Talk:Holy Saturday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Midnight on Holy Saturday": does this refer to SAT 00:00 or SUN 00:00?

Easter Vigil normally begins at sundown. That time may vary by state/country, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.88.131 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Easter Vigil is not always at midnight, but it is always late in the day on Saturday (Easter Even) or very early Sunday (Easter Day). Jonathunder 00:27, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I'm de-wikifying some of the recent links that were put in. I'm sorry, but I really think this is over-doing it. Do we really need to link ordinary English words like "flowers" "leaves" and such? I think not. Csernica 20:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And another thing -- "Greek" was rewiki'd to "Greek Orthodox" which isn't a helpful choice. First, it resulted in a redirect to "Greek Orthodox Church", so that's where it should have gone directly. Second, it contains no helpful content. It's a disambiguation page where you can find links to both the Orthodox Church of Constantinople and the autocephalous Church of Greece among others, none of which fell within the meaning intened to be conveyed by "Greek". Rather it is supposed to mean those Churches within a Hellenic "sphere of influence", particularly those that still use Greek as an official liturgical language even when it stands alongside others such as Arabic in the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The choice for the more general disambiguation page Greek was therefore made deliberately, and the new link was actually less informative. The point is to please take the trouble to understand what you're doing before you start throwing links all over the place. Csernica 04:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link here from Easter says it is also called "Silent Saturday". Is this correct, or should the Easter page be changed?Chunkyrice 13 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

For some reason the KJV is changed into the NRSV version, two times already. The reason for this is unclear to me. The KJV version is much closer to the original text, and since there is some controverse about 1 Peter 3:19-20a, to me it seems better in this case to use the most reliable translation.Dingeman (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you be specific by what you mean about "closer to the original text"? Is this a general assertion, or is there some issue you have in this particular verse? I would be happy to see a discussion of the Greek here, rather than just an assertion. The KJV is a poor version for Wikipedia discussions because it is not in contemporary English. Tb (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, like stated in my first comment: 1 Peter 3:19-20a. Unfortunately I'm not able to read Greek, but I know the Trinitary Bible Society in London and Wycliffe Bible Translators always use the KJV as their reference source. Contemporary English is wonderful as long as it keeps the original text as intact as possible. The KJV and the NRSV readings are quite different. Dingeman (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm prepared to discuss the particular translation of the verse, but not a generic objection based on no specific facts. The NRSV is the standard translation for scholarly use in the United States; in Britain the NRSV gets used together with the Revised English Bible. You seem to be assuming that the KJV is "more accurate" without any particular understanding or any particular question about this verse in particular. In that context, I can see no reason for you objecting to the NRSV, which, AFAICT, has no difference in meaning for the verses in question. Tb (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not seem to assume, but I assume the KJV is more accurate than the NRSV. Check the wikipedian article NRSV. Besides this, during my time in Miami the Zondervan NIV study Bible was used as scholar version, not the NRSV. I haven't got any statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would outnumber the NRSV. I've seen them using it quite regularly.

About the verses: just now I reread them, but (on the contrary of what I first thought) there are no major differences in the two translations. The phrase 'This verse is consistent with the doctrine...' is a bit strange though, it kinda suggests that the doctrine is the (instead of a) explanation. Dingeman (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the phrase "this verse is consistent" as a replacement for "this verse produced/led to" the doctrine, something like that is what an editor put in. That involved a doubtful claim that the doctrine was based solely upon the one verse. I'm really quite confused about what your motivations have been all along here; in particular, why does this need to make any doctrinal claims about "where Jesus soul was"? Is it not sufficient to say that the day commemorates Jesus' burial, and is associated with the Harrowing of Hell, and leave it at that? Maybe if you'd address that question, I could understand and we could better find a consensus. I agree completely that the current text is imperfect. Tb (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful proposal. So; On this day the church commemorates the time that the dead body of Jesus Christ lay in the tomb and that He descended into hell (see [[Harrowing of Hell}}). And then delete everything till Names? Dingeman (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! How wonderful, yes that's fine. I would prefer just saying "the time that Jesus lay in the tomb" if that's ok too, but the current wording is also ok with me. Tb (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but you can't capitalize pronouns. That's POV, and not allowed (as well as being deprecated English style nowadays). Tb (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is even better, indeed. I wasn't aware of the pronouns. Will change it in a minute. Dingeman (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)