Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Lord's Prayer

Expand Messages
  • Tom Poelker
    Interesting footnote found in Wikipedia article on the Lord s Prayer In A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Interesting footnote found in Wikipedia article on the Lord's Prayer

      In A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament
      <http://books.google.com/books?id=_qSWLVIi2xwC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=epiousios&source=bl&ots=pL4cQO4L_8&sig=qa-ECEqLN-hiIsc-1spMOwaDefs&hl=en&ei=y9bzScWeGImeM4aJ1csP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA120,M1>
      (1987), pp.119-121, ISBN 978-0-881250-89-3
      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780881250893>, Samuel
      Tobias Lachs points out that bread "sufficient for our tomorrow" (/de
      maherenu/) in Hebrew letters differs by only one letter from bread
      "sufficient for our needs" (/de mahserenu/) and is probably a
      transcription error caused by the loss of the single letter (/sameq/).
      --
      *

      Tom Poelker
      St. Louis. Missouri
      USA

      /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
      It?s nice to see people smile,
      and it?s good practice. --/

      *


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Michael Thannisch
      Which reminds me, the Syriac version of the NT says that it is more difficult for a rich man to go to heaven than to put a rope through the eye of a needle. 
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Which reminds me, the Syriac version of the NT says that it is more difficult for a rich man to go to heaven than to put a rope through the eye of a needle.  Apparently in Sryriac and Aramaic, only one vowel differentiates rope from camel. 

        Shalom b'Yeshua haMoshiach   +Mar Michel Abportus mjthannisch@... Pastor, Congregation Benim Avraham http://www.freewebs.com/childrenofabraham/ http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Joe-Thannisch/1173094868 204 Sylvan St. La Porte, TX 77571 281-867-9081

        --- On Wed, 10/14/09, Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@...> wrote:

        From: Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@...>
        Subject: [liturgy-l] Lord's Prayer
        To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 9:50 PM






         





        Interesting footnote found in Wikipedia article on the Lord's Prayer



        In A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament

        <http://books. google.com/ books?id= _qSWLVIi2xwC& pg=PA119& lpg=PA119& dq=epiousios& source=bl& ots=pL4cQO4L_ 8&sig=qa- ECEqLN-hiIsc- 1spMOwaDefs& hl=en&ei= y9bzScWeGImeM4aJ 1csP&sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=3# PPA120,M1>

        (1987), pp.119-121, ISBN 978-0-881250- 89-3

        <http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Special:BookSour ces/978088125089 3>, Samuel

        Tobias Lachs points out that bread "sufficient for our tomorrow" (/de

        maherenu/) in Hebrew letters differs by only one letter from bread

        "sufficient for our needs" (/de mahserenu/) and is probably a

        transcription error caused by the loss of the single letter (/sameq/).

        --

        *



        Tom Poelker

        St. Louis. Missouri

        USA



        /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.

        It?s nice to see people smile,

        and it?s good practice. --/



        *



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • asteresplanetai
        ... I believe it was joachim jeremias who pointed out that epiousion (sc. daily ) actually was a military term, referring to the ration of food given to a
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 15, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          +++

          > Posted by: "Tom Poelker" TomPoelker@... tapoelker

          > Interesting footnote found in Wikipedia article on the Lord's Prayer
          >
          > In A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament
          > <http://books.google.com/books?id=_qSWLVIi2xwC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=epiousios&source=bl&ots=pL4cQO4L_8&sig=qa-ECEqLN-hiIsc-1spMOwaDefs&hl=en&ei=y9bzScWeGImeM4aJ1csP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA120,M1
          > >
          > (1987), pp.119-121, ISBN 978-0-881250-89-3
          > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780881250893>,
          > Samuel
          > Tobias Lachs points out that bread "sufficient for our tomorrow" (/de
          > maherenu/) in Hebrew letters differs by only one letter from bread
          > "sufficient for our needs" (/de mahserenu/) and is probably a
          > transcription error caused by the loss of the single letter (/sameq/).

          I believe it was joachim jeremias who pointed out that
          'epiousion' (sc. "daily") actually was a military term, referring to
          the ration of food given to a soldier the evening before, for the
          following day.

          So we might indeed translate 'ton arton hemon ton epiousion dos hemin
          semeron' as "our bread for tomorrow, give us today", with all
          eschatological overtones in view.

          It might be hard to say, (if it could be proven that the original was
          indeed either of the aramaic words you mention), that one or the other
          was to be preferred, since given the military overtones, they
          basically mean the same thing.

          in the greek of the NT, "epiousion" looks like "supersubstantial" and
          some of the fathers took it in that sense; and of course this would
          accord nicely with the vocabulary of chalcedon etc. But that too is
          actually not far from the meaning of the text, if you take 'ousia' in
          an existential rather than a metaphysical sense.

          the latin "quotidianum" ("daily") is obvious, once one understands the
          military background of 'epiousion'. it's nice to speculate on the
          supposed aramaic original, but in any case "daily" is probably the
          most banal (although correct) translation we could have given to what
          the NT actually hints at.

          > Posted by: "Michael Thannisch" mjthannisch@...
          > mjthannisch

          > Which reminds me, the Syriac version of the NT says that it is more
          > difficult for a rich man to go to heaven than to put a rope through
          > the eye of a needle. Apparently in Sryriac and Aramaic, only one
          > vowel differentiates rope from camel.

          not syriac and aramaic, but greek: kamelos is camel, and kamilos is
          cable.

          The latter reading is found only in a few mss and in a couple of
          versions; but for the versions, BDAG cites the armenian and doesn't
          mention the syriac. In any case, there isn't much difference in
          meaning, since you can get a cable through a needle just about as
          easily as you can get a camel through one.

          There was, however, no gate of jerusalem known as the 'eye of the
          needle', at which one had to unload one's camel in order to pass. That
          story apparently has no basis in fact.

          Apparently one can find a full discussion in P Haupt, "Camel and
          Cable", American Journal of Philology 45, 1924, 238ff

          regards,

          john burnett
        • Michael Thannisch
          Actually Aramaic and Greek.  I should not have said apparently.  I don t have the words in front of me, but it is only one vowel difference between rope and
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 15, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually Aramaic and Greek.  I should not have said apparently.  I don't have the words in front of me, but it is only one vowel difference between rope and camel in Syriac.  It is interesting to know that that is true in Greek as well. 

            BTW your comment on the eye of the needle gate of Jerusalem always bothered me, as well as several other explanations of what a needle was (including a rather common gate around these parts, shaped something like this -> so a person could get through but not an animal.  I find these arguments suspicious, and suspect rope was the original word, but camel being such an exaggeration sticks in the mind much better.

            Shalom b'Yeshua haMoshiach   +Mar Michael Abportus mjthannisch@... Pastor, Congregation Benim Avraham http://www.freewebs.com/childrenofabraham/ http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Joe-Thannisch/1173094868 204 Sylvan St. La Porte, TX 77571 281-867-9081

            --- On Thu, 10/15/09, asteresplanetai <asteresplanetai@...> wrote:

            From: asteresplanetai <asteresplanetai@...>
            Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Lord's Prayer
            To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 4:58 AM






             





            +++





            > Posted by: "Michael Thannisch" mjthannisch@ sbcglobal. net

            > mjthannisch



            > Which reminds me, the Syriac version of the NT says that it is more

            > difficult for a rich man to go to heaven than to put a rope through

            > the eye of a needle. Apparently in Sryriac and Aramaic, only one

            > vowel differentiates rope from camel.



            not syriac and aramaic, but greek: kamelos is camel, and kamilos is

            cable.



            The latter reading is found only in a few mss and in a couple of

            versions; but for the versions, BDAG cites the armenian and doesn't

            mention the syriac. In any case, there isn't much difference in

            meaning, since you can get a cable through a needle just about as

            easily as you can get a camel through one.



            There was, however, no gate of jerusalem known as the 'eye of the

            needle', at which one had to unload one's camel in order to pass. That

            story apparently has no basis in fact.



            Apparently one can find a full discussion in P Haupt, "Camel and

            Cable", American Journal of Philology 45, 1924, 238ff



            .






















            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • cfortunato58@aol.com
            Tobias Lachs points out that bread sufficient for our tomorrow (/de maherenu/) in Hebrew letters differs by only one letter from bread sufficient for our
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 16, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              "Tobias Lachs points out that bread "sufficient for our tomorrow" (/de

              maherenu/) in Hebrew letters differs by only one letter from bread
              "sufficient for our needs" (/de mahserenu/) and is *probably* a
              transcription error caused by the loss of the single letter (/sameq/)."

              I object to using "probably" like this. It's possible, but I don't see that it's probable, especially since it makes perfect sense without changing the letter. Why would you assume an error?








              -----Original Message-----
              From: Tom Poelker <TomPoelker@...>
              To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wed, Oct 14, 2009 10:50 pm
              Subject: [liturgy-l] Lord's Prayer










              Interesting footnote found in Wikipedia article on the Lord's Prayer

              In A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament
              <http://books.google.com/books?id=_qSWLVIi2xwC&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=epiousios&source=bl&ots=pL4cQO4L_8&sig=qa-ECEqLN-hiIsc-1spMOwaDefs&hl=en&ei=y9bzScWeGImeM4aJ1csP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA120,M1>

              (1987), pp.119-121, ISBN 978-0-881250-89-3
              <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780881250893>, Samuel
              Tobias Lachs points out that bread "sufficient for our tomorrow" (/de
              maherenu/) in Hebrew letters differs by only one letter from bread
              "sufficient for our needs" (/de mahserenu/) and is probably a
              transcription error caused by the loss of the single letter (/sameq/).
              --
              *

              Tom Poelker
              St. Louis. Missouri
              USA

              /-- Do all the easy nice things you can.
              It?s nice to see people smile,
              and it?s good practice. --/

              *


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/ To
              write to the moderators, please email: liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo!
              Groups Links










              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • cfortunato58@aol.com
              May I point out that Jesus is also recorded as saying You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel, which is another instance of the image of a camel squeezing
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 16, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                May I point out that Jesus is also recorded as saying "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel," which is another instance of the image of a camel squeezing through something impossibly small. So, as I said in the other post, I have no real reason to believe it was rope. Of course, the actual thing being described is impossible in both cases.

                I believe that the needle gate in Jerusalem is the medieval equivalent of an urban legend.







                -----Original Message-----
                From: Michael Thannisch <mjthannisch@...>
                To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2009 8:55 am
                Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Lord's Prayer










                Actually Aramaic and Greek. I should not have said apparently. I don't have
                the words in front of me, but it is only one vowel difference between rope and
                camel in Syriac. It is interesting to know that that is true in Greek as well.


                BTW your comment on the eye of the needle gate of Jerusalem always bothered me,
                as well as several other explanations of what a needle was (including a rather
                common gate around these parts, shaped something like this -> so a person could
                get through but not an animal. I find these arguments suspicious, and suspect
                rope was the original word, but camel being such an exaggeration sticks in the
                mind much better.

                Shalom b'Yeshua haMoshiach +Mar Michael Abportus mjthannisch@...
                Pastor, Congregation Benim Avraham http://www.freewebs.com/childrenofabraham/
                http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Joe-Thannisch/1173094868 204 Sylvan St.
                La Porte, TX 77571 281-867-9081

                --- On Thu, 10/15/09, asteresplanetai <asteresplanetai@...> wrote:

                From: asteresplanetai <asteresplanetai@...>
                Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Lord's Prayer
                To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 4:58 AM












                +++





                > Posted by: "Michael Thannisch" mjthannisch@ sbcglobal. net

                > mjthannisch



                > Which reminds me, the Syriac version of the NT says that it is more

                > difficult for a rich man to go to heaven than to put a rope through

                > the eye of a needle. Apparently in Sryriac and Aramaic, only one

                > vowel differentiates rope from camel.



                not syriac and aramaic, but greek: kamelos is camel, and kamilos is

                cable.



                The latter reading is found only in a few mss and in a couple of

                versions; but for the versions, BDAG cites the armenian and doesn't

                mention the syriac. In any case, there isn't much difference in

                meaning, since you can get a cable through a needle just about as

                easily as you can get a camel through one.



                There was, however, no gate of jerusalem known as the 'eye of the

                needle', at which one had to unload one's camel in order to pass. That

                story apparently has no basis in fact.



                Apparently one can find a full discussion in P Haupt, "Camel and

                Cable", American Journal of Philology 45, 1924, 238ff



                .






















                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                ------------------------------------

                Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/ To
                write to the moderators, please email: liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.comYahoo!
                Groups Links







                =


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Joseph Farias
                When I was at Notre Dame, it seemed that the CCT translation of the Lord s Prayer worked well chanted but never worked when recited. So we ended up using
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 21 12:05 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  When I was at Notre Dame, it seemed that the CCT translation of the Lord's Prayer worked well chanted but never "worked" when recited. So we ended up using traditional language when spoken for the reasons cited earlier.

                  What I find more interesting is in the RC lectionary the revision changed the more critical translation to the prayed traditional language text. I presume biblicists might find this even more disconcerting than I.

                  Joe Farias

                  _____________________________________
                  "Ancoro imparo"
                  -- Michelangelo, 1561
                  _______________________
                  Joseph G. Farias 973-267-5330 jfarias@...
                  jfarias@... St. Thomas More
                  jfarias@... Convent Station NJ

                  (Consider the environment. Please print this email only if absolutely necessary.)
                • dlewisaao@aol.com
                  I don t see this as being a big problem, either. Most people simply are familiar with the traditional wording, so it should be very easy to teach to the
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 21 6:52 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I don't see this as being a big problem, either.  Most people simply are familiar with the traditional wording, so it should be very easy to teach to the extent required.  Somehow I don't think that there is a successful argument for the traditional wording being heretical or off target theologically, but I do think that forcing people into newer, often awkward language would be bad pastorally.
                     
                    David
                     
                    ---------------------------
                    David Lewis
                    dlewisaao@...
                     
                    In a message dated 6/21/2012 9:42:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vistantn@... writes:


                    I’m sorry, but I just don’t see this as being such an insurmountable problem.  I am an engineer (I speak math, equations, and drawings) language is truly my “second” language.  I think in pictures, not words.  And, OK, I am and “old ____” (you fill in the blank).  I was not suggesting that Rite I (or any other expression of the Tudor English) was either: a) everyone’s cup o’tea or; b) easily understood without explanation.  I was only suggesting that, “Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us,” is pleasanter (to MY ear) than the abominable (and thank God, gone) translation, “You who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”  (It always reminded me of a chocolate beverage.)  As for the “tremendous amount of catec hesis” I will only say that 60 years ago it could be accomplished by the time one reached the age of 10 or 11 – which is hardly an age for “extensive” learning … again, your experience may vary.  

                     

                    In omnibus pax,

                    George Carlson

                    St. Paul’s (TEC), Murfreesboro, TN

                    (Where the installation of the new Letourneau organ is my primary focus a t the moment.)

                     

                     

                    From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Cowling
                    Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:31 PM
                    To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Lord's Prayer

                     

                     

                    On 6/21/12 3:38 PM, "Daniel Lawson" <k95dl01@...> wrote:

                    It takes an immense amount of catechesis so that the faithful can use the language  to communicate the closeness to God the language intends to communicate.



                  • Lewis H. Whitaker
                    I don t think anyone argued that either version was heretical. That s a bit of a stretch. Lew ... I don t think anyone argued that either version was
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 21 7:55 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't think anyone argued that either version was "heretical." That's a bit of a stretch. 

                      Lew




                      On Jun 21, 2012, at 9:52 PM, dlewisaao@... wrote:

                      I don't see this as being a big problem, either.  Most people simply are familiar with the traditional wording, so it should be very easy to teach to the extent required.  Somehow I don't think that there is a successful argument for the traditional wording being heretical or off target theologically, but I do think that forcing people into newer, often awkward language would be bad pastorally.
                       
                      David
                       
                      ---------------------------
                      David Lewis
                      dlewisaao@...
                       
                      In a message dated 6/21/2012 9:42:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vistantn@... writes:


                      I’m sorry, but I just don’t see this as being such an insurmountable problem.  I am an engineer (I speak math, equations, and drawings) language is truly my “second” language.  I think in pictures, not words.  And, OK, I am and “old ____” (you fill in the blank).  I was not suggesting that Rite I (or any other expression of the Tudor English) was either: a) everyone’s cup o’tea or; b) easily understood without explanation.  I was only suggesting that, “Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us,” is pleasanter (to MY ear) than the abominable (and thank God, gone) translation, “You who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.”  (It always reminded me of a chocolate beverage.)  As for the “tremendous amount of catec hesis” I will only say that 60 years ago it could be accomplished by the time one reached the age of 10 or 11 – which is hardly an age for “extensive” learning … again, your experience may vary.  

                       

                      In omnibus pax,

                      George Carlson

                      St. Paul’s (TEC), Murfreesboro, TN

                      (Where the installation of the new Letourneau organ is my primary focus a t the moment.)

                       

                       

                      From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Cowling
                      Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:31 PM
                      To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Lord's Prayer

                       

                       

                      On 6/21/12 3:38 PM, "Daniel Lawson" <k95dl01@...> wrote:

                      It takes an immense amount of catechesis so that the faithful can use the language  to communicate the closeness to God the language intends to communicate.



                    • Frank Senn
                      Texts grow on you. In my congregation we used to alternate between the PB and the ICET versions of the Lord s Prayer.  At some point I stopped alternating and
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 22 4:27 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Texts grow on you. In my congregation we used to alternate between the PB and the ICET versions of the Lord's Prayer.  At some point I stopped alternating and now we use the ICET text exclusively for all uses of the Lord's Prayer.  That includes at he end of council and committee meetings as well as in public liturgies.  Using the PB version would now trip up a lot of people, especially the youth for whom the ICET text rolls off their lips.

                        Frank C. Senn

                        --- On Thu, 6/21/12, Joseph Farias <jfarias@...> wrote:

                        From: Joseph Farias <jfarias@...>
                        Subject: [liturgy-l] Re: Lord's Prayer
                        To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                        Date: Thursday, June 21, 2012, 2:05 PM

                         

                        When I was at Notre Dame, it seemed that the CCT translation of the Lord's Prayer worked well chanted but never "worked" when recited. So we ended up using traditional language when spoken for the reasons cited earlier.

                        What I find more interesting is in the RC lectionary the revision changed the more critical translation to the prayed traditional language text. I presume biblicists might find this even more disconcerting than I.

                        Joe Farias

                        _____________________________________
                        "Ancoro imparo"
                        -- Michelangelo, 1561
                        _______________________
                        Joseph G. Farias 973-267-5330 jfarias@...
                        jfarias@... St. Thomas More
                        jfarias@... Convent Station NJ

                        (Consider the environment. Please print this email only if absolutely necessary.)

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.