homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Ecclesiantics   » The modern Lord's Prayer (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The modern Lord's Prayer
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Last night I was at a service in a local church, and got tripped up by the modern form of the Lord's Prayer. It's something I hardly ever hear, and so I've assumed it had died away. However, it struck me that almost all the services I go to I have planned, so I've actually got no idea whether or not it is popular. There are all sorts of reasons why I prefer the traditional form (better for evangelism, apart from anything else), but I'm most interested in trying to get a sense of which version is most widely used.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It was used in our church for about 10 years, but then it fell out of favour and we have now reverted back to the traditional form. I asked whether our church schools used the modern form and was told 'no'. So if even the children don't know it, there doesn't seem much point.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which traditional form (at least two: the Scots and the English) and which modern form (I have no idea how many but certainly more than three)?

No the URC standard form of the modern version does not agree with that of the CofE.

Jengie

[ 04. January 2018, 12:17: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There are all sorts of reasons why I prefer the traditional form (better for evangelism, apart from anything else)

Can you explain more about what you mean here? I'd have thought the reverse is true: the language is largely arcane and some of the theology is dubious (as recently highlighted by the Pope).

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There are all sorts of reasons why I prefer the traditional form (better for evangelism, apart from anything else)

Can you explain more about what you mean here? I'd have thought the reverse is true: the language is largely arcane and some of the theology is dubious (as recently highlighted by the Pope).
Yes. I agree. I can see other reasons for sticking with the traditional version, but I can't see any reason why traditional form of the Lord's Prayer is 'better for evangelism'.

As an evangelistic message, it strikes me as about as much a draw as a banner I saw proudly displayed outside a church in Cambridge about 40 years ago "All services 1662".

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I use the (well, a) modern form for the daily office - the SEC website includes it as part of the liturgy and I see no reason to replace it. Much of it is similar to the CofE version:
quote:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Do not bring us to the time of trial,
but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours,
now and for ever.
Amen.

Of course here in Presbyterian country I stick with debt/debtors in the older form.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745

 - Posted      Profile for Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Email Ecclesiastical Flip-flop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Reading between the lines, I get the impression that one is trying to recite the modern Lord's Prayer from memory - a bit like running before you can walk. The printed words should be proveded and for all I know, there may be more than one version.

--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!

Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
There are all sorts of reasons why I prefer the traditional form (better for evangelism, apart from anything else)

Can you explain more about what you mean here? I'd have thought the reverse is true: the language is largely arcane and some of the theology is dubious (as recently highlighted by the Pope).
I would guess because (and I've got a lot of family and friends who teach in primary schools) most children doing worship at school now, and certainly therefore going backwards in time, are using "Our father, who art etc...."

Consequently, from an evangelical point of view, the "trad" version (although I suspect probably more "on" rather than "in" earth....) is going to be about the one thing other than Lord of the Dance that the average person in the street is going to have some acquaintance with.

Start "messing around" with the one thing they might know and you're moving even further away from them.

Just a guess.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Kayarecee
Apprentice
# 17289

 - Posted      Profile for Kayarecee   Email Kayarecee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The modern version which Arethosemyfeet quoted above is the same as the one that I know, which dates back at least to the 1970s; my denomination published a hymnal in 1978 which had it as an option. Granted, by comparison to the "traditional" one, which (I think) came from the 1662 BCP, that's a lot more modern, but it's still older than me.

When I was in college and seminary, my university chapel services and my seminary's daily worship used the modern version, and I waffle back and forth between it and the traditional in my private prayers, but until very recently, I don't think I'd ever encountered a congregation that used the modern one in its worship. I do know of the one, now, so there's that. [Big Grin]

Posts: 25 | From: The Cornfields | Registered: Aug 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I prefer

Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil (or the evil one).

Mainly because I do not think God ever intentionally tempts us. We do have trials most of our life but we can turn to God during those times for salvation, not in the sense of pulling us from the waters but in the sense of seeing us through those times.

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
About 15 years ago, I was working with youth at a church where I had grown up. The previous youth minister was a big fan of contemporary language and music, and insisted on using the contemporary version at youth events- she optimistically believed that the old version would be totally out of use in the next 10 years, and that we were preparing the kids for the future.

The kids barely put up with it. As soon as she was gone, we brought back the old version, which seemed to make most folks happy.

This is not a knock on the contemporary version- I actually don't hate it, and get a kick out of the novelty of saying it on the rare occasions that it is used. I just think that it has failed to become mainstream because even 12 and 13 year olds are so accustomed to the old version that they think the new one sounds off.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I just think that it has failed to become mainstream because even 12 and 13 year olds are so accustomed to the old version that they think the new one sounds off.

that's what I was getting at but clearer than I managed!

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

This is not a knock on the contemporary version- I actually don't hate it, and get a kick out of the novelty of saying it on the rare occasions that it is used. I just think that it has failed to become mainstream because even 12 and 13 year olds are so accustomed to the old version that they think the new one sounds off.

I'm the reverse. I am most familiar with the ASB 1980 and most used to the modern versions of everything in the (Anglican) liturgy. I don't know anyone who taught the "traditional" version to their children.

But I certainly got a "kick out of the novelty" of attending prayerbook services at a Cathedral a few years ago.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673

 - Posted      Profile for Mark Wuntoo   Email Mark Wuntoo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are other considerations. When I was leading worship I invited people to join in the Prayer 'in whatever form or language you prefer'. Many of our congregation had English as a second language. Often I could hear different languages being used and I found that uplifting. In addition, I stood away from the microphone in order not to lead with the modern version which I preferred.
Pentecost anyone?

--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.

Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In this part of regional Australia, the Anglicans use the new form.

If I should google tell me, but what does the original Greek say, or what is its intent? And if it is different to the traditional English (I assume that is how we ended up with a new one), how did we end up with what we have? Do the Romance, and any others (Arabic, Chinese...), languages translate differently?

Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by Og, King of Basan
quote:
About 15 years ago, I was working with youth at a church where I had grown up. The previous youth minister was a big fan of contemporary language and music, and insisted on using the contemporary version at youth events- she optimistically believed that the old version would be totally out of use in the next 10 years, and that we were preparing the kids for the future.

The kids barely put up with it. As soon as she was gone, we brought back the old version, which seemed to make most folks happy.

Same experience here: during an interregnum when some power-crazed half-wit decided to change all the liturgies at the church where I then worshipped, the most powerful expressions of dissent and resistance came from people aged under 25. I have fond memories of one girl with a startling pink streak through her hair rounding on he who had made the change and accusing him of cultural vandalism - I recall she said he and his king were denying her and her age-group their heritage.

I think it comes back to what is sensible: if you are devising liturgy to be as non-threatening/off-putting as possible to those who aren't regular worshippers, mucking about with the bits they may remember and feel comfortable with isn't the best route to take. Similarly, insisting we should all learn to love Hillsong and soft-rock worship songs is unlikely to fill your pews anytime soon - but I can guarantee it will attract the withering scorn of anyone under 25 and alienate most of those over 60.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I presume by the traditional form you mean
quote:

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

Read carefully, it's the Scots traditional form. The Roman Catholic form is apparently not the same as the traditional CofE form either.

The URC modern form given in Rejoice and Sing is:
quote:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed by your name,
your kingdom come
your will be done
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil
For the kingdom, the power and the glory are your
now and for ever. Amen

I believe there is also the ICET form of the Lord's Prayer but cannot find a copy outside of copyright to check.

Personally I use the translation in the NRSV (Anglicised) in Matthew with a permitted variant.

Jengie

[ 04. January 2018, 21:25: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm the other way round, it's the traditional version that tends to trip me up. The village CofE church I grew up with used Series 3 and then ASB services, which both used variations of the modern form. The evangelical Anglican churches of my adulthood (in the UK and Tunis!) all used the modern version. Even the rather high Anglican village church I now attend uses Common Worship with the modern version for its regular 11.00am Sunday morning service (I think the 8.00am communion is BCP). Maybe my experience is unusual?
We taught our kids the modern version. Although they are familiar with the traditional one, I'm not sure if they could recite it by heart. But perhaps that reflects the church circles they have grown up with. My own feeling was that I wanted them to understand what they were saying as much as possible and I didn't feel the traditional language was going to aid that. Of course you can explain the meaning of the traditional words but that seemed to be an unnecessary additional layer of complication for young children. And I suppose I don't have a deep cultural attachment to the traditional form as I didn't grow up using it.

Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I find amusing is that the trespasses/debtors distinction is replicated even in the Gaelic versions of the Church of Scotland and Scottish Episcopal Church liturgies. There are, of course, also distinct modern and traditional versions of each. Does anyone know if other languages suffer this proliferation of variants?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We use a new version that seeks forgiving of sins as we forgive others, being saved in the time of trial etc. Much clearer to the modern mind and in accord with modern speech. It amuses us that when we go to a Catholic church, the latest missal uses the old version, straight from the Authorised Version of the Bible.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
The URC modern form given in Rejoice and Sing is:
quote:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed by your name,
your kingdom come
your will be done
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil
For the kingdom, the power and the glory are your
now and for ever. Amen

I believe there is also the ICET form of the Lord's Prayer but cannot find a copy outside of copyright to check.

The version you quote from Rejoice and Sing is the ICET version. I could be wrong—I’m away from home so can't check, but Gramps49 can correct me if I am wrong—but I think the ICET version is the only version that is given in Evangelical Lutheran Worship, the 2006 service book-hymnal of the ELCA. Most American service books (Catholic missals excluded, of course) give both the ICET version and the applicable “traditional” version. Speaking of which . . .

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
What I find amusing is that the trespasses/debtors distinction is replicated even in the Gaelic versions of the Church of Scotland and Scottish Episcopal Church liturgies.

It's also replicated in daughter churches, at least in the US. American Presbyterians say “debts”/“debtors.” Everyone else (except, I guess, ELCA Lutherans now) says “trespasses.”

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I only use the pre-1970s form when visiting the comatose or dementia patients ... at the very least I think "save us from the time of trial" is far more consistent with New Testament intentions than something about not being tempted ...

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814

 - Posted      Profile for Galloping Granny   Email Galloping Granny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I prefer

Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil (or the evil one).

Mainly because I do not think God ever intentionally tempts us. We do have trials most of our life but we can turn to God during those times for salvation, not in the sense of pulling us from the waters but in the sense of seeing us through those times.

My feelings exactly. God does not send us temptations to try us.
We have used the widely used modern version for decades, and so have any other church I have worshipped in – with the exception of the church I attend on holiday, where I am one of the team of lay leaders. Hence a hiccup in a service (some years ago now) when I led into the Lord's Prayer, immediately realised the congregation were saying different words, and I simply couldn't remember what came next. But they carried on quite happily.
There is a widely sung version here (New Zealand) and for some reason in our congregation we include 'Do not put us to the test' while the Anglicans up the road manage to sing 'save us from the time of trial'. I just shut up at that point.
Zappa might tell us what version is in the NZ Anglican Prayer Book.
In leading worship I like to use different versions on the grounds that it is easy to rattle the Lord's Prayer off without thinking. Jim Cotter's is too long for an ordinary church service but I think Dorothy MccRae-McMahon's is quite usable, and I've used others I've found on Progressive web sites.
A minister who came to our church to preach for a call turned out to be unexpectedly conservative and the congregation were taken aback to find themselves being led into the traditional version.
It has been said that Jesus was teaching his friends how to compose their prayers, rather than reciting the given prayer like a mantra.

--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113

Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Oscar the Grouch

Adopted Cascadian
# 1916

 - Posted      Profile for Oscar the Grouch     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I use both the BCP and the ICET versions in equal measure. Which means that I continually trip myself up over which version I am saying.

But the people who use the "modern" version seem really happy with it and know it by heart just as much as the BCPers know the trad form by heart.

If you are using a modern liturgy, I can see no real reason for deliberately shifting back into archaic language for the Lord's Prayer. It just seems (to me anyway) to give the impression that these are "magic words". Far better to have this most important of prayers in the language that people actually use. I don't say "who art" in everyday speech, so why should I say it in my praying?

--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu

Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433

 - Posted      Profile for Zappa   Email Zappa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:


Zappa might tell us what version is in the NZ Anglican Prayer Book.




Save us from the time of trial. Interestingly the Māori, which I use, reverts to the idea of temptation, but Māori liturgy (Anglican) tends to be very low trad and conservative.

--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/

Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't say "who art" in everyday speech, so why should I say it in my praying?

or even "which art" </cranmer>

I do find myself addressing God as "thou" in prayer from time to time, with the explicit tutoyer at the forefront of my mind.

(At our TEC shack, it's trespasses unless the children are singing it, in which case it's debts.)

[ 05. January 2018, 05:11: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
bib
Shipmate
# 13074

 - Posted      Profile for bib     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have been told that it is actually grammaticaly incorrect to say 'as we forgive those who sin against us' For that reason I always say 'as we forgive them'.

--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"

Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
... but then "forgive them who" isn't good either so we're back to "forgive them that".

Raise a glass to T Cranmer, anyone?

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I regularly, in one context or another, use any one of four versions of the Lord's Prayer
quote:
Our Father, which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done,
in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
(Cranmer/BCP 1662)

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
("Modified Traditional" - AFAIK first in print in the US BCP 1928)

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil.
For the kingdom, the power,
and the glory are yours
now and for ever.
Amen.
(Contemporary C of E since at least the ASB of 1980. General Synod departed from the Ecumenical text for reasons that seemed good to them at the time)


Our Father who art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory, for ever. Amen.
(Church of Scotland Traditional - Direct use of the King James Version text from Matthew 6)

From my own purely personal point of view, I am happy with any one of them, although since I first was regularly involved with the CofE in the 1980s, I have always used the C of E contemporary English version as my personal default. I don't think there is any translational way around the 'problem' generated by the rhetorical device used in "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil", but I do think the contemporary understanding of temptation is rather a long way from what is envisaged in the prayer.

I suspect that there are multiple reasons that schools have not widely adopted a contemporary language version, including the fact that at any point where it is decided to introduce it, a whole load of children in school who have already learnt it will have to re-learn it; and that parents and grandparents of children who learnt (usually) the modified traditional version at school are likely to generate some sort of fuss about it - especially the majority who are not regular worshippers in the C of E (or anywhere), and have no other exposure to reforming liturgical language.

Personally, I would prefer to reduce the elements which need to be explained (mainly to children and those who have English as a second language) including archaic second person forms of pronouns and verbs, and the intended meaning of 'trespasses'. I'm not sure that there's any easy way round 'hallowed', or the final pair of petitions.

I regret that the way the prayer is usually laid out, and the way that it consequently tends to be said both tend to obscure the fundamentally simple structure of the prayer, and the use of parallelism.

As far as whether it is a prayer to be prayed, or a pattern to be used, I tend to think it is both/and rather than either/or.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have been told that it is actually grammaticaly incorrect to say 'as we forgive those who sin against us' For that reason I always say 'as we forgive them'.

Were you given some reason for that, or were you just told that is was wrong? I'm struggling to identify what the grammatical error might be.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
posted by BroJames
quote:
I'm not sure that there's any easy way round 'hallowed', or the final pair of petitions.
Really? I'd have thought it was much easier now than, say, 50/60 years ago, when that argument was first trotted out by those who sought to "modernise" and "make relevant" the liturgy.

Hallowed - easy. We now celebrate Halloween so all you need to do is point out the date, point out that the day following is All Saints' Day, explain that the "een" is short for eve(ning) and there you go.

Lead us not into temptation - explain in terms of something like giving up smoking or being on a diet. In fact I'd say that the dieting industry has brought a modern-day resurgence in the use of the word temptation.

Deliver us from evil - in one word: ISIS. Point to the beheadings, rapes, burnings of live victims, etc, etc, etc, and then to the fact the armed forces have had to go in to liberate; deliver and liberate have the same latin route which is liberare.

IMO the ever-present 24 hours rolling news world makes many of the concepts in scripture much easier to explain by providing handy examples than, say, the hum-drum world of the 1950s.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by BroJames
quote:
I'm not sure that there's any easy way round 'hallowed', or the final pair of petitions.
Really? I'd have thought it was much easier now than, say, 50/60 years ago, when that argument was first trotted out by those who sought to "modernise" and "make relevant" the liturgy.

Hallowed - easy. We now celebrate Halloween so all you need to do is point out the date, point out that the day following is All Saints' Day, explain that the "een" is short for eve(ning) and there you go.

Lead us not into temptation - explain in terms of something like giving up smoking or being on a diet. In fact I'd say that the dieting industry has brought a modern-day resurgence in the use of the word temptation.

Deliver us from evil - in one word: ISIS. Point to the beheadings, rapes, burnings of live victims, etc, etc, etc, and then to the fact the armed forces have had to go in to liberate; deliver and liberate have the same latin route which is liberare.

IMO the ever-present 24 hours rolling news world makes many of the concepts in scripture much easier to explain by providing handy examples than, say, the hum-drum world of the 1950s.

But connecting 'hallowed' with Halloween or even with All Saints day doesn't really help in understanding what 'hallowed' means. As I say, I don't think it's something which can be resolved by changing the wording - I think it simply needs to be explained.

As for "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" is concerned there are two problems. One is that 'temptation' in contemporary usage no longer has the meaning of 'testing' which the Latin tentationem had. Specifically, it is not something like being tempted to eat chocolate when we are on a diet, or being tempted by a bad habit. It is about being in a situation of difficulty or danger such that our faith is put to the test. That could be resolved by an alternative wording e.g 'do not put us to the test'.

The second problem is that there is a use of parallelism and a rhetorical device which are unfamiliar, and because they are unfamiliar we tend to misinterpret the text.

The primary statement is "deliver us from evil". Like most of the other petitions in the Matthaean version of the Lord's Prayer it is emphasised by a parallel statement which in this case precedes it: "lead us not into temptation". This (more or less) restates the petition but casts it into a negative form instead. We tend to get hung up over the question of whether God does or does not lead us into temptation (or indeed bring us to the time of trial), but that is because we read the clause as if it stood in its own right rather than in the light of the parallelism between the two.

The Lucan version of the Lord's Prayer is revealing. It shows that there are five petitions (in summary): God's holiness; God's rule; our need for daily bread*: our need for forgiveness; a prayer for protection from evil. In the Matthaean version, each of these petitions, except for the central one (*) is turned into a pair of parallel statements/petitions.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Swick
Shipmate
# 8773

 - Posted      Profile for Swick   Email Swick       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My church normally uses both the traditional and modern forms. We print only one version but have a note in the service leaflet to use whichever version one likes, which is a messy compromise, since if someone near you is loudly saying a different version it almost always trips other people up. At our last worship committee meeting we decided to omit this note and just print the traditional version.

For services that bring in lots of visitors, such as Christmas, Easter, or confirmations, we use the traditional version, since most Christians, even lapsed, know it.

Posts: 197 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By Traditional version most people mean the one that appears in the Book of Common Prayer I suppose.

This version does not actually come from the Bible at all, it came from the Didache.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

It bothers me little which version I am given to say in a service of worship, provided I have the words in front of me to read and keep in step with the rest of the congregation. It matters to my wife though because she is registered blind and ordained, so she has committed to memory several differently worded versions. I have committed to memory only the 'Traditional' version which you will notice refers to God thus:

Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed by they Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil.
+ Marks addition.
For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

I have added bold type to stress the words that most frequently get changed in recitation.

When leading the congregation in prayer I always put particular stress of intonation upon the the sentence "And lead us (pause), NOT into temptation; (longer pause) but deliver us from evil. The extra comma inserted after us makes all the difference to the sense of the sentence.

The sense of the sentence thus being a statement of faith that we believe that God would never lead us INTO temptation, (nor lead us away from it either. To do so would negate our freedom to decide and act for ourselves. God leads us only with our consent.), but will ALWAYS rather deliver us from evil.

This is all very well of course but has it ever occurred to anyone that The Lord's Prayer is not a Prayer of Our Lord?

Jesus spent extended periods in prayer, many hours, according to the evidence in scripture. He did not just keep reciting this 'formula' in 'vain repetition'. His own advice was to avoid that mistake. Matt. 6:7.

The Lord's Prayer is a tick list of meditation subjects, not a prayer in itself.

After THIS MANNER then pray thee: Not "Using these following words pray ye".

Our Father: Contemplate the implications of being a child whose Father created this universe and possibly many others as well.

Which art in Heaven.: Contemplate the infinite expanse of reality beyond the physical / carnal / temporal realities which so concern us in our daily affairs.

Hallowed be they Name: Contemplate God's transcendent otherness yet intimate proximity, such that He even perceives our innermost thoughts.

Thy kingdom come: Contemplate the breaking through of Love, justice, freedom, mercy etc into this torn and shattered world, as God's kingdom is imperceptibly established.

Thy will be done in earth as in heaven: Think of all the kingdom parables. The kingdom of heaven is LIKE .... Then consider how well am I cooperating in that project.

Give us this day our daily bread: Notice the US in that sentence. Not my daily bread but OUR daily bread. How concerned am I about anybody else's daily bread? etc.

And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us: What trespasses have I committed? What trespasses of other have I not forgiven. etc.

And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil: The semicolon is there for a reason. PAUSE longer than a comma to contemplate the full implications of "Being led by God" as jesus was every minute of his earthly life. What might be the consequences of consenting for God to lead us in this way? What were they for Jesus?

For thine etc: Additional words from Mark and the Didache which sum up in whose safe hands the entire existence of everything ultimately is, The Eternal I AM.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I rather like this version.

I'll get me coat....

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
By Traditional version most people mean the one that appears in the Book of Common Prayer I suppose.

Since many of us are not Anglican, much less CofE, and since many of us are not English, I would not assume that. There are a number of traditional forms of the Lord’s Prayer—the English BCP form you cite (with “which” instead of “who”) is rarely if ever heard on this side of the Pond. By “traditional,” I think most people mean the version traditionally used in their church prior to the introduction of “contemporary” English in the liturgy. The most prominent marker of a traditional version is probably use of “Thy” instead of “Your.” [/QB][/QUOTE]

[ 05. January 2018, 15:47: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alex Cockell

Ship’s penguin
# 7487

 - Posted      Profile for Alex Cockell     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't help but think of Dara O'Briain's Mixed Protestant/Catholic Marriage clip...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We use the 'modern' (well, 1971) version nearly all the time except when there are are a lot of visitors.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why? Do you perhaps revert to 1662 BCP if there are a lot of visitors?

(That's not a snarky question, BTW. The late +Michael Perham opined that, if the old rite i.e. 1662 had failed to 'grab' people, the newer Rite A - I'm going back a few years! - should be given a chance).

IYSWIM.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... but then "forgive them who" isn't good either so we're back to "forgive them that".

Raise a glass to T Cranmer, anyone?

Any and every time. [Smile]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I have been told that it is actually grammaticaly incorrect to say 'as we forgive those who sin against us' For that reason I always say 'as we forgive them'.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... but then "forgive them who" isn't good either so we're back to "forgive them that".

”As we forgive our debtors” avoids the problem altogether. [Biased]

But include me among those who don't see the grammatical problem with “as we forgive those who sin against us." (See what I did there?)

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a small point for the English grammarians amongst us.

I was once told by someone I assumed knew what they were talking about that the Lords Prayer was originally written in Greek, but Jesus did not teach it to his disciples in Greek, he spoke Aramaic. When the Lord's Prayer is translated back into Aramaic from Greek however, it can be made to rhyme.

I don't know if it may be true, but if it is, then maybe it could indicate it was intended as an aid memoir for an itinerary of prayers, rather than a prayer in its own right.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
keibat
Shipmate
# 5287

 - Posted      Profile for keibat   Email keibat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bib wrote, a while back:
quote:
I have been told that it is actually grammaticaly incorrect to say 'as we forgive those who sin against us' For that reason I always say 'as we forgive them'.

and several Shipmates have queried this statement - correctly so. Speaking (i e writing) as a linguist and professional language editor, let me say I cannot spot anything grammatically faulty here. There are plenty of grammatical dodgy features in ’modern’ liturgical language, mostly deriving from a feeling that archaicisms are poetic plus not knowing the archaic rules, but this sentence is not among them.

--------------------
keibat from the finnish north and the lincs east rim

Posts: 93 | From: Alford, Lincs + Turku, Finland | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
keibat
Shipmate
# 5287

 - Posted      Profile for keibat   Email keibat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And: Yes, it’s assumed that Jesus taught his disciples in Aramaic, but it seems to me highly likely that he (and most of his disciples) would be reasonably fluent in Greek as well, coming as he did from the mixed-population region of Galilee, and making forays into the gentile-dominated areas of the Decapolis and the coastal region; and the dialogue with Pilate will have taken place in Greek (which was the language in which the eastern part of the Roman Empire mainly functioned).

I’ve not come across the idea before that the Aramaic would have ’rhymed’. There are at least two questionable points here: 1) ’back-translation’ is always a somewhat hit-&-miss affair, since translation is very rarely a one-to-one and therefore reversible procedure; so we can’t be confident about what the Aramaic original version would have been; 2) rhyming was not a feature of Hebrew or other ancient poetic language conventions - rhythm, yes, and for example in the acrostic psalms, playing in an alliteration-like way with the sounds of the relevant alphabet. So maybe what is meant here by ’rhyming’ is ’rhythmicality’ and / or some recognizable playing with language.

I do agree that Jesus is unlikely to have intended his Guide to Good Prayer to become a frozen formula, since frozen formulae were something he criticized in the piety of the Pharisees.

Here is yet one more version in modern English which I use:

Our heavenly Father,
May your Name be revered.
May your Kingdom come, and your will be done,
in this world as in heaven.
Give us today our [supersubstantial] bread for the day,
and forgive us our shortfalls,
as we forgive those who fall short for us;
and do not put us to the test,
but rescue us from evil.

--------------------
keibat from the finnish north and the lincs east rim

Posts: 93 | From: Alford, Lincs + Turku, Finland | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ian Climacus

Liturgical Slattern
# 944

 - Posted      Profile for Ian Climacus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
Give us today our [supersubstantial] bread for the day,

How do you read "supersubstantial"? Or how does your Tradition?

In Orthodoxy, Fr Thomas Hopko of Blessed Memory goes for "superessential" and explains:
quote:
The prayer for our “daily bread” is normally understood to signify generally all of our bodily needs and whatever we require to sustain our lives in this world. In the spiritual tradition however, this petition, because it literally says our “essential” or “super-essential” bread, is often understood in the spiritual sense to mean the nourishment of our souls by the Word of God, Jesus Christ who is the “Bread of Life;” the “Bread of God which has come down from heaven and given life to the world” (Jn 6.33–36); the bread which “a man may eat of it and not die,” but “live forever” (Jn 6.50–51). Thus the prayer for “daily bread” becomes the petition for daily spiritual nourishment through abiding communion with Christ so that one might live perpetually with God.
Is it similar?
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Thus the prayer for “daily bread” becomes the daily petition for daily spiritual nourishment through abiding communion with Christ
Almost certainly both physical and spiritual aspects of meaning are alluded to, thus a petition for God to 'keep one's body and soul functionally together' + nurturing daily cognizance of God's overarching providence.

--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19

Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was intrigued by this discussion of what 'daily' was translating and did a quick check.

Apparently the Greek word in both the Matthew and Luke versions epiousion is actually rather rare with debate in the Fathers as to what it means. Some have linked it to the manna, where only enough for the day was to be gathered. Origen went for its being a contraction of epi ten ousian 'the bread for existence'.

Superstantial only comes from Jerome's Latin version. Arguably that muddies the waters further because it raises an extra question as to what he thought he meant by it and why he should have chosen such an odd word to translate epiousion.

That is more of a problem for Catholics than us since for the New Testament, we take the Greek text as the authoritative one. Although the Vulgate is a valuable document which was translated at a time when both koine Greek and Latin were still spoken languages, we aren't obliged to attribute any particular authority to it.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is my favourite version, and the one I use whenever invited to use the Lord's Prayer in my preferred version or language. It was actually originally written by Jim Cotter, whose Prayer at Night was incorporated into the NZ Anglican Prayer Book (apologies for the omission of the Maori) entirely by agreement, but which incorporation obscured its origins. The version of its trinitarian formula I know is "Life-giver, pain-bearer, love-maker".

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Just a small point for the English grammarians amongst us.

I was once told by someone I assumed knew what they were talking about that the Lords Prayer was originally written in Greek, but Jesus did not teach it to his disciples in Greek, he spoke Aramaic. When the Lord's Prayer is translated back into Aramaic from Greek however, it can be made to rhyme.

I don't know if it may be true, but if it is, then maybe it could indicate it was intended as an aid memoir for an itinerary of prayers, rather than a prayer in its own right.

AFAIK rhyme was not a feature of prayer or teaching in Jesus’ day. The prayer certainly is poetic in form (in the same way as the Psalms), and fortunately it, parallelism, is a form which is capable of surviving translation.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This is my favourite version, and the one I use whenever invited to use the Lord's Prayer in my preferred version or language. It was actually originally written by Jim Cotter, whose Prayer at Night was incorporated into the NZ Anglican Prayer Book (apologies for the omission of the Maori) entirely by agreement, but which incorporation obscured its origins. The version of its trinitarian formula I know is "Life-giver, pain-bearer, love-maker".

Love-maker??!

Oy.

Plus for those of us who were 1980s Fame fans, I’d start singing “Starmaker” to that.

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools