Acknowledging authorship

[ContraMundum]

We've had a thread on a controversial re-writing of the 23rd Psalm, and someone has mentioned a re-writing of a hymn for special purposes. We all have seen the Creeds change in various places and times in our (relatively speaking) short time as Anglicans too.

Here's a question about that. If we change something into our own version, can we claim authorship, or more importantly should we claim authorship?

In matters of authoratative writings such as Creeds and scripture, can we still use their authority to back our new versions? Just as an example, are we being dishonest when we claim we are saying the "Nicene" Creed when the men at Nicea did not intend to say what we are saying or did not believe as we do? Should it be instead the creed of our diocese or our church body if it is not the same? If words and/or meanings are omitted, changed or added is it still the same document?

At what point do we stop claiming the authority of others for our own works?

[SeenAndUnseen]

What about the creed do you think we as Anglicans do not properly believe? Where do you think the beliefs and intent of the men of Nicea diverge from our own?

[ContraMundum]

What about the creed do you think we as Anglicans do not properly believe? Where do you think the beliefs and intent of the men of Nicea diverge from our own?

That's not my question at all. Every Anglican believes whatever he or she wants, with no real threat of excommunication.

Really, the question is all about authorship. If we change the words of anything that is not ours by authorship, can we still call it what it was?

[Fish and Bread]

In the case of the reworking of Psalm 23 on the other thread, it was in the context of a song. In other words, no one was saying "This is Psalm 23", they were saying "This is a song based roughly on Psalm 23". That's quite different from actually revising the scripture itself to read in a different way. I would be very much opposed to any effort to alter the scripture itself, as I think most Anglicans and Episcopalians would also be. The scriptures themselves should always be as accurate to the original texts as possible.

John

[Inside Edge]

Just as an example, are we being dishonest when we claim we are saying the "Nicene" Creed when the men at Nicea did not intend to say what we are saying or did not believe as we do?
Well, I suppose. But first we'd have to believe that 1) We're not saying the same thing the men at Nicea intended; 2) that they did not believe as we do; and 3) that they would not believe as we do should they have the knowledge and experience of the last 1600+ years, or that what we believe today is not reconcilable with what they believed (again, considering what they might think if they were in our shoes).

But yeah - if a creed or whatever gets altered to the point where it loses (almost entirely) the spirit, language, and intent of the original author(s), then authorship should change. But it's often a big ol' gray area trying to illustrate that the spirit and intent of the original have been lost or changed significantly.