Hoo, boy, I knew it would be trouble when my favorite anti-Communist arrived at 6 a.m. and reported that the pope said he -- the anti-Communist -- had been praying for the wrong thing for 85 years. He had just seen it on Fox. He does, of course, think of Francis as, at best, what Lenin used to call a "useful idiot," but this was cause for extreme high level dudgeon.
Well, it's true. Francis did say he wants "and lead us not into temptation" to be re-translated as "do not let me fall into temptation," as you can read at Pray Tell. The French are already doing it. And, therefore, we have a German theologian saying that's not a translation, it's a paraphrase.
People have said the Our Father -- frequently, we hope -- all their lives, so now they can say it without thinking about it. Obviously, it's a stretch to tell them to change. And, besides, the old way (now the good old way) is in the King James version, written by Milton with pen strokes by Shakespeare. How can someone from Argentina dare touch it? And, besides, it is a translation -- OK, paraphrase -- about which everyone with no working knowledge of Greek or Aramaic is entitled to his or her own opinion.
Seriously, is there a Christian anywhere who has not, from time to time, wondered why he was praying that God, of all beings, shouldn't lead him into temptation? Isn't God's job/will for us to go exactly the opposite direction?
But even before I knew the question was on the table, it was an ideological issue. To arms!
LOL, it's probably going to raise more controversy than whether or not to hold hands during the Our Father! Seriously, I always thought the phrasing was a bit problematic. It isn't just the English version that's an issue. The Latin is "Et ne nos inducas in tentationem." Appears to be pretty directly translated. I have no knowledge of Aramaic, so don't know what it was in the original. From a doctrinal standpoint I think the pope is right. I had always understood it to mean something like, "Don't let us fall into temptation." Where it makes a difference is in teaching prayers to children. The Our Father is just about the first formal prayer that we learn as children. It would be better not to have to explain, God doesn't tempt us, we are praying that we are given the grace not to give in to temptation.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it would cause a problem praying with other Christians to have a slight change in wording. Shouldn't, we already have a little different wording with the ending, and some of them say "debts" instead of "trespasses".
Jesus! Lead me not into theological arguments at 6 a.m.!
ReplyDeleteGreek work transliterated ( peirasmos) 1. a trial, a test, 2 a temptation
ReplyDeleteLatin temptatio, temptationis trial, temptation;
Some current translations, note both current NAB and its prior version used test
DRA Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.
KJV Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil
NAB Matthew 6:13 and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
NAS Matthew 6:13 'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
NIV Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. '
NJB Matthew 6:13 And do not put us to the test, but save us from the Evil One.
NLT Matthew 6:13 And don't let us yield to temptation, but rescue us from the evil one.
NRS Matthew 6:13 And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
CSBO Matthew 6:13 And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
NABO Matthew 6:13 and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
If we look back at the Douay Rheims, King James this was regularly translated as temptation, but it obviously means testing or trial as in the following examples of where the Greek was translated.
(Exo 17:7 DRA) And he called the name of that place Temptation, because the chiding of the children of Israel, and for that they tempted the Lord, saying: Is the Lord amongst us or not?
DRA Deuteronomy 4:34 If God ever did so as to go, and take to himself a nation out of the midst of nations by temptations, signs, and wonders,
DRA Deuteronomy 6:16 Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, as thou temptedst him in the place of temptation.
DRA Psalm 94:8 Today if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts: 9 As in the provocation, according to the day of temptation in the wilderness: where your fathers tempted me, they proved me, and saw my works.
Obviously in today’s English we don’t tempt God any more than God tempts us. But we might be said to test, or try God's patience just as we are tested and tried.
All the above data by way of the BibleWorks computer program.
DeleteThe phrase always sounded funny to me, even as a child. But I must admit that the present version is burned deep into my brain and I will always say it that way for the rest of my life.
ReplyDeleteMe too, Stanley. I just barely got the Luminous Mysteries learned.
DeleteJames Martin says the Pope isn't changing Jesus' words but just the translation of them, but I think what he is seeking to change is the way we think about God. The bible is full of problematic stuff. I suppose everyone makes these 'changes in meaning' in their own heads automatically so that they can live with the text.
ReplyDeleteMy own issue has always been "and deliver us from evil," to which I have "traditonally" especially my own. These things pop[e] into regularly repeated prayers and who can blame Francis for saying it out loud?
ReplyDeleteMalachy McCourt, renegade Irish-American Catholic, titled his memoir "Monks Swimming," guess what childhood prayer repetitions had produced that.
Crystal - "I suppose everyone makes these 'changes in meaning' in their own heads automatically so that they can live with the text."
ReplyDeleteSo true. I've never forgotten a woman who once said to our priest in a bible study group that she always crosses her fingers when she says the Creed. I only say the first sentence of the Creed, and even then I edit.
We believe in one God,.....the maker of heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen...
The rest is all crossed fingers.
I cross my fingers a lot too :)
ReplyDeleteInteresting too that the versions of the prayer are different in Matthew and in Luke and it doesn't show up on Mark.
Regarding the Lord's Prayer being in Matthew and Luke but not Mark: one pretty widely-accepted theory is that there is a source called Q (for quelle, which is German for "source") that both Matthew and Luke, but not the other two canonical Gospel authors, used as sources for their respective Gospels. Another pretty well-known example would be the beatitudes - although, as with the Lord's Prayer, the versions in Matthew and Luke aren't identical.
DeleteLuke's version (11:1) is shorter than Matthew's and handles the touchy part this way in my NAB: "and do not subject us to the final test." That "final test"could be problematic." Everyone knows what a final exam is, but this means something a little different. But it would be biblical -- and translation, rather than paraphrase -- to substitute Luke for Matt.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that would satisfy my friend. But not even Yeltsin could do that.
Something seems to be quite wrong when it appears necessary to fudge the translation of words attributed to Jesus himself by Matthew and Luke to bring them into conformity with the current conception of God. For Catholics, Jesus was God, and Scripture was divinely inspired. I understand the problem with the wording Frances objects to, but one has to ask what "lead us not into temptation" meant to the people who recited the prayer since the early 17th century and what they meant (if anything) when they recited it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Old Testament is filled with instances of God doing things that most of us today believe God would never do. Every time poor Pharaoh is about to relent, God hardens Pharaoh's heart and then sends another plague.
David, "Lead us not into temptation" is a a valid translation of Matthew. "Do not subject us to the final test" is a valid translation of Luke. If, like I, you don't hear exactly the same thing in those lines, the fudge was already made when the gospels were accepted.
ReplyDeleteThe basic problem seems to be that we now use "temptation" to apply to things that we choose to do which may be harmful to us or others, whereas "trial" applies to negative experiences that we undergo that test our faith and practice.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the prayer applies to both situations, we are both asking God to help us make right choices, as well as to have right behaviors when things go bad even if that was not the result of our choice.
There is a long tradition of paraphrasing the Lord's Prayer and the psalms to fit particular situations. The Church has always affirmed both the literal and spiritual interpretation of scripture. We are always meant to interpret scripture not only in its historical context, but in the context of all of scripture, and of the history of interpretation, and our contemporary situations.
To limit the interpretation of scripture to the literal, especially the literal English of the past century or two is Fundamentalism. It is a heresy, that is a bad option!
"...we are both asking God to help us make right choices, as well as to have right behaviors when things go bad even if that was not the result of our choice." Good analysis, Jack. I agree with that.
DeleteIn my head, "lead us not into temptation" has always been "lead us away from temptation."
ReplyDeleteTom:
ReplyDeleteI don't read Greek, but nevertheless I can tell that the Greek words translated "and lead us not into temptation" (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν) are identical in Matthew and Luke:
Matthew 6:9-13
9 οὕτως οὗν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς· πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου,
10 ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῶ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.
11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·
13 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
Luke 11:2-4
2 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς, ὅταν προσεύχησθε, λέγετε, πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
3 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν·
4 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν· καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν.
The NRSV translates the phrase from both Matthew and Luke the same: "And do not bring us to the time of trial." So it is not the case that Matthew and Luke give variants that cloud the original meaning of Jesus (assuming these words did indeed originate with Jesus himself).
In the NAB, both Matthew and Luke are rendered, "and do not subject us to the final test." Yet ever since we have been praying the Our Father in English at mass, we've always prayed that line as, "and lead us not into temptation."
DeleteI am not complaining about the discrepancy. The Catholic view of the relationship between public prayer and scripture is not quite what many people expect. The common expectation is that the relationship is scripture -> liturgy, as though all of our liturgical texts are drawn right out of scripture. That does happen, of course; but our view of the relationship is more complicated than that. We recall that the tradition of liturgical prayer predates the final compilation of the New Testament. This is easily seen in the various examples of liturgical prayer, such as some of the canticles that are in Paul's letters, that were used as sources of scripture. So our public prayer helped form scripture, and scripture in turn helps form our public prayer.
And the two - liturgical texts and scriptural texts -aren't always perfectly aligned. The famous dispute about whether "pro multis" should be translated as "for many" or "for all" is another example of such a discrepancy. In the NAB, the Last Supper accounts in Matthew and Mark translate the Greek as "for many". Yet until 2011, we prayed "for all" in our Eucharistic prayers, and many experts would like to return to "for all".
I am mentioning this possibility of variance between scripture and liturgical texts because I took the Holy Father's critique to apply, not to how the scripture scholars translate Matthew and Luke into the vernacular, but rather to what we pray in our public prayer. I would make the argument that altering the people's translation of the Our Father in liturgical prayer is considerably more significant than tweaking a Gospel translation. Every mass, every morning and evening prayer, every recitation of the rosary involves publicly praying the Lord's Prayer. I believe that changing the words would be substantial.
My personal preference would be to leave the liturgical prayer as it is. There is always room for catechesis and discussion regarding what the Elizabethan words mean.
David, Yeah, I should have checked Matt in my unrevised NAB. They do the same thing with both him and Luke: "Do not subject us to the final test." In English there is a significant difference between the final trial, or final test, and temptation.
DeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteYou say: "To limit the interpretation of scripture to the literal, especially the literal English of the past century or two is Fundamentalism. It is a heresy, that is a bad option!"
This comes a little close to "poisoning the well," implying those who disagree with you are Fundamentalists and heretics! The discussion here is not about doctrine. It's about the meaning of a six-word Greek phrase. And surely the very first thing that must be established about any passage in the Bible is (if possible) it's literal meaning to its author and its original intended audience.
For those who believe that Scripture is the inspired word of God and believe that Jesus was God, it seems to me it is not good enough to glean some vague message from the words attributed to Jesus that may be paraphrased or otherwise adapted to the needs of the moment.
I am interested in this kind of thing primarily as someone who has spent a great deal of time on the issue of the historical Jesus, so I have no particular ax to grind about Catholic (or Christian) doctrine. I am interested in what Jesus meant (if it is possible to know that) and what the original Greek meant (to the extent it is possible to know that). The NAB translates the phrase in question as "and do not subject us to the final test" and has the following note:
* [6:13] Jewish apocalyptic writings speak of a period of severe trial before the end of the age, sometimes called the “messianic woes.” This petition asks that the disciples be spared that final test.
If so, I think it is good to keep in mind that Jesus was referring to the "end times," although I see no harm, once that is acknowledged, of generalizing the prayer to encompass trials in general.
David, I share your sense of caution regarding the temptation to rewrite scripture to serve the needs of the moment. Popes need an internal brake more so than the rest of us, as they have a good deal of unilateral authority; it is an authority that the adjective "supreme" often is attached to.
DeleteI don't think most people believe every word in the bible is inspired by God. The guys of the Jesus seminar released an NT version that was color coded as to what words of Jesus they thought were likely to have really been his words and there weren't a whole lot of them ... The Gospel of Jesus According to the Jesus Seminar
ReplyDeletecrystal:
ReplyDeleteYou may very well be right about what most people believe about the Bible. You may very well be right about what most Catholics believe about things like Church teaching on sexuality. But when I refer to Catholic teaching, I am referring to what the Church teaches, not what most people believe or what you believe (or don't believe). And since this blog had its origins in a Catholic magazine and web site, and since many participants here are themselves Catholic, I am not sure you make a relevant point about Church teaching when you make assertions about who believes what. It remains the case that the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture was inspired by God and is "inerrant" (although not in the Protestant Fundamentalist sense). I am not arguing for the truth of Catholic teaching. I am just stating that pointing out that some (many, most) don't believe it doesn't make it go away.
There is a difference between what the Church teaches and what Catholics, or people who think they are Catholics, believe. And the difference is aggravated by an originalism that leaves people thinking the Church teaches that God tests people by leading them to temptation -- or putting them "in near occasions of sin," as the Church might also say. It tells them to stay out of such occasions even as its basic prayer implies God might will them into them. This confusion is especially deadly for the scrupulous.
ReplyDeleteV2 said it *does* matter what Catholics themselves believe (sensus fidelium) and the church itself reaches that the bible should not be taken literally ... A Fundamental Challenge: Three ways to combat biblical literalism from America magazine
ReplyDeletetom:
ReplyDeleteYou say: "There is a difference between what the Church teaches and what Catholics, or people who think they are Catholics, believe."
I just want to note that in this thread, when I referred to "what the Church teaches," I was not referring to any particular translation of "lead us not into temptation." I was referring to the Bible being the inspired (and "inerrant") word of God, and to Jesus being God incarnate. Those teachings of the Church, I maintain, make it very important to correctly understand the words of Jesus in the Gospels.
Given that the vast majority of Catholics do not agree with all Catholic doctrine - their beliefs are not what the church teaches and they are not just on the progressive side - what exactly does it mean to say one is a Catholic when in disagreement with what the church teaches a good bit of the time? In my experience, most who call themselves Catholic and go to mass etc, are Catholic because of family identity. They were born Catholic, they were raised Catholic, and some, especially in older east coast and midwest cities, lived surrouned by other Catholics in their neighborhoods. It had little to do with what the church teaches nor with individual belief and as they grew older, if their beliefs diverged from what the church teaches, they simply ignore it and continue on..
ReplyDeleteFor years we did the full liturgy of the Easter vigil in five different locations -- behind the parish hall; in the hall (English) and cafeteria (Spanish), at the outdoor baptismal font (with large screen closed circuit TV for the folks in back), and finally in the church itself. It took four hours or so. Every year people would arrive and insist on going into church -- which was locked and had signs posted advising what was going on, with ushers to read the signs to the outraged. When told nothing would happen at the church for another two hours or so, they wanted to know why we were waiting so long to start Mass. When told that we were doing it the same way they do it at St. John Lateran in Rome, they would say "We never did it that way up North" and go home angry. And another angel in Collegeville would begin to cry. Their standard was and is, "the way we did it up North," not anything that came out of the Vatican.
ReplyDelete