is it "lead us not into temptation" or "do not let us fall into temptation"?

Feel free to remove this if it is not appropriate for the forum. From news that I hope is not fake https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-lords-prayer-our-father-change?cmpid=prn_msn:

"The Catholic leader changed the phrase 'lead us not into temptation' to 'do not let us fall into temptation,' as mentioned in the gospel of Matthew 6:13, because the original translation implies that God induces temptation. The change, officials said, is closer to the original intent of the prayer."

The two are different. Technically, how does one research this in Logos?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Kevin Clemens

For starters, I found Fr. Devin Roza's and Fr. Andrew Dalton's posts on the Verbum blog a while back when this very topic first was in the news to be most helpful:

https://blog.verbum.com/2017/12/pope-francis-and-the-our-father-why-context-is-key/

https://blog.verbum.com/2017/12/lead-us-not-into-temptation-part-1-using-active-will-language-to-speak-of-divine-allowance/

https://blog.verbum.com/2017/12/lead-us-not-into-temptation-but-finish-the-sentence-part-2/

Also, while the Fox News story is not very clear, the end does reference that the changes are being made in the 3rd edition of the Messale Romano (the Italian liturgical text) and not the English text of the Roman Missal.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Technically, how does one research this in Logos?

Personally started Logos (or Verbum) research by searching English Bibles (Type:Bible Lang:English -Subj:Greek) for Matthew 6:13

{Milestone <Mt6.13>}

Found 90 English Bibles in my Logos Library have Matthew 6:13 so excluded lead and old English variant spellings:

{Milestone <Mt6.13>} NOT INTERSECTS (lead,leede,lede)

Learned 50 English Bibles have phrase 'lead us not into temptation' plus noticed bring in many more so modified search:

{Milestone <Mt6.13>} NOT INTERSECTS (lead,leede,lede,bring)

Of the 15 English Bibles that do not have lead nor bring, noticed a children's bible published in 1998 (~third grade reading level) has "falling"

Keep us from falling into sin when we are tempted.

New International Reader’s Version., 1st ed. (Zondervan, 1998), Mt 6:13.

The 2011 NABRE has a bit different wording:

¹³and do not subject us to the final test,^*

^* 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.

New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Mt 6:13.

Right click on subject in NABRE has option for Bible Word Study (BWS) of lemma, which was followed by expanding lexicon list and opening four lexicons:

BWS can show NABRE and RSV2CE translation of εἰσφέρω

Keep Smiling [:)]

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051896#Comment_1051896

The context of the prayer itself eliminates your question. Jesus said to pray like this or to pray in this manner. The prayer's whole purpose is to align ourselves with what God already does.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051952#Comment_1051952

This topic is being discussed in many churches. And one line that I have heard is that it can not possibly be a true reading because of who the person that published it is (or because of the office that he holds) - end of story (for them). Hope that we will study it out more fully then to just reject it out of hand.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052086#Comment_1052086

This thought goes back a ways – comment from a Jesuit Bible of 1582 quoting someone who died in 304 and another who died in 430

(from the Original And True Rheims New Testament Of Anno Domini 1582) [[@Bible:matt 6:13]] Matt 6:13 Comment on the text:
13. Lead us not.] St. Cyprian readeth, Ne patiaru nos induci. Suffer us not to be led, as St. Augustine noteth li. de. bo. perseu. c. 6. and so the holy Church understandeth it, because God (as St. James saith) tempteth no man: though for our sins, or for our probation 5 and crown, he permit us to be tempted. Beware then of Beza's exposition upon this place, who (according to the Calvinist's opinion) saith, that God leadeth them into tentation, into whom himself bringeth in Satan for to fill their hearts: so making God the author of sin. [God is not author of evil.] [In expos. orat. Do. lac. 1]

St. Cyprian Died: September 26, 304;
Saint Augustine of Hippo Died 28 August 430 Ad

DMB

Technically, how does one research this in Logos?

Well, this is pretty radical, but you look at the originating language, and the general context.

And if you did that, you'd notice the verb (a common one) is pretty much capable of any meaning you'd like. One I like is when you're a little dog, and your owner insists on hiking where the javalina browse. 'Please, Denise, no, no!'

But the more complicated research is as NABRE hints at ,.. it appears to be an already well-known problem they knew about, but didn't fit well with later doctrines.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1051894#Comment_1051894

For starters, I found Fr. Devin Roza's and Fr. Andrew Dalton's posts on the Verbum blog a while back when this very topic first was in the news to be most helpful:

Also, while the Fox News story is not very clear, the end does reference that the changes are being made in the 3rd edition of the Messale Romano (the Italian liturgical text) and not the English text of the Roman Missal.

By reading the Blog topics that the second poster in this thread ["Kevin Clemens"] listed the entire issue goes away.

The only thing that the Pope recommends is an update to an Italian document that is used in the Mass as said in Italy.

MJ. Smith

'do not let us fall into temptation,'

Okay, if the issue is the translation of the prayer into Italian, one cannot truly understand the issue by reference to English. The problem does not arise in the English translation. So step 1 to researching this in Logos requires that you have multiple Italian translations of the Bible, the Italian Missal, . . . you get the picture. Step 2 is to insist that Fox News doesn't compound the possibility of confusion by giving only the English translation of the Italian translation of the Latin translation (Missale Romanum) of the Greek text which may be a translation of the original Aramaic. They need to provide the Italian.

SteveHD

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052230#Comment_1052230

I understand now that this is not something new as of a few days ago. Guess I am out of touch with Catholic practices. I do not understand the bit about Italian vs. English.

I wanted to get help with the technicalities of using the tool to look into this myself. I know how to view parallel translations but that is about it.

The New International Reader’s Version., 1st ed. (Zondervan, 1998) quote above is very intriguing. I have the NIRV but not set as part of my parallel texts. So I will be working on how you did that query to get greater results. Thanks

Still seems to me that the words we end up with mean one thing or another. I wonder if the response from God, to my praying "like" one or the other of these would be I will not lead you into or I will not let you fall into anything; not both. They do not convey the same message.

I am picturing a child being taken to learn to climb a cliff with ropes. "Do not lead me..." would make me think you leave and take the child down the street to the donut shop. "Do not let me fall..." would mean you take the other end of the rope. Both end up protecting so maybe they really are the same.

I am still confused but now that I know it is another old issue I will explore it further as time permits. Give me a good one to learn Logos by doing.

Thanks for the very informative replies.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052236#Comment_1052236

YHWH never tempts anyone...He's just totally sovereign and responsible for all existence and everything that is...and would be quite irate at any who suggest otherwise.

He also never repents...except for when He does.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052236#Comment_1052236

I do not understand the bit about Italian vs. English.

The change in translation is a change in the Italian ... it affects no other language and you have to understand the Italian to understand the issue. Attempting to describe the problem in English is difficult because the problem doesn't occur in English. And translating the Italian into English only adds another layer of confusion. I tried to tell you how to explore the issue in Logos - you have to begin with Italian Bibles and the Italian Missal. You can't research the issue outside the language the issue occurs. You can read about others' research trying to explain the issue ... and trusting that their Greek-Latin-Italian-English are all strong enough for their research to be reliable. That is why reading the blog posts referenced above are the best answer anyone can point you too.

Put more blunt, ask again when you are fluent in Greek, Latin, Italian and preferably Spanish as that is the Pope's native tongue. Then someone can walk you through how to do the research

However, if your real question is how do I study the original Greek to come as close as possible to a "perfect" understanding in English, that is a much more manageable question - you need know only Greek and English and some basic translation theory.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052230#Comment_1052230

insist that Fox News doesn't compound the possibility of confusion by giving only the English translation of the Italian translation of the Latin translation (Missale Romanum) of the Greek text which may be a translation of the original Aramaic. They need to provide the Italian.

Very good.

I'm not arguing theology, but 'are you sure', speaking the semantics? I've read the issue of italian, and as you know, I'm completely ignorant about the actual use of the words (eg a protestant straight saying vs maybe something more deep in the Catholic traditions). But it seems the early fathers were struggling between the greek and latin too; apparently the greek usage (which can be highly variable), had an early 'lock' (sense).

This is a language question, not a judgmental question.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052237#Comment_1052237

YHWH never tempts anyone...He's just totally sovereign and responsible for all existence and everything that is...and would be quite irate at any who suggest otherwise.

He also never repents...except for when He does.

It's interesting that jews in the period leading up to the messiah were quite unwilling to so happily define YHWH, even going so far as to re-write the Torah (LXX).

They were also quite aware that logically tempting and being tempted were one and the same, if YHWH created the humans ... ergo an odd comfort with a second creator diety to be the bad boy. Later on, Marcion appears to have been quite successful in in the Rome church ... the same issue.

And statistically, the literal instant one is created (born), tempted is geometrically expanded all the way to heaven/hell probabilities, depending on the M or F. Ergo Jesus' observation that shocked his male followers.

Jerome Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052262#Comment_1052262

To research this issue regarding Matthew 6:13, I recommend making a careful study of the material I provided in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge for this verse.

Should you have the good fortune to have access to this available-in-Logos resource, you will see a reference to the parallel text in Luke where I have placed a Figure of Speech note.

That note in Luke makes reference to a very significant Figure of Speech which is used in both texts and several other most interesting Bible passages.

I believe, after my own long and careful study, that you too may find this information helpful in resolving the issues raised about Matthew 6:13.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052262#Comment_1052262

It's interesting that jews in the period leading up to the messiah were quite unwilling to so happily define YHWH, even going so far as to re-write the Torah (LXX).

Which group did the rewriting and thus has the wrong readings? Those of 150 AD that wrote our current Hebrew that under lays the English Old Testament or those of 256 BC (or so) that translated some form of Hebrew into Greek (the LXX)?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052323#Comment_1052323

It's interesting that jews in the period leading up to the messiah were quite unwilling to so happily define YHWH, even going so far as to re-write the Torah (LXX).

Which group did the rewriting and thus has the wrong readings? Those of 150 AD that wrote our current Hebrew that under lays the English Old Testament or those of 256 BC (or so) that translated some form of Hebrew into Greek (the LXX)?

Well, maybe we need another cave to discover! I don't think 'wrong' might be a good adjective. Basically, YHWH got symbolically promoted by introducing the angels ... removing human-like allusions where possible, but not always consistently. And as time passed, the angels organized, got names (signs of power), and eventually had full armies of them. Myriads! By Jesus' time, the Saducees apparently weren't too impressed, but the Adversary thought that a bunch catching Jesus in the air might be pretty neat. Jesus was unimpressed.

My allusion was in contrast to modern churchmen who happily bring YHWH down to earth, chatting about what He thinks, will do, and frowns on ... they seem to really have YHWH lined up. Sort of the opposite of the earlier time period.

I'm not sure your 150 ad hebrew. Usually, it's either DSS, or a thousand years later (the latter also true of the early fathers). Of course, the detailed hebrew sourcing is unknown.

This a great time to remind folks of two good prepubs:

1. This is Tov's opus on the LXX (not sure what happened to the hebrew one in Logos). Even though the title is the LXX, much of the discussion surrounds the hebrew (of course), and other coincident translations.

https://www.logos.com/product/170955/the-text-critical-use-of-the-septuagint-in-biblical-research-third-edition-completely-revised-and-expanded

2. This is a classic, last updated in 1988, I think. If you don't have this already, you may like it. A nice read.

https://www.logos.com/product/175154/the-text-of-the-old-testament-an-introduction-to-the-biblia-hebraica-3rd-edition

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1052262#Comment_1052262

YHWH never tempts anyone...He's just totally sovereign and responsible for all existence and everything that is...and would be quite irate at any who suggest otherwise.

He also never repents...except for when He does.

It's interesting that jews in the period leading up to the messiah were quite unwilling to so happily define YHWH, even going so far as to re-write the Torah (LXX).

They were also quite aware that logically tempting and being tempted were one and the same, if YHWH created the humans ... ergo an odd comfort with a second creator diety to be the bad boy. Later on, Marcion appears to have been quite successful in in the Rome church ... the same issue.

And statistically, the literal instant one is created (born), tempted is geometrically expanded all the way to heaven/hell probabilities, depending on the M or F. Ergo Jesus' observation that shocked his male followers.

I can't tell which is true...saying I'm tempted to respond...or saying I'm tempted not to respond.

. [*-)]

mab

While you sort all of this out Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.Romans 8:26