Translations versus Interpretations of The Our Father

[Wm777]

As a little caveat, please know I’m sorry for all the caps… I am using them to try to keep the terms straight in my own mind… That said…

I have recently been contemplating the Our Father, especially the line “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”.

There have been quite a number of translations of this line over time… all of which seem worth contemplating for different reasons/intentions… if not spiritually, then simply for informational and historical purposes…

Right now, what I’m trying to reckon is an older translation “Forgive us our DEBTS, as we forgive our debtors…”

That’s much different than using the word TRESPASS…

My first question is - how did we get from the word debt to the word trespass?

Or, if we look specifically at the original word in the original language and manuscripts - what was the original word? And what was its actual contextual connotation and point of reference? And what cultural influences might have prompted that term to be translated as “DEBTS”? And then re-translated as “TRESPASSES”? And why not just use the word “SIN” (as in sin against our fellow man), since it seems like a sin is what really needs to be forgiven anyway?

Today’s common use of the term “debt” is mostly used in reference to financial, not moral, transactions… although we do occasionally hear someone say, “I owe you a debt of gratitude…” A debt owed to a moral infringement is more likely to be either based upon or considered a “tort” in American common law, and we really wouldnt hear that term used much outside of court…

On the other hand, the word trespass is usually used today with respect to property… It’s still identified as a breaking of a rule, but its use is based more upon an infringement against what someone else owns, rather than perhaps against the more abstract notion of breaking a rule…

Backing up a bit - if we consider all of these things with respect to the fifth petition… it’s like, we also hear a lot of new age and slang interpretations of it… like maybe “To have a friend, you must be a friend”, or " to love others you must love yourself…", or “You get back what you give out…” , or maybe even in a worse case scenario “Paybacks are hell” (as it is often considered hard to redeem onesself)…

To be honest, while those general phrases may carry some truth to them, or they may be more or less applicable to any given situation… I question their use now…

 

[GiftofMercy]

I will take @Bartholomew1 in

 

[Wm777]

Thank you… also, I made a few updates for clarity, so please review, if possible…

I appreciate any help here.

 

[GiftofMercy]

I would start by just asking any meaning in the translations of the text, and then consider the context and the impact.

One example, in a story in the Gospel of Mark the word kum is used, and is translated often as get up. It is a Hebrew word and means rise, and has so much more layering to the meaning when given the Hebrew context.

This may be the same for the queried words of the Lords Prayer in Aramaic and in Greek.

 

[Bithynian]

There are two Scriptural accounts of the Lord’s prayer (translations are from NRSV-CE):

Matthew 6:12 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν (And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.)

Note that Matthew recapitulates the theme of v 12 again in v 14 (and 15, but I’ll only quote 14 here), except worded differently: Ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος (For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you

Luke 11:4 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν (And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.)

Matthew uses the nouns ὀφειλήματα (debts) and ὀφειλέτης (debtor) initially, and then ‘substitutes’ (for lack of a better term) ὀφειλήματα with παραπτώματα (trespasses) in v 14.

Luke, on the other hand, uses the noun ἀμαρτία (sin) for the first clause while using the participle form of the verb ὀφείλω (I owe/am indebted) in the second clause.

ὀφειλήματα, ὀφειλέτης and ὀφείλω are all derived from the root ὀφειλ- denoting something which is owed.

(Continued below)

 

[Bithynian]

I’m not aware of any movement, as such, from debt to trespass. Historically, many English liturgical translations (but apparently not Bible translations) have transferred the meaning of παραπτώματα (trespasses) in Matt 6:14 onto ὀφειλήματα (debts) and ὀφειλέτης (debtor) in 6:12. For example, the Book of Common Prayer reads “forgive us our trespasses”, while the King James Version (and the Douay-Rheims) reads “forgive us our debts”. The reasons for why this is the case are highly speculative. But some Church Fathers did the same, and it is perhaps that they thought these expressions were largely synonymous.

With all that in mind, the general trend of modern Bible translations (e.g. NRSV-CE, RSV-CE, NAB-CE, ESV, etc.) has been to restrict the translation of “trespasses” to Matt 6:14 for the simple fact that this is what the Scriptures read. Many liturgical translations of the Lord’s Prayer, on the other hand, have retained “trespasses” in v 12 out of tradition.

Out of all words, why have we retained the debt and trespass translations as opposed to using other, more contemporary expressions? This is an interesting and complex question. There are many reasons why, but I largely surmise it is because Bible translators (both ancient and modern) aspire to a relatively high degree of literalness, to capture the plain meaning of a word as it would have appeared to readers at the time it was written.

In which case, the various ὀφειλ- (debt) words is quite well translated as “debt” and “debtor”: it can have a monetary sense in both English and Greek (as in Matt 18:28, Rom 4:4), but it can also have a moral quality in both languages, in the sense of “owing” or “be obligated”. See for e.g. Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

As for why παραπτώματα is translated as trespasses: this one is more muddy. In Classical (i.e. pre-Christian) Greek, it had a more general meaning of “slip, blunder” in connection with the meaning of cognate verb παραπίπτω ‘(literally) fall beside’.

It might be the case that the NT authors are calling to mind the Septuagint when it translated the Hebrew expression li-me’ol-ma’al (acting faithlessly) in Ezekiel 13:14 with παράπτωμα (trespass): υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου, γῆ ἐὰν ἁμάρτῃ μοι τοῦ παραπεσεῖν παράπτωμα (Hb: li-me’ol-ma’al ) (Mortal, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly)

Note that the Septuagint translator is suggesting also an equivalency between sin (ἁμαρτάνω) against God and παράπτωμα (trespass) against God. For e.g., the Vulgate translates παράπτωμα in Matt 6:14 as peccata (sins). But as you can see, the textual history of this is rather complex.

All-in-all, the translation “trespass” was most likely retained out of tradition more than anything else.

 

[OddBird]

As @Bithynian said, the text we say is somewhere between the two NT versions of the Our Father which are similar but no identical.

Matthew (6:12) uses the term ὀφείλημα (opheilêma), which means “debt” in a commercial sense. Some theologians (I’m remembering Stanley Hauerwas here, but there are others) speculate that when one begins to pray, as Jesus teaches us to do, one realizes one’s status as a debtor. From Hauerwas’ Commentary on Matthew, which I’ll quote directly because I couldn’t say any better :

“To be taught to pray is to be taught to beg. To be taught to beg requires that we recognize our status as debtors. The debts we have incurred as well as are owed to us come in many shapes and sizes. In our day we are tempted to think of debts in terms of psychological exchanges, but the debts we owe and are owed us, at least if we remember Lev. 25, are as real as the next meal we eat. So we should not be surprised that debts owed us, debts as real as money and property, are to be forgiven.”

Luke (11:4) uses the word ἁμαρτία (hamartia) which we usually translate by “sin” but which originally means something like “missing the target”, before qualifying it in the next line with a word meaning “debtor”, from the same root used by Matthew. He’s underlying the spiritual aspect of the debt more than Matthew does.

I’m not a good enough English speaker to comment on the use of “trespasses”. In my mother tongue, French, we use the word “offenses” (no need to translate this one, I think) which I see as trying to strike the balance between material debts and spiritual sins, and holding both aspects together in the things we need to forgive each other and for which we should beg God’s forgiveness.

 

[Diaconia]

Just a general thank you to @Wm777 for an interesting and fruitful thread.

Thanks to all adding to this discussion; these kinds of threads are what I always envisioned CAF was for.

Teach me Your statutes, O LORD…
Deacon Christopher

 

[BartholomewB]

And why not just use the word “SIN” (as in sin against our fellow man), since it seems like a sin is what really needs to be forgiven anyway?

The difficulty with “sin” here is that it’s not the natural word to use in English in the case of personal harm or injury. Maradona’s “hand of God” goal in the World Cup quarter-finals in 1986 may conceivably have been a sin against God, but nobody would describe it as a sin against England. So the first half of this petition, “Forgive us our sins,” works because we are addressing God. But the second half is awkward and unnatural: “… as we forgive those who sin against us.” The difficulty is finding a word that sounds right in both halves of the sentence.

 

[Wm777]

Just a general thank you to @Wm777 for an interesting and fruitful thread.

Thanks to all adding to this discussion; these kinds of threads are what I always envisioned CAF was for.

Teach me Your statutes, O LORD…
Deacon Christopher

And a very big thank you in return to you as well, Sir. That is a very great compliment indeed, especially coming from a Deacon.

 

[Wm777]

I’m not aware of any movement, as such, from debt to trespass .

My jaw dropped the moment I read that line, but then the rest of it made sense based upon what said.

I’m 50, and I’ve been saying the “trespass version” ever since I can remember; and, to boot, I don’t think I have ever hear the “debt version” used in the ordinary form of the mass; or, in other words, I have pretty much always heard them use the “trespass version” at mass.

So, when I read your comments, I double-checked the NAB to clarify the matter, and - in both Mathew and Luke- the term debts are used.

That seems unusual.

Why would the NABRE, which is (I think?) supposed to be the official version of the Bible, use “debts”, but the ordinary form use “trespasses”?

If the mass were a Hollywood movie, I’d ask the “continuity expert” what went wrong.

In any case, what I meant by “movement” was the change in the use of the term. You explained it pretty well, and some cross referencing (particularly on Wikipedia) verified a lot of what you said. I also studied Greek in undergrad, so I appreciated all your (name removed by moderator)ut with reference to the original Greek, too.

Thank you so much for a very thorough analysis and explanation!

 

[Wm777]

@OddBird and @BartholomewB

FWIW, one interesting note on the differing terms used in Matthew versus Luke might be to consider their vocations. Matthew was an accountant, and Luke was a doctor. So it is possible Matthew may have been thinking in a financial sense, whereas Luke may have thought of it more in the sense of health.

I’m an accountant, but throughout my life I have tended toward the Lucan tradition; although it was in recently contemplating my own profession that I began to think of it more in St Matthews sense.

The distinction/discernment is what gave rise to the question.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

It seems to me you have two different things going on here. First, you have various Greek terms that need to be translated into English, and Bythinian gave a very good summary of all that. Second, once a term is established in English, even though it may be seen as old-fashioned or obsolete, it’s hard to replace it. I would go further and suggest that it’s a BAD idea to replace it, unless the meaning has radically changed.

For example, “there was no room for them in the inn.” I’m not going to look it up, but there are several translations of whatever the Greek for “inn” is, and they all make me wince every time I hear them. My point is that there may or may not be better present-day translations of whatever the Greek word is, but “inn” has been established in English, and unless there’s a really good reason, why not just leave it alone? I don’t think anyone is going to confuse it with a Ramada Inn or Knight’s Inn. What’s more, in a translation you’re not aiming for literal accuracy, you’re aiming for a word that not only gives literal accuracy, but fits the register of the original. In other words, if the Greek uses a term that might be considered slang at the time, so should the English translation. If the Greek uses a very formal term that only the educated elite used, then so should the English translation.

 

[Wm777]

It seems to me you have two different things going on here. First, you have various Greek terms that need to be translated into English, and Bythinian gave a very good summary of all that. Second, once a term is established in English, even though it may be seen as old-fashioned or obsolete, it’s hard to replace it. I would go further and suggest that it’s a BAD idea to replace it, unless the meaning has radically changed.

For example, “there was no room for them in the inn.” I’m not going to look it up, but there are several translations of whatever the Greek for “inn” is, and they all make me wince every time I hear them. My point is that there may or may not be better present-day translations of whatever the Greek word is, but “inn” has been established in English, and unless there’s a really good reason, why not just leave it alone? I don’t think anyone is going to confuse it with a Ramada Inn or Knight’s Inn. What’s more, in a translation you’re not aiming for literal accuracy, you’re aiming for a word that not only gives literal accuracy, but fits the register of the original. In other words, if the Greek uses a term that might be considered slang at the time, so should the English translation. If the Greek uses a very formal term that only the educated elite used, then so should the English translation.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but… just to be clear… I wasn’t trying to rewrite the book… no one with any authority actually asked me to do such a thing, so… who would listen anyway?

That said, there’s a huge difference between making an authoritative translation… making a good interpretation… and/or understanding the actual intent of the words…

My query here was not to instigate a social movement, as your predilections seem to suspect… It was, however, intended to change my own understanding in hopes of better understanding the author’s (Jesus’) meaning and intention, as He communicated it through the Gospel writers…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

My query here was not to instigate a social movement, as your predilections seem to suspect… It was, however, intended to change my own understanding in hopes of better understanding the author’s (Jesus’) meaning and intention, as He communicated it through the Gospel writers…

While the discussion in this thread is interesting, it’s never seemed to me that Jesus’ meaning and intention was unclear, especially when you look at scripture like Matthew 18:21-35 where Jesus goes straight from a discussion of forgiveness for someone “offending against” the forgiver, into a parable likening it to the forgiveness of a monetary debt. It’s pretty obvious that Jesus’ use of this parable doesn’t mean he’s just talking about money or economic debts, he is talking about being merciful with your fellow man generally, when your fellow man has failed in some way to meet an obligation. To me it doesn’t much matter whether the Our Father uses the word “debt”, “trespass” or “offense”, it’s clear what Jesus meant.

 

[Michael16]

Now, I’m no Bible scholar, nor do I claim knowledge of the Greek. But, I’ve always had a clear understanding of what Our Lord meant by trespasses. When someone wrongs me; they trespass against me.

 

[Wm777]

To me it doesn’t much matter whether the Our Father uses the word “debt”, “trespass” or “offense”, it’s clear what Jesus meant.

I always appreciate you (name removed by moderator)ut, Tis_Bearself, so I thank you again for participating.

I think you have the right idea.

But, if you want to understand better why I asked, then consider the following scenario… which uses the “debts” translation…

The IRS regards forgiveness of a debt as income to the debtor… So, if I loaned you $1M, and then said you didnt have to pay it back… The IRS would consider it income, and you would be taxed on it… It raises a huge ethical question in practice… and people would start wondering what happened… why would I give you $1M? And could you handle the money responsibly? Suppose the $1M was in the form of an asset, like a house I owned and let you lived in for so long I just decided to give it to you - maybe you wouldn’t even have money to pay the property taxes on it… which could open another can of worms, which might not be something you would necessarily even want…

In a Theological sense, I would be okay in asking God’s forgiveness, as the meaning would be well-intended… but the government, potential creditors, even beneficiaries, etc… they would inevitably have lots of questions pertaining to the transaction… stakeholder witnesses would come forward, claims made, and the good deed wouldn’t go unpunished… It’s actually a cross I think we have to carry, even in modern times…

There are always consequences to our actions, so the concept of property, trespass, debts, etc… all becomes called into question at some point; at some point all things will always come to light… if one is really going to act upon the fifth petition of the Paternoster - then it just seems responsible (n the interest of the second commandment) to try to understand what is actually the most merciful path to follow…

The Lucan expressions seem to veer away from this kind of financial application and interpretation, so we’re left contemplating less pecuniary, and more ethical situations like human rights, crime, etc… so the concept of “property” and inalienable rights, etc… seems to be contemplated differently…

Please know, also, I do overthink things, but then I try to be a considerate and conscientious person, too… so… I would accuse myself of not always having common sense enough to understand everything Jesus says by my own scruples… Mercy, I would agree, is then - by a leap of faith - our only other recourse, which is what really motivates the entirety of the fifth petition anyway…

 

[Michael16]

My question is: Why are you thinking this out?

I mean, when I pray the Our Father; I don’t over think it. I pray it, I mean it and I understand the plain reading of the text.

So, I’m not understanding your question.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This to me is definitely overthinking. I appreciate that you said you recognize you have this tendency.

The IRS wasn’t even invented until the 20th century in USA, and in addition the tax law of the USA is completely man-made based on economic needs and incentives. It is not based in any sort of past common law or moral code. So I don’t see it as having anything to do with the teaching of Jesus. To the extent Jesus used monetary debt as an example, it was private debt between two people: the master lending his servant money, the servant lending the other servant money, etc. When it came to the state taxation authority, he just said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s (and then miraculously came up with a coin to pay the tax).

I don’t have any confusion trying to decide the most merciful path to follow when the bottom line rule is “treat somebody else like you would want to be treated yourself.” That’s pretty easy to do, especially since the vast majority of forgiveness situations out there are not going to carry a risk of someone getting in trouble with the government if you personally forgive them.

 

[Wm777]

Hello Michael,

You ask why I am thinking this out, and, perhaps, why I am talking about it…

The answer is simple: I’m Praying.

In the prayer style of Lectio Divina, one learns to ruminate over scripture… it opens our minds to many of the mysteries of our faith, deepens our understanding of scriptures, and essentially the prayers helps us to realize the good news Jesus gave to us in the economy of salvation…

If you found an old map that lead to an inestimable and priceless treasure, but - although you believed the treasure existed - you hadn’t actually found the treasure because you didn’t quite understand parts of the map… wouldn’t you try to understand it as best you could?

But - even if I understood everything about our faith - it’s still an obligation to pray for others, especially in the fifth petition… So - either way - it is why I asked…