Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
peChristos aftonf!
Christos anesti!
Christ is risen! may we all live with Him :)
Christ is risen! may we all live with Him :)
Comments
He is risen indeed!
Alleluia!
(We had a wonderful Paschal liturgy, at the end of a moving Holy Week. May the blessing of this season be with all who post here).
Oujai
Paschal greetings to everyone here on this most wondrous day. Let us all live in the hope of rising with Him.
I hope you all enjoy this wonderful day! :)
;D
I have a language question: is it not better to say Christ has risen rather than is
OUjai
That might be more accurate because it was a past event. But this event was so powerful it transcends time. . .
I guess it depends how one uses 'is risen.' If referring to the action it might be more proper to speak in the past. If one uses it as a description - meaning Christ is above death and is Life - then it is perfectly fine. If by 'is risen' we mean that He literally is risen today again that is fine.
So maybe some clarity on what the church means when we say 'Christ is risen'
No dear Unworthy1. My issue is with the usage of the indirect statement. I don't think that's proper, but would like to hear people's views.
Oujai
Are you saying - Christ is risen = indirect statement, Christ has risen = direct statement ?
If so, what is the significant difference?
Yes Unworthy1 that's exactly what I mean. The difference is that is risen implies no action taken by Christ Himself, a passive statement if you will, which is certainly not the case in the Christian faith.
Oujai
khen oo methmy aftonf!!!
The passive form would be 'Christ has been raised from the dead'.
It makes no theological sense to say 'Christ has risen', though of course it is not language that cannot be used because there was a time when Christ rose from the dead, but this misses the theological content of the phrase.
To say that Christ is risen describes the state in which He is now eternally placed and to which we may attain if we are united with Him in baptism, and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with faith. To say that Christ has risen is to speak only of the temporal events which he underwent for our salvation, but as though they had no lasting and eternal substance.
The word 'risen', or the phrase 'risen from the dead' is describing a state not simply an action. In a faint form we can see the difference if we consider these sentences.
'Father Peter has woken up', just lets people know that I was asleep and now, as expected, I have woken up.
'Father Peter is awake', says something else. Of course it must also mean that I was asleep and have now woken up, but it describes the state I am now in, and will continue to be in.
Indeed we can consider the force which this latter sentence might have if I was someone who had been in a coma for many years. Those who loved me would excitedly say, 'Father Peter is awake'. It would not mean that I had opened my eyes from usual sleep, but that I had passed from one state to a new state, and that I remained in this new state.
The phrase 'is risen' is not a passive form, but the present progressive form. It describes an action or state which is still taking place. Christ IS risen. This is not a state that has any end. Always, in the present moment, He IS RISEN.
The phrase 'has risen' is the present perfect form. It describes something which took place and has a present result, but the emphasis is on the completed result.
Of course Christ, our Lord, has risen, but he HAS risen so that always He IS risen. The event leads to the state.
The Church calls us to reflect on this state of being into which our Lord has entered in His humanity, and it is this state, not the simple and historic act, which He invites us to share in through union with Him. We will not simply be raised from death as a simple act, but we have already entered into Risen life as a state of being which will be always experienced as progress without end.
Christ IS risen!
Father Peter
To say that Christ is risen describes the state in which He is now eternally placed and to which we may attain if we are united with Him in baptism, and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit with faith.
Fr. Peter, could you clarify? If God is unchanging, how can we say it is a state that He is now eternally placed? It all seems a bit abstract to me if we are not taking Christ's resurrection to be a specific event.
I of course had to look at it with my pseudo-scientist hat on. I even had a whole big reply with examples all typed up...then I found this.
My nomination for "non-Biblical, non-Patristic quote of the season" goes to...
"No one is raising Christ; he is rising all by himself."
Likewise in His humanity He has experienced a change from mortality to immortality. And from death to life.
So it is not problematic at all to speak of our Lord experiencing a change of state since He is perfectly human of the same essence as we are, and therefore liable to a change of state.
I can't see that I did not say that the resurrection was an event, but we are talking about the festal greeting - Christ IS risen. This is expressing theology not just reporting an event. And theologically we understand that Christ IS risen, not has risen.
Father Peter
Oujai
ALHSOC ANECTH
May the Lord's Light shine in our lives.
GBU
Ornhyal Haroutunoon Krisdosee.
(Armenian)
Christ is Risen and Revealed.
Blessed is the Resurrection of Christ.
The phrase 'is risen' is not a passive form, but the present progressive form. It describes an action or state which is still taking place. Christ IS risen. This is not a state that has any end. Always, in the present moment, He IS RISEN.
The phrase 'has risen' is the present perfect form. It describes something which took place and has a present result, but the emphasis is on the completed result.
Fr Peter, thank you for that clarification. I have a follow up question. You described the theological explanation of the phrase "Christ is Risen". But maybe you or dzheremi can clarify something from the linguistic point of view.
I believe the confusion comes from the fact that Coptic does not have a progressive present verb tense. The Greek phrase <rictoc anecty uses the 3rd person singular aorist verb form. The aorist verb is defined as "a verb tense in some languages ... expressing action (especially past action) without indicating its completion or continuation". In other words, Christ is risen is not limited to an action in the past. And as you indicated, it can also include the present progressive tense.
In Coptic, the phrase Pi,rictoc aftwnf `ebolqen nye;mwout use the verb aftwnf which is the simple past tense (sometimes called the preterite present tense). In some grammarian textbooks, it is called "the perfect", some textbooks it is called non-durative perfect. There is no present progressive form in Coptic. There is a past continuous form. It would be naftwnf but it would mean Christ has risen and is still rising. This is not theological correct. There is a habitual past tense. It would be nesaftwnf. There is no good English equivalent. It would mean Christ rose habitually in the past. A good English example would be "Fr. Peter saw his dentist Dr George". It doesn't describe one specific past event, but multiple habitual times Fr Peter saw his dentist. Again this is theologically awkward. There is also the plurperfect or the past perfect tense. This would be neaftwnf which would be Christ had risen. It describes an action completed in the past before another action starts. My guess is that the Coptic present progressive tense is identical to the present perfect tense `ftwnf. But I can't find any references in any grammar textbooks or in the Coptic Bible.
In Arabic, "Al masseh kama" (I believe) is the present progressive, while "al masseh kad kama" is the perfect present. Yet, I've heard most church say "al masseh kad kama" not the "al masseh kama". Maybe someone more proficient in Arabic can verify this. It is interesting that a simple phrase l"Christ is Risen" has such deep meaning (and corresponding confusion). I thought Christ is risen was the passive form also. I'd like to hear from others.
George
this means (as far as i can tell) that Christ rose (past tense but not necessarily completed past tense), which is the nearest arabic to the english 'is risen' (here 'risen' is used as an adjective, not a verb).
but, although He is and always will be in the state of being resurrected, He also rose specifically at a specific point in time when he overcame death and rose out of the place of the dead. thus it is also correct to say 'He has risen' and also 'He rose'.
they are, in fact all correct. it depends whether you are trying to emphasize the point that there was one point in time when death was defeated, or whether you are trying to emphasize the point that the resurrection is a continual state of being.
so, generally we say in english 'He has risen' to empasize that this glorious resurrection is also true for us who are alive today :)
The use of the phrase depends on what is being considered. The Coptic does seem different, in that it translates as 'he rose', while all the other translations from Greek say 'is risen', or 'has risen'.
Nevetheless the paschal greeting seems to me to be Christ is risen! Which is not passive at all. And ancient Christian forms such as, 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again' seem to me to stress the present sense of the resurrection.
I have never heard anyone express the Paschal greeting as other than, Christ is risen! This is different to to the Coptic which sounds like a a simple past tense, Christ rose. But again, it is the sense and context which matter since all have value and meaning.
Father Peter
Personally, I do not see a difference between "Christ is risen" and "Christ arose", may be Fr. Peter can weigh on this.
Theologically, when we speak about events attributed to the flesh, that is under time, we use the past tense as is evident in all the Coptic responses. But when we are speaking of things pertaining to the Divinity, we speak in the present form. This is very clear in the Coptic translations when the habitual verb is used.
One describes an ongoing state which began at some time in the past, but the focus is on the continuing state.
The other describes an event or change which took place at some time in the past and focuses on that past event from the position of the present.
In the first case there is no sense that Christ could die again, but in the second case it could be that he arose, but has since died.
If we say, 'Lazarus is risen', it has a different sense to, 'Lazarus rose'. Indeed the first one could only be said before he finally died as an old man, it requires that Lazarus still be risen. While the second one could be said generation after he had rose from death and then died later as an old man. It is still true, he rose, but it does not preclude his later death. The first form insists that not only did he rise but he is still risen.
Indeed 'Christ is risen!' has the sense of 'Christ is (still) risen!'.
'Christ rose' has the sense that this took place at some point but the condition might have changed and he might not be risen now.
Father Peter
I usually use Christ is risen with English speaking people as it is the same greeting in the Gospels. I would have preferred this in the English translations of the Coptic responses and in fact I used it till this year because of the new service books that came out with literal translations of the Coptic past tense.
In any case I think this is trivial given that we understand what we are talking about.
Thanks.
The Coptic bikhristos afdonf would still mean Christ is risen.
Personally, I do not see a difference between "Christ is risen" and "Christ arose", may be Fr. Peter can weigh on this.
Theologically, when we speak about events attributed to the flesh, that is under time, we use the past tense as is evident in all the Coptic responses. But when we are speaking of things pertaining to the Divinity, we speak in the present form. This is very clear in the Coptic translations when the habitual verb is used.
The habitual past tense is nesaftwnf. The habitual present tense is saftwnf. It is clear that the Coptic uses the simple past. I think this occured because there is no present progressive. And if the present tense is used (and I think this is the closest thing to the present progressive tense), then Pi,rictoc `ftwnf would mean Christ is rising. One cannot make the distinction between the simple present and the present progressive so the Copts used the past tense. I think idiomatically, Copts understood this to be the present progressive tense, and not the simple past. (as mabsoota described)
Regarding of using the present form for things pertaining to the Divinity, I disagree. The confession in the Liturgy of St Basil says, `mpe tefme;nou] vwrj `ntefmetrwmi (His divinity never parted from his humanity). This is clearly the past tense. Just thought I clear that up.
It is interesting to see how the Christian message is transmitted in various languages that present their own linguistic limitations and advantages.
Is it known if the earlier forms of the Egyptian language had a greater range of verb tenses? Is the Coptic language, as it has been preserved, a simple language compared to the forms which would have been used formally before Greek became the urban/elite language?
Since the Greek language does seem, in my limited grasp, to be verbally rich and complex, is there a sense that the Greek speaking Alexandrian Church had to reduce the range of concepts when translating the faith into Coptic for the rural population?
It seems to me from my reading that there are few theological treatises preserved in Coptic, and the majority of Coptic manuscripts are liturgical, spiritual and hagiographic. This seems to me to say something about the preferred language for different types of discourse.
Comments?
Of course, when dealing with religious vocabulary, there are some additional considerations. Preciseness is prized because of the need to distinguish ourselves from heretics or others, and this sometimes means it's just easier to keep the term or phrase in the original language if a translation of equal theological precision would require a lot of circumlocution. There is the tradition of the targums in the reading of Hebrew Bible wherein the Aramaic-speaking Jews would translate or provide commentary on particularly difficult passages of the original Hebrew. This is another way to go, in that it doesn't compromise the meaning of the original, but provides an explanation in the language that everyone can understand. I would consider any of the paschal greetings not given in the original (Greek, I'm assuming -- at least in the case of the church in Alexandria) to be more like targums than direct translations, as there are some completely Orthodox communities that are left out of these discussions we're having here. For example, the paschal greeting in Spanish is "Cristo ha resucitado", meaning "Christ has risen" (not "is"). It's still Orthodox because the understanding is Orthodox. There is no "Orthodox grammar" to be forced on the people. ;)
It would be interesting to follow the path of the translation of the greeting into Spanish. When did this take place? And under what influences?