It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I do not understand how it is heretical because of the Arabic translation when the original language of the hymn is Greek, not Arabic. (As I understand it, this is one of the Greek hymns used in the Church, not originally Coptic.)
As I understand it, this is one of the Greek hymns used in the Church, not originally Coptic.
and i would much rather keep something that is older than what abouna Shenouda Maher has.....
and he himself would agree to that
The way the translation goes, the way the hymn is written in Greek creates confusion.
This confusion creates the sense of heresy.
No one knows how this hymn entered our Church. Liturgical Books as old as 50 years do not have it. The Greek Church does not use it. Do we know who authored it?
A recent attempt was made to have the Hymn translated by the Melekite Church. They said that the hymn does not make any sense in Greek and no Greek person would understand it.
My question is why would we use such a hymn that does not make any sense?
and he himself would agree to that
hehe .. He would not have authored it if he approves of the hymn. BTW Fr. Shenouda does not use the hymn in his church.
I don't really know--i would need to research a little (which i don't have time for).. but i KNOW that it's older than Fr. Shenouda's.
i said he would agree to "keep" the hymn.....not necessarily approve or disapprove of the hymn.
He preaches OB coptic but he doesn't attack those who do still use Behere coptic we use in churches now.
I ask this because it is the translation is what gives the hymn its meaning. Otherwise, we would be like the pagans as the Bible says. So, if we cannot get an accurate translation of the hymn, then we are in essence saying something we do not know what it means and which is on the border of heresy as I explained.
Yes it is essential to know how authentic a hymn is, otherwise we are not adhering to Orthodoxy that has discipleship and reception at its focus.
i just said i have no time to search...but it is older than Abouna's.....is it not clear enough?!
On a practical level, how does this work? Do we know by name, for instance, who authored the various "Hitenis", "Evlogimenos", "Golgotha", etc.? I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything; I'm sincerely interested in this idea. I suppose I had assumed that some things can be credited as "Traditional Coptic Hymns" with no further attribution due to the fact that the hymns were orally transmitted until very recently. I suppose their lineage could have been passed down similarly, but honestly I've never heard anyone ask about this aspect of the hymns other than wondering who the "Sarkis" mentioned in "Arepsalin" was.
I was under the impression that ari'alin was composed in the 15th century when cantor Sarkis was present. I don't know if it was in 11th century manuscripts.
Secondly, and more importantly, why do you insist on translation being spot-on for us to understand hymns? As dzheremi says, the problem lies with the translation not with the hymn.
Well, I am not implying that the syntax may be unorthodox and not quite straightforward, and Remenkimi as I believe ascribed this to the mixture of dialects of Sa'idic and Akhmimic (if my memory serves me right) in his analysis on top of the loose Greek.
However, still with some basic understanding you can understand what the hymns says. It is the fault of cantor Farag, or any other author who first attempted to translate the hymn in being unscrupulous, but that doesn't detract from the hymn's clarity and credulousness.
It is not a Greek hymn, why should we refer it to the Greeks to translate?
Even ari'alin or <c anecty they aren't able to translate.
But we know exactly what it means (for me partly yes because of translation as I am not an expert in Greek), but I don't need such a translation for O Kyrioc. It is relatively easy for me, and therefore, for anybody else to understand...