Talk:Psalm 23

Removal of POV OR

Psalm 23 when examined and compared is very similar to a hymn sung to Osiris, a pagan saviour-figure in ancient Egyptian mythology which preachings and life in many senses is similar to that of the Christian saviour-figure Jesus. The original hymn appealed to Osiris, the Good Shepherd to lead those who have died to the "green pastures" and the "still waters" of the nefer-nefer land, Osiris was to restore the soul to the body and give protection in the "valley of the shadow of death".

When sung in connection to a prayer, the prayer began with "O'Amen, O'Amen, who are in heaven" and also ended with "Amen" as the end of every prayer. Although the etymology of "Amen" is different, there is great similarity.

I have removed the above paragraph for the following reasons:

1. To state that Ps23 is 'very simillar' to another work is POV (and perhaps even OR). Says whom? If some schollar has made this comparison, we may say 'x has suggested', or (if the evidence alows) 'many scholars suggest'. But we cannot state a judgement as an objective fact.
2. To say Osiris is is like Jesus is also POV. Says whom? In what ways?
3. None of the material is referenced in any way. --Doc ^ask? 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to removal

Several scholars (i.e. the as of 2005 late Alan Dundes) have made clear the similarity, read the hymn for you self, I don't have it here any more but I read it as part of a study on Egyptian mythology for class, it was about as different to Psalm 23 as King James version is to the newest translation. Merely rewtritten that is, probably due to retranslation of the psalm anyway.

Don't make all religion stuff so holy the origins can't be questioned, for they have been several times.

Reasons for readding:

1. One will have to judge for one self how great the similarity is, but the striking similarity has been made aware of several times by several scholars (for example see above).
2. Alan Dundes himself made several points to show the similarity with other saviour-type heroes like Herakles, Osiris, Dionysos, Horus etc.. Though he's not exactly alone in that area.
3. Study the book of Am-Tuat (yes, you deleted the reference) yourself and have a look. ---ramz- ^ask? 01:25, 27 March 2006 (CET)

I deleted an amazon link, we don't do those - reference the book per WP:CITE if you want, but not an Amazon advert. Yes, we can record that several scholars suggest that there are similarities between Ps 23 and and Egyptian song, but we can't say whether they are right or wrong to do so (that's POV or OR). Again we could record that some scholars note similarities between Jesus and Osiris (again not saying whether thay are correct or not), but that's not directly relevent to this Hebrew Psalm anyway. I've removed your version, please re-write it in conformity to WP:NPOV if you wish. --Doc ^ask? 14:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's not NPOV then rewrite it yourself instead of erasing the entire section. You ask for reference and when I provide it, you delete it! I've seen liks to bookpages on Amazon several times. But well, fine, leave the link abcent then, but don't snack up a "citation needed" then. Regarding the connection Osiris-Jesus, the psalm/hymn obviously enough plays quite a great point there being as similar in both religions and regarding both figures and this very connection has been academically regarded as you admitted yourself. No, we can't say that they are right or wrong, but we can mention their statements. We can mention there's a debate here, we can mention why they've made the connection (Being the similarity). ---ramz- ^ask? 20:31, 27 March 2006 (CET)

OK, I've cleaned it up and de-POV'd it. Since this is a Jewish Psalm comparisons between Osiris an Jesus are irrelevant - that material belongs elsewhere (try Jesus). You do stlll need a citation, not an amazon link, please insert into a 'reference' section the name of the book in question, the author, publisher and page numbers . If you can't give a real citation, then all the material will need to be removed. --Doc ^ask? 19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 'Amen' material, as Psalm 23 does not end with 'Amen'. You also infered that every prayer ends with Amen, that's palpably false. You also refered to 'both religions', I was not at all sure which religions you were refering to. --Doc ^ask? 19:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this version is more compact and satisfying (less beating around the bush), though Alan Dundes is hardly alone in making this remark, I just used him as an example, so the more non-subjective "Scholars" is more a more agreeable term.

I've rewritten the "both religions" to "Judaism/Christianity and Egyptian Mythology", Amen is traditionally used as the ending of a prayer in Christianity and Judaism so I'd say the expression is justifiable. Note that I've have not written that Amen is used in the hymn itself, only in connection to prayer in Egyptian Mythology. ---ramz- ^ask? 21:55 27 March 2006 (CET)

Amen is not in Psalm 23, only in settings of it. If you want to compare the general Judeo-Christian use of Amen to that of Egyptian mythology, I suggest you contribute to the Amen article. --Doc ^ask? 20:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming the scholar is better than using the generic 'Scholars say'. That could cover many/most or two very minor ones that no one has heard of. 'Scholars' unqualified constitutes weasel words --Doc ^ask? 20:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Many scientists regard the theory of relativity to be true, still if I provide you with the name of a reknown physics professor, we wouldn't write that only he regards the theory to be true. Neither do we write a number of names if there are several who have made this recognition. Since it's an accepted theory supported by several scientists we write something along the lines of: "Modern-day scientists regard the theory to be true". The connection in this article is recogniced academically (there are several who notice the connection, in other words it's a theory). Therefore "Sholars" (like "scientists") seems more appropriate than finding and writing a list of all those who recognice the connection.

What's up with the possible detetion of the article btw? Psalm 23 should be noticable enough to be on Wikipedia. ---ramz- ^ask? 13:30, 29 March 2006 (CET)

Does anyone have the actual text of the Egyptian prayer? I'd be very interested in seeing it and I think it would be worth adding it as an external link in the paragraph about the possible connections, or if there is truely a debate among scholars on it, it could have its own article or more prominent Controversy section. I searched the Am-Tuat on the internet but didn't find any passage that resembled Psalm 23.

The section regarding Jewish uses talks about it being recited between hand washing and the blessing over bread. This is patently false (as far as I know), as there is a (AFAIK) universal custom not to speak at this time. Singing a psalm would not be in line with that custom. If someone knows of a community where this is practiced, I'd love to hear about it.-Ze'ev

In popular culture

Isn't there a part in Titanic where one of the passengers is reciting this psalm and Jack asks if he could walk through that valley a little faster?74.225.50.69 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In the movie 'In Cold Blood' (1967) this psalm is recited when Perry Smith is about to hang.

In the movie 'Infamous' (2006) this psalm in recited during the execution scene.

I notice the 'In popular culture' sections are common in wikipedia, but this seems like overkill to try and reference all of these mentions in movies, books, etc. It's Psalm 23, it's in everything. :P Isn't it enough to say it's common in popular culture, music, films, etc? Bane1998 (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Further... who decides which musical settings are 'notable'? Should wikipedia strive to include every reference of the Psalm? Bane1998 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

When is it in the movie "X2"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.130.16 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also in War of the Worlds", the 1953 movie. Sylvia's uncle walks out toward the Martian war machines, reciting it, and the Martian blasts the guy as he finishes and displays his Bible. GBC (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A folk etymology of the phrase "23 skidoo," popular in the 1920s, has it being a reference to the 23d Psalm started in the Civil War following the coinage of the word "skedaddle." According to some, a chaplain in charge of burying a large number of dead after a battle shortened his recitation of the Psalm honoring the deceased, just saying "23 skedaddle" -- meaning that the spirit of the deceased should go quickly to be with God in Heaven. But his repetitions were many and became automatic, such that a reporter watching the scene heard "23 skidoo" (see the Wikipedia entry for "mondegreen") -- and the reporter's later recountings provided the origin of the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.81.149 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Judaica Press

I like having their translation in this article, but i am concerned about possible copyright violation. What is our basis for including it?--agr 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Psalm 23:4

This article is nothing more than a comparison (and an incomplete one, at that) of one verse out of this well-known Psalm. If it needs to be kept, it should be combined with the article on the complete Psalm. Quidam65 17:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

yes, incomplete, but, completely misses the entrance theme of the entire passage. all of these allusions, metaphors and imagery are used to say one simple thing. and it is identified by "shadow of the valley of death." shadow is fear. fear of ones own death is the real killer. and one need not fear death, if one has faith. other philosophies forward this central truth. "fear me for i have become death," "fear is the mind killer," there are others but these two spring to mind first. the entirety of this original post on Palm 23-4 is pedantic, sophomoric and showy. completely missing the point. please scrub it and rewrite. 184.100.233.46 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Alice In Chains

I am aware that said line is quoted in Sickman, but "My Cup Runneth Over" is a line in their song "Bleed The Freak" as well, should that not be mentioned too? User:Jagged Fel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.219.130 (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I have noticed over the last couple of weeks that this page has been edited regulary be several IP's. They have been reverting the old english translations with modern versions of Psalm 23 without seeming to understand the idea. Please leave these translations AS IS, as these were how they originally looked when translated across to old english. I appreciate people's efforts in cleaning Wiki, but please read the article and the CONTEXT that the article is written - what appear to be spelling mistakes are sometimes deliberate due to translations in documents etc. Thank you Floorwalker 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The English translation in the article is not "how they originally looked when translated across to old english". Rather, it's from the 1769 update to the King James Version. There were many earlier English translations, including earlier modern English translations.

This is from the 1535 Coverdale Bible; 234 years earlier than the text now in the article:

The Lorde is my shepherde, I can wante nothinge.

He fedeth me in a grene pasture, and ledeth me to a fresh water.

He quickeneth my soule, & bringeth me forth in the waye of rightuousnes for his names sake.

Though I shulde walke now in the valley of the shadowe of death, yet I feare no euell, for thou art with me: thy staffe & thy shepehoke comforte me.

Even the original 1611 King James Version text is different from the 1769 update text now in the article:

The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake.

Yea though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I will feare no euill: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staffe, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me, in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oyle, my cuppe runneth ouer.

Surely goodnes and mercie shall followe me all the daies of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for euer.

Note the above translations of "euill" and "euer" preserve an older character usage where "u" was used in some places where later English uses "v", and the pronunciation was like today's "v", not "u". "Euill" and "euer" would have been pronounced more like today's "evil" and "ever" than how they look to a modern English speaker.

Also--what do you mean by "without seeming to understand the idea"? It's just an article on Psalm 23. Why not feature an accurate modern translation?

One problem with the King James is that it preserves an older sense of "want" where it meant "lack", not "desire". Today that's an old-fashioned secondary meaning of "want". Today's readers of the King James Psalm 23 can and do get the wrong idea that the verse means that the narrator will not "desire" (things). But the word translated "want" means only "lack", not "desire".

Here's the NLT, a faithful modern meaning-for-meaning translation:

The Lord is my shepherd; I have all that I need.

He lets me rest in green meadows; he leads me beside peaceful streams.

He renews my strength. He guides me along right paths, bringing honor to his name.

Even when I walk through the darkest valley, I will not be afraid, for you are close beside me. Your rod and your staff protect and comfort me.

You prepare a feast for me in the presence of my enemies. You honor me by anointing my head with oil. My cup overflows with blessings.

Surely your goodness and unfailing love will pursue me all the days of my life, and I will live in the house of the Lord forever.

Significantly, for purproses of correct translation, a person who "has all that they need" may nevertheless desire more. The original doesn't say anything about whether the narrator, who has everything they need, desires more than what they have. Greg Lovern (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Drop text

It is proposed on Talk:Psalms to drop the text of psalms from the individual psalm articles. If you wish to weigh in, please do so there. Tb (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to actually have Psalm 23 on the page. It is very frustrating to read the article when the most important piece of information is missing: what the Psalm actually says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.209.194.117 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with the point you raise. You've also raised it on the main Talk:Psalms page, as it potentially applies to all the psalm articles. So let's keep the discussion there. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the words to the psalm available? If the page is about the Psalm the surly the words should be on there. Could some one please explain why the're not. DanielR235 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I've added a link in the article pointing to the wikisource version of one of the English translations. I think that's the wikipedia-approved way to do such things. Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, seriously, this article is useless without the actual text. A few links hidden deep within the article are not sufficient. Remember, WP specifically states to ignore all rules that obstruct the creation of a better article. See also WP:BURO, which says in as many words "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Suck up the infighting and such, pick a translation, and include the text, with notes on alternate translations if needed. Otherwise the article is so useless it might as well be nominated for deletion. Mokele (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Four of us are in agreement here that the words of the psalm belong in the article. I will put back the one that is there. Elizium23, if you don't like that version, then find one you do like and put it in. But before you do that, look at your keyboard and undo the CAPS key when you comment on changes you make.VanEman (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Group or band – which one?

We are holding a straw poll (in a very friendly way, of course) to decide if The Beatles should be called a group, or a band. You can add your user signature to one or the other by clicking this link, Group or band – which one?. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed Lists of Musical Settings and References in Popular Culture

I removed the lists of Musical Settings and References in Popular Media and Culture because they appear to violate Wikipedia policy against such lists. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists of trivia. If you disagree with me, please discuss here before reverting my two edits. If I am reverted without discussion here, I will restore my edits, and will continue to monitor this talk page. I apologize sincerely to all who contributed to those lists with good intentions, but I think it simply comes down to the question of whether they comply with Wikipedia policy. I studied the lyrics of several songs referenced, and found either none of the words of Psalm 23, or just the barest allusions to it. Psalm 23 is Psalm 23, and the fact that it may be set to some musical score or another, or is adapted in any number of ways, seems utterly irrelevant to what Psalm 23 is. Taquito1 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that editors propose criteria here for maintaining a list of some sort. Perhaps there are elements in the lists I deleted that are of interest and salvageable. Here are some starting criteria to consider (from Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles):

When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following:

1. Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?

2. Have reliable sources which don't generally cover xkcd pointed out the strip?

3. Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?

If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content.

I will argue that a song merely containing some words from Psalm 23 does not merit inclusion in this list, nor does a movie in which Psalm 23 is recited. A setting of the complete psalm to a musical score, or an orchestral rendition? Yes, perhaps they could be notable. An artistic work called "Psalm 23", presented by the artist as being inspired by the psalm? Yes, probably.

See these Wikipedia references:

Wikipedia:Lists

Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information

Wikipedia:Listcruft

Taquito1 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, Wikipedia policy. Quite likely the stupidest reason to do anything. Wikipedia policy has all the stability of a straw hut.

Try a much simpler concept: if you look up this topic in Wikipedia, what kinds of information would you hope to find? What kinds of information would be disappointed not to find? James470 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Those lists were patently absurd (and the remaining lists are still mostly absurd). I made changes that seemed right to me, and found policy that supported my action for the policy wonks. Now, speaking of the remaining lists you restored, they are terribly flawed. I challenge anyone to find the Psalm in "Dis Ain't What Ya Want" at the bottom (you'll need to look up an old version of the article because I am deleting that reference momentarily). And I checked a handful of others and they contained vague hints of allusions to it...at best. I suspect we don't really disagree much on what should be here, but your views on policy beg the question, if someone is disappointed in not finding a comprehensive list of all places "the valley of the shadow of death" is mentioned in popular media, are they right to add it? Of course not. THAT is policy. Taquito1 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy can be used to justify anything whatsoever at all, if you're high up enough on the food chain. Your understanding of policy is completely irrelevant if Jimbo decides a particular rule is too inconvenient for him.

I really don't care to listen to any song titled "Dis Ain't What Ya Want" for whatever the reason may be, but speaking just for myself, I would be disappointed not to find at least a listing of classical settings of a psalm by the great composers. I would also hope to find an insightful overview of how different composers reacted to the meaning of the text, but no scholar able to write such paragraphs would waste them on Wikipedia. James470 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

West Bromwich Albion

As far as im aware this is the only english football league club that openly sings a psalm from the christian bible correct me im sure. Stephen Wintle centelec@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.233.236 (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia article that mentions this, at least when I checked: West Bromwich Albion F.C.#Supporters James470 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [1] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 17, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 08:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An illustrated version of Psalm 23, from The Sunday at Home, a 19th-century compendium of religious texts. Originally included in the Hebrew Bible, the psalm is popular among both Jews and Christians, is often alluded to in popular media and has been set to music. The most widely recognized version of the psalm in English today is undoubtedly the one shown here, drawn from the King James Bible.Image: Religious Tract Society; Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Sir Philip Sidney's translation of the Twenty-third Psalm

The metrical translation by Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) predates the King James Version by two decades. It was circulated by admiring poets for centuries (in manuscript) before its first print appearance in the early 19th century. Might there be a way of incorporating a stanza or two into the article, to provide counterpoint to the far more familiar KJV version? The copy below was edited by the late Sidney scholar David Kalstone and read at his 1986 memorial service by his friend James Merrill (see Merrill's Collected Prose, Knopf, 2004, pp. 365-366). — Sandover (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  The lord the lord my shepheard is,
     And so can never I
        Tast misery.
  He rests me in green pasture his.
     By waters still and sweet
        He guides my feet.


  He me revives, leads me the way
     Which righteousness doth take,
        For his name's sake.
  Yea tho I should thro vallys stray
     Of death's dark shade I will
        No whit feare ill.


  For thou Deare lord Thou me besetst,
     Thy rodd and Thy staffe be
        To comfort me.
  Before me Thou a table setst,
     Ev'en when foe's envious ey
        Doth it espy.


  With oyle Thou dost anoynt my head,
     And so my cup dost fill
        That it dost spill.


  Thus thus shall all my days be fede,
     This mercy is so sure
        It shall endure,
  And long yea long abide I shall,
     There where The Lord of all
        Doth hold his hall.


                  – Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586)

pretty weird

that you don't have at least 1 text here. some wikipedia policy gone dysfunctional?--the wikipedia article on a psalm should have the psalm, not just vague remarks on how many people are fond of it and huge sections on so-called "popular culture." I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to be explaining this.2601:7:6580:5E3:D89A:F254:9C09:F94E (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Which translation?

@VanEman: Don't replace sourced text with unsourced text. I dislike uncritical KJV-quotation as much as the next guy, but in this case you were in the wrong.

@Elizium23: I basically agree with you, as in this case the KJV appears to be more accurate than whatever VanEman was quoting. In the places where your version differs from VanEman's, your version also appears to largely agree with my copies of the NRSV and the JPS translation, although I have not done a full comparison. I would, however, prefer that we use modern, reliable translations in general. The KJV "has too many inaccuracies because [it is] just too old" (38:31~38:42) and it is "one of the worst study bibles that you can go to; if you want to know what the authors of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the New Testament were trying to communicate, the King James is not a good study bible" (60:41~60:57). While neither of these scholars are specifically talk about Psalms, one of them was specifically not talking about Psalms, and neither of them has written much on the Hebrew Bible at all, Hayes (16:14~16:30) certainly was. (UPDATE: Sorry, I am rewatching the Ehrman lecture for the first time in close to a year at the moment, and I had completely forgotten that he quotes at length the KJV translation of this exact psalm, and calls it "memorable ... very familiar, very moving and powerful". He does not comment directly on the accuracy of this particular translation, mind you. Anyway, it's at 27:50~28:25.)

Both of you: Don't edit war. This page is for discussing. If you know in advance that you are reverting another editor, then you also know in advance that that editor will oppose your edit. Making an edit to the article that you know will be opposed is considered disruptive. The only situation where this could be considered acceptable is if one party has been refusing to use the talk page while the other has made an effort. In this case, neither of you has made the effort.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (Edited 08:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

I am not sure what you are talking about. There is no edit-war on this article. VanEman did not place the text in the first place, that was done by an IP a month ago. He reverted once. That is not an edit-war. I removed the text twice, yes, but the second time I replaced it with another proposed edit. Evidently you object. Unfortunately I disagree with your reasoning. Modern translations tend to be copyrighted. We should at all times stick to Public Domain Bibles if we are going to quote the whole text. There is a real problem in WP:BIBLE and that is preferring things that are new. This is not the way of Christianity. We do not throw things out because they are old. Doctrines and writings do not have "expiration dates". It is especially flagrant when considering which scholarship is acceptable for analysis of Scripture. There is a body of 2000 years of good scholarship and there is a body of hundreds of years of bad scholarship, with a tendency toward bad and ugly in modern times, with many heresies infecting Christianity and a lack of authority to stop them. That being said, I recognize that we can't use translations that are too old, because new manuscripts have been discovered, translation has improved, and of course English as a living language has changed significantly in the past 400 years. But the KJV has merits: it is recognized widely as the doctrinal norm for a huge number of Protestants, and it is universally recognized as the pinnacle of English literature, religious or not. So that was my reasoning in selecting it here. But there is also merit in dropping the text entirely, because of WP:NOT. And I would rather not have a war over "which translation" which argues strongly in favor of "none of the above". Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

MOS:TITLECAPS

Is "the lord is my shepherd" a title or an incipit? As a title, it ought to be spelled The Lord Is My Shepherd (MOS:TITLECASE. As an incipit, it's The Lord is my shepherd. This article uses a mixture of both; that should be normalized. MOS:TITLECAPS also applies to The Lord is My Shepherd (disambiguation) which should be in sentence (lower) case. The Johnson painting and the Rutter composition should be in title (capped) case. The Rous hymn ought to be in sentence case ("shepherd"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it "Dominus reget me" or "Dominus regit me"?

Can anyone help? There are conflicting sources about the Latin conjugation. Thanks, God bless. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Which source says "regit"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's this one, which seems to be a somewhat reliable repository of common hynms across most Christian sects. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That speaks about a particular hymn tune, not a general translation of Psalm 23. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Fair enoough. How about a Latin-to-English comparison? I found a couple, but don't know which of the two might merit inclusion here, so I will post them both. There's this one, or this one. I found both through searching for "psalm 23 in latin". But I'm sure someone with the capacity to do better basic internet searches than I can on my end would likely find more results that are relevant and could definitively answer the question. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhapos make some kind of footnote. Probably both have something right, being traditionally used in the Catholic Church, or being a close translation to the Hebrew, or being in some other tradition. The most traditional (and therefore common) use of Latin was in the Catholic Church, from its first Bibles on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Regit is the 3rd person, present, singular, active, indicative form of the verb rego. Reget is the the 3rd person, future, singular, active, indicative. The difference is one is in the future tense, the other in the present. I've seen regit pretty consistently and the Greek ποιμαίνω is in the present tense. Reget is probably someone's typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.238.166 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have always seen “regit” which is the one used in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (see heading of Psalm 23: https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/psalter/psalms-22-23). “The Lord will be my shepherd” does not make much sense, and I suspect it is an error. It’s not in any common Latin psalter. I have changed it to “regit”. Steepleman (t) 05:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Having consulted the BCP, the Vulgate Bible, the Monastic Breviary and the Sarum Psalter, the tense is clearly present tense. User:Michael_Bednarek please could you identify why you believe the future tense is accurate? I cannot find any common English translation which uses the future tense either. Steepleman (t) 06:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The only source provided in the article before your recent edits gave "reget". The sources now, especially the Breviarium, convincingly support "regit". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)