Talk:Es ist ein Ros entsprungen

Which direction to merge?

What's the right orthography for the title of the merged page? In today's German I would expect "ein' Ros'" with apostrophes on both words, but I think the only place I've seen it that way is the Oxford Book. The German Wikipedia article has no apostrophe on either word and cites a book with research into the sources, so I lean that way. Not R (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really torn ... actually I lean towards "Es ist ein' Ros' entsprungen" as this is the least ambiguous orthography which at least clarifies that the focus of the song is a sprouting rose and not a runaway horse ("es ist ein Ross entsprungen"), which is the way most kids usually interpret it. Maikel (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What's really out in my opinion though is "Es ist ein Ros' entsprungen". Maikel (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

For that reason I have redirected to here, after having moved information and formatting from Es ist ein Ros' entsprungen. Maikel (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Just to be clear: I wasn't so sure "ein Ros'" was out, because I think that's actually the way I've seen it most often. In any case, thanks for completing the merge! Not R (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) )

Jesus vs. Mary?

I'm not sure what the intro to this page means by saying that Protestants refer "Es ist ein Ros" to Jesus, while Catholics focus on Mary. I would have said that the wording is fairly unambiguous, and I can't recall running across any Catholic reference that said the song was about the Blessed Virgin. I'd appreciate it if someone could find a citation for that particular sentence. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Marian focus is that the Catholic version speaks of Mary as the rose ("Ros"), that seems to be the Seed ("Reis") of Isai or whatever that's called in English, which is a biblical quotation which admittedly is a prophecy of Christ Himself in the very first place. However, I don't want to say the song were not accurate, since the very fact that Christ is the Seed of Isai, is by His birth of Mary from the seed, without a capital letter, of Isai. Thus the Catholic texter says that Mary, the rose, has brought Christ, the Flower. (Note that the rose is a quite common Marian figure.) And now this didn't sound good to the Protestant editor, who therefore made Christ both the rose and the Flower, and leaving it quite in the open why there is a distinction between rose and Flower. That's why he then speaks in the second stanca of "hat uns gebracht alleine /Marie, die reine Magd", effectively exchanging "is" with "was brought to us by". And in recent times, the ecumenical movement has brought about what is, in my humble opinion, the least good version of all. This version, which seems to be approved by both the Catholic Church in Germany and the EKD, is basically the Catholic one, that is, in that it also speaks of Mary as the rose and Christ as the Flower: however, it seems to appease the Protestants by excluding the explicit notion of the virgin birth, replacing "und blieb doch reine Magd", and remained a pure maiden, by "welches uns selig macht", who makes us blessed, which happens to be the topic the third stanza deals with. This appeasement seems to imply that Protestants don't believe in the virgin birth, which amounts to disturbing the peace of the deceased since it makes Martin Luther turn around in his grave. (Whereby I don't want to say that contemporary Protestants do believe in the virgin birth, maybe there has been some reason.) --77.4.127.38 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All Protestants (at least Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, United Christians, Disciples of Christ, Moravians, etc) all beleive in the virgin birth.. Anyway, the hym was originally written as a Marian Hym (as Mary is the Rose and she brings forth Christ). Lutheran Evangelicals did not like the idea of dedicating hyms to saints, so they changed the meaning to Christ. Catholics and Anglicans still use this hym to refer to the Virgin Mary --02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes they should... I mean, it's in the Bible, isn't it; and Martin Luther did so and the other reformers as well... but do they? I don't want by the way boast that things are far better among us Catholics, but while I believe they are a little better, it's a fact that we at least have documents written down to call any other view heretical. The Protestants cannot say that they believe the Bible itself to fulfill that function, as they have adopted the view that Scriptural verses can very well be opinions of their time or rhethorical means of literature, as far as I can see. An example let be 1 Cor 1,34. I do not myself think that women have to be silent in Church in any way, in presupposition of obedience to other teaching either authoritative or well-argumented. Our German Protestans believe they should even be ordained. What I want to say is not that they are wrong, though they are, but that as a matter of fact I have never heard anybody of these suggest what to do about 1 Cor 1,34; rather the contrary, 1 Cor 1,34 is cited as an example that we cannot take the Bible literally. I have heard rumours (I don't want to go any further than say "rumours", but with rumours I mean internet news) that a German Protestant bishop declared a "valid option" what in his view is "the point of view of St. Mark" which be that Jesus Christ was not born at all. And thus while denial of the virgin birth is certainly not Protestant, maybe there has been a reason why to take the song in its Catholic form including its Marian focus, but wash away a line that explicitly referred to virgin birth, has seemed to some a fitting compromise. --77.4.43.222 (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Guys this is no place for an argument on whos religion is better.. The hym was originally written as a Marian hymn for Catholics, but Lutherans did not, at that time (as some now do) approve the veneration of Mary and the saints, so they changed the song to be about Jesus. Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox Christians still use the hymn to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, while Protestants (with the exception of Lutherans from churches like the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church) refer to Jesus in the hymn. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that most participiants in this diatribe missed the point why German protestants felt the need to do away with "und blieb doch reine Magd" (and remained pure maid). It's not about the word "virgin" as such. Protestants still use the Apostolic Creed in their services where "Mary the virgin" features very prominently. The point is whether Mary REMAINED a virgin during birth, and after. While Protestants (at least the more conservative ones) have no problem with Mary being a virgin at conception, and during pregnancy, they deny that there's any scriptural base for her REMAINING so during and after birth. In fact the first instance where I find the idea that Mary remained a virgin during and after birth is to be found in the Infancy Gospel of James, an apocryphical document of the second century, which was the source of this doctrine. And because the song claims precisely THIS ("she bore us a child and remained (!) pure maid"), the stanza was altered.--Kauko56 (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the information, I (IP 77.4) really didn't think about that.

It may be interesting to note, though, that the song itself only preaches that she remained a virgin in birth (not after). Now as this is Catholic doctrine and the song doesn't go beyond it in explicity, we can appeal to Catholic theologians as to what this means, who (Ludwig Ott) say that notions of what this virginity physically consists of do not belong to the dogma.--217.251.94.31 (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article to clarify the distinction between the original German lyrics (in which the rose symbolizes Mary) and Baker's 1894 English translation (in which the rose symbolizes Christ). 74.67.45.185 (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Lutheranism infobox

I don't think the infobox belongs in this article. There is nothing in the article about any special relationship of Lutheranism to the song. Even if the song was written by a Lutheran, it now has no special connection to any particular Christian denomination. 71.77.19.7 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as it is also a popular Catholic Marian hymn. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Literal translation

I am surprised that as a literal translation of "wohl zu der halben Nacht" is suggested "Right upon midnight". Closer: "Well at half the night". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Well at half the night" doesn't make sense to me. English "well" means in a good way as opposed to badly, and German wohl does also, but here that meaning doesn't make sense. Why would it be either good or bad that the floweret was brought forth at midnight? I don't know. So I would think wohl is used in a different sense in this context. It also means "about" (as in "approximately") according to WordReference.com: "about at half the night". That would make better sense as a literal translation. What do you think? — Eru·tuon 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the double meaning of "wohl" may have been intended (untranslatable, but I like the notion of well-being), and if the poet had wanted to say midnight, he would have said "Mitternacht". "Right" seems wrong, "about" would be much better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The English word "well" has more meanings than "good" (well done steak, well known, well wicked). If we want a literal translation in the article (I'd argue, we don't), then "well at half the night" serves well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Spaeth's translation with Mattes' 5th verse"

Who are Spaeth and Mattes?
Harriet Krauth Spaeth (1845-1925), translator?
John Caspar Mattes, Lutheran pastor at Scranton, Pa.?
84.164.143.201 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That version was added in 2 edits on 8 December 2012 by 98.228.213.184. As we don't know anything about it, I suggest to remove it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Es ist ein Ros entsprungen. 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/20120425024609/http://carols.co/a-great-and-mighty-wonder/ to http://carols.co/a-great-and-mighty-wonder/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a rose (flower

The translation is wrong. The German lyrics "Ros'" derives from "Reis" and doesn't mean a rose (flower, but a branch, brush, bough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.205.202 (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Isaiah does indeed use "rod", not "rose". However, that hasn't prevented the widely held connection to a rose, even in German, and it certainly hasn't prevented "rose" translations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree. Ros and Röslein are, even in 16. century german, refering to rosa, and the Connection Mary= Rose is obvious and strong. xx2A01:598:9283:1566:1:1:8EC9:1D85 (talk)

• (Outdented response above so it doesn't appear to object to my post.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

A Great and Mighty Wonder

The paragraph beginning "Another Christmas hymn, 'A Great and Mighty Wonder', is set to the same tune …" demonstrates that this material (except for the cited words and a link) should appear on the A Great and Mighty Wonder page, which currently incorrectly redirects to Es ist ein Ros entsprungen. It is admitted that A Great and Mighty Wonder is a different hymn, and several references are available to confirm that. Is the Greek title misspelled? I will make the necessary changes, barring objections. Bcjohnston (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There's not much that can be done immediately about the redirect of A Great and Mighty Wonder, except to hijack it and write an article. Alternatively, you might improve the section in this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Tidy up white space needed

Can anyone do something about the massive white spaces above and below the verses of lyrics in the table? There is even a whole row of the table with nothing in. I have tried deleting/adding a few tags, but I don't want to make a mess of it! Must be some specific formatting, I guess. Cheers. CursoryBethany (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

On what device using which browser do you see that white space? It's fine on my desktop. I suspect that the massive table with 6 versions will not be displayed properly on mobile devices or narrow screens, and there's not much that can be done about it, unless the whole thing is redone. For a start, the 6th column ("Catholic Liturgy of the Hours ") could be removed. Then, the "Literal translation" might be omitted. Finally, instead of a table, floating columns could be used which might display better on narrow screens. Lots of work ... -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes the table is indeed problematic in terms of layout, but maybe a necessary evil. The advantage of a tabular layout is that it allows the reader to see side-by-side comparison of the original text with its corresponding translations. This assists understanding. I understand the benefits of floating columns in terms of responsive design, but I think it would lose the verse-for-verse comparison?

Ideally, we should be able to use some sort of filtering template that can show/hide table columns by selecting from a menu of translations, but this does not appear to be available. There is the {{collapse}} template, but this is restricted to a vertical operation. Beyond this, Wikipedia's HTML is pretty much stuck in the 1990s. It would be lovely to have something like the tab interface such as the widget offered in Bootstrap but getting this introduced into Wikipedia will involve too much tiresome bureaucracy and misguided arguing over accessibility.

So it looks like the solution is to remove content. I agree that the literal translation can go, and the Catholic liturgy column adds little as it is not discussed in the article, so I'll take these out and see how we feel. To compensate for this loss, I have added entries on Wikisource, which is a more appropriate repository for song lyrics anyway. Cnbrb (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

literal translation

Why was the literal translation removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.98.100 (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)