5--9.
119
7+ Προσευχόµενοι δὲ ph Barrodoyjonte,) ὥσπερ of ) ἐθνικοί: 21 Ch. ν. 47
δοκοῦσι γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν * εἰσακουσθήσονται. πατὴρ ὃ ὑμῶν ὧν ™ χρείαν ἔχετε, k ϱ. οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς' τζοτ.χῖν.
οὖν } ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς: οἶδε yap 6 πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν. ν. 7.
(in critical 8. μὴ notes); XViii. 17. Lk. i. 13. Acts x. 31.
21. Heb.
1 Ch. vii. 24, 26; xiii. 24. m Ch. ix. 12; xxi. 3.
1 NSB have βαττα., which Tisch. and W.H. follow. Lasintext. D has βλαττολ.
3 B and Syr. Cur. have υποκριται͵,
3 $9B Sah. version have ο θεος before ο πατηρ (W.H. within brackets).
shouting from morning till noon, “ο Baal, hear us” (x Kings xviii. 26, cf. Acts xix. 34, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians”). This repetition is charac- teristic of Pagan prayer, and when it recurs in the Church, as in saying many Aves and Paternosters, it is Paganism redivivus.—éOvixol, the second of three references to Pagans (v. 47, vi. 32) in the Sermon on the Mount, not to be wondered at. The Pagan world was near at hand for a Jew belonging to Galilee with its mixed population. Pagan customs would be familar to Galileans, and it was natural that Jesus should use them as well as the theory and practice of scribes and Pharisees, to define by contrast true piety. —ohvioyia, epexegetical of βατταλογ. The Pagans thought that by endless repetitions and many words they would ‘inform their gods as to their needs and weary them (‘fatigare deos”) into granting their requests. Ver. 8, οὖν, infers that disciples must not imitate the practice described, because it is Pagan, and because it is absurd. Repetition is, moreover, wholly uncalled for.— οἶδεν yap: the God whom Jesus proclaims—“ your Fatner ”—knows be- forehand your needs. Why, then, pray at all? Because we cannot receive un- less we desire, and if we desire, we will pray; also because things worth getting are worth asking. Only pray always as to a Being well informed and willing, in few words and in faith. With such thoughts in mind, Jesus proceeds to give a sample of suitable prayer.
Vv. 9-13. The Lord’s Prayer. Again, in Lk. xi. 1-4—vide notes there. Here I remark only that Luke’s form, true reading, is shorter than Matthew’s. On this ground Kamphausen (Das Gebet des Herrn) argues for its originality. But surely Matthew’s form is short and elementary enough to satisfy all reason- able requirements! The question as to the original form cannot be settled on such grounds. The prayer, as here given,
is, indeed, a model of simplicity. Be- sides the question as to the original form, there is another as to the originality of the matter. Wetstein says, ‘‘tota haec oratio ex formulis Hebraeorum concin- nata est”. De Wette, after quoting these words, asserts that, after all the Rabbinical scholars have done their ut- most to adduce parallels from Jewish sources, the Lord’s Prayer is by no means shown to be a Cento, and that it contains echoes only of well-known O. T. and Messianic ideas and expressions, and this only in the first two petitions. This may be the actual fact, but there is no need for any zeal in defence of the position. I should be very sorry to think that the model prayer was absolutely original. It would be a melancholy account of the chosen people if, after thousands of years of special training, they did not yet know what to pray for. Jesus made a new departure by inaugu- rating (1) freedom in prayer ; (2) trustful- ness of spirit; (3) simplicity in manner. The mere making of a new prayer, if only by apt conjunction of a few choice phrases gathered from Scripture or from Jewish forms, was an assertion of liberty. And, of course, the liberty obtains in reference to the new form as well as to the old. We may use the Paternoster, but we are not bound to use it. It is not in turn to become a fetish. Reformers do not arise to break old