Thanks for your interesting points dzheremi. I do understand what you mean. But I would still like answers to my questions in relation to Coptic.
I guess I am comparing language to Church architecture. The architecture used in a Church building says a lot about the content of the faith. I remember being very disoriented when I visited an ancient Church in Scotland, turned to the East to venerate the altar and found that there wasn't one because it had been taken oven by Protestants in the past who had installed a large pulpit when the altar should be. Likewise recently I had to attend an Anglican Church where the whole altar area had been taken over by a band. It was disorienting.
If the building looks like a lecture hall then that says something about the preoccupations of the Christian group who use it. If the Church looks like a concert venue that says something as well. If the puplit predominates then that says something. Likewise if an altar is the central focus.
Now since the Coptic manuscripts seem to be predominantly NOT theological that seems to say something about the preoccupations of those who communicated the Faith in Coptic and recieved the Faith in Coptic.
To consider a different context. It would not be absolutely impossible to communicate theological ideas in mobile phone texting language and vocabulary, but it would be difficult and the nature of most texting messages would suggest that theological richness should not be expected from those using texting as they have a different set of preoccupations.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11306.msg136955#msg136955 date=1304196807] That's interesting because the Latin form of the greeting is Christus resurrexit! Which, as far as I am aware, means Christ IS risen!
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?
Not quite. Christus resurrexit is "Christ has risen" (-it is the verb ending for the 3rd person perfect). "Christ is risen" is "Surrexit Christus".
I do not know enough about the history of Spanish to answer your question. I've recommended some books to other people here, though I don't know if they answer this particular question. A Brief History of the Spanish Language by David Pharies is a good introduction. Not too technical, not too basic.
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.
Dear Remenkimi,
"His divinity never parted from his humanity"
This phrase pertains to the Humanity because there was a time when the Divinity was without Humanity and this event was for our salvation. This statement shows that after the two natures united (an event that took place in the Virgin's womb) they never separated.
However, the things that pertain only to the Divinity, like the relationship among the hypostasys, are above time and would always use the present tense.
So, here is the rule again:
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 Coptic language is very specific when it comes to theological matters as it gives a precise meaning and that is why it is considered one of the biblical languages when it comes to academic studies.
This may not be the topic of this thread but I wanted to assure that Bikhristos afdonf is accurate and not some mistranslation.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11306.msg136966#msg136966 date=1304203256] resurrexit and surrexit have the same verb ending?
Surely resurrexit means 'to rise again' and surrexit means 'to rise'?
Why is resurrexit translated everywhere I can find as 'is risen'?
I would guess that they're basically equivalent. What I posted earlier is what I found after using an online Latin verb conjugator (since I don't know Latin myself), which conjugated for all tenses and moods, in conjunction with an online translator. This is a zero-copula form (it is not "Christus resurrexit est"), as that work is already taken care of by the inflectional ending [-it] in either reading, so an explicit copula would be redundant. As such, I would guess that any form of "be" is there more to conform to the rules of English than for fidelity to the Latin.
Interestingly, Google translate outputs "Christ has been raised" for "Christus resurrexit", and "Christ is risen" for "Surrexit Christus". I assume "Surrexit Christus" is the more traditional form both because that is what I have heard (in what little church Latin I have been exposed to at the hands of RC "traditionalists"), and also because that is the form that is present in c. 12th century manuscript found in Jerusalem of the hymn "Crucem sanctam subiit" (He bore the Holy Cross), sung here by Ensemble Organum in their reconstruction of Templar-era Latin chant. It also shows up later as in this 17th century text, which leads me to believe it is relatively stable.
But again, I would say that they're pretty much the same...
dzerhemi, Google translates 'Christ is risen again' as 'Christus resurrexit' so I guess that it is indeed an early version of the translator and cannot be relied on.
This may not be the topic of this thread but I wanted to assure that Bikhristos afdonf is accurate and not some mistranslation.
I don't think that anyone is speaking of mistranslations or inaccuracies. But as far as I can see Remnkemi has described how the Coptic language lacks certain verb forms so that it is not easy or possible to say things which I can say in English, and undoubtedly there are things I cannot easily say in English which can ve said in Greek, and vice versa in all cases.
Are you saying that Remnkemi is incorrect in the information he provided about verb forms? Are you saying that I am incorrect in suggesting that Coptic was not the language that the Alexandrian Orthodox community chose to generally communicate theology in?
The same thing naturally happened in Britain, which was very analagous to the situation Egypt, having been invaded by another culture. The language of cultured discourse had become Latin, just as it had become Greek in Egypt. Yet at some point Christian works began to be translated into various local languages, and then to be composed in those languages. But the sort of works which were translated and composed tended to be of spiritual, liturgical and hagiographical content. Theological works tended to be written and transmitted in Latin, which is why even in the 20th century many translations of Eastern theological works were still translated into Latin since it was assumed that all cultured readers would be able to understand Latin.
This hardly means that English, or even Irish language texts, were unimportant, or were 'simple'. But clearly the language of theology in Britain was Latin not Old English, just as the language of theology during the patristic period in Egypt was Greek and not Coptic.
Do you not consider this a fair representation? Is there evidence that St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Dioscorus or St Timothy wrote anything in Coptic? There is no evidence that any of the early saints of the British Isles wrote in their own native languages. This is not a criticism of saints or languages. Just a statement of what I consider (pending correction) to be fact.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=11306.msg136995#msg136995 date=1304237215] dzerhemi, Google translates 'Christ is risen again' as 'Christus resurrexit' so I guess that it is indeed an early version of the translator and cannot be relied on.
That's good, I suppose. Honestly I hadn't thought to try it from English to Latin. That's interesting. Yeah, it's still in test mode...not that it's really all that reliable either way (some of the results I've gotten for Russian or Arabic...oh my...there's no way they can be accurate). I just thought that it was odd that "Christus resurrexit" would output "has been raised", since it changes the transitivity of the verb ("raise" is transitive, so it requires something to do the raising...is something/someone raising Christ?), and so has a somewhat different interpretation.
For the Coptic questions from last page, I would trust any of George's observations. He seems to know the Coptic verb paradigms well. I have a few books on the Coptic (and earlier Egyptian) verb, but they're more geared towards specific constructions (like Depyudt's book contrasting Coptic and Egyptian conjunctions), which may or may not help with your questions. I'll set some time aside in the coming week to scan through them and if I come up with something substantial, I'll post it.
re you saying that Remnkemi is incorrect in the information he provided about verb forms? Are you saying that I am incorrect in suggesting that Coptic was not the language that the Alexandrian Orthodox community chose to generally communicate theology in?
What I am saying is that the events that pertained to our salvation that are attributed to humanity got translated in Coptic in the past tense and has nothing to do with verb tenses. And those things that are ascribed to the Divinity got translated in the present tense.
What am I saying is that the verb "afdonf" is not lacking theologically as it give a better meaning that "He is Risen" Literally it means that "He arose Himself" which cannot be translated easily in either Arabic or English.
I just do not want people to get the impression that Coptic is somehow lacking, for it is very precise when it comes to matters of theology.
[quote author=Marenhos Epchois link=topic=11306.msg136984#msg136984 date=1304220999] God is beyond time, so to say the Christ HAS or WAS Risen is to deny that He is above time. but since God IS always, therefore Christ IS Risen.
When it comes to matters of salvation, Coptic used the past tense and that IS NOT wrong.
imikhail, your translation of the Coptic seems different to Remnkemi, and to the scholarly translator of the Coptic New Testament.
So I am confused now as to the correct translation.
The form 'Christ raised himself' is not complicated in English, but it is not the simple past tense as all the Coptic translations and Remnkemi seem to suggest.
That Christ raised himself is present in other parts of the Scripture, and that He was raised by the Father, and by the Spiirt. Clearly the economy of our salvation is always a Trinitarian enterprise.
But the phrase 'Christ is risen' does not seem to me to be less theological than 'Christ raised Himself'. And both seem more theological than the Coptic form 'Christ rose' which is how the Gospel is translated.
I think you are missing the point and feel that any questions about Coptic are criticisms of your culture. They are not. Let me ask again, why are there very few theological works in Coptic, and a vast number in Greek or Syriac? Do you not think this is entirely comparable to the situation in Britain in regard to the relationship between Latin and the local languages?
imikhail, your translation of the Coptic seems different to Remnkemi, and to the scholarly translator of the Coptic New Testament.
Pi,rictoc aftwnf
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's because the final f in aftwnf is the reflexive 3rd person form. It refers back to the one that has risen.
If I recall correctly, it is possible to say aftwn without the last f, that would simply mean that Christ rose. I think that the last f, the reflexive part, adds 'himself' to Christ rose himself.
And if it is reflexive then could it not just be an emphasiser that it is Christ Himself who has risen or is risen.
Indeed how can any modern reader of Coptic be aware of the subtle nuances of Coptic, or any other nearly dormant language as I am aware of the nuances of English as an advanced native speaker?
How is it possible to insist that the Coptic MUST mean this when it comes to a nuance? Surely all modern students of Coptic are learning the language as a foreign language and so must understand through the filter of their native languages?
In English there are many subtle nuances which few non-native speakers would pick up on, and forms which would just confuse a non-native speaker. Much English poetry, for instance, could hardly be completely understood by a non-native speaker. Therefore I wonder how it can be said with certainty that a particular Coptic phrase MUST mean only this, since it can only have been known through other languages.
In regard to this phrase, what are you trying to suggest is conveyed by your translation Christ arose himself? How is this more subtle than any number of English phrases and how can you know the subtle meaning of any Coptic phrase beyond the usual translation of a grammatical form?
And if it is reflexive then could it not just be an emphasiser that it is Christ Himself who has risen or is risen.
Exactly, this is/could be true. This would make the 'Himself' part unnecessary. Like you, I await Remnkemi's view. I'm not clever enough when it comes to Coptic. I have searched my textbook but there's no detailed explanation about the reflexive particle.
I remember that I asked the same question to my teacher, asking what the last f means, and he answered that it's the reflexive particle, emphasizing the fact that He is risen.
In regard to this phrase, what are you trying to suggest is conveyed by your translation Christ arose himself? How is this more subtle than any number of English phrases and how can you know the subtle meaning of any Coptic phrase beyond the usual translation of a grammatical form?
I'm of the opinion that you're right. It means Christ is risen, adding the 'Himself' part does not make it more subtle or correct. I'm not the one to give definitive statements about Coptic, so I won't.
But I'm just confused about the fact that the last f is added in aftwnf. If someone could give an answer about the true meaning of the reflexive particle, then we're finished with the 'Himself' discussion.
When I look at my (Sahidic Coptic) exercises, I see:
aprwme twoun The man rose.
]natwoun I will rise
The first is an example of rising. In fact, the man rose by himself, without any help. Then I'm wondering why the added f is missing. Why is there no emphasizing?
The 3 instances of "Christ is risen" in the New Testament always have Pixrictoc aftwnf (I looked up the NT in Coptic). The 'Himself' part is ignored or incorrect.
Indeed how can any modern reader of Coptic be aware of the subtle nuances of Coptic, or any other nearly dormant languag
This is not aubtle naunces of Coptic. Anyone who knows Coptic, as a language, will know that afdonf means "he rose himself" this is a b c of the language.
Coptic is not like English where the verb is independent of the noun. In Coptic there are verbs where the noun could be annexed to to the verb. Arabic is that way also.
So when we say afdonf it means that the noun he did the verb rise to himself
But that is standard in English. And the problem is that your translation is not how others, including the translator of the Coptic New Testament, have chosen to translate this phrase.
It cannot surely be as simple as you describe if others, even on this thread, do not translate it as you do.
If I recall correctly, it is possible to say aftwn without the last f, that would simply mean that Christ rose. I think that the last f, the reflexive part, adds 'himself' to Christ rose himself.
I am afraid this is incorrect. The verb twn cannot stand by itself without the noun at the end even as a command .. it must be followed by a noun.
The first is an example of rising. In fact, the man rose by himself, without any help. Then I'm wondering why the added f is missing. Why is there no emphasizing?
You do not have the f at the end because you already put the the past tense of verb "a" to the noun "bromi" so now the verb does not need the noun. But without specific independent noun the verb needs the "annexed nouns".
You could also say biromi afdonf meaning the man rose by himself.
If you say bikhristoc afdonocf embiromi, it would mean Christ raised the man. Here afdonocf is not the same as in just "bikhristoc afdonf".
You see there are two verbs: on denoting the actor acted by himself alone "don", the other denotes the actor acted on the object "donoc"
So, saying "bikhristoc afdonf" means the verb is done by bikhristoc Himself.
Ekhrestos anesty No no no guys... hear me out on this, please... this is crucial not only important... you're mixing things up now... Aftwnf doesn't mean "he raised himself". It has the connotation of the present perfect "has risen". Den is one of the verbs in Coptic that has to have two nouns attached as prefix and suffix, but they are not treated as former subject, latter object... NO. There are other instances which may mean what you say, but some verbs don't necessarily follow that rule. E.g. aikott, afshanaf (I think), these coming off the top of my head. In contrast to the many other verbs like: afdahaf, afolf, afbashaf, etc... As for FR. Peter's question, I'm aware that old Egyptian language had numerous verb conjugations, and we were taught of 23 of these coming down to the Coptic language. I'm not sure of the influence of Greek on everyday discourses in Egypt in those days, but the history I know is that Greek was confined, in every sense of the word, to schools and educational institutions, at a time of a very few percentage of the population seeking such. The job of priests and church fathers was to educate simple lay people the debates occurring in Greek in simple Egyptian, ie Coptic terms... Oujai
Please compare the different English translations for John 21:14:
" This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead."
Reading this it looks like Jesus was the object of the verb rise. This gives the reader that someone acted on Jesus to raise him
Now compare this to the Coptic and you will see that the verb is "afdonf" meaning He rose Himself with no support.
This is just one example.
Now let us take some other verses:
Acts 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole."
Acts 10:40
"Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,"
In these verses the Coptic verb "donoc" which accepts the object as the end. This is different than the verb "don" which means rise and is done by the actor himself
Acts 10:41
"Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."
The verb "don" is used
What does that all tell us:
The Coptic is very specific in using the two verbs to denote two different things. When the angel was preaching to the women at the tomb he told them that Christ rose from the dead using the verb "don" to denote that Christ rose "Himself". This has a very theological dimension of proving that Christ is really the son of God. Unfortunately, the English translation does not convey this.
The Acts verses have a combination of the two verbs "don" and "donoc" to denote the Divinity and the Humanity of Jesus.
In conclusion we have two verbs in Coptic that are used to describe Jesus' resurrection:
"don" = rise (done by the noun with no support)
"donoc" = raise (done to an object)
Bikhristoc afdonf = Christ rose himself with no support
I apologize for not writing the Coptic letters on this forum. I certainly can use some advice.
Christ is Risen! But can anybody clarify me did our Lord Jesus Christ is risen by His own power or did the Father raise Him? As in the examples, mentioned by Imikhail and in this example: "Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:26), now I'm in two minds.
Ekhrestos anesty No imikhail, afdonf doesn't mean "he raised himself", unlike afdounos-f which so means. The latter as you rightly pointed out is the subject-verb-object form, while the former is not Oujai
I am a little confused as to what you mean imikhail.
How do you believe the phrase should be translated?
And what then do ophadece and remnkemi think of that translation? And how is it not possible to say it in English, and how and why is it different to the Greek in which the Gospels have been transmitted?
Fr. Peter please correct me if I am wrong on the English piece.
In English we have two verbs: rise and raise
I can say Christ rose. Or I can say Christ was risen: Different meanings. The former tells me Christ rose on His own, the latter tells me He received support.
Christ was risen = Christ was raised giving the notion of help received.
Christ is risen denotes support as well but is continuous in the present. [Is this true?]
The same in Coptic we have two verbs: "don" = rise and "donoce" = raise
Bikhristoc afdonf = Christ rose denoting no support that He rose by himself which is different than Christ is risen (provided the truth of the statement above)
The Coptic translation is different than the English one (I do not know why) for in the places where the angel says "Christ was risen" or is risen" in the English version, the Coptic says "Christ rose". Again, the Coptic gives the notion that Christ rose on His own.
Comments
I guess I am comparing language to Church architecture. The architecture used in a Church building says a lot about the content of the faith. I remember being very disoriented when I visited an ancient Church in Scotland, turned to the East to venerate the altar and found that there wasn't one because it had been taken oven by Protestants in the past who had installed a large pulpit when the altar should be. Likewise recently I had to attend an Anglican Church where the whole altar area had been taken over by a band. It was disorienting.
If the building looks like a lecture hall then that says something about the preoccupations of the Christian group who use it. If the Church looks like a concert venue that says something as well. If the puplit predominates then that says something. Likewise if an altar is the central focus.
Now since the Coptic manuscripts seem to be predominantly NOT theological that seems to say something about the preoccupations of those who communicated the Faith in Coptic and recieved the Faith in Coptic.
To consider a different context. It would not be absolutely impossible to communicate theological ideas in mobile phone texting language and vocabulary, but it would be difficult and the nature of most texting messages would suggest that theological richness should not be expected from those using texting as they have a different set of preoccupations.
i have now found my vocation and purpose in life...
yea Christ ros now n also b4 as wll.
;)
That's interesting because the Latin form of the greeting is Christus resurrexit! Which, as far as I am aware, means Christ IS risen!
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?
Not quite. Christus resurrexit is "Christ has risen" (-it is the verb ending for the 3rd person perfect). "Christ is risen" is "Surrexit Christus".
I do not know enough about the history of Spanish to answer your question. I've recommended some books to other people here, though I don't know if they answer this particular question. A Brief History of the Spanish Language by David Pharies is a good introduction. Not too technical, not too basic.
"His divinity never parted from his humanity"
This phrase pertains to the Humanity because there was a time when the Divinity was without Humanity and this event was for our salvation. This statement shows that after the two natures united (an event that took place in the Virgin's womb) they never separated.
However, the things that pertain only to the Divinity, like the relationship among the hypostasys, are above time and would always use the present tense.
So, here is the rule again:
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.
Surely resurrexit means 'to rise again' and surrexit means 'to rise'?
Why is resurrexit translated everywhere I can find as 'is risen'?
This may not be the topic of this thread but I wanted to assure that Bikhristos afdonf is accurate and not some mistranslation.
resurrexit and surrexit have the same verb ending?
Surely resurrexit means 'to rise again' and surrexit means 'to rise'?
Why is resurrexit translated everywhere I can find as 'is risen'?
I would guess that they're basically equivalent. What I posted earlier is what I found after using an online Latin verb conjugator (since I don't know Latin myself), which conjugated for all tenses and moods, in conjunction with an online translator. This is a zero-copula form (it is not "Christus resurrexit est"), as that work is already taken care of by the inflectional ending [-it] in either reading, so an explicit copula would be redundant. As such, I would guess that any form of "be" is there more to conform to the rules of English than for fidelity to the Latin.
Interestingly, Google translate outputs "Christ has been raised" for "Christus resurrexit", and "Christ is risen" for "Surrexit Christus". I assume "Surrexit Christus" is the more traditional form both because that is what I have heard (in what little church Latin I have been exposed to at the hands of RC "traditionalists"), and also because that is the form that is present in c. 12th century manuscript found in Jerusalem of the hymn "Crucem sanctam subiit" (He bore the Holy Cross), sung here by Ensemble Organum in their reconstruction of Templar-era Latin chant. It also shows up later as in this 17th century text, which leads me to believe it is relatively stable.
But again, I would say that they're pretty much the same...
Are you saying that Remnkemi is incorrect in the information he provided about verb forms? Are you saying that I am incorrect in suggesting that Coptic was not the language that the Alexandrian Orthodox community chose to generally communicate theology in?
The same thing naturally happened in Britain, which was very analagous to the situation Egypt, having been invaded by another culture. The language of cultured discourse had become Latin, just as it had become Greek in Egypt. Yet at some point Christian works began to be translated into various local languages, and then to be composed in those languages. But the sort of works which were translated and composed tended to be of spiritual, liturgical and hagiographical content. Theological works tended to be written and transmitted in Latin, which is why even in the 20th century many translations of Eastern theological works were still translated into Latin since it was assumed that all cultured readers would be able to understand Latin.
This hardly means that English, or even Irish language texts, were unimportant, or were 'simple'. But clearly the language of theology in Britain was Latin not Old English, just as the language of theology during the patristic period in Egypt was Greek and not Coptic.
Do you not consider this a fair representation? Is there evidence that St Athanasius, St Cyril, St Dioscorus or St Timothy wrote anything in Coptic? There is no evidence that any of the early saints of the British Isles wrote in their own native languages. This is not a criticism of saints or languages. Just a statement of what I consider (pending correction) to be fact.
dzerhemi, Google translates 'Christ is risen again' as 'Christus resurrexit' so I guess that it is indeed an early version of the translator and cannot be relied on.
That's good, I suppose. Honestly I hadn't thought to try it from English to Latin. That's interesting. Yeah, it's still in test mode...not that it's really all that reliable either way (some of the results I've gotten for Russian or Arabic...oh my...there's no way they can be accurate). I just thought that it was odd that "Christus resurrexit" would output "has been raised", since it changes the transitivity of the verb ("raise" is transitive, so it requires something to do the raising...is something/someone raising Christ?), and so has a somewhat different interpretation.
For the Coptic questions from last page, I would trust any of George's observations. He seems to know the Coptic verb paradigms well. I have a few books on the Coptic (and earlier Egyptian) verb, but they're more geared towards specific constructions (like Depyudt's book contrasting Coptic and Egyptian conjunctions), which may or may not help with your questions. I'll set some time aside in the coming week to scan through them and if I come up with something substantial, I'll post it.
What am I saying is that the verb "afdonf" is not lacking theologically as it give a better meaning that "He is Risen" Literally it means that "He arose Himself" which cannot be translated easily in either Arabic or English.
I just do not want people to get the impression that Coptic is somehow lacking, for it is very precise when it comes to matters of theology.
Thanks.
God is beyond time, so to say the Christ HAS or WAS Risen is to deny that He is above time. but since God IS always, therefore Christ IS Risen.
When it comes to matters of salvation, Coptic used the past tense and that IS NOT wrong.
So I am confused now as to the correct translation.
The form 'Christ raised himself' is not complicated in English, but it is not the simple past tense as all the Coptic translations and Remnkemi seem to suggest.
That Christ raised himself is present in other parts of the Scripture, and that He was raised by the Father, and by the Spiirt. Clearly the economy of our salvation is always a Trinitarian enterprise.
But the phrase 'Christ is risen' does not seem to me to be less theological than 'Christ raised Himself'. And both seem more theological than the Coptic form 'Christ rose' which is how the Gospel is translated.
I think you are missing the point and feel that any questions about Coptic are criticisms of your culture. They are not. Let me ask again, why are there very few theological works in Coptic, and a vast number in Greek or Syriac? Do you not think this is entirely comparable to the situation in Britain in regard to the relationship between Latin and the local languages?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that's because the final f in aftwnf is the reflexive 3rd person form. It refers back to the one that has risen.
If I recall correctly, it is possible to say aftwn without the last f, that would simply mean that Christ rose. I think that the last f, the reflexive part, adds 'himself' to Christ rose himself.
I wonder why the translator of the Coptic New Testament chose to translate this as Christ rose?
Remnkemi what is your view?
Indeed how can any modern reader of Coptic be aware of the subtle nuances of Coptic, or any other nearly dormant language as I am aware of the nuances of English as an advanced native speaker?
How is it possible to insist that the Coptic MUST mean this when it comes to a nuance? Surely all modern students of Coptic are learning the language as a foreign language and so must understand through the filter of their native languages?
In English there are many subtle nuances which few non-native speakers would pick up on, and forms which would just confuse a non-native speaker. Much English poetry, for instance, could hardly be completely understood by a non-native speaker. Therefore I wonder how it can be said with certainty that a particular Coptic phrase MUST mean only this, since it can only have been known through other languages.
In regard to this phrase, what are you trying to suggest is conveyed by your translation Christ arose himself? How is this more subtle than any number of English phrases and how can you know the subtle meaning of any Coptic phrase beyond the usual translation of a grammatical form?
I remember that I asked the same question to my teacher, asking what the last f means, and he answered that it's the reflexive particle, emphasizing the fact that He is risen. I'm of the opinion that you're right. It means Christ is risen, adding the 'Himself' part does not make it more subtle or correct. I'm not the one to give definitive statements about Coptic, so I won't.
But I'm just confused about the fact that the last f is added in aftwnf. If someone could give an answer about the true meaning of the reflexive particle, then we're finished with the 'Himself' discussion.
When I look at my (Sahidic Coptic) exercises, I see:
aprwme twoun
The man rose.
]natwoun
I will rise
The first is an example of rising. In fact, the man rose by himself, without any help. Then I'm wondering why the added f is missing. Why is there no emphasizing?
Coptic is not like English where the verb is independent of the noun. In Coptic there are verbs where the noun could be annexed to to the verb. Arabic is that way also.
So when we say afdonf it means that the noun he did the verb rise to himself
akdonk means that you raised yourself
acdons she raised herself
aidont I raised myself and so on.
It cannot surely be as simple as you describe if others, even on this thread, do not translate it as you do.
You could also say biromi afdonf meaning the man rose by himself.
If you say bikhristoc afdonocf embiromi, it would mean Christ raised the man. Here afdonocf is not the same as in just "bikhristoc afdonf".
You see there are two verbs: on denoting the actor acted by himself alone "don", the other denotes the actor acted on the object "donoc"
So, saying "bikhristoc afdonf" means the verb is done by bikhristoc Himself.
No no no guys... hear me out on this, please... this is crucial not only important... you're mixing things up now...
Aftwnf doesn't mean "he raised himself". It has the connotation of the present perfect "has risen". Den is one of the verbs in Coptic that has to have two nouns attached as prefix and suffix, but they are not treated as former subject, latter object... NO. There are other instances which may mean what you say, but some verbs don't necessarily follow that rule. E.g. aikott, afshanaf (I think), these coming off the top of my head.
In contrast to the many other verbs like: afdahaf, afolf, afbashaf, etc...
As for FR. Peter's question, I'm aware that old Egyptian language had numerous verb conjugations, and we were taught of 23 of these coming down to the Coptic language. I'm not sure of the influence of Greek on everyday discourses in Egypt in those days, but the history I know is that Greek was confined, in every sense of the word, to schools and educational institutions, at a time of a very few percentage of the population seeking such. The job of priests and church fathers was to educate simple lay people the debates occurring in Greek in simple Egyptian, ie Coptic terms...
Oujai
" This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead."
Reading this it looks like Jesus was the object of the verb rise. This gives the reader that someone acted on Jesus to raise him
Now compare this to the Coptic and you will see that the verb is "afdonf" meaning He rose Himself with no support.
This is just one example.
Now let us take some other verses:
Acts 4:10 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole."
Acts 10:40
"Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,"
In these verses the Coptic verb "donoc" which accepts the object as the end. This is different than the verb "don" which means rise and is done by the actor himself
Acts 10:41
"Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."
The verb "don" is used
What does that all tell us:
The Coptic is very specific in using the two verbs to denote two different things. When the angel was preaching to the women at the tomb he told them that Christ rose from the dead using the verb "don" to denote that Christ rose "Himself". This has a very theological dimension of proving that Christ is really the son of God. Unfortunately, the English translation does not convey this.
The Acts verses have a combination of the two verbs "don" and "donoc" to denote the Divinity and the Humanity of Jesus.
In conclusion we have two verbs in Coptic that are used to describe Jesus' resurrection:
"don" = rise (done by the noun with no support)
"donoc" = raise (done to an object)
Bikhristoc afdonf = Christ rose himself with no support
I apologize for not writing the Coptic letters on this forum. I certainly can use some advice.
Thanks.
But can anybody clarify me did our Lord Jesus Christ is risen by His own power or did the Father raise Him?
As in the examples, mentioned by Imikhail and in this example: "Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:26), now I'm in two minds.
No imikhail, afdonf doesn't mean "he raised himself", unlike afdounos-f which so means. The latter as you rightly pointed out is the subject-verb-object form, while the former is not
Oujai
I said "bikhristoc afdonf" meand Christ rose or arose with no no support.
How do you believe the phrase should be translated?
And what then do ophadece and remnkemi think of that translation? And how is it not possible to say it in English, and how and why is it different to the Greek in which the Gospels have been transmitted?
Fr. Peter please correct me if I am wrong on the English piece.
In English we have two verbs: rise and raise
I can say Christ rose. Or I can say Christ was risen: Different meanings. The former tells me Christ rose on His own, the latter tells me He received support.
Christ was risen = Christ was raised giving the notion of help received.
Christ is risen denotes support as well but is continuous in the present. [Is this true?]
The same in Coptic we have two verbs: "don" = rise and "donoce" = raise
Bikhristoc afdonf = Christ rose denoting no support that He rose by himself which is different than Christ is risen (provided the truth of the statement above)
The Coptic translation is different than the English one (I do not know why) for in the places where the angel says "Christ was risen" or is risen" in the English version, the Coptic says "Christ rose". Again, the Coptic gives the notion that Christ rose on His own.
Thanks.