The amberizing of music is in no small part the result of early modern developments such as the Petrarchian notion of ad fontes, the advent of the printing press and copyright. Still, hymn texts have often been modulated over the generations.

I would suggest the problem with "re-ascends" in the mind of ordinary English speakers is simpler: merely that it implies there was a prior ascending event (from where, and when?* ), and folks who bother to think about the word scratch their heads, as it were.

* I don't think that particular phrase itself draws the immediate comparison of Christ's ascent to his Cross with his ascent to Heaven. The hymn text later implies this very important comparison, but not that line itself. People who are alert may wonder, hmm, was the Transfiguration the prior event? Hmm.... Et cet.

Sidenotes:

1
I'm of the opinion that the weaknesses and not-quite-there-yet problems of the W4 (and all other ) editions could have been overcome by subjecting the work to an open, public, peer review process, such as I (and some others) routinely engage in here.

2
If publishers of church music embraced Open Source techniques and modern technology, decisions about these things could be made at a more granular level, allowing MDs and parish clergy to find a way that works best for them, and even (I hesitate to mention) the whole enterpise could more easily respond to changes suggested, requested, or required by hierarchs and other guardians of orthodoxy and good taste.

Same goes for Faith of Our Fathers/Living Faith. I've never seen an explanation for that one.

It's not a redaction. It is a different text, inspired by the original.
Like it, hate it, think it's a liberal plot.
But it is not an example of changing a text. It's a whole new text.

PS: While I revere Bach, there's a lot about Hadyn that just blows me away that others Great Masters do not: the technical brilliance and creativity, combined with fundamental sanity (unusual with the brilliant and creative) and humanity that allows him to laugh with us rather than at us. I wish Haydn's music were pumped into our security and commodity exchange floors: if Bach is the Fifth Evangelist, Haydn is the Apostle of Sanity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udPddgVKzLg

Somehow I have lived my Catholic life without ever seeing or singing this hymn, so I suppose I have the benefit of approaching it afresh. That said, I will readily agree with Adam's lengthy post above that the W3 version is clearly the best. To be sure, the original may well have worked better ca. 1750, but the sun has long since set on terms like "pompous triumph" and "ravished" in the sense understood by Wesley. On a couple of specific points:


RE-ASCENDS HIS NATIVE HEAV'N: Such an appropriate lyric for the great Feast of the Re-Ascension. What? We don't call it that? Oh, hm. As to "native," nowadays I find it evocative of spears and loincloths. Obviously this line is retained in W3; as to W4, Adam asks, "Is it really 'the'? Seems like 'the' would make more sense." I think the "the" indicates the unique place of the ascended Christ, as separate from the lower heavens inhabited by the angels and saints.

With respect to the argument above between Kathy and Fr. Krisman, Fr. Krisman is right that the God-Man was never really in Heaven to begin with, and thus cannot really "re-ascend" it. He is wrong, though, (1) in that the verse itself does not say "God-Man," and, as MHI shows, it is not any sort of severe theological error to talk about "Christ" before the incarnation, and (2) in that there is no reason to take "re-ascends" so literally, just as we do not take "rose again from the dead" as literally implying that Christ had risen from the dead once before.

In any event, Kathy certainly did not school anybody on Christology; she seems to have gotten schooled herself, and justly so. In most schools her tone would get her a time-out in the corner.

In the end, I confess I am surprised that anybody finds "re-ascends his native heav'n" to be "beautiful" and "euphonic." I find it clunky and unappealing. I'm sure if I had grown up with the original wording I might feel differently about it, though.


SEE, HE SHEWS THE PRINTS OF LOVE: For what it's worth, "shew" has been pronounced "show" (not "shoe") since around 1700, or before the date of this hymn; it serves as just an (archaic) variant spelling. As to "the prints of love," I guess those are the stigmata? "Prints" sounds superficial and fake, and that's even if you don't take it as referring to fingerprints or art prints. "Wounds" is a significant improvement.


STILL HE CALLS MANKIND HIS OWN: Setting aside the obvious motive of political correctness, the change to "the world" is a great blow to the meaning of the line and the stanza. Probably the worst single change worked in either of the Worship versions.


HIM THOUGH HIGHEST HEAVEN RECEIVES: That ordinary people such a construction easily can understand, not so sanguine am I. Anyway, it was bad writing even in Wesley's day; that is to say, nobody wrote such a thing unless defeated by the constraints of rhyme and meter. The same goes for --


HARBINGER OF HUMAN RACE: Poor English. Nor is "harbinger" really the right word for Christ anyway. I suppose the sense intended is that he was the first member of the human race to get to heaven (that's not true, though). But a harbinger is better thought of as a messenger. The OED says, "One that goes before and announces the approach of some one; a forerunner." Christ did not ascend to Heaven to announce our imminent arrival like some sort of messenger-boy.


THE SWITCH FROM 3RD to 2ND PERSON: One or the other please; not both. This can work when the final portion is manifestly a prayer. The final portion of this hymn is manifestly not a prayer, though, so the switch creates a strange muddle -- and all the more so in the original, since, as Fr. Krisman explains, in the 9th stanza (not included here) Wesley unaccountably flipped back from the second to the third person.


CHANGES FROM W3 to W4: See Christ. See Christ rise. Rise, Christ, rise! --That is all.

But it is not an example of changing a text. It's a whole new text.

That's kind of how I explained it to my pastor when pitching hymnals, and indicating the need for our missalettes to include a music selection as well.

Video: Love it.

And also, I disagree with JMO's changing of the tune as well.
I think the imposition of a particular sense of European Classical aesthetics on genres like Shape Note tunes and (yes!) Gregorian Chant has been on the whole a bad thing for Christian music.

You ain't just a whistlin' "Dixie," sister Kathy above. I'm just through the first couple of chapters of Russell Shaw's The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America and I'm scared witless with each successive page.

Charles, try reading Roger Haight sometime (shudders).

By the way, no fair, Sacred Harp altos have more fun than Catholic altos.

Melo Charles, ordering the book right now. It's available on Kindle. Sounds like a must read.

Nah, too much BPA. I will just hang around the Mormons and look like convert material. LOL. They always have food.

I like the improved clarity of the W3 version (though I would have retained the last verse from the original), but I don't see what Adam means about theological improvement. Was there some in the W3 version, or was that (in Adam's view) mainly in the W4?

Canned tomatoes are high in lycopene, so depending on how much you like canned tomatoes, it might work out.

Enough said. Let's move on to a Pentecost Hymn. Any suggestions?

.