Talk:Lord's Prayer/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

Under “Hallowed be thy name”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for “Thy Kingdom Come”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phrase quite different

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

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

Lord's Prayer

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

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

Messale Romano

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

Also made its way into concerning the "Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible."[1] Indication of provenance of the client of the Mount Laurel Comcast IP omitted by mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4101:5780:59d9:de84:d555:4496 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Comparison

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

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

Doxology in the Didache: Early or Earliest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zola & UBS

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

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

Similarities with Jewish Prayer

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

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

Thus the paragraph would read:

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

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

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

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

References

Papyrus 75, Codex Vaticanus, Syriac Sinaiticus

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

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

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

Πάτερ=Father;

ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου=Hallowed be thy Name;

ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου=Thy kingdom come;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

The Pope agrees with Marcion

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

NRSV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming Convention for Matthew and Luke

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

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

English translations as presented

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

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

Baba Yetu

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

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

Aramaic version of the Lord's Prayer

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

Comparisons

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

Peace Movement

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

English Translations

This is Wikipedia, so why are English translations done in Old English instead of modern English? I would understand if this was a Christian website but for Wikipedia, this should be a factual discussion and not one based on church traditions. 2605:59C8:61BA:6C00:4C6:C3EA:60C0:DD46 (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Latin translation

The part on the Roman Missal states that the 1962 version of the missal spells quotidianum as cotidianum. Does anyone know an example of this? All of the 1962 examples I have seen spell it with a quo as opposed to a co. I was planning on changing it but I wanted to see if someone has an example before I make an edit 108.6.113.97 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)