Matthew 6:9

“`html

body { font-family: ‘Times New Roman’, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 2em; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #333; }
h2 { border-bottom: 1px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 1.5em; }
h3 { color: #555; margin-top: 1.2em; }
p { margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: justify; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 2em; }
li { margin-bottom: 0.5em; }
blockquote { border-left: 4px solid #eee; margin: 1em 0; padding-left: 1em; color: #666; font-style: italic; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
strong.greek-text { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Gentium Plus’, serif; }

An Exegetical Examination of Textual Variants in the Lord’s Prayer: Forgiveness and Temptation

This exegetical study of An Exegetical Examination of Textual Variants in the Lord’s Prayer: Forgiveness and Temptation is based on a b-greek discussion from December 8th, 2017. The discussion highlights a crucial distinction in the transmission of the New Testament text, particularly in the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:12), where the Byzantine text-type presents the present tense verb ἀφίεμεν while the Alexandrian text-type, commonly underlying modern critical editions, employs the aorist ἀφήκαμεν. This divergence is not considered a modern alteration but a reflection of ancient textual traditions, with scholarly proposals suggesting the Alexandrian text may have served as a scholarly edition for early translations.

The primary exegetical issue concerns the verbal aspect of forgiveness in Matthew 6:12 (and Luke 11:4), examining the implications of a present tense (“we are forgiving” or “we continually forgive”) versus an aorist tense (“we have forgiven” or “we hereby forgive”) for both theological understanding and practical application of the petition. A secondary, yet related, issue involves the petition “lead us not into temptation” (μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν) from Matthew 6:13, exploring its historical interpretation, the theological unease it has generated, and an early Marcionite variant that attempts to soften God’s perceived direct agency in leading believers into testing.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

The relevant passages from Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer, as found in the Nestle 1904 Greek New Testament, are as follows:

Matthew 6:12-13:

Καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• For Matthew 6:12, both Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 read ἀφήκαμεν (aorist). The variant ἀφίεμεν (present), which is found in certain Byzantine manuscripts and adopted by some traditions, is not a difference between these two critical editions but rather a variant discussed within textual criticism.
• For Matthew 6:13, both Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT 2010 read εἰσενέγκῃς. No difference is observed between these two critical editions for this specific verbal form.

Textual Criticism (NA28), Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):

The textual critical apparatus of NA28 for Matthew 6:12 highlights the variant between ἀφήκαμεν (aorist active indicative) and ἀφίεμεν (present active indicative). The reading ἀφήκαμεν is strongly supported by early and significant manuscripts, including א (Sinaiticus), B (Vaticanus), D (Bezae), L, W, Θ, 0233, the f1 and f13 families, various Old Latin (lat), Syriac (syr^co), Coptic (cop^bo), Georgian (geo), and Ethiopic (eth) versions. Conversely, ἀφίεμεν is attested in a substantial number of Byzantine manuscripts, the Textus Receptus, and some Old Latin and Syriac witnesses. The discussion in the original forum post accurately notes that the Byzantine text-type favors ἀφίεμεν, indicating a preference for this reading in that tradition.

For Matthew 6:13, the reading μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν (do not lead us into temptation) is overwhelmingly supported by the manuscript tradition and stands as the reading in all major critical editions (NA28, UBS5, SBLGNT). The reconstructed Marcionite variant, μὴ ἄφες ἡμᾶς εἰσενεχθῆναι εἰς πειρασμόν (do not permit us to be brought into temptation), is not a textual variant found in Greek manuscripts but a theological rephrasing based on patristic citations.

Lexically, several key terms warrant attention:

• ἀφίημι (from which ἀφήκαμεν and ἀφίεμεν derive): According to BDAG, this verb can mean “to send away, let go, release, permit, or forgive.” The verbal aspect (aorist vs. present) significantly shapes the nuance. The aorist can denote a completed action (“we have forgiven”) or a performative utterance (“we hereby forgive”). The present can signify an ongoing action (“we are forgiving”), a habitual practice (“we continually forgive”), or a distributive sense (“we forgive whoever needs it”).
• ὀφειλήματα (debts) / ὀφειλέταις (debtors): BDAG defines ὀφείλημα as a “debt” or “obligation,” frequently used metaphorically for “sin.” ὀφειλέτης refers to one who owes a debt or is obligated, also used metaphorically for a “sinner.” This connection between financial debt and spiritual offense is central to the petition.
• πειρασμός (temptation / testing): KITTEL’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament provides an extensive entry for πειράζω and πειρασμός. It encompasses a range of meanings from “testing” or “proving” (often with a positive or neutral connotation, as God tests individuals) to “temptation” or “enticement to evil” (which usually carries a negative connotation, associated with Satan or human lust). The petition “lead us not into πειρασμός” has long been debated due to the theological implication of God’s role in such a scenario.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The grammatical distinction between the aorist ἀφήκαμεν and the present ἀφίεμεν in Matthew 6:12 carries significant rhetorical and theological implications for the Lord’s Prayer.

• Aorist Tense (ἀφήκαμεν): The aorist indicative typically denotes a simple, punctiliar action, completed in the past, or an action viewed as a whole without reference to its duration or repetition. In this context, “as we have forgiven” could suggest a completed act of forgiveness on the part of the petitioner before seeking divine forgiveness. This implies that human forgiveness is a prerequisite, or at least a demonstrated reality, prior to receiving God’s grace. The post also notes the possibility of the aorist mimicking a Hebrew performative such as מחלנו (maḥalnû, “we hereby release/forgive”), which would signify a present declaration of an action or intent. This rhetorical force emphasizes a definitive and committed act of human forgiveness.
• Present Tense (ἀφίεμεν): The present indicative typically describes ongoing, habitual, or continuous action. Thus, “as we are forgiving,” “as we continually forgive,” or “as we habitually forgive” would emphasize an active, ongoing process of extending forgiveness to others. This interpretation resonates with the idea mentioned in the discussion of “working on forgiving them.” It presents human forgiveness as a continuous disposition and practice that parallels or is a condition for divine forgiveness, highlighting a dynamic and relational aspect of the petitioner’s spiritual state. The distributive sense (“we forgive whoever needs it”) also falls under the scope of the present tense, implying a readiness to forgive anyone at any time.

For Matthew 6:13, “and do not lead us into temptation” (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν), the petition has historically caused theological reflection due to the implied agency of God. The active voice verb εἰσενέγκῃς (from εἰσφέρω, “to bring in, lead into”) directly attributes the act of leading into temptation to God, which some interpreters find problematic given God’s holy nature. This unease is evidenced by the ancient discussions mentioned, including the reconstructed Marcionite variant:

• Marcionite Variant (μὴ ἄφες ἡμᾶς εἰσενεχθῆναι εἰς πειρασμόν): This reading, “do not permit us to be brought into temptation,” employs the passive infinitive εἰσενεχθῆναι with ἄφες (from ἀφίημι, “to permit, allow”). This grammatically shifts the direct agency away from God, reinterpreting the petition as a plea for God not to *allow* or *suffer* believers to encounter temptation, rather than actively *leading* them into it. This rhetorical move aims to reconcile the petition with a more benevolent view of God, consistent with the theological concerns of the early church.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The analysis of the verbal aspects in Matthew 6:12 reveals a significant interpretive choice with roots in ancient textual traditions. While critical editions predominantly support the aorist ἀφήκαμεν, the theological implications of the present tense ἀφίεμεν, favored by the Byzantine tradition, offer a different emphasis on the nature of human forgiveness. Both readings underscore the crucial link between human forgiveness and the reception of divine forgiveness. Similarly, the petition concerning temptation reflects a deep theological sensitivity that has led to historical reinterpretation and variants aimed at clarifying God’s role. Understanding these nuances enriches the prayer’s meaning and allows for a more informed devotional and scholarly engagement.

Based on this exegetical examination, the following translation suggestions are offered:

1. “And forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors; and do not lead us into testing, but deliver us from the evil one.”
   This translation adheres to the predominant textual tradition (Alexandrian, NA28/SBLGNT) and interprets the aorist ἀφήκαμεν as a prior, completed, or performative act of human forgiveness. The term πονηροῦ is interpreted as “the evil one” (Satan), a common understanding.

2. “And forgive us our debts, as we are continually forgiving our debtors; and do not lead us into testing, but deliver us from evil.”
   This rendering incorporates the Byzantine textual variant ἀφίεμεν, emphasizing a continuous or habitual practice of human forgiveness. The term πονηροῦ is interpreted as “evil” (abstract), reflecting another plausible understanding.

3. “And forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors; and do not let us be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
   This option retains the critical text for forgiveness but offers a theologically softened interpretation of the temptation petition, reflecting the historical unease and aiming to clarify God’s role by emphasizing divine permission rather than direct agency.

“`