Talk:Holy Saturday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Holidays  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Midnight[edit]

"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)

Linking[edit]

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)

Greek[edit]

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)

Silent Saturday[edit]

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)

Translations[edit]

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)

not sure about the psalm chanted, but psalm 119 is the longest, not 118 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.179.118 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament, which the Eastern churches use, it is Psalm 118. The numbering schemes differ between the LXX and Masoretic Text, which Protestants use. The section is correct. --24.11.104.84 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter Eve reference[edit]

I'm not sure that the reference cited for Easter Eve as an alternative is used appropriately here. The link is to a complaint made to the Australian Broadcasting Commission about the phrase 'Easter Saturday' being used to describe the day; the complainant says "the correct use is Easter Eve". The ABC agrees that "Easter Saturday" is incorrect usage (true in religious terms if not in commmon Australian parlance), but doesn't say anything about 'Easter Eve' itself. It's a good reference for demonstrating how Australians use the term 'Easter Saturday' (and is used in that context elsewhere on Wikipedia), but in terms of demonstrating that 'Easter Eve' is a common alternative, it basically amounts to just one radio listener's opinion. A better reference for the broader use of the term 'Easter Eve' should be sought, I think. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The reference is an important one for demonstrating the incorrect use of "Easter Saturday", but we need better support for "Easter Eve". For that matter, we should have a reference for the "Black Saturday" usage. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, that reference is not supportive of the text. I suggest the unsupported words be removed, with the link, leaving only words that are used in the rest of the text. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No evidence provided for article's claim that the name "Easter Saturday" is incorrect[edit]

Article currently says

Holy Saturday is sometimes mistakenly referred to as Easter Saturday

with the following reference:

For example, the New South Wales Public Holidays Act 2010

There is no source given for the assertion that the name "Easter Saturday" is mistaken; indeed, the reference given is evidence that it isn't mistaken at all - the name "Easter Saturday" is the official legal name of the day in the State of New South Wales, Australia, and is also (in my experience) the name by which the day is commonly known in Australia. This website by the Australian Federal government uses that name to refer to the day, and notes that it is a legal public holiday under that name in ACT,NSW,NT,Qld,SA,Vic (but not Tas or WA). So this is the legal name of the day in most of Australia. So I cannot see how the name can be mistaken when it is enshrined by Australian law and recognised by Australian governments. So I am going to delete the adverb "mistakenly" as unjustified. SJK (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The state governments in Australia have simply chosen to enact something into law which is unrecognized generally. The churches have never named it so, and it is in reference (and relation) to the church calendar. It is a mistaken usage, except where mandated by a mistaken law. WP must give precedence to wider recognition, which it does in the second paragraph of the lead, where it also does mention the peculiarities in Australia. Evensteven (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Western practice: new "citation needed"[edit]

I'm not confident enough to overturn this recent edit, but it seems to me questionable that a tag is needed here. Especially under emergency circumstances, it seems to me that the local bishop would be the primary authority any Catholic would turn to in questions of how the Church would operate. And it also seems to me that kind of authority of governance is very widely shared in Christendom, Orthodox or Catholic; it used to be much more pronounced even in American Anglicanism than it is today. Surely the Pope could grant the dispensation, but wouldn't it be the local bishop who would seek one from him if he thought it necessary? Others would ask the local bishop first, yes? So, why is this detail so questionable that it requires a citation? Evensteven (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection, I'm more confident than that. Is this tag question not simply a matter of time-blindness, caused by modern developments in transportation and communication? Consider a similar situation 200, or even 150 years ago. It would have been unthinkable to have to apply to the Vatican, months away, for such a dispensation. How did the Church handle such things then? Does it not have a tradition that a bishop exercises all authority within his diocese/see? Higher authority exists, yes, but not immediately, not in emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. Throughout most of its history, the Church, facing such a thing locally, would have placed its guidance in the hands of its bishop, and any problems would have been dealt with after the fact as questions of ecclesiastical discipline. The real question here is: has Church governance changed in the last 150-200 years to such an extent? I would argue that the local bishop's authority to grant a dispensation remains intact as a necessity of governance. Even today's communications can be knocked out for a time. Therefore, I am removing the tag from the article. If anything needs a citation to back something up, I think it would be a claim that the local bishop does NOT have such authority. Evensteven (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holy Saturday. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox perspective[edit]

I added a globalize/western tag because the article seems to focus primarily on Roman Catholic perspectives of Holy Saturday in its content and not enough of the Eastern Orthodox perspective.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)