Seewald and the PBXVI
This time from God and the World, in the midst of a discussion about the Our Father. This particular question kept me up nights a while back, so I was happy to see it brought up here.
(Seewald) It says at one place in the Our Father: “and lead us not into temptation.” Why should a loving God want to lead us into temptation? Is that a mistake in translation? Frère Roger, the founder of the Taizé movement, an ecumenical religious community in France, suggested that we might pray: “And do not leave us in temptation.”
(PBXVI) That’s been worked over a great deal. I know that Adenaur pressed Cardinal Frings hard on that point, that it couldn’t be right the way it is. And we’re forever getting letters to the same effect. “Lead us not into temptation” is in fact the literal translation of the text. And then of course we ask what it actually means.
The person praying knows that God does not want to force him into what is wrong. He asks God here for his guidance in temptation, so to speak. The Letter of James says explicitly that God, in whom there is no shadow of darkness, does not tempt anyone. But God can put us to the test – think of Abraham – in order to make us more mature, in order to bring us face-to-face with our own depths so as then to be able to bring us back to himself more completely. In that sense, the word “temptation” has various shades of meaning. God never wants to lead us onward to what is evil; that’s quite clear. But it could well be that he does not simply keep temptation away from us, that as we said, he helps us in temptation and leads us through it.
In any case, we ask him not to allow us to get into temptations that might make us slide into evil ways; that he not subject us to tests that strain us beyond our powers; that he not set aside his power and leave us on beyond our powers; that he not set aside his power and leave us on our own, that he knows our weakness and therefore will protect us so that we are not lost.
(Seewald) In short: the prayer stays the way it is?
(PBXVI) I would say yes. It would not be entirely wrong to make translations consistent with the meaning, like that of Roger Schutz and other suggestions. But it seems to me better to have the humility to leave the original words and to pray oneself into its depths.
(Seewald) It says at one place in the Our Father: “and lead us not into temptation.” Why should a loving God want to lead us into temptation? Is that a mistake in translation? Frère Roger, the founder of the Taizé movement, an ecumenical religious community in France, suggested that we might pray: “And do not leave us in temptation.”
(PBXVI) That’s been worked over a great deal. I know that Adenaur pressed Cardinal Frings hard on that point, that it couldn’t be right the way it is. And we’re forever getting letters to the same effect. “Lead us not into temptation” is in fact the literal translation of the text. And then of course we ask what it actually means.
The person praying knows that God does not want to force him into what is wrong. He asks God here for his guidance in temptation, so to speak. The Letter of James says explicitly that God, in whom there is no shadow of darkness, does not tempt anyone. But God can put us to the test – think of Abraham – in order to make us more mature, in order to bring us face-to-face with our own depths so as then to be able to bring us back to himself more completely. In that sense, the word “temptation” has various shades of meaning. God never wants to lead us onward to what is evil; that’s quite clear. But it could well be that he does not simply keep temptation away from us, that as we said, he helps us in temptation and leads us through it.
In any case, we ask him not to allow us to get into temptations that might make us slide into evil ways; that he not subject us to tests that strain us beyond our powers; that he not set aside his power and leave us on beyond our powers; that he not set aside his power and leave us on our own, that he knows our weakness and therefore will protect us so that we are not lost.
(Seewald) In short: the prayer stays the way it is?
(PBXVI) I would say yes. It would not be entirely wrong to make translations consistent with the meaning, like that of Roger Schutz and other suggestions. But it seems to me better to have the humility to leave the original words and to pray oneself into its depths.
posted by Quin Finnegan at 9:05 PM
8 Comments:
Lead us not into blogtation.
Soldier killed in Iraq questioned 'f---tarded' war plan on blog
"Before he died when his truck overturned during combat in Baghdad, Sgt. Thomas Strickland, 27, posted an entry on his weblog sharing his anger about the situation in Iraq," in which he questioned the United ...
Lose 10 Pounds Quickly! I have a diet tip site/blog. It covers diet tip related stuff.
Never before has a post generated so much interest! Thanks to all of you - I signed up for as many products as I could in return. Really; as many as I could.
Regarding B16's last remark, I'll only add that the sentence, "it would not be entirely wrong to make translations consistent with the meaning..." seems a little dubious to me. Isn't meaning derived from the words we use - particularly in something such as this? For that reason I think he's absolutely right to conclude "better to have the humility to leave the original words and to pray oneself into its depths." Although that prompts a further question: How does one then get out of these depths? Without developing a serious case of the bends?
?
JW: this deserves to be posted on korrektiv.
Q: this is the most bizarre shitstorm of blogspam ever seen by blogkind. maybe you shd implement that new blogger comment thing.
Yep; sure is. Of course with real storms down there in the Gulf it's hard to complain about it - in fact I kind of enjoy it. For a while I thought it just sorda 'happened' whenever I posted myself. Now I think I have a better idea ... although I can't figure out how so many were generated so quickly. I'm pretty ignorant with all this new fangled stuff. And what's this about a new blogger comment thing?
And to be honest, those glyco flex products are pretty awesome.
If you go to settings -- comments -- there is a new option called "word verification" that is supposed to stop automated comment spam of this sort.
Thanks! Although I wonder if it's automated...
Post a Comment
<< Home