τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Matthew 6:13 wrote: καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
There seems to be quite a divergence of opinion on how to read τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13. Wallace insists that the presence of the article requires the reading “the evil one” while others, including some of the most respected translation committees, read the phrase as an unspecified “evil”.
Daniel Wallace – Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, pg 233 wrote: Although the KJV renders this “deliver us from evil,” the presence of the arti¬cle indicates not evil in general, but the evil one himself. In the context of Mat¬thew’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.
What is the weight of the argument for “the evil one” versus “evil”? Are both readings possible? Is one reading much preferred, or required as Wallace contends?
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:
Matthew 6:13 wrote: καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Daniel Wallace – Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, pg 233 wrote: 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.
What is the weight of the argument for “the evil one” versus “evil”? Are both readings possible? Is one reading much preferred, or required as Wallace contends?
Wallace is not the originator of this assertion about the article being significant in determining whether "the evil (one)" or "evil" is to be read. I heard this same appeal to the article 30 years ago, and in ignorance and without reason accepted it as reasonable. Now however, it sounds like, "the bed is wide enough, so your feet won't overhang the end". Rather than make points, let me ask and answer some questions, so that you can more easily see where your opinions and reasoning diverge from mine.

What is ἀπό? Obviously, it is a preposition. What follows a preposition? A nominal. Does an adjective ever follow a preposition? Yes, but only when it is substantivised. How is an adjective substantivised? In one of three ways; by being with a noun, as required by context, or as required by context made clear by the addition of an article. So then, because ἀπὸ is a preposition ipso facto what follows it is a nominal.

Following from that, if the article does not affect whether πονηροῦ is adjectival or substantive (the presence of the preposition does), what is the difference between how we would express those two English phrases in Greek?

How do we use Greek express "the evil one", referring to an individual being? We could write ὁ πονηρός. Masculine in gender agreeing with and understood διάβολος, ἄγγελος, ἄνθρωπος. How would we express "evil in general", using Greek? τὸ πονηρόν. An arthrous neuter singular of the adjective expresses the general idea of the adjective.

Look at part of the entry from LSJ
[url=http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dponhro%2Fs]πονηρός[/url] LSJ entry wrote:wickednesses, X.Cyr.2.2.25; “πονηρὰ δρᾶσαι” E.Hec.1190; “τὸ π.” LXX De.17.2; δόλῳ πονηρῷ, Lat. dolo malo, SIG693.6 (Methymna, ii B.C.); ὁ π. the evil one, Ev.Matt.13.19; “π. δαίμων” PLips.34.8 (iv A.D.), etc.
The difference between the two is not about the article it is about the gender! Walllace's statement (and that of others) sounds to me like my feet overhanging the wide bed non-sense I wrote above.

Being as the form is genitive, it is not clear whether the nominative would be ὁ πονηρός or τὸ πονηρόν. (Both of which in our phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ are articulated to the preposition rather than apposed directly). In that case then, how is the choice to be made? Through appeals to arguments (like what Wallace is doing) to support one or the other.

The presence or absence of the article does not determine the gender. The presence or absence of the article does not determine whether what follows the preposition is more or less substantivised or adjectival.

Let me ask:
Is the verb ῥυεσθαι more naturally used of being "rescued" / "delivered" from individual people or general (non-specific) things?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Stephen Hughes wrote:Now however, it sounds like, "the bed is wide enough, so your feet won't overhang the end".

Nice metaphor! Sounds like a variation on the Procrustean bed!
Stephen Hughes wrote:Rather than make points, let me ask and answer some questions, so that you can more easily see where your opinions and reasoning diverge from mine.
Some good Socratic questions - simple while leading one into the heart of the matter. Thank you.

I suppose it should also be added that the absence of the article would tip the issue toward the non-personal, but I do agree with your key observation; the primary issue is not the presence of the article but the ‘person’ of the noun. As you note, that cannot be determined by this particular form of the article.
Stephen Hughes wrote: Let me ask:
Is the verb ῥυεσθαι more naturally used of being "rescued" / "delivered" from individual people or general (non-specific) things?
At first blush the typical associations of the verb don’t seem to settle the matter either. I count 6 out of 15 GNT occurrences of ῥύομαι as clearly referring to personalities rather than generalities. Several of those 15 are debateable, including the one in question. Matthew uses the word twice, here and in 27:43 which is personal – but that is also a quote from the OT, so it doesn’t help much either.

Obviously, if this was a ‘slam dunk’ there would not be a debate. At this point, seeing that the grammar is inconclusive, I am inclined to regard τοῦ πονηροῦ as personal in the larger context of the the GNT. For example look at John 17:15, which I think is informed by John 14:30; it is personal, I would argue. It is also a very similar statement to the one in question in a context which, like our Matthew text, has heavy emphasis on prayer and the Father.
γράφω μαθεῖν
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by cwconrad »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:[At first blush the typical associations of the verb don’t seem to settle the matter either. I count 6 out of 15 GNT occurrences of ῥύομαι as clearly referring to personalities rather than generalities. Several of those 15 are debateable, including the one in question. Matthew uses the word twice, here and in 27:43 which is personal – but that is also a quote from the OT, so it doesn’t help much either.

Obviously, if this was a ‘slam dunk’ there would not be a debate. At this point, seeing that the grammar is inconclusive, I am inclined to regard τοῦ πονηροῦ as personal in the larger context of the the GNT. For example look at John 17:15, which I think is informed by John 14:30; it is personal, I would argue. It is also a very similar statement to the one in question in a context which, like our Matthew text, has heavy emphasis on prayer and the Father.
There is a peril, I think, in observing usage only within the corpus of the GNT. A look at LSJ will not resolve the question, but it will show more examples of usage of the verb not referring to persons:
LSJ wrote:ἐρύω (B), only in Med. ἐρύομαι, redupl. non-thematic pres. 3pl. εἰρύαται [ῠ] Il.1.239, h.Cer.152, [ῡ]Od.16.463; inf.

A εἴρυσθαι ... 5 rescue, save, deliver (not in Att. Prose exc. Th.5.63); μετὰ χερσὶν ἐρύσατο Φοῖβος Ἀπόλλων Il.5.344, cf. 11.363; πῶς ἂν.. εἰρύσσαισθε Ἴλιον; 17.327; Ποσειδάων..Νέστορος υἱὸν ἔρυτο 13.555; βουλῆς..ἥ τίς κεν ἐρύσσεται ἠδὲ σαώσει Ἀργείους 10.44; ἀλλʼ Ἥφαιστος ἔρυτο σάωσε δέ 5.23; ὁ δʼ ἐρύσατο καί μʼ ἐλέησεν Od.14.279; ἐρρύσατο καὶ ἐσάωσεν Il.15.290; ἀρήξω τὸν ἱκέτην τε ῥύσομαι A.Eu.232; πατρίδα ῥυομένους Id.Eleg.3; ῥύου με κἀκφύλασσε S.OC285, cf. Hdt.7.217,8.114: freq. folld. by a Prep., οὐ γάρ κεν ῥύσαιτό σʼ ὑπὲκ κακοῦ Od. 12.107; Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἀλλὰ σὺ ῥῦσαι ὑπʼ ἠέρος υἷας Ἀχαιῶν Il.17.645, cf. 224; ἐκ..πόνων ἐρρύσατο Pi.P.12.19; ῥύσασθαί μιν ἐκ τοῦ παρεόντος κακοῦ Hdt.1.87; ὡς ἂν ἀλλὰ παῖδʼ ἐμὴν ῥυσώμεθʼ ἀνδρῶν ἐκ χερῶν μιαιφόνων E.Or.1563: ἀπὸ φόνου S.OT1351 (lyr.); ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ Ev.Matt.6.13: c. gen., ῥ. τινὰ τοῦ μὴ κατακαυθῆναι Hdt.1.86; κακῶν μυρίων E.Alc.770; τόξων Id.Ion165 (lyr.); πολέμου καὶ μανιῶν ῥ. Ἑλλάδα Ar. Lys.342: c. inf., ῥ. τινὰ θανεῖν E.Alc.11; τινα μὴ κατθανεῖν Id.HF197, cf. Or.599, Hdt.7.11; also, save from an illness, cure, Id.4.187: generally, Id.3.132.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

cwconrad wrote:There is a peril, I think, in observing usage only within the corpus of the GNT. A look at LSJ will not resolve the question, but it will show more examples of usage of the verb not referring to persons:
I guess the only question I was testing here was whether ῥύομαι is used exclusively or almost so in association with a person(ality) or in association with a generality (a force, influence, condition, etc.). Even without looking beyond the GNT to the LXX, it seems obvious that such is not the case. Normal usage includes being delivered from persons (or personalities), and being saved from non-personal 'influences' and entities. The GNT alone is enough to demonstrate that one cannot decide between the two based on the use of ῥύομαι.
γράφω μαθεῖν
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by RandallButh »

For some of us the reading is easier. In Hebrew one does not use a title הרע to refer to Satan. "Evil" הרע refers to evil generically and in the abstract, which would include the devil as well as troubled circumstances, etc.

So I see English translations like "deliver from the Evil One" as reflecting a foreign perspective, and not the Lord's prayer Mt 6. Yes, I know that the parable in Mt 13 uses such a title in Greek. But the Lord's prayer has more direct influences of Hebrew wording in the prayer.

So I read the Greek in line with how a bilingual (Heb/Gk) trilingual (Hb/Arm/Gk) Jerusalemite would do in the first century. If a person knew the prayer in both languages, the clear meaning of the Hebrew would surely influence the understanding of an ambiguous Greek phrase.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Thomas Dolhanty wrote:Some good Socratic questions - simple while leading one into the heart of the matter.
Socratic dialogues are usually played out between those who pose leading questions and those who follow along. I guess this could be characterised as a Socratic soliloquy, rather than dialogue.
Thomas Dolhanty wrote:I suppose it should also be added that the absence of the article would tip the issue toward the non-personal,
I'm only familiar with articular neuters being more or less equivalent to feminine abstract nouns. I first had that feature called to my attention when reading Plato's Symposium, so I've assumed it to be a usage typical of philosophical-like Greek - the adjective discussed in abstract terms with out specific reference, while possibly making reference to all cases in which it could be used. In that use it seemed to always be articulated. Without the article the accusative neuter singular of an adjective can be used adjectivally. Here of course (following the preposition) it must be nominal.

So much for the limits of what I've been led to believe - by learning and reading. What you are saying here - the absence of the article would tip the issue toward the non-personal - is a little surprising to me. Could you layout the reasons for that, please.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Stephen Hughes wrote:So much for the limits of what I've been led to believe - by learning and reading. What you are saying here - the absence of the article would tip the issue toward the non-personal - is a little surprising to me. Could you layout the reasons for that, please.
I'm on the run for the next couple of days, so let me try my short answer and pursue it later if necessary.Going back to Matthew 6:13:
Matthew 6:13 wrote:καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Look at the word for "temptation" first. With respect to 'definity' I count 4 possibilities for πειρασμόν:
  1. "the" one specific temptation out of a collection
  2. "The" temptation as a specific entity - THE one and only
  3. "a" single temptation, and,
  4. temptation as a general entity
With the anarthrous noun πειρασμόν, as we have it in here Matthew 6:13, only the last two possibilities are available. It is either "a" temptation, or temptation as an generalization. Clearly, here it is the latter. We are not asking to be spared from "a" particular temptation but from the influence/force/power/evil of temptation.

With respect to πονηροῦ, if the article were NOT there I think we would have to read it either as a particular evil, or as the force of evil. WITH THIS PARTICULAR WORD, I would not expect πονηροῦ to refer to a person if it were anarthrous. True, that would be a possibility in some instances, but I don't think it is here.

So, with the insertion of the article - τοῦ πονηροῦ - our degrees of freedom are reduced to one - we must choose between 1 and 2. In hindsight, I should have said, "the presence of the article tips it towards the personal".
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Stephen Hughes »

In hindsight, I should have said, "the presence of the article tips it towards the personal".
Do mean the personal or the particular?

My understanding of the article is not good enough to draw fine nuances out.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: τοῦ πονηροῦ in Matthew 6:13

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
In hindsight, I should have said, "the presence of the article tips it towards the personal".
Do mean the personal or the particular?

My understanding of the article is not good enough to draw fine nuances out.
In this case, at least, they are synonymous. What I said was the presence of the article reduces the possibilities, and the fewer possibilities include the person "the Devil". Adding the article, "tips it towards" the particular / personal one and only - ὁ διάβολος.
γράφω μαθεῖν
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”