In English and similarly in Italian, the prayer asks God to "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." But, says Francis, it's not the Lord that tempts.
"It is not He that pushes me into temptation and then sees how I fall," Francis said in Italian. "A father does not do this. A father quickly helps those who are provoked into Satan's temptation."
Francis pointed out that just a few days ago, France's Catholic church adopted new phrasing in its Notre Père.
"[T]he first Sunday of Advent," the church wrote, "a new translation of the Our Father will come into force in all forms of liturgy. The Catholic faithful will no longer say: 'Do not submit to temptation' but 'Do not let us enter into temptation.' "
Makes no difference and English speakers will keep saying the old version
Ryder Johnson
At least "do not let us enter into temptation" isn't as clunky as "consubstantial with the father" but changing the prayers is still cancerous and disrupts the poetic flow of the prayers, which is far more important in a mass ceremony than understanding the theology, which you can learn about outside of mass.
Austin Perry
Honestly, it's a pretty fair argument and genuinely makes sense as to why it ought to be retranslated. But every Catholic who knows the Our Father, knows that "lead us not into temptation" does not imply that God could even do evil.
The reasoning for the change is pretty solid, but there seems to be no need to change it, because we know the context of that particular phrase of the Our Father.
Changing it will just mess the translation more and allow it to become another flawed tradition.
Jacob Perez
i dislike this new pope trying to modernize catholicism, when we need the vatican as an institution of transcendent values. changing the most important and fundamental prayer is simply lunacy
Juan Wright
>change a translation due to ideological commitments and not semantic concerns fuck you
Asher Sullivan
dae the pope is literally Emily Wilson?
Aiden Adams
Vatican II and its supporters are gay.
Chase Butler
>refuse to read the King James Bible (God's perfect Word in the English Language) >zero reading comprehension hmm
Connor Rogers
So you see the word in question is the Greek verb 'eispheró' which is a compound construction. biblehub.com/greek/1533.htm
In older Syriac manuscripts a form of the same verb for "come" in the second petition is used as in "Thy kingdom will come". This shows that the implication of carrying something into somewhere had been an established tradition early on among Aramaic speaking communities and may have well been the very words of Yeshua himself and the unwritten oral tradition. dukhrana.com/lexicon/lexeme.php?adr=1:316&font=Estrangelo Edessa&size=125%
Vulgate uses the word 'inducas' which as is probably evident is the origin of induce. I don't have any Old Latin versions to check with atm. Even the modern interpretation word of the 'temptation' is questionable when one takes a look at its implied meaning and usage over the years.
Evan Nelson
It shows that the so called keepers of tradition can't always be trusted and they give those who do a more honest job of it a bad rep.
Gavin Collins
So remove the word 'let' which in Greek and Syriac would have been the same word for abandon, allow, forgive, forsake, leave, and suffer and it would be great.
Joshua Carter
>changing the prayers is still cancerous and disrupts the poetic flow of the prayers, which is far more important in a mass ceremony than understanding the theology, which you can learn about outside of mass.
>The reasoning for the change is pretty solid, but there seems to be no need to change it, because we know the context of that particular phrase of the Our Father.
I think that's a reasonable position, but I disagree. The power of it is in the words that are spoken. The theory, the theology and the details of the debate must reach the surface, the actions, the presentations of those ideas, otherwise the theory is turned into mental masturbation and the all the while the prayer itself is diminished because you'd be saying the "wrong version" and having to learn the "right version" either by some common sense or further study.
Words are seeds, anons.
Jack Russell
I'm wary of what Francis does but I don't think this is a big deal. It's a better translation, and it's already what other "official" translations into other languages say. The implication that God is capable of malevolence (leading people into temptation) instead of putting the responsibility on the person always struck me as weird, this seems to rectify that.
Owen Garcia
It may seem weird to you but it may not have to the authors. God put many people to test in throughout the OT. Also I'd like to know which of the official translations say that since traditional translations in every major western language and historical translations of eastern languages don't.
Aaron Clark
Wait, how does >et ne nos inducas in tentationem not also mean "and lead us not into temptation"? Is he going to change the Latin as well?
This too. The first point, that is.
Easton Butler
I don't see the problem with the original wording. "Lead us not into temptation" can be understood as praying that God not providentially bring us into situations which tempt us. A temptation is not a sin, but something which we either succumb to or resist.
Brandon Evans
If it is so clear-cut, how did this "error" survive for so long? How did Luther, for example, who was incredibly autistic about correct (i.e. according to his interpretation) implications of his wording, miss this, when he wasn't shy to deviate from the Latin elsewhere?
Jacob Sanchez
I guess the problem is with temptation acquiring a meaning synonymous with enticement and seduction (note in-duction). This more scandalous interpretation probably deviates from its original implication leading to modern western productions like The Last Temptation where the alluring topic is the scenario of Jesus being tempted by a whore and all the beloved disciple debates going on today.
Landon Sullivan
>from the Latin? Luther translated the NT from Greek.
Alexander Russell
He was very much aware of the Latin as well though, and took account of it. In his writing where he justifies his translations, he compares to the Latin. In any case, the question remains.
Levi Kelly
Of course, why would he not? The KJV has influence from the Vulgate as well. That does not change the fact that they are translations from the original Greek.
Jackson Barnes
That's exactly the point I was making though. That the Latin says 'inducere' would not have stopped Luther from translating it properly in the original sense.
Logan Reyes
Seems I misread something in your original post. Nevermind then.
Samuel Rodriguez
>God's perfect Word in the English Language my sides
Christopher Wilson
>God changing the universe AGAIN its almost like it never ends
Juan Butler
well duh
Jonathan Hernandez
What the Luther Bible says "Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung". Just for comparison Old English had "And ne gelæd ðū ūs on costnunge,".
