Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
Matthew 6:9b-13: A Latino/a Optic on Translation
Francisco Lozada, Jr.
Brite Divinity School
Introduction
In the history of scholarship on the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9b-13, interpretations
have primarily focused on the text’s history of composition, examining the prayer’s relationship
to Q, the prayer’s comparative relationship to Jewish prayers, or its editorial development in
relationship to Luke’s version of the prayer. Whereas a contextual dimension of the Lord’s
Prayer background was explored, namely, the compositional history of the text, the context of
the readers reading this text was not a focus of attention. In today’s paper, I aim to explore the
context of the reader, myself, as well as another context of text’s background–the translation
history of the text. The translation history will be explored briefly in this paper and extensively
in depth at a later time. It is the context of this reader that will be given more attention this
afternoon and it will be done by way of providing a Latino/a optic brought to the issue of
translation of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew.
In contextual hermeneutics, as argued by many and as part of the assignment we were
given, it is pertinent to take seriously the contexts of the reader and the text. But what does this
mean? At times this principle has led to a delineation of the social location of the reader,
although brief, yet vital to one’s reading of a text. At other times, this principle has led to an
autobiographical reading of the reader, again although brief very important to the interpretative
process. The principle has led to a third direction as well with a delineation of communities’
social and cultural condition in relationship to the text as illustrative of liberation hermeneutics
across the globe. In all three directions, but especially the first two, the context of the reader and
1
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
the context of the reader’s community need further exploration other than just naming one’s
cultural and social location. Reading from a Latino/a optic, for me, is both about learning in
relation to a particular condition reflected in the Latino/a community and other communities, but
also an opportunity to use the text as a laboratory to explore the question of identity of the role of
the reader in the interpretative process. My aim in this first part is to move toward this latter
point further by taking seriously both the reader and the text. The aim is not meant to solidify
the reader to the status of marginality or otherness by naming my context, but rather to change
the perception of my context, that is, pushing my Latino identity away from a construction of
otherness toward one of engagement with the wider world (Sugi). A second aim in this analysis
is not intended to avoid the text and its development, but rather to bring balance to the reader and
the text. These aims are behind today’s paper.
As such, with regard to examination of the reader’s context, the focus of this first part
will center on translation. Associated with translation is the element of language. Language is
one identity factor that identifies my context, but it is also one that other readers—as many here
in this room today can identify with as part of their identity and context. The issue of translation
and language is also one that pertains to the issue of empire as it is with the Lord’s Prayer in
Matthew as I will explore more in depth at a later time. In so doing, I shall provide a reading,
informed both my identity as a child of colonized parents, but also by my identity as a US Latino
living (second generation) in a context where translation is a matter of intercultural
communication, power relations, and forms of domination (Young…..). This contextual
background will be brought to bear on the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and the issues of translation
and interpretation that follow its production and reception. I shall argue that no translation is
done from a neutral space, including the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew. Therefore, a Latino/a optic
2
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
brought to bear on the issue of translation enables a different meaning of the prayer: one in
which reads the translated prayer as a retranslation of colonial desires and contradictions, which
are detrimental to marginal communities such as the Latino/a community in the US.
Context of the Reader
I have identified my context thus far along two lines: the first, as a child of colonized
parents and second as a US Latino. In so doing, I aim to provide a glimpse of these two aspects
through the topic of translation. As a child of colonized parents who migrated to the US from
Puerto Rico and now identifying myself as a US Latino of second generation background,
translation remains an issue of identity for me in the US as well as with many other communities
in the US whose first language is not English, or, as in my case, whose first language is now
English yet whose consciousness is still colored by Spanish (e.g., I still dream in Spanish at
times) and whose mispronunciation of English and Spanish words point away from a notion of
originality or native speech. In the case of English, various mispronunciation of English words
point to my Latino identity as one whose context was not English, and, with Spanish, my
pronunciation and dialect of words point to my not being a native of Latin America. This is not
unique to my situation since language, vocabulary, and accents (away from what is considered
standard or the model) will always point to where someone is located. As such, translation is
quite complex and intertwined with all sorts of factors principally with language. In what
follows, I aim to engage this topic of translation and language by way of autobiography but also
by examining various issues related to the topic of translation.
From Subject to Object: Translation and Language
3
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
As one grew up very young speaking Spanish, and then losing much of its oral skills
through the effects of assimilation on many fronts, translation of language and culture has always
been at the forefront in terms of translating my identity for myself. In particular when one’s own
communities in the US and in Latin American define identity strongly based on the sole
characteristic of speaking Spanish, as in my case, the effects of displacing my identity as an
Other—as with other individuals with similar experiences—even within my own community is
the resultant effect (See Segovia…..).1 The language one speaks or does not speak in one’s own
home, that is, the language of one’s parents, is a process of translating identity. When I do not
speak Spanish or do choose within my own US Latino community or in Latin America or in the
US in general, someone is translating something about me. I have strongly assimilated into US
English-speaking society as some Latinos/as and Latin Americans perceive. I am recognize this
reality when someone tells me that I speak like a “gringo,” indicating that I am someone
different and different from native speakers. Other responses or interpretations included: I am
now an “Americano” (US American) as with the case of my family in Puerto Rico, and, I am cast
as one who does not care about the language as in the case of various communities in the US.2
At one time, I translated such comments as one who was too lazy to learn my parent’s language
(or my parents were too lazy to teach me).3 This is no longer the case since I have detranslated
such comments, that is, I have refused this particular translation. Though, I know that I am
consistently transformed from a subject to an object. In other words, the U.S. Latino who goes
to Latin America and finds himself/herself translated, due to their lack of Spanish finds
1
Also, see Matthew 26:73…..which provides a glimpse at the story level that accents were identity markers in
antiquity.
2
There is “Americano” which points to being part of the bullish imperial north and there is “Amerícano” which
points to the dream of living in the US…. (See Stavans…….).
3
See Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks……..
4
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
him/herself translated from a U.S. Latino to an Anglo, and a U.S. Latino without the command
of the Spanish language goes into his/her own communities finds him/herself as not really
Latino/a. These are the realities of migration, globalization, empire, or colonization and its
resultant effects have a negative impact among many within a community. This experience is not
unique to my situation; one can find this across many other communities in the US and across
the globe. The reality is that we are always translating something or someone from subject to
object—as I do myself when I translate others and when I translate the biblical text like the
Lord’s Prayer.
Hierarchy of Language
As I mentioned, associated with the process of translation, exists language which consists
in a hierarchy. In other words, similar to class, ethnicity/race, and nationality, language exists in
a hierarchy. This is found evidenced within the English language. For example, those who
speak closest to the “prestigious” English of England are considered closer to the original
language and people. Likewise, in Spanish, those who speak the prestigious Spanish of Spain
speak closest to the original language (Castilian Spanish) and people of Spain. This is quite
illustrative of other languages as well I suspect. One can also take it even further to the context
within the US, those who speak closest to the prestigious English of New England dialect are
closer to the original language and people of the colonial period (e.g., William Buckley comes to
mind). Those who speak the “non-prestigious” US English like the perceived less educated,
rural society, and the regionalism of the South are further removed from the colonial period.
Among US Latinos/as, whose roots are from Latin America, those who speak closer to
the “prestigious” language of Latin American’s colonizer, Spain, are closer to Spain than to Latin
5
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
America—even though those language and dialects of Spanish in Latin America are products of
the historical colonization of the territory in Latin America and indigenous populations (see
Poblete…..). Translation and language become part of the domination of a subject into an
object. It is a process of achieving control, carried out through the process of translating
language, culture, and people, and texts by the people being translated. The act of translation, as
with the case of geographical landscape and texts, “is an act of desacralizing” as with the case of
Australia, Ireland, New Zealand and Nigeria (see Young….and Stavans) where mapping became
the necessary adjunct of imperialism,” and as with the case in US, where mapping became the
necessary adjunct of imperialism by the English as well as by the French and Spanish.
Translation also consists in a hierarchy with the formal correspondence perceived closer to the
original text’s meaning than a dynamic approach within our own field of biblical studies. (See
Gooder……) [More on this latter point needs development.]
Translator
The act of translation of a language always involves a translator. The translator is always
involved—consciously or unconsciously—in “false” (as some employ) or alternative
translations. The most famous in Latin American history is La Malinche (also known as
Malintzin, Malinalli or Dona Marina) who served as a Nahua translator for Hernan Cortez and
the Spanish Conquistadores, who relied on her for understanding almost everything about the
native Costal Gulf peoples of Mexico whom they encountered (Stavans). Unfortunately, for
some, she has been portrayed as a traitor, hence her name La Malinche (unpatriotic Mexican, see
Stavans….). In her translations of places, she committed translations by representing another
culture once removed from the indigenous culture but nonetheless a translation and interpretation
6
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
of the original. Her role is similar to the role of Sacagawea who played role of translator for
Lewis and Clark in the 18th century.4 Both of these women are no different than any of us who
play the role of translator, including the translation of the text. We are once or twice removed
from the original but nonetheless a translation and interpretation filtered through a particular
lens. Similar occurrences occurred with the French and the Spaniards in North America.
Whether it is an act of diplomacy, treachery, or an act of resistance, translations open up the
space for the appropriation of a conquering culture through the role of translation (Sugirtharajah
…….. ). Finally, with the Latino/a experience, which varies depending upon which generation
(first, second, third) one is a part of in the US and ethnic background, and geographical location
in the US to name a few factors, Latinos/as may speak a Spanish dialect considered by the
“guard” of the language as a “non-prestigious” dialect that reflects their regional home country
as opposed to those who speak a “prestigious” dialect of Spanish reflected by the “guard” of the
language as from Latin America or Spain.5 The Spanish dialect in all its formations exists in a
hierarchy for better or worse. At the same time, all Spanish-speaking people are engaged in the
act of translation in the US and all are being translated by their pan-Latino/a constituencies as
well as by the dominant English-speaking constituencies. For instance, for those who are recent
immigrants from less developed countries in Latin America, their dialect of Spanish is typically
perceived by many (not all) Spanish teachers (mainly by non-native but not exclusively) as not
formal Spanish or not the Spanish spoken in Spain—which is the model Spanish taught in many
high schools and university programs (Poblete……). The aim is to teach Spanish to Latinos/as
4
Actually, she translated Shoshone to Hidatsa who translated from Shoshone to French
Charbonneau, who translated French to Labiche who translated from French to English to Lewis
and Clark. See ……..
5
The guard I am referring to is the Real Academia Espanola de la Lengua…….
7
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
as if they were Anglo-speakers and not Heritage speakers, that is, Latinos/as whose ancestors
spoke Spanish at one time or whose aural skills are stronger than their oral skills or who leave
certain letters out of their pronunciations (e.g., eta for esta which is very typical of Caribbean
dialect)6 and writings (e.g., poyo for pollo, llo for yo) or use words what is sometimes called
Spanglish--the mixing of Spanish and English words in syntax in the US (e.g., washerteria).7
These Latinos/as are often perceived as “weak” speakers rather than “strong.” They are judged
by their pronunciations and writing skills as opposed to their knowledge. In other words,
heritage speakers were perceived as having a lack of literacy and constantly corrected for their
use of wrong standard Spanish orthography in Spanish classes. As such, many Latinos/as, those
who traveled to the center from the periphery are constantly cultural translators. As cultural
translators, they are translated by their use of Spanish. They also encounter other translated
people and translate their own home experiences to each other to form new languages as with the
case of Spanglish (Stavans…..
What does all this have to do with translating the Lord’s Prayer? Translation and
language as discussed already are intertwined in culture as many can attest to coming from
different cultural contexts, and it involves power and a “betrayal” of sorts. As the Latin saying
goes, tradutore, traiditore (translator, traitor) we are always moving away from the original as
many Latinos/as and other marginal groups are doing by moving away from the standard use of a
language (e.g., Spanish or English). But translation is not simply a one way process. It is a two
way process in which I translate the text and the text translates me. It is a cultural interaction
and, an act of re-empowerment (Sugi…). In my translation of the Lord’s Prayer, I aim to explore
6
7
See Poblete, p. 178.
Ilan Stavens, Spanglish, p……
8
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
this cultural interaction and re-translate this text and myself in the process with the goal of
exploring the text’s colonial desires.
Context of the Text
Given this background on translation and language from the view of a Latino/a optic,
how would such a background play a role when applied to the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew (6:9b13). In this second part of the paper for today, I will explore briefly one traditional issue related
to translation of the prayer. As a conclusion, I will propose some further question that I intend to
explore in a more developed fashion.
One of the major issues regarding Matthew’s prayer is how to translate the Greek words
opheilēmata/tois opheiletais (“debts”/“debtors” or “trespass” / “those who trespasses”). As in
any translation, a betrayal of the “original” exists.8 As such, the quest for the “original” meaning
and context is an aim for translators. Such quest leads readers in the English-speaking world to
decide which translation to use in Matthew’s prayer. Does one use “debts” /debtors” or
“trespass” / “those who trespasses”? It is the former that has prevailed in many English
translations.9 My point here is not to challenge the prevailing translation of Matthew 6:12, and
thus argue for a different one over against “debts”/”debtors”. Rather, what I am proposing here
8
The notion of “original” is problematic.
ASV (And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors); New American Standard (And forgive us our
debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors); NIV (Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors); RSV
(And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors); NRSV (And forgive us our debts, as we also have
forgiven our debtors); New American Bible (and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors). In Spanish,
Sagrada Biblia (como también nosotros perdonamos a los que nos ofenden); La Biblia de las Américas ( Y
perdónanos nuestras deudas, como también nosotros hemos perdonado a nuestros deudores); La Biblia
Latinoamerica (y perdona nuestras deudas, como tambien nosotros perdonamos a nuestros deudores; La Nueva
Internacional (Perdónanos nuestras deudas, como también nosotros hemos perdonado a nuestros deudores).
9
9
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
to explore the possibility of the changes one makes to this prayer when translation occurs. In
other words, the material identity of the prayer changes when words are translated. It is this
moment of translation that its identity changes. For instance, an “upper class” national Mexican
who comes to the US is translated from a third-world Mexican to a third-world Latino/a; his or
her identity changes. The Lord’s Prayer also changes its material identity during the process of
translation. It is this change of material identity I am interested in exploring in this project and
its ramifications for communities today when a Latino/a optic is brought to bear on it. In other
words, how would the translated prayer change in the context of a Latino/a world for instance?
The translation of opheilēmata/tois opheiletais as “debts” and “debtors” has its roots
found in the KJV10 of the Bible of 1611, which drew its translations from the Latin Vulgate11
with the words debita and debitoribus. As readers have learned from Sugirtharajah’s work on
the KJV’s reception history, these translations are part of the colonial enterprise of the British
Culture and Empire, who imposed upon its colonies this translation that became the standard
translation til the present (Sugi, ). Others important translators such as William Tyndale (1526)
preferred “trespass” and “tresspassers” (“And forgeve vs oure treaspases eve as we forgeve oure
trespacers”), yet Myles Coverdale (1535) in his translation of the prayer translates the Greek as
“debts” and “debtors” (And forgeue vs oure dettes, as we also forgeue oure deters). John
Wycliff in 1395 (and foryyue to vs oure dettis, as we foryyuen to oure dettouris) follows the
same translation.
The history of translation of Matthew’s Lord’s prayer varies in translations but the
dominant tradition has remained along the lines of translating in English opheilēmata/tois
10
11
(And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters). --KJV
(et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimisimus debitoribus nostris )—Latin Vulgate
10
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
opheiletais as “debts” and “debtors.” However, both are possible translations of the ancient
Greek terms opheilēmata/tois opheiletais. With the translation of the Christian Bible into Latin
in the 2nd-3rd century, English translators, by the 14th century, took the two key Latin words
which looked similar to the English “debts” and “debtors,” from which they were translated and
used in the prayer. In the Latin Catholic Mass, which bases the Lord’s Prayer on Matthew’s
version, reads “Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus” which reads in
English as “and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”12
Given this brief history on the background of the English rendering of opheilēmata/tois
opheiletais, how does a Latino/a optic impact the material identity of this part of the prayer?
[What follows still needs much clarity and development.] In other words, How can a Latino/a
perspective receive these words given the social-economic situation impacting them today? In
what follows briefly, allow me to explore this line of questioning a bit more by way of several
questions I have in mind.
(1) First, how do I read these terms, “debts/debtors” or “trespass/those who trespass”
given the Latino/a socio-economic realities today?
(2) Second, given how these terms might be heard/read in English and Spanish how
might these words change the material identity of the prayer?
(3) In the Latino/a Christian (evangelical) context, where the prosperity gospel is in full
bloom, how might the hearing/reading of the prayer change or be translated in relationship to the
“American dream”?
In conclusion, further analysis of several other key translation items needs analysis, such
as “father,” “kingdom,” and “evil” in relation to how they impact the material reality of the
12
Latin-English Booklet Missal for Praying the Traditional Mass, Illinois: October 2009 (fourth edition), pp. 38-39.
11
Please do not cite this paper. It is still very much unfinished and unpolished. The ideas present are
informed by other readings yet to be cited. This paper is simply to help other readers understand what I
am trying to accomplish or experiment in the field of contextual hermeneutics.
prayer. Not to mention that an analysis of the representation of the Matthean reality and its
ramifications of this prayer for today’s readers, given the reader’s and the text’s historical and
social reality regarding translation, will also follow.
12