Abba and "Father": Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions

Author(s): Mary Rose D'Angelo

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 111, No. 4 (Winter, 1992), pp. 611-630
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267435 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 05:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL111/4(1992)611-630

IMPERIALTHEOLOGY
ABBAAND "FATHER":
AND THE JESUSTRADITIONS
MARY ROSE D'ANGELO
VillanovaUniversity,Villanova,PA 19085

In 1979, R. G. Hamerton-Kelly claimed:

Although not without its critics, the thesis that the Abba experience of
Jesus is the starting point of Christology, and the key to Jesus' eschatology,
commands widespread support. Catholic and Protestant exegetes are
united in this conviction. It has become one of the assured results of
modern scholarship.
Feminist theology must, therefore, come to terms with it as a fact.'

Feminist theology has been much concerned with the problem of

language and imagery for God.2Yet few feminist scholars have attempted to
mount a frontal attack on the reconstruction of "Jesus'abba experience.'3 To

1 Robert Hamerton-Kelly,"Godthe Father in the in God as Father?(ed. Johannes-Baptist

Bible,"
Metz and EdwardSchillebeeckx;English languageeditor MarcusLef6bure;Concilium143: Dogma;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; New York:Seabury Press, 1981) 101;this article reaffirmsand defends
his longer study, God the Father: Theology and Patriarchy in the Teaching of Jesus (OBT 4;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).
2 On sources for nonsexist, inclusive, and female divine imagery and language especially in

the Bible, see Sallie McFague,Modelsof God: Theologyfor an EcologicalNuclearAge (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1987); Francine Cardman, "The Holy Spirit and the Apostolic Faith:A Roman Catholic
Response,"GOTR31 (1986) 289-310; Mary R. D'Angelo, "Beyond Father and Son,' in Justice as
Mission:An Agendafor the Church(ed. T Brown and C. Lind; Burlington,Ontario,Canada:Trinity
Press, 1985) 107-18; Elizabeth Johnson, "Jesus the Wisdom of God: A Biblical Basis for Non-
Androcentric Christology,"ETL 61 (1985) 261-94; Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God
Talk (San Francisco: Harper, 1985); Virginia R. Mollenkott, The Divine Feminine: The Biblical
Imagery of God as Female (New York:Crossroad, 1984); Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of
Sexuality (OBT 2; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); MargaretA. Farley,"New Patterns of Relation-
ship: Beginnings of a Moral Revolution,' TS 36 (1975) 627-46.
3 Madeline Boucher has devoted extensive research to the question; see her brief scholarly

critique: "ScripturalReadings: God-Language and Nonsexist Translation;'in Language and the

Church:Articlesand Designsfor Workshops(ed. BarbaraA. Withers;National Council of Churches
of Christ in the U.S.A., 1984) 28-32. Phyllis Trible raised questions about method and conclu-
sions in her review of Hamerton-Kelly'sGod the Father,TToday37 (1980) 116-19; also Shannon
Clarkson, "Language about God," SR 18 (1989) 37-49. Some feminist scholars have accepted
Hamerton-Kelly's view that Jesus used "father"in a nonpatriarchal sense and have attempted
to subvert the construct itself and to put it to the service of feminist critique of patriarchy and
its deities; see Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza,In Memoryof Her (New York:Crossroad,1983) 147-51;

611

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
612 Journal of Biblical Literature

some extent, Hamerton-Kelly'sstatement includes its own critique. It is hardly

the case that anyone need "come to terms ... as ... fact"with a "thesis"that
is "not without its critics,' nor can such a thesis be regarded as "one of the
assured results of modern scholarship"While Hamerton-Kelly overstated the
agreement among biblical scholars, a variety of Christian theologians have
fastened upon "Jesus'abba experience" as a source of Christology. The idea
of Jesus' "abbaexperience" is based primarily on J. Jeremias's analysis of the
Gospel material presented in a study entitled Abba.4 E. Schillebeeckx's Jesus
seems to have very nearly canonized this reconstructionof Jesus'consciousness
among Roman Catholic theologians, but it has also gained currency among
Protestant theological writers. It has privileged "father"as a title and has been
used to reject feminist critiques of exclusively masculine language and imagery
for God, and indeed of the problematic characterof parentallanguagefor God.6
Jeremias'scase, which has been very little modified by his followers,relies
on a series of interrelated claims. The first of these is that the word "abba"
represents a special use of Jesus that was central to his teaching; second, that
for Jesus it expressed a special kind of intimacy and tenderness deriving from
its supposed origin in babytalk;third, that this practice was distinct from the
usage of the early church; fourth, that it was distinct from the practice
of Judaism.
Attempts to attribute "abba!father!"to Jesus have overemphasized this
last criterion, claiming that Jesus' usage must be his because it would be
unheard of or even impossible in early Judaism. This claim was built on a
problematic use of evidence that was limited not only by the constraints of
history but also by an unsympathetic reading of the Jewish materials. Much
of this lack of sympathy can be attributed to the desire to establish the
uniqueness of Jesus, and especially of Jesus' teaching. But the political atmos-
phere in which prewar scholarship was done also shaped the treatment of
Judaism in Jeremias's sources. The basic outlines of Jeremias's argument
appeared in 1933 in a two-page article on &ppain the TWNTsigned by Gerhard
Kittel, the author of Die Judenfrage (1933) and of contributions to the Nazi
publications ForschungenzurJudenfrage.Not too surprisingly,Kittel concluded

Sandra Schneiders, Women and the Word: The Gender of God in the New Testamentand the
Spirituality of Women (New York:Paulist, 1986) 42-49.
4 J. Jeremias, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologiesund Zeitgeschichte (Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1966) 15-67; trans.by John Bowden in ThePrayersofJesus (SBTSecond
Series 6; Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1967) 11-65.
5 E. Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (trans. Hubert Hoskyns; New York:
Seabury, 1974) 256-61.
6 For feminist critiques of parental language for God, see Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father
(2d ed.; Boston: Beacon, 1985); MargaretA. Farley,"Sources of Sexual Inequality in the History
of Christian Thought,"JR56 (1976) 162-76; Beverly Wildung Harrison,"Sexismand the Language
of Christian in the Connections:Essays in FeministSocialEthics (ed. Carol S. Robb;
Ethics,' Making
Boston: Beacon, 1985) 22-41; Sallie McFague,MetaphoricalTheology(Philadelphia:Fortress,1982).
7
See Geza Vermes, Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 63-65.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 613

that "Jewish usage shows how this Father-child relationship to God far
surpasses any possibilities of intimacy assumed in Judaism,introducingindeed
something which is wholly new."'Jeremias extended, revised, and developed
the evidence presented by Kittel, returning to Dalman, Weiss, Strack-
Billerbeck, and other sources of Kittel's article? But he offered no critique
of their conclusions or of Kittel's;if anything,he sought to sharpen the contrast
between Jesus and his contemporaries.
Jewish scholars before and since Jeremias have seen the Gospels' use of
"father"as an address for God as testimony to the Jewish character of Jesus'
teaching and have rightly resisted Jeremias'sconclusions.'i The evidence that
Kittel and Jeremiasused takes on a differentaspect when it is given a scholarly,
intelligent, and sympathetic reading. The reader of George Foot Moore's
description of the use of "father"in Jewish piety (1927) will conclude that if
Jesus indeed used the title "father"for God, he did so with rather than against
the stream of Jewish piety."1Gottlob Schrenk in his less than sympathetic but
very thorough treatment of narip in the postwar TDNTconcluded: "Certainly
the individualversion of the relationshipto the heavenly Fatherdoes not appear
for the first time in the career of Jesus, though there can be no question of
its unparalleled content when used by him."12
A combination of new evidence and recent studies of some aspects of
the question make it possible to change the grounds of discussion. This essay
will (1) raise the question of what conclusions can be drawn from the use of
the word abba in the NT; (2) review the evidence for the use of "father"as
an address to God in prayer,first as attributed to Jesus in the NT and, second,
in texts from Second Temple Judaism; and (3) draw attention to imperial use

s "&apa,'TDNT 1. 5-6 (originally published in German in TWNT 1. 5-6 (1933).

9 The relation between Jeremias's conclusions and Kittel's is most obvious in "Kennzeichen
der ipsissima vox Jesu,' Abba, 145-52; first published in Synoptische Studien Alfred Wikenhauser
zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (Munich: K. Zink, 1953) 86-93. In the article "Abba"he made exten-
sive use of W. Marchel,Abba Pare!La priere du Christet des Chritiens (AnBib 19; Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1963) and of the lengthy article by Gottlob Schrenk and Gottfried Quell on
arpi, a&i&top, in TWNT5. 946-1024 (1954; English version in TDNT
aw'p, 7tarpiCog, ••aptx6o
5. 945-1022 [1967]).The references to Schrenk appear in the German but not the English version
of"Abba"On the anti-Judaism in Jeremias's treatment, see Martina Gnadt, "Understanding the
Origins of the Lord's Prayer:A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Contribution by Joachim
Jeremias,
(paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New Orleans, 1990).
On Jeremias and anti-Judaism, see Ben F Meyer, "ACaricature of Joachim Jeremias and His
Work,"JBL110(1991)451-62; E. P. Sanders, "Defending the Indefensible,"JBL110 (1991)463-77.
10 See, e.g., Gerald Friedlander,
TheJewishSourcesof the Sermonon the Mount(London:George
Routledge and Sons, 1911)123-36; Vermes,Jesus and the Worldofjudaism, 39-42; see also JakobK.
Petuchowski and Michael Brock, eds., The Lord'sPrayerandJewish Liturgy (New York:Seabury/
Crossroad, 1978).
1 G. F Moore,Judaism in the First Centuriesof the Christian Era (1927; New York:Schocken,
1971) 2. 201-11.
12
Schrenk, n•x7p, 980.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
614 Journal of Biblical Literature

of the title pater patriae as the political context of the increasing importance
of "father"in ancient Christianity and Judaism.

I. Abba and the New Testament

Twodeductions about the use of abba and "father"in Hebrew and Aramaic
have been central to the claim that Jesus used abba as an address to God,
and that this address had unique content: first, that the word abba lay behind
every use of "father"that can be attributed to Jesus from the NT, because by
the first century it had replaced "'R and indeed other forms of "R with the
pronoun; second, that Jesus' use of abba is based on the derivation of abba
from babytalkand is unique to him. James Barr'srecent and meticulous review
of the linguistic questions (entitled "'AbbaIsn't Daddy") rejected both asser-
tions.'3 Joseph Fitzmyer, who points out the contradictory character of these
claims, came to similar conclusions about the linguistic evidence.14 He sought
to retain the attributionof abba to Jesus, but, while Kittel and Jeremiasinsisted
that the use of abba for God would be alien and shocking to Judaism, Fitz-
myer concluded that "it is not surprising that 'abba' is eventually extended
to God himself, especially in light of the Old Testament material which is also
part of the background of the usage:"5
Jeremias'slinguistic arguments were central to his case because without
them it is difficult, if not impossible, to attribute the word to Jesus at all. In
the light of the theological construction that has been built upon it, the
evidence for the use of the word abba in the NT is extremely slender. It appears
only three times in the entire NT, and only once in the Gospels. That occur-
rence is in the prayerof Jesus in the Gethsemane scene in the Gospel of Mark
(Mark 14:36). This is a scene of revelation between Jesus and the reader; no
disciples are there to hear and report Jesus' agony.'6Thus the attribution of

'3 JTS n.s. 39 (1988) 28-47; see also James Barr,"'Abbaand the Familiarity of Jesus' Speech,"
Theology 91 (1988) 173-79.
14 J. A. Fitzmyer, "'Abbaand Jesus' Relation to God,"in A Cause de l'Evangile: itudes sur les
Synoptiqueset Actes offertesaiJacques Dupont O.S.B.al'occasionde son 70e anniversaire(LD 123;
Publications de Saint-Andre;Paris:Cerf, 1985) 14-38. Also on abba, see G. Schelbert, "Sprach-
geschichtliches zu 'Abba'"in MdlangesDominique Barthelemy: itudesbibliques offertesa l'occa-
sion de son 60e anniversaire (ed. P. Casetti et al.; OBO 38; Fribourg: Editions Universitaires;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981) 395-447.
'5 Fitzmyer, "Abba,"28.
16 MaryAnn Tolbert describes the narrativefunction of this scene as an "interiormonologue,"
that is, "anarrative soliloquy used at a critical moment to dramatize internal struggle"(Sowing
the Gospel: Mark'sWorldin Literary-HistoricalPerspective[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989] 214; see
pp. 214-16, and her description of the levels of knowledge of narrator,reader, and participants
in the story [pp. 93-95]).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 615

abba to Jesus does not have multiple attestation. Indeed it occurs only in a
scene that almost certainly derives from Mark'sliterary
activity."
Nor can abba be credited to Jesus on the grounds that it is distinct from
the usage of the early church. Indeed, in the other two occurrences, which
are in the letters of Paul, abba is explicitly attributed not to Jesus but to the
spirit in the early Christian community. In both Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6, the
spirit causes the believer to cry out, "&poc t6tnp."
6 Here the word abba is
a foreign word which is treated as ecstatic, though presumably not as unintel-
ligible, speech. NT scholars have speculated that it must originate in the usage
of the Aramaic-speaking Christian communities, and therefore ultimately in
the special teaching of Jesus.'8While it seems likely that the use of the word
passed from the Aramaic to the Greek-speaking communities, it by no means
follows that this use must go back to Jesus. The Greek-speaking communities
also used the Aramaic entreaty maranatha, but scholars do not attribute it
to Jesus. Early Greek-speaking communities may well have attributed extraor-
dinarysignificance to what the Aramaic-speakingcommunities took as a matter
of course. The special ecstatic weight of the address &ppo0 6 orti?lpin these
three passages is likely to have arisen where &Pa was experienced as a foreign
word.'9 All three instances, then, are better testimony to the practice of the
early church than to the teachings of Jesus.
Jeremias began almost at once to retreat from the claim that "abba"had
the same connotations as "daddy:'20 In a sense, Barr'stitle (but only his title)
misrepresents Jeremias. Even as Jeremias acknowledged that the word was
in common use by adults and was used as a mark of respect for old men and
for teachers, he continued to stress the origins in babytalkand the consequent
intimacy as a special component of Jesus'use of the word. This meaning seems
to have been the basis on which he regarded Jesus' use as absolutely distinct
from the Judaism of his
time.21?'
The NT itself gives a quite different reading of &3pa. Each of the three
occurrences of &3Paj3 in the NT is followed by the Greek translation 6 ri
t]p,
"the father."This translation makes clear its meaning to the writers; the form

17 For a discussion of the literary and

theological function of the word O&ppca
in Mark 14:36
and the title "father"in Mark,see Mary R. D'Angelo,"Theology in Markand Q: Abba and 'Father'
in Context" HTR 85 (1992) forthcoming.
is Fitzmyer,who rejects Jeremias'slinguistic arguments, sees the preservation of the Aramaic
term by the Greek-speaking communities as "a strong argument for the recollection of a term
used by the historical Jesus himself'
("Abba,"31-32).
19 See also Vernon S. MacCasland, "'Abba,Father':" JBL 72 (1953) 79-91. He argues that the
word was a metonym for God in Greek-speaking communities which did not understand its
meaning.
20
Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 62.
21
Ibid., 57-65.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
616 Journal of Biblical Literature

is a literal translation-"father"plus a definite article - and like abba can also

be a vocative?2But it is not a diminutive or "babytalk"form. There are Greek
diminutivesof father (e.g., rttnnr ), and the community chose not to use them.3
Indeed, the diminutive would suit very ill with the use of the phrase in
Gal 3:22-4:7. Paul seeks to convince the Galatian communities that circum-
cision would add nothing to their new status in Christ, but would even negate
it. In Gal 4:6, the cry "abba! father!"provides evidence of the "adoption"
which makes them "sons"'-fulladult persons in Christ, that is, in
(utOo0aacv)
the community. It is the climax of an analogy that explains the baptismal
experience cited in Gal 3:28. In contrast to the child who is under pedagogues,
tutors, or overseers, the baptized are no longer subject to the tutelage that
afflicts the Greek or Gentile before God; the Jew or barbarian in the eyes of
the imperial world; the woman, the slave, and the child on every hand (Gal
3:23-4:7). In this context, "abba!father!"asserts not childlike relation to God,
but the privileged status of the adult son (not daughter) and heir?.4The same
implication is probably present in Rom 8:15, although in that passage the
emphasis is on the relationship- that is, the kinship -which the spirit creates
between God and the believer.25
Thus, abba is attributed only once to Jesus (Mark 14:36), but twice to
the spirit in the early churches (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). While there are (as yet)
no examples of the use of abba for God in Jewish texts as early as the Gospels,
there is equally no evidence for the significance Jeremias attributed to this
absence. Abba cannot be shown to have been unique to Jesus, characteristic
of Jesus, or even to have been used by Jesus, though it was clearly of impor-
tance in the early Christian experience of equality and authority in the spirit.26

22 But see MacCasland, who argues that 6 tnaripdoes not function as a translation in these

texts ("'Abba'"81-82).
23 See also Barr, "'Abba Isn't 'Daddy," 38-39.
24
Guardianship (tutela) of women is stipulated in the Twelve Tables (5.1) and reiterated by
Ulpian (Rules 11.1).It remained in force until the time of Diocletian, although with some modifica-
tion. See SaraPomeroy,"The Relationshipof the MarriedWoman to Her Blood Relativesin
Rome,"
Ancient Society 7 (1976) 224-26; Hugh Last, "The Social Policy of Augustus":' CAHX: TheAugustan
44
Empire, B.C.-A.D. 70, 441-45; Jane Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Society (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1986) 257-66, for a summary of the status of Roman women.
25 Chrysostom explicitly interprets the gift of the spirit that causes the believer to cry "abba!
father!"as a transition to adulthood; see In Epist. ad Gal. Comm. 4 (PG 61. 657 [on Gal 4:6]).
See also Chrysostom, In epist. ad Rom. Hom. 14 (PG 60. 527); Jeremias misreads this and misuses
Theodore and Theodoret (Prayers of Jesus, 60). See Barr, "'AbbaIsn't 36.
'Daddy,:"
26 On the function of prophecy in the traditionof the words of Jesus, see also MaryR. D'Angelo,

"Remarriageand the Divorce SayingsAttributedto Jesus, in Divorceand Remarriage(ed. William G.

Roberts;New York:Sheed & Ward, 1990) 78-106; idem, "Re-memberingJesus: Women, Prophecy
and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Horizons 19 (1992) 199-218.
Churches,"

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 617

II. "Father"as an Address to God

in Ancient Judaism and Earliest Christianity
The special claims that Jeremias and his followers have made for the use
of the word abba have as their concomitant- perhaps even as their aim - a
claim that Jesus used the designation "father"for God in a unique and special
way: "ForJesus to address God as 'my Father'is therefore something new....
Whereas there is not a single instance of God being addressed as Abba in
the literature of Jewish prayer,Jesus always addressed him in this way... ."27
This claim was highly problematic when it was made; it went far beyond the
NT evidence and inappropriately discarded evidence from Jewish texts in
Greek. Its inadequacies have been made more obvious by evidence that has
only recently been made available.
Jeremias'sclaim that Jesus alwaysaddressed God as father cannot be sup-
ported from the NT;indeed, it goes far beyond any possible evidence to claim
that Jesus alwaysaddressed God in any way.Prayersattributed to Jesus in the
Gospels are few. Markprovides two examples of Jesus at prayer:Mark 14:36,
discussed above,and the citation of Ps 22:1 in Mark15:34,where Markpresents
Jesus as crying,"MyGod, My God."Both of these verses might well be explained
by Mark'sredactional activity. Mark also represents Jesus as giving instruc-
tion on the importance of forgivenessfor prayer(Mark11:25-26), which speaks
of "yourheavenly Father"Q likewise provides two prayersof Jesus: the prayer
we call the Lord's Prayer,and the thanksgiving which begins, "I praise you,
father, lord of heaven and earth ... yes, father"(Q 11:25-27//Luke 10:21-22,
Matt 6:9//Luke 11:2).Thus in both Markand Q, the limited evidence for Jesus'
prayer uses not only "father"but also other traditional language for God.
Matthew, though it uses "father"more frequently than Mark and Q com-
bined, provides no new prayers of revision of the passion
Jesus.8 Luke's
narrative introduces two new prayers,both of which use "father"(23:34, 46;
the former has problematic textual attestation).The Gospel of John offersthree
prayers of Jesus, all of which do use the address "father":John 11:41,12:27
(twice), and John 17, which uses "father"six times. It is only in John that the
words "my father" appear in prayer.All of the instances in John reflect the
Gospel's special Christology.
This last observation is of extreme importance. The Gospels do not give
direct access to Jesus. The early communities remembered Jesus and repeated
his words (and the words of the risen Lord spoken in the prophets) in order
to sustain, explain, and defend their communal lives; the Jesus they remem-
bered spoke directly to their needs. The words of Jesus, as well as the

27
Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 53-54, 57.
28 Jeremias counts the repetition of the prayer in the garden as a second example (Prayers
of Jesus, 54 n. 4).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
618 Journal of Biblical Literature

narrativeframes, also serve the literaryand theological purposes of the authors

of the four Gospels; and the more significant their literary setting, the more
likely they are to be recast. The striking differences among the last words of
Jesus in the Gospels give a particularly good example of the ways in which
the words of Jesus are vulnerable to reformulation in the Gospels. Mark and
Luke each represent the last words of Jesus as a prayerwhose words are taken
from the Psalms. The citation of Ps 22:2 in Mark 15:34 disappears from the
Lucan narrative;in Luke the last words of Jesus are: "Father,'into your hands
I commend my spirit"' (Luke 23:46; cf. Ps 31:6). It is difficult for an inter-
preter who holds some form of the two-source theory to see Luke's version
as anything other than a deliberate rewriting in which the author has care-
fully supplied an address and a psalm verse that express confidence rather
than terror in the face of death.9
Thus, the Gospels do not and cannot support the claim that Jesus always
addressed God as "father."The most the NT enables us to conclude is that
"father"is seen by the NT authors as an appropriate address for God, and that
"father"is more important to John, Matthew, and Luke than to Mark and Q.
It certainly reflects the usage of the early Christian churches in and for whom
the Gospels were written.o It may also, but need not, have gone back to the
practice of Jesus and his companions, but it can by no means be shown to
be the only way Jesus addressed God.
At the end of the second part of his study "Abba,"Jeremias came to the
relativelyrestrainedconclusion that "thereis as yet no evidence in the literature
of ancient Palestinian Judaism that 'my Father' is used as a personal address
to God3'3But this is no longer true. Textsfrom Qumranhave provided evidence
in the prayer literature of "ancient Palestinian Judaism"that "myFather"was
used as "personal"address to God.32
In a recent issue of Revue de Qumran, Eileen Schuller published a text
(4Q372 1) which includes a prayer that she calls the Psalm of Joseph. In it
Joseph addresses God as '751 "=NR ("my father and my God").33The text is
dated on paleographic grounds to the late Hasmonean or early Herodian
period.34It does not seem to have been a creation of the sectarian community
of the Rule; none of this group's special concerns appear in this work?5 Nor
is it the only evidence from Qumran. Schuller's comments on this address
29 Cf. Gospel of Peter 5.19. In John the last words of Jesus show no relation to Mark; Jesus

shows that he lays down his life of himself (John 10:18), proclaiming, "It is finished" (19:30).
30 See DAngelo, "Theology in Mark and Q:'

31 Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 29 (emphasis added).

32 In this
essay I have tried to avoidthe terms "PalestinianJudaism"and "SecondTempleJudaism"
in order to recognize the diversity of Jewish communities in the period.
33 4Q372 1.16; see E. Schuller, "4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph":' RQ 14/55 (1990) 343-70; see
also Schuller, "The Psalm of 4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple Prayer,"CBQ 54
(1992) 67-79.
34 Schuller, "4Q372 1,"349, 351.
35 Ibid., 349.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 619

refer to another prayertext from Qumran (4Q460), which seems to close with
the address, "myfather and my lord.'36Thus it can no longer be claimed that
"for Jesus to address God as 'my Father' was something new in Palestinian
Judaism"37
This new evidence is important in itself. But it also calls for a reassess-
ment of evidence that has long been available. Jeremias excluded texts in
Hebrew and Aramaic that use "father"for God in prayer but do not use it as
a direct address. He rejected the evidence from Jewish texts in Greek because
he did not see it as a possible influence on Jesus. Other evidence from biblical
and early Jewish sources was excluded by describing it as attesting to a "cor-
porate"understandingof God as father ratherthan the "personal"one Jeremias
discovered in the traditions attributed to Jesus. But these decisions need to
be rethought. The distinctions between an address and a statement in a prayer,
between "personal"and "corporate,"' are farfrom absolute, and it is by no means
clear that Jesus was ignorant of Greek?8 Even more importantly,the Gospels
are Greek documents; the evidence from Jewish texts in Greek should be cen-
tral in interpreting them. The address "myfather and my God" in the Psalm
of Joseph (4Q372) indicates that these texts are more representativeof common
practice in early Judaism than had previously been assumed.
When the Hebrew and Greek texts that use "father"for God are read
together, they both provide substantial evidence for the use of "father"as an
address to God in early Judaism and call Jeremias'sdistinction into question.
The Psalm of Joseph begins:

My fatherand my God, do not abandonme into the handsof the nations;

do justice for me lest the afflictedand the poor
perish.Youhave no need for any nationor people
foranyhelp;[yourfin]geris greaterandstrongerthananythingin the world3&
The address to God as father functions similarly in 3 Macc 6:3-4, 7-8, where
the elderly priest Eliezer praysfor the aversion of the calamitous persecution
that threatens the Jews of Egypt:
lookuponthe seed of Abraham... perishingas strangersin a strangeland-
father!you destroyedPharaoh.... Jonahyou watchedover and revealed
unharmedto his household, father!so now, insolence-hating,merciful
guardianof all, show yourselfquickly....
In both cases the speaker is a Jew who is in jeopardy at the hands of the
unbelieving Gentiles; in both cases, appeal is made to God's almighty power.
36 No
edited version of this text is now available;I cite Schuller,"4Q372 1"'362-63; "The Psalm
of 4Q372 1,"79.
37 Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 57.
38 See, e.g., Helmut Koester, who presumes that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic and/or
Hebrew (Introduction to the New Testament2: The History and Literature of Early Christianity
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 73).
39 Schuller, "4Q372 11"355.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
620 Journal of Biblical Literature

3 Maccabees was written in Greek; indeed, its author attempts to write in

high Attic style. It uses "father"in the way that has been characterized as
"corporate"rather than personal. But comparison of the two texts suggests that
the continuity between Jewish texts in Greek and Jewish texts in Hebrew is
more significant than the discontinuity in this regard, that the continuity
between the "personal"use of father and the "corporate" use is more significant
than the discontinuity.
There is other evidence of these continuities. In the Hymns from Qumran,
the psalmist, complaining that his parents abandoned him, proclaims:

... Thou art a father

to all the sons of Thy truth,
and as a womantenderlyloves her babe,
so thou dost rejoice in them;
and as a foster-fatherbearinga child in his lap,
so carest Thou for all Thy creatures(1QH9:35)40

The Greek novel Aseneth includes a long prayer in which Aseneth asks God
to be her father, replacing the father and mother who rejected her because
of her conversion to Judaism:

... guardme,a virgin(whois) abandonedandan orphanbecauseyou,Lord,

are a sweet and good and gentle father.What fatheris as sweet as you,
Lord,... (as) long-sufferingtowardour sins as you, Lord?(12.14-15).'

The Qumran text has been rejected as a parallel to NT usage because it sup-
posedly evinces a "corporate"rather than a "personal"understandingof
father.42
The text from Aseneth was dismissed as "sentimental."43But the continuity
between the functions of "father"in the Greek novel and the Hebrew hymn
is striking. And continuity between both these prayers, which acclaim God
as father in statements, and the prayers of 3 Maccabees and 4Q372, which

40 Trans.Geza Vermes, TheDead Sea Scrollsin English (3d ed.; Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1987)
192.
41 Trans.C. Burchard, in James H. Charlesworth, OTP2. 221; see 12:8-15 for the use of father
as an image for God. Both the date of Aseneth and the text raise many problems. Burchard's
(unpublished) text differs significantlyfrom that of M. Philonenko,Josephet Aseneth:Introduction,
TexteCritique, Traductionet Notes (SPB 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968). In conversation, Ross Kraemer
has suggested to me that the texts differ in gender language and imagery.Her translationis based
on Philonenko's text:
And you, Lord, stretch forth your hands to me,
as a father who loves his child and is affectionate....
For you are the father of orphans,
and the protector of the persecuted...
(12.8, 11) (Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons and Monastics:A Sourcebookon Women'sReligions in the
Greco-RomanWorld [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 272).
42 See Fitzmyer, "'Abba," 25.
43 See, e.g., Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father, p. 54 and n. 8.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 621

address God as father, raises questions about the distinction between state-
ments and addresses in prayer.
Still other evidence exists. Sirach 23 includes addresses to God as father
(lord, father, and ruler of my life, 23:1; lord, father, and God of my life, 23:4)
which have been questioned on the grounds that the later Hebrew paraphrase
reads In 1 Chr 29:10 the Hebrew text reads "Thou God of our
father Israel,' whereas the LXX reads, "Lord, God of Israel, our father."The
differently.4
difference between the Hebrew and the Greek versions does not show that
the address to God as father was impossible in Hebrew; rather it suggests the
importance of the address to God as father when 1 Chronicles was translated.
A fragment of the Apocalypse of Ezekiel promises:

If your sins reach fromthe earth to heaven,..,. and

you turn back to me with a whole heart and say,
I will heed you as a holy
"Father,' people.45
The writer of Wisdom, in the persona of Solomon, addresses God as prov-
ident father in Wis 14:3; God appears as father of the righteous persecuted
by the unjust in Wis 2:16-20; cf. 11:10.Tobit'sprayer of joy and thanksgiving
proclaims, "he is our God and Lord, he is our father forever"(Tobit 13:4).
"Father"appears in covenant language in Jub. 1:24, 28, and the blessing of
19:29. God is described as "fatherof all" by Judah as he pleads with Joseph
for forgiveness for himself and the other sons of their father Jacob in Josephus,
Ant. 2.6.8 ?152.6 Philo frequently refers to God as father and maker
xat While it is clearly the case that Wisdom, Josephus, and(ac•cilp
Philo
notqotrlq).47
reflect Greek philosophical theology in their use of "father"for God, this should
be used not to discount their evidence but to help locate the special function
of "father"in the theology of
each.8
Three functions of "father"seem to have been particularly important in
early Jewish literature. First, "father"functions to designate God as the refuge
of the afflicted and persecuted, especially those persecuted by the unbeliev-
"father"frequently accompanies a petition for or an assurance
ing.9 Second,
of forgiveness.50These two functions are grounded by a third: "father"evokes
the power and providence that govern the world.1

44 See Fitzmyer, "'Abba,"25; Schuller, "The Psalm of Joseph'

45 Fragment 2 (1 Clement 8:3); trans. J. R. Mueller and S. E. Robinson, OTP 1. 494.
46 See also Sir 51:10;Schuller attributes this use to the Hebrew and discusses it
among her
examples ("The Psalm of 4Q372 75, 79).
1,"
47 The titles occur frequently- together, apart, and in reverse order; see, e.g., Op. mund. 10,
21, 72-75; cf. Plato Timaeus 28C: t6v piv oiv 7ooqtrlxlv xxat aripp
roGr E ToG
48 See D'Angelo, "Theology in Mark and Q" xtvT6q.
49 3 Macc 6:3-4, 8; 7:6; 4Q372 1, 16-18; Sir 23:1;51:10;Wis 2:16-20; 11:10;1QH 9:35; Aseneth
12.8-15.
50 Apoc. Ezek. frag. 2; Wis 11:2;1QH 9:30-35; cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.6.8 ?152; Aseneth 12.8-15.
51 4Q372 1, 17-19, 24; 1QH 9:35; Aseneth 12.15; Wis 14:1-4; cf. 3 Macc 6:3; Jub. 19:29.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
622 Journal of Biblical Literature

Thus, the address to God as father was by no means absent from Judaism
before Jesus; it was based on biblical imagery for God and was surrounded
by use of this imagery in other contexts in the works of early Judaism.52It
may have been rooted in mythology of the ancient Near East.3 Commentators
have suggested that the designation of God as father seems to become increas-
ingly important in both Christianity and Judaism throughout the first three
centuries; Jeremias speaks of the emergence of a "newvocabulary"in rabbinic
Judaism.54Some interpreters seem to draw the inference that only the special
teaching of Jesus can explain this increase in importance.55But this is far from
the case. For one thing, the degree of increase has been overstated.The Gospel
of Markuses "father"for God four times in sixteen chapters,once as an address
(14:36) and three times in other contexts (8:38; 11:25; 13:32); 3 Maccabees
uses the title five times in seven chapters, twice as an address (3:6, 8) and
three times elsewhere (2:21, tpolnoitp; 5:7; 7:6).
On the other hand, it is clearly the case that "father"increased in impor-
tance in early Christianity. It is placed on the lips of Jesus in Matthew and
Luke, significantly more frequently than in Mark and Q. There can be little
doubt that development of Christology was the most significant factor in the
importance of "father"in Christian theology. Are there other contexts that
contributed to the increasing importance of "father"as a designation for God
in the NT, early Christianity,and early Judaism?There were in fact many such
contexts. The increasing absorption of Greek philosophical theology in both
Christianity and Judaism undoubtedly played some role. Throughout the NT,
as in Greek and Jewish theology, the title evoked the relation of humanity to
God in terms of kindred and likeness, and the providence of God for human-
ity. It was central to a type of wisdom piety, especially important to gnostic
and hermetic spirituality, which explained the soul as descended from the
deity?6 It also expressed God's sovereign power and authority.7 Particularly
as an expressionof God'ssovereignty,the title "father"resonated with the image
of empire as patriarchal family and the emperor as father. It was particularly
apt as a title by which the persecuted could invoke God'spower, or the repen-
tant God's forgiveness.

52 For the biblical evidence, see Eileen Schuller, Post-Exilic Prophets (Message of Biblical

Spirituality 4; Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988) 70-82.

53 See Schrenk, naotlp, 965-69.

54 Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 16.

55 Fitzmyer very tentatively suggests that the "new vocabulary"might be influenced by Chris-
tian usage ("Abba,"27 and n. 56).
56 See D'Angelo, "Theology in Mark and Q"

57 See, e.g., Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus; Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.1.12;trans. F C. Grant, Hellenistic
Religions:TheAge of Syncretism(Libraryof the LiberalArts;Indianapolis/NewYork:Bobbs-Merrill,
1953) 152-54; Sir 23:1-14; Wis 2:13-16; 1QH 9:35.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 623

III. Father in Roman Imperial Theology

While the contribution of philosophical theologies and the development
of Christology have received some recognition in interpretations of the
fatherhood of God in antiquity, the use of "father"in the imperial context has
received almost none. Yetthe Roman order was perhaps the "fact"that loomed
largest on the horizons of ancient Christianity and Judaism, and the assump-
tion of the titles parens patriae and pater patriae was a major step in the
emergence and solidification of the new world order Augustus constructed
as the basis of his rule.
The title was awardedto Julius Caesarlate in his life, possibly at the urging
of Cicero; it functioned to establish a relation of pietas between Caesar and
the Roman people."8Pater reflects an understanding of the empire as a great
familia in which the emperor functions as a paterfamilias, whose auctoritas
is based on his ability to regard the whole Roman people as his clients."9
Augustus officially acquired the title pater patriae in 2 BCE,but pater
and patriae were already in use for him, as parens patriae had been used of
Julius Caesar.Po In describing the characterof the principate,Cassius Dio treats
augustus and pater as the two titles by which the emperors first allowed
themselves to be distinguished from the rest of citizens - in effect, substitutes
for the noxious title "king,"which could convey its substance in a form less
offensive to Roman ears. Pater, Dio claims, acknowledges that the emperor
has the same authority (4outaE) over his subjects as the father once had over
children (natBa~h-the term may include slaves and other subjects)- that of
patria potestas.!3Augustus'slegislation on marriageand sexual mores may have
reflected his self-understanding as the paternal guardian of the mores of the
imperial familia.2 In his later reign, coins and art celebrate Augustus's

58 See Stefan Weinstock, "The Father,"Divus Iulius (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1971)200-207.

59
Niels Hannestad, Roman Art and Imperial Policy (Aarhus:Aarhus University Press, 1988)
29, 44, 55. On the emperor as paterfamilias, see W. K. Lacey, "Patria Potestas"in The Family
in AncientRome:New Perspectives(ed. Beryl Rawson;Ithaca, NY:Cornell UniversityPress) 121-44,
esp. 139; also Geza Alf6ldi, The Social History of Rome (trans. David Braund and Frank Pollock;
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 198) 101.
60 Henry Stuart Jones, CAH 10. 156 and nn. 1-2, 177 n 3. See Suetonius, Augustus 58; Cassius
Dio, Roman History 55.10.10.The title had Republican origins; see Lily Ross Taylor,The Divinity
of the RomanEmperor(APAMonographSeries 1; Middletown, CT:ScholarsPress, 1931;reprinted,
n.d.) 47-49, 67, 93; on the association with divinity, see pp. 200-201, 217-18.
61 Cassius Dio 53.18.3.Dio claims that the title originallysignifiedaffection ratherthan authority,
but the careful orchestration of its use by Octavian and the establishment of the bond of pietas
by Caesarsuggests otherwise (Weinstock,Divus Iulius,200-205). Seneca equated Nero'sassumption
of the title with patria potestas (De clem. 1.14.2).
62 Lex
Iulia de adulteriis coercendis,Lex Iulia de ordinibusmaritandis (both 18 BCE); Lex Pappia
Poppaea (9 CE).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
624 Journal of Biblical Literature

munificentia, as the characteristic of a good father and patron.!3Pater patriae

continued to take a place among imperial titles, though it did not come
automatically but was earned by benefactions and military victories.4 While
pater patriae referredfirst of all to the emperor'srelation to the Romanpeople,
it also functioned to explain his relation to the empire as a whole.
Two stoic philosophers of the late first and early second century help to
illustrate the different ways in which the imperial title "father"could react
with theological thought. Dio Chrysostom(died after 112)wrote four discourses
on kingship or empire which he is thought to have delivered before
(p••aela)
Trajan.In the first of them he describes the good king, commenting that he
is "morefond of toil than many others are of pleasure or and that "only
wealth,'
such a one ... can be called 'father'of his citizens and subjects not only in
word, but also be manifested as such in deeds'"65 Such a ruler prefers the title
"father,'rejecting such titles as seat6trlg. At the close of his description of
the good king, Dio turns to a discussion of "the greatest and first king and
ruler.... For Zeus alone of the gods is named 'father' and 'king, ... He is
named 'king'according to rule and power, 'father,'I think, according to provi-
dence and mildness:"'6For Dio, the rule or kingship of Zeus the father is the
model for true rule. In the most practicable and oldest form of government,
a city, nation, or even all human beings are directed by one good man'sjudg-
ment and virtue. It is Zeus, as the common provider and father of gods and
human beings, who nurtures the good ruler and ousts the bad.7'Thus in Dio's
theology, the reign of God the fatheris the protection and warrantof the empire.
Epictetus (died around 135 CE), who had been a slave, addressed his
philosophical counsel to a very different audience. Like Dio, he depicts the
empire as afamilia headed by the emperor and treats the divine rule of the
universe as analogous. But the way he uses these analogies reflects a social
location very different from that of Dio. Epictetus advises the one who has
absorbed the teaching that human beings are kin to God to follow Socrates'
practice of never saying "I am an Athenian"but "I am a worldling" (x6Oattog).

63 Hannestad, Roman Art, 87; Augustus used the title on the coins celebrating his grandsons
as principes iuventutis (ibid., 91).
64 Tiberius seems to have refused the title
(Suetonius, Tiberius26) but coins of Tiberius'sreign
celebrate DIVVS AVGVSTVSPATER.Nero received the title only in 56, Hadrian in 128; Marcus
Aurelius and Lucius Verus took it in 166 upon the occasion of their Parthiantriumph (Hannestad,
RomanArt, 94, 107, 191,219). Suetonius claims that Vespasianadopted it only late in life (Vespasian
12); the sesterce issued for the victory over Judea bears it on the obverse (reverse iudea capta;
see Hannestad, Roman Art, 121).
65 Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 1.22-23; cf. the translation by J.
W. Cohoon (LCL; London:
Heinemann; New York:Putnam, 1932) 1, 13.
66 Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 1.39-40. To Dios comments, compare Tertullian Apol. 34.2. If
Tertullian stresses the rejection of the title "lord"to the emperor, to Marcion he stresses that
to be "father"God must inspire fear as well as love (Adv. Marc. 1.27).
67
Dio, Discourse 3.45; cf. the translation by Cohoon, 125.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 625

Whyshouldsucha one not callhimselfa sonof God?andwhyfearanything

thathappensamonghumanbeings?but kinshipwith Caesaror someother
of the mightyat Romeis enoughto enablepeopleto livein safetyandwithout
contemptandfearingnothing,but to havegod as ourmakerandfatherand
guardian-will this not deliver frompains and fears?(Epictetus,Disser-
tationes1.9.7)68

Dio and Epictetus represent differing theological responses to imperial

fatherhood. For Dio, God as father rationalizes the imperial rule and invites
it to embrace an ethical code of clemency and responsibility. Epictetus uses
the fatherhood of God to offer an alternative dignity to those who have no
access to power within the imperial order. These authors are significant not
because they were a direct influence on early Christianity or Judaism, but
because early Christianityand Judaism respond to the same political realities.
Christianand Jewish texts from the fourthand fifth centuries frequently borrow
imperial imagery for God and the workings of divine rule. But earlier texts,
like Philo and Ephesians, also reflect imperial realities.9
For Philo (and for early Christianity) monotheism is expressed in terms of
God's divine rule - povapXpXt (Quis rer.div. heres 169; Fuga 11).The first com-
mandment announces the by which the world is ruled (povapXCvrat)
?tovapX•a
(Dec. 51, 155; Spec. leg. 1.12;2.224, 256). Philo'scomments on it envisage the
world as a great city with one "cause,general, and king, one charioteer and
pilot" (Dec. 155), behind the subsidiary rulers who are not autonomous but
lieutenants of the "onefatherof all"(Spec.leg. 1.14;see 12-21). Proselytesrepent
of their former allegiance to multiple rule and, recognizing the kovapXtaby
which the world is ruled (iovapXCrtL), turn to worship the "creatorand father
of all" (Virt. 179, 220). Parental authority reflects God's rule over the world
(Spec.leg. 2.225); thus fathershave the right of punishment over their children,
indeed parents have even the right to put them to death (2.231-34).70 The
relation of husband and wife is also a govaptlE (Fuga 154).
A similar connection between imperial polity and the imaging of God
appears in Ephesians. The author of Ephesians appropriated the Aristotelian
social philosophy which had become the theoretical basis of the Roman im-
perial social policies. Organizing human communal activity into
stoXLt~0E
(governmentof the city) and olxovolt'a(householdgovernment),this philosophy
saw proper control of the father/husband/master over the members of his

68 The citation begins from the recognition of the relation of gods and humanity as kin.
69 On Tertullian and Lactantius, see Peter Stockmeier, "Christliche Glaube und Antike Reli-
giositat,"in ANRW 23.2, 895-96.
70 Philo seems to combine Deut 21:18-21 with the Roman principle of
patria potestas, which
allowed the fatherthe right of life and death over his children and was both reassertedand modified
in the social legislation of Augustus. Spec. leg. 2.225-41 deserves attention as religious ground-
ing of the patriarchal family.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
626 Journal of Biblical Literature

household as essential to the stability of the state.7 The universal sway of

oikonomiaappearsin Ephesians, where God, the fatherfromwhom every patria
(family/tribe)is named (Eph 3:15),enforces the authorityof the father-husband-
master over the household of children, wives, and slaves (Eph 5:20-6:9).
Thus, Jewish and Christianpiety that saw "father"as the highest and most
appropriatetitle for God likewise reflected the imperial (or anti-imperial)con-
text. The one imperial rule was an image of divine rule in its oneness; as to
the emperor, the title "father"belonged to the One.

IV. The Heavenly Father in Rabbinic Judaism

and Resistance to Rome

Interpreters since Jeremias have recognized the problems of dating rab-

binic evidence and have excluded this material from consideration, because
it is no longer seen as a possible influence on Jesus and the Gospels. But, like
Philo and Ephesians, rabbinic material may reflect the Roman imperial use
of "father."In earlier Jewish literature, Gentile persecution was already an
important context for prayers that address God as father, as were repentance
and forgiveness. The destruction of the Temple and the devastation wrought
by Rome in the wake of the two revolts may well have contributed to increas-
ing the importance of "father"in Jewish prayer.It made both persecution and
forgiveness acute issues. In a number of rabbinic texts, the redactors and/or
traditionaries associate the title with these disasters, or place it on the lips
of rabbis whose lives were bound up with them.72 Mek. Bahodesh 6 presents
a dialogue between an interlocutor and "those who dwell in the land of Israel
and risk their lives for the sake of the commandments.:'The martyrs explain
their torments and deaths as the result of circumcising a son, reading Torah,
eating unleavened bread; the passage concludes, "these wounds caused me
to be beloved of my father in heaven.'73A passage appended to m. Sota in
both the Babylonianand the JerusalemTalmudproffersthe laments of Phineas
ben Jair and Eliezer ben Hyrcanus over the sad state of life since the fall of
the temple. Their catalogues of present woes conclude with the refrain, "on
whom shall we stay ourselves? on our Father in heaven.'74
At the end of m. Yoma,which largelydescribes ritualsof atonement which
could no longer be enacted after the fall of the Temple, the redactors cite a
blessing of R. Akiba: "R. Akiba said: Blessed are ye, O Israel. Before whom

71 See David Balch, Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in 1 Peter (SBLMS;Chico,
CA: Scholars Press, 1981); also Schiissler Fiorenza, Memory, 245-84.
72
Jeremias attributes the address to Johanan ben Zakkai (Prayers of Jesus, 16); the phrase is
attributed to him twice.
73 Trans.Lauterbach, 247, 135-43. In Mek.Amalek 2 and m. Kil. 9:9, Israel took refuge from
Amalekunder the wings of their kind heavenlyfatheras long as Moses held his handslifted in prayer.
74 See m. Sota 9:15. The paragraphin question is printed in H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford:
University Press, 1933) 306-7. Danby explains the textual problems (p. 306 n. 5).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 627

are ye made clean and who makes you clean? Your Father in heaven as it is
written, And I will sprinkleclean water upon you and you shall be clean"
(m. Yoma8:9; Danby, 172). This blessing seems to function in the same way
as a number of comments that offer consolation for the destruction of "the
place where the sins of Israel were atoned"'75Other references to God as father
occur in the context of atonement and forgiveness; they may also envisage
"father"as the proper appeal to God as the one who can supply atonement
without the Temple76
Another text attributed to Akiba merits special attention: b. Ta'an. 25b,
in demonstrating Akiba'sprowess at prayer, credits to him an early version
of the AbinuMalkenu:
Our fatherour king, we have no king but you;
Our fatherour king, for your own sake have mercyon us.
Heinemann regards this prayer as a variant of the lawcourt form, which he
describes as consisting of an address, an account of the distress, justification
and defense, and a petition77 The second line, the account of the distress as
a justification and defense, may give a clue to the attribution of the prayer
to R. Akiba. PerhapsAkiba'smessianic hopes and his martyrdomin the second
Jewish war caused the prayerto be associated with his name. It may have been
understood to reject the emperor'spretensions to the titles "father"and "king"
when it proclaimed, "our father, our king, we have no king but you."78
These few citations do not exhaust the occurrences or functions of "father"
as title for God in rabbinic literature. But they do suggest that the context
of Roman imperial domination left traces in the use of "father"for God in
rabbinic literature from the third to the sixth centuries CE.

V. Jesus, the Reign of God Movement

and Roman Imperial Theology
The importance of these materials,whether Greek or rabbinic is not that
they influenced Jesus. Epictetus and Dio Chrysostom were contemporaries
of the Gospel writers rather than of Jesus, and even the earliest of the rabbinic
materials cannot be dated with any certainty before 250. Rather, the reflec-
tion of imperial theology in these texts provides an analogy for looking at the
career of Jesus. The imperial context is also the context of Jesus' life and, even

75 See, e.g., 'Abot R. Nat. A 4, in Judah Goldin, The Fathers according to Rabbi Nathan (Yale
Judaica Series 10; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955) 32-35; B 8 in Anthony Saldarini,
The Fathersaccording to Rabbi Nathan (Abotde Rabbi Nathan) VersionB (SJLA 11;Leiden: Brill,
1975) 74-75 nn. 1 and 4.
76 Mek. Bahodesh 11; Mek. Vayassa 1; trans. Lauterbach, 93, 130.

77 Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud:Forms and Patterns (SJ 9; Berlin/New York:de
Gruyter, 1977) 203, 211.
78 The relationshipbetween references to God'skingship in Jewish prayerand emperor worship
has been much discussed; see Heinemann, Prayer, 94-96 and nn. 25-27.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
628 Journal of Biblical Literature

more, of his death. The designation of God as father, if indeed it was impor-
tant to Jesus, was important because of what it communicated to his hearers.
It can be understood only in the context of the prophetic movement within
which Jesus proclaimed and expected God's reign. An increasing number of
scholars view this movement by analogy with other prophetic movements
which responded to the pressures of Roman rule with the hope of a second
redemption79 Such apocalyptic expectations, far from being apolitical, were
(as the Romans recognized) profoundly political. The announcement of God's
reign evokes the platform of the "fourthphilosophy"of Judaism, whose rejec-
tion of human lordship and rule is described by Josephus (J.W 2.8.1 ?118;Ant.
18.1.6 ??23-26). If indeed the title "father"was important to Jesus, it may have
been in the context of spiritual resistance to imperial pretensions. The use
of "father"and the announcement of God's reign proclaimed "we have no king
but you,"as did the later prayer refrain 'dbin^nmalkenu.
The two addresses to God as father in Q combine the imagery of father
and king: "ourfather ... let your kingdom come,""I praise you father, lord of
heaven and earth... "'These texts certainly reflect early Christian liturgical
practice, and the derivation of the piety they express is complicated. But the
two images "father"and "king"may also have been linked in the reign-of-God
movement, as they were in Jewish and Greek material, so that the naturalcon-
comitant of proclaiming God's reign was addressing God as father.In that case,
it would indeed have been central to Jesus' proclamation, not because it was
new but because it spoke so radically to the communal loyalties of those who
heard, because it provided a rallying point so deep in their experience. This
is especially likely in the case of the prayerin Matt 6:9-13//Luke 11:2-4, which
Matthew clearly regardsas the simplest form of Jewish prayer,in contrast with
effusive Gentile formulations (Matt 6:7-8). Sociological interpreters of the NT
have described the itineracy and the antifamilial character of the movement
without emphasizing the function of these aspects in the context of resistance
to the empire.8oBut the imperial interests may well have seen them in these
terms. Where the emperor is the head of the greatfamilia of the empire, whose
order depends on controlling lesser familiae, itineracy and other challenges
to the patriarchal family emerge as challenges to the imperial order.
Do these observations affirm claims that Jesus' use of "father"was non-
patriarchal?Such claims rely in part on Jeremias'sproblematic insistence on

79 Alan Segal sees Jesus as an "apocalypticrevolutionary";see Rebecca'sChildren:Judaism and

Christianityin the RomanWorld(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 1986) 68-95; D'Angelo,
"Re-memberingJesus";RichardA. Horsley,Jesus and the Spiralof Violence(San Francisco:Harper
& Row, 1988); Wayne A. Meeks, The Moral Worldof the First Christians (Libraryof Early Chris-
tianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 96-108; Meeks sees the movement as one of a number
of "eschatological renewal movements" routinely suppressed by Roman violence (p. 101); E. P.
Sanders similarly sees Jesus' aim as eschatological restoration (Jesusand Judaism [Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985] 61-119).
80 But Gerd Theissen dramatizes this in his novel, The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest for
the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 D'Angelo: Abba and "Father" 629

the uniqueness and intimacy of "abba:'s8But it is also argued that the title
"father"functioned in the itinerant,antifamilialethos of the reign-of-Godmove-
ment to challenge the authority of the patriarchal family. Texts like Mark
3:31-35; 10:19-31; Matt 10:37-38//Luke 14:26; and Matt 8:22//Luke 9:60
provide the basis for this claim.82The vision of itineracy and the rejection of
family ties as reflecting resistance to the patriarchalorder give some basis for
seeing the teaching of Jesus as a challenge to patriarchy.
Is Jesus' use of "father"nonpatriarchalbecause it is a rejection of human
fatherhood and its claims? The use of "father"is not prominent in the texts
which seem to reflect itineracy or reject the obligations of family and prop-
erty. It is not used in Mark 3:31-35; it appears only in the versions of the say-
ing in Matt 12:50 and Gos. Thom. log. 99. One text in which the title father
is central is Matt 23:9: "Call no one on earth father, for one is your father,
in heaven"'If this saying can be attributed to Jesus, then it may also have
rejected the emperor's claim to the title "father."83 But the attribution is less
than certain. The saying is special to Matthew; it forms part of polemic that
rejects honorific titles within the community; Matthew'scommunity is to have
one father (in heaven) and one teacher (the Christ). Thus in a sense the Gospel
does indeed reject patriarchalorganizationwithin the community, but it does
so in the name of the absolute patriarchal claim of God. And the egalitarian
structure of the community does not make the Gospel's perspective less
androcentric.84
Even if the reconstruction of the reign-of-God movement as antifamilial
is accurate, even if Jesus did indeed use "father"for God, and the rejection
of earthly fatherhood were the context for his use of father as a divine name,
it cannot be claimed that Jesus' use of "father"was nonpatriarchalor that the
use of "father"in the earlier layers of the NT is nonpatriarchal and only the
later uses reinforce wherever the word is used, even when
patriarchy.5Rather,
it is used as a challenge to imperial claims or to the patriarchalfamily,it evokes
the image of God as the pater whose potestas exceeds and so affirms,limits,
or challenges the power of every other pater86 Thus it implies the imperial
and patriarchal context. As Phyllis Trible has pointed out,

... to the extentthatJesusdisavowedthe earthlyfatherin the nameof the

heavenlyfather,as Hamerton-Kellyproposes,to thatextentJesusre-inforced

81 Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father, 72; "God the Father in the Bible"'98-100.
82
Schiissler Fiorenza, Memory,145-51; see also Hamerton-Kelly,God the Father,55-75. Both
rethink Gerd Theissen, The Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (trans. John Bowden;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) esp. 1-30.
83 See Schiissler Fiorenza, who suggests an origin in Q (Memory,
150).
84 See on this MaryR. D'Angelo,"Sex,Women and Ascetic Discipline in the Gospel of Matthew"

(paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Kansas City, 1991).
85 Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father, 61.
86
Schrenk insists with approvalon the patriarchalcontext of the word throughout t0xailp;see
esp. pp. 983-84.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
630 Journal of Biblical Literature

by absolutizingthe ruleof the father.Totransfermaledominance

patriarchy
fromearth to heavenis not to eliminatebut to exacerbateit.7

VI. Conclusions

Any use of "father"for God in the texts of early Christianity and Judaism
may respond not only to imperial claims but also to a rich biblical and
theological heritage. Understanding the function of the title in context of the
communal experience and the christological concerns of each document is
the single most important factor in interpreting its use. Attention to the func-
tion of "father"in the theologies of Mark and Q is of particular importance
both to raising questions about its relation to Jesus' preaching of God's reign
and to describing the emergence of early Christian theology. That investiga-
tion is beyond the scope of this But this essay does lead to some con-
essay.8
clusions about the use of abba and father in the Gospels and their context.
First, "abba"cannot be attributed to Jesus with any certainty. It was certainly
of significance in the early Greek-speaking Christian communities of Paul and
Mark, where it expressed empowerment through the spirit. It may have
originated or been of special importance in the Syrian communities, where
Paul began his career and which many scholars see as the venue of Mark.
Second, "father"or "myfather"was used as an address to God and as an epithet
for God in antique Judaism, particularly in contexts which appeal to God as
a refuge for persecution or which seek forgiveness. If the use of "father"for
God increased in rabbinic Judaism, the increase may in part react to the loss
of the place where Israel's sins were atoned for and to the disaster of 135, by
rejecting imperial claims to the titles king and father. Third, "father"as an
address to God cannot be shown to originate with Jesus, to be particularly
important to his teaching, or even to have been used by him. If indeed "father"
was used by Jesus, the context is less likely to be familial intimacy than
resistance to the Roman imperial order.
The "fact"which Hamerton-Kelly urged so confidently on feminists thus
disappears under close examination, leaving a more complex, more challeng-
ing, and more ambiguous reality. Neither Jesus nor the NT can be shown to
have used the word "father"in a way that constitutes a transhistorical revela-
tion that is unique and will be irreparablylost if twentieth-century theology
and practice choose other imagery for God. But the use of "father"in the NT
cannot be ignored; it is important not only to diversify language and imagery
for God but also to attend to the patriarchaland imperialhorizons within which
Christianity was born and has lived, and to continue to ask how they have
limited our visions of the divine.

87 Trible, "God the Father,:' TToday37 (1980) 118.

88
See DAngelo, "Theology in Mark and Q"

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 05:44:16 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions