Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 7 April 2014

Christianity: Music / Catholicism / Lutheranism Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christian music. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism. This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance).

"Sanctus is also a Roman cognomen derived from the Latin word for "holy"." Even one example of Sanctus used as a cognomen might make this clearer. Perhaps someone will expand this reference and return it to the text.For instance, what time frame are we talking about here? --Wetman 19:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any Roman with that cognomen Lostcaesar 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pleni sunt coeli et terra" - or is it "Pleni sunt caeli et terra"? Or, rather "Pleni sunt cæli et terra"?

I think, that the last two make the most sense, since pronounced in Italian, coeli would be 'koeli' whereas the two other would be 'cheli', which means sky or heaven.

Trihagion

How does this relate to the trihagion article?

Try trisagion — Gareth Hughes 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the trisagion relate more strongly to the Agnus Dei? Reverend Mommy 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

And see this. Esoglou (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Q

What is the Greek Orthodox term for the "Sanctus" prayer? (After the Anaphora.) Is it also considered a Trisagion prayer? 118.165.204.116 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is here. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for removing the translations?

Recently an editor removed a large portion of this article, mainly translations. Is there some good reason for this that you can articulate? Otherwise I am inclined to restore it as an important part. Not everyone can understand Latin, and at least one translation helps vastly with the understanding of this topic.

I can articulate yes, thanks anyway. Verbatum reproduction of text, not to mind translations, is discouraged here, its not the job of an encyclopedia, we are more interested in context and overview. External links do that job well enough. The same principal applies to poetry or musical articles; we do not just slap down the text, all of it, but quote selected passages within an analysis. Ceoil 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the guideline Misplaced Pages:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, the guiding principle is whether or not the text is copyrighted. In my opinion, it is quite small enough to include the full text (viz. Gettysburg Address) but we need to ascertain the copyright status of each translation. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Come back to me so on copyrighted text. Ceoil 00:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Elizium23, and should say that this biblical/prayer copyright issue has been debated on many talk pages and unfortunately resulted in the loss of good editors when the debate overboiled. So please do take it easy on this, as a start. And in general many prayers, are quoted in Misplaced Pages and it is not at all clear how a thousand year old prayer can be copyrighted by 20 different books at once. It is best to have the prayer in this page because it helps the reader. History2007 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I did more searches and I put an English version back. This prayer appears in many, many books and is in such widespread use that clearly none of those books can claim a copyright to it. History2007 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not so much dealing with misc. translations as with texts approved for worship. ICEL seems only concerned with unauthorized hymnals; the US bishops have been more zealous in guarding copyright on the forthcoming texts, but since their Sanctus is identical with an earlier translation establishing a fair-use rational is moot. I've put back the PD-US versions in full and sketched in some context to suggest the lines on which I think the article should be developed. Sparafucil (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what was the problem with the "normal/usual" English version I had which said high instead of hyge etc. The ones you added I would not recognize.... The Sanctus I am used to does not appear on the page now! I added it back. It is amazing how much time is getting wasted here due to the initial deletion, with no serious improvement to content. History2007 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not merely one of copyright, but as Ceoil said, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to provide lengthy original texts, and especially not multiple translations of a single text. That's what external links are for in the case of copyrighted material, and what Wikisource is for in the case of free material. In general, anything published in the U.S. before 1923 is public domain, as is anything from the 16th and 17th centuries, and as is the 1979 ECUSA Book of Common Prayer. These texts can all go to Wikisource. Pais (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing, just amazing how time gets wasted on these talk pages via discussions that do little for the benefit of the readers. Now, if some poor user clicks to find out what the Sanctus is, should he/she not see the main English version on this page? I certainly think so. The reader needs to be informed what this prayer is. The 15th century versions should go away, for they do nothing, absolutely nothing for 90% of the readers. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Who decides what the "main English version" is? If we're only going to show the ICEL version, we should at least label it as such and source it. And a whole lot of English-speaking Christians still use 17th-century language in their liturgy. (Not 15th century, which would precede the Reformation.) Pais (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Something like the ICEL version that "sounds like modern English" and is used by over 50 million people in the US every week would be the main version. The problem now is that someone who hears "God of power and might" and wants to relate that to Sanctus is not being helped. This is a REALLY easy issue and just having the modern English version plus Latin will resolve the nightmares here. By the time we end this debate ICEL may have a new version anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gregorian chant.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of providing a Greek text

Is a Greek text provided as a Greek translation of the Latin prayer? This is the English Misplaced Pages, not the Greek Misplaced Pages. So, if that is the purpose, why provide a translation into an earlier form of Greek, not modern Greek? Isn't it better to give the corresponding text used in the Greek liturgy, which is no translation from the Latin text and on the contrary differs from it? I can provide translations of the Latin text into Greek and several other languages, including Hebrew. But is that what is wanted? Thanatos666 seems to think so. At least that is how I read his comment on my talk page, which I am moving to here, so that it can be discussed by others as well as by me.

Is the Greek text provided to show what the Greek liturgy has at the point where the Latin liturgy has the Sanctus, and to show in what ways the Greek tradition differs from the Latin? That is my view. In my opinion, it would be useful also to give the Syriac, Coptic and Armenian texts (if different from the Latin and Greek traditions), accompanying each of them with an English translation, so that readers can see what differences, if any, there are between those texts and the Greek and Latin texts.

Here is what Thanatos666 wrote on my talk page:

The translation you had added, taken from here, reads "...Hosanna to God in the highest.". But compare it, e.g., to the Latin: "...Hosanna in excelsis.". Then compare it first to the quoted below 1549 Book of Common Prayer translation i.e. "...Glory to thee, O lorde in the highest." and that to the quoted, either e.g. ICET translation, i.e. "... Hosanna in the highest." or e.g. the 2011 the Roman Missal in English one, i.e. "...Hosanna in the highest.". Then compare Mathew 21:9, i.e. "...Ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις.", to all of them.

I'm neither a theologian, be it Orthodox or other, or a relevant field scholar, nor for that matter a believer (I'm an atheist); but I can e.g. read this... If you know Greek (ancient and modern) you might get the point too; recall, btw and inter alia, that we're talking about the hymn in general...

PS Btw, quoting, as you did, inside the article text St John's Liturgy was intrusive, disruptive, irrelevant: the Sanctus is not found/sung-recited only there/then. You also misread the source you had cited; which itself, as far as my little mind can tell with a little bit of research, reading the texts, etc, is claiming inaccuracies/falsehoods... ;-

PPS Getting the point will/would make you understand why a. the "ὁ" should be inside parentheses and b.1. there should either be no translation at all thereat of the Greek into English or b.2. there should be (at least) two translations accompanied by a full/complex analysis of the issue at hand, including the forms in other languages, other quoted or not translations, etc....
Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The English translation that Thanatos666 objects to is not a translation of the Latin liturgical text, but of the Greek liturgical text. The Greek liturgical text does not put ὁ in parenthesis: the parenthesis marks that Thanatos666 added might (but only perhaps) be justified if the Greek text were intended as a translation from the Latin, but in that case you would certainly need to add something like ὁ Θεὸς to render the word Deus in Dominus Deus Sabaoth, to which nothing corresponds in the Greek liturgical text. The New Testament text, as Thanatos666 says, is Ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις (Hosanna in the highest). The Latin liturgical text has this biblical text twice, while the Greek liturgical text has it once only and also has the distinct though similar phrase Ὡσαννὰ ὁ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις (Hosanna the One in the highest, which in Latin would be Hosanna qui in excelsis), which is not the biblical text. (Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.) On the other hand, it is the Latin liturgical text that departs from the biblical text of Isaiah 6:3 by adding Deus.

The difference between Thanatos666's version and mine is shown here. Note that, though Thanatos666 seems to call the Greek text a translation from Latin (have I misunderstood him?), he also calls it the Epinikios Hymnos, which suggests instead a Greek liturgical text, not a translation. The Greek Orthodox source that I cited denies that the Greek liturgical text has any specific Greek name. Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, you have misunderstood me; totally...
Let's see:

• I haven't claimed that the Greek is a translation from Latin or anything similar.
• As the article reads, the hymn is composed of two parts: one from-quoting the Old Testament and one from-quoting the New.
• The Νew Τestament used-quoted passage does not, per the MSS-codices, read ὁ at the relevant place.

Note: If I'm erroneous, more knowledgeable people should feel free to correct me.

• The hymn in Greek, as per the Greek forum page - which is in... Greek - I had cited (it's a highly specialised forum-website and a discussion between psaltai, i.e. cantors, or anyway of people of relavant interests and occupations, citing -serious, relevant- sources etc), is used at times with and at other times without an ὁ.

Note1: This would constitue reason enough for the (ὁ) to be quoted thus.

Note2: For the record, I was the one who, among other things, had added the text in Greek in the first place; I hadn't included said article because I thought it would greatly complicate things; but I've changed my mind: for the sake of accuracy I've now added it, albeit inside parentheses.

• Hosanna can be translated as many things, depending on context and hence it can also change the meaning of its contextual words. See for example said Greek forum page or for example (google is my friend; as NSA is...) this.
• This - at least as I understand it - is reflected at the already present translations of the hymn into English in this article.
• Explaining the complexity of all of this is hard and would require many things, including commenting on the quoted translations into English...
• Esoglou's additional phrases were simply a bit... irrelevant:
  • The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can of course be cited, as it now is; but including it as and where Esoglou did, as and where Esoglou had worded it, is intrusive and disruptive, at least imo. The Epinikios Hymnos is present inside said Liturgy, but it's also present elsewhere (e.g. the ... Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great); it is a...hymn (in the relevant Orthodox context). In comparison, the Sanctus is also present in the Requiem but we don't mention the latter anywhere inside the (Text:) in Latin subsection... The Liturgies or Masses or Services in whichever language are of secondary or tertiary importance or relevance; the article is about the hymn per se.

Note: If you want to work on this - as per your Is the Greek text... and the Greek and Latin texts. - feel free to do it; but please do it inside a new section, i.e. outside the Text - and the Text:In Greek subsection - section, and after or inside a subsection of the Sources section. Be advised though, that imo in order to do this, you would have to read up first a lot on the whole thing...

• • And
    • a.The source Esoglou cited (Orthodox answers), was misread and miquoted by him (the source reads that the Hymn does not have a name, not that the part of the Divine Liturgy(-ies) wherein the hymn is placed, can be found, does not have a name).
    • b. The source's claim is inaccurate; see for example Chrysostom's Liturgy in English (emphasis mine)

Priest:
Singing the victory hymn, proclaiming, crying out, and saying:
People:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest.

Note: The hymn can also be cited/called in a Sanctus-like manner, i.e. Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος Σαβαώθ or similar.

• Finally a personal note: Dear Esoglou, the edits, the initial comment and also this, were and are not intended in any way as a personal attack against you; I'm sure what you did was done in good will and in a contructive, positive spirit. :)

PS Continuing for a while and only for while, between us two in Greek (after Esoglou started it...:) ):
"(Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)"
Δεν σε πιάνω... Δες σχόλιο υπ'αριθμόν 9. Αν πάλι δε εννοείς κάτι άλλο, διευκρίνισε σε παρακαλώ...
Συνέχισε σε παρακαλώ πάντως την συζήτηση στα αγγλικά· είναι κανονισμός αλλά και χάριν ευγενείας και σεβασμού προς τους άλλους...
Στο κάτω κάτω της γραφής είμαστε στην αγγλική, όχι στην ελληνική wikipedia... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, do you (like me) consider the purpose of giving a Greek quotation to be to show what the Greek liturgy uses in correspondence to the Sanctus in the Latin liturgy? If so, it must be quoted accurately. My version accurately reports what is found in all the sources at my disposal say is in the Greek liturgy. It uses the "Hosanna" phrase in two forms, once without and one with the article. In neither instance does it put the article (ὁ) in parenthesis. What is the reliable source for your version? You surely don't want to insert original research. Esoglou (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to quote Liturgies-Masses-... do it inside a dedicated section; then and there quote it and analyse it at will (I have no objection to this; I don't know how others would react). Just please don't do it inside the Τext section; therein it was and it would again be intrusive, disruptive and irrelevant. The article is about the hymn itself; not about the former... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't cite a Greek forum page as a source for the text. We need reliable secondary sources here; the text of a common liturgy is best, since this is, of course a liturgical hymn first and foremost. What are your sources and why are you preferring them over liturgical texts? Elizium23 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage reads that you know basic Greek; perhaps you should practise it by reading said forum-discussion-page?!?! ;-)
I've already mentioned that serious sources are cited therein...
And btw I've not used said page as a source inside the article... I've only pointed to it when discussing the issue at the talk-page(s).
P.S. You can also for example hear the hymn sung here without said article (or at least, I personally don't hear said article). Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have a "serious source" then please cite it in this article. The current source is http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc-el which does not have parentheses anywhere, so you will need to remove them in order to conform to the cited source. If you have another source text which includes the parentheses, then by all means include it and cite it as usual. Referring us to a forum post here and refusing to cite actual sources is simply WP:OR and cannot be permitted. Elizium23 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that everyone interprets the rules at will... Do you want me to solve your "problem"? OK watch how I will do it... Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Problem solved. Are you happy?? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 22:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove content from articles again in this manner, it is inappropriate and considered vandalism. You have been warned appropriately. Now please begin to cite real sources and stop dreaming things up. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I repeat: Stop invoking, quoting and interpreting rules at will. Especially when you don't - most probably - have a clue about the issue at hand... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the current revision. As for this discussion. I wish you would be a little more polite. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• Start-Class Christian music articles
• Unknown-importance Christian music articles
• Start-Class Catholicism articles
• Unknown-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• Start-Class Lutheranism articles
• Low-importance Lutheranism articles
• WikiProject Lutheranism articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles