A Contextual, Historical and Grammatical Analysis of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ, A Unique Coptic Hymn

By George Ghaly

The Coptic Church has long preserved musical and hymnological heritage. Hymns such as Ⲡⲉⲕⲑ̀̀ⲣⲟⲛⲟⲥ and Ⲅⲟⲗⲅⲟⲑⲁ, have been traced to Pharonic feasts. 1 In developing the hymnological tradition, the Coptic Church setup liturgical cycles and seasons. Certain hymns were found for certain seasons. Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ is one such hymn. Up until recently, the hymn was reserved for the Midnight Psalmody of the Coptic month of Kiahk and Bright Saturday Praise. Nowadays, it said throughout the year for the Midnight Psalmody service.

Various Coptic hymns exhibit degrees of Greek usage. Greek was the de facto language of the Roman Empire and Greek was used in the administration of Egypt for a thousand years. It was employed in the earliest manuscripts of the Liturgy of Saint Mark. The Bible was written in Greek, and then translated into Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic, in the 4th -5 th century and the 9th -10th century respectively. The various degrees of Greek usage within Coptic hymnology allow us to categorize and approximately date Coptic hymns.

Our hymn is unique because it breaks many general tendencies found in Coptic hymnology. First, Coptic Orthodox hymns are normally written in the Bohairic dialect , the current Coptic dialect used in the Coptic Church. But Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ has significant Sahidic dialectal influence. Second, the Coptic Church uses the Greek Trisagion hymn in every service but Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ contains the only Trisagion written in Coptic. Finally, the lectionary of the Coptic Church was established and reorganized over time. When multiple versions of hymns were found, one version was decided upon and other versions were abandoned. But Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ is the only Coptic hymn where two texts exist with two different translations.

Moftah, Ragheb, Coptic Music, Value and Origins Coptic Studies Institute, Coptic Music Department, Cairo, Egypt, 1958. Translated from Arabic by Copt-Net. http://www.coptic.net/articles/CopticMusic.txt

There are certain Coptic hymns that utilize Sahidic loan words, such as Ⲁⲡⲉⲧϫⲏⲕ ⲉ̀̀ⲃⲟⲗ, Ⲓⲥⲑⲉⲣ ⲙⲉⲅⲓ, Ⲇⲉⲩⲧⲉ ⲡⲁⲛⲧⲉⲥ. But these amount to less than 10-50% of the hymn.

This is not the case for the Old and New Testament in Bohairic. Multiple versions exist because no official version has been designated. There is also the exception of the Horologion or The Agpeya, the Book of Hours. The Coptic Catholic church has

This article will examine a sample of six manuscripts. It will compare each text to the others and analyze grammatical and contextual difference. Then, theological and historical context within the hymn will be analyzed. Finally, we will propose a date for the hymn, location of origin and possible authorship.

Manuscripts 1. MAKAR. The first text, originally located in Dair Abu Makar, is catalogued in Koptische Handscriften 2, #266, Hymn 63. It is undated. 2. MS4. This text was donated to St. Shenouda Coptic Society, in Los Angeles California. It is an annual psalmodia with Kiahk Psalmody hymns inserted into the Sunday Psalmody. It is undated but it is likely 19th century. 3. MS30. This text is also found at St. Shenouda Coptic Society. It is a Kiahk Psalmodia from Upper Egypt. It is undated but also likely 18 th or 19th century. 4. DSB. This text is taken from the Deacon Service Book, Albair Gamal Mikhail's version. 5. TUKI. This text is taken from Raphael Tuki's Kiahk Psalmodia. It is dated 1784. 7 6. LAP. This text is taken from Claudius Labib's Annual Psalmodia. Labib references Tuki's edition often.

a version similar but different than the Coptic Orthodox Church. Otherwise, multiple text versions of Coptic services are not common.

Stork, Lothar, Koptische Handschriften 2, Die Handscriften Der Staats- Und Universitatsbibliothek Hamburg Tiel 2: Die Handscriften Aus Dair Anba Maqar. Stuttgart, 1995. pp. 444-446. Youhanna Nessim Youssef gives a date of 18th -19th century. See Youssef, Youhann N., Notes on the Magma (Mementa Sanctorum), and the Athanasius Prayer in the Coptic Psalmodia Journal of Coptic Studies 7 (2005), p.111-124.

St. Shenouda Coptic Society, MS4, A collection of unpublished manuscripts donated to the society in 2006.

Mikhail, Albair Gamal, Al Asas fi K hidmat al-Shamas (The Foundation of the Deacon Service). Maktabat Mar Guirguis, 2001. The Deacon Service Book was originally compiled by Abouna Thecla in 1835.

Tuki, Raphael, Ⲡⲓϫⲱⲙ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲛⲓⲑⲉⲟⲧⲟⲕⲓⲁ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲁⲃⲟⲧ ⲛⲭⲟⲓⲁⲕ [The Book of the Theotokias according to the rite of the month of Kihak]. Rome. 1784

Labib, Klaudius, Ϯⲯⲁⲗⲙⲟⲇⲓⲁ ⲉ̅ⲑ̅ⲩ̅ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ [The Book of the annual holy Psalmodia]. Cairo. 1908.

General Analysis

There are two distinct versions of Tenen. For the purposes of this analysis, the first version will be called Version A and the second Version B. The main difference between the two versions is verse 2. Verses 1, 3, 4 and 5 are similar but differences exist. The first version, Version A, is found in the MAKAR, MS4, MS30 and DSB texts. Version B is found in TUKI and LAP texts. Common belief among the Copts states that Version A is a corrupted form of Version B due to blind cantors, who could not read written documents nor were they fluent in Coptic. Before the turn of the 20th century, most hymns were taught by blind cantors. Since they could not read, they transmitted the hymns orally and this caused the text to be altered. This theory is partially correct. Some influence of corrupted transmission is noticeable in the hymn but this is only explains some discrepancies. This blind cantor theory cannot be correct because it assumes Version A is wrong and corrupted, filled with mistakes. The "mistakes" found in Version A can be explained by linguistics. Applied linguistics makes room for the existence of two spellings for one word based on how they sound. It acknowledges that the difference in spelling was a result of dialectal phonetics. Thus, two spellings can exist for one word in a language and both are correct, not one is correct and one is a mistake. Many of these spelling changes form characteristic hallmarks of the language or a sub-dialect of the language. For example, in J ENEN there are Fayyumic tendencies found in the text9. In other words, characteristic spelling of the Fayyumic dialect are found in our text. One possible reason for the existence of Fayyumic tendencies in Tenen can be explained by the fact that manuscript copyists were professionals and many came from Fayyum. It is possible that one or more Fayyumic copyists inserted Fayyumic idioms into the text when they did not understand the text. Abd Al-nour writes, "It was not necessary for a scribe of Coptic manuscripts to know Coptic well. It was enough to master the shapes of the Coptic letters in their proper positions to attain the status of calligrapher."

Rodolphe Kasser devised a dialect sigla system or nomenclature system for all Coptic dialects and sub-dialects. The classification of each dialect was based on linguistic characteristics found in Coptic manuscripts discovered. Thus, one can compare a Bohairic word to its various dialectal counterparts, ie, pour in Bohairic vs. pour in Sahidic vs. pour in Mesokemic vs. pour in Hermopolitan. Prior to his system, the Fayummic dialect (designated as F), historically was poorly-

9 These discrepancies are also found in other dialects but overall linguistic analysis leans toward a Fayummic influence.

10 Abd al-Nour, Samiha Abd al-Shahid, Copyists and the Copying of Manuscripts in the Coptic Church (13-18 century), Bulletin d'Societie d'Archeologie Copte, Cairo, Vol. 44. 2005. pp. 81-82.

defined and often confused with other sub-dialects. Kasser comments, "This advice will not appear useless to one who notes that several authors, still following Crum, continue to describe indiscriminately as "Fayyumic" a vocabulary that it would be preferable to classify under the rubrics of F7, V, W and H." These Fayyumic tendencies are most apparent in the MAKAR, MS4 and MS30 manuscripts, or Version A. Since there is no lambdacism, we can narrow our possibilities to Dialect V (South Fayyumic without lambdacism), Dialect K (Karanis), Dialect K7 (Karanis), Dialect H (Hermopolitan or Ashmuninic), or Dialect W (Crypto-Mesokemic with South Fayyumic phonology). More research needs to be done to accurately describe these changes in Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ with a specific dialect. Initial examination suggests that it is most likely Dialect V. However, in no certainty can we classify these Fayummic or South Fayyumic tendencies of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ as mistakes.

For the purposes of this analysis, the manuscript texts were separated by words and a unique numerical identifier was given to each word or word phrase. For each verse, the texts were compared to each other in the first table. Results from the grammatical analysis of each word as well as a modified translation are shown in the second table. It must be acknowledged that the modified text in the second table is not a correction of the manuscripts but a snapshot of the text if the text followed current grammatical and linguistic standards and rules.

Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis - Verse 1

Kasser, Rodolphe, Fayyumic, The Coptic Encyclopedia, ed. Aziz Atiya, Vol 8. p. 125

See page 6.

For more information on dialectology see Kasser, Radolophe's articles in the Coptic Encyclopedia on all dialects. Vol 8 and Kasser, Rodolophe A Standard System of Sigla for Referring to the Dialects of Coptic. Journal of Coptic Studies, Vol 1. 1990 p. 141-151.

Therefore, we bring a sacrifice and a rational worship. Today, we send up hymns to You for Your glory, O our Savior. Hanniah, Azariah and Mishael.

The main confusion of Jenen lies in word 1.1, Tenen. Labib commented that verse 1 and 2 are Greek, while verse 3 and 4 are mixed Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic and verse 5 is solely Bohairic Coptic. However, the word Tenen is not Greek but Bohairic Coptic. It is the first person plural form of the transitive verb en. en is derived from ini to bring. Crum does not add any information. As we will 14 Labib, p. 65

15 Crum, Walter, A Coptic Dictionary Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1939. p. 56

soon see, in the Coptic Church, there is no Greek hymn that inserts a Coptic word, except for Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ. The opposite is seen often: Coptic hymnographers insert Greek loan words in Coptic hymns. The late Bishop Gregorios commented on the use of Greek loan words in Coptic. "A number of Greek words were taken over into Coptic not because their native equivalents failed to convey the right meaning, but simply because the writer preferred a word which may have sounded nicer to his ear, or because he did not want to use a common-place expression, or simply in order to avoid repeating a word." The reverse may also be true. The author may have decided to use a Coptic word (ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ) instead of a Greek word simply because it sounded nicer.

Fayyumic tendencies, as explained above, are noted in the first verse in Version A's manuscripts. Lambdicism is the linguistic phenomenon of replacing the letter or phenome /r/ with the letter or phenome /l/, as in Amelican for American. In Coptic, the Fayyumic dialect, Dialect F, is characterized by lambdicism, which normally lambdicizes ⲣ into ⲗ, as in ⲗⲱⲙⲓ for ⲣⲱⲙⲓ. A peculiar lambdicism does occur in the MAKAR manuscript. MAKAR 1.3 lambdicizes ⲑⲩⲥⲓⲁⲛ into ⲑⲓⲉⲩⲗⲓⲁⲛ. Here the scribe lambdicized ⲥ into ⲗ. It is likely that this MAKAR scribe lived in an area that had an atypical Fayyumic style that passed into the manuscript.

Another linguistic observation is found in verse 1. We see the letter ⲩ changed into ⲓⲉⲩ. ⲉⲩ may be a silent syllable or some sort of linguistic mark. This is not observed in any dialect currently. It may be a unique feature of a dialect not yet described by Kasser. In MS4 and MS30 word 1.11, the same phenomenon occurs. ⲱⲇⲁⲥ is changed into ⲉⲩⲱϯⲁⲥ and ⲁⲩⲱϯⲁⲥ, respectively. (ϯ is commonly changed into ⲇ in Coptic dialects).

MS4 and MS30 word 1.9 exhibits the same phenomenon in reverse. In ⲥⲉⲁⲩⲧⲱ, the scribe may have thought ⲁⲩ was the same as ⲉⲩ (The ⲧ is also dropped indicating the scribe may have used an abbreviation or he simply did not understand the word). Dropping this silent syllable resulted in ⲥⲉⲟ in MS4 and ⲥⲉⲱ in MS30, even though he probably meant ⲥⲉⲧⲱ. Another possibility for word 1.9 is that MS4 and MS30 intended to use σεο, the un-contracted form of σου. Both ⲥⲉⲁⲩⲧⲱ and ⲥⲉⲟ means "you". More research is needed to see which theory applies to word 1.9.

Although MS4 and DSB share version A, there are minor differences in verse 1. MAKAR 1.2 and MS30 1.2 ⲱⲑⲏⲛ vs. MS4 1.2 and DSB 1.2 ⲟⲑⲉⲛ; MS4 & MS30 1.4, ⲧⲉⲛ vs. DSB 1.4 ⲧⲏⲛ; MS4 1.6, ⲗⲟⲅⲓⲕⲉ vs. MS30 1.6 ⲗⲟⲅⲓⲛⲕⲁ vs. DSB 1.6 ⲗⲟⲅⲓⲕⲟⲛ; MS4 1.5, ⲗⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁ vs. DSB 1.5 ⲗⲁⲧⲣⲓⲁⲛ; MS4 1.10, ⲥⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ vs. MS30 1.10 ϣⲏⲙⲁⲣⲟⲛ vs. DSB 1.10 ⲥⲏⲙⲉⲣⲟⲛ; MS4 1.14 is missing vs. DSB

Guirguis, W.A. Greek Loan Words in Coptic, Bulletin d'Societie d'Archeologie Copte, Cairo, Vol. 17, p. 73

1.14 cov; MS4 scribe corrected his mistake in 1.16. Overall DSB verse 1 matches version B more than version A. The majority of these differences occur most frequently in MS30 then MS4 then MAKAR then DSB. We can conclude that DSB may have been a partial correction of MAKAR and/or MS4 before (or concurrently with) version B.

Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis - Verse 2A

The three young children [were in] the flowing ash of the fire, glory of the fire of the body. The angel [made] tranquil with the natural flame; our advent. Hanniah, Azariah and Mishael.

As seen before, version A has many irregularities. This verse is characterized by the scribe's inability to distinguish word endings, i.e. HKA MANIN and NEKEMAXIN for NXE MEXIN; NATOY for NA TOY; MNCATETOY for MNCATE TOY; CENACEXOEXE for CYNACEXETTA THC. MAKAR version, using common Fayyumic tendencies ( λ for ε ; ω for 0; T for θ ; T for λ ), has Canacaxtathc for Cynacaxetta thc. As we saw in verse 1, ε Y is again dropped from our Greek word, σ UV ασαλ EUT α .

The use of the Bohairic proleptic participle (a participle that does not change form) is unique in Tenen. The proleptic participle is known as the subject marker of the verb. It usually follows the form "verb phrase + proleptic participle + subject noun". In this verse, there is no Greek verb. The implied verb is 'were in' and it does not need a proleptic participle. The proleptic participle does not follow the verb phrase but the subject noun. We can conclude that the author was using the proleptic participle for another reason. It is possible that the proleptic participle is not used as the subject marker but simply used as a reflexive participle like the Greek δε . δε is not usually translated into English. It is meant to shift the reader's attention to something else. In this context, ℵzε is meant to shift the readers attention, not define the subject maker of the verb.

This unique usage of the Bohairic proleptic participle is seen in the Introduction to the Fraction of the Liturgy of St. Basil: πισωμα εθογαβ Νεω πιὰνος ετταιμογτ ντε Πεςχριστος ναε Πιπαντοκρατωρ Πδοις Πεννος - The holy body and precious blood of His Christ, the Pantocrator [and] the Lord our God. There is no verb and we cannot assume that the proleptic participle is placed here simply to identify the subject marker. The implied verb clause is "This is the holy body..." The subordinate adjectival clause (Πιπαντοκρατωρ Πδοις Πεννος +) describes the possessor of the subject (the holy body and precious blood). The sentence can be reconstructed as "This is the holy body and precious blood of His – the Pantocrator

Notice also that three different words are used for "fire". Φλιγλρτης used in all three manuscripts is not found in Greek or Coptic. The difference from Φλιγλρτης to Φλεγμλτος cannot be explained grammatical or linguistically. It is likely that this is a scribe error.

The use of ελεvcεwc is also note-worthy. DSB's Arabic translation seems to have simply omitted the word. The use of ελεvcεwc is unclear and it needs some editorializing to clarify the text. The text as a whole can be understood as "The three children were in the flowing fiery ash. It was a glorious fire in the body. The Angel made the natural flame tranquil for Hanniah, Azariah and Mishael. This is an advent for us."

Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis - Verse 2B

and Lord our God's – Christ. In this case, the proleptic participle is redirecting our attention from the subject and the verb to something or someone else. This is similar to the Greek reflexive participle, δε .

The three children were thrown into the laid furnace of fire. It did not grasp the bodies because the angel of the Lord went down with [them] and shook the flame of fire and saved them. Shedrach, Mishach, Abednego.

One will notice that TUKI and LAP editions are nearly identical. Labib remarked that he took his edition from Tuki's. One also notices that the manuscript editions are nearly identical with the modified text. It is likely that Tuki corrected Version 2A with this Version 2B and Labib copied the corrections. The fact that Tuki's version correlates with the modified Greek text shows that Tuki knew proper Greek and possibly created a new text abandoning the "mistakes" of Version 2A.

The use of Three Holy Children's Babylonian names is unique in Version B. All other versions use the Coptic equivalents of their Hebrew names. If Version A were simply a corrupted version of Version B, one would not see such a calculated change.

Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis - Verse 3

Labib, p. 65

Youhanna N. Youssef remarks that Raphael Tuki was first to add the 12th hour Canon of the Holy Week Ⲅⲟⲗⲅⲟⲑⲁ. (See Youssef, YN Notes on the Traditions Concerning the Trisagion. Perole d'Orient 29 (2004). P. 147. Tuki is known for additions and changes in many texts. It is possible that Tuki was first to publish Version 2B.

They bless the Lord – the Three in the midst of the fiery furnace. And the fire did not overcome them for the angel of the Lord was in their midst. He saved them. And he did not leave any evil to reach them. Hanniah, Azariah and Mishael.

Verse 3 shows a wide variety of discrepancies between the five manuscripts. Bohairic vocabulary is used with Sahidic grammar, and vice versa. This includes 3.6 ⲉⲩϩⲉⲛ vs. ⲉⲩϧⲉⲛ, 3.14 ⲉⲣⲟⲟⲩ vs. ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ, 3.17 ⲙ̀̀Ⲡϭⲟⲓⲥ vs. ⲙ̅Ⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ, etc.

In 3.1, MAKAR version uses ευλοσγοντα. It is a variant form of ευλογουντα, the present masculine accusative form. It can be used here if 3.2 is accusative. However, ευλογουν is also correct. This is found in MS4, TUKI and LAP. Since we know that the subject is the three children, the plural form ευλογουν is probably intended. Both ευλογουντα and ευλογουν are valid.

As a phrase, 3.1-3.3 brings more confusion. In MAKAR, ευλογουντα τον Κυριον is valid. It means 'they bless the Lord'. In TUKI and LAP, ευλογουν τον Κυριον is valid. It means 'they bless the Lord'. MS4 and DSB, have θατον and θαντον, respectively, while MS30 has θαθον. None of these words are correct in classical Greek. However, these words can be a variant of θαττον. θαττον is the neutral accusative verb tense meaning 'quick'. The accusative form of a verb may be used as an adverb. Therefore, the intended text for MS4, MS30 and DSB may be ευλογουν θαττον Κυριον. It is valid and it means 'They quickly bless the Lord'. More research is needed to see which text was intended.

In 3.4, we see incorrect use of the Bohairic proleptic participle again. The proleptic participle is used correctly in the TUKI and LAP editions (Version B). In Version A's group, we see three different words for 3.4. Like Version A's 2.8, MAKAR and MS30's 3.4 (ⲛ̀̀ⲧⲟⲩ) is an unusual mix of Coptic and Greek. ⲛ is the Coptic genitive form, meaning 'of'. του is the Greek genitive form, meaning 'of'. The whole phrase, 3.1-3.10 in Version A, can mean "They quickly bless the Lord of the Three in the midst of

Smyth, Herbert Weir, A Greek Grammar for Colleges. §1606-1611.

the fiery furnace". The whole phrase in Version B means, "They bless the Lord – the Three in the midst of the fiery furnace." Both Version A and Version B are valid.

Up to this point, Version A and Version B have minor discrepancies (with the exception of verse 2). Now with the predominance of Coptic in the text, the context changes dramatically between the manuscripts. In 3.10, MS4 and DSB write arwor and erwor, respectively. MS4's arwor is a variation of DSB's erwor. Phonetically, both words are pronounced the same: /au wou/. This gives us some evidence that either MS4 or DSB (or both) were transcribed from an oral source, not a written manuscript. erwor, which means 'they glorify', does not make sense in this context. MS30 has arorwa. This means "they ate" and again it does not make sense in this context. In MS30 3.22, arorwor may be a valid linguistic derivative of MS4's 3.10 and 3.22's arwor. It is likely that arw is meant here, as Version B has.

The context of 3.11-3.14 is different in all manuscripts. Only LAP's version is grammatically and contextually correct, even though LAP is nearly identical to TUKI. MS4, MS30 and DSB's versions are completely non-sensible. The same hold true for the context of 3.18-3.21.

DSB's Arabic translation attempted to clarify the ambiguous Coptic words and put them in context. However, the translation is incorrect. If all of DSB's ambiguous words are translated correctly, the context becomes more ambiguous and un-intelligent. Probably for this reason, MAKAR, MS4 and MS30 do not even provide an Arabic translation.

Grammatical and Linguistic Analysis - Verse 4

Afterward, we partake from His holy mysteries, proclaiming and saying, "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Only-Immortal, who gave us from His grace", have compassion on our ignorance. Hanniah, Azariah and Mishael.

Version A of verse 4 continues the same ambiguity of verse 3. In 4.1-4.7, all six manuscripts differ. The Bohairic causative verb form is ⲑ̀̀ⲣⲉ. If Bohairic grammar was intended and not Sahidic grammar, then the phrase should be Ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲑ̀̀ⲣⲉⲛϭⲓ and it would mean, "After we partake". This is TUKI's Coptic text. If however, Sahidic vocabulary and grammar was intended, the phrase should be Ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲧⲣⲉⲛϫⲓ. The final vowel is quite often changed, like ϫⲉ for ϫⲓ. This would lead to LAP's version of Ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲧⲣⲉⲛϫⲉ and MAKAR's and MS30's mixed Bohairic/Sahidic version of Ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲑ̀̀ⲣⲉⲛϫⲉ. Both are translated as "After we partake". The copyists of MS4 and DSB confused the Bohairic/Sahidic causative verb form with the Bohairic/Sahidic proleptic participle. The Sahidic proleptic participle ⲛϭⲓ ̅ is similar to the Bohairic verb ϭⲓ "to take". MS4 and DSB use the Bohairic/Sahidic causative verb form and replace the verb with Bohairic proleptic participle. Without a verb, the context is non-sensible.

Version A's 4.4 is unique. The meaning of MAKAR's ⲁϥϩⲟⲗϩⲉⲗ is unknown. MS4's ⲁϥϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ means 'he commanded'. MS30's ⲁϥⲟⲩϩⲁⲛ is also unknown. DSB's ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ means 'he revealed'. Since MS4's and DSB's initial clause (4.1-4.3) is ambiguous, it is not possible to know which verb belongs to

this clause (4.4-4.7). In addition, the meaning of Version A's 4.6 (and/or 4.7), ⲉ̀̀ⲧⲟⲓ ⲛ̀̀ϯ, is unknown. More research needs to be done to see which verb is intended in 4.4 and what 4.6/4.7 means. It is likely that TUKI and LAP, could not reconcile the meaning of Version A and reconstructed the text using proper Sahidic and Bohairic grammar.

MAKAR is the only version that adds 4.12, ⲙⲁϧ. Its meaning is unknown. It is not found in Crum's dictionary and no possible alternatives can be suggested.

The Coptic Trisagion in 4.14-4.25 is most unique. Version A's MS4 and DSB have Holy Son of God, Holy Son of the Mighty, Holy Only-Invisible Son, instead of the traditional Trisagion, Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, seen in Greek and in Version B. TUKI adds the copula ⲡⲉ in 4.16 and removes the Sahidic proleptic participle ⲛ̅ϭⲓ in 4.22, while LAP corrects these changes. The most unique feature of MS30 is the Coptic Trisagion. MS30 takes the unusual change of abandoning Version A's Trisagion and using Version's B, albeit with many inconsistencies. In this sense, MS30 becomes a crossover between Version A and Version B. MS30's Trisagion is also ambiguous. MS30's Trisagion translated into English would be 'Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Spirit'. We can conclude the inclusion of the Holy Spirit is an error.

Version A's MS4 and DSB 4.26-4.29 again uses ambiguous text. It begins with using a variant of the Sahidic relative form, ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥ. The verb is ϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ 'to command'. ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ means 'who commanded'. Both MS4 and DSB incorrectly use the pronoun ⲛⲁⲛ. Using the object ⲛ̀̀ϩ̀̀ⲙⲟⲧ in 4.29, the whole clause ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲛ̀̀ϩⲙⲟⲧ ̀̀ means 'who commanded us of grace'. In this context, the meaning is very ambiguous. Version B removes the ambiguity by changing the verb and correcting the object: ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϯ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉ̀̀ⲃⲟⲗϩⲉⲛ ⲛⲉϥϩⲙⲟⲧ ̀̀ , which means 'who gave us from his grace.' It is interesting that TUKI did not add a verb in 4.26 and change the 1st person plural pronoun ⲛⲁⲛ to the Greek τον, the masculine singular accusative form, meaning 'the'. TUKI's version would be translated as 'who the from his grace'. This is unusual for TUKI and Version B.

Finally, Version A's copyists confused the breakdown of words from 4.32-4.33. The context of 4.30-4.33 should say ϣⲁⲛⲁϩ̀̀ⲑⲏϥ̀̀ⲛⲛⲉⲛⲁⲅⲛⲓⲁ, which means 'Have compassion on our ignorance'. MS4 and DSB changed it to ϣⲁⲛⲁϩⲑⲏ̀̀ ϥ ⲛ̀̀ⲁⲅⲛⲟⲛ ⲁⲛ , which renders the clause non-intelligible. TUKI removed the possessive pronoun 'our' changing the meaning to 'have compassion on ignorance', LAP changed the verb from the imperative ϣⲁⲛⲁϩⲑⲏϥ ̀̀ 'have compassion' to the simple past ⲁϥϣⲁⲛⲁϩ̀̀ⲑⲏϥ ⲉ̀̀ϫⲉⲛ 'he had compassion on'. Both changes are possible.

Verse 5 is Bohairic with no discrepancies or mistakes, except MS30's common vowel shift of ⲉ to ⲁ, and vice versa.

Discussion

Both the author of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ and the copyists of the manuscripts give us interesting details within the hymn. These details include the use of Greek, the changes and ambiguity of the Greek text, the placement in the Coptic Midnight Psalmody rite, the Trisagion and the use of Sahidic Coptic. From these details we can examine the theological and historical environment surrounding the hymn. This in turn can lead us to a possible date and author.

Greek Usage and the Ambiguity of the Greek Text

The late Bishop Gregorios remarked on the past history of Greek in the Coptic Church. "So extensive is this use of Greek loan words in Coptic that, in the past, certain scholars have been inclined to express their doubts as to whether Coptic was ever really a colloquial language and not merely a literary dialect." He continues to say that it is now known that Coptic was the language of the populace in Egypt.

Greek usage in Coptic can be categorized in stages. In Roman Egypt, Greek was the predominating language in Church services. With the continuing establishment of Christianity, early Coptic writers replaced many Coptic words with Greek equivalents because they wanted to purify Egypt from Ancient Egyptian polytheism. Still, Greek loan words were few in Coptic texts. If needed, early Coptic writers would simply use Greek entirely or use a Greek loan word only when necessary. After the

Guirguis, p. 63

Guirguis, p. 68

5 th century, nationalism sought to purify Hellenistic influence. Here we find more Sahidic and Bohairic words used in translations, even if a Greek word was already adopted into Coptic.

Three stages of Greek usage can be identified. The first category includes Greek texts from early Christianity up to the 7 th century or Arab conquest of Egypt. This includes the anaphoras of Sts. Mark, Basil and Gregory and the Greek Septugaint and the Greek New Testament Bible found in Egypt (Codex Sinaiticus). Grammatically, the Greek used here is predominately Koine Greek. The second category includes Greek texts or Coptic texts with Greek from the 7th century to the 18th century. This stage is characterized by a lack of Greek texts. Here we find an abundance of Sahidic and Bohairic texts with various degrees of Greek loan words. The third stage begins after the 18th century. A quasi-Renaissance in the Coptic Church occurred and numerous Greek texts were introduced.

Achim Budde describes the transition from the second to the third stage and the quasi-Renaissance of the 18th century. "Interest was awakening within the Coptic Church to reclaim and restore its Greek heritage. This was the same renaissance which brought about a new production of Greek liturgical books and even a revival of celebration in Greek. From the 15th up to the middle of the 18th century, only one single Greek euchologium survived; then the number suddenly increased again and we know about eight Greek euchologia stemming from the late 18th or 19th century." It is during this time the Greek Orthodox Church in Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Church attempted reunion. Orthographically, Bohairic grammar and pronunciation changed during this time.

The same phenomenon occurs in Coptic hymnography. Hymns introduced in each of these stages share common features. Popular hymns found in most Orthodox churches belong to the first stage, dating from the 1st to the 7 th centuries. These hymns include the Anaphoras in Greek, the Trisagion, Psalm and Biblical hymns, the Horologion (Agpeya), various Sacramental Rites like Baptism , etc. These hymns are usually completely Greek or they can usually be traced to a Greek original. The second

Budde, Achim, The Kacmarick Codex as a Document of a Reformed Orthography in Greek Texts of the Coptic Church, Journal of Coptic Studies vol. 7, 2005. p. 128

For a detailed study on the change of Bohairic pronunciation see Emil Maher Ishak. The Phonetics and Phonology of the Bohairic Dialect of Coptic and the Survival of Coptic Words in the Colloquial and Classical Arabic of Egypt and of Coptic Grammatical Constructions in Colloquial Arabic. Volumes 1 - . (A D.Phil Thesis submitted to the University of Oxford, September 1975).

See Burmester, OHE, The Egyptian Church, A Detailed Description of Her Liturgical Services and The Rites and Ceremonies Observed in the Administration of Her Sacraments. French Institute of Oriental Archeology, Cairo. 1967. p.114- 125

category dates from the 5th to 18th century. Hymns that have theological, non-Chalcedonian terminology will be found in the second category. These hymns include the additions to the Trisagion, additions to Ⲟ ⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲛⲏⲥ, doxology of Coptic saints, psalies, etc. A gradual purism from Byzantium fueled this stage and gradually very little Greek is found. The final category, dated from the 18th on, introduces Greek hymns into the Coptic Church, such as Ⲧⲟⲛ ⲥⲩⲛⲁⲛⲁⲣⲭⲟⲛ, Ⲧⲟⲩ ⲗⲓⲑⲟⲩ, Ⲧⲟⲩ ⲇⲓⲡⲓⲛⲟⲩ, Ⲏ ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ, etc.

An analysis of all Greek hymns in the Coptic Church can give us an idea of dating. For the purpose of this analysis, I included Greek-only hymns in the Coptic Church. In other words, Coptic hymns with a few Greek loan words were not included. I also did not include the Greek anaphoras and all the hymns within them.

Coptic reference is taken from Mikhail's Al Asas fi K hidmat al-Shamas (The Foundation of the Deacon Service). op. cit.

Greek reference is taken from Thesaurus linguae Graecae, an online database of Greek literature. http://ptolemy.tlg.uci.edu/

This hymn is said in any Coptic liturgy. It is found in the Greek Orthodoxy Liturgy of St. Gregory. In the Greek church, the hymn is rearranged. The first line is not εὐχαῖς καὶ πρεσβείαις like the Coptic but Ἐξαιρέτως τῆς παναγίας (Ⲉⲝⲉⲣⲉⲧⲱⲥ ⲧⲏⲥ ⲡⲁⲛⲁⲅⲓⲁⲥ). Ⲉⲩⲭⲉⲥ ⲕⲉ ⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲓⲉⲥ replaces Ⲉⲝⲉⲣⲉⲧⲱⲥ and continues normally.

Ⲉⲩⲗⲟⲅⲓⲙⲉⲛⲟⲥ is a Coptic hymn, not a Greek hymn. However, all the words are taken from the Greek version of Matthew 21.

I was unable to find this hymn in TLG but Dimitry Conomos speaks at detail about this Cheroubikon hymn. It was introduced by Emperor Justin II (565-578) See Conomos, Dimitri, Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries A Study of Late Byzantine Liturgical Chant, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki 1974, p. 17.

According to the Greek Church, the author of Ⲟⲙⲟⲛⲟⲅⲉⲛⲛⲏⲥ is Emperor Justinian (527-565). Conomos. p. 17. It ends with 'save us.' According to the Syrian Church, the author is Severus of Antioch. See Youssef, Youhanna Nessim, Severus of Antioch in the Coptic Liturgical Books , Journal of Coptic Studies 6 (2004), p. 143.

I was unable to find these two Resurrection hymns, Ⲧⲟⲛ ⲥⲩⲛⲁⲛⲁⲣⲭⲟⲛ and Ⲧⲟⲩ ⲗⲓⲑⲟⲩ on TLG. But they are very popular and found on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website, (audio only)

I was unable to find this hymn on TLG for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but it can be found in the writings of other Greek fathers. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can also be found on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website, http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_chrysostom_greek.asp

The date of these hymns incorporation to the Coptic Church cannot be definitively identified without colophon dating. However, popular theory among the Copts states that many of these hymns were introduced in the third stage when Greek heritage gained popularity in the 18th century Coptic Egypt.

There are Greek-only hymns in the Coptic Church that are not found in the Greek Church. There are two reasons for this. First, we know that during the second stage there was a movement away from the Byzantine Church. As such, Coptic hymns found during this stage were likely created in Egypt, not borrowed and incorporated from other liturgical rites. Second, using resources available, I simply was not able to find the hymn in the Greek Church.

This hymn shows some similarities with Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ, especially MS30, as I will describe below. It has Greek with Sahidic and Bohairic influences. However, it is known that the text is incoherent and no translation is given.

Placement of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ in the Coptic Rite

Currently, Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ is sung in every Midnight Psalmody service after the Third Canticle or Third Hoos. Until recently, however, it was reserved for the Midnight Psalmody service during the Coptic month of Kiahk and Bright Saturday service. The hymn is closely related to the Three Holy Children in Daniel 1-3. One can simply assume this association is due to the fact that the names of the Three Holy Children are repeated in every verse of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ. In fact, the title of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ in nearly all psalmody books is "The Greek Psali for the Three Holy Children". But the correlation of the hymn with the Three Holy Children is deeper than the title of the hymn.

Yassa 'Abd al-Masih wrote an article on "The Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace." This is not the same hymn Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ. It is the Third Hoos of the Coptic Church. In the Coptic Church, the Third Hoos is always sung with "The Greek Psali on the Third Hoos", Ⲁⲣⲓⲯⲁⲗⲓⲛ. We will revisit Ⲁⲣⲓⲯⲁⲗⲓⲛ later. 'Abd al-Masih makes no mention of Ⲁⲣⲓⲯⲁⲗⲓⲛ or Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ. He does make it clear that the Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace is found in Daniel 3 in the Septuagint Bible. There are multiple Greek versions and it is sung in the Greek Church. He then compares the Greek text to the Sahidic, Bohairic, Arabic and English texts.

This hymn is similar to a work by Neophytos of Cyprus (11-12th century) called Oratio brevis in ingressum Mariae Virginis, TLG 3085.002. page 537. The same refrain in Neophytos' hymn, Χαῖρε, θεοτόκε παρθένε (Ⲭⲉⲣⲉ Ⲑⲉⲟⲧⲟⲕⲉ ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲉ) is repeated in the Coptic hymn but the rest of the text is different.

This line, Δεῦτε πάντες οἱ λαοί, seems to be an introductory hymn found in Acta Monasterii Theotoci Euergetae, a hymn lectionary of the 12th century. The full text is not present on TLG. The rest of the Coptic hymn has multiple verses beginning with Ⲭⲉⲣⲉ Ⲑⲉⲟⲧⲟⲕⲉ ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲉ. See the previous note.

For a description of terms in the Coptic Church, see Burmester's The Egyptian Church

'Abd al-Masih, Yassa, The Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace, Bulletin de la Societe d'archeologie copte Vol. 8. 1946-1947. pp. 1-15

See Burmester, p. 109

Theological and Historical Analysis

The author of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ was familiar with the Greek New Testament. The only Greek portion of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ found in any Greek work is την λογικην λατρειαν, 'spiritual act of worship'. It is part of Romans 12:1: "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship." This spiritual act of worship and living sacrifice is the central theme of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ. The author recognizes the actual physical sacrifice of the Three Children, i.e., burning in fire, is a spiritual act of worship. This living sacrifice is a continuous action. He commented that the fire of the Three Children and the salvation of destruction from the fire is "our advent".

If we take the three hymns, The Third Hoos, the Greek Psali on the Third Hoos and Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ, there is a progression of spiritual worship that leads to the life of living sacrifice. The Third Hoos, commands all creation to praise God and exalt him above all forever. Sarkis' Greek Psali Ⲁⲣⲓⲯⲁⲗⲓⲛ, repeats the commandment in the first line, "Sing to Him who was crucified, buried and resurrected for us. . . . Praise Him and exalt him above all." Sarkis clarifies that the Three Holy Children were saved from destruction and Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ's author says they became the living sacrifice. The last verse of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ tells us that the result of the spiritual act of worship is partaking of the Eucharist, the living sacrifice of Christ. When one partakes of Christ, his spiritual act of worship is completed. Fr. George Dragas explains the connection of Sacraments and Doctrine. The Teachings of the Fathers are collectively summed up as Doctrine. Doctrine is the teaching of Fathers, the teaching of the Apostles, and the Word of Christ. The sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are the works of the Fathers, the Sacrifice of Christ. Orthodoxy does not separate teaching from sacraments. Together they are the Tradition of Apostles.

Dragss, George, Christ in the Scriptures according to St. Cyril of Alexandria. Audio lecture given at St. Mark's Coptic Orthodox Church on December 8, 2006 for St. Augustine's Fellowship. Part 2 http://www.stmarkfellowship.org/

Trisagion

The Trisagion gives us detail about the author's message. Although the traditional Coptic additions to the Trisagion found in Greek are not found in Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ's Trisagion, Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ's Trisagion is not Chalcedonian. A detailed study of the Trisagion, both Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian, will show Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ is originally Coptic and not a Coptic translation of Greek.

There are two separate traditions about the origins of the Trisagion, one Chalcedonian and one Coptic. According to Dimitri Conomos, "According to Tradition, the origin of the Trisagion actually connects the revelation of this hymn with an earthquake that struck the capital before 450" Conomos is reciting the Chalcedonian tradition first mentioned by John of Damascus in the 8th century and Nicephorus Callistus of the 14th century. Between 434 and 446, when Proclus was bishop of Constantinople, numerous and violent earthquakes plagued the city. In one earthquake, a child was taken up to heaven and was taught by the teaching of the angels, the Trisagion (specifically, Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us). When the child returned and told the bishop what he was taught, the whole city sang the hymn and the calamity subsided. Since this time, the Chalcedonians considered the Trisagion a Trinitarian hymn. The date and story is questionable but what happened after the story brought on much controversy. According to Nicephorus and other Chalcedonian historians, additions to the Trisagion were introduced by Peter "the Fuller", a presbyter of the Church of St. Bassa the Martyr, which is Chalcedon. These additions focus on the Son and make the hymn an Incarnation/Christological hymn. Peter's rise to bishop of Antioch was a political maneuver that angered Chalcedonian historians. His addition to the Trisagion (specifically "Who was crucified for us") was the catalyst that brought on three separate exiles and finally excommunication.

Peter the Fuller convened a council to ratify his addition to the Trisagion. Soon after, Severus of Antioch agreed to the additions. According to Chalcedonian historians, the addition became the outcry of the "monophysite" (Non-Chalcedonian) party that enforced the addition by violence.

Chalcedonians viewed the Trisagion as an exclusive Trinitarian hymn. Peter the Fuller's addition violated the Trinitarian doctrine making Trinity subject to suffering and crucifixion. This heresy, known

Conomos, Dimitri E., Byzantine Hymnography and Byzantine Chant. p. 41.

Prentice, WK, Fragments of an Early Christian Liturgy in Syrian Inscriptions, 1902. p. 82-83. Originally cited from Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History XIV, 46; John Damascus, Exposition Fidei Ortho., III, 10 Cf. Epistlola and Jordanem de Hymno Trisagio

Prentice, p. 83.

as Theopaschite heresy, asserts that the Father and the Holy Spirit suffered crucifixion. They attribute the heresy to Peter the Fuller and the monophysites.

Peter the Fuller was never directly excommunicated by the Greek Orthodox Church. Canon 81 of the Council of Trullo, a Greek Orthodox council held in 692 under Justinian II, condemns anyone who uses the addition of the Trisagion. Peter was officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in 485 by 25 bishops of the West. Ironically, the Roman Catholic Church agrees with the condemnation of the Trisagion addition but frowns on the Council of Trullo. "The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council [of Trullo] an ecumenical one, and add its canons to the decrees of the Fifth and Sixth Councils. in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a "reprobate" synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an "erratic" one . . . that [manifests the Eastern Orthodox] intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church." (This seems to be consistent with the Trisagion controversy). This brings into question the Eastern Orthodox view on the Trisagion controversy. Also ironically, the Melkite Catholic Churches, including the Coptic Catholic Church, continue to use the Trisagion additions. The Roman Catholic Church attempted to discourage the practice but it still accepted these churches under the primacy of Rome. This brings into question the Roman Catholic view on the Trisagion additions.

The Coptic tradition on the Trisagion's origin can be traced to the first century Apostles. According to the Good Friday 12 Hour Canon, Joseph and Nicodemus learned the Trisagion from the Angels when they shrouded Jesus' body. This tradition was first introduced in the Coptic Church by Tuki. This tradition finds its origin in the 9 century Syrian writer Thomas Bar Kepha. In the 11 century, Syrian Orthodox author Yahya Ibn Garir introduced the legend for the first time in Arabic. The

45 Conomos, p. 41

46 Wace, Henry. Petrus, surnamed Fullo in The Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principle Sects and Heresies., Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1911. p. 836. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Petrus,%20surnamed%20Fullo

47 Shahan, Thomas J., Council of Trullo in the Catholic Encyclopedia Volume IV. Published 1908. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm

48 Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085 AD) wrote to the Armenians asking them to abandon the practice. This instruction was ignored. When union with the Armenians was discussed again in 1635, the Roman Catholic Church forbade the Trisagion addition. However, in the Armenian-Gregorian rite, used by some Armenian Catholics, still uses various additions to the Trisagion based on season. The Armenian-Roman rite removes the additions.

13th/14th century Coptic author Ibn al-Siba mentioned the hymn [the Trisagion additions] but not the Syrian origin .

The Coptic Church never viewed the Trisagion as an exclusive Theopaschite hymn as the Chalcedonians believed but rather a complete Trinitarian and Christological creed. Coptic Orthodoxy places the Trinitarian and Incarnation doctrines in the highest priority. It is for this reason, that the Trisagion is recited in every Coptic service. Fr. George Dragas commented, "Without the Incarnation of the Son, we would not know who the Father is. We learned about the Trinity through the Incarnation." Without the combined Trinitarian and Incarnation doctrines, all scripture and theology cannot be fully understood as the Apostolic fathers have transmitted."

Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ's Trisagion does not have the traditional addition "Who were crucified for us". It does have a different addition, "Who gave us from His grace." This addition does not specifically describe an attribute of the Son's Incarnation. Given that the Chalcedonians passionately opposed any addition to the Trisagion, it is not likely that this addition is originally Chalcedonian. We can conclude that Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ's addition to the Trisagion is Coptic.

Musical evidence also corroborates Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ's Trisagion as Non-Chalcedonian. Conomos compared twenty Byzantine manuscripts that musically transcribed the Trisagion. These manuscripts date from the 12th -15th century. Conomos described musical characteristics of the Trisagion. "The most recognisable characteristic of the numerous Trisagion settings . . . is that they are . . . all based on the same melodic formula firmly centered on a gtonality. In many cases, this formula is initially exposed in the opening Amen . . . Basically this melodic cell is composed of the five notes: g a b a g which constitutes the skeletal structure for the hymn tune." Conomos concluded that this simple melodic cell is consistent with a wide sample of musical manuscripts. It suggests that the Trisagion is old, authentic and sacred because it did not change musically throughout the centuries. "A hymn whose melody was first given to mankind from the angels should, as far as possible, be preserved." Conomos continues to describe the Greek rite of the Trisagion, its placement in the liturgy, its simple syllabic nature sung by the whole congregation, its antiphonal repetition with the doxology Δοξα Πατρι και Υιω και αγιω Πνευματι και νυν και αει και εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων Αμυν suggesting an exclusive Trinitarian implication of the hymn, and the Greek intolerance for alteration of the hymn.

Youssef, Youhanna Nessim, Notes on the Tradition Concerning the Trisagion. Parole d'Orient 29. 2004. p. 147.

Dragas, George. ibid.

Conomos, Dimitri E., Byzantine Trisagia and Cheroubika of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, A Study of Late Byzantine Liturgical Chant. Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies. Thessaloniki. 1974. p. 53

Conomos, Byzantine Trisagia, p. 55

Musical notation is completely different in the Coptic Church. Whatever melodic structure that applies for the Greek Chalcedonian Trisagion, does not apply to Jenen's Trisagion or Coptic music in general. John Gillespie, a music historian, commented on the lack of musical manuscripts in the Coptic Church. "The Egyptian Coptic Orthodox Church is unique in that it seemingly has neglected to devise a system of musical notation and consequently has no important music manuscripts . . . we come to the conclusion that the Copts have never been seriously interested in writing down their melodies. Apparently they preferred to trust the superb memories of their blind cantors – a fixed tradition of the Coptic Church – rather than lifeless series of primitive notation symbols." Conomos' theory may or may not apply to Jenen's Trisagion. Musically, the year-round tune of the Coptic Trisagion, specifically the Greek version said in every service except Jenen, is simple and syllabic in nature. Jenen's Trisagion is longer and more musically complex. More research is needed to see if the Coptic Trisagion, whether Greek or Coptic, follows Conomos' tonal pattern. The lack of musical transcription, oral transmission and reliance on blind cantors suggests that Jenen's Trisagion is Coptic, not Greek.

Possible Authorship and Date

The author knew Greek and Coptic. There are only a few hymnographers documented in the Coptic Church. These include Nicodemus, Christodolos, Sarkis, Makarius the Bishop, Patriarch Gabriel, etc. From this list, only Sarkis writes in both Greek and Coptic. Sarkis, however, simply adds Greek-loan words to his Bohairic Coptic hymns. The best example is The Greek Psali for the Three Holy Children Δριψαλιν. It is tempting to conclude Sarkis wrote Tenen because it follows the theme of Δριψαλιν, it is a Greek and Coptic bilingual hymn like Δριψαλιν, and it comes immediately after Δριψαλιν. We cannot come to this conclusion because Sarkis never wrote in Sahidic Coptic. Like many Coptic hymns liturgical works, the author of Tenen intentionally kept his name hidden, shifting importance to the words rather than the author. Copyists usually kept their names hidden in liturgical works but in many instances, they did give their names so that the reader of their work can pray for them. We cannot conclude the author's or the copyists' names but we can conclude that they were Egyptian, not Greek.

53 Gillespie, John, Coptic Chant, A Survey of Past Research and A Projection for the Future in The Future of Coptic Studies by R. Mac Lachlan Wilson. Leiden. Brill. 1978. p.223

54 Youssef, Youhanna N., Nicodeme auter des psalies. OCP 60 (1994) p. 625-633

55 Youssef, op. cit. p. 625.

56 Youssef, Youhanna N., Recherches d'Hymnographie Copte: Nicodeme et Sarkis. OCP 64 (1998) p. 691

From other Greek-only hymns in the Coptic Church, we can conclude that Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ was originally written in all three dialects, Greek, Bohairic and Sahidic Coptic. It must have been originally written in Upper Egypt, near Fayoum or the Southern Delta. This would explain for the predominance of Sahidic words, the presence of Fayyumic idioms and Bohairic and Greek.

Abd al'Massih gives us some information on a possible date for Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ. Sahidic doxologies were predecessors of the current Bohairic doxologies. "The aim of the present article [Abd' al-Massih's article on Sahidic doxologies] is to show that certain of the Bohairic doxologies in use in the Coptic Church at the present day existed in a Sahidic version already in the 9th century . . . since these appear (in Sahidic) in Vol. XIV of the Pierpont Morgan Collection a MS which is dated (A.M. 609=A.D. 892-893)." Since Sahidic doxologies preceded Bohairic doxologies and Sahidic doxologies can be dated to the 9th century, it is plausible to date Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ to sometime before the 9th century. Ariel Shisha-Halevy described the date and characteristic of late Sahidic documents, which Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ likely falls under. "The immense body of . . . late documentation, largely overlapping the late Sahidic . . . the overpowering impression conveyed by these texts . . . is their bewildering variety and degree of deviation from the classical standard [Sahidic dialect] . . . all to a lesser or greater extent exhibit non-Sahidic characteristics (Akhmimoid, Fayyumic, Bohairic)."

Conclusion

This article attempted to categorize the different developments of Coptic hymnography, with emphasis on Greek hymns in the Coptic Church. From different analyses of similar hymns, the following conclusions of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ can be made.

There are two versions of the hymns. Version A is likely older, written in late Sahidic or Sahidic with Dialect V idioms. Version B is an 18th -19th century attempt to "correct" apparent errors of Version A. It should be noted that Version A cannot be considered incorrect because subdialects in Coptic are fundamentally variable.

Abd Al-Masih, Yassa, Doxologies in the Coptic Church, Unedited Sahidic Doxologies. Bulletin d'Societe Archeologie Copte 5 (1939) p.12-13.

In a private email, Dr. Youhanna Nessim Youssef informed me that Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ was originally Sahidic and he found an early Sahidic manuscript. He adds that it entered into the Bohairic rite in the 14th century when Patriarchs were elected from Upper Egypt, like Gabriel IV (1370-1380 AD).

Shisha-Halevy, Ariel. Sahidic in the Coptic Encyclopedia. Ed. Aziz Atiya. Vol 8. p. 199. Greek and Coptic bilingualism is a part of Coptic linguistic and literary history. In various stages of Coptic development, a movement towards purism from or toward Greek is noted. However, Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ represents a stage in Coptic development where Greek/Coptic bilingualism was sanctioned and skillfully and artistically utilized to better express Coptic thought and theology. The amount of grammatical discrepancies in both versions is fewer in Greek words than Coptic words. This shows the recurring indictment that Coptic copyists and even Coptic cantors do not fully understand the text in front of them. Greek was understood less than Coptic. People took the text at face value while Coptic continued to dynamically develop. The continued use of Coptic brought on more variation in dialectology. This is also seen today. People do not understand Coptic or Greek and take the text at face value, while Arabic or English continue to develop and variations in the texts are accepted and endorsed. Dogmatic controversy continued to label opposing sides as heretics. A deeper analysis into theological histiography portrays political, emotional, rhetorical and ecclesiastical combat. Hagiography and hymnography were pawns in this battle. Stories and hymns of saints continue to condemn the opposing side. Consequently, we see declarations of faith, like the Trisagion, become the focal point of enmity and antagonism. Sadly, this division makes it possible for us to categorize hymns according to which side of the dogmatic controversy the hymn upholds. The authorship and the date of Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ are unknown but the variations in the manuscripts give details about the genre, the theology, the linguistic style, and the atmosphere of the author, which are valuable in themselves. More research is needed to compare the observations of grammar, music, and theology found in Ⲧⲉⲛⲉⲛ.