Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pascha"

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
[[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]
 
[[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]]
 
 
 
  
 
: I disagree that mentioning the English translation of ''Pascha'' is superfluous, but then I've been infected with the monks' desire to translate into English wherever possible. It is certainly an eccentricity: They're a monastery; they can get away with calling things whatever they want, because they don't interact much with the rest of the world. In the secular world, we have to use language that everyone else uses in order to be understood.
 
: I disagree that mentioning the English translation of ''Pascha'' is superfluous, but then I've been infected with the monks' desire to translate into English wherever possible. It is certainly an eccentricity: They're a monastery; they can get away with calling things whatever they want, because they don't interact much with the rest of the world. In the secular world, we have to use language that everyone else uses in order to be understood.

Revision as of 21:15, January 17, 2005

I think the mention about New Skete's preference "of Pasch" over "Pascha" is probably superfluous. It's another one of their eccentricities (not that I'm giving a value judgment here, it's just clearly not standard for Orthodox in North America). The discussion on Easter defintely needs to be expanded or else I think it should be cut. It seems to me Easter is Germanic usage, and I would defend it as a valid localization. That said, most places around the world still use "Pascha" or some derivative - i.e. in Indonesian, a Protestant or a Catholic would greet one another with Selemat Pascha for Happy Easter. We should note too that Canadians say "Pascha" in such as way as to rhyme it with "Itasca".

FrJohn

Agreed and updated. (How does one say "Itasca"?) --Rdr. Andrew

"Itasca" is like Chaska, Shasta, Tabascah ( = "tabasco" in southern Appalachia?)!

On another note, I think the worry about "Easter" and it's pagan origins neglects the important connection between the timing of Pascha and natural religion. (This goes for Christmas as well.)"The first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox" - that's not an accident. It's the flowering of Spring, tied in with the cylces of the spheres!

There's a cool etymological point to make with pascha too. In Hebrew, as you mention, it's pesach - referring of course to The Passover feast, etc. Also there's a sense of "passing over into the dawn" here. In Greek, it's accidentally associated with the verb pascho, to suffer. Of course, we can see in that the gracious and marvellous sacrifice of Christ for our salvation. Cool, eh?

FrJohn

I disagree that mentioning the English translation of Pascha is superfluous, but then I've been infected with the monks' desire to translate into English wherever possible. It is certainly an eccentricity: They're a monastery; they can get away with calling things whatever they want, because they don't interact much with the rest of the world. In the secular world, we have to use language that everyone else uses in order to be understood.
I agree with the expanded discussion of Easter. The discussion of Independence Day is probably a little biased towards a compatibilist understanding of the term Easter, but that may be unavoidable.
I think that Fr John's point about the coincidence with natural religion is important, too. I think Fr Alexander Schmemann suggested at one point having two different dates for Easter: One for the northern hemisphere and one for the southern. In any case, the discussion should make note of the similarities and differences. --Basil 15:07, 15 Jan 2005 (CST)

That's an interesting point about the two dates for Easter. Do you remember where he says that? Also, re: Pasch, what is English? What makes sense in terms of mathematical linguistics (precise conjugates or whatever) doesn't always make sense for practical usage. In accord with our style guidelines, and the desire for NPOV, I don't mind if eccentric readings or perspectives are mentioned in footnotes (or some equivalent). I just think for the main body of texts, things should be kept pretty mainstream. If a good portion of the English speaking world adopts Pasch, well then we'll change it.

Also, I think that OrthodoxWiki articles should be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Your personal arguments or preference for a particular position may indeed be quite valid. I don't think it would be bad to create some pages off of your personal page to explain and expand your perspective on things, arguing prescriptively for a certain reading. It seems to me that we should explicitly encourage that, as long as it can be done with charity and respect in a spirit of dialogue-- Again, just let this take place on Talk pages like this or on your personal page (which can indeed become a small personal site).

FrJohn 15:14, 17 Jan 2005 (CST)