Hymn Text revisions in Worship IV
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 904
    Original Text:

    Hail the day that sees him rise,
    Ravished from our wishful eyes!
    Christ, awhile to mortals given,
    Re-ascends his native heav'n.

    There the pompous triumph waits,
    “Lift your heads, eternal gates;
    Wide unfold the radient scene,
    Take the King of Glory in!”

    Him though highest heaven receives,
    Still he loves the earth he leaves;
    Though returning to his throne,
    Still he calls mankind his own,

    See, he lifts his hands above.
    See, he shews the prints of love.
    Hark, his gracious lips bestow,
    Blessings on his church below.

    Still for us his death he pleads;
    Prevalent, he intercedes;
    Near himself prepares our place,
    Harbinger of human race.

    There we shall with thee remain,
    Partners of thy endless reign;
    There thy face unclouded see,
    Find our heaven of heavens in thee!

    Text: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788

    WORSHIP III

    Hail the day that sees him rise,
    To his throne above the skies;
    Christ, awhile to mortals given,
    Re-ascends his native heav'n.

    There for him high triumph waits;
    Lift your heads, eternal gates;
    He has conquered death and sin;
    Take the King of glory in.

    Highest heav'n its Lord receives,
    Yet he loves the earth he leaves:
    Though returning to his throne,
    Still he calls the world his own.

    See, he lifts his hands above.
    See, he shows the prints of love.
    Hark, his gracious lips bestow,
    Blessings on his church below.

    Still for us he intercedes,
    His prevailing death he pleads,
    Near himself prepares our place,
    He the first fruits of our race.

    There we shall with him remain,
    Partners of his endless reign;
    There his face unclouded see,
    Live with him eternally.

    Text: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788, alt.

    WORSHIP IV

    Hail the day that sees him rise,
    To his throne above the skies;
    Christ, the Lamb for sinners giv’n
    Now ascends the highest heav’n

    There the glorious triumph waits;
    Lift your heads eternal gates;
    Christ has conquered death and sin;
    Take the King of Glory in!

    Highest heav’n its Lord receives,
    Yet he loves the earth he leaves;
    Though returning to his throne,
    Still he calls the world his own.

    See, he lifts his hands above;
    See, he shows the wounds of love;
    Hark, his gracious lips bestow,
    Blessings on his Church below.

    Christ, for us still intercede,
    By your suff’ring for us plead;
    Make us worthy of the place,
    Which you offer us by grace.

    There we shall with you remain,
    Partner of your endless reign;
    There your face unclouded see,
    Live with you eternally.

    Text: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788, alt. further

  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 904
    In this other thread http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/8802/herman-g-stuempfle-hymn-texts#Item_56a specific contemporary hymn writer was singled out which lead to a discussion of how hymn texts were edited in Worship IV. Kathy made some excellent points which inspired me to start this discussion. Let’s take a look at a specific traditional hymn text and how it has morphed over the past few decades. Since many of us just sang this one recently I’ve chosen Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise. I’ve included the original hymn text (for the relevant stanzas; the original was 10 stanzas), then as it appeared in Worship III (as well as most other hymnals of the time) and then its most recent edit from Worship IV. Fr. Chepponis quoted from the forward of Worship IV:

    Perhaps the single most defining feature of Worship-Fourth Edition is the effort the committee put into choosing high-quality hymn texts. The result is a body of hymns that are theologically sound, poetically substantive, and attuned to the needs of the rites and liturgical calendar. Each text has undergone the scrutiny of a newly formed English Text Review Committee. Hymns having more than a century of use were compared to their original versions as well as to their versions in contemporary hymnals. Some previously omitted verses were added, some original wording was restored, and other edits were made according to the best judgment of the committee. Alterations made to copyrighted texts were done with permission.


    I do not consider myself to be a theologian or a poet, but rather a humble musician whose instincts tell me that the texts in W-4 are in fact in many cases watered-down. While I understand that certain texts necessitate updating for archaic language etc, I’m more interested in the orthodox theology, quality of the poetry and the modern PC agenda that shouldn’t necessitate a change in text for a hymn that has found its place in the common repertoire.

    Let’s begin with the first stanza and ask, why change “re-ascends his native heaven” to “Now ascends the highest heav’n” ?

    Was the original difficult to understand? It seems to me that “re-asends” and “native” imply that Jesus was in heaven before coming to earth and returning. A crucial point of our credo. The revised text doesn’t affirm that same idea. While the revised text is not inaccurate, it is not as strong theologically. So what warranted the change?

    Looking further, what was the reason for changing “prints of love” to “wounds of love”. Again I cannot think of any reason for this. In fact, I thought at first, perhaps this was a case where the editors of W-4 reverted back to the original text, but that is not the case. Perhaps it’s just because I’m used to it, but “prints of love” trips off the tongue a little easier as far as poetic merit is concerned.

    Thirdly, why was the object changed from 3rd person to 2nd person in the final two stanzas if not to avoid a masculine pronoun? It’s seems odd. Is there another reason?

    My intent is not to ostracize Fr. Chepponis or any other editors at GIA. I would like to have a professional discussion. I think asking for the rationale behind such changes is appropriate. If I am missing something, then I would like to be educated.
  • Earl_Grey,

    Thanks for your interest in the hymn texts of Worship IV, and for your wanting to have a professional discussion here. You raise some interesting questions in a respectful way. For that, I thank you.

    There were two editorial committees for Worship IV. I was a member of the committee that chose the hymnal's contents. Once the hymns were chosen, they were passed on to a second committee, called the "English Text Review Committee," who reviewed each text. I don't want to sound like I'm "passing the buck," so to speak, but I was not a member of the text committee, so I can't comment on the rationale behind most of the specific text alterations.

    I do know that the text committee worked very hard scrutinizing and discussing every text, but I was not privy to their deliberations. And I'm fairly certain that the members of that committee do not regularly participate in this CMAA forum.

    As far as orthodox theology, the entire contents of Worship IV had to be submitted to the Chicago Archdiocese for approval. A notice is printed in the front matter of the hymnal from Chicago's Vicar General stating that the material "is free from doctrinal and moral error."

    In another recent post here, I quoted that the editor of the new Presbyterian hymnal said of her committee: “We will inevitably have made some wrong decisions as a hymnal committee; but to the best of my knowledge we made no careless or cavalier ones.”

    I think that same comment could be applied to both of the Worship IV committees.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood redsox1
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,815
    “prints of love” to “wounds of love”. Again I cannot think of any reason for this...“prints of love” trips off the tongue a little easier


    Let me trippingly suggest that the bearer of the Prince of Love might easily be confused with Christopher.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I've seen worse. At least it's not "sees Christ rise." And I'm pleased they have more than 3 verses.

    It's interesting to listen to layfolk complain about music, because their complaints are always so pedestrian and banal. But still, there's some validity in them. One of the most common ones, which sounds so silly is "they changed the words!!" People get REALLY worked up about this, even if the change isn't politically-driven. I found this sort of complaint so silly, myself.

    Yet, the few times I've had to actually sing these texts, it IS hard! "Thee, Thou" to "You, Your" is a little trippy. But full-blown changes, "O Love how deep how broad how high it fills the heart with ecstasy," for example (Methodist hymnal) is just hard to sing if you know the other text well. And these editors often don't consider ease of singing in their text modifications!

    I'm firmly in the "keep everything" (even "whelkin") camp. Or at least admit that their is a reception that's occurred with many of these texts, rather than ramming though political or linguistic agendas.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Just one example of what was lost: v. 1 line 4 penultimate word: native changed to highest.

    This is a negative change in at least four areas: euphony, Christology, literacy, and originality.

    Euphony: the "n" sound--one of the most euphonic consonants in hymnody--appears in two other accented syllables in this line. In the word "native" it appeared in its strongest position, at the head of a word, before a long vowel and a hard "t." This caused a resonance. It brought out the "n" sound from the other accented syllables and helped them to ring. That is gone now.
    There is a much lesser argument from euphony to be made for the change. "highest heav'n" is easier to sing than "native heav'n," since (st-aspirate h) is easier to sing than (v-aspirate h). But not that much easier.

    Christology: "Highest heaven" is a destiny common to saints as well as Christ, as any number of office hymns attest. "Native heaven" is the origin of only One Who shares our nature. Wesley's bold statement of faith recalls John 6:62: "Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!" The Wesley who wrote

    Veil'd in Flesh, the Godhead see,
    Hail th' Incarnate Deity !
    Pleas'd as Man with Men t'appear,
    Jesus, our Immanuel here !

    makes the same act of faith in this hymn. Hymns at their best are corporate acts of faith, cantillated. The act of faith is lessened by a weakening of the original's Christology, with no gain whatsoever.

    Literacy: We live in an unprecedentedly intellectually demanding age. Simple office workers must learn to adapt nimbly with every new software release. We go from one technological advance to another with lightning speed, and these advances come with an ever-changing vocabulary infused with the neologism-of-the-week. Meanwhile, there seems to be a strange pressure to reduce the number of expressions in common usage in the Church. Except in certain situations deserving of respect and accommodation--such as liturgies with persons slower to learn--this impulse is not the best pastoral practice. It gives the impression that in this particular area of life, the Church area, intellectual demands will not be made. Anyone who has studied theology seriously is well aware that the intellectual demands of that discipline are very serious. "Knowing God"--theo-logy--is intellectually demanding. It has a vocabulary of its own. People like words, after all. Why not use more of them?

    Originality The phrase "highest heaven" is familiar. "Native heaven" is original. Singing it, one is aware of something fresh and new, like the Gospel, like God, "Beauty, ever ancient, ever new." Changing a hymn from an original, theologically rich new expression to a commonplace makes no sense.

    The above are particular reasons why this particular word should not have been changed in this particular hymn. But generally speaking, it seems to me that changes should almost never be made. Very few theological texts can be memorized, but hymns can be. Hymns are rhymed and metered. People commit hymns to memory. They sing them on their deathbeds. Changing the words interrupts this acquisition, and usually for inadequate and often for ephemeral reasons.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    I once edited/compiled a "hymnal" (songbook) for a group of 12 people who all liked each other and were using the hymnal for a single, communal worship service.

    While it is possibly valid to discuss specific issues with individual choices, I have two things to contribute:
    1. If you've never done anything like that, it's way harder than you think.
    2. There is absolutely no way to declare unbreakable principles and stick to them (always use the original text, use standard harmonies, don't transpose down, etc, etc). No way whatsoever.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    "they changed the words!!" People get REALLY worked up about this


    Even if it isn't the same text at all, but a totally different text with the same tune.

    Or a different text on a somewhat similar tune.

    Or a totally different text with a totally different tune but which happens to have one or two similar words in the first line.

    ---
    Music director hands out music.
    Choir Member: Oh- we've sung this before!
    Music Director: Fantastic, that'll make this easier.
    CM: Well it was a different version of this.
    MD: Ah, yes- there are many settings of the Magnificat.
    CM: Right. Yeah- we have done this one. It had slightly different words.
    MD: Do you remember how it went?
    CM: (singing) Ave Maria....
    MD: That's a totally different song.
    CM: Right. Well- but we sang it before.
    MD: ...
    CM: I liked the other version better.

    image
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    People get cranky about stuff. Shocker.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • TCJ
    Posts: 990
    WLP has it as "Hail the Day that See Christ Rise" in their hymnal. The ever-generous people behind WLP were kind enough to also provide an old version with the original "Him" in the organ accompaniment, however, since it's not in the hymnal, the congregation will be singing the new words.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Re: "prints of love," the Latin office hymns are full of ambiguities that are very close to puns.

  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    This hymn is certainly one of Charles Wesley’s most popular hymns – at least for Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Episcopalians, and others who liturgically commemorate the Ascension of the Lord. That being said, I do not think it is one of Dr. Wesley’s finest creations. The few hymnals which still include it have all attempted to improve the text somewhat. Some of the original 10 stanzas have been rather universally dropped. Many of Wesley’s rhymes are weak: giv’n/heav’n; above/love; see/thee (used twice).

    GIA’s English Text Review committee studied the text at its January 8, 2009, meeting. There was some surprise that the text had not been revised in Worship 3 (1986), since The Hymnal 1982 had some rather extensive revisions and that hymnal was one of the principal resources used by the Worship 3 editors.

    Regarding stanzas 5-6 of the text in W4 being changed from third person to second person, this is quite common in hymns (psalms too, like Psalm 23), particularly for the final stanza or two, giving the closing text the form of a prayer. For those who wish to consult the 10 stanzas of Wesley’s original text, he did that himself in stanzas 7, 8, 10 (which reveals another flaw in the text, since stanza 9 reverts back to third person).

    I must say that I find it surprising that Earl_Gray and Kathy are defending Wesley’s original text for stanza 1. This stanza seems to be one that every hymnal changes, and for good reason. Docetism, anyone? I’m reasonably sure that Wesley did not intend that, but some will certainly read his words that way. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became incarnate here on earth. The God-Man did not exist from all eternity in heaven; heaven was not the God-Man’s “native” place, even though I heard a TV evangelist just last night talking about a conversation “Jesus” had with his Father in heaven before he came to earth to save us. No, the God-Man did not descend from heaven, so he cannot re-ascend it.
    Thanked by 1Fr. Jim Chepponis
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    Here's a little chart of the changes (see attached PDF page), with apparent reasons indicated, as best I can discern them.

    Most of the changes from the original to the Worship III version appear to fall in these areas:
    -- improve singability/euphony (5)
    -- avoid thee/thy (4)
    -- avoid awkward phrasing (2)

    Most of the changes from Worship III to Worship IV appear to fall in these areas:
    -- avoid he/him/his (10)
    -- avoid antique words (2)

    Some of the changes in Worship III are plainly constructive changes aimed at making the text more singable or euphonious. Most are arguably cases of dumbing down, following a language ideology of eliminating "thou" or other words considered antique.

    Most of the changes in Worship IV follow another ideology, so as to minimize referring to Christ as "he" or "him". In some cases the "he" or "him" had been present in the original text, but (perhaps ironically) in slightly over half the cases the Unwanted Pronoun had been introduced by previous changes, maneuvering to eliminate "thou".

    The resulting text is within the bounds of orthodoxy, yet the pattern of changes seems to show the influence of passing language fads -- and in the case of feminist language ideology, there may be a temptation to downplay the human male identity of Jesus, with possible harmful effects to Christology. Editorial committees need to question whether they should continue to follow such ideologies, especially in cases where the Church has warned against their influence on liturgical translation.
    hymn-compare.pdf
    62K
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    No, the God-Man did not descend from heaven, so he cannot re-ascend it.

    This doesn't reflect the full range of expressions found in Scripture and the liturgy:

    John 3:13 :
    "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."

    Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:
    "propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis"

    It would be a mistake to say that these descents belong to the Second Person of the Trinity but not at all to the God-Man: Christ's person is of course one.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396

    Most of the changes from Worship III to Worship IV appear to fall in these areas:
    -- avoid he/him/his (10)
    -- avoid antique words (2)


    Chonak,
    Let me assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth. I've already treated why "native" and "reascends" was changed. If changing stanzas 5 and 6 to second person were done to "avoid he/him," then why would we not have changed "him" to "Christ" in the very first line?
    Thanked by 1Fr. Jim Chepponis
  • TCJ
    Posts: 990
    Because WLP already has copyright on that change! :P
  • A few thoughts:

    First: I'm delighted that you're offering comments here, Ron!

    Second: Within the six stanzas of "Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise" in Worship IV, the words "he," "him," or "his" are used for a combined total of TWELVE times! I think it's quite a stretch for anyone to even surmise that the text was influenced by "feminist language ideology" or a "temptation to downplay the human male identity of Jesus."

    Third: Even the revered Episcopal Hymnal 1940 uses the phrase "highest heav'n" rather than "native heav'n" at the conclusion of the first stanza of this hymn.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Because WLP already has copyright on that change! :P

    Well, WLP did change the first line to "Hail the Day That Sees Christ Rise" (as appears in their recent "We Celebrate" worship resource), but the text is not copyright by WLP. (If you wrote in jest, TCJ, I apologize!)
  • TCJ
    Posts: 990
    It was entirely in jest. I know, I didn't put it in purple text like everyone else does, but I never think about that.
    Thanked by 1Fr. Jim Chepponis
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    Twelve times, Fr.? Yes, but it's down from 23 references. Who knows: maybe in Worship V the committee can get it down to six. :-)

  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    The Christology professed here by Fr. Krisman is so utterly mistaken that one wonders where to begin to refute it, among the doubtless dozens of conciliar canons that apply. Perhaps with the Chalcedonian decree, which said that the union of the two natures in the one divine Person is such that the natures are unchanged (one of the four great alpha-privative adverbs). The divine Son, "ever at the Father's side," became Incarnate.

    Cheap accusations of "Docetism" aren't helpful at all. image
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    And by the way, another word of welcome to ronkrisman; thanks for participating.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    Kathy,
    Are you denying that the divine Son of God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, before becoming incarnate, had but one nature?
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Fr. Krisman,

    No. Obviously.

    I'm saying what the Church in Council says about the union of the two natures--and you are not.
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 422
    Not completely off topic but slightly varying:

    Fr. Chepponis and Fr. Krisman,

    Could you comment on the (not quite as recent) changes to the texts of the verses of James Moore's "Taste and See?"

    Those changes seem unneeded and completely damage the singability of the verses.

    Also, where do companies like GIA, et al. gather their information on changing texts like the examples provided in this thread?

    Thanks!

  • Twelve times, Fr.? Yes, but it's down from 23 references.

    RIchard, it's good that we can banter back and forth in a friendly manner here!

    But on a more academic note... "Hail the Day" uses the very short meter of 77 77 (with alleluias.) If I or anyone else would compose a new hymn text that uses "he," "him," or "his" 23 times in the course of six short stanzas, I think an editor would ask for some changes!

    So, as Ron mentioned above, perhaps "Hail the Day" was not one of Dr. Wesley's finest creations in the first place. And perhaps the many alterations of Wesley's text throughout the years is an indication of this.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became incarnate here on earth. The God-Man did not exist from all eternity in heaven; heaven was not the God-Man’s “native” place,

    This sort of language is problematic. As you know, the "who" of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is the same as the "who" of the God-Man. That makes for a seeming contradiction when Fr. Krisman writes that "The God-Man did not exist from all eternity in heaven" -- unless one were to add some qualifier such as "in a human nature".
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    The Christology professed here by Fr. Krisman is so utterly mistaken that one wonders where to begin to refute it, among the doubtless dozens of conciliar canons that apply.


    Kathy, I certainly do not want to be professing a "mistaken" Christology. You're going to have to give me some indication of what you thought was incorrect in any of my statements. Thanks!

    And - why do other folks' comments have "Thanks" up at the top, and mine have "Edit"? Am I doing something wrong?
  • Bobby Bolin
    Posts: 422
    Everyone has "Edit" on their own posts and "Thanks" for everyone else's posts. That way nobody can edit your posts and you can't thank yourself.
    Thanked by 2francis marajoy
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Fr. Krisman,

    One is not allowed to thank oneself. Your thanks button shows up for all other users.

    I would be happy to help you out with your Christology problem, but tomorrow. A blessed night to you.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    The "Thanks" link allows you to express thanks for a particular message. The software is designed thoughtfully to not let users look silly by thanking themselves. :-)

    In the meantime, Fr. Krisman, if you can scroll back a bit, I did try to indicate what seemed theologically imprecise in a couple of your comments. My notes are at
    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/93596#Comment_93596
    and
    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/93615#Comment_93615

  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    Chonak,

    Thanks for the info.

    And, sorry, but I do not see your point about problematic language in my earlier statement.

    In the Nicene Creed the "descendit" of the "Filius Dei" occurs before the "incarnatus est"

    And I was using "God-Man" to refer to the hypostatic union of the two natures of Jesus Christ in the incarnation. So no further qualifier such as "in a human nature" is necessary.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    Really? So in writing this line:
    No, the God-Man did not descend from heaven, so he cannot re-ascend it.

    you weren't using "God-Man" to refer to a person? You used the pronoun "he"; "he cannot". That means you were talking about a person, not a union (an "it").

    Sincerely, if you don't think that you're using the terminology in a confusing way, don't take my word for it, find a dogmatic theologian, show him your writings on this web page, and get an expert opinion. I'll leave the matter there.

    --

    And for now prescinding from all that, let's get back to the hymn.

    You wrote:
    No, the God-Man did not descend from heaven, so he cannot re-ascend it.


    So if I understand you aright, you're objecting to "re-ascends" because it cannot be predicated of Christ after the Incarnation. Is that a fair description of your view?

    Why are you limiting the framework in this way? Wesley is taking a broader view.

    Wesley plainly is not limiting his vision to what happens only from the Incarnation onward. He speaks of Christ who was "awhile to mortals given". Therefore, Wesley is speaking of the whole Christ, the eternal Logos who became incarnate, lived, suffered, died, arose, and ascended. It is perfectly legitimate in that framework to say that Christ descended (John 3:13) and re-ascended.

    What's your basis for limiting the subject matter to be only about Christ from the Incarnation onward?
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396
    So if I understand you aright, you're objecting to "re-ascends" because it cannot be predicated of Christ after the Incarnation. Is that a fair description of your view?


    No, Chonak, it is not. Not in the least. Please go back and re-read my original posting. "God-Man" = the incarnate Word of God. If you're still confused after that, I'm sorry. I will try to be clearer the next time I write something.

    Suffice it to say that hymnal editors have had a problem with Charles Wesley's "Hail the Day" for quite some time now. It did not begin with Worship IV.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986


    Suffice it to say that hymnal editors have had a problem with Charles Wesley's "Hail the Day" for quite some time now. It did not begin with Worship IV.


    I tend to agree on "Hail the Day..." I always liked the music more than the text.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    One of the great things about Wesley's text is its use of Psalm 24. We hear this Psalm applied all the time to the Incarnation, which it certainly does, but it also brilliantly applies here. The angels are in awe at the Ascension, the glorification of humanity, where we may follow. The gates of heaven, like the gates of earth, must be lifted to allow such an entry.

    I enjoy this kind of paraphrase of Scripture, and Wesley's deft touch with that kind of thing (as I've mentioned here).

    The Second Person of the Trinity always elevates.

    There is nothing theologically wrong with using the word "highest" in verse 1. It is not heretical, but it is not instructive of the union of the two natures, nor of the divinity of Christ, to which Wesley's original testifies.
    Thanked by 2irishtenor CHGiffen
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    .
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Thank you, MHI. And I appreciate your contributions, as well as Chonak's. You've both made it clear that while distinctions might well be made, along the lines of Fr. Krisman's before and after schema, still, the selfsame Person is both native to heaven and Incarnate, because of the Church's belief in the union of the two natures.

    I would hope that in the best of all possible worlds the head of the text review committee for a major Roman Catholic hymnal would not have to be instructed by ordinary mortals like ourselves in elementary conciliar Christology--but these are the times.

    Thanked by 1MHI
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,396


    One of the great things about Wesley's text is its use of Psalm 24.

    I agree with you, Kathy.
  • I would hope that in the best of all possible worlds the head of the text review committee for a major Roman Catholic hymnal would not have to be instructed by ordinary mortals like ourselves in elementary conciliar Christology--but these are the times.

    Kathy: In my opinion, I really think that was an unfair statement, and not at all helpful to this discussion. Fr. Krisman certainly does not need to be instructed in elementary conciliar Christology.
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 904
    I chose this hymn as a starting point since I figured it was fresh in our minds following the recent solemnity. I'm not particularly or sentimentally attached to it. So while I understand Adam's point above I don't think it necessarily applies here. I also figured this hymn would be much less contentious than the metamorphosis of Faith of Our Fathers to A Living Faith.

    I'm reminded of some commentary I read about the rationale ICEL used in some of its Missal translations, and why they chose to leave the Lord's Prayer untouched even though some members of the committee could make a very rational and compelling argument for a more literal translation, and furthermore it's the only place in the Missal where the formal "thy" is used. It was decided to leave well enough alone since the English text of the Lord's prayer is so ingrained in the culture. I guess I don't understand why that same logic isn't applied in traditional hymnody.

    For example; "Father, We Thank You who Have planted" just sounds awkward to my ear. Perhaps if I had first learned it that way I would feel differently. So why change it? Was there something wrong with the original text? IMHO there's no need to make what seems to be an arbitrary change to a beautiful and well known text. The same could be said for All Creatures of Our God and King. If eliminating (or at least significantly reducing) the use of the masculine pronoun wasn't the reason, why don't we sing "O Praise Him" anymore. There are countless such examples where the text changes are seemingly agenda driven or at least not carefully thought through despite all the claims to the contrary.

    And if the blanket decision was made to only use contemporary, conversational American English in the hymnal, then why does Lead Me, Guide Me retain the use of thee/thou.

    And I would also thank Fr. Krisman for joining the discussion. I very much appreciated your explanation of I received the Living God on the other thread.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,513
    Fr. Chepponis, when people make theological errors, I feel it is the better part of charity to assume that they probably just don't understand something.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Perhaps this is off topic, here: chonak please remove if it seems too out of place.

    I was somewhat reluctant to join this discussion since I am not an author/poet/writer, and don't have any formal training in theology, but Earl Grey has raised a point that bothers me no end, and chonak mentioned it up above: the elimination of Thee/Thy and other 'antique' language.

    As a musician with an interest in, nay, passion for early music, I find it incredible that we today seem to prefer Bach played on 17th and 18th century violins, or exact replicas thereof; we use Urtext editions where possible, and if they don't exist, edit our own scores; we compare everything with the first edition to make sure our readings of both music and text are accurate (see the discussion about sight/fight in Tallis' Third Tune); No one today would be taken seriously if they played Handel from the Shirmer editions in recital. But how is it that when it comes to hymnody we can't seem to respect the author's original text as he concieved it, in even the smallest areas.

    I understand that as a practical book, which hymnals are supposed to be, it might not be appropriate to use a word or phrase that would require people to bring a dictionary or thesaurus to Mass, but to consistently be ammending texts to make them au courrante seems short sighted to me: after all what's at the hight of taste to day is frowned upon tomorrow.

    I mean, if we were to 'fix' Dickinson or Tennyson or Keats to remove archaic words or phrases, and then attempt to publish it as a serious practical book, people would be appalled, furious, even. Yet it's perfectly fine to 'fix' Neale or Watts or Wesley. Why do these texts have to be modernised? Why does it seem that the driving force with textual changes in hymnals (of all denomenations) is to be 'modern' and 'relevant'; can't the author's text just stand as is?
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Let's change one word in the text of a hymn.

    Let's change one note in the melody of a hymn.

    Is one more of an offence than the other?

    And this:
    Kathy: In my opinion, I really think that was an unfair statement, and not at all helpful to this discussion. Fr. Krisman certainly does not need to be instructed in elementary conciliar Christology.

    is rude.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    They are both offensive - equally. If Monk wrote it that way, let it stand. (I'm glad that you made the distinction between the melody and the harmonization.)

    The only exception I make is for JS Bach changing the rhythms and melodies of chorales by Luther and Co. We grant Bach an Indult. +
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 904
    And let's not forget Praetorius who oftentimes metricised chant melodies. In such situations a new work of art is created based on something old. Much in the same way we have many concertato arrangements of hymns, which in essence constitute a new work. I just don't see the need to unnecessarily altar an original work of art and still pretend it is the original or an improved modern version thereof. Imagine the ridicule of "improving" an iconic painting such as the Mona Lisa (ok a quick Google search will show there are many such alterations, but no one seems to be claiming that it's an improved modern version of the original which we should now dismiss as archaic). Why not apply the same principle to something as basic as Christmas carols?

    Some change is certainly inevitable, but a lot seems unnecessary.



    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Let's change one word in the text of a hymn.
    Let's change one note in the melody of a hymn.
    Is one more of an offence than the other?


    They are both offensive - equally.


    And good, traditional minded hymnals would never do such a thing.
    Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Personally - and I speak only for my own sense of aesthetics - I think "highest heaven", with it's breathy reduplication of the h, sings and sounds better than "native heaven," which sounds closed and squashed.

    Similarly, I find "re-ascend" to simply sound awkward, and too close to "rescind," besides being a construction that no one uses.

    "Prints/prince" has already been mentioned above, and I do not think that puns and wordplay have the same effect for us moderns as they did for the medieval Latin poets who composed the Office hymns. We tend to groan and roll our eyes at that sort of thing- for better or worse.

    As to the supposed "feminine" or "PC" agenda at work... oh, bah humbug- really. Twelve uses of "he/him" in a single piece, down from 23. That doesn't sound like an agenda of anything other than prudent editing. Is Jesus now at risk of being considered half as manly? Is the gender of the Second Person of the Trinity so critically important that twelve mentions isn't enough, 23 are really needed to drive the point home? BESIDES OF WHICH - the original only had 17 such pronouns. It was Worship 3 that increased it to 23.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Line by line (from original to w4- ignoring the intermediary w3 unless relevant) and
    JUST MY OPINION...


    CW-1.2 Ravished from our wishful eyes!
    W4-1.2 To his throne above the skies;

    "Ravished" means something very different today than apparently it did to Wesley. Although there is also an apparent change in agency indicative of our modern theological language. We always talk about Christ "Ascending," on his own power. "Ravished" suggests being taken. We make this distinciton with the Assumption of Mary vs. the Ascension of Jesus. Of course, the Gregorian Propers use both to describe the event in Acts: "eum ascendentum in caelum" and "Hic Iesus, qui assumptus est a vobis in caelum." Apparently two different Latin translation of the original passage from Acts (as far as I can tell). Wesley seemed to have preferred the "taken up" notion, while most Catholics today would prefer the "went up" notion.

    CW-1.3 Christ, awhile to mortals given,
    W4-1.3 Christ, the Lamb for sinners giv’n

    Wesley's original suggests that Christ was given for "awhile" and then (cf. above) taken back from us. I don't know if this was influenced by his theology vis-a-vis the Real Presence (or lack of it), but Catholics believe no such thing. The revision seems, if slightly inelegant, more theologically sound than the original.

    CW-1.4 Re-ascends his native heav'n.
    W4-1.4 Now ascends the highest heav’n

    Is it really "the"? Seems like "to" would make more sense. At any rate- my opinion is on this line is stated above.


    CW-2.1 There the pompous triumph waits,
    W4-2.1 There the glorious triumph waits;

    Obviously an improvement, as the meaning of "pompous" has so changed as to render the original ridiculous.


    CW-2.3-4 Wide unfold the radient scene, | Take the King of Glory in!”
    W4-2.3-4 Christ has conquered death and sin; | Take the King of Glory in!

    "Scene" and "in" no longer rhyme in American English, as they did at the time of Wesley. Others differ on this point, but I am of the opinion that things which are supposed to rhyme should rhyme. Hymnals aren't intended to be historical records of literary merit, but useful, usable aides to worship.

    So, once you get to "rhymes with 'in,'" the previous, line 3 becomes an obvious direction to go. Besides, we're more interested in Christ and his deeds than in the shining view of the eternal city (I assume).

    CW-3.1-2 Him though highest heaven receives, | Still he loves the earth he leaves;
    W4-3.1-2 Highest heav’n its Lord receives, | Yet he loves the earth he leaves;

    I prefer CW here, a strong down beat on "Him" (meaning Christ) is a good thing. On the other hand, W4's version is a little more clear, which might also be a good thing. I have more faith in average people's ability to understand this kind of inverted grammar than most publishers do. On the other hand, I keep finding out that this faith is often misplaced.

    Either way- there is no change in meaning here.


    CW-3.4 Still he calls mankind his own,
    W4-3.4 Still he calls the world his own.

    This is tough.

    I am of the opinion that using male-normative language FOR PEOPLE IN GENERAL is in appropriate. Moreover- my, or any (liberal, PC) academic's opinion isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether regular people in pews find it offputting to the point that it distracts from the purpose of the text. (The purpose of the text here being emphatically not related to theology of gender or any other thing wherein this usage is important in and of itself). So, I would be inclined, as an editor, to make the adjustment made by W4.

    On the other hand:
    Part of the theological point made in the line is not just that we humans "belong" to Christ in the sense of ownership (we are his own), but moreover that he persists in having our nature- human beings are his own kind. This is an important theological point.

    I would not fault any editor from making either decision, nor would I find much fault in anybody's taking umbrage with the editor's decision. I don't know that there is a way to "win" on this one.


    CW-4.2 See, he shews the prints of love.
    W4-4.2 See, he shows the wounds of love;

    "Shews" to "shows" is an obvious choice. Due to the rise of machine-based printing, I'm not sure that "print" - in the sense of stamp or mark - carries the meaning intended by CW in the original. I don't know that I would have gone with "wounds," but I certainly don't think it is unreasonable.


    CW-4.4 Blessings on his church below.
    W4-4.4 Blessings on his Church below.

    What? No outrage over the blatant change from the original to support a theological ideology? Shocked.


    CW-5.1-2 Still for us his death he pleads; | Prevalent, he intercedes;
    W4-5.1-2 Christ, for us still intercede, | By your suff’ring for us plead;

    I do wish more modern people understood the notion of Christ "pleading his death," but I'm afraid the original is likely to be incomprehensible to most people. And "prevalent"? Does anyone, anywhere, still use that to mean dominant, powerful, and strong- as opposed to common and widespread?

    And the notion that Christ pleads for us is preserved (if somewhat modified) in line 5.2

    Switching from describing Christ to addressing Christ (which happens a verse later in the original) seems to be a device used to fix the language problems, and I'm not sure the result is ideal. It's still a little too mouthy, in my opinion, but it does have the benefit of being understandable.


    CW-5.1-2 Near himself prepares our place, | Harbinger of human race.
    W4-5.1-2 Make us worthy of the place, | Which you offer us by grace.

    Any normal English speaker today would find the lack of an article before "human race" to be somewhat odd. Also, I do wish more people knew and used the word "harbinger," but again- hymnals aren't textbooks.

    I wish the notion of "human race" could have been preserved here. It's a minor point to me, but I think its use in religious texts (as in my rendition of the second line of Ave Verum as "crucified to save our race") emphasizes the fact that humanity is a cohesive racial unit, and that our ethnic identities and notions of race are arbitrary and not based in reality. But that wasn't really the point of this text.

    Overall, I think v5 is the least satisfactory of the W4 version, but I do still think it is a practical improvement over the original.

    I think the W3 version is actually the best of the three mentioned above, and I'm curious what was found wanting in it by the W4 committee:
    Still for us he intercedes,
    His prevailing death he pleads,
    Near himself prepares our place,
    He the first fruits of our race.

    It preserves the voice of the original, and most of its language (prevailing in place of prevalent, first fruits for harbinger, etc..)


    CW-6.1 There we shall with thee remain,
    W4-6.1 There we shall with you remain,

    I really don't understand the desire to replace "thee/thou" with "you/your." I think it creates all sorts of problems that then have to be solved some other way. Of all the archaisms in the corpus of Christian Hymnody, this is the one thing that EVERYBODY still knows what it means.


    CW-6.2 Partners of thy endless reign;
    W4-6.2 Partner of your endless reign;

    Why singular? Is that a typo above. Seems weird.


    CW-6.4 Find our heaven of heavens in thee!
    CW-6.4 Live with you eternally.

    The original is much more poetic, which I greatly prefer. It could be argues that the revision is more theological unambiguous, which is apparently a thing with a lot of people (usually the same people who complain about text changes, but whatever). I find both to be a little sketchy, as the subject (we) has be separated from the preicate by two and a half intervening lines and a semi-colon. But I've also argues other places that such grammar rules are merely a suggestion, so- it's really just a matter of taste (as with all things).