*ABBAISN’T‘DADDY" “Tur great Jeromias has made very widespread the iden thatthe apresion bd, used in addressing God, had avery faar and Inmate tne reve, Benge wih, eran Sontemporary Juda, it wa clay something orginal with Jesus Saul genuine ashisown ewan above aterm of acid Sddresnghs ater Iwasa chiens word, uci everyday tal’ Ind wuold have semed direspetaly indeed wnthikable, tothe ‘nails of Jou contemporaries to addrene God with hia Sond (New Testament Tho. p67), The use of the Aramaic ermal removed prayer from the formal Hurgicl phere and Placed tin thems of dail ie Tn other words, puting thi into English i was somewhat Fike saying Daddy though Jeremian seems to have stopped short of ‘SYing chsexplcty: andthe ea that ‘abd was tike-Dadd” che ‘eit hus been atured, grt favour wth students and ith eather: Enquies made enong tener a sermons conem this: Timo al have ben made air with hk vew o abba Jeremias, Inlet oy raponbl for his: many pointsmade yim are realy made nthe EWN'T articles of Kittel on and of Schrenk Saar. But iat Jtemiae who most nated onthe point, butt {moa Sornerstone of ht theological poston, and repeated the ruments agen and agin Publications include: Vatername Gots, in tCGh ns aga Te Central Message ofthe New Testament {iges): Abba, Studion sur neutstamentichen Thelogie und Zig Se (gf, with Enginhverton The Prayer of Jes (96): Newestomentche Theale, i (1972), ET New Testament Theology (hort). -Thes wl be ced bolow with abbreviated le eco. {review of ths extensive and influential series of writing, few wil question the acrton tat Jeremins the perso Deind the vogue of| ‘Bay And the sea cleriy as am appeal to many reds snd hearer of tay. Buri it ight? Is this ell the nuance of abba? Would uch a sneaning naturally cur to anyone who knows the relevant anges? ‘Tote present weer t would ver have ocurred aa even remotely » Thapaperadatendy beep mite bfore donee shat caller Ge eros a set nade ond he Wark ua Leno 1983) Vetitiomcetcom eeu cl heer ab Tha concent nape nthe of De Vers theater seuson a pera Bele! othe mounds tn gor uch move Seely ne he peop tment nd pce aed. Dead tary Pt | | ano isw-r-Dapby’ » likely. Yeti the ace Jeera’ strenuous arguments itis not ary o ‘aru chy itis wrong, where the fut in his reasoning esther indeed faut Perhape the technicalities ofthe discussion of Arete frimmatcal forms ad the ike have made too had forthe general fear to exercise upon this sopgestion the etal atenton tha fugit to have. We shall look fiat of al a thse phllogal tchnialiter andthe rn oa alternative scant ofthe anes of 1. The ‘nino the form abba in the pillgia cussion, a8 ithan ben developed, there sem tobe thee indica (o) the-emphat stat’ explanation, Nouns in Aramaic do not have 4 defi arith precedes them sw ind Hire but hace form with endings chrateritcly spelt with alephy which ha Silrfore: harms mathe day? Acontngtothisline of Shovsht, abba was athr” in the emphatic ws, and began, by sneannmoreor lew the father bu went onto tae oer he aneine Sho the for ith few peran singles ny Ether). The ‘icwhas ad wide ciclaon; ermal however say that Ssorong (Prayer p see.) Rtel had scoped CEWNT 4) Setaeabdnc nSeenseCMONT 4a nae G3 tie “vcstive explanation. ‘This goes back to ides of comparative Semis such n Nast. TB form ae nothing odo ‘with Aramaic'emphatistate. In origin, Jeremiassays te pure Srclimatory form, which i not infest and which. takes no foscuve autur; thegrinaton is modeled onthe way in which a slay ido tothe (he ressm beng that wal chil saye ‘Mama more often than "Dads". This form ‘ab, driving from children’ apsceh, bad made considerable headway in Palescnan ‘ramacin the period before the New Testament (Prayers, p38). (othe"babilg sound explanation (German Lalor lage Jere sayy abba is a babling sund, so it not infected and thes no sta’ (AT Teas, p06). This wou sce 0 py that is proper analogue in Engh would be somthing ike Derde rather than Daddy at Dahan act been mentioned inthe quotation shove 2. Interaction of the thee philological explanations. "These three | lest nate thought ower hth we othe matte cones very set henna prc mie we tote ee ttre besome te somo snd normal form of annum ath not [iri diferente om tet. Ths sgt aa cape at Wibectedite See Sep, arse Gramma (79) see EW: B. Steven, Grammar 9f Palen Jowih rama Gangs Bsa 48kAire, Jres hel shart is of consistency parce ek nw acorns a ee i ae eerste ele pert ou ped ona explanation the the fr sie tiara anata meta ett a sl tee fis ks pe eae (a Sa i oie fo, Ramtec aan oie SCisttuc at all silly mean that such forms ad exited for Serene tact present writer (ee his "Which Language did Jesus cpeak?—Some Faith fit ep Se et ee tno a date acne Ute rr | | i | i i | “apeA 15W"T DADDY aw [Aramaic and in Hebrew’ (Prayers, p23). When he emphasizes the fact thatthe form was Aramate (e.g. Prayer, ps7), Jeremie seems todo this as pat of the argument that, being Arama, the erm eae from the colloquial language of the time, as Gstinct from the higher stleof liturgical Hebrew abt. Bu this arguments otowy since even itAramaie was the popula’ language, Mishnaic Hebrew by modern ‘pinion, was lea popular language to, so tat we have the eve ‘oul either way. Ageepance of the "voeative explanation let the Guestion between Arama and Hebrew open; it made no dict diference tothe assessment of meanings, butt opened up diffctes Su contradictions in Jeremie argumentation. If abba belonged wo «group of phenomena that are in principle ancient, there would then be a question why it never appears inthe ‘id Testament. But this can be answered on the sue basis as @ umber of other problems in Mishnaie Hebrew An obvious analogue isthe relative particle, which in Mshaaie is more or ew universally Ses this particle begins toappete alsin ate biblical sources, Buti caily relatable to comparative philological data in other Semitic Hengtages, which suggest that it may go back to high antiquity and infct the Bible hans few instances erty sources, especialy in Judges Gudg. §:'7, 6: 17,7: 12 and 2 Rgy 6: 12) A natural explanation ts that e- existed in Hebrew a an carly date and ‘appeared in late biblical and Mishoaic tines, ut that for some {eason it was overlaid inthe central biblical period by the common “ers"The same type of account of aba ca bewuggsted, ade smade natural bythe appeal to comparative philology inthe vocative {explanation ofthe form Teinay similarly be asked why abd espe with the ending alephit it isnot Aramaic. We do not know, however that the spelling was ‘ccesarly with ap the New Testament frm would be the cameit the orginal had been spelt with he. In text like Neoft the speling with be occurs sporadically long ith that with aleph, for examples Gen, 20113, 28:21. But T-do not lay much weight upon this argument, for there is anther tha is much more important, Tt has tong been recognized” (Noth, Die ssracischn Feromennamen (2908), p.38) tha ‘hypocortc"shorqnings tf ibe. Hebrew onal amen withte vowe- coding rege s Hoeative’ and thus comes into exactly the sate general category ao “abba and ‘hypocorinc’ forms have the same aity with family speech and children's speech that has Ben alleged for abbd."Thus « ‘tame meaning ‘servantot God’ might be shortened toR3¥. one like rai might be shortened to NBD, one tke Azariah (Cou helped) can be found as. RI, and in sich names we find te inal pelt ‘her with leph of with he. "Thus the speling with sleph does ot2 JAMES BARE ‘require s to have recourse to Aramaic, nor does it support late date forthe phenomenon. "These considerations donot exhaust the implications of the ‘emphatic state? explanation of "abba, and we shall return to it Somewhat later and ask whether it s realy right to abandon that ecount of it, At this point, however, we have concentrated on the ‘ects that follow if we adopt the vocative’ explanation in preference, ‘Tostum up, then, the rejection of the ‘emphatic state’ explanation, and the adoption of the ‘vocative’ explanation, make it less obvious that the form is necessarily Aramaic, and make ic probable that i goes buck to an early time? {b) More damaging for Jeremias isthe contradiction between the Lallwort (babbling sound’) explanation and either of the other two. ‘Talk of such ‘babbling sounds’, as the supposed origin of actual ‘words, doce occur sporadically in historical philology, mostly of avery ‘kiashioned kind, but ti obviously a very slippery and doubtful rea, Generally speaking, a safe rule isto disbelieve any philological xplanation that rests upon such babbling. The attraction of Lalwort ablanations for the older biblical philology is well illustrated by Scheenk in TWNTT, 948, ho tells us that the Proto-Indo- European ancestors of xa and rime contained, in addltion to the formative element cme the natural sound’, the Lalfwort ofthe child, ‘which was originally perceived as pa and ma and so interpreted by ‘Mul. TT this is thought of as serious discussion, and somehow Teevant even tothe New Testament (!), its no wonder if Jeremias ‘went along the same path “Obviously it would be outof place for us ere to pursue the question of Indo-European origins ofa Word like navi. But something should be aac about it, because it has had great historical influence. Numerous older philologists occupied themselves with Lallwort theory it goes back to the desir to find o language ar element that is fot arbitrary but derives pereepubly from nature, Numerous Ghamples can be found. in P. Kretechmer’s inleitung in die (Geschichte der gmechischen Sprache (1896), and fora mote moder trample se the section * “Mamma” and "Papa" "in O. Jespersen, Language (1928), pp. 154-60. "The older dictionaries of Tndo- ‘European etymology, and especialy the German ones, greatly favour the Lailzort account of words such as father’ and ‘mother. ‘Thus Jeremias in being influenced by Lalzor theory was very much achild of his time » sy rma ening no Mak emi rete onc oe keds een teeny erent eta rcecosttie mater of osname Appention he SoS ona aise “ABBA ISN"T “DADDY 8 But tet te ered hat ter dou aout tiki explanation, and much more modern work tends to go by a quite ice ian thon wri of reference, ). Pokorny in his Indogermanisches Exymologisches Worterbuch (+999), p. Soy, Fenton he Lafere acount ofthe gn oat bat th {Guesion mark, and sets alongside it on equal terms, slo with & {Jestion mar, the dea that ts derived fom aroot po) protest (at {sous shepherd). ‘The Dictionnaire eymalagiue de fa langue laine of A Ernout and A: Meier (th edn. 9979). 487 fo supe Absolutely nothing about any babbling sourdy and’ offers an planation vwhich must lead’ another direction’ what pater fnlicates is not physical paternity; i hat a social value, a nected with religion and mythology the aspect of solemnity which Sttached to had the reat that people tended toute a more familiar ford in ts place. Similarly, the important study of E. Benveniste Tad Ewropean Language and Society (1973), ina chapter dedicated t0°The Importance ofthe Concept of Paternity (pp. 169-74), makes fm mention of infatle babbling stall and init that he original of “nthe sa a socal clasiatory term. And, afterall, gong back somewhat i time, the Oxford English Dictionary tel had eechewed appeal to such babbling. Forare we ealy to believe that children of ancient Indo-European times bubbled their pa and ma, and that thei parents rho Sppaenty x hypohes, had up to that time had no word for father rimother), noted this babbling of ther offepring, added tothe Shifter, and adopted ita their own adult speech? Fo suppone ss to prs rather far the principle of out of the mouth of bubes and Sicking Let it be atleast cosidered posible tht things took the Opposite couse, Childrens babbling une through more or les the Whole gamut of human speech-preducing movements (D. Aber {rombie, Elements of General Phonetics (3967), peat) and docs non Stel conform tothe phonemic system of any nt language. I the Als who het itothiscomple of sounds the sounds and word’ of Babyslanguage that hey conser ting that should ont, Ts the adult who creates the baby languages who caves the child say ‘pap’ or “daddy rather than some other sequence of sounds. ‘The imeaction that thus takes pce i orm of traning by which the ‘hil learns to select what wl be inguinal eleva in his family’s Tanguage. ‘hese stands thee embryo words, ae caught up by th a : ny the person of ite vient and endowed bythe withthe meaning whishyeuppose the Baby han tended to conve. In this way te nurse pare threes ‘tet the Baby language and i act etal each Wt he eis ths4 JAMES BARK. etablishing catty verbal communication. (L. R. Palmer, Descriptive and Camparatise Lenpaties (1973) P22.) Tes not necessary that renders should accep this alternative account te mater nor dos that whishfolws Sepndon ay one ae Sther among the possible acount of i But at leat t should be cow tbat polo explanations that dcpendan Lalor theories are subject to question. Tut teary che the babbling sound? explanation, if aken seriously at all woul seem to erry seven further back ito the miss of ‘Srehacory than the voeativ explanation bs already done. For ig aera Coeefoble thatthe Seite tert fr mother and ater aren onde, asJeremiae would have?) originate from the babbling esis of infant, bur if this were aot would have taken place some ‘Rilenna before the time of Jess. Whats mot concevabl itat he nse forma ad and ima in late Helene times originated Boe babbling of infants, ‘That infants of Aramai-speaking fami shoul hae Dae forma that hive such lot ‘Gornological analogies with the grammar oftheir parents language ‘Peep much to ele, Aran account of ‘abba in New Testament times, Ifans babbling nonsensical "Th is mportane because the babbling sound’ explanation seems tobe the costal linkin the connection Jereias makes between the pete form abba and the speech of children specials. He may, Risener melt have felt some uneasiness about this connection, nd records that he changed hi mind about it: COneoften ce (and T myself belived tat onetime) that when Jesusspoke to Rohemeny Father he tol up te hater fa small hl To ass this Neier bce olf inadmintblenuvey. We have een that even grown-up oraddrcocd thei father a abba (Prayers, p.62rcl.NT Theale, p67) ‘This ‘piece of inadmissible naivety’, however, is just what has remained very powerful inthe minds of Jeremias' readers, and the Teavon can easily be seen: in spite of his change of mind, Jeremias ‘Continued to depend on the ‘babbling sound’ explanation, His whole Explanation ofthe forms abba and mm in Prayers, p. $8, depends, ‘Spon t-and its there that we Bnd him using the telling terms'Mama IRE"Dade’ The statement just cited seems to stand in contradiction ‘th the insistence in the same pages chat it was never forgotten that Mibba rived from the specch ot children’ (Prayers, p- 59), and, similarly, "abba was 4 children's word! (NT. Theology, p. 67). It Jeremias had become aware of faults and imitations i the babbling Zound! explanation, he nevertheless continued to writeasif itcould be founted upon for something. And the reason is evident: any word for Sather! would, by normal usage and the inherent nature of is ‘ABBA ISN°T“DADDY" 38 meaning, have an obvious connection with children's use: only the “pabbling sound’ explanation could concentrate the connection purely | om the one form ‘abba. If English readers of his works tell their Congregations that Abba meant ‘Daddy’, thi is why. Tn fact the tout New Testament ‘abba. "Teremias here made a confusion that was common in the older biblical philology. Helooked upon origins aif they could tellus about ‘contemporary functions. ‘Though based upon ideas of historical Tinguistes, his thoughts operated in an anti-historialfathion, for they ‘confused processes that might possibly have happened in some remote sage ih anton and ening that Were evidenced in New estarnent times. 4. The true import ofthe evidence. I isnot our purpose in this ane gue the rey of te viene Jem cally ete, oro add new evidence in any material degre. Lal argue father that the same evidence upon which he tees points most stray in avery diferent direction, (a) The words for father and mehr aswsed by children, acted incvidenee by Jeremia, have one completcly obvious carscteiic tout them: they are the same eords av thove used by adults completely identical Even aba originated ava word of chien, ty Jeu ime it wa a word of aul jst ax much: Jremas hms tes this leat. But this immediately destroy the effect of some of hit key examples. Take the often-ited case from the Talmud (eB Ber. ga):' When achild experience the tof wheat (ue, whenitis weaned), it are to ay abba abd oma (thee are the fst found pate)” (Prayers pp. §9 961211; NT Theology, p66: Mesiage,'p. 20). Even if we rant thatthe tana and | | child isto lear are the normal words ofthe language, correct and ‘grammatical adult Aramaic. Similarly, the Targurm of Tea. 8:4 has ‘before the childlearnsto call’abbd and moma’ (Prayers, p. 59): wel, ‘of cours thas, for these were the normal adult words by that time, ‘and Jeremias has already explained that they had taken over the functions of the older Hebrew “abi and ‘nm ‘my father’ and ‘my mother, which ate the words of the Hebrew tex of Istah, Ths the ‘Targum translates the normal adult words of biblical Hebrew, to be learned by the growing child, into the corresponding normal adult ‘words of contemporary Aramaic. ‘Thus the example point in the ‘posite direction from that implied by the use that Jeremias makes of36 JAMES BARR “The same is true af the schoolchildren who were sent to Hani haNehba at times when rin was needed: the Aramaic words of their refrain are quoted and translated a8 “abba hab a mid Daddy, daddy, give us ra so Prayers, pp.61, 111: NT Theology, 65, andsurely this passage Gaderrendcringhave been lange actor n leading the general reader aeeaide the mance "Daddy for other cases of abbd. But the teunlston Daddy tendenios, for once aga the children ae ‘tdng eta che sme form whic adults sed. The hod no word ine ofa spec nuance lke ovr Daddy What the cldren sad Sas Father, athe, give fn The sae is true of the argument, (equently repeated, that Cchrysostrn, Theodore of Mopaiesta, and Theodoret, ‘born in Sheoch of eller patents and probably growing up under the Aikcshion of Syrian nuraesandsurerymaid, know frm thet o¥D ‘Sabetcnce that small childyen al the fathers abba (Prayers Bp. Sot wh text helpfully ced on p. Gon. 4; gui, pp- 9,111 Slesage'p 0), Ofcourse they sid aby and forthe Faton that Jeremincae ugget: the sotratelangunge was AramaiiSyia AF Was ned by tures and among cilen; but ‘abbd in that, itnguage waste normal alu word (nos of thee children doubles Spoke Gicck a they grew older). thus abba as the adult word, though wsed ery henily by chien, Jeremin docs indeed ne anther argument i was vet femporten that "abbd derived from the language of sal hldren. esac have shown: it eno all eran that it wan dered from the apecch of all ehikren in this ways only if we accept and mphassethe Lalor explanation, can that be re. And, even abo derived, that diferent mater fom function. Moreover, Sherer deve ha leet mae fom supposing {Ri people were conse ofthieerivaton Tothiksoisamistaken projgedon of our hiorca-piologtelinieests ito the minds of opie who knew and cared nating for such thing. That wbet exited wa not an awerenceaf the desvation, but an avarenes of the actual tse. Of coure‘aba ha oieable ‘Sanction wh chitrenbut than ot enc ofthe derivation of {hel word, but beease chien are more dependent on parents and shore ikl to address them frequent “Abba, as Jeremis himself Tle fo ined by all sorte of people, all sort of ages. But young, ‘Tilden ae kly couse more freuen than adults, and more itty to ase tin a vcaivefareion, cling forthe tention of father than an oar group. Thus t may be gute right that bb ABBA ISN'T “DADDY w was specially associated with smal children. But this is not because it isthe specific form ‘abba onthe contrary, the same would be tue of [ny ter with the mesning’Tather, especialy aterm used in vocative function, and stil more i i also functioned, ab ‘abba did, for "my father’ and the kein statements, Jeremie thus mixes up what i true only of ‘abba and what would be true, a principle, of ay word that sean father, in any language, Thus he may be quite right in saying that to address God as father very iting for those who are also told, ‘hewhere, that they are tobe Tike ttle children’; but this would be the same whatever the word for lather, and thus has nothing to do svth the specific form ‘abba, (6) To this we have to add the evidence ofthe Targums. Jeremias studied these intensively, and emphasizes their evidence a good dea. But his atention fala primarily on one question: whether God 1 addressed as abbd, or indeed whether he is addressed with any term ‘meaning father (e.g. Prayers, pp. 60{., 1104: NT Theology, . 63) [Ashe doesnot fll to shovr, examples using ‘abba in addressing God ae very few and necessarily «0, since there are few places sn the Hebrew itself where Ged is addressed as father’. But we may study the Targum from another point of view, namely to consider whether, ‘when it uses ‘abba of a human father, it conveys a nuance that is ‘lds and faiiar or one tht is adult and serious, "Now Aramaic abba isa fairly standard rendering for the Hebrew “abi'my father, anda glance atthe many instances i enough to make. it clear that they occur in a context that is adul, eerous, and ‘eligiousy solemn, thats, that ‘Father’ ory father isa much more ppropriate English gloss than" Daddy’. One would betrviliing and ‘ulgorzing the diction of the Targum if one were to ender passages such asthe following with ‘Daddy’ or ‘Dad’: jurt consider: Gen, 20:12 She is my sister, Dad's own daughter 22:7, And Isaue spoke to Abraham his father and said, Dad! 37: 32 And he [Eeau} said to his father, Let Dad arise and ‘eat from his son's food 315 And the God of my Daddy has been my support 3:42 The God of my Daddy, the God of Abraham All of these are “abba, not only in Targum Onkelog, but also in eof. The inconcinaity of the rendering “Daddy” or “Dad is too tbyious to need further remark. Note especially at Gen. a7: 31 the ‘collocation of ‘abba with the formal third-person style. In 20: 12, Abraham seems to be already nearly a hundred years old, while in ‘hap. 31 Jacob, the speaker, has already been working for Laban for a0 years (Gen. 31; 42). The nuance is that of father, and not that of Daddy, throughout,8 JAMES BARR (0) The Gch word sein the Now Teoma i lays the olinal adit ord nig and. never @dimiratice or 2 WF ardcularly belong to the speech of cudren. Word somewhat ‘Morn anced ung toon Daddy di extn Greek bt here sr tot hi of any of them inthe language of the Dible- One would “Cafe expect find the Homers tv though ts more convincing a Talrt than mos). The Revd J-L- Houlden kindly mentioned {Siacnargiv, found Arstophanc snd later comic poet, but tis Sot eanytoimagine tin the New Testament, having as itdoes the ir Ura ahedlinglliminotive (worde of DM, MacDowelin sedition St Artophanes’ Wasps (apr), .2s9 08.986). ‘The word that would be mon kly by far rag or nes (axanniag and analtuy sso exit) ‘These words can bard have ‘Sen unknown to New Testament woters. The contemporary toe ter Cornus wwe sg. Feton i mich more ike eal allot Thun zero cou eve es It was relly ned in apeseh with chen NNovlow a peton tan Epicure uses fina leer to smal oy, wg oops i 8 “et hanes en “ss ifyou and our Mam a we yo oy our Dad cventing ee Bicuro, ed G. Arrighti (Turi, 1960), 176.8.» 4935 the {iar asiation chr ss a ana Bab) Moreover ‘axa, jntasieud tobe trac of abba acemat nest beonits way ftom being 2 chidren'’ word, ‘Daday, to becoming’ familar Capresnon fr fathers as wes in P-Giesen 803 2ec0nd century = dra oF To nl 8 eas a, Tintin and her ater gret you “The mythological figure Atti Petia words expressing the nuance ‘Daddy’ were avaiable; but of cor non of teas found in bic Greek, ano wonder: they ‘Sere quite nauble for bibl spe the New Testament writers Tad oken comeiou ofthe moance "Daddy they could easly have Epressd themelves so; but infact they were well aware that the Sinee was not that of Daddy” But tha of ater "Ths, cum up tis sexin, the semantics of “ab il the vag of the Tarpurm and the choice of voedblary in the New ‘Texament ll apes supporting the nuance father rater tha the tance ‘Daddy Though Teremias didnot exprely say thatthe is sometimes called Papas or Zeus ' here eenemnnnerennaeranssieeumnetenmeensmengseTeTnSE “ABBA ISN"T DADDY! » nuance was that of ‘Daddy, he certainly wsed evidence and arguments ‘na way that naturally created that impression, Like many exegetes of histime, he allowed diachronic arguments about origins nd devel ‘opments interfere with the assesment ofthe synchronic state of the Tanguage in the given period, On the central synchronic question, that ‘ofthe nuance of ‘abba, his opinion was the opposite ofthe reality he slowed i to seem tha Jesus was using a childish term, when the fact ‘vas that children, so far as we can tel from the literature, sed the sult term, "These conclusions in themselves do not appear to pect Jeremias vider argumentation. Ie may be fully probable that Jesus addressing tof God a father is connected with his requirement that hie followers Should be ike children’ even if this not related to the specific term “abba inthe way thathas been suggested. Ie may also be quite tre that, the use of ‘abba was original with Jesus and historically genuine: | have no wish to dispute this, bu the points that have been implied about meanings of words and about fechniqes of translation may alfect our assurance about the degeee to which thie can be proved. 4 Another semantic aspect. Even i “abba isnot special through being a word of children, there may nevertheless be something about st which was significant inthe meaning patterns of early Christianity tnd which caused the term to be remembered ait was, when 30 ver) few ofthe semitic-language terms of Jesus were remembered. (2) abba inits common vocative Function seems to haveben closer to"father!” than tothe pectic my father!" The contrast with biblical Hebrew is matked. In Hebrewason addressing afather would say bi “my father’ (eg. Gen. 22: 7, Isaac to Abraham); he (it seems) could not say ‘father without specifying my father If one wanted to say Something diferent, for example, ur father, then that would quire Afferent form. There was, so far a we ean learn from the biblical text, no way of saying “athe!” without such specification: unles, of ‘course, abba already existed in that function, as discussed above. In Inter Hebrew and Aramaic the existence of abbd made a difference to ‘this. Abba said father!" but didnot specify. Naturally among allcases avery large majority were in fact "my father, but this wat not txpresly stated. The vocative expression named the relationship but {id not name the other person involved nthe relationship, evenifthat aspect was perfectly well known: compare the usage in Come here, ‘ld! which leaves t open whether the child addressed is the child of the speaker or of someone else (example taken from J. Lyons, ‘Semantics (1977), p. 217). Since for Jesus God was not only "my father’ (ie. his own personal father) but aleo‘the Father and ‘your ot “our Father, this may well be significant. do not necessarily suggestRe eaten tee ie ai Hewes ieee cy a a Se ee ae ae ecient eee uae matt eri tan cigars tan en orem mete ne two sonas he and hc ach of which fs Yo Be yi pes eremeesenenaert snes rns RERRNRSENRREN TERE OO RADI “mpd 1sy°T ‘DADDY’ a father, and all ofthis is clearly stated by Jeremias himself. But in cefct this st of facts is more naturally taken in the other way: for them, in New Testament times, ‘abd teas the emphatic atat of the ‘word for Tather. Ie belonged to the same morphological type, and funetioned inthe same way. To them it was thus a straightforward emphati state form, the father’, which also had the votive function “father!” (just as in biblical Hebrew vocatve functions commonly had the article, so that one sad ‘the king’, ha-melek, where we in English ‘would say'O ing!” othe lke (Gesenius- Kautasch-Cowley, §326,p. {25)) and the posessve relation my [your, our] father’. Within their ‘wn terms, in the New Testament period, the writers were not at ll mistaken, but were quite right, in treating the form as an emphatic Sate form used, as the Greek nominative could be, in a vocative funetion. And tis is why the rendering of ‘abba with 8 xan was 0 very stable, recurring a8 it does in every single instance that we pose, "Now thie is important for another point in Jeemias’ arguments tion. 'Whereas there is nota single instance of God being addressed a8 [Abba in the literature of Jewish prayer, Jesus always [my italics] axidressed him in this way (withthe exception ofthe ery from the ‘ross, Mark. 15:34 pat.) —so Prayers, p. 57, and see generally pp. $5-7.111, and N7 Theology, pp. 64. Whenever Jess addressed God 4: Father, he used ‘abba. But if this seo it produces to or three further problems. First, a8 we have seen, all three cass where the Semitic ‘abba is «quoted have the Greckin the nominative with article, Surg and we have seen reason to ace this as a literal tendering which implies diagnosis ofthe form as emphatic state. If this understanding was both widespread ancl also more o lees rght in isl, then we might ‘expect it to be widely represented in other places where Jesus addressed God as Father’. This, however, is not so: the only places Uthere we haved sation vocativefunetion appear tobe Matt 11236, parallel Luke 10:21, and in both of these they are preceded by the ‘ammaticalyocaive xéwo. ‘This must mean, fal places ofthis kind really eame from an original ‘abba, thatthe literal sort of rendering found in the theee cases which have Of actually writen, and the analysis of the Semitic form that that rendering implied, had been {Quickly forgotten, ignored, of considered incorrect or unsuitable, ‘This is of course not impossible, but the fact i itelf makes it less absolutely clear that all addresses to the Father derive from the one 2 This may rive sme confor th a tht of the fo ses inthe ete Bb cht late with dete neha alte (Ek 4:1 ‘e)arrenderc in Tap Jha hss sal he ater ab), Bevoult thes (a)2 sates nan ria ‘ld. And his eg erent to be one by s ‘Jeremias’ own argument goes in the opposite direction. The Greck or ory erly hs tone nate hat ES 2G eee ne ww (Ma ale) oie see pit gems iste te, et (ae mentone dition ie sme cv of oma 26 Lae 20 etc posblecern oh Sependingon Fee aaa rca wai me Peep ge and Sa ee ee ya ine vron ea by Jeremie 1 eet baal aes ved ron the ome nal bd pe ret uname te cao moma eae ose pthage bred ss var pret ihn ee iat Peasy less betwen, en on Eada ne Then ieee ats son a ptt ie behind heal Tiswordcoul bes san rou bethc spatter conl tad fot ter toscana ree) Tce wean therm tt cng ef odo ahr fre eck ab not be ae th et gp penne te Grek es ei ae dag page eh state hen tea hub change of eae see comtaheeatenpas neuen cvewre ceeee sete hem the cme, Sgn an sam ie anes shed stem beter at an bid gut he ener ier vi eet can age mh tet od whee creer ot ee re hve ae hat he Pes ti et re errant, Araya se papi tutespf in ai wash aoe ae tread Com rater to by to mee shee acta thi psn Jeremie mins he gute diferent a ee lharebean bbs eet wn ‘gpenedt ayebecn wc thr wan 0 er equate Sete nhc cern Arnon ere test toes en tne Jone (Den 0), Wal a eae gee ups en cy ng Sono vou isda o prove exarty what wa cent ugin ite tun be end Sex aoa cme Te ee nity cme om etry see Rm af Gunn, morg 0 Fae west nrc varnvltge fte pet Mra aed a > | “ABBA ISN-T “DADDY a Palestine in theft century ne and an’ (J. A. Ftmyer, The Genesis Apocryphonof Qumran Cave | (2960), pr8). Perhaps we maght oan Safely unt tear rther than ater, but inany ese leant othe fime of Jeu Now inthe Genesis Apocrypaon we have father thre ies (2:19, 24; 3:3).ab in‘, Lame, an to Methuselah ny father’ (2:19) and everyone of hee by hat the tad amie ih pce sf, Yo Be ed he ater agent of the same sort (DID, i 117.80 608 4, photog canly readable on Pte ag.) we haven Phony ny ‘ny ch “Tarai ny tater wat with me? again the same Aramaic form, There i no sgn of abbd anywhere in any ofthe document ths far published, to fat ast as a pree EID te Job Targum (Cl 3: 508 38:8; p. 76 of he yy ine oe ther” that “ab ad not ‘aba 3 cours, hat “abba ino etn, of core, tat abba woul have Been ute ere the noun being define but ght well have been, it bad spreads widely ae pomlated by he ment of Jremia, CE mie a above p. Jo which tos indefinite bt em the empha ate clear tat, even Joeman as ight in hit postive insistence nthe wie extension ‘ah and taker! ancien thatad belonged to other forms, he was wrong in oing beyond th sad coming tothe negative conclesion that kha complcey delaced thes ther forma: Clary it way the time of Jose teas oo presen knowledge por, perfectly posblthat subse forms suchas whch ely fer, wou bese an rent und ie interesting ase consists in the Synope parallels to Mark 26, the words in Gethsemane, Mark bas ba Seats Mla 3639, + Jeni dee a ein pc ava kn Bb a ae ate $i i tbe id tenga Sse Apr a ‘pee At a evn ig fk iirc ee Soe abe Sino tea ote ee ei Skee Inde sa ortnoing) pp. 3h) tiscven petit een a Efrat esis omanPpa gate ghee a) sien tans ow it am eee eae an en ea ts Ns Sey inc he ml os ec naterial, then it would suggest that variations such a8 4 xavho, step, ve is pte tt eo ie ayaa csr te “ABBA ISNT DADDY: 4s simply donot see that the linguistic evidence excludes an equal ‘orginal’ forthe Mathean form. Moreover this fom of prayer orm’ already existed inthe fet cenry, thi fact eee SSmevhat to make vai al the strenuous effort deployed in order Show that it was extremely rare to address God a Father before Jesus Himself di eo. Ta fact eloewhere Jeers, handling the Mattean form, take different course: the adress mate, a8 in Luke, ges back to an Aramale‘abbd, which i hereto Be iatlted “our Father” (than tightly Mate. 6: "(AT Theology p. 7). So the aur father of Matthew iis che preluct of (corzet tartan from ab But {his becomes almost too mich to belve. So much made depend fon the iden tha" can mean so many diferent ge, 0 that 0 ‘many diferent ‘ranaations'of areal correct. In view othe many pice where we have expressions such you father Your father and oan, one really nds teaser to elevethat hes gobacktoa Semtie rial that specified our You? ete. —or le, of courte that these tifeences originated in 4 Grck tadion anyvay and thereto te net wasted from Sane og a al Dt eer of hese thing right, then it reece upon the central aes iene wow tn ‘bret addresto God, which have been cused above. How ean we ‘bese that al these derive from abd and not rom form, Hebrew Arama, that speci o whom, at this pont, God the father? in eaying that ‘aa at Mac. 6 ‘rightly teased” wit our Father Jeremiasin his NT Theology asin aootnte(p 197 Re!) ¢ feferenc wo sme Rabbinic pasages which he takes tala ha tw. Hl doesnot explain how this is, but, one most supposes Because they are pamages where several persons speak ofa ater as “abba aod th aout ater But any thought aout thee passes uel makes it clear that they donot have this impiaion forthe words a used by Jens, Tes typical cae tke B. Bathrag: 3 one of those cited. Sons ae discissing what thc ater let ote. They say (in Danby’ translation, The Mina, 38). "See, what ou inher abba} hasleteus "The words 'abbdandot course oncean tay arate a ‘ur father But they did not sual say "out Inher, they didnot specify our: what they sid, more acura ‘eas 'Sce what Father et sth other yorde, these are eases of ‘aural amily, in whic, en they any abba ten only mean the {ther that they havein como. They didnt specify that aso fake and they col not have done sy wing abba They would fave had to" se "ain in Hebrew, of coresponding form in Arama doy there ane By eof a aly ‘pers ‘our. Jesus a portrayed in Mit 6:9 is talking n'a. quite Aferen situation: he i teaching a prayer for hie daipes to se Tt6 JAMES BARK ‘ean be significant, for uch a heterogeneous group (including all Christian of ayes to come), that ‘ours specified, even i iis aso posible (asin Luke) to have the same peayer in substance without Eich specification. The mire fa of Mat, 6:9 probably intended to specify ‘our If so, it did not come from ‘abba. {5 Conclusions. Tis article has not attempted to go into all the aqudtions that ar relevant or to survey every aspect ofthe evidence, ‘Weleave aside for example, the discussion of Sir. 23:1, 4, where the Grech wspue waeco might be evidence of an address to God as Father, {a Hebrew and two centuries before Jesu (I. Prayers, pp. 28 {NT ‘Theology, pp. 63). We also leave aside the alleged lck of ‘aba in Mess to God in the Targum (se Prayers, pp. 60{.;.NT Theology, p. 6), remarking onty (a) that, since there are so few places inthe Ficbrew tex where God is addressed as'my father itis not suepe If there are only very few cases with corresponding “abba in the "Targum, so that even the two cases recognized by Jeemias (Mal. 2: TorBe. Sgr 27) donot seem to bea poor representation; (6) that, even ditere the ‘Targum renders with nbbant for Hebrew ‘abi (Jet. 3 4, 1p). thisin eet hacdly proves the drastic conclusion thatthe Targum woes deliberately’ avoiding ‘abba, In matters ofthis kind one cannot Help feeling that Jeremias has made the non-use of ‘abba before Jesus {nto an apologetic matter, which status then forces him to press such “rguments harder than they ought tobe pressed. But we wil say no tore about these other aspects of the subject, and within the limits of the discussion in hisatile we can speak of one or two certainties and some probabilities, (a) Its fair tosay that ‘abba in Jesu’ time belonged wa familiar oF colloquial register of language, a8 distinct from more formal and Ceremonious usage, though t would beunvvise, in view of the usage of {he Targum, to press this too far, But in any ease it was not a chikish txpression comparable with “Daddy's it was more a solemn, responsible, adult address to a Father. {) While itispossble that all cates in which Jesus addresses God as “father derive roman original abba, itisimpossibletoprove that this ince, for there are alternative hypotheses which seem to fit the ‘dence equally well The fact that abba is ited only once inall the ‘Gospels, while it could mean thats was a typical expression used ‘nary times, could also meas that st was a Tess usual expression, [pecally quoted because oft use ata eitical moment in the Garden eF'Gertscman. In particulag, in 20 far at Greek expressions can be id to derive trom precise Semitic original, iti Mely that theae friginals included expressions that specified “my ot ‘our’ or ‘your ather and in tis respeet differed from aba. Ie is also possible that ag form within the Greek tradition and thus cannot be vd ‘evidenced in Aramaic. 7 as Janes Barn rectly ied toany