Talk:Benedictus (canticle)

Use of Catholic Encyclopedia

As stated under References, this article includes material from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 which is in the public domain. See original here at Wikisource. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on this information, I've removed the copyvio tag. However, even PD works should be properly attributed by inline citation and quotations, making clear what the source is if it's a PD text found on an external website. As it is, when the reader follows the External link to Catholic Encyclopedia, one reads that it is "© 1996-2008 The Mary Foundation", hence the confusion. I have added the article parameter to {{catholic}} so that it links directly to the 1913 Encyclopedia at Wikisource, instead of this EL which appears to claim a 1996 copyright on the text! JGHowes ^talk - 04:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the external links from Catholic Encyclopedia -- all three claim a copyright which appears to cover the text itself -- bit of a cheek!

Thanks for adding the article parameter to the Catholic template -- I didn't know that was possible.

Rather than show the passage as a quotation, it's better to use the template stating that text has been incorporated; then it can be improved upon. The text here been slightly improved already, e.g. I managed to decode what was meant by "Beaume, I, 253" in the original. - Fayenatic (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many translations

There are currently six translations in the article: two in Latin, two from the Early Modern era, and two recent. I find that too many. Which of them are most important, and why? If we aim for a selection that represents both Catholic and Protestant translations, would the Early Modern or recent be more significant to one of these traditions than the other? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it is hard to pare down too drastically, since it is the actual words of the canticles (in their various manifestations) which are their substance, and each have their claim on a position in the article. The Latin, of course, was the text which attained widespread liturgical use. The book of common prayer text had also a important impact for 4+ centuries, at least within the Anglican tradition. And the other three English versions (Douay, Grail and the Book of Common Worship) are the three versions (aside from revisions of the book of common prayer) which get the most widespread liturgical use at the moment in the English-speaking world. And of course, we are missing a version which arguably has an even more important claim to inclusion: the Greek text from which all of these ultimately descend! (see, for example the Magnificat page, which has the Greek).

But the question is a good one. Can anyone else comment? For example, could we not keep only one of the Latin versions, perhaps with a brief note about any significant differences which are/were in wide circulation? Does the Douay-Rheims text of the Benedictus get a lot of liturgical 'airtime'? (During most of the history of the Douay-Rheims translation the Catholic church was singing the Benedictus in Latin). Basically, I don't need to see all of those versions in the article, but I do want the readers to be able to get to them all reliably, and if that means leaving them in, well, then, I say we leave them in, perhaps keeping them near the bottom as the article develops. We're not a paper encyclopedia, after all. Beckersc0t (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Vulgate text

Any particular reason that the neo-vulgate text is used, rather than the Clementine vulgate text which is more commonly used in the liturgy? Rwflammang (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benedictus (Song of Zechariah). 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/20100315092834/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_nt_evang-lucam_lt.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 21:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)