* Augustine (Hnchirid. 116) regarded this phrase as a separate petition, making seven in all, and this became the standard Roman Catholic interpretation : it was adopted also by Luther, and is continued by Lutheran commentators. Among modern scholars there are many who accept this—some on traditional grounds (Kibel, Nésgen, H. Weiss), others on critical grounds (Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Ibbeken, Chase, v. d. Goltz). That the peti- tions are but six in number was held by Origen and Chry- sostom, was adopted by Calvin, and has had the support in recent years of Tholuck (apparently), Bengel, Olshausen, Keim, Kuin6l, Meyer, Achelis, Feine, Hatch, Plummer, B. Weiss, Bruce, Hort, Nestle, and others.
t So Bleek, Kamphausen, H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Bacon.
{ Feine, Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1885, thinks that Luke omitted the third petition because he considered that its idea was already contained in the first and second petitions, so that it was simply redundant. This is also the view of Kamphausen, Das Gebet des Herrn, p. 67. H. Holtzmann, Hand-Comm. wi. d. Synoptiker, in loc., regards Luke’s five petitions as original, designed to be counted on the fingers of one hand. O. Holtz- mann, Leben Jesu (1901), p. 203, also maintains that the short form of Luke is original. .
§ The presence of this phrase in the text of Lk 114 in ACD and some other witnesses is to be explained as the result of a process of text assimilation with the Matthzan reading ; it does not appear in NBL, the more important versions, or the earlier Patristic writings. Similar cases are the insertion in Lk 11? of
34 SERMON ON THE MOUNT
does not have. In the remaining two petitions, the fourth and fifth, we find approximately the game ideas and words, but with some variation : thus the dds juiv orpepoy of Mt 6" is paralleled in Lk 113 by dtdov quiv 7d Kal” quépay, the latter being an attempt to generalize and simplify the former ; the 7a dg¢eAjuara of Mt 6” is paralleled in Lk 11¢ by ras duaprias, the latter being the substitution of an easy, well-known word for one full of significance but less common —that this substitution took place can be inferred from the 7@ édeldov7e in the adjoined clause ; and in the same petition the ds xal of Mt 6” is paralleled in Lk 114 by «al yép, which also is an obvious attempt to remove the possibility of a false quid pro quo interpretation. Very interesting also is the difference in the two accounts of the address of the Prayer; Lk 11? gives only one word, Idrep, while Mt 6° gives Ildrep judy 6 év rots ovpavois. It is, of course, possible that the Lukan report is correct, but it certainly seems too familiar and abrupt for this solemn, lofty prayer; while Matthew’s two attributives seem logical and im- portant. The 7u6v indicates that the Prayer is a universal one for all who will pray to God. The 6 é rots ovpavols is an OT conception (cf. Ps 2 115°) which Jesus used (see passages below), because it was a customary Jewish expression full of religious meaning.* Its usual, though not entire, absence from Luke is best explained as due to the process already described by which the characteristic Jewish element was largely eliminated from the sources of the Third Gospel. In all these parallel passages, therefore, where Matthew and Luke give difierent readings for the clauses of the Prayer, the report of Matthew commends itself as possessed of a greater authen- ticity.} This confirms by historical tests the strong preference of the Church for the longer form of the Prayer as given in the First Gospel, a pre- ference which rested primarily on spiritual and practical tests.
(3) When Jesus would condense His teaching into seven concise phrases (the address is an essen- tial part of the Prayer), containing in Aramaic not fifty words, it became necessary for Him to embody His chief ideas about God and men in compre- hensive phrases whose significance was already well understood by His followers. To introduce new phrases and new conceptions would have been to confuse those whom He wished to _in- struct. Consequently, the language and the ideas of the Lord’s Prayer are closely related to the OT, where essential truth about God, and about the duty of men towards Him and towards one another, had in many respects been reached. Jesus’ general teaching to His disciples previous to the giving of this Prayer had made known to them what He would have them understand by these OT concep- tions and phrases.
Naturally, we find in Jewish prayers of a time contemporaneous with Jesus some phrases which are similar to those in the Lord’s Prayer. Such
arallels have been pointed out for the address and first two petitions; for the remaining four clauses there are no real parallels, although there are expressions with a certain similarity.{ Some
Matthew's yevnbira +d Oéanuce cov ds iv odpavgi xed tx} vis (So NACD against BL, versions, and quotations), and judy 6 ev eis odpayors (So AOD against NBL, versions, and quotations). Modern
text-critical authorities are agreed that these passages are interpolations in the Lukan text.
* Compare the later Jewish prayer-formula, DDVaY 17°38; see Achelis, Bergpredigt, p. 229; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. p. 299.
+ See Page, Hapositor, 3rd ser. vol. vii. pp. 433-440 ; Plummer, art. LoRp’s PRAYER in vol. iii.