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 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 369
- Technical Topics 369
Comments
Drew or Mina, does this also apply for Apinav shopi vs. Offeratory Alleluia "Al al-orban"? Can we say the offeratory alleluia on weedays during these 3 fasts mentions? What about Sundays during these fasts?
I see no reason why Apinav shopi is limited to fasts or offeratory alleluia limited to feasts or non-fasts? Nothing theological about them that requires limiting them to such.
One last thing. I have an old manuscript that says "Hymn" Taishori and the paralex is Tishori. So it is likely that they were both one hymn that was separated and randomly placed into weekday/weekend rites.
Oujai
Oujai
I will present only some of the sources that lead us to this conclusion, since I am unable at the moment to do an extensive research into this, not to mention that I only possess a small fraction of Coptic liturgical manuscripts, certainly not enough to say anything conclusive...so this may seem spotty.
Even as late as the Gabriel V's 15th cent. Ritual Order (Al-Tarteb Al-Taqsi), we find him describing that the deacons sing Alleluia This is the Day while the priest is praying the prayer of preparation. No mention is made of A Pinav Shopi, and this is interesting as well because it tells us that indeed what we today call Alleluia Al-Qurban is nothing but the beginning of Alleluia Fai Pe Piehooou.
I don't currently have Ibn Kabar or Ibn Sebaa in front of me, but I am almost certain they describe more or less the same rite. We can conclude then that at least in Cairo (the center of the Coptic patriarchate in the 14th and 15th cent, and the location where Patriarch Gabriel V and the presbyter Ibn Kabar served) Alleluia Al-Qurban was chanted from the beginning of the preparation of the altar for the Offertory (i.e. After the conclusion of Matins) until the priest has prepared the altar, prayed the mystical prayers, chosen the lamb, and was about to make the proclamation Glory and Honor.
As Ophadece mentioned, this makes sense in light of the fact that until the early 20th century, the Agpeya was not a standard element of every Divine Liturgy as is the custom today.
Where does that leave A Pinav Shopi? I don't recall seeing it in the three medieval ritual manuals (Ibn Kabar, Ibn Sebaa, and Gabriel V). Perhaps a more thorough manuscript study can reveal its history. However, looking at its very words, I suggest it may be a hymn to signal the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word rather than the beginning of the Offertory.
"The time has come! Dismiss the multitude, let the teachers explain, let all wise men gather unto us to explain the holy books".
It is generally agreed that the placing of the gifts on the altar (the latter part of the Offertory) was moved to its current location from after the Liturgy of the Word (Cf. Justin's Apology, among others). If that were indeed true, and I think it is, it would make sense that a hymn at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Word would be displaced somewhat earlier and fall in what is today the Offertory, when initially it would have signaled the beginning of the entire Divine Liturgy.
As far as Tishory/Taishory, we find the following: Ibn Kabar only mentions Entho te tishori. Gabriel V mentions both Entho te tishori and Tai shori. Again, this is all for annual liturgies, not any particular occasion. You can read this to mean Ti Shori is a later development, or as Remenkimi pointed out, it was part of Tai Shory that was later separated into its own hymn. I was first informed of this observation at a lecture given by Fr. Athanasius Al-maqary, and it makes perfect sense. Without Ti Shory, Tai Shory itself makes little sense. It explains nothing about St. Mary, or the symbolism of the censer:
This is the censer of pure gold bearing the aroma, in the hands of Aaron the priest, offering up incense on the altar.
Tishory then adds the explanation:
The golden censer is the Virgin, her aroma is our Savior. She gave birth to Him; He saved us and forgave us our sins.
Entho te tishory does both in one single thought addressed to St. Mary:
You are the golden censer, carrying the blessed and live coal.
As you can see, simply reading the text of the prayers often times reveals their purpose and spirituality (and therefore their usage) much better than debating over what each cantor or "authoritative" book claims. Read in this light, one can understand that whatever hymn is chanted by the congregation at this point in the service is very simply our own participation in the priest's offering of incense for the first time in the Divine Liturgy. With the rising clouds of smoke, we proclaim our understanding of the censer and incense as symbols of the incarnation of the Lord. The immediate thought is St. Mary and the censer, yes, but that in turn leads us to acknowledge and bring to mind God's own presence in His Church. He is present in His Body, the Church first of all. He is also present more fully and mystically as a direct result of His incarnation (something we praise whenever we praise St. Mary as the censer), He is also present in His inspired Scriptures which are about to be read, and this presence on multiple levels is all expressed with incense, which in ancient times was used even in secular settings to honor the presence of rulers and kings. It is not arbitrary or merely aesthetic therefore to conclude whatever hymn we chant (Entho, Tai Shori, Ti Shori) with the following proclamation:
We worship Thee O Christ (notice how Christ is mentioned first since the entire focus is the incarnation) with Your good Father and the Holy Spirit for You have come and saved us.
Very interesting points indeed. Thank you. Your comment that rites and organisations could be understood in the light of proper reading of the text, and linking readings together, so it makes sense. That only proves that with the decline of the coptic language many people raised the game with their innovations, and unfortunately this continues to happen for the continued lack of knowledge of cantors nowadays with the language first and second with the presence of manuscripts. Yes of course there's a strong verbal tradition but that's only supported by written evidence, not one without the other!
Oujai
ramezm, finally i understand something someone says about coptic hymns!
thanks!
:-)
Hello Fr. Antony,
Yes, I was present at his public lecture at St. Maurice Church during the same visit, in which he gave an overview of his book on Great Lent, as well as the idea that Taishori and Tishori are a single hymn.
However, I have not myself seen this manuscript, or heard this idea alluded to anywhere else. Also, one manuscript is never enough to make any definitive conclusions, especially that I don't recall the date or location of this source. Although the idea would make perfect sense, as I explained above, I have to remain hesitant somewhat to endorse this piece of information as a definitive fact until more work is done.
Pray that someday our access to manuscripts (esp. those in Egyptian monasteries and libraries) will be made easier, which would allow us to discover, investigate, and write about our liturgical history (and more important, theology) much better than anyone has been able so far.