# Talk:Christ the Lord Is Risen Today

"Jesus Christ is risen today" is a different hymn. This article is about "Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia! Sons of men and angels say. Alleluia! Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia! Sing, ye heavens, and earth reply, Allelulia!" The other hymn (which I at least know much better) is an anonymous translation of an anonymous Latin hymn, and it goes "Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia! Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia! Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia! Suffer to redeem our loss!" --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Angr is right; they are two different hymns. They sound somewhat similar, particularly because each phrase ends with Alleluia, but are definately two different hymns. -- Essjay ·   Talk 09:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
They don't just sound similar.  They have the same words.  Note that the final and antepenultimate verses of the this hymn are in fact the first and second verses of the other one. Uncle G 10:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
According to my hymnals, there is some confusion. I checked the Gather hymnal (Catholic) from GIA Publications (1994) and the Chalice Hymnal (DOC) from Chalice Press (1995). Gather lists "Christ the Lord" written by Wesley and set to the tune LLANFAIR, 77 77 with alleluias by Robert Williams. Chalice Hymnal lists it written by Wesley, but set to Lyra Davidica, (EASTER HYMN) 77.77 w. alleluias by Charles H. Webb. (And I checked, the music is different, not just differnet names for the same piece.) Chalice doesn't list "Jesus Christ" but Gather does, and it has it set to Lyra Davidica, (EASTER HYMN) 77.77 w. alleluias. Seems to me that different arrangers have arranged the text over different music, thus causing the confusion. However, the two hymns do have different texts; "Christ the Lord" has the same text in both hymnals, and "Jesus Christ" has a completely different text. -- Essjay ·   Talk 11:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The text in my hymnal reads:

Christ the Lord is ris'n today, Alleluia.All on earth with angels say, Alleluia.Raise you joys and triumphs high, Alleluia.Sing, O heav'ns and earth reply, Alleluia.
Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia.Where, O death, is now your sting? Alleluia.Once he died our souls to save, Alleluia.Where your victory, O grave? Alleluia.
Love's redeeming work is done, Alleluia.Fought the fight the battle won. Alleluia.Death in vain forbids him rise; Alleluia.Christ has openend paradise. Alleluia.
Soar we now where Christ has led, Alleluia.Foll'wing our exalted head; Alleluia.Made like him, like him we rise, Alleluia.Our the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia.
and

Jesus Christ is ris'n today, Alleluia.Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia.Who did once upon the cross, Alleluia.Suffer to redeem our loss, Alleluia.
Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia.Unto Christ our heav'nly King, Alleluia. Who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia.Sinners to redeem and save, Alleluia.
But the pains which he endured, Alleluia.Our salvation have procured, Alleluia.Now above the sky he's King, Alleluia.Where the angels ever sing. Alleluia.
Sing we to our God above, Alleluia.Praise eternal as his love, Alleluia.Praise him now his might confess, Alleluia.Father, Son, and Sprirt blest, Alleluia.
Is it different in yours? -- Essjay ·   Talk 12:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Your hymnal, like the original version of this article, is completely missing 6 of the stanzas from the former hymn, including the stanzas taken from the latter, so it is no wonder that you don't see them to be the same.  Read the text on Wikisource for all ten stanzas. Your hymnal has also, ironically, added a 4th stanza to the latter hymn.  The irony, given the claim that these two are wholly different hymns, is the author of that stanza, and the fact that your hymnal's "Jesus Christ is risen today" is just as much a derivative of the original as "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today" is.  Several of the hymnals that add a 4th stanza, such as  this one, credit that 4th stanza to Wesley, whilst crediting the first 3 to Lyra Davidica (via The Compleat Psalmodist).  Does yours? Uncle G 13:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The "chief text" for this page is Wesley's hymn.  I have noticed that in some modern "inclusive language" hymnals (notably the latest from the PCUSA), the hymn is retitled "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today"...presumably because there was some apprehension about the word "Lord" (as well there should be...but not by Christians...but I digress).  Other than the title change & first line change, the text remains Wesley's. There may well be another hymn entitled "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today", but I think that this page centers on Wesley's majestic text, and not the more obscure text.  KHM03 12:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no "chief text for this page"; "Jesus Christ Is Risen Today" is the title from 1749, not a modern re-titling; the original Latin was "Surrexit Christus hodie", with no mention of "Jesus" or "Lord"; and "Wesley's majestic text" is in fact some additional verses for a hymn whose evolution can be traced back as far as the 14th century, and which appears to have split in twain in the 18th. Uncle G 13:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Holy Christ. I'm wading out of this one; the article has changed significantly from the way it was when I nominated it for deletion, and I've changed my vote to keep in light of that. I don't know what the heck the hymnal writers are doing, but they've managed to confuse the hell out of me. I'm going back to singing them, and I'll leave the music scholarship to the music scholars. -- Essjay ·   Talk 13:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The second line of the first verse of "Christ the Lord" above also seems to be gender-neutral language: my 1940 Episcopal hymnal has "Sons of men and angels say" rather than "All on earth with angels say". It also has a slightly different ending for the last verse of "Jesus Christ": "Praise him, all ye heav'nly host, Alleluia! / Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Alleluia!", which is hardly original enough for Wesley to really claim credit for it, though the hymnal does credit Wesley as the author of the fourth verse. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added the original Latin text and the older Lyra Davidica translation to Wikisource:Jesus Christ Is Risen Today. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 21:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I redlinked the term Processional hymn, and it was replaced with a Wictionary link to the word  processional. While I appreciate the effort, I don't think it solves the problem. I (and presumably most Wikipedia readers) know what a "procession" is and I know what "processional" means. That is not the problem. The problem is that "Processional hymn" appears to be a special term in some churches, but I have no idea what. So it needs to be explained - either in this article, or in a yet-to-be-written Processional hymn article. So I intend to revert the edit. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It turns out there is a pretty good article Procession, so I've linked to that. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christ the Lord Is Risen Today. 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/20050910041820/http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/c/c101.html to http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/c/c101.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050619074306/http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/j/j038.html to http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/j/j038.html
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) 13:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The article, at a glance, looks like about a painting. I suggest:

Make the image part of an infobox, to show it's a hymn, not a painting
Give the correct title of that painting, Ascension
Explain in the caption the relation of the painting to the hymn.
My view: the painting has nothing to do with Easter, but Ascension. Better don't use it at all. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree Gerda. It was already in there when I made the initial expansion, I don't mind if we change it.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be good if the actual music could be pointed to (in addition to citing names and authors of tunes) MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christ the Lord Is Risen Today/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

All of my comments are open to discussion. I will add notes as I work my way through the article. If you're online, you do NOT need to wait for the notes to be finished to begin making changes. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Lead
"Hymn for Easter Day" is italicized here, but not in the body. I think non-italic is the better option to differentiate it from the various publications, but either way is fine if it's consistent.
History
Wesley should be identified by his full name in the first occurrence after the lead.
I think the prose would flow more smoothly if the second sentence of the first paragraph were combined with the first or third. I have no preference which.
I think the two sentences about John Wesley excluding it from his hymnal could be combined. Parts of them feel repetitive.
"It was not until 1831 when" - comma needed after 1831.
"speculated by analysts" - anyone in particular? This sentence is pretty weaselly.
"The hymn is characterised as leading to" - why not "The hymn led to"?
"considered by many Christian hymnologists" - weaselly. Does the print source specify any of them?
"It is cited as an example" by whom? Why not "It is an example"?
"Beyond Methodism and..." I suggest combining this sentence with the one following it.
The info about Wesley feels tacked on at the end. I suggest moving the bit about the 6500 hymns he wrote to the top of the section and losing the bit about being the 18th child and the weaselly opinion attributed to "a number of commentators".
Text
no concern
Tune
I suggest combining a sentence or two at the start of this section. The flow is very staccato.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
no concern
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
Reference 5 provides a preview of the article, but several of the claims it's used to source are hidden behind a registration wall. This should be noted in the reference.
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
no concern
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
No concern
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
no concern
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
captions are suitable. No alt text needed.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

@Argento Surfer: I have fixed the one issue you mentioned.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The notes are now complete. The article is in good shape, but there are a few minor concerns I'd like to see addressed before I can pass it. FYI, I will be offline until Monday. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer:, I have fixed the issues above.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Nice work. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)