A reconstruction of the origin and growth of the Our Father27 -30 AD ...........ARAMAIC ORIGINAL.............Taught
and explained by Jesus at the apostles'
request 30-50 AD.............ARAMAIC ORIGINAL IN ORAL
TRADITION..-Mentioned the occasion; was linked with the text 50 AD............ .....FORMULATION IN ARAMAIC
MATTHEW AD 64.........Forgiveness Text in Mk without the Our
Father. (From the Aramaic oral tradition) ..........................................................................................................GREEK VERSION IN TRADITION AND SCRIPT AD 65 ...........FORMULATION IN GREEK
MATTHEW....................FORMULATION IN LUKE ( GREEK )
100-200 AD .....FORMULATION IN THE DIDACHE.......................FORMULATION BY MARCION. Problems arising from the History of the Our FatherWe can learn some important things about the Gospel from understanding this history. The problem we need to discuss concerns the accuracy of the transmission (i.e. handing over) of Jesus' words. Are we sure that what we find in the Gospels is actually Jesus' own teaching? Has there not been a change in the words taught by Jesus? Remember the facts: JESUS said: ........."Our Father, ................................Luke has: "Father" who art in heaven" JESUS said:....... "Thy Kingdom come" ..................Matthew extends: "Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on earth ...................................................................................................................... as in heaven JESUS said: ........"Give us this day our daily bread ...... Luke has: "Keep giving us from day to day our daily bread " JESUS said: ........."And forgive us our debts"........................Luke has: "And forgive us our sins." For the sake of clarity we will introduce each conclusion with a question. Throughout the discussion we will have to refer back to the observations made in chapter 19 Question One; If Matthew and Luke gave a slightly different form to Jesus' words, does this mean that we do not have in the Gospels Jesus' own words?Reply: We surely have Jesus' own words in the Gospels. But there is an important difference between 'own words' and 'own words'. Let me give you an example. President de Gaulle of France was visiting Rumania when student demonstrations broke out in Paris. President de Gaulle rushed back. The students were clamouring for improvements. Getting down from his plane at Paris Airport, the President made an important statement. First reporter: "The President said: 'Amelioration: Si; le chienlit: Non' Second reporter: "He said: 'Improvements: Yes; a dog's bed: No!' Third reporter: "He said: "Improvements: Yes; confusion; No!' Which of these reporters gave the President's own words? a) The First reporter gives the precise French words used by the President. His version contains words which are absolutely identical to the original words used. Such identical words are known technically as the 'ipsissima verba' (i.e. the very very same words). It is obvious, however, that reporting in this way has no purpose for an audience which does not know French. Such an audience will merely hear the external words, but their meaning will escape them. Although they may, therefore, feel privileged to hear the identical words, they do - in another sense - not receive the words at all, since they do not understand them. b) The second reporter translates the French statement for us. In order to remain close to the original words, he translates them very literally. Even the idiomatic expression 'chien-lit' he translates literally as 'a dog's bed'. Such literal translations are reproductions of the 'identical words' into another language. They obviously bring us very near to what the President said, and are better than the French words. But even this literal translation fails in the element of meaning. For English readers will wonder why the President does not want 'a dog's bed'. What does he mean with these words? Although we know the expression externally, we still don't know what the President really said. c) The third reporter puts the French statement in plain English: "Improvements: Yes; confusion: No!" To make the President's words understandable to us, he had to give us the meaning, the equivalent of 'a dog's bed': namely 'confusion'. This reporter gives us, therefore, an accurate English equivalent of the original words. Which of the three reporters gave the President's own words? Which of these three reporters is the most accurate one? At first sight we might be inclined to consider the first two reports more accurate, since they present the 'identical words'. But what makes a word a 'word'? Is it not the meaning' Is the meaning not more important than the external sound? Reporters one and two are better in reproducing the original sound of the words. Reporter three, however, gives the meaning of the President's words. This third reporter is, consequently, more accurate. For only in the third report we can truly say that we have the "words' of the President, i.e. that we understand them. The same distinctions we can make regarding Jesus' words: In some cases we have the identical original Aramaic words. — "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" Mt 27:46 b) In many cases we have literal translations of the original words. This can be done, since the meaning of such a literal translation may be clear as it stands. Examples from the 'Our Father': "Thy Kingdom come": literally according to the original "tabhô' malkûh khâ', c) In other cases we have accurate equivalents of the original words. For example: Jesus said: 'Forgive us our debts! St Luke wants to make the meaning clear. For it is obvious that Jesus is not speaking of a debt in money. So he renders: 'Forgive us our sins'. In doing this he gives the accurate equivalent of Jesus' words. For Jesus did not mean: 'Forgive us our money debts', but 'Forgive us our debt of sin'. Conclusion: In the gospels we do find Jesus' own words. But these words are not always the identical, original words or literal reproductions of these original words. At times Jesus' own words have been preserved in accurate equivalent translations.Question Two: In the Gospels we find direct quotations. For instance, in Luke 11:2 the "Our Father" is introduced by the words: "AND HE SAID TO THEM..." Does this way of quoting not indicate identical words spoken by Jesus?Reply:
The messenger immediately sends a telegram to Hyderabad:
If we inspect the actual words spoken by the general manager and the contents of these words given in the telegram, we must admit that the messenger has done a good job. In the telegram he does not reproduce the identical words of the general manager, but he has given a very accurate equivalent. The people in Hyderabad are anxious to know what the general manager has said. The telegram even though not following the identical words, tells them very clearly what the general manager said. And this is quite a natural way of acting. For in "what people say" it is the meaning, and not the external sound that matters. So it is with the words "AND JESUS SAID" in the Gospels. In many cases the words quoted will be literal reproductions of the original. In some cases the words quoted will be accurate equivalents. What matters is not the external sound, the external identity of the words, but the internal identity, the identity of meaning. Take an example from the "Our Father". Jesus said: "Give us this day our daily bread." Jesus is presupposing the Old Testament narration of the mannah, which God sent down day by day. We should also pray that God may look after us in that way. What did Jesus, therefore, say? What did He mean with the phrase? Was He forbidding us to pray for tomorrow? Surely not. But the newly converted Greek Christians would certainly understand the literal translation of phrase. So Luke translates the phrase with an accurate equivalent: "Keep giving us from day to day our daily bread. For that is what Jesus wanted to say. Conclusion: Direct Quotations of Jesus' own words include both literal reproductions of the original words and accurate equivalents.Question three: Could it not he that Our Lord taught two versions of the "Our Father": one as found with Matthew and one as found with Luke?Reply: No, this is excluded. In our first observation we pointed out both versions have so much in common that they must derive from one common Greek source. The greater part of the words is identical. Many strange Aramaic expressions have been put in Greek in the same manner. The Greek word for 'daily' - an absolute rarity - is found in both. Moreover, the differences of formulation do not seem to be due to Jesus but to the evangelists. Question four: If the "Our Father" has a slightly different, form in Matthew and in Luke, we do not seem to have any longer Our Lord's "Our Father", but the "Our Father" of Matthew and Luke.Reply: The reason of your difficulty is a wrong conception of God's message. It is almost the Muslim idea. For according to Islamic teaching the Qur'an came down from heaven, precisely as it is now. Every single line and single word had been indicated by God in the Arabic language. For this reason the Qur'an is untranslatable according to Muslims. Only the original Arabic contains the inspired word of God. This is not the biblical concept of revelation. God's message is translatable because it is the idea and not the external word that matters. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. His words were written down under God's inspiration in Greek. To all of us His words are made understandable in our own language. And note the translation does not make them less Jesus' words. So when we say the "Our Father", we say Our Lord's prayer, no matter in what language we say it. Our Lord did not say it in Russian or Chinese and yet when Russians or Chinese say the prayer in their own language they are praying Jesus' inspired words. The reason of it is that it is the meaning of the message, and not the external formulation that counts. So Matthew and Luke present two translations of the 'Our Father': one for the Jews and one for the Greeks. Both forms are Our Lord's "Our Father" since the substantial meaning of the prayer is Our Lord's. Conclusion: God's word in the Bible is a "living" word. It can be translated in all languages, since it is the message itself (and not the external words) that is inspired.Question five Could Jesus not have seen to it that a copy of His original Aramaic words was preserved by the Church?Reply: Of course, He could have seen to that. But it is abundantly clear that He did not want to do it. The reason is precisely that He was not interested in preserving the original formulations. These would have formed an enormous obstacle to the preaching of His message! When He sends out the Apostles He tells them to preach the Gospel "to every creature" (Mk 16:15) and "to all nations". (Mt 28:19) The first thing the Holy Spirit does on Pentecost day is making the Apostles speak in the language of all people present (Acts 2:6-11)!Jesus did not want the Church to cling to the external formulations of His original Aramaic. He wanted the Church to translate His living word in all the languages of the world. It is, therefore, wrong on our part to think that these original Aramaic formulations are better than the equivalent translations found in the Gospels. Jesus was deeply concerned, not about the formulations, but about the correct interpretation of His words. He did not want the original Aramaic to be preserved, but he saw to it that His words were correctly interpreted by the Early Church and by the evangelists. That is why He wanted that the Gospels should be written down under inspiration. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit guarantees that the evangelists gave the accurate equivalents of Jesus' message. Conclusion: Jesus did not want that (all) His original aramaic words were preserved. But through inspiration He guarantees the equivalents given in the gospels.Question Six: Then which of the two "Our Fathers" should we use for our daily prayer? The one found with Matthew, or the one in Luke's Gospel?Reply. It is tragical that Christians normally consider the "Our Father" as a prayer-form, to be used for daily prayer. Already the Didache, an ancient tract on Christian sanctity, presupposes this attitude when it says that this prayer should be said "three times a day" . Since then it has been used as a prayer 'learned by heart' and recited in a fixed formulation! But was this Christ's idea? Surely not! The Apostles did not ask to be taught an oration. They asked: "Lord, teach us how to pray!" They begged Him to teach them a general method of praying, to show them a pattern that they could follow. With the words of the "Our Father" Our Lord fulfilled this desire by giving them an example. Following this example the disciples should make their own prayer. According to the pattern of the "Our Father". they should (1) praise God; (2) pray for the extension of His Kingdom; (3) pray for their own needs; (4) ask for forgiveness of sins; and (5) pray for final perseverance. The very fact that Matthew's and Luke's form are different underlines this aspect of the "Our Father." It is the spirit, the substance, the meaning of the Our Father they want to pass on, not so much the external formulation! Both Matthew and Luke teach us complementary aspects of this 'pattern of prayer' left by Our Lord. Praying the "Our Father" does, therefore, not mean "reciting the words of Christ by heart." Praying the "Our Father" means: praying according to Christ's pattern. It has, then, no sense to ask: "Should we say Our Father according to Matthew or according to Luke?" We should read both versions carefully and regulate our prayer life accordingly. The literal recitation of the prayers is merely an accidental custom: this may be taken from either evangelist! Note that the Didache added a phrase to the end: "For thine is the power and the glory", an addition still found in Protestant usage. Conclusion: The "Our Father" of Christ is first and foremost a "pattern of prayer". Only accidentally it is also used for recitation by heart.A free, up-to-date realization of the "Our Father" pattern of prayer: "Father, You are worthy of all honour, praise and glory! May Your plan of salvation be fully realised in the whole world! May all men acknowledge You as their Creator and their Father! Father, help us in our daily needs. Give food to the hungry; give work to the unemployed; support the poor and the lonely. Please, forgive us our sins. We know that You demand charity from us and that we cannot be Your friends if we live in enmity with others. We realize that we should be merciful towards others just as You are towards us. We realize our weakness. We know that we often fall in temptation. Please, give us the strength to live up to our good resolutions and keep us far from what may harm us". If we say the "Our Father" in such a personal way. then we do what Christ told us to do: "Thus you shall pray..." (Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2) |