Talk:Prayer of Saint Ephrem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

		This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Quote: "The most common practice has one after each line of the prayer, then twelve in silence, followed by one at the end of a repeat of the entire prayer."

I don't know about other Churches but in Russian OC twelve prostrations are done with prayer "Боже, очисти мя грешнаго" (I'm not sure about translation, maybe: "God, clean me the sinner"), talking/speaking it in low/hushed tones or to oneself. --Koryakov Yuri 13:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I've incorporated it into the article! InfernoXV 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Russian Orthodox practice that I've seen (ROCOR), the words, "O God, cleanse me a sinner." (typical English translation) are said softly by the priest as everyone makes metanias (bows at the waist). The last (twelfth time) he adds, "...and have mercy on me." Though this last addition is not written in the service books, it does help all of those present to know that it was the last bow. MishaPan 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! InfernoXV 05:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly. In Moscow all is the same but without this last addition. --Koryakov Yuri 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting! I've noted that down, and also noted what appears in the 1639 Sluzhebnik of St Peter Mohyla published in Kiev. InfernoXV 15:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavonic text

I wonder, where the Salvonic version is taken from. What is read in Moscow is as follows (differences are in bold):

(text is now in article)

• Господи и владико животѹ моемѹ, духъ оунынїѧ, небре жεнїѧ, срεбролюбїѧ и празднословїѧ ѿжεни ѿ мεнε.
• Духъ же цѣломѹдрїѧ, смиренїѧ, терпѣнїѧ и любве дарѹй ми рабѹ твоемѹ.
• Ей Господи Царю, даждь ми зрѣти моя согрѣшенїѧ, и еже не ωсуждати брата моегω, якω благословенъ еси во вѣки. Аминь

(Moscow version, cf. ru-wiki)

• Господи и владыко живота моегω, духъ праздности, оунынїѧ, любоначалїѧ и празднословїѧ не даждь ми.
• Духъ же цѣломѹдрїѧ, смиренномѹдрїѧ, терпѣнїѧ и любве, дарѹй ми рабѹ твоемѹ.
• Ей Господи Царю, даруй ми зрѣти моя прегрѣшенїѧ, и еже не ωсуждати брата моегω, якω благословенъ еси во вѣки вѣковъ. Аминь

Thus, both intriguing differences between Greek and Russian don't exist. --Koryakov Yuri 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting - the Slavonic text I put up was taken from the edition published by the Old-Ritualist Poorhouse of Moscow, which uses pre-Nikonian texts from the 1500s. The use of dative case (животѹ моемѹ) to mark possession is distinctively archaic, but was changed by Nikon. There's no question about it - the version I posted is the standard pre-Nikonian usage. I checked with the sole Moscow Patriarchate version I have and it matches yours - so the version you have there is clearly and correctly the version that the Moscow Patriarchate use.

On the other hand, intrigued by the differences between our two texts, I decided to check the text as it appears in the 1639 Liturgikon (Sluzhebnik) of St Peter Mohyla, published in Kiev, and I find this, marked where it differs from the current Moscow version:

• Господи и владыко живота моегω, духъ оунынїѧ, небрежεнїѧ, любоначалїѧ и празднословїѧ ѿжεни ѿ мεнε.
• Духъ же цѣломѹдрїѧ, смиреномѹдрїѧ, терпѣнїѧ и любве, дарѹй ми рабѹ твоемѹ.
• Ей Господи Царю, даждь ми зрѣти моѧ согрѣшенїѧ, и не ωсуждати брата моегω, якω благословенъ еси во вѣки вѣковъ. Аминь

Looks like they altered dative case to genitive, following the fashion, but retaining vestiges of the older version where the meaning appears to be significantly different. I think this all deserves to be put in! InfernoXV 15:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)