¹ Jeremias, Joachim, Abba: Studien zur neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 15–67Google Scholar; ET: The Prayers of Jesus (trans. Bowden, John; SBT 2d. ser. 6; Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967) 11–65Google Scholar. For the christological use of abba, see especially Schillebeeckx, Edward, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (trans. Hoskyns, Hubert; New York: Seabury, 1974) 256–61Google Scholar.

² See Robert Hamerton-Kelly, “God the Father in the Bible,” in Johannes-Baptist Metz and Edward Schillebeeckx, eds., God as Father? (Eng. ed. Lefebure, Marcus; Concilium 143; Edinburgh: T & T Clark and New York: Seabury, 1981) 101Google Scholar; this article reaffirms and defends Hamerton-Kelly's longer study, God the Father: Theology and Patriarchy in the Teaching of Jesus (Overtures to Biblical Theology 4; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979)Google Scholar.

³ See, for example, Ruether, Rosemary Radford, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (Boston: Beacon, 1983) 64–68Google Scholar; Ruether points out the shortlived character of any rejection of patriarchy in the Jesus movement. She has since moved from this position, as she explained to me in private correspondence. Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler (In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins [New York: Crossroad, 1983] 145–51Google Scholar, 159 n. 105) considerably modifies Hamerton-Kelly's claims.

⁴ Mary R. D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology and the Jesus Tradition,” forthcoming in JBL; this article argues that: (a) abba cannot be attributed with certainty to Jesus; the New Testament evidence suggests that abba functioned in and may have originated in the spiritual, charismatic experience of the early Christian communities; (b) “father” and ”my father” functioned as addresses to God in early Judaism, particularly in contexts of gentile persecution; (c) if Jesus used “father” as an address to God, he is most likely to have done so in the context of resistance to the imperial claims made by Roman use of the title pater for the emperor. See also idem, “Re-membering Jesus: Women, Prophecy and Resistance in the Memory of the Early Churches,” Horizons 19 (forthcoming Fall, 1992)Google Scholar. James Barr has exposed the problems of Jeremias's linguistic arguments in “Abba Isn't Daddy,” JTS n.s. 39 (1988) 28–7; see also Barr, James, “Abba and the Familiarity of Jesus’ Speech,” Theology 91 (1988) 173–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Martina Gnadt has delineated the anti-Jewish character of Jeremias's arguments in “Understanding of the Origins of the Lord's Prayer: A Critical Re-Evaluation of the Contribution by Joachim Jeremias,” Sewanee Theological Review (forthcoming). Madeline Boucher pointed to the slenderness of New Testament evidence for abba, calling into question the assumption that Jesus used “father” for God; see Boucher, “Scriptural Readings: God-Language and Nonsexist Translation,” in Barbara A. Withers, ed., Language and the Church: Articles and Designs for Workshops (n.p.: National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A, 1984) 28–32. See also below.

⁵ Jeremias (Prayers of Jesus, 35) regards Luke's special material as on a par with Mark and Q; Hamerton-Kelly (God the Father, 52–81) uses the four-source theory but treats Mark and Q only under the rubric of “God the Father in the Teaching of Jesus.”

⁶ This definition is illustrated primarily from the Roman model, but is intended to fit a wide range of societies. In Rome, not all men who were patresfamiliae were biological fathers, nor were all biological fathers patresfamiliae. See VX^ian Digest 50.16.195, 2.i, cited in Gardner, Jane F. and Wiedemann, Thomas, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (London/New York: Routledge, 1991) 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar and their introduction to this text on p. 3.

⁷ Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father, 55–81, 101–4. Hamerton-Kelly understands “patriarchy” as the social system of characterizing the world of the patriarchs. It should not be assumed that relations of subordination and domination are exclusive of intimacy, tenderness, and affection. On this point, see Wiedemann, Thomas, Adults and Children in the Roman Empire (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 84–112Google Scholar; and Gardner and Wiedemann, ”The Household as Focus of Emotion,” in idem, The Roman Household, 30–45; Dixon, Suzanne, The Roman Family (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) esp. xii–xiii, 25–30, and 83–90Google Scholar.

⁸ See Barr, “Abba Isn't Daddy,” 28–47; see also Fitzmyer, Joseph A., “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” in A cause de l'Evangile: Études sur les Synoptiques et Actes: offertes au P. Jacques Dupont O.S.B. à l'occasion de son 70e anniversaire (LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 14–38Google Scholar.

⁹ Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 29.

¹⁰ The distinction seems to make “corporate” equivalent to “our father” and “personal” equivalent to “my father”; see ibid, 26–29.

¹¹ 4QJ72 1.16–18; for the translation, see Schuller, Eileen, “4Q372 1: A Text about Joseph,” RevQ 14 (1990) 355Google Scholar; see also idem, “The Psalm of 4Q372 1 Within the Context of Second Temple Prayer,” CBQ 54 (1992) 67–79Google Scholar.

¹² 4Q460 5.6; At present, this text is available only in facsimile; I cite it from Schuller, ” 4Q372 1,” 362–63; see also idem, “The Psalm of 4Q372 1,” 79.

¹³ Cited from the translation by C. Burchard, ed. and trans., “Joseph and Aseneth,” in OTP2. 221; this text and versification differ significantly from that of Philonenko, Marc, Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes (SPB 13, Leiden: Brill, 1968)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Tob 13:4. These instances are prayers; see also Josephus Ant. 2.152; Jub. 1.24, 28; 19.29; 3 Mace 2:21; 5:7; 7:6; Wis 11:10; 2:16–20. For a discussion of these texts, see D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

¹⁵ For a description of these continuities, see D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

¹⁶ For the connection between father and king in ancient Mediterranean usage, see Schrenk, Gottlob and Quell, Gottfried, “πατήρ πατρ ῷoς, πατρία, ἀπάτωρ, πατρικóς,” TDNT 5 (1967) 945–1022Google Scholar, esp. 948–57, 995–99, 1010–12.

¹⁷ For a fuller treatment of these three functions see D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

¹⁸ This is the suggestion of Hadas, Moses in The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (1953; reprinted New York: KTAV, 1976) 16–21Google Scholar. See H. Anderson's critique of Hadas (“3 Maccabees,” in OTP 2. 510–12); Anderson also reviews the suggestion that the work responds to the crisis induced by Gaius's plans to erect a colossal statue of himself in the temple in Jerusalem. Anderson himself dates the work to the earlier first century BCE on literary grounds.

¹⁹ On the use of the title pater (parens) and pater patriae in imperial theology and its relation in Jewish texts including 3 Maccabees, see D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.” Although Augustus was awarded this title by the senate only in 2 BCE, it had already been in use in less official ways for some time; it was popularized as a title for Caesar by Cicero (Henry Stuart Jones.’ The Princeps,” CAH 10. 156 and nn. 1–2, 177 n. 3). See Suetonius Aug. 58; Dio Cassius 55.10.10. The title had Republican origins; see Taylor, Lily Ross, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Philological Monographs 1; Middletown, CT: American Philological Association, 1931) 47–49Google Scholar, 67, 93; and Weinstock, Stefan, Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 200–207Google Scholar. On the association with divinity, see Taylor, Divinity, 200–201, 217–18.

²⁰ See Schrenk, “πατήρ,” 944. On the kinship of the soul to God, see Long, Anthony A., “Epicureans and Stoics,” in Armstrong, A. H., ed., Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman (World Spirituality 15; New York: Crossroad, 1989) 147–51Google Scholar. See Philo Op. Mund. 72–75; idem, Mut. Norn. 30–31; idem, Fug. 68–72; idem, Conf. Ling 169–80.

²¹ ”The impious” of this passage are usually interpreted as apostate Jews with Greek educations, primarily on the basis of their complaint in Wis 2:12: “He reviles us for our sins against the law (νóμoς) and publishes our sins against our education (παιδεία)”; see Reese, James M., The Book of Wisdom, Song of Songs (Old Testament Message 20; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1983) 40Google Scholar; Larcher, C., Le Livre de Sagesse ou La Sagesse de Solomon (Paris: Gabalda, 1983) 211–12Google Scholar. The plaint that the righteous lives a life that is strange to others and avoids their ways as unclean (Wis 2:15–16) echoes the standard vilification of Jews by Gentiles. It can be reconciled with the identification of the wicked with apostate Jews. Reese (Book of Wisdom, 39) points out that the perspective parodied here is that of the Epicureans. Josephus attributes Epicurean views to the Sadducees, and the author of Wisdom might be doing something similar. But the identification of the impious with apostate Jews is by no means certain. In Wis 6:1–11 “Solomon” warns kings, judges, and rulers who have power over the ”masses of Gentiles” that sudden retribution will come upon them, “because you have not kept the law” (Wis 6:4). Thus the author sees nothing inappropriate in exacting obedience to the law from Gentiles, either because gentile law or custom is envisaged or because the law is universal. In light of Wis 6:4, Wis 2:12–20 is best seen as expressing the hostility of the Gentile as the pious Jew experiences it.

²² Stobaeus Eel. 1.1.12; trans. Long, “Epicureans and Stoics,” 147–48. The relationship between God as father and governing providence appears also in 3 Mace 6:3–4, “God who steers (διακυβερνῶν) the whole creation with mercy… father! you destroyed Pharaoh….”

²³ Reese (Book of Wisdom, 16–17) places Wisdom shortly after 24 BCE; for a survey of dating, see Larcher, Le Livre de Sagesse, 1. 141–61. He decides (p. 160) for a date well into the reign of Augustus for the final form of the book, near 10–15 BCE.

²⁴ See Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.39–40; compare Tertullian Apologeticum 34.2. If Tertullian stresses the rejection of the title “lord” to the emperor, to Marcion he stresses that to be ”father” God must inspire fear as well as love (Marc. 1.27).

²⁵ See Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 38–39Google Scholar.

²⁶ Taylor (Divinity, 205) believes that the cult of Augustus was established in Egypt well before 12 BCE.

²⁷ Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” 221. In conversation, Ross Kraemer has suggested to me that the texts of Burchard and Philonenko differ in gender language and imagery; the father image is much less prominent in her translation, which is based on Philonenko's text; see Kraemer, Ross S., ed., Maenads, Martyrs, Matrons, and Monastics: A Sourcebook on Women's Religions in the Greco-Roman World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 272 (12.8–11)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” 222.

²⁹ Fitzmyer, “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” 32.

³⁰ See Fitzmyer's argument (ibid., 31); and Hamerton-Kelly, God the Father, 72.

³¹ On this point, see Collins, Adela Yarbro, “The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as ‘Son of Man,’” HTR 80 (1987) 391–407Google Scholar, esp. 406–7.

³² Luke's version does not include the title; Matthew's appears to have been comprehensively revised.

³³ Most ancient MSS do not include Mark 11:26: “If you do not forgive, neither will your father in the heavens forgive you your transgressions.” See Dowd, Sharon Echols, Prayer, Power and the Problem of Suffering: Mark 11:22–25 in the Context of Markan Theology (SBLDS 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 40 nn. 16–19Google Scholar.

³⁴ Tolbert, Mary Ann, Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 214Google Scholar; see esp. 214–16 and her description of the levels of knowledge of narrator, reader, and participants in the story, pp. 93–95.

³⁵ Schuller, “The Psalm of 4QJ72 1,” 79. See also 3 Maccabees; Jos. Asen. 12.12–16; and Wis 2:16–20 where “father” appears in the prayer of a just Jew (or proselyte) persecuted at the hand of the Gentiles.

³⁶ Lacunae make the reference to God's will less than clear; see Schuller's comments in “4Q372 1, A Text about Joseph,” 365.

³⁷ Schuller cites similar prayers in Sir 23:1 and 4Q460 5. If the address “father” and the plea “do not abandon me” are connected in the tradition as she suggests, the contrast is even more shocking. See Schuller, “The Psalm of 4Q372 1,” 79. Aseneth also stresses her abandonment by her parents as she addresses God as father (Jos. Asen. 11.3–5, 12–13; 12:5–15 [in Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” 218–19, 220, 221]).

³⁸ See Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Genre and Function of the Passion Narrative in Mark,” HTR 73 (1980) 153–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on the function of the Gethsemane story within this structure, see Mack, Burton, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 306–8Google Scholar.

³⁹ On Mark 12:13–17, see Horsley, Richard A., Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 306–17Google Scholar; D'Angelo, ”Remembering Jesus”; Myers, Ched, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988) 306–14Google Scholar; more ambiguously, Meeks, Wayne A., The Moral World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 104Google Scholar; Wengst, Klaus, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986)Google Scholar. All of these except Myers attempt to read the story in the context of Jesus’ career.

⁴⁰ See D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

⁴¹ Fitzmyer, “Abba and Jesus’ Relation to God,” 31.

⁴² See the discussion in Hull, John, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SBT 2d ser. 28; London: SCM, 1974) 73–86Google Scholar; Dowd (Prayer, Power and the Problem of Suffering, 113–50) points out that Mark includes an apologetic against the charge of magic.

⁴³ On the case for a Syrian origin for Mark, see Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990) 288–92Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ For a review of the literature, see Collins, Adela Yarbro, ‘”Remove This Cup': Suffering and Healing in the Gospel of Mark,” in Eigo, Francis A., ed., Suffering and Healing in Our Day (Proceedings of the Theology Institute of Villanova University; Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1990) 29–61Google Scholar; and Dowd, Prayer, Power and the Problem of Suffering, 83–87.

⁴⁵ Yarbro Collins, “'Remove This Cup,’” esp. 43–54, see also Dowd, Prayer, Power and the Problem of Suffering, 133–50.

⁴⁶ On women as disciples in Mark, see Munro, Winsome, “Women Disciples in Mark?” CBQ 44 (1982) 225–41Google Scholar; Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 165–73, 320–23; and Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) 422–23Google Scholar. On the ambiguities of treatment of women in Mark, see Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers, “Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark,” in Tolbert, Mary Ann, ed., The Bible and Feminist Hermeneutics (Semeia 28; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983) 29–48Google Scholar; and Munro, Winsome, “Women Disciples: Light from Secret Mark,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 8 (1992) 47–64Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology”; see also Phyllis Trible, review of God the Father, by Hamerton-Kelly, Robert, TToday 37 (1980) 118Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ See, e.g., Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 54 n. 2, 45–52, 55–57, 107–9.

⁴⁹ On the problems with these arguments, see Barr, “Abba Isn't Daddy,” 28–47.

⁵⁰ Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 82–105.

⁵¹ For a history of the interpretation of Q focused especially on genre and theories of redaction, see Kloppenborg, John S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 8–101Google Scholar. Kloppenborg proposes an original layer of Q that was sapiential, nonapocalyptic, and not judgment-oriented. I find his description of individual units helpful, but his attempt to distinguish earlier and later layers and to exclude apocalyptic elements from the earliest level of Q less convincing. On the collaboration of apocalyptic and sapiential elements in Q, see Koester, Helmut, “Jesus the Victim,” JBL 111 (1992) 7Google Scholar; see also D'Angelo, “The Beatitudes,” in Judith Dwyer, ed., A Dictionary of Catholic Social Teaching (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, forthcoming); Dillon, Richard J., “Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25–33 / Luke 12:22–31),” CBQ 53 (1991) 605–27Google Scholar, esp. 606–7 n. 7. On Matt 6:9–13 // Luke 11:2–4 and Matt 7:7–11 // Luke 11:9–13, see Kloppenborg, Formation, 203; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 141, 144.

⁵² Some scholars have suggested that the prayer was absent from Q; see Kloppenborg, John S., Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes and Concordance (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988) 84Google Scholar.

⁵³ Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus, 91, 95–97.

⁵⁴ On liturgical practice, see Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 142.

⁵⁵ Betz, Hans Dieter (Essays on the Sermon on the Mount [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 55–69)Google Scholar postulates a redaction of the sermon different from the version of Q obtained by comparing Matthew and Luke, which he believes to have preceded Matthew. He sees the sermon as in tension with the theology of Q, describes Matt 6:1–18 as a “Jewish-Christian cultic Didache,” and prescinds from the question of its relation to Q. But see Koester on liturgical practice as the source of these differences (Ancient Christian Gospels, 142).

⁵⁶ See Heinemann, Joseph, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns (trans. Sarason, Richard S.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977) 191–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 62–63. This has long been recognized; see, for example, Chase, Frederick Henry, The Lord's Prayer in the Early Church (TextsS 1/3; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891)Google Scholar; Friedlander, Gerald, The Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the Mount (London: Routledge, 1911) 123–36Google Scholar; Vermes, Geza, Jesus and the World of Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 39–42Google Scholar; see also Petuchowski, Jakob K. and Brock, Michael, eds., The Lord's Prayer and Jewish Liturgy (New York: Seabury and New York: Crossroad, 1978)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ No claim of dependence is made here; the earliest datable forms of the Kaddish are talmudic. See Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 24; Friedlander, Jewish Sources, 134–35, 137; Wener, Eric, “The Doxology in Synagogue and Church,” in Petuchowski, Jakob J., ed., Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (New York: KTAV, 1970) 350–53Google Scholar; Hoffman, Lawrence A., The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (University of Notre Dame Center for the Study of Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity 4; Notre Dame, IN; University of Notre Dame Press, 1979) 56Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

⁵⁹ See Epictetus DIM. 1.9.7.

⁶⁰ On interpretations of this clause as expressing Jesus’ perfect submission, see Heinemann's reductio ad absurdum (Prayer in the Talmud, 185–88).

⁶¹ See also the use of the verb to describe the trial and persecution of martyrs in 4 Mace 9:7, “test us, O tyrant” and 4 Mace 15:16, “mother tested now by pangs sharper than labor.”

⁶² See Schuller's comments on 4Q372 1.16 and Mark 14:36 in “The Psalm of 4Q372 1,” 79. See also the list of short prayers for a time of danger in Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 188.

⁶³ To this idea compare not only the temptation of Jesus in Q but also 1 Mace 2:52 on God's testing of Abraham.

⁶⁴ 4Q372 1.19; 1QH 9.30–35; Jos. Asen. 12.14–15; Apoc. Ezek. fragment 2; Tob 13:4–6; compare Josephus Ant. 2.152.

⁶⁵ Kloppenborg, Formation, 219–21; and Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 145. Kloppenborg notes the apocalyptic character of the logion's reference to the reign of God. In arguing for its sapiential character, he makes the fascinating suggestion that the motif of seeking is to be connected with Sophia's invitation. He seems to see this as telling against the apocalyptic and prophetic character of the saying. But this is not necessarily the case; see Dillon, “Ravens, Lilies and the Kingdom of God,” 622–26.

⁶⁶ These two verses are absent from the parallel in POxy. 665 i 1–17; see Kloppenborg, Q Parallels, 131.

⁶⁷ See Matt 5:45 // Luke 6:35 and the reconstruction in Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana, 70–71.

⁶⁸ Kloppenborg {Formation, 173–85) connects Matt 5:48 // Luke 6:36 to Matt 7:1–2 // Luke 6:37–38 rather than treating Matt 6:43–47 // Luke 6:27–35. The two sets of logia seem to be treated as a unit in Q.

⁶⁹ Kloppenborg, Formation, 190–203; Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 139.

⁷⁰ Kloppenborg, Formation, 197.

⁷¹ Layton, Bentley, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introduction (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987) 360Google Scholar. The choice of the word “Hellenistic” should not be pressed too far. The texts and movements with which we are concerned belong to the imperial period. The myth did not necessarily originate with and certainly is not limited to speakers of Greek; above all, “Hellenistic” should not be taken to mean Greek rather than Jewish.

⁷² In addition to the Gospel of Thomas, discussed below, see, for example, Ap. Jas. 4.31— 34; 9.10–17; 10.6–14,32–33; 13.8–13; Gos. Truth passim, esp. 16.31–17.4; Tri. Trac. passim, esp. 51.1–57.8; Hyp. Arch. 86.20–25; 88.4; 96.11–15, 19–22; 97.15–20; Exeg. Soul passim, esp. 127.23–24; 128.26–129.1; Gos. Egyp. passim, but esp. 40.12–41.1; Eugnostos 71.5–73.3; Soph. Jes. Chr. 93.16–95.19; Dial. Sav. 121.5–144.8–12; / Apoc. Jas. 33.11–24; 2Apoc. Jas. 62.12–63.1; Auth. Teach. 25.27–34; Pr. Thanks. 63.33–64.14, 25–30. For a discussion of the reasons for translating “father” as “parent” in some documents of the Nag Hammadi corpus, see Good, Deirdre, “Gender and Generation: Observations on Coptic Terminology, with Particular Attention to the Valentinian Texts,” in King, Karen L., ed., Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 23–40Google Scholar; and John H. Sieber, “A Response to Gender and Generation,” in King, Images, 41–46.

⁷³ C. H. Dodd describes a spirituality of knowledge and participation in the divine in the Hermetic corpus as significant for the milieu of John (The Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953] 10–53Google Scholar, esp. 13, 36–44).

⁷⁴ The Gospel of Thomas is now generally attributed to Syrian ascetic Christianity rather than to Gnosticism; the Hermetica are not properly speaking Gnostic, since they lack the role of the incompetent creator in their version of the creation myth. On the non-Gnostic character of the Thomas literature, see Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 360.

⁷⁵ On this point see D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

⁷⁶ On the date, see Steinhauser, Michael G., “The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction,” in Kloppenborg, John S., Meyer, Marvin W., Patterson, Stephen J., and Steinhauser, Michael G., Q-Thomas Reader (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990) 85–90Google Scholar; in Koester's view (Ancient Christian Gospels, 85) the Gospel of Thomas gives a “more original” version of some of the sayings than do the synoptic gospels.

⁷⁷ See Gos. Thorn. 27, 37, 44, 57, 64, 69, 79, 83, 96, 97, 98, 99, 113; all of these use some substitute for God; perhaps also logion 15. The very strange saying in Gos. Thorn. 30 is the exception.

⁷⁸ Gos. Thorn. 3; the translation is that of Thomas O. Lambdin, in NHLE, 126.

⁷⁹ See Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, 80–81, 124–28; see also Steinhauser, “The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction,” 96–99.

⁸⁰ Gos. Thorn. 4 (trans. Lambdin, 126).

⁸⁰ Gos. Thorn. 50 (trans. Lambdin, 132).

⁸² Gos. Thorn. 61 (trans. Michael G. Steinhauser, “The Gospel of Thomas: Text, Translation, and Notes,” in Kloppenberg, et al., Q-Thomas Reader, 143–44). This translation represents the Coptic partitive better than that of Lambdin (p. 133): “he who is from the undivided. I have been given some of the things of my father.”

⁸³ See Kloppenborg, Formation, 198–99, 201–2.

⁸⁴ Jeremias's defense of its authenticity concludes that it originated as a description of general experience (Prayers, 47–48).

⁸⁵ See above, n. 82.

⁸⁶ Kloppenborg, Formation, 199–206; Koester (Ancient Christian Gospels, 141) assigns Matt 6:9–13; 7:7–11 // Luke 11:2–4, 9–13 to the section he entitles “The Community in Conflict.”

⁸⁷ Kloppenborg, Formation, 197–98.

⁸⁸ See ibid., 197. Joined by Luke to the missionary sermon in Luke 10:1–20, which is composed from Mark and Q, they follow the composite missionary sermon in Matthew also, where they are integrated into the sayings about the relation of John and Jesus (Matt 11:2–30).

⁸⁹ Kloppenborg (Formation, 190–206) treats Matt 11:25–27 // Luke 10:20–21 and Matt 13:16–17 // Luke 10:23–24 as part of a sapiential speech that is represented by Luke 9:57–62; 10:1–16, and 21–24; he treats Matt 6:9–13 // Luke 11:2–4 and Matt 7:7–11 // Luke 11:9–13 as a separate unit of instruction on prayer whose introduction has been obliterated by the process of redaction.

⁹⁰ But see Kloppenborg (Formation, 92, 203–6) who treats Matt 6:9–13; 7:7–11 // Luke 11:2–4, 9–13 as an independent unit; he relegates the Beelzebul controversy to the supposedly later, judgment-oriented layer (pp. 121–47).

⁹¹ Portions of Q that are not retrievable from Matthew and Luke or entirely lost might bring this picture into better focus. Schussler Fiorenza suggests (In Memory of Her, 150) that Matt 28:8–10 derives from Q; but see D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

⁹² Kloppenborg (Formation, 247^18) treats the temptation as a late addition to Q.

⁹³ Levine, Amy-Jill, “Who's Catering the Q Affair? Feminist Observations on Q Paraenesis,” in Perdue, Leo G. and Gammie, John G., eds., Paraenesis: Act and Form (Semeia 50; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 151Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 151–53.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 146–56.

⁹⁶ On this see Bynum, Caroline Walker, “Women's Stories, Women's Symbols,” in Moore, Robert L. and Reynolds, Frank E., eds., Anthropology and the Study of Religion (Chicago: Center for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1984) 105–25Google Scholar; she points out that medieval women's stories and symbols tend toward continuity with or enhancement of, rather than reversal of, their identities and that women adopt male dress or attributes out of expedience rather than as an expression of liminality.

⁹⁷ D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”

⁹⁸ Ibid.

⁹⁹ See Phyllis Trible's observation that transferring patriarchy from earth to heaven does not so much defeat as absolutize it (review of God the Father, 118). See also D'Angelo, “Abba and ‘Father': Imperial Theology.”