A question about the Lord's Prayer
I had a question posed:
The word to your specific question is πειρασμόν (phonetically in English: peirasmon).
The word is an interesting choice in Greek because it loses something
in translation into English. Or, more accurately, I suppose it gains
something that is not found or meant in Ancient Greek. But, before I go
into that, let's look at the base definition of the word in Greek.
Generally, πειρασμόν
means a trial or time of testing or a time of temptation. It is usually
translated into English as "temptation." While not a wrong translation,
"temptation" or "trial" in English certainly has a negative
connotation. In Western political thought, we have skewed everything
legal in terminology into something inherently negative. Because we view
"law" or "trials" or the need for laws as a negative abridgement of
freedom. This goes back to political theorists like Hobbes and Locke. I
won't bore you with that minutiae, but we have been programmed to hear
words like "you are being brought to trial" or "you are being tempted"
to automatically mean some bad either has happened (we've committed a
crime or we are being falsely accused of a crime) or we are being
basically tempted to do something wrong (in legal parlance, we call this
entrapment, which is bad when this happens, which is usually why it's
generally illegal for government officials to intentionally try to get
you to commit a crime when otherwise you would never have done such a
thing). But, in either case, in English we hear this "lead us not into
temptation" or "lead us not into a time of trial" from a very negative
view of "the law" trying to entrap us or accusing us falsely.
In Greco-Roman times, this negative connotation was not there when they heard this term. Trials
and tests
were common themes in philosophical and religious discourse. For
instance, read about the trial of Socrates or even when Brutus and the
conspirators assasinated Julius Caesar. They welcomed that time of trial
to prove that they we justified in committing tyrannicide for the good
of the Republic. The
concept of testing was often associated with refining or proving one's
moral character. Public Virtue was central to understanding Greek and
Roman philosophy as it related to the state. A trial or a test was not
something to be avoided at all costs or ashamed of when you were brought
to one, but in fact, just the opposite. You should welcome, even
publicly invite a time and place in the Forum to have it out to prove
your public virtue and defense (apology) of your actions.
In Jewish thought, trials were seen as opportunities for
growth and demonstration of faithfulness to God in a somewhat different
way from the Greeks and Romans, but it likewise lacked that negative
connotation we now have with the term "trial" or "temptation." To Jews,
"The Law" was not a negative abridgement of freedom but was the life
giving revelation of God to His people. This is why Jews kiss the Torah
and study it with reckless abandon for in it, they believe, they find
the Life and Breath of God, whereas we in the West, the police show up
and someone says, "Oh, the Law is here!" and everyone plays dumb or
tries to scoot out the back door, lest people are arrested and brought
to trial.
Now, we begin to see in the early Christian
community who was facing persecution and moral challenges, would have
begun to understand "πειρασμόν" as both a
test of faith and a potential stumbling
block. You can sort of track where Western Christianity begins to
inform political theory over the centuries until we get to people like
John Locke and later Social Contract theory and all viewing "the law" as
a negative abridgement of freedom.
To get back to your point, the other word we have to look at in this sentence is "εἰσφέρω" (phonetically in English "eispheró"). It is usually translated as "To
bring in, to lead into, to carry into." There is not really an
equivalent word in Hebrew or Aramaic for it. בּוֹא is closest you get in
the Old Testament. The verb εἰσφέρω is used in Greek to describe the
action of bringing or leading something or someone into a particular
place or situation. It often conveys the idea of introducing or causing
something to enter.
In the Greco-Roman world, the concept of bringing or leading
something
into a space was common in various contexts. You were brought to
religious
rituals or legal proceedings so that you could happily choose to
apologize (defend) yourself and prove your public Virtue, either in a
session in the Forum of Athens or to offer sacrifices before whatever
god in whatever Temple. You saw this in the disconnect when Romans
hauled Christians to the Temple to prove their virtue as good Roman
citizens by burning a little incense to the Divine Emperor. The Romans
never could figure out what the Christians hang up was with this. They
were like, "You want to worship your weird nameless God, fine. Just,
come on, burn a little incense to the Emperor ceremonially. We can even
have someone do it for you. You don't even have to really mean it, but
it's public record to defend yourself and show your fidelity to the
Empire." In modern parlance, why can't you just wave the flag and stand
for the National Anthem? Just do it and make everyone happy. Prove you
are a real son of the SPQR." But, I digress...
The act of bringing
something or someone into a space (εἰσφέρω)
could imply authority, responsibility, or a
change in status or condition, but it was primarily so one could
voluntarily prove one's worth and moral virtue publicly. Remember, this
is primarily an honor/shame culture. So, as I understand your
translation of the French (I don't know a lot of French, so I will take
your word for it.), I think you can see the thinking behind the
translation modification. It's also complication before it's being
partially translated from the Latin which was translated from the Greek,
but the principle is the same. Also bear in mind France has a code law
and not common law in their legal history, which adds a whole other
wrinkle in terms of the view of "the law" but I won't go into that here.
For our purposes, you say 'The
French equivalent of "lead us not into temptation" now translates as
"let us not fall into temptation".' I think you can see the attempt to
capture what was meant in the Greek a little more precisely. It was not
God trying to entrap us into sinning in an entrapment kind of scenario,
but the idea of God leading us to a place where we can publicly prove
our moral and public virtue. Jesus is saying to pray that God does not
even have to do that, that, as Saint Paul says, "let our 'yes' be 'yes'
and our 'no' be 'no.'" We pray that God delivers us from all that
nonsense of having to prove ourselves because people already know we are
Christians by our actions and beliefs and no Socrates Forum style trial
or temptation is even needed.
And depending on what one means by "deliver us from evil"-that can be
translated as evil one, meaning the Devil or adversary who accuses us. I
get antsy with that translation because the Greek does not clearly say
or assume that "one" is assumed there. It could be, like in English when
we have a "you understood" subject in a sentence like "Go." The "You"
is unspoken but understood. It's clearly "You, go" but if I am looking
and pointing at you, saying the you out loud is redundant. But,
certainly, it's likely an allusion to some sort of incarnate Evil. Our
behavior as Christians should be so exemplary, the Adversary has no
reason to even accuse us at all.
So, at the end of the day, translation really all boils down trying to
find the best way of saying something in one language when there is not a
direct word for word way of saying it from the original language.
Sometimes it is possible. Sometimes there are words or phrases or
concepts that don't translate well. There is also the problem of flow
and meter from one language to another. There may be a way of expressing
a sentence accurately in another language, but its wordy or choppy or
just doesn't flow well. You get this in translations sometimes where it
sounds like you are saying something in Greek but just in English and
the grammar just doesn't work sometimes. A direct transliteration of
this sentence into English would be: And not lead us into
temptation/trial, but deliver us from the evil. That just sounds weird
in English and it does not really account for the negative connotations
that have arisen that I already talked about.
Sometimes the translators just have to do the best they can do. And
sometimes they have to live with the ambiguity of famous texts that
everyone knows and likes that may not be the most accurate, but "Lead us
not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" is just what everyone
knows and likes. No one says, "who art" anymore, but sometimes you just
have to pick your translation battles and acknowledge you aren't going
to win and try to find a happy medium of accuracy but fluency because
really at the end of the day, it has to be a translation that speaks to
people. If it's something everyone hates and no one uses, it's really a
translation that is of no use to anyone. I imagine that was what was
going on here in your daughter's French class
Comments