relation of Christians to Satan [128
Letter of Vienne and

TertuUian

[133-130],

Lyons

[132],

Cyprian

the Patristic view of

131], Hernias [131, 132],

Clementine Homilies

[136—138],

Origen

[138,

[133],

139],

— 125
— 146

TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Dionysius [130, 140], Peter of Alexandria [140, 141], 'Clementine'
Liturgy [141—144], Cyril of Jerusalem [144, 145]. Summary of
this evidence [146].

Note on the 'Songs' in St Luke's Gospel in relation

A.

to aucient

147—151

Jewish Prayers.
B.

Note on the bearing of some of the Offices and Liturgies on the

interpretation of djr6 rod
(iv)

1^1

Trovrjpov.

^'^*

154—166

Evidence derived from the Early Versions.
The Syriac Versions [154—156]. (b) The Latin Versions
(a)
N.T. classification of MSS.
(2)
O.T. Deut., Job [156—158].

:

(1)

of Gospels [158]

[160—162].

inali(jnus [162

Summary

:

passages in the Gospels [159, 160], in the Epistles

Keview of this evidence and discussion of the word

— 166].

of the

166, 167

whole discussion.

168—176

The Doxology.

VIIT.

The addition

of the

Doxology an instance of

liturgical adapta-

a starting point [168]. Four
elements in doxology, their simplest form [169]. Variation and
elaboration of these elements; ways in which the ancient formula
tion

1

[168].

Chron.

was Christianised
doxologies

[171,

xxix.

[170, 171].
172].

10

f.

Variation as to

The doxology used

at

commencement
close

of

of

prayers,

evidence of Polycarp's
in the Eucharistic service:
Rfartyrdom, Clement, Didache [172, 173]. Variation in the doxThe familiar
ologies attached to the Lord's Prayer [174, 175].
Matt. [175].
of
text
'Syrian'
the
into
received
conflation
form a

especially

The form

of the Prayer in Matt, from its greater fulness in

liturgical use

176].

;

common

hence addition of doxology to this form alone [175,

Summary

[176].

INTRODUCTION.

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
Christianity, absolutely new in its central ideas and aims,
In
employed time-honoured machinery for their furtherance.
itself the most revolutionary force which the world has ever
seen, it effected the greatest upheavals of political, social, and

by conservative methods. It inherited the powers
which were inherent in, or had been won by, Judaism and it
made Judaism a thing of the past.

religious life

;

A

special instance of this general characteristic of Christianity

found in the relation of the Church to the Synagogue. To
the Synagogue system, speaking from a human point of view,
the Church owes it that she outlived the days of her immaturity
and weakness. Here was an organization ready to hand, which
is

she could use and gradually mould after her
of

life.

Here was a network

own higher type

encircling within

its

meshes the

Roman

Empire, by which the Church could draw Gentile
A purely secular historian would not
as well as Jew to herself\
be far wrong were he to trace both the survival and the spread of

whole

the Church, at least during the
to

first

half

century of her

life,

her close alliance with the Synagogue.
Of this system Jerusalem was the centre.

notices exaggerate ^

we may

Even if extant
number of
In some of these

well conclude that the

Synagogues in the Holy City was great.
numerous congregations the Brethren^' after they had learned
'

Gentiles seem to have frequented the Synagogues (Acts xiii. 44, xiv. 1, xviii, 4).
Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah i. p. 119, gives the
references.
The Synagogues in Jerusalem are said to have been upwards of 400.
3 "It is significant that the first title given to the body of believers after the
Ascension is 'the brethren' (Acts i, 15 true text)": Bp Westcott The Epistles of
1

2

C.

1

,'

THE lord's prayer IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

2

to believe in Jesus as the Christ would retain their membership.
That 'the Brethren' did not sever themselves from the Syna,till forced to do so, is plain from
gogues of the Dispersion
'

'

repeated notices in the Acts

(xiii.

44, xviii. 4, 26

f.,

xix. 8).

But, sometimes in consequence of a violent disruption, some-

times because of a sense of growing needs and

powers, union
would gradually give way to an era of modified imitation. If the
number of those who joined the Church as recorded from time
to time in the Acts is even approximately correct, we feel
that it would be necessary, apart from external influences, to
organise some separate system of worship and fellowship.
How
else could so large a multitude be welded together ?
In the

main outline the course of events
the repetition of what had

St Paul

at Corinth

the worship of the Jewish Synagogue.

which made separation necessary.

met

At length a

Henceforth

in a private house close to the Synagogue.

was,

At Corinth

some considerable time took a prominent part

for

of St Paul

was probably only

occurred elsewhere \

'

crisis

in

came

the Brethren

But the presence

and of Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue,

we may

suppose, a sufficient guarantee that the worship in

the house of Titius Justus would be modelled after the ancient

This natural conjecture finds considerable confirmation

pattern.

when we turn

to the picture of Christian worship at Corinth

drawn by St Paul in his First Epistle to that Church.
Hence there would arise at Jerusalem in very early times
Synagogues of the Brethren

The wealthier converts, such as
'

St John p. 126. See especially Acts xv. 23, ivhere Mr Page's correction of R.V.
('The Apostles and Elders, brethren to the brethren...') is obviously necessary;

and the use of the word (pi.\a5€\(pia. I have therefore used the
term to denote the Christians in the early Apostolic times.
But it is important to notice that even this phrase is a witness to the Jewish associations
Comp. Matt. v. 47, Acts xxii. 5 (even after his conversion
of the early Church.
1 Cor. V. 11, ix. 5,

St Paul can say ^TrtoroXdy de^d/xevos
xxviii. 21,
1

It

Eom.

iiropivS/jirjif)

would but seldom happen that a whole Synagogue, as apparently at

Beroea (Acts
2

irpos tovs d5e###BOT_TEXT###lt;povs eij Aa/jLacrKhv

ix. 3.

xvii.

10

f.),

became Christianised.

Since writing this, I have noticed with relief that this was

"As soon

Bp

Lightfoot's

Church rendered
some organization necessary, it would form a 'synagogue' of its own." He too
appeals to traces of the Christian use of the word ffvvayuyyri.
view (Philippiam p. 190):

as the expansion of the

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.

Mary the mother

of

John Mark, would

3

naturally offer their

homes

as the places of meeting.

The

lingering traces of the Christian use of the word a-vva-

appeal to one line of evidence alone, attest this early

'ywyrj, to

We

stage of the Church's development.

geographical position would

James

(ii.

1

is

fif.)

find

old associations or

be likely to retain the term.

expressly appealing to those

of our Lord Jesus Christ,'

them, as we should

who through

expect, in the writings of those

when he draws

'

who

the contrasted pictures

of the gay dandy and the squalid beggar coming
gogue.'
9)

iii.

St

hold the faith

'

into your syna-

somewhat later date, St John (Apoc. ii. 9,
inveighs against the Synagogue of Satan,' it is surely

When,

at a

'

that he wishes to disparage the term
His phrase 'the throne of Satan' (ii. 13)

a mistake to conclude

Synagogue in

itself

does not preclude him from speaking of the throne of God.' If
he condemns 'the deep things of Satan' (ii. 24), another Apostle
of the divine riches of
dwells on the thought of
the depth
wisdom and knowledge (Rom. xi. 33, 1 Cor. ii. 10; so Ep. Clem. 11
ra ^dOr] rrj'^ 6eia<i jvooaecofi).
The Synagogue of Satan is a
spurious imitation of a true Synagogue on the part of spurious
Jews, 'which say that they are Jews, and they are not, but do
'

'

'

'

'

The parody implies the

lie.'

original.

the great Syrian martyr writes to
'yw'^ai

Early in the next century

Polycarp TrvKvorepov <xvva-

'yiveaOwaav (Ignatius Ep. ad Polycarpum

Late in the

4).

.same century another teacher of Antioch, Theophilus, uses the

same term^.

In Benjamin's prophecy of St Paul in the Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs
ea-rat

iv

avvaycoyat^

it

iOvcov^.

said

is

The

version supplies a proof that at a

1

On

Cf. Iren.

the other
^

iii.

vi.

1

hand note

De

Theophilus ad Autol.

ii.

rwv alwvwv

Jerusalem Syriac
later time among Catholic

so-called

much

Hi autem sunt Ecclesia.
Tert.

avvre\€ia<i

eitu?

Haec enim

est

synagoga Dei.

Spectac. xxv, (de ecclesia Dei in diaholi ecclesiam).

14 (diduKev 6 Oeos

But

rip Kba/n^ KVfiaLi'o/j.^v(i}...Ta,i crvva-

remembered that Theophilus
addressing a heathen friend and that the word avvaydjyrj was used of the
religious assemblies of the Pagans (see Harnack's note on Hermas Mand. xi. 9,
ycoyds, Xeyo/j^va^ d^ eKKXrjfflas ayla^).

it is

to be

is

a note which contains a large collection of passages).
In Levi 11, Ben. 11 {5i8ovi ry (rwayor/y tQv kQvdv) the reference is rather to
0. T. usage (e.g. Ex. xii. 3, 6, 47; Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 11).
On the Testaments
''

see below p. 87.

1—2

''

THE lord's prayer IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

4

Christians in the neighbourhood of Palestine the word Synagogue

In regard to the Ebionites we have the express
(xxx. 18), a-wa'yoi'yrjv ovtoi KaXovcriv
Epiphanius
statement of
rrjv eavTcov iicKKTjcrLav koX ou%l eKKXTjcriav^.

was

still

in use\

The
But
inscriptions have now
Unlike the Jews at

From the East we turn to the capital of
number of the Jews in Rome is a commonplace

the West.

of history.

and the study of
and colour to the picture.
Alexandria who formed a political corporation, the Jews in Rome
were divided into many separate religious communities [avvaywyai), taking their name sometimes from distinguished patrons
archaeological researches

added

detail

Synagogue of the Augustesians,' sometimes from the
Hence
locality as 'the Synagogue of the Siburesians' (Subura)^
a special importance attaches to the use of the word Synagogue
'the

as

*

by two Christian writers of the second century, who speak to us
from Rome. Justin (Dial. 287 b) uses the phrase, toU ek avrov
TTiarevovaiv, w? ovai fiid "^v^f) kul fiia avvaywyy /cat fxia

Hermas (Mand.

iKK\T](Tia.

orav ovv ekOrj
yooyriv

6 avOpwiro'i 6

xi.

corap.

9,

14) writes

13,

e^cov ro irvevfia to detov

el<i

thus,
crvva-

BLKaLa)v...Kal evT€V^L<; yevrjTai Trpo? rov Oedv rrj^

dvhpwv

avvaycoyrji; rcov avhpu)V eKeivonv k.t.X.

Thus among Catholic Christians
sectaries widely scattered, in the

century,

among Ebionite

in Syria,

Roman Church

we have evidence that the word

of the second

avvaytoyij survived

witness to an almost forgotten stage of Christian

to

and

life

worship.

The Church then

in the earliest

days of the

faith, as far

as

concerned her discipline and her worship, may be described as
an association of Synagogues, gradually multiplying as she gained

new

territory for her Master,

1

'

setzt.

So wird auch im Ev. Hier. eKKX-qaia dureh ^<^t^'^JD d. h. Sijnagoge UberDas Buch finden wir ira Gebrauch katholischer Christen Ostpalastinas

(Zahn Forschungen, Tatian^s Diatessaron
-

div.

Comp.
ii.

vol.

p. 335).

the inscriptions given in Schiirer The Jeicish
ii.

pp.

6-t,

People Eng. Trans,

Subsequent references to Schiirer, unless

69.

it is

otherwise

stated, are to this volume.
3

div.

p.

Schiirer p. 247
i.

379

vol.
f.

i.

p. 32

f.

f. ;

for

Jewish cemeteries at or near

Compare Merivale Hist, of

the

Rome

Romans

see p. 240, also

vi.

p.

428

f.,

vii.

:

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
But

5

at this point there comes into light a fact of far-reaching

Of the Jews at Jerusalem there were two classes, the
Hebrews and the Hellenists (Acts ix. 29 avue^rjret 7rp6<; rov'i
'E\r)VL(TTa<i).
The former would naturally constitute the larger
body.
Among the latter would be numbered Jews of the Dispersion, who either were visiting the Mother City at the time of the
importance.

Festivals (Acts

ii.

5

ff), or, like

Saul of Tarsus, had some reason

Book of the Acts (vi. 9), conhere by independent authority, informs us that
the Hellenists had Synagogues of their own at Jerusalem \ It is
for settling there.

firmed as

Further, the

is

it

natural that no special mention should be made of 'the Synagogues of the Hebrews at Jerusalem, for there they were necessarily the prevailing type.
At Rome, on the other hand, where
'

Hellenists would vastly preponderate, a notice

is

preserved of a

Synagogue of Hebrews' (a-vvaycoyrj Al^picovy.
Over and above a general divergence of tone which would
separate the two classes of worshippers, a special point of difference
would be the use of Greek in the Synagogues of the Hellenists
"R. Levi Bar Chajothah went to Caesarea and heard them
'

pnD^;3lbX ]^^^
Greeky."

pnp

reciting their

'Shemaa

Hellenisticallij

[i.e.

in

suppose that a custom which prevailed among the Hellenists elsewhere would be abjured by those
at Jerusalem, where the presence of pilgrims from the Dispersion
in all parts of the world would render it most necessary. There is,
It

is

difficult to

1 Lightfoot [Horae Hebr. on Acts vi.
9) quotes the Hieros. Megilla (fol. 73. 4)
as speaking of the Synagogue of the Alexandrians at Jerusalem.
Commentators

differ

gogue

number

as to the

commentators
is

(e.g.

meant

are referred to

;

;

of synagogues implied in Acts vi. 9.

Calvin, Beza),

Meyer,

Wendt

Mr

Some

of the older

later Wieseler, hold that but

like Vitringa (p. 253)

and Schiirer

one Syna-

thinks that five
and Niisgen hold that the language requires but two, that

of the Libertines, Cyrenians

Asia.

and

Page, separating

(p. 57),

and Alexandrians, and that of those of Cilicia and
the Libertines, supposes that three Synagogues are

off

Nosgen in loc. refers to talmudische Angaben uber
Synagogen unter den 480 Jerusalems {Meglll. E. 73, 4 u. 6.).'

mentioned.

'

drei hellenistische

Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9909 referred to by Schiirer, p. 248.
Lightfoot Horae Hebr. on Lc. x. 27.
On the use of Greek in the worship
of the Dispersion see Schiirer, p. 283 with reff., Edersheim Life and Times i.
pp.
Schiirer (p. 284) writes, 'The Rabbinical authorities in Palestine ex30, 446.
pressly sanctioned the use of any language whatever in repeating the Shemah,
the
2

3

Shemoneh Esreh and the
p. 50.

grace at meals.'

Comp. Neubauer

in Studia Biblica

i

THE lord's PUAYER

6

THE EARLY CHURCH.

IX

however, so far as I know, no direct evidence as to the usage in
this matter of the Hellenistic Synagogues at Jerusalem.

But if this twofold division of Synagogues existed at Jerusalem
among the Jews, would not a similar division reappear among
Would there not spring up Synagogues of the
the Brethren ?
Hellenistic, as well as Synagogues of the Hebrew 'Brethren'? To
'

'

the latter there would naturally join themselves the 'great company of the priests' who became 'obedient to the faith' (Acts vi. 7),

and those

'

of the sect of the Pharisees

the former, those

who were

who

believed

'

(xv. 5)

;

to

attracted by the teaching of St Stephen,

and at a later time the converts of Barnabas and Saul of Tarsus,
as well as some of those ancient disciples who were won on the
day of Pentecost.

Church at Jerusalem a hypothetical
Directly the Church began to expand, 'there arose a murone.
muring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews' (Acts vi. 1).
Almsgiving was specially connected with the Synagogue system',
and to suppose that 'the daily ministration' was a part of
that system as it had been transplanted and as it developed

Nor

among
ture.

is

this picture of the

'the Brethren' would be no violently improbable conjecBut however that may be, the whole tone of the history

was no private quarrel, but a public
dispute which threatened a disruption of the Church. All becomes
intelligible at once if in the disputants we recognise two congregations or two groups of congregations, each with a home and an

makes

it

clear that this

organization of
rising

spirit

its

own.

of disunion.

The Apostles dealt boldly with
They 'called the multitude of

disciples (to rrXr]do<; tcov nadrjTwv) unto them,'

all,

that

is,

this

the

with-

out distinction of party.
It is probably true that

th

line of

cleavage between 'the

'the lliethren' of the Hellenistic Syna-

Brethren' of the Hebrew and
gogues does not exactly coincide with that which separated those
that were 'of the circumcision' from the more liberal section of the
Jewish Christians, but the two lines cannot have been far apart.
211 f.,
Lightfoot Horae Hebr. on Matt. vi. 1 f., Vitringa de Synagoga pp.
of alms
Scbiirer p. 66 (' It was in the Synagogues that the collection
made by at least
took place. According to the Mishna the coUection was to be
1

809

ff.,

two, the distribution by three per.sons').

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
The two

probable throws

much

am

to,

on the disputes and the
and were connected with, the

It explains individual expressions in the

Conference at Jerusalem.

irav to ttX^^o? (xv. 12, comp.

TrapeyivovTo ol Trpea-^vrepoi), crvv oXrj
accounts, as

it

the

endeavouring to make

light, as I believe,

tangled negotiations which led up

vi. 2,

rfj

18

xxi.

eKKXtjaia

7rdvTe<; re

22).

{v.

It

seems to me, for the reference to the Mosaic law in

the condensed report of St James' speech.
of the Pharisaic party (xv. 5) was,

*

The twofold demand

It is needful to circumcise

To

them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.'

demand St James had a

fold

And

principles of classification are closely related.

view of the Apostolic Church which I

narrative

7

twofold answer.

On

this two-

the one hand,

circumcision was not to be insisted on, though the Gentiles should

On

be asked to make certain reasonable concessions.
hand,

all

the other

that was valuable in their requirements as to the Mosaic

Moses was not likely to be
For Moses from generations of old hath in every city
neglected.
them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues [i.e. in the
law was substantially secured already.
'

public worship of the Jews and the Christians alike} every sabbath

Again,

(xv. 21).

names

if

a conclusion can be safely drawn from the

of the envoys (xv. 22), Judas

surnamed Barsabbas repre-

sented the Hebrews, Silas the Hellenists.
the organized influence of

was enlisted on

'

men bound

this side or

on that

Lastly, the fact that

together by

made

common

worship

this crisis in a doctrinal

dispute a matter of grave difficulty and danger, as at an earlier

time

had embittered a question of administration.
may look for an explanation of the
that in the first century relations of our Lord were chosen as
it

In the same direction we
fact

Bishops of the Church at Jerusalem. The claim to reverence
which these men had rose above any title to authority which was
based on pre-eminence either among the Hebrews or the Hellenists.
Such an appointment was a victory for neither section of
the Church'.

The

Hellenistic (Christian) Synagogues, fortified

St Paul and by the alliance
^

Hegesippus (Eus. U. E.

Kvpiov Sevrepov.

(Eus.

H. E.

iii.

iv. 22),

Compare what
20).

the

first

by the work of
Jews of the

of the Christian

d.ve\j/ibv

6vTa toO

same writer says of the grandsons

of Jude

'Zv^uwv...tv irpoldevTO iravres

prayer

TFIE lord's

8

IN

THE EARLY CHURCH.

Dispersion and then of Gentile converts, gradually

From

selves the supremacy.

the very

won

first theirs, it

to themwould seem,

had been the greater enlightenment and vigour. And as time
went'on and the old things of worship and of organization passed

away and became new, they were merged in the life of the Catholic
Church of the second century, for which they had prepared the
way'.

The main elements
adhesion, that

its

among

is,

in this

to the

the Christian

'

view of the early Apostolic Church,

Synagogue system and the

Brethren,' as

among

and of Hellenistic Synagogues, may, I venture
as historically certain.

existence'

the Jews, of
to think,

Hebrew

be taken

I pass on to indicate the bearing of these

on the question of the origin of the Synoptic
Gospels, and secondly on the problem of the original form of the

conclusions

first

Lord's Prayer.
1.

In the Synagogues of 'the Brethren' the personal followers

of Christ, and especially the Apostles, would bear their witness to

His Resurrection and would
teaching and His

tell

what they remembered of His

This personal testimony would at least

life.

form an important part of each X0709 irapaKkrjaewi (Acts xiii. 15,
note especially Hebr. xiii. 22). The lessons from the Law and the
Prophets must have had an honoured place in the Christian as in
the Jewish Synagogues, and

the exhortation would often be
upon
some
prophetic
saying
or some ancient type"''.
The
based
analogy of the apostolic speeches and sermons preserved in sub'

'

stance in the Acts bears out these statements.

To

these Xoyoi, irapaKKrjcreoj'i in the Christian Synagogues

must look

for

the

first

beginnings of the Gospels.

we

In them the

sayings of the Lord would be brought together for the purposes of

immediate
Passion,

A

at the

^

See note

-

Such surely

Antioch

The

edification.

history of His birth, His work. His

His Resurrection, would be linked with the ancient

is

6 dio% rod

end of the Chapter.

the explanation of the opening words of St Paul's speech at

\aou tovtov

the section of the Prophets

{v.

(xiii. 17).

The tovtov must refer to some words in
Compare Luke iv. 18—21. To take

15) just read.

TOVTOV as deictic (Page) or as referring back to avSpa ^la-parfKhai (Wendt) gives a

very poor sense.

The point

credibility of the Acts.

is

important in

its

bearing on the souixes

and the

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.

9

prophecies.
And as among the Jews the Synagogues were closely
connected with the Schools of the Scribes, so among the early disciples the more public teaching of the assembly would be repeated
and brought home in catechetical instruction. Thus in the very
first

days of the Church different types of an oral Gospel would be

in process of formation.

But

in

two other ways the needs created by

this

system of

Christian Synagogues tended, I cannot doubt, to the growth of
the Gospels as we have them now.

In the first place translation would be necessary.
In the
Synagogues of the Hebrew Disciples the recital of the Lord's
words and the story of His life would be in Aramaic. But when
transplanted to the Hellenistic Synagogues, the same recital and
the same story would have to assume a Greek dress. And the
obvious desirability of making the one version a substantial

equivalent of the other would tend to generate in both languages
fixed types of apostolic tradition.
At the same time it is quite
possible that through this necessary intercourse with the Hellenists the Hebrew Apostles and teachers may have
gained that
power over the Greek language which surprises us, for example, in
the Epistle of St James.
In the second place, may not the origin of written Gospels be

at least in part traceable to the

same set of circumstances ? When
a decree of the Mother Church, and when Apostolic letters, were
read in the Christian assemblies, when further the Apostles and
the earliest witnesses became scattered and it might therefore seem
wise to compensate for their absence by some representation
of
many would take in hand to draw up a narrative
concerning those things which had been fulfilled.' In this
their teaching,

'

way

the story of Christ's

and teaching would pass from the ###BOT_TEXT###709
irapaickr]a€w<; to find a place alongside the lessons from
the Law
and the Prophets, and thus would gradually, even in the lifetime
of the Apostles, attain to something of scriptural authority\
Here
Comp. Acts

1

{if

\(ry(i>

XX. 35 {/ivrj/iove^eiv re tQiv yuv tou Kvpiov

Kvpiov),

SUra^eu), 1

Tim.

1 Cor. vii.
v.

...eis

10 {oCx eyw

18 (yei yap

ipydTr]^ Tov ixLudov avTov).
IMivov

life

t]

ypa4>r]

aWA

6 Kvpio^),

'Ii]<toO),

1 Thess. iv. 15

1 Cor. ix.

BoOv aXo^ura ov

^t/iticrety,

14

(5

K^pios

kuI 'A^ios 6

In Eom. xvi. 25 f. {Kara d.TroKdXvi'iy fiviTrrjplov... (reffcyr,.
tpavepud^TOi d^ vvv did re ypacpQv Trpo(prjnKQi> Kar' iTriTayvf
tov alwlov deoD
vdvTa TO. m-q yvupKTdivTos) I cannot but think that the
reference is to the

THE lord's prayer IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

10

we get a side light on portions of the Apostolic Epistles. As
Clement of Rome incorporates in his letter to the Corinthian
Church a prayer which a comparison of his language with that of
too

the ancient liturgies shews to be the substance of a form which
as the presiding elder he used in the worship of the Church, so
there

is

much

Synagogue

striking characteristic of this Epistle

What

KvpiaKa.

St James preserves for us
And a most
addresses.

to lead us to think that

in his Epistle portions of his

is

is

true of this Epistle

Such

other Apostolic Epistles.

that

it is

built

rio-orous

of Xo'yia

references, or possible references,

in the Epistles to the Lord's words need careful

examination before any

up

true in a less degree of

is

and

collection

real progress can be

made towards

the solution of the Synoptic question \
The adoption of the Synagogue system in the early Church
has an intimate connexion with the composition of the written

But it is not of itself a sufficient explanation. It is but
Gospels.
one among many influences. In truth a key of many wards is
needed to fit the complicated lock of the Synoptic problem. We
shall probably be moving along the lines which will lead to a
settlement of the question, so far as a settlement is possible, when
we recognise the converging forces of both Aramaic and Greek
oral tradition, of Aramaic and Greek written memoranda, and of
these as they would find a place in the Synagogues of the
Brethren,' in catechetical instruction, and in missionary activity^
'

all

For compare

writings of Christian Prophets.
e9vCov...Ka.Ta oiiroKaXvypiv iyvupl(r0r)
TTjv aiivealv /xov iv

tQ

/j,oi

to

(1)

ixvffT-l]pi.ov

Eph.

ill.

..Mvaade

1—9

(vTr^p vfiuv

avayi.vdj<TKOvTe^

tQv

vorjirai

toO x/^ictoD, 6...vvv direKa\v(p9r] rois aylois diroffroXoLS
rt'j i) oiKovopla tov pivcT-qplov rod

fivffTrjplq)

airrov Kal irpo4>rfraL% iv irv€vixaTL...<pUTlaai. [Trdi'TOs]
dTTOKiKpviJiiJ^i'ov K.T.X.)

;

(2) Tit.

iv KrjpvyiMaTi 5 iin(XTevdr]v

iyw

i.

2

/car'

f.

(77V

eTrr)yyd\aTo...e(pavipu)(xeu 8i...Tbv

iiriTayrjv toO (TUTrjpoi

r)/xu3v

6eoO).

Uyov

Such a

avrov
refer-

ence would be especially in point at the close of the Roman Epistle.
1 See note B at the end of the Chapter.
' Mr A. Wright's singularly fresh and independent though incomplete essay

{The Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890) emphasises one important factor,
catechetical instruction.

To what strange

results a one-sided theory

may

viz.

lead

is

seen in the results attained by Eesch in his articles Der Quellenbcricht ilber die
ff., 75 ff.).
avdXvi^ii des Herrn (Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft 1889 pp. 18

Here

is

his

iS^D^'h

'

Hebraischer Urtext,*
nc'?.i

in'N

nVsrn

Such a theory may be
(The

Common

Tradition p.

-"in^aN-bssi vn'ViX-^^

safely left to

xi.).

:^:w^ ^T??

pair with

°D'.^?^ ^^-1

Dr Abbott's telegram theory

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.

From

2.

11

the larger problem of the Synoptic Gospels I turn

to another question, closely connected yet not identical with
viz.,

it,

the position of the Lord's Prayer in the Apostolic Church and

the bearing of this upon

its original

The two Evangelists who

form.

record the Prayer connect

different occasions in our Lord's ministry.

it

with

St Matthew represents

our Lord as Himself of His own accord teaching this form of
prayer to His disciples in the audience of the crowds (Matt.
vii.

28

f.).

St Luke

us that the Lord gave

tells

it

to

privately in answer to the request of one of them,

His
*

vi. 9,

disciples

Lord, teach

us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.'
general questions, there seems in this case to
tially

Apart from
be nothing essen-

improbable in the repetition of the same form'.

evidence confirms the report of the Evangelists.

St

Internal

Luke

(v.

33)

preserves a notice which has the support of the other Synoptists
(Matt.

Mc.

ix. 14,

ii.

18)

:

oi /xaOrjTal ^Icodvov vriarevovaLV TrvKva

Here then lay the point of the disciples'
request.
But the Lord had no esoteric elaborate teaching on
He gave His disciples privately the same simple
this matter.
form which He had already given them in the audience of the
Kol Setjaea iroiovvjai.

crowds*.

As the

occasions described by the two Evangelists

differ, so

do also the versions of the Prayer which they respectively give.
That contained in St Luke's Gospel diverges from that contained
in St Matthew's both in regard to the length of the Prayer
and in the wording of the clauses which are common to both
Gospels.
1 Our Lord thus would be simply following the usual custom of Jewish teachers.
The Prophets, the Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse supply many instances

of such repetitions.
^

Mr Page on

the other

hand

{Critical Notes on the Lord'it Prayer, Expositor,

a single prayer delivered by Jesus to
His disciples may be related by two historians in two different shapes and as
delivered under different circumstances.' His arguments are, I think, met by the
remarks in the text above. At the same time I believe that it would be contrary
to analogy to suppose that the longer and the shorter forms belong respectively
Both the Evangelists record how the Lord's Prayer was
to the two occasions.
both give a form current when they wrote. On the
delivered to the Disciples
question whether St Luke has inserted in the Prayer phraseology of his own,

3rd Series, vol.

vii. p.

433

ff.)

;

see below, pp. 42

ff.

thinks that

'

THE lord's prayer

12

When we come

THE EARLY CHURCH.

IN

what the original form of the
Prayer was, it is needful to remember that the term original is
here relative rather than absolute. For in the period which
enquire

to

intervened between the occasion when our Lord first taught the
Prayer and the time when the Evangelists gave it a place in the
Gospels,

it

and had already entered
On the one hand it is
day of Pentecost the
before
the
that
suppose

had passed through one

upon the second stage of
unreasonable to

Apostles did not use

when the number

it

its

stage,

history.

privately

among

of the Disciples began to increase,

over into the Synagogue worship of the Church.
eludes our grasp.

On the

themselves.

It

is

The

it

other,

passed

first

stage

the second only that our investigation

can touch.

In connexion with the use of

the

Lord's

Prayer

in

the

Christian Synagogues the following points must be noticed.

Our Lord

(1)

the

first

(Matt.

left

three

commands which would mould from

the worship of the Church:

vi. 9),

ovTco<;...'7rpocr€v)(^6a-9e

v/jl€i<;

Xa/Sere, (})dyere...'7rieTe i^ avrov Trdpref; (Matt. xxvi.

We

28), fia6r)TevaaT€...^a7rrL^ovT€(; (Matt, xxviii. 19).

the last two were obeyed.

Converts were baptised

;

know

that

the Eucharist

was celebrated. The indications that the other injunction was
observed from the earliest days are less obvious and direct, but
when brought together they are very cogent. For over and above
the a priori probability, that if the Disciples met for Synagogue
worship, they would use the Prayer which their Master had
bequeathed to them, there

are, as I

the several clauses of the Prayer,

hope to shew in dealing with

many

allusions to its petitions in

the Apostolic writings, allusions which become quite intelligible if
we assume that the Prayer was in constant public use. Again, the

hypothesis of this early liturgical use explains various points in
the language both of the Prayer as
additions to

it

we have

it

which have been preserved.

and of certain
this view

Lastly,

In the

exactly harmonises with the evidence of the Didache.

Pray ye
but as the Lord
as the hypocrites
not,' it is said (ch. viii.),
commanded in His Gospel, so pray ye.' The Lord's Prayer is
then given in the fuller form recorded by St Matthew, with two

Didache the Lord's Prayer holds a prominent

position.

'

'

;

variations

of text

and with the addition of a doxology.

The

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
direction

appended

is

'

Thrice a day in this

last direction links the Lord's

13

way pray

This

ye.'

Prayer with the Jewish hours of

prayer, morning, afternoon, and evening; hours which were observed

by

religious

Jews

in private and, at least

on certain days,

in the

That the Apostles kept the
hours of prayer we know from the Acts (iii. 1, x. 9). Moreover
the Didachd (eh. x.) preserves to us a remarkable eucharistic
formula which is closely connected with certain clauses of the
Lord's Prayer. Such a reference to the Lord's Prayer implies that
it had been itself for some time an essential part of the Church's
public worship of the Synagogue^

liturgy.

It

(2)

may,

I think,

favour of this view.

be taken for^ceriain that the Prayer was

A

originally in Aramaic.

'priori probabilities are

two forms found

especially in the tenses used in the

and in probable

allusions to the

'J'he

New

details of this evidence

appear in the discussion of the several

Aramaic form was the

in the Gospels

Prayer in other parts of the

Testament, find an easy explanation.
will

very strongly in

Further, on this supposition the variations,

original,

the

clauses.

existence

of

But

if

the

Hellenistic

congregations among the Disciples at Jerusalem would necessitate

from the very

Synagogues of
is

first

a translation

'

the Prayer into

of

Prayer would have

Further, the

a

the Brethren' both

liturgical

Hebrew and

clear then that the Prayer holds a position of

reference to the circumstances of

its

history

Greek.
in

Hellenistic.
its

the
It

own, and in

transmission stands apart

from the rest of the matter contained in the Synoptic Gospels.
One other point under this head remains. It is this. From the
earliest days after Pentecost the faith would be planted in places

more or
1

"Thus

and on

less distant

by missionaries and others coming from the

the regular Synagogue-services would gradually arise ;

feast- or fast-days, then

first,

on Sabbaths

same hours as, and with
the worship of the Temple. The services on

on ordinary days,

at the

a sort of internal correspondence to,
Mondays and Thursdays were special, these being the ordinary market-days, when
the country-people came into the towns.... Accordingly, Monday and Thursday

were called 'the days of congregation' or 'Synagogue' (^Yom ha-Kenisah)" (Eders-

heim Life and Times i. p. 432). On the Jewish hours of prayer and their early
date comp. Lightfoot Horae Hebr. on Acts iii. 1, Vitringa de Synagoga Vetere
pp. 42

f.,

1062

S.,

on the Didache

Schurer

viii. 3.

p. 85.

For early Christian custom

see Harnack's note

THE lord's prayer

14

IN

THE EARLY CHURCH.

These teachers would bring with them the
Lord's Prayer in the form which it had reached at the time of
Afterwards liturgical
their departure from the Mother Church.
changes might be made in the Prayer both in the Mother Church

Church at Jerusalem.

and in the daughter Churches. But this at least is plain, that
when at a later time a version of the Gospels was made in the
language of a daughter Church, the Lord's Prayer would stand

There would be a current

outside the simple work of translation.

form already sanctioned by long devotional use, a form which the
translator could not neglect or forget,

subject

it

to a literary revision

translation of the Gospels.

Thus

may yield

criticism of a Version

though of course he might

when he incorporated
it

is

it

in his

always possible that the

evidence as to the original form of

the Lord's Prayer.

The Disciples would only be following Synagogue usage if
a fixed prayer for use on particular occasions, either
adapted
they
by alteration, or by addition*. This principle of adaptation, as it
will appear, I trust, in the succeeding investigation, was applied in
(3)

three directions.

By means

(i)

of substituted or added clauses the Prayer was

adapted for use at the Laying on of hands and perhaps at Baptism.
By alterations in the petition for daily bread the Prayer
(ii)

was made suitable
(iii)

was

By

for

morning and evening

use.

the accretion of varying forms of Doxology the Prayer

fitted especially for Eucharistic use.

Note on the Hellenistic Synagogues

A.

(see p. 8).

We have speaking evidence

not only for the Jewish parentage of Christian
but also in reference to the operation of translation and
adaptation, in the sections of the Didache which deal with worship (see
liturgical forms,

1 'We have
much personal

evidence that, in the time of our Lord, and even later, there was
liberty left

;

for,

not only was

much

in the services

determined by

the usage of each place, but the leader of the devotions might preface the regular
service

by

free prayer, or

beim Life and Times

i.

msert such between certain parts of the liturgy' (Eders438 with ref. to Zunz Gottesd. Vortr. d, Jud. p. 368 f.,

p.

liitus des gyn. Gottesd. p. 2

f.).

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE,
Dr Taylor The

15

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Lecture li.) and in the
The intimate acquaintance

Epistle of Clement of Rome, especially 58

fi".

with the Lxx. shewn in this Epistle proves the writer to be a Hellenist

; the
worship of the Chiu*ch over which he presides is in Greek, but it is based on
Jewish prayers and benedictions (see Bp Lightfoot Clement, 1890, i. p. 392 flf.).
The Church at Rome, the very early date of whose foundation is implied
by its size and importance when St Paul wrote his Roman Epistle, and
which was at first predominantly Jewish, had not as yet wholly passed beyond
the stage in which the Christian Brethren formed a Hellenistic Synagogue,
or group of Synagogues (on the Jewish Synagogues at Rome see Schurer
'

'

If the Church at least to some extent still pre247 see above p. 4).
sented this aspect to the Pagan world of Rome, we have perhaps the clue
p.

;

and Jews in Tacitus' account of the
Neronian persecution {Ann. xv. 44). The first batch of those arrested, who
gave information which led to the arrest of the multitude ingens,' may well
have been Jews (comp. Merivale History of the Romans vi. 448 f.). These, if
the Christians formed a schismatic Synagogue, would naturally have full
knowledge about them, and would be ready enough to implicate them. "With
this Clement's insistence on jealousy as the cause of the persecution
harmonises (c. 6). Further, of this 'great company' Tacitus says, 'baud
to the partial confusion of Christians

'

peiinde in crimine incendii

quam

omnes

alios

Again,

if

humani

odio

what he says elsewhere
hostile odium' (comp. Juv.

this is exactly

we turn

generis convicti simt.'

But

{Hist. v. 5) of the Jews, 'adversus
xiv.

103 with Prof Mayor's note).

to Domitian's onslaught, during, or

immediately after,
which Clement's letter was written, we have a similar notice. How natural
does Dion Cassius' account of the emperor's cruelty towards Flavins Clemens,
Domitilla and others become (Ixvii. 14 iirrjvfx^r] Se a^K^oiv tyKkrjfxa ddeoTtjros,
rjs

v(f>

if

Kcii

aXXot (s ra tu>v

we suppose

lovSaicov edrj e^oKeXKotn-fs TroXXot kut eh iKa<T Brier av),

this charge of

adopting Jewish customs to be connected with

the Synagogue worship of the Church at

Rome*

?

Still

further, in the

Hellenistic associations of its earliest days (and old associations in the

matter of worship are tenacious and wide in their influence), we may see in
part the reason why the primitive Church of Rome was mainly Greek, and
why its literature remained Greek till the third century. There is indeed an
interesting parallel between the relations of Christian Hebrew and Hellenistic
Synagogues at Jerusalem and on the other hand the presence of Greek and
Latin elements in the Roman Church, the gradual transition of a Greek into
a Latin Church, and the survival of liturgical relics of the former, e.g. in the

Kyrie

eleison^.

There
1

is

a question of considerable interest which seems to

Compare Sueton.

Doiait. 12,

Ad quem

me

to be

deferebantur, qui vel inprofessi Judaicam

viverent vitam.
2

Doubtless originally a Greek Jewish liturgical formula based on the

Is. xxxiii. 2, Ps. cxxii. 3, vi. 3, ix. 14,

&c.

i^xx.

of

:;

THE lord's prayer

16

IN

THE EARLY CHURCH.

suggested by the liturgical element in Clement's Epistle, when it is viewed in
connexion with the theory which I have put forward of the Christian Syna-

gogue worship of the Church at Rome and elsewhere. Bp Lightfoot {Clement i.
394 f.) points out a series of parallels between the letter of Clement and
the first two and the last two of the eighteen Jewish benedictions, the Shemoneh Esreh. Now it seems clear that the language employed by the Jews at
Rome in their worship was commonly Greek, the Rabbinical authorities in
Palestine expressly sanctioning the use of any language whatever in repeating
the Shemah, the Shemoneh Esreh' (see Schlirer p. 283 f). Is Clement's
Greek representation of the Hebrew formulas his own or that of the Christian congregation at Rome, or on the other hand is it based on the Greek
version of the Hebrew liturgy current in the Jewish (Hellenistic) Synagogues
p.

'

Rome,

based on the Lxx. 1 Bishop Lightfoot does not hint
seems to follow necessarily on the results of his investiPossibly a mintite examination of the points of resemblance between
gation.
/SClement and the early Liturgies might reveal their common origin in Greek
Such a comparison, however, would require a critical textual
ft Jewish Prayers.
'
study of the Litiu-gies. But can anything be gained from a comparison of
Clement with the Didache ? The two documents seem to be quite independent
at

itself largely

at the question, but

it

A comparison is difficult, partly because the liturgical fragments

of each other.

though distinct, are scanty; partly because the liturgical element
Didache is mainly eucharistic, that in Clement mainly intercessory. The
two documents, if they draw from the same stream, draw from it at different
in the Didachd,

in the

points of
(1)

The following resemblances, however,

its course.

Compare Didachd

Clem. 61 6

fxovos

in reference to

4 Trpo iravroiv

x.

hwaros

God

is

jvoifj<jai,ravTa...cro\

Ps. xxiv. 8, Zeph.
(2)

Compare

17

iii.

Did.

Does the Didachd give the

to be noted.

phrase which Clement adapts
(

?

The word

= 113!!);

is

so used in Lc.

Ps. Ixxxix. 9

(

= |''Dn)

;

.

. .

.blbas rois

Kpdrap $f6s occurs in Clem.

59 TO

2,

tSiv

v'loli

32, 62

croi...VTrfp

TOV dylov ovojxaTos

Clem. 58

viraKov(Ta>p.ev ovv

vaxT(tip.fv TrtTToidoTfs fVi

is

liturgical

(o

dvdpaTTav

(tov,

orv,

k.t.X.

Clement

(3)

With

60 av,

The phrase o navro-

Did.

x.

comp. 64

2 (vxapicrTovfifv

ov KaTfaKijvcoa-as iv Tois Kapbiais

rw navayio)

(a)

bicnroTa, eSoJKa?. ..trv

6 TravTeTroTrrrjs beanoTrjs in 55,

;

dp)(fy6t'ov nacrrjs KTicrfas ovofid aov.

impression given

i.

3 av, bia-rroTa -navroKpaTop, eKTiaas ra iravra heKa tov

x.

Kvpif, T^v olKovp.€vr]v (KTiaas,.. .vai, SfcrnoTa, (Tri(})avov. -61

(b)

49

^waros)
comp. Job xxxvi. 5.

ovofiaros aov, Tpo(f)^v re Ka\ ttotov eddxas rols dvdpcoTTois with

yap, heoTTora inovpavu

are worth noting.

on hwarhs et (rv with
i^o^o\oyovyi(6a. The use of Swaros

ev)(api(TTovfj.(v aoi

^p-cov

with

koi eVSo^o) ovofiari avTov.. tva Karaa-Kt]-

Here the

TO ocnaTaTov r^r p.(yaK(x}(Tvvr]i avTov ovop.a.

that Clement has in his

mind some liturgical phrase which

he adapts and amplifies. If so, the phrase given in the Didacht^ and implied
in Clement may be derived from a common source in (a) a Jewish formula,

O) a Jewish formula
checked in deciding
aov [Did.
TOV

fj-y.

Christianised, (y) a purely Christian formula.

for (a)

ix. 2, 3, x. 2, (3)]

n.

by a comparison

with Sia tov

aov (Clem. 59)

;

.so

of the phrase 8id

ijyanrjfifvov

'I?jo-oC

We

naibos avrov 'L Xp., 8ih

Mart. Po/i/c. 14 'L X.

dyaTrrjTov

are

tov iraiSos
*I.

Xp.

aov naiboi.

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
Lastly

(4)

ovv,

Tjntis

take the tangled question of the quotation in Clem. 34 koi
ofJLOVoiq eVi to avTo
(rvvax^$(VT€s tj) crvvdSj^crfi, us e^ fvbs

I

(V

OTOfiaros

^orjaeofxev

/xf-ynXcuj/

Koi eVSo^cui'

OVK

ovs

17

fVt

Cor.

1

to

(Is

ovk

dudpconov

ii.

^^as yfvecrdai

fifTo^ovs

X/yet yap 'O0^aX/iOf

avrov.

Kaph'iav

Comp.

vTTOfxivova-iv avTov.

fKrtucis

eVayyeXttoi/

Ka\

TjKOvcrev,

avrov

irpos

Bp

9.

avi^rj,

ocra

rfrolfiacrev

Lightfoot {Clement

Ka\

toIs

390

p.

i.

t(ov

dStv

ovk

n.)

was not wholly satisfied with the explanation which is content with tracing
these words to Is. Ixiv. 4, Ixv. 16, 17.
'Still the phenomenon in St
Clement,' so he wrote, 'suggests that in one form or other

had a place

it

in early liturgical services, for indeed its liturgical appropriateness

suggest

its

introduction

;

and, considering

its

would
connexion as quoted by Clement

here, it is probiible that he himself so used it.'
May not a solution of the
question be found in the supposition that the quotation in St Paul, Clement,
and others is from some Greeh (Jewish) Liturgical formula? The difficulty

method

of St Paul's

of citation is not great, for the yiypanrai

by

is justified

the oblique reference to Isaiah, on which indeed the liturgical formula,

if it

be

be remembered that in one and the same
Epistle St Paul introduces alike a passage of Scriptm-e and a Christian Hymn
with the formula X/yet (Eph. iv. 8, v. 14 comp. Hebr. i. 7). Again, a reference
such,

Further,

based.

is

will

it

:

to Isaiah hardly explains the language of

1

Cor.

ii.

9

;

and

for the a...

ocra...

have the appearance of lieing the rough edges of a direct quotation torn from
its context (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16 S? e^avepadr)...), rough edges which elsewhere
(e.g. in Clement) are smoothed down.
It remains to state briefly some arguments which appear to support the theory of a Greek (Jewish) liturgical
origin,

The quotation

(i)

Agrapha
traditions

and

Mart. Polyc.
tate (18)

;

icith

variations occurs very widely (see Resch

pp. 102, 281), often in writings in which there are traces of Jewish
associations, e.g. in Ep. Clement,

2,

Apostolic Constitutions

'The Ancient Homily' 11 (14),
Pseudo-Athan. de Virgini-

(vii. 32),

(i. 9) and Acta Thomae
what Gnostic sect Hegesippus

to this list Ep. Pseudo-Clem, de Virginitate

(36) should

perhaps be added.

It is not clear

The

(see Phot. Bibl. 232) refers to as using these words.

to

have had Jewish

affinities,

heretic Justin seems

Valentinus to have had considerable knowledge

both of these heretics, if we are to believe Hippolytus
these words i. (ii) The notion of the kingdom
thus Clem. Protrept. x. 94
is in several references linked with the words
after the word avf^rj adds koi xapija'avrai eVt Tjj /SacrtXfi'a rov Kvpiov avTciv els
of Jewish opinions
{Refut. v. 24, 26, 27

;

;

vi. 24), vised

;

Toiis aloivaf dp.i^v.

XapijaovToi iv

ttj

Apost. Constit.
jSatrtXeta

tov deov

vii.
.

32 after

to'is

Agathangelus

gives the closing words of a confessor's prayer thus
arjv

^aaiXdav

r]v

7rpot]Toip.a(Tas ft? rfjv i^fiertpav

o(f)daXpos OVK etSec, koi ovs ovk 7]kov(T(v, Ka\

:

eV?fyaye? au ^^'iv Ka\

bo^av npo tov

eTrl

adds Ka\
below pp. 32, 38),

ayairaxriv avTov

(31, see

tov

^v

Kapdlav dvOpcimov ovk dve^rj,

tjv

^ If Dr
Salmon's theory in his art. on the Cross-references in
phumena' (Hermathena v. p. 389) be true, Hippolytus' evidence

the
is

'

Philoso-

probably

worthless.

C.

ttiv

Kucrp-ov,

etVat

^

THE lord's prayer IX THE EARLY CHURCH.

18

Ka\ vvv dwafis, bfanora, rols i^yaTrrjKoaiv to navayiov crov ovofxa Koi rfjv irapovaiav
Toil

(Tov

fiovoyevovt

2 Tim.

(cf.

iv.

Such prayers, as I shall have
embedded in them ancient

18).

8,

occasion to notice later on, sometimes have

Probably

liturgical fragments.

it is

so here.

It is

worth noticing in passing

that both in Clement and in Agathaugelus in the previous contest the

mention of the Divine
we turn to the Didache

(x. 5),

(Tvva^ov^ avTrji>

(Tov...Ka.\

^adiXfinv

riv

dno

we have

of angels

the prayer

is

prominent.

When

t^s eKKkrja-ias

fiurjadTjTi, Kvpie,

tuiv rfacrapoiv avefiuv, ttjv ar^iacrdficrav (Is ttjv afjv

Here

aCrj].

i^Toifiacras

agrees with the

and of the hosts

will

will be noticed that the last clause

it

clause of the excerpt from Agathangelus and contains

first

which is common
words of the Didache
and of Agathangelus are to be traced to Matt. xxv. 34 K\T}povofj.j]aaT€ rqv
But it is perhaps more probable that the
i^Toip.a(Tp.€vr]v vplv ^aaikdav.
wording in this latter case as well as in the two former passages is to be

kingdom' the key- word

in connexion with 'the

to several of these passages

referred to

some

-.

liturgical phrase,

The
7,

latter is suggested

Lament,

by

(o 8e aTi(f>avos eaTai rot j vTrop.(vov(n).

(the

life

1

'

Compare Did.

TT)v ay]v

iravTa%
Sia

kingdom) ov

^aaiXelav,
i]/J.5.s

7rai5ox

ix.

3

Is, Ixiv.

(rot?

The former

but also in Jas.

(17

j) «7r;jyyciXaro to'is dyaTircocnv

9,

4 oifrw <TvvaxOT)TU3 aov

elaayayeTv [ev] ry avrov
'iva

-rj

eKKKijaia

(see above) a-waxO^vres,
X'^P'''"'

'''''

i.

'I.

14

vi.

avruv,

the crown of
compare 2 Tim. iv.

1 2, ii.

awb tQv

5

'

-n-eparuv r^s 755^

Mart. Pohjc. 20 tw

Scopeq. els ttjv iwcvpai'ioi'

ffwayayr] 6 Kvpios

/cd/xe

Zech.

dyanaaiv qvtov) occurs in

{to7s

Cor.

ii.

vnopivovanv fXeov), also by

vrropevova-iv avTov),

1

Ep. Clem. 34

avrov, 22

well be that both were sanc-

that in fact they were alternative

;

25 (dyados Kvpios toU

iii.

the N. T. not only in

may

It

tioned by Hellenistic liturgical usage

Ps. Ixviii.

Lastly, there are the expressions toIj

(iii)

ayoTiuxTiv avrov, toIs vTronevovaif avrou.

phrases.

r/roi'/xaa-as-,

It is possible that the

X. p-era

rCov

eU

5e Swajxiixj

avrov ^acriKeiaf

€K\eKr(Lv

avrov,

(Hammond p. 22) iravTas ijp^as eTT{.<xvvayayi eh rr^v rwv ovpaviZv
^aaCKeiav, Lit. of St James (Hammond p. 26, Swaiuson p. 218), and (Hammond p.
46 = Syriac p. 76, Swainson p. 301 = Syriac p. 342) tTrKTwdyuv tjp.S.s vird tovs irodas
Ttav eK\€Kr(2u aov. Lit. of St Basil (Hammond p. 120, Swainson pp. 84, 164) roin
Clementine Liturgy

The source

iaKopiriap-ivovs iiri<rvmyay€.

of the Eighteen Benedictions,
i(s

together

'

from the four corners of

gatherest the outcasts of

Thy

of these prayers

is

the earth.

Blessed art Thou,

passages in the Lxx. as Deut. xxx. 4 edf y

et's

tj

Siaawopa aov

tQv reaadpojv imp'uyojv t^s 7^?,

rbv rbirov tu e^€\e^a/j.r]v KaraaKijvij a at to

double coincidence with Did.

Lord,

who

But the Greek representation thus
the Hellenistic Synagogues, founded on such
dir^

aKpov rod ovpavov sKeWev avva^ei ae 6 Kvpios, Ps. cvi. 47, cxlvii.

elad^w avroi/s

and gather

people Israel.'

widely spread must be that current in

airapp.ivov% 'Io(55a avva^et ck

doubtless the tenth

Set up a standard to collect our captives,

ix. x.),

Zech.

ii.

6

e/c

aKpov roO ovpavov ?ws
2, Is. xi.

12 rovs Su-

xlix. 5, Iii. 12,
ovofia. fiov

Neh.

fVei (note

i.

9

the

ruv reaaapwn avipnov tov ovpavov

Compare Matt. xxiv. 31, John xi. 52, 2 Thess. ii. 1.
- For this connexion compare e.g. 1 Sam. xiii. 13, 1 Chron. xvii. 11, 2 Chron.
The word occurs also (though in a somewhat different conxii. 1, Is. xxx. 33.
nexion) iu Marl. Pulgc. 14, which is clearly a valuable liturgical fragment.
avva^w

v/xas,

2 Mace.

i.

27,

ii.

18.

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
8 (nacTiv Tols

context in

rjyaTrrjKoai.

all

on the 0.

T.,

Ps.

20;

cxlv.

t^v ini^avaav avrov, comp. Agath. quoted above).

these passages

would explain

all

9 6

vii.

comp. Ps.

common

very similar, and a

is

the phenomena.

Deut.

19

This phrase also would be ultimately based

(fiv\acrcra>u...T\fos

cxix.

The

liturgical source

165,

cxxii.

dyanucriv avrov (V3nX7),

ro'ts

If the

6.

original

setting resembled the First of the Eighteen benedictions,

'

liturgical

Blessed art Thou,

Lord our God and the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
rememberest the good deeds of the fathers and sendest a redeemer unto their sons' sons,' the phrase might be a reminiscence of Isaiah
Jacob... who

xli.

8 ('3nX
I

am

Dm^X,

content

if

LXX. 'A^paajji ov

probable that patient investigation
forms^, and

litiu-gical

TjyaTTrja-a),

somewhat lengthy

this

me

gives

if it

may

2 Chron. XX.

discussion

7.

makes

it

in

any degree

disinter fragments of Greel- Jewish

the opportunity of expressing the belief

that the residts of such an investigation would throw an unexpected light

New

on many passages of the

Testament, and on the literature and

of

life

the Early Church (compare below p. 147).

Note on the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic

B.

Gospels

(see p. 10).

Marshall of Manchester (Expositor, July, 1890) points out 'six well
cases in which St Ptiul directly or indirectly quotes from
words of the Lord Jesus which are contained in our present Gospels.'
Prof.

established

'

In three of the six instances,' he maintains,

the variation between St
capable of explanation on the hypothesis that
translation of a common original, written in the

Paul and the Evangelist
they give

a variant

'

is

Palestine.'
The article, which the writer has followed up
with others on the Aramaic Gospel, is most suggestive.
As the matter is closely connected with the subject of this Essay,
1 add the following coincidences with the text of our Gospels in the

language of

Pauline Epistles-:
1

(1)

Thess.

Comp.

nytov.

i.

Lc.

6

yfvoiifvrjs 8e dXi-^ecos
1

(2)
1

1 Jn.

Thess.

8(^dfJ.ei>oi

13

viii.

ii.

|i

Mc.
15

f.

rbv yov (V

/xera

Iv. 17.

rau

dXlylrei

'lovSaicov,

tQ>v

Comp. Dr Swainson The Greek Liturgies
ii.

2,

noXK^

fiera x^P^^s TTPfVfiaTos

x^P^^ 8exoin-ai rov \('>yov. Matt.
Also comp. 1 Thess. ii. 13 with Lc.
tov

kui

Kvpiov

xiii.

21

viii. 11.

airoKTeivavrav

Dr Westcott, in a note on
has quoted a remarkable passage from Philo De Monarchia ii. 6, which
p. xl.,

'

suggests that the prayers virep evKpaala's dipwv, o/x^pwu eifnjviKQv k.t.X. (St Chrys.
p. Ill, St James pp. 251, 287) may have originated in Jewish usage.'
But the

prayers in the Alexandrian Synagogues would be in Greek.
reference becomes a hint

which may prove

fruitful.

A

Hence Dr Swainson's

liturgical scholar familiar

with Philo might very probably recover large portions of the Greek Jewish Prayers.
Compare the discussion below of the doxology at the close of the Lord's Prayer.
-

Davidson, Introduction (Ed. 2, 1882) p. 441, has a somewhat similar table of
which however I have not consulted.

parallels,

2—2

THE lord's prayer IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

20
Koi

'irjaovu

xxiii.

32

(v.

7rXr;pcocrerf)

1.

rav

Thess.

1

(3)

(Apoc.

(fiov(v(TavT<i)v

rovs

(h

opyr]

i;

TTpo(f)i]Tas

npos

Comp. Matt.

t(\os.

vfxds liKrjpaaare

koi

orro

<^i'^r;rf

Kpidfua

rrji

Vfiat 7rpo(p']Tas. .f^ avTutv anoKT(U(7T(...Kai Siw^fTf.
.

2 otSarf oti Tjp.(pa Kvpiov <os KXenTrji iv vvktl ovrcof ep)(eTai

V.

2 Pet.

3,

iii.

avroiii

to p.(Tpov rav iraTipav vp.a)v...nun

TTji yffi/i/Tjr;. ..dTrofjreXXoj

to avaTT^rjpaxrai avrcov

eK8io}^avTO}v...fi.s

^fias

de (ir

f(f)dacrfi/

viol eVrt

flf.

Koi

7rpo0rfraj

Toiii

ras ofiaprias iravTOTf.

Comp. Matt.

10).

iii.

xxiv. 42

ovk

nola vi^fpa

otSare

n KVpios vp.a)V tpT(€Tai. .yivcocrK€Tf oti el j]8€i...Trolq (pvXax^ o AcXeVTijf epxefai.
.

9 T€Kva

(f)(M)T6i).

1

The.s.s.

(5)

Comp.

v/xe'is

vio\ (^mtos eVrf koi viol rjpLtpai (E])h.

Lc. xvi. 8 toih vloi/s tov (^wroy (Jn.

Comp. Mc.

14 tlpijvevfTe iv favTo7s.

V.

xii. 36).

50

ix.

(IprjufvfTf

dW^Xoii.

€u

Thess.

1

(6)
1

yap

The.ss. V. 5 Trdvres

1

(4)
V.

Pet.

2 Thess.

(7)

Lc. XX. 35

15 opart p^ Tit kukov dvT\ kokov

V.

Comp. Matt.

9).

iii.

ft:,

Lc.

vi.

ds to KaTa^KodfjvaL

5

i.

44

v.

27

(Rom.

tiv\ nTToSoi

Xll.

v/ids ttjs ^acriKtlai tov dtov.

Comp.

tov aluivoi (Kelvov tvx^Iv Ka\ r^y avn<TTa(Tfa>s

01 KUTa^toiQivTei

1<,

ft".

ttjs

fK vfKpav.

Cor.

1

(8)

Comp.

Lc.

34

vii.

39

X.

tw

pfpippa....(VTrdp(8pou

f.

Kvpla

dntpia-ndaTUiS.

napaKadeaBda-a npos tovs nodas tov Kvpinv...nepi.«nvdTO..,

f.

fiepipvas.

fvBev

Cor.

1

(9)

Matt.

eK(~i

Cor.

3

V.

xi.

20

X.

1

Gal.

(13)

Km

Qt/ia

Rom.

15

f.

vi.

ship in the context

Rom.

Comp.
VTTfp

Lc.

Tav

(17)

Xoyo)

vi.

Se

;(a(poi/Tes,

cos

tttcoxoI
i]pas.

ttoWovs

Comp.

\pi(TTOv.
Comp.
Note the Syriac Versions.
dTrocrTrj ajr epoi:
Comp. Lc. iv. 13

v'lov

avTov iv

Comp. Matt.

xvi.

17 (rap^

11 o Se

(Gal. v. 18).

(16)

Comp.

TOVTm Mern/Sa

oTf be fv86Kr]crfv [6 6f6s'\...d7roKa\v\lrai tov

npoa-avediprjv

Rom. viii.
Comp.

(15)

Kap8la

.

(jj,

navrfs yap avra

^oivTOiv'

op«i

Koi eVifiKt'ny tov

rrpavTTjTos

TTJS

Kai Taneivos tjj

arapKi

OVK dneKoKv^fv aoi dXX' o

(14)

ak\a

i.

ov

pfdicrTavdv.

tw

an avTov.

6 8«d/3oXos' diTi(TT-q

(fiol.. tv6fcos

del

oprj

ipt'iTe

Note the Syriac Version.

xi. 23).

7 f ayyeXos ^aTavd.'.iva

xii.

(SoTf

f.

Bta

29 Trpais dpi
2 Cor.

(12)

vi.

Cor.

2

(11)

Matt.

Mc.

XvTrovpevoi

<os

ttlcttiv

kokkov (TLvdntoiS,

6 6 TrapaKoXatv tovs Taneivovs napfKoKfo-fv

vii.

Lc.

ft".,

10

vi.

5f TrXovTl^ovTis.

Matt.

ex*/^^ ttIcttiv ojs

Koi peTa^qaeTai (xxi. 21,

2

(10)

t^a ndcrav r^f

2 kov

xiii.

20 eav

xvii.

xii.

Ka\

alpuTi.

Trarrjp p.ov 6 iv toIs ovpavols.

f^ Tc3 6e^.

Lc. XX. 38 debs 8e ovk eariv vfKpcov

^cicriv.

yap nvevpaTi 6(ov

14

ocroi

Lc.

iv. 1 rjyfTo

iv

ayovTai, ovtoi vto\ 6(ov

rw nvtvpaTi.

dcrlv

Note the thought of son-

22, iv. 3, 9).

(iii.

14 fvXoydTe

roiis

biuKovTas, (vXoyf'iTf

28 evXoydTe tovs Karapcopivovs vpds.

Matt.

Ka\
V.

prj

KaTapdadt.

44 TvpoaevxecrBe

8icok6vt(ov vpds.

Rom.

TovTco

xiii.

8

ft.

6

yap dymrwv tov (Tepov, vopov

dvaKf(paXaiovTai,

Comp. Matt.

xxii.

37

ft",

TTenXijpu)K(v...iv

tw

dyani^aas Kipiov...

dyanrjaeis tov nXrjalov aov...iv rnvTais Ta7s 8v(t\v tfToXals oXos o vopos KpipaTai
Ka\ 01 7rpo(prJTai.

:

:

THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE.
There are coincidences of thought, and
18 ff., and 1 Cor. vi. 13, viii. 13, Rom.

(18)

in Mc.

vii,

Phil.

(19)

Comp. Matt,
xviii.

8 iraneivuxTev (a\jTov...bLo

ii.

xxiii.

12 oartr ranuvdafi, iavrov

to

some extent of expression,

xiv. 15

flF.

avrov

d(6s

6

Koi

21

vnep\r\r<ji(T(v.

Lc. xiv, 11,

(xviii, 4,

vyl/^coOrja-fTai

14).

Phil.

(20)

core TO

15 ^aiVco-^e us

ii.

Phil. iv. 6

(21)

Comp. Matt.

(f)o)aTrjpfs iv Koa-fia.

14 vnds

V.

rov Kocrpov.

(pcis

Comp. Matt.

[Mfpifivare.

fiT}8ei/

25

vi.

pepifivarf

/xi)

rj}

yj^vxu vfiav (vv. 31, 34).

Tim.

1

(22)
avTols, ov

yap

Tim.

2

(23)

i.

13

on dyvoav

ij\fi]dqu

Comp.

inolrjaa.

Lc. Xxiii. 34 a<^6y

oXbacriv ri Tro(,ov(Tiu.

18

iv.

unique in St Paul.

avrov

/Sao-tXeiac

ttjv

inovpaviov.

t^i/

Equally with St Matthew's

>;

^aa.

The phrase

is

ovpavav

it

tv>v

would represent the Aramaic phrase.

The following coincidences come under a
2 Cor.

(1)

avrav

iii.

15

Comp.

Kf'irai.

diflferent

category

av avayivcianrjTai Mavarji KaXvp.fxa eni

rjvlKa

Lc. xxiv. 32 (Western reading,

D

and

Kaphlav

rfju

d) ov^t n fopSt'a

K(KaKvp,p(vq...<>)i Sirjvoiyev rjpiv ras ypa(}>as;

t]v Tjp,S)V

Rom.

(2)

v.

5

There

is

»)

Tit.

irvfifiaros aylov.

iii.

tov

Col.

ayiov

pov (Acts

Kriad.

tji

Hebr.

{(TatTTjpia),

3f.

rJTis

Tav aKovtravTav

tls

With

nXovalas.

pera to XaX^crai

17), i^fx^^"
x.

..tov

i.

3,

Test.

Ktjpvx&^^TOS

xii.

iv

this coincidence,

avTo'is

ij

28,

ii.

Stopta tov

Patriar. Jud. 24.
Tvacrrj

/cricrei

irrro

rfi

compare the following

i^pas i^e^aiwdrj, (rvvcmpapTvpovvTos

avvfpyovvTos

(v. 33),

the account of the 'Gentile

45,

Barn.

tovto

dpx^v Xa^ovcra XaXdcrdai. 8ia tov Kvpiov,

Ka\ Tepaa-iv xal noiKiKais Swapfcriv,

TOV Kvplov

Kapdiais iqfiav 8ia rov

xvi. 15 n-optvdivrfs els tov Kocrpov .anavra Krjpv^are

TO (vayyiXiov iraarj
ii.

2, 46,

23 TOV (vayy(\iov

i.

ii.

(Acts

fKKfxvTai

Comp. [Mc]

TOV ovpavov.

deoii (icKi)(VTai iv rali

Trvevp,aTos dylov, ov (^€)(f(v e^' ijpas

Comp. Ep. Clem.

Pentecost').
(3)

6

here a reference to the Pentecostal keyword from Joel

(Kx^fa OTTO TOV TTvevp-aTos

nvfvpaTos

tov

ayonrr}

and [Mc]

dv(\i]p(f)dr}...iK(lvoi
/cat

xvi. 19

8e

f.

tov

6eov

vtto

cnjpfiois

6 pev ovv Kvpios

rt

\^lT]crovs^

i^fXdovres iKqpv^av "TravTaxov,

tov yov ^(^aiovvros 8ia tuv irraKoXovdovvrav

(rqpfiav.

must be added those which a study of
Testament reveals (see Resch Agrapha pp.
A rigorous and minute examination of all the coincidences thus
248, 252 f.).
brought together, in connexion with the Syriac Versions and especially with
what is known of Palestinian Aramaic, would be the next necessary step.
Apart from such an investigation no conclusions can be safely drawn. But a
study of the evidence thus collected and sifted would, I cannot but believe,

To

these coincidences there

the other Books of the

New

bring the Synoptic question sensibly nearer to a solution than
present.

it

is

at

I.

nATCp HMOON

6

eN

nAxep

There

oypANOIC (St Matthew).

Tolc

(St Luke).

some independent grounds

are

for

thinking that the

longer and the shorter forms of this clause were both current in

the Apostolic age.

The frequent occurrence

In regard to the longer form.

(1)

in the Synoptists of the phrases o TraTrjp vfxcov 6 ovpdvco'; (Matt.
V.

48, vi. 14, 26, 32,

comp.

xxiii. 9), 6 irarrip /jlov 6 ovpdvLo<;

XV. 13, xviii. 35), 6 irarrjp [6] e^
6 iv Tot9 ovpavoc<; (Matt. vii.
xvi. 17, xviii.

ovpavov (Lc.

21, x. 32, 33, xii.

10 (eV ovpavols), 19

iv Tot9 ovpavols (Matt. v. 16, 45,

(Matt.

xi. 13), o irarijp fiou

50 {iv

ovpavols:),

{iv ovpavol<i), 6 iraTrjp vpicov 6

11,

vi. 1, vii.

shew that such a form of words was

Mc.

specially

Disciples, while the fact that the type o iv (tol<;)

xi.

25) seems to

endeared to the

ovpavoU

is

com-

moner than the type 6 ovpdvio^ is an indication that in St Matthew
we have the original Greek form of the first clause of the Prayer \

Among
vi.

the passages referred to above, the following,

14, xviii. 35,

6 TTUTrjp
vficov),

Mc.

xi.

25 (a^tere

vfiwv 6 iv T0t9

et tl

ovpavol<i

eyere Kara

d^fi

vfilv

Matt,

Xva koX

ra TrapaTTTCo/JLara

are of special importance, for they refer to the petition for

The two phrases

6 ovpauio^

D*DB'2K' and the Syriac

]

.Vo »

and
«-~i

^

6 ev ro?s

ovpavoh equally represent the

The remarks

extent be discounted in view of the fact that both

The

Heavenly Father.

forgiveness as well as to the appeal to the
'

viz.

rLvo<i,

in the text above

IVDK

alone

and

must

Hebrew
some

to

D*05i'3C' 13^3^^ are

found in 'the Jews' Prayer Books' (Dr Taylor Smjimjs of the Jewish Fathers
p. 138).

23

'OUR FATHER WHICH ART IN HEAVEN.'

quoted is the only passage in St Mark in which this name of
God, the Father in Heaven, the Heavenly Father, is found; and
consequently its witness is strongly in favour of the form 6 ev roh

last

ovpavol<; being the current

Greek form of the

clause of the

first

Lord's Prayer.

The Didache (viii.) is, so far as I know, ihe only authority
which preserves a different wording of this form. In place of 6 iv
Toi<; ovpavol^ it has o iv to3 ovpavw.
The variation is slight. In
view of other passages in the Synoptic Gospels \

we have here
original.
The

it is

probable that

Aramaic

a trace of divergent translations of an

fact that iv ovpavot occurs later on in the Prayer

iv rS ovpavw the more obvious expression in
and thus to shew that iv toI<; ovpavoh, as being
obvious, has a better claim to be the original Hellenistic

would seem
the

to

make

first clause,

less

But whatever may be the explanation of the variawhen the Didache was drawn up
the Greek form of the Prayer was not absolutely and finally fixed.
translation.

tion, its existence indicates that

In regard

(2)

Three passages must be

form^

to the shorter

here considered.

aXXa

Kal eXeyev 'AyS/Sa o 7raTTJp...dW^ ov ri iy(o 0e\(o

St Mark

(TV.

tl

xiv. 36.

i^airearetXev 6 ^eo? to irvevpa rov viov avrov et? Td<; Kapoia^
rjp.oov,

Kpd^ov 'A^^d 6 TruT^p.

iXd^CTe
viii.

Gal.

irvevfia viodeala^;, iv

u>

iv. 6.

15.

In each of these passages I believe there
first
1

V.

Comp.

(1)
II

Matt.

Lc.

2

I

16

xviii.

Mc.

xi.

i.

10

22 (plur.)

Mc.

f.

(plur.)

Matt.

(3)

||

it

vii.

Mc.

vi. 41,

In the lxx. the plur.

do not think that

In Lc.

f.,

23 (sing.),

e.g. (1) Matt. xiv. 9,

xiv. 62 (plur.).

where.

iii.

vi.

Matt. xix. 21, Lc.

agreement,

Mc.

is

a reference to the

clause of the Lord's Prayer.

12 (plur.)

(4)

Rom.

Kpd^ofiev 'A/8y3a o iraTrjp.

||

Lc.
11

iii.

21

(plur.)

f.

21

(sing.).

ix.

16 (sing.);

common

xi.

(2)

(2)

2 the Old Latin MSS., a,

i,

ff,

in the Psalms, rare else-

have Pater sancte

Compare John
reading must be traced to a liturgical expansion such as we have
where we read irarep ayu. Compare the Christmas preface to
in the Gallican Liturgy

(Hammond

Baptismal prayer below

p. 37.

.

.

.

is

Matt. xxvi. 64,

occurs in the 0. T. as equivalent to the late

vulgate text) has Pater sancte sanctificetur

Matt.

13 (sing.),

Sometimes there

x.

Lc.
is

(sing.),

Lc.

||

qui...;

mm

(a

Such a
the Didache (x),

xvii.

in

Hebrew

11.

the Lord's Prayer

p. 343, see also pp. Ixxxii, 290),

and the Syrian

THE lord's prayer in the early church.

24

As

to the first of

them two points

call for

notice,

St

(a)

Mark, 'the interpreter' of St Peter, records elsewhere Aramaic
expressions used by Christ raXeiOd Kovfi, '6 icriv fieOepjxrjvevoKop^dv, o icm Awpov
fievov To KopdiTtov, col Xiyco, eyetpe (v. 41)
In
(vii. 11); Xeyec aura) ^K<f><j)add, '6 icrTiv Aiavol^dijTi (vii. 34).
;

these cases St

Mark

connects the Aramaic word and the Greek

equivalent by the phrases, which

The absence
for

by

its

may be

is,

ivhich is being interpreted.

of such a phrase in xiv. 36

may

indeed be accounted

incongruity with the solemnity of the context

;

but

it

better explained by the familiarity of the words 'AyS/3a 6

Trar^p.

The Evangelists seem

(b)

to wish their readers to find in

our Lord's words in the Garden of Gethsemane coincidences with
note
the language of the Lord's Prayer [see pp. 61 f., 108 ff.
Does not
especially jevrjO^Tco to Oekruxd aov (Matt. xxvi. 42)].
;

St Mark's use of the words 'A/3/3a 6 irarrjp harmonise with this
undercurrent of thought

?

The two Pauline passages confirm this suggestion. In neither
of them does the Apostle seem to have the solemn scene in Gethsemane in his thoughts. In both the context breathes a spirit of
Hence this combination occurring independently in
exaltation.
St Mark and in St Paul must be derived from a common source.
Now, if the Lord's Prayer were current in the shorter form, what
more likely than that the initial word of the Prayer as used by the
Hebrew Christians should be coupled with the initial word of a
Hellenistic rendering

initial

words which, like Pater noster, might

be used as a name for the Prayer itself? Further, if we substitute
in St Paul the two words which recall to us the Lord's Prayer
'

God

sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying,

Our

we

cry,

Father,'

'Ye received the

Spirit

of adoption, whereby

Our Father,' the words of the Apostle at once gain, I venture to
They are no longer abstract but
think, new point and vigour.
concrete.

In discussing the next clause I

shall

give another

reason for thinking that the Lord's Prayer was at this point in St
Paul's mind.
It only

remains to point out that in

this case the

word Abba

implies the shorter form as given by St Luke, and cannot be the

word of the longer form; for in a Semitic language the
possessive pronoun Our, if inserted, becomes part of the noun.
initial

:

II.

AriACyHT(0 TO ONOMA COY,
eAOATCio H

BACiAeiA coy.

It will be convenient to consider these two clauses together.

In both of them there occurs a remarkable, though but slightly
attested, variation of reading.

and

cognate,
clauses

way

variations of reading arc

as the evidence in regard to the latter of the two

the consideration of this latter will prepare the

is clearer,

for

As these

a discussion of the former clause.

In a cursive MS. of the Gospels, of which Mr. Hoskier has
full account, the text of which is very remark-

published (1800) a

opening clauses of the Lord's Prayer in St Luke's Gospel
Trdrep' d<yiaa6^ra) to ovofid aov 'EX^erw to Tri/evjxd

able, the

run thus
(Tov

:

TO djiov

e</)'

i^fidq

KoX KadaptaaTQ)

jj/xa?-

<y€vr]6rjT(o k.t.X.

Mr.

Hoskier calls this MS. Cod. Ev. 604 (= 700 Gregory)
Of the petition for the coming of the kingdom Gregory of
'

».

'

Nyssa de Oratione Dominica
r]

Ta^a

Kada)<; Tjfilv vrro

(ed.

Krabinger

tov AovKa to auTO

p.

GO) writes thus

vorjfxa

aa^eoTepov

^aaiXeiav iXdelv d^iojv Trjv tov dyiov irveviTTL^oaTat.
ovtw ^dp ev eVetVw tu> euayjeXto)

ep/xrjveveTat, 6 ttjv
/j,aT0<i

avfx/xa-^lav

?) ^acnXela aov, 'EXdeTco, (f)r]a-L, to dytov
aov e<^' ijP'd^ kol KaOaptadTco rj^id^. A few lines lower
down he adds, o yap AovKd<; p.ev irvevfxa dyiov Xiyei, ^luTdato'i

^rjcrlv,

uvtX tov 'EX^eVco

TTvev/jid

1
Mr. Hoskier gives a photograph of the page of the MS. containing Lc. xi. 1 f.
This important piece of evidence would have escaped my notice but for Dr Hort's

kindness.

THE lord's prayer

26

8e ^acTiXeiav covo/iaaev k.t.X.

He

be consulted.

IX

THE EARLY CHURCH.

Krabiuger's uote

mentions a variant, to

irvevfid

141) should

(p,

aov ro

liyiov, in

the former passage, as having some support.

Maximus, a champion of the orthodox party against the Monocomments thus on
the clause (Mignc P. G. 90 p. 884 f): o yap ivravda ^lardaio'^
thelites in the first half of the seventh century,

<f)y]<7t

^aatXeiav,

aWa-^ov

tcov evayyeXtaTcov erepo^ Trveu/xa KeKXr]-

K6V aycov, <pdaK03v 'EA-^eroj aov to Trvevfxa to ciyiov Kol KadaptadTco

?;/ia?

:

and lower down, ^KXOeTco

TO TTvevfia TO ciycov,
vaoTroii]delcn
iraiKTO),

dXX^

tS
rj

17877

6eu) Bid

iirl

tm t^9
tov

rj

^aaiXeia

irpaoTrjTO'i

eVt TLva ydp

7rv6VfiaT0<;.

top irpdov k.t.X.

crov,

TovTeaTt

Xoyo) re Kal Tpoirw

It thus

(^rjai

KuTa-

appears likely that

Maximus knew of the words e^' ^//ia?, but perhaps by accident did
not give them a place in the petition itself
This evidence, so far as

it

goes,

is

clear to the effect that

a prayer for the Holy Spirit took the place of the petition for the

coming of the kingdom,

A passage, however, from Tertullian (adv. Marc. iv. 26), which
must next be considered, implies that that writer found at any
rate in the text used by Marcion (for otherwise his argument is
pointless), probably in the text common to himself and Marcion,
Cui dicara.
a petition for the Holy Spirit in the Lord's Prayer.
Pater 1 ei qui me omnino non fecit, a quo originem non traho,
an ei qui me faciundo et instruendo generavit? A quo spiritum
sanctum postulem ? A quo muudialis spiritus praestatur, an a quo
'

fiunt

etiam angeli spiritus, cujus et in primordio spiritus super

aquas ferebatur

regem

?

Ejus regnum optabo venire quem nunquam
an in cujus manu etiam corda sunt regum ?

gloriae audivi,

Quis dabit mihi j^anem quotidianumV

Thus

Tertullian, or pos-

one with Cod. 604, with Gregory and Maximus
in witnessing to a petition for the Holy Spirit in the Prayer
but it is substituted for the petition
as given by St Luke
sibly Marcion, is at

;

Hallowed be Thy name V and the prayer for the coming of the
kingdom is retained. Moreover Tertullian gives no evidence as

'

1 Ronsch
{Dan Neiie Test. Tert. p. 640) thinks that the words sanctijicetur
vomen tutim may have had a pLace in the copy from which Tert. quotes, but that
he does not notice them because they give him no handle against his opponent.
But Tert. was too good a debater not to find a controversial use for whatever lay

before him.

THY KIXGDO^[

'HALLOWED BE THY NAME.
to the precise wording of the clause.

works (de Oratione

But another passage

the

in his

4) suggests perplexing questions as to his

He

collocation of the earlier clauses in the Prayer.

arranges

27

COME.'

clauses

thus,

'

Sanctificetur

quite expressly

nomen tuum, Fiat

voluntas tua in coelis et in terra, Veniat regnuni tuum'.'

know

not

that there

of the petitions, and
is

do

I

any other authority for this arrangement
is hard not to feel that, though Tertullian

is
it

here quoting the fuller form of St Matthew's Gospel, this order

connected with the reading which he records

is

At

against Marcion.
to little

But

first

in

the treatise

sight this evidence appears to point

more than a general unsettlement

of the earlier petitions.

further examination reveals, I think, an explanation Avhich

least possible'^

some

Tertullian lays

(or, to anticipate,

stress

is

at

on the interpretation

a possible relic of an addition to the text)

'

ut

With the clause so interpreted he connects
the petition which in his text follows, and on which he gives a similar
gloss,
ut in nobis fiat voluntas Dei in terris.' These two clauses
sanctificetur in nobis.'

'

Sanctijicetai'. .and Fiat voluntas... as explained by Tertullian
on the one hand, and on the other the prayer for the Holy Spirit,
would come to be regarded as very closely allied. Hence the two
former petitions would replace the petition for the Holy Spirit. If

then

.

this interpretation of the evidence of the de Oratione

is

right, it

appears to favour the view that the clause about the Holy Spirit

had a place
1

He

Fiat. ..4.

in

the

expressly says
(6)

MSS. used both by

et dei

Secundum hanc formara subjungimus:
tuum ad id pertinet, quo et Fiat voluntas

(a) Sanctificetur...

Veniat quoque regnum

tua, in nobis scilicet... 5.

tem

regnum... 6.

(c)

(d)

oblatio obseqnii in voluntate,

The Lord's Prayer

Tertullian and by Marcion,

as

Post coelestia, id

est,

Dei honor in Patre,

commemoratio

a whole,

gether, stands thus in the de Oratione

when
:

'

post dei uomeu, dei voluntafidei

testimonium in nomine,

spei in regno... 9.

the detached clauses are brought to-

Pater qui in coelis

es,

Sanctificetur

nomen

tuum, Fiat voluntas tua in coelis et in terra, Veniat regnum tuum, Panem nostrum
quotidianum da nobis hodie, Dimitte nobis debita nostra... Ne nos inducas in
temptationem. Sed devehe nos a male' The omitted clause is implied in the
comment, remittere nos quoque profitemur debitoribus nostris.' See below p. 58.
- The explanation given by Nitzsch, Studien niid Kritiken,
1830, 4 Heft, ji.
846 ff. (quoted by Eonsch iJas Xeue Test. Tert. p. 599), is different. He supposes
that the collocation of clauses, to which Tertullian witnesses, arose for the purpose
of improving in the way partly of purifying, partly of amplifying, a text of St Luke
which Nitzsch represents thus: 'Geheiligt werde dein Name. Zu uns komme
dein heil. Geist und reinige uns. Zu uns komme dein Reich.'
'

THE lord's prayer

28
while

IX

THE EARLY CHURCH.

coiDcides with the evidence of the adversiis Marciuuein as

it

to the position of the clause.

To sum up

;

we get evidence

in favour of the insertion in the

Lord's Prayer of a petition for the Holy Spirit from at least four

MS. of the Gospels, from Gregory a Bishop
Cappadocia (from whom perhaps Maximus bon'owed his information), from Tertullian of Carthage, from Marcion who seems to
have travelled much, and the sources of whose information it is

quarters, from a cursive
in

But the witnesses do not agree as to the
it either for 'Thy kingdom
come or for Hallowed be Thy name.'
To pass from the form to the occasion of this prayer, we shall
impossible to trace.

position of the petition, substituting
'

be able,

'

I think, to trace it back,

through the forms of invocation

connected with the Consecration of the Eucharist, the Anointing,
and the Imposition of hands, to the passages of the Acts which

speak of the Laying on of the Apostles' hands. Indeed the archaic
simplicity of this added clause is best seen when it is compared with
the passages in the Acts, and

when on the other hand

it is

con-

trasted with the formulas in use at a later time, which are, as I

developments of it.
That such a prayer was in use in connexion with the Laying on
of hands is, I think, clear from the following passages, to which
Ordo Romanus (Hitothers of similar import might be added
believe,

^

torp

:

de Divinis Cath. Ecclesiae OJiciis, 1568,

veniens ad infantes elevataet imposita

dat orationem super eos

Then

cum

manu

p.

76)

Pontifex

super capita omnium,

invocatione septiformis gratiae Spiri-

which the prayer before the
Order of Confirmation' is
Augustine de Trinitate xv. 26 (Migne P. L. 42 p. 1093)
based.
Orabant [Apostoli] ut veniret in eos quibus manus imponebant,
non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis praepositis etiam nunc
tus Sancti.

follows a prayer on

imposition of hands in the English

'

Pseudo- Ambrose de Sacram.

servat ecclesia.

iii.

43-i) Post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat

16 p.
catiunem sacerdotis Spiritus Sanctus infunditur.
vii.

44 iav yap

ei/aeySou?

jMr)

tepea)?

et?

2 (Migne F. L.
quando ad invoConstit. Apost.

eKacrrov tovtcov iTTCKXTjcra jevTjrat viro rov

Tocavrrj t4?,

et?

vScop

fxovov KaTafia'i,vet...fieTa

Baptism as taught by the Western
Dr Mason The Relation of Confirmation
Fathers gives the fullest collection of passages; see especially the Appendix on
1

Ancient Western Baptismal Prayers.

to

THY KINGDOM

'HALLOWED BE THY NAME.
TOVTO

ecTT&j? 7rpo(T€vx^ecrd(o rrjv

eu^^f,

Dionysius Alex, (apud Eus. H. E.
Koro's

eOovi

aeco<;

evxv-

cTrt

twu toiovtq)v

iSiSa^ev

o Kvpio's.

T]/j.n<;

2) TraXaiov ye toc KeKpar-q-

vii.

[lovr]

r/v

29

COME.'

y^prjadai

Sid

rfj

'X^eipaiv iiride-

Cyprian Ep. ad Juhaiamtm Quod nunc quo([ue apud

nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur, praepositis ecclesiae

manus impositionein SpiriSanctum consequantur et signaculo dominico consummentur.
Tert. de Bapt. 8 Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem ad-

offerantur, et per nostram orationem ac

tiim

vocans et invitans Spiritum Sanctum.

It will

be noticed that most

of these quotations are from Fathers of the Latin Church, where the

Apostolic custom of the Laying on of hands maintained
It

is

remarkable that the Greek

for

offices

its place.

Baptism and

Yet there

Anointing do not supply any close parallels\

are the

prayers (1) for the sanctification of the water: avTb<; ovv
OpcoTTe

^aaCKev

Trapecro Kal vvv hid Trjq

dyiaaov to vScop tovto: (2)

(jov irvev^aTO'i /cat

for

the sanctification

of the chrism: avro<; evXoyrjcrov Kal tovto to eXaiov

Kal ivepyeia Kal

iiTL(^oLTr}crei

Codex Liturgicus

ii.

tov dylov

pp. 136, 140).

Thus

more obvious resemblances.

;

ttj

crov 7rvev/j.aTo<;

Bvvd/jLei

(Assemani

In the Latin services there are
Tu, Domine, inmitte

:

Spiritum Sanctum tuum Paracletum

formem Spiritum tuum

(})t\dv-

rov dyi'ov

€7ri(f)otT}]cr€(o<;

;

in eos

again, Emitte in eos Septi-

and again, Spiritus Sanctus superveniat
cu.stodiat vos (Assemani
It is however in the Eucharistic offices

vos, et virtus Altissimi .sine peccato

in

Cod. Lit.
that

we

iii. pp. 2, 3, 5).
trace most clearly the expansion of the Apostolic prayer.

Thus, compare

St

Lit.

James (Hammond

p, 38,

Swainson

p.

260)

nvTiKaTaTre/x^p-ov rjjMv Trjv %a/Jiy [add Kal Trjv hwpedv, Swainson]

TOV TravayLov crov

^Xe-^ov i<f

Swainson

109)

p.

dXr]deia<;

Kal \yai,

irvevixaTo^;.

k.tX.

rjfid<i

Lit.

^aaiKev

o

6eo<;

(Hammond

p.

ovpdvie, TrapdKXrjTe, to irvevfia

iXOe Kal aKrjvoiaov ev

7rdcn]<; kt]X18o<;,

Swamson]

of Constantinople
^)ixlv,

Kal KaOdpi.aov

Kal crwaov, dyade, ra? -v^y^^a?

yjfxaiu.

r}p.d<;

eiri-

90,
t/;<?

diro

The probable

lateness of this Liturgy does not affect the importance of the

coincidence with both parts of the petition in Cod. 604.

Similar forms are frequent in the

(Hammond
'

On

p.

42

f.,

Swainson

p.

iTTLKXrja-L^, e.g. Lit.

276 f ) i^airlcTTeiXov

a passage from Acta Thomae see note A,

Prayers see note B,

p. 37.

p.

3G

;

St

James

f^' rjixdq Kal

on some Syrian Baptismal

THE lord's prayer

30

IN

THE EARLY CHURCH.

Bwpa raura

ro Trvevfid aov ro Travayiov to
avTO TO TTvevfid aov TO iravayiov kutu7r€fi\Jrov, Sea-TTOTa, i(f r)fj,d<i Koi eVl to, TrpoKeifieva ayia Scopa tuvtu
Xva iTTLcfyoLTqcrav ttj dyia koI dyadfj koX ivBo^w avTOv irapovaia

eVi

irpoKeifieva ayia

TO.

Kvptov Koi ^cooTTOiov

Similar formulas will be found in

dyidar) k.tX.

Hammond

pp. 28,

48, 104, 111, 114, 178, 187.

of a similar form in the Mozarabic Liturgy

The occurrence

(Hammond

311, Veni Sancte Spiritus, sanctificator, sanctifica

p.

hoc sacrificium de manibus meis
parallel in the Gallican Liturgy

tibi

praeparatum), and of one very

(Hammond p.

315), seems to prove

the antiquity of this prayer for the Spirit in the Eucharistic office

2nd Pfaffian frag, of Irenaeus, Harvey ii. p. 502). Cyril of
Jerusalem (Migne P. G. 33 p. 1089), closely connecting the eVi(cf.

the

Kkrjo-i';

in the Eucharist with that in the rite of Anointing, shews

easily a prayer originally used in the rite of 'Confirmation'

how

might pass into the Liturgy proper.
The following passages must be compared
Ep. Clem. 46
TTvevfia

XpiaTw; See
Barn.

1.

to eK')(ydlv

'^dptro<i

Tr]<;

eva l^piaTov koX ev

also

i(f>'

rjixd<i

koI

;

fjuia

Kkrjcr(,<i

ev

c. 2.

^Xeiru) ev vfitv eKKe'^vfievov aTTO tou irXovaiov t^9

Kupiov Trvevfia e^'

dyd7rr}<;

:

ov'yi eva deov e;^o/iei' koI

rj

The words

v^d'i.

e'^'

after ev

vfj.d'i

They seem to slip in
vfilv imply an allusion to a familiar phrase.
Trvev/Ma.
word
the
with
Matt. iii. 16 Trvevfia 6eov...ipxof^^vov eV avTov (comp. Me. i.
10, Lc.

22, Jn.

iii.

Acts

viii.

i.

yap

TiOea-av Ta^ yetpa?
X.

i.

15 Trpoaijv^avTO

ciyioV ovBeTTCo

Acts

33; Lc.

44

rjv

e'vr'

eV

35, iv. 18).

avTCov ottw?

irepl

Xd^waiv

ovhevX avTU>v eimreirToiKo';

Trvevfia

TOTe

eire-

avTOV^ Ka\ iXdfi^avov irvev^a aytov.

eTreireaev to

Trvevfia to

dycov eVt

7rdvTa<i

Tou<i

aKovovTa'i tov \oyov.

Acts XV, 8
Ka6u)<i

Kol

f.

^eo9 efiapTvpijaev at/rot? Sou<i to vvev/xa to dyiov

7]fiiv

Trj

iricTTei

KaOapLcra^

Ta^

Kaphiwi

avTwv.

Here the coincidence with both parts of the formula given by
Gregory
Acts

will

be noticed.

xix. G Kal eTTidevTO'i avTOL<;

tov TlavXov

')(elpa<i

rjXOev to

TTvevfia TO dyiov eir avTov^.
1

Thess.

iv.

8 ivaXeaev

»5/i«9

6 0e6<;

ev dyia<Tfia>

tov

THV KINGDOM

'HALLOWED BE THY NAME.

Oeov Tov BiSovTa to irvevfia avrov to aytou €t9

XXX vii. 14
Gal.

BaxTQ) irvevfia

iv.

fiov et? V[xa<;

COME.'

31

(comp. Ezek,

vfjbo.'i

kol ^rjaecrOe).

6 i^aTrecTTeiXei' 6 ^eo? to irvevixa tov vlov avrov et? ra'^

KapSia<; rj^oov, Kpa^ov 'A/9/3a o 7raT)]p.

Rom.

viii.

15 iXd^eTe irvev^a

w

vloOecrla'^, iv

Kpd^o/xev 'A^/3a'

Traryjp.

The probable connexion

of the last two passages

Lord's Prayer has been already pointed out, see above

Titus

5 7rv€VfiaT0<; dyiov ov e'^e^^eey

iii.

Peter

1

Compare
change

in

vfidq are

Barn.

1,

Is.

14

xi.

2 dvairaverai

to

tov 6eov Truevfia

avTov

iir

e'^'

p.

TrXovaLw?.
dvairaveTai.

i5/z.a?

tov Oeov.

Tri'evfia

the

f.

The

order by which in the Epistle the words rrvevfia

icf)"

brought together should be taken into account: comp.
quoted above p. 30.

Compare
13, 2

iv.

e'^' jj/ia?

with

23

Tim.

i.

also 1 Cor.

16, 2 Cor.

iii.

i.

22,

Rom.

viii.

9

ff.,

Eph.

i.

14.

We pass to the other clause, Hallowed he Thy mime. In
Luke xi. 2 Codex Bezae reads d'^iaaQi^Tw ovo/xd aov ij) 7]/j,d<;.
The corresponding Latin Version has, 'super nos.' There is no
other evidence that I know of to be derived from any MSS.
The petition thus read is a conflation of two types of phrases
St

found in the Prophets.
8l

ifxe dyidcrovcTL

fiov TO fxeya

:

on the other

ahv K€K](Teco
iraTTjp

eV

7]fi(av...av

bvofxa

aov e(f

Vp^a<;

rjfioiv

On

to 6vo/xd

T^/xa?

Kvpie

rifjbd<i

the one hand
fxov,
Is.

iv.

eaTC...

Is.

xxix. 23

1 (cf. Jer. xiv. 9) to ovofia to

Cl^7y---t<"lp^),

iraT-tjp

we compare

Ezek. xxxvi. 23 d<yi,daw to ovofid

t^/jLcov

Ixiii.

pvaat

vp-d<i,

iyevS/xeda w? to

ovSe eKXrjOr] to ovofid aov

e</)'

16,

^V

7]fj,d<i.

19
avr'

<xv

ynp

el

«p;^^9 to

dp^TJ^;,

ore ovk

In the latter

passage the coincidence with three leading thoughts of the Lord's
Prayer Our Father, Thy name, deliver us is remarkable. The

language of the Old Testament passed into the Synagogue
Prayers and into the Christian Liturgies. Thus in the MorninoService of a modern Jewish Prayer Book, we find the words,
:

lySy Nnpp hmri

^^^

'^

)^;iv)

!):;in

)::hf2 ^J^ax

and the following remarkable coincidence with the Lord's Prayer,

THE lord's prayer in the early church.

32

In the last passage the occurrence of the two prepositions

should be noticed

in parallel clauses

7^

a reason which will

Similar phrases are found in the Christian

appear later on'.
Liturgies,

for

3 ^nd

Compare the

'

(Hammond

Clementine' Liturgy

TO ovofia rod )^pi(TTov crov iTrLtceKkr^rai

A

e'^' T^/io?.

p.

22)

similar phrase

has a marked connexion with other clauses of the Lord's Prayer in
the Embolismus of the Liturgy of St James (Hammond p.
Swainson p. 307), ^la to ovofia aov to ayiov, to eTriKXijOev eirl

4cS,

rrju

rjfxeTepav Taireivcoaiv.

Some

passages in early Christian literature bear on this form

of the petition.

There

is

such a passage in Agathangelus' history of the Con-

Agathangelus, the secretary of Tiridates

version of Armenia-.

king of Armenia, relates at length the story

was at

first

the

the apostle of Armenia in the

how

his

ma.ster

then the patron of Gregory

persecutor and
first

quarter of the fourth century.

Incidentally the book records the history of a body of religious

women who

Rome

from

fled

to

rescue

one of their number

Rhipsima from the foul designs of Diocletian. They fly to
Armenia and there build a nunnery. The fame however of
the beauty of Rhipsima reaches Tiridates and he sends for her
In the prayer which Agathangelus puts into
to the palace.
her mouth at this point of the history
occur the

following

words

Trj<;

fj,ov

eTnKeKXrjrai

fjiov,

Koi irdXiv otl

o

TraytSo^ rov
vfia<;,

i(j>^

To

8iBa^a<i

arofxaTL

Tov'i X6701/9 crov iv T&)

acoOrjuai airo

:

i^ficop,

e')(dpov,

Kal

i5/x.et?

(c.

73

koX
I'va

ed.

Lagarde) there

'rraiSevcra'?

ev

Koi elirwv otl

eare

ovofid fxou dyidaerai

koL

Bov<;

tovtol^ SvvTjOwfxev

va6<;

[sic]

To

ovo/xd

t^9 ^eoTT^ro?

iv Tat<; KUpSiai^;

These extracts are taken from the Authorised Daily Prayer Book. ..Published
Chief Rabbi Dr Nathan Marcus Adler, 1890, pp. CO, 9; comp.
I cannot think that these clauses are modern.
But I
pp. 37, 45, 59, 61, 75.
have not traced the words in the different groups of the Jewish Prayer Books. The
^

binder the sanction of

intricacy of the subject

may

be seen from Dr Schiller-Szincssy's article Mah-.or in

the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
-

See detached note

C on

p. 38.

:

THY KINGDOM

'HALLOWED BE THY NAME.
v/Mwv

Kol

Xojou iv

eBcoKaii

rut

arofiaTi

33

COME.'

ani^cracrdai Kat

tjijlwv

Xeyeiv 'AyiaadrjTco to ovofid aov, vvv tovto alrovfxeda irapa aov.
ISov (Tvvq-^drj
rjjj.d'i

KaKcov, fiidvat to iravdyiov ovofia

7r\rjdo<;

KoX Tov vabv rov ovofiaro'? aov.

Ka\ raireLvai vTrdp^ofiei',
aTTo

aKaOaprov

Tfj<i

rjiMV

el

yap kuI

TrXrjv avTo<i (f)u\a^ov

are, it

suspicion.

ecf)

Ta9 i/ry^a?

rjixcov

ttj

Bwd/xec.

afj

ay)

koI viKijaei to aov ovofxa.

vIkt]

rj

aov

da6evel<i

aTCfiiWi, (fnXavOpcoTre aoorep, 6 idaa<; eTrekOelv

TOV Tretpaafiov tovtov' So? rjpZv vlktjv

ydp iaTiv
There

r}p,ei<;

will

be seen, in this story two grounds for

Rome more

though Diocletian was in

First,

than once

in the early years of the fourth century, yet the representation

him suggested by Agathangelus has every appearance of being
Secondly, a nunnery in Rome, well established by
apocryphal.
of

the beginning of the fourth

But the importance
question

of the

century,

a plain anachronism.

is

of the passage for our purpose

independent

is

In martyrologies the prayers of the

of date.

saints are always worth careful inspection from the point of view

of criticism, for there

is

prayer

the

is

may

always the probability that they

In this case

contain relics of ancient formulas.

based on liturgical

forms \

It

is

it

is

clear that

the setting

to

of the petition of the Lord's Prayer that I would call attention.

In the Didache we have a very early witness carrying back the
evidence

the confines

to

of the

The form

Apostolic age.

of

thanksgiving which

is

Eucharist

the resultant of two converging forces, the

(x.

1 f)

is

be said after the reception of the

to

Prayers of the Synagogue and the Lord's Prayer.
for daily

bread and

are paraphrased in the later part.
aoL, irdTep

ptaTovfiiv

KaT€aKr]v(oaa<i iv

The

1

e.g.
ri]v

(1)

liturgical

Tat'i

virep

dyie^,

KaphiaL<;

Emperor

vUas, dpriviKo.
dpuire is very
'

in

The form begins
tov dylov

r)/u,cov,

Koi inrep

tt}<;

(ppove'iv

common

irpbi ^/iSj,

iirl rijv

petitions

one)

evil

thus, ei);^a-

ovofiaTo'i

aov,

when we compare
6

elSths

iirrjpelas Kal fiedodelai

aiToO

p. 48),

rjneT^pav Tatrdvucnv, (2) the prayer

Mark (Hammond

p.

172), 56s

Kal Trpbs Tb ovofid crov Tb dyiov.

ainu,

6

The word

debs,

(piXdv-

in the Liturgies.

The reading Pater

sancte

in

some old Latin MSS.

.should be

compared

see p. 23.
c.

ov

yvcoaeax; koI

(Hammond

tov irovy}pov...iraar]s

the Lit. of St

The

(or the

character of the prayer becomes clear

5td t6 ovofid aov rb dyiof, to iTriKXijO^v

the

evil

the EmboUsimis of the Liturgy of St James

acrdivetCLv r]fj.uv...pva'ai ^yuas d7r6

for

from

for deliverance

3

THE lord's prayer

34

Koi d6avaa-La<;,

7rt<TTe&)9

aoV

<To\

The
of a

Bo^a

T)

779

the early church.

in

iyvcopiaa';

hia

rj^ilv

tov

'It^ctoi)

iraibo'i

et9 rov<; alwva's.

latter part of this thanksgiving is substantially a repetition

formula used in an earlier passage

(ix.

and

3),

should

be compared with the second and fourth of the Jewish Eighteen
We may disregard it, for at most it vaguely correBenedictions.'
sponds with the clauses about the Divine Kingdom and Will.
'

But the earlier portion clearly refers to a petition immediately
succeeding the opening words of the Prayer. At first sight the
Our first impression
word 6v6/j,aTO<; is a stumbling block.
is

that

To

must have taken the place of an original irvevixaro^.
latter word, side by side with KaT€aK^vo)aa<i iv TaU

it

this

many

Kaphla'i r)jxwv,

Hermas Mand.
in

x.

2,

1,

once suggest themselves, e.g.
Sim. v. 6. 5, passages which

at

parallels

1, v.

iii.

2,

turn are based on James

their

correction either of the text of the

iv.

But

5.

DidacM

against

this

or of the Didachist's

report of his original there are at least three objections,

(a)

The

Neither the Didachist himself nor
under
any temptation to change an easy
would
be
the copyists
correction

obvious.

too

is

word into a hard

one.

LXX., iv ^T]ka>, ov

The

(6)

actual phrase

Pr\^2^\ ro

KareaKrjvcoaa

is

found in the

opofici

fiov

eKel

efiTTpocrOev (Jer. vii. 12), tov toitov ov i^eXe^dfirjv KaracrKrjvcocrai,

ovofid fiov eKel (Neh.

(]3^7) ro
xvi.

6,

11,

xvi.

is

ovofxa

the Tiuelve Apostles p.

*^^^)>

73

6v6fi.aT6<; (TOV

^^-

In Deut.

xii,

11, xiv. 23,

all

these

places

by
the

(see Dr Taylor The Teaching of
Compare also Ezek. xliii. 7 iv oh

f.).

^xxiv.

C^^^~'^'t2)

In

eKel.

KaTacTKTqvwar) to ovofid fiov iv

(U^'\^^^

9).

translators represent DK^ ')t2^ |5Si^7

the

avTov
to the Sanctuary
to

eTTCKXrjOrjvac

reference

2

i.

fiecra)

8
(c)

.

oXkov

IcrparfK

tov alcova

i^e^rjXcoaav to

aK^vw/xa tov

The phrase

stands in the

as

it

Didache has remarkable points of contact with the passage in
Agathangelus to ovofid fiov iTrtKeKXrjTat i(p^ vfia^ koL vfiel<; iaTe
to Travdycov ovofid crov

va6<;

T^9

fffid'i

Kol TOV vabv tov ovofiaTo^ aov.

deoTrjTO'i

fiov

fiidvat

fi-qOijcreTac Be irrl tu> ovofiaTi

Kvpiov

ivB6^Q)<i olKohofirjO)].

Kvpiov.
ttcu?;

Compare Barn. 16
jrpoae'x^eTe, 'iva

finOeTe.

i(f>'

oIkoBo-

vad<;

tov

Xa^ovTe<i ti)v a(f>eaLv

:

afiapnoov KaX eKiriaavre'i

Toiv

iraXiv i^
6

THY KINGDOM

HALLOWED BE THY NAME.

'

^eo? KaroiKel iv

iirl

Of the

icf

i^fia<;

opofui

Kaivoc,

iyevofieOa

KaTOLKr^rripiw

i^fiojv

a\i}0w<i

In the last passage the reference

vfiiv.

Baptism (comp. Hernias

clearly to

to

rw

8i6 iv

KTi^ofievoc.

dp'y^T]<;

35

COME.'

of Cod.

D

Vis.

iii.

3.

is

5)^

a faint traced I think, survives in

the gloss 'in nobis,' iv ^fiiv (compare ^,
Thus,
p. 32).
7J^,
Tertullian f?e OrafiOAie iii.
Cumdicimus: Sanctificetur

nomen

tiium, id petimus, ut sanctificetur in nobis, qui

sumus,

simul et in

in

illo

quos adhuc gratia dei expectat, ut et huic

ceteris,

praecepto pareamus, orando pro omnibus, etiam

pro

inimicis

Ideoque suspensa enuntiationc non dicentes, Sanctificetur
in nobis, in omnibus dicimus.
Cyprian de Orat. Dominica. Sanctificetur nomen tuum. Non
quod optemus Deo ut sanctificetur orationibus nostris, sed quod
nostris.

petamus ab eo ut nomen

ejus sanctificetur in nobis.

Cyril Catech. Mystag.

v.

ei/^o/ie^a iv

rjfilv

dyLaadrjvai, to ovofxa

Tov 0eov'

ov-^^

on

aW

tj/jlIv

aytov ylverat, ayia^o/xevoc'; Koi d^ia rov dycacr/xov

OTL iv

iK rov

ixt)

eivai

dyiov

iirl

ro

epx^Tcii'

elvai,

TTOiovaiv.

Such
able

to

is

the evidence as to this clause, so far as I have been

collect

it.

appears to accept

D

of Cod.

of iXdiro)

Dr Hort (Notes on Select Readings p. 60)
Dr Sanday's suggestion that the i<f r]p,a<;

in the petition about the Divine

djcov

TO

Trvev/xd

aov

i(f

Name 'may

r]fid<i

k.t.X.'

be a trace

The

fresh

evidence however here discussed tends, I think, to shew that the

two clauses are

separate,

though very cognate, developments of

petitions in the Lord's Prayer.

The analogy

of the petition for the

Holy

Spirit discussed

above and a study of the passages in the New Testament which
speak of the Divine Name in reference to Baptism suggest that
this

e(/)'

7;/i,a? is

for use at

Acts

connected with an adaptation of the Lord's Prayer

Baptism.

xxii.

The

following passages should be compared

16 Pdirriaai koX diroXovaac

rd<i d[iapria<i crov iirt-

Ka\ecrdfi6vo<i ro ovop.a avrov.
1

The language

in several passages in

^aiTiKelav rov deov ovdels fijeXevcrfrai, ei

Hermas should be compared,

/xrj

e.g.

ei'j

XdjSoi rb ofo/xa toO vlov avrod (Sim.

rr]v

ix.

12. 4, 8).
2 It is

curious that the English version of the Lord's Prayer in the BisJiops'

Book (1537) has Thy

kiiujilom

come unto

its.

3—2

^

THE lord's prayer

36
Jas.

12

f.,

rjixat;

ecfi'

xxii. 4), also

2 Thess.

i.

Compare the imagery

;

koXov ovojxa ro eVt-

^\aa(f)i]fiovat,v ro

7 ovK avroi

ii.

Kkr^Okv

the early church.

in

Apocalypse

of the

(iii.

Ep. Clem. 64.

12 ottw? iuBo^aadfj to ovofia rov Kvpiov

The addition
iv
Kal vfMel'i iv avrw.
when this passage is compared with Is. Ixvi.
V/J.CV

tj/ioov 'Itjo-ov

of eV v/xiu

is

striking

5 iva to ovofui Kvpiov

ho^aadfj.

The idea

of the Baptismal formula (et? to ovofia...) lies at the

The Divine Name

root of these expressions.

man who

baptized,

is

and he

So he becomes a 'sanctuary'
(TKeva

iK\o'yrj<i...Tov

in

I

c.

Name

27 (Ed. Bonnet

see above p. 29).

;

Thomae

Karax^ias

eVi

avrap koi

K€<pa\^s

Trjs

27

c.

:

77

me

Koi

v\l/'i<TTOv

p^TTjp

(vairXayxvio.

T]

77

^piaas avrovs rjp^aro

koi

aXetx/^aj

(\de

bvvapis

i]

eXdi to )(api(Tpa to vyp-iaTov'

reXei'a'

the

\a^u>v be 6 anoaroXoi tXaiov

X/yftv 'EX^€ to dyiov ovopa rov p^ptoroi) ro vrrep nav ovofia'

Tov

dwells, a

ovofia (Acts ix. 15)

have to thank the Editor of this series for pointing out to

following passage in the Acta
Koi

which the Divine

^aaTaaai to

Note on Acta Thomae,

A.

invoked upon the

is

brought into union with the Name.

is

IKOe

(v(nrXay\vos...fKd€ to ayiov rrvevfia koi KaOapicrov tovs v((f>povs avTcov

T]

Koi TTju Kap8iav, Koi iniaf^payiaov avToi/s

ovofia iraTpos

els

vlov koI

Koi

ayiov

We

have here a Gnostic formula based on the Prayers of the
Church (see below n. 1). The following points are to be noticed (a) the
prayer (e t6 ayiov rrvtvpa k.t.X. is here clearly seen to be connected
with the Chrism
(b) the prayer iXde to ayiou ovop.a k.t.\. confirms the
TTvtvpaTos.

:

;

suggestion that the i(f ^p.as of Cod. D is an addition to the Lord's Prayer
closely parallel to the prayer for the Holy Spirit ; (c) the prayer eXdt 17
8vpap.ii

on

TOV

vy\fla-Tov

(Lc.

i.

35)

illustrates

the

Latin form quoted above

p. 29.

The

following passages of these Acts, clearly derived from formulas of the

Church, are worth notice as illustrating the petitions under discussion
Baptismal prayers: ikOeTa aov ^ (Iprpn) Ka\ aKTjvcoadTa ep avrolr, onas
(rt)
:

dno

Kadapiadciarip

t<op

TrpoTepcov avrcip Trpa^eap (p.

35

;

comp.

enidels

aurolr

x^'P" enrev Ecrrai e(}) vfids t) elpr]vq tov Kvpiov, p. 48), eXde Ka\ aKJJpoxrop e'p
Tols v8aai TovToii, iva to \api(Tfj.a tov dyiov nvevpaTos T(\ei(os e'p avTo7s TeXeioidfj
TTjp

I'p.

37), 'iva...Ka\ 8e^opai

j)

dvpofxis

in

many

1

a-ov

'

xayw ac^paylba

i8pvp$i]To>

eVt

Compare the prominence

describes,

of

tt)p

'

the

koi yev(t>p.ai vaos ayiot (p. 56), (XdeWo)

8ov\t]p

Name

'

crov

MvyBopiap ^

eXevdepia

in the strange Gnostic Baptismal rite,

points clearly a parody of the Church's service, which Irenaeus

and

especially the words,

Compare note A ou

this page.

avTrj

eip-qvri iraaiv, e(p'

(i.

14. 2)

oOs t6 ovofia tovto eiravairaveTai.

:

'HALLOWED BE THY NAME.
ayiaaov avroi'S

(p.

68),

aov

Trv(vfji.aTot (p.

TO

(Tov

Koi

8f]

inro^oyprjcrai

Kal

o

8a>p(a

»;

ayiov

(7Tt(})r]p.i((TaC

89

cotmexion (comp. pp.

56,

fvptdfj)

po\va-fj.co

fif)

thangelus quoted above,
i8ov

KaTaro\p,u>nfv

(K6f

TCI

dnoKpvtpoi

Tw

eVi

as

is

A

Kul
to.

t]

TrepiCTTfpa

vaovs

Kara^Loxrov tovtco

fKaio)

The
aov

fie

ds

use of vaos in this

ovoiia...lva

6

vaos a-ov

compared with the words of AgaEiicharistic prayer:
eniKXrjcreas Toii

'irja-ov

Xpia-re...

aylov crou ovop.aTOi...

anoKpvcfia fKcfyaivovcra koi to dnopprjTa

tovs StSu/xour veocraovs

t]

aylov

roii

ivibpvav tovto

8vvafiti,

i\de

yevvQicra,

iJ.i]Tqp...f€ Ka\ icoivwvrjcrov rfplv ev TavTjj rrj ev^apicTTia tjv 7roiovfj.ev

aov

6z/6/xari

also

Upa

t<u

82).

6 fjujvvcras

(b)

37

COME.'

rois ixQpoli avrov €p.(f)va-^(ras (Is rd

(p.

to be

is

(TTrXdyxva ra TfX(ia...((
rj

ovop.a
ei

<tv

32.

[h

r]s

axirovs

avrov

viktjtikt]

tj

8t*

fvx^apLaTLns

rrji

(pavfpa KadicTTuxraf
Tj

ov6fjLaTi...iToiri(Tov

fVtSr^/xiycrat

(Troir]a'as...Ka\

a^ios

fv

(tw

tu>

81), eXdfrw, 'Ij^ctoC,

TO fKaiov...f\d(Tu>
OTricrai

tv

THY KINGDOM

The Gnostic character

k.t.X.

the fact that

is

it

of this passage

is

clear,

a parody of the Church's Eucharistic eVi-

K\r]a-is.

Note on some Syrian Baptismal Prayers

B.

(see p. 29).

I append some prayers from the Latin translation of a Syriac Book of
Baptismal Offices
D. Severi Alexaudrini quondam Patriarchae de ritibus
baptismi... liber... Guidone Fabricio Boderiano Exscriptore et Interprete,
Antverpiae...l572' (see Resch Agrapha pp. 361 fi'.). The date of the Book in
'

:

its

present form must be late

;

for in

what

is

substantially the

'

Constantino-

a Filio procedit occur. In the title there is
probal:)ly a confusion Avith Severus Patriarch of Antioch early in the sixth
century (Resch p. 372). The prayers to which I wish to call attention are
politau' Creed the words

et

these
(1)

p.

'Velis

63.

Spiritum Sanctum

igitur

praepiu-ga et sanctifica eos,
(2) p. 65.

eos immittere tuum ilium
omnium eorum membra ac
;

Trinitas, ita ut adaequentiu" sanctae unctioui...'

manus Apostolorum sanctorum dedisti
Nunc autem cum etiam

Pater Sancte, qui per

'

Spiritum Sanctum tuum
in

Domine super

inhabita et scrutare

et

;

illis

qui baptizabantur

umbra manuum mearum familiarem

super eos qui baptizandi sunt, et

:

te exhibeas, mitte Spiritum

cum

repleti

fuerint

illo,

Sanctum

afierant

tibi

fructum trigesimum...'
(3)

p.

'0

13.

unicum Filium tuum Deum verbum, duni
Sanctum ilium Spiritum tuum misisti
Jordanides undas sanctificavit nunc etiam, Domine

qui super

in terra baptismi ordinationem faceret,

in specie columbae, qui

mi, velis ut Spiritus

operiat, eosque perfice

sancto lavacro
(4) p. 92.

;

Sanctus tuus hosce servos tuos qui baptizantur
ac domos Christi tui eos constitue, expurgans cos

ille

tuo.'
'

Immitte super eos

illius spiritus tui vivificantis

gratiam, et

eos imple ipsius sanctitate.'

In referring to the Latin forms (see above

p. 30) I

omitted to notice

THE lord's prayer

38

that through these we

may

the early church.

in

back to the apparently apostolic formula
hymns of the Western
Chm-ch
Voii, supenie Spiritm ; Veni, Creator Spiritus (Newman Hi/mni
Ecdesiae pp. 91, 94). From the same source arc probably derived the words
(\d(T<o TO dyiov

trace

k.t.X,,

TT^'eD/io,

the great Pentecostal

:

of the Collect (familiar to us in

Sancti Spiritus cogitjitiones cordis

English dress)

For the reference
It

is

to

edited

Purifica per infusionem

:

iiostri.

Note ox Agathangelus

C.

443, 450.

its

(see above p. 32).

Agathangelus I am indebted to Resch Agrapha pp.
by Lagardc 'aus dem funfunddrcissigsten Bande der

Abhandlungen der koniglicheu Gescllschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingcn,'
1887.
I gather into a note some points of interest.
(1) Lagarde bases his
opinion (a) that the Greek is a translation, on the barbarous character of the
language; (6) that it is a translation from an Armenian original, on an
investigation of the quot^itions from the New Testament (pp. 134, 129 ff.).
Some passages of the New Testament are taken, Lagarde allows, from the
original Greek.

This he says would be natural

;

the translator would

know

the Greek of passiiges occurring frequently in the worship of the Church at

Byzantium
{a)

(p.

The following points however

134).

are worthy of note,

the translator knew the Greek of 2 Peter; for he speaks

Prophets

o\ kui iyivovTo (fxoa-Tfjpfs iv T<a

paronomasia occurs
'Piylrifir],

(c.

Kara to ovofia

aoii

Tov ox^ov.

compare

Koi Tjnovcrav

32) of the
19)

;

{h)

a

which could not be a translation, d Se /xoAtora,
dXj^das (^eppiff))]^ ac.t.X.: the words of course may be
;

(c)

the translator was apparently acquainted

with the Martyrdom of Polycarp in Greek,
p. 281,

i.

75)

an interpolation of the translator

Resch

(c.

avxfJ^^p^ totto) (2 Pet.

C.

for,

besides the passage given by

75 Ka\ iyivero cr(pu8poTaTri

(pcoviii

^poirrrj cSarf eVc^o/Seio-^at

Xfyovarjs npos avras 'AvSpl^ecrde kol dapcr f'lre

with Mart. Pohjc. ix. (2) As to the clauses of the Prayer other than that
about the hallowing of the Divine Name (a) to the words quoted above
:

(p.

32) OTTO

T7]% 7rayl8os

tov i^Qpoii,

add

C.

62

Iva

viKija-confv

tqs

8(ivas TOV e)(6pox) nayidas, Koi to ovofid crov, dfcrnoTa, So^aadrj k.t.X.,
TTOvqpoi apLa T(a avvfpyu) avToxi, as nairroTf, koi vvv eWparrr/crfrai

gloss (quoted p. 33) o iacai eVf X^etf

ayiov eiiayyiXiov Kara

Trji Kf(f>aXfjs

C.

(6)

87 o Se

note the

comp. p. 68. (3) There is an account
by Leontius at Caesarea (c. 139) to Se

k.t.X.

of Gregory's consecration as Bishop

:

BoXlas Koi

avTov

;

Kovtj^icravTts entdr^Kav ra? ^flpas k.t.X.

In the account of the baptism of the king, &c., there is a reminiscence of
the fire kindled in the Jordan at our Lord's baptism (^w? o-cpoSpoTaTov (f)aveu
(4)

:

vdaTov tov norafiov, tv6a i^anTiIn Phipsima's prayer quoted above (p. 32 f.), with vaos Tfjs
TOV vaov TOV ovoparos aov, compare the Syrian Bai)tismal

Ka6^ 6p.0Lwp.a CTTvXov (fi(OTO(idovs eon] eVi tcov
(ovTo.

(5)

deoTTjTos p-ov
rite of

Severus (see above

p.

37)

'domos Christi

tui eos constitue.'

I

cannot

help thinking that Agathangelus would well repay more careful examination

by some competent

liturgical scholar.

^

.

III.

reNH9HT00 TO BeAHMA COY,
cioc

Three

points here

eN oypANO) kai €ni rnc (St Matthew).

demand

notice.

(1)

There are clear remi-

niscences of the petition in the N. T.: Matt. xxvi. 42 yevrjdiJTa) to

42

39, Mc. xiv. 36), Lc. xxii.

to

6eXT)fj,d

aov (comp.

OeKrjiia.

fiov aXXd to aov yLveado) (the reading y€vecr6(o has very

v.

14 tov Kvpiov to

slight attestation), Acts xxi,

(where there
Polyc.

vii.

some

is

21, xii. 50, xviii. 14,

vii.

Mc.

iii.

in these passages {yevrjOrjTw, lyevea-OcOy yLviaOo))

we assume an Aramaic

for if

(2)

iv.

35.
is

15

<ytvicr6(o).

The

easily

variation

accounted
inde-

Vulgate Syriac has "|oau in

Acts

10, xxvi. 42, Lc. xxii. 42,

vi.

<yi,via6co

original, which would be

The

terminate in regard to tense.
Matt.

deXTjfia

fir)

slight authority for yevia-Oco); com-p. Mart.

TO Oekrjfia tov 0eov yeveaOco (Eus. H. E.

Comp. Matt.

irXrjv

xxi.

14

The Old Syriac has j^j_L-*^^ ^octuo (and-let-there-be
The plural to, OiKrjixaTa is used of the divine will

thy- wills) ^

in Ps. XV. 3,

cii.

7,

ex. 2,

Is.

xliv.

28 (quoted

in

Acts

22).

xiii.

In the N. T. in Mc. iii. 35 09 dv ttol^ctt] to Bekrj^a tov Oeov
(Matt. xii. 50 tov iraTpo'^ fMov tov iv ovpavoZ<i), ovto<; d8€X(f)6<i k.t.X.
Cod. B, supported by a quotation given by Epiphanius {Haer.
^

The Syriac Versions may be taken

to represent

approximately the original

Aramaic form of our Lord's sayings. 'Although Josephus says that the Jews
could understand the Syrians, the Jewish Aramaic was nevertheless a distinct
dialect in some respects, as may be seen from the words Xa^a (Matt, xxvii. 46, in
Syriac lemaua), Boavepyts (Mc. iii. 17, in Syriac bene ra'ma)': Neubauer in
Studia Biblica i. p. 53. In the case of the Lord's Prayer, which in the earliest
Syriac Version

is

the result not so

much

of later translation as of continuous

tradition reaching back to the earliest Apostolic times, probably the

in this Version
-

We may

is

practically identical with the

Aramaic

form given

original.

compare the phrase which forms a very common beginning of Jewish

prayers, e.g. The Authorised Prayer

But the Hebrew N. T.

of Delitzsch

Book

p.

and that

69

of Salkinson-Ginsburg both have

In this connexion a passive voice of HEJ'y seems less natural than the Qal
latter occurs e.g. in the Eabbinic saying {Pirqe Aboth v. 30)

'

In Lc.

xxii.

42

it

has the singular.

nbr;
;

the

THE lord's prayer

40

THE EARLY CHURCH.

IN

XXX. 14) from an Ebionite Gospel, has rd OeXr^fiara.

Matt.

vii.

21

ovpavoU Cod.

N

has rd OeXruxaTa.

In Eph.

passage of the N. T. where the plural occurs,
the manifoldness of unsatisfied lust (comp.

ii.

3,

the only other

seems to point to

it

13, Jer. xxiii.

Is. Iviii. 8,

There appears to be no other authority

26).

Again, in

OeXTjfxa rov iraTpo^ fiou tov iv roi?

ttolwv to

6

for this reading in

the Lord's Prayer^

Bengel in his note on the petition quotes the following
(3)
words from the Catechismus Romanus put forth by the Council of
Trent"'*: 'Pastoris erunt partes monere fidelem populum verba ilia
Sicut in coelo et in terra ad singulas referri posse siugularum
(triuni) primarum postulationum, ut, Sauctificetur nomen tuum,
Itein

sicut in coelo et in terra.

Similiter Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo et in

coelo et in terra.

V

terra.'

For

which
Rome, there

this interpretation,

teachers by the Church of

For

Adveniat regnum tuum, sicut in
is

thus enjoined upon her

is

much

to be said.

in the first place this interpretation harmonises

both with

the twofold division of the petitions of the Prayer and with the

invocation wdth which

His sons on earth

it

He

;

opens
is

:

God

is

our Father, the Father of

in Heaven.

It

is

natural that this

thought should exercise a continuous influence on the petitions
which immediately follow, rather than that it should at once
fall

into the background to reappear at a later point

Prayer.

In the second place,

the Prayer as given by St

we have an

explanation

adaptation,

of

r)[jbd'i

i.e.

if this

Matthew was

why

of the

connexion of the petitions in
recognised in early times,

the additions made for the purpose

the prayer for the Holy Spirit and the e^'

of Codex Bezae, attach themselves to the Prayer as given

St Luke, where the words

Further confirmation
several clauses,

a;? ev
is

(a) Little

ovpavai koI

e-rrl yrj<i

by

do not occur.

derived from a consideration of the

need be said

of the petition to

which

We

the words as in heaven so on earth are immediately joined.

should however compare Ps. cxxxiv.

G

{iravra

iiroLijaeu 6 Kvpio<; ev tu> ovpavu) koI iv ttj yfj)

and

oaa
1

TJdiXrja-ev

Mace.

iii.

GO

^
Tlie reading of the Old Syriac (plural verb and noun) is reproduced, as Prof.
Bensly has kindly pointed out to me, in the Syriac Acts of Judas Thomas (ed.
Wright, vol. i. p. v-^u-t^ vol. ii. p. 279, Eng. Tr.).
;

-

Pars

IV. c. X.

qu.

iii.

:

'THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO ON EARTH.'
8'

(a;9

av y

(b)
No less
iv ovpavw ovt(o TTOu'^aei).
words connect themselves with the petition

6i\T]fia

naturally do

the

Thy kingdom

come^.

iv TO)

by

ovpavw Koi

Compare

cttI

connexion

this

41

is

1

Chron. xxix. 11

aii

rwv

Trdvrcov

t^? 7^9 Seo-TTo^et?. The thought conveyed
indeed implied in all the very numerous

passages which speak of the coming of the kingdom of Heaven
or of God, e.g. Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14, Matt. iii. 2, xvi. 28, Lc. xi. 20,
xvii. 20, xxi.

31, Apoc.

xi.

15.

harmonises with what

It

at

is

least a probable reading of the Angelic song which prefaces the
history of our Lord's life in St Luke's Gospel (ii. 14) Bo^a iv

6ew Koi iirX 7)79', and with the words of our Lord which
Matthew's Gospel (xxviii. 18) ihoOr) jxoi iraaa i^ovaia
ovpavw Kol iirl [t^9] 7^9. If it be objected that this arrange-

v-^i<jToi<;

close St
iv

ment

of the

clauses

introduces

the idea of the coining of the

kingdom of God in Heaven, it is sufficient to reply that such
an objection overlooks a common idiom the coming of the kingdom
on earth answers to its existence in heaven. Further, we may compare Col. i. 20 {airoKaraXka^at ra Travta eU avr6v...€iT6 tu iirl rfj<i
:

7^9 etre ra iv Tot9 ovpavoh), Eph. i. 10, iii. 15. (c) The sequence
Halloiued be Thy name, as in heaven, so on earth presents no difficulty and
viii.

commends

2 Kupte

rfi <y^'

itself

by

Compare

its intrinsic fitness.

Kvpto<; rjixwv, w<i Oavfxacrrov ro ovofid

OTL iirrjpOrj

rj

rwv ovpavSv.

fieyaXoTrpeTTia <70V vTrepdvo)

the Authorised Daily Prayer Book I find

Ps.

crov iv iraa-r)

comp.

(p. 45,

In

37) the

p.

prayer
:

n^^

DiiD *^:^3 inix u'pnpt^^

This formula, part of the n\^)1p,

is

&?m

'^jp^Tiw^

tr":npj

probably of ancient originl

Compare Cyprian de Oratione Dominica, Bene autem regnum Dei petimus, id
regnum caeleste, quia est et terrestre regnum.
- Dr Hort Introduction, Notes on Select Readings p. 56.
2 When if tols ovpavoh of the first clause of the Prayer is compared with
In the second case the article is
iv ovpavQ, we notice a double contrast.
(1)
heaven as compared with earth
wanting.
Its absence emphasises character
(comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2). (2) The plural is used in the first, the singular in the later
^

est,

clause.

In the N. T. the plural [ovpavoi) expresses the idea of majesty through the

notion of vastness,
especially

Eph.

iv.

e.g.

Phil.

iii.

20,

Hebr.

vii.

10 {irayTuv tuv ovpavQv), Hebr.

commonly used when heaven

as one place

is

26,

viii.

1,

iv. 14, vii.

23,

xii.

26.

The

25.

Note

singular

contrasted with earth, e.g. Matt.

25, xxviii. 18, 1 Cor. viii. 5, Jas. v. 12; yet see Matt. xvi. 19,

Eph.

i.

10,

iii.

15.

is

xi.

IV.
TON AproN HMCJON TON enioyciON

AOC HmTn CHMepoN (St Matthew).
TON (\pTON HMOON TON eniOyCION
AiAoy hmTn to ka9' HwepAN (St Luke).

There

SlBov,

809,

(1)

are two points here in which the two Go.spels differ,

variations

(2)

demand a

cTJjfjLepov,

TO

Both

Kad^ rj^epav.

brief notice before

we

these

of

enter upon (3) the dis-

cussion of the main problem suggested by this clause.

The Old and

(1)

Gospels

ȣ2(n.

the Vulgate Syriac versions have in both

This word, like the

terminate in regard to tense.

Hebrew

(H^n),

\T\

inde-

is

was originally
Greek

If the Prayer then

in Aramaic, the original for 'give' could be represented in

equally well by the aorist and by the present imperative.

So?

would naturally be used in the Greek form in which ar^ixepov had
a place, Zihov as naturally in the form in which to KaO' ruiepav
occurred ^
(2)

Mr

T. E.

But what of the variations a-^/xepou, to Ka& r]p,epav ?
Page {Expositor, Third Series, vol. vii. p. 436), arguing

from the use in both Gospels of the solecism iiriovaio'i that the
whether Avritten or oral—^which the Avriters employed
tradition
was, as regards these particular words, expressed in Greek,' goes on
'

to say,

1

(2)
(3)

23

'

the phrase to Kad^ rjiiepav occurs only three times in the

Compare the

Matt. xiv. 19

following variations: (1) Matt.
(iSuiKtv)

\

Mc.

Matt. xxiv. 45 (5oCmt), Lc.
(iSi^ovv).

vi.

xii.

42 (MbvaCj,

(4)

42

v.

41, Lc. ix. 16

[56s)

{i5i5ov),

\

Lc.

Jn.

Matt, xsvii. 34

vi.

vi.

30

[bloov),

11 (pUSwKiv),

[iSuiKav),

Mc.

xv.

43

GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.'

'

New

Testament, namely here and Luke xix. 47, Acts xvii. 11 *; so
it is certainly Luke's own {dcht Lukanisch, Weiss), and
therefore the aij/xepov of Matthew is much more likely to be
that

There are strong reasons

original.'

for

thinking that the Prayer

existed originally in an Aramaic form, and I hope presently to

Mr Page

dispose of the argument which

Further, assuming that of-the-day was the original

iTTCovaio';.

word

founds on the use of

in this clause, there

much

is

probability in the assumption

that day-hy-day was a primitive variation (see below

Mr

however

in this case

Even

p. 45).

new

Page's question only takes a

form.

he might ask, that the phrase rb Kaff -qixepav
is peculiar to St Luke among the writers of the New Testament
go far to shew that St Luke, instead of simply incorporating
in his Gospel a form of the Lord's Prayer current among the
Hellenistic Disciples, interweaves into that current form phrases

Does not the

own

of his

fact,

An

?

answer to this important question

supplied

is

fact that to KaO' rjfikpav, in itself a classical phrase (e.g.

by the

Aristoph. Eq. 1126),

may

somewhat clumsy phrase

be regarded as a shortened form of a

also

of the LXX.; a phrase which, occurring in

the account of the giving of the Manna, would very naturally be
used by the Hellenists in their translation of the Lord's Prayer, but

which at the same time in

The presence then

use=.
1

In the latter passage,

(including

Mc.

NADEg
Lc.

xiv. 49,

dbf ev

r(f)

iepi^,

Ex.

ix. 23, xxii. 53,

should be noticed, there
Acts

ii.

For

r6.

46 {Kad'

Cor. xv. 31, 2 Cor.

xi. 28,

is

Kad'

ijfxepau re

KXQvTis re kut oIkov aprov, fjiereXan^avov

5 5 iav

xvi.

of this phrase in St

13 61) for the omission of

(xvii. 17), xix, 9, 1
-

it

form was unfit

its full

Hebr.

<rvvaydyu(n to Kad^ rjfjJpav

vii.

for liturgical

Luke becomes

considerable authority
see Matt. xxvi. 55,

ij/j-ipav

npoaKaprepovvris ofModv^a-

Tpo<pTJs k.t.\.),

ii.

7]iJ.ipas

iv

T3

Txi v/x^pg),

vfiipq. avrov),

5 (Theodot. to t^j
14, ix. 24.

'

V^pas

Lev.

Ezra
Kad'

The occurrence

1

xxiii. 37,
iii.

Kings

eis 7]fj.^pa.v=

34 (lxx.

4, Jer. Hi.

comp.

rj/xepai');

viii.

1

47,

iii.

2,

27, x. 11.

DV DV ^^Pf.

Comp. ver, 4 rb rrjs r)nipat ds 7)iJ.ipav (1 Chron. xvi. 37) = 10^3 D1''"~I5'^..
Hebrew phrase occurs in Ex. v. 13 (lxx. to. ipya rd KadriKovra Kad'
19 (to KadiJKov

to

"1^'^..

This

last
v.

rinipav),

59, 2 Kings xxv. 30 (yov
e| 7)ixipa%

Chron.

ei's

xvi. 37, 2

i]nipav),

Chron.

of several allusions (Ps. Ixxviii. 24; cv. 40;

Dan.
viii.

Nehem.

i.

13,
ix.

15; Sap. Sol. xvi. 20; &c.) to the corn, or bread, of heaven makes it sufficiently
probable a priori that the Lord's Prayer also should have some reference to the
giving of the
3.
i.e.

manna' (Dr Taylor Sayings

In the AiUhorised Daily P. B.

Ex.

1—19.

xvi.

4—36, has

(p. 92),

a place in the

p. 139).

the

'

Compare John

section of the

vi. 32,

manna

Morning Service by the

'

1 Cor. x.

(pn nCIS),

side of

Gen.

xxii.

THE lord's prayer

44

IX

THE EARLY CHURCH.

some extent an indication that he preserved a form of the Lord's
Prayer which was in actual use in the worship of the Disciples.

From

(3)

these easier questions I turn at once to the difficult

problem which the clause suggests,
origin of the

word

the meaning and the

viz.,

iiriovcno^.

If Ave could put ourselves in the position of one reading this
for the first time, after

clause

at the appearance of a stranger

sense of bewilderment

first

unique function in the Prayer.
Prayer, for the phrase o iv
fall

under

this

category.

There

is

stranger

is

a

roh ovpauoU can hardly be said
The language of each clause is

unique function does not seem to justify
If iTTLovaio^

has

no other epithet in the

characterised by the brevity of severe simplicity.

useful.

we

heretofore in Greek,

be impressed with the fact that this

should

to

our

unknown

Further, this
necessary or

itself as

to be connected, as

seems certain

it

it

with ^ i-mova-a^, and to be taken to mean of tlie coming
day, the word is exposed to the charge of introducing tautology

must

be,

into the Prayer as well

as

of being alien to its simplicity of

This becomes clear at once if the translation is given
and bald form Give us to-day (day-by-day) our bread
This poverty of meaning has been used as a
of the coming day.'
powerful argument in favour of what I venture to consider an
language.

iu a literal

'

impossible mystical interpretation of the word.

Mr

M'^Clellan asks

concise

1

Bp

vision,

{New Testament

p. 645),

'Is it conceivable,*

'that in this inimitably

and sublime prayer there could have been perpetrated

so

Lightfoot's conclusion as to the meaning of ^ttioiVios [On a Fresh Be-

Appendix),

it

will be seen, I absolutely accept,

though

it

is

only

fair to

venture to interpret some of the evidence on which he bases it in a
different way.
I am indebted to that Appendix for a large part of the material

add that
I

I

have used in the investigation which follows. On the other hand Mr M'^Clellan
Testament p. 632 ff.) argues fervently for the meaning future. His con-

{Xeic

clusion

a

life

may

be stated iu his

crastifws, that

come."'
its

own words

which shall be perfected and

The

italics

i.e.

are his.
If so

many

The statement

'As the food given for nourishin<j
future world,
of this view

layers of meaning,

spiritual food in

it is ^ttioiVios,

IPID,

— future,

is,

i.e.

it

seems to me,

pertaining to the

the present in preparation for the future,

could be wrapped up in one single word,
strain.

tlte

oikho^ tov etnhvTos or ytiAXocros oiwvos, ^'proper to the world to

is,

best refutation.

future world,

(p. 646),

enduriiirj in

human language

could not bear the

:

'GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.'

45

and mean a tautology as this, "Our bread which is daily
I admit the cogency of the reasoning so vigorously
expressed, but I think it points to a conclusion different from that
diffuse

give us daily?'"

which the writer maintains.
I hazard then the conjecture, as a working hypothesis, that the
original form of the clause might be represented thus in Syriac

to-us

This Syriac form

39

of-the-day

our-bread

based on the Old Syriac Version which

we can hardly doubt, the original Aramaic (see above
Looking at Luke xi. 3 in the same version we may

reproduces,
p.

is

give

n.).

first two variations.
was current as well as our-bread; of-every-

further suppose that there were from the

The-hread (]!ki»Ji»)

day

(JaOO

I

No?)

as well as of-the-day^.

We

have already seen how the two clauses Hallowed be thy
name, Thy kingdom come were in all probability adapted for
These adaptations, being only needed for special
liturgical use.
occasions,

have

left

The word

but slight traces behind.

i-rrtovaco'i

I believe, a similar adaptation, but, being in daily use

is,

the Greek-speaking Christians of the earliest days,

it

among

has won

for

a permanent place in the Prayer.
There seems to be evidence that considerable latitude was
allowed as to the insertion in the Synagogue prayers of petitions

itself

suitable to the season or the day*.
At least equal freedom would
be claimed in the assemblies of 'the Brethren.' Thus it is no

1

(D1*

Compare the prayer (Berakoth 60

b)

'And

give

me

^22) DVn) to grace &c.' (Dr Taylor Sayings &c.

Tj diaKovia ry

KaOrj/jLepivrj

(Syr.

xO O

t

over this day and every day

p. 142).

Comp. Acts

^O ?, Hieron. cotidiano

vi. 1

tv

comp. the Old

:

and the Old Latin of the Lord's Prayer). The StaKovia. of the
Sia/cocta of the Church on earth.
We
may perhaps suppose that St Luke's record of the custom of the Church is
shaped by a remembrance of the Prayer. As to the custom itself, it may well
have been connected with the Synagogue system of the Brethren (see p. 6),
and, if so, with the petition of the chief Prayer. Comp. Chrys. (viii. p. 257) rov
Syr. of Lc. xi. 3

Father in Heaven must be reflected in the

*

iprov Tov iiriovaiov, Tovricm, rov KaO-qnepivov.

Cf.

Judith

'

xii.

15

TTjf

Ka6ri[xepivT]v

Slcurav.
2

For the prayers used in the morning and the evening
Synagoga Vetere p. 1054 for the original
these see Zunz Die Gottesd. Vortriige p. 369.

See above p.

recitation of the

form of

14.

Shema

see Vitringa de

;

——

THE lord's prayer

46

the early church.

in

violently improbable hypothesis

we suppose

if

that

when the

Lord's

Prayer was used in the morning or in the evening Prayers' of the
Hebrew Brethren and of the Hellenistic Brethren/ at first at
'

'

'

Jerusalem and later in Northern Syria, it became customary to
adapt the one clause which speaks of time to the particular hour
of prayer.

Among

Hebrew and Syrian

the

Christians the phrase as

it

would be appropriate for the morning
Prayer.
Of this form, as one very familiar to them, Ephrem
reminds his readers (see below p. 49 f.). When however the
Prayer was used in the evening, a slight adaptation would be
necessary and such an adaptation we actually find in the word
Our-hread

stood,

of-the-daij,

;

Mahar

(Syr.

according to

The

r-»-»-^),

which Jerome quotes from
(see below p. 52)^

case of the Hellenistic

Brethren

'

there was need of translation.
translation

'the

Gospel

the Hebrews*

And

and of adaptation were

'

was

different.

Here

the requirements both of

satisfied

when,

rj

eiriovaa being

adopted in place of P^Q-*, the word eTrLova-io<i was coined to repreThis rendering would have a double advantage. It
sent ]iDQ_ij.

would be appropriate when the Prayer was used in the morning
our bread for the coming day : it would be equally appropriate
Thus the petition would assume this form rov
in the eveuingl

aprov

rov iirtovaLov So?

Comp. DidacM

1

out

rjfiwv

viii.

It is at least possible that the

rj^lv.

The

3 [rpU t^s v/x^pa^ oiku) Trpoo-ei/xfc^e)-

writer through-

giving rules for public, not private, devotion.

is

A

seems to survive in
Our bread of to-morrow give it to us to-day. On
which Version two remarks (a) I take this as an example of a version preserving a clause of the Lord's Prayer as it was brought by the earliest converts
and missionaries of the Apostolic age (see p. 13 f.): (^3) The clause as it stands is
-

trace of this adaptation of the petition for evening use

the Memphitic Version (Matt.)
:

the product of a literary revision, the strength of devotional conservatism maintaining of to-morrow
^

that
T]

Mr Wratislaw
7)

(TTiouffa is

(irtov<Ta

xxi.

T}

to-day had been added to represent

a-qtiepov.

Churchman (July 1888) shews conclusively
used of the day already begun. But it should be noticed that

could always be substituted for

hold: comp. Acts

far

when

in an article in The

vii.

^^

though the converse does not
which see Mr Wratislaw's remarks),

avpiov,

26, xvi. 11, xx. 15 (on

Hence I am not sure that Mr Wratislaw does not carry his point too
18.
when he claims Prov. xxvii. 1 (firj Kavx^ to. eJy avpiov, ov yap yivwoKeL^ ri rd^erai
an illustration
some confirmation to

iiriovaa) as

gives

iiriov(Ta,

in his favour.

my

It

seems

to

me

that the last passage

theory in regard to the Lord's Prayer.

not found elsewhere in the lxx., here translates DV.

For

ij

'GIVE US THIS DAY

OUR DAILY

47

BREAD.'

apparent analogy of Treptovaio^, occurring in a group of passages
(Ex. xix, 5, Deut. vii. 6, xiv, 2, xxvi, IS) which we know to have
occupied an important place in Apostolic teaching
Pet.

9; comp. Acts xx. 28, Eph.

ii.

i.

14),

may have

facilitated this representation of the original

(Tit.

14, 1

ii.

suggested or

Aramaic word.

Liturgical forms soon get the sanction of usage.

The

instincts

of devotion are singularly tenacious of a familiar word, even

become

when

meaning and origin have
And thus before the time when the first and

(perhaps even in proportion as)
obscure.

its

third Gospels in their present form were composed, the epithet
iirtovato'i

No

had

firmly attached itself to the substantive.

doubt,

Hebrew and

The
morning Prayers
ambiguous.
the

original

becoming

ignorance

our

in

the

Hellenistic

of the

relations

'Brethren,'

between the

much must remain

living witness of the Apostles as well

as the

Hebrews would be sufficient to prevent
phrase (PiDQ_.j) and the alternative (V^n V-^^)
of the

>

forgotten.

When

the Lord's Prayer assumes a literary

shape in the Gospels according to St Matthew and St Luke, the
well-known liturgical formula is preserved, but side by side with
it there appears in the one Gospel the original of-the-day in
the natural adverbial form to-day, in the other the very early,

if

not original, alternative day-hy-day.

In this petition then, owing
to the influence of devotional conservatism combined with reverence
for any remembered word of Christ, there meets us a double
rendering of the original

word, a

phenomenon

to

which most

chapters of the LXX. will supply a parallel.

So

far I

have endeavoured to reconstruct the history of this

The results may be
taken as confirming to some extent the working hypothesis (p. 45)
from which we started. But is there any independent support
clause as

it

stands in our present Gospels.

of the conjecture that the original form of the clause was Our-

hread of-the-day give to-usi I venture to think that there
evidence worth consideration,
(1)

There

a passage in the Epistle of St James

is

which, I believe, bears on this problem
iav

dSe\(f)6<;

i(f>r}iJ.€pov

rj

Tpo(f)t]<i,

is

(ii.

some

15

ff.),

:

dSeX^r] yvfivol vrrdp'^coai kol XetTrofievot t?;?
eiTTT)

Se Ti? avToi<i e^ vfiwv 'Tirdyere iv

elpijprj,

^

;

THE lord's prayer

48

depfiatvea-de koX yopra^eade,
aa)fJ.aro<;,

tl

in

the early church.
Score Be

firj

avroU

iinTTJBeia rov

to.

6<f)e\o'i

James is a mosaic of yia KvpiuKa, among
which have a place in the Synoptists' record
Someof the Sennon on the Mount are especially numerous.
sometimes
obvious;
teaching
are
times these references to Christ's

The

Epistle of St

which those

'

oracles

'

beneath the surface; sometimes they have become so
assimilated to the context in which they are embedded that they
they

lie

must be

It

to attract attention\

fail

sufficient to refer to the

Introduction to any of the Commentaries on the Epistle for a
But no tabulated
list of the more patent of these coincidences.

can give any idea of the living connexion which, even
with our fragmentary knowledge of the Lord's discourses, we feel
to exist between the letter of the Disciple and the words of his

statistics

Master.

In the passage from St James quoted above

very probable

it is

that he has in his mind the words of Christ recorded in Matt. xxv.
35 4.5. But it appears to me still more likely that in the phrase

7;

€(pri/Mepo<i Tpo<^r)

we have

a reminiscence of the petition for

'

the

bread of the day'; and further that in the succeeding words ra
iTTirrjSeia

rov

we have a very

cru)p,aTo<i

early

comment on

the

scope of the petition

Such a conjecture

incapable

is

of

The phrase

proof.

r]

not in itself a remarkable one^ neither indeed

i<bi]fiepo<i Tpo<f)ri is

the phrase which I suppose it to recall, the bread of the day.'
The probability allowed to the suggestion will vary in proportion
'

is

1

iv.

Compare

James

e.g.

21

i.

(tV

15 (rov \byov rov iuirapfiivov

See also Barn.

X(S7o>').

irpavTr]Ti
aiirovs),

els

d^^acrde rhv i/j.(pvTov 70f)

Lc.

viii.

13

(/jLera

with Mc.

S^ovrat rbf

x^-P^-^

ix. 9.

Based perhaps on Matt. vi. 32 {oldeu yap 6 irarrip tjhuv 6 ovpavios on XPV^^'^^
Compare the probable reference in Didache x. [Tpo<pyiv re Kal
TovTCJv airam-wv).
-

iroTOv ?5w/cos dvOpwiroii...r]/jui> 5^ ixo-pio'O) irvevfj.aTtKTji' rpocpriv Kal iroTbv).
2

Wetstein quotes

Aristid.

Tpo<prji

diropQi', Kal /SX^ttwv

iK

otVtoy...a5ouXos airopo^,

TTJs

To

rpo(pr]v iiray6/j.€voi.
p.

677 B oXX'

6

fxh

et's

T.
/3

S€<rir6T-r]s crov

ovde Trjv

Kal ijXiov

also Eur. El. 429 t^j

nXovaios fxaWou tov

ftr

p.

7

398

6/3oXoi/s

avros
:

i<f>r)fi€pou

npocraLTuiv,

Kal

Dion. Hal. Ant.
6 dvffTrjvos eK

t^j

viii.

icprjfiipov

41 dTr^X^e;'

rCv iavrou XP^I^'^'^"

these Field {Otium Non'icense, Pars Tertia) adds Chrys. ix.

dvd^ioy avTov Kpiveis, which however

compare

ii.

/cot

ijfUpai'

avn^ avariWei, av Si Kal ttjs e<prjij.ipov Tpocpijs
be a reminiscence of St James. We may

may

f(p'

i'x*"'''*''

ri^ipav ^opds,

Herod,

(5X^tuiTf/)6s ecrrt.

i.

32

01'

yap

toi 6 fxiya

'

'GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.'

49

as the general indebtedness of the Apostle to the Lord's teaching
is

admitted.

becomes very strong

It

of Christ form the woof and

That the phrase

rj

web

if

we recognise

that the words

of the language of the Epistle.
rpocfjrj

€<f)ij/j-€po'i

comes very

close to the

wording of the Prayer is clear from the Latin versions and from
Chrysostom's comments on the petition.

The Old Latin

'panis quotidianus,' retained by Jerome in his

version of St Luke, finds a close parallel in the earliest extant

Latin version of St James

(ii.

which Jerome preserves.

Again, Chrysostom in dealing with the

clause as

i(f)r']fi€pov...8€lTac

In another place

Kaia<;.

aprov

tov

;

says, tl

yap

[ij

tov aprov

ia-ri,

^vat<;] rpo(f)rj^

r]fj,iv

crtjfiepov,

dvrX tov,

ttjv

however when we take into consideration the Syriac

versions that the importance of the passage in St Jarnes

In the Syriac Vulgate

seen.

by the words

James
for

'

t?;?

a phrase in which he stumbles into a curiously

representation of the original Aramaic.

It is

dai/,

t6i>

dvay-

rrj'i

530) he uses similar language, riv

(iv.

tov eTTLOVcnov So?

TjjuLoSv

T^fiepa^ Tpo(j)^v,
literal

Matthew

stands in St

it

tTTCovaiov

15) 'victus quotidianus^', a rendering

t?;? i(f>T}fiepou Tpo<f>fj'i

U;n.fr)

l^DQ-.?

is

is

fully

represented

(the-food of-the-day)'.

Thus St

gives the natural Greek translation of the Aramaic of-the-

and

his

bread,'

is

whole phrase, excepting the substitution of food
the very form which we assumed just now as the
'

original of the petition,

'

the-(or our-)bread of-the-day.'

Bp Lightfoot (On a Fresh Revision
might
"that
I
find
this
petition quoted in the works of
p. 217),
one of the earlier Syriac writers, Aphraates or Ephrem, but my
(2)

"I had also hoped," wrote

search has not been attended with success.

Ephrem

in

^

Cod.

(Oj).

vi.

Corbeiensis has

quotidianus.'

'

An

indirect reference

642) omits the word in question.

p.

sive

Jerome's version

frater

is 'Si

sive soror

autem

nudi sint

et

desit

'The

eis

victus

frater aut soror nudi siut et indigeant

TertuUian nor Cyprian supply evidence

victu quotidiano.'

Thie writings of neither

as to the text of St

James (Bp. Westcott Canon,

ed. 5, pp. 258, 373,

Eonsch Das N.

T.

TertuUian' s p. 572).

The

Liddell and Scott are sufiQcient to shew that
mistaken in supposing that in later Greek e^Tj/xe/jos always means
lasting but a day.'
Such was doubtless the classical sense of the word, a use
which lasted on side by side with the meaning 'daily' (see Suicer Thes. sub voce).
The words icf>y}ij.epia and etprifjifpls both illustrate the meaning daily.
2

Mr

references given in

^PClellan

is

'

c.

4

THE lord's prayer

50

bread of the day

pii>>A) shall

(}!:OQ_.5

learnt in the Prayer

At

'.

THE EARLY CHURCH.

IN

thou hast

suffice thee, as

same time Ephrem agrees with

the

the Curetonian against the Peshito in jkJQ-.?, so that

The

probable that he used the Curetonian Version."

Ephrem

'

it

seems

fact that

omits the word in question,' constitutes, I believe, the

importance of the reference.

For in the

first

place

Ephrem

refers to

some popular

the Lord's Prayer, a part of catechetical instruction

learned in the Prayer

And

('

').

have been

in the second place this popular version cannot

the Old Syriac.

version of

as thou hast

For had

it

been, his citation would have at once

recalled to his hearers (for the reference occurs in a

Fasting) the whole clause as

it

sermon on

stood in the Old Syriac (and-our-

to-us), and the word continual
would have refuted the lesson which he wished to draw.
We learn then from an examination of Ephrem's evidence that
there was some popular version of the Lord's Prayer still in use
among the Syrian Christians of the Fourth Century, and that in
this traditional version, on which the Old Syriac itself was based, the
form of the petition under discussion was the-bread of-tJie-day.'
The conclusion to which a cross-examination of Ephrem leads
us is confirmed by the clear testimony of another witness. The
Arabic version of Tatian's Diatessaron published by Ciasca iu 188S
gives what is to all appearance the whole of the matter contained

bread continual of-the-day give

'

But the Syriac

in Tatian's work.
is

Vulgate Syriac

All the more emphatic

text'.

support of an earlier Syriac

The
'

text on Avhich the Arabic version

based seems to have been brought into conformity with the

literal translation of

daily bread

'

(§ IX.) is

'

text,

therefore

whenever such support

is

is

the Arabic version of the petition

Give us the bread of our day

'

(i.e.

its

given.
for

the day

which we now are). The epithet 'continual' which has a place
the Old Syriac, and the epithet of-our-necessity which is
given in the Vulgate Syriac, are alike absent. Thus the preCuretonian form has the support of an unwilling witness. We are
not only confirmed as to the main conclusion which we drew from
Ephrem's evidence, but we are able to identify the popular version

in
in

'

'

^

Hemphill

p. xxix,

Eendel Harris

p. 5.

'GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.'
of the Lord's Prayer to which he refers in his

51

Sermon with the

form contained in Tatian's Diatessaron'.

Thus St James, Tatian, and Ephrem, who probably repeats
after a long interval the witness of Tatian,

combine

to attest the

shorter form of the clause, 'Give us the bread of the day.'

Does the Old Syriac version

(3)

itself

throw any light on the

matter?

In Matt.

vi.

11 this version has:

to-us

In Luke

xi.

Now

continual

the-bread

and-our-bread

and-give

to-us

about the Syriac word continual two remarks

In the

first

place

it is difficult

probable meaning of the Greek

Cureton in his note (referred
that the word continual

the

continual

3

of-every-day

made.

of-the-day

give

is

to

to see that

i7riovaio<;.

Hebrew H^H^ \h^ n^ttnn DhSi

version by the words loOTJ .->(jio\s

is

this clause of the Lord's

from

p.

215) remarks

Numb.

iv. 7,

where

translated in the Syriac
PiQ>,»Jlo (and-the-

A^f.l. i..So|

bread continually let-it-be thereupon).

be

In the second place

by Bp Lightfoot

in fact derived

may

represents any

it

The Old

Syriac then of

Prayer appears to be a literary revision of

the popular version current since the Gospel was brought to Syria

from the Church at Jerusalem

in the earliest

days of the

faith,

a

which represented the seemingly unintelligible iiriovaLO'i,
which had meantime come into the Prayer, by a classical phrase
about bread in the Old Testament slightly changed, much as
Delitzsch in his Hebrew translation of the N. T. uses for the same
revision

purpose another

DH?) derived

classical phrase of the O. T. {^'^pT\

from Prov. xxx. 8

(^pT\

DH?)^

This conclusion receives some additional confirmation from the
fact that in the revision of the

Old Syriac (the Vulgate

Syriac) the epithet ^jlQJOIDj (of-our-necessity)
1

is

is

That the Diateasaron was the form of the Gospels used
from the Doctrine of Addui c. xxxv, Thdt. de Fab. Haer.

clear

or Peshito

substituted for
in public worship
i,

20.

•1—2

THE loud's prayer in the early church.

52
]i

.V^

though the

(continual), as

]

immemorial

were not sanctioned by

latter

usage*.

position of these Syrian Christians in the third century

The

A

was in fact very parallel to our own.
England to-day would say Pray God to
as we forgive them that trespass against

Christian preacher in

forgive us our trespasses,

'

us, as

thou hast learned in

the Prayer,' regardless of the fact that the Authorised Version has
'Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors', and that the Revised
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our

Version has

'

Literary revisions are powerless against ancient formulas.

debtors.'

Lastly, there is the notice of the clause in the Gospel

(4)

Hebreius preserved by Jerome (on Matt. vi. 11):
appellatur secundum Hebraeos, pro supersubquod
In evangelio,
stantiali pane reperi Mahar, quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sensus
Panem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie.'
according

to the

'

:

Here,

it

will

be noticed, Jerome does not profess to give us the

precise words of the whole clause which he found in the

He

Gospel.

is

adds his own conclusion as to the general meaning (ut

»

Of

Hebrew

content to quote the single word Mahar, and then

Bp

this alteration

Lightfoot says

(p. 215),

'

This

is

sit sensus).

only one of the

many

instances where the Peshito betrays the influences of the fourth century whether
This explanation may be the right
in the text or in the interpretation.'

one.

But on the one hand the word

essential

with

in

ovaia.

of-our-necessitij does not represent

the later interpretation of emova-ios referred

On

the other

hand

ii.

16

(to.

(iri.TTiSeia

Version in St James

rod cru/xaTos) to be.

ii.

16

viz.

its

what

is

connexion

the notion of necessary would seem to have a

place in the earliest expositions of the clause;
Jas.

to,

(l^-yv-S?

OlZo

such an exposition

for

It is

O

i

I believe

worth noting that the Syriac
1

CO ) answers

to

this revised

Jas. ii. 16 might itself be based on Mat. vi. 32, if the
translation of iiriova-ios.
gloss were not so natural (corap. Ex. xvi. 22 rot d€OPTa = Un?, Prov. xxx. 8 to.

So Tert. de Oratione vi. (Panem enim peti
TO. avTdpKy]-''###BOT_TEXT###gt;Vt DH?).
mandat, quod solum fidelibus neccssurium est cetera enim nationes requirunt),
and the familiar words 'AH things that be needful both for our souls and bodies.'
In the Peshito then may we not have the substitution of a familiar gloss for the
unsatisfa^ory word of the Old Syriac, a substitution which would be in harmony,
as the Old Syriac rendering was at variance, with the form of the clause in
common use as preserved to us by Ephrem (see above p. 49 f.)? We have the
somewhat similar case of a well-known gloss derived from a phrase of the N. T.
gaining a place in the text in the African Latin Version of Matt. vi. 13 (e.g. Cod.
Bobiensis, ne passus fucris induci nos in temptationem). Here Tertullian preserves
the gloss which has become part of the text in Cyprian's time. See p. 6-1 f.

MovTo. Kol

;

'

'GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.'
It

53

seems impossible that the two words to-morrow and to-day

could have stood side by side in the clause \ and Jerome disguises

the contradiction lurking in his fusion of quotation and

by the gloss which he

The evidence taken together
from the nature of the
witnesses as
sistentl}''

we

case.

is no doubt scanty
it must be so
But when we cross-question such
;

have, their testimony appears to

and unanimously

in favour of the

bread of the

me

to be con-

theory that the original

form of the clause in the Lord's Prayer ran thus
{or the)

comment

slips in {crastinum, id est futurum).

'
:

Give us our

day.'

In reviewing the evidence we must remember that in such a
reconstruction of the history of a phrase as I have attempted, there

must necessarily be many hypotheses whose only support is mutual
agreement and inherent likelihood. Further, the general result
does not depend on the minute accuracy of each step of the
reconstruction.
To pretend to recall stages of change and revision
which were bound up with the manifold life of the Church of
the First Days, liturgical custom among Christian Hebrews aud
Christian Hellenists, the influence of oral tradition and written

memoranda both

in

Aramaic and Greek, catechetical

instruction,

the teaching of Missionaries and other converts leaving the Mother

Church at
tion in the

absurdity.

and of translaChurches which they founded, would be a palpable
An approximation to such a work is all we can hope for.

different times, the influence of usage

The general
(1)

(3)

The
The

is

due to

(2)

and

(4)

result

is

this:

This petition of the Prayer refers to bodily needs^
epithet

is

temporal, not qualitative.

epithet

is

not part of the original form of the petition,

liturgical use.

All the

phenomena may be reasonably explained if we
for which there is some independent

assume, an assumption

evidence, that the clause originally was

'

Give us our {or the) bread

of the day.'
1

Ou

2

In Didache

the Memphitic Version see note on p. 46.
x.

2,

where we practically have the

Lord's Prayer, the reference to actual food comes

first:

earliest exposition

^KTiffai TCL TravTO. ivcKa rod oi'dfj.aTol ffov, Tpo(p7}v re koL ttotov ?5^)^as
els dirdXavaLi',
/cat

IVa

croi

evxa.pi-<Trr](TU<Tii', r]p.iv

^wriv aidiviov 5id toO 7rai56s aov.

5k

exo-piffij}

of the

av, 8^(TT0Ta iravTOKparop,

irvevfuaTLKT^v

to?? (wdpihiroi'i

Tpo<p'iji'

Kal ttotov

HM?N TA

KAI A4)eC

HMeTc A(I)HKAMeN TO?C U(})eiA6T!MC HMOON (St MatthEW).

COC

KAI

KAI

A(f»GC

KAI

r<^P

Four
forms

HMOON,

6(})6|Ah'M(\TA

HM?N TAC AMApTIAC HMOON,
nANTI d(|)eiAONTI HM?N (St Luke).

A(})I0M€N

Ay'toI

problems are suggested by the variations

the two

in

of this petition.

Which

(1)

Matthew, or the

more

the

is

the

original,

Ta(; afiapria<i

of St

Luke

of St

o^eiX'qfJ.ara

to.

In the discussion of

?

assume that the Old Syriac may be taken

this question I again

as representing approximately the original Aramaic.

Do

(a)

and the Greek words meaning

the Syriac

throw any light on the question

The
Syriac,

Syriac

*QOn

m,

The

'

?

the word

not decisive.

is

forgive

*

late

in the

Vulgate

Hebrew word pl^ (=

to leave

in the

Old and

23; comp. Matt, xxvii. 46) is used
(see Gesenius Thesaurus) in the Targums as an equivalent to
ri/D and K^J (= to forgive), words, which are not, I think,
The Syriac word is used both
applied to the remission of a debt.

or

Dan.

desert,

12, 20,

iv.

of the remission of a debt (Matt, xviii. 32, Lc.

forgiveness of sins (Rom.

The

Greek

case of the

word indeed

xi.

27, 2 Cor.
d(f)ievai

1,

2),

but

it

also

is

the

words meaning to 'forgive

Ex.

xxxii.
this

Ps.

32,

sense

latter

prayers (Gen.

1.

avTa>v, Ex. xxxii.
d(f>€<;,

Kal

Numb.

a(f)€<i

is

42) and of the

vii.

10).

somewhat

This

different.

used in the LXX. to represent \Df2^ (to remit a

is

debt, Dcut, xv.

In

ii.

xiv.

xxv.

the

vhti

18),

imperative

17 ac^e? avToi<i

32

el

19 a^e?

sins,'

fiev

Tr}v

d(f)€L<i

the
i.e.

common

N^j

(e.g.
a(f>e<i

Lev.
is

iv.

very

dhiKiav koI

avTot<i

rrjv

equivalent of

(e.g.

Gen.
20,

17,

1.

v.

10).

common

rrjv

dp.apriav

avratv

Trjv d/j,apTiav toJ \aa> tovto), Ps. xxiv.

TTacra? Td<i dfiapr[a<i

fiou).

Compare

in

dfiapTiav

18

Ecclus. xxviii. 2

'

'FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS.'
a^e? ciBiKTjfia T(o
aou XvOrja-ovTai.

55

irXr^aiov crou, Kal rore SerjOevTOf; crov

Hence a

would be under the temptation

But

the

dfiapria';.

Ta.<i

there any ambiguity in the original word

is

LXX.,

to strain a point in translation

that he might secure the familiar sequence a^e?
(6)

a/xapriai

at,

with

familiar

Hellenist,

meaning

'debt' to minimise the unfaithfulness of such a translation

?

The word both in the Old and in the Vulgate Syriac is ^^^cu^.
The verb *^Q_kj (= IIH, In Targg. persaepe pro hebr. U^i^,
^^D^^/ Ges. Thes), properly meaning 'impar, baud capax, fuit
(see Payne Smith Thes. Syr.), is frequently used in connexion
'

with sin

Hex., 1 Cor.

vi.

signifies

reum

'

and defeat

(e.g.

2 Kings xiv. 12

It occurs also in the derived sense 'debuit,'

7).

Rom.

10,
'

fecit,'

in Deut. xxv.

e.g.

22, 27),

iv.

Deut. xxiv.

in

e.g.

Lev.

(e.g.

Kings

1, 1

the causative

Further,

8.

xiii.

condemnavit,' without any idea of debt,
viii.

32, Matt.

41, Lc.

xii.

vi.

More-

37.

over the substantive used in the Lord's Prayer, though occurring
in

the phrase 1oq_kj

Sam.

xxii. 25, 1
'

sins

(Dan.

'

ix.

20

'

my

.

the context gives

any thought

the sense of

it

(,^
'

i

It

is

easy therefore

dfiapTia'i intruding

to

'

that

'

Mr

ii.

14

yet used without

is

Hence, although in the
the meaning, the word

fix

ra'^ afiapTia<; rjfjLwv.

account for this Greek phrase ra?

'

;

and thus

I

am

by quite another

led

Page's conclusion {Expositor, 3rd Series,

we seem

precise

the equivalent of the original Aramaic

itself as

word here meaning debts
road to

Greek by

in

The

').

though in Col.

our-debts,'

of debt in Ex. xxxiv. 9.

might be translated

my people

OQ-»^),

Lord's Prayer the words 'our debtors'
itself

Ex.

creditor;

i.e.

yet in the plural means simply

sins. .the sins of

in the Lord's Prayer

word used

of-the-debt,

(lord

"j^lD

xxii. 2, Lc. vii. 41),

vol. vii. p.

437)

Matthew a more accurate reproduction

to have... in

of the original.'

The Didachd has

(2)

6(f)eL\rjfiaTa

rjfiwv.

A

t^jv

o^eiXrjv

in

rj/xSv

place

of

to.

sufficient explanation of the variation in

the Didache might perhaps be found in Matt,
rrjv 6(f>€i\r]v eKeivqv djtrJKa croi.

But the

xviii.

32 iraaav

variation may, I think,

be better explained as reflecting a slightly different reading of
the original Aramaic.

and

»

oa>j

The

(our-debts)

is

difference between

very small.

^Q-k»

(our-debt)

THE lord's prayer

56

The phrase

(o)

pared with that in

in

Luke
St Matthew
in St

the early CEIURCH.
ttuvtI ocpelXovrc

rj^iwv,

0(/>eiX€Tat<?

rol<i

com-

as

rj^ilv,

has the

appearance of a paraphrastic rendering.

We

that the terse _*.£:ia-K>.\ (our-debtors)

more

likely to be the

\Sn\ (to-every-one

who-is-indebted

than ^-^ »n

original

t

kj>

is

can hardly doubt

to-us).

There remains still the more perplexing variation, w? kol
(St Matthew), kul yap avrol dcfyiofxev (St Luke).
In St Matthew the Old Syriac has,
(4)

7]fi€L^ dcfirjicafiei'

will- (or

we

may-) remit

as (or in-order-that)

also

Li St Luke,
we

will- remit

The Old
Gospels

in

;

is

it

will be noticed, has the

is

future

'

in

both

therefore strong ^reason to believe that the

the original form.

the d^LOfiev of St

'

Gospels the Vulgate Syriac substitutes the

both

There

'perfect.'

'future'

Syriac,

and- also

This supposition

Luke and the

this be so, is not the original

dc^Uixev of the

is

supported by

Didachd

But

if

connexion between the two parts of

the petition the simple form preserved by the Old Syriac of Lc.

'remit to us and we also luill remit '^? The whole petition
becomes thus a prayer and a promise, a prayer for forgiveness, and
This interpretation
a promise that the suppliant luill forgive.
xi. 4,

has very strong support in the parable of the unmerciful servant
(Matt, xviii. 23

Here the

ff.).

represented as the model
13,

of,

divine forgiveness precedes, and

human

forgiveness (comp. Col.

is
iii.

The servant is forgiven, but lacks the grace
32),
The remission of the debt which he owed becomes
when he refuses remission to another.

Eph.

iv.

to forgive.

invalid,
It is

Prayer

is

remarkable that

this

view of the petition in the Lord's

supported by what I believe

the words in Christian literature.
(c.

6)

Polycarp writes,

o^etXofiev Kal

T^fi€L<i

the Lord's Prayer

is
'

el

is

the earliest reference to

In his letter to the Philippians

ovv ZeofieOa rov Kvpiov Xva ri^lv

d(f)fj,

That Polycarp is here referring to
put beyond (hspute by the fact that he refers
ncpcevai.

See the additional note on

p. 57.

'FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS.'

57

the following chapter to the next clause of the Lord's Prayer,
and by the mode in which this reference is introduced: Se^aea-cv
in

aLTOVfievoi rov TravreTroTrTrjv 0e6v

The evidence

T)fj,a<; el<;

iretpaafiov.

derived from Tertullian, the earliest witness to the

Latin text of the
It is

eia-eveyKeiu

f^rj

New

Testament,

at one with that of Polycarp.

is

given in the additional note at the end of this section

One

point more in this connexion remains.

and Mc.

vi.

(p. 58).

14,

15

25 seem somewhat out of place where they stand, the

xi.

former passage singling out

Prayer

Matt.

for

emphasis one petition of the Lord's

at the close of the section of the

Sermon on

the

Mount

which deals with prayer, the latter following the lesson of faith
drawn from the withered fig-tree. Is it rash to suggest that they
are re-settings of the words in which the Lord sums up the
lesson of the parable, ovTa)<i koI 6 Trc^-qp fxov 6 ovpdpto<; iroii^aei

Vfuv eav

firj

d(^rJTe

e/cacrTO? rco

dSe###BOT_TEXT###lt;f>o)^

In that case the eav ydp

vpLwvl
irarrjp

v/j,cov

of St

Matthew

(vi.

14,

avTOV dirb rwv KapStwv
kol

acprjre. ..acfirjcrec

cf.

Lc.

ira Kol 6 iraTrjp vficov...d(pr/ v[xiv of St

vpA,v

6

37) and the d^Ure...

vi.

Mark

(xi.

25) will refer, in

accordance with the teaching of the parable, to the continuance

and consummation of the divine forgiveness; though the language
has perhaps been slightly altered in accordance with the Hellenistic
translation of the Lord's Prayer, w? kuX

Clem. 13, Ep. Polyc.

d^-qKafiev (comp. Ep.

rjixei'i

2).

me

In this part of the petition St Luke seems to
form nearer to the original as far as the verb

to preserve a

(dcpiofiev) is

con-

Neither Gospel very exactly reproduces what appears to
be the original connexion of the clauses.

cerned.

Note on Syriac Versions of
I

am

traditional form-,

the

all
1

B

ff.);
-

It is

2,

not here a translation of the Greek, as

Contrast the Peshito

i->-ii

3 [rhv aXKbrpkov awaLT-qcreis Sera eav y

.

1

*^

(2)

croi

•^

wap' auri^,

The
the Lord's whole teaching gave a new meaning

ToD a8€\(f>ov) acpeaiv

ironjcrei^

deepened, by the addition of

toO xP^^v^

airo ruiv

ffov).

Kap8iwv

old

(.

(ii)

ti^ S^

it

omits

Though

in uncials?

aSeX^^'

command

is

"'"'^

(1)

to brotherhood (Lc. x.

v/xuiv.

No argument

can be founded on the fact that the Arabic of Ciasca's Tatian
as we have forgiven,' for it seems certain that this text has been

has the perfect,
largely modernised.
'

56).

p.

Luke represents the

In Westcott and Hort's text should not ry dSeX^y be printed

widened, for
27

(i)

important yap.

See Deut. xv.
(Cod.

this Clause (see

inclined to think that the Old Syriac of St

See Harris 2'he Diatessaron nf Tatian

p. 5.

THE lord's prayer

58
Ephrora

(iii.

641) has

p.

what

twice quotes the petition as

is

in

the early churcfl

substantially the Vulgate Syriac, Aphraates

it is

are worth quoting in

Horn.

2, §

Matthew, except

in the Old Syriac of St

that the connecting word between the clauses

is (vSJJj)

The passages

kSJO.

Homilies of Aphraates ed. Wright p. V^,
the Lord taught His disciples the Prayer, He

(a)

full,

'Again when
shall ye pray, Forgive us our debts and also we

14.

Thus

said to them,

^

will

And again He said, If thou
*^l<2) t'*ir debtors.
bring thy gift to the altar
(Matt. v. 23, 24), lest when any one praym

*~>

forgive (<£)0

1

'^>

eth. Forgive us our debts and also we will forgive our debtors, he be
caught out of his own mouth, and it be said to him by Him who receiveth

him who beareth up,

(or,

(Aj

I

»n

*^,»

who

Ajj) him

(j

Thou dost not

Gabriel) his prayer,

i.e.

how

indebted to thee,

is

forgive

shall they forgive

(^i.n*n •) thee? And so thy prayer shall remain on the earth.' (6) p. p.,
Hom. 4, § 7. 'Forgive us our debts that also we may forgive (^J->>-» •^1?

DQ-CUlJ': but

there

that thou

whether thou forgivest
not

lie to

God and say

.on

forgive (Aj"|

prayer. Forgive

it

.should be forgiven thee,

forgive (Ajj

do.st (or wilt)

—J_kkJ| «^|0 = 'and

another reading

is

Thou prayest that

debtors

*n,0

Think

•l).

;

then profess that thou dost

I

do

(or will) forgive

[Matt.

•).

me and

do

I

v.

23 f.

is

(p

(

first

|

profe.^^sest

within thy mind

For do

(or wilt) forgive.

*£l£ij» j),

then quoted]

(or will) forgive ((J

also we') our

and thou

when thou dost not
If

»ri *^

He

finds in thy

•O), then shall

it

be

him that prayeth by him that beareth up the prayer (i.e. Gabriel),
forgive thy debtor, then will I also bear up thy prayer before thy

said to
First

do thou forgive a hundred pence according to thy poverty
(i.e. God)
and thy creditor will forgive thee a thousand talents according to His greatcreditor

:

In these passages Aphraates seems to treat

ness.'

*Q0*^ m

1

as a present,

but the thought of the present seems to
merge into that of the future in several clauses. But however Aphraates
interprets the words himself, his evidence as to the current form of the
using the participle to represent

clause

is clear,

for in the

and not '^|?.
participle

It

second passage the context seems to require v2) (o,

should be added in reference to Aphraates' use of the
paraphrases that the Jerusalem Syriac

his

in

it;

has the

plural

O *^

• in the second clause of the petition.
The Old Syriac and Aphraates' comments on it find a curious parallel in
TertuUian's reference to the Latin Version of the clause. Tertullian does not

participle

i

quote, so

f;ir

'

This

is

as

I

know, the second clause of the petition

the reading in the form of the Lord's Prayer found in the Syriac Acts

of Judas Thomas (ed. Wright, vol.

whole clause

is

remarkable,

give our debtors.'
reference.

for forgiveness.

I

have

'

i.

p.

«-.

Forgive us our
to

>•;

di'hts

vol.

ii.

thank Prof. Bensly

p.

279 Eng.

Tr.).

we

too

for pointing out

to

and our

sins, that

may
me

The
for-

this

•forgive us our debts.'
Neither in de Oratione
exact words.

nor in adv. Marcionem

vii.

iv.

59
26 does he give

In the former passage however he gives the following gloss

:

iis
'

the

Quod

idem serwis a domino liberatus non perinde parcit debitori suo ac propterea
tortori delegatur
eo competit, quod remittere nos quoque profitemur

Jam

debitorihus nostris.

et alibi ex hac specie orationis, Remittite, inquit, et

Again, in the tract de Pudicitia

remittetur vobis.'

autem, ut dimittatur

non deum admiserit.

tibi

a deo.

ii.

he writes,

'

Dimittis

Delicta niundantur quae quis in fratrem,

Dehitoribus denique dimissuros nos in oratione profite-

This latter passage (dimissuros) certainly appears to suggest that in
some Old Latin copies the reading in the Prayer was dimittemxis. I do
not know that there is any MS. authority for such a reading. Cyprian's text
and comment {de Oratione Dom.) seem clearly in favour of the common
mur.^

reading and interpretation

Scientes impetrari non posse quod pro peccatis
petimus, nisi et ipsi circa debitores nostros paria fecerimus.'

As

'

:

these sheets are passing through the press, I notice that Prof. Marshall

in his article

on

the

Aramaic Gospel

in

the current

number

of the Expositor

His remarks confirm what
It seems to me howanaprlas.

(April, 1891) discusses this petition of the Prayer.
I

have said on the variation o^ftXr^VaTa

^i^d

ever that his method of accounting for the variation as koL i^/xus (Matt.) and
Ka\ yap avroi (Lc.) is open to criticism.
He writes thus 'The [Aramaic] word
:

The equivalent of "for" in this connexion is X03^
"in eo," "quatenus," "seeing that." The diflference in Aramaic is therefore
merely that of two letters very much alike and easily confounded.' But in

for "as," "sicut" is

the

first

N03.

place this suggestion, ingenious as

it

is,

neglects the evidence of the

Syriac Versions as a guide to the original Aramaic (see above
in the second place yap does not

p.

39

n.).

And

seem to me so obvious an equivalent of ND3,

the meaning of which Buxtorf (Lex. Chald.) gives as in quantum, quatenus,
eo, de eo, as to lead one to think that it would expel the word ws ( = NDD)

in

already familiar; in fact oj? would be nearer to ND2 than yap would be. If
such a confusion of Aramaic words alike in sound is to be postulated to account for the variation, it would be simpler to suppose that the Aramaic
words were "^^N ("^^H) and ^3. I think however that the Old Syriac of Lc.
xi.

4 preserves the original connexion of the two parts of this petition.

the version given

by St Matthew

of the petitions in the earlier part of the Prayer (p. 40

Gospel

— human

In

this petition is modelled after the type
f.)

as preserved in his

must correspond to (tor) divine forgiveness, just
as the earthly doing of the Will, the coming of the Kingdom, and the hallowing the Name should correspond to (a5s) the heavenly. St Luke gives a
forgiveness

version of the clause (current perhaps in the Apostolic Churches of Macedonia

and Greece) which aims at a more idiomatic Greek rendering. Here however,
we want a knowledge of the text of the Diatessaron.

as so often,

VI.

MH eicENerKHc HMAc

KAi

The

neipACM()N.

eic

word of the clause suggests a question of interest
with which it will be convenient to deal at once. The Syriac
last

versions have a word which, as

may be

to its vocalization

or plural ("jm

Vm

i

either singular

.

i

.

n
It

.

mi my
is

Luke

7

28

(.

.

«...

10

.

m

is

*
i

.mi

temptation)

the

same ambiguity

my

temptations, or

temptation).

therefore at least possible that the original form of the

petition was

would be

'

in

Bring us not into temptations,' and such a form

harmony with the circumstances

temptation {iravra
iroiKiXoi

xxii.

(]ir>

There

temptations).
..

in regard to St

obvious to remark, according

it is

irecpaa-juLov

ireipaa-fioL

which

is

Lc.

iv.

13),

common

to

of

our

Lord's

and with the phrase
St James (i. 2) and

St Peter (1 Pet. i. 6)'. The Old Syriac, it may be added, reads in
St Luke xxii. 40 Pray that ye enter not among temptations (see
below p. 62 n.), where the preposition shews that the noun is plural.
'

'

Further, in this form the petition would perhaps present less
difficulty when viewed from a theological and religious standpoint.

The evidence however does not seem

than the suggestion of the possibility that

to

this

warrant more

may have been

the earliest form.

The words

fi^ elaeviyKj)^ invite

discussion in

more

directions

than one.
'

In 2 Pet.

ii.

9 (olSev

Kupios (vffe^fU iK

ireipafffiov

possibly a reminiscence of the Lord's Prayer, thtre
the plural irnpacr^nov.

is

pveaOai),

which

is

very

considerable authority for

'

'BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.*

The Syriac

I.

Gl

versions, as probably representir)g the original

The Old Syriac

in St

Luke

The Vulgate Syriac in both Gospels adopts these words^
Old Syriac of St Matthew has ^A_.Z (make-us-to-come).

The
The

Aramaic, are of special interest here.
has
tjo

I

mi \

^\Z

]]o
and-do-not

make-us-to-enter

into-temptation(s?)

that the Vulgate Syriac has in both Gospels the

fact

phrase

make-us-to-enter tends to shew that this was the current traditional

Other reasons

form.

which

also,

the conclusion that this word

'

will

appear immediately, point to

make-us-to-enter

'

is

the original.

In discussing the interpretation of the words dirb rod irovqpov
I shall have to point out the close connexion between the Lord's
Prayer and the sayings of the Lord on the night of the betrayal

below

(see

p.

108

Fresh links come into view when we turn to

f).

the Syriac versions.

The Old

Syriac rendering of St

Luke

xxii. 40,

46

is

happily

preserved in the Curetonian fragments.
V.

40

nrpocrev'^ecrOe

ixr)

among

temptations
V.

46

elaekOelv et? ireipac fxov.

iva

'Trpo(Tev')(€(j6e

p,rj

into-temptation(s?)

that-not

ye-euter

elcreXOrjTe

ye-enter

ei<?

that- not

pray-ye

ireipaafiov.

pray-ye

The Syriac Vulgate has in both places the words which the
Old Syriac has in v. 46.
In St Matthew xxvi. 41 (Trpoa-eux^crde Xva ixrj eia-eXOTjTe et?
Treipaa/Mov) and in St Mark xiv. 38 {7rpoaev')(^eade "va firj eKOrjre
et? irecpaap.ov), verses

which are wanting in what remains

to us of

the Old Syriac, the Syriac Vulgate has the same words as
in the

A

two passages just

cited

has

comparison of these passages in the Syriac versions suggests

the following conclusions

Peal in St Matthew
1

it

from St Luke.

The

^

1

:

(1)

The same verb which is used in
Mark xiv. 38, St Luke xxii.

xxvi. 41, St

>>S Z. in the Vg. Syr. of St Luke

Arabic of Ciasca's Tatian has

'

make us not

is

only a difference of form.

to enter.

the
40,

The

THE lord's prayer

62
46

is

used in the Aphel in the Lord's Prayer as the clause

by both versions

The

the early church.

in

in

is

given

St Luke, and by the Vulgate in St Matthew.

close relation therefore

between the Lord's Prayer and the

the evening of the betrayal, which a study of the

history of

Greek Gospels suggests,

is

strongly confirmed.

So

(2)

far as a

single case can be urged, the revelation of a harmony, so natural

and

between the Lord's words spoken at different times,

so simple,

supports the theory that our Lord spoke in Aramaic and that

His sayings were current in that language.
such, however ancient, I suppose

St Luke

xxii.

40

'

interpretation of

m

i

to

1

being the

indication

(orav

has ]jo

is

I.

m \
T

^ \s Z

common

(4) Lastly

one*.

This

(make-us-to-enter).

In St James

(a)

i.

Vulgate Syriac

the

TTot/c/Xot?)

TrepLTriaijre

^\sZ.

in

to point to the plural

confirmed in two directions,

7reipa(rfjLol<;

gloss (for

Old Syriac

have a clear indication that the verb

the petition originally was,

in

2

(JO

The

(3)

to be) in the

among temptations' seems

we seem

"and chiefly

it

Here there

(ye-enter into-temptations).

is

no attempt to represent the somewhat remarkable word irepta word which, it may be noted in passing, seems to
irearjTe
:

suggest that St James had some such phrase in his mind as that

which

Luke

represented by the Old Syriac of St

is

among

Of the other passages

temptations').

where the word

occurs,

one (Acts

from our present passage

XTjaraU

irepLerrreaev),

;

xxvii. 41)

in the

in the
is

40 ('enter

somewhat
St

other, viz.

xxii.

New Testament

Luke

different

x.

30 [kuI

the two great Syriac versions endeavour to

give an adequate rendering of the word, the Old Syriac having 'he
into the hands of robbers,' the Vulgate

fell

'

there

fell

upon him

In St James however it seems as if the Syriac translator
enter,'
could not help reproducing the familiar juxtaposition,

robbers.'

'

'

temptation

^'

(6)

The word

ela(^ep€iv

is

the

equivalent of such an Aramaic word as ^^|.

1

The

Matt.

7, xxviii. 15,

"

9

We

Acts

ii.

Mc.

ii.

3, 23,

Lc.

i.

25,

vi. 1, viii.

Greek

Except in

plural appears regularly to follow the preposition ^lj_C5

xiii.

xi. 54, xxi. 23,

vi.

natural

(

five

= among):

43, xvi. 15,

John

x.

see
39,

9, vii. 2.

1 Tim.
But here the literal rendering is
by the metaphor which follows and by the need of conformity with

might have expected a similar turn in the Syriac translation of

(f/iJTtTrroi/o-ii'

accounted for

ets

neipaa/xw Kal Trayida).

the translation of the cognate phrases

els Kpljxa

i/j-Tr.

rod 5ia^6Xoi/

(iii. 6), ets oyfiSi<rfi6i>

:

'BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.'
passages

out of the eighty in which

ela<^ep€iv

is

frequently

the translation of N''^n, a

it

63

found in the LXX.,

is

Hebrew word which very

represented in the Syriac by the Aphel form ^^1.

is

If this account of the original phrase

is

and

true,

we may

if

look to the Syriac word rather than to the Greek as a guide to the

meaning of the

true

petition, light is

which have often been found in
elasticity

thrown on the

There

this prayer.

So

it

may

a certain

They sometimes

about the so-called causative voices.

approach a permissive sense.

difficulties
is

be here.

Certainly the

notion of deliberate guidance has no necessary place in the Syriac
word.

The

fact that this idea of

when

especially

€la-(f)6p€Lv,

equivalents of

it

guidance

is

is

contrasted

not prominent in

with

the

other

the LXX. viz., ajetv, eladyeiv, and more
X^^H
may have been the reason why the Hellenistic
in

rarely Trpoadyetv,
'

Brethren

'

chose this word to stand in the Lord's Prayer rather

than the other possible renderings of the Aramaic.
II.

to pass

way

The

last subject

touched on makes

into certain forms of the

(1)

it

an easy transition

from the Syriac versions to two glosses which found their

Old Latin

version.

In two passages Augustine deals with an interesting

form of this clause found in some Old Latin authorities.
In the first, de Sermone Domini (Migne P. L. 34

1282),

p.

he writes thus
'

Et ne nos inferas in temptationeni.

inducas, quod

tantumdem

NonnuUi

codices habent

nam

ex uno Graeco

valere arbitror

;

quod dictum est elo-eveyKrj'i utrumque translatum est. Multi
autem precando ita dicunt, ne nos patiaris induci in teniptationem,
exponentes videlicet quomodo dictum

sit

inducas.'

Sabatier,

referring to this passage, notes that Augustine himself
sistent in the use of

*

inferas

'

Again, in de Dona Perseverantiae

Augustine writes as follows

'Unde
sic

sic

con-

vi.

(Migne P. L. 45

p.

1000)

:

orant nonnulli et legitur in codicibus plurimis et hoc

posuit beatissimus Cyprianus

eixw. Kal Trayl8a

is

in this clause.

tov Slu^oXov

(iii.

in connexion with temptation.

:

ne patiaris nos induci in temp-

The word X"'3n appears in Jewish prayers
The Jews' Morning Prayer (cf. Berakoth 60 b) has

7).
'

the petition, \VD: n>'?...13.N"'nn ^X1

'

(Dr Taylor Sayinijs p. 141

f.).

:

THE lord's prayer

64

in

the early church.

In Evangelic tamen Graeco nusquam inveni

tationem.

nisi

tie

nos in/eras in temptationeni.'

In these two passages Augustine makes three assertions, which
we may consider in the following order, giving to the first of them
a somewhat larger scope.

The words

(a)

ne nos patiaris indtici in temptationeni are

found in some Latin writings, and

The

commonly

occur in Cyprian.

first

Arnobius Junior (Migne P.L. 53),
the inferior limit of whose date is the Eutychian controversy, in
the dialogue called de Deo Tnno et Uno (Lib. ii. ch. xxx.) assumes
writer

called

this as the true reading.

'Qui autem orat et

patiaris in teviptationeni,

non utique

id

orat

ut

dicit,

id orat ut

ne nos induci

homo

sit...neque

habeat liberum arbitrium,...neque orat peccatorum
mandatum. Orat ut non

reniissionem...sed orat plane ut faciat
peccet, hoc est, ne quid faciat mali.'

The same form

of the clause

is

given in a Sermon (Ixxxiv.)

printed in the Appendix to Augustine's Sermons.
is

quoted below

The passage

p.

67

The passage

f.

in Cyprian (de Oratione Doni.)

is clear,

and

is

as

follows
'

Illud

monet Doniinus

quoque necessarie

ut

oratione

in

dicamus Et ne patiaris nos induci in temptationeni. Qua in parte
ostenditur nihil contra nos adversarium posse, nisi Deus ante
permiserit, ut omnis timer noster et devotio atque observatio ad

Deum

convertatur, quando in temptationibus nostris nihil malo

liceat, nisi

potestas inde trihuatur!

have italicised the words in which Cyprian dwells on the
peculiar form of the clause as he accepts it.
It should further be noticed that Hartel, whose text is followI

ed above, records two variations of reading in Cyprian's quotation

from the Lord's Prayer:
fueris for patiaris,

(ii)

(i)

Cod. Veronensis substitutes passus

Cod. Sangallensis and Cod. Veronensis have

induci nos.
(b)

The reading has found

its

way

into several MSS.

(1)

'The

Bp

close affinity of Cod. Bobiensis (k) with Cyprian,' so writes

Wordsworth (Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. i. p. Ixvii), is the first
and surest clue that we have to guide us through the maze of
'

'

the questions connected with the early history of the Old Latin

"

'BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.'

65

This MS. reads ne passus fueris induci nos in temptatione.

Version.

(2) Cod. Colbertimis (c), which gives (see below p. 1.58) a 'mixed'
Latin text, has ne passus nos fueris induci in temptationem.

Sabatier gives ne patiaris nos induci as the reading of (3) Cod.
Sangermanensis {g"), and of (4) gat., a MS. of the Hieronyniian text

To these must be added two

of the Gospels at St Gatien's, Tours.

MSS. referred to in the critical note on Matt.

worth and

Mr

vi.

13 in Bp. Words-

White's edition of the Vulgate text of St Matthew,

'Cod. Dublinensis olim Armachanus (Book of Armagh),'

viz. (5)

(6) " Cod. Evang. Rushworthianus vel

Both of these

The

'

Gospels of 3Iac Regol'

MSS. read ne patiaris nos induci.

evidence derived from the MSS., taken with that of the

Latin writers quoted above, shews

one form

;

that

(ii)

it

(i)

that the gloss took more than

appears in the text at almost the earliest

date at which we have evidence in regard to the African Version,

and that

it

was widely known, though not commonly adopted into

the text of the Gospel.
(c)

'

Sic orant nonnulli,'

'

multi precando

ita dicunt,'

such

is

Augustine's account of the form of the petition which we are considering.

It

was common in devotional use

;

hence

it

gained

currency.

Three passages of TertuUian are instructive
I will

De

quote them
Oratione

in the

viii.

in this connexion.

probable order of date.

'ne nos inducas in temptationem, id est, ne nos

patiaris induci ab eo utique qui temptat.'

De Fuga

ii.

'

Erue nos a

rnaligno, id est, ne nos induxeris in

temptationem permittendo nos maligno.
Tunc enim eruimur
diaboli manibus, cum illi non tradimur in temptationem.'
Adv. Marcionem iv. 26 Quis non sinet nos deduci in temptationem ? Quem poterit temptator non timere, an qui a primordio
temptatorem angelum praedamnavit?'
'

The thought
tion

is

of the divine permission in the matter of

tempta-

the turning point of Tertullian's interpretation of the last

two clauses of the Prayer, as later on (see p. 134 f ) will appear
more clearly. In these passages we see the words in which that
thought found expression in the very act, as it were, of securing a
place for themselves in the text.

the thought
C.

is

clearly expressed

;

In the passage from de Fuga
in the earlier passage from de
5

THE lord's prayer

66

the early church.

in

Oratione the form which in Cyprian

is

part of the prayer itself

given as the proper expansion of the petition

is

in the treatise

;

must needs be included
Thus the gloss is already

against Marcion, the thought of permission

hasty reference to the clause.

in a

laying aside

There

is

its

no need

He

this scholium.
tion,

guise and boldly assuming a higher place.

is

to suppose that Tertullian is the author of

probably only repeating a devotional adapta-

already current, of a hard saying.

due to

That

this adaptation

when the

liturgical usage will appear presently,

of the other kindred gloss on this petition has cleared the

an investigation into their
sufficient to

common

now under

notice that the gloss

which seemed

petition.

to offer

The Pauline passage

Cyprian however {Testimonia

1 Cor.

an authoritative explanation of

iii.

is

not

it

is

x.

this

by Tertullian.

quoted

91) represents

vos non occiipabit nisi humana.

for

it is

consideration

ultimately to be traced back to the words of St Paul in
12, 13,

way

For the present

origin.

is

discussion

thus, 'Temptatio

autem Deus, qui non

Fidelis

patietur vos temptari super quod potestis, sed faciet

cum

tempta-

tions etiam evadendi facultatem, ut possitis tolerare

Related Interests

The passage

(2)

soften

of St Paul

by Latin writers

service

down

in

however was pressed into the
It had helped them to

another way.

the difficult ne nos indiicas.

limitation of temptatio.

It

also suggested

a

This gloss appears to be later than the

it hung about the actual text, but has not, so far as I
know, been found in any MS.
I quote in full, as they are instructive in many ways, the

former;

passages referred to by Sabatier.

Hilary in Ps.

cxviii.

(Migne P. L. 9

510)

p.

'

Scientes qui-

dera frequenter nos ab eo ob temptationes derelinqui, ut per eas

Verumtamen secundum Prophetam
ait enim, Non me
derelinquas usquequaque nimis. Quod et in dominicae orationis
fides nostra probabilis fiat.

ne nos penitus dereliuquat deprecandus est

^

I

quote Hartel's

saec. vii.)

text.

He

ventiim facultatis

in

A = Cod. biblioth. Sessorianae,
= Cod. Wiirzeburgensis) has pro-

notices that (1) Cod.

has quod ferre potestis;

(2)

place of evad.

'Temptatio vos nou adprehendat

nisi

Cod.

W

(

(

The Vulgate (Cod. Amiatinus) has
humana. Fidelis autem Deus est, qui non

facitlt.

patietur vos temptari super id quod potestis, sed faciet

ventnm, ut possitis sustinere.'

:

cum temptatione

etiam pro-

'BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.'

cum

ordine continetnr,

dicitur

quarn ferre non possimus.

temptandum

;

Non

derelinquas nos^ in temptatione

Scit

Apostolus derelinqui nos ad

mensuram

sed novit et

(57

infirraitatis

nostrae

Deuai

nosse, dicens Fidelis est Deus, qui non permittat nos temptari super

Job Deus temptationi permittens a iure diaboli
potestatera animae eius excerpsit.'
Chromatius Bp of Aquileia, a contemporary and supporter of
Chrysostom, a friend of Ambrose, Jerome, and Rufinus (Migne
P. L. 20 p. 362) Dehinc ait Et ne nos inducas in temptationem,
qiiam possumiis.

'

sed libera nos a 7?iaZo....Non ergo ne in toto tentemur oramus, sed

ne supra quam virtus

ipsum

in

alio libro

Sermon on the Mount
scriptum est Et ne nos
possumus.
est,

fidei

patitur temptationi tradamur; quod

Evangelii [he
in

here commenting on the

is

St Matthew] ostensum est:

in/eras in temptationem,

quam

enim

sic

sufferre

Apostolus quoque, ut id ipsum ostenderet,

non

ita testatus

dicendo Fidelis autem Deus, qui non patitur temptari super id

quod

potestis, sed faciei

possitis tolerare.

cum

temptatione etiam transgressum, ut

Et ideo non illam temptationem a nobis

auferri,

quae esse potest utilis, deprecamur, sed illam, quae ad fidei nostrae
eversionem modum infirmitatis excedit. Et idcirco congrue et
necessario in fine orationis etiam liberari nos postulamus a mala,
qui fidem nostram diversis temptationibus quotidie expugnare non
desinit, a qua nos non immerito quotidiana oratione deprecamur,
ne immissionibus ipsius impediti praecepta divina minime possimus
The masculine interpretation of a malo is to be noticed.

implere.'

Jerome in Ezek.

xlviii.

16 (Migne P. L. 25

recesserimus ab aquilone, vento

frigidi.=isimo,

p.

484)

'

Curaque

transimus ad meri-

diem, et post ortum in nobis lumen scientiae, occasum fortitudinum
formidamus, nequaquam praeterita sed futura considerantes, nee

habentes certam virtutis possessionem sed quotidie in oratione
dicentes,

Ne inducas

nos in temptationem

Augustine De Serin. Dom.

ii.

9

'

quam ferre non

Aliud

onem, aliud temptari... Inducimur enim
fen^e non possumus.'

This passage

is

si

Et nepatians nos induci
1

Here

cxviii. 8

is

(non

in temptationem

another Scriptural gloss making

me

quas

tales acciderint

not noticed in Sabatier.

Pseudo- Augustine Serm. Ixxxiv. (Migne P. L. 39
'

possumus.'

est induci in temptati-

its

derelinquas usquequaque), xxvi.

p.

1909)

quam ferre non possumus,
way

into the text.

Comp.

9, xxxvii. 22, Ixx. 9.

5—2

Pa.

THE lord's prayer in the early church.

68

Vide quid dicat quam ferre non possumus

noa

:

dicit,

non inducas

nos in temptationem; sed quasi atbleta talem vult temptationeni

quam

ferre possit

humana

conditio, et unusquisque ut

ab inimico et a peccato, Uhevetur.

est,

a malo, hoc

Potens est autem Dominus

qui abstulit peccatura vestrum, et delicta vestra donavit, tueri et

adversum

custodire vos

malo again should be

interpretation of a

non vobis

diaboli adversantis insidias, ut

obrepat inimicus, qui culpam generare consuevit'.'

The masculine

noticed.

Hitherto we have confined our attention to Latin writers in reference to both these glosses.

It

in Latin writers that they both

is

attach themselves to the text of the Prayer, though

it is

only the

them which has gained a place in extant Latin copies
the N.T.
But it is important to remark that the first gloss
first

of

of
is

found in a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria (Migne P. G. 10
1601, see below

p.

Treipaa/jbov'

where

Tim.

1

p.

rovreart,,
vi.

9

140) koX 8^ koi
firj

is

elaeviyKT}!;

Cor.

1

et9

13,

x.

rjfjLciq

et?

neipacrfiov,

Further, a

a prayer has been already quoted

in

33) from Agathangelus, 6

(p.

/xt]

efiTreaeiv

Vfid'i

combined with

embedded

similar phrase

iaarj^

e'ao-a?

iireXdelv

rifjuv

top Treipaa/xov

have pointed out that there appears to be a large
liturgical element in Agathangelu.s, and this fact at once suggests
that we have only partially followed up the clue given in AugusTovTov.

tine's

I

words

dicunt.'
dicentes.'

(p.

orant

63), 'sic

nonnuUi,' 'multi

Compare Jerome (above p. 67)
The true origin of these allied

when we turn

firj

p. 6)

ov vTveveyKtcp ov Svudfieda.

same Liturgy (Swainson
Kvpie,

in

ita

oratione

glosses appears at once

to the following passages from the Liturgies "^

Liturgy of Alexandria (Swainson
-rrecpaa/jLov,

precando

'quotidie

p.

62

f.,

et(TeveyKr]<;...7rovr]pov.

cniKay-^via, ore ov

^

This whole passage

-

Dr Hort has

fir)

Hammond
olSev

yap

BvvdfieOa vireveyKUv hid
is

el<7eviyKT]<; rjna'^ el^

The EmhoUsvius
p.
r]

iroWr]

rrjv

aov ev-

iroWrjv

also found in Pseudo-Ambrose de Sacramentis

already suggested this explanation.

of the

189) vol Kvpie,

rjfiwv

v. 4. 29.

After speaking of the

doxology, he adds {Notes on Select Readings p. 9), 'Another apparently hturgical
interpolation occurs in several Latin Fathers, the addition of quam ferre (stifferre) non

the Gospel

possumus to temptationem
itself.'

He

:

it is

does not notice the

not

known

first gloss.

to exist in

any Latin

ms. of

:

'BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.'

aadevetav dXka
Bvvaa-daL

'^fia<;

tw

Troirjaov <jvv

Trecpaa/xo) koI rrjv eK^aaiv, rov

vireve'yKelv.

Liturgy of St James (Swainson
airoaTrjcrrf^

rinerepa^

69

a^' rjiiwv

rrjv

iraihua^; iiraya'^rj'i

8vvdjj,€0)<;

the same

Liturgy (Swainson

eca-evejKTj'i

rjfxa^

eh

225

p.

^orjOetav,

(7r)v

p.

ireipaafiov,

306

Hammond

f,

T^/jLd<;...ij,r]

^apvrepw; t^?

The Emholismns

rjixlv.

Kvpie,

pvaaL

f.)

fiTjBe

Kvpce rdov

VTrevejKeiv ou Svvdfieda, 6 etSw? rrjv daOiveiav

p.

48)

Zvvdfiewv,

^/xoov,

nWd

of
pLrj

ov

pvaai

K.T.X.

The
p.

Syriac Liturgy of St

James (Swainson

p.

348,

Hammond

78) has, 'Domine, Deus noster, ne inducas nos in temptationem,

quam

virtute destituti sustinere

non possimus,

[sed fac etiam

tentatione proventum, ut possimus sustinere,] et

The Emholismns

cum

libera....

(Hammond

of the Coptic Liturgy

p. 223) ne
nos inducas in temptationem, neque perriiittas ullam iniquitatem

in nos dominari.

A

consideration of this liturgical evidence, of the passages

from Tertullian and Cyprian (above pp. 64, 65), of the fact that
neither of these two glosses occurs in any known Greek text of
the N.T., and that only one of them

is

found

in

any known Latin

text of the N.T., and lastly of the analogy of other additions to

and adaptations

made

of the Prayer,

seems to me

to prove that

they

way from the Liturgies into (or towards) the text of
the N.T., and not vice versa.
The further fact that these glosses
occur in writers who are separated from each other in time and
their

in circumstance,

and that they are found

in Liturgies

to different families, shews very clearly that they

belonging

must be due

to

very early liturgical usage.

Note on an English Version of

this clause in the King's

Book

(1543).

The

Institution of

has on the clause

And

a Christian Man, 1537, often
leade

its

called the Bishops' Bool;

not into temptation the following

For the more playne declaration of the sixth petition we thinke
that all byshops and preachers shall instructe and teache the
'

our Savior

Je.sus Christ teacheth

it

comment
convenient

people... that

us not in this sixth peticion, to praye unto

70

THE lord's prayer

IN

THE EARLY CHT^RCH.

god our father, that we shulde be clerely without al temptation, but that he
wol not suffre us to be led into temptation.... Sayncte Paiile sayth, The
trewe and faythfuU god wol not suflfre us to be tempted above that we maye
but he wol tiu-ne temptation to oiu* profit, that we maye susteyn it
and overcome it.' This exposition is substantially repeated in the Necessary
Erudition of any Christian Man, 1543, often called the King's Book. But
here the petition in the Prayer itself is And lette us not he ledde into temptation.
The history of the clause in Tertullian and Cyprian cviriously repeats
itself, though the explanation of the history may be quite different in the two
epochs.
I do not know that this gloss is found in any other English Version
beare,

of the Prayer.

VII.

aAAa

pyCAi

HMAC And toy nONHpoy

In a discussion of the interpretation of
questions require investigation

:

(1)

(St Matthew).

this clause three distinct

the meaning of the prepo-

and e/c after pveadac and kindred verbs; (2) the origin,
meaning and use of the term 6 irovr^po^ (3) the evidence as to

sitions aTTo

;

the gender of diro rov irovr^pov to be derived from
(ii)

the Epistles,

(i)

the Gospels,

early Christian literature, (iv) the earliest

(iii)

Versions.

Frequent reference will be made to the friendly controversy
two great scholars, who have since then passed away. It was
opened by Canon Cook's Protest against the change in the last
of

petition of the Lord's Prayer. ..a letter to the Bishop of London,

dated four days after the publication on

Revised Version of the

New

Testament.

May

17, 1881, of the

Bishop Lightfoot's three

answer to Canon Cook appeared in the Guardian on the
and 21st of the following September'. Canon Cook

letters in

7th, 14th,

replied

by a

full

statement of his case in a Second Letter dated

26 November, 1881 ^

It

would be indeed unbecoming

the learning of the two disputants

more than once

to criticise

:

to praise

but, as I shall have occasion

Canon Cook's arguments,

I

may perhaps

be allowed to pay a respectful tribute to the chastened and almost
pathetic earnestness with which the veteran scholar pleaded his
cause.

ears for

Yet even such masters of the
humbler gleaners to gather.

1.

When
'

While

The prepositions
used with

full

airo

accuracy

reaper's craft have left a few

and ex
diro,

the correlative of

this is passing through the press I learn that

Bp

7rp6<i,

Lightfoot's three

volume On a Fresh Revision.
Canon Cook's protest had the enthusiastic support of Dean Burgon, The

letters are being reprinted in the third edition of his
2

after pvecrdat.

Eevision Revised, p. 214

ft'.

THE lord's prayer

72

the early church.

in

denotes motioa from, emphasising the idea of direction ; eV, the
correlative of et?, denotes motion out of, emphasising the idea of
Thus, for example, the

emergence.

two prepositions are used

correctly in the following verse of the Apocalypse (xxi. 2): koX

aytav ^YepovadXr]^ Kucvijv elBov Kara^aivovaav €k

TTJv ttoXlv tt)v

Tov ovpavov

meaning

When

rov 6eovK

oLTTo

deliverance,

then diro

used with a verb

is

properly implies nothing more than that

it

been averted. A person has been
in the neighbourhood of peril, and has been withdrawn unharmed.
The preposition ex following a verb of this class properly expresses
the threatened danger has

the further notion that the person delivered has been brought out
of the very area of danger

are

:

e/c

iradcov

Instances of this

itself.

20 (lxx.) vroXXat al

Ps. xxxiii.

avTwv (Hebr.

^A.t-\|rei9

full

twv

and again,

pva-erai avrov'i'^:

Dx3to^)

meaning

BiKaicov, koI

acocra<;.
But as a matter
commonly observed in the
LXX. and in the New Testament ? The answer with regard to
the usage of the former is of primary importance. It must
however be remarked that statistics as to the phenomena of the

Jude

5 Kvpto'i Xaov

of fact

is

e/c

7^9 AlyvTrrov

this distinction invariably or

LXX., in the present condition of the text and of the available

apparatus, can only be looked
It

is

upon

as approximate and provisional.

probably due to a sense of the distinction pointed out

above that the translators of the LXX. and the writers of the N.T.
alike avoid the construction (pvXdaaeLv gk, and, with the single
exception of Ps. cxxxix
preposition otto I

5,

always associate with this verb the

Avoidance

of,

not emergence out

The

the essential idea of this word.
preposition

is

But the
1

Comp. Lc.

{eKS-qixov/jLev dirb

danger

of,

is

choice therefore of this

a natural one.

case
ii.

rod

4,

is

Jn.

different
i.

when we

take the ambiguous verb

44, 45, 46, vii. 17, xi.

Kvplov...iKdr]fji.TJffc^i

1, 1

Thess.

6,

ii.

eK tov aujxaTos), Apoc. xvi. 17.

2 Cor. v. 6, 8

The contrast

between airb veKpQv (Lc. xvi. 30, Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64) and e/c veKpQv (Lc. xvi. 31
and always elsewhere) is very instructive. The (k impHes a certain relation to the
other dead: it hints at the thought of an dirapxv-

3

Comp. Ps. cxxiii. 7.
The passages are (a) Dent,

Jer. ix. 4, Mic.
Sir.

xii.

vii.

11, xxii. 13, 26, xxxv.

1 Jn. V. 21.

xxiii. 9,

Josh.

vi.

18, Ps. xvii. 24, exx. 7, cxl. 9,

5 (in all these places the Hebr. verb
22,

xxxvii.

8;

{b)

Lc.

is "IDL"'),
xii.

15,

Ezek. xxxiii.
2 Thess.

iii.

8,

3,

:

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'

Here taking

pveaOai, to deliver.

the occurrences of pveadai,

all

without distinguishing them according
represented, the verb

Twv x^ipwv) 20 times

iK

(or

Hebrew word

the

to

followed by ck 30 times

is

73

by

;

e'/c

x^'^P^'^^

while only 10 instances of aTro

;

are found'^.

A

more exact view of the
constructions

various

Hophal), and

WIH,

Hebrew verbs 65^5,

vSn,

7^0

are

The

in-

several

occurs about

t:*pK)), it

lo'^tt,

80 times as the translation of parts of

LXX.,

represent

to

the

if

Hiphil,

Piel,

the

in

used

is

gained

(Niphal,

75^^

equivalents

pueaOai

while

For,

vestigated.

verb

the

of

several

their

facts of the case is

results attained

are as follows.

"3 1*^

1.

Of

(1)

Gen. xxxii. 12*, xxxvii. 21*, 22*, Ex.

€K x^cpo^.

(a)

living creatures, chiefly persons^

8*, xviii. 9*, 10*, Deut. xxv. 11*, xxxii, 39*, Josh.
31, xxiv. 10*,

14

Judg.

vi.

xviii.

48*,

29*, 33, 34*, 35*, 2 Chron. xxxii. 13

xxxvi. 18, 19, 20,

7*

11

xlii.

(Theod.), Hos.
2

€K.

(6)

ii.

26*,

8*,

iv.

Ezek.

xiii.

12*, Zech.

Kings

(adoaai., so vv. 14, 15),

10, cxliv, 76, 11*, Is,

4, xcvii.

Dan.

xxii.

viii.

4*,

6*.

39*, Prov.

xvii.

3*,

vii.

2 King.=

xii. 7,

21, 23, xxxiv, 27*,
xi.

iii.

xxii.

13*, Jer. xv. 21*, xx. 13*, xxi. 12*,

xliii.

{(Tco^eiv),

Sam.

37*, 2 Sam.

xvii.

17*, Ps. xxii. 216, xxxi. 16, Ixxxii.

3*,

17, 1

9, viii. 34, ix.

{a(j>ei\ovTo), xii. 11*, xiv.

ix.

5

vi.

{aco^j}-.

but the LXX.

diverges from the Hebrew).
aTTo.

(c)

I

1

Job

2

4

(xi.

have noticed

•*

xxxiii.

v.l.),

Ex.

dirb

Numb.

19,

ii.

xxxv. 25*, Dan.

x^'po^ only iu 2 Esdr. viii. 31 (eppiaaro

when

23, 1

Mace.

a verb other than pueadai

In the prayer of Esther
petition pucrai

i7/xas

e/c

of the prayer,

to the Lord's

Prayer

is

(iv. 16),

x^'P^s

resemblance

'''^'

/Me, Kijpie,

7]/j.ai

airo x^'po?

:

is

is

is

used.

In

all otiier

noted.

pvaai

/xe

ix tov cpdjiov

/xoi'.

The

perhaps based on some Greek Jewish formula,
Fritzsche (Libri Aporri/phi p. 51) gives besides

pOcrai

ck x"/>6s tov <pb^ov fiov.

f^€tXaTo...e/c x^'P^y Trovr)p€VOfiii'(j}u).

used, the verb

which only exists in the Greek, there occurs the
is

to be noted.

12,

ii.

xii. 15.

'Tovqpevopi.ivujv Kai

which

the above the following reading
e^eXoO

7 (lxx.).

17, Ps. xvi. 13, xvii. 30, 49, xxxviii. 9, xlii. 1, cxix. 2, Prov.

Ezek. xxxvii.

In passages marked with an asterisk the verb e^atpeiffdai

cases

viii.

r]/j.as

sk xf'P^y

Comp.

tuji'

TrovTjpevo/j.^i'uiv

{(/>'

i]/j.a.^

Kal

Jer. xx. 13 D^yi.D ^iP••?'•^^ (lxx.

:

:

THE lord's prayer

74

Of

{2)

the early church.

in

things

Is. xlvii.

eK.

:

Compare Job

14*.

20,

v.

m»»
T

n'b
nnn
e t

:

••

pvaeTac

ck 6avaTou...€K

ere

"3 ft3^

2.

iK

(a)

2 Kings XX. 6

Of

(1)

T^ficov,

I

:

T

ere.

16, xxii.

2 Esdr.
^

(= Ezra)

Sam.

^:it9'p?

1* (=

Ps. xviii. 1).

(o-wo-et). Is. xxxviii. 6.
viii.

31.

xix. 10,

Nini

^:inNs

5|5t:

)h'^n ^hf^n

€k ^e^po? avro iravroiv

rjfia'^

Kul ai/TO? i^elXaro 'qfia^

e'/c

rwv

%ft/309 d\o(j)v\(ov.

Of things:

(2)

Hab.

ii.

9.

:

yi fj^D S^JhS

Tov eKcnraadTJvai

p

"3

3.

xiv.

AauelS epvaaro

6 ^aaiXev'i

ixOpoov

Sam.

2

2 Chron. xxxii. 11

D^ri^S^ 5|5D

:

r^Si

living creatures

(o-two-w),

eK x^^P°^ ^"^^^

(c)

aiSijpou Xvaei

')(^6ipo<;

xef/)09.

aTTo x6t/)09.

(6)

V

Of

(1)

e'/t

')(^eip6<;

kukwp.

living creatures

35 (i^ia-rraaa e/c tov arofiaro^: avrov),
2 Sam. xxii. 18, 49, 1 Chron. xvi. 35*, Ps. xviii. 18, xxxi. 16, lix. 2*,
tov
3, Ixix. 156, cxlii. 7, cxliii. 9*, Ezek. xxxiv. 10 {i^eKovfiaL...eK
e'/c aTOfiaTO'i
iroLin)v
eKa-iracrr)
6
(otuv
iii.
12
Amos
avTQJv),
aT6fj,aT0<i
(a)

TOV

e«r.

\eoi/TO<?

(b)

Sam.

1

Svo

xvii.

a-KeXr]),

(iTTo.

Mic.

v. 5.

Ps. xviii. 496, Prov.

ii.

12 (ha pvarjTai ae diro
Prov. ii. 16

oZov KaK>)<i Kol diro dvBp6<i XaXovfTot firjBev ircaTov).
is

altogether transformed in the LXX.
(c)

iK %ei/309.
:

nps

i^eCXaTO

Ps. xxxiv. 18.

Comp. Ex.

xviii. 4,

nnnXD ):h^')

p.e

iic

^etpo? ^apaco

.

1 The phrase however has probably arisen from a misreading
and a subsequent conflation of the two readings.

2

In Gen. xxxi. 10

a change

(^v dcpeiXaro 6 dibi tov

of constniction (Hebr. •IJ'axp).

warpos

vfj-wf),

of eiDD as "?30,

the simple genitive involves

:

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'

Of

(2)

(a)

things

Ex.

eV.

19, xxxiv.

75

vi. 6,

5, 18, 20,

Josh.

16,

li.

13*, 1 Sam. xxvi. 24*, Ps. xxxiii.

ii.

14, Ixxxvi. 13, xci. 3 (pvaerai

liv. 9, Ivi.

€« iraytBo'; OrjpevTutv, Kol airo Xoyov Tapd^a)8ov<i),

43

(7r€pa\r}<;),

i^eXov

Prov.

plcov),
II

kuI pvaai

fie

Zech.

x. 2,

jxe

Amos

'^eipo'i

6,

cxix,

':h'^n

dWoT-

vlwv

11 {i^€cr7raafiivo<;

iv.

Ps. xxii. 21a, xxxix. 9, Ixix.

aTTo,

2,

Prov.

pvaerai diro Oavdrov

12a

ii.

KaKwv avTov) the Lxx.

"3 03D

5.

''3

W^p

Is.

XX.

Deut.

is

In Jon.

irvpo'?,

e'/c

6,

xxiii.

{crwa-ov), xci.

36

4 {Bikulo-

not in B), Ezek. xxxiv. 12
iv.

6 {aKia^etv avrw diro

clearly connected

which occurs in the earlier part of the
4.

15a

(see above, 3(6)), xi.

the clause

:

(a7re\a<7&)...a7ro iravro'i tottov).

Tcov

cvii.

u'p^

u'^i

i^ vSarcov ttoWcov, eK

xxiii. 14,

(see just above), cxx.
auvrj

Tp

':^

n^;)

(t

2).

iii.

(6)

7

cxiiv.

7*5^n7

with

75^

verse.

TjSd ^J3D h^^^rh

=

16 (the wording

changed

is

aoid^vat nirh

in the

LXX.).
6.

To
e'/c

are

1^

"D

nnnD

Ex.

xviii.

10 (omitted in the lxx.).

pass to another important point, the prepositions diro and
often

interchanged

the

in

parallel

clauses

of

poetical

Thus, for example,

passages.
Ps. xxi.

(Heb.

xxii.) 21,

pvaai diro pofi^aLa<;
KoX eK

')(eipo<i

22

{'2ir[J2)

("1*^) Kvv6<i

rrjv "^v^riv fiov,

Tqv

fjLovoyevTJ

fiov

acocrov fie eK aT6fjLaT0<; (*3G) Xeovrof,

Kai diro Kepdrcov
Ps. xxxiv.

{'^TV^f^i)

fiovoKepcoTOJv rrjv raTrelvuicriv fiou.

(Heb. xxxv.) 10

pv6fi€V0<i 7rTO))(^6v eK

^etpo? aTepeoiripcov avrou (13QD pTH/b),
V

Kol TTTWXOV KOL TTePTJTU r/Vo TCOV tiapTTa^OVTWV aVTOV

I

T T

••

(l/TilJiS).

:

THE lord's prayer IX THE EARLY CHURCH.

76

Ps. Ixviii. (Heb. Ixix.) 15

awaov

airo irrfKov (tO^tSD),

fie

rwv

pvaOelriv €k

Kal

'^va

fx^

fiio-ovvTcov fie

ivTrayco'

(^XJSJ'tt)

Tov ^cidov^ roov v^droju (D**^

Related Interests

^ttyS/b).

~

e'/c

T

I"

;

Ps. cxxxix. (Heb. cxl.) 1

e^eXov

Kvpce, i^ dvOpcorrov

fie,

(D"Ti^^) irovrfpov,

drro dvBp6<i (CJ'^Ntt) dhiKov pvaai

Corap. xvii. 49,

Further, diro

xc. 3, cxiv. 8, Sir.

is

whelming

2

5.

sometimes used where reference

deliverance from some

fiov

li.

fie.

adverse

Thus

its victim.

(''y^3"73^) pvaai

power which

Jer. xlix.

(xlii.

aTreXda-o)

("Tl/^^m)

Bcea-Trdprjaav

iraacov

Ezek. xxxiv.

avrov^.

e'/cet.

made

aura diro

KaKwv (Hyin
T
T

^iiUtt)
"

dvo^Lwv

roirov

wv

iyco

7)

koI

;

12 (comp. Zech.

iravro'^

to a

over-

Heb.) 17 ovk ea-rac
T

eir

is

already

Ps. xxxviii. 9 diro iraacov tcop

fie.

avTcov ovSel^ aco^ofievo'^ otto tu>v
iirdrfco

is

viii.

(ni^ip^n"73^) ov

xxxvii. 23 Kal pvaofiac (^Dj^S^'im) avrov<i diro

rwv dvofiLwv avrwv (Dn^n^^i^

7'2f2)

(^v

rffidpTOcav iv

avTai<;.

Conversely, iu the phrases

and e^

drrcoXeia'^ (Sir.

be maintained.

It

li.

e/c

2, 12),

seems

in

6avdrov

(e.g. Ps. xxxii. 19, Iv.

14)

the stricter meaning of e« cannot

such cases to emphasise either the

extremity and imminence of the danger or the completeness of the
deliverance vouchsafed.

A

review of the whole investigation seems to justify the

fol-

lowing conclusions
(Ij
In regard to the Hebrew verb 7i*y it is more often
used of deliverance from living creatures than from impersonal
dangers further, the genius of the language, loving simplicity
;

and picturesque statement, explains the fact that the phrase
from the hand of is the favourite complement. As to the Greek

'

equivalents, the literal
X^f-po^

OTTO to

is

e'/c

the most
x^cpo'i, is

translation

of the

Hebrew

phra.«;e

— iv

common and further eV, being nearer than
most often chosen to render the Hebrew "tf^.
;

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL
It

is

Hebrew and

clear also that the phrases both in
^3/53,

*!*/D

%6t/309,

iic

—are used, though in

diro

e/c,

portions which appear in the

and

reference to both persons

The primary

(2)

77

ONE.'

Greek

in

different pro-

of references given above, in

list

things.

between

distinction

e'/c

and

according to

cltto,

which the former applies to dangers already experienced, the
latter to dangers which only threaten, is not observed in the LXX.

An

examination of the passages in which pveaOac and kindred

verbs are used in the N. T. naturally follows an investigation into
the usage of the LXX.

a verb used,

i^aipelv:

should be noticed, upwards of 70

it

times in the LXX. to translate

Kal

irdarj^;

Some Western
'

is

Acts

eV %etp69.

(i)

'HpcoBov

7'*5fn.

11 6 Kvpto<;...e^ei\aT6

xii.

John

The e/c %6i/c»o<?
irdar]';.
The Apostle was already in the

grasp {eiTe^a\ev...rd<i ^etpa?

vii.

lovoaccov.

authorities add e« before

'

here used in its strictest sense.

tyrant's

%etpo9

e/c

fxe

tou \aov rajv

r^? 7rpoaBoKLa<;

30, 44, x. 39

2 Cor.

;

32

xi.

1,

v.

f.)

;

iridaa^

comp.

4;

v.

the expectation of the

'

people' already encircled him.
(ii)

Acts

(«)

e'/c.

10 i^eiXaro avrov [rov

vii.

Compare

Traaaiv roov dXiyfrecov avrov.

The preposition
Comp.
7

i.

f.

Chron.

1

Guided by

Gal.

4

i.

To^ TTovTjpov.

discussion of this passage

1

On

(a)

dvaaTpo<prj<;

manner

rov Xaov Kal
i^fid'i

rcov

e'/c

roov

e'/c

iOvoov.

of life'

the other

1

i.

men

xi,

25

f.

we

rov alwvo<; rov ivearo)-

See

18 iXvTpooOrjTe

within

hand comp. Hermas

e'/c

reserved.

TraTpoTrapaSorov.

had held

2 Cor.

has very slight support.

e'/c

must be

Pet.

xxiii. 27,

e'/c.

oTTco? i^eXrjTai rjp^d'i

diTo Vd placc of

Xvrpovcrdai.

Acts

e.g.

here also give the full sense to

v/jLcov

e'/c

35 i^eXov

xvi.

(the latter passage throws no light on the question

of construction).

(c)

e'/c

clearly used in its full sense.

Acts XX vi. 17 i^aipov ^iev6<i ae

(b)

eOvwv.
Jer.

is

'I&)cr^<^]

Ps. xxiv. 22, xxxiii. 7, 18.

Vi.->.

p.

e'/c

115
r^?

Here obviously
its

The

ff.

'

/jLaTaia<;

the

vain

grasp\

iv. 1. 7.

At the approach of the beast,

THE lord's prayer

78

Tit.

(6)
r}ixd<i
'

14

ii.

o<?

the early church.

in

eScoKev iavTov inrep rj^wv "va XvTpaxnjrac

kavTW \aov

OTTO 7rdar]<; dvofiLa<i koL KaOapiarj

Iniquity' had been no merely menacing power.

men

subjected

yap

This

to its despotic rule.

dnro therefore

TTore Koi ^/Meh k.t.\.

is

Trepiovcrcov.

had actually

It

clear from

iii.

3

TJfiev

cannot imply a more or

less

It seems to differ from e« in that, laying less
on the power from which deliverance is vouchsafed, it leaves
more room for the thought of the deliverance itself \

distant danger.
stress

pveadai.
eK

')^eLp6<i

(i)

puadeura'i

awTTjpiav e^ i^dpcov

The song

^/xd<i).

To

Judg.

XXX. 16,

ii.

18,

34, 1

viii.

y^€tp6<;

up on O.

built

is

74 rov Bovvat

i.

Xarpeueiv

koi €k

rjfxooi/

Sam.

Iviii. 2, Ixiii. 2, cv.

iv.

d^o^wi

^fiiu

(Comp. v. 71
iravTcov twv fiiaovvrav
avrw.

T. thoughts and expressions.

many parallels may be found

this phrase in particular

e.g.

Luke

yeipo'i.

e'/c

i')(^dpu)v

3, xii.

10, cxlii. 9.

in the O.T.

10, Ps. xvii. 18, 21, 49,

The whole context shews

that 'the enemies' were tyrannous powers under which the Israel
of

God

actually mourned.

(ii) e/c.
Rom. vii. 24 tl<; fie pvcreraL Ik rov aa)fiaTo<; rov
(a)
davdrov tovtov; The thought is of a captivity (al^fjiaXwTi^ovTd
fxe V. 23) and a slavery (Bov\evio...v6fjLq} d/jLapria'i v. 25) of which
the body of this death (comp. the body of sin vi. G) is the
'

'

'

The

sphere.
(b)

preposition ck has

2 Cor.

The

pvaerai.

'

its full force.

10 o? ck rrfkiKovrov Oavdrou ipvaaro

i.

eV points to the nearness of the

iv kavTol<i TO aTTOKpcfia rov davdrov ia-x^jKUfMev
(c)

Col.

i.

13 0? ipvcraro

The

fierea-rrjaev K.r.X.

(d)
rfj<;

1

Thess.

ipxofiivTj'i.

i.

eK

sense of

is
'

e/c is

final

Syrian

outpouring of

koi

avrol

{v. 9).

clear.
r]iid<;

e'/c

tt}?

6pyf}<i

an apparently 'Western' reading which
'

text.

We

find in St Paul's writings

a double conception of the Divine wrath.

and

:

i^ovaia<i rov CKorov^ koX

Tfj<;

10 ^Irjaovv rov pvofievov

diro

passed over into the

full

vfid<i

i^fxds

enemy

it.

Thus Rom.

ii.

There
5, v.

will

be a future

9 {awdr)a6fie6a hC

the type of the great tribulation which should be, rip^an-nv epurciv rov Kvpiov tva
Deliverance from any experience of the monster's power
XvTpw<rr]Tat i^ avrov.

jj-e

is

obviously the point of the request.
^

Contrast Ps. cxxix. 8 Kai oJtos XuTpwa-erai rov

avTov.

'lcrpa-^\ €k iracwv

tQv

avofj.i.u>v

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'
avTov OTTO T^9
cn)<;

Thus Rom.
Toi)? viov<;

avTov<;

6pyfj(;)

There

6p<yrj<;,
i.

18,

is

5, xii.

Eph.

19,

6 (ep;^€Tat

v.

1 Thess.

6,

iii.

ri

ii.

/xeWov-

manifestation.

opyt)

rov deov eVt

16 {e(f)6aa€v Be

himself supplies the connecting link

Orjaavpi^ea creavro) opyrjv

:

(Rom.

iv rjfiepa opyrj^ Koi d'iroKa\.vy^eu><i hLKaioKpiaia^ Toi) deov
ii.

The deliverance

5).

is

the nature of the danger

a present reality

Thess.

1

the full revelation of

The general

subject

the second coming of Christ

2 Thess.

v. 2,

;

the future'.

lies in

of these Epistles to Thessalonica

(note especially

eir

Between the two conceptions St Paul

r€\o<;).

et<?

7 (f)vyeiv otto TTJq

iii.

also a present anticipatory

aTreiOla^), Col.

Tfj<;

opyrj

7]

iii.

coinp. Matt.

;

79

G

i.

— 10,

ii.

8),

the special

immediate context to this great expectation
{dvafievetv^ tov vlov avrov e'/c tSv ovpavwv) seem together to
shew that 77 opyrj 77 ipxo/jLevrj is the future exhibition of wrath
against sin.
In this case e'/c may most naturally be taken to point
reference

in

the

to the completeness of the deliverance.

He

*

brings us clean out

of the reach of future judgment^'
2 Tim.

(e)

iii.

11 koI e« irdvTwv

The

epvcraro 6 Kvpio<;.

fie

enumeration of dangers actually experienced which precedes these
words indicates the force of the
2 Tim.

(f)
pvcrerai

17,

18

e/c.

Kal

u Kvpio'i diro navT6<i

fie

demand

will

iv.

epvadrjv

eV crrofiaro^ Xeovro'i.

epyou irovTjpov...

fuller notice later on.

The passage

For the present

it

may

sufficient to call attention to the fact that here only in the

are the prepositions eV

The

each other.

eV

and

is

be

N. T.

aTro following pvecrdat contrasted with

used in

its

fullest

meaning, the phrase

being a proverbial expression for extreme and hopeless danger.
It is

an echo of the language of the 0. T.

(Twaov

Taireivwaiv

Dan.

10,

danger
^

fiov.

vi.

in

Comp.

Compare

Ps. xxi. 22,

eK arofiaro^ \eopTo<i, Kal diro Kepdrcov fiovoKepwrcov rrjv

fie

See also

20, 22, 1

Amos

Mace.

ii.

iii.

60.

12, Zech. ix. 7,

The

Ezek. xxxiv.

fierceness of the definite

the past, a wonderful deliverance out of which had

6 Kal TTJs fieWovcrris diroKoXinrTecOai 5o^j;s kolvuvos (I Pet. v. 1).

There

is

a present participation in that which shall hereafter be revealed.
*

dvafiheiv a oTra^ Xey. in the N.T.

— to

await a final consummation

is

best

by Aesch. Eum. 243 dva/ufvu reXos S^kt;?.
' Comp. the Ancient Homily (the so called 2nd Ep. of Clement), ch. vi. ttoiovvres yap rh deXrjiJM, tov "KpuxTov evpn^ffofj-ev dvairaviTii' el de fJ-riye, ovdev rifiRs pvaerai

illustrated

'

fK tt}! aiojflov AcoXacews.

THE lord's prayer

80

IX

THE EARLY CHURCH.

been vouchsafed, inspires St Paul with trust for the future. But
when the reference is to unknown evils which the future may
For
bring, the clear and pointed e/c naturally gives place to aTro.
here it is not so much the possible dangers on which the Apostle's

mind dwells

as on the certainty of deliverance.

ii. 9 olSev Ki/pio? euae/Seh i/c Treipaa/xov pveaOai.
reading
Trecpaafiwv has some support (X, with some cursives
The
and versions). The reference to the history of Lot shews that the

2 Pet,

(g)

full

sense here attaches to the preposition.
aTTO.

(iii)

Rom.

(6)

ev

raU

XV.

13 pvaai -qixm air 6 rov

irovripov.

80 f irapaKoXw he vfia^ .avvaycoviaacrOal fioL
tov Oeov, Xva pvcr9u> a-no rwv
.

.

St Paul asks for his friends' intercesJerusalem, which he hopes soon to make
not fall into the hands of his Jewish enemies. The

sion that in the

may

25) he

use of diro
(c)

is

'lovSala.

rfj

visit to

therefore obviously natural.

2 Thess.

pvcrdwpev
is

vi.

7rpocr6u;^ai9 virep ifiov tt/jo?

aTreiOovvTcov ev

(v.

Matt.

{a)

d-rro

1,

iii.

rwv

2 Trpoaevx^crOe, dBe\(f)ol, irepl ruiwv

droTrcov Kal irovrjpwv dvOpcoTrcov.

.

Xva

,

This passage

an exact parallel to that discussed immediately above.
2 Tim. iv. 18 quoted and commented on above.
{d)
aco^ecv.

(i)

John

(a)

e/c.

dWd

xii.

27 irdrep, awa-ov

/xe

eK

rfj'?

&pav ravrrjv. At first
wpav seem to imply that
the Lord speaks of Himself as having already entered upon the
Such an
hour,' and that He asks to be brought safely through it.
The
key to
unnatural.
appears
context
such
a
interpretation in
implies
a
contrast
dWd
The
the meaning lies in dWd hid rovro.
between the prayer awaov e/c r/j? wpa? ravrij^; and the conscious-

wpa?

ravr7}<;.

sight the words

e'/c

hid rovro r]ov

r?;? wpa<i

and

et<?

rr)v

et? rr]v

*

ness of a purpose (hcd rovro).

context
{v.

24).

;

it

The

hid rovro

is

explained by the

points back to the thought of the fruitfulness of death

The remembrance

corrects the prayer.

This

is

of the purpose, if

tion in loco, ovrco rerdpaKrai

BtaSvyeXv.

ravra t^9

we may

&;<?

Kal diraXXay/jv

dvOpcoTrivyj'i

<f)vae(o<;

ra

e/c

and ek represent the Lord

the shadow of the Cross.

put

it,

^rjreiv, el

The

e'/c

ye

ivfjv

da6evrip,ara...rr}^

rapayfj'i rovro dvayKa^ouai]'? Xeyeiv, ro evavriov Xiyco.

prepositions

so

substantially Chrysostom's interpreta-

Thus the

as just passing within

emphasises the idea of close

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'

81

'Rescue me even now from full entrance into the
hour of sorrow and death.' Comp. Matt. xxvi. 39.
proximity.

Hebr.

(6)

7 Se^aeit re koI

v.

iK€rripLa<; Trpo?

Here

aoo^eiv avrov €k davdrov. .TrpocreviyKWi.
.

rov hvvafievov

too the preposition

e« seems to express the nearness of the adverse power.

It should

be remembered that the phrase

i^atpelcr-

dac

K.T.X.

the fuller

Oavdrov with pveadai,

e'/c

had become stereotyped in the LXX., where e'/c, recalling
phrase ex ')^eip6<i, conforms with the Hebrew personificaSee Ps. xxxii. 19, Iv. 14, cxiv. 8, Pro v. x. 2, Job
14 (e'/c ;^6ipo9 aSov pvaofiaL koX eic Oavdrov

tion of Death.

Hos.

xxxiii. 30,

xiii.

The

Xvrpcoao/jLai avrov<i).

parallels from the 0. T.

would not of

themselves require us to reject the interpretation, 'to bring safely

through and out of death'; but what

is in itself the more natural
meaning of the words, seems also to harmonise best with the
unambiguous words of Matt. xxvi. 39.

Jas. V.

(c)
crooaet

20

eTrLaTpe^a<i d/xaprcoXov

avrov

"yjrvx^rjv

e'/c

This

Oavdrov.

e'/c

7r\dv7]<i

oBov avTov

no doubt the

is

common

O. T. use of the phrase ck Oavdrov.
{d}
Jude
meaning of e'/c

5 KvpLO'i

Xaov

e'/c

Alyvirrov

7?;?

The

au)cra<i.

full

here necessary.

is

21 avro'i yap (Twaei rov Xaov avrov
See the note on Tit. ii. 14, p. 78. Here
the personal act of the Saviour is that on which the main emphasis
(a)

diro.

(ii)

d-Ko

rwv

Matt.

i.

dfiaprtcov avrcov.

rests.

Acts

(b)

There

is

ii.

40 acoOrjre diro

rrj<;

an instructive passage in

of the phrase o-coOrjvaL diro.

In

<yeved<;

Numb.

v.

r^? aKoXid<;

xvi.

ravrrj'i.

bearing on the use

21 Jehovah, as

if

He

would

destroy the whole people, bids Moses and Aaron go forth from
their midst
r\^'lT]
-

diroa'^^^iardTjre

:

myn)
T T
••

On

e'/c

fieaov^

the other hand,

avvayco'yTj'i ravrrj'i

rrj<i

when

in

("^inD

answer to the interces-

and Aaron Israel is spared and commanded to depart
from the neighbourhood of Korah, the phraseology is changed

sion of Moses

:

dva-^copi^aare kvkXco diro ("7 !l^^D^) t?/9 (7vvayo)yT]<i K.ope
aTTOcr^/cr^'j^Te
V.

27).

'

c.

dno {7^^)

In the
Comp.

Is. lii.

first

rcuv (TKtjvcov

command

11 (2 Cor.

rwv

dvOpcoirtov

(v.

(v.

24),

26, so

the idea expressed by the preposi-

vi. 17), Jer. Ii. (xxviii.) 6,

45 (Apoc.

xviii. 4).

6

THE lord's prayer

82

in

tion is that of a disentanglement,

the early church.
an exodus

;

in the latter that of

In the passage from the Acts, the Greek in itself does
not decide whether those addressed were themselves included in
Certain expressions in the Apostle's speech
the yeved aKoXcd.
removal.

{Trpocnrrj^avTe<i dve'tXare

ia-ravpaicrare

vfi€L<i

3G

v.

23;

v.

'yivoncrKeTU) 7rd<i oJko<;

comp.

;

13

iii.

ff.,

19,

^Japa^\...ov

27 avv Wveaiv

iv.

KoX \aoi<i ^la-parjX) seem to suggest that they were so included.

The

however simply emphasises the idea of removal and escape,
avrov diro t^? 6pyrj<;. Here
V. 9 acodrjcroneda Be

aTTo

Rom.

(c)

the

expresses the thought

rtTTo

See above

78

p.

Jn.

(a)

15 ipwT(jo..."va

xvii.

Apoc.

10

iii.

T179 fieX\.ov(n]<;

KaroLKOvvra<i

eirl

T7]<;

eTrl

tP]<;

24).

e'/c

alone,

avTov<i ck rov irovripov.
(p.

109

ff.).

rrj^ copa<;

rov Treipacr/xov
ireipaaai rov<:

The

7^9.

v.

olKov/j,ev7]<; 0X779,

eK

Kd'yoo ere Trjpijaco

epy^eaOat

(John

by

followed

is

Tr)p-qa-j^<i

ep'^^erai

10.

reserved for discussion later on

The passage must be
(6)

i.

This verb in the N, T.

rrjpelv.

ovk

et? Kpicriv

the note on 1 Thess.

f.

parallel

St John's Gospel

in

(a-waov fie e/c Trj'i (opa<i TavTr]<; xii. 27, see above p. 80) suggests that
the preposition here does not imply any actual participation in this
*

temptation

and

;
'

this

presumption

close similarity between this passage
in

Luke

xxi.

35 f eTreiaeXevaerai, <ydp

BeofjLevoL

rtj'i

Karca^vaTjre

iva

7^9.

when we note the

iirX 7rdvra<; Tov<i KaOrjfievovi

,

TrpoacoTTOv trdar)';

iiri

increased

is

and the Lord's words recorded

dypvTTvetTe Se iv iravrl Kaipw

ravra irdvra rd fieWovra

eKcpvyeiv

yLveaOaL.

The only

<f>vXdTT€iv.
>

preposition which follows this verb

is

/

aTTO.

(a)

(h).

and warning
=
{^12)^)

p

In two passages a Hebraistic form of prohibition
is

borrowed from the LXX. (where <^v\a^at,

'^t^p

;

see Deut. xxiii. 9, Josh.

vi.

d-rro

18, Mic. vii. 5).

In both these places the idea of complete avoidance is conveyed
without any suggestion that the evil has been a dominating

The two passages are
Luke xii. 15 Spare koX (^vXdacrecrde drro 7rd(TJ}<; 7r\eove^ia<;.
1 John V. 21 reKvia, <^v\d^are eavrd diro rwv elScoXcov.

power.

(c)

The

:

2 Thess.

iii.

3

Kvpiot

discussion of this passage

.

.

.vfid<;

.

.

.(fyuXd^ec drro

must be reserved

(p.

rov

112

irovTjpov.

ff.).

:

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL

The

83

ONE.'

constructions after the following verbs are specially worthy

of note, inasmuch as each

of these

definite state, deliverance out of

verbs in itself implies

which

a

secured.

is

iXevdepovi^.

Rom.
SovXoi

18, 22 iXeuOepcodevTe^ diro tj;? afiapriw;

vi.

T7J<i

2 T]\€u6epa)crev ae

viii.

17

(v.

jjre

dfj.apTia<;).

Tov davdrov

23

(vii.

[/xe]

diro rov vofiov

dfiapria^i koI

t/;<?

al-^^/xaKcoTL^ovTd fie [eV] tco v6/j.(p rfj^ afiap-

Tia<i).

21

viii.

{v.

20

KTiacj iXevdepcoOtjaeTai diro t^? SouXem? t^t

t;

yap

Tjj

/xaratOTT^Ti

t;

Compare
Rom. vii. 3 iXevdepa iarlv dno rov vojjlov {v. 1
1 Cor. ix. 19 iXevOepo'i yap u>v e/c irnvroiv

Had

iSovXcoaa.

(f>dopd<i

ktIcti^ VTrerdyT]).

SeSerat).

rraaiv ifiavTov

the Apostle used the verb (iXevdepcodeU

i/c...),

he would have referred to an emancipation from a previous state

The actual phrase employed {iXeudepof; wv e'/c...)
shews that he wishes to emphasise the completeness of his freedom.
This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that irdcriv (inter-

of bondage.

preted by what follows) shews that irdvToiv
vi.

12

(uTTo TLvo<i), vii.

\veiv.
nTTO T17?

(a)

(1) aTTO.

(2)
rjfioiv.

Luke

xiii.

^ovp avrov...

15, IG ou Xvei top

is

a slightly-supported variant eV

27 XeXva-at aTro yvvaiK6<;;

1 Cor. vii.

eV {a) Apoc. i. 5 Tw...Xv<javTt r]/jbd<; ck twv dfiapTicov
There is however some authority for diro. Cf. Ps. cxxix. 8

XvTpoccreTai. .eV.
.

(6)

Comp.

masculine.

...ovk eSei Xvdfjuai drro tov Sicrfiov tovtov;

(f>drvT]<;;

In the latter clause there
(b)

is

23 {hoiiXoi dvOpamcou).

.

..

Apoc. XX.

7

XvOrjcreTai

6

%aTavd<;

eK

Tr}<;

^fXa/cr;?

avTov.
(1) aTTO.

fi€Tavo€iv.

Acts

viii.

Comp. Hebr.

KaKia<^ (TOV TavTrj'i.

22
vi.

fieTavorjcrov ovv airo
1

fieTavoia<i

d-rro

T7;<?

vcKpwv

epycdv.

(2)

eK.

avTr]<i.

So

^

(a)

The

Apoc.
ix.

20

f.,

ii.

21 ov OeXet fieTavorja-at eK t^9 7ropveia<i

xvi 11 \

construction of the following verbs also

aw6 Apoc.

xiv. 3, 4 (air6 t^s 7^?...d7ro

is

worth remark

tQv dvdpunrwv).

(h)

iK

:

(1) dyopdl;'fLi>

Apoc.

v.

6—2

9 (iK

THE lord's prayer

84

The preceding
one hand
on a

the early church.

On

investigation leads to a clear result.

the

shews that the distinction which has been drawn

it

pHom

in

grounds between airo and

e'/c

after verbs expressing

deliverance, rescue, &c. does not exhaust the matter.

theoretical distinction

is

Indeed this

but the point of departure

for actual

aVo, the more colourless of the

two prepositions,
adverse
or
power, whether
the
danger
simply implies removal from,
the person rescued has or has not been actually within its grasp.
The mind is therefore left more free to dwell on the thought of
differences.

the deliverer. On the other hand eV is used when it is desired to
emphasise the idea that the person rescued has been actually
Further however, through its
within the grasp of the enemy.

meaning

greater sharpness and vividness of

the danger

itself,

and serves

it

directs attention to

prominence

to bring out into special

either the imminent nature of the peril or the completeness of

the deliverance.

The prepositions are therefore in many cases interchangeable.
They express the same thing seen from two somewhat different
As they had been both used in the LXX. to
points of view.
represent

Aramaic

so they both stood ready to translate the

jJb,

preposition (for

we have

seen the strongest reasons for believing

that the Lord's Prayer existed originally in Aramaic) in the clause
of the

The Apostles were

Prayer under discussion.

obliged

by

the conditions of translation into Greek to give one or other of

two slightly differing shades of meaning to what in the language
No
in which the Lord first taught the Prayer was colourless.
doctrinal question is involved in the choice between the prepositions; for, to apply to the particular case the general conclusion

stated above, while diro rov TrovTjpov lays the main stress on the

thought of the deliverer and the fact of deliverance itself, e/c tov
TTovqpov emphasises either the nearness and greatness of the

irdffijj

So f^ayopd^dv Gal.

<t>v\r)i).

13

iii.

t^s Kardpai).

(e/c

abstain) (a) simple genitive Acts xv. 20, 28 (ruf

construction in

always with
ZiKaLo\J<Tdai
i^eadat.

(a)

v.

29

is

dTri

1 Cor. vii. 10,

vi. 7.

Acts

Hebr.

i.

(2)
.

.

direxfcdai

.elSuiXoOvTuv).

very instructive e$ uv diar-qpovi^es tavrovs.

dn-i 2 Cor. vii. 1,

Kom.

d\i(ryr]/j.aTuv

Heb.

ix. 14, 1

(4) nfraTldeffdai is

4 (dwb

vii. 26.

'lepoff.),

{b) ix

7, 9.

i.

2 {dvo

xviii. 1 {ix

ttjs

tQv

'Pw^t??),
'Ad-qviljy).

= to
The

(3) Kadapli^nv

Comp. Acts

followed by dir6 in Gal.

xviii.

Acts

Jn.

(

i.

xx. 26.

6.

Kom.

So

(5) x^/jf-

viii.

35, 39,

"'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'
danger,

or

the completeness

the

of

deliverance

85
from Satan's

assaults.

The origin and

2,

use of the

term

6 7rovT}p6<; as applied to Satan.

In investigating the origin and the meaning of the term
6 7rovr]p6<; as applied to Satan,

it

will

points as distinct as possible, viz.

conception which
use of the term

An

is

be convenient

to

keep two

(a) the development of the

expressed by the term

;

(6)

the history and

itself.

adequate discussion of the

first

of these points would pre-

suppose a consistent theory as to the composition and date of the
different

Books

of the

Old Testament, and a comprehensive study

alike of the religious education of Israel as seen in the light of the
religious

thought of other Semitic peoples, and of later Jewish

To such encyclopaedic knowBut though fulness of treatment
altogether out of the question, some light may be thrown on the

literature in its several branches.

ledge I certainly lay no claim.
is

term under consideration by a sketch, however tentative and fragmentary, of the growth of this element in Jewish belief. It must
however be premised that in such an attempt to summarise we
must necessarily neglect any traces of divergences of thought
among different schools, and be content to follow the main stream
of opinion.

The method of divine revelation often lies in the absorption of
some popular belief which is afterwards purified and spiritualised
by a process of coordination. Within the confines of the Old
Testament we can watch the growth of the conception of God,
and we do not fear to admit that there were prehistoric elements
out of which the religion of Israel came'.

Still

less

need we

hesitate to allow that, in the gradual working out of the conception

of evil, Israel both in early and in later times borrowed largely

from the ideas current among neighbours and conquerors, and
learned both slowly and partially to harmonise these conceptions
with the growing knowledge of a righteous, all-sovereign, spiritual

God.
1

Mr Aubrey

Moore's Essay on The Christian idea of God in Lttx Mitiuli

p. 71.

THE lord's prayer IX THE EARLY CHURCH.

86

The

human powers
riddle of

There

is

Old Testament on the subject of super-

reserve of the

*

of evil

There

the mysterious

is

Day

of

Atonement.

the conception of creatures half animal, half supernatural,

haunting desolate places
14),

remarkable ^

is

Azazel' in the ceremonies of the

(D''"l*y£J'n

Lev. xvii.

T\ww

7,

Is.

xxxiv.

with which the Arabian Jinn should perhaps be compared^

Again, there
earthly

the bold

is

drawn from the

figure

associations of

monarchy, according to which Jehovah

surrounded by His court (Isaiah

described as

is

a court Avhich has

vi.),

its

Doeg

as well as its David, its treacherous spies as well as its faithful

retainers (1 Kings xxii. 19

fF., Jobi.; comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 49, 1 Chron.
There
is
the
narrative of the Fall in Gen. iii., a nar1).
rative which stands alone, and on which the possible allusions to

xxi.

Books of the Old Testament (Job xxxi. 33, Hos. vi. 7,
Such are in the main the Old
Testament ideas on the subject of super-human powers of evil.
it

in other

Is.

It

xliii.

is

27(?)) throw no light.

sufficient for

our present purpose to note the absence in the

Old Testament of any attempt to give them unity or cohesion.
Here as elsewhere the period of the exile had a lasting
induence on Jewish thought.

demonology

left

its

traces

On

on the

other, the Persian conception' of the

and

evil

one hand, Babylonian

the

Jews.

belief of the

two

On

the

empires of good

rival

doubtless helped forward the process by which something

of coordination and even of unity was given

the divergent

to

ideas of Israel as to adverse spiritual powers.
I give

some indications from

latter tendency.

later

Jewish literature of this

In the Book of Enoch,

for

example, which was

composed, roughly speaking, in the century before the Gospel

though

in

its

present form

date, the angelology
stress is laid

1

is

it

may

very complicated.

In the

on the sin of the angels (Gen.

Comp. Oehler Theology of

useful hints in an article by C.

the 0. T., Eng.
H. Toy on Evil

era,

incorporate sections of later

Tr.,

ii.

p.

first

2

vi.

288 S.

I

part great

f.)

and the

have found some

Spirits in the Bible in the

of Biblical Literature, Andover, Mass., Vol. ix. 1890 Pt.
2 Prof. Robertson Smith The Religion
of the Semites

Journal

1.

p.

ILS

ff.

Compare DrLiddon's Sermon on titc Ins2)iratioit of Selection 'Its later literature may betray affinities, however we explain them, with Persian modes of
3

thought.'

:

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL

men which

corruption of

though Semjazu

is

Among

followed.

called their chief (cc.

6,

87

ONE.'

these fallen spirits,

Azazel has the

10),

most conspicuous place as the depraver of mankind (c. 8), and
afterwards (cc. 54, 55) appears as he who with all his hosts shall
be judged by the Elect One of God. Further,
in the 'Parables' of a later part of the

remarkable that

it is

Book the problem

is

carried

a stage further back, and behind the fallen angels there are seen

tempters who led them astray.

spiritual

Wisdom (ii. 23 f.) the unity of evil in the
personal enemy of God is emphasised.
God created man for
incorruption (eV d^dapaia), and made him the image of His
nevertheless
own Person (t^? tSta? iSioTrjTO'^, v.
dlScoTrjTO'i)
In the Book of

'

1.

through envy of the devil

who

world, and they

into the

eKeivov fiepiho'^ ovre'^)

Be

{<f)96vo)

make

on the

are

proof of

;

Bta^oXou) death entered
devil's side

t^?

(ot

it.'

Again, in what appears to be a Jewish portion of the Sibylline
Oracles

(iii.

36

92), the date of

which

is

probably about 30

B.C.',

Beliar appears as the great embodiment of the power of evil,
who leads astray faithful and elect Hebrews and lawless men
and others who have not yet heard the word of God.' But the
flaming vengeance of God burns up Beliar and all the proud
Here Belial (or Beliar) is
ones who put their trust in him.'
'

'

the Antichrist (comp.
SedrjcreTat
TToXefiov,

Test.

Dan

xii.

5

Patriar.,

ai'ro?

Levi

iroirjcreL

18

7rp6<{

o

BeXiap

rov Be\tap

Benj. 3 Karapyijaet BeXlap kol rov<; virriperovvra^ avrw,

see below,

taken a

avrov,

vir

p.

still

88 note)^

more

So,

when

the idea of Antichrist had

definite form, Belial

and Antichrist are again

In the Judaeo-Christian writing, the Ascension of
'There shall descend
Belial is the returning Nero.
Berial the mighty angel, king of this world, over which he ruleth
since its creation, and he shall descend from his firmament in the
identified.

Isaiah

(c. iv),

form of a man, of the king of iniquity, the matricide
king of this world
1

— and

—he

is

the

he shall persecute the plant which the

Friedlieb (p. xxvi), for reasons which seem convdncing, places the date of this
This is the view of the majority of critics

section just before the battle of Actium.

The Jewish People Eng. Trans. Div. ii. Vol. iii. p. 283 f.).
Note 2 Cor. vi. 15 r/s 5^ iTvn(piiivla Xpi<TToO irpoi BeXlap In the Testanients
Belial appears as the tempter of individual men in e.g. Is. 7, Dan 1, 4, Aser 1,
(Schiirer
-

Joseph

;

7,

Ben.

6, 7.

THE LORDS PRAYER IX THE EARLY CHURCH.

88

One

twelve Apostles of the Chosen

This angel Berial

planted.

form of the king aforesaid shall come, and with him shall
come all the armies of this world, and shall obey him in all things
which he willeth.... He shall act and speak like the Chosen One,
in the

and shall say, 'I am God most high, and before me was there not
any '...And after a thousand three hundred and thirty and two
days the Lord shall come with His Angels and with the armies of
the saints from the seventh heaven, and shall drag Berial into
Gehenna and his armies withaP.' In Antichrist Satan takes flesh
and dwells among men. As this conception becomes more definite
and concrete, it points with increasing clearness to the growth
of the twofold conception of the unity of evil and

its

concentration

in a person.

Again, an approach at any rate to this conception is indicated
by two expressions which meet us in the New Testament. Of
these the first, o ap-^^cov twv haufiovicov (Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24
Mc. iii. 22 Lc. xi. 15), though it has more applications than one
in Jewish writings ^ yet certainly implies the thought of an
;

;

ordered polity of

evil.

or world' (2 Cor.

iv. 4,

2, vi. 12)', is

ii.

The second, the God
John xii. 31, xiv. 30,

^

Ascensio Isaiae, ed. Dillmann, p. 18

-

Lightfoot, Hor. Heir, on Lc.

The
^

xi. 15,

conip.

among
(1)

Eph.

the Jews we may observe
'The Angel of death'...

devil Asmodeus...(3) Beelzebub."

See the commentators on these passages, especially Meyer on 2 Cor.

common

in the Testaments

vfidv effTlu 6 Zaravai
is

;

f.

notes that "

the articles in Levy Neuhebr. Worterhuch on JCU'
are

xvi. 11

doubtless to be connected with the conception of

three devils called the chief or prince of the devils:
(2)

or Prince of this age

*

Dan

5.

;

thus, o S.px'av

integrity of the

Judaeo-Christians (comp.

Schnapp holds that

Bp

rrjs TrXai/?;?

Dan

5

f.

book and that

iv. 4,

and

Phrases kindred to this

IK'.

Sym.

Notice the terms in which the

described in Lev. 18, Jud. 25,

assuming the

and

2,

Jud. 19

victoi-y of

;

6 cipx^f

Messiah

In quoting these passages thus I am
it represents the views of some early

Lightfoot Galatians p. 307).

On

the other

hand

an original pre-Christian Jewish document there have been
added (a) apocalyptic passages by a Jewish interpolator, (b) references to the Lord's
Person and work by a Christian interpolator. The effect of this theory would
be rather to throw backward the date of passages which criticism allows to belong to
the Jewish original document and to make them primary evidence for pre-Christian
Jewish beliefs. The Christian interpolations, if such they are, bear in themselves
evidence of an early date. In regard to the general subject of this note it is right
to quote Edersheim's verdict (Life and Times ii. p. 755), We note that with the exception of the word Satan, none of the names given to the great enemy in the New
Testament occurs in Rabbinic writings. More important still, the latter contain 7io
to

'

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'

89

Antichrist,

and

that evil

gathered up into the person of a usurping

is

like it witnesses to the existence

of

the belief

spirit.

remains briefly to discuss one remarkable conception of
Jewish teaching, which found expression in the Yetser ha
There were implanted in man at creation, it
of the Rabbis.

It

later

Ra

was held, a good and an
theory are worthy of note

evil impulse.

for

Two

points about this

In the

our present purpose.

first

place there was at least a tendency to personify both these im-

man\

pulses in

Secondly we must distinguish, as

concerned, the conception

For the

it.
'"•''

is

in

l^"*"*"))

an

latter

was

artificial

The

i"lb n!!f\ the evil y*1 "1^\

We

earlier date.

find traces of

it

Against the error involved in this

man

The good impulse
much
in the Fourth Book of Esdras^
belief, viz., that God implanted

by Rabbinic

utilised

far as date is

and the formulas which embody
interpretation of Gen. ii. 7 (the two

itself,

much

teachers.

idea itself was probably of

New

Testament teaching on
the subject of evil may be taken as a protest. There the absolute
and eternal antagonism of God and evil is always emphasised, and
the earnestness of this insistence was probably one important factor
in the process which gave currency to the expression 'the evil one.'
evil in

Thus, to

at creation,

sum

of the

Jewish thought, as we catch glimpses of it in
and place, was working towards the

up,

writings separated in time

supreme ethical and spiritual contrast between good and evil,
God and the devil, as well as towards the sure hope of the final
and complete victory of good and of God, to which the Apostles
and the Lord Himself, as His words are preserved for us by the
Apostles, have set their seal.

We
term

pass on to the second point, the proper

The word
suffix -po-.

words as
fore

meaning

of the

o 7rovTjp6<i.
irovTjpo^; is

ro\fMr}-p6-<;,

comparatively

least in

one of a large

class of adjectives

with the

It appears to be formed on the false analogy of such

and

late,

is

clearly a

formation.

word of

artificial,

and there-

Adjectives of this group, at

a large number of instances, correspond with English

mention of a kingdom of Satan. In other words, the power of evil is not contrasted
with that of good, nor Satan with God. The devil is presented rather as the enemy
of

man, than of God and
^

of good.

This marks a fundamental difference.'

See the additional note p. 101.

THE lord's prayer

90

adjectives in -some

When

fearful).

side,

the

(e.g.

IN

THE EARLY CHURCH.
and

toilsome, wearisome),

-fid (e.g. painful,

the root idea has a passive as well as an active

meaning

of the

adjective

Thus

bifurcates.

'fearful' has the sense of (1) timid: in Thuc.

oKvqpo^;

142 oKvr^porepoi

i.

set over against Opaa-vvoPTe<;: (2) terrible
a rarer use: compare
Soph. 0. T. 834 ripftv fiev, wva^, ravT OKvrjpd. The case is the
same with 7rovT)p6<;. The quasi-passive sense (i.e. he who endures
labours ') is seemingly rare, and early fell out of use. Thus in
Hesiod (Frag. 43. 5) Hercules is called Trov7]p6raTo<i koI dpiaro^.
is

'

The

active sense

common moral

the

In primitive society
they

causing labour to others)

(i.e.

toil

was of two kinds.

Hence

the ground.

tilled

is

the basis of

signification of the word.

ttovo^ without

Men fought, and
any qualification

to mean 'fighting' (e.g. Hom. II. vi. 77, Herod, iv. 1).
the other hand, when epya (as in the title of Hesiod's poem,
with which it is worth while to compare 1 Cor. iii. 9'), without
further definition, meant farming operations, 7r6vo<; naturally

came

On

signified labour spent on the soil.

The

brightest trait in the dream

of a past golden age was that the soil brought forth fruit of

own

TTov-qpo'i is

and

and needed no

accord,

<yrj

ttoi/o?

to be spent on

its

The word

according to this view primarily an agricultural term,

irovrjpd

would mean

soil

requiring immoderate labour

luorthless soil.

Thus the idea of the word,

history be true,

is

(6)

it.

if

i.e.

this account of its

that of intrinsic, absolute badness.

In later times at Athens the word acquired
a quasi-political sense.
In the social sphere

it

(a) a social,

and

was applied, by lovers of past days,

to

who had lost, or who never possessed, true
patriotism, innovators, who stood to the true breed in the same
relation as counterfeit coin to money rightly stamped and ringinotrue.
This is the sense which the word bears in Aristophanes'
picture of his times: see Ranae 731,
worthless citizens

T0i9 Zk ')(aXKol<i Kol

Kai

TTOvrjpol'i

vardroLfi

KUK

d(f)i'yfi€Poicriv,

ovSk (papfiaKOtcnv

Here the notion
^

^ei/oi'i

koI 7rvppiaL<:

TTovTjpcov 669 uTTai/Ta ^pcofxeOa

etKrj

olcriv

t]

iroXfi irpo rov

pahioi<; i-^rjcrar

dv.

is

not of mischief but of irredeemable badness.

Bp

Lightfoot Ordination Atldresses p. 214.

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'

91

This social sense rapidly passed into a political sense. The
word was used at Athens to denote the utterly worthless knave
'which Strepsiades aspired to become under the lessons of the
sophist,

and which the Aristopbanic Cleon already

(Prof.

is'

Jebb's note on Theophrastus' character of the ^Lkoirovr^pos:).
this sense the

hoK€L

K

elvai

word is used by
Twv dhvvdrcov to
11 Trovqpo^tkov

rovfiev7)v, viii.

Aristotle in the Politics,

In

e.g. vi.

8

evvo^eladaL...'rro\Lv...'KovripoKpa-

In such a connexion

TvpavvU.

rj

the notion of 'mischievous' 'doing harm' naturally became attached

But the thought

to the word.

an accidental accretion, and

is

sostom
is

among

(v. 419),

ancient Christian writers, says that Trovrjpia

so called because it always brings trouble (irovoviy,

among moderns, Archbishop Trench {Synonyms
6

as 'the active

TTovrjpSii

down the stream

is

Thus when Chry-

not of the essence of the meaning of the word.

worker out of

of usage,

and when,

31G) defines

p.

they start

evil,'

and seem to overlook

its

far

earlier

wanderings ^

With

and these associations the word passed

this history

into

the Greek Bible.

In the LXX.

Hebrew

it

The

is

j;*!.

used as the constant equivalent of the

root ^^"1 signifies

'to

used eight times, and in one of these passages
Vni*^"!)

it

has a passive sense,

'

are broken.'

the intransitive use of the Qal that the

and of the

participial adjective

be bad

vitiated or spoiled,'

'

From

view

this point of

to

it is

yi comes.
'

is

This account
to

It is

16

break

'

3,

but

is

(li?"!^

probably from

commoner sense of yy*l
To be broken,' to be
'

'

a natural and easy gradation.

e.g.

Gen.

how

word
Sam. i.

this

xxi. 12, 1

further confirmed by the use of the Hiphil.

is

Ps. xliv. 3, Ixxiv.

make

viz. Jer. xi.

not hard to see

often used in reference to sorrow

The Qal

break.'

is

8.

In

Jerem. xxxi. 27, the Hiphil means not 'to
'

to

make

to

be broken

'

i.e.,

'

to break.'

Thus y*) exactly answers to 7rovTjp6<i. In the case of the Hebrew
and the Greek word alike the notion of mischief, injuriousness, is
^

Very cognate

is

Chrysostom's comment on Matt.

e/cetvos KaKeiTai, dia rrjv

?x" ^^^ ToXe/uoi'. Here the point
Comp. Origen's definition of Trovijpla quoted p.

offTTovSov Trpos Tj/xas
-

vwfp^o'KTJv rfji KaKla^, Kal iiretdrj
is

vi.

13 Kar

fJLrjdiv

irap

e^oxw

Se oi'Vwj

ijfj.uji'

ddi.Kr]dth

the devil's malice.

139.

THE lord's prayer

92

the early church.

in

often the particular side of evil which

primarily signify

New

In the

iittei',

is

But both

contemplated'.

complete, essential badness.

Testament, so

far at least as

in the Gospels are concerned, the word Troi/T/po?

our Lord's sayings

must be regarded

as the equivalent of the Aramaic adjective which

is

reproduced

*^.
This adjective
by the Syriac Versions in the word
is of special importance, inasmuch as we may say with little short
of certainty that it is the word originally employed by our Lord
Its exact meaning can be ascertained by
in the Lord's Prayer.
a reference on the one hand to some passages of the Hebrew

for us

«

In Hebrew the verb Ji^Xl

Bible, on the other to Syriac usage.

the Qal

used in

literally of that

i

which has a

is

vile smell, e.g. Ex.

and Hithpael it refers metaphorically to what is utterly abhorrent, e.g. 1 Sam. xiii. 4, Ex. v.
Two nouns belonging to this root are used
21, 1 Chron. xix. 6.
18, 21

vii.

;

in the Niphal, Hiphil,

to denote worthless fruit or weeds in

looked that

grapes

it

(D'*2i'X3)

?

of wheat,

Is. v.

)

and Job

xxxi.

40 (Let

and cockle (HtJ'X^) instead

thistles

the

vii.

17.

The corresponding

it

I

forth wild

grow instead
which

of barley), passages

illustrate the use of irovrjpo'i (translating the

Matt.

when

4 (Wherefore

should bring forth grapes, brought

Syriac

*^

i

)

in

adjective occurs once only in

Hebrew

lious

Bible, viz, Ezra iv. 12 (They are building the rebeland bad (NHJi'^SS, LXX. Tvovrjpdv) city).
Turning to the
to be
of; in the Aphel it means 'to illtreat,' and is
The adjective
translate kukovu in Acts vii. 19, xii. 1.
characteristically used (see Payne Smith St/r. Thes.) of

Syriac, the verb •-•l^

is

used impersonally in the sense of

'

evil in the eyes

used to
itself is

Dr Hatch's account

of the word, Essays in Biblical Greek p. 77 ff., differs
Yet he writes at the beginning of his article The connotation of TTovTjpos in Classical Greek is probably best shown by Arist. Eth. N.
7. 11. p. 1152 a, where Aristotle, speaking of the d^poTTjs, says that what he does is
wrong, and that he acts as a free agent, but that he is not wicked in himself,
^

essentially

€K<1)V

from mine.

uiffS' T^innrSvrjpoi.
Kai ovk adiKo^'
ii yap irpoaipean tTrieiKJjs"
This appears to me to be important evidence in confirmation of

^ikv . .irovt)po% d' ov'
.

ov yap (Tri^ovXos.^

my

view.

The proper Latin equivalent
There was however a tendency,
p.
(

'

163

f.),

to substitute for malus,

= mali-genus).

of irovrjpos viz. 7)ialus has the
for reasons

when used

which

I shall

of Satan, a

same

significance.

point out later on (see

compound word,

vialignus

'DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.'

Thus the Aramaic word,

death, a wound, a metal with alloy.

which

7ropr)p6<;

93

renders in the Gospels, expresses the notion not of

harmfulness but of intrinsic worthlessness and hatefulness.

New

In the
eye (Matt.

perhaps

49

vi.

vii.

Testament the Greek word

23, opposed to aTrXoy?

3

ff.),

of worthless fruit (Matt.

ol irovrjpoi are parallel to

Matt.

Thus

45 (comp.

V.

ra aairpd (comp.

The KapBla

7rov7)p6<; is

vii.

jrovTjpd air lot ia';

from KapBla KdXrj koX
from

11), xii.

Tim.

iii.

9,

A further

2 Tim.

point

is

Jewish literature

in

natural powers of

i.

TrovTjpo'?

vii. 17).

19, 20) as dya66<;

iii.

xx. 15, xxii. 10,

f.,

12)

iii.

(Lc.

viii.

15);
i.

5, 19, 1 Pet.

Kadapd

iii.

10,

crvv€l8r]ai<i

3)\

when we note

reached

that the word

7rnvT]p6<i

specially used in connexion with super-

is

Here no doubt the conception

evil.

of activity

in evil is often included in the associations of the word.

believe that the primary sense of essential badness

Thus the words Trveupa

thought.

xii. 9.

Trovrjpd

(Tvv€LSr)ai<;

18) and

xiii.

Rom.

extreme pole

at the

is

Tim.

avveiSrjai^; dyaOrj (Acts xxiii. 1, 1

21; once KaXrj avveihrjaL'i Heb.
(1

is

xiii.

frequently the opposite to dyadoi;

34

(Heb.

d'yaOrj

In Matt.

17).

vii.

stands in the same relation to ^av\o<; (Jn.

does to Ka<;.

used of the diseased

is

22; the best commentary

v.

is still

employed

irovrjpov are

But

I

the main
in the

description of Saul's frenzy {irvevpa Kvpiov direaTT} diro 'S.aovX koX
eirviyev

avTOV TTvevpairovqpbv

avrov to irvevpa to

dir

angels

'

(ayyeXoi

(T

Related Interests

^'yT\T\^ Trapd KvpLou...d(j)tcrTaTO

Trovrjpov (1

irovripoi) are

Sam.

xvi.

14,

ministers of divine vengeance upon apostate Israel.

Tobit
^

(iii.

irovripa.

8)
Ipya

is

is

to

irovrjpoi^

found in Jn.

the deep root of evil deeds

is

Sacpoviov'.

iii.

23).

'Evil

described in Ps. Ixxviii. 49 as the

19, vii. 7, 1 Jn.

contemplated

In the
iii.

12,

Asmodeus

New

CoL

i.

(see especially Jn.

21.
iii.

in

Testament
Commonly
On

19, 20).

hand ayada and koKo. are both used frequently of good works, for the outward attractiveness of such works is often the point (see e.g. 1 Pet. ii. 12, Jn. x.
32). In 1 Thess. v. 21 irav eI5os irovtjpou is opposed to to koXov, where eZ5oj makes all
the difference. The phrase 6(p9a\fj.6s irovripbi (Mc. vii. 22 comp. Deut. xv. 9, Prov.
xxiii. 6, Ecclus. xxxiv. 13, &c.) no doubt implied the baneful glance of en

Related Interests