The Lord's Prayer revisited

[Thomas]

As a discussion of the vernacular of the Lord's prayer has been bumped again:

The first post – 2018:

The pope just asked everyone to catch up to Unity...

And again in 2019:

Charles Fillmore made a similar change about a hundred years ago...

And again this week:

Opening this thread again...

To basically explore what folks today think "Jesus said" ...

+++

To recap the question of version and translation, and working generally chronologically:
1st version:
In the Gospel of Matthew, in Koine Greek, c70-90CE.

2nd version:
In the Gospel of Luke, in Koine Greek, c80-90CE.

3rd version:
In the Didache, in Koine Greek, c40-120CE.
The Didsche is regarded as a composite document, the 'early layer', containing materials such as the "Two Ways" ethical section, may date to 40-70 CE, potentially contemporaneous with the Apostle Paul. The Lord's Prayer follows Matthew's Gospel, so would have been included some time post 70CE.

A Latin text of the Gospels, the Vetus Latina, appeared in the 2nd century (possibly originating in the late 1st/early 2nd).
Produced anonymously across the Roman Empire, particularly in North Africa, Rome, and Gaul, to serve Latin-speaking Christians.
The oldest surviving Latin gospel manuscript is the Codex Vercellensis, a 4th-century text.

These early 'Old Latin' versions were standardised by St Jerome c.382–405VE), which we call the Vulgate.

The Syriac-Aramaic texts were translations from the Greek, beginning around the 5th century CE.

As Luke is a shorter than Matthew, and as the Didache was effectively a catechism from the late 1st century which used Matthew's text, I have treated that as the 'standard' Lord's Prayer text.

 

[Thomas]

In an extended essay, A Prayer For The Poor, David Bentley Hart has offered a review of The Lord's Prayer, from which I offer this somewhat truncated précis:

"Christian tradition has produced few developments more bizarre, for instance, than the transformation of the petitionary phrases of the Lord’s Prayer in Christian thinking – and in Christian translations of scripture – into a series of supplications for absolution of sins, protection against spiritual temptation, and immunity from the threat of “evil.” They are nothing of the kind. They are, quite explicitly, requests for (in order): adequate nourishment, debt relief, avoidance of arraignment before the courts, and rescue from the depredations of powerful but unprincipled men. The prayer as a whole is a prayer for the poor – and for the poor only.

"... Christ did instruct his listeners to address God as their Father in “the heavens,” to hallow his name, to entreat the Kingdom’s advent, and to wish for God’s will to be accomplished here below as there above. But, the second half it reduces to something less than a shadow of the original. “Daily bread,” admittedly, is almost accurate enough, though the phrase would better be rendered “bread adequate for the day’s needs”; but I doubt most of us quite hear the note of desperation in that phrase “τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον”—the very real uncertainty, suffered every day, concerning whether today one will have enough food to survive.

"The next lines ... ὀφειλήματα are not “transgressions,” but “debts”; nor are they “debts” in a metaphorical sense – they are not sins that require some penance or recompense on out part – but are in fact quite literally the crushing burden of financial obligations under which the poor labor and suffer and die, to the advantage of the most merciless of their creditors.

"And the imperative ἄφες is a plea not for forgiveness in the moral sense, but for remission of those obligations. As for the word πειρασμός, it certainly ought not to be read as “temptation” (as though it could be applied to a roving eye, a longing for chocolate, or an inclination toward embezzlement); it properly means “trial,” and here almost certainly refers to literal trial in court under a suit brought by a creditor. And the closing petition’s final invocation of “the evil man” – not “evil” in the abstract, nor even the “evil one” in the sense of the devil – is almost certainly a reference to a creditor of an especially heartless and unscrupulous kind.

Give us our bread today, in a quantity sufficient for the whole of the day. And grant us relief from our debts, to the very degree that we grant relief to those who are indebted to us. And do not bring us to court for trial, but rather rescue us from the wicked man.

"It is easy to understand, obviously, how it is that over the centuries the Lord’s Prayer should have come to be something else in the Christian imagination—something less specific, less concrete, more comprehensive, more unrelated to any specific economic conditions or any particular station in society."

 

[Thomas]

Hart's critique has, of course, not passed without comment.

Suffice to say
"Although none of the Church Fathers and saints precisely grasped the historical and literal context that Hart so eloquently highlights ... "
And it's worth noting that these exegetes wrote and spoke the same language as the Gospel, so it's implications would not have been lost on them.

"... they did nonetheless show a concern for avarice and living modestly. At the same time, they also understood the Lord’s Prayer to pertain to all Christians through a variety of spiritual interpretations. It is on account of these various understandings that one can say or affirm that the Lord’s Prayer is for everyone."

It seems odd to assume that the only advice or instruction on prayer – something central to Jesus' spiritual life – was not merely secular, but specifically aimed at those who were in some order of financial difficulty.

Odd, too, when of the seven petitions of the prayer, three are addressed directly to God.

+++

There are three commentaries that come down to us from the ante-Nicene era, those of Tertullian (155-220), Origen (185-253) and Cyprian (210-258).

All are detailed and extensive. For the sake of brevity, I will address the 'problematic' phrases that initiated the posts, traditionally:
"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

 

[Thomas]

Tertullian De Oratione (On Prayer) c.197-200CE

Chapter 8. The Seventh or Final Clause​

For the completeness of so brief a prayer He added – in order that we should supplicate not touching the remitting merely, but touching the entire averting, of acts of guilt – Lead us not into temptation: that is, suffer us not to be led into it, by him (of course) who tempts;

But far be the thought that the Lord should seem to tempt, as if He either were ignorant of the faith of any, or else were eager to overthrow it!

Infirmity and malice are characteristics of the devil. For God had commanded even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son, for the sake not of tempting, but proving, his faith; in order through him to make an example for that precept of His, whereby He was, by and by, to enjoin that he should hold no pledges of affection dearer than God.

He Himself (Jesus), when tempted by the devil, demonstrated who it is that presides over and is the originator of temptation. This passage He confirms by subsequent ones, saying (to His disciples), Pray that you be not tempted; yet they were tempted, (as they showed) by deserting their Lord, because they had given way rather to sleep than prayer.

The final clause, therefore, is consonant, and interprets the sense of Lead us not into temptation; for this sense is, But convey us away from the Evil One.

 

[Thomas]

Origen De Oratione (On Prayer) c. 233–234CE

Chapter 19. And bring us not into temptation but deliver us from evil​

And bring us not into Temptation but deliver us from Evil. In Luke the words but deliver us from Evil are omitted. Assuming that the Savior does not command us to pray for the impossible, it appears to me to deserve consideration in what sense we are bidden to pray not to enter into temptation when all human life on earth is a test.

In that on earth we are beset by the flesh which wars against the spirit and whose intent is emnity to God as it is by no means capable of being subject to the law of God, we are in temptation. That all human life on earth is a trial we have learned from Job in the words: Is not the life of men on earth a trial, and the same thing is made plain from the seventeenth psalm in the words: In you will I be delivered from trial. Paul, too, writing to the Corinthians says that God bestows not freedom from temptation but freedom from temptation beyond one's power.

More than human temptation has not possessed you, and God is to be trusted not to let you be tempted beyond your power but to make the temptation be accompanied by the outlet of power to endure it. Whether our wrestling is with the flesh that lusts or wars against the spirit, or with the soul of all flesh—in other words the ruling faculty, called the heart, of the body in which it resides—as is the wrestling of those who are tempted with human temptations, or, as advanced and maturer athletes, who no longer wrestle with blood and flesh nor are reviewed in the human temptations which they have already trampled down, our struggles are with the principalities and authorities and world-rulers of His darkness and the Spiritual forces of evil, we have no release from temptation.

In what sense then does the Savior bid us pray not to enter into temptation, when God in some sense tempts all men? Think you, says Judith, not only to the elders of that day but also to all readers of her writing, of all that He did with Abraham and all His temptations of Isaac and all that befell Jacob in Mesopotamia of Syria while he shepherded the flocks of Laban, his mother's brother. For it is not that whereas He tested them by fire for the proving of their hearts, the Lord who, for their admonishment, scourges those who approach Him, now wreaks vengeance upon us.

And David declares ... while Paul in particular: five times received forty stripes save one at the hands of Jews, thrice was beaten with rods, once was stoned, thrice was shipwrecked, passed a night and a day in the deep, a man in every way afflicted, in straits, persecuted, cast down, confessing: Until the present hour we have hungered, thirsted, gone naked, been buffeted, lacked rest, toiled at work with our own hands. Reviled, we have blessed; persecuted, we have borne up; slandered, we have exhorted.

When the apostles have failed in prayer, we might ask what hope there is for any of their inferiors to obtain God's hearing when one prays? One ignorant of the true meaning of the Savior's command will have reason to suppose that the words in the twenty-fifth psalm, Test me, O Lord, and try me; assay my reins and my heart with fire, are in opposition to our Lord's teaching about prayer. And when has anyone ever believed that those of whom he had complete knowledge were free of temptations?

...

What need is there for me to answer, when there are countless examples of such mistakes among those who do not seem to be open to the charge of righteousness in their reading? The same fate has also overtaken many in their reading of the Apostles and Gospels inasmuch as, through their own lack of discernment, they fashion in imagination a Son or a Father other than the One divinely conceived and truly recognized by Holy Writ. For one who fails to have true thoughts of God or His Christ has fallen away from the true God and from His Only Begotten, and his worship of the imaginary Father and Son, fashioned by his lack of discernment, is no real worship. Such is his fate through having failed to recognize the temptation present in the reading of Holy Writ to arm himself and take a stand as for a struggle already upon him.

(NOTE: The above is some 750 words – Origen's Chapter 19 is roughly 5,000.)

 

[Thomas]

Cyprian, Treatise IV: On The Lord's Prayer, c.252CE

25. Moreover, the Lord of necessity admonishes us to say in prayer, “And suffer us not to be led into temptation.” In which words it is shown that the adversary can do nothing against us except God shall have previously permitted it; so that all our fear, and devotion, and obedience may be turned towards God, since in our temptations nothing is permitted to evil unless power is given from Him. This is proved by divine Scripture, which says, “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and besieged it; and the Lord delivered it into his hand.” (2 Kings xxiv. 11) But power is given to evil against us according to our sins, as it is written, “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to those who make a prey of Him? Did not the Lord, against whom they sinned, and would not walk in His ways, nor hear His law? and He has brought upon them the anger of His wrath.” (Isa. xlii. 24) And again, when Solomon sinned, and departed from the Lord’s commandments and ways, it is recorded, “And the Lord stirred up Satan against Solomon himself.” (1 Kings xi. 14)

26. Now power is given against us in two modes: either for punishment when we sin, or for glory when we are proved, as we see was done with respect to Job; as God Himself sets forth, saying, “Behold, all that he hath I give unto thy hands; but be careful not to touch himself.” (Job i. 12) And the Lord in His Gospel says, in the time of His passion, “Thou couldest have no power against me unless it were given thee from above.” (John xix. 11) But when we ask that we may not come into temptation, we are reminded of our infirmity and weakness in that we thus ask, lest any should insolently vaunt himself, lest any should proudly and arrogantly assume anything to himself, lest any should take to himself the glory either of confession or of suffering as his own, when the Lord Himself, teaching humility, said, “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak;” (Mark xiv. 38) so that while a humble and submissive confession comes first, and all is attributed to God, whatever is sought for suppliantly with fear and honour of God, may be granted by His own loving-kindness.

27. After all these things, in the conclusion of the prayer comes a brief clause, which shortly and comprehensively sums up all our petitions and our prayers. For we conclude by saying, “But deliver us from evil,” comprehending all adverse things which the enemy attempts against us in this world, from which there may be a faithful and sure protection if God deliver us, if He afford His help to us who pray for and implore it. And when we say, Deliver us from evil, there remains nothing further which ought to be asked. When we have once asked for God’s protection against evil, and have obtained it, then against everything which the devil and the world work against us we stand secure and safe. For what fear is there in this life, to the man whose guardian in this life is God?

 

[Thomas]

I think we can see from above, that the traditional reading "lead us not into temptation" is correct, when set against the background of scriptural exegesis.

The Temptation of Christ (Mark 1:12-13, Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13) should provide context enough.

 

[wil]

So Francis was wrong?

Pope Francis approved changing the line "lead us not into temptation" to "do not let us fall into temptation." He argued that God does not lead people into temptation, but rather Satan does.

 

[Thomas]

So Francis was wrong?

I think Francis endorsed the change out of pastoral concern. If people think God tempts us, then that's a misunderstanding. His commentary was: "I am the one who falls; it's not him (God) pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen. A father doesn't do that. A father helps you to get up immediately. It's Satan who leads us into temptation. That's his department."

Francis was correct on that point, but the Greek verb is εἰσφέρω eispherō, which means 'lead into' or 'bring into'. The traditional wording is the most accurate.

Pope Francis approved changing the line "lead us not into temptation" to "do not let us fall into temptation." He argued that God does not lead people into temptation, but rather Satan does.

Indeed, and that's been the commentary on the text from at least the 3rd century, so why change it now?

Perhaps because we're neither as wise or insightful as we once were.

Ancient humanity, medieval humanity all understood the context, but they understood it in broader biblical terms.

 

[wil]

Perhaps because we're neither as wise or insightful as we once were.

Ancient humanity, medieval humanity all understood the context, but they understood it in broader biblical terms.

Or we were more accepting of what we were told during the dark ages...trained by the inquisition?

I might have said i understand too!

 

[Thomas]

Or we were more accepting of what we were told during the dark ages...trained by the inquisition?

Well, I am neither so dark nor so dogmatic as you in my view of the past.

 

[wil]

Dark and dogmatic? I prefer more metaphysical utilitarian reality

 

[Thomas]

Dark and dogmatic? I prefer more metaphysical utilitarian reality

Well, your broad-brush statements regarding history are invariably dark and dogmatic, founded on your religiomisia.

(I don't see any reference to metaphysics – I think 'utilitarian reality' defines your approach to things generally.)

 

[Thomas]

Or we were more accepting of what we were told during the dark ages...trained by the inquisition?

Any reasonable study of European history, from the 'Dark Ages' (so-called) through to the early modern era, will acknowledge a vibrant grass-roots spirituality that merged and blended orthodox Christian doctrines and local folk traditions without too much trouble.

To assume the whole thing was 'trained by the inquisition' is simply prejudice.

 

[wil]

I did not name it the dark ages...

 

[Thomas]

I did not name it the dark ages...

It's a mis-nomer – no-one calls it that, these days. It just points to your assumptions.

 

[wil]

It's a mis-nomer – no-one calls it that, these days. It just points to your assumptions.

Pretty brash there brother...my assumptions? What do you assume are my assumptions?

It is more my uneducated ignorance. I have not read enough history or know enough history about the middle ages to be aware the change has occurred....appreciate your edification but the tenor does not appeal to my understanding of your being...maybe I do have a problem with my assumptions.

My recent reaearch indicates the term persists in popular culture and older literature, scholars only occasionally use it today to describe a relative scarcity of written historical records for specific centuries (roughly 400 to 1000 CE)—not a lack of human achievement.

I did also find out that Petrarch, a 14th-century Italian scholar and Catholic cleric, coined the concept of the "Dark Ages" to highlight a perceived decline in culture after Rome fell.
Enlightenment thinkers later popularized the term to criticize medieval religious life as an era of blind superstition and ignorance.
Today, modern historians—recognizing the period's profound contributions to scholarship, art, and the founding of universities—reject the label in favor of the Early Middle Ages.

I gotta thank you again for making me dig deeper.

Yet again I have to apologize for being led astray by clerics of antiquity.