Joseph A. Fitzmyer, «And Lead Us Not into Temptation», Vol. 84 (2003) 259-273

The sixth petition of the "Our Father" has been translated in various ways across the centuries. This article discusses its literal meaning and the permissive paraphrases of it, explaining the sense of "temptation" and God’s activity in "leading" into it, as well as the various subterfuges adopted to avoid the obvious meaning of the Greek formulation, including its supposed Aramaic substratum. It concludes with a pastoral explanation of the petition.

teaching in Aramaic²⁴. The Greek text can be retroverted into contemporary Aramaic as follows: Nwysnl )nnl(t l)w, we6)al ta(e4linna%na4) le6nisyo=n ²⁵. Pace S.E. Porter, however, this Aramaic form of the petition does not change its meaning²⁶. The aphel form of ll( would mean "cause (someone) to enter": "do not cause us to enter into temptation", or "lead us not into temptation". That is the same sense as the Greek of Matt 6,13 or Luke 1 1,4.

        However, J. Carmignac, who claims that Jesus would have formulated the PN not in Aramaic, but in Hebrew, has insisted on such a Semitic substratum. For him, the meaning of the sixth petition would be, "Fais que nous n’entrions pas dans la tentation", i.e., "bring it about that we do not enter into temptation". He claims that this is the only possible meaning of the petition²⁷. Even though one were to agree that the Greek verb translates a Semitic causative (Aramaic, however, and not Hebrew!), such a substratum does not enable one — or even permit one — to move the negative from the causative (aphel) to the simple (peal) form of the verb. A. George recognized that Carmignac’s solution, however plausible it might be in Semitic languages, unduly forces the meaning of Jesus’ words as preserved in Greek²⁸. Moreover, such an ardent defender of the permissive paraphrase of the petition as R.J. Tournay had to admit that Carmignac’s solution "n’a pas