Talk:Trisagion

Re-write
I've substantially rewritten this article today: taking the small entry that was present as a start, expanded it to include more on history, and new sections on liturgical usage, etc. &mdash; Antonios Aigyptos talk  09:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have merged in text from the old Agios O Theos article, since this has been listed as a pending task for several months. Will soon convert that article into a redirect to this one. &mdash; Antonios Aigyptos talk  13:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Exhuastive Translation List Should Be Removed
This is an encyclopedia article, not a liturgical translation site. The trisagion has been translated into literally hundreds of languages. Should we include them all? This is trivia, as defined by the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list." The list is clearly unorganized (or else has an entirely implicit and inscrutable organization) and entirely unselective (that is, why is Finnish included, but Korean not? Or Spanish for that matter? The Trisagion is certainly spoken more in Spanish than in Finnish) At the very least, the list should be reviewed for relevance, and some rationale for the selection and explanation of the list given. -ElijahBenedict (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I found that list interesting and valuable. Why is the inclusion for Finnish causing anyone pain? Is Wikipedia short of disk space? There is plenty of talk page space wasted, so the answer is no. As for Spanish and Korean, by all means let us get them added. If you look on the left bar, there are only a few Interwikis and there is NO way to get access to this content without it being included herein. As for trivia, for Heaven's sake please do not call these prayers trivia. There is so much content within Wikipedia about which pop-singer dated which actor that may be called trivia, but these prayers are not trivia. A few prayers would be in order for whoever calls prayers trivia. Again: why is this content bothering anyone. It is valuable content that makes Wikipedia worth using. History2007 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * History2007- You're assigning a value judgment where I did not. I was using wikipedia in house terminology when I used the word "trivia." I did not mean to imply that these translated versions are without value, simply that the list is unorganized and unselective. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be exhaustive. They're encyclopedia articles, which means brevity is at a premium. For someone who doesn't feel as passionate as you, having to scroll through a lengthy list of translations before getting to any other material regarding the history and the use of the Trisagion communicates that the article is sloppy and poorly organized; and therefore makes them less likely to read further. It's a question of the quality of the article. And you're right, much of Wikipedia concerns trully trivial matters. But I don't care about those articles, whereas I do care about this one.ElijahBenedict (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, solution is that the English, Latin and a couple of other languages stay at the top, other languages move to end of article and get categorized. Easy enough? I can do that in a couple of days. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think the list is too long, as it makes it very difficult to find the translation you want. I think one should reduce the list to the main liturgical languages (and add those that are missing, Ukrainian for example). Translations into Dutch, Africaans, or Estonian are relevant for nobody except for those few people that are orthodox and speak the language, and these people can write an article in there own language version. It is very usefull to have a list of translation, if, for example, somebody got into an orthodox liturgy and wants to check out whether the version he heard was Russian, Ukrainian or Church Slavonic. But if you include all those languages you meet virtually never in an Orthodox Service, chosen without any system at all, this use is made very difficult. If we really wanted to be just, we would have to include thousands of translations. Have fun.--Hannes de Correct me! 13:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this list is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. It should be merged into Trisagion. Daask (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Latin Grammar
A Latin geek has provided an unsightly 'alternate' translation of Agios in the vocative. While, yes, that is (on some readings of the Greek and all readings of the English) more grammatically accurate for Classical Latin, as far as I've seen it's not the actual Latin: it is and should be simply rendered in the ecclesiastical nominative. See, eg, this discussion.

Googling produces this page and pages copying it, meaning we're producing WP:original.

I'll remove it. If someone finds independent sources employing the vocative, don't include them within the standard translation, but in a wp:foot to the text with your ref. -LlywelynII (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The rearrangement looks good. Thanks, LlywelynII. Question: what's the source of the macrons in the Latin text? I've never seen them, and the Liber Usualis doesn't print them. (Online here at p.737.) -- BPMullins | Talk 14:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Et totius mundi
Also noticed sometimes but not always the Latin is appended ...et totius mundi ("...and all the world"), but not sure about the addition's origin or prevalence. -LlywelynII (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-chalcedonian views
Maybe the views of the non-chalcedonians should be added to this article. In particular these forums    claim: I know forums are not always reliable sources, but I'm hoping someone would revise the article and make it less POV by finding the suggested references in the threads. (please reply!) The Cake 2 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Peter the Fuller was not the first one to add "was crucified for us" as claimed by John of Damascus. It was used since at least Eustathius 140 years earlier
 * That the Christological way of understanding the Trisagion is older.
 * The tradition surrounding Nicodemus is originally Syriac not Coptic. Also, can there be a reference for that tradition? Since I usually heard it was sung by angels (not Nicodemus himself) and never heard the part where he "saw Jesus Christ's eyes open".
 * It is not only the Armenians who sing it differently, the Copts also have at least 7 different versions that change according to the season (ex: ) in addition to other hymns which have the Trisagion embedded throughout.

syriac version
'qandisha' is a typographical error for 'qadisha' (Pamour (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)).

Traditional origins
"Some believe it is extremely ancient, perhaps of apostolic-era origin". This sentece should be erased since during the Apostolic era the Trinity doctrine wasn't in use. Matthew, 28:19 (All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) biblical scholars dispute the authenticity of this sentence which was probably edited in later times.(Peter C. Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge Companions to Religion), Cambridge University Press, 2011, page :3). The practice of the trinity only started in the 3rd. century C.E. and the first text which mentions it is by Tertullian (155-200) who didn't believe in the trinity himself, wrote : "treis hypostases, homoousioi". Sanctus31 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)