Avinu Shebashamayim

For those who regularly pray from the siddur, I believe you will find this of interest. I have often pondered the specifics of how The Lord’s Prayer fit in to the liturgy of Messiah’s day. Over on the FFOZ blog, Aaron Eby has made a compelling case that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed at the end of the Amidah in place of the standard conclusion known as Elohai Netzor.

The essence of his point is that Elohai Netzor was composed by Mar, son of Rabina, and taught to Mar’s disciples, as was the case with many Sages who used their own custom concluding prayer, and taught it to their disciples. As disciples of Yeshua, it would seem fitting then that we would conclude ha Tefillah with His prayer.

3 thoughts on “Avinu Shebashamayim

  1. Hello Nate,

    I am not especially impressed with the placement of “Our Father” at the end of the Amidah. I do not think that it is healthy or natural to amalgamate the Amidah with “Our Father.” The post-Amidah prayer practices of the Amoraim and later Geonim have little bearing, in my thinking, on understanding the prayer paradigms of a Galilean am ha-eretz.

    My humble opinion…

    Peter

  2. hmm, how tied are you to the idea of Yeshua as an am ha-eretz? And do you think that is who he was exclusive of being a chassidim? Also, do you think the Amoraim had talmidim to whom they taught custom prayers, but that Tannaim didn’t? What about the Zugot? I suspect the customization was the rule rather than the exception the further back you go…Indeed the entire Amidah was likely much more fluid in Yeshua’s day. What say you?

  3. Hey Nate!

    I think that the Perushim of a later year (if they can be called Perushim) would label Yeshua as an am ha-eretz if they observed Him living as the Galilean Jew that He was. I do not think that He necessarily viewed Himself as an am ha-eretz, but I also do not think that He viewed Himself as a member of the Perushim (or proto-Perushim chassidim) either.

    I do not consider the issue of who (Geonim, Amoraim, or Tannaim) taught prayers to their disciples to have an overwhelming bearing on the Lord’s Prayer. I agree that the Amidah text was quite fluid in Yeshua’s day, yet I doubt that the Amidah enjoyed widespread commonality in both the Land and the Diaspora.

    You state that you suspect customization to be the rule the further back one goes. The literary record of customized prayer resembles the occurrence of fossils of present-day species in Cenozoic strata. Customization occurs, but its occurrence is contained in artifacts that are more and more dissimilar to Tannaic liturgy the further back in time the record takes us. Likewise, the further back into the Cenozoic (which I believe to be Post-Flood deposits) the less and less similar the fossilized species resemble species alive today.

    I thought that you might appreciate the Cenozoic-Liturgical parallel. You might be the only person to understand what in the world I am talking about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s