Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Decision from Synod Regarding Coptic Language

«13

Comments

  • qawe
    What is the practical impact of this decision?
  • ophadeceophadece
    No comment whatsoever. Waiting for the day that the American church authority stamps out any other British, Australian, south African, or broken English accents to the American composed Christian songs? And yes of course a language is an entity that is owned by a bunch of people and they can advise for what pleases them and against what they deem to be off..
    oujai khan ebshois
  • qawe
    ophadece said:

    No comment whatsoever

    LOL
    ophadece said:

    for the day that the American church authority stamps out any other British, Australian, south African, or broken English accents to the American composed Christian songs?

    Waiting for the day the Church stamps out the 'Christian' songs completely. (Not talking about Orthodox compositions here)
  • cyril
    image

    image
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Can someone please translate the decision? I see a lot of issues here.
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    It's translate on the homepage :-)
  • cyril
    Decision of the Coptic and Greek Language Committee
    Formed from the Hymns Committee of
    The Rites Committee of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church
    Regarding the used pronunciation of Coptic texts and
    Greek words and texts in hymns, praises, and liturgies

    The committee headed by H.G. Bishop Demetrios of the Coptic language, formed of the Committee of Rites at the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and head of the Division of Coptic Language at the Institute of Coptic Studies along with:

    a) For the Coptic Language
    1. Fr. Gabriel Bernaba, Teacher of Coptic Language at the Institute of Coptic Studies and Didymus Institute for Cantors in Cairo.
    2. Fr. Zakka Fayez, Teacher of Coptic Language at the Coptic Seminary of Cairo

    b) For the Greek Language
    1. Fr. Basilious Sobhy, Head of the Division of Languages ate the Coptic Seminary of Cairo
    2. Dr. Mishil Badae Abdelmalek, Head of the Hymns Division and Coptic Music at the Institute of Coptic Studies, and teach of Greek Language (Ancient, Koine, the pronunciation used for the Holy Bible and liturgical texts) at the seminary schools and Institute of Coptic Studies.

    For the studying of the pronunciation of liturgical texts used in the prayers and hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church which have been circulated through the recordings of the Institute of Coptic Studies of Cairo and were recorded by the Late Dr. Ragheb Moftah, head and founder of the Music and Hymns Division of the Institute of Coptic Studies starting in 1927 from the most renowned cantor of the Coptic Church, the late teacher Mikhail Girgis El Batanouny, and the first direct generation of his disciples, Cantor Tawfik Youssef Elnaikhili Elmuharrai, Cantor Farag Abdelmaseih, and Cantor Sadek Atallah.

    The committee has found that the pronunciation used in the recordings of the Institute of Coptic Studies is the primary source for using in all hymns and prayers of the Coptic Orthodox Church and it must be kept from tampering and distortion of pronunciation which our Coptic Church has settled on. The recordings of the Coptic Institute is the primary and only source for all hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church whether in the pronunciation of Coptic text or in words and texts of the Greek Language which are in according to the old pronunciation of the Greek language (Attic, Koine) and not according to the modern Greek pronunciation which has no relation to the Greek words and texts used in the prayers and hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

    The committee calls on all cantors of the See of St. Mark, those who teach hymns and praises at the Seminary Schools in Cairo, Alexandria, and all branches, teachers at the Didymus Institute for Cantors in Cairo and the Elmuharraq Monastery, cantors of the Coptic Church inside Egypt and in the land of immigration, choirs of deacons and those responsible for teaching hymns in churches, and those responsible for organizing hymns competitions at the Youth Bishopric, to adhere to the correct pronunciation of the Coptic and Greek languages for all hymns and praises of the Coptic Church, that which the church has settled on and documented and is recorded audibly through the recordings of the hymns by Musical Division of the the Higher Institute of Coptic Studies, which is considered the official primary and only source for all the hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

    Signed,
    Fr. Gabriel Bernaba
    Fr. Basilious Sobhy
    Fr. Zakka Fayez
    Dr. Mishil Badae Abdelmalek
    H.G. Bishop Demetrios, Bishop of Malawi and Ashmonin
    Monday, 2nd of Nasie, 1720 A.M, September 8th, 2014

    H.H. Pope Tawadros II
    March 16th, 2015
  • cyril
    Is this decision related to this topic?:
    http://tasbeha.org/community/discussion/7582/old-bohairic-coptic-is-it-authentic/p1
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    I believe the decision was more towards the aggressive changes using GB in hymns. 
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Oh where do I start?

    There are 2 major problems in this decision.

    1. The recordings of the hymns by the Musical division of the Higher Institute of Coptic Studies do not consistently keep the same pronunciation in all their recordings. For example, Fr Metias in the Liturgy of St Cyril pronounces ⲥⲁⲣⲝ as /sarx/ while the Liturgy of St Basil pronounces it /sarex/. This is also true for words with ou vs w, e vs a, b vs p, etc. Claiming that the recordings of (H)ICS is the primary source for pronunciation is inadequate to say the least.

    2. The pronunciation of Greek texts/words in the Coptic Church are NOT based on the old pronunciation of the Greek language. The reconstruction of Greek, whether Attic or Koine, is based on a theoretical framework constantly developing since the 16th century. Take a look at this table with 4 theoretical phonetic schemes. (Scroll down to #2). And if you're feeling adventurous enough to go through a more technical, in-depth analysis of Erasmanian vs Revised Koine from the Biblical Language Center, look here.  The fact is no one knows how Koine Greek was pronounced because there are no sound recordings or living speakers. Claiming the Coptic pronunciation (GB) holds true to Koine or Attic Greek is a fallacy. 

    Take for example the Greek word πιστεύομεν which comes into Coptic as ⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲱⲙⲉⲛ. Based on GB, it is pronounced /pis TEV omen/. (The "omen" part uses the long /o/ sound as in the English "loan") Based on what is popularly understood as Koine/NT Greek, it is pronounced /pistu omen/ (The "omen" part uses the short "o" as in the English "lot". The /stu/ sounds close to stew as in beef stew). Based on Modern Greek, it is /pes TEV omen/. Every recording of the Coptic liturgies from HICS uses /pistevomen/. It's closest to modern Greek - the one things specifically forbidden in this declaration. 

    My biggest problem with this decision questions why should we even care how Coptic liturgical texts really should be pronounced. This is not a theological or pastoral issue. It's not even an ecclesiological issue. If this concerned the Arabic pronunciation of Coptic liturgical texts, would the Committee on Rites come along with a decision to forbid pronunciation from non-primary sources (assuming they can even define this)? Ironically, Classical Arabic is also based on a theoretical framework like Koine Greek. Yet no one argues that Arabic liturgical texts of the Coptic Church should be done "according to the old pronunciation of the (Classical) Arabic language." Are they going to forbid Alexandrian Copts from using linguistic characteristics of Alexandrian Arabic (like "ou" after consonants), or forbidding Upper Egyptians from changing "g" into "d" as "adeeb" for "ageeb" (I bring) or "k" into "g" as "gamoos" for "kamoos" (dictionary), etc? Rather, when an Upper Egyptian immigrates outside of Egypt, we live with "d" for "g" sounds and all other linguistic variations. We would never tell them it is against the Church to say "al majdo lilahi" (Glory to God) instead of the common Cairene "al magd lil lah" because an arbitrary body (whose primary focus was not philology) decided "al majdo lilahi" is a tampering and distortion of the pronunciation which our Coptic Church settled on. 

    In reality, what this decision declared was that OB was forbidden. If that is what they really wanted, they should have specifically said it. The way this decision is worded, it forbids something that isn't even defined.

    In the grand scheme of things, with all possible items in our church rites that cause confusion that the Rites committee could have discussed and clarified, they chose to make a mountain issue out of phonetics (and in a previous decision, it was about picking hymn sources). Why don't they actually make a decision on something theological or ecclesiological; something that actually practically matters.

  • ophadeceophadece
    A man from upper Egypt would pronounce I bring as ajeeb rather than d.
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Depends how far they are in Upper Egypt. I personally have heard adeeb. One of the bishops told us a story about an Lower Egyptian man named Adeeb (which is a somewhat popular name) who went to Upper Egypt. A local Upper Egyptian man said to him "Adeeb al homar", which he thought the local man was cursing him. It turned out the local man was saying, "Shall I bring the donkey (for traveling)?" 

    Either way, the point is that if the Synod does not make decisions to "correct" the pronunciation of Arabic in Coptic texts, they shouldn't do it with Coptic (unless there is an actual theological, pastoral or ecclesiological reason for it). 


  • ophadeceophadece
    Perhaps but probably more of a struggle with the g or j sound in the first place that got replaced by a d.
    oujai khan ebshois
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Has anyone seen this?


  • eshpherieshpheri
    Hello everyone.

     I don't know the politics here, but I do know something about the relationship between Koine, Byzantine and Modern Greek pronunciation. I am a liturgist and scholar of Greek patristics (specializing in the Alexandrian fathers) of over 30 years' experience.

     There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that 'modern' Greek pronunciation started much earlier than was previously thought; it was certainly in use in the Byzantine period. One source for this is the 'corrections' that teachers had to keep making for their students (a sure sign that what was being 'corrected' was what everyone was doing!). Another source is the sort of transcription errors that one finds in texts that were copied by scribes who were taking dictation, rather than copying from a manuscript. From these sources it is evident that modern Greek pronunciation was at the very least beginning in the New Testament period, if not the Hellenistic period.

    Now here is something that perhaps some of you can help me with. To judge from their transcription into Coptic, the majority of Greek words I have encountered in liturgical Coptic seem to be based on 'modern' Greek pronunciation. Given that the mass conversion of Copts to Christianity took place in the third century, I assume that the liturgy was translated into Coptic then. I know that there is not documentary evidence from the period, but I can't imagine that the liturgy was translated much later than then, because that was when there was a need for it. If this is the case, then I think that the evidence of liturgical Coptic clearly indicates that modern Greek pronunciation was the norm by the third century. 

     I would be grateful to hear from anyone who knows something about the origins and development of liturgical Coptic and its relationship to the Greek Alexandrian liturgy, which I have been researching for the past few years.

    In terms of the diversity of pronunciation of Coptic, surely that is the greatest evidence that it is really still alive? Something to celebrate?
  • ophadeceophadece
    Ekhrestos anesty
    Dear @eshpheri,
    picking up where you left off: unfortunately the diversity is false, so to me it cannot be a reason for celebration.
    secondly, I am not sure if you are dealing only with Greek origin and relationship to Coptic liturgy and language or with the original post altogether. Copts used to speak Coptic not Greek and they used Greek letters in approximate sound values, so the nature of prevalent Greek at those times is irrelevant. With regards to spelling though I won't be surprised if I learn that such has been recently refined. I cannot comment on that nor on when the liturgy had been translated but I believe from other threads that translation had occurred as early as the second century, someone else could back me up. Bottom line is as Remenkimi agreed the synod or indeed any organisation cannot make up a decree to do with accents or dialects.. man are we tripping?
    oujai khan ebshois
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    edited April 2015
    @ophadece, I don't think Remnkimi said that "they CANNOT" but he simply shows why it's not a decision that was considered well enough. So they have the permission and right to make the change.
  • eshpherieshpheri
    Dear @ophadece
    My comment arose from the first paragraph of the second point of Remnkimi's post of April 6, about how much we can know about Greek pronunciation in the past. Many Greek words, not just letters, were retained when the liturgy was translated into Coptic, and the Decision also concerns them:

    The recordings of the Coptic Institute is the primary and only source for all hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church whether in the pronunciation of Coptic text or in words and texts of the Greek Language which are in according to the old pronunciation of the Greek language (Attic, Koine) and not according to the modern Greek pronunciation which has no relation to the Greek words and texts used in the prayers and hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

    So I was responding to Remnkimi's remark by observing that what little evidence we do have about Greek pronunciation in the past suggests that it was probably more like modern Greek than what modern scholars invented by trying to guess what ancient Greek had sounded like. With regard to the bigger question about the Decision, I can only agree with Remnkimi that there must surely have been more important things to be addressed.

    You are right that my other comments do not have a direct bearing on this topic, so I will create a new discussion to deal with them.
  • dg920
    The synod has no right over a language. It can't tell you how to pronounce English and it cannot tell you how to pronounce coptic. These are languages not beliefs or rituals. 
  • dg920
    Especially if they aren't doing research and there is drama behind it 
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    dg920 said:

    The synod has no right over a language. It can't tell you how to pronounce English and it cannot tell you how to pronounce coptic. These are languages not beliefs or rituals. 

    True. But I am not talking about language in general...I am talking about what is being said in liturgical services. They do have the right to control what's being said there. 
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Minatasgeel is correct. The Synod has every right to control liturgical use. The Synod absolutely has control how to pronounce English (or more accurately how much colloquial English is permissible). No one wants the liturgy to turn into Urban English (where profanity is commonplace). However, the Synod or anybody else must recognize that there is a natural and organic way things develop and there is a nonsensical abuse or misunderstanding of development. Note this does not mean language is divorced from politics (or "drama" as dg920 put it). In fact, all linguistic change is driven by sociopolitical forces. Quite often these sociopolitical forces are haphazard. Nonetheless, they occur organically. (Yes I know it is confusing).

    There are few comments. First the mass conversion of Egyptians into Christianity occurred way before the 3rd century and it continued way into the 8th century. The earliest evidence we have dates to the 3rd century. We can see that some evidence from the 4th century, like the History of the Monks of Egypt, that the travelers described Christianity in Oxhyrhynuchus as the entire city was a monastery. This likely took more than one century to occur. We also know that Egypt was multicultural. There were competing sects of Christianity and competing sects of paganism way into the 5th century. To simply state Alexandria was Christian by the third century is a little misleading because the Orthodox Church has been there before the third century and was competing with other sects way after until intolerant Islam took over way into the 9th and 10th centuries and ever since. 

    Secondly, you are corroborating my discussion on the pronunciation of Koine Greek. You described a theoretical framework that shows Koine Greek (or more accurately New Testament/Byzantine Greek) reflects modern Greek. My discussion of GB pronunciation of pistevomen suggests a pronunciation of modern Greek, which is specifically condemned in this synodal declaration. 

    Regarding your last statement: "In terms of the diversity of pronunciation of Coptic, surely that is the greatest evidence that it is really still alive? Something to celebrate?"
    Well, I would not say it surely phonetic diversity is evidence that Coptic is still alive. It depends who you ask. To me, linguistic diversity is evidence that a language IS alive. But to an organization body, diversity sometimes produces confusion. It is for this reason, I think, the Synod decided to make their decision. It was their attempt to remove the confusion of linguistic Coptic phonetic plurality in the liturgy. As I also tried to show that there is a great deal of linguistic phonetic plurality in Arabic. It seems that if some sort of natural, organic linguistic force was driving the Synod's decision, it would apply to Arabic also. But it is not. Everyone is quite content with the phonetic plurality in Arabic during liturgical services. Therefore, one can only conclude that some diversity is to be celebrated and maintained and other diversity, for unknown reasons, is condemned. 


  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I'm very confused on this whole situation, and I feel personally it's not much of a big issue for me, as the Church seems to have more vexing social needs. With that said however, didn't Fr. Shenouda Maher write like a 2000 page thesis on the pronunciation of Coptic before he became a priest?
  • dg920
    @remnkemi I think you are well aware of what i mean by the drama that drove this decision to come out. It is an inconsistent decision that is not based on an linguistic study nor is it in itself making any sense. It is rather attacking certain people across the diaspora and the homeland who are major sources for language and hymns in the church. It is obvious just in reading the decision and seeing the way it is written

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    @dg920, of course I know the drama that drove this decision was a really a condemnation against OB and proponents of OB. I said this already. I also already said that the way this decision is worded is extremely lacking. But nonetheless, such sociopolitical reasons are often the impetus for linguistic change. 

    Yes Fr Shenouda wrote a large dissertation on the pronunciation of Coptic before GB. But his dissertation was written 40 years ago and linguistic science has grown since then. His thesis gives evidence for a possible framework of OB but it assumes this framework was universal throughout Egypt through every generation. It is not specific to any locality or time period. And it is also inconsistent with some evidence of OB used today. I think his dissertation is better understood as a snapshot of one type of OB. Thus, it cannot be considered a final authoritative source for the phonology of Coptic (OB) either. Nor is he the only one who has done research in Coptic phonology. 
  • eshpherieshpheri
    @remnkemi
    Yes, my comment was designed precisely to corroborate your observations about Koine Greek.

    With reference to the conversion of Egypt, I did not intend to imply at all that it was either suddenly in the third century, or all at once. Such suggestions would be ridiculous.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Zoxsasi,

    The video you posted is exciting to watch, and amazing to know that even Muslims are speaking it.  Has this been a generational thing, that is a retention of generations of Coptic language from both religions, or is this a revival of Coptic among small families from recent times?
  • Mgabby1234
    The reason that Old Bohairic specifically is being targeted is that it is very disruptive during church prayers. Hymns need to be changed in order to accommodate OB. If you have ever prayed in a mixed group of OB and GB users you know that they CANNOT pray together and that is a huge issue. The Synod was absolutely justified in making this decision.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    @MGabbby1234,
    Yes, the Synod should make a decision if it is a disruption of liturgical praxis. But the reason they gave is absolutely inadequate. Had they simply said OB is not allowed because it disrupts prayer and we will simply use GB from here on out exclusively, then everything would be somewhat more palpable. But to state HICS is the primary source because it preserves Koine Greek, not modern Greek, into GB, is factually wrong. It is also dishonest if the real reason was prayer practice, not some random claim of Coptic phonology. 

    And I will repeat that OB and GB praying together is not much different than a Cairene praying with an Upper Egyptian (like the women in the video) in Arabic. If we can tolerate differences in Arabic and pray together, then we CAN pray together in OB and GB. It is only a matter of tolerance. 

    It is a "revival" among small families who claim that it is not a revival but the only remaining place where Coptic was preserved. It is not the only place where OB was preserved. The tonsured deacon makes claims about the language that are not true. Cruz's dictionary does not have an entry for salad. And the closest thing to lemon in Crum is ⲕⲓⲧⲣⲉ/ϭⲓⲧⲣⲉ which means cedrate/citron. Salata and lemoon are not Coptic loan words, they are English loan words into Arabic. The family knows a bit more Coptic and they are using OB but they are really using common small conversation with very limited vocabulary. Coptic is clearly not their first language. Arabic is. So the information is misleading. I will reserve my comments on Muslim "news" media. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    @minatasgeel and @Remenkimi,
    the synod or any kind of organisational body cannot make any form of decrees or mere decisions about a language pronunciation FULL STOP. Oops @Remenkimi you did say that too, didn't you?
    @dg920, you are absolutely right. I agree with everything you said.
    @Remenkimi and @Mgabby1234,
    There is no such a thing as old Bohairic and new Bohairic. When these two things clash, it then needs to be left in the hands of people who understand and know what they are saying. Ever noticed English speaking second generation youth clashing in tunes and accents when singing with first generation immigrants and vice versa? Synod should need to interfere, no? Exactly my point..
    oujai khan ebshois
Sign In or Register to comment.