Talk:Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition

Change name to Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition

I'm going to change the name of this article from Anaphora of Hippolytus to Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition. This for two reasons: 1) the attribution to Hippolytus is hotly contested 2) on google "Anaphora of Hippolytus" hits 7830 results while "Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition" hits about 12000 results. A ntv (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that in retrospect this may have been a misguided decision, for two reasons: firstly, as you point out, the authorship of the anaphora remains contested, and in such cases I would propose the older designation remain until such time as consensus is reached among theologians and liturgical scholars that Hippolytus definitely did not author it. At present the attribution to Hippolytus is staunchly defended by Eastern Orthodox theologians, among other traditionalists, who collectively represent the theological scholarship of a third of the Christian community. Additionally, the changed title introduces one other source of potential confusion: there is Syriac Orthodox "Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles", that may be a derivative of this Anaphora, yet is considerably longer and more detailed. I suspect that the additional Google search results were not due to the alternate name being less obscure, but rather, due to confusion with the Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles, and also the presence of the word "Apostles" in greater frequency in liturgical sources (and indeed, it should be noted that virtually all Eastern anaphoras contain the word "Apostles" in the diptychs; western Anaphoras are generally referred to as "Eucharistic Prayers" or "Canons", and thus would not have shown up in your search results to the same extent). In the interim, I have clarified the article to indicate that the question of authorship remains a bone of scholarly contention, but I feel we should carefully consider reverting this article to its prior name, pending broader scholarly consensus. Wgw2024 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of Dubious Translation

The former translation of the text of the Anaphora was uncited, and dubious, differing from all publicly available translations of the anaphora on the Internet in phraseology, punctuation and the use of gender-neutral language. I suspect that the prior version featured here was lifted from the text of a contemporary Protestant hymnal (perhaps the current United Methodist Hymnal), where one would expect it to have been edited to suit the needs of the congregation. What is more, the article actually commented on one of these deviations, which was in all probability spurious:

"

Priest: The Lord be with you!
All: And with your spirit!
Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.
All: They are turned to the Lord!
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord.
All: It is right and just!"

All publicly available online translations of the Liturgy instead render this in the more traditional manner, "We lift them up unto the Lord" or "We have them with the Lord," thus, in the absence of any citation or other reference to prove the historicity of this text, we should assume it is spurious and delete the reference to it. If someone can produce a verifiable citation for the text previously present, I will happily revert my edit, but it in the absence of it, we must deem the change as being spurious and confusing, as it appears from comparing translations of this Anaphora that in fact the Sursum Corda is entirely normal and not worthy of mention. In addition, the exclamation points and the substitution of "Child" for "Son" appear to be equally spurious; it is doubtful that the original would have used gender-neutral language in this manner. Wgw2024 (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702184415/http://www.stjosephplacentia.org:80/RCath-L/history2.htm to http://www.stjosephplacentia.org/RCath-L/history2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]