τοῦ πονηÏ￾οῦ

[modus.irrealis]

Hi,

I had a question about τοῦ πονηÏ￾οῦ in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:13), which I've seen translated as both "the evil one" and "evil." Now I can see how, without any context, the phrase could be taken in either sense (I guess depending on whether one reads it as masculine or neuter), but is there anything in this specific passage that suppports one reading over the other?

Thymio

[Kopio]

I have been taught that since this is articular and it is also an abstract adjective that it is to be taken as a substantive. Greek does this quite a bit, especially with the word good... αγαθος it is not uncommon to see ό αγαθος and know that it means, the good (one) or the good (man) cf. with Luke 6:45 it has the good man brings about good (things), Luke 10:42, Luke 12:18, Luke 16:25.

Hmmmmmm... I just noticed that Luke does this a lot, which makes me wonder if this is even better Attic Greek than Koine Greek......anyone, anyone?? (William perhaps??) Maybe someone far more qualified than I can weigh in on this.

[Kasper]

I insist that it means no more than 'anger'. Not *Evil*.

"Lead us not into temptations and deliver us from anger."

Perfect peace of mind.

[Kopio]

I insist that it means no more than 'anger'. Not *Evil*.

"Lead us not into temptations and deliver us from anger."

Perfect peace of mind.

Can you suggest why you insist this??

[Bert]

I insist that it means no more than 'anger'. Not *Evil*.

I need a bit more than your insistence to be convinced.

[Kasper]

To a degree . I suppose 'insist' was too strong a word however.

I've previously failed to make the point in the Academy that there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil. I don't really feel the need to go into that again, but the concept of pure evil seems a rather abstract idea to me. Unfortunately I don't have any Greek grammars at hand here at the moment, but all Greek and Latin grammars I've worked through emphasize that the languages did not have a high level of abstraction. 'evil' seems a very abstract concept to me, not something that is actually encountered in real life.

"ponhros" (sorry I don't know how to do the greek alphabet here!) is of course a word much older than the NT. As you are well aware, the Greek Gods had both good and bad qualitities. None were pure good or pure evil. This adds to my thinking that the word never had such strong connotations.

In addition, and this purely a religious view point perhaps ill placed in this forum, I think that if you analyse the whole prayer (perhaps indeed the whole of Jesus' preachings) that all lines relate to an inner peace, not a defence from external forces.

The first part is the introduction, a somewhat traditional calling upon God and naming some of his attributes. (the Iliad is full of them I believe)

Second there is the call for physical assistance: 'daily bread' (sorry I don't literrally know the English translation having been raised in Holland). Of course a certainty of a daily food supply is a great peace of mind.

Third come the requests for mental assistance:
a) forgive us our debts as we forgive those of others. Have you ever held a grudge or ever known that someone (certainly God) had a grudge against you? I think this greatly interferes with your peace of mind.
b) do not lead us into temptations. All sorts of temptations arise that interfere with what you know is morally right or wrong. Giving into temptations will often interfere with your peace of mind.
c) deliver us from 'ponhros'. As I said, I believe this means anger. IF you have selfcontrol and don't get angry and frustrated at all sorts of things you will have a much greater peace of mind.

Fourth comes a declaration of trust in the goodness/greatness of God. Knowing that you are safe for the future because of your trust in God and his power for eternity is once more a great peace of mind.

In summary, I think the whole prayer relates to inner peace but only asks for assistance in doing so. I really don't believe that Jesus preached that we should hide in the corner so taht the 'Evil one' doesn't jump on us. I think it is about seeking help from God to have the inner strength to a be a peaceful, calm and thereby good person, taking responsibility for your own actions. If you sin, ie. transgress your conscience, it's not a matter of the Evil One pushing you this way or that but of giving in the 'bad' traits of human nature, grudges, temptations and anger.

[Bert]

So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.
No can do.
There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?
(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)

[Kasper]

First of all Bert, if I have offended you by my post then my apologies. It is not my intention to offend anyone.

So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.
No can do.

How have I changed the definition? What is the definition of "ponhros"? (and if you say 'evil', can you define that for me too?)

There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?

Well no. But I think - and I am only stating my opinion here - that love, goodwill, anger, jealousy are things that are commonly experienced. Depending on the definition you attributed to "evil" however, I think this is a much higher level of abstraction and not something that actually exists. Naturally this all depends on the definition of 'evil' again.

(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)

On this point I cannot but disagree with you. However I have no intention to 'convert' you.

[modus.irrealis]

I have been taught that since this is articular and it is also an abstract adjective that it is to be taken as a substantive. Greek does this quite a bit, especially with the word good... αγαθος it is not uncommon to see ό αγαθος and know that it means, the good (one) or the good (man) cf. with Luke 6:45 it has the good man brings about good (things), Luke 10:42, Luke 12:18, Luke 16:25.

Yes, I see what you mean, and I tend to agree with this interpretation in this context. But the other possibility is that it is from τὸ πονηÏ￾όν which could mean abstract evil the way τὸ άγαθόν means the Good and Ï„ÏŒ καλόν means the Beautiful. But thinking about it now, even though I'm sure it can be used this way in Attic Greek, maybe this use fell out in Koine Greek? Doing some googling, I came across Rom 16:19 which seems to allow an abstract interpretation, although a more concrete meaning's obviously possible too and the few translations I consulted are split on the issue. I guess this is just inherently ambiguous?

[Bert]

First of all Bert, if I have offended you by my post then my apologies. It is not my intention to offend anyone.

Not at all. I re-read my post and it does appear a little curt. My intention was to make a clear point, not a gruff one.

So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.
No can do.

How have I changed the definition? What is the definition of "pohnros"? (and if you say 'evil', can you define that for me too?)

I can't define it as well as Bauer, Thayer or Liddell. If you were to check them out you can see the development of the word from mild to quite strong. Harassed by hard work, hardship, sick, bad, wicked, consious wickedness. Anger is not in there.

There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?

Well no. But I think - and I am only stating my opinion here - that love, goodwill, anger, jealousy are things that are commonly experienced. Depending on the definition you attributed to "evil" however, I think this is a much higher level of abstraction and not something that actually exists. Naturally this all depends on the definition of 'evil' again.

The concepts belonging to the different definitions of πονηÏ￾ός do exist.
I wonder if you make it more abstract than it actully is.

(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)

On this point I cannot but disagree with you.

Not a problem.

[Kasper]

I can't define it as well as Bauer, Thayer or Liddell. If you were to check them out you can see the development of the word from mild to quite strong. Harassed by hard work, hardship, sick, bad, wicked, consious wickedness. Anger is not in there.

Nor Evil .

However I don't think this really changes my point of view. If we are to be delivered from wickedness, the question remains whose wickedness we are to be delivered from. I suppose there are 3 possible answers:

1) my own;
2) anothers; or
3) wickedness in general, including that of myself and others.

In this light I choose option 3, but base this choice on the peace of mind idea.

In any event, "Evil One" seems odd to me as a translation. Wouldn't 'Satana' have been used? Are there other examples in the gospels of the devil being called o( ponhro/s?

[Bert]

Anger is not in there.

Nor Evil .

Well...actually it is.

(Parts deleted to match Kasper's edited posts.)

[Kasper]

Oops - I must have amended my posts while you were responding .

Because of the many interpretations of those words as you point out, I removed that part of my post. I didn't think they assisted in clarifying the matter at all.

[Bert]

Are there other examples in the gospels of the devil being called o( ponhro/s?

Some of these my be open to interpretation but some are quite clear.
All are worth taking a look at.
Matthew 5:37, 13:19 and 38, John 17:15. (Also one in Luke but it has the same context as the current topic.)
Other places in the Bible: 1 John 2:13 and 14, 1 John 3:12, 1 John 5:18 and 19, Eph. 6:16.

[Kasper]

I’m most impressed with how quickly you found those Bert!

I must first off admit that you have convinced me that “angerâ€￾ is not the correct translation. Instead I am taking up “wickednessâ€￾ as one of the options you provided.

I’m only going into the examples you gave from the gospels for now. If you feel this is unfair or makes the discussion incomplete please say so. I have taken the text from Perseus and translated them myself, so again, if you object to my translation please say so. I acknowledge it is a bit free here and there.


Matthew 5:37,
εÌ￾στω δὲ ο λοÌ￾γος υμων ναὶ ναιÌ￾, οὺ ουÌ￾: τὸ δὲ πεÏ￾ισσὸν τουÌ￾των εκ του πονηÏ￾ου εστιÌ￾ν.

and may your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, ‘no’ be ‘no’: for [what is] beyond these is out of wickedness.
or
and may your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, ‘no’ be ‘no’: for [what is] beyond these is out of the devil.

- So if you yourself say something other than what you mean, is this your own wickedness or is has the devil taken over your mind?


Matthew 13:19
19] Παντὸς ακουÌ￾οντος τὸν λοÌ￾γον της βασιλειÌ￾ας καὶ μὴ συνιεÌ￾ντος, εÌ￾Ï￾χεται ο πονηÏ￾ὸς καὶ αÏ￾παÌ￾ζει τὸ εσπαÏ￾μεÌ￾νον εν τη καÏ￾διÌ￾α αυτου: ουτοÌ￾Ï‚ εστιν ο παÏ￾ὰ τὴν οδὸν σπαÏ￾ειÌ￾Ï‚

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, wickedness comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

or

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, the devil comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

- Gramattically it makes little sense to say that wickedness comes up and grabs a seed, but the whole line is very abstract. There is of course no actual seed, there is something abstract: faith, or the beginning thereof. Can the devil actually steal your faith? Or can the beginning of faith be surpressed by giving in to temptations that are contrary to your morality, and thereby your faith?


John 17:15

NB: This is preceded by Jesus saying that he is telling his disciples things that are not of the world but from heaven.

15] ουκ εÏ￾ωτω ιÌ￾να αÌ￾Ï￾ης αυτοὺς εκ του κοÌ￾σμου αλλ' ιÌ￾να τηÏ￾ηÌ￾σης αυτοὺς εκ του πονηÏ￾ου.

I ask not that you would take them from the universe/world, but that you would keep them from wickedness.

or

I ask not that you would take them from the universe/world, but that you would keep them from the devil.

- I read in this that Jesus says not to use his words for your own purposes. Don’t distort the words to benefit yourself or your cause. History is of course full of examples of this. I fail to see how you would keep any words from the devil.

I would really appreciate your views on these lines.

BTW, I don’t know how you found these examples so quickly, but would you be able to do a similar search for the word ‘satana’ in these texts? I’m just curious whether the use of this word in addition to ‘ponhro\s’ might assist the discussion.

[Paul]

Hi All,

Interesting conversation.

I did some digging on the Web and am hoping that someone who knows Hebrew (Matt?) can shed some light on these data.

One source said that πονηÏ￾ός is often used to translate the Hebrew word
in the Septuagint.

Another says that it is used to translate these Hebrew words keyed to Strong's Concordance.

00343 ed
00873 biyosh
01681 dibbah
01800 dal
07200 raah
07227 rav
07451 ra
07489 raa
07489 raa hi.
07563 rasha
08441 toevah

Can anyone shed any light on the meanings of these Hebrew words?

Also, as Kasper suggests, it would be interesting to know where and why the NT uses διάβολος or Σατανᾶς rather than á½￾ πονηÏ￾ός.

Cordially,

Paul

[Kopio]

Hi All,

I did some digging on the Web and am hoping that someone who knows Hebrew (Matt?) can shed some light on these data.

Dang it Paul, you had to go there huh?? Well.....you'll be glad to know that I stayed up far too late last night, and still have a bit of a crick in my neck from reading a volumnus tome last night from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Kittel.

I now know far more about πονηÏ￾ος than I would ever like to know! FWIW in the LXX πονηÏ￾ος is used as the antithesis of καλος. I looked far and wide, and read over 10-15 pages about πονηÏ￾ος and I never saw any indication in a complete diachronic study of it where it connoted "anger" (sorry Kasper....I really did look for you.) HOWEVER, Kittel says that this instance is one of the more debated ones. The gist of it (in Kittels opinion....which whenever Kittel goes into opinion I am wary) in his words:

The difference in interpretation is even a confessional one in this instance. The Easters construe του πονηÏ￾ου as a masculine, while the Westerns, apart from Tertullian, regard it as a neutral in the sense of "evil." The older Latins translate the petition libera nos a malo.

Of course when these types of divisions occur, I am more likely to go with the Eastern church, since the Greek tradition is much more solid in the East than the West. I do find it interesting that the Latin uses the word Malus for the Greek word πονηÏ￾ος

Typically πονηÏ￾ος is used to translate te Hebrew word and it's cognates (of which there are a boatload).

Instances of this would be:Gen 6:5, 8:21, Neh 2:10, 2S 11:25 1 Ch 21:7 and a ton of others I am not going to take the time to list! It is also used with the article to denote the Devil, cf. Mt. 13:19 (quite indisputably), 1 Jn 2:13, 14, 5:18, 19.

I would argue that it is Matthean practice to use the articular adjective in this manner to denote the Devil. Cf. with Matt 5:37, 13:19 and 13:38.

Ok....I gotta go to work now.....if I am late that would be πονηÏ￾ος!

[Paul]

Hi Matt,

Beautiful!

FWIW, I hesitated before invoking your name. I figured you would, at some cost, get to the bottom of it. Thanks again. We are all wiser for your efforts.

I think you are saying that the Eastern tradition is more likely to construe á½￾ πονηÏ￾ός as a person, the Western as an abstract quality. I had already thought of the Latin translation of the "Our Father" that Kittel refers to. It doesn't seem quite right to translate τοῦ πονηÏ￾οῦ as 'evil'.

I read somewhere that the concept of "the Devil" - as a person - was taught to the Hebrews in Babylon. If so, he comes to the Jewish tradition from the East.

Cordially,

Paul

[modus.irrealis]

Hi,

The difference in interpretation is even a confessional one in this instance. The Easters construe του πονηÏ￾ου as a masculine, while the Westerns, apart from Tertullian, regard it as a neutral in the sense of "evil." The older Latins translate the petition libera nos a malo.

Of course when these types of divisions occur, I am more likely to go with the Eastern church, since the Greek tradition is much more solid in the East than the West. I do find it interesting that the Latin uses the word Malus for the Greek word πονηÏ￾ος

I don't know much Latin, but doesn't malus have the exact same ambiguity issues as the Greek? Couldn't a malo represent either malus = "evil one" or malum = "evil"? The Vulgate uses simply malus in Mt 13:19, where it must be, as you said, "evil one."

Thymio

[Bert]

I’m most impressed with how quickly you found those Bert!

I cannot take a undeserved compliment.
I looked in a lexicon that mentioned the articular πονηÏ￾ός and gave a list of texts. I just looked up those texts.

Matthew 13:19
19] Παντὸς ακουÌ￾οντος τὸν λοÌ￾γον της βασιλειÌ￾ας καὶ μὴ συνιεÌ￾ντος, εÌ￾Ï￾χεται ο πονηÏ￾ὸς καὶ αÏ￾παÌ￾ζει τὸ εσπαÏ￾μεÌ￾νον εν τη καÏ￾διÌ￾α αυτου: ουτοÌ￾Ï‚ εστιν ο παÏ￾ὰ τὴν οδὸν σπαÏ￾ειÌ￾Ï‚

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, wickedness comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

or

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, the devil comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

- Gramattically it makes little sense to say that wickedness comes up and grabs a seed, but the whole line is very abstract. There is of course no actual seed, there is something abstract: faith, or the beginning thereof. Can the devil actually steal your faith? Or can the beginning of faith be surpressed by giving in to temptations that are contrary to your morality, and thereby your faith?

I don't have much time this evening but I'll try to respond tomorrow or Saturday.
One comment on this one though.
Verses 38 and 39 explain a parable so those verses take some of the abstractness out of it.
BTW there is an occurrance of πονηÏ￾ός and διάβολος there.

[IreneY]

While I am not that well versed in NT (or OT to be exact) to answer the question, I just wanted to note this:

First of all, I had never considered του πονηÏ￾ου as masculine. Perhaps it was even explained to me as a neuter in the endless hours of religious studies (in reality studies on the Orthodox Christian dogma) and I have forgotten about it.

However, does it really make all that much difference? I mean since the abstract meaning of evil (not as in Satanic) existed from the ancient times and since in the Christian faith all evil, wickedness, malicious cunning has its roots in Satan, what is the difference?

[Bert]

However, does it really make all that much difference? I mean since the abstract meaning of evil (not as in Satanic) existed from the ancient times and since in the Christian faith all evil, wickedness, malicious cunning has its roots in Satan, what is the difference?

I think the difference is; Do we ask to be delivered from the power of the Devil (deliver us from the evil one) or from bad situations, sickness, accidents, losing your job etc.(deliver us from evil)

[IreneY]

oh! Whoops! I didn't realise it! In this case I'd say "evil" especially since the general meaning of PONHROS has never been that (the second one I mean: sickness etc) and because of the ALLA before this sentence.

[Kopio]

Beautiful!

FWIW, I hesitated before invoking your name. I figured you would, at some cost, get to the bottom of it. Thanks again. We are all wiser for your efforts.

LOL....it wasn't that big of a deal....but the crick in my neck did take a while to work out. Fortunately I have Kittel, and I wasn't feeling especially obsessice/compulsive....cuz then I would have got out ALL my language stuff (7 or 8 books) and been up till dawn. Anymore I just don't have the time.

I think you are saying that the Eastern tradition is more likely to construe á½￾ πονηÏ￾ός as a person, the Western as an abstract quality. I had already thought of the Latin translation of the "Our Father" that Kittel refers to. It doesn't seem quite right to translate τοῦ πονηÏ￾οῦ as 'evil'.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I read somewhere that the concept of "the Devil" - as a person - was taught to the Hebrews in Babylon. If so, he comes to the Jewish tradition from the East.

Hmmmmm.....I don't think I'd buy that. I mean, take a look at the Book of Job, which is generally considered to be the oldest book in the TaNaK. A personal Devil is quite evident in that. Same with Isaiah fiftysomething (don't ask me the exact chapter), it seems to point to a personal Devil, as does the Creation narrative. Do you remember where you read it by chance??

I don't know much Latin, but doesn't malus have the exact same ambiguity issues as the Greek? Couldn't a malo represent either malus = "evil one" or malum = "evil"?

Sure can, but my point with the Latin Fathers is that neither malus nor πονηÏ￾ος mean "anger" as was suggested by our good friend Kasper. I still feel fairly strongly that with the article it is being used to denote a specific person. On a whim, I checked out Wallace's Grammar....and whaddya know....here's what he says....

Although the KJV renders this "deliver us from evil," the presence of the article indicates not evil in general, but the evil one himself. In the context of Matthew's Gospel, such deliverance from the devil seems to be linked to Jesus' temptation in 4:1-10: Because the Spirit led him into temptation by the evil one, believers now participate in his victory.

I might also add that Robinson in his Grammar (Section 653) concurs.

[Paul]

Hmmmmm.....I don't think I'd buy that. I mean, take a look at the Book of Job, which is generally considered to be the oldest book in the TaNaK. A personal Devil is quite evident in that. Same with Isaiah fiftysomething (don't ask me the exact chapter), it seems to point to a personal Devil, as does the Creation narrative. Do you remember where you read it by chance??

I see. When was Job written? Could it not be post-Babylonian captivity?

I am, of course, suggesting Zoroastrian dualism as the ground of a Satan.

I read it in a book by the ever-insightful Denis de Rougemont called "The Devil's Share" (he is best known for "Love in the Western World.") It was a passing remark. But there seems to be plenty of scholarship around that suggests such an origin for the Jewish Satan.

Cordially,

Paul

[Kopio]

I see. When was Job written? Could it not be post-Babylonian captivity?

I am, of course, suggesting Zoroastrian dualism as the ground of a Satan.

Rather than spend a lot of time typing I will simply refer you here and make it easy

I read it in a book by the ever-insightful Denis de Rougemont called "The Devil's Share" (he is best known for "Love in the Western World.") It was a passing remark. But there seems to be plenty of scholarship around that suggests such an origin for the Jewish Satan.

Which doesn't really suprise me at all. I have never read de Rougemont. I know there are so many theories about what was written when though.....some scholars will place any book of the TaNaK at almost any point in the 1st Millenium BC. I know of authors who push the Pentateuch forward to post exhilic times. The problem with that though, is that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch is fairly distinctive and can be pigeon holed down to a very early date. It has to do with a waw that is added as a suffix....something along those lines. It is a very distinctice form that is only found in early Classical Hebrew. I know I studied it in Hebrew several years ago....I could dig my class notes out, but that would take far too much effort.

FWIW.....my neck is still bugging me....I don't get it! I think I might run to the chiropractor today.

[Bert]

FWIW in the LXX πονηÏ￾ος is used as the antithesis of καλος.

That surpised me. I figured it would be over against ἀγαθός.
When I looked up those two words to understand the differences I found

It is to be regarded as a peculearity in the usage of the Sept. that (Hebrew word here) good is predominantly [?] rendered by καλός ....

It continues on by describing a few of the instances that ἀγαθός is used.

[IreneY]

just a side-comment, sort of by the way: KALOS in modern Greek means good

[Bert]

just a side-comment, sort of by the way: KALOS in modern Greek means good

Is ἀγαθός a modern Greek word as well?
If so, is there much difference?

[Bert]

Matthew 5:37,
εÌ￾στω δὲ ο λοÌ￾γος υμων ναὶ ναιÌ￾, οὺ ουÌ￾: τὸ δὲ πεÏ￾ισσὸν τουÌ￾των εκ του πονηÏ￾ου εστιÌ￾ν.

and may your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, ‘no’ be ‘no’: for [what is] beyond these is out of wickedness.
or
and may your word ‘yes’ be ‘yes’, ‘no’ be ‘no’: for [what is] beyond these is out of the devil.

- So if you yourself say something other than what you mean, is this your own wickedness or is has the devil taken over your mind?

Good point. No, the devil would not have taken over my mind. That would absolve me from responsibility. However lying is from the devil.
If I am a liar I would act like my father the devil. Compare John 8:42-47.
If you were to replace 'out of wickedness' and 'out of the devil' with 'from wickedness (or the devil)' then it makes a bit more natural English. Then 'that what is beyond this is from the devil' makes good sense. In my estimation more sense than 'that what is beyond this is from wickedness."
Yes? No?

Matthew 13:19
19] Παντὸς ακουÌ￾οντος τὸν λοÌ￾γον της βασιλειÌ￾ας καὶ μὴ συνιεÌ￾ντος, εÌ￾Ï￾χεται ο πονηÏ￾ὸς καὶ αÏ￾παÌ￾ζει τὸ εσπαÏ￾μεÌ￾νον εν τη καÏ￾διÌ￾α αυτου: ουτοÌ￾Ï‚ εστιν ο παÏ￾ὰ τὴν οδὸν σπαÏ￾ειÌ￾Ï‚

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, wickedness comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

or

whenever anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not go along with it, the devil comes and gathers what was sown in his heart:

- Gramattically it makes little sense to say that wickedness comes up and grabs a seed, but the whole line is very abstract. There is of course no actual seed, there is something abstract: faith, or the beginning thereof. Can the devil actually steal your faith? Or can the beginning of faith be surpressed by giving in to temptations that are contrary to your morality, and thereby your faith?

It is not faith that is being snatched away. Notice that it says that the hearer hears the word of the kingdom but does not understand it.
It makes more sense to say that the evil one takes this away than that evil takes this away.
Another point to remember here is that not every point of a parable serves a spiritual purpose.

[b]John 17:15

NB: This is preceded by Jesus saying that he is telling his disciples things that are not of the world but from heaven.

15] ουκ εÏ￾ωτω ιÌ￾να αÌ￾Ï￾ης αυτοὺς εκ του κοÌ￾σμου αλλ' ιÌ￾να τηÏ￾ηÌ￾σης αυτοὺς εκ του πονηÏ￾ου.

I ask not that you would take them from the universe/world, but that you would keep them from wickedness.

or

I ask not that you would take them from the universe/world, but that you would keep them from the devil.

- I read in this that Jesus says not to use his words for your own purposes. Don’t distort the words to benefit yourself or your cause. History is of course full of examples of this. I fail to see how you would keep any words from the devil.[/b]

I am not sure where you get the part about not using his words for your purposes and keeping words from the devil. Maybe you took αá½￾τοὺς as refering to τὸν λόγον σου. It doesn't. It refers to 'those whom you gave me out of the world' (vrs 6.) i.e. his disciples.
Now it makes sense to say; 'keep them from the devil.

...would you be able to do a similar search for the word ‘satana’ in these texts? I’m just curious whether the use of this word in addition to ‘ponhro\s’ might assist the discussion.

I don't have any search software. I cannot find any occurrances of σατανᾶς near πονηÏ￾ός. The closest I could come with διάβολος is Matth 13:38 and 39.

[IreneY]

Is ἀγαθός a modern Greek word as well?
If so, is there much difference?

yes, it is. Αγαθός main meaning in modern Greek is he who is of pure heart. Some times it is also used for someone who is naive (different from the naivete of a pure of heart) .

KALOS is more general, as is 'good' really.

[Kasper]

First of all my apologies to all participants for not responding sooner. I was away for uni exams for a couple of days.

Sure can, but my point with the Latin Fathers is that neither malus nor πονηÏ￾ος mean "anger" as was suggested by our good friend Kasper. I still feel fairly strongly that with the article it is being used to denote a specific person. On a whim, I checked out Wallace's Grammar....and whaddya know....here's what he says....

Although the KJV renders this "deliver us from evil," the presence of the article indicates not evil in general, but the evil one himself. In the context of Matthew's Gospel, such deliverance from the devil seems to be linked to Jesus' temptation in 4:1-10: Because the Spirit led him into temptation by the evil one, believers now participate in his victory.

I might also add that Robinson in his Grammar (Section 653) concurs.

Kopio, thank for your research and comments! Bert had already beaten you to it - I have dropped the idea that 'anger' is a suitable translation. Instead I've taken up 'wickedness'. In light of the above posts, I might even consider adapting 'evil', although this very much depends on the definition taht we attribute to this word. For now I will stick to 'wicknedness'.

I'm not sure how relevant any latin, or any other language translation for that matter, is for this discussion. We are all too aware that a translator often has to make choices when there is no perfect translation available. Specifically in religious texts translators are likely to draw on their own believes to assist in translating.
Even the hebrew I have some doubts about - none of the gospelers were present when Jesus provided the prayer. So although He would no doubt have spoken it in Hebrew or Aramaic, we have to consider the Greek as the original for our purposes, as it is the base source for our translation/interpretation of the prayer.

I am not in a position to argue with Dr Wallace. Nevertheless I have some doubts about whether the article must indicate that the devil as a person is intended, and not wickedness as a human quality. Perhaps it's just my dutch stubbornness.

However lying is from the devil.
If I am a liar I would act like my father the devil. Compare John 8:42-47.
If you were to replace 'out of wickedness' and 'out of the devil' with 'from wickedness (or the devil)' then it makes a bit more natural English. Then 'that what is beyond this is from the devil' makes good sense. In my estimation more sense than 'that what is beyond this is from wickedness."
Yes? No?

I'm not sure what the phrase 'lying is of from the devil' means. What do you mean when you say that the devil is your father?

Haha - I'm not sure whether 'out of' or 'from' makes a great deal of difference, but (and I profess my ignorance here) wouldn't 'apo' be used if it was 'from'?

It is not faith that is being snatched away. Notice that it says that the hearer hears the word of the kingdom but does not understand it.
It makes more sense to say that the evil one takes this away than that evil takes this away.
Another point to remember here is that not every point of a parable serves a spiritual purpose.

Could we not say that because of the vices of human beings, the words/seeds 'fall on deaf ears'? People turn away because of their vices - they don't want to hear it. It is not that the devil prefends us from hearin the words in the sense that he snatches them away before they can reach us.

My thanks to Paul for his contribution. I think the whole discussion boils down the point Bert made in one of his posts: does the prayer ask to be protected from an external person, the devil, or from human vices, whether internal or external?
To this point Paul's comments about the personification of evil/wickedeness if very relevant. I find it very hard to accept that there is personification of evil, just like I don't accept that Neptune is a personification of the sea, Demeter of the earth, etc.

I understand that when a society finds itself in a position of chaos, such as that following the collapse of the roman empire, simplification is important to regain a sense of order and control. To therefore picture all harmful things to be from a devil from whom we can be protected by praying and sacrifing to an all good God is a very basic and primitive means to regain this feeilng of order and control. I do not intend 'primitive' to have any negative connotations here by the way, just a basic concept for a society seeking order. I must ask though, do any of you put any reliance on medieval stories of witches who were seen copulating with an invisible devil or such similar tales of a physical existence of the devil?

Even if we do personify 'evil' to take the form of the devil, do we assume that the devil has a physical shape or is he all around like we accept God to be? Does he take possession of us when we work 'evil', or is he wispering in our ears?
I find it very hard to accept this idea of a devil and like Bert pointed out, I feel it is taken to absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

So what I am saying is that even if tou~ ponh/rou does actually mean 'the devil' in the prayer, it is only a metaphor for the human qualities that we consider 'evil' or wicked. In addition then, my point is that the wickedness or evil we are to be protected from is not just that of others but our own as well.

[Bert]

First of all my apologies

No apology necessary.

In light of the above posts, I might even consider adapting 'evil', although this very much depends on the definition that we attribute to this word. For now I will stick to 'wickedness'.

I have no qualms with 'wickedness' and 'the wicked one' but I don't view 'evil' as abstract as you seem to do.

Perhaps it's just my Dutch stubbornness.

The Dutch stubborn?

However lying is from the devil.
If I am a liar I would act like my father the devil. Compare John 8:42-47.
If you were to replace 'out of wickedness' and 'out of the devil' with 'from wickedness (or the devil)' then it makes a bit more natural English. Then 'that what is beyond this is from the devil' makes good sense. In my estimation more sense than 'that what is beyond this is from wickedness."
Yes? No?

I'm not sure what the phrase 'lying is of from the devil' means. What do you mean when you say that the devil is your father?

Haha - I'm not sure whether 'out of' or 'from' makes a great deal of difference, but (and I profess my ignorance here) wouldn't 'apo' be used if it was 'from'?

About the devil being someone's father, look at John 8:44. I took the example and terminology from there.

Concerning 'out of' and 'from', there is some overlap in meanings between á¼￾κ and ἀπό but I was not so much referring to a difference in meaning but more to making it a bit more natural English.
(BTW ἀπό is used )

It is not faith that is being snatched away. Notice that it says that the hearer hears the word of the kingdom but does not understand it.
It makes more sense to say that the evil one takes this away than that evil takes this away.
Another point to remember here is that not every point of a parable serves a spiritual purpose.

Could we not say that because of the vices of human beings, the words/seeds 'fall on deaf ears'? People turn away because of their vices - they don't want to hear it. It is not that the devil prefends us from hearin the words in the sense that he snatches them away before they can reach us.

The tares in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares are from the devil. (See Jesus' explanation.) So the competition that the tares give, is from the devil. That does not mean that he does that without instruments. Here he uses the tares, i.e. his servants.
(That also does not mean that we don't have our own nature to contend with.)

[Bert]

All of a sudden it occurred to me that, like Greek, Dutch also uses the article with an adjective. English needs a noun but Greek and Dutch don't.
I was wondering how to explain this to you, Kasper, but then I remembered that you are Dutch as well.
Matthew 6:13. maar verlos ons van den boze.
I don't think it is possible to explain 'den boze' as 'boze dingen' but a specific well known 'boze something/someone'. (If it is a specific something, I wouldn't know what thing.)
Maybe I am guilty of transferring Dutch grammar to Greek, but the similarity is very real.

[Kasper]

Hi Bert - the convenience of dutchness.

Indeed you are right about 'van den boze'. I've also heard it translated as 'van het boze'. ('Het' is of course the neuter article, and 'den / de' male or female).

I'm not too sure how important the article is in the current context. For one thing, tou~ can be both neuter and male. We don't know whether we are looking at o( ponhro/s or to ponhro/n.

By coincidence I was reading Exodus 6:6 on the train to work this morning in the Septuaginta. I still don't know how to type in a Greek font, so forgive me for the horror of typing it this way, but it says, inter alia:

r(usomai u(ma~s ek th~s doulei/as.

Of course this is not a substantive use of an adjective. But we all seem to agree that in Greek adjectives can be used substantively by the addition of an article. What this does not automatically mean, is that the substantive of the adjective in the Lord's prayer (or any other text) implies a personification of the quality described by the substantified adjective. I think you will agree that "doulei/as" is not a personification of slavery. Then why would we infer tou~ ponhrou~ in the prayer as a personification of evil and not simply as a description of human qualities?

[modus.irrealis]

Hi,

But we all seem to agree that in Greek adjectives can be used substantively by the addition of an article.

Even without an article, right?

Then why would we infer tou~ ponhrou~ in the prayer as a personification of evil and not simply as a description of human qualities?

Because as you mentioned before, it could come from á½￾ πονηÏ￾ός, in which case it would have to refer to an animate being (personification may be too strong). I still think it's ambiguous, but I'll add that I came across the argument that á¿¥Ï￾ομαι is generally used with ἀπό when it means deliver from a person and with á¼￾κ (as in your example) when it means deliver from a thing, but I don't know how strictly such a rule was followed.

Thymios

[Bert]

But we all seem to agree that in Greek adjectives can be used substantively by the addition of an article. What this does not automatically mean, is that the substantive of the adjective in the Lord's prayer (or any other text) implies a personification of the quality described by the substantified adjective. I think you will agree that "doulei/as" is not a personification of slavery. Then why would we infer tou~ ponhrou~ in the prayer as a personification of evil and not simply as a description of human qualities?

The substantive use of an adjective does not have to indicate personification but (if it has the article) it indicates that a specific (Insert meaning of adjective) is talked about.
If it had been in the plural, τῶν πονηÏ￾ῶν would have indicated evil things, the evil things, those evil things.
In the singular, the/that evil thing or the/that evil one.
I can't see how the context allows the 'evil thing' translation. What evil thing?

That is why I am of the opinion that τοῦ πονηÏ￾οῦ (sg.) cannot be a description of human qualities (pl.)

The article with slavery in Ex. 6:6 indicates that the hearers are aware of which specific slavery is meant. The one that is mentioned just before.
Notice that the article is often translated with a possesive personal pronoun?
...their slavery. (In the Dutch Staten Vertaling, it reads ... hun dienstbaarheid.) Not slavery in general but a very specific slavery.

[Kasper]

Although I've said about all I can say on this topic, I do want to point out that the addition of the word 'thing' is often a helpful tool for translation, but it is no more than that. So to ask 'deliver us from what evil thing?" is deceptive and not proper translation.

The fact that in the excerpt from exodus the dutch bible translates it as 'their slavery' only adds to the ambiguity here. Would you translate tou~ ponhrou~ as 'his evil' or 'the evil' , or not translate the article at all because it is (arguably) only used to indicate that the adjective is used substantively?

I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.

[Kopio]

I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.

Well, it's nice to know that you're halfway there

I was working through the Gospel of John this weekend, and I came across Jesu sand the parable of the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) Jesus says, "Εγω ειμι ο ποιμην ο καλος" It made me immediately think of this passage....to me, I would translate this (hyper literally mind you) "I am the shepherd, the good one".....BTW, whether or not this is good Greek, or even an accurate translation of it will more than likely never be completely agreed upon in this thread. However, I must say from my (admitedly limited) knowledge of Hebrew....this kind of phrase is very good Hebrew.

Just some more food for thought.

[Bert]

Although I've said about all I can say on this topic, I do want to point out that the addition of the word 'thing' is often a helpful tool for translation, but it is no more than that. So to ask 'deliver us from what evil thing?" is deceptive and not proper translation.

I was not trying to use deception to make you see it my(?) way. (I know you didn't say that I did.) I don't see it as deception but as an unavoidable weakness of translating. Something is lost in translation.
English needs a noun after the adjective. Just like in the example Kopio gave.

The fact that in the excerpt from exodus the dutch bible translates it as 'their slavery' only adds to the ambiguity here. Would you translate tou~ ponhrou~ as 'his evil' or 'the evil' , or not translate the article at all because it is (arguably) only used to indicate that the adjective is used substantively?

My point in quoting that was not to suggest that every articular substantive adjective has to be translated with a possesive pronoun, but I wanted to show that the article makes the substantive more definite.
Not any kind of slavery but this particular slavery. Therefore I think that "their slavery" (or "this slavery")is a good translation. However, "his evil (+noun") does not make much sense, but "the evil (+noun") does.
It clearly indicates the definitiveness.

I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.

But it was a nice and a helpful discussion.