https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2019/june/pope-francis-officially-approves-change-to-lords-prayer

Quote:

---

Pope Francis has officially approved a change to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 that replaces "lead us not into temptation" with "do not let us fall into temptation."

---

I get it, I guess, but wonder "why now?". A moment's thought gets you to the same spot that Francis seems to want to convey, I want to give the translators and centuries of theologians more benefit than he seems to.

I learned "lead us not..." as a protestant, (Catholic now, not a just a very poorly Roman one) presumably they won't follow The Vatican's lead on this. What does the Orthodox church use? I think I just read that "lead us not" was based on the Greek. Curious what other languages translate it as.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So wait, does the old version still work to get me out of witchcraft trials or do I need to memorize the new one now?

---

Somebody's just going to have to run that trap. Good luck, we'll take notes.

Quote:

---

What does the Orthodox church use?

---

The only two variables I've heard in Orthodox parishes are trespass/debt and evil/evil one, but otherwise it's the standard English version used for centuries in the English-speaking world.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I ran Matthew 6:13 through about 10 or so different English versions of the Bible at Bible Gateway, and they all say "Lead us not into temptation." Even a couple of the modern ones that have some serious translation issues still translate this verse the same.

I then translated the German Luther Bible verse, and it translates literally to "Lead us not into temptation".

Frank the Hippy Pope is literally changing scripture. I mean, we have had popes implement dogma that's not in the scriptures, but to change scripture itself? That's a bold move, Cotton.

Latin Vulgate
13 et ne inducas nos in temptationem sed libera nos a malo

Google translate:
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil

https://biblehub.com/greek/3986.htm
peirasmos: an experiment, a trial, temptation
Original Word: , ,
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: peirasmos
Phonetic Spelling: (pi-ras-mos')
Definition: an experiment, a trial, temptation
Usage: (a) trial, probation, testing, being tried, (b) temptation, (c) calamity, affliction.


David Bentley Hart's take here is interesting:

Quote:

---

"Daily bread," admittedly, is almost accurate enough, though the phrase would better be rendered "bread adequate for the day's needs"; but I doubt most of us quite hear the note of desperation in that phrase " "the very real uncertainty, suffered every day, concerning whether today one will have enough food to survive.

The next lines, moreover, the standard rendering comes nowhere near representing correctly. Simply said, are not "transgressions," but "debts"; nor are they "debts" in a metaphorical sensethey are not sins that require some penance or recompense on out partbut are in fact quite literally the crushing burden of financial obligations under which the poor labor and suffer and die, to the advantage of the most merciless of their creditors.

And the imperative is a plea not for forgiveness in the moral sense, but for remission of those obligations. As for the word , it certainly ought not to be read as "temptation" (as though it could be applied to a roving eye, a longing for chocolate, or an inclination toward embezzlement); it properly means "trial," and here almost certainly refers to literal trial in court under a suit brought by a creditor. And the closing petition's final invocation of "the evil man"not "evil" in the abstract, nor even the "evil one" in the sense of the devilis almost certainly a reference to a creditor of an especially heartless and unscrupulous kind.

---

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-prayer-for-the-poor/

k2aggie07 said:

---

That reads like complete BS. I've never seen any commentary ancient or otherwise on those lines.

---

Ha! I love reading his stuff but he doesn't seem Orthodox or orthodox much of the time.

But back to the point of this thread, it seems like the key word in Greek is eispher

Strong's Concordance
eispher: lit. or fig. to carry inward
Original Word:
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: eispher
Phonetic Spelling: (ice-fer'-o)
Definition: to carry in
Usage: I lead into, bring in, announce.
HELPS Word-studies
1533= bring/lead (321)
https://biblehub.com/str/greek/1533.htm

Which version leads to the most touchdowns when said before the game

Only thing I will post here, as a Catholic, is this fact:

depending upon how one wishes to count, there have been at least 30 antipopes over 2,000 years.

Tramp96 said:

---

.Frank the Hippy Pope is literally changing scripture. I mean, we have had popes implement dogma that's not in the scriptures, but to change scripture itself? That's a bold move, Cotton.

---

First this is not something Frankie did by fiat on a whim, it was a process that began before his election as Pope by the Italian Conference of Bishops for Italian language Missal and as far as I can tell limited to the Italian Missal.

From the link provided in the article in th OP -

Quote:

---

The changes to the Italian Missal was a 16 year undertaking with aims to "contribute to the renewal of the ecclesial community in the wake of the liturgical reform."

---

Francis approves revised translation of Italian Missal New translation includes changes to the Lord's Prayer and Gloria

Quote:

---

Pope Francis has approved the revised translation of the missal for Italy and includes changes to the Lord's Prayer and Gloria.

<snip>

According to the new translation, the Lord's Prayer will no longer say "and lead us not into temptation" but will become "do not let us fall/be abandoned into temptation.

"The Gloria will also be revised. "Peace on earth to people of good will" will become "Peace on Earth to people beloved by God."

Pope Francis in 2017 issued Magnum principium that called for translations which are both faithful to Latin and respectful of the local language. It is this second quality which was seen to suffer in the overly literalist translations.

Francis had also restored authority over translations to bishops' conferences, as the Second Vatican Council had decreed, rolling back the tendency of previous decades at centralism.

The Holy See no longer gives a recognitio by which it approves vernacular translations; it now gives a confirmatio that confirms decisions made by the bishops' conferences.

---

So the point is that God might lead us into temptation and Pope should not mess with that?

gordo97 said:

---

So the point is that God might lead us into temptation and Pope should not mess with that?

---

While he's got the magesterium out on the workbench, maybe there's a few other things he can personally tweak without any debate or discussion, you know, just to clarify. In my experience, this phrase was never misunderstood to mean that God was or might ever leading anyone into temptation, though a quick look around the internet reveals questions about the odd phrasing. Seems a non-issue, but pretty small potatoes compared to what Vatican II must have been. I at least understand that reaction a bit better now, but at least V-II was a council, this is just Francis deciding to change the the most fundamental prayer of the faith by fiat, taking that primacy of his out for a spin to the detriment of the tradition that is supposed to be authoritative.

Interestingly, in the Catholic bible version of Matthew 6, the text is:

Quote:

---

and do not subject us to the final test,
but deliver us from the evil one

---

With a footnote on verse 13 that says:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Francis doesn't seemed to have referred to that concept at all here, but, confirming of one of my larger problems with the Vatican in its assumed authority, they are either so woefully inept at communicating what they think and mean in some of their more central teachings that the clergy itself doesn't know, or, they don't actually know what they believe.

Case in point...

Quote:

---

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 02-10-2005:

The Greek word at issue ("peirasmos") generally means a trial or temptation, but it appears that some modern translators are assuming that our Lord was referring to the apocalyptic final test alone, and not the daily sorts of test throughout our lives. I favor the more traditional view and think it more in accord with the whole of the prayer, for just as we ask for our daily bread, so we ask for daily assistance in the face of the many tests that come are way.

---

Maybe "Fr. Echert" is a guy in a Bangalore data center, but supposing EWTN hasn't outsourced such things, this is frustrating. This is the verse where the Lord Himself told us how to pray, you'd think they would have a sharper point on it.

Buy the Hart translation

Read Matthew 6.

I will copy the text here when I get home tonight.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

As a practicing Catholic, this is the most disturbing thing our Pope has done.

It's just not gonna sound right, like when someone sings "How great you are" instead of "How great thou art"

Frok said:

---

It's just not gonna sound right, like when someone sings "How great you are" instead of "How great thou art"

---

It's not changing styles of English. It changes an entire theological concept.

The Bible says God leads us into temptation and the prayer is he not do that. The pope changes it to we fall into temptation by happenstance and we pray that God supersede chance.

OK. I'm really trying not to go off and will keep it short.

- The Bible is NOT the word of God. Jesus the Logos is. The Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church - where, for example, over 2 centuries of debates in Church councils, it was determined that Enoch is out (quoted by St. Jude), and the Hebrews and The Revealing are in (both very controversial at the time).

- The Bible outside of the Apostolic Church can be weaponized very easily. Witness the countless debates around Calvinism - extremely smart and well-read people on both "sides," with the same verses, and ... division upon division.

- Francis is terrible. In time, he might be declared an anti-pope (the case is strong, watch Ann Barnhardt's 2 hour video as a primer). That could take centuries, if we last that long as a species.
In the meantime, READ HART.

...sed libera nos a malo.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The word "daily" is not in the Lord's Prayer. Epiousios means on above or over (epi) and ousios (substantial) ie the bread above substance. Supersubstantial. It's the only place in the NT this word is used. The interpretation of this word is varied - bread enough or fit for being is where "daily" comes from. But also common is the bread above substance, ie, the nourishment beyond this world. This can refer to spiritual nourishment in a general way ("I have food to eat which you do not know" John 4) but is also given to be interpreted specifically as the Eucharist.

/the more you knowww

PS the doxology "for thine is the kingdom..." etc is not in the Lord's Prayer. It's a liturgical exclamation by the priest that Protestants glommed on.

//the more you knowwwww

---

I was always taught that "daily bread" included the Word, which we should receive daily, because man does not live on bread alone.

Also, for the record, we (at least us Lutherans) know the doxology is not part of the Lord's Prayer. We refer to it as the doxology. We just always say it at the end of the Lord's Prayer.

Redstone said:

---

OK. I'm really trying not to go off and will keep it short.

- The Bible is NOT the word of God. Jesus the Logos is. The Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church - where, for example, over 2 centuries of debates in Church councils, it was determined that Enoch is out (quoted by St. Jude), and the Hebrews and The Revealing are in (both very controversial at the time).

- The Bible outside of the Apostolic Church can be weaponized very easily. Witness the countless debates around Calvinism - extremely smart and well-read people on both "sides," with the same verses, and ... division upon division.

- Francis is terrible. In time, he might be declared an anti-pope (the case is strong, watch Ann Barnhardt's 2 hour video as a primer). That could take centuries, if we last that long as a species.
In the meantime, READ HART.

---

Apparently, we gonna all die on my 50th birthday.
https://people.com/human-interest/climate-change-report-may/

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. There's nothing there to really show that for me. I dono, it's kind of a stretch I think to go from bread to Word...? The Eucharist is bread.

Anyway, that's fine with the doxology. But it's not part of the Lord's Prayer - it's an extra-scriptural Tradition.

"Our Father, who are in the heavens,
let your name be held holy,
let your kingdom come,
let your will come to pass,
as in heaven, so also upon the earth,
give us today the bread for the day ahead,
and excuse us our debts, just as we have excused our debtors,
and do not bring us to trial, but rescue us from him who is wicked,
for yours is the Kingdom and the power and the glory unto the ages."

Hart is a scholar of Greek at Notre Dame.

He translated from the very earliest and most reliable copies, meaning that some fragments from the 2nd - 5th Century can be slightly different.

Further, he translated very literally, and offers detailed explanations.

Some of Hart's theology is coming through there, which is why I asked k2 about it above. Hart seems to be pushing a materialistic poor/food/debt/trial angle here which it sounds like is out of line with how the Fathers understood the prayer.

For the record I find his explanation creative and interesting, but if it deviates from the Fathers then that is problematic. But I still enjoy reading his translation of the NT.

Well, waters very deep on these issues. Hart also details how the text conveys that wealth in and of itself is a problem, not "love of."

What's clear is how radical and urgent the decades of 33 - 67 were (Resurrection to First Roman-Jewish War), which for me personally was fascinating, and I suppose also retroactively affirmed my strong Preterism.

Here's some good reading.

http://orthodoxprayer.org/Lords_Prayer.html

Good stuff, thanks.

His translation does convey the urgency in the Gospel message better than any other I've read.

Yes, urgency is a good word.

I again want to emphasize that context is king, second only to Christ. The Bible cannot be the word of God because the Bible itself says who the Word of God is. Second, the Bible is a product of a pre-existing Church. Third, it is a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy (ect.) of lost originals - originals that were themselves mediated subjectively.

This does not mean the Holy Spirit did not inspire the authors.

It does, however, mean that all Christians should seriously think through the Apostolic Church claims of rightly-ordered worship (Sacraments) and authority (Apostolic as mediated by time and accumulation under Spirit guidance).

Further, think through the meta-issue of the books that were included and excluded (who decided?), and also the (several) books that Luther and some early Reformation figures wanted to banish. Who were they to do so, after 1,200 years?

I fully expected Francis to have added something about allah to the official roman catholic version.

Redstone said:

---

Further, think through the meta-issue of the books that were included and excluded (who decided?), and also the (several) books that Luther and some early Reformation figures wanted to banish. Who were they to do so, after 1,200 years?

---

Luther didn't banish the Apocrypha.

https://www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/why-do-some-bibles-have-a-section-called-the-apocrypha/ :

Quote:

---

Then Martin Luther, in his Bible translation of 1534, extracted the apocryphal books from their usual places in the Old Testament, and had them printed at the end of the Old Testament. He stated that they "are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading."

---