Carl-SCHMIDT-Kolloquium

Tito ORLANDI

Egyptian Monasticism and the Beginnings of the Coptic Literature.

   From time to time the problem of the beginning of the Coptic
literature has appeared in the work of the Coptologists. It is
a very complicate problem, involving a number of questions about
language, culture, religious beliefs and social condition of
Egypt around the IInd century A.D.; and so far it has not received
the treatment it deserves. Of course, what matters
is not the idle question to know exactly when the first
specimen of literary work in Coptic was executed. In fact,
the mere existence of a literature in Coptic
is by itself a problem, because it is an almost unique
example of Christian literature in a national language inside
the borders of the Roman empire before the council
of Chalcedon. #1
   Therefore the investigation of the circumstances and the
reasons of its development is important from more than
one point of view (it may help to understand many of
the circumstances in which the Coptic literature was borne),
but conversely requires the consideration of many different factors.
   The article published by Carl Schmidt in 1925:
Die Urschrift der Pistis Sophia #2,
has the merit to have been the first to treat the
problem at lenght #3, and it is full of interesting observations
and of unconventional points of view,
even though it cannot be said to entirely
clarify the subject.

   As it is shown by its title, Schmidt started from a problem of a
minor scope, namely whether the Pistis Sophia was originally
written in Greek or Coptic. There was a contrast on
this between Schmidt himself #4 and Burkitt,
but the question took immediately a more general
shape. Said Burkitt: "Do we know exactly how much
Greek syntax, as well as Greek vocabulary, was
thought suitable for a learned work compiled by a
Christian Egyptian of the Sa'id?" (p. 271).
And remarked Schmidt: "Damit beruhrt B. ein
Problem, das meines Erachtens von den Koptologen bisher nicht
scharf ins Auge gefasst ist, ob namlich erst mit dem Ubertritt der
agptischen Bevolkerung zum Christentum das Griechische in die
koptische Sprache eingestromt ist, so dass erst von dieser Zeit an
jene eigentumliche Mischsprache entstanden ist" (p. 219).
   We are confronted with the problem of the birth of
the language; but then also of the relation between
the spread of Christianity and the birth of Coptic,
and fatally of the birth of Coptic literature.
In the examination of the article of Schmidt, and
of the others that we shall take into consideration,
we are not so much concerned with the proposed solutions,
but rather with the problems raised, the groups and
personalities mentioned, the documents produced.
   As for the language, Schmidt observed that in
the pre-Christian period the mixing of Egyptian and
Greek had begun, but was confined to the spoken
language, while the writers of Demotic texts refrained
from the use of Greek words (p. 219-220). The role
of the Christians was that of breaking this literary
prejudice. But which Christians? 
   In earlier time Schmidt had investigated the date
and origin of the Coptic texts which he was publishing or
translating #5; but as he rightly assumed that they were translations
from the Greek, he had not paid much attention to the
cultural relevance of the groups who
might have introduced such works in Egypt.
   On the other hand, he had proposed the origin,
e.g. of the Epistula Apostolorum, on the basis of the
theological controversies which one can find in
that text. The controversy with Cerinthus and Simon
pointed to Asia Minor; and Schmidt had also noticed
a strong anti-docetism, which included materialistic
elements. Many other features recalled problems
discussed in the IInd, but not in the IIIrd century,
above all in Alexandria.
   On the contrary, Schmidt had pointed out in his
investigation of the Libri Ieu
that the texts of gnostic or gnosticizing origin
were deeply rooted in the Egyptian (Alexandrian) milieu,
and that the gnostic schools who had produced (in Greek)
the texts which we have now in Coptic, were active
especially in Egypt.
   There existed an unsolved question: the Coptic
manuscripts of the IVth and Vth Century suggested
at least two groups with contrasting cultural and theological
orientations. Schmidt did not deal in his article
with this particular question, but it remained, as
it were, in the air, and his approach contributed in
stressing its importance.
   We want to briefly mention some other points of
this approach. He saw the problem of the relation
between Egyptian and Greek not so much as that of letting
ignorant people understand the holy texts, but rather as
part of a cultural and nationalistic battle. Given that
"Die Sprache wie die Religion war das Bollwerk gegen die
Entwurzelung der Nationalagypter gewesen", "Ging das
Christentum nun darauf aus, die Religion der Vater
zu sturzen, musste es wenigstens den Kampf im Gewande
der Volkssprache aufnehmen, um nicht von vornherein als
der verhasste Unterdrucker zu erscheinen" (p. 226).
   Some Greek words had to be used, because "die
einheimische Sprache fur die Uberstragung des in der
christlichen Literatur vorhandenen griechischen
Wortschatzes absolut nicht ausreichte, da aus ihnen
eine hohere Kultur sprach" (p. 231). The Greek words were
understood because people in Egypt, even those
ignorant who had not gone to school, had developed
a mixed language, and knew many Greek words (p.232).
   Schmidt also described what could have been
the history of the Coptic translations. Begun in the
Lower Egypt by bilingual scholars like Hierakas, it
proceeded especially through the work of the Pachomian
monks, to the real achievings by the scholars around
Shenoute in his White Monastery (p. 228-9).

   I think that, though many of the solutions proposed
by Schmidt are arguable, he greatly contributed in
clarifying the problems, and presented the documentation
on which even today the scholars on the whole rely #6.
To proceed further, it seems that one should consider
especially this general question: what was the
cultural situation of the Egyptian Church,
in the time when the first "patristic" texts were introduced
in Egypt, and (almost immediately) some of them translated into
Coptic?
   To answer such a question, then as now, one should go back
over the beginning of the Coptic literature, and also to take
position on such linguistic problems, as the birth and the
essence of Coptic, and its development as a literary language.
But unfortunately
the subsequent scholars did not pay much attention to the
important ideas expressed by Schmidt #7 (many do not seem even to have
read the article), so they were not discussed and did not
contribute, as they could have, to the better understanding
of the problems involved.

   In his long and detailed investigation, Steindorff #8
never mentions the article by Schmidt, though he deals
with similar problems, from a slightly different
point of view. At the origin of Christianity in Egypt
were, according to him, Greek-speaking Jews.
The Egyptians in the country were still
bound to the ancient religious practices, so the centre of the
Christianity remained Alexandria, where in the 2nd Cent. there were
already gnostic groups (p. 190). The language of
Christianity (also of liturgy!) was Greek,
which was not understood by the people. So it became necessary
to translate the Bible into Egyptian, and this also for nationalism (p. 192).
But at that time there existed NO literary language.
So it was necessary a new
Schriftsprache and a new Schrift (p. 193), and the Christians
formed the new language, and orthography (p. 195). The
translators were very cultured, and did a wonderful work also
for difficult texts like John or the Pauline epistles (p. 197).
As for the problem of the Greek words,
they were accepted mainly as representative of the
new Christian culture (Gedankenwelt), especially through the
translation of the Bible (p. 201-2).
Of the original works, Steindorff mentions the Rules
of Pachomius and Shenute (p. 206).
The conclusions were important: "Die koptische
Sprache ist ein Produkt der Bibelubersetzung. Sie ist nicht
eine freischaffende Literatursprache, ..., sondern eine
Kunstsprache, die die Ubersetzer geschaffen haben..." (p. 208).

   In comparison with some innovative views of Schmidt
and also of Burkitt and Steindorff, the chapter of Bardy,
based also on a short article by Lefort #9,
appears conventional, with his idea that the
Coptic, which existed before the spreading of Christianity
in Egypt as a
written, though not a fully literary language, was
adopted at the beginning by the Gnostics to spread
their ideas among the illitterate peasants. The
"orthodox" Christians followed the example, to counter
the effect of Gnostic propaganda, expecially among
the monks, who were in great majority without
instruction (p. 45). He even says that "Le grand
nombre des moines qui peuplent les couvents ...
empeche d'ailleurs leurs demeures de devenir des
foyers scientifiques ou litteraires" (p. 49).

   The fundamental contribution of Kahle #10
(who duly quotes Schmidt) is solid and refreshing.
His idea that the Sahidic spread from the Delta (p. 256)
may be questioned, but points in the right direction,
namely that the foundation of the Coptic literature was
a cultural enterprise. But he does not seem to have
brought this to the right consequence, as he maintains
that "Until the middle of the fourth century the
Coptic scriptures can hardly have been more than a useful means of
interpreting the Bible for native Egyptians and in particular for
the use of the rapidly growing number of hermits and communities
who, coming mostly from the poorer classes, would be ignorant
of Greek..." (p. 265). He also
says that "The principal influence of Christianity
on Sahidic is to be seen in the gradual standardisation
of the dialect" (p. 266).

   Kasser #11 though agreeing on the aims of the operation, directed
to the illitterate, seems to be more
aware of the cultural aspects: "L'existence des dialectes
est li]e { la pr]sence, suffisante, de masses indig}nes
populaires, voire meme totalement illettr]es. Mais seule
l'intervention d'une ]lite intellectuelle (fonctionnaires, juristes,
commercants, clerg]) permet { un idiome "parl]" de s']lever { un plan
sup]rieur, en devenant une v]ritable "langue litt]raire".
"...l'apparition d'une nouvelle langue litt]raire, le
copte, (fait qui est, en soi, r]volutionnaire), pourrait repr]senter
l'effet d'une double r]action, { la fois contre les traditions
litt]raires anciennes et contre l'envahissante p]n]tration grecque" (p. 290).
The Sahidic was in contact with (and influenced by) the Greek
sooner than the other dialects, and was imposed in some way by
the Greek ]lite who used it in its contacts with the population
who did not speak Greek (p. 292).

   Morenz misses the complexity of the problem, and following
another idea of Lefort #12 sees the Jewish element as fundamental
in the birth of the Coptic literature,
or better (Morenz does not think that the Coptic literature
is really a literature) of the Coptic translations, of course
of the Ancient Testament. Even so, the Christian religion
(with its gnostic sects) remains at the basis of the following
developments (p. 207), in which he gives special
attention to the translation of the apocrypha.

   The contributions of Nagel and Funk #13 are centred
on the linguistic problem; but they are important in the
sense that their "feeling" seems to be that especially inside
the problem of the mixture of Greek and Egyptian
vocabulary in Coptic lay the great contradiction
of a highly cultural literary production which (according
to the conventional wisdom) should
be directed to the fruition of uncultivated people.

   So we are left with a number of problems, which still wait
some new documents, or the new consideration of existing ones,
to be solved. In the present situation
the clear definition and the distinction of such
problems may be useful, and this is what I try to do in
this paper. But only for some of them I can offer some
new views, which hint to some kind of solution.
   There are elements, in all this, which make difficult
an assessment of the problem, because they are rather
confusing, though one understands that they are important.
From a linguistic point of view, the problem of the
distinction of the dialects, and its relevance for
the development of the literature, is often studied
with an improper approach to the documents. They give
us an orthographic formalization,
be it of cultured or also of uncultured (i.e. unconscious)
origin, of different linguistic phenomena,
rather than a situation of real life.
   The same is true for the relationship between Greek
and Coptic, where the written material does not
generally match a definite concrete situation,
but should be regarded in connection with different
historical, social, and doctrinal conditions. These
last should, if I am not wrong, be taken especially
into consideration. The Coptic language, always an
abstraction like all the languages except in the
moment when they are actually spoken, was of course
different (in structure, in pronunciation, in
vocabulary, in style) according to the different
social status of the speakers (and writers), and to
the uses to which it was destined.
   For the matter which concerns us here, the social
status of the Coptic writers or translators was surely
not a low or uncultivated one. Also the monks, pace
those still bound to romantic fantasies, at the
level which counted, were first class people, treating
face to face with the highest hierarchy of the Church
and the State. The different level of accuracy, style,
and orthography of the texts (e.g. the Biblical versus
the Gnostic translations) may depend in part (or mostly)
on the kind of operation which was being carried on,
rather than on the capacity of the people involved.
   Be that as it may, the transformation from a spoken
to a literary language, from late Egyptian to Coptic,
and the birth of the Coptic literature, should be
centred on the cultural rather than the technically
linguistic approach. This idea is diffused also in the
contributions which we have mentioned above, but it
is not sufficiently developed. It is true that we
have no probatory documents for the IInd and IIIrd
century, but some later texts can be used to understand
rather well what was happening in that period.
   We can begin with two environments, well recognized
(but not fully evaluated) by all scholars:
Alexandria and the monastic movement. It is also
well recognized that the Alexandrian one was very
differentiated, between its Judaic, ecclesiastical, and
gnostic groups, each of them playing a different role
in the diffusion and interpretation of the primitive Christian
literature, and consequently in the birth of the
Coptic literature. C. Roberts #14
has definitely disposed of the exaggeration of the
Gnostic role, but surely the Gnostics gave a particular
character to the coptization of their literature.
   In any case the three groups were and are sufficiently
investigated, though their reciprocal influence is
still under debate. Different is the situation for what
concerns the monastic movement. The Egyptian monks are
generally treated, for what concerns us here, as a
homogeneous body, with structural but not theological
differentiations, even uninterested in the theological
debate until at least the end of the IVth century.
Their acquiescence to the ideas prevailing in the
Alexandrian patriarchate seems to have been total and
undiscussed.
   Challenges to this "conventional wisdom" have been
frequent in recent times, but remain partial, centred
as they are in the problem of who might have been the
readers of the "Nag-Hammadi" texts. #15
We do not want to deal with this particular aspect,
but we agree with the more general approach of J. Goehring #16
who maintains that, though "No one would deny that the vitae
accurately record the growth of the movement, the
acquisition and foundation of new monasteries, the
devastation by plagues, and the change of abbots
through time" (p. 239), "The fact that the vitae
preserve an accurate account of the movement's external
historical events does not guarantee that they represent
with equal accuracy the developments and changes in
the more internal matters of practice and belief." (p.239).
And he notes (n. 13 p. 239) that the anti-Origenist
sentiments attribute to Pachomius are a good example
of this.
   Some interesting documents, available after a very
long time #17
are a good case in point. They prove that sometime
in the second half of the IVth century a monk belonging
to the Northern groups near Evagrius, produced
a corpus of writings which he attributed to some
Agathonicus, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia. In one
of those writings he defended the Origenistic opinions
of Evagrius against the so-called anthropomorphites.
   The original language was Greek, but they have
come to us in Coptic translation, in four codices
(some of them fragmentary), the most important of
which (belongin to the VI century)
contains the Agathonicus corpus together with
some Pachomian texts, which are genuine and seem to belong
to the late IV century (period of Theophilus).
This demonstrates the fact that the Agathonicus
corpus was accepted by the Pachomians, who probably
were also those who executed the translation into
Coptic.
   Two of the other manuscripts are later, and come
from the White Monastery. That the monastic authorities
were far from inattentive to the theological questions,
is very well shown by the fact that in those codices
the relevant parts of Origenistic polemic were
totally changed or canceled, so that the same text
assumes the opposite anthropomorphite theory.
   This question of the anthropomorphism reminds us
of another peculiar text, the Vita Aphou, also known after much time
(more than one century), but neglected because of its
apocryphal character. #18
Buô apocrypèal doeó noô necessarilù meaî latå oò completely
false. The manuscript is of good age (VII century),
prior to the late pseudepigraphic production of the
Arab period. The style is remarkably simple, clear and
correct, also pointing to an early period (possibly
Vth century). The content is surprising: it gives us the
point of view of some monastic groups on the confused
events which caused the famous changement of Theophilus
from the Origenistic position of Epistula Festalis a. 399
and the anti-Origenistic one of Epistula Festalis a. 400.
   According to the author, Aphou was a holy anchorite
(of a rather unusual kind, living in the desert among
his cattle) who happened to hear the Festal Letter
(presumably that of 399) when he had gone to Oxyrhinchus
in occasion of the Easter festivities. He disapproved
of the Origenistic position of Theophilus (though Origen
is never mentioned in the text), and by divine
inspiration he went to Alexandria
to interview the same Theophilus on the subject.
Theophilus is persuaded; but of special interest are the
words put in his mouth: "Really it is convenient that the
right doctrine come from those who are silent and retired",
which sound like a vindication of the superiority
of the monastic spirituality over the Alexandrian
sophisticated theology.
   As we already said, the composition of the life
of Aphou may be assigned to the early Vth century, and
of course it contains some opinions of that period.
But if properly placed in its literary context, together
with the life and the works of Paul of Tamma,
the life of Apollo of Bauit, and the Historiae of the
monks of Middle Egypt and Souan (attributed to a certain
Papnute) #19, it indicates the existence of a Middle Egyptian monastic
movement, with literalistic and perhaps materialistic
tendencies in exegesis and consequently in theology.
   How old may that movement have been? Its existence
in the middle of the IVth century seems proved by the
Athanasian connection of the bishops-monks of Souan
and by the presumable chronology of Paul of Tamma and
Apollo "of Bauit". So it was more or less contemporary
with the early Pachomian monasticism, and possibly in
competition with it, because the Pachomians, or at least
their hierarchy, seem to have always been in complete
agreement with Alexandria, which these other monks were not.
   Such remarks bring us to some texts, very early
translated into Coptic, which one would not expect to
find in Egypt. First of all, two homilies by Melito of
Sardis: On the Passover, and On the Body and the Soul.
The former is known to us through three codices of the
IVth (one perhaps of the IIIrd) century, #20 and it does not
appear to have survived in the later stages of the
Coptic literature. In fact, it survived disguised in
liturgical codices, presumably without the name of
the author, as it is testified by another later fragment #21.
Also the other homily lost the name of the author,
not only in Coptic, but also in Syriac and Georgian #22,
but there are good reasons to assume that the translation
was executed when the name of the author was known.
Now, Melito was the representant of the "Asian"
exegetical school, the methods and doctrine of which were
opposed and even to a certain extent despised by the
Alexandrian theologians. They certainly would not have
chosen its works for the catechesis of the Egyptian converts.
   Another homily is also under false authorship (Basil
of Caesarea, De templo Salomonis #23),
but its doctrine likewise recalls the old Asian
exegesis and theology. We find together the conception
of the silence and rest, in which all good things are
operated by God, (cp. Ignace of Antioch, Ephes. 17 and 19; cp. Magn. 8.)
of the human body as the temple of
God, and of the noise in which the sinful world operates.
   We may safely assume that the circulation of such texts would not
have been within the scope of the Alexandrian school,
even less of the Judaizing circles, and none of them
would have chosen them as catechetical instruments
for the rest of Egypt.
   The same may be said for the New Testament
apocrypha, probably of Asian provinience, like
the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Peter, and
the Epistula Apostolorum #24. All these texts, known to
us in early codices, disappear in
the later Coptic tradition, probably after Theophilus,
when Alexandria and the various monastic groups
found a common and safe theological ground, represented
especially by the works of the Cappadocian fathers.
It is probable that Shenute played a prominent role
in this.
   I think that the from the evidence recalled, we are
allowed to assume that there existed in Middle Egypt
a monastic group whose doctrinal sympathies went much
to the Asian exegesis, and did not accept the spiritual,
Platonic approach of the official Alexandrian school.
I cannot say whether there is evidence that this group
had ties with a similar group in Alexandria, or even
of the existence of such a group. That this is possible
may be desumed from the history of the Melitian schism,
which we are going to touch.
   Another possibility, that remains now a purely theoretical
one, comes from geographic and linguistic considerations.
The region in which these monks are active seems centred
around Oxyrhynchus, to the Fayum, North, and Shmun-Hermupolis,
South. If it is true that the Melito Codex was
part of the same library as four biblical codices
in Oxyrhynchite-(Middle-Egyptian) dialect, recently
discovered, #25 we might have
an example of the literary tradition of those monks.

   At this point we introduce another monastic group, that of the
Melitians. They are strangely overlooked as a culturally active
element, because the ancient historical sources attribute
to the Melitians a role only in ecclesiastical politics, and we
do not know of any example of Melitian literature. Also as
monks they are never taken into consideration, although
we have important original documents relating to their
activity in the IVth century, and we know that they remained active well
beyond the victory of the Patriarchate, and also the
Chalcedonian crisis, until the VIIth century. #26
   Had they part in the development of the Coptic literature?
As we said, there is no sure "Melitian" literary text; but
their original correspondence proves that they used
alternatively Greek and Coptic. The documents written in
Coptic are not particularly elegant; the orthography
is far from correct, in comparison with the standard one
finds in the good Biblical codices of the IVth century;
the syntax is very elementary; but they are in good
Sahidic (which I think was not a spoken "dialect"), and
the use of Greek words is quite analogous to that of
literary works. One gets the impression that those letters
use a language that may be considered as a sort of imitation
of the literary one.
   One should consider also that the Melitian schism seems
to have had a strong nationalistic character, and this
agrees with one of the factors at the origin of the
Coptic literature.

   It seems undeniable that the monastic movement in
general had great importance in the origin and development
of the Coptic literature, and this opinion is more or
less shared by all the scholars who touch this subject.
On the other hand, we have seen that it was divided
in many different groups, each with peculiar charaters
of its own.
   The Pachomians seem to have been open-minded,
but strategically in the line of the Alexandrian
Patriarchate. So they were officially (at the beginning)
mild Origenists, but some of them did not refrain, as
it seems, from reading more heavy stuff in the gnostic
direction.
   More to the North, there was the group of Asian proclivity,
which we have mentioned above, and in the same region the Melitians,
who probably were spread also in the Delta, and near
Alexandria. Here were Macarius and his disciples,
whose cultural life seems to depend rather
on the Greek language, and shared the
Origenistic attitude of the Patriarchate; and on the
other hand Antonius and his disciples, who might have
produced literature in Coptic.
   Four of these groups (and to them we should now add the
gnosticizing group who produced at least some of the Nag
Hammadi texts - possibly some Pachomians,
and also the Manichaeans, who were active
at about the same epoch) share a common feature, beyond
the very different attitudes which divided them in
doctrine and spirituality: they produced literature in
Coptic.
   Now, this might not be wonderful, had Coptic been
an adult literary language, used also before as a vehicle of
religious ideas; but this is not the general opinion,
and I agree with it. Between the IInd and the IIIrd
century the Egyptian as a literary language did not
exist any more; for what may have existed (cp. the
demotic texts #27), it was surely different from the language
which we call Coptic.
   All the evidence points to the fact that the Coptic
as a literary vehicle (but I think also as a cultivated
spoken language) was suddenly created by some scholars.
We briefly mention some well known facts:

-_The Greek words were inserted according to consistent
grammatical and orthographic rules.

-_The demotic letters were stylized in one and the same
way, so as to match with the Greek letters chosen for
the literary texts (biblical majuscule, at the beginning).

-_The use of superlinear strokes and separating dots was
only suggested by very rare habits of the Greek
scribes, and it assumed a particular character.

   Where can this cultural operation have been imagined
and executed? Surely in a Christian environment, since
the production - so far as we know -
was all Christian in character, but before the
monastic movement was sufficiently established (between
the IIIrd and the IVth century). So
the most probable place remains Alexandria, possibly in
a bilingual group particularly interested in the
ancient Egyptian culture, like that which was producing
the Hermetic literature.

   The procedure had gread fortune, and it was readily
accepted by the different doctrinal groups in which
Christianity, spreading along the Nile valley, was
dividing itself. When those groups began to translate
other texts than the Bible, they gave birth not so
much to "the" Coptic literature, but to a range of
Coptic literatures, different not only in the choice
of the texts, but also according to the intrinsecal
interest that each of them put in the linguistic
aspect of the operation.

   Some of them may have preferred a local form of
Egyptian language rather than the "official" Sahidic.
Some of them may have preferred some particular forms
of some Sahidic words rather than those chosen by
the "creators" of Coptic. Some of them may even have been simply
uninterested in the strict rules imagined by the "creators",
thereby imitating the procedures with less care, both for
orthography and for syntax.

   This might have been the situation in the late IVth century,
when the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, preoccupied but after
all strenghtened by the many internal and external crisis,
began a process of unification of its unstable flock,
provoking the disappearance of some forms of literature,
and the mass production of authorized translations. Now
is probably when the classical stage of Coptic literature
will begin.