Trespasses and debts

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveBj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DaveBj

Guest
Since the purpose of the new translation of the Mass is to bring the English closer to the Latin, why is it that in the Our Father we’re still saying “. . . trespasses . . . those who trespass against us . . . " when the Latin says " . . . debita . . . debitoribus . . .”?

Just sayin’.
 
I don’t remember the exact place I read it, but that change was considered, but the Lord’s Prayer was left unaltered because it was felt that it would be too big a change from the traditional translation that had been used for a couple hundred years. It is also one of the few liturgical prayers that many people pray on a daily basis.

Personally it would be fine with it. I was raised Presbyterian and said “… forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors …” for the better part of 35 years. I have also seen “trespass” replaced with “sin” (i.e. “… forgive us our sins, as we forgive those that have sinned against us…”)
 
It quick check of the Lords prayer in the Gospel reveals some differences between Matthew and Luke’s versions in their word choices.
Matthew uses the Greek forms for Debt, “Opheilema” in both places whereas Luke uses “Hamartia” (sin) in the first and Debt in the second

So Matthew has, “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” and Luke has, "forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.

The Greek words themselves can have some varying meanings - click on the links
Opheilema
Hamartia

Then we can consider that, especially to us sinful, consumerist, capitalist Americans the term “Debt” and “Debtor” might be thought of in too narrow and improper a sense.

The term “Trespass” is one that, to me, communicates the intent of the Spirit much better.

Can’t say for sure if this played into their consideration but it seems pretty logical to me.

Peace
James
 
DaveBj said:
Since the purpose of the new translation of the Mass is to bring the English closer to the Latin, why is it that in the Our Father we’re still saying “. . . trespasses . . . those who trespass against us . . . " when the Latin says " . . . debita . . . debitoribus . . .”?

Just sayin’.
Click to expand...
Good point. If it’s supposed to be closer to the Latin, “debts” would have been the obvious choice. For that matter, “Sanctified be Thy Name” would have been closer to the Latin sanctificetur nomen tuum as well.
 
Usige said:
snip

Personally it would be fine with it. I was raised Presbyterian and said “… forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors …” for the better part of 35 years. I have also seen “trespass” replaced with “sin” (i.e. “… forgive us our sins, as we forgive those that have sinned against us…”)
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s what I’m actually feeling when I pray that, or “. . .forgive us our offenses as we forgive those who offend me.” However, that doesn’t translate the Latin any better that the word “trespasses” does.

Point of clarification: in private devotions I think it’s okay to change the wording; it’s only in public recitation that it’s mandatory to stick to the Received Translation.
ProVobis said:
Good point. If it’s supposed to be closer to the Latin, “debts” would have been the obvious choice. For that matter, “Sanctified be Thy Name” would have been closer to the Latin sanctificetur nomen tuum as well.
Click to expand...
Not really. “Hallowed” is the German-derived equivalent of the Latin-derived “sanctified.”
 
The Our Father is the one thing that hasn’t only been the same since the 1960s, but since before the reformation. It is like a thread that runs continually through the English language, back to Middle, and almost to Old English unchanged and yet still makes sense today. Sentence structures like ‘Thy will be done’ seem archaic, but still make sense and resonate with that ancient Saxon sounding prayer which all English speaking Christians have known and prayed. Therefore, it is the one thing the translators knew not to touch.
 
DL82 said:
The Our Father is the one thing that hasn’t only been the same since the 1960s, but since before the reformation. It is like a thread that runs continually through the English language, back to Middle, and almost to Old English unchanged and yet still makes sense today. Sentence structures like ‘Thy will be done’ seem archaic, but still make sense and resonate with that ancient Saxon sounding prayer which all English speaking Christians have known and prayed. Therefore, it is the one thing the translators knew not to touch.
Click to expand...
Actually it was Henry VIII who mandated this particular translation.

There have been many versions of the prayer since Christ.

thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm
 
ProVobis said:
Actually it was Henry VIII who mandated this particular translation.

There have been many versions of the prayer since Christ.

thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm
Click to expand...
Very interesting link. Thank you.

The use of “expanded translations” brings added meaning to the plain text of Scripure. Back in the '80s (I think) there was a word-of-faith pastor (Larry Lea, pastor of Church on the Rock in Rockwal, TX) wrote a book entitled Could You Not Tarry One Hour in which he broke down and expanded the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer in such a way that if you did it right, it would take an hour to get through the prayer. That may have been taking things too far, but the pool of theological thought represented by that prayer is definitely deeper than it appears in only its memorized recitation.
 
DaveBj said:
Very interesting link. Thank you.

The use of “expanded translations” brings added meaning to the plain text of Scripure. Back in the '80s (I think) there was a word-of-faith pastor (Larry Lea, pastor of Church on the Rock in Rockwal, TX) wrote a book entitled Could You Not Tarry One Hour in which he broke down and expanded the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer in such a way that if you did it right, it would take an hour to get through the prayer. That may have been taking things too far, but the pool of theological thought represented by that prayer is definitely deeper than it appears in only its memorized recitation.
Click to expand...
Very true - I don’t think that a person could ever exhaust all of the ramifications, avenues, and insights available from meditating on the Lords Prayer.

Early on in my journey, one of the things that I did was to mentally “rewrite”, that is put in my own words, the Lords Prayer. It was an exercise that really opened my eyes and heart to the various petitions.

I have heard some say that the Lords prayer was not intended to be “recited” but rather is to be a “model” for how we should (extemporaneously) pray. These are generally folks who see any “recited” or “repetitious” prayer as problematic, but in this they have a very good point. The Lord’s prayer is both a wonderful prayer to use “verbatim”, where it is prayed in groups, and the model of how all of our prayers, and indeed our entire prayer life, should proceed.

Peace
James
 
One translation of “opheilema” and “debitum” is debt, but the Greek has a wider meaning which can be translated as the English legal expression “tort”. It describes an act of failure to keep our part of a bargain. When the Lord’s Prayer was translated into modern English “trespass” had a similar meaning although now it tends to be restricted to torts of property.

The version of the Lord’s Prayer used in the Church of Scotland seeks forgiveness for debts, but that doesn’t appear to extend to the Scottish banking system.
 
DaveBj said:
Since the purpose of the new translation of the Mass is to bring the English closer to the Latin, why is it that in the Our Father we’re still saying “. . . trespasses . . . those who trespass against us . . . " when the Latin says " . . . debita . . . debitoribus . . .”?

Just sayin’.
Click to expand...
Because we’re not Presbyterians, they are the only ones who say “debts”.
 
DL82 said:
The Our Father is the one thing that hasn’t only been the same since the 1960s, but since before the reformation. It is like a thread that runs continually through the English language, back to Middle, and almost to Old English unchanged and yet still makes sense today. Sentence structures like ‘Thy will be done’ seem archaic, but still make sense and resonate with that ancient Saxon sounding prayer which all English speaking Christians have known and prayed. Therefore, it is the one thing the translators knew not to touch.
Click to expand...
When the Pittsburgh Metropolia revised the Divine Litugy a few years ago, the Lord’s Prayer was left untouched, even though a better English translation could be produced, for this reason; this is a pre-reformation translation shared by all English speaking Christians. (In particular, iirc, they noted that “deliver us from evil” could be better translated as, “deliver us from the evil one.”

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top