From OrthodoxWiki
Revision as of 01:40, May 25, 2011 by Bejmark (Talk | contribs) (Clarify this page: new section)

Jump to: navigation, search

Roman Scholars referenced in this article

I couldn't tell you off hand who's who without doing some digging, but I can tell you that the essential fact that are given in that section are the scholarly consensus on the historical development of the service -- You'll find the same things stated in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. I don't think that there is any Orthodoxizing that is needed for that section.

-Fr. John Whiteford 3-22-07

Ok, but I wasn't disputing the message so much as the sources. Could it be rewritten without citing obscure Catholic scholars, maybe? Gabriela 20:47, March 22, 2007 (PDT)
The only ways I could see doing it are to either greatly abbreviate the section, and to just state generally the broad consensus of scholars, or for someone to re-write it, and cite more recent scholars who have covered the same ground. The first option results in less information... and I think the information is useful and interesting. The second option would prehaps be an improvement, but you would still largely (if not exclusively) be talking about the findings of non-Orthodox scholars -- unless there is someone who is familiar with contemporary Greek scholarship on this issue, which have some uniquely Orthodox ideas on the matter. -Fr. John Whiteford 3-23-07
Our general practice has been to cite any scholarship which does not contradict Orthodox teaching, so long as it's credible. I've used the ODCC and the DEC for numerous articles, and their scholars are not always Orthodox (the latter has more than the former, of course). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 05:18, March 23, 2007 (PDT)
We just have to recognize that much of the best contemporary scholarship on Byzantine liturgy is written by non-Orthodox scholars (e.g. Taft and others) - — FrJohn (talk)
I agree. I see using a broad base of scholarship to make these points as a strength, not a disadvantage.Paterakis 10:12, March 23, 2007 (PDT)
Point taken. Gabriela 20:29, March 23, 2007 (PDT)

Clarify this page

Ladies and Gents, When there is a disparity between the liturgical day (or calendar) on the one hand, and the civil day (or calendar) on the other hand, more precision in word choice is highly desirable, if not necessary, for clarity.

"Tuesday and Thursday evening", for example.

Does this mean civil Tuesday and Thursday evening? Thus, the start of the liturgical Wednesday and Friday (or the eves of Wednesday and Friday)?

Or was this text pulled from a Typicon, where the author likely assumed that his reader understood "Tuesday" as meaning liturgical Tuesday, i.e., that 24-hour period that starts with Vespers on the civil Monday evening?

I think this sort of careful wording should be applied to any descriptions of Vespers, Compline, and Midnight Office; similarly to the unusual timings during Holy Week, where it might be most clear to speak in terms of the time in the civil day, but for clarity to specify precede each such reference with this very word.

Thanks in advance for the clarification!