Pope Francis approves major change to The Lord's Prayer

[left-of-center2012]

Pope Francis has officially approved a major change to the most famous Christian prayer: The Lord’s Prayer. The UCatholic reports that more than 1 billion Catholics will have to adjust to some new wording in the prayer that Jesus taught his disciples.

On May 22, during the General Assembly of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, the Holy See decreed the phrase “lead us not into temptation” will become “do not let us fall into temptation.”
The change was made, the UCatholic reports, because officials say the original translation from Matthew 6:13 implies that God leads the move to temptation. The change would be more in line with the prayer’s original intentions.

According to UCatholic: “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. Bishops and experts worked on improving the text from a theological, pastoral and stylistic point of view, as well as on fine-tuning the presentation of the Missal.’”

The Holy See also announced a change to the Gloria, with the phrase “Peace on earth to people of good will” to “Peace on Earth to people beloved by God.”

https://triblive.com/news/world/pope-francis-approves-major-change-to-the-lords-prayer/

[MineralMan]

1. Those are interesting changes, I think.

Especially the "lead us not" changing to "do not let us fall." Linguistically, it is a pretty revolutionary re-interpretation.

Scripturally, God often led humans into peril. He "hardened their hearts" and appeared to tempt them into doing the wrong thing. What was the point of putting a tree with forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, after all, if not to tempt the newly-created humans to err? This change appears to be moving away from that point of view, and it's significant.

I would have liked to have listened in on the discussions that led to this. It would have been interesting, I'm sure.

[Major Nikon]

3. ...

[left-of-center2012]

2. I thought the Bible was "the word of God"

How can 'man' change it?

[California_Republic]

4. They are suggesting the proper wording was lost in translation

[Major Nikon]

6. Actually the opposite

They are suggesting a wording the translation doesn't support, which is technically heretical.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. The history of Christianity...

...is a history of making shit up as one goes. The Bible reads like it started off as a game of Mad Libs.

[Major Nikon]

5. The synoptic gospels were written anonymously and not by those attributed to them

A considerable amount of RCC doctrine has no basis in them. The holy trinity for instance.

The RCC isn't doing something it hasn't been doing for the past couple of thousand years or so.

[CaptYossarian]

15. God always used ghostwriters.

These were "Holy Ghost" writers.

[Locrian]

7. hmmmm.... interesting....

Maybe the real author left in a grammar slip....
Now who could have been the real author, hm? Someone who is good a "leading those into temptation"?!

[Cartoonist]

8. Rearranging the deck chairs

Oh yeah, that will save a lot of souls. I predict the protestants will protest.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Exactly how do they know the 'original intent'?

[MineralMan]

10. They prayed about it, no doubt.

Then they preyed on their followers' naivete.

[Major Nikon]

13. Exactly the same way metaphor man around here does

Which is to say they don't.

[fierywoman]

12. I have a copy of the Bible translated directly from Aramaic to English. That part says,

"Let us not be led into temptation."
Think of the good they might do by extending Peace on Earth to all men and women, regardless of religious affiliation!

[Jim__]

19. Interesting. Do you know how that translation was made?

I don't believe there is any original Aramaic version of Matthew's gospel. That said, your translation - “do not let us fall into temptation” - is extremely close to the new translation that the pope has approved.

[fierywoman]

20. My books are in boxes at the moment -- but this is the version

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Ancient-Translation-Peshitta/dp/0060649232/ref=asc_df_0060649232/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312134266711&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7342549635944705239&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9033288&hvtargid=pla-450971339898&psc=1

My bad -- I apparently mis-quoted the above (see the back cover on amazon.)

[Jim__]

22. No problem. Actually I mis-stated what you had said.

I was just curious as to how the Aramaic version came about.

[left-of-center2012]

23. Hebrew Gospel hypothesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis

The Hebrew Gospel hypothesis (or proto-Gospel hypothesis or Aramaic Matthew hypothesis) is a group of theories based on the proposition that a lost gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic lies behind the four canonical gospels.

It is based upon an early Christian tradition, deriving from the 2nd-century bishop Papias of Hierapolis, that the apostle Matthew composed such a gospel.

Papias appeared to say that this Hebrew or Aramaic gospel was subsequently translated into the canonical gospel of Matthew, but modern studies have shown this to be untenable.

Modern variants of the hypothesis survive, but have not found favour with scholars as a whole.

[Jim__]

24. Did you read the link from post #20?

Post #20.

The back cover that that post refers to states that Lamsa's translation is based on the peshitta. The wikipedia link states that the New Testament version of the Peshitta is based on a translation from the Greek:

The Peshitta (Classical Syriac: ܦܫܝܛܬܐ? pšîṭtâ) is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition.

The consensus within biblical scholarship, though not universal, is that the Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD, and that the New Testament of the Peshitta was translated from the Greek.[1] This New Testament, originally excluding certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in the Harklean Version (616 AD) of Thomas of Harqel.[2] However, the 1905 United Bible Society Peshitta used new editions prepared by the Irish Syriacist John Gwynn for the missing books.

My quick impresssion is that the Peshitta is different from the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis. I'm going to read further to see if I can find a connection.

[fierywoman]

25. You need to understand that I am about as ignorant as anyone could be about

what you're talking about. But about 20 years ago someone recommended this version of the Bible to me (not that I'm an avid Bible reader!) and what little I've explored about this translation, I was always taken by that one line's difference (and why anyone's god had to be implored NOT to lead them into temptation.) What else is in this edition is a foot note about the woman who turns to salt, about how this was this society's idiom for her being tremendously scared (like our "scared shitless" I guess.)

[Igel]

29. The Peshitta is the newer of the Aramaic versions.

Still old, but derivative from the Greek, with some errors from the mss that we have extant now. Some of them are fairly obvious misreadings of similar letters.

There's an older "translation" called the Old Syriac, but it's not so much a single translation as it is an amalgam of the various texts.

This guy, Lamsa, tried (and some like him still try) to say that since Aramaic was common in the first century CE and because there's this Aramaic text called the "Peshitta" that obviously all the linguistic insights from the Peshitta are necessarily what was intended. So there's this nuanced exegesis of every shade of meaning. It was trendy among non-conformist varieties of Xianity in the '70s. At some point I owned a copy, then realized that it was as useful as an English translation would be of the Russian translation of the Greek mss. The Russian translation from Greek has no obligatory advantage over the English translation from Greek.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

14. Interesting how the story of Job will be changed in the near future.

It's ALWAYS been a thorn of contention with me, right up there with Jonah and the Whale.....

Either God did test Job or somehow it's Jobs' fault in retrospect.

Head-spinning.

[Doreen]

16. Hmm

"peace on earth to people of good will" to "peace on earth to people beloved by god." They sure narrowed the list of those who are allowed peace. It does not matter anymore that you are just a good person you have to be loved by god to receive peace.

The change in the lord's prayer still leaves the responsibility to ones actions on god and not themselves. "LEAD us not into temptation" or "do not LET us fall into temptation."

This is going to be a fun conversation with my friend who is a die hard Catholic.

[Voltaire2]

17. it would appear to eliminate everyone who bet wrong on pascal's wager

by picking the wrong flavor of sky-being, and of course all those who refuse to bet at all, the filthy atheists, are just shit out of luck in the peace department.

[Doreen]

18. If you are going to call it, call it for what it actually is.

[edhopper]

21. Half of the things the RCC thinks is temptation

is stuff I enjoy and want to do.
And do no harm.

[NanceGreggs]

26. Many years ago ...

… I was taking a Hebrew course. The rabbi pointed out that many Jews say prayers in Hebrew not as they are written, but by using words they thought they'd heard growing up.

To illustrate, he pointed out that if you asked a bunch of Catholic school kids in NYC to recite the Lord’s prayer, what you’d hear a lot of is ”… and lead us not into Penn Station.”

[keithbvadu2]

27. "original intentions. "

"original intentions. "

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God.

But changeable as needed.

[keithbvadu2]

28. Will the Protestant/Baptist type religions go along with it?

Will the Protestant/Baptist type religions go along with it?

Their version is already not the same as the Catholic version.

[Major Nikon]

31. No

Most are stuck on the King James or New International translations. You also have to remember the reason the RCC is pushing this narrative isn't because of any deep thought applied to Christian doctrine. It's because they are facing a crisis of the discovery of RCC officials from top to bottom doing genuinely evil shit. Their official excuse is literally 'the devil made us do it'.

[brooklynite]

30. After 2000 years, I suppose another schism is called for...

[Voltaire2]

32. 1000 years.

The Great Schism was about 1000 years ago.

Arguably the Reformation was also a schism. Actually it isn’t even arguable. So we are down to about 500 years.