ronkrisman: apparently you're not familiar with just how bad the culture war and the dumbing down of our society has gotten. I know exactly from where Earl Grey is coming,
and don't see his comment as snark. Vinegar, maybe. Pouring scorn on a truly inexcusable liberty in reworking a text, absolutely.

Regardless your apparent umbrage, he has, never the less, hit the nail squarely on the head.

It's not unlike the joke that was popular prior to the revised ICEL translation of the Roman Missal regarding just how lame and impoverished it was. It mocked the typical ICEL collect thus: "O God, you are so big. Help us be big like you."

Dr. Andrew,

Having not attended a Roman Missal parish in a long while (I attend a Book of Divine Worship/Anglican Use one), I have not really a clue in the world whether or not the ICEL collects have improved, but the last statement you made hits the issue right on the head when I was at one (regarding the collects).

I just quickly Google searched this hymn. It is published as "How small the debts men owe to us" in Hymns Ancient and Modern: New Standard.

Since Worship III didn't cite that the text was altered I assumed it was the original. Mea culpa.

For what it's worth I'm ok with both the Worship II text and the Worship III revision.

"How small are others' debts to us" just doesn't sing well.

I was merely pointing out an observation. As David said there's a lot of watering down in many areas of our culture. Perhaps it's redundant to point them all out.

Nonetheless I'm grateful for your response, which pointed me to the original, original text. And while my comment may have been snarky, it wasn't directed at any particular person, and consequently shouldn't be misconstrued as uncharitable.

A quick look at some of the hymnals in my library shows how various hymnal editors for at least 35 years have altered Herklot’s original line under discussion here:

• Lutheran Book of Worship - 1978 (Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship):
“How trifling others’ debts to us”
• Psalter Hymnal – 1987 (Christian Reformed Church):
“What trivial debts are owed to us”
• Catholic Book of Worship III – 1994 (Canadian national hymnal):
“What trivial debts are owed to us”
• People’s Mass Book – 2003 (World Library Publications):
“What trivial debts are owed to us”
• Lutheran Service Book – 2006 (Missouri Synod):
“What trivial debts are owed to us”
• Evangelical Lutheran Worship – 2006 (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America):
“How trifling others’ debts to us”

Evidently, the above hymnal editors (as well as GIA's editors) altered Herklot’s original “How small the debts men owe to us” due to horizontal inclusive language issues... a positive reason for alteration of this text, agreed upon by the many different editors involved in compiling the above hymnals (presupposing they were aware of the original wording.)

However, I’ve always had issue with “What trivial debts are owed to us,” as I think some folks might wrongly interpret this phrase that GOD owes trivial debts to US! Not the case, of course.

The alteration used in the Lutheran Book of Worship and Evangelical Lutheran Worship is clear on this point: “How trifling others’ debts to us.” However, I think the word “trifling” is a bit fussy here, and is not a commonly-used word. (And I don’t think it would even be commonly used by someone in sixth grade!)

I think the alteration used in Worship IV, “How small are others’ debts to us” is great, for all the reasons that Ron demonstrated.

Finally, I see nothing in the entire hymn text of “Forgive Our Sins as We Forgive” that is contrary to Catholic belief. Consequently, the following comment that was made above:

I think it's worth noting that this is a hymn favored by the Protestant "Salvationists".

…is not worth noting here at all, in my opinion.

That wouldn't be the only publisher to alter texts without saying so. LitPress used to do it all the time.

He's a busy collaborator, that Alt. And I think he frequently doesn't get proper attribution. Good thing he doesn't claim copyright!

Today we had Faith of Our Fathers, which enjoys _two_ versions in the CBW, both of which have gone under Alt's red pencil. And Praise, My Soul, The King Of Heaven, which Alt really went to town on, although at least he got all the commas right in the first line.

Point is, hymn texts get twiddled constantly, and the "original" version is always a revelation, I find, even when Alt hasn't got his name at the bottom of the page.

Many years ago, I described "alt." as "our editors have had their crayons out again".

Therefore, I pose to any and all who support the changing of texts:

By what right do you go around altering such texts?

Imagine, for example, if someone in the Castro district of San Francisco published a book of poems, but some well-meaning editor changed them. Or, imagine if some 16th century monk should add words, or remove words, or entire sections of an ancient text. Or, imagine if someone added a negative to the Emancipation Proclamation. There was, some years ago, a funny episode of a sitcom in which Abraham Lincoln was considering changing the words of the Gettysburg Address.


Count me as an opponent of editing for (so-called) inclusive language concerns.

Alt got his hands on Holy God We Praise Thy Name, even, changing "loud celestial hymn" to "glad celestial hymn", rather early on. Perhaps his choir had a tendency to shout.

Adam,

I had in mind a particular 16th century German monk who, being verbose and quarrelsome, nailed 95 theses to the doors of Wittemburg Cathedral.

if some 16th century monk should add words
-----------
I had in mind a particular 16th century German monk who, being verbose and quarrelsome, nailed 95 theses to the doors of Wittemburg Cathedral.

You mean like this?



It's a problem. But my statement regarding the modern conception of an un-alterable ur-text is still accurate. It's a new thing.

Perhaps the Big Three returned to the source, Father. It seems to be "glad" in the US Episcopal hymnals (1943, 1982), in the Canadian Anglican, and in the Canadian Catholic Book of Worship III.

I think Alt, like Anon, often writes good stuff. In this case both words seem fine to me, but Fr Walworth wrote "loud" originally. Perhaps he had To Thee All Angels Cry Aloud in mind, since there is no "loud" for him to translate in the German. Or perhaps he just needed the syllable.

deleted by author.

Hmph.

But my statement regarding the modern conception of an un-alterable ur-text is still accurate. It's a new thing.
Goes back as far as John Wesley's Hymns for the People Called Methodists.

some of the early Church Fathers were very interested in the text of the Bible.

Well... the Early Church Fathers didn't have a "Bible" as we know it, in fact- they were partially about the business of figuring out what should be in and what should be out, which is a pretty far cry from our current notion of "the received text."

Moreover, the very nature of the Bible- even of a single book or epistle- as a product of received oral tradition, redaction, continuation, etc. - indicates that the exalted author concept is a bit... (um, what's a better word for "stupid"?) ...anachronistic.

is it somehow a bad thing to care about the original text? I guess the assumption is that the original author knew what he was doing and it behooves us to determine (as best we can) what he actually wrote.

Of course not. That's called "scholarship," and is an important pursuit. But it is not the only pursuit that is worthwhile.

It is helpful, a good and worthy thing, to record and preserve the earliest versions of any writing (or the earliest version possible). But there is a long, living tradition of editors, adaptors, continuators, compilers, redactors, deutero-authors, translators, and interpreters that stretches back into pre-history.

To put it perhaps a bit too poetically- This long chain of known and unknown laborers are the workers of the Holy Spirit, the bearers and creators of tradition, the silent magisterium.

Fundamentalist Protestants like to imagine that THE BIBLE fell out of the sky one day, or that it was dictated by God (like The Koran or The Book of Mormon). This is the ultimate form of the exalted author fallacy. I find much more sacred (not to mention, plausible) the working of the Holy Spirit on hundreds or thousands of human hearts and minds, shaping the canon to what it is today.

A similar working out has happened with the texts of the liturgy through the Early Church and Middle Ages, likewise various hymns, poems, sequences, and other literary works. I see no reason that this kind of work should not continue today.

I'm aware of the role of oral tradition in the Bible, and the fact that the text was copied by hand for many centuries means that every copyist was a potential editor / redactor / adapter, etc. Still, it is noteworthy that Origen, for one, compiled the first attempt at what we might call a "critical" edition of the Pentateuch, and (at least according to tradition!) Jewish scribes were incredibly scrupulous about every jot and tittle the Biblical text. Renaissance redactors knew exactly what they were doing when they "improved" the texts of office hymns for the Tridentine breviary.

Granted that early and medieval Christians did not sure our hyper-historical mindset, the notion that authors (such as Augustine) didn't really care about the integrity of texts, their own or those of Scripture, is hardly tenable without at least some reservation.

Even if your contention is true, I'm not sure why a modern text should be subject to the standards of ancient texts. Surely it's not a stretch to say that a modern hymn writer would prefer that his original text be respected. Maybe the "urtext" is a "modern" notion, but then we're dealing with "modern" authors here.

Surely it's not a stretch to say that a modern hymn writer would prefer that his original text be respected

Respected, of course. Deemed unalterable, perhaps no more than a few of them.

Texts by living authors still under copyright are being altered all the time. For example, a number of texts copyrighted by Hope Publishing Company and included in both Worship III and Worship IV have alterations in the latter, and these alterations were made by the authors themselves or by Hope Publishing between 1986 and 2010. Third-party publishers wanting to license those texts must use the altered versions.

And a number of these alterations were made for horizontal inclusive language reasons. Some contributors on this Forum may break out into a cold sweat or hives just hearing the words “inclusive language,” but today’s English-language hymn writers are overwhelmingly on-board with this issue and are more than happy to revisit their texts written in the 1960’s and 1970’s and make alterations for inclusive language reasons. And copyright holders do the same for writers who are deceased.

My experience in working with living and published hymn writers is that most of them are not ego-maniacs when it comes to their texts. They see their hymn writing as a gift they have received from God and are willing to use it in service to the Church. Most are grateful when defects in their texts are pointed out to them; they are happy to go back to the “drawing board.” For most of them, this holds true even after their text has been published. Why should we assume that texts are no longer subject to improvement after they have appeared in print?

MORE OFF TOPIC:

Charles, you are just a wealth of info today! I regret my mistake from two days ago. I'm happy to learn that the 'Big Three" never were maligned at Music Sacra Forum or, if they were, they no longer are! That's great.

Also good to learn today what "IIRC" means. Previously I thought it had something to do with Chonak, the "RC" part at least

And, IIRC, you also set Chonak straight earlier today about kids singing at their First Communion Masses. I so wish your experience in Central Cal were mine here in Orlando! I get around to a number of parishes as a weekend supply priest. In my Orlando experience those "precious moments" in the liturgy invariably consist of poor music, sung even more poorly. Only good thing - not as many flash bulbs going off as they did in pre-iPhone-days. Count your blessings, as some sing.

I've maligned at least two of them.

Still, you're not confessing to having maligned them "much"

.

I never realized how complicated and artificial the word "others'" is.