By Laurentius, in 'Ancient Greek', Dec 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM.
What do you guys think about this? I don't know Greek, so...
I am no expert in classical Greek, but I thought that the controversial verses ment something along
καὶ | μὴ |εἰσενέγκῃς |ἡμᾶς |εἰς | πειρασμόν
and| not| you ought to bring |us |in(to)| trial [≈ temptation]
ἀλλὰ | ῥῦσαι | ἡμᾶς |ἀπὸ |τοῦ |πονηροῦ
but| rescue |us| from |that| knave
I find it a very loose interpretation of the original ...
I see, thanks. So he's probably distorting the actual meanig.
According to Father Jonathan Morris, greek translation does mean "let us not fall into temptation"
My guess is that Pope Francis is actually referring to original aramaic version
I'm at a loss here, because I'm not sure what anyone is arguing, and the video doesn't play for me. What I've read, which may not be entirely accurate, is that Pope Francis doesn't think God leads people into temptation, so one shouldn't use the translation 'do not lead us into temptation' in the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately that is what the Greek says. I'm sure there's a way of interpreting it to mean that despite saying this, it doesn't actually mean that God makes us sin, any more than saying that the Lord is a jealous God implies that God feels an emotion as evil as jealousy (to say nothing of the fact that there's really nothing an omnipotent deity can be jealous of). I wasn't aware there was an extant original Aramaic version of the Lord's Prayer, but if Adrian knows it, perhaps the Pope does as well.
Here's another source for the video
I was referring to this source http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm
That's a translation of the Greek into Aramaic. The person responsible for it may believe that these were Jesus' actual words, but I doubt there's a scholarly consensus on the matter. The chances of it being correct, after all, are extremely small.
I wonder where they took it, the Gospel is not in Aramaic.
Maybe I got this anyway. Perhaps Francis refers to the word πειρασμός, which apparently is really tied to the concept of being put to test and infact could mean either trial/test or temptation. So it could be "don't put us to test", ie "don't put us into a condition where we could sin". Infact according to this, here it is a reference "of a condition of things, or a mental state, by which we are enticed to sin, or to a lapse from faith and holiness: in the phrases εἰσφέρειντιναεἰςπειρασμόν, Matthew 6:13; Luke 11:4;".
I wish he'd elaborate more on the subject, instead of being like "The translation is wrong, duh".
There's an argument for considering using any imperative form of verb to a deity to be blasphemy. That could shake things up a bit.
I'm not really following the debate since anything to do with Pope Francis causes me to boak, but the reason he isn't elaborating is probably because he's firing bullets made by someone else. If it's such a serious matter, I hardly think he's the first person in twenty centuries to notice the problem. I smell a rat. He's up to something. I don't know what, but he's always up to something.
Thing is, according to what I posted above, that maybe he is not wrong. But still if he wants to change such an important prayer he should explain his reasons in detail.
You posted καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ with an idiosyncratic translation. εἰσενέγκῃς is the 2nd person aorist subjunctive of εἰσφέρω, believe it or not, and if you remember the parts of the cognate fero in Latin, perhaps you will. It is used here with imperative force, as normal in Greek. πονηροῦ is the genitive of the neuter, not the masculine (although the forms are the same), so it means 'evil', not 'the evil man'. How anyone can say that the literal translation of these words is not 'do not bring us into temptation but save us from evil' is beyond me, whatever the interpretation of what it actually means theologically.
The problem has been discussed before: https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2099, which references some jiggery-pokery with Hebrew/Aramaic to prove that there might have been a Semitic original that didn't quite mean what the Greek says. This seems a bit dubious to me on several grounds: it's saying the original might have used a specific form, and that this hypothetical form might have had a sense that fits better with the conventional god picture, but we are now several steps removed from the evidence we actually have.
But I explained it, it's because of the meaning of the word "temptation" in Greek. This is not about the verb. Isn't it?
Our Latin forum is a community for discussion of all topics relating to Latin language, ancient and medieval world.
Separate names with a comma.