Talk:Lord's Prayer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Added an apostrophe to this article, and fixed the links to it. Left Lords Prayer as a redirect.

I was just wondering why the text of the prayer is not included and a discussion of the meaning of its' contents? Obviously then, my next question is, will anyone be averse to its' inclusion? george 22:24, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Catholics, when reciting the Lord's prayer, omit the doxology, since in the Mass it is separated from the rest of the prayer by the additional section.

This is not really true. I'm catholic and I'm used to pray it including the doxology. I've learned it that way at school and therefor assume that I'm not the only one doing so. -- JeLuF 22:48 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

It's omitted in the Latin Mass, I've noticed, which they still hold at St. Paschal Baylon in Toronto. So perhaps the doxology is only omitted in Latin. -- Mephistopheles

In Massachusetts, U.S.... I recently attended a Catholic wedding in which the priest said "Let us now say the Lord's Prayer." He then did so, in English, and stopped at "deliver us from evil." He then paused for about ten seconds and said "OK, have the Protestants had time to catch up?" (In case I haven't conveyed the mood, it was very pleasant--I certainly perceived his intention to be welcoming and inclusionary). Dpbsmith 18:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm Catholic and never learned it using the doxology. Also recall reading something to the effect that it was more of a Protestant thing, as it were. :) We use it at mass, separated from the rest of the prayer by another little blurb by the priest ("Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. Protect us from all (unnecessary) anxiety, etc, ect.") before the congregation does the doxology. I had actually done an edit similar to the one above, but I reverted it, since I guess my case isn't the same as everyone else's. --Jen Moakler 04:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true. The doxology is not said as part of the prayer but if at all as a separate prayer in both the Tridentine and Pauline Masses. I would be highly surprised if a Catholic school actually taught the doxology as part of the prayer. If they did it was rather a big theological faux pas on their part, as they weren't supposed to. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 30 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Is there any reason for the Croatian, German, Swedish versions? Couldn't they be in other language Wikipedias? --Henrygb 17:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree, or a separate page could be created with the Lord's Prayer in many different languages of the world. Otherwise, I assume it's better to remove the versions in these three languages. Meursault2004 20:54, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
They're there, like the versions in archaic languages, for purposes of comparison, and so should stay. orthogonal 03:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"In Greek (from which all others are translated):"

Wouldn't the original be in Aramaic, as that was what Jesus spoke? Of course, whether the Aramaic version we have now is the same as the original is another question. DopefishJustin 21:31, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
Possibly the Aramaic was the original, but I guess that all others were translated generally from greek or latin or perhaps from later translations being closer (either in language or in availability) to the clerics.

Certainly the original could have been in Aramaic, yes! I meant the original 'written' version.

There is some evidence that Jesus spoke some Greek, (and possibly even Latin!). Want to discuss?

Of course a Christian view is that he speaks all languages.

Timlane

Is there any chance of this page somewhere addressing the new age-style versions that seems quite popular around the internet. The following seems to be the most popular:

A Translation of "Our Father" directly from the Aramaic into English
(rather than from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English)
by Mark Hathaway


O cosmic Birther of all radiance and vibration!
Soften the ground of our being and carve out a space within us where your Presence can abide.
Fill us with your creativity so that we may be empowered to bear the fruit of your mission.
Let each of our actions bear fruit in accordance with your desire.
Endow us with the wisdom to produce and share what each being needs to grow and flourish.
Untie the tangled threads of destiny that bind us, as we release others from the entanglement of past :mistakes.
Do not let us be seduced by that which would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the :opportunities of the present moment.
For you are the ground and the fruitful vision, the birth-power and fulfillment, as all is gathered :and made whole once again.

added a new transcription of a scots-gaelic version from a scan @ http://www.christusrex.org/www1/pater/JPN-scottish.html, "The Lord's Prayer in the Principal Languages, Dialects and Versions of the World, printed in Type and Vernaculars of the Different Nations, compiled and published by G.F. Bergholtz", Chicago, Illinois, 1884. Badanedwa 02:31, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, somebody verify and add to page: In the US, the RCs deviate from the Douay Bible's version "debts...debtors" to use the "trespasses...trespass" of the 1928 Episcopal Book of common Prayer, but the latest Episcopal version uses "debts...debtors". Is this a case of RC assimilation followed later by Episcopal ecumenicism? I don't know, that's why this is here and not in the article. Maybe a religious person can follow up? orthogonal 03:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"the most well-known" This phrase is a symptom of terminal tone-deafness among writers of mediocre English who are not listening to what they say... Wetman 02:48, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yet you didn't correct it? I have changed the phrase to "best-known", in response to your complaint. Lesgles 17:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] French "tu" and "vous"

I have edited the French form to put the informal "tu" form throughout (the previous version had a mix of both), qualifying at the top that some people use the formal "vous". The phrase "notre père qui es aux cieux" gets more hits in Google than "notre père qui êtes aux cieux", and it is the form used on the web site of the Catholic Church is France [[1]]. It is also the closest translation to the Latin, which did not have a formal "vous" form. Someone might know better which version is most common today, but, in any case, I think we should be consistent. Lesgles (talk)

The informal form is more common in French and Spanish, and historically, English (thee/thou/thy is the informal form).

[edit] Wikisource

all these versions should be moved to Wikisource:! dab 10:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. — Matt 11:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Need some help

I need some help with this OE line:

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg. I know from other languages that it should mean "our daily bread give us this day"; this is usually divided into two lines:

Our daily bread

Give us this day.

How to do that with the OE line? Which words mean "our daily bread" and "give us this day"?

This is a rough literal translation, based on the much old english language I know. "Our y-dai-whom-ly(Seems to be the most common OE word for "daily") bread give us to day". Hlaf is actually the same word as modern english "Loaf", and the OE word "Bread" seems to be meaning cooked food, morsel, going back to an old germanic word originally meaning possibly "piece of food"/"cooked food". All modern germanic languages use words akin to "bread" for "bread", though. The word "Syle" seems to be a cognate to moden english "Sell" which in older germanic usually meant something like "give"/"hand over"/"deliver". Hope this is helpful.


[edit] Greek transliteration

The previous transliteration attempted to capture the polytonic accents, which I admire, but its use of the roman circumflex for both long vowels (to distinguish ε/η and ο/ω] and for the Greek circumflex/περισπωμένη was confusing, and the use of apostrophes to indicate smooth breathing/ψιλή even more so (since the characters in question appeared as 'straight quotes' rather than ‘smart quotes’ on my display). Since i'm not aware of an elegant way to "stack" diacritical marks, I decided that a standardized letter/letter correspondence was more important than preserving the pitch accents. Comments? -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki to Wikisource

Several times on this talk page someone has suggested that the prayers need to be moved to Wikisource. No one has disagreed, some people have agreed, but no one has done it. I'm going to start doing it. The only versions I'll leave here are the original Greek, and one or two English translations. For the other languages, see [2]. --Angr/comhrá 14:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I can name someone who has disagreed:

"They're there, like the versions in archaic languages, for purposes of comparison, and so should stay. orthogonal 03:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

Meursault2004 16:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I read it, he was objecting to moving the other languages to each language's own Wikipedia page, which would indeed make comparison difficult. Having them all at Wikisource, however, makes comparison easy. --Angr/comhrá 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished the move. The Lord's Prayer is now given in 72 languages at [Wikisource:Relgious texts]. --Angr/comhrá 11:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay you've done it. What's done is done. But why did you also move the Latin text? I think you didn't have to move the Pater Noster as it is still an important part of the Catholic mass. Should we put it back? Meursault2004 12:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Latin text is there at Wikisource, as is the English version used at the Roman Catholic Mass. I think for an English-language encyclopedia article about the Lord's Prayer, it's sufficient to have the Greek original and the best-known English translation. The Latin text is also at the Latin Wikipedia (just click on "Latina" under "other languages" on the left-hand side of the page). --Angr/comhrá 13:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Still, I think that the Latin Pater Noster is of sufficient historical importance that it should be here too. After all, the Pater Noster page just gives a link to this page. --User:chrisjwmartin|chrisjwmartin]] 05:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just visited Wikisource and I have to admit that you did a good job there. It looks nice and neat. Well I guess we have to do the comparison by hand now :-) Meursault2004 14:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it! --Angr/comhrá 16:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latin first???

Why is the latin translation before the English translation? Wouldn't it be more correct to have the Lord's Prayer appear in English first, and then the other translations? Having Latin before English also makes this article differ from the NPOV as only a Catholic would bother with a Latin translation - when was the last time you heard a Pentecostal recite part of the Bible in Latin? MyNameIsNotBob June 30, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Nonsense. The reason they are in that order is in terms of age. So there is the Greek version. Then the Latin one. Then the English ones, old and new, because the English is a translation of the Latin, which was a translation of the Greek. BTW Catholics don't say the prayer in Latin and haven't for generations. And protestants did at the start say the prayer in Latin. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelicals and "Debts"?

I'm wondering what the source was/is for this statement:

"Most Evangelical churches associate the use of 'trespasses' with Catholic traditions and prefer the use of 'debts' and 'debtors' instead."

Do you have numbers to back this up, or is this anecdotal information? The fact that Southern Baptists, who comprise the largest Evangelical group in the U.S. (by far) use "trespasses", makes this statement misleading at best.

I am a Presbyterian minister who grew up in various Evangelical or fundamentalist churches (including a 2-year stint as a Southern Baptist). I had never heard the use of "debts" and "debtors" until we started going to the Presbyterian Church. As a pastor now, I have found the same to be true of those who visit our church or who join from other churches. The only ones who have ever said "debts" and "debtors" are those who have grown up in the Presbyterian Church or other churches in the Reformed tradition (such as the Reformed Church in America or the Christian Reformed Church). All the others, whether Baptist, Methodist, non-denomination, or whatever, have grown up saying "trespasses."

I don't have the numbers on this (which is why I didn't edit the page), but again even if the Southern Baptists were the only Evangelical group to say "trespasses" (and they are decidedly not), that alone is enough to make the above statement false.

A truer statement would probably be, "Apart from the Presbyterians and other groups in the Reformed tradition, the majority of Christians in the U.S. use 'trespasses' rather than 'debts.'"

I've been told that "debts" and "debtors" is usual in the Church of Scotland, so it makes sense that it's used in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. as well. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] daily bread

May be someone knows the exact source. From what I read, the real phrasing is not daily bread, but our future bread, give us now our future bread, meaning bring paradise on this earth within us, makes us wholy.

Besides, Simone de beauvoir (french philosopher) has commentated on debts. Her comment is that to be release from debts is especially to be realeased from the past and future, from the belief that we have a self detached from god.

The exact meaning of "daily bread" is unclear, because epiousios isn't used in Greek apart from the Lord's Prayer, so it's not entirely clear what it was supposed to mean. See the article Epiousios. As for Simone de Beauvoir, her interpretation of "forgive us our debts/trespasses" is interesting but perhaps not entirely relevant to this article. Angr/talk 16:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I got those versions from a motor that compares the different bibles - - Give us today our daily bread. (WEB) - - Give us this day our daily bread. (ASV) - - Give us this day bread for our needs. (BBE) - - give us to-day our needed bread, (DBY) - - Give us this day our daily bread. (KJV) - - Give us this day our daily bread. (WBS) - - give us to-day our bread for the day; (WEY) - - Our appointed bread give us to-day. (YLT) - - bread for our needs, our need bread and appointed bread can mean the kingdom of heaven in the way I've described.

For simone de beauvoir I was just pointing that this was another reason not to use trespasses. Ok about the article on daily bread, I did not follow the link. I think may be some text could signal that there's debate on the traduction.

[edit] Original Greek?

I don't see how its POV to say the Greek text is the original. Of course Jesus himself spoke Aramaic to his disciples, but his Aramaic words were not preserved. The oldest recorded version of the Lord's Prayer is written in Greek; everything else has been translated from that, or translated from an intermediate translation (Latin, English, etc.). This is just an NPOV fact, isn't it? Angr (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See Aramaic primacy; this has to be accounted for, and the current article doesn't do a very good job at it. Bob A 03:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, changing "all" to "most" as if Aramaic primacy were accepted fact, and not even discussing Aramaic primacy itself, is certainly not the way forward here. Angr (talk • contribs) 06:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
All texts of the Lord's Prayer are derived from the Greek. The Peshitta translation shows sufficient signs of being translated from the Greek to be included here. The use of most instead of all is a subtle misrepresentation of the facts. It would be better if a further sentence were added stating that a minority believe that the Peshitta and Old Syriac texts preserve an older, Aramaic tradition, but that the majority see them as early translations from Greek, comparable with the Old Latin texts. — Gareth Hughes 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better to remove all of the parenthetical text since the opening paragraph seems to say it better anyway. Gareth, it would be good if you could add those signs to the aramaic primacy article. By the way, most aramaic primacists think the "old syriac" is a translation from greek. Bob A 19:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For thine is the kingdom...

On what basis is it claimed that this is a later addition? It's in Matthew, isn't it? Who omits it? john k 15:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backwards

Surely we should make mention of the legend that playing a recording of the Lord's Prayer backwards summons the devil/does something evil? It seems to be quite widespread. (Note: I've tried playing it backwards, and it just sounds creepy, nothing more. Damn I hate religious fanatics.) PianoSpleen 06:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source for the legend? Angr (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does God lead us into tempation?

In my time with God tonight I felt led to really dig into how Jesus taught us to pray. In both versions of His prayer in the King James Bible (Matthew 6:9–13 and Luke 11:2-4,) He tells us to ask God not to "lead us" into temptatation. Why would we ask God this? In my understanding of God, I don't imagine He would "lead" us into temptation. Why didn't Jesus say; "Don't allow Satan to lead us into temptation?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rocker4God (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your understanding of God is different from Jesus's. At any rate, this page is the place to discuss how to improve this article, not the place for exegesis. Angr (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in exegesis see ChristianWiki (the website that that article discusses, rather than the article). Please don't do exegesis within wikipedia itself. Clinkophonist 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic language article

At the end of the external links (viewing in my browser, Firefox 1.0.7), there's a line starting "[[got:" followed by some funny symbols. I've managed to work out that it's intended to be a link to the article in the Gothic Wikipedia. However, I've no idea how to fix it. Can anyone else help? --A bit iffy 19:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Angr (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "...by Jesus himself..."

for the sake of historic accuracy, wouldn't it make more sense to say "given in the bible by Matthew and Luke"?

By all means correct me if I am mistaken, but i thought that the bible was written by many different people, not Jesus himself.

--questioning Nov. 15 2006 16:12:00

[edit] "Hallowed be," subjunctive?

The second paragraph of the "Analysis" section says that "Hallowed" is passive voice and future tense. Can someone explain that to me? It seems to me that it is a subjunctive phrase, much like the phrase "Bless you" is short for "May God bless you," the word "bless" being in the subjunctive mood. Similarly, "Hallowed be thy name" could be seen another way of saying "May thy name be hallowed," which to me, makes this phrase perfectly sensible. Any thoughts? --Chane 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is subjunctive passive, and not future passive, in the Latin. Rwflammang 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

I think that this lead paragraph could/should be simplified with some of the complex theory moved elsewhere in the article.

Even as a knowledgeable Christian I became thoroughly confused (with Q theory and the like), so someone with no knowledge would be even worse.

Please take this constructively as comments to improve the article.

Best,

Mdcollins1984 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Name

Why is "Pater Imon" before "Paternoster"? Does anyone actually call it the Pater Imon? As far as I can tell, this is the Greek name for it, and thus saying "Pater Imon" is not English, but Greek. Paternoster, on the hand, has entered the English lanuage, and gained its own Anglicized pronunciation, and is a relatively prevalent and historical English term for the prayer. I am altering the opening to reflect this.

[edit] From Trev - Concerning "tomorrow bread"

Reading some years ago that there was no obvious translation from the old Aramaic expression "tomorrow bread", I gave it a lot of thought, then forgot about it. Later I started thinking about when "tomorrow" would actually begin in the times when Jesus lived, and how that might be related to "bread". I believe the next day started when the sun went down (and still does in some cultures). At this time young children (a synonym Jesus often used to imply God's children, us) would be going to bed. The oven would still be hot, and perhaps the bread to be used the following day was being baked. Perhaps Jesus is asking "Daddy" to reward us for being good, by giving us a rare treat: to taste a morsel of the bread freshly baked for the following day. This could have been a very powerful family iconic message in that time, even perhaps a common expression denoting "You have been really good". Trev.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/r/Talk%7ELord%27s_Prayer_5f90.html"