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
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
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
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."
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.
In addition, after the verse "Bless the Lord, O Ananias, Azarias and Misael", BN68 and Byzantine Orthos adds the verse "Εὐλογεῖτε Πατέρα καὶ Υιὀυ
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."
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
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.
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
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
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.