Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Archangel Michael Controversy
Hey everyone,
In Fa Nitenh, it says
"He flew to babylon, up to the three saintly boys. He saved them from the fiery furnace of Nebuchannazeur the king"
Haven't most people come to realize that this was actually Christ, not Archangel Michael? So why is this hymn still considered valid considering it was just published in the new Southern Diocese "Service of Deacons" book?
PK
In Fa Nitenh, it says
"He flew to babylon, up to the three saintly boys. He saved them from the fiery furnace of Nebuchannazeur the king"
Haven't most people come to realize that this was actually Christ, not Archangel Michael? So why is this hymn still considered valid considering it was just published in the new Southern Diocese "Service of Deacons" book?
PK
Comments
Not only ba nedanh, but also danan. I asked abouna and he seemed to suggest that the Lord did appear in an angelic manner with them in the fiery furnace, but He may have used the power of the archangel also to cool off the heat. Remember our Lord wasn't incarnate as such at that time. I'd think that maybe the reason He did appear but didn't work the miracle by Himself... the last bit is my two penny worth
By the way don't anybody ever again say kai Daniel in the verse next to last in the third hos. The whole hos is a passage from The Book of Daniel, not just an exposition, and we don't change the Bible verses willy nilly. He's not even mentioned in danan or danwah ensok, so why the innovations?
He is mentioned because it was him who saw this as a revelation. HICS records it...many cantors do and we follow on that.
actually what really bugs me is not that he is mentioned, but he is mentioned with a "ke" instead of "nem" or just "daniel"...ya3ny the whole hoos is coptic and you get to add somthing and choose to take "ke" to add the name after.
Dear PopeKyrollos,
Not only ba nedanh, but also danan. I asked abouna and he seemed to suggest that the Lord did appear in an angelic manner with them in the fiery furnace, but He may have used the power of the archangel also to cool off the heat. Remember our Lord wasn't incarnate as such at that time. I'd think that maybe the reason He did appear but didn't work the miracle by Himself... the last bit is my two penny worth
the version i use of Tenen makes clear that it was Christ as an Angel.....also, generally speaking, i was taught that whenever the old testament mentions an angel without speaks, it refers to THE Angel, referring to God the Son, not in an physical incarnated form.
Did you mean HICS or HCOC? In either case I won't be extra surprised. I blame HICS for distorting the genuine Coptic pronunciation, hence minor tunes...
The whole hos is in Coptic but there were people who were dying to get out of their original skin and be as Europeans... please don't start me...
Did you mean HICS or HCOC? In either case I won't be extra surprised. I blame HICS for distorting the genuine Coptic pronunciation, hence minor tunes...
HICS...
i should go to sleep....the sun is rising here.
The whole hos is in Coptic but there were people who were dying to get out of their original skin and be as Europeans... please don't start me...
Did you mean HICS or HCOC? In either case I won't be extra surprised. I blame HICS for distorting the genuine Coptic pronunciation, hence minor tunes...
Fady, this really has nothing to do with the issue or the topic. How they pronounce the words does not have bearing on a tune, that is like criticizing someones English in America from those in britain. I know that it's a little different and we've discussed this before but we will put that aside for now.
As far as saying ke Daniel, in the third hoos, I don't always agree with that addition, since it is not in the original text. However, since it is not biblically or theologically incorrect if people add it, it's not a huge issue. We need to learn how to pick our battles.
I would argue that having archangel Michael in a story that does not depict him or as the fathers agree that it was the Word of God among them is much more serious then adding Daniel to the verse in the hoos. I can see though how it would make sense to have him associated with the story, we have to remember depending on time and origin, not every hymn writer was knowledgable in interpretations of scripture, many were quite ignorant.
We discussed this in another thread but take the majority of madeehas being used in kiahk, with this verse constantly repeating itself: Zephaniah proclaimed He will come as rain without dew. If anyone were to walk in to our church as an outsider they would think we are insane or some sort of heretics who use weird Bibles. Mina mentioned he changed it to Hosea although I still don't agree with that. This is also more serious than adding Daniel. Don't even get me started with the madeehas amdah fel batool. I hope I have made my point clear in what I'm trying to get across.
Dear PopeKyrollos,
Not only ba nedanh, but also danan. I asked abouna and he seemed to suggest that the Lord did appear in an angelic manner with them in the fiery furnace, but He may have used the power of the archangel also to cool off the heat. Remember our Lord wasn't incarnate as such at that time. I'd think that maybe the reason He did appear but didn't work the miracle by Himself... the last bit is my two penny worth
First of all, we must remember as Pope Shenouda explained, the title angel was used for the Lord Himself. In Genesis 22, the Lord calls Abraham, "Abraham, Abraham" but later in the chapter it says, "But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”" And He continues "The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, “I swear by myself..." Was it the angel of the Lord who gave Abraham the eternal promise or the Lord Himself? It was the Lord, even though the author (Moses) writes, the "angel of the Lord".
The same thing happened to the Three youth. The Lord appeared in the furnace and King Nebuchadnezzar said, "the fourth looks like a son of the gods". While we have no direct proof, it could have been the Lord described as the angel who protected the youth from the fire.
Regarding Fa nitenh enhat's depicting Archangel Michael's role in the story of the 3 youth, I would add that all such claims have an oral tradition to support them. I think this hymn is just restating what oral tradition has passed down: Archangel Michael protected the youth. It's a little ironic because Daniel uses strange imagery about the archangels. In Daniel 10, Archangel Gabriel strengthens Daniel after he has seen the Lord as a man in a vision. But Archangel Gabriel, who is not mentioned by name, says he was detained by the Prince of the Persian kingdom for 21 days until Michael "the Prince" helped him. And then Archangel Gabriel returned to Daniel to explain the visions. This apocalyptic imagery was the catalyst for what scholars call, "the cult of Michael". It is a phenomenon where Michael becomes the hero of all miracles and people begin to venerate him more and more. Eventually, according to scholars, Michael becomes the hero of stories not directly associated with him. A perfect example is the Lord's resurrection. Backed again by oral tradition, Archangel Michael rolled away the stone from the tomb, even though Matthew 28:2 just says, "an angel". No where in the gospels is Archangel Michael associated with the Resurrection. But as time progresses, this legend phenomenon continues. Does it mean Archangel did not roll away the tomb or protect the 3 youth in Babylon. No. He may have. We just don't know for sure. What we do know is that legend phenomenon is real and we can't tell if it is real fact or legend. You have to decide for yourself. I personally choose to believe Archangel Michael did do these things.
Finally, Ophadece, I admire your strong Coptic nationalism. But as much as I hate to say it, Greek cannot be purged from Coptic, whether linguistically, politically, socially, and even ecclesiastically. Greek is an inherent part of Coptic. Trying to separate Greek from Coptic is like trying to linguistically separate Latin from English, or politically separating Britain from the US, or socially saying Americans are better than Brits and so on. No matter how patriotic you are, certain things cannot be purged. But this is definitely off the topic.
George
First of all, the improper pronunciation led to minor distortions in tunes. There are some examples, but I can't think of many right now. In fact, I would argue that the HICS were not as concerned about the language as a proper one as they were the hymns. One example is the word God in Greek (sorry I can't edit in Coptic now, obviously). The word should be pronounced /Eyou/ or /eyous/ but the HICS mistakenly recorded it in the hymn bai ba phleman as pronounced as /yos/. That is wrong; not even Coptic, it is Greek.
Secondly, Jesus Christ says woe to those who may add or take away any word from what I say (along those lines; sorry can't remember the quotation of the verse as such), and we take the passage from the book of Daniel, and change it willy nilly? That is certainly not Orthodox.
Thirdly, I find the argument about Arabic madeeha's and Coptic hymns different, but nonetheless - what I can argue is that the hymns have many subtle meanings, and not exaggerating if I say mysteries in them, that no one even cared to understand, and now we are trying to find faults with them, instead of bringing ourselves to understand them. As for the madeeha's I don't approve of most of them if not all, especially the Kiahk ones, but you should note that those were written very recently, hence the numerous mistakes.
Oujai
That is what I understand, but maybe you couldn't insinuate that from my post... sorry if I was unclear. What I said was the Lord appeared with them, but may have used the power of archangel Michael specifically to cool the head down...
Oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10365.msg126236#msg126236 date=1294139046]
The whole hos is in Coptic but there were people who were dying to get out of their original skin and be as Europeans... please don't start me...
Did you mean HICS or HCOC? In either case I won't be extra surprised. I blame HICS for distorting the genuine Coptic pronunciation, hence minor tunes...
Fady, this really has nothing to do with the issue or the topic. How they pronounce the words does not have bearing on a tune, that is like criticizing someones English in America from those in britain. I know that it's a little different and we've discussed this before but we will put that aside for now.
As far as saying ke Daniel, in the third hoos, I don't always agree with that addition, since it is not in the original text. However, since it is not biblically or theologically incorrect if people add it, it's not a huge issue. We need to learn how to pick our battles.
I would argue that having archangel Michael in a story that does not depict him or as the fathers agree that it was the Word of God among them is much more serious then adding Daniel to the verse in the hoos. I can see though how it would make sense to have him associated with the story, we have to remember depending on time and origin, not every hymn writer was knowledgable in interpretations of scripture, many were quite ignorant.
We discussed this in another thread but take the majority of madeehas being used in kiahk, with this verse constantly repeating itself: Zephaniah proclaimed He will come as rain without dew. If anyone were to walk in to our church as an outsider they would think we are insane or some sort of heretics who use weird Bibles. Mina mentioned he changed it to Hosea although I still don't agree with that. This is also more serious than adding Daniel. Don't even get me started with the madeehas amdah fel batool. I hope I have made my point clear in what I'm trying to get across.
This is just what i was gonna post; you took the words out of my mouth. I see this as a major issue, making us sound like Jehovah's Witnesses (who believed that Archangel Michael was Jesus Christ). The fact that it was Christ in the furnace was taught to me by a well informed sunday school servant, and later confirmed by multiple priests.
Look at this synexarium post for him:
http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/10_12.html#1
Even this is wrong... If you read this story directly from Joshua, you will read that Joshua worshipped this commander of the lord's army. We know that angels do not accept worship, so this was indeed the lord. I almost feel that our church just doesn't want to clear this issue up so we don't seem ignorant or something.
PK
Quote from: ophadece on Today at 06:04:06 AM
The whole hos is in Coptic but there were people who were dying to get out of their original skin and be as Europeans... please don't start me...
Did you mean HICS or HCOC? In either case I won't be extra surprised. I blame HICS for distorting the genuine Coptic pronunciation, hence minor tunes...
Fady, this really has nothing to do with the issue or the topic. How they pronounce the words does not have bearing on a tune, that is like criticizing someones English in America from those in britain. I know that it's a little different and we've discussed this before but we will put that aside for now.
As far as saying ke Daniel, in the third hoos, I don't always agree with that addition, since it is not in the original text. However, since it is not biblically or theologically incorrect if people add it, it's not a huge issue. We need to learn how to pick our battles.
I would argue that having archangel Michael in a story that does not depict him or as the fathers agree that it was the Word of God among them is much more serious then adding Daniel to the verse in the hoos. I can see though how it would make sense to have him associated with the story, we have to remember depending on time and origin, not every hymn writer was knowledgable in interpretations of scripture, many were quite ignorant.
We discussed this in another thread but take the majority of madeehas being used in kiahk, with this verse constantly repeating itself: Zephaniah proclaimed He will come as rain without dew. If anyone were to walk in to our church as an outsider they would think we are insane or some sort of heretics who use weird Bibles. Mina mentioned he changed it to Hosea although I still don't agree with that. This is also more serious than adding Daniel. Don't even get me started with the madeehas amdah fel batool. I hope I have made my point clear in what I'm trying to get across.
This is just what i was gonna post; you took the words out of my mouth. I see this as a major issue, making us sound like Jehovah's Witnesses (who believed that Archangel Michael was Jesus Christ). The fact that it was Christ in the furnace was taught to me by a well informed sunday school servant, and later confirmed by multiple priests.
Look at this synexarium post for him:
http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/10_12.html#1
Even this is wrong... If you read this story directly from Joshua, you will read that Joshua worshipped this commander of the lord's army. We know that angels do not accept worship, so this was indeed the lord. I almost feel that our church just doesn't want to clear this issue up so we don't seem ignorant or something.
PK
YOu know very well how much I disagree with you about that point specifically. Even you, or was it Mr. Ramiz on ch.net pointed out that Coptic and Greek have a unique relationship by virtue of the loan words found in the former.
I just searched wikipedia looking for examples to support my claim and to my surprise, a new piece of knowledge for me: English language derived 29% of its words from French, 29% from Latin, 26% from Germanic, and 16% other. Now I urge you and all other interested members to have a look: I'll only mention 3 examples starting with the letter A - all of those are French in origin; abandonment, accessible, abundant. Now, why on earth are those words pronounced different to contemporary French (or even old French)? Would a very zealous, scientifically-minded researcher who is English speaking call for all the English speaking nations, like Britain, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, etc, and says "oh guys let's rectify the way we pronounce French-derived words as per the CORRECT manner"... that's exactly what happened with the Copts, people who were probably paying attention to other problems, who lack any research or evidence base thinking, and who take things for granted especially from churchly ranks.
So in the end I will keep saying /diawolo/ rather than /thiavolos/ /ebnewmados/ and not /pnevmatos/, etc...
Oujai
I wasn't really talking about pronunciation because that is a purely linguistic phenomenon. I was talking about removing Greek words from Coptic texts. I was trying to respond to the notion that the last verse of the Third hoos should say, "Esmo epchois Ananias Azarias Misael nem Daniel" instead of "ke Daniel". This purging is unrealistic. But I went back and realized it was not you who made that comment. So I apologize.
On the other hand, using your example of pronunciation, let me add to your example. What if everybody in those English speaking nations, like Britain, Canada, USA, etc., automatically started pronouncing abandonment like the current French pronunciation of /aba do man/. And let say there was a handful of "scholars" advocating that English speaking nations should go back to "the correct" pronunciation of /aband'on ment/. Would you advocate that this new generation of English speaking nations who spontaneously and naturally changed the pronunciation to the French revert back to what this handful of "scholars" considered "correct"?
Anybody can answer. BTW, it's a little bit of a trick question. I'll explain after people answer.
George
I wouldn't advocate such a change, and please note this would actually not be considered natural evolution, it will be artificial. You cannot ask peoples to change the way they were talking for centuries just because of somebody's opinion on what should be correct or not. Hope that's clear...
Oujai