Syriac, however, appears to read ■ ■ ^] ?»y Father
(see below). The Curetonian Syriac is wanting here.
2. We have next to account for the association of 'A,3^a in its Greek dress with 6 xar^p in all the three places where it occurs in NT. In Mk 14^'
the Peshitta reads . . ^"j fi") ' Father, my
Father,' and the Sinaitic Syriac has simply wj-sl
'my Father.' In Eo 8'^ and Gal 4« the Peshitta
reads ^Q.^| |o]. All these appear to be mere expedients adopted to avoid the awkwardness of
repeating |ii |, and they do not really throw light on the origin of the Greek phrase.
We may first take as a supposition that our Lord, praying in Gethsemane, used the Aramaic language, and therefore said 'Abba' only, and that 6 iraTJip is the Evangelist's explanation, for Greek readers, of the Aramaic word. St. Mark undoubtedly reports several Aramaic words, and except in the case of the well-known ' Rabbi,' ' Rabboni ' (9^ 10=' etc. ), explains them. But then he always uses a formula, S ianv (3" ?"■ ^) or & iari )ie0ipij.-qpevli)i.evov (5"" 15**). It is suggested that in the case of Abba the familiarity of tlie word Avould make the connecting formula unnecessary ; but the same consideration would make it unnecessary to explain it at all. Another suggestion is that the solenmity of the context would make the formula incongruous. The strongest argument for 6 Toriip being an addition of the Evangelist is that, what- ever view we take of our Lord's having made use of Greek in ordinary speech, it is extremely un- likely that His prayers were in that language; and if He prayed in Aramaic, He would only say ' Abba.' It is the common experience of bilingual countries that though the acquired language may be in constant use for commerce or the ordinary purposes of life, the native tongue is tenaciously retained for devotion and prayer. Sanday-Head- lam's supposition (Romans, in lac), that our Lord used both words spontaneously, with deep emotion, might be quite probable if He prayed in the foreign tongue, Greek ; but scarcely so if He prayed in the native Aramaic (see, however, below).
If 0 TOTi)/) be due to St. Mark, it is probably not a mere explanation for the benefit of Greek readers. The suggestion that 'A§pS. o Tarr/p had become a quasi-liturgical formula, possibly even among the Jews, or more probably among the Christians, would account for its introduction in a prayer, where interpretations would be singularly out of place. And this suggestion would account for St. Paul's using the phrase twice, in two Epistles written about the same time, indeed, but to two widely distant Churches. St. Paul is not in the habit of introducing Aramaic words (' Maran atha' in 1 Co 16^2 is an exception), and if he were not quoting a well-known form, it is unlikely that he would have introduced one in writing to the Romans and Galatians. It is not probable, however, that he is quoting or thinking of our Lord's words in Geth- semane, for there is nothing in the context to suggest this.
If the phrase be a liturgical formula, we may account for it in various ways. J. B. Lightfoot (Galatians, in loc.) suggests that it may have originated among Hellenistic Jews ; or else among Palestinian Jews, after they had learned Greek, as ' an expression of importunate entreaty.' He prefers the latter view, thinking that perhaps our Lord Himself used both words. He apparently means that Jesus took the Greek word into His Aramaic prayer ; and he quotes from SchiJttgen a similar case where a woman entreats a judge and addresses him as 'T3 na ' My lord, lord,' the second word being equivalent to the first, except for the
ABEL
ABGAR
possessive suffix, and being a transliteration of KiJpie. Cliase ('The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church,' in the Cauibridge Texts and Studies, vol. i. p. 23) has suggested another origin for the plirase, whicli would place its home, not among the Jews (for which there is no evidence), but among the Christians. He suggests that it is due to the shorter or Lukan form of the Lord's Prayer (Lie 11-^-). The Aramaic sliorter form would liegin with Abba, for the Greek begins with Iltixcp ; and the hypothesis is tliiit the early Christians in the intensity of their tlevotion repeated the first \vord of the prayer in eitlier language. A somewhat similar phenomenon is seen in the repetitions for emphasis in Kev 9" 12^ 20^, where the names are given in both languages. Such a repetition is possible only in a bilingual country. That it is the sliorter form of the Lord's Prayer that is used (if Dr. Chase's hypotlie.sis be tiue), is seen from the Aramaic N3!S Abba. If the longer form had been in question, ildrep ■in.iuiv, the initial word of the Aramaic would liave hud tlie [msscssivo pronominal suffix of 1 pers. pi., and would be nj13N dhhitnd. It is a confirmation of this theory that the words which follow, 'Not what I will but what thou wilt,' recall 'Thy will be done' of the Lord's Prayer ; compare especially Mt 26-'- yevqe-fiTu ri Oi\T)ij.a aov, the exact words of the longer form of the Lord's Prayer. This shows that both Evangel- ists had that prayer in their minds when relating the agony. The only consideration which militates against tbe theory is that 6 TraHip is used for Hdrep. The nominative with the article is, however, often u.sed in NT, by a Hebrew analogy, for an emphatic vocative, and the desire for einphusis may account for its use here. A. J. MACLEAN.