A reader writes:
I’m on the RCIA team for my parish, and this past week, a gentleman asked me if I could find out something for him about the Our Father. His mother says the line above as "in earth as it is in heaven" and he said she told him that’s how it used to be or that was how her translation of the Bible had it. I asked him what denomination she was, and he said just a regular Protestant, non-denominational.
I’ve tried checking out a few sites with different Bible translations and have not found any that say "in" earth. Wondered if you had any historical information as to this question.
This man is very very interested and knowledgeable about the Faith and is very much looking forward to the Easter Vigil and coming into the Church. I suspect he may be getting a little grief from his family, and the poor man is aggravated by, as he puts it, "a one letter difference," so I told him I would try to find out for him.
Your friend may be right that his mother is getting this from her ordinary translation of the New Testament. Many groups of Protestants still use the King James Version of Scripture as their ordinary translation, and in this translation it does read "in earth as it is in heaven" (SOURCE). So that’s likely where this is coming from.
As to the reasonability of the "on"/"in" translation, this comes from the Greek of the text. In the Greek New Testament, there is a difference in the prepositions that are present in the two phrases. The "earth" phrase is introduced by the preposition epi, which would naturally be rendered by "on," "upon" or something like that, while the "heaven" phrase is introduced by the preposition en, which would naturally be rendered by "in." So there is a distinction in the Greek between the two phrases.
The image that is conveyed by the Greek prepositions seems to be one in which the person saying the prayer is located on earth, which is below the heaven where God’s will is performed perfectly. We’re thus asking that his will be done on earth (i.e., down here) the way it is up there (i.e., in heaven).
This seems to be what the Greek translator has in mind, informing the English language translation, though if we want to trace this all the way back to its rootes, we have to go into the Aramaic.
Here we find something different.
It’s always hard to translate prepositions from one language to another, because prepositions can mean a variety of things, and their meanings don’t perfectly overlap from one language to another. That’s a problem that happens with all words, but it particularly happens with prepositions.
If we look at common Aramaic versions of the Our Father (LIKE THIS ONE), we find that the preposition introducing both the "earth" phrase and the "heaven" phrase is b-, giving us bish-maya ("in/on heaven") and b’ar-ah ("in/on earth").
The distinction between the two thus likely wasn’t there in the original Aramaic of this prayer. Jesus probably said b-heaven and b-earth, which could be translated "in heaven" or "on heaven" and "in earth" or "on earth." It was up to the translator to decide what was best.
The Greek translator decided that–in Greek–it sounded more natural to say "in (en) heaven" and "on (epi) earth," and many English translators looking at the Greek have decided similarly, leading to the standard English translation of the Lord’s Prayer. The translators of the King James Version seem to have decided differently, rendering the preposition as "in" in both cases.
But this is not an essential point. It’s a matter of translation (specifically, a matter of English translation that does not apply to other languages), and I suspect that your friend’s difficulties with his family may involve weightier matters in the end.
Still, let’s keep him–and them–in prayer.
I thought “in” the earth only applied to hobbits.
And Dwarfs, er.. Dwarrows, er.. Dwarves.
Jay, you’re absolutely right. What was I thinking?
I don’t understand myself where these Aramaic translations come from, or at least why they would impact Biblical translations. We’re translating it from the inspired Greek, which is really what matters, isn’t it? The Aramaic versions are merely the translations from Greek into Aramaic, unless I’m missing something. One reason I ask this question is because I have seen Aramaic translations like the one on that website which seem to (when represented in English) say something completely different from what I see when I open up a Bible. Are these Aramaic translations being done with a bias to some odd theology, or is that just the closest we can render it in Aramaic? If the latter is the case, wouldn’t that mean that what Jesus actually said to His desciples was this rather foreign theology?
Shane, you’re going to get into the whole “What language(s) did Jesus speak” issue with your question.
While yes, the Gospels were originally written in Greek (though there is a school of thought that Matthew may have been originally in Aramaic) when speaking to ordinary people in 1st century Judea and Galilee he would have addressed them in Aramaic the everyday language of the people. (I’m not going to tackle the did He speak Greek issue here, though my personal opinion is yes) The Sermon on the Mount and the Lord’s Prayer being examples of this kind of discourse.
So the Gospel writers, either having heard the prayer personally or had it reported to them by someone who had, then translated Jesus’ original Aramaic into the more cosmopolitan Greek.
Another question for you all:
Why does the Latin of the text switch from singular to plural for “heaven”? “Qui es in coelis” “In coelo et in terra”?
>>So the Gospel writers, either having heard the prayer personally or had it reported to them by someone who had, then translated Jesus’ original Aramaic into the more cosmopolitan Greek<< I'll repeat Shane's question in another fashion. The original gospel, in Greek, Aramaic or Urdu would have been inspired by the Holy Spirit thus the words written down would be the "correct" wording for that language. Or, again, the Holy Spirit would handle the translation issues as the writer puts the words to paper. So extrapolating back to Aramaic, though important, is not necessarily "the" way to find an answer. A side example of this would be the discourse of the Last Supper where, some say, Jesus would have been speaking Hebrew not Aramaic as it was a solemn occasion thus any backtracking to Aramaic would be inaccurate. Possible also that, as Jesus was teaching a formal prayer, that he stated the Our Father in Hebrew originally. Or even let me wildly speculate: Maybe he taught it to the apostles in Hebrew but taught it to Gentile listeners in Latin and the writer was mentally translating backwards from Latin into Aramaic and forward into Greek as he wrote. Anyway though the Holy Spirit covered any translation “errors” that would occur. Latin: Heavens. No scholar I but I suspect that the word in Latin is plural. Even in English there’s a subtle difference between “the heavens” and heaven.
Oh, I understand the issue of what did Jesus speak. I suppose my more important question is, why is it whenever I see an Aramaic version of the Our Father with it’s english equivalent alongside, the english equivalent is nothing like any verion of the Our Father I’ve ever seen before? For instance, look at the link Jimmy provided. We have “And leave us serene,
just as we also allowed others serenity,” rather than ‘forgive us our trespasses,” etc.
Better yet, read the bottom of the page that Jimmy linked to. The author tries to give an explanation of why his version says ‘serene’ instead of trespasses or such, but in the end, he is appealing to his Aramaic version as though the Greek must be wrong; in other words, he is judging the Greek version on the basis of the Aramaic version! But didn’t he just get the Aramaic version by translating it from the Greek in the first place? What’s going on here?
IMHO, the Our Father is the greatest prayer of all time.
It is also one of the most discussed with respect to origins. For those interested in such commentary, see for example:
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb027.html and
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb120.html
@Patrick
The Latin is just following the Greek, which also alternates between the singular and plural of ‘ouranos’.
@Shane
This particular version of the Aramaic Our Father was most likely derived from the Peshitta, an ancient Syriac translation of the Bible. Syriac is/was a dialect of Aramaic spoken in what is modern-day Turkey, and a tremendous amount of Christian literature has survived. The Peshitta is important in establishing the text of the New Testament, as it is a very early witness, perhaps as early as the second century. There is a very small group of scholars who argue for Aramaic primacy in the New Testament, and there are various Christian groups and sects that hold the Peshitta to be the original, and the Greek a translation.
Though Jesus may have spoken Greek, and I also think he would have spoken at least some, his native language would probably have been Galilean Aramaic, and as Jimmy pointed out, the “in/on” distinction was probably not even present in Aramaic. Semitic prepositions have a wide semantic range, and prepositions are often very difficult to translate anyway – especially in a text like the New Testament, where the Greek is strongly influenced by Semitic thought patterns and modes of expression.
I am not familiar with Galilean Aramaic, as I currently study Syriac and have not begun to study other Aramaic dialects, but the version Jimmy links to is instantly recognizable as the Lord’s Prayer. I would take issue with the author’s translation of certain terms, if he is indeed attempting to be literal.
IMHO, the Our Father is the greatest prayer of all time.
It is also one of the most discussed with respect to origins. For those interested in such commentary, see for example:
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb027.html and
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb120.html
Posted by: Realist | Feb 7, 2007 2:54:34 PM
For Our New Visitors, Kindly Ignore the ‘Crossan’ Crap that is represented by Realist
IMHO, the Our Father is the greatest prayer of all time.
It is also one of the most discussed with respect to origins. For those interested in such commentary, see for example:
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb027.html and
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb120.html
Posted by: Realist | Feb 7, 2007 2:54:34 PM
For Our New Visitors, Kindly Ignore the ‘Crossan’ Crap that is represented by Realist
Ugh!
Hate Double-Posts!
Sed the the Mass no?
Or is it?
Got to give it thought and consultation.
I am overall very impressed with prepositions in English as they seem to carry a degree of exactitude that does not exist in the Asian languages I know.
But I would also like to point out that usage differs even among native English speakers. For example, in America we say “My house is ON Akin Street” whereas in England they say “My house is IN Akin Street.”
Kooky, huh?
The Lord’s Prayer
in the Ancient Aramaic language
http://www.v-a.com/bible/prayer.html
(with sound)
Galilean transliteration of the Lord’s Prayer
Avvon d-bish-maiya, nith-qaddash shim-mukh.
Tih-teh mal-chootukh. Nih-weh çiw-yanukh:
ei-chana d’bish-maiya: ap b’ar-ah.
Haw lan lakh-ma d’soonqa-nan yoo-mana.
O’shwooq lan kho-bein:
ei-chana d’ap kh’nan shwiq-qan l’khaya-ween.
Oo’la te-ellan l’niss-yoona:
il-la paç-çan min beesha.
Mid-til de-di-lukh hai mal-choota
oo khai-la oo tush-bookh-ta
l’alam al-mein. Aa-meen.
Matthew 6:9-13
“Therefore, this is how you shall pray:
Our heavenly Father, hallowed is your name.
Your Kingdom is come. Your will is done,
As in heaven so also ON earth.
Give us the bread for our daily need.
And leave us serene,
just as we also allowed others serenity.
And do not pass us through trial,
except separate us from the evil one.
For yours is the Kingdom,
the Power and the Glory
To the end of the universe, of all the universes.” Amen!
+J.M.J+
If I remember from my on again/off again attempts to teach myself Latin, the Latin preposition “in” is sometimes better translated “on.” For instance, the sentence “The boy is on the horse” would be: “Puer in equuo est” (something like that). “In equuo” means “on (the) horse,” not “in the horse” (which we might be tempted to think at first, based on English usage of the preposition “in”).
If the same goes for Greek or Aramaic, then their equivalent of the phrase “in earth” would be “on earth” for us. Don’t know if that helps at all….
In Jesu et Maria,
Perhaps the problem is not the use of “in,” but the use of “earth” instead of “the world.” We commonly say that we are “in the world” but not of the world — we don’t say “in the earth, but not of the earth.”
The word “earth” is not from either Greek or Latin origin. If the Lord’s Prayer used “the world” instead of “earth” (and I don’t see any reason not to, from an English translation perspective) then the use of “in” would make perfect sense.
Those Aramaic translations are nothing but speculations and the most glaring sign is that they include the final doxology that all know came into being thanks to a side note by a medieval copier.
FWIW, my mother tongue, Portuguese, has many fewer prepositions than English and the same preposition is used in both cases.
Serenity? Perhaps Our Lord was a Joss Whedon science fiction movie fan? 😉
More seriously: is it plausible that there is no Aramaic equivalent to “debts” or “trespasses”? Many of Jesus’ parables are focused on the importance of forgiveness, and make no kind of sense that I can see with respect to serenity. I mean, what about that fella who grabs his fellow-servant by the throat and demands: “Be serene!” 😉
I’ve had to unlearn the KJV English myself–I was taught “Our Father which art in Heaven … in Earth as it is in Heaven … as we forgive them that trespass against us…”.
Some of the BCP/KVJ English is gorgeous, and I’m glad a lot of Catholics would like to get the liturgical English a bit less bland, but at the same time some of it was completely unnecessary/optional.
+J.M.J+
>>>Serenity? Perhaps Our Lord was a Joss Whedon science fiction movie fan? 😉
have no place
I can be
since I found Serenity
but you can’t take the sky from me…. 🙂
In Jesu et Maria,