The differences which are the result of the
resence in Mt of clauses that are wanting in the δι texts of Lk require more detailed discussion. These clauses are: (1) ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, (2) γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆ», (3) ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. Tisch., Treg., WH, RV, Alford, Weiss, Godet, Scrivener, Ham- mond, and many others, reject these passages as insertions in Lk from the text of Mt. ‘If one of the Gospels contained the Lord’s Prayer in a shorter form than the other, nothing was so likely as that a scribe in perfect innocence would supply what he considered an undoubted defect’ (Seriv.
* F. H. Chase supposes that the disciples themselves adapted the prayer to special occasions, both altering and addir 1 that ἐσιφύσιος is one of the subsequent changes made for litur
gical purposes (Texts and Studies, i. 3, Camb, 1501)
{42 LORD’S PRAYER
LORD'S PRAYER
Introd. ii. p. 280). The evidence is not quite the same in all three cases, but in all it is conclusive against the clauses.
(1) For this clause entire we have ACDPXTAATI and nine inferior uncials, nearly all cursives, beflg of Vet. Lat. (ac ff, i have sancte for noster), three Syriac Versions (Cur. Pesh. Harcl.), Boheiric, and Ethiopic. Against the whole clause, XB, 1, 22, 57, 130, 846, nearly all the chief MSS of the Vulg., and the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac. Against all but ἡμῶν, L and one cursive, one early MS of the Vulg. and the Armenian. Origen expressly states that the words are wanting in Lk. Tertullian and Cyril of Alexandria support the omission.
(2) For the clause, RACD and many inferior uncials, nearly all cursives, most MSS of Vet. Lat. Syrr. (Pesh. Harcl.), Boh. Eth. Against it, BL, 1, 22, 180, 346; ff, of Vet. Lat., best MSS of Vulg. Syrr. (Cur. Sin.) and Arm. Orig. Tert. and Aug. give express testimony against, and are supported by Cyr. Alex.
(8) For the clause, ACD and many inferior uncials, nearly all cursives; Vet. Lat. Syrr. (Cur. Pesh. Harcl.) Boh. Eth. Against it, 8*BL, 1, 22, 57, and six other cursives, most MSS of Vulg. Syr-Sin. and Arm. Orig. Aug. and Cyr. Alex. give express testimony against, and are supported by Tert.
The evidence for the clauses may look imposing, but the explanation of it given by Scrivener is simple and adequate; whereas neither accident nor intention can explain the early and widespread omission of all three, if they were found in the original text of Lk. In such a case the temptation to insert would be at a maximum, the temptation to omit ata minimum. A scribe might insert the missing words almost mechanically, being so familiar with them.
Convinced, therefore, that the clauses are not genuine in Lk, we return to the question, What can have induced Lk to omit them, if he and Mt had the same Gr. version of the prayer? His verbal alterations in the fourth and fifth petitions are intelligible; but why should he, with his love of completeness, omit? He does sometimes abbrevi- ate; but would he have abbreviated here? The difficulty of finding an adequate motive for his curtailing such words is in favour of the view that Christ Himself on one occasion gave this shorter form to some disciples. To suppose that Lk ‘contented himself with words just sufficient to reinind his hearers of the fuller form,’ is quite inadequate. In that case he would have left out nearly the whole of the prayer. And to point out that the five petitions in Lk correspond to the five fingers, is grotesque.
The sources of the prayer have been often dis- cussed, and rabbinical parallels to the different pendiens have been pointed out by John Lightfoot,
choettgen, Vitringa, Wetstein, and others. Tota haec oratio ex formulis Hebraeorum concinnata est tam apte, ut omnia contineat que a Deo peti possunt (Wetst. on Mt 6°). But the parallels do not carry us very far. The use of ‘Father’ [73 Ν D’nvay is a very common later Jewish title, Dalm. 151 ff.] to designate God, and the petition, ‘ Hallowed be thy name through our works,’ are perhaps the strongest instances [cf. also wow wrapnm and bo mmabo of the Kaddish, Dalm. 305]. Others are similarities of wording rather than of meaning, and some of these are not at all close. And in most cases the date of the Jewish prayers in which these expressions occur is either late or uncertain ; so that the borrowing, if there is any, is on the side of the Jews, or may be so. But no borrowing is needed to explain such a petition as ‘ Forgive us our sins’ (Ex 32°, 1 K 8%- 86. 89. ὺ ΤῊ 919). which is perhaps as common in Jewish as in Christian prayers. Not that there is anything Seopa to Christ in supposing that He took the best Jewish aspirations and combined them in one prayer. He probably took the Messianic title ‘Son of man’ from the Bk. of Enoch, and applied it to Himself with a fulness of meaning unknown before. He might have done the same in the Lord’s Prayer; but He does not appear to
have doneso. Indeed, the prayer is free from any- thing that can be called purely Jewish. (1) Its symmetry and progressive development of thought, and (2) its inexhaustible adaptability, are char- acteristics which do not harmonize well with the hypothesis that it is a compilation (Edersheim, Life and Times of the Messiah, i. p. 536. Ci. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, p. 138 ff.) Let us examine these characteristics.