Thread: The modern Lord's Prayer Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008538
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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).
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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".
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
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.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
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.
Posted by Kayarecee (# 17289) on
:
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]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
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.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
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.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
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!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
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?
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on
:
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.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
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?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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.”
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
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.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
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?
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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 ]
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
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'.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
... but then "forgive them who" isn't good either so we're back to "forgive them that".
Raise a glass to T Cranmer, anyone?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by Swick (# 8773) on
:
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.
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on
:
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.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I rather like this version.
I'll get me coat....
IJ
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
I can't help but think of Dara O'Briain's Mixed Protestant/Catholic Marriage clip...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
We use the 'modern' (well, 1971) version nearly all the time except when there are are a lot of visitors.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
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
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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]](smile.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
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]](wink.gif)
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?)
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on
:
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.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
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.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
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.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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?
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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".
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Each to his or her own, but I don't think Mr Cotter's version will be supplanting Cranmer in my own prayers any time soon.
Apart from else, it's terribly wordy, isn't it?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Each to his or her own, but I don't think Mr Cotter's version will be supplanting Cranmer in my own prayers any time soon.
Apart from else, it's terribly wordy, isn't it?
That may be true, but it is appropriate to its context, the meditative office of Compline.
I found it relatively easy to memorise, simply as a result of using the office more or less every day, but it is definitely a meditation on the prayer as well as a translation of it.
Still my favourite version, and still a modern version, which is why I offered it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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".
I have to admit that I'm really not comfortable with that. It's quite nice as a meditation inspired by the Lord's Prayer, but as an approved version for liturgical use, no. It's moved on from being an attempt to translate the original to what the person who put it together wish it said. It can't even be defended by the need to make compromises to fit it to metre, because it isn't in metre.
I know people vary in how much importance they attach to this, but to me, fidelity to the original text really matters.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
What Enoch said.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
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.
Ttat’s a mischaracterization of his advice, though. He was not counseling against fixed formulae or texts for prayers; such prayers were a staple of the Judaism he observed. He advised the disciples to avoid saying the same thing over and over “as the Gentiles do.” In other words, get to the point; be direct. Don’t think your prayers stand a better chance of being heard if you keep repeating yourself, or if you “pile it on.” Talk to God like you would talk to your father (or mother), not like you would talk to a king you’re trying to flatter so he’ll look kindly on your request.
I agree that Jesus was providing a model for prayer. But that’s not inconsistent with it being used as a prayer itself. Indeed, one way we internalize the model is to to pray the model. That’s how it shapes us.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
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.
(Was rhyme a thing in the ancient world at all?)
For more on the poetic structure of the Lord's Prayer you might like to look at this. Here is the 'minimlist version' of Michael Martin which Ian Paul quotes:
quote:
Our Father in the heavens,
hallowed be your name,
come be your reign,
done be your aim,
as in heaven, so to on earth.
Give us this day
our bread for the coming day,
and forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors,
and see us not into trial,
but free us from Evil.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
As a bit of a red herring, consider this: I'm saying compline at 10 in the evening -- how is a petition to "give us today our daily bread" anything other than a piece of meaningless ritual?
Personally, I use "give us each day...".
John
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Thanks for all the contributions. To clarify, by the traditional version I mean: 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.
(as in the BCP)
or this: 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 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.
very slightly modified version of BCP)
And by the modern: 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.
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.
I prefer either trad version for all sorts of personal reasons, but I feel it is best for evangelism because it is well known and familiar. For many people, entering church at all is a brave step, and the whole experience is confusing (and therefore embarrassing). To have something around that they know (and schools, cubs, brownies etc. all seem to have stuck with the older form) is reassuring. When something you think you can finally relax with turns out to be strange as well, that further underlines the message that you're a stranger and not welcome here.
[Related tangent. When I was a curate, in the 80s, I had a vicar who wanted everything to be modern and relevant. Therefore, every Harvest, we sang, "We plough the fields with tractors". Many times I saw visitors smile when the familiar tune was played, and then looks of horror came over their faces with the fifth and sixth words.]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Way back when, I remember there was a competition on the Ship to come up with a modern version of the Lord's Prayer. Not sure if anyone kept copies of the entries, some of them were rather good I recall.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Thanks for all the contributions. To clarify, by the traditional version I mean: quote:
Our Father, which art in heaven, . . . (as in the BCP)
or this: 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 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.
very slightly modified version of BCP)
I know I’m being pedantic, but that would be “as in the English BCP,” or a slightly modified version of the English BCP. What you call the “slightly modified version of BCP” has been the American BCP form since at least 1928. (The 1979 BCP gives that form as the “traditional languate” form, but also gives the contemporary language option.). Which highlights that what the “traditional” form is depends on the tradition we’re talking about.
The evangelism angle will vary too. In the States, no one will have learned the Lord’s Prayer at school (unless they go to a private religious or parochial school) or through a group like Scouts. It’s learned at church and/or at home, or it’s not learned.
[ 06. January 2018, 21:13: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
This thread grows at an alarming pace, and it’s hard work trying to keep abreast ...
Some penniesworth:
1) Epiousion is not merely rare, but is I believe unknown outside this one instance, making it very difficult to interpret, as Jerome and the Fathers before him recognized.
2) Supersubstantial (Jerome’s first solution): I have never myself encountered this outside serious discussion contexts (this thread included!), and never in liturgical use.
Superessential is an attractive amendment to St Jerome’s term. In any case, I have always understood this term to refer to spiritual ’bread’ - rather like Jesus’ references to ’living water’. It does, frankly, seem a much more plausible translation of epiousion than ’daily’.
3) There are several alternative versions of the ’modern’ version of the Lord’s Prayer in use in different churches / countries / traditions.
Just as the meaning of epiousion is (seriously) unclear, so also there are ambiguities relating to eis peirasmon, conventionally translated as ’into temptation’ but arguably closer to ’to testing’, and apo tou pone:rou, which could equally well mean either ’from evil’ or ’from the Evil One’.
Perhaps the most striking variation is the C of E’s retention of ”Lead us not into temptation”, where many other churches use ”Save us from the time of trial”. I note that this is the phrase in the Prayer that Pope Francis commented on recently as problematic. Personally I far prefer ”Do not put us to the test”.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
As Nick said, so in New Zealand.
As there is no religion in (State) schools, and most parents weren't even sent to Sunday school, I don't know how many kids would have heard the Lord's (or any) Prayer.
A pity; in the Linguistics for Kids I did for some years it would have been a useful comparison with an even older form.
GG
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
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'.
"Those who sin against us" is not grammatically incorrect.
In our (TEC) church we use the modern version, which I'm fine with, but we have a handful of die-hards (including Mrs. Eluia) who continue to say the old version. They have to hurry a bit through "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" in order to finish at the same time as the rest of the congregation.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Way back when, I remember there was a competition on the Ship to come up with a modern version of the Lord's Prayer. Not sure if anyone kept copies of the entries, some of them were rather good I recall.
Are you thinking of this?
Lord's Prayer in text message form
The most out-there version may be in the LOLCat Bible:
Ceiling Cat, who r watchin us, u can has cheezburger. Wut yu want, yu gets, srsly. Let us dis day has our dalee cheezburger. And furgiv us for makin u a cookie, but eateding it, same as we furgiv teh kittehz taht maked us cookiez, but eated tehm. An leed us not into teh showa, but deliver us from teh wawter. Cuz all our base n teh pwnage n teh +1s r belong 2 U 4eva&evah, srlsy kthxbai.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Matthew_6
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Nick Tamen: quote:
I know I’m being pedantic, but that would be “as in the English BCP,” or a slightly modified version of the English BCP. What you call the “slightly modified version of BCP” has been the American BCP form since at least 1928.
My apologies; I am a Brit. I'm writing as a Brit and have no idea about the American situation. The Ship is good at challenging my parochialism.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
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
Pastoral, especially at funerals - it might be the only prayer they know throughout the whole service.
(Also weddings carol services)
We are the established church so nobody should feel like an 'outsider'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
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.
Sex as sacrament - with my body, I thee worship?
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Oddly enough Love-maker is probably fine, pain bearer has more theological problems. It is not a doctrine I feel that is an adequate witness to God's self revelation but I do know it exists.
Jengie
[ 07. January 2018, 18:40: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
In my neck of the woods (I’m in England ) the new version is only known inside churches
The traditional version is the one known by the ‘outsiders’ who learned it at school and who are in fact still learning it in school.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I'm out of touch, but do non-church primary schools in England still use the Lord's Prayer? I'm pretty sure the one my daughters attended in the 1990s didn't, and the secondary school where I taught in the 1970s didn't either.
The law about 'daily Christian act of worship' is honoured more in the breach than the observance. Not that I bewail the fact; I just think we should be honest about the fact that we are a secular (or post-christian if you like) society.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm out of touch, but do non-church primary schools in England still use the Lord's Prayer? I'm pretty sure the one my daughters attended in the 1990s didn't, and the secondary school where I taught in the 1970s didn't either.
The law about 'daily Christian act of worship' is honoured more in the breach than the observance. Not that I bewail the fact; I just think we should be honest about the fact that we are a secular (or post-christian if you like) society.
This. Our local Primary is CofE, and I see the religious stuff up on the walls, and I'm thinking "you don't really believe this stuff any more than the people down at the non-CofE primary in the next village, do you?". Perhaps it's unfair, perhaps some do, but save the previous headteacher I can recall seeing many of them at church; then again, you wouldn't see me either because I gave up trying to coral three bored children through a tedious hour and go Elsewhere.
OK, I'll shut up now.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Angloid asked:
quote:
I'm out of touch, but do non-church primary schools in England still use the Lord's Prayer?
Depends on the school - more specifically, on the head teacher / principal / CEO. Locally where I currently am, the C of E primary uses the modern version and the County school uses the trad. The County school takes Christian festivals at least as seriously as the Anglican school does.
But neither of the local secondary schools can be said to engage in religious activity except sporadically. Collective Worship (= what used to be called Assembly, in my experience) seems to be predominantly universalist / humanist wellmeaningness.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
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
<snip>
This is the ELLC version.
(Those who mention it being the ICET version: this was true until 1985, but remember that the ICET hasn't existed for over 30 years.)
It is the version that I grew up with in the Anglican Province of the West Indies in the 90s, and which is still in use there today. Like mr cheesy, I default to modern language in prayer and worship. I can understand a desire on the part of some Anglicans to use older forms of English in public worship, as it is part of Anglican heritage, but the insistence of some Orthodox to do the same is a mystery to me.
The Church of England adopted the ELLC with the modification that "Save us from the time of trial" was changed to "Lead us not into temptation". I would be interested to learn why. "Save us..." avoids the problem mentioned by Gramps49, which seems to be reinforced by the CofE amendment.
I'm currently in the process of rendering the services of my church into English and the Our Father is proving to be complicated. I intend to use the ELLC version as a base but there are concerns to be addressed.
In particular, the document Praying Together gives different possible understandings of the line "give us today our daily bread", but makes no mention of the eucharistic connotations of epiousios (above the essence/substance/nature), which is of particular concern from an Orthodox perspective.
The French version used in our church is "Donne nous aujourd'hui notre pain substantiel", which is best rendered as "Give us today our substantial bread" but this seems wanting as it only conveys half of the meaning of the Greek of the Gospels. The sense of the Greek would be better rendered as "our supersubstantial bread" but that raises questions of whether such an invented word is "prayable". Though, as keibat mentioned above, the Greek word was itself a neologism, so perhaps supersubstantial or superessential might be apt after all. Supernatural is an existing English word that literally translates the Greek, (super + natural) but sadly this has other connotations in our language.
What do others think?
With regard to the discussion over "deliver us from evil" versus "deliver us from the evil one", my church already seems to have settled on the former for liturgical use in other languages, while recognising that either understanding can be extrapolated from the Greek and that both have their place in patristic writings and in the traditional understanding of Christians through the ages. So I shall stick with "deliver us from evil".
My bishop wrote an article some time ago on the Our Father, and one of his concerns with common French translations (which is mirrored in English translations, but seemingly in very few other languages), is the reversal of heaven and earth. In the Greek of the Gospels and in almost every other language into which the prayer has been translated, the realisation of God's Kingdom in heaven is mentioned first, establishing it as the measure against which the following mention of the establishment of God's Kingdom on earth is to be measured.
"On earth as it is in heaven" doesn't do a terrible job of conveying the meaning but it does seem to weaken it by reversing the structure given to us by the Saviour, so I have attempted to resolve this by placing heaven first.
As for sins/trespasses/debts the matter is settled for us and there's simply no question. Both established liturgical usage in our church and patristic writings make "debts/debtors" the only reasonable option for me.
With all of that in mind, here's what I've come up with so far:
quote:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed by your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us today our substantial bread.
and forgive us our debts
as we forgive our debtors.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I personally like it, and would pray it, but you'll forgive me if I accidentally say "the evil one" at the end as Antiochian parishes here do.
Old habits die hard.
What a task...translation. Best wishes. I've often thought I wouldn't mind doing it (especially when coming across the phrase, "Let the nature of disembodied minds..." in a hymn; better, see Ode 9 below), but it must be a very tough, and thankless, task. Expect some 110 yo babushka or male equivalent to take issue with your word selection.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
Of course, I meant "hallowed be your name". ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I personally like it, and would pray it, but you'll forgive me if I accidentally say "the evil one" at the end as Antiochian parishes here do.
It's what I'm accustomed to as well. In fact, for years I was under the impression that it was the correct rendering, and that the western churches didn't use it because their liturgical tradition has its basis in the Latin ("sed libera nos a malo"), which doesn't have the definite article.
While there's almost certainly truth in my reasoning, the underlying assumption was flawed.
quote:
Old habits die hard.
Don't they just!
Over this past weekend I have found myself standing out like a sore thumb as an ex-Byzantine because of some things I instinctively did, despite my efforts to unlearn them. On the other hand, there are some things I have always done almost alone which now I find every around me does, such as adopting the orans position for the Our Father and crossing myself at "deliver us from evil", which appear to be standard practice in our church but not where I used to be.
quote:
What a task...translation. Best wishes. I've often thought I wouldn't mind doing it (especially when coming across the phrase, "Let the nature of disembodied minds..." in a hymn; better, see Ode 9 below), but it must be a very tough, and thankless, task. Expect some 110 yo babushka or male equivalent to take issue with your word selection.
Hehe. I'm sure. Still, our church doesn't really exist in the English-speaking world so I kind of have a blank slate. I have a reasonably good, Orthodox translation of the psalms from the LXX, and the Mass has already been translated. It's the office and associates prayers that are my focus. Much of the material already exists in some form of English so it's just a case of tidying it up, compiling it, translating what doesn't exist, and ironing out some problems with existing English texts. The biggest task is adapting all of the music from the French to the English.
All in time.
[ 09. January 2018, 02:59: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by andras (# 2065) on
:
The traditional Welsh-language version refers to Debts rather than either Sins or Trespasses, and I'm fine with that, so much so that I generally use the Debt form when speaking the prayer in English.
I see that no-one's suggesting a literal translation of the first words in the Greek as Our Father in the sky...
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by andras:
The traditional Welsh-language version refers to Debts rather than either Sins or Trespasses, and I'm fine with that, so much so that I generally use the Debt form when speaking the prayer in English.
St Cyprian's treatise on this prayer expounds on the "debt" meaning well. As he's my patron saint, I have a certain fondness for his understanding of this.
quote:
I see that no-one's suggesting a literal translation of the first words in the Greek as Our Father in the sky...
The Jordanville translation renders it as:
quote:
Our Father Who art in the heavens
.
The word is translated in the same way in the Jordanville text of the Creed.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I personally like it, and would pray it...
After submission for episcopal review, some alterations have been made.
The bishop acknowledged that line 6 is very problematic to translate and that the solution in our French translation is inadequate, in that "notre pain substantiel/our substantial bread" only conveys half of the meaning.
"Our supersubstantial bread" (our bread above the essence) is a literal translation, which has its downsides. However, although it doesn't exist as a word in English, it does seem to be the most accurate way to render the Greek.
We considered that the Greek epiousios seems also to have been an unknown word when it was coined by the Gospel writers, and that we shouldn't be afraid to follow them in using a word that best expresses a specifically Christian doctrine, even if it is otherwise unknown in the language. After all, where else in life do people encounter Sabaoth, consubstantial, Paraclete, Theotokos, and numerous other words from Christian theological and liturgical jargon? Proper catechesis can remedy this, as familiarity with the theological concept of substance should result from any basic Orthodox catechesis about the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Regular use of these words in prayer makes them sound normal, as I discovered when the new English translation of the RC creed came out, and the Catholic blogosphere was up in arms about "consubstantial with the Father". I thought it unremarkable, but then realised that I had grown up since childhood singing hymns that ended "consubstantial, co-eternal, while unending ages run", and that maybe not everyone had this experience. My guess is that those people now say those words Sunday by Sunday without giving them a second thought.
Supernatural literally means the same thing as Supersubstantial and has the benefit of being an existing word in English. However, it already has connotations that would be unhelpful here, and might cloud rather than clarify the meaning.
As for "Save us from the time of trial", the bishop feels it departs too far from the received text and that of the Gospels. (Incidentally, the ELLC website suggests that this line was the most problematic in terms of the feedback they received from churches considering adopting the ELLC.)
The current rendering follows the French in use in our church in avoiding the suggestion that God would lead us into temptation.
The result is here.
[ 10. January 2018, 17:01: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
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.
I have the opposite problem to the initiator of the thread. Whilst I was brought up with the BCP version of the prayer, I was also brought up with a couple of 'modern' versions even before the ASB and other newer liturgies came into existence. I struggle with the idea that an exemplar prayer that originated in Aramaic, went through Greek and Latin before getting into English 400 years ago isn't regularly used in a modern language form.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
The Church of England adopted the ELLC with the modification that "Save us from the time of trial" was changed to "Lead us not into temptation". I would be interested to learn why.
To put it bluntly - General Synod of the C of E thought (and as far as I know, still thinks) that it knew better than any one else.
In the Companion to Common Worship, edited by Paul Bradshaw, you can find this comment:
quote:
"The ecumenically agreed version had not met with general acceptance in the Church of England in 1980 (when the ASB was produced) and the same was true in 2000."
This seems to suggest that an attempt was made to introduce the full ELLC text. But actually no such attempt was made - certainly not in the lead up to Common Worship in 2000. General Synod made the decision that the C of E would go their own way, regardless of what other denominations did and even regardless of what other Anglican provinces did. I thought it was a foolish and vain decision then and I still do.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Actually, a serious attempt was made to get the ecumenically agreed version into Common Worship, but General Synod decided not to give it a place which would lead to it being normally used. It can be found on p. 106 in the Common Worship ‘Main Volume’, and can be found more or less obscurely buried on the website
[ 10. January 2018, 22:17: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I'm out of touch, but do non-church primary schools in England still use the Lord's Prayer? I'm pretty sure the one my daughters attended in the 1990s didn't, and the secondary school where I taught in the 1970s didn't either.
The law about 'daily Christian act of worship' is honoured more in the breach than the observance. Not that I bewail the fact; I just think we should be honest about the fact that we are a secular (or post-christian if you like) society.
A short period of collective silence is more likely.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
In The Salvation Army I don't think you'd hear the new form.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Has anyone else noticed that the traditional Lord's Prayer is truncated for Evensong? 'For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever' is omitted. Why is that?
[ 14. January 2018, 20:31: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
IIRC, the Lord’s Prayer appears twice in each of the BCP Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Communion services - in each case once with and once without the concluding doxology.
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Has anyone else noticed that the traditional Lord's Prayer is truncated for Evensong? 'For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever' is omitted. Why is that?
That's how the Lord's Prayer appears in the old Breviaries and in the Roman variants of the Divine Office.
In the East, afaik, only the Priest/Bishop says the doxological ending, though it is still printed in prayer books, etc.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I may have mentioned this before ,once when visiting an old woman in a nursing home I found that she was unable to form words - all that came from her mouth was simply drivel All of a sudden when I said the Lord's Prayer it was as though her lips had been unsealed, as she was able to say the prayer perfectly. For 0 seconds I thought it must be a miracle, until I realized that she must have said it so many times throughout her life that it just came out automatically. Miracle or not ,it was a wonderful moment.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It's neurological -- the things you memorize are stored in a different brain file than extemporaneous speech. You might also have found that she could sing a familiar hymn or song perfectly well.
Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Has anyone else noticed that the traditional Lord's Prayer is truncated for Evensong? 'For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever' is omitted. Why is that?
On the live radio Nine Lessons and Carols from King's Cambridge this year the Dean leading the congregation in the Lord's Prayer proclaimed "for thine is the kingdom" while the congregation, paying attention to their service booklets, said "amen". Rather deftly he stopped there and moved on to the next prayer.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
This frequently happens in ecumenical gatherings with Roman Catholics. Does anyone know when protestants began to add the doxology, and why?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
And don't even mention the Church of Scotland, with its single "for ever"!
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
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.
But is that really what the original text states? The Greek text says, μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν (mē eisenégkēs hēmas eis perrasmón, ‘lead us not into temptation/testing’). That doesn’t translate as ‘do not tempt us.’ But it does state that God can lead someone into temptation or testing, and that is exactly what he dod with Christ, as we see in Matt. 4:1: “Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” When we pray ‘lead us not into temptation/testing,’ we are asking God not do do with us what he did with Christ.
/Small rant/
I would also add that in 2005, the Norwegian Bible Society came out with a new translation of the Lord’s prayer. Many people in the church praised it, and thought that it would make almost everything better. As a priest I talk with a lot of parents who are coming for baptisms, and where I am that is almost everybody. The membership rate in my neck of the woods is 80-90 percent, and 93-95% of the children of members are baptised. So not only the ‘inner core.’ And we often talk about the new translation. I have yet to meet a single person who likes the new version. One factor here is that in my parishes, the written language is what we call ‘nynorsk’ (‘new norwegian’), as opposed to ‘bokmål’ (‘book language’), and it seems pretty obvious that the translators translated into the latter first, and then translated from that into the former. The result is a mess, where simple things like word order is just wrong. And they even managed to remove any trace of poetry and they made it into an elaborate office memo.
/Small rant over/
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And don't even mention the Church of Scotland, with its single "for ever"!
Ha, never heard of that. Was it part of their traditions from Knox onward or is it a new thing?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The Church of Scotland traditional form of the Lord's Prayer exactly follows the text of Matthew 6.9-13 from the King James Translation of the Bible 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 debts, 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, for ever. Amen.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I'm inclined to think that slight variations in the Lord's Prayer really don't matter as the intent and meaning of the prayer are the same. What does concern me when some visitors to church for wedding or funeral services are completely bamboozled when it comes to the Lord's Prayer as they obviously have never been exposed to it before - kids at school these days never hear the Lord's Prayer and their parents who never attend church are just as ignorant. Maybe printed copies should always be available rather than just expecting people to know what to say.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Readers in the Church of Scotland are advised to carry a copy of the Lord's Prayer with them whenever they go to lead worship. There is always the occasion when your mind goes blank. I really like to have a printed version in front of me simply so I know which version is expected (yes I am quite capable of deliberately doing my own thing if I want to).
Jengie
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Maybe printed copies should always be available rather than just expecting people to know what to say.
I could point out that the BCP does contain a printed copy, so all we need is for visitors to be able to navigate it ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
But really what I'll do is say that for services that are likely to attract a significant number of those who aren't so familiar with church, we do print everything. Baptisms, weddings, and some funerals get this treatment.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Readers in the Church of Scotland are advised to carry a copy of the Lord's Prayer with them whenever they go to lead worship. There is always the occasion when your mind goes blank. I really like to have a printed version in front of me simply so I know which version is expected (yes I am quite capable of deliberately doing my own thing if I want to).
Jengie
On one occasion I led worship and had dutifully written out the Lord's Prayer in full... which meant I confused everyone because I'd missed a line when typing it out. For every plan there is a numpty who manages to muck it up.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
This, he tells us, was the Scrumpmeister’s penultimate working version of the Lord’s Prayer :
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed by your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us today our substantial bread.
and forgive us our debts
as we forgive our debtors.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.
I’m glad the typo in line 2 has been corrected, or an errant school of doctrine might have grown up around the theology of the Creator being sanctified through the agency of their own Name.
I have another quibble with modern versions, which is the replacement of 'IN earth as in heaven' by 'ON earth'. Paradoxically, 'on earth' makes more sense in a preCopernican understanding of the universe, where heaven is firmly located up there along with clouds etc. Surely we should now understand earth to refer here to the entire created universe, not just our little planet Sol III; and to my mind, 'IN earth' expresses that better. So I persist in saying 'in', not 'on'.
I’m also bothered by what seems to me to be the implication in 'the time of trial' that this is (specifically) about the End Times. Conceded, 'peirasmos' can indeed refer to that; but the Greek word doesn’t seem to have a necessarily temporal reference. 'Testing' seems a closer approximation to the meaning-cluster of the Greek, and retains relevance for our current troubled existences.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I wonder if using 'sustaining' rather than substantial?
Jengie
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I wonder if using 'sustaining' rather than substantial?
Jengie
Interesting gloss - or perhaps more than a gloss. That bread which sustains us both spiritually and physically. Of course, this is also what made the Fathers take ton arton hemon ton epiousion to refer to the Eucharist.
The epi- in epiousion also indicates a quality that is beyond what sustains, beyond what is substantial. It is thus not mere bread, nor still lembas, but something that comprehends these and transcends them. The bread that preserves us, that preserves our substance by transforming it.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
I am playing with Scrumpmeister’s
quote:
give us this day our substantial bread
Which is a gloss already but seems to me in the English to imply quantity. I sat with it a while and just wondered if 'sustaining' might work better. He is trying to make the connection with the Eucharist that is perceived to be there in Greek.
Jengie
Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I am playing with Scrumpmeister’s
quote:
give us this day our substantial bread
Which is a gloss already but seems to me in the English to imply quantity. I sat with it a while and just wondered if 'sustaining' might work better. He is trying to make the connection with the Eucharist that is perceived to be there in Greek.
Jengie
True any translation is already a gloss.Hence the difficulties of a liturgy to be "understanded of the people" that is ultimately derived from other languages.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
This, he tells us, was the Scrumpmeister’s penultimate working version of the Lord’s Prayer :
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed by your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
as in heaven, so on earth.
Give us today our substantial bread.
and forgive us our debts
as we forgive our debtors.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.
I’m glad the typo in line 2 has been corrected, or an errant school of doctrine might have grown up around the theology of the Creator being sanctified through the agency of their own Name.
I did have the same thought. I can handle typos where the intention is clear, but where they actually form a real word I begin to kick myself ever so gently.
quote:
I have another quibble with modern versions, which is the replacement of 'IN earth as in heaven' by 'ON earth'. Paradoxically, 'on earth' makes more sense in a preCopernican understanding of the universe, where heaven is firmly located up there along with clouds etc. Surely we should now understand earth to refer here to the entire created universe, not just our little planet Sol III; and to my mind, 'IN earth' expresses that better. So I persist in saying 'in', not 'on'.
I would suggest that our modern understanding of the cosmos necessitates the opposite.
I know that prepositions are funny things, and often do not translate well from one language to the next. We might refer to being in a country while being on an island or on a continent. On the Caribbean island where I grew up, there is the expression "off-island", used to mean "overseas" or "abroad".
Yet certainly, in contemporary English, we do not refer to a phenomenon occurring in a planet unless we're talking about some subterranean event or process. When referring to events on a planet's surface, whether they be geological features or the functioning of societies, surely it's more usual to refer to such things as being on the planet. I have never heard anybody, for instance, have a discussion about whether there might life in other planets. The TV series was definitely entitled Life on Mars, and, as Monty Python exhorted us:
quote:
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
cos there's bugger all down here on earth
While I'm not in the habit of using the works of the good gentlemen of Monty Python as a foundation for liturgical texts, it does provide us with a good example of how modern English is used on this point.
I'm afraid I can't see any justification for rendering "on earth" as "in earth" in a modern English version of the Our Father.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I am playing with Scrumpmeister’s
quote:
give us this day our substantial bread
Which is a gloss already but seems to me in the English to imply quantity. I sat with it a while and just wondered if 'sustaining' might work better. He is trying to make the connection with the Eucharist that is perceived to be there in Greek.
Thank you for your suggestion, Jengie, and for this clarification.
It probably speaks volumes that the reading of substantial that you suggest didn't actually occur to me, even though it is the most obvious reading in English. Certainly, that it how it would read to someone walking through the church door and not thinking theologically.
In truth, I don't like it. I used it because it was the clearest word adopted in the French version, which is the liturgical lingua franca of my church, if you'll pardon the expression.
I think that sustaining is a much better effort than substantial. However, the bishop has agreed that the French effort is a poor one and that we stick with supersubstantial. It is unknown in English but then we sing many such words in our hymns and prayers because of their accuracy, and we overcome the difficulty in understanding with catechesis.
[ 18. January 2018, 16:42: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I've really enjoyed your posts on translating the Lord's Prayer, Scrumpmeister. Really interesting and thought provoking.
Among the thoughts provoked are these two:
First, given the Greek that has been discussed here, does anyone know how we got "daily" bread? (BTW, I know your bishop chose otherwise, but I really like “sustaining bread." Thanks for that Jennie jon. Definitely worth chewing on.)
Second, I was particularly struck by "as in heaven, so on earth," which strongly echoes the Hermetic "As above, so below." Was that something you thought about?
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I wonder if using 'sustaining' rather than substantial?
Jengie
Interesting gloss - or perhaps more than a gloss. That bread which sustains us both spiritually and physically. Of course, this is also what made the Fathers take ton arton hemon ton epiousion to refer to the Eucharist.
The epi- in epiousion also indicates a quality that is beyond what sustains, beyond what is substantial. It is thus not mere bread, nor still lembas, but something that comprehends these and transcends them. The bread that preserves us, that preserves our substance by transforming it.
I don’t think we need to interpret it as something ‘mysterious’ at all. The preposition ἐπί (epi) simply means ‘for, at, over, to.’ So it seems to me at least that when you combine ἐπί and οὐσία (ousía, ‘being, existence’) to create ἐπιούσιος (eoiousios), it simply means that which is at or for the being or existence of the person. It seems to me, then, that it simply means the bread needed for existence; the bread you need to uphold your ‘substance.’ Maybe ‘life-sustaining’ is a good English rendition.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that yiu cannot interpret this also in a more ‘spiritual’ way, referring perhaps to the Eucharist or something else, but it seems to me that this would be something in addition to the more straightforward literal reading.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Could it be that the punctuation is wrong and is in the wrong place?
Could we not read:
And lead us;
not into temptation,
but deliver us
from evil.
Just a thought.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Could it be that the punctuation is wrong and is in the wrong place?
Could we not read:
And lead us;
not into temptation,
but deliver us
from evil.
Just a thought.
Don't think that would work in the Greek.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Could it be that the punctuation is wrong and is in the wrong place?
Could we not read:
And lead us;
not into temptation,
but deliver us
from evil.
Just a thought.
Don't think that would work in the Greek.
Probably not.
What investigation could be made into the word for 'lead'?
Is there an alternative translation that doesn't suggest that God leads us, as in directs us, into temptation?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Could a free translation carry the meaning, 'Instead of leading us into temptation, deliver us from evil?'
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
[ETA I think that’s a pretty good stab at the feel/force of that petition]
I think there are two difficulties. One is the word temptation, which doesn’t generally connote the ideas of being tested or tried which are there in the Greek. The second is that the rhetorical ‘trick’ used - something like affirming a positive by denying its negative - is essentially one that we don’t use in our language/ culture. (Another would be the love/hate idiom found in biblical texts). Essentially the parallelism means that we should read the first “lead us not” statement as having the same basic meaning as the “but deliver us” statement.
[ 01. February 2018, 21:35: Message edited by: BroJames ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0