In the new Dutch translation of the Our Father "temptation" becomes "testing" — Problematic?

[Pausanias]

A new Dutch translation of the Our Father will be introduced this year. The Dutch and Flemish have traditionally used slightly different translations. Their bishops have decided on a common translation.

Here is my translation of the traditional Dutch and new Dutch (and Flemish) Our Father (changes in bold):

Traditional:

Our Father who art in heaven,
sanctified be thy name.
Thy realm come.
Thy will be done
on earth as in heaven.
Give us presently our daily bread.
And forgive us our debt,
as we also forgive others their debt.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

New:

Our Father who art in heaven,
sanctified be thy name.
Thy realm come.
Thy will be done
on earth as in heaven.
Give us presently our daily bread
and forgive us our debts,
as we also forgive our debtors
and bring us not into testing
but deliver us from evil.

“Debts” and “our debtors” are improvements and the Flemish already had them, but “bring” and “testing” are new for both the Dutch and the Flemish, and I’m not sure replacing the word “temptation” with “testing” is a good decision.

Yes, “temptation” is not a perfect choice of words either, since God doesn’t “lead us into temptation,” but temptation is still something to always avoid. Is that also the case with testing? Is testing something to always avoid? If so, then why did God test his people in the desert forty years and his Son forty days?

I can understand asking God “let us not fail your tests,” but asking not be tested at all? Is that orthodox and virtuous? Is “testing” really closer to the Greek than “temptation?”

 

[DaveBj]

Hard to say. The original Greek term (πειρασμός) carries both meanings,.

 

[Pausanias]

Hard to say. The original Greek term (πειρασμός) carries both meanings,.

I can’t think of a Dutch word which carries both meanings. If the Greek carries both meanings, then it seems to have been imprudent to change a centuries old rendering to which people have become very attached or, at least, accustomed.

What about the Latin? Which is closer to tentationem, temptation or testing? If temptation, then the change seems even more imprudent since our vernacular liturgy is supposed to be based on the Latin (if I’m not mistaken).

 

[TimothyH]

This is a traditional and ancient translation.

and do not subject us to the final test,
but deliver us from the evil one.
(Matthew 6:13 NAB)

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. (Revelation 2:10)

The idea of God allowing the devil to test us is a classic Jewish understanding. This understanding is the heart of Jesus’ temptation in the desert.

-Tim-

 

[WJeffrey]

 

[1neophyte]

What if it’s actually “temptation” that is problematic, but we’re all so used to it that we don’t even notice?

Mind=blown.

 

[DaveBj]

I can’t think of a Dutch word which carries both meanings. If the Greek carries both meanings, then it seems to have been imprudent to change a centuries old rendering to which people have become very attached or, at least, accustomed.

What about the Latin? Which is closer to tentationem, temptation or testing? If temptation, then the change seems even more imprudent since our vernacular liturgy is supposed to be based on the Latin (if I’m not mistaken).

English is the same way – no one word carries both meanings. I checked me ecclesiastical Latin textbook, and according to it, tentacio = temptation. The concept of testing appears to be covered by words from the prob- stem (e.g., probare = to test).

 

[Mintaka]

Literally, Latin “temptatio” means “trial,” with the later meaning being “temptation.” It comes from “temptavere”/“temptare”, which means, “to test, to try; to attempt an attack; to urge; to worry at (like a dog worrying something he’s caught); to sound out; to tamper with; to excite or agitate; to bribe.” These meanings all come from the verb “to touch, to handle, to feel.”

Of course, the Greek meaning is what’s really important here.

That said, it’s also true that the translations used in most European languages are very old, and re-translating the Lord’s Prayer would cut off a lot of people from a living connection to their Christian heritage.

 

[Pausanias]

English is the same way – no one word carries both meanings. I checked me ecclesiastical Latin textbook, and according to it, tentacio = temptation. The concept of testing appears to be covered by words from the prob- stem (e.g., probare = to test).

I just read that the new Our Father is part of an entirely new translation of the Roman Missal. It will take a few more years before it’s completed, but the bishops decided to introduce the new Our Father before that.

The Dutch and Belgian bishops who approved the change wrote that they chose “testing” over “temptation” primarily because it’s closer to the Greek and because the Protestants use it too.

That leaves me a bit uncomfortable, even if “testing” is closer to the Greek, Greek is not supposed to be the primary source here(?). It seems to me that the source of a translation of the Roman Missal should be the Roman Missal(?).

As for the Protestants comment, that leaves me uncomfortable too. How are they relevant? This is about Catholic liturgy.

Of course, the Greek meaning is what’s really important here.

Yes, it would be, except I’ve now read it’s part of a translation of the Roman Missal. The Latin is the base text of the Roman Missal. I think the question then becomes, is “et ne nos inducas in tentationem” more precisely “and lead us not into temptation” or “and lead us not into testing?”

 

[LethalMouse]

I sometimes dabble in linguistics but in truth know nothing of the languages at play here. So I would ask if this is a literal translation of Dutch - English?

If so does it actually mean the same exactly? I once told a foreign friend in language exchange “I was milking my injury” and he thought I was doing a physical milking action on myself… yes literal translations not always great

 

[LaetenturCaeli]

As for the Protestants comment, that leaves me uncomfortable too. How are they relevant? This is about Catholic liturgy.

Well, because they’re Christians.

Obviously, it’s difficult to analyze the opinion of bishops on this when all we have is a bit of a paraphrase of their words. But if the bishops are attempting to contribute to unity,* that’s a good thing!*

If a perfectly legitimate translation of the Our Father can help, in the minds of the bishops, then why not be all for that? Because we want to be isolated from Protestants and never, ever reach out to them in even small ways?

I’m sorry, but isolation has long ago been abandoned by Holy Mother Church as a useful means of achieving sincere unity amongst Christians.

 

[Pausanias]

If so does it actually mean the same exactly?

I would say nearly the exact same meaning in this context. The Dutch word I translated “testing” with is “beproeving,” by the way. It’s somewhat archaic and not used in common speech. I think your average Dutch person may have to look it up, which seems a bit unfortunate in such an important prayer. It would also be better, I think, if non-Christians who hear us pray, know what we’re praying for without consulting a dictionary.

Well, because they’re Christians.

Obviously, it’s difficult to analyze the opinion of bishops on this when all we have is a bit of a paraphrase of their words. But if the bishops are attempting to contribute to unity,* that’s a good thing!*

Christian unity subsists in the Catholic Church. I don’t see how bringing our liturgical text closer to those of the Protestants will help hem better respond to our call for them to enter into Catholic unity.

perfectly legitimate translation of the Our Father

Is it perfectly legitimate, though?

The Congregation for Divine Worship stated that translations “must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner” and, while there may be other sources for the same text, “it is always the text of the Latin editio typica itself that is to be translated.”

If the Congregation instructs that a translation of the Roman Missal must have only the editio typica Roman Missal as its source, do bishops have the authority to go against their instruction? Genuine question.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Don’t know about Dutch, but in English, “temptation” vs “testing” has a meaningful difference IMHO.

A test does not imply any sort of urge imposed upon another to do anything. You can test something to find out the truth (such as a laboratory test), you can test someone else to see their knowledge (a math test, for example), or you can be tested in the sense that a difficult situation has befallen you.

Temptation is a much more specific word with fewer uses. It almost always implies an inclination to some action, usually something undesirable or even outright evil. You can be tempted to eat something unhealthful, or buy something you like but probably don’t need. However, we don’t use the word to refer to things we ought to do. We don’t speak of being tempted to remain faithful in marriage, for example. It is a much more precise word.

However, the same distinction may not be true in Dutch, so just because there’s a difference in English doesn’t mean that the Dutch words are also as problematic.

 

[Pausanias]

Bill Martin,

I think the problem or distinction is the same as in English, at least in this context. A Dutch priest criticized the new Our Father recently because in his opinion “testing,” unlike “temptation,” doesn’t have any moral connotations. I have to agree with that or I don’t think your average Dutch person will consider the word that I have translated as “testing” as having any moral connotations. If you check the etymology of this archaic Dutch word for “testing” (“beproeving”), then, yes, you can say it had moral connotations, but not today. Five hundred to a thousand years ago, yes, today, no.

So, that’s another problem, in Dutch as well in English, testing doesn’t have moral connotations. The word I translated as “testing” is further unfortunate because, as I said, it’s archaic and uncommon. So, not only does it lack clear moral connotations, but it lacks a clear definition to your average Dutch person.

All in all, I find the change very unnecessary and I think it’s going to confuse your average Dutch Catholic. I hope they will be well informed by their pastors about what the word is supposed to mean to us.

I’m still wondering whether bishops have the authority to decide to translate or approve a translation of the word from the Greek when the Congregation for Divine Worship instructed them to translate from the Latin.

If the Latin word means “testing” more than it means “temptation,” it would be easy for me to accept this change. If it doesn’t, I think it harms our liturgical unity to have diverged from the base Latin text of the Roman Missal. Rome has approved the translation, so I accept that it’s legal, but it seems underhanded or dishonest to me to not to have followed Rome’s instructions on translating liturgical texts. I wonder if Rome was honestly informed about this situation.

 

[DaveBj]

This is not a new problem in the translation of Bible texts. Besides peirasmos (testing/temptation), there are other Greek words that had more than one meaning: hagiasmos = holiness/sanctification, dikaiosune = righteousness/justification, etc. The writers of the Greek New Testament texts, as well as those who read those texts in the early days, knew the differences, just as we English-speakers, for example, know the difference between ball = spherical device used in many games and ball = fancy-dress dance.

To us, who are separated from those writings by almost 2000 years, and especially to those of us who are separated from whose writings by filtering through a second language (Latin), that distinction in meanings can become very muddy. Therefore, it becomes important for those who are translating texts to delve into how those questionable words are used in other contexts. In this particular case, the association of “temptation” with attraction to sin may mean that “put us not to the test” might actually be a more accurate translation for that particular line in the Lord’s Prayer. James 1:13-14 states that God is not involved in temptation to sin; therefore, asking him not to lead us into temptation (in that meaning) makes no sense, even if those are the words that we have been reciting for centuries. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn’t mean that way is right.

(Here’s the quote, for those who were wondering

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

 

[Pausanias]

This is not a new problem in the translation of Bible texts.

To us, who are separated from those writings by almost 2000 years, and especially to those of us who are separated from whose writings by filtering through a second language (Latin)

In this particular case, the association of “temptation” with attraction to sin may mean that “put us not to the test” might actually be a more accurate translation for that particular line in the Lord’s Prayer.

Yes, “testing” may be more accurate. I think that’s probably true with the Greek. I accept the conclusion of the experts claiming it is. However, it’s not a matter of translating from the Greek or deciding which word is more ideal theologically, as I thought when I started this thread. It’s a matter of translating from the Latin of the Roman Missal, for which there are clear instructions. Therefore, while we have the Our Father from the Greek, Latin is for this particular translation the first language. Liturgiam authenticam: “[N]ew translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin.”

So, unless I’m misunderstanding the instructions, the question should be, is tentationem (a word also used in Nova Vulgata, by the way) closer to “testing” or “temptation?” If tentationem is more accurately “testing,” why have other translations of the Roman Missal, such as the English, not translated it as “testing?” Someone has been disregarding the instructions from Rome, and since the Dutch-speaking bishops referred to the Greek, I think it wasn’t the English-speaking bishops who accepted the “wrong” translation.

Am I wrong in thinking the Latin text of Roman Missal should be the exclusive text from which the Roman Missal is translated?

 

[DaveBj]

Yes, “testing” may be more accurate. I think that’s probably true with the Greek. I accept the conclusion of the experts claiming it is. However, it’s not a matter of translating from the Greek or deciding which word is more ideal theologically, as I thought when I started this thread. It’s a matter of translating from the Latin of the Roman Missal, for which there are clear instructions. Therefore, while we have the Our Father from the Greek, Latin is for this particular translation the first language. Liturgiam authenticam: “[N]ew translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin.”

So, unless I’m misunderstanding the instructions, the question should be, is tentationem (a word also used in Nova Vulgata, by the way) closer to “testing” or “temptation?” If tentationem is more accurately “testing,” why have other translations of the Roman Missal, such as the English, not translated it as “testing?” Someone has been disregarding the instructions from Rome, and since the Dutch-speaking bishops referred to the Greek, I think it wasn’t the English-speaking bishops who accepted the “wrong” translation.

Am I wrong in thinking the Latin text of Roman Missal should be the exclusive text from which the Roman Missal is translated?

I understand where you’re coming from, but I just don’t care to get into that aspect of the debate. The problem is that the Latin is not the original language; the original language is the Greek (or rather, actually the Aramaic, but that is long lost; nobody was there recording Jesus’ messages on their iPhones )

Just as a by-the-way, and I’m not doing this to pick on you, the dictionary form of the word is tentatio; “tentationem” is the accusative singular form.

 

[1neophyte]

Am I wrong in thinking the Latin text of Roman Missal should be the exclusive text from which the Roman Missal is translated?

Yes.

 

[Pausanias]

The problem is that the Latin is not the original language

But that’s the thing: it is. Or, at least, according to the instruction, the translation is not supposed to be from Geek biblical texts, but from Latin liturgical texts. But I may be misinterpreting Liturgiam authenticam or unaware of more recent documents which have superseded it.

Liturgiam authenticam seems to be the document nonetheless that was supposed to be followed for the Dutch translation. It’s the single reason given for why the existing translation was revised.

Just as a by-the-way, and I’m not doing this to pick on you, the dictionary form of the word is tentatio; “tentationem” is the accusative singular form.

I have a little bit of familiarity with Latin prayers and phrases due to Latin mass, but that’s it.

Yes.

Thanks. Which document or documents have superseded the principles and instructions given on translation in Liturgiam authenticam? Or are you saying the instructions were never authoritative in the first place, but flexible guidelines? The language of the document doesn’t seem to support that.

 

[DaveBj]

But that’s the thing: it is. Or, at least, according to the instruction, the translation is not supposed to be from Geek biblical texts, but from Latin liturgical texts. But I may be misinterpreting Liturgiam authenticam or unaware of more recent documents which have superseded it.

snip

I have no doubt that you’re probably interpreting Liturgiam authenticam correctly, but that does not change the fact that the Latin text is not the original language; it is a translation of the original language.