gee 
 STH F 
 
 ra 
 
 peeginay 
 feepen agrees 
 
 retfeyetes 
 
 ienate 
 
 Pees 
 
 Pe reiritiy 
 
 
 
 Aang sachet : 
 
 “A yebtae by bt 
 
 FS At 
 Nyhitee 
 
 nee ht 
 vbw 
 VS yepeh bya tangaede | oatgat 
 when deeen it 
 K ¥ 
 wate 
 a He ia as 
 
 Sen) 
 
 ” 
 te itaticne 
 " a Paiste 
 nd Saag bade aR oth 
 Sees 
 P - 
 rats No “ KETONE 
 i Saga genes nyastidetiaet in 
 raat beyy eB tyststiatiee saa, 
 i 
 
 ee 
 Cran Sts t selene 
 iy atara eh n 5 
 : ‘ Patera 
 Serr ra 
 She ba 
 
 Coeggee D 
 Poacher 
 tnihge 
 
 yore 
 Sah k bat 
 
 pyre) 
 ate 
 
 sandy TE Oe 
 Sian: 
 veda S 
 
 $e hitb gina ane 
 Tabb syache 
 
 Parga dats fone 
 A Npaat atts te 
 RO age Se 
 see A hae 
 earns errs 
 
 fake 
 
 Ben imee lacs 
 asst 
 
 A rasetis 
 
 the FLEE SPRING 
 
 La tat red 
 tye" hat 
 
 tr 
 tokens 
 
 tens 
 Pr eee 
 
 ratgne eye ra 
 rig 
 
 1 Ug aie 
 Chete Siege 
 
 ote 
 
 Tterbysere 
 Petit 
 
 Beret , : 
 wey ey % 
 ‘ 
 
 yp tenpere 
 Car be ha 
 Okt Eada bet 
 
 toate gree 
 poe etp ue tee 
 
 f wee oy 
 bi dar oa aL 
 aH Pm La Lede) dae at eae ‘ 
 erg Oe 4 He 
 margin ed aes arate tae ui 
 tHe y payers rs sae: 
 PL hed {Ltd ie fed 448 
 Wheaten 
 Cte) 
 sip ree anne 
 bY } pete 
 eleey fa t Panetta 
 stort 
 ; song vaso tyes tee 
 Araneae ret’ Piet dba: 4 i 
 van Systane tenet 
 jhe 
 ene’ 
 eaten 
 Hath Tenens 
 spraeatete if 
 aie Ure 
 aba iS baarbe 
 ae nk ah at) 
 Pe eg 
 
 tee ea Oo tay 
 quae ty ear 8 i 
 Lys 7 [sh Get 
 7 Te : 
 f wat bh? , 
 
 Ae Masia y 
 eto ROM TAS) 
 pnt aar net 
 eee ied Ti) 
 ial Fe 
 ' ate “ep 
 idee ae 
 ARE tens Fi 
 fee wre) ¢ 
 reg i Miah siege er tea teaere 
 Spates ye H fracas pearuneedreraay” Caen g 
 Cry aad 32S Ditty i teenies 
 Apr ah Ht PORTS ac Hee by 
 ‘e n.a teen! 
 
 ge sea ND bat tnt 
 a a 
 tin 
 

 
 
 
 ene? GF PRI 
 Ae 2 NCErpS 
 
 
 
 
 BV 230 C47. 2892 
 
 Chase. © .4H.. 1853-1925; 
 
 The Lord's prayer in the 
 early church 
 

 
 
 
 oy £ 
 7 i, nt = ) if 
 [ y - 
 jo 
 ai ' 
 . ve) i 
 
 ‘a MiGly ht ty 
 
 hea, 
 
 es mary 
 
 Nation (ae | 
 ee ty.’ Hi 
 
 ; ae hi ate 
 
 of 
 : i are i 
 hs i m pos i | “ 
 - i ia ne { s): 04 o 
 Pull Shi wie ~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2008 
 
 https://archive.org/details/lordsprayerinearOOchas 
 
THE LORD’S PRAYER 
 
 IN THE 
 
 EARLY CHURCH 
 
 BY 
 
 FREDERIC HENRY CHASE BD. 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF THE CLERGY TRAINING SCHOOL CAMBRIDGE 
 
 CAMBRIDGE 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 1891 
 
 [All Rights reserved] 
 
Cambridge : 
 PRINTED BY C. J, CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
TO 
 JOHN PEILE Luirt.D. 
 MASTER OF CHRIST’S COLLEGE 
 WITH 
 
 THE RESPECTFUL AFFECTION AND GRATITUDE 
 
 OF 
 
 A FORMER PUPIL. 
 

 
PREFACE. 
 
 i i the following Essay I have treated the Lord’s Prayer simply 
 from the point of view of criticism. Of the sacredness of the 
 Prayer, both because Christ taught it to His disciples and because 
 His disciples have used it ‘from the first day until now, I am 
 deeply conscious. But I believe that no subject however sacred 
 lies outside the rightful province of the critic who regards 
 reverence and the endeavour after accuracy as elementary duties. 
 
 Besides those obligations to others which are noted in the Essay 
 from time to time, I gladly avail myself of this opportunity to 
 thank Professor Robertson Smith for answering several questions 
 as to the exact translation of the Arabic version of Tatian’s Dia- 
 tessaron as to which I have no first-hand knowledge; also the 
 Rev. R. H. Kennett, Fellow of Queens’ College, for valuable criti- 
 cism in connexion with my references to the Syriac Versions and 
 for rescuing me from some of the perils which are the proverbial 
 portion of ‘a little learning’; he is however in no way responsible 
 for my arguments, conclusions and mistakes. Several other friends 
 have given me the kindest help in the revision of the proof-sheets; 
 to them too my hearty thanks are due. 
 
 To one other debt of a wholly different kind I must briefly 
 allude. In the discussion of the petitions for Daily Bread and 
 for Deliverance I have treated of subjects previously handled by 
 Bishop Lightfoot. For many generations to come workers in those 
 fields of Biblical and Patristic literature, which he had made his 
 own, will recognise with reverent gratitude two characteristics of 
 
 his writings, their suggestiveness and their power of inspiration. 
 
Vill PREFACE. 
 
 On the one hand they supply both a firm foundation and a plan 
 for future work; on the other hand they quicken and invigorate 
 the worker. It is vain to try to formulate in a brief statement 
 the manifold debt which the younger generation of students owes 
 to the Bishop. But I venture to hope that this Essay may be an 
 illustration however unworthy of the suggestiveness of his work to 
 which I have referred. 
 
 I have only to add that this Essay was accepted by the 
 Divinity Professors as an exercise for the degree of B.D., and that 
 I have to thank the Regius Professor for giving me permission to 
 make a few slight additions and alterations before publication. 
 
 Curist’s CoLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 July, 1891. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction: The Church and the Synagogue. 
 
 IT. 
 
 The Synagogue-system adopted by the Church [1, 2]. Evidence 
 of the Christian use of the term Synagogue [3, 4]. Hellenistic as 
 well as Hebrew Synagogues of the Christians [5, 6]. Light thrown 
 by this on Acts vi. xv. [6, 7]. Bearing on (1) the origin of the 
 Synoptic Gospels [8—10], (2) the position of the Lord’s Prayer in 
 the Church and its original form—first taught by Christ, used in 
 public Prayers from the first, translated from Aramaic into Greek, 
 adapted for liturgical use [11—14]. 
 
 A. Note on the Hellenistic Synagogues. 
 
 Probability of Hellenistic (Christian) Synagogues at Rome; 
 bearing on the persecutions under Nero and Domitian [15]. Proba- 
 bility that Christian Liturgies are based on Greek Jewish Prayers 
 {15—19]. 
 
 B. Note on the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. 
 
 Our Father which art in heaven. 
 
 (1) The longer form in St Matthew: references to it in the 
 Synoptic Gospels: the reading in the Didaché (22, 23]. (2) The 
 shorter form in St Luke: probable reference to it in Abba Father 
 (Me. Gal. Rom.) [23, 24]. 
 
 Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. 
 
 (1) Thy kingdom come: the reading é\Oérw ré mvetud cou k.T.d.! 
 evidence of Cod. Ey. 604, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus, Tertullian 
 [25—28]. This prayer traced back through the Invocation in the 
 Liturgies and ‘Confirmation’ Offices to the Apostolic Laying on of 
 Hands [28—31]. (2) Hallowed be thy name: the addition of 
 颒 qyas in Cod. D (Le. xi. 2) [31], Similar phrases in LXX., 
 Jewish Prayers, Liturgies, Agathangelus, Didaché, Patristic glosses 
 [31—35]. Probably a Baptismal prayer [35, 36]. 
 
 PAGES 
 
 1—l4 
 
 14—19 
 
 25—36 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 A. Note on Acta Thomae: evidence as to ancient prayers for the 
 Holy Spirit in Baptismal Offices. 
 
 B. Note on some Syrian Baptismal Prayers. 
 
 C. Note on Agathangelus. 
 
 III. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heaven, 
 
 (1) Reminiscences in N.T.: variations (yernOnTw, yevécdw, 
 ywéc§w): Aramaic original [39]. (2) The Old Syriac reading 
 ‘And-let-there-be thy-wills’ [39, 40]. (3) The connexion of ‘in 
 earth, as it is in heaven’ with the two preceding petitions [40, 41]. 
 
 IV. Give us this day our daily bread. 
 
 v. 
 
 (1) The variations 60s, didov: Aramaic word [42]. (2) The 
 variations onuepw, 7d Kab? juépay [42—44]. (3) The word 
 ériovawos; its position in the Prayer [44]. The original form of 
 the petition ‘Our-bread of-the-day give to-us’ [45]. This petition 
 adapted for morning and for evening use in Hebrew and in 
 Hellenistic Synagogues [45, 46]. Through such adaptation Em LovgLOS 
 represents ‘of-the-day,’ which is also translated by onuepov [46, 47]. 
 Evidence for this supposed original form of the petition in Jas. ii. 15 
 [47—49], Ephrem [49—51], Syriac Versions [51, 52], Jerome 
 [52, 53]. General result [53]. 
 
 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 
 
 (1) ‘Our debts’ (Matt.) the original phrase rather than ‘our 
 sins’ (Le.): evidence of (a) Syriac and Greek words ‘forgive’ (54, 55]; 
 (b) Syriac word ‘debt’ [55]. (2) The reading ray operdny nucwy in 
 the Didaché [55]. (3) The variations ‘our debtors,’ ‘every one 
 that is indebted to us’ [56]. (4) The variations ws cal jets apiouer, 
 kal yap avrol agptouev: probable original form ‘and we also will 
 remit’: evidence for this [56, 57]. 
 
 Note on Syriac Versions of this clause. 
 Evidence of Aphraates, compared with that of Tertullian [58, 59]. 
 Prof. Marshall’s explanation of variation (4) [59]. 
 
 VI. And bring us not into temptation. 
 
 The Syriac Versions suggest a possible original ‘temptations’ 
 [60]. As to the words py eloevéyxys: (I) the Syriac equivalent 
 ‘and-do-not make-us-to-enter’ connects this prayer with Matt. xxvi. 
 41, &c.: the elasticity of ‘causative’ voice [61—63]. (II) Two 
 glosses in the Old Latin texts: (1) ne nos patiaris induct in tempta- 
 tionem: passages from Augustine a starting point: (a) this gloss 
 found in Arnobius and Cyprian; (b) also in several MSS.; (c) its 
 origin in devotional use implied by Tertullian [63—66]. (2) in temp- 
 
 PAGES 
 36, 37 
 37, 38 
 38 
 39-41 
 oS) 
 54—D7 
 57—59 
 60—69 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xl 
 
 PAGES 
 tationem quam ferre non possumus: passages from Hilary, Chro- 
 matius, Jerome, Augustine, Pseudo-Augustine [66—68]. Traces of 
 the former gloss in Dionysius Alex. and Agathangelus [68]. Both 
 glosses to be traced to liturgical adaptation: this shewn by quota- 
 tion from Liturgies of different families [68, 69]. 
 
 Note on the form of this clause in the King’s Book. 70 
 
 VII. But deliver us from the evil one. 71—167 
 1. The prepositions amo and éx after piecOa. 71—85 
 A priori distinction [71, 72]. (1) The LXX. constructions 
 after pvecOac: the constructions of by) and of equivalents in LXX. 
 [73—75]. In parallel clauses dré and éx interchanged [75, 76]. 
 Conclusions [76, 77]. (2) pvec@ac and kindred verbs in N.T. 
 [77—83]. General conclusion, viz. that amo and éx are generally 
 interchangeable, differing only in shade of meaning [84, 85]. 
 
 2. The origin and use of 6 rovnpos as applied to Satan. 85—101 
 
 (a) Growth of conception expressed by the term: O.T., exile, 
 later Jewish literature, N.T. [85—89]. (b) meaning of the term 6 
 movnpos: origin of word: classical use: in LXX. equivalent of py: 
 in N.T. meaning of corresponding Aramaic word and use of Greek 
 word itself: in Jewish writings used of supernatural powers of evil 
 [89—94]. General conclusion [94, 95]. Use of the term in (1) N.T. 
 (a) Matt., (b) Pauline Epistles, (c) St John (Gospel and Epistle), 
 (d) other passages in some texts (95—97]. (2) Early Christian 
 Literature—Barnabas, Letter of Vienne and Lyons, Clem. Hom., 
 Clement Alex. [98—101). 
 
 Note on the Yetser ha Ra. . 101—103 
 The extent of personification: the relation of the two ways to 
 the two impulses. 
 
 3. Is did rod rovypod masculine or neuter? 103—167 
 (i) Evidence derived from the Gospels. 103—112 
 (a) The Baptism and the Temptation [103—105]. (b) The 
 Lord’s Prayer [105—107]. (c) The Ministry and the Passion, 
 especially Le. xxii. 283—46, John xvii. [107—112]. 
 (ii) Evidence derived from the Epistles. 112—123 
 2 Thess. iii. 1 ff., 2 Cor. xii. 7 f., Gal. i. 3 f., Col. i, 12 ff. (the 
 distinction between an ideal and an actual state), 2 Tim. iv. 16 ff., 
 1 Jn. v. 18 f. 
 Note on the locality in which the Lord’s Prayer was given. [J.A. R.] 123—125 
 (iii) Evidence derived from early Christian literature. 125—146 
 The twofold value of such evidence [125]. Didaché [126, 127], 
 Ep. Clement [127, 128], The Ancient Homily, the Patristic view of 
 the relation of Christians to Satan [128—131], Hermas [131, 132], 
 Letter of Vienne and Lyons [132], Clementine Homilies [133], 
 Tertullian [133—136], Cyprian [136—138], Origen [138, 139], 
 
Xll TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGES 
 Dionysius [139, 140], Peter of Alexandria [140, 141], ‘Clementine’ 
 Liturgy [141—144], Cyril of Jerusalem (144, 145]. Summary of 
 this evidence [146]. 
 A. Note on the ‘Songs’ in St Luke’s Gospel in relation to ancient 
 Jewish Prayers. 147—151 
 B. Note on the bearing of some of the Offices and Liturgies on the 
 interpretation of ard rod movnpod. 151—154 
 (iv) Evidence derived from the Early Versions. 154—166 
 (a) The Syriac Versions [154—156]. (b) The Latin Versions : 
 (1) O.T. Deut., Job [156—158]. (2) N.T. classification of MSS. 
 of Gospels [158]: passages in the Gospels [159, 160], in the Epistles 
 [160—162]. Review of this evidence and discussion of the word 
 malignus [162—166]. 
 Summary of the whole discussion. 166, 167 
 VIIT. The Doxology. 168—176 
 
 The addition of the Doxology an instance of liturgical adapta- 
 tion [168]. 1 Chron. xxix. 10 f. a starting point [168]. Four 
 elements in doxology, their simplest form [169]. Variation and 
 elaboration of these elements; ways in which the ancient formula 
 was Christianised [170, 171]. Variation as to commencement of 
 doxologies [171, 172]. The doxology used at close of prayers, 
 especially in the Eucharistic service: evidence of Polycarp’s 
 Martyrdom, Clement, Didaché [172, 173]. Variation in the dox- 
 ologies attached to the Lord’s Prayer [174, 175]. The familiar 
 form a conflation received into the ‘Syrian’ text of Matt. [179]. 
 The form of the Prayer in Matt. from its greater fulness in common 
 liturgical use; hence addition of doxology to this form alone [175, 
 176]. Summary [176]. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 
 
 CHRISTIANITY, absolutely new in its central ideas and aims, 
 employed time-honoured machinery for their furtherance. In 
 itself the most revolutionary force which the world has ever 
 seen, it effected the greatest upheavals of political, social, and 
 religious life by conservative methods. It inherited the powers 
 which were inherent in, or had been won by, Judaism; and it 
 made Judaism a thing of the past. 
 
 A special instance of this general characteristic of Christianity 
 is found in the relation of the Church to the Synagogue. To 
 the Synagogue system, speaking from a human point of view, 
 the Church owes it that she outlived the days of her immaturity 
 and weakness. Here was an organization ready to hand, which 
 she could use and gradually mould after her own higher type 
 of life. Here was a network encircling within its meshes the 
 whole Roman Empire, by which the Church could draw Gentile 
 as well as Jew to herself’. A purely secular historian would not 
 be far wrong were he to trace both the survival and the spread of 
 the Church, at least during the first half century of her life, 
 to her close alliance with the Synagogue. 
 
 Of this system Jerusalem was the centre. Even if extant 
 notices exaggerate’, we may well conclude that the number of 
 Synagogues in the Holy City was great. In some of these 
 numerous congregations ‘the Brethren®’ after they had learned 
 
 1 Gentiles seem to have frequented the Synagogues (Acts xiii. 44, xiv. 1, xviii. 4). 
 
 2 Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah i. p. 119, gives the 
 references. The Synagogues in Jerusalem are said to have been upwards of 400. 
 
 3 «*Tt is significant that the first title given to the body of believers after the 
 Ascension is ‘the brethren’ (Acts i, 15 true text)”: Bp Westcott The Epistles of 
 
 C. i 
 
2 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 to believe in Jesus as the Christ would retain their membership. 
 That ‘the Brethren’ did not sever themselves from the Syna- 
 gogues of ‘the Dispersion’ till forced to do so, is plain from 
 repeated notices in the Acts (xill. 44, xvill. 4, 26f., xix. 8). 
 
 But, sometimes in consequence of a violent disruption, some- 
 times because of a sense of growing needs and powers, union 
 would gradually give way to an era of modified imitation. If the 
 number of those who joined the Church as recorded from time 
 to time in the Acts is even approximately correct, we feel 
 that it would be necessary, apart from external influences, to 
 organise some separate system of worship and fellowship. How 
 else could so large a multitude be welded together? In the 
 main outline the course of events at Corinth was probably only 
 the repetition of what had occurred elsewhere’. At Corinth 
 St Paul for some considerable time took a prominent part in 
 the worship of the Jewish Synagogue. At length a crisis came 
 which made separation necessary. Henceforth ‘the Brethren’ 
 met in a private house close to the Synagogue. But the presence 
 of St Paul and of Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue, 
 was, we may suppose, a sufficient guarantee that the worship in 
 the house of Titius Justus would be modelled after the ancient 
 pattern. This natural conjecture finds considerable confirmation 
 when we turn to the picture of Christian worship at Corinth 
 drawn by St Paul in his First Epistle to that Church. 
 
 Hence there would arise at Jerusalem in very early times 
 Synagogues of ‘the Brethren’. The wealthier converts, such as 
 
 St John p. 126. See especially Acts xv. 23, where Mr Page’s correction of R.V. 
 (‘The Apostles and Elders, brethren to the brethren...’) is obviously necessary ; 
 1 Cor. v. 11, ix. 5, and the use of the word ¢:AadeAdia. I have therefore used the 
 term to denote the Christians in the early Apostolic times. But it is im- 
 portant to notice that even this phrase is a witness to the Jewish associations 
 of the early Church. Comp. Matt. v. 47, Acts xxii. 5 (even after his conversion 
 St Paul can say émiorohas de~duevos mpos rods adedgovs eis Aapacxdy éropevdunr), 
 Xxvili. 21, Rom. ix. 3. 
 
 1 Tt would but seldom happen that a whole Synagogue, as apparently at 
 Beroea (Acts xvii. 10 f.), became Christianised. 
 
 2 Since writing this, I have noticed with relief that this was Bp Lightfoot’s 
 view (Philippians p. 190): ‘‘As soon as the expansion of the Church rendered 
 some organization necessary, it would form a ‘synagogue’ of its own.’’ He too 
 appeals to traces of the Christian use of the word cuwaywy7. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 3 
 
 Mary the mother of John Mark, would naturally offer their homes 
 as the places of meeting. 
 
 The lingering traces of the Christian use of the word cuva- 
 yoyn, to appeal to one line of evidence alone, attest this early 
 stage of the Church’s development. We find them, as we should 
 expect, in the writings of those who through old associations or 
 geographical position would be likely to retain the term. St 
 James (ii. 1 ff.) is expressly appealing to those ‘ who hold the faith 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he draws the contrasted pictures 
 of the gay dandy and the squalid beggar coming ‘into your syna- 
 gogue. When, at a somewhat later date, St John (Apoc. 11. 9, 
 iil. 9) inveighs against ‘the Synagogue of Satan,’ it is surely 
 a mistake to conclude that he wishes to disparage the term 
 Synagogue in itself. His phrase ‘the throne of Satan’ (ii. 13) 
 does not preclude him from speaking of ‘the throne of God.’ If 
 he condemns ‘the deep things of Satan’ (11. 24), another Apostle 
 dwells on the thought of ‘the depth’ of the divine riches of 
 wisdom and knowledge (Rom. xi. 33, 1 Cor. i. 10; so Ep. Clem. 11 
 ta BaOn ths Ocias yvdoews). ‘The Synagogue of Satan’ is a 
 spurious imitation of a true Synagogue on the part of spurious 
 Jews, ‘which say that they are Jews, and they are not, but do 
 lie.’ The parody implies the original’. Early in the next century 
 the great Syrian martyr writes to Polycarp muxvotepov cuva- 
 yoyai ywécOwoar (Ignatius Hp. ad Polycarpum 4). Late in the 
 same century another teacher of Antioch, Theophilus, uses the 
 same term*®. In Benjamin’s prophecy of St Paul in the Testaments 
 of the Twelve Patriarchs it is said €ws cvytedelas TéV aidvev 
 éctat év auvaywyais éOvav*. The so-called Jerusalem Syriac 
 version supplies a proof that at a much later time among Catholic 
 
 1 Cf. Iren. iii. vi. 1 Hi autem sunt Ecclesia. Haec enim est synagoga Dei. 
 On the other hand note Tert. De Spectac. xxv. (de ecclesia Dei in diaboli ecclesiam). 
 
 2 Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 14 (dédwkev 6 Beds 7H Kbouw Kupawoudry...Tas cuva- 
 yuryas, Neyoudvas dé éxkAnolas aylas). But it is to be remembered that Theophilus 
 is addressing a heathen friend and that the word cwaywyy was used of the 
 religious assemblies of the Pagans (see Harnack’s note on Hermas Mand. xi. 9, 
 a note which contains a large collection of passages). - 
 
 3 In Levi 11, Ben. 11 (d:d00s 79 cuvaywyy Tuy €Ovadv) the reference is rather to 
 O. T. usage (e.g. Ex. xii. 3, 6, 47; Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxy. 11). On the Testaments 
 see below p. 87. 
 
 1—2 
 
4 _ THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Christians in the neighbourhood of Palestine the word Synagogue 
 was still in use’. In regard to the Ebionites we have the express 
 statement of Epiphanius (xxx. 18), cuvaywynv ottot Kadodow 
 Tv éauToV exkAnoiav Kal ovxXL exKANoiar’. 
 
 From the East we turn to the capital of the West. The 
 number of the Jews in Rome is a commonplace of history. But 
 archaeological researches and the study of inscriptions have now 
 added detail and colour to the picture. Unlike the Jews at 
 Alexandria who formed a political corporation, the Jews in Rome 
 were divided into many separate religious communities (cvva- 
 yoryat), taking their name sometimes from distinguished patrons 
 as ‘the Synagogue of the Augustesians,’ sometimes from the 
 locality as ‘the Synagogue of the Siburesians’ (Subura)*. Hence 
 a special importance attaches to the use of the word ‘Synagogue’ 
 by two Christian writers of the second century, who speak to us 
 from Rome. Justin (Dial. 287 B) uses the phrase, tots efs avtov 
 TisTEVovTW, Ws ovoL pla WuXH Kal pla avvaywyH Kal pla 
 éxxrnoia. Hermas (Mand. xi. 9, comp. 13, 14) writes thus, 
 Otay ovv €XOn 6 avOpwros 6 Eywy TO TvEDdWA TO Belov Ets cUVA- 
 yoynv avipdv Sixaiwv...cat évtevEis yévntar mpos Tov Bedv Tis 
 cuvaywyns TOV avdpav exeivov K.T.X. 
 
 Thus among Catholic Christians in Syria, among Ebionite 
 sectaries widely scattered, in the Roman Church of the second 
 century, we have evidence that the word cuvaywyy survived 
 to witness to an almost forgotten stage of Christian life and 
 worship. 
 
 The Church then in the earliest days of the faith, as far as 
 concerned her discipline and her worship, may be described as 
 an association of Synagogues, gradually multiplying as she gained 
 new territory for her Master. 
 
 1 ¢So wird auch im Ev. Hier. éxxAnola durch NNWID d. h. Synagoge iiber- 
 setzt. Das Buch finden wir im Gebrauch katholischer Christen Ostpalistinas’ 
 (Zahn Forschungen, Tatian’s Diatessaron p. 335). 
 
 2 Comp. the inscriptions given in Schiirer The Jewish People Eng. Trans, 
 div. ii. vol. ii. pp. 64, 69. Subsequent references to Schiirer, unless it is otherwise 
 stated, are to this volume. 
 
 3 Schiirer p. 247f.; for Jewish cemeteries at or near Rome see p. 240, also 
 div. i. vol. i. p. 32 f. Compare Merivale Hist. of the Romans vi. p. 428 f., vii. 
 p. 379 f. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 5 
 
 But at this point there comes into light a fact of far-reaching 
 importance. Of the Jews at Jerusalem there were two classes, the 
 Hebrews and the Hellenists (Acts ix. 29 cuvetnres mpds Ttovs 
 ‘EXAnuiotds). The former would naturally constitute the larger 
 body. Among the latter would be numbered Jews of the Disper- 
 sion, who either were visiting the Mother City at the time of the 
 Festivals (Acts ii. 5 ff.), or, like Saul of Tarsus, had some reason 
 for settling there. Further, the Book of the Acts (vi. 9), con- 
 firmed as it is here by independent authority, informs us that 
 the Hellenists had Synagogues of their own at Jerusalem’. It is 
 natural that no special mention should be made of ‘the Syna- 
 gogues of the Hebrews’ at Jerusalem, for there they were neces- 
 sarily the prevailing type. At Rome, on the other hand, where 
 Hellenists would vastly preponderate, a notice is preserved of a 
 ‘Synagogue of Hebrews’ (cuvaywyn AiBpéwv)’. 
 
 Over and above a general divergence of tone which would 
 separate the two classes of worshippers, a special point of difference 
 would be the use of Greek in the Synagogues of the Hellenists: 
 “R. Levi Bar Chajothah went to Caesarea and heard them 
 
 MD ION you [IP reciting their ‘Shemaa’ Hellenistically [i.e. in 
 Greek]’.” It is difficult to suppose that a custom which pre- 
 vailed among the Hellenists elsewhere would be abjured by those 
 at Jerusalem, where the presence of pilgrims from the Dispersion 
 in all parts of the world would render it most necessary. There is, 
 
 1 Lightfoot (Horae Hebr. on Acts vi. 9) quotes the Hieros. Megilla (fol. 73. 4) 
 as speaking of the Synagogue of the Alexandrians at Jerusalem. Commentators 
 differ as to the number of synagogues implied in Acts vi.9. Some of the older 
 commentators (e.g. Calvin, Beza), and later Wieseler, hold that but one Syna- 
 gogue is meant; Meyer, like Vitringa (p. 253) and Schiirer (p. 57), thinks that five 
 are referred to; Wendt and Nésgen hold that the language requires but two, that 
 of the Libertines, Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and that of those of Cilicia and 
 Asia. Mr Page, separating off the Libertines, supposes that three Synagogues are 
 mentioned. Ndésgen in loc. refers to ‘talmudische Angaben iiber drei hellenistische 
 Synagogen unter den 480 Jerusalems (Megill. E. 73, 4 u. 6.).’ 
 
 * Corp. Inscr. Graec. 9909 referred to by Schiirer, p. 248. 
 
 3 Lightfoot Horae Hebr. on Le. x. 27. On the use of Greek in the worship 
 of the Dispersion see Schiirer, p. 283 with reff., Edersheim Life and Times i. pp. 
 30, 446. Schiirer (p. 284) writes, ‘The Rabbinical authorities in Palestine ex- 
 pressly sanctioned the use of any language whatever in repeating the Shemah, the 
 Shemoneh Esreh and the grace at meals.’ Comp. Neubauer in Studia Biblica i. 
 p. 50. 
 
6 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 however, so far as I know, no direct evidence as to the usage in 
 this matter of the Hellenistic Synagogues at Jerusalem. 
 
 But if this twofold division of Synagogues existed at Jerusalem 
 among the Jews, would not a similar division reappear among 
 ‘the Brethren’? Would there not spring up Synagogues of the 
 Hellenistic, as well as Synagogues of the Hebrew ‘Brethren’? To 
 the latter there would naturally join themselves the ‘great com- 
 pany of the priests’ who became ‘obedient to the faith’ (Acts vi. 7), 
 and those ‘of the sect of the Pharisees who believed’ (xv. 5); to 
 the former, those who were attracted by the teaching of St Stephen, 
 and at a later time the converts of Barnabas and Saul of Tarsus, 
 as well as some of those ancient disciples who were won on the 
 day of Pentecost. 
 
 Nor is this picture of the Church at Jerusalem a hypothetical 
 one. Directly the Church began to expand, ‘there arose a mur- 
 muring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews’ (Acts vi. 1). 
 Almsgiving was specially connected with the Synagogue system’, 
 and to suppose that ‘the daily ministration’ was a part of 
 that system as it had been transplanted and as it developed 
 among ‘the Brethren’ would be no violently improbable conjec- 
 ture. But however that may be, the whole tone of the history 
 makes it clear that this was no private quarrel, but a public 
 dispute which threatened a disruption of the Church. All becomes 
 intelligible at once if in the disputants we recognise two congrega- 
 tions or two groups of congregations, each with a home and an 
 organization of its own. The Apostles dealt boldly with this 
 rising spirit of disunion. They ‘called the multitude of the 
 disciples (7d 7AjO0s Tév wabyTGv) unto them,’ all, that is, with- 
 out distinction of party. 
 
 It is probably true that the line of cleavage between ‘the 
 Brethren’ of the Hebrew and ‘the Brethren’ of the Hellenistic Syna- 
 gogues does not exactly coincide with that which separated those 
 that were ‘of the circumcision’ from the more liberal section of the 
 Jewish Christians, but the two lines cannot have been far apart. 
 
 1 Lightfoot Horae Hebr. on Matt. vi. 1 f., Vitringa de Synagoga pp. 211f., 
 809 ff., Schiirer p. 66 (‘It was in the Synagogues that the collection of alms 
 took place. According to the Mishna the collection was to be made by at least 
 two, the distribution by three persons’). 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE, 7 
 
 The two principles of classification are closely related. And the 
 view of the Apostolic Church which I am endeavouring to make 
 probable throws much light, as I believe, on the disputes and the 
 tangled negotiations which led up to, and were connected with, the 
 Conference at Jerusalem. It explains individual expressions in the 
 narrative—av Td 7AnOos (xv. 12, comp. vi. 2, xxi. 18 mravtes Te 
 TapeyévovtTo of tpeaButeEpor), adv GAN TH ExKAnola (v. 22). It 
 accounts, as it seems to me, for the reference to the Mosaic law in 
 the condensed report of St James’ speech. The twofold demand 
 of the Pharisaic party (xv. 5) was, ‘It is needful to circumcise 
 them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses.’ To this two- 
 fold demand St James had a twofuld answer. On the one hand, 
 circumcision was not to be insisted on, though the Gentiles should 
 be asked to make certain reasonable concessions. On the other 
 hand, all that was valuable in their requirements as to the Mosaic 
 law was substantially secured already. Moses was not likely to be 
 neglected. ‘For Moses from generations of old hath in every city 
 them that preach him, being read in the Synagogues [i.e. in the 
 public worship of the Jews and the Christians alike] every sabbath’ 
 (xv. 21). Again, if a conclusion can be safely drawn from the 
 names of the envoys (xv. 22), Judas surnamed Barsabbas repre- 
 sented the Hebrews, Silas the Hellenists. Lastly, the fact that 
 the organized influence of men bound together by common worship 
 was enlisted on this side or on that made this crisis in a doctrinal 
 dispute a matter of grave difficulty and danger, as at an earlier 
 time it had embittered a question of administration. 
 
 In the same direction we may look for an explanation of the 
 fact that in the first century relations of our Lord were chosen as 
 Bishops of the Church at Jerusalem. The claim to reverence 
 which these men had rose above any title to authority which was 
 based on pre-eminence either among the Hebrews or the Hel- 
 lenists. Such an appointment was a victory for neither section of 
 the Church*. 
 
 The Hellenistic (Christian) Synagogues, fortified by the work of 
 St Paul and by the alliance first of the Christian Jews of the 
 
 1 Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22), Dupedv...dv mpoébevro mavres dveyrov Svra Tod 
 kupiov devrepov. Compare what the same writer says of the grandsons of Jude 
 (Eus. H. E. iii. 20). 
 
8 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Dispersion and then of Gentile converts, gradually won to them- 
 selves the supremacy. From the very first theirs, it would seem, 
 had been the greater enlightenment and vigour. And as time 
 went ‘on and the old things of worship and of organization passed 
 away and became new, they were merged in the life of the Catholic 
 Church of the second century, for which they had prepared the 
 way’. 
 
 The main elements in this view of the early Apostolic Church, 
 its adhesion, that is, to the Synagogue system and the existence’ 
 among the Christian ‘ Brethren, as among the Jews, of Hebrew 
 and of Hellenistic Synagogues, may, I venture to think, be taken 
 as historically certain. I pass on to indicate the bearing of these 
 conclusions first on the question of the origin of the Synoptic 
 Gospels, and secondly on the problem of the original form of the 
 Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 1. In the Synagogues of ‘the Brethren’ the personal followers 
 of Christ, and especially the Apostles, would bear their witness to 
 His Resurrection and would tell what they remembered of His 
 teaching and His life. This personal testimony would at least 
 form an important part of each Aoyos mapaxAnoews (Acts xiii. 15, 
 note especially Hebr. xiii. 22). The lessons from the Law and the 
 Prophets must have had an honoured place in the Christian as in 
 the Jewish Synagogues, and ‘the exhortation’ would often be 
 based upon some prophetic saying or some ancient type’. The 
 analogy of the apostolic speeches and sermons preserved in sub- 
 stance in the Acts bears out these statements. 
 
 To these Aoyou Tapakdyoews in the Christian Synagogues we 
 must look for the first beginnings of the Gospels. In them the 
 sayings of the Lord would be brought together for the purposes of 
 immediate edification. The history of His birth, His work, His 
 Passion, His Resurrection, would be linked with the ancient 
 
 1 See note A at the end of the Chapter. 
 
 2 Such surely is the explanation of the opening words of St Paul’s speech at 
 Antioch—6 0¢0s rod Aaod rovrou (xiii. 17). The rovrov must refer to some words in 
 the section of the Prophets (v. 15) just read. Compare Luke iv. 18—21. To take 
 rovrov as deictic (Page) or as referring back to dvdpes Iopandirac (Wendt) gives a 
 very poor sense. The point is important in its bearing on the sources and the 
 credibility of the Acts. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 9 
 
 prophecies. And as among the Jews the Synagogues were closely 
 connected with the Schools of the Scribes, so among the early dis- 
 ciples the more public teaching of the assembly would be repeated 
 and brought home in catechetical instruction. Thus in the very 
 first days of the Church different types of an oral Gospel would be 
 in process of formation. 
 
 But in two other ways the needs created by this system of 
 Christian Synagogues tended, I cannot doubt, to the growth of 
 the Gospels as we have them now. 
 
 In the first place translation would be necessary. In the 
 Synagogues of the Hebrew Disciples the recital of the Lord’s 
 words and the story of His life would be in Aramaic. But when 
 transplanted to the Hellenistic Synagogues, the same recital and 
 the same story would have to assume a Greek dress. And the 
 obvious desirability of making the one version a substantial 
 equivalent of the other would tend to generate in both languages 
 fixed types of apostolic tradition. At the same time it is quite 
 possible that through this necessary intercourse with the Hellen- 
 ists the Hebrew Apostles and teachers may have gained that 
 power over the Greek language which surprises us, for example, in 
 the Epistle of St James. 
 
 In the second place, may not the origin of written Gospels be 
 at least in part traceable to the same set of circumstances?’ When 
 a decree of the Mother Church, and when Apostolic letters, were 
 read in the Christian assemblies, when further the Apostles and 
 the earliest witnesses became scattered and it might therefore seem 
 wise to compensate for their absence by some representation of 
 their teaching, ‘many would take in hand to draw up a narrative 
 concerning those things which had been fulfilled. In this way 
 the story of Christ’s life and teaching would pass from the Adyos 
 TapakAnoews to find a place alongside the lessons from the Law 
 and the Prophets, and thus would gradually, even in the lifetime 
 of the Apostles, attain to something of scriptural authority’. Here 
 
 1 Comp. Acts xx. 35 (uvnuovebew re Trav Asywy rod Kuplov ’Incod), 1 Thess. iv. 15 
 (€v Adyy Kuptov), 1 Cor. vii. 10 (ovk éyd ddXd 6 Kbpios), 1 Cor. ix. 14 (5 ‘Kbpios 
 dvéragev), 1 Tim. v. 18 (déyer yap  ypapi Bot ddodvra ob piuwoes, Kat ”Azios 6 
 eépydrns Tod pic8od avrod). In Rom. xvi. 25 f. (kara dmoxd\uyw bvornplov...cervyy- 
 Hévou pavepw0&ros dé viv did Te ypapav mpopyrixav kar’ émirayhv Tod alwvlov beod 
 ..€ls mdyvta Ta vn yvwpicbévros) I cannot but think that the reference is to the 
 
10 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH 
 
 too we get a side light on portions of the Apostolic Epistles. As 
 Clement of Rome incorporates in his letter to the Corinthian 
 Church a prayer which a comparison of his language with that of 
 the ancient liturgies shews to be the substance of a form which 
 as the presiding elder he used in the worship of the Church, so 
 there is much to lead us to think that St James preserves for us 
 in his Epistle portions of his Synagogue addresses. And a most 
 striking characteristic of this Epistle is that it is built up of Noyva 
 xupiaxa. What is true of this Epistle is true in a less degree of 
 other Apostolic Epistles. Such references, or possible references, 
 in the Epistles to the Lord’s words need careful collection and 
 rigorous examination before any real progress can be made towards 
 the solution of the Synoptic question’. 
 
 The adoption of the Synagogue system in the early Church 
 has an intimate connexion with the composition of the written 
 Guspels. But it is not of itself a sufficient explanation. It is but 
 one among many influences. In truth a key of many wards is 
 needed to fit the complicated lock of the Synoptic problem. We 
 shall probably be moving along the lines which will lead to a 
 settlement of the question, so far as a settlement is possible, when 
 we recognise the converging forces of both Aramaic and Greek 
 oral tradition, of Aramaic and Greek written memoranda, and of 
 all these as they would find a place in the Synagogues of ‘the 
 Brethren, in catechetical instruction, and in missionary activity’. 
 writings of Christian Prophets. For compare (1) Eph. iii, 1—9 (iwép bua rav 
 COvav...kaTa amoxddupw eyvwploOn moe TO muoTHptov...dvvacbe avaywwoKovTes vonoat 
 riv cbvecly wou & TG mvoTnpiy TO xpioTod, 6...viv dmexaddPOy Tois aylos amooré\as 
 a’rod Kal mpopyras év mveduari...pwrica [wdvras] ris 7 olkovoula rod pvotnplou Tov 
 drroxexpuppévou k.7.d.); (2) Tit. i. 2 f. (qv emnyyeidaro.. .epavépwoev 6é...7Ov Advyov avrod 
 év knptyuwate 6 émistevOnv eyw kar’ émirayhv Tod cwripos judy Geos). Such a refer- 
 ence would be especially in point at the close of the Roman Epistle. 
 
 1 See note B at the end of the Chapter. 
 
 2 Mr A. Wright’s singularly fresh and independent though incomplete essay 
 (Lhe Composition of the Four Gospels, 1890) emphasises one important factor, viz. 
 catechetical instruction. To what strange results a one-sided theory may lead is 
 seen in the results attained by Resch in his articles Der Quellenbericht tiber die 
 dvddnyis des Herrn (Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft 1889 pp. 18 ff., 75 ff.). 
 Here is his ‘ Hebraischer Urtext,’ 
 
 tod avin inks ndvin amag-dyy ypdyrdy opel yga DIB? oy 
 
 Such a theory may be safely left to pair with Dr Abbott’s telegram theory 
 (The Common Tradition p. xi.). 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 11 
 
 2. From the larger problem of the Synoptic Gospels I turn 
 to another question, closely connected yet not identical with it, 
 viz., the position of the Lord’s Prayer in the Apostolic Church and 
 the bearing of this upon its original form. 
 
 The two Evangelists who record the Prayer connect it with 
 different occasions in our Lord’s ministry. St Matthew represents 
 our Lord as Himself of His own accord teaching this form of 
 prayer to His disciples in the audience of the crowds (Matt. vi. 9, 
 vil. 28 f.). St Luke tells us that the Lord gave it to His disciples 
 privately in answer to the request of one of them, ‘ Lord, teach 
 us to pray, even as John also taught his disciples. Apart from 
 general questions, there seems in this case to be nothing essen- 
 tially improbable in the repetition of the same form’. Internal 
 evidence confirms the report of the Evangelists. St Luke (v. 33) 
 preserves a notice which has the support of the other Synoptists 
 (Matt. ix. 14, Mc. ii. 18): of padnrai “Iwavov vnotev‘ovoew muKva 
 kal denoes trovovvrat. Here then lay the point of the disciples’ 
 request. But the Lord had no esoteric elaborate teaching on 
 this matter. He gave His disciples privately the same simple 
 form which He had already given them in the audience of the 
 crowds’. 
 
 As the occasions described by the two Evangelists differ, so. 
 do also the versions of the Prayer which they respectively give. 
 That contained in St Luke’s Gospel diverges from that contained 
 in St Matthew’s both in regard to the length of the Prayer 
 and in the wording of the clauses which are common to both 
 Gospels. 
 
 1 Our Lord thus would be simply following the usual custom of Jewish teachers. 
 The Prophets, the Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse supply many instances 
 of such repetitions. 
 
 2 Mr Page on the other hand (Critical Notes on the Lord’s Prayer, Expositor, 
 3rd Series, vol. vii. p. 433 ff.) thinks that ‘a single prayer delivered by Jesus to 
 His disciples may be related by two historians in two different shapes and as 
 delivered under different circumstances.’ His arguments are, I think, met by the 
 remarks in the text above. At the same time I believe that it would be contrary 
 to analogy to suppose that the longer and the shorter forms belong respectively 
 to the two occasions. Both the Evangelists record how the Lord’s Prayer was 
 delivered to the Disciples; both give a form current when they wrote. On the 
 question whether St Luke has inserted in the Prayer phraseology of his own, 
 see below, pp. 42 ff. 
 
12 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 When we come to enquire what the original form of the 
 Prayer was, it is needful to remember that the term original is 
 here relative rather than absolute. For in the period which 
 intervened between the occasion when our Lord first taught the 
 Prayer and the time when the Evangelists gave it a place in the 
 Gospels, it had passed through one stage, and had already entered 
 upon the second stage of its history. On the one hand it is 
 unreasonable to suppose that before the day of Pentecost the 
 Apostles did not use it privately among themselves. On the other, 
 when the number of the Disciples began to increase, it passed 
 over into the Synagogue worship of the Church. The first stage 
 eludes our grasp. It is the second only that our investigation 
 can touch. 
 
 In connexion with the use of the Lord’s Prayer in the 
 Christian Synagogues the following points must be noticed. 
 
 (1) Our Lord left three commands which would mould from 
 the first the worship of the Church: obtas...mpoceixerOe tpels 
 (Matt. vi. 9), XdBere, hayere...miete €E avTod mavtes (Matt. xxvi. 
 28), pabnrevoate...Bamrivovtes (Matt. xxviii. 19). We know that 
 the last two were obeyed. Converts were baptised; the Eucharist 
 was celebrated. The indications that the other injunction was 
 observed from the earliest days are less obvious and direct, but 
 when brought together they are very cogent. For over and above 
 the a priort probability, that if the Disciples met for Synagogue 
 worship, they would use the Prayer which their Master had 
 bequeathed to them, there are, as I hope to shew in dealing with 
 the several clauses of the Prayer, many allusions to its petitions in 
 the Apostolic writings, allusions which become quite intelligible if 
 we assume that the Prayer was in constant public use. Again, the 
 hypothesis of this early liturgical use explains various points in 
 the language both of the Prayer as we have it and of certain 
 additions to it which have been preserved. Lastly, this view 
 exactly harmonises with the evidence of the Didaché. In the 
 Didaché the Lord’s Prayer holds a prominent position. ‘Pray ye 
 not, it is said (ch. viii.), ‘as the hypocrites; but as the Lord 
 commanded in His Gospel, so pray ye. The Lord’s Prayer is 
 then given in the fuller form recorded by St Matthew, with two 
 variations of text and with the addition of a doxology. The 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 13 
 
 direction is appended ‘Thrice a day in this way pray ye. This 
 last direction links the Lord’s Prayer with the Jewish hours of 
 prayer, morning, afternoon, and evening; hours which were observed 
 by religious Jews in private and, at least on certain days, in the 
 public worship of the Synagogue. That the Apostles kept the 
 hours of prayer we know from the Acts (iii. 1, x. 9). Moreover 
 the Didaché (ch. x.) preserves to us a remarkable eucharistic 
 formula which is closely connected with certain clauses of the 
 Lord’s Prayer. Such a reference to the Lord’s Prayer implies that 
 it had been itself for some time an essential part of the Church’s 
 liturgy. 
 
 (2) It may, I think, be taken for certain that the Prayer was 
 originally in Aramaic. A priort probabilities are very strongly in 
 favour of this view. Further, on this supposition the variations, 
 especially in the tenses used in the two forms found in the Gospels 
 and in probable allusions to the Prayer in other parts of the New 
 Testament, find an easy explanation. The details of this evidence 
 will appear in the discussion of the several clauses. But if the 
 Aramaic form was the original, the existence of Hellenistic 
 congregations among the Disciples at Jerusalem would necessitate 
 from the very first a translation of the Prayer into Greek. 
 Further, the Prayer would have a liturgical history in the 
 Synagogues of ‘the Brethren’ both Hebrew and Hellenistic. It 
 is clear then that the Prayer holds a position of its own, and in 
 reference to the circumstances of its transmission stands apart 
 from the rest of the matter contained in the Synoptic Gospels. 
 One other point under this head remains. It is this. From the 
 earliest days after Pentecost the faith would be planted in places 
 more or less distant by missionaries and others coming from the 
 
 1 “Thus the regular Synagogue-services would gradually arise; first, on Sabbaths 
 and on feast- or fast-days, then on ordinary days, at the same hours as, and with 
 a sort of internal correspondence to, the worship of the Temple.’ The services on 
 Mondays and Thursdays were special, these being the ordinary market-days, when 
 the country-people came into the towns....Accordingly, Monday and Thursday 
 were called ‘the days of congregation’ or ‘Synagogue’ (Yom ha-Kenisah)” (Eders- 
 heim Life and Times i. p. 432). On the Jewish hours of prayer and their early 
 date comp. Lightfoot Horae Hebr. on Acts iii. 1, Vitringa de Synagoga Vetere 
 pp. 42 f., 1062 ff., Schiirer p. 85. For early Christian custom see Harnack’s note 
 on the Didaché viii. 3. 
 
14 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Church at Jerusalem. These teachers would bring with them the 
 Lord’s Prayer in the form which it had reached at the time of 
 their departure from the Mother Church. Afterwards liturgical 
 changes might be made in the Prayer both in the Mother Church 
 and in the danghter Churches. But this at least is plain, that 
 when at a later time a version of the Gospels was made in the 
 language of a daughter Church, the Lord’s Prayer would stand 
 outside the simple work of translation. There would be a current 
 form already sanctioned by long devotional use, a form which the 
 translator could not neglect or forget, though of course he might 
 subject it to a literary revision when he incorporated it in his 
 translation of the Gospels. Thus it is always possible that the 
 criticism of a Version may yield evidence as to the original form of 
 the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 (3) The Disciples would only be following Synagogue usage if 
 they adapted a fixed prayer for use on particular occasions, either 
 by alteration, or by addition’. This principle of adaptation, as it 
 will appear, I trust, in the succeeding investigation, was applied in 
 three directions. 
 
 (i) By means of substituted or added clauses the Prayer was 
 adapted for use at the Laying on of hands and perhaps at Baptism. 
 
 (ii) By alterations in the petition for daily bread the Prayer 
 was made suitable for morning and evening use. 
 
 (iii) By the accretion of varying forms of Doxology the Prayer 
 was fitted especially for Eucharistic use. 
 
 A. NoTE ON THE HELLENISTIC SYNAGOGUES (see p. 8). 
 
 We have speaking evidence not only for the Jewish parentage of Christian 
 liturgical forms, but also in reference to the operation of translation and 
 adaptation, in the sections of the Didaché which deal with worship (see 
 
 1 ‘We have evidence that, in the time of our Lord, and even later, there was 
 much personal liberty left; for, not only was much in the services determined by 
 the usage of each place, but the leader of the devotions might preface the regular 
 service by free prayer, or insert such between certain parts of the liturgy’ (Eders- 
 heim Life and Times i. p. 438 with ref. to Zunz Gottesd. Vortr. d. Jud. p. 368 f., 
 Ritus des syn. Gottesd, p. 2 f.). 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE, 15 
 
 Dr Taylor The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Lecture 11.) and in the 
 Epistle of Clement of Rome, especially 58 ff. The intimate acquaintance 
 with the Lxx. shewn in this Epistle proves the writer to be a Hellenist ; the 
 worship of the Church over which he presides is in Greek, but it is based on 
 Jewish prayers and benedictions (see Bp Lightfoot Clement, 1890, i. p. 392 ff.). 
 
 The Church at Rome, the very early date of whose foundation is implied 
 by its size and importance when St Paul wrote his Roman Epistle, and 
 which was at first predominantly Jewish, had not as yet wholly passed beyond 
 the stage in which the Christian ‘ Brethren’ formed a Hellenistic Synagogue, 
 or group of Synagogues (on the Jewish Synagogues at Rome see Schiirer 
 p. 247; see above p. 4). If the Church at least to some extent still pre- 
 sented this aspect to the Pagan world of Rome, we have perhaps the clue 
 to the partial confusion of Christians and Jews in Tacitus’ account of the 
 Neronian persecution (Ann. xv. 44). The first batch of those arrested, who 
 gave information which led to the arrest of the ‘multitudo ingens,’ may well 
 have been Jews (comp. Merivale History of the Romans vi. 448 f.). These, if 
 the Christians formed a schismatic Synagogue, would naturally have full 
 knowledge about them, and would be ready enough to implicate them. With 
 this Clement’s insistence on jealousy as the cause of the persecution 
 harmonises (c. 6). Further, of this ‘great company’ Tacitus says, ‘haud 
 perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.’ But 
 this is exactly what he says elsewhere (Hist. v. 5) of the Jews, ‘adversus 
 omnes alios hostile odium’ (comp. Juv. xiv. 103 with Prof. Mayor’s note). 
 Again, if we turn to Domitian’s onslaught, during, or immediately after, 
 which Clement’s letter was written, we have a similar notice. How natural 
 does Dion Cassius’ account of the emperor’s cruelty towards Flavius Clemens, 
 Domitilla and others become (Ixvii. 14 émnvéxOn dé audoiv &yxAnpa abedrntos, 
 vp ns Kat addo és Ta Tov "Iovdaiwv €On eEoxeAdovres TodAol KuTedixacbncav), 
 if we suppose this charge of adopting Jewish customs to be connected with 
 the Synagogue worship of the Church at Rome!? Still further, in the 
 Hellenistic associations of its earliest days (and old associations in the 
 matter of worship are tenacious and wide in their influence), we may see in 
 part the reason why the primitive Church of Rome was mainly Greek, and 
 why its literature remained Greek till the third century. There is indeed an 
 interesting parallel between the relations of Christian Hebrew and Hellenistic 
 Synagogues at Jerusalem and on the other hand the presence of Greek and 
 Latin elements in the Roman Church, the gradual transition of a Greek into 
 a Latin Church, and the survival of liturgical relics of the former, e.g. in the 
 Kyrie eleison?. 
 
 There is a question of considerable interest which seems to me to be 
 
 1 Compare Sueton. Domit.12, Ad quem deferebantur, qui vel inprofessi Judaicam 
 viverent vitam. 
 
 2 Doubtless originally a Greek Jewish liturgical formula based on the Lxx. of 
 Is. xxxili. 2, Ps, exxii. 3, vi. 3, ix. 14, &e. 
 
16 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 suggested by the liturgical element in Clement’s Epistle, when it is viewed in 
 connexion with the theory which I have put forward of the Christian Syna- 
 gogue worship of the Church at Rome and elsewhere. Bp Lightfoot (Clement i. 
 p. 394 f.) points out a series of parallels between the letter of Clement and 
 the first two and the last two of the eighteen Jewish benedictions, the She- 
 moneh Esreh. Now it seems clear that the language employed by the Jews at 
 Rome in their worship was commonly Greek, the Rabbinical authorities in 
 Palestine expressly sanctioning ‘the use of any language whatever in repeating 
 the Shemah, the Shemoneh Esreh’ (see Schiirer p. 283 f.). Is Clement’s 
 Greek representation of the Hebrew formulas his own or that of the Chris- 
 tian congregation at Rome, or on the other hand is it based on the Greek 
 version of the Hebrew liturgy current in the Jewish (Hellenistic) Synagogues 
 at Rome, itself largely based on the Lxx.? Bishop Lightfoot does not hint 
 at the question, but it seems to follow necessarily on the results of his investi- 
 gation. Possibly a minute examination of the points of resemblance between 
 AClement and the early Liturgies might reveal their common origin in Greek 
 i Jewish Prayers. Such a comparison, however, would require a critical textual 
 study of the Liturgies. But can anything be gained from a comparison of 
 Clement with the Didaché? The two documents seem to be quite independent 
 of each other. A comparison is difficult, partly because the liturgical fragments 
 in the Didaché, though distinct, are scanty; partly because the liturgical element 
 in the Didaché is mainly eucharistic, that in Clement mainly intercessory. The 
 two documents, if they draw from the same stream, draw from it at different 
 points of its course. The following resemblances, however, are worth noting. 
 (1) Compare Didaché x. 4 mpo ravrev evxapiorotpér cor Ore Suvards ef ov with 
 Clem. 61 6 povos duvaros rovjoa taita...cot €Eoporoyovpeba. The use of duvaros 
 in reference to God is to be noted. Does the Didaché give the liturgical 
 phrase which Clement adapts? The word is so used in Le. i. 49 (6 duvarés) ; 
 Ps. xxiv. 8, Zeph. iii. 17 (=33); Ps. Ixxxix. 9 (=}’DM) ; comp. Job xxxvi. 5. 
 (2) Compare Did. x. 3 at, déomora mavroxpatop, exticas Ta mavta Evexa Tov 
 dvoparés cov, Tpopny Te Kai ToTov ESwKas Tois dvOpa@mo.s With Clement (a) 60 ov, 
 KUple, THY OlkoUperny exTLoas,...vai, Séorora, emipavov...61 ot, déorora, €Saxas...00 
 yap, S€orora éroupane...didws trois viois rév avOpérrav k.r.A. The phrase 6 ravro- 
 kparwp Geos occurs in Clem. 2, 32, 62; 6 mavremomrns Seorérns in 55, comp. 64: 
 (b) 59 rd dpyeyovov maons Kricews dvopd gov. (3) With Did. x. 2 evyapiorotpev 
 gol...Umép TOU aylov dvopaTos Gov, ov KaTeaKHvwoas €v Tais Kapdiais nuov With 
 Clem. 58 vmaxovcoper ody r@ mavayio kal évddE@ dvopare avrov.. va Katacky- 
 voowpev memoOores emt TO OoLwWTaTOY THs peyadwovrns avTov dvoua. Here the 
 impression given is that Clement has in his mind some liturgical phrase which 
 he adapts and amplifies. Ifso, the phrase given in the Didaché and implied 
 in Clement may be derived from a common source in (a) a Jewish formula, 
 (8) a Jewish formula Christianised, (y) a purely Christian formula. We are 
 checked in deciding for (a) by a comparison of the phrase 8a "Ingot rod maidos 
 cov [Did. ix. 2, 3, x. 2, (3)] with da rod fyamnpévou mardds avrod "I. Xp., dia I. Xp. 
 tov ny. m. cov (Clem. 59); so Mart. Polyc. 14 "I. X. ayamnrod cov maidds. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 17 
 
 (4) Lastly I take the tangled question of the quotation in Clem. 34 xat 
 Hmets ovv, ev opovoia emt ro avto avvaybévtes TH cuverdnoe, ws e& évds 
 aropatos Bonowpuev mpos avrov exrevas eis TO peroxous uas yevécba Trav 
 peyadov kal éevdogwv emayyeAidv avrov. éyer yap "OPbaruss ovk eidev Kal 
 ous ovK HKovoev, Kai emi Kxapdiav dvOpaémov otk dvéB8n, dca Hroipacey Tos 
 Uropévovew avrov. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9. Bp Lightfoot (Clement i. p. 390 n.) 
 was not wholly satisfied with the explanation which is content with tracing 
 these words to Is. lxiv. 4, lxv. 16, 17. ‘Still the phenomenon in St 
 Clement,’ so he wrote, ‘suggests that in one form or other it had a place 
 in early liturgical services, for indeed its liturgical appropriateness would 
 suggest its introduction ; and, considering its connexion as quoted by Clement 
 here, it is probable that he himself so used it.’ May not a solution of the 
 question be found in the supposition that the quotation in St Paul, Clement, 
 and others is from some Greek (Jewish) Liturgical formula? The difficulty 
 of St Paul’s method of citation is not great, for the yéypanra: is justified by 
 the oblique reference to Isaiah, on which indeed the liturgical formula, if it be 
 such, is based. Further, it will be remembered that in one and the same 
 Epistle St Paul introduces alike a passage of Scripture and a Christian Hymn 
 with the formula Aéye (Eph. iv. 8, v. 14: comp. Hebr. i. 7). Again, a reference 
 to Isaiah hardly explains the language of 1 Cor. ii. 9; for the 4... and dca... 
 have the appearance of being the rough edges of a direct quotation torn from 
 its context (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16 os épavepdOn...), rough edges which elsewhere 
 (e.g. in Clement) are smoothed down. It remains to state briefly some argu- 
 ments which appear to support the theory of a Greek (Jewish) liturgical 
 origin. (i) The quotation with variations occurs very widely (see Resch 
 Agrapha pp. 102, 281), often in writings in which there are traces of Jewish 
 traditions and associations, e.g. in Ep. Clement, ‘The Ancient Homily’ 11 (14), 
 Mart. Polyc. 2, Apostolic Constitutions (vii, 32), Pseudo-Athan. de Virgint- 
 tate (18); to this list Ep. Pseudo-Clem. de Virginitate (i. 9) and Acta Thomae 
 (36) should perhaps be added. It is not clear what Gnostic sect Hegesippus 
 (see Phot. Brb/. 232) refers to as using these words. The heretic Justin seems 
 to have had Jewish affinities, Valentinus to have had considerable knowledge 
 of Jewish opinions ; both of these heretics, if we are to believe Hippolytus 
 (Refut. v. 24, 26, 27; vi. 24), used these words!. (ii) The notion of the kingdom 
 is in several references linked with the words; thus Clem. Protrept. x. 94 
 after the word dvéBn adds kat yapyoovra emt 77 Bacwdela Tov Kupiov avray els 
 rovs aidvas: aunv. Apost. Constit. vii. 32 after rois dyamdow adriv adds kat 
 xapnoovra év rH Bacidela tov Oeod. Agathangelus (31, see below pp. 32, 38), 
 gives the closing words of a confessor’s prayer thus: émpyayes dv nyiv cal thy 
 anv Bacidelav nv mpontoipacas eis THY nperépay So€av mpo Tov eivar Tov Kécpor, HY 
 OpOarpos ovk cidev, kat ovs ovK HKovcey, Kat emt Kapdiav avOperov ovK dvéBn, Hv 
 
 1 If Dr Salmon’s theory in his art. on the Cross-references in the ‘Philoso- 
 phumena’ (Hermathena yv. p. 389) be true, Hippolytus’ evidence is probably 
 worthless. 
 
 Cc. 2 
 
18 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 cal vov Seces, Séorora, Tots Hyamnkoow TO Tavay.ov Gov dvoua Kal THY Tmapovaiay 
 Tov gov povoyevovs (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8, 18). Such prayers, as I shall have 
 occasion to notice later on, sometimes have embedded in them ancient 
 liturgical fragments. Probably it is so here. It is worth noticing in passing 
 that both in Clement and in Agathangelus in the previous context the 
 mention of the Divine will and of the hosts of angels is prominent. When 
 we turn to the Didaché (x. 5), we have the prayer prjoOnrt, kvpre, TS ExKANTLas 
 gov...kat ovvakov! avtny dro Tav Tecodpwv avéuwr, THY ayiacbeioay eis THY ONY 
 Baowdeiav Hv jrotpacas avrn. Here it will be noticed that the last clause 
 agrees with the first clause of the excerpt from Agathangelus and contains 
 in connexion with ‘the kingdom’ the key-word nroipacas, which is common 
 to several of these passages*. It is possible that the words of the Didaché 
 and of Agathangelus are to be traced to Matt. xxv. 34 «Anpovoynoate thy 
 nroipacperny vpiy Baowdelayv. But it is perhaps more probable that the 
 wording in this latter case as well as in the two former passages is to be 
 referred to some liturgical phrase. (iii) Lastly, there are the expressions rots 
 adyaraow avrov, Tots vropévovew avrov. It may well be that both were sanc- 
 tioned by Hellenistic liturgical usage; that in fact they were alternative 
 phrases. The latter is suggested by Is. Ixiv. 3 (rots Uropévovew eAeov), also by 
 Ps. Ixvili. 7, Lament. iil. 25 (ayaOos xvpios tots Uropevovow adrov), Zech. vi. 14 
 (6 d€ arepavos €orat Tots Uropévovar). The former (rots ayamdéow avrov) occurs in 
 the N. T. not only in 1 Cor. ii. 9, but also in Jas. i. 12, ii. 5—‘the crown of 
 life (the kingdom)’ ov (js) émnyyetAaro Tots dyaraow avrov, compare 2 Tim. iv, 
 
 1 Compare Did. ix. 4 otrw cuvvaxOjrw cov 7 éxkAyola awd Tdv wepdrwv Tis yijs els 
 Thy on Bacirelav, Ep. Clem. 34 (see above) cuvaxdévres, Mart. Polyc. 20 re d€ duvayéry 
 mavras nuas eioayayetv [ev] Ty adrod xapite kal Swpeg els Thy Ewcvpavioy avrod Bacidelav 
 6a adds av’rov, 22 iva Kaye cuvayayn 6 Kpios I. X. wera t&v éxNexr&v avrod, 
 Clementine Liturgy (Hammond p, 22) ravras quads émiouvdyaye els Thy Twv ovpavav 
 Bacireiav, Lit. of St James (Hammond p. 26, Swainson p, 218), and (Hammond p. 
 46 = Syriac p. 76, Swainson p. 301=Syriac p. 342) émicuvdywv uds vo rovs modas 
 Tav ex\extov gov, Lit. of St Basil (Hammond p. 120, Swainson pp. 84, 164) rovs 
 €oxopmicuévous emiouvayaye. The source of these prayers is doubtless the tenth 
 of the Eighteen Benedictions, ‘Set up a standard to collect our captives, and gather 
 us together from the four corners of the earth. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who 
 gatherest the outcasts of Thy people Israel.’ But the Greek representation thus 
 widely spread must be that current in the Hellenistic Synagogues, founded on such 
 passages in the txx. as Deut. xxx. 4 éay 7 7) dtacmopa cou am’ axpov Tod obpavod ews 
 akpou Tod ovpavod exeiOev ovvater oe 6 Ktpros, Ps. evi. 47, cxlvii. 2, Is. xi. 12 rods die- 
 orapuévous lovéa ouvater €x Tay Tecodpwy mrepiywy THs ys, xlix. 5, lii. 12, Neh. i. 9 
 eladtw avrods eis Tov Témov dy ekedekdunvy KaTacKkynvwoat TO dvoud pou exe? (note the 
 double coincidence with Did. ix. x.), Zech. ii. 6 €k trav reccapwv avéuwy Tod ovpavod 
 cuvatw buds, 2 Mace. i. 27, ii. 18. Compare Matt. xxiv. 31, John xi. 52, 2 Thess. ii. 1. 
 
 2 For this connexion compare e.g. 1 Sam. xili. 13, 1 Chron. xvii. 11, 2 Chron. 
 xii, 1, Is. xxx. 33. The word occurs also (though in a somewhat different con- 
 nexion) in Mart. Polyc. 14, which is clearly a valuable liturgical fragment. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 19 
 
 8 (raow Trois Hyamnxoot THY emupaveray avrov, comp. Agath. quoted above). The 
 context in all these passages is very similar, and a common liturgical source 
 would explain all the phenomena. This phrase also would be ultimately based 
 
 on the O. T., Deut. vii. 9 6 @uAacowr...éAeos Tois dyamaow avrov (yand), 
 Ps. cxlv. 20; comp. Ps. cxix. 165, cxxii. 6. If the original liturgical 
 setting resembled the First of the Eighteen benedictions, ‘ Blessed art Thou, 
 O Lord our God and the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of 
 Jacob,..who rememberest the good deeds of the fathers and sendest a re- 
 deemer unto their sons’ sons,’ the phrase might be a reminiscence of Isaiah 
 xli, 8 (INN ONIN, LXX. ’ASpaap ov jyannoa), 2 Chron. xx. 7. 
 
 I am content if this somewhat lengthy discussion makes it in any degree 
 probable that patient investigation may disinter fragments of Greek Jewish 
 liturgical forms}, and if it gives me the opportunity of expressing the belief 
 that the results of such an investigation would throw an unexpected light 
 on many passages of the New Testament, and on the literature and life of 
 the Early Church (compare below p. 147). 
 
 B. NOTE ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES AND THE SYNOPTIC 
 GOSPELS (see p. 10). 
 
 Prof. Marshall of Manchester (Expositor, July, 1890) points out ‘six well 
 established cases in which St Paul directly or indirectly quotes from 
 words of the Lord Jesus which are contained in our present Gospels.’ 
 ‘In three of the six instances,’ he maintains, ‘the variation between St 
 Paul and the Evangelist is capable of explanation on the hypothesis that 
 they give a variant translation of a common original, written in the 
 language of Palestine’ The article, which the writer has followed up 
 with others on the Aramaic Gospel, is most suggestive. 
 
 As the matter is closely connected with the subject of this Essay, 
 I add the following coincidences with the text of our Gospels in the 
 Pauline Epistles?: 
 
 (1) 1 Thess. i. 6 defdpevor tov Adyor ev Odiwper TOAAR pera Yapas mvevparos 
 ayiov. Comp. Le. villi. 13 pera xapas déxovrar tov Adyov. Matt. xiii. 21 
 yevoperns b€ OXiews |i Mc. iv. 17. Also comp. 1 Thess. ii. 13 with Le. viii. 11. 
 
 (2) 1 Thess. ii, 15f rév “lov8aiwv, trav kal rov Kipiov dmokrewdytTov 
 
 1 Comp. Dr Swainson The Greek Liturgies p, xl.,‘Dr Westcott, in a note on 
 1 Jn. ii. 2, has quoted a remarkable passage from Philo De Monarchia ii. 6, which 
 suggests that the prayers Umep evxpacias dépwr, 6uBpwv elpnvixav x.7.d. (St Chrys. 
 p. 111, St James pp. 251, 287) may have originated in Jewish usage.’ But the 
 prayers in the Alexandrian Synagogues would be in Greek. Hence Dr Swainson’s 
 reference becomes a hint which may prove fruitful. A liturgical scholar familiar 
 with Philo might very probably recover large portions of the Greek Jewish Prayers, 
 Compare the discussion below of the doxology at the close of the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 * Davidson, Introduction (Ed. 2, 1882) p. 441, has a somewhat similar table of 
 parallels, which however I have not consulted. 
 
 2—2 
 
20 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 "Incotv Kat Tovs mpodpyras Kai npas exdwkavtav...eis TO dvatAnpooat avTov 
 ras duaprias mavrore. €pOacev dé em’ avrovs 4 opyy eis TéAos. Comp. Matt. 
 Xxiii. 32 ff. viot ere trav ghovevodvrwv tots mpopyras: Kal vpeis mAnpooare 
 (v. l. wAnpocere) TO pérpov trav marépwov Upov...ras Plynte amo THs Kpicews 
 Ths yeévyns ;...aTOoTEANW Tpos UYuas mpopnras...e€ avTov amoxreveire...xat Suwsere. 
 
 (3) 1 Thess. v. 2 ot8are dre nuépa Kupiov ws Kdémrns ev vuxtl ovTws EpxeTat 
 (Apoc. iii. 3, 2 Pet. iii. 10). Comp. Matt. xxiv. 42 ovx oiSare moia muepa 
 6 KUplos buav Epyetat...ywwokere Ort ef 7OEt...0la Pvdraky O KrémTNs EpxeTat. 
 
 (4) 1 Thess. v. 5 mavres yap vpeis viot @wros éore kat viol npépas (Eph. 
 v. 9 réxva foros). Comp. Le, xvi. 8 rovs viods rod dards (Jn. xii. 36). 
 
 (5) 1 Thess. v. 14 eipnvevere ev €avtois. Comp. Me. ix. 50 elpnvevere 
 év adAnAots. 
 
 (6) 1 Thess. v. 15 épare py tis Kaxov dvti Kakod tii drodé (Rom. xii. 17, 
 1 Pet. iii. 9). Comp. Matt. v. 44 ff, Le. vi. 27 ff 
 
 (7) 2 Thess. i. 5 eis 7o xatakwwOijvar tpas ths Baoidelas Tov Beov. Comp. 
 Le. xx. 35 of cataéiwbévres tov aidvos éxeivou Tuxelv Kal THS dvacTacews Tis 
 ex veKpav. 
 
 (8) 1 Cor. vii. 34 f. pepird...edmapedpov ro Kupio dmepiordotas. 
 Comp. Le. x. 39f. mapaxabeoOeioa mpos Tots méddas Tov kupiou...mepieoraro... 
 pepyvas. 
 
 (9) 1 Cor. xiii. 2 kav yo macav thy miotw ware dpn peOiotaver. Comp. 
 Matt. xvii. 20 édv éynte mictw ws KoKkov owvatreas, epeire TO Sper TOUT MeTaBa 
 evOev éxet kat peraBqoera (xxi. 21, Me. xi. 23). Note the Syriac Version. 
 
 (10) 2 Cor, vi. 10 ws Avmovpevor det S€ xalpovtes, ws mrwXoi moAovs 
 dé mdovuri¢ovres. Vii. 6 6 mapakaday Tovs Tamrewovds Tmapekadeoev yas. Comp. 
 Matt. v. 3 ff, Le. vi. 20 f. 
 
 (11) 2 Cor. x. 1 8a tas mpadtynros Kal éemeckias Tod xpiorov. Comp. 
 Matt. xi. 29 mpais eis kat rarewvos TH kapdia Note the Syriac Versions. 
 
 (12) 2 Cor. xii. 7 f. dyyeAos Sarava...iva droarty am’ éuov. Comp. Le. iv. 13 
 6 diaBoXos améotn an’ avrov. 
 
 (13) Gal. i. 15 f. dre d€ evdoxnoev [6 Oeds]...dmoxadiwa tov viov avTov ev 
 €uol.. evOews ov mpocavebéuny capt kat aipart. Comp. Matt. xvi. 17 capé 
 kal aia ovK amexaduev oor GAN’ oO matHp pov O €v Tots ovpavois. 
 
 (14) Rom. vi. 11 0 8€ gy, (7 7G eG. Lec. xx. 38 Oeds 8€ ovK ~orw vexpaov 
 dAXa Cavrev* mavres yap alte (oow. 
 
 (15) Rom. viii. 14 dco yap mvevpate Oeod ayovrat, ovTor viol Oeod ecioiv 
 (Gal. v. 18). Comp. Le. iv. 1 yyero ev ré mvevpart. Note the thought of son- 
 ship in the context (ill. 22, iv. 3, 9). 
 
 (16) Rom. xii. 14 evdoyeire rods Siwkovras, evdoyeire Kal py) Kxarapac be. 
 Comp. Le. vi. 28 evAoyeire Tovs Karapwpévous vpas. Matt. v. 44 mpocedyxeabe 
 Umép Tov Siwxovtev vpas. 
 
 (17) Rom, xiii. 8 ff. 6 yap dyandv rov Erepov, vopov memnpoxev...ev TO 
 Asy@ Tovrm avaxeharaodra. Comp. Matt. xxii. 37 ff ayamjoes xtprov... 
 dyannoes Tov mAngiov gov...ev Tavras Tais Svalv evrodais Gros 6 vopos Kpewarat 
 
 4 c od 
 Kal of mpopyra. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SYNAGOGUE. 21 
 
 (18) There are coincidences of thought, and to some extent of expression, 
 in Me. vii. 18 ff., and 1 Cor. vi. 13, viii. 13, Rom. xiv. 15 ff. 
 
 (19) Phil. ii. 8 érameivwoev éavrov...610 Kat o Oeds avTov vmepipacer. 
 Comp. Matt. xxiii. 12 doris ramewooe: €avrov WWoOnoera (xviii. 4, Le. xiv. 11, 
 Xvili. 14). 
 
 (20) Phil. ii. 15 GaiveoOe ws hooripes ev kocpm. Comp. Matt. v. 14 vpeis 
 €oté TO Pas TOU Koopov. 
 
 (21) Phil. iv. 6 pndév pepmvare. Comp. Matt. vi. 25 py pepemvare ri 
 Wuxn vpor (vv. 31, 34). 
 
 (22) 1 Tim. i. 13 7renOnv dre dyvody emoinca. Comp. Le. xxiii. 34 ages 
 avrois, ov yap oidacw Ti rovovow. 
 
 (23) 2 Tim, iv. 18 ryv Baowdeiav avrot thy émovpanov, The phrase is 
 unique in St Paul. Equally with St Matthew’s 7 Bac. raév ovpavay it 
 would represent the Aramaic phrase. 
 
 The following coincidences come under a different category : 
 
 (1) 2 Cor. iii, 15 nvixa ay avaywooxntat Mevojs Kdduvpua emt thy Kapdiav 
 avrav xeirat. Comp. Le. xxiv. 32 (Western reading, D and d) ovyt 7 xapdia 
 qv nov Kexadvppérn...os Sijvovyev nuiv tas ypadas; 
 
 (2) Rom. v. 5 9 ayamn tov Oeov éxxéxutat ev rais Kapdiats nuav dia Tov 
 mvevpartos ayiov. Tit. iii. 6 mvevparos aylov, ob éEéxeev ef jas mAovoias. 
 
 There is here a reference to the Pentecostal keyword from Joel ii. 28, 
 e€xxe@ amd Tov mvevparos pov (Acts il. 17), é€éxeev Tovro (Vv. 33), 7 Swpea rod 
 mvevpatos tov adyiou eéxkéxutac (Acts x. 45, the account of the ‘Gentile 
 Pentecost’). Comp. Ep. Clem. 2, 46, Barn. i. 3, Test. xii. Patriar. Jud. 24. 
 
 (3) Col. i. 23 rod evayyediov...rod KnpuxOevros ev man xtioe: TH vO 
 Tov ovpavov. Comp. [Mc.] xvi. 15 mopevOévres eis tov Koopov .dmavra Knpvéare 
 TO evayyéAtov maon TH KTiaet. With this coincidence, compare the following: 
 Hebr. ii. 3f. qris (cwrnpia), dpxjvy AaBodoa AadeicMa Sia Tov xKupiov, vo 
 TOY axovodvrwy eis nuas €BeBawwOn, cuvertaptupovvtos tov Oeod onpeiows Te 
 kal répacw Kat morkidas Suvdpeow, and [Mc.] xvi. 19f. 6 pév ovv kiptos [Inaois] 
 pera TO Aadoat avrois avednupbn...cxetvor Se ekeAOovtes exnpvEav mavtayoi, 
 Tov Kupiov cuvepyouvros Kai Tov Adyov BeBaortrtos Sia Tav éemaxodovbovyTwv 
 onpeiov. 
 
 To these coincidences there must be added those which a study of 
 the other Books of the New Testament reveals (see Resch Agrapha pp. 
 248, 252 f.). A rigorous and minute examination of all the coincidences thus 
 brought together, in connexion with the Syriac Versions and especially with 
 what is known of Palestinian Aramaic, would be the next necessary step. 
 Apart from such an investigation no conclusions can be safely drawn. But a 
 stiidy of the evidence thus collected and sifted would, I cannot but believe, 
 bring the Synoptic question sensibly nearer to a solution than it is at 
 present. 
 
’ c a c 2 Se! > a 
 TATEp HM@N O EN TOIC OYpaNoic (St MaTTHEw). 
 
 TrATep (St Luxe). 
 
 THERE are some independent grounds for thinking that the 
 longer and the shorter forms of this clause were both current in 
 the Apostolic age. 
 
 (1) In regard to the longer form. The frequent occurrence 
 in the Synoptists of the phrases 6 tatnp vudy 6 ovpavios (Matt. 
 v. 48, vi. 14, 26, 32, comp. xxiii. 9), 6 watyp wou o ovpavios (Matt. 
 xv. 18, xvill. 35), 6 watnp [o] é& ovpavod (Le. xi. 13), 6 watnp pov 
 6 év Tots ovpavots (Matt. vii. 21, x. 32, 33, x11. 50 (év ovpavoits), 
 xvi. 17, xviii. 10 (€v ovpavois), 19 (€év ovpavois), 6 TaTnp vuav Oo 
 év Tois ovpavois (Matt. v. 16, 45, vi. 1, vii. 11, Mc. xi. 25) seems to 
 shew that such a form of words was specially endeared to the 
 Disciples, while the fact that the type 6 év (rots) ovpavots is com- 
 moner than the type 6 ovpavos is an indication that in St Matthew 
 we have the original Greek form of the first clause of the Prayer’. 
 
 Among the passages referred to above, the following, viz. Matt. 
 vi. 14, xviii. 35, Mc. xi. 25 (dgiere ef tu yeTe Kata Twos, iva Kai 
 6 TaTnp vue Oo év Tols ovpavois adn vuiv Ta TapaTTopaTa 
 vpov), are of special importance, for they refer to the petition for 
 forgiveness as well as to the appeal to the Heavenly Father. The 
 
 1 The two phrases 6 odpdmos and 6 év rots obpavots equally represent the Hebrew 
 D'DWaAw and the Syriac LLoe>). The remarks in the text above must to some 
 extent be discounted in view of the fact that both 13°2N alone and DYOWAW 1)°IN are 
 found in ‘the Jews’ Prayer Books’ (Dr Taylor Sayings of the Jewish Fathers 
 p. 138). 
 
‘OUR FATHER WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. 23 
 
 last quoted is the only passage in St Mark in which this name of 
 God, the Father in Heaven, the Heavenly Father, is found; and 
 consequently its witness is strongly in favour of the form o év Tots 
 ovpavois being the current Greek form of the first clause of the 
 Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 The Didaché (viii.) is, so far as I know, the only authority 
 which preserves a different wording of this form. In place of o év 
 Tots ovpavois it has 6 év T@ ovpav@. The variation is slight. In 
 view of other passages in the Synoptic Gospels’, it is probable that 
 we have here a trace of divergent translations of an Aramaic 
 original. The fact that ¢v odpave@ occurs later on in the Prayer 
 would seem to make év 7@ ovpavé the more obvious expression in 
 the first clause, and thus to shew that év Tois ovpavois, as being 
 less obvious, has a better claim to be the original Hellenistic 
 translation. But whatever may be the explanation of the varia- 
 tion, its existence indicates that when the Didaché was drawn up 
 the Greek form of the Prayer was not absolutely and finally fixed. 
 
 (2) In regard to the shorter form’. Three passages must be 
 here considered. 
 
 kat @dreyev "ABBA 6 ratnp...dXr ov TL eyd OéX\w GAG TE 
 ov. St Mark xiv. 36. 
 
 éEarréotetnev 6 Oeds TO mvedpa Tod viod avTod Eis Tas Kapdlas 
 nov, Kpatov ABBa o ratnp. Gal. iv. 6. 
 
 éddBete mvedpua viobecias, ev @ kpalopev ABBa omatnp. Rom. 
 vill. 15. 
 
 In each of these passages I believe there is a reference to the 
 first clause of the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 1 Comp. (1) Matt. iii. 16 f., Mc. i. 10 f. (plur.) || Le. iii. 21 f. (sing.), (2) Matt. 
 vy. 12 (plur.) || Le. vi. 23 (sing.), (3) Matt. vii, 11 (plur.) || Le. xi. 13 (sing.), 
 (4) Matt. xix. 21, Le. xviii. 22 (plur.) || Me. x. 21 (sing.). Sometimes there is 
 agreement, e.g. (1) Matt. xiv. 9, Mc. vi. 41, Le. ix. 16 (sing.); (2) Matt. xxvi. 64, 
 Mc. xiv. 62 (plur.). In the uxx. the plur. is common in the Psalms, rare else- 
 where. I do not think that it occurs in the O. T. as equivalent to the late Hebrew 
 nD. 
 
 2 In Le. xi. 2 the Old Latin MSS., a, ff, i, have Pater sancte qui...; mm (a 
 vulgate text) has Pater sancte sanctificetur... Compare John xvii. 11. Such a 
 reading must be traced to a liturgical expansion such as we have in the Didaché (x), 
 where we read mdrep aye. Compare the Christmas preface to the Lord’s Prayer 
 in the Gallican Liturgy (Hammond p. 343, see also pp. Ixxxii, 290), and the Syrian 
 Baptismal prayer below p. 37. 
 
24 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 As to the first of them two points call for notice. (a) St 
 Mark, ‘the interpreter’ of St Peter, records elsewhere Aramaic 
 expressions used by Christ—rtarev0a xovp, 6 €or peOeppnvevo- 
 pevov To Kopacuor, cot réya, Eyerpe (V. 41); xopBav, 6 errs Awpov 
 (vii. 11); Aéyes avTe "Eddaa, 6 oti AravoixOnt: (vii. 34). In 
 these cases St Mark connects the Aramaic word and the Greek 
 equivalent by the phrases, which is, which is being interpreted. 
 The absence of such a phrase in xiv. 36 may indeed be accounted 
 for by its incongruity with the solemnity of the context; but it 
 may be better explained by the familiarity of the words "ABBa o 
 matnp. (b) The Evangelists seem to wish their readers to find in 
 our Lord’s words in the Garden of Gethsemane coincidences with 
 the language of the Lord’s Prayer [see pp. 61 f., 108 ff.; note 
 especially yevnO@yntw To OéAnua cov (Matt. xxvi. 42)]. Does not 
 St Mark’s use of the words "AB8a 6 watynp harmonise with this 
 undercurrent of thought ? 
 
 The two Pauline passages confirm this suggestion. In neither 
 of them does the Apostle seem to have the solemn scene in Geth- 
 semane in his thoughts. In both the context breathes a spirit of 
 exaltation. Hence this combination occurring independently in 
 St Mark and in St Paul must be derived from a common source. 
 Now, if the Lord’s Prayer were current in the shorter form, what 
 more likely than that the initial word of the Prayer as used by the 
 Hebrew Christians should be coupled with the initial word of a 
 Hellenistic rendering—initial words which, like Pater noster, might 
 be used as a name for the Prayer itself? Further, if we substitute 
 in St Paul the two words which recall to us the Lord’s Prayer— 
 ‘God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, Our 
 Father, ‘Ye received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, 
 Our Father, the words of the Apostle at once gain, I venture to 
 think, new point and vigour. They are no longer abstract but 
 concrete. In discussing the next clause I shall give another 
 reason for thinking that the Lord’s Prayer was at this point in St 
 Paul’s mind. 
 
 It only remains to point out that in this case the word Abba 
 implies the shorter form as given by St Luke, and cannot be the 
 initial word of the longer form; for in a Semitic language the 
 possessive pronoun Our, if inserted, becomes part of the noun. 
 
Li, 
 
 “ArIACOFITU TO ONOMA COY, 
 
 €AOATW H BaciAela coy. 
 
 Ir will be convenient to consider these two clauses together. 
 In both of them there occurs a remarkable, though but slightly 
 attested, variation of reading. As these variations of reading are 
 cognate, and as the evidence in regard to the latter of the two 
 clauses is clearer, the consideration of this latter will prepare the 
 way for a discussion of the former clause. 
 
 In a cursive MS. of the Gospels, of which Mr. Hoskier has 
 published (1890) a full account, the text of which is very remark- 
 able, the opening clauses of the Lord’s Prayer in St Luke’s Gospel 
 run thus: qatep: ayiacOntw To dvoya cou: ’EGéTw TO Tredwa 
 cou TO aytov ép nuas Kal KaBapicatw nuas: yevnOnTw «.7.r. Mr. 
 Hoskier calls this MS. ‘Cod. Ev. 604’ (= 700 Gregory). 
 
 Of the petition for the coming of the kingdom Gregory of 
 Nyssa de Oratione Dominica (ed. Krabinger p. 60) writes thus: 
 Taxa Kabas nuiv vo Tov AovKd TO avTO vonua cadgéatepov 
 Epunvevetat, 6 Thy Bacirelav édOeiv akiav THY Tod aylov Tvev- 
 patos cumpaylay émiBoatar. oTw yup év éexeivw TO Eevayyerio 
 gynciv, avtt Tod ’EXOéTw 7 Bacirela cov, ’ENOETw, dyci, TO aytov 
 Tvedpa cov ep nuas Kal Kabapicdtw nuds. <A few lines lower 
 down he adds, 6 yap Aouxds pév tvetua ayiov A€yet, Mat@aios 
 
 1 Mr. Hoskier gives a photograph of the page of the MS. containing Le. xi. 1 f. 
 This important piece of evidence would have escaped my notice but for Dr Hort’s 
 kindness. 
 
26 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 d€ Baoielav wvopacev x.7.r. Krabinger’s note (p. 141) should 
 be consulted. He mentions a variant, To tvedpad cov TO ayiov, 10 
 the former passage, as having some support. 
 
 Maximus, a champion of the orthodox party against the Mono- 
 thelites in the first half of the seventh century, comments thus on 
 the clause (Migne P. G. 90 p. 884 f.): 6 yap évtai0a MarOaios 
 gyno Bacirelav, adrXaYod TaV EVayyeNaTa@V ETEPOS TED MA KEKAN- 
 Kev aytov, packwv ’"EXOéTw cov TO Treva TO aylov Kal Kabapi- 
 catw 7nuas: and lower down, ’EX@étw 7) Bacidela cov, Tovtécte 
 TO TVEdMA TO AyLoV, dn TO THS TpaoTnTos AOyw TE Kal TPOTTM 
 vaotroneiot TO Oe@ Sid TOU Trvevpatos. el Tiva yap pyot KaTa- 
 Tavow, GAN 7 él Tov mpaov x.T.r. It thus appears likely that 
 Maximus knew of the words é$’ 1)uds, but perhaps by accident did 
 not give them a place in the petition itself. 
 
 This evidence, so far as it goes, is clear to the effect that 
 a prayer for the Holy Spirit took the place of the petition for the 
 coming of the kingdom. 
 
 A passage, however, from Tertullian (adv. Mare. iv. 26), which 
 must next be considered, implies that that writer found at any 
 rate in the text used by Marcion (for otherwise his argument is 
 pointless), probably in the text common to himself and Marcion, 
 a petition for the Holy Spirit in the Lord’s Prayer. ‘Cui dicam, 
 Pater? ei qui me omnino non fecit, a quo originem non traho, 
 an ei qui me faciundo et instruendo generavit? A quo spiritum 
 sanctum postulem ? A quo mundialis spiritus praestatur, an a quo 
 fiunt etiam angeli spiritus, cujus et in primordio spiritus super 
 aquas ferebatur? Hjus regnum optabo venire quem nunquam 
 regem gloriae audivi, an in cujus manu etiam corda sunt regum ? 
 Quis dabit mihi panem quotidianum?’ Thus Tertullian, or pos- 
 sibly Marcion, is at one with Cod. 604, with Gregory and Maximus 
 in witnessing to a petition for the Holy Spirit in the Prayer 
 as given by St Luke; but it is substituted for the petition 
 ‘Hallowed be Thy name’,’ and the prayer for the coming of the 
 kingdom is retained. Moreover Tertullian gives no evidence as 
 
 1 Ronsch (Das Neue Test. Tert. p. 640) thinks that the words sanctificetur 
 nomen tuum may have had a place in the copy from which Tert. quotes, but that 
 he does not notice them because they give him no handle against his opponent. 
 But Tert. was too good a debater not to find a controversial use for whatever lay 
 before him. 
 
‘HALLOWED BE THY NAME. THY KINGDOM COME.’ 27 
 
 to the precise wording of the clause. But another passage in his 
 works (de Oratione 4) suggests perplexing questions as to his 
 collocation of the earlier clauses in the Prayer. He quite expressly 
 arranges the clauses thus, ‘Sanctificetur nomen tuum, Fiat 
 voluntas tua in coelis et in terra, Veniat regnum tuum’’” I do 
 not know that there is any other authority for this arrangement 
 of the petitions, and it is hard not to feel that, though Tertullian 
 is here quoting the fuller form of St Matthew's Gospel, this order 
 is connected with the reading which he records in the treatise 
 against Marcion. At first sight this evidence appears to point 
 to little more than a general unsettlement of the earlier petitions. 
 But further examination reveals, I think, an explanation which is at 
 least possible*. Tertullian lays some stress on the interpretation 
 (or, to anticipate, a possible relic of an addition to the text) ‘ut 
 sanctificetur in nobis. With the clause so interpreted he connects 
 the petition which in his text follows, and on which he gives a similar 
 gloss, ‘ut in nobis fiat voluntas Dei in terris.’ These two clauses 
 then Sanctificetur...and Fiat voluntas...as explained by Tertullian 
 on the one hand, and on the other the prayer for the Holy Spirit, 
 would come to be regarded as very closely allied. Hence the two 
 former petitions would replace the petition for the Holy Spirit. If 
 this interpretation of the evidence of the de Oratione is right, it 
 appears to favour the view that the clause about the Holy Spirit 
 had a place in the MSS. used both by Tertullian and by Marcion, 
 
 1 He expressly says (a) Sanctificetur...Secundum hane formam subjungimus: 
 Fiat...4. (b) Veniat quoque regnum tuum ad id pertinet, quo et Fiat voluntas 
 tua, in nobis scilicet...5. (c) Post coelestia, id est, post dei nomen, dei volunta- 
 tem et dei regnum...6. (d) Dei honor in Patre, fidei testimonium in nomine, 
 oblatio obsequii in voluntate, commemoratio spei in regno...9. 
 
 The Lord’s Prayer as a whole, when the detached clauses are brought to- 
 gether, stands thus in the de Oratione: ‘ Pater qui in coelis es, Sanctificetur nomen 
 tuum, Fiat voluntas tua in coelis et in terra, Veniat regnum tuum, Panem nostrum 
 quotidianum da nobis hodie, Dimitte nobis debita nostra...Ne nos inducas in 
 temptationem. Sed devehe nos a malo.’ The omitted clause is implied in the 
 comment, ‘remittere nos quoque profitemur debitoribus nostris.’ See below p. 58. 
 
 2 The explanation given by Nitzsch, Studien und Kritiken, 1830, 4 Heft, p. 
 846 ff. (quoted by Rénsch Das Neue Test. Tert. p. 599), is different. He supposes 
 that the collocation of clauses, to which Tertullian witnesses, arose for the purpose 
 of improving in the way partly of purifying, partly of amplifying, a text of St Luke 
 which Nitzsch represents thus: ‘Geheiligt werde dein Name. Zu uns komme 
 dein heil. Geist und reinige uns. Zu uns komme dein Reich.’ 
 
28 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 while it coincides with the evidence of the adversus Murcioneni as 
 to the position of the clause. 
 
 To sum up; we get evidence in favour of the insertion in the 
 Lord’s Prayer of a petition for the Holy Spirit from at least four 
 quarters, from a cursive MS. of the Gospels, from Gregory a Bishop 
 in Cappadocia (from whom perhaps Maximus borrowed his infor- 
 mation), from Tertullian of Carthage, from Marcion who seems to 
 have travelled much, and the sources of whose information it is 
 impossible to trace. But the witnesses do not agree as to the 
 position of the petition, substituting it either for ‘Thy kingdom 
 come’ or for ‘ Hallowed be Thy name.’ 
 
 To pass from the form to the occasion of this prayer, we shall 
 be able, I think, to trace it back, through the forms of invocation 
 connected with the Consecration of the Eucharist, the Anointing, 
 and the Imposition of hands, to the passages of the Acts which 
 speak of the Laying on of the Apostles’ hands. Indeed the archaic 
 simplicity of this added clause is best seen when it is compared with 
 the passages in the Acts, and when on the other hand it is con- 
 trasted with the formulas in use at a later time, which are, as I 
 believe, developments of it. 
 
 That such a prayer was in use in connexion with the Laying on 
 of hands is, I think, clear from the following passages, to which 
 others of similar import might be added*: Ordo Romanus (Hit- 
 torp de Divinis Cath. Ecclesiae Oficiis, 1568, p. 76) Pontifex 
 veniens ad infantes elevata et imposita manu super capita omnium, 
 dat orationem super eos cum invocatione septiformis gratiae Spiri- 
 tus Sancti. Then follows a prayer on which the prayer before the 
 imposition of hands in the English ‘Order of Confirmation’ is 
 based. Augustine de Trinitate xv. 26 (Migne P. L. 42 p. 1093) 
 Orabant [Apostoli] ut veniret in eos quibus manus imponebant, 
 non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis praepositis etlam nunc 
 servat ecclesia. Pseudo-Ambrose de Sacram. 11. 2 (Migne P. L. 
 16 p. 434) Post fontem superest ut perfectio fiat quando ad invo- 
 cationem sacerdotis Spiritus Sanctus infunditur. Constvt. A post. 
 vii. 44 éav yap py els Exactoy ToUTwY ETikAnoLs yévnTaL TO TOU 
 evacBods lepéws TovavTn Tus, eis Vdwp povoy KataBatver...weTa 
 
 1 Dr Mason The Relation of Confirmation to Baptism as taught by the Western 
 
 Fathers gives the fullest collection of passages; see especially the Appendix on 
 Ancient Western Baptismal Prayers. 
 
‘HALLOWED BE THY NAME. THY KINGDOM COME.’ 29 
 
 ToUTO éaTas TpotevyécOw THY evyny, HY édidakev nuds oO KUptos. 
 Dionysius Alex. (apud Eus. H. £. vii. 2) wararod yé tou Kexpatn- 
 KOTOS €Oous él TeV ToLOVTwWY pwovn ypnTOaL TH Sia yeLpav EeTrLOE- 
 aews evyn. Cyprian Ep. ad Jubaianwm Quod nunc quoque apud 
 nos geritur, ut qui in ecclesia baptizantur, praepositis ecclesiae 
 offerantur, et per nostram orationem ac manus impositionem Spiri- 
 tum Sanctum consequantur et signaculo dominico consummentur. 
 Tert. de Bapt. 8 Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem ad- 
 vocans et invitans Spiritum Sanctum. It will be noticed that most 
 of these quotations are from Fathers of the Latin Church, where the 
 Apostolic custom of the Laying on of hands maintained its place. 
 
 It is remarkable that the Greek offices for Baptism and 
 Anointing do not supply any close parallels". Yet there are the 
 prayers (1) for the sanctification of the water: avtds obv didav- 
 Opwre Bacired trapéco Kai viv Sia THs errupoitnoews TOU ayiou 
 cou TvEevpaTos Kal aylacov TO Vdwp TodTO: (2) for the sanctification 
 of the chrism: avros evAdynoov Kal TovUTO TO EXaLov TH Suvaper 
 kal évepyela Kai éripoiTncet TOV aylov cov mvevpatos (Assemani 
 Codex Liturgicus 11. pp. 136, 140). In the Latin services there are 
 more obvious resemblances. Thus: Tu, Domine, inmitte in eos 
 Spiritum Sanctum tuum Paracletum ; again, Emitte in eos Septi- 
 formem Spiritum tuum; and again, Spiritus Sanctus superveniat 
 in vos, et virtus Altissimi sine peccato custodiat vos (Assemani 
 Cod. Int. iii. pp. 2, 3, 5). It is however in the Eucharistic offices 
 that we trace most clearly the expansion of the Apostolic prayer. 
 Thus, compare Lit. St James (Hammond p. 38, Swainson p. 260) 
 avtixatatepryov nuiv thy yapw [add xal tv Swpeadv, Swainson] 
 Tov tavayiov cov mvevpatos. Kal [vai, Swainson] o Oeds éni- 
 Brerov éf’ nuds «.7.r. Lit. of Constantinople (Hammond p. 90, 
 Swainson p. 109) Bacired ovpave, TapaxdyTe, TO TvEedpa THs 
 anrnOeias...... EXOE Kal cxnvwcoy év Huiv, Kal KaOapioov nuas ato 
 Taons KnrLOos, Kal cdaor, ayabe, Tas Wuyas nuov. The probable 
 lateness of this Liturgy does not affect the importance of the 
 coincidence with both parts of the petition in Cod. 604. 
 
 Similar forms are frequent in the ewixAnors, e.g. Lit. St James 
 (Hammond p. 42 f., Swainson p. 276 f.) €Earcote:ov df’ Huds Kal 
 
 1 On a passage from Acta Thomae see note A, p. 36; on some Syrian Baptismal 
 Prayers see note B, p. 37. 
 
30 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 éml Ta mpoxetpeva ayva Sdpa Tadta TO TvEedwa Gov TO TaVvayLoV TO 
 Kuptov Kal Cworro.ov...... avTO TO TVEDUa TOU TO Travaylov KaTa- 
 mepwov, déaTroTa, ep nuas Kal él Ta TpoKeipeva Ayia Spa TadTa 
 iva éruportioav TH ayia Kal ayaby Kal évddEw avtod mapovaia 
 dytaon «.t.X. Similar formulas will be found in Hammond pp. 28, 
 48, 104, 111, 114, 178, 187. 
 
 The occurrence of a similar form in the Mozarabic Liturgy 
 (Hammond p. 311, Veni Sancte Spiritus, sanctificator, sanctifica 
 hoc sacrificium de manibus meis tibi praeparatum), and of one very 
 parallel in the Gallican Liturgy (Hammond p. 315), seems to prove 
 the antiquity of this prayer for the Spirit in the Eucharistic office 
 (cf. the 2nd Pfaffian frag. of Irenaeus, Harvey ii. p. 502). Cyril of 
 Jerusalem (Migne P. G. 33 p. 1089), closely connecting the ézi- 
 xAnows in the Eucharist with that in the rite of Anointing, shews 
 how easily a prayer originally used in the rite of ‘Confirmation’ 
 might pass into the Liturgy proper. 
 
 The following passages must be compared : 
 
 Ep. Clem. 46 7) ovyl éva Oeov Eyopev xal Eva Xpiotov Kai ev 
 Tvebpa THS xapitos TO éxyvOev ep” Huds; Kal pla KAHows ev 
 Xpict@; See also c. 2. 
 
 Barn. 1. Brérw év vyiv exxeyupévov ato TOU tTAoVaioU THS 
 ayarns Kkupiou mvedwa éf vas. The words éf’ vas after év 
 viv imply an allusion to a familiar phrase. They seem to slip in 
 with the word mrvevpa. 
 
 Matt. iii. 16 awvedua Oeod...épyouevov ém’ avtov (comp. Mc. i. 
 10, hevine22) Jn. 1-33 ie23.935; iv_ 1s): 
 
 Acts viii. 15 mpoonvEavto tepi avtév bras AaBwow Tredpa 
 diytov’ ovdéra yap nv én’ ovdevi avTav EriTETTTMKOS...... TOTE €Te- 
 tidecav Tas yetpas em’ avtovs Kal éhapBavov Trebpa ayLov. 
 
 Acts x. 44 émémecev TO Tvedpa TO Aylovy emt Tavtas Tovs 
 aKovoVvTas TOV AOYoV. 
 
 Acts xv. Sf. Ged éuaptupnoev avtois Sods TO TvEdwa TO ayLoV 
 caboas Kal npiv......77 Tiotes KaBapicas tas Kapdias adtar. 
 Here the coincidence with both parts of the formula given by 
 Gregory will be noticed. 
 
 Acts xix. 6 «al émiOévtos avtois tod IlavXov yetpas 7rOev TO 
 TVvEedLa TO AyLov er’ avToUs. 
 
 1 Thess. iv. 8 éeaXeoev nuds oO Oeds...... €V AYLATLO...... TOV 
 
‘HALLOWED BE THY NAME. THY KINGDOM COME.’ 3l 
 
 Geov tov Siddvta to mvedpa avTod TO ayLov eis Uuas (comp. Ezek. 
 Xxxvll. 14 Sec rvedpa pov els Uuds Kal Enoec Oe). 
 
 Gal. iv. 6 é€aréoteirer 6 Geos TO TvEd"A TOU Viod aUTOD Els TAS 
 kapdlas nuav, Kpavov *ABBa o matnp. 
 
 Rom. vill. 15 é\aBete rvebpua viobecias, év & xpalopev "ABBA 
 6 TaTnp. 
 
 The probable connexion of the last two passages with the 
 Lord’s Prayer has been already pointed out, see above p. 23 f. 
 
 Titus 1. 5 wvevpatos ayiou ob ékéyeev ef? nuds Trovals. 
 
 1 Peter iv. 14 to rob Oeod mveiua ef’ twas avatraverat. 
 Compare Is. xi. 2 advaravetat én’ a’tov mvedpa Tod Oeov. The 
 change in order by which in the Epistle the words wvetpa 颒 
 vpas are brought together should be taken into account: comp. 
 Barn. 1, quoted above p. 30. 
 
 Compare also 1 Cor. ili. 16, 2 Cor. i. 22, Rom. viii. 9 ff., Eph. i. 
 132 Tim: 1 14: 
 
 We pass to the other clause, Hallowed be Thy name. In 
 St Luke xi. 2 Codex Bezae reads dy:acOtw dvoud cov ep nuas. 
 The corresponding Latin Version has, ‘super nos.’ There is no 
 other evidence that I know of to be derived from any MSS. 
 
 The petition thus read is a conflation of two types of phrases 
 found in the Prophets. On the one hand we compare Is. xxix. 23 
 Ov ewe ayidcovaor 76 dvowd pov, Ezek. xxxvi. 23 dyidow TO dvopd 
 pov To wéya: on the other Is. iv. 1 (cf. Jer. xiv. 9) 7d dvopa 76 
 cov KexrAnoOw éf judas (IN7Y---NIP, Ixili. 16, 19 od ydp ef 
 TATNP NUOV...0v KUpLE TaTHpP Nudv plcar Hwas, ar’ dpyns TO 
 dvoua cou ed nuds éoti... éyevoucba os TO aT ApXns, OTE OVK 
 HpEas nudv ovdé éxdnOn TO dvoud cov éf ruas. In the latter 
 passage the coincidence with three leading thoughts of the Lord’s 
 Prayer—Our Father, Thy name, deliver us—is remarkable. The 
 language of the Old Testament passed into the Synagocue 
 Prayers and into the Christian Liturgies. Thus in the Morning 
 
 - Service of a modern Jewish Prayer Book, we find the words, 
 
 say spa DiTaT pe +p way) wan wabp wos 
 
 and the following remarkable coincidence with the Lord’s Prayer, 
 
32 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 ... ppbya owns wap) yee wep Oy yawENN wap 
 : Daa yRetnS wpe 
 
 In the last passage the occurrence of the two prepositions 9 and 
 
 Y in parallel clauses should be noticed for a reason which will 
 appear later on’. Similar phrases are found in the Christian 
 Liturgies. Compare the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy (Hammond p. 22) 
 TO Ovom“a TOU ypLaTOU cov eTriKéxANTaL Ep nuas. A similar phrase 
 has a marked connexion with other clauses of the Lord’s Prayer in 
 the Embolismus of the Liturgy of St James (Hammond p. 48, 
 Swainson p. 307), dca 76 dvopa cov TO ttytov, TO emiKANOEV Erl THY 
 nweTEepaV TATELVWOLD. 
 
 Some passages in early Christian literature bear on this form 
 of the petition. 
 
 There is such a passage in Agathangelus’ history of the Con- 
 version of Armenia*, Agathangelus, the secretary of Tiridates 
 king of Armenia, relates at length the story how his master 
 was at first the persecutor and then the patron of Gregory 
 the apostle of Armenia in the first quarter of the fourth century. 
 Incidentally the book records the history of a body of religious 
 women who fled from Rome to rescue one of their number 
 Rhipsima from the foul designs of Diocletian. . They fly to 
 Armenia and there build a nunnery. The fame however of 
 the beauty of Rhipsima reaches Tiridates and he sends for her 
 to the palace. In the prayer which Agathangelus puts into 
 her mouth at this point of the history (c. 73 ed. Lagarde) there 
 occur the following words: 6 édakas Kai rwaidevoas Kal Sods 
 Tovs Noyous acu év TO TTOpaTL HuaV, iva év TovTots SurnOdpev 
 awOivat aro THS Tayidos ToD éyOpod, Kali eiadv 6Te TO dvoma 
 pou émikéexdntar ed vpds, Kab vueis eoTe vads THS OedTHTOs 
 pov, Kal adv bt TO dvoua pou ayiacerar [sic] év Tats Kapdiats 
 
 1 These extracts are taken from the Authorised Daily Prayer Book...Published 
 under the sanction of Chief Rabbi Dr Nathan Marcus Adler, 1890, pp. 60, 9; comp. 
 pp. 37, 45, 59, 61, 75. I cannot think that these clauses are modern. But I 
 have not traced the words in the different groups of the Jewish Prayer Books. The 
 intricacy of the subject may be seen from Dr Schiller-Szinessy’s article Mahzor in 
 the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 
 
 2 See detached note C on p. 38, 
 
‘HALLOWED BE THY NAME. THY KINGDOM COME.’ 33 
 
 Upav: Kat €dwkas doyov év TO oTOpaTL nuadv aitjncacBar Kal 
 Neyer ‘AytacOntw TO dvoid cov, viv TovTO aitovpeba Tapa cod. 
 iSov cuvnxOn AROS KaKav, wldvat TO Tavaylov dvoua cov éf’ 
 nas Kal TOV vaov TOD dvopaTos gov. El yap Kal nueis acbevets 
 Kal TaTrewval vrapyoper, TAnY avTos PvAakoy Tas wuyas nudy 
 amo THS axabdptou atimias, PiravOpwre aaTEp, 0 Eaaas ErenOeiv 
 nuty TOV Tetpacpov TovUTOV’ bos nuly vienvy TH on SuVdweEr. 7) 
 yap éotlv 7 vikn Kal viknoel TO TOV Ovoma. 
 
 There are, it will be seen, in this story two grounds for 
 suspicion. First, though Diocletian was in Rome more than once 
 in the early years of the fourth century, yet the representation 
 of him suggested by Agathangelus has every appearance of being 
 apocryphal. Secondly, a nunnery in Rome, well established by 
 the beginning of the fourth century, is a plain anachronism. 
 But the importance of the passage for our purpose is independent 
 of the question of date. In martyrologies the prayers of the 
 saints are always worth careful inspection from the point of view 
 of criticism, for there is always the probability that they may 
 contain relics of ancient formulas. In this case it is clear that 
 the prayer is based on liturgical forms’. It is to the setting 
 of the petition of the Lord’s Prayer that I would call attention. 
 
 In the Didaché we have a very early witness carrying back the 
 evidence to the confines of the Apostolic age. The form of 
 thanksgiving which is to be said after the reception of the 
 Eucharist (x. 1f) is the resultant of two converging forces, the 
 Prayers of the Synagogue and the Lord’s Prayer. The petitions 
 for daily bread and for deliverance from evil (or the evil one) 
 are paraphrased in the later part. The form begins thus, evya- 
 ploTtodmev col, TaTep aye’, UTép Tod aylou dVvom“aTos Gov, ov 
 KaTecKnvwcas év Tals Kapdiais nudv, Kal Urép THS yvdocews Kal 
 
 1 The liturgical character of the prayer becomes clear when we compare 
 e.g. (1) the Embolismus of the Liturgy of St James (Hammond p. 48), 6 «dus 
 Thy acbéveray Huwv...pdcat Nuds ard Tod movypod...rdons émnpelas kal uebodelas a’rod 
 dia 7d Ovoud, cou Td dyov, TO EmixhyOev eml Thy juerépay Tarelvwow, (2) the prayer 
 for the Emperor in the Lit. of St Mark (Hammond p. 172), dds a’r@, 6 Oeds, 
 vixas, elpnvika ppovety mpds Nuds, Kal mpos Td dvoud cov Td ay.ov. The word ¢giddv- 
 O@pwire is very common in the Liturgies. 
 
 2 The reading Pater sancte in some old Latin MSS. should be compared: 
 see p. 23. 
 
 ot 3 
 
34 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 mistews Kai abavacias, hs eyvwpicas juiv bia Inood tod matdos 
 cou’ col 9 Sofa els Tovs aidvas. 
 
 The latter part of this thanksgiving is substantially a repetition 
 of a formula used in an earlier passage (ix. 3), and should 
 be compared with the second and fourth of the Jewish ‘Eighteen 
 Benedictions. We may disregard it, for at most it vaguely corre- 
 sponds with the clauses about the Divine Kingdom and Will. 
 But the earlier portion clearly refers to a petition immediately 
 succeeding the opening words of the Prayer. At first sight the 
 word dvouatos is a stumbling block. Our first impression 
 is that it must have taken the place of an original wvevpartos. 
 To this latter word, side by side with cateoxnvwoas év tats 
 Kapdias nuav, many parallels at once suggest themselves, e.g. 
 Hermas Mand. iii. 1, v. 1, 2, x. 2, Sim. v. 6. 5, passages which 
 in their turn are based on James iv. 5. But against this 
 correction either of the text of the Didaché or of the Didachist’s 
 report of his original there are at least three objections. (a) The 
 correction is too obvious. Neither the Didachist himself nor 
 the copyists would be under any temptation to change an easy 
 word into a hard one. (b) The actual phrase is found in the 
 LXX., é€v XndrAW, od KaTETKHYWOCA (*F3t) TO Ovou“a pou éKEl 
 éumpoobev (Jer. vii. 12), tov tomov dv éEereEaunv KatacKknvacat 
 (12) 76 svoud pov éxet (Neh. i. 9). In Deut, xii, 11, xiv. 23, 
 xvi. 6, 11, xvi. 2 the translators represent py ny yw by 
 
 ériuxrnOnvat TO dvoya avtod éxet. In all these places the 
 reference is to the Sanctuary (see Dr Taylor The Teaching of 
 the Twelve Apostles p. 73f.). Compare also Ezek. xlili. 7 év ols 
 KaTacKknvwcn TO dvoma pov év pécw oixov ‘Iopand Tov aidva 
 (DY-jDUN "WN), Ps. Ixxiv. 8 é8eBnAwoav TO oKnvwpya Tod 
 Ovop“aTtos aou (OP-} 29). (c) The phrase as it stands in the 
 
 Didaché has remarkable points of contact with the passage in 
 Agathangelus—ro évoya pov érixéxAnTtas ed’ Vuds Kal vpeis éore 
 vaos HS OedTnTOS pov...... plavat TO Travayiov bvoua cov éd’ 
 nas Kal TOV vadv TOD dvopaTos gov. Compare Barn. 16 oiKxodo- 
 unOncerar Sé €ri TH Ovopate Kupiov. tpocéxeTe, va 6 vads TOD 
 xuplov évddkws oixodounOy. mas; pmabete. RAaBovtes THY afew 
 
“HALLOWED BE THY NAME. THY KINGDOM COME.’ 35 
 
 TOY auaptiav Kal éeAticavTes él TO dvopa éyevoueda KaLvoi, 
 mandw e€ apyns KTilouevot. 810 ev TO KaToLKNTHNplw Hudv adynOas 
 0 Oeos Katoxet év vyiv. In the last passage the reference is 
 clearly to Baptism (comp. Hermas Vis. iii. 3. 5)1. 
 
 Of the éd’ nas of Cod. D a faint trace’, I think, survives in 
 the gloss ‘in nobis,’ é€v 7uiv (compare 4, by, p. 32). Thus, 
 
 Tertullian de Oratione 111. Cum dicimus: Sanctificetur nomen 
 tuum, id petimus, ut sanctificetur an nobis, qui in illo sumus, 
 simul et in ceteris, quos adhuc gratia dei expectat, ut et huic 
 praecepto pareamus, orando pro omnibus, etiam pro inimicis 
 nostris. Ideoque suspensa enuntiatione non dicentes, Sanctificetur 
 in nobis, in omnibus dicimus. 
 
 Cyprian de Orat. Dominica. Sanctificetur nomen tuum. Non 
 quod optemus Deo ut sanctificetur orationibus nostris, sed quod 
 petamus ab eo ut nomen ejus sanctificetur im nobis. 
 
 Cyril Catech. Mystag. v. evyopeBa év nuiv ayracOjvat TO dvowa 
 Tov Oeod" ovx OTL Ex TOD py Elvar GryLov emt TO elvar EpyeTat’ 
 GN OTe év nyiv dryrov yiverat, ayralomévors Kal a&va Tov aytacpod 
 TOLOvG LY. 
 
 Such is the evidence as to this clause, so far as I have been 
 able to collect it. Dr Hort (Notes on Select Readings p. 60) 
 appears to accept Dr Sanday’s suggestion that the éf’ mwas 
 of Cod. D in the petition about the Divine Name ‘may be a trace 
 of éAGétTw TO Gytov mvetpa cov éd nuas x.t.r. The fresh 
 evidence however here discussed tends, I think, to shew that the 
 two clauses are separate, though very cognate, developments of 
 petitions in the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 The analogy of the petition for the Holy Spirit discussed 
 above and a study of the passages in the New Testament which 
 speak of the Divine Name in reference to Baptism suggest that 
 this 递 74s is connected with an adaptation of the Lord’s Prayer 
 for use at Baptism. The following passages should be compared : 
 
 Acts xxii. 16 Bamticat kal amddoveat Tas dwaptias cov ém- 
 KaNecapevos TO dvoma avTod. 
 
 1 The language in several passages in Hermas should be compared, e.g, eis riv 
 Baoirelay Tod Beotd ovdels eicededceTat, ef wh AdBor TO dvoua TOD viod avrov (Sim. ix. 
 
 12. 4, 8). 
 ? It is curious that the English version of the Lord’s Prayer in the Bishops’ 
 Book (1537) has Thy kingdom come unto us. 
 
 3—2 
 
36 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Jas. il. 7 ovx adroit Bracdnuotow TO Kadov dvowa TO ém- 
 KrnGev ef nuads; Compare the imagery of the Apocalypse (111. 
 12 f., xxii. 4), also Ep. Clem. 64. 
 
 2 Thess. i. 12 d7rws évd0EacO7 To dvopa Tod Kupiov nuav ‘Inood 
 év vpiv kal vuets ev avtd. The addition of év vpyiv is striking 
 when this passage is compared with Is. Ixvi. 5 va To dvoya Kvupiov 
 d0£ac G7. 
 
 The idea of the Baptismal formula (e/s To dvowa...) lies at the 
 root of these expressions. The Divine Name is invoked upon the 
 man who is baptized, and he is brought into union with the Name. 
 So he becomes a ‘sanctuary’ in which the Divine Name dwells, a 
 aKevos exXOYNS...TOD Bactacat TO dvowa (Acts ix. 15)? 
 
 A. NOoTE on Acta Thomae, c. 27 (Ed. Bonnet; see above p. 29). 
 
 I have to thank the Editor of this series for pointing out to me the 
 following passage in the Acta Thomae c. 27: AaBadv € 6 dmdcrodos €datov 
 kat katayéas emt ths Keadns avtav kai adeiyas Kal ypioas avtovs np~ato 
 héyeww "EXOE TO Gytov Gvoya Tov xpioTov TO Umép Tay Ovopa’ €AOE yf Svvayts 
 Tov UWiorou Kat 1 evomAayxvia 7 Tedeia* €AGE TO yapiopa TO UVWicToV" EAGE 
 7) wnTNp 7 evoTrAayxVoS...€AOE TO Gy.ov mvevpa Kal Kabapicov Tos vedpovrs avtav 
 kal thy kapdiav, kal emiappaywoov avrovs eis Gvona matpods Kal viod Kal dyiov 
 mvevpatos. We have here a Gnostic formula based on the Prayers of the 
 Church (see below n. 1). The following points are to be noticed: (a) the 
 prayer €AOé ro dywov mvetpa «.t.r. is here clearly seen to be connected 
 with the Chrism; (d) the prayer éA6é 1o Gyov ovopa x.r.A. confirms the 
 suggestion that the ep’ nuas of Cod. D is an addition to the Lord’s Prayer 
 closely parallel to the prayer for the Holy Spirit; (c) the prayer éAéé 7 
 dvvapis tov viorov (Le. i. 35) illustrates the Latin form quoted above 
 on p. 29. 
 
 The following passages of these Acts, clearly derived from formulas of the 
 Church, are worth notice as illustrating the petitions under discussion : 
 (a) Baptismal prayers: €dOérw cov 7 elpnm kal oxnvecdtw év avrois, draws 
 kabapicbaow amd tTav mpotépwy avtayv mpakewy (p. 35; comp. éemeis avrois 
 Thy xeipa etmev”Eota ed’ vpas 4 elpyyn Tov Kupiov, p. 48), €AOE Kat oxnvwoor ev 
 Trois Vdaot TovToLs, iva TO Xaptopa TOD aylov TvEevpaTos TeAEiws ev AUTOS TeELwWOH 
 (p. 37), wa...cai dé£opar kdyo odpayida cal yévopar vads aytos (p. 56), €Adérw 
 7 Svvapis cou’ idpuvéyra emt thv SovAnv cov Mvydoviay 4 édevbepia avrn 
 
 1 Compare the prominence of ‘ the Name’ in the strange Gnostic Baptismal rite, 
 in many points clearly a parody of the Church’s service, which Irenaeus (i. 14. 2) 
 describes, and especially the words, elpyvn macw, é¢' ods Td Gvoma TOTO Emavamaverat. 
 Compare note A on this page. 
 
‘HALLOWED BE THY NAME. THY KINGDOM COME.’ 37 
 
 eg > ‘ > - “ Dik , ’ ‘ ‘ -~ Ce 
 (p. 68), aylacov avrovs év TO o@ Ovopatt...rointoy avTovs vaovs Tov ayiou 
 , , > -~ « ‘ > - , > ’ - 
 gov mvevpatos (p. 81), eAberw, "Incov, 7 veknrixy avtov Suvapts, evdpvav rovTo 
 ‘4 , A ‘4 c ‘4 > > - > - > - , ‘ ° s 
 TO €Aaov...€AOerw 57 Kai 7 Swpea Se Hs rots €xOpois avrov eugvonoas eis tra 
 origw vmoxwpnoa éemoinoas...kai émidnunoat T@ €Aai@ Katagiwaov roiTw eis 
 & Kai TO Gov ayiov emipnpiterat dvoua (p. 82). The use of vaos in this 
 connexion (comp. pp. 56, 89 od ef 6 pnvicas pe cov dvopa...tva 6 vads cov 
 a&wos év porvopd py evpeOy) is to be compared with the words of Aga- 
 thangelus quoted above, p. 32. (b) A Luchuristic prayer: "Incotd Xproré... 
 idov KaTaToApapev THs evxapiotias Kul emiKAnoEws TOU aylov gou OvopaTos... 
 edde ra omAayxva Ta Tédeta...eAOe 9 TA amoxpupa exaivovea Kat Ta amoppyta 
 gavepa xabiotaoa, 7 iepa mepiorepa 9 Tovs Sidvpous veoraods yevvdca, ede 
 1) amroxpupos pytnp...€rOe kat Kowavnoov nuiv ev TavtTn TH evxXapLoTia HY ToLodpev 
 €mt T@ ovopati gov x«.t.A. The Gnostic character of this passage is clear, 
 as is also the fact that it is a parody of the Church’s Eucharistic émi- 
 kAnats. 
 
 B. NOTE ON SOME SYRIAN BAPTISMAL PRAYERS (see p. 29). 
 
 I append some prayers from the Latin translation of a Syriac Book of 
 Baptismal Offices: ‘D. Severi Alexandrini quondam Patriarchae de ritibus 
 baptismi...liber...Guidone Fabricio Boderiano Exscriptore et Interprete, 
 Antverpiae...1572’ (see Resch Agrapha pp. 361 ff). The date of the Book in 
 its present form must be late ; for in what is substantially the ‘ Constantino- 
 politan’ Creed the words e¢ a Filio procedit occur. In the title there is 
 probably a confusion with Severus Patriarch of Antioch early in the sixth 
 century (Resch p. 372). The prayers to which I wish to call attention are 
 these : . 
 
 (1) p. 63. ‘Velis igitur Domine super eos immittere tuum illum 
 Spiritum Sanctum; et inhabita et scrutare omnium eorum membra; ac 
 praepurga et sanctifica eos, O Trinitas, ita ut adaequentur sanctae unctioni...’ 
 
 (2) p. 65. ‘Pater Sancte, qui per manus Apostolorum sanctorum dedisti 
 Spiritum Sanctum tuum illis qui baptizabantur: Nunc autem cum etiam 
 in umbra manuum mearum familiarem te exhibeas, mitte Spiritum Sanctum 
 super eos qui baptizandi sunt, et cum repleti fuerint illo, afferant tibi 
 fructum trigesimum...’ 
 
 (3) p. 13. £O qui super unicum Filium tuum Deum verbum, dum 
 in terra baptismi ordinationem faceret, Sanctum illum Spiritum tuum misisti 
 in specie columbae, qui Jordanides undas sanctificavit; nunc etiam, Domine 
 mi, velis ut Spiritus ille Sanctus tuus hosce servos tuos qui baptizantur 
 operiat, eosque perfice ac domos Christi tui eos constitue, expurgans eos 
 sancto lavacro tuo.’ 
 
 (4) p. 92. ‘Immitte super eos illius spiritus tui vivificantis gratiam, et 
 eos imple ipsius sanctitate.’ 
 
 In referring to the Latin forms (see above p. 30) I omitted to notice 
 
38 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 that through these we may trace back to the apparently apostolic formula 
 €Oérw To Gyov mvedpa, x.7.A., the great Pentecostal hymns of the Western 
 Church: Vent, superne Spiritus; Vent, Creator Spiritus (Newman Hymni 
 Ecclesiae pp. 91, 94). From the same source are probably derived the words 
 of the Collect (familiar to us in its English dress): Purifica per infusionem 
 Sancti Spiritus cogitationes cordis nostri. 
 
 C. Note ON AGATHANGELUS (see above p. 32). 
 
 For the reference to Agathangelus I am indebted to Resch Agrupha pp. 
 443, 450. It is edited by Lagarde ‘aus dem fiinfunddreissigsten Bande der 
 Abhandlungen der kéniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen,’ 
 1887. I gather into a note some points of interest. (1) Lagarde bases his 
 opinion (a) that the Greek is a translation, on the barbarous character of the 
 language; (b) that it is a translation from an Armenian original, on an 
 investigation of the quotations from the New Testament (pp. 134, 129 ff.). 
 Some passages of the New Testament are taken, Lagarde allows, from the 
 original Greek. This he says would be natural; the translator would know 
 the Greek of passages occurring frequently in the worship of the Church at 
 Byzantium (p. 134). The following points however are worthy of note, 
 (a) the translator knew the Greek of 2 Peter; for he speaks (c. 32) of the 
 Prophets of cai éyévovro gworhpes €v TS avxpnpe tomm (2 Pet. i. 19); (b) a 
 paronomasia occurs (c. 75) which could not be a translation, ei d€ padcora, 
 ‘Pirin, Kata TO dvoua cou adnOas e€eppipns «.t.A.: the words of course may be 
 an interpolation of the translator; (c) the translator was apparently acquainted 
 with the Martyrdom of Polycarp in Greek, for, besides the passage given by 
 Resch p. 281, compare c. 75 kai éyévero opodporarn Bpovrn dare expoBeiac ba 
 Tov dxAov. Kal jKovaav pavas Aeyovons mpos avras *Avdpiterbe Kal Oapceire 
 with Mart. Polyc. 1x. (2) As to the clauses of the Prayer other than that 
 about the hallowing of the Divine Name: (a) to the words quoted above 
 (p. 32) ao rs mayidos tov éxOpov, add c. 62 iva vwknowpev ras Sodias kat 
 dewas tov exOpov mayidas, kai Td dvoud gov, S€éorora, So€acb7 k.t.d., Cc. 87 6 Se 
 movnpos aa TH ouvepy@ avrov, ws mavtore, kat viv evtpannoera: (b) note the 
 gloss (quoted p. 33) 6 éaoas ered Oetv x.r.A.; comp. p. 68. (3) There is an account 
 of Gregory’s consecration as Bishop by Leontius at Caesarea (c. 139) ro de 
 Gyiov evayyéeAtov Kata THs Kepadijs avTov Kovpicarres eméOnxav Tas xeipas K.TA. 
 (4) In the account of the baptism of the king, &c., there is a reminiscence of 
 the fire kindled in the Jordan at our Lord’s baptism : das epodporarov aver 
 xaé’ Opoiwpa atvAov horoedois Earn emt Trav vdaTwy Tov Torayuod, évOa €Banri- 
 ¢ovro. (5) In Rhipsima’s prayer quoted above (p. 32 f.), with vads ris 
 Oeornros MOV...++ Tov vaov Tov dvopatos gov, compare the Syrian Baptismal 
 rite of Severus (see above p. 37) ‘domos Christi tui eos constitue.’ I cannot 
 help thinking that Agathangelus would well repay more careful examination 
 by some competent liturgical scholar. 
 
Ill. 
 
 TENHOHTW TO BEAHMA COY, 
 @C €N OYPAN® Kal €tl rac (Sr Matr#ew). 
 
 THREE points here demand notice. (1) There are clear remi- 
 niscences of the petition in the N. T.: Matt. xxvi. 42 yevn@yjTw@ 70 
 OérAnpwa cov (comp. v. 39, Mc. xiv. 36), Le. xxii. 42 wAnv py TO 
 OérAnwa pov adda 70 cov yivécOw (the reading yevéoOw has very 
 slight attestation), Acts xxi. 14 tod xupiov To Oédnwa yivéoOw 
 (where there is some slight authority for yevéoOw); comp. Mart. 
 Polyc. vii. ro OéXnpa Tod Oeod yevéo Ow (Eus, H. E.iv. 15 yivéo Ow). 
 Comp. Matt. vii. 21, xii. 50, xvill. 14, Me. iii. 35. The variation 
 in these passages (yevnOntw, yevécOw, yivécOw) is easily accounted 
 for if we assume an Aramaic original’, which would be inde- 
 terminate in regard to tense. The Vulgate Syriac has Joou in 
 Matt. vi. 10, xxvi. 42, Le. xxii. 42, Acts xxi. 147. 
 
 (2) The Old Syriac has prlrds OOTLIO (and-let-there-he 
 thy-wills)*, The plural ra @eAjpara is used of the divine will 
 in. Ps, xv.,6, cu. 7, cx. 2, Is. xliv. 28 (quoted im. Acts xi. 22). 
 In the N. T. in Me. iii. 35 Os av roman ro OéXnpa Tov Oeod 
 (Matt. xii. 50 rod matpos wou Tod ev ovpavois), obTos adeNPos K.T.A. 
 
 Cod. B, supported by a quotation given by Epiphanius (Haer. 
 
 1 The Syriac Versions may be taken to represent approximately the original 
 Aramaic form of our Lord’s sayings. ‘Although Josephus says that the Jews 
 could understand the Syrians, the Jewish Aramaic was nevertheless a distinct 
 dialect in some respects, as may be seen from the words Aaua (Matt. xxvii. 46, in 
 Syriac lemana), Boavepyés (Mc. iii. 17, in Syriac bene ra’ma)’: Neubauer in 
 Studia Biblica i. p. 53. In the case of the Lord’s Prayer, which in the earliest 
 Syriac Version is the result not so much of later translation as of continuous 
 tradition reaching back to the earliest Apostolic times, probably the form given 
 in this Version is practically identical with the Aramaic original, 
 
 2 We may compare the phrase which forms a very common beginning of Jewish 
 prayers, e.g. The Authorised Prayer Book p. 69 
 
 pyoway y°as yEoN pT A 
 But the Hebrew N. T. of Delitzsch and that of Salkinson-Ginsburg both have my? 
 In this connexion a passive voice of MWY seems less natural than the Qal ; the 
 latter occurs e.g. in the Rabbinic saying (Pirge Aboth v. 30) 
 rDoway Tar pyr meyd.me mn 
 3 -In Le. xxii. 42 it has the singular. 
 
40 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 xxx. 14) from an Ebionite Gospel, has td @eAnwara. Again, in 
 Matt. vii. 21 6 owdv TO OédXnpa Tod TaTpos pou TOU EV Tots 
 ovpavois Cod. 8 has ta OeAjpara. In Eph. ii. 3, the only other 
 passage of the N. T. where the plural occurs, it seems to point to 
 the manifoldness of unsatisfied lust (comp. Is. lviii. 3, 15, Jer. xxiii. 
 26). There appears to be no other authority for this reading in 
 the Lord’s Prayer’. 
 
 (3) Bengel in his note on the petition quotes the following 
 words from the Catechismus Romanus put forth by the Council of 
 Trent’: ‘Pastoris erunt partes monere fidelem populum verba illa 
 Sicut in coelo et in terra ad singulas referri posse singularum 
 (trium) primarum postulationum, ut, Sanctificetur nomen tuum, 
 sicut in coelo et in terra. Item Adveniat regnum tuum, sicut in 
 coelo et in terra. Similiter Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo et in 
 terra.” For this interpretation, which is thus enjoined upon her 
 teachers by the Church of Rome, there is much to be said. 
 
 For in the first place this interpretation harmonises both with 
 the twofold division of the petitions of the Prayer and with the 
 invocation with which it opens: God is our Father, the Father of 
 His sons on earth; He is in Heaven. It is natural that this 
 thought should exercise a continuous influence on the petitions 
 which immediately follow, rather than that it should at once 
 fall into the background to reappear at a later point of the 
 Prayer. In the second place, if this connexion of the petitions in 
 the Prayer as given by St Matthew was recognised in early times, 
 we have an explanation why the additions made for the purpose 
 of adaptation, ie. the prayer for the Holy Spirit and the 颒 
 nas of Codex Bezae, attach themselves to the Prayer as given by 
 St Luke, where the words ws év ovpaveé xal éri yjs do not occur. 
 
 Further confirmation is derived from a consideration of the 
 several clauses. (a) Little need be said of the petition to which 
 the words as in heaven so on earth are immediately joined. We 
 should however compare Ps. cxxxiv. 6 (wavra Oca 7O0édAnoev 
 emolnaev 0 KUplos €v TS OVpav@ Kat é€v TH yn) and 1 Macc. ili. 60 
 
 1 The reading of the Old Syriac (plural verb and noun) is reproduced, as Prof. 
 Bensly has kindly pointed out to me, in the Syriac dcts of Judas Thomas (ed. 
 Wright, vol. i. p. “Ei vol. ii, p. 279, Eng. Tr.). 
 
 2S ParsirvnCs Ke Qe Als 
 
‘THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO ON EARTH.’ 41 
 
 (os & dv # OéAnpa év ovpavd ottw Toujoe). (b) No less 
 naturally do the words connect themselves with the petition 
 Thy kingdom come’. Compare 1 Chron, xxix. 11 ob mavtwv tap 
 év TO ovpave kal ert THs yHs Seorobers. The thought conveyed 
 by this connexion is indeed implied in all the very numerous 
 passages which speak of the coming of the kingdom of Heaven 
 or of God, e.g. Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14, Matt. 11. 2, xvi. 28, Le. xi. 20, 
 xvii. 20, xxi. 31, Apoc. xi. 15. It harmonises with what is at 
 least a probable reading of the Angelic song which prefaces the 
 history of our Lord’s life in St Luke’s Gospel (ii. 14) d0&a év 
 Uricros Oe@ Kal eri yys*, and with the words of our Lord which 
 close St Matthew’s Gospel (xxviii. 18) €606n pot aca é£oucia 
 év ovpave Kal eri [THs] yjs. If it be objected that this arrange- 
 ment of the clauses introduces the idea of the coming of the 
 kingdom of God in Heaven, it is sufficient to reply that such 
 an objection overlooks a common idiom: the coming of the kingdom 
 on earth answers to its existence in heaven. Further, we may coin- 
 pare Col. i. 20 (dwoxatadnakar Ta mavra eis avtov...eite Ta él THs 
 ys elite Ta ev Tots ovpavois), Eph. 1. 10, ili. 15. (c) The sequence 
 Hallowed be Thy name, as in heaven, so on earth presents no difi- 
 culty and commends itself by its intrinsic fitness. Compare Ps. 
 Vill. 2 Kupee 6 xvpsos nudv, os Oavpactov TO dvoua cou év Tracy 
 TH yn OTe ernpOn  pweyadotpeTria cov UTEpavw THY ovpavav. In 
 the Authorised Daily Prayer Book I find (p. 45, comp. p. 37) the 
 prayer: 
 
 : DD ‘awa ins DwspRy o> dvips Joerns wap) 
 This formula, part of the wD, is probably of ancient origin’. 
 
 1 Compare Cyprian de Oratione Dominica, Bene autem regnum Dei petimus, id 
 est, regnum caeleste, quia est et terrestre regnum. 
 
 2 Dr Hort Introduction, Notes on Select Readings p. 56. 
 
 3 When év rots ovpavots of the first clause of the Prayer is compared with 
 év ovpay@, we notice a double contrast. (1) In the second case the article is 
 wanting. Its absence emphasises character—heaven as compared with earth 
 (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2). (2) The plural is used in the first, the singular in the later 
 clause, In the N. T. the plural (o’pavoi) expresses the idea of majesty through the 
 notion of vastness, e.g. Phil. iii. 20, Hebr. vii. 26, viii. 1, xii. 23, 25. Note 
 especially Eph. iv. 10 (ravrwv trav ovpavdy), Hebr. iv. 14, vii. 26. The singular is 
 commonly used when heaven as one place is contrasted with earth, e.g. Matt. xi. 
 25, xxviii. 18, 1 Cor. viii. 5, Jas, v. 12; yet see Matt. xvi. 19, Eph. i. 10, iii. 15. 
 
TW: 
 
 TON APTON HM@N TON €TTIOYCION 
 Adc HMIN CHMepPON (Sr MarTHEW). 
 
 TON APTON HMODN TON €ETTLOYCION 
 AiMoy HMIN TO KA® HMeEPAN (St Luge). 
 
 THERE are two points here in which the two Gospels differ, 
 (1) 80s, Séd0v, (2) onuepov, TO Kal” nuépav. Both of these 
 variations demand a brief notice before we enter upon (8) the dis- 
 cussion of the main problem suggested by this clause. 
 
 (1) The Old and the Vulgate Syriac versions have in both 
 Gospels 2m. This word, like the Hebrew A (73h), is inde- 
 terminate in regard to tense. If the Prayer then was originally 
 in Aramaic, the original for ‘give’ could be represented in Greek 
 equally well by the aorist and by the present imperative. 60s 
 would naturally be used in the Greek form in which onpepov had 
 a place, Sov as naturally in the form in which 70 xaé” nwépav 
 occurred}. 
 
 (2) But what of the variations onpepov, To Kab nuépav? 
 Mr T. E. Page (Ezpositor, Third Series, vol. vii. p. 436), arguing 
 from the use in both Gospels of the solecism émzovavos that ‘the 
 tradition—whether written or oral—which the writers employed 
 was, as regards these particular words, expressed in Greek,’ goes on 
 to say, ‘the phrase to xa” jwépav occurs only three times in the 
 
 1 Compare the following variations: (1) Matt. v. 42 (56s) || Le. vi. 30 (didov), 
 (2) Matt. xiv. 19 (2dwxev) || Mc. vi. 41, Le. ix. 16 (€dtdov), Jn. vi. 11 (dcédwxev), 
 (3) Matt, xxiv. 45 (Sodva:), Le, xii. 42 (Gcddvar), (4) Matt. xxvii. 34 (@5wxav), Me. xv. 
 23 (€didovr). 
 
‘GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD. 43 
 
 New Testament, namely here and Luke xix. 47, Acts xvi. 11"; so 
 that it is certainly Luke’s own (dcht Lukanisch, Weiss), and 
 therefore the onpepov of Matthew is much more likely to be 
 original.’ There are strong reasons for thinking that the Prayer 
 existed originally in an Aramaic form, and I hope presently to 
 dispose of the argument which Mr Page founds on the use of 
 é€rtovotos. Further, assuming that of-the-day was the original 
 word in this clause, there is much probability in the assumption 
 that day-by-day was a primitive variation (see below p. 45). Even 
 in this case however Mr Page’s question only takes a new form. 
 Does not the fact, he might ask, that the phrase To caf’ nyépav 
 is peculiar to St Luke among the writers of the New Testament 
 go far to shew that St Luke, instead of simply incorporating 
 in his Gospel a form of the Lord’s Prayer current among the 
 Hellenistic Disciples, interweaves into that current form phrases 
 of his own? An answer to this important question is supplied 
 by the fact that 76 xa’ rjuépay, in itself a classical phrase (e.g. 
 Aristoph. Zq. 1126), may also be regarded as a shortened form of a 
 somewhat clumsy phrase of the LXX.; a phrase which, occurring in 
 the account of the giving of the Manna, would very naturally be 
 used by the Hellenists in their translation of the Lord’s Prayer, but 
 which at the same time in its full form was unfit for liturgical 
 use?. The presence then of this phrase in St Luke becomes to 
 
 1 In the latter passage, it should be noticed, there is considerable authority 
 (including SADE, 13 61) for the omission of 76. For xaé’ quépay see Matt. xxvi. 55, 
 Me. xiv. 49, Le. ix. 23, xxii. 53, Acts ii. 46 (xa0’ qudpay re mpookaprepotryres Ououma- 
 ddv év TQ iep@, KAGvTés Te KaT’ Olkov dpTov, weTEAGUBavoy TpoPys K.T.d.), ii. 47, ili. 2, 
 (xvii. 17), xix. 9, 1 Cor. xv. 31, 2 Cor. xi. 28, Hebr. vii. 27, x. 11. 
 
 2 Ex. xvi. 5 6 day cuvaydywou 70 Kad? nuépay els nuépay= py Oo} yopd» WR. 
 Comp. ver. 4 7d ras udpas els hudpav (1 Chron, xvi. 37)=302 OVI, This last 
 Hebrew phrase occurs in Ex. y. 13 (Lxx. ra épya Ta KadjKovra Kab’ nuépav), v. 
 19 (ro KaOjKov TH tuépg), Lev. xxiii. 37, 1 Kings viii. 59, 2 Kings xxv. 30 (Adyor 
 hudpas é€v 7H Tuépg avrod), Ezra iii. 4, Jer. lii. 34 (Lxx. €& Quépas els quépav), Dan. i. 
 5 (Theodot. 7d rs juépas xad’ puépav); comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 37, 2 Chron. viii. 13, 
 14,ix.24. ‘The occurrence of several allusions (Ps. Ixxviii. 24; ev. 40; Nehem. ix. 
 15; Sap. Sol. xvi. 20; &c.) to the corn, or bread, of heaven makes it sufficiently 
 probable a priori that the Lord’s Prayer also should have some reference to the 
 giving of the manna’ (Dr Taylor Sayings p. 139). Compare John vi. 32, 1 Cor. x. 
 3. In the Authorised Daily P. B. (p. 92), the ‘section of the manna’ (jf Nw 5), 
 i.e. Ex. xvi. 4—36, has a place in the Morning Service by the side of Gen. xxii, 
 1—19. 
 
44 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 some extent an indication that he preserved a form of the Lord’s 
 Prayer which was in actual use in the worship of the Disciples. 
 
 (3) From these easier questions I turn at once to the difficult 
 problem which the clause suggests, viz., the meaning and the 
 origin of the word ézruovatos. 
 
 If we could put ourselves in the position of one reading this 
 clause for the first time, after our first sense of bewilderment 
 at the appearance of a stranger unknown heretofore in Greek, we 
 should be impressed with the fact that this stranger has a 
 unique function in the Prayer. There is no other epithet in the 
 Prayer, for the phrase 6 év tots ovpavots can hardly be said 
 to fall under this category. The language of each clause is 
 characterised by the brevity of severe simplicity. Further, this 
 unique function does not seem to justify itself as necessary or 
 useful. If ésvovctos is to be connected, as it seems certain it 
 must be, with 7 ézotca', and to be taken to mean of the coming 
 day, the word is exposed to the charge of introducing tautology 
 into the Prayer as well as of being alien to its simplicity of 
 language. This becomes clear at once if the translation is given 
 in a literal and bald form ‘Give us to-day (day-by-day) our bread 
 of the coming day. This poverty of meaning has been used as a 
 powerful argument in favour of what I venture to consider an 
 impossible mystical interpretation of the word. ‘Is it conceivable,’ 
 Mr M°Clellan asks (New Testament p. 645), ‘that in this inimitably 
 concise and sublime prayer there could have been perpetrated so 
 
 1 Bp Lightfoot’s conclusion as to the meaning of émio’aos (On a Fresh Re- 
 vision, Appendix), it will be seen, I absolutely accept, though it is only fair to 
 add that I venture to interpret some of the evidence on which he bases it in a 
 different way. I am indebted to that Appendix for a large part of the material 
 I have used in the investigation which follows. On the other hand Mr M°Clellan 
 (New Testament p. 632 ff.) argues fervently for the meaning future. His con- 
 clusion may be stated in his own words (p. 646), ‘As the food given for nourishing 
 a life which shall be perfected and enduring in the future world, it is émovcros, WN, 
 crastinus, that is, ofxetos rod émidvros or pédXovTos alwvos, “proper to the world to 
 come.”’ The italics are his. The statement of this view is, it seems to me, 
 its best refutation. If so many layers of meaning,—future, i.e. pertaining to the 
 future world, i.e. spiritual food in the present in preparation for the future,— 
 could be wrapped up in one single word, human language could not bear the 
 strain. 
 
‘GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.’ 45 
 
 diffuse and mean a tautology as this, “Our bread which is daily 
 give us daily?” I admit the cogency of the reasoning so vigorously 
 expressed, but I think it points to a conclusion different from that 
 which the writer maintains. 
 
 I hazard then the conjecture, as a working hypothesis, that the 
 original form of the clause might be represented thus in Syriac: 
 
 —> on fea, 
 
 to-us give of-the-day our-bread 
 
 This Syriac form is based on the Old Syriac Version which 
 reproduces, we can hardly doubt, the original Aramaic (see above 
 p. 39 n.). Looking at Luke xi. 3 in the same version we may 
 further suppose that there were from the first two variations. 
 The-bread ( (Sas) was current as well as our-bread, of-every- 
 day (S0Q2\29) as well as of-the-day’. 
 
 We have already seen how the two clauses Hallowed be thy 
 name, Thy kingdom come were in all probability adapted for 
 liturgical use. These adaptations, being only needed for special 
 occasions, have left but slight traces behind. The word ésovctos 
 is, I believe, a similar adaptation, but, being in daily use among 
 the Greek-speaking Christians of the earliest days, it has won for 
 itself a permanent place in the Prayer. 
 
 There seems to be evidence that considerable. latitude was 
 allowed as to the insertion in the Synagogue prayers of petitions 
 suitable to the season or the day*. At least equal freedom would 
 be claimed in the assemblies of ‘the Brethren.’ Thus it is no 
 
 1 Compare the prayer (Berakoth 60 b) ‘And give me over this day and every day 
 (ov $53) Dvn) to grace &c.’ (Dr Taylor Sayings &e. p. 142). Comp, Acts vi. 1 & 
 TH dvaxovia Ty KaOnuepwy (Syr. Soar), Hieron. cotidiano: comp. the Old 
 Syr. of Le. xi. 3 and the Old Latin of the Lord’s Prayer). The diaxovia of the 
 Father in Heaven must be reflected in the dvaxovia of the Church on earth. We 
 may perhaps suppose that St Luke’s record of the custom of the Church is 
 shaped by a remembrance of the Prayer. As to the custom itself, it may well 
 have been connected with the Synagogue system of ‘the Brethren’ (see p. 6), 
 and, if so, with the petition of the chief Prayer. Comp. Chrys. (viii. p. 257) rod 
 dprov Tov émiovaiov, Tovréort, Too KaOnuepwod. Cf. Judith xii. 15 rhv xaOnuepwiy 
 Ola:ray. 
 
 2 See above p. 14. For the prayers used in the morning and the evening 
 recitation of the Shema see Vitringa de Synagoga Vetere p. 1054; for the original 
 form of these see Zunz Die Gottesd. Vortriige p. 369. 
 
46 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 violently improbable hypothesis if we suppose that when the Lord’s 
 Prayer was used in the morning or in the evening Prayers’ of the 
 Hebrew ‘Brethren’ and of the Hellenistic ‘Brethren,’ at first at 
 Jerusalem and later in Northern Syria, it became customary to 
 adapt the one clause which speaks of time to the particular hour 
 of prayer. 
 
 Among the Hebrew and Syrian Christians the phrase as it 
 stood, Our-bread of-the-day, would be appropriate for the morning 
 Prayer. Of this form, as one very familiar to them, Ephrem 
 reminds his readers (see below p. 49 f.). When however the 
 Prayer was used in the evening, a slight adaptation would be 
 necessary; and such an adaptation we actually find in the word 
 Mahar (Syr. ;»S0), which Jerome quotes from ‘the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews’ (see below p. 52)’. 
 
 The case of the Hellenistic ‘Brethren’ was different. Here 
 there was need of translation. And the requirements both of 
 translation and of adaptation were satisfied when, 7 éwvodca being 
 adopted in place of [Soa., the word ézovavos was coined to repre- 
 sent [S9a43. This rendering would have a double advantage. It 
 would be appropriate when the Prayer was used in the morning— 
 our bread for the coming day: it would be equally appropriate 
 in the evening®. Thus the petition would assume this form—rov 
 dprov nav Tov értovovov Sos juiv. It is at least possible that the 
 
 1 Comp. Didaché viii. 3 (rpis rijs Huépas otrw mpocedxecbe). The writer through- 
 out is giving rules for public, not private, devotion. 
 
 2 A trace of this adaptation of the petition for evening use seems to survive in 
 the Memphitic Version (Matt.) Our bread of to-morrow give it to us to-day. On 
 which Version two remarks: (a) I take this as an example of a version pre- 
 serving a clause of the Lord’s Prayer as it was brought by the earliest converts 
 and missionaries of the Apostolic age (see p. 13 f.): (8) The clause as it stands is 
 the product of a literary revision, the strength of devotional conservatism main- 
 taining of to-morrow when to-day had been added to represent o7uepor. 
 
 3 Mr Wratislaw in an article in The Churchman (July 1888) shews conclusively 
 that 7 émwodca is used of the day already begun. But it should be noticed that 
 h émvotca could always be substituted for 7 adpov, though the converse does not 
 hold: comp. Acts vii. 26, xvi. 11, xx. 15 (on which see Mr Wratislaw’s remarks), 
 xxi. 18. Hence I am not sure that Mr Wratislaw does not carry his point too 
 far when he claims Proy, xxvii. 1 (uj xavxd ra els atiprov, od yap ywuwoxers ri réterat 
  émwo0ca) as an illustration in his favour. It seems to me that the last passage 
 gives some confirmation to my theory in regard to the Lord’s Prayer. For 4 
 ém.ooca, not found elsewhere in the Lxx., here translates 0D)’. 
 
‘GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.’ 47 
 
 apparent analogy of zepiovoros, occurring in a group of passages 
 (Ex. xix. 5, Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 18) which we know to have 
 occupied an important place in Apostolic teaching (Tit. ii. 14, 1 
 Pet. ii. 9; comp. Acts xx. 28, Eph. i. 14), may have suggested or 
 facilitated this representation of the original Aramaic word. 
 
 Liturgical forms soon get the sanction of usage. The instincts 
 of devotion are singularly tenacious of a familiar word, even when 
 (perhaps even in proportion as) its meaning and origin have 
 become obscure. And thus before the time when the first and 
 third Gospels in their present form were composed, the epithet 
 émovovos had firmly attached itself to the substantive. 
 
 No doubt, in our ignorance of the relations between the 
 Hebrew and the Hellenistic ‘Brethren,’ much must remain 
 ambiguous. The living witness of the Apostles as well as the 
 morning Prayers of the Hebrews would be sufficient to prevent 
 the original phrase (lS0049) and the alternative (S0a.2\59) 
 becoming forgotten. When the Lord’s Prayer assumes a literary 
 shape in the Gospels according to St Matthew and St Luke, the 
 well-known liturgical formula is preserved, but side by side with 
 it there appears in the one Gospel the original of-the-day in 
 the natural adverbial form to-day, in the other the very early, if 
 not original, alternative day-by-day. In this petition then, owing 
 to the influence of devotional conservatism combined with reverence 
 for any remembered word of Christ, there meets us a double 
 rendering of the original word, a phenomenon to which most 
 chapters of the Lxx. will supply a parallel. 
 
 So far I have endeavoured to reconstruct the history of this 
 clause as it stands in our present Gospels. The results may be 
 taken as confirming to some extent the working hypothesis (p. 45) 
 from which we started. But is there any independent support 
 of the conjecture that the original form of the clause was Our- 
 bread of-the-day give to-us? I venture to think that there is some 
 evidence worth consideration. 
 
 (1) There is a passage in the Epistle of St James (ii. 15 ff.), 
 which, I believe, bears on this problem : 
 
 €av aberXpos 7 adeXp7 yupvol VTdpywot Kal AeEvTTropEvor THS 
 epnuépou tpodys, ein b€ Tus avtois €E var “Trrayete év eipnvn, 
 
48 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Ocppaivecbe Kal yoptaterbe, ur Sdre S€ avtois ta émitpSera Tod 
 TwWpaTos, TL OpENos ; 
 
 The Epistle of St James is a mosaic of Noya Kupiaxa, among 
 which those ‘oracles’ which have a place in the Synoptists’ record 
 of the Sermon on the Mount are especially numerous. Some- 
 times these references to Christ’s teaching are obvious; sometimes 
 they lie beneath the surface; sometimes they have become so 
 assimilated to the context in which they are embedded that they 
 fail to attract attention’. It must be sufficient to refer to the 
 Introduction to any of the Commentaries on the Epistle for a 
 list of the more patent of these coincidences. But no tabulated 
 statistics can give any idea of the living connexion which, even 
 with our fragmentary knowledge of the Lord’s discourses, we feel 
 to exist between the letter of the Disciple and the words of his 
 Master. 
 
 In the passage from St James quoted above it is very probable 
 that he has in his mind the words of Christ recorded in Matt. xxv. 
 35—45. But it appears to me still more likely that in the phrase 
 » épyuepos tpopy we have a reminiscence of the petition for ‘the 
 bread of the day’; and further that in the succeeding words ra 
 émitndera Tod gwpatos we have a very early comment on the 
 scope of the petition’. 
 
 Such a conjecture is incapable of proof. The phrase 7 
 épypepos Tpopy is not in itself a remarkable one’, neither indeed 
 is the phrase which I suppose it to recall, ‘the bread of the day.’ 
 The probability allowed to the suggestion will vary in proportion 
 
 1 Compare e.g. James i. 21 (év mpairnt. SéEace Tov Eupvtov Néyov) with Mc. 
 iv. 15 (rov Nbyov Tov éomappévoy els avrov’s), Le. vill. 13 (werd Xapas Séxovrar Tov 
 déyov). See also Barn. ix. 9. 
 
 2 Based perhaps on Matt. vi. 32 (oléev yap 6 warnp judy 6 obpamos bre xpysere 
 ToUTwv amavrwr). Compare the probable reference in Didaché x. (rpopiy re kai 
 morov édwkas avOpwros...quiv dé éxaplow mvevparikhy Tpophy Kal rordv). 
 
 3 Wetstein quotes Aristid. T. ii. p. 398 avros mpocairwy, cal ris épnudpouv 
 Tpopis dmopav, xal Brérwr els B Kal y 6Bodo’s: Dion. Hal. Ant. viii. 41 dw@dOev 
 x Tis oiklas...ddovNos dmropos, ovdé Tv Ephuepov 6 SvaTHvos ex Tav EavTOD xpnudTwy 
 tpopny émayouevos. To these Field (Otium Norvicense, Pars Tertia) adds Chrys. ix. 
 p. 677 B aXN’ 6 pev deomédrns cou Kal Arov abr@ avarérret, od dé Kal THs Epyuepov Tpopijs 
 avdt.ov avrov Kplves, which however may be a reminiscence of St James. We may 
 compare also Eur. El. 429 ris ef’ juépav Bopads, Herod. i. 32 ot ydp ro 6 péya 
 mrova.os 4aAAov TOD em’ Nuepav ExovTos dABiuwTeEpbs ear, 
 
‘GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.’ 49 
 
 as the general indebtedness of the Apostle to the Lord’s teaching 
 is admitted. It becomes very strong if we recognise that the words 
 of Christ form the woof and web of the language of the Epistle. 
 
 That the phrase 7 é€pjuepos tpody comes very close to the 
 wording of the Prayer is clear from the Latin versions and from 
 Chrysostom’s comments on the petition. 
 
 The Old Latin ‘panis quotidianus,’ retained by Jerome in his 
 version of St Luke, finds a close parallel in the earliest extant 
 Latin version of St James (11. 15) ‘victus quotidianus”’, a rendering 
 which Jerome preserves. Again, Chrysostom in dealing with the 
 clause as it stands in St Matthew says, té €ot1, Tov dptov tov 
 emLovatov ; Tov epnuepov...deitat yap [7 hvais] Tpodns THs avay- 
 xaias. In another place (iv. 530) he uses similar language, tev 
 dptov nuav Tov émiovatov dos nuiv onuepov, avtl Tod, THY THS 
 nuépas tpopyyv, a phrase in which he stumbles into a curiously 
 literal representation of the original Aramaic. 
 
 It is however when we take into consideration the Syriac 
 versions that the importance of the passage in St James is fully 
 seen. In the Syriac Vulgate ris épynuépov tpodys is represented 
 by the words |Soau9 |2;2.0 (the-food of-the-day)2, Thus St 
 James gives the natural Greek translation of the Aramaic of-the- 
 day, and his whole phrase, excepting the substitution of ‘food’ 
 for ‘bread,’ is the very form which we assumed just now as the 
 original of the petition, ‘the-(or our-)bread of-the-day.’ 
 
 (2) “I had also hoped,” wrote Bp Lightfoot (On a Fresh Revision 
 p. 217), “that I might find this petition quoted in the works of 
 one of the earlier Syriac writers, Aphraates or Ephrem, but my 
 search has not been attended with success. An indirect reference 
 in Ephrem (Op. vi. p. 642) omits the word in question. ‘The 
 
 1 Cod. Corbeiensis has ‘sive frater sive soror nudi sint et desit eis victus 
 quotidianus.’ Jerome’s version is ‘Si autem frater aut soror nudi sint et indigeant 
 victu quotidiano.’ The writings of neither Tertullian nor Cyprian supply evidence 
 as to the text of St James (Bp. Westcott Canon, ed. 5, pp. 258, 373, Rénsch Das N. T. 
 Tertullian’s p. 572). 
 
 2 The references given in Liddell and Scott are sufficient to shew that 
 Mr M‘Clellan is mistaken in supposing that in later Greek ég¢7juepos always means 
 ‘lasting but a day.’ Such was doubtless the classical sense of the word, a use 
 which lasted on side by side with the meaning ‘daily’ (see Suicer Thes. sub voce). 
 The words épnuepla and épyuepis both illustrate the meaning daily. 
 
 C. 4 
 
50 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 bread of the day (}S0a42 [Sas.\) shall suffice thee, as thou hast 
 learnt in the Prayer’. At the same time Ephrem agrees with 
 the Curetonian against the Peshito in [$oa42, so that it seems 
 probable that he used the Curetonian Version.” The fact that 
 Ephrem ‘omits the word in question, constitutes, I believe, the 
 importance of the reference. 
 
 For in the first place Ephrem refers to some popular version of 
 the Lord’s Prayer, a part of catechetical instruction (‘as thou hast 
 learned in the Prayer’). 
 
 And in the second place this popular version cannot have been 
 the Old Syriac. For had it been, his citation would have at once 
 recalled to his hearers (for the reference occurs in a sermon on 
 Fasting) the whole clause as it stood in the Old Syriac (and-our- 
 bread continual of-the-day give to-us), and the word continual 
 would have refuted the lesson which he wished to draw. 
 
 We learn then from an examination of Ephrem’s evidence that 
 there was some popular version of the Lord’s Prayer still in use 
 among thé Syrian Christians of the Fourth Century, and that in 
 this traditional version, on which the Old Syriac itself was based, the 
 form of the petition under discussion was ‘ the-bread of-the-day.’ 
 
 -The conclusion to which a cross-examination of Ephrem leads 
 us is confirmed by the clear testimony of another witness. The 
 Arabic version of Tatian’s Diatessaron published by Ciasca iu 1888 
 gives what is to all appearance the whole of the matter contained 
 in Tatian’s work. But the Syriac text on which the Arabic version 
 is based seems to have been brought into conformity with the 
 Vulgate Syriac text’. All the more emphatic therefore is its 
 support of an earlier Syriac text, whenever such support is given. 
 The literal translation of the Arabic version of the petition for 
 ‘daily bread’ (§ 1x.) is ‘Give us the bread of our day’ (i.e. the day 
 in which we now are). The epithet ‘continual’ which has a place 
 in the Old Syriac, and the epithet ‘of-our-necessity’ which is 
 given in the Vulgate Syriac, are alike absent. Thus the pre- 
 Curetonian form has the support of an unwilling witness. We are 
 not only confirmed as to the main conclusion which we drew from 
 Ephrem’s evidence, but we are able to identify the popular version 
 
 1 Hemphill p. xxix, Rendel Harris p, 5. 
 
‘GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.’ 51 
 
 of the Lord’s Prayer to which he refers in his Sermon with the 
 form contained in Tatian’s Diatessaron’. 
 
 Thus St James, Tatian, and Ephrem, who probably repeats 
 after a long interval the witness of Tatian, combine to attest the 
 shorter form of the clause, ‘Give us the bread of the day.’ 
 
 (3) Does the Old Syriac version itself throw any light on the 
 matter? 
 
 In Matt. vi. 11 this version has: 
 
 es 201, hoos> fate} Sas Xo 
 
 to-us give of-the-day continual and-our-bread 
 In Luke xi. 3 
 Sod Sy “i Sof Kass EN Sei0 
 
 of-every-day continual the-bread to-us and-give 
 
 Now about the Syriac word continual two remarks may be 
 made. In the first place it is difficult to see that it represents any 
 probable meaning of the Greek évovcwos. In the second place 
 Cureton in his note (referred to by Bp Lightfoot p. 215) remarks 
 that the word continual is in fact derived from Numb. iv. 7, where 
 
 the Hebrew 77 yoy Onn pnb) is translated in the Syriac 
 version by the words (oota wotaX\s Afro} [SaxXo (and-the- 
 bread continually let-it-be thereupon). The Old Syriac then of 
 this clause of the Lord’s Prayer appears to be a literary revision of 
 the popular version current since the Gospel was brought to Syria 
 from the Church at Jerusalem in the earliest days of the faith, a 
 revision which represented the seemingly unintelligible ézvovccos, 
 which had meantime come into the Prayer, by a classical phrase 
 about bread in the Old Testament slightly changed, much as 
 Delitzsch in his Hebrew translation of the N. T. uses for the same 
 
 purpose another classical phrase of the O. T. (13h 5?) derived 
 from Prov. xxx. 8 (pn pn). 
 
 This conclusion receives some additional confirmation from the 
 fact that in the revision of the Old Syriac (the Vulgate or Peshito 
 Syriac) the epithet —10100) (of-our-necessity) is substituted for 
 
 1 That the Diatessaron was the form of the Gospels used in public worship 
 is clear from the Doctrine of Addai c. xxxv, Thdt. de Fab. Haer. i. 20. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 [1.5] (continual), as though the latter were not sanctioned by 
 immemorial usage’. 
 
 The position of these Syrian Christians in the third century 
 was in fact very parallel to our own. A Christian preacher in 
 England to-day would say ‘Pray God to forgive us our trespasses, 
 as we forgive them that trespass against us, as thou hast learned in 
 the Prayer,’ regardless of the fact that the Authorised Version has 
 ‘Forgive us our debts,as we forgive our debtors’, and that the Revised 
 Version has ‘ Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our 
 debtors.’ Literary revisions are powerless against ancient formulas. 
 
 (4) Lastly, there is the notice of the clause in the Gospel 
 according to the Hebrews preserved by Jerome (on Matt. vi. 11): 
 ‘In evangelio, quod appellatur secundum Hebraeos, pro supersub- 
 stantiali pane reperi Mahar, quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sensus: 
 Panem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie.’ 
 
 Here, it will be noticed, Jerome does not profess to give us the 
 precise words of the whole clause which he found in the Hebrew 
 Gospel. He is content to quote the single word Mahar, and then 
 adds his own conclusion as to the general meaning (ut sit sensus). 
 
 1 Of this alteration Bp Lightfoot says (p. 215), ‘This is only one of the many 
 instances where the Peshito betrays the influences of the fourth century whether 
 in the text or in the interpretation.’ This explanation may be the right 
 one. But on the one hand the word of-our-necessity does not represent what is 
 essential in the later interpretation of émcovows referred to, viz. its connexion 
 with ovcia. On the other hand the notion of necessary would seem to have a 
 place in the earliest expositions of the clause; for such an exposition I believe 
 Jas. ii. 16 (ra émirfieva Tod odyaros) to be. It is worth noting that the Syriac 
 
 Version in St James ii. 16 (po? oiZaas19) answers to this revised 
 
 translation of émovcws. Jas. ii. 16 might itself be based on Mat. vi. 32, if the 
 gloss were not so natural (comp. Ex. xvi. 22 ra déovra=DN?, Prov. xxx. 8 7a 
 déovra kal ra adtdpkn= "PN ond). So Tert. de Oratione vi. (Panem enim peti 
 mandat, quod solum fidelibus necessarium est; cetera enim nationes requirunt), 
 and the familiar words ‘All things that be needful both for our souls and bodies.’ 
 In the oem then may we not have the substitution of a familiar gloss for the 
 unsatisfactory word of the Old Syriac, a substitution which would be in harmony, 
 as the Old Syriac rendering was at variance, with the form of the clause in 
 common use as preserved to us by Ephrem (see above p. 49f.)? We have the 
 somewhat similar case of a well-known gloss derived from a phrase of the N. T. 
 gaining a place in the text in the African Latin Version of Matt. vi. 13 (e.g. Cod. 
 Bobiensis, ne passus fueris induci nos in temptationem). Here Tertullian preserves 
 the gloss which has become part of the text in Cyprian’s time. See p. 64 f. 
 
‘GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD.’ 53 
 
 It seems impossible that the two words to-morrow and to-day 
 could have stood side by side in the clause’, and Jerome disguises 
 the contradiction lurking in his fusion of quotation and comment 
 by the gloss which he slips in (crastinum, id est futurum). 
 
 The evidence taken together is no doubt scanty; it must be so 
 from the nature of the case. But when we cross-question such 
 witnesses as we have, their testimony appears to me to be con- 
 sistently and unanimously in favour of the theory that the original 
 form of the clause in the Lord’s Prayer ran thus: ‘Give us our 
 (or the) bread of the day.’ 
 
 In reviewing the evidence we must remember that in such a 
 reconstruction of the history of a phrase as I have attempted, there 
 must necessarily be many hypotheses whose only support is mutual 
 agreement and inherent likelihood. Further, the general result 
 does not depend on the minute accuracy of each step of the 
 reconstruction. To pretend to recall stages of change and revision 
 which were bound up with the manifold life of the Church of 
 the First Days, liturgical custom among Christian Hebrews and 
 Christian Hellenists, the influence of oral tradition and written 
 memoranda both in Aramaic and Greek, catechetical instruction, 
 the teaching of Missionaries and other converts leaving the Mother 
 Church at different times, the influence of usage and of transla- 
 tion in the Churches which they founded, would be a palpable 
 absurdity. An approximation to such a work is all we can hope for. ’ 
 
 The general result is this: 
 
 (1) This petition of the Prayer refers to bodily needs’. 
 
 (2) The epithet is temporal, not qualitative. 
 
 (3) The epithet is not part of the original form of the petition, 
 and is due to liturgical use. 
 
 (4) All the phenomena may be reasonably explained if we 
 assume, an assumption for which there is some independent 
 evidence, that the clause originally was ‘Give us our (or the) bread 
 of the day.’ 
 
 1 On the Memphitic Version see note on p. 46. 
 
 2 In Didaché x. 2, where we practically have the earliest exposition of the 
 Lord’s Prayer, the reference to actual food comes first: ov, déorora mavroxpdrop, 
 éxrisas Ta mavra evexa Tod dvéuarés cov, tpopyy te Kal wordv edwxas Tots avOpwros 
 els amédavaw, va co evxaporjiowow, huiv dé éxaplow mvevmatixny Tpophy Kal morov 
 kal fwHv aldviov dia Tov madés cov. 
 
V. 
 
 KAl AEC HMIN TA OEIAHMATA HMON, 
 
 ac KA) HMeic ADHKAMEN TOIC OdelAéTaic HMG@N (St MarrHew). 
 Kal Adec HMIN TAC AMAPTIAC HMODN, 
 
 KAl FAP AYTO! APIOMEN TIANTI GceEIAONTI HMIN (St Luxe). 
 
 Four problems are suggested by the variations in the two 
 forms of this petition. 
 
 (1) Which is the more original, the ta ofeAnuara of St 
 Matthew, or the tds dwaptias of St Luke? In the discussion of 
 this question I again assume that the Old Syriac may be taken 
 
 as representing approximately the original Aramaic. 
 i (a) Do the Syriac and the Greek words meaning ‘ forgive’ 
 throw any light on the question ? 
 
 The Syriac Cas, the word in the Old and in the Vulgate 
 Syriac, is not decisive. The late Hebrew word pal (= to leave 
 or desert, Dan. iv. 12, 20, 23; comp. Matt. xxvii. 46) is used 
 (see Gesenius Thesaurus) in the Targums as an equivalent to 
 nhs and NW) (= to forgive), words, which are not, I think, 
 applied to the remission of a debt. The Syriac word is used both 
 of the remission of a debt (Matt. xviii. 32, Le. vii. 42) and of the 
 forgiveness of sins (Rom. xi. 27, 2 Cor. ii. 10). 
 
 The case of the Greek dduévac is somewhat different. This 
 word indeed is used in the LXx. to represent DAW (to remit a 
 debt, Deut. xv. 1, 2), but it is also the common equivalent of 
 the words meaning to ‘forgive sins,’ 1e. NY) (eg. Gen. |. 17, 
 Hx, ozxxtl. 352, Ps: xxv 8), ize (ee Levviv- 20; 2. 10). 
 In this latter sense the imperative dges is very common in 
 prayers (Gen. 1. 17 des adtois tHv dédiciav Kal thy apaptiav 
 avtov, Ex. xxxii. 32 ef wév adeis avtois tiv dpaptiay avTav 
 ages, Numb. xiv. 19 ades THY auaptiav TO Aa TOUT, Ps. xxiv. 18 
 Kal ades tacas Tas apaptias pov). Compare Ecclus. xxvii. 2 
 
‘FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS.’ 55 
 
 ages adixnua TO TANGIoV cou, Kai TOTE SenOEvTOS gov ai awapTiat 
 cov AvOncovtar. Hence a Hellenist, familiar with the Lxx., 
 would be under the temptation to strain a point in translation 
 that he might secure the familiar sequence ages tas apaprtias. 
 
 (b) But is there any ambiguity in the original word meaning 
 ‘debt’ to minimise the unfaithfulness of such a translation ? 
 
 The word both in the Old and in the Vulgate Syriac is —+2Qs. 
 The verb Sax (= 3)M, ‘In Targg. persaepe pro hebr. DYN, 
 NOM, Ges. Thes.), properly meaning ‘impar, haud capax, fuit’ 
 (see Payne Smith Thes. Syr.), is frequently used in connexion 
 with sin (e.g. Lev. iv. 22, 27), and defeat (eg. 2 Kings xiv. 12 
 Hex., 1 Cor. vi. 7). It occurs also in the derived sense ‘ debuit,’ 
 eg. in Deut. xxiv. 10, Rom. xii. 8. Further, the causative 
 signifies ‘reum fecit, ‘condemnavit,’ without any idea ‘of debt, 
 e.g. in Deut. xxv. 1, 1 Kings viii. 32, Matt. xii. 41, Le. vi. 37. More- 
 over the substantive used in the Lord’s Prayer, though occurring 
 in the phrase |oax };S0 (lord of-the-debt, ie. creditor; Ex. 
 xxii. 25, 1 Sam. xxii. 2, Le. vil. 41), yet in the plural means simply 
 ‘sins’ (Dan. ix. 20 ‘my sins...the sins of my people’). The precise 
 word used in the Lord’s Prayer (~22Qs), though in Col. i. 14 
 the context gives it the sense of ‘our-debts, is yet used without 
 any thought of debt in Ex. xxxiv. 9. Hence, although in the 
 Lord’s Prayer the words ‘our debtors’ fix the meaning, the word 
 itself might be translated in Greek by tas apaptias nor. 
 
 It is easy therefore to account for this Greek phrase tas 
 duaptias intruding itself as the equivalent of the original Aramaic 
 word here meaning ‘debts’; and thus I am led by quite another 
 road to Mr Page’s conclusion (Hxpositor, 3rd Series, vol. vii. p. 437) 
 that ‘we seem to have...in Matthew a more accurate reproduction 
 of the original.’ 
 
 (2) The Didaché has ryv ddecrnv nudy in place of ta 
 oderrnuata nuov. A sufficient explanation of the variation in 
 the Didaché might perhaps be found in Matt. xvii. 32 mdacav 
 THv operrny éxeivny adjxa cor. But the variation may, I think, 
 be better explained as reflecting a slightly different reading of 
 the original Aramaic. The difference between OQ (our-debt) 
 
 and —220s (our-debts) is very small. 
 
56 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (3) The phrase in St Luke wavti dgetdovte nyiv, as com- 
 pared with that in St Matthew rots dfevrAérars judy, has the 
 appearance of a paraphrastic rendering. We can hardly doubt 
 
 that the terse ens (our-debtors) is more likely to be the 
 original than aS ain» US (to-every-one who-is-indebted 
 to-us). 
 
 (4) There remains still the more perplexing variation, ws Kat 
 npets adnxapev (St Matthew), cal yap avtot adiowev (St Luke). 
 
 In St Matthew the Old Syriac has, 
 
 Welekae e as | | fro] 
 will- (or may-) remit we also. as (or in-order-that) 
 In St Luke, 
 woanes cin 3lo 
 will-remit we  and-also 
 
 The Old Syriac, it will be noticed, has the ‘future’ in both 
 Gospels; in both Gospels the Vulgate Syriac substitutes the 
 ‘perfect.’ There is therefore strong reason to believe that the 
 ‘future’ is the original form. ‘This supposition is supported by 
 the adiowev of St Luke and the ad/ewev of the Didaché. But if 
 this be so, is not the original connexion between the two parts of 
 the petition the simple form preserved by the Old Syriac of Le. 
 x1. 4, ‘remit to us and we also will remit’!? The whole petition 
 becomes thus a prayer and a promise, a prayer for forgiveness, and 
 a promise that the suppliant will forgive. This interpretation 
 has very strong support in the parable of the unmerciful servant 
 (Matt. xviii. 23 ff.). Here the divine forgiveness precedes, and is 
 represented as the model of, human forgiveness (comp. Col. i11. 
 13, Eph. iv. 32). The servant is forgiven, but lacks the grace 
 to forgive. The remission of the debt which he owed becomes 
 invalid, when he refuses remission to another. 
 
 It is remarkable that this view of the petition in the Lord’s 
 Prayer is supported by what I believe is the earliest reference to 
 the words in Christian literature. In his letter to the Philippians 
 (c. 6) Polycarp writes, e¢ ody Sedue8a tod Kupiov iva nuiv adn, 
 opetAopev Kal nwets adévat. That Polycarp is here referring to 
 the Lord’s Prayer is put beyond dispute by the fact that he refers 
 
 1 See the additional note on p. 57. 
 
‘FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS.’ 57 
 
 in the following chapter to the next clause of the Lord’s Prayer, 
 and by the mode in which this reference is introduced: denceow 
 airovpevor Tov TavTeTomTHy Oedv pn ELaeveryKEiv NUGS Els TELPAaTBLOV. 
 The evidence derived from Tertullian, the earliest witness to the 
 Latin text of the New Testament, is at one with that of Polycarp. 
 It is given in the additional note at the end of this section (p. 58). 
 
 One point more in this connexion remains. Matt. vi. 14, 15 
 and Me. xi. 25 seem somewhat out of place where they stand, the 
 former passage singling out for emphasis one petition of the Lord’s 
 Prayer at the close of the section of the Sermon on the Mount 
 which deals with prayer, the latter following the lesson of faith 
 drawn from the withered fig-tree. Is it rash to suggest that they 
 are re-settings of the words in which the Lord sums up the 
 lesson of the parable, ottws Kal 6 maTnp pov 6 ovpavios Tomer 
 vpiv éav pn adphre Exaotos TH adeNPO' avTov aro THv KapbS.iady 
 vuov? In that case the dav ydp adijrte...adnoe: Kai vpiv 6 
 matnp vuov of St Matthew (vi. 14, cf. Le. vi. 37) and the adierte... 
 wa Kat 6 watnp vuav...ady vuiv of St Mark (xi. 25) will refer, in 
 accordance with the teaching of the parable, to the continuance 
 and consummation of the divine forgiveness; though the language 
 has perhaps been slightly altered in accordance with the Hellenistic 
 translation of the Lord’s Prayer, és cai nwets apyxapev (comp. Ep. 
 Clem. 13, Ep. Polye. 2). 
 
 In this part of the petition St Luke seems to me to preserve a 
 form nearer to the original as far as the verb (a@iouev) is con- 
 cerned. Neither Gospel very exactly reproduces what appears to 
 be the original connexion of the clauses. 
 
 NOTE ON Syriac VERSIONS OF THIS CLAUSE (see p. 56). 
 
 I am inelined to think that the Old Syriac of St Luke represents the 
 traditional form”. (i) It is not here a translation of the Greek, as it omits 
 the all important ydp. Contrast the Peshito —C- 2). (ii) Though 
 
 1 In Westcott and Hort’s text should not r@ déeXpd be printed in uncials? 
 See Deut. xv, 2, 3 (rdv adNbrprov amarjces Soa eav 7 co Tap’ a’Tw, TW 5é ddEAPH cou 
 (Cod. B rod ddedpod) dgecww roufces tod xpéovs cov). The old command is (1) 
 widened, for the Lord’s whole teaching gave a new meaning to brotherhood (Le. x. 
 27 ff.); (2) deepened, by the addition of ao rv xapdiav budy. 
 
 2 No argument can be founded on the fact that the Arabic of Ciasca’s Tatian 
 has the perfect, ‘as we have forgiven,’ for it seems certain that this text has been 
 largely modernised. See Harris The Diatessaron of Tatian p. 5. 
 
58 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Ephrem (iii. p. 641) has what is substantially the Vulgate Syriac, Aphraates 
 twice quotes the petition as it is in the Old Syriac of St Matthew, except 
 that the connecting word between the clauses is (212) 20. The passages 
 are worth quoting in full. (a) Homilies of Aphraates ed. Wright p. LS 
 Hom. 2, § 14. ‘Again when the Lord taught His disciples the Prayer, He 
 said to them, Thus shall ye pray, Forgive us our debts and also we will 
 forgive (QQQ.«4 ss) 20) our debtors. And again He said, If thou 
 bring thy gift to the altar...... (Matt. v. 23, 24), lest when any one pray- 
 eth, Forgive us our debts and also we will forgive our debtors, he be 
 caught out of his own mouth, and it be said to him by Him who receiveth 
 (or, him who beareth up, i.e. Gabriel) his prayer, Thou dost not forgive 
 
 (As] O29 u A.s}) him who is indebted to thee, how shall they forgive 
 
 (22-9) thee? And so thy prayer shall remain on the earth.’ (0) p. is, 
 Hom. 4, § 7. ‘Forgive us our debts that also we may forgive (et 2) 
 002 -«3!: but there is another reading ci] 2l|o=‘and also we’) our 
 debtors...... Thou prayest that it should be forgiven thee, and thou professest 
 that thou dost (or wilt) forgive (Aa} 299). Think first within thy mind 
 whether thou forgivest ; then profess that thou dost (or wilt) forgive. For do 
 not lie to God and say I do (or will) forgive (L] 22.99), when thou dost not 
 forgive (A3] Os). [Matt. v. 23f. is then quoted]...... If He finds in thy 
 prayer, Forgive me and I do (or will) forgive (13) 22-90), then shall it be 
 said to him that prayeth by him that beareth up the prayer (i.e. Gabriel), 
 First forgive thy debtor, then will I also bear up thy prayer before thy 
 creditor (i.e. God): do thou forgive a hundred pence according to thy poverty 
 and thy creditor will forgive thee a thousand talents according to His great- 
 ness.’ In these passages Aphraates seems to treat OQD-#5 as a present, 
 using the participle to represent it; but the thought of the present seems to 
 merge into that of the future in several clauses. But however Aphraates 
 interprets the words himself, his evidence as to the current form of the 
 clause is clear, for in the second passage the context seems to require 20, 
 and not 2] 2. It should be added in reference to Aphraates’ use of the 
 participle in his paraphrases that the Jerusalem Syriac has the plural 
 participle —»O-s in the second clause of the petition. 
 
 The Old Syriac and Aphraates’ comments on it find a curious parallel in 
 Tertullian’s reference to the Latin Version of the clause. Tertullian does not 
 quote, so far as I know, the second clause of the petition for forgiveness. 
 
 1 This is the reading in the form of the Lord’s Prayer found in the Syriac Acts 
 of Judas Thomas (ed. Wright, vol. i. p. a a vol. ii. p. 279 Eng. Tr.). The 
 whole clause is remarkable, ‘ Forgive us our debts and our sins, that we too may for- 
 
 give our debtors.’ I have to thank Prof. Bensly for pointing out to me _ this 
 reference. 
 
‘FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS.’ 59 
 
 Neither in de Oratione vii. nor in adv. Marcionem iv. 26 does he give us the 
 exact words. In the former passage however he gives the following gloss: ‘Quod 
 idem servus a domino liberatus non perinde parcit debitori suo ac propterea 
 Baeeee tortori delegatur......eo competit, quod remittere nos quoque profitemur 
 debitoribus nostris. Jam et alibi ex hac specie orationis, Remittite, inquit, et 
 remittetur vobis.’ Again, in the tract de Pudicitia ii. he writes, ‘Dimittis 
 autem, ut dimittatur tibi a deo. Delicta mundantur quae quis in fratrem, 
 non deum admiserit. Debitoribus denique dimissuros nos in oratione profite- 
 mur. This latter passage (dimissuros) certainly appears to suggest that in 
 some Old Latin copies the reading in the Prayer was dimittemus. I do 
 not know that there is any Ms. authority for such a reading. Cyprian’s text 
 and comment (de Oratione Dom.) seem clearly in favour of the common 
 reading and interpretation: ‘Scientes impetrari non posse quod pro peccatis 
 petimus, nisi et ipsi circa debitores nostros paria fecerimus.’ 
 
 As these sheets are passing through the press, I notice that Prof. Marshall 
 in his article on the Aramaic Gospel in the current number of the Lxpositor 
 (April, 1891) discusses this petition of the Prayer. His remarks confirm what 
 I have said on the variation d@eiAnuara and dyaprias. It seems to me how- 
 ever that his method of accounting for the variation és cat nets (Matt.) and 
 kat yap avroi (Lc.) is open to criticism. He writes thus: ‘The [Aramaic] word 
 for “as,” “sicut” is 8193. The equivalent of “for” in this connexion is 83, 
 “in eo,” “quatenus,” “seeing that.” The difference in Aramaic is therefore 
 merely that of two letters very much alike and easily confounded.’. But in 
 the first place this suggestion, ingenious as it is, neglects the evidence of the 
 Syriac Versions as a guide to the original Aramaic (see above p. 39 n.). And 
 in the second place yap does not seem to me so obvious an équivalent of N13, 
 the meaning of which Buxtorf (Lex. Chald.) gives as in quantum, quatenus, 
 in eo, de eo, as to lead one to think that it would expel the word os (=ND3) 
 already familiar; in fact és would be nearer to ND than yap would be. If 
 such a confusion of Aramaic words alike in sound is to be postulated to ac- 
 count for the variation, it would be simpler to suppose that the Aramaic 
 words were 9S (J’i]) and ‘>. I think however that the Old Syriac of Le. 
 xi. 4 preserves the original connexion of the two parts of this petition. In 
 the version given by St Matthew this petition is modelled after the type 
 of the petitions in the earlier part of the Prayer (p. 40 f.) as preserved in his 
 Gospel—human forgiveness must correspond to (és) divine forgiveness, just 
 as the earthly doing of the Will, the coming of the Kingdom, and the hallow- 
 ing the Name should correspond to (#s) the heavenly. St Luke gives a 
 version of the clause (current perhaps in the Apostolic Churches of Macedonia 
 and Greece) which aims at a more idiomatic Greek rendering. Here however, 
 as so often, we want a knowledge of the text of the Diatessaron. 
 
ML. 
 
 KAl MH €ICENETKHC HMAC EIC TIEIPACMON. 
 
 THE last word of the clause suggests a question of interest 
 with which it will be convenient to deal at once. The Syriac 
 versions have a word which, as it is obvious to remark, according 
 to its vocalization -may be either singular (Lidc03, temptation) 
 or plural (Liaon5, temptations). There is the same ambiguity 
 in regard to St Luke xxii. 28 (2302603, my temptations, or 
 aula sans) my temptation). 
 
 It is therefore at least possible that the original form of the 
 petition was ‘Bring us not into temptations, and such a form 
 would be in harmony with the circumstances of. our Lord’s 
 temptation (7avta meipacpoy Le. iv. 13), and with the phrase — 
 qoiktAot Tetpacuot which is common to St James (i. 2) and 
 St Peter (1 Pet. i. 6)’. The Old Syriac, it may be added, reads in 
 St Luke xxii. 40 ‘Pray that ye enter not among temptations’ (see 
 below p. 62 n.), where the preposition shews that the noun is plural. 
 Further, in this form the petition would perhaps present less 
 difficulty when viewed from a theological and religious stand- 
 point. The evidence however does not seem to warrant more 
 than the suggestion of the possibility that this ma have been 
 the earliest form. 
 
 The words 7 eloevéyxns invite discussion in more directions 
 than one. 
 1 In 2 Pet. ii. 9 (oldev Kupios evoeBets ex metpacuod piecOat), which is very 
 
 possibly a reminiscence of the Lord’s Prayer, there is considerable authority for 
 
 the plural e:pacpwr. 
 
‘BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION. 61 
 
 I. The Syriac versions, as probably representing the original 
 Aramaic, are of special interest here. The Old Syriac in St Luke 
 has 
 
 borer oN Yo 
 
 into-temptation(s?) make-us-to-enter and-do-not 
 
 The Vulgate Syriac in both Gospels adopts these words. The 
 Old Syriac of St Matthew has 442 (make-us-to-come). The 
 fact that the Vulgate Syriac has in both Gospels the phrase 
 make-us-to-enter tends to shew that this was the current traditional 
 form. Other reasons also, which will appear immediately, point to 
 the conclusion that this word ‘make-us-to-enter’ is the original. 
 
 In discussing the interpretation of the words amo tod rovnpod 
 I shall have to point out the close connexion between the Lord’s 
 Prayer and the sayings of the Lord on the night of the betrayal 
 (see below p. 108f.). Fresh links come into view when we turn to 
 the Syriac versions. 
 
 The Old Syriac rendering of St Luke xxii. 40, 46 is happily 
 preserved in the Curetonian fragments. 
 
 v.40 mpocevyerbe pur) eicedOety eis Teipacpov. 
 
 froamy dao eds! |)» aX, 
 temptations among ye-enter that-not pray-ye 
 
 v. 46 mpocevxerbe iva pun eicédOnTeE eis Tecpacpov. 
 
 Wwoams\* * aSs2 | Ws aX, 
 into-temptation(s?) ye-enter that-not pray-ye 
 
 The Syriac Vulgate has in both places the words which the 
 Old Syriac has in v. 46. 
 
 In St Matthew xxvi. 41 (mpocevyecOe iva pn eioéXOnTe eis 
 mecpagwov) and in St Mark xiv. 38 (apocevyeobe iva wn EXOnTeE 
 els Tretpacor'), verses which are wanting in what remains to us of 
 the Old Syriac, the Syriac Vulgate has the same words as it has 
 in the two passages just cited from St Luke. 
 
 A comparison of these passages in the Syriac versions suggests 
 the following conclusions: (1) The same verb which is used in the 
 Peal in St Matthew xxvi. 41, St Mark xiv. 38, St Luke xxi. 40, 
 
 1 The Se SSE in the Vg. Syr. of St Luke is only a difference of form. The 
 Arabic of Ciasca’s Tatian has ‘make us not to enter.’ 
 
62 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 46 is used in the Aphel in the Lord’s Prayer as the clause is given 
 by both versions in St Luke, and by the Vulgate in St Matthew. 
 The close relation therefore between the Lord’s Prayer and the 
 history of the evening of the betrayal, which a study of the 
 Greek Gospels suggests, is strongly confirmed. (2) So far as a 
 single case can be urged, the revelation of a harmony, so natural 
 and so simple, between the Lord’s words spoken at different times, 
 supports the theory that our Lord spoke in Aramaic and that 
 His sayings were current in that language. (3) The gloss (for 
 such, however ancient, I suppose it to be) in the Old Syriac in 
 St Luke xxii. 40 ‘among temptations’ seems to point to the plural 
 interpretation of lso.cos being the common one’. (4) Lastly 
 ‘and chiefly we seem to have a clear indication that the verb 
 in the petition originally was, eae (make-us-to-enter). This 
 indication is confirmed in two directions. (a) In St James i. 
 2 (6Tav qeipacpois tepitrécnte Trotxirots) the Vulgate Syriac 
 has Doser ess (ye-enter into-temptations). Here there is 
 no attempt to represent the somewhat remarkable word szrepi- 
 méonte: a word which, it may be noted in passing, seems to 
 suggest that St James had some such phrase in his mind as that 
 which is represented by the Old Syriac of St Luke xxii. 40 (‘enter 
 among temptations’). Of the other passages in the New Testament 
 where the word occurs, one (Acts xxvii. 41) is somewhat different 
 from our present passage; in the other, viz. St Luke x. 30 («at 
 Anotais wepiémecev), the two great Syriac versions endeavour to 
 give an adequate rendering of the word, the Old Syriac having ‘he 
 fell into the hands of robbers,’ the Vulgate ‘there fell upon him 
 robbers.’ In St James however it seems as if the Syriac translator 
 could not help reproducing the familiar juxtaposition, ‘enter, 
 ‘temptation®’ (b) The word eiopépew is the natural Greek 
 
 equivalent of such an Aramaic word as As]. Except in five 
 
 1 The plural appears regularly to follow the preposition bas (=among): see 
 Matt. xiii. 7, xxviii. 15, Me. ii. 3, 23, Le. i. 25, vi. 1, viii. 43, xvi. 15, John x. 39, 
 xi. 54, xxi. 23, Acts ii. 9, vil. 2. 
 
 2 We might have expected a similar turn in the Syriac translation of 1 Tim. 
 vi. 9 (éumimrovew els meipacuov xal wayida). But here the literal rendering is 
 accounted for by the metaphor which follows ‘and by the need of conformity with 
 the translation of the cognate phrases eis kpiua éum. 700 diaBdXov (iii. 6), els overdiopov 
 
‘BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION,’ 63 
 
 passages out of the eighty in which it is found in the Lxx., 
 elopépew is the translation of N'3M, a Hebrew word which very 
 frequently is represented in the Syriac by the Aphel form \\s}. 
 
 If this account of the original phrase is true, and if we may 
 look to the Syriac word rather than to the Greek as a guide to the 
 true meaning of the petition, light is thrown on the difficulties 
 which have often been found in this prayer. There is a certain 
 elasticity about the so-called causative voices. They sometimes 
 approach a permissive sense. So it may be here. Certainly the 
 notion of deliberate guidance has no necessary place in the Syriac 
 word. The fact that this idea of guidance is not prominent in 
 elogéperv, especially when it is contrasted with the other 
 equivalents of N°37 in the LXX. viz., dyew, eloayev, and more 
 rarely 7pooayewv, may have been the reason why the Hellenistic 
 ‘Brethren’ chose this word to stand in the Lord’s Prayer rather 
 than the other possible renderings of the Aramaic. 
 
 II. The last subject touched on makes it an easy transition 
 to pass from the Syriac versions to two glosses which found their 
 way into certain forms of the Old Latin version. 
 
 (1) In two passages Augustine deals with an interesting 
 form of this clause found in some Old Latin authorities. 
 
 In the first, de Sermone Domini (Migne P. L. 34 p. 1282), 
 he writes thus: 
 
 ‘Et ne nos inferas in temptationem. Nonnulli codices habent 
 inducas, quod tantumdem valere arbitror; nam ex uno Graeco 
 quod dictum est elcevéyxns utrumque translatum est. Multi 
 autem precando ita dicunt, ne nos patiaris induct in temptationem, 
 exponentes videlicet quomodo dictum sit inducas. Sabatier, 
 referring to this passage, notes that Augustine himself is con- 
 sistent in the use of ‘inferas’ in this clause. 
 
 Again, in de Dono Perseverantiae vi. (Migne P. L. 45 p. 1000) 
 Augustine writes as follows : 
 
 ‘Unde sic orant nonnulli et legitur in codicibus plurimis et hoc 
 sic posuit beatissimus Cyprianus: ne patiaris nos induct in temp- 
 
 éum. Kal mayida Tod diaBddov (iii. 7). The word 8'27 appears in Jewish prayers 
 in connexion with temptation. ‘The Jews’ Morning Prayer (cf. Berakoth 60 b) has 
 
 the petition, })°D3 ep>....90an Sy) ’ (Dr Taylor Sayings p. 141f.). 
 
64 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 tationem. In Evangelio tamen Graeco nusquam inveni nisi ne 
 nos inferas in temptationem.’ 
 
 In these two passages Augustine makes three assertions, which 
 we may consider in the following order, giving to the first of them 
 a somewhat larger scope. 
 
 (a) The words ne nos patiaris induct in temptationem are 
 found in some Latin writings, and first occur in Cyprian. 
 
 The writer commonly called Arnobius Junior (Migne P. L. 53), 
 the inferior limit of whose date is the Eutychian controversy, in 
 the dialogue called de Deo Tino et Uno (Lib. 11. ch. xxx.) assumes 
 this as the true reading. ‘Qui autem orat et dicit, ne nos induci 
 patiaris in temptationem, non utique id orat ut homo sit...neque 
 id orat ut habeat liberum arbitrium,...neque orat peccatorum 
 remissionem...sed orat plane ut faciat mandatum. Orat ut non 
 peccet, hoc est, ne quid faciat mali.’ 
 
 The same form of the clause is given in a Sermon (lxxxiv.) 
 printed in the Appendix to Augustine’s Sermons. The passage 
 is quoted below p. 67 f. 
 
 The passage in Cyprian (de Oratione Dom.) is clear, and is as 
 follows : 
 
 ‘Tllud quoque necessarie monet Dominus ut in oratione 
 dicamus Ht ne patiaris nos induct in temptationem. Qua in parte 
 ostenditur nihil contra nos adversarium posse, nisi Deus ante 
 permiserit, ut omnis timor noster et devotio atque observatio ad 
 Deum convertatur, quando in temptationibus nostris nihil malo 
 liceat, nisi potestas inde tribuatur, 
 
 I have italicised the words in which Cyprian dwells on the 
 peculiar form of the clause as he accepts it. 
 
 It should further be noticed that Hartel, whose text is follow- 
 ed above, records two variations of reading in Cyprian’s quotation 
 from the Lord’s Prayer: (i) Cod. Veronensis substitutes passus 
 fueris for patiaris, (ii) Cod. Sangallensis and Cod. Veronensis have 
 induct nos. 
 
 (b) The reading has found its way into several Mss. (1) ‘The 
 close affinity of Cod. Bobiensis (k) with Cyprian,’ so writes Bp 
 Wordsworth (Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. i. p. Ixvii), is ‘the first 
 and surest clue that we have to guide us through the maze’ of 
 the questions connected with the early history of the Old Latin 
 
‘BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.’ 65 
 
 Version. This MS. reads ne passus fuerts induct nos in temptationé. 
 (2) Cod. Colbertinus (c), which gives (see below p. 158) a ‘mixed’ 
 Latin text, has ne passus nos fueris induct in temptationem. 
 Sabatier gives ne patiaris nos induct as the reading of (3) Cod. 
 Sangermanensis (g’), and of (4) gat., a Ms. of the Hieronymian text 
 of the Gospels at St Gatien’s, Tours. To these must be added two 
 MSS. referred to in the critical note on Matt. vi. 13 in Bp. Words- 
 worth and Mr White’s edition of the Vulgate text of St Matthew, 
 viz. (5) ‘Cod. Dublinensis olim Armachanus (Book of Armagh),’ 
 (6) “Cod. Evang. Rushworthianus vel ‘Gospels of Mac Regol.’” 
 Both of these Mss, read ne patiaris nos induct. 
 
 The evidence derived from the mss., taken with that of the 
 Latin writers quoted above, shews (i) that the gloss took more than 
 one form; (ii) that it appears in the text at almost the earliest 
 date at which we have evidence in regard to the African Version, 
 and that it was widely known, though not commonly adopted into 
 the text of the Gospel. 
 
 (c) ‘Sic orant nonnulli, ‘multi precando ita dicunt, such is 
 Augustine’s account of the form of the petition which we are con- 
 sidering. It was common in devotional use; hence it gained 
 currency. 
 
 Three passages of Tertullian are instructive in this connexion. 
 I will quote them in the probable order of date. 
 
 De Oratione viii. ‘ne nos inducas in temptationem, id est, ne nos 
 patiaris induci ab eo utique qui temptat.’ 
 
 De Fuga i. ‘Erue nos a maligno, id est, ne nos induxeris in 
 temptationem permittendo nos maligno. Tune enim eruimur 
 diaboli manibus, cum illi non tradimur in temptationem.’ 
 
 Adv. Marcionem iv. 26 ‘Quis non sinet nos deduci in tempta- 
 tionem? Quem poterit temptator non timere, an qui a primordio 
 temptatorem angelum praedamnavit ?’ 
 
 The thought of the divine permission in the matter of tempta- 
 tion is the turning point of Tertullian’s interpretation of the last 
 two clauses of the Prayer, as later on (see p. 134 f.) will appear 
 more clearly. In these passages we see the words in which that 
 thought found expression in the very act, as it were, of securing a 
 place for themselves in the text. In the passage from de Fuga 
 the thought is clearly expressed; in the earlier passage from de 
 
 Cc. o 
 
66 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Oratione the form which in Cyprian is part of the prayer itself is 
 given as the proper expansion of the petition; in the treatise 
 against Marcion, the thought of permission must needs be included 
 in a hasty reference to the clause. Thus the gloss is already 
 laying aside its guise and boldly assuming a higher place. 
 
 There is no need to suppose that Tertullian is the author of 
 this scholium. He is probably only repeating a devotional adapta- 
 tion, already current, of a hard saying. That this adaptation is 
 due to liturgical usage will appear presently, when the discussion 
 of the other kindred gloss on this petition has cleared the way for 
 an investigation into their common origin. For the present it is 
 sufficient to notice that the gloss now under consideration is 
 ultimately to be traced back to the words of St Paul in 1 Cor. x. 
 12, 13, which seemed to offer an authoritative explanation of this 
 petition. The Pauline passage is not quoted by Tertullian. 
 Cyprian however (Zestimonia ili. 91) represents it thus, ‘‘Temptatio 
 vos non occupabit nisi humana. Fidelis autem Deus, qui non 
 patietur vos temptari super quod potestis, sed faciet cum tempta- 
 tione etiam evadendi facultatem, ut possitis tolerare’’ 
 
 (2) The passage of St Paul however was pressed into the 
 service by Latin writers in another way. It had helped them to 
 soften down the difficult ne nos inducas. It also suggested a 
 limitation of temptatio. This gloss appears to be later than the 
 former; it hung about the actual text, but has not, so far as I 
 know, been found in any MSs. 
 
 I quote in full, as they are instructive in many ways, the 
 passages referred to by Sabatier. 
 
 Hilary in Ps. exviii. (Migne P. LZ. 9 p. 510) ‘Scientes qui- 
 dem frequenter nos ab eo ob temptationes derelinqui, ut per eas 
 fides nostra probabilis fiat. Verumtamen secundum Prophetam 
 ne nos penitus derelinquat deprecandus est: ait enim, Non me 
 derelinquas usquequaque nimis. Quod et in dominicae orationis 
 
 1 T quote Hartel’s text. He notices that (1) Cod. A (=Cod. biblioth. Sessorianae, 
 saec. vii.) has quod ferre potestis; (2) Cod. W (=Cod. Wiirzeburgensis) has pro- 
 ventum facultatis in place of evad. facult. The Vulgate (Cod. Amiatinus) has 
 ‘Temptatio vos non adprehendat nisi humana. Fidelis autem Deus est, qui non 
 
 patietur vos temptari super id quod potestis, sed faciet cum temptatione etiam pro- 
 yentum, ut possitis sustinere.’ ; 
 
‘BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION.’ 67 
 
 ordine continetur, cum dicitur Non derelinquas nos in temptatione 
 quam ferre non possimus. Scit Apostolus derelinqui nos ad 
 temptandum; sed novit et mensuram infirmitatis nostrae Deum 
 nosse, dicens Fidelis est Deus, qui non permittat nos temptari super 
 quam possumus. Job Deus temptationi permittens a iure diaboli 
 potestatem animae eius excerpsit.’ 
 
 Chromatius Bp of Aquileia, a contemporary and supporter of 
 Chrysostom, a friend of Ambrose, Jerome, and Rufinus (Migne 
 P. L. 20 p. 362) ‘Dehine ait Ht ne nos inducas in temptationem, 
 sed libera nos a malo....Non ergo ne in toto tentemur oramus, sed 
 ne supra quam virtus fidei patitur temptationi tradamur; quod 
 ipsum in alio libro Evangeli [he is here commenting on the 
 Sermon on the Mount in St Matthew] ostensum est: sic enim 
 scriptum est Ht ne nos inferas in temptationem, quam sufferre non 
 possumus. Apostolus quoque, ut id ipsum ostenderet, ita testatus 
 est, dicendo Fidelis autem Deus, qui non patitur temptari super id 
 quod potestis, sed faciet cum temptatione etiam transgressum, ut 
 possitts tolerare. Et ideo non illam temptationem a nobis auferri, 
 quae esse potest utilis, deprecamur, sed illam, quae ad fidei nostrae 
 eversionem modum infirmitatis excedit. Et idcirco congrue et 
 necessario in fine orationis etiam liberari nos postulamus a malo, 
 qui fidem nostram diversis temptationibus quotidie expugnare non 
 desinit, a qua nos non immerito quotidiana oratione deprecamur, 
 ne immissionibus ipsius impediti praecepta divina minime possimus 
 implere. The masculine interpretation of a malo is to be noticed. 
 
 Jerome in Ezek. xlviii. 16 (Migne P. L. 25 p. 484) ‘Cumque 
 recesserimus ab aquilone, vento frigidissimo, transimus ad merti- 
 diem, et post ortum in nobis lumen scientiae, occasum fortitudinum 
 formidamus, nequaquam praeterita sed futura considerantes, nec 
 habentes certam virtutis possessionem sed quotidie in oratione 
 dicentes, Ve inducas nos in temptationem quam ferre non possumus.’ 
 
 Augustine De Serm. Dom. ii. 9 ‘ Aliud est induci in temptati- 
 onem, aliud temptari...Inducimur enim si tales acciderint quas 
 Jerre non possumus. This passage is not noticed in Sabatier. 
 
 Pseudo-Augustine Serm. Ixxxiv. (Migne P. L. 39 p. 1909) 
 ‘Et ne patiaris nos induct in temptationem quam ferre non possumus, 
 
 1 Here is another Scriptural gloss making its way into the text. Comp. Ps. 
 Cxviii. 8 (non me derelinquas usquequaque), xxvi, 9, xxxvil. 22, lxx. 9. 
 
68 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Vide quid dicat guam ferre non possumus: non dicit, non inducas 
 nos in temptationem; sed quasi athleta talem vult temptationem 
 quam ferre possit humana conditio, et unusquisque ut a malo, hoc 
 est, ab inimico et a peccato, liberetur. Potens est autem Dominus 
 qui abstulit peccatum vestrum, et delicta vestra donavit, tueri et 
 custodire vos adversum diaboli adversantis insidias, ut non vobis 
 obrepat inimicus, qui culpam generare consuevit’.’ The masculine 
 interpretation of a malo again should be noticed. 
 
 Hitherto we have confined our attention to Latin writers in re- 
 ference to both these glosses. It is in Latin writers that they both 
 attach themselves to the text of the Prayer, though it is only the 
 first of them which has gained a place in extant Latin copies of 
 the N.T. But it is important to remark that the first gloss is 
 found in a fragment of Dionysius of Alexandria (Migne P. G. 10 
 p- 1601, see below p. 140) xai 81) Kal pun eicevéyens nuas eis 
 Telpacuov' TouvTéaTL, py édons nuas eurreceiv els Teipacpor, 
 where 1 Tim. vi. 9 is combined with 1 Cor. x. 13. Further, a 
 similar phrase embedded in a prayer has been already quoted 
 (p. 33) from Agathangelus, 6 éacas éreOeiv nuiv Tov wetpacpov 
 tovtov. I have pointed out that there appears to be a large 
 liturgical element in Agathangelus, and this fact at once suggests 
 that we have only partially followed up the clue given in Augus- 
 tine’s words (p. 63), ‘sic orant nonnulli, ‘multi precando ita 
 dicunt.’ Compare Jerome (above p. 67) ‘quotidie in oratione 
 dicentes.’ The true origin of these allied glosses appears at once 
 when we turn to the following passages from the Liturgies’. 
 
 Liturgy of Alexandria (Swainson p. 6) jx) eioevéyens judas els 
 Teipacmov, Ov UTreveyKetvy ov Suvaueba. The Embolismus of the 
 same Liturgy (Swainson p. 62 f., Hammond p- 189) vai xvpee, 
 KUPLE, [un EloevéeyKys...Tovnpov. oldev yap % ToAX} cov ev- 
 oTrayyvia, OTe ov Suvapeba vrreveyxeiv bia THY TOAAHY HudV 
 
 1 This whole passage is also found in Pseudo-Ambrose de Sacramentis v. 4. 29. 
 
 * Dr Hort has already suggested this explanation. After speaking of the 
 doxology, he adds (Notes on Select Readings p. 9), ‘Another apparently liturgical 
 interpolation occurs in several Latin Fathers, the addition of quam ferre (swf- 
 Jerre) non possumus to temptationem: it is not known to exist in any Latin ms. of 
 the Gospel itself.’ He does not notice the first gloss. 
 
‘BRING US NOT INTO TEMPTATION,’ 69 
 
 acbéveav: adda Tolncov oly TS TELpacpe Kal THY ExBacw, Tod 
 Svvacbat nds vrreveryxeiv. 
 
 Liturgy of St James (Swainson p. 225 f.) picar puds...u7 
 adroatnans ad’ nuav tiv anv BonOevav, unde Baputépas tHs 
 npeTépas Suvvapews tratdeias errayayns nuiv. The Embolismus of 
 the same Liturgy (Swainson p. 306 f, Hammond p. 48) p 
 eloevéyens judas els Tetpacuov, Kuple, KUpte TOV Suvapewy, dv 
 UtreveyKeiv ov dSuvaueba, 6 cidds THY acbéveray judy, dAXd podcaL 
 KATA. 
 
 The Syriac Liturgy of St James (Swainson p. 348, Hammond 
 p. 78) has, ‘Domine, Deus noster, ne inducas nos in temptationem, 
 quam virtute destituti sustinere non possimus, [sed fac etiam cum 
 tentatione proventum, ut possimus sustinere, ] et libera.... 
 
 The Embolismus of the Coptic Liturgy (Hammond p. 223) ne 
 nos inducas in temptationem, neque permittas ullam iniquitatem 
 in nos dominari. 
 
 A consideration of this liturgical evidence, of the passages 
 from Tertullian and Cyprian (above pp. 64, 65), of the fact that 
 neither of these two glosses occurs in any known Greek text of 
 the N.T., and that only one of them is found in any known Latin 
 text of the N.T., and lastly of the analogy of other additions to 
 and adaptations of the Prayer, seems to me to prove that they 
 made their way from the Liturgies into (or towards) the text of 
 the N.T., and not vice versa. The further fact that these glosses 
 occur in writers who are separated from each other in time and 
 in circumstance, and that they are found in Liturgies belonging 
 to different families, shews very clearly that they must be due to 
 very early liturgical usage. 
 
 Note on an English Version of this clause in the King’s Book 
 (1543). 
 
 The Institution of a Christian Man, 1537, often called the Bishops’ Book, 
 has on the clause And leade us not into temptation the following comment : 
 ‘For the more playne declaration of the sixth petition we thinke it convenient 
 that all byshops and preachers shall instructe and teache the people...that 
 our Savior Jesus Christ teacheth us not in this sixth peticion, to praye unto 
 
70 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 god our father, that we shulde be clerely without al temptation, but that he 
 wol not suffre us to be led into temptation.... Sayncte Paule sayth, The 
 trewe and faythfull god wol not suffre us to be tempted above that we maye 
 beare, but he wol turne temptation to our profit, that we maye susteyn it 
 and overcome it.’ This exposition is substantially repeated in the Wecessary 
 Erudition of any Christian Man, 1543, often called the King’s Book. But 
 here the petition in the Prayer itself is And Jette us not be ledde into tempta- 
 tion. The history of the clause in Tertullian and Cyprian curiously repeats 
 itself, though the explanation of the history may be quite different in the two 
 epochs. I do not know that this gloss is found in any other English Version 
 of the Prayer. 
 
Vil; 
 BAAA PYcal HMAC ATIO TOY TIONHpOY (St MarTHEW). 
 
 IN a discussion of the interpretation of this clause three distinct 
 questions require investigation: (1) the meaning of the prepo- 
 sitions azo and é« after pyecOa: and kindred verbs; (2) the origin, 
 meaning and use of the term 6 zovnpos; (3) the evidence as to 
 the gender of azo tod rovnpod to be derived from (i) the Gospels, 
 (ii) the Epistles, (111) early Christian literature, (iv) the earliest 
 Versions. 
 
 Frequent reference will be made to the friendly controversy 
 of two great scholars, who have since then passed away. It was 
 opened by Canon Cook’s Protest against the change in the last 
 petition of the Lord's Prayer...a letter to the Bishop of London, 
 dated four days after the publication on May 17, 1881, of the 
 Revised Version of the New Testament. Bishop Lightfoot’s three 
 letters in answer to Canon Cook appeared in the Guardian on the 
 7th, 14th, and 21st of the following September’. Canon Cook 
 replied by a full statement of his case in a Second: Letter dated 
 26 November, 1881*. It would be indeed unbecoming to praise 
 the learning of the two disputants: but, as I shal] have occasion 
 more than once to criticise Canon Cook’s arguments, I may perhaps 
 be allowed to pay a respectful tribute to the chastened and almost 
 pathetic earnestness with which the veteran scholar pleaded his 
 cause. Yet even such masters of the reaper’s craft have left a few 
 ears for humbler gleaners to gather. 
 
 1. The prepositions amo and é« after precOa. 
 
 When used with full accuracy azo, the correlative of zpos, 
 
 1 While this is passing through the press I learn that Bp Lightfoot’s three 
 letters are being reprinted in the third edition of his volume On a Fresh Revision. 
 
 2 Canon Cook’s protest had the enthusiastic support of Dean Burgon, The 
 Revision Revised, p. 214 ff. 
 
72 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 denotes motion from, emphasising the idea of direction; éx, the 
 correlative of eds, denotes motion out of, emphasising the idea of 
 emergence. Thus, for example, the two prepositions are used 
 correctly in the following verse of the Apocalypse (xxi. 2): «al 
 Thy Tod THY aylav lepoveadnu Kxatvnv eidov KataBaivovcay éx 
 Tod ovpavod amd Tov Oeod'. When then azo is used with a verb 
 meaning deliverance, it properly implies nothing more than that 
 the threatened danger has been averted. A person has been 
 in the neighbourhood of peril, and has been withdrawn unharmed. 
 The preposition é« following a verb of this class properly expresses 
 the further notion that the person delivered has been brought out 
 of the very area of danger itself. Instances of this full meaning 
 are: Ps. xxxiil. 20 (LXX.) moAAal ai Oripers TaV Sixaiwy, Kal 
 éx traca@yv avtov (Hebr. pp 3h) pvoetat avtous®: and again, 
 Jude 5 Kupios Nadv ex yns Alyvrrtov cwcas. But as a matter 
 of fact is this distinction invariably or commonly observed in the 
 Lxx. and in the New Testament? The answer with regard to 
 the usage of the former is of primary importance. It must 
 however be remarked that statistics as to the phenomena of the 
 LXX., in the present condition of the text and of the available 
 apparatus, can only be looked upon as approximate and provisional. 
 
 It is probably due to a sense of the distinction pointed out 
 above that the translators of the Lxx. and the writers of the N.T. 
 alike avoid the construction ¢@uvAaccew éx, and, with the single 
 exception of Ps, cxxxix 5, always associate with this verb the 
 preposition azo*. Avoidance of, not emergence out of, danger is 
 the essential idea of this word. The choice therefore of this 
 preposition is a natural one. 
 
 But the case is different when we take the ambiguous verb 
 
 1 Comp. Le. ii. 4, Jn. i. 44, 45, 46, vii. 17, xi. 1, 1 Thess. ii. 6, 2 Cor. v. 6, 8 
 (éxdnuoduev dad Tov Kuplov...€xdnujoge €x Tov gwuaros), Apoc. xvi. 17. The contrast 
 between dmd vexpay (Le. xvi. 30, Matt. xiv. 2, xxvii. 64) and é« vexpdy (Le. xvi. 31 
 and always elsewhere) is very instructive. The éx implies a certain relation to the 
 other dead: it hints at the thought of an adrapx7. 
 
 2 Comp. Ps, exxiii. 7. 
 
 3 The passages are (a) Deut. xxiii. 9, Josh. vi. 18, Ps. xvii. 24, exx. 7, cxl. 9, 
 Jer. ix. 4, Mic. vii. 5 (in ali these places the Hebr. verb is WW’), Ezek. xxxiii. 8, 
 Sir. xii. 11, xxii. 18, 26, xxxv. 22, xxxvii. 8; (b) Le. xii. 15, 2 Thess. iti. 3, 
 1 Jn. v. 21. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 73 
 
 pvecOar, to deliver. Here taking all the occurrences of piec@az, 
 without distinguishing them according to the Hebrew word 
 represented, the verb is followed by é« 30 times; by é« yeupos’ 
 (or é« tov yepov) 20 times; while only 10 instances of azo 
 are found’. 
 
 A more exact view of the facts of the case is gained if the 
 various constructions of the verb by) (Niphal, Piel, Huiphil, 
 Hophal), and their several equivalents in the LXX., are in- 
 vestigated. For, while pvec@a: is used to represent several 
 
 Hebrew verbs ssa, ywin, von, poi bp), it occurs about 
 
 SO times as the translation of parts of by. The results attained 
 are as follows. 
 1, “B45 (1) Of living creatures, chiefly persons? : 
 
 (a) é yeypos. Gen. xxxit. 12*, xxxvu. 21*, 22*, Ex. im. 
 S27 xvi O* 10". Dente xxv, 11 *, xxxi.39*, Josh: 1x. 26*, xxi: 
 ol xxiv LO“ Judo wino:, vill o4 dey, 1 Sam: iv: 8", vil. 3, 
 14 (adeirovTo), xii. 11*, xiv. 48*, xvii. 37*, 2 Sam. xii. 7, 2 Kings 
 Xvili. 29*, 33, 34*, 35*, 2 Chron. xxxii. 138 (odoat, so wv. 14, 15), 
 i Ps xxiteolibe xxx. 16, Ixxxit. 4 oxcvin,, LO) exliv. go, 11 *. Is: 
 mum On NO AQ. di ds *, Jer xv ol xx. 1S". xx1 12% xxii 
 3*, xli. 11 (oofev), Ezek. xiii. 21, 23, xxxiv. 27*, Dan. viii. 4*, 
 7* (Theod.), Hos. ii. 12*, Zech. xi. 6*. 7 
 
 (b) é«. 2 Kings xvii. 39*, Prov. vi. 5 (ow&: but the Lxx. 
 diverges from the Hebrew). 
 
 ()> ene Bxyie dl Numb: xxxv: 25%, Dan, vilis ¢ (Lx): 
 
 1 I have noticed amd yxerpos only in 2 Esdr. viii. 31 (€ppicaro judas amo yerpos 
 €xOpov). 
 
 2 Job xxxili. 17, Ps. xvi. 13, xvii. 30, 49, xxxviii. 9, xlii. 1, exix. 2, Prov. ii. 12, 
 (xi, 4 v.1.), Ezek. xxxvii. 23, 1 Mace. xii. 15. 
 
 3 In passages marked with an asterisk the verb éfa:petoOac is used. In all other 
 cases when a verb other than plier#a is used, the verb is noted. 
 
 In the prayer of Esther (iv. 16), which only exists in the Greek, there occurs the 
 petition pica: muds ék xeipos Twv movypevopévwy Kai ploal pe Ex TOD PdBouv wov. The 
 resemblance of the prayer, which is perhaps based on some Greek Jewish formula, 
 to the Lord’s Prayer is to be noted. Fritzsche (Libri Apocryphi p. 51) gives besides 
 the above the following reading: pica: judas x xeipds THY movnpevonévwy Ep’ Huds Kal 
 é£ehov pe, KUpte, Ex XELpds TOU PbBou ov. Comp. Jer. xx. 13 Dy 9D wp... (Dxx. 
 
 éfeiaTo...€K XeELpds Tovnpevop“éev wy). 
 
74 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (2) Of things: 
 éx. Is, xlvii. 14*. Compare Job v. 20, 
 3a pM TB 
 picetail oe éx« Oavatov...€x yerpos oLdnpov AvGEL Ge. 
 Zane) ele) (1) Of living creatures : 
 (a) é« yeipos. 2 Sam. xiv. 16, xxii. 1* (= Ps. xvin. 1), 
 2 Kings xx. 6 (cow), 2 Chron. xxxii. 11 (o@ce), Is. xxviii. 6. 
 (b) amd yepos. 2 Esdr. (= Ezra) vii. 31. 
 (c) é« xecpos aro. 2 Sam. xix. 10, 
 sow Aap nob wim nas AID UP WT 
 6 Bactreds Aaveid épdcato jpas ex yerpos amd Tavtwv" TAY 
 éxOpav hav, kai adtos éEeidato Huds éx yerpos adropunrov. 
 (2) Of things: 
 Hab. ii.9. + yD Oyamd 
 Tov éxotracOnvar ex yEelpos KAaKOY. 
 
 3. "B jp (1) Of living creatures: 
 
 (a) éx. 1 Sam. xvii. 35 (é€éoraca éx Tob otopatos avtod), 
 2 Sam. xxii. 18, 49, 1 Chron. xvi. 35*, Ps. xviii. 18, xxxi. 16, lix. 2*, 
 3, Ixix. 15D, cxlii. 7, exliii. 9*, Ezek. xxxiv. 10 (é€eAodpas...€« Tod 
 orTopatos avtav), Amos iii. 12 (6Tav exoTraan 6 Toupny x oTOMATOS 
 Tov A€ovtos dvo cxédn), Mice. v. 5. 
 
 (b) dao. Ps. xviii. 49b, Prov. ii. 12 (wa puontai ce amo 
 6500 Kaxis kal dd dv8pds NadodvTos pndev TLoTOv). Prov. ii. 16 
 is altogether transformed in the LXx. 
 
 (c) é« yeupés. Ps. xxxiv. 18. Comp. Ex. xviii. 4, 
 
 : mye Tn wen 
 
 éEeikaté pe ex yerpos Papac’. 
 
 1 The phrase however has probably arisen from a misreading of 531) as 520, 
 and a subsequent conflation of the two readings. 
 
 2 In Gen. xxxi. 16 (iv ddetNaro 6 9eds Tod Tarpos juav), the simple genitive involves 
 a change of construction (Hebr. 13°48%D), 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 15 
 
 (2) Of things: 
 (a): éx. Ex. vi. 6, Josh. 11. 18*, 1 Sam. xxvi. 24*, Ps. xxxiii. 
 
 19, xxxiv. 5, 18, 20, li. 16, liv. 9, lvi. 14, Ixxxvi. 13, xci. 3 (puceras 
 éx mrayidos Onpevtdy, Kal amo Aoyou Tapaywdous), cvii. 6, cxix. 
 
 43 (mepiédys), exliv. 7 (¢ 7193 22 MD DI DPD sbyn 
 
 é£eXod pe Kal pdoal pe €& a ae €x YELpOS Vid@Y adoT- 
 ptwv), Prov. x. 2, xxl. 14, Amos iv. 11 (éerracpévos éx trupés, 
 
 || Zech. ii. 2). 
 
 (b) azo. Ps. xxii. 21a, xxxix. 9, lxix. 15a (odcov), xci. 3b 
 (see just above), cxx. 2, Prov. 11. 12a (see above, 3(b)), xi. 4 (cxauo- 
 avvn puoerar amo Qavarou: the clause is not in B), Ezek. xxxiv. 12 
 (amedaow...a7d Tavtds ToTov). In Jon. iv. 6 (cKvaley avté aro 
 
 TOV Kakév avTod) the LXx. clearly connected oy with by 
 which occurs in the earlier part of the verse. 
 
 4. "BBD Is. xx. 6, Top 18D Sy3nd = cwdjvar amd 
 Bactréas. 
 
 5. "5 By Deut. xxii. 16 (the wording is changed in the 
 LEX): 
 
 6. "BT KAMA Ex. xvii. 10 (omitted in the Lxx.). 
 
 To pass to another important point, the prepositions azoé and 
 éx are often interchanged in the parallel clauses of poetical 
 passages. Thus, for example, 
 
 Ps: xxu. (Heb, xxi.) 21, 22 
 pdcar aro powpatas (INNS) THv xuyny pov, 
 Kal éx xetpos (TID) Kuvos THY povoyery pov: 
 odcov we €x aTo“aTos (*DID) NéovTos, 
 kal amo KepaTwv CIP) MOVvOKEpwTwY THY TaTreivwoiV pov. 
 Ps, xxxiv. (Heb. xxxv.) 10 
 puomevos TTwWYOV Ex yeELpds aTEpEWrépwy aUTOD (139/9 pins), 
 
 kal wTwxov Kal mévnta amd tév Siapratéyvtwy avrov (j9}5D). 
 
76 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Ps. Ixviii. (Heb. Ixix.) 15 
 Tacov pe ard Tnrov (ODD), wa py evTayar 
 puoGeinv éx TaY picovyT@Y pE (SILD) 
 Kal €« tov BaOous tav Sdtov (O° ‘payiaio). 
 Ps; exxxix. (Heb:,exl) 1 
 éFeXod pe, xupte, €E avOpwrrov (DINID) srovnpod, 
 ard avdpos (LPN) adixouv pidcai pe. 
 Comp. xvil. 49, xc. 3, exiv. 8, Sir. li. 2—5. 
 
 Further, azo is sometimes used where reference is made to a 
 deliverance from some adverse power which is already over- 
 whelming its victim. Thus Ps. xxxviii. 9 a6 tacév TOV avopidy 
 prov oywa-Sap) pdoai we. Jer. xlix. (xliii Heb.) 17 ove éotar 
 
 avTav ovodels cwlopevos ato Tay Kakov (MYIM IBD) av eyo 
 7 Aap < ‘ of 
 
 dueomrapnoay éxei. XXXVil. 23 Kal prcopar CRYY I) avuTovs amo 
 TAT@V TOV AVOLLOVY AUTOV (ONAL 951) ev nuaptocay év 
 autais. . 
 
 Conversely, in the phrases éx @avatov (e.g. Ps. xxxii. 19, lv. 14) 
 and é& ate@Xelas (Sir. li. 2, 12), the stricter meaning of é« cannot 
 be maintained. It seems in such cases to emphasise either the 
 extremity and imminence of the danger or the completeness of the 
 deliverance vouchsafed. 
 
 A review of the whole investigation seems to justify the fol- 
 lowing conclusions: 
 
 (1) In regard to the Hebrew verb by), it is more often 
 used of deliverance from living creatures than from impersonal 
 dangers; further, the genius of the language, loving simplicity 
 and picturesque statement, explains the fact that the phrase 
 ‘from the hand of’ is the favourite complement. As to the Greek 
 equivalents, the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase—é« 
 xetpos—is the most common ; and further é«, being nearer than 
 amo to €x xeLpos, is most often chosen to render the Hebrew }), 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE. le 
 
 It is clear also that the phrases both in Hebrew and in Greek— 
 a2) F219, ex yelpos, ex, aro—are used, though in different pro- 
 portions which appear in the list of references given above, in 
 reference to both persons and things. 
 
 (2) The primary distinction between é« and azo, according to 
 which the former applies to dangers already experienced, the 
 latter to dangers which only threaten, is not observed in the Lxx. 
 
 An examination of the passages in which pveoOas and kindred 
 verbs are used in the N. T. naturally follows an investigation into 
 the usage of the LXx. 
 
 éEaipeiv: a verb used, it should be noticed, upwards of 70 
 times in the Lxx. to translate Goya. 
 
 (i) é« yeupos. Acts xii. 11 6 Kupsos...éEeihaTo pe x yeLrpos 
 ‘Hpedov cai dons THs tpocdoKias Tod Aaod TAdv “lovéaiwv. 
 Some ‘ Western’ authorities add é« before waons. The é« yeupos 
 is here used in its strictest sense. The Apostle was already in the 
 tyrant’s grasp (é7éBadev...tas yelpas v. 1, miacas v. 4; comp. 
 John vii. 30, 44, x. 39; 2 Cor. xi. 32 f.); ‘the expectation of the 
 people’ already encircled him. 
 
 (ii) é« (a) Acts vii. 10 é&eiXato avtov [Tov ‘lwand] &x 
 Tacav Tov Orpewv avtov. Compare Ps. xxiv. 22, xxxiu. 7, 18. 
 The preposition is clearly used in its full sense. 
 
 (b) Acts xxvi. 17 é£arpovpevos ce ék Tod aod Kat Ex TH 
 éOvav. Comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 35 é&edod nuds ex tev €Ovar. 
 Jer. i. 7 f. (the latter passage throws no light on the question 
 of construction). Guided by e.g. Acts xxiii. 27, 2 Cor. xi. 25 f. we 
 here also give the full sense to éx. 
 
 (c) Gal. i. 4 orws éFéAntar nds €x ToD aidvos Tod éverTa- 
 Tos Tovnpov. dro in place of é« has very slight support. The 
 discussion of this passage must be reserved. See p. 115 ff. 
 
 AuTpovabar. (a) 1 Pet. i. 18 eAvtpwOnTe Ex THS pataias 
 Upav avactpopys tatpotrapadcrov. Here obviously ‘the vain 
 manner of life’ had held men within its grasp’. 
 
 1 On the other hand comp. Hermas Vis. iv. 1.7, At the approach of the beast, 
 
78 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (b) Tit. ii. 14 ds ESmxev Eavtov vmép nudv va AUTPOCNTAL 
 Huds amd tdaons avopias Kal Kafapion éavT@ Aaov TreEpLovctov. 
 ‘Iniquity’ had been no merely menacing power. It had actually 
 subjected men to its despotic rule. This is clear from ill. 3 jwev 
 yap ToTe Kal nueis K.T.A. aro therefore cannot imply a more or less 
 distant danger. It seems to differ from é« in that, laying less 
 stress on the power from which deliverance is vouchsafed, it leaves 
 more room for the thought of the deliverance itself”. 
 
 pvec@ar. (i) &x xepos. Luke i. 74 tod Sodvae npiv apoBus 
 éx yxeipos eyOpav puvabévtas Aatpevery avT@. (Comp. v. 71 
 cotnpiav é& éxyOpav nuadv Kal ex yelpos TavTwY TOY picovYT@Y 
 nas). The song is built up on O. T. thoughts and expressions. 
 To this phrase in particular many parallels may be found in the O.T. 
 e.g. Judg. ii. 18, viii. 34, 1 Sam. iv. 3, xu. 10, Ps. xvi. 18, 21, 49, 
 xxx. 16, lvili. 2, Ixiii. 2, ev. 10, exlii. 9. The whole context shews 
 that ‘the enemies’ were tyrannous powers under which the Israel 
 of God actually mourned. 
 
 (ii) ék. (a) Rom. vil. 24 tis we pucetar x TOV cepaTos TOU 
 Oavatov rovrov; The thought is of a captivity (aiyparwrifovta 
 pe v. 23) and a slavery (Souvdevw...vou@ auaptias v. 25) of which 
 ‘the body of this death’ (comp. ‘the body of sin’ vi. 6) is the 
 sphere. ‘The preposition é« has its full force. 
 
 (b) 2 Cor. i. 10 ds é« THALKOUTOU BavaTou épvcaTo Huas Kal 
 pvocetat. The é« points to the nearness of the enemy :—avtoi 
 év éavtots TO aréKpipma Tov Oavatou éecynKaper (v. 9). 
 
 (c) Col. i. 13 65 épcato twas ex THs €Eovelas TOD cKOTOUS Kal 
 petéotnoev x.T.r. The full sense of éx is clear. 
 
 (d) 1 Thess. i. 10 "Incotyv tov pudpwevov nuds é« THs opyns 
 Ths épxopuéevns. azo is an apparently ‘Western’ reading which 
 passed over into the ‘Syrian’ text. We find in St Paul’s writings 
 a double conception of the Divine wrath. There will be a future 
 and final outpouring of it. Thus Rom. i. 5, v. 9 (c@@nodpeba 80’ 
 
 the type of the great tribulation which should be, jpiauny épwrav Tov képiov va pe 
 Aurpwonrar €£ abrov. Deliverance from any experience of the monster’s power is 
 obviously the point of the request. 
 
 1 Contrast Ps. exxix. 8 xal avrds Aurpwoerae Tov “Iopand ex wacav Tav dvouiwy 
 auTov. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 79 
 
 avTov amo THS Opyns); comp. Matt. ili. 7 Puyety ao THs wedXXov- 
 ons opyns. There is also a present anticipatory manifestation. 
 Thus Rom. i. 18, iii. 5, xii. 19, Eph. v. 6 (épyerac 7 dpy) Tov Oeod eri 
 Tovs viovs THs amretOias), Col. iii. 6, 1 Thess. ii. 16 (€p@acev b€ ex’ 
 avtovs 7 opy? eis TéAos). Between the two conceptions St Paul 
 himself supplies the connecting link :—Oncaupifers ceavt® opynv 
 év nuépa opyns Kal amroxadvyews dixatoxpicias Tov Beov (Rom. 
 ii. 5). The deliverance is a present reality; the full revelation of 
 the nature of the danger lies in the future’. The general subject 
 of these Epistles to Thessalonica—the second coming of Christ— 
 (note especially 1 Thess. v. 2, 2 Thess. i. 6—10, ii. 8), the special 
 reference in the immediate context to this great expectation 
 (avapévery® tov vidv avtod éx Tov ovpavav) seem together to 
 shew that 7 dpyn 7 épyouévn is the future exhibition of wrath 
 against sin. In this case é« may most naturally be taken to point 
 to the completeness of the deliverance. ‘He brings us clean out 
 of the reach of future judgment*.’ 
 
 (e) 2 Tim. ii. 11 Kal é« wavtwy pe épvcato 6 Kupios. The 
 enumeration of dangers actually experienced which precedes these 
 words indicates the force of the éx. 
 
 (f) 2 Tim. iv. 17, 18 Kai épicOnv éx otopatos Ré€ovTos. 
 pvoeTai we 0 KUpLos amo TavTOs Epyou Tovnpov... The passage 
 will demand fuller notice later on. For the present it may be 
 sufficient to call attention to the fact that here only in the N. T. 
 are the prepositions é« and azo following pvec@ar contrasted with 
 each other. The é« is used in its fullest meaning, the phrase 
 being a proverbial expression for extreme and hopeless danger. 
 It is an echo of the language of the O. T. Compare Ps. xxi. 22, 
 TMOOV ME EK TTOMATOS A€OVTOS, Kal ATO KEPAT@V MOVOKEPWTOV TV 
 tatreivwoiv pov. See also Amos i. 12, Zech. ix. 7, Ezek. xxxiv. 
 10, Dan. vi. 20, 22, 1 Mace. 11.60. The fierceness of the definite 
 danger in the past, a wonderful deliverance out of which had 
 
 1 Comp. 6 kai rijs wedNovons dmoxadUmregbat SoEns kowwvos (1 Pet. v. 1). There is 
 a present participation in that which shall hereafter be revealed. 
 
 2 dvapéve a amat Ney. in the N.T.—to await a final consummation—is best 
 illustrated by Aesch. Eum. 243 dvauévw rédos Slxns. 
 
 3 Comp. the Ancient Homily (the so called 2nd Ep. of Clement), ch. vi. roi- 
 ouvres yap Td OéAnua TOU Xpicrov evpjoomev avdravow ef 5é pryye, ovdev Huas poeta 
 €k THS aiwvlov Kko\acews. 
 
80 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 been vouchsafed, inspires St Paul with trust for the future. But 
 when the reference is to unknown evils which the future may 
 bring, the clear and pointed é« naturally gives place to ao. For 
 here it is not so much the possible dangers on which the Apostle’s 
 mind dwells as on the certainty of deliverance. 
 
 (g) 2 Pet. ii. 9 ofSev Kipsos evoeBeis €x metpacpod peo @au. 
 The reading zretpacuav has some support (N, with some cursives 
 and versions). The reference to the history of Lot shews that the 
 full sense here attaches to the preposition. 
 
 (iii) dard. (a) Matt. vi. 13 pdcac jwas aro Tod Tovypod. 
 
 (b) Rom. xv. 30 f. rapaxadd 8 vyuds...cuvayovicacbat por 
 év tals mpocevyais vTrEep Emov mpos Tov Oedv, iva pucba avo TOV 
 drreOovvtav év Th lovdsaia. St Paul asks for his friends’ interces- 
 sion that in the visit to Jerusalem, which he hopes soon to make 
 (v. 25) he may not fall into the hands of his Jewish enemies. The 
 use of dzro is therefore obviously natural. 
 
 (c) 2 Thess. iii. 1, 2 wpocedyerOe, aderpoi, wept HLOV...va 
 pucOdpev aro Tav atoTav Kal Tovnpav avOperav. This passage 
 is an exact parallel to that discussed immediately above. 
 
 (d) 2 Tim. iv. 18 quoted and commented on above. 
 
 ootew. (i) é«. (a) John xii. 27 matep, c@aov pe €x TIS 
 dpas TavTys. adda bia TodTO HAOor eis Tv Opav tavtnv. At first 
 sight the words é« THs @pas and eis THY dpav seem to imply that 
 the Lord speaks of Himself as having already entered upon ‘the 
 hour, and that He asks to be brought safely through it. Such an 
 interpretation in such a context appears unnatural. The key to 
 the meaning lies in dAAd Siva tobTo. The adda implies a contrast 
 between the prayer cacov éx THs Wpas TavTns and the conscious- 
 ness of a purpose (dvd todt0). The da tovro is explained by the 
 context; it points back to the thought of the fruitfulness of death 
 (v. 24). The remembrance of the purpose, if we may so put it, 
 corrects the prayer. This is substantially Chrysostom’s interpreta- 
 tion in loco, orm TeTapaxtat ws Kal amradrayry Entei, et ye evi 
 Svapuyeiv. tadta ths avOporivns picews Ta acOevnpata...THs 
 rapaxis TodTO avayKalovans dye, TO éevavtiov Néyw. Thus the 
 prepositions é« and eds represent the Lord as just passing within 
 the shadow of the Cross. The é« emphasises the idea of close 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 81 
 
 proximity. ‘Rescue me even now from full entrance into the 
 hour of sorrow and death.’ Comp. Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
 (b) Hebr. v. 7 Sences te Kal ikernpias mpos Tov Suvapevov 
 owfew avtov éx Oavatov...mpocevéyxas. Here too the preposition 
 €x seems to express the nearness of the adverse power. It should 
 be remembered that the phrase é« Oavarovu with precOar, éFarpeic- 
 Oat x.7.. had become stereotyped in the Lxx., where éx, recalling 
 the fuller phrase é« yerpos, conforms with the Hebrew personifica- 
 tion of Death. See Ps. xxxii. 19, lv. 14, cxiv. 8, Prov. x. 2, Job 
 xxxil. 30, Hos. xiil. 14 (€« yeupds adov proopar Kal éx Oavatov 
 AUTPWcoat avTovs). The parallels from the O. T. would not of 
 themselves require us to reject the interpretation, ‘to bring safely 
 through and out of death’; but what is in itself the more natural 
 meaning of the words, seems also to harmonise best with the 
 unambiguous words of Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
 (c) Jas.v. 20 6 émuctpéyras duwaptwrov é« wRavns 0b00 avTod 
 cwoe uynv avtov éx Oavatov. This is no doubt the common 
 O. T. use of the phrase é« Qavarou. 
 
 (d) Jude 5 Kupsos Xadv ex yns Alyurtov cécas. The full 
 meaning of é« is here necessary. 
 
 (ii) amo. (a) Matt. i. 21 avros yap codce: Tov Nady avTod 
 a0 TOV awaptiav avtav. See the note on Tit. ii. 14, p.78. Here 
 the personal act of the Saviour is that on which the main emphasis 
 rests. 
 
 (b) Acts 11.40 cwOnte amo THs yeveds THs oxOdLAS TaUTNS. 
 There is an instructive passage in Numb. xvi. bearing on the use 
 of the phrase cw@jvar amd. In v. 21 Jehovah, as if He would 
 destroy the whole people, bids Moses and Aaron go forth from 
 their midst: amrocyicOnte ex pécou' THs cvvaywyis Ta’Tns (ind 
 
 nin MTB), On the other hand, when in answer to the interces- 
 
 sion of Moses and Aaron Israel is spared and commanded to depart 
 from the neighbourhood of Korah, the phraseology is changed : 
 
 AVAXWPNTATE KUKAW ATO (0 1°15) THS auvvaywyns Kopé (v. 24), 
 atoaxyiaOnte aro ae Tov oKnvav tov avOpotwy (v. 26, so 
 
 v. 27). In the first command the idea expressed by the preposi- 
 
 1 Comp. Is. lii. 11 (2 Cor. vi. 17), Jer. li. (xxviii.) 6, 45 (Apoc. xviii. 4). 
 G, 6 
 
82 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 tion is that of a disentanglement, an exodus; in the latter that of 
 removal. In the passage from the Acts, the Greek in itself does 
 not decide whether those addressed were themselves included in 
 the yevea oxodva. Certain expressions in the Apostle’s speech 
 (rpoomnEavtes aveidate v. 23; ytvwoKxétTw Tas olKos ‘Iopann...Ov 
 Upeis eotavpwoate Vv. 36; comp. ili. 13 ff, 19, iv. 27 ody eOveow 
 kal daois "Iopand) seem to suggest that they were so included. 
 The azro however simply emphasises the idea of removal and escape. 
 
 (c) Rom. v. 9 caOnodpeba 80 avtod amo ths opyns. Here 
 the azro expresses the thought es kpiow ovx épyetas (John v. 24). 
 See above p. 78 f. the note on 1 Thess. i. 10. 
 
 tnpetv. This verb in the N. T. is followed by é« alone. 
 (a) Jn. xvii. 15 épwrd...iva typnons avtovs é€x tod Tovnpod. 
 The passage must be reserved for discussion later on (p. 109 ff.). 
 
 (b) Apoc. iii. 10 kaya oe tTypnow ex THs wpas Tod TELpacpod 
 THS pmerArovans epyecbar etl THs oixoupévns OANS, TELpacaL TOUS 
 KaToiKovvtTas émt ths yns. The parallel in St John’s Gospel 
 (céodv pe éx THS @pas Tav’TyS xii. 27, see above p. 80) suggests that 
 the preposition here does not imply any actual participation in this 
 ‘temptation’; and this presumption is increased when we note the 
 close similarity between this passage and the Lord’s words recorded 
 in Luke xxi. 35 f., éresoeNevoetat yap él tavtas Tovs KaOnpévous 
 érl mpocwTov Taans THS YRS. aypuTvette Se ev TavTl Kalp@ 
 Secpevor va Katicyvonte éexpuyeivy tadtTa TavtTa Ta péddOVTA 
 ryiver Oat. 
 
 gvaratrev. The only preposition which follows this verb is 
 ato. 
 
 (a) (b). In two passages a Hebraistic form of prohibition 
 and warning is borrowed from the Lxx. (where @vAakar aro 
 = 1 (9/77) “HY ; see Deut. xxili. 9, Josh. vi. 18, Mic. vii. 5). 
 In both these places the idea of complete avoidance is conveyed 
 without any suggestion that the evil has been a dominating 
 power. The two passages are: 
 
 Luke xii. 15 dpate nat dudacoec Oe amo mwacns Treove£tas. 
 
 1 John y. 21 rexvia, Pvrakate éavta aro Tav eideror. 
 
 (c) 2 Thess. ili. 3 6 KUpios...vuds...pura£er aro Tod Tovnpod. 
 The discussion of this passage must be reserved (p. 112 ff.). 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 83 
 
 The constructions after the following verbs are specially worthy 
 of note, inasmuch as each of these verbs in itself implies a 
 definite state, deliverance out of which is secured. 
 
 €devOepoor. 
 
 Rom. vi. 18, 22 édevOepwOévres amd THs auaptias (v. 17 Are 
 SodXoL THS AuapTias). 
 
 vill. 2 nrevOépwoév oe [pe] aro Tod vopou Tis ayaptias Kal 
 tov Oavarov (vil. 23 alywadwrtifovTa pe [év] TO vopw THs apap- 
 Tlas). 
 
 vili. 21 9 xrious éXevOepwOnoetar aro THs Sovrclas THS POopas 
 (v. 20 TH yap pataornte 1 KTioLS UTETAYN). 
 
 Compare : 
 
 Rom. vii. 3 édevOépa éotiv amo Tod vopou (v. 1 Séderaz). 
 
 1 Cor. ix. 19 édevOepos yap ov ex TavTwv Tac épavTor 
 édovkwoa. Had the Apostle used the verb (€devOepwOels éx...), 
 he would have referred to an emancipation from a previous state 
 of bondage. The actual phrase employed (éXevOepos wv ek...) 
 shews that he wishes to emphasise the completeness of his freedom. 
 This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that mdovy (inter- 
 preted by what follows) shews that wavtwy is masculine. Comp. 
 vi. 12 (vo Tevos), vil. 23 (SodAOL avOpdtrwv). 
 
 Aver. (1) ato. (a) Luke xiii. 15, 16 ov Aver Tov Body avrod... 
 amo THS Patvyns; ...ovK Edet AVOHvaL ato Tov bécpou ToUTOV; 
 
 In the latter clause there is a slightly-supported variant ékx. 
 
 (b) 1 Cor. vil. 27 XéAvcat aro yuvatxos; 
 
 (2) é«. (a) Apoc. 1. 5 TH...AvcavTL Huds ex TOV awapTidy 
 npov. There is however some authority for amo. Cf. Ps. cxxix. 8 
 AUTPEOETAL...EK... 
 
 (b) Apoc. xx. 7 AVvOnceTal 6 Latavas ek THs vrais 
 avuTov. 
 
 peravoetv. (1) amo. Acts viii. 22 petavonooy ovy amo Tis 
 Kaklas cov Tavtns. Comp. Hebr. vi. 1 petavolas amo vexpav 
 Epyov. 
 
 (2) é«. Apoc. ii, 21 od OérXex petavoncar ex THs TropveEias 
 avtns. So ix. 20f., xvi 11’. 
 
 1 The construction of the following verbs also is worth remark: (1) d-yopdfew 
 (a) ao Apoc. xiv, 3, 4 (dd rijs yijs...d7d Tov dvOpwrwv). (b) ék Apoc. v. 9 (ex 
 
 6—2 
 
84 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 The preceding investigation leads to a clear result. On the 
 one hand it shews that the distinction which has been drawn 
 on a priori grounds between amo and éx after verbs expressing 
 deliverance, rescue, &c. does not exhaust the matter. Indeed this 
 theoretical distinction is but the point of departure for actual 
 differences. azo, the more colourless of the two prepositions, 
 simply implies removal from the danger or adverse power, whether 
 the person rescued has or has not been actually within its grasp. 
 The mind is therefore left more free to dwell on the thought of 
 the deliverer. On the other hand é« is used when it is desired to 
 emphasise the idea that the person rescued has been actually 
 within the grasp of the enemy. Further however, through its 
 greater sharpness and vividness of meaning it directs attention to 
 the danger itself, and serves to bring out into special prominence 
 either the imminent nature of the peril or the completeness of 
 the deliverance. 
 
 The prepositions are therefore in many cases interchangeable. 
 They express the same thing seen from two somewhat different 
 points of view. As they had been both used in the LXX. to 
 represent {/9, so they both stood ready to translate the Aramaic 
 
 preposition (for we have seen the strongest reasons for believing 
 that the Lord’s Prayer existed originally in Aramaic) in the clause 
 of the Prayer under discussion. The Apostles were obliged by 
 the conditions of translation into Greek to give one or other of 
 two slightly differing shades of meaning to what in the language 
 in which the Lord first taught the Prayer was colourless. No 
 doctrinal question is involved in the choice between the preposi- 
 tions; for, to apply to the particular case the general conclusion 
 stated above, while azo tod zrovnpod lays the main stress on the 
 thought of the deliverer and the fact of deliverance itself, é« rod 
 movnpov emphasises either the nearness and greatness of the 
 
 maons pudjs). So éfayopdfew Gal. iii. 13 (é€x ris Kardpas). (2) améxecPar (=to 
 abstain) (a) simple genitive Acts xv. 20, 28 (rav adtoynuatwv...eldwroAtrwv). The 
 construction in v. 29 is very instructive é€& wv duarnpodvres Eavrovs. (3) xabapltew 
 always with dé 2 Cor. vii. 1, Heb. ix. 14,1Jn.i.7,9. Comp. Acts xx. 26. So 
 dixacovoOac Rom, vi. 7. (4) werarl@ecOat is followed by aré in Gal. i. 6. (5) xwpl- 
 gecOar (a) awd Acts i. 4 (dd "lepoc.), xviii. 2 (ao THs ‘Pduys), Rom. viii. 35, 39, 
 1 Cor. vii. 10, Hebr. vii. 26. (b) é« Acts xviii. 1 (é« r&v "AOnvar). 
 
“DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 85 
 
 danger, or the completeness of the deliverance from Satan’s 
 assaults. 
 
 2. The origin and use of the term 6 trovnpos as applied to Satan. 
 
 In investigating the origin and the meaning of the term 
 0 Trovnpos as applied to Satan, it will be convenient to keep two 
 points as distinct as possible, viz. (a) the development of the 
 conception which is expressed by the term; (b) the history and 
 use of the term itself. 
 
 An adequate discussion of the first of these points would pre- 
 suppose a consistent theory as to the composition and date of the 
 different Books of the Old Testament, and a comprehensive study 
 alike of the religious education of Israel as seen in the light of the 
 religious thought of other Semitic peoples, and of later Jewish 
 literature in its several branches. To such encyclopaedic know- 
 ledge I certainly lay no claim. But though fulness of treatment 
 is altogether out of the question, some light may be thrown on the 
 term under consideration by a sketch, however tentative and frag- 
 mentary, of the growth of this element in Jewish belief. It must 
 however be premised that in such an attempt to summarise we 
 must necessarily neglect any traces of divergences: of thought 
 among different schools, and be content to follow the main stream 
 of opinion. 
 
 The method of divine revelation often lies in the absorption of 
 some popular belief which is afterwards purified and spiritualised 
 by a process of coordination. Within the confines of the Old 
 Testament we can watch the growth of the conception of God, 
 and we do not fear to admit that there were prehistoric elements 
 out of which the religion of Israel came’. Still less need we 
 hesitate to allow that, in the gradual working out of the conception 
 of evil, Israel both in early and in later times borrowed largely 
 from the ideas current among neighbours and conquerors, and 
 learned both slowly and partially to harmonise these conceptions 
 with the growing knowledge of a righteous, all-sovereign, spiritual 
 
 God. 
 
 1 Mr Aubrey Moore’s Essay on The Christian idea of God in Lux Mundi p, 71. 
 
86 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 The reserve of the Old Testament on the subject of super- 
 human powers of evil is remarkable’. There is the mysterious 
 riddle of ‘Azazel’ in the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement. 
 There is the conception of creatures half animal, half supernatural, 
 
 haunting desolate places (DVpWA Lev. xvii. 7, mid Is. xxxiv. 
 
 14), with which the Arabian Jinn should perhaps be compared’. 
 Again, there is the bold figure drawn from the associations of 
 earthly monarchy, according to which Jehovah is described as 
 surrounded by His court (Isaiah vi.), a court which has its Doeg 
 as well as its David, its treacherous spies as well as its faithful 
 retainers (1 Kings xxii. 19 ff., Jobi.; comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 49, 1 Chron. 
 xxl. 1). There is the narrative of the Fall in Gen. iii., a nar- 
 rative which stands alone, and on which the possible allusions to 
 it in other Books of the Old Testament (Job xxxi. 33, Hos. vi. 7, 
 Is. xiii. 27(?)) throw no Hight. Such are in the main the Old 
 Testament ideas on the subject of super-human powers of evil. 
 It is sufficient for our present purpose to note the absence in the 
 Old Testament of any attempt to give them unity or cohesion. 
 
 Here as elsewhere the period of the exile had a lasting 
 influence on Jewish thought. On the one hand, Babylonian 
 demonology left its traces on the belief of the Jews. On the 
 other, the Persian conception’ of the two rival empires of good 
 and evil doubtless helped forward the process by which something 
 of coordination and even of unity was given to the divergent 
 ideas of Israel as to adverse spiritual powers. 
 
 I give some indications from later Jewish literature of this 
 latter tendency. In the Book of Enoch, for example, which was 
 composed, roughly speaking, in the century before the Gospel era, 
 though in its present form it may incorporate sections of later 
 date, the angelology is very complicated. In the first part great 
 stress is laid on the sin of the angels (Gen. vi. 2 f.) and the 
 
 1 Comp. Oehler Theology of the O. T., Eng. Tr., ii. p. 288 ff. I have found some 
 useful hints in an article by C, H. Toy on Evil Spirits in the Bible in the Journal 
 of Biblical Literature, Andover, Mass., Vol. ix. 1890 Pt. 1. 
 
 2 Prof. Robertson Smith The Religion of the Semites p. 113 ff. 
 
 3 Compare Dr Liddon’s Sermon on the Inspiration of Selection: ‘Its later litera- 
 ture may betray affinities, however we explain them, with Persian modes of 
 thought.’ 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 87 
 
 corruption of men which followed. Among these fallen spirits, 
 though Semjazu is called their chief (cc. 6, 10), Azazel has the 
 most conspicuous place as the depraver of mankind (c. 8), and 
 afterwards (cc. 54, 55) appears as he who with all his hosts shall 
 be judged by the Elect One of God. Further, it is remarkable that 
 in the ‘Parables’ of a later part of the Book the problem is carried 
 a stage further back, and behind the fallen angels there are seen 
 spiritual tempters who led them astray. 
 
 In the Book of Wisdom (ii. 23 f.) the unity of evil in the 
 personal enemy of God is emphasised. ‘God created man for 
 incorruption (é7’ a¢@apcia), and made him the image of His 
 own Person (ris idias idvoTnTos, v. |. aiduotntos) ; nevertheless 
 through envy of the devil (@O0vm dé diaBorov) death entered 
 into the world, and they who are on the devil’s side (of THs 
 éxeivou pepidbos dvtes) make proof of it.’ 
 
 Again, in what appears to be a Jewish portion of the Sibylline 
 Oracles (iii. 36—92), the date of which is probably about 30 B.c.’, 
 Beliar appears as the great embodiment of the power of evil, 
 who ‘leads astray faithful and elect Hebrews and lawless men 
 and others who have not yet heard the word of God.’ But the 
 flaming vengeance of God ‘burns up Beliar and all the proud 
 ones who put their trust in him. Here Belial (or Beliar) is 
 the Antichrist (comp. Test. aii. Patriar., Levi 18 o Bedétap 
 ScOnoetae vm avtod, Dan 5 avros troujoes mpos tov Bediap 
 modenov, Benj. 3 xatapynoe Bediap cal Tovs vrnpetovvtas ava, 
 see below, p. 88 note). So, when the idea of Antichrist had 
 taken a still more definite form, Belial and Antichrist are again 
 identified. In the Judaeo-Christian writing, the Ascension of 
 Isaiah (c. iv), Belial is the returning Nero. ‘There shall descend 
 Berial the mighty angel, king of this world, over which he ruleth 
 since its creation, and he shall descend from his firmament in the 
 form of a man, of the king of iniquity, the matricide—he is the 
 king of this world—and he shall persecute the plant which the 
 
 1 Friedlieb (p. xxvi), for reasons which seem convincing, places the date of this 
 section just before the battle of Actium. This is the view of the majority of critics 
 (Schiirer The Jewish People Eng. Trans. Diy. ii. Vol. iii. p. 283 f.). 
 
 2 Note 2 Cor. vi. 15 rls 5 cupgwvla Xpicrod mpos Bedlap; In the Testaments 
 Belial appears as the tempter of individual men in e.g. Is. 7, Dan 1, 4, Aser 1, 
 Joseph 7, Ben. 6, 7. 
 
88 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 twelve Apostles of the Chosen One planted. This angel Berial 
 in the form of the king aforesaid shall come, and with him shall 
 come all the armies of this world, and shall obey him in all things 
 which he willeth.... He shall act and speak like the Chosen One, 
 and shall say, ‘I am God most high, and before me was there not 
 any’...And after a thousand three hundred and thirty and two 
 days the Lord shall come with His Angels and with the armies of 
 the saints from the seventh heaven, and shall drag Berial into 
 Gehenna and his armies withal*. In Antichrist Satan takes flesh 
 and dwells among men. As this conception becomes more definite 
 and concrete, it points with increasing clearness to the growth 
 of the twofold conception of the unity of evil and its concentration 
 in a person. 
 
 Again, an approach at any rate to this conception is indicated 
 by two expressions which meet us in the New Testament. Of 
 these the first, 0 adpyov tév Sammoviwy (Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24; 
 Me. iii, 22; Le. xi. 15), though it has more applications than one 
 in Jewish writings*, yet certainly implies the thought of an 
 ordered polity of evil. The second, ‘the God or Prince of this age 
 or world’ (2 Cor. iv. 4, John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11; comp. Eph. 
 ii. 2, vi. 12)*, is doubtless to be connected with the conception of 
 
 1 Ascensio Isaiae, ed. Dillmann, p. 18 f. 
 
 * Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. on Le. xi. 15, notes that ‘‘among the fon we may observe 
 three devils called the chief or prince of the devils: (1) ‘The Angel of death’... 
 (2) The devil Asmodeus...(3) Beelzebub.” 
 
 ® See the commentators on these passages, especially Meyer on 2 Cor. iv. 4, and 
 the articles in Levy Neuhebr. Worterbuch on }OW and Ww. Phrases kindred to this 
 are common in the Testaments ; thus, 0 dpxwyv trys mravns Sym. 2, Jud. 19; 0 apxwy 
 Uuwv éotly 0 Laravas Dan 5. Notice the terms in which the victory of Messiah 
 is described in Lev. 18, Jud. 25, Dan 5f. In quoting these passages thus I am 
 assuming the integrity of the book and that it represents the views of some early 
 Judaeo-Christians (comp. Bp Lightfoot Galatians p. 307). On the other hand 
 Schnapp holds that to an original pre-Christian Jewish document there have been 
 added (a) apocalyptic passages by a Jewish interpolator, (b) references to the Lord’s 
 Person and work by a Christian interpolator. The effect of this theory would 
 be rather to throw backward the date of passages which criticism allows to belong to 
 the Jewish original document and to make them primary evidence for pre-Christian 
 Jewish beliefs. The Christian interpolations, if such they are, bear in themselves 
 evidence of an early date. In regard to the general subject of this note it is right 
 to quote Edersheim’s verdict (Life and Times ii. p. 755), ‘ We note that with the ex- 
 ception of the word Satan, none of the names given to the great enemy in the New 
 Testament occurs in Rabbinic writings. More important still, the latter contain no 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 89 
 
 Antichrist, and like it witnesses to the existence of the belief 
 that evil is gathered up into the person of a usurping spirit. 
 
 It remains briefly to discuss one remarkable conception of 
 later Jewish teaching, which found expression in the Yetser ha 
 Ra of the Rabbis. There were implanted in man at creation, it 
 was held, a good and an evil impulse. Two points about this 
 theory are worthy of note for our present purpose. In the first 
 place there was at least a tendency to personify both these im- 
 pulses in man’. Secondly we must distinguish, as far as date is 
 concerned, the conception itself, and the formulas which embody 
 it. For the latter an artificial interpretation of Gen. ii. 7 (the two 
 ‘7 in J¥%")) was utilised by Rabbinic teachers. The good impulse 
 is DO “W¥, the evil YO TX. The idea itself was probably of much 
 earlier date. We find traces of it in the Fourth Book of Esdras’. 
 Against the error involved in this belief, viz., that God implanted 
 evil in man at creation, much of the New Testament teaching on 
 the subject of evil may be taken as a protest. There the absolute 
 and eternal antagonism of God and evil is always emphasised, and 
 the earnestness of this insistence was probably one important factor 
 in the process which gave currency to the expression ‘the evil one.’ 
 
 Thus, to sum up, Jewish thought, as we catch glimpses of it in 
 writings separated in time and place, was working towards the 
 supreme ethical and spiritual contrast between good and evil, 
 God and the devil, as well as towards the sure hope of the final 
 and complete victory of good and of God, to which the Apostles 
 and the Lord Himself, as His words are preserved for us by the 
 Apostles, have set their seal. 
 
 We pass on to the second point, the proper meaning of the 
 term 6 Trovnpos. 
 
 The word zrovnpés is one of a large class of adjectives with the 
 suffix -po-. It appears to be formed on the false analogy of such 
 words as ToApn-po-s, and is clearly a word of artificial, and there- 
 fore comparatively late, formation. Adjectives of this group, at 
 least in a large number of instances, correspond with English 
 
 mention of a kingdom of Satan. In other words, the power of evil is not contrasted 
 with that of good, nor Satan with God. The devil is presented rather as the enemy 
 of man, than of God and of good. This marks a fundamental difference.’ 
 
 1 See the additional note p. 101. 
 
90 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 adjectives in -some (e.g. toilsome, wearisome), and -ful (e.g. painful, 
 fearful). When the root idea has a passive as well as an active 
 side, the meaning of the adjective bifurcates. Thus éxvnpds 
 ‘fearful’ has the sense of (1) timid: in Thuc. i. 142 dxvnpédtepor 
 is set over against Opacvvovres: (2) terrible—a rarer use: compare 
 Soph. O. 7. 834 jyiv pév, dvak, tadr’ éxvnpd. The case is the 
 same with zrovnpds. The quasi-passive sense (i.e. ‘he who endures 
 labours’) is seemingly rare, and early fell out of use. Thus in 
 Hesiod (Frag. 43. 5) Hercules is called zrovnpétatos kal dpictos. 
 
 The active sense (i.e. causing labour to others) is the basis of 
 the common moral signification of the word. 
 
 In primitive society toil was of two kinds. Men fought, and 
 they tilled the ground. Hence zrovos without any qualification 
 came to mean ‘fighting’ (eg. Hom. Jl. vi. 77, Herod. iv. 1). 
 On the other hand, when épya (as in the title of Hesiod’s poem, 
 with which it is worth while to compare 1 Cor. iii. 9'), without 
 further definition, meant farming operations, mévos naturally 
 signified labour spent on the soil. The brightest trait in the dream 
 of a past golden age was that the soil brought forth fruit of its 
 own accord, and needed no zrévos to be spent on it. The word 
 Tovnpos is according to this view primarily an agricultural term, 
 and yy movnpa would mean soil requiring immoderate labour i.e. 
 worthless sowl. Thus the idea of the word, if this account of its 
 history be true, is that of intrinsic, absolute badness. 
 
 In later times at Athens the word acquired (a) a social, and 
 (b) a quasi-political sense. 
 
 In the social sphere it was applied, by lovers of past days, to 
 worthless citizens who had lost, or who never possessed, true 
 patriotism, innovators, who stood to the true breed in the same 
 relation as counterfeit coin to money rightly stamped and ringing 
 true. This is the sense which the word bears in Aristophanes’ 
 picture of his times: see Ranae 731, 
 
 Tois 5€ yarkots Kal Eévous Kal muppiais 
 Kal Tovnpois KaK Tovnpay eis arravta ypwucba 
 vaTaTos adiypévoicw, olaw 7 Tots mpO TOD 
 ovde happaxoicw eixh padims éxpnoat av. 
 Here the notion is not of mischief but of irredeemable badness. 
 1 Bp Lightfoot Ordination Addresses p. 214. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 9] 
 
 This social sense rapidly passed into a political sense. The 
 word was used at Athens to denote the utterly worthless knave 
 ‘which Strepsiades aspired to become under the lessons of the 
 sophist, and which the Aristophanic Cleon already is’ (Prof. 
 Jebb’s note on Theophrastus’ character of the @vAomovnpos). In 
 this sense the word is used by Aristotle in the Politics, eg. vi. 8 
 Soxet 8 elvas Tov advydtwy TO evvoueioOat...7OALV...TOVNnpoKpa- 
 Toupevyy, Vill. 11 wrovnpodirov 4 Tupavvis. In such a connexion 
 the notion of ‘mischievous’ ‘doing harm’ naturally became attached 
 to the word. But the thought is an accidental accretion, and is 
 not of the essence of the meaning of the word. Thus when Chry- 
 sostom (v. 419), among ancient Christian writers, says that vovnpia 
 is so called because it always brings trouble (zovous)’, and when, 
 among moderns, Archbishop Trench (Synonyms p. 316) defines 
 6 tovnpes as ‘the active worker out of evil,’ they start far 
 down the stream of usage, and seem to overlook its earlier 
 wanderings’. 
 
 With this history and these associations the word passed into 
 the Greek Bible. 
 
 In the LxXx. it is used as the constant equivalent of the 
 Hebrew J. The root yy signifies ‘to break. The Qal is 
 used eight times, and in one of these passages viz. Jer. xi. 16 (AY) 
 
 ynyr) it has a passive sense, ‘are broken.’ It is probably from 
 
 the intransitive use of the Qal that the commoner sense of Yy 4 
 and of the participial adjective Y comes. ‘To be broken,’ ‘to be 
 vitiated or spoiled,’ ‘to be bad’ is a natural and easy gradation. 
 From this point of view it is not hard to see how this word is 
 often used in reference to sorrow e.g. Gen. xxi. 12, 1 Sam. i. 8. 
 This account is further confirmed by the use of the Hiphil. In 
 Ps. xliv. 3, lxxiv. 3, Jerem. xxxi. 27, the Hiphil means not ‘to 
 make to break’ but ‘to make to be broken’ iLe., ‘to break.’ 
 Thus 9 exactly answers to zovnpes. In the case of the Hebrew 
 and the Greek word alike the notion of mischief, injuriousness, is 
 
 1 Very cognate is Chrysostom’s comment on Matt. vi. 13 xar’ éfoxny 5€ ol ws 
 €xeivos KaNetrat, ua THY UmepBoAnv THs Kaxlas, Kal éredn pndev wap nuwy ddixnOels 
 
 domovdov mpos nuas €xer Tov modeuov. Here the point is the devil’s malice. 
 2 Comp. Origen’s definition of rovypla quoted p. 139. 
 
92 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 often the particular side of evil which is contemplated’. But both 
 primarily signify utter, complete, essential badness. 
 
 In the New Testament, so far at least as our Lord’s sayings 
 in the Gospels are concerned, the word zovnpds must be regarded 
 as the equivalent of the Aramaic adjective which is reproduced 
 for us by the Syriac Versions in the word wma. This adjective 
 is of special importance, inasmuch as we may say with little short 
 of certainty that it is the word originally employed by our Lord 
 in the Lord’s Prayer. Its exact meaning can be ascertained by 
 a reference on the one hand to some passages of the Hebrew 
 Bible, on the other to Syriac usage. In Hebrew the verb YN2 is 
 used in the Qal literally of that which has a vile smell, e.g. Ex. 
 vii. 18, 21; in the Niphal, Hiphil, and Hithpael it refers meta- 
 phorically to what is utterly abhorrent, e.g. 1 Sam. xiii. 4, Ex. v. 
 21, 1 Chron. xix. 6. Two nouns belonging to this root are used 
 to denote worthless fruit or weeds in Is. v. 4 (Wherefore when I 
 looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild 
 grapes ? (D'YN3) ) and Job xxxi. 40 (Let thistles grow instead 
 
 of wheat, and cockle (AYS2) instead of barley), passages which 
 
 illustrate the use of arovnpds (translating the Syriac ~m+5) in 
 Matt. vi. 17. The corresponding adjective occurs once only in 
 the Hebrew Bible, viz. Ezra iv. 12 (They are building the rebel- 
 lous and bad (NAAN, LXX. tovypav) city). Turning to the 
 
 Syriac, the verb ~#/2 is used impersonally in the sense of ‘to be 
 evil in the eyes of’; in the Aphel it means ‘to illtreat, and is 
 used to translate xaxodv in Acts vii. 19, xi. 1. The adjective 
 itself is characteristically used (see Payne Smith Syr. Thes.) of 
 
 1 Dr Hatch’s account of the word, Essays in Biblical Greek p. 77 fi., differs 
 essentially from mine. Yet he writes at the beginning of his article ‘The con- 
 notation of zovnpos in Classical Greek is probably best shown by Arist. Eth. N. 
 7. 11. p. 1152 a, where Aristotle, speaking of the axparns, says that what he does is 
 wrong, and that he acts as a free agent, but that he is not wicked in himself, 
 éxwv pev...movnpos 6 ov" 7 yap mpoalpeots emteckns’ wo’ nucmovypos. Kal ovK ddtKos* 
 ov yap ér(Boudos.’ This appears to me to be important evidence in confirmation of 
 my view. 
 
 The proper Latin equivalent of rovnpds viz. malus has the same significance. 
 There was however a tendency, for reasons which I shall point out later on (see 
 p. 163f.), to substitute for malus, when used of Satan, a compound word, malignus 
 (=mali-genus). 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 93 
 
 death, a wound, a metal with alloy. Thus the Aramaic word, 
 which zrovnpds renders in the Gospels, expresses the notion not of 
 harmfulness but of intrinsic worthlessness and hatefulness. 
 
 In the New Testament the Greek word is used of the diseased 
 eye (Matt. vi. 23, opposed to amAods v. 22; the best commentary is 
 perhaps vii. 3 ff.), of worthless fruit (Matt. vil. 17). In Matt. xiii. 
 49 of wrovnpoi are parallel to ta campa (comp. vil. 17). rovnpés 
 stands in the same relation to gavddos (Jn. iil, 19, 20) as ayabos 
 does to xadXos. Thus zrovnpos is frequently the opposite to ayaBos 
 Matt. v. 45 (comp. vil. 11), xii. 34 f,, xx. 15, xxii. 10, Rom. xii. 9. 
 The xapdia movnpa amvotias (Heb. iii. 12) is at the extreme pole 
 from xapSia Kad Kal dyaby (Le. viii. 15); ocuvedSnows trovnpa 
 from cuveidnots ayabn (Acts xxii. 1, 1 Tim. i. 5, 19, 1 Pet. iii. 16, 
 21; once car» ouveidnois Heb. xiii. 18) and caOapa cvveisnois 
 (Tim, 1. 9, 2 Tim,1. 3)". 
 
 A further point is reached when we note that the word trovnpos 
 in Jewish literature is specially used in connexion with super- 
 natural powers of evil. Here no doubt the conception of activity 
 in evil is often included in the associations of the word. But I 
 believe that the primary sense of essential badness is still the main 
 thought. Thus the words wvedua movnpov are employed in the 
 description of Saul’s frenzy (wvedua Kupiov amréotn aro Laovr Kal 
 émviyev aUTOV TVEULA TOVNpOV (493-1) mapa Kupiov...apiatato 
 
 am’ avTov TO Tvedua TO Tovnpov (1 Sam. xvi. 14, 23). ‘Evil 
 angels’ (ayyeXor movnpot) are described in Ps. Ixxviii. 49 as the 
 ministers of divine vengeance upon apostate Israel. Asmodeus in 
 Tobit (ili. 8) is To wrovnpdv Saiwoviov*®. In the New Testament 
 
 1 rovnpa épya is found in Jn. iii. 19, vii. 7, 1 Jn. iii. 12, Col. i. 21. Commonly 
 the deep root of evil deeds is contemplated (see especially Jn. iii. 19, 20). On 
 the other hand dya@a and xada are both used frequently of good works, for the out- 
 ward attractiveness of such works is often the point (see e.g. 1 Pet. ii. 12, Jn. x. 
 32). In 1 Thess. v. 21 way eldos rovnpov is opposed to 76 kadov, where eldos makes all 
 the difference. The phrase 6¢@ahs0s rrovnpds (Mc. vii. 22; comp. Deut. xv. 9, Prov. 
 xxiii. 6, Ecclus. xxxiv. 13, &c.) no doubt implied the baneful glance of envy. But 
 the phrase é@@adpds dyads (Ecclus. xxx. 10 & dyad@ opOaduw dbEacov Tdv Kipiov, 12) 
 used of the healthful, cheerful, look of content suggests that the true idea is that of 
 the sickly, jaundiced eye of envy. Comp. Pirge Aboth v. 29. Hebrew wisdom 
 says that ‘envy is the rottenness of the bones’ (Prov. xiv, 30; comp. Testaments 
 Sym. 3). 
 
 2 Comp. Joseph. de B. Jud. vii. 6. 3 ra yap Kadovpeva Saiwdmia, Tadra bé movnpuv 
 
94 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 the phrase wvevpata trovnpa is common (Matt. xii. 45, Le. vii. 21, 
 vill, 2, xi. 26, Acts xix. 12 ff.; comp. ta wvevpatixa THs Tmovnpias 
 Eph. vi. 12), as it is in the Testaments of the xii Patriarchs (e.g. 
 Sym. 4, 6, Levi 5, 18, Aser 6 &c.). 
 
 We are now in a position to give a reasonable account of the 
 origin and meaning of the expression 6 mwovnpés. St Matthew 
 puts it into our Lord’s mouth for the first time either in the 
 Sermon on the Mount (v. 37, 39, vi. 18) or, if the masculine in- 
 terpretation of these passages be denied, at least in xiii. 19 
 (EpyeTat 6 Trovnpos), without a word of comment or explanation. 
 The use of the phrase in the Gospels and in the Epistles leads us 
 to suppose that it was one on which the Lord set the seal of His 
 authority, not a chance expression in the apostolic rendering of 
 the Lord’s words. Further, it is clear that the phrase was current 
 and in familiar use, at least in Christian circles, by the time the 
 Gospel according to St Matthew was written. 
 
 The expression, we may venture to say, is the resultant of 
 three converging influences. (1) We have remarked the tendency 
 in Jewish thought to ascribe a unity to the conception of super- 
 natural evil. (2) We have seen that the word rovnpds was 
 characteristically used in reference to these spiritual powers’. 
 (3) Once more, our Lord came to proclaim with a distinctness 
 unknown before the supreme and perfect goodness of the Father in 
 Heaven. In the teaching of Christ and His Apostles the Father 
 is 6 aya@os (Matt. xix. 17, Mc. x. 18, Le. xviii. 19, comp. probably 
 1 Pet. iii. 13), 6 adn@ivos (1 John v. 20, John xvii. 3). It was now 
 possible and needful in the development of religious thought that 
 men should learn that to the All-good is opposed the one who is 
 absolutely evil®. It is the conception which is emphasised especially 
 in St John’s writings—ev 77 adnOela ove ExtnKev, OTe ovK EotLv 
 
 éoTw avOpiruv mvevuara, Tots {wow eicdvoueva k.r.A. This is said to be the only re- 
 ference to demoniacal possession ‘in the later pre-Christian Jewish period’ (Toy’s 
 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature p. 29). 
 
 1 The phrase 6 movnpds dpxwv (Barn. iy. 13) exactly illustrates this stage of the 
 history. 
 
 * This thought is strikingly brought out by Tertullian (de Patientia v.), Cum 
 Deus optimus, diabolus e contrario pessimus, ipsa sui diversitate testantur neutrum 
 alteri facere, ut nobis non magis a malo aliquid boni quam a bono aliquid mali 
 editum videri possit. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 95 
 
 adnGeva év avt@ (vill. 44); am’ apyts 6 &saBorXos auaprave: (1 John 
 iii, 8). When the supreme contrast is thus made plain, it is not 
 hard to see that the impersonal notion of malignity and mischief 
 satisfies neither the expression itself nor the conditions of the 
 divine teaching in which it lies embedded’. 
 
 To sum up, while the expression, we may believe, first became 
 current in the teaching of Christ and Christianity, it was not a 
 sudden creation: the past in respect both of language and of theo- 
 logical conception had prepared the way for it. 
 
 The following are the passages (1) in the New Testament; 
 (2) in early Christian literature, where 6 zrovnpos is used of Satan. 
 I have not hesitated to include those passages where the incontro- 
 vertible evidence of accidence is unattainable. 
 
 (1) New Testament. 
 
 (a) Synoptic Gospels: only St Matthew. 
 
 v. 37. otw Sé 6 Aoyos vuady val vai, od ov" Td Sé Tepicady 
 TOUTWY Ex TOU TOVNpOD eaTiy. 
 
 Chrysostom, taking the words to refer to all oaths, gives the 
 masculine interpretation of é« tod mrovnpod. 
 
 v.39. éyad 56 Aéyw vuiv pn avTLaTHvar TH Tovnpa. 
 
 Here again Chrysostom maintains a reference to Satan. ov« 
 Ele fun) GVTLOTHVAL T@ ASEAPHO, GAA TH Trovnp@’ Seixvds bre 
 éxelvou KivoUvTOS TavUTa ToApaTar (vil. 234 EK). It is difficult to 
 resist Chrysostom’s conclusion, and for these reasons. (1) The 
 use of abstract terms seems alien to the spirit of the Sermon on 
 the Mount; all there is concrete. Hence it is unlikely that ra 
 
 1 T am altogether without the knowledge which is necessary for the discussion of 
 the question how near Rabbinic teaching approached to this term 6 rovypés. I only 
 offer one or two desultory remarks. (1) Bp Lightfoot quotes three passages from 
 Rabbinic writings in which the name ‘the evil one’ is applied to Satan. Canon 
 Cook (Second Letter p. 30) demurs to the force of these quotations for the conclusive 
 reason that the word in each case is not 1 but Pw. (2) In the Hebrew Bible 5, 
 like ovnpés in the txx., is used of adverse spiritual powers. The phrase P07 7¥) 
 is an important witness to a tendency to specialise the word. (3) In his article on 
 7° (Chald. Wort.) Levy refers to a remarkable passage, Suc. 52, where it is said that 
 yin 78° has seven names, the first of these being ‘the evil one’ (Y Gen. viii. 21). 
 (4) Ido not suppose that there is in the Rabbinic writings more than an approxi- 
 mation to the name ‘the evil one.’ Comp. Edersheim Life and Times ii. p. 755 
 quoted above p. 88 n, 
 
96 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 movnp® is neuter. (2) If however the gender is masculine, the 
 reference is probably to Satan; for throughout this discourse 
 Christ uses the language of paradox: He puts truths in their 
 extreme and absolute form. Further, dA’ doris...seems to imply 
 that a different person is spoken of from the one referred to in the 
 previous clause. Otherwise éav 6€ ce pamifn (or the like) would 
 have been the natural form of the sentence. (3) Canon Cook 
 (Second Letter p. 17) condemns Chrysostom’s exegesis as ‘in 
 direct opposition to the plainest injunctions of Scripture.’ He 
 probably refers to such words as avtiotnte 5€ TH S1aB0rdw 
 (James iv.7). But is not the A.V. as unscriptural as Chrysostom ? 
 For ‘the plain injunction of Scripture’ is amroatuyobvtes 70 
 qovnpov (Rom. xii. 9). The fact is that, whether the word is 
 masculine or neuter, the reference is to violence and persecution, 
 and not to moral evil. Persecution is traced to Satan (e.g. Apoc. 
 ii. 10); the Passion of Christ is notably so (see p. 108). It is the 
 history of the Passion which supplies the clearest comment on the 
 words. Christ’s rebuke of St Peter when he smote the High- 
 priest’s servant together with the last miracle of healing is equally 
 in point, whetber the masculine or the neuter rendering be adopted. 
 But the words of Christ which St Luke records, aX’ atrn éotlv 
 vpav 7) dpa kal n €Eovcla Tov oKOTOUS (xxii. 53, comp. Col. 1. 13, 
 Acts xxvi. 18), i.e. the chosen opportunity of treacherous men and 
 behind it the tyranny of Satan, seem to strengthen very greatly 
 the case for the masculine rendering. Compare Jude 9. At first 
 sight this interpretation of the passage seems to bring it into 
 collision with 1 Pet. v. 9 (6 avtiornte x.7.d.). But the thought of 
 the Gospel is ‘Do not be careful to withstand Satan’s violence’; 
 the thought of the Epistle is, ‘Satan will try to make you traitors 
 through persecution; stand firm against the tempter. The 
 contradiction therefore is only verbal. 
 
 vi. 13 pdcat as amo TOD Trovnpod. 
 
 xlil. 19 Epyetar 6 movnpds (=O Latavds Me. 6 81aBoros 
 Le.). 
 
 xiii, 88 ra 6€ fiLavia eiow of viol Tov Trovnpod. 
 
 The masculine interpretation here is as old as Irenaeus (iv. 
 66. 2): see p. 160. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 97 
 
 (b) St Paul’s Epistles. 
 
 2 Thess. iii. 3 muotds € éotuv o KUpLos, Os oTnpi—eL Vuas Kal 
 urate: amo tod wovnpod. See below, p. 112 ff. 
 
 Gal. i. 4 Orrws e&éAntar nuds €x Tov aidvos Tod éverTaTOS 
 movnpov. The passage is discussed below, p. 115 ff. 
 
 Eph. vi. 16 év @ dvvncecbe travta ta Bédy Tod Trovnpod [Ta] 
 meTupwpeva aBécat. Comp. Tas peBodias Tod dvaBorov (v.11). 
 
 (c) St John’s writings. 
 
 John xvii. 15 épwtd...iva tTnpnons avtovs €x TOU TovnpoD. 
 
 1 John ii. 13, 14 vevexnxate Tov movnpov. Comp. John xvi. 33 
 eyo veviknka TOV KOoMOV. 
 
 1 John iii. 12 od Kabds Kalv ék tod mrovnpod nv Kai éopaker 
 Tov aderpov avtod’. Comp. John viii. 44. 
 
 1 John v. 18 f. 6 yevyneis ex tod Geod TypeEt avTov, Kal 6 To- 
 VNpOs OVY ATTETAL AUTOD...0 KOTMOS OAOS EV TO TroVNP~ KeEiTat. 
 
 (d) There are three passages in which there is evidence that in 
 some forms of the text the phrase ‘ the evil one’ was introduced. 
 
 Matt. xiii. 38 f. The Old Syriac reads: ‘The tares are the 
 children of the evil one (La+29), and the sower he ts the evil one’ 
 
 Acts x. 38. The Vulgate Syriac in translating the phrase 
 TavrTas Tovs Katadvvactevopévous Umrd Tod da8oXov represents 
 the last words by ba» So, . 
 
 For the Syriac Versions see p. 154 ff. 
 
 Matt. xiii. 28 (éyOpos av@pwros todto éroincev). Origen in 
 a Homily on Ps. xxxvi. (Hom. ii. § 4), as it is preserved in the 
 translation of Rufinus, says, ‘Sed et Dominus in Evangelio 
 diabolum non dixit peccatorem tantummodo, sed malignum vel 
 malum, et cum docet in oratione, vel dicit: Sed libera nos a malo, 
 Et alibi, malus homo fecit, sive malignus. This implies the 
 reading 6 7rovnpos or movnpis avOpwios. The words however may 
 be a slip of memory’. 
 
 1 This passage seems to underlie Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 29 qvixa éwpa [6 Zara- 
 vas] Tov “ABeX evapectobvTa Tw Ow, evepynoas els Tov ddeAPdv avlTod Tdv Kadovmevoy 
 Kalv émolncev daroxreivar tov adedpdv atrod tov “ABedX. This treatise, it will be 
 remembered, contains ‘the earliest quotation of St John’s Gospel by name which 
 has been preserved’ (Bp Westcott Canon p. 228). 
 
 2 Compare Esther vii. 6 dv@pwiros éxOpos ‘Audy 6 movnpos obros. 
 
 Cc, ( 
 
98 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (2) Early Christian Interature. 
 
 Ep. Barnabas ii. 10 tva pa) 6 rovnpos tapetoduow TAGVNS 
 roujaas ev hiv exapevdovnon nuas amd THs Cons may. 
 
 xix. 11 eds TéXos pronjoers Tov Tovnpov. The reading however is 
 doubtful. (1) Documentary evidence. Of the two oldest MSS. 
 (od. Sinaiticus (%) omits the article; Cod. Constantinopolitanus (C) 
 has té. The other Greek MSS., which, as they seem to be 
 derived from a common archetype (Gebhardt Proleg. p. x.), are 
 represented by a common symbol (G), have tov. The Latin 
 Version! (L) is clear for the masculine (malus odiosus tibi erit in 
 perpetuum). Gebhardt’s general view (p. xxxvii.) is ‘Multo sae- 
 pius in veris quam in falsis L cum G convenit, ita ut his ambobus 
 haud raro codicum & et C consensum postponendum esse duxerim.’ 
 In this passage the omission in & before vov- slightly favours 
 rgv. On the whole therefore the evidence of the MSS. leans 
 towards rov. (2) Internal evidence. (a) aypuvobvtes...é7t TO 
 movnpéy (xx. 2) is, I think, the only certain instance of TO mrovnpov 
 in Barnabas. (b) On the one hand the neuter gains some 
 probability from iv. 1 plonowmev THY TAaYNY TOD voVY KaLpod, 
 iv. 10 pronowpev Tedelws Ta Epya THs Tovnpas odd, xix. 2 pLanoels 
 mav 5 ove tat dpectov TO Ged, mianoes Tacay UTOKpiowv. But 
 on the other hand the antithesis suggested by the words (ayamn- 
 ges TOV TrouoavTd ce) at the beginning of the chapter (xix. 2) 
 distinctly favours the masculine tov. Further, while the certain 
 use of 6 qovnpés in ii. 10 is a strong argument, there is nothing 
 in the context to suggest a reminiscence of St Paul’s words 
 droatuyoovres TO Tovnpov (Rom. xii. 9). The lines of evidence 
 therefore appear to converge in favour of rov’. 
 
 1 The date of this Version is uncertain. On the one hand traces of the influence 
 of the Vulgate are wanting. On the other it does not appear to have been known 
 to Jerome. Gebhardt (p. lv.) approves the general conclusion ‘eam ante seculi vii 
 exitum conscriptam esse credas; verisimile vero videtur eam multo antiquiorem 
 esse.’ 
 
 2 Dr Taylor (Expositor, Third Series, vol. iii. p. 408) argues in favour of the 
 reading 76. But (1) his view that suojoes 7d movnpdv is an ‘abbreviated form’ of 
 puonoes macav brbkpow Kal wav 5 wh aperrdv TH Kvply (Didaché iv.), a phrase which 
 Barnabas (inverting the order of the clauses) has already incorporated (xix. 2), 
 seems unnatural; (2) he appears to neglect the angelology of Barnabas; see the 
 passages quoted below p. 99 n. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE, 99 
 
 Xxi. 3 éyyls 7) Népa év 7 GuvaTroNEiTaL TavTa TO ToVNpa. 
 Compare The Ecclesiastical Canons 14. In this passage the 
 interpretation, as in the passage just discussed, the reading is 
 doubtful. The Latin Version has the equally ambiguous ‘cum 
 malo, The following considerations favour the masculine. (1) 
 Just above it is said, 6 éxeiva (ie. the deeds of ‘the evil way’) 
 éxAeyouevos peta TOY épywy avTov cuvaTroNeitat. Here there 
 is the same combination of the masculine and the neuter. A 
 common destruction of the worker and his works is spoken of. 
 (2) This interpretation of a clause at the end of the description 
 of ‘the evil way’ corresponds with the opening definition 7 rob 
 MéXavos 6d0s'. (3) There is an earlier passage (xv. 5) which 
 would be decisive if the reading were beyond dispute: dé7av 
 €XO@v 6 vids avToD Katapyjael TOY KaLpOV TOU avomou Kal KpLVEt 
 tovs daeBets Kal adrdaker Tov HALoOV Kal THY GEAnVNY Kal TOUS 
 dotépas x«.t.r. In G however we find avrod in place of tod 
 avouov, the word being perhaps repeated from ¢ vids avrod just 
 before. Cod. & provokingly omits the word altogether. L has 
 ‘tempus iniquitatis. The rod avoyou of C, which was long ago 
 conjectured by Bp Fell, seems to explain the variations. It 
 is supported by xviii. 2 6 pév éotu Kvptos...6 d€ apywv Kalpod 
 Tov viv THS avouias, a passage which probably suggested the 
 emendation of L. Compare iv. 9 év T@ avoum xaipo. If tov 
 dvopouv is thought the best supported reading, it is almost 
 conclusive in favour of the masculine interpretation of t@ rovnpa’. 
 
 1 Happily we are saved from a discussion of gender by the other passage in 
 Barnabas where the term occurs, iva wy ox wapeicdvow 6 wédas (iv. 9). This remark- 
 able name is probably of Hebrew origin (see Harnack’s note), but it serves here 
 to emphasise the contrast: 7 odds Tod gwrés (xix. 1), ép qs... ciolv reraypév 
 gwraywyol dyyedou Geod. It should be considered in connexion with the baptismal 
 custom of turning to the west and renouncing Satan: compare Cyril of Jerusalem 
 Catech. xix. Myst. i. 4 (dmordocecbe TO cxorew@ exeivy Kal fopepy~ apxovrt). 
 
 2 The following passages in the Epistle should be noted: juepav oby oboav rovn- 
 pov kal abrod rod évepyoovros (L. contrarius) éxovros tiv éfovclay (ii. 1); iva pyrore 
 ...0 Tovnpds 4pxwv haBdw riv Kab’ judy eLovolav amwaonra juads awd THs BaoiNelas Tod 
 xuplou (iv. 13); dyyeos wovnpds écogitey abrovs (ix. 4); ep’ Hs dé dyed Tod Zarava 
 (xviii. 1). A parallel can be found in Jewish Apocalyptic literature to (a) the 
 neuter, 4 Esdras vi. 27, Delebitur enim malum et extinguetur dolus, a passage found 
 in the Syriac, the Aethiopic (iv. 32), the Arabic (malum cor recedet ab iis), the 
 Armenian Versions; comp. viii. 53; (b) the masculine ; Assumptio Moyseos x. 1, Et 
 tune parebit regnum illius in omni creatura illius et tune Zabulus finem habebit, et 
 
 v—2 
 
100 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (Eus. H. £. v. 1) 
 Suvapevor Sia THS VTopovns Tacav THY Opunyv Tod Tovnpod Ets 
 €autous éAxvoat'. See below, p. 132. 
 
 Clementine Homilies (a) Epist. Clem. ad Jac. i. émt tod 
 €veoTOTOS Tovnpov Tov éadpevoyv ayabov b\w TO Kocuw pNVUGAS 
 Baowréa. See below, p. 116. 
 
 (b) tb. iv. Sixaiws ovuvevOvynOnti por, mote Gov THS TUp- 
 paxlas ypeiay Exe 6 YplaTos, Viv OTE O ToVNpoS KaTa THs avTOU 
 vougdns Todep“ov pato, ) els TOY eTLOVTAa ypovoY OTE VLKHoAS 
 Baoirevoes ; 
 
 (c) Hom. xix. 2 cai o Ilétpos* advvatov éori wor dwvnv Tod 
 > fal BI , / \ Ne a 3 \ , 
 €uov apyncacbar didacKaXou, 610 Kai oporoya elvat TOV TrovnpoY 
 x.7.r. See below, p. 133. 
 
 It may be suggested that the connexion of the word 6 zrovnpos 
 with sayings of our Lord in the last of these passages from the 
 ‘Clementines’ (see p. 133), together with the fact that the term 
 is used by St Matthew alone among the Synoptists and with 
 the use of the term in the Syriac Versions (see p. 155), is an 
 indication that this was a usual designation for Satan in the 
 Aramaic Gospel, oral and written, on which were based ‘the 
 Gospel according to the Hebrews’ and our Gospel according to 
 St Matthew. 
 
 Clem. Alex. Paedagogus (a) 1. 7 obtos (ie. the angel who 
 wrestled with Jacob and who was the Paedagogus) jv 6 dvOpwrros 
 6 dyov Kal dépwv, 6 cuyyvpvafopevos Kal adreipwv Kata TOD 
 movnpov tov ackntny ‘laxw8....mtepvivew didacKkwy Tov avtayw- 
 tristitia cwm eo abducetur. The latter passage is obviously the closer parallel to 
 our present passage. Compare Edersheim Life and Times ii. p, 441, ‘‘In the 
 latter [the renewed earth] neither physical nor moral darkness would any longer 
 prevail, since the Yetser ha Ra, or ‘Kvil impulse,’ would be destroyed (Yalkut i. 
 p. 45 c).” 
 
 1 Tf Melito’s treatise ra mepi Tod diaBdXov Kal ris arroxahiWews Iwdvvov (Kus. H. LE. 
 iv. 26) had been preserved, the usage of an important school would doubtless have 
 been made clear to us. In the Martyrdom of Polycarp xvii. (6 6€ dvrigfndos Kal 
 Bdoxavos kal rovnpos, 6 dvTikeiuevos TH yéver TY Sixaiwy) there is some slight autho- 
 rity for the omission of xal before rovnpés. The following passage from Athenagoras 
 Supplicatio c. 24 illustrates the meaning of 6 rovypds and probably implies its 
 currency as a name for Satan, ofrés re 6 THs UAns Kal Tav ev adry eldGv dpxwv...obros 
 5é dweAjoas Kal movypos wept Thy TOv memicTevpevww yevouevos Stotknow...6 dé THs UAns 
 dpxwy...evavtla TH ayaby Tod Oeod émirporevder Kal diotxe?...6 dé Oeds TeNElwS d-yabds wy 
 
 K.T.AN. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 101 
 
 viotnv. It is possible that the clause of the Lord’s Prayer is in 
 Clement’s mind. 
 
 (b) iu. 12. 76n de Kal pavepotata tod Tovnpod cvpBora 
 OUK aloxXUVOVTaL TrEpiKEimeval. ws yap THY Evay 6 odus nrraTnceD, 
 oUTw dé Kal Tas dddas yuvaikas 6 KOGpOS 6 ypuacods SedéaTL 
 Tporxpwpevos TOU spews TH oyNmaTL eLEunver eis UBpets. 
 
 (c) il. 12. éxyéovow EéEtatpix@s Tov TAodTOV eis OvELdos" 
 kal ToD Oeovd Ta Swpypata aTrelpoKadia Tapayapattovar, (nrovoat 
 
 és piety 
 Tov Tovnpov THY TEXYND. 
 
 On the passages of Tertullian where malus is used as a name 
 of Satan, see below, p. 135 f. 
 
 It is probable that there are other passages even in the scanty 
 remains of the Christian literature of the second century which have 
 come down to us, in which this name of Satan is used. It hardly 
 seems however to have gained a wide currency till the days of 
 formal New Testament exegesis’. Justin Martyr does not mention 
 it either in Apol. 1. 28 (6 apynyétns Tav Kaxav Saipovev ddus 
 KadelTat Kat Latavas kal d:aBonros) or in Dial. 103%, although in 
 Dial. 125 there is an apparent allusion to the term, mpoo7dOev 
 avuT@® 6 dudBoros, TouTéctiv 7 Svvapls Exelvyn n Kal Sdis KeKANLEVY 
 Kat Latavas, weipatwy avTov...6 d€ avtToy KatédXvcE Kal KaTé- 
 Barev, érXéyEas Ott mrovnpos é€ott. In the passages in which the 
 name occurs it has every appearance of being a term in recognised, 
 though not common, use. 
 
 Note on the Yetser ha Ra (see p. 89). 
 
 A few points in this complicated subject may be touched upon in a 
 note. (1) On the Yetser see Levy Chald. Worterbuch i. p. 342, Neuhebr. u. 
 Chald. Worterb. ii. p. 757 ff; Weber System der Altsynagogalen Paliis- 
 tinischen Theologie § 54 (p. 242 ff.), comp. pp. 208 f., 216, 223 f; Edersheim 
 The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah 1. p. 52, il. p. 757 ff. Several ques- 
 tions, as it will appear, suggest themselves, a full investigation of which 
 would throw light on many points of great interest, as, for example, St Paul’s 
 doctrine of the Fall. (2) If an amateur in such studies may trust his super- 
 
 1 Thus for ras évédpas rod duaBddov (Ignat. Trall. viii.) the Interpolator in the 4th 
 century substitutes ras évédpas tod rovnpod. 
 
 2 Comp. Apoc. xii. 9 EBAjOn 6 Spdxwy 6 wéyas, 6 Odis 6 dpxaios, 6 Kadovmevos did Bo- 
 dos kal 6 Daravas, xx. 2. 
 
102 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 ficial observation, the article is commonly present in the one case, wanting 
 in the other (Y77 7¥', 3 JY). If so, the tendency to personification was 
 more active in regard to the evil impulse. This is what we should have 
 expected, since it would be felt that the good impulse would ultimately flow 
 from God. It should be noticed that Levy and Weber represent different 
 views as to the personification of these two impulses. ‘ Welche beide Triebe 
 als Engel personificirt,’ writes the former (ii. p. 258). The criticism of the 
 latter runs thus (p. 228): ‘Auch Levy Chal. W. B. i. 342 nennt ihn den ‘ bésen 
 Engel,’ aber identisch sind sie nicht. Sofern der Jezer und der Satan die 
 gleiche gottwidrige Absicht haben, wirkt dieser durch jenen und ist in ihm die 
 bewegende Kraft; so kann es geschehen, dass Eines fiir das Andere steht, 
 ohne dass Beides zusammenfallt. Allerdings ist die Neigung, beide Begrifte 
 zu verschmelzen, in der spiteren jiidischen Theologie gewachsen. Zu Avd- 
 duschin (81*) bemerkt Raschi: Es erschien ihm Satan, welcher der Jezer hara 
 ist.’ Thus Weber admits a relative personification. (3) The passages in 
 4 Esdras referred to above (p. 89) are these: iv. 30 Quoniam granum seminis 
 mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio, et quantum impietatis generavit 
 usque nunc, et generat usque dum veniat area}. iii. 21 Cor enim malignum 
 baiulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et omnes qui de eo nati 
 sunt. (4) I cannot help suspecting that the conception of the two impulses is 
 closely allied to the conception of the ¢wo ways, and that the tendency to per- 
 sonification in the one case is closely akin to a similar tendency in the other 
 case. It will be remembered that in the Didaché and the documents which 
 seem directly based on it there is no reference to any connexion between ‘the 
 two ways’ and spiritual powers. In other documents such a reference has the 
 appearance of being a later addition. If so, the Didaché presents us with ‘the 
 two ways’ in a more original form. For these two points viz. (a) the connexion 
 between the ¢wo impulses and the two ways, (b) the allied processes of personi- 
 fication, compare the following passages, Jest. xit. Patriarch. Jud. 20 8vo mvev- 
 pata cxoAdlover To avOpdr@, Td THs adnOeias kai TO THs mAayns" Kal pégov eat Td 
 THs TUVETEWS TOU VOOS, OV éav OeAn kAtva. Aser 1 dv0 ddods ESwxev o Geds Tots 
 viois Trav avOparrwy, cat Sto S:aBovAra, cal dvo0 mpd&es, kat Svo romovs (Vv. 1. rpo- 
 mous), kat Svo TéAn...0d01 Svo, kaAov Kal Kako" €v ois cict Ta dvo0 diaBovdua ev 
 atépvois nudy Siaxpivovta avras. éav ovvy 4 Wuxt Ody ev Kade, waca mpakgis 
 alras eotiv ev dtxatoovvy, Kav auapry evOds peravoei... eav dé ev movnp@ kAiver Td 
 SiaBovALov, waca mpakis avtns €ativ ev movnpia, kat amwOovpevos TO ayabov mpoo- 
 AapBaver TO Kaxov Kal KuptevOeis Urrd Tov BeXlap, Kav ayabov mpaket, ev movnpia 
 avro peracrpepet.... 6 Onoavpos Tov diaBorov (V. 1. SuaBovAtov) tod movnpod mvev- 
 patos merAnpora. The Latin Fragment published by Gebhardt in Harnack 
 Die Lehre &c. p. 277: Viae duae sunt in seculo, vitae et mortis, lucis et tene- 
 brarum. In his constituti sunt angeli duo, unus aequitatis, alter iniquitatis. 
 
 1 Compare vii. 92 (part of the ‘ Missing Fragment,’ ed, Prof. Bensly p. 67), Ordo 
 primus, quoniam cum labore multo certati sunt ut vincerent cum eis plasmatum 
 cogitamentum malum, ut non eas seducat a vita in mortem. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 103 
 
 Barn. xviii, xix. Hermas Mund. vi. 1. 2 adda viv Oto co, pyoiv, Snr\ooa 
 kai ras Suvapers avtav, iva vonons tis a’tav tiva Svvapw exer Kai évépyecav. 
 Surhai yap ciow ai evépyeca adtadv’ Keivrar ovv emi Sixaip kat adika’ ov ovv 
 miateve TO Sixaiw, TO Oe adikw py MioTEVanS’ TO yap Sixatov opOny doy Exec 
 ‘ 1 ee Dp) 7 yap pon XE; 
 ‘ Oy ’ OD , , ‘ = tga ’ 
 To Oe adtxov orpeBAny... apéoket por, pnul, kvpie, TavTn TH OO@ mopeverOat. tro- 
 pevon, pyoi, kat os av €& OAns Kapdias emiatpérn mpos KUpLov, mopevoeTat ev avTH. 
 dxove viv, Pyot, mept Tis miatews* Svo eloiv dyyeAor pera Tov avOpwrov, eis THs 
 Sikavoovns Kat eis THs movnpias. The whole passage should be studied. (5) 
 Dr C. Taylor (Sayings of the Jewish Fathers p. 144) assumes without question 
 that the teaching about J’efser was current in our Lord’s time, and conjectures 
 that the original form of amé rod movnpot may have been YI WS". The evi- 
 dence of the Syriac Versions is sufficient to disprove this latter conjecture. 
 But the two passages which Dr Taylor quotes from the Targum bring the 
 phrase into a closer connexion with the word which I suppose that the Lord 
 actually used: ‘“‘ Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him” (Ps. 
 xill. 5) becomes in the Targum, “ Lest Nt? NS) say, &e.” “They shall bear 
 thee up in their hands, lest thou stumble against [NW2 N1¥* which is like] a 
 stone” (Ps. xci. 12), 
 
 3. Is amo tod trovnpod masculine or neuter ? 
 
 (i). Evidence derived from the Gospels. 
 
 (a) The Baptism and the Temptation. 
 
 No sooner has the Lord been publicly set apart for the ministry 
 by the heavenly voice and the gift of the Holy Spirit, than He 
 enters the field of conflict with the devil. Gathering up humanity 
 into Himself, ‘He gathered up that ancient and primeval quarrel 
 against the serpent’’ The Temptation was no casual and acci- 
 dental parenthesis in the Lord’s life: it was essential to its reality 
 and, if we may say so, to its completeness. The Temptation was 
 an epitome of His whole life”. 
 
 The Lord’s Prayer is the Prayer of redeemed humanity taught 
 to men by the Son of Man. We should expect to find reflected 
 here something of what, as He learned by suffering, is most cha- 
 racteristic of human life. We feel that the remembrance of the 
 pain endured in this necessary conflict inspires the words. 
 
 1 Tren, v. xxi, 2 Non autem Dominus antiquam illam et primam adversus 
 serpentem inimicitiam in semetipso recapitulatus fuisset...si ab alio venisset patre. 
 > of Stapewevnkdores mer Emov ev Tois mecpacmots wou (Luke xxii. 28). 
 
104 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Every clause of the Prayer, I believe, stands forth with greater 
 sharpness and clearness of meaning when seen in the light of the 
 Lord’s Temptation. 
 
 Our Father which art in heaven: The proclamation of the 
 Heavenly Sonship is in order of time the preface, and in the subtle- 
 ties of the spiritual conflict the occasion, of the Temptation. 
 ‘And lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ ‘If thou art the Son of God, 
 command that these stones become bread.... If thou art the Son 
 of God, cast thyself down.’ 
 
 Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. The two earliest 
 petitions in the Prayer seem closely linked with the temptation 
 which stands last in St Matthew’s record. The refusal to fall 
 down and worship the tempter and the vindication of God’s 
 exclusive right to worship were a complete hallowing of the Name. 
 The devil’s offer of the possession of all the kingdoms of the 
 world and the glory of them appealed to the desire for the cessa- 
 tion of conflict, which inspires the prayer for the coming of the 
 divine kingdom. 
 
 Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. In the Lord’s firm 
 resistance of the temptation to claim the letter of a divine pro- 
 mise, in His recognition of the limits of the divine purpose con- 
 cerning Him, we can discern a perfect doing of the will of the 
 Father on earth on the part of Him who ‘in the beginning...was 
 with God.’ 
 
 Give us this day our daily bread. ‘And when he had fasted 
 forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered. And the 
 tempter came and said unto him, If thou art the Son of God, 
 command that these stones become bread.’ Lack of daily bread 
 was the agopun of the tempter in the first assault. 
 
 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our 
 debtors. It is most true that temptation begat no sin in Christ 
 to need forgiveness. But it is worthy of remark that He came 
 straight to the conflict with Satan, after He had received what 
 to other men was Barticpa petavolas eis apecw apapTiov 
 (Me. i. 4). 
 
 And bring us not into temptation. The word which St Mark 
 (i. 12) uses to express the action of the Spirit—kai evOvs To rvedpa 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 105 
 
 avtov éxBarre. els THY Epnuov—denotes, not indeed compulsion, 
 but a constraining influence. ‘In the days of his flesh’ the Son 
 of Man shrank back from the strain and horror of the lonely 
 conflict. He ‘suffered being tempted. Therefore as He Himself 
 in the later hour of a severer struggle besought His Father that 
 ‘the cup might pass from Him,’ He permitted and taught His 
 disciples to pray that their Father in Heaven would spare them 
 the perilous honour of temptation. 
 
 But deliver us from—the evil one or evil. Which of these two 
 renderings is more natural? May we not ask which necessarily 
 follows from a consideration of the Prayer regarded from the point 
 of view of Christ’s Temptation? It is difficult to imagine that the 
 analogy between the two breaks down in the last clause, and that 
 the prominence of the tempter in the history has no counterpart 
 in the Prayer’. 
 
 (b) The Lord’s Prayer. It has been sometimes urged that it 
 is inconceivable that a Prayer which begins with an appeal to God 
 as Father, should end with a petition for deliverance from the 
 devil. The assumption is that according to this interpretation the 
 thought of the devil is suddenly and violently dragged into an alien 
 context. ‘The comparison of the Prayer with the circumstances of 
 the Lord’s Temptation will have gone far to break the force of this 
 argument. 
 
 A more detailed examination of the clauses of the Prayer 
 will, if I mistake not, shew clearly that underlying the whole there 
 is the conception of the supreme conflict. The representation of 
 the devil in the New Testament is of one who parodies the 
 character and work of God. God realises the ideal in all His 
 relations to men. As Father, as Guide, as King, He is 6 ddn- 
 
 1 A friend has pointed out to me that Dean Plumptre in his Commentary on 
 St Matthew in Bp Ellicott’s New Test. Commentary for English Readers makes the 
 parallel between the facts of the Temptation and the last two clauses an argument 
 for the masculine rendering of ad rot wovnpod. The feeling of this analogy under- 
 lies a passage of Dionysius of Alexandria quoted below, p. 139f. The point was 
 indeed touched upon by Bp Lightfoot in the second of his three letters to the 
 Guardian: “Nor is it an insignificant fact that only two chapters before the Evan- 
 gelist has recorded how the Author of this prayer found Himself face to face with 
 temptation (iv. 1, 3) and was delivered from the ‘ Evil One,’ ”’ 
 
106 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 O.vos. In all these directions the devil opposes God by imitating 
 Him’. 
 
 Our Father which art in heaven. Coutrast of viol tod movnpot 
 (Matt. xiii. 38), vwets ex Tov matpos Tod SvaBorou éoré (John viii. 
 44), vié dca8orov (Acts xiii. 10). So 1 John iii. 10 davepa eat 
 Ta Téxva TOV Oeod Kal Ta Téxva TOV SiaBorov. To realize absolutely 
 our relation to the True Father is to be rescued from the 
 habitual authority of the False: was 6 yeyevynuévos éx Tod Beod 
 OUX dpapTavel...Kat 0 Tovnpos ovxY amTeTat avTov (1 John v. 18). 
 
 Hallowed be thy name. Contrast in the symbolism of the 
 Apocalypse ovowata (v. |. dvoua) BrXacdypias belonging to the 
 Beast who is the representative of the Dragon’s power (xii. 1, 
 xvil. 3). Compare Apoce. ix. 11, xiv. 11 (contrast xiv. 1 To évoya 
 aUTOU Kal TO dvop“a TOU TAaTpOS AUTOD). 
 
 Thy kingdom come. Contrast 6 dpywv tod Kocpou TovToU 
 (John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, comp. Eph. ii. 2); 6 @eds tod aldvos 
 toutou (2 Cor. iv. 4), opposed to 6 Bacinevs Tév aiwver (1 Tim. 1. 
 17); so at apyat, at éEovorat, of Koopoxparopes [contrast 6 TavTo- 
 Kpatwp]| Tov oxotous TovTou (Eph. vi. 12), 6 wév éeotiv Kupios amo 
 aiwvwy Kal els TOvS aldvas, 0 O€ 4pywv KaLpoOdD Tod VOY THs avomlas 
 (Barn. xviil.). In the imagery of the Apocalypse Satan has his 
 throne (67rouv 6 Opovos Tov Latava ii. 13), just as he has his worship 
 (cuvaywyn Tov Latava ii. 9, ii. 9) and, if the word be allowed, his 
 ‘theology’ (ra BaGéa tod Latava, ws Néyoucw ii. 24). 
 
 Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Before the will 
 of the True Father and King the lusts of the False will give way. 
 Compare vpeis éx Tod tatpos Tov diaBdXrovu eae Kal Tas éwiOupias 
 Tov mwutpos vuov OérXeTe Trovetv (John viii. 44). Contrast the 
 oneness of the divine will with the manifoldness of the lusts of 
 the evil one; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 2 To wnxéte avOpotrwr ériBupiats 
 aNAG Oernpate Oeod Tov érriroutrov Ev capKt Bu@aat ypovov. Eph. 
 ii. 3 Ta OeAnmata THs CapKos. 
 
 Forgive us our debts. Contrast Apoc. xii. 10 0 katnywp tev 
 aderdav udy, 6 KaTNYOPaV aUTOVS EvaTLOY TOD Geod tuadv nwépas 
 Kal VUKTOS. 
 
 Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one, 
 
 1 Varie diabolus aemulatus est veritatem. Adfectavit illam aliquando defendendo 
 concutere (Tert. adv. Prax. i.). 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 107 
 
 or evil. These two petitions alone in the Prayer are connected 
 together. The key to the interpretation lies in the adAd. The 
 mutual relation of the two petitions may be presented thus: 
 fn eloeveyKns Nuas els Tepacpov 
 picat nuas amo Tov Trovnpod. 
 
 In the New Testament the devil is consistently represented 
 as the tempter. Comp. Matt. iv. 3 6 wewpafwv elev avta’. 
 1 Thess. iii. 5 uy was éerreipaceyv buds 6 weipatwv®. 1 Cor. vii. 5 
 iva py Teipatn vuds 6 Latavas. Apoc. ii. 10 wérArer Badrewy 6 
 SiaBoros €& vuay ets durakny iva TeipacOyjte. 1 Tim. vi. 9 (com- 
 pared with ii. 7, 2 Tim. 11. 26). Nor does Jas. i. 14 (€eaortos 8é 
 meipateTat utd THS Loias émvOuuias) conflict with this view of the 
 general drift of New Testament teaching. The Apostle there 
 wishes to vindicate the ways of God to men. In the matter of 
 temptation he throws the responsibility on the man himself: the 
 man’s will is the offender—ras éwuOupias tod tratpos Uuav OéreTE 
 move (John vil. 44). The question of the final source of tempta- 
 tion lies outside the scope of the passage. 
 
 When then it is noticed that the two clauses in each of their 
 several parts correspond to, and are set over against, each other, 
 the presumption in favour of the masculine rendering of tod 
 movnpov becomes very strong; and a review of the Prayer itself 
 confirms the verdict based on the consideration of its relation to 
 the Lord’s own experience. 
 
 (c) The Ministry and the Passion. The Lord’s life is the best 
 commentary on the Lord’s Prayer. St John explains the purpose 
 of the Incarnation in the words: eis todto éfavepwOn 6 vids Tod 
 Geod wa AVoH Ta Epya TOD ScaBorov (1 John iii. 8). The life in 
 its activities of ministry is briefly summarised by St Peter thus: 
 SunrOev evepyeT@v Kal idpmevos TavTas Tovs KaTaduvacTevopéevous 
 
 1 Ipse a diabolo temptatus praesidem et artificem temptationis demonstravit 
 (Tert. de Orat. vili.). Gregory of Nyssa (de Orat. Dom. v.) strangely exaggerates this 
 view when he suggests that zrecpacuds is one of Satan’s names. 
 
 * Resch (p. 233) compares the agraphon in Hom. Clem. iii. 55, rots 6€ olouévors 
 drt 6 Beds mepager, ws ai ypapul Aéyouow, pn, 6 mwovnpds EoTw 6 meipdtwr. He 
 thinks that the mode of expression resembles the style of the Synoptic Gospels. 
 Bp Westcott on the other hand doubts the genuineness of this saying (Introduc- 
 tion to the Study of the Gospels p. 457 n.). 
 
108 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 v7ro Tov dcaBonrov (Acts x. 38)". With this general description of 
 the whole Ministry the Lord’s words as to one of His miracles 
 should be compared: ‘Ought not this woman...whom Satan had 
 bound (jv énoev 6 Latavas), lo, these eighteen years, to have been 
 loosed from this bond (AvO@jvae aro Tod Sécpov TovTov) on the day 
 of the sabbath’ (Luke xiii. 16)? It is not easy to believe that any 
 who so remembered the Lord’s words and works, and so shaped 
 the record of that remembrance, would have hesitated as to the 
 meaning of the disputed clause in the Prayer. 
 
 But it is when we turn to the story of the Passion that the 
 evidence becomes clearest. The visit of Judas to the chief priests 
 was due to the promptings of Satan (Luke xxi. 3). It was in 
 obedience to the same inspiration that the traitor rose from the 
 table to head his Master’s enemies (John xiii. 2, 27). The Lord 
 Himself interpreted the crisis of redemption in three different 
 ways as the ineffectual coming, the judgment, the expulsion, of 
 ‘the prince of this world’ (John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). Now 
 He met face to face ‘the tyranny of darkness’ (7 é€ovcia tod 
 oxotovs Luke xxii. 53, comp. Col. 1. 13 épvcato nuas éx« THs 
 é€ovaias Tov cxoTous, Acts xxvi. 18, Eph. vi. 12). 
 
 Christ’s interpretation of His sufferings is repeated by the 
 Apostolic teachers. St Paul views the cross of shame as the 
 triumphal car on which the Conqueror exhibits the vanquished 
 ‘principalities and powers’ (Col. 11.15). The writer to the Hebrews 
 (ii. 14 f.) unfolds the paradox that through death, the devil’s tool, 
 the Lord brought the devil to nought and set his captives free. 
 
 Two passages however, imbedded in the history of the Passion, 
 demand closer investigation. The view of the Passion insisted on 
 above throws light on both of them. 
 
 (i). The first passage is from St Luke’s Gospel (xxii), ‘Ye 
 are they which have continued with me in my temptations; and I 
 appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto 
 me (vu. 28, 29)....Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you (0 
 LSatavas éEntncato vas), that he might sift you as wheat; but J 
 made supplication for thee (éyo dé édenAnv epi cov), that thy faith 
 fail not (vv. 31, 32)....And he came out, and went, as his custom 
 
 1 The Syriac Vulgate here translates rod divaBdrov by Lerd (the-evil-one). 
 See below, p. 155. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 109 
 
 was, unto the mount of Olives (v. 39)....And when he was at the 
 place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation 
 (mpocevxecOe jun eicehOciv eis recpacpov v. 40)....He kneeled 
 down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this 
 cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done (ux To 
 OéAnud pov adda TO cov yivéc Ow wv. 41, 42)....Why sleep ye? rise 
 and pray, that ye enter not into temptation’ (mpocevxecbe, iva pn 
 elaéXOnTe eis Treipacpoy, v. 46). 
 
 The scene, it is true, shifts from the upper room to the Garden ; 
 yet there is an irresistible sense of unity about the history. The 
 brief interval of time which separates the first of the words quoted 
 above from the last does not affect the close nexus of the thoughts. 
 The language of the Evangelists’ seems designed to emphasise the 
 relation between the Lord’s Prayer and the Lord’s teaching on 
 the evening of the betrayal. This parallel will to many minds 
 establish beyond a doubt the masculine interpretation of azo Tob 
 ToUnpov. 
 
 (ii). The other passage is from the true Oratio Dominica 
 (John xvii. 15): ‘I pray not (ov« épwre) that thou shouldest take 
 them from (iva dpns...éx...) the world, but that thou shouldest 
 keep them from the evil one’ (iva tnpnons avtods éx Tod Tovnpod). 
 The reference of é« tod rovnpod to the devil seems to be certain 
 for the following four reasons*, (1) The form of the sentence: ov« 
 ...€K TOU KOTpOU GNAA...€x TOU Tovnpov. The usage of St John (6 
 dpywv Tod Kocpou TovTov Xil. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, 6 kdcpos ddos év 
 TO Tovnpe® Keitat 1 John v. 19) seems to indicate decisively the 
 contrast intended—from the tyrant’s power, not from the region 
 which the tyrant claims as his. (2) The preceding context (vv. 11, 
 12): ‘Holy Father, keep (typncov) them in thy name which thou 
 hast given me....While I was with them, I kept (érpovv) them in 
 thy name which thou hast given me; and I guarded them (é¢v- 
 rXa€a), and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition ; 
 that the scripture might be fulfilled’ ‘The last clause is the 
 
 1 It is important to observe that (a) St Matthew has the same phrase here 
 (xxvi. 42 yevnOnTw 76 OéXnud cov) as in the Lord’s Prayer: St Luke omits this clause 
 in xi, 2. (b) in the language of Syria different ‘voices’ of the same verb are equi- 
 valent respectively to cicevéyxar and elceNOeiv (see p. 61 f.). 
 
 2 Canon Cook (Second Letter p. 81) points out that Chrysostom gives the 
 neuter interpretation here—rovrécru, dio ris kaxias (x. 664 B, so viii. 483). 
 
110 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 connecting link with an earlier passage. ‘I speak not of you all: 
 I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be 
 fulfilled, He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me.... 
 So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, 
 the son of Simon Iscariot. And after the sop, then entered Satan 
 into him’ (xiii. 18, 26 f.). All the Apostles were safely kept by 
 their Master save one. He fell a victim to the devil’s power. 
 For the future the Lord prays that those whom He leaves behind 
 may still be kept from the great enemy, who had made one of 
 
 their number his own. 
 
 GOSPEL. 
 
 While I was with them, J kept 
 (érjpovy) them in thy name...and I 
 guarded (éptdakéa) them, and not one 
 of them perished, but the son of per- 
 dition. 
 
 I have given them thy word; and 
 the world hated them, because they 
 are not of the world, even as I am 
 not of the world. I pray not that 
 thou shouldest take them from the 
 world, but that thou shouldest keep 
 them from the evil one (€x rov movn- 
 pov). They are not of the world, even 
 as I am not of the world. xvii. 12—15. 
 T have overcome the world. xvi. 33. 
 
 (3) The parallels in the Epistle: 
 
 EPISTLE. 
 
 He that was begotten of God (6 
 yevunbets ex tov Oeov) keepeth (rnpei) 
 him and the evil one toucheth him 
 not (6 movnpos ovx amretat avTov).... 
 My little children, guard (@vdakate) 
 yourselves from idols. v. 18, 21. 
 
 I have written unto you, young 
 men, because ye are strong, and 
 the word of God abideth in you, and 
 ye have overcome the evil one (rov 
 novnpov). Love not the world, neither 
 the things that are in the world. ii. 
 14, 15. 
 
 (4) The parallel in St Luke xxii. 31, 32: 
 
 St JoHN. 
 
 While I was with them, I kept 
 them....I guarded them....J pray (é- 
 pwra)...that thou shouldest keep them 
 from the evil one. 
 
 St LUKE. 
 
 Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked 
 to have you, that he might sift you 
 as wheat; but J made supplication 
 (€SenOnv) for thee. 
 
 But if, as these arguments appear to prove, €« Tod movnpod is 
 
 masculine, is it possible to disconnect the prayer which the Lord 
 taught as the typical Christian prayer from the prayer which He 
 Himself prayed? Is not the one the best guide to a true under- 
 standing of the other? And indeed, however great the difference 
 as to surroundings and form of expression, there are striking points 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 
 
 111 
 
 of contact between the two prayers. The same great spiritual 
 
 realities lie at the root of both. 
 
 Our Father which art in heaven. 
 
 Hallowed be thy name. 
 
 Thy kingdom come. 
 
 Thy will be done, as in heaven, so 
 on earth. 
 
 Bring us not into temptation, but 
 deliver us from the evil one (az rod 
 
 Trovnpov). 
 
 The above table indicates some of the resemblances. 
 
 Father (vv. 1, 5, 21, 24), Holy 
 Father (v. 11), Righteous Father 
 (v. 25). 
 
 I manifested thy name (v. 6). 
 
 Keep them...I kept them, in thy 
 name which thou hast given me (rv. 
 Ti, 12): 
 
 I made known unto them thy name 
 (v. 26)}. 
 
 Glorify thy Son, that the Son may 
 glorify thee: even as thou gavest 
 him authority over all flesh... (vv. 
 T2)5: 
 
 I glorified thee on the earth, having 
 accomplished the work which thou 
 hast given me to do...the glory which 
 I had with thee before the world was 
 (vv. 4, 5). 
 
 I am no more in the world, and 
 these are in the world (v. 11). 
 
 Even as thou, Father, art in me, 
 and I in thee, that they also may be 
 in us: that the world may believe... 
 (v. 21). 
 
 I kept them...I guarded them (v. 
 12). 
 
 ... pray...that thou shouldest keep 
 them from the evil one (é« rod movy- 
 pov) (v. 15). 
 
 No such 
 
 mechanical arrangement however can lay bare the one spirit which 
 
 quickens both prayers. 
 
 The conjecture might be hazarded that in the Gospel and 
 Epistle of St John we have a Johannine form of the clause of the 
 Lord’s Prayer under discussion, in which t/pycov or didaf€ov 
 (comp. 2 Thess. ill. 3 @uAaEes aro Tod trovnpod) takes the place of 
 
 1 Comp. marep, ddtacdv cov 7d dvoua (John xii. 27). 
 
 Chrysostom commenting on 
 
 the Lord’s Prayer says: 7d ydp, aytacOjnTw, TodTO éorw, SofacA7Tw (vii. 250 c). 
 
LIT THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 pucat, and the preposition éx the place of the azo of the Synop- 
 tists’. 
 
 But, however this may be, the evidence derived from the 
 Gospels themselves—the account of the Temptation, the Lord’s 
 Prayer, the history of the Ministry and especially of the Passion— 
 seems without any shadow of uncertainty to warrant the conclu- 
 sion that Christ taught His Church in the Lord’s Prayer to pray 
 for deliverance from the assaults of the devil. 
 
 (ii). Evidence derived from the Epistles. 
 
 Reasons have been given for thinking that in the earliest days 
 as now the Lord’s Prayer was in familiar use. The Apostolic 
 writers who so used it would sometimes consciously, sometimes 
 unconsciously, mould their language after the model of its words. 
 But the indications which suggest frequency of use are also proofs 
 that as yet the Prayer had no such stereotyped form as it as- 
 sumed a little later. Without this warning a slight variation of 
 phrase in the Apostolic writings might throw us off our guard, and 
 we might pass by unnoticed what is in truth little else than a 
 quotation of one of the petitions of the Prayer. 
 
 We proceed to discuss certain possible references in’ the 
 Epistles to the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer. | 
 
 (1) 2 Thess. iii. 1 ff. Td Nowrov mpocevyerbe, adeXdot, Trept 
 Huav...va pucOdpev dro Tav atoTwv Kal Tovnpev avOperor, 
 ov yap TavTwv » Tots. TioTds é éaTW 6 KUpLos, Os oTnpieer 
 buds Kal purake aro Tod Tovnpod We ask two questions—What 
 is the interpretation of the last clause? How far may a reference 
 to the Lord’s Prayer be considered certain ? 
 
 In regard to the first question, St Paul certainly uses the 
 phrase ‘the evil one’ in wdvta ta BéAn Tov rovnpod Ta TeTUpH- 
 péva (Eph. vi. 16, comp. tas peBodias Tod dvaBodov v. 11, and con- 
 trast Ta mvevpaTtixa THS Tovnpias Vv. 12). In the present passage 
 the context clearly points to the masculine. For here we have 
 a good instance of that dovetailing of ideas and phrases familiar 
 to the student of St Paul: 
 
 1 The investigation into the usage of the Greek Bible (p. 71 ff.) has shewn that 
 these two prepositions are interchangeable. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE” 113 
 
 > 4 , c ’ ‘ ,? ec , 
 OU yap TavTwy 7 Tiotis. miaTos 8€ eat oO KUpLos. 
 c - > ’ € - ‘ 
 wva pucOapev ard ornpi£er vuas cai puddEe aro 
 -~ -~ > -~ -~ 
 T@Y aTorev kal Tompav avOparrov. TOU Trovnpou. 
 
 The correlation of clauses would be impaired if the personal 
 agency of evil men were made to balance abstract evil’ (té. rovn- 
 pov Rom. xii. 9). Moreover in St Paul’s mind the thought of 
 evil men lay very near the thought of the evil one, their inspirer 
 and instigator*. Thus in this Epistle (ii. 9), ‘He whose coming is 
 according to the working of Satan’; again, ‘Even Satan fashioneth 
 himself into an angel of light; it is no great thing therefore if his 
 ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness’ 
 (2 Cor. xi. 14 f.); ‘The spirit that now worketh in the sons of dis- 
 obedience’ (Eph. ii. 2). Again, the choice of words favours the 
 masculine interpretation—ornpifer and durdée taken together® 
 are more appropriate if the enemy is a person. The metaphor is 
 drawn from war. Compare pds 76 8ivacOau twas orivar mpos Tas 
 peOodias Tod diaBorov...iva SuvnOAte avticthvar...cThvat. othe 
 ovv (Eph. vi. 11, 13, 14), 6 avri8cKos UMOV SiaBonros...0 avriatnte 
 orepeot 7H riotet (1 Pet. v. 8 f.), dvtiornte 88 76 S:aBdrw (James 
 iv. 7). Once more, the position of the phrase in the Epistle is 
 remarkable. The Apostle begins what he means to be the con- 
 cluding paragraph of the letter with 7d Xovrdy (iii, 1). The 
 paragraph, it will be noticed, corresponds with the closing sentences 
 of the first letter to Thessalonica. In it there are four main 
 thoughts: (1) A request for prayer on the Apostle’s behalf (vv. 1, 
 2): so 1 Thess. v.25. (2) The assurance—muords 8é éotiv 6 kbpuos: 
 so 1 Thess. v. 24 (1ords 6 kaXdv buds). (3) An expression of trust 
 —a Trapayyéhrouev kal trovetre Kal Troujscere. (4) A benediction— 
 o 8€ Kupos KatevOUvat x.7.r.: so 1 Thess. v. 23 adds 8& 6 eds 
 THS eLpnvns ayudar vuads. Here then the Apostle had meant, it 
 
 1 St Paul starts in v. 1 with the idea of help and hindrance in work, Comp. 
 évéxopev Nuas 6 Zaravas (1 Thess. ii. 18). 
 
 * Comp. the Jewish Prayer (Berakoth 16 b): ‘May it be thy will, O Lord 
 our God...to deliver us from the shameless, and from shamelessness; from the 
 evil man, and from evil hap, from evil yecer, from evil companion, from evil 
 neighbour, and from Satan the destroyer’ (Dr Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish 
 Fathers p. 142). For similar prayers in the Christian Liturgies see below, p. 144. 
 
 * Contrast mapaxadéoa budy ras kapdlas Kal ornpltac év mavrl epyw Kal Noyw ayadG 
 (ii. 17; 1 Thess. iii. 2, 13). 
 
 e 8 
 
114 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 would seem, to close. But the reference in & trapayyéAXoper (v. 4) 
 may be misunderstood: it needs further definition. Hence yet 
 another paragraph is added (iii. 6—16 ; comp. Phil. iii. 1 f, iv. 8). 
 Thus, according to St Paul’s intention when he wrote the words, 
 the assurance @vAd£er ad Tov movnpod would have stood at 
 the very end of the Epistle. If we adopt the masculine interpreta- 
 tion, we find a parallel in a similar prophecy of victory over the 
 devil at the close of the greatest Epistle of the next group—o 6¢ 
 eds THs elpnyns cuvtpier Tov Latavdy v1d Tods Todas Upav ev 
 raxet (Rom. xvi. 20). Among the Epistles of the First Captivity 
 the ‘Ephesian’ Epistle ends with the picture of the Christian 
 soldier equipped in ‘the whole armour of God,’ able to ‘stand 
 against the wiles of the devil’ 
 
 But may the words @vAdkes amd tod tovnpod be taken as a 
 direct reference to the clause of the Lord’s Prayer? It is hard to 
 refuse an affirmative answer. If St Paul had written piycetar ame 
 Tod Tovnpod, the reference would have been beyond dispute. As 
 it is, even if we put aside the quite possible supposition that a 
 current version of the Lord’s Prayer had ¢vdAa€ov in place of 
 pooat, we may account for St Paul’s substitution of durafer by 
 the fact that puc@dpev had been used just above and that dudd&e 
 harmonises better than pvcetas with ornpi€ec*. 
 
 (2) 2 Cor. xii. 7 f. €800n wos oKdro® TH capKi, ayyedos 
 Latava...vmép Tovtou tpis Tov KUplov TapeKddreca iva aTooTh aT’ 
 éuod. The remembrance of the Lord’s thrice repeated prayer in 
 Gethsemane perhaps inspires the tpls...2apexadeoa. Further, as 
 aroothvar in the New Testament is only used of persons‘, the 
 subject of dmoorh is dyyeXos Latava (comp. Matt. xxv. 41, Apoc. 
 
 1 Comp. 1 Pet. v. 8 f.; 1 John v. 18 ff. 
 
 2 The Antiochenes however do not support the masculine. Chrys. passes over 
 the word. Theod. of Mops. paraphrases—‘ab omni discedentes inconvenienti actu.’ 
 
 3 The passages where the word occurs in the Lxx., viz, Numb, xxxiii, 55, 
 Ezek. xxviii. 24 (cxdd\oy mixplas cal dxavOa dd%vns), Hos. ii. 6, seem to shew that 
 it bears the later (Alexandrian) sense of thorn (not stake). See especially Field 
 Otium Norvicense iii. p. 115. 
 
 4 Le. ii. 37, iv. 13, viii, 13, xiii, 27, Acts v. 38, xii. 10 (awéorn 6 dyyedos), xv. 38, 
 xix. 9, xxii. 29, 1 Tim. iv.1, 2 Tim. ii. 19, Heb. iii.12. The rendering of the Syriac 
 Vulgate connects together Luke iv. 13, the interpolated clause in Luke xi. 4, and 
 2 Cor. xii. 8. But the Syriac word uged is a very common one. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ tS 
 
 xi. 7, 9, Barn. xviii. 1). The parallel in Luke iv. 13 (6 ScaBoros 
 amréotn am’ avtod) is remarkable, and we possibly have here one 
 of the links which connect St Paul’s Epistles with the Pauline 
 Gospel. However that may be, St Paul tells of a prayer of his for 
 deliverance from the power of Satan, and it is a plausible con- 
 jecture that the Lord’s Prayer was in his mind. 
 
 (3) Gal.i.3f. "Incod Xpictod, rod Sovtos éauvtov Urép (v. |. 
 Tept) TOV dpaptiav nuav ows éEéAnTaL nuds ex ToD ai@vos TOU 
 EVEOT@TOS Trovnpovd Kata TO BéXnpwa TOD Oeod Kal TaTpos Nuav. 
 
 Two interpretations may be given of the words Tod ai@vos Tov 
 éveoT@Tos movnpod, and in either case a reference to the Lord’s 
 Prayer seems to me probable. The ideas common to this passage 
 and the Prayer are—our Father, the will, forgiveness, rescue from 
 evil (or the evil one). 
 
 (i) The words may be translated, ‘the present age, evil as it 
 is; trovnpod being emphatically added to describe its character’, 
 a kind of tertiary predicate. When it is remembered that é&eréo0au 
 
 in the Lxx. shares with pycac@ar the duty of representing bys 
 (comp. p. 73), and so might well be a translation of the Aramaic 
 word meaning ‘deliver’ in the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer, 
 and further that ‘this age’ and ‘this world’ are represented in 
 the New Testament as being under the dominion of Satan (2 Cor. 
 iv. 4, Eph. i. 2, vi. 12, John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11, 1 John v. 19), 
 the conclusion that here there is an indirect reference to the 
 Lord’s Prayer becomes probable. The emphatic zovnpod finds 
 thus an explanation,—the character of the age corresponds to the 
 _ character of its god, its ruler. The general sense will be illus- 
 trated by John xii. 31, xvi. 11, Col. i. 13, ii, 15, Heb. ii. 14. 
 
 (ii) But is it not more natural to take the words tod évesta@Tos 
 movnpod together as defining to whom or to what the age belongs? 
 For such a genitive compare Eph. ii. 2 cata tov aidva tod Koopov 
 tovtouv (where the idea of the personal evil power comes out in 
 the next clause cata tov dpxovta x.t.r.), Barnabas xv. 5 éAOov o 
 
 1 Comp. Eph. v. 16 ééayopaféuevor tov Katpdy, dre al nuépar movypat elor, Barn. 
 ii. 1 qwepcr otv obady movnpay Kal abrod Tod évepyobvros exovros Thy éfovalay, viii. 6. 
 ‘Contrast Barn. x.11 6 dixasos cal év todTw TO Kbomw Tepimare? Kal Tov dy.ov alava 
 éxdéxerat. For the construction in this case compare 1 Pet, i. 18 é\utpdOnte ex rijs 
 paralas bua avactpopis warporapadérov. 
 
 8—2 
 
116 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 vids abtod Katapynoer Tov Kalpov TOD avduov (on the reading see 
 p. 99). The converse is found in 2 Cor. iv. 4 6 Beds Tod aidvos 
 rovtov. Further, it is important to observe that not only in St 
 Paul’s Epistles but also in the rest of the New Testament and, ii 
 believe, in other early Christian writings the literal equivalent 
 
 (odtos 6 aiwy) of the Hebrew phrase MIN pdyyn is used; the 
 word évectés does not occur, so far as I have observed, in this 
 connexion. 
 
 If this construction of the words be adopted two questions 
 arise, (a) What is the gender of zrovnpod? (6) What is the exact 
 force of €veata@tos ? 
 
 (a) What is the gender of tod...rovnpod? The neuter is of 
 course possible. But there are weighty arguments against it. The 
 masculine interpretation is implied in a passage of the Clementines, 
 Epist. Clem. ad Jac. i., referred to by Bp Lightfoot on Gal. i. 4, 
 odtos avtos (sc. Hérpos) Sia THY dpetpov mpos avOpdrrous aropyny 
 cabas, Snuocia, éml tod évestdros Tovnpod, TOV éaopevoy ayabov 
 do TH kdcpm pnvicar Baciréa, péxpis évtatOa TH ‘Popn ryevo- 
 pevos «.7.r. ‘At all events, writes the Bishop, ‘a possible inter- 
 pretation is thus suggested.’ But I venture to think this ‘possible 
 interpretation’ becomes probable in the light of two considerations. 
 ‘This age’ in the New Testament is never connected with mere 
 abstract evil, but always with the tyranny of a personal evil spirit. 
 Such too, at least generally, is the usage of sub-Apostolic writers. 
 Again, this passage must be taken in connexion with other pas- 
 sages in St Paul’s writings where reference to the Lord’s Prayer 
 is probable. ~ 
 
 (b) Is the probability, which may be claimed for the masculine 
 interpretation, disturbed by the presence of the word éveaT ares ? 
 What is the exact force of the word? It is commonly taken in a 
 temporal sense, present. Thus Bp Lightfoot says of the passage 
 in the Clementines that the writer “appears to have interpreted 
 the words ‘from the eon, the dominion, of the present evil one.’” 
 The word éveoros has, it is true, this meaning; but I believe it 
 is used in a strictly temporal sense only when the context, as in 
 the Clementines (rdv éodpevov), defines the meaning. Thus Rom. 
 viii. 88 (otre éveatSta ovte péddovta), 1 Cor. ili. 22. Compare 
 
 Polyb. xviii. 38. 5 (to which Bp Lightfoot refers) 6 yap mpoeipy- 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 1 by 
 
 bévos avnp Kata TOV TraTépa MEV, ETL VEdS BY...6uolws Sé KaTAa TOV 
 évestota Baoiéa. This temporal sense however is secondary, 
 and the primary thought is rather of imminence, often of some 
 threatening power’. Compare e.g. Lycurg. 148. 32 6 viv évertynkos 
 aywv (where the addition of viv is to be noticed), Plutarch Lucull. 
 13 Ov avrtos éevaTnaopevoy TH puyh peta vewv aTrecTadxer, and (in 
 the Greek Bible) 1 Macc. xii. 44 croXéuou pr) évertnKoTos nip, 
 2 Mace. ili. 17 To xata Kapdiav éveotos adyos, Vi. 9 THY évertdaav 
 tarairewpiav, 3 Macc. i. 16 Bonbeiv tH eveotdon avaykn, 1 Cor. 
 vil. 26 dca thy eveotdcav avaykny, 2 Thess. il. 2 evéotynxev 7) nwépa 
 tov xupiov, 2 Tim. iil. 1, Heb. ix. 9; so Ep. Clem. 55 Xoiprxod Tivos 
 évotavtos Katpod. In the passage under consideration this appears 
 to be the meaning. The word points to the imminence of, the beset- 
 ment of men by, the evil one. The following passages will be the 
 best commentary, Ps. cvili. 6 SuaBoros otntw éx Seva avtod, 
 Zech. iii. 1 kat 6 SvaBoros elatynKer éx SeEvav avTOv Tod avTiKeiabat 
 auto, Eph. il. 2 Tod rvevpatos Tod viv évepyobvTos év Tots viols TIS 
 arevOias, 1 Tim. v. 14 pndewiav adoppny Sidovar TO avtiKeméevo 
 (v. 15 émricw tov Yatava), 1 John v. 19 6 Koopos dros ev TO 
 movnp@® xeitat. Compare also the idea suggested by Col. u. 15 
 aTrexOugapevos Tas apyas Kal Tas éEovaias. 
 
 To sum up, in the light of other passages St Paul’s meaning 
 here seems to be that Christ died ‘to rescue us from the age of 
 the evil one who besetteth us’; and, if this be his meaning, his 
 words are probably a reminiscence of the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 (4) Col. i. 12 ff evyapsotodvtes TO Tatpl TO (KavwcavTt 
 nas els THY wepida Tod KANpoU TaV ayiwy év TO PwTi, os Epvcato 
 nuas €x THs eEovaias TOD GKOTOUS Kal mEeTEaTHGED ELS THY BacirELav 
 Tov viod THS ayamns avTod, ev & Exowev THY ATOAUTPwOW, TI 
 abeow THY auapTiov. 
 
 In this passage four of the leading thoughts of the Lord’s 
 Prayer are found side by side—‘the Father, ‘who delivered us 
 out of the power of darkness,’ ‘the kingdom,’ ‘the forgiveness of 
 our sins. It can hardly be urged that this is a mere coincidence. 
 The Prayer had worked itself into the Apostle’s mind and habit 
 
 1 The word is used of a logical difficulty which confronts a line of argument in 
 Plato Phaedo 77 B (ért évéornxev 5 viv 6n KéBns edeye). 
 
118 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 of thought, and the reminiscence, even though it be unintentional, 
 is full of significance. 
 
 Two questions arise : 
 
 First, is the reference in 4 連ovcia tod oxdtous necessarily to 
 the personal power of evil? Such an interpretation, it would 
 appear, is clearly required by the antithesis—éx ts é£ovcias Tod 
 aKxoTous, els THY Bactrelay Tod viod. Further, a passage from 
 the companion Epistle is strongly on the same side: pds tas 
 apxas, mpos Tas éEovalas, mpds Tovs KoTuoKpaTopas TOD oKOTOUS 
 toutou (Eph. vi. 12). Compare also Acts xxvi. 18 tod émiatpéyrac 
 aTO aKOTOUS Els POS Kal THS eEovcias TOD Latava emt Tov Deov. 
 These parallels seem to establish a reference to Satan. 
 
 Secondly, could St Paul have written, ‘He delivered us from 
 the power of darkness, if he had understood the Lord’s Prayer to 
 ask for deliverance from Satan? For is not the assertion of an 
 emancipation in the past wholly incompatible with the remem- 
 brance of a petition for deliverance? Here we touch upon an 
 objection which has been most strongly and confidently urged 
 against the masculine interpretation of the clause in the Prayer. 
 Such an interpretation, it is argued, misrepresents the position of 
 the Christian man. He has been rescued, he has been brought 
 clean out of the range of Satan’s power. He has no need to ask 
 for what is his shen. 
 
 The passage of St Paul which we are considering itself As 
 that such an argument proves too much. St Paul speaks of the 
 transference of men into the kingdom as a thing already achieved, 
 an act of the Father in the past (ueréotncev). How then, we 
 might ask, can Christian men pray ‘Thy kingdom come’? 
 
 The answer depends on an appreciation of the difference 
 between a state which is ideal or potential, and a state which is 
 actual. It is possible to conceive of the ‘consummation of the 
 ages’ (cuvTéXera TOV aiwvwy) as already attained; it was reached 
 when the Lord died and rose again (Hebr. ix. 26). On the other 
 hand ‘the consummation of the age’ (7 cvytéXeca Tov aidvos) is 
 still future. The Lord’s return will usher it in (Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 
 49, xxiv. 3, xxvill. 20). So in one sense the Lord’s work is 
 complete (retéXeorau Jn. xix. 30); the victory is won (e.g. Jn. xvi. 
 33, Col. ii. 15, Heb. ii. 14); the reconciliation of all things to God 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 119 
 
 is achieved (Col. i. 20). In another sense the results of the victory 
 have still to be made good (1 Cor. xv. 25 ff.); in ‘the regeneration, 
 the restoration of all things’ we see a goal still unattained (Matt. 
 xix. 28, Acts iii. 21). And with this twofold view of the work of the 
 Redeemer there corresponds a twofold view of the position of the 
 Christian man. St Paul can say azre@avere, yet in the same breath 
 vexpwoate ody Ta pwédAN Ta él THS ys (Col. ili. 8,5); ér@Onwev 
 (Rom. viii. 24), yet cwOnoopeba (Rom. v. 10); cuvefworoincev 
 TO XPloT@...kal suvyyerpev Kal cuvexabicey €v Tois érroupaviols 
 év Xpict@ “Inood (Eph. ii. 5 f.), yet ev avt@ edidayOnre...ava- 
 veovo0at TH TvevpaTL TOU Voos Umar, Kal évdvcacbat TOV KaLVOV 
 av@pwrrov (Eph. iv. 23); éyowev THY atrodkvTpwaw (Eph. i. 7), yet 
 eoppayicOnte eis nuépav arrokvtpwaews (Eph. iv. 30, cf. Rom. viii. 
 23). And in the same way there are two different ways of 
 speaking of the relation of Christian men to Satan. St John, for 
 example, writes in his Epistle vevuxnxate Tov trovnper (ii. 13, 14), 
 6 Tovnpos ovxY amteTat avTod (v.18). St Paul, speaking from a 
 different point of view, summons men to a conflict which will 
 tax all their powers (Eph. vi. 11—17, compare Jas. iv. 7, 1 Pet. v. 
 9), and encourages them with the hope of God’s speedy victory 
 over the enemy (Rom. xvi. 20). 
 
 There is nothing strange then if St Paul translated his 
 remembrance of the prayer for deliverance into the declaration of 
 a past emancipation. The prayer for deliverance is only possible 
 because the deliverance is ideally an accomplished fact. 
 
 (5) 2 Tim.iv. 16 ff év tH mpwtn pov amodoyia ovdeis por 
 TapeyeveTo...0 5é KUPLOS fot TapéoTn Kal éveduvapwoév pe, iva bv 
 €“ov TO Knpuyywa TWANpOpopnOy Kal axovowow Tavta Ta €Ovn, Kal 
 épvcOnv éx otopatos AéovTos. proeTal pe O KUpLOS amd TraVTOS 
 Epyou Tovnpov Kal cadcer els THY BactAElav avTOD THY érroUpavioV" 
 @ 7 S0&a eis Tovs aiavas Taév aidvwv, aunv. Here in the close 
 juxtaposition of azo mavtos épyov Twovnpod and eis try Bacidelav 
 avtov the reference to two clauses of the Lord’s Prayer seems 
 clear. But is not the passage equally decisive for the neuter 
 interpretation? To answer this question some discussion of the 
 whole passage is necessary. 
 
 épvaOnv éx otdouatos Aéovtos. The phrase is evidently derived 
 from the Old Testament. Comp. Aavwnnr...€ppyc@n é€x atopuatos 
 
120 THE LORDS PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Aeovtwy (1 Mace. ii. 60), cdaov pe €x oTomatos NéovTos (Ps. xxi. 
 22); so Amos iii. 12, Dan. vi. 20, 27. It is possible however that 
 an expression drawn from this source may have a particular 
 application, and may refer to Satan. The absence of the article 
 does not imply that the danger was vague, but rather tends to 
 emphasise its character’. If then this reference be allowed, we 
 should have a close parallel in 1 Pet. v. 8 6 advtiduKos tuov 
 diaBoros ws A€wy Wpvopevos TrepiTatel Enra@v Katarueiv. In this 
 latter passage the words in the context ta a’ta tov Trabnpatwv 
 (v. 9), dAtyov wafovtas (v. 10, cf. i. 6) shew that persecution, not 
 temptation to sin, is here regarded as the devil’s work. Two 
 figures are employed to describe Satan as the persecutor of the 
 Church. On the one hand the Apostle uses the image of the 
 unsatisfied savagery of the lion, an image not uncommon in the 
 Old Testament (Ps. xxi. 14, Jer. 11. 15, Ezek. xxii. 25, Zeph. iii. 3). 
 On the other, using the name dsaBodos and the term 6 avtidixos, 
 which elsewhere in the New Testament retains its proper meaning 
 of an ‘opponent at law’, he seems to describe the devil as 
 prompting false accusations against ‘the Brethren’ before ruling 
 powers (comp. ii. 12, ii. 16 ff, iv. 14 ff). Thus the two ideas 
 of savage attack and of accusation before rulers are common to 
 2 Tim. iv. 16 ff. and 1 Peter v. 8% 
 
 1 Comp. e.g. év vig (Hebr. i. 2), év maer ddnOv@ (Ignat. Eph. i.). 
 
 2 Matt. v. 25, Le. xii. 58, xviii. 3. In Classical Greek the word dvrid.xos is used 
 of a party in a lawsuit, whether the plaintiff or more properly the defendant. It 
 is only in a poetical passage (Aesch. dg. 41 Ilpiduou péyas avridixos, Mevédaos dvat 
 75 ’Ayauéuvwr) that the word seems at first sight to bear a more general sense, 
 and even here its primary meaning gives force to the passage. In the uxx. it is 
 used four times as equivalent to words connected with the root 1 (1 Sam. ii. 10, 
 Is. xli. 11, Jer. 1. 34, li. 36). In Prov. xviii. 17 it is used to translate Y], but the 
 metaphor is a judicial one. Thus the usage of the Greek Bible is consistently in 
 favour of the strict rendering. 
 
 3 Comp. of daira Saluoves, éxOpalvovres Huiv Kal rovs ToovTous dixacras EXovTeEs 
 imoxetplous Kai Aarpevovras, ws obv adpxovTas Sawmovidvras, Povevew Nuds mapacKev- 
 dfovor (Justin Ap. ii. 1, so Ap. i. 5): 6 6 dvrigndos Kal Baokavos Kat movnpds, Oo avTiKel- 
 bevos TO yéver Tav Sixalwy... UréBare ... Nexjrnvy ... evruxetv TO apxovre (Mart. Polyc. 
 ch. xvii.). The use of the figure of a lion to describe Satan may not have been 
 unknown among the Jews. Justin Martyr, in his exposition of two passages of the 
 Psalms, is very probably following traditional exegesis, though it is possible that 
 in the former of these passages he is rather thinking of 1 Pet. v. 8. In Dial. ch. 
 103 he is commenting on the words 7jvoitav em’ eve 7d oTdua alrav ws Néwv o apmdfwy 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE. 121 
 
 Persecution is traced to Satan’s working notably in the case of 
 our Lord’s Passion. And in Apostolic and post-Apostolic times 
 the same explanation of persecution prevailed'. If this interpre- 
 tation be adopted, a fuller force is given to the words 6 Kdpuds pou 
 Tapéotn Kal évedvvaywoév pe*®. Chrysostom characteristically 
 glides from the interpretation commonly quoted as his (Adovta Tov 
 Népwva gpnov: so Kus. H. £. ii. 22%) into that which I have sug- 
 gested as possible. After explaining ‘every evil work’ as equivalent 
 to ‘every sin’ he adds cal yap Kai TovdTo, TO SuvnOjvar pwéxpis 
 aiwatos avtTiKaTacThvat mpos THY auaptiay Kal pn évdodva., 
 étépou AéovTos eat picacOar (Vv. |. pucPjvar), Tod SvaBorov. 
 
 If Satan is referred to, as I have suggested, in the earlier 
 clause, it is quite natural that the reminiscence of the Prayer 
 in the second clause should be indirect. Further, there is, I 
 think, some evidence that the phrase amo ravros mrovnpod (épyou, 
 mpayuatos) was current in Greek Jewish prayers (cf. 2 Tim. 
 
 kal dpuduevos (Ps. xxi. 14). He applies the words to the Messiah. After saying 
 that the lion may mean Herod, he adds 7 Adovra rdv wpvdmevoy Em’ abrov EXeye Tov 
 didBodov. Again, in chapter 105 he explains the words which occur later in 
 the Psalm (v. 21 f.) of the Lord’s Passion (c@adv we éx orduaros Néovros), and he 
 concludes thus: He prayed tva, nvixa jets mpds TH é£ddw TOD Blov ywoueba, TA avTa 
 aitGuev Tov Oedv, Tov Suvduevoy amocrpévac mdvra avacdp [this refers to ék xecpds 
 xuvds] tovnpdv dyyedov un AaBécOa Hudy rHs Yux%s. As to Rabbinic writers, I 
 merely transcribe a few words from Edersheim Life and Times ii. p. 759: ‘In 
 the time of Ezra, the object of Israel’s prayer (Neh. vill. 6) was to have Satan 
 delivered to them. After a three days’ fast it was granted, and the Yetser ha 
 Ra of idolatry, in the shape of a young lion, was delivered up to them...(Yoma, 
 69 b).’ 
 
 1 Compare Apoc. ii. 10 and much of the later chapters of the Book. For later 
 times see the passages quoted above and the references given in Hagenbach Hist. 
 of Doctrine, Eng. Trans., i. p. 200. 
 
 2 Compare évduvauotcbe év xupiw (Eph. vi. 10) and the succeeding context. If 
 the ordinary interpretation be adopted, Ps. eviii. 31 (tapéorn éx deiiGv mévyTos, 
 ToD owoa éK TOV SwwKdvTwy THY Wux7yv mov) is an apt parallel. Comp. also Pss, 
 Solomon xiii. 3 Onpla éméSpayov avtots wovynpa, ev Tois ddo0ow avTav EriANov capKas 
 auray, Kal év Tals wUAats avTav 2O\wy doTG alTav: Kal €x ToUTwWY aTavTWY EppUcaTo Tuas 
 KUptos. 
 
 3 Comp. Esther iv. 10 (xiv. 13) dds Adyov evpv@uov eis TO oTbua mov Evwtriov Tod 
 Aéovros (i.e. Ahasuerus), Joseph. Antig. xviii. 6. 10 Mapovas d€ rod ’Aypirmov 6 
 dmedevOepos mudomevos TiBepiou tiv TedevTIV...yAwoon TH “EBpalwy réOvnkev 6 éwy 
 gnolv. These passages, referred to by Grinfield, certainly support the first of 
 Chrysostom’s interpretations. 
 
122 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 ili. 11). In the liturgical portion of the Didaché (x. 5) the words 
 occur Tov picacbat avTny amo TavTos Tovnpov: and in an earlier 
 passage (ili, 1) we read gedye amo tavtos rovnpod. Similar 
 phrases are found in the Liturgies; thus in that of St James, 
 puvopevos nuads ato TavTos Tovnpod Tpaypatos (Swainson p. 238 f., 
 Hammond p. 32), els a@mrotpomnv tavtos tovnpod mpaypatos 
 (Swainson p. 320 f., Hammond p. 52)’. Such phrases should be 
 compared with the Hebrew prayers quoted by Dr Taylor, Sayings 
 of the Jewish Fathers, p. 142 f.; and in their Greek form they 
 appear to be liturgical adaptations of such passages of the 
 LXx. as Deut. xxiii. 9 @uddEn ard ravtos pyuatos rovnpod, 
 Job i. 1, 8 amrexopevos amo TavTos Tovnpov TpayparTos, Ps. cxx. 7 
 Kuplos pudaker oe amd TavTds Kaxov, compare Wisd. xvi. 8 od 
 el 6 puomevos ex TavTos Kaxov. If then St Paul weaves into his 
 words a well-known liturgical phrase, he gives it a special appli- 
 cation. ‘The Lord has rescued me from the enemy once,’ we 
 may understand him to mean, ‘He will deliver me, if need be, 
 again. One pedodeta diaB8orov is past; others will follow; through 
 the help of God all will fail’ 
 
 According to this view the reference to the last petition of 
 the Lord’s Prayer is spread over the two clauses, though the key 
 words (fvcetat...a70...7rovnpod) occur only in the second. If this 
 explanation be accepted, the passage as a whole may be thought 
 to support the masculine interpretation. 
 
 (6) 1 John v. 18 f. oidapev Ore mwas 6 yeyevynuévos ex TOD 
 Oeod ovx apuaptaver, GAN 6 yevvnbeis ex Tod Oeod TnpEt ator, 
 Kal 0 Trovnpos OvY ATTETAL avTOD. 
 
 Here 6 yevyneis refers to the Eternal Son. The close con- 
 nexion of this passage with Christ’s prayer for His Apostles 
 recorded by St John (xvii.) has been already pointed out (p. 110). 
 This close connexion carries with it the probability of a reference 
 to the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 To sum up this stage of the discussion: the references to the 
 clause of the Prayer which I have pointed out in the Epistles 
 are not all of them beyond dispute. But in each case probability 
 
 1 Comp, Test. xii. Patr. Dan 6 dtarnpyjoare obv éavrovs...adro mayros épyou movnpod. 
 For such phrases in the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy see below, p. 144. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 123 
 
 has, I believe, been reached, and it must be remembered that 
 the combined force of several probabilities far exceeds their simple 
 aggregate. Each fresh probability not only adds to the uumber 
 of probabilities, but increases the strength of each of those to which 
 it is added. The evidence therefore derived from the Epistles 
 confirms that derived from the Gospels and supports the masculine 
 interpretation of amo tod rovnpod. 
 
 ON THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE LORD’s PRAYER WAS GIVEN. 
 
 In St Matthew’s Gospel the Lord’s Prayer is embodied in a carefully 
 framed discourse, which contains many passages which are found scattered 
 throughout the other Synoptic Gospels. St Luke (xi. 1), on the other hand, 
 distinctly describes the occasion on which the Prayer was given. With regard 
 to the locality he uses a striking though indefinite expression : ‘It came to 
 pass as He was praying in a certain place’ (év r@ etvat avrov év Tom@ Twi mpoo- 
 evxopuevov), or, as it may be perhaps more literally rendered: ‘It came to 
 pass as He was in a certain place praying. Is there any possibility of 
 identifying the locality from the context ? 
 
 The incident recorded in the verses which immediately precede is the 
 story of the two sisters, Martha and Mary. This is introduced by an equally 
 vague term: ‘And as they journeyed He entered into a certain village’ (eis 
 kopnv twa). But we know from St John’s Gospel (xi. 1) that the actual 
 residence of Mary and her sister Martha was Bethany!. And Bethany, the 
 same Gospel tells us (xi. 18), ‘was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs 
 off” It was on the other side of the Mount of Olives. The ‘certain village’ 
 then, which for some reason St Luke does not name, was one which played an 
 important part in the Gospel history. It was the scene of the raising of 
 Lazarus from the dead: it was the home of our Lord during the last week 
 before the Passion: it was the spot from which He ascended from earth to 
 heaven. 
 
 The ‘certain place’ in which our Lord was praying just before He gave 
 His Prayer to the Disciples may well have been as definite and as interesting 
 a spot, although St Luke does not record its name. The context leads us to 
 
 1 When we compare this passage in St John, Adfapos awd Bnéavias x THs Kwuns 
 Maplas cai MdpOas rijs dde\pqs adris, with the words of the same writer (i. 44), 
 qv 5€ 6 Pikuwmos awd BynOcada, éx THs woews (i.e. probably Capernaum) "Avdpéou Kal 
 Ilérpov, we may perhaps, with Bp Westcott (ad loc.), regard the prepositions as 
 contrasting their ‘actual residence’ with their ‘true home.’ But this does not 
 seriously affect the argument. Bethany itself is called a xwun by St John imme- 
 diately afterwards (xi. 30). 
 
124 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 look for it in the neighbourhood of Bethany, the Mount of Olives, and Jeru- 
 salem. May it not have been ‘the garden of Gethsemane’? 
 
 The name Gethsemane occurs in Matt. xxvi. 36, rore €pyerat per avrav 
 6 "Incovs eis xwpiov Aeyouevov TeOonpuavei, and Mc. xiv. 32, kai Epyovra ets 
 xepiov ov ro dvopa TeOonpavet. The word xwpiov occurs seven times elsewhere 
 in the N. T., John iv. 5, Acts i. 18, 19, iv. 34, v. 3, 8, xxviii. 7; and in every 
 case it has the definite meaning of a parcel or plot of land belonging to a 
 private owner. We must suppose therefore that Gethsemane was an enclosed 
 piece of ground to which our Lord and His Disciples had some special right 
 of entry. This is borne out by John xviii. 1, €&7\Oev ody rots pabnrais avrov 
 mépav Tov xetappov tay Kedpwv dmov nv kyros, eis dv elanAOev avros Kal oi 
 pabnrai avrov. det dé kal “lovdas...rov Tomov, drt modAdKts TvvnXOn "Ingods exet 
 peta TOY pabnTay avTov. 
 
 When we turn to St Luke’s account of the Agony we find the same vague- 
 ness about the locality as we have seen already in his Gospel: Le. xxii. 39, 
 kat €€eAOav emopevOn Kata Td €Oos eis TO ”“Opos tav ’EXa@v" HKodovOnaay Se 
 aUT@ Kai of pabyral. yevopevos S€ ext rod tomo éinev avrois Hpovevxerbe py 
 eloeOeiv eis mecpacpov. Is it too much to suppose that the very prayer which 
 He bids them pray was immediately suggested by the associations of the 
 actual locality in which He had said to them before: érav mpocedxnobe, 
 héyere...My eiveveyxns npas eis metpacpov? It has been already pointed out 
 (see p. 61) that the coincidence is far more striking in the Syriac Versions, 
 which may be taken as representing to us approximately the original form of 
 the words: for in those Versions the two words, eiceAGeiv and elceveyxys, are 
 but the two voices, ssl (Peal) and ess/ (Aphel) of the same verb}. 
 It has also been demonstrated that other words of the Prayer were in our 
 Lord’s mind at this supreme moment (see p. 108 ff). 
 
 To return to the word yepiov. In Matt. xxvi. 36 the Latin Versions vary 
 
 1 The want of a causative voice in the Greek language to correspond to the 
 Aphel of the Syriac receives a parallel illustration in the case of the root QQ), 
 ‘to go forth,’ éfeNeiv. In the following among many other passages the Aphel of this 
 verb, ‘to make to go forth,’ corresponds to the Greek éx8a\Xew, a word which in 
 the light of this correspondence will not bear the stress which is sometimes 
 laid on it. Mt. ix. 38 daws éxBddy épydras (‘send forth’ A. V., R. V.), xii. 35 
 éx Tod dyabod Oncavpod exBdddec Ta ayaa (‘bringeth forth’ A. V., R. V.), Me. i. 12 
 70 mvedua airov éxBddde (‘driveth him’ A. V., ‘driveth him forth’ R. V.), i. 43 
 evOus €fé8arev atréy (‘sent him away’ A. V., ‘sent him out’ R. V.), Le. x. 35 
 ExBarav dvo dnvapa (‘took out’ A. V., R. V.), Jn. x. 4 ra tha mavra €xBadn 
 (‘putteth forth’ A. V., ‘hath put forth’ R. V.), Acts xvi. 37 Ad@pa quads exBddrdovow 
 (‘thrust us out’ A. V., ‘cast us out’ R. V.), Jas. ii, 25 érépg 069 éxBadodoa (‘sent 
 them out’ A. V., R. V.). Notably in two of the above instances, Mt. ix. 38 and 
 Mc. i. 12, commentators have frequently been misled by the apparent strength of 
 the expression in the Greek. It is worth while to compare with the latter passage 
 Mt. iv. 1 dv7x67...76 To0 mvetuaros, and Le. iv. 1 #yero év TG mMvevuart, phrases which 
 seem to represent two efforts to escape from the harshness of éxBdAXet. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE, P25 
 
 between ‘uillam’ (Vulg.), ‘locum’ (Brix.=f) and ‘agrum’ (Bezae=d). In 
 Me. xiv. 32 it is rendered by ‘praedium.’ It is possible that St Luke pur- 
 posely chose the vaguer word romos both in xi. 1 and in xxii. 40 in preference 
 to the more definite ywpiov, which would have involved a further description 
 of the site. In this case two alternatives would probably have presented 
 themselves to his mind: either to give the name Gethsemane and follow it 
 by a translation ; or simply to say that the name of the place was ‘ Oil-press,’ 
 as in xxiii. 33 he says dre #AOav emt rov romov Tov Aeyopevov Kpaviov. But 
 apparently he considered that he had sufficiently defined the locality by 
 saying éemopevOn cata To €O0s eis to “Opos trav ’EXaov. In the omission of 
 the name Gethsemane his account is in harmony with that of St John, who 
 contents himself with saying that the xjmos was a place where ‘Jesus oft- 
 times assembled (cuvyy6n, a word suggesting gatherings for prayer or teach- 
 ing) with His disciples.’ 
 
 A suggestion of this kind is not capable, with the evidence at our disposal, 
 of exact proof. It must remain as a suggestion: but I am glad to have been 
 allowed to make it in connection with the line of argument which has been 
 adopted in this essay. [J. A. R.] 
 
 (i11) Evidence derived from early Christian literature. 
 
 Early Christian exegesis is not infallible. It is always devout, 
 often suggestive; yet sometimes criticism convicts it of grave 
 mistakes. It cannot therefore of itself be taken as decisive on 
 such a question as that under consideration. But, though not in 
 itself decisive, it has a twofold value. It has an historical or 
 archaeological value; for it cannot but be of the highest interest 
 to ascertain in what sense the early generations of Christians, to 
 many of whom Greek was a spoken language, understood the 
 disputed clause. Again, early exegesis, so far as its verdict 
 coincides with the conclusion which is based on a consideration of 
 the modes of thought and expression current in the time of our 
 Lord and His Apostles, may be regarded as supplying confirmatory 
 evidence as to the original meaning of the disputed clause. The 
 cogency of the primary evidence which we have already discussed 
 will be strengthened, if we see that it harmonises with the view 
 which prevailed at a later date. What this view was will appear 
 all the more distinctly if we bear in mind the incidental nature 
 of the allusion to the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer in many 
 of the passages now to be discussed. 
 
126 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (1) Didaché x. rpo mavrav evyapictobpév cor Ort Suvaros ef 
 av* cot 7 dd€a els Tovs aldvas. pvyncOnt, KUple, THS ExKANTLAS 
 cou Tov pycacbat avTnY amo TaVvTOs TovNnpod Kal TEMELHT AL AUTHY 
 év TH ayamn cov, Kal ovvakov avtiy ard TdY Teccapwrv avéwar, 
 Thy ayacbeicay eis THY anv Bacirelay, hv HTolwacas avTH bru 
 cov €otw 7 Svvapts Kat 7 Soka eis tovs aldvas. 
 
 Many questions about the Didaché must still be treated with 
 great caution; none more so than the problem connected with the 
 liturgical element in this document. As yet our knowledge of 
 ancient Synagogue Prayers and of their relation to the earliest 
 Christian liturgies is too slight to warrant anything more than 
 provisional conclusions. In what follows I wish wholly to dis- 
 claim a desire to dogmatise. 
 
 The passage quoted above forms part of the Eucharistic 
 formula, which the Didachist incorporates in his manual, and to 
 which I have had occasion to refer more than once (see above, 
 pp. 16f.,33f.). The whole thanksgiving seems to be the resultant, 
 as ] have already suggested, of two converging forces, Jewish 
 prayers and the Lord’s Prayer. The first section of this formula 
 answers (see above, p. 34) to the clauses in the Lord’s Prayer 
 which speak of the divine Name and Kingdom and Will. The 
 second section refers to the petition for ‘daily bread.’ There is 
 nothing to correspond to the prayer for forgiveness. And thus we 
 are brought to the last two clauses of the Prayer as those to which 
 this thanksgiving (evyapiorodpév cou OTe x.7.r.) and this prayer 
 (uvnocOntt...7ovnpov) refer. 
 
 I have already suggested (p. 16) that the word duvards thus 
 applied absolutely to God is borrowed from Greek Jewish prayers. 
 The whole phrase duvaros ef av (where the emphatic ov is to be 
 noted) seems most natural if the thought of victorious conflict 
 with the great spiritual enemy of the Church is implied. This 
 conclusion is to some extent supported by the comparison of a 
 petition put into Esther’s mouth, but probably based on some 
 liturgical formula [Esther iv. 16 (xiv. 19), see Fritzsch Libri Apo- 
 eryphi p. 51]: cal viv Suvatds wy érl mavtas eiadkovaov avis 
 annvTicpevayv Kal picat nuas Ex yeELpos THY TrovnpEevouévar ed’ 
 nas. Here the reference is to personal enemies. Further, this 
 idea would be obviously in harmony with many passages of the 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE, 127 
 
 New Testament, such as Apoc. xii. 10 ff., xv. 3f,, xix.1 f., Eph. vi. 
 10 ff., Rom. xvi. 20, Le. xi. 22 (|| Matt. xii. 29, Me. i1i. 27). 
 
 When however we pass from the thanksgiving to the prayer 
 which follows it, we find in the dzo travtos rovnpod a different 
 interpretation of azo tod rovnpod suggested. 
 
 The Didachist has already used the same phrase, téxvov pov, 
 dedrye amr0 TavTos Tovnpod (ili. 1, comp. v. 2 puaeinre, Téxva, aro 
 tTovtwy amavtwy). Probably in both places he is repeating some 
 current liturgical formula, either directly borrowed from, or based 
 upon, Greek Jewish prayers. The passage will then be closely 
 akin to 2 Tim. iv. 18 (see above, p. 121f.). Assuming therefore, in 
 the present state of our knowledge as to the liturgical sources of 
 the Didaché, that there is a reference to the Lord’s Prayer in this 
 Eucharistic form, we conclude that, though the Didachist in the 
 word duvaros appears to hint at the thought of the great spiritual 
 enemy, yet in the phrase ao tavtds twovnpod, which is probably 
 derived from some well-known formula, he gives the neuter in- 
 terpretation of the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 (2) Ep. Clement 60. vai, Sécrorta, érigavoy TO tpdcwrov 
 gov éf nuas eis ayaba év cipnvn, els TO oKerracOjvar nuas TH 
 yelpl cov TH Kpatad Kal puoOjvar dro Tacns apaptias TO 
 Bpaxiovi cov TO vA: Kal pdoas Huds ad TaV pLoovYTwY 
 nuds adixws. This passage is quoted by Canon Cook. ‘In his 
 notes on this passage, he writes (Second Letter p. 57), ‘the Bishop 
 marks distinctly the words taken from the Old Testament; but 
 he does not notice the striking fact that, when these words are 
 omitted, the petition is in accordance with the closing words of 
 the Lord’s Prayer, the same phrase, pica nuds aro, “deliver us 
 from,” being used at the close; and further, that the power from 
 which deliverance is craved is not that of Satan, but of all sin and 
 of human enemies: presenting in a comprehensive form the sense 
 which I have throughout maintained to be expressed by the words 
 Tov @ovnpov. This position would perhaps have appeared stronger 
 if Canon Cook had noted some words a few lines earlier in the same 
 chapter of the Epistle which might seem to be a reference to 
 another petition of the Prayer: ddes nyuiv tas avouias nudv Kat 
 Tas abdixias Kai Ta TapaTT@pata Kal TAn-pEdELlas. A reference 
 however to Trommius’ Concordance seems to shew plainly enough 
 
128 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 the ultimate source of Clement’s words’. Compare (a) Gen. 1. 17 
 w ) tal \\ ? 7 AN \ e V} , A © 
 ahes avtois tHv adixiay Kal THY awaptiay avrady, Ps, xxiv. 18 
 w U \ e 7 c) ’ a > Ul \ 
 ages Tacas Tas aaptias wou, Numb. xiv. 18 apaipwv avopias Kat 
 > / \ e 4 \ a ene / b] > a 
 adixias kal dpaptias: (b) Ps. xvii. 21 puoerai pe && éxyOpadv pou 
 Suvatav Kal é« Tov picovyTwv pe, Xxx. 16 pioal pe éx yewpos 
 2 a COR 5 ? ’ e a t 2o7 
 éyOpav pov, xxxvii. 20 éAnOuvOncav of picobyTés pe adixas, 
 Ixvili. 15 puoOelnv éx tév picovvtwy pe, cv. 10 Eswoev avtovs 
 éx yelpov puicovvtwy: (c) Ps. xxxviii. 9 do Tacev Tov avomiev 
 pov pooal pe, Ezek. xxxvii. 23 pvoouar avtods ato Tac@v Tov 
 AVOMLOY AUTOV OY nuapToaay év avTais. 
 
 These three groups of passages put it beyond a doubt that 
 
 oe § y 
 Clement cannot be claimed as a witness in this discussion. 
 
 (3) The Ancient Homily (formerly called the Second Epistle 
 of Clement) xvili. kat yap a’tos mavOapapTwros® ov Kal pyro 
 duyov Tov meipacpoyv, GAN ere av ev pécots Tots opyavots ToD 
 SaBorov, orrovdalw tiv Sixatocvvny SidKeLv. 
 
 We seem here to have a rhetorical reminiscence of the last 
 two clauses of the Lord’s Prayer*, which perhaps had just been 
 said in the assembly. 
 
 Besides the coincidence of ideas, the form of the sentence 
 suggests this conclusion. There is the familiar juxtaposition of 
 words tretpacpov, adda. 
 
 It is moreover to be noticed that the preacher very frequently 
 quotes sayings of our Lord in a form which sometimes agrees 
 with, but sometimes diverges from, the text of our Gospels. Ex- 
 amples will be found in Chapters ii., 111, iv., v., VL, VL, 1x., xill, If 
 
 1 It is remarkable that both in regard to words and thoughts Clement has at 
 this point much in common with the Benedictus (Le. i. 68 ff., see esp. vv. 71, 74, 
 79). Note the phrase év dovédryrt Kal dixaoctvy (Le. i. 75, Clem. 48, 60). St Paul, 
 it should be remembered, has the reverse order in a familiar passage (Eph. iv. 24). 
 See note A, p. 147. 
 
 2 Comp. ravOaudprnra Did. v. 2. 
 
 3 Shortly after the publication of Bp Lightfoot’s letters on amd rod rovnpod I 
 noticed this passage and ventured to call the Bishop’s attention to it. In the letter, 
 in which with his usual thoughtful kindness he acknowledged the suggestion, he 
 wrote, ‘I am certainly disposed to think that the preacher had the Lord’s Prayer in 
 his mind.’ Later I stumbled upon the coincidence with the Lord’s Prayer in 
 the Letter of Vienne and Lyons noted below, and communicated it to the Bishop. 
 From his reply I gathered that he accepted this reference also. These parts of the 
 discussion therefore have, at least for myself, a special interest. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 129 
 
 there are some quotations from apocryphal sources (iv., v., xii.), one 
 phrase from our Gospels is introduced by the formula, cal érépa 
 5é ypady reyes (ii.)'. 
 
 Three leading ideas of the Lord’s Prayer—the Fatherhood, the 
 Will, the Kingdom of God—are clearly favourite thoughts with 
 the preacher, and are associated together in his mind. Thus 
 Tomnowpev TO OéXnwa TOD Kadécavtos Huds (ch. v.), TovodvTes TO 
 GéXnua tod Xpictod evpnoowev avarravow (vi.), Towoavtes TO 
 PéXnwa TOD TraTpos (Viii.), exdeyapeba odv Kal’ dpav tiv Bacirelav 
 Tov Beod (Xii.), EmepwTnOels...6 KUpLOS...1OTE HEEL aUTOD 7 Bacirela 
 (xil.), €XevceTat 1 Bacirela Tod matpos pov (xii.), TovobvTEs TO 
 GéXnua Tod TaTpos nuay (Xiv.). 
 
 But whether the reference to the Lord’s Prayer be conceded or 
 not, the passage is of importance from another point of view. 
 ‘I am greatly mistaken, wrote Canon Cook’, ‘if in any of the 
 earliest and best of the Fathers, traces can be found, I will not 
 say of the new interpretation of the petition, but of a condition 
 of spirit in which Christians of all ages, in every stage of spiritual 
 life, are found praying for deliverance from Satan.’ 
 
 It is remarkable that the preacher of the earliest Christian 
 sermon which has come down to us took a widely different view. 
 He, like St Paul, is profoundly conscious that he has to contend 
 against supernatural foes and that ‘there is no discharge in that 
 war. It is of course true that the Fathers not unfrequently 
 follow the example of St John and, taking an idealistic view 
 of the Christian man’s position, speak of Satan as already con- 
 quered*. This idealistic conception was perhaps all the more 
 natural to them because they felt the contrast between the purity 
 and peace of the persecuted Church and, on the other hand, the 
 foulness and the inhumanity of the dominant paganism. Some- 
 times also—for then, as now, piety and exact thought did not 
 always go hand in hand—we find in early Christian literature 
 teaching on this subject not of the soberest order. Several 
 passages in the ‘Shepherd’ fall under this category. Thus, ‘Turn 
 
 1 Comp. xiv. (ra BiBNla kal of drdcroXo). 
 
 2 A Second Letter to the Bp of London p. 61. 
 
 3 See, for example, the passages collected in Hagenbach Hist. of Doctrines, E. T., 
 i. p. 204. 
 
 C. 9 
 
130 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 ye, ye who walk in the commandments of the devil, in hard and 
 bitter and cruel lasciviousness, and fear not the devil, for in him 
 there is no power against you. For I will be with you, I, the 
 Angel of Repentance, who have dominion over him. The devil 
 hath nought but fear, and his fear hath no force. Fear him not 
 therefore, and he will flee from you....The threatening of the 
 devil fear ye not at all: for he is without force like the sinew of a 
 corpse’ (Mand. xii. 4, 6). This strain of teaching runs through 
 the whole book. It would however be as unfortunate to take the 
 ‘Shepherd’ as a standard of the sober doctrinal conclusions of 
 the Church in the Second Century as it would be to assume 
 that the Pilgrim’s Progress is an index of the belief of English 
 Christians in the Seventeenth. Both books alike are illustrations 
 of, and tended to perpetuate, certain popular fashions of religious 
 thought. To what unbalanced expressions such popular views 
 of the Christian position led is seen in the request for baptism 
 put into the mouth of the heroine of a religious romance current 
 in Tertullian’s time, which, however generally inferior, is yet not 
 without its points of resemblance to the ‘Shepherd.’ ‘Only give 
 me the seal,’ exclaims Thecla, ‘which is in Christ (i.e. Baptism), 
 and temptation shall not touch me’ (uovoy S65 pou thy év Xpict@ 
 ohpayida Kat ox aetai pov Teipacpos: Acta Paul. et Thecl. 25, 
 comp. 1 Jn. v. 18). 
 
 But there are not wanting passages in early writers, even in 
 such a writer as Hermas himself, which shew that the practical 
 instinct of Christian humility asserted itself. One such passage 
 from an early Christian sermon has been the starting point of 
 this discussion. Similarly we read in the Epistle of Barnabas 
 a warning ‘lest haply, resting as those who have been called, 
 we fall asleep in our sins, and so the evil ruler (o zrovnpos apywv), 
 assuming his power against us (7)v xa’ nuov é€ovotar), thrust 
 us from the kingdom of the Lord’ (iv. 13)’. Again, the revelation 
 given to Hermas about ‘the angel of evil’ (0 adyyedos THs 
 movnpias) is significant. ‘His works are evil, overthrowing the 
 servants of God. When therefore he cometh into thine heart, 
 know him by his works...When anger or bitterness assaileth 
 
 1 Comp. c¢. ii. (nuepdv otv otcGy movnpar Kat abrod Tod évepyoivros éxovTos Thy 
 éfovolav), and the passage from Athenagoras Supplicatio quoted above p. 100. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 131 
 
 thee, know thou that he is within thee...When these lusts come 
 into thine heart, know thou that the angel of evil is within 
 thee...If a man be very faithful and yet the thought of this angel 
 cometh into his heart, that man or woman must sin’ (Mand. vi. 2; 
 comp. iv. 3, 4 ff, xii. 4f). Hence the anxious humility which 
 inspires such words as those of Barnabas (ii. 10), ‘We ought, 
 brethren, to be exceeding circumspect (dxpiPevecOar) in the 
 matter of our salvation, lest the evil one should craftily effect 
 an entrance issuing in error and should hurl us forth (écodev- 
 Sovnan) out of our life.’ Two later writers, both of whom under- 
 stand the petition under discussion to refer to Satan, may be 
 taken as the best exponents of the combination of wise fear and 
 chastened confidence, which was and is, I believe, the character- 
 istic of sober Christian teaching on this subject. On the one hand 
 Cyprian, the earliest Doctor of the Western Church, in a passage 
 (de Oratione Dominica) which will call for closer investigation 
 presently, uses the following words in reference to the closing 
 clauses of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Quando autem rogamus ne in 
 temptationem veniamus, admonemur infirmitatis et imbecillitatis 
 nostrae dum sic rogamus, ne quis se insolenter extollat, ne quis 
 sibi superbe atque arroganter aliquid assumat, ne quis sibi aut 
 confessionis aut passionis gloriam suam ducat...adversa cuncta 
 quae contra nos in hoc mundo molitur inimicus; a quibus potest 
 esse fida et firma tutela, si nos Deus liberet, si deprecantibus 
 atque implorantibus opem suam praestet?’. On the other hand 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, holding that in the Lord’s Prayer we pray 
 against the assaults of Satan, uses language (Catechesis xvi. 19), 
 when speaking of the Holy Spirit as ‘the ally and champion sent 
 from God,’ hardly less confident than that of the ‘Shepherd’: 
 un hoBnOadpwev tors Saipovas pnte Tov SiaBorov' peifwv yap 
 6 Hav UrepaywvicTns’ povoy avoiEwpev avT@ Tas Oupas. 
 
 (4) Hermas Mand. xii. 6. éav émictpadyte mpos Tov KUpLov 
 €E Ons THs Kapdias vudv...cab SovrevanTte avT@ opOas Kata 
 
 1 Comp. the intensely practical tract de Aleatoribus 5: Quam magna et larga 
 pietas domini fidelium, quod in futurum praescius nobis consulat, ne quis frater 
 incautus denuo laqueis diaboli capiatur. Sollicitos esse jussit et providos adque 
 eruditos, quoniam hostis ille antiquus circuit pulsans dei servos non uno genere 
 temptans. 
 
 9—2 
 
132 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 TO Oétnua avtod, moujoe: tiacw Tols mpotépows vuay apapTn- 
 pact, Kab &ere S¥vapiv tod Kataxuptetcat Tw@v Epywv Tod b.a- 
 Bérov. Comp. ib. 4, éyd yap Ecopar peO vuav, 6 ayyedos THs 
 petavolas, 6 KaTAKUpLEV@Y avTod. 
 
 It would be wrong to assert dogmatically that the writer 
 here has the Lord’s Prayer in his mind. But the agreement 
 of the three ideas—God’s will, forgiveness, power over Satan— 
 with three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer is worth attention. 
 
 (5) The letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons (ap. Eus. 
 H. E.v.1§ 6). dvrectparnyes 88 1) yapis Tod Oeod, Kal tods pév 
 aabevets éppyeto’ avtimapétacce 8 atvdous Edpaious, Suvapevous 
 Sid ths Uropovns wacav THY Cppny Tod Tovnpod eis EavTovs 
 Exxicat, of Kal duoce exydpovy [avr@], wav eldos dvedicpod Kal 
 KOAATEWS AVEYOMEVOL. 
 
 A reference to the Lord’s Prayer seems very probable (éppveto 
 ...T00 Tovnpod). But is rod wovnpod masculine’? Any remaining 
 doubt as to this point is dissipated by a study of other passages in 
 the letter. It was ‘according to a device of Satan’ (xat’ évédpav 
 tod Satava) that the household servants of certain Christians 
 invented lying stories against them (§ 14). The fury of the 
 governor and crowd and soldiers was kindled to exceeding frenzy 
 because it was ‘Satan’s ambition’ (@iAotipoupévou tov Latava) 
 that some of the blasphemous slanders should be spoken even 
 by the holy martyrs (§ 16). In the martyr Sanctus ‘Christ 
 suffered and wrought out His great glory, bringing the adversary 
 (tov dvtixeipevov, compare 1 Tim. v. 14f., Zech. iii. 1) to nought’ 
 (§ 23). When Biblias had denied Christ, the devil, wishing to 
 consummate her condemnation, brought her again to torture 
 (§ 25). When ‘the blessed ones’ stood firm ‘the devil invented 
 fresh tortures’ (§ 27). At a later stage of the trial Maturus 
 and Sanctus ‘endured every torment of the amphitheatre, as 
 though they had suffered nothing heretofore, but rather had 
 in many previous conflicts driven back the adversary’ (rov avti- 
 madov, § 38). When all was over, ‘the wild and barbarous tribes 
 incited by the Wild Beast’ (vad dypiov @npos) sought to rob the 
 
 1 Compare the words of Eusebius (H.E. ii. 14) 7 Oela cal brepovpdvios xaprs... 
 dvamrrouévny Tod movnpod Thy Prdya 7% Taxos éoBévvv. The words just above (7 picdka- 
 hos kal THs dvOpdmwy érlBovdos swrnplas rovypa Svvapis) define the meaning. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 133 
 
 Christian of the bodies of the martyrs (§ 57). Throughout the 
 letter the agency of the devil is traced in every detail of the per- 
 secution, and thus the reference in the earlier passage is fixed. 
 
 (6) Clementine Homilies xix. 2 (Migne P. G. 2 p. 424). «ai 
 o Ilétpos' advvareyv éoti por dwvyv tod éuod apyvncacba. Sidac- 
 Kadov, 610 Kal omoroyw Elvat TOV Trovnpov, OTL ToANAKLG aUTOV 
 UmTapyew 0 Tavta adnOevaas eipnxe SidacKados...0Te EWpaKe TOV 
 Tovnpoy ws aatpamnv wecovta é€k TOD ovpavod édndwae...Kal 
 Tarw* py Sete Tpdopaciw TH Tovnpe. adda Kal cupBovrAEvwY 
 elpnkev’ EoTW UuwY TO val, val, Kal TO Ov, Ov’ TO dé TepicooY 
 TOUTWY €k TOU TovNpov €oTiv. GAA Kal ev H TapédmxKev evyT 
 éyouev elpnuévov'’ pioar nuads amo tod trovnpov. See above 
 p. 100. 
 
 The verdict of this passage is clear as to the interpretation 
 of the petition of the Lord's Prayer. Canon Cook, however, 
 questioned its validity. ‘Those spurious and heretical writings 
 lay altogether outside the scope of my argument...I should have 
 shrunk from an attempt to introduce them into any controversy 
 touching our Lord’s teaching or the mind of the primitive Church’ 
 (A Second Letter p. 56). The case is materially altered when the 
 passage from the Clementines is viewed in connexion with the 
 body of evidence from the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic writings 
 which we have collected and reviewed. It does not stand alone 
 as the isolated utterance of misguided separatists. It does but 
 state explicitly the interpretation which we have found to be 
 implied in writings which are above the suspicion of heterodoxy. 
 And further, the one witness outside the New Testament, whose 
 evidence is equivocal, if it be not adverse to the interpretation 
 maintained in this essay, becomes here of special importance. The 
 Didaché is a document with strong Jewish affinities. Whether 
 or no it be an adaptation of a purely Jewish manual or purely 
 Jewish manuals, it speaks with the voice of Jewish Christians, 
 who, at the time of its composition or shortly afterwards, were 
 regarded as standing upon, if not outside, the extreme limits of the 
 Catholic Church. Its evidence therefore shews that the masculine 
 interpretation of azo tod movnpod was not the characteristic and 
 proper possession of the Judaising Christians. 
 
 (7) Tertullian. In two treatises, one of which is placed 
 
134 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 among his earlier, the other among his later Montanistic writings, 
 Tertullian discusses the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 (a) de Oratione viii. Ne nos inducas in temptationem, id 
 est, ne nos patiaris induci, ab eo utique qui temptat?. Ceterum 
 absit ut dominus temptare videatur, quasi aut ignoret fidem 
 cujusque aut deicere sit gestiens. Diaboli est et infirmitas et 
 malitia...I[pse a diabolo temptatus praesidem et artificem temp- 
 tationis demonstravit. Hunc locum posterioribus confirmat, Orate, 
 dicens, ne temptemini. Adeo temptati sunt dominum deserendo, 
 quia somno potius indulserunt quam orationi. Ergo respondet 
 clausula, interpretans quid sit, Ne nos deducas in temptationem. 
 Hoc est enim, Sed devehe nos a malo. 
 
 Throughout Tertullian is eager to justify God’s ways to men. 
 To the devil therefore he assigns a double part in regard to 
 temptation. He both leads men into temptation (induci ab eo... 
 artificem temptationis) and he tempts them (qui temptat...prae- 
 sidem temptationis). It is for this reason (because, that is, the 
 occasion of the temptation and the temptation itself are to be 
 traced to Satan, not to God), that the explanatory clause is added, 
 Sed devehe nos a malo. If malo were neuter, the addition ac- 
 cording to Tertullian’s exegesis would be without point’. 
 
 (b) de Fuga in Persecutione ii. In legitima oratione, cum 
 dicimus ad Patrem, Ne nos inducas in temptationem (quae autem 
 major temptatio quam persecutio?), ab eo illam profitemur acci- 
 dere a quo veniam ejus deprecamur. Hoc est enim quod sequitur, 
 Sed erue nos a maligno, id est, ne nos induxeris in temptationem 
 
 1 Comp. adv. Marc. iv. 26. Quis non sinet nos deduci in temptationem? Quem 
 poterit temptator non timere, an qui a primordio temptatorem angelum prae- 
 damnavit? On the gloss ne nos patiaris induci see above p. 64 ff. 
 
 2 Canon Cook’s interpretation (Second Letter p. 85) of Tertullian’s words seems 
 to me to leave out of sight individual expressions (e.g. qui temptat) and the general 
 thought which binds together the whole chapter. ‘Whether [Tert’s.] exegesis is 
 right or wrong,’ he writes, ‘it is evident that he understands that prayer to mean, 
 Let not Satan lead us into a position where we shall be in contact with evil and be 
 in danger of overthrow; and when he adds that the last clause corresponds to this 
 petition and interprets it, sc. Sed devehe nos a malo, his meaning must be, Instead 
 of suffering us to be led by Satan into such contact, do Thou lead us away from 
 
 evil, in other words, keep us out of the way of every evil which might imperil our 
 salvation.’ 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 135 
 
 permittendo nos maligno. Tunc enim eruimur diaboli manibus, 
 cum illi non tradimur in temptationem. 
 
 A study of the whole chapter, of which the most important 
 words are quoted above, shews that Tertullian follows here the 
 same general line of thought as in the de Oratione. In both 
 places he discusses the relation of temptation to God and to 
 Satan, only in the later treatise he is led by circumstances to 
 regard temptation under the special form of persecution; in both 
 he refers to the illustration of the Disciples in the Garden; in 
 both places he adopts the same view as to ‘ne nos inducas...’ 
 In the dz Oratione his gloss is ‘ne nos patiaris induci ab 
 eo’; in the de Fuga it is ‘ne nos induxeris...permittendo nos 
 maligno}. 
 
 Canon Cook indeed, maintaining that in the de Oratione 
 Tertullian is a witness on his side, finds in his conversion to 
 Montanism a special reason for his supposed change of mind. 
 But in point of fact, had Montanism influenced Tertullian at all 
 in the matter, it would have influenced him in the opposite 
 direction. As a Montanist he claimed to be in an especial 
 sense under the immediate guidance of the Paraclete; he and 
 his were ‘spiritual men. Had he hesitated before, still mere 
 would he have hesitated now, to pray for deliverance from the 
 evil one?. 
 
 These two passages are clear as to Tertullian’s interpretation 
 of the petition of the Lord’s Prayer. It remains however to 
 collect passages in Tertullian’s writings in which ‘malus’ even in 
 the oblique cases is used as a name of Satan. It should be 
 noticed that such an absolute use of the simple adjective is against 
 the Latin idiom, which would rather require ‘ malus ille, a phrase 
 which we find in de Cultw Fem. 11. 5 (Christianus a malo illo 
 adjuvabitur in aliquo?) and in Zeno of Verona Tract. 43 (Migne 
 
 1 The care and sobriety of thought which mark the whole chapter are worth 
 noting. To take a few sentences—‘praecedere dei voluntatem circa fidei proba- 
 tionem, quae est ratio persecutionis, sequi autem diaboli iniquitatem ad instrumen- 
 tum persecutionis, quae ratio est probationis....Nihil Satanae in servos Dei vivi 
 licebit nisi permiserit Dominus.’ 
 
 2 It will be remembered that the Catholics of Asia with singular simplicity 
 proposed that they should try upon the Montanists the effects of exorcism, a 
 proposal which the M ontanists rejected (Eus. H.E. v. 16, 16). 
 
136 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 P. L. 11 p. 496, omnes sagittas illius mali). The following 
 passages seem to be decisive as to Tertullian’s usage. (a) de 
 Idololatria xvi. Sed quoniam ita malus circumdedit seculum 
 idololatria, licebit adesse in quibusdam, quae nos homini, non 
 idolo, officiosos habent. Two early editions have ‘malis’ for 
 ‘malus’ (see Oehler). The whole scope of the passage however 
 is in favour of ‘malus’; for the universality, not the evil, of the 
 symbols of idolatry is the point (comp. de Patientia xi. quoted 
 below). Further, compare c. xviii. Tu si diaboli pompam ejerasti, 
 quicquid ex ea attigeris, id scias esse idololatriam: c. xxi. per 
 quem te malus honori idolorum, id est idololatriae, quaerebat 
 annectere. (b) de Patientia v. Porro cum deus optimus, diabolus 
 e contrario pessimus, ipsa sui diversitate testantur neutrum alteri 
 facere, ut nobis non magis a malo aliquid boni quam a bono 
 aliquid mali editum videri possit...Quid primum fuerit  ille 
 angelus perditionis, malus an impatiens, contemno quaerere... 
 [Mulier] traducem [Adam] ejus, quod a malo hauserat, facit : 
 ce. xi. Lata atque diffusa est operatio mali, multiplicia spiritus 
 incitamenta jaculantis...Certemus igitur quae a malo infliguntur 
 sustinere, ut hostis studium aemulatio nostrae aequanimitatis 
 eludat...Undique igitur adstricti sumus officio patientiae adminis- 
 trandae, quaque ex parte aut erroribus nostris aut mali insidiis 
 admonitionibus domini intervenimus: c. xiv. Quid -ridebat Deus, 
 quid dissecabatur malus, cum Job immundam ulceris sui redun- 
 dantiam magna aequanimitate destringeret? Elsewhere (Apol. 
 xxii., de Test. Animae iii., see Oehler’s notes) Tertullian repre- 
 sents the common pagan exclamation malum as an unconscious 
 reference to Satan (cf. adv. Hermog. xi. erit mali finis cum praeses 
 ejus diabolus abierit in ignem). Thus the usage of the father of 
 ecclesiastical Latin seems beyond the reach of controversy. 
 
 (8) Cyprian de Oratione Dominica. 
 
 In the case of Cyprian, as in that of Tertullian (see p. 27), it 
 is of interest to collect the clauses of the Prayer. 
 
 Pater noster qui es in caelis, Sanctificetur nomen tuum, Ad- 
 veniat regnum tuum, Fiat voluntas tua sicut in caelo et in terra, 
 Panem nostrum cottidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis 
 debita nostra sicut et nos remittimus debitoribus nostris, Et ne 
 patiaris nos induci in temptationem, sed libera nos a malo. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 137 
 
 Cyprian’s exposition runs thus:—E¢ ne patiaris nos induct 
 in temptationem}. Qua in parte ostenditur nihil contra nos ad- 
 versarium posse, nisi Deus ante permiserit, ut omnis timor noster 
 et devotio atque observatio ad Deum convertatur, quando in 
 temptationibus nihil malo liceat, nisi potestas inde tribuatur.... 
 Post ista omnia in consummatione orationis venit clausula uni- 
 versas petitiones et preces nostras collecta brevitate concludens. 
 In novissimo enim ponimus, Sed libera nos a malo, comprehen- 
 dentes adversa cuncta quae contra nos in hoc mundo molitur ini- 
 mucus; a quibus potest esse fida et firma tutela, si nos Deus 
 liberet, si deprecantibus atque implorantibus opem suam praestet. 
 Quando autem dicimus, libera nos a malo, nihil remanet quod 
 ultra adhuc debeat postulari, quando semel protectionem Dei 
 adversus malum petamus; qua impetrata, contra omnia quae 
 diabolus et mundus operantur securi stamus et tuti. Quis enim 
 vel de seculo metus est cui in seculo Deus tutor est ? 
 
 The words which I have italicised put it beyond a doubt that 
 Cyprian’s verdict, like Tertullian’s, is for the masculine interpre- 
 tation of a malo. In the last sentences indeed he speaks rather 
 as a rhetorician than as a careful interpreter. But here the 
 diabolus et mundus is explained by the in hoc mundo...inimicus 
 just above’. The closing words are justified by their epigram’. 
 
 The importance of the treatment of the point at issue by 
 Tertullian and Cyprian‘ is partly literary and partly religious. 
 
 1 On this clause see above p. 64 f. 
 
 2 There is probably a reference to the formula of renunciation at Baptism; comp. 
 Tert. de Cor. 3 (contestamur nos renuntiare diabolo et pompae et angelis ejus), 
 Cyprian Ep. vi. (seculo renuntiaveramus cum baptizati sumus), de Lapsis 437 (qui 
 jam diabolo renuntiaverat et seculo). 
 
 3 Canon Cook, claiming the support of Cyprian as of Tertullian, (1) unwittingly 
 overlooked Cyprian’s comment on ne patiaris nos induci; (2) laying the whole 
 stress on adversa cuncta...a quibus, he divorced these words from the defining 
 clause quae molitur inimicus. 
 
 4 That Cyprian’s exposition was regarded as authoritative is clear from the 
 following passage of Hilary of Poictiers (Migne P. L. 9 p. 943), ‘De orationis autem 
 sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus vir sanctae memoriae liberavit. 
 Quamquam et Tertullianus hine volumen aptissimum scripserit; sed consequens 
 error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem.’ Hilary himself else- 
 where appears to give, as do Chromatius and Pseudo-Augustine, the masculine 
 interpretation ; see above p. 67 f. 
 
138 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 On the one hand, their evidence is clear as to the current 
 interpretation of a malo when the Latin versions of the New 
 Testament were still in the process of formation. On the other 
 hand, they give a singularly noble expression to the feelings with 
 which thoughtful Christian men may regard the prayer for deliver- 
 ance from the spiritual enemy. 
 
 (9) Origen. In three passages of his writings, as they are 
 preserved to us, does Origen give his interpretation of the last 
 clause of the Lord’s Prayer. 
 
 (a) de Oratione 30. The date of the treatise is doubtful, 
 but it appears to fall within the Alexandrian period of Origen’s 
 literary activity (Bp Westcott in D. C. Biog. iv. p. 103). ‘No 
 writing of Origen,’ says Bp Westcott (D. C. B. iv. p. 124), ‘is 
 more free from his characteristic faults, or more full of beautiful 
 thoughts.’ 
 
 Soxet 5é por 0 Aoveds dua tod Mn) eicevéyxns nas eis Trec- 
 pacpov, Suvaper deddayévar Kat 7d “Pica nuds ard 70d rovnpod. 
 Kal elKos ye Tpos wev TOV paOnTHY, ate 5) wpednpévory, eipnKévat 
 TOV KUpLoY TO érriTOMMTEpOY, Tpos Sé TOUS TAelovas Seouevous 
 Tpavotépas didackarias Td cadéotepov. pvetar S€ nuas 6 Oeds 
 a0 TOD Tovypod, ovyl OTE .ovdayas Hulv Tpocerow avtTiTadaiwpy 
 6 éxOpos 8v’ otwy Symote peOoderdv éavtod Kal vanperov Tod 
 PeXn patos avtov, addr’ OTe vikduwev avdpelws iotamevor mpds Ta 
 ovupPaivorta. 
 
 (b) Selecta in Psalmos. Origen deals with Psalm xxxvi. in 
 a series of Homilies. The date of these Homilies is circ. 241 A.D. 
 (Bp Westcott D. C. B. iv. p. 104). They are only preserved to 
 us in the Latin translation of Rufinus, who, as appears from the 
 language (e.g. malignum vel malum), to some extent paraphrased 
 the original. 
 
 (i) Hom. i.§ 4 ‘Quia qui nequiter agunt, exterminabuntur ; 
 qui autem expectant Dominum, ipsi haereditate possidebunt 
 terram. Apparet quia nequitia alia quidem species mali est, 
 praeter cetera peccata. Unde et hic sermo divinus alium describit 
 peccatorem, et alium nequam, sicut et ibi simili utitur distinctione 
 cum dicit: Contere brachium peccatoris et maligni, id est, nequam. 
 Sed et Dominus in Evangelio diabolum non dixit peccatorem 
 tantummodo, sed malignum vel malum, et cum docet in oratione, 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 139 
 
 vel dicit: Sed libera nos a malo. Et alibi: Malus homo fecit, sive 
 malignus. Definiunt quidam zrovnpiav, id est, nequitiam, spon- 
 taneam vel voluntariam esse malitiam. Aliud est enim per 
 ignorantiam mala agere, et vinci a malo; aliud est voluntate et 
 studio mala facere, et hoc est nequitia. Unde et merito diabolus 
 hoc nomine zrovnpos, id est, malignus vel nequam appellatur. 
 
 (ii) Hom. v.§7. Venit enim ad unamquamque animam de 
 hoe mundo exeuntem princeps hujus mundi et aereae potestates, 
 et requirunt si inveniant in ea aliquid suum....Et singula quaeque 
 eorum similia si invenerint, suae partis est, et sibi eam defendunt, 
 et ad se eam trahunt....Si vero aliquis imitatus est illum qui 
 dixit: Ecce veniet princeps mundi hujus, et in me non habet 
 quidquam, et si se aliquis ita observavit, veniunt quidem isti 
 peccatores et requirentes in eo quae sua sunt et non invenientes 
 tentabunt nibilominus ad suam partem violenter eum detorquere, 
 sed Dominus eripiet eum a peccatoribus. Et forte propterea 
 jubemur cum quodam mysterio etiam in oratione petere dicentes: 
 Sed libera nos a malo (comp. Justin Dial. 105, quoted above p. 121). 
 
 These passages, belonging as they do to different periods of 
 Origen’s life, shew that he consistently accepted the masculine 
 interpretation of the clause. The theory of Canon Cook (A Second 
 Letter pp. 30, 62) that Origen was misled here by his love for 
 ‘mystical expositions, and that this interpretation ‘was probably 
 first introduced, as it was certainly first urged upon the Church, 
 by Origen,’ is disproved by the evidence for the general currency 
 of the masculine interpretation which we have reviewed, and 
 further by the fact that in the passage from the earlier treatise the 
 interpretation is introduced by Origen, not as a novelty, but 
 incidentally and in a matter of fact way. It is true that in the 
 third passage quoted above he uses the phrase cum quodam 
 mysterio; but the mysteriwm applies not to the interpretation 
 itself, but to a particular application of it. 
 
 (10) The greatest of Origen’s pupils was Dionysius, his 
 successor, though not his immediate successor, as head of the 
 Catechetical School, afterwards Bishop of Alexandria. In a 
 fragment on Luke xxii. 46 (Migne P. G. 10 p. 1599) Dionysius 
 deals thus with the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer : 
 
 kal tpocevyerOar dé Tradw edidacKe un EuTrecetv Els TELpac- 
 
140 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 pov’ Kai bn Kal py eicevéyxns nas els Teipacpov’ TouTéaTL 
 Hy é€dons nuas [1 Cor. x. 13] éucreceiv eis meipacuov' ote Sé 
 TOUTO Hv OU TO wn TeLpacOjval, pucOnvar Sé ard Tov Tovnpod, 
 mpocéOnkev, GAG pdcar Huds amd Tod Tovnpod: Kal Ti Sue- 
 vnvoxev, tows epeis, TO TreipacOjvat Kal TO els Teipacpov 
 eumeceiy nro eloedOeiv; oO pév yap nTTnOEis Ud ToD Tovnpod 
 (nrrnOnoetat 5é €f jun) aywvifo.to, Urepacrivor S€ a’tod Kal oO 
 Geos), els meipacpov ovTos évérrece, Kal els TreLpacpoy cianrOev 
 Kal €oTw €v avT@, Kal UT a’Tod datrep axOels alyuadwTos’ 6 
 dé avticyov Kal vromeivas TeTEeipactat pév ovTOS, ov pry Els 
 Teipacpov etanrOev row évérrecev. avnyOn yoov 6 “Inaovs v0 
 TOU TVEVMATOS, OUK Els TrELpagmoY EloeAOeiv, AAXA TreEtpacOAVaL 
 ume Tov SvaBorov...Kal avTos 5é 6 KUpLos emreipatey Tovs waOntas* 
 O pev yap Tovnpos Treipatwy els Tos Teipacpods KabérxeL, ola 
 TetpagTns Kaxov' 0 b€ Beds metpalwy trapadhéper Ws atreipactos 
 KaK@v" 6 yap Geos, pnoiv, ateipactos éote KaKadv" 6 pev yap 
 SuadBoros é7’ dreOpov EXxwv Biakerar, 6 Sé Beds él cwrnpiav 
 yupvalwv yeipaywyet. The passage is consistently in favour of 
 the masculine interpretation. Two points may be noticed. (1) In 
 an earlier part of this fragment Dionysius gives the neuter inter- 
 pretation of 1 John v. 19, Kai yap advvatov wadiota pév icws Kai 
 Tavtt avOper@ 10 TavTEehas AyevoTov yareTrod Twos SvaBiovar. 
 ddos yap, Pnaiv, 6 Kocpos ev TO TOVNP@ KeiTaL’ Kal TO TAEOV TOV 
 nEp@V Tov avOpwTrou KoTrOs Kal Trovos K.T.A. This interpretation 
 is certainly erroneous, for, whatever be the gender of év 7@ rovnpa, 
 the reference must be to moral evil. (2) In the latter part 
 of the quotation weipaotys xaxdv cannot be, as Canon Cook 
 translates, ‘a tempter of the wicked’ The following clause shews 
 that xaxov is neuter, ‘a tempter to that which is evil.’ It is in 
 fact explained by éz’ dXeOpov in the next sentence. 
 
 (11) The next witness is Peter, Bishop at the beginning of 
 the next century of the same great see as Dionysius. Some 
 Canons of this Bishop have been preserved to us dealing with the 
 questions connected with the Lapsi. They are printed in Routh 
 Reliquiae Sacrae iv. p. 23 ff. The opening words tell us that 
 they were drawn up when the persecution, which began in the 
 February of 303, had reached the fourth Easter. In the 9th 
 Canon the Bishop says of those who had courted persecution 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 141 
 
 that they are to be received to communion though they had for- 
 gotten Christ’s words—p mpocéyovaw avtov tots doyous b1da- 
 oKovTosS, TMpocevyer Oar pr elceOeiv eis Tretpacpov, Kal Tadwy év 
 evyn Aéyetv TH TraTpl Kail py eicevéeyxns nas els Tetpacpov, adda 
 pica. nas amo ToD Tovnpov. The interpretation of this petition is 
 hinted at in a later passage of the same Canon, where the Bishop 
 again refers to the warnings of Christ: madwv axovouev avtod 
 Néyovtos Kai brav Sudkwow vas év TH TOdEL TavTN, HevryeTe Els 
 Thy étépav' ov yap Odes avToporeiv nuds mpos Tovs S1aBdrov 
 Uracmiatas Kal Sopupdpous... adr éxdéyerOar Kal mpocéyery 
 Eavtois, ypnyopelv Te Kal mpocevyerOat, iva py eioéXOwpev eis 
 metpacuov. Compare the following passages of these Canons: 
 (1) Routh l.c. p. 24, those who had fallen under torture should fast, 
 like Christ before His temptation, forty days; after which they 
 should more earnestly watch unto prayers, xatameXeTavTes TO 
 Aeyopevov vd Tov KUpiov mpos TOY TreLpalovTa avTOV iva Tpoc- 
 Kuvnon avto,"Traye Latava. (2) p. 25 rodobvtes AuTpwOnvar 
 amo THS TiKpoTaTNS aliyxpadwalas Tod diaBdrov. (3) p. 38 évnyov- 
 Mevol KATATTONEUHoTAL TOV VirEepalpomevoy Kal aVvTLKEimEvOV...UTEp 
 TOV év TH ayave nTTHOeVT@Y UTS THS TOAAHS Bias TOD KaKopnya- 
 vov dtaBorov. The masculine interpretation, though not explicitly 
 asserted, is implied by the language of these Canons. 
 
 (12) The ‘Clementine’ Liturgy (Apostolic Constitutions vii. 
 5—15). The date of the other Liturgies and of their several parts 
 is a matter of debate, and the problems connected with their 
 interrelation are complicated. No such difficulties however hamper 
 the student in an appeal to the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy. It stands 
 apart from the rest. Its integrity is guaranteed by its place in the 
 Apostolical Constitutions. ‘It represents fairly the pre-Constanti- 
 nian Liturgy of about the middle of the 3rd century’ (Hammond 
 Inturgies p. xxxviii), and it is probable that portions of it, as its 
 frequent coincidence with the liturgical element in Clement’s 
 Epistle seems to indicate, reach back to a yet earlier date. Canon 
 Cook (A Second Letter p. 74 ff.) rightly lays stress on the evidence 
 which it yields; but his review of this evidence is incomplete and is 
 not free, I venture to think, from serious misinterpretations. The 
 best course will be to set forth with some fulness those portions 
 which may with any plausibility be thought to bear upon the 
 
142 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 interpretation of the last clause of the Lord’s Prayer, and then to 
 draw the deductions which they may seem to warrant. The text 
 I have used is that in Hammond’s Liturgies, and the references are 
 to the pages of that book. I have however compared Hammond’s 
 text with that in de Lagarde Constitutiones Apostolorwm (1862), 
 and have noted one or two slight variations in the latter text, 
 designating them by L. 
 
 (a) ‘The Bidding Prayer for the Catechumens’ (p. 3f.). wa... 
 pvontat Sé avtovs amo mdans aceBeias, Kal pn 86 TOTOV T@ GdXO- 
 Tpl@ KaT avToD. 
 
 (b) (a) ‘The Bidding Prayer for the Energumens’ (p. 5). 
 OTWS...pvaentat TOs avTod ixéTas (so L., v. 1. oiKétas) amo THs TOD 
 adXotpiov Katabvvactelas’ 6 éTiTyunoas TO NeyeduL THY Saipovev 
 Kal T@ apxexaxw SiaBoro, eritiunon avTos Kal viv Tols dTooTa- 
 Tas THS evoeBelas Kal pr’ontat Ta éavTOD TAACHLATA aTO TIS 
 évepyelas avtov (L. avtwv). Comp. (h) below. (ii) ‘The Collect’ 
 for the same (p.6). peyddXou matpos vié, émritiynoov Tots Tovnpots 
 Tvevpact, Kal pIoat Ta Epya TMV YELPOV Gov EK THS TOD adXo- 
 Tplov mvevpatos évepyeias. 
 
 (c) ‘The Bidding Prayer’ for the Penitents (p. 6f.). dws... 
 cuyvTpin Tov Latavav vo Tovs 1ddas avTay ev TAayxEL, Kal AUVTPO- 
 ontat avtovs amo THS Tayisos ToD SiaBorou Kal THs émnpelas TOV 
 Saipovev, kal é€érntae ators amd Tavtos dbewitov AOyou, Kai 
 Taons atotrouv mpakews, Kal Tovnpas évvoias. 
 
 (d) ‘The Deacon’s Litany’ (p. 9). (i) vaép Tév mpecButépwv 
 npov SenOaduev’ Orrws 6 Kipios pvonta: avtovs amo TavTés atoTrou 
 Kal Tovnpod mpaymatos. (11) vmép addAnrov SenOaper, Strws 6 
 Kupwos tnpnon (L. Ssatnpnon) nuds cal purakn TH avtod xapute 
 els TEXOS, Kal PUoNTAaL NuUasS TOU TovNpOd Kai TavYTwY T@Y oKaVda- 
 Awy THY épyalouévwv THY avouiar. 
 
 (e) ‘The Prayer of the Faithful’ (p. 10). AvtTpwear [76 Trotp- 
 viov cov TodvTo] madons ayvoias Kal Tovnpas mpakews...pdcat av- 
 Tovs Tacns vooov Kal Taons padakias, TavTos TapaTT@paTos, 
 maons émnpelas Kai atratns, aro PoBou éxOpod x.7.r. 
 
 (f) ‘Commemoration of the Work of Redemption’ (p. 17). 
 aTéOavev...kal érady...tva maOous AUTH Kal Oavatov é&éAnTaL 
 TovTous 8: ods tapeyéveto, kal py—n ta Seopa tod diaBorov, Kal 
 pvaontar Tovs avOpdrous ex THs amatns avTod. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 143 
 
 (g) ‘Invocation’ (p. 18). iva of petadaBovtes avtod BeBatw- 
 Oéou mpos evoéBeav, adécews ayaptnuadtav TUxwot, Tod dia- 
 Borov cai THs mAdvNs avToD pucbadct, TvEevpaTos ayiov TANpw- 
 Adour. 
 
 (h) ‘The Great Intercession’ (p. 19). éru wapaxadodpév ce... 
 Umép Tav yematopéevwy VTO TOU adXoTpiov...d7ws...calapions Ex 
 THs (L. om. é« THs) evepyelas Tov trovnpod. 
 
 (k) ‘The Benediction’ (p.23). evAdynoov Tovs cot KEKALKOTAS 
 Tovs EauTOY avyevas...aylacov avTous, ppovpyaov, sKéTTac ov, ayTt- 
 AaBod, pUcar Tod adXoTpiov Kal TavTos éxOpod. 
 
 A review of these excerpts from the Liturgy warrants the fol- 
 lowing conclusions. 
 
 (1) Prayer for deliverance from Satan is offered, not only 
 on behalf of those who are not in full communion with the 
 Church, the Catechumens, the Energumens, and the Penitents, 
 but also on behalf of the Faithful. This appears from the passages 
 (d) (ii), (g), (k). The occurrence of a prayer of this kind in the 
 ‘Invocation’ (g) is especially noteworthy. 
 
 (2) The term 6 zrovnpos is used of Satan’. The name is 
 implied in (b) (ii) tots tovnpots mvevpact...tTov addoTplov mveEv- 
 patos. Further, there can be no doubt as to the use of the term 
 in (h), for it is interpreted by the scope of the petition and by the 
 words vad tov adXotpiov’, and further by the parallels in (b), 
 
 1 It is necessary to emphasise this point, for Canon Cook (A Second Letter p. 
 76) writes, ‘I cannot but think it [i.e. 6 d\Adz7pios] would not have been used here, 
 had rod wovnpod been then generally understood as the regular designation of 
 Satan: that designation does not occur once in this book,’ i.e. Apost. Constit. vii. 
 
 2 Canon Cook (p. 76) points out (a) that 6 dAddrpios, characteristic of this 
 Liturgy, ‘is not, so far as I remember, common in other ancient writings’; (b) that 
 it has ‘a special force,’ representing ‘Satan as wholly alien, in the special sense 
 that he is without place, power, or influence within the region of which Christ is 
 king.’ He appears to me to be mistaken in the second of these positions. The 
 word 6 d\\érpios is rather equivalent to 6 éxpds which is twice used of Satan 
 (comp. Le. x. 19) in this Liturgy (pp. 5, 10, see (e)). This is clear from (k) rod 
 aNorpiov cal mwavrds éxApod. This meaning, which arose when a foreigner was 
 regarded as a natural enemy, belongs to the word aAXdrpuos in Classical Greek from 
 Homer onwards. Comp. Hebrews xi. 34 (rapeuBoras éxdwvav addotplwv). There is 
 an interesting passage in Justin Martyr Dial. c. 30 which explains the word from 
 one point of view and which is decisive as to the view which the early Christians 
 held in regard to the doctrinal question involved in the use of these prayers. It 
 runs thus: o7¢ 6é kal airoduev adrov oi muorevovres els abtov, va amd Tov addorpluy, 
 
144 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 where the prayer is also for the Energumens, azo THs évepyetas 
 auToU, €x THS TOD aAXOTplov TrEevpaTos évepyeias’. This passage 
 carries with it (d) (ii),...«al puantas nuds tod tovnpod, where the 
 reference to the evil one is followed by a reference to evil men as 
 in the Liturgy of St James (Hammond p. 29, Swainson p. 225) 
 pica judas ard TavTos Teipacpod SiaBorLKod Te Kal avOpwrrivov’. 
 The sense in which the term 6 zrovnpos is used in this Liturgy is 
 perhaps indicated by the epithet apyé«axos which twice occurs in 
 it—6 dpyéxaxos biaBonos (p. 5), 6 apyéxaxos odus (p. 15). 
 
 (3) There are clear references to the last petition of the 
 Lord’s Prayer interpreted as a petition for deliverance from Satan 
 in (b) (i) (ii), (d) (ii), (g), (h), (kK). Only less clear is the reference 
 in (c), (f); the words tva py&n ta Secya in the last passage are 
 a comment, at least from one point of view, on pocar*®, This 
 interpretation of amd tod tovnpod becomes all the more note- 
 worthy if my conjecture (see p. 121 f.) be true that in the Greek 
 Jewish forms of Prayer such phrases as are found in this Liturgy 
 itself (p. 9 amd wavTos atoTouv Kai Tovnpod mpaypatos, p. 10 
 movnpas mpakews) were common. 
 
 (13) Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. xxiii. Myst. v.§ 18. adda pioar 
 
 Touréstw amd Tav Tovnpay Kai mAdYwY TvEeVLATwWY, CYVTNPHTH Tuas, Ws ard mpotwrov 
 évos Tur els alTov migTEVOYTWY TxXNMATOTOLHTAS 6 AoOyos THS mpoPnTeias (Ps. xviii. 14) 
 héyet, waar pavepov éotw. amd yap Twv Satpoviwy, ad éotw addorpia THs OeogeBelas TOD 
 Geo0, ols madae mpocexuvoduer, Tov Oeov adel dia "Inood Xprorod auvrypyOjvar mapaxaov- 
 pev. dJustin’s mode of reference to the petition (airoduev, mapaxadoduer) sug- 
 gests that he is quoting a prayer from a very early form of the Liturgy, which is 
 substantially reproduced in later Liturgies. 
 
 1 Compare Lit. of St James (Hammond p. 32, Swainson p. 239), aré...rdons 
 diaBodixhs évepyelas, Lit. of St Mark (Hammond p. 171, Swainson p. 4) racay 
 caravixhy évépyeav kai avOpdrwv movnpav ériBoudjv. 
 
 2 Such phrases are common in the Liturgies. A close parallel is found in the 
 Embolismus of the Liturgia Coptitarum S. Cyrilli (Swainson p. 63), libera nos a 
 malo: actiones diabolicas a nobis remove: insidias per consilia improborum homi- 
 num omnes inutiles effice. Similar petitions will be found in Swainson pp. 21, 47 
 (Satanam...deprime sub pedibus nostris velociter: scandala et eorum autores 
 compesce), 363. 
 
 % The construction of picac@a: with a simple genitive is characteristic of this 
 Liturgy. It occurs in the comment of Gregory of Nyssa on this clause (p. 174) 
 and in words of Chrys. quoted above p. 121. Comp. Avtpwoat avrovds Tis madaas 
 a\dyns (Swainson p. 180), rdv...dkadv éAevOepwoas axabapolas (id. p. 184). I have 
 noticed it also in the newly recovered Greek text of the Apology of Aristides c. xii., 
 evropynoe picat0a éavrov Tod Oavdrov. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONK,’ 145 
 
 nas aro Tod Tovnpod. trovnpos S€ 6 avTiKeipevos Saipwv, ad’ ov 
 puoOjvar evyopueba. Cyril is here expounding the Lord’s Prayer 
 in its place in the Liturgy between the Great Intercession for the 
 Living and the Dead (§ 8 ff, elta peta tadta tHv evynv Aéyopev 
 exeivnu, nv 6 caTNp Tapédwxe Tois oiKelous a’Tod waOnrais § 11) 
 and the call of the Bishop (or Priest, 6 fepevs), ra ayta Tots ayiors. 
 Further, he is explaining it in the regular course of catechetical 
 instruction. Thus his evidence is of special interest and import- 
 ance. In the first place catechetical instruction commonly followed 
 traditional lines of thought and of exegesis. In the second place 
 an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer as used in the Liturgy could 
 hardly be at variance with the general tone of the actual Liturgy 
 itself. We are therefore enabled to judge what was the teaching 
 of the Liturgy in use at Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth 
 century on the relation of the faithful to the temptations of the 
 devil; for it is to the faithful that this petition of the Lord’s 
 Prayer when used just before the actual Communion must refer. 
 With this evidence of Cyril we must connect on the one hand the 
 ‘Embolismus’ in the Liturgy of St James (p. 153), which seems in 
 some form to have been in use at a later time in Palestine (Ham- 
 mond p. xliii), and on the other hand the evidence derived from 
 the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy. The coincidence of two distinct lines of 
 liturgical evidence, the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy and the exposition of 
 Cyril, seems to afford a fair indication what was the tendency 
 of thought in a very early archetypal form of Liturgy, and to 
 enable us to discern what interpretation the devotional instinct of 
 the early generations of Christians gave to the words azo tod 
 Tovnpoo'. 
 
 This is a convenient point at which to break off this catena of 
 early expositions of and references to the last petition of the Lord’s 
 Prayer. To follow the stream further would necessitate the dis- 
 cussion of Augustine’s position as an exegete; and would thus in- 
 troduce us into a fresh region of Church History, that of later 
 ‘Latin Christianity.” We have examined thirteen witnesses. Some 
 of these, Clement, Hermas, the Clementine Homilies, Tertullian, 
 Cyprian, Origen, Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria, the ‘Clemen- 
 
 1 On further evidence to be derived from Liturgies see note B, on p. 151. 
 
 Cc. 10 
 
146 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 tine’ Liturgy, Cyril of Jerusalem, have indeed given evidence 
 before, but have been dismissed before the whole truth had been 
 elicited from them. The rest, viz. the Didaché, the Ancient 
 Homily, the Letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, have, so 
 far as I know, spoken now for the first time’. 
 
 Their evidence may be thus summarised. One witness, that 
 is the Didaché, is doubtful, if not adverse to the view maintained 
 in this essay; some explanation however of the adverse part of this 
 evidence can be given. The evidence of one witness, who has 
 been brought forward on the other side, that is Clement, is now 
 seen to be irrelevant. One witness, viz. Hermas, is not consistent, 
 but perhaps on the whole favours the view here taken. The 
 remaining ten give clear and ample testimony to the interpretation 
 which we have already arrived at from a study of the New Testa- 
 ment. They represent different parts of Christendom. ‘The 
 Ancient Homily,’ as it would appear, speaks from Corinth (see 
 Bp Lightfoot Clement ii. p. 197 ff.). The Letter of the Churches 
 of Southern Gaul shews us the mind of these Churches, which 
 were offshoots from, and in close correspondence with, the Apos- 
 tolic Churches of Asia Minor. The ‘Clementine Homilies’ give us 
 the traditional view held by Jewish Christians, those probably of 
 the East (Dr Salmon in D.C. B. i. p.577). Tertullian and Cyprian 
 speak from Carthage; Origen from Alexandria and afterwards from 
 Palestine. Origen’s view is repeated by his pupil Dionysius, and 
 by Peter, both Bishops of his early home. The last two witnesses, 
 the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy, with whatever Church it is to be con- 
 nected, and Cyril, who takes us back to the Mother Church of 
 Christendom, combine to represent to us a very early devotional 
 tradition. It is hardly too much to say that the unanimity of these 
 witnesses, combined with the variety of their character and origin, 
 is conclusive as to the mind of the Church of the first three 
 centuries, 
 
 1 Unless I may except a short note (p. 124) in my essay on ‘Chrysostom’ 
 (1887). 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 147 
 
 A. Note on the ‘Songs’ in St Luke's Gospel in relation to ancient 
 Jewish Prayers (see p. 128 n.). 
 
 A comparison of the Benedictus with Clement’s Epistle (see above, p. 128 n.) 
 suggests a larger problem of great interest, closely connected with the subject 
 of the relation of the Church to the Synagogue discussed in the Introduction. 
 Bp Lightfoot (Clement i. p. 392 ff.) has shewn the affinities between the 
 Epistle of Clement and the ‘Eighteen Benedictions.’ The further problem 
 at once confronts us—Is there any connexion between the ‘Songs’ of St 
 Luke’s Gospel (for the whole series must be considered together) and ancient 
 Jewish Prayers ? 
 
 For the purpose of comparison I take those parts of Jewish Prayers 
 which appear to have been in most frequent use from very early times, viz., 
 the Introductory and Concluding Benedictions of the Shema, the Eighteen 
 Benedictions, the Kadish and the Kedusha (see Dr Ginsburg’s art. Synagogue 
 
 in Kitto-Alexander Cyclop. of Bibl. Lit.). 
 
 Passages the text of which seems 
 
 doubtful I have marked with an asterisk. 
 
 (1) The Magnificat. 
 Le. i. 49 éroinaéy pot peyada 6 Suva- 
 ros. Comp. v. 51, émoinoey xpatos. 
 
 , 9 Weed >» - 
 kat aytov TO OVOLa AUTOV. 
 
 51 f. Steoxopmicev vrepnpavovs d.a- 
 voila xapdias a’tav’ Kabeidev Suvacras 
 > A , A a , 
 dro Opovev Kai dYywoev Tametvors, Tret- 
 vavtas evérAnoev ayabav kal movtovr- 
 ras e€améaretNey KEVvOUS. 
 
 54 avteAdBero “Iopand maidds av- 
 Tov, pynoOnvar ed€ovs, Kabas €AdAnoev 
 mpos tovs marépas nay, T® "ABpaay 
 kal T@ omeppari avroo eis Tov aidva. 
 
 The Eighteen Benedictions. 
 
 2 Thou art mighty (1123) for ever, 
 O Lord....0 Thou of mighty acts 
 (nyna3 Sy3). 
 
 3 Thou art holy, and Thy name is 
 holy. 
 
 *12 Let all proud men perish in a 
 moment....Bow them down speedily 
 in our days. Blessed art Thou, O 
 Lord, that breakest the enemies in 
 pieces, and bowest down the proud. 
 
 13 Upon the righteous and upon 
 the pious...let Thy compassions, we 
 pray Thee, be moved. 
 
 16 Send us not away, our King, 
 empty from Thy presence. 
 
 1 That bestowest gracious benefits 
 (O'IDN),..and rememberest the piety 
 of the fathers (MIAN *70N)...0 Lord 
 the Shield of Abraham. 
 
 2 Fulfilling His truth to them 
 that sleep in the dust. 
 
 10—-2 
 
148 
 
 (2) The Benedictus. 
 Le. i. 68 eddoynros Kuptos 6 Geds Tou 
 > , 9 > Ld ‘ > ‘ 
 IopanA, Ore emecxéeato Kal émoinoev 
 AUTpwow T@ Aag@ avrov. 
 
 69 Kat Hyetper Képas owTnpias nyiv ev 
 ” 4 A “) lal 
 oik@ Aaveid maidos avrov. 
 
 71 carnpiav e& éxyOpav judy Kai &x 
 Xelpos TavT@Y TOY pLcOvvT@Y TUGS...... 
 74 rov Sovvar nyiv apoBas ek xeipos 
 exOpav puoGerras... 
 
 72 f. roujoa €Xcos peta Tay TaTépwv 
 c - ‘ a , C48 
 npav Kar pynoOnva StaOyxns aylas 
 
 > - a 4 ” Y > 5 
 avTov, Spxov ov @pooev mpos ’ABpaap 
 Tov TaTepa Lav. 
 
 75 Rarpevery a’t@ ev ooroTnTe Kal 
 Sixaoo’vn evariov avTov macats Tais 
 NpEepas Nav. 
 
 c tol > - 
 év adéoet Gpaptiay avtay (v. 77). 
 
 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 1 Blessed art Thou, O Lord, our 
 God and the God of our fathers, the 
 God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 
 the God of Jacob...Even He that 
 bringeth a Redeemer unto their sons’ 
 sons for His Name’s sake in love. 
 
 2 Setting at liberty them that are 
 in bonds. 
 
 *7 Redeem us with a perfect re- 
 demption... Thou, O God, art a 
 strong Redeemer. Blessed art Thou, 
 O Lord, the Redeemer of Israel. 
 
 10 Sound a great trumpet for our 
 freedom ; and lift up a banner to 
 gather our captives... He that gather- 
 eth the outcasts of His people Israel. 
 
 14 Establish in the midst of her 
 [Jerusalem] speedily the throne of 
 David. 
 
 15 Cause the shoot of David Thy 
 servant to spring forth; and let his 
 horn be exalted in Thy salvation. 
 Blessed art Thou, O Lord, that causest 
 the horn of salvation to spring forth. 
 
 See the passages from the 12th 
 Benediction quoted above as parallel 
 to Le. i. 51 f. 
 
 See the passages quoted above as 
 parallel to Le. i. 54. 
 
 13 Upon the righteous and upon 
 the pious.... 
 
 5 Turn us again, O Father, to Thy 
 law; and make us draw near, our 
 King, to Thy service (In 71A2y>) ; and 
 bring us back with a perfect repent- 
 ance to Thy presence. 
 
 17 May the service (N1)2Y) of Thy 
 people Israel be pleasing to Thee per- 
 petually!. 
 
 1 This Benediction is probably subsequent to the destruction of the Temple. 
 
 But it may incorporate an earlier formula. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 
 
 77 rov Sovvat yraow owrnpias TO 
 - > - 
 Aa@ aurov. 
 
 > Ly ers a a year 
 ev adécet auapria@y autor. 
 
 78 da omdayxva €eous Gcot nuar. 
 
 - Ca , ”~ 
 79 emupavar tots €v oKoret Kal oKiG 
 Oavarouv kaOnpevois, Tov KatevOivat Tovs 
 , « fo > c ‘ , ‘ 
 moOas nuav eis oOov eipnyns. 
 
 (3) The Gloria in Excelsis. 
 Le. i. 14 d0£a ev ipioros Ged kal 
 emt ys eipnvn ev avOpamors evdoxias. 
 
 Comp. Le. xix. 38 év ovpava eipnyn 
 kat d0£a ev vifiorots. 
 
 (4) The Nune dimittis. 
 Te. 1, 
 
 gov... ev elpnun. 
 
 29 viv amodvers Tov dovAcy 
 
 31 drt eiSov of dpOadpoi pov To ca- 
 THpiov cov. 
 
 149 
 
 4 Thou graciously givest to man 
 knowledge, and teachest man under- 
 standing. So graciously give unto 
 us knowledge and understanding and 
 wisdom. 
 
 6 Pardon us, our Father, for we 
 have sinned, Forgive us, our King, 
 for we have transgressed. 
 
 13 Upon us let Thy compassions 
 (721) be moved, O Lord our God. 
 
 *19 Grant...grace and mercy, right- 
 eousness and compassion unto us. 
 
 *19 For in the light of Thy counten- 
 ance Thou hast given to us, O Lord 
 our God, the Law and life,...blessing 
 and peace. May it be good in Thine 
 eyes to bless Thy people Israel with 
 abundant strength and peace. 
 
 The Benediction at the beginning of 
 the Shema: Blessed art Thou...who 
 createst light...who makest peace... 
 He in mercy causeth the light to 
 shine upon the earth and the in- 
 habitants thereof. 
 
 The Kadish: May He who makes 
 peace in His high places (19917193) con- 
 fer peace upon us and upon all Israel. 
 
 The Kedusha: We will sanctify 
 Thy name in this world as they [the 
 Angels] sanctify it in the high heavens 
 (DIN 1W3); as it is written by the 
 prophet (Is. vi.)....Blessed be the glory 
 of the Lord from His place. 
 
 2 Loosing them that are in bonds. 
 *9 May its (the year’s) close be... 
 peace. 
 17 May our eyes behold when Thou 
 returnest with compassion to Zion. 
 
 The great root-thoughts—salvation, mercy, deliverance, benediction—are, 
 it will be seen, common to the Jewish Prayers and the ‘ Evangelical Songs.’ 
 The Prayers and the ‘Songs’ are of course both ultimately based on the Old 
 Testament ; and in this and other aspects the parallels which I have pointed 
 
150 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 out above may be compared with those which have been found between the 
 Lord’s Prayer and Jewish formulas. The suggestion which seems implied in 
 these resemblances, viz., that the utterances of the Virgin Mary, Zacharias, 
 and Simeon, at supreme crises of their lives were largely based on familiar 
 forms of devotion, is psychologically natural. They spoke as ‘filled with the 
 Holy Ghost’ (Le. i. 67); for they gave a new meaning to current thoughts 
 and expressions. The Angelic Song took a form which would not be wholly 
 unfamiliar to pious Israelites. 
 
 The ‘Songs’ however come to us in a literary form and in a Greek trans- 
 lation. The question then arises, May not the Greek version of J ewish Prayers 
 used in the Hellenistic Synagogues underlie the ‘Songs’ as they are given 
 to us in St Luke’s Gospel? There is one piece of evidence upon which I 
 wish briefly to touch, viz., ‘the Psalms of Solomon.’ Professor Ryle and 
 Mr James in their recent edition of these Psalms have in their Introduction 
 (p. xcif.) collected a considerable number of instances of the “ similarity in 
 phraseology between our Psalms [i.e. the Psalms of Solomon] and the ‘Songs’ 
 in Luke i. ii.” To these instances add Ps. viii. 31 ¢fdov of df@adpol avtav 
 (? jyav) compared with Le. ii. 30, Ps. xi, 2 qdeqoev 6 Geos "Iopand ev TH 
 émicxon adray compared with Le. i. 68. But the Editors do not offer any 
 explanation of the phenomenon which they notice. May not the explana- 
 tion be found in a common source whence the phrases in these Psalms 
 and in the Songs of the N. T. are derived, viz., the Greek Jewish Prayers 
 of the Hellenistic Synagogues? As Prof. Ryle and Mr James have not, so 
 far as I have noticed, touched on the subject, I venture to add a few notes 
 and references in regard to the relation of ‘the Psalms of Solomon’ to 
 ancient Jewish Prayers. (1) The two Editors draw attention (p. li) to the 
 references in the Psalms to the doctrine of retribution and to that of the 
 resurrection. The second Benediction (‘Thou causest the dead to live... 
 quickening the dead in Thy plenteous compassion. Blessed art Thou, 
 O Lord, that bringest the dead to life’) should be compared ; it, like the 
 Psalms of Solomon, was probably directed against Sadducean doctrine. 
 (2) Compare Ps. Sol. ii. 35 ff., iv. 28f, vil. 4 ff, xii. 8, xiii. 10 f. with 
 Benedictions 12, 13; Ps. ix. 12 f. with Benediction 5; Ps. xvii. 23 with 
 Benedictions 14, 15. (3) The close similarity of thought between the Psalms 
 and the Benedictions will be shewn by a study of the following passages 
 of the Psalms, ii. 41 (evAoynrés kipios eis Tov aldva evarioy TY dovAwy avrod, 
 words which close the Psalm), v. 16, 17, 21, 22, vi. 9 (edAoynros Kvptos r) 
 rowav deov ois dyanGow atrov év adnOeig, words which close the Psalm), 
 viii. 37 f., ix. 20, x. 4 ff, xi. 9, xvii. 25f, xviii. 1 ff, (4) I have suggested (see 
 above p. 18) that the phrases rois ayaméow (avrév), Trois vropévovaw (avrdv) 
 are derived from Greek Jewish Prayers: compare Ps. Sol. iv. 29 (yévorro, 
 kupte, To Ededs gov emt mavtas TOUS dyanavras oe), Vi. 9 (quoted just above), 
 x. 4 (rd EXeos Kupiou emt Tovs ayamavras avroyv ev dAnéeia), Xiv. 1 (meoros Kvpios 
 rois ayanaow avrov dAnOeig, Tois Uropevover madeiav avrov). I have also 
 pointed out (see above p. 18) how frequent in early Christian liturgical 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 151 
 
 fragments is the petition for the gathering together of the scattered, a 
 petition which seems based upon the 10th Benediction: compare Ps. Sol. 
 Vill. 34 (cuvayaye thv Stacmopav "Iopand per’ €déov Kat ypnororntos), xi. 31. 
 It will be remembered that the starting point of this investigation was 
 the fact of a certain resemblance between a passage of Clement’s Epistle 
 (which certainly is closely connected with Jewish Prayers) and the Bene- 
 dictus (see above p. 128 n.). 
 
 To sift the matter with real thoroughness would require among other 
 things an attempt to attain to a critical text of the Jewish Prayers, a careful 
 examination of the Hebrew of these Prayers and of the passages of the O. T. 
 in the original Hebrew and in the Lxx. on which the Jewish formulas are 
 ultimately based. Such a work lies outside the scope of a note like the 
 present. I venture however to hope that I have shewn that there is a 
 problem connected with the ‘Songs’ in St Luke’s Gospel which invites 
 thorough treatment. 
 
 B. Note on the bearing of some of the Offices and Liturgies on 
 the interpretation of amo Tod rovnpov (see p. 145). 
 
 While I fully recognise that only a thorough liturgical scholar can appraise 
 accurately the value of the evidence of the Liturgies on such a matter as that 
 under discussion, I think that a collection of passages bearing on the point 
 may not be without interest and importance. 
 
 (1) Baptismal and kindred offices. (a) In a Greek form for making a 
 catechumen (Assemani Cod. Liturg. i. p. 110) there occurs the petition, od 
 e€eihou Thy Wuxnv Tov SovAov cou ek Tod Tovnpov...uy Tvyxwpyons mvevpari Tie 
 Trompe xwapav ev avt@ exe”. (6) In a Greek ‘Confirmation’ office (Assemani 
 Cod, Liturg. ili. p. 57) we find the prayer pica: dro Tov movnpot Kai mavrwv Tdv 
 emitndevpdrwy avtov. The term ‘the evil one’ occurs in the Syrian Baptismal 
 rite given in the Offices of the Patriarch Severus (see above p. 37), ‘ Gratias 
 agimus tibi hac de causa quod dignos effeceris servos tuos ut ad sanctum 
 baptisma accederent et abrenunciarent malo (Lass) Comp. Cyril, Migne 
 P. G. 33 p. 1069 (drordccopai cot, Satava, col TS Tovnp@ kal @porarw Tupavye), 
 Jerome Com. in Mat. xxv. 26 (renuntio tibi, diabole, et pompae tuae et vitiis 
 tuis et mundo tuo, qui in maligno positus est), though in both these passages 
 the term in question may be an addition of the writer. 
 
 1JIn the Test. xii Patriarcharum the phrase ordayxva édéous (Le. i. 78) occurs 
 in Zab. 7,8. With Le. ii. 32 compare Benj. 11 (yvdow xawhy gwrifwv mavra Ta 
 Z0vn, Pus yrwoews emeuBalvwy 7H Iopandr ev cwrnpig). 
 
 2 Cyril of Jerus. (Migne P.G. 33 p. 1030) 70 émtopxiardv TotTo Aatov...dvvayev 
 Tyrikatrny NapBdver, Wore... rdoas dopdrous TOD movnpod exdidKew Tas Suvdpers. 
 
152 THE -LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (2) The Liturgies proper. It will be best to collect separately three 
 groups of passages, viz. (a) passages in which the neuter interpretation is 
 definitely assumed ; (b) phrases which bear some resemblance to the last 
 petition of the Prayer, and which may be in some cases indirect references to 
 it; (c) passages which clearly support the masculine interpretation. The 
 references given are to Dr Swainson’s Greek Liturgies (unless it is other- 
 wise stated), as that is the nearest approach to a critical edition. 
 
 (a) Neuter interpretation. (i) The Coptic Liturgy, Anaphora of St Basil 
 (Hammond p. 223), ne nos inducas in temptationem, neque permittas ullam 
 iniquitatem in nos dominari, imo potius libera nos ab actionibus inutilibus, 
 earumque cogitationibus, earum motibus, aspectibus earum, illecebris earum ; 
 temptationemque extingue et repelle a nobis. (ii) The Roman and Ambrosian 
 rites (Hammond p. 344), the Gregorian and Gelasian Canon (Hammond 
 p. 372 f.), Libera nos, quaesumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis praeteritis, 
 praesentibus, et futuris. The Lord’s Prayer had preceded. (iii) Mozarabic 
 rite (Hammond p. 345): after the Lord’s Prayer the Presbyter says, Liberati 
 a malo, confirmati semper in bono. (iv) The Gallican rite has a varying 
 formula succeeding the Lord’s Prayer. Hammond (p. 345) gives that for the 
 Nativity, Libera nos, omnipotens Deus, ab omni malo, et custodi nos in omni 
 opere bono. 
 
 (b) Possible references and paraphrases. There are many petitions in the 
 Deacon’s Litany and elsewhere in the several Liturgies which seek for deliver- 
 ance from various evils, e.g. Lit. of St James p. 230 f., vrép rod puo@jvac jas 
 amd maons Odixpews, cpyfs, Kwdvvov kal dvdykns, aixyadwotas, mxpod Oavarov, 
 kal Tay dvomiov jyov. Similar prayers will be found on pp. 125, 166, 224, 
 234, 250, 280. Not unfrequently petitions begin with the words pica: juas, 
 which yet can hardly be thought to be expansions of the clause of the Lord’s 
 Prayer. Thus Lit. of the Presanctified p. 178 adda pioat nas ek mavroy Toy 
 Onpevovtar ras Wuxas jpav, Lit. of St James p. 331 pica npas aro tis poBepas 
 kai dveEtyndorou Kal pitas muépas ths xpicews. Again, there are other 
 petitions of which the following may be considered a type: pooat pas amo 
 mavros Treipacpod diaodiKod Te Kat dvOpwmivov (Lit. of St James p. 224f.), mavra 
 d¢ POdvov, mdvra Tetpacpdv, macav catavKny évépyetay, Kal dvOparwy Trovnpav 
 émBovdny, amodiokor ad’ nuay (Lit. of Alexandria p. 4). These and such like 
 petitions together with what seems to be, if my suggestion (p. 121 f.) be true, a 
 Jewish liturgical phrase, viz. dé mavrds movnpod (mpdyparos), must be taken 
 into account in considering those passages which seem to make for a neuter 
 interpretation. They would always create a tendency towards expanding the 
 simple expression of the masculine interpretation and so diluting or elimina- 
 ting it. In this connexion the following series of passages is very significant : 
 (i) the Scriptural source Rom. xvi. 20 (6 6€ Oeds rhs elpyyns ouvtpivyer Tov Zara- 
 vav Und rovs modas tuav ev rdxer): the meaning here cannot be questioned : 
 (ii) Rom. J. c. is quoted (with necessary adaptations) in the ‘Clementine’ 
 Liturgy (Hammond p. 6): (iii) Lit. of Alewandria p. 46 f., rov Zaravav kai 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 153 
 
 magav avtou thy evépyecav Kut tmovnpay Svvapww ovvTpiov vmd Tovs modas npav. 
 (iv) Lit. Copt. S. Basilii p. 21, universos eorum hostes visibiles et invisibiles 
 contere et deprime sub vestigiis eorum velociter: (v) Canon Universalis 
 lethiopum p. 21, omnes hostes et adversarios eorum subjice et contere sub 
 pedibus eorum velociter. Thus the primary reference to Satan, which in this 
 case is certain, is lost in process of liturgical development. 
 
 (ce) Masculine interpretation. The following passages are clear: (i) Lit. 
 of Alexandria p. 6 (Cod. Rossanensis), adda pdaat nuas amd Tod movnpow Kai ék 
 TOY Epywv avrov. (ii) 2b. p. 62, dAAa piaat juas aro Tov rovnpod...cv yap 
 €dwxas nyiv eLovolav rareiv eave Opewy Kal oxopriev Kal emt macav Thy Siva 
 Tov €xOpov. (iii) Lit. of St James p. 306 fF. (all four MSS. given by Dr Swainson 
 give substantially the same reading), adda picat juas do Tov movnpov, Kat &k 
 TOY Epywv avtov, kal maons emnpeias kai peOodeias avrov, Kat TéxyNs Kal amdtns 
 avrov. The Syriac (Hammond p. 78) has a much simpler Embolismus. 
 (iv) The Coptic Liturgies. (a) Lit. Copt. S. Basilit p. 5, omnem invidiam, 
 omnem temptationem, omnem operationem Satanae et consilium hominum 
 improborum, impetumque hostium tam occultorum quam manifestorum 
 depelle a nobis.... Tu enim ipse es, qui dedisti nobis potestatem calcandi 
 serpentes et scorpiones, omnemque virtutem inimici. Et ne nos inducas in 
 temptationem, sed libera nos a malo!. (b) Lit. Copt. S. Cyrilli p. 63, sed libera 
 nos a malo: actiones diabolicas a nobis remove : insidias per consilia impro- 
 borum hominum omnes inutiles effice. (c) 7b. p. 73, libera eos ab operibus 
 malis diaboli, et contere omnia opera eius sub pedibus illorum velociter. 
 (v) The Syrian Liturgy of SS. Adaeus and Maris (Hammond p. 280), sed 
 libera et salva nos a malo et ab exercitibus eius. 
 
 To arrive at an approximately correct estimate of the value of this 
 evidence the following points must be borne in mind: (i) The evidence for 
 the neuter interpretation is found almost exclusively in Latin Liturgies, 
 which either in their original formation or in their subsequent development 
 would not be outside the influence of St Augustine’s teaching. (ii) The mascu- 
 line interpretation is found in passages, notably in the different forms of 
 the Embolismus, where the reference to the Lord’s Prayer is direct and certain. 
 (iii) The variety of the witnesses is a noteworthy fact. The evidence comes 
 to us from the Church of Alexandria, probably in the Greek Liturgy of St 
 James from the Patriarchate of Antioch, from the Coptic Church of Egypt, 
 
 1 With this it is very instructive to compare the parallel passage in the 
 Ethiopic Canon (p. 5), omnem invidiam, omnem dolum, omnemque operationem 
 Satanae, omnem machinationem hominum improborum, insultationemque inimici 
 secretam et manifestam procul fac...quia tu es qui dedisti nobis potestatem calcandi 
 serpentes et scorpiones, omnemque virtutem inimici. Et ne nos inducas, Domine, 
 in temptationem, sed libera et eripe nos ab omni malo. The reference here to 
 Satan’s enmity in the introduction to the petition is plainer than in the Coptic 
 Lit. quoted above in the text; in the actual petition however the reference is lost in 
 a paraphrase. 
 
154 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 from the Church of Eastern Syria in the Liturgy of SS. Adaeus and Maris. 
 Again, the passages quoted above from a Baptismal and a ‘Confirmation’ 
 Office are at one with those cited from the Liturgies. (iv) These different 
 pieces of evidence, the several dates of which I have not attempted to ascer- 
 tain, must be taken in connexion with the liturgical evidence derived from 
 the ‘Clementine’ Liturgy and from Cyril of Jerusalem. These two latter 
 authorities, the respective dates of which are within certain limits fixed, and 
 whose agreement, as we have seen, points to still more ancient liturgical 
 usage, shew clearly that in their interpretation of the last clause of the Lord’s 
 Prayer the later Liturgies are not introducing an innovation. 
 
 (iv). Evidence derived from the Early Versions. 
 
 (a) The Syriac Versions. 
 
 The importance of these Versions has been insisted on more 
 than once in this Essay (see p. 39 n.), on the ground that they 
 represent approximately the original Aramaic of our Lord’s 
 utterances. 
 
 The Old Syriac, inserting the petition for deliverance in 
 St Luke, has in both Gospels the following rendering : 
 
 eS oe) Hl 
 
 the-evil (one) from  deliver-us but 
 
 The Syriac Vulgate has the same translation in St Matthew, 
 and it is again repeated (except in regard to the translation of 
 ‘us’) in the Jerusalem and the Philoxenian Versions. In St Luke 
 the Vulgate Syriac introduces another verb. 
 
 The main points in regard to the evidence of these Versions 
 may be briefly stated thus: 
 
 1. In the two passages in the New Testament where in the 
 Greek the neuter interpretation is certain, viz. Luke vi. 45 (apo- 
 éper TO Tovnpov) and Rom. xi. 9 (dzroatuyobvtes TO movnpov), the 
 Vulgate has the definite feminine ([Am+.5), the number of course 
 depending on the pointing. The former passage is wanting in the 
 Curetonian fragments of the Gospels. 
 
 2. In the following passages, where the masculine is gram- 
 matically certain, viz. Matt. xii. 19, 1 Cor. v. 13, 1 John ii. 13, 14, 
 v. 18, the Vulgate Syriac has Lard, The Curetonian fragments 
 shew that in the first of these passages, which is the most 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 155 
 
 important, the Vulgate is but repeating the rendering of the 
 Old Syriac. These passages indicate that the simple word (with- 
 out the addition of |; as in Luke vi. 45) was felt to be a clear 
 and sufficient translation of the phrase ‘the evil man’ or, when 
 that required to be represented, ‘the evil-one.’ 
 
 3. In two passages the word |a.9 is gratuitously introduced 
 
 where it is not required by the Greek and where the interpretation 
 “is certain. 
 
 In St Matthew xii. 38, 39 (ra 6€ &favia eiow of vioi Tov 
 Tovnpov, o dé €yOpos 6 omelipas avta éotw 6 diaBoros). The Old 
 Syriac has las not only in the first clause but, as the 
 equivalent of 6 évaB8onos, in the second also 
 
 In Acts x. 38 (to’s cataduvactevopévous vio Tov S1aBoXov) 
 the Vulgate Syriac represents Tod dcaBoXov in the same way. 
 
 These two passages were pointed out by Bishop Lightfoot. 
 Canon Cook however in his reply passed them over in silence. 
 They are manifestly of crucial importance. For in the first place 
 this rendering of Matt. xiii. 39 clears up, as far as the Syriac is 
 concerned, the meaning of the ambiguous word in v. 38, and with 
 it, it can hardly be questioned, that of the other passages in 
 St Matthew commonly considered doubtful. The Version which 
 (unless indeed there was some variation of reading in the Greek, 
 other evidence for which has disappeared) introduced the word as 
 a name for Satan in xiii. 39 could hardly have intended to express 
 a different idea by the same word in vi. 13. And in the second 
 place the two passages together shew that las was current as 
 a recognised name for Satan among Syrian Christians from the 
 second century and onwards, and thus form a link between the 
 acknowledged usage of later Syriac writers (see Payne Smith 
 Syr. Thes.) and that of our Lord’s time which is the ‘unknown 
 quantity’ in the problem. 
 
 4. The facts reviewed above seem fairly decisive as to the 
 gender of |=.© in those passages where the meaning of the Greek 
 must remain uncertain to the scholar who confines his studies to 
 accidence, viz. Matt. v. 37, 39, xii. 38, John xvi. 15, 2 Thess. iii. 3, 
 Eph. vi. 16, 1 John iii. 12, v. 19. The passages in St Matthew 
 here referred to are happily included in what remains to us of the 
 Old Syriac Version. 
 
156 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 To sum up, while in forming a judgment we must make allow- 
 ance both for our tendency to Western over-refinement and 
 rigidity in interpreting Semitic modes of thought and expression 
 and also for the fact that Syriac usage in regard to the way of 
 expressing the neuter fluctuated, yet it does not seem too much 
 to say that the evidence of the Syriac Versions certainly favours 
 the masculine interpretation of amo tod movnpod. 
 
 (b) The Latin Versions. 
 
 The materials accessible at the present time to the student of 
 the Latin Versions are not sufficient to insure absolute complete- 
 ness in results. Still in the investigation which follows I hope 
 that the evidence collected will justify an opinion as to the bearing 
 of the Latin Versions on the point of interpretation under dis- 
 cussion which will not hereafter require serious modification. 
 
 (1) The Old Testament. 
 
 The group of passages in Deuteronomy xiii. 5, xvil. 7, 12, xix. 
 19, xxi, 21, xxii. 21, 22, 24, xxiv. 7 is worth study in the Latin 
 Versions. The type of rendering given in the LXx. is éapets tov 
 movnpov €& vuev avtav. The Vatican MS. has tov aovnpov in 
 each passage. The variant 70 7rovnpov however would be liable to 
 arise in all the passages as it has done in xiii. 5, xix. 19 (see Tischen- 
 dorf), It is of some importance to notice that St Paul (1 Cor. v. 
 13) in a general reference to these passages has tov trovnpov, and 
 that Aquila has tov wovnpov in xxiv. 7 (see Field Hexapla), the 
 only passage of the group of which any rendering of the other 
 Greek Versions has been preserved. We may therefore conclude 
 that, though the neuter reading existed, the reading generally 
 current was Tov Trovnpov. 
 
 Putting aside the Latin rendering of the verb as unimportant 
 for our present purpose’, we note four renderings of the noun in 
 the Latin Versions. 
 
 (i) Malwm is the commonest rendering. So Tert. adv. Mare. 
 
 1 The verb used is the future or imperative of tollere or auferre. In xxii, 22 
 however the reading in Ziegler’s Fragmenta is eradicabis. Jerome adv. Helvid. c. 4 
 has eradicabitis, At first sight this word seems to imply the neuter interpretation. 
 But usage does not confirm this impression. Thus the Speculum (ed. Weihrich, 
 Corp. Scrip. Eccl. Lat. xii. p. 537) reads in Deut. xviii. 12, eradicabit eos a te 
 (Vulgate, delebit eos). 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 157 
 
 v. 14 (comp. adv. Hermog. 11), Lucifer de Sancto Athan. i. (ed. 
 Hartel p. 75) quoting Deut. xvii. 12, and the Speculum (ed. Weih- 
 rich p. 460) quoting xvii. 12. This rendering is consistently 
 followed by Jerome in the Vulgate. Tertullian (loc. cit.), it should 
 be noticed, takes malum as neuter; for arguing against Marcion’s 
 dualism he asks, Aliud est enim apud creatorem Auferte malum 
 de vobis, et Declina a malo et fac bonum ? 
 
 (ii) Malignum is given as the rendering in xvii. 7 by Lucifer 
 (ed. Hartel p. 75), in xxii. 21 by Augustine Quaest. in Deut. 
 (Migne P. LZ. 34 p. 762), in xxii. 21, 24 by the Fragmenta Mona- 
 censia (Ziegler Bruchstiicke einer Vorhieronymianischen Uber- 
 setzung des Pentateuch, Miinchen, 1883), in xxiv. 7 by Augustine 
 (Migne P. LZ. 34 p. 764). Augustine (see below p. 164) takes 
 malignum as masculine. 
 
 (ii) Mequam is found in xxii. 22 as given in the Fragmenta 
 Monacensia, 
 
 (iv) Jniquum is found in Lucifer (ed. Hartel p. 77) who, it 
 will be noticed, gives three renderings of tov trovnpdv (70 movnpov) 
 in as many pages. The whole quotation runs thus: Testificatus 
 est iniqua ..facite ei quemadmodum nequiter egit facere adversus 
 fratrem suum, et auferes iniquum ex vobis ipsis (Deut. xix. 18 f.). 
 It seems clear that iniquum is here masculine. 
 
 This group of passages is of special interest as giving all the 
 renderings of 6 zrovnpos which are found in the New Testament. 
 
 In Job xxi. 30 where the Vulgate has els 7uépav arwdeias 
 koudiferat 6 trovnpos, the Old Latin as given in Sabatier’s 
 representation of Cod. Majoris Monasteru (see Bp Westcott 
 art. Vulgate, Dict. of the Bible iii. p. 1692) and the Vulgate (Cod. 
 Amiatinus) both read, In diem perditionis servatur malus. In 
 such a context it would be very natural to take malus as referring 
 to Satan. Thus in the interlinear Commentary on Job printed 
 with Jerome’s works (Migne P. LZ. 23 p. 1437), assigned by some 
 to his friend Philip (see D. C. Biog. iv. p. 357), there is the gloss, 
 antiqui hostis vel impii in hoc mundo. Again, Gregory the Great 
 Expositio in beatum Iob seu Moralium Libri (Migne P. L. 75 
 p. 1117) writes thus on v. 31: Beatus Iob dum de omnium malo- 
 rum corpore loqueretur, subito ad omnium iniquorum caput verba 
 
158 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 convertit: vidit enim quod in fine mundi Satan hominem ingredi- 
 ens, &c., where the reference at least in part is to v. 30. If then 
 we could be sure that this part of the Old Latin rendering of 
 the Old Testament was pre-Christian (see Bp Westcott art. 
 Vulgate, D. B. ui. p. 1691), we should have grounds for arguing 
 that the passage supplied an important precedent for the trans- 
 lation of 6 zovnpos in the New Testament. In any case we 
 see the associations connected with the term malus in the Latin 
 Bible. 
 
 (2) New Testament. 
 
 In the Gospels the evidence as to the Old Latin is fairly 
 abundant. The greatest assistance, especially in regard to St 
 Matthew, is found in the first volume of Bishop Wordsworth’s 
 edition of the Vulgate. To this volume (p. xxxili) and to Dr 
 Hort’s Introduction (p. 81) I must refer for the classification 
 which is adopted in the following table of the Mss. to which I 
 refer. 
 
 (1) ‘African text’: (i) Cod. Palatinus=e does not contain 
 the earlier chapters of St Matthew; it begins at xii. 49. The 
 portion containing xili. 19 is detached and is given in T. K. 
 Abbott’s edition of Cod. Z. (ii) Cod. Bobiensis = k contains parts of 
 St Matthew and St Mark. 
 
 (2) ‘European text’: (i) Cod. Vercellensis=a, according to 
 Bp Wordsworth, has a ‘ European’ text in St Matthew, a ‘mixed’ 
 text in the other Gospels. (ii) Cod. Veronensis=b. (aii) Cod. 
 Claromontanus=h. (iv) Cod. Monacensis=q does not contain 
 Matt. v. 25—vi. 4. 
 
 (3) ‘Italian text’: Cod. Brivianus =f. 
 
 (4) ‘Mixed text’: (i) Cod. Vercellensis =a (see above). (11) 
 Cod. Colbertinus =c. (iii) Cod. Corbeiensis 1 = ff. (iv) Cod. Cor- 
 beiensis 2= ff (v) Cod. Sangermanensis=g,. (vi) Cod. Bezae 
 (Lat. vers.) = d. 
 
 (5) ‘Vulgate’: (i) Cod. Amiatinus=A. (ii) Cod. Dublinensis 
 (‘Book of Armagh’)=D. (iii) Cod. Egertonensis=E. (iv) Cod. 
 Lichfeldensis=L. (v) Cod. Kenanensis (‘Book of Kells’)=Q. 
 (vi) Cod. Rushworthianus (‘Gospels of Mac Regol’) = R. 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 159 
 
 Matt. v. 37. 
 (1) (2) (3) (5) a malo; so Tert. de Praescr. Haer. 26, de Carne 
 Christi 23, adv. Praz. 9. 
 (4) a malo. 
 de malo d. So Hilary in loco (Migne P. L. 9 p. 940). 
 
 Matt. v. 39. 
 
 (1) non resistere adversus nequam nequam (sic) hk. 
 
 (2) (3) non resistere malo. 
 
 (4) non resistere malo. 
 
 malum 9. 
 
 (5) non resistere malo. 
 
 a malo EQ. 
 
 Aug. de Serm. Dom. iii. (Migne P.Z. 34 p. 1258) has: non 
 resistere adversus malum. 
 
 Matt. vi. 13. 
 
 (1) (2) (8) (4) (5) libera nos a malo. 
 
 Tertullian de Orat. viii. devehe (v.l. evehe) nos a malo; de 
 Fuga ii. erue nos a maligno. As the phrase ‘a maligno’ does not, 
 so far as I know, occur in any other authority for the O. L. text, 
 it is probable that Tertullian here gives an original rendering, as 
 he not unfrequently does (Dr Hort Introduction p. 78). ‘Erue’ 
 however is found in Le. xi. 4 in f. 
 
 Matt. xi. 35. 
 
 (1) nequam homo de nequa thesauro emittit nequam k. So 
 Cyprian Ep. 55 (58). 
 
 (2) (8) (4) (5) malus homo de malo thesauro profert mala 
 (mala profert h). 
 
 Matt. xii. 19. 
 
 (1) maluse. nequam fk. 
 
 (2) malusabg. malignus h. 
 
 (3) malus f. 
 
 (4) malus¢ fi f, 9. malignus d g,'. 
 
 (5) malus plerique. malignus DLQR. 
 
 Matt. xii. 38. 
 
 (1) fili malignie. f. mali &. 
 
 1 A second ms. taking its name from the Abbey of St Germain, sometimes 
 cited by Sabatier. 
 
160 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 (2) f. nequitiae a. f. malignihg. f. iniqui b (so Augustine 
 in the Speculum, Mai Patr. Nova Biblio. i. Pars ii. p. 112). 
 
 (3) f maligni f. 
 
 (4) f. nequam ff. f. nequitiae c ff; 9. f. maligni d. 
 
 (5) f. nequam plerique. diabuli nequam Q. 
 
 Compare Iren. iv. 66, 67. Rursus in zizaniis ait: zizania sunt 
 filii maligni...juste scriptura eos qui in abscessione perseverant 
 semper filios diaboli, et angelos dixit maligni. The passage is of 
 importance as shewing (a) the interpretation which Irenaeus gave 
 to the tod aovnpov, and (b) that the translator deliberately 
 adopted the form ‘filii maligni’ when the context of his author 
 required that ‘maligni’ should be the genitive masculine. 
 
 Luke vi. 45. 
 
 (1) malus homo de malo thensauro cordis sui malum pro- 
 feret e. vacat k. 
 
 (2) malus (homo q) de malo thensauro (cordis sui q) proferet 
 (profert g) mala b q. 
 
 (3) malus homo de malo thensauro cordis sui profert malum /- 
 
 (4) nequam de malo profert malum a. malus homo de malo 
 (thesauro cordis sui c) profert malum c¢ ff; malus de malo froferet 
 (sic) malum d. 
 
 (5) malus homo de malo profert malum. 
 
 Luke xi. 4. 
 
 (1) vacant e k. 
 
 (2) Cod. Vindobonensis (see Bp Wordsworth Vulgate p. xxxii) 
 has: eripe nos a malo. 
 
 (3) erue nos a malo f (cf. Tert. de Fuga i). All other 
 authorities appear to have: libera nos a malo. 
 
 John xvii. 15. 
 
 (1) ut serves eos a malo e. 
 
 (2) ut serves eos a malo b. 
 
 ut conserves illos a maligno q. 
 (3) ut conserves eos a maligno f. 
 (4) ut serves eos a malo c ff. 
 ut serves eos de iniquo d. 
 (5) ut serves eos ex malo. 
 
 When we turn from the Gospels to the Epistles we become 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 161 
 
 conscious of the lack of evidence as to the Old Latin texts. ‘The 
 delusive habit of quoting as Old Latin the Latin texts of bilingual 
 mss,’ Dr Hort remarks (Introduction p. 82), ‘has obscured the real 
 poverty of evidence. It will be sufficient for my present purpose 
 to record the rendering of the Vulgate (Cod. Amiatinus), and to 
 note some of the more important variations as they appear in 
 Patristic quotations. The greatest help is derived here as else- 
 where from the monumental work of Sabatier. Unfortunately 
 none of the passages in the Pauline Epistles, to which I have 
 occasion to refer, are found in the Freisingen Fragments (Ziegler, 
 Itala-fragmenta, Marburg, 1876), which appear to give an ‘ Italian 
 text’ (Dr Hort, Introduction, Notes on Select Readings p. 5). 
 
 Rom. xii. 9 odientes malum. Tert. adv. Mare. v. 14 odio 
 habentes malum. 
 
 1 Cor. v. 13 auferte malum ex vobis ipsis. Compare the group 
 of passages from Deuteronomy (see above, p. 156 f.). Compare 
 Tert. adv. Hermog. 11 frustra laboramus de auferendo malo ex 
 nobis ipsis. That Tertullian took ‘malum’ as masculine is clear 
 from de Pudic. 13 incesto...quem scilicet auferri jussisset de 
 medio ipsorum. The same interpretation is presupposed by the 
 words in de Aleatoribus 4 Apostolus iterum dixit: eximite malos 
 e medio vestro. 
 
 Gal. i. 4 ut eriperet nos de praesenti saeculo nequam. Jerome 
 in loco has de...malo. Augustine in loco and in de Pecc. Mer. 
 (Migne P. L. 44, p. 135) has de...maligno. 
 
 Eph. vi. 12—16 contra spiritualia nequitiae (v. 12)...in die 
 malo (v. 13)...omnia tela nequissimi ignea (v. 16). 
 
 In v. 12 spiritualia nequitiae is as old as Cyprian, Test. iii. 117, 
 and Tert., eg. adv. Marc. v. 18. But there are the following 
 variations (1) hostes spirituales nequitiae (Tert. adv. Mare. iu. 14), 
 (ii) spiritualia malitiae (Tert. adv. Mare. iv. 24, de Jejun. 17). 
 Compare: malitia spiritualis (Apol. 22). (iii) spiritus nequitiae, 
 Cypr. Zp. 55 (58). (iv) spirituales nequitias, so Hilary often, see 
 e.g. in Ps. lv. (Migne P. LZ. 9, p. 390). (v) nequitiam spiritualium 
 (Ambrose de Parad. xii., Migne P. L. 14, p. 302). 
 
 In v. 13 Cyprian [Test. iii. 117, Ep. 55 (58)] has: in die 
 nequissimo; Vigilius Thapsensis de Trinitate xii. (Migne P. L. 62, 
 p. 320) in die maligno. 
 
 Cc. 11 
 
162 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 In v. 16 (1) Cyprian has: omnia candentia iacula nequissimi (Test. 
 iii. 117); (ii) Ambrose (de Sp. Sancto iii. 7, Migne P. L. 16, p. 786) 
 omnia tela maligni ignita; Leo (Serm. 39, Migne P. L. 54, p. 266) 
 omnia tela maligni ignea; (111) Zeno of Verona (Tract. 43, Migne 
 P. L. 11, p. 496) omnes sagittas illius mali. (iv) The following 
 glosses should be noticed. Tertullian has: omnia diaboli ignita 
 tela (adv. Mare. iii. 14), tela diaboli (de Fuga 9). Hilary in an 
 indirect reference has: ignita diaboli tela (in Ps. cxlii., Migne 
 P.L. 9, p. 838). 
 
 2 Thess. iii. 3 qui confirmavit vos et custodiet a malo (v. 2 
 ut liberemur ab importunis et malis hominibus). 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 18 liberabit me Dominus ab omni opere malo. 
 
 1 John ii. 13f. vicistis malignum. Ambrose Enarr. in Ps. 
 xxxvi. § 52 (Migne P. L. 14, p. 992) has: vicistis malum. 
 
 iii. 12 ex maligno erat...opera elus maligna erant. 
 
 v. 18f. malignus non tangit eum...mundus totus in maligno 
 positus est. 
 
 The readings in 1 Jn. ii. 12, v. 18 f. given above are those of 
 the Freisingen Fragments (Ziegler, [tala-fragmenta) which in this 
 Epistle probably represent an ‘Italian’ text (Dr Hort, Notes on 
 Select Readings p. 5). These fragments unfortunately do not 
 include u. 13 f. 
 
 It remains to review the evidence of the Latin Versions, so 
 far as it has been here collected. 
 
 (1) Passages where the neuter is grammatically certain: malum 
 is used in Le. vi. 45, Rom. xii. 9, compare Tertullian’s comment on 
 the passages from Deuteronomy (see above, p. 157); nequam is 
 used in Matt. xii. 35 (1). 
 
 (2) Passages where the masculine is for some reason certain: 
 malus is used in Job xxi. 30, Matt. xii. 19, Le. vi. 45 (2) (4) d, 
 1 Cor. v. 13, 1 John ii. 13f. (Ambrose); malignus in Deut. 
 xxiv. 7 (Augustine), Matt. xiii. 19, 38 (translator of Irenaeus), 
 1 John ii. 13f, ii, 12, v.18 f; nequam in Matt, xii. 19 (1), Le. 
 vi. 45 (4). 
 
 (3) In one or two cases where the gender is grammatically 
 uncertain, a gloss is inserted in the text which witnesses to the 
 hold obtained by the masculine interpretation. Such glosses are 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 163 
 
 diabuli nequam in Matt. xiii. 38 (5), the insertion of the word 
 diaboli in Eph. vi. 16 (see above). Against these must be weighed 
 the filii nequitiae in Matt. xiii. 38, which, it should be noticed, 
 occurs in representatives of two groups of MSS. 
 
 (4) Three words, iniquus, nequam, malignus, are used in 
 some authorities in passages where malus is also found. (a) ini- 
 quus is so found in Deut. (see above, p. 157), Matt. xiii. 38 (2), 
 John xvii. 15 (4). The rare use of the word in this series of 
 passages, in none of which is the masculine interpretation gram- 
 matically certain, has little or no interpretative value. (b) nequam 
 is so found in Deut. (see above, p. 157), Matt. v. 39 (1), xii. 35 (1)*, 
 xill. 19 (1)*, xiii. 38 (4) (5), Le. vi. 45 (4)*, Matt. xii. 35 (de nequa 
 thes.), Gal. i. 4. In the last two places the word is applied to a 
 thing, expressed by a noun; in the passages marked with an 
 asterisk it is certainly masculine. The word is somewhat more 
 naturally used of a person; note the gloss of Q in Matt. xiii. 38 and 
 the use of the superlative, which can hardly be used of abstract 
 evil, in Eph. vi. 16. Hence the occurrence of the word as an 
 alternative rendering in Matt. v. 39, xiii. 38 slightly inclines 
 towards the masculine interpretation of the doubtful phrase in 
 these verses. (c) malignus is the most important alternative 
 translation of zrovnpos. It is found in (i) Matt. xiii. 19 (2) (4) (5), 
 xill. 38 (translator of Iren.), 1 John ii. 13, v. 18 where the masculine 
 is certain ; (11) Gal. i. 4, Eph. vi. 13 (Vigilius), where it qualifies a 
 noun denoting a thing; (ii) Matt. vi. 13 (Tert.), xiii. 38 (1) (2) (3) 
 (4), John xvii. 15 (2) (3), 1 John ii. 12, v. 19, Eph. vi. 16 (Ambr., 
 Leo), where the gender is grammatically doubtful, though in the 
 last passage the masculine is generally admitted for exegetical 
 reasons to be certain. In 1 John iii. 12, v. 18 the gender is 
 masculine, but here there is no evidence that malus was used as 
 a translation. As to these passages, in the first place we notice 
 that the use of malignus to represent zrovnpos is not confined to 
 any one class of authorities but occurs in each in turn. Secondly 
 we ask the question why the word so often takes the place of 
 malus as an equivalent of zovnpos. An answer to this question 
 will be found (a) in a brief study of the use of the word malignus 
 in the Latin Bible; (b) in two passages from Augustine. 
 
 When we turn to the Vulgate as given in the Cod. Amiatinus 
 
 11—2 
 
164 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 we find the word used (i) of persons: Job v. 12, viii. 20, Ps. 
 v. 6 (non habitabit juxta te malignus), ix. 15 (brachium peccatoris 
 et maligni), xiv. 4 (ad nihilum deductus est in conspectu eius 
 malignus), c. 4 (declinantem a me malignum non cognoscebam), 
 exviii. 115 (declinate a me maligni), Le. viii. 2 (curatae ab 
 spiritibus malignis); (ii) of things: Ps. exliiii 10 (de gladio 
 maligno), Baruch i. 22 (cordis nostri maligni), Jas. iv. 16 (omnis 
 exultatio talis maligna est), 2 John 11 (communicat operibus illius 
 malignis), 3 John 10 (verbis malignis garriens in nos). To this 
 last group of passages the following given by Roénsch Jtala uw. 
 Vulgata p. 333 should be added: Prov. xx. 8 non adversabitur ei 
 quidquam malignum Cod. i. 1. 18 (dissipat omue malum Vulyg.), 
 Jer. xxiii, 22 a malignis cogitationibus Wirceb. (a cogitationi- 
 bus suis pessimis Vulg.), Jon. iii. 8, 10 de via sua maligna (mala 
 Vulg.)...a viis suis malignis (via mala Vulg.) Weing. Mic. u. 3 
 quoniam tempus malignum est Fuld. (pessimum est Vulg.). A 
 review of these passages shews that Biblical usage agrees with a 
 priori probability, and that malignus (= maligenus), the opposite 
 of benignus, is naturally and properly used of persons; in the 
 Psalms the word ‘malignus,’ like the word ‘sinner,’ has almost a 
 technical sense. If the word is applied to things, it is almost ex- 
 clusively when personal qualities are transferred to them. 
 
 The two following passages from Augustine shew that this 
 characteristic sense of malignus was explicitly recognised by 
 Latin writers: (a) Quaest. in Deut. 39 (Migne P. L. 34, p. 764), 
 after quoting 1 Cor. v. 13 (auferte malum) he continues: nam 
 Graecus habet tov movnpdv, quod etiam hic scriptum est. Hoc 
 autem potius malignum solet interpretari quam malum, nec ait To 
 sovnpov, id est, hoc malignum, sed tov movnpov, quod est, hunc 
 malignum...Quamvis aliter illud apostolicum possit intelligi ut 
 unusquisque malum vel malignum [note the order in which the 
 alternatives are placed] ex se ipso sit jussus auferre. Qui sensus 
 acceptabilior esset, si hoc malum vel hoc malignum, non autem 
 hune malignum in Graeco inveniretur. Nunc autem credibilius 
 est de homine dictum quam de vitio. Quamquam possit eleganter 
 intelligi etiam homo auferre a se malum hominem (Eph. iv. 22 
 veterem hominem). (b) Aug. in Gal. i. 4 (Migne P. L. 35, p. 2108), 
 seculum praesens malignum propter malignos homines, qui in eo 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE,’ 165 
 
 sunt, intelligendum est, sicut dicimus et cele domum propter 
 malignos cebAbitaates | in ea. 
 
 Thus, in passages where malus is found in the oblique cases, 
 the occurrence of the corresponding case of malignus in other 
 Latin authorities becomes a strong argument for the masculine 
 interpretation. In Matt. v. 37, 39, Le. vi. 45 (malum), where 
 an oblique case of malus occurs without malignum as an 
 alternative rendering, the neuter is the certain or the almost 
 universally accepted interpretation. In 2 Thess. iii. 3 the a 
 malo was probably looked upon as a quotation from the Lord’s 
 Prayer, though it should be remembered that with our present 
 slight evidence for the Latin texts of the Pauline Epistles we are 
 unable to assert that no other rendering was current. Thus 
 we are brought to Matt. vi. 13, Le. xi. 4. Here three points 
 are to be noticed: (1) the rendering a malo was, we may believe, 
 early fixed by devotional usage. It was the obvious translation 
 of the Greek word and seems to be a precise example of the 
 ‘simplicitas interpretationis’ of which Tertullian speaks (adv. 
 Prax. 5, comp. de Monogam. 11). (ii) Tertullian, who discusses 
 the petition in de Oratione and in de Fuga (see above, p. 134 f.), 
 while in both Tracts he adopts the masculine interpretation, in the 
 second of them, which is of later date than the former, character- 
 istically gives the revised rendering a maligno. His attempt to 
 introduce this new rendering brings into prominence the inter- 
 pretation which he had already given of a malo; his failure 
 indicates how strong was the hold which the old translation 
 had on Christian men. (iii) The translation a malo must be 
 viewed in the light of those passages of the New Testament in 
 which the word is certainly masculine, and of those in which 
 the use of an oblique case of malignus in some authorities sup- 
 ports the masculine interpretation of the corresponding case of 
 malus. 
 
 To sum up, the evidence of the Latin Versions taken as a 
 whole, and the decisive evidence of Tertullian and of Cyprian, 
 whose interpretation is repeated by several Latin writers (see 
 above, pp. 67 f., 137 n.) on whom probably the spell of Augustine’s 
 influence had not rested, are the two sides of an arch which, 
 meeting together and mutually strengthening each other, firmly 
 
166 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 support the conclusion that the early Latin-speaking Christians 
 held the last petition of the Lord’s Prayer to refer to Satan}. 
 
 It remains to bring together in a brief statement the main re- 
 sults of this lengthy discussion of different classes of evidence. 
 The record of our Lord’s life and teaching in the Gospels gives 
 what I cannot but think is a conclusive confirmation of the view 
 that Christ taught His followers in the closing petition of the 
 Prayer to ask for deliverance from Satan in his manifold enmity 
 against man. The Apostolic teaching of the Epistles of the New 
 Testament, the witness of writers of the early Church, several of 
 whom happen to be typical writers, the choice of words in certain 
 passages in two of the earliest versions of the New Testament, 
 supply evidence which powerfully supports the verdict based on 
 the testimony of the Gospels. Two passages, however, one from a 
 Pauline Epistle (2 Fim. iv. 17 f.), the other from what is perhaps 
 the earliest Christian document outside the New Testament (see 
 above, pp. 119 ff., 126 f.), may be considered as ambiguous or even as 
 adverse. The utmost however which can be said seems to be that 
 these two passages indicate that the neuter interpretation, which 
 
 1 T have not the knowledge requisite for the discussion of the Egyptian Versions. 
 On two points however I may briefly touch. (i) Canon Cook (A Second Letter p. 
 44), so far as I can judge, makes good his contention, that the Memphitic version has 
 in 1 Jn. y. 19 ‘lieth in evil (wickedness).’ Dionysius of Alexandria, as we have 
 already seen (p. 140), gives the neuter interpretation of that passage. Should we 
 not connect the interpretation given in the Memphitic version with that of 
 Dionysius? In the same way the difficulties which Dionysius felt as to the 
 Apocalypse may reflect the position which the Memphitic and Thebaic versions 
 took as regards this Book (Bp Lightfoot in Scrivener’s Introduction p. 398, ed. 3). 
 Anyhow the example of Dionysius shews that it is possible to affirm the neuter 
 interpretation of 1 Jn. v. 19 and the masculine interpretation of Matt. vi. 13. The 
 interpretation of the former passage in the Memphitic does not raise any presump- 
 tion as to its interpretation of the latter. (ii) Canon Cook, claiming the Memphitic 
 Version as a witness on his side, admits that there is some probability that the 
 Thebaic Version is against him. He seeks however to break the force of this adverse 
 evidence by the suggestion that the masculine rendering is due to the influence of 
 Origen. The answer to this suggestion is two-fold. On the one hand it has been 
 clearly shewn that the masculine interpretation is not the invention of Origen. 
 On the other hand, in the one clause of the Prayer of which the genius of 
 Origen did, as it seems, give currency to a new interpretation, both the Thebaic and 
 Memphitic Versions embody an earlier and simpler interpretation (‘coming bread,’ 
 ‘bread of tomorrow’). 
 
‘DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE.’ 167 
 
 clearly is grammatically possible, was not absolutely unknown in 
 early times. With these two exceptions the tenour of early evi- 
 dence is one. In particular the consideration of the liturgical 
 evidence, where many lines converge towards one point, leaves no 
 doubt as to the way in which the last petition of the Prayer was 
 interpreted in early times or rather, as I think the whole body of 
 evidence clearly shews, continuously from the first, by the devotional 
 ‘instinct of the Christian Church. 
 
VILE 
 
 [“Or1 cof éctin H BaciAeia Kal H AYNAMIC Kal H AGZA €ic TOYC 
 ai@nac. “AMHN (Sr Marruew). | 
 
 TuaT the true text of St Matthew's Gospel has no doxology 
 at the close of the Lord’s Prayer cannot be considered doubtful. 
 The authorities which add a doxology differ as to the exact form. 
 The theory, which finds an explanation of some of the problems 
 connected with the Lord’s Prayer in an adaptation or expansion 
 of the Prayer for liturgical use, has in regard to the doxology its 
 most obvious application. Nowhere except in the petition for 
 ‘daily bread’ has early liturgical usage made so deep and lasting 
 a mark on the Lord’s Prayer as in the addition of the doxology. 
 
 A brief statement of some of the facts about the use of 
 doxologies in the early Church may be useful. The complete 
 discussion of the subject would require thorough knowledge of the 
 liturgical forms of Jews and Christians alike. 
 
 In 1 Chron. xxix. 10f. we have a point where liturgical 
 streams which afterwards flowed widely apart are united. The 
 passage runs thus in the LXX.: evAoynrds el, Kupue 6 Beds “Iopannr, 
 6 TaTHp juav aid Tod aidvos Kal Ews Tod aidvos. ov (so Cod. B; 
 Cod. A cot: Hebr. 7). Kupre, 1 weyadwourn cai 7 dvvapis Kat 
 TO Kavynpa Kal n viKkn Kal H LoxXUs. 
 
 Here side by side are two types of doxologies. The first 
 doxology begins with the word ‘Blessed.’ Such a form occurs 
 frequently in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms. It is 
 the essentially Hebraistic type. It is found in the New Testa- 
 ment (Le. i. 68, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Rom. 1. 25, 1X) 5, luph. 1-3, 
 1 Pet. i. 3), and instances of its use in the worship of the Temple 
 are given in Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae on Matt. vi. 13. It is 
 
THE DOXOLOGY. 169 
 
 very common in Jewish Prayer Books. Its absence, so far as I 
 know, in the liturgical portions of early Christian literature’ 
 suggests that it had not so prominent a place in the formulas 
 of the Hellenistic as in those of the Hebrew Synagogues. 
 
 The second doxology is of the kind familiar to us in connexion 
 with the Lord’s Prayer. Such passages in the Old Testament as 
 Ps. xxviii. 1, xev. 7, ciii. 31, 1 Chron. xvi. 27 should be compared. 
 This type of doxology is very common in the New Testament. 
 Bp Westcott (Hebrews p. 464f.) has collected the passages and 
 has brought out many points of interest in regard to them. Out- 
 side the Apostolic writings, it is very frequently found, its exact 
 form varying, in the liturgical portions of the Didaché, of Cle- 
 ment’s Epistle, of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The phenomena 
 are all explained if we suppose that this liturgical usage passed 
 over from the Synagogues of the Hellenistic Jews into those of 
 the Christian ‘Brethren.’ ‘The evidence for this will, at least in 
 part, appear in the following discussion. | 
 
 In this form of doxology there are normally four elements: 
 (i) The reference to God—ooi, cod, ate, @. (11) The verb, which 
 is always, I believe, in the indicative, éoriv, e.g. Didaché viii. 2, 
 Clem. 58. The verb however is commonly omitted, always so in 
 the simplest forms. (iii) That which is ascribed to God, ‘glory,’ 
 ‘power. (iv) The description of eternity. . 
 
 Thus the simplest form is: 
 
 (i) oot (g) 
 
 [(ii) éoriv] 
 
 (iii) 1 d0&a 
 
 (iv) els Tovs aldvas (Tov aidvwv) (anv). 
 
 This form is found in Gal. i.5, *Rom. xi. 36, 2 Tim. iv. 18, Hebr. 
 xill. 21, Did. ix. *2, *3, x. *2, *4, Ep. Clem. 38, 43, 45, 50, ‘the 
 Ancient Homily’ 20 (where the simple formula av7@...sums up 
 an elaborate preface 76 puov@ Oe@ aopaty x.T.r.), *Clem. Hom. (ed. 
 
 1 Ign. Eph. 1 can hardly be considered an exception. It is however found in 
 the Liturgies, e.g. ‘Clementine’ Liturgy (Hammond p. 16) dyos...ris d6&qs adrod: 
 ebdoy7ros els Tovs aldvas* dujv. Lit. of St James (Hammond p. 26, Swainson p. 218) 
 weO? od evroyTOs el Kal Sedotacuévos ody TH mavaryly Kal dyaG Kal fworog cou mvev- 
 part, vov Kal del Kal els rods aldvas. dujv. So in Lit. St Chrys. (Hammond p. 119, 
 Swainson p. 136). Thus the ancient form was elaborated and Christianised, 
 
170 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 Dressel p. 9). The passages marked with an asterisk have the 
 simpler e’s tovs atdvas. In all the passages except those in the 
 Didaché apnv is added’. This last point is of itself sufficient to 
 mark the formula as liturgical. 
 
 Each of the elements in this normal form admits of variation 
 and elaboration. The variations in (iv) are not of great importance. 
 In the Didaché the severely simple eis tov’s aidvas is throughout 
 adhered to. In Clement 64 we find cai viv cal eis 1avtas Tovs 
 aiavas Tév aidvwv, in Mart. Polyc. 21 amo yeveds els yeveay 
 (cf. 14). Still more elaborate forms occur in Eph. iii. 21, Jude 25, 
 2 Pet. i. 18. 
 
 The elaboration of (iii) gives rise to very various forms. When 
 d0€a stands alone it always has the article. When another word 
 is added, usage varies, but the variations can be left out of 
 account. In 1 Tim. vi. 16, 1 Pet. iv. 11 (comp. v. 11), Apoe. 1. 6 
 (ro) Kpatos, in the Didaché (viii. 2, ix. 4, x. 5) 7 SU¥vapts is added. 
 Longer forms are found in Jude 25 (d0f4 peyaXwovvn Kpatos 
 kal é€ovcia), Apoc. v. 13, vii. 12 (7 evAoyia Kai 7 S0€a Kal 7 
 copia Kai 7 evxapioTia kal 7 Ton Kal 7 Suvapyss Kal 7 toxvs), 
 Clem. 64 (d0&a kai weyadwovvn, Kpatos, Tyun, comp. 61, 65, Mart. 
 Polyc. 20, 21). 
 
 There is no variation in regard to (ii), unless the ae of 
 Apoc. xii. 10 should be noticed in this connexion, until we turn to 
 the Liturgies. Thus, to take a single example which will also 
 illustrate the elaboration of later doxologies, in the Liturgy of St 
 James (Hammond p. 48, Swainson p. 324f.) we find the following 
 form: col yap mpémer kal érodpeiieTat Tapa TavT@V nuoVY Taca 
 SoEoAroyia, Tin, TMporKUynats, Kal evYaploTia, TO TaTpl Kal TO 
 Va Kal TO ayiw TvEevpaTL, VdV Kal aél, Kal Eis TOUS aldvas TaV 
 alwvev. 
 
 The variations in (i) have a special importance, for through 
 them the ancient form, inherited, as I suppose, from the Jewish 
 Synagogue, became Christianised. This new stamp was given to 
 the doxology in one of three ways. (a) Sometimes the divine 
 glory is ascribed to the Son. This is the case in 2 Tim. iv. 18, 
 2 Pet. 111. 18, Apoc. 1. 6, Mart. Polyc. 21.1, 4, and perhaps in Clem. 
 
 1 But when the doxology of Did. ix. 3 reappears in Constit. Ap. vii. 25 and in 
 Athan. de Virgin. 13, the aujv is added. 
 
THE DOXOLOGY. cal 
 
 20,50. (b) Sometimes Christ is represented as the mediator (6v’ of), 
 as in Rom. xvi. 27’, Jude 25, Didaché ix. 4, Clem. 58, 61, 64, 65, 
 Mart. Polyc. 14 (the Martyr’s prayer), 20. (c) Sometimes the 
 Three Persons of the Trinity are named. I do not think that 
 this form occurs earlier than the prayer of Polycarp before his 
 martyrdom, 8’ ob cot atv avT@ Kal Tvevpate ayiw 7 d0€a (14); 
 so 22,3 (6 7 d0£a ovv tatpi Kal ayiw mvevpate). 
 
 In the controversies of the fourth century about the doctrine 
 of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the varying forms of doxology, 
 which fall under the last head, were degraded into the watch- 
 words of theological strife. For this stage of their history it must 
 be sufficient to refer to the locus classicus in Hooker's Ecclesiastical 
 Polity v. 42. 7 ff." 
 
 The earliest doxologies, to pass to a subordinate matter, appear 
 to begin with a personal pronoun (cod, cov), or with the relative 
 (6). The insertion of étc (6Te cov éoruv x.7.d.) is as old as the 
 Didaché, where it is used to introduce the doxology at the close of 
 two Eucharistic formulas (ix. 4, x. 5), and also at the end of the 
 Lord’s Prayer (viii. 2). Though the form of the doxology at the 
 end of the Lord’s Prayer varied, yet (so far as I have observed) it 
 always commences with o7.*. It may be added that, when the 
 doxology came into use as a formula complete in itself, or, espe- 
 cially in the Western Church, as the constant ending of the Psalms 
 recited in worship (Bingham Antiquities Bk. xIv. ch. ii.), the 
 first element of the normal form was eliminated altogether. This 
 adaptation is probably to be traced back through the Gloria in 
 Excelsis (Apost. Constit. vii. 47) to the Angelic Hymn (Le. ii. 14 
 d0fa év vrwiotous Ged x.7..). The grace after meat in Athan. 
 de Vurgin. 14, a tract which preserves very ancient forms, 
 contains perhaps the oldest instance of this usage. It is as 
 follows: €Aejpov Kal olxTipywyv oO KUptos, Tpopyy EdwKE Tots 
 
 1 Comp. the very remarkable form in Eph. iii. 21 (atr@ 7 ddéa év 7H éxxXnoig Kal 
 év Xptor@ Iyc00). 
 
 2 The familiar words of the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed (ro otv rarpi kal vid... 
 ouvdotéagopuevov) are of course a relic of this strife. 
 
 3 Thus the doxology was taken in close connexion with the petition for de- 
 liverance from Satan. Thus Chrysostom in loco: ovxotv ef abrov éorw 4 Bacidela, 
 ovdéva Sedoixévar xp, are ovdevds dvrTos TOU avOicrapévov, Kal mpos avrov THY apxnv 
 dtaveumopévov. 
 
72 THE LORD’S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 , ,’ , , \ \ ta .7 ¢ A , A 
 poBovpévars avtov: S0£a mwartpi Kal vid Kal ayiw mvevpate Kal 
 nr ’ wn 
 VOUV Kal aélt Kal Els TOUS alovas. 
 
 From the form of the doxologies we turn to the position which 
 they occupy in early Christian writings. If we put aside the 
 Apostolic Epistles, it is true to say that they are found with but 
 few exceptions in a liturgical context. This becomes clear as to 
 the prayer of Polycarp when the words which precede the doxology 
 are quoted, ‘For this cause, yea and for all things, I praise Thee, 
 I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly 
 High Priest, Thy beloved Son, through Whom to Thee with Him 
 and the Holy Spirit be glory both now [and ever] and for the 
 ages to come. Amen.’ Here Bp Lightfoot draws attention to 
 the close parallel between these words and the Gloria in Ezcelsis 
 as given in Apost. Constit. vii. 47, and notes the liturgical 
 complexion of the words which follow, avaréuaavtos 8 avtod 70 
 dynv (comp. e.g. Justin Martyr Apol. i. 65, 67). Polycarp in fact 
 is represented as using when he came to die a form of prayer 
 closely akin to that which he had often used as 6 zrpoeato's, to 
 quote Justin’s phrase, in the congregation. 
 
 What Polycarp did in the hour of his fiery triumph, Clement 
 does all through his letter. In the prayer at the close of the 
 Epistle, in which two of the doxologies referred to above are 
 found, ‘his language, says Bishop Lightfoot, ‘naturally runs into 
 those antithetical forms and measured cadences which his minis- 
 trations in the Church had rendered habitual with him.’ But 
 this is not all. ‘The litany at the close is only the climax of the 
 epistle, which may be regarded as one long psalm of praise and 
 thanksgiving on the glories of nature and of grace’ (Bp Lightfoot 
 Clement i. p. 386)’. 
 
 Even more instructive is the study of the doxologies in the 
 Didaché. Here there are three forms of doxology. (a) The simple 
 form col 7 do€a eis Tovs aidvas. This occurs in the thanksgiving 
 over the cup (ix. 2), over the bread (To kAacpa) (ix. 3), twice (x. 
 
 1 Two points in detail may be noticed, (a) three doxologies occur in close con- 
 nexion with the mention of the divine Name (43, 45, 64); (b) the parallel between 
 ovTos...€\\bytmos Zora els Tov apOpdv TGV cwtouevww dad "I. Xp., dv’ ob x.7.d. (58, see Bp 
 Lightfoot’s note) and Mart. Polyc. 14 (rod NaBetv we wépos év dpiOug Tov wapripwr). 
 
THE DOXOLOGY. 173 
 
 2, 4) in the Eucharistic formula after Communion (pera 70 
 éutAnoOnvat). The substantial identity of this form with that 
 found in the Apostolic Epistles and in Clement has already been 
 pointed out (p. 169). (b) The longest form in the Didaché (cod 
 €otiv 9 dofa Kal n Sdvauts ba “Inood Xpiotov eis Tovs aidvas) 
 occurs at the close of the remarkable prayer that the Church may 
 be made one as the bread is one (ix. 4). (c) The intermediate 
 form (cov éotw 7 Svvauis Kal n dd£€a eis Tos aidvas) closes the 
 second prayer for the gathering together of the Church’ (x. 5) and 
 also the Lord’s Prayer (viii. 2). 
 
 Regarding these passages together, we learn that the liturgical 
 usage of the Christian Church, inherited no doubt from the 
 Hellenistic Synagogues, was to close a prayer with a doxology. 
 The passages in the Didaché and in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 
 are obvious examples of this custom. A doxology ends the great 
 prayer in Clement’s Epistle (59—61) and the prayer in c. 64. 
 Hence the addition of a doxology to the Lord’s Prayer was the 
 simple following out of the prevailing use. 
 
 This conclusion is fully corroborated by the evidence sup- 
 plied by the Didaché. Here the same doxology which closes 
 the post-communion form of thanksgiving and intercession (x. 5) 
 closes also the Lord’s Prayer (viii. 2). No testimony could be 
 clearer or more to the point than this. It might further be 
 suggested that the frequent connexion of a doxology with 
 liturgical forms belonging to the Eucharistic Service of Holy 
 Communion (Didaché, Clement, Prayer of Polycarp) points to the 
 purpose of the addition of the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer, viz. 
 the adaptation of the Prayer for use in that service’. 
 
 1 The formula in c, x. may be said to contain in an embryo form what appeared 
 in later liturgies as (a) the Great Intercession (e.g. Hammond p. 18); (b) the ex- 
 pansion of the Lord’s Prayer (Preface, Embolismus; e.g. Hammond p. 47f.); (c) the 
 formula 7a ayia Tots arylous (ef Tis ayids ori, epxéoOw Did.; Hammond p. 21, where 
 as in Did. the words wcavva 7 vig AaBid have a place in the context). 
 
 * It should be noted however that in the Liturgy to which Cyril of Jerusalem 
 witnesses (Catech. xxiii. 18) the Prayer closed with adujv without a doxology. It is 
 remarkable that in two passages where St Paul seems to be referring to the last 
 petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Gal. i. 4 f., 2 Tim. iv. 18 ff., see above, pp. 115, 119) he 
 passes into a doxology, using the same form in both places. The immediate occasion 
 of the thanksgiving no doubt is the thought of deliverance, general (Gal. i, 4) and 
 
174 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 One point remains to be considered, the variation in the form 
 of the doxology which is attached to the Lord’s Prayer in different 
 authorities. The fact that such diversities exist of itself confirms 
 the conclusion at which we have arrived. <A consideration of 
 some of these variations still further strengthens the position. 
 We will confine our attention to the third element (iii) in the 
 doxology, which is indeed its kernel. 
 
 The Old Latin Cod. Bobiensis (k) has: quoniam est tibi virtus 
 in saecula saeculorum. If virtus here represents 1 dvvayis, this 
 form in which the simple 7 dvvaycs takes the place of the simple 
 7 d£a is, so far as I know, unique. The simple to «patos (Vulg. 
 imperium) is found in 1 Pet. v. 11. 
 
 The Thebaic Version has: quoniam tuum est robur et potentia 
 in aevum aevi. Here also, if the Greek text represented is 7 
 Svvapis kal 7 icyvs (Dr Hort, Introduction, Notes on Select 
 Readings p. 8), we have a unique form. 7 éoyvs however has a 
 place in 1 Chron. xxix. 11; combined with a preceding 7 dvvayts 
 it ends the long series in Apoc. vii. 12. This may be considered 
 sufficient evidence for the supposition that this form was current 
 in the worship of the Hellenistic Synagogues. Gregory of Nyssa 
 (Migne P. G. 44, p. 1193) ends his exposition of the Lord’s Prayer 
 thus, do tov movnpod Tov év TO KOTUw TOUTM THY LaXDY KEKTN- 
 pévou, ov pucbeinuer yapite TOD ypioTod, bTe avTe n SUvapus Kal 
 n dofa Gua TH TaTpl Kal TO ayiw TvevpaTL Viv Kal adel Kai Els 
 Tovs aldvas TaV aiwvwv' aunv. The passage is a good illustration 
 of the combination of elaboration and conservatism which is 
 an important element in liturgical history. The kernel of the 
 doxology (7 Svvayis cal 7 S0£a) is identical with that of the 
 doxology which ends the Lord’s Prayer in the Didaché (viii. 2, 
 x, 5). 
 
 The Old Syriac, which presupposes a Greek text 7 Baovdela 
 xai » S0€a, is, so far as I know, the earliest form in which ‘the 
 kingdom’ has a place. It would appear probable in view of such 
 passages as Ps. exliv. 11 (80£av rHs Baoidrelas cov épodaw), 12 
 that this doxology is an independent form. However this may be, 
 it is remarkable that 7 Bacwdeta does not occur in the doxologies 
 
 personal (2 Tim. iv. 18). But if the doxology was already in use at the end of the 
 Lord’s Prayer (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 16), devotional habit may have prompted the addition. 
 
THE DOXOLOGY. 175 
 
 with which we have at present dealt. The nearest approach to it 
 is in the doxology with which Clement ends his letter, 5d£a, tip, 
 Kpatos Kal peyadkwavvn, Opovos aiwvos’ (so Mart. Polyc. 21). 
 The extraordinary richness in this respect of the Apocalypse 
 supplies a doxological form containing the word, dptu éyévero 7} 
 gwTnpia Kal » dvvamis Kai 4 Bacidela Tob Oeod Hyav Kal 1 
 éfovala tod ypioTov av’tod (xii. 10, comp. xi. 15, 17). This 
 passage, taken in connexion with the fact that the Hebrew of 
 
 1 Chron. xxix, 11 is nabpon myn 1, which is represented in 
 
 some forms of the LXx. by coi, Kupue, 7 Bacrdela (see Field 
 exapla, in loco), tends to shew that a form of doxology with a 
 reference to ‘the kingdom’ may have been current among the 
 Jews’; the combination of authorities—the Hebrew text of the 
 Old Testament, the Apocalypse, the Old Syriac—suggests that the 
 form was Hebrew rather than Hellenistic. 
 
 The doxology, which closes the Lord’s Prayer in the familiar 
 English use*, and which may be a conflation of the form just 
 noticed (7 Bacsdeia xai 7 Sofa) and the form witnessed to by 
 ‘the Didaché (7 Suvayis cai 7 do€a), is first, I believe, found in 
 the Apost. Constit. 11. 18, vu. 24* It occurs in Chrysostom’s 
 Commentary on St Matthew (vii. 253D), at the close of the 
 Embolismus in the Liturgy of St James (Hammond p. 48, 
 Swainson p. 309) and in other Liturgies, e.g. in the Anaphora of 
 St Basil (Hammond p. 126, Swainson p. 167), though in the 
 Liturgies a reference to the Holy Trinity and a more elaborate 
 description of eternity are added. The fact that it gained a place 
 in the ‘Syrian’ text explains its almost undisputed supremacy in 
 later times. 
 
 If the further question is asked why copyists and translators 
 and commentators add a doxology to the longer form of the Prayer 
 found in St Matthew’s Gospel, the answer is not far to seek, and it 
 
 1 Ps. xliv. 7 6 Apdvos cov, 6 Beds, els aidva aidvos. Comp. Hebrews i. 8f. 
 
 2 Comp. Dan. vii. 14 kal adre €600n 4 apxn Kai) Tym Kal ) Baowdela (Theod, ; so 
 Chald.); kal €600n atrg@ éfovcla kal Tinh BacidLKy (LXx.). 
 
 3 It is worth notice that while the A.V. has the kingdom and the power and the 
 glory, the rendering in the Prayer Book has the kingdom, the power, and the glory. 
 
 4 T refer to Lagarde’s text. The Editio princeps (see Lagarde’s Preface p. iv.) 
 in the latter place has simply 7 BactXeia. 
 
176 THE LORD'S PRAYER IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 supplies one more confirmation of the theory that the doxology is 
 a liturgical accretion. At least when the period of purely oral 
 transmission was over and the Gospel of St Matthew and that of 
 St Luke were in general circulation and were seen to present two 
 different forms of the Prayer, a longer and a shorter, the natural 
 desire for fulness and completeness would ensure the longer form 
 as given by St Matthew being employed in the public Prayers of 
 the Church and being as time went on embodied in the Liturgies. 
 Thus to this longer form the doxology would become regularly 
 attached. This obvious conjecture as to the earliest devotional 
 usage of the Church is confirmed by the evidence of the Didaché. 
 Thus even from sub-Apostolic days liturgical custom would 
 suggest the interpolation of a doxology in St Matthew’s Gospel 
 alone. 
 
 To sum up, the evidence which we have considered seems to 
 shew that several different forms of doxology, ultimately to be 
 traced to the Old Testament, were in common use in the earliest 
 years of the Church’s life; that the public prayers, especially those 
 of the Eucharistic Service, generally concluded with one or other of 
 these doxologies; that from the first the Lord’s Prayer, like other 
 prayers, had attached to it now one doxology, now another; that, 
 as the Didaché in particular seems to suggest, the Lord’s Prayer 
 was in this way frequently adapted for use at the Service of Holy 
 Communion; finally that one form of doxology, which appears to 
 be a conflation of two distinct forms, was added to the Prayer in 
 the ‘Syrian’ text of St Matthew’s Gospel and so has remained the 
 common conclusion of the Prayer since the fourth century. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Acta Thomae, 36; Syriac Version, 40 n., 
 58 n. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles; ii. 40, 81f.; x. 38, 
 O7ploay xi. 11 a0; xii. 17, Sn. 
 
 Agathangelus, 17, 32 f., 38, 63 
 
 Antichrist ; conception of, 88 
 
 Aphraates, Homilies of; petition for 
 forgiveness, 58 
 
 Apocalypse; ii. 9 and iii. 9, 3; iii. 10, 
 82 
 
 Augustine; on glosses in petition against 
 temptation, 63, 67; on malignus, 164 
 
 a\Néorpios, 6, 143 n. 
 
 avtiduxos, 120 n. 
 
 amé after pvecAac and similar verbs, 71 
 ff. 
 
 amoorjvat, used of persons, 114 n. 
 
 ipiévar, O4 f. 
 
 Baptismal and ‘Confirmation’ Offices ; 
 Greek and Latin, 28 f., 151; Syrian, 37 
 
 Barnabas, the Epistle of; use of o 
 movnpos, 98 ff. 
 
 Belial; in later Jewish literature, 87 
 
 Bishops’ Book; Lord’s Prayer in, 35 n., 
 69 f. 
 
 slo (WN3); meaning of root, 92 
 
 Christian men; 
 118 f., 129 ff. 
 
 Chromatius; gloss in petition against 
 temptation, 67 
 
 1 Chronicles; xxix. 10 f., 168, 175 
 
 Chrysostom; on émovovos, 49; on Matt. 
 vy. 37 ff., 95; on amo Tod mov., 91; on 
 
 C. 
 
 power of Satan over, 
 
 Doxology, 171, 175; on John xii. 27, 
 80 
 
 Church; prayer for gathering together 
 of, 18 n., 151 
 
 Clement of Alexandria; use of 6 7rovypos, 
 100 
 
 Clementine Homilies ; use of 6 rovnpos, 
 100, 116, 133 
 
 Clementine Liturgy; 
 Satan, 141 ff. 
 
 Colossians, Epistle to; i, 12 ff., 117 ff. 
 
 Cook, Canon; Letters on azo Tod rovnpod, 
 71, and passim 95—167 
 
 Corinthians, First Epistle to; ii. 9, 17: 
 Second Ep.; i. 10, 78; xii. 7f., 114 f. 
 
 Cyprian; on last two petitions of Lord’s 
 Prayer, 64, 136 f. j 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem; on ad rod rovnpou, 
 131, 144 f. 
 
 prayers against 
 
 Didaché; 12 f., 16 f., 23 n., 33 f., 53 n., 
 126 f., 172 f. 
 
 Dionysius of Alexandria; on last two 
 petitions of Lord’s Prayer, 68, 139 f. 
 Doxology; development of, 168 ff.; used 
 after prayers and in Eucharistic Ser- 
 vice, 172; different forms at end of 
 
 Lord’s Prayer, 174 f. 
 
 Egyptian Versions; Memphitic, on ér- 
 tovocros, 46 n.; Memphitic and The- 
 baic on amo Tov ov., 166 n.; Thebaic, 
 form of doxology, 174 
 
 Ephrem; on petition for daily bread, 
 49 f. 
 
 12 
 
178 
 
 Esther, Book of; iv. 16, 73 n., 126 
 
 Evil, Powers of; teaching of O.T. on, 
 86 f. 
 
 elcedOeitv; Aramaic original word, 61 f. 
 
 eloevéyxac; Aramaic original word, 61 f. 
 
 éx after pvec@a: and similar verbs, 71 ff. 
 
 éxxeG; Pentecostal keyword, 21 
 
 évertws, 116 f, 
 
 éfeMOetv; Aramaic equivalent, 124 n. 
 
 émiovewos; origin of the word, 46 f. 
 
 épnuepos, 49 n. 
 
 70 Kad’ juepav, 43 
 
 Galatians, Epistle to; i. 3 f., 115 ff, 
 173 n. 
 
 Gethsemane, Garden of; place where 
 Christ taught the Lord’s Prayer to 
 Apostles, 123 ff. 
 
 Gloria Patri, 171 
 
 Gnostics; parodies of Church Prayers, 36 
 
 Gospels; origin of Synoptic, 8 ff., 19 ff. 
 
 Greek Jewish Prayers, 16 ff., 121, 126, 
 150 
 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 25, 107 n., 174 
 
 Hebrews, Epistle to; v. 7, 81 
 
 Hebrews, Gospel according to; petition 
 for daily bread, 52 
 
 Hermas, Shepherd of, 130 f. 
 
 Hilary; gloss on petition against temp- 
 tation, 66 f.; on do Tov rovnpod, 67, 
 137 n. 
 
 Homily, the Ancient; on amo rod rovn- 
 pov, 128 ff. 
 
 Hort, Dr, 24, 35, 41, 68 n., 158 ff. 
 
 Hymns, Latin Pentecostal, 38 
 
 DQ 0 (357), 55 
 
 James, St, Epistle of; references to 
 Christ’s sayings, 48; i. 2 (Syriac), 
 G2 2 48) nyse b) tts, 40 dhe 
 
 Jerome; on émovowos, 49, 52; gloss on 
 petition against temptation, 67 
 
 Jewish Authorised Prayer Book, 31 f., 
 39 n., 41 
 
 Invocation; forms of, 28 ff. 
 
 Job, Book of; xxi. 30 (in Latin Versions), 
 157 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 John, St, Gospel according to; xii. 27, 
 80 f.; xvii. 15, 109 ff.: First Epistle 
 of, v. 18 f., 122 
 
 Isaiah, Book of; Ixiii. 16 ff., 31 
 
 > 
 
 King’s Book; petition against tempta- 
 tion, 69 
 
 Kyrie eleison; origin, 15 n. 
 
 KaTaoKknvouy, 34 
 
 Lightfoot, Bp; on liturgical element in 
 Ep. Clem., 17; in Mart. Polyc., 172; 
 on émiovotos, 44n., 49; Letters on amo 
 Tov movnpou, 71 
 
 Lion; image of Satan, 120 
 
 Liturgies; evidence on glosses in petition 
 against temptation, 68 f.; on amé Tov 
 movnpov, 141 ff., 151; forms of dox- 
 ology, 170, 175 : 
 
 Lord’s Prayer; origin according to Matt. 
 and Le., 11; rule as to its use in 
 Didaché, 12; original Aramaic form, 
 13; order of clauses in Tertullian, 27; 
 liturgical adaptations, 28, 35, 45 f., 
 63 ff., 66 ff., 168 
 
 Luke, St; i. 74, 78; xxii. 28 ff., 108 f. 
 See ‘Songs’ 
 
 Mark, Sts x1. 25, 57; "xvi. 15, 19 f, 
 p. 21 
 
 Marshall, Prof.; on Synoptic question, 
 19; on Aramaic original of petition 
 for forgiveness, 59 
 
 Matthew, St; v. 37, 39, p. 95f.; vi. 14f., 
 O03) Xl. 28, 97; xii. 38, 155, 159) f 
 Xvill. 35, 57 n. 
 
 véXas, 6; a name for Satan, 99 n. 
 
 Malignus; meaning and use, 163 f. 
 
 Name, the divine; invocation in Baptism, 
 Spits 
 Numbers, Book of; xvi., 21 ff., 81 f. 
 
 Old Latin Version; glosses in Lord’s 
 Prayer, 23 n., 64 f.; classification of 
 MSS., 158; rendering of rovnpos, 159 ff. ; 
 doxology, 174 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Origen; on dro rou rovnpou, 138 f. 
 
 épOarpds wownpos; meaning of phrase, 
 93 n. 
 
 ovpavos, ovpayol, 23 n., 41 n. 
 
 Page, Mr T. E., 5n., 11, 43, 55 
 
 Peter of Alexandria; on aro rou wovnpou, 
 140 
 
 ‘Philo; fragments of Greek Jewish 
 Prayers in his writings, 19 n. 
 
 Polycarp: Epistle of, on petition for 
 forgiveness, 56 f.; liturgical frag- 
 ment in Martyrdom of, 172 
 
 movnpos; etymology, 89; social and 
 political meaning, 90 f.; explanation 
 by Aristotle, 92 n.; Hebrew and 
 Syriac equivalents, 91 f.; usein N.T., 
 93; applied to spiritual powers, 93; 
 meaning of 6 movnpos, 94; Latin 
 renderings of, 156 ff. 
 
 Romans, Epistle to; vii. 24, 78; xvi. 
 25 f., 9n. 
 
 vu; meaning of root, 91 
 
 pverGar; constructions after, 78f., 144 n. 
 
 Sibylline Oracles; on evil powers, 87 
 
 Solomon, Psalms of; compared with 
 Jewish Prayers and ‘Songs’ in Le., 
 150 
 
 ‘Songs’ in St Luke’s Gospel; compared 
 with Ep. Clem. 128, with Jewish 
 Prayers, 147 ff. 
 
 Synagogues; in Jerusalem, 1 f.; among 
 Christian Hebrews, 2; and Helle- 
 nists, 5 
 
 Syriac Versions; approximately repre- 
 sent Aramaic original of Christ’s 
 
 179 
 
 sayings, 39 n.; renderings of éxtovcuos, 
 51 f., and of petition against tempta- 
 tion, 61 f.; on ard rot xovnpou, 154 ff. ; 
 form of doxology, 174 
 
 OQ», 54 
 
 oxodoy, 114 n. 
 
 cuvayury7, 3 f. 
 
 Tatian’s Diatessaron; Arabic Version, 
 50 f. 
 
 Temptation of our Lord, 103 ff. 
 
 Tertullian; order of earlier clauses of 
 Prayer, 27; on petition for Holy 
 Spirit, 26 f.; on petition for forgive- 
 ness, 58 f.; on ‘ne nos inducas,’ 65, 
 134 f.; on ‘a malo,’ 134 f.; use of 
 ‘malus,’ 135 f. 
 
 Test. xii. Patriarch., 88 n. 
 
 Theophilus ad Autol., 97 n. 
 
 Thessalonians, First Epistle to; i. 10, 
 78 f.: Second Epistle to; iii. 1 ff., 
 112 f. 
 
 Timothy, Second Epistle to; iv. 17 f., 
 79, 119 ff., 173 n. 
 
 Ta GeAnuara, 39 
 
 Vienne and Lyons, Letter of, 100, 132 
 Vulgate MSS. ; glosses.in Lord’s Prayer, 
 23 n., 65; rendering of rrovnpos, 159 ff. 
 
 Ways, the Two; compared with ‘the 
 
 Two Impulses,’ 102 
 
 Westcott, Bp, 1 n., 49n., 97 n., 157 f., 
 169 
 
 Wisdom, Book of; ii. 23 f., 87 
 
 Wordsworth, Bp J., 64, 158 
 
 Yetser ha Ra, 89, 101 ff. 
 
 Se 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 

 
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT 
 COPYRIGHT LAW 
 OCKER & TRAPP INC. 
 AND 
 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 
 PRODUCED THIS REPLACEMENT VOLUME 
 ON WEYERHAEUSER COUGAR OPAQUE NATURAL PAPER, 
 THAT MEETS ANSI/NISO STANDARDS Z239.48-1992 
 TO REPLACE THE IRREPARABLY 
 DETERIORATED ORIGINAL. 2000 
 

 

 

 
 0 
 > 
 =f 
 m 
 
 DUE 
 
 
 
 A\ 
 
 = 
 ‘ 
 y = . 
 - * =P hae Cc 7 
 ‘ ry B 
 -. 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 ries 
 
 i 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A 
 

 
 F t 
 7 
 ‘ Ay) 
 ™ hi x} 
 Ve b 
 ae it) “0 ; f 4 
 ; ry, { 
 
 ru Na iy 
 
i 
 
 Ea 
 
 . 
 
 iy 
 
 we 
 
 Mh: ie Taek oth ob 
 BP bEasat Rl Fab Ue tee 
 Lae 
 
 ee aE 
 ‘ 
 HE aemiast 
 te hamieateal ites 
 Feemrbie tat abed 
 hi, 
 Pe Trees 
 
 nena eahet 
 Aca w an snot et ' 
 i nea BR OE: 
 peptasr aa) 
 
 Arar 
 A ties 
 
 faba Bar 
 OSG pe ei we 
 ne eb dot Py OEE ta en tinct 
 Peeresrurtee tritic 
 Fides tb Be 
 
 t baht 
 be 
 booed ave 
 > 
 
 ernetadite 3 
 re barbie tr 
 beg heb te heh hak bpd eebet 
 Letabunahsbeted® 
 
 Sete 
 Pe ore 
 
 = abe man Doe hae 
 
 Peay 
 Boel t ated bee 
 
 eran 
 Perera eee 
 ae t 
 ty 
 sheik 
 Boge hgh) f ott 
 We otek ghar hak t 
 ad Beh tet of t 
 A 
 Sh bed ntan) Pobabat eval 
 poe teed. 
 ’ 
 
 Moshe tsbitveedy 
 
 whet icied hada bi ble 
 
 Tyncines 
 Dareh da tabe 
 ores 
 
 rs 
 Pte 
 Fiat ba nanl of 
 
 thunk 
 pater acecal 
 pea dehet 
 nae bab Pet ateee 
 
 peat seeirts n 
 bbrihest 
 
 cha anes be ded 
 Bees 
 
 Bede le 
 en 
 
 etetitan fl 
 Te ipda eed 
 rete) 
 
 Seat 
 tee 
 bedaea 
 
 zroete 
 weretediutent ooh 
 Pa een Td 
 
 Maret tages 
 bd Weer 
 
 Pee 
 Poteeran a 
 
 note er men? 
 nee 
 
 hae 
 pari tt teb 
 (ibpc enemy eed 
 bb tart 
 vyaretie 
 Pat 
 
 BAD et Det 
 trite 
 
 it 5 
 Noaadrece ht tals 
 tat ta hat pee stah eae italy 
 Yeabemat 
 
 ite 
 heeded 
 
 pane body p eprecgt 
 
 Bitar ated eseat Ue 
 
 Dadageendabets ree 
 
 i 
 
 Petia 4 
 
 whpretat eran 
 6) PF LPrer ier J 
 
 Furarere : 
 
 ere tel 
 
 shared 
 aeutieenurets 
 
 Peper tp ern eee 
 Cire 
 
 . * 
 
 Lise tries 
 
 ‘ " 
 eye tees 
 
 tt 
 
 Faas 
 iA 
 eetbeg tetera’ “eta ey 
 wepnegere 
 Lt cheat ates 
 a 
 
 Teed 
 dese ee 
 
 ‘f fir sees 
 pteres ett esas t 
 Wiiteate 
 
 ror 
 
 t 
 eared ty Ti b patie 
 
 Pee 
 moat 
 
 fyrtee 
 aareeat 
 PiaETL 
 
 furig 
 
 atetvetes 
 vee 
 
 Toe iG) aa ba 
 
 Vutec 
 
 (Pig tthe artee tery 
 Tiga, ee ies 
 Pale TA) 
 SUSrDa 
 Perey, 
 
 ne ¢ 
 ee ea tet alfa 
 
 Peeerar ae 
 
 ties 
 
 patneme gee 
 
 Us 
 
 Aerie tates