Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

koine was the lingua franca of its time, much like english is to the world today,

ms. o is right, this case is important, other orthodox churches (and cdoporations) will have as a guide the rulings on this case; interestingly, i cannot think of a State more affected than Turkey; you?

[Simon]

I don't need to tell you anything. It is an observation from your posts, and I don't need your permission to make observations, OK?

Make observations by all means. Don't tell me what I believe.

My observation is about what you believe. And I can tell you what I like.

The Irish and Roman Catholics are completely irrelevant. You are now trying to turn this into an ethnic/nationality debate it seems. We were talking about religion. I simply refuted your argument that Greek Cypriots are not Greek Orthodox because the Cypriot Church is autocephalous and not part of the Church of Greece.

The analogy with the Irish is entirely relevant. You just don't get it. I didn't expect you to get it but maybe others will. As I said, I'm not out to convert you, Simon.

The Cypriot, I never said that being Greek Orthodox means your automatically Greek (and certainly not a Greek from Greece) so what has your Irish Roman Catholic analogy got to do with anything? Even if I did, there would still be nothing relevant about it because the Irish have never identified as "Romans" (if you're still referring to nationality). They were never even part of the Roman Empire. The history of Ireland and its religion is very different to that of Cyprus and it is far too simplistic to make a straight comparison. But I wouldn't expect you to get it either... It boils down to your original confusion of the term 'Greek Orthodox' thinking that it means you belong to the Church of Greece. That was what my original reply was in relation to and you started babbling on about identity and the Irish!

You fail to appreciate the ancient Greek heritage of Cyprus. You look at history from the viewpoint that Cyprus has always been distinct from the rest of the Greeks. This is misinformed, and this is my view, if that's OK with you?

It's informed certainly. Whether misinformed comes down to one's perspective. I choose to view Cypriot history from a different perspective to you.

You are entitled to your perspective, just as I'm entitled to think you are misinformed.

You're mixing up your displeasure for the majority of Cypriots identifying as Greek Cypriots with the term 'Greek Orthodox'. Greek Orthodox is not supposed to denote nationality, but just the language and cultural tradition of the particular Orthodox Church. It is a 'misnomer' to you because you apparently dislike anything Greek in Cyprus. I don't really understand your argument with the Roman Catholics. Are you saying Irish Catholics are not Roman, so Greek Orthodox Cypriots are not Greek? If so, I have to say that is total nonsense and doesn't even make sense. The Greek Cypriots identify themselves as Greek not only because of religious links, but many other reasons too.

It's not nonsense at all. It saddens but doesn't surprise me that you refuse to appreciate the very clear analogy.

It doesn't surprise me that you can't address my argument and defend your analogy.

I'm afraid it's you who don't 'geddit'. Are you saying religion determines nationality? I've never argued this. I simply corrected the false impression you had about the Church of Greece, and now you're trying to say that being Greek Orthodox alone doesn't make you ethnically Greek. I never said it did, there are many reasons why Greek Cypriots regard themselves as Greek. The Cypriots were Greek before Christianity appeared in Cyprus, so your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

What Cypriots shared with the rest of the eastern Mediterranean world, even before Christianity appeared, was the use of Koine..

Yes, because Greek was the dominant language in the eastern Mediterranean. Greek Cypriots shared a common culture and language with the rest of the Greeks even before Koine Greek was used.

An earlier form of Greek than is spoken today, but Greek all the same. It is far more closely related to modern Greek than what Latin is to the modern European languages.

I don't believe you. Common sense tells me that the relationship between Latin and Italian is analogous to the relationship between Koine and modern Greek. Unless you know any dispassionate linguistic historians that can demonstrate how and why the evolution of languages east and west differed markedly then common sense should prevail.

Whether you believe me or not is up to you. What you're stating is not common sense, it is a presumption. I don't see how this is all that relevant in any event, because Koine is a form of ancient Greek, regardless of how different it is to modern Greek. Italian is a new language, derived from Latin.

"Koiné Modern Greek is the natural continuation of Koine Greek, an ancient Greek dialect (known also as the "Alexandrian language") which came into existence after the conquests of Alexander the Great and the Hellenization of the known world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Greek

Further:

"the fact that modern Greeks can still wholly or partly understand texts written in non-archaic forms of ancient Greek shows the affinity of modern Greek language to its ancestral predecessor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek#cite_note-5

Also, you may find this interesting:

"Historical unity and continuing identity between the various stages of the Greek language is often emphasised. Although Greek has undergone morphological and phonological changes comparable to those seen in other languages, there has been no time in its history since classical antiquity where its cultural, literary, and orthographic tradition was interrupted to such an extent that one can easily speak of a new language emerging. Greek speakers today still tend to regard literary works of ancient Greek as part of their own rather than a foreign language.[5] It is also often estimated that the historical changes have been relatively slight compared with some other languages. According to one estimation, "Homeric Greek is probably closer to demotic than twelfth-century Middle English is to modern spoken English."[6] Ancient Greek texts, especially from Biblical Koine onwards, are thus relatively easy to understand for educated modern speakers. The perception of historical unity is also strengthened by the fact that Greek has not split up into a group of separate national daughter languages, as happened with Latin."

[6] Margaret Alexiou (1982): Diglossia in Greece. In: William Haas (1982): Standard Languages: Spoken and Written. Manchester University Press ND. ISBN 0389202916, 9780389202912

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language#cite_note-5

Also:

http://cryptotheology.wordpress.com/200 ... lly-photo/

Indeed, some Greeks, especially the ones who can read Katharevousa, would be able to understand Koine.

Some Italians can probably understand Latin.

I have an Italian friend. They can guess some of the words, but they cannot understand Latin unless they studied it. I have actually been told many times that most Romance languages are more similar to each other than what they are to Latin.

What is your point with the languages anyway? All the Greek Orthodox Churches use the same language in their liturgy, Koine Greek, and share a common cultural tradition. Hence they are Greek Orthodox Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_orthodox_church

Yes you might add, similar to how the Roman Catholic Churches used to be. But if you're using that as an argument for Greek Cypriots not being Greek, then that is nonsense. Even though the Catholic Churches were 'Roman' nobody ever believed the Irish were actually Roman. Just like being Greek Orthodox would not automatically make the Cypriots Greek unless they already were. And we know the Greek Cypriots do exist. But that's a whole new topic.

[denizaksulu]

CHRISTIANITY IN ARMENIA - The First Christian Nation On Earth


Hye Mer
The Lord's Prayer
One of the most crucial events in Armenian history was the conversion of Armenia to Christianity!
By adopting the new religion in the fourth century, Armenia renounced its Eastern or Persian-influenced past, established a distinct Christian character of its own, and, at times, became identified with the Western world. Armenian national tradition is rich in information and in legends about the introduction of Christianity into the country. It is often said to have been preached by the Holy Apostles, or the immediate disciples of the Apostles, notably St. Thaddeus and St. Bartholomew. However, these accounts are relatively late, and not generally regarded as historically authentic.


The traditional account of the conversion is based on a mixture of fact and fiction recorded a century later by the Armenian chronicler known as "Agathangelos". It tells of wars of an Armenian king Khosrov against the new Persian Sasanid dynasty and the efforts of Persia to destroy the Armenian Arshakunis. The Persian king employed a traitor named "Anak" ( in fact, Khosrov’s brother) to murder the Armenian king. Promised a reward by the Sasanids, Anak settled in Armenia, befriended Khosrov, and murdered him and most of his family.

Anak and his family were, in turn, slain by angry Armenian courtiers. Only two sons were saved from death: Khosrov’s son "Trdat", who was taken to Rome, and Anak’s son "Gregory", ( the future St. Gregory the Illuminator), who was taken to live among Christians in Cappadocia.

Years later, according to Agathangelos, Trdat, with the help of Rome, returned to Armenia to regain his father’s throne. While passing through Caesarea he met the son of Anak, who had been given the name of Gregory by his Christian mentors and, unaware of his true identity, took him into his service.

After regaining Armenia, Trdat, recognizing great abilities in Gregory, raised him in stature at court. Gregory, of course, had already accepted the Christian faith and eschewed pagan ceremonies. Soon rumors of his parentage began to surface, spread by jealous nobles, which lead to his torture and imprisonment in Khorvirab (deep pit).

Years passed and King Trdat, like his godfather Diocletian, continued his persecution of Christians. Among the martyrs of that period were "Gayane" and" Hripsime" , two virgins who had refused King Trdat’s advances and were put to death.

According to Agathangelos, after this crime, King Trdat was punished for his sin by divine retribution by turning into a wild beast. He was afflicted, it seems, with a form of violent lycanthropy(a form of mental disorder in which the patient imagines himself to be a wolf). No one could cure him of this transformation until his sister, Khosrovidukht, had a dream in which an angel instructed her to release Gregory who, despite long years in isolation, had, by divine intervention, survived in the pit. The princess was convinced that if Gregory was brought forth from his pit, he would cure the king of his dire affliction. King Trdat accepted his sister’s advice and released the saint from the deep pit. Gregory restored the king’s health and sanity, and then baptized him with all his household. Thus, the King, in 301 A.D., proclaimed Christianity the sole state religion, making Armenia the First Christian Nation on Earth..

http://www.armenianheritage.com/refirstc.htm

Armenian spin, 260 years after Sergius...!

Who am I to argue one way or the other. Justpointing out that others also aspire to the 'onour of being the first 'Christian' state/nation.

[Nikitas]

It will be an interesting case, because it is not referable to the so called properties commission. Asking for restitution of churches is not something amenable to compensation, nor is there any defence for the acquisition and conversion of churches to other uses. And naturally there can be no question of necessity of use, since the occupiers are of another religion so they have no use for the churches.

The actual treatment of the churches is valuable evidence in this case that illustrates a deliberate policy towards the church.

As for the delay, that can be made to work for the plaintiff. There was no possibility of inspecting the churches before 2003 inorder to document the denial of access and permanent alteration of the churches.

The church being an institution older than either Turkey or the court itself can wait out the delay which is endemic to the court procedure and its claims cannot be extinguished by any settlement reached between the two communities.

Yes, definitely an interesting case.

[-mikkie2-]

The main interest here is that he Church if Cyprus is a significant land owner. I wonder what percentage of land the Church owns in the north? Any stats on this?

[The Cypriot]

The Cypriot, I never said that being Greek Orthodox means your automatically Greek (and certainly not a Greek from Greece) so what has your Irish Roman Catholic analogy got to do with anything? Even if I did, there would still be nothing relevant about it because the Irish have never identified as "Romans" (if you're still referring to nationality). They were never even part of the Roman Empire. The history of Ireland and its religion is very different to that of Cyprus and it is far too simplistic to make a straight comparison.

It's not a straight comparison. It's an analogy. Perhaps reference to Spanish or French Catholics may have been an even better analogy, as both these areas were part of the Roman Empire and shared its religion and language, as Cyprus was part of the Byzantine Empire, and shared its religion and language.

But I wouldn't expect you to get it either... It boils down to your original confusion of the term 'Greek Orthodox' thinking that it means you belong to the Church of Greece.

I was pointing out that the term "Greek" is an inadequate term to describe certain parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church which still use "Koine" in their liturgy as this leads to people quite reasonably believing that they are all part of the Church of modern Greece; which they are not. I even went as far as to say that, because of this, I thought the term "Greek" Orthodox was a misnomer that would certainly cause confusion.

Yes, because Greek was the dominant language in the eastern Mediterranean. Greek Cypriots shared a common culture and language with the rest of the Greeks even before Koine Greek was used.

Actually they spoke "Arcadocypriot" before Koine was brought to the island by the Macedonians under Alexander. And "Arcadocypriot" was not common to all parts of the eastern Med. In Crete they spoke "Doric", in Thessaly they spoke "Aeolic", in Athens they spoke "Attic" (which is actually what people study when they learn "ancient Greek") etc...

Whether you believe me or not is up to you. What you're stating is not common sense, it is a presumption. I don't see how this is all that relevant in any event, because Koine is a form of ancient Greek, regardless of how different it is to modern Greek. Italian is a new language, derived from Latin.

Italian evolved from Latin (the language of the Roman Empire) in a comparable way to how modern Greek evolved from Koine (the language of the Byzantine Empire). What's new is the fact that Italy became a nation state and needed a standard language to bind its people together. They called this language "Italian", rather then modern Latin, or modern Roman.

Also, you may find this interesting:

"Historical unity and continuing identity between the various stages of the Greek language is often emphasised. Although Greek has undergone morphological and phonological changes comparable to those seen in other languages, there has been no time in its history since classical antiquity where its cultural, literary, and orthographic tradition was interrupted to such an extent that one can easily speak of a new language emerging. Greek speakers today still tend to regard literary works of ancient Greek as part of their own rather than a foreign language.[5] It is also often estimated that the historical changes have been relatively slight compared with some other languages. According to one estimation, "Homeric Greek is probably closer to demotic than twelfth-century Middle English is to modern spoken English."[6] Ancient Greek texts, especially from Biblical Koine onwards, are thus relatively easy to understand for educated modern speakers. The perception of historical unity is also strengthened by the fact that Greek has not split up into a group of separate national daughter languages, as happened with Latin."

I do find this interesting. And the reason "Koine" didn't split into separate daughter languages in the east as Latin did in the west is, I believe, due to the external and alien Ottoman threat which was to bind speakers of the Koine dialects together.

Otherwise, it's my contention that Cretan, Rhodian, Cypriot and other distinct and self-contained regional dialects of Koine would have evolved, naturally, into separate languages; as there would have been no need for such people to hold on to a common identity and unite against a common enemy.

[Nikitas]

As part of our A level english we did Chaucer, a modern text compared to Homeric Greek. It was surprising to see how little the native English students understood of the Chaucer texts, and how often they had to resort to dictionaries. By comparison a Greek text written around 1200 AD would be little different from current Greek and closer to Cypriot syntax than Athenian Greek.

For this we have to agree that we must credit the Orthodox Church.

[Simon]

The Cypriot, I never said that being Greek Orthodox means your automatically Greek (and certainly not a Greek from Greece) so what has your Irish Roman Catholic analogy got to do with anything? Even if I did, there would still be nothing relevant about it because the Irish have never identified as "Romans" (if you're still referring to nationality). They were never even part of the Roman Empire. The history of Ireland and its religion is very different to that of Cyprus and it is far too simplistic to make a straight comparison.

It's not a straight comparison. It's an analogy. Perhaps reference to Spanish or French Catholics may have been an even better analogy, as both these areas were part of the Roman Empire and shared its religion and language, as Cyprus was part of the Byzantine Empire, and shared its religion and language.

To make an analogy, you make a comparison. Call it whatever you like, the point is it didn't fit. You have now acknowledged this by bringing up the Spanish and French, who were at least part of the Roman Empire. However, there is still a big difference between Gaul and Iberia in the Roman Empire, and Cyprus being Greek. It is still far too simplistic what you are attempting to do. You need to understand the history and development of these countries. France and Spain today do not speak Latin, they have their own langauages, which are not mutually intelligible. Most French at least are not religious, there has been no Roman Empire for a long, long time, and they have developed as separate countries with separate identities. The Franks settled in France, which gives France its name. Being 'Roman' was never an ethnicity, but just a citizenship of the Empire. Cyprus was Greek before the Byzantine and Roman Empires came into existence and has largely kept its Greek identity.

But I wouldn't expect you to get it either... It boils down to your original confusion of the term 'Greek Orthodox' thinking that it means you belong to the Church of Greece.

I was pointing out that the term "Greek" is an inadequate term to describe certain parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church which still use "Koine" in their liturgy as this leads to people quite reasonably believing that they are all part of the Church of modern Greece; which they are not. I even went as far as to say that, because of this, I thought the term "Greek" Orthodox was a misnomer that would certainly cause confusion.

You originally thought Greek Orthodox meant belonging to the Church of Greece. I can show you your previous post that clearly implies this. Once I pointed out that it doesn't, you then stated that 'Greek Orthodox' is a misnomer. However, the term would only cause confusion to someone who does not know what the term 'Greek Orthodox' refers to, i.e. the ignorant. Some people dislike the term because they want to purge everything Greek from Cyprus. I believe this is your true motivation. Using 'Greek' is just as appropriate as using 'Roman' Catholic. In fact it is even more so, as there is no such thing as 'Roman' nowadays, and in Cyprus, Greek Cypriots are Greek anyway. This is what you dislike. If Cypriots were Greek Orthodox in exactly the same way as the Irish are Roman Catholics, I doubt you would have a problem, because it would be obvious that Cypriots are not Greek, just as it is obvious that the Irish are not Roman. So it is clear that your real contention is the fact that Greek Cypriots regard themselves as Greek, and nothing to do with the term 'Greek Orthodox.' By the way, it is not a misnomer because Koine is Greek. The cultural traditions of the churches are Greek. When the Priests speak to the worshippers, they speak Greek. It would only be a misnomer if it was intended to denote nationality or that it meant the churches belong to the Church of Greece. Even the slightest bit of research will show you this is not the case. The liturgy may not be in modern Greek spoken today, but Koine Greek is still Greek.

Yes, because Greek was the dominant language in the eastern Mediterranean. Greek Cypriots shared a common culture and language with the rest of the Greeks even before Koine Greek was used.

Actually they spoke "Arcadocypriot" before Koine was brought to the island by the Macedonians under Alexander. And "Arcadocypriot" was not common to all parts of the eastern Med. In Crete they spoke "Doric", in Thessaly they spoke "Aeolic", in Athens they spoke "Attic" (which is actually what people study when they learn "ancient Greek") etc...

Arcadocypriot Greek was Greek too. It was an ancient Greek dialect spoken in Arcadia in the central Peloponnesse and Cyprus. So stop trying to pass off these ancient Greek dialects along with Koine as separate languages, because it is misleading.

Whether you believe me or not is up to you. What you're stating is not common sense, it is a presumption. I don't see how this is all that relevant in any event, because Koine is a form of ancient Greek, regardless of how different it is to modern Greek. Italian is a new language, derived from Latin.

Italian evolved from Latin (the language of the Roman Empire) in a comparable way to how modern Greek evolved from Koine (the language of the Byzantine Empire). What's new is the fact that Italy became a nation state and needed a standard language to bind its people together. They called this language "Italian", rather then modern Latin, or modern Roman.

Precisely, the Italians needed a language to bind itself together. There was no identity in being 'Roman' or speaking Latin. The important distinction you are missing is that Koine was the language of the Greeks and being Greek was a national identity. Greek was used throughout the Byzantine Empire due to Greek influence. It was the language of the Greeks which became the langauge of the Byzantines, not the other way around. Latin has never been an Italian language and the Italians do not identify as Romans (unless from Rome) hence they never called Italian 'New Roman' or 'New Latin'. So again two very different examples.

Also, you may find this interesting:

"Historical unity and continuing identity between the various stages of the Greek language is often emphasised. Although Greek has undergone morphological and phonological changes comparable to those seen in other languages, there has been no time in its history since classical antiquity where its cultural, literary, and orthographic tradition was interrupted to such an extent that one can easily speak of a new language emerging. Greek speakers today still tend to regard literary works of ancient Greek as part of their own rather than a foreign language.[5] It is also often estimated that the historical changes have been relatively slight compared with some other languages. According to one estimation, "Homeric Greek is probably closer to demotic than twelfth-century Middle English is to modern spoken English."[6] Ancient Greek texts, especially from Biblical Koine onwards, are thus relatively easy to understand for educated modern speakers. The perception of historical unity is also strengthened by the fact that Greek has not split up into a group of separate national daughter languages, as happened with Latin."

I do find this interesting. And the reason "Koine" didn't split into separate daughter languages in the east as Latin did in the west is, I believe, due to the external and alien Ottoman threat which was to bind speakers of the Koine dialects together.

Otherwise, it's my contention that Cretan, Rhodian, Cypriot and other distinct and self-contained regional dialects of Koine would have evolved, naturally, into separate languages; as there would have been no need for such people to hold on to a common identity and unite against a common enemy.

I disagree. The Greeks have always maintained a distinct identity and language since time immemorial and I don't think that would have changed, whether the Ottomans came or not. There is no evidence for this.

[The Cypriot]

As part of our A level english we did Chaucer, a modern text compared to Homeric Greek. It was surprising to see how little the native English students understood of the Chaucer texts, and how often they had to resort to dictionaries. By comparison a Greek text written around 1200 AD would be little different from current Greek and closer to Cypriot syntax than Athenian Greek.

For this we have to agree that we must credit the Orthodox Church.

God Bless the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Badera mas
Badera mas is don uranon, na ayasti do onoman su.
Na erti i vasilia su. Na yini do theliman su, obos is don uranon etsi je is din yin.
Dhose mas simmera do psumin mas do anangeon.
Je sihhora mas da ftesimada mas, obos je emis sihhorumen jinus bu mas iftesin.
Je men mas feris se birasmon, alla ghlidose mas bu do gagon.
Yadi esenan en i vasilia je i dhinami je i dhoxa, is dus eones.

[Simon]

As part of our A level english we did Chaucer, a modern text compared to Homeric Greek. It was surprising to see how little the native English students understood of the Chaucer texts, and how often they had to resort to dictionaries. By comparison a Greek text written around 1200 AD would be little different from current Greek and closer to Cypriot syntax than Athenian Greek.

For this we have to agree that we must credit the Orthodox Church.

Spot on Nikitas.