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)

It doesn't matter if you doubt it, what matters is that this hypothesis is real and needs to be mentioned. Verysoot (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2024 (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)

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)

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)

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)