In my opinion, If people forgot their heritage, they will be lost. Coptic is part of our heritage, we are not Arabs, we are not Greeks, we are not Romans, .. we are Copts. Language happens to be one of the elements that shape a people's history and heritage.
This is why Copts should care about their own language and be proud that Christ Himself spoke it.
I, for one, do not have aggressive anti-Coptic attitude. I have anti-intelligent or anti-scholarly attitude about the Coptic language. I have already shown that our linguistic history has used Greek from Ancient Egypt, through the Roman Empire until today. To say Greek hymns are foreign and don't belong to our heritage, without providing any manuscript, archaeological, or scholarly evidence is unintelligent. To say OB is our heritage, without defining what OB is, or showing the different pronunciation patterns within OB, is unintelligible. Saying GB is Greek, or started by the Greeks, without showing any evidence is unintelligent. Saying God speaks one language is down right stupid and beyond unintelligent. Saying Jesus spoke Coptic, without any manuscript, archaeological or historical evidence is also stupid and unintelligent.
Being proud of our Coptic language does not give us license to make unintelligent claims.
Yes there should be a middle ground. The middle ground, in my opinion, should be a continuation of what has been happening: Coptic with Greek bilingualism. Since GB has become the de facto pronunciation within the religious domain, even though it has a dubious history, it must remain the pronunciation until EVERYBODY chooses to use OB. Until then, the least we should do is be intelligent about what Coptic is not what it should be or what a minority claims it is without evidence.
To say Greek hymns are foreign and don't belong to our heritage, without providing any manuscript, archaeological, or scholarly evidence is unintelligent.
Dear Remenkimi
It is a fact that some of the Greek hymns that we have were borrowed from the Greek Church. I will be very specific:
Tonsina, Tolitos, Evfrenestho, Epartanos, Toc coc emnologhos, and ohers.
The contention is these are modern hymns and not part of our heritage. If we need to come up with new hymns why not produce them ourselves in Coptic. Why do we go to other Churches and borrow their hymns. Do we lack the artistic skills?
Now do you dispute the fact that these hymns were borrowed?
To say OB is our heritage, without defining what OB is, or showing the different pronunciation patterns within OB, is unintelligible.
We know what OB is. OB is the true authentic pronunciation that is being reserved in our manuscripts before Aryan Afendi invented the new pronunciation of the Coptic letters.
Saying Jesus spoke Coptic, without any manuscript, archaeological or historical evidence is also stupid and unintelligent.
Really?
You need manuscript, archaeological or historical evidence to prove that a child growing up would pick up the language of the residents he is living with.
Since GB has become the de facto pronunciation within the religious domain, even though it has a dubious history, it must remain the pronunciation until EVERYBODY chooses to use OB. Until then, the least we should do is be intelligent about what Coptic is not what it should be or what a minority claims it is without evidence.
I have no idea why are you bringing up the pronunciation issue.
We are discussing borrowed Greek hymns.
Coptic is a different language than Greek and thus hymns need to be produced in Coptic.
The contention is these are modern hymns and not part of our heritage. If we need to come up with new hymns why not produce them ourselves in Coptic. Why do we go to other Churches and borrow their hymns. Do we lack the artistic skills?
Now do you dispute the fact that these hymns were borrowed?
Unless you can find a manuscript that says Bishop so and so added these Greek hymns, then it is only speculative evidence you have. Could it not be just as possible that Copts sang To lithos, Tonsynanarkhon, evfrensentho way before the 18th century union with the Greek Church? Could it not be possible that hymns, like Omonogenes, were sung in Greece, Constantinople, Syria, Egypt, Jerusalem, grew in a tradition of their own without an abrupt introduction. Should we believe that one person artificially added Omonogenis to all of these churches? Or could it be possible that since the entire Christian world was bilingual, and these popular hymns were sung throughout history and only were only introduced into the Coptic rite in the 18th century?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140619#msg140619 date=1309526338] In my opinion, If people forgot their heritage, they will be lost. Coptic is part of our heritage, we are not Arabs, we are not Greeks, we are not Romans, .. we are Copts. Language happens to be one of the elements that shape a people's history and heritage.
This is why Copts should care about their own language and be proud that Christ Himself spoke it.
It is one thing to be proud. It is quite another to have a blind fanaticism for a dead language.
Excerpt from Extinct Language - Wikipedia
Normally the transition from a dead to an extinct language occurs when a language undergoes language death while being directly replaced by a different one. For example, Native American languages were replaced by English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish as a result of colonization. The Coptic language, replaced by Arabic in its native Egypt, was once thought to be extinct.
Language extinction may also occur when a language evolves into a new language or family of languages. An example of this was Old English, a forerunner of Modern English.
By contrast to an extinct language which no longer has any speakers, a dead language may remain in use for scientific, legal, or ecclesiastical functions. Old Church Slavonic, Avestan, Coptic, Biblical Hebrew, Ge'ez, Latin, and Sanskrit are among the many dead languages used as sacred languages.
In the end, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise.' (Galatians 3:28)
The contention is these are modern hymns and not part of our heritage. If we need to come up with new hymns why not produce them ourselves in Coptic. Why do we go to other Churches and borrow their hymns. Do we lack the artistic skills?
Now do you dispute the fact that these hymns were borrowed?
Unless you can find a manuscript that says Bishop so and so added these Greek hymns, then it is only speculative evidence you have. Could it not be just as possible that Copts sang To lithos, Tonsynanarkhon, evfrensentho way before the 18th century union with the Greek Church? Could it not be possible that hymns, like Omonogenes, were sung in Greece, Constantinople, Syria, Egypt, Jerusalem, grew in a tradition of their own without an abrupt introduction. Should we believe that one person artificially added Omonogenis to all of these churches? Or could it be possible that since the entire Christian world was bilingual, and these popular hymns were sung throughout history and only were only introduced into the Coptic rite in the 18th century?
To say OB is our heritage, without defining what OB is, or showing the different pronunciation patterns within OB, is unintelligible.
We know what OB is. OB is the true authentic pronunciation that is being reserved in our manuscripts before Aryan Afendi invented the new pronunciation of the Coptic letters.
Really? How do you say Vnou]? There are manuscripts before Eryan Moftah that say Ebnoda, some say Ebnote, some say Abnoda, some say Abnode. Are you sure you know what OB is?
What about ev,y? We've discussed this before. You maintain it's euke, but the same root word found in oueu,y is pronounced owaw shee.
We can go on, but I think you get the point. OB, as believed it is spoken, is only one possible reconstruction. And there is some evidence that this reconstruction was different in earlier centuries.
By definition OB is the bohairic dialect. Bohairic manuscripts have it bnoudi. When Aryan efendi changed the sound "di" of the letter tau, it became nouti instead of noudi.
There are manuscripts before Eryan Moftah that say Ebnoda, some say Ebnote, some say Abnoda, some say Abnode.
I need your guidance on this. Which manuscripts show it Abnouda, ebnoda, ...?
Unless you can find a manuscript that says Bishop so and so added these Greek hymns, then it is only speculative evidence you have.
Lack of evidence is also a proof.
When we have manuscripts in our hands that date back to the 11 the century that do not mention these hymns, and then all of a sudden they appear in the 19th century, we know something is fishy :)
Could it not be possible that hymns, like Omonogenes, were sung in Greece, Constantinople, Syria, Egypt, Jerusalem, grew in a tradition of their own without an abrupt introduction. Should we believe that one person artificially added Omonogenis to all of these churches? Or could it be possible that since the entire Christian world was bilingual, and these popular hymns were sung throughout history and only were only introduced into the Coptic rite in the 18th century?
Dear Reminkimi,
I believe you are mixing things up. Comparing different rites, certain hymns are standard in all the Traditional Churches, albeit minor variations. These hymns are VERY old. Among these hymns are Agios, the Cherubimic praise, the Lord's prayer, ...
However, there are hymns that are specific to each Church. These are the ones that we are discussing here.
No it could not be possible. Because these hymns did not appear in any manuscripts prior to 1850.
We don't have any manuscripts before 1950's for atiaparthenos or Apekran. Other than some liturgy hymns, the Bible and the Psalmody, we don't have any references prior to 1850. Should we remove all hymns without manuscript reference to include these hymns? George
I believe you are mixing things up. Comparing different rites, certain hymns are standard in all the Traditional Churches, albeit minor variations. These hymns are VERY old. Among these hymns are Agios, the Cherubimic praise, the Lord's prayer, ...
However, there are hymns that are specific to each Church. These are the ones that we are discussing here.
It's the opposite. Tou dipno is a 6th century hymn. Eiparthenos was written by Romans in the 6th century. All the other Greek hymns are very old in the Greek Church, including To litho, ton synanarkhon, anixo, en iordano, enti genesis, etc. Hymns that are specific to the Coptic church are Ke eperto, Meghalo, Gennethlion, the glorification hymns.
Other than some liturgy hymns, the Bible and the Psalmody, we don't have any references prior to 1850. Should we remove all hymns without manuscript reference to include these hymns?
Again you are confusing the issue of modern Greek hymns with removing anything that do not have references.
Atai bartanos and abakran are Coptic hymns, thus do not fall into our discussion of modern Greek hymns.
It's the opposite. Tou dipno is a 6th century hymn. Eiparthenos was written by Romans in the 6th century. All the other Greek hymns are very old in the Greek Church, including To litho, ton synanarkhon, anixo, en iordano, enti genesis, etc. Hymns that are specific to the Coptic church are Ke eperto, Meghalo, Gennethlion, the glorification hymns.
Again you are confusing the issues. I will try to be more clear.
Hymns that are shared among all Churches:
This type of hymns would be in our manuscripts, very old, and would be found in other Church's rites. There is no disagreement about this type of hymns and I really do not care which language they are in because they witness to the unity of the Church and the source of liturgical rites.
Typically these hymns were written before the Schism and that is why they are common among the Traditional Churches.
Hymns that fall into this category: Omonojanees, Ajios, the Cherubimic praise
Hymns that are not shared among the Churches:
These are spicific to each Church and were developed as part of the liturgical prayers evolution taking place in every Church. This type of hymns is where we are having the issue. They are not part of the Coptic heritage neither liturgically nor artistically. The were recently introduced in our Church as part of the unification attempt with the Greek Church in the 19th century.
Hymns that fall into this category are Tonsina, Tolitos, .... Their music is even Byzantine in nature as I have pointed out.
Tou dipno is a 6th century hymn. Eiparthenos was written by Romans in the 6th century. All the other Greek hymns are very old in the Greek Church, including To litho, ton synanarkhon, anixo, en iordano, enti genesis, etc.
Exactly. These hymns belong to the Greek Church and they should stay that way. They were written after the schism and were not part of our heritage. Also, their music is Roomi rather than Coptic
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140646#msg140646 date=1309547666] Again you are confusing the issue of modern Greek hymns with removing anything that do not have references. Atai bartanos and abakran are Coptic hymns, thus do not fall into our discussion of modern Greek hymns.
Your criteria for removing Ton synarkhon is that they were foreign and there is no reference before 1850. I'm telling you that Greek was integral to Egypt for thousands of years. We can't consider the presence of Greek as foreign. I am also tell you that there is plenty of references to these Greek hymns prior to 1850 in the Greek, Syrian, Russian churches. And if lack of reference is your criteria for removing hymns then Coptic hymns with no references before 1850 should be removed too. You can't have it both ways. Either your criteria is to remove all hymns without references, or keep them. You can't pick and choose which one stay and which ones go.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140649#msg140649 date=1309548417] Hymns that are shared among all Churches:
This type of hymns would be in our manuscripts, very old, and would be found in other Church's rites. There is no disagreement about this type of hymns and I really do not care which language they are in because they witness to the unity of the Church and the source of liturgical rites. Ton synanarkhon, To litho and and the rest of these Greek hymns we are talking about fall into this category since they are witnessed in all Apostolic Churches: Greek, Syrian, Russian, etc.
Typically these hymns were written before the Schism and that is why they are common among the Traditional Churches.
Give me one reference to any hymn written before the schism. Only the Agbeya, Trisagion and the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) are before the schism. Omonogenis is controversial. Some say it was written by St Athanasius, some say by St Severus. If it was St. Severus then it's after the schism. The Chalcedonians say it was Emperor Justinian who wrote it. Other than these hymns, give me a reference to any Coptic hymn that is written before the schism.
Exactly. These hymns belong to the Greek Church and they should stay that way.
No they don't. They belong to the universal, catholic Church, since we find them in all churches. And even if they are Greek but found in the Coptic church, why should we get rid of them? They are not foreign. They are Coptic. Period.
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=11736.msg140654#msg140654 date=1309552213] Dear Cephas, According to scientists Coptic language is not a dead language. Oujai
Ophadecee, Cephas gave us a reference. I know people don't like Wikipedia as a reference. So here's another one: Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Go to page 150 which talks about Language decline.
Coptic is not used in day to day conversation, nor is there a community of Coptic speakers who can communicate proficiently in Coptic and it was replaced by Arabic in Egypt since the 12th century. Until this changes, it is considered dead. If you have references to argue otherwise, please share them.
I am also tell you that there is plenty of references to these Greek hymns prior to 1850 in the Greek, Syrian, Russian churches. And if lack of reference is your criteria for removing hymns then Coptic hymns with no references before 1850 should be removed too.
You are still not getting the to the issue of borrowed hymns. The criteria I am using is BORROWED HYMNS. I was using the manuscripts to prove to you that these were introduced hymns.
I am not against producing hymns in Coptic. We as Copta have been producing hymns for thousands of years. Why all of a sudden we borrow hymns? The reason was an incident in history.
Hymns should be developed by Copts rather than being borrowed.
Ton synanarkhon, To litho and and the rest of these Greek hymns we are talking about fall into this category since they are witnessed in all Apostolic Churches: Greek, Syrian, Russian, etc.
If this is true, why were they not part of the Coptic Church prior to the Unification movement in the 19th century?
Give me one reference to any hymn written before the schism. Only the Agbeya, Trisagion and the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) are before the schism. Omonogenis is controversial. Some say it was written by St Athanasius, some say by St Severus. If it was St. Severus then it's after the schism. The Chalcedonians say it was Emperor Justinian who wrote it. Other than these hymns, give me a reference to any Coptic hymn that is written before the schism.
The problem is with hymns introduced recently in the Coptic Church as part of the unification movement in the 19th century.
WE ARE NOT IN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE HYMNS BEFORE THE SCHISM, RATHER AFTER IT.
Comments
This is why Copts should care about their own language and be proud that Christ Himself spoke it.
Being proud of our Coptic language does not give us license to make unintelligent claims.
Yes there should be a middle ground. The middle ground, in my opinion, should be a continuation of what has been happening: Coptic with Greek bilingualism. Since GB has become the de facto pronunciation within the religious domain, even though it has a dubious history, it must remain the pronunciation until EVERYBODY chooses to use OB. Until then, the least we should do is be intelligent about what Coptic is not what it should be or what a minority claims it is without evidence.
It is a fact that some of the Greek hymns that we have were borrowed from the Greek Church. I will be very specific:
Tonsina, Tolitos, Evfrenestho, Epartanos, Toc coc emnologhos, and ohers.
The contention is these are modern hymns and not part of our heritage. If we need to come up with new hymns why not produce them ourselves in Coptic. Why do we go to other Churches and borrow their hymns. Do we lack the artistic skills?
Now do you dispute the fact that these hymns were borrowed?
Who else mentioned it?
You need manuscript, archaeological or historical evidence to prove that a child growing up would pick up the language of the residents he is living with.
Look at the children in your own church.
We are discussing borrowed Greek hymns.
Coptic is a different language than Greek and thus hymns need to be produced in Coptic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=11736.msg140619#msg140619 date=1309526338]
In my opinion, If people forgot their heritage, they will be lost. Coptic is part of our heritage, we are not Arabs, we are not Greeks, we are not Romans, .. we are Copts. Language happens to be one of the elements that shape a people's history and heritage.
This is why Copts should care about their own language and be proud that Christ Himself spoke it.
It is one thing to be proud. It is quite another to have a blind fanaticism for a dead language.
Excerpt from Extinct Language - Wikipedia Source
In the end, 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise.' (Galatians 3:28)
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=11736.msg140629#msg140629 date=1309537722] Unless you can find a manuscript that says Bishop so and so added these Greek hymns, then it is only speculative evidence you have. Could it not be just as possible that Copts sang To lithos, Tonsynanarkhon, evfrensentho way before the 18th century union with the Greek Church? Could it not be possible that hymns, like Omonogenes, were sung in Greece, Constantinople, Syria, Egypt, Jerusalem, grew in a tradition of their own without an abrupt introduction. Should we believe that one person artificially added Omonogenis to all of these churches? Or could it be possible that since the entire Christian world was bilingual, and these popular hymns were sung throughout history and only were only introduced into the Coptic rite in the 18th century?
Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Really? How do you say Vnou]? There are manuscripts before Eryan Moftah that say Ebnoda, some say Ebnote, some say Abnoda, some say Abnode. Are you sure you know what OB is?
What about ev,y? We've discussed this before. You maintain it's euke, but the same root word found in oueu,y is pronounced owaw shee.
We can go on, but I think you get the point. OB, as believed it is spoken, is only one possible reconstruction. And there is some evidence that this reconstruction was different in earlier centuries.
I am sorry I cannot make the rest of your message because the Coptic letters do not display.
When we have manuscripts in our hands that date back to the 11 the century that do not mention these hymns, and then all of a sudden they appear in the 19th century, we know something is fishy :)
I believe you are mixing things up. Comparing different rites, certain hymns are standard in all the Traditional Churches, albeit minor variations. These hymns are VERY old. Among these hymns are Agios, the Cherubimic praise, the Lord's prayer, ...
However, there are hymns that are specific to each Church. These are the ones that we are discussing here.
George
Dear Reminkimi,
I believe you are mixing things up. Comparing different rites, certain hymns are standard in all the Traditional Churches, albeit minor variations. These hymns are VERY old. Among these hymns are Agios, the Cherubimic praise, the Lord's prayer, ...
However, there are hymns that are specific to each Church. These are the ones that we are discussing here.
It's the opposite. Tou dipno is a 6th century hymn. Eiparthenos was written by Romans in the 6th century. All the other Greek hymns are very old in the Greek Church, including To litho, ton synanarkhon, anixo, en iordano, enti genesis, etc. Hymns that are specific to the Coptic church are Ke eperto, Meghalo, Gennethlion, the glorification hymns.
Atai bartanos and abakran are Coptic hymns, thus do not fall into our discussion of modern Greek hymns.
Hymns that are shared among all Churches:
This type of hymns would be in our manuscripts, very old, and would be found in other Church's rites. There is no disagreement about this type of hymns and I really do not care which language they are in because they witness to the unity of the Church and the source of liturgical rites.
Typically these hymns were written before the Schism and that is why they are common among the Traditional Churches.
Hymns that fall into this category: Omonojanees, Ajios, the Cherubimic praise
Hymns that are not shared among the Churches:
These are spicific to each Church and were developed as part of the liturgical prayers evolution taking place in every Church. This type of hymns is where we are having the issue. They are not part of the Coptic heritage neither liturgically nor artistically. The were recently introduced in our Church as part of the unification attempt with the Greek Church in the 19th century.
Hymns that fall into this category are Tonsina, Tolitos, .... Their music is even Byzantine in nature as I have pointed out. Exactly. These hymns belong to the Greek Church and they should stay that way. They were written after the schism and were not part of our heritage. Also, their music is Roomi rather than Coptic
According to scientists Coptic language is not a dead language.
Oujai
Again you are confusing the issue of modern Greek hymns with removing anything that do not have references.
Atai bartanos and abakran are Coptic hymns, thus do not fall into our discussion of modern Greek hymns.
Your criteria for removing Ton synarkhon is that they were foreign and there is no reference before 1850. I'm telling you that Greek was integral to Egypt for thousands of years. We can't consider the presence of Greek as foreign. I am also tell you that there is plenty of references to these Greek hymns prior to 1850 in the Greek, Syrian, Russian churches. And if lack of reference is your criteria for removing hymns then Coptic hymns with no references before 1850 should be removed too. You can't have it both ways. Either your criteria is to remove all hymns without references, or keep them. You can't pick and choose which one stay and which ones go.
Hymns that are shared among all Churches:
This type of hymns would be in our manuscripts, very old, and would be found in other Church's rites. There is no disagreement about this type of hymns and I really do not care which language they are in because they witness to the unity of the Church and the source of liturgical rites.
Ton synanarkhon, To litho and and the rest of these Greek hymns we are talking about fall into this category since they are witnessed in all Apostolic Churches: Greek, Syrian, Russian, etc. Give me one reference to any hymn written before the schism. Only the Agbeya, Trisagion and the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) are before the schism. Omonogenis is controversial. Some say it was written by St Athanasius, some say by St Severus. If it was St. Severus then it's after the schism. The Chalcedonians say it was Emperor Justinian who wrote it. Other than these hymns, give me a reference to any Coptic hymn that is written before the schism. No they don't. They belong to the universal, catholic Church, since we find them in all churches. And even if they are Greek but found in the Coptic church, why should we get rid of them? They are not foreign. They are Coptic. Period.
According to the definition of a 'dead language', Coptic is a dead language. If you can't accept that, there really isn't anything I can do about it.
Dear Cephas,
According to scientists Coptic language is not a dead language.
Oujai
Ophadecee,
Cephas gave us a reference. I know people don't like Wikipedia as a reference. So here's another one: Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Go to page 150 which talks about Language decline.
Coptic is not used in day to day conversation, nor is there a community of Coptic speakers who can communicate proficiently in Coptic and it was replaced by Arabic in Egypt since the 12th century. Until this changes, it is considered dead. If you have references to argue otherwise, please share them.
Having Greek in Egypt does not mean that we borrow hymns from other Churches.
I am not against producing hymns in Coptic. We as Copta have been producing hymns for thousands of years. Why all of a sudden we borrow hymns? The reason was an incident in history.
Hymns should be developed by Copts rather than being borrowed.
WE ARE NOT IN DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE HYMNS BEFORE THE SCHISM, RATHER AFTER IT.