Talk:Psalm 23

message: 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:
#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.
#To say Osiris is is like Jesus is also POV. Says whom? In what ways? 
#None of the material is referenced in any way. --Doc ask? 13:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of POV OR

message: 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)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: 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)
thread_title: Judaica Press

message: 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)
thread_title: Psalm 23:4

message: 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)
thread_title: Alice In Chains

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Drop text

message: 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)
thread_title: Group or band – which one?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  West Bromwich Albion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sir Philip Sidney's translation of the Twenty-third Psalm 

message: 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)
thread_title:  pretty weird 

message: 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.
 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Which translation? 

message: 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)
thread_title: MOS:TITLECAPS

message: Can anyone help? There are conflicting sources about the Latin conjugation. Thanks, God bless. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Which source says "regit"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  That speaks about a particular hymn tune, not a general translation of Psalm 23. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is it "Dominus reget me" or "Dominus regit me"?