A priest in the area (who used to be our lead deacon), told me that there is a second verse of e-parthenos that is rare. He said he heard it before, and that the words are in Albair's Deacon Service 2nd Edition. I only have the first edition (black one).
Does anyone know where I can find it?
He said he thinks he heard Ibrahim's chorus chanting it.
If someone has that book and can type the text of it here, that would be amazing.
Thanks, God bless
By the way, preferably before the feast of Nativity lol
Comments
http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/2172
The audio is in Papal Liturgy of 2007 on coptichymns.net (Part 1)
http://www.coptichymns.net/modules.php?name=Coptic_Media&op=modload&file=index&p=Coptic Services and Liturgies/Papal Festal Liturgies/Feast of the Nativity 2007
Happy Nativity :D
It is the full liturgy but the hymn itself starts at 00:38:46.
Oujai qen `P[C
However, this is the actual hymn Eeparthenoc, pulled straight out of Albairs second edition hymns book.
Eeparthenoc ceemeron ton `uperoucion tikti ke `ee gheeto cpeeleon tw aprocitw procagi anggeli meta pimenwn dozologouci magi de meta acteroc `odiporouci di `eemac gar `egenneethee pedion neon `o pro ewnwn Theoc.
u = epsilin.
P.S --- Sorry, i copy and pasted the coptic, but it would keep appearing as english, so i just tried to fix it up to make it English-Coptic. Enjoy!
I'd venture saying that its inclusion was due to no one bothering singing genetlion which I presume like Ekhrestos anesty didn't enter our hymnody in the Erian effendi's era.. correct me if I'm wrong please...
Oujai
EPartanos is a Greek hymn entered the Coptic Church during 1850's.
Source please.
Ragheb Moftah's 1975 article only mentioned Ton syna and to lithos were supposedly introduced in 1850's. As far as I know, Moftah did not mention any other Greek hymns.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12757.msg149796#msg149796 date=1325471131]
EPartanos is a Greek hymn entered the Coptic Church during 1850's.
Source please.
Ragheb Moftah's 1975 article only mentioned Ton syna and to lithos were supposedly introduced in 1850's. As far as I know, Moftah did not mention any other Greek hymns.
The hymn is not in any edition of Tarteeb al by3aa manuscript dating up until 1910.
The hymn is a Byzantine one authored in the 6th century after the Chalcedon.
Part of the unification process with the Melkite Church in Egypt, Greek hymns were introduced by M. Takla with the agreement of Pope Kyrellos IV. (http://www.coptic.org/music/keraza75.htm).
Please refer back to our earlier discussion http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=11736.90
Ragheb Moftah's article did mention Eeparthenos. My mistake.
However...
We never came to that conclusion in the earlier discussion. That was your conclusion, not mine. Your conclusion is solely based on Moftah's article, not any official decree or manuscript from Pope Cyril IV. As you stated, there isn't a single liturgical manuscript or hymnal from the Coptic Church to suggest these hymns were used before the 20th century. Linguistic, historical and political evidence suggest a different conclusion. That's a fairly succinct abstract of the earlier discussion. I'm not going to rehash the entire argument again.
Just for clarification,
Ragheb Moftah's article did mention Eeparthenos. My mistake.
However...
Linguistic, historical and political evidence suggest a different conclusion.
As I stated the hymn is a Byzantine one composed by a Byzantine poet in the 6th century.
Why would Copts accept a Chalcedonian hymn other than to promote closeness with the Melkite Church which did take place under the auspice of Pope Cyril IV?
Another question to ponder, where did the 2nd verse come from? Coptic manuscript? Oral tradition? ... Just wait few years and we will end up with more than 20 verses of this particular hymn. The unfortunate thing is that we keep borrowing hymns from the Byzantrines because we lack the knowledge of our language to author Coptic hymns.
Any Greek hymn, or any hymn for that matter, composed outside the Church of Alexandria is not part of the Coptic Tradition. Period.
Please check this link for Albier's hymn and lesson it is totally different tone than e-parthenos.
http://media.copticheritage.org/classes/Nativity/E_Gennisie_So_Khriste.mp3
Hello All,
Please check this link for Albier's hymn and lesson it is totally different tone than e-parthenos.
http://media.copticheritage.org/classes/Nativity/E_Gennisie_So_Khriste.mp3
Hmmm Another Greek hymn!! Source?
Why would Copts accept a Chalcedonian hymn other than to promote closeness with the Melkite Church which did take place under the auspice of Pope Cyril IV?
2 reasons:
1. There's nothing Chalcedonian or hereteical about all these Greek hymns (not just the 3 that Ragheb Moftah mentioned). It's irrelevant who authored the hymns as long as they declare Orthodox theology and faith.
2. These hymns were already universally popular and accepted throughout the Church, like the Trisagion.
In addition, the supposed union of Pope Cyril IV does not have a lot of historical evidence. It's only mentioned in Coptic sources 30-50 years after Pope Cyril IV. All historical sources from that time do not mention a union.
Also, any attempted union after Pope Cyril IV, like the Non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian talks from the 1960s-1990s, did not exchange hymns, stories, customs, cultures, food, or anything else. It was and has always been a priority to reconcile the faith, not cultural tradition. Why would Pope Cyril's supposed union only succeed in a one-way exchange of hymns, while ignoring the problem of Chalcedon? Do you really think the Coptic Church in the 19th century was gullible enough to accept a union where hymns are introduced into the Coptic Church, while nothing changes for the "Melkite" or Greek Church of Alexandria? Irrelevant where Egennesis came from. Irrelevant if there is a problem today of introducing verses or borrowing hymns. You are speaking of linguistic and cultural purism for today. The main points we are examining is whether or not there was a union in 1861 and whether Pope Cyril IV instructed Fr Takla to incorporate these hymns. That's your conclusion and your opinion, not fact.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12757.msg149883#msg149883 date=1325617782]
Why would Copts accept a Chalcedonian hymn other than to promote closeness with the Melkite Church which did take place under the auspice of Pope Cyril IV? I think you are missing the point of this discussion. No one brought up the dogma or heresy. What we are discussing is the Coptic Tradition and whether the Roumi or Byzantine hymns were used prior to the Unification attempt.
How much evidence do you need to believe in a historical event?
Egyptians are always fond of the foreign to the extent they changed their language.
Your comment is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned, to the discussion of we borrowing hymns from others while we are incapable of composing them ourselves. If the hymn was widely accepted as you claim, it would have been mentioned in the Tarteeb Al Bay3a and by scolars like Ibn Kabar annd Ibn Sebaa3. Ajios was mentioned, but not this hymn.
That's your conclusion and your opinion, not fact.
So you really believe the Byzantine hymns belong to the Coptic Tradition? If you do, then I think we do not need to discus this matter any further. In such a case, you need to really study what does the word Roumi mean and why are certain hymns, like Eparthenos, are called Roumi.
Aren't Melkites Catholic? I do not think we were trying to get close to them but rather the Greek Orthodox.
Initially, Melkite meant Chalcedonian or "belonging to the Emperor/King". Eventually it became descriptive of Eastern Catholic. I put it in quotes in my previous post for that reason.
Oujai
How much evidence do you need to believe in a historical event?
More than one. And repeating the same evidence 1000 times doesn't count as more than one. As the saying goes, "there is more than one side to a story." So your answer is yes. Egyptians are gullible enough to accept anything foreign (according to you). No. Orthodox hymns belong to the Orthodox hymnological Church. The music and language, which are secondary, belong to the Coptic tradition. What is foreign is not the music or the text, it is this absolute linguistic, musical and cultural purism - which is antithetic to Egypt's long multicultural history.
By the way, Roumi doesn't exclusively mean Greek. It also used to describe the Eastern Catholics and many Lebanese people are call Roumi. It is a name not a description. Just like the Sahidic parts of the Kiahk Vespers are given the name "sahidic" but there is no Sahidic Coptic in them. While I would love to believe they are called Sahidic because they came from Upper Egypt, there is no proof of that either.
Correct me if I am wrong. You view is any hymn in the Orthodox Church is to belong to any "Orthodox" tradition. There is no point to debate how erroneous this view is. The music and the text is what gives a hymn its source and tradition. The text is composed to fit the tune.For example, the watos and the adam tunes fit the text and there is a difference between the number of syllables of the text of each sentence to fit each tune.
In addition, the tune is what gives a hymn its ethnic background. All the Roumi hymns follow the Byzantine way of chanting and that is why they are named Roumi.
Hypothetically, if the Greek Church borrows a Watos psali and kept the Watos tune, then it would be a Coptic hymn within the Greek Church not a Greek or Byzantine hymn. This is exactly what we did with Eparthenos and other Roumi hymns, we took the hymn and kept the tune and thus we cannot say that Eparthenos is a Coptic hymn. I did not say that. Roumi means that the music or the tune is Byzantine.
This is not entirely true.
"Eastern Catholics" means that those Catholics follow the Byzantine rite. Just as the Coptic Catholics follow the Coptic rite. I am afraid you are mixing things up as the Egyptian cliche goes: "betekhlet abu 'ersh 3ala abu 'ershhen" or mixing apples and oranges.
Sahidic in this instance mean that this certain section was used primarily in Upper Egypt. Just like the long Melismatic tune of Di Shoura is called sahidic because the tune itself was used primarily in Upper Egypt.
Imikhail, arebsalen is also given the title roumi.. would you shed a light on the difference? BTW I agree with your points above so don't take it as if I'm disputing..
Oujai
If you see the word "roumi", it is possible because of a mix-up since the psali has many Greek words. The name that Aribsaleen is given in the manuscripts is Psali Watos not Roumi.
Oujai
Yes imikhail,
I'd venture saying that its inclusion was due to no one bothering singing genetlion which I presume like Ekhrestos anesty didn't enter our hymnody in the Erian effendi's era.. correct me if I'm wrong please...
Oujai
Dear Ophadece,
This Ejenesis hymn is another borrowed Roumi hymn. It is a Troparion of Christmas chanted in tone 4 (Byzantine hymns have eight tones).
Again, just as Eparthenos, Tonsina and other hymns, this hymn is borrowed exactly as it is from the Byzantine rite.
Correct me if I am wrong. You view is any hymn in the Orthodox Church is to belong to any "Orthodox" tradition. There is no point to debate how erroneous this view is.
If it so erroneous, tell my why it has been that way for thousands of years up to the 20th century. Even the title Coptic Orthodox Church is new. It has been Orthodox Patriarchate in Alexandria or Oriental Patriarchate in Alexandria. This is an overly simplified view. What makes a hymn Orthodox or traditional is its meaning, theology and faith. The music is secondary. The source and tradition is what we are debating here so hymns can't be exclusively defined as traditional from their source. Fitting a sentence into a traditional Coptic tune doesn't make the hymn traditionally Coptic. If I put the words of Amazing Grace into the Adam tune, does it make it Coptic? Not all. The Roumi parts of the Kiahk Vespers are a very unique Coptic tune, not found in any other church. See Borsai's article. By that same logic, the 40-50%% of Greek loan words in Coptic would then be Greek, not Coptic. Are you saying any Greek loan word in Coptic can never be Coptic? If you wish to continue arguing that Greek hymns can't be Coptic, then why are they even in the Coptic rite? Maybe, just maybe, the majority of bishops, cantors and Coptic faithful believed these hymns are as much Coptic as they are Greek just like the majority of bishops, cantors and Coptic faithful believe that Greek loan words used in the Coptic language are as much Coptic as they are Greek (and maybe more Coptic than Greek)? That would be true if you compared the Coptic tune and the Byzantine tune. Most people would agree that they sound different. Additionally, most people would not agree with that definition to begin with. Great. Now prove that the Sahidic Kiahk Vesper parts came from Upper Egypt. Find one manuscript from Upper Egypt that had these parts and copies from Lower Egypt that incorporated them. Find one person who can verify that these parts came exclusively from Upper Egypt.
Additionally, listen at what Albair says about Tishori in his recording here. Moallem Mikhail knew both of them and taught both of them and it has nothing to do with one tune taught to Upper Egypt and one tune taught to Lower Egypt.
By the way, new psalmody books give the title "Psali Batos" for Aripsalin. Older books give the title "Roumi part for the Three Saintly Children".
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=12757.msg149909#msg149909 date=1325643965]
Correct me if I am wrong. You view is any hymn in the Orthodox Church is to belong to any "Orthodox" tradition. There is no point to debate how erroneous this view is. I am afraid I am lost with this argument or there is a disconnt between our thoughts. A hymn is Coptic because of its linguistic and hymnological aspects. If you do not agree, then there is no point of debating.
Eparthenos is not a Coptic hymn because its composer is not a Copt, its music is not Coptic, its text does not follow the Coptic rules of hymns. This is not an opinion but a fact. The title "Coptic Orthodox Church" is not a liturgical one so the argument here does not apply. We are talking about liturgical hymns not the title of the Church. Eparthenos does not belong to the Church of Alexandria because of the reasons I stated above. This has nothing to do with dogma, theology, faith, .. The only measure is the cultural measures of the Alexandrian hymns which are the composition of the hymn itself: linguistic and musical. You are missing the point Reminkimi. Even when Greek words are used within a hymn, they are used in the same way a Coptic word would be used; meaning the author uses the same poetic rules. As an example, Aribsaleen is Watos because it follows the Watos rules of composition, though it contains many Greek words. Why? Because while using Greek words, the author kept the Watos rules intact. Again, we are not talking about the Orthodoxy of a hymn, which has to do with the faith, dogma, ... We talking about whether a hymn is Coptic given its music and language as I discussed above.
At the end, if you want to call Eparthenos a Coptic hymn just because it belongs to the Orthodox Church, then this is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I am afraid this is a naive opinion and not a scholarly one.
I am glad that the new books are following the manuscripts. We need to return back to our authentic sources.