[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142626#msg142626 date=1312610625] The hymn is unintelligible in Greek and has many mistakes including theological ones. Here is an example:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit."
OMG.....come on imikhail....i thought you are much smarter than that.......why would you consider a translation of a translation instead of the original coptic which you supposed to have knowledge of?!
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=11998.msg142628#msg142628 date=1312611917] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142626#msg142626 date=1312610625] The hymn is unintelligible in Greek and has many mistakes including theological ones. Here is an example:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit."
OMG.....come on imikhail....i thought you are much smarter than that.......why would you consider a translation of a translation instead of the original coptic which you supposed to have knowledge of?!
Are you serious? Are you saying that O kirios is a Coptic hymn?
What do you mean by "smarter than that"? Than what?
The following section from the hymn O Kirios is theologically flawed:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit." is a heresy.
I have not heard about this? Could you please provide a source. From what i know about this hymn is that it is in Greek not Coptic and it is an acrostic poem.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142635#msg142635 date=1312618059] The following section from the hymn O Kirios is theologically flawed:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit." is a heresy.
first, the arabic of this hymns was first printed in m farag's book. the part that we are working on: الرب الآب المتكلم بالحق السمائى الذى شابهنا فى اتضاعنا والروح القدس.
meaning: The Lord the Father, who speaks in the heavenly Truth (Jesus Christ, the Son, the Logos/Word). HE, the Son, took the form of our humility.....which did happen.
The hymn makes perfect sense to me since I tried to contemplate and with some basic knowledge of Coptic (not even Greek). The structure of the sentence for me reads like that: "The Lord, O Father, Who speaks in Heavenly Truth (referring to the Lord Jesus Christ the Logos), ...". The words o Patyr are repeated in every verse so we can meditate on it as a prayer addressed to the Father's person. The Father's person is not part of every verse, rather an addressee. Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=11998.msg142646#msg142646 date=1312644826] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142635#msg142635 date=1312618059] The following section from the hymn O Kirios is theologically flawed:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit." is a heresy.
first, the arabic of this hymns was first printed in m farag's book. the part that we are working on: الرب الآب المتكلم بالحق السمائى الذى شابهنا فى اتضاعنا والروح القدس.
meaning: The Lord the Father, who speaks in the heavenly Truth (Jesus Christ, the Son, the Logos/Word). HE, the Son, took the form of our humility.....which did happen.
لرب الآب المتكلم بالحق السمائى الذى شابهنا فى اتضاعنا والروح القدس
This means that the Father took our form. This is a heresy.
His Grace Bishop Youssef was asked about the hymn:
It doesn't seem like HG agrees that the hymn is heretical, only that it is confusing (I agree). I do not understand how it is heretical because of the Arabic translation when the original language of the hymn is Greek, not Arabic. (As I understand it, this is one of the Greek hymns used in the Church, not originally Coptic.)
Why not fix the Arabic translation, if that's where the problem is? Saying that the hymn is heretical because the Arabic translation is problematic is like saying that the Bible is bad because there are so many bad (biased/unfaithful to the text) translations of it.
I don't see what are you guys talking about?? Sayedna says:
I agree with you that [i]there is confusion concerning this hymn. I hope one day we can have it translated by some Greek Language scholars; and get to know the history of its origin. "He Who resembled our humility" is referring to the Son and not the Father. The word humility or humbleness means humiliation. Our Lord Jesus Christ left His throne and the right hand of His Father to become incarnate and humbly took a human body. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Phil 2:5-8). [/i] where does he says that it is heretical? he said that there is confusion and he clarified that confusion for us without really denying the hymn.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142670#msg142670 date=1312654774] I would much rather use a Coptic hymn authored by Fr. Shenouda with the same tune.
and i would much rather keep something that is older than what abouna Shenouda Maher has....and he himself would agree to that.
George (remenkimi) did a study on the hymn and for weird reason it disappeared from the face of the earth since it was published in Albair's book (or atleast part of it in arabic).....
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11998.msg142673#msg142673 date=1312660594] It doesn't seem like HG agrees that the hymn is heretical, only that it is confusing (I agree).
Why not fix the Arabic translation, if that's where the problem is? Saying that the hymn is heretical because the Arabic translation is problematic is like saying that the Bible is bad because there are so many bad (biased/unfaithful to the text) translations of it.
Very good point. However, do you understand Greek? Do you honestly understand the hymn when you are singing without referring either to Arabic or English?
The way the translation goes, the way the hymn is written in Greek creates confusion. This confusion creates the sense of heresy.
I do not understand how it is heretical because of the Arabic translation when the original language of the hymn is Greek, not Arabic. (As I understand it, this is one of the Greek hymns used in the Church, not originally Coptic.)
No one knows how this hymn entered our Church. Liturgical Books as old as 50 years do not have it. The Greek Church does not use it. Do we know who authored it?
A recent attempt was made to have the Hymn translated by the Melekite Church. They said that the hymn does not make any sense in Greek and no Greek person would understand it.
My question is why would we use such a hymn that does not make any sense?
As I understand it, this is one of the Greek hymns used in the Church, not originally Coptic.
This goes back to my argument about new Greel hymns that are being used in our Church with no reference as to their authenticity.
Just because a cantor sings a hymn does not make that hymn part of our heritage. Just because a a hymn is found in a book does not make that hymn authentic (let alone if the hymn only appears in one cantor's book). Just because a hymn has a nice melody, we adopt it without questioning.
Dear imikhail, As far as I can remember from Remenkimi's analysis before, he implies that the hymns is Sa'idic with mostly Greek syntax, along the lines of the first verse of the hymns tenen. It is not totally obscure in terms of understanding with basic knowledge of Greek and Coptic. That is my tuppence... Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142678#msg142678 date=1312669740] Very good point. However, do you understand Greek? Do you honestly understand the hymn when you are singing without referring either to the Coptic or English?
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand why you would ask this.
The way the translation goes, the way the hymn is written in Greek creates confusion.
These are two separate things, though (the translation and the Greek original). From your reply, it seemed that the Arabic translation was (is) heretical, while the Greek original is just confusing. Confusion isn't the same as heresy, even though certainly all heretics are confused. :)
This confusion creates the sense of heresy.
I'm not sure that it does, though. From HG Bishop Youssef's reply, it seems possible to recognize that the hymn is confusing without deeming it heretical. I trust HG's opinion of the hymn is a correct one.
No one knows how this hymn entered our Church. Liturgical Books as old as 50 years do not have it. The Greek Church does not use it. Do we know who authored it?
Is it necessary to know that? I don't see how this information could impact this conversation unless it could be proven that the hymn was authored by a known heretic (e.g., Arius, Nestorius, etc) to advance their heresy.
A recent attempt was made to have the Hymn translated by the Melekite Church. They said that the hymn does not make any sense in Greek and no Greek person would understand it.
Why does this matter? Copts know that they aren't Greeks, and shouldn't have a complex about that. The Melkites aren't even in communion with the non-Chalcedonian churches, so I don't see why their opinion should affect the Coptic Orthodox Church. If the Coptic church has reservations about the hymn, that's another matter. It's not necessary to bring in what the Melkites (who, just like Copts, also aren't Greeks, and haven't spoken Greek natively for many centuries) think about anything.
My question is why would we use such a hymn that does not make any sense?
I'm not the right person to address such a question, but I would defer to Ophadece to answer it (as he has shown in his understanding that the hymn is not necessarily nonsense). For me, it is enough that HG Bishop Youssef does not think it is heretical, and explains the confusion around it so that it is understood in an orthodox fashion.
and i would much rather keep something that is older than what abouna Shenouda Maher has.....
Let me ask you Mina .. how old is O kirios? Can you at least point to some book that is older than 50 years that has this hymn? I don't really know--i would need to research a little (which i don't have time for).. but i KNOW that it's older than Fr. Shenouda's.
and he himself would agree to that
hehe .. He would not have authored it if he approves of the hymn. BTW Fr. Shenouda does not use the hymn in his church.
i said he would agree to "keep" the hymn.....not necessarily approve or disapprove of the hymn. He preaches OB coptic but he doesn't attack those who do still use Behere coptic we use in churches now.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11998.msg142683#msg142683 date=1312671962] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142678#msg142678 date=1312669740] Very good point. However, do you understand Greek? Do you honestly understand the hymn when you are singing without referring either to the Coptic or English?
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand why you would ask this.
I ask this because it is the translation is what gives the hymn its meaning. Otherwise, we would be like the pagans as the Bible says. So, if we cannot get an accurate translation of the hymn, then we are in essence saying something we do not know what it means and which is on the border of heresy as I explained.
The way the translation goes, the way the hymn is written in Greek creates confusion.
These are two separate things, though (the translation and the Greek original). From your reply, it seemed that the Arabic translation was (is) heretical, while the Greek original is just confusing. Confusion isn't the same as heresy, even though certainly all heretics are confused. :)
As I explained we cannot get an accurate translation of this hymn as its words were put together in a way that do not make sense.
This confusion creates the sense of heresy.
I'm not sure that it does, though. From HG Bishop Youssef's reply, it seems possible to recognize that the hymn is confusing without deeming it heretical. I trust HG's opinion of the hymn is a correct one.
Yes, I agree. But if a hymn is confusing and we cannot get proper translation because of its structure, then why bother.
No one knows how this hymn entered our Church. Liturgical Books as old as 50 years do not have it. The Greek Church does not use it. Do we know who authored it?
Is it necessary to know that? I don't see how this information could impact this conversation unless it could be proven that the hymn was authored by a known heretic (e.g., Arius, Nestorius, etc) to advance their heresy.
Yes it is essential to know how authentic a hymn is, otherwise we are not adhering to Orthodoxy that has discipleship and reception at its focus.
Now, do not get me wrong. Orthodoxy by no means stifles creativity. We can develop new hymns but we have to know its source and meaning.
O kirios is not present in any ritual book that I know of which is older than 50 years. This means that it was recently developed. Following, if we cannot know who authored it or how it entered our Churchand we cannot even get a good translation then we should not use it.
A recent attempt was made to have the Hymn translated by the Melekite Church. They said that the hymn does not make any sense in Greek and no Greek person would understand it.
Why does this matter? Copts know that they aren't Greeks, and shouldn't have a complex about that. The Melkites aren't even in communion with the non-Chalcedonian churches, so I don't see why their opinion should affect the Coptic Orthodox Church. If the Coptic church has reservations about the hymn, that's another matter. It's not necessary to bring in what the Melkites (who, just like Copts, also aren't Greeks, and haven't spoken Greek natively for many centuries) think about anything. It matters because even those who are well versed in Greek cannot develop good translation for the hymn, then why should we insist on using something that does not make sense.
Whether we agree dogmatically with the Melekites is beside the point. We have borrowed many hymns from them, so that is not the issue. Again, the issue is we cannot get an accurate translation for the hymn.
My question is why would we use such a hymn that does not make any sense?
I'm not the right person to address such a question, but I would defer to Ophadece to answer it (as he has shown in his understanding that the hymn is not necessarily nonsense). For me, it is enough that HG Bishop Youssef does not think it is heretical, and explains the confusion around it so that it is understood in an orthodox fashion.
Very good as long as you are comfortable with it. However several churches now are not using the hymn and I hope the trend continues.
i said he would agree to "keep" the hymn.....not necessarily approve or disapprove of the hymn.
He does not approve of the hymn and it is a fact. You can verify this by calling him yourself (I will give you his phone number if you like)
He preaches OB coptic but he doesn't attack those who do still use Behere coptic we use in churches now.
The hymn, its meaning and authenticity has nothing to do with the Old Bohairic/Greco Bohairic debate. Rather it has to do with what we pray in the Church.
I ask this because it is the translation is what gives the hymn its meaning. Otherwise, we would be like the pagans as the Bible says. So, if we cannot get an accurate translation of the hymn, then we are in essence saying something we do not know what it means and which is on the border of heresy as I explained.
See, this is the problem: I can't tell what you're disagreeing with. The issue of the Arabic translation being heretical is a separate issue from the Greek not making sense. If the Greek does not say, as the Arabic apparently does, that the Father took our nature, then you'll have to come up with some other reason to disagree with the use of the Greek hymn. I grant your point about not praying something we do not understand, but I again defer to Ophadece's understanding, and HG Bishop Youssef's clarification of the confusion around this hymn.
Yes it is essential to know how authentic a hymn is, otherwise we are not adhering to Orthodoxy that has discipleship and reception at its focus.
On a practical level, how does this work? Do we know by name, for instance, who authored the various "Hitenis", "Evlogimenos", "Golgotha", etc.? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything; I'm sincerely interested in this idea. I suppose I had assumed that some things can be credited as "Traditional Coptic Hymns" with no further attribution due to the fact that the hymns were orally transmitted until very recently. I suppose their lineage could have been passed down similarly, but honestly I've never heard anyone ask about this aspect of the hymns other than wondering who the "Sarkis" mentioned in "Arepsalin" was.
He preaches OB coptic but he doesn't attack those who do still use Behere coptic we use in churches now.
The hymn, its meaning and authenticity has nothing to do with the Old Bohairic/Greco Bohairic debate. Rather it has to do with what we pray in the Church.
it was not for our topic here but an example of what Abouna does in his dealings with what he believes and how it is for others. [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142691#msg142691 date=1312678555]
I don't really know--i would need to research a little (which i don't have time for).. but i KNOW that it's older than Fr. Shenouda's.
Ok Mina. I will hold you to coming back and report to us your findings.
i just said i have no time to search...but it is older than Abouna's.....is it not clear enough?!
On a practical level, how does this work? Do we know by name, for instance, who authored the various "Hitenis", "Evlogimenos", "Golgotha", etc.? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything; I'm sincerely interested in this idea. I suppose I had assumed that some things can be credited as "Traditional Coptic Hymns" with no further attribution due to the fact that the hymns were orally transmitted until very recently. I suppose their lineage could have been passed down similarly, but honestly I've never heard anyone ask about this aspect of the hymns other than wondering who the "Sarkis" mentioned in "Arepsalin" was.
These hymns that you mentioned have no problems with the original language they were written in; be it Greek or Coptic. These hymns are found in manuscripts that date to the 11th century.
In contrast, O Kirios has problems with the Greek and no exact translation can be deducted.
Okay, but that didn't really answer my question: If it is necessary to know the author of a hymn before it can be accepted (i.e., as a means of authentication), do we know the authors of the many non-problematic hymns? Or does it only become necessary to know the author(s) when there is some sort of controversy regarding a hymn's orthodoxy? I could see that, but again, I'd like to know how the authorship of a given hymn is determined to begin with.
Dear imikhail, I was under the impression that ari'alin was composed in the 15th century when cantor Sarkis was present. I don't know if it was in 11th century manuscripts. Secondly, and more importantly, why do you insist on translation being spot-on for us to understand hymns? As dzheremi says, the problem lies with the translation not with the hymn. Well, I am not implying that the syntax may be unorthodox and not quite straightforward, and Remenkimi as I believe ascribed this to the mixture of dialects of Sa'idic and Akhmimic (if my memory serves me right) in his analysis on top of the loose Greek. However, still with some basic understanding you can understand what the hymns says. It is the fault of cantor Farag, or any other author who first attempted to translate the hymn in being unscrupulous, but that doesn't detract from the hymn's clarity and credulousness. It is not a Greek hymn, why should we refer it to the Greeks to translate? Even ari'alin or <c anecty they aren't able to translate. But we know exactly what it means (for me partly yes because of translation as I am not an expert in Greek), but I don't need such a translation for O Kyrioc. It is relatively easy for me, and therefore, for anybody else to understand... Oujai qen `P[C
Thanks ophadece for your points, let me clarify something.
The problem with O kirios is not only the Arabic or the English translation. The problem is with the original language it was written into which is Greek. Again, the hymn in its original form has linguistic problems: its structure, the way the words are arranged, the grammar, ....
So, these linguistic problems reflected on the translation ..
BTW this is not the only hymn in the Church that is like that .. we have several Greek hymns (roomy hymns) that have linguistic problems.
With this let me comment (in red) on your points you raised.
I was under the impression that ari'alin was composed in the 15th century when cantor Sarkis was present. I don't know if it was in 11th century manuscripts.
The issue is not with how old a hymn is .. as I explained creativity does not stop at one age. Rather creativity stops when it produces unintelligible hymns or hymns that are against the Church's faith. O kirios falls in the former category and hinges on the second.
Secondly, and more importantly, why do you insist on translation being spot-on for us to understand hymns? As dzheremi says, the problem lies with the translation not with the hymn.
I addressed this above .. but let me reiterate. The hymn has linguistic problems in Greek that even the Greek people cannot understand it. Basically it is gibberish. I understand that this may be hard to accept but scholars like Fr. Shenouda confirm this.
Well, I am not implying that the syntax may be unorthodox and not quite straightforward, and Remenkimi as I believe ascribed this to the mixture of dialects of Sa'idic and Akhmimic (if my memory serves me right) in his analysis on top of the loose Greek.
I have personally did not see the study. Again, if the hymn has linguistic problems, as I have explained, why use it? Now we can visit the point of authenticity.
May be one would say, we lack the knowledge to understand the hymn (I certainly doubt that one of Fr. Shenouda's caliber cannot understand it nor the Greeks who are well versed in the Greek language as well as koine), we can research its authenticity.
The hymn does not show in any manuscript, standard ritual books, khedmat al shemmas books, ... except in one book, that I know of that is between 30 - 40 years old. In this case we need to question its authenticity based on its linguistic problems.
However, still with some basic understanding you can understand what the hymns says. It is the fault of cantor Farag, or any other author who first attempted to translate the hymn in being unscrupulous, but that doesn't detract from the hymn's clarity and credulousness.
Again the problem is not in the translation alone but the way it was composed, written, authored, ....
It is not a Greek hymn, why should we refer it to the Greeks to translate?
There were several tries to find out how this hymn is written. I mentioned one when the Greek Church was consulted, another one at the Greek Institute (Ma'had Loghat Al Alson the Greek section). The other one by Coptic scholars like Fr. Shenouda.
Even ari'alin or <c anecty they aren't able to translate.
I am not aware of any consultation from the Greek Church to translate aripsalin. Can you please elaborate as to why this was done?
But we know exactly what it means (for me partly yes because of translation as I am not an expert in Greek), but I don't need such a translation for O Kyrioc. It is relatively easy for me, and therefore, for anybody else to understand...
This is great. I do not mean to put you on the spot .. but can you please provide grammatical analysis for the hymn?
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11998.msg142726#msg142726 date=1312715076] Dear imikhail, I was under the impression that ari'alin was composed in the 15th century when cantor Sarkis was present. I don't know if it was in 11th century manuscripts. Secondly, and more importantly, why do you insist on translation being spot-on for us to understand hymns? As dzheremi says, the problem lies with the translation not with the hymn. Well, I am not implying that the syntax may be unorthodox and not quite straightforward, and Remenkimi as I believe ascribed this to the mixture of dialects of Sa'idic and Akhmimic (if my memory serves me right) in his analysis on top of the loose Greek. However, still with some basic understanding you can understand what the hymns says. It is the fault of cantor Farag, or any other author who first attempted to translate the hymn in being unscrupulous, but that doesn't detract from the hymn's clarity and credulousness. It is not a Greek hymn, why should we refer it to the Greeks to translate? Even ari'alin or <c anecty they aren't able to translate. But we know exactly what it means (for me partly yes because of translation as I am not an expert in Greek), but I don't need such a translation for O Kyrioc. It is relatively easy for me, and therefore, for anybody else to understand... Oujai qen `P[C
I dono what brought Aripsalen here.....it was written by Fr. Sarkees--a copt who then lived in Jerusalem, learned Greek and wrote hymns in Greek and Coptic. I don't expect a Greek person to translate it cuz it's not purely greek.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11998.msg142722#msg142722 date=1312694899] Okay, but that didn't really answer my question: If it is necessary to know the author of a hymn before it can be accepted (i.e., as a means of authentication), do we know the authors of the many non-problematic hymns? Or does it only become necessary to know the author(s) when there is some sort of controversy regarding a hymn's orthodoxy? I could see that, but again, I'd like to know how the authorship of a given hymn is determined to begin with.
I sort of have answered this question in my reply to ophadece.
No, it is not necessary to know the author of a hymn before it can be accepted (i.e., as a means of authentication). When we have a hymn that is problematic then it would help to know the author to find out out how comfortable was the author of the hymn with the language, his Orthodoxy, his other writings (if any), his reputation within the Church, ....
Authorship of hymns is a big topic but I will be brief.
There are different categories or types of hymns:
Some of the hymns are very old like the Trisagion where it is used in different Churches. It is very difficult to know the authors of these types of hymns (though not always as we know by Tradition who authored them). Their Orthodoxy are not questioned as they have been in use for thousands of years and in different Church rites.
Some hymns are specific to a Church that have no comparable ones in other Churches. Some of these hymns are very old like Baketronos or very recent like new doxologies. The old ones we seldom have no problems as they are well documented in manuscripts. The new ones are the ones we need to be careful with.
Dear imikhail, I agree with all what you said in fact (believe it or not). But the only problem I have, which is also against Fr. Shenouda's views, is that implying loose syntax or structure spoils the whole hymn. For me it doesn't. Prose, or poetry sometimes have extreme language usage not used (and when used it is inappropriate, or just totally not capable of being used) in day-to-day communication. I think a hymn like ictermagi can be considered in similar vein (if not even tenen or <c anecty). As I pointed earlier, even Greeks nowadays don't seem to understand what the latter is talking about (in terms of grammatical syntax at least - as per my understanding). Why I say it makes perfect sense to me, is like when you compare it to pieces like this: anyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down) spring summer autumn winter he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men (both little and small) cared for anyone not at all they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same sun moon stars rain
An example of someone called E.E. Cummings I got from the internet. I guess it perfectly makes sense to me if we use such poetic approaches for hymns in the church. In fact, many of our Christians songs (especially Arabic that I am familiar with) follow along those lines... Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11998.msg142734#msg142734 date=1312750344] Dear imikhail, I agree with all what you said in fact (believe it or not). But the only problem I have, which is also against Fr. Shenouda's views, is that implying loose syntax or structure spoils the whole hymn. For me it doesn't. Prose, or poetry sometimes have extreme language usage not used (and when used it is inappropriate, or just totally not capable of being used) in day-to-day communication. I think a hymn like ictermagi can be considered in similar vein (if not even tenen or <c anecty). As I pointed earlier, even Greeks nowadays don't seem to understand what the latter is talking about (in terms of grammatical syntax at least - as per my understanding). Why I say it makes perfect sense to me, is like when you compare it to pieces like this: anyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down) spring summer autumn winter he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men (both little and small) cared for anyone not at all they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same sun moon stars rain
An example of someone called E.E. Cummings I got from the internet. I guess it perfectly makes sense to me if we use such poetic approaches for hymns in the church. In fact, many of our Christians songs (especially Arabic that I am familiar with) follow along those lines... Oujai qen `P[C
What you are saying makes sense if we are talking about mere poems. Here we are talking about hymns which their purpose is delivering faith in a musical mold, praying to and praising God.
The other point I like to make is that there is a structure of how Coptic verses are structured regardless of the language used and keeping the meaning intact.
Comments
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit."
The hymn is unintelligible in Greek and has many mistakes including theological ones. Here is an example:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit."
OMG.....come on imikhail....i thought you are much smarter than that.......why would you consider a translation of a translation instead of the original coptic which you supposed to have knowledge of?!
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142626#msg142626 date=1312610625]
The hymn is unintelligible in Greek and has many mistakes including theological ones. Here is an example:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit."
OMG.....come on imikhail....i thought you are much smarter than that.......why would you consider a translation of a translation instead of the original coptic which you supposed to have knowledge of?!
Are you serious? Are you saying that O kirios is a Coptic hymn?
What do you mean by "smarter than that"? Than what?
The following section from the hymn O Kirios is theologically flawed:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit." is a heresy.
Could you please provide a source.
From what i know about this hymn is that it is in Greek not Coptic and it is an acrostic poem.
The following section from the hymn O Kirios is theologically flawed:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit." is a heresy.
first, the arabic of this hymns was first printed in m farag's book. the part that we are working on:
الرب الآب المتكلم بالحق السمائى الذى شابهنا فى اتضاعنا والروح القدس.
meaning: The Lord the Father, who speaks in the heavenly Truth (Jesus Christ, the Son, the Logos/Word). HE, the Son, took the form of our humility.....which did happen.
Oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142635#msg142635 date=1312618059]
The following section from the hymn O Kirios is theologically flawed:
"The Lord, the Father, Who speaks in Heavenly truth, Who took the form of our humility, with the Holy Spirit." is a heresy.
first, the arabic of this hymns was first printed in m farag's book. the part that we are working on:
الرب الآب المتكلم بالحق السمائى الذى شابهنا فى اتضاعنا والروح القدس.
meaning: The Lord the Father, who speaks in the heavenly Truth (Jesus Christ, the Son, the Logos/Word). HE, the Son, took the form of our humility.....which did happen.
لرب الآب المتكلم بالحق السمائى الذى شابهنا فى اتضاعنا والروح القدس
This means that the Father took our form. This is a heresy.
His Grace Bishop Youssef was asked about the hymn:
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1084&catid=200
I would much rather use a Coptic hymn authored by Fr. Shenouda with the same tune.
Why not fix the Arabic translation, if that's where the problem is? Saying that the hymn is heretical because the Arabic translation is problematic is like saying that the Bible is bad because there are so many bad (biased/unfaithful to the text) translations of it.
I agree with you that [i]there is confusion concerning this hymn. I hope one day we can have it translated by some Greek Language scholars; and get to know the history of its origin. "He Who resembled our humility" is referring to the Son and not the Father. The word humility or humbleness means humiliation. Our Lord Jesus Christ left His throne and the right hand of His Father to become incarnate and humbly took a human body. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Phil 2:5-8).
[/i]
where does he says that it is heretical? he said that there is confusion and he clarified that confusion for us without really denying the hymn.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142670#msg142670 date=1312654774]
I would much rather use a Coptic hymn authored by Fr. Shenouda with the same tune.
and i would much rather keep something that is older than what abouna Shenouda Maher has....and he himself would agree to that.
George (remenkimi) did a study on the hymn and for weird reason it disappeared from the face of the earth since it was published in Albair's book (or atleast part of it in arabic).....
Oujai qen `P[C
It doesn't seem like HG agrees that the hymn is heretical, only that it is confusing (I agree).
Why not fix the Arabic translation, if that's where the problem is? Saying that the hymn is heretical because the Arabic translation is problematic is like saying that the Bible is bad because there are so many bad (biased/unfaithful to the text) translations of it.
Very good point. However, do you understand Greek? Do you honestly understand the hymn when you are singing without referring either to Arabic or English?
The way the translation goes, the way the hymn is written in Greek creates confusion. This confusion creates the sense of heresy. No one knows how this hymn entered our Church. Liturgical Books as old as 50 years do not have it. The Greek Church does not use it. Do we know who authored it?
A recent attempt was made to have the Hymn translated by the Melekite Church. They said that the hymn does not make any sense in Greek and no Greek person would understand it.
My question is why would we use such a hymn that does not make any sense? This goes back to my argument about new Greel hymns that are being used in our Church with no reference as to their authenticity.
Just because a cantor sings a hymn does not make that hymn part of our heritage.
Just because a a hymn is found in a book does not make that hymn authentic (let alone if the hymn only appears in one cantor's book).
Just because a hymn has a nice melody, we adopt it without questioning.
As far as I can remember from Remenkimi's analysis before, he implies that the hymns is Sa'idic with mostly Greek syntax, along the lines of the first verse of the hymns tenen. It is not totally obscure in terms of understanding with basic knowledge of Greek and Coptic. That is my tuppence...
Oujai qen `P[C
Very good point. However, do you understand Greek? Do you honestly understand the hymn when you are singing without referring either to the Coptic or English?
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand why you would ask this. These are two separate things, though (the translation and the Greek original). From your reply, it seemed that the Arabic translation was (is) heretical, while the Greek original is just confusing. Confusion isn't the same as heresy, even though certainly all heretics are confused. :) I'm not sure that it does, though. From HG Bishop Youssef's reply, it seems possible to recognize that the hymn is confusing without deeming it heretical. I trust HG's opinion of the hymn is a correct one. Is it necessary to know that? I don't see how this information could impact this conversation unless it could be proven that the hymn was authored by a known heretic (e.g., Arius, Nestorius, etc) to advance their heresy. Why does this matter? Copts know that they aren't Greeks, and shouldn't have a complex about that. The Melkites aren't even in communion with the non-Chalcedonian churches, so I don't see why their opinion should affect the Coptic Orthodox Church. If the Coptic church has reservations about the hymn, that's another matter. It's not necessary to bring in what the Melkites (who, just like Copts, also aren't Greeks, and haven't spoken Greek natively for many centuries) think about anything. I'm not the right person to address such a question, but I would defer to Ophadece to answer it (as he has shown in his understanding that the hymn is not necessarily nonsense). For me, it is enough that HG Bishop Youssef does not think it is heretical, and explains the confusion around it so that it is understood in an orthodox fashion.
I don't really know--i would need to research a little (which i don't have time for).. but i KNOW that it's older than Fr. Shenouda's. i said he would agree to "keep" the hymn.....not necessarily approve or disapprove of the hymn. He preaches OB coptic but he doesn't attack those who do still use Behere coptic we use in churches now.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11998.msg142683#msg142683 date=1312671962]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142678#msg142678 date=1312669740]
Very good point. However, do you understand Greek? Do you honestly understand the hymn when you are singing without referring either to the Coptic or English?
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand why you would ask this.
I ask this because it is the translation is what gives the hymn its meaning. Otherwise, we would be like the pagans as the Bible says. So, if we cannot get an accurate translation of the hymn, then we are in essence saying something we do not know what it means and which is on the border of heresy as I explained. These are two separate things, though (the translation and the Greek original). From your reply, it seemed that the Arabic translation was (is) heretical, while the Greek original is just confusing. Confusion isn't the same as heresy, even though certainly all heretics are confused. :)
As I explained we cannot get an accurate translation of this hymn as its words were put together in a way that do not make sense. I'm not sure that it does, though. From HG Bishop Youssef's reply, it seems possible to recognize that the hymn is confusing without deeming it heretical. I trust HG's opinion of the hymn is a correct one.
Yes, I agree. But if a hymn is confusing and we cannot get proper translation because of its structure, then why bother. Is it necessary to know that? I don't see how this information could impact this conversation unless it could be proven that the hymn was authored by a known heretic (e.g., Arius, Nestorius, etc) to advance their heresy.
Yes it is essential to know how authentic a hymn is, otherwise we are not adhering to Orthodoxy that has discipleship and reception at its focus.
Now, do not get me wrong. Orthodoxy by no means stifles creativity. We can develop new hymns but we have to know its source and meaning.
O kirios is not present in any ritual book that I know of which is older than 50 years. This means that it was recently developed. Following, if we cannot know who authored it or how it entered our Churchand we cannot even get a good translation then we should not use it.
Why does this matter? Copts know that they aren't Greeks, and shouldn't have a complex about that. The Melkites aren't even in communion with the non-Chalcedonian churches, so I don't see why their opinion should affect the Coptic Orthodox Church. If the Coptic church has reservations about the hymn, that's another matter. It's not necessary to bring in what the Melkites (who, just like Copts, also aren't Greeks, and haven't spoken Greek natively for many centuries) think about anything.
It matters because even those who are well versed in Greek cannot develop good translation for the hymn, then why should we insist on using something that does not make sense.
Whether we agree dogmatically with the Melekites is beside the point. We have borrowed many hymns from them, so that is not the issue. Again, the issue is we cannot get an accurate translation for the hymn.
I'm not the right person to address such a question, but I would defer to Ophadece to answer it (as he has shown in his understanding that the hymn is not necessarily nonsense). For me, it is enough that HG Bishop Youssef does not think it is heretical, and explains the confusion around it so that it is understood in an orthodox fashion.
Very good as long as you are comfortable with it. However several churches now are not using the hymn and I hope the trend continues.
The hymn, its meaning and authenticity has nothing to do with the Old Bohairic/Greco Bohairic debate. Rather it has to do with what we pray in the Church.
it was not for our topic here but an example of what Abouna does in his dealings with what he believes and how it is for others. [quote author=imikhail link=topic=11998.msg142691#msg142691 date=1312678555] Ok Mina. I will hold you to coming back and report to us your findings.
i just said i have no time to search...but it is older than Abouna's.....is it not clear enough?!
In contrast, O Kirios has problems with the Greek and no exact translation can be deducted.
I was under the impression that ari'alin was composed in the 15th century when cantor Sarkis was present. I don't know if it was in 11th century manuscripts.
Secondly, and more importantly, why do you insist on translation being spot-on for us to understand hymns? As dzheremi says, the problem lies with the translation not with the hymn. Well, I am not implying that the syntax may be unorthodox and not quite straightforward, and Remenkimi as I believe ascribed this to the mixture of dialects of Sa'idic and Akhmimic (if my memory serves me right) in his analysis on top of the loose Greek. However, still with some basic understanding you can understand what the hymns says. It is the fault of cantor Farag, or any other author who first attempted to translate the hymn in being unscrupulous, but that doesn't detract from the hymn's clarity and credulousness. It is not a Greek hymn, why should we refer it to the Greeks to translate? Even ari'alin or <c anecty they aren't able to translate. But we know exactly what it means (for me partly yes because of translation as I am not an expert in Greek), but I don't need such a translation for O Kyrioc. It is relatively easy for me, and therefore, for anybody else to understand...
Oujai qen `P[C
The problem with O kirios is not only the Arabic or the English translation. The problem is with the original language it was written into which is Greek. Again, the hymn in its original form has linguistic problems: its structure, the way the words are arranged, the grammar, ....
So, these linguistic problems reflected on the translation ..
BTW this is not the only hymn in the Church that is like that .. we have several Greek hymns (roomy hymns) that have linguistic problems.
With this let me comment (in red) on your points you raised. The issue is not with how old a hymn is .. as I explained creativity does not stop at one age. Rather creativity stops when it produces unintelligible hymns or hymns that are against the Church's faith. O kirios falls in the former category and hinges on the second.
I addressed this above .. but let me reiterate. The hymn has linguistic problems in Greek that even the Greek people cannot understand it. Basically it is gibberish. I understand that this may be hard to accept but scholars like Fr. Shenouda confirm this.
I have personally did not see the study. Again, if the hymn has linguistic problems, as I have explained, why use it? Now we can visit the point of authenticity.
May be one would say, we lack the knowledge to understand the hymn (I certainly doubt that one of Fr. Shenouda's caliber cannot understand it nor the Greeks who are well versed in the Greek language as well as koine), we can research its authenticity.
The hymn does not show in any manuscript, standard ritual books, khedmat al shemmas books, ... except in one book, that I know of that is between 30 - 40 years old. In this case we need to question its authenticity based on its linguistic problems. Again the problem is not in the translation alone but the way it was composed, written, authored, .... There were several tries to find out how this hymn is written. I mentioned one when the Greek Church was consulted, another one at the Greek Institute (Ma'had Loghat Al Alson the Greek section). The other one by Coptic scholars like Fr. Shenouda.
I am not aware of any consultation from the Greek Church to translate aripsalin. Can you please elaborate as to why this was done?
This is great. I do not mean to put you on the spot .. but can you please provide grammatical analysis for the hymn?
Dear imikhail,
I was under the impression that ari'alin was composed in the 15th century when cantor Sarkis was present. I don't know if it was in 11th century manuscripts.
Secondly, and more importantly, why do you insist on translation being spot-on for us to understand hymns? As dzheremi says, the problem lies with the translation not with the hymn. Well, I am not implying that the syntax may be unorthodox and not quite straightforward, and Remenkimi as I believe ascribed this to the mixture of dialects of Sa'idic and Akhmimic (if my memory serves me right) in his analysis on top of the loose Greek. However, still with some basic understanding you can understand what the hymns says. It is the fault of cantor Farag, or any other author who first attempted to translate the hymn in being unscrupulous, but that doesn't detract from the hymn's clarity and credulousness. It is not a Greek hymn, why should we refer it to the Greeks to translate? Even ari'alin or <c anecty they aren't able to translate. But we know exactly what it means (for me partly yes because of translation as I am not an expert in Greek), but I don't need such a translation for O Kyrioc. It is relatively easy for me, and therefore, for anybody else to understand...
Oujai qen `P[C
I dono what brought Aripsalen here.....it was written by Fr. Sarkees--a copt who then lived in Jerusalem, learned Greek and wrote hymns in Greek and Coptic. I don't expect a Greek person to translate it cuz it's not purely greek.
Okay, but that didn't really answer my question: If it is necessary to know the author of a hymn before it can be accepted (i.e., as a means of authentication), do we know the authors of the many non-problematic hymns? Or does it only become necessary to know the author(s) when there is some sort of controversy regarding a hymn's orthodoxy? I could see that, but again, I'd like to know how the authorship of a given hymn is determined to begin with.
I sort of have answered this question in my reply to ophadece.
No, it is not necessary to know the author of a hymn before it can be accepted (i.e., as a means of authentication). When we have a hymn that is problematic then it would help to know the author to find out out how comfortable was the author of the hymn with the language, his Orthodoxy, his other writings (if any), his reputation within the Church, ....
Authorship of hymns is a big topic but I will be brief.
There are different categories or types of hymns:
Some of the hymns are very old like the Trisagion where it is used in different Churches. It is very difficult to know the authors of these types of hymns (though not always as we know by Tradition who authored them). Their Orthodoxy are not questioned as they have been in use for thousands of years and in different Church rites.
Some hymns are specific to a Church that have no comparable ones in other Churches. Some of these hymns are very old like Baketronos or very recent like new doxologies. The old ones we seldom have no problems as they are well documented in manuscripts. The new ones are the ones we need to be careful with.
Hope this helps
I agree with all what you said in fact (believe it or not). But the only problem I have, which is also against Fr. Shenouda's views, is that implying loose syntax or structure spoils the whole hymn. For me it doesn't. Prose, or poetry sometimes have extreme language usage not used (and when used it is inappropriate, or just totally not capable of being used) in day-to-day communication. I think a hymn like ictermagi can be considered in similar vein (if not even tenen or <c anecty). As I pointed earlier, even Greeks nowadays don't seem to understand what the latter is talking about (in terms of grammatical syntax at least - as per my understanding).
Why I say it makes perfect sense to me, is like when you compare it to pieces like this:
anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men (both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain
An example of someone called E.E. Cummings I got from the internet. I guess it perfectly makes sense to me if we use such poetic approaches for hymns in the church. In fact, many of our Christians songs (especially Arabic that I am familiar with) follow along those lines...
Oujai qen `P[C
Dear imikhail,
I agree with all what you said in fact (believe it or not). But the only problem I have, which is also against Fr. Shenouda's views, is that implying loose syntax or structure spoils the whole hymn. For me it doesn't. Prose, or poetry sometimes have extreme language usage not used (and when used it is inappropriate, or just totally not capable of being used) in day-to-day communication. I think a hymn like ictermagi can be considered in similar vein (if not even tenen or <c anecty). As I pointed earlier, even Greeks nowadays don't seem to understand what the latter is talking about (in terms of grammatical syntax at least - as per my understanding).
Why I say it makes perfect sense to me, is like when you compare it to pieces like this:
anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men (both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain
An example of someone called E.E. Cummings I got from the internet. I guess it perfectly makes sense to me if we use such poetic approaches for hymns in the church. In fact, many of our Christians songs (especially Arabic that I am familiar with) follow along those lines...
Oujai qen `P[C
What you are saying makes sense if we are talking about mere poems. Here we are talking about hymns which their purpose is delivering faith in a musical mold, praying to and praising God.
The other point I like to make is that there is a structure of how Coptic verses are structured regardless of the language used and keeping the meaning intact.
Thanks for you response. I am not entirely sure if I agree though.
Oujai qen `P[C