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
"I praise the virgin" issues
I have collected some older posts from Remnkemi & childoforthodoxy on this melody.
Just reposting to keep everyone constantly aware of the issues raised and to guard us from blindly chanting suspect melodies. . .
Just reposting to keep everyone constantly aware of the issues raised and to guard us from blindly chanting suspect melodies. . .
+ + +
NOTES CONCERNING THE MELODY “I PRAISE THE VIRGIN” (Amdah fil batool)
This song is indeed flawed. Raising the Virgin Mary in status that is almost equal to God, if not equal, is truly evident in this song. Let us examine some of the lines that are in this song that reflect this:
“Through your Son, our Lady: Cause of salvation: We reached the goal: And you brought us joy
Your rank is up high: And great is your glory: The Lord honored you: O, Aaron's censer: Many praised you: You're the cause of all joy: You comfort everyone: Who's sorrowful and humble
Moses and Daniel: Said many parables: And you fit all that: Mysteriously and more: You caused the world to shine: O, the pride of faith: All the creatures were free: Because of you, Mary”
Is Christ not the cause of our redemption, the joy in our salvation? Is He not the one who set mankind free from the bondage of sin? I find it interesting that this is made in reference to the Holy Virgin. Additionally, the Church is very particular in its hymnology, selecting the words to be used with the utmost care. It is through hymns that the people of the Church learn much about the beliefs of the Church. The people of the congregation assume that all that is presented to them is accurate and something that they should incorporate into their beliefs as they progress in Orthodoxy. Once we begin mixing inaccuracies in with true, Orthodox teaching, we lose this. Heretics are excommunicated over a single word, a word that represents a mindset that is incongruous with proper Orthodox teaching. How is it that we have allowed the songs to find their ways into our Church, with little or no regard to the words being presented, having the congregation stray away from the true faith without their realizing it?
Surely, there are parts of this song which are not inaccurate, but we must not mix accurate teachings with inaccurate opinions. If I take a glass of water, I can see through the glass clearly, as it has no impurities. If I take the glass of water and add just a bit of coloring dye, the water immediately reflects this murkiness. You may still be able to see through, but not as clearly. Over time, more and more of the dye is added, and we lose the clarity that was initially present.
This is not a matter of compromise; Orthodoxy is not a matter of compromise. Chanting a hymn in English or Arabic rather than Coptic is a matter of understanding, but none of the teachings of the Church are affected in this. Singing a song that does not reflect the teachings of the Church, but allowing it to remain because 1.) the people like it, 2.) it draws people to the Church, 3.) those in higher positions of authority allow and accept it... these are not acceptable reasons. Indeed, Church Fathers have written on issues such as these, in which people would suggest something that would allow for the population to grow in number while making a sacrifice or two in terms of proper Orthodoxy, and the Fathers stood firmly against this.
This problem carries over for so many of the songs, or as they are referred to in Arabic, "taraneem," that are now being sung in the Coptic churches. It is with great caution that we must examine these songs. Even one word in a song, if it is wrong, may be detrimental for the individual. Just because a song speaks about things of the Church does not mean it is from the Church; just because it has a catchy tune or because it makes me feel good does not make it acceptable.
I will not discuss the feeling of Coptic hymns being "boring" beyond saying that it is in them that we find our true faith, the instruction of our Orthodoxy, and they are not intended to be "boring" or "entertaining."
I pray that we take a more active role in preserving our Orthodoxy, not taking for granted the Pearl of Great Price that has been given to us by grace.
+ + +
OTHER ISSUES:
Can we talk about the refrain for a moment?
The whole refrain is below.
Refrain:
Your love embraced me ,
O pride of nations,
Moses saw you O Mary,
Surprise and marvel.
And the lamps are bright,
With golden crosses,
O Mary Moses’ dome
O Aaron’s censer.
(Sabani hobek, ya fakharel-rotab, Mosa ra-a-ki ya Mariam, ‘agb men ‘agb. Wel-anadeel faddah be-tedwi, wel-solban dahb, ya obbet Mosa ya Mariam, ya shoriet Haron.)
The following parts may be added to the refrain:
يمكن أن تضاف القطع الأتية للمرد:
+ Oh what a wonder,
My mind is amazed today,
In a sealed door,
With the Child inside.
(‘agabee ya oom, tah ‘a-lee el-yom, fe baben makhtoum, we sabee gowah.)
+ Oh Virgin,
Oh my Lady,
Through your love,
I am living with God.
(Ah ya ‘adra ah, ah ya-siti ah, ana fee hobek, mash-ghol ballah.)
+ And my praise to the Virgin,
Filled my heart with joy,
And those who praise her always,
Their hearts rejoice.
(Weda madhe fel-batol, zad albo farah, welle yemdaha ‘ala tool, albo yen-sharah.)
First of all, as far as I can remember, none of these verses are found in the old Kiahk Psalmody book by Claudius Labib. (I'm not sure about the first verse. But I am 100% sure that the remaining 3 verses are recent additions (less than 10 years). What happened to keeping our tradition? Why are we adding verses out of the blue? And if we are to add verses, shouldn't they make sense?
What are these verses trying to say? Only the first 2 lines make sense. What does "Moses saw you, O Mary, surprise and marvel" mean? Is Moses surprised and marveled that he saw St. Mary? Or are we surprised and marveled that Moses saw St. Mary? And the actual correct translation is "Moses saw you, O Mary, surprise from surprise". So we can't rely on the Arabic for clarification.
Then we go to the next line, "And the lamps are bright, with golden crosses". What are we talking about? What lamps? What golden crosses? The context moved from Moses and the burning bush to lamps and crosses with no transition. Are the lamps and crosses related to Mary at all?
And the next part should be translated, "O Mary Moses' tabernacle, O Aaron's censer", not "Moses' dome". This only shows how book after book we copy mistakes without questioning the context. This line only tells us that the subject of the verse is directed to St. Mary. But what is the whole verse saying?
And the "new" additional verses are obviously misplaced. They neither follow the Arabic style, nor do they make sense. The entire original Kiahk Psalmody is written in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), with a very clear, poetic style. But these verses are written in colloquial, vernacular Arabic, with no style. The grammar is clearly lacking. For example, "fe baben makhtoum, we sabee gowah", is literally translated "in a sealed door and child within". One has to fill in the proper grammar and correct the propositions and verbs.
Then there's the most ambiguous, incoherent verse of all: "Ah ya ‘adra ah, ah ya-siti ah, ana fee hobek, mash-ghol ballah". This verse is obviously written by farmers. It is literally translated, "Ah Oh Virgin, Ah O Lady Ah, I am in your love, preoccupied dates". There is neither grammar or any coherent thought in this verse.
+ + +
“Zephaniah proclaimed: That Jesus will appear: As rain and dew: While her Virginity is sealed”
There are 5 instances of Zephaniah's prophecy in Kiahk Praise. 4 say, "He will appear as dew and rain". As you stated, it probably comes from Hosea 6:3, "Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.” Notice there is no mention of the Lord's birth, nor reference to the Virgin. This verse seems to be a reference to the Lord's coming in general. The chapter in Hosea is about repentance.
Now look at Ezekiel 1:28, "Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking." This verse directly speaks of the appearance of the glory of the Lord, which can be understood as Christ's Incarnation. Again no reference to the Virginal birth or the coming of Jesus as implied in the Kiahk Psalmody.
The "prophecy" becomes more obscure in the fifth reference found in the Thursday Kiahk Madeha, "The Burning Bush". In this medeha, Zephaniah (or Sophonios) says, "He will come as rain without cloud." This is clearly not mentioned in Hosea 6:3. In fact, there is no mention anywhere in the Bible about rain without cloud. There is mention of clouds without rain in Jude 1:12, "They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead." The chapter is talking about hypocrisy. Again, nothing to do with Jesus' coming.
I checked the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, which ironically only exists in Coptic. There is no mention of rain at all. Neither is there any mention of the Lord coming as rain without cloud in any pseudo-epigraphic apocalypse texts of the Old or New Testaments. And there is no mention of the Lord coming or appearing as rain without cloud in any other Coptic liturgical, or hagiographic texts that I can find.
So we're back to where we started. We have ambiguous texts only found in Kiahk praise that seem to have no biblical or patristic origin. The only logical conclusion is that modern, apparently uneducated, overly simple, anonymous hymnographers confabulated "prophecies" from an unknown prophet about Christ's birth.
Comments
This is an excellent analysis, which I will present to our priests, and deacons, asking them to consider. Please pray for me as the head priest in our church is a huge fan of that hymn. I'll try and hopefully I wont be called a Nazi/terrorist/hypocrite/pharisee/anything else lol.
Thanks for the insight
Ray
Thank you very much, Andrew, Rem, and ChildofOrthodoxy.
This is an excellent analysis, which I will present to our priests, and deacons, asking them to consider. Please pray for me as the head priest in our church is a huge fan of that hymn. I'll try and hopefully I wont be called a Nazi/terrorist/hypocrite/pharisee/anything else lol.
Thanks for the insight
Ray
May I suggest a compromise solution - I don't think you will ever get them to stop singing that hymn based on what you have said.
Why not try fixing that hymn/shortening it by getting rid of the questionable bits, just like Rem fixed that other hymn (I have a mind blank as to the name).
everyone will translate things differently. In our case here, it's much worst....the things that you guys don't see or realize is the arabic madayeh themselves are not agreed on by "everyone"...many people pick and choose which parts to put in the hymn and sing. so to me, when we surpass that issue of unifying the original text (arabic), then we can worry about translations.
"Do not forsake at any time,
Your poor and humble servant,
Your intercession on Judgment Day,
For me and all the faithful.
. . .
We ask of your Son,
Forgiveness and faith,
And comfort for the people,
On Judgment Day."
There is NO intercession on Judgment Day! Many fathers have consistently repeated this point. In a recent commentary by St. John Chrysostom on the parable of the 10 virgins he says that the 5 wise could NOT give them oil because it is impossible to help anyone at that time. . .
[quote=Commentary on the Gospel of John Ch. 25: 1-30]But what now do we learn from hence? That no man can protect us there, if we are betrayed
by our works, not because he will not, but because he cannot. For these too take
refuge in the impossibility. This the blessed Abraham also indicated, saying, “Between us
and you there is a great gulf,”so that not even when willing is it permitted them to pass
it.
Another point I forgot to mention in the quoted portion below. . .
"Do not forsake at any time,
Your poor and humble servant,
Your intercession on Judgment Day,
For me and all the faithful.
. . .
We ask of your Son,
Forgiveness and faith,
And comfort for the people,
On Judgment Day."
There is NO intercession on Judgment Day! Many fathers have consistently repeated this point. In a recent commentary by St. John Chrysostom on the parable of the 10 virgins he says that the 5 wise could NOT give them oil because it is impossible to help anyone at that time. . .
[quote=Commentary on the Gospel of John Ch. 25: 1-30]But what now do we learn from hence? That no man can protect us there, if we are betrayed
by our works, not because he will not, but because he cannot. For these too take
refuge in the impossibility. This the blessed Abraham also indicated, saying, “Between us
and you there is a great gulf,”so that not even when willing is it permitted them to pass
it.
This is also an issue in O MARY (ya meem reh yeh meem), and so HCOC changed it from "And the faithful reader... Has no-one on the day of Judgement but the Lady of Virgins" to "By our side on Judgement Day / The lady of virgins shall be" - which is still incorrect, because it is the Protestant doctrine of assured salvation.
Also here's something else that you've missed, Andrew:
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=10190.msg125622#msg125622 date=1293576970]
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=10190.msg125093#msg125093 date=1292962269]
Very true jydeacon,
Orthodox teachings don't agree with what's mentioned in those melodies following taodokeya parts "intercede for us on judgment day". There is no such a thing the our church teaches. Intercessions stop short of ON judgment day. Please note in vespers prayers we allude to the fact that intercessions will only suffice at the departure of the soul not judgment day.
What makes it more comical is that the actual phrase "Judgement day" in Arabic is literally translated, "the day of crowding". Now living 20 years in NY and walking through the streets of Manhattan, I can affirm "the day of crowding" is everyday in NY. The same thing is true with rush hour in LA and 100 different cities around the world. Maybe there is some hidden wisdom here. I did always pray to the Virgin to intercede while I was in traffic. Does that count?
I know I shouldn't joke. But seriously, the image of Judgement day as a day of crowding is a very materialistic, ignorant and unfounded way to imagine the most fearful event in the history of the world.
I know as Orthodox we don't like to change anything. But certain things need to change.
George
One mistake that no one mentioned is that Moses never made a dome. The word "dome" is not found in the Bible in any English or Arabic translation. God told Moses to make a structure called the "Holy Tent" or the "Tabernacle of Meeting". It very well could have had a dome as its main architectural feature, but it is never called a dome, even in Arabic. Exodus 40 calls it " مَسْكَنَ خَيْمَةِ الاجْتِمَاعِ". I assume the Arabic translators of Coptic texts, recognizing that the Greek `ckyny could be understood as both tent and tent cover (dome), chose to use "قبة"(dome) as the translation (even though all Arabic Bible translations use مَسْكَنَ). Take home message: Wherever you see "dome" in Kiahk praises, use "tabernacle" because it is more accurate.
I will address the issue of Judgment Day in another message.
Pray for me.
Does anyone know a bishop's (eg. Anba Youssef's) view of this?
i think he is silent......there is no time to work on this. the psalmody is need of much review.
I have to apologize. Apparently, most of the English text found in they hymn "I praise the Virgin" was taken from a private translation I made years ago. It seems as the years go by, I find more and more mistakes. And I feel morally responsible for all this confusion.
One mistake that no one mentioned is that Moses never made a dome. The word "dome" is not found in the Bible in any English or Arabic translation. God told Moses to make a structure called the "Holy Tent" or the "Tabernacle of Meeting". It very well could have had a dome as its main architectural feature, but it is never called a dome, even in Arabic. Exodus 40 calls it " مَسْكَنَ خَيْمَةِ الاجْتِمَاعِ". I assume the Arabic translators of Coptic texts, recognizing that the Greek `ckyny could be understood as both tent and tent cover (dome), chose to use "قبة"(dome) as the translation (even though all Arabic Bible translations use مَسْكَنَ). Take home message: Wherever you see "dome" in Kiahk praises, use "tabernacle" because it is more accurate.
I will address the issue of Judgment Day in another message.
Pray for me.
thanks for this explanation, and the other ones by everyone else too.
i did ask a priest about "moses' dome" before, and i think he explained it as the tabernacle, but we got a bit stuck in the language barrier, and i wasn't clear. now i understand.
these analyses are very useful for us; i had the big blessing of attending tasbeha saturday (i may not go again this months, as the only orthodox Christian in my family, i don't go every sat eve as well as every sun morning and then spend all week at work - doesn't result in happy families!).
during the tasbeha, i did find one or two confusing lines, including in oh m-a-r-y, so the explanations are very useful.
i wonder if some of it is EO or catholic influence? they emphasize / over-emphasize (delete as applicable!) saint mary's role more than we do.
we need to educate ourselves about our faith better so that when we are in the position to choose songs and help with translation, we will make the right choices.
There are few points I want to mention.
1. Different churches understand praying for the dead and the final judgment differently. Among the Apostolic Churches, praying for the dead was universally accepted. However, not every church agrees on how prayer for the dead is the effected. It is a very big topic that is beyond the issue at hand. I only bring this up because we must understand that just like different Apostolic and Orthodox churches understand praying for the dead differently, so also do different churches understand Judgment day and eschatology differently. Additionally, within one Orthodox family one generation will understand eschatology differently than another generation. I think this is a big part of the issue: Eschatology described in Kiahk praise is different than modern Coptic eschatological catechesis. We should not fault the author of the hymn "I praise the Virgin" for atypical eschatological liturgical phrases.
A deeper review of Scripture passages describes a different picture of Judgment day than what we are taught in modern catechesis (Sunday School). Let's review.
1. Distinction between types of dead people
Most modern references that I found make a distinction between saints who passed away and ordinary people who passed away. What do we know. 1. Saints are "absent in body but present to the Lord (2 Cor 5:8)". 2. God is not the God of dead saints, but "God is a God, not of the dead, but of the living” (Mk 12:27: Mt 22:32 and Lk 20:38). Therefore saints who passed away are still living. (I recognize the paradox but it is perfectly Orthodox). The dead saints are actually alive because their God is a God of the living. The wicked, on the other hand, shall perish in their wickedness. Psalm 1:6.
2. Multiple judgments or part of the Final Judgment?
Psalm 1:5. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
2 Corinthians 5:10. "We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ."
Romans 14: 11,12. "As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."
From these verse we see that the Bible clearly says everyone must appear before the judgement. But we have already seen that saints have moved from accused to judge. When and how did this happen? It is unclear if saints were granted this privilege before or after death. If it was before death, then it implies that some people will not face the judgment seat which disagrees with St Paul's teaching. If it was after death, then a pre-Judgment Day judgment must occur. This is where we will find many different theories of eschatology. Are there two judgments or is the Final judgment one long process that takes thousands and millions of year to occur completely? I couldn't find any good patristic or biblical reference.
3. Role of Christ in Judgment and the Role of Saints
Who will Judge at the Last Judgement? Christ of course. But what is the Biblical evidence?
Daniel 7: 9, 10. "The Ancient of days did sit,...his throne was like the fiery flame....The judgement was set, and the books were opened."
John 5:22. "The Father...has committed all judgement unto the Son."
What is the role of the Saints?
1 Corinthians 6: 2,3. "Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world? ...Do you not know that we shall judge angels?"
Zechariah 14: 4,5,10. "His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem....And the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with You/[Him].....All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem."
Luke 22:28-30. “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Revelation 20:4. "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgement was given unto them."
We can see from above that although Christ will preside as judge in the Final Judgment, He has revealed that His saints will also judge (in a limited capacity). It therefore makes sense that saints like St Mary who is "highly favored (blessed among women)" will participate in the Final Judgment, not as a judge as we know it but as a hero. Recall that the heroes in Israel's history who led Israel were called "judges". As a judge or hero, saints can intercede in heaven.
In Revelation 6:10, the saints pray for swift judgment and justice on the wicked. If the saints can pray for justice, what prevents them from interceding for departed Christians? And if the saints can intercede now, what prevents them from interceding on the Final Judgment?
This should not be confused with intercessions to relieve a person from the consequences of his works. This is not an Orthodox concept as Andrew's quote of St John Chyrsostom shows. What the saints are doing is "judging" by interceding that God has mercy on a departed soul. They use their special relationship to have Christ judge in favor of the departed soul. This is not a guarantee that Christ will change His mind or will. (By the way, this is exactly what the living do when we offer a sacrifice/eucharist on behalf of a departed soul)
4. The Apocalyptic battle
The concept of describing the Final Judgment as "the day of crowding" may not be so far off as I once thought. The motif seems to have its roots in Revelation 20. In Revelation 20, Satan is bound for 1000 years. The saints reign with Christ for 1000 years. At the end of the 1000 years the dead saints rise and become priests of God and Christ. This is the first resurrection. Then Satan is freed and begins an apocalyptic military campaign against the nations whose number "is like the sand of the sea". Satan and these people "surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city". The imagery used in Revelation shows an innumerable mob scene with Satan attacking. It is only when God sends fire from heaven that Satan and these people are devoured.
It is at this point in Revelation that the Final Judgment takes place. St John writes, "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works." This is the final resurrection. We are again faced with the imagery of an inconceivable number of people present for judgment. At this point, Death and Hades die in the "second death" and God reveals the New Jerusalem.
If you add this all up one can understand why Kiahk praises implores St Mary to intercede or "judge" on the "day of crowding".
I hope I have shed some light on the hymn "I shall praise the Virgin". While it definitely needs correction, it may not be as bad as we think. Sorry this was long.
[quote author=servant33 link=topic=14001.msg161842#msg161842 date=1355162771]
Does anyone know a bishop's (eg. Anba Youssef's) view of this?
i think he is silent......there is no time to work on this. the psalmody is need of much review.
His opinion can be found here:
(I'm pretty sure it's in this video, although it could be in one of the sequel videos).
Basically, he says that due to the billingualism in this era, people were writing Arabic hymns who were not fully proficient in Arabic (Coptic was their first language). It's like Bishop Youssef writing an English hymn. Anyway, the solution, he said, was for anyone who is musically talented to compose replacement hymns to be approved by the Holy Synod.
The part you are referring to is located here:
Anba Youssef is encouraging talented people to revise the translation of the hymns to keep the spirit of the Coptic Orthodox Church. Would you guys like to form a tasbeha.org committee that works to mutually edit some of the English translation of hymns and then submit it to Anba Youssef and the synod? We can work on a Google Doc!
great idea! Unfortunately, both my Arabic and Coptic are weak. But, I hope others can join you.
qawe,
I didn't listen to HG's comments, but it doesn't make sense to me -- considering that these melodies are fairly recent (about a century old?). . .you would think these composers were more proficient in Arabic than Coptic. . .
servant33,
great idea! Unfortunately, both my Arabic and Coptic are weak. But, I hope others can join you.
Same goes for me.
[quote author=Andrew link=topic=14001.msg161872#msg161872 date=1355192165]
qawe,
I didn't listen to HG's comments, but it doesn't make sense to me -- considering that these melodies are fairly recent (about a century old?). . .you would think these composers were more proficient in Arabic than Coptic. . .
He wasn't specifically speaking in the context of Amdah al batool, just Kiahk praises in general. So maybe there are some other hymns that fit this description.
Not only is the Theotokos the 'cause of Salvation', she is indeed salvation itself, as we chant in the 8th Part of the Sunday Theotokia, saying, "Hail to you, O Mary; the salvation of Adam our father." There is no problem with such language so long as it is rightly understood.
Such language is not only found in many of our Coptic hymns and prayers, but also in those of all the ancient Apostolic Orthodox churches. In a Syrian Orthodox prayer, the Holy Virgin is praised as being the one who opened the gates of Paradise and the Kingdom. In the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy she is described as "the salvation of the Christian people", and she is entreated with the plea, "Theotokos, save us!". She is furthermore on many occasions described as the source of the blessings and joys which stem from the redemptive work of the Lord Christ. As Gambero notes in his Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, St Severus of Antioch saw the Holy Virgin's role in the Divine Economy of our salvation as extending beyond her being the source of the Lord Christ's Humanity. Her uniquely exalted favour and honour before God move Him to apply the fruits and blessings of His redemptive work in ways and at times simply for her sake and on account of her pleadings. In a popular Armenian Orthodox prayer composed by a saintly Catholicos, the Holy Virgin's favour before her Divine Son is said to in fact be sufficient to acquire the forgiveness of all sins and Eternal Life.
To further highlight how such Orthodox language is to be understood within an Orthodox doctrinal framework I offer a small excerpt from a balanced critique by H.E. Bishop Kallistos Ware of the Eastern Orthodox Church against the Roman Catholic dogmatisation of the definition of the Holy Theotokos as 'Co-Redemptrix':
As a member of the Orthodox Church I have no objection to
[the Marian titles, "Co-Redeemer", "Mediator of All Graces" and "Advocate of the People of God"]
in themselves - provided that they are rightly understood.
Indeed, closely similar language occurs in the prayers and hymns used in
the Christian East. With the greatest frequency in Orthodox worship we
say to the Virgin Mary, "Most Holy Mother of God, save us". In our
invocations to other members of the Communion of Saints, including St
John the Baptist, except on very rare occasions we never say more than
". . . pray for us".
This is not an isolated example. In the preparation before the beginning
of the Divine Liturgy we address Mary in parallel terms:
"Open unto us the door of thy compassion,
O blessed Mother of God; that setting our hope
on thee, may we not go astray; but through thee
may we be delivered from all distress;
for thou art the salvation of the Christian people."
Our evening prayers include the petition, "All my hope I place in thee,
O Mother of God: guard me under thy protection".
And at the end of the highly popular Paraklisis or Service of Intercession to the Theotokos
(Mother of God) we sing, "Queen of the world, become our mediator" (mesitria).
Such language is not new. It has been used by Eastern Christians for
many centuries, and scarcely ever has it given rise to scandal or
controversy...
But precisely how are all these titles and invocations to be understood?
Since Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and the "one
Mediator between God and humankind" (1 Tim. 2:5), how can we speak of
Mary in this way?
Here we may take as our guideline the striking words of St Paul (or one
of his disciples) in Colossians 1:24: "I am now rejoicing in my
sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing that which is
lacking in Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his Body, that is, the
Church." What is meant by the paradoxical phrase "that which is
lacking"? How can anything be lacking in Christ's all-sufficient
sacrifice upon the Cross, performed once for all time?
Yes, indeed: the sacrifice of the Cross 'never for one moment to be
sundered in our thinking from the resurrection ' is altogether complete
and unrepeatable. Yet at the same time through our own self-offering
through our own suffering and our martyrdom, inner or outward we the
baptised make up "that which is lacking" in Christ's suffering: we bear
witness to his perfect sacrifice and we make it ever present in a
bewildered and broken world. In this sense all the members of the Body
are co-redeemers with Christ.
Mary, however, is Co-Redeemer in a particular and outstanding way; for,
as Mother of the Saviour, she is involved with a unique nearness in her
Son's work of salvation. There is, then, a special appropriateness in
calling her the Co-Redeemer par excellence, so long as we never forget
that she and we share the same vocation. We too are called, in union
with her, to "complete that which is lacking in Christ's afflictions".
I strongly urge people not to think themselves wise enough to criticise, correct or reform hymns, prayers or traditions of the Church; particularly not in any way that stirs public commotion or controversy. The Fathers teach us that we are all strongly prone to spiritual delusion; most of the time when zealous laity sincerely think they are doing or saying something in the inetrest of the Church or in defence of Orthodoxy they are in fact only seeking to satisfy a lust for a sense of spiritual self-importance. I am not suggesting that this is the case for anyone who has participated in this thread, I am only echoing a general caution that's more or less most poignantly pronounced in Theophan the Recluse's 'Unseen Warfare'.
Let the people praise the Holy Virgin as the Church instructs and teaches and let us not be a stumbling block to them with our pseudo-academic theories and analyses which often simply reflect our own ignorance; and let us join them in humility without being distracted by petty matters that hinder our hearts from being receptive to the beautiful gifts and blessings that the Holy Virgin wishes to bestow on us through her motherly love.
Let the one who thinks it necessary to raise an objection or criticism that he or she cannot simply ignore or be silent about in good conscience do so with humility, with discernment and with wisdom--which I think would begin (and, more often than not, end) with private discourse on the relevant matters with local heirarchs.
God bless you all.
First of all, welcome to the forums. Thank you for your contribution. I must say you speak with a great deal of knowledge on many Orthodox families, both Eastern and Oriental. It makes me wonder if you are personally familiar with each Orthodox family or you are studying theology in a university. Either way, it is refreshing to find someone who is not afraid to speak theology. Theology, especially comparative or soteriological theology, is often avoided among the Coptic Church. It's my observation that we simply spit back what we learn in Sunday School - a catechesis that never really explored any philosophy and comparative theology.
Your references are right on the mark. It complements what I wrote about St Mary's role in the Final Judgment.
I would like to make some comments. The caution by Theophan the Recluse is well taken. It is the responsibility of everyone to always examine themselves and protect themselves from "unseen warfare." However, there are clear errors in some liturgical language, prayers or traditions. It is clear that in certain Kiahk hymns, there are two distinct styles of liturgical languages. One traditional style based on common Catholic liturgical language and one based on personal, overly-simplified experiences and meditations. An example of the first liturgical style is calling Virgin Mary the Burning Bush which Moses saw. Even "Co-Redeemer", as you said is an acceptable liturgical phrase. Conversely, phrases like "Candles are shining with golden crosses" as a symbol of Mary is at best ambiguous and typical of personal meditations that crept into the hymn. There's nothing theological about it. Even worse, over-simplified expression can take common liturgical language and distort it. As stated before, Zephaniah never said the Lord will come as rain without cloud. It seems whoever wrote this confabulated prophets and the prophetic messages. There are also grammatical and lexical ambiguities in some hymns that make translating it into English nearly impossible (see the thread on Amen Alleluia). Commotion and controversy is not coming from any reformed hymns or traditions but from the original prayer or text. It is our responsibility to "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope (and the faith we declare in praises) that is in you, with meekness and fear" 1 Peter 3:15
This is not an attack on the original hymnographers. It is not a mechanism to satisfy a lust for self-importance. Rather it is a medium for us to explore our theological language and develop a framework of thought that will enhance our personal Orthodox experience and faith. This is really not fair. Both academic attacks and personal meditations can be a stumbling block. Responding to any pseudo-academic theories with Orthodox apologetics is just as beautiful and full of blessings from the Holy Virgin as is simply speaking in simple prayer. No one will argue that there isn't wisdom in practicing humility and simplicity. However, all things must be done in moderation. This oversimplified style unconstrained can also lead to un-Orthodox reflections of ignorance. (There is a refrain in the hymn "I will praise the Virgin" no longer used that says "Dates are red. Lemons are yellow. Praise of the Virgin made my mind bemused. AAAh O Mary" (or something like that). Another example of immature language is to call someone by spelling their name, like "Oh M A R Y".) Now these analyses may very well be a reflection of my own ignorance. But I believe that our theology and faith can defend itself from both academic attacks and personal practical misconceptions. This is great advise. Often, however, anonymous readers and contributors will also spiritually benefit if the discourse was publicly discussed - as long as it is done with the same humility, discernment and wisdom.
Again thank you for contributing. I hope you respond.
I didn't listen to HG's comments, but it doesn't make sense to me -- considering that these melodies are fairly recent (about a century old?). . .you would think these composers were more proficient in Arabic than Coptic. . .
Agreed Andrew. Regardless of how old the hymns are, it is evident from basic Language Contact Phenomena Linguistics that the primary language was Arabic. Even the Coptic used in the bilingualism is very basic (only nouns and nominal phrases are used) compared to the Coptic psalies and praises. Additionally, the Arabic used frequently is very classical, which is not something a person would use if Arabic wasn't the primary language. Additionally, the controversial phrases found generally in Kiahk praise are usually in Arabic, not Coptic (not even in bilingual Arabic/Coptic texts).
I think I read this somewhere...but not sure. From O kirios, to Ya meem reh Ya Meem, to Amdah fel batool...all of these should be redone or words changed all together!
Why not take the writings from the Fathers, and chant them with the tune accordingly?
Great Thread guys
Oujai
I'd like to join in on that project too when it materialises, talking about google document. I have very good command of Arabic and I can point out and change many mistakes in a number of hymns..
Oujai
My Coptic and Arabic is no where to be compared to yours or others on tasbeha.org, but I would like to help in anyway, if this project ever materializes.
There is a completely Orthodox sense in which the Holy Theotokos may be regarded 'the cause of Salvation', and the source of all the graces listed in the lovely madeeha, 'I Praise the Virgin'; inasmuch, at least, in the sense that her obedient 'yes' to God inaugurated the historical implementation of the Redemptive Plan. The exact expression, 'cause of salvation', as a reference to the Holy Theotokos is in fact entirely patristic, having its origins in the writings of St Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, III.Xxii - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxiii.html).
Not only is the Theotokos the 'cause of Salvation', she is indeed salvation itself, as we chant in the 8th Part of the Sunday Theotokia, saying, "Hail to you, O Mary; the salvation of Adam our father." There is no problem with such language so long as it is rightly understood.
Such language is not only found in many of our Coptic hymns and prayers, but also in those of all the ancient Apostolic Orthodox churches. In a Syrian Orthodox prayer, the Holy Virgin is praised as being the one who opened the gates of Paradise and the Kingdom. In the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy she is described as "the salvation of the Christian people", and she is entreated with the plea, "Theotokos, save us!". She is furthermore on many occasions described as the source of the blessings and joys which stem from the redemptive work of the Lord Christ. As Gambero notes in his Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, St Severus of Antioch saw the Holy Virgin's role in the Divine Economy of our salvation as extending beyond her being the source of the Lord Christ's Humanity. Her uniquely exalted favour and honour before God move Him to apply the fruits and blessings of His redemptive work in ways and at times simply for her sake and on account of her pleadings. In a popular Armenian Orthodox prayer composed by a saintly Catholicos, the Holy Virgin's favour before her Divine Son is said to in fact be sufficient to acquire the forgiveness of all sins and Eternal Life.
To further highlight how such Orthodox language is to be understood within an Orthodox doctrinal framework I offer a small excerpt from a balanced critique by H.E. Bishop Kallistos Ware of the Eastern Orthodox Church against the Roman Catholic dogmatisation of the definition of the Holy Theotokos as 'Co-Redemptrix':
As a member of the Orthodox Church I have no objection to
[the Marian titles, "Co-Redeemer", "Mediator of All Graces" and "Advocate of the People of God"]
in themselves - provided that they are rightly understood.
Indeed, closely similar language occurs in the prayers and hymns used in
the Christian East. With the greatest frequency in Orthodox worship we
say to the Virgin Mary, "Most Holy Mother of God, save us". In our
invocations to other members of the Communion of Saints, including St
John the Baptist, except on very rare occasions we never say more than
". . . pray for us".
This is not an isolated example. In the preparation before the beginning
of the Divine Liturgy we address Mary in parallel terms:
"Open unto us the door of thy compassion,
O blessed Mother of God; that setting our hope
on thee, may we not go astray; but through thee
may we be delivered from all distress;
for thou art the salvation of the Christian people."
Our evening prayers include the petition, "All my hope I place in thee,
O Mother of God: guard me under thy protection".
And at the end of the highly popular Paraklisis or Service of Intercession to the Theotokos
(Mother of God) we sing, "Queen of the world, become our mediator" (mesitria).
Such language is not new. It has been used by Eastern Christians for
many centuries, and scarcely ever has it given rise to scandal or
controversy...
But precisely how are all these titles and invocations to be understood?
Since Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and the "one
Mediator between God and humankind" (1 Tim. 2:5), how can we speak of
Mary in this way?
Here we may take as our guideline the striking words of St Paul (or one
of his disciples) in Colossians 1:24: "I am now rejoicing in my
sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing that which is
lacking in Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his Body, that is, the
Church." What is meant by the paradoxical phrase "that which is
lacking"? How can anything be lacking in Christ's all-sufficient
sacrifice upon the Cross, performed once for all time?
Yes, indeed: the sacrifice of the Cross 'never for one moment to be
sundered in our thinking from the resurrection ' is altogether complete
and unrepeatable. Yet at the same time through our own self-offering
through our own suffering and our martyrdom, inner or outward we the
baptised make up "that which is lacking" in Christ's suffering: we bear
witness to his perfect sacrifice and we make it ever present in a
bewildered and broken world. In this sense all the members of the Body
are co-redeemers with Christ.
Mary, however, is Co-Redeemer in a particular and outstanding way; for,
as Mother of the Saviour, she is involved with a unique nearness in her
Son's work of salvation. There is, then, a special appropriateness in
calling her the Co-Redeemer par excellence, so long as we never forget
that she and we share the same vocation. We too are called, in union
with her, to "complete that which is lacking in Christ's afflictions".
I strongly urge people not to think themselves wise enough to criticise, correct or reform hymns, prayers or traditions of the Church; particularly not in any way that stirs public commotion or controversy. The Fathers teach us that we are all strongly prone to spiritual delusion; most of the time when zealous laity sincerely think they are doing or saying something in the inetrest of the Church or in defence of Orthodoxy they are in fact only seeking to satisfy a lust for a sense of spiritual self-importance. I am not suggesting that this is the case for anyone who has participated in this thread, I am only echoing a general caution that's more or less most poignantly pronounced in Theophan the Recluse's 'Unseen Warfare'.
Let the people praise the Holy Virgin as the Church instructs and teaches and let us not be a stumbling block to them with our pseudo-academic theories and analyses which often simply reflect our own ignorance; and let us join them in humility without being distracted by petty matters that hinder our hearts from being receptive to the beautiful gifts and blessings that the Holy Virgin wishes to bestow on us through her motherly love.
Let the one who thinks it necessary to raise an objection or criticism that he or she cannot simply ignore or be silent about in good conscience do so with humility, with discernment and with wisdom--which I think would begin (and, more often than not, end) with private discourse on the relevant matters with local heirarchs.
God bless you all.
Thank you for the added perspective; it seems the matter was not as simple as I thought.
This is why discussions like this are important -- I might have never read that portion from St. Irenaeus had you not supplied the link!
Now that we understand that the use of the word "cause" is not inappropriate, it may benefit us to understand what is meant by it.
When I think of 'cause' I think of 'source'. . .
I find it somewhat off-putting that the hymnographers have been dismissed as uneducated, simplistic farmers, and would suggest that perhaps this unintentionally condescending attitude of thinking that we with our "education" know better and are in a position to be critical of them, is precisely what is at the root of the striking irony that we are the ones who in fact turn out to be in "clear error".
Although the only "clear error" I have raised thus far concerns opposition to the Marian appellation "cause of salvation", I also find there to be such errors in the criticisms presented against the reference to the prophecy of Zephaniah, which, I would argue, suggest a falsely reductionist understanding of how Old Testament Scripture may be legitimately invoked as evidence of genuine prophetic fulfilment, via: verses and passages being loosely paraphrased and/or decontextualised, elements of various historically or literarily unrelated verses and passages being innovatively conflated (if not textually, then conceptually) to assert their thematic or theological/spiritual unity, and more. Again, there is a level of irony in the implicit charge that the hymnographers were ignorant of or misquoted the Old Testament, when, I would argue, they in fact display a rather masterful and artful use and application of it remarkably reminiscent of such use and application by the Fathers and the Apostles.
It is tempting to go into detail on the matter of the prophecy that I believe to have been legitimately attributed to Zephaniah, but it is simply not my intention or plan to engage in an extensive and ongoing discussion or debate on the particular issues raised. I went into some detail on the matter of the Holy Virgin's role in redemption because I thought it necessary to correct what I perceived to be a doctrinal error, and also to supply some backing substance to my central goal: to encourage all to embrace the beautiful simplicity that is characteristic of Coptic worship and reflective of its ascetic spirit, and to recognise in humility that we have absolutely nothing to add and everything to gain and learn from our hymnals wherein seemingly simple and unremarkable language, images and concepts veil a bottomless ocean of profundity and wisdom.
I think we are selling our saintly farmer-hymnographers extremely short in reducing their work to that of the ramblings of uneducated simpletons. If the Spirit is said to intercede with groans that cannot be comprehensibly expressed, then perhaps there is some beautiful mystery beyond our ability to grasp in those verses you've been inclined to dismiss as sheer and incoherent nonsense. In what is comprehensible, however, there is much to suggest that the hymnographers had rather profound spiritual insight. It is remarkable but not surprising to me that they would use the exact expression used by St Irenaeus over a millennium earlier to describe the Holy Virgin, though there could be little doubt that they had probably had never heard of St Irenaeus let alone read his works. It is also remarkable but not surprising that they could display such mastery of Old Testament concepts and images in the inspired manner of the Apostles—about which New Testament scholars have spilled much ink expressing wonder.
It is inevitable to be privy to the Patristic and Apostolic mind when the heart has achieved the simplicity and purity necessary to receive the very Spirit Who has informed and shaped that mind in the first place. Who on this forum can claim such a heart so as to claim such a mind? These are the credentials for composing hymns to be used by the whole Church--for these are the credentials that attract the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I know that I for one have not developed the ascetic discipline, purity of heart and divine simplicity that these hymnographers must have so developed for their works to have been received and embraced by the Church and preserved for a not insignificant period of time. If indeed they were of such a low social caste with little formal education as some have suggested, then this is only bolsters their spiritual credibility in my eyes; particularly in light of what is known to be typical about such persons: hard-working, honest, hospitable, and ever-thankful nomads, with very simple and bare needs and wants; rural monastics in many meaningful senses of the term.
I do not think I can express my primary point more clearly or effectively a third time; so this second response marks my final response to this thread.
God bless you and your clearly sincere and laudable intentions and efforts to do what is right and good by His Holy Church.
I appreciate all the points you have made. I don't want this to become a debate on our positions either. I simply wanted to show there are two ways to look at hymnography. These two ways both can be spiritually insightful and both can incur heresies. No way is better than the other. In no way do I believe simple hymnography and simple hymnographers are inferior to philosophical, educated hymnographers and heavily theological hymns. However, where hymn passages are obscure and ambiguous we cannot simply assume the passages are correct and beyond our comprehension. It may very well be true that the passages are correct but it requires a proper analysis to adjudicate the text's Orthodoxy, especially if it is uncommon Orthodox language.
We know that nearly all heresies in the ecumenical councils were propagated by educated, philosophizing priests and bishops like Arius, Nestorius, Macedonius, Origen, Apollonarius, etc. It required educated, spiritually attuned saints like Sts Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscorus, Severus, and others to respond and defend our faith. They in turn, according to tradition, created deep theological hymns like Omonogenes, Eparthenos, the Trisagion, etc. So we can see that educated people can destroy and educated people can defend our faith.
The same is true with simple hymnographers. They can, as you have shown, reveal a spiritual nuance of scriptures that the Holy Spirit has revealed. But they can also create hymns based on false teaching, sometimes based on known apocrypha. Like you, I do not wish to get into details about a specific hymn or text. My goal from the beginning (years before this thread, as referenced from the original poster) was to discuss ambiguous hymns and try to understand what the original simple hymnographers meant. My initial reaction was overly dismissive of certain phrases of this particular hymn. I later realized what you were saying about spiritual insight. (I wish you had come to the forum years ago with this message). However, I believe the simplicity of the hymn is better understood in a very theological, scripture-based, patristic Orthodox framework. You yourself did this with Irenaeus' reference and Bishop Kallistos' discussion.
I think in the end we are saying the same thing. I only wished to add the caveat that what you have warned against changing hymns because of a lack of understanding or a hidden feeling of spiritual importance can equally apply to those who follow simple hymns with ambiguous text without examining how they fit into the Orthodox mind. I'll give you a real life example. There was once a priest from Upper Egypt who found a euchologion manuscript with an additional "fraction" prayer. Thinking this was a miracle from God who wished to restore this lost prayer, the priest prayed the fraction every liturgy even though there was no Arabic translation. One day a visitor came to his church and noticed the prayer. After the liturgy, he asked the priest where he found that prayer. He told him and showed him the original euchologion manuscript. The visitor examined the text and found the "fraction" prayer was actually a bill of sale/invoice for cows.
This example is an extreme case - and it is not the type of simplicity you are describing in the simple hymnographers. However, I strongly suggest people have the wisdom not to follow and say things without examining them under the guidance and approval of the Orthodox fathers and the Church hierarchy.
I sincerely hope you reconsider and contribute again, not for engaging in roundabout debates but enlightening all who may learn something from God through you. (myself included).
I appreciate you said you wouldn't carry on in this discussion. I do hope you read my few lines here. First of all I should say you raise very valid and important points. I agree with all of them, except how you apply them to Kiahk melodies, and I will say why that is. I for one adopted this approach of yours in debating with people their turning on the controversy switch on Coptic hymns like O Kurioc - deute pentec - tenen, etc. The difference however is that I (and actually consider that we) don't have a fluent day to day language of communication Coptic faculties, or able to trace back to our roots and understand their syntactical and grammatical aberrations, that are inherent in colloquial language in just about every tongue on this earth.
HOWEVER, in capital letters, I get the feeling that you don't understand Arabic that well. Maybe I got that feeling from your long response and the smoothness, sleekness by which you wrote formal English language even though that alone is not an indicator; just please correct me if I am wrong. Now, what I dislike about Kiahk melodies in Arabic, without really knowing exactly the history behind them, or who composed them, is that they not only contain some "strange" dogmatic principles, but also quranic language. If you have lived in Egypt, you would quite clearly understand how the day-to-day language is influenced so much, in fact Egypt as a whole, by islamicisation, and arabicisation of culture in general, and religion in particular. The Holy Spirit does not exempt those simple-minded composers from mistakes, and it will be a grave issue if we don't fight against these quranic sounding principles and phrases. For example "yawm el zahma" - "the day of the crowding". This is not a Biblical phrase (or please tell me where that is in the Bible). This is influenced by islamic teachings spread over the microphones, and by oppressing the humble Christians (converting those who are humble in their minds too). The Holy Spirit said through Christ that the evil one will deceive if possible the chosen ones. How will it succeed in doing that unless by infiltrating into church authorities and allowing such matters to prevail? Yes, authorities too. Now all what the church authorities do is pander to the congregation in what they want, not what should be done. I know many church figures who are against such melodies, and yet people like them. They renovate and revamp them every year, so leave them be. Another thing is that unfortunately I didn't (and certainly will not do) learn any of those melodies so I cannot remember other examples, but if you want me to, I will list them later.
May the Lord bless us with His holy blessings in Kiahk and all the days of our lives through praising Him continuously without ceasing in both understandable and ununderstandable ways (without falling into condemnation).
Oujai qen `P[C
InChrist7 does have a point concerning the mixing of Scriptural texts in the Christian tradition. This occurs in the Gospels, the Church Fathers, and in hymnology. One example from the Gospel is St. Mark 1:2-3, where he says "as it is written in Isaiah the prophet" but first quotes Malachi 3:1, then continues with a quote from Isaiah 40:3. This doesn't mean that St. Mark was lying about quoting Isaiah the prophet, but that he was considering the whole of Scripture as one whole story of the economy of salvation, spoken in the same Spirit.
One biblical scholar from Holy Cross seminary in Brookline, MA, Dr. Bruce Beck, says that the Apostles and Church Fathers commonly put one holy verse with another holy verse to make a "super-holy" effect. It's more of a rhetorical style of making impressions, rather than being factual in terms of accurate quotes, the latter of which we are used to today -- to avoid plagiarism.
On the other hand, I don't think this has anything to do with the Kiahk melodies (written in Arabic). One may just compare the contents of the hymns in Coptic, with their typologies, such as the "Roomy and ma3akkab" with those written in Arabic, and note how poorly the latter express the Church's theology and prayers. The Arabic melodies are poor expressions of the Coptic spirituality and theology, and actually demonstrate a break between the older traditions and the newer Arabic culture.
It's one thing to preserve these hymns for an academic study of how there was a break in the tradition and why it happened, but it's another thing to insist on using the new material for prayer.
And now to end with a 10th century quote by Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa:
"My friend, you mentioned that at the current time different statements about the orthodox faith have grown numerous among the Copts, that one Copt holds an opinion different from another and calls him an unbeliever, and that you are astonished and perplexed about that. Do not be astonished: the reason for this is their ignorance of their language, for the Arabic language has subdued them. Not one among them remains who knows what is read to him in church in the Coptic language. They have become like those who listen but do not understand."
-- Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffa, "The Book of Elucidation" 10, in Stephen J. Davis, Coptic Christology in Practice (Oxford University Press, 2008) 201.
The kiahk songs are replete with Islamic expressions. It is not so much the language but the concepts. As in example is the expression "youm el 7ashr".
"Youm El7ashr " , while it refers to the day of judgement, is more a reference to "Ahl el nar" or the dwellers of Hades who will be cast in great numbers in the eternal fire. The word "7ashr" in the context of the quranic verse and the number of Hadith it is featured in does not mean crowded but jammed into Hades.
The intercessor of this day in Islam is Muhammed. Such images of the day of judgement are purely Islamic.
I appreciate the attempts to find a Christian interpretations for these hymns, but these hymns were greatly influenced and inspired by cultural aspects that are Islamic in nature.
Oujai qen `P[C