Talk:Lord's Prayer

Comparison

In the beginning of the article comparison of Matthew 6 and Luke 11 prayers. One who added words in square brackets violated the essence of comparison.Evrey9 (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The phrase in brackets is in some authorities for Luke. The difference between the passages is that apparently no authorities for Matthew lack the phrase, while the translators judge that the dominant authorities for Luke lack the phrase. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Embolism

In the so-called Novus Ordo Roman Rite the Lords Prayer (ORATIONIEM DOMINICAM) is part of the introductory sections of the Communion Rite. Following the Orationem Dominicam, the priest says the "Embolism", meaning insertion, which is the "Deliver us LORD from every evil..." part. It is inserted after the phrase "Deliver us from evil" (LIBERA NOS A MALO). Thus the Embolism is called the ACCLAMATIO POST LIBERA NOS. There is also a name for the Embolism, that is LIBERA NOS, because the first phrase of the prayer starts with those two words as well. The Response to the Embolism is the completion of the Lord's Prayer, "For the kingdom, power, glory are yours...".

I'm surprised the term Embolism is not used in the article!

In the old Tridentine Latin liturgies, the Pater Noster also follows the Kanon doxology, and is followed by the Agnus Dei. Most of the Pater Noster is chanted by the Priest alone, with the ministers or choir only responding on the final phrase, "Sed libera nos a malo.", that is "But deliver us from evil." Then, the prayers which have become our current Embolism are heard, and contain praise to the Trinity, Saints and the Blessed Virgin Mary, thus making it a true Doxology. In the "Novus Ordo" rite, you hear the new Embolism, and then complete the Lord's Prayer, however the term 'doxology' has been retained in descriptions for this part following the Lord's Prayer. The term 'doxology' was not used in any Roman missal for the Pater Noster, rather, The Final Doxology of the Kanon is and was heard during the Minor Elevation ("Through him, with him..." etc). Benitoite (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

English versions

This article compares the King James versions of the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew and Luke. However, the King James version in Luke changed the prayer so it was more similar to the version in Matthew. The NIV translation of the Lukan version is "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to the time of trial." Notice that the Lukan version is shorter and does not contain "Our...in heaven...Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven...but rescue us from evil" (in the NIV translation). I suggest two changes: (1) Use a translation other than the King James version to show the differences between Matthew and Luke, and (2) Point out that the King James version changed Luke to make it more similar to Matthew and explain why the King James translators did this. (I don't know why they did it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and its editors should NOT have an agenda as to which Bible version is 'better'. There should be several different Bible versions included in this English article: King James Version (KJV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New American Bible (NAB [Catholic]), New International Version (NIV), and one that refers to 'heavens' inplace of 'heaven'. Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Corruption of the Our Father.

I note that the prayer has been somewhat corrupted.

Our Father who art in heaven. to Our Father which art in heaven as in. Our Father witch art in heaven.

Any discussion ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you want to go with that, as I've never seen any version with "witch" in the Lord's Prayer. Regardless of having the same sound, the two words, "which" and "witch", are extremely different words.

What I happen to find fascinating is the common usage of "who" instead of the biblical "which". I don't ever remember a time when I've heard anybody actually say, "Our Father, which art in Heaven, . . ." however that is the way I've always read it in the Bible. People appear to like to personify God, to think of God as a "he/him", or sometimes a "she/her", rather than as an "it" or a "thing" that's implied by "which". And yet the Bible refers to God as a Spirit that is not actually human, and therefore assumably has no gender. I've wondered about this since I was a little kid. And back then when I asked anybody about it, they just looked at me funny (as if I was crazy or stupid to even mention it). The last time it came to mind was while I watched the inauguration of President Obama. As always, the clergyman recited the Lord's Prayer using "who" instead of "which". And I cannot help but wonder about what John wrote in the book of Revelations... you remember?... the part at the very end about adding or subtracting from the Bible? So I ask once again for the gazillionth time: Isn't taking away the "which" and adding the "who" a very, very bad thing?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  05:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The "who" comes from the Book of Common Prayer, so that's the version traditionally used in church services. —Angr 05:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it seems that it falls under that age-old problem of what is correct and what is wrong? In other words, how is someone supposed to know if John was talking about the Bible or the Book of Common Prayer? If the BoCP "takes away" from the words of the Bible (the word which), and "adds" the who "unto these words", isn't that supposed to be asking for trouble? along the lines of "God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" and "God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book"? (Ref.: Revelation 22:18-19)  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The King James Version is not the Bible, which already existed while there was as yet no King James Version. And the Our Father itself, which already existed before there was any English translation whatever of the Our Father, has neither "which" nor "who". Lima (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, when John wrote Revelation, the Bible consisted solely of the Old Testament. —Angr 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The "who" version dates only from 1928 when proposals to revise the 1662 BCP were made, but ultimately not accepted by the British Parliament. However, 1 or 2 things "stuck", this being one of them in later revisions to Anglican liturgical works. Some places do still insist on using the "which" form though, such as Winchester Cathedral where I was at the weekend. David Underdown (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Douay-Rheims Bible and the American Standard Version both use "who" in Matthew 6:9,[1],(ref) so it's older than 1928. "Who" is also used in English-language Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox liturgy. —Angr 11:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The original Douay-Rheims had "which" (and the King James Version, of a quarter of a century later, may have copied it), but what is generally understood nowadays by the Douay-Rheims Bible is Challoner's revision of it, which does have "who" (Matthew 6:9 link). So "who" in the Our Father in English dates back at least as far as 1749. Lima (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see too that the Book of Common Prayer (of 1662) does not have "who". So perhaps there is no record in print of "Our Father who" earlier than 1749, 260 years ago. Lima (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have specified taht I was really thinking about liturgical usage. David Underdown (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How confounding is this activity called "religion"! On one hand a sacred text says not to add or subtract from it, and on the other hand there have been many, many additions and subtractions down through the ages. It seems impossible to find true purity of faith. If one's faith and trust relies upon such morphing sacred texts, then how can one's faith be well-placed? Which hand can one trust to hold the truth?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Relation to Egyptian Prayer from The Coming Into Day (Book of the Dead)

Parallels in the Lord's Prayer can be found in Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

This subject has been covered in quite a few texts - please look at what I wish to put forth as an edit and comment on what else it needs.

There are similarities between the Lord's Prayer and The Judgement of the Dead (Ch.125) in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Similarities in the full text are highlighted and phrases are repeated. The full text is available from here

Janzen, W. "Old Testament Ethics" 1994 Westminster/John Knox Press

Address to the gods of the underworld

Hail, gods, who dwell in the house of the Two Truths.

I know you and I know your names.

Let me not fall under your slaughter-knives,

And do not bring my wickedness to Osiris, the god you serve.

Let no evil come to me from you.

Declare me right and true in the presence of Osiris,

Because I have done what is right and true in Egypt.

I have not cursed a god.

I have not suffered evil through the king who ruled my day.

Hail , gods who dwell in the Hall of the Two Truths,

Who have no evil in your bodies, who live upon maat ,

Who feed upon maat in the presence of Horus

Who lives within his divine disk. 14

Deliver me from the god Baba,

Who lives on the entrails of the mighty ones on the day of the great judgement.

Grant that I may come to you,

For I have committed no faults,

I have not sinned,

I have not done evil,

I have not lied,

Therefore let nothing evil happen to me.

I live on maat , and I feed on maat,

I have performed the commandments of me and the things pleasing to the gods,

I have made the god to be at peace with me,

I have acted according to his will.

I have given bread to the hungry man, and water to the thirsty man,

And clothes to the naked man, and a boat to the boatless.

I have made holy offerings to the gods,

and meals for the dead.

Deliver me, protect me, accuse me not in the presence of Osiris.

I am pure of mouth and pure of hands,

Therefore, let all who see me welcome me,

For I have heard the mighty word which the spiritual bodies spoke to the Cat,

In the House of Hapt-Re, the Open-Mouthed;

I gave testimony before the god Hra-f-ha-f, the Backwards-Face,

I have the branching out of the ished-tree in Re-stau. 15

I have offered prayers to the gods and I know their persons.

I have come and I have advanced to declare maat,

And to set the balance upon what supports it in the Underworld.

Hail, you who are exalted upon your standard, Lord of the Atefu crown,

Who name is "God of Breath", deliver me from your divine messengers,

Who cause fearful deeds, and calamities,

Who are without coverings for their faces,

For I have done maat for the Lord of maat.

I have purified myself and my breast, my lower parts, with the things which make clean.

My inner parts have been in the Pool of maat.

I have been purified in the Pool of the south,

And I have rested in the northern city which is in the Field of the Grasshoppers,

Where the sacred sailors of Ra bathe at the second hour of the night and third hour of the day.

And the hearts of the gods are pleased after they have passed through it,

Whether by day or by night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luappy13 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Claiming a connection between this prayer and the Lord's Prayer seems to be original research. If there are published, reliable sources that are not fringe theories and that discuss a similarity, that can be mentioned, but otherwise it does not belong. —Angr 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are published books which cite parallels in the 10 commandments and other elements of Spell 125 of the book of the Dead. Does this qualify? Though they are not as far as I know specifically stating the link they are implicitly stating 'paralells'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luappy13 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It would need to specifically mention the Lord's Prayer, and qualify under Wikiepdia's definition of a realiable source. David Underdown (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Luappy13: Thanks for posting Spell 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I believe you've made a BIG discovery here! If there aren't any 'reliable sources' that you or I can find, then I recommend you put this connection on a website/forum and list the sources you have that connect Spell 125 with the 10 Commandments, etc. I will then write it into the article and list your site as the reliable source. This will now NOT be 'original research'. You're welcome to write it on http://7seals.yuku.com and/or http://RevelationRevealed.proboards.com . Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you replied to a thread that has been dormant for three years. Likewise, Luappy13 was a single-purpose account who hasn't edited in three years since creating an account and posting here. Finally, any posts to forums are not considered reliable sources and your attempt to make an end-run around Wikipedia policy by using them is not appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The verb: "es"

The verb in this phrase does not make sense to me, as a beginning Latin student: "qui es in caelis" Should not it be "qui est in caelis", because "es" is second person and "est" is third person? Can anybody answer this?

Jkarandikar42 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's second person because the prayer is addressed to Our Father: Pater noster is in the vocative, not the nominative. The idea is: "(O) our father, (you) who are in Heaven...". Notice how even in modern English we say "you who are in Heaven", not "you who is in Heaven". +Angr 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice explanation. Jkarandikar42 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin pronunciation

The proper pronunciation of Latin is disputed. There are those who insist on the "Restored Classical" pronunciation, and those who, in Roman Catholic prayers, insist on the "Italianate" pronunciation. An example of the first group is the editor who in the past posted a text with macrons to indicate the long vowels, a distinction observed in the Restored Classical pronunciation, but not in the Italianate. I think that Wikipedia cannot favour either pronunciation by describing a sound recording in it simply as "Latin" - as if the other pronunciation was not really Latin. Lima (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still no reason to note the accent as "American". As I believe I mentioned before, there are hundreds of different American accents in the US alone. Then you have Canadian-American, Mexican-American, Brazilian-American and so on. So even if the reader makes the assumption that US American is meant, precisely which US American accent is meant? And as it stands now, "read by an American", how precisely do you know this for certain? I've heard many Canadians, Irish, French and even Africans who have mastered and talk with the very same accent. So how can one say for certain the prayer is being read by an "American"?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, it's either Latin or it's not, the reader is either reading the prayer in Latin or he's reading it in gobbley-gook. A language is a language, the pronunciation or accent doesn't change that. Just label the file as someone reading Latin and leave it at that. The nationality and accent of the reader is totally irrelevant (at least it is to everyone other than the most pedantic of language scholars). --WebHamster 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is "Knowter Peer qui eats awx sighyoux" French? And yet that is how "Notre Père qui êtes aux cieux" might be read by an English speaker who knew nothing of French. So too the written text is Latin, but is the text as read Latin? Lima (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If one is reading Latin then it doesn't just magically transmogrify into another language simply because the pronunciation is a little off. Remember this article is about the prayer, it's not about the intricacies of the Latin language. If the reader is reading a Latin text then it's Latin he is speaking regardless of how badly he/she does it. The fact that it's an American reading it is totally inconsequential, similarly if it was an Italian reading it it doesn't automatically make it an Italiante pronunciation. Anway, as I mentioned earlier, it's all surplus to requirements as all that is needed is for the reader to know that it's the Lord's Prayer being read in Latin. We don't need to say it's an Italian-American from Hoboken reading it in his underpants wearing a purple boa and an athletic support. --WebHamster 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "little" off. That's softly put. It just sounds BAD read like this. As a linguist, I could go on and on about what's wrong with the pronunciation. WebHamster, the article may be about prayer, but Pater Noster is in Ecclesiastical Latin, and that is a language. Nothing should stop things from being read they are meant to be read, don't you agree? It's like letting a non-English speaker with a heavy accent read the English version of Our Father. Overall, I think that it is imperative that the text is pronounced correctly. If no one wants to do it, I'll do the recording, just to get the previous recording off. Kloiten (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the reader in the audio file, and how I pronounced it is indeed "Italianate," but to me it's Ecclesiastical Latin, even if I do have an American accent.--Geremia (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that WebHamster hasn't answered the question whether "Knowter Peer qui eats auks sighyooks" is French. It is a particular pronunciation of French words, but is it French? The reader is reading a French text, but is it French he is speaking? I don't think any Frenchman or woman would say that it is. Lima (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we please get a proper Pater Noster in Latin as pronounced in Ecclesial Latin! Someone who doesn't garble the sounds by a heavy English accent. I have a hard time standing the English so called IPA pronunciation of the astronomical constellations in Latin, babbling with some guy that doesn't think the proper Latin pronunciation is "natural" and that all Latin shall be garbled to unrecognizability by the Great Vowel Shift before it becomes "natural" — so that it sounds quite horrible to all non-English speakers. Don't copy this attitude to foreing languages like Latin please. The current sound file should not be used in this article since it is desinformation. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint view

The section 'Latter-day Saint view' indeed begins with the view of the Latter-day Saints on the Lord's Prayer (now that I've cleaned up some misstatements, anyway). It then mentions that the Book of Mormon version of the prayer includes the doxological ending, a fact which may not be part of an LDS view about the prayer, but is still part of the LDS tradition of the prayer and is still totally relevant. Next comes a section whose content is a discussion of the doxology's history and whose rhetorical thrust is that its presence weighs against an non-ancient origin for the Book of Mormon. The content is accurate enough, but it's just a subset of the actual section of the article that treats the doxology; the direction of the argument is tangential to an article about the Lord's Prayer and flat-out deceptive if placed under the heading 'Latter-day Saint view'. So I'm going to replace it with a link to the section on the doxology and its history, and if anyone wants to discuss evidences against the Book of Mormon in an article about evidences against the Book of Mormon, here is the removed text for salvage.

eritain (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This anachronistic phraseology in the Book of Mormon was not noted when it was first published in 1830. It has since been brought into the spotlight by the discovery of the Didache manuscript in the late 19th century, and by the realization that this concluding phrase was not to be found in the oldest manuscripts of Matthew and Luke. Instead it appeared in manuscripts post-dating the Didache, along with signs of further harmonization between the Gospels.

Replaced “Central America” with “Western Hemisphere”. The text of the Book of Mormon does not contain any references to “Central America” as the location of the sermon. Although Central America is a popular conclusion among proponents of reconstructing a physical geography of the Book of Mormon narrative, thus far, no official statement has been made by Latter-day Saint ecclesiastical leaders on the location of the sermon. The smallest geographical claim is that is post-resurrection sermon took place in an unknown area somewhere in the “Americas.” Matthew R. Lee 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewrlee (talk • contribs)

References

Latin- cotidianum?

Now, I realize that quotidianum and cotidianum are interchangeable, but most versions I've seen of the Pater Noster use quotidianum, not cotidianum. Does anybody else think this should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.159.185 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The cited source has "cotidianum", not "quotidianum". So does the Roman Missal, ever since the 1962 typical edition. There is no need whatever to change to the late-medieval non-classical spelling that appeared in the Roman Missal up to and including the 1920 edition, the last typical edition before 1962. Lima (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late for the conversation, but my Catholic bible, which was mass-published when Paul was pope, has quotidianum, as does, here, here, here, and here. Additionally, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia discusses whether or not quotidianum should be supersubstantialem, due to discrepancies between Matthew and Luke. Thank you. --15lsoucy ^{salve.opus.nomen} 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These absolutely non-authoritative websites are in no way official. The Roman Missal is official and authoritative; since 1962 it has the "cotidianum" spelling. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is official and authoritative, and its « Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie » Latin text has "cotidianum". On "suupersubstantialem" see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2837.Esoglou (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagalog

How is tagalog text relevant to English Wikipedia and how can it be verified? Please also see talk on Angelus. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to choose another English version as basic text for this article

There continue to be good-faith changes, which I continue to revert, from the "Our Father which art in heaven" version (hitherto treated as the basic English version here) to the "Our Father who art in heaven" version. I wonder would it be better to make the latter version the article's basic version. I have no strong feelings on this question, but in order to learn what is the predominant view of Wikipedians interested in this article, I am hereby formally proposing that quotations be generally from the "Our Father who art in heaven" version.

The "Our Father which art in heaven" version is favoured, I would say, only by its antiquity. I am convinced that the "Our Father who art in heaven" version is in far greater use today. Even after the forthcoming revision of their prayers at Mass (see Ordinary of the Mass, 124), Catholics, who constitute a very high proportion of English-speaking Christians, will continue to use this version, which is probably more common now among other Christians also than the "Our Father which art in heaven" version. The third version in the article (the "Our Father in heaven" version) is far less familiar for most people than the other two; besides, there are several different variations of it in actual use.

Please indicate by Support or Oppose your view on the proposal that the version for the article to use (when not speaking of a specific version) should be the "Our Father who art in heaven" one. Esoglou (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I've never heard "which" in the opening line. In 30 years, it's always been "Our Father who art in heaven," and i've never heard it any other way before visiting this page. 69.60.237.4 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose My view may be a little coloured by the fact that I say "Our Father which art in heaven" myself, but this is still by far the longest-lasting text. Once we change it to a supposedly "modern English" version, there will never be agreement on which one to use. Indeed, the argument already rages over whether to say "Our Father", "Our Parent" or "Our Father-Mother". Better not to go there. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose As per Moonraker2's comments, which from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer seems like a plausible NPOV choice for subheads. Johnh (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose As per Moonraker2, there isn't an obvious version which would be the single replacement for the traditional English version. For instance in Scotland, it's traditional to say "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors". The "which art" version may not be ideal for comprehensibility, but I think that most readers will have had the meanings of the words explained to them at some stage, and it is at least familiar.Scottwh (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Original Research in the section Analysis

This section has been tagged as original research for 3 years now. As a large chunk of personal thoughts with very little referencing, is it now time to delete the entire section "Analysis"? Matthewcgirling (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if the views of historic and contemporary theologians are directly quoted? (such as the various Church Fathers, Reformers, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.131.18.75 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Under Analysis of Lord's Prayer there is one definitive guide to accuracy, the Bibles themselves.

Under “Hallowed be thy name”

The Lord's Prayer first off is a model of how to pray not to be repeated exactly word for word. I feel that this persons references and explanations is not correct scripturally, God's name in English translated by a 12th Century Monseigneur of the Catholic Church to be "Jehovah"

Different versions support the use of His name in your prayers. Here Jesus said called him father because it was his father as the scriptures say he was in a bossom position with his father. But his father is one God with the name translated in English for centuries as Jehovah. The Scriptures prove that.

"Psalm 83:18 (King James Version) 18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." & "Psalm 83:18 (21st Century King James Version) 18that men may know that Thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the Most High over all the earth." & "Psalm 83:18 (American Standard Version) 18 That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth. " & "Psalm 83:18 (Young's Literal Translation) 18And they know that Thou -- (Thy name [is] Jehovah -- by Thyself,) [Art] the Most High over all the earth!" & "Psalm 83:18 (Darby Translation) 18That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth." & "Salmos 83:18 (Reina-Valera 1960) 18 Y conozcan que tu nombre es Jehová; Tú solo Altísimo sobre toda la tierra. " So the truth is in English not Hebrew which some use and is called "Yahweh" in Hebrew.

But then Jesus is "Yeshivas" or something of that nature in Hebrew also so why are they not using his Hebrew name?

It also says He is alone Jehovah not a trinity that is not even scriptural at all.

The reason Jehovah is used is it is the most closely translated of all the versions of his name in English. The Tetragrammaton "YHWH" in ancient Hebrew had no valves. So in English it would have been "JHVH" Jehovah was the only one that had all the main letters "JHVH" in it.

So the question about How does removing God's name from the bible and replacing it with a title glorify, sanctify or hallowed God's name? It hides his name as translated into English. That means there is a cover up taking place on who God really is so as to promote a false doctrine that was adopted into Christianity in the 2nd century to the 4th century by the Roman's, (Mainly Emperor Constantin), so to get the loyalty of there people as strong as the True Christians who died faithful in the Roman arena's and Colosseum.

Joel 2:32 (Darby Translation)(First Half) 32"And it shall be that whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved:" Joel 2:32 (Young's Literal Translation)(First Half) 32"And it hath come to pass, Every one who calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered"

Also as a cross reference it is suppose to read like the New World Translation here reads at Acts 2:21 "And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’ But the Trinitarian's have worked their way into leaving out his name and replacing it with a title, "Lord" or "God". So using this model prayer without making hallowed his name or using his name in prayer is useless.

In the original texts it had the Name Jehovah over 2,000 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Which was originally in Aramaic according to the Moslem's who know God's Name is Jehovah in English. You can not find it 1 time in modern translations for the most part. In the Hebrew Scriptures is was over 5,000 times. In modern scriptures they completely removed his name so no one would know who's name to call on and be saved.

When we pray the Lord's prayer which is a example or model prayer and should not be repeated word for word, we are suppose to pray to Jehovah our Creator and God so as to sanctify his name or make it known as holy. We are suppose to Use his name or as the scriptures put it "call upon the name of Jehovah".

If you family member talks to you, say your son or daughter do you want them to call you "Hey Dude" or "Dude" or even "Mister"? No way, you want your family members to call you by name or Dad which Jesus always called him his "father". Because Jesus is his son, Not him, Jehovah, who the scriptures says is "alone" not a tri-union being which by the way originated in Ancient Babylon starting with Nimrod and his mother and another name for Nimrod. "Tau" or "Tamaz" I think it was?

We end the prayer "through Jesus Christ Name (as our mediator to Jehovah God), Amen".

The preface of the Revised Standard Version explains: “For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word ‘Jehovah’ does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom he had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.” (Thus their own view of what is appropriate has been relied on as the basis for removing from the Holy Bible the personal name of its Divine Author, whose name appears in the original Hebrew more often than any other name or any title. They admittedly follow the example of the adherents of Judaism, of whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”—Matt. 15:6.) So the point in this scripture is this. With these new translations of the bible completely missing the true name of God, our heavenly father, Jehovah. Then would not your prayers be invalid if you do not show honor to his name by using it?

I am sure this will be edited out because they do not want the public to hear the truth. The scriptures speak for themselves that I quoted here. They tell the truth and I am sure you have scriptures that say whatever you want them to say but this is plain English and it says it all right in the scriptures quoted. Jehovah is God, alone. Jesus was the first-born and only-begotten Son of God, through whom Jehovah created all other things visible and invisible. (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-18; Rev. 3:14)

“The head of the Christ is God.” Christ and God are not coequal, as trinitarians contend.—Phil. 2:6; John 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28; 11:3, NWT And Jesus is not God! He is the Son of God as the scriptures makes clear.

They are not coeternal, as supporters of the trinity teaching say. Of Jehovah it is written: “Even from eternity to eternity thou art God.” He is called “the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity” and “the king of eternity.” Hence he was not born, was not created, had no beginning. But this is not true of Jesus Christ, for he is called “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Ps. 90:2; Isa. 57:15; Jer. 10:10, Da; Col. 1:15, 16; Rev. 3:14, NWT

This point should be remembered: the trinity doctrine says God and Christ and the holy spirit are three persons making the one true God. That means three in one. John 10:30 speaks of only two being one. That has nothing to do with trinity, the three-in-one doctrine. Only 1 John 5:7 in the King James and Douay Bible versions can be construed to support trinity, and that text is spurious and is left out of most modern Bible versions. No authentic Bible text supports the trinity doctrine.

So to Sanctify, Glorify, Hallowed Be thy name you need to use his name in prayer and call upon his name to be delivered from the evil one, Satan the Devil and his demons or fallen angels. Satan knows the scriptures and he is the God of this system of things on earth at this time. He wants you to not call on Jehovah God's Name. Thus his false doctrines and his broad and spacious road to destruction he has created to tickle your ears. False Christianity and false religions. The bible is clear he can come to you as a angel of light. And he rules all the nations as Jesus 3rd test in the wilderness showed when he presented them all to Jesus if he would bow down and do a act of obeisance to Satan. Jesus did not deny Satan had all the nations in his power to give to Jesus. Know your enemy! Study the bible. Use the name Jehovah in your prayers unless you are of another tongue besides English then use what it is translated into but not a title like Lord or God or even Allah when means God, it also is a title.

As for “Thy Kingdom Come”

I think the scripture at Rev. 11:18 in the last half sums it up: Revelation 11:18 (New International Version)"18 The nations were angry, and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your people who revere your name, both great and small and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” The word "Kingdom" is a government. So basically you are praying for God's Government over the earth as it is already over the Heavens. “To him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”—Dan. 7:14, RS.

Revelation 21:1-4 (New International Version)"1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” " Revelation 21:3-4 (New American Standard Bible)"3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, (A)the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will (B)dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them[a], 4and He will (C)wipe away every tear from their eyes; and (D)there will no longer be any death; (E)there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; (F)the first things have passed away."

Revelation 21:3-4 (New World Translation or NWT) " 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”" More to come: Matthew 5:5 (Darby Translation)" 5 Blessed the meek, for *they* shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5 (NWT) "Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth." Psalm 37:29 (New International Version)"29 The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever." 1 Corinthians 15:26 (New International Version)"26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death." There are more prophesies that will take place in this perfect Heavenly based Government of Jehovah God's ruled for a thousand years by Jesus Christ from in heaven. But notice the Tabernacle or Tent of God is going to be with? Angels? or Men or Mankind? You are praying for a Government ruled by God from on high which can not be corrupted as man made governments are. Imperfect mankind can not fix the mess it has made for this planet and we have to have divine intervention for mankind to even survive at this point. We are like a amoeba compared to the greatness and glory of Jehovah God. The more we learn the more we realize we have just scratched to surface of all of creation. He promises that death will be done away with and we can live forever on the earth as we are praying that his government rule the earth as it already does the heavens. There are scriptures in Isaiah that say our flesh will become like that of new born infants. Jesus, his son when on earth already showed that he can heal any kind of sickness or deformity and resurrect the dead. If you want to live forever under his heavenly based government the scriptures are clear on the matter. John 17:3 (New International Version)"3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." John 17:3 (NWT) "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." And as above I already showed from the bibles who the true God is, Jehovah, our God: Psalms 83:18 The Scriptures make it clear. This wicked world of mankind is to be destroyed. But there are to be survivors and John 17:3 is the start to your survival and it does not say the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit there. It is only talking of Jehovah and his son he sent to earth to prepare us for what is to come and to give his life to buy us back out of sin. A perfect life bought us into sin and a perfect life bought us back out of sin. Balanced justice just as all the laws of our creator in creation are in perfect balance. So will his government be. His purpose for mankind has never changed. We are to have a perfect garden paradise world wide with us living forever upon the earth and in harmony with all of creation. At present we only use 1/10 of our brains. Imagine a perfect mind? Perfect body control. Perfect health. Never tiring out. The sky is the limit and with perfect minds we will not need computers. We will have photographic memories. That is what we have in store under the Government of Jehovah God and his son Jesus is going to bring it about real soon. As Revelations 11:18 shows.(NWT)"But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”" So he is going to fix the earth when he brings to ruin those ruining the earth with his government over all of mankind. That is a promise and Jehovah God can not lie according to the scriptures. Not like Politicians, is he? No, he is not. What he says comes to be. So take in knowledge of him and you will make it if you apply that knowledge. There are many peoples versions of the truth but the bible is your compass in stormy waters. Follow it and you will get to see a earth you can not even imagine at present. There will be no greed and suppression of inventions and cures and knowledge under his government. There will be no corruption and crime. There will be know Satan to mislead you after the thousand years end and he tests mankind one more time. He also will be destroyed permanently. Mankind has already shown he can not rule himself. We need our perfect designer to lead us to perfection and then he will give us new tasks to accomplish. You will not get bored under his rule. You will not be suppressed. You will only have to obey his commandments and everything else will be taken care of. Since his greatest attribute is Love. You know you will feel a joy you never even knew existed. That is what you are praying for! (HawkNo1 (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkNo1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of the Bible. It is an interpretation, and it is your interpretation. WP:FORUM WP:SOAP Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case then why in the scripture at Psalms 83:18 from so many different bibles say Jehovah is one alone? Also show me in the Scriptures where it Says Jehovah and Jesus and the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit are one being? It does not. It is not scripturally supported. The bible is the definitive of the truth and it corrects the lies itself. Scholars can misinterpret all they want, but the bible will always show the truth for what it really is. I do not have to say it. The scriptures say it in plain English. When you have all the different translations and versions pointing to the same conclusion then even though they have little alterations here and there they are all when compared showing you the truth of the matter and to Glorify Gods name you have to use it. John 17:6; John 17:26 (New International Version) 6 "I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word." Footnotes in NIV:

 [a] John 17:6 Greek "your name"

John 17:26; 26 "I have made you[a] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." Footnotes in NIV:

 [a] John 17:26 Greek "your name"

If the Greek here says "your name" instead of "you" is that not someone trying to hide what Jesus is saying about to his father in prayer?

(NWT) John 17:6 "6 I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word"

(NWT) John 17:26 "26 And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them."

There goes the trinity doctrine also. Now Jesus is in Union with more than just Jehovah but with all the disciples he was entrusted with by Jehovah. Those are his own words. Just like he in other places said he was in union or one with Jehovah God. The trinitarians twisted it to say he was separate but one in Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost as one. Here this means he was much more than 3 in 1 if you plan to twist the truth here. You might as well go all the way? He was 15 in one? 12 apostles, God, Holy Ghost and Jesus?

You see he was one in purpose with Jehovah God and with his disciples they where all one in purpose, not physically one or in one spirit creature.

The NIV was a version to help support the trinity which is why they changed crucial translations of this section to read "you" instead to the truth with "your name". Jehovah's name was very important to Jesus and it was important to all the true Christians of that time as it is shown here. Just a little tweaking in the translation of the bible like that is enough to throw people off from the truth because it is working. Refer to Matthew 7:13-14

Matthew 7:13-14 (New International Version or NIV) 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (BOLD IS MINE FOR EMPHASIS)

Matthew 7:13-14 (NWT) 13 "Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it."

You need to get off that broad road leading to destruction by using the bible itself to correct things. Not the word of some bible scholar like it was in Jesus day also. They twisted the truth back then in the Jewish nation and they are doing the same world wide today. You need to glorify Jehovah God's name and as for the part about the Kingdom. Are you kidding me? A Kingdom back then was a government as it is today. If Satan did not have them to offer then as bold as Jesus was don't you think he would have pointed that out to Satan when he was at the end of his 40 day trek through the wilderness? If Satan did not have the power to offer him all the Kingdoms of the World then Jesus would have said something like "Who you think you are fooling Satan? You can not give what is not yours to give." He did not because as the scriptures puts it: 1 John 5:19 (NWT) 19 "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one."

Luke 4:5-8 (NWT) 5 So he brought him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time; 6 and the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and the glory of them, because it has been delivered to me, and to whomever I wish I give it. 7 You, therefore, if you do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” 8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

I want to point out that Jesus said it was written "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service."

This is Jesus speaking and he is referring to the scriptures.

(Deuteronomy 6:13)NWT Jehovah your God you should fear, and him you should serve, and by his name you should swear.

(Deuteronomy 10:20) NWT “Jehovah your God you should fear. Him you should serve, and to him you should cling, and by his name you should make sworn statements.

Deuteronomy 6:13 (Darby Translation) 13Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 10:20 (Darby Translation) 20Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him thou shalt serve, and unto him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 6:13 (Young's Literal Translation) 13Jehovah thy God thou dost fear, and Him thou dost serve, and by His name thou dost swear;

Deuteronomy 10:20 (Young's Literal Translation) 20`Jehovah thy God thou dost fear, Him thou dost serve, and to Him thou dost cleave, and by His name thou dost swear.

Deuteronomy 6:13 (American Standard Version) 13 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; and him shalt thou serve, and shalt swear by his name.

Deuteronomy 10:20 (American Standard Version) 20 Thou shalt fear Jehovah thy God; him shalt thou serve; and to him shalt thou cleave, and by his name shalt thou swear.

In all the rest of the Bibles I have access too, they substituted God's name, "Jehovah" with "LORD" or "Lord". A title. This next one at least references Luke 4:8

Deuteronomy 6:13 (English Standard Version) 13It is(A) the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and(B) by his name you shall swear. Cross references:

 (A) Deuteronomy 6:13 : Cited Matt 4:10; Luke 4:8
 (B) Deuteronomy 6:13 : Deuteronomy 10:20; Josh 2:12; Psalm 63:11; Isa 45:23; 65:16; Jer 12:16

The New American Standard Bible replaces Jehovah with Lord also but they also have the same cross references as the English Standard Bible.

I think the bibles have made Jehovah's case here. Jesus had to let his disciples know God's name was Jehovah so as to glorify or sanctify or hallowed Jehovah's name because the Scribes and Pharisees of his time had already removed Jehovah's name from their manuscripts.

Same is happening today with all these Apostates playing like they are true Christians with much bible knowledge. They are even misinterpreting the meaning of the Model Prayer or Lord's Prayer as it is called here.

Definition of Kingdom: 1. a country with a king as head of state 2. the domain ruled by a king or queen

Today Kings ruling and Queens ruling is pretty much done away with but it was a country at that time and at that time it was a government. Not the governments we have on earth today mostly but it was a form of government for that time period. Jesus was offered all the Kingdoms or countries or governments as he would have become the ruler of the world if he did a act of worship to Satan the Devil. For the next thousand years he is going to be ruling the world anyway so why lose Jehovah God's favor and do it back then with Satan who is going to be destroyed and all those following Satan will also be destroyed.

All these Apostates who twist the scriptures are also going to be destroyed. So you can follow them if you like since you will have a lot of company on that road to destruction. As for me, I worship our Creator Jehovah God and I do so through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ his only begotten son and who everything else came to be through his son, Jesus, in his pre-human form in the beginning. (98.207.151.28 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC))

At the top of the page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lord's Prayer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. This includes sermons and rants. Koro Neil (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Doxology

Hi there. I have added two specify tags in the section on the doxology. Can anybody offer sources for these statements? Mcmarturano (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Listing of doxology-less manuscripts etc.

Listing of manuscripts, ancient versions and patristic quotations that do not include in Mt 6:13 a doxology seems inappropriate. The list given is obviously copied from an uncited critical edition of the Greek Testament, and is only partial: it mentions Origen but not the several other early Christian writers listed in the critical editions (including Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian, and Cyprian). If the sources that do not include a doxology are to be listed, it would be logical to list also those that do include the familiar doxology: manuscripts L W Δ Θ 0233 family f¹³ 29 33 19- 565 580 508 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1424 1505 and the Byzantine family of manuscripts, and also the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions that do include it. Indeed it would be logical to list also, as the critical editions do, the manuscripts that include variant unfamiliar forms of the doxology. Listing manuscripts in this way gives the appearance of Original Research. Surely it is sufficient to cite some of the secondary sources that speak of the question. Not only sufficient, but better. Esoglou (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge from History of the Lord's Prayer in English

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I suggested merging History of the Lord's Prayer in English here because, while I know very little about the subject(s), I think it might have content worth keeping but isn't really an article (rather, it's a collection of texts) and doesn't really deserve one. If there's a good reason not to merge it here, or if no one indicates interest in a week or so, I'll try to remember to prod it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it would be excessive to insert into an article on the Lord's Prayer in general the texts of a millennium's worth of different translations produced in the English language, not only present-day English but also an earlier form that is now less intelligible for non-specialized English speakers than a text in present-day German or Dutch. I think the article History of the Lord's Prayer in English, which contains some but not all of the more important versions, should be deleted as not worth keeping. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Definitely too much to put in this article. As for that article, I would like to take down the OR research tag--the sources are clearly there. I would prefer to keep that article, as it is interesting and a quick, easy way to compare translations. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Information overload and not worth keeping ---172.162.126.72 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As above, hypertext was invented so not everything has to be on one huge page. It can all be "one click away" elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There seems to be consensus for No Merge above. As for the other page, it looks like something that needs to be moved to WikiSource, and maybe expanded there. —Telpardec  TALK  22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that copying to Wikisource is probably the best way forward, as a part of their existing page on The Lord's Prayer, and will tag the other article as such. Thanks everyone! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Heavens" (sky, space) replaces "Heaven" (ideal frame of mind)

The question of whether to use 'heaven' or 'heavens' is HUGE! The addition of that Simple Symbol/Sign S - the hieroglyph/pictograph of the Snake/Serpent that Slithers and S+in=Sin, S+he=She - makes a GIGANTIC difference!! The definition of 'heavens' is "the Sky, clouds, low-Earth-orbit, this solar system, deep-space", whereas, 'heaven' is definied as "an ideal place and time where one is very close to GOD and loved ones and experiences a feeling of being in paradise'. These two words often get confused in English, yet they shouldn't be. Let's look at some English Bible translations/versions. Genesis 1:1 King James Version 1611: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth". Revised Standard Version 1971, New International Version 1988, Dead Sea Scrolls Bible 1999 (English): "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The New American Bible 1987 (Catholic): "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth". International Children's Bible 2003: "In the beginning God created the sky and the earth". Stone Edition Torah 2004: "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth". Sacred geometry/gematria's main mantra was/is "As above so below". We can now clearly see that this is incorporated in the following 'heavens' version of The Lord's Prayer...

"Our Father who art in the heavens, hallowed be thy name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on Earth as it is in the heavens. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen."

Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not know which translation of the Bible you used for this quotation. But here at Wikipedia we rely on published, notable Bible translations which are considered reliable sources for the text of this prayer. This article provides several of those translations as well as versions in current and historical liturgical use. If you wish to introduce another translation, it should be notable and in widely accepted use as compared to the other ones used here. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Section for Cultural Significance Of The Lords Prayer and use in music and literature (the arts)

The Lords prayer is so enshrined into western culture that it has had many references to it in the arts.

For example American Composer Christopher Tin adapted the Swahili version of the Lords Prayer, 'Baba Yetu' into a musical score. I see that it's linked in the article but I think a seperate section with uses in the arts and culture would be useful. There will have been numerous other references to it in literature as well. I think this would be a valuable section to add into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.178.45 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, how come there isn't a section referring to "The lord's prayer in media"? Shouldn't there be? I know there is a million movies that reference it, Spider-Man_(2002_film) off the top of my head. There is a section like that on Psalm 23, (the valley of the shadow of death), so I'm surprised there isn't one here... Spartythespart (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Subsection titled "Greek and Latin Versions"

Treatment of the Greek version(s) of the Lord's prayer suffers in several respects. To begin with, the supplied reference, Matthew 6:9-19, lists many versions of the Lord's prayer, but only audio versions in Greek.

A more serious defect is ignorance of the reason people might be interested in Greek versions, namely the desire to know what Jesus actually said. For this purpose, the best Greek version is probably the version from The New Testament in the Original Greek.

Readers may well be interested to know significant differences between the original Greek version and modern versions. I have documented them in Origins of the Lord's Prayer.

Page Notes (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the reference given for the Greek text is to the latest edition of Nestle-Aland. Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"What Jesus actually said" would not have been in Greek, though, but Aramaic. All Bibles - even the originals - are translations of what was said.109.154.254.206 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The furthest back we can go is to what Matthew and Luke reported as what Jesus said. Any Aramaic reconstruction of what Jesus actually said would be based on their reporting, which was in Greek. Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Person

I am concerned that the first version, in English, was not correct. There is a sharp distinction between the second person singular and the second person plural/polite. The desire to show politeness by speaking in a false/synthetic voice overwhelmed the personal way of speaking in English, but it still exists. Mennonite and Amish still know and use "thou" or "thee" quite often when speaking to people that they know. While many believe that it is important to show respect for God, it is more important to realize that the relationship one has with God is personal and should not be mitigated by speaking in a deliberately odd way. When you say "you" you are actually saying "you all" as the French use "vous" and the Scottish Gaels "sibh." Germans show politeness by using the third person plural, saying "sie" (they), as in "Wie gehen sie heute?" ("how goes they today" when speaking to one person). In short, "thou" is how one speaks to a lover, friend, relative, or one's child. Therefore, the first translation is not accurate in the least. It's quite an odd way to begin an important article. As an aside, I've notice that the Roman Catholic Church in Canada and the U.S. shifts voice within the very same prayer, so they say, "...hollowed be Thy name...for the kingdom, the power, and the glory are Yours (not Thine) for ever and ever." With this in mind, it's easy to understand the new pope's concern over the lack of education as displayed by some priests. He should be just as concerned about the education of his bishops and cardinals. –––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.49.166 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The first version is a correct rendition of the ESV translation. Which translation would you rather use in place of it? Also, the grammatical terminology "voice" does not apply because we are not speaking of active or passive here. It is grammatical person. The Roman Missal uses a translation approved and promulgated by the Holy See, and has not changed since 1970. However, that is immaterial to improving this article, and this talk page is not a forum for general discussion. The Roman Missal still includes thee/thou for consistency with the old texts, but modern translations tend to use modern English, and nobody uses thee/thou in conversation or writing anymore, so these forms are obsolete. Elizium23 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Epiousios controversy

One of the references (currently ref 24) is to "A rabbinic commentary on the New Testament" which raises a suggestion that the original meaning was "sufficient for what we lack", and that the meaning was changed by the accidental omission of a single Hebrew character. It is an interesting idea, but to be relevant here it seems that there should be some possibility that the Lord's Prayer was at some stage transmitted through Hebrew. Since Aramaic had been the spoken tongue of the region for several hundred years, this is not obvious. Can anyone comment (preferably in the article) on whether this was likely? Scottwh (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede paragraph discussion

Per WP:BRD, I am encouraging Rsquire3 (talk · contribs) to discuss his edits since they have been reverted already. The discussion points are as follows. Latin is notable and worthy to be mentioned in the lede as the prayer has been known for over a thousand years by its Latin name. The prayer is recorded in many, many other places besides the New Testament. For example, the Mass (liturgy) of the Catholic Church, the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, for starters. The primary language of the Catholic Mass is Latin, providing one link to why its Latin name bears mentioning as early as possible. Now, "specially venerated ... as taught by Jesus" is clear enough to me, but I would support changing this language to "specially venerated in Christianity in the form taught by Jesus to his disciples." Is that clear enough? Elizium23 (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lords/Lord's

My very minor edit has been reverted. I am about to restore the edit, and will explain here why I have done so.

The section "Use as a language comparison tool" contains an image captioned, at the moment, "Lords Prayer in Chinese". This is incorrect. It should (and shortly will) read, "Lord's Prayer in Chinese". There are not multiple "Lords"; there is one "Lord", and the prayer is his, hence, "Lord's". I can't believe I am writing this. Please do not revert this edit without explaining in detail how you can possibly think it should read "Lords Prayer". If this summary is confusing, simply scroll to the top of the page and carefully examine the title.

Regulov (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Please disregard, and forgive my tone. I have been an idiot, and a noisy one.

Regulov (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

History and origins of the prayer - There is no mention of relation to Ancient Greek pre-Christian Hymnology

here's a striking example:

ὦ Ζεῦ͵ πάτερ Ζεῦ O Zeus, father Zeus,

σὸν μὲν οὐρανοῦ κράτος͵ Yours is the Kingdom of Heaven,

σὺ δ΄ ἔργ΄ ἐπ΄ ἀνθρώπων ὁρᾶις and you watch over men's deeds,

λεωργὰ καὶ θεμιστά both the crafty and the just,

σοὶ δὲ θηρίων ὕβρις τε καὶ δίκη μέλει. and You are who intently sets mortal beasts' hubris and justice.

Archilochos: "To His Soul": A fragment.

=

Think of this Hymn with the Christian " O Father who art in heaven" in mind... I think it deserves mentioning in this article regarding the history and origins of the prayer, of which there is no mention at all. This might be a start to consider.. (204.112.245.250 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Dimitrios M Papadakis)

We would obviously need reliable secondary sources making that connection and analysis. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Daily"

Regarding the καθ' ἡμέραν (kath hemeran)...i.e., 'daily'...topic, I've restored the cited reference for this, which is a primary source for this topic. But I also wanted to take a moment to show you the specific chapter & verse in the New Testament so that you can take a look for yourself -- as I'm sure you'd agree, there's nothing quite as satisfying.

Here are the bonafide, literal references in the New Testament to the word 'daily' (references include: BibleHub.com, GreekBible.com and this link at the Vatican):

Mat 20: 2 | with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into ~ ἡμέρα | {hay-mer'-ah} the day

Gosp, Luk 9: 23 | himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

Gosp, Act 6: 1 | were being neglected in the daily distribution. ~ καθημερινός | {kath-ay-mer-ee-nos'} daily

Gosp, Act 17: 11 | examined the scriptures daily to determine whether ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

Gosp, Act 17: 17 | with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with ~ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἡμέραν| kata pas hemeran about every day

Gosp, Act 19: 9 | with him and began to hold daily discussions in the ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

NTLet, 2Cor 11: 28 | these things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

NTLet, Heb 3: 13 | Encourage yourselves daily while it is still "today," ~ καθ' ἑκάστην ἡμέραν| kath hekastos hemeran about each day

NTLet, Heb 10: 11 | Every priest stands daily at his ministry, offering ~ καθ' ἡμέραν | kath hemeran about the day (daily)

The above is a comment placed on my Talk page by a user on ISP 2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980|2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980, who has not logged in.

In "the daily distribution", "daily" is an adjective qualifying the noun "distribution". The usual Greek for the adjective "daily" is καθημερινός, as here.

The usual Greek for the adverb "daily" is the adverbial phrase καθ' ἡμέραν. "Daily" is an adverb in "take up his cross daily", modifying the verb "take up". It is not an adjective qualifying "cross". In "examined the scriptures daily", "daily" is an adverb modifying "examined", not an adjective qualifying "scriptures". In "Encourage yourselves daily", "daily" is an adverb modifying "encourage".

In "the usual daily wage", "daily" is an adjective qualifying "wage"; but the phrase is an English translation of the single Greek word δηνάριον (the denarius coin), and so the Greek text has neither the adjective not the adverb "daily". In "began to hold daily discussions", "daily" is an adjective qualifying "discussions"; but the phrase is an English translation of καθ᾿ ἡμέραν διαλεγόμενος, where καθ᾿ ἡμέραν is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb διαλεγόμενος.

In "our daily bread" is "daily" an adjective qualifying the noun "bread"? Or is it an adverb modifying some verb or other? Theodoxa (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My response: Point being, "our daily bread" is certainly not "daily" by direct translation, as all the other translations from the New Testament into English that result in "daily" reference ἡμέραν in some fashion. Translation of Epiousios is either very difficult, or quite straightforward...but I do not know of a responsible translator that sees "daily" in it. (I have attempted to delete the "special contributions" annotation here, but it keeps self-replicating and appending to my own comments for some reason.) --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want the "special contributions" indication of your Internet Service Provider to appear, log in to Wikipedia.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Building arguments on an English translation is futile, especially if it involves confusing different meanings of an English word such as "daily".

In Wikipedia, building arguments on anything is futile. That is original research. You can only cite statements already made by a reliable source. Read WP:OR.

You state that, in reference to the word "daily" in the context of "daily bread" (where it is an adjective), "The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, 1993, The United Bible Societies" makes the following statement: "While often substituted by the word 'daily,' the Greek term otherwise used throughout the New Testament for 'daily' is kath hemeran (καθ' ἡμέραν, 'according to the day')." I must ask you to quote the exact words in which that publication makes a statement so surprising in that context. I presume you are referring to the book of that name by Robert K. Brown and Philip Wesley Comfort published in 1993 by Tyndale House(ISBN 978-0842345644). Unfortunately, I do not have access to it. Quote the exact words used, as you are obliged by WP:V to do, if you want this statement of yours to remain in Wikipedia. Otherwise, what you insert will appear to be original research and will be deleted.

The statement that you attribute to the 1993 publication is contradicted by an example (Ac 6:1) that you yourself have given: ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ τῇ καθημερινῇ – feminine singular dative of the adjective καθημερινός, not the phrase καθ' ἡμέραν, which you say is the Greek term corresponding to the adjective "throughout the New Testament".

An extreme case of original research is to declare on one's own authority that all the many translators who have rendered τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον as "our daily bread" were and are irresponsible. Theodoxa (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

My response: So much for 'good faith.' I retract my well-intended thanks. Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Then, since "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information" (see WP:FORUM), you must go elsewhere for that; edits that violate Wikipedia principles must be removed. Theodoxa (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are disruptive, so I've reverted them. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please behave responsibly, if you wish to continue to edit Wikipedia. What is disruptive is the removal of well-sourced information and its replacement with original research. Theodoxa (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The finger that points, points both ways. You have removed cited material, and admit that you haven't even looked at the reference. Please edit responsibly. I'll not make similar threats to yours.

Similarly, I note also that your arguments are substantially built upon your own translations and understanding of Greek. I've added expert interlinear translations (not mine) as an aid as we Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed info

Could you explain why you removed this paragraph:

Each of these three meanings has the support of some scholars, and Eberhard Nestle listed 13 possible meanings, while others have gone even further. Jerome seems to have been uncertain about the meaning of the word: in Matthew he translated it as supersubstantialem[27] (super-essential) but as cotidianum (daily) in Luke,[28] and said that the corresponding Aramaic word in the Gospel of the Hebrews means crastinum (for tomorrow). Greek-speaking Origen held that the word was an invention of the evangelists.[29]

It is well cited, giving an overview of the different interpretations. Why do you think it should be removed? - SimonP (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove citations re. "daily"...and then go on to claim, without foundation, that they were "original research," when you know full well that I am not sourcing from the primary source, but in fact multiple secondary sources? Pot...meet kettle. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:4D04:1FC3:8BE:7100 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The only sources in your material seem to be the Bible itself and the Vatican website, neither are very good sources. That is why I don't believe that content belongs. Could you explain why the above paragraph is problematic? - SimonP (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Again (and again) I quote secondary sources...not "the" Bible. You appear to lack a basic understanding of the Bible, even though I've made a sincere attempt to educate you on this topic...which you admit is not a strength of yours. You might want to try...try...listening in a quiet place. Here's the abbreviated summary: there is no single "Bible." This only exists in the imagination of people who have not studied the creation of today's New Testament, commonly from Novum Testamentum Graece as the "primary" source, which in the current era is comprised of over 5,800 manuscripts which are the actual, ultimate, primary sources. My cites for "the" Bible are for secondary, but nonetheless expert, sources. To dismiss the Vatican website as a "not very good source" is an outrageously uninformed and particularly diminutive POV, as the Vatican is ultimately a source of many of these manuscripts as well as Christianity itself today with all of its off-shoots. In turn, you are dismissed...but not without my sincere encouragement to Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:85D7:3570:8067:DC2F (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood, but could you please explain why you think the above paragraph should be removed? - SimonP (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Phrase quite different

Why does this article use the phrase quite different to describe the versions of the Lord's Prayer in Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke?It is debatable that they are all that diffent.Vorbee (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Debatable by whom? You and me?Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer

"Forgive us our"... heard different words following this: debts and debtors, sins and sin against us, transgressions and transgressors, trespasses and transpassers.

I was raised in a particular religion, but the analogy seems to be equally similar, so I would imagine whatever religious context your faith chooses to use would not be unacceptable or inappropriate. 159.118.57.202 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Ange B. In Him and Happy Holydays  :)

Messale Romano

The text of the (Latin) Missale Romanum is unaffected by changes to translations such as the English Roman Missal, the Italian Messale Romano, the French Missel romain, the Polish Mszał rzymski, the Esperanto Roma Meslibro, ... Signature by Bealtainemí omitted by mistake.

Also made its way into concerning the "Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible."[2] Indication of provenance of the client of the Mount Laurel Comcast IP omitted by mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:5780:59d9:de84:d555:4496 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

What "also made its way into" what? The source you give says nothing about anything makings its way into anything, and does not mention at al the "Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible.

Apologies for my earlier mistake in omitting the quadruple ~ signature. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Doxology in the Didache: Early or Earliest?

The relevant sentence currently reads: "An early use of a doxology, 'for yours is the power and the glory forever', as a conclusion for the Lord's Prayer is in the Didache, 8:2." Its appearance in the Didache may in fact be the "first known" or the "earliest" but neither of the two cited sources support those claims. Until a reliable source is found and cited that supports the claim editors should not engage in original research.--Mox La Push (talk) 07:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If someone objects to lack of explicit affirmation that the first-century Didache is several centuries older than the earliest (fifth-century) witnesses to the "established" doxology, I let it be. Bealtainemí (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your wording expresses it very well: "The Didache, generally considered to be of the first century ...". I doubt if the precise dating of the Didache will be agreed upon soon, but you're very correct in saying that it is much earlier than the other known sources, by all accounts. Jzsj (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Black (2018; p. 228), whom I cite twice in the article, says the doxology's "earliest appearance may have been in Tatian's Diatessaron". So, I hope we can agree there's enough uncertainty to require a reliable source for the claim re: the Didache.--Mox La Push (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí: The issue was not primarily about the dating of the Didache. The issue was that the superlative claims of the "first" or "earliest" known or extant use of the doxology were unsourced and, thus, apparently original research. I replaced "first" with "early" but you were apparently unhappy with that change. I take no position on the claim that the earliest appearance of the doxology is in the Didache, except that the claim should be properly sourced or left out.--Mox La Push (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

To be exact, what you changed was not "first" to "early", but "the earliest known/extant" to "an early" (as if the Didache text were just one of several comparable ones). But it's useless to talk about the past. I hope you accept the present wording. Bealtainemí (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bealtainemí: The current wording, i.e. "The Didache, generally considered to be of the first century, has a doxology, 'for yours is the power and the glory forever', as a conclusion for the Lord's Prayer (Didache, 8:2)", is fine. It is not self-evident that the omission of known/extant implies what you claim it does and I note further that you yourself have omitted those two adjectives from the current version.--Mox La Push (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

We agree: the Didache added to the Our Father a doxology of its own, centuries ahead of any evidence of the now familiar doxology being added to Matthew's text. Thank you. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Until now, I have never expressed or implied any disagreement with that claim, which I am unaware of you making previously. However, given its appearance in the Diatessaron (which Black directly links to its entry into "the manuscript tradition of Matthew 6:13 ...") and questions about the dating of the Didache, I dispute the "centuries ahead" claim. It may be one century ahead but not two or more. In truth, it may only be decades or years ahead and, quite conceivably, it may have actually appeared first in an early recension of the Diatessaron. However, to reiterate, the issue that prompted this discussion was with the above-mentioned superlatives added to the article text without sources. No matter, I have now found a source for the superlative re: the Didache and have amended the article accordingly. Do you have any objection to removing the source citations that attest to the the 1st century origin of the Didache? I do not propose to change the text but since there is a separate article on the Didache that deals with dating the text I see no reason to include those source citations in this article. --Mox La Push (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Although I believe, as I said, that the Didache text is a few centuries (just a few) ahead of the earliest New Testament manuscript containing the Our Father doxology in Matthew, I will lose no sleep if anyone denies it. That manuscript is of about the date when Jerome was writing the Vulgate, slightly later than the writing of the Apostolic Constitutions and decidedly later than Tatian's writing, which may (or, perhaps more likely, may not) have contained the now traditional doxology.

Thank you for providing a source for the superlative statement that the earliest known use of a doxology as a conclusion for the Lord's Prayer is in the Didache, and for restoring the statement. Bealtainemí (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Zola & UBS

In the Doxology section Zola is cited in support of the following: "The first three editions of the UBS text cited the Diatessaron for inclusion of the familiar doxology in Matthew 6:13, but in the later editions it cites the Diatessaron for excluding it." This is true as far as it goes but it is also a questionable use of Zola, who writes: "While UBS^4-5 made laudable efforts in its revision of Diatessaronic evidence, some deficiencies remain." The change from UBS^1-3 regarding the doxology is one of the two examples of said deficiencies that Zola gives. Zola notes that part of the problem is UBS^1-3 implied "the Arabic version [of the Diatessaron] includes the doxology, which it does at 9:36" but UBS^4-5 omits it only on the basis of Diatessaron^syr, indicating, according to Zola, "this reading [without the doxology] only appears in the Syriac version of Ephrem's Commentary." Zola expands further on why this is a problem, concluding: "We are back to battling witnesses." It seems an additional sentence or explanatory note may be in order in the article text.--Mox La Push (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. Zola cites UBS as judging that the doxology was not in the Diatessaron. That is clear. If you were to add a mention of the perplexities spoken of by Zola, you would have to mention also that, in his footnote 152, Zola himself, like UBS, favours the conclusion that the Diatessaron did not include the doxology. So who should be cited in 2020 for the idea that the doxology was in the Diatessaron? Bealtainemí (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Similarities with Jewish Prayer

Suggest adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph under 'Similarities with Jewish Prayer'

It has been suggested that the various petitions of the Lord's Prayer, as well as its closing doxology, have a conceptual and thematic background in the Old Testament book of Psalms.

Thus the paragraph would read:

The book The Comprehensive New Testament, by T.E. Clontz and J. Clontz, points to similarities between elements of the Lord's Prayer and expressions in writings of other religions as diverse as the Dhammapada, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Golden Verses, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.[89] These elements include both biblical and post-biblical material in Jewish prayer, especially Kiddushin 81a (Babylonian).[90] "Our Father which art in heaven" (אבינו שבשמים, Avinu shebashamayim) is the beginning of many Hebrew prayers.[91] "Hallowed be thy name" is reflected in the Kaddish. "Lead us not into sin" is echoed in the "morning blessings" of Jewish prayer. A blessing said by some Jewish communities after the evening Shema includes a phrase quite similar to the opening of the Lord's Prayer: "Our God in heaven, hallow thy name, and establish thy kingdom forever, and rule over us for ever and ever. Amen." There are parallels also in 1 Chronicles 29:10–18.[73][90] It has been suggested that the various petitions of the Lord's Prayer, as well as its closing doxology, have a conceptual and thematic background in the Old Testament book of Psalms.

I refer here to my own work on the OT background of the Lord's Prayer.

ReubenBredenhof (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reuben Bredenhof - 4 August 2020

A page number would normally be expected, but perhaps the title of the book is sufficient as support for the statement, if it is not based on a single page. Bealtainemí (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus, Syriac Sinaiticus

Hello, dear colleague Elizium23 . Please explain the cancellation of my edit. Link given, translation provided. What is the problem? This is purely scientific research, and not mine. You have any objections, please provide them. Why are you undoing while writing: "Reverted good faith edits by Wlbw68 (talk): Mostly unsourced". If confessional affiliation prevents you from accepting scientific facts, then this is not at all good. Wlbw68 (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, I am skeptical that the entire passage When it comes to primacy, it should be borne in mind that liturgical texts tend to grow, which means that the short text is usually more ancient. Besides, it is quite improbable to suppose that the prayer Jesus, was deliberately cut. Thus, the scope of the Lord's prayer should be limited to authentic edition of the Gospel of Luke, which was transmitted by Papyrus 75 and by the Codex Vaticanus is supported by the cited source, which is in a mix of foreign languages. Can you provide some quotes in translation? Elizium23 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what exactly needs to be translated? The author cites the text of the prayer in ancient Greek on page 4. The brackets indicate what is in the prayer in the Gospel of Matthew and what is not in the Gospel of Luke. If you are familiar with the Greek language, then it will be easy for you to understand that In the Gospels of Luke:

Πάτερ=Father;

ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου=Hallowed be thy Name;

ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου=Thy kingdom come;

τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν=Give us this day our daily bread;

καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν=And forgive us our trespasses,

καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν=as we forgive them that trespass against us;

καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν=And lead us not into temptation.

Further scientists look at the chronology. Papyrus 75 and the Codex Vaticanus is older than the rest of the manuscripts. If there were no words before, and then they appear in the texts, this means that this is a later insertion. The situation is the same as, for example, with the insertion into this prayer at the end of the words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen." This phrase is not found in any ancient manuscript. You can open any and see for yourself. Or the same situation with Johannine Comma. If something did not exist before, and then appears, then this is a later insertion. Of course, I understand that someone will not like this state of affairs, but how can you argue with scientific facts? The situation is as follows. One of the scribes wrote in the margins his explanation of the text, and the next scribe entered this phrase into the text itself. I myself observed this on the example of Johannine Comma in ancient Russian manuscripts. Wlbw68 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, your comments further solidify my opinion that the green text I quoted is not supported by a reliable secondary source. Elizium23 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear why you are drawing the opposite conclusion. I understand that I offered a Russian-language source, authored by Ruslan Khazarzar. But there is a source in English that Ruslan Khazarzar refers to: the book of the German theologian Joachim Jeremias - New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. Transl. by J. Bowden. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971. You can watch it if in doubt.

I well understand that it is difficult to accept such a thing.

Matthew	Luke
Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ	Πάτερ ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου . . τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν .

red font - these are the words of the prayer Our Father, which are in the text of the Gospel of Matthew, but not in the text of the prayer in the Gospel of Luke.

green font - these are the words that differ in the prayer Our Father in the Gospel of Matthew from the words in the prayer Our Father in the Gospel of Luke.

Wlbw68 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

NRSV

In the text, phrases that begin with the words: "Other ancient authorities read" are formatted as links. Why add links to the text to confuse people? This text itself, in the presence of such phrases, is completely unauthorized and not scientific. Who are "Other ancient authorities"? What are their names when they lived? No self-respecting serious author in scientific work will write like that. Wlbw68 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, really, dude? Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, I understood that you will not discuss anything. You will defend the most obscurantist opinions. Read Language of Jesus. The illiterate Galilean fishermen-apostles spoke Greek with Christ, really? Christ, according to the Gospels, gave prayer to the apostles. What language? In the language in which he spoke with them - in the Aramaic dialect of the Aramaic language. They simply did not know Greek. The Aramaic language is the original text of the prayer, well, not Greek. Wlbw68 (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, your WP:OR notwithstanding, when scholars speak of "texts" they mean autographs and manuscripts. Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23. Are you seriously? What does the original Greek texts have to do with it? The original is the text on which the phrase was originally said or written. There is, for example, Syriac Sinaiticus (4th century), is it original or not? It is written in Aramaic and has a short version of the prayer identical to Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus.

Who are "Other ancient authorities"? What are their names when they lived? Can you answer these questions? Readers will be interested in what this is about. This is a link to unnamed authors, isn't it? - In that case, such things have no place at all in the encyclopedia.

Look wider at the world, you can't write such absurdities in an encyclopedia. Does Wikipedia claim to be scientific or not? If not, and here it is necessary to fight for such marginal, absurd phrases, then there are no questions. Wlbw68 (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, apparently you have never read a Bible with footnotes. "Other ancient authorities" refers to manuscripts with alternative readings. The very codices you are citing are "ancient authorities". Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Authorities are sources. Okay. Then exactly what sources are we talking about? How old are they compared to Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus Syriac Sinaiticus? And why add links to the text? NRSV does not. If you are quoting, keep the text structure.

The original text of the prayer was in Aramaic. Greek, Latin, English texts are translations, not original texts. Do you agree with that?Wlbw68 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be no clear evidence of an Aramaic text given by Jesus either in writing or as a formula to be memorized. I suggest that it would be best to leave aside questions of ancient texts, whether Greek or Syriac/Aramaic, and be satisfied with reporting the contents (text and footnotes) of NRSV. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Talking about something else. What language did Jesus speak with the apostles? - In Aramaic, but not in Ancient Greek or Biblical Hebrew. Ancient Greek is the language of an educated, literate society at that time. The fishermen from Galilee were not members of such a society. They were illiterate Jews. Biblical Hebrew is a liturgical and dead language. He was known to a few of the highest Levites close to the Sanhedrin. There remains one possible variant of the original prayer language, which is the Galilean dialect of the Aramaic language. Jesus and everyone around him lived most of their lives in Galilee. For which the Pharisees reproached him, according to the Gospel. Can we say that the first written source in which a prayer appears was written in Greek? - No, you can't say that. Several ancient texts have come down to us, in both Greek and Syriac. There is confusion with the Greek texts, there are discrepancies in them. The prayer text is different in different Greek texts. The Greek prayer texts, without exception, are translations, not originals. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that at present there is no original text of this prayer. He is not known to anyone. Therefore, writing "original" about some Greek text is not good. It is true that all modern translations are from Greek or from Greek through Latin, but Greek is not the original. Are there any objections? Wlbw68 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Off topic. If you want to talk about "something else", don't hope for to join you. Bealtainemí (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this offtopic? I mean, no Greek text can be called "original". This is a gross mistake. Therefore, such expressions in relation to the Greek text of the prayer should be removed from the article. I just want to make the article scientific, and I don't want to have endless conversations at all. I have a lot to do in the Wiki project. Do you have any objection to the term "original" in relation to Greek prayer texts? Write your objection. If not, then this expression is without regret, but I gladly remove it from the article.Wlbw68 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, I don't understand how you can appeal to "science" and at the same time fly in the face of scholarship. Elizium23 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about or what you mean. I have a specific question for you. Can any text of a prayer in Greek be called original? If so, which one? If this cannot be done, then I delete the term "original" in relation to the Greek texts of the prayer from the article. Any objections?Wlbw68 (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, please provide sources for your opinions. You have provided no sources. No source = no opinion. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Now you decided to humiliate me? Your colleague said that I had not read the Bible. Here's a link Where is your reference that Christ spoke with his disciples in ancient Greek? I'm waiting. Wlbw68 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This link is in English. I really look forward to a link from you about what Christ spoke with the apostles in ancient Greek. And I really want to understand how the text of the prayer Our Father in ancient Greek became the original?Wlbw68 (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, you are way off-topic. Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It is clear, you cannot answer my questions and argue you nothing. Therefore, you call a very important question about the original language of the text of the prayer Our Father as offtopic. It is very nice.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

About the NRSV translators: These people tried in 1989 to reconstruct the oldest ancient Greek text and then translate it into English. They did a great job. But they did not say which is the oldest ancient Greek text. They only stated the presence of two texts that differ very significantly in the Gospel of Luke and in the Gospel of Matthew. The first text is much shorter. To mitigate this significant difference, the NRSV translators began to write in the footnotes: "Other ancient authorities". The phrase itself is meaningless for the reason that it is necessary to indicate how ancient these authorities are. It was necessary to build a chronological table of these very ancient authorities or analyze when insertions in prayer appear. I think that here their confessional consciousness prevented the authors from doing this, they all belong to one or another Christian denomination. Belonging to one or another Christian denomination, a strong connection with it and a significant position in the denomination are the foundation of their material well-being. Is their attitude towards the text of the prayer purely scientific? -No. Confessional affiliation disturbs them.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, WP:OR Elizium23 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If I did this in the text of the article, then you could remind me of this, but now your remark is not relevant.

As it stands, the article is in a deplorable state. You are doing everything to ensure that a poorly written article Our Father is the worst article in Wikipedia. What is one phrase in it: "Lutheran theologian Harold Buls suggested that both were original, the Matthean version spoken by Jesus early in his ministry in Galilee, and the Lucan version one year later," very likely in Judea ". Firstly, no one knows the original of the prayer at the present time, secondly, the Greek translations are not original texts, and thirdly, it is just a sick fantasy that has nothing to do with science. And such passages in the article are a dime a dozen. If you like this whole parade of absurdity and nonsense, then this is only your choice. Why should all other readers read all this? And at the same time you do not allow to remove the most obvious bloopers in the article. Censorship, worse than ever. Why include NRSV footnotes in the text itself? Moreover, with the absolutely idiotic phrase "Other ancient authorities". It is useless to discuss the text of the article with you, you have not answered one of my questions. You are doing very badly.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Wlbw68 in that I know of no scholars who would claim that Jesus taught in Greek. It was a clear choice to translate from Aramaic to Greek. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz and Wlbw68 and have never disagreed on that point. But this is a point that is not in debate regarding the text and topic of this article. The original text is indisputably Greek. By the way, if you disagree with me and fail to furnish reliable sources to back up your claim, I will disregard you and continue on my merry way, because WP:OR and WP:V are ironclad policies. Elizium23 (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This will not work, Elizium23 . You claim that the original text was in ancient Greek, you must prove it. I am waiting for evidence that Christ spoke to the apostles in ancient Greek. Wlbw68 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If you, Elizium23, think that Christ is not a real person who lived in Judea 2,000 years ago, but a character in a literary work of art, then you need to prove that the first Gospels were written in ancient Greek. If you cannot prove that the first Gospel was written in ancient Greek, then you should not say that the ancient Greek text is the original text of the prayer. So, I expect from you references to the fact that the first Gospel was written in the ancient Greek language, and not in Aramaic.Wlbw68 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This section is about NRSV. Please, everyone, keep to the topic and don't encourage departures from it by answering remarks on other questions. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Bealtainemí, I will repeat what I said: the article is currently very, very poorly written. It needs to be completely rewritten. It is necessary to decide: in which language the text of the prayer is original. The article should begin with the original text, but not with the modern English translation NRSV. But you don't want to discuss anything. You want to keep the worst article text.Wlbw68 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, I am not sure you entirely understand how articles are written here on Wikipedia. To answer your last statement, this is the English Wikipedia, and so the English translations must be given pride of place. It is not useful or productive to sprinkle an abundance of Greek or Aramaic into an English article; that's what Wikisource is there for. Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23. I know well how any article is written. If we are talking about the original text, then we must first of all tell about it. By whom and when it was written, in what language it was compiled. We must show the original and only then show the translations. There can be many translations. NRSV is just one of them. You never answered my questions and did not provide links to the fact that the most ancient text of the prayer was written in ancient Greek, and not in Aramaic. I expect them from you.Wlbw68 (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Some sources say 1, 2, 3 "It is probable that Jesus knew the three common languages of the cultures around him during his life on Earth: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. From this knowledge, it is likely that Jesus spoke in whichever of the three languages was most suitable to the people He was communicating with", The oldest Text was written in Greek but the original words might be in Aramaic as : a)The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription "according to Matthew" was added some time in the second century. Ref: Matthew the Apostle#Matthew's Gospel. b)The Gospel of Mark is anonymous. Most scholars date it to just after 70 CE, when Titus (a Roman general and subsequently emperor) destroyed the temple. Ref:Gospel of Mark#Authorship, date and genre.Ref 4. I think we can agree on the term "oldest" text instead of the word "original" text for WP:RNPOV. 2. Actually who are the "Ancient Authorities"?, Common Reader can understand if someone gave a reference or wiki link to it! J.Stalin S ^Talk 04:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear J.Stalin S. Your first two sources are not authoritative, they are anonymous Internet texts. The third source, William F. Dankenbring, does not provide any evidence to support his hypothesis. According to the Gospels, Jesus communicated exclusively with the locals. The language of local residents (Jews and Samaritans) was Aramaic. Jesus, according to the Gospels, gave his prayer to his Jewish disciples. The Greek text of the prayer can be considered original only if Jesus is considered a character in literary works called the Gospel. If you think that Jesus is a real Jewish person who lived in Judea, then the text of the prayer in the original is unambiguously Aramaic. The Greek prayer text is the oldest surviving text in manuscripts.The last phrase needs to be confirmed by authoritative sources. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to enter this information into the article. Opponents don't want to talk and block any edits.Wlbw68 (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, with all due respect, your reasoning has serious problems...but nonetheless, though it be poor reasoning, that you reason at all means you are a reasonable person (or a deceptive psychopath but I shall assume good faith). Now. You seem to harbour a great deal of black and white, false dichotomy notions. Namely - and perhaps the root of all of this - your idea that Jesus can only be either a character in literary works called gospels, or an actual historical person. What makes you think it so impossible to be both? There are quite literally thousands, if not millions of such examples. The New Testament cannon itself provides one very striking such example in the apostle Paul. You've got several undisputed writings written by Paul himself (actual historical therefore), then you've got the Paul in Acts that is a literary character depicting a largely legeondary version of the actual person, loosely base on his actual doings.

Now, as concerning Jesus - and I will try to keep the focus as narrow as possible here, since the Lords prayer is the subject... There are two sources, Matthew and Luke. The authors of those gospels were each ignorant of the other (as there are irreconcilable differences between the narratives of the two), both writing around the same time, both using Mark as a source but heavily expanding it. Assuming the prayer was actually originally taught by Jesus to his disciples, it would have been in Aramaic. The author of Mark (writing in Greek) preserves several short phrases spoken by Jesus in Aramaic, and gives their translation. However, the Lords prayer is not a brief one or two words, and there would have been no reason for the earliest greek speaking christians to have learned any of it in Aramaic (just as we English speakers can all recite it in English but next to no one knows what the words are in Greek). Anyway, it was likely widespread enough by oral tradition that both Matthew and Luke can rightfully be considered to be the original written versions: written around the same time, similar enough to each other yet also different enough to suggest that oral tradition was both of their sources. And they wrote in Greek, not Aramaic, so if your concern is not with original SPOKEN version, but original WRITTEN version, Greek is the closest thing that will likely ever exist to an original text.

Please don't ask for reliable sourcing, either. For the same reasons that I would tell you to get lost if you demanded reliable sources proving the world be not flat ;). 'twould be disruptive, as these facts are readily verifiable and undisputed (not counting FRINGE). Good day to thee, lad Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Firejuggler86. You acknowledge that the original text of the prayer is Aramaic. Why further reasoning that the Greek texts are original? The Greek texts are translations, and the original Aramaic text has not survived. Who told you that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew were the first written sources to include prayer? - Nobody. So, there is no need to invent more fables to defend the lie that is now written in the article about the original text of the prayer in Greek. I really do not like the construction, when based on several hypotheses, which is what you do. The most interesting thing is that your wrong and absolutely false conclusion is based on several unprovable hypotheses.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, you will need to furnish citations proving that the "original manuscripts of the Gospels are in Aramaic" because we don't believe you (we think you're lying) and without sources, your word is worthless here. Elizium23 (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23. Who are "we"? You are one person, write in your own name. Now about what I say. I say this: Jesus and his fisherman disciples from Galilee were Jews who spoke Aramaic. Jesus gave the prayer to the disciples in Aramaic. This is the original. The text of the prayer in Aramaic has not been preserved. The Aramaic text was translated into Greek, and the Greek text is two different texts in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. These two texts are not originals, but translations of the prayer. It's clear? Wlbw68 (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, prove it. Prove you're not lying. Put your money where your mouth is. Elizium23 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23. You turned to being rude. You are angry, then you are wrong. I just do not have to prove anything, I gave links to sources. You must prove that the original of the prayer is in Greek. And you must explain how one prayer can have two different original texts at once. The last statement is ordinary human stupidity. Therefore, at present, an article that has this statement is complete nonsense.Wlbw68 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Wlbw68, is your argument that the gospels were originally written in Aramaic, that there were physical manuscripts in Aramaic that were later translated into Greek? If that is what your position is, I'll sorry to say, you are not correct on that front. Some oral proto-gospel that was first told in Aramaic, sure. That the Lord's prayer was originally given in Aramaic, (presuming it actually was Jesus that first dictated it, which I think it is probable that it was), undoubtedly so. And you are also correct that neither gospel version can be considered "the original", because both were written independently of the other, and they were different. But a written original gospel in Aramaic, there is no evidence whatsoever that any such thing ever existed. Dont underestimate oral transmission, either. The Iliad and Odyssey were transmitted completely by mouth for centuries before they were ever put in writing; and the Iliad's description of the physical landscape around Troy was found to be accurate to the minute detail. (off the wall example, but hey). Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

For many believers, this is a very painful topic. But I will try to present scientific facts, I hope I will not offend anyone: the Gospels were written in Greek from the very beginning, they were written around the 2nd century. No earlier texts describing events in the life of Jesus have been found in Aramaic at this time. Can the Gospels be viewed as accurate historical descriptions of the life of Jesus? - No, the details of the events described in different Gospels contradict each other. In addition, there are many historical and chronological contradictions in the Gospels. Hundreds of books have been written about this. Was the first text of the prayer in Aramaic? - From a scientific point of view, we cannot speak about this with certainty. We have two texts of prayer in Greek that are very different from each other. Which one is the original? Does the text of the prayer belong to Jesus at all? Perhaps the two different texts of the prayer were compiled by the Greek authors of the Gospels, who wrote 70-100 years after the death of Jesus? These are rhetorical questions. There are no scientific answers to them. We can only say the following: 1. we have two ancient texts in Greek, very different from each other. 2, throughout history one text was adopted on their basis, which is currently used in worship. Wlbw68 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The Pope agrees with Marcion

According to Harnack (Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God, p.44 Wiph and Stock edition, 2001) the phrase "do not lead" should be "do not allow us to be led" according to Marcion. (the Pope about 2000 years too late) 47.54.7.39 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Matthew and Luke

Is there a reason for the mentions of 2 Matthew and 2 Luke? Are these referring to manuscript traditions? If so, that should be footnoted. This is a very unusual convention.

Quarantine Zone (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

English translations as presented

@Elizium23: The article doesn’t cite ‘The KJV accepted today’, it explicitly cites ‘King James Version (1611)’. As we are currently presenting it, this label is straightforwardly wrong and misrepresents the cited source; the 1611 version did not use the text given. Either the label should be changed to ‘(modernized)’ or some such, in which case it should be cited to wherever the text is actually taken from (not the 1611 edition), or the text should follow the actual version cited. (Also worth mentioning there is already a modernized version right next to it in any case.) Vorziblix (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we should rethink the motives that led to citing the 1611 version. (It's interesting that "1611 version" usually refers to 18th-century editions, but you've taken this literally.) In this revision, many non-English versions were moved to Wikisource. I believe that there's a good case to say that Early Modern English is not the same English that we're writing here on Wikipedia, and such a foreign-language translation should definitely not be included in the body of this article. We're beginning to creep away from the main topic. Elizium23 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Baba Yetu

Should Cristopher Tin's "Baba Yetu" be added to the list of musical renditions of the Lord's Prayer?

It is allegedly a modern choral rendition in the language Swahili, and the list already includes renditions in other languages, such as German. 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:BCB7:31AB:E9C4:BE8B (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Aramaic version of the Lord's Prayer

Why, if Jesus spoke in Aramaic (not Greek, not Latin, certainly not English), is there no direct translation here from the original language to English? I have heard/read several, and they are very interesting. 69.73.78.26 (talk) 10:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Comparisons

It may be of interest to compare with the Jewish prayer Ana b'Koach, which may have originated in the same period, during cruel, pre-christian Roman hegemony and occupation (oppression).JohnEC Jr (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Peace Movement

This seems to be one of the oldest and long-living prayers in the peace story of humanity.JohnEC Jr (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)