We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
It is my contention, discussed in a general way elsewhere, that the entire collection of material gathered in the New Testament, including the Gospel of Luke, was written by Judaic authors. Researches into targumic and Aramaic foundations of New Testament material will increasingly have significant influence upon our understanding of this factor in early Christianity. It will also play an important role in ascertaining the background to liturgical development and interrelationships. New Testament material was designed for congregations including both persons of Judaic faith, who accepted a form of Christology but remained observant of more or less Judaism, and of persons who came into the new movement called ‘The Way’ from the pagan world. In the latter instance, those who joined the new movement were already sebomenoi, and therefore in many ways were like the former group. But many others, perhaps the vast majority in both the eastern and European diaspora were coming into contact with Judaism, albeit a Christianized Judaism, for the first time.
* This paper is dedicated to my NT mentor, Professor Douglas R. A. Hare of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
[1] Phillip, Sigal, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, Vol. 1, The Foundations of Judaism; Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series No. 29 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1980) Pt. 1, Chapt. 7.Google Scholar
[2] The following bibliography can be helpful for studies in points of contact between the targums and the New Testament: Olmstead, A. T., ‘Could an Aramaic Gospel be Written?’ JNES (01 1942), pp. 41–75Google Scholar; Torrey, C. C., The Four Gospels (New York: Harper and Bros., 1933)Google Scholar; Frank, Zimmerman, The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels (New York: Ktav, 1979)Google Scholar; Rendel, Harris, ‘Traces of Targumism in the New Testament’, Expository Times (32) (1920–1921), pp. 373–6Google Scholar; Martin, McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966)Google Scholar: Targum and Testament (Shannon, Ireland: Irish U. Press, 1972), pp. 148–57Google Scholar; Wikgren, A., ‘The Targums and the New Testament’, Journal of Religion 24 (1944), pp. 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowker, John, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matthew, Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Daniel, Patte, Early Jewish Hermeneutic in Palestine (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Geza, Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961).Google Scholar
[3] Kraft, Robert A., ‘The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity’ in Christianity, Judaism and Other Graeco-Roman Cults 3 vols., ed. Jacob, Neusner (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 175–99, pp. 179 f.Google Scholar
[4] Phil. 2. 6–11;Col. 1.15–20.
[5] Lk. 1. 47–55; 68–79; 2. 14; 2. 29–32.
[6] Sigal, op. cit. Pts 1 and 2, index entry ‘Pella’. See also Barbara Gray, C. ‘Movements of the Jerusalem Church During the First Jewish War’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 24 (1973), pp. 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a critique of the view of Brandon, S. G. F., The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London: 1951), and Jesus and the Zealots (New York: 1967)Google Scholar, who rejects the tradition that Christian Jews of Jerusalem withdrew to Pella.
[7] Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 17, The Apostolic Constitutions, ed. James, Donaldson (Edinburgh: 1870)Google Scholar; The Ethiopic Didascalia, trans. Harden, J. M. (New York: 1920)Google Scholar; The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, trans. Easton, Burton Scott (Cambridge: 1934)Google Scholar; The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, ed. Gregory, Dix, rpt. ‘Preface’ by Henry Chadwick (London: 1968)Google Scholar; The Work Claiming To Be The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles; Whiston's, Version, ed. Irah, Chase (New York: 1848)Google Scholar; The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, ed. Arthur, Vööbus, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (Louvain: 1979)Google Scholar; Didascalia Apostolorum Syriac Version, Trans. Connolly, R. Hugh (Oxford: 1929)Google Scholar. See also Gavin, F., ‘Rabbinic Parallels in Early Church Orders’, HUCA 6 (1929)Google Scholar, also in Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy, ed. Jakob, J. Petuchowski (New York: 1970), pp. 305–17.Google Scholar
[8] See n. 7.
[9] Amram, Seder R. ed. Coronel, Nahum N. (Warsaw: 1865)Google Scholar; Gaon, Seder R. Amram, trans. Hedegard, David (Lund: 1951).Google Scholar
[10] Dix-Chadwick, , op. cit. (n. 7 above) pp. XV–XVIII.Google Scholar Unfortunately, Eusebius, who mentions these men in his Ecclesiastical History VI, 20: 2; 21: 2; 22:1, does not provide us with much information on these matters.
[11] Apost. Trad. 20.
[12] Dix, , op. cit. pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar
[13] Apost. Const. 8, 5; ed. Donaldson, , pp. 214 f.Google Scholar
[14] Apostolic Tradition 6.4. The term matbeà also means a ‘coin’ and signifies a type or formula. See Meg, P.. 74cGoogle Scholar; Ber. 9b, 10b.
[15] The standard conventional translations are: 1) Blessed art thou O Lord: 2) Blessed art thou O Lord our God King of the Universe; 3) As in the text of the paper. The term àdonay is the pronunciation that is used for Yhwh which appears in the printed versions of berakhot spelled with two yods (YY), rather than the full form, except where a verse is quoted directly from scripture, as e.g. in the shemà.
[16] See Apost. Trad. 6. 4; 8. 5; 9. 12. While these are not the same as the Judaic berakhah they are similar to other doxologies.
[17] The emphasis upon the matbeà of the eucharist by the bishop is again seen at 10. 3; 10. 4 f. reflects the view of M. Ab. 2.18 that prayer preferably not be a fixed form. Cf. B. Ber. 28b.
[18] For rabbis as recipients of holy spirit see B. Kid. 32b which equates the hakham with the zaken and derives the equation from Num. 11, the same source as used by Hippolytus. See also Sigal, , Emergence I, Pt. 2, p. 87, n. 16Google Scholar, for sources that connect rabbis and the holy spirit.
[19] See Gerim 1. 3–5. There is no time factor involved, and the pre-conversion teaching appears to be at a minimum. It is probably more extensive in modern times.
[20] M.Ker. 2.1; Gen. 2. 5.
[21] Did. 7. 1–3; B. Yeb. 47 ab; Shab. 15a; for use of warm water added to the teḅilah of a priest, see B. Ber. 22a; Hag. 11a; Yom 31a; Sifra 77b, 96b; M. Yom. 3. 5; P. Ber. 6c.
[22] M. Shab. 6.1; Mik. 9.1 f.;Nid. 66 b;B.K. 82a; see also Gavin, op. cit. in Petuchowski, p. 306.
[23] Apost. Const, vii, 22.
[24] Gerim 1. 1.
[25] M. Ber. 6. 5 f.; T. Ber. 3. 7; 4. 8; B. Ber. 35a; 43a; Pes. 101–102; P. Ber. 10d.
[26] Two opposing views are reflected at B. Ber. 28b.
[27] On early Christian self-identity as Israel in general see Peter Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1969) but especially pp. 74–84Google Scholar; Gal. 6. 16; see also Justin, Martyr'sDialogue With Trypho, passim; trans. Williams, A. Lukyn (London: 1930)Google Scholar; Justin Dialogue Avec Tryphon, ed. Georges, Archambault (Paris: 1909)Google Scholar; Kraft, Robert A., The Apostolic Fathers Vol. 3, Barnabas and the Didache (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965)Google Scholar, Barn. 14. 1–6; Rom. 9. 6–13; Phil. 3. 3; and my paper, ‘Aspects of an Inquiry into Dual Covenant Theology’, Horizons in Biblical Theology, Vol. 3, (1981), pp. 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Apost. Const. 2. 25.
[29] On regularity of study: M. Peah 1. 1; On the primacy of prayer in congregation, daily attendance at synagogue and/or the bet midrash (house of study): a beraita, B. Ber. 6a; 6b; 8a; 21b; 47b. Although this view appears to be contrary to Mt. 6. 6 later Christian halakhah clearly implies that Jesus' advice was pertinent to private devotion and that he did not mean to abolish or discourage communal worship. See B. Shab. 127a where third century rabbis understand M. Shab. 18. 1, which permits clearing an area for study on the Sabbath, as implying that joining an instruction session (bet midrash) is so major a miẓvah that it procures the bliss of future life and hence supersedes the sabbath.
[30] See n. 7.
[31] Gavin, , pp. 311 f.Google Scholar; B. R. H. 29b; Ber. 47a;52a.
[32] Ibid. pp. 314–16; Gavin is citing the Ethiopia version of Hippolytus, trans. Horner, G. W. in The Statutes of the Apostles, or, Canoues Ecclesiastici (London: 1904), pp. 160–1.Google Scholar For woman's kindling of Sabbath lights see M. Shab. 2. 6; Gen. R. 17. 14; P. Shab. 5b.
[33] R. Levi's statement is based on his exegesis of the verses in Genesis 1 which repeat for each day, ‘There was evening and morning’, but for the Sabbath day it only says ‘the seventh day’ (Gen. 2. 2 f.), and adds the comment that Ps. 92. 1, ‘a song for the Sabbath Day’, means there is no darkness on the Sabbath. This idea is christianized to refer to Jesus' presence in the eucharist which is an ‘Incorruptible light’ (Apost. Trad. 26. 24).
[34] Apost. Const. 7. 26; 33; 8. 48.
[35] Ibid. 2. 57; see Sigal, , Emergence I, Pt. 2, p. 100.Google Scholar
[36] Apost. Const. 2. 58 f.
[37] See Kohler, Kaufmann, ‘Didascalia’, JE 4, pp. 588–94Google Scholar, and his essays in Origins of the Synagogue and the Church, ed. Enelow, H. G. (New York: Arno Books, 1973).Google Scholar This is by no means as systematic and exhaustive as it should be, and I disagree with Kohler on particulars in his effort to reconstruct early church history and on matters concerning the relationship of Essenes, Pharisees, the early synagogue and rabbinism. But his work is important in highlighting the Judaic background of this early church literature. On the question of the Pharisees see Sigal, Emergence, Vol. I, Pt. 2, Chap. 1.
[38] Ethiopic Didascalia XXX; Apost. Const. 5. 20, reads ‘the month Gorpiaeus’ (Donaldson translation), and ‘September’ (Chase version).
[39] Kaufmann, Kohler, ‘The Origin and Composition of the Eighteen Benedictions’, in Contributions, ed. Petuchowski, , op. cit. (n. 7), pp. 52–90.Google Scholar
[40] Eric, Werner, ‘The Doxology in Synagogue and Church’, HUCA 19 (1945–1946)Google Scholar, in Petuchowski, , op. cit., pp. 318–70.Google Scholar See also his The Sacred Bridge (New York: 1959).
[41] On piyyut see Davidson, Israel, Thesaurus of Medieval Hebrew Poetry, 4 vols. 2nd ed. (New York: 1970)Google Scholar; Fleischer, Ezra, ‘The Liturgical Function of Ancient Piyyut’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 40 (1970)Google Scholar; ‘Piyyut’, Encyclopedia Judaica 13Google Scholar; Mirsky, Aaron, The Origins of the Piyyut (Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1965)Google Scholar; Ismar, Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 2nd rev. ed. (Frankfurt am Main: 1924), pp. 208–12; 305–19Google Scholar; Jefīm, Schirmann, ‘Hebrew Liturgical Poetry and Christian Hymnology’, JQR 44 (1953–1954), pp. 123–61Google Scholar; Salo Baron, W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Philadelphia: 1958) 7, pp. 89–105Google Scholar; Joseph Heinemann and Jakob Petuchowski, The Literature of the Synagogue (New York: 1975), pp. 205–13.Google Scholar
[42] Baron, , op. cit. p. 91.Google Scholar
[43] Ibid., p. 261, n. 41 f.
[44] Schirmann, , op. cit. pp. 126 ff.Google Scholar; see Leopold, Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vorträge (Berlin: 1832); Hebrew version; Jerusalem: 1947, pp. 183–6, 490–5.Google Scholar
[45] Ecc. R. 1. 13; see Schirmann, , pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar, and n. 20 for bibliography. See also B. M. K. 25b; in the latter source, for example, the Babylonian R. Zeira was of the third century.
[46] Ibid. p. 148. See Meyer, Wilhelm (cited by Schirmann, p. 149, n. 60)Google Scholar, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur mittellateinischen Rhythmik, 2 vols. (Berlin: 1905).Google Scholar
[47] Meyer, , II, p. 118.Google Scholar
[48] Schirmann, , p. 151Google Scholar, and bibliography, n. 32. See Baron, , op. cit. VII, 93Google Scholar, who suggests Yosi b. Yosi lived during the fifth century, and calls attention to his epic reworking of biblical history along the lines of St. Ephrem. (See below.) This historical review style is also seen in the Prayers of Apost. Const. More recently Habermann, A. M., A History of Hebrew Liturgical and Secular Poetry (Hebrew) (Ramat Can, Israel: 1970), p. 33Google Scholar, has dated Yosi b. Yosi to the second-third centuries.
[49] Ibid. p. 152 f.
[50] See for example, Arthur Marmorstein, ‘Judaism and Christianity in the Middle of the Third Century’, Studies in Jewish Theology, ed. Rabbinowitz, J. and Lew, M. S. (Freeport, N.Y.: 1972); pp. 179–224.Google Scholar Marmorstein, however, does not treat of liturgical matters or of The Apostolic Constitutions and The Apostolic Tradition. See also DeLange, Nicholas R. M., Origen and the Jews (Cambridge and New York: 1976).Google Scholar
[51] Wilken, Robert L., Judaism and the Early Christian Mind (New Haven and London: 1971).Google Scholar
[52] Schirmann, , op. cit., p. 155Google Scholar Schirmann's further discussion of the Byzantine liturgy, pp. 155–60 concerns a period later than that of our primary interest. See also Kahle, Paul, The Cairo Genizah (Oxford: 1959), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar; Cowley, A. E., The Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: 1909)Google Scholar; Hajjim, Z. Ben ‘Samaritan Poems for Joyous Occasions’, Tarbiz 10 (1939).Google Scholar
[53] Oesterley, W. O. E., The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford: 1925), p. 125.Google Scholar
[54] Epistle to the Corinthians 41. 2 f. The berakhah form is found clearly at the end of Apost. Const. 7. 33 as a ḥatimah, conclusion to a prayer, and at the closing of 7. 34, as is normal in berakhot.
[55] Ibid. 34. 6.
[56] M. Sot. 7. 1 permits central liturgical elements in any language. B. Sot. 32b–33a and P. Sot. 21b, reflect debates over whether the basic creedal confession, the shemà, may be said in Greek but the affirmative is triumphant. Although M. Sot. 7. 2 limits mandatory Hebrew to a few items, none of these except the priestly benediction of Num. 6. 24–26 plays any role in communal worship. See also Novella 146 decreed by Justinian, found in Kahle, Paul, The Cairo Genizah, Appendix I, pp. 315 ff.Google Scholar
[57] Acts 21. 40; 22. 2.
[58] Werner, , The Sacred Bridge, pp. 31–6.Google Scholar
[59] Ibid. pp. 38–42.
[60] Levertoff, Paul P., ‘Synagogue Worship in the First Century’, Liturgy and Worship, ed. Clarke, W. K. L., Charles, Harris (London: 1947), pp. 60–77; pp. 68 ff.Google Scholar Cf. B. Yeb. 102b, where a min (Christian Jew) argues that Hos. 5. 6 indicates God performed ḥaliẓah on Israel, that is, has severed the covenant relationship; but R. Gamaliel (either Gamaliel I sometime after 30, or Gamaliel II at Yaḅneh after 70) replied that in halizah the woman takes off the shoe from the levir while, if God is the levir at Hos. 5. 6; he is performing an invalid ḥaliẓah, which means the relationship is not severed. Such prayers as we have here considered may be designed to emphasize this.
[61] See also M. Ber. 1. 4 which neither specifies which berakhot are said nor hints at a dating; and although 2. 2 mentions èmet veyaẓiḅ again we have no clear statement on àhaḅah rabah.
[62] See also Heinemann, J., Prayer in the Talmud (Berlin: 1977), p, 143, n. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[63] 1QS 11. 18–21; Lev. R. 20; B. Ber. 16b.
[64] See Heinemann's, discussion of the ‘you’ address in prayer, op. cit. pp. 104–11Google Scholar.
[65] In the case of the last-mentioned, Apost. Const. 38 (ed. Donaldson, , p. 199Google Scholar) there is mention of how the human is the product of ‘a little drop in the womb’, for which see M. Ab. 3. 1, where a first-century teacher Akabya teaches that the human is derived from ‘a fetid drop’.
[66] Mt. 6. 9–13; Lk. 11. 2–4; Did. 8. 2; Apost. Const. 7, 24. See Sigal, Emergence I, Pt. 1, pp. 449 f., 505–7, notes 206–9. The bibliography on the Lord's Prayer runs to eighty pages in Jean Carmignac, Recherches sur le ‘Notre Pere’ (Paris: 1969). See the excellent old essay, Chase, F. H. ‘The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church’, Texts and Studies, ed. Robinson, J. Armitage (Cambridge: University Press, 1891); rpt. Nendeen-Liechtenstein: Kraus Rpt. Ltd., 1967) Vol. I, No. 3.Google Scholar
[67] B. Ber. 31a; 32a; Sif. Deut. 343; Sigal, ibid. p. 506, nn. 207–8.
[68] Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon of the Mount (New York: 1977), pp. 309 ff.Google Scholar
[69] Eric, Werner, ‘The Doxology’; Klein, G., Der Aelteste Christliche Katechismus und die Juedische Propaganda-Literatur (Berlin: 1909), pp. 257 ff.Google Scholar
[70] Sif. Deut. 343; B. Ber. 31a; 32a offer examples of prayer forms without shem and malkhut. That a berakah requires shem and malkhut is at B. Ber. 12a, 40b; P. Ber. 12d.
[71] Heinemann, J., op. cit., pp. 191 f.Google Scholar For examples of private prayer see M. Ber. 4. 2; 9. 3; T. Ber. 6. 2, 16, 17; P. Ber. 7d; B. Ber. 16b, etc.
[72] B. Ber. 38a;Tanh., end of Genesis; B. Yom. 53b;Meg. 27b.
[73] T. Ber. 3. 7; B. Ber. 29b.
[74] Heinemann, , op. cit. p. 186.Google Scholar
[75] Sigal, , Emergence I, Pt. 1, 393 f.Google Scholar; Pt. 2, pp. 21 f.
[76] The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, ed. Arthur Vööbus, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalum (Louvain: 1979) Vol. 407–8, p. 128.Google Scholar See also Connolly edition, p. 118. For the following Judaic prayer see the Morning Service of any standard prayerbook, e.g. Sabbath and Festival Prayerbook, ed. Morris, Silverman (New York: 1967), p. 90.Google Scholar
[77] Martin, Ralph P., Philippians, New Century Bible (Greenwood, S.C.: 1976), pp. 90–102; 109–16Google Scholar; Carmen Christi: Philippians 2: 5–11, in Recent Interpretations and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Cambridge: 1967).Google Scholar
[78] See for instance Sanders, Jack T., The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge: 1971), pp. 58–74Google Scholar; Ernst Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus, Einer Untersuchung zu Phil. 2:5–11, Sitzungs-berichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. KL (1927–28) (rpt. Darmstadt: 1961); Stanley, David M., ‘The Theme of the Servant of Yhwh in Primitive Christian Soteriology and its Transposition by St. Paul’, CBQ 16 (1954).Google Scholar
[79] Joachim, Jeremias, ‘Zur Gedankenfuhrung in der paulinischen Briefen’, Studio Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan, ed. Sevenster, J. N., van Unnik, W. C.; (Haarlem: 1953) pp. 146–54Google Scholar, cited by Sanders, , pp. 9 f.Google Scholar and notes.
[80] Jeremias, , pp. 150–4.Google Scholar
[81] Heinemann, , op. cit. pp. 270–4Google Scholar does not see a connection between àlenu and Phil. 2. 6–11. For the text of àlenu see Appendix I below. The text is from The Prayer Book, trans. Ben Zion Bokser (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., 1961), p. 121.Google Scholar
[82] Martin, , Philippians, p. 113 provides bibliography.Google Scholar
[83] Ibid. pp. 115 f.
[84] The original version of àlenu contained a line ‘for they (the pagans) worship transiency and emptiness (heḅel varek) from Is. 30. 7) and a god that cannot save’ (from Is. 45. 20).
[85] P. A. Z. 39c; R. H. 57a; Lev. R. 24. 1; 29.1; Pesikta de R. Kahana 23. 1.
[86] See n. 84.
[87] A joint paper presented by Dr. Douglas R. A. Hare and myself before a Matthew Task Force of the annual meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association at Duquesne University at Pittsburgh in 1977, and now published in Sigal, Emergence I, Pt. 2, Appendix D, pp. 297–304, reviewed some suggestions made e.g. by W. D. Davies and offered some additional evidence for the Christian impact at Yaḅneh.
[88] See Martin, , Philippians, pp. 94 ffGoogle Scholar. where he reviews interpretations, but does not cite a Philonic one. See Philo QG, 2(62); All. Int. III, 31 (96) and elsewhere.
[89] I interpret tishabà, to swear, take an oath, in the sense of affirming loyalty and commitment to a king, hence here theologically ‘profess’.
[90] Heinemann, , Prayer, p. 273.Google Scholar The maàmadot were ‘rotations of lay-people corresponding to the twenty-four rotations of priests at the Temple. These lay people assembled in their towns while priests and levites went to Jerusalem …’ and they conducted parallel worship in the synagogue. See Sigal, , Emergence I, Pt. 2, pp. 219 f., 242, n. 6.Google Scholar
[91] Clement was Bishop of Rome 92–101 and was of Judaic origin. See The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch, trans. Kleist, James A., Ancient Christian Writers No. 1 (Westminster, Mid.: Newman Press, 1949), pp. 3–4.Google ScholarSee Baumstark, A., ‘Trìshagion und Queduscha’, Jahrbuecher fur Liturgiewissenschaft 3 (1923), pp. 18–32.Google Scholar See also Elbogen, , op. cit., pp. 61–7Google Scholar; Jacob, Mann, ‘Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue Due to Religious Persecution’, HUCA 4 (1927), pp. 261–77.Google Scholar For the translation of the texts of Apost. Const, see Appendix II below.
[92] 2 En. might be dated to 30 B.C.-50 A.D. See The Book of The Secrets of Enoch, trans. Morfill, W. R., ed. Charles, R. H. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896)Google Scholar, in Charles, R. H., Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha II.Google Scholar
[93] See Hab. 3. 3.
[94] Baumstark, ‘Trishagion und Queduscha’, op. cit.
[95] Cited by Werner, , p. 340.Google Scholar
[96] See T. Ber. 1. 9. On the dating of the various trisagion formulae see Werner, Eric, ‘Doxology’, cf. B. Hul. 91b, 92a.Google Scholar
[97] Heinemann, , op. cit., p. 223, n. 15.Google Scholar
[98] Kohler, , ‘Origin and Composition’, in Petuchowski, op. cit., p. 80, n. 37.Google Scholar
[99] The Dictionary by Brown, , Driver, and Briggs, , p. 813 and p. 811Google Scholar gives peleh and peloni ‘to be separated, distinct’ which comes to mean a certain or particular one, and is joined with àlmoni, ‘one not mentioned’. See Ruth 4. 1, 1 Sam. 21. 3; 2 Ki. 6–8. See also Jastrow's Dictionary, II, 1183 where he used Gen. R. 21.1 with R. Huna defining it as ‘so and so’, and the Greek translator Aquilas as ‘the one who mipnim “within” (the divine enclosure)’. The midrash does not see it as a proper name contra Lacocque (n. 100 below). See also The Book of Daniel, Anchor Bible, trans. Hartman, Louis F. (chapter 1–9), and Di Leila, Alexander A. (chapters 10–12) (New York: 1978).Google Scholar
[100] Ginsberg, H. L., Studies in Daniel (New York: 1948), pp. 52, 54Google Scholar; Andre, Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, trans. Pellauer, David (Atlanta: 1949), pp. 158, 163, n. 33.Google Scholar
[101] See Apost. Const., ed. Donaldson, , in Ante-Nicene Christian Library Vol. 17, pp. 212–37.Google Scholar
[102] See Jacob, Mann, ‘Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue Due to Religious Persecutions’, HUCA 4 (1927), pp. 263 f., n. 42Google Scholar. Cf. Heinemann, J., Prayer, p. 231, n. 33.Google Scholar
[103] ‘The Origin and Composition of the Eighteen Benedictions’, Contributions to the Scientific Study of the Jewish Liturgy, ed. Petuchowski, J. (New York: Ktav 1970), pp. 61 f.Google ScholarSee also his ‘Ursprünge und Grundformen der Synagogalen Liturgie’, MGWJ (1893)Google Scholar, and his article ‘Didascalie’, JE IV, p. 593. For the pertinent passages of Apost. Const. 7. 33–38 see his article in Petuchowski, , op. cit., pp. 76–90.Google ScholarBut see also Louis, Ginzber, Geonica (New York: 1968), 1, pp. 129 ff.Google Scholar, who supports the view that the trisagion was once incorporated with the third blessing of the àmidah.
[104] Philo, , Sacrifices, 36 (120) ‘… the fountain of that devout contemplation of the only wise being, on which Israel's rank is based …’; The Posterity, 18 (63), in reference to Israel: ‘he who sees God, the original cause of being …‘; 26 (92); The Preliminary Studies, 10 (51) ‘for Israel means seeing God’; On Flight, 38 (208) ‘for “seeing God” is the translation of Israel’; and many times. (Translations by Colson and Whitaker in Loeb Classical Library.)Google Scholar
[105] ‘The Jewish Background to the Christian Liturgy’, Expository Timeṡ, 39 (1927–1928), pp. 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[106] Ibid. p. 69.
[107] Ethiopic Didascalia XXXIII, ed. Harden, , pp. 146 f.Google Scholar, embodying Apost. Const. 6. 11 f.
[108] See Cowley, A. E., The Samaritan Liturgy, 2 vols. (Oxford: 1909).Google Scholar
[109] Baumstark, A., Comparative Liturgy, pp. 11Google Scholar f. Baumstark followed an earlier study, Wilhelm Bousset, ‘Eine Jüdische Gebetssammlung in VIIten Buch der Apostolischen Konstitutionen’.
