The Lord’s Prayer

As was pointed out in Prayers We Have in Common , the Lord’s Prayer lies at the heart of Christian devotion, and it is laden with rich personal and traditional associations. Change therefore prompts all kinds of reactions. But change is no new thing in the history of this prayer, and today no single, invariable version is in common use throughout the English-speaking world. Comparison of the text of Matthew 6:9-13 in the King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible with the version in The Book of Common Prayer of 1662 at once reveals differences. Such variations remind us that between our traditional versions and the Greek texts of the prayer, as recorded in the New Testament, stand earlier English, and even earlier Latin, renderings. To retranslate the Lord’s Prayer for a new situation is no new procedure. It should also be emphasized that in the task of producing translations the Church has never been in the position of working from one “original” text. The Greek texts of the prayer as preserved in the Gospels are themselves translations from Aramaic or Hebrew, and the texts which appear in Matthew and Luke do not agree. The extent of the divergence is clear from the following quotations (taken from the Revised Standard Version):

The ELLC translation of the Greek text is based mainly on that in St. Matthew’s Gospel, since that version has always been the basis of the Church’s liturgical tradition.

Except for one letter, a lower-case n for “name,” and the addition of the final “Amen,” the text printed above is identical to that proposed by ICET in 1975. Its acceptance has been growing steadily but is still far from universal. Many Christians are deeply attached to more traditional versions. Some Churches await a greater measure of agreement before they can consider adopting any modern version. ELLC believes that the above version is likely to commend itself for widespread ecumenical use, although it acknowledges that some would prefer a negative rendering of line 9.

Line 2.“hallowed be your name.” This may be a petition or it may be a doxology. If it is a doxology, it refers to the preceding line rather than the two which follow it, and it is parallel to such Jewish acclamations as “The Holy One, blessed be He.” If it is a petition, it linked with the lines that follow it. Then it has a profound eschatological significance and is a prayer that something be done—whether by God or human beings. There are weighty reasons for thinking that what is being sought is the action of God. If so, the whole opening section of the prayer represents an urgent seeking for the great eschatological deed of God to be executed and revealed—“Father, show yourself to be the Holy One; bring in your kingdom; establish your will, on earth as in heaven.” Nevertheless, comparison with similar Jewish prayers reveals that a strong case can also be made for viewing the petitions as referring to human action and as embodying the prayer that we may so act that God’s name may be sanctified, the kingdom established, and God’s will accomplished.

No final decision on these lines, or on the interpretation of the prayer as a whole, can be fairly made. The translation should allow for the whole breadth of interpretation, whether doxological or petitionary for action of God and/or human beings. “Hallowed be your name” is probably the translation which keeps most of the options open. Though the word “hallowed” has an archaic ring, it has not entirely passed out of currency (“hallowed ground,” “hallowed memory”), and no satisfactory synonym for it is at hand.

The reason for removing the capital N of “name” is that it appears unnecessary. The capital indicated that in Hebrew thought a name referred to the essential being of a person. Here “Name” would be a reverent way of referring to God (as many Jews say, “the Name,” rather than “God”). The Consultation thought that something rather less was needed here and noted that, as in modern versions of Scripture, honorific capitals are now used more rarely than they were formerly.

Line 6.The translation of epiousios , commonly rendered “daily,” is notoriously uncertain. The phrase may mean “bread for tomorrow,” referring not only to the next day but also to the “great tomorrow” or the final consummation. The petition would then be for the food of the heavenly banquet, and this would fit well with the eschatological perspective which, on one interpretation, controls the whole prayer. On the other hand, as in some Syriac versions, it may mean simply “the bread which is necessary,” without any particular temporal reference. There seems to be no sufficient reason for substantially varying the familiar translation. In a world where so many are hungry, there is good reason to retain the traditional phrase “daily bread,” which leaves the meaning open.

Lines 7-8.“Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” Here the traditional rendering has been substantially preserved, and the Lucan text allowed to affect the translation. “Sins” and “sin” have been used to convey the sense, and “trespasses” and “trespass,” and even “debts” and “debtors,” which many find puzzlingly concrete and narrow, have been avoided.

Line 9.“Save us from the time of trial.” Two errors must be avoided in this line. The first is the misconception that God would “tempt” or entice people to evil, and the second is to think that the original Greek word peirasmos means “temptation” as it is meant today. The reference here is primarily eschatological—a petition for deliverance from the final “time of trial” which, in biblical thought, marks the last days and the full revelation of the anti-Christ. The peril envisaged is that of apostasy—the renunciation of the Christian faith in the time of suffering and persecution which is expected to herald the final triumph of God’s kingdom (Luke 22:31, 32, 40: Revelation 3:10). Yet a reference to any occasion of testing, including the lure to sin, is not excluded. Commenting on this line, Luther speaks of “despair, unbelief, and other great and shameful sins,” which is his way of saying that ultimately all sin is a failure of faith.

The Consultation considered whether to restore the negative of the original by writing a more literal version of the Greek—“Do not bring us to a time of trial.” The practical problem of making a change at this stage, however, when many Churches have overcome the difficulty of adopting the ICET version, was too great to be countenanced. In the end, the Consultation was persuaded that the preposition “from” sufficiently conveyed the negative sense (compare “Do not let the children starve” and “Save the children from starving”), while avoiding the misleading inferences mentioned above. Attention was also given to a request that “from” be changed to “in.” Apart from weakening the negative force of the original, it was considered that “in” conveyed only one of the two principal meanings of the line, that is, either a request to be spared from coming to the time of trial or a request to be spared, when one is in a time of trial, from its effects, especially from apostasy.

Line 10.“and deliver us from evil.” While a strong case can be made for the translation “deliver us from the Evil One,” or “deliver us from Evil,” the Greek text does not demand either. It seemed wise to preserve the familiar rendering. That this line begins with “and” rather than “but” is a consequence of the rendering of line 9.

Lines 11-12. “For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours now and for ever.” The presence of this doxology in many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, even if not the earliest and most reliable ones, and in quotations by early Christian writers (for example, the Didache), reflects the normal Jewish practice of concluding prayers of petition with a doxology of praise. This formula has enjoyed a wide and long use. It is therefore commended for liturgical use.