A Lost Chapter in the History of Wadi al-Natrun (Scetis): The Coptic Lives and Monastery of Abba John Khame

Le�Muséon 127 (1-2), 149-185. doi: 10.2143/MUS.127.1.3032660 - Tous droits réservés.© Le Muséon, 2014.

A LOST CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF WADI AL-NATRUN (SCETIS)

The Coptic Lives and Monastery of Abba John Khame*

Introduction

At first glance, the literature surrounding the ninth-century Coptic saint Abba John Khame (or Kāmā) appears rather ordinary. His surviving Life is pious enough, though strikingly generic; as a devout young man, John was forced to marry against his will, he led a chaste (celibate) marriage with his wife, from whom he later separated to take monastic vows, even-tually becoming a renowned saint and the founder of a monastery. Details certainly vary, but the account echoes themes and biographical elements documented in a host of monastic and patristic vitae, such as those of Macarius the Great, John the Almsgiver, George of Choziba, and the biographies of the Coptic patriarchs Demetrius I and Mina II. In part, the marginality of the historical figure and the limited sources focused on his career account for the meager scholarly attention Abba John has hitherto received. A major factor, however, is the assiduous analysis of the extant evidence in H.G. Evelyn White’s towering achievement, The�Monasteries�of�the�Wadi�‘n�Natrûn (published 1928)1. For well over eighty years now, it would seem that there was simply nothing more to add. During the same span, a few Arabic-language publications focused on the abbot and his monastery; the most significant of which were an anonymous booklet published by the Syrian Monastery in 1951 and a study by the Coptic monk (now bishop) Martīrus in 19922. These examinations retain interest-ing details. The 1951 publication, in particular, provides a vital passage

* Parts of this paper were presented at the annual UCLA-St. Shenouda Conference of Coptic Studies in 2011 and 2012. I am thankful to the St. Shenouda Society and its president, Mr. Hany Takla, for providing me with a digital copy of the Coptic Life of John Khame (Vat. copt. 60). I am also grateful to Prof. Janet Timbie for her input on several points of Coptic, and the gracious suggestions and comments of the anonymous reviewer.

1 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 1:135, 141, 272-73; 2:305-8, 325-29, 336, 352-56, 360-63, 396; 3:193-94, 217-19, 223.

2 Anonymous, Sīrat; MARTĪRUS, Tarīkh�dayr. I have not been able to obtain the pub-lication by SIMʻĀN, al-Qiddīs�Yuḥanna�Kāmā, or the two other titles cited in Martīrus’ bibliography.

97231 Museon.indb 14997231 Museon.indb 149 28/07/14 10:2928/07/14 10:29

150 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

otherwise lacking from the saint’s vita. Nonetheless, where analysis of the saintly figure and the early history of his community are concerned, these studies rely heavily on Evelyn White’s work.

Ostensibly benign and commonplace (even dreary), the Life of the saint proves far more complex and intriguing upon close examination, provid-ing a vantage point onto the production of hagiographic literature in post-conquest Egypt and access to an undocumented chapter in the history of Egyptian monasticism. This study puts forward a novel reading of that source, which establishes a methodological strategy for sifting through John’s dossier and reassessing the bulk of extant scholarship on his career and the origins of his monastery. It also uncovers a series of long-forgotten altercations that had once pitted the monks of Wādī al-Naṭrūn (Scetis) against one another. Finally, of broader significance, it is argued that while the bios retains an essential sketch of the historical figure and provides inferences as to the sources utilized in its composition, its true merit lies in reflecting the state, aspirations, and concerns of John’s monastic com-munity well over a century after his death.

1. Sources

A stele now preserved at the Monastery of the Syrians provides the earliest evidence for the historical John Khame, who was undoubtedly recognized as an important monastic leader during his lifetime3. Most likely, it is the “monument” (Ⲙⲛⲓⲙⲁ / μνῆμα) mentioned in the Life4. At the earliest, the marble inscription would have been commissioned nearly a year after the saint’s death.

More significant, John’s biography survives as a bios delivered by a monk at the saint’s monastery during his annual festival (πανήγυρις): 25 of Kyahk (3 January, Gregorian; 30 December, Julian). In 1919, Mar-garet H. Davis edited and translated the Bohairic Coptic Life of the saint as preserved in Vat. copt. 60, 86r-125r, dated 1254-1255 CE5. H.G. Evelyn White contributed to the introduction and notes in Davis’ edition, and provided additional details and an historical analysis a decade later in his Monasteries.

A hybrid Arabic version of the saint’s life, which retains a crucial passage absent from the Coptic (see Appendix I), appeared in an obscure

3 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 3:193-94 and Plate 55b.4 LifeJK, p. 315-372. The Greek μνῆμα may designate “memorial,” “record,” or

“inscription;” see LifeJK, p. 350. 5 See previous note.


A LOST CHAPTER 151

booklet published by the Syrian Monastery in 1951. To be sure, that volume provides a misguided analysis that confuses between the Monas-tery of John Khame and that of the Syrians (a persistent error corrected by Evelyn White and subsequently in Martīrus’ book)6. The Arabic Life in that publication, which has not been reproduced since, is based on four copies of the saint’s vita, two in Coptic and two in Arabic. Unfortunately the collation of manuscripts lacked a critical apparatus, but the redactors clearly designated their editorial glosses and delineated passages where they relied on one manuscript to the exclusion of others. Their notations allow us to draw a few, but essential conclusions as to the manuscripts and recensions they relied upon.

In regard to the two Coptic “manuscripts” used in the 1951 publication, Davis’ edition of Vat.�copt.�60 constituted one text, but the other remains obscure, though it was likely a mere hand-written copy of Davis’ edition7. Significantly, it hardly deviates from Davis’ transcription; the eight-folio-long lacuna in Vat.�copt.�60 is exactly reproduced in that second manu-script. Apparently, however, it was that modern manuscript, translated into Arabic by the late monk Ibrahīm from the Monastery of anba Bishoy (Bishūy), which served as the leading text for the published edition. As for the two Arabic manuscripts utilized, both are preserved at the Syrian Monastery (maymar 290 and 291). It would appear that they reflect the same recension since both lack the penultimate folio of the saint’s life. Significantly, they have retained a translation of the eight folios missing in the Coptic recensions. Hence, for that crucial passage (Appendix I), the published text is based solely on the two Arabic manuscripts, which are not currently accessible. Additional Arabic manuscripts for the Life of John Khame, though likely incomplete, have been identified over the course of this study, but, unfortunately, they too remain inaccessible8. In all, the four manuscripts (two in Coptic and two in Arabic) utilized in the 1951 booklet are closely aligned. Aside from retaining a translation

6 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2: sec. 3 ch. 9, and p. 414-415; MARTĪRUS, Tarīkh�dayr, p. 99-101.�

7 Anonymous, Sīrat, p. 2-3: “We extend great thanks to the virtuous father, the monk Ibrahīm [from the Monastery of] al-anbā Bishūy, an expert in the Coptic language, for the effort he exerted with us in the translation of the second Coptic recension (nuskha), which he had drafted along with several other lives of the fathers in the Coptic language… We extend great appreciation to him for the service he provides to the libraries of the monas-teries by returning copies of the old Coptic lives [of the saints], which foreigners had acquired and taken abroad.”

8 KHATER – BURMESTER, Catalogue, MS 143/Hag. 13, 52v-56r; MACOMBER et� al., Final�Inventory, vol. 3: Roll B-7 Item: 33 (fol. 29a), which is said to be the same as PO 3, p. 519-522.


152 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

of the missing Coptic passage, the hybrid Arabic version has a slightly longer title, and on a few occasions substitutes a proper noun for a Coptic pronoun, or interjects a pious term or gloss. Otherwise, the published Ara-bic life essentially reproduces the recension published in Davis’ edition of Vat.�copt.�609.

2. Chronology�

Abba John’s date of birth remains obscure. He died at an old age, but was not particularly noted for his longevity; a date of birth circa 800 CE seems most appropriate. Much of the extant scholarship focuses on the Fifth Sack of Scetis in 817 CE as providing something of a milestone in the saint’s career, some reading John’s trip to Upper Egypt (while he was already an abbot) as an allusion to it10. Nonetheless, the event as such is unattested in the saint’s hagiography, indicating that he likely became a monk after, rather than before that calamity. The date of John’s repose, 859 CE, though inconsistently cited, is known with greater certainty. Here the stele proves most useful: “The passing away of our blessed father papa11 John Kame (ⲕⲁⲙⲉ) took place … in the days of Abba Kosmas, the Archbishop of Alexandria … in the year 575 of the conflict of the holy martyrs”12. Evelyn White correctly glossed 575 AM as 859 CE, but an erroneous variant in his Monasteries, 869 CE, has found its way into several later publications13.

The History� of� the�Patriarchs [HP] further substantiates the date of the saint’s repose. It consistently cites 575 AM (858-859 CE) as the date of Patriarch Quzmān’s (Kosmas) departure, and subsequently as the year of his successor’s elevation14. Still, “in the days of Abba Kosmas” can be misleading. When the saint died in late Kyahk, the patriarch had already

9 The Arabic heading begins with, “In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God, Amen. We begin with the aid of God, exalted in his greatness, to write,” and concludes with, “May God grant us the blessing of his [saints’] blessings and the granting of his requests. Amen.” (Anonymous, Sīrat, p. 7).

10 LifeJK, p. 354-356. The trip need not be read beyond face value; it links John with his hallowed monastic predecessors who made similar trips. See note 67 below.

11 ⲡⲁⲡⲁ is a common title for priests in Greek and Coptic texts; see DERDA – WIPSZYCHKA, L’emploi�des�titres Abba, Apa et Papas; cf. GONIS, Abu�and�Apa.

12 This is one of the earliest literary references to the “Era of the Martyrs,” though note the phrasing. For the eras of Diocletian and the Martyrs, see the discussions in BAGNALL – WORP, Chronological�Systems, ch. 8; MIKHAIL, From�Byzantine�to�Islamic�Egypt, ch. 6.

13 Cf. EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:308 with 3:194 n. 4 and 223.14 HP II:1-3 = BURMESTER – ʽABD AL-MASĪḤ, History�of� the�Patriarchs, see vol. 1,

p. 12, 15 (Ar.); 18, 21 (Eng.).


A LOST CHAPTER 153

passed away a month earlier, in Hatūr15. During that month of Kyahk, the Coptic Church did not have a patriarch; Shenouda I would not be elevated for another month still, on the Thirteenth of Tūbah.

In general, the chronological framework for the biography of Patriarch Quzmān is rather sound. The last caliph mentioned in that sīra is al-Mutawakkil (847-861 CE). In Islamic historiography, al-Mutawakkil’s rule demarcates the zenith of the “Sāmarrā Caliphate” (836-889 CE). He stands as a reformer who campaigned against heterodox sects, particu-larly the Muʻtazila and the Sabians of Ḥarrān (Carrhae)16, and who ended the miḥna, or the Inquisition associated with the doctrine of the Created Qur’ān, which had been deemed orthodox by al-Ma’mūn in 833 CE. Jewish and Christian sources, however, depict al-Mutawakkil as a noto-rious and highly intolerant ruler, who bolstered his religious credentials by purging non-Muslims (dhimmīs) from the administration and further targeting them through a host of discriminatory edicts, collectively known as the dhull (“lowliness” or “abasement”) regulations17. Some of the rare accounts of forced conversion in early Islam date to his turbulent reign. Near the very end of his caliphate, however, al-Mutawakkil eased his policies towards non-Muslims. This transition from a period of strife and intolerance to one of relative peace and tranquility is well documented in the concluding pages of Patriarch Quzmān’s biography. Undoubtedly, the patriarch had lived to see the final, more amicable phase of al-Muta-wakkil’s caliphate. The date for Quzmān’s death, and by extension that of John Khame, is fairly secure.

3. Structure�and�Composition�of�the�Lives

In his Monasteries, Evelyn White placed the composition of the Life between 966 and 1255 CE: respectively, the date of a miracle narrated in an epilogue to the bios and the date of Vat.�copt. 6018. Otherwise, dating

15 The text reads: “The passing away of our blessed father Papa Ioannes Kame took place on the twenty-fourth day of Khoiak, at the first hour of the night before the twenty-fifth, in the days of Abba Kosmas, the Archbishop of Alexandria;” EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 3:194.

16 The Sabians mentioned in the Qur’ān (2:62; 5:69; 22:17) are obscure, a fact exploited by the Pagan population of Ḥarrān, who self-identified with them in order to secure their position under early Islamic rule. Until al-Mutawakkil’s caliphate, they were treated as though they were part of the People of the Book (Ahl�al-kitāb), but they were persecuted during his rule. The Muʻtazila championed the doctrine of the Created Qur’ān, which the new caliph abandoned.

17 For the caliphate of al-Mutawakkil, see HP II.1 and al-Ṭabarī, Incipient�Decline. For an overview of the dhull regulations, see COHEN, Under�Crescent�and�Cross, ch. 4.

18 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:305.


154 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

the text has not received much attention19. The last section of the Life states that it had been lost and rediscovered. This led to the inference that the extant recension is a composite text adjoining an original vita written soon after the saint’s departure by his successor Shenoute and a post-script detailing a mid-tenth century miracle, which was appended to that Life when it was discovered. Nonetheless, this normative historiography is only correct in reading the bios�as a composite text. The extant recen-sion (Vat.� copt. 60) betrays an intriguing structure that, indeed, reflects the history of the text’s composition, but not as previously envisioned. A close reading proves that the Life enshrines an earlier “primitive” com-position, which it would completely eclipse. Fundamentally, the published recension should be dissected and analyzed in four parts that may now be supplemented by a passage from the Arabic Life, which corresponds to the lacuna in the Coptic recension: A1 fol. 86r-102r; LifeJK, p. 321-340 Incipit: ⲟⲩⲙⲉⲣⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡⲓⲃⲓⲟⲥ B fol. 102r-110v; LifeJK, p. 340-350 Incipit: ⲱ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲑⲛⲁⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲚⲛⲓⲀⲣⲉⲧⲏ ⲉⲧϭⲟⲥⲓA2 fol. 110v-117v; LifeJK, p. 350/51-359/60 Incipit: ⲁⲥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁC fol. 117v-125r; LifeJK, p. 359/360-370. Incipit: ⲛⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁⲣⲉⲫϯ ϫⲉϣⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩⲡⲉ C-Ar An Arabic passage corresponding to the Coptic lacuna in LifeJK,

p. 360. The text is from Anonymous, Sīrat; see Appendix I. Incipit (p. 26): و صار أبونا القديس شنوده خليفة من بعده Explicit (p. 31): و بعد زمن طويل فسره عزرا النبي

As argued in greater detail below, it is a fundamental assertion of this study that sections A1 and A2 constitute a unified whole that likely reflects the initial biography, the “Primitive Life,” of the saint. A later author did append the long postscript and miraculous account that con-stitute section C to the Primitive Life, but he also bisected that earlier composition by interjecting section B into its midst. Promptly, that author’s new composition came to constitute the normative recension of the saint’s biography, which is reproduced in all extant manuscripts of the bios. Amending the initial composition was skillfully accomplished; hence, it went unnoticed all these centuries. Still, it is possible to delin-eate the Primitive Life in the midst of the later normative recension.

19 This has led to radical inferences as to the Life’s antiquity: e.g. GROSSMANN, On�the�Architecture, p. 166, dates the Life to the eighth century.


A LOST CHAPTER 155

It should be noted, however, that Vat. copt.�60 does not betray any of these divisions; there, the text appears seamless20.

From its inception, the biography fostered controversy. An initial dis-pute led to the loss of the Primitive Life, and the normative recension reflects a highly charged atmosphere. At some later point, that text was desecrated by removing eight folios from the Coptic manuscript. The con-tentious content of those folios (discussed in part 5, below), and the fact that they were embedded in the vita (rather than at the very beginning or end of the manuscript), suggest that their loss was an intentional act rather than a mere accident of manuscript deterioration.

3.1. The�Primitive�Life�(Sections�A1�and�A2)The unity of sections A1 and A2, which constitute the Primitive Life

of the saint, may be demonstrated through a simple reading of the biog-raphy as suggested. By skipping over section B, the thematic and chron-ological flow of the original narrative is restored. At the end of A1, John Khame had taken his leave from Abba Teroti (Dorotheus), who instructed him in the monastic life, and relocated to a cell (ⲥⲡⲉⲗⲉⲟⲛ; σπήλαιον) in close proximity to the Monastery of John the Little where he would lead a solitary life as an anchorite. A2 continues with a description of the trials and temptations John endured in isolation, and then proceeds to recount his career as a monastic leader and eventually his death and burial.

The Primitive Life began (or, at least, functioned) as an oration deliv-ered during the saint’s annual commemoration, but despite suggestions that it was drafted (or delivered) soon after the saint’s death by his disci-ple and successor, Shenoute, the text must have been composed decades later. The identity of the author of this Primitive Life remains obscure. A late tradition in section C-Ar attributes authorship to an otherwise unknown disciple, Sindūnius, who “knew all the virtues” of the saint. The name may be a corrupted Arabized form of “Shenouti,” who is also attested as “Senouti”21. Regardless of the name of the disciple in ques-tion, however, evidence from the Primitive Life does not support the notion that the author personally knew the saint or had access to anyone

20 I am grateful to the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society (Los Angeles, CA) and its president, Mr. Hany Takla, for allowing me to read the society’s microfilm copy of this manuscript.

21 ZOËGA, Catalogus� codicum, cat. no. 27 (cod.� Vat.� copt. 66), p. 45: ⲁⲣⲓⲫⲙⲉⲩⲓ ⲙⲡⲓϫⲱⲃ ⲛⲣⲉϥⲉⲣⲛⲟⲃⲓ ⲉⲧⲁϥⲥϧⲁⲓ ⲓⲁⲕⲱⲃ ⲩⲓⲟⲥ ⲡⲁⲓⲱⲧ ⲥⲉⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲩⲓⲟⲥ ⲓⲱⲀ ⲭⲁⲙⲉ.


156 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

who did. At the conclusion of the florid proemium, the orator stipulates that his account reflects the life of the saint “as it was delivered (ϫⲟⲥ) to us by our fathers”22. This perspective is maintained throughout the Primi-tive Life, which at no point contains first-person accounts. Rather, the construction “It is told to us concerning him” (ⲁⲩϫⲟⲥ ⲛⲁⲛ ⲉⲑⲃⲏⲧϥ) reinforces the temporal gulf between the immediate disciples of the saint and the third generation of monks who preserved his memory23. This aujos (ⲁⲩϫⲟⲥ) construction, used in A1 and A2, is especially prominent in section B.

As to the date of the Primitive Life, two passages, if taken in tandem, strongly suggest a date around the 930s CE. A gloss in A2 on the saint’s disciples situates the author of the text during the abbacy of John’s sec-ond successor, abba Mark. Now, following Davis and Evelyn White, much of the extant scholarship identifies the monk Shenoute – John’s immediate successor – with the abbot named in a manuscript colophon dated 918 CE24, though perhaps that gloss establishes a line of succes-sion rather than proof that Shenoute was still alive25. In either case, the abbacy of Shenoute’s successor, Mark, may be comfortably dated to the 920s - 930s CE. Section C-Ar provides further evidence. It maintains that Patriarch Macarius I (933-953 CE) consecrated the monastery’s church. Notably, the Primitive Life is couched as an oral performance in that very church26.

The church’s dedication constituted a watershed moment in the history of John’s community (see parts 4 and 5 below), and likely coincided with the translation of the saint’s relics from the Monastery of John the Little, where they were kept since the saint’s passing27. The exact date of that relocation cannot be ascertained, though the consecration of a church for John’s community would have paved the way for the move. As documented

22 LifeJK, p. 324. 23 LifeJK, p. 325.24 See previous note and EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:307 n. 4. 25 In the Life, Shenoute was an adult already playing a leadership role while John

Khame was alive (LifeJK, p. 354-356, 365). This decreases the likelihood that he outlived the saint by sixty years. Still, at 918 CE, he would have been nearly a hundred years old; certainly not unheard of in monastic circles, but hardly typical.

26 The oral nature of the bios is clear at several junctures including the opening lines. Locating the recitation within the church may be ascertained from the following sentence: “Shenouti the completion of the collecting together of this congregation,” LifeJK, p. 354, my emphasis. The reading of this problematic sentence and the identification of “church” for “congregation” are discussed in part 4, below.

27 An explicit reference may be found in Abū�Sāliḥ�–�Abū�al-Makārim,�Tārīkh�al-kanā’is�wa�al-adyurah,�vol. 1: fol. 71b. Unfortunately, the earlier inventory of relics in HP II.3:359 (fol. 178v) is not specific; it only places the saint’s remains in Scetis.


A LOST CHAPTER 157

elsewhere, the consecration of a new church – especially during this period – usually called for the translation of relics28. It is likely that the consecration of the church, the translation of John’s relics, and the draft-ing of the Primitive Life took place around the same time.

At one point, the Primitive Life was lost – a fact repeatedly cited in section C, where the author celebrates its discovery (ⲡⲓϫⲓⲛⲑⲣⲉⲛϫⲓⲙⲓ) by comparing that event to the recovery of the Book of the Law in the time of King Josiah and the recovery of the True Cross 300 years after the crucifixion29. Loss of the initial vita is rendered more intriguing given that the Primitive Life (A1, A2) and the stele convincingly demonstrate that the saint already enjoyed a degree of popularity at the time of his death. Such recognition would have fostered his Life’s rapid dissemina-tion among the monasteries of Wādī al-Naṭrūn rather than its marginaliza-tion, though the controversy surrounding that text would account for its suppression (see part 5 below). It is certain that several decades separate the Primitive Life from the normative recension that would replace it.

3.2. Normative�Recension (Appending�Sections�B�and�C)�

At the discovery of the Primitive Life, a second author introduced sec-tions B and C. He attempted to maintain the oral tone of the bios, but a few clauses betray sections B and C as literary compositions rather than oral performances. In section C, a passage reads, “For by the will of God we have written (ⲁⲛⲥϧⲁⲓ) unto you a small portion of the life of our blessed father”30. At another juncture, the author entreats the saint to accept the gift of his composition, that is, to “receive from my�hands my small gift”31. Significantly, he also sought to propagate his recension, as controversial as it was, by enlisting potential scribes, promising them that “the Lord will bless everyone who will copy (ⲉⲑⲛⲁⲥϧⲁⲓ) the book of the life of our father”32.

28 See MIKHAIL – VIVIAN, Life�of�John�the�Little, §75 and Ibidem, App. 2 and 5. All the translations in that volume were directly based on the primary sources (Coptic, Syriac, and Arabic). A review alleging that the book was based on previous French and German translations is inaccurate. A basic comparison between the translations proves the origi-nality of the work; additionally, the Coptic texts and translations in that volume correct a host of problematic readings, mistakes, and omissions in Amélineau’s edition based on a rereading of the Coptic manuscript.

29 LifeJK, p. 361-363; Appendix, §5, below.30 LifeJK, p. 361, my emphasis. Similarly, in Appendix II, §5: “we have written to you

a portion of his life to remind you of a few of his virtues.”31 LifeJK, p. 368: ⲉⲕⲉϭⲓ Ⲛⲧⲟⲧ Ⲙⲡⲁⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ Ⲛⲇⲱⲣⲟⲛ, my emphasis.32 LifeJK, p. 363.


158 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Dating this secondary composition is no easy task. As I argue below, sections B and C were penned by the same hand. Section C, a long post-script to the Life, details several later developments including a miracle dated 682 AM / 966 CE. Hence, the discovery of the Primitive Life and its augmentation must postdate that year. A late tenth-century date for this, the normative recension of the Life, is most likely. As opposed to the Primitive Life (A1, A2), sections B and C demonstrate a spike in Marian devotion – a trend that may be observed in the Coptic Arabic literature of the late tenth and eleventh century (cf. patriarchs Abraham or Christo-doulos’ sīras in the HP with earlier biographies). Omissions, though not definitive, may be suggestive here of a late tenth-century date as well. The theme of the Virgin Mary’s protection of the monastery, actively (even aggressively) cultivated in sections B and C – though completely lacking in the Primitive Life (A1, A2) – would have been buttressed by several eleventh-century events. Yet, the Life has nothing about the long persecu-tion of al-Ḥākim bi Amr Allāh at the dawn of the eleventh century, during which the monasteries of Wādī al-Naṭrūn provided the only refuge, or the mid-eleventh century attack on the Monastery of John Khame in which the saintly monk Bessus expunged the marauders33. That second incident parallels the miracle detailed in section C, and would have provided a vivid example of the Virgin’s alleged protection of the site. Finally, the Life lacks any mention of the above-referenced Bessus, the most renowned saint to come out of the Monastery of John Khame, whose memory quickly became synonymous with that institution from the mid-eleventh century until today. Arguably, in pre-modern Coptic Arabic literature, Bessus’ eminence eclipses even that of John Khame himself34.

Pious reflections at the beginning and end of section B distract the reader and delude the chronological and thematic inconsistencies introduced by that passage. Nonetheless, those editorial glosses may also function as literary signposts marking the beginning and end of that composition, which grafts several distinct and largely autonomous oral traditions onto the original narrative. No less than six pericopes in that section begin with the formulaic “It is also said about (the saint)” (ⲁⲩϫⲟⲥ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲃⲏⲧϥ), betraying the inclusion of new oral traditions – presumably not in cir-culation when the Primitive Life was drafted – and signifying that the

33 On the status of the monasteries as a safe haven, see HP II.2: 200-5/152r-v, and EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:345. As to the incident involving Bessus, see HP II.3: 293 (fol. 168v); Ta’rīkh�al-ābā’�al-baṭārika�li�al-anbā�Yūsāb, p. 116; EVELYN WHITE, Monas-teries, 2:355-56. The account may have been colored by the miracle in section C. The assailants likely belonged to the East African, Zanj corps of the Fatimids.

34 HP II.3: 187-93, 167v-169r; ABULIFF, Bisūs.


A LOST CHAPTER 159

author of the normative recension, much like his predecessor, lacked any first-hand knowledge or traditions relating to the saint. Another two passages begin with the analogous, “It is attested concerning him” (ⲁⲩⲉⲣⲙⲉⲑⲣⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲉⲑⲃⲏⲧϥ). Other pericopes may also be delineated, including a long passage describing an encounter between the Virgin Mary and John Khame, which provides one of the foundational narra-tives for the monastery.

A close reading of section B reveals several thematic and chrono-logical anomalies. Whereas A1 ends with a John who had just begun a solitary life, section B – after a few parenthetical, pious glosses – depicts him as an abbot guiding disciples and leading an established monastery, taking for granted that section A2 begins with John’s trials as an ancho-rite and then narrates his career as a monastic leader. On occasion, the author of section B simply reiterates traditions already documented in the Primitive Life. Such is the case with the two descriptions of the saint’s visions during the Eucharist, which are nearly identical, though the ver-sion in section B contains an additional miraculous element35. More com-monly, however, the author of the normative recension reveals his true intentions by amending and supplementing the text penned in A1 and A2 with later traditions. Hence, there is a certain asymmetrical redundancy between A1-A2 and B, where an account in A1 or A2 is again addressed in section B, though in greater detail and with the unmistakable infusion of later traditions. In the majority of such instances, the particulars in section B emphasize the prestige of the saint and his monastery, Marian traditions that became associated with the institution, and miraculous phenomena.

This pattern is unmistakable in the traditions associated with the con-struction of the monastery. While A2 maintains that the saint attracted many disciples and built a “great ocean of dwellings”36, section B trans-forms the founding of the monastery from an act of human will into the fulfillment of a divine imperative. There, the Virgin Mary appears to the saint and informs him that it is God’s will for him to build a monastery, and she vows to protect it so that its walls would never be breached. Sub-sequently, construction of the monastery and its walls commenced with the assistance of angels37. Another set of traditions, focused on the state of the monastery at the time of John Khame’s death, are analyzed below in part 4, where the growth of tradition between A2 and B is unmistakable.

35 Cf. LifeJK, p. 354 (section A2) with p. 344 (section B).36 LifeJK, p. 352.37 LifeJK, p. 344-347. References to walls and towers are likely anachronistic, see below.


160 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Section B also introduces novel traditions. Whereas A1 narrates the saint’s early marriage and the amicable departure from his wife, the fate of his spouse developed into a new tradition documented in section B. There, rather than leading an ascetic life in their home, as A1 implies, the anonymous wife went on to sell her belongings, took monastic vows by shaving her head, and eventually became the wonderworking abbess of a women’s monastery, enjoying a career that (predictably) paralleled her husband’s38.

Given that a later author drafted section B, the question now turns to whether or not the same author also wrote C, or if a third hand was at work? Theoretically, a third author is possible, though unlikely. Three thematic elements link sections B and C and all but secure their author-ship by the same individual at the same time. It is only in those sections that the monastery is ranked as the fifth in Scetis (a problematic assertion, as discussed below). Another point of contact is that both sections reflect the tense environment in which the normative recension was propa-gated. In section B, the author, quoting Eph. 5:6, refers to “those without faith,” and in the following sentence calls on his audience to validate his account39. In section C, the same theme emerges even more prominently. “Scoffers” and “gainsayers” are repeatedly addressed; that is, “those that oppose with unpersuasive arguments, disbelieving the things that we maintain about the life of our father Abba John Khame”40. The intertex-tuality of the Marian passages provides a third factor that reinforces the authorial unity of the two sections. As mentioned above, while the mere mention of the Virgin Mary is altogether lacking in A1 and A2, she is rather prominent in sections B and C. More significantly, the miracle cited in C has to be interpreted in the context of the novel tradition intro-duced in section B, in which the Virgin appeared to the saint and vowed that the walls of his monastery would never be breached41. The miracle in section C, where bandits were miraculously prevented from scaling the monastery’s walls, provides an explicit, substantive demonstration of the veracity of that covenant (ⲇⲓⲁⲑⲏⲕⲏ/ عهد)42.

38 Cf. LifeJK, p. 325-331 (section A1) – a deceptively lengthy account, long on rheto-ric but short on content – with p. 348-349 (section B). Her career is interesting, though doubtless ahistorical.

39 LifeJK, p. 341: “You all bear witness with me to those things that I tell.”40 LifeJK, p. 360: ⲛⲏ Ⲉⲧⲉⲣⲁⲛⲧⲓⲗⲉⲅⲓⲛ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲅⲛⲱⲙⲏ Ⲛⲁⲧⲑⲱⲧ Ⲛϩⲏⲧ ⲉⲩⲟⲓ

Ⲛⲁⲑⲛⲁϩϯ Ⲉⲛⲏ Ⲉⲧⲉⲛϫⲱ Ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲑⲃⲉ ⲡⲃⲓⲟⲥ Ⲙⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲭⲁⲙⲉ.41 LifeJK, p. 345-346. 42 LifeJK, p. 365. The passage is explicit; the miracle took place “because of the

covenant that [the Virgin Mary] had established with [Abba John]… this she fulfilled unto him (ⲁⲥϫⲟⲕϥ ⲛⲁϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ) in deed and in word of truth.”


A LOST CHAPTER 161

4. Material�and�Ideological�Foundations

Discerning the layers of composition within the Life allows for a reassessment of the evidence relating to the founding of the monastery. This takes for granted a problematic question, however: what constitutes the founding of a monastery? In the medieval West, dated charters easily answer the question, as do typika and “testaments” for Byzantine mon-asteries, but this question is elusive where Egyptian monasteries are con-cerned. Beginning in the late ninth century, monasteries in Scetis built protective walls and keeps, or towers. Prior to that architectural develop-ment, however, it is difficult to ascertain what would have distinguish a cell – even a large manshūbiyya – or a cluster of cells, from a monastery proper. Many large cells in the Egyptian desert had their own elder, but such communities were not recognized as monasteries proper. Arguably, for Scetis during the period surveyed, the distinction lies in the consecra-tion of a dedicated church and clergy for a specific community.

All pertinent scholarship dates the construction of John Khame’s mon-astery during the saint’s life, most favoring a date of 840 CE43. This has been in part due to the various references to its construction, even within the Primitive Life. Still, as discussed above, that text was penned several decades after the death of the saint, when the entirety of the first genera-tion of disciples had died. In such a context, later generations could have easily confounded the establishment of their community with the build-ing of the monastery. Doubtless, John led a monastic community, but the construction of a monastery and its recognition as an important center are altogether different issues.

While retaining references to the construction of the monastery – walls, towers, and all – the Primitive Life has two important clues as to the state of John’s community at the time of his death. After narrating the saint’s last days and departure, A2 states that his disciples laid his body to rest at the nearby Monastery of John the Little, indicating that by 859 CE John Khame’s monastery was still under construction. At least, there was no church as such; otherwise, he would have been buried there. The above-referenced funerary stele corroborates this fact by dating the death of the saint to “when our father papa Abraam was hegumen at�the�Church�of�our�holy� father�Abba�John�[the�Little]”44. In the context of the burial tradition in the Primitive Life, coupled with the fact that there is no evidence for a monk-priest named Abraam among the disciples of

43 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:306, 308; ISHAQ, Dayr�Yuḥannis�Kama. 44 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 3:194, my emphasis.


162 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

John Khame45, the church in question – where the body of the saint was interred – must have been that of the Monastery of John the Little. At a later time, the body of the saint was relocated to his monastery; a transla-tion that likely coincided with the drafting of the Primitive Life46.

A problematic gloss in the Primitive Life provides a second impor-tant clue. In naming John’s successors, the author identified the monk Shenoute as: ⲡϫⲱⲕ ⲙⲡⲑⲱⲟⲩϯ ⲉϧⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲧⲁⲓⲑⲱⲟⲩⲧⲥ “the completion of the meeting of this (monastic) congregation”47. Evelyn White’s reading is similar, as is the literal rendering in the Arabic Life48. In all cases, the gloss is odd, unclear, and the Coptic is likely corrupt49. Part of the difficulty is alleviated through a study of the terms thōouti and thōouts over the length of the Coptic text and how they were rendered in the Arabic recension. Repeatedly, the text employs thōouti to mean “church,” an attested, though uncommon designation that was likely a literal Coptic rendering of the Greek ekklēsia50. As for thōouts, which typically designates the monastic community, here it also refers to the monastery itself. Now, given that the monastery remained incomplete at the time of John Khame’s death, it is possible to read the problematic gloss as: “Shenoute, he who completed (ⲡ<ⲣⲉϥ>ϫⲱⲕ) the church of this monastery.” In general, the glosses pertaining to the abbot’s burial and the completion of the church long after his death, which would allow for the existence of a modest institution circa 860 CE, may be contrasted with those in sections B and C, which laud an independent, fortified structure that is touted as the fifth in Scetis.

This discussion of the monastery’s construction inevitably undermines the Life’s references to walls and towers. Dating the monastery to 840 CE, Evelyn White had identified the Life as containing the earliest evidence for the construction of fortifications in Wādī al-Naṭrūn, though he noted that the glosses may be anachronistic51. His doubt was well founded. The

45 Most likely, the institution did not have any clergy until the 930s CE. See below. 46 See note 27 above.47 LifeJK, p. 354 (fol. 113r). ⲡϫⲱⲕ is likely a variant for ⲣⲉϥϫⲱⲕ; see HORNER,

Coptic�Version�of� the�New�Testament, variants to Heb. 12:2. A literal rendering would read, “Shenoute the perfecter of the gathering of this (monastic) community.” I am grate-ful to Prof. Janet Timbie for her assistance with this phrase and the reference to Horner.

48 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:307: “The completion of the assembly of this congregation.” The Arabic Life reads: “المجمع هذا إجتماع كمال شنوده ,Anonymous) ”أبونا Sīrat, p. 23).

49 Martīrus glossed the phrase, “that is, he was the first to become a disciple at the hands of the saint.” (MARTĪRUS, Tarīkh�dayr, p. 41).

50 The noun ⲑⲱⲟⲩⲧⲥ may stand for “church” (ἐκκλησία); see CRUM, A�Coptic�Dictionary, p. 448b; cf. EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 3:223.

51 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:328-329.


A LOST CHAPTER 163

earliest incontestable evidence for the construction of enclosures in Sce-tis remains a passage in the biography of Patriarch Shenouda I that dates the trend circa 870 CE; still, documentary papyri from the late seventh century (P.KRU 65, 75) indicates that monasteries in Upper and Middle Egypt had already built such fortifications by that date52.

Two factors shrouded the embryonic nature of the institution John Khame had left behind. Even in the Primitive Life, one finds repeated references to the monastery and its fortifications, which, in the context of the above discussion, should now be read as anachronistic. Another is the often cited tradition maintaining that the saint had 300 monks under his care, which is commonplace in academic literature, doxologies, and the Difnār�(antiphonarium)53. This helped establish the narrative of a charis-matic leader, who led a sizable community of monks in building a prom-inent monastery. Nonetheless, the 300 figure is misleading. The reference is only found in the normative recension, and has been recovered in sec-tion C-Ar, where the author, writing after 966 CE, records an oral tradition of generations past. He states that after the death of the saint, God blessed his community so that the monks numbered 300 in the days of Patriarch Macarius I (933-953 CE). Demonstrably, the monastery did not house that number of monks during the lifetime of John Khame, nor during the period in which the normative recension was drafted. In fact, beyond that gloss, the only solid evidence as to the size of the community comes from Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr, who in 1088 CE provided a census of the monks at each monastery. There, he counted only twenty five monks at the Monas-tery of John Khame – a monastery he had personally visited54. Granted, that number may be depressed due to the raids of the Lewata Berbers in the 1060s. Nonetheless, the raids appear not to have been as devastating as previously assumed55, and are likely to have impacted all the monaster-ies of the region equally.

52 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:166-67, 187, 227, 267, 327-328; the earliest literary references are problematic. The Monastery of St. Macarius was the first to erect protective walls. For P.KRU 65, 75 see CRUM – STEINDORFF,�Koptische�Rechtsurkunden; MACCOULL, Coptic�Legal�Documents. Both texts are discussed in O’CONNELL, Transforming�Monu-mental�Landscape.

53 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:306 n. 5; MARTĪRUS, Tarīkh�dayr, 24, 31-32. For the Difnār, see O’LEARY, Difnar�(Antiphonarium), vol. 1, p. 95; Anonymous, al-Difnār, s.v. Kyahk 25.

54 HP II.2: 242 (fol. 160r); History� of� the�Churches� and�Monasteries, 1: fol. 71b; Ta’rīkh�al-ābā’�al-baṭārika�li�al-anbā�Yūsāb, p. 108; EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:360. The Monastery of St. Macarius had 400 monks, that of John the Little had 165, the Syrian Monastery had 60, St. Bishoy’s had 40, the Baramūs had 20 monks, while that of St. Moses had only two hermits.

55 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:354-56.


164 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Historically, the accumulating evidence suggests that while Abba John founded a monastic community, it was likely of modest size, and that while he may have begun constructing a church, it remained incomplete at the time of his death – only an agglomeration of affiliated cells existed at that point. Later generations overlooked these facts and introduced a foundational narrative, or, rather, two: one in the Primitive Life, another in the normative recension. Section A1 provides the initial narrative. There, after an angel instructed John to become a solitary, he spoke pro-phetically: “there shall be for you a holy community and by your name it will be called”56. The angel then comforted John by letting him know that he would accompany him for the rest of his days57. This founda-tional narrative has two important features: an angel instructed John, and he vowed to accompany him for the rest of his life. The consistency of this narrative is maintained in the second half of the Primitive Life (A2), where the angel that “remained with him” is repeatedly mentioned58.

Section B retains a second foundational narrative that, no doubt, devel-oped in the interim period between the composition of the Primitive Life and the normative recension. There, it is the Virgin Mary, rather than an angel, who appears to the saint and instructs him to build a monastery59. Furthermore, it is the Virgin who takes a vow to remain with John and his monks and to protect the monastery; this is the explicit context for the miracle in section C. As a sign of this promise, she provided him with three solidi, which were kept in the monastery as holy relics60. Keeping with that theme, in the normative recension the Virgin often accompanies the saint61. In section C-Ar, the author tried to harmonize the two (dis-tinct) foundational narratives by stating that the angel provided an initial revelation of what the Virgin would later discuss in detail. Still, a careful reading of the two accounts easily undermines the harmonizing attempt.

5. Controversies

The Life was contested. That much was clear from the Coptic recen-sion, though details were scarce. I had postulated a theory as to the nature

56 LifeJK, p. 338.57 Cf. Life�of�John�the�Little, §73, cf. §55.58 LifeJK, p. 354, 357.59 LifeJK, p. 345.60 LifeJK, p. 346. The three solidi were prized because they had a cross inscribed on

them. The monks had no idea that such a cross was a common feature inscribed on pre-conquest Byzantine coins in Egypt. The first major coinage reform in the caliphate began in the mid-690s.

61 LifeJK, p. 344.


A LOST CHAPTER 165

of the dispute, which was validated by the recovered lacuna’s (C-Ar) description of a drawn-out, contentious dispute that likely involved monks from two or three monasteries. In fact, it is almost certain that there were two separate disputes at hand. An initial altercation, which may be recov-ered in part, led to the suppression of the Primitive Life; subsequently, a new controversy accompanied the drafting of the normative recension of the bios. Common to both, I believe, is the shifting status of the monas-tery. Hence, while part 4 addressed the physical and ideological founda-tions of the monastery, here attention shifts to its fluctuating status and increasing prominence.

Focusing on the Primitive Life (A1, A2), it is difficult to discern a clear point of contention in that narrative. The contours of the account are largely unremarkable, and certainly drafting a saint’s biography long after his or her death is hardly unique. Several texts, including the Coptic lives of Samuel of Qalamūn and John the Little, are quite explicit about that fact, and in those instances the respective authors were met with communal gratitude rather than censure. Still, minor details betray the nature of the dispute, which likely involved monks from the Monastery of John the Little. I have already discussed the evidence suggesting that John Khame left behind something less than a monastery proper, which was inhabited by a modest number of monks. Additional details suggest that it is altogether misleading to conceive of that early community as an autonomous institution. Rather, it almost certainly began as one of what Evelyn White dubbed “Dependent Cells” – a cell (or clusters of cells) under the rule of a single elder, which was affiliated with a larger, more established monastery62. During the “middle ages,” nineteen such institu-tions can be identified in Wādī al-Naṭrūn63. Most likely, the community of John Khame had similar origins as a satellite cell affiliated with the Monastery of John the Little, but through the creation of new traditions, including the first foundational narrative in section A1 and the consecra-tion of a dedicated church, it developed into an autonomous monastery. (The atypical Coptic designations for “monastery” and “church,” dis-cussed above, may be remnants of that earlier status.)

Several overlooked details strongly link John Khame to John the Little and his monastery. In A1, the young John Khame was instructed to estab-lish a solitary cell in proximity to the “cell of the great light Abba John”64.

62 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2: 361-63.63 Evelyn White identified fourteen institutions (Monasteries, 2:361-63); nineteen are

enumerated in MATTĀ AL-MISKĪN, al-Rahbanna�al-qibṭiyya, p. 399-400.64 LifeJK, p. 338.


166 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Later, he was praised for walking in the footsteps of “the great Abba Macarius, Abba John, Abba Pishoi, and Maximus and Dometius”65. Evelyn White read “Abba John” as an allusion to John the Evangelist (1 Jn 2:7-11)66; nonetheless, in the context of that sentence and para-graph, the figure in question is undoubtedly John the Little. At another juncture in the Life, John’s trip to Upper Egypt is said to emulate those taken by “our father Abba John [the Little] and our father Abba Bishoy, the great luminaries”67. Possibly, a further reference may be sought in the author’s praise of the saint, where he states that the abbot “served the Lord with all his might, keeping the commandments of our God-bearer father Abba John”68. Typically, “abba” designates monastic rather than biblical figures.

Early institutional dependence may be also ascertained. Burying the saint in the Monastery of John the Little provides unambiguous proof for the dependent status of John Khame’s community; to pay their respects and gain the blessing of their founder, John’s disciples had to frequent that monastery. Additionally, as mentioned above, the commemorative stele for John Khame was dated in accordance with the tenure of the lead cleric at the Monastery of John the Little. Section C-Ar presents another aspect of the asymmetrical relationship. It notes that Patriarch Macarius I (933-953 CE) consecrated the church at the Monastery of John Khame because older monks found it too arduous to travel to the Great Church at the Monastery of “John the Hegumen” – half a mile away – to receive communion69. This liturgical dependence likely began during the career

65 LifeJK, p. 338.66 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:306 and n. 1.67 LifeJK, p. 354-356, at 355. John the Little was from Upper Egypt and at one point

he traveled to Klysma (Life�of�John�the�Little, §2 and 77). St. Bishoy traveled to Ansina (Antinoë); Synaxarium, s.v. Abīb 8. The two saints are often linked. They purportedly shared a cell at one point, and the Life�of�Bishoy is attributed to John: PAPADOPOULOS – LIZARDOS, Saint�Paisios.

68 LifeJK, p. 325; cf. Mt. 22:37, Deut. 6:5.69 This rational was likely borrowed from (Pseudo-)Agathon’s Book�of�Consecration

(COQUIN,�Livre�de�la�Consécration, 92; and Appendix, §3, below). In contemporary writings by Coptic clerics and scholars, “John the Hegumen” or “the Little,” who is mentioned in the Coptic liturgical Diptych (or Congregation of Saints), is frequently confused with the seventh-century “John the Hegumen of Scetis,” the saintly abbot of St. Macarius’ Monastery. In older Arabic Christian texts, John Khame is often simply identified as abba Khame (Abū Kāmā), while a simple “John” or “John the Hegumen” designates John the Little. See, EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:275-77; ZANETTI, La�vie�de�Saint�Jean�higoumène�de�Scété. John the Little had likewise attained the title “Hegumen of Scetis” in his day (MIKHAIL – VIVIAN, Life�of�John�the�Little, p. 63 n. 2, 69 twice, 119, 136 and n. 263), and it is only he who had a monastery associated with his name. On the office, see EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:178-180.


A LOST CHAPTER 167

of John Khame himself. On the commemorative stele, the saint is desig-nated a priest: papa. Yet, his “monastery,” however defined, did not have a church during his lifetime, which begs the question: where did John celebrate the Eucharist? Quite possibly he, too, celebrated at the altar of the Monastery of John the Little. In due course, Patriarch Macar-ius’ consecration of a church for John Khame’s “children” constituted an essential step toward communal and liturgical autonomy.

The HP provides additional evidence for the close association between the two saints and their institutions. In detailing the background of Patri-arch Gabriel I (910-920 CE), his biographer stated that he had “entered the desert and became a monk at the Monastery of Abba Macarius at the cell there known as that of Dorotheus who is Abū Kāmā, brother of John in the monastic life”70. The passage had not been overlooked by schol-ars, but due to a misreading of the Arabic text and confused traditions over the past few centuries, all have focused on whether either saint was a Syrian71. In citing this sentence, however, I wish to emphasize a differ-ent aspect and to propose a revised reading.

The text maintains that Gabriel became a monk at the Monastery of St. Macarius at the Cell (manshūbiyya) of Dorotheus (ⲧⲉⲣⲟϯ, تروتي, a dependent cell. The problematic reading is the gloss after – (درودىDorotheus’ named, which identifies him as John Khame: الذي هو أبو كما, Dorotheus “who is abba Khame” – conflating the two figures. Most likely, however, the text originally read: الذي هو أبو [أبو] كما, Dorotheus, “who is [the father] of Abba Khame.” Historically, this reading is cogent, and certainly the omission of a repeated أبو by a scribe hardly needs expla-nation. Still, the sentence should be further amended to read, “the Cell of Dorotheus, who was the [father] of Abba Khame, the brother of John [the Little] in monasticism.” Apparently, the legacies of the two saints were already intertwined at an early date.

The accumulating evidence suggests that the person of John Khame and his monastery were consistently associated with John the Little. It is almost certain that the monastery of John Khame began as a satellite community affiliated with the nearby topos of John the Little – the larg-est and most prestigious monastery in the region after that of Macarius the Great. The Life, written long after the saint’s departure, draws upon contested communal memories that aimed to establish John Khame’s

70 HP II.2: 16 (fols. 136r-v); my translation.71 The theory that John was a Syrian was introduced by Evelyn White’s (Monasteries,

2:305 n. 6) misreading of بصوريانوس for بضورتاوس in the problematic Arabic sentence dis-cussed in this paragraph and the next.


168 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

community as an autonomous body while suppressing its humble origins. Contention over that initial recension, the Primitive Life, reached its zenith when a monk from another monastery – presumably that of John the Little – purportedly tried to destroy the Life by washing out the man-uscript with water (see C-Ar).

Whereas the initial debate seems to have surrounded the autonomy of John’s community and primarily involved monks from the Monastery of John the Little, the later dispute alluded to in section B, but explicit in C, likely involved monks from the Syrian Monastery. Overlooking the plethora of individual cells and manshūbiyyāt, Wādī al-Naṭrūn had four great monasteries, whose antiquity and prestige were unassailable. But from the sixth to the tenth century CE, several new communities emerged and began to compete for recognition; in essence, they vied for the fifth position. Primary among these new monasteries were those of the Syrians and John Khame. That aspect of the controversy may be deduced from a close reading of the Coptic recension72, but is explicit in C-Ar.

The earliest literary evidence for either topos is a gloss in the biogra-phy of Shenouda I (859-880 CE), referring to the “seven monasteries”73. Penned at the end of the ninth century, the often-cited passage does not identify the monasteries in question, and while it has been habitually read in the context of the monasteries of Scetis, the relevant paragraph is not necessarily focused on that region74. Moreover, the “seven mon-asteries” reference stems from a discussion focused on the events of the year 578 AM (862 CE) – three years after John Khame’s passing75. Now, given the evidence discussed here, emphasizing the embryonic nature of John’s community and its early dependence upon the Monastery of John the Little, it is hard to imagine that it would have been enumerated among the most prominent monasteries of the region, let alone Egypt, at that juncture. The “seven monasteries” passage is either anachronistic, or does not include the Monastery of John Khame in the reckoning.

72 Initially, I had noticed that while the Life emphasizes the prestige of the monastery (in sections B and C) and enumerated it as the fifth in Scetis that the ranking was not universal.

73 HP II.1: 36 (fol. 120r). In the first footnote, the translators identify one of the mon-asteries as John Khame’s.

74 The crisis was the appointment of the heavy-handed Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Mudabbir as minister of finance. Al-Mudabbir targeted all monasteries, and while the patriarch’s initial comments focused on Scetis, the immediate context for the “seven monasteries” references is: “This unjust man [al-Mudabbir] asked for the father [Patri-arch Shinūda], so that he might take him to accompany him and to stand guarantee for what belonged�to�this�Wadi�and�to�all�the�monasteries�which are in the land of Egypt.” HP II.1:35 (fols. 119v-120 r), my emphasis.

75 HP II.1: 27.4-5 Arabic (fol. 120v).


A LOST CHAPTER 169

Beyond that vague allusion, there are no unequivocal literary references to either monastery until the above-mentioned 1088 CE census. That said, the Syrian Monastery is undoubtedly older. Evelyn White’s discus-sion of the origins of that community, based on scribal notes in various Syriac manuscripts, remains fundamental76. Conservatively, by the early 800s CE, the Syrians had already purchased and populated the monastery that would bear their name. Dating the original purchaser, the monk Marutha, is still a matter of speculation. I shy away from Evelyn White’s preference for 710 CE – which remains within the realm of possibilities – and prefer a date in the mid- to late eighth century. Moreover, with regard to antiquity or the sheer number of monks (judging by the 1088 census), it was the Monastery of the Syrians that should have been considered the fifth in Scetis, not that of John Khame77.

In that light, two traditions retained in the normative recension must have infuriated the Syrian monks. The first account is a contentious story about the monk Marutha, the historicity of which may be challenged on the basis of its chronology and content. The narrative, which the author clearly designates as an oral tradition – or, as he would have it, an account transmitted by “trustworthy witnesses” – maintains that while in Syria, Marutha had a vision in which he saw saints Macarius and John Khame in the midst of the heavenly choirs. Inspired by the revelation, he decided to make a pilgrimage to visit the monasteries of Scetis, and subsequently resided in the Monastery of John Khame until his death. According to this narrative, Marutha did not establish a Syrian community, and he came to Egypt long after John Khame had died. The seemingly pious account, in effect, negates the foundational narrative of the Syrian Monastery. And while this anecdote only survives in the Arabic translation rather than the Coptic original, its controversial nature is unmistakable. It begins, “Necessity� compels�me to disclose this remarkable affair”78; the word for “affair,” qaḍīya, connotes a “dispute” or “litigation”79.

76 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2: sec. 3, ch. 9; 3: sec. 4, ch.1; also see GROSSMANN, Dayr�al-Suryan.

77 In the 1088 census, the Syrian Monastery had sixty monks while John Khame’s had only twenty five.

78 Appendix II, §2; my emphasis.79 The antagonistic barbs may be further evidenced in the Marian traditions forwarded.

Sections B and C repeatedly depict the Monastery of John Khame as that favored by the Virgin Mary, one might say, as opposed to that which is officially named after her: “the Monastery of the Mother of God [of] the Syrians.” This and several analogous titles are cited in colophons dated to the mid-ninth century; EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2: 315-16. Another attested designation is, “The House of the Mother of God of the Syrians of Abba Bishoi that is in the Desert of Scetis” (p. 316).


170 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

The second problematic tradition takes the form of a cluster of argu-ments that aim to justify the enumeration of John Khame’s monastery as the fifth in Scetis80. Here the ranking blatantly establishes a hierarchy of prestige, a belabored point in section C-Ar. In Scetis, the Monastery of Saint Macarius reigned preeminent; it claimed the largest number of monks – more than all the other monasteries of the Wādī combined – and exercised real authority in electing Coptic Patriarchs from the tenth through the fourteenth centuries81. It was followed in enumeration and importance by the monasteries of John the Little, Saint Bishoy, and the Baramūs. But how were the other monasteries listed or ranked? Mawhūb’s 1088 CE census does not offer much guidance in this respect. It proceeds in a puzzling manner that seems random, not guided by the number of monks at each monastery or their geographic proximity. There, the Mon-astery of John Khame is listed as the third institution. In two other reg-isters, the monastery does occupy the fifth slot, though both omitted the larger and, by all accounts, more prestigious Monastery of John the Little82. It would seem that among the “seven” monasteries – likely an ideologically inspired number – the actual enumeration varied and, hence, a matter of some contention.

In explicitly presenting his case for the fifth ranking83, the author of sec-tion C-Ar provides three allegorical interpretations of Old Testament pas-sages, focusing on the Cities of Refuge, the Tabernacle, and a verse from the Book of Isaiah. In all, he maneuvers to present the founding and rank-ing of his monastery as the fulfillment of Old Testament symbolism and prophecy. The arguments, however, are belabored, and suffer from several biblical inaccuracies and a host of logical fallacies (a similar weak grasp of scriptural texts may be detected in section B)84. Allegorical interpretation begins with a methodical, literal reading of a text; here, however, the author habitually twists biblical passages to fit his hermeneutics (see footnotes 127, 129 and 130 to Appendix II, §4), and where he remains true to the biblical text, his exegesis is entirely unconvincing. The end product is a passage that diametrically opposes its stated purpose. Rather than biblically and logically securing the position of the monastery, the author performed his

80 LifeJK, p. 350, Appendix, §4, below; EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:306.81 MIKHAIL, From�Byzantine�to�Islamic�Egypt, ch. 10.82 The two lists are in CRUM, Catalogue�of�Coptic�Manuscripts, nos. 453, 454; both

are published in AMÉLINEAU, La�géographie�de�l’Égypte, p. 579, 581; cf. EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2: 360-61, 404-7.

83 Appendix II, §4; “thus we will find proof for our claim concerning this holy com-munity,” my emphasis.

84 LifeJK, p. 350.


A LOST CHAPTER 171

task so poorly that he only succeeds in undermining his own credibility and, by extension, that of the entire normative recension of the Life.

At one point, the author voices the complaint of his detractors, reflect-ing the magnitude of the dispute and the disposition of his interlocutors: “How dare you preach to us [traditions that contradict] what our early fathers have already documented for us?”85 Far from the irreligious demon-inspired skeptics the author portrays his opponents to have been (particularly in C-Ar), the “scoffers” had legitimate grounds for their grievances, armed not only with a variant oral tradition but with written evidence as well. As for the author of the normative recension, he seems to revel in the fact that his account relies primarily on oral traditions – what “trusted elders” have said to him. Again and again he emphasizes oral sources, though his remarks are transparently disingenuous. It is not that he had an aversion to the written word, just that of his opponents.

Given the controversy that surrounded the bios, the lacuna in the Coptic manuscript increasingly appears as an intentional excision. The missing folios, in the midst of the manuscript, narrate some of the most contentions claims in the whole Life. Syrian monks would have objected to the story about Saint Marutha and the ranking of John Khame’s monastery as the fifth in Scetis. Conversely, any Coptic monk familiar with the Book of Exodus would have recognized the erroneous biblical glosses and the tor-tured logic of the arguments presented, which undermine the competency of the author of that recension. In short, the culprit who excised those folios may have been either a Syrian or a Copt.

6. The�Enigmatic�“Khame”

Rampant speculation has long surrounded the saint’s odd appellation, “Khame,” which has several orthographic variants: ⲕⲁⲙⲉ, ⲭⲁⲙⲉ, ⲭⲁⲙⲏ, ⲭⲁⲙⲓ, ⲡⲓⲭⲁⲙⲏ, أبو كاما ,كما ,كاما. Some have read the designa-tion as “the Egyptian” (< [ⲣⲉⲙⲛ]ⲭⲏⲙⲓ), while others prefer “black” or “dark” (ⲭⲁⲙⲉ or ⲭⲁⲙⲏ < ⲭⲙⲟⲙ; cf. Syr. 7W � X$). R.-G. Coquin had favored the latter, though his endorsement is predicated upon a misun-derstanding of a passage in Evelyn White’s Monasteries86. On the whole, while reading ⲭⲁⲙⲏ as “black” has become normative in modern lit-erature on the saint, the inference remains far from certain, and is unat-tested prior to the thirteenth century, when it first emerged in the History�

85 See Appendix, §5, below.86 COQUIN, John�Kama, 5:1362-63; he misread EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:306

n. 4, who states that “Khame” most likely did not mean “black.”


172 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

of�the�Churches�and�Monasteries�of�Egypt87. The purported allusion in the Coptic Arabic Difnār (roughly dating to the same period as the History�of�the�Churches), which refers to the “illumination” of the saint’s face88, is not – as some have suggested – contrasting the saint’s color to light; it is but a common hagiographic motif89. Notably, any reading of Khame as “black” is lacking in the Coptic and Ethiopian synaxariums90.

To appreciate the fact that nowhere in the early literature is the appella-tion understood as “black,” one need only pursue the literature associated with Abba Moses the Ethiopian (the Black) or John the Little (the Short). Monastics often used an individual’s physical traits, on the one hand, to test and prove the sanctity of renowned figures and, on the other, as a moniker to identify saints with common names. This is entirely absent here. Additionally, while the Life is silent as to the issue of color, it places John’s birth in Jepro-Mounonsōn (Shubrā Munuḍū’) in the Delta, to presumably Egyptian parents91.

Still, the Life does provide a fundamental, though hitherto overlooked gloss that elucidates the meaning of “Khame.” In hagiographic literature, the revelation of the saint’s name often serves as a focal point. The act of naming (or renaming, as the case may be) is typically prophetic, fore-shadowing the saint’s purpose and spiritual attributes. As such, the name is explicitly defined, its meaning directly related back to the saint’s virtues or mandate, and it is literarily underscored through a pun or a play on words. The trope has several biblical antecedents including the annunciations of the names of John the Baptizer (Lk 1:13) and Jesus (Matt 1:21-23), but perhaps the oldest form is that found in Genesis: “No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted ancestor], but your name shall be Abraham [ancestor of a multitude]; for I have made you the�ancestor�of�a�multi-tude of nations” (Gen. 17:5).

87 History�of�the�Churches�and�Monasteries, 1: fol.71b. 88 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 1:141; O’LEARY, Difnar, vol 1, p. 95; Anonymous,

al-Difnār, s.v. Kyahk 25. 89 LifeJK, p. 343; MIKHAIL – VIVIAN, Life� of� John� the�Little, §16; ALCOCK, Life� of�

Samuel, §6; VIVIAN, Witness�to�Holiness, p. 70; BELL, Mena�of�Nikiou, p. 43. The earliest extant manuscript of the Difnār lacks any mention of John; see CRAMER – KRAUSE, Das�koptische�Antiphonar.

90 BASSET, Le� Synaxaire� arabe-jacobite, s.v. 25 Kyahk; BUDGE, The� Book� of� the�Saints, vol. 2, p. 411-413, s.v. Tākhshāsh 25. Here, Budge added, “i.e. John, the Black,” after the name as a translator’s gloss. One may also point to the 19th century icon of John Khame by Anastāsī al-Rūmī, which does not seem to depict him in a darker color. It is reproduced in ABULIFF, Giovanni�Kama.

91 LifeJK, p. 324. Either شبرا منضوء or شبرا منصو: TIMM, Das�Christlich-Koptische�Ägypten, vol. 5, p. 2407-2408.


A LOST CHAPTER 173

Examples that adhere to this trope may be easily multiplied from hagio-graphic writings. In the Coptic Life� of�Macarius� the�Great, the author interjected “blessed” (the literal meaning of the name) at several junc-tures92. The Passion�of�Saint�Christopher glosses the saint’s name thus: “…and named him Christopher, that is ‘Bearer-of-Christ’”93. Similarly, in the Life� of�Theodore�of� Skyteon, the pertinent clause reads: “…and named him ‘Theodore,’ thus showing by this name that he would be the ‘gift of God’”94. Finally, understanding “John” to mean “Yahweh is gracious,” the Life�of�John�the�Little maintains that the saint was given “the grace of the Lord, which accords with the meaning of his name”95.

Returning to “Khame,” an overlooked passage in section A1 provides the key to establishing the meaning of the appellation – or at least how it was understood by the author of the Primitive Life, circa 930 CE. In that passage, an angel instructs John to establish a monastery, and then continues: ⲛⲥⲉⲙⲟⲩϯ ⲉⲡⲉⲕⲣⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲭⲁⲙⲉ ϣⲁⲧⲉⲕϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲫⲟⲩⲱϣ ⲧⲏⲣϥ ⲙⲡϬⲤ “you will be called John Khame so that you may complete the whole will of the Lord”96. This sentence is vital in two respects. First, following the literary trope, it is possible to conclude that “Khame” is likely a name or appellation, rather than an adjective in the traditional sense; it is a new designation commensurate with a new mission, not an elaboration on a preexisting trait. Second, the passage conceals a pun: ⲭⲁⲙⲉ ϣⲁⲧⲉⲕϫⲱⲕ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ, a clause which is rendered comprehensible only in one language: Arabic. Here khame should be read as (al-)kāmil; that is, John “the Perfect.” Hence, the alliteration, “you will be called John the Perfect (kāmil) so that you may perfect/complete (li-tukammil)…” The shift of the Arabic definite article (al-) to the Coptic (pi-) along with the article’s omission altogether are attested among the various orthographic manifestations of the saint’s name and, more broadly, are common linguistic patterns in late Coptic97. Finally, adhering to the trope, “to perfect” is reiterated on several occasions fol-lowing the revelation of the name – twice in the very next sentence98.

92 See VIVIAN, Saint�Macarius�the�Spiritbearer; see also LifeJK, p. 355.93 The�Passion�of�Saint�Christopher (BHL 1764), §7: Passio�S.�Christophori, p. 397;

trans. WOODS,�Military�Martyrs.94 FESTUGIÈRE, Vie� de�Théodore� de� Sykéon, §5; DAWES – BAYNES, Three�Byzantine�

Saints.95 MIKHAIL – VIVIAN, Life�of�John�the�Little, §3. 96 LifeJK, p. 339. Here, ϣⲁⲧⲉ- is equivalent to ὅπως/ϩⲟⲡⲱⲥ; see Gal. 1:4; CRUM,

A�Coptic�Dictionary, p. 573a. 97 In general, see VERSTEEGH, Linguistic�Contacts; REINTGES, Code-Mixing�Strategies.98 LifeJK, p. 339 (twice), 345.


174 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Conservatively, the author of the Primitive Life understood “Khame” as “kāmil”99. Decades earlier, when the historical figure lived, that may or may not have been the understanding of his peers, though it is cer-tainly possible that they too understood the name in the same manner. While Arabization had not yet prevailed in ninth-century Egypt, there is no doubt that many Arabic-speaking Copts, individuals and families, lived throughout the Egyptian Delta. Such individuals are attested as early as the late seventh century, and their numbers only increased after the 705 CE Arabization of the bureaucracy, which prompted elite Coptic families to adopt the Arabic language and teach it to their children as a means of securing administrative appointments100. Use of the language turned con-tentious in the late tenth and early eleventh century, as reflected by the sharp criticism of Arabic-speaking Copts in pseudo-Samuel�of�Qalamūn and several other Coptic Arabic apocalypses101. It is possible that this dynamic lies behind the alteration of the saint’s moniker which masked its meaning.

7. Concluding�Observations

In the early decades of the 1400s, the Monastery of John Khame was abandoned and soon fell into ruin. A termite infestation played a role, though the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries were a period of monastic, literary, and demographic decline for the Coptic community as a whole. At that point, the few remaining monks carried the relics of their patron saint to the Syrian Monastery, where they have remained ever since. In part, the presence of the saint’s relics at that monastery, and the subsequent decline in the number of Syrian monks, led to confusion between it and John’s original community102 (the site of which has been provisionally identified, but remains unexcavated). For now, the proposed reading of the Life provides for a more thorough literary analysis and an

99 One is tempted to contrast John “the Little” or “the Short,” with John “the full [in stature].” Arabic kāmil can indicate reaching a “full” measure.

100 See MIKHAIL, From�Byzantine�to�Islamic�Egypt, ch. 5; RICHTER, Greek,�Coptic,�and�the�‘Language�of�the�Hijra’.

101 ZIADEH, L’Apocalypse�de�Samuel; MIKHAIL, From�Byzantine�to�Islamic�Egypt, ch. 5; VAN LENT, The�Nineteenth�Muslim�Kings; PAPACONSTANTINOU, Reconsidering�the�Fate�of�Coptic. Still, it is interesting that when “language” was discussed (see Appendix, §4), it was the “Orthodox faith” that was deemed the common language of the monasteries of Scetis.

102 EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:396, 405; 3:217-19; ISHAQ, Dayr�Yuḥannis�Kama, p. 3: 883. Ironically, John’s monks were allowed to pray in the “Church of Abu Honnes [i.e. John] and Mar Marutha.”


A LOST CHAPTER 175

historical investigation than hitherto possible. In addition to providing an essential outline of the saint’s career, the Life reflects two stages of com-position, and the historical controversies at those junctures. This is rare. Egyptian monasteries often appear fully established in literature; here, the Life provides exceptional glimpses of the genesis and evolution of a monastic community, and the long-forgotten tensions that accompany those processes.

Moreover, rather than a simple recounting of a saint’s accomplish-ments and virtues, the drafting of this multi-tiered biography reflects the strategies employed by the monks of a nascent community to secure the position of their monastery amid its long established predecessors and new peers. Similarly, the authors’ motives, while pious, were not exclu-sively driven by religious incentives. By establishing their monastery’s position in Wādī al-Naṭrūn, they enhanced their own standing within that community103. It must be remember that while the identities of the two authors (that of the Primitive Life and his counterpart who drafted the normative recension) remain a mystery, they were well known to their peers. In short, to contextualize and interpret the Life� of� John�Khame, one should not read it in the context of the mid-ninth century, when the historical figure lived, but rather through the eyes of his monks at two staggered intervals well after his death. It is a text that reveals as much about its authors as its stated subject. Ultimately, the significance of the Life lies in its function as a legitimizing narrative for John’s monastic community.

Bibliography

ABULIFF, Bisūs = W. ABULIFF, Bisūs, in J.N. CAÑELLAS et�al.�(ed.),�Enciclopedia�dei�santi:�le�chiese�orientali, Rome, 1998, vol. 1, col. 438-440.

ABULIFF, Giovanni� Kama = W. ABULIFF, Giovanni� Kama, in J.N. CAÑELLAS et�al. (ed.), Enciclopedia�dei�santi:�le�chiese�orientali, Rome, 1998, vol. 1, col. 1133-1135.

Abū� Sāliḥ� –� Abū� al-Makārim,� Tārīkh� al-kanā’is� wa� al-adyurah� = ṢAMŪ’ĪL AL-SURYĀNĪ� (ed.), Abū�Sāliḥ� –�Abū�al-Makārim,� Tārīkh�al-kanā’is�wa�al-adyurah� [History� of� the� Churches� and� Monasteries� of� Egypt], 4 vols., Cairo, 1984.

ALCOCK, Life�of�Samuel�= A. ALCOCK (ed./trans.), Life�of�Samuel�of�Kalamun, Warminster (Eng.), 1983.

AMÉLINEAU, La� géographie� de� l’Égypte = E. AMÉLINEAU, La� géographie� de�l’Égypte�à�l’époque�copte, Paris, 1890.

103 Cf. KRUEGER, Writing�and�Holiness, p. 79-92.


176 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Anonymous, al-Difnār = Anonymous, al-Difnār:�Qibṭī�ʻArabī, Banī Suwayf, 1985.Anonymous, Sīrat = Anonymous, Sīrat�al-anbā�Yuḥannis�Kāmā�wa�tarīkh�dayr�

al-suryān, Wadī al-Naṭrūn, 1951. BAGNALL – WORP, Chronological�Systems�= R.S. BAGNALL – K.A. WORP, Chron-

ological�Systems�of�Byzantine�Egypt, 2nd ed., Leiden, 2004.BASSET, Le�Synaxaire�arabe-jacobite =�R. BASSET, Le�Synaxaire�arabe-jacobite�

(PO, 3, 13, 56, 78, 84, 100), Paris, 1905-1928.BELL, Mena�of�Nikiou = D. BELL, Mena�of�Nikiou.�The�Life�of�Isaac�of�Alexan-

dria, Kalamazoo, 1988.BUDGE, The�Book�of�the�Saints = E.A.W. BUDGE, The�Book�of�the�Saints�of�the�

Ethiopian�Church.�A�translation�of�the�Ethiopic�Synaxarium, 4 vols., Cam-bridge, 1928.

BURMESTER – ʽABD AL-MASĪḤ, History�of�the�Patriarchs�=�O.H.E. BURMESTER – Y. ʽABD AL-MASĪH (ed./trans.), History� of� the�Patriarchs� of� the�Egyptian�Church, 3 vols., Cairo, 1948-1959.

COHEN, Under�Crescent� and�Cross = M. COHEN, Under�Crescent� and�Cross.�The�Jews�in�the�Middle�Ages, Princeton, 1995.

Coptic�Encyclopedia = A.S. ATIYA (chief ed.), The�Coptic�Encyclopedia, 8 vols., New York, 1991.

COQUIN, John�Kama = R.-G. COQUIN, John�Kama,�Saint, in Coptic�Encyclopedia, vol. 5, p. 1362-1363.

COQUIN, Livre� de� la�Consécration� =�R.-G. COQUIN (ed./trans.),� Livre� de� la�Consécration�du�Sanctuaire�de�Benjamin, Cairo, 1975.

CRAMER – KRAUSE, Das�koptische�Antiphonar = M. CRAMER – M. KRAUSE (ed./trans.), Das�koptische�Antiphonar, Münster, 2008.

CRUM, A�Coptic�Dictionary = W.E. CRUM, A�Coptic�Dictionary, Oxford, 1939.CRUM, Catalogue� of� Coptic�Manuscripts =�W.E. CRUM, Catalogue� of� Coptic�

Manuscripts�in�the�Rylands�Library, Manchester, 1909.CRUM – STEINDORFF,�Koptische�Rechtsurkunden = W.E. CRUM – G. STEINDORFF,�

Koptische�Rechtsurkunden�des� achten� Jahrhunderts� aus�Djême� (Theben), Leipzig, 1912; repr. 1971.

DAWES – BAYNES, Three�Byzantine�Saints = E. DAWES – N.H. BAYNES (trans.), Three�Byzantine�Saints, Oxford, 1948; repr. Crestwood, 1977.

DERDA – WIPSZYCHKA, L’emploi� des� titres = T. DERDA – E. WIPSZYCHKA, L’emploi�des�titres Abba, Apa et Papas dans�l’Égypte�byzantine, in Journal�of�Juristic�Papyrology, 24 (1994), p. 23-56.

EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries =�H.G. EVELYN WHITE, The�Monasteries� of� the�Wadi�‘n�Natrûn, 3 vols., ed. W. HAUSER, New York, 1926-1933; repr. New York, 1973 [references are to vol. and pages].

FESTUGIÈRE, Vie�de�Théodore�de�Sykéon = A.J. FESTUGIÈRE, Vie�de�Théodore�de�Sykéon, 2 vols., Brussels, 1970.

GONIS, Abu�and�Apa = N. GONIS, Abu�and�Apa:�Arab�Onomastics�in�Egyptian�Context, in Journal�of�Juristic�Papyrology, 31(2001), p. 47-50.

GROSSMANN, Dayr�al-Suryan = P. GROSSMANN, Dayr�al-Suryan, in Coptic�Ency-clopedia, vol. 3, p. 876a-881a.

GROSSMANN, On�the�Architecture =�P. GROSSMANN, On�the�Architecture�of�Wadi�al-Natrun, in M.S.A. MIKHAIL – M. MOUSSA (ed.), Christianity�and�Monas-ticism�in�Wadi�al-Natrun, Cairo – New York, 2009, p. 159-183.

HORNER, Coptic�Version�of�the�New�Testament = G.W. HORNER, The�Coptic�Version�of�the�New�Testament�in�the�Northern�Dialect, 4 vols., London, 1898-1905.


A LOST CHAPTER 177

HP = The�History�of�the�Patriarchs.ISHAQ, Dayr� Yuḥannis� Kama = F.M. ISHAQ, Dayr� Yuḥannis� Kama, in Coptic�

Encyclopedia, vol. 3, p. 883. KHATER – BURMESTER, Catalogue = A. KHATER – O.H.E. BURMESTER, Catalogue�

of�the�Coptic�and�Christian�Arabic�MSS.�Preserved�in�the�Cloister�of�Saint�Menas�at�Cairo, Cairo, 1967.

KRUEGER, Writing�and�Holiness = D. KRUEGER, Writing�and�Holiness.�The�Prac-tice�of�Authorship�in�the�Early�Christian�East, Philadelphia, 2004.

LifeJK = M.H. DAVIS (ed./trans.), The�Life�of�Abba�John�Khamé (PO, 14), Paris, 1919; repr. 1973.

MACCOULL, Coptic�Legal�Documents = L.S.B. MACCOULL, Coptic�Legal�Docu-ments:� Law� as� Vernacular� Text� and� Experience� in� Late� Antique� Egypt, Turnhout, 2009.

MACOMBER et�al., Final�Inventory�=�W.F. MACOMBER et�al., Final�Inventory�of�the� Microfilmed� Manuscripts� of� the� Coptic� Museum,� Old� Cairo,� Egypt, 4 vols., Provo, 1995.

MARTĪRUS, Tarīkh�dayr�= MARTĪRUS AL-SURYĀNĪ, Tarīkh�dayr�al-anbā�Yuḥannis�Kāmā�al-qadīm�wa� sīrat� al-qiddīs� bi� al-lugha�al-qibṭiyyā� [History� of� the�Ancient�Monastery� of� anba� John�Khame�and� the�Life� of� the� Saint� in� the�Coptic�Language], Cairo, 1992.

MATTĀ AL-MISKĪN, al-Rahbanna�al-qibṭiyya =�MATTĀ AL-MISKĪN, al-Rahbanna�al-qibṭiyya�fī�‘asr�al-qiddīs�anbā�Maqār [Coptic�Monasticism�in�the�Age�of�Saint�Macarius�the�Great], Wādī al-Naṭrūn, 1972.

MIKHAIL, From�Byzantine�to�Islamic�Egypt = M.S.A. MIKHAIL, From�Byzantine�to�Islamic�Egypt:�Religion,�Politics,�and�Identity�after�the�Arab�Conquest, London [forthcoming 2014].

MIKHAIL – VIVIAN, Life� of� John� the� Little = M.S.A. MIKHAIL – T. VIVIAN (ed./trans.), The�Holy�Workshop�of�Virtue:�the�Life�of�John�the�Little�by�Zacharias�of�Sakhā, Collegeville, 2010.

O’CONNELL, Transforming�Monumental� Landscapes = E.R. O’CONNELL, Trans-forming�Monumental�Landscapes�in�Late�Antique�Egypt:�Monastic�Dwellings�in� Legal�Documents� from�Western� Thebes,� in� Journal� of� Early�Christian�Studies, 15.2 (2007), p. 239-273.�

O’LEARY, Difnar =�De Lacy E. O’LEARY, The�Difnar� (Antiphonarium)�of� the�Coptic�Church, 3 vols., London, 1926.

PAPACONSTANTINOU, Reconsidering� the�Fate�of�Coptic = A. PAPACONSTANTINOU, ‘They�Shall�Speak�the�Arabic�Language�and�Take�Pride�in�it’:�Reconsidering�the� Fate� of� Coptic� after� the� Arab� Conquest, in Le� Muséon, 120 (2007), p. 273-299.

PAPADOPOULOS – LIZARDOS, Saint�Paisios = L. PAPADOPOULOS – G. LIZARDOS (trans.), Saint�Paisios�the�Great�by�Saint�John�the�Dwarf�of�Egypt, Jordan-ville, 1998.

Passio�S.�Christophori =�Passio�Sancti�Christophori�Martyris, in Analecta�Bol-landiana, 10 (1891), p. 394-405 [English translation: see The�Passion�of�St.�Christopher�(BHL�1764)].

PO = Patrologia�Orientalis.REINTGES, Code-Mixing� Strategies = C. REINTGES, Code-Mixing� Strategies� in�

Coptic�Egyptian, in Lingua�Aegyptia, 9 (2001), p. 193-237.RICHTER, Greek,�Coptic,�and�the�‘Language�of�the�Hijra’ =�S.T. RICHTER, Greek,�

Coptic,�and�the�‘Language�of�the�Hijra’.�The�Rise�and�decline�of�the�Coptic�


178 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

Language�in�Late�Antique�and�Medieval�Egypt, in H.M. COTTON et�al. (ed.), From�Hellenism� to� Islam.�Cultural� and�Linguistic�Change� in� the�Roman�Near�East, Cambridge, 2009, p. 401–446.

SIMʻĀN, al-Qiddīs� Yuḥanna� Kāmā = SIMʻĀN AL-SURYĀNĪ, al-Qiddīs� Yuḥanna�Kāmā, Dayr al-Barāmūs, 1989.

al-Ṭabarī, Incipient�Decline =�J.L. KRAEMER (trans.),�The�history�of�al-Ṭabarī� (Taʼrīkh�al-rusul�wa-al-mulūk), vol. 34, Incipient�Decline, Albany, 1989.

Ta’rīkh� al-ābā’� al-baṭārika� li� al-anbā� Yūsāb = ṢAMŪʼĪL AL-SURYĀNĪ and N. KĀMIL (ed.),�Ta’rīkh�al-ābā’�al-baṭārika�li�al-anbā�Yūsāb�usquf�Fūwah [History�of�the�Patriarchs�of�Yūsāb�bishop�of�Fūwah], Cairo, 1987.

The� Passion� of� St.� Christopher� (BHL� 1764)� =� D. WOODS,� The� Passion� of�St.�Christopher� (BHL� 1764),� in IDEM, Military� Martyrs, at www.ucc.ie/milmart/BHL1764.html (visited January 2014).

TIMM, Das�Christlich-Koptische�Ägypten�= S. TIMM, Das�Christlich-Koptische�Ägypten�in�Arabischer�Zeit, 6 vols., Wiesbaden, 1984-1992.

VAN LENT, The�Nineteenth�Muslim�Kings�=�J. VAN LENT, The�Nineteenth�Muslim�Kings�in�Coptic�Apocalypses, in Parole�de�l’Orient, 25 (2000), p. 643-693.

VERSTEEGH, Linguistic�Contacts = K. VERSTEEGH, Linguistic�Contacts�between�Arabic�and�Other�Languages, in Arabica, 48 (2001), p. 470-508.

VIVIAN, Saint�Macarius�the�Spiritbearer = T. VIVIAN, Saint�Macarius�the�Spirit-bearer, Crestwood, 2004.

VIVIAN, Witness�to�Holiness = T. VIVIAN, Witness�to�Holiness:�Abba�Daniel�of�Scetis, Kalamazoo, 2008.

ZANETTI, La�vie�de�Saint�Jean�higoumène�de�Scété = U. ZANETTI, La�vie�de�Saint�Jean�higoumène�de�Scété�au�VIIe�siècle, in Analecta�Bollandiana, 114 (1996), p. 273-405.

ZIADEH, L’Apocalypse�de�Samuel = J. ZIADEH, L’Apocalypse�de�Samuel,� supé-rieur�de�Deir-el-Qalamoun, in Revue�de�l’Orient�Chrétien, 20 (1915-1917), p. 374-403.

ZOËGA, Catalogus�codicum�= G. ZOËGA, Catalogus�codicum�Copticorum�manu-scriptorum, Rome, 1810; Leipzig, 1903; Hildersheim, 1973.

California State University, Fullerton Maged S.A. MIKHAILDepartment of History800 N. State College Blvd.Fullerton, CA 92834, [email protected]

Abstract — This study presents a new reading of the Life of the ninth-century Coptic saint abba John Khame (or Abū Kāmā), which facilitates a reassessment of all extant literature on the saint and the early history of his monastery. It is argued that an anonymous author bisected John’s original biography, which was likely drafted in the second quarter of the tenth century, and appended several later tradi-tions that were in circulation around 1000 CE. By delineating the contours of the original biography, and contrasting it with what would later constitute its norma-tive recension, the study identifies and analyzes the early and late traditions that became associated with John Khame and his monastery, and parses a series of


A LOST CHAPTER 179

long-forgotten and hitherto undocumented disputes that arose between John’s community and the nearby monasteries of John the Little and that of the Syrians. Arguably, the Life’s true merit lies in reflecting the aspirations and life-situation of John’s monks well over a century after the abbot’s death. The study also pro-poses a new reading for the saint’s enigmatic moniker: “Khame”. Finally, an appendix provides the Arabic text and an English translation of a vital passage that had been excised from the Coptic Life of the saint.

APPENDIX

ARABIC TEXT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SECTION C [26-31] OF THE COPTIC LIFE

The Coptic Life of the saint has a lacuna of eight folios (LifeJK, p. 360), which, according to the partitions forwarded above, falls near the beginning of section C. Fortunately, the same passage survives in the Arabic recensions of the Life (Anony-mous, Sīrat, 26-31). As discussed above, while the published Arabic edition is based on four texts, this specific passage is solely dependent on two Arabic manuscripts at the Syrian Monastery (Egypt), maymar 290 and 291. The italicized sentences at the very beginning and end of the following translation are in both the Arabic and Coptic recensions; here, they delineate the lacuna in the Coptic manuscript.

Minimal punctuation has been introduced, though for convenience paragraph divi-sions conform to those in the translation. I have only corrected obvious flaws in the Arabic text, those that were likely introduced in its typesetting. My modifications are identified in the subsequent footnotes. Most of the diacritics are my own. The Arabic is occasionally odd and retains several literal renderings from Coptic. Finally, as dis-cussed above, majmaʻ�and sharika (translating the Coptic ⲑⲱⲟⲩϯ and ⲑⲱⲟⲩⲧⲥ), which usually mean “meeting place” and “community,” are employed throughout the Life in a sense, contextually better understood as “church” and “monastery.”

APPENDIX I: ARABIC TEXT

§1. ⲛⲉϥϣⲏⲣⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁⲣⲉⲫϯ ϫⲉ ϣⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲩⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲛⲁⲓⲁⲓⲡⲉ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲁⲩⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲛⲁϣⲁⲓⲡⲉ ⲛⲁⲣⲉ [360] ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲟⲩⲛⲓϣϯ Ⲛⲥⲙⲟⲩ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲇⲓⲁⲕⲟⲛⲓⲁ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲟⲩⲛⲓϣϯ Ⲛⲧⲁϫⲣⲟ ⲡⲉ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲟⲩⲧⲁϩⲟ ⲉⲣⲁⲧϥ ϧⲉⲛ ⲧⲟⲩⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲛⲕⲟⲓⲛⲱⲛⲓⲁ ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲉⲩⲭⲏ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲓⲱⲧ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲁⲃⲃⲁ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲛⲭⲁⲙⲉ104 ⲟⲩⲟϩ ϥⲛⲁⲕⲏⲛ ⲁⲛ ⲛϫⲉ ⲫⲛⲁⲓ ⲙⲫϯ ⲉϥⲛⲉⲙⲱⲟⲩ ϣⲁ ⲉⲛⲉϩ

[٢٦] وصار أبونا القديس شنوده خليفة من بعده رئيسًا على الإخوة. وكان أبونا شنوده بارًا لابسا الإله قادرًا على كلمة التعليم وطريق الرب.

104 This is the only instance where the name is qualified with ⲛ-.


180 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

كرامة ثقاة105 شهود ِقبل من بها عّرفونا التي العجيبة القضية هذه اقول أن الضرورة 2§ وتقتضيني

لأبينا القديس أنبا يوأنس كاما. كان شيخ سائح سرياني ساكن في أرض سوريا قوي في السياحة ذائع الصيت في الشرق. هذا ُنظر في الرؤيا كأنه ُخطف إلى السموات وأوقفوه أمام كرسي الله فنظر ألوف فلما نظرهم ببهاء عظيم. قائمين شيخين راهبين نظر ثم يسبحون الله ملائكة ربوات وربوات ألوف الشيخ ُبهت من أجلهم وتقدم إلى ملاك وسأله قائلًا، أنا أسألك يا سيدي أما تخبرني َمن هما هذان الراهبان اللابسان هذا المجد وهما قاِئمان في وسط الملائكة؟ فقال له، هذا الرجل الطويل هو أنبا في سار الذي هذا كاما يوأنس أنبا هو معه يمشي الذي الآخر وهذا شيهيت جبل رهبان أب مقار

فضائله.فلما إستيقظ من الرؤيا كان في تعجب عظيم مما رآه ثم قال لنفسه، اقوم أمضي إلى مصر وأصعد كالمثال أيقونة في الإثنين صورة رسم وِلوقته الصديقين. هؤلاء أديرة في وأسجد شيهيت جبل إلى صلى مقار أبو القديس الرهبان رئيس العظيم دير إلى اتى فلما مصر. إلى معه وأحضرها نظره الذي يوأنس أنبا أبينا قلالي إلى جاء هناك ومن مقارات للثلاث التي المقدسة الأجساد على وسجد فيه القمص وسجد فيها ثم بعد ذلك جاء [٢٧] إلى الشركة المقدسة التي لأبينا القديس أنبا يوأنس كاما

وصلى في مجمعهم المقدس. وإسم ذلك الشيخ السرياني ماروتا لأن هكذا اسمه بالسرياني. وانه أخبر الإخوة بما رأى في مدينته وجهاِدهم أعمالهم نظر فلما اليوم. إلى ديره في موضوعة وهي صورها التي الأيقونة وآراهم وإبصلموديتهم أقام ِعْنَدهم إلى يوم نياحته. وخلف لهم ثوب ليف كان يلبسه في وقت صلاته وكان

يضيق به على جسده.

3§ وأنا أخبركم كيف رتبوا هذه الشركة المقدسة والكنيسة الطاهرة من قبل أوامر الله لما كان في

أنبا القديس أبينا مثل الله ِقبل من ُحرك الإسكندرية أساقفة رئيس مكاريوس الأنبا القديس أبينا أيام ثلثمائة106 من أكثر فصاروا باركهم الله وإن الإخوة كثرة نظر فعندما كنيسة. لهم ليؤسس بنيامين راهب في عددهم وكان فيهم شيوخ يتْعبون في صعودهم إلى الكنيسة الكبرى التي لأبينا لابس الله أنبا أبينا قلالي إلى طلع مكاريوس الأنبا الأساقفة رئيس وأن منها. القربان لتناول القمص يوأنس أنبا يوأنس القمص بعد عيد الغطاس المقدس وأخذ معه كهنة ودخل إلى المجمع المقدس الذي لأبينا سبق التي هذه الكنيسة موضع إلى [٢٨] وجاء جدًا فرح الشركة هذه نظر فلما كاما. يوأنس أنبا ليخدموا كهنة لهم ورسم مرتمريم القديسة إسم على طوبة عشر ثامن في كّرسها ثم بها ووعد الكنيسة المقدسة. وكان هذا من ِقبل أمر الله تعالى مثلما كّرس أبونا أنبا بنيامين الكنيسة الثامنة من

قلالي دير أبو مقار.

4§ وإن هذه الكنيسة وهذه الشركة المقدسة التي لأبينا أنبا يوأنس كاما صارت الخامسة في ترتيب

فموسى أنبيائه. ِقبل من العتيق العهد في ثابتين عهدين وأعطى سبق قد الرب لأن بشيهيت. الاديرة المتضايقة. للنفوس ملجأ لتكون ُمُدْن أربعة تجعل الرب، له وقال الناموس الرب له دفع الاول هو بالحقيقة صارت الأربعة أديرة التي في شيهيت ميناء خلاص للمضطهدين في الخطية موت الشيطان. مائدة الهيكل على وإجعل هيكلًا وإصنع أْروقة خمسة القّبة في وإصنع قّبة لي إصنع له، قال ثم

وإعمل خمسة عمد تحمل المائدة وخمسة كهنة يخدمون فيها جميعًا. يوأنس أنبا لأبينا التي المقدسة الشركة هذه عن مطلبنا إثبات فنجد الكتب كلام ونعقل فلنفهم ُمُدْن الأربعة عن لموسى قال لانه الإله. الرب كقول الاديرة جملة في خامسة صارت لأنها كاما

105 Text reads: ثاة. The correction is based on the parallel construction near the end of p. 29, شيوخًا ثقاة.

106 Text reads: ثلثمائه.


A LOST CHAPTER 181

علامة الأْربعة أديرة التي هي دير أبينا القديس أنبا مقار وأبينا أنبا يحنس وأبينا أنبا بيشوي وآبائنا الروم. ثم قال من أجل الخمسة أْروقة تعطي الشركة المقدسة. وأنا أظن [٢٩] أن هؤلاء الأبرار الذين ذكرنا كل في الله لهياكل ُمزينة الأرثوذكس كنائس في جدًا مضيئة وجواهر عمدًا صاروا قد أسماءهم

مْوضع في المسكونة.إسمعوا ِشهادة أخرى صادقة تشهد لهذه الشركة المقدسة التي لأبينا القديس يوأنس كاما. يقول الزمان في ليكن هكذا، وقال سيكون الذي عن فتنبأ الله مجد البدء في نظر إنه أيضًا النبي أشعياء أديرة الخمس لهذه رمزًا لنا فأعطى معًا. واحدة بُلغة تتكلم مصر كورة في ُمُدْن خمس الأخير المقدسة التي ثّبتها الله في جبل شيهيت كإرادته المقدسة. وقال ليتكلموا بلغة واحدة. وما هذه اللغة الواحدة إلا الإيمان المستقيم الأرثوذكسي؟ هذا الذي بشروا به في الأديرة المقدسة فأعترفنا تثليث القديسون أباؤنا أمرنا مثلما تغيير ولا افتراق بلا متساوية تثليث في ووحدانية وحدانية في مقدس

معلمو الكنيسة.

5§ هوذا ياأحبائي قد طيبت قلوبكم بإثبات الشركة المقدسة من كلام الرب هذا الذي قطعه107 مع

معه قطعته الذي العهد وأكمل سيكون بما وبّشره البداية في له ظهر الذي الملاك بواسطة عبده القديسة مرتمريم لعل واحد من غير المؤمنين يقول بحسد، كيف جسرت أنت أن تبشرنا بما سبق بل كذبًا ليس أقوله الذي الكلام إن واعلم قلبك أطيب لكي إسمعني لكن أباؤنا الأولون. لنا وكتبه هو حق لأن شيوخًا ثقاة قد أخبرونا بسيرة أبينا الطوباوي لأنهم قد سبقوا وكتبوها بواسطة تلميذه أبونا

سندونيوس. هذا كان عارفًا بجميع فضائله وهو صادق في جميع شهاداته.الذي المقدس الجمع كثرة أجل من القديس أبينا على غار الحق عدو الشرير إبليس وبحسد أبينا تذكار على ليقضي قلبه عظمة [٣٠] بفكر قلبه في شريرة نجسة فكرة ففكر عنده. حفظه القديس. فوجد له مسكنًا في واحد من الُمعاندين اللابسي الإسكيم كذبًا مثل الرسل الكذبة الذين كانوا في زمن بولس الرسول. وهذا المنافق الشرير صار أرغًا لإبليس مثل الحية في ذلك الزمان فجسر فعاقبه يْهمله109 لم الله لكن خوف. ِبلا108 بالماء وغسلها كاما يوأنس أنبا القديس أبينا سيرة وأخذ وأخذ إستحقاقه من الله. فأرسل إليه روحًا نجسًا خبيثًا رماه وأتعبه بلا رحمة فكان يجري بلا فتور من

موضع110 إلى موضع حتى مات بمسكنة. للذين وتبشيرًا حفظًا الشيوخ يقرأها الإخوة قلوب في محفوظة كانت الطوباوي أبينا سيرة لكن يأتون بعدهم حتى وصلت إلينا وشهدوا لنا من أجل أبينا الصديق وأخذنا كلام تبشيرهم لأننا نعلم أن

شهادتهم حق. وكتبنا لكم جزءًا من سيرته لنذكركم بقليل من فضائله. وإن أبانا القديس أبا يوأنس كاما ليسر بنا بعظم تذكاره المبارك وإن كان غير ناقص في شيء من الفضائل من أجل كمال سيرته إلا إنها بقيت مخفية عندما غسلوها إلى زمان مسكنتي. لأننا وجدناها زمان إلى إسرائيل ملك يورام أيام في مخفيًا كان عندما الرب ناموس مثل قديمة كتب في مكتوبة يوشيا وفصح الرب لم يبشروا به من أيام القضاة إلى ذلك الزمان عندما وجد حلقيا الكاهن وشافان أخرى. مّرة الفصح وصنعوا إسرائيل بإله فآمن الملك يوشيا فأخبروا [٣١] الناموس كتاب المعلم وأيضًا مكتوب عن سفر ناموس الرب إنهم أحرقوه في الزمان الذي خّرب فيه الكلدانين أورشليم وبعد

زمن طويل فسره عزرا النبي

ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲥϧⲏⲧϥ Ⲛⲕⲉⲥⲟⲡ ϧⲉⲛ ⲡϫⲓⲛⲑⲣⲉⲡⲓⲠⲚⲀ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ Ⲓ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉϫⲱϥ ⲟⲛ.

107 Text reads: قطعة.108 Text reads: ملا.109 Text reads: يمهله.110 Text reads: بوضع.


182 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

APPENDIX II: TRANSLATION

§1.� God� poured� out� mercy� upon� [John� Khame’s]� children� and� they� began� to�increase� and� multiply.� And� a� great� blessing� was� upon� their� ministry,� [providing]�great� security�and�uprightness� in� their�holy�community,� through� the�prayers�of�our�holy� father�Abba� John�Khame,� and� the�mercy� of�God�which�will� not� cease� to� be�with� them�forever111. [26] And our father saint Shinūda succeeded him as leader of the brothers. Our father Shinūda was a righteous, God-clad [man] proficient in instruction and the path of the Lord.

§2. Marutha:�A�Syrian�Anchorite�Now, necessity compels me to disclose this remarkable affair (qaḍīya)112, which

we came to know through trustworthy witnesses, who transmitted the virtues and miracles (karāmāt) of our saintly father anbā113 John Khame [Ar. Yūʼannis�Kāmā]. There was an elder, a Syrian anchorite (sāʼiḥ)114, living in the land of Syria, [who was] accomplished in the anchoritic way of life (al-siyāḥa) and renowned through-out the East. He saw in a vision as if he were caught up into the heavens and stood before the throne of God, seeing thousands upon thousands and myriads upon myriads of angels praising God. He then saw two older monks standing with great radiance. When the elder saw them he was awestruck, and he approached an angel and beseeched him, “I ask you, my master, will you not inform me who are these two monks adorned with such glory as they stand in the midst of the angels?” He answered him, “That tall man is anbā Macarius115, father of the monks of the Mountain of Shihīt116, and the other one who walks with him is anbā John Khame who emulated his virtues.”

When he awoke from the vision, [the elder] marveled greatly on account of what he had seen. He then said to himself, “Let me travel to Egypt and ascend to the Mountain of Shihīt117, and worship in the monasteries of those righteous ones.” Immediately, he drew a picture of the two in an icon, in accordance to what he had seen, and he brought it with him to Egypt. When he arrived at the monastery of the great one, the leader of monks, saint abba Macarius, he prayed in it and made a prostration before the holy bodies of the three Macarii118. From there, he came to the cells of our father anbā John the Hegumen [that is, John the Little]119 and he worshiped in them. Afterwards, he came [27] to the holy

111 This sentence is in Vat.�copt. 60, fol. 117v. It is the very beginning of section C. 112 Arabic qaḍīya denotes a “matter,” “case,” “lawsuit,” or “litigation.”113 Anbā is one of the Arabic equivalents of “abba.”114 In monastic literature, the term often identifies not just an anchorite, but one who

has the gift of bi-locality, or the ability to travel long distances in an instance through the aid of God; see Jn 6:21; Acts 8:39-40; 2 Cor. 12:2, 4; cf. Ez. 8:3; Jn 20:19; LifeJK, p. 356; MIKHAIL – VIVIAN, Life�of�John�the�Little, §75 and Appendix 2.

115 Cf. COQUIN,�Livre�de�la�Consécration, 180-82.116 Shihīt is Scetis. In monastic literature, ὄρος, ⲧⲱⲟⲩ, and jabal, literally “mountain”

or “hill,” often designate a “monastery.” 117 “Ascending” to Shihīt is a common metaphor; cf. previous note.118 Macarius the Great (295-392 CE), Macarius the Alexandrian (d. 394 CE), and

Macarius of Tkoou (d. 451-452 CE).119 See note 69 above.


A LOST CHAPTER 183

community (sharika) that belongs to our father the saint anbā John Khame, and he prayed in their holy assembly (majmaʽ)120.

The name of that Syrian elder was Mārūtā, for that is his name in Syriac. He reported to the brothers on what he had seen in his city, and showed them the icon he drew, and it is placed in his monastery (dayr) until today121. And when he saw the deeds [of the monks], their striving [toward virtue], and their praises (ibṣalmūdiya), he remained with them until the day of his repose. He left for them a garment of palm-front, which he would wear at the time of his prayers, wrapping it [tightly] around his body.

§3. Consecration�of�the�Church�of�the�VirginI will inform you as to how this holy community (sharika) and pure church

were established, in accordance with the ordinances of God, in the days of our father the saint anbā Macarius the Archbishop of Alexandria (933-953 CE). He was moved by God, like our father the saint anbā Benjamin [before him]122, to establish a church for them when he saw the multitude of brothers, which God had blessed so that they exceeded 300 monks in their ranks. Among whom were elders who labored as they ascended to the great church, which belongs to our father the God-clad anbā John the Hegumen123, in order to receive the oblation [of the Eucharist]. Therefore, the Archbishop anbā Macarius went out to the cells of our father anbā John the Hegumen after the Feast of the Holy Immersion [i.e. Epiphany], and taking clergy with him, he entered the holy assembly (majmaʻ)124 that belongs to our father anbā John Khame125. When he saw this community (sharika), he rejoiced greatly; [then] he came [28] to the location of this church, which he had previously promised126, and consecrated it on the eighteenth of Tūbah after the name of the holy Saint Mary. He [also] ordained clergy for them to serve the holy church. This was in accordance with the command of God, the Exalted One, as our father anbā Benjamin had conse-crated the eighth church among the cells of the Monastery of abba Macarius.

§4. The�Ranking�of�the�Monastery�Now this church and this holy community (sharika) that belong to our father

anbā John Khame became the fifth in the order of the monasteries in Shihīt. For the Lord had earlier given two firm promises [concerning it] in the Old Testament through his prophets. Moses was the first. God issued the Law to

120 See note 50 above. Lit.: “place of assembly,” Ar. majmaʻ, but the reference is likely to the church.

121 Presumably this is the Monastery of John Khame. In this account Marutha does not establish a Syrian community, nor does there appear to be one in existence since Marutha settled in John’s community.

122 Patriarch Benjamin I (622-661 CE) had consecrated a church in the Monastery of St. Macarius; COQUIN,�Livre�de�la�Consécration. See note 69 above.

123 See note 69 above.124 See note 50 above.125 Visiting the monasteries of the region at the Feast of Epiphany was an annual

event; see COQUIN,�Livre�de�la�Consécration, p. 96-104; HP II.3:287; cf. route taken by Benjamin II in 1330 CE; EVELYN WHITE, Monasteries, 2:394-96.

126 The reference is opaque. It may possibly mean: “which he had previously prom-ised to consecrate,” or “the construction of which he had earlier promised.”


184 M.S.A. MIKHAIL

him, and the Lord said to him, “Sanction four (sic) cities as refuges for oppressed souls”127. And, indeed, the four monasteries of Shihīt have become harbors of salvation to those persecuted by sin – through which Satan leads us to death128. He then said to him, “Make for me a Tabernacle, and place in the Tabernacle five (sic) curtains129, and fashion a sanctuary (haykal), and over the sanctuary (haykal) place a table, and make five (sic) pillars to hold up the table130, and five priests to serve in it together.” (Ex. 28:1)

Now, let us understand and comprehend the words of scripture. Thus, we will find verification for our claim concerning this holy community (sharika) that belongs to our father anbā John Khame; for it has become the fifth among all monasteries according to the saying of the Lord God. For he said to Moses concerning the four cities that they are a sign designating the four monasteries: that is, the Monastery of our father the saint anbā Macarius, our father anbā John [the Little], our father anbā Bishūy, and our Roman Fathers [Maximus and Domatius]131. Then he said concerning the five curtains [that they] designate132 the holy community (sharika) [of anbā John Khame]133. And I believe [29] that those righteous ones whose names we have [just] mentioned have become pillars and highly brilliant jewels in the churches of the orthodox134, adorning the altars of God at every location in the inhabited world.

Hear another truthful testimony, bearing witness to this holy community (sharika) that belongs to our father the saint John Khame. Isaiah the Prophet also states that at the beginning he beheld the glory of God (Is. 6) and prophe-sied concerning what will be, and he spoke thus: “At the end of time, there will be five cities among the districts of Egypt that will speak in one language with each other.” (cf. Is. 19:18) He gave us a symbol of these five holy monasteries, which God has established in the Mountain of Shihīt according to his holy will. And he said, “They will speak with one language.” What is this one language, if not the upright orthodox faith? That which was preached in the holy monas-teries, and hence we have come to confess a Holy Trinity in Unity, and a Unity in Trinity, co-equal, without separation or change, as we were commanded by our saintly fathers, the teachers of the church.

§5. Controversy�Surrounding�the LifeThus, my beloved, I have comforted your hearts by establishing the holy

community (sharika) through the words of the Lord, which he promised to his servant through the intermediary of the angel who appeared to him in the begin-ning, announcing to him what will be, and he completed the covenant, which the

127 There were six cities of refuge; three original foundations, and three subsequent ones; Num. 35:6, 11-15; Josh. 20; Deut. 19.

128 Literally: “sin, the death of Satan.”129 There were ten curtains inside the Tabernacle, two sets of five; Ex. 26:1-3. Out-

side, there were eleven other curtains made of goats hair; Ex. 26:7.130 The table had four legs; Ex. 25:26.131 That is, the Monastery of the Baramūs.132 Reading تعطي, though it is possible that the intended meaning was تغطي: “cover”

or “overshadow.”133 Perhaps the monastery was composed of five main structures. 134 That is, the saints whose monasteries were just mentioned.


A LOST CHAPTER 185

holy Saint Mary contracted with him. Let none of the unbelievers say in envy, “How dare you proclaim [traditions that contradict] what our early fathers have already documented for us?” Listen to me that I may comfort your heart, and know that the words I speak are not lies but are truthful. For trusted elders have transmitted the life of our blessed father to us, for they had previously written it with the help of his disciple, our father Sindūnius, who knew all [the saint’s] virtues, and he is truthful in all his testimonies.

Now the envious devil (Iblīs), the evil enemy of truth, attacked our saintly father on account of the [numerical] increase of the holy congregation he looked after. He thought a polluted, evil thought in his heart [30], on account of his arrogance, [seeking] to destroy the memory of our father the saint. He found an abode in one of the obstinate contenders, who falsely dawn the monastic habit (iskīm), like the false apostles who lived in the time of Paul the Apostle (Acts 13). That evil hypocrite became a mouthpiece for the devil much like the serpent at an [earlier] age. [That monk] dared to take the Life of our saintly father anbā John Khame and washed it with water without fear. But God did not neglect him, but punished him and he received his due from God. He sent to him a wicked, unclean spirit that threw him [to the ground] and troubled him merci-lessly; he would constantly run from place to place until he died in a sorrowful state.

Nonetheless, the Life of our blessed father was preserved in the hearts of the brothers. The elders would recite it (yaqraʼuhā) as a protection and an education to those who would succeed them until it reached us. They have testified to us concerning our righteous father, and we accepted the words of their teaching, for we know that their testimony is truthful. And we have written to you a por-tion of his life to remind you of a few of his virtues.

Our father the saint abba (abā) John Khame will be pleased with us on account of the greatness of his blessed commemoration135. If any portion of [his] virtues is lacking, detracting from the completeness of the Life, that is because it has remained hidden since [the Life] was washed until the time of my poor self. For we found it written in old books much like the Law of the Lord when it was hid-den in the days of Joram the king of Israel until the time of Josiah. For they had not proclaimed the Passover of the Lord since the days of the Judges until that time, when Hilkiah the priest and Shaphan the teacher (muʻallim) discovered the Book of the Law (2 Chr. 34:14-15; 2 Kgs 22). [31] They informed Josiah the king, and he believed in the God of Israel and they observed the Passover once again (cf. 2 Chr. 35:1-19). It is also written about the Book of the Law of the Lord that it was burnt when the Chaldeans destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kgs 25: 8-12), and after a long time Ezra the Prophet translated136 it and�he�wrote� it� once�more�when� the�Holy� Spirit�came�upon�him�again (Neh. 8:1-8)137.

135 It is not altogether clear if this “commemoration” or “remembrance” (tidhkār) is the annual festival of the saint, which is presented as the occasion for reciting his life, or the hagiographic text itself.

136 See Neh. 8:8. fassaruh may mean “translate,” “interpret,” or “expound.” The trans-lation would have been from Hebrew to Aramaic.

137 This sentence is in Vat.�copt. 60, fol. 118r; it designates the end of the lacuna.
