Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶςKatholikon

Library › Origen › On Prayer

On Prayer

Origen, tr. Oulton, 1954

Enough has been said by us in the foregoing examination of the problem of prayer, …

Discussion of The Lord’s Prayer
Chapters XVIII to XXX

Enough has been said by us in the foregoing examination of the problem of prayer, “according to the grace given,” as we were able to receive it, by “God”1 through his Christ (and we trust also, in the Holy Spirit—which, if it be so, you who read this book will judge).2 Now we shall proceed to the next task: for we desire to consider the prayer outlined3 by the Lord, with what power it has been filled.4

The texts of the Lord’s Prayer (Chapter XVIII, 2, 3)

And first of all we must note that Matthew and Luke might seem to most people to have recorded the same prayer, providing a pattern of how we ought to pray. But the text of Matthew runs as follows: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.”5 Luke’s text,6 on the other hand, runs thus: “Father, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.”7

But we must reply to those who take this view, in the first place, that the words, although they have some resemblances, nevertheless appear to differ in other points, as our investigation of them will establish; and, in the second place, that it cannot be the same prayer which was spoken on “the mountain,” to which “seeing the multitudes he went up,” when, “having sat down, his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth and taught them”8 (for this prayer is found recorded in Matthew in the context of the recital of the Beatitudes and the commandments which follow), and that which, “as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased,” was spoken to “one of his disciples,” who had asked to be “taught to pray, even as John also taught his disciples.”9 For how can it be possible that the same words were spoken by themselves apart from any previous inquiry and also delivered at the request of a disciple? Perhaps, however, someone will say to this that the prayers are virtually the same and were spoken as one prayer, on one occasion in an extended address, and on another to one of the disciples who had made the request, probably because he was not present when the prayer recorded in Matthew was spoken, or because he had not retained what was said. Perhaps, however, it is better to take the view that the prayers are different,10 though they have some parts common. We searched also11 the Gospel of Mark, in case the record of something equivalent there should escape us, but we found no trace whatever of the prayer in it.

Notes

  1. I Cor. 3:10.
  2. XVIII, 1. you who read this book will judge] The gift of the Spirit for discernment being the possession of all Christians (cf. I Cor. 2), the readers of the De Oratione will be able to discover if it possesses the marks of the spirit.
  3. XVIII, 1. outlined] ὑπογραφεῖσαν, i.e., written as a model or example of prayer. The verb is used for tracing letters for children to write over: cf. I Pet. 2:21, “leaving us an example (ὑπογραμμὸν).”
  4. XVIII, 1. with what power it has been filled] Origen examines the text of the Lord’s Prayer from no merely critical or intellectual standpoint: for him its inspiration, in the sense of power to inspire, is paramount. Cf. John 20:31: “These are written . . . that believing ye may have life in his name.” See also H. de Lubac, Histoire et Esprit, 125 ff.
  5. Matt. 6:9–13.
  6. XVIII, 2. The text of Matthew . . . Luke’s text] See Introduction, pp. 213 f.
  7. Luke 11:2–4.
  8. Matt. 5:1, 2.
  9. Luke 11:1.
  10. XVIII, 3. It is better to take the view that the prayers are different] Origen forms this judgment simply from the prayers as they lay before him in the Gospels, and from this point of view his conclusions are reasonable and sound. We should today approach the problem rather from the findings of source-criticism of the Gospels, the Jewish antecedents of the Prayer, and its liturgical use in the primitive Church, laying less stress than Origen does upon its context in the Gospels. It is easier, therefore, for us to hold the view that an original nucleus transmitted from the Lord has resulted in two different forms, one of which has become almost universal under the influence of liturgical tradition.
  11. XVIII, 3. we searched also] For a similar kind of search, see XXII, 1.

· Contents ·