coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

ophadeece

posted on Jun 25, 2009 - 10:21 PM

Dear all,
I am really sick of all those who say our hymns in the Coptic church are faulty and need change. Please please stop them; stop anybody saying this about any hymn in the church. We have to admit we are ignorant: we have to admit that by abandoning the Coptic language (and hence the colloquial Greek words within it) we don't understand hymns, and THAT IS IT. Please please please...
Back to topic: yes, Ibrahim Ayad says that second verse needs changing; why? because people believe that Peter the apostle did not enter Rome; that is it was Paul, and you know what. I just found it in the Synexarium; there you go, the first bit of the daily remembrance (I don't like the word commemoration by the way) of the 5th of Abib; 12th of July:
On this day, the two great saints Peter and Paul, were martyred . Peter was from Bethsaida, and he was a fisherman . The Lord chose him on The Second Day of His baptism after He chose Andrew his brother . He had fervent faith and strong zeal . When the Lord asked His disciples: "Who do men say that I am?" So they answered, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets ." . . . Simeon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God ."(Mat . 16:13-20) After he received the grace of the Holy Spirit, he went around in the world preaching of the crucified Christ, and he converted many to the faith . God wrought great and innumerable signs and wonders by his hands . He wrote two catholic Epistles to the believers .When he came to the city of Rome, he found there St . Paul the Apostle .
oujai qen `P[C

_________________
Please mention us in your prayers

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Iqbal

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 09:53 AM

I'm with you.

When hymns/prayers find their way into the most sacred and divine of contexts i.e. our liturgical worship of the Holy Trinity, and become universally and long established in such a context, they become the greatest authority of Orthodox teaching--they bear greater authority than any priest, bishop, or even the patriarch himself.

It is on that account that I have always made a conscious and consistent effort to appeal, as far as my knowledge permits, to the authority of our hymns and prayers in the course of composing articles on the Orthodox Faith.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 03:14 PM

Are you sure people say that St. Peter didn't ENTER Rome? I've heard it said that St. Paul was the main preacher in Rome, not that Peter didn't enter. What is the language of the hymn? This is interesting.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

ophadeece

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 04:25 PM

Yes Truth.Seeker,
According to the file I listened to, which was the first session of cantor Ibrahim's teaching, he said that St. Peter didn't enter Rome; which is not true as is mentioned in the Synexarium.
The language of the hymn (hoping that George the more knowledgeable or atoowi shed more light) is a mixture between Greek and Coptic - not sure if it is Sa'idic or Bohairic, although to me looks Bohairic, but I am no expert. It seems very likely that Copts were using some Greek articles and prepositions different to the original Greek language, hence the confusion since the church started adopting the Greco-Bohairic teaching, and distinguishing between pure Greek hymns, and pure Coptic ones. To be perfectly honest, this one falls in neither group; as I said it is a mixture
oujai qen P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 05:39 PM

Is there a link or something to the file? I know of not a few number of Catholics who would frown upon this information! I wonder if this is going to an extreme to refute papal infallibility. Can't really pass judgment on intentions without the actual file though.

Our Church obviously believes that they were both martyred on the same day - what is the coincidence of St. Paul being martyred in Rome and St. Peter being martyred somewhere else on that day. I know when it comes to the Church of Rome, keeping records is not their best trait (the Roman Pontiff, for centuries, relied on documents that were total forgeries for his power), but this would be an abysmal plunder.

I'm skeptical about Ibrahim Ayad's information.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

Ramez Mikhail

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 06:13 PM

The verse in question is this:

Cimwn Petroc `n`hrwma@ ke Andreac ic ke;in@ Iawkoboc tw zebedeoc `ntef erevrikia

the preposition in question would be the `n, which I understand has a whole spectrum of possible meanings, none of which stood out to me at first reading, but nonetheless I am no Coptic expert.

It is usually translated however as "Simon Peter for Rome", and since the rest of the hymn basically links each disciple to a region, I think it is safe to assume that the intent of the hymn is to claim that Simon Peter was assigned or allotted Rome for preaching, in which case it would be a false assumption, correct?

Regarding the language of the hymn, it is a mixture of Greek and Coptic (not quite sure if it is only Bohairic, or if some Sahidic is included as well). Let's not confuse dialects with pronunciation systems. Greco-bohairic is not a dialect at all, it is simply a name that has been applied to how Coptic is pronounced today, and it carries no further connotation of grammar or syntax. In other words, today in church hymns are pronounced in Greco-bohairic whether they are written in Bohairic, Sahidic, or even pure Greek.

Joined: Sep 15, 2002 | Posts: 1837

ophadeece

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 07:34 PM

Dear Truth.Seeker,
This is the link for the file: http://www.mediafire.com/?ndynnjymtlz
It is a session of teaching the first two verses of the hymn, so you can play back till about 25 - 30 minutes and you can hear his comments...
Dear Ramez,
I disagree that it would be a false assumption to consider St. Peter preaching in Rome (not quite certain if he really did die in Rome itself crucified upside down). I don't see a problem in accepting that assumption; in fact, it has to be true; it is a fundamental piece of faith we have is that wherever apostles went, they preached. They didn't have holidays, and they didn't have rest for that matter. Even for the apostles in the following verses, it didn't have to be their "primary" place of allocation to be mentioned in the hymn - some of them like St. Peter and St. Paul did preach in more than one place.
As for the article `n: I believe it is a Sa'idic expression of qen but in a rather unusual fashion. Albeit me not being an expert, but I read a couple of Sa'idic passages and it seems that the "qen" is replaced with "`n" in some situations. I hope that someone else confirms what I believe. So the hymn to me makes perfect sense, and is valid, as are ALL THE OTHER hymns with no exception...
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 07:53 PM

Thanks a lot for the file. I'll listen to it tonight and say my thoughts on it (in the case that anybody cares about them ).

In the Doxology for St. Peter and St. Paul, I find the following (and I don't have Coptic fonts, so please bare with me, I will transliterate):

Penioat Petros goak evol: khen oomoa ente peestavros: khen tinishti empolis Roame: ethve efran enIsos Piekhristos

Translation:

Our father Peter was made perfect: with death on the cross: in the great city of Rome: for the name of Jesus Christ.

THEN

Pavlos the on empaireeti: avewoli entefapse emmav: evolhiten epoaro Niron: khen pieehooo enooat

Translation:

Paul also likewise: was beheaded in that place: by King Nero: all in one day.

...

Unless this is also wrong, how many of our hymns are we going to change to reflect the idea that Peter never even ENTERED Rome? I will guess to venture (without listening to the file, so forgive me if I'm wrong), that Ibrahim Ayad meant that St. Peter wasn't the main preacher in Rome (something I heard HE Metrpolitan Bishoy point out on Aghape). The theological significance of that would be that if he was the first Pope of Rome as Rome claims, he would've obviously been the main preacher there (especially in light of St. Paul explicitly stating that he stays away from others' work).

In that case, I wouldn't be against changing the hymn. I read in the Synaxarium (or somewhere else?) that as one of our Patriarchs wanted to insert Christ's nature into the Liturgy, some of the Bishops objected that it might be misconstrued by the Chalcedonian side, and therefore that's why they inserted "without mingling or confusion" into the Liturgy. In light of this and other instances, the Liturgy is the epitamy of expression of our faith, but it is also changeable to correct misconceptions etc...

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 08:00 PM

Of course if St. Peter wasn't the first Pope of Rome the papal infallibility doctrine crumbles ... as if it isn't already crumbled.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

ophadeece

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 08:18 PM

Dear Truth.Seeker,
I am glad that you mentioned these points, which are really illuminating for someone like me (although I didn't pay much attention to the doxology of St. Peter and St. Paul). It is making every sense to me as time goes by
Now for the point of changing even liturgy wording to reflect theological dogmas and beliefs I am totally for that. I am not against that or for that matter wordings of hymns as long as they are corrected. What I am totally against though is to change hymns that we merely don't understand, just because we can't understand them. That is wrong. Hymns were understood by many thousands if not millions of people before us, and now when Coptic had already been abandoned we complain. No; that doesn't make sense to me. In fact, let me boldly ask all of you how many psalms are not understood (even partly); how many passages of the Bible are not understood? are we going to change these? do hymns hold the same place like Bible scripture? To me, they do - they protected the Coptic faith for centuries through handing down from one generation to the next. They are the teachings of popes, saints, and fathers of the near and far past. Please, let's not hit out at Coptic hymns again as long as we are Copts...
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 08:37 PM

"What I am totally against though is to change hymns that we merely don't understand, just because we can't understand them. That is wrong."

I absolutely agree. Instead, we should strive to understand that which we don't. No need to fix something that isn't broken, and if anything is broken - it's us, not the hymns.

Your point about the Bible is right on. There are some sects which actually pick and choose Psalms because they think some of them are "harsh." The monks of the desert were able to know the higher meaning of the Psalms through their struggle with Satan and his demons - the true enemy that is meant by the Psalms.

Let me just get this straight in my head (as I think your knowledge and interest in the language itself vastly surpasses what I know), your having an issue with changing "`n" because you think that maybe it's just us who don't understand what it originally meant?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

ophadeece

posted on Jun 26, 2009 - 09:38 PM

No no Truth.Seeker; it is just a weak endeavour at inferring what the author might have meant. I am waiting for experts in the Coptic language to correct me though
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 27, 2009 - 12:10 AM

I just listened to the audio file. For those who want to search for it, Ibrahim Ayad's comment comes at 32:48 - 33:20. As I suspected, he doesn't say that Peter didn't enter Rome, he said that the words associate St. Peter with Rome, but that it should be St. Paul becaue he's the one that preached in Rome. I think the change would be reasonable since the hymn is associating the primary preachers with where they preached. What do you think Ophadeece?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

ophadeece

posted on Jun 27, 2009 - 12:11 PM

No Truth.Seeker,
I disagree with you. First of all there was no mention in this hymn as I said before about a "primary" place of preaching for each of the apostles. In fact, I think it is more logical (going by the doxology you drew my attention to) to state Rome for St. Peter since he was martyred there. In fact, for some strange reason the hymn avoids mentioning Jerusalem (the primary place where St. Peter preached) and probably that is to do with avoiding any political rhetoric. You can see that some of the other apostles have preached in more than one place, and it doesn't have to be the "primary" place of each one which was mentioned.
In fact, bottom line is that the hymn just illustrates how the voice of the apostles reached to the four corners of the earth, and not necessarily assuming each one to a particular "primary" place of preaching.
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 27, 2009 - 02:54 PM

Here's the text in English from tasbeha.org -

<i>For truly your names are glorified on earth, O all you Apostles, the chosen ones of God.

(Simon Peter on <b>Rome</b>, Andrew and Thomas and James the Son of Zebedee on <b>Africa</b>.

Truly John on the city of Asia and was also counted on Africa, Philip and Bartholomew on <b>India</b>.

Simon the Canaanite and Thomas his relative with Matthew on <b>(Agam) and Yemen</b>, and Matthias according to his lot.

James the Son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus their relative, with Matthew their partner in the feared places, their third in the tribulations.)

Their voices went forth onto the whole earth, and their words have reached the ends of the world.

Intercede on our behalf O Lady of us all the Theotokos, Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ, that He may forgive us our sins.

Pray to the Lord on our behalf O my masters and fathers the apostles and the rest of the disciples, that He may forgive us our sins.</i>

________________

But if you think the hymn didn't mention Jerusalem to avoid political rhetoric, don't you think a changing of it would be warranted to avoid dogmatic rhetoric? I can just picture a Catholic pointing to this Coptic hymn, sung by a Church that has not been in communion with Rome for 1558 years and say, "papal infallibility." Granted, the claim is spurious and completely unrelated to the hymn, but it will be made. Also, I'm vehemently opposed to changing things just because others could twist them - but that's when it comes to the source of our faith, not an expression of it. For e.g. my comments on the "who sinned first thread" - we're not going to change the interpretation of clear passages in the Bible to suit people's whims. However, if changing Rome to another city (like Antioch - which also claims Peter as its first Pope, or Jerusalem as you mentioned) will save us that much trouble (and actually be more accurate), why not?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

ophadeece

posted on Jun 27, 2009 - 03:35 PM

Dear Truth.Seeker,
That is exactly what I am opposed to: considering ourselves being more accurate. As I said the hymn for some reason didn't mention Jerusalem, but my assumption (and it may be completely false) is avoiding political rhetoric. I haven't searched in the history of this hymn I must admit, and I am not claiming that I know the surroundings when writing this hymn.
Secondly, as I pointed out: why make it more correct? more correct in relation to what? the message of the hymn is clear; the places mentioned are clear (apostles served in those places, and not necessarily the places of their enthronements as popes or even bishops).
For the sake of clarity, having looked up the Synexarium, I found fault with the Arabic (and hence the English) translation of the third verse - actually St. Philip preached in Africa, and St. Bartholomew in India, so the translation should read as follows:
Truly John on the city of Asia and was also counted on Africa Philip, and Bartholomew on India.
Note where the comma should be
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Truth.Seeker

posted on Jun 27, 2009 - 04:02 PM

Considering ourselves more accurate than who? Did St. Cyril consider himself more accurate when he changed some things in St. Mark's Liturgy? We have to balance continuity with contemporaneous purposes (of course that is only when it comes to Rites, never to Dogma and Doctrine).

Basically, my point is that it will not add or subract from St. Peter if we change the city. So, there is no negative. On the positive side, it will send a clear message to Catholics and save us that much more arguing. I am almost certain that is the idea.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

ophadeece

posted on Jun 27, 2009 - 04:57 PM

Dear Truth.Seeker,
Thanks for your point; I would like to also hear other people's opinions on the whole subject.
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Meghalo05

posted on Jun 28, 2009 - 05:27 AM

Many hymns in our beloved Coptic Church need editing and reviewing by the Holy Synod. This hymn has errors in it. St. John the Beloved never preached in Africa. Neither did St. James the Son of Zebedee who was martyred extremely early before mission expanded tremendously. Neither did St. Andrew. This hymn needs to be reviewed by the Hymns Committee of the synod. I agree that hymns are important, and are theology in tunes/sound. But if we are singing in error this is unorthodox. What happens if non-Orthodox or other Orthodox hear that we are chanting false things? This is not the only hymn, many other hymns need to be updated and corrected, especially the Synexarium. I don't think there is anything wrong to admit there are mistakes in these hymns or Synexarium. It does not diminsh the work of the Holy Spirit or the glory of the church. But lets be honest, many of the hymns were written by Cantors or Teachers from the last four centuries. Especially, cantors from Upper Egypt with no theological education nor Church history education. These hymns with errors were not written by well-advanced Church Fathers who are well-educated, and thus the errors. I hope they are corrected. Thats my opinion.


Love never fails

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 365
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

AMoussa01

posted on Jun 28, 2009 - 06:25 AM

I have to agree with Meghalo05

_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Joined: Jan 09, 2007 | Posts: 587
Location: St. George and St. Joseph in San Jose California

Remnkemi

posted on Jun 28, 2009 - 06:41 AM

There are many points that have been discussed here. Let me try to clarify them.

Ibrahim Ayad's remarks, as Truth Seeker explained it (I have not heard the audio so I will assume he is correctly quoting and paraphrasing him), is an example of a new generalized belief in our church, one that tries to counter Roman Catholic (RC) claims. Basically, RC teaches that St. Peter went to Rome with St. Mark as his translator. There is clear scripture evidence that St. Mark worked closely with St. Peter. However, RCC believes St. Mark wrote his Gospel at the request of St. Peter while in Rome for the Romans. As such, this clearly illustrates Rome's authority over Alexandria. Copts (and of course, not Coptic Catholics) refuted the idea by claiming St. Paul preached in Rome first. St. Mark worked with St. Peter AND St. Paul and independently preached in Alexandria. St. Mark later had a fall out with St. Paul because of his travels to Egypt. He wrote the Gospel for the Jews while in Alexandria. That is why you will find the Synaxarium say St. Paul was already in Rome when St. Peter came.

However, the Synaxarium is based on 13th century Arabic manuscripts. The majority of Coptic texts, Doxology, Deaconal (Ontos hymn), the Difnar, the Psalies,the Anaphoras, Apocraphyl Coptic texts - all say St. Peter preached in Rome first. There is even scriptural evidence to corroborate. In Romans 15, St. Paul writes "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was NOT known, so that I would not be building on someone else''s foundation . . . that is why I have often been hindered from coming to you." It is clear that St. Paul was not first to Rome. Other patristic writing from Iraneus, Clement and others corroborate that St. Peter went to Rome in 42 AD (12 years after Jesus died) to build the church in Rome and fight Simon Magus (Acts 8) who was considered a god in Rome.

In my opinion, the older Coptic texts are more accurate than the later Arabic texts. St. Peter preached in Rome first, battling Simon Magus with the help of St. Mark. St. Mark did return to Jerusalem and help St. Paul. St. Mark had a fall out with St. Paul and wrote his gospel in Egypt, years after he left St. Peter. In the 13-17th centuries when the Orthodox Copts were fighting the evangelism movement of Rome and the conversion of Coptic Orthodox Copts to Coptic Catholic, the St. Paul theory came into existance.

I hoped that cleared things up. In my next post, I'll write my thoughts on Ontos.
George

Joined: Apr 07, 2003 | Posts: 792
Location: Boston, MA USA

Remnkemi

posted on Jun 28, 2009 - 07:27 AM

I will be presenting a complete study of Ontos shortly. For the current text and translation refer to Tasbeha.org. Here is what I believe the text and translation should be.

Ontwc aly;wc gar xenic;eic paci tyn gyn ke v;egmatikon ton :eon ton apoctolon.

Cimwn Petroc `nRwma ke Andreac `nIcke;in Iakwboc tou Zebedeoc `n`tAfrikia.

Oucautwc Iwannou `nte Acia `mpolic opten `tVragia ton Vilippoc ke Bar;olomeoc anel;wn.

Cimwn Kananitoc ke :wmac o kleroc ra,yn `mMat;eoc `mPertoc ke Kectoc eikactikoc `mMat;iac gar tycameny.

Iakwboc tou Alveoc :addeoc o kleroc ra,yn `mMat;iac cwcon `trwpy ke apac ktoinaidemoc.

Apouqrwou....


Now here's the modified translation.

Truly, truly the whole earth received as a guest the voice of the apostles of God.

Simon Peter of Rome, Andrew of Scythia, James of Zebedee of Africa.

In like manner, John of Asia of (a) city counted with Phrigia of Philip and Bartholomew going up.

Simon the Canannean and Thomas with the share falling on Matthew of Pertos and Kestos representing the courage of Matthias.

James of Alphaeus, Thaddeus with the share falling on Matthias saved and changed the whole country.

Their voices went forth...

Let me give some comments for you to think about.
1. It is not uncommon for multiple old texts to mess up names, dates, places and history. We should not fault the author of Ontos exclusively. In fact, we'll find the same problem with all Coptic texts dealing with the Apostles. See Youssef, Youhanna Nessim, "Coptic Liturgical Texts Relating to the Twelve Apostles", Bulletin of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite Society (BSSACS) Vol 6, 2000-2001, p. 70-81.

2. The Ontos text specifically uses the genitive to describe each apostle, ie, Simon Peter of Rome, not Simon Peter in Rome. I believe the author was listing the different localities/countries (commonly known by association of the apostles' missionary work) that "the whole earth received [their] voices". In other words, the theme of the hymn is based on the first verse - receiving their voice. Whose voice(s)? Peter of Rome, Andrew of Scythia ....

3. Although James of Zebedee never left Jerusalem (he died in Acts 12:2), it is understandable that the author would confuse the different Jameses, James of Zebedee and James the Lesser (who may or may not be the James Bishop of Jerusalem in Council of Acts 15). It may also be another James that went to Africa. We also have some evidence that Judas or Thaddeus or Jude was often confused with James. Jude did go to Africa. So the author may have meant Jude and called him James of Zebedee. The same phenomenon happened with Matthew and Matthias. The lot feel on Matthias in Acts 1:23, not Matthew. This confusion is not very common. Nonetheless, given the linguistic features of the texts, it is not surprising to find unique historical inconsistencies. So we can't say for sure who the author is speaking about because he probably confused different apostles (which is still done to this day!)

4. I have no idea what is meant by "Bartholomew going up". Maybe someone else can try explaining that phrase.

5. The difficult words that I faced were opten pa,yn eikactikoc and ktoinaidemoc. I am not as certain that these are the correct words. With more research, I may find more likely suggestions of what the author meant. If that were to happen, then the whole translation will change.

6. Pray for me.

Thanks.
George

Joined: Apr 07, 2003 | Posts: 792
Location: Boston, MA USA

ophadeece

posted on Jun 28, 2009 - 06:07 PM

Dear George,
I have a hunch that the intention of the author was not to mix up cities but to avoid mentioning Jerusalem for some political rhetoric. Not sure if that is true, but I can see that he avoided mentioning that with St. James son of Zebedee.
However, I disagree with what you wrote about the whole hymn (or major parts of) needs changing because you found faults with the grammar, or construction of the sentences. I have already mentioned my opinion before; let me ask you though: in your researches for the previous hymns you were always keen on finding an explanation why authors used certain words, but now in this particular hymn you are all for changing!!! Please explain...
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK

Remnkemi

posted on Jun 28, 2009 - 11:08 PM

Ophadeece,

Regarding avoiding the use of mentioning Jerusalem, I can't agree or disagree that the author intentionally avoided Jerusalem for political reasons. It is possible but we don't have any proof. Looking at other Coptic text, not only Ontos, Jerusalem is not mentioned in conjunction with St. James of Zebedee; if it was even mentioned at all. In fact, St. James of Zebedee, also called James the Greater was not bishop of Jerusalem, but James the Lesser. We don't know for sure if he was James one of the 70 or another James, sometimes referred to as the Brother of Jesus. It gets more confusing because multiple Jameses are called the Brother of Jesus and anyone of them could have been Bishop of Jerusalem. What we know for certain is that it can't be St. James of Zebedee because he died before the Council of Jerusalem. In that council, another James presided over the council.

I also don't know why you think I am advocation changing the hymn. In all my research with difficult Coptic hymns, I always presented the current text and translation and offered a modified text and translation. I always advocated keeping the original text and using the original text in Church services. I wrote this in my Tenen, Agios Istin and Is Ther Mage articles. Given the current state of research and understanding of these Coptic hymns, it is only when you understand the modified text that the original text will have any meaning at all. Maybe in the future we will realize that the original texts never needed modifications. Until more research is done, a modified text and translation is needed. The only difference with Ontos is that I didn't write a full article yet. I decided to give a quick preview of the results of the research since the topic was already opened. Next time, I will wait to explain my research in a full article first.

Either way, I pray the Lord grants us the wisdom and understanding to realize the beautiful gifts He has given us in these hymns.

George

Joined: Apr 07, 2003 | Posts: 792
Location: Boston, MA USA

ophadeece

posted on Jun 29, 2009 - 02:19 PM

Dear George,
I am relieved now I have heard your opinion
But I still would hope that you are not alluding to Synexarium being as incoherent, as the hymn "may" be; the latter which I don't even accept. For me the Synexarium and the Coptic hymns are the pinnacle of tradition within our church, the indispensable treasure for Orthodoxy.
Sorry to arbitrarily voice my opinion about Jerusalem, but like you I am not sure how to get that confirmed if at all.
oujai qen `P[C

Joined: Oct 01, 2007 | Posts: 288
Location: Newcastle, UK