Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Koiahk Psalm 150

Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
in Hymns Discussion
For Koiahk Psalm 150’s refrain where did the English/Arabic “was Incarnate of the Virgin” come from? (It’s weird since it’s not in the Coptic)
What should we then sing?

Comments

  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Originally, there wasn't one and the long alleluia's were to be said. That is the same case for Lent too as well as Jonah's fast. Somehow, someone started to say a refrain for great lent, then one was made for kiahk, then one was made for Jonah. The one specific to Kiahk was chosen and declared in a synod decree during one of their sessions and it was specifically said that the coptic was different from the arabic. Other languages can i guess be translated from either and be said accordingly. 
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
    That doesn’t answer my question.
    Should we say “..was incarnate of the Virgin..”?
    And, where did it come from?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    If we are speaking just about english, technically, you can if you want. Meaning that, in english, you can either take the coptic translation or the arabic one. 
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna

    Can we simply follow “The Begotten of the Father before all ages” in English and in Arabic, since this is what we follow for the Coptic?
    Why don’t they then add “..was incarnate of the Virgin.” to the Coptic if that’s the issue..?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Because it would be very diffecult to sing in Coptic. So the synod allowed the extra part in Arabic.
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
    How about the English?
    The SUS SELAH Production recorded it without the extra part...
    I know how to sing it in Arabic without the extra part...
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Then it's whatever your church deacons agree upon. 
  • ItalianCopticItalianCoptic
    edited September 2019
    Probably because there are differences in the languages when it comes to structure, inference and meaning. There are a lot of words that do not translate from Arabic to English, and if you think about it, the Coptic and Arabic have been the main languages sung for 1,500 years or so.
    It is probably put in there much like how we go, "One God, Amen." In English, that would be an extra, unneeded term because by saying the Trinity you're already inferring that it's one. I get it's there because Muslims believe it is three gods.
    The same in many of the hymns that are translated over from Arabic to English. I've found a few words could be taken out because in English, some words already describe it without being a literal description of the events. It's probably the reverse of that, and it was added to specify that Jesus was not born of a woman impregnated by a man. Especially since a majority of English speaking countries are Protestant, and they're views on the Theotokos are skewed at best.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    edited September 2019
    One of the most frustrating thing i see:
    In `Acwmen, the refrain in Greek and Coptic is translated to "He ascended ... the Spirit of Truth. Amen alleluia." while the Arabic says, "He ascended ... the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter. Amen alleluia."--the Arabic adds "al-mo'azi" because you need more syllables to match the tune in Coptic, and that is totally acceptable to do. But now, in english, you don't need those 4 syllables at all: "the/Com/for/ter". So, the logical thing to do is to use the Coptic translation since it sounds better. But, nope, not too many do that. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    Just adding to the mix here that whoever added the Arabic refrain has erred severely. Kiahk is not about Virgin Mary but about the Marian role in incarnation so to say that He took flesh from the Virgin is a grave mistake in the dogma of incarnation.. The Nicene Creed makes it clear that He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of Virgin Mary, so to omit that partly and to focus solely on the human flesh is a misunderstanding of Kiahk..
    Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
    @minatasgeel our church says “The Spirit of the Truth. Amen, Alleluia.” :D :D :D
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    [ facepalm ] i don't think that's grammatically correct...but i donno.  
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
    It’s on the Coptic...
    (Facepalm) it is correct :)
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    That's not how translating works
  • Jojo_HannaJojo_Hanna
    Care to expand..?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    You cannot take every single letter in one language and translate it into another, and expect total sense. If that was the case, then you wouldn't need any human factor in translation and just use google translate or any translation application for everything. 

    As an example, and considering what we are already talking about, the arabic translator realized and understood that the term "Pi`pneuma `nte ]me;myi" refers a the Holy Spirit whose one of His titles is "the Spirit of truth" as found in John 16:13, John 14:17, John 15:26, 1 John 3:24, and 1 John 4:6. The arabic says "Rohh El-haqq" not "al-rohh el-haqq" since you do not need another the definite article to be repeated. And that is the same with english...you do not need repeat the definite article because it simple doesn't make sense.

    The other aspect is that the Spirit is Lord of "THE TRUTH"--He is not Lord of "A" truth, but truth is defined in Him. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    Very well said.. Thanks @minatasgeel.. That is not to say that Arabic translations are all correct though..
    Ⲟⲩϫⲁⲓ ϧⲉⲛ Ⲡϭⲥ
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    True ophadece... But even the Arabic incorrect translations would probably have a cohesive acceptable, and arabic-sounding sentance structure
  • ophadeceophadece
    I agree, yes
Sign In or Register to comment.