The Lord's Prayer
Everyone knows the words of the Lord's Prayer. or if not 100% of the
American population, some very high percentage, say 90%, the
10% consisting of Muslims, Atheists, and Donald Trump.
Not that even the most devoted of believers always get all of the words
right
but, still, familiarity with the prayer is almost universal. Clearly, we
believe,
there is nothing new to say about it. The Lord's Prayer, which Catholics
prefer to call the "Our Father," simply is -and it is part of our common
culture.
However there is a sort of footnote that can be discussed to good effect.
This is because one word of the text had two meanings, both valid,
one of these meanings dominant in translations of the text but the other
sometimes cited -and to good effect. The argument here is that
we should use both translations, maybe equally, or as much
as that might be practical.
First let us turn to the exact words of the 1611 King James Version of the
Bible
which, of course, all "KJV only" believers use in its exact form (this is
supposed
to be a sarcastic comment). It goes like this:
Our father which art in heauen,
hallowed be thy name
Thy kingdome come.
Thy will be done,
in earth, as it is in heauen.
Giue vs this day our daily bread.
And forgiue vs our debts,
as we forgiue our debters.
And lead vs not into temptation,
but deliuer vs from euill:
For thine is the kingdome, and the power,
and the glory, for euer,
Amen.
.
.
As someone who is fascinated by the history of our native tongue you might
like to see an older version, the translation produced by Wycliffe in 1389:
.
Our fadir that art in heuenes,
halwid be thi name;
Thi kingdom cumme to;
be thi wille don
as in heuen and in earthe;
giv to vs this day our breed ouer other substaunce;
and forgene to vs oure dettis,
as we forgeue to oure dettours;
and leede us nat in to temptacioun,
but delyuere vs fro yuel.
You can read the text regardless of its archaisms because the rate of
change
has been slow enough to allow most meanings to survive despite the passage
of centuries. But this tells us that -from modern perspective-
non-standard
translations may offer advantages. Curious, for instance, is reference to
"other substances" in comparison to bread Exactly what that phrase is
supposed
to mean is unclear but at a minimum it tells us that there are other
substances
that people may put above what is more basic and that when this happens
we lose sight of an important truth.
We might also look at other languages and how they render the prayer.
Here is the Welsh version:
Ein Tad yn y nefoedd,
sancteiddier dy enw;
deled dy deyrnas;
gwneler dy ewyllys,
ar y ddaear fel yn y nef.
Dyro inni heddiw ein bara beunyddiol,
a maddau inni ein troseddau,
fel yr ym ni wedi maddau i'r rhai a droseddodd yn ein herbyn;
a phaid â'n dwyn i brawf,
ond gwared ni rhag yr Un drwg.
Oherwydd eiddot ti yw'r deyrnas a'r gallu a'r gogoniant am byth. Amen.
.
.
Here is how it looks in Latin:
PATER noster, qui es in cœlis;
sanctificatur nomen tuum:
Adveniat regnum tuum;
fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in cœlo, et in terra.
Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie:
Et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris:
et ne nos inducas in tentationem:
sed libera nos a malo.
Finally here is how the prayer looks in its original form in the language
that Jesus spoke, Aramaic:
Abwoon d'bashmaya
Netqaddash shmak
Teete malkutah
Nehvwey tzevyannach aykanna d'bashmaya aph b'arha
Havlan lahma d'sunqananan yaomana
Washbwoqlan haubvayn aykana daph hnan shbvoqan l'hayyabayn
Wela tahlan le'ynesyuna. Ela patzan min bisha
Metul dilakhe malkuta wahayla wateshbuhta l'ahlam almin
Amen
These versions, and others, can be found at http://www.lords-prayer-words.
.
.
Now let us consider just one part of the prayer, each part known as a
"petition."
This concerns the clause, "deliver us from evil."
.
The problem is that the Greek word for "evil" has a second and just as
valid
interpretation into English or other languages, indeed, a translation
that has
been preferred by a range of Christian scholars from Albert Schweitzer
to N. T. Wright. This alternative translation goes like this:
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."
This is found in the New International Version, which, in this case, is
superior
to "liberal" translations where it is simply evil that we should be spared
from.
That is, yes, we should be protected against evil in all of its forms but
if you
leave it at that you overlook the source of evil, the Devil.
As it turns out, there are other passages in the New Testament where the
same
Greek term is customarily translated to make it clear that Satan is our
active foe,
an enemy that ceaselessly seeks to cause harm, who poisons our lives in
innumerable ways. Two are:
John 17: 15
I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you
keep them from the evil one
II Thessalonians 3: 3
But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the
evil one
These quotes are from the ESV, the English Standard Version. They make the
point that Satan lurks behind evil and must be guarded against. It isn't
just evil
that we need to seek to overcome but an active force that always tries to
wreck our lives and make us do what is against our own best interests,
A good discussion of this issue can be found in N. T. Wright's online
paper,
"The Lord’s Prayer as a Paradigm of Christian Prayer," where the author
argues that "Jesus’ whole public career was marked by “trials” of one sort
or another — by what he, and the evangelists, saw as a running battle
with the powers of evil." That is, it isn't only evil in the abstract
that we
need to fight against, we need to defeat Satan as he tries to subvert
our lives. Evil is not passive, it is active, and the source of its power
is "the evil one."
Wright is a 'liberal' scholar at St Mary's College, St Andrew in Scotland,
where he is Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity
However, this view could just as well be held by conservatives, it has
its own appeal that rises above all kinds of factional interests.
You can read more about this issue at the Wikipedia article about
the Lord's Prayer. This says, in part:
"Translations and scholars are divided over whether the evil mentioned
in the final petition refers to evil in general or the devil in particular.
The original Greek, as well as the Latin version, could be either of neuter
(evil in general) or masculine (the evil one) gender. In earlier parts of
the Sermon on the Mount, in which Matthew's version of the prayer appears,
the term is used to refer to general evil. Later parts of Matthew refer to
the devil when discussing similar issues."
The one serious problem is that no known Aramaic versions of the prayer
say "the evil one." So we are left with an unresolved question. Either
translation
gets the point across. I derive my preference from Schweitzer's usage but
can easily respect the other form, use of the word "evil" by itself, which,
really, is strong enough to cause people to think. But it can be argued
that we would be better off to use both translations from time to time
since we should never forget Satan's role in causing evil.
This is the point in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under
the
title "Evil One; (ho poneros)." It also notes that men of conscience have
translated the 7th Petition of the Lord's Prayer both ways, hence evil
alone
in the KJV but "evil one" in the Revised Version -both British and
American.
The Revised Version also provides a marginal note that tells us that "the
evil one"
as euphemism for Satan is well established although this evil being can be
referred to by such terms as "the adversary" or "the accuser," or
"Beelzebub."
We also find alternative translations in the context of Matthew 5: 37
as discussed at Bible Hub. That site makes it clear that these words can
be
rendered either as "But let your communication be, Yes, yes; No, no:
for whatever is more than these comes of evil," as the American KJV does,
or "But let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more
than
these is of the evil one," which is the preference of the
American Standard Version.
Does any of this actually matter to today's Christians? I feel sure that
there are
exceptions but the answer to the question has to be, "what a joke."
Anything at
all that is scholarly or simply different than the pabulum they are
familiar with
they regard as something to avoid like the plague.
I get the clear impression that 90% are dead from the neck up.
It would be nice to be proved wrong about this but I have no choice
but to interpret silence as confirmation of my opinions.
Billy R.
April 21, 2016
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
