Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §16.2
A possible tradition history may be suggested by the echo of the Lord's
Prayer in Mark, 38 surprising since Mark does not contain the Lord's Prayer. The
parallel suggests that the Gethsemane story was put into this form by someone
aware of the Lord's Prayer, presumably to underscore the seriousness of the circumstances
envisaged in the Prayer, 39 and to present Jesus' own prayer as an exemplary
model. This in turn suggests that the memory of Jesus' distraught state
in Gethsemane had burnt itself deep into the remembrance of those who had been
closest to him. 40 On the other hand, since the Lord's Prayer could itself have provided
the template on which the story was formed, 41 we cannot draw the further
corollary with any confidence that they heard the prayer itself. Yet at the same
time, we have to ask what would have prompted the first tradents to present Jesus
as praying in the manner he taught them other than the knowledge/memory that
he did so pray? 42
Is there then evidence of sufficient weight that Jesus did indeed address God
as 'Father'? On examination, Jeremias's five strata (n. 25 above) prove to be less
substantial than initially appeared. We have already noted that the 'special Matthew'
reference (Matt. 26.42) is more likely to be attributed to Matthew's redaction
than to his source. With John it is hard to distinguish the vocative 'Father' from
John's much developed Father/Son motif. And we shall see that similar questions
hang over the unique Lukan references (§17.If). But once again we have to ask
where the motif itself originated. And once again the greater likelihood is that the
motif began in the earliest memories of Jesus' prayers than that a whole new way of
praying is to be attributed to an unknown spiritual leader from whence it was
38.
Lord's Prayer
pater
genethetö to thelema sou
me eisenenkes hemas eis
peirasmon
Mark 14.36, 38
abba, ho pater
ou ti egö thelö alia ti su
hina me elthete eis
peirasmon
Matt. 26.39, 41
pater mou
ouch hös egö thelÖ, all'
hös su
hina me eiselthete eis
peirasmon
Luke 22.42, 46
pater
me to thelema mou alia to
son ginesthö
hina me eiselthete eis
peirasmon
Although Matthew and Luke have strengthened the allusion, they have not created it. Notable is
the fact that the allusion includes the third petition, that is, the elaboration of the second petition
which only Matthew includes (the allusion is strongest in Luke!). Also curious (coincidental?)
is the fact that the Johannine parallel follows the initial pater address with 'Father, glorify
your name' (John 12.28), possibly a further echo of the Lord's Prayer (first petition)?
39. See the discussion above, § 12.4b. The text is cited above, §8.5b.
40. They could have been aware of such distress before they fell asleep, though the sleep
motif is a more likely indication of redactional (hortatory) interest than the prayer (Dunn, Jesus
and the Spirit 19-20; Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.493 n. 13).
41. The cup motif is certainly to be related to Mark 10.39/Matt. 20.23 in some way (see
below §17.4d).
42. Further discussion on tradition history and bibliography in Bayer, Jesus' Predictions
63-70.
714