Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

Get Real!, firstly the Greek ethnos/people did not only come into existence once the western powers decided to limit its borders and pick and chose which islands would still remain under their or ottoman control. Typically, those Greek speaking people, who practiced Christian Orthodoxy (under whichever patriarch of the time) were classified as Greek because of shared culture/language and history and that included e.g. those people on Crete and Cyprus (even though it never had assigned borders until 1960, being part of the UK till then).

Frankly, you are quite insulting to the history of all mankind. Especially regarding the fact that there is so much archaeological and written records in the case of the tribes of Greeks. Shamefully you are allowing the introduction of a new political name for any newly conquered bit of land to stick with the erasure of all its past history. You do know who loves your style of thinking, don't you?

(Certainly not the native Americans who were in existence before they were named "Red Indians", or those aboriginals now called "Australian" etc)

Anyway, we're stuck in a loop and I don't think any more needs to be said on this matter, by either of us.

[supporttheunderdog]

Here is an intersting item on Ethnos and how flexible it is - sometimes based on an entirely artificial if not false premise.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jmcinern/ethnos.pdf

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yes, thank you troll, it is indeed GR! who plays the same semantics with the English usage of the word "ethnos"; whereas, for a truer sense, I transpose it to tribes of people, because one's tribal origins cannot be changed by a simple change of name.

A rose ...

Now, please stop derailing this thread with your trolling mantra that Cypriots can not be Greek and that Greeks never existed till the English called them Greeks!

[supporttheunderdog]

Yes, thank you troll, it is indeed GR! who plays the same semantics with the English usage of the word "ethnos"; whereas, for a truer sense, I transpose it to tribes of people, because one's tribal origins cannot be changed by a simple change of name.

A rose ...

Now, please stop derailing this thread with your trolling mantra that Cypriots can not be Greek and that Greeks never existed till the English called them Greeks!

1) I have never preached about the Greeks not existing until so-called by the English so stop making up my views as you go along as you are prone do in your own Trollish way. I have always been happy to accept that in so far as there could then be considered a Greek ethnos bearing in mind the inhabitants of Greece almost certainly considered their ethnos in a totally differnt way to the way we see it today when each tribe or polis or whatever propabably considered itself as the primary ethnos that Greeks in what is the mainland of Modern Greece could be considered as Greeks since at least 2000 BC when the first traces of Greek type Culture can be discerned, and the majority poupulation can probbaly be linked back to the earliest permamant settlers following the last ice age (which is likewise probbaly the position in Cyprus too) .

2) I have made the point that Ancient Minoans pre say 1450 could not be considered as "Greek" as their language and culture was evidently distinct friom that of then "Greeks" 3) I have never challanged some 2000 years of the continous history of the Orthodox Christian church

4) On the development of the Greek Ethnos in Cyprus being a recent development would you accept it from a Cypriot proffessor of History from a Cypriot University?

‘My Homeland is Cyprus and My Parents are Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Dogma’:
Imperialism and Identity Transformation in Cyprus from the Ottomans to the British

Dr Andrekos Varnava,
Assistant Professor, History,
European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Abstract

Most academic commentators claim that the majority of Cypriots have always felt themselves to belong to the Greek nation and that from the early nineteenth century wanted Cyprus’ union to Greece – enosis. This communication will challenge this discourse. By examining the impact of the transition from Ottoman (1571-1878) to British rule (1878-1960) on the identity of Cypriots of Eastern Orthodox faith it will show that from a religious, civil and regional identity during Ottoman times, they developed an ethnic identity during the early British period. To what extent were the British responsible for this transformation?

1) Ottoman Period General

Contrary to the received and monolithic view, Cyprus during the Ottoman period was stable and peaceful, with its various communities, its two largest demographically being its Eastern Orthodox Christian and its Muslim communities, integrating at all social levels. The Eastern Orthodox Church gained more authority during Ottoman rule as it became the only Christian authority on the island. The Church leaders had important functions in the government. The Ottoman system allowed for religious and communal autonomy so long as the leaders of the Eastern Orthodox Christian millet ensured the cooperation and loyalty of their people to the government and crown. So, in short, the Eastern Orthodox elite were members of the ruling class along with the Muslims. The lower classes, composed of both Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims, were also integrated, sharing economic and social hardships, language and folklore and there was intermarriage. For most of Ottoman rule the lower classes united against the oppressions of the ruling classes, often receiving help from the patlernalistic hand of the imperial government upon the representation of a Muslim-Christian deputation from the ranks of the ruling class. Identity during Ottoman rule was not determined by concepts of nationood, but by class, kinship, region and religion, with the Eastern Orthodox Christians continuing to refer to themselves as Romiee (Romans).

2) Kyprianos and 1821

In 1821 the Archbishop of Cyprus, Kyprianos, and 500 other Eastern Orthodox notables were put to death by order of the Sultan upon the request of the governor, Kucuk Mehmet. This gruesome event forms a cardinal point on the script of the Greek nation of Cyprus – often given as the first time at which the Orthodox Cypriots identify with the Greek nation, which is said to be have been fighting at the time against the Ottomans for a Hellenic state. The reality, however, good not be further from this falsehood.

Kyprianos had become archbishop in 1809 under strange circumstances – his predecessor had been exiled to Eubeioa. Why this was the case is unclear, but what is clear is that numerous travellers mention the power that Kyprianos weilded as archbishop. Greek nationalist discourse claims that in 1818 Kyprianos was initiated into the Friendly Society, the secret society working for ‘Greek’ liberty. The governor would later accuse Kyprianos of trying to spread the Greek revolt to Cyprus. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the governor had an ulterior motive: Kyprianos’ destruction because he had wielded much power before and after he became archbishop in 1809. There is little evidence to suggest that Kyprianos was a Hellenic ‘freedom fighter’. Three freemasons formed the Friendly Society in 1811 and four years later Kyprianos excommunicated arrivals to Larnaca for preaching freemasonry and against the Sultan. In 1821 upon the Sultan’s orders Kyprianos demanded in an encyclical that the Orthodox surrender any arms they might posses. The Sultan told Kucuk Mehmed that he did not expect trouble from the Orthodox Christian Cypriots because in the past whenever there had been trouble it had been led by Muslims and the Christians had helped restore order. The governor’s subsequent recall on the representation of Cypriot Muslims, who fled to Constantinople after the massacres, adds weight to the theory.

3) Post-Kyprianos

Rolandos Katsiaounis assert that the Eastern Orthodox Cypriots had a ‘very low level of cultural development’ before the British arrival. But this is untrue unless ‘cultural development’ only means ‘Hellenic’ culture and it is erroneous to imply that the Cypriots did not have an identity. A decade before Ottoman rule ended, Cyprus’ Archbishop since 1865, Sophronios III, a scholarly, pious and moderate man, started his autobiographical note to the Jerusalem Theological School thus: ‘my homeland is Cyprus and my parents are Orthodox Christians of the Eastern dogma’. Neither Greece nor being Greek was mentioned, yet he had lived and studied in Athens for nine years (1853-61) and before that in Smyrna for six (1847-53). In 1876 Greece’s last vice-consul before the British arrival lamented to his superiors in Athens that ‘the spirit of Hellenism in some places is asleep and in others totally non-existent’.

4) British Arrival

In the June 1878 Anglo-Turkish Convention the Ottoman government ceded to the British government the right to occupy and administer Cyprus, but not sovereignty over the island. Officially Lord Beaconsfield’s (Benjamin Disraeli) Conservative government wanted Cyprus to defend the Ottoman Empire after its recent military defeat to Russia, but that was incidental to securing British strategic and economic interests in the Near East and India. A peaceful place was thus important. Crete was rejected because Hellenic nationalism was causing inter-communal disturbances between the Hellenised Orthodox Christians and the thirty per cent Muslim community. The British believed that no such threat existed in Cyprus, where they thought they could show the Ottomans how to rule mixed races. This implies that the structures in Cyprus were working; logically, therefore, they would be strengthened under a less oppressive regime.

5) Prelate’s Speech

Contrary to the received wisdom, a Greek prelate, either Archbishop Sophronios or the Bishop of Kitium, Kyprianos, did not make a speech welcoming the first High Commissioner, Sir Garnet Wolseley, with declarations of loyalty contingent on the British eventually ceding Cyprus to Greece as had been the case with the Ionian Islands. In his address, Archbishop Sophronios welcomed the British with declarations of loyalty and expressed hope that there would now be equality before the law for both Christians and Muslims.

6) Co-option

Sophronios, although speaking about equality, wanted to retain the privileged status of the Church as an arm of the governing structures. In February 1879 he and his bishops (the metropolitans of Paphos, Kyrenia and Kitium) requested the recognition of their privileges in a memorial to Sir Garnet Wolseley, the first high commissioner. In short, they were asking to be co-opted into the British governing structures as they had been during Ottoman times.

The request was rejected by Lord Salisbury, the Foreign Secretary, and one of the architects of Cyprus’ occupation, because ‘the clergy have used the weakness of Turkish rule…to consolidate a power over their people which is inconsistent with all modern views of civil government’. Co-option was practised in India, Malaya and the Ionian Islands, but despite the local elite in Cyprus wanting to be co-opted it was rejected. Why?

7) Introducing/Imposing Modernity

Cyprus, unlike most other possessions, was primarily ‘Christian’ and thus perceived as being, at least partly, ‘European’ and would be treated within the framework of modernity. Michael Herzfeld argued that because Europe claimed ancient Greece as its spiritual ancestor and fashioned a single ideal of it in place of over 150 independent city-states – linked only by similar language and religion – Europe also created a unitary ideal of a ‘modern Greece’ that emerged from Ottoman rule.

In newspapers and journals during the early weeks after the occupation much of the talk on Cyprus centred on its perceived ancient Greek past. Salisbury rejected co-opting the Orthodox Church because he perceived that Cyprus was on the periphery of Europe and should be placed on a modern footing. William Gladstone, a former Liberal prime minister and a great Philhellene, had assailed ‘Beaconsfieldism’ for occupying ‘virtually a European Island’ and during the 1880 election campaign he declared that Cyprus was ‘inhabited by people who had been civilised for centuries when we were barbarians…and who never lost the essentials of civilisation’. He subsequently declared that the Greek Cypriots would want to join Greece, like the people of the Ionian Islands had wanted (and did) and actually proposed giving Cyprus to Greece in 1880. Then in 1881, Lord Kimberley, the Liberal Colonial Secretary, rejected the introduction of English alongside the local languages because

the rich and varied literature of ancient Greece, and the great progress…modern Greece has made in the work of education, affords ample means not only for an ordinary education but for the attainment of a high degree of mental culture.

Accordingly, when the Church could no longer fund schools since the people refused to pay canonical dues the school committees came under the control of the Greek Brotherhood of the Cypriots of Egypt; an organisation composed of Hellenic emigrants to and Hellenised locals of Larnaca and Limassol and which had denounced the absence of Hellenism from the speeches welcoming Wolseley.

Then, in March 1882, the Liberal government granted the island the most liberal constitution of any overseas possession at the time, when it announced that Cyprus would have an elected legislature with a local majority.

Multicultural Faction v Hellenic Faction

The refusal to co-opt the Orthodox Church and the introduction of modernity had serious repercussions on the politics and identity of the Cypriot Orthodox community. It precipitated a leadership vacuum that split the Cypriot Eastern Orthodox hierarchy into two factions: one under Sophronios wanted to work with the British to preserve Church rights and Cyprus’ integrated society through co-option; and another that wanted to create a new hierarchy and social order by uniting Cyprus to Greece by embracing modernity, especially nationalism. Kyprianos, the Bishop of Kitium, the small Hellenic community and the few Hellenised Cypriots of Larnaca and Limassol led the latter faction by accusing Sophronios and the other bishops of being paid British agents. They also worked to dominate the legislative council. By rejecting co-option, the British allowed another powerbase, which had usurped the topological dream of Hellenism, to challenge British rule and the lived identity of the Cypriot Eastern Orthodox community through its embracing of nationalism.

In 1887 there was a severe drought that left much of Cyprus destitute. After receiving letters from the rural population and holding a meeting of rural representatives, Sophronios agreed to lead a deputation to London to seek reforms. His real reason for going, however, was lobby for co-option. Prior to leaving, he proposed a concordat between the Church and the British government.

It is the duty of the Church, by means of her spiritual resources, to support the Civil Authority in the carrying out of all its just and lawful orders. On the other hand the Civil Power, by means of its material resources, must support and assist the Ecclesiastical Power.

9) Religious v Archaeological Knowledge/ Anglicanism v Hellenism

Meanwhile, in 1887 and 1888, two vastly different societies were formed in London, which reflect the two poles of the British imperial imagination in Cyprus, the Hellenic and the Christian.

The Cyprus Society was formed by High-Church Anglicans in July 1888 to advance health and educational work in Cyprus. The movers behind the society were two former Cyprus officers, Edward Kenyon, and G. A. K. Wisely. The Cyprus Society comprised some very influential personages, with Princess Christian, agreeing to act as the President. The Society’s foundation must also be understood within the context of the close relations between the Anglican and Orthodox churches. The members of the Cyprus Society welcomed Sophronios and he accepted their mission. But the Society was wound up by 1893. The Cyprus Society achieved much in improving health services in Cyprus, sending nurses to Nicosia and establishing the Gordon Cottage Hospital in Kyrenia, but it did not achieve its educational aims. Even its achievements were achieved with much difficult owing to a lack of funds.

The Cyprus Society competed for the hearts, minds and wallets of British donors with the Cyprus Exploration Fund. In October 1887 the Council of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies established the Cyprus Exploration Fund. The scholars involved were all emmersed in the Hellenic tradition. Bernard Cohn argued that the imperial project was more than economics, strategy and politics and that the British in India sought to uncover the history of the ruled (the ‘historiographical modality’). By discovering knowledge of their past, the British thought they could classify them. To do this they found, collected and classified ancient objects.

The editor of The Times explained that it was not simply about finding knowledge of Cyprus for the sake of it, but about discovering knowledge of modern European civilisation: ‘Modern civilisation has its roots in the life and thought of races which once occupied the countries surrounding the Mediterranean’. Cyprus was clearly situated within the unitary ideal of ancient Greece because ‘we know pretty accurately what we ought to look for’.

Cyprus occupies a peculiar and unique position in the historical development of Hellenic civilisation. It stands as it were between the East and the West, and is the point at which the multifarious influences of the older Oriental and Egyptian civilisations were first brought to bear upon the nascent civilisation of Greece. This is what gives Cyprus its special importance for the intelligent student of Hellenic antiquity.

Exploring Cyprus’ archaeological remains was a chance for the wealthy and learned classes to show how much they really cared to learn of the civilisation that had given birth to modern Europe. And they seemed to care more for the aims of the Cyprus Exploration Fund than the Cyprus Society.

10) The Decision

Cyprus, being on Europe’s periphery and causing no problems to British rule, was being treated on a modern footing because it had been situated within the Hellenic world. So the Conservative Colonial Secretary, Lord Knutsford, told Sophronios that placing church and state relations on a statutory basis and regulating the payment of dues was a matter for the local legislature. This resulted in forces outside the island, which included Cyprus within the topological dream of Hellenism, successfully imposing an ethnic identity on the Cypriot Orthodox, through their politics and control of education. The British government did not stop this nor did it support taking more control of education or encouraging independent schools because ‘Greece’ was the core of modern European civilisation and the application of modernity meant ethnic identity would replace religious identification.

11) Archiepiscopal Dispute

Sophronios’ death in May 1900 resulted in a battle between those with a religious identity who respected Cyprus’ multicultural reality and those wanting to impose an ethnic identity and enosis to Greece. The Bishop of Paphos, entrusted with arranging the election, had predeceased him, leaving only those of Kyrenia and Kitium (both named Kýrillos). The austere Bishop of Kyrenia (Vasilliou) and his faction, claimed Orthodoxy as the people’s true identity. They were pro-British and thought secular leaders should focus on improving living conditions and church leaders on spiritual needs. His opponent was the firebrand Kýrillos Papadopoulos of Kitium. While Sophronios was ill, Papadopoulos and his supporters, many of whom were Greek nationals, started building a political network to win the archbishopric, a most sacrilegious venture. He emphasised that the Cypriot Eastern Orthodox were Greeks and had no qualms about destroying Orthodox-Muslim integration. The High Commissioner, William Haynes Smith warned that action was needed, but London decided that Cyprus was not as strategically important as Malta, where there was also an anti-British faction, and so it could have some latitude.

In May 1908 King-Harman rushed through the Legislative Council the ‘Archiepiscopal Election Law’ with the votes of the British and the eight Kitiakί members. In April 1909 Papadopoulos was elected archbishop according to this law unopposed after the Kyreniakί refused to partake in the elections and in 1910 the Kyreniakί accepted the result.

The Hellenist triumph in 1910 subordinated the Orthodox to a Hellenic nationalist political discourse and to the policy of enosis, both of which had been absent from Sophronios’ ideology, let alone agenda.

12) Conclusion

This communication has upturned the received wisdom that all the Cypriot Eastern Orthodox Christians were as one in identifying with Greece and the Greek nation and that they welcomed the British in 1878 with demands to join Greece. Far from this, the majority of Cypriot Orthodox Christians identified themselves as Eastern Orthodox Christians of Cyprus and welcomed the British, not as saviours from tyrannical and oppressive Turkish rulers, but as Europeans who would continue the peaceful multicultural realities of Ottoman Cyprus, but under terms of equality before the law for Christians and Muslims. The traditional leaders of the Cypriot Orthodox Christians wanted the British to co-opt them into the governing structures, as the Ottomans had, but, despite the British practising co-option in almost all other parts of their empire, they rejected its application in Cyprus. They considered that the Cypriot Orthodox Christians shared the same repertoire of Hellenic myths as themselves and thus helped create the space from which Hellenism could develop.

It is thus possible to make a number of conclusions on the various received wisdoms about Cyprus. Firstly, that the nationalist discourses are wrong and need replacing with a new awareness of identity formation in Cyprus, which corresponds to the ‘modernist’ school of thought on identity-formation/nationalism. Secondly, the idea that the British implemented a policy of divide and rule is wrong, because as has been shown above the British policy-makers in London saw the Cypriot Orthodox Christians as Europeans and applied modernity in their approach to governing. Thus, they rejected co-option and paternalistic approaches; gave the Cypriots a constitution within four years of arriving that had a local majority; and helped create the space for the new fanatical nationalist leaders to Hellenise the Orthodox Christians of Cyprus.

I suspect the answer is probabaly is NO you wont because it it is dangerous thought - a heresy to you - that threatens your own blinkered world view.

[Piratis]

supporttheunderdog, why did you copy / paste that text instead of giving a link to it?

Is it maybe to hide its source, which is PRIO, a foreign sponsored organization which employees several Turks and which is trying to falsify the history of our island? Andrekos Varnava is currently employed by the Boğaziçi University in Turkey, and there is no doubt he has been receiving grants from the Turks for a long time now, in order to help them to falsify the history of Cyprus.

1) Ottoman Period General

Contrary to the received and monolithic view, Cyprus during the Ottoman period was stable and peaceful

Nonsense. Here are some facts for you: "In the summer of 1570, the Turks struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion rather than a raid. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on July 2, 1570, and laid siege to Nicosia. In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted."
http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/7.htm

2) Kyprianos and 1821

In 1821 the Archbishop of Cyprus, Kyprianos, and 500 other Eastern Orthodox notables were put to death by order of the Sultan upon the request of the governor, Kucuk Mehmet. This gruesome event forms a cardinal point on the script of the Greek nation of Cyprus – often given as the first time at which the Orthodox Cypriots identify with the Greek nation, which is said to be have been fighting at the time against the Ottomans for a Hellenic state. The reality, however, good not be further from this falsehood.

Kyprianos had become archbishop in 1809 under strange circumstances – his predecessor had been exiled to Eubeioa. Why this was the case is unclear, but what is clear is that numerous travellers mention the power that Kyprianos weilded as archbishop. Greek nationalist discourse claims that in 1818 Kyprianos was initiated into the Friendly Society, the secret society working for ‘Greek’ liberty. The governor would later accuse Kyprianos of trying to spread the Greek revolt to Cyprus. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the governor had an ulterior motive: Kyprianos’ destruction because he had wielded much power before and after he became archbishop in 1809. There is little evidence to suggest that Kyprianos was a Hellenic ‘freedom fighter’. Three freemasons formed the Friendly Society in 1811 and four years later Kyprianos excommunicated arrivals to Larnaca for preaching freemasonry and against the Sultan. In 1821 upon the Sultan’s orders Kyprianos demanded in an encyclical that the Orthodox surrender any arms they might posses. The Sultan told Kucuk Mehmed that he did not expect trouble from the Orthodox Christian Cypriots because in the past whenever there had been trouble it had been led by Muslims and the Christians had helped restore order. The governor’s subsequent recall on the representation of Cypriot Muslims, who fled to Constantinople after the massacres, adds weight to the theory.

So it was a coincidence that all these happened in 1821, the year that the Greek revolution happened? And if it was all about Kyprianos, then why massacre 500 people? This was a huge massacre that had as a clear aim to destroy the revolution in Cyprus in its birth, by killing all those who could organize the revolution and by sending a message to the people of Cyprus about what would await them if they dared to fight for their freedom.

3) Post-Kyprianos

Rolandos Katsiaounis assert that the Eastern Orthodox Cypriots had a ‘very low level of cultural development’ before the British arrival. But this is untrue unless ‘cultural development’ only means ‘Hellenic’ culture and it is erroneous to imply that the Cypriots did not have an identity. A decade before Ottoman rule ended, Cyprus’ Archbishop since 1865, Sophronios III, a scholarly, pious and moderate man, started his autobiographical note to the Jerusalem Theological School thus: ‘my homeland is Cyprus and my parents are Orthodox Christians of the Eastern dogma’. Neither Greece nor being Greek was mentioned, yet he had lived and studied in Athens for nine years (1853-61) and before that in Smyrna for six (1847-53). In 1876 Greece’s last vice-consul before the British arrival lamented to his superiors in Athens that ‘the spirit of Hellenism in some places is asleep and in others totally non-existent’.

He clearly didn't want to have the fate of Kyprianos. Can you blame him?

The Turks killed Kyprianos and they didn't allow anybody who was not totally obedient to them to become Archbishop ever since.

4) British Arrival

In the June 1878 Anglo-Turkish Convention the Ottoman government ceded to the British government the right to occupy and administer Cyprus, but not sovereignty over the island. Officially Lord Beaconsfield’s (Benjamin Disraeli) Conservative government wanted Cyprus to defend the Ottoman Empire after its recent military defeat to Russia, but that was incidental to securing British strategic and economic interests in the Near East and India. A peaceful place was thus important. Crete was rejected because Hellenic nationalism was causing inter-communal disturbances between the Hellenised Orthodox Christians and the thirty per cent Muslim community. The British believed that no such threat existed in Cyprus, where they thought they could show the Ottomans how to rule mixed races. This implies that the structures in Cyprus were working; logically, therefore, they would be strengthened under a less oppressive regime.

Hellenic nationalism and any kind of nationalism was obviously against the interests of the Imperialists who wanted every other nation to quietly obey and serve them. This is why the British have been trying to destroy Hellenism in Cyprus ever since.

5) Prelate’s Speech

Contrary to the received wisdom, a Greek prelate, either Archbishop Sophronios or the Bishop of Kitium, Kyprianos, did not make a speech welcoming the first High Commissioner, Sir Garnet Wolseley, with declarations of loyalty contingent on the British eventually ceding Cyprus to Greece as had been the case with the Ionian Islands. In his address, Archbishop Sophronios welcomed the British with declarations of loyalty and expressed hope that there would now be equality before the law for both Christians and Muslims.

So every other historian is wrong, and the only one who somehow knows what really happened is Andrekos, the employ of PRIO and Boğaziçi University

I will not waste any more of my time with some clown. Somebody who writes such nonsense can either be totally uneducated on this subject (like some members of the forum) or a paid propagandist who is intentionally trying to falsify the history of our island.

[Sotos]

Piratis, I did a search about Andrikos ... he worked at Boğaziçi last year. Now he is working at some Flintstones (or something) uni in Australia. He is not even a real Cypriot... he was born and raised in Australia.

[Get Real!]

The huge age discrepancy between the two churches (those of Greece and Cyprus) is telling of two distinct people that… at the very least, had no religious affiliation between them.

This is also evident in the bible where Varnavas and other Christian Cypriots travel to Antioch to spread the word of God and among their students are Greeks!

Once again… two distinct people!

Πράξεις των Αποστόλων 11,20

"Ησαν δέ τινες εξ αυτον ανδρες Κύπριοι και Κυρηναιοι οιτινες εισελθόντες εις Αντιόχειαν ελάλουν προς τους Ελληνιστάς, ευαγγελιζόμενοι τον Κύριον Ιησουν."

Acts 11:20: “Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.”

[Sotos]

The huge age discrepancy between the two churches (those of Greece and Cyprus) is telling of two distinct people that… at the very least, had no religious affiliation between them.

This is also evident in the bible where Varnavas and other Christian Cypriots travel to Antioch to spread the word of God and among their students are Greeks!

Once again… two distinct people!

Πράξεις των Αποστόλων 11,20

"Ησαν δέ τινες εξ αυτον ανδρες Κύπριοι και Κυρηναιοι οιτινες εισελθόντες εις Αντιόχειαν ελάλουν προς τους Ελληνιστάς, ευαγγελιζόμενοι τον Κύριον Ιησουν."

Acts 11:20: “Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.”

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? if I say that Yiannis from Athens went to New York and spoke to Greeks that live there it will mean that Yiannis is not Greek and Athens is not Greek?

[Get Real!]

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? if I say that Yiannis from Athens went to New York and spoke to Greeks that live there it will mean that Yiannis is not Greek and Athens is not Greek?

What a conveniently daft comparison!

Athens imish!

[DrCyprus]

Oracle, you draw your conclusions based on contemporary labels… as in:

“What was the language used to write the New Testament?”

…that’s how powerful and effective modern labels can be in custom-designing history!

But the signs from historical facts cannot and should not be overlooked.

Signs such as…

1. There was never a Greek ethnos until the early 1800s.

2. There was never a Greek Church until the early 1800s when the ethnos was established! Makes perfect sense doesn’t it?

3. We know that Cyprus was an island kingdom for millenniums which traded with the great pharaohs of Egypt. We read this much in ancient hieroglyphics.

4. The Church of Cyprus was established a couple of millenniums ago by the Cypriot apostle Varnavas... what a "coincidence" again!

Given the above crucial socio-economic factors it becomes VERY CLEAR that Cyprus was a well established independent entity for millenniums whilst “Greece” is a very new entity that could not have borne the first!

So the notion that Cypriots are of “Greek background” and the like, is utter rubbish as one cannot possibly be a descendant of someone in the future!

You can insist on your ill-thought and unfounded yada yada all you want. The hellenistic period of Cyprus just invalidates the entirety of your argument. Go read a book... or at least the wikipedia article.