Recently, a very thoughtful Roman Catholic student of mine asked me the following questions: "What do you think about the changes [in the Lord's Prayer] Pope Francis plans to implement? Will TMI be adopting the changes, or will TMI not? Is there a centralized Episcopal authority that decides things like that, or does it depend on the Priest/Pastor?"
In response, I sent him the following essay, in addition to the video posted above, which is a fairly good, basic level summary of the proposed "change". And it is important to note that while this "change" does involve altering the words, it does not actually change the meaning of the text, but actually better brings out the intended nuance Jesus almost certainly meant when he originally taught the prayer. But, before we get to that, we need to look at the diversity of translations of the Lord's Prayer.
In the Episcopal Church, we have a great deal of freedom in what liturgical texts we use, so long as our primary Sunday service comes from the Book of Common Prayer. With that freedom, I could use any translation of the Lord's Prayer I want in chapel, so long as it is not the primary Sunday worship service. But even in that primary service, there are two versions of the Lord's Prayer in the Prayer Book itself. For instance, on page 364 of our Liturgy for the Mass we have:
The "Traditional" Version:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
What is perhaps the most odd thing about the CATHOLIC Lord's Prayer controversy, is that the "traditional" English version is actually PROTESTANT! It comes from the Authorized King James version of 1611, translated by a team of Anglican Protestant Bible translators. Now, right next to this "Traditional" version on page 364 is the "Contemporary" Version (which is kinda lame and not at all contemporary, to be honest):
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your Name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial,
and deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power, and the glory are yours, now and for ever. Amen.
I have used BOTH versions in chapel before. But honestly, almost everyone hates the "contemporary" one, so I stopped using it about 3 years ago. At one point, I used a rhyming version of the Lord's Prayer for our Celtic Morning Prayer liturgy which we pray from time to time. But it was not particularly well received either (although most liked it better than the "contemporary" version). Here it is:
Our Father in Heaven,
Holy is your Name;
Your kingdom come, your will be done,
in earth and heaven the same;
Give us our daily bread;
And forgive us our debts;
Help us to forgive each other
for our sins and regrets;
Lead us out of temptation;
Save us from evil and sin;
Yours is the Kingdom, and the power,
and the glory. Amen.
There are also countless other versions of the Lord's Prayer which take a more open ended approach to expressing the meaning behind the original text in modern English. In addition to translations, you can easily find paraphrases and amplifications of the Lord's Prayer in English. My own personal daily prayer liturgy is basically a poetic amplification of the Creed, the Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. A great example of a paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer comes from Bible translator Eugene Peterson, in his paraphrase of the Bible called "The Message":
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge! You can do anything you want! You’re ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes.
This is a pretty extreme version which would be unusable for liturgy because of its awkward construction. But it does present the basic themes and ideas of the Lord's Prayer in contemporary language. But even the modern Catholic translation of the Bible (the New American Bible Revised Edition) uses some very different language from the "traditional" version.
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors;
and do not subject us to the final test,
but deliver us from the evil one.
Notice how it uses "debts/debtors" and not "trespasses/ers", and also how it changes "lead us not into temptation" into "do not subject us to the final test". All of this diversity begs us to ask: Why all the subtle and not-so-subtle differences? The answer comes from the Biblical text itself.
Even in the Bible, the Lord's Prayer comes in two versions (Matthew and Luke). And Jesus almost certainly delivered the original version(s) in Aramaic, but we only have Greek translations. And those Greek translations are not entirely the same. I will give both versions below with a fairly "literal" English translation of each:
Matthew 6.9-13
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς·
Our Father, who is in the skies (sky is a metaphor in Greek for the transcendent realm, we normally call "heaven")
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·
May your Name be set apart (i.e. made holy, exalted)
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
May your Kingdom come
γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου,
May your will be done
ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς·
As in the sky, also upon Earth
τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·
Our bread, that which is necessary, give to us this day
καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,
And forgive for us our debts
ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·
As also we have forgiven those in debt to us
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
And do not carry us into temptation
ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
But rescue us from the evil [one]*
*Note that "Yours is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory. Amen." is not found in the earliest manuscripts. It was added centuries later, and was taken up into liturgical use by the Church. Luke's version differs in both length and wording:
Luke 11.2-4
Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου·
Father, may your Name be set apart
ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·
May your Kingdom come.
τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν·
Our bread, that which is necessary, give to us this day
καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν,
And forgive for us our sins (note here the word sins is used, not debts)
καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν·
As also we ourselves are forgiving all those in debt to us (note here some interesting differences in verb tense and emphasis compared to Matthew)
καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν.
And do not carry us into temptation*
*Again, no reference to "Kingdom, Power, and Glory", and the prayer is much shorter here than in Matthew's version.
So, what is my point in showing you all of this?
Well, first of all, it seems there is ambiguity built into the text itself. There is acceptable diversity and adaptation within certain boundaries which is inherent in the Biblical text itself. So, we shouldn't get too alarmed about diversities of translation done in good faith to try and communicate the central message to different cultures in different languages.
So, within certain boundaries, I am not too concerned with the translation. Competent translators of Greek will get the message across with different degrees of nuance.
Next, here is what I understand to be Papa Frank's central thesis about the Lord's Prayer: Theologically, God never leads us into temptation. For instance, the letter of James insists:
"No one experiencing temptation should say, “I am being tempted by God”; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death. Do not be deceived, my beloved. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. " [James 1.13–17]
This makes explicit certain insights from the Hebrew Bible, such as: "God does not willingly afflict or bring grief to human beings" [Lamentations 3.33] and "Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong" [Job 34.10]. This is the clear implication of the theological facts that God is perfect goodness (cf. Mark 10:18; Matthew 19:17; Luke 18:19), expressed in perfect Love (cf. 1John 4.7-16; 1Corinthians 13), which is always constant and never changes (cf. Psalm 89.2; 102:27; 136.1-26; Hebrews 1:12; 13.8; Malachi 3:6).
So, theologically, it would be better to pray something like "Lead us away from temptation" or "Carry us out of temptation" or "Do not let us fall into temptation". Any of these would be reasonable English translations, alongside the traditional. While the literal translation does indeed say "Do not carry/lead us into temptation", this is almost certainly reflects an awkward Aramaic grammatical sentence structure, which would be better rendered into English as "lead us out of temptation".
So, for theological reasons, I would have a slight preference to side with Papa Frank. But it is not that big of a deal really. Either way of translating is can carry the same basic meaning, and be explained in the same way. I seriously doubt there is any (competent) priest or pastor who teaches "God will lead you into temptation UNLESS you pray this prayer to ask God to NOT lead you into temptation!" Almost everyone understands by the "traditional" translation that we are asking for God's guidance into life and hope, NOT praying a good luck charm against an irascible God who wants to tempt us.
But, if we are going to be technical, Papa Frank is correct that something like "lead us out of temptation" is a slightly better rendering of the MEANING of the text, even if it is not as literal of a TRANSLATION of the text.
So, if this is the case, why do I still use the "traditional" version in most of the liturgies I lead? I use the traditional version for pastoral reasons. First, people are comfortable with the traditional version and find comfort in it. Second, they are usually turned off by newer versions, and feel like they are not praying a prayer than "belongs" to them. I have found that it is not only older people who are traditionalists. Some of the staunchest advocates for tradition-- at least the traditional version of the Lord's Prayer-- are teenagers! Third, the difference in meaning just doesn't matter that much. People can get the right meaning from the "traditional" version, just as much as they can from a newer re-translation. So, with nothing substantive to gain pastorally from using a newer version, and quite a bit to loose, I usually go with the traditional version.
No comments:
Post a Comment