Talk:Altar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, this article needs the addition of non-J/C material... —Ashley Y 03:01, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Go for it. People write about what they know. If I knew anything about non-Christian altars I'd write something about them myself. Csernica 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ark 2 Non-Judaic and non-Christian altars 3 Freestanding altars 4 Altar and Bimah 5 "In Christianity" organization 6 Ancient Greek altars

[edit] Ark

I'm sorry, but I'm going to revert the wiki that was added here under Orthodox altars. We're talking about something that can fit into the palm of your hand, so it is in no sense of the word a piece of furniture. "Ark" is the correct term, corresponding theologically to the Ark of the Covenant (which was, of course, a chest, but it was also far larger) but since that page didn't seem a suitable link I left it at the disambiguation page. I think it should remain there until a relevant article is written, or perhaps the link should be removed entirely since it might necessitate nothing more than a dictdef. Csernica 05:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Judaic and non-Christian altars

I agree, with the above. There are Hindu Altars, Wiccan Altars, etc. Not all Altars are used for sacrifice. Actually today, most Altars today are used symbolically to represent Divinity of various cultures.

With what above? I'm afraid I'm reverting your change; it's not suitable for the intro since none of the groups described in the article would describe it in those terms.

Most altars are indeed used for sacrifice or offering these days. Structures called "altars" that are not used for this purpose have a different history. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

--The title of the page only specifies the general term "Altar", which must have a more well rounded definiton. It isn't specific enough to only include "Orthodox " or a specefic set of Altars. If you use a general term, you must be all-inclusive and include each definition of the term, even if you disagree with them. Otherwise the general word should be changed to become more specific. The title of the page is "Altars", not "Small Altars" or "Biblical Altars." -- If you read this article you will see that this Hindu altar is used in a variety of ways, not limited to sacrifice or offerings, though these aspects may be included.

Well, this is a continual problem we have in writing of other cultures. I'm extremely confident that for both Shintoism and Hinduism, "altar" is a translation of some native word, or of several native words that may have different shades of meaning. In other words, what you're calling a Shinto "altar" here may or may not be something which that religion conceives of in the same terms as that which is meant by the word in English. Ditto in Hinudism.

But "altar" has always meant a place of offering or sacrifice. The etymology is specifically Christian, from Latin "alta ara", or "high altar". "Ara" signified a platform for sacrifices; a typical small pre-Christian example is pictured at the top of the article. Alta ara means an elevated or especially prominent one, but in later usage was the main altar in a large Christian church. It's used to translate the Hebrew "mizbe'ah" since that has exactly the same meaning. Any other meaning of the word is a neologism or a re-definition. Of course, even now in Christian churches the altar is not used solely for offerings, but that's its primary purpose without which it would not exist. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

- As much as I enjoy reading about Christian and Catholic altars, this article is definitel biased. Added some common, easy to find and back-reference info on neo-pagan altars which should prove non-controversial. Please, someone add some stuff on Bhuddist altars - this is a disturbing lack.

[edit] Freestanding altars

Recent edits have created an appearance of rupture at Vatican II. "Expansion of this practice in Roman Catholic churches after the Second Vatican Council, and many Anglican ones, beginning in the 1940s and 50s, was intended..." The contrast seems to be RC/V2 vs. Anglican/40s - giving the impression that the RC practice started at V2, an impression further enforced with the division of subsections. I don't think this was the case. The liturgical movement existed well before V2, and I know of RC churches built in the 40s with freestanding altars supposedly because of that. Also, many older churches did have a freestanding main altar that could be walked around, though (except perhaps in very ancient churches) not the centralized form common today. The "prior to V2" section misses this range of RC architecture and would take some work to correct. Or do I have the history wrong? (Also the Eastern Christian section has a good title, but then only mentions Orthodox; this will be an easy fix.) Gimmetrow 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The editorial fixing I did was to emphasize the move to free-standing altars in Anglican Churches in the 40s and 50s. The earlier edit made it sound as if this development occurred post V2. I know nothing of what was authorized in the RCC when. Fishhead64 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither you nor vaquero did this - it was already in the text, it just ended up a stronger contrast than I think there should be. The Roman basilicas have freestanding altars; many other old RC churches have a freestanding altar in an apse, much like Eastern churches (Orthodox or Catholic). I was reading the sentence as intending "both RC and Anglican expansion of this took place after V2, begining in the 40s" - which is probably fair if it refers to a central freestanding altar, rather than in an apse. That was probably rare in the RC except for ancient basilicas. Anyway, this article is going to need a serious rewrite to restore a sense of the historical range of architectures.Gimmetrow 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Altar and Bimah

I removed the section on the Bimah in the synagogue. If someone wants to propvide and argument as to why it should be included, please make it, but a Bimah is a reading desk....a mere convenience for the reading of the Torah...there is no aspect of it that I can see that in any way makes it an altar and I think any orthodox Jew, and probably other Jewish folk, would be appalled at it being so equated. It would be like equating a lectern with a tabernacle for a Christian.HarvardOxon 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "In Christianity" organization

The organization of this article no longer makes any sense, and there is now lots of redundant information. A lot of what has been added under "Catholic and Orthodox altars" actually pertains to Catholic altars only -- but given that this section exists at all it ought to discuss only what is in common. The subject of Anglican altars is kind of a subset of Western Christian altars, but has diverged since the 16th Century so it doesn't really fit at all into the current arrangement.

I suggest the following outline:

• Christianity

  Introductory material, as now

  • Altars in Christian churches

    Good as-is; overview in general terms. Shift discussion on early development to here. Fixed/portable discussion. Mention placement and orientation issues; explicate below.

    • Altars in Western Christian churches
      • Latin-rite Catholicism
      • Anglicanism
      • Lutheranism (if applicable)
    • Altars in Eastern Christian churches

      I'm not sure what subheads are needed here since I don't know whether some Eastern churches treat their altars differently from others. If not, good as-is unless some material is redundant

    • Communion Tables in non-liturgical Protestant churches

      The theological currents and historical developments that led to their use might be interesting, but represents a break from earlier use so requires own section, if not own article.

TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This has gotten out of hand I think. The article was fine, but "Fishead" came in and (I think) gummed it all up by insisting on Anglican terminology, then told me to rewrite it if I didnt like it. So I tried to rewrite in such a way as to make it correct (which it was not) and keep Fishhead happy. Now this artcile is going to be five times as long. This is the problem with Wikipedia.HarvardOxon 02:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe not. In a properly organized article, the redundant material ought to disappear. I'm not suggesting adding new material, just re-arranging what's already there, so it may actually end up a tad shorter. It's a bit of an editorial job, though.

One thing I'd really like to see is for someone very conversant with the topic to rewrite "Altars in the Hebrew Bible". It's largely drawn from Easton's, reflects their editorial POV, and the antiquated prose doesn't mesh well with the rest of the article. The section title seems off too. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Gummed it up"? Please, HarvardOxon, try to keep a cool head and assume good faith. I applaud your very thoughtful additions to the article, but agree with Csernica that the organisation was somewhat lacking in cohesion and clarity. I've removed some of the more generally applicable comments about altars to the introductory section on Altars in Christianity, and re-split the subheadings into Roman, Anglican, and Eastern sections. I hope this re-editing incorporates your commendable additions in the context of an improved structure. Fishhead64 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, No. You have screwed this up again. Portable does not mean fresstanding in the Catholic Church. I don't think it does in the Anglican Church either, but I know for sure the tow terms have nothing todo with each other in canon law. You keep going in and reversing or twisting around other people's work and making it incorect and inaccurate. I am not assuming "not good faith." I just think you don't know what you're talking about, and that's something else.HarvardOxon 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is any confusion, it is because there was a lack of clarity in the material with which I was working. I had delineated "fixed," "free-standing," and "portable" into three categories earlier, and you objected to that, saying that free-standing and portable were essentially the same things in the Roman view. Now you're saying something different. I don't wish to impose a view on something of which I know very little, but I do want there to be better organisation in the article. By all means, fix my screw up - but don't go recommitting your previous screw-up with regard to this. Fishhead64 06:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

One again, wrong. Read what I wrote. I said to you in your page, on this page, and in the article, several times:

In Roman Catholic Canon Law, there is a distinction between fixed and portable. Fixed means fixed. It does NOT mean against the wall. It doesn't matter whether it is against the wall or not. READ WHAT I WROTE IN THE ARTICLE. It means fixed to the FLOOR. In Catrholic canon law, and alatar that moved from the wall did not lose its consecration, only one where the mesa and or its supports became loose from the floor.

Portabl;e means movable. Its a simple English word, for God's sake.

Freestanding altars may be fixed, if fixed to the floor, or protable, if movable. I don't fathom how this disticntion is so damned complicated. The problem, as I see it, is that you will not stop defining "fixed" qas attached to the wall. It never had anything to do with that as, in fact, most fixed altars wre actually separated by an inch or two from the wall.HarvardOxon 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek altars

A section on this is needed; anyone feel confident in writing it? The Singing Badger 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)