› ›

Ananias Azarias Misaeel... ke Danieel?

Daniel_Kyrillos
in Hymns Discussion
This is regarding the second-to-last verse of the Third Hoos.
In Coptic, on here (and on the commonly used presentation I know of) the verse is:
`Cmou `e`P[oic / `Ananiac `Azariac Micayl ke Daniyl / hwc `erof `arihou`o [acf / sa ni`eneh
However-
In many recordings and lesson videos for both the long and short version of this verse, often Daniel is excluded.
The recordings from the sources other than Ibrahim Ayad under `Cmou `e`P[oic all exclude Daniel in the long hymn.
a) Should Daniel be said in the long hymn
b) Should the Arabic and translation language (namely English) forms of the verse include Daniel
b.2) Should the short Coptic have his name said?

}sep`hmot `n;wten tyrou

Comments

  • ophadeceophadece
    Ekhrestos anesty
    No, Daniel should not be added. This is a passage from the Bible in its entirety and does not include Daniel. We do not add or detract from the words of the Bible
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • anba_antoniosanba_antonios
    edited April 2017
    Just to add on to what Ophadece said. In the book of Daniel, in the Orthodox/Catholic bible this verse is part of the prayer of Azariah which is in chapter 3. This particular verse is verse 88:
    “Bless the Lord, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael;
    sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.
    For he has rescued us from Hades and saved us from the power[a] of death,
    and delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace;
    from the midst of the fire he has delivered us."
  • Daniel_Kyrillos
    @ophadece @anba_antonious thanks so much, God bless.
  • drewhalim
    edited April 2017
    I just want to add a point that aside from whether "Daniel" should be included in the hymn or not it is not valid to say he shouldn't as we do not add or subtract from the bible. Hymns based on biblical texts are very common throughout all Christian churches and it is often the case that additional words are added. This does not mean we are being untrue to the bible as we are not quoting the bible verbatim we are praising with a hymn.

    I will give you another example which many from Alexandria and Cairo will know of. In the Holy Week hymn :wk te ]jom the second verse from the eve of Friday says afswpi nyi eucwtyri`a efouab. Now the Coptic bible does not include the word
    efouab (holy or sacred) and churches in Alexandria do not say it whilst you will struggle to find a church in Cairo that does not say it as they probably all do. It is a word added to a hymn of praise and does not mean we are misquoting or adding to the bible.
  • ophadeceophadece
    <rictoc anecty
    Good point dear @drewhalim. I do agree to some extent. Yes, we do praise with a hymn, and we do modify some Biblical text for the purpose of poetry, emphasis, repetitiveness, etc. But the third hos in particular is taken wholly from the Bible - it is not like a sentence or two. I think it would more "palatable" to add, or modify one or two sentences, but not add things in to whole Biblical chapters... 
    oujai qen P[c
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited April 2017
    But the Third Hoos is not taken wholly from the Bible. Daniel 3:44 in the Greek Septugaint says "O you winter and summer, bless the Lord, praise and exalt Him above all". This is not found in the Third Hoos at all. 

    In addition, BN68 has a bilingual Greek and Coptic version of the Third Hoos where the Greek does not match the Coptic (all the verses are in a different order than Daniel 3. Also, the Coptic doesn't match the Greek text because of this additional verse in Daniel 3:44. 

    In addition, after the verse "Bless the Lord, O Ananias, Azarias and Misael", BN68 and Byzantine Orthos adds the verse "Εὐλογεῖτε Πατέρα καὶ Υιὀυ
    καὶ ἅγιον
    Πνεῦμα αἰνοῦμεν καὶ ὑπερυψοῦμεν
    αὐτὸν εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας." which is translated "Bless the Lord, the Father, the Son and the Holy
    Spirit, we praise, we exalt Him above all forever."

    Therefore, there is no evidence that liturgical hymns have to follow the Septugaint OT/Greek NT/Coptic Bible to the letter of the law. There was some liturgical license in this very conservative field of hymnology. 




  • ophadeceophadece
    edited April 2017
    <c anecty
    Dear @Remnkemi,
    First canticle does follow the Coptic Bible as was discussed here before (to the letter). Second canticle does. Fourth canticle does. Third canticle does; it is interesting that you found a statement in the Greek Bible that is not found in the Coptic one. I have just reviewed the Coptic Book of Daniel online, and found it exactly the same (except for the word ouoh in the very first verse - dropped in favour of ":" ???? and "ouwst `mP[c" after "nisyri `nte nirwmi"). I will also review the other resources. 
    By the way, @minatasgeel made that comment before - why would people who love invention and innovation use "ke" when the whole third canticle is written in Coptic language?!!!!
    oujai qen P[c
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @ohadece...yes i made that comment, but i have also supported having Daniel in there as it is mentioned in some books and recorded by most oral sources. 

    Also, the we discussed the text of of the first and second hoos before and it was clear that things didn't match EXACTLY as the bible...i don't wanna repeat what i said then. 

    And what Coptic Bible did you check with? please provide the source.
  • ophadeceophadece
    Ekhrestos anesty
    Dear @minatasgeel,
    You probably forgot that @imikhail quoted the text showing that the conclusion of the first canticle as it is documented in the psalmody. Secondly I did not mention your name because you agree with me, I actually didn't know what your opinion was but I am just quoting a just and an appropriate comment you had made previously. Oral sources and cantors are not reliable linguistic sources at all.
    The reference for the Book of Daniel online is the one on www.remenkimi.com
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    From what I remember about the first hood, mainly because I looked into it for bright Saturday, part of the last paragraph is not in the original texy--it's a repetition from the first paragraph.

    For the second hoos, it's just the psalm. And the original bible text doesn't have the refrain in every verse. So here is another example of the composer taking the Bible and fitting it in a specific intended way to chant.

    And this whole idea is not new--we do this to psalm in church readings all the time. The psalms that are said during vespers, matins, and liturgy are not one or two verses that are copied right out of the book. Not at all. Some are even taken out of context (see the first part of the crowing ceremony psalm)

    Yes, to some certain extent oral sources are not reliable. But guess what, that's how we got everything we have now--ora tradition. Without that, everything would of been lost.
  • ophadeceophadece

    <rictoc anecty
    Dear @minatasgeel,
    Your claim about the second canticle is mistaken. Please refer to the Coptic Bible. 
    Of course the readings in the church are exactly my point. Even though we take parts of different psalms and put them next to each other, we DO NOT add to or detract from the Bible readings (or any passages from the Bible). Indeed, this is my argument against people who say (even the holy synod), the Nicene Creed should be recited in its entirety throughout the year, contrary to the teachings we received. We chop up parts of the Bible and put it next to each other (without modification), so how fitting is it to ignore part of the Creed to emphasise a certain occasion. 
    Lastly, I find this statement "But guess what, that's how we got everything we have now--ora tradition. Without that, everything would of been lost" quite difficult to understand; I was referring to the linguistic reliability, and you agreed with me in that, so why did you add that statement?

    oujai qen P[c

  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    edited April 2017
    Keda e7na bendakhal kol el-selook fe ba3d.....

    There is NO ONE COPTIC BIBLE. There isn't a book printed that called the coptic bible in our hands these days. what we have are different books published by some older western scholars from manuscripts they have found. What we also have are katameroses that have church readings in which you can find most of the bible. What we also have are Church Fathers' writings that may be in Greek or Coptic, and those would also have passages from the Bible. All that being said, remenkimi has by far the worst typed up coptic text ever. it's not reliable, it needs to be reviewed and compared with actual printed sources. Considering that i been working on text for sometime, not as much as Remnkemi of course, in my opinion it was the worst idea ever to type up text that is not reviewed nor edited to the public, because in turn, no one does the reviewing...they just copy and paste the text, "So the last deception [is] worse than the first." (Matthew 27). So you can't use that as a reference. 

    Now here is psalm 135 (136) from:
    - Kitab mazameer Dawood elnabi, Shakir Bassilious, PhD, published 1990 (top)
    - Apostolic Bible, Old Testament, an LXX translation. (bottom)

    In none of these do you see the Alleluias. Also the ending of the psalm doesn't have "je ekhrestos oo aghathos" part.

    Now, the entity in the Church that has the authority  to make any changes to the rites is the Synod--in ANY RITE for ANY SERVICE. That was has been given to them by God. Now, if you or anyone else is not convinced by their changes, that's fine...disagreements are healthy in the Church. We are not robots. But as long as we are in church, we must do what the Synod says. 

    I'll just throw this out there...we do not worship rites like an idol...rites are set for us to help stay in God's grace while we are in this world. 

  • ophadeceophadece
    <rictoc anecty
    No further comment needed...
    oujai qen P[c
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    All that being said, remenkimi has by far the worst typed up coptic text ever. it's not reliable, it needs to be reviewed and compared with actual printed sources. Considering that i been working on text for sometime, not as much as Remnkemi of course, in my opinion it was the worst idea ever to type up text that is not reviewed nor edited to the public, because in turn, no one does the reviewing...they just copy and paste the text, "So the last deception [is] worse than the first." (Matthew 27). So you can't use that as a reference. 
    Just so you know, I gave Remenkimi.com the Coptic Bible out of ignorance. I told the person in charge to just review the text. He published it online without any permission. I then get a call from St Shenouda Archimandrite Society who asked Remenkimi.com to take it down because it was actually done by them in the 1980's. As I was told, St Shenouda Society gave it to one of the bishops as a present. This bishop in turn sent it to all priests who purchased a new Coptic software (of course without permission of St Shenouda Society), who my priest in turn gave me a copy because I like Coptic so much and I was the only one who knew how to use the new software. I turned out to do the same thing with Remenkimi.com years later without any knowledge of this history and remenkimi.com turned around and published it on their site. Now ask me why St Shenouda Society never published it: Because they knew it was filled with errors and mistakes. It was done in the early 80's where Coptic just started to come to the computer world. They fixed the NT years later and subsequently self-published it with corrections .... and references to each manuscript. (And by the way, people stole that and published it on the internet without permission.) Of course, now that the OT is on the internet, no publisher will publish it because of copyright issues. The net result is we screwed over the group that did all the hard work. 

    Conclusion: "The last deception is worse than the first." Or put another way, "we can't stop ourselves from one deception after another when it comes to Coptic texts". 

    One more thing. The Fourth Hoos also does not have Alleluia (like the Second Hoos) in the Septuagint Greek text or in the Bohairic Coptic text (Scwartze Psalterium). In Sahidic Psalm 148 (Butler's Oldest Psalter, I believe), verses 4-6 switch the object and the verb (for example, "You stars and light, praise Him") - which is not found in Bohairic Coptic or Septuagint Greek. 

    Also, Psalm 150 ends with nifi niben. Doxa Patri to  piwou va Pennou] pe is an addition, not found in any biblical version of Psalm 150.

    With more research we are going to find more aberrations/versions of the Fourth Hoos or any psalmody text. I found an Arabic version of the weekday theotokias which have a strange addition. (I can't divulge too much information at this time). It happens and more research will show how often it happens. 
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @Remnkemi...i donno why am i not surprised of anything you just said??!!!

    Actually, when i was putting an english agpeya together, i found that the text of the Midnight Intro in arabic is a bit diff from psalmodies, while the english i was using as a reference (because we already have many english agpeyas) was diff from the coptic in psalmodies and the arabic too. I still need to compare that with the coptic I found in Burmester book though
  • ophadeceophadece
    edited April 2017
    Ekhrestos anesty
    Dear @Remnkemi
    I will do some research on this as I am away from home at the moment. Www.remenkimi.com is not the only reference but I will make sure that what I have is foolproof before I quote anything further.
    Most if not all the Alleluja's in psalms, praises and even the liturgy are not written per se in the Bible. They either replace the colons or semi-colons or are endings to the verses.
    Now it is perfectly fine in my opinion to add four or five verses to the end of the Biblical passage: such is acceptable and does not count as adding to the Word of God. It's what @drewhalim mentioned, as in singing and meditating on the Word of God. It is even the practice now to add a refrain to every verse of psalm 150 in different occasions as we all know..
    Lastly I am not relying on any other language source when I am looking for text in the psalmody..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • Daniel_Kyrillos
    I didn't want such a big mess... does anyone have any words from Ibrahim Ayad or any of the cantors or any Synod decree settling this?? :(
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited April 2017
    Lol...you're not interested in appreciating the thought that goes through why we do what we do? ;)

    It seems from the texts and recordings I have, there's no "ke Danieel". Do you have any recordings that include "ke Danieel"?

    Edit: nvm, I found that Mlm. Ibrahim Ayad uses "ke Danieel". Copticheritage doesn't. Sooooo...up to you and the choir you lead ;) I don't think Daniel won't mind being including to bless the Lord.
  • ophadeceophadece
    <c anecty
    Dear all,
    Psalm 135 (Second canticle): 
    - According to "The Earliest Known Coptic Psalter by Wallis Budge" ⇒ has je ousa eneh pe pefna in all verses (doesn't have je ou,c ouaga;oc pe in the last verse) - note this is a Sa'idic version. 
    - According to "M. G. Schwartze" ⇒ has je pefnai sob sa eneh throughout. This is a Bohairic version. 
    - According to all other versions do contain the same sentence (whether Bohairic or Sa'idic), but I cannot verify their "source" unfortunately
    Daniel chapter 3:
    - According to two sources (I cannot verify their "source" either) in Bohairic, they are exactly the same, and of course they don't have either ke Daniyl or the Greek statement that @Remnkemi referred to. They also agree with the version on www.remenkimi.com website whereby they don't have "ouwst mP[c". 

    Bottom line is: the more I research, the more I find consistency and reliability in the different sources I have (well; one may argue they are all copy and paste; then I would wait until other people have done their researches too). In fact, if there is any inconsistency it may have been in the psalmody, where "scribes" or "transcribers", or whatever they are called have copied things mistakenly. So I would say, why don't we remove "ouaga;oc" in the first and last verse of the second canticle? Why don't we remove "tyrc" in "tefjom tyrc" in the same? Why don't we also remove "ouwst `mP[c" from the third canticle? Or perhaps there is another version of the Coptic Bible with those additions in - I would wait until any body would tell me then. At the end of the day (excepting psalm 150) they are all passages from the Bible and should be recited as they are - Psalm 150 may be a special case, in the fact that such an ending may be considered as a "mini" prayer, or glorification at the end of the main body of midnight praises, as is the case in the Divine Liturgy, pretty much as per doxaci o :eoc ymwn prior to Psalm 117 and doxa Patri at its end! 
    Oujai qen P[c

  • ophadeceophadece
    <c anecty 
    I am not even sure that the people who add ka Daniel know that the third canticle is a passage from the Bible! Otherwise they wouldn't have done it.. I mean I recognise invention and innovation but not to that extent! I wouldn't think that for example that the same would be done for Sihon the king of the Amorrites, saying "Sihon the king of Amorrites in the land of Heshbon"!!!!! Or "Pharaoh Raamses and his chariots" (if it was Raamses; I am not that up to speed with Biblical history), or anything like that. These are OK to be said in melodies, the lobsh, psalis (we modify the Biblical text innumerable times in psalis, taodokeyas, lobshes, etc), but not a passage from the Bible as such...
    oujai qen `P[C
  • ophadeceophadece
    edited April 2017
    <c anecty
    Please ignore previous statement; misunderstood what @minatasgeel was referring to. 
    Oujai qen P[c
Sign In or Register to comment.