Praying for the Coming of the Kingdom, Crystallizing Biblical Themes in Second Temple Prayers: The Shema, the Qaddish, and the Lord’s Prayer

Abstract

Some studies have pointed to the Jewish background of the prayer that, according to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus taught his disciples. However, the formulations of LP’s words do not necessarily presuppose the conclusion of the formation of Jewish prayers and do not necessarily presuppose a unidirectional influence of Jewish prayers on the formation of LP. This prayer and its “midrash” in John 17 may have influenced the formulation and final formation of some Jewish prayers. The differences between these prayers may indicate the mutual influence that, in some cases, took place throughout the history of their formation. This reciprocity may be due to the intention to establish and define the differences between the religious groups of Judaic origin that inherited these prayers and between the communities that recited them. The crystallization of biblical themes in these prayers highlights the common heritage of these groups and a different understanding of the fulfilment of God’s word in relation to the coming of his kingdom. While this process, characterized by a conflict of interpretations, took place “within Judaism,” it also led to the parting of the ways of Judeo-Christians from the Synagogue.

1. Introduction

The petition for the coming of the kingdom, the sanctification of God’s name, and the fulfilment of the divine will are biblical themes that the Lord’s Prayer (LP) shares with Second Temple prayers.1 The Qaddish, formulated in Aramaic and with one and a half sentences in Hebrew, bears many similarities to the LP. The mention of some phrases of the Qaddish are found in the Talmud (cf. b Ber 3a; 21b; Sot 49a), compiled between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century CE. If the Hebrew prayer was later than the formation of the New Testament (NT) writings, could the LP have influenced the formulation of the words of the Qaddish?2

The Shema, in a less elaborate form than the present one, dates back to the first century CE (cf. JA 4:212–213; m Ber 1:2–4). It is composed of Deut 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Num 15:37–41 and some blessings. According to rabbinic interpretations, this prayer professes the consequences of practicing the commandments in the life of the believers who, recognizing the unity and oneness of God’s love, commit themselves to conform to their will in order to welcome the coming of the kingdom. In the LP the supplication for the coming of the kingdom is presented with a different meaning than the blessings of the Shema, probably dependent on John 17, which in turn could help interpret the biblical texts of this Hebrew prayer.

The crystallization of biblical themes in these prayers could reciprocally reflect the understanding of faith on the one hand and the definition of the identity of those who recite them on the other. By crystallization I mean the process of fixing common themes in Jewish and Christian prayers as a result of a debate on biblical hermeneutics and the understanding and actualization of God’s word.3 This process helped to mutually define and differentiate the religious identity of Jews and Christians during ‘the parting their ways’.

2. The Qaddish and the LP

The text of the Qaddish consists of five units (see the table below). In this form (i.e., whole shalem) it is recited at the end of each section of today’s synagogal liturgy by the chazan leading the prayer. A form comprising only the first two units (chatzi-Qaddish: half Qaddish) connects parts of the synagogal prayer. This form is found, for example, between the reading of the Torah and that of the Neviim; or in the evening, between the prayer of the Shema and that of the Amida.4

In addition to these formulations, there are others for different contexts: the orphan’s Qaddish (yatom), recited for the deceased and made up of the first two and the last two units; and the Qaddish of our teachers (deRabbanan), recited in the school (beit-midrash) during the study of the Scriptures. The following diagram highlights common themes in the current formulations of the five units of the Qaddish and the two parts of the Gospel versions of LP (Matt 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4), the first part includes requests addressed to the Lord, and the second offers petitions for the needs of the faithful:5

PN of Luke [and of Matthew]	Qaddish	Common Themes
(1) Father [our He who is in heaven]	(3) Let the prayers and supplications of the whole house of Israel be accepted before their Father in heaven. Say: Amen. Amen.	The heavenly Father, and his ‘home’
Hallowed be thy name	(2) Blessed and revered, glorified and exalted, honored and magnified, lifted up and praised be his holy Name. Blessed be he. Amen. Beyond all song and psalm, beyond all tribute that mortal beings can express. Say: Amen. Amen.	Sanctification of the Name of God
Thy Kingdom come [Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven]	(1) Exalted and hallowed be his holy Name. Amen. In the world he has created according to his will. His Kingdom be accepted. Let his redemption break through, and let his Messiah draw near. Amen. During our lifetime, and during the lifetime of all Israel. Very soon. Say: Amen. Amen. Blessed be his holy name, forever and ever.	The Kingdom of God and His Will
(2) Give us each day [today] our daily bread		The ‘daily’ bread
Forgive us our sins [debts] as we forgive our debtors	(5) He who gives peace to His universe will give peace to us, and to all the people of Israel. Let us say: Amen. Amen.	Peace, reconciliation (and forgiveness of sins)
and lead us not into temptation [but deliver us from evil]	(4) May there be abundant peace from heaven, with good life for us and for all the people of Israel. Say: Amen. Amen.	The demand for (earthly) goods and deliverance (from evil)

Common expressions and motifs in the Qaddish and the first part of the LP are first and foremost ‘Father (who is in heaven)’,6 with the first person plural possessive pronoun in the LP’s invocation (according to the long version in Matthew’s gospel). This is followed by the sanctification of God’s name, which is expanded and developed in the Qaddish compared to the LP’s formulation, God’s kingship and His will. The request for peace and a good life in the last two units of the Qaddish, and the requests in the second part of the LP could reflect shared or related themes and motifs, as we shall see later.

Apart from certain expressions and themes, the Qaddish and the LP share an eschatological orientation. In the first unit of the Qaddish, is addressed to the future with the petition for the recognition of the Lord’s sovereignty, i.e., the coming of his kingdom, and by the invocation for the coming of the Messiah with the “inbreaking” (the ‘flowering’: yitzmach) of redemption during ‘our life and the life of all Israel, very soon’. The LP’s future eschatological orientation, on the other hand, is especially noticeable in the first part of the prayer where the sanctification of the Lord’s name, the coming of his kingdom and, in the Matthean version, the fulfilment of his will are invoked.

3. The Eschatology of the Qaddish and the ‘Daily’ Bread of the LP

The prayer of the Qaddish, together with the sanctification of God’s name widely and variously elaborated, invokes the coming of the Messiah and peace from heaven and from God: He who makes peace on high will make peace upon us and upon all Israel. The LP, unlike the Qaddish, presupposes the coming of the Messiah, and in the second part presents certain criteria and conditions for the sanctification of God’s name for the welcoming of the kingdom and for the manifestation of His presence.

A first condition is the ‘daily’ bread, which has no obvious parallel in the Qaddish, unless the LP’s bread has a literal meaning, and a parallel to this request is ‘a good life’ (chayym tovim) in the fourth unit of the Hebrew prayer. The meaning of the term epiousios that specifies the characteristic of bread in the first request of the second part of the Greek text of the LP is rendered in modern versions as ‘daily’. But the meaning of this term is a debated issue (Cf. Foerster 1968). If the term were composed of epi with the participle of the verb to be eimi (ten ousan) specifying the day (emera), which is implied, the meaning would be: ‘for the present [day]’.7 Instead, in the case of the preposition epi with the participle (iousan) of eimi (=to come, from ienai) and the subject (=emera, day) implied, epiousios would mean ‘for the coming [day]’, i.e., ‘of tomorrow’ (Zerwick and Grosvenor 2010).

The term is understood with the latter meaning by the Sahidic Coptic version, which translates epiousion as ‘coming’, and by the Boharic version, which translates it as ‘of the next day’, ‘tomorrow’. Jerome confirms this meaning when he says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he found ‘tomorrow’ instead of the rare adjective. But in the Vulgate of Luke 11:3 he translates the term with cotidianum (as do modern versions of the LP), and in Matt 6:11, he translates it with supersustantialem.

What is this ‘daily’, this “super-substantial” bread, for the present day, and for tomorrow?8 The biblical traditions and the scenes of Jesus’ temptations suggest that the epiousios bread can be understood as the word of God (Matt 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13; cf. Deut 8:3). In this case, in the LP the word of God as revealed by Jesus, with the gift of his life and the Holy Spirit (cf. Ezek 36:24–29; John 19:31, etc.) fulfilling the time of the coming of the kingdom (cf. Mark 1:15), is the first condition for the sanctification of God’s name, like the heart that adheres to the renewal of the covenant as we read in the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah (cf. Ezek 36:22f; Jer 31:31). The rare Greek term could specify the temporal quality of the bread which Jerome in the Matthew version of the LP defines as supersustantialem, i.e., —in this case—not ordinary, or according to the ordinary properties and means of subsistence (Simpson 1968).

The relation of the Qaddish to the celebration and study of God’s word and the possible non-(only) literal meaning of the ‘daily’ bread in the LP highlight a difference between the two prayers. The Qaddish invokes the coming of the Messiah and redemption in the future, and in the formulations connected with the proclamation of the word of God invites the expectation of these eschatological events with the study of the Torah. The LP presupposes inbreaking of the kingdom with the daily bread, which is the promise of the Spirit actualized with forgiveness and support in moments of temptation and finally the deliverance from evil.

A first crystallization of biblical themes in these prayers concerns the actualization of the word of God and is connected to the eschatological orientation of the coming of the kingdom. From this perspective, the difference between the relation to the word of God in the study of the Torah, and the presentation of the word of God as ‘daily’ bread, i.e., as the ‘gift’ of the life of Jesus, which in the NT fulfils the word of God,9 is evidenced by the use of the chatzi-Qaddish recited between the reading of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and the formulation of the Qaddish deRabbanan, recited during the study of the Hebrew scriptures:

(We pray) for Israel, for our teachers and their disciples, for the disciples of their disciples, and for all who study the Torah, here and everywhere. May they have abundant peace, goodwill, ample support and salvation from their Father in heaven. And say: Amen.

(Cf. Birnbaum 1949)

The mention of the teachers of Israel and their disciples studying the Torah, with the continuation of the prayer, highlights a different presentation and crystallization of the word of God from that expressed with the meaning of the LP’s ‘daily’ bread. Here, the realization of the promise of God’s word involves an inner transformation of the heart and is visible in the practice of mutual forgiveness.

In the LP, the peace that is in heaven is made on earth with the practice of forgiveness of sins, which sums up Jesus’ teaching and his interpretation and ‘revelation’ of the Torah. In the Qaddish, peace belongs to the Lord who dwells in the heavens above, and is invoked for those who recite this prayer, for those who study the Torah, and for all Israel. The word of God is presented, actualized and crystallized on the one hand according to biblical terminology and an adjective that temporally qualifies its fulfilment, with the gift of the Spirit, and on the other hand with the practice of studying the Torah in anticipation of the manifestation of the kingdom.

4. The Shema, the LP and the Kingdom

During the rabbinic period, the Shema is explained in relation to the welcoming of the kingdom. Already known in the time of Josephus Flavius and the Mishna (cf. AG 4,212–213; m Ber 1,2–4), this prayer is recited twice a day, in the morning and evening, according to the prescriptions of Deut 6:7, and is composed of three biblical ‘paragraphs’ (Deut 6:4–9; Deut 11:13–21; Num 15:37–41), framed by long blessings (cf. m Ber 1,4). The first paragraph—Deut 6:4–9—is called by the sages ‘the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of God’ (cf. m Ber 2:2); the second (Deut 11:13–21) is called ‘the acceptance of the yoke of the commandments’, and the third, based on the content of Num 15:37–41, is called ‘the exodus from Egypt’.10

The LP has thematic and structural similarities with the Shema. In both cases the prayer for the coming of the kingdom is followed by conditions and consequences of its reception and manifestation.11 In both prayers, the welcoming of the kingdom, referred in the explanations of the sages to the first biblical text of the Shema (Deut 6:4–9) and invoked in the first part of the LP, precedes the acceptance of the yoke of the commandments, expressed in the second biblical text of the Shema (Deut 11:13–21) and with the petitions of the second part of the LP. Here the commandment (of love) is represented by the (biblical) meaning of bread, as the actualization and ‘fulfilment’ of the word of God, with the petition for the remission of sins implying and motivating ‘mutual’ forgiveness (cf. Matt 5:43–48; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:27–38; John 13:34).12

Rabbi Joshoua ben Karcha in the Mishna explains that the reason why in the Shema the text of Deut 6:4–9 precedes that of Deut 11:32–21 is so that first the kingdom is accepted and then the yoke of the commandments.

Rabbi Joshua ben Karcha said: Why does the section Hear Israel [Deut 6:4–9] precede, If you diligently obey the commandments [Deut 11:13–21]?—So that one first takes upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and afterwards takes upon himself the yoke of the commandments.

(m Ber 2:2)

The targumim make it clear that by kingdom is meant the presence of the Lord—especially in the place of his glorification (and forgiveness of sins) which is the temple in Jerusalem. Jonathan’s targum, for example, translates the Hebrew text of Isa 40:9, Behold your God (hine Eloehechem), with: The kingdom of your God is revealed (in Zion and in Jerusalem),

Climb the high mountain, you prophets who proclaim glad tidings to Zion! Lift up your voices with strength, you who proclaim glad tidings to Jerusalem. Lift up your voices, do not be afraid; proclaim to the cities of the house of Judah: The kingdom of your God is revealed (Targ Jon Isa 40:9).13

The kingdom of God is his glorious presence on Mount Zion and in the temple in Jerusalem, which for New Testament theology is renewed by the glorification of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 2:13f). For Paul (cf. 1 Cor 3:16), as in the Qumran texts and the Hebrew Bible (cf. Ezek 36:26–27; Lev 26:11) the Holy Spirit enables one to be (like) the temple (cf. Ezek 37:26–28; 4Q266 ii 2:12; 4Q270 ii 2:14; 4QFlorilegium [=4Q174]; cf. also Eph 2:21–22; 1 Pet 2:4–6. Cf. Rom 5:15) (Cf. Ruzer 2012). In the Gospel according to John the gift of the Spirit inaugurates a new age (cf. John 16,7.16) (Cf. Di Luccio 2021), and opens the disciples to receive the forgiveness of sins, traditionally celebrated in the temple in Jerusalem (cf. John 20:21–23)—where the Shema was recited in the first century CE (cf. m Yoma 3:8; 5:1; j Yoma 7:1; 44b).14

Whereas, as the sages explain, the Shema makes the acceptance of the yoke of commandments follow the acceptance of the kingdom (which in the Amida is invoked with the rebuilding of the temple),15 the LP makes the acceptance of the kingdom and the practice of the commandment of love and mutual forgiveness dependent on the glorification of Jesus and the gift of the Spirit that fulfils the promises of the Word of God and the temple’s expectations of newness and renewal (cf. John 2:13f; 20:21–23). The request for bread in the LP crystallizes the extraordinary worldliness of the kingdom to highlight its coming. In the explanation of the sages, on the other hand, the structure of the Shema crystallizes (fixing and highlighting) the priority of the kingdom by emphasizing its principal rather than temporal aspect and linking it to the practice of the commandments.

In this regard it is significant that in the Gospel of Luke Gregory of Nyssa, instead of the request for the coming of the kingdom, preferred a request for the coming of the Holy Spirit:

So that in that gospel instead of ‘thy kingdom come’, ‘come’, it says, ‘thy holy Spirit upon us and cleanse us’.16

For Gregory the invocation of the Holy Spirit, in the Lucan version of the LP that he knew, is equivalent to the petition for the coming of the kingdom. The Holy Spirit symbolized in the LP by the ‘daily’ bread is the crystallization of the coming of the kingdom. The mutual forgiveness of sins in the LP makes manifest in the everyday the inbreaking of the kingdom and the fulfilment of Scripture with the gift of the Spirit (Cf. Zizioulas 2024). In the rabbinic interpretation of the biblical paragraphs of the Shema, on the other hand, the observance of the commandments emphasizes the priority of the acceptance of the kingdom, not its temporality. By prioritizing the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom over the acceptance of the yoke of the commandments, the sages present the (temporal) ordinariness of waiting for the kingdom in the prayer of the Shema (expressed in Deut 6:4–9).

5. John 17, the LP and the Shema

Some exegetes see in the prayer of Jesus in John 17—called ‘priestly’ because of the recurrence of the terminology of sanctification—a midrash of the LP.17 The verses delimited by ‘the scriptures’ and ‘your word’ (vv. 12–14), in this case, could explain the coming of the kingdom and the fulfilment of the Father’s will (and the sanctification of God’s name) in relation to the first demand of the LP’s second part. In Jesus’ words, the ‘unity’ of the disciples, their love for each other like that between the Father and the Son (cf. John 13:31–35), is a testimony to the coming of the kingdom, the gift of the Spirit promised in the Scriptures and the fulfilment of the love of the Shema (cf. Deut 6:4–5).18

If John 17 were a prayer explaining the LP, the first petition of the first part of the LP (hallowed be thy Name) could be taken up in vv. 6–11, linking the meaning of the invocation (Father) with the coming of the kingdom, mentioned in John 17:3, using the language of eternal life. If instead the LP contained the formulation of traditional petitions, scriptural themes presented in John 17 in relation to the Shema would be ‘crystallized’ here. That is, the LP would crystallize with the traditional formulations of the sanctification of God’s name and the coming of the kingdom the meaning of the glorification of Jesus and the resulting eternal life.19

In the fourth gospel glorification is the participation in the mutual communion of the life of Jesus with the love of the Father, the fulfilment of Ezek 36:22 and the visibility of the revelation of the word of God. It corresponds to the meaning of the invocation and petitions of the first part of the LP, explained and actualized with the requests of the second part. These, in turn, are presented as a crystallization of the explanation of glorification in John 17. The petition for daily bread for the mutual forgiveness, and the petition on temptation explained by the deliverance from evil in the LP of Matt,20 are crystallizations, with traditional formulations, of Jesus’ prayer for unity (John 17) that involves the fulfilment of the love of the Shema.21 This unity, which is eternal life and the kingdom, is a ‘gift’ that is kept by keeping Jesus’ word and his commandment (cf. 13:34), which unite the disciple to Jesus and his communion with the Father’s love.

A prayer for unity is included in the second blessing of the Shema (ahava rabba). Here the expectation of peace differs from the peace that in the LP is presupposed by the request for forgiveness and in John 17 is explained as communion to the union and mutual love of Jesus with the Father. In the blessing of the Shema, messianic peace is a gift from God, and follows from his mercy revealed in the gift of the Torah.

You have loved us with great love, our God. Great and superabundant mercy have you had for us, our Father, our God, because of our fathers who trusted in you and to whom you have taught the precepts of life. Thus, give us grace and instruct us, our Father, the merciful Father, who has mercy. Have mercy upon us and grant to our hearts to understand and instruct, to listen, learn and teach, observe and do, and put into practice all the words of the teaching of your Torah, with love. Enlighten our eyes with your Torah, and glue our hearts to your commandments. Unite our hearts to the love and fear of thy Name, and we shall never be shamed, for in your holy, great and terrible Name we have trusted. We shall exult and rejoice in your salvation.

Bring us to peace from the four corners of the earth, and lead us proudly (qomemiut) to our land, for You are a God who performs saving works, and You have chosen us from among all peoples and languages, and You have drawn us to Your great Name (Sela) with truth, to thank You and unite us with You, with love. Blessed are You Lord who chooses Your people Israel with love (second blessing of the Shema).

In the Italian and Sephardic rite, the second blessing of the Shema begins with the words ahavat olam, ‘With eternal love’, referring to Jer 31:2. This is an ancient variant and dates back to Talmudic times (cf. b Ber 11b). The introduction of the messianic petitions (‘bring us peace from the four corners of the earth’) at the beginning of the second part is perhaps due to the occurrence of the expression ‘unite our hearts’ with which the previous part concludes.22

It can be assumed that originally the blessing concluded with the words ‘unite our hearts …’ (because the expression, ‘unite our hearts in the love and fear of your name’, implies the request for unity). The following part may be intended to specify the messianic unity and peace as a result of God’s mercy revealed in the gift and observance of the Torah and not the unity of John 17 and the peace that consists of the practice of forgiveness.

The call for unity with the specification of the future messianic age, in this version of the second blessing of the Shema, can be a constitutive part of the prayer or the result of its natural development. Or it may be an addition following the compositions of John 17 and the LP, for the crystallization of the differences in the fulfilment of unity according to the love of the Shema,23 and for defining the identity of the groups that perform these prayers.

6. Sanctification of the Name of God

The different eschatological orientation in relation to the fulfilment of God’s word, the specifications of love and unity that characterize the coming and the worldliness of the kingdom, are examples of differences between groups in Second Temple Judaism. In the prayers examined here, these differences are highlighted by the crystallization of the biblical theme of the sanctification of God’s name. In the Qaddish, this has liturgical characteristics and a wide spectrum of formulations. In the LP, the petition for the sanctification of God’s name (with the petition for the coming of God’s kingdom and the fulfilment of his will) is drawn from the demands of the second part and mainly concerns the practice of forgiveness of sins in the ‘everyday’ life of believers. For them, the eschatological promises and expectations are fulfilled—or revealed by Jesus through his biblical interpretation and glorification.24

According to Hebrew etymology, ‘holiness’ implies ‘separation’. This is how one can understand the meaning of the term qadosh in Lev 20:26: ‘You shall be holy to me, for I, the Lord, am holy and have separated you from other peoples, that you may be mine’ (cf. Lev 10:10; Sir 33:7–14). To pray for God’s name to be sanctified is to confess his ‘separation’. In the Shema it is crystallized with the practice of all the words of the teaching of the Torah, with love, attaching the heart to the commandments. According to the rabbinic interpretation of this prayer, the sanctification of God’s name is crystallized in the priority of accepting the kingdom.

In the Qaddish, the ‘separation’ of God’s name is linked to the coming of the kingdom (1) and is expressed in wide ranging and varied liturgical vocabulary (2):

• Exalted and hallowed be His holy Name. Amen. In the world He created according to His will. May His Kingdom be accepted. Let His redemption break through, and let His Messiah draw near. Amen. During our lifetime, and during the lifetime of all Israel. Very soon. Say: Amen. Amen. Blessed be His holy Name, forever and ever.
• May His holy Name be glorified and celebrated, praised and revered, acclaimed and honoured, lifted up and exalted. Blessed be He. Amen. Beyond all song and psalm, beyond all tribute that mortal beings can express. Say: Amen. Amen.
• May the prayers and requests of the whole house of Israel be accepted by our Father in heaven. Say: Amen. Amen.

Jesus, on the other hand, refers to the ‘separation’ of God’s name in a short prayer that, as we shall see, has characteristics common to the LP (Matt 11:25–28; Luke 10:21–22):

I give praise to you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned and revealed them to the little ones (nepiois). Yea, O Father, for thus hast thou decided in your goodness. Everything has been given to me by my Father, and no one knows who the son is except the Father, nor who the Father is except the son and he to whom the son will reveal him.

(Luke 10:21b–22; cf. Matt 11:25–28) (Cf. Di Luccio 2024)

In the words of this prayer, which would belong to the hypothetical Q (Quelle) source common to the gospels of Matt and Luke,25 Jesus first praises the Father, that is, he blesses and thanks him, acknowledging that he is Lord of heaven and earth. Then Jesus makes the reason for his praise explicit: because the Father has made known ‘these things’, that is, his name, his fatherhood and his Lordship over heaven and earth, to the little ones. Praise, thanksgiving and blessing, in this prayer, are motivated by the sanctification of God’s name, his separation, and they elucidate the meaning of this sanctification. Praise here is not a (mere) formula of liturgical confession but expresses an experiential knowledge that explains (biblical) sanctification.

The revelation of the Father’s Lordship is his sanctification (cf. Ezek 36:22f) and is the reason for Jesus’ praise. The separation then is not so much between the little ones and the learned, but in the Father’s choice to separate himself from the side of the little ones. Jesus’ praise is a prayer that confesses and testifies to the Father’s Lordship in choosing to reveal himself, and to reveal his kingdom, by separating himself from the wise and the learned, and revealing his Fatherhood and the holiness of his name to the ‘little children’.

Could the varied expressions of sanctification in the Qaddish differentiate praise and ‘separation’, as it is understood in the prayer of Matt 11:25–28 and Luke 10:20–22? This hypothesis is based on the similarities between the praise of Jesus and the LP on the one hand, and between the LP and the Qaddish on the other. These similarities point significantly to a different presentation of sanctification. In the Qaddish, praise goes ‘beyond every song and psalm, beyond every tribute that mortal beings can express’. In Jesus’ prayer of praise, the ‘separation’ and holiness of God and his kingdom are explained as the hiddenness of ‘these things’ from the wise and learned. The ‘things’ Jesus refers to are the Lordship of the Father, specified by the relationship of mutual knowledge between the Father and the Son, ‘and he to whom the Son will reveal it’.

This knowledge is not an intellectual activity but is biblical and experiential in nature. It is the mutual (in the sense of gratuitous) love of the Father revealed in the life of Jesus and in the gift of the Spirit. In the evangelical traditions, it corresponds to the sanctification of the Father’s name and the coming of his kingdom. With reference to this concept of sanctification, crystallized in the first part of the LP, the Qaddish could detail in liturgical terminology the sanctification of God’s name and the coming of the kingdom.

There would be an intentionality, in this case, in the fact that the vocabulary used to express the ‘separation’ of the Father, in Jesus’ brief prayer of praise, is more restricted and essential than that with which the Qaddish expresses the sanctification of God’s name, and unlike the former, here many synonyms are used. The verb exomologheo with which the Greek text of the Gospels begins the prayer of praise of Jesus literally means ‘to acknowledge’ and ‘to confess’ (cf. Rom 10:9). In the biblical prayers of the LXX, this term belongs to the language used to express praise and blessing in a context of help and deliverance in difficulty (cf. Dan 2:20–23).26

In Second Temple Hebrew as well as in the LXX, the terminology of confession can motivate the blessing of God’s name (cf. Ps 100:4) and indicate that the praise of God implies thanksgiving for the saving intervention in a situation of danger and on behalf of vulnerable and disadvantaged people. In some of the Hodayyot prayers, the confession (of praise) is a thanksgiving, which includes the blessing and confession of one’s inadequacy and littleness.27 In 1QH[a] 19, for example, the speaker, a creature of dust and mud, thanks God for the work he has done with him, for placing thanksgiving on his mouth and praise on his tongue. Therefore, he will sing the Lord’s kindness, consider his greatness, always bless his name, and recount his glory.

3 I thank you, my God, because you have done wonders with the dust; with the creature of mud you have acted (in a very very) mighty manner. And me, what am I that 4 you have [in]marked me the foundations of your truth, and have instructed me in your wondrous works? You have placed thanksgiving in my mouth, praise on my tongue, 5 the expression of my lips in a place of rejoicing. I will sing your kindness, I will consider your greatness the whole 6 day, I will bless your name continually, I will tell of your glory among the sons of Adam, and in your abundant goodness 7 my soul will delight […].

(1QH[a] 19:3–7) (See García Martínez and Tigchelaar 1997)

The thanksgiving and praise in this prayer correspond to the meaning of the terminology of sanctification in the Qaddish and involve a similar experiential aspect to that referred to in Jesus’ prayer of praise, highlighting the differentiation of sanctification in the Jewish prayer and Jesus’ prayer. The equivalence of Jesus’ short prayer of praise with the meaning of sanctification, highlighted by the Qumran prayer, makes the Qaddish’s explanation of sanctification particularly significant for a case of a possible relationship in the word formation of these prayers.

7. The Coming of the Kingdom

Jesus in the NT is included in the category of the ‘little ones’, to whom the Father has revealed his truth and life, according to his ‘pleasure’ and will. In a unique and special way Jesus is identified with the whole revelation and sanctification of the Father’s name and will.28 This is the meaning of his praise, the characteristic of the kingdom he inaugurated with the gift of his life and Spirit, and the sanctification crystallized in the LP with a traditional formulation.

Welcoming the kingdom as a child (Matt 19:13–5 par.) is not foreign to the interpretation of the Shema, if one takes into account, on the one hand, that Deut 6:4–9 is interpreted by the Sages as ‘acceptance or welcoming of the kingdom of God’ (cf. m Ber 2:2) and, on the other hand, that entry into the kingdom, which in John 3:3 and John 3:5 is equivalent to a ‘vision’ and implies rebirth, in the Synoptics is related to the Shema. Where with the scribe’s question about the first commandment and Jesus’ quotation of the Shema, Mark 12:28–34 speaks of the kingdom of God, Luke 10:25–28 speaks of eternal life as the kingdom is presented in the priestly prayer, explaining it then as participation in the unity of Father and son (cf. John 17:2–3.11).29 The acceptance of the kingdom as a child (how one welcomes a child and how a child welcomes it) in the preaching of Jesus is necessary for the sanctification of the Father’s name, for participation in the glorification of Jesus and his mutual communion with the Father’s love, and in the fulfilment of the love of the Shema.30

The ‘little ones’, who in Luke 10:21c and in Matt 11:25c have the privilege of knowing ‘these things’, namely God’s Lordship over heaven and earth, God’s name, his fatherhood and his holiness, are not only actual young people.31 The ‘little children’ (in Greek, nepioi) mentioned in Jesus’ prayer are a category of people who are simple, humble and humbled, marginalized and diminished because of their social status, or characterized by an ‘inner littleness’, namely, humility. This condition makes them witnesses to the holiness of God’s name and particularly suited to his sanctification.

These ‘little ones’ in the prayer of praise of Jesus bear witness to the separation and holiness of God, to his fatherhood. They testify that the ‘separation’ and holiness of God and his kingdom is not a distance, but a ‘diversity’ that is experienced as paternal mercy and benevolence. In the LP, this sanctification is explained by the petition for the coming of the kingdom, which in Jesus’ preaching is welcomed like a child (Matt 18:1–5; 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17): as one welcomes a child and with the simplicity with which a child welcomes the coming of the kingdom (cf. Ps 8:3; Matt 21:16; 1 Cor 15:27; Eph 1:22; Heb 2:6–8).

The ‘little children’ and ‘infants’ who in Jesus’ preaching exemplify the coming and acceptance of the kingdom can thus include the God-fearing: the poor in spirit (anawey ruach), the humble (Matt 5:3; cf. 1QH 6:1–7) characterized by connotations of devotional piety, as well as connotations of social deprivation (cf. 1QM 11,8–9), poor people who lack everything (in Hebrew: eviyyon; in Greek: ptochos; in Latin: plebs, indigens, mendicans), or who have to struggle to obtain the necessities of life for survival (in Hebrew: ani; in Greek: penitos, penis; in Latin: pauper) (Cf. Rosenfeld and Perlmutter 2016; Armitage 2016). They are vulnerable and defenceless people (cf. 1 Sam 15:3; 22:19; Jer 44:7; Lam 2:11f; 4:4; Joel 2:26; 3:5), who in their ‘littleness’ and limitation experience the benevolence of God the Father, and thus bear witness to his holiness and the sanctification of his name. To these little ones belongs Jesus (cf. Matt 11:11). To them is addressed the priestly prayer and the recitation of the LP.

8. The History of the LP

The priestly prayer can be understood as an explanation of the unity and oneness of the love of the Shema (cf. Deut 6:4–5) in the words of the prayer of praise and thanksgiving of Luke 10:21–22 and Matt 11:25–28.32 In John 17 we recognize, in fact, the themes of Jesus’ short prayer of praise: (1) the glorification of the Father (John 17:1–5; cf. Luke 10:21: I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth); (2) the revelation of the Father’s name (John 17:6–8; cf. John 17:6–8; cf. Luke 10:21: for you have revealed ‘these things’ to the little ones); (3) the fulfilment of his will, through the intercession of the Son (John 17:9f; cf. Luke 10:21–22: no one knows the Father but the Son…).

These themes of creation (and God’s paternity), revelation (of God’s name and the Torah) and redemption (expected, or actualized and anticipated) characterize the structure of some Jewish prayers, as is the case, for example, with the blessings that precede and follow the recitation of the Shema (Yozer or: ‘Creator of Light’; Ahava rabba: ‘With great love’; Emet weyaziv: ‘True and sure’), and are recognizable in the first part of the LP.

	John 17	Q10,21–22	LP
Creation	The glorification of the Father (vv. 1–5)	I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth (v. 21b)	Father (ours who art in heaven)
Revelation	The revelation of the Father’s name (vv. 6–8)	Because you have revealed these things to the little ones (v. 21c)	Hallowed be thy Name
Redemption	The will of the Father: one (vv. 9f.)	No one knows the Father except the Son and he to whom the Son wishes to reveal him (v. 22bc)	Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done

The same short prayer of praise of Jesus may be the result of a hermeneutic operation. The conclusion of this prayer in Luke 10:21–22 in the texts of the Byzantine tradition, testified by the Alexandrian manuscript (A) from the fifth century CE, the Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) from the fifth century CE, etc., is the declaration of God’s free will, which is the reason for his decision to reveal himself to those who are like ‘little children’: ‘Yes, Father, for it pleased you’ (Luke 10:21d Byzantine tradition).

In the (more familiar) text of the Western tradition testified by the Bezae Cantabrigiensis manuscript (D) from the fifth century CE, and the Vatican manuscript (B) from the fourth century CE, as well as translations based on the texts of this tradition, Jesus’ prayer continues after the declaration of the Father’s free will, and includes words about the revelation of the Father to the Son, and the special relationship and knowledge of the Father and the Son.33 Jesus’ prayer of praise, in this manuscript tradition, is the result of the interpretation of his words (which are subject to a hermeneutic operation, and are a case of scripturalization of the prayer), whereas in the earlier tradition, Jesus’ words are the result of the interpretation of his prayer.34

John 17 may be part of the history of the interpretation of Jesus’ prayer of praise in relation to the Shema. In the fourth gospel Jesus (1) praises and glorifies the Father for the revelation of his name to his son and, through him, to those whom he has given him, as in the prayer of praise (John 17:1–8; cf. Luke 10:22). Jesus, then, (2) in the same discourse that includes the prayer of John 17 calls those whom the Father has given him ‘little children’, using a similar term (teknia; John 13:33) to that which occurs in the prayer of Luke 10:21 (nepios). Finally, (3) Jesus declares that he wants those whom the Father has given him to be where he is and to contemplate his glory, formulating with a different terminology the meaning of what he confesses in Luke 10:21–22, i.e., to have received everything from the Father and to reveal the Father to whomever he wishes (cf. John 17:9–24). In the LP these themes are crystallized in traditional formulations: (1) the sanctification of God’s name, (2) the coming of the kingdom (and in Matt the fulfilment of God’s will), (3) the ‘daily bread’ for communion with the Father’s mutual love, help in temptation and, in Matthew, for deliverance from evil and the evil one.35

Jesus’ prayer could interpret the Shema, first in the small prayer of praise and then in John 17, and finally in the crystallization of these themes with traditional formulas in the LP.36 While the Qaddish may offer a different interpretation of the Shema and the unity and oneness of God’s love with liturgical sanctification and the observance of his word in relation to the interpretations of these themes in the LP, the second blessing of the Shema may specify the sense of unity in this prayer in relation to John 17 (and the LP). These prayers, in any case, specify the actualization of God’s word and define the faith and religious identity of those who recite them.

9. Summary and Conclusions

Similarities between the words and themes of the Qaddish and the Shema, on the one hand, and the LP and John 17, on the other, reveal a common background. The language of these prayers may not have a textual dependence between them. The similarities could be due to the prayers developing within similar cultural spheres and drawing inspiration from the same biblical texts and themes. However, the language may indicate the mutual influence that, in some cases, took place throughout the history of their formation. In this case, we must presuppose that Jews were familiar with Christian texts during the relevant time periods, despite there being no evidence that they engaged with such texts. On the one hand, these prayers express the differences that characterize Second Temple Judaism, and on the other hand, they may have contributed to forming the identity of the believers who recite them.

Whereas in the Qaddish the coming of the Messiah is invoked as a requirement for the coming of the kingdom, in the LP, the supplication for the coming of the kingdom presupposes the coming of the Messiah. The sanctification of God’s name in the Qaddish emphasizes liturgical aspects of the coming of the kingdom, whereas in the LP, the coming of the kingdom makes manifest the sanctification of God’s name with the practice of ‘mutual’ forgiveness, according to the logic of the gratuitousness of God’s love (cf. Matt 5:17–48).

There is no equivalent demand in the Qaddish to that of the LP’s bread—if the good life mentioned in the fourth unit of the Qaddish referred to the earthly goods required to live, and if the LP’s bread is not to be understood only in a literal sense. For the LP, the kingdom comes with bread, which is the Word of God (which makes one live like bread, cf. Deut 8:3) as interpreted by Jesus and summarized with the request for forgiveness of sins, help in temptation and deliverance from evil.

If there was a relationship between these themes and some kind of dependency between these prayers, because of the dubious antiquity of the Jewish prayer, these differences may indicate a dependence of the Qaddish on the LP, even though the Qaddish was introduced to daily prayers towards the end of the first millennium. Previously, it was used to conclude Torah study rather than as part of prayers. The themes common to the LP, in this case, are crystallized in the Qaddish to establish the differences between the two prayers and define the identities of the communities that formulated them and the religious groups that inherited them.

The LP’s petitions could crystallize themes from the priestly prayer (John 17), where a reference to the Shema is noted (Deut 6:4–9). The observance of the Father’s words that Jesus gave to his own followers can indeed be seen in relation to the fulfilment of the unity and oneness of God’s love (cf. Deut 6:4–5). Thus also the LP expresses the ‘faith’ in the Father’s sending of Jesus (with the sanctification of God’s name) with the observance of the Father’s word along with the knowledge of all ‘things’ that Jesus gave (with the coming of the kingdom), namely, through the glorification and participation in his communion with the Father’s love (with the daily bread for mutual forgiveness, help in temptation and deliverance from evil and the evil one).37

A short prayer of praise of Jesus (Q10:21–22) may be at the origin of John 17 and the LP. It expresses thanksgiving for the sanctification of the Father’s name in the little ones and in the reciprocity of the ‘knowledge’ of the Son. John 17 presents this praise as glorification for the fulfilment of the word of God and the love of the Shema and as deliverance from the evil one. The LP of Matt specifies with deliverance from evil (and the evil one) the petition of the Lucan temptation, and like the Lukan version, it crystallizes in the petition of the ‘daily’ bread (cf. Matt 13) the welcoming of the kingdom and the observance of the commandments of the Shema. A different presentation of the Torah and the sanctification of God’s name in the Qaddish on the other hand crystallizes the temporality of the kingdom and the unity that characterizes it.

The Shema has its own history, as does the Ahava Raba benediction that precedes it. Moreover, it is not certain that it signifies acceptance of the yoke of faith. Due however to the similarities with themes of the Shema, and the dubious antiquity of the Qaddish, one can assume a certain dependence of John 17 and the LP on the former rather than the latter Jewish prayer. In some cases, these prayers in their final form may have been the result of interdependence and mutual influences that helped to establish the differences between the religious groups reciting them. The religious identity of Jews and Christians has been defined by the phenomenon of interdependence, which has characterized the history of the composition of the words of their prayers.

To link different prayers throughout history, the historical narrative in this paper should have been more robust.38 Nevertheless, I would suggest that, given the theological connections, the differentiation and definition of religious identities, and the ‘parting of the ways’ of Judeo-Christians from the synagogue, are reflected in the crystallization of common themes in Jewish and Christian prayers. This is the result of a mutual influence in the understanding of the coming of the kingdom and the interpretation of related biblical texts, in the house of prayer (beit knesset) and study (beit midrash), during the first century CE with regard to the LP and the Shema, and in later centuries with regard to the Qaddish and the LP.39