Lord Prayer revision

[Thomas]

Pope Francis has called for Lord's Prayer to be altered, as current wording suggests God is capable of leading people 'into temptation'.

The Lord's Prayer contains a series of petitions, two of which read:
"And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil."

Pope Francis prefers the phrasing adopted by French bishops, which reads 'do not let us enter into temptation'.

Pope Francis made the suggestion during a televised interview on Wednesday evening, in which he claimed that the traditional phrasing was 'not a good translation' on the basis that 'I am the one who falls. It’s not Him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen ... A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.'

The English 'lead us not into temptation' is a translation of the Latin 'ne nos inducas intentationem', itself a translation of the original Koine Greek 'kai me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon', a technical translation of which can be 'do not bring us to the time of trial.'

Whilst the traditional version is defended on the principle that nothing happens without God's will, on the basis that God created man 'in his image', that is a free and autonomous creature, and therefore capable of sin, it does not mean, as the text might be read to imply, that God leads man into sin.

In the many pejoratives heaped in this forum against God as portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures (my favorite being that of a monster 'off his meds'), a literal reading of the text might incline one to assume that God leads man into sin so that He can rescue Him (or not), somewhat akin to a spiritual Munchausen-by-proxy!

From The Daily Telegraph

 

[wil]

Sort of a new way of talking about G!d one might say...

We in Unity have been singing and chanting "leave us not in temptation" longer than I've been with them. I shall have someone look in a hymnal to see what date that changed. https://www.google.com/amp/s/metaph...yer-unity-of-rehoboth-beach-sept-28-2014/amp/

I had a Catholic friend in the past who was appalled when he heard it and sent me this... As a rebuttal. http://catholicvu.com/3002.htm

 

[wil]

Still looking... It appears Charles Fillmore was using the revised "leave us not" while he was still doing nondenominational bible study early 1900s before Unity as a church was born.

Eric Butterworth explained in his book "Discover the power within" 50 years ago...

Our Father who art in heaven: I am now conscious of the infinite and eternal Presence in whom I live and by which I think and create.

Hallowed be Thy name: This Presence in me is whole and complete. It is the activity of health that heals, of intelligence that inspires, of substance that prospers, and of love that harmonizes.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven: I am God's glorious possibility. I now let His perfect idea of me unfold in me and through me. My desire for betterment is God's desire to perfect that which He is expressing as me, and I let Him have His way. I see myself doing that which He sees me as being.

Give us this day our daily bread: I have no existence outside of God's Presence, for I am that Presence expressing as me. Therefore, I can never be separated from the all-sufficient substance of the opulent Universe. I claim my divine inheritance and I daily, perpetually, manifest abundant supply.

Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors: The Presence in me is my potential for dissolving all conflicts or transgression. The Presence is Love, and it loves in me and through me as I forgive. It releases me as I loose and let go of all my limited thoughts about myself or others.

Leave us not in temptation but deliver us from evil: The Presence in me is my light and my deliverance. There is no darkness in the light, and there can be no darkness in me when I am established in spiritual unity with the Presence within me—which is “better than light and safer than a known way."

For Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever, Amen: In all that I seek to be or do or have, I humbly realize that in the Presence is my power to think, my very thought of aspiration, my will to begin, my strength to keep on, my power to achieve, and the glory of all my accomplishments. This is the Truth, and it is now done.

You may wish to sit with these words in your prayer time and discover their power within you!

 

[wil]

For those that may want to hear it in Aramaic.. As Jesus may have said it.

 

[Thomas]

Sort of a new way of talking about G!d one might say...

Er ... off-the-cuff on a TV show by the Pope? LOL, don't think so!

We in Unity have been singing and chanting "leave us not in temptation" ...

Hmmm ... why did he change the verb, d'you know?

I had a Catholic friend in the past who was appalled when he heard it and sent me this... As a rebuttal. http://catholicvu.com/3002.htm

Quite ... but ...

The Greek translation of this scripture is quite clear.

Haha, Greek is is never clear! Hence the expression 'it's all greek to me' going back at least to Shakespeare and the 16th century:
"CASSIUS: Did Cicero say any thing?
CASCA: Ay, he spoke Greek.
CASSIUS: To what effect?
CASCA: Nay, an I tell you that, I'll ne'er look you i' the face again: but those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me."
"Julius Caesar"

When I was doing my degree, I spoke to a language prof. about whether I should learn Latin or Greek. His reply was along the lines of: Well with your interests, Greek, but Oh My God! It takes about 90 minutes to translate just one phrase in St Maximus, you have to check all possible meanings of the phrase, where else it's used in the corpus of his works (tough without online versions), how it sits in context of the whole ...

(Latin, on the other hand, can be a doddle. St Thomas aquinas wrote the Summa in quite schoolbook Latin, aware that the most part of his audience would be readers but not scholars.)

In the end, I did neither. I've compared St Maximus translations of renown scholars, and they differ.

But it highlights the reason why Scripture is best understood in the light of traditional commentary.

 

[wil]

Hmmm ... why did he change the verb, d'you know?

Pope Francis made the suggestion during a televised interview on Wednesday evening, in which he claimed that the traditional phrasing was 'not a good translation' on the basis that 'I am the one who falls. It’s not Him pushing me into temptation to then see how I have fallen ... A father doesn’t do that, a father helps you to get up immediately. It’s Satan who leads us into temptation, that’s his department.'

Same reason as the Pope I suppose...the current English translation makes no sense to the layman.

It makes no sense to people that Jesus would say it. Of course when someone takes the words they remembered Jesus saying....no youtube vids of this...and odds are they didn't have their palm pilot or note pad, or papyrus and ink ready...or rock and chisel...so some time in the future they took what he said in Aramaic and wrote it down...and then someone else copied it, and someone else translated it into Quoine and put it in a book decades later...and then someone else translated that into Latin, and someone else translated the Latin into the Kings English...and it became gospel and repeated for centuries...

so eventually Charles Fillmore said what? Or maybe it was Phineas, or Mary Baker, or.....but someone said...no...that doesn't make sense...and Charles wrote it in a newsletter to his bible study class....and Unity has used it for a hundred years...and now the Pope says "What"....after centuries of people pointing to the works of the Church fathers and theologians....and the Pope says...I've got a new way to think about G!d (Jesus' Words) in the most recited prayer known to man.

 

[wil]

In searching...this raised its head....some satire, but some thought as well... https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Lords-Prayer-Surprising-Original-Translation

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I've got a new way to think about G!d (Jesus' Words) in the most recited prayer known to man.

What is the actual change do you think? Is there a theological change? Will people mean something else now?

 

[Thomas]

Same reason as the Pope I suppose...the current English translation makes no sense to the layman.

Hmm. Has anyone ever said it doesn't make sense?

Rather, Pope Francis is simply offering what he sees as a more nuanced interpretation in light of the totality of the message.

Of course when someone takes the words they remembered Jesus saying...

Yes, but there's plenty of strong data to suggest that oral-based traditions were very good at oral transmission, and the text suggests Luke would have drawn on a number of oral traditions. Oral-based cultures are a lot better at that than text-based traditions.

so eventually Charles Fillmore said what?

I was just wondering why he or whoever changed the verb. What was the reasoning?

The verb eispherō is translated as 'lead' or 'bring into' — which means a movement from one state to another, whereas 'leave' assumes the current state.

I can justify that. We are born into a world full of temptations, I'm just wondering his grounds for altering the text rather than explaining it as it is, which the Tradition has done, and which Francis is doing, without changing the text?

and now the Pope says "What"....after centuries of people pointing to the works of the Church fathers and theologians....and the Pope says...I've got a new way to think about G!d (Jesus' Words) in the most recited prayer known to man.

A 'new way' which is totally in line with the thinking of the Tradition from the beginning.

 

[wil]

The Lord's Prayer contains a series of petitions, two of which read:
"And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil."

Pope Francis prefers the phrasing adopted by French bishops, which reads 'do not let us enter into temptation'.

Hmmmm "Hey, let's break into that house" "No, I am stopping you from breaking into that house"

"Come on guys, heck with studying, how about we all go to the bar and pick up some women?" "No, you should not go to the bar, you have studying to do"

In all cases the first phrase is leading us into temptation... where as the second phrase is suggesting we don't enter into temptation...

The next line in prayer... deliver us from evil...if we weren't lead into temptation, we wouldn't have to be delivered from evil.

Yet you don't see a difference?.... you know, the reason the Pope made a clarification after a couple thousand years?

What is the actual change do you think? Is there a theological change? Will people mean something else now?

It is a question of "What kind of G!d leads you into temptation" for a test? Yo, build a sacrificial fire and throw your kid in it... hey don't eat this apple...

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Pope Francis has called for Lord's Prayer to be altered, as current wording suggests God is capable of leading people 'into temptation'.

The Lord's Prayer contains a series of petitions, two of which read:
"And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil."

Pope Francis prefers the phrasing adopted by French bishops, which reads 'do not let us enter into temptation'.

These days, folks need everything spelled out for them. Kids can't even tell time anymore unless the clock has a digital display. Guess the good Pope's just following suit.

Me, I've always taken the current wording as, 'may we not be led into temptation, (not that God's doing the leading) and, 'but if that does happen, help us to overcome' .

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

The next line in prayer... deliver us from evil... if we weren't lead into temptation, we wouldn't have to be delivered from evil.

I think it's always been understood that — as a rule — we are the ones who lead ourselves into temptation. There are exceptions:

The ones who are called to a destiny, or the ones who seeks to go deeper, will find the greater test awaiting them. Dark night of the soul, and all that.

Yet you don't see a difference?.... you know, the reason the Pope made a clarification after a couple thousand years?

Yes, I see the difference, but it's a difference from the outsider's pov. I doubt Christians have a problem. We know God as The Good Shepherd, etc. What good shepherd leads his flock into temptation?

It is a question of "What kind of G!d leads you into temptation" for a test?

And the answer is 'No kind of God'.

Our Lord prayed much the same thing Himself: 'Take this cup from my lips' (cf Matthew 26:39, 42, Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42)

As ever ... it's the context that counts.

 

[Thomas]

These days, folks need everything spelled out for them. Kids can't even tell time anymore unless the clock has a digital display. Guess the good Pope's just following suit.

LOL. You got that right!

Me, I've always taken the current wording as, 'may we not be led into temptation, (not that God's doing the leading) and, 'but if that does happen, help us to overcome' .

Yep, same here.

 

[Thomas]

I had a little look round ...

I've paraphrased a commentary (available here):
Aramaic was the common language of the region. There were three main dialects of Aramaic during the time of Jesus, the Northern or Old Galilean dialect which Jesus and his disciples most likely spoke, a Southern dialect which was spoken in Judea and a Western dialect which was spoken in the area of Babylon.

An identical phrase was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls following a certain rhythmic pattern. Rhythm is a device employed in oral cultures to aid memorisation.

The only thing I can find is in the apocryphal Psalm 153:
"Remember me and forget me not; and lead me not into things that be too hard for me."

The phrase 'Lead us not into temptation' found in the Dead Sea Scrolls carries such a rhythm. So does the phrase in the Lord’s prayer and the same in James. This helps to establish this phrase, Lead us not into temptation as an idiomatic expression.

The text in James 1:13:
"Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man."

The difficulty now lies in translation of the Aramaic word, the word most likely used by Jesus, for temptation which is nesiona into the Greek word peirasmon. Nesiona in the Dead Sea Scrolls is found in the Hiphal form signifying a causative sense. Hence using the Dead Sea Scrolls rendering as guide we would find a more proper rendering of this phrase: Lead us not into temptation to be: Do not allow us to enter wrongful thinking or testing.

+++

The Greek word peirasmos means both 'to tempt' and 'to test'.

Temptation and trial come to us as a test or as a discipline, in whatever path we might follow. On the one hand we might unwisely say, 'bring it on', on the other, knowing human frailty, we might be more wise to think that we might fail, and the hope therefore that we are not forgotten by God wheh we come up against hardship.

Christ was aware of this. especially in the case of those who are in a position of responsibility — all power corrupts, He knows well. Hence his words to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke 21:31-32)

Simon Peter assures his Lord that he will not fail:
"Who said to him: Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said: I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice
deniest that thou knowest me... (v33-34).

Lastly, of course, there is the cry of Christ on the cross:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34)

Again, echoing the psalms:
O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalms 21:2)

And to his congregation, St Paul said:
"We suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we perish not"
(2 Corinthians 4:9)

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

It is a question of "What kind of G!d leads you into temptation" for a test? Yo, build a sacrificial fire and throw your kid in it... hey don't eat this apple...

I sort of don't get what Christian would think those things. It goes against the fundamental message of Christianity. Those times I encounter paragraphs of scripture that seem contrary to the whole I just assume I'm reading it wrong, or I ask someone about it.

 

[Thomas]

In all cases the first phrase is leading us into temptation...

OK. But that doesn't really answer the question of 'leave', does it? In the NT Koine Greek, the extant Syriac texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the verb is 'lead', not 'leave'.

As I said, I can defend 'leave' — on the lines of we find ourselves tempted, we are outside the Garden, do not leave us here, but bring us home to Paradise ... that kind of thing... I was just wondering whether there was a reason, or whether whoever had misheard the text and thought it was 'leave' when it was 'lead' ...

I checked Charles Fillmore's Metaphysical (sic) Bible Dictionary and it says:
"It does not seem possible that God would lead us into temptation; in fact, in James 1:13 we are told plainly that God cannot be tempted of evil and that He tempts no man. This clause in the Lord's Prayer, "And bring us not into temptation," follows closely that concerning the forgiveness of sin, and it is evidently a part of it. Let not temptation lead us, is a permissible interpretation." (p747).

So the 'leave' wasn't from him. Actually, reading on, I never realised how much you differ in what you believe compared to Fillmore – is Unity one of those 'everyone interprets as they choose' doctrines?