Goehring James E - The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian Monasticism, 1985 PDF

JAMES E.
GOEHRING
THE LETTER OF AMMON

AND PACHOMIAN MONASTICISM
PATRISTISCHE TEXTE UND STUDIEN
1M AUFTRAG DER
PATRISTISCHEN KOMMISSION
DER AKADEMIEN DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
IN DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND
HERAUSGEGEBEN VON
K. ALAND UND W. SCHNEEMELCHER
BAND 27
WALTER DE GRUYTER· BERLIN· NEW YORK

1986
THE LETTER OF AMMON
AND PACHOMIAN MONASTICISM
BY
JAMES E. GOEHRING
WALTER DE GRUYTER . BERLIN· NEW YORK

1986
Printed on acid-free paper
(ageing-resistant - pH 7, neutral)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Goehring, James E., 1950-

The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian monasticism.
(Patristische Texte und Studien ; Bd.27)
Includes original Greek text and an English translation.
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
1. Letter of Ammon. 2. Monasticism and religious orders-
Egypt-History. 3. Egypt-Church history.
I. Letter of Ammon. English & Greek. 1985.
II. Title. III. Series.
BR1380.G63 1985 271 85-27443
ISBN 0-8992S-134-X (U.S.)
CIP-Kurztitelau!nahme der Deutschen Bibliothek
Goebring, James E.:

The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian monasticism / by James E.
Goehring. - Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1985.
(Patristische Texte und Studien ; Bd. 27)
Einheitssacht. d. kommentierten Werkes: Epistula
ISBN 3-11-009513-0
NE: Ammonius: Letter; GT
ISSN 0553-4003
© 1985 by Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin 30

Printed in Germany
Aile Rechte, insbesondere das der Ubersetzung in fremde Sprachen, vorbehalten.
Ohne ausdriickliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es auch nicht gestattet, dieses Buch
oder Teile daraus auf photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie, Xerokopie)
zu vervielfaltigen.
Satz: Hagedorn, Berlin, Druck: Hildebrand, Berlin, Bindearbeiten: Liideritz & Bauer,
Berlin
For my boys,
Nathan and Matthew
PREFACE
The discovery by Egyptian peasants in 1945 of a jar containing

thirteen papyrus codices in the desert below the Jabal al-Tarif near Nag
Hammadi in upper Egypt has had a remarkable effect on the world of
scholarship. The codices are known today as the Nag Hammadi
Library. They consist of a sundry group of religious tracts, ranging from
examples of early Christian wisdom literature to full blown Gnostic
cosmologies. They include Hermetic texts and an excerpt from Plato.
The generally assumed Gnostic provenance of the collection has led to a
renewed interest in Gnosticism, which is reflected in the vast bibli-
ography on the subject that has since accrued.
However, the ripples have spread beyond Gnosticism alone. Because
the tractates survive in Coptic, renewed interest in the language
developed. Coptic students multiplied, and Coptic took its place
alongside Aramaic in many New Testament programs. The growing
number of people competent in the language led to an ever widening
interest in Coptic studies in general. An International Association for
Coptic Studies arose, and the collection and study of Coptic sources
flowered. Today it is in full bloom.
Of course, Coptic studies existed before the discovery of Nag
Hammadi. The great Coptologists of the past, as well as many today, did
not come to the field through Nag Hammadi. However, the renewed and
broadened interest in it is certainly dependent on the Nag Hammadi
phenomenon. It has brought new scholars into the field, whose earlier
training often supplies a new perspective. Such an influx must be
welcomed in any discipline.
Pachomian studies have also benefited from the development.
Although Pachomius and his monasteries have long been the subject of
research, new scholars and new questions have entered the field since
and because of Nag Hammadi. The recent surge of publications on the
subject has emanated, for the most part, from scholars whose interest
did not develop through Nag Hammadi. Nonetheless, a number of
articles have appeared from scholars whose training in Coptic studies
began with Nag Hammadi.
The present study falls into the latter category. It may, at first, appear
strange to introduce a critical edition of a Greek Pachomian text with a
brief account of recent developments in Coptic studies. However, it was
an original interest in Nag Hammadi that led this author to Pachomian
studies. The ripples spread further. Although Pachomian studies were
first in auxilliary interest to Nag Hammadi, they soon became the
VIII Preface
primary interest in and of itself. It became apparent that although the

fresh insights supplied by non-Pachomian scholars were exceedingly
valuable, an in depth knowledge of the Pachomian movement and
material was vital but difficult to obtain. The complexity of the
Pachomian dossier, though beginning to unravel, presents innumerable
difficulties.
The present study represents a small contribution to the unraveling of
the Pachomian sources. I was drawn to the Letter of Ammon because of
the controversy it has aroused. As a unique non-vita source closely
connected with the Alexandrian church hierarchy, it offers a chance to
follow more closely the ecclesiastical influence on Pachomian monasti-
cism and its surviving sources.
This study has not developed in a vacuum. I wish here to express my
appreciation to Dr. James M. Robinson, who, as a visiting professor to
U. C. Berkeley, first aroused my interest in Nag Hammadi and first
mentioned Pachomius to me. His subsequent advice as the chairman of
my doctoral committee has always been helpful. I want also to thank Dr.
Birger Pearson, under whose guidance at U. C. Santa Barbara I
perfected the tools necessary for my work. I will always be indebted to
him for his sound and friendly advice and encouragement. As for the
present study in particular, I must thank Professor Dr. Ekkehard
Muhlenberg. Apart from his advice and guidance in matters of textual
criticism and patristic studies, this volume would have been impossible. I
thank Professor Dr. Klaus Nickau, who supplied valuable advice on the
Greek text and inestimable help in preparing this manuscript for
publication. Finally, I would like to thank the «Kommission zur
Erforschung altchristlichen Monchtums)) of the «Gottinger Akademie
der Wissenschaftem) for its financial support.
Claremont, California
July 1985 James E. Goehring
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VII
Abbreviations ........................................... XI
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. The history of Research: The vitae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. The history of Research: Epistula Ammonis. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
III. The manuscripts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34
IV. The relationship between mss. F and t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
V. The textual tradition of the Ascetica .................... 60
VI. The literary and historical interpretation of the text ....... 103
The critical text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123
The English translation ................................... 159
Notes on the text ........................................ 183
Select Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 296

Indices ................................................. 304
ABBREVIA TrONS
Manuscripts
A Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana D 69 Sup; XIV c.

a Athos, Hiberorum 367; XV-XVI c.
F Florence, Bibl. Laurentiana XI, 9; X-XI c.
r Rome, Bibl. Barberiniana 491; XVII c.
t Athens, National Library 1015; XI c.
Egyptian Monastic Sources
Ag Arabic Life of Pachomius, G6ttingen Arabic Ms. 116.

Am Arabic Life of Pachomius edited by Amelineau, Histoire de saint
Pakh6me et de ses communautes. Annales du Musee Guimet 17,
Paris, 1889.
Av Arabic Life of Pachomius, Vatican Arabic Ms. 172.
Bo Bohairic Life of Pachomius edited by Lefort, CSCO 89.
D Latin Life of Pachomius translated from the Greek by Diony-
sius Exiguus, edited by Cranenburgh, Subsidia Hagiographica
46.
EpAm The Letter of Ammon.
EpHor The Letters of Horsiesius, some edited by Lefort, CSCO
159-160.
EpPach The Letters of Pachomius, Boon, Pachomiana latina; Quecke,
Die Briefe Pachoms.
EpTheod The Letters of Theodore, one edited by Boon, Pachomiana
latina.
Exc Greek Excerpta of the Regula, Boon, Pachomiana latina.
GI-G6 The Greek Lives of Pachomius according to Halkin's classifi-
cation, Subsidia Hagiographica 19.
H Halkin, Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae, Subsidia Hagiographica
19.
HistMon Historia Monachorum edited by Festugiere, Subsidia
Hagiographica 53.
HL Historia Lausiaca edited by C. Butler, The Lausiac History of
Palladius.
LibHor Liber Horsiesius edited by Boon, Pachomiana latina.
RegHor The Rules of Horsiesius edited by Boon, Pachomiana latina.
RegPach The Rules of Pachomius edited by Boon, Pachomiana latina.
Sl-S21 The Sahidic sources according to Lefort's classification, CSCO
99-100.
V.Ant Athanasius' Life of Antony, PG 26.
INTRODUCTION
The Epistula Ammonis has played an important role in the discussion

of Pachomian monasticism from the date of its first publication in 1680.
It has been both lauded as «one of our most important documents for
the history of Egyptian monasticism,» 1 and dismissed as the apocryphal
work ofa non-Pachomian monk. 2 Such controversy has led to a more
cautious use of the document in the latest studies on Pachomian monas-
ticism. However, in several matters its evidence still proves invaluable.
The present study represents an effort to explore and understand this
document both in and of itself and in terms of its relationship to the
Pachomian dossier as a whole. The letter itself claims to be written by a
certain Bishop Ammon in response to the addressee's request, possibly
Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria (d. 412). This addressee, having
learned that one of his fellow bishops had spent three years at Pabau as a
Pachomian monk under Theodore, asked him to send in writing his
reminiscences of those years. The Epistula Ammonis is the result.
Although a letter, its true nature is that of a vita or encomium of
Theodore.
The study of any ancient source requires the use of the best text.
Although the Epistula Ammonis has been edited by Halkin, 3 his text is
dependent on a single manuscript. As a second witness is known, 4 it was
necessary to produce a critical text for the letter. This, in tum, led to
considerable study of the transmission of the text.
Although the relationship of the two versions of the Epistula
Ammonis is readily discernable through a study of this text alone, the
precise connection between the two manuscripts demanded a more
exhaustive study of the other Pachomian documents preserved in them.
In fact, a small Pachomian collection consisting of the Epistula
Ammonis, the Ascetica, and the Vita prima survives in both manu-
1 Archibald Robertson, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexan-

dria. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second
series, vo\.4 (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1892; reprint ed., Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978) 558 n. 1.
2 L. Th. Lefort, Les Vies coptes de saint Pachome et de ses premiers successeurs.
Bibliotheque du Museon 16 (Louvain: Bureaux du Museon, 1943) LI-LXII.
3 Fran90is Halkin, Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae. Subsidia Hagiographica 19 (Bruxel-
les: Societe des Bollandistes, 1932) 97-121.
4 This text was published in 1982. F. Halkin, Le corpus athenien de saint PachOme.
Cahiers d'orientalisme 2 (Geneva: Cramer, 1982) 99-115.
2 Introduction
scripts. Since the Ascetica exists also in many indirect witnesses (in-
corporated into the various Vitae Pachomii), one is able to trace the
development of its text in considerable detail. In turn, since the two
manuscripts containing the Epistula Ammonis are part of this Ascetica
tradition, their relationship is further illuminated. Finally, since these
are the only surviving manuscripts that contain the Epistula Ammonis, a
clearer understanding of their relationship further undergirds the criti-
cal edition.
The critical edition was produced as the basis for the interpretation of
the letter. This interpretation also required the production of an English
translation 5 and a thorough study of the previous research. The latter
appears in two chapters. The first chapter deals with the debate on the
Vitae Pachomii in general. This account was deemed necessary due to
the interwoven nature of the discussions of the Epistula Ammonis with
those of the vitae as a whole. The second chapter on the history of
research pulls out and amplifies the Epistula Ammonis debate alone.
The literary and historical interpretation of the letter has been con-
densed into a single chapter. It strives to understand the letter both in
terms of its author's intent and his methods of reaching it, as well as the
historical reliability of the text itself. This involves a study of the various
literary motifs employed by Ammon, the question of his use of sources,
and the relationship of the letter to the historical material it records as
well as to the historical situation at the time of its composition.
Finally, an extensive series of notes on the text appears at the end of
the work. These are for the most part historical and literary. They
record parallels to the text and explore in greater detail their meaning
for the interpretation of the letter. They represent the basis for the
literary and historical interpretation.
References to the Greek vitae and the Ascetiea are given in terms of
Halkin's Saneti Paehomii Vitae Graeeae. The page and line references
are always preceded by an H. For the Epistula Ammonis, the refer-
ences are given in terms of the critical edition appearing in the present
study.
5 This translation was produced independently from that of A. Veilleux which ap-
peared in 1981. A. Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia II: Pachomian Chronicles and Rules.
Cistercian Studies 46 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Press, 1981) 71-109.
I. THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH: THE VITAE
The publication by Papebroch in 1680 of a Greek Pachomian corpus

containing the Vita prima (G1), an excerpt from the Regula, the Epistula
Ammonis (Ep Am), and the Ascetica (Asc) marked a new stage in
Pachomian studies. 1 It represented the first publication of a Greek text
of documents claiming to stem from Pachomian monks themselves. As
such, it improved dramatically on the previously available material.
This had consisted of Latin translations of Greek originals, e. g., the
efforts of Jerome, 2 Dionysius Exiguus,3 and Hervet, 4 and the reports of
the non-Pachomian monastic tourists, Palladius 5 and Cassian,6 sup-
plemented by a few other minor witnesses. 7
1 ActasanctorumMaiiIII(Antwerp: Cnobarum, 1680; New. ed., Paris: Paline, 1866)

287-356,25*-71 *. The new edition altered the pagination which makes for continual
difficulty.
2 A. Boon, Pachomiana Latina (Louvain: Bureaux de la Revue, 1932) LI-LVI. Boon
records the various editions that appeared in print beginning in 1575.
3 Dionysius Exiguus made a Latin translation of a Greek Vita Pachomii that corre-
sponded closely, though not exactly, with G2, in the sixth century. This translation was
included by Rosweyde in his Vitae Patrum published in Antwerp in 1615 and reproduced
in PL 73.229-272.
4 Gentian Hervet translated a Greek text ofG2 (Ms. Vaticanus 819) into Latin in Paris
in 1555. It was disseminated through its inclusion in Surius' Lives of the Saints. Laurentius
Surius, De probatis sanctorum vitis (Coloniae Agrippinae: Kreps & Mylii, 1617) 3.195 ff.
5 The Historia Lausiaca was also included in Rosweyde's 1615 edition of the Vitae
Patrum, though a Latin text had already appeared in 1504. The first Greek text was
printed in 1616. Cuthbert Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius (Cambridge: Cambrid-
ge University Press, 1898-1904; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Olms, 1967) 1.6-10.
6 The first printed edition of Cassian appeared in the last quarter of the fifteenth
century. Edgar C. S. Gibson, The Works of John Cassian. A Select Library of Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series, vol. 11 (New York: Christian
Literature Co., 1894; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 193-194.
7 Gennadius of Marseille (d. 492-505) included Pachomius, Theodore, and Horsiesius
in his enlarged edition of Jerome's De viris iIIustribus. PL 58.1064-1065. A discussion of
the earliest printed editions can be found in E. C. Richardson, Jerome and Gennadius,
Lives of Illustrious Men. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, second series, vol. 3 (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1892; reprint
ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 354-355. The Carolingian abbot, Bendictus Ania-
nens, preserved certain parts of Jerome's Latin translation in his Concordia Regularum. It
first appeared in print in 1538. H. Bacht, Das Vermiichtnis des Ursprungs. Studien zum
fruhen Monchtum I. Studien zur Theologie des geistlichen Lebens 5 (Wiirzburg: Echter,
1972) 31-32. PL 103.702-1380.
4 History of research: the vitae
Papebroch's editio princeps was dependent chiefly on a single

Florentine manuscript (Laur. XI,9). Difficulties in the text were solved
through the use of a fragmentary Milan manuscript of the same type
(Ambrosianus D69 Suppl) and a text of the Vita altera (G2) preserved in
the Vatican (Vatican us 819).8 The edition offered the Greek text and a
Latin translation prepared by Daniel Cordonus.
In his introduction, Papebroch briefly explored the various versions
of the Vita Pachomii and concluded that both G2 and D (the Latin
translation of Dionysius Exiguus) represented later stages in the tradi-
tion, alterations of the more primitive form found in GJ and Asc, which
he published. 9
The appearance of this new material found especially wide dissemi-
nation through its inclusion by L. S. de Tillemont Ie Nain in his
Memo ires pour servir a l'histoire ecctesiastique des VI premiers siecles. 10
Although he complained about the many errors of the copyists,11 he
used the material extensively to present a complete picture of
Pachomian monasticism. His work became a standard source for later
accounts. 12
The next major development in Pachomian studies did not take place
until late in the nineteenth century. In 1889, Amelineau published his
Histoire de saint PakhOme et de ses communautes. 13 He offered the text
and translation of a Bohairic (Eo) and an Arabic (Am) vita, together
with numerous Sahidic fragments. 14 In his introduction, he argued that
there originally existed a distinct life of Pachomius and a supplemental
life of Theodore. The two came together only in the later tradition.
8 Ambr. D69 Suppl. was used to supply 23C to 39 line 5. Vatican us 819 was used to
complete 21 to 23C.
9 Acta Sanctorum Maii III 287f.
10 L. S. de Tillemont Ie Nain, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecctesiastique des VI

premiers siecles (Paris: Robustel, 1700) 7.167-235, 469-503.
11 Ibid. 169. The same point is made by both Halkin and Lefort. Halkin, Sancti
Pachomii 11*; Lefort, «Revue: W. Bousset, Apophthegmata,» RHE 21 (1925) 102; idem,
«Revue: F.Halkin, Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae,» RHE 29 (1933) 424.
12 Pierre Helyot, Histoire des ordres monastiques, religieux et militaires (Paris: Gosse-
lin, 1714) 1.39-48, 154-160.

13 E. Amelineau, Histoire de saint PakhOme et de ses communautes. Annales du Musee
Guimet 17 (Paris: Leroux, 1889). The Coptic texts had begun to appear earlier. J. A.
Mingarelli, Aegyptiorum codicum reliquiae venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana (Bononiae:
Laelii a Vulpe, 1785) CXLIX-CXCVII; G. Zoega, Catalogus codicum copticorum (Rome,
1810; Anastatischer Neudruck, Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903).
14 A version of another Arabic text was published in 1891. 'Abd al-MasII;t al-Mas'tidI
al-BaramiisI, Kitiib al qiddis Anbii Ba!lIimiyus ab as-sarikah (Cairo, 1891). It is difficult to
obtain. Furthermore, it represents the arabic text type based on the Greek Vita tertia. As
such, it has received very little notice in the scholarly debate.
History of research: the vitae 5
He concluded that the first Vita Pachomii did not contain this supple-
mental «life of Theodore» and that it had been composed in Coptic, in
the Theban dialect. 15 The best surviving witnesses to this vita were the
fragmentary Sahidic texts. 16 The Arabic version (Am) was understood
to be a faithful translation of this Sahidic original. The Greek and
Bohairic versions, on the other hand, were seen as later abridgments. 1 7
Amelineau worked under the basic premise that the more detailed and
fuller accounts were original. The shorter versions, which are often
more difficult to follow, were explained as abridgments. He concluded
from this that the Arabic text offered the most complete and therefore
the best witness. 18
As the appearance of the Greek sources had pushed the Latin ma-
terial into the background, so Amelineau felt that the new Coptic and
Arabic material should supersede the Greek. 19 On the face of it, seeing
that Pachomius was a Copt, his position seemed to carry considerable
weight. Amelineau's efforts did indeed call forth the presentations of
the life of Pachomius by Griitzmacher 20 and Zockler 21 which were
based heavily on the oriental sources.
However, this new impetus in the direction of the oriental sources was
short lived. In a review of Griitzmacher, Achelis, while taking note of
the value of the oriental vitae, reaffirmed support for the Greek tradi-
tion. He pointed to the complicated nature of the sources, arguing that
«in jeder findet sich soviel Gutes und soviel Sekundares, daB man bald
15 Amelineau, Histoire XXV, XLVII.

16 Ibid. XLVII. Elsewhere he noted the existence of three variant recensions of the
Sahidic text. E. Amelineau, Monuments pour servir d I 'his to ire de I 'Egypte chretienne aux
Ive et V e siec/es. M emoires publies par les membres de la Mission archeologique /ran(:aise
au Caire 4, fasc. 2 (Paris: Leroux, 1895) 488.
17 Bo was understood as a translation and abridgment carried out by a monk from
Scetis. Amelineau, Histoire XLVIII, LI.
18 Ibid. XLVII-LXVIII. Amelineau argues that the lives developed in the direction of
continual abridgment. Thus, for example, he believes that the numerous references to
pederasty in the Arabic vita were simply removed by the later versions as unseemly. Cr.,
Paul Ladeuze, Etude sur Ie cenobitisme pakhOmien pendant Ie IV e siec/e et la premiere
moitit! du V e (Louvain: Linthout, 1898) 327-365; F. Ruppert, Das pachomianische
Monchtum und die An/iinge klosterlichen Gehorsams. Munsterschwarzacher Studien 20
(Miinster: Vier-Tiirme, 1971) 177-184.
19 Amelineau, who did much to make the Coptic sources available, did have a
penchant for seeing Coptic originals behind the various Egyptian monastic documents,
including Historia Lausiaca, Apophthegmata, Vita Pauli, and Historia Monachorum.
Butler, Lausiac History 1.283-287.
20 O. Griitzmacher, Pachomius und das iilteste Klosterleben. Ein Beitrag zur Monchs-
geschichte (Leipzig: Mohr, 1896).
21 Otto Zockler, Askese und Monchtum (Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer, 1897) 194.
der einen, bald der andern Recht geben muB.»22 Karl Holl likewise
remained unconvinced by Griitzmacher and continued to favor the
Greek tradition on «innere Griinde».23
The crushing blow to Amelineau's thesis came in 1898 with the
appearance of Paul Ladeuze's Louvain dissertation entitled Etude sur Ie
cenobitisme pakhOmien pendant Ie IVe siec/e et la premiere moitie du
V".24 Through his detailed, critical analysis, Ladeuze set about to
reverse Amelineau's claims and to reassert the primacy of G 1. Whereas
Amelineau had held that the Greek traditions represented an abridg-
ment of the oriental sources, Ladeuze argued that the Coptic and
Arabic vitae were hagiographic expansions based on early Greek ma-
terial, most notable among which was G1.
For Ladeuze, G1 was the earliest source of the Pachomian tradition.
The Sahidic fragments published by Amelineau derived ultimately from
G1. Bo and Asc were understood in turn to depend on the Sahidic
material. 25 The Latin D was seen to be an abridgment of G 2 and
Amelineau's Arabic vita (Am) was viewed as a late compilation drawing
from all of the earlier traditions. Ladeuze summarized his conclusions
in the following stemma, altered only to make the sigla match those
used in this volume. 26
Gl
1
S
I
rt,- 1
Asc
HL
I
U; G2 Asc
Am
22 Hans Achelis, «Revue: Griitzmacher, Pachomius und das iilteste Klosterleben,»

ThLZ 9 (1896) 240-244.
23 Karl HolI, Enthusiasmus und BujJgewalt beim griechischen Monchtum (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1898; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Olms, 1969) 156 n. 1.
24 Ladeuze, Etude,' idem, «Les diverses recensions de la vie de s. Pakhome et leurs
dependances mutuelles,» Museon 2 (1898) 145-168, 269-286, 378-395.
25 Butler (Lausiac History 2.206), while praising Ladeuze, cannot follow him in this
derivation of Asc from the Sahidic material.
26 Ladeuze, Etude 75. Ladeuze took into account the newly published Syriac version of
the Ascetica (Syr. Asc.). P.Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum (Paris: Harrassowitz,
1895) 5.122-176,701-704; E.A. Wallis Budge, The Book of Paradise (London: Printed
for Lady Meux by Drugulin, Leipzig, 1904).
While some scholars, most notably W. E. Crum,27 still argued for the
value of the Coptic material and its probable priority in some form,
Ladeuze's conclusions, supported by his extensive documentation,
swung the debate away from Amelineau's position back in favor of the
Greek tradition. Cuthbert Butler, in his The Lausiac History of
Palladius published in 1898-1904, gave Ladeuze strong support,28 as
did Stephan Schiwietz in 1904 in his Das morgenliindische Monchtum. 29
While the main debate over the priority of the Greek or oriental
versions was still in progress, the publication of yet another version of
the Greek life led to a reopening of the side issue of the relationship
between the various Greek and Latin texts. In 1908, Nau and Bousquet
published a Greek Life of Pachomius based on a Parisian manuscript
(Paris. 881),30 which according to Halkin's later classification rep-
resents the Vita sexta (G6). 31 The text was shown to be a compilation of
parts drawn from HL, Asc, and a G2 type vita.32 In his introduction,
Nau supported Ladeuze's conclusion concerning the relationship of G J
to the oriental sources. 33 But he came to the opposite conclusion from
Ladeuze concerning the relationship of the Greek and Latin materials.
Whereas Ladeuze had argued that D (the Latin translation of Dionysius
Exiguus) was an abridgment of G2, which in turn had developed out of
GJ,34 Nau held that GJ, G2, and D, as well as G6, all drew from a
common, now lost, Greek source. This lost source was best preserved in
G6, in those sections that paralleled G2. Of the remaining sources, D
represented the most faithful rendition of the lost text, albeit translated
27 W. E. Crum, Theological Textsfrom Coptic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 171-

72.
28 Butler, Lausiac History 1.170, 2.206. Butler argued that the Sahidic, Arabic, and
Bohairic versions were all independent derivatives from an earlier Coptic archetype, and
that Asc and G 1 were the original documents from which the others had been derived. He
was, nonetheless, ready to admit that supplementary historical facts in the Coptic tradi-
tion were of nearly the same value as the Greek.
29 Stephan Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum (Mainz: Kirchheim, 1904)
119-148.
30 J. Bousquet et F. Nau, Histoire de saint Pac6me (Une Redaction inedite des Ascetica).
PO 4 (1907) 409-511.
31 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 85*.
32 Bousquet et Nau 412. Readings from several other manuscripts were included in the
apparatus criticus. For the Asc material (G6.9-51 a), readings from Chartres 1754 + Paris
suppl. 480, a G5 text, were included. A French translation of the Syriac text of the Asc
published by Bedjan was also given. A number of G 2 manuscripts were included for the
G2 sections (G6.51 b-73). They included Vaticanus 819, Vaticanus 1589, and Paris 1453.
33 Ibid. 412, 415.
34 Ladeuze, Etude 6-13.
into Latin. G1 and G2 were later expanded versions. Thus the value of
the new G6 text was underscored. 35
A new attempt to deal with the problem was made by Bousset in 1923
in his Apophthegmata. Studien zur Geschichte des iiltesten Monchtums. 36
The second section of his work bore the title «Untersuchungen zur Vita
Pachomii», and its first two chapters dealt with the interrelationship
and value of the various traditions. Bousset's research led him to the
conclusion that G1, or its immediate archetype, was the basic unit from
which all of the other versions derived. He did recognize the use of
earlier oral and written traditions that combined with G1 (or its ar-
chetype) in the formation of the Sahidic version. 37 Thus, its value was
enhanced, since it contained material not found in G1. The Bohairic and
Arabic vitae were understood as compilations. Both derived ultimately
from the Sahidic. 38
As for the Greek dossier, Bousset sided with Ladeuze over against
Nau. The text of G2 was seen to derive from G1. It was furthermore the
text used in the preparation of D. The two new texts edited by Nau, G5
and G6, also arose from G1. The former had been used by the Arabic,
while the latter had drawn as well from G2, a source Y which it held in
common with HL, and the archetype P that lies behind both the Greek
and Syriac versions of the ASC. 39
Bousset summarized his conclusions in a stemma, reproduced below
with the sigla changed to match those used throughout this volume. 40
Single fixed
units of oral and BloC; TIaxcol1lou
y P
written tradition
Syr Gk
Asc Asc
35Bousquet et Nau 416-418.

36Wilhelm Bousset, Apophthegmata. Studien zur Geschichte des iiltesten Monchtums
(Tiibingen: Mohr, 1923). Pages 209-231 deal with the question of the Vitae Pachomii.
37 Ibid. 227.
38 Ibid. 216-224.
39 Ibid. 212-214. Thus, as Bousquet and Nau, he attached considerable importance to
the Asc text found in G6.
40 Ibid. 209.
Bousset was aware of the vicissitudes present in any manuscript

tradition. He recognized that G1, although it was the best surviving
witness, was still inferior to the other versions in places. 41 All of the
surviving vitae were secondary redactions. Gl's superiority lay in the
fact that of all the secondary redactions it was the closest to the original
Vita Pachomii. Thus, Bousset's work further supported the case for
Greek priority in general and for the value of GI in particular.
Clearly, the importance being attached to the Greek tradition,
together with the growing awareness of the diverse recensions contained
within it, called for a new critical edition. The call was answered by the
Bollandists in 1932 with the publication of Halkin's Sancti Pachomii
Vitae Graecae. 42 Six variant versions of the Greek Vita Pachomii were
distinguished. The new edition offered a critical text for G1, Asc, and Ep
Am, which improved greatly on the old, error plagued Acta Sanctorum
effort. And at last, a critical text of G2 was placed in the public domain.
The texts of two new Greek vitae, G3 and G4, were also given. G5 and G6
were seen as late compilations. Their texts were not included since they
had been adequately presented by Nau.
Halkin agreed with Lefort that G 1 showed definite signs of being a
compilation. Thus, it could not represent the earliest form of the written
vita as Ladeuze had thought. 43 However, contrary to Lefort, he did
conclude that Gl, together with Asc and Ep Am, offered the earliest
stage of the Pachomian traditions available to us. The other Greek vitae
were all secondary compilations based either in part or completely on
these earlier documents. 44
As for the relationship between the Greek and oriental traditions,
Halkin asserted that «cette premiere Vie de Pachome fut certainement
redigee en grec. La discussion est presentement close.»45 He did not,
however, equate this original vita with Gl, though he did feel that Gl
was the most primitive form available. In Halkin's view, this first Greek
vita very quickly called forth a Coptic translation. 46 Nonetheless, he did
recognize that primitive material survived in the later vitae. Thus it was
necessary to explore them all to properly understand Pachomian
monasticism. 47
41 Ibid. 231.
42 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii; idem, «Les vies grecques de s. Pachome,» AnBoll 47
(1929) 376-388.
43 L. Th. Lefort, «Revue: W. Bousset, Apophthegmata. Studien zur Geschichte des
iiltesten Monchtums,» RHE 21 (t 925) 103; Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 90*-97*.
44 Ibid. 56*.
45 Ibid. 90*.
46 Ibid. 103*; cf., Ladeuze, Etude 72.

Halkin dealt no further with the Coptic, Arabic, and Latin material.
However, the importance that he attached to G1 further supported
Ladeuze's position in general and left Nau's alternative rather forgot-
ten. Thus, Karl Heussi, in the Pachomian chapters of his Der Ursprung
des Monchtums published in 1936, relied heavily on G1, citing Halkin,
Ladeuze, and Schiwietz frequently without ever mentioning Nau. 48
The importance of Halkin's work for Pachomian studies cannot be
underestimated. The quality and quantity of the texts presented have
made it a standard reference work. Its pagination and lineation are cited
among Pachomian scholars in much the same manner as biblical chap-
ter and verse. However, Halkin's assertion concerning Greek primacy,
namely, that «la discussion est presentement close», was under fire even
before it appeared in print.
While the consensus had clearly swung in favor of the Greek tradi-
tion, albeit clouded a bit by the question of the relationship between G1
and G20r its forerunner, the ripples ofa new challenge from the oriental
sources were being felt. In 1925, L. Th. Lefort published the text of the
Bohairic Life (BO).49 In the same year he reviewed Bousset's
Apophthegmata, complaining that the limited number of sources
available to Bousset predetermined his conclusion in favor of G1.50
In the same review, one can detect the outline of Lefort's view
concerning the Greek dossier emerging. He divided the corpus between
those texts that contain only a Life of Pac hom ius (G2 and D) and those
that continue through the death of Theodore (G1, G3, and G5). This
distinction, following the work of Amelineau and Nau, would playa
major role in his argument for the priority of the Greek text behind D
and G2. He also made the assertion that G1 was a compilation, pointing
to the varied spellings for Pabau in the text as prima facie evidence. 51
In 1933-34, Lefort published the fragmentary Sahidic texts of the
Vita Pachomii. 52 His separation of the texts into various groups
brought order out of chaos. In the same year he reviewed Halkin's
critical edition of the Greek lives. 53 He applauds the final appearance of
46 Karl Heussi, Der Ursprung des Monchtums (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1936) 115-131.
49 L. Th. Lefort, S. Pachomii vita bohairice scripta. CSCO 89 (Paris: e typographeo
Reipublicae, 1925; Reimpression anastatique, Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO,
1965). The Latin translation was published by Lefort in 1936. CSCO 107.
50 Lefort, «Revue: Bousset» 101-104; cr., Bousset, Apophthegmata IV-V.
51 Lefort, «Revue: Bousset» 103.
52 L. Th. Lefort, S. Pachomii vitae sahidice scriptae. CSCO 99-100 (Paris: e typogra-
ph eo reipublicae, 1933; Reimpression anastatique, Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO,
1965).
53 L. Th. Lefort, «Revue: Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae, edid. hagiographi
Bollandini, ex recensione Fr. Halkin», RHE 29 (1933) 424-428.
the Greek dossier in a good critical edition, but is skeptical of Halkin's

conclusions concerning the interrelationship of the various vitae. As he
sees it, Halkin only continues Ladeuze's error, though he does note
Halkin's acceptance of his own view that Gl represents a compilation.
In 1936, Lefort published a Latin translation of the Bohairic vita,54
and in 1937 he reviewed Heussi's Der Ursprung des Monchtums. 55
Again he complains that Heussi, as those before him, relied too heavily
on the Greek and Latin sources. He argues that one can no longer
ignore the Coptic sources in discussing a Coptic movement and myste-
riously suggests his own belief that Gl represents a post-seventh century
compilation. 56
The position that Lefort had been developing since 1925 received its
full and final form in 1943 with the publication of his Les vies coptes de
saint PachOme et ses premiers successeurs. The volume offered a French
translation of the various Coptic lives together with an introduction
detailing his arguments in favor of Coptic priority. Lefort approached
the problem from a negative direction. He set out first to establish the
secondary nature of the other traditions (especially the Greek), before
turning to a brief discussion of the Coptic texts. In view of the history of
the debate, his approach is understandable.
Lefort began by dismissing the Syriac and Arabic sources as secon-
dary translations and compilations. This allowed him, in view of his
own recent publication of the Coptic sources and Halkin's publication
of the Greek texts, to claim that «Ie dossier pachomien peut etre
considere comme pratiquement publie en entier.»57
Turning to the Greek corpus, Lefort accepted the composite nature
of G4, G5, and G6 and concluded that he need not deal with them. As a
result, he began his analysis with the ASC. 58 Picking up on Nau's
observation that the title of this work included the phrase Ex 'troy
acn<llnxrov, he argued that the existing Asc is in reality an excerpt from
a much larger lost collection. 59 A passage from the Asc reported in the
De oratione of Evagrius Ponticus as coming from a «Lives of the
Tabennesiote Monks» is used as evidence that this larger Ur-ascetica
(my term) already existed by 400 A. D. 60
54 Supra, n. 49.
55 L. Th. Lefort, «Revue: Karl Heussi, Der Ursprungdes Monchtums,» RHE33 (1937)
341-348.
56 Ibid. 345; v. Lefort, Les vies coptes XLVIII-L.
57 Ibid. XXXVIII.
58 Ibid. XIX-XXVII.
59 Bousquet et Nau 410, 415-416; Lefort, Les vies coptes XXII.

60 Ibid. XXII-XXXII. The De oratione was previously attributed to Nilus. Hausherr
has convincingly demonstrated its Evagrian origin. Irenee Hausherr, «Le traite de
I'Oraison d'Evagre Ie Pontique (Pseudo Nil),» RAM 15 (1934) 34-93, 113-170.
Thus Lefort reasserted Nau's view that the Asc was an extract from
an earlier source. However, he replaced Nau's notion that it had been
excerpted from a G6-type vita with his own conclusion that it derived
from a larger lost collection of disjointed stories which had not yet come
together into a vita. This Ur-ascetica represented for Lefort the most
primitive stage of the Greek tradition and lay behind the later develop-
ment of the vitae.
With this Ur-source behind him, Lefort turned to explore the surviv-
ing Greek and Latin vitae. An extremely detailed and interesting anal-
ysis of the variations between D and G21eads him to conclude that the
oldest Greek vita drew from the now lost Ur-ascetica and from extracts
of the Historia Lausiaca (HL). This vita is best represented by D, while
G2 represents a retouching and augmenting of it. 61
He next proceeds to develop his 1925 assertion that GJ represents a
late compilation. In support of this he points to the exaggerated place of
Theodore in GJ, 62 variant spellings of proper names within the text,63
copticisms,64 and cases in which the clarity of the Coptic version is in
marked contrast to the difficulties caused by Greek adaptation, sum-
marization, or sensitivity shown to the content. 65 Thus, GJ's alteration
ofTithoes' temptation of pederasty to one of gluttony is taken as a clear
example of a redactional effort designed to remove an unseemly element
from the narrative.
Lefort next turns to argue for a late date for the composition of GJ.
He first notes that the surviving manuscripts are all late, eleventh
century copies. 66 More significantly, he points to a statement in GJ .94
that refers to «the archbishop, not only the former most holy
Athanasius, but' whoever is sitting on the archbishop's throne (tov
apXU,1ttcrx01tOV, ou Ilovov 'tOY 'to'tE UYlO)'tU'tOV 'ASuvacrwv, aAX aEi 6
xuSi]IlEVO~ E1ti 'tou apXlEpunxou SPOVOD )>>, and argues that this could
only have been written long after Athanasius' death in 373 A. D. An
even later date for the GJ compilation is suggested to Lefort by its use of
the term 'to Ilupyrovwv, which he thinks represents an Arabic
influence. 67
Lefort, XXVII-XXXVIII, LXXXVII-LXXXVIII.

61
Ibid. XXXIX; cf., Halkin Sancti Pachomii 58*.

62
63 Lefort, «Revue: Bousset» 103; idem, Les vies coptes XXXIX.

64 Ibid. XLII-XLVI.
65 Ibid. XXXIX-XLII.
66 Ibid. XLVII. This is, in reality, not so very late for a Greek patristic text. Derwas
Chitty, «Pachomian Sources Reconsidered,» JEH 5 (1954) 73.
67 Lefort, Les vies coptes XLVIII-L; cf. P. Peeters, «Le dossier copte de S. Pachome et
ses rapports avec la tradition grecque,» AnBoll64 (1946) 276-277.

Finally, after dismissing G3 as another late compilation 68 and Ep Am

as an apocryphal panegyric,69 Lefort proceeds to list and categorize the
Coptic material. 70 He divides the fragmentary Sahidic documents into
various groups. A single witness, Sl, is identified as the most primitive
text. Another, S2, also stands alone and is characterized by its love of
the miraculous. SlO, Sll, and S20 represent a single text type which
appears to lie behind certain of the Arabic versions. S8 is the only
Coptic text in which an opening of the Vita Pachomii survives. These
four vita types are understood by Lefort to represent the most primitive
traditions. The other Sahidic material, as well as Eo, are later compi-
lations. S3 is particularly singled out as a vast compilation that made
use of the earlier Sl, S2, and S8 recensions. 71
Lefort does note that Eo is the only Coptic text that has a clear
relationship with the Greek dossier. 72 He argues that in the atmosphere
of research prior to his own work, the argument that Eo had derived
from Gl necessarily predominated. However, in view of his own conclu-
sions concerning G1, he argues that this position must be re-
examined. 73 While he admits that a solution must await a minute
philological analysis, he does suggest that the problem revolves around
a division of the material between a Vita Pachomii that ended with the
saint's death (represented by D-G2 in the Greek dossier and Av-S7 in
the oriental material) and a version that continued on through the
period under Horsiesius and Theodore (represented by G1, S5, S6, and
Eo). Lefort believed that the post-Pachomian material derived from an
appendix composed as a separate unit around 400 A. D. This appendix
was added separately to Gland to the Coptic tradition. 7 4
Lefort had thus completely revised the then generally accepted view
of the priority of the Greek dossier in general and of Gl in particular. As
Chitty later summarized it, he held «that G1 is a late compilation, Ep
Am apocryphal, and the Greek original behind D (used by G2 as its
main source) the earliest Greek life, while all are dependent on Coptic
lives.» 7 5
68 Lefort, Les vies coptes L-LI.

69 Ibid. LXII.
70 Ibid. LXII-LXXXVII.
71 Lefort does not offer much proof for these divisions, a point over which Chitty
complained. Chitty, «Reconsidered» 76. Veilleux's work has resulted in some revision of
Lefort's divisions. A. Veilleux, La Iiturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachOmien au quatrieme
siecle. Studia Anselmiana 57 (Rome: Herder, 1968) 36-48.
72 Lefort, Les vies coptes LXXVIII.
73 Ibid. LXXIX.
74 Ibid. LXXIX-LXXXII, 191 n. 4.
75 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 38.

Whether or not one accepts all of Lefort's conclusions, it is clear that

his work marked a turning point in Pachomian studies comparable to
that which occurred in 1680 with the appearance of the first Greek vita
in print. While Amelineau's initial effort to publicize the Coptic and
Arabic material proved to be little more than an interruption in the case
for Greek priority, Lefort's careful scholarship 76 shattered any confi-
dence in an approach that ignored the oriental material. The Coptic
dossier has since taken its proper place alongside the Greek as an
invaluable witness to Pachomian history. All of the subsequent studies
to which we now turn reflect back to or off from Lefort's
accomplishments.
The response to Lefort's effort was, for the most part, very favor-
able. 77 Strong praise, coupled with some reserve, came from P. Peeters
in 1946. 78 In his view, Lefort had once and for all rectified the old error
of asserting an absolute priority for the Greek tradition. He warned,
however, that the present state of research did not allow for a precise
understanding of the relationship between the Coptic and Greek tradi-
tions, though he did, in principle, consider the problem solvable.
Moreover, he recognized that enthusiasm for this new oriental direction
could swing the pendulum too rapidly and too far in the other direction,
away from a critical appreciation of the Greek corpus. As if foreboding
Chitty, he expressed worry that excessive zeal for the Coptic material
would only lead to a reaction from the Greek advocates. 79
The major challenge to Lefort came from Derwas Chitty in 1954. 80
He took the defense of the priority of the Greek dossier upon himself.
He charged that «Lefort's work suffered from too cavalier a treatment
of the Greek sources (especially of Gland Ep Am), and was repeatedly
guilty of <petitio principii>.»81 Chitty's major thrust was aimed at
undercutting Lefort's argument for a lost collection of Pachomian
stories or Ur-ascetica from which all of the surviving Greek works drew
in one form or another. He accepted Lefort's evidence for a collection
that existed around A. D. 400, but identified it as a collection of
Pachomian documents including Gl, Ep Am, Asc, and a few other
Greek sources much as we know them today.
76 P. Peeters, «L'edition critique des vies coptes de saint Pachome par M. Le Professor
Lefort,» Musean 59 (1946) 18-19.
77 R. Draguet, «Revue: L. Th. Lefort, Les vies caples de saint PachOme,» RHE 40
(1945) 209-213.
78 P. Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 258-277.
79 Ibid. 261.
80 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 38-77.

81 Ibid. 39.
In defense of this position, he picked up Lefort's reference to the De

oratione of Evagrius, noting that chapter 108, which is referred to as
coming from a Lives of the Tabennesiote Monks, shows a literary
connection with Ep Am 19. 82 While Lefort had argued that Ammon was
using this earlier Lives of the Tabennesiote Monks, Chitty simply as-
serted that the Ep Am in toto was part of a collection of documents
referred to by Evagrius under that title. 83
In Chitty'S view, this collection included «a) A Life of Pac hom ius and
Theodore, b) The Paralipomena, c) The Letter of Ammon, d) The Rule,
e) The Letters of Pachomius, f) The Letter of Theodore, and g) The
Book ofOrsisius.»84 He further understood the Life of Pachom ius and
Theodore to be «the Vita Prima (or its archetype ifit be not original).»85
Chitty then proceeded to counter Lefort's other arguments. The Asc
material paralleled in G1, which suggested a borrowing to Lefort, is so
distinct that Chitty sees no reason to doubt its derivation from a
common oral tradition. 86 As for the relationship between D and G2, he
returns to support Ladeuze's position, seeing the former as a direct
translation of the latter.
As for Gl itself, Chitty remained unconvinced by Lefort's arguments
for its secondary nature. The fact that proper names exhibit variant
forms in Gl is no proof of its composite nature because there is no
evidence that consistency in the transliteration of Coptic names was
considered a virtue. 87 As for the episodes used by Lefort to illustrate the
dependence of G1 on the parallel Coptic accounts, Chitty charges that
the arguments are subjective and thus to be dismissed. 88 Finally, con-
fronting Lefort's evidence of copticisms in the Greek of G 1, he simply
asserts that «there is no need to assume a Coptic original in order to
explain copticisms in the Greek of a fourth century Egyptian writer,
especially one who has been clearly living for many years in monastic
surroundings where Coptic was certainly dominant in speech and
liturgy.»89
82 Ibid. Lefort had noted the connection, but understood the dependence the other
way around. Lefort, Les vies coptes LIV.
84 Ibid. 47.
85 Ibid. 46.
86 Ibid. 50, 71-72.
87 Ibid. 66.
88 The same charge was later leveled against Chitty. A. J. Festugiere, La premiere vie
grecque de saint Pach6me. Les moines d'orient IV/2 (Paris: Les EditionS'du Cerf, 1965)
157; Draguet, «Revue: Lefort» 213.
89 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 70; Festugiere 7, 129-131.
Chitty offers but a brief account of the Coptic material (3 of his 39

pages), finding nothing in it that reverses his judgment in favor of the
priority of G1. He objects to Lefort's notion of an appendix dealing with
the post-Pachomian period that was added to both G1 and Bo. He
points out that the earliest external reference to a Vita Pachornii, the
sixth century Cheltenham papyrus, refers to a Life of Pachomius and
Theodore.
Chitty had thus attempted to counter Lefort point by point, reassert-
ing Ladeuze's position in favor of the absolute priority of G1, a view
that even Halkin had discounted. 90 He was willing to admit that the
Coptic versions could and did contain valuable material, but only as an
augmentation to the Greek vita which inspired them. «If G1 was indeed
the first Life, written c. A. D. 390, it is natural to suppose that it would
immediately inspire a Coptic version with additions and in some cases
corrections, from local knowledge and direct oral tradition.»91 But for
Chitty, in most cases, the Greek can be shown to contain the historical
truth.
Peeter's fear of a harsh reaction from the Greek camp, though late in
arriving, had come to fruition. Although both Chitty and Lefort ac-
knowledged that primitive material could be found in all the sources,
they were diametrically opposed in their evaluation of the Greek dossier
in general, and of G1 in particular. Lefort published his response to
Chitty in the same year, 1954. 92 Chitty had charged Lefort with using a
selective approach and treating the Greek sources too cavalierly. Lefort
began his response by noting Chitty's systematic opposition to each of
his arguments. He felt that Chitty's tone in the article was «passable-
ment belliqueux)), and suggested that such a tone does not guarantee
objective and competent criticism. 93
Lefort goes on to reassert his own position, countering a few of
Chitty's points and offering a few new ones of his own. He claims that it
90 Chitty was careful to respect the influence of oral tradition and its value on the later
traditions, as well as to admit that the absolute priority might go back to GJ 's archetype.
Yet, GJ was understood to preserve the original form of the Vita Pachomii. He was ready
to admit Coptic written sources behind Gl, e.g., homilies, visions, letters, and the Rule,
but not something in the genre of a vita. Indeed, he felt that Gl.98 excluded that
possibility. D. Chitty, «Pachomian Sources once more», SP 10. TU 107 (1970) 54-55;
idem, The Desert a City (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966; reprint ed., London: Mowbrays, 1977)
8-9, 26; cf., Crum, Theological Texts 171-72.
91 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 76; cf., Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 103*. Elsewhere, Chitty
uses the Coptic material to aid in reconstructing the sequence of the later Pachomian
foundations. D. Chitty, «A Note on the Chronology of the Pachomian Foundations», SP
2. TU 64 (1957) 379-385.
92 L. Th. Lefort, «Les sources coptes pachomiennes,» Museon 67 (1954) 217-229.
93 Ibid. 218.
is unreasonable to assume that an Egyptian movement in which the

majority were Copts with no knowledge of Greek, would have produced
a literature destined for edification first in Greek. 94 He notes the
concrete detail oflocal color found in the earlier Coptic accounts 95 and
points to a case from Sl where the sequential order of the episodes has
been interrupted in the Gl version. 96 He concludes the article, after a
few further examples, on a bitter note. He takes comfort from Peeter's
communication to him in 1943 in which he predicted that <des partisans
attardes de la theorie qui ramenait au grec toute l'hagiographie pac-
homienne ont re9u de vous hard nuts to crack.))97 Tying the reference to
Chitty, he asserts that «comme il veut bien m'accorder les circonstances
attenuantes en imputant rna position ade la (coptomanie), je pourrai me
contenter de lui renvoyer simplement la balle en l'accusant, non sans
motif, de <grecomanieu)98
Chitty never did respond in detail. 99 It is sad to see good scholarship
turn into such hostile and bitter debate. It was perhaps its movement in
this direction that stilled the waters for a time. Pachomian studies lay
dormant for a decade. In Rousseau's words, «It seems in no way
disrespectful to the memory of Chitty and Lefort to suggest that, while
their scholarly achievements were considerable, their argument lost its
momentum. Having thoroughly ground away the grains of evidence
seemingly available, the academic mill was spinning free.))100
Whereas Lefort had been perhaps too harsh in his treatment of the
Greek dossier, Chitty was equally too defensive of Greek priority and
too negative in his attitude toward the Coptic material. A way out was
94 Ibid. 219.
95 Ibid. 220-221.
96 Ibid. 221-224.
97 Ibid. 229.
98 Ibid.
99 He did refer to Lefort's response in a brief note. «I was disappointed to find a

scholar to whom we owe so much, passing over my main arguments unnoticed, and
fastening his criticism on a few minor points, largely misunderstood. So I reserve my
answer for incorporation into a larger work, which I have still to write.» Chitty, «Once
more» 54 n. 1. He also refers elsewhere to this larger work. Chitty, «Review: Armand
Veilleux, La liturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachOmien au quatrieme siecle,» JThS 21 (1970)
196. Unfortunately, he died before the book was written.
100 Phillip Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority, and the Church (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1978) 246. His appendix I, pp. 243-247, offers a summary of the Lefort-Chitty
debate. A more general account of the history of research is contained in the unpublished
dissertation of J. van Paasen, «L'obeissance religieuse selon saint Pach6me» (Rome:
Academie Alfoniana, 1963) 21-25. Another is found in the unpublished dissertation of
Janet Timbie, «Dualism and the Concept of Orthodoxy in the Thought of the Monks of
Upper Egypt» (University of Pennsylvania, 1979) 23-42.
offered by Festugiere in 1965 with the publication of his La premiere vie

grecque de saint PachOme. 101 Taking his cue from Lefort's call for a
complete and minute philological analysis of G 1,102 he proceeded to
analyze GI, its grammar, and its relationship to the primitive Coptic
material as well as to the later compilations.
Free from the harsh debate between Lefort and Chitty, Festugiere
followed Lefort in his judgement of the primitive Coptic material. But
having recognized its fragmentary nature, he attached considerably
more importance to GI as a compilation that was true to its sources. As
such it was a valuable witness alongside the Coptic compilations which
often prove to be less faithful to their antecedents. Free from a passion
to prove Coptic or Greek priority, Festugiere followed Peeter's more
cautious approach. Primitive material could be found in all of the
sources and late material had certainly found its way into even the
earliest witnesses. 103 For each individual episode, all of the parallel
accounts had to be explored before one could determine which rep-
resented the most primitive form of the tradition.
In 1969, Cranenburgh published a critical edition of Dionysius
Exiguus' Latin translation of the Vita Pachomii (D).104 In his introduc-
tion, he traced the research produced on D in general and on its
relationship to G2 in particular. He discussed the work of Schiwietz,
Nau, Halkin, and Lefort. However, he apparently had not heard of
Chitty's efforts, for he fails even to mention him. This fact rather
diminishes the value of his discussion.
Cranenburgh's own research led him to support Lefort in arguing
that G2 was the secondary text. While recongizing the need of an in
depth philological study, he claimed that <des passages propres des deux
textes incline a accorder une preference tres marquee a la priorite de
Denys.»105
The 1960's also saw a new development based on a detailed study of
the Arabic dossier. This material had more or less been forgotten since
Lefort passed judgment on it. 106 The new work was done by Armand
101Festugiere 1-157.
102Ibid. 1.
103 Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 277. Of course, this position was also held to some
extent by both Lefort and Chitty, though their emphasis lay elsewhere.
104 H. van Cranenburgh, La vie latin de saint PachOme traduite du grec par Denys Ie
Petit. Subsidia Hagiographica 46 (BruxelIes: Societe des Bollandistes, 1969).
105 Ibid. 23.
106 Of the three types of Arabic texts noted by Lefort, only two have been published.
The published text of the variety based on G3 is difficult to obtain (supra, n. 14).
Amelineau's text (Am) represents the compilated variety. Veilleux uses Amelineau's
pagination in referring to the Gottingen text (Ag), since a type of the latter had served as
Veilleux, who set forth his conclusions in a preliminary article in

1966 107 followed by his definitive work in 1968. 108
Beginning with the Greek dossier, Veilleux arrived at basically the
same conclusions as Halkin. He rejected Lefort's view concerning the
priority of the source behind D. Instead, he argued that D had drawn
from G2, which in turn had derived from G1 and Asc. He felt, however,
that G1 was a clear compilation that could be properly understood only
in relation to the Coptic and Arabic material. 109
Turning to the Coptic dossier, he noted that it was considerably more
complex than the Greek. He begins with Lefort's work, but goes con-
siderably beyond it in trying to establish the relationships within the
dossier. He recognizes a large number of texts, including Eo, as a unified
group that he labels SEo. In addition, he distinguishes three earlier text
types and various later combinations. However, he concludes by sup-
porting the SEo group as the most valuable in the Coptic dossier. The
fragmentary nature of the earlier vitae means that they cannot impinge
very far on the value of this group. He does note that the most complete
text of the SBo group, Bo, is also the least reliable. 110
It is the Arabic dossier, however, that serves as the key for Veilleux in
unraveling the real pro blem as he sees it. Building on the work of Crum
and Lefort, 111 he proceeds to distinguish the sources behind the various
Arabic compilations. Amelineau's text (Am) is seen to represent a
juxtaposition of an Arabic and a Greek compilation. Crum had already
identified the former as corresponding to the Gottingen Arabic text
(Ag),112 while Lefort had recognized in the latter a G3 type text. 113
Veilleux also agrees with Lefort that Ag represents a translation of a
Coptic version of the type that lay behind the Vatican Arabic text (Av),
supplemented with material paralleled in the fragmentary S10 and S20
texts. 114 Thus, Ag is also a compilation.
the source behind the first half of the former. P. Peeters had been working on the Arabic
sources, but apparently decided not to publish them after Lefort published the Coptic
material. Lefort, «Revue: Halkin» 428; idem, «La Regie de S. Pachome (Nouveaux
documents),» Museon 40 (1927) 33 n. 4; Veilleux, La liturgie 50.
107 Armand Veilleux, «Le probleme des vies de Saint Pachome,» RAM 42 (1966) 287-
305.
lOB Veilleux, La liturgie 11-158.
109 Ibid. 34-35.
110 Ibid. 38-48.
111 Crum, Theological Texts 171-193; Lefort, Les vies coptes XV-XVIII.
112 Verzeichniss der Handschriften im preussischen Staate, I Hannover, 3 Gottingen 3
(Berlin: Bath, 1894) 373-374; Crum, Theological Texts 176.
113 Lefort, Les vies coptes XVII; Veilleux, La liturgie 53-54.
114 Ibid. 58-61; idem, «Le probleme» 292; Lefort, Les vies coptes XVI-XVII.
Veilleux noted that Ag corresponds closely with the SBo recension

and thus indirectly with G1. However, this correspondence ceases at the
point where the Life of Theodore begins (Am 386).115 This division is
set off by the words, «Nous devons commencer l'histoire de notre pere
Theodore ... »116 This «Life of Theodore», which corresponds to the
fragmentary S10 type text, continues until Am 553, at which point the
correspondence with the SBo group resumes. Therefore, if one cuts out
this central section or Life of Theodore (Am 386-553), he is left with a
primitive Life of Pachomius (Am 337-386 and 553-599 minus the
inserted G3 material). Veilleux labelled this the «Vie breve» (VBr). 117
The central section, labelled «Vie de Theodore» (VTh), is understood as
a later addition that had been inserted as a unit into Ag. The various
other compilations of the SBo-G1 type had likewise incorporated the
VTh into the VBr, but in a much more piecemeal fashion. Thus, the two
primitive lives are not distinguishable in these vitae except through
comparison with the Ag text. The distinction of these two Ur-vitae is
further supported by the occurrence of doublets between the two. In
Veilleux's view, these doublets reveal a literary dependence of the VTh
on the VBr.llS Of course, both documents were originally composed in
Coptic.
Veilleux next proceeds to compare the three great compilations: Ag,
SBo, and G1. He believes that SBo and G1 have used a common source
which he labels~. This intermediate source made use of the VBr and the
VTh as did Ag (ostensibly they had first come together in yet an earlier
source). It was ~ that mixed the chapters of the two Ur-vitae so
thoroughly together. 119 A further chapter is used to analyze the charac-
ter of the various sources, 120 after which he summarizes his results in a
stemma reproduced here. 121
The all encompassing nature of the stemma is certainly impressive.
At the beginning of his study, Veilleux had likened the problem to that
faced by Old Testament form critics or Targumic scholars. His solution
is certainly no less erudite than theirs.
The response to Veilleux's effort has been somewhat mixed. Fidelis
Ruppert, in his Das pachomianische Monchtum und die AnJiinge klOster-
lichen Gehorsams, 122 accepted Veilleux's general conclusions, and used
115 This citation uses Amelineau's pagination. Supra, n. 106.

116 Veilleux, «Le probleme» 292.
117 Ibid. 293; idem, La liturgie 61 -63.
118 Ibid. 63-67.
119 Ibid. 69-82.
120 Ibid. 83-102.
121 Ibid. 104.
122 Ruppert 3-7; so too Timbie 34.
? ?
\
\
\
\
\
,
S8 ,,
I
YjAg
" 'l
'/" I
I,' ~
Regie
Ascetica
II
/I
/I
/1
? ,
/1
HL
G3 G4 G2
S2 /t
(Ac-Ap) ? G6
Am
his source analysis as the basis for his own study, though he does allow
for the use of further internal criteria from time to time. 12 3 In his review
of Veilleux, Suso Frank expressed great admiration for the work, but
would like to have had a little more information on the origins of the
Arabic traditions. 124 Derwas Chitty is particularly taken with
Veilleux's treatment of Pachom ian spirituality in the second part of his
volume. 125 But as to Veilleux's source analysis, Chitty is forced to
object, as one would expect. He agrees with the two source theory
behind SBo and Ag, but would replace Veilleux's VBr and VTh with G1
and a later elaboration of it. Halkin, in a very brief review, suggests that
Veilleux could have paid more attention to Festugiere and Chitty.126
He notes the intricate stemma and raises the question, «Le probleme est
123 Ibid. 8.
124 K. Suso Frank, «Revue: Armand Veilleux, La liturgie dans la cenobitisme
pachOmien au quatrieme siecie,» ThR 66 (1970) 118-119.
125 Chitty, «Review: Veilleux» 195-99; idem, «Once more» 54-57.
126 F. Halkin, «Revue: Armand Veilleux, La liturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachOmien au
quatr;eme siecie,» AnBoll 88 (1970) 337.
extremement complexe, c'est evident. Mais est-il sage de vouloir tout

expliquer?»127
The only really critical analysis of Veilleux's work to emerge thus far
has come from Adalbert de Vogue. 128 In his analysis, Veilleux has
failed to prove his case. He argues that the seams recognized by Veilleux
as dividing VBr and VTh in Ag, do not, on closer examination, really
exist. 129 Furthermore, two episodes identified by Veilleux as doublets
and used by him to support the distinction of VBr and VTh are found by
de Vogue to actually support the opposite conclusion, namely, the unity
of the text. He concludes that «Non seulement l'existence de ces deux
Vies distinctes n'est pas prouvee, mais elle est absolument exclue.»13o
While additional versions of the Vita Pachomii have come to light 131
and new translations have appeared, 132 no further development in the
discussion of the sources and their relationships has occurred. It is
evident that while consensus has been reached on certain relationships
among certain vitae, a precise consensus of the derivation of the various
sources is not in hand. While the identification and relationship of the
later vitae within a particular language tradition is acknowledged, the
connection between the earliest versions in the various languages is still
debated. The complexity of the problem and the vicissitudes of the
debate point to the need for a new direction. It is clear that the pro-
duction of a stemma does not alter the fact that all the most primitive
witnesses, be they Coptic, Greek, Latin, or Arabic, have a claim to
possessing valuable information. As Lefort had understood, and as
Festugiere has attempted to carry out, the individual episodes must be
examined in themselves to determine, in each case, the proper relation-
ship of the various versions. Achelis' point that «in jeder findet sich
soviel Gutes und soviel Sekundiires, daB man bald der einen, bald der
andern Recht geben muB»,133 has held.
Oral tradition certainly preserved valuable material that found its
way at a later point into already codified traditions. The existence of
distinct Coptic and Greek groups within the Pachomian monasteries
necessarily means that some distinct material and traditions existed
within each group.
127 Ibid.; cf., Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 271.
128 Adalbert de Vogue, «La vie arabe de saint Pachome et ses deux sources presu-
mees,» AnBo1l91 (1973) 379-390; idem, «Saint Pachome et son oeuvre d'apn':s plusieurs
etudes recentes,» RHE 69 (1974) 425-453.
129 Vogue, «La vie» 381-383. 130 Ibid. 385-389.
131 F. Halkin, «Unevie ineditede saint Pachome. BHG 1401,» AnBo1l97 (1979) 5-55,
241-287; idem, Le corpus athenien.
132 Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia, I. The Life of Saint Pachomius and his Disciples.
Cistercian Studies 45 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publ., 1980).
133 Achelis 241.
Furthermore, with the possible exception of some early Sahidic ma-

terial that is too fragmentary to decide for sure, all of the surviving
sources appear to be compilations. Thus it is clear that we do not possess
the most primitive versions from which the compilations drew. The
problem of determining the precise relationship among such compi-
lations is clearly immense. A large number of factors come into play.
One must consider the common source or sources behind the existing
compilations, the divergence within the manuscript traditions at the
point or points from which the original compilations drew, the vast
influence of oral tradition, and the later developments within the manu-
script traditions of the compilations themselves. The weak manuscript
tradition behind most of the surviving texts serves to heighten the
problem even more.
Certainly, it is more reasonable to assume that all of the traditions
mirror the most primitive material, be it written and/or oral. Clearly,
certain texts that are obviously dependent on existing documents can,
for the most part, be dismissed. Beyond this, each story must be ex-
amined individually. The quality of glass in each tradition must be
examined to determine which mirror offers the truest reflection of the
primitive tradition at that particular point. Admittedly, serious prob-
lems of interpretation are involved.
It is not too far wrong to assert that the «quest for the historical
Pachomius» offers the same pitfalls and many of the same negative
possibilities connected with the quest for the historical Jesus. As
Bultmann showed that the Christ of faith was the presupposition of the
gospels, so is the Pachomius of later legend the presupposition of the
vitae. The greatness and fame that he attained in later years, together
with the usual post-mortem enhancement, are presupposed throughout
the accounts.
In reality, this understanding is present to some degree in most
Pachomian studies. Even Lefort and Chitty agreed that primitive ma-
terial existed in all of the traditions. They only argued over the extent of
this material in the various traditions. Once the effort moves beyond the
establishment of a stemma for the vitae traditions, use of all of the
sources necessarily comes into play. This aspect of Pac hom ian scholar-
ship, the reconstruction of Pac hom ius' life out of the vitae, has not been
the thrust of the above analysis. The harder lines drawn in the vita
debate are often forgotten in the later discussions of Pachomius
himself. 134 In the end, every study of Pachomius must depend on
multiple traditions.
134 Thus, Chitty strongly praises Veilleux's analysis of Pachomian spirituality, while
disagreeing with his source theories. Chitty, «Review: Veilleux» 195-199.

II. THE HISTORY OF RESEARCH: EPISTULA AMMONIS
The history of research on Epistula Ammonis (Ep Am) coincides

closely with the developments noted above for the vitae. It first ap-
peared in print in 1680 in the Acta Sanctorum edition prepared by
Papebroch, together with G1 and Asc. 1 The text was based on a single
Florentine manuscript (Laur. XI, 9). The authenticity of the letter was
accepted without question, and considerable use of it was made in the
reconstruction of Pachomian history presented in the volume. 2 It was
this edition that first identified the addressee as Theophilus, archbishop
of Alexandria. The name occurs nowhere in Ammon's letter itself.3 It
appears only in the incipit of the brief response from Theophilus
attached to the end of the epistle. Furthermore, this Theophilus is never
expressly identified as the archbishop of Alexandria. Nonetheless, in
Papebroch's edition, the title EIIILTOAH 0EO<l>IAOY IIAIIA
AAEEAN~P. is added above the response from Theophilus,4 and in
the Latin translation of the work, the phrase ad Theophilum Papam
Alexandriae is amended to the title of the entire document. 5 This
identification carried over into the introduction to the manuscript and
remained an unquestioned assumption until the time of Lefort. 6
The considered reliability of the text is witnessed by the inclusion of a
single section of the letter (Ep Am 34) that reports Athanasius' own
account of his flight to the Thebaid under Julian, in the famous edition
of Athanasius' works prepared by Montfaucon. 7 From there, it found
its way into many other works,8 including the English edition of
Athanasius' writings prepared by Robertson. 9
1 Acta Sanctorum 346-356,54*-61*.

2 Ibid. 286 ff. For example, it is used to place Pabau in the Tentyrite nome (p. 289) and
for its datable reference to Gallus being proclaimed Caesar (p. 291).
3 The title in the Athens manuscript includes a reference to the addressee 1tp6~ 'ttva
0eoq>lAfj. However, Papebroch did not know this manuscript.
4 Acta Sanctorum 61. The Greek text only calls Theophilus a colleague.
5 In the Greek, no addressee is named. Ibid. 346.

6 Thus, for example, Theophilus' reply appears in PG 65.61.
7 J. Lopin and B. de Montfaucon, eds., Sancti patris nostri Athanasii archiep.
Alexandrini. Opera omnia (Paris: Anisson, 1698) 1.868-869.

8 E. Revillout, «Rapport sur une mission en Italie,» Archives des missions scientifiques
et litteraires. Troisieme serie. Tome 4 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1877) 475-476.
9 Robertson, NPNF 4.487.
History of research: Epistula Ammonis 25
As with the other Greek material in Papebroch's edition, the Ep Am

gained particularly wide recognition through its inclusion in
Tillemont's ecclesiastical history.lo He used the letter extensively in his
discussion of Pachomian monasticism in general,11 and in his chapter
on Theodore in particular. 12
The value of the Greek dossier in general remained unchallenged
until 1889. In that year, Amelineau published the Coptic and Arabic
materials and argued for their superiority over against G1.13 However,
the Ep Am, being a non-vita source and thus free from the intra-vita
debate, fared considerably better. 14 Amelineau accepted Ep Am as a
primitive source containing many valuable facts,15 although he did
distinguish between the eyewitness accounts and the second hand ma-
terial collected by Ammon. He argued that the former could be ac-
cepted without reserve. Nonetheless, he recognized a strong hagio-
graphic influence on the letter which made its use subject to caution. 16
Griitzmacher, whose volume Pachomius und das iilteste Klosterleben
grew out of Amelineau's work, fully accepted his view of the Ep Am.l?
He argued that it preserved an original source from a Greek Pachomian
monk that was independent from the Coptic and Arabic witnesses. It
was particularly important for its precise chronological details. He
refined Amelineau's terminus post quem for the letter, which AmeIineau
had tied to the beginning of Theophilus' reign as archbishop in 387, by
arguing that the letter's orthodox stance suggested a date after
Theophilus' anti-Origenist reversal in 399. Griitzmacher, following
Amelineau, did caution that the fifty years between the events and their
recording can be expected to have confounded certain facts. 18
Ladeuze, who in 1898 argued extensively and successfully against
Amelineau in favor of the absolute priority of G 1, followed closely his
and Griitzmacher's conclusions concerning the Ep Am. 19 He did call for
a bit more caution in dealing with the eyewitness accounts than
Amelineau had voiced. He recognized that the hagiographic concern of
the author, particularly noticeable in the presentation of Theodore's
clairvoyant ability, cast a shadow over much of the material and made it
10 Supra, p.4.
11 Tillemont 17.167-235,674-692.
12 Ibid. 17.469-503, 758-762.
13 Supra, pp.4-5.
14 Amelineau, Histoire XLII-XLVI.
15 Ibid. XLIV.
16 Ibid. XLV.
17 Griitzmacher 13.
18 Ibid.
26 History of research: Epistula Ammonis
of questionable historical value. However, this factor was not involved

in those passages revel ant to the coenobitic institutions. 20 Ladeuze's
caution was directed at the miraculous passages and stories.
The general consensus in favor of the Ep Am continued to gain
support until the time of Lefort. In 1904, Schiwietz supported Ladeuze.
He did add the important observation that the author of the Ep Am
betrays the influence of certain non-Pachomian sources, noting in
particular the Shepherd of Hermas. 21 In 1915, A. Ehrhard lent his
support to the epistle, declaring that its «Echtheit und Glaubwiirdigkeit
sicher steht.»22 Evelyn White used it repeatedly as a factual source in
his The Monasteries of the Wadi 'n Natrun. 23
Franc;ois Halkin, in his 1932 publication of the Greek dossier, con-
tinued this support. He included the Ep Am, together with G1 and Asc,
among the three original Greek witnesses. 24 He began his analysis of
the letter by pointing out its division between eyewitness and hearsay
accounts. 25 With Ladeuze, he noted the letter's concern for the miracu-
lous, a factor that demanded caution. 26 Nonetheless, Halkin felt that the
letter supplied invaluable chronological data for the historian, much of
which supported the material furnished in G1.27 Further value was
found in the many proper names preserved in the document,28 and its
preservation of two otherwise unknown letters attributed to Antony
and Theodore. 29 Finally, it was seen to fill out our understanding of the
Greek house at Pabau headed by Theodore of Alexandria and men-
tioned briefly in G1.30 As such, it offers vivid proof of the Greek
infiltration into Pachomian monasticism. 31
Thus, whereas support for the Greek tradition as represented by G1
had been briefly challenged by Amelineau and Griitzmacher, the Ep Am
remained essentially free from the debate. Because of its inherent in-
Ibid. 110-111. He noted numerous examples in the second part of his study.
20
Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische M onchtum 147, 324-325; Veilleux, La liturgie 349.
21
22 W. E. Crum, Der Papyruscodex saec. V/- VII der Phillippsbibliothek in Cheltenham.
Koptische theologische Schriften. Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in StrajJ-
burg 18 (StraBburg: Triibner, 1915) 137.
23 High G. Evelyn White, The Monasteries of the Wadi 'n Natrun. Part 2. The History
ofthe Monasteries ofNitria and ofSeetis (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1932;
reprint ed., New York: Arno, 1973) 50, 58, etc.
24 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 56*; idem, «Les vies grecques» 377, 388.
25 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 28*-30*.
26 Ibid. 31 *.
27 Ibid. 31*-32*.
28 Ibid. 32*-33*.
29 Ibid. 33*; Ep Am 29 and 32.
31 Ibid. 102*; GI.95.
dependence from the vita genre, it continued to be held in high esteem

by all parties.
All of this changed in 1943 with the publication of Lefort's Les vies
coptes de saint Pach6me et de ses premiers successeurs.32 However,
whereas his position with respect to G1 had been foreboded in his book
reviews, his challenge to the authority enjoyed by the Ep Am caught
everyone by surprise.
Lefort began by noting that the positive evidence for identifying the
addressee with the archbishop Theophilus was extremely weak. The
unpublished Athens text of the letter, in fact, spoke against this identifi-
cation. He noted that the title reports that the letter was sent to a certain
Theophilus (1tpO~ nvu 9EoqnAov). Lefort felt that the use of the in-
definite pronoun ruled out the identification of this Theophilus with the
archbishop.33
In Lefort's view, both the style and content of the letter argued
against its reliability as a first-hand account of Pachomian monasti-
cism. He detected the use of standard literary formulas and hagio-
graphic cliches in the text. 34
Furthermore, the detail in which the various episodes abound could
not be accounted for by the author's memory alone. Too many years
had passed from the events to their recording. Thus the detail which
others had seen as evidence of the work's authenticity, to Lefort sug-
gested that Ammon had made use of earlier written sources. The
account of Ammon's own life appears to be modeled on that of the
Alexandrian Theodore in the Pachomian dossier.35 The close literary
parallel between the account of Theodore's hiding of two vipers beneath
his feet in Ep Am 19 and Evagrius' De oratione 108 is seen to support a
greater redactional development of the account by Ammon. Evagrius
had found the story in a «Lives of the Tabennesiote monks».36 There
it was attributed to Pachomius. Ammon had taken it from the
same source, Lefort's Ur-ascetica,37 but transferred it to his hero
Theodore. 38
32 Lefort, Les vies coptes LI-LXII. He began by noting that it had never before been
subjected to a critical analysis.
33 Ibid. LII; cf., F. Halkin, «Revue: G. Lazzati, Teofilo d'Allessandria,» AnBoll 53
(1935) 399-401.
34 Lefort, Les vies coptes LII-LIII, LVII.
3S Ibid. LIII-LIV. The parallels include being born a pagan in Alexandria, converted
at age 17, being enamored with the monastic life due to Athanasius' influence, meeting
Pachomian monks in Alexandria, and proceeding with them to upper Egypt to be received
into the community.
36 Supra, p. 11.
37 Supra, pp. 12f, 14f.
38 Lefort, Les vies coptes LIV-LVI.
Lefort next paralleled the accounts of Pachomius' heresy vision

found in Ep Am 12, G1.1 02, and Eo 103. He noted that the various
versions were so distinct that a literary dependence between them was
hard to imagine. Rather, he suspected the existence of a primitive
account from which all of the versions derived. The account in Ep Am
was argued to be the most full-bodied and therefore, presumably the
latest.
Lefort further noted that Ammon erred on a number of chronological
details. The age of Theodore in one particular vision is seen in conflict
with that supported in the vitae,39 and the reference to Pammon's and
Theodore's recent death in Ep Am 34 is viewed as incompatible with the
period under discussion in the episode. 40
Ammon likewise reveals an ignorance of certain Pachomian facts,
customs, and technical terms. His failure to mention Horsiesius, who
functioned as coadjutor with Theodore during Ammon's years at Pabau
according to the vitae, is very difficult to understand in Lefort's view, if
indeed Ammon spent those three years in the monastery.41 His weak
references to Pachomius himself (he is first referred to as I1axoulllO<;
n<;) are also hard to explain.42 As for customs, Ammon erroneously
mentions a practice of twelve prayers, whereas the Regula and vitae
agree on six. 43 Theodore's granting of permission for Ammon to visit
his parents is diametrically opposed to his stance in the vitae on this
subject. 44 As for Pachomian terminology, Ammon refers to Psarphius
as «the first of all those at Pabau» ('roy rcUV1(OV rcporwv EV -rfj ~ai)), when
his technical title in the other sources is «the great steward» (oixoVOIl0<;
OIlf:ya<;).4s Likewise, his use of TjyouIlEVO<; (Ep Am 19) to refer to the
leader of a single house is unique in the Pachomian dossier. The usual
terms is 0 oixtaxo<; (Coptic rMNHI).
All of these factors led Lefort to conclude that the author of Ep Am
knew, used, and adapted earlier sources. The work, in the form of a
letter, perhaps in imitation of the Vita Antonii and Palladius' Historia
Lausiaca, is simply a panegyric composed in honor of Theodore. Little
discretion is employed in the presentation of its hero. As such, its actual
Ibid. LVI-LVII.
39
Ibid. LVIII-LIX.
40
41 Ibid. LIX-LX.
42 Ibid. LIX.
43 Ibid. LX.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid. LVII = LVIII. The title used by Ammon is paralleled in Eo 185, a fact used by
Lefort to argue for his use of sources.
connection with the Pachomian milieu is open to serious doubt. «11 est
peu probable qu'il ait appartenu it un ancien milieu pachomien.»46
With that decided, Lefort questioned the real purpose behind the
letter's composition and found it in the liturgical need of the church. In
support, he noted the appellation of 0 "yta(J'IlEVO~ attached to
Theodore at the opening and close of the epistle (Ep Am 1 and 34). He
saw this as a late liturgical formula, 47 and suggested that the letter was
composed in connection with the liturgical calendar. It was required to
distinguish this Theodore from the numerous homonyms admitted to
the diptych. 48
With Lefort, the excellent press previously enjoyed by the Ep Am
came to an end. He not only argued that its author had used earlier
written sources, but that he had never actually been a Pachomian monk.
The biographical claims of the author were but part of the literary
genre. The Sitz im Leben of the letter was the liturgical need of the
church.
Lefort's discussion of the Ep Am, «dont l'autorite est maintenant
mise en facheuse posture)), was noted by Draguet in his review, but not
discussed. 49 It was Peeters' article of 1946 that first confronted Lefort's
conclusions. 50 Peeters, who with some caution had accepted Lefort's
view concerning the Coptic vitae, could not follow him in his judgment
on the Ep Am. He noted that certain factors used by Lefort to argue
against the letter's authenticity actually supported the Ep Am's cre-
dence over against the parallel vitae accounts. 51 Ammon's collection of
stories about Theodore from the elder monks Elourion and Ausonius
(Ep Am 8-15) was an act that one would expect from a new monk. «La
scene est decrite en quelques traits simples et naturels, que l'on sent pris
directement dans la realite humaine.))52 Furthermore, Ammon's ref-
erence to having checked these accounts with Pekyssius allows for a
direct influence from the Coptic tradition. He concluded, «Son recit,
dont Ammon nous donne l'abrege, presente donc toutes les garanties
d'authenticite qu'on peut raisonnablement exigef,))53
Peeters went on to note that if one disallowed the excellent chronolo-
gical data found in the Ep Am, «toute la chronologie pachomienne en
.Ibid. LX-LXI.
46
47 Ibid. This factor was noted by Mingarelli, though he did not give it so negative an
interpretation. Mingarelli CL.

48 Lefort, Les vies coptes LXI.
49 Draguet, «Revue: Lefort» 213.

50 Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 267-270.
51 Ibid. 267-268.
52 Ibid. 268-269.
53 Ibid. 269.
sera it ebranlee.»54 He argued that in the case of disagreements between

the Coptic sources and the Ep Am, it was premature simply to assume
that the latter was at fault. In Peeters' view, the Ep Am was a good
example of the symbiosis between the Coptic and Greek Pachomian
traditions. He noted that one could explain any problems of disagree-
ment. Thus, one must assume that Elourion and Ausonius did not tell
their stories only to Ammon. Given this fact, and recognizing variations
in their reporting, as well as variations in the recollection of the lis-
teners, divergences within the varied sources would be expected. Peeters
concluded, «Contrairement a son [Lefort's] avis, formule avec une
insistance ou 1'0n croit discerner un peu d'entrainement, nous pen sons
que l'epitre de l'eveque Ammon do it rester et restera finalement au rang
ou elle a ete placee par des critiques peu enclins a la credulite.»55
Peeters' support of the Ep Am was noted in passing by Derwas Chitty,
who set about to argue more systematically against Lefort's position.
He began by discounting Lefort's analysis of the parallel accounts of the
viper incident found in Ep Am 19 and Evagrius' De oratione 108. He
mustered convincing evidence that, contrary to Lefort, the story had
always been associated with Theodore. 56 Furthermore, whereas Lefort
had held that Ammon elaborated the story which was preserved in a
more simple, apophthegm like version in De oratione, Chitty concluded
that the latter was directly summarizing the former. 57
Chitty discounted the existence of an Ur-ascetica from which Lefort
had concluded both Ammon and Evagrius drew and replaced it with a
collection of Pachomian sources that included G1, Ep Am, and ASC. 58
Divergent accounts of the same story were not interpreted with Lefort
as a result of varied use of an earlier written text, but attributed to
divergent oral accounts of the same event. 59
Chitty countered Lefort's arguments against Ammon's chronology,
noting the weak basis for the conclusion in one case in particular. 60 He
found problems with Lefort's own chronology in his interpretation of
the story of Artemius. 61 As for Lefort's contention that the author of
the Ep Am was unfamiliar with Pachomian terminology, Chitty mus-
tered some limited support for a few terms used in the letter and then
Ibid.
54
Ibid. 276.
55
56 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 39~40. The transference of a story about Pachomius to

Theodore occurs elsewhere in the tradition. Infra, Notes on the Text § 17.
58 Supra, pp.14~15.
59 Ibid. 42.
60 Ibid. 43; Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 32*.

asserted, «What is more natural than that one who left Pabau in A. D.
355, long before Rule or Life had appeared in Greek, should make his
own choice of translation for the Coptic technical terms?»62 He noted
that T]ytacr~f:vo~, which Lefort had tied to late Byzantine liturgical
texts, occurs seven times in the New Testament. He felt that this could
easily account for Ammon's usage of the word. 63
Chitty did acknowledge that a problem existed in the interpretation
of the number of prayers mentioned in Ep Am 22. It will be recalled that
whereas the Regula and Vitae mention six, Ammon agrees with HL at
twelve. Chitty simply held that «Ammon's long years in Nitria may
easily have obscured his memory of the Tabennesiote practice.»64
Chitty's positive support for the Ep Am stemmed, as it had generally
for others in the past, chiefly from its accurate chronological details,
verifiable from other sources. He argued that «it is impossible to believe
that a forger of the following centuries would have taken the trouble,
even if he had the means, to get these right.»65 Going even further,
Chitty believed that the Ep Am vindicated Gl's account of certain
events. In one case at least, their agreed upon sequence of events made
the Coptic version impossible. 66 For Chitty, this vindication of the GI-
Ep Am chronology confirmed the view of Ladeuze and Butler, that the
shorter, more factual account was to be preferred to the longer, more
picturesque version. 67
Chitty's vindication of the Ep Am was a cornerstone in his argument
that GI preserved the earliest and truest record of Pachom ian history. It
was the very first section in his article, although it had been the last
Greek witness dealt with by Lefort. Its identification as one part of the
Lives of the Tabennesiote Monks mentioned by Evagrius made it
possible for Chitty to link this collection with the material from the
existing Greek dossier together with the documents translated by
Jerome. 68 It was this same collection idea that was pivotal to Lefort's
case, though he took it to be a lost collection of unconnected episodes
that preceded the vita genre. 69
62 Ibid. 43.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid. Cf., A. Van der Mensbrugghe, «Prayer-time in Egyptian Monasticism (320-
450),» SP 2, TV 64 (1957) 443-444.

66 Ibid. 44-45. Chitty'S detailed argument does appear to tie Gl and the Ep Am
together in their agreement against the Coptic material. However, it does not seem to
solve the inter-dossier problem, i.e., between the Coptic and Greek chronology.
67 Ibid. 45. Lefort had argued that many of the episodes in Gllook like summaries of
the Coptic material.

68 Ibid. 45-48.
69 Supra, p. 11.
32 History of research: Epistula Arnrnonis
Lefort's response to Chitty's criticism dealt with GI and the Asc. The
debate concerning the Ep Am, perhaps because of Peeters' earlier
defense of it, was not picked Up.70
In 1956, Favale, in his work on Theophilus of Alexandria, defended
the authenticity of the Ep Am.71 He noted specifically that in spite of
the address in the Athens manuscript 1tp6~ nvu 9coqnA:fj 72 the internal
evidence supported the identification of the addressee with the arch-
bishop Theophilus. He cited, in particular, the reverent titles used to
address him within the letter. Unfortunately, Favale made no mention
of Lefort's arguments against the letter.
The letter has continued to be an important source for early Egyptian
monasticism. Suso Frank made considerable use of it in his 1964 study,
ArrEAIKOL BIOL. 73 However, his use was restricted to its broader
import for Egyptian monasticism in general. He did not discuss its value
as a Pachomian source.
The last discussion to date on this point appeared in Veilleux's
volume in 1968. 74 He recounted the debate over the letter, but offered
little new critical analysis of his own. He did feel that all of the questions
raised by Lefort had not yet been dealt with sufficiently. Therefore, the
Ep Am could only be used as a source with great caution. He noted that
a considerable span of time separated the actual events from Ammon's
recording of them. This time span, much of which was spent at Nitria,
allowed for the confusion of non-Pachomian ideas and practices with
those he remembered from Pabau. 75 Veilleux felt that, particularly in
the realm of liturgy, Ammon falsely attributed Nitriote practices to the
Pachomians. 76 The same held true for some of the terminology he
employed. Finally, the doctrinal preoccupation present in the com-
position is not reminiscent of the Pachomian milieu. 77 He asserted that
«I' Epistula Ammonis est probablement un document de grande import-
ance pour I'histoire du monachisme pachomien. Cependant ... on ne
peut l'utiliser qu'avec prudence, car elle reflete des preoccupations
doctrinales propres a Ammon ou a d'autres milieux, et attribue aux
pachomiens des pratiques des centres semi-anchoretiques de Basse-
70 Lefort, «Les sources coptes» 217-229.

71 A. Fa~ale, «Teofilo d' Alessandria,» Salesianurn 18 (1956) 223.
72 Ibid.; Halkin, «Revue: Lazzati» 400.
73 P. Suso Frank, ArrEAIKOL BIOL. Beitriige zur Geschichte des alten Monchturns
und des Benediktinerordens 26 (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1964).
74 Veilleux, La liturgie 108-11t.
75 This problem of the time interval had already been noted by Amelineau. Supra,
p.25.
76 Cf., Chitty, «Reconsidered» 43.
77 Veilleux, La liturgie 298-299, 305; cf., Griitzmacher 13.
Egypte.»78 Keeping such factors in mind, Veilleux did make con-

siderable use of the letter in his study.
Veilleux's effort argued for a middle road between the complete
rejection of the letter by Lefort and its simple, uncritical acceptance. In
a sense, the latter point had already begun to take hold with Amelineau.
He had distinguished between the eyewitness and hearsay accounts.
Veilleux sharpened the point by identifying specific elements and cases
that represent later, non-Pachomian influences. Some of these cases too
had been noted before, though Veilleux clearly brings the matter into
much better focus. Bacht termed his analysis «ein sehr abgewogenes
Urteil.» 79
Halkin's recent edition of the Athens text of the Ep Am, while offering
no detailed analysis of the letter, does note that the use of the adjective
«friend of God» in the title (1tp6~ nvu 9eoq>tAi'j) leaves the precise name
of the addressee open. He does argue that the addressee was a fellow
bishop.80
There has been no further effort to deal with the Ep Am. Ruppert,
who followed Veilleux's source analysis in his study, makes no mention
of it.
Research on the Ep Am, always conducted before in a secondary
relationship to the vitae, has thus reached an impasse. It appears to be,
particularly in its chronological details, a source of great importance for
Pachomian studies. At the same time, it is a source rife with problems of
leakage from Ammon's post-Pachomian years as a Nitriote monk and
bishop of the church.
78 Veilleux, La liturgie 157.

79 Bacht, Das Vermiichtnis 25 n. 80.
80 Halkin, Le corpus athenien 99 n.!.
III. THE MANUSCRIPTS
Apart from the inclusion of Theodore's vision of the trinity (Ep Am

11) by the monk Thecaras (13th-14th century) in his Horologion,l the
text of the Epistula Ammonis survives in only three manuscripts. They
include an eleventh century codex from the Biblioteca Medicea
Laurenziana in Florence (Ms. XI, 9 = F), 2 a tenth to eleventh century
version contained in the National Library in Athens (Ms. 1015 = t), 3
and a seventeenth century copy made from F in the Vatican (Ms. IV, 73
= Barberinianus 491 = r).4
The first of these codices, F, was the sole witness used for both the
Acta Sanctorum and the Halkin editions of the text. In the case of the
former, the other two manuscripts were unknown to the editor
Papebroch.5 Halkin, on the other hand, mentions both. He identified r
as a direct copy of F and hence oflittle or no value,6 and learned of t too
late to include it in his edition. 7
The Florence manuscript is a bound leather volume. It measures 39.2
x 34 cm. and contains 312 folia. 8 It is missing some material from both
1 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 25*-26*. Halkin noted that a great number of manuscripts
ofThecaras' Horologion exist. They date from the 14th to the 19th century. He collated
nine copies of Theodore's vision from these manuscripts and found that they all offer
fundamentally the same text. Therefore, he decided to incorporate only one manuscript in
the apparatus criticus for Ep Am 11. It is apparent that the dividends to be gained from a
detailed investigation of this later use of the tradition are slight. The number of manu-
scripts is large and Halkin's analysis discounts the possibility of any major variation.
Therefore, these manuscripts will not be dealt with in the present study. Halkin's readings
for the text as it appears in Thecaras will be allowed to stand and copied directly into the
apparatus for Ep Am 11.
2 A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum bibliothecae Mediceae Lauren-
tianae ... graecorum Patrum (Florence, 1764) 1.502-507 (Ms. XI,9); idem, Fasciculus
rerum graecarum ecclesiasticarum (Florence: Caesar, 1763) 123-133.
3 I. Sakkelion and I. A. Sakkelion, KATAAOrm: TON XEIPOrPAcI>ON THL
E0NIKHL BIBAI00HKHL THL EAAAL\OL (Athens: National Press, 1892) 181 (Ms.
1015).
4 Catalogus codicum hagiographicorum graecorum Bibliothecae Barberinianae de Urbe.
AnBo1l19 (1900) 90 (Ms. IV, 73 = Barberinianus 491).
5 Ms. r may not yet have existed at the time of Papebroch's work.
7 Ibid. 10*.
8 The present folia numeration errs in repeating f. 185.

Manuscripts 35
ends. 9 It was produced in A. D. 1021 10 and written for the most part by
the two scribes Isaiah and Luke. The former copied folia 1-215' and
282 The latter is responsible for ff. 215 -282'.11 According to a scribal
V
•
V
note on f. 282" the manuscript was copied for Isidore, priest and
superior of the monastery ofSt. John of Apiro (Ilovi] TOU ayiou tro. 'tOU
<lnsipou).12 Batiffol, who stated that he knew no such monastery,
nonetheless mentioned elsewhere in the same work a monastery of St.
John of Piro between the principalities of Tarante and Calabre. 13
Lefort correctly equated this monastery with the one referred to in the
note. 14 Batiffol did argue for a Calabrian origin however, pointing to a
note added to the manuscript in A. D. 1385. It states that the books were
purchased by brother Ambrose in the Calabrian city of Reggio when
Pope Urban VI went to Messina. 15 The Greco-Italian origin is further
supported by paleographical considerations. 16
The codex itself is an example of the type, recognized by Ehrhard,1 7
that consists of a specialized collection of ascetic, hagiographical writ-
ings. It includes lives of various saints and several works of John
Chrysostom. 18 A smaller Pachomian collection occupies ff. 163 v -200v
of the manuscript. It includes G1 (ff. 163 v -183 V), an excerpt from the
Regula (ff. 183v-184V), the Ep Am (ff. 184v -191 V), and the Asc (ff. 191 v_
200V). The G1 text has one major lacuna resulting from the loss of two
folia between f. 167 and f. 168. 19 As a result, the text breaks off at the
beginning of Gl.31 (H 30.18) and resumes again in the middle of Gl.43
(H 27.27). The other three documents, discounting the excerpted nature
of the second, are complete.
9 A. Ehrhard, Uberliejerung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen
Literatur der griechischen Kirche. TU 52 (1952) 3.938-940. Ehrhard noted that the
internal numbering of the texts revealed that three full documents together with the
beginning of a fourth were missing from the start of the manuscript.
10 The date appears in a scribal note on f. 282'. Bandini, Catalogus 506; idem,
Fasciculus 132; Batiffol, L'abbaye de Rossano (Paris: Picard, 1891) 87, 155; G. Vitelli, «La
leggendo di S. Teodosio in un cod ice Genovese,» Studi italiani difilologia classica 2 (1894)
374; Ehrhard, Uberliejerung 3.938.
11 Ibid. 3.938 n. 2.
12 This is the same scribal note that contained the date. Supra, n. 10.
13 Batiffol XXIX, 87.
14 Lefort, «Revue: Halkin» 427-428.
15 Batiffol 87.
16 Ehrhard, Uberliejerung 3.938 n. 2.
17 Ibid. 3.925f.
1B Bandini, Catalogus 1.502-507; H. Usener, Der heilige Theodosios (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1890) V.
36 Manuscripts
The Athens codex is also leather. It contains 225 folia and measures
21.4 x 16cm.20 Unlike F, it is not a unified codex, but consists of two
fragmentary codices bound together. The second half (ff. 143-225)
contains three texts. None of the three is complete. The title page
survives for only one. It serves as the only identifying element for this
half of the codex in Sakkelion's catalogue. 21 The first text is a copy of
Athanasius' Vita Antonii. It occupies ff. 143 r-204v. It is missing some
material from the beginning.22 The second text, the one identified by
Sakkelion, is a copy of the Vita S. Pauli Constantinopolitani from the
collection of Symeon Metaphrastes. It occupies ff. 204r-210v. It is
missing material from the end and internally.23 The final text is also a
piece from the Metaphrastic collection, the Vita S. Joannis Damasceni.
It occupies ff. 211 r- 22SV and preserves six sections of the vita. 24 This
half of the codex was produced in the fourteenth century.25
The other half of the codex (ff. 4-142) was copied in the tenth or
eleventh century. 26 According to Lefort, it comes from the Macedonian
monastery ofSerres. 27 However, I have found no evidence of this in the
manuscript itself. 28 The margins of this half of the codex have been
trimmed. As a result, some marginal notes and titles are damaged or
lost. The trimming probably occurred when the two fragmentary co-
dices were bound together in order to make their dimensions uniform.
This earlier half of the codex consists of a Pachomian corpus similar
to that found in F. It includes G1 (ff. 4r-82r), the Asc (ff. 82r-11p), a
20 Sakkelion 181; Ehrhard, Uberliejerung 3.903-904. Sakkelion gives only 223 folia.
The present numeration errs in repeating f. 128.
21 Sakkelion 181.
22 The first half of the prologue is missing. The text begins with oilv oE~aJ.u;voc; UJlOOV
'tllV bnO"'toA:rlv. PG 26.837 B.
23 PG 116.884-896. It is missing a folio between f. 209 and f. 210, corresponding to PG
116.890B-8928. The text breaks off after f. 210 at PG 116.893A.

24 PG 94.429-503. The manuscript includes: ff. 211-212=PG 94.433A-437 A; ff.
213-215 =437C-441 C; ff. 216-220=445C-456B; ff. 221-222=460A-461 B; f. 223=

465C-468B; and ff. 224-225=472C-476A. Between folia 212-213, 215-216, 220-221,
and 222-223, remnants of the missing folia are visible.
25 Sakkelion 181.
26 Sakkelion gives a date of the tenth century. Lefort, Les vies captes XXXVIII places
it in the eleventh century.

27 Ibid.
28 Lefort probably erred by confusing this manuscript with Ms. 2560 (BHG 1401 a)
from the same library. He pointed the latter out to Halkin (Sancti Pachamii 9'" n.5). It
does come from the monastery of Serres. P. G. Nowack, «Un manuscrit hagiographique
de I'ancien fonds du monastere du Prodrome (Serres),» Revue des etudes byzantines 16
(1958) 143-157. It has recently been published by Halkin. «Une vie inedite de saint
Pach6me (BHG 1401 a),» AnBall97 (1979) 5-55, 241-287.
Manuscripts 37
Pachomian excerpt from H L (ff. 111 v -117r), and the Ep Am (ff. 117r-
142V). Folia 1-3 are blank. They did not form part of the original codex
containing the Pachomian material. Ehrhard felt that the codex may
originally have been a collection of monks' lives similar to that found in
F. However, since the quaternio numeration indicated that the Vita
Pachomii was the first text of the codex, he argued that the collection, if
it existed, had been built around the Pachomian material. 29
The quaternio numbers, cut away for the most part in the marginal
trimming, survive at two points. Ff. 120-127 comprise quaternio 17 and
ff. 135-142 make up number 19. The present folio numeration errs by
repeating number 128. Using this information, one can determine that
twelve folia are missing in the codex prior to f. 120. 30 This fact is
supported through the deficiencies in the texts themselves. G1 appears
to lack a little material from the start. The opening section, which
Ehrhard claimed was not part of the text printed by Halkin, nonetheless
has close points of contact with it. 31 However, it does begin in the
middle of the text. Hence, at least one folio is missing. Folia have also
dropped out between ff. 9 and 10 (H 7.18-11.6 = G1.11-17), ff. 20 and
21 (H 21.35-23.10 = G1.35-37), and ff. 29 and 30 (H 38.9-39.23 =
G1.56-57). The Asc has two missing sections, again corresponding to
lost folia. A remnant of one lost folio is still visible between ff. 84 and 85
(H 125.25-129.9 = Asc 3-5).32 The second missing unit occurs
between ff.l04 and 105 (H 154.26-155.29 = Asc 27-28). Furthermore,
the Asc chapters are numbered differently than in F, and the section on
idolatry at the end of the Fversion (Asc 37-41) does not appear. 33 The
Pachomian excerpt taken from HL represents a version of the recensio
fongior. 34 It is introduced by the scribe as having been found in another
book (f. 11 P). However, the actual HL text begins midstream on f. 112r.
29 Ehrhard, Uberlieferung 3.903-904.

30 Ibid. 903. Ehrhard states that 10 folia are missing. However, if each quire contained
eight folia and it is known that ff. 135-142 represent the 19th quire and ff. 120-127 the
17th quire, then by counting backwards it is seen that ff. 0-7 of the present numeration
would represent the second quire. Hence, one full quire is missing as well as four folia of
quire 2 (ff. 1-3 are later blank inserts).
31 Thus, the discussion moves from the example of the martyrs to that of the monks, as
in the published text of G1. Likewise, the use of Heb 11.37 is paralleled to the version in F.
However, the two are markedly distinct when compared to the other sections of G1 which
they hold in common.
32 Ehrhard, Uberlieferung 3.904 incorrectly states that the remnant lies between f. 85
and f. 86.
33 F is the unique text in both regards. Lefort, Les vies copIes XXI.
34 It is closer to the text that appears in Migne than to Butler's version. It is parallel to
PG 34.11 00-11 07. Lefort, Les vies copIes L-LI, noted its inclusion in the collection as
38 Manuscripts
Thus, a folio has also been lost here. 3 5 Finally, the Ep Am is complete as
far as it goes. It breaks off in the middle of section 34 (H 120.21) on f.
142v , the last folio of this half of the codex.
The third manuscript that contains the Ep Am is r. It is clearly a direct
copy of F. 36 It is written on paper. It contains 138 folia and measures
27.5 x 19.5cm. 37 Only the recto of each folio is inscribed. Codex r
contains exactly the same material as F: a copy of G1 (ff. 1-70), an
excerpt of the Regula (ff. 70-73), the Ep Am (ff. 73-101), and the Asc
(ff. 101-138). The only changes made by r are designed to improve F's
orthography. That it was copied from F is seen not only in its identical
content, but particularly in the fact that it reproduces exactly the
lacunae occurring in F. For example, the short lacuna at the end of G1.1
(H 2.1), which Halkin filled from G3, appears also in r. Likewise, the
major lacuna caused by the missing folia in Fbetween ff. 167 and 168 is
reproduced exactly in r, the two halves being drawn together on a single
line (f. 15.13).
A fourth manuscript, A, which does not contain the Ep Am, will
nonetheless play an important role in the discussions that follow. It was
known and used by both Papebroch and Halkin. It is located in the
Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan (Ms. D 69 Sup.). 38 It is a paper volume
containing 258 folia and measuring 29.7 x 21 cm. It dates from the
fourteenth century and is incomplete at both ends. The Pachomian
material, which is very fragmentary, occupies ff. 1-40. With f. 41 r, one
encounters a new hand. The folio opens in the middle ofa text. 39 Folia
significant for accounting for the origin of G3, which includes material from G J, Asc, and
HL. However, the HL text used in G3 is quite distinct from that preserved in t. Cf.,
F. HaIkin, «L'Histoire Lausiaque et les vies grecques de S. Pachome,» AnBo1l48 (1930)
257-301.
35 The text begins with at..q>a Kai f3ii'ta xai 'trov KaSE~fI~. PG 34.1100A. When one
looks at all of the missing sections in relationship to the average amount of text per folio
(about 30-36 lines in Halkin's printed text), the twelve missing folia are accounted for.
1. GJ Opening 1-2 folia
H7.18-11.6 3
H21.35-23.10
H 38.9-39 .23 1
2. Asc H125.25-129.9 3
H 154.26-155.29
3. HL Opening lost
11-12 folia
37 Catalogus . .. Barberinianae 90.
38 A. Martini and D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum graecorum Bibliothecae Ambrosianae

(Milan: Hoepli, 1906) 274-275. Ms. 246 (D69 Sup Olim N141).
39 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 12* n. 4. He noted that this intervening piece between the
last remnant of the Asc and the prologue to Book IV ofSt. Gregory's Dialogues does not
Manuscripts 39
44r-258 v contain a copy of Book IV of the Dialogues of Saint Gregory

the Great. Folia 4P-44 r offer a prologue to it.
Returning to the Pachomian material, it represents the remains of an
old codex bound into this volume. It is extremely fragmentary and
preserves only parts of Gland the Asc. The G I material occurs on ff. 1r_
2P. It preserves three blocks of text. Folia 1-8 contain GI.33-54 (H
20.19-36.6), by a fateful coincidence covering the greater part of the
lacuna found in F. Folia 9-15, whose proper order is 10,9,11-14,16,
and 15, correspond to GI.72-93 (H 49.12-62.24). Finally, ff. 17-2P
preserve GI.143-150 (H 89.29-end). The Asc text begins on f. 2P and
continues through the end of f. 40, breaking off in the middle of Asc 21
(H 155.11). It is clear that the Asc followed GI as it does in I. In F, the
Regula excerpt and the Ep Am intervened between the two.
The Milan manuscript clearly belongs to the same family as 1. 40
Lefort argued that they «repn!sentent exactement Ie meme texte.»41
Veilleux felt that A could well represent a copy made from 1.42 They do
reveal an extremely close agreement in content, grammar, and style
over against F. One example will suffice as an illustration.
Asc 1 = H 122.11-13
F: "EB-o<; ftv wi<; aD€Acpoi<; toU B-€OcptAWtatOU XUt ayiou 1tUtpo<; TJIlWV
ITuxoulliou xuB-' E(J1tEPUV d<; roptcrllEVOV 't01tOV tfj<; Ilovfj<; cruv-
EPX€crB-Ut E1tt to axoooat 'tfj<; 8t8ucrXUAiu<; UlHOU.
I: "EB-o<; ftv 'toi<; a8€Acpot<; Iluxupiou 1tutpo<; TJllalV ITuxwlliou xuB-'

TJIlEPUV to 1tpo<; Ecr1tEPUV d<; roptcrllEVOV t01tOV £PX€crB-at 'tfj<; Ilovfj<;
1tpo<; to axooout tfj<; 8t8ucrXUAiu<; uutou.
A: YEB-o<; ftv tot<; a8€Acpot<; Iluxupiou 1tutpo<; TJIlWV ITuxwlliou xuB-'

TJIlEPUV to 1tpo<; Ecr1tEPUV d<; roPtcrllEvoV t01tOV £PX€crB-Ut tfj<; Ilovfj<;
1tpo<; to axooout tfj<; 8t8ucrXUAiu<; UUtou.
This close agreement between 1 and A over against Fholds for the entire
Pachomian corpus that they have in common.
appear to be a Pachomian piece. The microfilm shows a decrease in folio size beginning
with f. 41.
40 This was first pointed out by Lefort, «Revue: Halkin» 424; idem, Les vies captes
XXI, XXXVIII.
41 Ibid. XXXVIII.
40 Manuscripts
Furthermore, the Asc text contained in t and A represents what

Lefort termed the Syriac-Atheniensis recension. 43 Of all of the Asc texts
that survive, only F does not belong to this group. It has its own unique
chapter sequence and adds a closing section on idolatry (Asc 37-41).
Finally, the close relationship between t and A is witnessed in their
sharing of numerous marginal titles for the various chapters of GI and
the Asc. A has a greater tendency to set the title off at the top or bottom
of the page. In t, they look more like cramped marginal insertions, often
partially cut away as a result of the marginal trimming that occurred.
Although this in itself would support Veilleux in seeing A as a copy
made from t (it is certainly later in date), the fact that some of the titles
are clearly distinct suggests an intermediate stage between the two or a
common ancestor. 44
From this evidence, it is quite apparent that the manuscripts t and A
can be treated almost as identical in their relationship to F. The minor
variants between the two are insignificant when compared to the major
differences in content and style existing between them and F.
Thus, since r has been shown to be a copy made from F, and since A is
so closely connected to the much better preserved and earlier t, the
major problem lies in understanding the relationship between Fand t.
Chart I
The Manuscripts
The following chart offers a schematic of the four manuscripts r, F, t,

and A. The content of the Pachomian material is given vertically from
top to bottom. The breaks in the vertical lines mark the beginning and
end of each text. The folio number is given for these points. The
horizontal lines separating further folio numbers indicate breaks in the
text that occur as a result oflost folia. The folio numbers on either side
of the horizontal line indicate the location of the break. The extent is
given in terms of both the section number from Halkin in which the
break begins and ends as well as (in parenthesis) the precise line in
Halkin's edition.
Lefort, Les vies coptes XIX-XXI.

43
Thus, the title for Asc 7 reads in t, 7tEpi 'troY aipE'tlKroV. In A it appears as tv c!> 7tEpi
44
7tapa~an6v't(j)v 7tpO~ 'tov aylOv KaKo06~rov avaXropll'trov.

r F A
163' I 4'
1' Begins with
§31 H §31 (H 20.18)H*j

H § 11 (H 7.18)
~§17 (H 11.6) f.ti
§33 (H 20.19)
§54 (H 36.6)
§43 f 15.13 §43 (H 27.27) 168 9 § 72 (H 49.12)
Gl 22 § 35 (H 21.35)
Gl Gl Gl
21 § 37 (H 23.1 0)
it{ § 93 (H 62.24)
~ §56 (H 38.9) 17 § 143 (H 89.29)
30 § 57 (H 39.23) ~
I»
70 183' I 21' ::s
cCI>
I Reg Reg
82'
84 §3 (H 125.25)
..,0
~.
73 184' CI>
85 §5 (H 129.9)
Asc Asc
Ep Ep 104 § 27 (H 154.26) I 40 v
Breaks off at
Am Am 105 § 28 (H 155.29) §27 (H 155.11)
101 191 '
ll1 v (minus §§ 34-41)
HL
Asc Asc 117'
Ep - - {= missing folia
Am
138 I 200' I 142v Breaks off at
§34 (H 120.21)
~
......
IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MSS. F AND t
Although no study has been made of the relationship between the

manuscripts Fand t, it can be assumed to follow the same pattern as that
discussed by Halkin for the case of the manuscripts Fand A, since A and
t represent virtually the same text. 1 Halkin presented the relationship
for the case of G1, noting that the same patterns held true for the Asc
texts. 2 Since A does not preserve a copy of the Ep Am, no comparison
was possible for that text.
Halkin showed that the variant readings in A were of a literary
nature, interesting to the philologist, but of little import for the his-
torian. 3 With A, <<nous sommes en presence d'une sorte de <metaphrase>
ou de remaniement qui n'affecte pas les idees, mais Ie style.»4 Thus, A
will displace a phrase in the interest of clarity or elegance, but not to
alter the general sense of the text. It will either clarify or simply omit
difficult passages in F and strives to correct blatant cases of anacolu-
thon. It shows a tendency to replace common words, which are very
frequent in F, with terms that are more expressive and precise. At the
same time, difficult or rare words give way to the more common
equivalents and vulgar expressions are corrected. The redactor of A, as
Halkin calls him, has a tendency to bring elements that are only implied
in F to expression. This is most frequently seen in his supplying of the
verb's subject. Similarly, he often gives greater precision to F's pro-
nouns, altering an utrro<; to 0 0£68ropo<;, etc. On occasions, even the
verb is supplied. 5
Halkin pointed out that the redactor of A was unfamiliar with the
Egyptian language. In G1.83, he alters the month name appearing in F
as HI> ,.w:rOPTJ JlTJvi to 't([> JlE(JCP JlTJVi. 6 Nonetheless, he was an intelligent
copiest, a fact witnessed not only in his grammatical improvements, but
also through his division of the text into paragraphs that are in turn
numbered and titled. 7 He also reveals certain stylistic concerns. He may
supply a phrase in an effort to make the connection between two or
1 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 13*-17*; Lefort, Les vies coptes XXXVIII; Veilleux, La
Iiturgie 18-19; supra, p. 39.
3 Ibid. 16*.
4 Ibid. 13*.
5 Ibid. 13*-17*.
6 Ibid. 15*.
7 Ibid. 17*.
Relationship between mss. F and t 43
more events occur more smoothly.8 In Halkin's view, he is «un homme

honnete.» He does not try to pass himself off as a contemporary of the
events which he describes. 9 He shows a dislike for the bizarre, attenuat-
ing a phrase in one place to turn what is presented as a fact in F into a
descriptive simile. 10
When Halkin turned to the Asc, he found that the variant readings
were of the same nature. «Dans A Ie style a ete retouche, des mots sous-
entendus ont ete supplees, des termes superflus, notamment Ie pronom
Ulr(OC; ont ete supprimes, des genitifs absolus et des nominatifs ont ete
transformes en complements directs ou indirects ou en sujets, des verbes
banals comme 'AEyw, E11rOV, sont remplaces par d'autres plus precis
comme 1rupm VEW, f:v'( EAAOJ.lUt; au lieu des formes vulgaires de l'aoriste
second en -u (Ei8UJ.lEV, YEVUJ.lEVllC;, f:~E1rEcrU,(E, 1rpooi'jA3uv), on y
trouve les formes classiques en -0 (Ei80J.lEV, YEV0J.lEvllC;, etc.).»11 Halkin
did note that important readings are found in A. These allow the exegete
to detect later retouching that has taken place in the F tradition. 12
Halkin concluded that A represented a later redaction of an early F
type text. 13 After the redaction had been made, both continued to
develop within their own manuscript tradition. He assumed that the
barbarisms in the text go back to the original author, although he
readily admitted that F did not reproduce the autograph exactly.14
Therefore, A can, and in a few places does, preserve the better reading.
However, the nature of the redaction (i.e., the stylistic improvement of
the imprecise and often incorrect Greek of F) makes F the preferred
text. Halkin used F as the basis for his edition of Gl and the Asc,
relegating A to the apparatus criticus.
As was noted above, since A presents virtually the same text as t, the
nature of these variants holds also for the relationship between t and F.
It was further noted that the discussion of the A redaction covered both
Gl and the Asc, the only two texts that it preserves. It appears from this
that the redaction was carried out for the Pachomian collection as a
whole, or rather, as it existed at the time of the redaction. As a result, it
would seem probable that the same variations would be found between
the texts of the Ep Am occurring in F and t.
It can be stated from the outset that this is indeed the case. Very little
in the matter of substance varies between the two texts. F's style is more
B Ibid. 15*-16*.
9 Ibid. 14*.
10 Ibid. 14*-15*.
11 Ibid. 34*.
12 Ibid. 16*,34*-35*.
13 Ibid. 16*-17*.
14 Ibid. 11*-12*, 16*-17*.
44 Relationship between mss. F and t
cumbersome, and the text is replete with errors. t reduces the number of
errors considerably, and presents the text in a more simplified Greek style.
The Greek of F suffers from a severe orthographic difficulty. Errors
in the diacritical marks are extremely common. There is a distinct
tendency to overuse them. The movable v is supplied almost wherever
possible. Breathing marks rarely elide, leading to such cases as Mav.
Furthermore, the interchange of vowels, particularly the problem of
itacism and the distinction of 0 and ro, 15 offer difficulties in F. In most
cases, t does not present the same problems. Even r, the seventeenth
century copy made from F, corrects most of these mistakes.
Numerous variants in the proper names occur between t and F. Most
of these can be accounted for by F's poor orthography. Thus, the 11/t
interchange accounts for the consistently misspelled 'I(H'lDropoC; in F. It
is interesting that a scribal note in F on f. 282 r records the correct
spelling, suggesting that the poor orthography goes back at least behind
the present copy.16 A second example reveals the inconsistency of F.
While normally spelling Nt 't pia correctly, the scribe once wrote N 11't pia
(153.3). This same 11/t error occurs in the dative of certain place names,
leading to such spellings as 'tlJ 011~aiDlJ (147.21), 'tlJ I1EpaiDlJ
(155.10), and 'tlJ I1wAEllaiDlJ (148.4) for the correct 'tlJ 011~aiDt, etc.
The case endings for 'QpioC; in F are more problematic. Halkin cor-
rected the erroneous dative and accusative forms of 'Qpicp (126.8) and
'Qpirovt (126.13) to the correct 'Qpirovt and 'Qpirova. 17 In all of these
cases, t supplies the correct form.
Numerous other variants occur which can be accounted for by con-
siderations of orthography, early dialectical variation,18 and the in-
herent difficulty in transliterating Coptic names. 19 They include:
F t Ep Am section(s)
AllaEIC; Allaic; 17
'EAol)pirov AiAOl)pio)V 6, 8, 15, 19, 29, 30
'HpaxAiD11C; 'HpaxAEiD11C; 32
Ko1tP11C; Ko1tptC; 2,29
NatllUV NatEIlUv 16
I1a'tEAAOAt I1a'tEAAOVVt 3
I1a'tX EAcpioC; I1avXEAcpioC; 26
I1axoUlltoC; I1ax cOlltoC; passIm
'Papcpioc; 'Papcpic; 26
'P EV'tai]O'toC; 'P EV'taiO'toC; 19, 20, 24
15 F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. A Translation and Revision of the ninth-tenth German edition
incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1961) § 28.
'HpaxAioT]~ (F) is clearly an orthographic problem. Fis to be preferred

in its reading of I1a'tEAAOAt, since a nAn.O~1 is recorded in Bo 87.
'I'Ev'tai)crw~ and 'I'ap<pio~ were variously transliterated in the Greek
tradition. 20 The same is true for NatJ.1uv, though Fs form is certainly
the more common. 21
In the case of place names, (is more accurate than F. It errs against F
only once, writing Bou~amT] VWV for Bou~acrn VWV (155.23). Thus, { did
preserve some, or had its own more limited, orthographic problems.
However, {'s spelling is correct for 'EAWPXia (155.23), Aa'twv 1tOAt~
(130.7), and Mupa (149.22). F writes 'EAatapxia, Aco'twv 1tOAt~, and
Moipa. Again, in section 18, Frefers to an Alexandrian stone merchant
dwelling in BEVOT]Aiov. Halkin suggested that this was an error for the
known Alexandrian quarter of BEvoioEWV. 22 This conclusion is con-
firmed by t (139.5). This particular case makes it clear that F has
undergone some deterioration. It is impossible to derive t's reading
from F alone. The only alternative is to assume that t made the correc-
tion through the use of an outside source. 23
A similar case is less decisive. Frefers to a church ofPereus (I1EPWU)
in Alexandria (125.2; 127.3). Halkin suggested that it referred to
the known church of I1tEpiou,24 while Tillemont had offered the
Alexandrian church of I1Epcraia~ as a possibility.25 The name appears
as I1Epawu in t, which does not lean noticeably in either direction.
In three cases, t and F offer distinct names. The errant monk of § 24,
named Moucrf:co~ in F and emended to Moooaio~ by Halkin,26 appears
as 'Icocri) where the
context, again as noted by Halkin, 27 clearly calls for I1UJ.1J.1COVL ( agrees
with Halkin. Finally, in the same section (156.2), t writes AJ.1J.1ci)Vw~ for
Fs Avnovw~ in the phrase 1tOAAUXt~ yap au't<{> AJ.1J.1ci)Vw~ cruv'tUXffiv
rjv. Thus, while in F Antony is said to have met often with Athanasius,
16 However, whereas the note was written by the scribe Luke, the £p Am was copied by
the second scribe Isaiah. Supra, p.35.

18 Ibid. 17*.

20 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 466.
21 BAG, s.v.
23 This is unlikely since the redactor behind t reveals an unfamiliarity with Egypt.
Supra, p.42.
25 Tillemont 7.234. Cf., Epiphanius, Haer. 69.2 (PG42.205).
27 Ibid.
46 Relationship between mss. F and I
t has Ammonius meeting frequently with Antony. While either is

possible, Athanasius as an antecedent for atYt"q> is rather distant
(155.20). The alternative is to argue that atJ1:q> has been drawn to the
following 6 TCUTCW; f\Savu<no~ (156.2-3). t's reading functions more
naturally. Ammonius has just been singled out as one of two bishops
being addressed by Athanasius. With t's reading, f\v"troVtOV functions
as a ready antecedent for at)"tq>. Furthermore, the common knowledge
of the relationship between Athanasius and Antony may well lie
behind Fs alteration.
t also reveals a desire for consistency and a movement in the direction
of the standardization of the proper names that occurred in the later
tradition. 28 The former accounts for t's use of the common form of
rra~au in place of the unique Bau found in F. The rra~au form, though
with variant spellings, 2 9 is that which occurs in Gland the Asc in F.
Thus, t unified the form for all three Pachomian texts. The standardi-
zation process is seen in t's use of the more common spelling of
rraxroJ.lto~ for Fs more unusual rraxO\)J.ttO~. 30
Returning to the more clearly orthographic problems in F, they,
coupled with an inconsistency or unfamiliarity with classical Greek
forms, result in numerous incorrect verbal forms. For example, F errs
repeatedly through the interchange of 0 and 00, whether by its failure to
lengthen the '!-ugmented vowel, e. g., oAicrSllcrav for wAicrSllcrav
(145.2), or by retaining the lengthened form in the participle beyond
the nominative singular, e.g., UXllXOa)"ta~ for uXllxoo"ta~ (155.12).
Similarly, in the aorist tense of the -t~OO verbs, Fincorrectly alters the t to
an ll, writing such forms as £ull'YY£Allcraw for £Ull'YY£Aicra"to (130.9).
In a similar vein, it fails to contract certain forms of -aoo and -£00 verbs
properly. Thus, one finds bttcrTCOJ.t£VO~ for ETCtcrTCroJ.t£VO~ (147.2) and
EXroPll~ for EXrop£t~ (132.12). Twice, F attaches a present imperative
ending onto an aorist stem, writing btopSoocr£ (126.15) and acrTCacr£
(152.7). At 125.25, F writes "tpuyucrat, which in context must be the
unassimilated form of the second person singular, middle-passive voice
of"tpuyuoo. It is written correctly as "tpuyq in t. Again, whereas Fwrites
many second aorists with the late form in -a, e. g., y£vuJ.t£vo~ (139.7)
and aTCEASa"t£ (138.17), t uses the more classical spellings in -0 and -£
(y£voJ.t£vo~, UTCEAS£"t£, etc.).31
Another common mistake in F occurs through its inconsistent inter-
change of -ll~ and -El~ endings. Future tenses often look like subjunc-
28 Ibid. 16*.
2" Ibid. 11 *; Lefort, Les vies caples XXXIX.
30 Halkin, Sancli Pachomii 16*. G6 agrees with Gl's spelling.
31 Ibid. 34*.
tives, e.g., f;AEilO'1'\~ for f;AEi]O'Et~ (131.7), and subjunctives are often
written to look like indicatives, e. g., tva ... 1tapa'tElVEt (127.24-25) and
Mv Jll'] a1tOXaM\jIEt (151.25). Fs inconsistency is seen at 138.6-7, where
it has the correct Mv f;1ttXaAf:O'lJ followed four lines later by
tva ... 1tpooE6~oJlat! The problem appears to be part of the greater
orthographic difficulty in F of distinguishing the o/w and the 1'\/Et/t
vowel sounds.
Such problems also led to frequent errors in case agreement. Thus,
one finds f;~f:A9wv ... 'to 1tAOIOV (151.10-11) or 1tVEUJla ... Af:ywv
(142.18-19). The correct form of the participles is found in t. The
incorrect case of the articular infinitives appearing in Fis corrected in t.
Thus, t agrees with Halkin in writing liJla 'tC!> ... EAf:0'9m for Fs liJla
'to ... EAf:0'9at (132.13).
In §34 (156.15f), t incorrectly altered F in an effort to solve a
grammatical problem. 32 In the account, Athanasius is speaking to some
Nitriote monks, reporting his flight in Theodore's boat from the em-
peror Julian. Apa Pammon was also in the boat. When the wind
stopped, Athanasius became worried. The monks got out to tow the
boat. At this point, F writes, Kat a1t1ta TIaJl~C!> aYWVtrov'tu JlE 1tapa-
Jlu90uJlf:vcp, EAEYEV. Halkin emended the text by changing TIaJl~C!> to
TIUJlJlWVt as the context demands and altering EAEYEV to EAEYOV, which
in view of the first person nature of Athanasius' account is clearly
appropriate. On the other hand, t chose to alter the case of the opening
participle, making it the subject of EAEYE. It reads, '0 OE a1tO TIuJlJlWV
aYWVtroV'tu JlE 1tapaJlu906JlEVO~, EAEYE. However, although the gram-
matical problem is solved for this particular sentence, the solution
breaks down as one reads further. After the quotation introduced by
EAEYE closes, Athanasius' return to his first person narrative is made
with the phrase, Kat E'tt Jlou Af:YOV'tO~ 'tau'ta. This remains unchanged
in t. Thus, it's earlier alteration becomes impossible.
Nonetheless, on a very basic level, the orthography and grammar in t
is superior to F.33 Even r, the late seventeenth century copy made from
F, corrected many of these errors. However, t is considerably more
distinct from F than in these matters alone. Whereas F offers a rather
difficult and embroiled style, which places an excessive burden on
participial constructions,34 t's style is considerably less cumbersome.
Its use of participles, its word order, and its concern for the proper flow
of the story all seem designed to simplify the text and make it more
32 To argue that F corrected t is untenable in view of its own inconsistency in this

passage. It is possible that the nominative spelling of na~~& led to F's error.
33 This position does not relate to the question of the relationship of both to the
autograph.
34 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 28·.
readable. It is therefore necessary to explore the stylistic variation

between t and F in order to understand their proper relationship.
The practice of replacing common words in F with more precise and
expressive terms, already noted by Halkin for the copies of Gl and Asc
in A. 35 occurs for the Ep Am in t. Thus, F's HYOVH:e; becomes OIlOAOY-
TtcraV't"Ee; (146.1) in t. Similarly, El1toV't"oe; and AaATtcrEle; occur as
U1tOXPlVallf:VOU (156.24) and XT]p6~Ele; (152.20) in t. The more precise
f:1l1tOlfjcrat replaces F's simple 1tOlfjcrat at 124.11 and U1tEPXOIlf:VWV
occurs in place of YEVOIlf:VWV at 149.17. In the latter example, t's
U1tEPXOIlf:VWV is clearly more effective in describing the departure of a
boat. Similarly, the simple EXWV, used in Fto describe Theodore's being
with the brothers (148.12), becomes cruyxa3TtIlEvOe; in t.
In a similar vein, the general '"Ca YPulllla'"Ca of F (151.21) is specified as
'"C"v f:1tlcr'rOA"V in t. At 142.20, the use ofIlE'"CaAaBoV't"wv alone in Fto
refer to eating is made clearer in t through the addition of '"Cpocpfje;. 36
Likewise, t clarifies the gathering of Aa\jlUVae; through the addition of
Bo'"Cuvae; (146.12).37 Again, t replaces the more common 1taie; (139.6)
and XUIl1tT] (151.11) by xopoe; and XUIl\jlle;. F's crxacpie; is detailed still
further as a crxacpi&lOv (139.17).
That F was also adding clarifications in the course of its later in-
dependent development is clear. 38 Thus, it augments the reference to
Pior and Pambo in § 31 (153.26-27) through the addition of the phrase,
xai '"Coie; Aol1toie; 1tPEcr~U'"Cf:pOle; 'rOie; EV '"C(j) OpEl '"Cfje; Nnpiae;. Or again,
F inserts a descriptive adjective into the phrase EX '"Cffiv ypacpffiv three
times (135.7, 11; 142.16). The clarification in §31 (153.21) of the
murder of the virgins by Sebastian in the Alexandrian church of St.
Theonas through the addition of the dative of means ~f:AE(JlV in Fis less
clear. The accuracy of this detail seems to suggest its genuineness. It
probably dropped out in t.
One can note in t a tendency to replace certain difficult terms and
phrases. 39 The more cumbersome '"Cij EAATtVWV &taAf:X'"Cql in F(128.7) is
replaced by the simple EAAT]Vlcr'"Ci in t. The phrase f:~ Eau'"Crov YEvoIlEVOl,
appearing twice in F, is altered in t to EX1tAaytv'"CEC; (151.11-12) and
3aullucraV't"Ee; (151.14). The strange E&El~EV '"Coie; ocp3aAIlOie; (140.14-15)
of Fis simplified to E&El~EV 'rOie; U&EAcpoie; in t. However, such practices
are not universal throughout t. The difficult but understandable
cr1tOU&<icrEl '"Co ocrov f:CP' Eau'"C(j) xptcr't"lavoie; f:1tl~ouAEi3cral (127.20-21) is
altered only through the removal of the '"Co in t.
35 Ibid. 15*,34*.
36 Lampe, s. v.
37 The former is acceptable by itself. However, its clarification as an herb is helpful.
39 Ibid. 15*.
On a more stylistic level, whereas F uses the term IlOva~rov almost

exclusively, t frequently alters it to ~ovux6e; in order to produce vari-
ation. Similarly, although 'to ~oVU(JT'lPlOV is the common term for
monastery in both manuscripts, t alters it once to fJ ~ovi] (152.24).
Another practice common to t is the multiplication of titles used to
honor various figures in the text. Although the development is dis-
cern able in both manuscripts, it is decidedly more acute in t. Thus, F
adds aYlou to the simple 'tou A~ouv found in t (153.5).40 On the other
hand, t twice alters the simple rrUXOU~lOe; occurring in F to 0 ~f:yue;
rruXro~lOe; (131.27 ; 133.21) and makes the same alteration to the simple
SE60ropoe; of Feight times. 41 Once, at 140.12, F's simple SE60ropoe;
becomes 0 1tu'tl'jp TJ~&v SE60ropoe;.
Both manuscripts witness a tendency to specify the subject of a verb
as well as pronouns, though again, t clearly predominates. 42 Thus,
while Fsupplies the name Theodore twice where it is lacking in t (143.5
and 151.2), t performs the same function over against Fno less than nine
times. 43 Similarly, at 133.23, t replaces F's utmp by A3uvuO'lcp, while at
156.24, t's xaxEivou appears as xui a1t1ta rra~~rovoe; in F. Or again,
~ll'tf:PU in F(152.29) is specified as ~ll'tf:PU ~ou by t, and F's simple E<pT)
(143.22) is expanded to E<Pll Wte; a8EA.<poie; 0 ~f:yue; SE60ropoe;. Such
examples abound.
It is interesting in this connection that the rruXoU~t6e; ne; of § 9,
which played a role in the debate over the authenticity of the letter,44 is
preserved in both manuscripts. Apparently it was not seen as a problem.
Another frequent practice in t is the addition of pronouns designed to
break up extended clauses occurring in F and thus to simplify the text.
For example, a single object often functions in relation to two separate
verbs in F. In Ep Am 2 (125.14-15), the two versions read:
F t
~Evt~6~EV6v ~E 'tl'jv ~Evt1;;6~EV6v ~E 'tl'jv
'ta~tv UlJ"t'&V xui 'ta~tv UlJ"t'&V xui
Epu3pu'Ov"t'U tropuxroe;, Epu3pt&nu tropuxroe;,
1tA.T)O'lov tumou 1tA.llO'loV uuwu
XU3E0'3fj Vat xu3E0'3fjvul JlE
1tE1tOlllxEV. 1tE1t01T)xE.
40 The actual development of this passage involves considerably more variation
between the two manuscripts. It is probably a result of the singular E~01]llrov of the
following clause.
41 For example, 128.15. At 129.10, t alters F's 6 aytO~ 0E6o())po~ to 6 Ili;y(l~
0E6o())po~. Clearly, 6 Ili;ya~ was a favorite title for the redactor of t.
42 Cf., Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 15*.
In F, the object of the first clause must repeat its work in the second
clause. In t, a second JlE (underlined) has been added to serve as the
object of 1tE1tOirP<E.
Similarly, at 124.17-18, Freads, xai a:ya1t11crae; tOY JlaXaplOv atm'Ov
~iov t~EAE~UJll1V. Halkin solved the problem here by changing the
punctuation and connecting xai uya1t11crae; with the preceding clause.
But according to the punctuation preserved in both manuscripts, it
properly belongs with the above phrase. In t, the problem is solved by
supplying tOUtoV as the object of E~EAE~aJll1v.
Stylistically, t reveals a marked preference for keeping the verb and its
subject close together at the beginning of the sentence. In F, on the other
hand, they are frequently sundered by a considerable amount of inter-
vening material. For example, at 146.10-12, F reads: OutOe; JlEta
~tAOUavou xai troy aAArov UOEA<prov troy U1t' autov de; tt va vfjcrov toU
1totaJlou U1tEcrtaAto. In t, various changes have been made. The
sentence begins with OUtOe; U1tEcrtuAl1, and the second tOY is omitted.
Thus, the U1t' autov is made to function with the passive. Or again, at
126.16-17, F's 1tIlm toie; 1tUPOOOt JlOVU~OOOtV d1tEV 1tEpi atnou, which
is certainly not incorrect, is nonetheless altered by t so that E11tE comes
first. Such variations are extremely common.
Other word order variants can be explained by t's desire to bring
together elements in the sentence that are strangely sundered. At
124.18, F's tOU AoUtpou tUXwv tfje; 1taAtYYEvEcriae; becomes toU
AOutpOU tfje; 1taAtYYEvEcriae; tUXwv in t. It must be noted that Fhas also
made some similar changes. Thus, at 128.19, t's strange tae; SEiae;
uVEyvroe; ypa<pae; reads uVEyvroe; tae; SEiae; ypa<pae; in F.
In another case (146.19-21), a difficulty produced through an ex-
tended ellipsis in F is simplified by t.
F t
d1tEV' «~tati Jlit Et1tEV' «~tati JlTJ
toU crwJlat6e; crou toU crwJlat6e; crou
(aJlEt vov yap flv) SavatOe; UVl1YYEAl1 Jlot
UAAa tfj e; \jIUX fj e; crou (aJlEt vov yap flv)
UVl1YYEAl1 Jlot UAAa tfje;
SavatOe; ;» \jIUxfje; ;»
In F, all of the genitives dependent on SavatOe; precede it. This pro-

duces an ellipsis that is solved only at the end of the sentence. In t,
43 The citations are: 125.23; 127.1; 128.1; 132.5; 138.8; 143.22; 145.27; 149.7-9;
153.10.
44 Lefort, Les vies coptes LIX; Chitty, «Review: Veilleux» 197.
3ava'ro~ aVllY'YtAll!lOl is moved up into the first clause. The sense of the
passage becomes clear to the reader much more rapidly.
A further factor common to F's style is its pervasive use of participial
constructions. 45 The heavy burden placed on such constructions often
leads to an embroiled and difficult text. t often reworks such construc-
tions in an effort to simplify them. Finite verbs are introduced to break
up the clauses. Thus, the opening lines of § 10 read:
F t
Kat YEVU!lEVO~ 'E<pt~ll~ of: YEv6!lEVO~
dxocrt xat Mo E-trov dxoot Mo E'trov 6
eE68OlpO~, E1tHaxHEl~ eE68OlpO~, E1tHUX311
n 1tapa naxou!liou 't1 1tO'tE U1tO 'tou naXOl!liou'
xat avooa~, t;;ll'trov xat avooa~ 'tou'tO, Et;;i]TEt
'tOY iiytOV naxou!ltOv TOV iiytOV naxffi!ltO~
OX51tEP U1tO 'tOU aY10u xat W(mEp U1tO 'tOU ayiou
1tVEU!la'tO~ 1tVEU!la'tO~
6011yoU!lEVO~, ytyOVEV ... 6011yoU!lEVO~, ytyOVE ...
Whereas the entire structure of Fdepends on ytyOVEV, t turns two of the

five preceding participles into finite verbs (underlined). It also supplies
an object for avooa<;. Thus, in t, the material is composed in three
distinct sentences, each made up of an opening participial clause fol-
lowed by a finite verb.
A similar improvement in connecting the various clauses and
thoughts of a sentence or episode is seen in ('s use of particles. The
incessant xat connective in Fis frequently altered in t, often through the
use of the less obtrusive, post-positive ot. The particle is often changed
to supply a more descriptive or clarifying connection. Thus, one finds
F's xat and of: replaced by o~v (138.4), E1tEl1tEP (134.13), aAAa (127.21),
etc. Elsewhere, t supplies time elements to better elucidate the flow of
the story. For example, F's xat rau'ta becomes 'taura of: IlEta 'tOu'to
(132.11). At 133.14, t augments Fs simple xai with !lEta tllV opacrtv.
Likewise, t may add a 1tOtE (137.23), vuv (139.16), 1tUAtV (140.5), etc., in
order to obtain the same effect.
A particularly striking example of this type of variant is the use of a
!If:v ... of: construction to improve upon Fs presentation. At the begin-
ning of § 4, the two manuscripts read:

F t
Tuu,ta OE lljlEie; Tuu'tu llXOOOUjlEV
rpWUOjlEV ut'rtou Hyov'toe; jlEV 'tou
Hyov'tOe; 'tij jlEYUAOU 0coooopou 'tij
AiYll1t'tif!) OtaHx'tf!), Aiyun'ti<ov OtuHx'tf!),
Epjl Tj VEUOV'tOe; EPjlTjVEUOV'tOe; OE
EAATjVl<Hil 0coooopou EAA Tj VtO"Li 'tou
'tou AAE~UVOpE<oe;, AAE~UVOpE<oe; 0coooopou,
Beyond the orthographic corrections, the stylistic improvement offered

by t is obvious.
A second example, complicated by further considerations, occurs in
the opening lines of § 5 (127.8-10):
F t
U1tO liAAOU f:p<O'tOOjlEVOe; llpro'tTtSTj jlEv xui uOSte; 0
o 011~uioe; SEPU1troV SEpunrov 'tou 9cou 0E60ropoe;
'tOU 9cou 0EOO<opOe; o 0Tj~uioe; U1tO liAAOU' OUX
xui O"tronrov u1tExpivu'to OE, UAA'
(hEViO"ue; de; 'tOY u'tEviO"ue; de; 'tOY
oupuvov UVEO"'tTj' OUpUVOV UVEO"'tll mromuv'
Here, a number of factors come into play. The burden placed upon the
participles in F is broken down through the use of the finite form
llpro'tTtSTj and the introduction of u1tExpivu'to. The jlEv ... OE construc-
tion aids in this process, though here the oE is clearly adversative.
Furthermore, the addition of UAA' by t, coupled with the new word
order, clarifies the relationship of the three verbs. Of course, the func-
tion of mro1tIDV in F is replaced in t by the phrase oux u1tExpivu'to OE.
It is perhaps best at this point to offer a few further general examples
illustrative of t's reworking of F.
§2 (124.20-125.1)
F t
'ta xu't' f:jlUU'tOV 'ta xu't' EjlUU'tOV
UVESEjlTjV, yVOOjlTje; UVESEjlTjV 't<1'>
YEVOjlEVOe; 'tOu 't1'\ e; jluxupiue;
't1'\e; jluxupiue; jlVTtjllle; nUUAql
jlVTtjlTje; nUUAOU 't<1'> 1tPEO"~U'tEPql
'tOU 1tPEo"~U't EPOU
Here, although Fs grammar certainly works, the simplification pro-

duced through the omission of yVOOjlTje; YEVOjlEVOe; is readily apparent.
§ 16 (135.6-7)
F t
AOOOVlOV 8E TJ~io\)v, AOOOVlOV 8E TJ~ifficra
Ei OA(J)~ 8uva'tov EcrLtV 1tAllPoq>opiicrai IlE
liv3p(J)1tov XpU1t'tu Ei OA(J)~ 8uva'tov Eernv
xap8ia~ av3pw1t(J)v av3pwmp XpU1t'tU
opuv, EX 'trov uyi(J)v xap8ia~ av3pw1t(J)v opuv,
ypaq>rov 1tAII poq>opiicrai xat 'tOu'to am) 'trov
IlE. ypaq>rov 1tapacr'tiicral.
In this case, Fs construction is difficult, though proper. H~iouv must

cover both the Ei OA(J)~ question and the 1tAllPoq>opiierai IlE request. t
apparently felt the need to simplify the Greek. It moves the 1tAllPOq>-
opiicrai IlE up so that it follows immediately after TJ~iouv. Thus, the
request is set forth first. Then comes the Ei OA(J)~ clause, defining of what
Ammon wishes to be convinced. The final clause is connected by a xai,
the object is repeated through the addition of'tOu'tO, and a new verb is
supplied (1tapacr'tiicrat). Again, although Fs grammar is correct, the
simplified structure in t is apparent. 46
In the following example, Theodore has entered the monastery
church at the behest of an angel. A multitude of angels are gathered
there and he is terrified. The text continues (134.13-15):
F
xat xA1l3Ei~ uq>' f:VO~ E1tEl1tEP uq>' f:VO~ 'trov EXEi
'trov cruVllYIlEV(J)V ro~ cruVllYIlEv(J)v ExA..,3ll xat
1tAllcriov EYEVE'tO 1tAllcriov EY EV E'tO
E'I'WlltcrEv alnov n~ E'I'(J)llicr3ll 1tpO~ 'ttvO~
EV 1tOAA:ij 8o~ 1J EV 1tOAA ij 86~ 1J
'tU-yxuvov'ta ~EVllV 'tu-yxuvov'tO~ ~EvllV
'tpoq>..,v· 'tpoq>ll v '
Here, the imprecise distinction of the actors in F is clarified by t. First,

the opening particle in t makes a more descriptive link with the preced-
ing material. However, the major problem in Flies in the interpretation
of ro~ 1tAllcriov EYEVE'tO and EV 1tOAAij 86~1J 'tu-yxuvov'ta. The latter,
connected to au'tov, strangely refers to Theodore. As for the former, the
subject is unspecified, though context makes Theodore the most likely
candidate. Nonetheless, the shift from Theodore as the subject of the
finite EYEVE'tO to the angel as the subject of E'I'WlltcrEV is rather sudden.
In t, these matters are made clearer. Theodore is made the subject
46 Cf., Ep Am 12 (132.13-17) for a similar case.

throughout by altering the E\jIOOJltcrEV clause into a passive construction.

Secondly, by turning wyxuvoV'tu into a masculine singular genitive in
agreement with n vo<; (the angel), this half of the sentence comes clear.
A final extended example is taken from § 18. Villagers from across the
river have come to the monastery to seek Theodore's aid for a young girl
who was poisoned at her wedding feast. Here, the problematic flow of
events is retouched in t. The account of the poisoning runs as follows
(138.1-4) :
F
xui crtlJlEPOV xui crtlJlEPOV
uvuyxucrSEicru "CpoCPT]V &TJATJ"CTJpiou
AuPEiv xui xuSro<; 1tQm &oxEi
cr"CpocpwSEicru XEi't'at "Cij "Cpocpij Ul)'t'i'j<;
acpwvo<;, &TJAt't'TJ piou 11 "C<'!> 1to"C<,!>
00<; 1tQcrt v cpui VE"CUt EmpA TJ Stv"Co<;,
"Coi<; 6procnv, Ul)'t'ij uvuyxucrSEicru
11 "Cij "C pocpij 11 "C<'!> xEi"CUt acpwvo<;'
1tonp EmpATJStv"CO<;'
The sense of Fs account is understandable, but is improved upon by t in

terms of both sequence and context. In F, it is stated that the girl was
forced to eat and then contracted colic. It is then reported that it was a
case of poisoning, the deadly substance having been put into her food or
drink. The problem here is not grammatical. It is a pragmatic flaw that
was apparently noted by t and corrected. The act of putting poison into
one's food or drink is an act of stealth. It would not be followed by
compelling the intended victim to eat it. In t, the problem of this non
sequitur is solved by linking the uvuyxucrSEicru to the result of the
poisoning; namely, the contraction of colic. The poisoning itself takes
its place at the opening of the section.
In the same episode, the villagers, having come across the river for
help, want Theodore to return with them to the girl on the other shore.
Theodore, not wanting to cross the river, speaks of God's universal
presence and then proceeds to pray for the girl. The villagers present
take his words as a pledge of the girl's life (OXr1tEP uppuprovu "Ci'j<; swi'j<;
"Ci'j<; 1tmM<; uxooouV'twv "Cov AOyOV). After the prayer, Theodore assures
them that God has given the girl life CExupicru"Co 6 9EO<; "Cij Suyu"Cpi
uJlrov "CT]v SWtlv). There follows immediately the weeping of many men
and women around the monastery (1tEpi "Co Jlovucr"CtlPtov) because the
girl was expected to die (U1t01tVtEtV yap 1tPOO'E&OXQ"CO). It is then stated
that the girl's father had come from the opposite shore (U1tO "COU 1ttpuv)
with water for Theodore to bless. As the story proceeds, this water
becomes the source of the girl's cure.
However, there is a second non sequitur in this account, unless the

weeping of the multitude is understood as tears of joy. The villagers
present with Theodore had just taken his words as an assurance of the
girl's life. Why then should they weep? Theodore's words do not appear
to have been very reassuring, which is certainly not the point being
made in the story. In t, this problem is solved by moving the a1tO 'tOU
1tEPUV phrase, connected to the father in F, up to replace the 1tEpi 'to
1l0VUOTTJptOV, giving 1tEpi 'to 1tEpUV. Thus, the weeping now arises from
the far side of the river, where they have not heard Theodore's assur-
ance. This, in turn, plays into the heightened concern of the father,
whose weak faith leads him to request a magical potion to guarantee the
cure. The improved story line is obvious.
A final group of variants witness the attempt by t to complete or
round out elements in F which it sees as incomplete or imprecise. This
factor already occurs in the opening sections of the letter. The title in
both manuscripts asserts that the letter concerns the lives of Pac hom ius
and Theodore. However, in F, Pachomius does not appear until §9 in
the report given by Ausonius and Elourion. In the opening sections, the
references are to Theodore alone. This is clearly understandable in view
of Theophilus' request and Ammon's own personal experiences. It
reveals the secondary nature of the title. However, in t, the text is altered
a number of times to bring Pachomius into the picture. For example, in
§ 1 (124.4-5) of F, Ammon notes that his addressee admired 'tov 'tE
uv3po)1tov 'tOU 8wu eE68ropov 'tOY ";ytucrllEVOV. t alters this to 'tov 'tE
uv3pro1tov 'tOU 8wu TIuXcOlltoV xui 'tOY ";ytUcr/lEVOV eEooropOV. It is
surely difficult to imagine that Pachomius' name was deleted from these
places. On the other hand, the development from the secondary title to
the inclusion of Pachomius in these opening sections is readily under-
standable. 47 In a similar development, t uses the name of the addressee
eEoq>tAO<;, which occurs in F only in his reply (§ 37), to develop a word-
play in the title of the letter. 48
In two cases, t appears to have made certain additions designed for
doctrinal clarity.49 In § 18, after the poisoned girl has been cured, F
mentions a certain Silvanus, an Arian stone merchant from the
Alexandrian quarter of Bendideion, who, witnessing the cure, glorified
God (cruvwv 'til> avopi 'ti'j<; nutoo<; xui 'trov llEyUAEtrov 'tOU 8wu uu't01t-
47 Theophilus' reply, which is unfortunately lacking in the t manuscript, thanks
Ammon for his remembrances of the saints (m;pi 'tou~ uyiou~).

48 This addition by t would argue against the use of it as evidence against the
authenticity of the letter. Cf., Lefort, Les vies coptes LII.

49 This process has gone even further in A. In its version of Asc 7, Origen's name has
been consistently deleted so that the negative references are not directed specifically
against him.
'nl~ YEvaIlEVO~ E06~a(Jf;v 'tOV 8EOV). In view of the strong anti-Arian

stance of the entire letter, it is indeed strange that nothing is said of
Silvanus' conversion. Certainly it was understood by the author. 50 The
scribe behind t did note the problem. He placed a colon after YEVO-
IlEVO~, and concluded U1tf:cr'tTl 'tE 'ti1~ aipf:crEro~ 'tal)'tTl~ xai 'tov 8EOV
E06~asE.
A second example is more difficult to interpret. It is found in § 11,
which records Theodore's vision of the trinity. Theodore had just heard
from some visitors what the Arians had been saying about the only-
begotten Son of God. He immediately proceeds to beseech God to free
mankind from this error. He receives a vision defining the trinity, which
in F reads as follows (132.5-8):
Kai EV 'tep 1tpocrEuXEcr3al EropaxEv oxmEp 'tpEi~ cr'tUAOU~ cpo)'to~ E~

OArov icrou~, 'tau'to't11'ta 1tPO~ uAAilAou~ Exov'ta~' xai cprovi1~ i'jxOOOEv
AEYOOOTl~ 1tpO~ au'tov' «Mil'tE 'tij OWcr'tacrEl 'tOU oProllf:VOU
t)1tOoEiYlla'to~ llil'tE 'tij 1tEplypacpij, uAAa IlOVOV 'tij 'tau'to'tTln
1tPOOEXE'
t appears to have been a bit uncomfortable with the emphasis on the

identity of the three pillars; an emphasis understandable in an anti-
Arian vision. t, perhaps fearing some form of monarchianism, 51 does
not want the reader to forget the threefold division by concentrating
solely on the identity. Therefore, he replaces F's E~ OArov icrou~ with E~
OArov 'tOlV IlEProv icrou~ and adds at the end of the above quotation the
words xai cruvilcrEl~ U1tO Ilf:POU~. 52 Although the precise reason behind
the alteration is unclear, the parts are obviously important to him.
Finally, in § 34 (156.20), while fleeing up the Nile with Theodore and
Pammon, Athanasius speaks with the latter concerning his possible
death. Theodore responds by smiling (EIlEloiacrEv) at Pammon, which
causes the latter to nearly laugh (crXEOOV YEAacraV'tO~) according to F.
Elsewhere in the letter, laughter is strongly condemned (§ § 22-23). The
problem was apparently recognized by the redactor of t. He altered
crXEoov to crEllvov and thus, at the very least, made the laughter
seriously!
In review, it is evident that the variant versions of the Ep Am found in
F and t follow the same pattern as that noted by Halkin for Gland the
50 The alternative is that the conversion statement dropped out in F due to a scribal
error. Perhaps it represented one line in the original codex and was simply passed over in
the copying process.
51 Cf., Cassianus, De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium 1.2; Cyril of Jerusalem,
Cat. 16.4; infra, Notes on the Text 132.5-6.
52 These variants do not occur in the text used by Thecaras.
Asc versions found in F and A. In view of the close relationship between

t and A, this is hardly surprising.
There is little reason to argue against the basic view that t represents a
redaction of an F type text. While one can readily imagine that a monk
who read the latter would see the need for a redactional improvement of
such an important group of texts, it is difficult to assume that a text as
clear as t could devolve into the complicated and occasionally obtuse
Greek found in F. The redactional similarity of the versions of G 1, Asc,
and Ep Am found in t over against those of F confirms that the redaction
was carried out on the collection as a whole.
One final point can be made in support of t's redactional nature over
against F. When one looks at the biblical quotations alone, the texts
remain much closer together. It is certainly understandable that an
author who composed in the more difficult and error prone Greek
found in F would retain the LXX readings for the biblical citations. On
the other hand, if F represents a corruption of a t type text, one would
have to assume that such corruption took place only in the non-biblical
passages; a hypothesis that is more difficult to support.
For the Ep Am alone, a more precise setting of the relationship
between F and t is impossible. It is preserved only in these two manu-
scripts. However, when one turns to the other two Pachomian texts held
in common by F and t (GI and Asc), further progress is possible. Apart
from their use in the later vitae, GI is found as a separate text only in the
same three manuscripts discussed above (F, t, and A). The Asc can only
add a Syriac translation to this list.
As was noted above, the redactional effort witnessed in t was carried
out for this corpus of G 1, the Asc, and the Ep Am as a whole. Chitty had
recognized the existence of such a corpus, though he questionably
expanded it beyond the material contained within the manuscript tradi-
tion. 53 The collecting of these three primary texts occurred early in the
tradition, probably in lower Egypt. This collection, due to its vulgar
Greek,54 called forth a revision, perhaps as it left Egypt. The early
collection is most clearly represented in F, while the redaction survives
in the manuscripts t and A.

54 Each piece has its own original style. G 1 does not reflect the same overburdened
constructions found in the Ep Am. The unique spelling of Bai) in the latter demands its
independence. Likewise, the Greek of the Asc has been called purer and more literary than
that of Gl (Chitty, «Reconsidered» 48). Compared to the Ep Am, both Gl and the Asc
offer a simpler Greek, composed in short sentences. The Ep Am, although its Greek
witnesses frequent cases of anacoluthon, reveals a knowledge of more complicated
sentence structure. Short sentences are a rarity in the epistle. However, over against the
redaction of t, all three present a less refined text.
After the redaction had occurred, both versions continued to develop

within their own stream of the manuscript tradition. However, the lack
of sufficient manuscript evidence makes the differentiation of these
later developments from the redaction itself difficult at best. Thus,
distinctions in the content of the collection between F and t must have
occurred after the redaction or prior to it in variant offshoots of the F
tradition. 55 The same must hold true for the addition of §§ 37-41 of the
Asc in F and the different chapter sequence. 56 Furthermore, the order
of the three primary texts (G 1, Asc, and Ep Am) differs between F and t,
and a distinct fourth text is added in each. F preserves G1, an extract of
the Regula, the Ep Am, and the Asc, in that order. On the other hand, t
contains Gl, the Asc, the Pachomian section of HL, and the Ep Am. The
priority of G1 is clear. However, the original content and order of the
collection is debatable.
It is interesting to note that t marks the end of its Asc (§ 36) with the
line, -reAo~ -rrov Ib' xE<paAaicov. This appears in the margin off. 11P.
The actual end of Asc 36 occurs midway through the page. It is followed
immediately by the title of another piece (1tEPi. WU -r(moD -rfi~ U1tO-
XaAU\jfECO~ -rou ayioD xai. UYYEAIXOU crxi]~a-ro~, ;;v eropaxE rraxro~lO~).
However, before the actual text is given, the scribe proceeds to explain
his addition of this new material. He reports that he found the account
in another book (£v f;-repcp BIBAicp -rOu-ro f;copaxro~). He clarifies this by
stating that it was not found in the life (ou yap EUpTJXa YEypa~~evov £v
"t('!> Bicp). The intent of the note is to excuse the writer for having placed
this new account, which occurs early in Pachomius' career, at the end of
the ASC. 57 The account being referred to is the HL material. It begins,
after a lost folio, on f. 112r.
The interesting point here is that the scribe refers to what preceded
(Gl and Asc) in the singular -r<'l> Bicp. Of course, it could be argued that
-r<'l> Bicp refers to the Asc alone and that the new material is being added
in the same manner that F adds Asc 37-41. In this connection, it is to
be noted that A adds 6 Bio~ in the margin to the title of the Asc. It is not
present in t. However, since the note in t was composed to excuse the
scribe for his incorrect placement of the episode in terms of the temporal
55 However, if an early revision is assumed (Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 17*), the time
allowed for the latter is reduced.

56 Infra, pp. 63-65.
57 The full text of the passage reads: TIEpi wu ,(moil ,fj~ altOXaA.l)\VEro~ ,ou uYioll xai
aYYEA.lXOU crxitJlaw~, flv tropaxE TIaxroJllO~. Oux (i,OltOV T]Y1]mIJl1]v, aOEA.<poi, yvropicrUl
uJliv xai ltEpi ,fj~ altOxaA.6lj1Ero~ fi~ ltpoEropaxEv 6 &HO~ lta,l'jp T]Jlwv TIaxroJllO~· Jl1]od~
01; JlEJl<pi:crSro JlOl Elti wlmp, ro~ yqpa<pon aUTO Ecrxawv· ou yap Eup1]Xa yqpaJlJli:vov
EV ,cp ~icp, an' EV t,i:pcp ~l~A.icp 1"OUW EUp1]Xro~· OUX i]SEA.1]cra xa,a ... The text breaks
off at this point. A folio has dropped out after f. 111 v.
sequence of Pachomius' career, and since the Asc is clearly non-

sequential in character, it seems more likely that the reference refers to
G1 and the Asc as a unit. If this is the case, then t's movement of the Asc
up from its final position after the Ep Am in Fbecomes understandable.
The Ep Am reports events which occurred after Pachomius' death.
The Asc, on the other hand, deals with episodes occurring during
Pachomius' lifetime. Thus, for a scribe concerned with temporal
sequence, the Asc should properly follow after G1. Such a transfer by
the redactor would be the first step on the road to the eventual merging
of the Asc into the vita as occurred in the later tradition.
The fact that F includes an excerpt of the Regula lacking in t is
explained by its addition after the redaction. 58 The original collection
consisted of G1, the Ep Am, and the Asc, most likely in that order.
If the above analysis is correct, then the process of the Asc's inclusion
into the Vita Pachomii is already beginning in t. The importance of the
Asc in understanding the later developments within the Greek corpus
cannot be underestimated. It is the only text of the three in F and t that
underwent the redaction that is clearly distinguishable in the later vitae.
Although G1 appears to lie behind G2, G3, and G4, it has been so altered
in the process as to make a philological investigation virtually im-
possible. Such is not the case with the Asc, though such a study has not
been produced. It is to this task that the present study now turns.
The importance of such a study for the Ep Am lies in its ability to
establish the relationship between F and t more firmly. Since the Asc is
contained in both, they will take their place in the development of the
Asc tradition. And since the Ep Am belongs to the same primitive
collection of Pachomian documents including the Asc found in F and t,
the conclusions drawn for the early stages of the Asc must also hold for
the Ep Am.
58 An alternative would be to see t's inclusion of the HL material as a recognized

replacement for the Regula excerpt. Lefort (Les vies coptes XXIX) used a similar argu-
ment to support his contention that G2 deleted HLmaterial that it found in its source. The
unique new vita published recently by Halkin (<<Une vie inedite de Saint Pachome,»
AnBo1l97 (1979) 5-55, 241-287) presents an interesting problem. It is an abridgement of a
G2-type vita. However, it adds two new chapters at the end. The first (ch. 42) contains HL
material and the second (ch. 43) an excerpt from the Regula. This, in itself, might suggest
the existence of both of these texts in the early Pachomian collection. However, in that the
new vita represents an abridgement of G2 which does not contain the Regula, a different
source seems most probable.
v. THE TEXTUAL TRADITION OF THE ASCETICA
The witnesses
The Asc text survives in the manuscript tradition in two distinct

forms. The direct witnesses preserve the text as a self-contained docu-
ment bearing its own title. They include mss. F (Florence Bibl. Laur.
XI,9), t (Athens Bibl. Nat. 1015), and A (Milan Bibl. Ambr. 246), and
an early Syriac translation produced by the Nestorian monk, Anan
Isho, for the patriarch George (661-680 C. E.). 1 It also survives in the
late Greek manuscript r (Rome Bibl. Barb. 491), which, as a direct copy
of F,2 may be ignored. The indirect witnesses preserve the text in-
corporated into a Vita Pachomii. They are much more numerous and
survive in various Greek, Latin, and Arabic versions of the vita. The
absence of any Coptic witness is due to its Greek origin.
Among the Greek vitae, the Asc occurs in G2, G3, G5, and G6. The
latter two are usually recognized as dependent on G3. 3 Certain sections
of the Asc appear in the Latin translation of a Vita Pachomii closely
associated with G2 that was produced by Dionysius Exiguus (D). 4 In the
Arabic tradition, the Asc occurs only in those vitae based on G3 or
representing a compilation that includes G3. 5 As a result, the Arabic
versions can be ignored. G5 and G6, though closely dependent on G3,
will be included in the following discussion in order to maintain com-
pleteness in dealing with the Greek tradition. In summary, the Asc
survives in the following witnesses (minus the Arabic):
Direct Witnesses Indirect Witnesses
Mss. Vitae
F G2
t G3
A G5
Syr G6
r D
1 This text survives in numerous manuscripts. Bousquet et Nau 411.

2 Supra, p.38.
3 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 79*,86*; Veilleux, La liturgie 22 n.23.
4 H. van Cranenburgh, La Vie latine de saint Pach6me traduite du grec par Denys Ie
Petit. Subsidia Hagiographica 46 (Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1969).
5 Supra, p. 19; Crum, Theological Texts 171-193; Bousquet et Nau 412; Ladeuze 66f;
Veilleux, La liturgie 51-57.

G2 Supplement 61
The above sigla will be used throughout this chapter to refer to the Ase
text contained in the respective manuscript or vita. Thus, the sigla G3
refers to the Ase text in the vita and not to the vita as a whole, unless
otherwise noted.
It has already been stated that r can be ignored as a direct copy of F.
Similarly, A is extremely close to t, though it cannot be eliminated as a
direct copy. 6
In the case of the direct Greek witnesses, the readings derive from
microfilm copies of the originals. For the indirect witnesses, the Ase text
was reproduced from various printed editions. G2, G3, and G5 were
drawn from Halkin's edition of the Saneti Paehomii Vitae Graeeae. In
the case of G5, both major mss. Nand D were reconstructed. The latter,
which will always be noted together with the G5 sigla, must not be
confused with the Latin translation of the vita, D. For G2, the readings
represent those of ms. V, which Halkin chose to use as the basis for his
edition. The manuscript tradition of G2 is complex and a thorough
analysis of it lies beyond the scope of the present study. G3 survives in
only one manuscript, P. The Ase text from G6 is dependent on the
edition of Nau. 7 The Syriac has been consulted both through the
French translation in Nau and the English version produced by Budge.
For the most part, the orthographic peculiarities of the individual
manuscripts have been ignored.
Finally, before the actual discussion can proceed, a few methodolo-
gical considerations must be aired. Although the Ase text is readily
distinguishable in the indirect witnesses, the degree to which it has been
redacted in the creation of the various vitae varies considerably. Even in
the direct witnesses, the extent of the variation between F and t is quite
large. Variant readings are not only the result of the scribal transmission
of the text, but of the various redactional efforts effected upon it. As a
result, the precise delineation of the text's development is difficult.
Nonetheless, certain groupings do emerge and their analysis helps to
clarify the development of the Greek dossier as a whole.
G2 Supplement. A further subdivision of the Ase text in G2.

The Ase text that appears in G2 has, in most cases, been heavily
altered. The author of G2 thoroughly transformed his sources in the
process of his redaction. A single example from Ase 7 makes this clear.
6 Infra, pp.95-96.
7 Bousquet et Nau 409-511.
62 Textual tradition of the Ascetica
F (H 130.19-22) G2.68 (H 239.26f)

'AAAon: 1tUAl V Tau.a 1tpo<; au.oD<;
DlaAcyo~tvou .ou DlE~lOV'rO<;, xal ixav&<;
~EYUAOU .oi<; aDEAq>oi<; 1tpo<; ."v f:1tavop3romv
1tEpi roq>EAEia<; 'l'Uxfj<;, Xl vT13tvto<;, 6 1tpo<; tai<;
1tapaYEvU~EVO<; 6 3Upat<; aDEAq>o<; do-EA3wv
3upropo<; UYEl alm:p Eq>l1 au'4>· «MtYlO"toi
on' «MCYUAot UVDPE<; nVE<; avaxroplltai fixamv
avaxroplltai EA30v'E<; EV'rau3a, o-uv.uXdv u~iv
3i;Aoooiv o-ot o-uv'UXdv.» Ems 11.0UVt E<;.»
A question arises, however, when one turns to those sections of the Asc
present in G2 that are absent in the Latin translation D (infra, p. 64).8
These sections form two distinct groups. The first consists of Asc 21-23
and 8-11 (G2.73-78), Asc 27 (G2.85), and Asc 34 (G2.86). Both Lefort
and Chitty agreed that these sections had a much closer textual relation-
ship to the direct Asc witnesses than the other Asc sections occurring in
G2. They both further agreed that these sections were a secondary
insertion into G2, though their conclusions drawn from that assumption
diverged radically.9 Again, a single example will reveal the close con-
nection of these sections to the direct Asc witnesses.
Asc 22. F(H 149.1-3) G2.74 (H 249.5-7)
f\xoooa<; DE 6 ~tya<; f\xoooa<; DE 6 ~tya<;
on rop~lO"EV .0 1tAoiov on roP~lo-E .0 1tAoiov
YEyO~ro~tvov o-iwv, xai yeyo~OOO"~tvov o-i.ov xai
.ov tP01tOV .1'\<; tou .ov tP01tOV tfj<; tou
o-hou ayopao-ia<; ~a3rov, o-hou ayopao-ia<;,
1tt~1tEl EU3O<; d<; .0 1tt~1tEl Eu3tro<; d<; to
1tAoiov AtyroV' 1tAoiov Uyrov'
These sections, which do not reveal the same redactional effort charac-
teristic of G2 as a whole, can be conveniently labelled G2 Supplement
(G2 Suppl.).10 They will play an important part in the development of
this chapter.
The remaining sections of the Asc which occur in G2 but not in D
comprise a second group. They include Asc 1 (G2.53) and Asc 28-33
and 12 (G2.44-48). The Asc text preserved in these sections reveals the
8 Lefort, Les vies coptes XXVII-XXXVIII.

9 Ibid. XXX; Chitty, «Reconsidered» 56.
10 I am not totally convinced on the proper understanding of these sections as a
supplement inserted into G2. Parts of the other sections of the Asc in G2 reveal similar
close agreement. However, it is never so close for the entire section as it is in the case of
those sections that make up G2 Suppl.
Syriac-Alhens group 63
same redactional developments noted above for the Asc sections held in
common between G2 and D. In other words, these sections appear to
have participated in the same redactional effort that characterizes the
G2 vita as a whole. Hence, they are not part of G2 Supplement.
The important point for this study is the recognition that the Asc
material found in the G2 vita represents two distinct versions of the text.
The one, labelled simply G2, has undergone the same redactional effort
that characterizes the vita as a whole. The other, G2 Suppl, represents a
later insertion into the vita of Asc material that has not participated in
the original redaction of the vita. These two versions must always be
kept separate. They represent two very different stages in the develop-
ment of the Asc tradition.
The Syriac-Athens group

The unanimity of all of the Asc witnesses over against F led Lefort to
label the non-Ftext type the Syriac-Atheniensis group after the two texts
(Syr and t) which he considered the best witnesses to it. 11 He held that
the independent witnesses of this group «suivent exactement Ie meme
ordre et presentent un texte identique.»12 Although one must reckon
with a development within the Syr-Ath group itself, Lefort's obser-
vations are valid. The unique nature of Fis indisputable. It stands alone
both in its chapter sequence and its text.
Chapter sequence
The following table supplies the section numbers of the Asc as they
appear in Halkin's edition. These numbers are used for all of the
independent witnesses (F, t-A, and Syr). The Asc section numbers for
all of the indirect witnesses are the same as those which appear in the t-
A and Syr columns in the same horizontal row. Under the various
indirect witnesses themselves, the vita section numbers from Halkin are
provided for G3, G6, and G2. Similarly, under D are found the vita
section numbers in which the Asc text occurs. The references to the
Arabic version (Am) are given in terms of page numbers in Amelineau's
edition.
It is clear that F stands out as a unique witness in the Asc tradition.
Beyond the addition of the Pachomian homily on idolatry at the end
(§§37-41), its chapter sequence is unique. The three units represented
by Asc 7, 8-11, and 12 are separated out and appear at the same later
points in the text in all of the other witnesses. Even in the complicated
[[ Lefort, Les vies copIes XIX-XXI.

[2 Ibid. XIX.
Asc section numbers Vita section Page

(as in F) numbers = t's Asc numbers numbers
F t&A Syr G3 G6 G2 D Am
1 90-91 9-11 53
2--4 2--4 2--4 94-96 12-16 58-61 38
5--6 5-6a 5-6a 97-99 17-19 62-64a 39 605--608
7 .......... 13 13 100 20-21 64b 40 608
8-11. .... 14 14 101 22-23
12 ..... 15-16 15-16 102-03 24-25 67 43 609--611
13 ~ . 7 ........ 7 ........ 104 ...... 26-27 .... 68 ....... 44 ....... 611--612
14 17-20 17-20 105-09 27-32 69-72 45--46 613--620
15-16 : 21-23 21-23 110-12 33-35 f3-75 I 620--625
17-20 : ... 8-11. .... 8-11 ..... 113-16 ... 36-38 ... 76-78
21-23 24-26 24-26 117-19 39--43 81-83 49 625--628
24-26 27 27 120 44-45 ~ 628--629
27 28-31 28-31 121-24 46-49 r44a-4Sl 630--631
1 ' 'I
l44b 1
28-31 32 32 125 50 146 1 632
32 33 33 126 51 148 1 632-633
. 1 1
33 : ..... 12 ....... 12 ....... 127 ...... 52* ..... ·L41·..:.·_ J ... 633--635
34 34 34 128 66* lliill 635--636
35-36 35-36 35-36 129-30 67--68* 87 52 637--639
37--41
Solid lined box = G2 Supplement sections.

Broken lined box = Misplaced and scrambled Asc sections in G2 that are absent in D.
* = G6 sections of the Asc that are textually related to G2.
case of G2, 13 all three subsections clearly follow the Syr-Ath sequence.
This is clear for G2.53-87, which includes both the Asc sections paral-
leled in D and those that represent G2 Supplement. In the case of the
former, the placement of Asc 7 (G2.68) reveals the non-Fsequence. The
placement of Asc 8-11 (G2.76-78) confirms the non-Fsequence ofG2
Supplement. As for the misplaced Asc sections in G2.44-48 , the situ-
ation is more complicated. The entire unit should rightly have come
between § 85 and § 86. Furthermore, the individual sections within the
unit are scrambled. Asc 12, which in the Syr-Ath sequence occurs after
Asc 33, precedes it here. Nonetheless, the placement of Asc 12 with these
late chapters argues for the non-F sequence.
The question of priority between the two sequences naturally arises.
By the simple criterion of witness support, the overwhelming weight lies
with the Syr-Ath sequence. This was the view taken in the earlier studies.
13 Supra, pp.61-63.
Syriac-Athens group 65
Nau supported the Syr-Ath text as part of his argument for the primacy
of the Asc text preserved in G6. 14 Bousset held that «der iiberaus
schlechte AnschluB des § 7 an § 6 im griechischen Text (des Asc) macht
es wahrscheinlich, daB dieser mit seiner andern Ordnung sekundar
iSt.»15 Lefort, who spent considerable space discussing the sequence
question, does not face the issue of priority. His major goal was the
establishment of an earlier non-sequential collection of stories from
which the entire Greek dossier ultimately derived. 16
Against this view, Halkin argued in favor of the Fsequence. He held
that the alterations were understandable in terms of the Syr-Ath
redactor's desire to unite elements in the text that logically belong
together. Thus, noting the same problematic connection between § 6
and § 7 detected by Bousset, he drew the opposite conclusion. He noted
that in the placement of § 13 after § 6 the hand of the redactor is
discernable in the bringing together of two funeral accounts. Similarly,
in the Syr-Ath order, §7, which ends in the ninth hour, is followed by
§ 17, which begins in the tenth. Such movement from a temporally non-
sequential to a temporally sequential order is certainly more under-
standable than the reverse development. Halkin admitted that the
movement of § 12 could not be so readily explained. 17
Chitty is more circumspect, admitting considerable doubt as to the
original order. While he notes that the inclusion of § 6a in the Syr-Ath
text appears to suggest that «the bringing together of 6 and 13 in Syr by
the removal of three episodes to another position can be explained as an
artistic improvement,» he also points out that «while c. 12 comes
perhaps more naturally as a comment on cc. 8-11 than anywhere else in
the work, it is hard to see why it should be transferred to the position it
occupies in the Syriac recension.»18
It seems to the present author that the «artistic improvement» ef-
fected by bringing together the two funeral accounts in § 6 and § 13 is
sufficient in itself to explain the new placement of the intervening
material (§ 7, §§ 8-11, and § 12). In the process of drawing § 6 and § 13
together, the redactor would have had to omit temporarily these three
intervening episodes. They, in turn, would have been reinserted later at
the points that were considered the most appropriate. Section 7 would
logically precede § 17 as Halkin has shown. 19 Furthermore, its subject
14 Bousquet et Nau 410.

15 Bousset, Apophthegmata 211.
16 Lefort, Les vies coptes XIX-XXII; idem, «Revue: Halkin» 427.

19 This concern of the redactor behind t for the temporal sequence has been noted
above. Supra, pp.58-59.

matter of a Pachomian revelation would suggest its placement with the

other Pachomian revelations found in § 17 and § 18. The placement of
§§ 8-11 is more problematic. They contain the account of a monk who
desired martyrdom, only to fail when the opportunity arose while he
was on a journey away from the monastery. In the Syr-Ath sequence, it
occurs before the two episodes found in §§21-22 and §23. They deal
with a monk whose economic efforts in dealing with the outside world
led to his shortfall in terms of the monastic vocation. At first sight, little
seems to connect the martyrdom episode with these two accounts.
However, all three deal with monks who fail in their vocation when they
leave the monastery and come into contact with the outside world.
Section 12 is even more difficult to connect with the surrounding
episodes. Both Halkin and Chitty noted that its movement was difficult
to explain. Perhaps it is just this lack of a connection that should steer us
to an even more basic solution. If the alteration in sequence began by
bringing § 6 and § 13 together, then the reinsertion of the omitted
sections may have been, at least in part, arbitrary. Perhaps the place-
ment of § 7 did occur to the redactor for the logical reasons noted by
Halkin. Even the more problematic placement of §§ 8-11 may have had
some reason behind it, as was noted above. The fact that no reason can
be found to explain his placement of § 12 should not create a problem.
As the redactor realized that he was approaching the end of the text, he
may have simply inserted it arbitrarily when he realized that there was
no «appropriate» place for it on contextual grounds. After all, the Asc is
a collection of unconnected episodes.
A further argument in favor of the priority of the F sequence can be
seen in the numbering and titling of the sections in the manuscripts
themselves. For this purpose, another table is needed.
In the following pages, the three manuscripts F, t, and A are depicted
in three columns. Under each manuscript, the column is further sub-
divided into three columns. The first of these subcolumns gives the
section number according to Halkin's edition of the Asc. The second
subcolumn supplies the section number given by the individual manu-
scripts themselves. These manuscript sections are further separated by
horizontal lines. The third subcolumn records the titles that appear in
the manuscripts. P stands for prologue. In the case of t, an asterisk
beside the section number indicates that the relevant opening or close is
lacking due to lost folia. References to the section numbers of the Asc in
the discussion that follows the table refer to those of Halkin's edition.
When one compares the titles, the close relationship of I and A over
against Fis underscored. A connection between the titles in F and those
of I-A is clear for Asc sections 1, 2-4, 5-6, 24-26, 27,32,33, and 34.
Thus, one must assume that the process of titling the various episodes
had already begun at the point at which the F and t-A type texts
;:)
o
0..
-8
00
o
w
®
'0.
w
~ll!l. I:: I::
§ ·sw ...
UPIlllH c..
;:)
o
0..
,8
00
o
w
®
'0.
w
I:: I::
~[l!l.
§ ·sW ......
UPIlllH c..
>
18 I;:)
~
V'0
«
1:l
I:;:;
0
o
... «
9- V'
1:l
~9- > w
;:>
0
I:;:; ;:>« 0 00 '0.
0 w w «"l:! 8
';;:' > >00 ,W w
-1:l :;:; 1:l
co.. '1:l "l:! C1;l S
\:)
C1;l
I;:> 0 « I;:> V' I;:> V'
... -8 W
0
... ...
0 0
...0 II="
0.. ...
11="
..... 00
'0.
0..0
~a. ~r:;
w 9-
'0. ...0..
;:>
'0.
w w w w w
~[l!l. I::® I:: I:: S I::
1:l
~ I:: ...
§ ·sW ...... "l ...., "'t- .,., 10
0 <'l M
UPllllH c.. <'l M-t V) '-0 r- oo
00 0\ N M o
N N 00
V'
;>
8
...:>o 0..
• 1j
1j cPo.
.8
C1;)
0..
1j
cPo.
;)(l!.L
§ 'Sy,j
_I § uPlluH r-
-
00 0\ o
::i
...o
> '"6
'0 '::J
j ~
:> @
'@.~
'6. !2
::1.
'" :>o
t:::
27 11 IT&pi 'tOG 'Pco~aiou. 27 8 IT&pi 'tOG 'Pco~aiou 27 8 IT&pi 'toG 'Pco~aiou
Kai 'toG xapio~a'to<; Kai toG xapio~ato<;
trov yA<O<1O'roV. trov yA<O<10roV.
28 12 IT&pi tij<; ouxij<;. 28· Ms. A breaks off.
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 13 IT&pi toG &uxtTJpiou. 32 10 IT&pi 'toG &ux'tTJPiou
013 $Ko06~TJo&v 6
liY10<;.
33 14 IT&pi trov tel tpiXlVa 33 11 IT&pi trov 'tpiXlVa
(j)opouv'tcovaip&nxrov. cpopoUVtCOV aip&nxrov.
34 15 IT&pi 'toG o&i~av'to<; 12 12 CIllAooocpia 7t&pi 7talKOv ~
....
tel 'InulHa a 7tpo<; ciO&ACPOV 5'
btoiTJo&v. tpcoti]oavta. ":l..
35 16 IT&pi 'toG K&A&(j)OG. 34 13 IT&pi toG o&i~av'to<;
So
a
tel '1llu3ia t7toiTJo&v ~
35 14
7tpo<; t7tiO&l~lV.
IT&pi toG A&ACO(j)TJ~tvou
a.§
ciO&A(j)OG.
36 36
37 17 IT&pi tij<;
ci1toxuM1jf&co<;.
38
39
40
41
diverged. On the other hand, there appears to be no connection between

Fand t-A for the titles of Ase sections 8-11,13,14-16,17-20,21-23,
and 35-36. As a result, one must also assume that the titling process had
not yet been completed when the two text types diverged. It is interest-
ing to note that apart from the title for §§ 35-36, those sections in which
the titles do not agree represent a unit, sandwiched between §§ 1-6 and
§§ 24-34, sections in which the titles do show a connection. In terms of t
and A alone, the fact that their titles for § 7 and § 17 are distinct argues
against A being a direct copy of t.
Turning to the manuscript section numbers in F, it is to be noted that
they always correspond to the titles except in the cases of § 7, § 12, and
§ 13. While § 7 and § 12 have numbers but no title, § 13 is given a title
even though it has no manuscript section number. These three sections
lie within that portion of Fmost effected by the bringing together of § 13
and § 6 in the Syr-Ath group (supra, pp. 63-66).
It is to be noted that while the Fmanuscript sections and titles divide
the Ase for the most part into acceptable story units, the material in
§§ 7 -13 presents somewhat of an enigma. The numbering of untitled
sections and the titling of unnumbered ones undoubtedly represents the
first stages in the further differentiation of this material along the lines
of that found for the remainder of the Ase.
When one turns to the manuscripts t and A, one finds that their
manuscript §4 includes Asc 14-16, 7, and 17-20. All three units have
their own manuscript section numbers in F. In other words, they are
treated as distinct stories in F. Although they each bear a distinct title in
t and A, they have been subsumed under a single manuscript section
number. At first glance, this would suggest that F is secondary. Its
greater number of manuscript sections represents a further stage in
differentiating the story units. However, a closer examination of the
titles in manuscript § 4 of t and A argues for the reverse relationship.
Apart from Ase 13, which already bore a title in F,20 the t-A tradition
supplies additional titles for Ase 15 and Ase 19. Both occur within their
manuscript § 4. In both cases, the new titles serve to further differentiate
the individual episodes. While Ase 14-16 appears as a single unit in F
(ms. §7), the only connection between § 14 and §§ 15-16 is temporal.
The former records how demons attacked Pachomius as he was trav-
eling to the monastery. The latter reports an unrelated episode that took
place upon his arrival. Similarly, the new title for Ase 19 is readily
understood as separating a revelation (Ase 17-18) from a catechesis
20 F's title is distinct from that found in t and A for this episode. However, that does
not alter the present point. The new title in t-A is a result of the bringing of the two funeral
accounts (§ 6 and § 13) together. Supra, pp.65-66.
(Ase 19-20). These additonal titles in the I-A tradition are best under-
stood as a process towards further differentiation. It is unlikely that
such a process would have been undone by F. Moreover, the process is
carried even further in the Syriac tradition. In addition to preserving
titles for all of the sections titled in I and A, it supplies titles for Ase 23
and a new division made part way into Ase 18. In the former case, the
new title separates Ase 23 from Ase 21-22. They were previously united
because they deal with the same monk and discuss the same shortcom-
ing. Nevertheless, they are two distinct episodes. The new title in Ase 18
sets off a second revelation within the account.
The fact that this process of further differentiation took place in the
development from Fto the I-A tradition is underscored by the reorder-
ing of the episodes contained in their manuscript § 4. This is most clearly
seen in A. Its manuscript sections and titles are as follows:
Ms. § 4 (Ase 14) TIEpi 'tile; EuqnUtiue; 'troY outJlovcov· BV cp xui 1tEpi
f:'tEPCOV 0' t)1t03 E<J ECOV.
§ 1 (Ase 15-16) 'Ev cp 1tEpi 'tOU EV'tUXOV'toe; 1tutMe; xui 'tOU
£\jIT)Jlu'toe;.
§ 2 (Ase 7) 'Ev cp 1tEpi 1tUpU~UAAOV'tCOV 1tpOe; 'tov aytov xuxo-
06~ov UVUxcopT]'trov.
§ 3 (Ase 17-20) 'Ev cp 1tEpi 'troY JlEAAOV'tCOV EV wie; E<JXU'tote;
xutpoie; <JuJl~T)<JE<J3ut Jlovuxoie;.
(Ase 19-20) Ku'tT)XT]<Jte; fficpEAtJlOe; 1tUVU 'tOU JlEYUAOU
TIuXCOJllou.
It is clear that the sections numbered 1, 2, and 3 are, in reality,
subsections of manuscript section 4. The title for the manuscript section
as a whole refers to four units (1tEpi E'tEPCOV 0' t)1t03 E<J ECOV). This,
together with the EV cp 1tEpi construction of the subsections, clearly
reveals the hand of the redactor. The additional title for Ase 19-20
simply sets off Pachomius' catechesis within the episode.
Although I does not contain the clear subdivisions and titles found in
A, it is evident that the same redactional process lies behind it. It is just
such a concern for reordering that lies behind the alteration of the
chapter sequence between F and I-A.
The Syr-Alh text
Beyond the new sequence, the Syr-Alh witnesses all agree in offering a
distinct text over against F.21 This is most clearly seen in certain
21 Lefort, Les vies coptes XIX.

additions and expansions to the text that unify the Syr-Ath members
against F. For example, Asc 6a, inserted by Halkin into his edition from
A, is absent in F. It is present in all of the other witnesses. 22 Two further
examples will suffice. In Asc 27 (H 154.25), Fintroduces a sentence with
the genitive absolute, sAS6v'to~ oE 'toG eplll1vEffi~. Every other witness
to this text, i. e., the representatives of the Syr-Ath group, agree in
reading sAS6v'to~ Ol)V 'toG aOEA<poG bti 't<'f> epIlTJVEOOUt. They are
supported by the Syriac.
The second example comes from the same section (H 155.3-4) and is
quoted in full below. 23
F f\xooou~ Of: 'tuG'tu 6 IlEYU~ SXEAEOOEV avuXffipi'jcrut 'tov epIlTJVEu'
xui VEOOU~ uu't<'f> ...
A ToGw OE axooou~ 6 IlEYU~ EXEAEOOEV avuXffipi'jcrUt 'tOV EAS6v'tu

aOEA<pov EPIlTJVEooUt· Ilit O\)VaIlEVO~ Of: uu't<'f> OtUAEXSfjVUt 'tu
7tpO~ ro<pEAElUV xui crffi'tTJPiuv PltIlU'tU OtU 'to Ilit dOEVUt
EAA TJ vt<J'ti' xu i v EOOU~ uu't<'f> ...
G2 f\xooou~ OE 6 IlEYU~ 'tuu'tu, SXEAEOOEV avuXffipi'jcrUt 'tOV aOEA<pov
'tov EAS6v'tu EPIlTJVEOOUt. Mit O\)VaIlEVO~ OE uu't<'f> OtUAEXSfjVUt
'tu 7tpO~ ro<pEAElUV xui crffi'tTJpiuv PltIlU'tU 6 IlEYU~ Otu 'to Ilit
dOEVUt 7tUV'tEA&~ EAATJVtcr'ti, VEOOU~ uu't<'f> ...
G3 f\xooou~ OE 'taG'tu, SXEAEOOEV avuXffipi'jcrUt 'tov EPIlTJVEUOV'tU
aOEA<p6v. Mit O\)VaIlEVO~ oE 6 aYto~ YEPffiV OtUAEXSfjVUt uu't<'f> OtU
'to Ilit dOEVut 1tUV'tEA&~ uu'tov EAATJVtcr'ti, VEUEt uu't<'f> ...
G6 f\xooou~ oE 'tuu'tu 6 IlEYU~ EXEAEOOEV avuXffipfjcrUt 'tov epllTJ-
VEUOV'tU aOEA<p6v. Mit O\)VaIlEVO~ of: 6 IlEYU~ OtUAEXSfjVUt uu't<'f>
OtU 'to Ilit dOEVUt uu'tov 7tUV'tEA&~ EAATJVtcr'ti, VEUEt UlJ't<'f> ...
Syr A ces paroles Ie Grand ordonna a l'interprete de s'eloigner; et
comme Ie Grand ne pouvait pas dire a ce frere romain des paroles
utiles et salutaires, parce qu'il ne connaissait pas du tout Ie grec, il
lui fit signe ...
Although all of the texts reveal independent developments, it is clear
that F stands alone. All of the other witnesses have participated in the
same expansion of the text.
Supra, p.64.
22
With the exception of G6, the Greek texts are all taken from Halkin's edition. G6
23
and the Syriac (in French translation) were taken from the edition of Bousquet and Nau.
Development of the Syr-Ath group 73
The ancestor of the Syr-Ath group, p

The above analysis has revealed the unique nature of the Asc text
found in F. The agreement of all of the members of the Syr-Ath group
over against F argues for a common ancestor to the group. This
common ancestor will be labelled p. It is characterized by those ele-
ments held in common by all members of the Syr-Ath group over
against F; namely, the new Asc sequence and the expanded form of the
text. p represents the first redactional effort carried out on the Asc text.
F is the sole surviving witness to the form of the text that preceded p.
The relationship of F to p
The late date of the F manuscript (1021 A. D.) precludes it as the
source used by p. This is supported by a number of other factors. The
distinct titles for some of the Asc sections in F24 and its unique addition
of Asc 37-41 argue against a close connection. Furthermore, scribal
errors have occurred in F. 2 5 On occasion it supplies a minor expansion
of its own. Thus, in Asc 1 (H 122.11), F replaces the simple epithet
IlUXaplO~ with SEOcptH(Tta'tO~ xui aylO~. 26
It is evident that p contained the Pachomian collection consisting of
G1, the Asc, and the Ep Am. Both Fand t contain it. Since t derives from
F only through p, it must be assumed that p also contained it. The
differing order of the three texts, as well as the varied additions to them
that distinguish F and t,27 must have arisen at some point beyond p.
These later variations could have occurred in the F tradition or that of
the Syr-Ath group begun by p.
The important point is that F, though it represents the text from
which p drew, is a late survival of the original. This original version will
be labelled a. It represents the first drawing together ofG1, Asc, and Ep
Am into a Pachomian collection. It is characterized by the F text and
sequence, though F itself represents a late survival of it. Nonetheless, F
has remained relatively true to its source. The heavy redactional hand
behind p, which characterizes all of the other witnesses to the text (the
Syr-Ath group), has not effected F.
The development of the Syr-Ath group

The only discussions that have appeared so far concerning the Syr-
Ath group deal with its relationship over against F. No effort has been
24 Supra, pp. 66- 70.
25 For example, certain place names are misspelled in F. Supra, p.45.
27 Supra, pp.58-59.
made to explore the development within the Syr-Ath group itself. For
example, in his discussion of G2 Suppl, Lefort noted that «dans ces
quatre f<!cits, qui manquent chez Denys, G2 [G2 Suppf] represente la
meme tradition textuelle que celIe des recueils Syriaque-Atheniensis,
tandis que dans Ie §§ qui lui sont communs avec Denys il represente une
tradition textuelle sensiblement differente.»28 The statement is true in
terms of the uniform nature of the Syr-Ath group over against F or the
later redaction witnessed in G2. However, closer study of the Syr-Ath
group reveals that it is an oversimplification. The individual members
of the group represent various stages in the development of the Syr-Ath
text.
The importance of G2 Supplement
The common ancestor of the Syr-Ath group, p, has been charac-
terized by its expansion of the text and its new Asc sequence. However,
the question arises as to whether its Greek, apart from these expansions,
remains closer to the style found in F or to the redacted form surviving
in t and A. 29 In other words, did the redactional effort that characterizes
p include the extensive revision of style and grammar found in t? Does t
correspond closely to p or does it represent a further redactional
development?
Here is where the importance of G2 Suppl comes into play. Lefort
pointed out the close textual relationship of this witness with the Syr-
Ath group in general and with the Syr version in particular. 30 Accepting
that the Syr text does remain close to G2 Suppl, it must be pointed out
that the remaining witnesses of the Syr-Ath group (t, A, G2, G3, and G6)
are further removed. The extensive stylistic revision and grammatical
work apparent in all of these texts does not occur in G2 Suppl. In other
words, beyond the new Asc sequence and the expanded elements in the
text that were said to characterize p, the G2 Suppl text remains stylisti-
cally much closer to F than any of the other Syr-Ath members.
In some cases, it is found that t and A have made certain changes over
against F while the same Asc text from G3 and G6 remains closer to F.
On the other hand, examples exist of changes made in the Asc text in G3
and G6 over against Fthat have not been made in t and A. Leaving aside
for the moment the importance of this fact for the relationship between t
and A and G3 and G6 (they clearly represent two distinct families), it is
to be noted that in either of the above cases the G2 Suppl text sides with
the group remaining closer to F. A few examples will illustrate this
point.
28 Lefort, Les vies coptes XXX.

29 Supra, ch. IV.
30 Lefort, Les vies coptes XXXII; Chitty, «Reconsidered» 56.
In the texts given below, F appears vertically in the left hand column.
Only the variants from the F reading are recorded for the various Asc
texts presented in vertical columns to the right of F. A broken line
denotes words that are absent in a particular manuscript.
The first example comes from Asc 22 (H 149.1-2).
F G2 Supp/ G3
f\xoooac;
Df:
6
~Eyac;
on
&p~t<JeV &p~t<JE 1tpocrrop~tcre flXet
"Co
1tAoiov
y EVO~{J)~EVOV YEVO~{J)(J~EVOV YEVOV xai
---- ---- &p~tcrE
---- ---- 1t E1tA TJ p{J)~EVOV
---- ---- "COU
crltOD,
In this case, while G3 is seen to have made the most changes over against
F, G2 Supp/ and t have remained fairly close. In fact, G2 Supp/ is nearer
the F text than t. The text of A and G6 have been left out due to
considerations of space. They are very close to the text found in t and G3
respectively.
A second example from Asc 22 (H 149.5-7) is given below.
F G2 Supp/ t G3
xai
OU
"COU"CO
~6vov,
fLAM.
xai
tlAA{J)V vo~tcr~a"C{J)v
p' txa"Cov EtEP{J)V
6Aoxo"Ci V{J)V ha"Cov
cri"Cov
Aa~rov, EAa~E
01tEP 1tapa
OUX oux "CTtv oux
f:XEAEOOa f:~Ttv EVE"CEtAa~TJV
aU"CQ) au"Cov EV'tOAi)v 1tOtflcrat
1totiicrat, aU"CQ)
In this case, while both t and G3 are diverging considerably from the F
text, G2 Supp/ remains much closer. The two distinct redactional de-
velopments behind t and G3 have clearly not effected the G2 Supp/ text.
This close textual relationship of G2 Supp/ with the Ftext means that
the ancestor of the Syr-Ath group p, must also have retained the basic F
text, apart from the expansions, the new Asc sequence, and some minor
redactional variants. However, the major redactional changes charac-
teristic of t and A on the one hand, and of the Asc text found in G3 and
G6 on the other, represent later developments of the Syr-Ath tradition.
As was noted above, the A text is very close to that of t. Similarly, the
Asc text in G6 is a close copy of that in G3. 31 Thus, it can be assumed
that t and A form a distinct family that developed at some later point out
of p. A second family represented by G3 and G6 also arose. Both
families are characterized by a major stylistic revision carried out on the
p type text.
G2 Supp/ and the Syriac text
The fact that the Syriac translation follows the G2 Supp/ text closely is
underscored by an example taken from Asc 7 (H 130.22-23).
F G3 Syr
dcrEA36V'toov Quand
oov ils
autrov furent
d~ arrives
au
1l0V TtV, monastere,
xai
EA36vtoov
1tpO~
autov
itcrmlcrato il les
autou~ salua
In the example, the Syriac text is printed in full. In the case of t and G3,
only the variants from the Ftext are recorded. Although Asc 7 does not
occur in those portions of G2 that represent G2 Supp/, it is clear from the
example that the Syriac text is functioning in its relationship to the other
versions in exactly the same manner as G2 Supp/. The t-A family is
31 G5 also belongs to this family. It has been left out of the discussion because it is
clearly composed of a combination of G4 and G3. Thus, its Asc text is that of G3. Halkin,
Sancti Pachomii 79*-85*.
characterized through the omission of d~ 'tTtV 1l0Vtlv. The G3-G6

family, which retains that, is set apart through the addition of xui
f:ASOV'tOOV 1tpO~ utnov. In both cases, the Syriac text remains with F.
This is exactly how one would expect G2 Supp! to behave.
The relationship of G2 Supp! to p and to the G3-G6 family
The question now arises of whether G2 Supp! is to be identified with p.
This possibility can quickly be dismissed. A close study of the text
reveals numerous cases in which G2 Supp! follows the G3-G6 family
over against F and I. For example, Asc 22 (H 149.15) reads:
F G2 Supp! G3 Syr
oux n'aurions-
f:IlEAAOIlEV nous pas
1t(1 V't o't E 1t(lv'tE~ 1tav'tE~ 1tav'tE~ du etre
80UAOl 01t08011AOl 01t08011AOl tous reduits
YEVEO"SU1; yiVEO"Sat; YEVEO"Sat en servit ude?
---- ---- ---- xui
---- ---- ---- 'tOU'to
---- ---- ---- 8TlJ.1 <')(n 0 ~ ;
The unique 1tav'to't E of F is either a later change made by F itself, or a

result of the change to 1tav'tE~ occurring in the Syr-Alh ancestor p. The
addition of xui wuw 8TlJ.16cr1O~ in G3 (paralleled in G6) clearly defines
that family. The Syriac text remains closer to G2 Supp!. For the present
point, it is to be noted that the 01t68011AOl of G2 Supp! is in agreement
with the G3-G6 family over against F and I.
Another example is found in Asc 22 (H 149.10). There, the XPllO"a-
IlEVO~ of F and I appears as 1tPOO"EASWV in G2 Supp! and the G3-G6
family. Or again, in Asc 27 (H 155.11), the simple 8EO"1tOl"U of F and A (I
is lacking) is expanded to 8EO"1tO'tU 1tuv'toxpa'toop in G2 Supp!. The G3-
G6 family likewise adds 1tuV'toxpa'toop, though it expands it still further
through the addition of ayuSE. Thus, it is set off from G2 Supp!. The
Syriac, in Nau's translation, reads «Seigneur toutpuissant», revealing
its closer link to G2 Supp! than to the other two families.
These examples suffice to show that G2 Supp! cannot simply be
identified with p. p is characterized by its close textual agreement with
F, apart from the expansions and the new Asc sequence common to the
Syr-Alh group as a whole. Hence, when any member of the Syr-Alh
group is in closer agreement with F than the others, it represents the p
reading. This is most often the case for G2 Supp!. The two families
represented by I-A and G3-G6 show considerably more redactional
development. However, the fact that on occasions G2 Supp! agrees with
the G3-G6 family while I-A agrees with F argues that whereas I has
78 Textual tradition of the Ascelica
retained p's reading (since t reaches back to F through p) G2 Suppl has

undergone a further development along the line of transmission leading
from p to the G3-G6 family.
It could be assumed that G2 Suppl, supported by the Syriac trans-
lation, represents the immediate source from which the G3-G6 family
derived. For all practical purposes, that identification holds true in
terms of the text type. G2 Suppl is the only surviving witness to this
intermediate stage between p and the G3-G6 family. Nevertheless, a
number of concerns argue for labelling this intermediate stage y in order
to distinguish it from G2 Suppl. First, there are cases in which G2 Suppl
is responsible for a unique alteration in the text. For example, in Asc 21
(H 148.7), while every other witness reads 6 oE 1tpOC; Ul)'toV E11tEV, G2
Supp/ alone alters the word order to 6 oE E11tE 1tpOC; ulrrov. Such variants
are relatively few. Furthermore, they are so minor as to underscore the
close relationship of G2 Suppl with y. However, another consideration
comes into play that argues for the distinction of the two. G2 Supp/
represents only a limited selection made by the compiler of G2 from a
larger document. This document (y) clearly contained the whole of the
Asc; the text survives complete in the Syriac translation and in the G3-
G6 family. It probably contained more. Hence, y is required in order to
keep this larger document distinct from the limited material suggested
by G2 Suppl.
A preliminary summary
A preliminary stemm a will help to set the relationships already
presented firmly in mind before further examples and conclusions are
offered. a represents the original drawing together of GJ, Asc, and Ep
Gl Asc Ep Am
~
~l-Y
I /SU
Syr
p
\ ,
F I-A G3-G6
Am into a Pachomian collection. This collection survives in F, t, and A.

a is characterized by a more vulgar grammatical style, though there is
admittedly considerable variation between the three documents in the
collection. F is our best surviving witness to a. However, as a late
Asc 21 as a systematic example 79
manuscript (1021 A. D.), it shows its own limited development beyond

a. p, as the ancestor ofthe Syr-Ath group, which includes t and A, must
also have contained this collection. It is characterized by textual expan-
sions and a reordering of the Asc sections. However, beyond this, it
remains stylistically very close to a. This fact is witnessed by the close
agreement between G2 Suppl and F. The t-A family, which drew from
p, represents a considerable redactional effort carried out on the text. 32
y, as represented by G2 Suppl, has made only minor changes in the p
text. These changes are picked up in the G3-G6 family, though they
appear there in the midst of a considerable redactional development
characteristic of that family itself. The Syriac translation, which re-
mains very close to G2 Suppl, must be assumed to stem from y.33 G2
Suppl itself represents an accurate excerpt taken from y.
Asc 21 as a systematic example of the development of the Asc tradition

The following pages represent the variant readings for the whole of
Asc 21 from the Greek witnesses. The text has been broken up into short
phrases. Each phrase is given an arabic numeral along the left hand
margin. For each phrase, all of the variants are listed in the line of
descent that seems philologically most probable. The obvious ortho-
graphic errors have been left out. The F reading is always given first
since the priority of this text has been established. It can therefore serve
as an anchor from which to trace the developments in the other
versions.
The various manuscripts and vitae are listed to the right. The reading
found in each is marked with a +. The G2 readings, taken from the V
manuscript of G2, represent G2 Suppl. Readings for both the Nand D
manuscripts of G5 have been given.
The readings of A and t are given first, to the left of F, since they
represent a distinct family. Their readings are often quite distinct,
showing little relation to the other sources (e.g., 8, 9, 11, 12, etc.).
References to arabic numerals, as those just given, refer to the num-
bered phrases in the following chart.
Since F's reading is always given first in the list of variants on the left,
its cross always appears in the top row on the right. This procedure was
followed because Fs priority, as the only witness of the non-Syr-Ath
text, has been established. 34
32 Supra, ch. IV.

33 The precise relationship between G2 Supp/ and Syr must await a Syriac scholar.
34 This does not mean that F is free of its own alterations of the text. Examples like
those found in phrases 16 and 26 could well indicate a change that occurred later in the F
trajectory.
00
V N D 0
Ascetica 21 A t F G2 G6 G3 G5 G5
1. AtJ.lOU YEVOJ.lEVOU 1tOtE + +
AtJ.1ou OE YEVOJ.1EVOU 1tOtE +
AtJ.loU 1tOtE YEVOJ.1EVOU + + + +
AtJ.loU OE 1tOtE YEVOJ.1EVOU +
2. E1ti tOU J.1axapiou 1tatpo<; fJJ.1rov TIaxouJ.1iou, + + + +
E1ti troy T]J.1EPffiV 'tOU J.1axapiou 1tatpo<; fJJ.1rov, +
>-l
3. xai troy aOEt.cprov J.1T) hOVtffiVahov, + + + + + + + + <>
><
;:
4. J.lfit.t.ov OE aitou J.1T) 6UptaXOJ.1EvOU
J.lfiUoV O€ J.1T) EUptaXOJ.lEVOU
+ + + + +
+ + + -a..,
I>'
~
5. xalt' ot.T]V aXEoov Aiyu1ttov, + + + o·
xa3' ot.T]v aX600v tT)v Aiyu1t'tov, + + + + ::s
0
-,
xa3'ot.T]v tT)v Aiyu1ttov, +
So
<>
6. a1tEatEtt.Ev 6 ayto<; yEpffiV + + + + ~
a1tEcrtEtt.EV 6 J.laxapto<; + + + '"~
a1tEatEtt.Ev 6 J.1Eya<; + 2"
7. nva troy aOEt.cprov 1t6PtEt.3ElV + + + + + + + +
8. ta<; 1tOt.Et<; xai 'ta<; xooJ.1a<; + +
ta<; 1tOt.Et<; xai tT)v 1tEpiXffiPOV + + + +
ta<; xooJ.1a<; xai ta<; xoopa<; + +
9. ~T]touvta altoV ayopooat, +
~T]touvta ayopacrat aitov, +
'tOU ~T]tiiaat critov xai ayopaaat, + +
'tOU ~T]tiicrat critov xai ayopacrat 6i1t6P 6ilpu, +
tOU EUPEiv ahov xai ayopacrat, +
xai ayopacrat crltOV· + +
10.1h:orox~ uu'tq, + + + + + + + +
11. fmi A.oYU) 'ti'j~ 'to(') cri'tOll ayopooiu~ p' vOllicrIlU'tU. +
lmi A.OyOll 'ti'j~ 'to(') cri'tOll ayopooiu~ vOllicrllU'tU EXU'tOV. +
lmi A.6yU) ayopooiu~ cri'tOll EXU'tOV 0llvaplu. +
lmi A.OYOll ayopd<; cri'tou EXU'tOV 0llvaplu. +
Xaptv 'ti'j~ ayopd~ 'to(') cri'tou EXU'tOV 0llvaplu. +
xui 'tTtv OOIlTtV 'to(') cri'tou EXU'tOV OllVapta. +
xui vOllicrllU'tU EXU'tOV, A.6yU) 'tfl~ 'to(') cri'tOll nlli'j~' + +
12. TIEpu:A.3Wv oE + + + + + + ~
TIEplEA.3Wv ot'iv + + '"'"
~
13. () 7tlcr'tEll3Ei~ 7tOA.A.OU~ 't07tOll~ + +
6 7ttcr'tEll3Ei~ 'ttlV oluxoviuv 't67tou~ 7t0A.A.0\)~, + + '"'"
6 a7too'tuA.Ei~ aOEA.<po~ 7tOA.A.OU~ 't67tOll~ xai IlTt EUPOOV + '"'ra"
'<
6 a7too'tuA.Ei~ aoEA.<pO~ 7tOA.A.OU~ 't67tOll~ xui Iltl EUPllxOO~ + +
a7too'tUA.Ei~ aOEA.<po~ 't67tOll~ 7toA.A.ou~ xui IlTt EUPllxOO~
3~
6 + (=i'
14. 7tupU~aA.A.El Ei~ nvu 7tOA.tv A.&Y0IlEVllV 'EPIlOO3tv. + '"><
7tUpE!XzA.EV Ei~ nvu 7tOA.lV XUA.OllIlEVllV 'Epllc0311V. + '"
3
"2-
7tUpE!XzA.EV Ei~ nvu 7toA.tv XUA.OllIlEVllV 'EPIlOll3ill. +
7tupElXzA.EV Ei~ nvu XOOllllV XUA.OllIlEVllV 'EPIlOll3iv. + '"
'tEA.Ell'tuiov 7tUpE~UA.EV Ei~ nvu XOOllllV XUA.OllIlEVllV 'EpIlOll3ill. +
7tUPEYEVE'tO Ei~ nvu 7tOA.tv XUA.OllIlEVllV 'EpIlOll3Eill. +
7tOA.El nvi 7tUpUj3clA.A.El 'Epllov311 A.EYOIlEVlJ. +
7tOA.El n vi 7tUpUj3clA.A.El 'Epllou3El A.EYOIlEVlJ. +
15. Kut xu't' O{XOVOlliuv 9EO(') + + + + + +
Ka't' O{XOVOlliuv oE 9w(') + +
....
00
00
V N D IV
Ascetica 21 A F G2 G6 G3 G5 G5
16. l]tJPEV sXEi liv3pol1tov nva 1tOA.lLEUOJlEVOV, +
EtJPEV sxEi liv3pol1tov nva 1tOA.lLEUOJlEVOV, + +
EtJpt ttva sXEi liv3poo1tov 1tOA.lLEUOJlEVOV, +
EUPE sXEi n va liv3pro1tov 1tOA.lLEUOJlEVOV, +
EtJPE sXEi liv3poo1tov nva OtolXl]titV troy XOlVroV critov Ol]JlOOtoV
SJl1tE1tlcrt EUJltvov, +
EUPEV eXEi liv3poo1tov, + +
>-l
<l>
17. 1tCIVU EUA.a~i'j xai tOV 9EOV <pO~OUJlEVOV, + + :><
2
+
-e:.
1tClVU EUA.a~i'j xai <pO~OUJlEVOV tOV 9EOV, + +
1tCIVU EOOE~i'j xai <pO~OUJlEVOV tOV 9EOV, + + + ...,
I>'
IS.o.xoooavta 1tEpi toil ~iou toil ciyiou OaxouJliou + + ~

0'
o.xouovta 1tOA.A.cl 1tEpi tE toil ciyiou OaxouJliou + ::s
o.xouovta 1tEpi tE toil ciyiou OaxouJliou + ....,
0
o.xoitv o.ya3itv saXl]xota 1tEpi ti'j<; 1tOA.lLEia<; toil ciyiou OaxouJliou + + + So

<l>
xai o.xoitv o.ya3Tjv sxona 1tEpi ti'j<; 1tOA.lLEia<; toil ciyiou OaxouJliou + ::....
to
19. xai troy o.OEA.<proV.

xai troy auv autq> o.OEA.<proV.
+ + + +
+ + + +
-
"'"
2'
20.0tJto<; 6 1tOA.lLEUOJlEVO<; Ol]JlOOtoV aitov 1tE1tia-rEUto. Tou-rcp 1tpocrEA.3wv +
OtJ-ro<; 6 1tOA.lLEUOJlEVO<; Ol]JlOOtoV e1tE1tia-rEUto ai-rov. Tou-rcp 1tpocrEA.3wv + + + +
Tou-rcp 1tpocrEA.3ffiV +
Tou-rcp 1tOA.l"tEUOJltVCP xai Ol]JlOOlOV aitov tJl1tEma-rEUJltvcp, 1tpocrEA.3ffiv +
Tou-rcp 1tOA.lLEUOJltVCP xai Ol]JlOOlOV ahov 1tE1tla-rEUJltvcp, 1tpocrEA.3wv +
21. 6 o.OEA.<pO<; 1tapEXUXEl au-rov + +
6 o.OEA.<pO<; 1tapEXUA.El + + + + +
6 o.OEA.<pO<; 1tapEXUA.El A.tyoov +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
:> :>
r~ ';' •
,,;:'),,~ a
:> :> b o
g g ·es
~oo~
.a-
c.or..oc.o "a.
. .w ..w ~w g
:> :> :> ;; :>
-8 ,es ,es
=:>:> ~ OJ
~
~~~
OJ
~3- ~~
,~~ ~ OJ
X X
OJ
::> ::> ::>

~~~ ~~
ltl,) );(jJ
:> :> :> :> :>
888 o 0
:> :> :>
X X X I~ .!::!
~W
...... ...
~C..J ~W b b
:> :>
:> :> :> o 0
... ... ...
18 18 18
.8 .8
-0 -0-0 ::1.::1.
~ ~ ~ ~~
"es"es ~ 00 00
.,., 00
<'I <'I
+ + + + + + + + + +
z G+ + + + + + + + + +
8 + + + + + + + + + +
C3 + + + + + + + + + +
:> 8 + + + + + + + + + +
~ + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
• I.:
~
..........
,~ OJ
V' .. ~
o
,..C1;)
OJ
> ....
-0 Q.
I.: X
.... 0
OJ I.:
•., <d
o V'
9- ·0
e< 9-
OJe<
00 OJ
<doo
..,<d
00 .OJ
•., 00
00
f-o.
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
00
V N D 0'1
Ascetica 21 A F G2 G6 G3 G5 G5
48. un' EUV lH;A1J~ + + + + + +
un' Et 3tAEt~ + +
49. Kai anwv ·rcXJoirtwv OAOKOtivwv Aa~Eiv critov, +
Kat liAAroV tOOOUtwv vOlltcr~uhwv critov Aa~Eiv, + +
Kat liAACOV EKatoV Aa~Eiv VOlltcrlllhwv critov, +
Kat liAAWV tOOOUtWV OAOKOtivcov Aa~Eiv, +
Kat liAACOV OAOKOtivcov Aa~Eiv, + >-3
CI>
Kat liAAroV tOOoutcov Aa~Eiv, + + ~
aa
50. xaplV 1l0t 1tOtEi~ l:v t06tql·
XaptV 1l0t 1tOtEiC;· + +
+ -
.I>J...
~
XaplV 1l0t 1taptXEtC; l:v t06tql· + + + + + o·
::s
51.lloVOV Euxoo3E tl1tI:P l:llou. + + + + + + ....,
0
1tpO~ to EUXOO3at tOU~ aOEAlpOU~ \ml:p l:llou. + + S-
CI>
52. Ei1t6vto~ 01: toil dOEAlpOU on· + ~

to
Toil 01: aOEAlpoil Ei1tOVto~ on· + + + + "~
Tou 01: UOEAlpoil Eip1]KOtO~ on· + 2·
Kat toil aOEAlpoU Ei1tOVtO~ on· + +
53.OOK &XOIlEV Ei Ilil toUto, +
Xpooiov OI)K EXOIlEV Et Ilil toilto, + +
OI)K EXOIlEV Xpooiov Ei Ilil toilto, +
OI)K EXOIlEV ttEPOV Xpooiov Ei Ilil tOUto, +
OI)K EXOIlEV Xpooov ttEPOV Ei Ilil tOUtov, +
OI)K EXOIlEV Xpooiov ttEpoV Ei Ilil tOUto, +
OI)K EXOIlEV Xpooiov ttEPOV Ei Ilil tOUto 1l0VOV, +
r- + + + 'Clot\~nO)ul1d<)3
00
+ 'UUnD}nOt\ <!?~ t\<pgmd~ nt\~lL t\rot\~nOXDld<)3
+ 'JOlDnD}nOt\ (l0~ t\<pgmd~ 3lt\~lL ClOt\~nOXDld<)3
+ 'ClOt\ }WXO"(<;> (l01 t\<pgmd~ nt\~lL ClOt\~nOXDld<)3 . f9
+ + + t\o~lLClA.lV t\lp t\Qg3XD t\U"(g ,SUX (lonugltn

+ + + t\O~lLClA.lV t\1.t~ t\u"(g .Sux (lonugltn ·09
+ + 'JOlDnD}not\ (l0~ t\<pgmd~ t\<pld~uX3g 1?t\~

+ + + 'J01UnD}not\ (l0~ t\<pgmd~ t\<pldlDX3g X!!
., + + + 'ClOt\}~Oxo"(9 (l0~ t\<pgmd~ t\<pld~uX3g X!! ·6~
0.
E
cd + ClO~}D t\O!O"(lL Q~ JUD}n3A. D}t\rod>nClD !!.~ Ih<)m 1lL3.
.,..: + + t\O~!D t\O!O"(lL Q~ JUD}n3A. t\odg t\Q~ t\\lo t\01(l0~ 1lL3.
.;! t\O!O"(lL Q~ ClO~}D JUD}n3A. rodg <!?~ t\\lo ro~<)o~ 11L3.
~
+ +
E + + + ClO~}D t\O!O"(lL Q~ Ju!X?noA. rodg <!?~ t\\lo ro~<)o~ 1lL3. ·8~
~
'"
>. + ·1On ~~3A.1?A.~ 'nltDl,tdolLQ3 ClO~<)01 t\mg
'"cd + + + ·1On ~~3A.1?A.~ '3~ltdS}3 ~g t\u~g
-'"
'"cd
N
<.)
+ + +
+ ·1On ~lDXA.~t\!! 't\l,tnu t\1.t~ lmltdQ3 t\mg 1UX
·lon ~lDXA.~t\!! 't\l,tnu t\1.t~ nltdQ3 t\mg 1UX ·L~
~ '0iY;! Jowllt\<;>dd>~
+ + +
+ 'ro~iY;! JUt\odd>'P.
+ + + + 't\O~!D t\Q~ 3g1?,,( ·9~
+ + + + + + + + .ClO~<)O~ 1d3lL 10D ro~n3n I.tw .~~

+ + .olDt\}dx3lL~ JOt\3n<;>Clnl"(olL <;>
+ .t\<;>~Qu
JQdlL 3lLp
+ + .<!?d>"(3g~ <!?~ 3lL13
+ .<!?d>"(3g~ <!?~ t\3lL13 01(l0~ JUD<)ox~ Jot\3n<;>Cl3H"(olL <;>
+ + .t\3lL13 JUD<)ox~ JOt\3n<;>Clnl"(olL <;> .p~
zG +
~ +
+
The textual expansion characteristic of the Syr-Alh group is clearly

seen in phrases 37-39 and 42. None of this material appears in F. The
passage contained in 37-38 has been inserted into the Ftext at the same
location in all of the witnesses to the Syr-Alh group. Hence, this
expansion must go back to the group's common ancestor p. The case of
phrases 39 and 42 is different. They present the same passage. Phrase 39
marks its placement in I and A. Its placement in the remaining members
of the Syr-Alh group occurs in phrase 42. This division sets offl and A as
a distinct family within the Syr-Alh group. The alternative placement
could be the result of a shift carried out in the course of the I-A
redaction. On the other hand, the shift could as easily be attributed to y,
the ancestor of the remaining Syr-Alh members. A third, perhaps more
attractive solution is to recognize in this phrase a marginal note appear-
ing in p. This note was then variously inserted by the redactor of the I-A
family and the scribe behind y. In any event, the data clearly sets off the
Syr-Alh group and the I-A family.
The argument for the existence of y is further supported in phrase 38
through the addition of't"11V 1tOO'O't11'tU Tjv ~EAAffi Aa~avElv. This ad-
dition appears in all of the witnesses to the Syr-Alh group apart from I
and A. Again, in phrase 44, while Freads E11 and I-A d1tEV, all of the
remaining witnesses employ <1>110'1. This alteration must go back to y.
Other supporting examples occur at 45, 50, and 53.
It was pointed out above (p. 74) that G2 Supp/ shows the closest
textual connection to F of all of the members of the Syr-Alh group.
The text has been more thoroughly redacted in the I-A family.
Similarly, G3, G5, and G6 diverge as a unit. They represent yet another
redaction carried out on the text. These observations are supported by
the chart.
At phrase 6, F, G2 Supp/, I, and A agree in reading 6liylOe; yEPffiV. G3,
G6, and G5 (ms. N) have altered it to 6 ~axaplOe;. In G5 (ms. D), it
appears as 6 ~Eyae;. Thus, the G3-G6 family is established. At phrase 8,
G2 Supp/ is the only source in agreement with F's 'tae; 1tOAEle; xai 'tae;
xro~ae;. t and A both record 'tae; xw~ae; xai 'tae; xropae;, while G3, G5, and
G6 all write 'tae; 1tOAEle; xai 'tT]v 1tEpiXffipOV. In this case, both the I-A
family and the G3-G6 family are in evidence. Likewise, the close
connection of G2 Supp/ with F is to be noted.
Further cases of G2 Supp/'s textual agreement with F can be seen at
phrases 9, 11, 13, 17, 18,21,25, etc. This close textual relationship
makes G2 Supp/ an invaluable witness to the nature of the early Syr-Alh
redaction. Its text goes back through y and p to a, the ancestor that it
holds in common with F. Thus, the textual similarity of y and p to a is
established.
The close relationship of G3, G5, and G6 that is repeatedly seen in the
chart, could be accounted for by arguing that G5 and G6 were simply
90 Textual tradition of the Ascelica
using G3. 35 Although this is clearly the case for G5, it does not account
for G6 very effectively. Returning to the chart on page 64, certain
inconsistencies between G3 and G6 are in evidence. Although both
insert the Syr-Ath version of the Ase into their vita pretty much as a unit
(G3.90-91, 94-130 and G6.9-52, 66-68), G3 has inserted an additional
three chapters between Ase 1 and Ase 2, while G6 has separated Ase 12
from the final Ase 34-36 with 13 chapters. Furthermore, the final three
Ase episodes in G6 (Ase 12, 34, and 35-36) are clearly taken from the G2
version. In view of the fact that G6 clearly made use of G2,36 this does
not present a problem. In fact, it accounts for the insertion of the non-
Ase material between Ase 12 and Ase 34 in G6. However, the fact that
G6 places Ase 1 and Ase 2 together is difficult to fathom ifit is relying on
G3, wherein they are separated by three chapters of non-Ase text. G2
also separates Ase 1 and Ase 2 with non-Ase material. Finally, the fact
that G6 preserves part of the Ase prologue which is absent in both G3
and G2 makes its dependence on G2 and G3 for the entire Ase text
impossible.
Further support for G6's independent origin apart from G3 is found
in the readings given above for Ase 21. In phrase 38, while G3 and G6
agree in altering the ouvuJ,u;Sa of G2 Supp! (i. e., y) to ouvacr0J.tESa, the
latter remains with G2 Suppl in reading J.tEAAOO. G3, together with G5,
alters this to J.tEAAOJ.tEV. Again, at phrase 34, G6 remains with G2 Supp!
and F, while G3 and G5 offer their own variant. Another good example
occurs in phrase 61. There, F reads EUptcrXOJ.tEVOU 1tEV'tE ap'tU~&v wu
oAoxo'tivou. G2 Supp! and G6 reproduce F's words with only minor
variations. G3 and G5, on the other hand, read simply EUptcrXOJ.tEVOU.
It is possible that G6, while copying G3, used G2 to come up with F's
readings. It is clear that G6 used G2. However, the more feasible
explanation of these patterns, particularly in view of the other data, is
that a common ancestor lies behind G3 and G6 beyond the y stage. This
new source will be labelled J. Further evidence supporting its existence
is seen at phrases 54, 56, 58, and 59.
Further support for the existence of J is found in the use of the HL
material in G3 and G6. Whereas G3, followed by G5, inserts it as three
separate units into the vita, G6 places it together as a single unit at the
beginning of its compilation. If G6 simply used G3, one must assume
that it knew the H L material well enough to reunite it. 3 7
35 Supra, n.3.
36 Halkin, Sancli Pachomii 86*.
37 Idem, «L'Histoire Lausiaque» 285-301.
Second systematic example using G2 proper 91
oG + + + + +
zG + + + + +
"'e,:,"' + + + + +
[3 + + + + +
""
>e,:, + + + +
~+ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ AQ10D~ .eDX AI,tX(}3 A3!>U}OlL~
+ + + <l)lOD~ .dDlL AI,tXQ3 A3!>U}OlL~
+ + '<PlC\D~ ,dDlL AI,tXQ3 JD!>1,t10lL l DX 'or
,§ + + JOO"(<)l!> J<;IOl JD!>l,tg lDX D}A10X!> A~gD"(
~ + 'Soo,,(<)l!> J<;IOl JD!>l,tg lDX D}AlOX!> A~gD"( lD)I

<.>
~'" + + + + 'JOO"(<)l!> J<;IOl JD!>l,tg lDX D}A10X!> A~O A~gDV '6
0
-5 + 'J01AOXd~lL<;l oo,td?, \)01 11?, \)OdD3A 'lne!>3lLd~1 M01~t1ut10goXlo
'-
0
MO}3X}O AQ:ll 11U19mdcp 1),1 llL~ l DX AQ:ld13X D,td?, A13J~t10De mAydX 1,tt1
c + 'l1U19mdq:> 1),1 llL~ 00X10 \)01 Ao,td?, Ql m!>~t1one Ql
0
:.a
~
+ '\)OlQD oo,td?, \)01 11U19mdq:> lDX D}XOl!>Q3 1),1 llL~ AQ1QD m!>~t1one Ql
+ '\)OlQD 11U19mdq:> 1),1 llL~ AQ1QD mAyedld31 lDX m!>~t1one Ql
'"
....
~
+ + '\)OlQD 11U19mdq:> 1),1 llL~ AQ1QD m!>~t10De Ql

ta
=' + 'OOX10 \)01 11U19mdq:> 1),1 llL~ AQ1QD m~t1one Ql '8
><
0
E- + + + + A3AO,t~,t JD}3,td3A~ JYX1"(OgDlg x~ 119,
+ + mAp JD}3,td3A~ JYX1"(OgDlg X~ 'L
+ JOA3t1~!>lA.o"(Dlg 1DX JOA3t19A3,t AQ10~ JP d3lL.QW Dl13

+ + + 01D!>I,t,t0"(31g SOA3ti9A3,t ~g AQ10D~ J13.
+ JOA3rl~!>1,t0"( lD)I
+ AQO 01D!>},t0,,(3.
+ OlD!>},tO"(~ lD)I '9
W m fD 90 ZD :l Z[ lJJ!l im;V
N
0'1 a N A
+ J{lmg /l0'C(!.ni 3eilD~\)3 ,"('(9
('<")
0\ + /l131l"92 ClOlLil /lo"{"{yrl 'Q,,{W
+ + + + + 'D/I! 3llJil~gClOlLil /l0'C(yrl 'Q'C(C) °9l
+ oJom"{3gC) '/I(J?d13X
/lrod:p3rl<;l /I(J?l, /loAd? 91, \I"{OlL llL~ /l13~JlLro"{"{DX <91, llL~ Jprl<;llDX 3l,lwl,tx13/1o"{lm l,tw
+ o/l(J?rl<;l /I(J?d13X /I(J?l, /loAd? 91, \I"{OlL llL~ /I 13~JlLro"{"{DX 3eil3~J/lroAC) l,trl
+ /I(J?rl<;l /I(J?d13X /I(J?l, /loAd? 91, /l13~JlLro'C(DX 91, llL~ 3eil3~J/lroAC) l,trl
... + '/I(J?rl<;l /I(J?d13X /I(J?l, /loAd? 91, /l13~JlLro'C(DX <91, llL~ 3eil3~~lg l,trl
Q)
0. + + '/I(J?rl<;l /I(J?d13X /I(J?l, /loAd? 91, /l13~JlLro'C(DX 91, llL~ 3eil3~~lg l,trl
...0.0 + 0C)"{OlL llL~ /I(J?rl<;l /I(J?d13X /I(J?l, /loAd? 91, /l13~JlLro'C(DX 91, llL~ 3eil3~~lg l,trl°~l
8 b/)
+ + + + + + 'Jom"{32C) '/I(J?rl<;lllJrlo~V °Pl
Q
°iil + o/l13AH ollJ~d~ /lC(JgD"{OlL<;I1D)I
::s
Q)
+ oJ10m"{3gC) J101, 13AH lJl,13
i5..
e + oJC)om"{3gC) J\lOl, J9dlL 13AH Jrol,go ,em
011
>< + oJC)om"{3gl) J\lOl. J9dlL 13A~"{ 'JDill,tlOlL 01,001, lD)I
Q)
.~
u + + + oJC)om"{3gC) J\lOl. J9dlL 13AH lD)I on
e
Q)
+ °JplL3dlLl) /lWD/l9A3A J3l,/I~el"{X go Jro;!
~
>. + °J\!~301, JP /lD/l13rl~lg rol,go lDX 10grlDxil Ol./lO/l~A~ lDX lO"{C)l,il}O /lDilltenx~ go Jro;!
'" + °lDeil~/l3A J\lOl,QD J\lOgrlDXil 3l,ilW JlJl,/I~lL 3/11"{X?

~
Q
+ °llJeil~/l3A J\lOl,QD J\lOgrlDXil 3l,ilW JClO"{C)W J\lOl, JlJl,/I~lL 3/11"{X?
0
u °llJ/l13rlOlLC) S\lOl.QD J\lOgrlDxil 3l,ilW JClO"{C)W J\l0l, JlJl,/I~lL 3/11"{X? lDX
Q)
CI)
+
+ + °llJ/lprlOlLC) J\l0l,QD J\lOgrlDXil 3l,ilW JClO"{C)W J00l, JDl,/\~lL /l3/11"{X? on
+ 'JoC)Xill Sltil~lL 'Q1,3rl /I 13dC)il J10m"{3gl) J10l. 3003"{~X~

+ oDJ/llOXil 1)1, /l13X"'(;! J10m"'(3gl) J101 3003"'(~X~ lDX
+ oDJ/llOXil 'Q1 /l13X"'(;! /l3003"'(:jX~ J10m"{3gl) J101, JDil~"{3X lDX
+ + oDJ/llOXil 'Ql, /l13X"'(;! J10m"'(3gl) J101 JDilC)3"{3X lDX
+ 'JClOW1il J\l01 llJilC)x"'(~ J10m"'(3gC) J101 JDilC)3"{3X lDX
+ 'llJilC)x"'(~ J10m"'(3gC) J101 JDilC)3"'(3X lDX 0TT
+ "ro,,{<xjD12 «;!>1 lD1Ut\~A. miudl}s 5UDl}SDlW 500t\ 9 t\Ot\lDlL? t\Q1 <lOA.d? 001 5QdlL Ipi
<::!
";,: + "roW9 D12
t: «;!>1 lDlUt\:jA. miudl}s '5UDl}SD1W 500t\ 9 t\Ot\lDlL? t\Q1 5p <lOA.d? 001 QdlL Ipi Ut\!
-.::"'" + "roW9D12 «;!>llD1Ut\~A. miudl}s 500t\ 9 5UDl}SD1W t\Ot\lDlL? <lOA.d? 001 t\Q1 5QdlL Ipi Ut\!
<!)
-5 + "ro,,{99 D1 2 «;!>1 lDlUt\:jA. miudl}s '5UDl}SDlW 500t\ 9 <lOt\JUlL~ <lOA.d? 001 5QdlL Ipi Ut\!
'-
0 + "<l0,,{99 D1 2
I':: OOllDlUt\~A. miudl}s 500t\ 9 5UDl}SD1W <lOt\JUlL~ t\Ut\X~l t\J.t.1 5QdlL 001 ~J12 J.t.rl 5rolL9.1UX
0
~
:.a + "lDlUt\~A.
...
til <l0,,{99 D1 2 001 urludl}S 500t\ 9 5UDl}SDlW <lOt\JUlL~ Ilt\X:j1 \11 1lL~ 001 ~J12 J.t.rl Ut\!
~
:;:j + "roW9 D1 2
:::l «;!>1 lDlUt\~A. urludl}S 500t\ 9 5UDl}SD1W <lOt\JUlL~ t\Ut\X:j1 t\J.t.1 5QdlL 001 ~J12 J.t.rl Ut\! "ST
;;:
<!)
f-< + uld? "91 1lt\:j11 t\Q}l1g U"{<lDy 501Ul1<;13t\lL <loJl~ 001 U3drog \11 lUX OOlDldX llld"QX
+ 't\Q}rlg <lOlD"QX~ 5Qt\~ roA.d? «;!>1 t\=i lDGD~t\3A. t\ld"QX 0039 001 5"!}3dro2 5!J.1 QlLl}
+ 't\ 13JJ1t\odd> «;!>lQU t\01Ut\9t\l}
1UX t\Q1ld3lL t\orl1>9X lDt\:jS11OOdlL J.t.11 lUX ro1<;lOl lDGD!3Xdl} t\Q}rlg <lOlD"QX~
5Qt\~ roA.d? «;!>1 t\~ lDlUt\:jl OOlQU 5"!}3drog 5!J.1 lUX OOlDldX 001 5011d"QX 5!J.1 X=i 11 13
+ + + + 't\Q}l1g <lOlD"QX~
5Qt\~ rold? «;!>1 t\=i lDlUt\:jA. OOlQU 5"!}3dro2 5!J.11UX OOlDldX 001 5011d"QX 5!J.1 X=i 1113 "LT
m m [D 9D lD .!l lE V:J!1iJ:Jsy
-.:to a N A
0\
Relationship of t and A 95
A second systematic example using G2 proper

The above analysis dealt with the Asc material in G2 that represents
G2 Suppl. It is necessary to offer a further example which includes a
section of the Asc from the more heavily redacted part of G2. The
following piece, Asc 32, comes from the second group of Asc sections in
G2 that are absent in the Latin translation D. These sections do not
preserve the G2 Suppl text, but have participated in the redactional
effort characteristic of G2 as a whole (supra, pp. 62-63). Manuscript A
has broken off by this point in the text.
The readings in the chart clearly reveal the great divergence of G2
from F. In fact, the redaction characteristic of G2 distinguishes it from
all of the other witnesses. On occasion, whole phrases are missing (e. g.,
3, 7, and 10). In those cases where a parallel does exist, its distinctive
form sets it apart (e.g., 1,2,4,5,8, etc.).
In fact, the G2 redaction is so thorough that it is difficult to determine
at which point in the tradition it actually arose. As a member of the Syr-
Ath group, it had to have arisen after p. A few hints suggest that it arose
prior to the J stage. 38 In phrase 6 above, G2's xui AOYtcra~Evo~ is a fair
reproduction of F and t. G3, G5, and G6, on the other hand, have all
made further additions. These additions would presumably go back to
6. In phrase 18, G2's oUI 'tOG 1tpO~ 'ti]v 'tEXVT)V btaivou reproduces F's
reading (except for the latter's obvious error of 1tu'tpo~ for 1tp6~). G3,
G5, and G6 offer variations of 1tpO~ 'tOG EPYOU E1tuivou. The use of
EPYOV in place of'tExvT) must belong to the J stage of the tradition. G2
obviously precedes it.
There are a few indications that G2 arose closer to y than to p. In Asc
28 (H 156.4), F and tread xui HYEt ut:m'P' K6'!'ov 'ti]v crux;;v mu'tT)v.
All of the other witnesses, including G2, supply a vocative aDEA<pE. In
Asc 26 (H 153.25), the clause ending 'tiJ 1tpO~ 'tov eEOV nicr'tEt uu'toG in
both F and t is supplemented with variations of xui 't4'> VT)<pUAEo) 'tOG
voo~ uu'toG in G6, G3, G5, Syr, and G2. Since t derives from p and agrees
with F, the common readings in t and Fmust also have existed in p. G2's
agreement with the other witnesses over against t and F argues for its
derivation from y.
The relationship of t and A

In the above discussion, t and A have been equated. Their relation-
ship is very close, and they do form a distinct family. However, a clearer
understanding of their precise connection would be helpful. The pos-
sibility that t derived from A is precluded by the dates of the manu-
38 The early date of D, which is so closely related to G2, supports this fact.
scripts. A belongs to the fourteenth century and t to the tenth. The

alternative, namely that A is a direct copy of t, has already been
suggested as a possibility by Veilleux. 39 The cramped marginal titles in t
that are repeated at the top or bottom of the page in A might argue in
favor of such a relationship. However, other factors weigh against it.
The fact that some of the titles are distinct between t and A argues
against a direct connection between the two. In the text itself, cases can
be found where A agrees with Fover against t. In Asc 27 (H 154.24), the
AEYOJlEVU of Fand A appears as AUAOUJlEVU in t. Thus, it seems unlikely
that A copied t. It seems most likely that they go back to a common
ancestor, which will be labelled 8. 40
The development of the Asc tradition: Conclusions

With the analysis finished, the following stemma can be offered as a
summary of the development of the Asc tradition.
Gl Asc £p Am
r------a
~
I
fJ-----
G2 Supp/
~
G2 Syr
I> J
F /\A /\
G6 G3
I
I
r
G5
The surviving Asc text began as part of a Pachomian collection

consisting of G1, Ep Am, and Asc. As such, it is representative of the
Greek Pachomian tradition. It probably existed as an independent
document prior to its inclusion in this collection. However, there is no
evidence of such a stage in the surviving Greek witnesses. This, in itself,
argues that such a stage, if it did exist, was relatively short.
Veilleux, La liturgie 18-19.

39
Alternative solutions are possible. However, the lack of further witnesses precludes
40
a more detailed analysis.

Importance of the Asc tradition 97
As a Pachomian text, the Asc does survive independently in the Syriac

translation. Although it forms part of a monastic collection, it is not
part of the Pachomian collection noted above. Nonetheless, the close
relationship of the Syriac translation with G2 Suppl suggests its deri-
vation from the tradition of the Pachomian collection. The original
Syriac translation probably represents the use of a single document
from the collection.
The drawing together of this Pachomian collection is representeg in
the stemma by a. F, with its unrefined style and unique Asc sequence, is
the closest surviving witness to a. It is, however, a late witness to it. The r
manuscript is but a late seventeenth century copy made directly from F.
The major developments in the tradition all belong to the Syr-Ath
group. All of the surviving witnesses apart from F and r belong to it. It is
marked by the new Asc sequence and numerous textual expansions.
These changes were made in the ancestor of the group, p.
From p, two further trajectories are discernable. The one represents
the thorough stylistic revision of the text that still survives in t and A.
Differences between t and A suggest that they derive from a common
ancestor, e. The other line of development from Pleads to the source y,
and through it to all of the indirect witnesses ofthe Asc text. Apart from
the expansions and new Asc order effected by p, y retains the basic
Greek style found in p, a, and F. The y text is most accurately rep-
resented by G2 Suppl and Syr.
G2 itself drew from the same line of tradition as G2 Suppl. The
stemma is not meant to suggest that G2 and Syr derived from G2 Suppl,
but from the stream of tradition represented by it. A more accurate
connection must await a thorough study of all of the G2 manuscripts.
Although G5 used G3, the same conclusion does not account very
well for G6. Where G3 and G6 agree together against the other witnesses
stemming from y, it is a result of their use of a common source J. J is
supported by Halkin's efforts on the HL witnesses contained in the
Vitae Pachomii. He noted the close relationship ofthe HL text found in
G3, G4, and G6. He posited the common source ~ behind them all to
account for it. 41
The importance of the Asc traditionfor understanding the tradition of the

Greek vitae
As far as the Asc tradition is concerned, the analysis can be con-
sidered complete at this point. In terms of the Ep Am, the purpose of the
study was to establish the relationship between F and t. From the
41 Halkin, «L'Histoire Lausiaque» 298.

results, it is clear that F, though a late witness to the original text, still
offers the most direct line of descent from it.
The results for the Asc tradition call for some remarks concerning
their importance for understanding the development of the Greek vita
tradition. Although a thorough study of all these texts has not been
undertaken, some emerging evidence can be brought forth. In the
discussion that follows, the sigla refer to the vitae themselves.
It has been established that t represents a redaction carried out on a
Pachomian collection consisting of G1, Asc, and Ep Am. The original
text of the collection (a) is best preserved in F. The stemma drawn for
the Asc tradition makes it clear that this collection also existed in the
ancestor of the Syr-Ath group, p. There is no other way to account for its
occurrence in both F and t.
This same confidence cannot be shown for the existence of the
collection in the trajectory leading to y and c5. Indeed, the Syriac
translation of only the Asc would be one argument against it (cf., supra,
p. 97). However, if the later vitae represent redactional combinations
deriving ultimately from GI and the Asc, plus some HL material, then
the assumption that the original collection, together with some minor
additions, remained intact is certainly attractive and viable.
It is admitted that the priority of G1, though generally assumed, is
still debated. The developments in the Asc tradition elucidated above
clearly support its priority. They further suggest the continuation of the
collection as the route through which the later vitae developed. The
alternative is to assume that the Asc remained as part of the collection
through p, was removed as a single source for the development through
y and c5, only to be reunited with GI at a later point in the creation of the
subsequent vitae.
The philological problem
The problem with carrying the philological analysis worked out for
the Asc text over to the vitae is that the latter show considerably more
redactional variation than the former. This is particularly true for G2.
Furthermore, there is little doubt that some of the later vitae employed
more than one vita source. As a result, cases of cross-fertilization are
frequent. Nonetheless, some connections can be drawn.
The case of G2
As was noted, G2 easily presents the most difficulties. It was easily the
most popular Greek Vita Pachomii. Its manuscript tradition is quite
complex in itself. 42 The problem of its relationship to the Latin trans-

lation D is not entirely clear. 43 Finally, in the case of the vita material
itself (i. e., apart from the Asc and HL additions), G2 represents a unit,
redactionally all of the same style. There is nothing similar to the G2
Supp/ evidence here, which was so important for the identification of the
y and p sources in the Asc tradition.
A number of cases exist in which G2 remains in agreement with all of
the other witnesses over against Fin its vita sections (i. e., minus the Asc
and HL insertions). This argues that the vita source used by the redactor
of G2 had passed through the f3 stage. For example, F's reference to a
gatekeeper (0 1tpO~ 'tui~ SUpUt~) in G1.44 (H 28.14) is absent in all of the
other versions, including G2. In G1.25 (H 15.20-21), G2 and G3 add
1tOna to F's xui ou't(.o~ 'Au'A&v ut')'toi~ 'tOY 'Aoyov '!OU aEQu. t adds
1to'A'Aaxt~. Once again, the agreement over against F points to the p
stage. In yet a third example, F's finite xui E'AeyOV 1tpO~ a'A'AT)'Aou~ (H
15.22-23) is turned into a present participle in all of the other witnesses.
Of course, some of these cases could represent later developments in
F's trajectory. However, they are numerous enough and supported by
larger considerations to argue for the p stage ofG1. In G1.48 (H 31.2-5),
three full lines of text appearing in F are missing in G3, t, A, and G2,
though in the case of G2, the alteration of the text is so great as to make
any real comparison hazardous. In the same vita section, one can find
other examples of such agreement between A and G3 over against Fin
Halkin's apparatus criticus.
In the case of G2 itself, it must be noted that readings do occur in
which it agrees with t over against Fand G3. For example, both t and G2
add tVU xui before the Q"uVST)m.ojlEV of F and G3 in G1.25 (H 16.8). Thus,
some sort of cross-fertilization with the t-A family must be assumed.
To complicate matters still further, other readings exist in which the
G2 vita text reveals a unique connection with G3 and G4. All of this
suggests a more complicated development behind these vitae involving
cases of cross-fertilization. The popularity of G2 would certainly help to
account for this factor. For example, G6 used G2 and J in the creation of
its pastework combination of HL, Asc, and G2. Without a detailed
study of the G2 manuscript tradition itself, the precise patterns of cross-
fertilization are impossible to determine. It is not even guaranteed that
such a study could solve all of the problems.
The case of G4
Another heavily redacted piece in the vita tradition is G4. Halkin
noted that it revealed traits in common with G2 and G3, yet argued
extensively that G1 was its principle source. 44 In the present line of
43 Supra, pp.6-8, 12, 19.

44 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 75*; idem, «L'Histoire Lausiaque» 297.
analysis, the traits held in common with G3 would be a result of their

shared ancestor J. The traits connecting G4 with G2 could either go
back to y or be the result of some form of cross-fertilization with G2.
Once again, the heavy redaction witnessed in G4 makes its precise
connection to the other vitae difficult. Nonetheless, some telling words
occasionally survive that suggest the proper relationship.
The following example is taken from G1.45 (H 29.13f) and its
parallels.
F Kai auto~ EUXOIlEVO~ EA,EYEV to' rEvTl3iJtro to 3i:ATlIlU (WU xat Ill)
to EIlOV. 'EoioaaxEv yup TtIlU~ f;V tOUtqlllEtU tOU natpo~ EV d~
nuna, on oi5tro~ 6<pEiAEI dvat.
t Kai auto~ EUXOIlEVO~ EAEYEV' rEvTl3iJtro to 3i:ATlIlU aou xat Ill) to
Ellov, xa3ro~ Eoioa~Ev 6 xupto<; f;V EuaYYEAiot~·
G3 Kat auto<; EUXOIlEVO~ t<il 3EAiJilan tOU 9EOU TJ<piEI tl)v aitTlatv,
IllllvTlaxOIlEVo~ tOY AOyov tOu xupiou npo~ tOY nati:pa Ai:yoVtO~·
nAl)v Ill) to EIlOV 3i:ATllla UAAU to aov YIvi:a3ro. Tov autov tunov
xat TtIlU~ olMaxEI 6 XUpto~, otav Ill) to EaUtOU UAAU to tou
Eti:pOU Exa(Jto~ 3 i:ATl Ila anouM~1J E1tltEAEiv' EX toutOU yup xat 6
auvoEallo~ ti1~ uyunTl~ aro~Etat.
G4 Kat OIU toutO ou to Eautou 3i:ATllla yivEcr3aInUVtro~ Ecrnouoat;Ev,

<lAAU to tOU 9EOU' xai yup tOY XUptoV Ttllrov tOUtO VOll03Etdv xat
olMcrXEIv TtIlUS tv t<il Ai:YElV npo~ tOY nati:pa' OAl)V Ill) to EIlOV
3i:ATllla <lAAU to crov YEvi:cr3ro. . .. EoioacrxE xat TtJ..lu<; to auto
notdv xai trov IlEV loirov 3EATlilUtrov <l<picrtacr3al, toi<; OE trov
nati:prov tE xat oloacrxuArov <lxOAou3Eiv.
Although G3 and G4 are very distinct, they do reveal a number of
parallels (underlined) that set them otT from F and t. These parallels
stem from their use of the common source J.
The t5 source
It is apparent that G3, G4, and G6 developed out of the J source. It
was shown above 45 that the Asc texts in G3 and G6 are so related.
Halkin has also posited a common ancestor to account for their similar
HL texts. The above examples suggest the same use of a J stage of G1.
G2 concludes the above quoted section with the words, rEvTl3iJtro,
Ai:yrov, nUtEp, to crov 3i:ATllla. Thus, it is seen to be in closer agreement
with F and t. Hence, the changes found in G3 and G4 must stem from the
later J source. If this is the case, and G1 was part of the J source, then it
45 Supra, pp.89-90.
must also have been part of'}'. The collection still existed at these points.
The failure of G6 to use G1 in its compilation is due to its preference for
the popular G2.
If these suggestions are correct, then not only is the priority of the F
text maintained, but of the primitive Pachomian collection. Though the
general patterns of the development of the Greek dossier were already
established, they find added support here in the manuscript tradition.
The case of the Latin text D
Some problems are still presented, as the Pachomian scholar has
come to expect, from the relationship of the Latin text D to the Greek
dossier. Lefort had noted that D places HL material into the vita at three
separate points. These three units and their placement are matched in
G3. This led Lefort to argue that the latter had made use of the Greek
original behind D. He further noted variant readings in G3 which agree
with G2 and D over against Gl. 46 This agreement ofG3, G2 and Dover
against Gl is accounted for by the'}' source in the present analysis.
However, the nature of the HL insertions, in spite of Chitty's statement
to the contrary,47 seems to demand a connection. Again, one suspects
some form of cross-fertilization.
Summary
It is clear that the precise connection between G2 and D, as well as
their relationship to the other vitae, has not been finally solved.
However, the evidence points to a continuation of the Pachomian
collection along the same patterns uncovered in the case of the Asc
GI Asc EpAm
46 Lefort, Les vies copIes LI; Veilleux, La liturgie 33.

alone. This result may be summarized in one final expansion of the

stemma in which the vitae sigla represent the vitae themselves.
The basic pattern of the stemma confirms Veilleux's analysis of the
Greek material. 48 The descent of the various vitae remains the same.
The attempt here has been to develop a more detailed understanding of
the manuscript traditions behind these relationships.
Returning to the Ep Am, the above analysis has clearly established the
preeminent position of the F text. As such, it further supports the
conclusions drawn from the comparison of the F and t manuscripts. The
use of F as the primary text for the critical edition is demanded.
48 Supra, pp. 18-21.

VI. THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
OF THE TEXT
The Epistula Ammonis presents itself as a letter written by a certain

bishop Ammon in response to a request made by a certain Theophilus,
probably Theophilus the archbishop of Alexandria. 1 Although the
name Ammon is frequent in this period, there is no evidence that the
author of this letter appears outside of it in our sources. 2 Theophilus is
not identified as the archbishop in the letter. In fact, his name appears
only in his reply to Ammon, which has become part of the text. The
phrase «to a certain friend of God» (1tp6<; nvu 8wq>1Aii) has been
incorporated into the title in the t manuscript. However, this title is
secondary and does not in and of itself warrant a denial of the identifi-
cation of the addressee with the archbishop. The honor shown to the
addressee by Bishop Ammon and the exigencies of such literature
support such an identification. 3
Ammon recounts the development of his own life within the letter. He
was born to a pagan family4 and converted to Christianity at age
seventeen. 5 Upon hearing Athanasius' praise of the monastic life in a
sermon, he decided to become a monk. After looking about in
Alexandria for an ascetic under whom he could be apprenticed, he was
steered by Paul, the priest of the Alexandrian church of Pieri us, to the
Tabennesiote community in the Thebaid. He made the journey to their
monastery of Pabau with Theophilus and Kopres, Pachomian monks
returning in the monastery boat from a mission to Alexandria. Ammon
was met at the gate by Theodore and received into the community as a
member of the Greek speaking house. 6 He records that these events
took place a little over a year after Gallus was proclaimed Caesar. This
latter event is dated to 15 March 351. 7
Ammon remained at Pabau for three years. He portrays himself as
somewhat of a favorite of Theodore. In this regard, the letter functions
to praise Ammon as well as Theodore. Ammon left the community
upon learning of the grief he caused his parents by his unannounced
1 Infra, Notes on the Text 124.1-2.

2 Ladeuze, Etude 109; Robertson, NPNF 4.487.
4 Ep Am 2 (124.13), 30 (153.1-2).
5 Em Am 2 (124.13).
6 Ep Am 7.
7 Ep Am 7 (129.17-18); infra, Notes on the Text 129.17-18.
104 Literary and historical interpretation of the text
departure. Although he only wanted to visit them and then return to

Pabau, Theodore advised him to become a member of the Nitriote
community.8 Ammon did remain in contact with the Tabennesiotes
while at the Mount of Nit ria. 9 He later became a bishop, though at what
time and in which diocese is not mentioned. 10
The letter was occasioned by Theophilus, who, upon learning of
Ammon's experiences among the Tabennesiote monks under
Theodore, requested him to put them in writing. 11 The identification of
this Theophilus with the Alexandrian archbishop is supported by the
latter's apparent interest in collecting such material. 12 The letter makes
it clear that the addressee, having heard many things about Theodore,
was eager to obtain written corroboration. 13 It is quite natural to
assume that contact with his bishops led to his discovery of Ammon's
experiences. 14 He instructed Ammon to record both those things that
he experienced personally as well as those which he had heard about
from others. 1 5
Ammon followed his instructions closely. The request for both
eyewitness and hearsay accounts is characteristic of the genre. 16
However, the fact of Theophilus' request is independent of the form in
which Ammon presents it. The latter involves the use of specific literary
devices that reveal a knowledge of the literature of the period. 17
The outline of the letter is quite clear. Although each of Halkin's
thirty-seven sections is separable, in some cases two of his sections
actually form two parts of a single episode. For example, § 19 records
Silvanus' arrogance against Theodore and its results. Section 20 reports
Theodore's correction of certain erring monks at Pabau. They were,
however, revealed to him in § 19. It was their revelation that led to
Silvanus' arrogance. Similar connections join §§22-23, §§28-29, and
§§34-35. Larger units are also distinguishable. Thus, §§31-33 pro-
perly belong together. They record Ammon's report of Theodore's
prophecy concerning the persecutions to the Nitriote monks,
Theodore's written confirmation of his prophecy, and the fulfillment of
the prophecy respectively.
8 Ep Am 30.
9 Ep Am 32.
10 The title appears only in the secondary title to the document. However, it is
supported by internal evidence (infra, Notes on the Text 124.1-2).
11 Ep Am 1 (124.9-10), 37 (158.7-9).
12 Infra, p.118.
13 Ep Am 1 (124.4-7), 37 (158.4-5).
14 Ep Am 34.
15 Ep Am 1 (124.8-9).
17 Infra, Notes on the Text, Excursus pp. 188-189.
Literary and historical interpretation of the text 105
Outside of such smaller elements, the letter divides into seven distinct
units. These are clearly delineated in the following outline.
I. Prologue §1
II. Ammon's Early Experiences at Pabau
1. Ammon's conversion and entrance into Pabau 2
2. Theodore's catechesis
a) Scriptural advice to individual monks 3
b) The Alexandrian Theodore translates. 4
c) Theodore's prophecy concerning the Arian and pagan persecutions 5
d) Ammon questions Theodore concerning the date of the coming per-
secutions. 6
e) Ammon is assigned to the Greek house and the catechesis is discussed
there. 7
III. Secondary Accounts Collected by Ammon
1. Ammon asks Ausonius and Elourion to te\l him more about Theodore. 8
2. Ausonius' and E1ourion's account
a) Pachomius receives the young Theodore into his monastery. 9
b) Pachomius' earthshaking prayer and Theodore's reaction to it 10
c) Theodore's vision of the trinity 11
d) Theodore reports his vision to Pachomius and Pachomius tells of his
early vision against the heresies. 12
e) Pachomius' support of Athanasius 13
d) Theodore is fed by angels and deemed worthy of revelation. 14
3. Ammon confirms Ausonius' and Elourion's account through Pekyssius. 15
4. Ausonius proves from scripture Theodore's ability to read hearts. 16
IV. Ammon's Eyewitness Accounts
1. Theodore disciplines Amais because of his secret thoughts and leads him to
confess. 17
2. Theodore heals a villager's daughter. 18
3. Silvanus is stricken for mocking Theodore in his heart. 19
4. Certain erring monks revealed to Theodore by an angel are corrected. One
is expe\led. 20
5. A speech by Theodore elicits the confession of a monk who stole food. 21
6. The frivolous behavior of four young monks is revealed to Theodore. 22
7. Theodore's speech against laughter corrects the four frivolous brethren. 23
8. Mousaios rebukes Theodore's authority and is expelled. 24
9. Theodore's clairvoyant knowledge of Karour's death 25
10. Theodore corrects Patchelphius for teaching against the resurrection of the
flesh. 26
11. Theodore heals Patrikius who was bitten by an asp. 27
12. Theodore's revelation concerning the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins 28
13. A letter from Antony arrives supporting Theodore's revelation. 29
V. Ammon's Sojourn at the Mount of Nitria
1. Ammon's departure from Pabau 30
2. Ammon reports Theodore's prophecy concerning the Arian persecution to
the Nitriote monks. 31
3. A letter from Theodore concerning the Arian persecutions arrives at

Nitria. 32
4. Theodore's prophecy concerning Julian and the persecutions is fulfilled. 33
5. Athanasius' report concerning Theodore 34
6. Athanasius approves Ammon's report. 35
VI. Postscript 36
VII. Theophilus' Reply 37
The letter form itself accounts for three of the seven units.
Theophilus' reply (VII) is not part of the original document. The
prologue (I) and postscript (VI) are part ofthe letter and do not belong
to the narrative proper. The failure of the prologue to conform to the
normal pattern of a prescript (the adscription never occurs) argues that
the letter form is simply part of the genre. The document is certainly
more than a personal letter.
The four units that make up the narrative (II -V) reveal the literary
nature of the composition. Ammon has superimposed a report and
chronology of his own life upon that of Theodore. Although units II and
V deal with Theodore, they function also to enclose the central narrative
about him (III-IV). They form the connecting points in Ammon's
career to his three year sojourn at Pabau. Unit II records his initial entry
into the community and unit V his departure and later life at the Mount
of Nitria.
The two central units (III-IV) present Ammon's report as a
Pachomian monk. This includes secondary material gleaned from
others (III = §§ 8-16) as well as his own eyewitness accounts (IV =
§§ 17-29). These are the main stories concerning Theodore and form
the core of the narrative.
Such literary activity on the part of the author raises the question of
the historical reliability of the text. Although early scholarship agreed in
its high evaluation of the document, Lefort's arguments in favor of its
apocryphal nature have stirred the waters considerably. It is still used
frequently in discussions of Pac hom ian monasticism. However, caution
is usually expressed due to the contamination of Ammon's Pachomian
memories through his later years as a Nitriote monk and bishop of the
church. IS
There can be no doubt that Ammon presented his material in forms
characteristic of the day. Although his Greek is rife with errors, the
complicated constructions that he attempted suggest considerable learn-
ing. The document is presented as a letter. It has as much in common
with a true letter as Athanasius' Vita Antonii or Palladius' Historia
Lausiaca. All three documents were written in response to a request and
18 Infra, pp.114-115.
were ostensibly sent as a letter through the post. In reality, all three offer
histories of monasticism, encomia of the desert fathers. Palladius' work
supplies short accounts of various monks from Egypt and Asia.
Ammon and Athanasius both deal with a single Egyptian figure.
Athanasius' work is perhaps more truly a vita, while Ammon's effort is
better styled an encomium; a recounting of various episodes from the
saint's life in his honor. However, one should not overdraw the distinc-
tion. It is clear that all three documents share in the same genre. 19
Palladius knew Athanasius' Vita Antonii (HL 8.6). There is every reason
to believe that Ammon had read it. 20
Ammon's literary talent is revealed in a number of ways throughout
the text. Beyond the overall structure noted above, the opening and
closing have been carefully connected by an anti-Arian thread.
Theodore's prophecy concerning the Arian and pagan persecutions
made during his catechesis at the beginning of the narrative (§§ 5-6)
reappears at the end, where the persecutions are recounted and the
fulfillment of Theodore's predictions affirmed (§§31-33). This anti-
Arian thread emerges elsewhere in the document (§§ 11, 18) and rep-
resents an interest deriving from Ammon's ecclesiastical orthodoxy. It
is noteworthy that the major references to the Arian persecutions occur
outside of the central core of the narrative (Units III-IV), which
consists of individual Pachomian episodes.
Ammon's concern for ecclesiastical orthodoxy is witnessed often in
the letter. He reports his avoidance of an heretical monk in Alexandria
(§ 2), supports the identity of the trinity (§ 11), counters the Meletians
and the Marcionites (§ 12), and calls for support of Athanasius (§ 13)
and exactness of ecclesiastical doctrine (§§25-26). He reports
Theodore's stance in favor of post-baptismal forgiveness of sins (§§ 28-
29) and the resurrection of the flesh (§ 26). Whether or not certain of
these stories go back to the Pachomians themselves, Ammon's interest
in them is clear. He was certainly a bishop in the Athanasian camp.
Numerous shorter threads connecting various parts of the letter are
also found. Ammon's reference in § 5 to his inability as a new monk to
understand Theodore's catechesis leads into § 7 where Theodore the
Alexandrian explains the meaning of the other Theodore's words.
Again, in §7, Theodore predicts Ammon's eventual departure from
Pabau. This takes place in § 30. Another fine example connects § 7 and
§ 16. In the former, Theodore charges Ausonius to instruct Ammon in
the scriptures. Section 16 offers an example of Ausonius doing precisely
that.
19 Infra, Notes on the Text, Excursus pp.18S-189.

20 Ibid; infra, Notes on the Text § 31.
Ammon also makes an effort to shore up his account by supplying

secondary witnesses within the letter itself and countering possible
objections. As if foreseeing Lefort's charge against his memory,21
Ammon both calls upon the Lord for help in this regard (§ 1) and notes
how frequent discussion of the material allowed him to learn many
things by heart (§ 7). After offering the secondary account of Elourion
and Ausonius (§§ 8-14), he supports it by recording his own testing of it
against Pekyssius' version (§15). In §29, he uses a letter from Antony
to support Theodore's revelation concerning the forgiveness of post-
baptismal sin. In the same section, he lends support to his own letter by
having it predicted by Theodore himself. In § 32, Theodore's letter
concerning the Arian persecutions arrives at the Mount of Nitria to
confirm Ammon's oral account of his prophecy (§ 31). The need for
such support is revealed in Hagion's words, which suggest a playful
relief at not having to rely solely on word-of-mouth reports (§ 32).
Finally, Ammon notes in § 35 that Athanasius himself affirmed his
witness. The reply from Theophilus (§ 37) serves to undergird the entire
work.
The literary impulse behind the text is likewise apparent in its hagio-
graphic concerns. Ammon's selection of stories center on Theodore's
miraculous power; in particular, on his clairvoyant abilities. The vari-
ous errant monks that come to light in the episodes should not be
pressed as historical examples or cases. 22 They are only the literary
stage props for the main character and theme. It is Theodore's clairvo-
yant ability that brings the errant monks to light and enables him to
correct or expel them.
Central to the theme is the depiction of Theodore as an awe-inspiring
man of God. He is already so titled in § 1. The opening catechesis (§§ 3-
7) builds upon this image. Theodore's authority, insight, and prophetic
ability are seen through the eyes of a young, inexperienced monk. As
such, his charisma appears heightened. It reaches a crescendo in § 8,
where Ammon reports that the very hearing of Theodore's voice filled
one with joy, or grief, or fear.
The secondary account of Ausonius and Elourion (§§ 9-15), which
occurs at this point, functions to establish Theodore as the true heir of
Pachomius in regard to such gifts. The account begins with a list of the
remarkable gifts that God granted Pachomius. These included making
things known to him through revelation, speaking others to him in his
heart, and revealing still others to him through angels. The various
examples of revelation occurring throughout the letter all fall into this
21 Supra, p.27.
22 This does not mean that an element of truth does not lie behind both the individual
cases and the general depiction of such problems within the community.
threefold typology. The point of the account is that Theodore, as

Pachomius' chosen successor, has inherited these same gifts. 23 There is
no mention of the problems that arose between the two that occurs in
the vitae. 24 That would only detract from the theme. In the account,
Pachomius predicts Theodore's arrival and joining of the community
(§9). Theodore early becomes a confidant of God's revelations to
Pachomius (§ 10). He receives his own vision against heresy (§ 11) that
Pachomi us parallels to his own early experience (§ 12). The transfer of
the power is made complete in § 14. Theodore is fed a miraculous food
by angels and from that day deemed worthy of important revelations
from the Lord (xuiurr' ExEtvllC; 'tfjc; TJIlf:PUC; cruv£xrov urroxuM'I'£O)v
rrupa 'wi) xupiou iJ~toi)'to). Section 16, which follows shortly, offers a
long series of scripture proofs in support of this declaration. The
eyewitness accounts that follow (§§ 17-29) confirm it.
In the eyewitness accounts, Ammon includes two miracle stories. In
§ 18, a local village girl is healed through the application of water
blessed by Theodore with the sign of the cross. In §27, the monk
Patrikius, who had been bitten by an asp, is healed through Theodore's
application of the sign of the cross. All of the remaining episodes in
Ammon's eyewitness accounts involve some form of revelation being
made to Theodore. In most cases, it is an erring monk who is made
known to him.
Ammon employs a number of techniques designed to heighten the
miraculous nature of these accounts. In §§ 22-23, four brothers err
through laughter, and their error is revealed to Theodore. Here, the
geographical circumstances are made to heighten the sense of the super-
natural. Theodore is placed in an uninhabited area with a group of
monks collecting wood. The four erring brothers are with another
group sent to a different location for the same purpose. Ammon specifi-
cally notes that a day's journey separated the two groups CHv bE 'to
Il£'tu~u bUlcr'tllllU UlYtroV TJIlf:PUC; EXOV aMv), ostensibly lest some less
miraculous contact be suggested.
Similarly, in § 25, the ascent of Karour's soul is witnessed by
Theodore at Pabau. Ammon points out in the story that the distance
between Karour's monastery and Pabau was great (rroAAoi) bE rroppO)
xui 'to btucr'tllllun) and that it took two brothers eight days to arrive at
Pabau with the news.
Such knowledge from a distance is a common form of clairvoyant
power. It appears again in § 29, where Theodore sends two brothers to
the cape of an island to flag down the first boat that comes around the
23 Bo 34; infra, Notes on the Text § 14; infra, pp. 112-113.

24 Gl.106; Bo 94; Am 578f.
bend in the Nile. He knows that it will be the monastery boat returning
from Alexandria. Of course, the monks are duly impressed.
A further example occurs in the episode of the four laughing brothers
(§§22-23). Their repentance is drawn out in public by a speech of
Theodore. This, in itself, is a common enough topOS.25 The miraculous
is drawn in by Ammon, who notes that they confessed simultaneously
even though they were separated from one another (Ot 'tE(J(JUpEe; W<J1tEP
EX !luxe; YVcO!llle;, xuhot yE OtE(J'tO)'tEe; UAA;r,A(J)V).
Of course, Theodore's clairvoyant ability, like his miraculous powers
and revelations, was understood as a gift from God. Ammon makes the
gifts function throughout the letter in support of «correct ecclesiastical
doctrines». Theodore, as a man of God, received revelations from God.
As such, they had to be «orthodox», and for Ammon, orthodox meant
pro-Athanasian. To argue against Theodore, at least in Ammon's pre-
sentation of him, was to argue against God. Thus, when Silvanus
questioned his authority, he was slapped senseless by an angel (§ 19).
All of these factors point to a careful literary construction.
Concomitantly, they call the historical reliability of the individual
episodes into question. Ammon is obviously molding his material from
his own viewpoint within the church hierarchy in much the same way
that Athanasius molded the life of Antony.26 Accepting this fact, one
must inquire concerning the source of his material and the influences
from his own background that impinge upon it.
There can be little doubt that Ammon made use of preexisting
sources. Lefort charged that the details in many of the episodes were
impossible to attribute to Ammon's memory alone. They had to be
either part of the literary creation of the author or a result of his use of
sources. 27 Lefort's argument is sound, though his conclusions drawn
from it too harsh. To impugn Ammon for attributing his creation to
memory is to place today's standards on yesterday's literature. The
acknowledgment of one's sources, outside of scripture, is rare. Further-
more, the attribution of details to literary creation need not detract
from the basic outline of the story. Such literary development is but the
other side of the coin of oral tradition. The latter has also filled in details
and remolded older episodes for later consumption with the passage of
time. Although the outside influence is less clear, similar suspicions
must be raised for the individual episodes in the vitae Pachomii as well.
The difference is that we do not know the authors of the vitae and their
driving concerns as we do for the Ep Am.28
25 Ep Am 21; Gl.97.
26 H. Dorries, «Die Vita Antonii als Geschichtsquelle,» NGWG 14 (1949) 359-410.
27 Supra, p. 27.
The use of sources in and of itself does not make a text unreliable. If
the sources are good and followed carefully, the value of the document
remains. One has only to think of Eusebius' Historia ecclesiastica or
note Athanasius' use of sources in the Vita Antonii. 29 In the one case
where Ammon's text does reveal a literary connection with an outside
source, the texts are remarkably close. 30
Although Ammon does not mention the use of written sources, he
does include material that suggests such usage. The one clear literary
parallel connecting Ammon's account of Theodore's concealing of two
vipers under his feet (§ 19) and Evagrius' De oratione 108 has been
interpreted as having passed in either direction. 31 It is not clear whether
Ammon or Evagrius is using the written source.
Ammon's quotation of letters from Antony (§ 29) and Theodore
(§ 32) suggest his possession of a written copy. In the case of the latter,
he even offers suggestions as to where the original might be found. The
account in § 34, attributed to Athanasius and recording Theodore's
clairvoyant knowledge of Julian's death, is a hagiographic cliche. It
undoubtedly derives from elsewhere. 32 The concise and accurate re-
counting of the Arian persecutions found in § 31 might suggest a know-
ledge of Athanasius' writings. 33 It is possible that Ammon, having lived
through these crises, composed it himself. However, there is no reason
to suppose that Ammon, a member of the Alexandrian church
hierarchy and an obvious supporter of Athanasius, had not read his
works. In either case, the historicity of the account shines through.
Ammon either had an accurate memory, or he followed his sources very
well.
Internally, Theodore's speech against laughter (§ 23) reveals a dif-
ferent Greek style from the rest of the work. This alone suggests the use
of a source. It has been suggested that a collection of Pachomian
catecheses existed at one time. 34 Pachomius' catechesis against idolatry,
added to the Asc in the Fmanuscript, is most often given as evidence of
this collection. One could as well suggest parts of Theodore's catechesis
at the opening of Ammon's letter (§§ 3-7). However, one need not posit
such a source in order to account for the preservation of this material.
28 This is not meant to suggest that the Ep Am is on the same par with the vitae in all
matters. The literary and church oriented influence on the Ep Am is clearly greater. Yet
one should not, as a result, uncritically accept the vitae accounts.
31 Lefort, Les vies coptes LIV-LVI; Chitty, «Reconsidered» 39-41.
32 Infra, Notes on the Text 156.25.
33 Infra, Notes on the Text §31.
The quality of Theodore's speech against laughter, leaving aside the

question of when that quality arose, makes its preservation under-
standable, whether as part of a collection or as an individual unit.
Ammon himself admits to using an oral source for the information
presented in §§ 9-14. These offer a brief «Life of Theodore» ('ta xa'ta
eEooropOV) that he claims to have gleaned from the older brothers,
Ausonius and Elourion. Together with their introduction (§ 8) and close
(§ 15), these sections appear to intrude between § 7 and § 16. In § 7,
Theodore instructs Ausonius to urge Ammon on in learning the scrip-
tures. Section 16 supplies a case of Ausonius carrying out this
command.
A number of internal factors also argue for the secondary nature of
this material. In § 14, Ammon refers to the aforesaid monastery in the
Tentyrite nome. However, the only monastery previously mentioned in
the letter is Pabau, and it is specifically placed in the Diospolite nome
(§ 2). Although it seems obvious that Ammon is referring to Tabennesis
in § 14, 3 5 it is never named. This incongruity, solved in t through the
erasure of the Diospolite reference, is best explained through Ammon's
careless use of his sources.
A similar inconsistency occurs in § 10. There Ammon records
Pachomius' earthquake causing prayer. It has distinct parallels in the
Coptic and Greek vitae. In Gl, it is simply recorded that Pachomius saw
terrible visions on this occasion. The visions are left undescribed. The
Coptic version, however, supplies the vision. It included the appearance
of a gilded icon and a luminous beam of fear. The Ep Am, though
recording no vision, inserts a prayer of Pachomius at the same point. 36
Later in the account, after Pachomius' prayer concludes, Ammon re-
ports that when the earthquake ceased, the light was no longer visible
to human eyes. The presence of this light was never mentioned before.
Its sudden occurrence here suggests the faulty combination of his
sources. 37
If Ammon is using a secondary source here, he has certainly reworked
it and fit it cleverly into his account. The Greek style is not appreciably
different from that found in the rest of the letter. Although one can
argue that § 7 and § 16 have been separated by the intrusion of this
material, he must equally acknowledge that the present order has a
distinct literary value of its own. Ausonius' and Elourion's account
functions to portray Theodore as the true successor to Pachomius,
35 Infra, Notes on the Text 131.27f, 134.1-3.

36 Infra, Notes on the Text § 10.
37 Ibid. Of course, the appearance oflight in such circumstances is a common enough
topos.
particularly in terms of the gift of revelation. Their account ends in § 14,

where Theodore is deemed worthy of continued revelation from the
Lord. This is followed in § 16 by Ausonius' scripture proofs in support
of Theodore's ability. Sections 17-29 offer Ammon's eyewitness ex-
amples of this ability. Thus, one moves nicely from the inheritance of
the power, to its scriptural support, and finally to the eyewitness proof
of its existence. 38
It is interesting to note that the only two episodes in the letter that
have clear parallels in the vita tradition occur in this secondary material
gathered from Ausonius and Elourion. 39 These are § 10 and § 12.
Although Ammon's versions are quite distinct from those of the vitae,
their connection is unmistakable. Their presence in this material fits
historically with Ammon's presentation. The greater part of the vita
material took place before Ammon's arrival at Pabau some six years
after Pachomius' death. Ausonius and Elourion are reporting events
that took place before his arrival; indeed, prior to Pachomius' death.
Hence, the chance of parallels to the vita tradition occurring in this
material would naturally be greater. Furthermore, by plugging into the
oral tradition via Ausonius and Elourion, Ammon would have col-
lected the more popular episodes. It is a perfect example of the passage
of the oral tradition prior to its codification in the vitae. 40
When one turns from such larger parallel units and asks concerning
the general relationship between the Ep Am and the vita traditions,
some interesting factors emerge. It is to be recalled first that the letter
was composed in Greek and survives in a collection of Greek
Pachomian texts that includes Gl and Asc. It is clear,however, that
Ammon knew Coptic. Copticisms are frequently found in the text. 41
Chitty, supporting the Greek connection, argued that the Pachomian
chronology found in Ep Am and Gl agreed together over against that
found in the Coptic vitae. 42 However, on closer examination, there is
little material that the Ep Am holds uniquely in common with the Greek
vitae over against the Coptic.
On the other hand, a number of elements within the letter find their
only parallels in the Coptic tradition. 43 The monks Patelloli (§ 3),
Karour (§ 25), and Bessarion (§ 30) appear elsewhere only in the Coptic
38 Supra, pp.108-109.
39 Minor parallels with the vitae traditions are found also in Ammon's eyewitness
accounts. They are, however, much more distant than the present two cases.
40 Peeters, «Le dossier co pte» 269.
41 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 102*; cf., Festugiere, La premiere vie 157.
43 Cf., Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 269-270.
tradition. 44 The passing reference to Patelloli in Theodore's catechesis

(§ 3) looks like a distant reference to the same tradition recorded in Bo
87. 45 In Ammon's account, he is but one ofa series of monks who arise
to ask Theodore to speak concerning their faults. In Bo 87, Pataoli is
central to the account. A young and vigorous monk, he partakes of a
bowl of food at mealtime that is meant for the weaker brethren. After
the meal, the brothers proceed to another room. to be instructed in
scripture by Theodore. There they ask Theodore to tell them their
shortcomings (Oy02 N~y6"tIOy MMO'I nG €opG .. xm qmoy MnGToy(l)~T
MMO'!). Thus, the depiction of Theodore responding to the monks
concerning their faults as well as the unique reference to Pataoli connect
Ep Am 3 and Bo 87. However, the parallel does not go further. Bo 87
deals only with Pataoli. The discussion of the other monks' faults is only
mentioned as a backdrop to the Pataoli account. In Ep Am 3, the
confronting of the individual monks by Theodore is central, while
Patelloli is but one monk of many so confronted. Again, the enigmatic
scriptural responses given by Theodore in the Ep Am are not matched in
Bo 87. There, the specific shortcomings are more clearly spelt out.
Nonetheless, the connection of the material is clear, particularly over
against its complete absence in the Greek vitae.
Other, less striking parallels connect Ep Am 10, 14, and 17 with the
Coptic tradition. 46 Finally, Ammon's reference to Psarphius in §26 as
the first of all those at Pabau ('I'upqnov toV nUvtOlV nprotov EV tij BaG)
finds its only parallel in Bo 185, where, in a reference to Psahref, Duke
Artemius is said to speak with the greatest among the brethren (IIOTOIN-
7
NIUJt 2GtlNICIIIIOY ).4
Ammon does reveal a certain unfamiliarity with Pachomian ter-
minology and praxis. Lefort noted that his designation of the house
master in § 26 as npoE(Jtro~ tii~ oixia~ is a hapax legomenon in the
Pachomian literature. 48 His charge that tiyoullEvo~ is only used in the
Pachomian dossier to refer to the superior of a monastery and never to a
house master as it does in Ep Am 19 is less certain. 49 It is clear that
Ammon's usage is unusual. The designation of the central monastery of
Pabau as Bau in the F manuscript is likewise unique in the Greek and
Coptic material. It is paralleled only in the Latin and Arabic texts. 50
44 Infra, Notes on the Text §3, 147.23, and 152.23.

46 Infra, Notes on the Text § 10, § 14, and § 17.
47 Lefort, Les vies coptes LVIII.
48 Ibid. LX.
49 Ibid.; Ruppert 283f; infra, Notes on the Text 139.11-12.
Such factors place some distance between the document and the
immediate Pachomian environment. However, Ammon himself admits
this fact. Converted at age 17, he spent but three years at Pabau under
Theodore (352-355 A. D.). When he left Pabau, he became a monk at
the Mount of Nitria and eventually a bishop in the church. The letter
was written some forty to fifty years after his departure from Pabau. It is
certainly not difficult to assume that he forgot certain Pachomian
technical terms (if they as yet even existed when he was at Pabau) or
contaminated them through his later experiences in the interim. 51
Such contamination is apparent in Ammon's reference to the twelve
prayers in § 22. Although Palladius also refers to twelve prayers in the
Pachomian praxis (HL 32.6), the other Pachomian sources all agree on
the number six. Various explanations have been offered to account for
this inconsistency. Veilleux, picking up on a suggestion made by Chitty,
rightly interprets it as a contamination deriving from Ammon's years as
a Nitriote monk. 52 In Lower Egypt, the number of prayers in the
liturgical practice was twelve. Such contamination also accounts for
Palladius' reference.
Veilleux also argues that the reference in Ep Am 25 to VU'X'tEplvai
Euxai 53 does not fit into the Pachomian milieu. The only parallels to
this terminology in the Pachomian dossier occur in the Asc. Veilleux
argues that they too are dependent on the influence of the Lower
Egyptian practice. 54 He notes that the connection of the Asc with
Lower Egypt is confirmed through its use of the common Lower
Egyptian title of 6 y£pmv to refer to Pachomius. 55
The outside influence on Ammon is again visible in §§ 28-29. The
language used there in discussing the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin
clearly reflects the Shepherd of Hermas. 56 Whether Ammon himself
represents the connecting link between the two or is simply picking up a
tradition in which the two have already been joined is difficult to say. It
is clear, however, that the source is non-Pachomian. 57
The factors that have been discussed above distinguish the Ep Am
from the more direct sources deriving from the Pachomian community
itself. 58 Beyond the contamination of Pachomian terminology and

52 Veilleux, La liturgie 298-299; infra, Notes on the Text 143.24.
53 Veilleux, La liturgie 303-305; infra, Notes on the Text 134.3.
55 Ibid. 23.

57 Ibid.
58 This is particularly true for the letters, Regula. and Lib Hor. though the vitae too are
clearly closer to the community.
praxis through Ammon's Nitriote experiences, one is inclined to see in

the letter the views of an «orthodox» bishop concerned with a literary
presentation of Theodore that captures him once and all for the church.
The theological language concerning the trinity attributed to Theodore
in §11, or the strong defense of Athanasius in §§12-13, are primary
examples. Theodore's ex eventu prophecies concerning the Arian perse-
cutions belong in this category as well.
However, this is again a form of contamination of Ammon's early
Pachomian experiences. It does not deny the existence of those ex-
periences. Lefort, it will be recalled, carried the critique further. He
argued that the letter was strictly apocryphal, written by someone who
had never been a Pachomian monk. Among other factors, 59 he cites the
opening reference to Pachomius in Ep Am 9 as naxoDlllo~ n~ as
unfathomable if Ammon had indeed been a Pachomian monk.
Likewise, he cannot understand why Ammon, who claims to have lived
at Pabau between 352 and 355 A. D., fails to mention Horsiesius and the
problems that arose during his leadership period from 346 to 351.
Again, the fact that Theodore, who in the vitae strictly opposes contact
with one's parents, allows Ammon to visit his mother and father is
taken as evidence of the author's non-Pachomian status.
The first reference to Pachomius as naXODlltoC; nc;, besides occurring
in Ausonius' and Elourion's account, is not an uncommon way to refer
to a monastic figure mentioned for the first time. 60 Furthermore, it is
incorrect to argue that its use suggests an unfamiliarity with the
Pachomian milieu. Even if one were to accept that the author had never
been a Pachomian monk, the fact that he could write such a detailed
encomium dealing with Pachomius' successor, Theodore, certainly sug-
gests that he knew a considerable amount about Pachomius as well. If
anything, the indefinite pronoun speaks to the Sitz im Leben of the letter
and not to the author's knowledge concerning Pachomius. However, as
simply introducing a new character, even the famous Pachomius, its
usage is not that surprising.
Ammon's failure to mention Horsiesius and his leadership problems,
contrary to Lefort, argues more in favor of Ammon's account than
against it. To begin with, the letter concerns Theodore and not
Horsiesius. The failure to mention him is understandable on those
grounds alone. Theophilus had not requested information on
Horsiesius. Furthermore, Ammon left Pabau in 355, before Theodore's
death and Horsiesius' later successful period as general abbot. Hence,
he was not yet the famous, positive figure demanding mention that he
became later. As hagiographic literature, it would be stranger if
59 Supra, pp.27~29.
Ammon had mentioned the troubles. His years at Pabau were years in
which the memory of the community's stumbling after Pachomius'
death was fresh. One suspects that the monks would like to have
forgotten the entire episode. In this light, Ammon's failure to mention it
is totally acceptable.
As for Theodore's leniency in allowing Ammon to visit his parents,
that is understandable from his position at the time as general abbot.
The austerity of an individual in ascetic matters must be kept in-
dependent of the brotherly concern demanded by the office. It is to be
recalled that Pachomius, on one occasion, instructed Theodore to take
a more lenient position in certain matters. 61 At another time, he had
Theodore accompany a monk who was going to visit his parents. 62 The
Regula allowed such visits. 63 The harsher position is certainly evidence
of the younger Theodore's pride. It was this pride that led to his later
falling out with Pachomius, the result of which was a great increase in
his humility. 64
Lefort also argued that the reference to Theodore as E>E68ropo~ 6
tlytaO'IlEVO~ in the opening (§ 1) and closing (§ 34) of the letter rep-
resents late hagiographic concerns. He states:
«Cette epithete est absolument inconnue dans tout Ie dossier, et en dehors d' Ammon on
ne la rencontre que dans des textes byzantins d'assez basse epoque et de caract ere plutot
liturgique. OU Ammon peu~-il avoir trouve cette curieuse epithete qui ne provient
certainement pas de Pbow? Tout porte a croire qu'elle vient de l'hymnologie grecque, ou
du calendrier liturgique, qui avaient a distinguer ce Theodore des homonymes admis aux
diptyques. La <Lettre> ne serait-elle pas une elucubration destinee a justifier, par exemple,
I'admission du nom de Theodore au calendrier liturgique? Les noms de Ammon et
Theophile etaient assez communs parmi l'ancien c1erge egyptien, et bien choisis, pour
conferer toute autorite a la <Lettre> aux yeux des pieux fideles, et aussi pour que Ie critique
moderne ne perde pas son temps en cherchant ales identifier.»65
Chitty rightly observed that the participle tlytaO'IlEvO~ appears seven

times in the New Testament, one occurrence of which is quoted in G1.66
However, one must agree with Lefort that Ammon's language does
represent a more developed and thought-out hagiographic stage than is
apparent in the vitae. It is possible that Lefort is right in seeing the
document as a creation drawn up for a liturgical purpose, perhaps the
admission of Theodore into the diptych. However, that does not mean
61 Gl.65.
62 Gl.67.
63 Reg Pach, Praecepta 51-54, 143; infra, Notes on the Text 144.21.
64 Gl.106-109.
65 Lefort, Les vies coptes LXI.
that one must follow his conlusions to the end and label the epistle
apocryphal and the names of Ammon and Theophilus as mere literary
devices. If one were seeking authority for the piece, the choice of
Ammon seems particularly unrenowned. 67
There is every indication that Theophilus of Alexandria was inter-
ested in Pachomian monasticism. The close connection is not difficult
to fathom in view of the strong anti-Origenist elements found in the
Pachomian dossier. Of course, Theophilus does not appear in the vitae.
They cover, at most, the life of the community through the death of
Theodore in 368. However, he does appear in a few later accounts in
close relationship to Horsiesius and the Pachomians. A sixth or seventh
century manuscript published by Crum 68 includes two letters from
Theophilus to the Pachomians and a discussion between himself and
Horsiesius. In the first letter, he explicitly requests Horsiesius to bring
with him to Alexandria a copy of the Life of Pachomius and Theodore.
Jerome informs us in his preface to the Regula 69 that it was
Tabennesiote monks who established the monastery on Canopus after
the destruction of the Sarapeion in 391 A. D. The destruction had
occurred as part of the anti-pagan actions fanned by Theophilus. The
establishment of this monastery is further described in another late
Coptic witness. 7o It reports that Theophilus first invited monks from
Jerusalem to establish the monastery. The local demons that appeared
each night proved to be too much for them. As a result, Theophilus
brought in Tabennesiote monks to replace them. They were apparently
more familiar with the local variety of demons. 71
Although these two Coptic sources are late and contain much legen-
dary material, there seems to be little reason to challenge the close
connection between Theophilus and the Pachomian monks that they
take for granted. One would expect them to remain close to the suc-
cessors of Athanasius. Furthermore, Theophilus was a man who well
understood the power of the monks and was not adverse to using it in
the most crude ways. The influential Pachomian system would not have
escaped his interest.
If indeed the addressee of the Ep Am is the archbishop Theophilus,
then the Ep Am represents the best example of his interest in Pachomian
monasticism. The question of whether his request for the information
67Infra, Notes on the Text 124.1-2.

68Crum, Der Papyruscodex 12-17, 65-72; Lefort, Les vies coptes 389-395.
69 Boon 4.
70 Zoega, Catalogus 265; Tito Orlandi, Storia della Chiesa di Alessandria. Studi Copti 2
(Milan: Varese, 1968-70) 2.12-14,61-62.
71 Chitty, Desert 54-55.
contained in the letter was made in connection with Theodore's inclu-

sion into the liturgical calender is oflittle import to the basic outline of
the text. It is certain that such an inclusion would further link the
Pachomian movement to himself, the political overtones of which
would not have escaped him. If this is the original Sitz im Leben behind
the letter, it does not of necessity challenge the facts presented by
Ammon. To whom would Theophilus more naturally address such a
request than to one of his bishops who had spent three years at Pabau
under Theodore? It would be the obvious way to gain the information
and further the connection between the two parties. Whether or not the
Pachomians remembered Ammon, he certainly remembered them. His
loyalty to the «orthodox» church was unquestioned. The mere fact that
the author had been a Pachomian monk would add weight to the
document,72 both for the «pieux fideles» in general, and for the
Pachomians in particular.
The most persuasive evidence in support of Ammon's connection
with the Pachomians is his obvious familiarity with the practices, geo-
graphy, and chronology of the movement. Beyond the contaminations
noted above, the basic descriptions fit well with those found in the other
sources. Thus, the division into houses, the work parties, the catecheses,
the Paschal gathering at Pabau, etc., all fit the Pachomian movement.
The description of work parties proceeding to islands in the river or
uninhabited, mountainous regions 7 3 reflects the local geography. The
names and offices of well known Pachomian monks appear as well as
those of less renowned figures such as Pataoli and Bessarion.
But perhaps the most impressive aspect of the letter is the chronolo-
gical detail that it offers. It is this aspect that has made the piece so
important in the history of Pachomian studies. As Peeters noted, «Si ce
temoignage devait etre revoque en doute, toute la chronologie
pach6mienne en serait ebranlee.)) 74
The most important reference in this regard is Ammon's dating of his
arrival at Pabau a little over a year after Gallus was proclaimed Caesar
(§ 7). Gallus was proclaimed Caesar on March 15, 351. Thus, we have
an established date on which to build the Pachomian chronology.
Ammon arrived at Pabau in 352. Since he notes that Pachomius had
died six years before his arrival (§ 9), Pachomius' death can be dated to
346. This is in basic agreement with the vitae. 75 In §30, Ammon dates
72 Pachomian monks turned bishops did not always retain such close ties with the
community (GI.112).
4
7 Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 269.
his departure from Pabau in 355, some three years after his arrival and
six months before Athanasius' exile in February 356. 76
In § 31, Ammon reveals an extremely accurate knowledge of the
events of the Arian crises in Alexandria. Even if one suspects him of
having read Athanasius, his accuracy is to be commended. A further
good example of this accuracy occurs in § 33. At first glance, one might
interpret the reference to the ninth month of the sixth year (rep f:vvutql
JlTJvi tOU EXtoU lhou~) in connection with the 'IoUAtavO~ ~a(JlAE()(m~
that immediately follows it. The punctuation in Halkin suggests such an
interpretation. 77 However, Julian did not reign that long. The solution
lies in understanding the temporal phrase in connection with
Athanasius' exile in February 356 under Constantius. Although he
returned to Alexandria for a short time under Julian in 362, it was more
a respite than a true break in the exile. The dating of events from an
important point in Athanasius' life occurs elsewhere. In the Historia
Acephala IV.5, an event is calculated in years, months, and days from
Athanasius' return from Italy. When one interprets Ammon's text in
this manner, the accuracy of his chronology shines through. Five years
and nine months from Athanasius' exile in February 356 would be
November 361, the precise date of Julian's acclamation as sole emperor.
The one challengeable date in Ammon's letter is his reference to
Theodore's age at the time of Pachomius' earthquake causing prayer
(§ 10).78 Although Ammon does seem to be in error here, the chro-
nology of Theodore's life is not certain. 79 Furthermore, the story occurs
in Ausonius' and Elourion's account. The other errors evident in
Ammon's incorporation of this material into his letter make it easier to
understand his possible failure here. 80
A final point in favor of Ammon's having been a Pachomian monk
can be seen precisely in his use of the traditions. He reveals interesting
contacts with both the Greek and the Coptic traditions. The parallels to
the other known Pachomian sources are distant at best, arguing that
they were certainly not in front of him or even fresh in his memory when
he wrote. 81 The parallels look more like distant memories of past events
or oral reports. Even in the letters and catecheses that Ammon pre-
serves, where one might suspect a more literary dependence, the lack of

77 Both F and t place their first punctuation mark after E'tOU<;.
79 Infra, Notes on the Text 130.1 0-1t.
80 Supra, pp. 111-112.

81 Of course, he may have used materials now lost. However, the reworking of the
material that is in evidence throughout the epistle suggests his own effort. Exceptions are
the letters (§29 and §32) and Theodore's speech against laughter (§23).
parallels from the other sources suggests his close contact with the
tradition. He could well have kept notes. He does reveal a desire for
proof and a bureaucratic mind. He says he was quick to seek additional
information from Ausonius and Elourion (§ 8) and that he checked their
report with Pekyssius (§ 15). He appears to know the location of
Theodore's original letter to the Nitriote monks (§ 32). Of course, these
are, in part, literary devices. However, that does not mean that they
have no basis in fact; in notes and souvenirs that Ammon collected over
the years and finally incorporated into his «magnum oPUS».
It is the conclusion of this study that the basic facts presented by
Ammon, both in relationship to his own career and in connection with
Pachomian monasticism and the ecclesiastical-political situation in the
church, are historically accurate; at least as accurate as one can expect
from a source of this period. The arguments made in favor of the
complete apocryphal nature of the work place an unfair burden on the
text and ignore the large amount of evidence in its favor.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that Ammon's experiences
within the Pachomian community were limited. They encompassed but
the first three years of his life within the church. He wrote his letter some
forty to fifty years later. He was born in Lower Egypt and, except for his
three years at Pabau, appears to have lived there for his entire life. It is
clear that his later experiences as a Nitriote monk contaminated his
recollection of the Pachomian praxis. His close association within the
church hierarchy likewise colored his presentation of the community.
He clearly sees his work in the same cast as Athanasius' Vita Antonii.
This brings us to the final point. The Ep Am is a literary creation,
possibly designed on the Vita Antonii. Whether or not it was written in
connection with Theodore's entry into the Alexandrian diptych, it is a
hagiographic encomium, interested in presenting Theodore as an ortho-
dox man of God and the true successor of Apa Pachomius. The in-
dividual episodes and details therein must remain highly suspect.
Although many derive from the tradition and undoubtedly have a
historical kernel, they are too far removed from the original and colored
by Ammon's own concerns to make the recovery of this kernel possible.
It can be argued that the same problem, to a somewhat lesser extent,
also holds true for the vitae.
Thus, a way out exists between Lefort's harsh judgement of the work
as apocryphal and Chitty's almost blanket acceptance of it. In the
intensity of their debate, they simply hardened their positions over
against one another. When one is not compelled to take sides, the waters
often clear. The literary nature of the text and even its possible liturgical
setting are not incompatable with the facts presented by Ammon con-
cerning his own career and his occasion for writing the letter. With
Chitty, it can be asserted that Ammon's life did proceed as he described
it. He did spend three years at Pabau under Theodore and moved from
there to Nitria and into the church hierarchy. The latter move offered
him valuable contacts and access to church sources. This helps to
account for his literary creation and his chronological accuracy.
However, Lefort was correct in so far as the Sitz im Leben of the letter
was non-Pachomian. Ammon's portrayal of events is colored by his
own purpose. His letter is a literary creation, a fourth to fifth century
equivalent of the historical novel. His primary goal was to extol Theo-
dore as an orthodox and powerful man of God and to join his monas-
tic authority closely with the ecclesiastical authority of the church.
When elements in the letter further this goal, they must remain sus-
pect. 82 This is obviously not the case for the chronological details. They
exist on another level and their accuracy reflects a different concern of
the author. Similarly, Ammon's presentation of his own career, though
written to extol it, does not participate in the portrayal of Theodore.
Hence, it can be assumed to have followed the basic outline offered in
the letter. It is only the Theodorean material itself that is so heavily
molded to a goal.
The letter remains exceedingly valuable as a witness for Pachomian
chronology, the external events of the Arian crisis, and the developing
career of an Egyptian bishop. It can furthermore function as a mine of
Pachomian material when this material can be paralleled in the vitae. 83
However, it is hazardous to use it on its own, or particularly, over
against the vitae.
Finally, the letter reveals the fluidity of the Pachomian traditions.
While it shows definite connections with the Greek Pachomian com-
munity (Ammon was a member of the Greek speaking house at Pabau),
much of its material is paralleled only in the Coptic tradition. The
distance between the parallels and the varying focus given to the in-
dividual episodes reveals the hand of the ancient author. The historical
facts are secondary to the theological or spiritual goal. 84
82 This is not to say that they could not be true.

83 It is especially important for the information on the Greek speaking house.
84 Alongside such influences, one must suspect that various factors in the passage from
the oral to the written tradition aided this divergence. Stories probably varied within
individual monasteries, let alone between the various monasteries. Within the monastery,
the different houses allowed for variation. This would be the case for the Greek house.
The catechesis, it will be remembered, was discussed afterwards in the individual houses
(infra, Notes on the Text 129.9-10).
THE CRITICAL TEXT
Manuscripts: F Florence, Laurent. XI,9; X-Xlc.

Athens, National Library 1015; Xlc.
r Rome, Vatican Library, Barb. 491; XVlIc.
a Athos, Hiberorum 367; XV-XVlc.
Emendations: H Halkin, Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae

Pasquali, as recorded in Halkin
Sigla < >scribal omission in the text

+ added by
> omitted by
Unless otherwise noted in the apparatus, the reading given is that of

ms. F. t, as a later redaction produced from an F type text, offered few
readings that were clearly superior to F. r, as a direct copy of F, offered
none. Its readings have not been universally recorded in the apparatus.
The readings from a involve only Ep Am 11. The original manuscript
was not consulted. The readings for a are those found in Halkin.
Biblical quotations, allusions, and a few non biblical parallels are
identified in the first apparatus below the text. The variant readings and
suggested emendations to the text appear in the second apparatus. The
orthographic peculiarities of the individual manuscripts have not been
recorded. Thus the alternate spelling of IIaxrolllo~ found throughout t
does not appear in the apparatus, nor does t's removal of the many
incorrect uses of the nu-movable found in F.
The text itself has been divided according to Halkin's sectional
divisions. These have been given an English title to facilitate discussion
and the location of individual episodes. The lineation of the present
edition appears to the left of the text. The beginning of each page in
Halkin's edition is indicated within parentheses within the text.
l dl',(<;IDli Jlnli,tAn "XDn J!.p, <P~ [ooWDll- Jlt~ am T-OZ l(
['A3'\' JLLn<?A'\' OZ l AOXO~~f\(\!) '1L '~ "X ['1L "~ 'x "~f\(\!) 6T l A<?XO~ "1L '~ ['1L '~ A<?XO~
8T l+ AO~aO~ [AO!~ LT l( ["Umg - J<?oxLLx'Q LT-9T l( [n Il+ JC!>oxLLx'Q
J1Xl}'\{'(01L [OO!!)DAD8Y. tT lOX 1D8!)~A3'\' A08"'(lt~~ [JOA3n9A3'\' 'x Il M?XdDlL<;I [A<?8"'(3~~
n l+ d1?'\' [<p~ I l 1D!)ltlOlLn~ [1D!)ltlOlL n l AOOO3~~X} [JD!><:I3~3X} OT
OOd<?g030 1?dDlL C!>'\'~ J,?~QD 3~ DDg "A<IJ~QD [aO~QD 6 l J!mQD [<p~QD 8 d A<IJ~QD
'l [J!mQD Il1Dx"J32Dn<;lD8~ [J132l}noD8 L 1 JQoXDAon Jm<?1!)LLM3~D.l JOOA~noo"'(Dx
JlO!D~LL0 1?dDlL JQm [A(I)M92DAOn - A<IJ~ 9-S' l "g9 30 'I,t A,?~ 1DX A01n<? XD ll
["I,t A,?~ "g930 S' l JmLL~91'\'l} '~ ["~ 'x t l 3~m!)nHl>038 A(I)Xdl}lL<;I [A(I)Al}XJ..O~ £
l + A<IJ~(I)1!)LLM3~D.l A<IJ~ [OOd<?g030 Z l + It",(lm038 DA1l J9dlL [OO1L9X!)11L~ T
n l!.l 8T n 10 :) 9T
SD}dmmri Sy,l om SOA3ri9A3,t SUriq>A,t 'Auri1e3A~ t\(;)lODri~ ,1DX ~l OZ

'<2>l\\D mny,eOO"(OX~ SOA3ri1eodlL lDX Al,,(9lL Alp ~lDX AqlXOlAon <2>XDAOri
lAU ffi}Dgue 'SD}n3A3Hl,,(DlL Sy,l AqlXOl OOdlOO,,( OOllDX "AUri~~3"(3~~
AO}g A(,91\\D AOld~XDri AQl SDnl;l.lLD,t~ lDX 'SOlt\0"("(1Hmg OOl\\D
mom ql,t~ SqlOXUX~ 'Dg}lL"(~ S10ADd\\0 S101 A~ 5101\\D AUA1ri13XOlL~
A\,tl SOlt\OJ~riODe lDX 00A1rioo,tUlg t\(l)t\1edDlL13~ lDX t\(OlA9JDAOri S'T
31 A(,91 AD}311"(OlL A\,tl i>}nu"(xx~ Q,l A~ OO}nDADev: DlL~lL OO}dDXDri
001 lDX 'SOA3ri9A3,t SQAD1lDldX 'Aq>e"(3~~ 5U11Dx3gmxmlL3,
nuqud OlU~ ;):)UUJ1U;) puu UO~SJ;)AUO:) s, uoulUry "z §
"(,9"(ug mom ~l\\D Snn~goolLn mny,lOlL
AQAnxl Ql SOlU191!>9 Sy,n Sy,l uDri,t~lnodlL <2>1 'mnlJ, lOll A~dnenx
lDX y,gldx~ AUril,tAri A\,tl lOri A(I)l<)Ol AQ3e AQl Sn!X)313X} 'Sn~m1oodlL OT
oon }lU191riU Q,l mJh~d,t 'AUeq>l~UlDX A!3g} lnx noxl,tx~ 'OOl\\D ld3lL
A(I)A,tjl A(,9dgA~ A(I)},t'9 <2>l<;\D A(I)lt\~Jhldlmgt\(\n A(,91 ~dnlL nng 'Aq>enri 3ri
}neny,A3,t3,t ffi}dulnnAori S101\\n ,dDlL <2>1 A~ AOA9dX y,131dl 'S13J~riODe
SqlOXUX~ A(,9"("(OlL ~dnlL A(I)lt\9JDAOri A(I)}nUM3gnl. A(I)A1rioO,,(DX
SlO}Dgue ~dnlL A(,91 'AOA1rinm,t1,t AQl Aod(l)g930 003e 001 AOlL(I)deAp' S'
31 A91 'Snnng<)OlLn~ Smu19dneDX A(,91<;\n Sy,l men1A3,t S\,tlUrilri
A(I)A~X,tOl S\,tlDnd~ A(I)lA9lLnd3e OOlnldx OOl A(I)},t~ A(,9l \,tg13lL t t
;)n~OIOJd "T §
"00dq>g03e lnx OO}ri(loXnll Qoxld3ri

OO}g lnx Sn}3l1"(OlL ld3lL (lOlL9xn1lL~ SOA(I)ririV" \,t,,(OlD1lL3, (L6 "doH)
lX:ll IR;)!l!l:) vZT

1 SO:Li\DDJSDit [SO:Li\~SD3SDit 9Z l~ lDDyA.nd:L '1 [-gA.ndl ~l
~g UI vl l+ Sodrog93 0 [ltd>;! £l 1 Q01QD [QOlnD~ lZ l( [i\9l,(\D~ - UQ 6I J
i\91QD S9dlL [Q.J:LQD Il DlDn<?llD"(~ ~:L °i\l?lL 0'1 [oi\l?lL 0'1 o"(lL "{ll Il Q.J:LQD [QO:LQD Ll l+ 3n
[lDi\!J.SmSDit Il nO:LQD [QO:LnD~ ~I l+ i\9:LQD [SDli\0i\~nld3lL 11 SQOXDi\On [SDli\ojl?i\On
Zl 1 i\OdQ3 [i\odQlt II l 3n JDlh.l3"('Q 'llDlh.l3n~ 1Dit [3n JDlh.l3n~ 0 I 1 H!q~plll~
["XA.n:L-i\:') 6-8 1 QDgDU [QDS 11( [i\3nltw~lL~ 8 1SO"(Qog oS Q0:L [oS Q0:L SO"(Qog Il +
i\3nltw~lL~ [ro}dltwDi\On L 1 1dlL9)1 [ltdlL9)1 £ J~ SDD\l3:LlLOSDit 'l [SD.o<)3:LlLOlDit
1 nO}DOO3U 'l QOlDd3U '~ Q03d3U 'H [nO}d31U Z 1 Q.J:L rod~:LngmdlL Q.J:L [QOl - \l01 I
v-z06£ sd J8Z-a
U06L sd ~Z In lUllJ vZ-£Z 9Z"l1 °q~H oJ::> IZ o£-ao£ Wll'l OZ-8I
X~ 3r1 A?A.DA.l},A'9 }DX norl SC?3Dl},3g SY,l A3000Xl},D}3 }DX lOri A3XD?DOdlL
}DX 'AOldox AQl DA 13r1q lLt) MOAqrlOlL 1\,»" olub? 11ADDl},1(od~ 'Q1QD 'Ql }DX
11A'QlDDA'9 <:odql~ 'SOlAqOD30DX SDpd>UlDX SY,"("(OlL 'Q13r1 nOl00l }D)I
"oA9g9 i\~1 MOA q rlon3dolLDdDlL AQ)l i\(l)lA'QlL QlLt) yA.ndl 'A(l)X?, S(l)}lADA~ ~Z
,g \13: «oUA9r1D1A.Ddd>D~ ~A.UlL 'SOA?rlD13,,(X3X SOlLY,X oud>rlOA nolil},d>"(3g'9
SOAq rlD13"(X3X SOlLY,)I» lDllLDdA.?.l" ud>? SDD}A31'9 alA }3X'9X lDngox'9
0 0 0
gOWD~ }d31L no}~1.t S'QlDDA'9 SOd31?, 'SOlAqomODX gOlQD S(l)lg0 }D)I

,,~Soorlmg13M} gOlD1dX d~lLt) S\\Ol S13d q d> SQ)OXDlL~ }1
~g \\3: «oAQ)rlDlgl3A 9 lD13Dl},ODDldoX DA9A.mD AQ1QD 11AO}DlL (1)1l3DC?g OZ
0
oA91nD~ ,d>~ A3d ~ 119, lD13Dl},1L(l)W }DX SDA9r1 'Q1DX lD13Dl},ODX ogOlQD
11U193A A~ AQA.nS Ild-g ADl9, }dgA'9 AQODA.v:»" oAroA.q"( A3DUM]Jd>3DOdlL
<1>lQD SDD}A31'9 Sg oA(l)lA'QlL }1L~ DlDrll},"(3r1r1U"(1L 'Ql gOlQD A13lLP no}~y.
Aod(l)2930 AQl SnOOA? d31LDW S'QlDDA'9 A(l)lA9SDAOri AQ)l Sl1 }D)I
S)[UOW Jlmp~A~pu~ 01 ;):J~ApU IUlOld!l:JS °S~S;)q:J;)lU:J S,;)lOPO;)q.L o£ §
°A3XU}01L31L lDAY,OD30DX gOlnD 9 AO}DU"(lL 'SC?xDd(l)9 ~I

DlAQ)ldond~ }DX AQ)lQD Al~'Ql A~l 3r1 A9A3r19S1A3~ 'A(l)lAqomODXA.nD
<1>l<.lD ArolA'QlL 'SPOD30DX DX1A}0d> QlLt) So .. OnO}dUlDDAori gOl a)!)?rI
A~ SDlAOA9r1ld31L 'SnO}OOXD~~ nOll }d31L SDlAOJ'QAOri SnOAqrlDlOdouAnD
Aodgu cp A~ oAOldl},lDDAOli Ql Sp A3A.DA.l},Dp 'DlY,OD~ A~l
SDDl},lOlL 3r1 }DIh13r1'9 'DlA092 'Ql SDDl},"(lli9 }DX Sod(l)2930 SOlL(l)dOA-g OI
g030 001 9 SDDC?l~DlDX lori A13XnlAnD 1l,,(01L Q,1 SQdlL 'l1AOA'QX).,nl
<1>rlOA 1l1},,(01LOO1V (l)A-g (86 °d °H) <1>1 A~ 'gDa lDl13"(DX 9 'A3r1UlDqlL~
Sodro2930 g030 gOl So"(g02 9 A~ cp A~ <:o}dU1DDAOri <1>1 ~2 Su,
oAOADX).,Ol~
10Aqrl"(DlD31L'9 A(l)llJrlrlDdA. 'Q13r1 AOWlJADOV: ADlLlJlL AOldlJXDrI ~
AQl SQdlL nodC?2030 QlLt) S3A1110 '(!)30 <1>1 A(l)A9r1l3XDA'9 AQ)d2A'9
'Ud1L9)1 }DX no"(}d>030 'Q12 A3,,(131DqlL'9 3r1 DglDgu0 AY.l Sp <:odC?2030
<:O}A.'Q <1>1 'SDno311L0lDX DlAOSlJAOri AQl lDAP AQX113dlD Sg onO}d31U
IlAqrlOO"(DX Q,1 i>}DU"(XX~ Q,1 A~ gOl nod q wgD3dlL gOl OO,,(ODU Surll},ArI
~n £-I
126 Critical text
AUXXOU 'tUAut7tcopiue; xui a1to 1t11AOU lAUoe; xui E<J"C11<JEV E1ti 1tE"CPUV
"COUe; 1tOOUe; 1l0U xui xU"CEu9uVEV "Co. Ota~TJIlU"CU Ilou xui EVE~uAEv de; "Co
<J"COIlU 1l0U <}<JIlU XatVOV, UllvOV "Cq, 9Eq, "Ilmv.»"
Kui 1tOAAa ouxpoouv"Coe; xui XU9E<J9EV"C0e; xaxEivou, xui <JUV Uu"Cq,
5 xui aAAcov 1tOAAmv ouxpUOV"CCOV, aAACfl avu<J"CuVtt xui "Co. 1tEpi EUUtou
llu9Eiv a~tOUVtt E<P11' ,,«Muxpo9uIl0e; aVTJp 1toMe; EV <ppOVTJ<JEt, 0 O£
OAtY0'l'UXoe; l<Jxupme; a<ppcov·» Otop9(O(Jat <JEUUtOV."
Kui <Jxu9pco1tu<Juv"C0e; uutou xui XU9E<J9EV"C0e;, 'Qpicovi ttVt Ai~ut
IlEV "Co YEVOe;, "CEX"COVt OE "CTJV "CEXV11V, we; iXHEPOV Ellu90v, avu<J"Cuvtt
10 xui to. 1tEpi tuu"COu a~trocruVtt axou<Jut E<P11' ,,«' Y 1tOllovfje; yap EXE"CE
xpEiuv ivu "Co 9EA11IlU tou 9cou 1totTJ<JUV"CEe; XOlli<J11<J9E "Cae;
E1tUYYEAiue;.»"
Kui IlE"Ca 'Qpicovu llu"CEAAoAi "COUVOllu avu<J"Cuvtt xui "Co. xua'
tuu"Cov d1tEiv a~trocruvtt E<P11' ,,«1\.AATJACOV "Co. ~uP11 ~U<J"CU1;;E"CE, xui
15 outcoe; aVU1tA11procrU"CE tOY V61l0V "Cou Xpt<Jtou'» Otop9(O(Jut <JEaUtov."
Kui a1tootuVtoe; UUtou, 1tam "Coie; 1tUPOOOt 1l0vu1;;oOOtv d1tEV 1tEpi
uU"Cou' "llt<JtEOOUtE Ilot Ai:yovtt· ouillom <pO~EpOe; E<JttV."
Kui IlE"Ca (H. p. 99) "CoU"COV aAACfl avu<J"Cuvtt xui f:pco"CTJ<JUVtt E<P11'
,,«EuAOY11"Coe; xUptOe; 0 Otou<Jxcov "Cae; xEipue; 1l0U de; 1tUpu"Cu~tv, "COue;
20 oux"CuAoue; 1l0U de; 1tOAEIlOV'» xui EV "COUtote; avopi1;;ou."
Kui IlE"Ca toutov aAACfl avu<J"Cuvtt E<P11' ,,«Qux E<Jtt v "Iliv " 1tUA11
1tP9e; U11lU xui <Jupxu, aAAa 1tpOe; "Cae; apxue;, 1tpOe; "Cae; f:~oooiue;, 1tpOe;
toUe; xOQ'1l0Xpu"COpue; tOU <JxotoUe; "COu"COu, 1tpOe; "Co. 1tVEUlluttxa tfje;
1tOV11 piue; .» aycovi1;;ou."
25 Kui IlE"Ca toutOV t"CEPCfl avu<Jtuvtt E<P11' ,,«Ku9upi<JCOIlEV tuu"Coue;
a1to 1tUVtOe; 1l0AOOIlOU, ou 1l0VOv <Jupxoe; aAAa xui 1tVEUllu"COe;'»
1tP0<JEXE toie; xpu1ttoie; <Jou."
Kui IlE"Ca tou"COv aAACfl avu<J"Cuvtt E<p11' "llp0<JEUXOU Ai:ycov' «'Ex
tmv xpu<picov Ilou xu9upt<Jov IlE xui a1to aAAo"Cpicov <pEi<Jat "Cou oouAOU
30 <JOU.» 'Exu"CEpco9EV yap 1tOAEIlOV EXEte; l<JXUpOV."
6-7 Pr 14.29 10-12 Heb 10.36 14-15 Gal 6.2 19-20 Ps 143.1
21-24 Eph 6.12 25-262 Cor 7.1 28-30 Ps 18.13-14
4 xUXEivoIJ] EXeiVOIJ t 5 xai '] )t I oaxplJovnov] oaxpooo:vnov t I lin'!>] e'tf:p,!> t 6

llaO. a~.] a~. llaO. t 8 xaOEcrOf:v'tO~] corr. in marg., prius Oecr9f:v'to~ F I 'Opirovi] t,
'Opi,!> Fr 10 eaIJ'taii] au'toii t I uxoooal] t, )Fr 13 'Opirova] t, 'OpiroVI Fr I
lla'tEAAoAi] lla'tEnOVVI t 14 El7t. a~.] a~. d1t. t 15 olop9rocrUl] t, OtOp9rocrE
F 16 au'toii] el1tE +t I d1tEV])t 20 xui])t 21 'toii'tov] corr. sup. lin. F, prius
'toutrov 23 crxo'tOIJC;] 'toii a{wvo~ + t 25 eaIJ'touc;] aOEAIPoi + t 28 avacr'tO:v'tl]
uvacr'ti]crav'tl F, Epro'ti]crav'tl t I Af:YroV] AOI1tOV t
3-5 127
§4. Theodore's catechesis. The Alexandrian Theodore translates.

Taum bE tl~Ei<; llXOUOW:v au'rou Atyov'rO<; 'rij AiYl)1t'rioov btaAtxnp,
EP~llVEUOV'ro<; 'EAAllV1(Hi eWbWpOU 'rou i\.AE~aVbPf:oo<;, uvayvoxl'rOU
YEVOJlf:VOU 'rfj<; ExxAllcria<; 'rfj<; AEYOJlf:Vll<; II1Epiou, UVbpO<; ayiou xai
'r<'[l ~iq> xai 'rij YAWHlJ XaSU1tEp Af:Yov'ro<;' «XP1cr'r<'[l cruv Ecr'rau pOOJlat . s<'[l
5 bE ouxEn EYW, Sij bi: EV EJloi XP1cr'rO<;.» "0<; Jlf:XP1 'rOU 1tapov'ro<;
EVbllJlrov 'r<'[l crwJlan EUllPf:cr'rE1 'r<'[l xupiq>.
§ 5. Theodore's catechesis. His prophecy concerning the Arian and

pagan persecutions
11<; bi: E~EV1SOJlllV, 'ra AEAaAllJlf:Va JlTJ1tOO vorov b1U 'rE 'ro VEOV 'rfj<;
tlA1xia<; xai 'rl'lv 1tOAAl'lv U1tE1piav, U1tO CiAAou EPOO'rWJlEVO<; 6 ell~aio<;
SEPU1tOOV 'rOU SWU eEObOOp0<; xai (JtOO1trov u'rEvicra<; d<; 'rOV oupavov
10 UVEcr'rll' xai EV JlEcrq> 'rrov JlovaSOV'rOOV YEVO~EVO<;, XUXAooSd<; 'rE
XaSU1tEp (l'rE<pUVq> U1tO 1tUV'rOOV, xEAEooa<; 'r<'[l i\.AE~avbpEi eWbWpq>
EPJlllVEUE1V, E<Pll'
"O{ba ~EV on Mv UXOOOOO(JtV 1tUAlV Ot crapx1xoi uyavax'rOOOlV'
E1tE1bl'l bE 6 XUPlO<; d1tEiv JlE uJliv 1tpocrEm~Ev, AEyoo. '0 JlEV U1tO 'rrov
15 EX YEVOU<; E1ttXEiJlEVO<; 'rij ExxAllcriq 'rOU Swu b100YJl0<; E1ti 1tAEiov
1tPOXO\jlE1 xai icrXOOE1 1tOAAou<; ~Au\jIat. TOlOU'rOl yap ytcrav Ot xai 'r<'[l
ayiq> U1tocr'roAq> IIauAq> E1tt~OUAEuOV'rE<;, 01 DUX ay vro<; , UAA' E~
Ep1Sda<; 'rov XP1cr'rOV EXTJPUHOV. i\.XJlUsov'rO<; bE 'rou'rou 'rOU
b100y~OU, E~ U1tPOObOXtl'rOU 'EAAllv Ecr'ra1 ~acr1AEu<;, 0<; AOY1Ei'rat
20 AoytcrJlOU<; xa'ra 'rOu JlOO'rllpiou 'rou XP1cr'rOU xai cr1tOUbUcrE1 'ro ocrov
E<p' Eau'r<'[l Xp1crnavoi<; E1tt~ouAEooat. '0 bE XP1cr'rO<; xa'ratcrxuvEi
au'rou 'rl'lv ~OUATJv' EiPllxEv yap xai 1tEpi au'rou' «'0 bE xa'rOlo~EvO<;
xai xa'ra<ppovll'rTJ<;, avl'lp uAaswv, ouSi:v ou ~l'l 1tEpavEi.» ,110 ~onv
tlJln<; XPl'l 1tpo<; 'rOV SEOV, iva 'rl'lv EA Ell JlOOUVll Vau'rOu 'rai<; ExxAllcria1<;
25 d<; crOO'rllPiav 1tOAArov 1tapa'rdvlJ."
4-5 Gal 2.20 5-6 Cf. 2 Cor 5.6 15-16 Cf. 2 Tim 2.16 16-18 Phil 1.17
19-20 Cf. Dan 11.24 22-23 Hab 2.5
1 01: - AEyov'tor;] TJXOOOUJ,lEV Atyov'tor; !ll:v 'tOU !lEYelAOU 0EOOOOpOU t I AiyU7t'tirov] t,

AiYU7t'ticp F, AiyU7t'till r 2 EPJ,lllVEUoV'tor;]01: + t 10EOO. 'tou l\AE~.] 'tOU 1\AE~. 0EOO.
t 3 'ti'jr; AEY.] )t I TIlEpiou] H, TIEPEOu F, TIEpulOU t, TIEpcruiou 6 EUllPtcr'tEl]
EUUPE(rtEi t 7 'tel AEA.] bd 'toir; AEAUAll!lEVOlr; eyoo t I J,lTJ1tro] 'tUU'tU + t I 'tEl )t 8-
10 U1tO linou - uvi:cr'tll] TJPro'tTJ911 !ll:v xui uDelr; 6 9EPel1troV 'tOU 9EOU 0Eooropor; 6
011~uior; U1tO liAAou' OUX u1tExpivu'to 01:, un' u'tEvicrur; Eir; 'tOY oupuvovuvi:cr'tll mro1twv'
t 11 xu9. (rt. U. 1t.] U. 1t. OOcr1tEP cr't. xui t 13 on] ror; t I uyuVUX'tOOOlV]
uyuvuX'tijcrOlJcrlV t 14 u!livJ>t 16 lcr. noA. ~A.] ~A. noA. icr. t 19 "E. E. ~.] ~. 'E.
E. t 20 'to] )t 21 '0 ol:]1\n' 6 t 22 xut] 1tOU t 23 oUSl:v] ouol:v tr 24
uu'tOu] uu'tOu 1tUpu'tEiVlJ t 25 1tUPU'tEivlJ] )t
1 lD13Dl}.SO'{
[lD13Dl}.SO'{D1DX PZ: 1< [z~l z:z: 1< [\>lV oz: 1 'J.. 'J..~A'Q 'S '~1 ['J.. 'S '~1 'J..~A'Q
11< [A}DlUD 6r 1 AOHlL [AOP'{lL sr 1 d~J.. OJX1X?A1J.. [AOJX1X?A1J.. 9r 1 'ld 'DJ..~11 Q
l'!?93@ !; r 1 ,0AOJ}doO,{lV 'I) 'lOA ';! [';! '3, 'I) 'lOA pr 11011~ !DX MOJ}doO,{lV [1011'Qx
''{3, 11 'OlD11'91!?1311 [0011DD1!?1311 0 1< [3D 'dlOdlL 11< [<1;)1 or 1 311 'lLl) !DX ['lLl)
!DX 3116 d '110:) [zOOlXHD1!? 11 'OA~110!?3!?A~ 'X A\>l dl,LA'Q '}lDMU'{'{3. [:)!S) AOJ}doo'{}V
311 '9dlL u<h;! [OOlX~'{D1!? - AOJ}doo,{3, L-9 1 OOlXHD1!? '!?l \!l 'J..3'{D1!? ''{'Q ['J..3'{D1!?
''{'Q 00lXHD1!? '!?l \!1 9-!; 1 ~!? A<9.1 [A<91 W)I !; 1 01001 [mom t 1 ,odOJ!?9 3@
'DJ..~11 Q 'lSQD A3lL}3 [u<h;! 1 H A3}3 '1 ADDiJ. 'd A3 iJ. '1 [A!D}3 1 1+ ~!? ['PsulOJd3, r
wsr g)l t oz: pro WO~ L-9
,;S91iA.0)1g lD13.ol,teO"(DJ,DX SlDJ.olt"(XX~ SlDJ,

SOi\3tiPX1lL~ SOOi\'i!1.. X~ (} DJ,13lL? 'i\(l)i\I,t"("(3, 9lLg (} SOHpdlL W)I 'SlDXoJh.
SlD"("(OlL S03,,(?, S93e (} d~1.. 13.010 'D'i!gl,t ~11DX !J,glt~ 31 ~1 i\(l)X.o~lL u.o?
S101\1D i\~ lDx, DJ,(\DJ, ~g 13Jh.O" 'i\(l)l~ti1..DdlL i\(l)li\~eOi\lttiodlL i\<91 i\<9g0lL
i\<91 l.ti\(l) ,(l)1..n 10.0 C?1..~X 91V «'(\013g (\01 i\<9g0lL i\<91 l.ti\(l))) ''i!g oz:
lD1lLDd1..'i!.1 ~S~dmd1.. SDpe S~l S(l)i\1..'i!i\~ 'i\}.oltd> '(l)lLOO" ,i\3lLP ~g 0,
,,~lDl.o? DJ,(\DJ, 3l911" ,i\ltd>? Spe3XOO.o oog9d> i\OP"(lL 11? lD)I
,;S13i\~XA.(ll SOX(\3"(1.. Spelt1..Od1 i\01Dd>.o9dlL
119 i\(l)x.QC?i\ 11.. '13,,(90g 9 31..'i!Y" ,3ti S9dlL ltd>? (\01\11) ,1g l1)X 'lD.og3i\lttid~
OOdC?g030 !3dgi\1)~3"(v.; Q;l1 i\3003"('i!X~ Sod(l)g930 i\<91g13ti lD)I !;T
'i\ltl.o? 'SOi\(l)}doO,,(3, 9lL<) SOi\3ti9110i\
'}oti~x 1i\(l)}doo,,(3, 11i\od'i!1.. OO}dDXDti 31 Q;l1 DJ,i\OX'i!OOdlL (\oti.omg13ti
~13ti i\od(l)g930 (\03e (\01 DJ,i\OlL~d3e i\91 ~g SOi\3ti~.oD30 'i\ltti9X13i\C\.o
i\OP"(lL llL~ 'S9dgi\~ 001 SOi\3ti90g1D i\~l"(OlL i\l.t1 cp1..~)I ,,'i\o.olt1C?d~
i\C\i\J01 S~l.oDi\~ ,3.0 S9i\3ti~Jh.3dlOdlL fJd(} 11Dtiting Q;l1 3.0 Q;ldD"(} or
,Sy,eltgod> l.tw" ,lOti i\'i!lLp 'i\3gp DJ,i\oti'i!dlOlLg lDX 3ti i\9i\3ti90god>
~g SU, ,,'lD1.o? DJ,(\DJ, 3l9lL 003e 001 i\OlL(l)dei\~ i\91 i\o.olt1C?d~
S~l.oDi\ v.; " ,OOlX'i!"(Dlg i\(l)i\1,t "("(3, Y,13ti S9dlL ltd>? 'SOi\'i!tiOg3gi\~ i\9l.o1dX
i\91 d l.ti\~ 'DtiOi\OOl i\(l)}doo,,(3, 'i\(l)i\'i!ti01..3"(Dlg SlO"(l,t "("(~ 00lX'i!"(Dlg
D}g1 Y,1 i\(l)li\9JDi\oti i\<911D)I 'lDe.o'i!i\31.. 001<;11) ,lL~ i\~dXDti 'l1Dtil,t1.oDlg !;
OO1..},,(9 i\lttil,te1)X~ i\od319dlL i\91 9lL<) i\ l"(~lL 'i\C?lLP DJ,ODJ, lD)I
,;}0i\Dl3dv.; lOti1X9g~
}o" ,ltd>? 'SOOi\'i!1.. X~ }O i\l.oP S3i\}1 SOi\ 11 9lLg Spe lt1(l)d3, (00 l 'd 'H)
'suopn::>;)sl;)d ~U!WO::> ;)ql JO ;)lBP
;)ql ~U!Ul;)::>UO::> ;)lOPO;)ql SUO!lS;)nb uowwV 'S!S;)q::>;)lB::> S,;)lOPO;)ql '9 §
1X:l1 ['C:)11!1:) SZT

6-8 129
§ 7. Theodore's catechesis ends. Ammon is assigned to the Greek house

and the catechesis is discussed there.
Kai 7tuV'twv Ilot (i't£vt~oV'twv, aVa()"caC; 6 aytoc; 0£60ropoC; xai 7tucnv
7tpOO""Cu~ac; f;7ti 7tpoawxitv "C pa7tfj vat, Aa~oll£voC; 11£ "Cfje; x£tpOe;
7tapf:orox£v otOaaXUAotC; xai OOTlYoie; "CiP f\A£~avopd 0woropcp xai
Auaovicp nvi "Couvolla ow"C£p£uovn au"CiP, dmov 7tpOe; AooovtOv'
5 ,,'E7t£t~ov au"Cov lla9dv "Cae; 9£iae; ypa<pue;' ou Otall£vd yap f;V "CiP
1l0va(HTJPicp, aAA' Eamt "Cile; f;XXATJaiac; "Cou 9wu A£t"COUpyoe;."
Kax£ivot 7tapaAal3ov"C£c; 11£ xai £laayayoV"C£e; de; "Cov oIxov, f;V cp oi
()It' au"Couc; 6v"C£e; Tjaav OtXouV't£e; 1l0VU~ov"C£e; 'EAATJVtO""Cai "Cov
apt91l0v dXOO"t, xa9iaav"C£e; Exaa"Cov a7tlJ"Couv d7tdV a
10 f;IlVTJllov£ooav, mv itpro"Cl19TJ xai f;AuATJa£V 6 aytOe; 0£60ropoe;. Kai
oi)"[roe; Exua"COu "Crov dXOO"t, 11£9' oue; xai Auaoviou xai 0woropou "COU
f\A£~aVOpf:roe;, axoooae; A£Y0V"CroV a f;IlVTJllov£ooav, aUlll3aArov f;V "Cij
xapoi~ Ilou IlvTJllov£uaat "Caum a7t£p Eypa'l'a itouvit9TJv. 'Hpllitv£oo£
yup Ilot 7tapaxpillla a~tro9de; 7tap' f;1l0U 6 f\A£~avop£ue; (H. p. 101)
15 0£60ropoe; "Cov vouv mv {;xua"Ccp "Crov Epro"CTJauv"Crov dpitx£t 6 Ilf:yae;
0£60ropoe;.
Tau"Ca oE f;ppf:9TJ f;VtaU"COU xai oAiycp 7tpOe; 7tap£ATJAU9o"Coe;, a<p' 013
xaiaap aVTJYop£u£"CO rUAAOe;, 6 E7ttXATJ9de; Vf:Oe; Krova"Cuvnoe;.
§ 8. Ammon asks Ausonius and Elourion to tell him more about

Theodore.
'E7t£toit of:, xai d 7tO"C£ 7toppro9£v "Cile; <provile; "Cou ayiou 0woropou
20 ilxouov, il xapue; il AU7tTJe; il <po~ou E7tATJPO\)IlTJv xai "COu"Crov 67to"C£pov
n liv dTJ 9aullu~rov rov E7taaxOV E7tu90IlTJV xai EYVroV xai UAAOUe; "CO
au"Co Ilot 7tuax£tv, AooovtOV IlEV toi~, 'EAoupirova OE xa9' Eau"Cov
7tap£XUA£aa "Ca xa"Ca 0£60ropov "Cov uv9pro7tov "COu 9wu OtTJyitaaa9ai
Ilot (OU7tro yap hOAllrov "Cov f\A£~aVOpf:a 0£ooropov auv£xroe; f;pro"CUV)
25 mv Exaa"COe; E<pTJ'
12-13 Lk 2.19
2 llE] )t 3 1tapEliroxEV]IlE +t 4 au't<!l] au'tou t 5 'E1tEt~OV] 'E1tiliEt~OV t I

au'tov] aU't<!l t IlitallEVEi] Nickau, litallEVEt Ft 8 U1t'] t, t1t' Fr 10. ft. olx. llov·]IlOV. ft.
olx. t 8-9 'E. 'tOY up. dx.] Eix. 'tOY up. 'E. t 10 tllvlwovwcrav] tllV1WOVEOOEV t I
rov] alp' rov t Iliyto~]IlEya~ t 12 axoooa~] tyro +t I tllVTJllovEooav] xai +t 13
llvTJllOvEOOat] )t Ili1tEP Ey.] YPuljlat xaAro~ t I 'Hplli)vEOOE] t, 'Eplli)VEooEv F 14110t]
llE t 17 oAiyct>]lltXpoV n t 20-21 61tO'tEPOV- E1tacrxov] n 1tUcrXrov xai eaullu~rov
t 21-22 xai liA. -1tUcrXEtv] 'tu au'tu llot 1tIlcrXEtv xai liA. t 22 Aooovtov]litu 'tOu'to
pro t I 'EAoupirova] AIAoupirova t 23-24 'tu xa'tu - llot]litTJyi)cracreai IlOt 'til xa'tu
eEoli. 'tOY live. 'to\) ew\) t 24 'tOY }\. e. cr. tp.] cr. tp. 'tOY }\. e. t 25 Exacr'to~]
EXU'tEPO~ t
130 Critical text
§9. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Pachomius receives the young

Theodore into his monastery.
"lluxOUI.uOe; ne; TJyTtO'UJ.lEVOe; 'tOU'tOlV 'tIDV J.lovuO''tTtPirov
EtJTtPEO''tTtO'EV 'tq, 9Eq,· 4)0 9EOe; 1tOAAa J.lev Ot' U1tOXUAU'I'EroV, 1tAEtOVU
oe XUt E1tt 'til Vxupoiuv uu'toG AUAIDV, IhEpu oe Ot' aYYEArov EYVOOptO'EV,
OtU<p0pOle; xupiO'J.luO'tv nJ.ltlO'ue; uU'tov' oe; oil XUt 1tpO E~ 'tou'trov hIDV
5 EXOTtJ.ltlO'ue; 'toG O'(OJ.lU'toe; EVE0tlJ.lTtO'EV 1tpOe; 'tOY XUplOV.
OO'toe; 1tO'tE XU9E~0J.lEVOe; 'toie; 1tEpt uu'tOV I.lOVUSoOOt V E<pTt· ,Tov
OoGAov 'toG 9wG llEXOOO'lOV a1tEO''tEtAUJ.lEV de; 'tilv Au'to)V 1tOAtV
E1tlXOUpfjO'Ul 'toie; uouvu'tOte; EXEiO'E' ov vGv XU9ES0J.lEVCP J.l0l
EUTtYYEAiO'u'to aYYEAOe; xupiou J.lEAAElY O'llJ.lEPOV EPXE0'9Ut,
10 E1tUyOJ.lEVOV O'XEGoe; EXAoyfje; 'tq, 9Eq,· EO''tlV Oe wG'to 1tuie; 'tle;
'tptO'XUtOEXUE'tlle;, 0Eooropoe; XUAOUJ.lEVOe;, 1tVEUJ.lU'tOe; ayiou 1tAllPl1e;.'
Kut J.lE'ta OOOJ.lae; TJAiou E1tEO''tl1 'tq, J.lOVUO''tl1picp llEXOOO'lOe;, <piAOe;
'toG lluxouJ.liou 'tuyxuvrov YVllO'lOe;, E1tl<pEpOJ.lEVOe; XUt 'tOY aylOv
wu'tOV 0EOOropOV, 'tptO'XUtOEXUE'tfj 'to'tE roe; E<Pl1V 'tuyxuvoV'tU' OV 0
15 aylOe; llUXOUJ.llOe; tJ1tOOE~UJ.lEVOe; roe; uiov UVE9pE'I'EV YVtlO'lOV.
§ 10. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Pachomius' earthshaking

prayer and Theodore's reaction to it
"Kut YEVUJ.lEVOe; EixoO't XUt Mo hIDv 0Eooropoe;, E1tl'tUx9Ete; 'tl 1tUpa
lluxoulliou XUt avooue;, Sl1'tIDV 'tOY aylOv llUXOUJ.llOV OXr1tEP U1tO 'toG
ayiou 1tVEUJ.lU'tOe; OOl1YOUJ.lEVOe;, YEyovEv 1tAl1O'iov 'toG otxoU EV 4> 'toue;
J.l0VUsov'tue; EO''tld0'9ut E90e; EO"ttV 1tAl1O'iov 'tfje; EXXAl1O'iue; 'toG
20 J.lOVUO''tl1piou· XUt O'ElOJ.lEVl1e; 'tfje; yfjc; ui0'90J.lEVOe;, TlXOUO'EV
lluxouJ.liou EV 1tpOO'EUXU AEYOV'tOC;'
,'0 9EOC; 0 1tOAUEAWC;, 0 J.lE'tUVOIDV E1tt 'tuie; xuxiute; TJJ.lIDV, <pEiO'Ut
'toG YEVOUC; 'tIDV av9poo1trov XUt 1tA tl9uvov TJJ.liv E'tl J.ldAAOV 'toue;
2 Heb 11.5 3 cr. Hos 2.16 52 Cor 5.8 10 Acts 9.15 11 Acts 7.55
22-23 Joel 2.13, 17; cr. Ps 35.8
2 EUllp. 't4> e.] 't4> e. EUllP. t 16 eEO~ - a1tox.]1toAA.a IlEV Ot' a1tox. 6 eEO~ EYVropt~E t 3
E'tEPU OE] xui E'tEPU xui t 1 eyvroptcrEV] eOTtAol) t 4 xui] )t 1 e'toov] evtul)'toov t 6
XUeE~OIlEVO~] xui OtOUO"XOlV d1tEV + t 1 E<Pll] )t 1 Lemma in margo sup.: apXTt 'tOD ~lOl) 'tOD
aYlOl) 0woropol) F 7 DEXOOO"tOV] DEXOOtOV tr 1 Au'toov] t, AOl'tOOV Fr 8 UO. ex.]
EXEi ao. t 90"TtIl. Ep.] Ep. O"TtIl. t 10-111tui~ n~ 'tp. 0EOO. xuA.]0E68. n~ xuA.
1tui~ 'tp. t 12 DEXOOO"tO~] DEXOOtO~ t 13 'tOD] a/3~d +t 14 'to'tE] tr, 1tO'tE
F 15 i)1toOE~UIlEVO~] OE~UIlEVO~ t 16 Kui] 'E<PE~i'j~ OE t 1 YEVUIlEVO~] YEvoIlEVO~ t 1
xui 2 ] )t 16-17 0EOO. - Dux.] 6 0EOO. e1tE'tuXell 'tl 1tO'tE U1tO 'tOD Dux. t 17
avoou~] 'tOD'tO +t 1 ~ll'toov] E~Tt'tEt t 1 DuxoUlltOV] xui +t 19 tcrndO"eut- ExxA.] EeO~
EO"'tiv EO"ndO"eut 'ti'j~ ExxA. EYrtO"'tU t 21 EV 1tp. AEy.] 'tUD'tU AUAoDv'tO~ EV 1tp. t 1
Lemma in marg.: EUXTt t
9-11 131
oixnpJlou~ aou' xui Jlit'tE 'tOU~ JlOVasoV'tu~ Jlit'tE 'ta~ aEt1tap8EVOU~

xpivlJ~ urrunwv 'tilv UXpiPEtUV 'tou f:rruYYEAJlu'tO~, oJloiro~ Jlit'tE 'tOV
Auav aou urrEp (H. p. 102) roy f:vE'tEiAro TWiv xui f:VECPU'tEOOU~ ayu8wv'
aAAa xpivrov TJJlU~ auyxptVOV 'tq> XOOJlCP 'tq> rrpo 'tfj~ rrupoooiu~ 'tou
5 JlOVOYEVOU~ aou' oi5'tro~ yap oux EiaEAEOOlJ Ei~ xpiatv JlEe' TJJlWV, aAA'
f:~UAEi'VEt~ TJJlWV 'ta~ aJlup'tiu~' Ei yap 'tOV 'ta'tE xaaJlOV oux
UrrffiAEO"U~, rrw~ 'tOV VUV Auav aou oux f:AEilaEt~; 'EAET\aov TJJlU~,
bEarrOta, rrEp1TCotT\aaJlEVO~ xui x'tfjaat, rrUOOaJlEVO~ 'tfj~ 6pyfj~ xui
'tOU 8uJloU bta 'to uIJlu 'tOU JlOVOYEVOU~ aou cP f:Au'tpffi8T\JlEV. Ei yap bt'
10 i\ppuaJl xui , Iauax xui 'IuxffiP 'IOUbUiou~ rroAAaXt~ liAET\aU~, rroocp
JlUAAOV bta 'to uIJlu 'tOU Xpta'tou aou TJJlU~ arruoo'tro~ EAETJaEt~. ~oUAoi
f:aJlEV 'tOU JlOVOYEVOU~ aou, o~ rrAaaJlu'tu UU'tOU OV'tu~ itJlU~ u{OU~ aou
rrErroiT\XEV. '
Kui Aomov ECPE~fj~ 'tOD lluxouJliou AEYOV'tO~' ,'EAET\aov' xui JlT\bEV
15 E'tEPOV rrpoon8EV'to~, it yfj EaEiE'to. Kui 0E68ropo~ 'to rrpoororrov
exrov Erri 'til Vyfjv, JlE"ta rruv'to~ cpapou rrpOaT\UXE'to, Ero~ 013 llUXOUJllO~
{AUp~ 'tij cprovij poitau~ ecpT\' ,EUAOYT\'tO~ d, XUptE, 0 afficru~ 'to YEVO~
TJJlWV, xui UiVE'tO~ xui bEbO~UaJlEVO~ Ei~ 'tou~ uiwvu~, aJlitv.'
Kui 'tOD aEtaJlOD rrUOOUJlEVOU xui 'tOD cpro'to~ JlT\XEn aroJlunxoi~
20 6cp8uAJloi~ OproJlEVOU, llUXOUJllO~ avoi~u~ 'tilv 8upuv 'tOD O{XOU rrpo~
0E68ropov avucrtavta ecpT\' ,TOAJlT\PW~ JlEV rrUpEJlEtVU~' Bau be
urruoo'tro~ rrpo~ 'tOV 8Eav, ivu 'ta EAET\ UU'tOU rrupu'tEiVlJ TJJliv, roy Xropi~
urrap~at x'ticrt~ ou 8Uvutal. Tuuta bE EV 'tij sroij JlOU 'tij EV 'tq> affiJlun
JlT\bEVi arruYYEiAlJ~.' 'ArrEp JlE'ta 'tilv lluxouJliou xoiJlT\crtv rrupa
25 0Wbffipou liXOOOUJlEV.
§ 11. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Theodore's vision of the trinity

"ME'ta bE TJJlEPU~ S' 'tOD f:roPUXEVat 'ta xU'ta llUXOUJllOV, ETC1axErr'to-
JlEVOU lluXOUJliou 'ta liAAU JlovucrtTJpta, 0E68ropo~ EV 'tq> Jlovua'tT\picp
5 Ps 142.2 7-9 Ex 32.12, 14 10-11 Cf. Rom 5.9 17-18 Dan 3.55
22-23 Ps 35.11; Asc 18 (H 142.11-12)
1 awtap9i;vOll<;]1tup9i;vOll<; t 3 cbv] t, 0 Fr I EV. it.] it. EV. t 4 xpivrov] xpivov t I

cruyxpwov]crllyxpivrov t 5 de; xp.~. ,,~.]~. it~. de; xp. t 6 ,,~. 'ta<; a~.] 'tae; a~. it~.
t 7 'tov vuv] vuv 'tov t 8-9 'tile; op. xui 'tou 9ll.] 'tou 9ll. xui 'til<; op. crOll t 15 Kui
0Eoliropoe;]0E61iropoe; liE t 20-211tp. 0. av. E<p.] E<p. 1tp. 0. av. t 24 a1tuyyElA.1Je;]
avuYYEiA.1Je; t I 'A1tEp] ii t 261;1 E1t'ta t I 'tal mu'tu t I XU'ta nUX.] )t 26-27 Emcr.
nux.] 'tou ~EYaA.Oll nux. Emcr. t 27 uUu] A.Ot1ta t I 'tc'!>] )t
132 Critical text
't Bau, 1tPUHroV a ilv au't<p EYXEtpicrw; 0 UylO~ naXOD-

/ltO~, UXTlXoro~ 1tapa. nvrov U1tO 'tii~ 1\.AE~avopEia~ E1tl0Tl/lTlcruv'trov
U1tEP oi 1\.pEtavoi 1tEpi 'tou I.1OVOYEVOU~ uiou 'tou 9wu AEYOOOtV,
EOEE'tO 'tOu 9wu EAW9Epro9iivat 'tii~ 1tAUVTl~ 'to YEVO~ 'trov uv9pO)1trov.
5 Kai EV 't<P 1tpocrEDXEcr9at eropaxEv OXr7tEP 'tpd~ cr'tDAOU~ cpro'tO~ E~
OAroV icrou~, 'tUu'to'tTl'ta 1tpO~ UAAijAOU~ eXOV'tU~· xai <provii~ l1XOOOEV
AEYOOOTl~ 1tpO~ au'tov' ,M ij'tE 'tlJ OtaO"'tUcrEt 'tou Opro/lEVOU
lmooEiY/la'to~ /lij'tE 'tlJ 1tEptypa<plJ, UAAa /lOVOV 'tlJ 'tUU'to'tTln 1tPOOEXE'
OUX ecrnv yap EV 'tlJ X'ticrEt (H.p. 103) .lmOOEtY/la 0 Mva'tat 1ta-
to pacr'tiicrat 'tOY 1ta'tEpa xai 'tOY uiov xai 'to UYlOV 1tVEU/la.'
§ 12. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Theodore reports his vision to

Pachomius and Pachomius tells of his early vision against the heresies.
"Kai 'tau'ta naXOD/lto~ 1tapa 0woropou UXTlxoro~ e<PTl1tpO~ au'tov'
:n~ tOEiv xai uxoooat EXroPEt~, EoEiX9Tl crot xai EAaAij9Tl.
Kai yap EYro u/la 't 't<P AUX01tOAl'tlJ, upn of: U1tO 'trov Mapxirovo~
15 1tapaXaAOD/lEvO~ /lE't' au'trov dvUt xai 'ta au'trov <ppovEiv, /la9rov on
xai {fAAUt aipEcrEt~ dcriv, roy exucr'tTl eAEYEV 1tap' eau'tlJ 'tT)v uAij9EtaV
dvUt, f:'tapaHO/lTlv.
Kai /lE'ta 1tOAAroV oaxpDrov iXE'tEooa~ 'tOY 9EOV U1toxaAD'I'at /lOt
1tapa 'timv Ecr'tiV fJ uAij9Eta (OAO~ yap crUYXEXU/lEVO~ l1/lTlV) xai en
20 1tpocrWXO/lEVO~ EYEVU/lTlV EV Excr'tUcrEt xai doov oxmEp vDx'ta 'tT)V U1t'
oupavov u1tacrav xai EX ota<poprov /lEproV l1xouov <provii~ AEYOOOTl~'
:Ev'tau9a fJ uAij9Eta.' Kai l:roprov 1tOAAOU~ l:xucr'tlJ <provlJ UXOAOU-
90uV'ta~ EV crXO'tEt U1tO UAAijAroV MTlyou/li;vou~ xai 1tpO~ /lovq:> 't] )t, at'noc; r I Ey;(etpicruc;] E1tt'tuyeie; t 10 iiy. ITux.]1tupa
,oil 6dou ITuxwJliou t 2 aX'r1xoroe;] Inc. cod. a: aX'r1xoroe; 1to,e 0e60wpoe; 0
t']ytacrJli:voe; I ,fje;] )t 3 i\petuvoi] Ai:YOOOt + t I Jlovoyevoile;] )a I ,oil 6. Hy.] corr. r,
prius Aey. ,oil 6.1 Ai:yOUO"tV] )t, EAeyov a 4 EA&u6epw6fjvut] EA&U6eptoout ta I ,fje; 1tA.]
)t 51tpooeuxecr6ut] ,uil,u 0E6owpoe; + t loxmEp] )a I <pw,oe;] a1to ,oil oupuvoil Jli:Xpt
,fjc;yfje; Ot'ixVOI)Jli:voue; + a 6 OAroV] ,roy Jleprov + t I icroue;] xui + t 6-7 xui ql.ijx.
AI:)'.] ijxoooe oi; xui <p. AI:)'. t, xui ijx. aYYEAtxfje; <pwvfje; livw6ev aopu,we; AI:)'. a 7
uu,6v]0e60wpe +a 7-8 ,oil op. (m.] ,oil im. ,oil op. 1tpooexe a, 1tpooexe +t 8
Jl6vov] Jlov1J t I1tpooexe]1tPOOxee; xuicruvT]crete; a1to Jli:poue; t, 1tpoocrxee; a 9 EV]1tUcrT]
+a I OIivu,ut] axptProe; +t to xui!] )r 11 Kui ,uil,u] Tu(i,u oi; Jle,a ,oil,o t I
aXT]Xoroe;] axoooue; t 12 to. xui ax. EX.] EX. to. xui ax. t I crOt xui EA.] xui EA. crot
t 13 ,c'[>] t, ,0 F 14 Auxo1toAl,u]1tUPUxuAouJlevOe; +t 151tupuxuAouJlevoe;]
ptu~6Jlevoe;' too,e t 16 EAey. 1tUP' - aA.]1tUp' - aA. EAey. t 18 ixe,eooue;] ixi:,eoou
t 20 EyeVUJlT]v] Eyev6JlT]v t 22 i:ropwv] t, i:ropouv Fr 23 xui 1tp. Jl6v.]1tp. Jl6v.
oi; t
11-13 133
uval"oAtx0 xAiJlan l"fj~ oixo\)Jlf:Vll~ AUXVOV E<p' U'l'l1AOU XElJlEVOV, &~

ECOO<pOpOV AQ,Jl1tOVl"a' xuxd9EV TlXO\)OV <provfj~ AEYOOOll~ Jlot· ,Mit
u1tal"iicr9E U1tO l"rov d~ l"0 crxow~ EAXOVl"roV, UAAa l"OUl"ql l"0 <prol"i
uxoAo\)9ijcral"E' EV atH0 yap Ecrnv Tt uAij9Eta.' Kai Eu9f:ro~ EYf:VEW
5 <provit AEyoooa 1tpO~ JlE' , '0 AUXVO~ ODl"O~ OV 6p~~ ro~ Erocr<pOpOV
AaJl1tOVm, AaJl'l'Et croi 1tOl"E U1tEP l"OV llAtoV· aUl"o~ yap EcrLtV l"0
xijp\)YJla l"OU EuaYYEAio\) l"OU Xptcrwu, 0 XllpUHEl"at EV l"ij ayi~ auwu
ExxAllcri~ EV iJ E~a1tl"icr911~' 6 ()E xaArov 6 Xptcrl"O~ Ecrnv EV i\AE-
~av()pqll"0 E1ttcrX01tqll"fj~ i\AE~aV()pErov ExxAllcria~' at ()E liAAUt <provai
10 at EV l"0 crXOl"Et, l"rov aipEcrEoov dcrtv, ()aiJlovo~ EV l"0 l:xacrl"l1~
aipf:crEro~ TtY0\)JlEVql <provouvw~ xai 1tAavroVl"O~ 1tOAAOU~.' Kai oihro~
EV <prol"Etvoi~ EV()UJlacrtv 1tOAAOU~ Eropaxro~ l"0 MXVql1tpocrl"pEXOVl"a~,
EuMYllcra l"OV 9EOV.
Kai l"rov U1tal"fjcrai JlE 9EAllcraVl"rov xam<ppovijcra~, cr\)Vcilxllcra l"0
15 Uv9pOO1tqll"OU 9wu naAaJlrovt, JltJllll"ij l"rov ayirov l"\)yxavovn, Ero<; OW\)
liYYEAO~ x\)pio\) E1ttma~ JlOt E<Pll' ,ef:pJlatVE wu~ 1tpocrtOVl"a~ crot EV
l"01t\)pi 0 uvfj 'I' EV crot 6 9EO~.' Kai 6()l1Y119d~ U1t' aUl"ou l"a Jlovamijpta
mUl"a ()ta l"OU 9 WU cr\)V Ecrl"l1craJlll v.
riVCOOXE ()E on xai i\9avacrto<; 6 f:1ticrxono~ l"fj~ i\AE~aV()pf:rov
20 f:xXAllcria~ 1tAijpll~ wu ayio\) 1tVEUJlal"O~ Ecrnv.'
§ 13. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Pachomius' support of

Athanasius
,,'EAEYEV M: TtJliv niicrtv naxouJlto~ aJla l"0 xal"acrl"a9fjvat i\9ava-
crtoV f:1ticrxonov' ,Oux uya90i liV()PE~ ahtrovmt l"0 xpiJla l"OU 9wu l"0
f:1t' aUl"0 YEVOJlEVOV, 1tpO~aAAOJlEVot l"ii~ TtAtxia~ aUl"ou l"0 VEOV xai
crxicrat l"ilv ExxAllcriav l"OU 9wu cr1tO\)MSOVl"E~. (H. p. 104) 'EJloi ()E l"0
25 1tVEUJla l"0 aytov E1nEv on' ,~l"UAOV aUl"ov xai Mxvov TlYEtpa l"ij
f:XXAllcri~" xai on' ,eAi'l'Et~ nOAAai xai cr\)xo<pavl"iat uv9poonrov
EVEXEV l"ii~ d~ XptmOV EOOE~Ela~ JlEVOOOt v aUl"Ov' xai 1tavm Vtxijcra~
1tEtpacrJlOv, Jlf:Xpt l"EAO\)~ U1t' aUl"OU ()\)VaJlOUJlEVO~ l"ilV uAij9EtaV wu
EuaYYEAio\) l"ai~ ExxAllcriUt~ XllPU~Et.'
20 Acts 7.55
1 E<p'] t, bti Fr I xEiJlEVOV] doov + t 5 Aty. 1tp. JlE]1tp. JlE Aty. t 14 Kai] JlELa LT]v
opacrtv + t 15 oLou] ou t 20 LOu] )t 21 TtJl. 1tucr.] xai 1tucr. TtJl. t I IlaXOUJllO<;]0
Jltya<; pr. t I L0] t, LO F 21-22 f\9avacrtov] LOv pr. t 23 ath0] f\9avacriQ> t 24
LOU 9EOU] ~OUAOJlEVOl xai t 26 1tOAAai] al),[ov t I av9po)1tcov] JltVOOOlV +t 27
JltVOOOlV al),[ov] )t I xai] aAM t 29 Lai<; EXXA.] )t
134 Critical text
§ 14. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Theodore is fed by angels and

deemed worthy of revelation.
"ME'ta ()f; 'tau'ta eE60O)po~ {lila I1axoullicp YEYOVEV EV 'tC!> 1tpO-
EtP111lEVCP 1l0vacr'tTlPicp 'trov TapEvvT)criO)v EV 'tC!> TEV'tuphlJ vOIlC!> 'tUY-
xUvov'tt· xai VUx'tEptVat~ Euxat~ xa9' Eau'tov crxoAucra~ xai U1tO 'tou
U1tVOU papT)9d~, 1tEpma'tElV EV 'tC!> 1l0vacr'tT)picp i1p~a'to' xai ro~ EV
5 vux'ti Ill] <'>POOIlEVO~ U1tO 'trov av9poo1to)v, xa't' oAiyov 1tpOOT)UXE'tO'
xpi va~ ()E Aomov crullllf:'tPO)~ 'to crrolla ava1taooat, xa9icra~ 1tapa 'tl]V
9upav 'tfj~ BV 'tC!> 1l0vacr'tT)picp EXXAT)cria~ Exu9EU()EV, 1l0VlJ 'tij 'tfj~
<pUcrEo)~ avuYXlJ 'to ixavov 1totrov.
Kai liYYEAO~ xupiou B1ttcr'ta~ ()t1lYEtPEV all'tOV AEYO)V' ,f\xoAou9Et
10 Il0t.' Kai avacr'ta~ xai axoAou9tlcra~ au'tc!>, dcrfjA9EV d~ 'tl]V
EXXAT)criav xai OAT)V <po)'to~ 1tE1tAT) PO)IlEVT) Vd()EV xai 1tAfj90~ aYYEAO)V
cruVT)9potcr1lEVO)V BV 'tc!> 't01tcp, BV q> 'ta~ Aa'tpEia~ aVa1tEIl1tEtV 'tc!> 9EC!> oi
iEPEi~ Etoo9acrtv. Kat EIl<POPO~ YEVOIlEVO~ xai XAT)9d~ u<p' EVO~ 'trov
cruVT)YIlEVO)v ro~ 1tAT)criov EYEVE'tO, E\jIOOlltcrEv au'tov 'tt~ EV 1tOAAij 86~lJ
15 'tuyxuvovm ~EVT)V 'tpo<Ptlv· xai EVtcrxooa~ au'tov, EXEAEOOEV 'to ()E()O-
IlEVOV d~ 'to cr'tolla au'tou avaA&crat· flV1tEP 'tpo<pl]V xa'ta 1tpoo'taYlla
'tou ()E()o)XO'tO~ au'tC!> <payffiv xai ~EVT)~ YEUcrEo)~ 1tEtpa9Ei~, 'to IlEV <pro~
xai 'tou~ cruVT)9potcrIlEvou~ aYYEAou~ E~tOV'ta~ d()EV.
Au'to~ ()E Ev90u~ rov I1axoullicp crUV'tUXElV Bcr1toU8acrEv, xapa~ xai
20 EU<PPOcrUVT)~ 1tE1tAT)PO)IlEVO~. Kai 'taum au'ta ()tT)YOUIlEVO~ au'tc!>, 'ta
XpU1t'ta au'tou E~ a1tOXaM\jIEo)~ PU1tO)V, EV 'tC!> AaAElV EIlEt()ia' xai
I1axoulliou UYOV'to~' ,'0 Aapffiv 'ta 860 'tuAavm 'tEcrcrapa 1tpOOtlVE"(-
XEV xai <'> 'ta E' 'tuAaV'ta Aaprov M;xa 1tPOOEXOlltcrEv' ()to ava~O)(juIlEvO~
'tl]v ocr<puv xap1to<popEt 'tc!> 'tl]v XUpt v crOt ()E()o)XO'tt,' eE60O)po~ ()E
25 cr'tEvu~a~ 1tPEcrPEUEtV au'tov 1tpO~ 'tOY 9EOV U1tEP au'tou 1i~iO)(jEV' xai
a1t' f;XEiVT)~ 'tfj~ TJIlEpa~ crUVEXroV a1tOXaM\jIEO)V 1tapa 'tou xupiou
1i~tOu'to.
Kai 'taum TJlliv I1EXOOcrtO~ 1tapa I1axoulliou axoooa~ IlE'ta 'tl]V
xoillT)crtV 1tapa()E()O)xEV."
9 cr. Acts 12.7-8 22-23 Mt 25.22, 20 23-241 Pet 1.13; Rom 7.4
1 obdutu- ytyOvt;v] Tuiitu ytyovt Tton: 0EoaCOpO<; UIlU nUX,COlli<!) t 1-2 ev- Tu~.]
TtEpi to TtpOElPTJIltvovTu~EVVT]crtCOV llovuo"t'I1PlOv t 2-3 tun:uvovn] H, 'tUn:uvov t,
tun:uvouow Fr 6 to crcollU avu.] avu. to crcollU t 9 Kui iiy.] ''Ay. 01; t 10 Kui
avucrta<;] '001; oluvucrta<; t 12 EV I ] )t 12-13 avuTt. t S. Ot tEp. dros.] droS. Ot
tEp. aVUTt. t S. t 13 Kui EIl<P.] "EIl<P. 01; t 13-14 xui -crUVT]Y.] E1tEiTtEP u<p' evo<;
tCOV EXEl cruvT]y. EXAitST] t 14 w<;] xui t 14-15 EIjI. - tUn.] EIjlCOllicrST] ItpOC; tlVO<;
ev ltoUu 06~1J tun:UVOVtoC; t 15 uutov] exEiSEv t I extAEooEV] EXEAEOOST] t 16
TtpOOtUYlla] to pro t 19 EVSOUC; wv] YEvoIlEVO<; EVSOU<; t 20 uuta] )r 23 E1
TttVtE t 24 o1;]) t 25 tov] supra lin. F lult. aut. TJ~.] TJ~. Ult. euutoii t 26xupiou]
Swii t 28 Kui] )t I T]lllV - UXOOOUC;] nEXOOlO<; aXT]xoro<; Itupa nUX,COlliou t 29
xoillT]crlV] uutoii + t
14-16 135
§ 15. Ammon confirms Ausonius' and Elourion's account through

Pekyssius
'Am;p 7tUpU '!E Aoooviou xui 'EAOUpiwvoe; flu8wv f:yffi, 10V 80UAOV
WU 8wu I1ExUmrtOV 7tU1tpU x't11(Ju(J8at (J7tou8U(Jue;, xui flu8wv OOllv
dXEV 7tupa WU XPI(JWU AU~WV XU1a 8utflOvWV MvufllV, T]~iO)(Ju
a7tuYYEiAUi flOI 1ivu tlV d7twV utm'{l 7tEpi E>w8ffipou 0 I1uXoufllOe;' xui
5 1a ulna d7tOV10e; f:8uUflU(JU.
§ 16. Ausonius proves from scripture Theodore's ability to read hearts.

(H.p. 105) AOOOVlOV 8E T]~iouv, d OAWe; 8UVU10V f:(Jnv liv8pw7tov
xpuma xup8iue; uv8pffi7twV opuv, f:X 1rov ypu<prov 7tAllPO<POpf\(Jui J.lE.
'0 8f; E<Pll' "I1upt~w J.ltv (JOI, <Pll(Jiv, 1ij 7tEip<;z WU YVroVUI, Mv
E>w8ffipcp 0 8EOe; 1a XPU7t1U (Jou U7tOXUAU\jIlJ' livw yap wu U7tOXUAU-
10 \jIat 10V 8EOV, OU8EJ.liu x1i(Jle; 1a f:V 'tUie; xup8iate; 1roV Uv8pffi7tWV
d8tvUIMvu'tUl. "Ivu 8E xui f:X 1rov ypu<prov 7tAllP0<p0P1l8ije;, lixouE 10U
J.lEV 7tpo<pl'jwu AeyoV10e; :EUJ.l0UTJA 1q'> :EuoUA' «~EUpO xui U7tUYYEAro
(JOt 7tunu 1a f:V 1ij xup8i<;z (JOU, xui 7tEpi 1roV ovwv (Jou 1roV U7tOAWAU-
trov (Jl'jflEpov 1PI'tUiwv' flTJ 8ije; f:V 1ij xup8i<;z (Jou f:V ulnuie;, on llUPllV-
15 1UI.»
Avuyvw8t 8E xui 1a 7tEpi 1rov uirov ' IE(J(Jui 7tpOe; :EUJ.l0UTJA U7tO 10U
xupiou dpllJ.levu, ivu yvq'>e; on, 01E U7tOXUAU7t1Et XUplOe; 10ie; 80uAOte;
uuwu, oproCJlv' 01E 8f; oux U7tOXUAU7t1Et, 1a XOlva 1roV uv8pffi7twV
J.le.pu f:V i:umoie; ~H7toootv.
20 'Eav yap OAllV 1TJV ~i~AOV 1rov ~UCJlAtxrov i(J10PlroV uvuyvq'>e;,
UXOOOlJ xui 10U 7tPO<pl'j10U EAt(J(Juiou HYOV10e; 1q'> i8icp AEl'tOUpyq'>
7tEpi YUVUtXOe; 8W(JE~OUe; on' «Ku1ffi8uvoe; f:(Jnv f] \jIUXTJ ulnf\e;, xui
XUplOe; oux U7tEXUAU\jIeV flOt,» roe; wu 8wu 7tOAArov U7tOXUAU\jIUV10e;
UU1q'> xup8iue;. Kui J.lUAt(J1U f:~ roy UXOOOlJ UU10U Hyonoe;, roe; E<Pll
25 7tpOe; 10V i8lOV AEl'tOUpyOV' «I108EV nE1;;i; xui U7toXpt8eV10e; UU10U
on' Ou 7tE7tOPW'tUt 0 80UAOe; (JOU Ev8u xui Ev8u, UU81e; d7tOV10e; UU1q'>'
OuXi f] xup8iu floU tlV J.lE1a (Jou 01E XU1E7tl'j8ll(JEV U7tO 10U lipflUWe;
12-151 Kg 9.19-20 16-171 Kg 16.6-12 22-23 4 Kg 4.27

25-27f 4 Kg 5.25-27
1 'Am:p] xuyro + t I 'EAoup.] AiAoupirovo~ t 1-2 tyro - CJ1[ouli.] €cJ1[ouliucru 1tU'!;epu

Kti]crucreUl1:0V liouAov 1:0U e. fh:xumov t 4 Ei1t. uin.1tEpi 0EOIi.] uin.1tEpi 0EOIi. Ei1t.
5 UI)1:(l]1:OlUU1:U t 6 ,,~iouv] ,,~i{O(Ju 1tAllPOq>Opfjcrui IlE t Ilivepro1tov] UVepOO1tQ>
7 EX] xui 1:OU1:O U1tO t I ypuq>ffiv] uyirov pro Fr I1tAllPOq>Opfjcrui IlE]1tUPUcr1:fjcrUl
81:ou]1:oU1:O t 10 x1:im~] Eilievul1i6vU1:Ul + t 11 Eili. 1i6v.])t Iypuq>ffiv] edrov
pr. Fr 12 Aey. LUll.] LUll. AEy. t 14-15 llUPllV1:Ul] EUPllV1:Ut t 19 ~AE1t.]
q>epoumv t 2001.,. 1:ijv ~i~.]1:ijv ~i~. 01.,. t I ~umAtxffiv] EV 1:ut~ ~umAEiat~ t 24
UXOooU] Ecrnv UXOOOUl t I ro~ Eq>ll] >t 25 nEt;i] nEt;fj t I UIJ1:0U] Exdvou t 26
d1t6v1:0~] d1tEV t
136 Critical text
UlrWD NUlIHlv 0 LUpO~ d~ (JuvUvtll(Jiv (JOU; xui VDV EAu~E~ 'to apyu-
ptoV xui 'ta tllUnu' xui ATJIl'l'U (JEamq> XTJTCOU~ xui EAUt&VU~ xui
aIlTCEA&vU~ xui TCoillVtU xui ~OUXOAtU xui OOUAOU~ xui OOUAU~' xui TJ
HTCpU Nutllav XOAA 118TJ(JE'tUt EV (Joi xui EV 'tq> (JTCi:Pllu'ti (Jou gCO~
5 ui&vo~.»
ri:YPUTC'tUt of; xui EV "CUt~ TCUp01lliut~ LOAOIl&vtO~' «rVCO(J"C&~
£TC1YVOxJU 'l'UXa~ TCOtllvicov (JOU xui ETC1(J'tTJ(JEt~ (Jov OIlIlU (JUt~ ayi:-
Aat~·» xui TCUAtV' «LUVtEt oixutO~ xupoiu~ a(JE~&v xui <puUAi~Et
a(JE~Et~ EV XUXOt~.»
10 rf:ypUTC'tat of; xui EV 'tUt~ TCpU~E(Jt 't&v aTCO(J'tOACOV' «Kui n~ avijp EV
AOO'tp01~ Exu811't0 XCOAO~ EX X01Aiu~ 1l11'tpo~ UU"COD UTCUPXCOV, o~
OUOETCO'tE TCEPtETCU'tll(JEv. Ou'to~ l1XOU(JEV TIuuAoU AUAODV"CO~' o~
a'tEvi(Ju~ uu'tq> xui ioffiv on EXEt TCi(J'ttv 'tOD (Jco9fjvut, ctTCEv IlEyUA1] 'tij
<pcovij' f\ VU(J't119t ETCi 'tou~ TC60u~ (Jou op90~. Kui llAu"CO xui TCEptETCU-
15 'tEt.» TIi(Jn~ yap EV xupoig xui oux EV TCpO(JcOmp (Jcollunx&~ opu"CUl.
Oihco~ of; xui 0 TIi:'tpo~ 'tijv xuxiuv LiIlCOVO~ "COD Iluyou oux EV 'tq> 'tOD
(JcOIlU"CO~ TCpo(JcOmp, aAA' EV 'tij xupoig ~HTCCOV ctTCEv uu'tq>' «Ei~ XOAijv
TC1xpiu~ xui (JUVOE(JIlOV aOtxiu~ op& (JE Ovtu.»"
Kui 'tUD"CU TCUpa AU(Joviou aXllxocO~, 'ta~ ~i~AOU~ OE~UIlEVO~
20 avEyvcov.
§ 17. Theodore disciplines Amaeis because of his secret thoughts and

leads him to confess.
(H. p. 106) Kui IlE'ta Xpovov xU'ta 'to IlE(Jovuxnov XpEiu~ XU'tETCEt-
~U(Jll~ xui (Jxo'tiu~ ofull~, TCpofjA80v EX 'tOD olxou' xui aXllxoffi~ 'tfj~
"COD ewocOpou <pcovfj~, oihco~ E<p0~TJ811v, ro~ (Juxxov At VODV Ilovov IlE
EVOEOUIlEVOV tOp&crUt XEtll&VO~ ropu~ ofull~' rjv yap 0 Ilijv OV Ot
25 AiyuTCnOt XUAOOOtV Tu~L Kui AOtTCOV VOODvtU IlE 'tijv ell~uicov YA&'t-
"CUV, XUAE(JU~ IlE OVOIlU(J'ti xui TCAll(Jiov EUU"COD (J'tTJ(Ju~, EAEYEV nvt
ell ~uiql Ilovu~ovn, f\IlUEt "COuvoIlU'
6-8 Pr 27.23 8-9 Pr 21.12 to-15 Acts 14.8-10 17-18 Acts 8.23
1 atrrou] atrrau t I Nat~av] Nau;~av t 2 ATJ~lj/lJ] ATJlj/lJ tr 2-3 tAo xai a~.] a~. xai
tAo t 4 Nat~av] Nate~av t 6 LOA.] LOAo~rovoe; t 7 o~~a] ovo~a r 11
atrrou] )t 12 nauAou] 'tou pr. t 13 EX. 7ticr.] 7th EX. t 14 In margo sub.:
boElt'tOT]e; 'tyyepa q>iAoe; al. manu. t I fjA.] fjAAa'to F 15 ()(O~.] ()(o~anx0 t 16
Oo'tcoe;] Oo'tco t I 6] )t 19 Kai] )t 21 Kai ~e'ta] Me'ta bE t I Xpovov] xpeiae;
xa'te7tet~acrT]e; 7tpofiAElov 'tou oixou + t 21-22 Xpe.-xai I] )t 22 crx. 000.] 000. crx.
t l7tpofiA. - oix.] )t 22-23 ax. 'tfie; 'tou 0EOb. q>cov.] 'tfie; 0EOb. q>cov. ax. t 23 AtV.
~6v. ~e]~eAtv. ~6v. t I Inmarg.:q>euyout 246])t I oi])t 26~e])t 27 f\~aei]
f\~~at t
1 ·ADlL~ ·101 91 [·101 91 ·ADlL~ 8~-a 1 ~!? 9 [}DX 11 AOD3lL~OOdlL [i\Di}31L~OOdlL
11( [AQ1<,)D '9dlL a 1 DlAOXD}dl ["( 1 J.:( (l)1L [OOlL 11 AOA~Th3XDdDlL c;911DlOlL Q;ll [·lOlL
001 ·xDdDlL 9~ 1 AOlL!JX AQl }d31L [tillLl,tX c;91 A;111 ·Jd 9 [,od(l)!?93E> ~~ 1< [·"(DX A«;!?l
p~ 1 A(l)d:jl~ ·,,(3!?l? [·"(3!?l? ·"("911 310lL t;l011 [0011 ~!? £~ '1 til}AodX1"(OlL [U}AodXCI"(OlL
1 1 AQlC\D~ ·!?11L;1 [·!?11L;1 AQ1ClD~ T~ 1 'DdDi}i}:jl [!? 1 J 'i,tDI1v. '1 lDI1I1v. ['pDI1v.
O~ 1 ·Jd 9 [,oldt;lx 11~!? ·1L13 [·lLp W)I ~T 1 }DX ·XD1!? ·119 .~ [·119 .~ ·XD1!? O-ZT
1 ·11;1 ,H~ [~!? ·11;1 OT l'l? [11Q 8 1 '13i}:jd~ ['13X~d~ 9-~ J1.:( AQ1ClD~
[AQlC\D3i) ~ 1 AQ1ClD~ ·X1i\ ·"(OlL A~ }DX ·eA~ '101 [·eA~ - z}DX ~-p 1 ·e!J!? ·l1oA 1?1311
[·l1oA 1?1311 ·e!J!? 11 ~lOlL [~19 £ 1 ~101L [~19 ~ 1 ·X? x<,)o ·<1>0 QdlL [·<1>9 9dlL ·X? X<,)O T
6~·8~ 1n;}G TT-OT 9·£ sf P £~.~ A;}"M ~OrL sd ~
(lOTI Dd 9 lDA.(l8 /\lp Dd9lL~ 1l.o<,l08,,(3dDlL !JJ." ·/\ooA.H 001\1D 0139g~

/\<,91\1D ~~ S13 '/\OOli\9(1dxDg /\OOl/\1)lL W)I ·S<)Ol\\D /\3nltw9/\"Q '/\0100
-101 Ql SO/\3TI9/\lD/\DlL"Q lDX .<;91\1D /\lW3lL9nodlL /\Ql\1D SQdlL 1O/\3TI9/\3A.
-DdDlL 'X (lOll }d3lL lDl!JTIOOX 'OOTIDlOlL 001 (l0/\9TI13XDdDlL '(lO}d ltlnD/\OTI
001 OOlLl,LX <;91 /\~ <;91\1D /\Q}TIl,t /\OOl/\9/\(ln lDX 'SodOO9930 SqlxDdoo'1 /\~ ~~
/\D}nDllL9 /\lp lDX 13TI (lOTI 9g SOl/\98"(3lLv.;
·l;}n{iim~p S,l;}iiull!A U SIU;}q ;}lOPO;}qJ. ·8 T§
·SO/\3TI<)0A.0"(OTIO~~ DlODl /\3Xlt1<)3"(3131 /\Q1(ID1i\~ 1;>13TI

/\Q}llLoodg<) lDX D}/\odX(I"(OlL /\qln3lLld3lL oon9/\ 'S<)og1lL~ /\Q1(ID~ ro"(lL9/\~
D}3lDdw lDX (lO}dltWD/\OTI 001 S1;>lnOlL"Q ,g SD/\!JTI 1;>13TI SPDTIv.; ~g 0, O~
. /\91\1D /\300"(9 lL"Q
SD.o<,ldxDg 0,,(OlL llL~ lD)I ". /\91\1D ,lL~ SDl/\0<b9dW1lL~ Soo}nlt/\A. S001
SQ3 8 9 d1;>A. lD13X 9 g . lDJfqdw1lL~ lDnDi\()g 'SIl"(98 /\N /\\J.,,(lL .(lOn D}gdDX
l,t 0 03 8 0 01 ltW:;IlL"Q 'Q}dg d1;>A. Sc:> . lD/\!J8oon Dl/\Dnl,L0/\Dl3TI lDX 0 01
-(l1)3n lD/\<,9/\A.DlDX SQ}8lt"("Q SOld<)x 10n 1l<?V''' .SodOO9930 /\3lL}3 lD)I ~T
·lD8nD~()3nodlL 001
-\lD d~lL<) /\odOO9930 (lO}~lt 'SO/\3TI1)"(13HDlL~ /\PO/\Dl3TI 'SDnl,LA.O,,(OTIg
/\Q1(lD~ lD8n13xmg SOO100 lDX 001\1D SDg9lL S001 1;>dDlL /\qln3lL ~g 0,
,;13/\ ldxDlDX 3n ro}/\OOlD l d (llL 1;>"("("Q '(lon
/\999 /\\J.1 SOld<)x 13!l<?gO\l3 x\lo '1l1<)Dl13n980dlL !Jl ~g SIl/\}3TITI~ '/\Old OT
-C)X /\Ql 1l!l<?3"(1~~ /\ loodx1)g /\Q1(I1)3n SDn}/\A.1) 0038 001 rog9~ '119 /\(I/\}Ol 3X!)(f)/\U ·1l)}A.0"( d3lLp, DlODl lD~I'dlL
11DTI<?n <;91 <;91\1D lDX SDXldx9X 'So/\3TI9)1A.0"( /\Q}XD/\OTI /\Q}111DTI"(9HDlL~
<;91 D}1/\D/\3lLC) 1;>1 Dl/\1)lL lDX .S13/\1)gTID"( /\Q}l\1D ,dDlL /\QoodX lDX S13X
-n9d"Q S10A.lt1Ddln lDX 'Spdg /\ 1!)DTIl:tTI(l8/\~ S101 /\ ~LlltXl/\ /\Q1(ID3n S10TI S
-HolL /\~ lDX llC)3lDdw Dl}3 . S10,,(1lLn (Ion 1)TIQ}n Ql /\0"(9 lDX S13g<)38DX
SQXlDi\C\A. SltTI}TIo/\ 1;>13TI /\38!J,9 ~g ~lg 'IlX9"(lLld3lL lDX Spdg SD/\d9lL
/\~TI ~lg (lon D}gdDX !Jl /\~ }lmV' ~ S938 9 S00d<b3/\ lDX SD}gdDX 13)1)1~
119 SD~?lO x\lO ~ /\Q}TI"(D8<b9 QdlL S13X? x\lo 0038 001 /\og9<b /\Ql }lmV'''
LtT 8T-9T
138 Critical text
rrEv'tExalOExaE't11 'tUyxuvoooav UVOpt rrapaoEoroxa· Xat O"TII1EPOV

uvayxa0"9EiO"a 'tpoqn)v Aa~Eiv Xat O"'tpo<pro9EiO"a XEi'tat li<provo~,
0l1ATJ't11Piou, m~ rruO"lV <paiVE'tat 'tOi~ opoxnv, (H.p. 107) au'tij il 'tij
'tpo<pij il 't4> rro'tql E1tl~A119Ev'tO~· xat ErrEl(1) Ot EDPE9EV'tE~ Ev'tau9a
5 ia'tpoi Urr11yopEOOav all't11V, OEO/lE9U o"ou, xa'ta~irocrov Ero~ 'tii~ oixia~
/lOU O"xuAiival xai rrpoo"Eu~a0"9at rrEpi au'tii~· OiOa/lEV yap Mv on
E1tlXaAEO"lJ 'tOY XP1O"'tOV, xapii;;E'tai O"ot 't1)v 9uya'tEpa /lou."
'n~ OE oux il9EAEV d~ 't1)v oixiav au'tou urrEA9Eiv, xAaioOOlv au'toi~
xat tXE'tEUOOOlV E<pTJ· ,:Y/lEi~ /lEV dpi]xa'tE iva d~ 'tOY OtXOV D/lmV
10 EA9dlv rrpoo"Eu~ro/lal lmEp 'tii~ 9uya'tpo~ D/lmv· <'> OE 9EO~ rruv'ta rrE-
P1EXroV rrA11Poi· ou yap rrEplypu<pE'tal 'torrql. 'Ev'tau9a ouv au'tov
E1tlXaAE(J"(O/lE9a, xai EXEi ouO"av 't1)v 9uya'tEpa D/lmv i;;roorrolEi." Kai
'tmv liAAroV rruv'trov WCJrrEP uppa~mva 'tii~ i;;roii~ 'tii~ rraloo~ uxouO"uv'trov
'tOY AOYOV, 0E60ropo~ /lE'ta rrav'trov 'tmv O"uvov'trov aU't4> /lovai;;ov'trov
15 Erri rrpoO"EUx1)v e.purr11· xai 'tphov xAiva~ 'ta yova'ta xai Ex'tEvm~ 'tOY
9EOV tXE'tEooa~ xat xa'tarraooa~ E<pTJ· ,,'ExapiO"a'tO <'> 9EO~ 'tij 9uya'tpi
D/lmV 't1)v i;;roi]v. 0appouv'tE~ urrEA9a'tE."
Kai <provii~ YEVO/lEV11~ rrAi]90u~ uvopmv 'tE xai yuvatxmv rrEpi 'to
/lovaO"'ti]pwv XAatOV.roV (urrorrvEElV yap rrpOO"EOoxU'tO) T)XEV urro 'tou
20 rrEpav <'> rra't1)p 'tii~ rral06~, ~EO"'tTJV upyupwv rrErrA11pro/lEVOV iSoa'to~
<pEproV. Kai /lE'ta xAau9/lou 0wompql rrpoO"ayaydlv E<P11· ,,'OA1YO-
1tlO"'to~ dIll, oEo/lai o"ou, xliv you v Erri 'to iSorop 'tou'to E1tlXUAEO"at DrrEp
au'tii~ 'to ovo/la 'tou 9wu· 1tlO"'tEUro yap on
dO"axoooa~ o"ou <'> 9EO~
rrotEi 'to iSorop 'tou'tO <pup/laxov O"ro't11 pia~ 'tij 9uya'tpi /lou." Kai <'>
25 0EOOropO~ /lEV 'tOY ~Eo"'t11V Aa~dlv xai Uva~AE\jIa~ d~ 'tOY oupavov xai
/lE'ta oaxpurov rrpoo"EU~U/lEVO~, 'to O"TJ/lEiov 'tOu O"'taupou 'tou XP10"'tOU
Erri 'to iSorop rrErroi11xEv.
'0 OE rra't1)p 'tii~ rratoo~ Aa~dlv 'to iSorop xai /lE'ta 'tou 0XAOU d~ 'tOY
iowv OtXOV urrEA9mv, /lE'ta 'tpEi~ il 'tEO"O"apa~ wpa~ /lE't' oAiyrov <piAroV
30 xai O"uYYEvmv tau'tou DrrEO"'tpE\jIEV, urraYYEAArov 'ta /leraAEia 'tou 9wu
10-11 Cf. Sap 1.7 25 Mt 14.19 30 Acts 2.11
1 'tv),X.] oooav t Iltupulii:aroxu]ltapi:aroxu tr 2-4 uvuyx. - Eltl~A..] a'lA'l't'lpiou xuero~

mien aoxEi 'tfj 'tpocpfj UlJ'tfj~ tj 'tC!> lto'tc!> E1tl~A. avuyx. xEi'tUl licprovo~ t 4 xui -
Ev'tuiieu] EltEl oOv ot ltUpu'tUX6V'tE~ t 6 on] ro~ t 7 XUpiSE'tUij XUpicrE'tui t 8
ijeEAEV]6 /li:ya~ E>EoaropO~ +t 12 SroOltOlEi] SroOltOlllcrEl t 12-13 Kui 'troY IiA.]
Trov iiI... oOv t 13 mlv'trov] amlv'tWv t 14 mlv'trov] )t 17 Ulti:A.eU'tE] Ulti:AeE'tE
tr 18 Kai cprovfj~] <l>rovii~ ae t 19 /lovucr'tllpwv]lti:puv t 19-20a1t(')'toii lti:pav]
U,;el~ t 22-23 E1tlX. - eeoii] 'to ovo/lU 'toii eeoii 1l1tep uu'tfi~ E1tlX. t 23 dcruxooou~]
dcrUXOOOE'tui t 24ltOlEij xui ltOlllcrEl t 16] )t 29 'ti:crcrupu~] corr. sup. lin., prius
'ti:crcrUPl~ F 29-30 /lE't' - £uu'tOii] crllv OA.i yOl~ cpiAOl~ tj xui crUYYEVEcrt v uu'tOii t 30
altuy. 'tu - eeoii] 'tu - eeoii altuy. t
18-19 139
a 1tE1tOirP<EV I!E't' ai)'too. 'EAEYEV M; on' "ToN UOEAq>rov I!0u ~iQ.

OUV1l9Etcrrov otavoi~at 'tOU~ xaAtVOU~ 'tii~ euya'tpo~ I!0u ~paxu n 'tOO
{)8a'to~ EI!~aAEiv, xcIi 1tapaxpiil!a xuno9Ev 1tOAAii~ ExxpicrEro~ yEVO-
I!tvll~, Ecrro911 'to xopucrWV."
5 ~tAOUavo~ ot n~ f\AE~avopEU~ oixrov EV 'to BEVotoEicp, f\pEtaVO~,
At9tl!1topo~, cruvrov 'to uvopi 'tii~ 1tat86~ xai 'troY I!EYaAEirov 'tOO 9wo
U\)'t01t'tll~ YEVUI!EVO~, E86~acrEv 'tov 9EOV.
§ 19. Silvanus is stricken for mocking Theodore in his heart.

ME'ta Of: 'too'to eE68ropo~ 1tEpi 1tOU px' 1!0vusov'ta~ 1tapaAa~rov
um'lYaYEv Ei~ nva viicrov 'too 1to'tal!oo cruvayaYEiv UAllV, ilv of
10 Aiy(mnot 9pua xaAoOOtv, 1tpooxropoooav d~ xamcrxwtlv 'troY
'l'ta9irov' EV ol:~ TJv xai ~tAollavo~ 'touvol!a, ell ~aio~, o~ TJv TJyOUI!EVO~
(H.p. 108) xW )lovasoV'trov AtVOUq>rov, 00 TJv OEU'tEPO~ EX 'tOU'tOll 'too
upt91!00 Maxupw~ 'tOuvo)la, 1tPEcr~U'tEPO~ UOEAq>O~ 'tOO ayiou
eworopoll, 61!0I!TJ'tptO~, oux 6)l01tu'tpw~.
15 Kai'tij Evun:! TJl!tpQ.1tapaYEVO)lEVO~ n~ 'troY )lovasoV'trov EOTJACOOEV
ro~ nVE~ 'troY I!E'ta eworopou U1tEA90v'trov I!ovaxrov, uyayov'tE~ EV
crxaq>icp U1t01tVtEt v )lEAAOVm ~tAoUavov, EV 'to oPI!CP dcriv 'tOO 1to'ta-
)loo ovn 1tpO crlll!Eiou 'tii~ Bao' TJ)lEV yap AOt1tOV TJI!Ei~ EV 'tOU'tCP 'to
)lOvacr'tllPicp. Kai E~EA9oV'tE~ Ei~ U1tUV'tllcrtv au'tOo, EUpO)lEV au'tOu~
20 xa'ta 'ttlv 680v q>tpov'ta~ ~tAOllavov E1ti xAivll~ U1t01tAllx'tov, I!TJ'tE
uxouoV'ta I!TJ'tE AaAoov'ta, 'tpi'tllV TJ)ltpav liyovm uq>' 00
U1tE1tA llx'tiacrEv.
Kai 'tptcriv liAAat~ TJl!tpat~ OU'tro Ota'tEAoov'tO~ au'too, )lTJ'tE 'tpoq>ii~
)lTJ'tE 1to'too Aa)l~Uvov'tO~ au'tOo, eE68ropo~ 6 f\AE~avopEu~ xai I1E-
6 Acts 2.11
2 OUVTJ9EtcrroV] ouvTJ9i:v'tCov t I Otavoi~at] )t I Ilou] Otavoi~at +t 3 EIlPaAEiv]

Evi:paAov t I xU't. 1tOA. Exxp.]1tOA. EXXp. xU't. t 5 BEvotoEicp] t, BEvoTJAicp Fr 6
A.t9i:Il1topo~] xt9i:Il1topo~ t l1tatoo~] XOPTJ~ t 7 YEVUIlEVO~] YEVOIlEVO~, fmi:cr'tTJ 'tE 'tfj~
aipi:crEro~ 'tau'tTJ~ xat t I t06~. 'tov 9EOV] 'tov 9EOV i:06~. t 8 M])t I 'tou'to] 'tau'ta t I1tEpi
-1tapaA.]1tapaA.llovaxou~ 1tEpi 1tOU £xa'tov Eixoot t 9-10 o{ Aiy. 9p. xaA.] 9p. xuA.
Aiy. t 10 1tpocrxropoooav]1tpoxropoooav t I 'troy] )t 11 'touvolla] 'tl~ lSvolla t
12 xPl EiXOOt xut ouo t 12-13 011 - cipt91l0u] tv 4> cipt91lC!> 'touwu OEU'tEPO~ ~v
t 15 Kat] tv +t I tvu'tlJ] t, tvvu'tlJ F I 'troY] tXEi9EV 'troY t I tOT]ArocrEv] fllliv tv TIapau
oUcrtv +t 161l0vaxrov] vuv +t 17 crxaq>icp] crxaq>toicp t I ci1t. Ili:A.l:tA.]l:tA. ci1t.
1l€A.. t 18 Bau] TIapau t 1S---19 ~IlEv-llovacr'tTJpicp] )t 19 t~EA9.] flllEi~ +t
21-22 ay. ciq>' 011 U1t.] ciq>' 011 a1t. ay. t 23 Kat 'tp. aA. fill.] 'Ev aA. 01; 'tp. fill. t I outro]
ou'tro~ tv 'tC!> 1l0vacr'tTJpicp t I au'tou] xat + t I 'tpoq>fj~] 'tpoq>i)v t 24 1to'tou]1to'tov
t I auwu] ) t 24-1 TI EXixrolO~] TI EXU II crlO~ t
1 ~ti~ ,lLQ [Qoti~ 171: 1 AQO DlQDl [DlQDl W)I £1: 1 QDgDll
[QDg 1 1< [x~ 1:1: 1 Q03!) 9lLQ lDXiJ!)X3A3~~ [A3A.3"(? - 9 lL Q 1 d lDA~!)X3AUA3~~ 'H
[lDAiJ!)X3AUA3~~ r1: 1< [~~ 11 ~g )QA~ ,!)D)! [)9A~ ~g 1)W)!111DX lOti 'dp A"(3gQ AQ;l1
)lll,tti DA! 'noti )DgqlL )\101 )D!)l,tlOlL ADd1)tiDX d3lL!Xp ')Dl<)Dl DJf\ndx? [)"91QD -DAH r-9T
1 )DA3tiqA3A. [)DA~tiOAIA. 9r 1 )!0d>,,(3gQ [)!oti"(Ded>9 ~r 1 3~13g3lLQ [A3~13g?
17r H )Dlqxro"(xnx3x 'ld )Dl9"(xnX3X '1 [)DlAD!K?"(xnx 11 'g~ 'gQ )\101 ['gQ )\101 'g~
£r H AQ;ltil,t dl,t1DlL 9 ['gq 3 0 11 ug~An!) [A3xug~gtin!) n H )31A"9lL [31D!l<)OXV;
rr 1 DA3tiqA.3"( Q01QD ,lLQ 1)1 'HDlLQ )iJArod> )U,,("9A.3ti 1)13ti 13el,t"(lL W1 [, HDlLQ - 1)1 rr
-or 1 )oAro}dno,,(}v [)oAro}dno,,(3. or 1 A91QD [AQ1nD~ 6 1 ~g roil A1,t1 9 lLA, [roil
AI,t19lLQ lD)!S 13ti 'lLQ ['lLQ ~ti~ L 1< [z3ti 11 + Al,,("9lL [lDX ~ 1 '''(l:r ud>? [ud>? '''(l:r
17 1 Aro}dno,,(}v [Aro}dno,,(3, 11 )OlD1DlA3th [)OlDI,tDlA3 th Il1d )Old>ti"9th 'H [)Old>d"9th r
sor aU0!1v,w aa 'sn:Jlluod sn! lllllA 3 "J;) Lr-n 1:r£6 sd 'J;) ~ r1:'~T :J:JllW 1: £-1:
<;1,)1 i\'OJ..T) 5\>d3g0d> 'Il.o<)OllL'OdlD~ lly,eD~ i\~ lOTI 5~W11L~ ll'OTIl,tXD

Oli\}lLrodei\~ i\~ 511 }'O)l ,.501d~x'OW (60T 'd'H) i\11D~ i\rodd>9i\131L'01
\\,,(Oll ~ U1Q'O 'O}?OgOi\3X l,t 0l1C,l01 i\3e91I ~ i\3DUi\i\~J..~ i\OlgOll'OX dUll,tTI ~1:
no}d'Ox'OW I,t XQo ~ 59d>"(3g~ gOTI~ 1301 no}d'Ox'OW i\ llD? XQO' ,i\roJ..n
nOTI D}gd'Ox \11 i\~ i\odrog93E) 'ODld l,tlXnTI~ <(lJ..~ i\roC,lox~ '0113'01 l'O)l
"13J..~lg g'OH \11 i\~ 50lg0 l'OX ,no}duw'Oi\oTI gOl.. x~ 1'Oi\y,eu"(gx~ i\3D
-n3"(~x~ i\I?, 'i\3J..3"(? 1'Oi\ y,eX3i\ Ui\3?~ g03e 1301 \>1L<) i\ lD'Od>91L~ l'OX i\<!)lQ'O
?~ 5\>i\~ ~g "Ql'O)l ''01'OTI9i\9 "Ql lOTI i\~xud13 i\roi\ll }'OX ,5'O}dulroD i\<!)l 01:
-n'O~ 5Y,1 i\ 1ngO"(3TI~ i\roli\9J'Oi\OTI gOD "Q13TI i\<!)l 5~i\ ll' ,119. 1'Oi\~xudp
'01i\~ed>9 <P1Q'O i\0"(3UT) i\3J..3"(? '5~lQ'O 1'Oi\y,e3d1'Oi\~ \>1 "Q13TI }'O)l
,.5~lQ'O 'OIhndx? nOTI 5'Og91L 5\\01 5'ODl,t lOll i\'Od
-~TI'OX d31Lnw '\1eX'Od'01 i\<!)d>"(3g~ i\<!)l 511 l,tTI 'Oi\1 'S'Oi\~TIOi\ 1J.. nOTI S'Og91L
S\\011d31L 'i\Clo"(}TIq> d"QJ.. SU, 'S~lQ'O Sll rol~OO3i\0<l>' ,i\roJ..n SI0TI,,('09d>9 ~r
S101 i\3?13g? S'Oi\g}X~ 5"Qdx1TI oC,lg '13Xl,tW}3 cp i\~ nOlL91 1301 5"Ql..OOlL~ l'OX
S'ODl,tlLrolD l'OX ,i\91Q'O S'01i\'O!X?"(xnx S\\0d>"(3g~ S\\Ol i\3XD'Og}g~ OlDl,ti\
\11 i\~ S<{llD~ Sodrog93E) 'nol~gg'OD 1301 19~d131 \1l.. ,i\3xug~gTInD 011301
lOTI 5<!)lL 31'ODC,lOXV." ,ud>? '501i\0"("(~U'OlL~ Sy,i\rod> 5Y,1 SU"(~J..3TI "Q13TI
13el,t"(lL <Pl 'Oi\3TI9J..3"( gOlQ'O ,1L<) "Ql ~g SOi\ro}dnoya, '<P1Q'O SOl<!)W3d'OlL or
i\~TI gOTI~ 'SUi\}"(x SY,lllL~ S'OD}9'OX l'O)l 'i\3Dn3"(~x~ S\>i\'Ono"(l:r i\\>ln'O~
5\>dlL Ol}duw'Oi\oTI <Pl i\~ 5\\01 5'01i\~1L i\139"(3i\Cli) ro?, i\l,tl \>lL<) l'O)l
'i\91Q'O i\3Jh.3d9? i\roX? '01i\g013dulL<) ~TI~ ~g Sodrog93E) ,i\'O!)O)dl,t"(lL~
i\l,tXn3DodlL i\l,tl i\~TI lOi\!3X~ ,,'S93e 9 S\>lUJ..0,,(Q3" 'SOli\91LP \1i\rod> \11
11 "(~J..3TI gOTI~)l ,,'3TI 5'ODlp"(~ l'OX 3TI S'O.o<)3g1'OlL 9 S\>3e 9}3 S\>lUJ..0,,(Q3" ~
,nOTI 591i\0C,lOX~ 'ud>? S\>i\'Ono,,(l:r 'i\<!)lQ'O i\roi\~TIOXn3DOdlL ll? l'O)l 'i\9i\
-'OnO,,(l:r 1'ODY,3"(~ i\\>39 i\\>l i\On31~Xl i\roC,ldx'Og i\<!)"("(OlL "Q13TI 'i\9i\'OdQo
i\\>l 5p S'OdpX S"Ql S31i\'Oi\}31'Oi\~ <p3e <Pl 531i\gOlD3d'OQ3 lOlLrod9i\T)
'SOdrog}DL l'OX i\ro}dno,,(3, l'OX SOlDl,t'01i\3 th l'OX 501d>d~th l'OX SOlD.o<)X
lX;)l 11l:Jll!l;) OtT

19-20 141
1tpocral1tql, E<Pll' ,Ou&t 'tov 8EOV ai&ij 'totau'ta xa'ta wu 8EpU1tOVW~

auwu i':vvorov;' Kat &ta'tpa1tEi~ i':yw JlE'ta 1tOAAf\~ aicrx6vll~, OOcr1tEP
pu1ttcrJla xa'ta 'tou 1tpocrro1tOU JlOU U1t' au'tou &08tv ljcr8oJlllv' xat Aot-
1tOV ouxf:n EYVCOV 1tOU tlJlllV XEiJlEVO~ 11 1tro~ i':v'tau8a l'jA80v ECO~ 6 8EO~
5 JlE iucra'to."
Kat 1tUnE~ TjJlEl~ uxoooav'tE~ i':&o~ucraJlEV 'tov 8EOV.
§ 20. Certain erring monks revealed to Theodore by an angel are correc-

ted. One is expelled.
Kat JlE't' ou 1tOAAa~ TjJlf:pa~ i':1ttO"'ta~ 'to Jlovacr'tllpiql0Eo&copo~ WU~
UbEA<pOU~ i':Xf:AEUcrEV cruvax8f\vat· xat 6JllAilcra~ at)'toi~ xat d1twv
1tEplJlElVal 'ti]v 1tapoooiav au'tou, Yf:YOVEV aJla &ootV 'trov JlE8' f:au'tou
10 1tEpt 'tOV oIxov i':v c? €80~ i':cr'ttV 'tOU~ Jlovusona~ f:crnucr8at. Kat nva
Jlovusona VEUVtcrXOV i':~EA8ov'tU U1tO 'tou OlXOU xa'tacrxrov, ElAXOOEV
d~ n va oIxov XEXaJlapCOJli:vov' xat iJVUyxasEV d1tElV au'tov a1tEp ;;v
1tE1totllxro~, atJ'tov ElVat &E1XVU~ 'tOV U1tO 'tou UYYf:AOU xa'tUJlllVu8i:v'tU,
o~ xat i':x~A1l8f\Vat wu Jlovacr'tllptoU XEXf:AEOOW. 'n~ &t oux i':~06-
15 AEW Af:YElV, up~aJlf:VOU 0EO&ropOU UYElV auwu 't1)V 1tPro'tllV 1tpU~tV
xat i':pco'trono~ d oU&f:va 'trov JlOvasoncov cruvtcr'topa ElXEV, 1tEcrWV d~
'tOU~ 1t68a~ 0EObropou, iJ~iou 'ta~ CiAAa~ au'tou 1tpU~El~ O"lC01tf\crat xat
i':X1tf:Jl'l'at wu JlOvacrnlpiou. "O~ U1tObE1X8Ei~ U1tO 0EObropou 'to
cruVllYJli:Vql1tAil8El 'trov UbEA<prov i':~COJlOAOYElW Uycov on uA1l8ro~ 6
20 8EO~ 'ta xa't' au'tov 'til> 8EpU1tOVn au'tou U1tEXUAU'I'EV xat on blxaico~
'tou Jlovacr'tllpiou Pl<pf\Vat i':xEAEoo811.
Kat 0E68copo~ xEAEooa~ au'tov i':x~A1l8f\vat xat wi~ UbEA<poi~ i':<p'
ixavov 6JllAilcra~, 'trov CiAACOV Jlovasoncov 'trov aina8i:v.cov U1tO 'tou
UYYf:AOU ibi~ f:xuO"'tql vux'to~ i':1tf:cr'tll' xat U1tayyEiAa~ ocra f:xuO"'tql
25 JlE'ta 'to aylOv ~umlO"Jla i':1tE1tAllJlJli:All'tO, i':~f:O"'tllcrEv Exacr'tov, 1tEicra~
AOYql1tAEioVl JlE'tUvoi~ i':~lAErocracr8at 'tov 8EOV' oinvE~ i':1ttYVOV'tE~
1 aioij] cru +t 3 Xata - itcr()611l]v] Eoo~a oE~acr()Ul nap' alltOU Xata tOU npooomou
110U t 4 OUXEtt] oux r I ill1l]V XEil1.] XEil1. ill1l]v t I EW~] Oil +t 6 Kat] tauta
+t 7 Kai -noA.] MEt' ou noA. OE t 9 YEyovEv]napaYEyovEV t 10110vuSOV-
ta~]l1ovaxou~ t 11 ano] >t 12 Ei~] Eni t Iautov] Hr, autoov F, autQ'> t 13 OEtXVU~]
>t I xatal1l]Vu()EVta] OtEYvwxro~ + t 14 xai] >t I XEXEAEUcrtO] XE sup. lin. t 15 aut.
titv np.] titv np. aut. t 16 ouoEva]l1l]oEVa t 17 npU~Et~] corr. sup. lin., prius
npu~t~ F 19 aOEA!poov] 110vaxoov t, in marg.: .f aOEA!poov t I E~WI10AOYEito] H,
E~0110AOyEitW F, I;~WI10Aoyi]cra'to t 19-20 6 ()EO~ - auto v] 'ta xat' auto V 6 ()EO~
t 22 Kai] '0 OIlV I1Eya~ t 23 iinwv]l:xucrtq> + t Il1ova~6vtwv]ioi~ vux'to.; Enootl]
+t 24ioi~- I;nootl]])t I ana'YYEiAa~] dva'YYEiAa~ t 25 Exacrtov]nuvta.; t 26
I1Etavoi~] oUll1Etavoia~ t
142 Critical text
01t(o<; all'trov EcpElaaW 0 9EO<;, a1£EUOOV.E<; 1£UO"lV Eau.ou<; xa.acpavEi<;

1£01fjaa1, ExroM9TJaav D1£O 0EOOropOU Ai;yOVW<; flit Ol>Vaa9Ul .OU<;
1£AElOU<; .rov aOEAcprov CPEPE1 VWlUU.a<; axou<;, 1£pOan9EV'to<; on, 1£po<;
.4> .ou<; £'1 VTJ1t1us0V'ta<; EV Xp1a'4> ~AU1£'Ea9a1, xai na1.rov a1£aYYEA-
5 AOV.roV Eyxropd 1£ayioa YEvf:a9Ul oVE101aflov 61£0 nvo<; .rov flTJOf:1£ro
1£ayirov 1£pOaE1£EVEx9EV'ta atl'toi<;' aAA' EXElVroV .oi<; ayio1<; avopuO"lv
wi<; 1£Epi IlExooalOV xai \}IEV'taytalOv ioi~ Exaa.o<; Eau.ov
cpavEprocra<;, oEytaE1<; 1£POO"ECPEPEV 1£pOO"EuXEa9a1 61£EP atl'trov 1£po<; .Ov
9EOV.
§ 21. A speech by Theodore elicits the confession of a monk who stole

food.
10 Kai 'tau.a flEV EV .ai<; ytflEPUl<; .fj<; .Eaaapaxoa.fj<; yEyOVEV.
'Ev OE .ai<; tillf:PUl<; .ou ayiou 1t(laxa f:a1£Epa<; ~a9Ela<; .ij .phlJ .rov
aa~~u.rov, 1£uV'trov .rov flovaS0V'trov .rov EV wi<; EVOExa flovaa'TJpi01<;
.oi<; D1£O 0E60ropov EV.ij Bau auvTJ Yfl EVroV (£90<; yap (H. p. 110) atl'toi<;
xa.' £.0<; EXEi auvayoflEvo1<; (lfla .itv wu ayiou 1£uaxa Eop.itv EOP.u-
15 ~E1V) 1£OAArov a~lOUV'rov 0E60ropov EPIlTJVEOOUl a flit VEvoytxE1aav
(>TJ.a .rov ypacprov Exuanp OXJ1tEP TJpOHTJaEV aacpE<; 1£01ytaa<;.0 sTJ'ou-
flEVOV £CPTJ'
"l\.ya90v xapiEv ci1£Eiv ECP' DflroV·1£VEUfla axu9ap.ov 1£apaYEvoflEV-
ov f:vo<; E~ tiflrov xa.EyEAaaEv AEYOV' ,1:uvft9ro<; .rov flovas0V'trov .ij
20 1£apEA90oolJ vux.i flit flE.aAa~OV'trov xai 00.0<; EV wi<; flit flE.aAa~ou
a1 Vtjv· E1t1axE\jIuflEVO<; OE au.ov EYcb vux.o<; xai EDpcbv O~U1£E1 VOV xai
ayav OA1YropOUV'ta (£90<; yap .oi<; oaiflOO"l V.oi<; 1£U9EO"l .rov av9pro1£rov
4 cr. 1 Cor 3.1 5 Cf. Rom 11.9
1-2 CJ7u:uo. -1tOli'jom] ro1tl:oouv IlI:V 1tucn YEvi:cr9ul xu'tucpuvEi<; t 2 ExroM91]cruv] oi:
+t 3 cptPElV] T<l<; +t I axou<;] xui +t 4 't4'>] t, to Fr I ~M1t'tEcr9ul] axouov'tu<;
+t 4-5 xui - En.] En. xui trov cmuyy. ncri t 5 1tuyiou] 'tuu'tu + t I YEvi:cr9ul] Ei<;
crXUVOUAOV +t 5-6 6VEtO. - uu'toi<;].6vElOlcrllou 1tpocrE1tEVEX9tvto<; UUto!<;, ronv
(hE, 1tpo<; nvo<; trov 1l1]0t1tro 1tElPUcr9i:v'trov t 6 aAA' EXElVroV] ana IlOVOl<; t 7
nExoocrLOV] nEXOOLOV t I 'f'EV'tUTJcnov] 'f'Ev'tuicrLOv t 8 1tpocrtCPEPEvj1tpocrtCPEPOV t I
1tpocrEUXEcr9ul] Euxro9ul t I uu'trov] t, autou Fr 10 'tro. yi:y.]6:yiw;; yty. tEcr. t 13 'tij
Buil] nu~uil t 14 XUt' -cruvuy.] EXEicrE cruvuy. xu't' lho<; t I xu't'] xu9' F I iiIlU]OIlOil
14-15 i:OptUSElV] xui +t 15 0E60ropov] 'tOV Iltyuv pr. t I VEVOTJXElcrUV]
VEVOTJXUcrl r 15-16 ypucprov] t, ayirov pr. F I a - ypucprov] nva Pl]'ta 'trov ypucprov a
VEVOTJXUcn v t 16-17 i:xucr'tc!> - Ecpl]] i:xEivo<; EXUcrtC!> crucpi:<; 1t0l TJcru<; 'to Sl]'to\JIlEVOV
xu9oo<; l]pro'tTJ91], 1tPOcrt9EtO A.i:YElV t 18 J\yu90v] xui tou'to +t I XUpiEV] XUpiEVtro<;
19 f)llroV] ullrov t 20 IlE'tUAU~OVtroV] tpocpi'j<; +t 20-21 IlEtaAU~oooLV]
IlEtUAUIl~UVOOOlV t 22 yap] 01: t I ouillocrlV] f)lliv +t
20-22 143
1tapaXa811l.l.EVOt<; E1tt'ti8Ecr8at) Ev8uJ.1ilcrEt<; autq'> U1tOpaArov Xat ti)v

1tEivav aUtoD E~a'l'a<;, E1tEtcra aUtOV dptou<; xAt'l'at xat Aa8pa <payEiv.
Kat VDV EV J.1Ecrql tOW J.1ovaSOVtrov xa8TJtat 6 xAt1ttTJ<;, 1tapa~atTJ<; tii<;
oixda<; 1tP08EcrEro<; YEVOJ.1EVO<;, 00<; J.1Et' autrov U1tEp8EJ.1EVO<;.' "
5 Kat E>E60ropo<; 'tOi<; J.1ovaSOOOt v E<pTJ' "M il tt<; sautov PtasEcr8ro
U1tEP o()VaJ.1tv VTJcrtEUEtV, E1tEtOi) f:X tii<; dyav acrxilcrEro<; E~TJcr8EVTJcrEv
UJ.1rov tacrwJ.1ata· of oOv dyav acr8EvEi<; xaO' ecr1tEpaV f:cr8tEtrocrav 1tAi)v
tii<; 1tapacrxwii<;·"
Kat avacrta<; f:xEivo<; f:V J.1Ecrql toO 0XAOU trov J.1ovaxrov (fJJ.1EV yap
10 1tAdou<; 11 OtcrXiAtot f:1tt to auto) 1tpocrE1tEcrEV toi<; 1tocrtV E>EOOWpou,
eautov xataJ.1TJvurov· xat XaAU'I'a<; to 1tpooro1tOV autoO tij J.1TJArotij
E>E60ropo<; oux EiacrEv tq'> 1tAil8Et xata<pavii YEvEcr8at, El1twv' ,,«Ti<;
acr8EvEi xat oux acr8Evro;»"
§ 22. The frivolous behavior of four young monks is revealed to Theo-

dore.
'O/loiro<; 1tOtE 6 J.1axapto<; E>E60ropo~ J.1Eta J.1' aOEA<prov f:V OpEtvoi<;
15 xat aOtxiltot<; t01tOt<; YEVOJ.1EVO<; ~UArov EpyacriJ.1rov EVExa, dAAOU<;
E~a1tEcrtEtAEV tocroUtou<; tii<; autii<; EVEXEV xpda<;, f:1ttcrtilcra<; autoi<;
tOY aytov 'Icrioropov, dvopa 1tacrTJ<; 1tpaGtTJto<; xat crUVEcrEro<; tii<; xata
XptcrtOV 1tE1tATJproJ.1EVOV. THv OE to J.1Eta~U OtacrtTJJ.1a autrov TtJ.1Epa<;
EXOV 606v.
20 Kat tij TtJ.1Epq tij 1tprotlJ EV {J of 1tEpt 0E60ropov fJcrav ap~aJ.1EVOt tii<;
trov ~uArov xo1tii~, to Scr1tEptVOV xata7taucracrtv tOD EPYOU xat El~ to
auto ft8pOtcrJ.1EVOt~ f:1tt ta~ crUVilOEt<; Euxa~ 1tPOtPE1troV E<pTJ' "Xpda
/lEv i11tEtYEV flv oux ayvoEitE 1tATJpro8i'\vat to EPYOV E<p' cI> 1tapaYEy6-
vaJ.1Ev· aAA' f:1tEtOi) f:V tij orooEXatlJ 1tpocrwxij, 8EVtroV TtJ.1rov ta y6-
25 vata E1tt ti)v Yiiv, to 1tVE0J.1a to aytov EoilArocrEV J.1Ot ott tEcrcrapE<; trov
12-132 Cor 11.29
1 Ev9. -xui] xui (>1tO~UAAe1V UlYtot<; Ev9. t 2 Ull'toU] uu'tot<; t I uu'tov])t I lip't. XA.] XA.
lip't. t 4 uu'tiOv] corr. in marg., prius uu'tov F 5 Kui - ECPll] Kui 'tuu'tu Ili:v 'to
liulllOVlOV dltev' EYOO Iii: AEYro ulltv t 6 Ulti:p Mv. Vllcr't.] Vllcr't. Ulti:p Mv. t 9 Kui
av.] Av. ouv t I tXelvo<;] E'l'l AEYOV'tO<; @e61iropo<; + t 9-11 tv ll00ql- XU'tUllllvurov]
ltpooimooe 'tot<; ltooiv uu'tou, XU'tUllllvurov euu'tov tv IlEcrql 'tOU 0XAOU 'trov llovuXiOv'
ftllev yap tlti 'to uu'to ltAeiou<; ii lilcrXiAlOl t 11-12 xui xuA.61j1u<; - eiltoov] @e61iropo<;
Iii: 'to ltpooroltOV XUAUIjIU<; 'tou a.lieA.cpou 'tij 1l11A.ro'tij oux eiucrev xu'tucpuvfl yevoo9ul 'tc!>
ltA.i]gel, 'tou'to eiltOOV t 14 Lemma in margo sup.: ltepi 'tou Ill'] yeAdv F I 'Olloiro<;]
Ou'to<; t I Ii ] 'tecrcrupuXOV'l'U t 15 ~UA. tpy. EV.] EV. ~UA. tpy. t I liAAOU<;] ei<; E'tepov
IlEPO<; pr. t 16 Evexev] Evexu t 17 'Icriliropov] corr. sup. lin., prius 'Icri]liroprov F I
ltpuU'tll'to<;]ltpuO'tll'tO<; t 18 'to] )t Iuu'tiOv] )t 19 hov] t, hrov F 20 tv tI] xu9'
flv t 22 uu'to] tr, uu'tov F Iltpo'tp. ECPll] ECPll 'tot<; alieA.cpot<; 6 IlEYU<; @e61iropo<; t 23
c!>] 0 t
144 Critical text
EV '0a).)..cp OPEt ~ovasov't(ov, xaAro~ f:aU'tou~ EX 1tat368Ev avayayov-

'E~ EmpaAT)oUV (OhtVE~ 8u1 .fj~ E~fj~ ~paXlHT)w~ VOU8E'T)8EV't£~
1tav't(o~ f:1tava8pa~ouv'tat E1ti .'flv apxaiav xa.acr'taow) avayxatov
ouv (H. p. 111) Ecrnv .OlHOU wu EPYOU xa'tacppovi]craV'ta~ xai Tt~U~ xai
5 'Ou~ EV '0aAAcp OPEt e6pE8fjvat tV'ij Bau.ij Tt~Epg wu cra~~a.ou."
Kai xaAEcra~ Mo .rov a8EACProV xai EV'tEtAa~EVO~ au'Ot~ ~T)8EVi
tXAaAfjcrat .au'ta, a1tEcr.EtAEV aUWt~ d~ .0 aAAO OpO~ 1tapaYYEtAat
Wt~ ~E.a 'Im8ffipou EXEt OOOtv, .ij Tt~Epg wu cra~~awu EV .ij Bau
E6pE8fjvat.
10 Kai OD.ro~ nA8EV d~ .0 ~ovacr.i]ptoV ~E.a 8oo~a~ TtAiou .0 cra~-
~a.cp, ayrov wu~ ~E8' f:aU'tou 1tav'ta~. "Hcrav 8E xai Ot aAAOt 1tpOAa-
~OV'tE~. Kai E6prov 1tav'ta~ crUVT)Y~EVOU~ d~ .'flv ExxAT)criav 1tapa-
YEyOVE' xai xa8' QV xatpov dffi8Et wu~ ~ovasov'ta~ 8tMcrXEtV,
cr.a8d~ EV ~Ecrcp au.rov, 0£08ffipou .oU f\AE~av8pEro~ f:p~T)VEUOVW~,
15 EcpT)'
§ 23. Theodore's speech against laughter corrects the four frivolous

brethren.
"Ol8a'E, a8EAcpoi, on .rov ~ovasoV'trov xai aEt1tap8Evrov 6 ~io~,
l)1tEp~ai vrov .'flv .rov av8pffi1trov 1tOAt.Eiav, aYYEAtXO~ 'tUyxaVEt· ot yap
OD.ro~ 1tOAt. WO~EVOt, .ij XOt vij .rov av8pffi1trov 1tOAt. Eig a1to8avov'E~,
s&crtV .0 61tEp au.rov u1to8avovn xai EYEp8Evn' upVT)cra~EVOt .0
20 f:aU'tOt~ sfjv, Xptcr'0 f:au.ou~ cruvcr.aupoootv· xai -rau'T)v Exa(J"'to~
Tt~rov f:AO~EVO~ .'flv sroi]v, .ij 1tEvig .rov YOVEroV a1to.a~a~Evo~ EV-
'tau8a 1tapaYEyovEV' xai sfjv OcpEiAEt xa.a Xptcr.ov, .U1tOV xai 61tO-
ypa~~ov 'tau'T)~ .fj~ 680u .ou~ EV Tt~tV 1tpO~E~T)XO'ta~ EXroV. OU ~ovov
yap .a~ ayia~ ypacpa~, uAAa xai wu.rov .rov 8Epa1tOv.rov au.ou .ov
25 ~iov xai .0 f:8pairo~u .fj~ d~ Xptcr.ov 1timEro~ COC)1tEP 68ou~ U1tuyou-
cru~ d~ .'flv ~amAEiav f:auwu 8E8roXEv 6 8EO~ 1tumv Tt~tV 'Ot~ ~OUAO
~EvOt~ d~ au.'flv xu.uV'tfjcrut.
192 Cor 5.15 20 cr. Gal 2.20 25 cr. 1 Tim 3.15
1-2 avayay6vtf;~] ayay6vtf;~ t 2 i:cnput..TjO"av] vuv +t I oinV!;~] xai xpi] 'toi)'tOu~

t 2-3 vouS. ltUv. i:ltav(lo.] VOUSE'tTjStv'ta~ i:mO"'tpt",alltUv. t 3 cipxaiav] oixEiav
4 oi'iv] )t 5 Tij Bau] na~au t 6 Kai xat...] Kat... oi'iv t 7 opo~] &cr'tE
+t 8i:x.oi'icr.]oi'icr.i:x.tl'tijBau]na~aut 10Kaio{h.]KaxEivo~01:t 11-12
ltpot..a~.] t, ltpocrt..a~6v'tE~ Fr 12-13ltapaytyovE] corr. sup. lin., priuS1tapaytyovav
F 13 xai xaS' Bv] xaS' Bv 01: t 14 O"'tUeEi~] O"'ta~ t 18 oihro~] ou'tro r Jltot...
altoS.] altOe. O"uvTjSEi~ t 19 apVTjO"u~EV01] yap +t 20 tau't. si'\v] si'\v tau't. t J
O"uvO"'t.] 0"00't. t 20-21 ex. ,,~.] f)~. ex. t 22 xai si'\v] si'\v oi'iv t 22-23 'tim. xai
lmoy.] \moy. xai 'tlm. t 23 'tou~ -ltpo~.] t, 'ti'\r; i:v f)~iv ltpo~E~Tjx6'tor; Fr 23-24
~6vov yap] yap ~6vov t 24-25 'tov ~iov] 'tour; ~iou~ t 25 xai] <b~ t J 'to] )t J
ltiO"'tEror;] EOroXEV f)~iv 6 eEOr; +t 26 tau'tou] alJ'tou t J OtOroXEv - f)~iv] )t
l 'lOD~ J3lAD!)\,!J.O"{ori9 }DX ['J.'!"{ Iqri 'lOD~
r -6Z l \!fI(od> \!l llWJ.3ri J3lAOJD"{X }DX 31 '''{OW J31"OltHg J~"{OlD"~ JQdlt g039
gOl "Ollt<?";! J\l010D~ "DIf\1dd?, [g039 - '''{oW 6Z-SZ l + }0d>"{3!?~ [J3dD!)D~1 Il DlgDl
OOd<?!?03<") [gOlQD a l ''''9 ·ltD ['lLD ''''9 VZ l DdlDXD<?dlL ["OdlDXD9dlt Il J09"~lL
·x~ Ql }DX "Qri90D"{X ·x~ "Ql ["Qri90D,,{X-Ql (Z l "Qo ',,{"!WIl [·,,{"!.!ri }D)I (Z-ZZ l ·"{x
}DX '''3lL['''3lL}DX',,{XZZ l"Q ri09 [JQ ri0 9 sr l'XDllL~ '99['99'XDllL~ ~r 19O1QD
[gOlOD~ vr l< [gOl IlllJDgrio!) 'Jd 13"JDgriOD 'H [lO"JDgriO!) n l< ["Q,J1QD 6
"13J"9XA.DX ["13J"9XDX V l J3lAoX'!dl JQ,J"'(DX "ori9dg "Ql 1\02g01 ["ori9dg - JQ,J"'(DX r
SrL£ sd 9Z-~Z
~Z'9 )jl ZZ 6'v sf OZ-6r n P"3 M-sr Z·Z P"3 sr 9'L P"3 Lr-9r
n ( qOf n Lnr J:lf H-S O£'V qd 3 'J:) ~-v rrn wOll ~L"v W!.L Z Z-J
S\101ClD~ '0038 001 A011Ll9A~ S\101ClD~ ADJI\1dd? S3.lAOlL:r'(g S~~OlDAJ;J Sp

'\}.AOld> \}.11l~l?A,3rl S3li\0}D~X 1DX S3.lAoJ<;l~0~9 'AOl~l}.~~J;J S3.lWl1>312 3A,
101}DX 'Surll9AA, S"91rl X~ d31L.Dg,> S3dD!)!):;Il}O 'OQl\\D SOlAOA,:r'( U? 1D)I
" «"SorllOl?,
SDA,U!)l?rl Sp <!lA,H,» .U9. <il38 <i?l AWrlt;l SOWDX?, 3.lDlL13 ·3.lugl?~ ADd13lL ~Z
AOllAg i\Ol}AOllD AOl}!)OOXJ;J AWl I,trl DAl 'SOl}D2001L!) 313gl?~DAJ;J D1Ag
AodlDX!)9dlL AQrl80D~X i\OH)()OX~ AQl 1DX S08A~1L A01.D<)OX~ Ql i\O~~yrl
1D)I «"313!)l}.8A31L 1DX 3.l3.D<)D~X u9. 'AOA S31i\W~3A, }O 1D\\0» .SOlAOA,
-:r'( SOdIJ1Ol!) 0 01 SOl3.ol?d>01LJ;J SUA}3X~ S!JlLOld80X.o S!Jl 3.lIJ8Dd131L I,trl
DAl «'AD13d>l}.lDX Sp ~dDX 1J.1DX Olll}.d>DdwDl3rl S08i\~1L Sp AWrlt;l SOl~qA, OZ
0.» .SOlAOA,~~ 00~9WOlLJ;J 001 3lD.D<)OXJ;J S31ADJI\l}.ADAJ;J Q1V ~«D1Ol~~A,
d~lLt;I SQrl08 AQ8DkV.» .A 1~l?1L 1DX «.Al?dod>ld31L DlLp UOl~~A, <i?J» .A 1~l?1L
1DX «.AOlA9 d d>J;J AWl SOl~~A, 9 SOlll)O 'Dlug:r'( i\Ql QlLQ AW8i\DXJ;J AWl
I,ti\Old> SU.» .SOli\OA,:r'( SOli\Wrlo~o~ 3.lD.o<;lOXI}, X\\O ~ AW1\\D i\D}dU1Ol.o
SQdlL SQ38 9 (Z J J 'd 'H) lDl3.llL~X.ollL~ D~l?A,3rl Scp Drl!JdXDdDlL DlDrll}.lllJ. H
AOl~<;lOg 001ClD~ AWl ~dX1rl ~l U9. 3.lDglo X\\O ~ 3.lY13~3rl SWX3AO.o
Po 3 8.03 8l?~31L~ AOlll?rlUq oO~<;lDIl 001 AWl SWlL H .. ~ 1Oi\} DgrlO.o J;llLOld 8 0x.o
lOrl 32l?1 «'AWWD10~3A. ~13rl SOA~rl03do1L31L AUrl~ 1DX ~2 ltI» .SOl
-AOA.:r'( 9<!lL 0 01 31D.D<)3AOrlUArl~ X\\O SWIl ~«AU8.ol}.~1L3A~ SD}dXllL U9.
'Aurll}.8DX~ SDA9rl ~lDX .00.0 S9d13X oOlLl9.oodlL QlLJ;J AUrl<;lOgD~\\3 ,~~J;J or
'i\OllA9JlDlL AW1\\D 00}dg3AO!) ~13rl D!)18l?X~ X\\O 'dOlll?dx01ADlL 31d
-<;l)l» .<i?38 <i?l SOli\OA.:r'( AI,tAOld> 00}rl3d3L Al,tl 38.o38? 001L '}Od>~3gV.
'S<;101ClD~ A1.orogl?~DAJ;J
S!OrlA.Di\3W 1DX i\1.DodXl?2 S3li\~lLDdli\~ SOllL9. 'lOrl }D.ow~Ug Drl!)!DllL
Ql 1DX AW1\\D SD}doA.u.oodlL S~l AW1<}D ,1LQ A~8ulLO~ A011."g Q1 Drl03AlL ~
Q1 SIP 'SOllI)O A13Jl?XDX 1DX A13Jl?1O~3A. 1DX QlAD~d~ Soo~I,t~~J;J SQdlL
A13A,:r'( D~31Ll?dl\\3 'S3li\~83dt;l3 SDA9rl ~lDX 'Sodg Q1 Sp i\3rlll~}3W31LJ;J
Acp i\wd>~32J;J AWl d~A. S3dD.o.o~1 .qg i\1.DDXl91lL31L \\0 'A~rl i\D.ou8.oncp
'Aorl9dg i\Ql A01001 S31AOX~dl SW~DX i\Wrll}. ~~ S3i\U l?~~v.
~vJ £Z-ZZ
146 Critical text
~f:V HyOV'tE; dVUl 'tOU; aina8EV'ta;, 'to of: 1tA:fi80; 'trov UOEA<j>roV
iXE'tEUOV'tE; lmf:p au'trov 1tpooEu~a(J8at. Kai 1tUv't(ov ~E8' ixavou
xAau8~ou 1tpOOEU~a~Evrov, it ~f:V (Juva~le; (Juvit8roe; E1tE'tEAEi'tO.
'EXEiv01 of: OOcr1tEP E<j>OOtoV de; li1tav'ta 'tOY Piov 'ta U1tO 'tOu
5 ~axapiou 0woropou dprWEva AaBov'tEe;, ou'troe; EBEA nm811(Jav, roe;
1tUVLae; 'toue; EV 't<¥> ~ova(J'tllpiql Exa(J'tov alJ'trov EXE1V 't(mov xai
u1toypa~~ov 1tpOe; (Jro'tllpiav. T01au'tll yap i1v alJ'trov xai it sroiJ xai 1tpO
'tOU EAa<j>pou 'tOu'tOU 1t'tai(J~a'to;.
§ 24. Mousaios rebukes Theodore's authority and is expelled.

Moooaioe; OE ne; 'tOuvo~a ~ovusrov, 011Paioe;, U1tO 'tOY ~lXP<¥> 1tpOO-
10 8EV ~Vll~ovEU8Ev'ta I:1Aouavov ELurxavEv. Ou'toe; ~E'ta I:1Aouavou xai
'trov liAAroV UOEA<j>roV 'trov U1t' alJ'tov de; nva vi'j(Jov 'tOU 1to'ta~ou U1tE-
(J'taA'to, OOcr'tE 'tae; AEYO~EVae; Aa\jlUVae; (JuvayayEiv xai 'tap1XEu(Ja1 de;
Pp&crlV 'tOie; UOEA<j>oie;.
'ne; of: 1tE~1t'tllV it~Epav 01i'jyOV EXEi, ~ovoe; xA118Eie; U1tO 0EOompou
15 OUX U1titXOOOEV Hyrov' ,,'Epxo~a1 ~E'ta 1tuv'trov 'trov UOEA<j>roV ~ou,
OLaV 1tAllPcOOro~Ev 'to E1t1'tE'taY~Evov it~iv." Ou'to; Of: xai lixrov UX8Eie;
d; 'to ~ova(J'titptov EUPEV 0EOOropoV ~f:V 1t1Xproe; xAaioV'ta EV XEAAiql,
'I' EV'taitmov of: xai '!(Jioropov 1tapE(J'tro'tae; au't<¥>· xai 0EOOropO; E1ti
1tOAU 1tpo(J(JXwv au't<¥> El1tEV'
20 "t\la'ti ~iJ 'tOU (Jm~a'toe; (JOU (li~E1VOV yap fiv) UAAa 'ti'ie; \jIuxi'ie; (Jou
uVllYrEAll ~01 8uva'toe;; Ouxi vUX'tO; xai it~Epae; ~ovoe; (J01 (Juv'tUy-
xuvrov EV 't<¥> XEAAiql (Jou EAEYOV' :H \jIUxit (Jou xaxa ~EAE't~· 1tU(Jlle;
a~ap'tia; Bapu'tEpae; EXE1e; 'tae; Ev8u~it(JE1e;·1tOAAOUe; yap U1tmAE(Jav oi
'tOtoU't01 01UAOY1(J~Oi'; (H. p. 113) Kai HyoV'toe; (Jou oa1~ovrov Elva1
25 U1tOPOAae; EXEivae; 'tae; 1ta~~lUpOUe; Evvoia;, EAEYOV' ,OU1tro ~f:V
22 cr. Job 27.4
1 A.tyovn;~] AEYOV'tU~ F 1M;] )t 2 iXE't.] {XE'tElJOV t 6-7 EXUCT'tOV - crro'tllpiuv]

't(l1tOV EXElV xui ll1t0YPUIlI.U)V npo~ crro'tllpiuv EXUcr'tOV UU'tIDV t 7 xui1])t 9
Mooouio~] H, MOOOEro~ Fr I Mooo. - 011~.] Movuxo~ n~ 011~uto~ 'toiSvoJ.lu 'Irocrijq>
10 E'tunuvEv] f)v 'tE'tUYJ.lEVO~ t 10-12 Ou'to~ -dnoo'tUA'to] oO'to~ anw'ttlAll
no'tE J.lE'ta rlAOUUVOU xui 'tIDV un' uu'tov aOEAq>IDv Ei~ nvu vf\crov 'tOU no'tuJ.lou t 12
Au",avu~] ~o'tavu~ +t l'tUPlXEOOUl] t, 'tUPPlXEOOUl F I Ei~]npo~ t 140EOOropOU]1:OU
J.leyaAOIJ pro t 16 E1tt'tE'tuYJ.lEvov] OlU'tE'tUYJ.lEVOV t I Ou'to~ - ax9Ei~] fUM xui UU9l~
'tOU 0eooropoIJ XEAEOOUV'tO~' ax9Ei~ EXEtvo~ xui /ixrov t 18 'l'EV'tU"'crtov]
'l'Ev'tuicrtov t 19 npocrcrxrov utm'i'>]'tou1:CP npocrxrov t 20-21 /iJ.lElVOV - 9avu't0~]
9avu't0~ aV11YYEAll J.l0l (/iJ.lElVOV yap f)v) aAM 'tf\~ "'IJxf\~ t 21 aVllYYEAll] aV11YYEAAll
F I J.lovo~] J.lovcp t 25 nUJ.lJ.llapOIJ~] t, nUJ.lJ.liEpOIJ~ F
23-25 147
oaiJlOVEI:; O"UVEXOOPll811O"av E1t18E0"8at 0"01' O"U OE OU"COOI:; uAollavrov

vOllilv 1tOAAilv "COil:; oaiJlOO"tv h01IlU~W;, EmO"mOJlEVOI:; alnoul:; xa"Ca
O"aU"Cou 'tail:; xaxo~ol)Aiatl:;.' Oux EAEYOV O"Ot· ,'E1ti O"oi 1tE1tAllpoo'tat "Co
"Crov 1tapOIJltrov Pll"COV "Co AEYOV' «"ncr1tEP YEcOPYlOV uvilp licppoov, xai
5 ro(:r7tEP UJl1tEAWV liv8poo1t01:; EVOEill:; CPPEVroV' Mv ucpij~ au"Cov,
XEpO"oo811O"E'tal xai UAOllaVllO"Et OAOI:; xai yiVE'tat EXAEAEtIlJlEVOI:;, xai
oi cppaYlloi "Crov Ai800v au"COu xa"CaO"xU1t"COv'tat»;
Bi1tE OE Aomov' 1tOU O"E u1tllyaYEV iJ xaxil 6001:; O"ou;" Kai Uyovn
au"Cip 1l110Elliav Ev8UIlllO"tV xatVO"CEpav EO"Xll x EVat, 1tAilv roy alnip
10 O"UV'{jOEl 6 0EOOOOPOI:;, Ecpll 1tpol:; au"Cov' ,,'01tiO"oo ODV "Ciil:; xaM~l1l:;
xa811IlEVOI:;, "Ci va EAoyiO"oo xai EO""CllO"al:; EV "Cij xapoi~ O"ou;" Kai d1tovn
au"Cip OatJlovoov dvat U1tof3oAal:; 0EOOOOPOl:; d1tEV' ,,"EOOI:; EXElVlll:; "Ciil:;
ropal:; OUOE1tOO fjv oaiJlOOv O"uYXOOP118dl:; Em8E0"8at 0"01' E1tEtoil Of; "C01-
au"Ca EO""CllO"al:; EV "Cij xapoi~ o"ou xaxa xai YEyoVal:; Oatllovoov
15 OtXll"CllPlOV, JlU"CllV Ev"Cau8a OtUYEtl:;' EXEAEoo8111:; yap EX~A118iivat "Cou
JlovaO""Cll piou."
Kai 1tapaooul:; au"Cov "CEO"O"apO"tV 1l0VU~OOOtv VWViO"X01I:;, EXEAEOOEV
dl:; "Cov iOlOV au"COu olxov u1tayaYEiv au"Cov' 01:; YEVOJlEVOI:; 1tpol:; "Cij
1tUAlJ "Cou 1l0vaO""Cllpiol) xai OatIlOVt0"8ElI:;, &cr1tEP "Caupol:; IlUXcOJlEVO~
20 E1ti "Cilv toiav XcOJlllV roPllllO"EV, Ea8dl:; U1tO "Crov "CEo"o"UpOOV 1l0va~ov"Coov.
§ 25. Theodore's clairvoyant knowledge of Karour's death

TIAllO"iov OE TI"COAEllaiool:; "Ciil:; EV "Cij 011~aiot, 01tOU 1l0vaO"'tllPlOV
otXoOoJlllO"al:; o EOOOO P01:; otxEi0"8at U1tO Jlova~ov'toov 1tE1toillXEV' EvoII:;
nl:; fjv Kapoup QvoJlun, 0 UYE'tat 1tapa 011~ui01I:; XOAO~O~' 1tAEt-
O"'tUXtl:; dl:; 'tal:; VUX'tEptVal:; EUXal:; QXVllPO"CEPCP ytVOJlEVCP E1tE1tAllO"O"EV
25 0EOOOOP0I:;' 1tOAAOU OE 1tOppOO xui 'tip olaO"'tllJlun "Cou JlOVUO"'tllpiou 'tou
4-7 Pr 24.30-31 8 Pr 16.29
2 VOlltlV ltOA. 'tOi~ liuill, b,,]ltoA. VOlltlv b:. 'tOi~ liuill, t 5livO, Evli. <pp.]l;vli. <pp, livO.
6 yiVE'tUllYEVTJ'tUl t 8 lit] )t IaE U1t11y.] U1t11Y, aE t 101i6~ aou] aou 01i6~ t 8-9
Hyovn ulm!>] AEYov'to~ uu'tou t 9 KUlV. tax.] Eax, KUlV. t 100] )t 120EOIi.
Ef1tl;v] HYEl 0E61), t 13 liuillWV]liulllOVWV t I auyxwPTJOd~] aUYXcOPTJcrt~ t 15
OtKTJ'tT]plOV] KU'tOlKTJ'tT]PlOV t 17 Kut] utinKu + t 18 d~ - uU'tov] UltuyuYEiv
ulnov d~ 'tov ililOV O{KOV t Iltpo~]l;v t 20 roPIlTJaEv] 0PIlTJaEV sup, lin, F ll;uOEi~]
Pasquali, liEOd~ Ftr I 'tEamipwv]Ii' t 21-22 lit TI'toA. - 0E61).] 'tfj~ EV 0TJ~uilil TI'toA,
1l0vua'tT]PlOV Ttv olKoliollTtaU~ 0E61), t 22 oiKEiaOul] Kui OtKEiaOul 'tOU'to t I 110 va-
~ov'twv]llovuxrov t 23 Kupoup ovollun]0TJ~uio~ 1l0VUXO~ ovollun Kupoup t 24
d~ - yl VOIlEvCfl]OKVTJ PO'tEPCfl yl VOIlEVCflltEpi 'ta~ VUK'tEpl va~ Etixa~ t 25 0E61)WPO~]0
IlEYU~ pr, t 25-1 ltOAAOU - EV ri> 0E61),] )t
148 Critical text
XUAOUIlEVOU Buu, EV cI> eE60ropo~ IlE.a OOOlla~ TjAiou IlEm~U 1t(lVLrov

.rov UOEACProV xu8TJIlEVO~, E~uicpvTJ<; 1tEP1XUPTt~ YEVOIlEVO~ EcpTJ'
"EuuYYEAi~OIlUl Dlla~ .0 EAEQ~ 0 1tE1toiTJXEV 6 8EO~ IlE.a Kupoup
.0U EV .ij ll.OAElluiol· upn yap uu.oU .TtV \jIUXtlV EX .0U crWlluw~
5 IlE.Ucr'TJcru<; Ei<; .ov oupUVOV IlE.a ()6~TJ<; 1tOAArj<; UVTJYUYEV, E1tE10Tt
xui .rov ExXATJmucrnxrov OOYIl(hrov UXpi~ElUV dXEV xui.o crrollu IlE.a
.rov UAAroV euu.ou XUAroV 1t(lvuyVOV ECPUAU~EV' .a yap UAAU uu.ou
EAunwllum VOOOl~ OlUCPOpOl~, Ut<; E1tTJYUYEV uu.q" E~TJAE1\jlEV."
Kui IlEe' TjIlEpu~ Qx.w, Mo .rov EXEi8EV UOEAcpoi 1tUPUYEVOIlEVOl
10 xui .Ttv TjIlEpuv xui .TtV ropuv EV t) Kupoup ExOlllTJ8TJ U1tUyyEiAUVLE~,
E~E(J'tTJcrUV Tjlla~ 1t(lvm~.
§ 26. Theodore corrects Patchelphius for teaching against the resurrec-

tion of the flesh.
(H. p. 114) Kui 1tO.E 1t(lvm~ .ou~ U8EACPOU~ EXroV eE60ropo~, 1tpO~
'PUPCPlOV .ov 1tUVLroV 1tprowv EV .ij Buu EcpTJ' ,,1\1tOOLE1AOV Ei<; .0
XEAAiov llU'XEAcpiou xui 1toiTJcrov uu.ov EA8Eiv IlE.a .ou vEUvicrxou
15 wu EDP1crXOllEVOU IlE.' uuwu EV .q, XEAAicp' IlE.U1tEIl\jlUl OE xui .ov
UtOV UU'OU .ov 1tPEcr~U'EpOV."
'Q~ OE 1tUPEyEVOV.O, d1tEV 1tpO~ .ov llU'XEAcplOV eE60ropo~' "Ei1tE
.ivu EoioucrXE~ .ov VEW.EpOV .0u.OV Ola 'ii~ VUx.O~." Kui E11tEV' "Ti
EoiOucrxov uu.Ov; CPO~OV 8EQu." eEOOropo~ E11tEV' "Au.o~ 6 8EO~ 01'
20 UYYEAOU XULEIlTJVOOEV crE' Ei1tE oOV .uATJ8ii, El1tEP cpro~ Ecrnv Tj
OlOUcrXUAiu crou."
Tou OE UPVOUIlEVOU, eE60ropo~ 1tpO~ 1tUVLU~ d1tEV' ,,'EoioucrxEv
uu.Ov IlTt dVUl crupxo~ uvucr.umv, xuxi~rov 'ii~ crupxo~ .TtV cpOO1V."
Ehu 1tpO~ llU'XEAcplOV AEYOVLO~' "Ei1tE Ei olhro~ EXEl il oU," 6 Uto~
25 llU'XEAcpiou E~OTJcrEV AEYroV' "KUIlE .ij 1tUPEA8000lJ ecr1tEpQ. .uu.u
cPpovEiv E1tE18EV."
Kui n~ EUVOUXO~ EX XOlAiu~ IlTJ'po~ uu.ou D1tUPXroV, "Qp .0UVOIlU,
1tUpPTJmEcr.EpoV E11tEV 1tpO~ eE60ropov' "Tov vEuvicrxov .ov
3 Cf. Lk 1.72
1 ,.1Iml IiOOIlUe;] 1t01:£ oDv IlE'tu IiOOIlUe; t I mlv'[(ov] )t 2 aIiEA.] EV TIu~uu + t I

xu9i]IlEVOe;]6 IlEyue; eE6liropoe; + t I E~. 1tEPlX.] xui 1tEPlX. E~. t 3 DIlUe;] Dlliv t 4
'tij] )t I EX 'tou crooll.] )t 7 EUU'tOU] UI),[OU t I ECPDAU~EV] E'ti]PT]crE t 8 E~i]A.]6 9EOe;
+t 9 Kui IlE9' till.] ME9' till. oDv t I 6x'too] xui yup 1toM 'to liuicr'tT]llu 'f)v IlE'tU~U
+t 11 1')11. mlv.]mlv. 1')11. t 12 Kui - eE6Ii.]'Ano 'tE 1tO'tE cruyxu9i]IlEVOe; 'tOie;
aliEAtpoie; 6 IlEyue; eE6Ii. EcpT] t 13 'PapcplOV] 'Pupcpiv t I 'tij Buu] TIu~uu t I EcpT]]
)t 14 TIU'tXEAtpiou] TIUYXEAcpiou t 17 El1tEV] AEYEl t I TIu'tX.] TIUVXEAtplOV t I
eEoli.]6 pr. t 18 'tivu] 'f)v a +t I Ti])t 22 eEoli. 1tpOe; 1tav. El1t.] AEYEl1tpOe; 1tav.
eE6Ii. t 24 TIu'tX.] TIUVXEACPlOV t I AEYOV'tOe;] t, AEYOV'tU Fr, uD9le; pro t I EXEl] )t 25
TIu'tX.] TIuvXEAcpiou t 28 1tpOe; eE6Ii.] ewooopcp t
25-27 149
u1ta't<OJlf:VOV ll1t0JlVTJ(WV." Eh:68ropoe; El1tf:v' "Kai 'to(ywu 'tou

vwvicrxou xai 'tOU uiou lla'tXf:Aq>iou 11 \jIUXTJ &:mf:P UOUJlae; YEVOJlf:VTJ
ouoEv 1tapEOf:~a'to 'tlie; oloacrxaAiae; au'tou." Kai 't<!> vwvicrxql El1tEV'
,,1\1tEOf:~a'tO crou 'tTJV 1t poe EO"1 v 0 eEOe;." Kai 't<!> 1tpoE(H(lm 'tlie; otxiae;
5 EV {J 0 vwvicrxoe; 0XEl 1tapi)YYE1AEV JlTJ f:1t11tAli~at au't<!> 1tO'tE roe;
U1tOAElq>ef:V1:1 vux'tOC; 'tfje; otxiae; AUepq, xat 1tapa yvooJlTJV au'tOu.
Eha E1tt 1tOAD (1tpoe;> lla'tXf:Aq>lOV 'tOV 1tEpi 'tlie; EX VEXProV uvacr'tu-
crEroe; 'tlie; eVTJ'tlie; l1Jlrov crapxoe; AOYOV f:X 'trov uyirov ypaq>rov 1tapa-
'tElVov'tOe;, xai owpEpalOUJlf:VOU 'tUln11v l1Jlrov 'tTJV eVTJ'tTJV crupxa odv
10 ueuva'tov xat liq>eap'tov EX vExprov f:V M~lJ uvacr'tfjvat, lla'tXf:Aq>lO,e;
oaxpurov EJl1tpocreEv 'tou 1tAi)eouC; 'trov UOEAq>roV (ixava yap '!'tv 'ta U1tO
0wooopou dpTJJlf:va de; 1ticr1:1v au'tov uyaydv) EPP1\j1EV Eau'tov crUV1:1-
e EJl EVOe; 'tote; EXXA 110"1acr1:1Xote; MYJlaO"1 v, u~ lroV 0E1tU V'tUe; 1t poo"Eu~acr
eat 1tEpt au'tou, iva xut 'tuu'tTJV uu'tou 'tTJv uJlup'tiuv 0 eEOe; f:~UAEi"'lJ.
15 Kat 'trov UOEAq>roV JlE'ta xupue; 1tPOcrEUXOJlEVrov, 0 llU'tXEAq>lOe; EV
JlEYUAlJ 'tij q>rovij f:~roJlOAOYEt'tO 't<!> eE<!> JlE'ta 1tOAAroV ouxpurov.
§ 27. Theodore heals Patrikius who was bitten by an asp.

Kui 1tO'tE YEVOJlEVroV l1Jlrov 1tA<!> JlE'ta 0wooopou de; 1:1 va vlicrov
cruvayaydv ~uAa de; xaoolV, xai E1:1 tv 't<!> 1tAoiql ov'trov l1Jlrov 'troy
'EAA11vlcr'troV, 0E68ropoe; JlEV uq>' f:'tf:POU 1tAoiou E~EAer.OV JlE'ta Jlova-
20 SOV'tWV 1tAElcr'troV (1tpOE1Ai)q>El yap l1JlUe;) flp~a'to JlE't' au'trov crXTJvTJv
1tOlElV.
llu'tpixlOe; OE 1:1e; 'tOUVOJlU POU1tate;, U1tO (H. p. 115) Muprov 'tlie;
Auxiae; OpJlOOJlEVOe;, tv 't<!> l1JlE'tf:Pql1tAOiql poi)crue; poi)eEwv f:1tEXU-
AEl'tO. Kui dOOJlEV ucr1tiou JlEYUATJV JlEAUVTJV 'tOte; 00000lV E1tE1ATJJl-
25 JlEVTJV 'tou 'tupaou 'tou OE~lOU 1toMe; uu'tou. Nwviue; of: 1:1e; 0TJputoe;
Jlovusrov, cruvr.Ov l1Jltv f:V 't<!> 1tAoiql, AapOJlEVOe; 'tlie; XEPXOU 'to eTJpiov
9-10 Cf. 1 Cor 15.52-54
1 (moil,] E~E'ta.crOV t, xai + r I 0E61i. d7tEv] AEYEl 0E61i. t 2 TIa'tx,.] TIaYX,EAcpiou

t 4 KaitiP] TiP ott SEv U]t')CP' flv t l4'>xEl]"'V t Iau'tiPl>t 6 vux. 'ti'\<; oix. M9pa]
'tfj<; oix. M9pq vux'to<; t I xai] )t 7 7tpo<;] H, )Fr 7-9 Eha - ola~E~.] Eha 'tov
Myov t7ti 7toM 7tapa'tEivov'to<; 0EOOropou 7tEpi 'ti'\<; tx VEXproV a.Va.cr'tOOECJ)<; 'ti'\<; 9Vll'ti'\<;
l'Jllrovcrapxo<;, xai olU~E~alOuIlEvoU EX 'troY u:yiCJ)v ypacprov t 9 l'Jllrov 't"v 9Vll't"V] 't"v
9vll't"V l'Jllrov r 10 tv M~1J]IlE'ta M~ll<; t I TIa'tx,.] TIavx,EAcplO<; t 11 ouxpuCJ)v]
oaxpoow; t 12-13 cruvn9.]IlEV +t 15 7tPocrEUX,OIlEVCJ)V] EUX,0IlEVCJ)V r I TIa'tx,.]
TIavx,EAcplO<; t I tv] )r 16 IlE'ta - OaK] )t 17 Kai - 0EOO.] )\7tEPX,OIlEVCJ)V TJllrov
7tO'tE IlE'ta 0EOOropOU Ola 7tAoi(J)v t I Vi'\crOV] OOcr'tE + t 19 7tAoiou E~EA,] E~EA. 7tAoiou
t 19-20 lloval;;ov'tCJ)V] llovaX,rov t 20 7tAElcr'tCJ)V] 7tAElOVCJ)V t I 7tPOElATJCPEl]
7tPOElATJCP911 r, corr. sup. lin., prius 7tPOElAElCPEl F 22 TIa'tpixlO<;] 'Ev 'tql l'JIlE'tEPq> lit
7tAoiq> pr. t IOE])t I'tOUVOIlU] ovolla t I MupCJ)v] t, MoipCJ)v F 23 tV-7tAOtq>])t 23-
24 ~oTJcra<; - E7tEX.] E~atcpvll<; ~oTJcra<; t7tEK ~OTJ9ElUV t I Kai] TIpocrX,OV'tE<; oOv t IIlEY.
IlEA.]IlEyicr'tllV IlEAalVav t 24-25 'tot<; OOOOOlV E7tElA.] t7tlA. 'tot<; OOOOOlV au'ti'\<;
25 NEavia<;] NEavtcrxo<; t 26 llovcil;;CJ)v]llovux,o<; t
150 Critical text
xat )lOAl~ U1tOO1tUera~ 'tou 1tOOO~ Ila'tplxiou, 'tt)1t'to)V £i~ 'tOV 'tOixov 'tou
1tAoiou xat UVEAroV, £i~ 'tov 1to'tU)lov au'to VEXPOV EPPl\jlEV.
Kat Ila'tplxiou xAaiono~ xat 1tun{J)v T])lrov 1tpooooxrov't{J)v au'tov
aq>v{J) xa'ta1ti1t'tElV VEXPOV, 0E60{J)po~ Emer'ta~ xat E1tt 'tov 't01tOV 'trov
5 Mon{J)v 'tou 811piou 1tOlTlera~ 'to erl1)lEiov 'tou er'tUupou 'tou Xpler'tou,
£q>11 1tpO~ Ila'tpixlOV xAaiona' "Mil q>o~ou' iuera'to erE Xpler'to~."
Kai nVE~ 'trov )lovason{J)v 'tlJ f:~fj~ £AeyOV' ,,'H)lEi~ umer'tounE~
0woroPetl 1tpOerEOoXTlera)lEV Ila'tpixlOv ola 'tfj~ vux'to~ u1to8avEiv'
<'>pronE~ of: au'tov uywivona 'tOV )If:V XPlcr'tOV EUAOyOU)lEV, 0E60{J)-
10 pOV of: E8au)lusO)lEV, on o{h{J)~ Ecr'tiv Eu1tp6croEX'tO~ au'tql."
Kai <'> U1tox'telva~ of: 'to 811piov E)lElVEV u1ta8Tl~.
§ 28. Theodore's revelation concerning the forgiveness of post-

baptismal sins
Kai aAA{J)v 1tAeler't{J)v )lovaxrov U1tO 'tfj~ Bau 1tAql 'tlJ vTleretl Emcr'tuv-
't{J)V xai ov't{J)v T])lrov 't' 'tov upl8)lov, 1tEpi oy06l1v mpav 'tfj~ £x'tl1~ xai
£ixuoo~ 'tOU f\8up )ll1vo~, 0EOO{J)pO~ 1tuna~ T])lU~ xaAEera~ xai 1tpO~
15 f:au'tov u8poiera~, 'tql f\AE~avopEi 0woroPetl £q>11 f:P)ll1VEUElV a ll)lEA-
AEV AEYElV 1tpO~ 1tUv'tU~·
"IlUAat )lEV )l0l <'> eEO~ U1tEXUAU\jlEV a £i1tEiv £x{J), xai 1tapTlnElAEV
)l0l 'ti:{J)~ crt{J)1tuv'apn of: f:er'tro'ti )lOl1tpooha~Ev £i1tEiv u)liv' £ernv of:
'tUu'ta' IlOAAOi 'trov )lE'ta 'to aylOv ~u1tner)la f))lap'tl1xo't{J)v, erXEoov EV
20 1tan! 't01tetl EV cI> 'to Ovo)la 'tOu Xpler'tou xl1POOerE'tUl, 'tllV U1tOO'tOAlXilv
1tiernv q>UAUHOV'tE~, EV U xat f))lEi~ f:er'tTlxa)lEV, EXAaooav Eq>' o{~
ll)lap'tov' xat 'to YVTlerlOV au'trov 'tfj~ )lE'tUvoia~ <'> XUplO~ U1tOOE~U)lEVO~
E~TlAEl\jlEV au'trov 'ta~ a)lap'tia~. "Ocrol 'toivuv )lEXPl 'tfj~ erTl)lEpov
EXAaooa'tE yVl1eri{J)~ Eq>' o{~ )lE'ta 'to AOU'tPOV T])lap'tTlera'tE, YlVWcrXE'tE
25 uq>EerE{J)~ 'tE'tUXl1XEVal. ~lO £xaer'tO~ U)lrov E~O)lOAOyOU)lEVO~ 'tql Xupietl
'ta EAEl1 au'tOu, AEYE't{J)' «"&T'tpE\jIa~ 'tov X01tE'tOV )lou £i~ xapav E)loi'
OlEppl1~a~ 'tov eruxxov )lou xat 1tEPlES{J)(jU~ )lE EUq>POOUVl1v.»
6 cr. Acts 9.34 25-26 Ps 106.8 26:-27 Ps 29.11
1 'tU1t1;rov] E'tUTttEV t 2 alm'>] H, Ulhov Fr I d~ - Epp.] Epp. VEXPOV d~ tOV TtOtallOV

t 3 Kai TIat. XA.] KA. ouv TIat. t 3-4 auto V licp. Kat.]licp. xu't. autov t 6
Xptcrto~] <> pro t 7 tij t~i'j~] IlEta 'touto t I aTtlcrtouv'tE~] aTtlcr'ti]cruVtE~ t 8
UTt09avEiv] UTt09vUcrXElV t 9 oprovm;] i1i6VtE~ t I uytuiv.] uyti'j t I EUAOY.] Eoo~a~oIlEv
t 10 E9aulla~oIlEv] Ftr, 9uulla~ollEv H 12 Kui IiA. TtA.] TIAEtOVroV O€ xui IiA. t I
Buu] TIuJ3au t I TtA<!>] >t 12-13 tij vi]crQl ETtlcrt.] ETtlcrt. tij vi]crQl t 13 t' tOV up.] 'tov
up. 'tptuxocrirov t 14 dxaoo~] t, dxaoT\~ F 10EOO. Ttav. 1')11. XUA.] Ttav. 1')11. XUA. 0E60.
t 14-16 TtpO~ tUUt. - 1tavtu~] 't<!> i\.A.E~uvoPEi 0EOoroPQlTtpO~ tOU~ ·EA.A.T\vtcrta~
tpllT\vEi XProllEvo~ EAEYE Ttam t 17 xui TtUpi]y.] TtUPtly. yap t 18 Ulliv] >t 21
CPUMHOV'tE~] cpuMcrcrOVtE~ t 23-241lEXpt -yVT\criro~] EXAuOOUtE yVT\criro~ IlEXpt ti'j~
cri]IlEpov t
27-29 151
§ 29. A letter from Antony arrives supporting Theodore's revelation.

Kai AOY(J) 1tAElOVt 1tapaxaHcrae; 'toue; UbEAcpOUe;, roe; 1tEpi 1tOU copa
OEXCt'tTj 1lllEAAEV yi vm8at, 0E6()ropoe; ovollacr'ti 'tf:crcrapae; nl>V UbEA-
cprov XaAf:crae;, mlv'trov T]llrov UXOUOV'trov €CPTj 1tpOe; alHOUe;· "Oi UOEAcpoi
T]llrov Ot 1tEpi 0EOcptAOV xai Ko1tpTjv U1tO l\.AE~aVOpElae; (H. p. 116)
5 EPXOIlEVot Eyyi~oOOt V'toie; EV'tau8a· xai tva 1l1l UYVOOUV'tEe; 1tapf:A8ro-
mv T]IlUe;, u1tf:A8a'tE de; 'to uxpro'tllPtoV 'tiie; Vllcrou· xai 'toie; EV 'tql
1tpOH(J) 1tAoi(J) 'tql E~EPXOIlf:V(J) 'tllv Xall1tllv 'tOU 1tO'talloG VEooa't E, 01troe;
'tD Vllcr(J) 1tpocroPllicrrocrtv· 0EOcptAoe; 8f; XU~EPVrov O{bEV 'tOV ucrcpaAii
0PlloV xuxEi 1tapa~CtAAEt."
10 Oi bE UOEAcpoi U1tEA8ov'tEe; xai oAiyov 1tEptIlElvav'tEe; dbov E~EA80v
'tiie; xall1tiie; 'to 1tAoiov· xai E1ttYVOV'tEe; 0EOcptAOV xU~EpvroV'ta xai E~
Eau'trov YEVOIlEVOt, vEooaV'tEe; alHOie; xai OiiAOV 1tOtllcrav'tEe; EV 'tD
Vllcr(J) 0EOOropOV dvat, iiA80v U1taYYf:AAOV'tEe; EATjAU8f:vat 'to1tAoiov.
Kai 1tCtV'tEe; E~ Eamrov YEVOIlEvot TJxoAou8Tjcrav 0WbWP(J) E1ti 'tov
15 0PIlOV u1ttOvn xai 'tOue; U1tO 'tou 1tAoiou E~EA8oV'tae; 1l0vCt~ov'tae; de;
Yiiv U1tObE~allf:v(J) xai ucr1tacrallf:v(J) EV uyi(J) cptAllllan· oe; IlE'ta 'tOV
ucr1tacrllov xuxAro8Eie; U1t01tCtv'trov T]llrov €CPTj 1tpOe; alHOUe;· "EucppCtv8Tj-
'tE EPXOIlEVOt· EropCtxa'tE yap 'tov 1ta'tf:pa T]llrov l\.vn.ovtov." KUXElvot
d1tov· ,,"Eypa\jlf:v crot Ot' T]llrov." Kai E1ttbEbWXam v au'tql 'tllV E1ttcr'tO-
20 AllV. '0 OE uvayvoue; xai 1tEptxapl)e; YEVOIlEVOe; E1ttbf:oroXEV 'EAOUpiro-
Vt 'ta YPCtlllla'ta, XEAEooae; uvayvrovat 'toie; U<>EAcpoie;, EPIlTjVEUOV'toe;
1tCtAtv 0WbWPOU 'toG l\AE~avbpf:roe;· iiv yap 'tD Aiyu1t'tirov YAOOcrlJ
YEypallllf:VTj. EtXEV bE oil'troe;·
"Tql uya1tTj'tql uiql 0WbWP(J) l\. v'tWVtoe; EV xupi(J) xaipEt v. 'HtbEt v
25 IlEV on «OU Ill) 1totllcrEt XUptoe; 6 8EOe; 1tpuYlla, Mv Ill) U1tOXaAU\jIlJ
1tatOElav 1tpOe; 'toue; bOUAOUe; au'toG 'toue; 1tpoCPll'tae;·» xai EVOllt~OV 1l1l
oEiv IlE oTjArocrai crot li1tEp 1l0t 6 8EOe; 1tPO 1tOAAOG U1tOXaAU\jIae; iiv.
'E1tEtbl) bE Eropaxon 1l0t 'toue; UOEAcpOUe; crou 'toue; 1tEpi 0EOcptAOV xai
16 Rom 16.16 25-26 Am 3.7
1 w<;] )t 1-2 ropu DExa'tll] ropuv DExa'tllv t 2 ijIlEA. - SEOO.] )t 2-3 'tEeJ. 'troY
uDEA. XUA.] XUA. 'troY uDEA. 'tEeJ. t 3 Ttav'twv] )t \ TJllrov - ui)'tou<;] E<Pll Ttpo<; uu'tou<;
TJllrov uxouov'twv t 3--40{ uDEA. - KoTtpllv] Ot TtEpi SEO<p. xui KOTtP1V ciDEA.. Tillrov
6 UTtEA9u'tE] UTtEA9E'tE t 7 XUIlTt"v] Xall1jl1V t 9 TtUpU~aAAE1] TtUpU~UAEi
t 10 UTtEA90v'tE<;] e~UTtEA90v'tE<; r 11 'ti'j<; XUIlTti'j<;] 't"v XallljllV t 11-12 e~
EUU'trov YEV.] EXTtAUYEV'tE<; t 14 E~ EUU'trov YEv.]9uullaeJuv'tE<; t 151l0vasov'tu<;]
1l0VUXou<; t 19 dTtov] EtTtOV'tE<; t \ Kui] )t \ emDEDooxumv] EmD100oo1V t 20-21
'EAOUpiolVl] AtAOUpiwV1 t \ 'tel ypaIlIlU'tU] n'lv EmeJ'toA"v t 22 'toii] )t 24 uUP]
)t 25 XUPlO<;])t 26 TtutDEiuv] uu'toii +t \ Ttpo<;] ETti t 26-27 XUi-eJOl] VOlliswv
of; IlEAAElV xui eJ01TtEpi 'troY 'tOlOU'tWV t 27 TtpoTtoAAoii] )t \ ~v] {Dou EIl<puviSW 9wii
XEAEOOUV'tO<; +t, 'ti 'toii XAuu91l0ii O<PEAO<; in margo sup. F 28-1 'ETtE1D" -DllArov]
Kui ETtE10" toopuxu 'tou<; TtEpi SEO<p1AOV xui KOTtplV UOEA<POU<; eJou ypa<pw eJut 01' uu'trov t
152 Critical text
K01tPTlv 1tpOcrE'tU~EV ypU\jIat crot, OTlAroV on 1tOAAOi 'trov J..lE'ta UATI-

8eiw; 'tOV Xptcr'tov 1tpocrXUVOUVtCOV, J..lE'ta 'to ~a1tncr8fjvat TtJ..lap'tTlxo-
'twv crXEOOV EV OACP 't4> xocrJ..lCp, xAaucruv'tWv xai 1tEv8T1crUV'tWV, 6 8EO~
'tOV xAau8J..lov xai 'to 1tEv80~ U1tOOE~UJ..lEVO~, 'ta~ aJ..lap'tia~ E~l)AEt\jlEV
5 1tUV'tWV 'trov O{)'tW~ 1tOpEOOaJ..lEVWV £W~ EXeiVTI~ 'tfj~ TtJlEPU~ EV iJ liv Tt
E1ttcr'tOAYt 'tUU'tTl E1tt008ij crot. 1\vuyvW8t ouv amYt v 'toi~ aoEAq>oi~ crou,
tVU xai autoi UXOOOUV'tE~ Xup&crtv. 'Acr1tacrat toU~ UOEAq>OU~. 1\cr1tU-
~oV'tai crE Ot UOEAq>Oi. EUxoJ..lui crE uytaiVEtv EV xupicp."
Tau'ta 1tUV'tE~ ot 1tapOV'tE~ uxoooaV'tE~ xai pi\jlaV'tE~ Eau'tou~ E1ti
10 1tpocrW1tOV EVO)1ttoV toG 8wG, ou'tW~ EXAaOOaJ..lEV ro~, 'tou 1tapoV'to~
1tPEcr~U'tEPOU 'tytV EUXYtV xu'tU1tuooaV'to~, eE60wpov el1tEiv' "lltcr'tEU-
cra'tE J..lot AEyovn on Tluq>puv8T1 1tucra Tt E1tOUpUVto~ AOytXYt x'tiO"t~ xat
E1tt 'tou'tcp UJ..lrov 'to xAau8J..l0. '0 yap 8EO~ 1tpOcrOE~UJ..lEVO~ TtJ..lrov 'tYtV
OETlO"t v, n vrov E~ (H. p. 117) iJJ..lrov 'trov EV'tau8u Cipn J..lovaxrov ou'tw
15 1ttXpro~ xAaoouv'twv 'ta~ aJ..lup'tia~ E~l)AEt\jlEV' oG~ 1tpoytvOxrxwv ou-
'tw~ EAUATlcrEV ro~ xuyro d1tov XUt 6 1ta'tYtP TtJ..lrov EypU\jIEV 1\v't(OVto~."
Kat 1tOAAfj~ xapu~ 1tATlPw8EV'tWV 1tuV'twv TtJ..lrov, eE60wpo~ Eq>TI
1tpO~ J..lE· ,,'AJ..lJ..lwv, cru 'ta Ev'tuG8u J..loonxro~ 1tap' TtJ..lrov AEAaATlJ..lEvU,
ooa 'tE CiAAa dOE~ xai ilxoooa~ 1tap' TtJ..lrov, oTlJ..locri~ xat EV 'tUi~
20 1tAa'teiUt~ AaAl)crEt~."
§ 30. Ammon's departure from Pabau

Kat 1tapuYEVOJ..lEVOU 'tou 'tpitou E'tOU~ 'tfj~ EV 'to J..lovucr'tTlpicp 1tapot-
xia~ J..l0u, q>iAO~ 'toG1ta'tpo~ J..lou 1tpO~ nlv 1tUATlV 'toG J..lovacr'tTlpiou iowv
J..lE JlE'ta BTlcrapiwvo~ 'tou OOUAOU 'toG 8wu xa't' EXEiVO xatpoG 1tUAW-
poG 'tou J..lovacr'tTlPiou OVto~, 1tapExuAEcrEv AEYWV On1tEp xui Tt J..ll)'tTlP
25 J..l0u, uq>' Ti~ iJJ..lEpa~ Eyxa'tEAEt1tOV tou~ ioiou~, 1tEv8Ei, xai 61ta'tl)p J..lou
1tuv'ta 'ta EV 'tij Aiyumcp Jlovacr'tl)pta xai 'tij Auyooo'tUJlVtxij
1tEptEA8rov xai J..lYt EUpWV J..lE, ro~ U1t08uvov'tu 8PTlVEl.
'A1tEP UXTlxoro~ EYro tl~iO)()a 'tov Civ8pW1tov 'toG 8wG eE60wpov 060
JlOVU~oV'tu~ cruva1tocr'tEiAai J..lot, iva nlv J..lTl'tEpa iow xui 1tapaxaHcru~
83 In 2 19-20 Mt 6.5
1ltoUoi)ltoUrov t IIlEla oJ. l]e.) EV aA:rjeEiq t 2 'tOY Xp.) >t 3 ox. EV OA.q» EV OA.q>
ax. t 5 Oll'troe;) Oll'tro tr I EX. 'ti'je; 1')11.) ti'\e; 1')11. EX. t 6 'tuu'tl]) uu'tl] tr 7 'f\altacrut)
t, 'f\mracrE Fr 9 of ltUp. ax.) ax. of ltUp. t 12l]ucppavel]) EucppaVel] t I 1')) >t I xui)
>t 13 ullroV) 1')llrov t 14 'trov-Ilovuxrov) >t 16 roe;) xueo t I Eyp. f\v't.) f\v't. Eyp.
17 Kui ltOA..) TIOA.. ouv t Iltav'trov) >t I Ecpl]) dltEV t 18 lloonxroe;)lloo'tTtptU roe;
t 19liUu) xuM t I do. xui fjx.) fjx. xui do. t ITJllroV) TJlliv t lEV) Elti t 20 A.UA.TtcrEte;)
Xl]pU~Ete; t 221lou2) ne; + t I'tTJV ltUA.l]v) 'ttl ltUA.1J t 23 Bl]crupirovoe;) Bl]acrupirovoe;
r I EXEivo XatpoG) ExEivov 'tOY XUtpOV t 24 'tOG Ilovucr't.) 'ti'je; Ilovi'je; t I O'ttltEp) on t I
xui) >t 25 EYXU'tEA.EtltOV) XU'tEA.tltOV t, EYXU'tEA.tltOV r 26 EV 'ttl Aiy.) AlYUlt'tou t I
'ttl Auyooo't.) 'ti'je; AuyoOO'tUIlV{Xl]e; t 29 1ll]'tEpU)1l0U +t I ioro)iowv t
1 uQ [d3lLUQ 8Z: l(
[AOyy3Hl,tlL~ - S10lL1O"( S101 !DX [(;-9Z: 1 ·ld <!JJ..~ AOyy3Hl,tlL~ [S101 11 AOJA=pioA3J..
[AOJh:piohlJ.. ~z: d hOJlI,tU1l2J..3A~ '1 [AOJll,tJ..\.tl2X3h~ PZ: IpmbSlld lDeD3h}D~
[lDe!)3~~ Il( [31 z:z: 1+ SleQD [!DX Ild SOlhD!X)3hOdJ '1 [DMD!X)3AOdJ Il( [."(~g ·XDllL~
gOlll nOl}A0J30 ['!.lAOJ30 TZ: 1 ·g3~ S9xn02 gOl [gOl 'S9xn02 - ·g3~ 6T l( [SlJ1Il(
[3111 + !DX ~2 u? [AOJA~TinodlDh~ 8 T 1AOJ1AC)OeDlLOXDX [,\(l)lAgeDlL 'QXDX L T 1· J..lV
,lDX 31 A<In [·J..lV - 31919T l( [SOlA~eXOJl2 ~T l+ SOlA~eXOJl2 [no}DDhDev:ll ~2
'Q13W ['Q13Ti !D){ PT 1 hQO ·2} 91 'Q13W [·2} 91 'Q13Ti !D){ n 1 ·dJDlDX !DX [31 ·dJDlDX
11 nodqJ203 0 nO"('Q,tsTi gOl 9lL<) [gOl<;lD ,lL<) 11 AQO ·lLodU [·lLodlL !D){ OT d DlLqJlD3dDlL
'1 [DD\.tlL<!JlD3dDlL 6 1 ·TiD} ·dnx 'QdDlL [·dnx gOl 'QdDlL ·TiD} 8-L d ,e3Ti '1 L13Ti
11 DhOJ}dno"(lV [·dno"(3, 9 l( [no}"',! Il( [A9 1 ~ l( [.29 30 11 ·2A~ .J..~ [.J..~ ·2h~ P
6·z:r lOJ T 8-L 9·~ lOJ z: ~
·3101L
}Dl3D<)DlL !DX m1.O? S91L3"(DX !DX d31Lllg 'ClOl<}Ol 00liAC019 001 !d31L A~
AC!llLP Sodco9930 0 03 9 0 01 SOlLcod9A~ 9 d31L-g 'AO"("(3Hl,t1L'Q SD}dl1N SlJ,l
13dg <ill A~ S}Ol SlOdqlOgmdlL S}OlLlO"( S}Ol !DX Q}9liDli !DX dC!lllI A01A-g
A91 !d31L S}Ol (A01AdC?3J A01Dl9liqJ A91 AoXdD~? d~A AOX13) ACOAqlioA 1A ~z:
AQ}ADl3dV; AQ}l 91LQ AQ}XDX ACOll,tHu9X3A'Q Sco"(g !DX 'ACOlAq9D1do~~
AC01L9X!)11L~ ACO}A"9 SC03D<)9 SlJ,l 91L'Q AQ}l !DX 'ACOlA9XDIlA901L'Q (8 TT·d ·H)
m9D3q~ <ill A~ 31 AQ}"("(OlL 'A9ADl1.ODg3:r ClOAqliD~39Dl9 001 Clo}li31dv;
91LQ !DX 'DlADD<)3Aom A1D3,,(qg ClO1L9X!)11L~ 001 PAC030 ClO}A"9 001
iJ}DIl"(xx~ Q,l A~ SClOAq9dDlL13'Q S~"("(OlL A91 'A9ADldCl:r ClOAqliD~39Dl9 oz:
001 'S9xCl09 OOXDlllLClA}y 001 00ADl1.ODg3:r 91LQ ACOAqlio)ldo~~
ClOllL<}A}y SlJ,l AC01L9XD11L~ 31 AQ}l 'ACOAqliClodmA'Q S}DAIl"(lL
!DX AC01A99DlL ~XDX ~"("(01L AQ}X1D"( ACO}D9C101LD AQ}l !DX ACOAq9dDlL13'Q
AQ}l !DX ADl3d9A~~3"(V; !DX AOllLClA1Y Alp ~lDX 3191 AQ}XDAOli
ACO}A"9 AQ}l !DX 'SOlAq9XC019 ClO}lADlDACO)l Smdqr!1J, S}Dl A~ AQ}ADl3dV; ~T
AQ}l 91Lg ClO}DDAD9V; DlL~lL ClO}dDXDli 001 '~? SDAlJ,li ~13li !D)I
·S){UOW ::IlO!ll!N ::Iq1 01 UO!ln;)::ISJ::Id

UB!lY ::Iq1 8U!UJ::I;)UO;) A;)::IqdOJd S,::IJOpo::lql SlJod::lJ uowwY· T£ §
·SD}dl1N SlJ,l
Sodg 91 Sp A91LlO"( DDllxW 'S<}Ol\lD A139} 91 ~13li !D)I ·ClOr! S13AOA S~Ol
A139} DlA99"(31L'Q 31DW 'ooli~ d 1 1Lg m9DD~g3 DD3"(~X3dDlL ACO<}dxD9
AQ}"("(OlL ~13li A91\lD 31 SDDl,t,,(lmDlDX OOl\lD ,1LQ S!39mli31L0dlL lD)I or
·Dlili~dA 91 coA<}xllli I,tli DA! 'DDIl1LC?1D3dDlL DlDli9A9
~l A<P 'SDd9A~ SClO}A"9 S}Ol\lD A~D S~ollDX 'SDlA9gD,,( Clo}dClX 001 ~dDlL
AC01~r!Dl DlDliD}dDX 'dC?llI 0039 001 AO"(009 A91 !DX Q}9liDli A01A-g
A91 !DX 'ADDIl9l,tlilOx~ ~"(01L \10 ,13li 10 'A01AC?r!liV; lDX DACO}dClOytl.
lDX (llDliC?D <ill A~ AQ}liIl9A~ d~A 11?-) Aooliv; ClO}A"9 QOl ~13li A91 ~
Aodco9930 19 A3A3"(tL ,;<il3 9 <ill S31A001.03dD\l3 '101A-g S3d9A~ OO1L91
<ill Dl!)1"(~li OOA}3X~ A~ d~A lDP .mD!J.xlo SD}dl1N SlJ,l13dg <ill A~ lOD
CO<}3"(ClOgliClD 919 .S13Dl,txlo Ild q li ~l DA13X~ A91LlO"( 19 ~D 'l,tADllD1dX
A3AOAqA ClOD dllll,tli A1li H," .3li S9dlL 11m? 19 0, ·S}Ol\lD A~D C09"(qA'Q
£~T T£-6Z:
154 Critical text
§ 32. A letter from Theodore concerning the Arian persecutions arrives

at Nitria.
Kai 'tow 1\pEtaVmV EV xUlwi~ 1tPOX01t'tOV'tWV, E1tdh'HlTlcrav 't<'[l OPEt
'tfj~ Nt'tpia~ 'ttcrcrapE~ 1l0VUSOV'tE~ U1tO E>woropou IlE'ta ypallIlU'tWV
u1tOmaAtvH~ 1tpO~ 'tou~ EV 't<'[l OPEt 1l0vaxou~· OtnVE~ xa't' EVWAa~
E>w8ropou uvaSTJ'tiJ(mv'tt~ IlE xai EUpOVH~, Elloi 't11V E1ttmoA1)v
5 8E8roxacrtv O\jfE cra~J3uwu· xai 'tij f:~fj~, XUPtaxfj~ oocrTJ~, 1tpm'tov i8iq
wi~ 1tPEcr~U'ttpm~, E1tEt'ta xa't' E1tt'tp01t1)V au'tmv 1tav'ti 't<'[l1tAiJ8Et 'tmv
1l0vas0V'tWV uvtyvwv ou'tW~ Exoooav·
"Toi~ uya1tTJ'toi~ U8EAcpoi~ wi~ EV 't<'[l OPEt 'tfj~ Nt'tpia~
1tPEcr~U'ttpot~ xai otaxovm~ xai Ilovaxoi~ E>E68wpo~ EV xupicp
10 XaiPEtV. rtVcOcrXEtV Ulla~ 8tAW on.., U1tEpTJcpavia 'tmv 1\pEtaVmv uvt~TJ
1tpO~ 'tOV 8EOV· xai <'> tlEO~ E1ttcrxE\jfUIlEVO~ 'tOV Aaov au'tou xai i8ffiv 'ta~
8Ai\jfEt~ a~ U1tOlltvEt, tiAtTJcrEV au'tov· xai E1tTJyyEiAaw EAEfjcrat xai
EAw8Epmcrat 'tmv 8Ai\jfEWV WU'tWV 't1)v f:au'tou EXXATJcriav. ''Ecr'tat onv
xatpo~ EV 4> 'tmv 81WYllmv WU'twv .., ExxATJcria EAwtlEpw8tlcrE'tat.
15 Ei1tEV yap <'> 8EO~ 1tEpi IlEV 'tmv 1\pEtaVmv· «Kai Ex8txiJcrw E1ti
Ba~uAmva xai E~oicrw a xa'tt1ttEV EX wu cr'tolla'to~ au'tfj~.)) ITEpi 8E
'tfj~ EXXATJcria~· «Ti~ E~ ullmv o~ d8EV 'tov otxov wu'tov 'tij 86~lJ au.ou
'tij EIl1tpocr8Ev; 8ton IlquATJ Ecr'tUt .., 86~a wu olxou 'tou'tou .., EcrXU'tTJ
U1tEP .1)v 1tpro'tTJv.)) Tau'ta~ onv EXOV'tE~ 'ta~ E1taYYEAia~, U8EAcpoi,
20 1tapaXaAEl'tE 'tou~ EV 'toi~ IltPEcrtV EXEiVOt~ 8At~0Iltvou~ U1t' au'tmv,
iva lliJ nvo~ EXXAivlJ tl1ticrn~· 001tW yap 1tE1tAtlPWV'tUt ai ullap'tiat .mv
1\pEtaVmv. 1\cr1tUsov'tat ulla~ oi IlE't' EIlOU U8EAcpoi· EPpwlltvou~ ulla~
<'> XUpto~ 8tacpuAa~al, uya1tTJwi U8EAcpoi."
Kai 'tUu'ta uvayvov'to~ Ilou 1tUV'tE~ IlEv oi d8EAcpoi 'tov 8EOV
25 E86~asov. Ei~ 8E 'tmv 1tPEcr~U'ttPffiV uv1)p 'toovolla 'Ayto~ EcpTJ 1tpO~ IlE
IlEt8tmv· "Kai "'IlEi~ crm AtYOIlEV· «Ouxtn 8ta 't1)v cr1)v AaAtaV
1tta't EUOIlEV .))"
Kai 'tau'tTJv .1)v Emcr'toA1)v E8t~a'to 1tap' EIlOU xa't' EV'tOA1)v
'HpaxAEi80u 'tou 1tPEcr~U'ttpou lcraax <'> xai Xpoooyovo~, .O'tE IlEv EV
10-11 Cf. Ps 73.23 15-16 Jer 28.44 17-19 Hag 2.3, 9 26-27 In 4.42
1 Kui tOlV] Twv ouv t 7 1l0VUsovnov]llovaxwv t 8-10 Toir; aya1tTJ'tOir;- XaiPEtv]

)t 11 tOV Aaov al)'tou] al),toU tOV Aaov r 12 UEi'jom xai] )t 14 twv] rH, corr.
sup. lin., prius tOV F, 'tOY t 17 or;] )t 18 06~a] ul)'tou +et eradebat r 19
aOEA!poi] aYa1tTJ'tOi pr. t 20 eAl~OIlEVOUr;] t, eAl~OIlEVOlr; F 21 EXXAivU] EXAi1tU
23 Ota!puAa~al] !puM~at t 24 Kai])t 25 av1')p] )t I 'tOuvolla] 6vollan
28 Kai 'tati'tTJv] Tau'tTJv oi; t I I;V'tOA1')V] r, Ev'toMr; t, corr. sup. lin., prius? F
32-34 155
np OpEt "ti\<; Nnpiu<; 1!0VUsoov, {XHEpOV of: Otuxovo<; uno "tOU

aytoo"tu"too E1ttO'xonou lO'toropoo "ti\<; EXXA110'iu<; (H. p. 119) "ti\<; I!tXpu<;
'EpI!OonoAEoo<; xu"tU0'''tU9Ei<;, wenE "til> aytoo"tu"tcp E1ttO'xoncp dpuxoV"ticp
EV "tij E~opiq. ovn unOO'''tEiAUt· f]vn VU, m<; o{I!Ut, 06vu"tut UVUS11"tT)O'U<;
5 Eupdv 0 9EOqHAf;0'''tU''t0<; UOEA<PO<; XUt O'OAAEl "tOopyo<; tll!rov
dlOO'XOPO<;, 0 "tOu ayioo 'IO'toropoo OtaooXO<;.
§ 33. Theodore's prophecy concerning Julian and the persecutions is

fulfilled.
Kut I!E"ta "to otoox9i\vat "tov nunuv i\9uvuO'toV "til> EVU"tcp 1!11Vt "tOU
EX"tOO E"tOO<;, 100Atuvo<; ~UO'tAEOOU<; uvlip EioooAOAu"tP11<; "tov I!f:V
nunuv i\9uvuO'tov Ei<; "tliv e11~utou E~roptO'EV' nOAAa of; "toi<;
10 XptO'nuvoi<; unEtAT)O'u<;, EV "tij IlEpcriol O'UV"tOI!OV EO'XE "to "tEAO<;, OUOf;V
Ent nEpu<; oOV119Ei<; uyuydv cbv XptO'nuvoi<; tlnElA11O'EV' m<; nuv"tU<;
tll!U<; "tOU<; UX11XOO"tU<; eEOOropoo OO~UO'Ul "tov 9EOV, I!E"ta "tOO'UU"tu E"t11
EOOPUXO"tu<; nA11POUI!EVU a dnEv, npOO'ooxi\O'at of: UVUI!<Pt~OAOO<; XUt
"trov i\PEluvrov "tliv xu9' tll!rov I!uviuv XU"tUPY119T)O'E0'9ut· linEp I!E"ta
15 "tOO'UU"tu E"t11 ytvOI!EVU vuv OproI!EV.
§ 34. Athanasius' report concerning Theodore

Kut "tUU"tU I!f;V EYro "til> npoO'''tuYl!un "ti\<; OOto"t11"to<; 0'00 nEt9upxrov
YPu\jIUt "tE"toAl!l1XU, nOAAa nupEi<; cbv nupa eEOoropcp doov, a tl "trov
nOAArov uxoli ou <pEPEl, OEOOtxro<; I!T) noo<; tl E1ttO'''tOAT) I!oo UU"t11 d<;
Xdpu<; I!tXProv XUt En Vl11ttUs0V"toov EV XptO'''til> EA9lJ.
20 'EnEloli of: <p9uO'u<; 0 I!UXUPto<; nunu<; i\9uvuO'to<;, nupOOO11<; "ti\<;
EI!i\<; ~PUXU"t11"tO<; XUt aAAOOv XA11PlXrov "ti\<; i\AE~UVOPEOOV EXXA11O'iu<;
EV "tij I!EYUAlJ ExXA11O'iq., "til> I!uxupicp "tij I!VT)l!lJ i\l!l!oovicp "til> E1ttO'xoncp
YEVOI!EVCP "ti\<; 'EAWPXiu<; xut "Epl!oovt "til> "ti\<; Boo~uO'n vrov dnEv n
nEpt eEOOropoo (vOl!isoo of; XUt "tliv O'liv ayto"t11"tU nupooouv "to"tE
25 UX11XOEvul) &vuyxuiov npo<; UnOI!V11O'tV "ti\<; O'i\<; EUAU~ElU<;, a dnEv
19 cr. 1 Cor 3.1
1-2 lJ1tO - 'IO'toropou) )t 3 xa'tU0'1"a8Ei~) U1tO 1"OU uyiou 'IO'toropou 1"OU t1tlO'X01tou'
EAa~E 01; 'tUU1"11V +t 4 1"U) )t 7 Kai I1E1"U) ME1"a 01; t I tVU1"C!» corr. sup. lin. ad
tVVU1"C!>, prius EVU1"C!> F, corr. ad EVU1"C!>, prius tvvU1"C!> t 11 E1ti) Ei~ t 1211E1"U 1"00'.
E1"11) )t 13 1tpOO'ooxiiO'at)1tpOO'oox"O'av1"a~ t 17 Ii) )t I it) yap + t 18 ax01'1)
1"aU1"a +t I <pEPEt) xai +t 19 XEtpa~) EA8000a +t I EA8U) )t, ~M"'11 Ulhou~ + t
20-221tapo6cr11~ - txxA11O'iq.) >t, d1tEV nva 1tEpi mu I1EYUAOU 0woropou + t 23 YEV.
1"ii~)t 23-24 d1tEv- 0wo.) >t, 1tapo6cr11~ 1"ii~ El1ii~ ~pax61"111"o~ xai UAAOOV XA11pt-
xii'lv 1"ii~ txxA11O'ia~ I\AE~avopEoov + t 24 xai) supra lin. F 25 aX11x.)1"au1"a + t I
avayxatov) uvayxaioo~ t
156 Critical text
ypu<pOO. Trov IlVllllOvcu8Ev.oov ETClO'X01tOOV 8aullaS0V'tOOV .ov llaxuptoV

i\.v't(OVtoV (1tOAAUXU; yap at'mp i\.llllroVto~ O'uv'tUxrov llv) 6 1tu1ta~
i\.8avuO'lo~ 1tpO~ au.ou~ E<Pll'
"El80v xai EV wi~ xatpoi~ .0o.Ot~ av8pro1tou~ wu 8wu Il£yUAOU~,
5 8£68oopov .Ov YtytaO'Ilf:VOV 'troY Ta~£vvllO'ioov Ilovaxrov, xai 1t£pi .ijv
i\.vnvoou Ilovaxov a1tml TIulllloova wuvolla, ot 1tpO oAiyou
x£xoillllVtat. 'n~ yap 111l11V 8tOOX8d~ U1tO 'louAtavou xai 1tpoo80xrov
avatp£8fjvat U1t' auwu (O£OijAOOW yup 1l0t .ou'to U1tO YVllO'tOOV <piAOOV)
llA80v oi 860 oo.Ot d~ n'!v i\.vnvoou 1tpO~ 11£ EV Ilt(t ijllEpq' xai
10 ~OUA£OOUIl£VO~ xpu~fjVat 1tapa 8w8ropcp, E1tEBllV .4'> EXEiVOU 1tAoicp
1tuvw8£v X£xaAuIlIlEVCP, 1tP01tEIl1tOVW~ Ytlla~ xai a1t1ta TIuIlIlOOVO~'
xai .ou aVEllou av£1tHlloEiou Y£VOIlEVOU, EYro Il£V ayooVtrov.ij xapoiq
1tPOOllUXOllllv' (H. p. 120) oi o£ Il£'ta 8w8ropou 1l0vusoV't£~
f:~£A8oV't£~ 1tapEiAxov .0 1tAoiov.
15 Kai a1t1ta TIullllOOVt ayoovtroV'tu 11£ 1tapallu80UIlEVCP EA£yOV'
,TItO''t£OOOV IlOt Af:yOvn' oux oihoo~ EXOO 1t£1tot8uiav 'tijv xapoiav Ilou
f:V xatp4'> dpijVll~ OOOV f:V .oi~ wu OtOOYllou xatpoi~' n:8uPPllxa yap
on tm£p XptO''tou 1tuO'xoov xai 't4'> EH£t au.ou ouvallooll£vO~, xuv
avatp£8ro, En llaAAOV £upiO'xoo 1tap' au.4'> EAW~.' Kai En Ilou
20 Hyov.o~ tau. a , e£68oopo~ Eva.£VtO'a~ a1t1ta TIullllOOVt EIl£toiaO'£v'
xai O'X£80v Y£AuO'av'to~ a1t1ta TIulllloovo~, EYro Il£V 1tpO~ au.ou~ E<PllV'
,.1.ta.i EYEAuO'a'tE .au'ta 1l0U HyoV'to~; Apa 8£tAia~ Ilou xa'tEyvOO'tE;'
8E68oopo~ o£ 1tpO~ a1t1ta TIulllloova E<Pll' ,Ei1t£ au.4'> 8ta.i
f:1l£tOtuO'aIlEV.' Kai a1t1ta TIulllloovo~ d1toV'to~' ,LU d1t£iv O<pEiA£t~,'
25 8E68oopo~ E<pll' ,Tuo'tlJ .ij &pq aVlJpE811 'louAtavo~ EV TI£pO'iot.
TIPOEtpijX£t yap 1t£pi au.ou 6 8EO~ oihoo~' «'0 8£ xa.OtOIl£vo~
xa'ta<ppovll.ij~, aviJp aAasrov, ouo£v ou lliJ 1tEpavEi.» i\.vaO''tijO'£'tat 8£
BaO'lAEU~ XptO'navo<;, oO'n~ Aall1tpO~ IlEV, OAtyO~to<; O£ EO'.at. .1.tO oux
17-19 cr. Phil 1.29, Num 11.15 26-27 Hab 2.5
2 AllllcOVlO<;] t, AV-rcOVlO<; Fr 5 TU~EVVT]criwv] TU~EVVT]crtW-rwv t 6 1l0VUXc)V] t,

1l0VUXov nupa Fr, 1l0VUXwv nu-rEpu H, I amru] ano t 7 IhwX. uno 'IouA.] uno 'IouA.
OlWX. t InpocrooKwv]npocrE06Kwv t 8 yap] OE t 11nav-r. KUKuA.] KEKuA. nav-r. t I
annu]ano t 12 Kui - aVEn.]avEn. 01: -rou aVElloU t 15 Kui] '001: t I annu]ano t I
fIallllWVl] H, fIallllwV tr, fIUIl~W F Inupullu60uIlEVC(l]nupullu60DIlEVO<; t I EAqov] H,
EAqEv Ftr 16nEnol6. -rijv KUp. Ilou] -rijv )(Up. 1l0U nEnol6. t 180uVUIlODIlEVO<;]
EVOUVUIlODIlEVO<; t 20 0EOO. EVU-r.] EVU-r. 6 0E60. t I annu] ano t 21 crXEOOV]
crEllvov t I annu] ano t I IlEV] )t 22 i:YEAacru-rE] t, i:YEAUcrE'tE F I 'tuu'tU Ilou Ai;y.]
)t 23 01:] )t I annu] ano t I OlU-rij -ri t 24 Kui - Etn.] KaKElvOU anOKPlVUIlEVOU
25 0E60. E<PT]] E<PT] 0EOO. t 26 nEpi - 6EO<;] 6 6EO<; nEpi uu-rou tr I KU-rOlOIlEVO<;]
Kui +t 27 nEpUVEi]nEpaVTJ t
34-36 157
O<PElAW:; bti 'LllV ell~uiou crxllAAollEvOe; U1tEAedv, UAA' Eie; to

xOllnUtOv AEAlleotroe; YEVf:creUl· crllV'tEU~El yap Ul>'t('P xue' o06v, xui
YVllcriroe; ll1tOOExeEie; 1tUp' Ull'tOU E1tUVtl~Ele; Eie; tT]V ExxAllcriuv. Kui
o{\troe; EXEivoe; tUXlOv U1tO tOU ewu 1tpocrAll<petlcrE'tUl.'
5 Kui Yf:YOVEV ODtroC;. "oeEV mcrtEuro 1tOAAOUC; EUUPEcrtOUV'tUC; t4> eE4>
EV tOte; 1l0VUSOOOlV IlUAtcr'tU XpU1ttEcreUl. KUXEivol yap AUVeUVOV'tEe;
i1cruv, oxmEp xui 0 IlUXUplOe; J\Il0UV xui 0 uylOe; eEooropoe; ot EV t4>
OpEl tlie; Nnpiue;, xui 0 OOUAOe; 'tOU eWU 0 EUYllPOtUtOe; TIull~m."
§ 35. Athanasius approves Ammon's report.

Kui tOU Emcrx01tOll J\llllrovioll eUllIlUSOV'tOe; toV IlUXUPlOV TIuop xui
10 'EAOllpirovu xui J\llllrovlOv xui '!crioropov tOV 1tPEcr~UtEPOV tmv
uvuxroPlltmV xui toV uylOv MuxuplOv, oue; EV t4> OpEl tlie; Nnpiue;
dOEV tl UYlrocruvll crOll, EIlE 1tEpi tmv uyirov EV tij I:XteEl uvuxroPlltmV
TIullcrioll xui TIUUAOll xui 'l'roiOll tmv UOEA<pmv UUtOU xui 'Hcruioll xui
TIllcrupoll xui '!cruax xui TIUUAOll TJpal'tu Ei xui toV ell~uiov
15 eEOOropov 111l11V f:ropuxroe;· xui Ei1tovn Ilot on eworop<fl tPlEtli
XpovovcrllVf:sllcru, f:xf:AEOOEV Ei1tElV Et n 1tUpa eworop<fl f:ropuxu. Kui
Ei1tOv'tOe; 1l0ll tmv 1tPOYEYPullllf:vrov nvu (EYro yap 1tpOe; tT]V UYlOtlltU
UUtou cruVf:tEIlOV toV AOYOV) 0 1tU1tUe; eUllllucrue; E<Pll· "TIElpueEie; 'tOu
UVopoe;, tUUtU ODtroe; EXElV mcrtEuro."
§ 36. Postscript
20 rpU\jfue; tij UYlrocrUVlJ crOll U1tEP xui 1tUpa'tOu IlUXUpiOll 1tU1tU (H. p.
121) J\eUvucrioll l1XOOOU, 1tupuxAllmv 1tpocruyro, 01troe; 1tUV'tOtE
1tpocrEuXEcrem U1tEP EIlOU xu'tU~lOte;, OEOIlEVOe; U1tUOOtroe; E1t' EIlE dvm
ta EAf:ll 'tOU eWU. TIPOcrEl1tE 'tOlle; crllV crO! aOEA<pOUe;. Ot crllV Elloi tT]V
OmOtlltU crOll 1tpOcrUYOPEUOOOlV. 'EpProllf:VOV crE xui lmEp EIlOU
25 1tpocrwxollEVOV 0 1tUvuYlOe; tmv OAroV eEOe; 1tpOe; 'LllV f:UlltOU 06~uv
1tOAllEtli tate; ExxAllcrime; OlU<pllAUHot, Of:cr1to'tU UYlrotUtE UOEA<pf:.
1 Um;AeEiv] UVEAeEiv t 2 crUVtEU~El] crUVtEU~lJ t 3 dc;] btl t 5 Kui] "0 pro t I

mcrtEuw] to eE0 +t I EVUPEcrtOi3VtUC;] uvt0 xui IlUAAOV +t, Hie desinit t 7 f\lloi3v]
f\lllloi3v r 14 TlPonu] xui + Pasquali
J !0t1~ [i\!t1l,t 6 !I1mbsud
010 01 i\?, 'd 01001 i\~ 'H [0)1<)01 i\~ 8 J OJ}i\(ot1t1V. 'd OJ}i\(ot1t1V. [li\(ot1t1 v. r
"~d)"(35?T) 31Dl(,M. 1390lL

1DX ~lltlLDA.T) 'oo}dox A~ 3D }D91X!>dd3. "1393doA.DDOdlL oo}dox A~ or
t\p11f t\\lD If ~D "Dllt19d),\(35?T)10D ~dDlL t\Y.D t\Y.1 3lL13D9dU "31Dl9A1390lL
1DX ~lltlLDA.T) 'Sprflf SDDlt"(~cp SqJX(l)5?35? 001901 t\~ 1DX ~)'n1)
'S(l)3DI,t,,(XDdDlL SDd~13rflf SIJ1 AqJ5?ld3lL<,l d~A QO "t\13X? AD}t\(l)t\lOX 1DX
D5?}d3rf t\Y.1 nodqJ5?030 OO}dDXDrf (301 ~13rf SDlt\DlLIJ Sprflf 1DX i\(\t\}013D
ltm "SD"(}31D1lL~ S(l)~dU~ Dlt\~9!)(l)t\A. t\!rflf t\1!>Drfl,tA.ltl5? t\~ SlX'9'nOlL ~
~1 1DX Sprflf ~5? SDt\Dd<l>~lt "SnO}A~ S\l01 1d3lL SlJ,l Sltrfl,tArf SIJ1 3D t\~rf
1DrfOX~5?OlLT) 'SD}3gD"(Q3 SIJ,D SlJ,l SOt\3rf~1!>1lL~ t\o"(IJS t\Q9DA.T) t\QL
"t\13d}DX oo}dox t\~
SO,,(l<1>(,)30 1t\(l)rfrfv" <})A.dOOl13,,(,,(OD 1DX <})"(35?T) <})lltlLDAT) oorf oo}do)l
Ayd:u ,snl!l[do:nu "L£§
lX;}l [U::l!l!J:) 8~l

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
The English translation is based upon the critical text appearing in

this edition. Therefore, it most closely follows the F text. The modifi-
cations and expansions that occur in t (e. g., 139.7) do not appear in the
translation. However, when F's grammar or style made interpretation
difficult, t's version was used to clarify the meaning.
The translation is an attempt to produce a literal and yet readable
English version of the text. The emphasis on the former, though at times
leading to less satisfactory English constructions, has the advantage of
reproducing the Greek text more precisely. The need for the latter was
felt, lest the improbable English constructions become impossible.
Thus, it was often necessary to break down F's extended participial
constructions and reorder the text.
Square brackets indicate elements in the translation that are not
found in the original Greek. Biblical quotations appear in italics. They,
together with allusions, are identified in parenthesis within the text.
The individual episodes have been divided, as in the critical edition,
according to Halkin's sectional divisions. The English titles that appear
for the individual episodes in the critical edition have been reproduced
here. These titles are not part of the original Greek text. They have been
included for convenience and consistency in the present edition.
The Letter of Bishop Ammon concerning the Conduct and Life of

Pachomius and Theodore.
§ 1. Prologue
Since you admire Christ's holy servants, you have been eager to
imitate their piety. And having heard from many about the dedicated
man of God Theodore of the Tabennesiote monks from the Thebaid,
you marvel. And when you found out that I had spent three years in
their monastery, you enjoined me to write to your honor everything that
I had learned about him from the holy men who dwelt with him; both
what I had heard and what I myself was deemed worthy to see.
Beseeching God to grant me an accurate and clear memory of these
events and hastening to fulfill your holiness' request, I will disclose these
very things.
160 English translation
§ 2. Ammon's conversion and entrance into Pabau

After I had turned seventeen and become a Christian, I heard the
blessed pope Athanasius in church, proclaiming the lifestyle of the
monks and consecrated virgins and marveling at the hope laid up for
them in heaven (Col 1.5). And admiring their blessed life, I chose it for
myself. And after I had received the washing of regeneration (Tit 3.5), I
met a certain Theban monk in the city and proposed to follow him. I
declared my plan, obtaining the opinion of Paul of blessed memory, the
priest in the church of Pieri us. He, having observed that the monk was
heretical, sent me to the holy Theodore in the Thebaid through
Theophilus and Kopres, devoted men of God, who had been sent by
Theodore with letters to the blessed pope Athanasius.
And when we arrived at the monastery in which the servant of God
Theodore dwelt (it is called Bau and is in the Upper Diospolite nome),
the man of God Theodore deigned to meet me at the gate. And after he
had said the required things, he had me change clothes and led me into
the monastery. There I found about 600 monks assembled and waiting
in the middle of the monastery. [Theodore] sat down beneath a palm
tree and all of the others sat around him. And seeing that I was a
stranger to their order and embarrassed, he had me sit down beside
himself.
§ 3. Theodore's catechesis. Scriptural advice to individual monks

And one of the monks arose as if inspired and asked Theodore to
address his faults before them all. [Theodore], looking intently at him,
answered and said: «It is good for a man when he takes up a yoke in his
youth. He will sit alone and be silent, because he has taken it upon himself.
He will give his jaw to the one who strikes him. He will be filled full of
reproaches (Lam 3.27-30). But you, why do you bear the reproaches for
Christ so grieviously (Heb 11.26)?»
And so, after he sat down, another arose and asked to hear about
himself. And looking intently at him, [Theodore] said: «It is written, A
locked garden is my sister, my bride; a locked garden, a sealed spring
(Cant 4.12). But you, on the contrary, are taken in by all that pass along
the road (Ps 79.13).»
And after this one had sat down in great sorrow, to another who had
arisen and asked the same things he said: «I waited patiently for the
Lord, and he attended to me and hearkened to my supplication. And he
raised me up out of a pit of misery and from slimy mud, and he stood my
feet upon rock and set my goings aright. And he put into my mouth a new
song, a hymn to our God (Ps 39.1-3).»
And after that one had wept profusely and sat down, and while many
others were weeping with him, [Theodore] said to another who had
2-5 161
arisen and asked to learn about his own faults: «A patient man is great in
understanding, but the fainthearted is very foolish (Pr 14.29). Set yourself
aright.»
And after that monk had become sullen and sat down, he said to a
certain Orion, a Libyan by race and a carpenter by trade as I later
learned, who had arisen and asked concerning his faults: «For you have
need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is
promised (Heb 10.36).»
And after Orion, he said to Patelloli, who had arisen and asked him to
address his faults: «Bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of
Christ (Gal 6.2). Set yourself aright.» And after he had withdrawn,
[Theodore] said to all of the other monks concerning him: «Believe me
when I say that he is terrified by demons.»
And after this one, to another who had arisen and asked he said:
«Blessed is the Lord, who instructs my hands for battle and my fingers for
war (Ps 143.1). Be firm also in these things.»
And after this one, to another who had arisen he said: «Ours is not the
struggle against blood andflesh, but against the principalities, against the
powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the supernatural
forces of evil (Eph 6.12). Contend!»
And after this one, to another who had arisen he said: «Let us cleanse
ourselves from all defilement, not only of the flesh, but also of the spirit
(2 Cor 7.1). Guard against your secret [thoughts].»
And after this one, to another who had arisen he said: «Pray, saying:
Cleanse me from my hidden [sins], and spare your servant from alien
[ideas] (Ps 18.13-14). For you have a mighty battle on either side.»
§ 4. Theodore's catechesis. The Alexandrian Theodore translates.

We listened to him saying these things in the Egyptian language,
while Theodore the Alexandrian translated into Greek. [This latter] had
been a lector in the church of Pieri us, a holy man, who through both
[his] life and speech so much as says, «! am crucified with Christ. ! no
longer live, but Christ lives in me (Gal 2.20). As long as he was clothed in
the body (2 Cor 5.6), he was pleasing to the Lord.
§ 5. Theodore's catechesis. His prophecy concerning the Arian and

pagan persecutions
And as I puzzled, not yet understanding what was said on account of
[my] youth and great inexperience, the Theban servant of God
Theodore was being questioned by another. But remaining silent, he
gazed to heaven and arose. He was in the middle of the monks, having
been encircled by them all like a crown. And having ordered the
Alexandrian Theodore to translate, he said:
«I know that if those of the flesh listen further, they become upset.
But, since the Lord has commanded me to speak to you, 1 shall speak.
The persecution by those of [our] race that presses upon God's church
will advance still further and have the power to harm many. For such
also were those who plotted against the holy apostle Paul. They pro-
claimed Christ without sincerity, but for selfish ambition (Phil 1.17).
And while this persecution is flourishing, a pagan will unexpectedly
become king. He will reason (Dan 11.24) against the mystery of Christ
and endeavor, as far as he is able, to plot against Christians. But Christ
will put his plan to shame. For he has also spoken concerning him, «The
haughty scoffer, a boastful man, he will finish nothing (Hab 2.5).»
Therefore, we must call upon God to extend his mercy to the churches
for the salvation of all.»
§ 6. Theodore's catechesis. Ammon questions Theodore concerning the

date of the coming persecutions.
When he was asked by someone who those from [our] race were, he
said: «They are the discredited Arians.»
And having said these things, he sat down again under the palm tree.
And so it happened, since 1 had moved from the place where 1 had sat
down a short while before, that 1 was further from him. And while the
monks were conversing with one another in their own language,
Elourion, a man clothed in Christ (Rom 13.14), said to me in Greek:
«Arise and ask the man of God when these things will happen.» And
when he saw that 1 was afraid and trembling, he said to me: «Don't be
afraid. He is looking at you in a friendly manner, encouraging you.
Therefore, arise and ask.» And I, since 1 respected the man's age, was
further compelled. And when 1 saw the servant of God Theodore turn to
the blessed old man Elourion and me with a smile, being nudged by
Elourion, 1 arose.
And smiling, Theodore ordered the Alexandrian Theodore to trans-
late and through him said to me: «Say what you will, knowing that since
you were recently gathered in, you are like a new wine.»
And although 1 was struck with even greater fear, 1 asked: «When will
these things happen?»
And he said: «Have you not yet read the divine scriptures? For it is
written, There is the sound of the feet of rain (3 Kg 18.41). Therefore, 1
also say to you, <There is a sound of the feet of matters foretold.> You
will see these things and participate in them, experiencing both unpleas-
ant and pleasant things. For God will take pity on many souls. And
first, the persecution by the pagans will end, and then that which presses
upon the church from [our own] race will cease.»
5-9 163
§ 7. Theodore's catechesis ends. Ammon is assigned to the Greek house

and the catechesis is discussed there.
And while everyone was looking at me, the holy Theodore arose and
enjoined them all to prayer. And taking me by the hand, he entrusted me
to the Alexandrian Theodore and a certain Ausonius, who was his
second, as teachers and guides, saying to Ausonius: «Encourage him to
learn the divine scriptures. For he will not remain in the monastery, but
will become a servant of God's church.»
And they received me and led me into the house in which dwelt the
twenty Greek-speaking monks who were under them. After they had sat
down, they requested each [monk] to relate what he remembered of that
which was asked and what the holy Theodore had replied. And so, since
I heard each of the twenty, and after them also Ausonius and Theodore'
the Alexandrian, reporting what they remembered, and because I PQn-
dered [it all] in my heart (Lk 2.19), I was able to remember these things
that I have written down. For having been queried by me, the
Alexandrian Theodore explained to me on the spot the meaning of what
the great Theodore had said to each of his questioners.
And these things were said a little more than a year after Gallus, who
was called the new Constant ius, was proclaimed Caesar.
§ 8. Ammon asks Ausonius and Elourion to tell him more about

Theodore.
After that, whenever I heard the voice of the holy Theodore even
from afar, I was filled with either joy, or grief, or fear. And since I
wondered about which of these it might be, I inquired about these
feelings that I experienced. And I learned that others too experienced
the same thing as I. [So] I beseeched Ausonius in private and Elourion
alone to describe to me the facts about Theodore, the man of God. For I
did not yet have the courage to continually question the Alexandrian
Theodore. [In reply], each one said:
§9. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Pachomius receives the young

Theodore into his monastery.
«A certain Pachomius, when he was superior of these monasteries,
was pleasing to God. God honored him with remarkable gifts, making
many things known to him through revelation, speaking others in his
heart (Hos 2.16), and still others through [his] angels. And having left
the body six years ago, he dwells with the Lord (2 Cor 5.8).
Once, while he was sitting, he said to the monks around him: «We
sent the servant of God Pekyssius to Latopolis to aid the helpless there.
Now, while I was sitting here, an angel of the Lord informed me that
[Pekyssius] will return today, bringing with him a vessel chosen by God
(Acts 9.15). This [vessel] is a certain thirteen year old child named
Theodore, who is full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7.55).»
And after sunset, Pekyssius, a true friend of Pachom ius, arrived at the
monastery, bringing with him this holy Theodore. He was then, as I
said, thirteen years old. The holy Pachomius received him and brought
him up as his own son.
§ 10. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Pachomius' earthshaking

prayer and Theodore's reaction to it
«And when Theodore turned twenty-two, he was given a command
by Pachomius. And after he finished it, he was seeking the holy
Pachomius. As if led by the Holy Spirit, he approached the house in
which the monks used to eat, located near the monastery church. And as
he felt the earth quake, he heard Pachomius in prayer saying:
«God, who art rich in mercy, who feels remorse because of our
depravity, spare the race of men and increase still further your compas-
sion for us (Joel 2.13,17). And condemn neither the monks nor the
consecrated virgins by demanding an accurate accounting of [their]
vow. Likewise, do not condemn your people for the sake of the good
which you enjoined for us and implanted in us. But when you judge us,
compare us to the world prior to the advent of your only-begotten. For
in that way, you will not come into judgment with us (Ps 142.2), but
will wipe away our sins. For if you did not destroy the former world,
how can you not have mercy on your present people? Have mercy on us,
Master, having preserved us for yourself, and acquire us, having ceased
from [your] anger and wrath (Ex 32.12,14) on account of the blood of
your only-begotten, through whom we have been redeemed. For if you
frequently showed mercy to the Jews on account of Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob, how much more will you show mercy to us unceasingly on
account of the blood of your Christ (cf. Rom 5.9). We are servants of
your only-begotten, who has made us, who are his creatures, your
sons.»
And then immediately, when Pachomius said, «Have mercy,» and
added nothing else, the earth shook. And Theodore, with his face to the
ground, prayed in great fear until Pachomius cried out in a cheerful
voice and said: «Blessed art thou, Lord, who has saved our race, and
praiseworthy and full of glory forever, amen (Dan 3.55).»
And when the earthquake ceased and the light was no longer visible
to human eyes, Pachomius opened the door of the house and said to
Theodore, who had arisen: «Boldly you stood your ground. Now cry
unceasingly to God, so that he might extend his mercy to us (Ps 35.11),
apart from which creation cannot exist. Report these things to no one
9-12 165
while I am alive in the body.» We heard about them from Theodore

after Pachomius' death.
§ 11. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Theodore's vision of the trinity

«Seven days after having witnessed these events surrounding
Pachomius, while Pachomius was inspecting the other monasteries,
Theodore [remained] at the monastery of Bau, doing what the holy
Pachomius had entrusted to him. When he heard from some visitors
from Alexandria what the Arians were saying about the only-begotten
Son of God, he besought God to free the race of men from error.
And as he prayed, he saw [what looked] like three pillars of light,
entirely equal, having identity with one another. And he heard a voice
say to him: «Pay no attention to the distinction of the visible model, nor
to the individuality, but only to the identity. For there is no model in
creation that is capable of representing the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit.»
§ 12. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Theodore reports his vision to

Pachomius and Pachomius tells of his early vision against the heresies.
«And when Pachomius heard these things from Theodore, he said to
him: «As you were able to see and hear, so was it shown and spoken to
you.
«For I too was troubled when I took up the solitary life. At one time I
was called upon by the followers of Meletius the Lycopolitan, and at
another by those of Marcion, to join them and study their teachings.
And I learned that there were other groups, each of which claimed to
possess the truth.
«And with many tears, I besought God to reveal to me which ones
possessed the truth, for I was utterly confused. And while I was still
praying, I became ecstatic and saw everything under heaven as ifit were
night. And from different regions I heard a voice calling: <The truth is
here.> And I saw many following each voice, being led by one another in
darkness. And only in the eastern region of the world did a lamp appear
on high, shining like a morning star. And from there I heard a voice say
to me: <Do not be deceived by those who draw [men] into darkness, but
follow this light. For the truth is in it.> And immediately a voice arose
and said to me: <This lamp which you see shining like a morning star will
shine for you now more than the sun. For it is the proclamation of
Christ's gospel, which is proclaimed in his holy church in which you
were baptized. The one who is calling is the Christ in Alexander, the
bishop of the church of the Alexandrians. The other voices in the
darkness are those of the heresies. There is a demon in the leader of each
heresy, who calls and leads many astray.> And so, when I saw many in
shining garments running toward the lamp, I blessed God.
«And disregarding those who would lead me astray, I dwelt with the
man of God Palamon, who was an imitator of the saints, until an angel
of the Lord appeared to me and said: <Warm those who come to you
with the fire that God has kindled in you.> And guided by him, I
established these monasteries through God.»
«Know also that Athanasius, the bishop of the church of the
Alexandrians, is full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7.55).»
§ 13. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Pachomius' support of

Athanasius
«Pachomius said to us all on the occasion when Athanasius was
ordained bishop: «Good men do not criticize God's judgment con-
cerning him by bringing up his youthful age and hastening to divide the
church of God. For the Holy Spirit has said to me: Also, <Many tribulations and false
charges of men await him because of his true faith in Christ. But having
conquered every trial and being strengthened by him [Christ] until the
end, he will proclaim the truth of the gospel to the churches.>>>
§ 14. Ausonius' and Elourion's account. Theodore is fed by angels and

deemed worthy of revelation.
«After these events, Theodore was with Pachomius in the aforemen-
tioned monastery of the Tabennesiotes in the Tentyrite nome. And after
he had devoted himself privately to the nightly prayers and become
heavy with sleep, he began to walk about the monastery. And so at
night, unseen by man, he prayed for a short while. In due time, he finally
decided to rest [his] body. He sat down beside the door of the monastery
church and fell asleep, satisfying what is a requirement of nature alone.
And an angel of the Lord appeared and woke him up, saying:
«Follow me (Acts 12.7-8).» And arising and following him, he entered
the church and saw [it] completely filled with light. And a multitude of
angels were gathered together in the place where the priests offer service
to God. And he became frightened. And when he was summoned by one
of the assembled [angels], he approached. And a certain one in great
glory fed him an alien food. And having strengthened him, he ordered
him to consume what had been placed into his mouth. While he was
eating that food in accordance with the command of the one who had
given it to him and was experiencing an alien taste, he observed both the
light and the assembled angels departing.
Inspired, he hastened to see Pachomius, filled with joy and gladness.
And as he was relating these very things to him, [Pachomius], seeing his
12-16 167
secret [thoughts] through revelation, smiled as he spoke. And [then],

Pachomius said: «The one who received two talents brought back four,
and the one who received five talents returned ten (Mt 25.22,20).
Therefore, gird up your loins (1 Pet 1.13) and bear fruit for the one who
has given you grace (Rm 7.4).» And Theodore, groaning, asked him to
intercede for him before God. And from that day, he was deemed
worthy of frequent revelations from the Lord.
And Pekyssius, having heard these things from Pachomius, passed
them on to us after his death.»
§ 15. Ammon confirms Ausonius' and Elourion's account through

Pekyssius.
After 1 had learned these things from Ausonius and Elourion, 1
hurried to find God's servant, Father Pekyssius. And since 1 knew what
great power he had received from Christ against demons, 1 asked [him]
to tell me what Pachomius had said to him about Theodore. And when
he reported the same things, 1 marveled.
§ 16. Ausonius proves from scripture Theodore's ability to read hearts.

1 asked Ausonius whether a man really can see things hidden in
[other] men's hearts, [and] to convince me [of this] fully from the
scriptures.
And he said: «I will furnish you with the proof to realize that God
does reveal your secrets to Theodore. For without God's revealing, no
creature can know what is hidden in men's hearts. And so that you
might also be convinced from the scriptures, listen to what the prophet
Samuel says to Saul: Come and I will report to you all that is in your heart,
and about your asses that have been lost for three days. Do not worry about
them, because they have been found (1 Kg 9.19-20).
Read also the things that were said about Jesse's sons to Samuel by
the Lord (1 Kg 16.6-12), so that you realize that when the Lord reveals
to his servants, they see. And when he does not reveal, they see by
themselves only with respect to the ordinary capabilities of men.
For if you read the entire book of the kings' histories, you would also
hear the prophet Elisha speaking to his own servant concerning a
devout woman: Her soul is much grieved, and the Lord did not reveal [it]
to me (4 Kg 4.27), since God revealed the hearts of many to him. And
especially from what you would hear him say to his own servant: Where
are you coming from, Gehazi? And he answered, Your servant has gone
nowhere. And he said to him in turn, Was not my heart with you when
Naiman the Syrian lept down from his chariot to meet you? And you have
already received silver and garments. And you will get for yourselfgardens
and olive groves and vineyards and flocks and herds and manservants and
maidservants. And Naiman's leprosy will cleave to you and your seed
forever (4 Kg 5.25~27).
And it is written also in the proverbs of Solomon, Know well the
number of your flocks and keep your eye on your herds (Pr 27.23). And
again, A righteous man understands the hearts of the ungodly and dispises
the ungodly for [their] wickedness (Pr 21.22).
And it is also written in the Acts of the Apostles, And there was a
certain man sitting in Lystra, who was crippled from birth and had never
walked. He listened to Paul speaking. Paul, looking at him intently and
seeing that he hadfaith to be healed, said in a loud voice: Stand up on your
feet. And he lept up and walked (Acts 14.8~ 10). Now faith is seen in the
heart and not physically in the face.
Thus also Peter, seeing the wickedness of Simon the magician, not in
[his] physical face, but in [his] heart, said to him: I see that you are in the
gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity (Acts 8.23).»
And after I had heard these things from Ausonius, I took the books
and read them.
§ 17. Theodore disciplines Amaeis because of his secret thoughts and
leads him to confess.
And later, about midnight, I had an urgent need and went out of the
house while it was dark. And hearing Theodore's voice, I was so
frightened that I perspired, even though it was winter and I was wearing
only a flaxon cloth. For it was the month that the Egyptians call Tubi.
And then, because I knew the Theban dialect, he called me by name and
had me stand near him. And he said to a certain Theban monk named
Amaeis:
«Why don't you have the fear of God before [your] eyes (Ps 7.9)?
Don't you know that God examines hearts and minds (Rev 2.23)? Why
is it that when in your heart you see whores, you also embrace them, and
when [in your heart] you sleep with a lawful wife, you soil your whole
body (cf., Js 3.6)? Then you join the army and in your thoughts see
yourself as a victor in the battles; and you please the generals and
receive gold from them. And thinking about all of the things contrary to
the monastic vow, you have decided to do these things that you consider
in the body itself. But know accordingly, if you do not repent and
dedicate yourself to the fear of God, appeasing the Lord with tears, but
persevere in this resolve, the Lord will not prosper your way (Deut
28.29), but condemn you to eternal fire.»
And [Amaeis], falling down at his feet, declared himself to be so
disposed. And promising to repent, he besought Theodore to pray for
him.
And Theodore said: «May the Lord give you [the ability] to judge
yourself truly and, having repented, to be saved. For as I see it, your
16-18 169
heart has withdrawn from God. But if you wish, you can turn back. For
God receives those who sincerely return to him.» And having wept
greatly, he dismissed him.
And four months after he had withdrawn from the monastery and
given himself over to the armed conflict, Amaeis contracted a longlast-
ing case of dropsy. He died a year later, after having confessed these
things.
§ 18. Theodore heals a villager's daughter.

I once went with Theodore and some other brothers to the monastery
of the Tabennesiotes, where Theodore had seen his vision. And while we
were in the monastery garden by the river, about thirty villagers came to
him and prostrated themselves before him. And rejecting such [honor],
he made them stand up. And while they all wept, one of them entreated
him, saying: «Yesterday evening, I gave my fifteen year old daughter
away in marriage. And today, having been compelled to eat and con-
tracting colic, she lies speechless. As is plain for all who see, a poison
was put into her food or drink. And since the doctors who were
summoned gave her up [for dead], we entreat you: <Deign to take the
trouble to come to my house and pray for her.> For we know that if you
call upon Christ, he will give my daughter to you.»
But since he did not want to go to his house, he said to them as they
wept and pleaded: «You have asked that I go to your house to pray for
your daughter. But God, encompassing everything, fills everything (cf.
Sap 1.7). For he is not confined by space. Therefore, let us call upon him
here, and he will enliven your daughter there.» And all of the others
heard the statement as a pledge of the girl's life. Theodore, together with
all of the monks around him, began to pray. And after he had knelt and
earpestly besought God for the third time, he stopped and said: «God
has granted your daughter's life. Depart in confidence.»
And as the sound of a multitude of men and women arose around the
monastery (for she had been expected to die), the girl's father came
across the river, carrying a silver pitcher full of water. And weeping, he
brought it to Theodore and said: «I am of little faith and ask you
therefore to invoke the name of God upon this water for her. For I
believe that when God hears you, he will make this water a healing
medicine for my daughter.» And Theodore, taking the pitcher and
looking up to heaven (Mt 14.19), prayed in tears and made the sign of
the cross of Christ over the water.
And the girl's father took the water and departed with the crowd to
his own house. After three or four hours, he returned with a few friends
and relatives and reported the mighty works of God (Acts 2.11) that had
been wrought with it. He said: «My sisters were able to force open my
daughter's mouth for a moment so as to pour in some of the water. And

immediately, her bowels emptied and the girl was healed.»
A certain Silvanus, an Alexandrian, Arian stone merchant dwelling
in Bendideion, was with the girl's husband. And having been a witness
of the mighty works of God (Acts 2.11), he glorified God.
§ 19. Silvanus is stricken for mocking Theodore in his heart.

After this, Theodore took about one hundred and twenty monks and
led them to an island in the river to gather a material that the Egyptians
call thrya, used for making baskets. And among them was Silvanus, a
Theban, who was the leader of the twenty-two monastic weavers. His
second in this group was Macarius, an elder brother of the holy
Theodore. They had the same mother, though a different father.
And on the ninth day, one of the monks arrived and disclosed that
some of the monks that had left with Theodore had put Silvanus, close
to death, in a boat and were at the anchorage that lay before the signpost
of Bau; for we were then in this monstery. And when we went out to
meet him, we found them along the way carrying Silvanus on a stretch-
er. He was paralyzed, unable to hear or speak. Three days had passed
since he was struck with apoplexy.
And after he continued in this manner for another three days, taking
neither food nor drink, Theodore the Alexandrian and Pekyssius and
Psarphius and Psentaesius aI,ld Elourion and Isidore, men pleasing to
God, raised their hands to heaven (2 Macc 15.21) and with many tears
entreated God to have mercy on Silvanus. And while they were still
praying, I heard Silvanus say: «Blessed art thou God, who has disci-
plined me (Ps 93.12) and shown mercy to me.» And when I said in a loud
voice, «Blessed be God,» they ended the prayer. And with me helping,
Theodore fed him.
And at dawn, Silvanus requested that everyone in the monastery
come to him. And with me at his side, he sat up in bed. And with
Elourion repeating his words to the multitude in a loud voice, he said:
«Hear how this happened to me. On the fourth day of the week,
Theodore arose on the island and taught the brothers, who had en-
circled him. And when he finished, he moved away from where he stood
and pointed out two small vipers to the brothers and said: <Someone kill
them. For while I was speaking, they came around my feet. [And] so that
none of the brothers would be troubled, I hid them, using my feet as a
cover.>))
«And after they had been destroyed, he said that an angel had
appeared to him and said: <Some of the monks with you are neglecting
their salvation. And he told me the names of some. He also reported
God's sentence that is to be carried out against one of them, whom he
18-20 171
ordered expelled from the monastery. And this one is living at Bau.»>
«And as I listened to these things, I mocked Theodore in my heart,
saying: <Is not Macarius my brother? Didn't Macarius' mother also
bear this man? From where does he get this vainglory? Macarius is
much more humble!> And a figure appeared to me in human form,
[clothed] in shining garments and with a very fearful countenance, and
said: <Do you not even respect God, thinking such things against his
servant?> And having been confounded, I, with great shame, under-
stood. It was as if! had been slapped across the face by him. And then, I
no longer knew where I was or how I came to be there, until God healed
me.»
And when we had all heard [this], we glorified God.
§ 20. Certain erring monks revealed to Theodore by an angel are cor-

rected. One is expelled.
And after a few days, Theodore appeared at the monastery and called
the brothers together. And after he had addressed them, he told them to
await his return. Together with two of them, he went around the house
where the monks used to eat. And seizing a certain young monk who
was coming out of the house, he hauled him into a vaulted room and
compelled him to relate what he had done. He explained that he was the
one who had been pointed out by the angel and ordered expelled from the
monastery. As he did not want to speak, Theodore began to relate his first
act and asked whether he had another monk as a sympathizer. Falling at
Theodore's feet, he requested him to remain silent with respect to his
other acts and to expel [him] from the monastery. When he was taken by
Theodore to the assembled multitude of brethren, he confessed, stating
that God had indeed revealed these things concerning him to his servant
and that he had been justly ordered expelled from the monastery.
And after Theodore had expelled him and spoken to the brethren for
a long time, he went to each of the other monks that had been accused
by the angel in private at night. And by reporting to each one all of the
sins that he had committed since his holy baptism, he astonished each
and persuaded [them] to propitiate God with a further statement of
repentance. They, recognizing how God had spared them, were eager to
reveal themselves to all. But they were stopped by Theodore, who said
that most of the brothers could not bear such declarations. He added
that in addition to misleading those who are yet babes in Christ (1 Cor
3.1), it could become a trap for some of those who confess (cf. Rom
11.9), being added as a reproach against them by one of those who are
not yet firm [in Christ]. So each of them, having confessed in private to
the holy men around Pekyssius and Psentaesius, entreated [them] fur-
ther to pray to God in their behalf.
§ 21. A speech by Theodore elicits the confession of a monk who stole

food.
And these things happened during Lent.
During the days of holy week, late in the evening of the third day of
the week, after all of the monks from the eleven monasteries under
Theodore had assembled at Bau (for it was their custom to gather there
to celebrate the holy Easter festival), many asked Theodore to interpret
passages from scripture that they did not understand. After he had
clarified for each one, as he asked, what he wanted [to know], he said:
«It is right and well that I report [this] to you. An unclean spirit here
present has ridiculed one of us saying: <It is customary for monks not to
eat during the night. And this one was among those who did not eat
[during the night]. But, when I visited him [one] night and found him
hungry and very negligent (for it is the practice of demons that rely on
men's emotions to attack [in such circumstances]), I whispered ideas to
him and preyed on his hunger, persuading him to steal bread and eat it
in secret. And now, the thief is sitting in the midst of the monks as
though he were carrying on [the fast] with them, although he has
transgressed his own resolve.»)
And Theodore said to the monks: «Let no one force himself to fast
beyond his ability, since your bodies are weak from excessive asceti-
cism. Rather, let those who are very weak eat in the evening, except on
Friday.»
And the one [who had stolen the bread] arose in the middle of the
multitude of monks (for we were more than two thousand all together),
and falling down at Theodore's feet, informed against himself. But
covering his face with the melote, Theodore did not allow [him] to be
recognized by the multitude, saying: «Who is weak and I am not weak (2
Cor 11.29).»
§ 22. The frivolous behavior of four young monks is revealed to

Theodore.
Similarly once, the blessed Theodore went with forty brethren to
some uninhabited, mountainous areas to [gather] lumber. He sent out
an equal number of others [in a second group] for the same purpose,
placing over them Isidore, a man filled with all humility and under-
standing in accordance with Christ. And the distance separating them
was a day's journey.
And on the first day that Theodore's group had begun to cut wood,
they stopped work in the evening. And that same evening, when they
gathered together for the customary prayers, [Theodore] encouraged
them and said: «There is a need of which you are unaware that requires
us to finish the work that we've begun. However, since during the
21-23 173
twelfth prayer, as we knelt to the ground, the Holy Spirit revealed to me

that four of the monks on the other mountain, although they have been
brought up welI from childhood, have stumbled (they have decided,
through my own deficiency, to return completely to [their] former way
oflife), it is accordingly necessary to disregard this work and for both us
and those on the other mountain to be at Bau on the Sabbath.» And he
summoned two of the brothers, and after ordering them to telI these
things to no one, he sent them to the other mountain to direct those who
were with Isidore to be at Bau on the Sabbath.
And so, he arrived at the monastery at sunset on the Sabbath, leading
alI those who were with him. The others had returned earlier. And when
he found them alI assembled in the church, he made his appearance. For
it was his custom to instruct the monks at that time. Having stood up in
their midst, with Theodore the Alexandrian translating, he said:
§ 23. Theodore's speech against laughter corrects the four frivolous

brethren.
«You know, brethren, that the life of the monks and consecrated
virgins is angelic, surpassing the conduct of men. For those who lead
such lives have died to the ordinary lifestyle of men and live in the one
who died and was raised in their behalf (2 Cor 5.15). Having denied their
own life, they crucify themselves to Christ (Gal 2.20). And each of us,
having chosen this life and renounced the poverty of parents, came here.
So it is necessary to live in accordance with Christ, having those who
have gone before us as a type and model of this way. For God gave not
only the holy scriptures, but also the life of these, his servants, and the
foundation offaith in Christ (cf. 1 Tim 3.15), as ways leading into his
kingdom for all of us who desire to enter it.
«But there are some among us who, while running this race welI (2
Tim 4.7), have slipped but not falIen (Rm 11.1). For four of the
brothers who were sent to the mountain, when they found themselves
alone, began to speak frivolously to one another and to jest and so laugh
aloud that the Holy Spirit was grieved by them (Eph 4.30). He revealed
their names to me and [their] false step, so that by being turned to tears
and groans, they might restore themselves.
«Brethren, where have you put the voice of Jeremiah calling to God:
Lord Almighty, I did not sit in their assembly while they mocked, but I
feared the visage of your hand. I sat alone, because I was filled with
bitterness (Jer 15.17)? How did you forget Job, who says: If I too have
walked with the jesters (Job 31.5), may these grave things befall me? Or
how could you forget the words of Paul upon which you meditate
constantly? Don't you realize that God considers the small failures of
his servants as great ones for their salvation? Haven't you heard
Solomon saying: As the sound of thorns under a caldron, so is the laughter

offools (Ecd 7.7)? And again: I told laughter that it is mad (Ecd2.2).
And again: Anger is better than laughter (Ecd 7.4). Wherefore, having
come to your senses, listen to the apostle, who says: Let your laughter be
turned to mourning and your joy to dejection (J s 4.9), lest you suffer that
grave judgment of the Savior that says: Woe to you who laugh now,for
you will weep and mourn (Lk 6.25). Instead, take up eagerly the
voluntary mourning and weeping, since they are temporal, so that you
may avoid suffering the involuntary mourning and weeping that are
eternal. Let each of you call to God, I am ready for the scourge
(Ps 37.17).»
And while he was still speaking, the four, as if with a single mind even
though they were separated from one another, wailing and crying in a
loud voice, faced eastward and prostrated themselves before God,
stating that they were the guilty party and beseeching the multitude of
brethren to pray on their behalf. And after they had all prayed with
many tears, the synaxis ended in the usual way.
And those monks, having taken the words of the blessed Theodore as
a resource for their entire life, were so improved, that everyone in the
monastery held each of them as a type and model for salvation. For such
also was their life before this minor stumbling.
§ 24. Mousaios rebukes Theodore's authority and is expelled.

There was a certain Theban monk named Mousaios, who was under
Silvanus, whom I mentioned a little earlier. He was sent with Silvanus
and the other brothers under him to an island in the river to gather and
preserve charlock for the brothers' meals.
But on the fifth day that they were there, when he alone was sum-
moned by Theodore [to return], he refused, saying: «I will return with
all the brothers, when we have finished the work assigned to us.» And
so, he was taken back to the monastery against his will. There, he found
Theodore weeping bitterly in [his] cell, with Psentaesius and Isidore
standing by him. And Theodore, having been concerned about him for
a long time, said:
«Why wasn't the death of your body (for that would have been
better), but that of your soul reported to me? Did I not tell you when I
met alone with you in your cell night and day: <Your soul is cultivating
evil (cf. Job 27.4). You are considering many serious sins. Such thoughts
have certainly destroyed many.> And when you said that those
abominable thoughts were the suggestions of demons, I replied: <The
demons have not yet been allowed to set upon you. But you, by so
running riot, prepare a great pasture for the demons, drawing them
against you in [their] evil designs.> Did I not say to you: <In you has been
23-26 175
fulfilled the passage from Proverbs that says: Although a farmer is

ignorant and a vinedresser is poor in understanding, if you let him go,
everything will become dry and overgrown. And it will become deserted
and its stone fences will be razed (Pr 24.30-31).»)
And he said further: «Where has your evil way led you (Pr 16.29)?»
And when he said that he had no other further desire, save those which
Theodore knew about, [Theodore] said to him: «Then previously when
you sat in [your] cell, what did you think about and stir up in your
heart?» And when he said to him that they were the suggestions of
demons, Theodore said: «Until that hour, no demon had been allowed
to set upon you. But because you have stirred up such evil in your heart
and become an abode of demons, you dwell here in vain. For you have
been ordered expelled from the monastery.»
And handing him over to four young monks, he ordered them to take
him away to his own house. But when he came to the monastery gate,
because he was possessed, he set out for his own village, bellowing like a
bull, after he had been released by the four monks.
§ 25. Theodore's clairvoyant knowledge of Karour's death

Near Ptolemais in the Thebaid was a monastery that Theodore had
built and filled with monks. Among them was one named Karour,
which means dwarf among the Thebans. Theodore frequently chastised
him for being neglectful of the nightly prayers. And [this monastery]
was a great distance from the monastery ofBau, in which Theodore was
sitting after sunset among all the brethren. And suddenly, being filled
with joy, he said:
«I announce to you the mercy that God has shown to Karour (cf. Lk
1.72), who dwelt in Ptolemais. For just now, having removed his soul
from his body, he [God] has taken it to heaven in great glory, because he
[Karour] possessed an exactness of ecclesiastical doctrines and, together
with his other fine qualities, kept the body pure. For he has wiped away
his other defects with respect to the various diseases that have befallen
him.»
And eight days later, when two brothers from there arrived and
reported the day and hour in which Karour had fallen asleep, they
amazed us all.
§ 26. Theodore corrects Patchelphius for teaching against the resurrec-

tion of the flesh.
And once, when Theodore had all the brothers together, he said to
Psarphius, who was first among all those at Bau: «Send to Patchelphius'
cell and have him come here together with the youth that is with him in
his cell. And summon also his elder son.»
And when they arrived, Theodore said to Patchelphius: «Tell [me]

what you were teaching this youth during the night.» And he said:
«What was I teaching him? The fear of God.» Theodore said: «God
himself, through an angel, has informed against you. Therefore, tell the
truth, whether indeed your teaching is a light.»
But since he refused, Theodore said to all: «He was teaching him that
there is no resurrection of the flesh, reproaching the nature of the flesh.»
Then, as he said to Patchelphius, «Say whether it is so or not,»
Patchelphius' son cried out and said: «He also persuaded me to think
about these things last evening.»
And a certain monk named Or, who was a eunuch from birth,
outspokenly said to Theodore: «Remember the deceived youth.»
Theodore said: «Both the soul of this youth and of Patchelphius' son
were like steel and accepted none of his teaching.» And he said to the
youth: «God has accepted your resolve.» And he ordered the one in
charge of the house in which the youth dwelt not to chastise him now for
having left the house secretly at night against his will.
Then, he prolonged [his] speech to Patchelphius from the holy scrip-
tures concerning the resurrection of our flesh from the dead. And when
he insisted that this mortal flesh of ours must rise from the dead in glory,
immortal and incorruptible (cf. 1 Cor 15.52-54), Patchelphius, weeping
before the multitude of the brothers (for what had been said by
Theodore was sufficient to lead him back to the faith), prostrated
himself. He embraced the ecclesiastical doctrines and besought
everyone to pray in his behalf, so that God might wipe away even this
sin of his. And while all the brothers were praying with joy,
Patchelphius confessed in a loud voice to God with many tears.
§ 27. Theodore heals Patrikius who was bitten by an asp.

And once, we made a voyage with Theodore to an island to gather
firewood. And while we Greek-speaking monks were still in [our] boat,
Theodore, who had disembarked from another boat with most of the
monks (for he had left before us), began to pitch a tent with them.
But a certain large boy named Patrikius, who came from Myra in
Lycia, cried out aloud in our boat and called for help. And we saw a
large black asp that had sunk [its] teeth into the flat part of his right foot.
And a certain young Theban monk who was with us in the boat,
grabbed the beast by the tail, tore it with difficulty from Patrikius' foot,
and struck it against the side of the boat, killing it. He threw it dead into
the river.
And as Patrikius wept, we all supposed that he would suddenly drop
dead. But Theodore appeared and made the sign of the cross of Christ
26-29 177
over the wound made by the beast's teeth. And he said to Patrikius, who
was weeping: «Don't be afraid. Christ will heal you (cf. Acts 9.34).»
And some of the monks were saying the next day: «Not believing
Theodore, we had expected Patrikius to die during the night. But since
we see him healthy, we bless Christ and marvel at Theodore, because he
is so acceptable to him.»
And the one who had killed the beast remained unharmed.
§ 28. Theodore's revelation concerning the forgiveness

of post-baptismal sins
And after most of the other monks from Bau had arrived at the island
by boat, there were three hundred of us. And about the eighth hour of
the twenty-sixth of Athur, Theodore called us all to gather around him.
And having told the Alexandrian Theodore to translate, he said to us
all:
«God revealed to me what I have to say long ago. And he enjoined me
to remain silent until now. But now, he has ordered me to arise and tell
you. And this is it. In almost every place in which the name of Christ is
preached, many have sinned after holy baptism. Because they retain the
apostolic faith in which we too stand, they have wept over their sins.
And the Lord, having accepted the genuineness of their repentance, has
wiped away their sins. Accordingly, as many of you as have, until today,
wept genuinely over the sins that you have committed after baptism,
know that you have found forgiveness. Wherefore, let each of us give
thanks to the Lord for his mercy (Ps 106.8) and say: «You have turned
my mourning into joy for me. You have torn offmy sackcloth and girded
me with gladness (Ps 29.11).»
§ 29. A letter from Antony arrives supporting Theodore's revelation.

At about the tenth hour, after he had encouraged the brethren with a
further statement, Theodore summoned four of the brothers by name
and with all of us listening, said to them: «Our brothers who are coming
with Theophilus and Kopres from Alexandria are drawing near. And
lest they pass by us in ignorance, go to the cape of the island and wave to
those in the first boat that comes around the bend in the river, so that
they might drop anchor at the island. Theophilus, who is steering,
knows the safe harbor and will put in there.»
And after the brothers had departed and waited a short while, they
saw the boat coming around the bend. And when they recognized
Theophilus steering, they were amazed. After they had waved to them
and made it clear that Theodore was on the island, they came and
reported that the boat had arrived.
And all of us were amazed. We followed Theodore, who proceeded to

the anchorage and received the monks as they disembarked from the
boat and greeted them with a holy kiss (Rm 16.16). After the greeting,
having been encircled by us all, he said to them: «You who are arriving
rejoice. For you have seen our father Antony.» And they said: «He has
written to you through us.» And they gave him the letter. After he had
read it and become full of joy, he gave the letter to Elourion and ordered
him to read it aloud to the brethren. And once again, Theodore the
Alexandrian translated, for it was written in the Egyptian language.
And it went as follows:
«Antony, to [his] beloved son Theodore, greetings in the Lord. I
know that the Lord God will do nothing without first revealing a teaching
to his servants, the prophets (Am 3.7). And I didn't think that it was
necessary for me to disclose to you what God had revealed to me long
ago. But when I saw your brothers with Theophilus and Kopres, he
enjoined me to write to you, disclosing that almost everywhere there are
many who, although they worship Christ in truth, have sinned after
being baptized and have wept and mourned [because of it). God has
accepted [their] weeping and mourning. He has wiped away the sins of
all those who have so conducted themselves, until the day in which this
letter is given to you. Therefore, read it to your brothers, so that they too
might hear it and rejoice. Give greetings to the brothers. The brothers
[here] send you greetings. I pray to the Lord that you may have good
health.»
And when all of us present heard these things, we prostrated ourselves
before God and wept so bitterly, that after the priest who was there had
finished the prayer, Theodore said: «Believe me when I say that every
spiritual creature in heaven has also rejoiced over this weeping of yours.
For God, having accepted your prayer, has wiped away the sins of some
of the monks here amongst us now, who have wept so bitterly. Because
he had foreknowledge of these monks, he spoke thus, as both I said and
our father Antony wrote.»
And after we had all been filled with great joy, Theodore said to me:
«Ammon, the things spoken by us here in private, and whatever else you
have seen and heard amongst us, you will proclaim publicly and in the
streets (Mt 6.5).»
§ 30. Ammon's departure from Pabau

And after I had spent three years in the monastery, a friend of my
father saw me at the monastery gate with the servant of God Besarion,
who was the monastery gatekeeper at the time. He called and said that
my mother had grieved from the day that I left home, and that my
29-32 179
father, having gone around to all the monasteries in Egypt and

Augustamnique and failing to find me, mourned me for dead.
When I heard this, I asked the man of God Theodore to send two
monks along with me, so that I might see my mother and after having
comforted her, return with them. And he said to me: «Your mother has
become a Christian, and henceforth, you will dwell in those parts.
Wherefore, I advise you to dwell in the Mountain of Nitria. For there
are in that place above all, holy men, well pleasing to God.» And he
mentioned Theodore, the [disciple] of the holy Amoun (for he was still
clothed in the body then [2 Cor 5.6]), and Elourion and Ammonius, who
fell asleep soon afterwards, and the holy Pambo and God's servant Pior,
who had received the gift of healing (1 Cor 12.9) from the Lord, and the
holy men with them, whose names I have passed over in silence, lest I
make [this] letter too long.
And as I was sent on my way by him, I kissed him good-by with many
tears and asked him to pray for me, so that having departed, I might see
my parents. And after I had seen them, I dwelt in the Mountain of
Nitria.
§ 31. Ammon reports Theodore's prophecy concerning the Arian perse-

cution to the Nitriote monks.
And six months later, after the blessed pope Athanasius had been
exiled by the Arians in the days of Constant ius, and the holy monks then
in Egypt and Alexandria, as well as the consecrated virgins and zealous
laymen, were suffering many evils and being beaten to death; and the
bishops of Egypt had been banished by the Egyptian duke Sebastian,
who had succeeded Syrianus, who murdered many consecrated virgins
with arrows in the church of the holy bishop Theonas, and by Artemius,
who had succeeded Sebastian; and while many were dying under the
scourge, and after the holy bishops of the West had been banished, and
wholly unspeakable evils were being wrought by the Arians (for they
had the cruel George as [their] leader), I reported to those around Pior
and Pambo and to the other priests in the Mountain of Nitria, what the
man of God Theodore had said concerning this persecution; namely,
that it will be severe, and then it will end.
§ 32. A letter from Theodore concerning the Arian persecutions arrives

at Nitria.
And while the Arians were advancing in evil, four monks, sent by
Theodore, arrived at the Mountain of Nit ria with a letter for the monks
in the mountain. They, following Theodore's instructions, sought after
me. And when they found me on the eve of the Sabbath, they gave me
the letter. And on the next day, which was the Lord's day, I read [it]
aloud, first to the priests in private, and then, with their permission, to
the whole multitude of monks. It went as follows:
«Theodore to the blessed brethren in the Mountain of Nitria, priests,
deacons, and monks, greetings in the Lord. I want you to know that the
Arians' arrogance has reached up to God (cf. Ps 73.23). And God,
having looked upon his people and seen the tribulations that they
endure, has had pity on them. And he has promised to show mercy and
free his church from these tribulations. Therefore, the time will come
when the church will be free from these persecutions. For God said
concerning the Arians: And I will take vengeance on Babylon and bring
forth what she has swallowed out of her mouth (Jer 28.44). And concern-
ing the church: Who is there among you who has seen this house in its
former glory? For great will be the glory ofthis house; the latter more than
the former (Hag 2.3,9). Therefore brethren, since you have these prom-
ises, encourage those who are afflicted by them [the Arians] in those
parts, lest someone's faith should waver. For the sins of the Arians have
not yet reached their end. The brothers with me send you greetings. May
the Lord protect you in good health, beloved brethren.»
And after I had read these things, all the brothers glorified God. And
one of the priests, a man named Hagius, said to me smiling: «Now we
say to you, it is no longer because ofyour words that we believe (In 4.42).»
And Isaac, surnamed Chrysogonus, then a monk in the Mountain of
Nitria, but later appointed a deacon by the most holy bishop Isidore of
the church of Hermopolis parva, took this letter from me at the direc-
tion of the priest Heraclides, so that he could send it to the most holy
bishop Dracontius, who was then in exile. And I think that our God-
beloved brother and fellow servant Dioscorus, who succeeded Isidore,
could find it if he looked.
§ 33. Theodore's prophecy concerning Julian and the persecutions is

fulfilled.
And in the ninth month of the sixth year after Athanasius had been
driven out [of office], when the idolatrous man Julian became emperor,
he banished the pope Athanasius to the Thebaid. But, after he had
threatened the Christians with many things, his life was cut short in
Persia. He was unable to bring to an end all that he had threatened
against the Christians, so that all of us who heard Theodore might
glorify God, because, after so many years, we have seen the things that
he said fulfilled, and so that we might all, without doubt, expect that
even the madness of the Arians against us would end; which, after so
many years, we now see happening.
32-34 181
§ 34. Athanasius' report concerning Theodore

Now, 1 have undertaken to write these things in obedience to your
holiness' command. 1 have passed over many things that 1 saw while
with Theodore, which many could not bear to hear. 1 feared lest my
letter might somehow fall into the hands of novices and those who are
yet babes in Christ (1 Cor 3.1).
And since, when the blessed pope Athanasius returned, he said
something about Theodore in the great church in the presence of your
humble servant and the other clerics of the church of the Alexandrians
to Ammonius of blessed memory, who was bishop of Elearchia, and to
Hermon, bishop of Boubastis (I believe that your holiness was also
present then and heard it), it is necessary for the memory of your
piousness that 1 write down what he said. While the above mentioned
bishops were marveling about the blessed Antony (for Ammonius had
often met with him), Pope Athanasius said to them:
«I also saw great men of God in those times: Theodore, the beloved of
the Tabennesiote monks, and a monk from around Antinoe named
Father Apa Pammon, who have recently fallen asleep. For after 1 had
been expelled by Julian and was expecting to be killed by him (for this
had been disclosed to me by true friends), these two came to me one day
in Antinoe. And since 1 decided to hide with Theodore, 1 boarded his
boat, which was covered on all sides. And Apa Pammon accompanied
us. And when the wind failed, 1 was anxious and prayed in my heart.
The monks with Theodore got out and towed the boat.
«And 1 said to Apa Pammon, who was comforting me in my anxiety:
<Believe me when 1 say, 1 have never been so sure of my heart in
peacetime as in the times of persecution. For 1 have confidence that if!
should die while suffering for Christ (cf. Phil 1.29) and being
strengthened by his mercy, 1 will find still greater mercy with him (Num
11.15).> And while 1 was sill speaking, Theodore looked intently at Apa
Pammon and smiled. And when Apa Pammon nearly laughed, 1 said to
them: <Why do you laugh when 1 say these things? Do you condemn my
cowardice ?>
«Theodore said to Apa Pammon: <Tell him why we smiled.> And after
Apa Pammon replied, <You ought to tell [him],> Theodore said: <In
this hour, Julian has been killed in Persia. For God had so prophesied
concerning him: The haughty scoffer, a boastful man, he will finish
nothing (Hab 2.5). And a Christian king will arise. He will be splendid,
but shortlived. Wherefore, you should not trouble yourself to go to the
Thebaid, but proceed secretly to the court. For you will meet him on the
way. And after you have been sincerely received by him, you will return
to the church. And he will be taken up quickly by God without further
ado.>
«And so it has happened. Whence, I believe that many men, well

pleasing to God, are certainly hidden among the monks. For they too
were [seeking to] escape notice, just like the blessed Amoun and the holy
Theodore, who dwelt in the Mountain of Nitria, and God's servant, the
elderly Pambo.»
§ 35. Athanasius approves Ammon's report.

And while bishop Ammonius was marveling at the blessed Pior and
Elourion and Ammonius and Isidore, the priest of the anchorites, and
the holy Macarius, all of whom your holiness has seen in the Mountain
of Nitria, [Athanasius] asked me about the holy anchorites in Scetis,
Paesius and Paul and Psoios, his brothers, and Isaias and Pesyrus and
Isaac and Paul, and in had seen the Theban Theodore. And when I said
that I had dwelt with Theodore for three years, he ordered me to relate
whatever I had seen while with Theodore. And when I told him some of
the things written above (for I shortened the account to his holiness), the
pope marveled and said: «Because I have tested the man, I believe that
these things are really so.»
§ 36. Postscript
Now that I have written to your holiness also what I heard from the
blessed pope Athanasius, I put foreward the request that you be so good
as to pray for me at all times, requesting that God's mercy always be
upon me. Greet the brethren with you. Those with me send greetings to
your holiness. May the all holy God of all, to his own glory, protect you
in good health and praying in my behalf for many years for the
churches, master and beloved brother.
§37. Theophilus' reply

Theophilus to my lord and beloved brother and fellow servant
Ammon, greetings in the Lord.
Knowing the ardor of your piety, I praise you for the remembrance of
the saints. You gladden us also because you have sent in writing the
things that have been heard by us often orally. May it now come to pass
that you and we all have a share and association with the blessed
Theodore. For by not having ignored our request, but having given even
in this, you have helped us, beloved and dear [brother]. Greet the
brotherhood with you. The brotherhood with us sends you greetings in
the Lord. May you have good health in the Lord, beloved and dear
brother.
NOTES ON THE TEXT
§1
124.1-2 'E1tlcHoA:t't- 0EOOOOpOU] The title is set off in all three manu-
scripts (F, t, and r). So is the title ofTheophilus' response in § 37 in F and
r. t has broken off before § 37. In F, the title is further distinguished
through the use of capital letters.
The identity of Ammon is not known. Although some interesting
suggestions have been made,l no certain connection with any figure
outside of the letter can be made. The name occurs only here, once in the
letter proper (152.18), and again in Theophilus' reply, where it is mis-
spelled (158.1). The title E1ticrxo1to<; appears only here. His probable
inclusion among the Alexandrian clergy (xAT]ptxrov 'tfj<; f\AE~avopf;rov
I';xxA T]cria<; 155.21) and his designation as a cruAAEt'toupyo<; with Theo-
philus (158.1) point to an official position.
The title of the letter is secondary. The inclusion of Pachom ius, who is
not mentioned in the letter until § 9, undoubtedly occurred to facilitate
the identification of the lesser known and common named Theodore.
Pachomius' name does occur in the opening sections of the t redaction.
It has apparently been introduced, together with the appropriate chang-
es to the plural (124.5-6, 8, etc.), under the influence of the title (supra,
p.55).
In F, no mention of the addressee is found. His identity is learned only
through his response that survives in § 37. It is never explicitly stated
that this Theophilus is the archbishop of Alexandria, although the editio
princeps brought him as such into the title of the work (supra, p.24).
In t, the addressee appears in the title as 1tpo<; nva SEOq>tAfj. Lefort
had read 1tpo<; nva SEoq>tAov and argued that the indefinite pronoun
would not have been used for the archbishop, and therefore, another
Theophilus must be assumed. 2 Favale, on the other hand, argued that
the numerous honorific titles referring to this Theophilus in the letter
(124.9,11; 155.16,24,25; 157.20,24) suggest his identification with the
archbishop.3 In view of the frequent use of the indefinite n<; in monastic
literature in general, and in the Ep Am in particular, Lefort's position
seems untenable (supra, p. 116).4 In the Ep Am, it is used to describe
1 Ladeuze, Etude 109 n. 2; Robertson, NPNF 4.487.

2 Lefort, Les vies copIes LII; Halkin, «Revue: Lazzati» 400.
3 Favale 223.
4 Chitty, «Review: Veilleux» 197.
184 Notes on the text
both Pachomius (130.1) and Theodore (130.10), as well as various other

monks introduced for the first time (129.4; 139.11 in t only; 146.9;
149.22,25).
Halkin has raised the more difficult question of the linkage of the
actual phrase 1tp6~ nvu B-£OqnA:i; with the proper name Theophilus. 4a
The adjective 3£OqnAt; refers to an unnamed «friend of God.» While
Halkin's reading of the adjective is certainly correct, it is hard to dismiss
Favale's contention that the lofty references in the letter to the ad-
dressee support his identification with the archbishop. A clever play on
words is not out of the question. It is unfortunate that t breaks off before
the end, and thus we do not know whether it preserved the response by
Theophilus found in F. While this response is admittedly secondary to
the original letter, so too is the title in t. Thus, any connection of the title
in t with the original is problematic. Furthermore, Lefort's basic argu-
ment that the Ep Am is apocryphal would be better supported by the
equation of Theophilus with the archbishop. In place of the pseudepi-
graphic practice of attributing the piece to a famous author, its connec-
tion with a famous addressee would be important. 5 On the positive side,
Ammon's closing words, addressed to Theophilus, 8i:(mO'tu uyuinu'tE
U8EA<pi:, in view of his own standing as a bishop, argue for the identifica-
tion of the addressee as the archbishop. Finally, other late Pachomian
material does connect Theophilus with the Pachomians (supra, p.118).
124.4 JltJlTJ'tit~ yi:vEcr3at] The importance of this concept in Christian-
ity in general and in early monasticism in particular is well known. 6 The
basic view that one is improved by imitating his superior (v. Clement of
Alexandria, Strom 7.86.6) was fundamental to the ordering and preser-
vation of the various forms of the monastic life. The process, involving a
moral effort, has its origins in the imitatio Christi (1 Cor 11.1), though it
quickly came to include the prophets, angels, apostles (1 Cor 4.16;
11.1), martyrs, and saints in general.
The imitation of the saints was an integral aspect of Pachomian
monasticism. 7 In Ep Am 12, Palamon is described as an imitator of the
saints (133.15), as is Pachomius elsewhere (e.g., G1.36). It was the
expected behavior of the monks in general (G1.17; Lib Hor 6,44).
4. Halkin, Le Corpus Athenien 9.

5 Contra Lefort, Les vies copleS LXI.
6 Frank, ArrEAIKOL BIOL 1-1t.
7 Bacht, Das Vermiichtnis 67 n. 14; P. Tamburrino, «Die Heiligen des Alten Testa-
ments in der t. Katechese des heiligen Pachomius,» Erbe und Auftrag 45 (1969) 50-56;
Uta Ranke-Heinemann, «Zum Motiv der Nachfolge im friihen Monchtum,» Erbe und
Auftrag 36 (1960) 335-347.
124.4 185
With the passing generations and the growing view that the monastic
ideal was in decline, 8 the fathers are singled out as a source to follow and
imitate. 9 Thus, Athanasius presents Antony as a model for imitation
(V.Ant 89, 14, 38; G1.136). Pachomius functioned in the same way for
his followers (G1.99, 136; Theodore, Catech 3 = CSCO 160.43, 50, 53).
Likewise, in the final chapter of the Vita prima (G1.150; cf. S3b Lefort,
Les vies coptes 348.7-8), Athanasius, in response to Theodore's death,
asserts that the monks should not weep over his memory, but emulate
his life (sllAOlYtO) 'tOY ~iov au'tou). Ep Am 23 records that the monks
who have gone before serve as a type and model for the life in accord-
ance with Christ. 10
The use of this common idea by Ammon to open his letter calls forth
the moral endeavor of JltJlll'tiJ~ yi vc0'3m in the reader. It is part of the
genre and the raison d'etre for the creation of this literature. In Palla-
dius' letter that he sent along with his book to Lausus, the moral factor
is underlined. He asserts that while others gape for vain things and build
with stones that will not make them happy, Lausus desires to be taught
with truly edifying wordsY In the prologue to HL, the point is made
that the accounts were written not to glorify the saints, but to edify the
reader. 12 The later foreword added to some mss. of H L 13 states explic-
itly that the book was written for emulation and imitation (1tpO~ si'iAOV
xai Jli Jlll 0'1 v).
The prologue to the alphabetical collection of the Apophthegmata
Patrum states that the book is meant for emulation, instruction, and
imitation (1tpO~ si'iAOV xai 1tat8ciavxai JliJlllO'1V).14 The Historia Mo-
nacho rum reports in its prologue that the stories are offered as a model
and fitting guide for the good life (tl1t68ctYJla sO)i'i~ uya3i'i~ xai
uqnlYllO'1v ixavTJv).15 Finally, the V.Ant was written in response to a
request from foreign monks who were seeking to emulate Antony (iva
xai 1tpO~ 'tOY EXclVOU si'iAOV f:aU'tou~ UyuYll'tc).16
8 Gl.131; Asc 17; Pachomius, Catechesis 1, CSCO 160.20-21,25; Karour's prophecy,
CSCO 160.100-108. In the Apophthegmata Patrum (alphabetical collection), Elias 2, 8;

Isaac 7; Macarius the Great 25; Felix 1. Holl, Enthusiasmus 131.
9 AP John the eunuch 4; Socrates, Hist eccl. 4.23.
10 Frank, ArrEAIKOL BIOL 4.

11 Butler, Lausiac History 2.6.1-3.
12 Ibid 2.11.21-22.
13 Ibid. 2.3.3; 182; R. Draguet, «L'inauthenticite du proemium de I'Histoire

Lausiaque,» Museon 59 (1946) 529-534.
14 PG 65.72A.
15 A. J. Festugiere, Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. Edition critique du texte grec.

Subsidia Hagiographica 53 (Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1961) p. 5.
16 PG 26.837 A.
From this brief summary, it is clear that the presence of this concept
in the opening of Ammon's letter is no accident. It is part of the genre,
supplying both the spiritual raison d'etre for the composition and
calling for an existential commitment on the part of the reader.
124.4-5 'tov 'tE uv3pomov 'tOU 3£Ou 0£oo(Opov] This epithet is trans-
ferred to Pachomius in t as part of that manuscript's effort to bring
Pachomius' name into the opening sections of the letter to conform with
its presence in the title. It is never used of Pachomius elsewhere in the
letter. This is another argument in favor of the secondary nature of t.
The title is used for Palamon (133.14-15), and elsewhere again for
Theodore (125.9-10; 129.23; 152.28; 153.27). Theodore also receives
the titles 6 OOUAO~ 'tOU 3£Ou (125.7) and 6 3£pu1t(Ov 'tOU 3£Ou (127.9;
128.12).
The title is frequent enough in the Pachomian corpus, though cer-
tainly not as common as the standard 1tunlP (€H1n) or a~~a~ (Am. ).17
Theodore both uses the epithet (G1.142) and is himself characterized by
it (G1.130). Pachomius also bears the title in the Vita prima (G1.30, 42,
112), though it is applied in these three cases by non-Pachomian monks.
It occurs more frequently in the Bohairic life (cf. Bo 42 = S4.42 =
G1.42). It is, of course, frequent in the other monastic sources. IS
124.7 'tpt£'tfj Xpovov] Ammon's three years at Pabau spanned the
period from mid 352 until mid 355 A. D., at which point he left for
Nitria (§ 30). The dates are determinable from the reference in § 7
(129.17-18). It is stated there that Ammon's entry into Pabau took place
a little over a year after Gallus was proclaimed Caesar. This latter event
is dated to the Ides of March, 351 A. D.19 Ammon's departure in mid
355 is supported not only by his reference to having remained at Pabau
for three years, but also by his dating of his departure some six months
before Athanasius' exile under Constantius (§ 31). Although Athana-
sius was already condemned at the Council of Milan in 355, he was not
forced to leave the city until the night of February 8-9, 356. 20 Six
months prior to this latter date, surely the date supported by Ammon's
use of the term ot(OX3tv'to~ (153.15), places his departure from Pabau in
mid 355 A.D.
124.8-9 fuu - XUH1~tro311v] The punctuation supplied in all three
manuscripts places the 1t£pi ulnou with the preceding clause. The
17 Ruppert 282.
18 For example: V. Ant §§70, 71,93; G1.120; AP Gelasio 2; HL 9, where Melania is
termed a female man of God.
19 Infra, Notes on the text 129.17-18.
20 Infra, Notes on the text 153.14-15.
124.4-5-124.8-9 187
passage is further clarified by t through the addition of a second fua

phrase before uxip<.oa.
The distinction between the eyewitness accounts and the secondary
evidence gleaned from others has played an important role in the
scholarly discussion of the letter. 21 The non-eyewitness material, an
account of Theodore's life before Ammon's arrival gleaned from Auso-
nius and Elourion, is contained in §§ 9-14. Section 8 introduces it, and
§ 15 supports it through a secondary witness (supra, p. 108).
The question of the varying historical value of these two parts is
overdrawn. Since hagiography and not historiography is the concern
and goal of the author in reporting the IlEyaAEia 'tou eworopou, such
distinctions become extremely tenuous. There is no distinction in form
between the two sections that can be used to support one over against
the other. The expanse of time and altered situation of the author
between his witnessing of the events and their recording can easily
account for as much change and development in the material as the oral
transmission of the secondary accounts before Ammon heard them. 22
The witnessing was done by a newly converted, doctrinally naive,
seventeen year old lad (§ 2), who was struck with awe by Theodore (§ 8).
The written version was produced by a practiced Nitriote monk, an
elder bishop of the church and friend of the archbishop, who was
involved in the defense of the faith. It was written some four to five
decades after the events. One obvious result of this was the attribution
of Nitriote practices to the Pachomian monks (supra, pp.114-116).
The use of secondary sources was necessary and common in this
literature. The Vita prima is stated to have been put together from
accounts that the author(s) gleaned from the older fathers who had
known Pachomius (G1.10,46,98). Palladius presents his HL as contain-
ing both accounts of events that he had witnessed himself, and others
that he had heard about (rov 'tE f:ropaxa xai 1tEpi roy uxipioa).23
Likewise, Athanasius wanted to consult some older monks who had
known Antony before composing his vita, but did not have time to do so
before the mail ship sailed (V.Ant prologue). He was, nonetheless,
understood to have used other sources (G1.99). Peeters saw Ammon's
conference with Ausonius and Elourion as only natura1. 24
21 Supra, pp.25-26, 106.

22 It is possible that Ammon was using written material here (supra, pp.110-112).
But even if this is so, Ammon so altered it as to make it part of his own creation. The
validity of both parts remains the same when one considers the time allowed for
development in either case.
23 Butler, Lausiac History 2.10.3-4, 47.25f.
124.10-11 htE1Elxme; -1tollicrat] Calling upon God for aid in compos-

ing is not uncommon (e.g., Origen, De oratione 2.6). Ammon's concern
for accuracy and truth is aimed at defending the accounts before they
begin. This concern is met with frequently in the letter (supra. p. 108).
124.11-1214> npocr1uYIlan - OTJA&] Ammon's letter was composed in
response to a request. The addressee had heard oral reports of Theodore
(124.4-7; 158.4-5) and desired to have them in writing. This fits well with
this period when oral tradition was giving way to the written word. 25 It
is clear that the oral accounts of the desert fathers were in circulation.
They led to the fame of various figures, as well as to charges of exaggera-
tion and inaccuracy (G 1.112). It was, in part, concern for the latter that
led to the requests that resulted in our literature (Ep Am 35; V.Ant
prologue).
The reference to the author's haste is part of the polite response to the
request (V.Ant prologue).
Excursus: The Ep Am and the Vita Antonii

Lefort suggested that Ammon may have been imitating the V.Ant or
HL. 26 It is not to be doubted that Ammon knew the genre and most
likely had read the V.Ant. As a bishop and acquaintance of Athanasius
(§§ 34-35), it is only natural to assume that he had read the V.Ant. The
rapid dissemination of the vita is well known. It was certainly the
impetus behind the Vita Pachomii (G1.2, 99).27
Particularly noteworthy are the number of structural parallels be-
tween the Ep Am and the VAnt. Both are sent as letters in response to a
request (V.Ant prologue; Ep Am 1; cf., HL prologue). Both present the
reader with the existential demand to model his life after the saints
involved (V.Ant prologue, 94; Ep Am 1,23). Both are concerned lest
their accounts be disbelieved (V.Ant prologue; Ep Am 1, 35), and both
«hasten to write your reverence» (V.Ant prologue, YPU'I'at 1ij EUAa~Ei~
UIl&V tcr1tODoacra; Ep Am 1, 14> 1tpocr1UYllan 1lie; crlie; 6crt61TJlOe; 10
ixavov 1tOllicrat crnououcrae;). Furthermore, both refer to eyewitness
accounts and those gleaned from others (V.Ant prologue; Ep Am 1 ; cf.,
HL prologue).
25 Cf., Crum, Der Papyruscodex 65-66. Here, Theophilus is in the process of obtain-
ing a Life of Pachomius and Theodore from Horsiesius.
26 Lefort, Les vies coptes LXI; Henry Melvill Gwatkin, Studies in Arianism
(Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1882) 101; Robertson, NPNF 4.487.
27 One can note the parallel early struggle with the demons in the life of either saint. V.
Ant. 5-10; GI.18-19=Bo 21; Pachomius, Catechesis 1, CSCO 159.3; Chitty, «Once
more» 57.
124.10-11-124.13-18 189
In the later chapters, some further parallels are detected. Ammon is

moved by a sermon of Athanasius' which extols the monastic life and
the hope laid up for the monks in heaven (Ep Am 2 quoting Col 1.5).
Antony's call, though not occasioned by a sermon, was equally as
sudden (V.Ant 2). Furthermore, the passage dealing with his call also
makes use of Col 1.5!
In the prologue to his V.Ant, Athanasius writes 1tOAAaXt~ yap alJ'tov
Ewpaxa. In Ep Am 34 (156.2), it is stated with reference to Athanasius or
Ammonius, 28 1tOAAaXt~ yap alJ't<p l\.Y'rwvto~ cruv'tUXcOv ilv. Ammon's
anti-Arian emphasis (§§ 5-6,31-33) is reminiscent of the V.Ant (§ 82).
Again, the report of Theodore's clairvoyant knowledge of Karour's
soul ascending to heaven (§ 25), though a common hagiographic motif,
immediately brings to mind V.Ant 60, in which Antony witnesses the
ascent of Amoun's soul. In both accounts, the revelation is supported by
the arrival of monks from the dead man's monastery, who report the
death and so confirm the witness.
None of this is to suggest anything more than that Ammon knew the
V.Ant and its genre. He may have modeled his account to some degree
upon it. However, it is clear that he did not mine the V.Ant for his
material. In fact, he supplies unique information about Antony (§§29,
34). While Athanasius shies away from presenting miracles in the
V.Ant,29 Ammon employs two in his account (§§ 18, 27). And, of
course, the Pachomian material came from elsewhere.
At most, the V.Ant was used as a model ofthe genre. Its use, as such,
bears in no way upon the validity of the Pachomian material.
§2
124.13-18 'E1t'tUxatDExaf;'tll~ - E~EAE~aJlllv] The Greek, though un-
derstandable, is rather elliptical. The entire reference to the content of
Athanasius' homily is a genitive absolute, looking ahead to the 'tUu'tU
au'tOu 8ta'Y'Yf;AAov'tO~ of the following clause. Although a first reading
might suggest that a comma should follow aya1t11cra~, 30 making 'tOY
Jlaxaptov au'to)V ~iov the single object of E~EAE~aJlllv, the punctuation
surviving in F clearly places aya1t11cra~ with the 'tOY ~iov clause. This is
readily plausible in F's Greek, where a single direct object often
functions in relationship to two verbs (supra, pp.49-50).
28 The text given here is that of Ms. F and records that Antony had often met with
Athanasius. In t, the name of Antony is replaced by Ammonius, so that the latter is said
to have often met with Antony.
29 Gwatkin lOt.
30 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 97.18.
Ammon's mother and presumably his father were pagan when Am-
mon converted (153.1-2). Ammon's conversion occurred after Athana-
sius' return to Alexandria from his second exile on October 21, 346 and
prior to Ammon's entry into Pabau, a little more than a year after
Gallus was proclaimed Caesar on March 15, 351 (129.17-18). The
account suggests that little time elapsed between Ammon's conversion
and his decision to take up the monastic life. Hence, his conversion must
have occurred in the early months of 352.
Ammon's conversion and entry into the monastic life fit well into this
period. Athanasius' return in 346 had been joyously welcomed by the
church (GI.120) and ushered in a new wave of religious enthusiasm.
Asceticism was a major part of this enthusiasm and many embraced the
monastic life (Athanasius, Hist Ar 25.4-5). It is clear that his develop-
ment swelled the Pachomian communities and played a role in the
troubles under Horsiesius (GI.127).
Lefort argued that the facts of Ammon's conversion and entry into
the Pachomian community parallel those of Theodore the Alexandrian,
which suggests that Ammon had modeled his account on this older
version. 31 The parallels include being born of pagan parents in Alexan-
dria, converted at age 17, enamored of the monastic life under the
influence of Athanasius, and taking advantage of a visit of Pachomian
monks to the city to return with them to the Thebaid. However, closer
examination reveals that the parallels are superficial and the diver-
gences numerous. GI makes no reference to the Alexandrian Theo-
dore's conversion, noting only that he was a lector in the church in
Alexandria at the time of his decision to join Pachomius. In the Eo
version (§ 89), to which Lefort refers in his notes, his age at conversion is
given as 27. The age of 17 appears in S4, S5, and Av. Am records 12.
Whereas Ammon is influenced by Athanasius only through hearing a
sermon, the Alexandrian Theodore has a much closer connection. He
was baptised by Athanasius and made a lector in the local church. It is
then, only after 12 years as a lector,32 that he made the decision to
become a Pachomian monk.
The «recontres etonnantes» to which Lefort refers between the ac-
counts of Ammon and Theodore the Alexandrian cannot be said to be
that amazing. They are more the result of the current historical situ-
ation.
It is clear that the Pachomian monks had links with Alexandria. It is
likely that many who desired to join from those parts took advantage of
31 Lefort, Les vies copleS LIII-LIV.

32 It is interesting to note in this connection that Am records the Alexandrian
Theodore's age when he joined the Pachomians as twelve years.
124.13-18-125.1-2 191
visiting Pachomian monks to return with them to the Thebaid. Theo-

dore himself joined the movement by getting Apa Pekyssius, who was
visiting the monastery in which he lived near Latopolis, to take him
along in the monastery's boat back to Pachomius (Bo 30; G1.35; Ep Am
9).
124.15 UWtapSf:v(J)v] Cf. 131.1; 144.16; 153.17,20. 33
124.15-16 'tT]V U1tOXEt~f:VTJV - EA7tlOU] Col 1.5. The same quotation
occurs at the beginning of the V.Ant (§2); cf. AP Besarion 12.
124.18-19 E>TJpuiq> 'ttvi ~ovux4>cruv'tuXci)V xu'tu 'tT]V 1tOAtV] Ammon's
first efforts to become a monk almost set him off on an heretical path.
He was steered clear of this monk by Paul, the priest of the church of
Pierius. He is the one who sent Ammon to the Pachomians.
Monks did reside in the city.34 Antony began his quest near his own
home (V.Ant 3). Theodore himself, Ammon's hero, when he first took
up the ascetic life, fasted and lived as a monk in his parents' home
(G3.45). Rufinus, in the prologue to his History of the Monks, reports
that there were monks in the cities, countryside, and desert (PL 21.389-
390). He clearly favors the last category. In Oxyrhynchus, it is said that
monks live in every part of the city (xu'tu 1taV ~f:pOe; 'tfie; 1tOAE(J)e; oi
~ovuxoi 4)xoUV). 35 Jerome, while applauding the anchoritic and coeno-
bitic forms of monasticism, dismisses a third variety, the Remnuoth,
with contempt. They, he says, move about in the cities in small groups
with no fixed rule (Jerome, Ep 22.34-36; Cassian, Conference 18.4-7;
Benedict, Regula 1). Palladius, in the prologue to HL, states that he will
leave unmentioned none of those (monks) in the cities or in the villages,
or in the deserts.36
That Ammon's monk was a Theban is illustrative of the two way pull
in Egypt at the time. While he is an example of the pull of Alexandria,
Ammon himself represents the city dweller who leaves for the desert.
The latter is the more common form in the monastic literature. The
flight to the desert was, in part, a flight from the snares of city life (HL
66.2; 34.4).
125.1-2 nUUAOU wu 1tPEcrPU't f:POV 'tou EV 'tU f:xxATJcri~ 'tU XUAOU~f:V1J
ntEpiou] In Ep Am 4, it is reported that the Alexandrian Theodore
33 Johannes Leipoldt, «Pachom,» Bulletin de fa Societe d'archeofogie copte 16

(1961-62) 199.
34 E. A. Judge, «The Earliest use of Monachos for <Monk> (P. Coli. Youtie 77) and the
Origins of Monasticism,» lAC 20 (1977) 72-89; Nicene Council, Canon 42.
35 Hist Mon 5.2, Festugiere, Historia Monachorum 42.1-2; cf., PL 21.408-409.
36 Butler, Lausiac History 2.15.1-4.
had been a lector in the church of Pieri us. The vitae do not specify the
Alexandrian church in which he was a lector (Eo 89; S4.89; S5 .89;
G1.94).
The identification of this church in Alexandria presents some prob-
lems. Ms. F reads nEpwG, while t offers nEpalOG. Neither form is
known from elsewhere. Halkin suggested that the F reading was a
misspelling of the known Alexandrian church of Pierius (ntEpiot».37
The t reading, however, opens up a second possibility; namely, the
Alexandrian church of nEpcraia~, 38 though in this case, the genitive
ending in t is wrong.
This Paul is not mentioned elsewhere. If the Ep Am is correct in
asserting that the Alexandrian Theodore was a lector in the same
church, it would suggest a special link between it and the Pachomians.
125.3 0w<piAOt> xai Ko1tPll] The two monks in charge of the boat
that sails to Alexandria are met again in §29. They do not occur in the
Pachomian corpus outside of the Ep Am. In the vitae, it is Zacchaeus
who is in charge of this ship (G1.109, 113, 120; Eo 96; S5.120-121, 128;
S6).
124.5IlE'!U ypallll(l'tWV] Cf. 151.21; 152.6; 154.2,4. It is well known
that Athanasius addressed numerous letters to the monks as part of his
effort of harnessing this force for the church. It is to be expected that the
correspondence also flowed in the other direction. The Ep Am suggests
that the Pachomian community under Theodore was developing con-
nections with Lower Egypt. Ammon's eventual move to Nitria gave
Theodore a connection there (§ 32). It was under Theophilus that
Tabennesiote monks established a monastery on Canopus. 39
125.8 BaG] This name appears also at 132.1; 139.18; 140.22; 142.13;
144.5, 8; 148.1, 13; 150.12. The t manuscript always replaces it with
na~au. This is clearly an effort at standardization; na~au is the most
common form occurring in G1.
Apart from one eleventh century manuscript that reads nSA y, the
Sahidic vitae all write nsooy. It appears in Eo as 4>sooy. 40 The diffi-
culty in transliterating Coptic names into Greek is apparent in the
numerous spellings found in the Greek corpus (BaG, na~au, n~oot>,
ni~ot>, na~ffi, na~~ffi, and na~ou).41
37 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 27*; Epiphanius, Haer 69.2.4.

38 Epiphanius, Haer 69.2.4; Tillemont 7.234.
39 Reg Pach, Praefatio 1; Zoega, Catalogus 265; Chitty, Desert 55.
40 L. Th. Lefort, «Les premiers monasteres pach6miens. Exploration topographique,»
Museon 52 (1939) 388 n.19; Chitty, «Reconsidered» 66.

125.3-125.9-11 193
The form BaG appears only in the Ep Am in the Greek corpus.

However, it does appear as such in Jerome, and the Latin sources
dependent on him.42 An Arabic connection has also been suggested by
Lefort. 43 It is also preserved in a Greek papyrus (PGrenf. II, 95) that
refers to a payment being made for the imperial troops stationed at the
monastery of BaG in the time of Justinian 1.
125.8-9 EV 'tq'> livO) ilto(J1tOAl'tlJ vo~q'> 'tu'YXuvovn] The administrative
city for the Diospolite nome was Diospolis parva. 44
In t, this phrase has been erased. This was done to overcome the
incongruency created in § 14, where mention is made of the aforesaid
monastery in the Tentyrite nome. The problem is that the only afore-
mentioned monastery is Pabau. It is likely that the reference to the
Tentyrite nome has resulted from the use of an earlier source that dealt
with Theodore's days at Tabennesis. 45
125.9-117tpo~ 'tij 7tUAlJ - d~ 'to ~ovaoTllptov] Ammon's entrance into
the monastery at Pabau involved being met at the gate, given brief
instruction there, and changing his clothes. Apparently no novitiate
existed in the Pachomian system, in spite of the mention ofthree years in
HL 32.5. The sources all seem to suggest a more immediate accep-
tance. 46
The vitae support Ammon's account. New monks were received at
the gate (G1.28, 104; SlO, Lefort, Les vies coptes 31). A gatekeeper was
stationed there to oversee the separation of the monastery from the
outside world (Ep Am 30; Reg Pach, Praecepta 51-54; G1.43-44;
Theodore, Catechesis 3 = CSCO 160.48). The image of Theodore
himself meeting Ammon at the gate could represent a by-product of
Theodore having gone to meet the monastery boat returning from
Alexandria. He meets the boat on its return in Ep Am 29. Of course, the
literary genre demands that Theodore meet Ammon. As such, it prob-
ably represents a simple embellishment. Thus, Pachomius is depicted as
meeting Theodore at the gate (G1.35; cf., G1.104).
41 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii, Index nominum s. v.

42 Reg Pach, Prafatio 7; Epist Pach 5, 7; Gennadius, De scriptoribus eccl 7-9 (PL
58.1064-1065).
43 Lefort, «Revue: Halkin» 428.
44 Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia 4.5.67; J.D. Thomas, «Egypt,» in The Cities of the
Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd ed., A.Jones, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 301.
45 Supra, pp.112; infra, Notes on the Text 134.1-2 and 131.27-132.2; Chitty,
«A Note» 381.
46 Ladeuze, Etude 280-282. One suspects various ranks within the community, but
one seems to be a monk from the start.
Theodore's instructions to Ammon at the gate (OlllA:llcruC;.a ol':ovt"a)

also rings true. In G1.6, Palamon questions Pachomius before accepting
him as his disciple. G1.24 reports that Pachomius tested the worthiness
of those who wanted to join, and G1.28 states that prospective monks
were met at the gate, counseled on their salvation, and clothed in the
crXi'illu (cf. G1.104). A very similar phrase appears in Shenoute
(6l.·i<l)l.X6 NMMl.,. Kl. Tl. n6T6U)U)€). 47
Finally, the change into the crXi'illu is paralleled in the vitae. Palamon
clothes Pachomius, also immediately, in the crXi'illu (G1.6).48 The same
change of clothes occurs when one joins the Pachomian system (G1.24,
28). And when a monk is expelled, he must hand in his monastic habit
and put on again the clothes of the world (S5.92; Eo 106, 108).
125 .12m:pi ltO\) t~uxocrio\)C;] Ammon reports 600 monks at Pabau in
352 A. D. In § 21, he notes that more than 2000 were gathered together
at Pabau for the Easter gathering, coming from all of the Pachomian
monasteries. Palladius' numbers appear more exaggerated. He lists
1300 monks at Pabau, with 200 to 300 monks in each of the other
monasteries, giving a total of around 7000 in the whole system (HL
32.8-9).49 The numbers did increase greatly after 346 A. D., the year in
which Pachomius died and Athanasius returned from exile (G1.127).
Cassian (Institutes 4.1) puts the number at close to 5000. Jerome (Reg
Pach, Praefatio 7) suggests that 50,000 gathered at Pabau for the Easter
celebration, surely an exaggeration!
§3
A distant relative to the present episode does occur in the oriental
sources (Eo 87; S5.87; Am 471 f; Av 57 r ). The figure ofPatelloli (126.13)
appears only in the Ep Am and these oriental vitae. In the Coptic, he
appears as Patloli (S5 and Av) or Pataoli (Eo and Am).
In the Coptic version, the story centers around Patio Ii, a young and
vigorous monk. At mealtime, he partakes of a bowl of food that is
reserved for the weaker brethren, in spite of the warning of his con-
science. After the meal is finished, the monks proceed to another room,
where they hear the words of God addressed to them by Theodore. They
question him concerning their faults (6sp6,.xm 6pmoy Mn6ToY<l)l. T
MMO,. ),50 and he responds to each, revealing his error. One is faint-
7
4 Chassinat, Le quatrieme livre des entretiens et epitres de Schenouti. M emoires publies
par les membres de I'lnstitut jranrais d 'archeologie orientale du Caire 23 (Cairo:
Imprimerie de I'Institut fran<;ais d'archeologie orientale, 1911) 93.30f.
48 Chitty, Desert 9.
49 HL 18.13 lists 1400.
t 25.12 195
hearted (cf. Ep Am 126.6-7). Another is quick to anger, and a third's

language is hard. All this leads eventually to Patloli's confession and
public acknowledgement of his guilt.
Differences certainly exist between this version and section three of
the Ep Am. In the Coptic, Theodore does not address the individual's
guilt through the use of biblical quotations. It is stated, however, that he
addressed them with the word of God. Again, the charge against
Patelloli in Ammon's account seems to have little relationship with the
Coptic version. Furthermore, while he repents in the Coptic version,
here he withdraws after Theodore's response. Theodore then tells the
other monks that he is terrified by demons. In spite of these differences,
it is difficult to believe that the same event does not ultimately lie behind
both versions. The original setting was molded to different ends. Am-
mon was emphasizing Theodore's abilities. While retaining the figure of
Patelloli, he sundered the catechesis material out of its original setting
and lost sight of Patelloli's actual sin. The Coptic sources, on the other
hand, clearly molded the material around the figure of Patloli. The
actual flow of the catechesis was made secondary to this. What is clear,
is the fluid nature of the sources. The parallel does reveal an intriguing
connection between Ammon and the Coptic material (supra, pp. 113-
114).
In the Ep Am version, Theodore's catechesis is central. He responds
to a series of monks who arise and ask to hear concerning their faults. In
each case, a biblical verse is given as the response, often amended with a
brief statement relating it to the questioner. The passages are meant to
address the faults of the monk, bringing them into the open so that he
can effectively deal with them. Though the responses are directed to
individuals, their influence was certainly meant to go further. This is
particularly true in their present written form.
Lefort cited this section as evidence that Ammon had either used
existing sources or simply created his accounts. He argued that it was
impossible to remember such an event in such great detail. 51 Against
this, it can be argued that the episode is but a series of biblical quota-
tions set within standard formulas. Such material lent itselfto memory.
Ammon himself notes that repeated discussion of Theodore's words in
the Greek house after the event aided his memory. However, even more
problematic for Lefort's argument is the problem of what memory
meant in such literature. It was certainly not understood to be a verba-
tim account.
50 CSCO 89.96.26.
51 Lefort, Les vies copIes LIII.
The section gives ample evidence of the importance of scripture in

primitive monasticism in general,52 and in Pachomian monasticism in
particular. 53 Pachomius had been strongly influenced by scripture
when he first took up the monastic life (G 1.9-10) and carried it over into
his coenobitic creation. It was frequently read and interpreted in his
. monasteries (G1.34, 56, 88, 99,122,140-142). Literacy was demanded
for this purpose (Reg Pach, Praecepta 139-140) and memorization of
large parts of the bible was expected (Reg Pach, Praecepta 49,139-140;
G1.58, 61, 88; Lib Hor 51). Scripture was so fundamental to Pachomian
spirituality that it was, in reality, their rule. 54 Although the rule of
Pachomius does not quote scripture in the characteristic way of the
other sources, it is understood to depend upon it (G1.25).
Ammon underlines the importance of scripture not only in this
section. It is found again in Theodore's prophecy against the Arians
(§§ 6, 32), his speech against laughter (§ 23), and his concern that
Ammon be instructed in it (§§ 7, 16). Interesting in the present account
is the encoded nature of the biblical quotations. Very little is supplied in
the way of interpretation or narrative. The quotation is offered as an
answer, to be struggled with and understood by the monk, much like a
koan. Ammon, as a new monk, clearly had difficulty understanding
what was going on (127.7-8; 129.13-16). The quotation is often followed
by a simple imperative; «Contend», «Set yourself aright», or «Be firm».
This is not the usual pattern of quotation found in the vitae, though the
parallel noted above (pp. 194-195) hints at it. A somewhat similar use is
found in Horsiesius' letters. By their lack of narrative and heavy use of
scriptural quotation, the biblical passages are made to speak for the
author and call forth interpretation which is lacking in the letter itself. 55
A second element in this section that is important for the letter as a
whole is the part played by a public acknowledgement of guilt. In
Ammon's letter, it frequently functions as a public absolution of sin
(§§ 19,20,21,23,26). However, one must note that a literary design is
involved. Public confessions function as proof of Theodore's clair-
voyant ability, which first revealed the error and drew out the confes-
sion. This is not to deny that public confession had a place in Pacho-
mian monasticism (Bo 147; G1.97). However, even in the Ep Am, it is
bypassed when other concerns are present (141.26-142.6; 143.11-13).
Elsewhere, private confession is extolled (G 1.132).
52 H.Dorries, «Die Bibel im iiltesten Monchtum,» ThLZ 72 (1947) 215-222;

J. C. Guy, «Ecriture sainte et vie spirituelle, 4. Le monachisme,» DSp 4.1 (1958) 159-164;
C.Peifer, «The Biblical Foundation of Monasticism,» CS 1 (1966) 7-31.
53 C. Gindele, «Die Schriftlesung im Pachomiuskloster,» Erbe und Au/trag 41 (1965)
114-122; Ruppert 128-158; Bacht, «Die Rolle der heiligen Schrift bei Horsiesius,» in
idem, Das Vermiichtnis 191-212; Veilleux, La liturgie 262-275.
§13-126.7 197
125.16-21 Kai 'tlc;;-6VElOl(J~06c;;] Lam 3.27-30; cf. Lib Hor 52; Letter
of Pachom ius 3.13. The pattern set up here continues through the entire
section. A monk arises and asks to hear concerning his faults. Theodore
responds with a biblical passage, followed (usually) by an imperative or
statement relating it to the questioning monk.
The present example centers around bearing reproaches for Christ. It
is part of bearing the cross,56 and integral to the monastic self-under-
standing. It is common in the Pachomian literature,57 as well as in the
other Egyptian monastic sources. 58
125.22-25 Kat oU'tOOc;; - 'tT)V 606v] Cant 4.12; Ps 79.13. The Canticle's
quotation is used in Lib Hor 20 to advise a monk to guard his chastity
(Seruate pudicitiam corporis vestri). In the present case, the thrust of
the following explanatory statement (dependent on Ps 79.13) suggests a
tendency to wander and be easily influenced away from the truth. The
probable meaning, in view of Ammon's emphasis on orthodoxy, is the
tendency to slip into doctrinal error. A monk should be a locked garden
to such influence. The correct posture is noted by Ammon in § 25
(148.5-7), where Karour is said to have possessed an exactness of
ecclesiastical doctrines ('trov EXXAT]<Jla(J'tlxrov oO'Y~a'toov axpi~Elav d-
lEV). In §26, Patchelphius slipped into error, but was brought back to
the correct «ecclesiastical doctrine» by Theodore. Those whom Patchel-
phius was teaching were seen by Theodore to have fulfilled the require-
ment of the present verse and held firm against his error (OlcntEP aoa~ac;;
'YEvo~i;vT] OUOEV 1tapEoi;~a'to 'tiic;; oloa(JxaAiac;; au'tou). The incorrect
stance is found in Eph 4.14, which is used in the Pachomian dossier in
that connection (Lib Hor 53; Epist Pach 5.4).
126.7 ~lop3(O(Jat (JEQt)'tov] The imperative is a call to action. It is met
again at 126.15.
54 Ibid. 262-275; Ruppert 130-142.

55 J. E. Goehring, «A New Letter of Horsiesius and the Situation in the Pachomian
Community Following the Death of Theodore.» An unpublished paper produced for the
Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente in Rome, dependent upon work with Dr. Tito Orlandi
in January 1980.
56 Heinrich Bacht, «Vexillum crucis sequi (Horsiesius). Monchtum als Kreuzesnach-
folge,» in Martyria. Leiturgia. Diakonia. Festschriftfiir Herman Volk. Bischofvon Mainz
zum 65. Geburtstag. Hrsg. Otto Semme1roth (Mainz: Grunewald, 1968) 149-162.
57 GI.7, 90, 108; Theodore, Catechesis 3, CSCO 160.43-45, 56; Pachomius,
Catechesis 1, CSCO 160.6f.
58 AP Antony 15, Esaias 1, John the dwarf 41, Macarius the Egyptian 20; Shenute,
homily in J. Leipoldt, Schenute von Atripe und die Entstehung des national iigyptischen
Christentums (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903) 196-205.
126.8-9 'Qpirovi nvt - 'tllV 'tf:XVllv] Orion is not met with elsewhere in
the Pachomian corpus. It is a common name, 59 although F had prob-
lems arriving at the correct case endings. His identification as a Libyan
carpenter adds color to the account. Ammon appears to have appreci-
ated such elements in the narrative (139.5-6; 149.22-23). As an Alexan-
drian, he was particularly fond of pointing out a Theban monk (124.18-
19; 136.27; 146.9; 149.25). Orion's Libyan nationality has been used to
suggest the draw of the Pachomian system. 60 However, «Libyan» can
be used simply to refer to someone from the west side of the Nile
(Procopius, Aedificia 6, 1, 9). Other Libyan monks are identified in the
Egyptian sources (HL 24.1).
126.13 TIU'tEAAOAi] F's spelling of Patelloli is to be preferred to t's
Patellonni. He is met also in the oriential sources as n~n.oxt (Bo 87
and Am 471 t) or n~noxt (S5.87 and Av 57 r ).61 These parallels have
been discussed above (pp.194-195).
126.14-15 }\AA1lArov - XpUHOU] Gal 6.2; cf. Lib Hor 11; V.Ant 55.
126.20 }\vopi~ou] Cf. HL Palladius' letter to Lausus (Butler, Lausiac
History 2.7.21), prologue 9 (Butler 2.12.7); Clement of Alexandria,
Strom 7.74.3.
126.21-240ux e<Jnv - 'tfj~ 1tovllpiu~] Eph 6.12. The importance of
this passage in the monastic milieu cannot be overestimated. The
existence of such opposing powers was part of the general world view
(Origen, De principiis 3.2.4; Hom in Jos 14-15). As such, it was a major
contributing factor to the reality of the monastic struggle. 62 Antony's
struggles with the demons are well known (e.g., V.Ant 5-10). Pacho-
mius also experienced the same early battles in his carrer (G1.18-19 ;
Pachomius, Catechesis 1 = CSCO 160.3). In S12 (CSCO 99/100.342),
the hidden foes that Pachomius fights are said to be the barbarous
demons (NTOKX€ n~20)M nOX€M€"i MNNX~X€ €8Hn €T€NR~rR~rOC
H€ NA~tMo)H). The battle was fought not only in this world, but in the
passage to the next (AP Theophilus the Archbishop 4; V.Ant 65-66).
59 It also appears as Horion, though both F and t support the smooth breathing.
60 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 1.159.
61 Lefort, Les vies coptes 148 n. 1.
62 Klaus Koschorke et aI, «Schenute: De Certamine contra Diabolum,» OC 59 (1975)
60--77; U. Ranke-Heinemann, «Die ersten Monche und die Diimonen,» Geist und Leben
29 (1956) 165-170; B. Steidle, «Der kleine schwarze Knabe in der aIten Moncherziih-
lung,» BM 34 (1958) 339-350; A. J. Festugiere, «Le moine et les demons,» in idem, Les
. Moines d'Orient (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1961) 1.23-39; Frank, ArrEAIKO~ BlO~
69-74; HolI, Enthusiasmus 145,150-151.
126.8-9-126.28-30 199
The present struggle is in preparation for this. For the monks, the
xupiaJlu'tu xu't<l 15atJlovffiv was an exceptionally important gift (Ep Am
15; HL 19.11; 22.9-10; 44.3; Sozomen, Hist eccl6.29.12, 6.29.19).
Eph 6.12 is linked to this struggle elsewhere in the Pachomian dossier
(S3, Lefort, Les vies coptes 63; Lib Hor 25), and the other Egyptian
monastic materials (V.Ant 21,51; AP Theophilus the Archbishop 4; cf.
Evagrius Ponticus, De oratione 112).
It also appears often in the Gnostic documents (CG 11,4: 86.23-25;
II,6: 131.9-13), where the struggle with the demonic forces also came to
the fore. 63 Such a common concern is one argument in favor of a
relationship between the Nag Hammadi codices and the Pachomian
movement. 64 The struggle against the demons would be greatly en-
hanced through the knowledge of their names. To know the name was
to have a certain power over that entity. If there is one thing that many
of the Nag Hammadi codices supply in abundance, it is the names of
demons. Shenoute notes that it is not difficult for the spiritual men
65
(NOYPIDM€ Mnt-l€YM>' TIKOC) to know each demon.
126.27 1tpooexe 'toi<; xpu1t'toi<; aou] The oi xpu1t'toi aou represent

one's internal secrets, that are known ultimately to God anyway (Igna-
tius, Eph 15.3; Origen, De principiis 3.1.17; Athanasius, Contra Ar 3.38;
V.Ant 55). The idea is met with elsewhere in the epistle (135.6-7; 137.2-
4). It is fundamental to the representation of Theodore as the clair-
voyant man of God. Through his recognition of these hidden sins,
Theodore resolves various problems within the community.
126.28-30 I1pocreuxou-iaxupov] Ps 18.13-14. Here again, the notion
of one's hidden thoughts or sins is confronted. The mighty battle to
wage on either side suggests both the attack of these internal thoughts
(Ep Am 21) and the confrontation of alien ideas and doctrines from
without. The latter aspect would fit well with Ammon's emphasis on
63CG 1II,5: 127.14f; VU,4: 117.15-16; VIII, 2: 135.2; O.Chadwick, John Cassian,
second ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 85.
64 John Barns, «Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Covers of the Nag Hammadi
Codices,» in M. Krause, ed., Essays on the Nag Hammadi Library. NHS 6 (Leiden: Brill,
1975) 9-18; Frederik Wisse, «Gnosticism and Early Monasticism in Egypt,» in Gnosis.
Festschriftfur Hans Jonas. Hrsg. B.Aland (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978)
431-440; James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (New York: Harper
& Row, 1977) 13-21; Bacht, Das Vermiichtnis 201; idem, «Vex ilIum» 154-155;
C. Hedrick, «Gnostic Proclivities in the Greek Life of Pachomius and the Sitz im Leben of
the Nag Hammadi Library,» NT 22 (1980) 78-94; M. Krause, «Der ErlaB-Brief Theo-
dors,» Studies Presented to Jacob Polotsky, D. Young, ed. (East Gloucester, Mass. : Pirtle
& Polson, 1981) 220-238; Timbie 230-231.
65 Koschorke, «Shenute» 60-77.
maintaining the correct ecclesiastical doctrines (supra, Notes on the

Text 125.22-25). Oi xpuq>tOt, as hidden thoughts, is common (2 Clement
16.3; Ignatius, Magn 3.2; Origen, De principiis 3.1.13). The term
UAA6'tptO~ is very common in Athanasius' writings on the Arians. 66 It is
used occasionally by him as a reference to the heresy itself.67 In G1.132,
Theodore teaches the brethren 1tpo<; Eva Exa<J"COv 'troY UAAO'tpirov
AOYtcrJ.1roV uv'tt<J'tfjvut.
Ammon was under the influence of Athanasius. In view of his own
anti-Arian concern, Ammon's use of the term with this connotation is
not surprising. Its use, or that of the Coptic equivalent, appears to go
back to Theodore.
§4
127.1-2 TaG'tU -I\.AEl;av8pi;ro~] Theodore regularly speaks in Coptic,
while the Alexandrian Theodore translates (Ep Am 4, 5, 6, 22, 28, 29).
However, in view of his upbringing, it is probable that he knew Greek
(Bo 31; G3.45; G1, t ms. ff. 19 r -20').
127.2-3 uvayvoxHoU - I1tEpiou] Cf. G1.94-95; S4.89; S5.89; Bo 89;
Am 473. Although the vitae sources state that the Alexandrian Theo-
dore was a lector in the church of Alexandria, they do not specify the
church. The Ep Am is the only source that identifies it more precisely
(supra, Notes on the Text 125.1-2). Theodore the Alexandrian was a
quick learner (G1.94). He is frequently mentioned in theEp Am, surely a
result of Ammon's initial connection to the Greek speaking house in
general, and to Theodore the Alexandrian as his teacher and guide in
particular (§ 7).68 It is symptomatic of Ammon's Greek orientation that
he appears so often in the letter as translator (§§ 4,5,6,22,28,29). In the
Vita prima, although he is identified as such (G1.95), he is never men-
tioned elsewhere in that capacity. In Asc 27, the identity of Pachom ius'
interpreter is not mentioned.
127.4-5 Xpt<J'tiP- Xpt<J't6~] Gal 2.20. In S3 (Lefort, Les vies coptes
55), this passage is used of Pachomius. The way of the cross was an
integral aspect of monastic spirituality. 69 It is frequently met in the
Pachomian literature. 70 Closely associated with it is the notion ofliving
66 Lampe, s. v.
67 Athanasius, Contra Ar 1.8 (PG 26.28B); Ep Aeg Lib 21 (PG 25.588A).
68 Halkin, Saneti Paehomii 33*-34*.
69 Bacht, «Vexillum» 149-162.
70 Gl.7, 11, 16, 24, 56, 90, 95,108,144; S5.19; Bo 198; infra, Notes on the Text
138.24-27.
71 Epist Paeh 5.11; Pachomius, Cateehesis 1, CSCO 160.17; Ranke-Heinemann,
«Zum Motiv» 335-347; Frank, ArrEAIKOL BIOL 1-4; supra, Notes on the Text 124.4.
127.1-2-127.5-6 201
in accordance with the life of Christ as a Nachfolger Christi. This

concept occurs often in Ammon's letter (§§ 3, 4, 6, 22, 23), and else-
where in the Pachomian materials. 71
127.5-6 'D~ - xupiq>] 'EVOTU!WV 'n!'> <JooJlun, though biblical language
(2 Cor 5,6), is so much a part of this world of thought that it can hardly
be termed a quotation.
"O~ Jlf:Xpt 'tou 1tap6v'tO~ was used by Tillemont to argue that Theo-
dore the Alexandrian was still alive at the time of Ammon's composi-
tion of his letter. 72 The problem with this interpretation lies in the
imperfect ElH1Pf:<J'tEt, though it is admitted that verbal tenses are not
always precise in the letter. The redactor behind t solved the problem by
changing it to a present tense. Although it is possible that this Theodore
was alive when Ammon wrote, it is also possible to interpret the Greek
differently and translate: «so long as he was clothed in the body, he was
pleasing to the Lord.»
Theodore the Alexandrian converted at age 17 (S4, S5, Av), and spent
twelve years as a lector in Alexandria (Eo 89), before eventually joining
the Pachomian system (G1.94). He was set in charge of the Greek
speaking house soon afterwards, thirteen years before Pachomius'
death in 346 A. D. (G1.95). He would thus have been around 30 when he
joined and 43 when Pachomius died. If Ammon wrote circa 400 A. D"
Theodore would have been 97 years old at that time. Though certainly
not impossible (and one must emphasize the problematic nature of such
dating enterprises), it seems best not to push the Greek too far in that
direction. The imperfect tense seems to suggest that he has died recently
(cf. G1.98, H 65.32). Theodore the Alexandrian died during the leader-
ship period of Horiesius (Eo 91).
§5
This section marks the first discussion of the Arian and pagan perse-
cutions in the letter. It is a theme embedded deeply in Ammon's
consciousness, to which he often returns (supra, p. 107).
In this section, they are presented as a prediction of Theodore; a
prediction that will disturb the weaker brethren. In § 6, Theodore
responds to questions concerning his predictions, supplying further
detaiL His prediction includes the following points: 1) the Arian perse-
cution will advance further and harm many, 2) while it is flourishing, a
second persecution, conducted by a pagan king, will begin, 3) Ammon
will live through these events, 4) first the pagan persecution will end,
and then 5) that by the Arians.
72 Tillemont 7.235.
The ex eventu nature of the prediction is clear. It is difficult to say

when the Arian persecution being referred to actually began due to the
various vicissitudes and stages in the Arian crisis. If the persecution
referred to is that which began in Alexandria upon or shortly before
Athanasius' third exile (this must be the assumption from the fulfill-
ment of the prediction given in §§ 31-33), then the persecution began
with the storming of the great church in Alexandria by Syrianus on the
night of February 8-9,356 (Rist Aceph 5; Athanasius, Apol defuga 6;
Rist Ar 47-63). As for the pagan persecution, Julian became sole
emperor, and thus the reigning power in Egypt, upon the death of
Constantius on November 3,361. He died in battle in Persia on June 26,
363. Hence, the pagan revival and persecution rapidly came to an end.
The question of when the Arian persecutions ceased is again difficult.
The Arian George was killed by a pagan mob in December 361 (Rist
Aceph 8), after they had learned of Constantius' death. Athanasius
subsequently returned to his see (Rist Aceph 10), only to be banished
again by Julian (Rist Aceph 11). The discussion of the Arian persecu-
tions in Ep Am 31 only takes them up to the period when George was in
Alexandria. Theodore's letter (§ 32) refers only to the Arian persecu-
tion.73 However, in §33, Ammon notes the fulfillment of Theodore's
predictions by the death of Julian and the ceasing of the Arian persecu-
tions, which he says is now happening (a1tEp !!E'tU 'tooau'ta ihl1 ytVO!!E-
va vuv 6pro!!EV). This latter statement clearly points to a continuation of
the Arian threat after Julian's death. As such, it must point to the
troubles under Valentinian (364-375) and Valens (364-378). The crisis
finally ended with the elevation of Theodosius in 380 and the Council of
Constantinople in 381.
This problem of pinpointing the end of the Arian crisis is paralleled in
Sozomen (Rist eccl6.5). He reports that a prediction made by Antony
concerning the Arians (V.Ant 82) was thought by some to have been
fulfilled completely during the reign of Constantius. However, it turned
out that the whole of the prediction was not accomplished until the
reign of Valens. One suspects that such predictions were attributed to
these figures first upon Constantius' death, when it looked as though the
Arian persecution was finished; or perhaps after Julian's death. The
reemergence of the persecutions during the reigns of Val ens and Valen-
tinian created the need for a shift in interpretation.
73 This fits well with the timetable for Ammon's departure from Pabau in 355 A. D. He
is recounting what he said to the Nitriote monks six months later, after Athanasius' exile
in February 356. Thus, Julian's reign had not yet begun. The later reference to the final
end ofthe Arian persecution (§ 33) is a reference to the time when Ammon was writing,
well after the Council of Constantinople in 381. Such accuracy supports the authenticity
of the letter (cf., Notes on the Text 127.15).
127.5-6-127.13 203
Ammon has cleverly connected the beginning and end of his letter
with this prediction of Theodore (§§ 5-6) and its fulfillment (§§ 31-33).
The pattern of prediction-fulfillment, the latter often occurring after the
seer's death, is a common element in the depiction of a man of God. The
post-mortem fulfillment serves to confirm his status. Frequently, the
prediction concerns his own death. 74 Closer to the present example is
the dream of Antony that presaged the Arian persecution and its demise
(V.Ant 82; Sozomen, Hist eec/ 6.5.5-6).
127.13 O{oa - ayava)rwixnv] The crapxnwi represent the weaker
brothers, who stand in fear of the persecution pressing upon the church.
Its meaning does not carry a moral connotation (cf. G1.38), but is
comparable to the vll1ttasoVt"E~ tv Xptcrt"<!> mentioned later in the
epistle (142.4; 155.19). It represents a ranking within the monastic
system, running from those who are sti11living according to the flesh (cf.
G1.15) to those who are living in accordance with Christ (Ep Am 4,23).
The latter are the spiritually strong brethren (ouvat"oi t"<!> 1tVEUf.lan
aOEA<poi, G1.54) or t"BAEtot. This second term is used frequently of
Pachomius (G1.21, 91,98,118) and Theodore (G1.37, 107, 130). It is the
goal of every monk (G1.49, 54,99,136; G3.43; Ase 26; Lib Hor 27). The
1tvEUf.lanxoi have the ability to endure the struggle. 7 5
Such distinctions do not represent a system of levels bearing cosmo-
logical significance as in Gnosticism. Rather, they depict the natural
development within the coenobitic system; the self-evident result of a
community made up of individuals of varying background and ability,
all at different stages on the road to spiritual maturity. Nonetheless,
such distinctions had both positive and negative results. On the positive
side, they allowed for the systematic lines of obedience that functioned
to maintain order in the system (G1.28, 54,91). They were important for
matters of instruction and penance. Thus, novices and weaker brothers
were placed under elders, who served as their teachers and guides (Ep
Am 7; G1.94; Pachomius, Cateehesis 1 = CSCO 159.6.10-15),76 while
erring monks were sent to the spiritually mature for guidance (Ep Am
20; G1.106; cf. Bo 106).
Negatively, the distinctions led to serious friction when rank was
understood as status within the community and became a goal in itself.
Some of the older monks left in disgust when Pachomius had the
younger Theodore perform the catechesis (Ase 1 ; G 1. 77). Here, rank
had devolved into a question of age or duration of membership in the
community. The same problem occurred when Horsiesius was made
74 Gl.147-148; V.Ant 90-92; Holl, Enthusiasmus 188.

75 Koschorke, «Shenute» 70 (Text: 14.10f) .
. 76 Ruppert 378f.
superior at Chenoboskeia. The older brothers complained that he was

still a novice (G 1.119). Similarly, they preferred one of their own,
namely Theodore, to succeed Pachomius on the latter's death (G1.106-
107, 119), though it is overstating the evidence to say that these monks
were behind the revolt against Horsiesius (G1.126-131).77 The prob-
lems under Horsiesius did involve the equation of rank with the holding
of offices and titles (G1.126) as well as the breakdown of the usual lines
of authority (G1.127).
It is clear that the older brothers possessed certain privileges. Pacho-
mius reportedly told his visions to them in private (G1.88, 99). It was
some from their number who accompanied Pachomius to the Council
of Latopolis (G1.112). Theodore appointed 'YEpulOue; EOOXT1I10VUe; as
the first to meet Athanasius when he journeyed up the Nile to the
Thebaid (G1.143). Such cases can be multiplied.
At the other extreme, the novice clearly had to accept his ignorance
and inexperience (127.7-8). However, a concern for the new or weaker
brethren lay at the heart of the Pachomian movement. Visitors were
segregated outside the gate, lest they wrongly influence the novices (Bo
40; G1.40; Ruppert 168). Palladius, admittedly a more distant source,
presents Pachomius as arguing with the angel for an even stricter rule.
The angel pointed out that the rule was designed so that the little ones
(toue; ).l.tXpoue;) might keep it and not grieve (cf. Benedict, Regula 73).
He goes on to note that of of: 'tEA-ElOt VO).l.03Ecr{Ue; Xpduv oux EXOOOt
(Butler, Lausiac History 2.93.2). The Pauline concern for the weaker
members is to be found throughout in the Pachomian dossier (Ep Am
21; Sl, CSCO 99/100.4.12-5.11).
Beyond its function as evidence of such ranking within the communi-
ty, the present passage also points to the problem faced in the monas-
teries, as in the church at large (Sozomen, Hist eccl 5.2.1-4) by the
anticipation of renewed persecutions. It appears again in Ep Altl 32
(154.19-21) in Theodore's letter to the Nitriote monks, and was a charge
leveled against Athanasius himself (infra, Notes on the Text 156.22).
Courage in the face of persecution was not an easy part of the cross to
bear. Although the monks understood themselves as latter day martyrs
(G1.1),78 various accounts exist of failure under duress (Asc 8-11;
G1.85).
77 Chitty, «A Note» 384-385.

78 E. E.Malone, The Monk and the Martyr. The Monk as the Successor o/the Martyr.
Studies in Christian Antiquity 12 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America
Press, 1950; idem, «The Monk and the Martyr,» in Antonius Magnus Eremita 356-1956.
Studia ad antiquum monachismum spectantia. Hrsg. B. Steidle. Studia Anselmiana 38
(Rome: Herder, 1956) 201-228.
127.13-127.18-22 205
There is no evidence that the Arian persecutions reached the monas-

teries (even those of Lower Egypt) apart from the Ep Am. 79 When the
Arian Artemius came to Pabau in search of Athanasius, there appears
to have been no question of persecuting the monks (G1.138), though
fear of the soldiers certainly existed. Although Ammon does not ex-
pressly say that the monks were persecuted in the monasteries, he hints
at their suffering (128.21-22; 154.19-21). Of course, Ammon's report is
a latter day view, seen through the glasses of Athanasian success.
127.14-15 Drco .rov be yf;vOU~] The phrase is used two further times in
connection with the persecution in §6 (128.1, 24). In the first instance,
they are specifically identified by Theodore as the Arians. The persecu-
tion conducted by them against the church, by which Ammon means
the Athanasian party, is set in distinction to the pagan persecution
conducted by Julian. Thus, race here refers to the Christians in general
(cf. 131.17-18) in distrinction to the race of men (132.4). The further
delineation of those from [our] race refers to those Christians who have
taken up the Arian cause.
127.15 Emx£iJ.lEvo~] The present tense suggests that the Arian perse-
cution is already in progress and will become worse. However, if Am-
monjoined the movement in 352 A. D., this prediction should fall in the
peaceful decade after Athanasius' return in 346. Of course, this peace
was more apparent than real. It is clear that the persecutions became
worse with the appearance of Syrian us in Alexandria in 356 (Ep Am 31;
Athanasius, Apol de fuga 6-7, 24; His! Ar 47 -63; infra, Notes on the
Text §31).
One shouldn't overburden the tenses in this discussion. In Ep Am 6,
the Arian persecutions are more clearly future. Furthermore, the ex
eventu nature of the material makes the question problematic at best. By
the time Ammon wrote, the vicissitudes of the Arian crises undoubtedly
tended to merge. The fact that earlier periods of persecution by the
Arians (Athanasius, His! Ar 9 f, 21) were separated from those predicted
here by ten years of relative peace could have easily dropped out in a
simplification of the events after the Council of Constantinople in 381.
127.18-22 f\XJ.lat;ovlO~ - ~OUA:ftV] The persecution referred to is that
conducted under Julian. Julian w.as proclaimed Augustus by his troops
in Gaul in 360 (Socrates, Hist eccl 2.47; Sozomen, Hist eccl 5.1.1).
Constantius, though furious, continued his war against Persia (Amm
Marc 20.9.3-5). But when word reached him of Julian's march into
Italy, he abandoned the Persian war and marched toward Constanti-
79 Evelyn White 2.75.

nople. On the way, he caught fever and died on November 3, 361

(Socrates, Hist eccl2.47; Sozomen, Hist eccl5.1.6), leaving Julian as the
uncontested ruler of the empire. The speed and magnitude of the events
were surprising, not least of all to Julian himself. This could account for
Ammon's reference to his rise as f:~ urrpocr80XTl'tOU, though the later
Roman empire was certainly not unfamiliar with such developments.
The reference could as well be to the surprise caused by the return of a
pagan emperor some 38 years after Constantine's acceptance of Chris-
tianity (Sozomen, Hist eccl 5.2.1).
Ammon's description of Julian's efforts as a reasoning against the
mystery of Christ (cf. Dan 11.24) fits well with Julian's activity. Al-
though he first sought to establish pagan religion on an equal footing
with Christianity, it quickly became apparent that such an arrangement
was impossible. Neither religion could tolerate it, as it worked against
the religious substructure of unity in the empire. Thus, when Julian
chose to break with Christianity, he was forced to attack it. 80 He did not
wish to appear tyrannical and return to the earlier violent types of
persecution (Sozomen, Hist eccl 5.17.1). His efforts were more subtle
and dangerous. Sozomen describes them in detail (5.17, esp. 17.7).
As one example, he promolgated a law in June 362 which required
registration with and approval by city authorities of anyone giving
instruction. The approval was made dependent on the character of the
instructor. A proper character included the existence of harmony be-
tween one's teaching and one's true opinions (Julian, Ep 61 c Bidez-
Cumont = 36 Wright; Sozomen, Hist eccl 5.18.1; Socrates, Hist eccl
3.16; Theodoret, Hist eccl3.8). This meant that Christians should not
teach classics. The importance of this, in view of the writings of the
Alexandrian fathers, is clear. Furthermore, it led to the conclusion that
the Christian faith per se, in view of its instruction in the classics, was
possessed of a basic character flaw.
Julian turned to Neoplatonic speculation in order to appeal to the
educated. At the same time, he revitalized the cults for the masses. He
rebuilt the temples, demanding reparation from the church for those
that had been destroyed (Sozomen, Hist eccl 5.5.5). He sought to
restructure the pagan priesthood on the pattern of the Christian clergy
and instill in the new pagan cultus the virtues of human love that had
proven so valuable for the Christian movement (Julian, Ep 89 Bidez-
Cumont = 20 Wright; Sozomen, Hist eccl5.16). He was, in part, trying
to beat Christianity at its own game.
80 Hans Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, vol. 3, trans. Bertram Lee Woolf
(Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1961) 261-284. I am indebted to Lietzmann's work for
much of the material on Julian.
127.18-22-128.19 207
At the same time, it must be noted that violent persecutions did occur,
often at the hands of pagan mobs reacting to their new legality and
remembering their earlier treatment at the hands of the Christians
(Sozomen, Hist ecc!. 5.7-11; Socrates, Hist eccl3.13). Thus, both the
reasoning of Julian and the dire threat of persecution mentioned by
Ammon are supported.
In the end, Julian's plans, as Ammon noted, were put to shame (Rm
10.11). He failed to win over the people and opposition to him remained
strong. The fervor aroused by the new Christian religion could not be
matched by his revitalized pagan cults. The deep seated problems
inherent in his program never fully surfaced due to his sudden death on
June 26, 363, while fighting a rear guard action against the Persians
(Amm Marc 25.2-3; Sozomen, Hist ecc/ 6.1-2).
127.22-23 dPTP<EV -TtEpavEi] Hab 2.5. The same passage is used as a
reference to Julian by Theodore in Ep Am 34 (156.26-27). It is attributed
to Theodore there by Athanasius.
§6
128.6 'EAOUpiwv] Elourion appears here for the first time. He is not
found in the Pachomian corpus outside of the Ep Am. This may be a
result of Ammon's close linkage with the Greek speaking house. Elou-
rion was bilingual, which was certainly not uncommon in Egypt at the
time. The impetus for a Greek speaker to learn Coptic in a Pachomian
monastery would have been especially strong. Theodore the Alexan-
drian studied it upon his arrival (G1.94). Ammon knew it by the time he
left (136.25-26). Whether he knew it before is difficult to say (infra,
Notes on the Text 136.25-26).
In the present episode, Elourion is speaking Greek. Elsewhere, he is
twice ordered to repeat messages aloud to the brethren in Coptic
(140.10-11; 151.20-22). He is presented as an elder brother (128.11-12).
Together with Ausonius, a member of the Greek speaking house, he is
responsible for the report gleaned by Ammon concerning Theodore's
earlier exploits (§§ 8-15).
128.16 YlVcOOXWV] treads YlVcOOXW yap, which makes Theodore
express his own awareness of Ammon's status as a new monk. F's
reading, in which Theodore appears to caution Ammon to remember
his status, seems better to account for Ammon's heightened fear
(128.18). Cf. Letter of Pachomius 3.13.
128.19 OU1tW - Ypa<paC;] The demand to read the scriptures is well
known in the Pachomian system (supra, Notes on the Text § 3).
Ammon's lack in this area is to be corrected by his spiritual guides
(129.1-6). An example of their efforts is supplied in § 16.
128.22 'til 'tE a1l8fj

XUt 'to. f}8tu] Although the former are clear, the
latter are more difficult to fathom. It probably refers to the good
experiences of faith had within the church during periods of persecu-
tion. Ammon is not unaware of such increased faith (156.16-19).
128.23-24 Kut npo)'toc; - 8tcoyJ.loC;] Supra, Notes on the Text § 5;
127.15, 19-22.
§7
129.2-4 AUPOJ.lEVOC; J.lE - ulm'i'>] Theodore the Alexandrian became
house manager of the Greek speaking house thirteen years before
Pachomius' death (G1.95; cf. Bo 89). Ausonius is presumably to be
equated with Ausonius the Great. He, together with another Ausonius,
are listed among the first fruits of the Greek house (G1.95; Bo 91). The
name appears as Au~ovtOC; in G5 and Bo, and as Au~mvtOC; in G3. G1
writes AucrovtOC;. In the vitae, he never appears other than in this single
reference. In Ep Am, on the other hand, he plays a major role. This is
surely indicative of Ammon's residence in the Greek house. The name
Ausonius is discussed in Bell, Jews and Christians 100.
The office of «the second))81 is met with frequently in the Pachomian
dossier. It appears again in Ep Am 19 (139.12), where Macarius is listed
as the second in command after Silvanus of a group of twenty-two
monastic weavers. The holder of the office functioned to aid the leader
in the daily running of the house and carried out the manager's responsi-
bilities in the event of his absence. 82 The number of offices that had a
second appears to have expanded in the course of time. 83 Thus, in the
Regula and the Coptic vitae, it is only mentioned in relation to the house
manager. In G1 and Lib Hor, on the other hand, the position is also
mentioned in connection with the steward and abbot of the monas-
teries. The Ep Am mentions the office only in connection with the house
manager.
The entrusting of Ammon to the Alexandrian Theodore and Auso-
nius, who are to serve as his teachers and guides, is reminiscent of
Pachomius' entrusting of the Alexandrian Theodore, when he arrived at
the monastery, to an elder, Greek speaking monk (G1.94; supra, Notes
on the Text 127.13).
81 Basilius Steidle, «(Der Zweite) im Pachomiuskloster. Zum Verstiindnis des 65.
Kapitels der Regel St.Benedikts,» EM 24 (1948) 97-104,174-179.

82 Ibid.
83 Ruppert 315-320.
84 Chitty, Desert 22-23; Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 178-183.

85 Ladeuze, Etude 275.
86 Ibid.
128.22-129.9-10 209
129.5 "Em;t~ov - ypacpa~] The importance of scripture in Pachomian

monasticism has been dealt with briefly above (Notes on the Text § 3).
Ammon's lack of scriptural knowledge was pointed out in §6 (128.19).
Ausonius' effort to carry out the assignment is witnessed in § 16.
129.5-6 ou 8ta~EvEi - AEt'tOUpy6~] Theodore's prediction of
Ammon's future role in the church is characteristic of the hagiographic
genre. A similar prediction is made of Ammon's publication of the
events that he witnessed; i. e., a prediction of the letter (152.17-20). John
of Lycopolis appears to have predicted Palladius' future role as bishop
(HL 35.10-11).
129.7-9 KUXEivot- dxom] The Pachomian monasteries were further
subdivided into various houses, each led by a house manager and his
assistant, or second (Reg Pach, Praefatio 2; G1.28; Bo 26).84 As with the
Greek house, some were organized around particular functions or crafts
(Ep Am 19; G1.28, 84, 121). The number of monks per house varied.
Ammon lists 20 in the present case, or 22 when one counts the leader
and his second. He puts the number of weavers under Silvanus at 22 also
(139.12). Jerome, in his preface to the Regula, states that there were
around 40 monks in each house. Jerome appears elsewhere to have
exaggerated the number of Pachom ian monks (supra, Notes on the Text
125.12).85
Ladeuze felt that the very existence of the Greek house represented a
later stage in the movement. 86 It is clear that the earliest mention of the
Greek house occurs in connection with Theodore the Alexandrian, who
was made house manager thirteen years before Pachomius' death
(G1.95). Whether it existed previously is not clear. One must assume
that a certain amount of time elapsed before the Pachomian movement
began to attract members from Alexandria. It is certain that the Greek
influence grew in the course of time. 87
129.9-10 xa3iO"aV'tE~ - eE68(J)po~] Although the structure of each
house is not perfectly clear, it did include individual cells for the monks
(EpAm20, 24, 26; G1.59, 69, 74,105,144; Asc 1, 7, 27, 29, 34; Reg Pach,
Praefatio 4; Praecepta 3, 19, 43, 78-79, 81, 89, 107, 112, 114, 126;
Praecepta ac Leges 2; cf. HL 32.2),88 as well as a common room for
prayer and discussion (G1.58; Bo 91; Reg Pach, Praecepta 19, 20, 115,
122; Praecepta et Instituta 14-15; Praeceptaac Leges 5). The discussion
of Theodore's catechesis is an example of the use of the common room.
87Leipoldt, Shenute 156.

88Ladeuze, Etude 263; Ruppert 346; H. Bacht, «Antonius und Pachomius. Von der
Anchorese zum Conobitentum,» in Antonius Magnus Eremita 74.
Such post-catechetical discussion within the individual houses was

expected (Reg Pach, Praecepta 19, 122, 138; G1.58). Bo 91 records that
Theodore the Alexandrian listened attentively to Pachomius' words
and upon returning to the house, translated them for the Greek speak-
ing brothers.
129.10-13 Kat ou't(J)~ - ,,8uvitSTJv] The function of this passage is to
support the validity of Ammon's accounts (supra, p.l08).
129.13-16 'HPllitvEooE - eE68(J)po~] In §5 (127.7-8), Ammon had
noted his inability to understand what was being said on account of his
youth and inexperience. Such threads of continuity, which connect
various parts of the letter, can be found throughout the letter (supra,
p.l07).
129.17-18 Tau'ta - K(J)v(l"'t(lvno~] Flavius Claudius Gallus was born
in 325-326 A. D., the younger son of Constantine's half brother, Julius
Constantius, and Galla, the sister of Vulcatius Rufinus (Amm Marc
14.1 0, 11 ; Philostorgius 3.25). He was himself a half brother of Julian
the Apostate. His third name was altered to Constantius upon his
reception of the rank of Caesar 89 and appears as such in all the official
documents and on his coinage. Ammon's reference to him as vto~
K(J)vcr'tuvno~ points to this name change. However, he is in agreement
with most authors in referring to him as Gallus, to distinguish him from
the more prominent figures who bore the name Constantius.
Gallus was raised to the rank of Caesar on the Ides of March, 351
A. D.90 The known date of this event makes its mention here extremely
important for the inner chronology of the Pachomian movement. 91
§8
129.19-22 'E1tE18" -1tUcrXElV] The emotions elicited by Theodore are
those ofmysterium tremendum, involving both desire and anxiety. They
are part of the awe surrounding the man of God. Ammon picks the
thread up again in § 17 (136.22-24), where he sweats in fear upon
hearing Theodore's voice at night.
129.22-25 AOOOVlOV - Exacr'to~ E<pTJ] This section serves to introduce
the non-eyewitness accounts referred to in the prologue (124.8-9). The
89 Athanasius, Festal Ind 24; Socrates, Hist eccl2.28; T. Mommsen, ed., Monumenta
Germaniae Historica IX, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. V/J(Berlin: Weidmann, 1892)
1.237-238.
90 Ibid.; Athanasius, Festal Ind 24.
91 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 31*-32*; Peeters, «Le dossier copte» 269; Chitty,
«Reconsidered» 43-44; supra, p.119; infra, Notes on the Text 130.4-5.
129.1 0-13-130.1 211
material is said to have been gathered separately from Elourion and

Ausonius, although no division of the following episodes between them
is ever made.
Ammon notes his fear of repeatedly asking questions of the Alexan-
drian Theodore. He had already questioned him in § 7 (129.13-16).
Ammon's fear points to the high rank and esteem in which this Theo-
dore was held.
It is only natural that Ammon would have made such queries as a new
monk in the community.92
§9
130.1 I1aXOUlltO<; n<;] Lefort argued that the use of the indefinite
pronoun proves that for Ammon, Pachomius was already a figure of the
distant past. 93 Veilleux noted the use of the same construction in H L
32.1 to argue that Palladius was unfamiliar with the Pachomian mi-
lieu. 94 However, the introduction of a new character into the narrative,
even the famous Pachomius, accounts for the use of the indefinite
pronoun (supra, p.116). It is often used as such in the Ep Am (supra,
Notes on the Text 124.1-2). The Vita prima introduces Pachomius as n<;
uvTjp 6vollan I1axoUlltO<; (H 2.24).95 Unfortunately, the parallels in
the Coptic are lacking. The indefinite article does appear in Am 339.
130.1 TJYllcruIlEVO<; 'tou'to)v 'trov Ilovacr'tll piwv] The more usual form of
the title is TJYOUIlEVO<;. It occurs in the Pachomian dossier almost
exclusively for the abbot of the monastery.96 Lefort argued that Am-
mon reveals an unfamiliarity with the Pachomian technical terms
through his failure to employ the more common Apa. Furthermore,
Ammon's use of TJYOUIlEVO<; to refer to a house manager (139.11),
instead of the usual oixtaxo<; (pMHH"i), is without parallel in the
Pachomian corpus (supra, pp.114-115).97 Chitty, against Lefort,
pointed out that the title is used in the plural in G1 (H 53.12, 74.37,
84.24), suggesting a wider application. 98 Ruppert noted that although
the title TJYOUIlEVO<; is frequent in the vitae, it never occurs in the Coptic
fragments of the Regula, the Catecheses, or the letters. This suggests to
93 Lefort, Les vies coptes LIX.

94 Veilleux, La liturgie 143. A quick reading shows that Palladius often introduces new
figures in such a way (HL 5.1, 6.1, 13.1, 15.1, 16.1, 19.1, 20.1, 21.1, 22.1, etc.). Veilleux's
note that he refers to Antony as the great Antony seems irrelevant in view of the
exceptional status of the latter.
95 Chitty, «Review: Veilleux» 197.
96 Lefort, Les vies coptes LX; Ruppert 283.
97 Lefort, Les vies coptes LX.

him its later introduction. 99 He does note two cases in the Greek
Excerpta where the title refers to the head of a work party (Exc 21, 51).
Hence, Lefort's criticism appears to be overstated. In the present
example, the title is used in its most common meaning, although it is
taken a step further from the superior of a single monastery to the
superior of the system.
130.2-4 <1> 6 31>0<;; - 'tq. nicru<;; Utl'tov] Ammon gives a threefold pattern
of revelation into which the various examples offered in the letter fall.
Here, the reference is to Pachomius. However, Ammon clearly under-
stood it to hold also for Theodore, Pachomius' true successor (supra,
pp.108-109).
The threefold pattern includes: 1) revelation coming directly from
God, 2) other things being spoken to the seer in his heart, and 3) things
communicated to him by angels. Although the precise form in which
secret information is revealed to Pachomius and Theodore in the var-
ious episodes is not always made clear, it was certainly understood to
fall into these three categories. Theodore's revelation concerning the
trinity (§ 11) and Pachomius' revelation against heresy (§ 12) were given
by God. The cases of communication through speaking in the heart are
less clearly identified. The ability is supported scripturally in § 16.
Presumably, the numerous cases of Theodore's clairvoyant knowledge
of various events and sins fall into this category (§§ 17, 22, 24, 25, 29).
The third category, things communicated by angels, is found in §§ 9,14,
19, and 26. In § 13, support of Athanasius is communicated to Pacho-
mius by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eo 68). This does appear to fall outside of
the threefold pattern, though a case could be made for its inclusion in
either type one or three. The function of § 13 in the letter suggests its
non-Pachomian origin; i.e., it looks like an insertion produced by
Ammon to support his own understanding of the Pachomian move-
ment. For Ammon, there was no question of its perfect orthodoxy from
the very start.
130.4-5 0<;; oiJ - 'tov X6plOV] 2 Cor 5.8. Ammon arrived at Pabau
before the autumn of352 (supra, Notes on the Text 124.7). He remained
until the summer of 355. Thus, the present reference places Pachomius'
death between 346 and 349, depending on when, during his three year
sojourn at Pabau, Ammon gathered this report. The impression is that
he confronted Ausonius and Elourion very early in his stay.
For liturgical reasons, the vitae record Pachomius' death on the
fourteenth of Pachon (May 9). The Vita prima further notes that he was
the victim of a plague that began shortly after Easter (G1.114) and that
99 Ruppert 283-284.
130.2-4-130.6-8 213
he was ill for forty days before his death (G1.115). Forty days before
May 9 is March 31, the day on which Pachomius took ill. Easter had to
have occurred before this. The only dates compatible with this between
341 and 353 A. D. are 343 (March 27), 346 (March 30), 349 (March 26),
and 351 (March 31). Ammon's reference eliminates the first and last
possibilities. The year 349 seems unlikely, since that would mean that
Ammon waited until the very end of his stay at Pabau before collecting
this report from Ausonius and Elourion. Thus, 346 A. D. is the year of
Pachomius' death. The Ep Am's information is in good agreement with
that found in G 1.
A problem does exist in matching this evidence with that from the
surviving Coptic version (S7).lOO Of course, the day of his death is again
given as the fourteenth ofPachon. However, the plague and Pachomius'
illness are said to have begun before Easter, and his death is placed only
sometime in the days of Pentecost. 10l
Toda)" the date of 346 is generally accepted. Past scholarship wit-
nesse<l various alternatives between 340 and 349 A. D.I02
130.6-8 Tov 80UAOV - EXEiO"l:;] The references to Pekyssius' mission
and the city of Latopolis find support in both the Coptic and Greek
,vitae. According to Bo 31, Theodore was raised in a wealthy family and
learned to read and write at an early age. He practiced great abstinence
in his parents' home. When he was fourteen, he joined a monastery in
the diocese of Sne (Latopolis). He remained there for six years before
leaving with Pecos (n€6wU)), who was on a mission to the south for the
brethren, to join the Pachomian movement. Bo 30 reports that Pecos,
while on his mission, had sought hospitality in the monastery in which
Theodore lived. Theodore requested him to take him to Pachomius.
Pecos took him along in the monastery's boat and announced him to
Pachomius.
According to G3.45 (= G1.33), Theodore's parents were Christians,
and he was an important figure in Christ's flock from an early age. He
100 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 44; Lefort, Les vies coptes 45-50.

101 Although the elements are different, the rather unspecified nature of the Coptic
version (a date cannot be deduced from it) means that at least it does not contradict the
346 date.
102 340A.D.: Achelis240-244. 345 A. D.: Grutzmacher 23-33; G. Kruger, «Review:
Annales du Musee Guimet. Tome XVII. Paris, Leroux, 1889. Inhalt: Monuments pour
servir a I'histoire de I'Egypte chretienne au IV· siecle. Histoire de Saint Pakhome et de ses
communautes. Documents coptes et arabe inedits, publies et traduits par E. Amelineau,»
ThLZ 25 (1890) 622.346 A.D.: Ladeuze, Etude 229f; Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische
Monchtum 159 n. 7. 348 A. D.: Amelineau, Histoire LXXVI. 349 A. D. : Acta Sanctorum
Maii III 291.
renounced his wealthy home and lived and fasted in his room for two
years. He left his parents home when he was 14 and joined a monastery
in the vicinity of Latopolis. G1.35 reports that he was brought to
Pachomius by Pekysius, who had gone up to tend to some need of the
brethren.
Ignoring the age problem for a minute (infra, Notes on the Text
130.10-11), the support for Ammon's account is clear. Both the Coptic
and the Greek vitae place Theodore near Latopolis and report that he
was brought to Pachomius by Pekyssius, who was in the area on a
mission for the brethren.
It is interesting to note that Pachomius' clairvoyant knowledge of
Theodore's arrival is absent in the vitae versions. Its presence in the Ep
Am is a clear example of Ammon's reworking of the material in terms of
his own emphases (supra, pp.l08, 121).
The nature of Pekyssius' mission is not clear. Ammon seems to
suggest a concern for the poor in the community. G1.35 states only that
he had gone to tend to some need (XpEiu<; 'ttvo<;) of the brethren. Eo 30
similarly reports a miSSIOn in service of the brethren
(€T6€ OYAI)'KONI)' NT€ NICtlHOY). While on the mission, hospitality
was sought at the local monastery (Eo 30). This gave the occasion for the
meeting with Theodore.
One might have expected problems to arise through the acquisition of
the talented Theodore away from the monastery at Latopolis. Although
it was not a Pachomian settlement, contact between the two seems to
have occurred before (Eo 29). It is to be noted that many monasteries
that eventually joined the Pachomian system were originally indepen-
dent from it (G1.54, 83). One of these, Pachnoum, is placed near
Latopolis (G1.83).
130.8-9 Bv vuv - epXEcrSat] The revelation of Pekyssius' arrival is an

example of the third type of revelation attributed to Pachomius, that
which is given by an angel (130.2-4). The revelation itself, of the arrival
of the monastery boat (cf. Eo 30), is paralleled in § 29 by Theodore's
prediction of the arrival of the boat returning from Alexandria. Its
introduction here is representative of Ammon's emphasis on clair-
voyance. It is not part of the parallel vitae versions (G1.33-35; G3.45;
Eo 29-31).
130.10 crXEUO<; EXAOyf\<; 'ttp SEtp] Acts 9.15. The description of Theo-
dore as a vessel chosen by God occurs also in G1.123 (H 79.17-18 =
G3.175; cf. G2.3 and G3.94). The same epithet is used of Apa Apollo,
who left the Pachomian movement during the monophysite crisis
(CSCO 394.4). Cf. S12, CSCO 99/100.342.2; Eo 108.
130.8-9-130.14-15 215
130.10-11 Ecrnv oi;-'tptcrXatOEXUE1"C;] The sources show little agree-

ment over Theodore's age. In their defense, it should be noted that his
age was not the point of the story. According to Eo 31 (= S14),
Theodore came from a wealthy family and received a good education
beginning at age 8. He was active in the church, but left home at age 14
to join a monastery in the diocese ofSne (Latopolis). He remained there
six years before moving to Tabennesis. Thus, according to the surviving
Coptic version, he was 20 years old when he joined the Pachomian
movement. According to Am 392-393, he joined Pachomius at age 14,
some five years after the establishment of the first monastery at Taben-
nesis. G1.33 (= G3.45) reports that he left home to join a monastery
near Latopolis at age 14, which agrees with the Coptic version. How-
ever, in G1.26, it is reported that he was 14 when he joined the
Pachomian movement.
Peeters argued in favor of the Ep Am evidence; i. e., in favor of
Theodore joining the Pachomian movement at an early age. He noted
the description of Theodore as ).xoy in the Eo text and argued that this
term clearly refers to a young boy and not a 20 year old man. 103
The likely explanation of the divergence is that the tradition behind
the Ep Am, G1.26, and Am simply dropped out Theodore's stay at the
non-Pachomian monastery near Latopolis. It recorded his entrance
into the monastic movement as an entrance directly into the Pachomian
system. In fact, G1 actually preserves the dual tradition. In G1.33,
Theodore is said to have joined the Latopolis group at age 14. In G1.26,
the Latopolis reference drops out, and he joins the Pachomian move-
ment directly at that age. 104 Cf. Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia I, Eo 31
n.3.
The problem of Theodore's age in Ep Am 10 (infra, Notes on the Text
130.16-17) may revolve around this dual tradition also.
130.14-15 OV 6 aylOC; - YV"crlOV] Pachomi us' reception of Theodore
brings to mind Ammon's description of his own reception by Theodore
in § 2. Ammon's desire to present himself as the «true son» of the latter
is not to be denied.
The presentation of Theodore as a true son (UtOV yv"crtov) of Pacho-
mius is also met in the other sources. G1 (H 82.19-20) and G3 (H
279.32) speak of him as Pachomius' true child (1EXVOV yv"crtov). G1.12
(H 8.10) uses the same terms to describe Pachomius' relationship to
Palamon.

104 GJ similarly makes no mention of the length of time spent by the Alexandrian
Theodore as a lector in Alexandria before his entrance into the Pachomian community.
Bo 89 reports that he spent 12 years as a lector. GJ only reports that he was a lector.
The spiritual fatherhood of the abbot, and particularly of Pacho-

mius,105 necessarily elicits the counter idea of sonship. In Lib Hor 23,
the call is made to become sons of Pachomius (Nos invicem amare
debemus et ostendere quod vere sumus famuli Domini Jesu Christi et
filii Pachomii et discipuli coenobiorum).106
§10
The earthquake experience of Pachomius is paralleled in the other
sources (Bo 73; S5.73; SIO; Am 402f; Av f.45 v ; GI.88; G3.138). How-
ever, the relationship of these accounts to the Ep Am is distant. Any
connection is further complicated by the numerous variations among
the various vitae versions.
According to Bo 73, the event took place after Theodore had been
appointed steward of Tabennesis. His appointment to that post is
recorded in Bo 70. In GI.88, no mention is made of this appointment,
which is reported only in G1.78. The Ep Am also does not explicitly
mention the appointment, although the unspecified task assigned to
Theodore (130.16-17)may refer to it. The Greek of this statement in the
Ep Am is reminiscent of that in GI.78 (H 53.1).107
Bo and G1 agree closely after this point. Both report that Theodore
was in the habit of going to Pabau after he had finished his work at
Tabennesis in order to hear Pachomius' scripture discussions. On this
particular occasion, he could not find Pachomius and so proceeded to
the terrace over the room used for the synaxis. He began to study
scripture on his own, but the terrace began to shake. He descended
immediately to the synaxis room to pray, but found the place full offear
and was forced to depart immediately, unaware of the cause.
At this juncture, Bo, followed by the other oriental witnesses, re-
counts the vision that Pachomius was having in the synaxis. It was this
vision that lay behind Theodore's experience. A great icon of the Lord
appeared on the east wall of the sanctuary, which had become gilded.
The image was crowned with a glorious crown and two archangels were
standing before it. Pachomius prayed that the fear of the Lord might
descend upon all, so that they would refrain from sin. But the angels
responded that he could not bear such fear. Pachomius countered that
he could, with the help of God. Thereupon, a luminous beam of fear
(NX€tAK TIN NT€t20t) appeared, but its power proved to much, and
105 Bacht, Das Vermiichtnis 217-224.

106 Cf., Bo 190; Epist Hor. CSCO 59.65.22-29; Theodore, Catechesis 3, CSCO
159.46.7f.
107 Lefort, Les vies coptes LVII.
lOB Festugiere, La premiere vie grecque 46, 71.
109 Chitty, «Once more» 63-64.

130.14-15- §1O 217
Pachomius cried for mercy. The beam departed and Pachomius was
showered with mercy.
The account of this vision is absent from GI and the other Greek
vitae. After the account of the vision, Bo and GI return to their agree-
ment. Theodore finds Pachomius reporting his experience to the older
brothers. Both accounts report Pachomius' statement that he almost
gave up his soul. Bo continues the statement. Pachomius noted that
while he was distressed, he saw a daring man (OYTOXMHpOC)
enter the synaxis, who was in anguish because of the fear. Thereupon,
Theodore identifies himself as that man and gives a brief account of
what had happened to him. Pachomius responds that he received great
mercy that night, and all the brothers marvel.
GI, on the other hand, after Pachomius' statement that he almost
gave up his soul, inserts a mention of certain terrible visions (q>o~Epae;
o1t'maiae; n vue;) and Pachomius' excessive fear. He reports that he had
prayed for the fear to remain with the brothers to the end of their lives. It
is recalled that his very statement, almost verbally, appears in the Bo
account of the vision. At this point, GI returns to agreement with Bo.
Pachomius reports that while he was in distress, he had noted a daring
man ('toAJlT\p6e;) enter the room, receive mercy, and depart. Theodore
identifies himself as the man, again, as in Bo, giving a brief account of
his experience. At this, the older brothers marvel. G1 then adds a
general axiom stating that although Pachomius saw many hidden things
with the Lord's help, he revealed to the brethren only those matters
sufficing for edification.
The relationship between the Coptic and the Greek accounts is
intriguing. The brief reference to terrible visions and Pachomius' prayer
occurring in the discussion with the older brothers on the following
morning in GI appears as an extended account ofthe vision itself in Bo.
Festugiere argued that Bo appeared more complete, while GI sounded
like a summary. lOS Chitty, on the other hand, argued that this was a
typical example of Bo's tendency to expand in the direction of the
supernatural. He argued that the original guardedness in respect to
visions and miracles that survives in G1 was discarded in the later
tradition.lo9
Leaving that debate aside, the parallel account in the Ep Am reveals
interesting connections with both traditions. The vocabulary used to
describe Theodore's assignment is reminiscent of that found in
GI.78,110 though it is certainly insufficient to support a notion of
literary dependence. The Ep Am account is unique in too many ways.
Whereas both vitae traditions agree that after Theodore could not find
110 Lefort, Les vies copIes LVII; supra, p.216.

Pachomius, he proceeded to a terrace over the synaxis, where he first felt

the earthquake, the Ep Am knows a different version. Theodore expe-
riences the earthquake while he is still looking for Pachomius. He is
outside the refectory at the time, near the monastery church. When the
earthquake began, both Bo and G1 report that Theodore went down
immediately into the synaxis to pray, where he was struck with fear and
forced to leave. According to the Ep Am, he never got inside the
building, but was struck down with fear outside, while still looking for
Pachomius.
At this point in the story, the Ep Am, like Bo, inserts an account of
Pachomius' experience. However, it is not the report of a vision, but of
Pachomius' prayer. Theodore heard the prayer from outside. It centers
around a calling upon God for mercy on account of his only-begotten
Son. Of course, since Theodore never made it into the building, no
reference to the daring man who entered occurs at this point. However,
it does survive in the Ep Am at a later point in the episode (131.21),
where Pachomius describes Theodore's actions.
In G 1, neither Pachomius nor Theodore are reported to have fallen to
the ground in fear, though the latter does leap out of the synaxis in fear.
In Ep Am, Theodore is portrayed as praying in great fear with his face to
the ground (131.15-16). In Bo, although Theodore remains upright, the
fear is said to have been so great that Pachomius collapsed, wriggling
like a fish (A'l2[€I] 2IX€NnlKA21 OY02 A'l021 €'l'l<DX'lIDXI €n€CHT
M<j>PHt NOYT€[BT] €'lON2, CSC089.77.7-8). Again, in Bo, Pacho-
mius cries for mercy, whereupon the beam offear departs. In the Ep Am
(131.14-15), it is again Pachomius' call for mercy that leads to the final
action, though here it is the earthquake. 111
Finally, the Ep Am notes that when the earthquake ceased, the light
was no longer visible to human eyes (131.19-20). However, no previous
mention of this light's appearance was ever made. This suggests a
problem in Ammon's use of his material (supra, p. 112). The appear-
ance oflight with a vision is a common topos. However, G1, which only
mentions terrible visions, makes no allusion to the light. In Bo, on the
other hand, many parts of the vision suggest light: the gilded wall, the
dazzling image of the Lord, and the luminous beam of fear.
The closing scene between Pachomius, Theodore, and the older
brothers does not appear in the Ep Am. This is because the basis for it,
namely, Theodore's entry into the synaxis, is not present.
The Ep Am ends with Pachomius' instruction to Theodore not to
report these events until after his death (131.23-24). Although a com-
111 One gets the impression from Ep Am alone that the present quake represents an
aftershock (cf., 130.20-21). More likely, it represents Ammon's reworking of the sources.
§ 10 - 130.16-17 219
mon topos (infra, Notes on the Text 131.23-24), it contradicts Pacho-

mius' own reporting of it to the brothers in the vitae. As a written
account, Bo reveals no reticence in reporting the vision. However, G1
does. While underlining that even to the older brothers Pachomius only
reported the edifying parts, its author is careful not to recount the vision
at all in his written version. He only mentions certain terrible visions.
Chitty felt that this reticence in G1 was part of the original Pachomian
position. The Coptic sources represented a later stage in which the
supernatural was being enhanced. 112 However, G1 does reveal a deve-
lopment within the community of a growing stance against vision. 113
Pachomius' visionary abilities (§§ 71, 88, 102) led eventually to prob-
lems within the monasteries (§§48, 93) and the church hierarchy (§ 112).
Under Theodore, visions are definitely played down (§ 135). It seems
likely that a tendency developed to read Theodore's position back into
the time of Pachomius, an element that has much to do with the taming
of the monastic spirit for the church.
As for the development of the tradition of the earthquake vision, G1
appears to offer the most distinct separation of the material, having
little or no knowledge of the prayer or vision accountsY4 It does
mention terrible visions, but does not divulge them. Bo and the Ep Am
both insert an account of what happened to Pachomius in the synaxis.
However, they are distinct in that Bo inserts a vision that includes some
minor prayer material, while the Ep Am supplies a long prayer with an
enigmatic reference to a disappearing light that suggests a vision.
The precise relationship of the Ep Am version to those of the vitae is
difficult to determine, because it is so far removed. It does seem to have
connections with both traditions. Perhaps the best explanation for the
uniqueness of Ammon's account is his own. He is reporting a story that
he heard from Ausonius and Elourion some 40 years before. He is, of
course, also molding it to his own purposes, though that alone does not
seem to account for all the' changes.
130.16-17 Kai YEva~Evo~ - avooa~] The Ep Am records that Theo-
dore was 22 years old when this event took place and links it to his
having accomplished a task commanded by Pachomius (btt'tax3Ei~ n
napa rraxou~iou xai clvooa~). Lefort saw this as a literary reminiscence
of the passage in G1.78 (H 53.1) referring to Theodore's appointment as
steward of Tabennesis (eE68ropo~ Of: 'tax3Ei~ eXEi, c.O~ ~it 'tax3Ei~ flv).
112 Chitty, «Once more» 54-64.

113 Hedrick 78-94.
114 The simplicity of G1, coupled to the various ways in which the vision or prayer
material was inserted into the other sources, suggests that Gl represents the earlier form.
Cr., Festugiere, La premiere vie grecque 46, 71.
This, in turn, is closely connected (it occurs one section later in G1) to
Theodore's catechesis before the older brothers, which led to their
dissent. These connections are important for linking the various ref-
erences to Theodore's age in the vitae and the Ep Am. 115
According to G1.78 (= S4.69 and Av), Theodore was 30 years old
when he was appointed steward at Tabennesis. Bo 69 gives his age as 33
and G3.92 as 34. Although the vitae do not agree, they are relatively in
the same neighborhood when compared to the Ep Am's 22. G2.53, on
the other hand, seems to support Ammon, reporting that Theodore was
20 years old when he gave his catechesis. However, Lefort correctly
pointed out that G2 is here dependent on the Asc, where the 20 years
refers to the duration of Theodore's monastic life. 116 Lefort concluded
that Ammon had made a similar mistake here, taking a reference in his
source to Theodore's years in the monastic life as a reference to his
absolute age. Thus, if Ammon's 22 is added to Theodore's age of 13 or
14 when he became a monk, one arrives at 35 years for his appointment
as steward of Ta.bennesis. This is taken to be in closer agreement with
the vitae.
The problem of Theodore's age has been discussed above (Notes on
the Text 130.1 0-11). According to all of the sources, he entered the
monastic life at age 13 or 14. However, while the majority equate this
with his entry into the Pachomian system, Bo 31 links it to his entry into
a non-Pachomian monastery, where he remained for six years before
joining Pachomius at age 20. 117
If the Bo version is correct, and these «lost» six years are added to
Ammon's 22, the resulting 28 again approaches the vitae evidence. Of
course, this assumes a series of computations on Ammon's part. 118 In
the end, it must be admitted that the traditions are confused. After all,
the age of the players was not the principle concern of the authors.
130.18-19 toU oixou - f;(Hiv] Cf. Asc 17 (H 140.12).
130.20 xai o"EtOl.u';Vll~ - aiO"S6IlEVO~] In Gl.19, Pachomius quotes Ps
45.1-2, «God is our refuge and strength, our helper in the great afflic-
tions that befall us; for this we shall not fear even if the earth quake.» He
is using it against the demons who are shaking his cell, threatening its
115 Lefort, Les vies copIes LVII.

116 Ibid.
117 S14 agrees with Bo.
118 The computations could have been made earlier in the tradition that he was using.
They would involve the use of a reference to Theodore's years in the Pachomian system
being added to his age when he became a monk, incorrectly assumed to be when he
became a Pachomian monk.
130.18-19-131.1-2 221
collapse. The same practice was used by demons to strike fear into
Antony (V.Ant 9,39). In the present case, the earthquake, though still
frightening, is God's work.
130.22-131.13 '0 3!>o~ - 1t!>1toirp<!>v] Pachomius' prayer does not
explicitly quote scripture, though it revels in scriptural language. The
opening lines derive from Joel 2.13, 17. The 1tooq> ~l(lAAOV form of
argument (131.9-11) brings to mind Paul's use of it in Romans 11.
The prayer is a call upon God for mercy. It has the form of a case
being argued before God, an effort to compel him to show mercy. He is
called upon to remember the past world, particularly the Jewish people,
upon whom he often showed mercy. The thrust is that the present world,
redeemed through Christ, is even more deserving of mercy. The seeds of
antisemitism are clearly visible. However, it is not only a question of
man's deserving God's mercy, but of God being compelled to grant it.
He cannot but help to have mercy on the present age (131.6-7), appar-
ently under the threat of coming into judgment with mankind if he fails
to show mercy (131.5-6; cf. Ps 142.2).
I have failed to find this precise idea elsewhere in the literature. The
sense of striking a deal with God that puts God under an obligation to
man can be found. The idea is usually presented as a claim upon God's
promises (e. g., Asc 18). Clement of Alexandria states that proper con-
duct and prayer allow one to lay claim to God's promises (Strom 7.48,
73,81). APMios 1 states that ifsomeone obeys God, God obeys him (cf.
Iliad 1.218). The idea is surely meant more in terms of God's response
than his obligation. However, the possibility of slipping over into the
latter is always present. In S10 (= Am 438), an angel of the Lord makes
a deal with Pachomius, promising to hinder the progress of the barba-
rians in exchange for increased charity from the Pachomians.
131.1-2 xui ,.tire!> - f;1tUYYEA~U'tO~] Ammon refers elsewhere to the
monks and consecrated virgins (124.15; 144.16; 153.17,20). To f;1t(lY-
Y!>A~U represents a promise or vow made by the monk upon undertak-
ing his monastic career. Entrance into the Pachomian system certainly
involved such a statement (supra, Notes on the Text 125.9-11). In Ep
Am 17, Ammon includes among Amaeis' sins his reasoning against the
vow ('to f;1tuYYEA~u'tt) of the monks. In G1.104, Silvanus, before his
entry into the monastery, solemnly states his acceptance before God at
the gate (cf. Reg Pach, Praecepta 49). Theodore reports that if a man
takes a monastic vow (Mv iJ f;1tuyy!>tAa~!>vo~ 'tOy ~ovuX6v) when he is
baptised, he receives the seal of the spirit (G1.140). The fulfillment of
this vow was an expected part of the monk's daily life (Theodore,
Catechesis 3 = CSCO 160.41.1-2). As a promise to God, proof of its
fulfillment was expected on the day of judgment (Theodore, Catechesis
3 = CSCO 160.52.6-15; AP Antony 33).
Under Shenoute, the vow became more formal. Before one could
join, a formal vow before the altar was made, as well as the signing of a
written document apparently aimed at avoiding legal problems at a
later date. 119
131.23-24 Tuu'fa - unuYYElA1J<;] The charge not to report something
until the death of the person involved is a common topos. In Ep Am 14,
Theodore's special dispensation from the angels was reported to Pekys-
sius by Pachomius, who in turn, did not pass it on until after the latter's
death (134.28-29). In the V.Ant 60, Amoun insists that his disciple
refrain from reporting his miraculous transportation over a river until
after his death. In AP Sisoes 18, Antony, not realizing that a boy
outside his cave was dead, raises him accidentally by telling him to get
up and go. Upset at this, the saint's disciple tells the boy's father not to
speak of it until after the old man's death.
The topos is clearly connected to the presentation of the monk as
humble and desirous of anonymity. It also functions to account for the
appearance of stories that were previously unknown.
§11
This section is the only one whose attestation goes beyond the mss. F,
t, and r. It was inserted by the 13th-14th century monk Thecaras into
his Hymnus triadicus or BtPAiov (or 'EYXEtpHhov) XUAOUf.lEVOV E>TJXU-
pti<; tv 4> den yqpUf.lf.lEVOl Uf.lVOl 'tE xui Euxui d<; 06~uv 'ti'j<; t:mEp-
Uf.lVll'tou xui u8tatphou 'tpui8o<;, nu'tpo<;, uiou, xui ayiou nVEUf.lU-
'to<;.120 Thecaras' Horologion became quite popular, resulting in a large
number of surviving manuscripts. Halkin collated nine of these, finding
that they all offered the same basic text with but minor variations. He
concluded that all were descendent from the same original. He chose to
publish the reading from only one in his apparatus criticus (codice
Athoo monasterii Hiberorum 367 = a). These readings have been
retained in the present edition.
Although the a readings are quite distinct, a few cases of agreement
with t over against F suggest its derivation from that stream, though at
which point is difficult to say. At 132.4, both t and a favor EAWSEp<7xrat
119 Leipoidt, Shenute 106-113.

120 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 25*-26*; loannis Alberti Fabricii, Bibliotheca graeca
(Hamburg: Bohn, 1808) 11.717; Catalogue general des livres imprimes de la BibliotMque
Nationale 1 (1897) 315; loan Bianu and Nerva Hodos, Bibliografia Romdneasca Veche
1508-1830 (Bucuresti: Atelierele, 1912) 3.112; Emile Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique
ou description raisonee des ouvrages publies par des Grecs au dix-huitieme siecle (Paris:
Societe d'Edition les Belles Lettres, 1928) 2.400, 5.133.
131.23-24-132.2 223
over F's £AwSEproSiivat. At 132.7-8, although t and a vary noticeably

between themselves as well as over against F, both agree in supplying a
1tPOOEXE after the l)1t08EiYj.1a'to~ clause, and both alter F's 1tPOOEXE in
the following line to 1tpOOXE~/1tpOOcrXE~.
131.26-27 f:mcrxEmOj.1f:VOD I1axoDj.1ioD 'tu aAAa j.1ovacr'llpta] The
practice of visiting the various monasteries developed naturally as the
system grew. The length of such trips likewise grew longer as more
monasteries were founded or joined. This was particularly true after the
founding of the second group of monasteries around Panopolis (G 1.80-
83) at a considerable distance from the Pabau center (GI.54).121 The
daily trips that were possible between such places as Tabennesis, Pabau,
and Chenoboskeia (GI.88, 97,130) had to give way to longer missions
(G 1.131, 137). The location of the monasteries made travel by boat easy
(GI.55, 60,107,113,131,135,137,146). The other form ofcommunica-
tion between the monasteries was the annual gatherings at Pabau for
Easter and in Mesore (August) (infra, Notes on the Text 142.13-15).
131.27-132.2 eE68ropo~- I1aXOUj.110~] As in §10, mention is made
here of Theodore accomplishing an unspecified task ordered by Pacho-
mius. This appears, through a comparison with the other sources, to
refer to his appointment as steward of Tabennesis (supra, Notes on the
Text 130.16-17). A problem arises, however, in that Ammon places
Theodore at Pabau for the present account. Although various scenarios
could be offered to account for Theodore's presence at Pabau, the most
likely solution is found in Ammon's difficulty in differentiating suffi-
ciently between Pabau and Tabennesis.
Ammon spent his time at Pabau. Although he must surely have
known Tabennesis, his juxtaposition of various stories has resulted in
problems. It is interesting that these problems occur in the non-eyewit-
ness accounts. Ammon distinctly identifies only Pabau (§ 2) and an
unidentified settlement near Ptolemais (§ 25) as individual monasteries.
He did, however, know of others (130.1-2; 142.12-13). The name of
Ta~Evviicrt~ never occurs, though Ta~EvvllcrlOl appears four times. It is
used twice as a general name for the Pachomian monks (124.6; 156.5)
and twice in a more enigmatic reference to ,0 j.1ovacr,llPlov ,rov
Ta~EvvTJcrirov (134.2; 137.23-24). These latter most likely refer to Ta-
bennesis, though even with that interpretation, some difficulty remains.
In § 14 (134.2), the precise reference is to the aforesaid monastery in the
Tentyrite nome. However, the only monastery previously named is
Pabau, and it was specifically placed in the Diospolite nome (125.8).
121 Chitty, «A Note» 379-385.

This problem was solved by the scribe of t by erasing the reference to the
Diospolite nome (supra, Notes on the Text 125.8-9).
The problem is a result of Ammon's failure to shift the action from
Pabau to Tabennesis when he begins the non-eyewitness accounts in § 9.
It is certain that the earliest events in Theodore's career took place
before the founding of Pabau. Furthermore, it has already been noted
that § 10, though occurring at Pabau, refers to Theodore's appointment
as steward ofTabennesis (supra, Notes on the Text § 10). Finally, in § 18
(137.23-24), the monastery of the Tabennesiotes is identified as that one
in which Theodore had his vision (EV cI> xai n'lv cl1rracrtav ilv twpaxro~
E>E68wpo~). This could refer back to § 14 and Theodore's being fed by
the angels. Indeed, this section likewise mentions the monastery of the
Tabennesiotes. However, that event is not portrayed as a vision, but an
actual event. Section 11 is clearly given out as a vision (tropaxEv, 132.5).
Ammon's note in §19 (139.18-19) that they were then at Pabau may
represent an attempt to move the action there from the Tabennesis
monastery in § 18. It is to be noted that § 18 refers to the monastery
garden by the river (137.25-26). The modern Faw Qibli, the site of
Pabau, is geographically some distance from the Nile. Tabennesis was
on the Nile (Eo 17).
The solution to the present problem in § 11 seems to lie in recognizing
Ammon's reference to Bau as erroneous. Theodore is carrying out his
assignment from Pachomius as steward of Tabennesis and is therefore
at Tabennesis when this vision occurred. Of course, once again, it must
be emphasized that the location is not the point of the story. The desire
to pinpoint it is a modern concern. The story is a hagiographic creation.
However, the above points argue that the original tradition placed
Theodore at Tabennesis for this vision.
132.2 uno 't'fj~ 1\.AE~avopEia~ E1ttOrHHlcruv't'wv] Visitors to the mona-

steries were common and carefully controlled for fear of their negative
influence (Eo 14, 40; G1.40, 72, 82; Asc 7; Ep Am 30). A special house
was constructed outside the gate for them (Reg Pach, Praecepta 50-52).
Women apparently stayed in the nunneries (G1.37).
Visitors from Alexandria are also met elsewhere in the literature.
Ammon (§2) and the Alexandrian Theodore (§4) came from the city.
The first fruits of the Greek house come from among the Alexandrians
(G1.95). The most famous visitor was Athanasius (Ep Am 34; G1.30,
143). Further evidence in the Ep Am is found in the Alexandrian stone
merchant in § 18 (139.5-6) and the friend of Ammon's father in § 30
(152.22-23). Athanasius, in his second letter to the monks (PG 26.1185),
reports that certain persons of Arian persuasion are going around to the
monasteries under the pretext of returning from Athanasius to visit
them with the intent of leading the simple astray.
132.2-132.3 225
132.3 um;p - AEYOOOW] The filtering of the theological debate from

Alexandria up the Nile is well represented here, both in terms of its
factual occurrence and the later understanding of it by the victorious
Athanasian party. This section fits into the anti-Arian thread running
throughout the letter (supra, p.l07).
It is to be noted that the charge against the Arians is couched in terms
of their position on the Son of God, while Theodore's vision deals with
the entire trinity. Although the relationship of the Spirit was not central
in the original Arian debate (the problem of it was not raised at Nicaea),
concern over it heated up in the latter half of the fourth century.
Eusebius of Caesarea terms the Spirit a third power ('tfj~ 'tpi'tTJ~ 8uva-
IlE{J)~) in the third rank (EV 'tpitlJ 'ta~Et), coming into existence through
the Son (Eusebius of Caesarea, Praep Ev 11.20.1 ; De eccl theoI3.6.3).
The later Arian Eunomius regarded the Spirit as but the noblest of all
creatures (Eunomius, Apo125, 28; Basil, Adv Eun 2.33). More conserva-
tive churchmen like Cyril of Jerusalem argued for the unity of the holy
triad and against the Sabellian confusion (Cat 16.4). Athanasius faced
the issue head on in A. D. 359-360 in his answer to Serapion, bishop of
Thmuis. The latter was struggling with a group called the Tropici, who
argued that the Spirit was the. highest angel, but still a creature. Conse-
quently, it was of different substance than the Father and the Son.
Athanasius strongly asserts the divinity of the Spirit and its consubstan-
tiality with the Son (Epist IV ad Serap). He secured acceptance of this·
position at the council of Alexandria in 362 (Tom ad Ant 3,5 f; Socrates,
Hist eccl3.7). The debate continued for some time, until the reaffirma-
tion of the Nicene position at the Council of Constantinople in 381
A. D., where the consubstantiality of the Spirit was affirmed. 122 Thus,
the argument against the Arians had clearly come to involve a defense of
the entire trinity.
It should also be noted that in the encomium on the martyr Claude by
Constantine, bishop of Asiut,123 the division of the persons of the
trinity is cited as one feature of the Meletian heresy. The Meletians
were, on occasion, aligned with the Arians.124
122 For the debate before the Council of Constantinople, it is impossible to list all the
sources.
123 W. E. Crum, Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London:
British Museum, 1905) ms. 358 (P. Morgan ms. 47); H. Idris Bell, Jews and Christians in
Egypt (London: British Museum, 1924; reprint ed., Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood,
1976) 42.
124 Ibid. 38-41.
132.5-6 E~ aAwv icroll<;] Cf. POxy 936.20, ouoi: <l>tAO~Evov aI...' E~

aAwv EUpOV. The revelation follows the standard pattern of vision
followed by interpretation (Ep Am 12; G1.1 02; V.Ant 82; AP Arsenius
33). The language is typically trinitarian with a strong emphasis on
identity (taVto'tll<;) over against division (Dtacr'tacrv;) and individuality
(TCEptypacpil). The position is clearly relevant to the anti-Arian argu-
ment. However, the stated position could be troubling to one fearing a
latent form of monarchianism (cf. Cassian, De incarn Domini 1.2; Cyril
of Jerusalem, Cat 16.2). The redactor behind t appears to have had such
a fear, for he twice supplies a reference to the parts ('ta ~EPll). In the
second case, in particular, he concludes the vision in which Theodore
has just been called upon to pay attention to the identity of the three
pillars of light and not to their division or individuality by adding that
he should also consider the parts (xai cruvilcrEt<; UTCO ~i;pou<;). Supra,
p.56.
132.9-10 oux Ecrnv - TCvEu~a] The idea that the divine mystery lies
beyond the capacity of man's understanding is common (Rom 11.33-
36). It found repeated usage in the trinitarian debate (AP Sopatros).
Athanasius uses it often. In his letter to Serapion (Epist ad Serap 4.17-
18,20), he asserts that it is impossible for any creature, and above all for
men, to fathom the ineffable matters of divinity. In his discourses
against the Arians (Orat contra Ar 2.32-33) he presents an extended
argument on the inability of human nature to comprehend God. Else-
where (Epist de deer Nic 12), in discussing the relationship of the
Father and the Son, he states that the illustration ('to TCapaDEty~a) pales
when compared to that which it illustrates, though it is helpful in
understanding something of the divine. Again, after using the familiar
idea that light cannot be separated from the sun to express the unity of
the Father and the Son, he points out that one has to use a poor simile
based on tangible and conceptual things in order to express these ideas,
since it is bold to impinge upon the incomprehensible nature of God
(UTCO yap 'troy EV XEperi xai cruvilSwv dxovt TC'tWXij xpllcra~Evoll<;, 'to
VOOU~EVOV TCapacr'tt;crat 't<l> AOYCP DEi, ETCEtDTt 'toA~11poV E~~a'tEUEtV
'tTtV uTCEptVOllwV CPOOtV, Hom in illud3 = PG 25.216A). Of course, the
idea is not limited to Athanasius (Basil, Adv Eun 2.17; Augustine, Con!
13.11, Trin 15.39; Gelasius of Cyzicus, Hist eccl2.21-22). Gelasius'
account· is particularly interesting in that it incorporates the 'to UTCO-
DEty~a found in the present text. He asserts that one learns from the
sensible things (Ex 'troy aicrSll'trov) concerning the intellectual things
(TCEpi 'troy vOll'troV), and from the things of the mind (EX 'troy xanl vouv)
about that which is beyond the mind (TCEpi 'troy UTCi:p vouv), and from
that which is spoken (EX troy AEyo~Evwv) concerning that which is
132.5-6-§ 12 227
beyond words (m:pi 'trov U1tf:P AOyOV). He asserts that all things seen and
thought, whether by heavenly, earthly, or subterranean creatures, are
incomparable with the uncreated, incomprehensible, immortal God.
Nonetheless, he says that he will offer a model (U1t68Ety~a) for the
profit of the faithful. He then proceeds to present the trinity in terms of
fire (1tUp), radiance (a1ta6yacr~a), and light (<pro~); 2.22.10-16.
§ 12
V. Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia I, 268 n. 1; J. Goehring, «Pacho-
mius' Vision of Heresy: The Development of a Pachomian Tradition»,
Museon 95 (1982) 241-262. Pachomius' vision of heresy is paralleled in
Bo 103, S3a (Lefort, Les vies copIes 319), Am 498f, Av f.75\ G1.102, and
distantly in Asc 17, G2.69-70, and D 45. The material in G2 and D
derive from the Asc account. The Arabic and Coptic versions are also
related to one another.
The Ep Am version is alone in connecting the vision to Pachomius'
entry into the monastic life. As such, this connection is to be dismissed.
It is dependent on Ammon's effort to portray Theodore as Pachomius'
heir. As Theodore had an early vision against heresy in Ammon's
account (§ 11), so too must Pachomius, in order to establish the pattern.
In the present version, the vision is reported by Pachomius to Theo-
dore in response to Theodore's report of his own vision of the trinity.
Pachomius notes that Meletian and Marcionite groups sought his mem-
bership when he first took up the monastic life. Utterly confused, he
besought God to reveal to him where the truth lay. He became ecstatic
and saw the whole world under darkness. From various regions, voices
called out, claiming to possess the truth. Many men were following each
voice. But only in the East did a light appear. A voice then warned
Pachomius not to follow the other voices in the darkness, for the truth
was in the light. The light is then identified as the proclamation of
Christ's gospel. It is linked to the archbishop Alexander. The other
voices are identified as the various heresies confronting the believer.
In G1.1 02, the vision occurs at a later point in Pachomius' career.
Once again, he saw a darkened place. But this time, there are many
pillars in it. There were many men there also, who could not find their
way out of the darkness to the light. Many were circling the pillars in
confusion. Then, Pachomius noted a lamp moving before many of the
men, of whom only the front four saw it. Each of the others behind it
was holding on to the man in front of him, and thus the chain was
moving through the darkness, following the lamp. After yelling at two
of the men who let go of the chain to hold firm, he observed the lamp
lead them up through a window to the light.
The symbolic interpretation of the vision follows. 125 It identifies the

dark place with this world, which is full of error. Each heresy believes
that it is on the right path to the light. The lamp is faith in Christ, which
leads up to the Kingdom of God.
Although the details of the vision vary between Gland Ep Am, both
use it to support right faith against the various brands of heresy. In the
Coptic version, another element comes into play.
In Bo 103, the vision again occurs at a later stage in Pachomius'
career. Pachomius saw the likeness of Amente, in the middle of which
stood a column. Voices on all sides of it were crying out, claiming to
posses the truth. The men, lost in the darkness, ran to each voice, hoping
to see the light. But each time, as they ran, a voice from behind them
would yell out that it possessed the truth, causing them to turn back and
run in the other direction. Others were circling the column in the
darkness, thinking that they were approaching the light, without re-
alizing that they were only going in a circle. Finally, he saw the con-
gregation of the community (€tewoYTC TH pc HT€tKOIHWNIl.), pro-
ceeding in single file, each holding on to the one before him. The ones
who led had a small lamp to light the way, and only four of the brothers
could see it. As Pachomius watched, he saw a certain Paniski, 126 who
was great among the brethren, together with some others, cease to
follow those before them. Pachomius cried to the others, who had not
yet let go, to hold firm, lest they be lost. Then he watched as the small
light led the brothers up through a great opening, above which was a
great light. The text adds that the opening had a large knot (KOTC) in it,
so as not to allow the great light to dispel the darkness of the place.
The interpretation that follows identifies Amente with this world and
the darkness with the futile errors. The men in it are the souls of the
ignorant, and all of the voices claiming to possess the light represent the
heresies and schisms. The columns around which the men turn are the
heresiarchs, in whom the simple put their faith. They lead men astray.
The brethren who were guiding the brothers are those who proceed in
the right faith. Those who let go represent certain bishops, who, though
standing in the right faith themselves, are in communion with the
heretics. The small light that leads the brethren is the gospel (this
identification is omitted in Bo, but present in S3a and Av), and the great
opening is the word spoken by the apostle in Eph 4.13.
Bo reports that after the vision, Pachomius spoke to the brothers who
let go and bid them to hold firm in the fear of God. But when they
125 In the Ep Am, the interpretation has moved up to become a part of the revelation
itself. The secondary nature of this development is obvious.
§12 229
departed, they continued in their old ways and eventually became

strangers to the brethren.
The account clearly parallels that in GI. The presence ofthe pillar(s)
in both sets them off from the Ep Am. Festugiere argued that GI
represented an abridgment of the Bo account, since the clarity of the
latter far surpasses that of the former. Thus, for example, the interpreta-
tion in GI centers on the identification of the lamp with the gospel and
fails to link the columns with the heresies. 127 However, one could argue
that a literary summary could not possibly lead from the clarity of Bo to
the obtuse nature of GI. The difficulty of the latter form, on the other
hand, would call for clarification. More probably, the solution lies
somewhere in between, in the development of the oral and written
traditions. For example, dual traditions are detectable in the Bo version.
While the vision speaks only of a single column, the interpretation
identifies the columns as the heresiarchs. Those who let go in the vision
are used twice in the interpretation. Once they are identified as the
bishops who are in communion with the heretics (CSCO 89.132.30f),
and a second time, as members of the community (133.15 f). The ref-
erence to the knot designed to keep the light out sounds like a secondary
gloss.
Be that as it may, the interesting new element detected in Bo is the
appearance of a group that represents the brethren of the Pachomian
community, and the linkage of those who let go to members of the
community. These, in spite of Pachomius' subsequent warning, fall
away.
This aspect appears again in the Asc version. There, after a revelation
of the great increase in numbers that was going to take place among the
brethren, they are seen making their way along a deep, dark valley,
attempting to go up out of it to the light. But the density of the darkness
made it difficult, and many fell in exhaustion and cried bitterly. A very
few, with great difficulty, made it out of the valley and were met
immediately by the light. Pachomius recognized the vision as a view of
the future of his monastic system. Blindness and error were to follow the
loss of the shepherds of the community, and the wicked would have
dominion over the good.
In this version, the vision has come to refer to the Pachomian com-
munity alone and the problems it would face upon the death of Pacho-
mius and beyond. All reference to heresy in general has disappeared.
The precise historical allusions are difficult to pin down. The increased
126 The name does not appear elsewhere in the Pachomian dossier.
127 Festugiere, La premiere vie grecque 51-52.
numbers that led to the problems following Pachomius' death immedi-

ately come to mind (Gl.127-128). However, the dominion of the
wicked over the good could also point to the later division of the
monastery during the monophysite crisis, when the monophysites were
driven out and replaced by «orthodox» abbots. 128
Whatever the precise event, the distinct nature of the Asc version is
clear. Its orientation to the erring of the brethren also plays a major role
in Bo, though only alongside the discussion of heresy and right faith in
general. One suspects that the vision was incorporated into the different
sources in various ways, depending upon the purpose of the author. The
Asc offers the clearest Sitz im Leben. As such, it probably represents the
most original version. Bo retains this link, though the mention of the
erring brethren has been generalized and broadened to include an
attack against heresy in general. G I and the Ep Am carry this develop-
ment further. Here, the reference to the brethren has dropped out
completely. The vision becomes a general condemnation of heresy, thus
linking the Pachomians to the orthodox right.
In many details, GI and Bo share connections over against the Ep Am
(the Asc is even further removed). For example, the columns play no
part in the Ep Am, and the voices are claiming to possess the truth
instead of the light. As with the earthquake vision (supra, Notes on the
Text § 10), the fluidity of the material is remarkable.
132.13 Kat yap - EHcrSat] Ammon's linkage of the vision with Pa-
chomius' entry into the monastic life is unique and, on those grounds, to
be rejected.
132.13-15 apn !lEV - cppovEiv] No mention of such efforts by the
Meletians and Marcionites occurs in the other sources. It may represent
a reminiscence on Ammon's part of Athanasius' report in V.Ant 68 that
Antony had no dealings with the schismatic Meletians or the Mani-
chaeans. The Marcionites are not mentioned elsewhere in the Pacho-
mian dossier. The Meletians, on the other hand, do occur. In the Greek
128 Paul van Cauwenbergh, Etude sur les moines d'Egypte depuis Ie Concile de
Chalcedoine (451) jusqu'd !'invasion arabe (640) (Paris: Geuthner, 1914) 153-159;
A Panegyric on Apollo, Archimandrite of the Monastery of Isaac, by Stephan, Bishop of
Heracleopolis Magna, trans. by K. H. Kuhn. CSCO 394 (Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus
SCO, 1978) X-XVI; AP Phocas 1. The references in Bo to schisms as well as heresies and
to bishops in communion with heretics probably points to some aspect of the Meletian
problem or those who sold out to the Cha1cedonian position and Justinian I. The loss of
the shepherds in the plural argues for a later date after the death of Theodore and possibly
Horsiesius. Alternatively it could refer to the various abbots that succumbed to the same
plague that killed Pachomius (GI.114-117).
132.13-132.13-15 231
tradition, they appear only via their founder, Meletius, who, together
with Arius and Origen, comes under condemnation (G1.31 = G3.56 =
G2.27, 28). In the Coptic sources, S5.123 reports that the Pachomians
questioned those who came to their monasteries as to whether
or not they were Meletians (X€€NT<DTN 2€NM€XI). TI)'NOC, CSCO
99/100.180.2). This greatly vexed those being questioned! In a piece
connected to Horsiesius (S15, CSCO 99/100.351), those who belong to
the Meletians (N€NT)' YCillTM NC)'MM€XITI)'NOC) are mentioned be-
side those who crucify Christ and are disobedient and reject the de-
mands of the apostles.
Beyond these Pachomian references, it is clear that the Meletians had
a long lasting influence in Egypt. Athanasius presents Antony as
warning against the Meletian schismatics (V.Ant 68,89). Certain people
did not go to visit Apa Sisoes on the outer mountain in the Thebaid at
Calamon of Arsinoe for fear of suffering harm at the hands of the
Meletians who dwelt there (AP Sisoes 48). Sozomen reports that Arse-
nius, the Meletian bishop of Hypselitae, was hidden away by a certain
Prines, a presbyter of an unnamed monastery in Upper Egypt. 129
After other monks from Thebes reported his whereabouts, he was
moved to Lower Egypt.
The Meletian papyri published by Bell have proven that an organized
system of Meletian monasteries existed in Egypt by 335 A. D. 130 Al-
though the activity contained in these letters centers in central
Egypt, at least one group is mentioned as existing in the upper country
(ta avO) Iluipll). This surely points to the Thebaid. 131 The problem of
the relationship between the Pachomians and the Meletians has been
debated,132 though the evidence is too slight to suggest any Meletian
influence on Pachomius.
Finally, it should be noted that when Justinian forced the Cha1cedo-
nian position on the Pachomian monasteries, a certain Monophysite
monk at Pabau, Apollo by name, left to set up his own monastery in the
mountains. When he first arrived there, he was met by the hostility of
the Meletians. 133 Other sources suggest their continued existence down
to the 8th century.134
129 Sozomen, Hist eccl 2.23.2; Athanasius, Apol contra Ar 67; Bell, Jews and
Christians 88-91.
130 Ibid. 38 ff.
131 Ibid. 44.
132 K. Holl, «Der Bedeutung der neuveroffentlichten melitianischen Urkunden fUr die
Kirchengeschichte,» in idem, Gesammelte Aujsiitze zur Kirchengeschichte (Tiibingen:
Mohr, 1928) 2.295-297; Heussi 129-131; Ruppert 59.
133 Panegyric on Apollo, CSCO 395.15; Cauwenbergh 154-155.
134 Bell, Jews and Christians 42-43.
It is interesting to note that the Arians are not mentioned in this brief
heresy list. They are the chief interest in Ammon's own writing. Their
lack here represents, in part, the historical sensitivity inherent in the
letter. The heresies that would have been confronted by Pachomius
early in his career would have been different from those met at a later
date. 135
132.18-19 Kat ,.uml- ii,.1Tlv] Pachomius' confusion, followed by its
resolution, finds a parallel in Apa James of the cells. Both a Monophy-
site and a Chalcedonian church existed at Cellia, and both solicited Apa
James. Confused, he returned to his cell, where he fell to the ground and
received a vision in favor of the Cha1cedonian position (AP Phocas 1).
In Clement of Alexandria (Strom 7.89-92), the trouble involved in
ascertaining the truth is pointed out, as well as the need to seek it.
132.20 E'YEVclJlTJV EV bCcrtOOE1] In its version of the vision, Bo 103
records that Pachomius cried out in ecstacy (~€Nt€KCT~CIC) to those
who let go in the darkness (CSCO 89.132.5). In G1, such ecstatic vision
is ascribed to Pachomius only once (G1.71). It is referred to thrice as a
negative experience (G1.8, 96, 135). The first two of these cases appear
more as an ecstacy associated with possession. However, in the final
case, it is connected to Theodore's playing down of the visionary
element. He points out that those who desire visions often become
ensnared by the enemy and fall into ecstacy (EJl1tEcrU d~ Excrtacrtv). The
uncontrollable ecstatic vision was particularly troubling to the church.
Its play-down in G1 probably reflects the domestication of the monastic
spirit (supra, p.219).
This form of vision was attributed to Theodore and Horsiesius in the
sources (Bo 167; S5.84; S6, CSCO 99/100.269,278). It was generally
assumed as one of the abilities ofaman of God (AP John the dwarf 14;
Poemen 144; Silvanus 2, 3; Tithoes 1; Phocas 1; HL 1.3 (Butler, Lausiac
History 2.15.25); 4.4 (2.20.17); 17.5 (2.44.25); 38.7 (2.119.7).
132.23-133.1 xat 1tpO~ Jlovql t4J aVatOAlx4J- XEiJlEVOV] The appear-
ance of the light in the East is to be expected. Ep Am 23 (145.29) reports
that the monks prayed facing eastward (Origen, De oratione 32). In
Gl.140 (Bo 186), the monk who has taken the monastic vow is said to
journey eastward. Ifhe proceeds well, he will reach the East and find the
savior seated on a throne. The earthquake vision recorded in Bo 73
takes place against the east wall of the sanctuary.
This motif is very common, having its origin in pre-Christian times
(Zech 14.4; Vergil, Aeneid12.172; Tacitus, Hist 3.24; Philo, Devita cont
135 Douglas M. Parrott, «The Nag Hammadi Library and the Pachomian Monas-
teries, » a paper given at the Yale Conference on Gnosticism, 1979.

132.18-19-133.14-15 233
3). The early fathers were not always clear on its purpose or origin
(Origen, In Num hom 5; Basil, De spiritu sanctu 66), though its use was
widespread (Origen, De oratione 32; In Lev hom 9.10; Clement of
Alexandria, 8trom 7.43.6-8; Tertullian, Adv Val 3 ; Apo116; Didascalia
Apostolorum 12; Gregory of Nyssa, In oratione dominica 5; John of
Damascus, De/ide orthodoxa 4.12; Ambrose, De mysteriis 2; Jerome,
Commentary in Amos 3.6; Ps. Athanasius, Quaest ad Ant 37; Const App
2.57.3; 7.45.2; Cyril of Jerusalem Cat 19.9; Ps. Basil, Hist Myst 10).
Detailed studies on the subject do exist. 136
133.2-5 xuxEi3EV TlXOtlOV- AEYOOOU np6c; J.lE] The first voice (133.2) is
of the same order as the other voices who claim to possess the truth,
though, of course, it is the correct one. The second voice (133.4-5), the
existence of which presents some confusion, represents the interpreta-
tion of the vision.
133.8-9 6 8E XUAroV - EXXAT]O"iuC;] Given Ammon's linkage of this

vision to Pachomius' entry into the monastic life, the archbishop of
Alexandria that is referred to has to be Alexander (313-328 A. D.). He
is not mentioned elsewhere in the Pachomian dossier.
Pachomius was conscripted into the army at age 20 for Maximin's
war against Licinius. This can be dated to 312-313 A.D.137 He was
baptised after his release and eventually joined Palamon. Bo 28 explic-
itly refers to the existence of the Pachomian system before Athanasius'
consecration in 328 A. D.
Thus, the reference to Alexander again reveals the historical sensi-
tivity of the letter.
133.14-150"tlvcpXT]O"U-'ttlyxuvovn] Cf. 84.10-14; 85.14; 83; Bo 10-

18; Am 346-359; G1.6-13; G2.8-13; G3.10-17; D 6-13. Ammon
seems to suggest a short period of confusion before Pachomius' disci-
pleship under Palamon. G1, followed by the other Greek and Latin
vitae, move directly from his baptism to his sojourn with Palamon. Bo
8-10 (Am 344-346), on the other hand, states that Pachomius spent a
short time before and thr~e years after his baptism in a small temple
called Pmampiserapis in Sene set (Chenoboskeia = modern al-Qasr),
practicing an ascetic life before he joined Palamon. 138
136 Henry Chadwick, Alexandrian Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954)

384-385, to which I am indebted for many of the citations; H.Lec1erq, «Orientation,»
DAL 12.2.2665-2669; J.Haspecker, «Osten,» LThK 7.1271.
137 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 150 n.4; Chitty, Desert 17 n.39.
138 Ibid. 8; Veilleux, Pachomian Koinonia 1.267.
133.15-18 Ero~ o'tOu - cruvEcr'tTjcraIlTjv] The revelation that led to the

founding of Tabennesis is found also in the vitae (Bo 17; S2; Am 358;
G1.12; G2.12; D 12). However, the angel's message, as recorded by
Ammon, is unique. While the vitae witnesses vary among themselves,
they show good agreement over against the Ep Am. G1.12 reads, TIa-
pallEt vov roOE xai noi Tjcrov llovacrnlPwv' f:AEooov'tat yap nOAAoi npo~
cre YEv{;cr3at Ilovaxoi. G2 alters it only in order to connect it with the
HL material concerning Pachomius' receipt of the angelic rule. In Bo
17, the voice says, «Pachomius, Pachomius, contend! Install yourself
here and build a monastery. For many will come to you and become
monks with you and profit their souls.»
In all of the vitae accounts, the revelation is made by a voice. In the Ep
Am it is an angel (supra, Notes on the Text 130.2-4). In G2, an angel
follows up the voice, in order to deliver the angelic rule. The vitae call
for Pachomius to remain in this new place (he was out gathering wood)
and build a monastery. The Ep Am version lacks both elements. The
latter is a more pleasant literary statement, though the vitae account
rings truer. Once again, the independence of the Ep Am from the vita
traditions is underlined.
133.19-20 rivrocrXE - nVEulla't6~ Ecrnv] This reference to Athanasius
reads like a gloss. It was added to extend the previous linkage of the
spirit with his predecessor Alexander to cover Athanasius as well. It
functions to lead into the following section, which expands on the
Pachomian support for Athanasius.
§13
§ 13 The connection of this section to the narrative is effected
through the gloss at the end of § 12 (133.19-20). In reality, § 13 functions
as an extension of that gloss. Pachomius' vision refuting the heresies in
favor of Alexandrian orthodoxy as epitomized in Alexander is extended
to cover his successor, Athanasius.
Although the story is offered as evidence of Pachomius' strong sup-
port for Athanasius, it is impossible to disengage his position from that
of Ammon's. By the time Ammon wrote, the Athanasian victory and
the accepted view of the Pachomian orthodoxy during the Arian crisis
readily translated to Pachomius' early support. This is not to question
Pachomius' support of Athanasius, but only to recognize the Alexan-
drian influence on its presentation.
Athanasius had been influential in Ammon's decision to become a
monk (Ep Am 2). This influence was probably heightened during his
sojourn at Pabau and certainly through his contacts with the archbishop
after his transfer to the Mountain of Nitria (§§34-36) and eventual
acceptance of ecclesiastical office. As a result, a strong anti-Arian, pro-
133.15-18-133.26-27 235
Athanasian stance is seen throughout the letter. Precisely how much of

this is Ammon's creation is difficult to know. It is certain that all of the
surviving sources portray Pachomius as anti-Arian and pro-Athana-
sian. How this should translate in terms of the system's orthodoxy and
whether indeed the position was universal within the system from the
beginning is not clear. Pachomius' early support for Athanasius is noted
in an account of the latter's trip to the Thebaid following his consecra-
tion (GJ.30). However, on that occasion, Pachomius hid from him to
avoid ordination.
The Pachomians' relationship to Alexandrian orthodoxy surely de-
veloped over time and under the pressure of Athanasius' effort to
harness the monastic impulse for the church. The strong Athanasian
support evidenced in the Pachomian dossier in general, and in the Ep
Am in particular, in part bears witness to the success of the archbishop's
efforts. However, some evidence of greater diversity does exist. 139
133.231tpo~uAAOJlEVOt - 'to Vf;OV] Athanasius was 33 years old when
he succeeded Alexander as archbishop of Alexandria in 328 A. D.140
The disappointment of his Arian opponents with his consecration led to
varied charges. The introduction to Athanasius' third Festal letter (331
A. D.) records that he was summoned to the imperial court by Constan-
tine the Great to answer charges made by his opponents that he was too
young when he was appointed. 141 Sozomen reports the further charge
that Athanasius had been ordained in secret by seven bishops, contrary
to the oath that they had taken with the other bishops to select Alexan-
der's successor by a common vote. 142
133.25-26 L'tUAOV - 'tij ExxAllcriq] Athanasius is elsewhere listed toge-
ther with Antony and the Pachomian community as one of the three
authorities (xEq>aAUtu) that are prospering with God's aid in Egypt
(S5.128; GJ.136).
133.26-27 8Ah"Et~ - Ul:J'tOV] The charges against Athanasius and his
sufferings are well known. The sense of him as a living martyr made his
affiliation with the monks, who understood themselves as latter day
martyrs, especially strong. Of course, the other party charged him with
fleeing during his time of trial (infra, Notes on the Text 156.22).
139 Hedrick 78-94.

140 O. von Lemm, «Koptische Fragmente zur Patriarchengeschichte Alexandriens,»
Memoires de l'Academie imperiaie des sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, 7" serie 36 (1888)
n.11.
141 cr., Ignatius, Mag 3.
142 Sozomen, Hist ecc/ 2.17.4; Athanasius, Apoi contra Ar 6; Philostorgios, Hist ecc/
2.16; AP Poemen 78.
John of Lycopolis reports to Palladius that many tribulations await

him (noAAui O"E Ili:VOOOl 3)...t'l'ElC;, HL 35.8 = Butler, Lausiac History
2.103.14).
133.28 un' ulnoCi] Although the antecedent of uu'toCi is not expressly
given, it is clear that it is divine. In the text itself, the Holy Spirit (133.25)
and Christ (133.27) are possibilities. The proximity of the latter favors
it. Furthermore, in § 34 (156.18), Christ is expressly listed in the parallel
phrase, unEp XPlO"'tOU mlO"Xwv xui 't41 EAEEl uU'toCi 8uVUI..lOUIlEVOC;.
Finally, if the last clause of the section (xui 1t<lv'tU- xrlPU~El) is included
in the Holy Spirit's words, the antecedent of uu'tou must be Christ.
§14
§ 14 This section, coming at the end of Ausonius' and Elourion's
report on Theodore, functions as a certification of his visionary ability
(supra, pp. 112-113). It has no clear parallel in the other Pachomian
sources.
The motif of being led into the ch urch by an angel in order to receive a
revelation is common enough. Bo 184 offers a vision of Theodore's that
is set up in much the same manner. It reports that one day, after
Theodore had gone to bed and fallen asleep, he was awakened by an
angel, who said: «Arise quickly and go to the church. Behold, the Lord
is there.» He proceeded to the church. There he beheld a vision of the
Lord, assisted by his angels. The angels then proceed to question
Theodore concerning the brothers' negligence with respect to the syn-
axis. Although the vision is clearly distinct, it is possible that this
opening goes back to the same original story behind Ep Am 14.
Another example of this motif is found in the 14th century Arabic
manuscript containing the legend of the consecration of the fifth cen-
tury basilica of St. Pachomius at Pabau. 143 It reports that the patriarch
Timothy, who had come to dedicate it, was taken to the church at night
by an angel, where he witnessed the Messiah dedicating the basilica in
secret at night.
While these two examples offer parallels to the manner in which the
vision is set up, Bo 34 supplies an account with a parallel Sitz im Leben;
i. e., the certification of Theodore as Pachomius' true heir. Theodore is
found sitting in his cell, reading scripture. The cell becomes illuminated
and two angels appear. They lead him to the terrace and tell him to
extend his hand. He reaches out, expecting to receive the divine myste-
ries, but finds instead a number of keys put into his hand (cf. Bo 12). The
angels then depart. Theodore is ashamed by the fact the keys given
143 Arn. van Lantschoot, «Allocution de Timothee d'Aiexandrie prononcee a

I'occasion de ia dedicace de I'egiise de Pachome a Pboou,» Museon 47 (1934) 52.
133.28-134.3 237
earlier to Pachomius were now being handed over to him, i. e., the keys
of the Pachomian kingdom. His humility does not allow him to equate
himself with the man of God.
The same idea of Theodore's reception of a gift from angels that is
symbolic of his inheritance of Pachom ius' power or charisma is present.
Whether the material found in Ep Am 14 stems ultimately from the same
sources that led to Eo 34 and 184 is impossible to say. The divergences
are too great. In any event, it is once again interesting to note that the
closest parallels to Ammon's account are to be found in the Coptic
materials.
134.1-2 EV 't<P 7tPOEtPlllli:vCP 1l0VU<Hllpicp 't(J)V TUPEvvllcrirov EV 't<P
TEV'tupl'tlJ vOIl<P] The monastery referred to here is that of Tabenne-
sis. The same 'to 1l0vucr'tTtPWV 'tmv TUPEvvllcrirov appears at 137.23-24
(supra, Notes on the Text 131.27-132.2). The problem with this identi-
fication in the present case is that the only previously mentioned monas-
tery in the letter is Bau (supra, Notes on the Text 125.8-9). The
placement of the monastery in the Tentyrite nome does argue for its
identification with Tabennesis. Pachomius' early contacts with the
church authorities before the expansion of his system beyond Tabenne-
sis were through Sarapion, bishop of Tentyra (G1.29-30). The Tentyrite
nome is situated northward from Thebes, between the Coptite and
Lesser Diospolite nomes. 144
134.3 vux'tEptvui<; Euxui<;] In §25 (147.23-24), Ammon reports
Karour's negligence with respect to the nightly prayers (d<; 'tu<; VUX'tE-
ptvu<; EUXU<;). However, while the latter appears to refer to a communal
synaxis, the present case is portrayed in terms of Theodore's personal
effort (xu3' f:uu'tov). 145 Nonetheless, the terminology points to a gene-
ral problem involved in understanding the Pachomian liturgical prac-
tice. The reference to a nightly synaxis (VUX'tEptvit cruVU~t<;) occurs three
times in the Asc (H 143.13; 156.28; 160.14). The phrase VUX'tEpt vit
AEt'toupyiu appears twice (H 140.17; 143.14). G1.70 (H 48.9-10) speaks
of a certain monk coming among the brothers at night during the
synaxis ('rapux3d<; 't4'> Evu7tvicp vux'to<; i'jA3EV EV Ili:crcp 'tmv aOEAcpmv EV
'tij crUVU~Et). Such examples, by themselves, would suggest the existence
of a nightly synaxis. However, the problem is not so simple.
Palladius (HL 32.6) records four daily prayer times: twelve prayers
throughout the day (8tu 7tucrll<; 'ti'j<; Ttlli:pu<;), twelve at nightfall (EV 't<P
AUXVtX<p), twelve during the night (EV 'tui<; 7tuvvuXicrt), and three at the
144 J. D. Thomas, «Egypt,» in The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 2nd ed.,
A. H. M. Jones, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 301; Tillemont 7.175; Chitty, «A Note»
381; Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia 4.5.67-68.
ninth hour (EVVU'tTlV &pav).146 Eventual prayers at mealtime are also

noted. The rule of the angel incorporated into the Latin life of Pacho-
mius translated by Dionysius Exiguus (D 22) reports three prayer times:
twelve prayers during the day (ut diurnae orationes XII fierent), twelve
at vespers (et vespertinae XII), and twelve at night (et nocturnae XII).
G3.32, which also incorporates the angelic rule, follows it closely except
that it omits the evening synaxis. Cassian (Ins! 2.2-6) parallels D. He
speaks of continual prayer during the day (per tot urn diei spatium
incessanter), an evening synaxis of twelve prayers (duodenarius nume-
rus ... tam in vespertinis), and a second synaxis at night (quam in
nocturnis conventiculis). One wonders if such variation is due to the fact
that these authors were attempting to foster a liturgical praxis on the
Pachomians, who, at least at the start, had none in the later sense of the
term.
If one turns for clarification to the Pachomian Regula and vitae, he is
apt to be disappointed. No clear discussion of the liturgical practice is
given. It must be pieced together from various references, many of
which seem to contradict one another. Various scholars have arrived at
various views. Pleithner 147 argued for communal prayer gatherings in
the evening and at night. He felt that the morning office was conducted
in the individual houses. Ladeuze 148 included four communal prayer
times: morning, midday, evening, and midnight. Butler 149 and
Meyer150 found support for Palladius' list. Duchesne 151 and Batif-
fol 152 argued for the existence of only two common prayer times among
the Egyptian monks: morning and evening. Schiwietz, in a good discus-
sion,153 also felt that the Pachomian praxis called for only a morning
and evening synaxis. Chitty 154 speaks of a common evening synaxis,
followed by an additional six prayer synaxis in the individual houses,
after which, the monks retired for sleep. Then, sometime after midnight,
they were awakened for the nightly synaxis that lasted until dawn.
146 This is according to Butler's text B. Variations in the other recensions of the HL
occur, though the fourfold division remains. A. van der Mensbrugghe, «Prayer-time in
Egyptian Monasticism (320-450),» SP 2, TV 64 (1957) 433-454; Veilleux, La liturgie
328.
147 Franz Xaver Pleithner, Aiteste Geschichte des Breviergebetes oder Entwicklung des
kirchlichen Stundengebetes bis in das fonlte lahrhundert (Kempten: Kosel, 1887) 167 f.
149 Butler, Lausiac History 2.207-208.
150 Robert T. Meyer, Palladius: The Lausiac History, ACW34 (New York: Newman,
1964) 193 n.278.
151 L. Duchesne, Origines du culte chretien. Etude sur la liturgie latine avant
Charlemagne (Paris: Thorin, 1889) 433.
152 Pierre Batiffol, Histoire du breviaire romain (Paris: Picard, 1893) 4f, 33 f.
134.3 239
Bacht 15 5 also argues for but two prayer periods. However, he identifies
them as morning and evening events, both of which were subdivided
into a collecta maior and a collecta domus. Mensbrugghe 156 suggests a
development within the Pachomian movement that is reflected in the
various accounts in the sources. The earliest form witnessed three
synaxes: one after work, a second after supper in the house, and a third
at dawn (he follows Chitty here except for his timing of the third).
Mensbrugghe argues that the second generation form is witnessed in the
HL. It includes two evening prayer times, reduces the daily prayers
(from continual to twelve), and adds a new communal prayer time at
Nones.
Veilleux, in an important study/57 concluded that apart from the
exhortation to continual prayer, the earliest Pachomian praxis included
only an evening and a morning communal synaxis. The occurrence of
the six prayers in the houses after the evening synaxis (Bacht's collecta
domus) does not appear in the earlier sources. It must be assumed to be a
development that took place after the redaction of the earliest parts of
the Praecepta and the vitae. 1ss The clear reference to it in Praecepta 121
occurs in the supplementary section of this document. 159 Its only
appearance in the vitae (G1.58) is assumed to have derived from the
Regula. The other evidence is all much later (Reg Pach, Praecepta et
Instituta 14; Praecepta ac Leges 10; Reg Hor, CSCO 160.83.5-7,92.3-
4, 97.15-17). In reference to the time of the morning synaxis, Veilleux
admits that the sources are obscure. He concludes that the Pachomians
most likely followed the general practice of the church and held their
morning synaxis at dawn.16o
The developmental stages noted by Veilleux seem to make consider-
able sense out of the material. However, it is clear that discussions took
place in the individual houses after the synaxis from an early period
(Praecepta 19; supra, Notes on the Text 129.9-10). It must be assumed
IS3 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 192-198. Draguet draws the same
conclusions. R. Draguet, «Le chapitre de I'histoire lausiaque sur les Tabennesiotes derive-
t-il d'une source copte?» Museon 57 (1944) 17-22.
IS4 Chitty, Desert 25-26. Aziz Atiya mentions only vespers and a night office. Aziz
Atiya, «The Pachomian Rule,» in Pachomiana,' Commemoration du XV/ eme Centenaire de

St. Pacome I'Egyptien (348-1948). Publications du Centre d'Etudes Orientales de la
Custodie Franciscaine de Terre-Sainte. Coptica 3 (Cairo, 1955) 101.
ISS Bacht, «Antonius und Pachomius» 79-82; Frank, ArrEAIKOr BIOr 80.
156 Mensbrugghe 434-454.
157 Veilleux, La liturgie 276-323.
158 Ibid. 298. Of course, this all depends on Veilleux's source analysis.
159 Ibid. 297,126-127; cf., Bacht, «Antonius und Pachomius» 80.
that prayer was involved in this common discussion period before the
monks returned to their cells. How and when this jelled into a collecta
domus involving six prayers is difficult to surmise (infra, Notes on the
Text 143.24).
Returning to the Vl)x1f:ptvai~ f:Dxai~ terminology, it is to be noted
that both Schiwietz 161 and Veilleux 162 argue explicitly against a night
office. Both point to the uncomfortableness of the later sources with the
VI)X1f:ptVll terminology of the Asc. Schiwietz 163 notes that the parallel
to Asc 17-19 in Amelineau's Arabic vita (Am 613f) clarifies the mean-
ing of the Asc's VUX1f:ptVTJ Af:ttol)pyia at the end of the account, where
it records the monks gathering in the church for prayers in the early
morning. Veilleux 164 points out that G5 replaces all of the occurrences
of VUX1f:ptVTJ (J6va~tC; in the Asc by op3ptvTJ (J6va~t~. He believes that
the vux'tf:ptVll terminology represents a non-Pachomian development
dependent upon the Lower Egyptian influences evidenced in both the
Asc and the Ep Am.165 It is clear that a night office and vespers were
observed at Nitria and Scetis.166 However, the time of the former is not
always clear. AP Macarius 33 refers to the office as celebrated towards
dawn (1tf:pi 'tTJV 1tpwiav).
One should also note that the Vita prima, alongside its single refer-
ence to a night synaxis (G1.70), refers to a (J6va~t~ 1tpwi (G1.61, 88).
Furthermore, Bo 65, which parallels the G1.70 account, brings the
latter's reference to the night synaxis more in line with the others. In Bo,
the monk comes across the brothers as morning dawns (€T.MI)Wpn A€
U)wn), when they were all at the synaxis. Nonetheless, the question of
timing and terminology remains. When did this synaxis occur and why
were the different terminologies chosen to express it?
Although the existence of a two synaxis praxis among the Pacho-
mians appears correct, the problem of their time, as noted by Veilleux, is
difficult. The Regula refer to a morning prayer (oratio matutina, Prae-
cepta 24) as well as a call to prayer in the night hour (nocto uero,
Praecepta 5,10). Cassian reports a nocturnal vigil, though it has some-
times been interpreted as matins. 167
The difficulty in interpretation involves a question of timing. The
synaxis under question is the one that takes place after the nightly sleep
and before the day's work begins. The tendency to label this matins and
equate it with sunrise is great. However, if the early Pachomians devel-
oped their own praxis free from the later liturgical influences of the
161 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 194-197.

163 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 194-195.
134.3-134.4-5 241
church,168 it is certainly feasible that this prayer service began before

and lasted until sunrise, at which point the daily work would com-
mence. This seems to be the meaning behind Praecepta 5. Schiwietz's
argument that Am clarifies the Asc's reference to a night liturgy as
occurring in the early morning actually supports this timing difficulty.
Although the Arabic vita does refer to the brethren gathering in the
church for the prayers in the early morning (bftkiran), the sentence goes
on to report that Pachomius did not join them immediately. He
remained in his cell until morning ('~~abftchi). Only then did he go to
the church and commence to pray with the brothers. Thus, it looks as if
the gathering in the church took place before dawn, in the morning
hours. With time, such a practice could easily pass over into a more
proper matins, whether in praxis and/or terminology.
This interpretation still allows for the distinct nature of the Vl)X'tf:Pl-
vtl terminology in the Asc and the Ep Am. The vitae, under the influence
of this development towards matins, would tend to refer to it as such,
o~curring in the morning. However, an author who had experienced the
earlier practice and then gone to Lower Egypt, where he learned a fuller
system that included a night office, might react differently. Remember-
ing the nightly trumpet call (Reg Pach, Praecepta 3, 5, 9; Praecepta et
Leges 2; GJ .61) which awoke him for the office, he could well equate it
with the night office in the fuller system instead of matins. In other
words, if the early Pachomian practice lay somewhere between a night
office and matins, then the variant descriptions of it in the later sources
would depend on which direction these later sources moved it when they
came into contact with the fuller liturgical system.
Again, in the present case from Ep Am 14, the reference appears to be
more of a private affair. Nonetheless, the terminology is dependent on
the synaxis material. Its relationship to the Asc in distinction from the
rest of the dossier is underscored, and its dependence upon a Lower
Egyptian influence is, with Veilleux, to be accepted.
J34.4-5 XU! m<; EV vuX'tl - uvSpwmov] Ammon refers a number of

times to events in the night that took place beyond the range of human
perception. In §20 (141.22-24), he notes that Theodore went to eachofa
number of erring brothers in private at night (i8i~ EXU(mp vux'to<;),
gaining their repentance and avoiding problems that might result from
a public confession (142.1 f). In §26 (149.4-6), mention is made of a
165 Ibid. 303-305, 22-23.

167 Cassian, lnst 2.2-6; Bacht, «Antonius und Pachomius» 78.
168 Mensbrugghe 439.
youth who slipped secretly out of his house at night to study heretical
doctrine with a certain Patchelphius. In § 17 (136.21-24), Ammon is
surprised and frightened by Theodore's voice after the has left the house
in the middle of the night.
134.7-8jlovlJ 'tfj 'tfj<; q>OOE())<; uvuYXlJ 'to ixavov 1tOlroV] The notion of
sleep as a necessity of human nature is common. As such, it had to be
endured, but always fought against. The early monks viewed it nega-
tively (AP Arsenius 14, 15; Bessarion 6; Poemen 132; V.Ant 45), and
considered control over it an important goal (AP Sarmatas 2-3; Po-
emen 185; G 1.6, 16). Sleep, bringing with it as it does a slipping into the
unconscious, represented a dangerous period, when the demonic forces
were especially active and self-control could easily be lost (AP Arsenius
43; V.Ant 8; G1.22). It is from such ideas that the need of a guardian
angel while one sleeps arose (John Climacus, Scala paradisi 15).
The precise language of sleep as a necessity of nature also appears
elsewhere. Asc 29 (H 156.28-30) speaks of the monk Jonas snatching a
little sleep because of the necessity of nature (au'tov ap1tuom oAiyou
U1tVOU Otel 'tTtv 'tfj<; q>OOE())<; UVUYXllV). Antony felt shame when he had
to provide for the needs of the body (uvuyxat<; 'tOU crOOjla'to<;), but
recognized that a little time must be given to it because necessity
demands it (xai cru'YX())pEiv jlEv Otel 'tTtv UVUYXllV oAiyov XatpOV 'to
croojlan, V.Ant 45). Arsenius said that nature compels sleep (Otel 'tTtv
q>OOtv xaSEuoi'jcrat, AP Arsenius 14). Macarius of Alexandria is report-
ed to have said that he conquered to the extent that he was able, but
gave in to the extent that his nature required sleep ('to oE OOOV f:1ti 'tfj
q>OOEt 'tTtv xpEiav £XOOOlJ 'tOU U1tVOU 1tapExooPllcra, HL 18.3).
134.12-13 f:V 'to 'tomp, f:V ql 'ta.<; Aa'tpEia<;- EiooSacrtv] Cf. Hist Mon
5.4; Asc 17 (H 140.12); Ep Am 10 (130.18-19),20 (141.10).
134.13-15 Kai Ejlq>0j30<; - ~f;vllv 'tpoq>ilv] The miraculous feeding of
Theodore draws ultimately from the notion of an angelic food equated
with the biblical manna (Ps 78.25). It is the hidden manna reserved for
the one who conquers (Rev 2.17). The Psalms passage is picked up by
the early fathers (Origen, Comm in Jo 10.18, De oratione 27.10-11;
Theodoret of Cyrus, Quaes 29 in Ex). The depiction of Christ as the
superior bread from heaven (In 6.31-34, 48-51; Origen, Comm in Jo
6.25,8.35; Basil, Spir sancto 31) led naturally to the understanding of
the eucharistic elements in terms of the food of angels (Athanasius,
Epist fest 9.8). In this connection, angels are often present in the
eucharistic celebration (Sozomen, Hist eccl6.29.7).169 In Eo 34, when
169 Violet MacDermot, The Cult of the Seer in the Ancient Middle East (Berkeley:
University of California, 1971) 449-455.

134.7-8 -134.24-25 243
two angels put something into Theodore's hand, he expects it to be the

divine mysteries (supra, p.236).
However, the present occurrence, though it takes place in a church, is
not depicted as a eucharistic event. The single alien food (~i:vl1 'tpoqnl)
that Theodore receives represents his reception of a particular divine
favor. It is stated at the end of the episode that Theodore was, from that
day onward, deemed worthy of frequent revelations from the Lord.
Thus, the miraculous feeding functions to bestow the gift of revelation
on Theodore. The account, in general, serves to present Theodore as
Pachomius' heir apparent (supra, pp. 112-113).
134.20-21 'tu XpU1t'tu - ~Ai:1t(OV] Supra, Notes on the Text 130.2-4.
134.24-25 eE68O)po~-fJ~i(OO'EV] Theodore's groaning and request for
Pachomius' intercession before God is caused by his earlier excessive
joy over the reception of the revelation (134.19-20). Although it is not
spelled out, this statement, together with Pachomius' biblical quota-
tion, brings out the prideful element in Theodore's reaction. The more
usual hagiographic representation of Theodore in glowing terms met
with throughout the letter gives way here to a depiction of Theodore's'
excessive ambition in his younger days. Why Ammon retained it is not
clear.
The other sources, while emphasizing Theodore as Pachomius' suc-
cessor (e.g., G1.36, 91), also depict him as zealous, self-confident, and
ambitious.!70 He strove hard for perfection (Bo 32; G1.36, 37, 68) and
was concerned about his ranking among the brethren (G1.105). Am
446-449 records an early falling out between Pachomius and Theodore
over an incident in the bakery. G1.89 alters the episode to preserve
Theodore's image.!7! At a later point, it is Theodore's ambition that
leads him to accept the older brothers' offer to be Pachomius' successor.
The offer was made because they all thought that Pachomius was on his
death bed. But the old man survived, interpreted Theodore's acceptance
as overweening pride, and removed all authority from him (G1.106).
Theodore went into penance for two years (G 1.1 07) and improved on
his attitude. The various versions of this story offer a vivid example of
how the tradition developed and changed in an effort to improve
Theodore's image.! 72
The account in Bo 34 (supra, p. 236) reports that Theodore did not
want to report his reception of the keys of the «Pachomian kingdom»
from the angels to Pachomius because of his great humility. His stance
in the Ep Am account rings considerably truer.
170 Ruppert 212-224, 421; Rousseau 31-32.

172 Ibid. 64-67, 77-79.
One should also note that the intercession of the fathers is well
attested (Lib Hor 12; Bo 208; Asc 4; Pachomius, Catechesis 1 = CSCO
160.15-16; Epist Theod 82f 173 ). In this connection, one can also note
the site located by Dr. James M. Robinson in the Wadi Sheikh Ali, a
wadi stretching back from the Dishna plain in the vicinity of the central
monasteries of the Pachomian system. At a specific locale along the
walls of the wadi, where an overhang in the cliffs occurs, a monastic
pilgrimage site is to be found. The cliff here is covered with inscriptions
invoking prayer and remembrance in behalf of the writer. It is not clear
from the inscriptions so far studied who was being invoked or even if
Pachomian monks were involved. 174
134.25-27 xai un' - TJ~lOU'tO] Cf. S7 = CSCO 99/100.93.9-11. This
passage serves to establish Theodore's gift of revelation and undergird
his claim as Pachomius' successor. This ability is the basis of many of
Ammon's own accounts which follow. In Ep Am 29 (151.26-27), An-
tony obliquely acknowledges Theodore's ability when he asserts that
he had not considered it necessary to report God's revelation to Theo-
dore, presumably because he knew that Theodore had already received
it. Thus, his gift is supported in the letter by two of the most famous
fathers of Egyptian monasticism. Ammon surely felt that such evidence
would convince his readers.
The reception of this charismatic gift was important for the under-
standing of Theodore's role as Pachomius' successor. The parallel in Bo
34 has been dealt with above (Notes on the Text § 14).175 SlO expands
on Pachomius' baptismal night vision to interpret the honey that he saw
falling from heaven as the imparting of charisma to him and his monks
by the Lord.
134.28-29 Kai 'tau'ta - napaoEoO)xEV] Ausonius and Elourion, who
gave Ammon these accounts (§§9-14), report their own source as
Pekyssius. Whether this reference refers to their entire account or more
probably only to § 14 is not clear. However, it is a good example of
extended oral tradition. The story is here seen to have passed through at
least three stages. The passage also serves as a connective link to § 15,
which records Ammon's own questioning of Pekyssius about these
matters.
173 H. Quecke, «Ein Brief von einem Nachfolger Pachoms (Chester Beatty Library
Ms. Ac. 1486),» Orientalia 44 (1975) 426-433.
174 The inscriptions are either scratched on the rock or painted. The central location
also includes numerous primitive and pharaonic engravings, all in a rough, graffiti type
style. The meaning of these various inscriptions have not been determined. However, the
pilgrimage nature of the site in Coptic times is clear. It is intriguing to remember that
Pachomius' body, after being buried, was exhumed and moved to another locale by
134.25-27-135.9-11 245
§15
§ 15 Ms. t begins this section with the last sentence of § 14. This is
determinable because it leaves a space before the 'tuiYca and sets the A of
uxrp<.ow<; off in the margin. F divides the text as it is recorded here.
This section is one of the best examples of Ammon's concern to
support the credibility of his accounts (supra, p.108). However, this
literary Sitz im Leben ofthe account does not automatically rule out its
historicity. It would be a natural reaction of a new, young monk to seek
out such confirmation from Pekyssius. 176
A further point to be made is that Pekyssius (n66(1)0)) is clearly a
Copt. Ammon does reveal remarkable connections with the Coptic
tradition (supra, pp. 113-114).
135.2-3 xut J,lu3wv - OUVUJ,llV] The mention of Pekyssius' power
against demons is unnecessary to the narrative. It does perhaps function
to undergird his authority and so too his support of Ammon's letter.
The xupicrJ,lu xu't<l OU1J,lOVrov was an important gift in view of the
demonic world in which the monks lived (supra, Notes on the Text
126.21-24). It was commonly associated with the early fathers (HL 17.2;
19.11; 22.9; 22.10; 44.3).
§16
§ 16 Ausonius' scripture proof of Theodore's ability to read hearts
is an example of his fulfillment of Theodore's command to urge Am-
mon on in learning the divine scriptures (129.5-6). It also functions to
give scriptural support to Theodore's gift of revelation recorded in § 14
and the numerous examples reported by Ammon in the following
sections.
No clear parallel exists, though affinities to Pachomius' discussion of
visions in G 1.48 are to be noted. This section does not appear in the
Coptic tradition. Both the present account and G 1 stress that apart from
God's granting of revelation, the saints see only as other men see. Both
also make use of the Gehazi story to support their claims. This particu-
lar text is not recorded elsewhere in the Pachomian dossier.
135.9-11 aVEU - ouvu'tat] Cf. 135.17-18. Gl.48 (H 31.1-2) notes that
without God's will, visions are misleading (7tAUVll). The same section
adds a few lines later (H 31.11-13) that when God reveals to the saints,
Theodore (GJ .116; S7, Lefort, Les vies coptes 51). However, there is nothing definite to
link this site to Pachomius. Marvin W. Meyer, «Wadi Sheikh Ali Survey,» American
Research Center in Egypt Newsletter 117 (1982) 22-24; idem, «Archeological Survey of
the Wadi Sheikh Ali, December 1980,» Gottingen Miszellen 64 (1983) 77-82.
175 Ruppert 18-31.

they are clear sighted (otopanxoi dmv), but when he does not reveal,
they are like all men (0)(; 1t(lV'W; livSpo)1toi dow),177
135.25-136.5 nOSEV rtE~i - E(J)~ ai&vo~] 4 Kg 5.25-27. The only
other occurrence of this material in the Pachomian dossier occurs in
G1.48. Besa (CSCO 158.23) uses Gehazi as a type of the lier. In Cassian
(lnst 8.27,30), he is an example of the coveting man. Cf. V.Ant 34, where
he is used again in the same sense found in Gland the Ep Am. One
suspects that the latter two may have drawn their interpretation ulti-
mately from this account.
§17
§ 17 A possible, distant parallel to this episode occurs in S5.92 (=
Am 477f; cf. Bo 107). It offers a monk with a very similar problem and
its resolution. The monk's name is Apollonius. He is to be distinguished
from both Apollonius, superior of Tbewe (S4.57; Bo 57), and Apollo-
nius, superior of Tmousons (Bo 204; G1.127, 131, etc.).178 The present
Apollonius, in spite of the fact that he prayed through the night, was
unable to overcome the disquietude of his heart. This disquietude
involved sexual thoughts, as in the case of Amaeis in the present section
ofthe Ep Am. Pachomius confronted Apollonius and quoted Matt 5.28
to him: «The one who looks at a woman lustfully has already commit-
ted adultery with her in his heart.» This points to the same problem
confronted by Amaeis (137.2-4). Pachomius moved Apollonius outside
the cloister to an abandoned site, where he could strive to overcome his
weakness. But after four months, an angel appeared to Pachomius and
demanded his expUlsion. Here again, the parallel is close, though the
final result is different. Amaeis, like Apollonius, withdrew from the
monastery to conduct his spiritual conflict (137.20-21). In both cases,
the next event occurs after four months. Here the accounts diverge.
Apollonius' efforts prove futile, and he is expelled from the monastery.
Amaeis contracts an illness and dies a year later, after confessing his
sins.
If the two stories are related, it is clear that Ammon has reworked the
tradition considerably. He has transferred the story motif from Pacho-
mius to Theodore and improved its denouement so that it ends in
success rather than failure.
136.22-23 xai aXllxoro~ - E<pOPllBllV] Ep Am 8 (129.19-20).
136.23-25 ro~ <HIXXOV AlVOUV- Tupi] Tubi = December 27 to January
26.
The flaxon garment (O'IIXXOV A1VOUV) refers to the AEP1'tcOV, which is
the more usual term in the Greek Pachomian corpus. It was a linen
177 Chitty, «Once more» 59.

135.25-136.25-26 247
garment, of which each monk possessed two (Reg Pach, Praecepta 81;
Praefatio 4; Lib Hor 22; G1.14; HL 32.3; cf. Cassian, Inst 1.4-7). An
outer garment, the IlTlAro"tTt, was also part of the monastic habit (Reg
Pach, Praecepta 81; Praefatio 4; HL 32.3; Am 396). According to HL, it
was to be worn at meals and special occasions. A full discussion of the
Pachomian habit can be found elsewhere. 179
It is expressly stated in HL 32.3 that the A£~1'troV was worn at night
(cpopEinooav of; EV "tai~ vu~i A£~t"t(1)va~ A1VOU~ E~(J)(JIlEV01). Jerome, in
his introduction to the Regula (Praefatio 4), refers to duo lebitonaria
... et uno iam adtrito ad dormiendum uel operandum (cf. Lib Hor 22).
Theodore is noted to have worn a hair shirt ("tpiXlVOV {llanOV) under his
A£~1'troV at night (G 1.146; cf. Bo 198).
Ammon's reference to perspiring even though it was winter serves to
heighten the mysterium tremendum. It is interesting to note that he did
not put on more clothing when he left the house to attend to an urgent
need (perhaps a lavatory call ?). Am 397 records that Pachomius had a
special outer garment that he wquld wear during the winter.
136.25-26 "t"v eTl~airov YAronav] Elsewhere, Ammon refers to the
Egyptian language ("tij Aiyu1t"ticov YAcOcr<JlJ, 151.22) and the Egyptian
dialect ("tij Aiyu1t"tirov olaAbmp, 127.1). The present reference refers to
the Upper Egyptian dialect, Sahidic.
It is clear that Ammon was fluent in Greek and that he apparently
needed a translator when he first arrived (§§4, 6). Theodore himself
could most likely speak Greek (supra, Notes on the Text 127.1-2),
though the overwhelming majority of Copts in the monastery demand-
ed his use of Coptic. One does suspect that Ammon knew Coptic from
the start. His name is Egyptian, and the copticisms in his Greek are all
too apparent. 180 In any event, he certainly learned it rapidly at Pabau.
In § 15, he questions the Copt Pekyssius about Theodore's life, and
here, in § 17, he is called upon because he knew Sahidic. Nevertheless,
he did remain in the Greek house (§ 27).
The probable explanation is that Ammon knew the Lower Egyptian
dialect (Bohairic) and thus had some difficulty with spoken Sahidic only
at first. The problem was rapidly overcome, allowing him to participate
fully in the community.181 However, one should not overstress this
dialectical variation. Surely someone who spoke fluent Bohairic could
178Lefort, Les vies coptes 258 n.2.

179Ladeuze, Etude 275-278; Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 215-217;
Draguet, «Le chapitre» 103-108.
180 Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 102*; cf., Lefort, Les vies coptes XLII-XLIII; Chitty,
«Reconsidered» 70; Festugiere, La premiere vie 7, 129-131.
grasp a considerable amount of a Sahidic conversation. However,

polish in the new dialect came with time.
136.27 'AJlUEl] Amaeis is not met with elsewhere in the Pachomian
corpus.
137.2-8 ~lU'tl - AOYl~1J] The JlE'ta VOJllJlTJ<; YUVUlXO<; XU3EUOE1<; is in
apposition to 1tOpvu<; 0pQ.<; (note the o'tf; Jlf;v ... o'tf; of; construction),
and both are presented as internal processes (EV 'tij xupol~ crou). Ama-
eis' battle is waged internally. The movement from this internal struggle
to the physical embodiment of his sins occurs only hypothetically in
Theodore's question (137.7-8).
137.6-7 'til> E1tuYYEAJlUn 'trov Jlovuxrov] Supra, Notes on the Text
131.1-2.
137.20-22 '0 of; 'AJlUEl<;- E~OJlOAOYOUJlEVO<;] Amaeis withdraws from
the monastery to do penance. In S5.92, Pachomius tries to win back an
errant monk by setting him up at an abandoned site outside of the
monastery (supra, p. 246).
§ 18
§ 18 Supra, pp. 54-55. The miracle story presented here has no
clear parallel in the Pachomian dossier, though many of the motifs
contained in it are common. The appearance of the villagers at the
monastery seeking aid for one of their own, who was already given up
for dead by their doctors, is a good example of the charismatic role
played by the desert fathers in relation to the surrounding lay communi-
ty.182 One suspects that an awareness of the monk's spiritual and
magical powers had more influence on the peasants, who understood
him in a 3EIO<; UVTJP mold, than the question of his theological or
religious orientation.
G1 does not offer many miracle stories. Most of those that it does
record occur together in §§41-45. This leads one to believe that they
had originally traveled around together before their inclusion at this
point in the vita. G1.41 transfer a biblical miracle to Pachomius. A
patrician's wife, who is suffering from bleeding, is cured by touching
Pachomius' cowl (Matt 9.20-21). G1.43-44 offer two miracle stories
182 Hist Mon 29.3f(Latin text); AP Pambo 7; Evelyn White 2.190-191; K.Holl,
«Uber das griechische Monchtum,» in idem, Gesammelte AuJsiitze 2.274; H. Bacht, «Die
Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinandersetzungen
urn Chalkedon (431-519),» in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, Geschichte und Gegenwart.
Hrsg. von A. Grillmeier und H. Bacht (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1953) 3.310-313; Bell, Jews
and Christians, 100-120.
136.27-137.25-26 249
with topo; similar to those found in the present example. In both

episodes, Pachomius does not make direct contact with the sick person,
who remains outside the gate (cf. S5 = CSCO 99/100.196-197). In the
present account, Theodore does not want to cross the river to the village
(138.8). Theodore's reason for this position is not given. In G1.43,
Pachomius does not want to go to the ill girl because he wishes to avoid
contact with the opposite sex. In G1.43, Pachomius sends oil with the ill
girl's father to effect her cure. In G1.44, he gives the father bread to feed
to his possessed son to cure him. In the present case, Theodore blesses
water that becomes a medicine to heal the poisoned girl (138.18-29). In
G1.44, the father returns to report his son's cure to Pachomius. Like-
wise, in the present account, the father returns to report his daughter's
cure to Theodore (138.29-139.1). Thus, in all three accounts, the cure is
effected at a distance, through the use of some substance (oil, bread, or
water), that carries the monk's power to the victim (cf. HL 18.22). In the
G1 stories, the substance plays a major role. Its use and power is self-
evident. It is simply given by Pachomius to the father as a potion,
through which the cure is effected. In Ep Am 18, on the other hand, the
blessed water is but an additional factor added after Theodore's speech
on God's ability to effect a cure at a distance and his declaration that the
daughter has been cured (138.8-17). Indeed, in 138.16-17, the girl's cure
is already established. It is only then that the father comes forward,
seeking the blessing of the water. The need for such a miraculous
substance is linked to his weak faith (138.21-24). Although he had
already declared the girl cured, Theodore, blesses the water (138.24-27).
The father takes it back to his daughter, and from his later report, it is
the water that effects the cure, i. e., she had not already been cured as
was previously stated.
It seems likely that the original form of the story placed more empha-
sis on the miraculous water, as the G1 stories do on the oil and bread.
Theodore's theological discourse on God's omnipresence and his ear-
lier statement of the girl's cure connected to it represent an effort to play
down the importance of the substance. The cure is effected by God and
not some magical potion. Athanasius, in his V.Ant., also makes this
point (V.Ant 48,58). It is probable that Ammon's hand lies behind the
development in the present account. He has not worked out all of the
problems in his reediting of the tradition (supra, pp. 54-55).
137.23-24 'to JlOVUOTtlPWV- TU~Evvllcri(Ov] Supra, Notes on the Text
131.27-132.2 and 134.1-2.
137.25-26 tv 't4> XTptql-'tou 1to'tUJlOU] t alters the syntax so that it is the
garden that is next to the river. This must be the meaning. The garden
had to have been outside of the monastery, in order to allow the
villagers access to Theodore. Otherwise, they would have been stopped
at the gate (G1.43, 44). G1.24 mentions work in a vegetable garden

(Auxava (mEipmv f:7tC)'!1SEV) in Tabennesis.
138.5-6 Em~ 'tii~ ohda~ ~ou O"xuAiivat] Cf. POxy 1.123.10.
138.6-7 OtOa~Ev - ~ou] A similar statement occurs in Bell, Jews and
Christians, Papyrus 1926.13-15.
138.10-11 6 o£ 3EO~ - 1tAT\poi] Cf. Sap 1.7; Clement of Alexandria,
Strom 7.30.1; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or 28.10 (PG 36.37C); AP Bessa-
rion 1.
138.15 'tpi'tov xAiva~ 'ta y6va'ta] Ep Am 22 (143.24-25); Bo 21; G1.18.
138.19-20 ilXEV U1tO 'tou 1tEpaV 6 1ta'tllP 'tii~ 1tat86~] This does not
follow, as the father is already present (137.28-29). It is the result of the
misplacement of 1tEpaV in F (supra, pp. 54-55).
138.24 <pup~axov O"m'tT\pia~] Ignatius' description of the eucharist as
<pup~axov u3avaO"ia~ is well known (Ignatius, Eph 20.2). Serapion of
Thmuis (Euch 13.15) refers to it as <pup~axov smii~. The precise term,
<pup~axov O"m'tT\pia~, is used in Clement of Alexandria (Strom 7.61.5;
cf. Prot 106, 2) to refer to the Christian life. It is used by Theodoret of
Cyrus (Comm in Is 10.23) to refer to baptism. In the present story, it is
used simply to refer to the magical potion, the blessed water.
138.24-27 Kai 6 0E68mpo~ - 1tE1toiT\XEV] The sign of the cross also

functions magically in Ep Am 27 (150.4-6), where it is used to cure
Patrikius' snake bite.
The magical power of this sign was widely recognized in Christian
circles. Athanasius argues that the power that demons once had over
people had dissipated since the coming of Christ. Their spells were now
easily broken with the sign of the cross (De inc 47.2). The sign plays the
same role in his presentation of Antony (V.Ant 13, 23, 35). The monk
Longinus was said to have cured a case of breast cancer with the sign of
the cross (AP Longinus 3). Poemen used it to heal a child (AP Poemen
7). Cyril of Jerusalem says of the sign ofthe cross: ~Eya 'to <puAax'tTJpt-
ov, OmPEaV Ota 'tOu~ 1tEVT\'ta~, xmpi~ xaJlu'tou Ota 'tOu~ U0"3EVEi~,
E1tEtO" xai 1tapa Bwu TJ XUpt~, O"T\~Eiov 1ttO"'twv xai <p6~0~ oat~6vmv
(Cat 13.36). Lactantius states: quanto terrori sit daemonibus hoc
signum, sciet qui viderit quatenus adiurati per Christum de corporibus
quae obsederint fugiant (Div inst 4.27.1; cf. Prudentius, Cath 6.129-
136). Tertullian (Cor 3) notes the continual use by Christians in their
daily life of the sign of the cross. Palladius (HL 32.3) reports that the
Pachomians wore a purple cross on their cowls. This is not substantiat-
ed in the Pachomian dossier. Julian the Apostate (Epist 79 Bidez-
Cumont = 19 Wright) noted that Christians use the sign of the cross
138.5-6-139.5-7 251
and hissing to protect themselves against demons. In the Vitae patrum

(PL 73.379), Pelagia rids herself of a demon by the sign of the cross on
the advice of Bishop Nonnus. When the demon reappears at night, she
repeats the sign and blows on it, forcing it to leave.
A most interesting example for the Ep Am occurs in John Chrysostom
(Hom 54 n.4 in Matt = PG 58.537). In discussing the sign of the cross, he
notes three cures effected by it. They are the cure of the bites of
venomous beasts (rou'to SllPirov OTl'YJlu'tu tO~oArov tucru'to), the
quenching of noxious poisons ('tou'to OllAll'tTJptU Ecr~Em; q>uPJluxu),
and the breaking of the power of hemlock ('tOu'to xroVElOV MvuJltv
E~f:AOOE). The last two are obviously closely related. In the Ep Am, the
sign of the cross effects these very two types of cures. In § 18, it works
against a poison, and in §27, it heals Patrikius' snake bite.
The sign of the cross also appears elsewhere in the Pachomian dos-
sier. In Gl.73, following a discussion of demons, Pachomius admon-
ishes the monks to guard themselves and make the sign of the cross in
the name of Christ. G2.18 records the use of the sign of the cross against
demons. In S12, Pachomius is said to have fought the demons and
overcome them by the cross. In S15 (Lefort, Les vies coptes 401),
Horsiesius uses the sign of the cross against a demon.
Studies on the subject do exist. 183
139.3-4 XU'troSEV 1tOAAfj~ ExxpicrEro~ YEVOJlf:Vll~] The word for secre-
tion (EXXPtcrt~) can refer to either excrement or menses. As it is a
question of poisoning, the former is to be preferred here.
139.5-7 I:tAOUUVO~ - 'tov SEOV] F's BEvollAiro is incorrect, as Halkin
noted. 184 He had suggested reading either BEvoioEWV or MEvoiowv,
both of which are known Alexandrian quarters. 18S t supports the
BEvoioEWV reading.
Tillemont 186 noted the problem in Fpresented by the fact that the
Arian stone merchant is said only to have glorified God. His conversion
is never mentioned. The ms. t adds a phrase so as to include mention of
his conversion. A normal interpretation would be that he did not
convert, and that F retains the original reading. The t reading is a later
gloss designed to solve this problem. However, although the Freading is
to be accepted as original, it is hard to imagine that his conversion was
183 Bacht, «VexiJIum» 158-162; F. J. D6lger, «Heidnische Begriissung und christliche

Verh6hnung der Heidentempel,» AC 3 (1932) 193-195.
185 Ibid.; Epiphanius, Haer 69.2, PG 42.205 A; F. Larsow, Die Fest-Briefe des heiligen
Athanasius Bischofs von Alexandria (Leipzig: Vogel, 1852) 45; G. Lumbroso, L'Egitto al
tempo dei Greci e dei Romani (Rome: Salviucci, 1882) 126; PW 1.1386.
186 Tillemont 7.486; Supra, pp. 55-56.
not at least understood. Ammon's strong overall anti-Arian stance

demands it. In Ammon's view, only the orthodox could properly glorify
God.
§19
§ 19 This section belongs with § 20 as a single unit. The present
section sets up the action for the following one. In § 19, Theodore learns
via revelation of a number of errant monks while he is away from the
monastery. Involved in the account of this revelation is Silvanus' reac-
tion to it and the result of his reaction. Section 20 picks up with
Theodore's return to the monastery and his dealing with the errant
brothers revealed in § 19.
139.9 Eie; 'tt VU vfjcrov 'tOU 1[O'taIlOU] The Nile, in the vicinity of Pabau
(modern Faw Qibli), is quite wide and contains a number of sizable
islands.
139.9-11 DAllv-'trov 'VlUS{rov] In § 17 (136.24-25), Ammon supplies an
Egyptian term using the same phrase (ov Ot AiYlm'tlOl XUAOOOlV Tu~i).
Why the translation is needed here, seeing that 'to Spuov is the Greek
term for reed or rush, is not clear. It seems to be simply a case of
Ammon's heavy style. The F manuscript reads Spo{u. This ortho-
graphic variant occurs often in the papyri. 187
The practice of going to the islands to cut rushes was common. G1.23
(H 14.20-21) reports that Pachomius was on an island with some
brothers cutting rushes for baskets (EV vijcrqlllf;'t(l MEA<proV Spuu X01[-
'tov'trov de; 'VwS{oue;). The terminology used here is very close to
Ammon's. In G1.51, the brothers are again on an island reaping rushes
(SEp{crUl Spuu). In Gl.71, they are reported to be cutting rushes (Spuu)
and transporting them by boat. G 1. 76 reports a sick brother who could
not go out with the others to reap rushes (Spuu), and Asc 9 tells of the
monks proceeding to a village to the south to collect rushes (Spuu). In
G1.1 06, Pachomius is harvesting food for the monks on an island.
139.11 LlAouuvoe;-0ll~uioe;] The Greek name is common. Ep Am 18
mentions another Silvanus, the Arian stone merchant who glorified
God upon the cure of the poisoned girl. The vitae contain the story of a
certain LlA~UVOe;. He left the theater in his youth and joined the Pacho-
mian movement. His negligence led to laughter, and Pachomius threat-
ened to expel him from the monastery. However, he repented and
became an ideal monk (G1.104-105; Asc 2-3; S5 93; Am 521). This
Silvanus cannot be identified with the Silvanus of the present episode.
187 Tebnutis Papyri 105.26; POxy 910.41; U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemiierzeit
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1927-1957) No. 98.12.
139.9-139.11-12 253
139.11-12 o~ ilv fJYOU~EVO~ xW ~ovus6V'tmv Alvoucpmv] Supra, Notes

on the Text 129.7-9. The title functions technically alongside aJ3J3a~
( AnA) and ltu'tTJP (€I(I)T) in the Pachomian dossier to designate the
superior of the monastery.188 In the surviving Coptic materials, it is
never used to refer to another position. Lefort argued that this was true
for the entire dossier. He interpreted Ammon's use of the term for a
house manager, whose proper designation was OiXlux6~ (rMNH1), as
further evidence against the letter's authenticity.189
There seems to be little doubt that Ammon either never knew or had
forgotten the Pachomian technical term. Elsewhere (149.4), he terms
the house manager ltpoEO"'t(b~ 'tfj~ oixiu~. If Ammon had understood
either of his terms technically, he would have used it on both occasions.
This fact seems to support Chitty'S contention that Ammon's three
years at Pabau long before the appearance of Rule or Life in Greek
would have naturally resulted in his own choice of translations for the
Coptic technical terms. 190 However, one would have expected techni-
cal terms to exist among the Greek Pachomians as well. A more
reasonable explanation is that Ammon was simply not translating
"technical terms", but referring to leadership positions non-technically.
His years at Nitria and in the church hierarchy obscured his brief
contact with the Pachomian vocabulary. Furthermore, the letter was
not written for Pachomian monks. Hence, the need to use the technical
terms is not so strong.
It is noteworthy that even within the Greek Pachomian dossier the
term fJYOUIlEVO~ can be used to refer to more than simply the abbot. It
occurs twice in G1 alongside ltU'tEPE~ in reference to the appointing or
summoning of the monastic leaders (G1.79, 114). The clear implication
is that more than just the abbots are involved. In G1.134, it appears in
the plural, referring to all of the leaders in the monastery of Hermon-
this. 191 In one recension of the Greek Excerpta, it occurs twice in
reference to a monk who is leading a group out of the monastery on a
work party.192
The number 22 agrees well with Ammon's reference elsewhere (129.8-
9) to the Greek house as containing 20 monks under Theodore the
Alexandrian and Ausonius. In fact, one is suspicious because it agrees
lBB Ruppert 283-285.

lB9 Lefort, Les vies coptes LX. In support of this technical usage of 1)YOUI.lI;VOC;, one
should note the story of Macarius' meeting with Pachomius preserved in HL 18.12-16.
There, Pachomius is referred to as apXtIlUVopi'tT]C; (Butler, Lausiac History 2.52.5), appa
(2.52.14), and T]youIlEVOC; (2.53.2). It is the only occurrence of the last term in the HL.
191 Ibid. 42-43.
192 Exc 21,51; Boon 169-182; Ruppert 285.

so well. Jerome (Reg Pach, Praefatio 2) refers to around 40 brothers per

house. Ladeuze took Jerome's reference as an exaggeration. 193 He
certainly exaggerated elsewhere in dealing with the Pachomians (supra,
Notes on the Text 125.12).
Some houses were set up in terms of specific occupations or
functions. Silvanus led the house of weavers. In G1.121, Theodore is
made house manager of the carpenters at Pabau (ohnuxov 'tOlY 'tEX-
'tovrov rru~uu). 194
139.12-13 8EU'tEPO~ EX 'tou'tOl) 'tou upt3~ou] Supra, Notes on the Text
129.2-4.
139.13-14 Muxapto<; ... 1tpE(j~6'tEPO~ U8EA<PO~ 'tou ayiol) 0EO-
8ropol)] This brother is not known from any of the other sources. The
details that Ammon supplies argue for his possession of factual infor-
mation. It is difficult to imagine a reason for his creation of it. However,
it is strange that he appears nowhere else in the dossier. Perhaps it was
felt that such a genealogy cast an unbecoming shadow over the mother
of a saint.
The vitae do know a younger brother of Theodore, named Paphnu-
tius, who became the great steward at Pabau (Eo 38; G1.37,65). He died
in the same plague that took Pachomius' life (S7; G1.114).
139.24-140.1 0E68ropo~ 6 1\AE~uv8pEU~ - 'I(ji8ropo~] This is a list of
elders. Theodore the Alexandrian has been dealt with above (Notes on
the Text 127.2-3, 5-6). Elourion and Isidore, the last two figures in the
list, are to be found only in the Ep Am (supra, Notes on the Text 128.6).
Isidore also appears in Ep Am 22 (143.17; 144.8) and 24 (146.18).
Ammon also mentions a Nitriote priest by that name (157.10) and the
bishop of Hermopolis parva (155.2, 6). Pekyssius has been met with
above (§§9, 15). He appears in the vitae as one of Pachomius' first
followers (Eo 24; G1.26) and an important elder (Eo 30-31; G1.35, 79,
138; S4.30-31; Am 391 f). He appears later in the Ep Am at 142.7.
Psarphius is met again at 148.13, as well as frequently in the vitae. He
became the great steward after the death ofPaphnutius (G1.124). Psen-
taesius appears again at 142.7 and 146.18. He too was one of Pacho-
mius' first disciples and appears in the lists of elders in the vitae (G1.25,
123, 79).
140.2-3 uvu'tElVUV'tE<; - d~ 'tOY oupuv6v] 2 Macc 15.21. The orans
position was extremely common in early Christianity. It is a frequent
form of depicting the deceased on Coptic tombstones. In the Rules of
193 Ladeuze, Etude 275.

194 cr., GI.28,84, 95; Ep Am 7; Reg Pach, Praefatio 6; HL 32.9.
139.1 2-13-140.11-17 255
Horsiesius (CSCO 160.831), a long discussion of prayer and prayer

praxis occurs in which is mentioned the holding out of one's arms
during prayer so as to form a cross. In Bo 73, Theodore appears praying
with his arms extended. G1.16 reports that Pachomius prayed with his
arms outstretched in the form of a cross (ro<; btl crta\)poG), in order to
force the body to labor and stay awake for prayer. A fine depiction of a
monk in the orans position is to be found scratched on the rock cliffs of
the Wadi Sheikh Ali (supra, Notes on the Text 134.24-25).
140.11-17 i\xoooan: nffi<; - Expml'a al:)'ta<;] The account of Theo-
dore's hiding of two serpents beneath his feet has been inserted into the
present context. It has little to do with the main plot of §§ 19-20. The
episode concerns Silvanus' mocking of Theodore. Silvanus' hybris is
aroused by Theodore's reference to certain erring monks revealed to
him by an angel (140.18-24). Hence, the account ofthe serpents, though
interesting and of definite hagiographic value, is superficial to the
narrative.
The account of the serpents also appears in Bo 98 as one of a series of
brief episodes (there are three when Bo 99 is added) that deal with
serpents or scorpions. However, here it stands by itself and is not
imbedded into a longer narrative as in the Ep Am. The closest parallel to
Ammon's version, however, appears in Evagrius Ponticus' De oratione
108. 195 Here again, it is given as a single unit. It is followed in § 109 by
another viper story, which Lefort paralleled to Bo 99. 196
Lefort and Chitty argued extensively over the relationship of Am-
mon's account and that found in De oratione. Lefort felt that the De
oratione version offered a rougher style, more akin to an apophthegm,
while Ammon's version revealed later refinement. 197 Chitty, on the
other hand, argued that «the impression one gets is that De oratione is
directly summarizing the Letter of Ammon, while the Bohairic, if based
on the same story at all, is only a distant echo.»198
The texts themselves read: 199
Ep Am (140.12-17): ,ij ,E,paOl LOucra~~aLO\), ®E60copo<; f:ano<; EV tij
vi)aq:> EoiOaaxEv ,ou<; UOEAq>OU<; X\)XAOOaVta<; autov' xai alconi)aa<;
xai unoa,a<; LOU ,ono\) EV da,i)xEl, 060 Illxpa<; EXiova<; EOE1~EV LOi<;
195 I. Hausherr, «Le traite de I'oraison d'Evagre Ie Pontique (Pseudo Nil),» RAM 15
(1934) 34-93,113-170; PG 79.1192.
196 Lefort, Les vies coptes XXII, 167 n. 8; Chitty, «Reconsidered» 39-41, has rightly
questioned this as a parallel. Cf., Gl.101; HL 48.2.

197 Lefort, Les vies coptes LIV-LVI.
199 The text for the Ep Am comes from the present edition. The De oratione text is
found in PG 79.1192. The French translation of Bo 98 is from Lefort, Les vies caples 167.
6q>3aAlloi~ Atyrov· ,ovwO"(l'tro n~ al)'"tU~. 'n~ yap rolliAOUV, 1I:Epi 'tou~

1I:68a~ lloU ytVolltva~, iva Ill] n~ 'trov aOEAq>rov 'tUpax3ij, oxmEp xallU-
pay 1I:otl]cra~ 'tOu~ 1I:68a~ IlOU ExpU\jla at)'tu~.'
De oratione 108: l\vtyvro~ 1I:uv'tro~ xai 'tou~ ~iou~ 'trov Ta~EvvTJcrtro't&v
Ilovaxrov, xa3u q>TJcrt v, on AaAoDv'tO~ 'tOD a~~u AOYOV 'tOi~ MEAq>oi~,
'fJA30v 860 EXtOVat U1I:0 'tou~ 1I:ooa~ au'toD· 6 O£ a'tUpuxro~ 1I:Otl]cra~
au'ta~ road xallupav, U1I:tAa~Ev au'ta~ Evo03EV, Ero~ E1I:aooa'to AaArov
'tOY AOYOV, xai 'to'tE au'ta~ U1I:EOEiXVU 'toi~ aOEAq>oi~, E~TJyouIlEVO~ 'to
1I:puYlla.
Eo 98: Se trouvant quelque part a moissonner avec les fn!res, lorsque Ie
soir arriva, il adressa aux fn!res la parole de Dieu; pendant qu'il parlait,
vinrent deux serpents qui s'enroulerent autour de ses pieds. Mais lui, il
ne les regard a aucunement ni ne changea ses pieds de la place qu'il
occupait. Lorsqu'il eut fini de parler, on fit la priere pour que chacun
regagnat sa demeure; apres cela il dit qu'on lui apportat une lampe.
Quand on la lui eut apportee, il vit les betes enroulees autour de ses
pieds; alors illes tua aussit6t et rendit gloire a Dieu qui sauve ceux qui
esperent en lui (Ps 16.7).
It is evident that while all three preserve the same story, the Eo version
is distinct from the other two. It places it in a collection of stories about
Pachomius (Am 482 f). In the Ep Am, it concerns Theodore. Chitty has
convincingly argued that the De oratione version also dealt with Theo-
dore. 200 In De oratione and Ep Am, Theodore is said to have hidden the
serpents from the brethren, using his feet as a cover. Eo, on the other
hand, makes no mention of Pac hom ius actively hiding the serpents. It is
the darkness that keeps them concealed. They are revealed only after
Pachomius calls for a lamp to shine on them.
Apart from the clause on hiding the serpents beneath his feet, the Ep
Am and De oratione version are not so close as to demand a literary
connection. Thus, the fact that Theodore hides the serpents lest the
brothers be disturbed, found in the Ep Am, fails to appear in De
oratione. It reports that Theodore remained undisturbed (a'tapuxro~),
which is the closest parallel. Furthermore, De oratione agrees with Eo in
reporting the activity of the serpents as simple data before the hero
reveals them to the monks. In the Ep Am, on the other hand, the entire
story is put into the mouth of Theodore. What the serpents did is only
revealed through his report. Eo does agree with Ep Am in setting the
episode outside of the monastery during a harvest. This is absent in De
oratione, though that could easily be due to the extraction of the account
200 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 39-41; Hausherr 143; contra Lefort, Les vies copies LIV-
LVI.
140.11-17 - 140.20-22 257
from its original source. The Ep Am is alone in having Theodore order

the snakes to be killed. The other versions do not report what happened
to the snakes.
In view of these facts, it seems improbable that De oratione was
quoting or summarizing Ep Am. 20 ! Lefort's contention that the Ep Am
version is more refined appears true. 2 02 It's presentation of the episode
as a first person report by Theodore sounds suspicious. However, this is
only a question of Ammon's style and does not carry much weight for
challenging the letter's basic authenticity, as Lefort would have it do. 203
Whether Ammon's source lay in the oral tradition or some lost docu-
ment that it shares in common with De oratione is difficult to say. It is
clear, however, that Ammon is capable of accurately preserving the
material, though admittedly embellishing it stylistically.
140.18-22 Kat J.1E'tU - oUI'YEt] Ammon has trouble moving between
the angel's words and those of Theodore. The subject of EAE'YEV (140.18)
is Theodore. But, he is only reporting what the angel said to him in the
first person (140.19-20). However, after one sentence of the angel
speaking, Ammon returns to having Theodore speak in the first person
(140.20). Ammon is depending on the EAE'YEV, while syntactically the
entire quotation depends upon Eiprp<i:vat on, the subject of which is
the angel.
140.18-19 EAE'YEV U'Y'YEAOV - on] Supra, Notes on the Text 130.2-4.
140.20-22 Ka'tu of: EVOC; - oUI'YEt] The sentence of expulsion from the
monastery is ordered against only one of the monks; probably the ring
leader (cf. Am 427-430). In Ep Am 24 (147.15-16), a possessed monk is
expelled. The practice is also met with in the vitae. Ruppert 204 has
argued that a development in the practice is discernible in the vitae. In
the early sources, Pachomius changes his position and disallows expul-
sion. 2 0s Pachomius recognized that the monastery was not only for the
perfect. He sought to use his power of persuasion and never condemned
a monk to expulsion with no chance of remission. In the later sources,
Ruppert notes that the practice of expulsion becomes more prevalent.
In his view, it is usually connected to sexual sins and occurs under the
more authoritarian figure of Theodore. 206 Eo 78 reports that Theodore,

202 Lefort, Les vies copIes LV.
203 Ibid.
204 Ruppert 166-183.
205 R. Draguet, «Un morceau grec inedit des Vies de Pachome apparie a un texte
d'Evagre en partie inconnu,» Museon 70 (1957) 271f.
206 Bo 75,102,106; S5.92; Am 429f; Ruppert 175f.
functioning as Pachomius' helper, frequently visited the various monas-

teries and expelled those who had been ordered expelled by God and
Pachomius. In the two cases recorded in the Ep Am, Theodore is
likewise ordered to expel the monk. It is not done on his own initiative.
In the present case, it is an angel that gives the order. Although the
source of the order is not specified in § 24, the passive form of the verb
(hJ3ATJl:H'\vat) makes it clear that the decision was not Theodore's. The
attribution of the decision to a higher power is designed to underscore
its seriousness.
It is evident from the sources that Theodore was stricter and more
authoritarian. It was both a result of his own nature (G1.37; supra,
Notes on the Text 134.24-25) and the later problems caused by the
increasing numbers in the monasteries (G1.127). His authoritarian
spirit played a role in the preservation of the community after Pacho-
mius' death (S5.147; G1.131). Similarly, Pachomius' apparent tendency
to avoid expulsion depends on various factors, only one of which was
his personality. The smaller numbers and his clear charismatic
authority would have made the tendency to revolt against him less
acute. Hence, the need to resort to expulsion would have been less.
Secondly, the basic desire of the vitae traditions to portray the early
years under Pachomius as a «paradise lost» (G1.131 ; Asc 17) necessarily
plays down any internal division and with it expulsions. Finally, the
growing authoritarianism of Theodore is linked to the growing
importance of the rule and the increasing links between the community
and the Alexandrian church hierarchy. As important as Pachomius'
spirit of brotherly love may have been, the greater number of expulsions
in the later period may equally represent Pachomius'·greater laxity on
the sort of theological questions that led the church to excommunica-
tion and the monasteries to expulsion. As the Pachomians borrowed the
Alexandrian practice of writing Easter letters in connection with their
annual gathering at Pabau,207 so might they have borrowed the
church's practice of excommunication as the question of theological
stance became more important.
140.23-141.5 Kai "Cau"Ca - iuaa"Co] This material supplies the reason
behind and the source of Silvanus' illness. He has murmured against
Theodore, thinking his brother Macarius to be more humble. Perhaps
Silvanus' anger was aroused by the sentence of expulsion made against
one of the monks. In any event, Silvanus' apoplexy is a direct result of
this mockery. It was induced by an angel, who slapped him across the
face.

140.23-142.2-6 259
Silvanus' reaction to Theodore and his healing represent the denoue-

ment of the present episode. With his problem solved, the narrative
leaves Silvanus behind and turns in §20 to Theodore's dealing with the
errant monks revealed in § 19.
§20
141.16 cruvicrn.opa] Job 16.20; John of Damascus, Haer 83 (PG
94.744A).
141.22 Kat Eh;o()ropo~ - EX~All~H,\vat] Supra, Notes on the Text
140.20-22.
141.24-26 xat a1tayyEiAa~-'tov SEOV] This statement, as indeed most
of the letter, seems at odds with the single post-baptismal remission of
sins noted in §§28-29.
141.26 AOYCP 1tAEioVt JlE'tavoi~] The errant monks understood this to
be a public confession (142.1-2). Public confession is a common theme
in the epistle (supra, Notes on the Text § 3). However, as the following
narrative shows (142.2-9), Theodore had a more private form in mind,
probably due to the contagious nature of the error. Cf. Bo 195.
142.2-6 ExroMSllcrav - at'J'tOi~] The error is not stated. Theodore's
reluctance to have it confessed publicaly suggests its seriousness. It must
be assumed that the confession of the expelled ringleader (141.18-21)
did not include a detailing of the error (141.16-18). Patchelphius, who
was teaching a younger monk that there was no resurrection of the flesh,
confessed publicaly and was not expelled (§ 26).
Theodore fears lest the confession lead astray those who are yet babes
in Christ ('tOu~ En vl17tta~ov'ta~ tv Xptcr'tql). Ammon uses the same
expression again in §34 (155.19), where he states that he left certain
things about Theodore unsaid, lest his letter fall into the hands of those
who are yet babes in Christ. The use of this metaphor to contrast the
beginning or weaker Christian or monk with his more advanced coun-
terpart occurs already in the New Testament (1 Cor 3.1; cf. Eph 4.14;
Rom 2.20; Philo, Migr Abr 46). In 1 Cor 14.20, the imperative occurs,
calling Christians to be babes in evil ('t1\ xaxi~ Vl17tta~E'tE). Both forms
continued in use among the fathers as a referrence to beginners in the
spiritual life (Gregory of Nyssa, Hom in cant 1 p. 18.11 Langerbeck;
Ignatius, Trail 5.1; Clement of Alexandria, Paed 1.35.1; Origen, De
principiis 3.1.12; Frag ex comm in Eph 4.14).
In the Pachomian community, the distinction was a practical reality
(supra, Notes on the Text 127.13; Bo 107). The rule itself was under-
stood as a necessity required because of the weaker brothers (HL 32.7;
S1, CSCO 99/100.4.12-5.11). In G1.40 (H 25.10-11), Pachomius states
that one of the reasons for having visitors segregated was the fear of
their influence on the neophytes. He says that the latter do not yet know
what a monk is and are children who cannot tell their right hand from
their left (vEOqn'y'COUe; ,.tiptffi EiM'tue; 'ti Ecrn IlOvUXOe; XUt nutoiu Iltl
uicr3uvollEVU oE~ulv t\ aptcr't'Epuv, cf. Bo 40). In his catechesis (CSCO
159.6.10-15), Pachomius advised that if one did not possess the spiritu-
al maturity for self-guidance, he should submit to one who is stronger.
§ 21
142.10 Kut "CUU"CU- ytyOVEV] This line refers to the previous account,
though the Ilf:V ... of: construction demands its presence in this section.
The F manuscript clearly places it with the preceeding material. The
following line is set off with a horizontal stroke in the margin and the
extension of the rho in ftlltpUte; into the left margin.
References to Lent (sv 'tute; ftlltpUte; 'tfje; 'tEcrcrupuxocr'tfje;) are found
elsewhere in the Pachomian corpus (Bo 35, 200; S7 = Lefort, Les vies
coptes 45.26f; HL 18.14).208
142.11 'Bv of: "CUte; ftlltpUte; 'tou ayiou nucrxu] The Pachomians ob-
served the Holy Week in accordance with church custom. 209 Various
reports of the observance of the week occur. Theodore, in his letter
calling the brethren together at Pabau for Easter, states: ascendamus in
Hierusalem ante sex dies paschae, sanctificantes nosmetipsos ut
sanctum diem in sanctitate celebremus. 21 0 In his catechesis on the six
days of Easter, Pachomius connects the six days to the six days
of creation. 211 The six days of Easter (ms N€200Y NT€mnAc'XA)
occurs in Bo 35. S6 (Lefort, Les vies coptes 332.7) and Bo 193 speak of
the days of Easter. 212
142.12-13 EV "COte; EVOEXU llovucr't'T1Piote; 'tote; uno E>EoOffipOV] At the
council of Latopolis, Pachomius spoke of nine monasteries (G1.112).
This corresponds to the number mentioned in Gl to that point. After
Tabennesis, the first expansion took place in the immediate vicinity.
The monasteries ofPabau, Chenoboskeia, and Monchosis were added
(Gl.54). Later developments further afield added Tase, Panopolis, Ta-
beu, Tismenai, and Pachnoum (G 1.80-83).213 Bo 58 agrees with this
number of nine. It does not appear that the nunneries were included in
208Ibid. 249-252; Ruppert 91.

209L. Villecourt, «Les observances Iiturgiques et la discipline du jeiine dans I'Eglise
Copte (Ch. XVI-XIX de la Lampe des Tenebres),» Museon 36 (1923) 249-292, 37 (1924)
201-280,38 (1925) 261-330; Veilleux, La liturgie 252-261.
210 Boon 105.
211 CSCO 159.24-26.

142.10-142.13-15 261
the nine. One of these was already established in connection with

Tabennesis (G3.42). Lefort has noted that the numbering of the monas-
teries in S5 suggests a total of ten,214 though Chitty believes that this
represents a later alteration. 215
G1.134 mentions an additional monastery at Tomene (Tome) found-
ed by Pachomius (cf. G1.114). It also reports the foundation of Kaior
and Oui near Hermopolis and a third monastery near Hermonthis by
Theodore, as well as a nunnery at Bechne near Pabau. The Ep Am 25
refers to a monastery built by Theodore near Ptolemais in the Thebaid.
It is hazardous to speculate here as to what Ammon meant by the
eleven. It appears from the sources that there were at least 14 monaste-
ries at this point, not counting the nunneries. It is possible to delete
Tomene as a nunnery, which seems to be the implication of G1.134
(though not of G1.114). If the Ptolemais foundation referred to by
Ammon is equated with one of those mentioned in G1.134, the number
could be reduced to twelve. However, even then the figures do not
square. Furthermore such deletions are rather suspect. It is likely that
Ammon was simply in error, being unaware of some of the monasteries
further afield from Pabau. It is also possible that not all of the Pacho-
mian foundations survived. Theodore is said to have healed the rift
begun by Apollonius of Monchosis after Pachomius' death, though one
wonders if the healing was complete. Some of the monasteries could
well have gone their own way, though that is never stated (nor would it
be in such sources). Of course, the loss of a monastery could as well
result from a decline in numbers, through plague, or whatever.
All this is speculation. The fact is that Ammon's eleven does not
square with the vitae evidence.
142.13-15 E30C; yap - f;op'ta~Etv] Pachomius' fifth letter and Theo-
dore's letter preserved by Jerome are calls to the annual Easter gather-
ing. 216 They were probably modeled on the Alexandrian practice of
sending out festal letters. 217
The Easter reunion and the one designed for general accounting that
occurred in August were the two annual gatherings that took place at
Pabau. It is not clear whether the gathering in August included all of the
monks (G1.83; Bo 71; S4.71 ; Am 639; S6 = Lefort, Les vies coptes 332).

213 Chitty, «A Note» 379-385.
214 Lefort, Les vies coptes 247.
215 Chitty, «A Note» 383-384.
216 Boon 89-92, 105.
Bo 205 employs language very similar to Ammon's in referring to the

Easter gathering (OY02 NAP€NICNHOY THPOY eOYHT €"OYN €<j>SIDOY
€epoyipi MmnAC'XA N€MNOY€PHOY KA TANIKAUIDN NTen€N€I(I)T nA2(1)M,
CSCO 89.204.22-24). 218 Lefort translates: «tous les freres se trouvaient
reunis it Phboou pour celebrer ensemble la Paque, selon les regle-
ments de notre pere Pachome.»219
142.15-171toAArov a~lOuv't(J)V - ECPll] Cf. Bo 188. Scripture study was
an integral aspect of Pachomian spirituality (supra, Notes on the Text
§3). Evening scripture reading and discussion occurs often (G1.34, 88,
99,122,140).220 G1.56 refers to interpreting those passages that are
deep and difficult to understand (!lUAu:rta 'til !lit Elwoll'ta xai ~a3f;a).
G1.68 offers an example of Theodore's hard, literal interpretation of the
text. S10 221 reports that Pachomius explained the mysteries of the
scriptures for the monks (NTO'l rAp 'lS(I)X €PON NMMYCTHPION
NN€rpA<j>H). Such examples could easily be multiplied.
143.2 E1tEma au'tov - cpaYEiv] In G1.97 (Bo 72), a simple brother,

Elias, is reported to have hidden five figs away in an earthen jar to eat
after fasting (01t(J)~ !lE't1l 'titv vllO"'tEiav cpuYlJ au'tu). He is brought to
confess while listening to Pachomius' speech.
143.5-8 Mit n~ -1tapacrxwii~] Pachomius' own ascetic regimen was
hard (G1.14, 51, 115), apparently modeled on that of Palamon (G1.6-
7). However, he recognized the apparent dangers in such a regimen, or
at least the sources portray him as having recognized it (G1.8, 65, 69; Bo
64). Later, Horsiesius argued that one ofthe devil's devices against a new
monk was to convince him to take up a severe regimen (N2€NACKYCIC
eyuMl)T), so that when it led to pain and hardship he would fall
away (CSCO 159.81). Although the monks could choose to pursue a
strict fast if they desired (G1.28; Reg Pach, Praecepta 79), there does not
appear to have been a fixed level to the regimen in general (Bo 64; HL
18.14).222 Often, fasting was undertaken as a means of confronting or
solving a specific problem (G1.100, 129, 146). Jerome (Reg Pach, Prae-
fatio 5) reports that the Tabennesiotes fasted on Wednesday and
Friday, a practice in agreement with the church. 223 G1.28 (Bo 26) refers
to two weekly fasts, though the days are not specified. The parallel in
Am 376 does supply the days, Wednesday and Friday. So too does
G3.38.
218 Ibid. 253.

219 Lefort, Les vies coptes 226.
220 Veilleux, La liturgie 269f.
221 Lefort, Les vies coptes 31.14-15=Am 414-415.
142.15-17-§22 263
Veilleux has pointed out the two distinct fasts of Lent and Easter
week that appear in the Pachomian dossier. 224 They appear already in
the Apostolic Constitutions and are mentioned in Athanasius' festal
letters, which were clearly promulgated among the Pachomians. 225 It is
from the church that the Pachomians inherited this practice (Bo 35 =
Am 394), though how early it came into the monasteries is an open
questions.
Bo 35 (Am 394) is of particular interest for interpreting Ep Am 21.
Both begin by mentioning Lent (tT€CC~r~KOCTH) and the days
of Easter (ms N€200Y NT€mn~cx~). More significantly, both deal
with the question of the severity of the Easter fast. In Bo 35, Theodore
questions Pachomius as to whether one should fast for the entire week
instead of the last two days only, as it is suggested by the church.
Pachomius supports the church's position (i. e., he is made to support
the church's position), arguing that excessive fasting weakens the body,
taking away its strength for the more important tasks of brotherly love
and service to God. Although the anchorite, by virtue of his solitary life,
can expend more energy on longer fasts, the coenobite needs to preserve
his energy for communal activity. The connection with the ecclesiastical
praxis is apparent and surely speaks of a late development of the
episode.
The Ep Am does not offer the same advice. The strict position, in
which one fasts for the entire week, is not ruled out for the more
advanced monks. The emphasis is only that one should not fast beyond
his ability. Therefore, the weak brothers should take nourishment in the
evening. The exception is Friday (1tA"V 'tii~ 1tapacrxEUii~), when the
total fast was demanded.
143.9-10 fillEV - 'to au'to] Supra, Notes on the Text 125.12.
143.11 'tfj IlEAonfj] The melote was the outer skin garment of the
Pachomian habit (supra, Notes on the Text 136.23-25).
§22
§ 22 As with §§19-20, §22 rightly belongs with §23 as a unit. In
both cases, the first section sets up the account, reporting a revelation of
errant monks to Theodore while he is away from the monastery. The
following section picks up with his return to the monastery and his
correction of the erring brothers.
222 Ruppert 346-347.

223 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Miinchtum 212f.
225 CSCO 150.41; Bo 189.
143.14-15 EV OpEtvoiC;; xai aOtXTl'totC;; 't01tOtC;;] One has only to visit the
area around the monastery of Pabau (modern Faw Qibli) and see the
cliffs and wadis on either side of the Nile to understand the appropriate-
ness of this description. The problem with it is the task for which the
brothers went to these areas. Ammon reports that they went to gather
wood (~uArov Epyacri~rov). The wadis in this area are true desert and
nothing approaching lumber or even large quantities of wood of any
kind is to be found (cf. HM 2.2). [109 does mention great and abundant
acacia forests in the vicinity of Seneset.
143.15 ~uArov Epyacri~rov] This is the opposite of ~uAa xau<Jt~a (Pol-
lux Grammaticus 7.109; cf. Ep Am 27 (149.18)). The sense of the present
use is lumber. Although the majority of building was done with mud
brick (Asc 32), references to carpenters are to be found (G1.121; HL
32.9). The fact that no lumber exists in the mountainous and uninhabit-
ed regions mentioned by Ammon presents a problem (supra, Notes on
the Text 143.14-15). The inaccuracy is the result of Ammon's concern
for heightening the miraculous nature of Theodore's clairvoyance
(supra, p. 109).
143.17 'ICJi8ropov] Supra, Notes on the Text 139.24-140.1.
143.18-19 'Bv 8t - Mov] The reference to the distance between the
two groups functions to underscore the revelatory nature of Theodore's
knowledge of the erring brethren in the other group (supra, p. 109).
143.22-24 XpEia ~tv - 1tapaYEYOVa~Ev] The meaning of this state-
ment is not exactly clear. On the surface, it would imply that the wood
was necessary for some project. However, the literary function, which
must take precedence, is to heighten the importance of the erring
monks' mistake and Theodore's reaction to it. On the one hand (~tv),
the work is important (143.22-24). But (aAA'), the fact that some bro-
thers have stumbled and must be rescued before they fall is more
important (143.24-144.3). Therefore (oOv), the work must be set aside
in spite of its importance, and the case of the erring brothers must be
dealt with (144.3-5).
143.24 EV'tU 8ro8EXU'tlJ 1tpOOEUXU] Supra, Notes on the Text 134.3.
Butler 226 argued that this represented the original number of prayers in
the evening synaxis that was later reduced to six. He cited HL 32.6 and
Cassian (Inst 2.6) in support. Am 369 alters the Palladian material,
reducing the number to six. Butler argued that this was evidence ofthe
226 Butler, Lausiac History 1.165.

143.14-15-144.10-15 265
later development. However, with the discovery of the Coptic frag-

ments of the Regula, it is now clear that six prayers represents the
original number.
Lefort, noting Ammon's disagreement here with the usual number of
six, used it as further evidence against the letter's authenticity. 22 7 Chitty
countered by suggesting that Ammon's years at Nitria could easily have
obscured his memory of the Pachomian practice. 228 Mensbrugghe
argued that Ammon's reference could be made to agree with the vita
and Regula evidence. It simply represented a combination of the two
series of six psalms (collecta maior and collecta domus) normally prac-
ticed in the monastery, united here into twelve as a result of the monks
being away on a work party.229 Veilleux argued that Ammon's refer-
ence is to prayers and that it is wrong to equate this with references to
psalms. He holds with Chitty that the number twelve, which is the
Nitriote practice, represents a Lower Egyptian influence. 23o
144.2 8ul 'tfj~ EJlfj~ ~pax6'tTl'to~]In Ep Am 34 (155.20-21), ~pax6'tll~
functions as a term of self-depreciation, used in the positive sense of
humility (your humble servant). Here, on the other hand, it also carries
the negative connotation of responsibility or guilt.
The problem of monks who chose to return to their old way of life and
renounce the habit was real. It was one of the reasons for the construc-
tion of a wall to close out the outside world. 231 The possessed monk in
Ep Am 24 returns to his village. Silvanus (G1.1 04; Asc 2-3) is threatened
by Pachomius with being expelled and returned to his parents. In Gl.74,
an errant monk leaves and returns to his parents. Ammon himself was
sought out by his parents and eventually discovered by a friend of his
father's (Ep Am 30).
144.6-7 Kat Ev'tElAaJlEvo~ - 'tau'ta] Theodore orders the two brothers
that he sends to Isidore's group not to report to them any of what he has
said, but only to tell them to be at Pabau on the Sabbath. This statement
is necessary to the genre, as Ammon understands it. It serves to under-
score the revelatory nature of Theodore's knowledge and sets the stage
for the public confession of the four errant monks at Pabau (supra, p.
109). It was the usual practice to send two brothers on a mission (infra,
Notes on the Text 152.28-29).
144.10-15 Kat ou'tO)~ - E<j>ll] This is an example of the evening synaxis
(supra, Notes on the Text 134.3).
229 Mensbrugghe 443-444.

231 Ruppert 68-71.
§ 23
144.16 aWtap3EvCOV] Supra, Notes on the Text 124.15.
144.16-17 O'iOaH, - aYYEAlXeX, tUrxUVEl] The equation of the monas-
tic life with the life of the angels occurs frequently and has called
forth considerable scholarly endeavor. 232 Eo 188 records that the
brothers of the congregation resembled a gathering of angels
( € P€NICNHOY NT€tKoINWNIA T€NeONT €oyeWOYTC €NArr€XOC,
CSCO 89.175.7-8).
144.17-20 Ot yap-cruvcrtaUpoumv] £p Am 4 (127.4-5). The idea of the
monastic life as a bearing of the cross is often met with in the Pachomian
dossier (e.g., Eo 198; G1.24, 95,108; Theodore, Catechesis 3 = CSCO
160.55; Pachomius, Catechesis = CSCO 160.25).
144.21 tij 1tEviq. tOW YOVECOV a1tota~U/-lEvo~] Infra, Notes on the Text
152.24-27. G1.24 records that Pachomius tested the worthiness of aspir-
ing monks and that of their parents (/-lEta OOXl/-lfj~ a~ia~ autrov tE xai
trov YOVECOV) before accepting them into the monastery. He went on to
note that the renunciation of the world with respect to oneself and one's
family is the first step in the monastic life (1tprotOV /-lEV iva 1tavti ttl>
XOO/-lC!l a1totU~COVtal xai toi~ ioiot~ xai l;autoi~). The reference to
checking the worthiness of the parents is secondary. The parallel in Eo
23 omits it. Pachomius simply asks the prospective monks if they are
willing to separate themselves from their parents (OY02 MCAXI N€MWOY
X€AN C€NA<l)~WPX NNOY1ot). G1.37 reports that Theodore's mother
came with letters from the bishop (f:1ttcrtOAa~ Exoooa f:1ttcrx01tcov),
demanding to see her son. Eo 30 reports that Pecos hesitated in taking
Theodore back with him to Pachomius on account of his parents. When
Theodore's mother did show up at the gate, Pachomius was in favor of
the contact, but Theodore refused to see her on scriptural grounds
(G1.37; Eo 37-38). Obviously, Theodore's parents were not consulted
before he joined. The reference in G1.24 to checking their worthiness
must be a later development dependent on pressure from outside au-
thorities, be they ecclesiastical or secular. These outside authorities
were under pressure from parents who had lost their children to the
desert (G1.37; £p Am 30).
232 Frank, ArrEAIKOL BIOL; P. Emmanuel von Severus, «BIOL 'ArrEAIKOL.

Zum Verstandnis des Monchslebens als <Engellebem in der christlichen Oberlieferung,»
Liturgie und Monchtum 21 (1960) 73-88; U.Ranke-Heinemann «Zum Ideal der vita
angelica im fruhen Monchtum,» Geist und Leben 29 (1956) 347-357; A. Lamy, «BIOL
'ArrEAIKOL,» Dieu vivant 7 (1946) 59-77; K.Nachtlberger, «Engel und Monch,»
Seckauer Heite 7 (1938) 11-13.
144.16-144.22-27 267
Theodore's strict position in the matter of one's relationship to his

family is seen again in G1.65, where he refuses to treat his genetic
brother as a real brother (oux f)3i:ATJerE XPTJeruer3at 1tpO~ uu.6v ro~
<i8EA<pOV eE68(Opo~). Pachomius suggested that Theodore humble
himself and help his brother, who was only beginning and in need of
encouragement in the monastic life. Again in G1.68, when an older
brother attempted to interpret Lk 14.26 in a non-literal fashion so that
he could visit his parents, Theodore objected (cf. Theodore, Catechesis
3 = CSCO 160.47-48). In G1.74 and 104, expulsion from the
monastery includes being returned to one's parents. The implication of
this is a complete return to one's worldly ties. Even the first step of
renunciation is lost.
The reality of leading a monastic life within the world led to some
relaxation of the biblical imperative. The wall could not keep the world
completely away. The cases above already witness Pachomius' attempt
to soften Theodore's harsher stance. 233 Pachomius allowed visits to
one's relatives (Do 63) and played down the literal interpretation of the
command to hate your parents (Sll, CSCO 99/100.97.6-10). Ruppert
rightly suggests difficulties with parents as one of the sources for this
relaxation, though he also notes that Theodore's character made him
naturally more severe in such matters than Pachomius. However, one
must note that Pachomius also gives a stricter interpretation of this
imperative (G1.14, 37; G3.42-43). He does accept that the literal inter-
pretation espoused by Theodore is the correct one (G1.37, 65). The
difference with Theodore was that Pachomius, as abbot, recognized
that not all monks were capable of this state of perfection. The Regula
allowed visits (Praecepta 53-55,143), though care was advised to insure
the monk's proper demeaner and his return to the monastery (G1.67;
Ep Am 30).
In spite of this relaxation in the position, the conflict between it and
the stricter state of perfection remained. The final goal was to be free of
all worldly connections. One should love his family as members of
Christ, just as he loves all the faithful. The imperative to hate one's
parents denoted this non-recognition of a special relationship vis-a-vis
the world (oux ron 1li:V't0l aPllu.iu .<1> .uyxuvovn .oi~ i8iOl~ ro~ 1111
i8iOl~, G1.37). The difficulty in reconciling the biblical imperatives to
honor and hate one's parents must have remained, though the two
passages can appear together with no apparent difficulty (Epist Hor 1 =
CSCO 160.64.25-29).
144.22-27 xui ~f\v O<pEiAEt- xumv.f\erut] This passage represents an
important development in the lliJlTJert~ concept (supra, Notes on the
233 Ruppert 142-149; infra, Notes on the Text 152.28-29.

Text 124.4). The life in accordance with Christ has here as its exemplar
the lives of the earlier monastic fathers alongside of scripture. It is this
idea, that the lives of the early monks serve as types and models of the
way of life in accordance with Christ, that was the impulse for the
creation of the monastic sources that we possess (G 1.98).
The passage also functions to tie in the various parts of the present
story. The notion of a monk serving as a type or model for others
reappears at the end of the episode, where the errant monks are so
improved that they become a type and model for salvation (146.6-7).
145.2-4 'tf:crcraps~ yap - xaxusslv oi5'tco~] This section offers a beauti-
ful example of the monastic opposition to frivolity. The monastic life
was a serious undertaking. Laughter represented an enjoyment of the
world and was irreconcilable with renunciation of it. It was seen as the
work of demons (G1.19) and is frequently condemned in the various
Pachomian rules (Reg Paeh, Praeeepta 8,31,121; Praeeepta et Instituta
18; Reg Hor, CSCO 160.84,92; G1.121).
In G1.104 (Ase 2-3), Silvanus indulges in laughter and is threatened
with expulsion by Pachomius. In the Ase version, he reverted to his old
theatrical ways, singing and making merry among the brothers. In the
end, he repented and strove hard to improve. His efforts proved so
successful, that Pachomius labelled him a living man (livBpco1to~ sillY)
such as he had not seen since he became a monk. The G1 account ends
with a reference to emulating one another (£S"AODV UAA"ACOV 'ta
xa'topBwlla'ta) clearly linking the account with the llilll1crl~ concept.
Although this Silvanus account cannot be considered a true parallel
to the present Ep Am episode, it is interesting to note the same outline in
the two stories. Both offer the account of a monk or monks who err
through negligence, laughing and making merry. In both, the errant
monk(s) are corrected through the words of the abbot. They repent and
strive hard to improve. In the end, they are so improved as to be
examples for others.
145.6 £V'tpa1tf:v'ts~ <>UXPOO1V xat cr'tsvaYlloi~] These two emotional
actions represent the opposite of the two negative actions mentioned
earlier at 145.4 (ijp~av'tO xat YSAOtUSS1V xat xaxusslv).
145.12-13 Ei oE-crDIl~aivol] Job 31.5. The biblical passage has been
expanded to fit the present need. Tuos IlOt crxDBpco1ta crDIl~aivOt does
not appear in the LXX.
145.19-20 '0 Yf:ACO~ - xa't,,<pslav] James 4.9; Theodore, Cateehesis 3
= CSCO 160.50.19-20; Epist Paeh 3 = Boon 81.5).
145.22-25 Kat IlUAAOV - AU~l1'tS] The fear of divine judgment and
hell played an important role alongside the desire to share in the
145.2-4-146.9 269
rewards of heaven in the monastic consciousness. The present world

was understood as a pale reflection of the future other-worldly exist-
ence. As the pleasure of heaven would far surpass any obtainable here
on earth, so would the sufferings and tortures of hell dwarf those
experienced in the present life.
Egyptian monasticism in general, and Pachomian monasticism in
particular, with its acceptance of the reality of the demonic world and its
backdrop of the Egyptian beliefs concerning the right of passage into
the afterlife,234 frequently employed such ideas. The descriptions of
heaven and hell are particularly vivid in the oriental sources (Bo 88;
S5.88; S4.88; Am 461-469, 548 f). 235 The concept involves the two
poles of reward and punishment. In Asc 19 (H 144.8-15), Pachomius
holds up before the brothers both the good things of heaven (ta £v
oupavoi~ uya3a) and the promise laid up for the saints (n'lv
urroXEtJ..lf:VllV 'tOi~ ayiot~ £rraYYEAiav) as well as how those who have
fallen are punished by God (rrro~ ot urrorrEcroVtE~ 'tOU 3wu XOAusOVtat)
and the instruments of torture laid up for those who have been
neglectful (ta ~acravtcrttl pta a toi~ UJ..lEA tlcracrt v urroxEt'tat).
A casual reading of the sources suggests a very strong emphasis on the
punishments awaiting in hell. Frequent references are made to the
threat of God's judgment (e.g., Gl.18, 37, 132, 104; Asc 33; Epist Pach
5; Theodore, Catechesis 3 = CSCO 160.50) and the punishments
awaiting in hell (Epist Pach 5; Pachomius, Catechesis 1 passim; Reg
Hor, CSCO 160.82; Asc 19, 33; Gl.18, 96,118,135,146). They are held
before the brothers' eyes as a source of inspiration for their proper
conduct in the monastic life.
The specific reference to the temporal nature of the present suffering
in comparison to the eternal nature of hell is also found (Theodore,
Catechesis 3 = CSCO 160.45). Of course, all of these motifs were
common throughout early Christian literature and thought.
§24
146.9 Moooaio~] Freads Mooof:w~, while t supplies the name 'IolCrtl<p.
Halkin emended it to Moooaio~. The story finds no parallel in the
Pachomian dossier. Gl.112 reports that Pachomius, at the Council of
Latopolis, referred to a certain Mwoofj<; 0 'tOU J..lay0cOAou, who was
possessed by demons and helped by him. Lefort suggested that a distant
parallel to the present account existed in S5.92.236
234 Griitzmacher 92-95.

235 Ibid. 85-88.
236 Lefort, Les vies copIes 260 n. 6; supra, Notes on the Text § 17.
146.10 l:tAOUUVOU] Ep Am 19 offers a story about Silvanus and pre-

sents him as the leader of a house of monastic weavers. There too, he is
leading a group of monks to an island to gather reeds.
146.12 'ta~ AE"(Olltvu~ AU'I'aVu~] HL 32.11.
146.18 'l'EV'tUTJO"tov M: XUt 'IcribropOV] Supra, Notes on the Text
139.24-140.1.
146.22 BV 't<{) XEAAicp crou] Supra, Notes on the Text 129.9-10. Ep Am
20 (141.23-24) also suggests individual cells.
147.1 UAOIlUV&V] HL proem (Butler, Lausiac History 2.9.5).
147.10 't1l~ xuA6PTl~] This is the only occurrence of this term in the Ep
Am. Elsewhere, Ammon uses the more common 'to xtAAtoV (146.17,
22; 148.15). This latter term is also that found most frequently in G1
(§§59, 69, 74,105,144) and Asc (§§1, 7, 27, 29, 34).
147.12-13 "Ero<; f;XElVTl<;; - bn3i:cr3ut crOt] This repeats the assertion
already made at 146.25-147.1.
147.18-20 0<;; YEVOIlEVO<;; - XOOIlTlV mpllTlcrEv] The fact that the
possessed monk bellows like a bull after he passes through the
monastery gate seems to suggest that the monastery somehow held the
demonic forces in check. In Asc 14, demons attack Pachomius while he
is away from the monastery, out in the desert. They cling to him until he
approaches the monastery.
The notion that the cell or monastery functioned as a protection
against demons was advocated by Morenz. 237 Ruppert 238 argued
strongly against this position. He pointed to numerous examples in
which demons attack various monks in their cell or cloister (e. g., Bo 64,
76). From the two examples noted above, however, it does appear to
offer one story type. As such, it is a literary device and not an actual
Pachomian position. It also is another example of the close relationship
of Ep Am and Asc.
§ 25
147.21-22 TIATlcriov bE TI'tOAEIlUlbo<;; -1tE1toiTlXEV] Supra, Notes on
the Text 142.12-13. Ptolemais is mentioned in the Pachomian dossier
only in this section of the Ep Am. Its location across the Nile from
Panopolis places it in the middle of the second cluster of monasteries
founded by Pachomius. 239 The increasing number of prospective
237 Siegfried Morenz, «Neue Urkunden zur Ahnenreihe des Klosters,» ThLZ 74
(1949) 423-429.
238 Ruppert 68-69.
239 Chitty, «A Note» 381-383.

146.10-147.23-25 271
monks flowing to the desert in this period makes such expansion readily
understandable. The statement that Theodor~ filled the monastery with
monks may suggest the transference of monks from an overcrowded
monastery. Theodore's other foundations (G1.134) were made to the
south ofPabau near Hermonthis and even further north near Hermopo-
lis in the region of Antinoe. The present case would allow for uniform
growth up and down the Nile valley, since it is situated in the second
cluster midway between the others.
147.21 -22 01tO\) llovacr·t11pwV - mmoirp(I;:v] Halkin has rightly seen in
this construction the influence of Ammon's Coptic. 240 The causative
..\<Jop€Oym, which represents perfectly good Coptic, has been literally
translated into Greek.
147.23 Kapoup - xoA.o~6~] Karour does not appear in the vitae
traditions. The only occurrence of the name outside of the Ep Am is in a
Pachomian lamentation over the revelation of the future decline from
the old austerity in the monastery of Pabau. It is attributed to a Karour
(6..\pOyp) and survives only in Coptic (CSCO 159.100-104). Lefort
identified the two Karours (CSCO 160.100 n.2).
In terms of the etymology of the name, the Coptic word 6pID2,
meaning «to be in want, needy or diminished», can be used to translate
xoA.o~6~ (Crum 829 b). Although the equation does not work etymolog-
ically, one can easily imagine a folk-etymology connecting 6pID2 with
6..\pOyp.
147.23-25 cI> 1tA.E1O"'taXt~ Ei~ 'ta~ Vl.)x'tEptVa<; Euxa~ - E>EObw-

po~] Supra, Notes on the Text 134.3.
Various regulations prescribed the proper conduct during the synax-
is. One was supposed to arrive on time (Reg Pach, Praecepta 9) and
give full attention to the service. Talking with or looking at another
monk was forbidden (Praecepta 8; Reg Hor, CSCO 160.85.6f.). The
proper arrangement of the habit was also set (Reg Hor, CSCO 160.87).
These all suggest that difficulties did exist. Horsiesius warns against
negligence. He fears lest someone may have to confess that he has not
been frank before God and cry unto him because he has been negligent
(:x.€"\NfoY"\M€~HC). 241 In Eo 184, an angel admonishes Theodore,
asking him why he has not demanded more frequently that the brothers
not neglect (€<l)T€M€P..\M€X€C) the synaxis in the hour of prayer. 242 In
Hist Mon 29 (Latin text), the neglect of the brothers is caused by
demons.

241 CSCO 159.85.14-16.
242 CSCO 89.163.17-19; cf., GJ.141.
The reference to Karour's negligence does not fit integrally into the
story. The point of the episode is Theodore's clairvoyant knowledge of
Karour's death. His problems are picked up again in 148.7-8, though
they are presented as past. Ammon stresses his exactness of ecclesiasti-
cal doctrine, and the lamentation attributed to Karour suggests a more
perfected monk. The earlier errors are only present to serve as evidence
of his progress made under Theodore.
147.25-148.11toAAOU of: 1tOppro - Bau] The reference to the distance
separating the two monasteries is geographically accurate. Its literary
function is to heighten the miraculous nature of Theodore's clairvoyant
powers (supra, p. 109).
148.4-5lipn yap - UVrlyaYEv] The distant knowledge of the moment
when another's soul is taken to heaven is frequently attributed to the
saints. 243 In G1.93, Theodore and Pachomius hear the beautiful melody
sung by a soul ascending to heaven (cf. Eo 82-83). John the dwarfis said
to have witnessed a harlot's soul being led to heaven by angels after her
conversion (AP John the dwarf 40). Athanasius reports that Antony
witnessed the ascent of Amoun's soul (V.Ant 60). Cuthbert saw Aidan's
soul rise to heaven (Bede, V.Cuth 4).
A connected topos is the immediate awareness of another's death
from a distance. In Ep Am 34, Theodore and Poemen both receive such
knowledge of Julian's death in Persia. Irenaeus is reported to have
heard a voice in Rome proclaiming Polycarp's martyrdom. 244 The
topos is not necessarily Christian. Apollonius ofTyana received a vision
of Domitian's death (Dio Cass 67.18.1).
148.6 'trov EXXAT]<HU<H1XroV oonui'trov UXpi~EtaV dXEV] The same
vocabulary is used in the following section (149.13) to describe Patchel-
phius' repentance and turning away from his error of denying the
resurrection of the flesh. Ep Am 13 (133.27) mentions the true faith of
Athanasius towards Christ on account of which he suffered (£VEXEV 'tii~
d~ XP10"'tOV EooE~da~), and Ep Am 28 (150.20-21) refers to the apos-
tolic faith (fJ U1tOO"'tOA1Xij 1tiO"n~). In Ep Am 3, Theodore quotes Cant
4.12, equating the locked garden and sealed spring with the proper
monastic stance. Although the precise meaning of this is impossible to
know, the charge that the questioning monk behaves in an opposite
manner, being taken in by all that pass along the road, suggests the
opposite of Karour's preciseness of ecclesiastical doctrine. Ammon,
with his strong effort to equate Pachomian monasticism with the
ecclesiastical order understood it in these terms.
243 HolI, Enthusiasmus 189-191.

147.25-148.22-23 273
The present emphasis is Ammon's. The entire letter, in much the

same way as the V.Ant, strives to present its hero as truly representative
of the orthodox, ecclesiastical faith as espoused through Athanasius. It
is clearly, as such, representative of the same genre (supra, excursus pp.
188-189). In V.Ant 89, Antony is likewise said to maintain the right faith
towards Christ (t1'!v d~ "tov XUptOV i]~rov 'Illcrouv XptO""tov £lxn:Pfi
1ticrnv).
The question of whether or not this position went back to the monk
himself is difficult. It is clear that they would have made the statement in
behalf of themselves. However, the movement from £oo£P1'!~ 1ticrn~ to
f:XXA llcrtacrnxu 86y~a"ta is clearly a ch urch oriented development. That
Athanasius and Ammon understood the latter as part of the former is
clear. It is less certain that Theodore, let alone Pachomius, would have
made the same equation.
148.9 Mo "trov f:x£i9£v UD£Acpoi] Infra, Notes on the Text 152.28-29.
148.9-11 Kai ~£9' i]~Epa~-1t(lv"ta~] Cf. In 4.52-53. In V.Ant 60, some
brothers arrive thirty days after Antony had witnessed the ascent of
Amoun's soul to report his death.
§26
148.12-13 1tpO~ 'Pupq>tov "tov 1tUV"tO)V 1tprowv f:V "tfj Bau] Psarphius
became the great steward at Pabau after the death of Paphnutius
(G1.124). Lefort has argued that Ammon is using incorrect terminology
to refer to that office. The proper title is oixov6~0~ 6 ~Eya~. 245 Lefort
also points to Bo 185, where Psarphius is referred to as the most notable
among the brothers (n€TOINNIU)t 2€NNICNHOY). Lefort argued that
his phrase closely resembles Ammon's present statement, suggesting
that Ammon knew the account preserved in Bo.
148.14 TIa"tX£Acpiou] Patchelphius appears nowhere else in the Pacho-
mian dossier. He does offer an example of a father who joined the
monastery with other members of his family. His elder son is mentioned
(148.15-16), suggesting more than one. Cf. G1.80.
148.22-23 'EDiDacrx£v - cpoow] G1.56 explicitly affirms the resurrec-
tion of the body after death. G1.57 goes on to discuss the present
spiritual resurrection. It is worth noting that these two sections do not
appear in the Coptic vitae. A Coptic fragment, probably of S3, con-
244 Martyrium Polycarpi 22.2 in ms. Mosquensis 159; J. B.Lightfoot, The Apostolic
Fathers, 2nd ed (London: Macmillan, 1889) 3.402.
245 Lefort, Les vies coptes LVII-LVIII.
demns the Origenist teachings on the preexistence of the soul and the
resurrection of the body.246 In view of the anti-Origenist position in
evidence in the Pachomian tradition as it has come down to us (Asc 7 ;
Gl.31), it is easiest to link Patchelphius' teaching with some form of
Origenism. It certainly had a wide following among the Egyptian
monks. It was particularly pronounced in the Lower Egyptian com-
munities. 24 7 However, other possibilities do exist. The Gnostic
materials uncovered at Nag Hammadi contain numerous references to
the sort of teaching espoused by Patchelphius; namely, a denial of
bodily resurrection and a negative view of the flesh (e. g., CG IX,3:
35-37). Apart from the question of the connection of these texts with
the Pachomian community, it is clear that some form of Gnosticism still
had a flourishing following in this area at the time.
Another group espousing this position was that of the heretical monk
Hieracas of Leontopolis (Epiphanius, Haer 67.1.5). This is, of course,
much further afield geographically. Hieracas' teachings had made
strong inroads into the monastery of Macarius by the end of the fourth
century, calling forth a purge ordered by the patriarch of Alexan-
dria. 248
Macarius the Egyptian also confronted a heretic who taught that
there was no resurrection of the flesh (HL 17.11; Sozomen, Hist eccl
3.14.2).
The reproach of the flesh as the human weakness through which the
demons attack is common (e.g., AP Antony 33). The movement from
this to the denigration of the flesh as evil in and of itself is not far for a
simple minded monk.
148.27 "np] Or (2IDr) does not appear again in the Pachomian mate-
rial, though the name is common in Egyptian monastic sources. 249
Abba John of Nit ria is another example of a monk who was a eunuch
from birth (AP John the eunuch; Theodore of Pherme 10).
149.4 'tql npoE(J't(lm 'ti'i~ oixia~] Lefort has noted that this term
appears nowhere else in the Pachomian corpus in reference to the house
master. 250 The technical term is 6 oixlax6~ (rMNHI) (supra, p. 114;
Notes on the Text 139.11-12). The term does appear in other monastic
contexts in Egypt to refer to the abbot ofa monastery (PLond1913.2).251
246 Ibid. 352-354.

248 Evelyn White 2.115f.
249 HL 9; Hist Mon 2; AP Or 1-15, Pistos 1, Sisoes 28; Butler, Lausiac History 1.177
n.2; Crum, Theological Texts 164-165; Bell, Jews and Christians, papyrus 1914.60.
251 Bell, Jews and Christians 49.
148.27-150.4-5 275
The house master was responsible for all of the activity in the house
(Reg Pach, Praecepta 1, 106, 112, 114).252 He was also responsible for
the chastisement of monks under his supervision (Praecepta 133). Of
course, his power was not to be used to excess. The goal was the
correction of the errant monk and for that, patience was demanded (Lib
Hor 15).
149.12-13 <Jl)VnSi:IlEvo~ ·tOi~ eXXAll<J1a<Jnxoi~ MYlla<Jtv] Supra,
Notes on the Text 148.6.
§27
149.17-18 Ei~ - ~uAa d~ xaootv] Supra, Notes on the Text 139.9-11
and 143.15.
149.22 na"tpixtO~] Patrikius is not mentioned elsewhere in the Pacho-
mian corpus. He does offer an example of the diversity in the Pacho-
mian community, coming from Myra in Lycia. 253
149.24-25 Kat EHiollEV u<J1tioa - 1t080~ au"tou] In § 19, Theodore
hides two serpents beneath his feet without being bitten. Although
hagiographic import has taken precedence over historical reporting in
both accounts, it is interesting to note a sense of reality of the serpents'
activity in the two accounts. Patrikius is bitten in the boat, where the
serpent was hiding. The brothers had obviously disturbed its hiding
place. In § 19, the snakes make the move, coming to Theodore's feet.
Snakes do not take the initiative. They strike only when they are
disturbed or threatened.
150.4-5 eE68ropo~ - "tou XP1<JWU] John Chrysostom lists the curing
of the bites of venomous beasts as one of the powers of the sign of the
cross (supra, Notes on the Text 138.24-27).
§28
§ 28 This section, together with § 29, supplies proof through revela-
tion of God's forgiveness of post-baptismal sin. Antony's letter (§ 29) in
support of Theodore's revelation functions as a second witness (supra,
p. 108).
The revelation makes it clear that those who have sinned after their
baptism can be assured of God's forgiveness if they are truly repentant
and weep over their sins. The doctrine of penance, if it may be rightly
called a doctrine, has marked parallels to that found in the Shepherd of
252 Ruppert 310.

253 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 159; supra, Notes on the Text 126.8-9.
Hermas. 254 The assurance of God's mercy, the emphasis on personal

penance, and the assertion of post-baptismal forgiveness mark the
relationship. Both respond to a more primitive or austere position
(Hermas, Man 4.3.1-6; Heb 6) that argued that the remission of sin
effected through baptism was unique; i. e., no means of post-baptismal
forgiveness was available. Hermas (Vis 2.2.3-5) relaxed this austere
view by allowing one additional occasion for repentance until the
present (Il£Xpl 'tutl'tTlt; 'tfjt; 'lill£put;). This particular assertion is echoed
in the Ep Am. In Theodore's revelation (150.23-25), the erasing of post-
baptismal sin is said to occur for those who have wept over their sins
until today (Il£XPl 'tfjt; O"TJIlEpOV). In Antony's letter (152.4-6), the same
element appears in the phrase, EWt; €xdvTlt; 'tfjt; 'li1l£PUt; BV iJ iiv 'Ii
BTClO"'tOA:Il 't u t)'tTl BTClooSij O"ot.
These phrases can either be interpreted as a temporal limitation on
the possibility of gaining forgiveness (God will forgive until today), or
as an expression of the extent of personal penance demanded (those who
have wept until today). The latter interpretation would bring the pas-
sage more in line with the Pachomian view of God's mercy and for-
giveness found in the other sources and, for that matter, in the rest of the
Ep Am. However, the fact that certain monks present on this occasion
were brought around by the revelation and received forgiveness
(152.11-16) argues for the former view. These monks had not been
weeping «until today». Indeed, they had not begun weeping «until
today». It was God's foreknowledge of their change of heart that led to
the publication of the revelation.
The problem is that this view of a temporal limitation of God's
forgiveness of sin does not occur elsewhere in the Pachomian corpus.
God's mercy and readiness to forgive the repentant sinner are stressed
in the Pachomian sources. 255 It is the general position found in the Ep
Am. Throughout the letter, erring monks are revealed to Theodore so
that he might correct them and win them back for Christ. It is an
ongoing process, free from any temporal limitation. In Ep Am 17
(137.17-18), it is explicitly stated that God receives those who sincerely
repent and return to him (O£XE'tUl yap 0 SEOt; 'tout; YVTlO"iwt; bnO"'tp£-
q>ov'tUt; bt' uU'tov). In Ep Am 20, after revealing to certain erring
brethren the sins that they have committed after their baptism (IlE'ta 'to
aylOv ~a1t'tlO"llu), Theodore convinces them to appease God through
further repentance. They all hasten to follow Theodore's suggestion,
recognizing how God has spared them (omot; uU'trov Bq>dO"U'to 0 SEot;).
The position is clearly at odds with the present account.
254 Schiwietz, Das morgenliindische Monchtum 324-325; Veilleux, La Iiturgie 349.

255 Ibid. 341-352.
150.4-5 -151.4 277
In G1.140-141 (Eo 186), Theodore, after extolling those who have

been baptised and become monks, responds to those who argue that
there is no repentance. He asserts that God does not abandon the man
who has come close to falling through negligence. Although Theodore's
position clearly favors God's unlimited readiness to forgive, the episode
does point to the existence of the opposing idea.
The incongruency of this austere position in the Ep Am could at least
be eased if the post-baptismal sin under discussion was understood to be
a more serious failure, e. g., apostasy in the time of persecution or the
internal Pachomian schism following Pachomius' death.256 However,
that is not the stated position.
In view of the uniqueness of the idea in the Pachomian dossier and its
close parallel in Hermas, the story must be taken as a late, non-
Pachomian development. Where Ammon got it is hard to say. Antony's
letter could well represent an original Sitz im Leben in the more austere
anchoritic circles.
150.13-14 'tii~ EX'tll~ - 1\.3up J.lllvo~] 22 November.
150.24 'to AOU'tpOV] Ep Am 2 (124.18).
§29
§ 29 Supra, Notes on the Text § 28. The present section functions to
support Theodore's revelation (§ 28). Ammon's narrative ability is
shown in the manner in which he weaves in this letter from Antony.
Theodore's revelation took place while the brothers were on an island
(150.12-13). Antony's letter arrives by boat. It is the monastery boat
returning to Pabau from a mission to Alexandria. Unaware that Theo-
dore is on the island, they would have naturally proceeded to the
monastery. But Theodore's clairvoyance detects its imminent pass by
the island, and he sends some of the brethren to flag it down. It stops at
the island, and the supporting letter is read. Hence, Ammon has kept
the narrative situation alive and managed to incorporate yet another
example of Theodore's remarkable gifts.
151.4 0Eoq>tAOV xai Ko1tPllv] Supra, Notes on the Text 125.3.
256 In S6, Theodore informs the hegemons who revolted against Horsiesius that if they
guard their souls from sin until the day of their death (<I)l.n€20oy Mn€%'M<I)IN€), they
will obtain a pardon for all of the things that they have done until now (U)l.€20YN €T€NOY).
In any event, it is difficult to imagine that Ammon created this account. The position is
not part of the mainstream orthodoxy that he supports, It may represent a survival of an
older austerity among the monks. It may also have been introduced in the debates that
arose after the various persecutions. The apostate monk of Asc 8-11 must do penance
until the day of his death to atone for his sin.
151.6-7 U1tEA3un: Ei<; - vEooun:] Ammon is again geographically

accurate. The Nile does bend at Nag Hammadi, and a number of islands
exist in the river upstream from that point. A boat coming from Alex-
andria would come around the bend and become visible from the cape
of the island.
151.16 f:V uyicp <jnAlwun] Ep Am 30 (153.10).
151.18 'tOY 1tU'tEPU T)l-loov i\V't(OVlOV] The Pachomian dossier suggests
their close relationship with Antony. The vitae themselves appear to be
dependent on the V.Ant (Eo 2; G1.2, 22, 99). The community is often
depicted in close contact with him (G1.120, 136; S5.120-123, 128, 130).
Pachomi us himself never met Antony (G1.120), though Theodore does
seem to have known him personally (S5.120).
151.20-21 'EAoupiroVl] Supra, Notes on the Text 128.6.
151.22-23 flv yap 'tfj Aiyu1t'tirov YAcOOcrU YEYPUl-ll-lEvll] Supra, Notes
on the Text 136.25-26. V.Ant 16 reports that Antony spoke in Egyptian
('tfj Aiyu1tnuxfj <provfj). HL 21.15 records that he employed translators,
since he knew no Greek.
151.24-152.8 T0 uyu1tll't0 - f:V xupicp] Antony's letter. Quasten
argues for its authenticity.257 Antony apparently employed an aman-
uensis. Athanasius says that he did not take to schooling as a child
(ypal-ll-lu'tu l-lf:V l-lU3Eiv ouX flvEcrXE'tO, V.Ant 1) and remained unlettered
(ypal-ll-lu'tu l-lTJ l-lu3ffiv, V.Ant 72).258 He is reported to have correspond-
ed with Constantine and his sons (V.Ant 81), the imperial official Bala-
cius (V.Ant 86), and Hilarion (Jerome, V.Hil24). None of these letters
have survived. Seven other letters attributed to Antony have come
down to us. They are addressed to various monasteries in Egypt. One of
these letters and parts of two others survive in Coptic. 259
151.24-26'H10E1V-1tPO<PTt-ra<;] Amos 3.7. God reveals before he acts.
The recipients of his revelations are his servants, the prophets.
In the present context, these latter include Antony and Theodore.
In S5 .120, Theodore refers to Antony as the last of the prophets (ncene
NNenpocJ>HTHC). Pachomius is also referred to as a prophet. 260 The idea
of the monks as the new prophets is met with elsewhere. 261
152.8 EUX0l-lui crE UYWiVE1V] 3 Jn 2; POxy 292.11; cf. Ep Am 32
(154.22-23).
257 Quasten, Patro!ogy 3.152.

258 cr., v.
Ant 73; Augustine, De doet Chr prologue.
259 Quasten, Patro!ogy 3.150-152.
151.6-7 -152.26 279
152.17-20 eE6ompo~ Ecpll - AaA:ijcrEl~] Lefort rightly recognized this

as a literary device. 262 However, it does not necessarily call the letter's
authenticity into question. The line between literature and history is not
so clear cut in this period. In the Vita Symeon by Niketas Stethatos,
Symeon predicts to Niketas his writing of the vita. 263
§30
152.21-22 Kat 1tapaYEvO~f:VOD -1tapotxta~ ~OD] Ammon left Pabau
in the latter half of 355 A. D. (supra, Notes on the Text 124.7).
152.23 BllcraptmVo~] Besarion does not appear elsewhere in the Greek
or Latin sources. In the Coptic dossier, he appears only in S15, an 11 th
to 12th century codex dealing with the later periods under Horsiesius,
Besarion and Victor. 264 Besarion succeeded Horsiesius as general ab-
bot. 265
152.23-241tDAmpou] The gatekeeper controlled the flow between the
outside world and the monastery (supra, Notes on the Text 125.9-11).
He informed the abbot of visitors, who would then decide whether or
not to allow the visit (Reg Pach, Praecepta 51-54; G1.28, 43-44; Bo
109; SIO = Lefort, Les vies coptes 31 ; Theodore, Catechesis 3 = CSCO
160.47-48).
152.24-27 xai f] ~it-rllP ~OD- SPllvEi] Children were quite common in
the Egyptian monasteries (Gl.24, 37,49,104; Asc 24, 28; G3.45; Am
406; Panegyric on Apollo, CSCO 395.25; Cassian, Inst 4.27; 5.40;
Palladius, V.John Chry 19; Athanasius, Hist Ar 25). In some cases, this
led to friction with the parents, as here with Ammon. Theodore's
mother came with letters from the bishop, hoping to see her son (G1.37;
Bo 37-38). An apophthegm attributed to Pachomius (CSCO
160.28-29) records the futile efforts of a mother seeking to stop her son
from becoming a monk. Am 406 reports that Pachomius, after experi-
encing trouble with parents wanting to visit their children, relaxed the
provisions to allow some contact. HL 39.1 notes that Pior's sister still
grieved to see her brother after fifty years.
152.26 EV -rij Atyu1t-rql ~ovacr-ritpta xai -rij AUyOOO"tU~Vlxij] Amm
Marc 22.16.1-3. Aegyptus denotes the western half of the delta and
260 Lantschoot 39.

261 Frank, ArrEAIKO:E BIOl: 5; cf., Bell, Jews and Christians, papyrus 1926.9-11.
262 Lefort, Les vies coptes LII-LIII.
263 Holl, Enthusiasmus 5.
264 Lefort, Les vies coptes 400-405.
265 Ibid. 404 n.19.
Augustamnica the eastern half.266 In the Coptic period, the latter term
was also used for the city of Athribis. Ammon is using it in its more
traditional meaning. His father has searched the delta monasteries and
not those of upper Egypt, where a friend finally recognized Ammon.
152.28-29 EYro tl~i(OO'a - iva 'tTJV 1l11'tEpa ibm] Requests that arise at
the gate must be reported to the abbot (Reg Pach, Praecepta 51-54).267
Lefort argued that Theodore's ready permission for Ammon to visit his
parents runs counter to his austere stance in such matters found in the
vitae (Gl.37, 65, 68; Bo 37-38).268 Pachomius appears to have been
more lenient (Bo 63; Gl.65, 67-68; Am 406; supra, Notes on the Text
144.21). In his catechesis, Theodore remains firm on the subject of
familial relationships, although he does allow limited contact. 269 One
suspects that the shouldering of the leadership role necessitated some
relaxation of Theodore's more austere position. His lesson in humility
also surely changed his outlook (Gl.106-107). Pachomius was just as
austere as Theodore in terms of his own perfected stance (G1.14, 37;
G3.42). It was his position as leader of the coenobium that required a
more flexible position. Not all the brothers were at the same stage in
their spiritual progress. One must assume that Theodore too, when he
became the general abbot, was forced into a more flexible position. 270
Palladius reports that John of Lycopolis told him not to return to his
native land to visit his family, informing him that they had already
become Christians (HL 35.8-9).
152.28-29 860 1l0va~ov'tUl; O'uvanoo'tEiA.ai 1l0t] A monk was never
allowed to leave the monastery alone as a precaution to insure both his
proper conduct and his return. 271 Thus, in Ep Am 25, it is two monks
that arrive from Ptolemais at Pabau to report Karour's death. In §22
(144.6), Theodore sends two brothers to bring the work group under
Isidore back to Pabau (cf. 151.2). In S10, Jesus' response to the disciple
who sought to go and bury his father (Mt 8.21-22) is understood
to represent a fear that he may go and not return (xsMniiK.u,<J >ON
XSNiiS<DK NqTMKOTii). The Regula (Praecepta 56) demands that any-
one attending to an affair outside the monastery be accompanied by
a companion (nisi iuncto et altero). In G1.67, Pachomius sends Theo-
dore along with another brother who is going to visit his family.
Exceptions do occur, though often with disastrous results (Asc 8-11).
266 PW 2.2.2362.
267 Supra, Notes on the Text 125.9-11.
268 Lefort, Les vies copIes LX.
269 CSCO 160.47-48.
270 Basil warns against visiting family (Reg Jus 32, PG 31.993-998).
271 Bacht, «Antonius und Pachomius» 71.
152.28-29-153.6 281
153.3 EV 'tql OpEl 'tii<; Nl'tpiu<;] EvelynWhite notes that «all well-
informed Greek authorities call the main settlement 'to opo<; 'tii<;
Nt'tpiu<;.»272
The fact that Theodore sent Ammon to Nitria suggests a close
contact between these two great monastic settlements. It is reasserted in
§ 30 and § 32. Together with the close contact with Antony recorded in
§ 29, Ammon has managed to link the three great forces in Egyptian
monasticism closely together.
Although this unity is emphasized as a result of Ammon's own dual
connection to Pabau and Nitria, as well as depending on his ecclesiasti-
cal concerns, it does seem probable that such contact occurred (HL
18.12-16).
153.4-9 "EAEyEV DE - 'to ypUIlIlU] Such a list of saints is common (Ep
Am 35; Sozomen, Hist eccl3.14.4; cf. Notes on the Text 139.24-140.1).
153.4-5 E>E68ropov 'tOY IlE't<l 'tOU ayiou f\llouv] Theodore of Enaton
was the disciple of Amoun, the founder of monasticism in the Nitrian
desert (APTheodore of Enaton 1-3; HL 8.6; v'Ant 60; Socrates, Hist
eccl4.23.15-16; Sozomen, Hist eccll.14.5) and a companion of Or (AP
Or 1, 8). He also appears at the beginning ofthe vita (Gl.2; G2.4; Eo 2).
153.6 'EAOUpirovu] He appears also at 157.10. This Elourion is not to
be confused with the Tabennesiote monk of the same name (supra,
Notes on the Text 128.6). Neither are found outside of the Ep Am.
153.6 f\1l1l00VtOV] He appears again at 157.10. The name is very com-
mon. Both times that Ammon mentions him, he is listed with the
otherwise unknown Elourion. Ammonius, one of the tall brothers from
Nitria, did not die until 403 A. D. at the Synod of the Oak (Sozomen,
Hist eccl8.17.5-6). Hence, in view of Ammon's statement that he died
shortly after (IlE't' ou nOAu) Theodore's statement, it is impossible to
identify this Ammonius with the tall brother. 273 It is interesting to note
that Ammonius the tall brother is said to have fallen asleep a short time
after he had departed to Constantinople (IlE't' oAiyov Xpovov XOlIlU'tUl,
HL 11).274
Evelyn White suggests the possible equation of the present Ammo-
nius with his namesake who accompanied Athanasius to Rome. 275
However, any such equation remains speCUlative.
272 Evelyn White 2.17 f; Halkin, Sancti Pachomii 102*.

274 Butler, Lausiac History 2.34.14. Of course, Ammon could be in error in his
reference to Ammonius' death and be referring to the tall brother.
275 Evelyn White 2.74 n. 4; Socrates, Hist eccl 4.23.
153.6 ot IlE't' ou TCOAU EXotllil~hlcrav] Evelyn White 2 76 uses this

phrase to set the death date of all of the monks mentioned in this
section, translating it, «who all fell asleep not long after.» However, the
strict antecedents are only Elourion and Ammonius.
153.7 TIall~ro] He occurs also at 153.26 and 157.8 in the Ep Am, and
frequently elsewhere (APPambo; HL 10; 14.4; 46.2; Socrates, Hist eccl
4.23; Sozomen, Hist eccl 3.14.4). He died during Melania's visit to
Nitria in 373-374 A. D. (HL 10.2-5).277
153.7 TIlrop] He appears again at 153.26 and 157.9 in the Ep Am, and
frequently elsewhere (AP Pior, Poemen 85; HL 10.8; 39.1-5; Socrates,
Hist eccl4.23; Sozomen, Hist eccl6.29.20-30). His gift of healing (1
Cor 12.9) is not mentioned in the other sources, although HL 39.4,
which is part of the section on Pior, reports that Moses the Libyan
received the gift of healing.
153.9 tva IlTJ Il11Xuvro 'to ypulllla] Asc 29, in the F manuscript, ends
with the sentence, xat uAAa TCOAAU Epya ETColEl ETCalvrov u~la 6 Ilaxu-
plO~ yi:prov EXEiVO~ (H 156.35-36). The Syriac-Atheniensis version
adds, UTCEP ou xa'tE'tu~aIlEv 'tijDE 'tij DlllYilcrEl, iva IlTJ d~ Iliixo~
UTCElPOV 'tOY AOYOV EX'tElvroIlEV (H 329.5-6 = G3).
153.10 xa'ta<jnAilcra~ 'tE au'tov] Ep Am 29 (151.16).
§ 31
§ 31 Ammon reveals a remarkably detailed knowledge of the ob-
scure events surrounding the Arian persecution in Egypt under Con-
stantius in 355-356 A. D. In a single, long Greek sentence, he accurately
recounts the major characters and events, condensing material that is
found scattered in Athanasius' works. It is certainly possible that Am-
mon knew Athanasius' writings (supra, p. 111). The Historia Arianorum
recounts many of the details noted here. Nonetheless, the accurate
presentation of the material and its condensed format suggest a good
personal knowledge of the history. Although he is writing some 40-45
years after the events, he is able to present them in terms that fit well into
the period supported by the narrative.
153.14-15 Kat IlE'tu Iliiva~ - DlroX3i:v'to~] The sentence of condemna-
tion against Athanasius was passed in 355 at the council of Milan
(Socrates, Hist eccl2.36- 37; Sozomen, Hist ecc/ 4.9; Theodoret, Hist
ecc/ 2.15; Athanasius, Hist Ar 31-34). Athanasius was not forced into
276 Evelyn White 2.74, 130.

277 Butler, Lausiac History 2.190-191 n.18, 2.223 n. 86.
153.6- 153.18-19 283
exile, however, until the night of February 8-9, 356, when Syrianus
stormed the church of St. Theonas (Ep Am 153.20-21; Hist Aceph 5;
Fest Ind 28; Athanasius, Hist Ar 31, 48,81, Apol de fuga 6, 24-25;
Socrates, Hist ecc/ 2.28; Sozomen, Hist ecc/ 4.9.9; Theodoret, Hist ecc/
2.10). The reference here is to the latter event. It thus dates Ammon's
departure from Pabau to the latter half of 355 A. D.
153.16-17 'troY UWtapSEvroV] Supra, Notes on the Text 124.15. The
reference to the suffering of the virgins is particularly appropriate to this
persecution. Athanasius (Hist Ar 48,55,81) mentions the violence done
to the virgins in Syrianus' attack on St. Theonas. In the subsequent
efforts against Athanasius' followers conducted under Sebastian and
George, the virgins come in for severe treatment (Athanasius, Apol de
fuga 6-7; Apol Const 27; Hist Ar 59, 72).
153.17 'troY cT1tou8airov Aalxrov] Athanasius, Hist Ar 72.
153.181tAT1'Yat~ uVatpoUIlEvroV] Athanasius (Hist Ar 55) reports that
George's predecessor, Heraclius, together with the new prefect Ca-
taphronius, incited the people to attack the pro-Athanasian gathering
at St. Theonas. They obliged. The youths came upon the praying
women with stones and clubs, and some of them were stoned to death.
Eutychius, after being scourged till near death, was imprisoned by
Sebastian, only to be taken out and beaten a second time at the demand
of the crowd. His martyrdom was the result (Hist Ar 60). The presbyters
and deacons were beaten with stripes (Hist Ar 63), and Secundus of
Barka was kicked to death (Hist Ar 65). Many virgins were stripped and
beaten to death (Apol Const 27).
153.18-19 'troY 'tE £mCJx61trov- 8oux6~] The various references to the
expulsion of the Egyptian bishops in the sources are difficult to recon-
cile. 278 The majority were banished by Sebastian (Athanasius, Hist Ar
72, Apol de fuga 6-7; Socrates, Hist ecc/ 2.28; Theodoret, Hist ecc/
2.11). Apol de fuga 6-7 places Sebastian's activities under George, who
is said to have arrived during the Lenten season following Syrianus'
attack on the church. Thus, it is clear that Sebastian succeeded Syrianus
as Ammon asserts. However, the Hist Aceph 6 and Fest Ind 29 date
George's arrival on February 24, 357. This would be over a year after
Syrianus' attack on the church. If Ammon's reference to the ban-
ishment of the bishops refers to an event that occurred after February
357, an inconsistency arises with his other statement that these events
took place about six months after he left Pabau. For various reasons,
this must be dated to the latter half of 355 (supra, Notes on the Text
278 Robertson, NPNF 4. LI-LII.

124.7). It appears that the Apol de fuga account has condensed the
events that took place between Syrianus' attack and George's arrival.
His! Aceph 6 reports that eight or nine month elapsed between the two
events.
It is evident that the governmental authorities changed shortly after
Syrianus' attack. Maximus was prefect at that time (His! Ar 81). How-
ever, by the time that George's predecessor (His! Ar 48), Heraclius,
arrived in June 356, Cataphronius was prefect (His! Ar 54-55; His!
Aceph 5). Shortly after their arrival, the persecutions reached a pitch
that left Syrianus' efforts far behind (His! Ar 55-63). Included in these
efforts are those of Sebastian (His! Ar 59). Thus, it must be assumed that
he had already replaced Syrianus before George arrived. This change
probably took place when the new prefect, Cataphronius, was named.
His! Ar 71-72 again reports Sebastian's activity, including the expul-
sion of the bishops, prior to George's arrival in § 75. Apol Cons! 27-28
reports that Athanasius, in exile, learned first of the banishment of the
western bishops, then of the banishment of the Egyptian bishops, and
finally of the arrival of George.
Thus, Ammon's chronology remains valid if George is understood as
having been accepted as the new Arian leader in Alexandria some
months prior to his arrival. This is clearly the implication of His!
Aceph 6.
153.19-22 uno Lf:paO"'tlavoo - OtaOf:~all£VOu LUptaVOV] Syrianus did

succeed Artemius (Fes! 1nd 32) and was, in turn, succeeded by
Sebastian. Syrianus' attack on the church ofSt. Theonas took place on
February 8,356 and marked the occasion of Athanasius' flight from the
city (supra, Notes on the Text 153.14-15).
153.22-23 nOAArov - an03V1JO"XOVHOV] Athanasius, Apol de fuga 7;

His! Ar 72.
153.23-24 xai '!rov ano'!i'j<; OOOf:(o<; uyi(Ov E1tlO"xon(Ov E~OPl0"3£V'!(Ov]
The banishment of the western bishops who supported Athanasius had
already begun at the Council of Milan in 355 (Athanasius, Apol de fuga
4-5; His! Ar 76; Apol Cons! 27; Sozomen, His! eccl4.9; Socrates, His!
eccl2.36- 37; Theodoret, His! eccl2.12). Athanasius learned of it while
on his flight (Apol Cons! 27).
153.24 oA(o<; aVf:XOlllyij'!(OV xaxrov] Athanasius, His! Ar 71.
153.25 rf:WpylOV] Supra, Notes on the Text 153.18-19.
153.25-28 '!oi<; nf:pi '!ov aylOv I1uop - 100 Ol(OYIlOO 1Oll'!OU] Ammon is
picking up a thread that he began in §§ 5-6, where he related Theo-
dore's predictions concerning the Arian persecutions (supra, p. 107).
153.19-22-154.25-27 285
153.28-29 On1tf:p xai xaAE1tOe; Ecr-ral xai 1taooE-rai 1tO-rE] Ep Am 5

(127.14-16), 6 (128.23-24), and 32 (esp. 154.21-22). The problem of
dating the end of the Arian persecution has been dealt with above
(Notes on the Text § 5).
§ 32
§ 32 This section properly belongs with § 31 as the written confir-
mation of Ammon's report of Theodore's predictions concerning the
Arian persecution. As such, it carries on the anti-Arian thread (supra, p.
107).
It also serves to heighten Ammon's status. As Theodore's prediction
(§ 28) was confirmed by a letter from Antony (§ 29), so is Ammon's
report confirmed by a letter from Theodore.
154.1-3 t1tEoill..lllcrav.<{> OPEl-1tpOe; -roue; tv -r<{> OpEl ~ovaxoue;] There
is not much evidence that Theodore carried on such close communica-
tion with the Nitriote monks (supra, Notes on the Text 153.3). How-
ever, the fact that the community frequently sent a boat to Alexandria
certainly makes such communication possible.
Only two other letters of Theodore have survived. Both were sent
within the Pachomian system. One survives only in Latin. 279 It is an
example of the annual Easter epistle sent out to the monasteries calling
all the monks together at Pabau (supra, Notes on the Text 142.13-15).
The other survives in Coptic. It was written to call the brethren together
for the other annual gathering that took place in August. 280 Both of
these letters make considerably more use of biblical quotation than the
present example.
154.5 0'1'£ cra~~a'tOu] Veilleux, La liturgie 235.
154.91tpEcr~u-rf:pOle; xai OtaXOVOle; xai ~ovaxote;] All three categories
were common at Nitria and Scetis in Ammon's day (AP Basil the Great
1 ; Theodore of Pherme 25; Matoes 9; Motius 2; Isaac 1 ; Bessarion 5;
HL 7.5; 21.1; 38.1, etc.).
154.20-21 1tapaxaAEiH - iva ~i) nvoe; txxAivlJ 'Ii 1ticrne;] Supra,
154.25-27 'f\ylOe; €<!>1l- mcr-rEuo~EV] In 4.42. Theodore's letter means
that they need no longer rely on Ammon's oral report alone. 281
279 Boon 105-106.

280 Quecke, «Ein Brief von einem Nachfolger» 426-433.
281 Cf., Evelyn White 2.75.
154.29 'HpaxAEioou] A single saying of an Abba Herac1ides is found

in the AP. Rufinus names the two Macarii, Isidore, Herac1ides, and
Pambo in a list of famous monks of his day (Hist eccl11.4).
154.29 '!craax 6 xat Xpoooyovo~] The name Isaac is common
(157.14), suggesting the need of the surname. This particular Isaac is not
mentioned elsewhere. On the use of double names, see: New Documents
I/lustrating Early Christianity, G. H. R. Horsley, ed. (Macquarie Uni-
versity: Ancient History Documentary Research Center, 1981) 89-96.
155.2-3 €7tlcrx01tOU 'Icrtoropou 'tii~ ExxATJcria~ 'tii~ ~tXpa~ 'Ep~OU1tO
AEo)~] Melania visited a certain Isidore the Confessor, bishop of Her-
mopolis, during her trip to Nitria (HL 46.2). This must be Hermopolis
parva, since it lies in the delta. He is mentioned again in Jerome's letter
to Eustochium (Epist 108.14) as the holy and venerable bishop, Isidore
the Confessor. He should not be confused with the many other Isidores
in the sources (supra, Notes on the Text 139.24-140.1).282
155.3-4 E1ttcrxomp Apaxov'ticp EV 'tij E~opi~ ovn] Dracontius was
compelled by Athanasius to accept the episcopate of Hermopolis parva
around 354 A. D. (Athanasius, Epist ad Drac passim). He was one of the
bishops exiled in 356 by Sebastian (Athanasius, Apol de fuga 7; Hist Ar
72), He spent his exile in the desert near Clysma (Hist Ar 72) and
returned to his see in 362, when Julian published his edict recalling the
exiled bishops. His name appears as one of the signatories of the Tomus
ad Antiochenos 10 (362 A. D.).
155.6 Atooxopo~] Dioscorus, one of the tall brothers, began as a
student ofPambo (HL 10.1). He became a priest at Nitria (HL 12.1) and
later the bishop of Hermopolis parva (Socrates, Hist eccl6.7; Sozomen,
Hist eccl8.12.2; HL 12.1). He is listed with Isidore the Confessor as one
of those visited by Melania (HL 46.2).
He was expelled from his see as a result ofTheophilus' anti-Origenist
reversal. It was in 399 A. D. that the mob of anthropomorphist monks
descended on Alexandria and forced Theophilus to change his position
and condemn Origen (Sozomen, Hist eccl8.11 ; Socrates, Hist eccl6.7).
Origen was officially condemned in 400 (Palladius, V.John Chry 7). This
led shortly to the expulsion of the Origenist monks from Nitria. Diosco-
rus is reported to have retired to Scythopolis (Sozomen, Hist eccl8.13.1)
and died at Constantinople shortly before the Synod of the Oak in 403
(Sozomen, Hist eccl 8.17.5).
If indeed Ammon is writing to Theophilus and Dioscorus is still in
good favor, then it seems likely that Ammon is writing before 400

154.29-155.11-15 287
A. D.283 Of course, it is possible that Theophilus took Dioscorus back

into favor posthumously.284
Dracontius was still bishop of Hermopolis parva in 362 at the Coun-
cil in Alexandria. Dioscorus was in the chair by 399, when Theophilus
turned anti-Origenist. Between the two, Isidore the Confessor held the
office. Since a bishop cannot be appointed before the death of his
predecessor (Concilium Antiochenum an no 341 canon 23), Dracontius
and Isidore can be assumed to have died prior to 399 A. D.
§ 33
155.7-8 'til'> f;vu'tql 1l1lvi 'tOU EX'tou lhou~] This must refer to the length
of time from Athanasius' exile under Constantius in 356 A. D. (cf. Hist
Aceph 5) to the enthronement of Julian as the sole emperor. Athanasius
was driven out of Alexandria in February 356 (Hist Aceph 5; Fest 1nd
28), and Julian was proclaimed sole emperor in November 361 (Hist
Aceph 8; Fest Ind 33). This corresponds exactly to the five years and nine
months noted by Ammon (supra, p. 120).
155.8-9 'tOY IlEV 1tu1tav l\Savucnov Ei~ 'tTtv E>1l~ai8a f;~roP10"EV]
Ammon makes no reference to Julian's edict recalling Athanasius to
Alexandria in February 362 (Hist Aceph 10; Fest Ind 34). The Historia
Acephala (11-12) records that Athanasius, after his exile under Julian,
proceeded to Thereu (cf. V.Ant 86). After tarrying there for a short time,
he left for the upper parts of Egypt, as far as Upper Hermopolis in the
Thebaid and Antinoopolis. The Festal Index (35) confirms this, noting
that Athanasius left the city at once and proceeded to the Thebaid.
155.9-111toAAU -ll1tEiAllO"EV] Supra, Notes on the Text §5.
155 .11-15 ro~ 1tuV'ta~ - vuv Op&IlEV] This marks the completion of the
prediction first met in § 5 (supra, p. 107).
§ 34
§ 34 The opening lines of this section make it clear that Ammon is
drawing his personal account to a close. He extends it long enough to
include one final report from Athanasius himself concerning Theodore.
The recipient of Ammon's letter was supposedly present when the
story was related by the archbishop. Ammon repeats it to refreshen his
memory (155.24-25).
283 Cf., Griitzmacher 13; Evelyn White 2.52 n.2.

284 Theophilus did weep upon hearing of Ammonius' death. The others asked for and
received forgiveness (Sozomen, Hist ecc/ 8.17).
However, the more important reason for its inclusion is the fact that it
supplies a supporting witness from an indisputable source of Theo-
dore's nature as a man of God (156.4-5). With his own reminiscences
concluded, Ammon adds §§ 34-35 in order to gain Athanasius' support
for his account (157.16-19). The final postscript occurs in § 36.
155.16 't'<P npomuYflan 't'ii~ oot6't'1ll'6~] Ep Am 1 (124.11).
155.17 nOAAu napeic;] Cf. Gl.17 (H 11.2-3),98 (H 65.29); Asc 29
(Syriac-Atheniensis version = G3.122 (H 329.4-6». The present case is
unique in asserting that the material was passed over on account of its
content. Of course, Ammon's suggestion that it is too powerful for some
to bear increases the awe around Theodore and with it, the reader's
appreciation for what Ammon does reveal.
155.18-19 OEOO\xro~ - EAS1J] Supra, Notes on the Text 142.2-6. Eva-
grius, in his letter to Melania (§4), states that he does not want to put
everything into writing lest the letter fall into the hands of those who are
not yet ready for such things.
155.19 fltXProV] The reference is to the less advanced members (supra,
Notes on the Text 127.13), though it is not necessarily only monks that
are meant. The term is used for junior monks or novices by Ephraem
(Lampe s.v.).
155.20 <pSucrac; 6 flaxup\O~ rturta~ f\Savumoc;] Lefort argued that his
phrase must refer either to Athanasius' return from exile following
Julian's death (June 26, 363), or to his last return from exile in February
366. It also suggests that the event being recorded occurred shortly after
the return. This, however, creates a problem with the statement put into
Athanasius' mouth at 156.6-7 that Theodore and Pammon have died
recently (ot rtpO oAiyou XExoiflTJv't'at). Since Theodore was still alive in
367 when he read Athanasius' festal letter to the monks, Ammon's
chronology breaks down. 285 Chitty objected that this line of argument
«is surely to overstress the meaning of the word <p3ucra~ - there is
nothing really to make clear the date of Athanasius' talk.»286
Although Chitty's point is well taken, one has to agree with Lefort
that the impression given by the passage is that Athanasius has recently
returned. The dating problem could be resolved through the recogni-
tion of the phrase Ot rtpO oAiyou XExoiflTJv't'at as an inadvertent inser-
tion of a temporal reference from Ammon's own time of writing back
into the mouth of Athanasius. More importantly, it is to be noted that
285 Lefort, Les vies copIes LVIII.

155.16-156.2 289
the entire story is a hagiographic cliche s7 and has been included by

Ammon with a specific purpose in mind (supra, Notes on the Text § 34).
The date was certainly secondary to this purpose.
156.20-21 'tfj~ Ellfj~ f3pax()'tTJ'to~] Cf. Ep Am 22 (144.2).
156.22-23 l\.IlIlWvicp 'tC!> E1tlcrX01tcp YEvollEvCP 'tfj~ 'EAEaPxia~]
Athanasius (Tom ad Ant 10) lists Ammonius of Pachnemunis and the
rest of Elearchia (l\.IlWi)VtO~ naxvEllouvEW~ xai 'tOU AOl1tOU IlEPOU~
'tfj<; 'EAEaPxia~) as one of the signatories of the tome. The preceding
signatory is Agathus of Phragonis and part of Elearchia in Egypt (xai
IlEPOU~ 'EAEaPxia~ 'tfj~ Aiy()1t'tou). The name Ammonius appears often
in the other lists of bishops in Athanasius' works, though his see is not
specified (Apol contra Ar 50; Apol de fuga 7; Hist Ar 72; Epist 46; cf.
Epist ad Drac 7). He has apparently died by the time of Ammon's
writing, judging from the 'tC!> Ilaxapicp 'tij IlvTJlllJ expression (155.22).
The name is very common (supra, Notes on the Text 153.6). Atha-
nasius also records an Ammonius as bishop of Latopolis (Epist 19) and
another as bishop of Antinoopolis (Epist 19). The Meletian bishop of
Diospolis also bore the name (Apol contra Ar 71).
Hist Aceph 3 lists Ammonius of Pachemmon. In Athanasius' works,
the bishopric was more closely linked with Pachnemunis than Elear-
chiao
155.23 'EpllWVl 'tC!> 'tfj~ Bou/3acrnvwv] Athanasius never specifies the
bishop of Boubastis. He does mention a Hermaeon (Hermion) as
bishop of Tanis (Tom ad Ant 1, 10). The Meletian bishop ofCynopolis
and Busiris was also named Hermaeon (Apol contra Ar 71). One also
finds bishops with the name Hermias (Apol contra Ar 50), Heron (Apol
contra Ar 50), and Hermes (Apol de fuga 7; Hist Ar 72). The precise
name Hermon does not appear.
156.21tOAAUX1<; yap al)'tC!> l\.IlIlWvtO~ cruv'tUXmv ftv] This is the t read-
ing. The clearest antecedent for au'tc!> is l\. v'tWVtOV in line 156.2. With
F's reading of l\.v'tWVtO<; for l\.IlIlWVtO<;, this is destroyed. Au'tC!> must
then either be understood to precede its antecedent, 6 1tu1ta~
l\.SavucrtO~ (156.2-3), or refer all the way back to Athanasius in line
155.20. Athanasius, in his prologue to the Vita Antonii, notes that he has
seen him (Antony) often (1tOAAUX1~ yap au'tov twpaxa). The knowledge
of such a close association between Antony and Athanasius may well lie
behind the Freading. It is more difficult to imagine why t would change
it to Ammonius, though in the end, it must be admitted that either
reading works. Supra, pp. 45-46.

156.4 av3po)1tou<; 'tou 3wu JlCYUAOU<;] Supra, Notes on the Text

124.4-5.
156.5-6 m:pi 'tT)V 1\V'tlVOOl) Jlovaxov amra IluJlJlwva] This monk is
not mentioned elsewhere. Theodore is reported to have founded two
monasteries near Hermopolis, which is across the Nile from Antinoe
(G1.134). It is never stated, however, that this Pammon was a Pacho-
mian monk.
156.7-8 '0<; yap - q>iAWV] Julian's edict demanding the departure of
Athanasius from Alexandria was published on October 23, 362 (Rist
Aceph 11; Fest Ind 35; Julian, Epist 110 Bidez-Cumont = 24 Wright).
Sozomen (Rist eccl 5.15.1-3) only reports the publication of the edict
and Athanasius' departure. Socrates (Rist eccl3.13-14) adds that the
governor of Alexandria was instructed to apprehend him and that he
pursued him in his flight.
156.9 ftA30v oi 060 OU't01 Ei<; 'tT)V 1\V'tlvoou] Athanasius'movements
in Upper Egypt are recorded in Rist Aceph 12. He traveled as far as
Upper Hermopolis in the Thebaid (Hermopolis magna) and Antinoo-
polis (Antinoe). The two cities are on the opposite sides of the Nile. The
Fest Ind 35 places Athanasius in the Thebaid when Julian died.
Lefort argued that Ammon had all of the necessary material from
Rist Aceph and G1.138 to arrange his scene. 288 However, as Chitty
pointed out,289 the account of Duke Artemius' search for Athanasius at
Pabau in G1.138 cannot possibly be linked to Athanasius' flight under
Julian. Artemius was martyred under Julian.
In G1.143-144 (Eo 202), Athanasius is depicted on an ecclesiastical
trip to the Thebaid. Theodore, learning of it, went to Hermopolis to
meet him. After they had spent a few days in Antinoe and Hermopolis,
they proceeded to the monasteries (H 90.22-25). The parallel journey
and place names are intriguing, though there is no question of Athana-
sius being on a flight from persecution in G1.143-144. Nonetheless,
Ladeuze identified the two episodes as reporting the same event. 290
Lefort, on the other hand, held that they were reporting two distinct
events: a pre-Easter triumphal voyage and a flight under persecution.
He does admit that the differences could be a result of Ammon's
imprecision. 291
As the two stories now stand, Lefort's assertion of their distinct
nature holds. Likewise, it is possible that Ammon incorrectly linked two
288 Lefort, Les vies coptes LVII-LIX.

291 Lefort, Les vies coptes 199 n. 7,223 n.3.
156.4-156.27-28 291
separate traditions. However, it is also possible that Ammon's version is

the correct one. It is interesting that Julian never appears in the vitae
traditions. If he were systematically avoided, then the reworking of
Athanasius' flight into a triumphal procession makes sense.
156.15 EAEYOV] F's reading (EAEyEV) does not work, though it appar-
ently also existed in t's source. This is clear from the fact that t
attempted to correct matters by altering TIa/l/lIDvl to TIU/l/lCOV, making
him the subject of the verb. However, t is unable to carry the alteration
through, since the first person xai En /lOU Uyov'tO~ (156.19-20) makes
it clear that Athanasius is speaking. Supra, p. 47.
156.16-17 OUX OD'tCO~ - xatpoi~] Persecution demanded stronger at-
tention to one's faith (Jerome, Epist 14.4).
156.21 o'XEOOV YEAuO'aV'to~] In view of the negative stance towards
laughter in monasticism in general 292 and in the Ep Am in particular
(§ 23), the present statement seems a bit strange. The redactor behind t
felt the problem. He wrote O'E/lv6v for O'XEC)OV, so that the laughter was
at least seriously! Supra, p. 56.
156.22 ~ta'ti EYEAuO'a'tE - ()E1Ala~ /lou xa'tEYvCO'tE;] The charge of
cowardice against Athanasius for taking flight under persecution was
current (Athanasius, Apol de fuga 1 records the charge, ()E1AlaV n:
EyxaAouV'ta~). His Apol de fuga was specifically written in response to
this charge. It is in marked contrast to Tertullian's De fuga, which
argues that persecution comes from God and to escape it goes against
his will.
156.25 Ta()'tlJ 'tfj rop~ aVlJpE3TJ 'IouAlav6~ EV TIEpcri()l] Lefort rightly
saw this as a hagiographic cliche. 293 The same prediction is attributed
to Didymus the Blind (HL 4.4) and Julianus Sabas (Theodoret, Hist ecc/
3.24). AP Epiphanius 1 reports that Athanasius predicted Julian's death
one day before it occurred. The knowledge of another's death from a
distance is commonly attributed to a man of God (supra, Notes on the
Text 148.4-5).
156.26-27 '0 ()E -1tEpavEi] Hab 2.5 is quoted in the same connection
in §5 (127.22-23).
156.27-28 f\ vaO''t110'E'tal - OA1YOPlO~ ()E EO''tal] Jovian was pro-
claimed emperor after Julian's death in June 363 (Hist Aceph 12; Fest
Ind 35; Amm Marc 25.5; Sozomen, Hist ecc/ 6.3.1 ; Socrates, Hist ecc/
292 B. Steidle, «Das Lachen im aIten Monchtum,» BM 20 (1938) 271-280.

293 Lefort, Les vies copIes LVII.
3.22; Philostorgius, Hist ecc!8.1; Rufinus, Hist ecc!11.1). He reigned

but eight months, dying while on the road to Constantinople in
February 364 (Amm Marc 25.10.12-13; Socrates, Hist ecc! 3.26;
Sozomen, Hist ecc! 6.6.1; Philostorgius, Hist ecc! 8.8; Rufinus, Hist
ecc! 11.1 ; Theodoret, Hist ecc! 4.5-6).
156.28-157.3 t\lO - ExxA:r\criav] Upon Julian's death, the two parties
in the church strove to obtain Jovian's favor. Athanasius, after secretly
returning to Alexandria, proceeded to Baalbek to meet Jovian (Hist
Aceph 12; Fest Ind 35). Jovian brought him to Antioch and confirmed
him in office. He returned to Alexandria on February 14, 364 (Hist
Aceph 12; Sozomen, Hist ecc! 6.5).
157.6 KaxEivOl] This refers back either to the many men well pleasing
to God or to Theodore and Pammon as two examples of them.
157.7 1\llOUV xai 6 a'YlO~ eE68mpo~] Supra, Notes on the Text
153.4-5.
157.8 I1a).1~ro] Supra, Notes on the Text 153.7.
§ 35
§ 35 Ammon continues the scene from the last section with the
priests and bishops gathered together with Athanasius discussing the
monks. It occasions another long list of monastic saints. Its main
function is to report Athanasius' support of Ammon's account (supra,
p. 108).
157.9 I1l00p] Supra, Notes on the Text 153.7.
157.10 'EAoupimva] Supra, Notes on the Text 153.6.
157.10 1\).1).10lVlOV] Supra, Notes on the Text 153.6.
157.10-11 'Iuiompov TOV 1tpro~()TEPOV TroV avaxmpllTroV] Various
monks with this name are found in the sources. 294 Ammon himself
mentions the Tabennesiote Isidore (140.1; 143.17; 144.8; 146.18), Isi-
dore, the bishop of Hermopolis parva (155.2,6), and the present monk.
Evelyn White notes that the present figure could be either the hostel-
ler of Alexandria (HL 1; Socrates, Hist ecc! 6.9; Sozomen, Hist ecc!
8.2.16,8.3.3,8.12-13.2; Theodoret, Hist ecc!4.21.7; Palladius, V.John
Chry passim) or Isidore, the priest of Scetis (AP Isidore; Poemen 44;
Zacharias 5; HL 19.5,9-11; Cassian, Corif18.15).295 Chitty opted for
the latter identification. 296 The problem is that Ammon lists Isidore

295 Evelyn White 2.58, 129.
156.28-157.13 293
with those monks seen by the recipient of his letter on the Mountain of
Nitria. He then goes on to list the monks of Scetis, where Isidore the
priest rightly belongs (AP Isidore 1). Nonetheless, in view of the title,
this identification still seems best. Ammon also places the holy Maca-
rius in this list of monks from the Mountain of Nitria. However,
Macarius of Alexandria is linked to Cellia (HL 18.1) and Macarius the
Egyptian to Scetis (HL 17.3).
157.11 'tov liytov Muxaptov - Nl'tpi(l(;] Evelyn White identifies this
Macarius with the Alexandrian, since Macarius the Great would have
been listed with the anchorites ofScetis. He further argues that since the
former, who died in 393-394, is listed, while the latter, who died in 390,
is not, Ammon must have written his letter between 390 and 393
A. D.297 However, this does not fit the facts of the episode. The account
of the discussion with Athanasius is not taking place at the same time
that Ammon is writing.
If Isidore, the priest of the anchorites, is to be identified with Isidore,
the priest of the cells (supra, Notes on the Text 157.10-11), then the
identification of this Macarius with the Alexandrian, who was also a
priest of the cells, would account for their consecutive mention here.
However, Macarius the great appears to have been the more famous of
the two, judging from the number of apophthegmata attributed to each.
In the end, neither rightly belong on the Mountain of Nitria, though
Cellia, the home of the Alexandrian Macarius, is more closely connect-
ed with it than Scetis.
157.13 nUllo-iou] AP Cassian 4; Poemen 2,65,173. Paisius (Pa-isi =
he of Isis) was Poemen's brother (AP Poem en 2). Palladius mentions a
Paisius who was a brother of Isaias (HL 14.1-6).
157.13 nUUAOU] Numerous monks bearing this name exist. AP knows
of Abba Paul, Paul the Barber, Paul the Great, and Paul the Simple.
Only Paul the Barber is clearly placed in Scetis. Paul ofPherme (HL 20)
seems to have resided in the vicinity.298
157.13 'Proiou] A Psoios ('Pro'Lo<;) is mentioned in AP Psenthaisius 1.
He is to be identified with the disciple of Pac hom ius ('POE1<;) mentioned
in the vitae (Gl.25, 79; G2.22). The name is the hellenized form of the
Coptic Pishoi (Arabic Bishoi), the founder of one of the four original
monasteries in Scetis. Evelyn White equates the present reference with
this famous monk. 299
296 Chitty, Desert 32.

297 Evelyn White 2.52 n.2.
298 Ibid. 2.36-37.
299 Ibid. 2.112.
157.131-Icraiou] This may be Isaias ofScetis (AP Isaias). 300 Palladius

also knew an Isaias, brother of Paesius (HL 14).
157.14 I1llcrupou] This figure is not mentioned elsewhere to my
knowledge.
157.14 'Icraax] Cf. Ep Am 32 (154.29). The most likely candidate is
Isaac, the priest of the cells (AP Isaac). He was a famous disciple of
Cronius (AP Isaac 2) and was still alive in 408 after the first devastation
of Scetis (AP Isaac 5).301
157.14 I1auAou] Supra, Notes on the Text 157.13 I1auAou.
157.14 ";pona] The subject of the verb is Athanasius (157.18).
157.14-19 ";pona - mcr"C£uro] Supra, p. 108.
157.17-18 EYro- AOYOV] The Syr-Ath recension of Asc 29 adds a phrase
at the end, which in G3 (it varies slightly depending on the text used)
reads: (iiAAa 1tOAAa a f:1toi£t) li1t£p ou xa"C£"Ca~a~£v "Cijo£ "Cij Otllyi)cr£t,
tva ~it d; ~f\xo~ ii1t£tpov "Cov AOYOV f:x"C£ivro~£v (H 329.5-6). Supra,
§36
157.26 otcr1to"Ca uyulna"C£ UO£A<pt] This argues for the identification
of the recipient of the letter with the archbishop Theophilus, since
Ammon himself is a bishop (Supra, Notes on the Text 124.1-2).
§ 37
§ 37 This section is not part of Ammon's original letter, but the
response to it from Theophilus, presumably the archbishop of Alexan-
dria.
158.1-2 xupicp - xaip£tv] This line is set off like a title. In F, a large
diadem is present in the left margin and capital letters are used.
158.1 'A~~rovt] The misspelling of 'A~~rovt as f\~~rovicp in F is
strange. The name Ammon occurs only twice elsewhere in the letter
(124.1 and 152.18). The error could have resulted from the more recent
occurrences of Ammonius (153.6; 155.22; 157.9, 10) still being fresh in
the scribe's mind.
158.1 e£O<ptAO~] In F, this is the only occurrence of the recipient's
name. (Supra, Notes on the Text 124.1-2).

157.13-158.9 295
158.4-5 11 u<p puvuC; - €1ttO"U:{AUC;] Ep Am 1 (124.3-8).

158.9 aoEA<po't11"t"U] This is the only occurrence of the word in Ep Am.
It sets off Theophilus' reply from the other letters contained in the
document. Cf. HL 43.2 (Butler, Lausiac History 2.130.10); Asc 17 (H
183.8-9); R. Draguet, «Un morceau grec inedit», Museon 70 (1957) 271
lines 7, 17.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Pachomian Sources
a) Coptic
Lefort, L.-Th.: S. Pachomii vita bohairice scripta. CSCO 89. Paris: e typographeo
reipublicae, 1925; reprint ed., Louvain: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1965.
S. Pachomii vita bohairice scripta. CSCO 107. Traduction latine. Paris: e typographeo
reipublicae, 1936.
S. Pachomii vitae sahidice scriptae. CSCO 99/100. Paris: e typographeo reipublicae,
1933; reprint ed., Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1965.
Les vies coptes de saint Pachome et de ses premiers successeurs. Bibliotheque du Museon
16. Louvain: Bureaux du Museon, 1943.
Oeuvres de s. PachOme et de ses disciples. CSCO 159. Louvain: Durbecq, 1956.
Oeuvres de s. PachOme et de ses disciples. CSCO 160. Traduction franr;:aise. Louvain:
Durbecq, 1956.
Amelineau, E.: Monuments pour servir d I'histoire de I'Egypte chretienne au IV' siecle.
Histoire de saint PakhOme et de ses communautes. Annales du Musee Guimet 17. Paris:
Leroux, 1889.
Budge, E.A. Wallis. Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. London: British
Museum, 1913.
Draguet, Rene. Les peres du desert. Textes choisis et presentes par Rene Draguet. Paris:
PIon, 1949.
Veilleux, Armand: Pachomian Koinonia I-III. Cistercian Study Series 45-47. Kalamazoo,
Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1980-1982.
b) Greek
Halkin, Franr;:ois. Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae. Subsidia Hagiographica 19. Bruxelles:
Societe des Bollandistes, 1932.
«Une vie inedite de saint Pachome. BHG 140ta.» Analecta Bollandiana 97 (1979)
5-55, 241-287.
Le corpus athenien de Saint Pachome. Avec une traduction franr;:aise par Andre-Jean
Festugiere, O.P. Geneve: Patrick Cramer Editeur, 1982.
Bousquet, J. et F.Nau. Histoire de saint Pacome (Une redaction inedite des Ascetica).
Texte grec des manuscrits Paris 881 et Chartres 1754 avec une traduction de la version
syriaque et une analyse du manuscrit Paris Suppl. grec 480. Patrologia Orientalis 4.5.
Paris: Didot, 1908.
Draguet, Rene. «Une morceau grec inedit des Vies de Pachome apparie a un texte
d'Evagre en partie inconnu.» Museon 70 (1957) 267-306.
«Un paralipomenon pachomien inconnu dans Ie Karakallou 251.» Melanges Eugene
Tisserant. Studi e Testi 232. Vatican: Bibliotheca apostolica vaticana, 1964,
pp.55-61.
Lefort, L.-Th. «La RegIe de s. Pachome (2" etude d'approche).» Museon 37 (1924) 1-28;
reedited in A. Boon. Pachomiana latina. Louvain: Bureaux de la Revue, 1932,
pp.169-182.
Select bibliography 297
Acta Sanctorum Maii III. Antwerp: Meursium, 1680; reprint ed., Paris: Palme, 1866.
Athanassakis, Apostolos A. The Life of Pachomius. Society of Biblical Literature. Text
and Translations 7. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.
Festugiere, A. J. La premiere vie grecque de saint PachOme. Introduction critique et
traduction. Les Moines d'Orient IV/2. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1965.
Mertel, Hans. Leben des heiligen Pachomius. Bibliothek der Kirchenvater 31. Miinchen:
Kosel, 1917.
Veilleux, Armand. Pachomian Koinonia I-III. Cistercian Study Series 45--47. Kalamazoo,
Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 198~1982.
c) Latin
Boon, Amand. Pachomiana latina. Regie et epitres de s. PachOme, epitre de s. Theodore et
«Liber» de s. Orsiesius. Texte latin de s. Jerome. Bibliotheque de la Revue d'histoire
ecc!esiastique 7. Louvain: Bureaux de la Revue, 1932.
Cranenburgh, H. van. La vie latine de saint PachOme traduite du grec par Denys Ie Petit.
Subsidia Hagiographica 46. Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1969.
Albers, Paul Bruno. S. Pachomii abbatis tabennensis Regulae monasticae. Accedit s.
Orsiesii, eiusdem Pachomii discipuli, Doctrina de Institutione monachorum. Florilegium
Patristicum 16. Bonn: Hanstein, 1923.
Arnauld d'Andilly, Robert. Les vies des saints peres des deserts, et de quelques saintes,
ecrites par des peres de l'eglise, & autres anciens auteurs ecc!esiastiques. Nouvelle
edition. Paris: Pierrele Petit, 1680.
Bacht, Heinrich. Das Vermachtnis des Ursprungs. Studien zum friihen Monchtum 1.
Studien des geistlichen Lebens 4. Wiirzburg: Echter, 1972.
Deseille, P. Placide. L 'esprit du monachisme pachOmien. Suivi de la traductionfranfaise des
Pachomia Latina par les moines de Solesmes. Spiritualite orientale 2. Abbaye de
Bellefontaine, 1968.
Elizalde, M. de. «Libro de Nuestro Padre San Orsisio.» Cuadernos Monasticos4-5 (1967)
173-244.
Rosweyde, Heribert. De vita et verbis seniorum libri X, historiam eremiticam
complectentes: auctoribus suis et nitori pristino restituti ac notationibus il/ustrati, oper
et studio Heriberti Ros-weydi. Antwerp: Moreti, 1615.
Leben der Vater, oder Lehren und Thaten der vorziiglichsten Heiligen aus den ersten
Zeiten des Ordensstandes in der katholischen Kirche. Deutsch bearbeitet von Michael
Sintzel. Augsburg: Kollmann, 1840-47.
Surius, Laurentius. De probatis sanctorum vitis. Cologne: Agrippe, 1617.
Veilleux, A. Pachomian Koinonia II-III. Cistercian Studies Series 46-47, Kalamazoo,
Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1981-1982.
d) Arabic
Amelineau, E. Monuments pour servir a l'histoire de I'Egypte chretienne au IV' siec!e.

Histoire de saint PakhOme et de ses communautes. Annales du Musee Guimet 17. Paris:
Leroux, 1889.
'Abd al Masi!}. al Mas 'udi al-Baramusl. Kitiib al-qiddis Anbii Bahiimiyiis ab as-sarikah.
Cairo, 1891.
298 Select bibliography
e) Syriac
Bedjan, P. Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum V. Paris: Harrassowitz, 1895.

Bousquet, J. et F. Nau. Histoire de saint Pac6me (Une redaction inedite des Ascetica).
Patrologia Orientalis 4.5. Paris: Didot, 1907.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Book of Paradise. London: Printed for Lady Meux by Drugulin,
Leipzig, 1904.
The Paradise or Garden ofthe Holy Fathers, being Histories of the Anchorites, Recluses,
Monks, Coenobites, and Ascetic Fathers of the Deserts of Egypt between A. D. CCL and
A.D. CCCC circiter. London: Chatto & Windus, 1907.
2. Non-Pachomian Sources
a) Apophthegmata Patrum
Chaine, M. Le Manuscrit de la version copte en dialecte sahidique des Apophthegmata

Patrum. Bibliotheque d'Etudes coptes VI. Cairo: L'Institut fran<;ais d'archeologie
orientale, 1960.
Cotelier, Johannes Baptista. Ecclesiae graecae monumenta. Paris: Muguet, 1677-92;
reprint ed., PG 65.71-440.
Miller, Bonifaz. Weisung der Vater. Apophthegmata Patrum, auch Gerontikon oder
Alphabeticum genannt. Quellen ostlicher Theologie 6. Freiburg: Lambertus, 1965.
Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. The Alphabetical Collection.
London: Mowbray, 1975.
-: The Wisdom of the Desert Farthers. Fairacres Publication 48. Oxford: SLG, 1977.
b) Historia Lausiaca
Butler, Dom Cuthbert. The Lausiac History of Palladius. A Critical Discussion together
with Notes on Early Egyptian Monasticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1898-1904; reprint ed., Hildesheim: Olms, 1967.
Meyer, Robert T. Palladius: The Lausiac History. Ancient Christian Writers 34. New
York: Newman, 1964.
c) Historia Monachorum
Festugiere, A. J. Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. Edition critique du texte grec. Subsidia

Hagiographica 34. Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1961.
Enquete sur les moines d'Egypte. Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. Les Moines
d'Orient IV/I. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1964.
Historia Monachorum in Aegypto. Edition critique du texte grec et traduction
annotee. Subsidia Hagiographica 53. Bruxelles: Societe des Bollandistes, 1971.
Frank, K. Suso. Monche imfriihchristlichen Xgypten ( Historia Monachorum in Aegypto).
Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1967.
Russel, Norman, trans. The Lives of the Desert Fathers. The Historia Monachorum in
Aegypto. London: Mowbray, 1980.
d) Athanasius
Migne. Patrologia Graeca 25-28.

Meyer, Robert T. St. Athanasius. The Life of Saint Antony. Ancient Christian Writers 10.
New York: Newman, 1950.
Robertson, Archibald. Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. A
Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second
Series 4. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892; reprint ed., Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.
3. Literature
Achelis, H. «Revue: Griitzmacher, Pachomius und das alteste Klosterleben.» Theologische

Literaturzeitung 9 (1896) 240-244.
Bacht, Heinrich. «Der Abt als Stellvertreter Christi. Die Stellung des Abtes im
christlichen Altertum im Lichte neuerer Forschung.» Scholastik 39 (1964) 402-407.
«Antonius und Pachomius. Von der Anchorese zum Conobitentum.» In B. Steidle, ed.
Antonius Magnus Eremita 356-1956. Studia ad antiquum monachismum spectantia.
Studia Anselmiana 38. Rome: Herder, 1956, pp.66-107.
«Die Rolle des orientalischen Monchtums in den kirchenpolitischen Auseinanderset-
zungen urn Chalkedon.» In Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart.
Hrsg. von Aloys Grillmeier und Heinrich Bacht. Wiirzburg: Echter, 1953, vol. 3,
pp.193-314.
Das Vermachtnis des Ursprungs. Studien zum frilhen Monchtum 1. Studien zur
Theologie des geistlichen Lebens 5. Wiirzburg: Echter, 1972.
«Vexillum crucis sequi (Horsiesius). Monchtum als Kreuzesnachfolge.» In Martyria,
Leiturgia, Diakonia. Festschrift for Hermann Volk, Bischof von Mainz zum
65. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von Otto Semmelroth. Mainz: Griinewald, 1968, pp.149-162.
Barns, John W. B. «Greek and Coptic Papyri from the Covers of the Nag Hammadi
Codices.» In Essays on the Nag Hammadi Library. Ed. by Martin Krause. Nag
Hammadi Studies 6. Leiden: Brill, 1975, pp.9-18.
Bousset, Wilhelm. Apophthegmata. Studien zur Geschichte des altesten Monchtums.
Tiibingen: Mohr, 1923.
-: «Die Textiiberlieferung der Apophthegmata Patrum.» In Festgabefor D. Dr. A. von
Harnack zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1921, pp.102-116.
Cauwenbergh, Paul van. Etude sur les moines d'Egypte depuis Ie Concile de Chalcedoine
(451) jusqu'a ['invasion arabe (640). Paris: Geuthner, 1914.
Chadwick, Henry. «Pachomios and the Idea of Sanctity.» In The Byzantine Saint.
University of Birmingham Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies.
London: Fellowship of St. Albans and St. Sergius, 1981, 11-24.
Chadwick, Owen. John Cassian. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1968.
Chitty, Derwas, J. The Desert a City. An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and
Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire. Oxford: Blackwell, 1966; reprint
ed., London: Mowbrays, 1977.
«A Note on the Chronology of the Pachomian Foundations.» Studia Patristica 2.
Texte und Untersuchungen 64 (1957) 379-385.
«Pachomian Sources once more.» Studia Patristica 10. Texte und Untersuchungen 107
(1970) 54-64.
«Pachomian Sources Reconsidered.» Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5 (1954) 38-77.
«Review: Annand Veilleux, La liturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachOmien au quatrieme
siecle.» Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970) 195-199.
Cranenburgh, H. van. «La <Regula Angeli) dans la vie latine de saint Pach6me.» Museon
76 (1963) 165-194.
Crum, Walter Ewig. Der Papyruscodex saec. V/- VII der Phillippsbibliothek in
Cheltenham. Koptische theologische Schriften. Schriften der Wissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft in Strassburg 18. Strassburg: Trubner, 1915.
Theological Texts from Coptic Papyri. Edited with an Appendix upon the Arabic and
Coptic Versions of the Life of Pachomius. Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semetic Series 12.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1913.
Dorries, Hermann. «Die Bibel im iiltesten Monchtum.» Theologische Literaturzeitung 72
(1947) 215-222.
«Die Vita Antonii als Geschichtsquelle.» Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissen-
schaften in Gottingen, philologisch-historische Klasse 14. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1949, pp.359-410.
Draguet, Rene. «Le chapitre de I'histoire lausiaque sur les Tabennesiotes derive-t-il d'une
source copte?» Museon 57 (1944) 1-145, 58 (1945) 15-95.
-: «Revue: L. Th. Lefort, Les vies coptes de saint Pachome et de ses premiers successeurs.»
Revue d'histoire ecctesiastique 40 (1945) 209-213.
Evelyn White, Hugh G. The Monasteries of the Wadi 'n Natrun, 3 vols. New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1926-1933; reprint ed., New York: Amo, 1973.
Favale, A. Teofilo d'Alessandria (352 c.-412). In Salesianum (Rome) 18 (1956) 215-246,
498-535, 19 (1957) 34-82, 215-272.
Frank, K. Suso. ArrEAIKO~ BIO~. Begriffsanalytische und begriffsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zum «Engelgleichen Leben;) im fruhen Monchtum. Beitriige zur
Geschichte des alten Monchtums und des Benediktinerordens 26. Munster Westfalen:
Aschendorff, 1964.
«Revue: Armand Veilleux, La liturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachOmien au quatrieme
siecle.» Theologische Revue 66 (1970) 188-119.
«Revue: Fidelis Ruppert, Das pachomianische M onchtum und die Anfiinge klosterliche
Gehorsams.» Theologische Revue 69 (1973) 371-373.
Gindele, C. «Die Schriftlesung im Pachomiuskloster.» Erbe und Auftrag 41 (1965) 114-
122.
Goehring, James E. «Pachomius' Vision of Heresy: The Development of a Pachomian
Tradition.» Museon 95 (1982) 241-262.
Grutzmacher, O. Pachomius und das iilteste Klosterleben. Ein Beitrag zur
Monchsgeschichte. Leipzig: Mohr, 1896.
Gwatkin, Henry Melvill. Studies in Arianism, chiefly referring to the Character and
Chronology of the Reaction which followed the Council of Nicaea. Cambridge:
Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1882.
Halkin, Franc;ois. «L'Histoire Lausiaque et les vies grecques de s. Pach6me.» Analecta
Bollandiana 48 (1930) 257-301.
«Revue: Annand Veilleux, La liturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachOmien au quatrieme
siecle.» Analecta Bollandiana 88 (1970) 337.
«Revue: Giuseppe Lazzati, Teofilo d'Alessandria.» Analecta Bollandiana 53 (1935)

399-401.
«Les vies grecques de s. Pachome.» Analecta Bollandiana 47 (1929) 376-388.
Hedrick, Charles W. «Gnostic Proclivities in the Greek Life of Pac hom ius and the Sitz im
Leben of the Nag Hammadi Library.» Novum Testamentum 22 (1980) 78-94.
Hengstenberg, Wilhelm. «Pachomiana, mit einem Anhang iiber die Liturgie von
Alexandrien.» In Beitriige zur Geschichte des christlichen Altertums und der
byzantinischen Literatur. Festgabe Albert Ehrhard zum 60. Geburtstag. Hrsg. von
Albert Michael Koniger. Bonn: Schroeder, 1922, pp.228-252.
Heussi, Karl. Der Ursprung des Monchtums. Tiibingen: Mohr, 1936.
Hoehne, Gerhard. «Drei koptisch-sahidische Texte aus der Koniglichen Bibliothek zu
Berlin.» Zeitschriftfor A'gyptische Sprache 51 (1967) 119-128.
HolI, Karl. Enthusiasmus und Bufigewalt beim griechischen Monchtum. Eine Studie zu
Symeon dem neuen Theologen. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898; reprint ed., Hildesheim:
Olms,1969.
«Die Bedeutung der neuverOffentlichten melitianischen Urkunden fUr die
Kirchengeschichte.» In idem, Gesammelte Aufsiitze zur Kirchengeschichte. Tiibingen:
Mohr, 1928, vol.2, pp.283-297.
Jones, A. H. M., ed. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Second edition. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1971.
Kriiger, G. «Revue: E.Amelineau, Histoire de saint Pakhome et de ses communautes.»
Theologische Literaturzeitung 25 (1890) 619-624.
Ladeuze, Paul. «Les diverses recensions de la vie de s. Pakhome et leurs dependances
mutuelles.» Museon 2 (1898) 145-168, 269-286, 378-395.
-: Etude sur Ie cenobitisme pakh6mien pendant Ie IV' siecle et la premiere moitie du P.
Louvain: Van Linthout, 1898; reprint ed., Frankfurt: Minerva, 1961.
Lantschoot, Am. van. «Allocution de Timothee d'Alexandrie prOIloncee it I'occasion de
la dedicace de I'eglise de Pachome it Pboou.» Museon 47 (1934) 13-56.
Larsow, F. Die Fest-Briefe des heiligen Athanasius Bischofs von Alexandria. Leipzig:
Vogel, 1852.
Lefort, L.-Th. «Les premiers monasteres pachomiens. Exploration topographique.»
Museon 52 (1939) 379-407.
«Revue: W. Bousset, Apophthegmata. Studien zur Geschichte des iiltesten Monch-
tums.» Revue d'histoire ecclt?siastique 21 (1925) 101-104.
«Revue: K. Heussi, Der Ursprung des Monchtums.» Revue d 'histoire ecclbiastique 33
(1937) 341-348.
«Revue: Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae, edid. hagiographi Bollandiani, ex recensione
Fr. Halkin.» Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique 29 (1933) 424-428.
«Les sources coptes pachomiennes.» Museon 67 (1954) 217-229.
«Un texte original de la regie de saint Pachome.» Comptes rendus de l'Academie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris: Picard, 1919, pp.341-348.
Leipoldt, Johannes. «Pachom.» Bulletin de la Societe d'archeologie copte 16 (1961-62)
191-229.
-: Schenute von A tripe und die Entstehung des national iigyptischen Christentums. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1903.
Malone, E. E. «The Monk and the Martyr.» In B. Steidle, ed. Antonius Magnus Eremita
356-1956. Studia ad antiquum monachismum spectantia. Studia Anselmiana 38. Rome:
Herder, 1956, pp.201-228.
-: The Monk and the Martyr. The Monk as the Successor of the Martyr. Studies in
Christian Antiquity 12. Washington: Catholic University Press, 1950.
Mensbrugghe, A. van der. «Prayer-time in Egyptian Monasticism (320-450).» Studia
Patristica 2. Texte und Untersuchungen 64 (1957) 433-454.
Molle, M. van. «Confrontation entre les regles et la litterature pachomienne posterieure.»
La vie spirituelle, supplement 21 (1968) 394-424.
-: «Essai de c1assement chronologique des premieres regles de vie commune connue en
chretiente.» La vie spirituelle, supplement 21 (1968) 108-127.
Morenz, Siegfried. «Neue Urkunden zur Ahnenreihe des Klosters.» Theologische
Literaturzeitung 74 (1949) 423-429.
Peeters, Paul. ((Le dossier copte de S. Pachome et ses rapports avec la tradition grecque.»
Analecta Bollandiana 64 (1946) 258-277.
L'edition critique des vies coptes de S. Pachome par M. Le Professor Lefort.» Museon
59 (1946) 17-34.
((Un feuillet d'une vie arabe de Saint Pachome.» Museon 59 (1946) 399-412.
((L'oeuvre de L. T. Lefort.» Museon 59 (1946) 41-62.
((A propos de la vie sahidique de S. Pachome.» Analecta Bollandiana 52 (1934) 286-
320.
Peifer, C. ((The Biblical Foundation of Monasticism.» Cistercian Studies 1 (1966) 7-31.
Quecke, Hans. ((Ein Brief von einem Nachfolger Pachoms (Chester Beatty Library Ms.
Ac. 1486).» Orientalia 44 (1975) 426-433.
-: Die Briefe Pachoms. Griechischer Text der Handschrift W. 145 der Chester Beatty
Library. Regensburg: Pustet, 1975.
Ranke-Heinemann, U. «Die ersten Monche und die Diimonen.» Geist und Leben 29
(1956) 165-170.
((Zum Ideal der vita angelica im friihen Monchtum.» Geist und Leben 29 (1956) 347-
357.
(Zum Motiv der Nachfolge im friihen Monchtum.» Erbe und Auftrag 36 (1960) 335-
347.
Revillout, Eugene. «(Le reclus du serapeum, sa bibliotheque et ses occupations mystiques,
selon de nouveaux documents demotique.» Revue Egyptologie 1 (1880) 160-163.
-: «(Rapport sur une mission en Italie.» Archives des missions scientifiques et litteraires.
Troisieme serie. Tome 4. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1877.
Rousseau, Philip. Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Ruppert, Fidelis. Das pachomianische Monchtum und die Anfiinge klOsterlichen
Gehorsams. Miinsterschwarzacher Studien 20. Munster: Vier-Turme, 1971.
Siive-Soderbergh, Torny. (Holy Scriptures or Apologetic Documentations? The Sitz im
Leben of the Nag Hammadi Library.» In Jacques-E. Menard, ed. Les Textes de Nag
Hammadi. Nag Hammadi Studies 7. Leiden: Brill, 1975, pp. 9-17.
Schiwietz, Stephan. Das morgenliindische Monchtum. Mainz: Kirchheim, 1904.
Steidle, Basilius. «Der heilige Abt Theodor von Tabennesi. Zur 1600. Wiederkehr des
Todesjahres (368-1968).» Erbe und Auftrag 44 (1968) 91-103.
«(Der kleine schwarze Knabe in der alten Moncherziihlung.» Benediktinische
Monatschrift 34 (1958) 339-350.
«Das Lachen im alten Monchtum.» Benediktinische Monatschrift 20 (1938) 271-280.
(Der Osterbrief unseres Vaters Theodor an aile Kloster.» Erbe und Auftrag 44 (1968)
104-119.
<((Der Zweite) im Pachomiuskloster. Zum Verstiindnis des 65. Kapitels der Regel
St. Benedikts.» Benediktinische Monatschrift 24 (1948) 97-104,174-179.
Tamburrino, P. «Die Heiligen des Alten Testaments in der 1. Katechese des heiligen
Pachomius.» Erbe und Auftrag 45 (1969) 50-56.
-: «Koinonia. Die Beziehung <Monasterium)-<Kirche) im fruhen pachomianischen
Monchtum.» Erbe und Auftrag 43 (1967) 5-21.
Tillemont, M. Lenain de. M emoires pour servir aI 'histoire ecc!esiastique des six premiers
siec/es. Paris: Robustel, 1699.
Timbie, Janet Ann. «Dualism and the Concept of Orthodoxy in the Thought of the Monks of
Upper Egypt.» University of Pennsylvania Dissertation, 1979.
Turner, C. H. «The Lausiac History of Palladius.» Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905)
321-355.
Veilleux, Armand. La liturgie dans Ie cenobitisme pachi5mien au quatrieme siec/e. Studia
Anselmiana 57. Rome: Herder, 1968.
-: «Le probleme des vies de saint Pachome.» Revue d'Ascetique et de Mystique 42 (1966)
287-305.
Vogue, Adalbert de. «Les pieces latines du dossier pachomien. Remarques sur quelques
publications recentes.» Revue d'histoire ecc/esiastique 67 (1972) 26-67.
«Saint Pachome et son oeuvre d'apres plusieurs etudes recentes.» Revue d'histoire
ecc/biastique 69 (1974) 425-453.
«La vie arabe de S. Pachome et ses deux sources presumees.» Analecta Bollandiana 91
(1973) 379-390.
Weingarten, Hermann. «Der Ursprung des Monchtums im nachconstantinischen
Zeitalter.» Zeitschriftfor Kirchengeschichte 1 (1877) 1-35, 545-574.
Wisse, Frederik. «Gnosticism and Early Monasticism in Egypt.» In Gnosis. Festschriftfor
Hans Jonas. Hrsg. von B.Aland. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978,
pp.431-440.
«The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists.» Vigi/iae Christianae 25 (1971)
205-223.
Young, Dwight W. «The Milieu of Nag Hammadi. Some Historical Considerations.»
Vigiliae Christianae 24 (1970) 127-137.
Zockler, Otto. Askese und Monchtum. Frankfurt: Heyder & Zimmer, 1897.
Zoega, Georg. Catalogus codicum copticorum manuscriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano
Velitris adservantur. Rome, 1810; reprint ed., Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903.
INDICES
Proper names
I\l3paall (patriarch) 131.10. ~lOOXOpOe; (Bishop of Hermopolis

'i\ywe; (Nitriote priest) 154.25. parva) 155.6.
I\SavaatOe; (Archbishop of Alexandria) ~lO(J7tof...i"t'le; VOIlOe; 125.8.
124.14; 125.5; 133.19,21-22,23 (I); ~paXOV"tlOe; (Bishop of HermopoIis
153.14; 155.7,9,20; 156.3; 157.21. parva) 155.3.
AiYlm"tlOC; 136.25; 139.10. Mate; (The West) 153.23.
AiYU1t"tiOlV yf...oocru 151.22.
Aiyu7t'dOlV Olaf...EX"tOe; 127.1. 'Ef...EUPXiu 155.23.
Aiyu7t"toe; 152.26; 153.16, 18. 'Ef...lcrcrutoe; (prophet) 135.21.
I\f...E~aVOpE1U 132.2; 151.4; 153.16. 'Ef...f...'lv 127.19; 128.23.
it 7tOf...le; 124.19. 'EI-..I-..t']VolV Olaf...EX"tOe; 128.7.
I\f...E~UVOpEUe; (v. 0EOOOlpOe; 6 I\f...E~.) 'Ef...f...'lvlcr"tui (The Greek speaking
133.9, 19; 139.5; 155.21. monks) 129.8; 149.19; 150.14-16 (I).
1\f...E~UVOpOe; (Archbishop of Alexandria) 'Ef...OUpiOlV (Aif...oupiOlV in t; Pachomian
133.8-9. monk) 128.6, 13, 14; 129.22; 135.1;
I\IlUEte; 136.27; 137.20. 140.1, 10; 151.20-21.
'i\IlIlOlV 124.1; 152.18; 158.1. 'Ef...OUpiOlV (Aif...oupiOlV in I; Nitriote
1\1l1l0>V10e; (Bishop of Elearchia) 155.22; monk) 153.6; 157.10.
156.2 (I); 157.9. 'EPIlOU7tOf...le; it J.11Xpa 155.2-3.
1\1l1l0>V10e; (Nitriote monk) 153.6; 'EpllOlV (Bishop of Boubastis) 155.23.
157.10.
I\Il0fiv (Nitriote monk) 153.5; 157.7. 'HPUXf...EtO'le; (Nitriote priest) 154.29.
I\V"tlVOOU 156.6,9. 'Hcruiue; (anchorite from Scetis) 157.13.
I\v"toovwe; (the great) 151.18,24; 152.16;
156.2, 2 (F). 0EOOOlpOe; 6 I\f...E~UVOpEUe; 127.2, 11 ;
I\pEluvoe; 128.2; 132.3; 139.5; 153.15, 128.15; 129.3, 11-12, 14-15,24;
24; 154.1, 10, 15,22; 155.14. 139.24; 144.14; 150.15; 151.22.
I\p"ttllwe; (Egyptian duke) 153.22. 0EOOOlpOe; (the great) passim
AuyoU(J"tUllvlXt'] 152.26. 0EOOOlpOe; (Amoun's disciple) 153.4 (F);
Aooovwe; 129.4,4,11,22; 135.1,6; 157.7.
136.19. 0Eoql1f...Oe; (Archbishop of Alexandria?)
158.1.
Bul3uf...ooV 154.16. 3EOql1f...i'l124.1 (I).
Bufi v. I1ul3ufi 0Eoql1f...Oe; (Pachomian monk) 125.3;
BEvoioEWV 139.5. 151.4,8,11,28.
B'lcrupioov 152.23. 0EOlVde; (Alexandrian church of) 153.21.
Boul3ucr"tlVOOV 155.23. 0'll3utoe; 124.5, 18; 127.8; 136.27;
139.11; 146.9; 147.23; 149.25; 157.14.
ral-..l-..oe; (Caesar) 129.18. 0'll3uiOlV yf...oo"t"tu 136.25-26.
rEoopywe; (Arian) 153.25. 0'll3uie; 125.3; 147.21; 155.9;
nE~i (Elisha's servant) 135.25. 157.1.
Indices 305
'laxcO~ (patriarch) 131.10. IIa~au (Bau in F) 125.8; 132.1; 139.15

'Iuxoo~o~ as 6 (17t6u'tOAO~ 145.19. (t), 18; 140.22; 142.13; 144.5,8;
'IEpEl!ia~ (prophet) 145.8. 148.1,2 (t), 13; 150.12.
'Irocrai (father of King David) 135.16. IIar,crlo~ (anchorite from Scetis) 157.13.
'lou1)aio~ 131.10. IIaAul!oov (Theban anchorite) 133.15.
'louAlav6~ (Emperor) 155.8; 156.7,25. IIal!~ (Nitriote monk) 153.7, 26;
'Icraux (patriarch) 131.10. 156.15 (F, error for IIul!l!oov); 157.8.
'Icraux (anchorite from Scetis) 157.14. IIul!I!ooV (monk from Antinoe) 156.6, 11,
'Icraclx 6 xai XpUO'6yovo~ (deacon, 15,20,21, 23, 24.
Nitriote monk) 154.29. IIa'tEAAoAi (IIa'tEA.A.ovvi in t) 126.13.
'lcr(1)oopo~ (Bishop of Hermopolis parva) IIa'tpixlO~ 149.22; 150.1, 3, 6, 8.
155.2, 6. IIa'txtAlO~ (IIavxtAlO~ in t) 148.14,
'lcr(1)oopo~ (priest of the anchorites) 17,24,25; 149.2,7,10,15.
157.10. IIauAo~ (apostle) 127.17; 136.12; 145.13.
'lcr(1)oopo~ (Pachomian monk) 140.1; IIauAo~ (priest of the Alexandrian
143.17; 144.8; 146.18. church of Pierius) 125.1.
'lcO~ 145.11. IIauAo~ (anchorite from Scetis) 157.13.
'1000'11<1> (monk; v. MoUO'aio~) 146.9 (t). IIauAo~ (another anchorite from Scetis)
157.14.
Kapoup 147.23; 148.3, 10. IIaxoul!lO~ (IIaXcOl!lO~ in t) 124.2, 5 (t);
K67tPTJ~ 125.3; 151.4; 152.1. 130.1,13,15,17,17,21; 131.14, 16,
XUplO~ 125.27; 126.19; 127.14; 130.5,9; 20, 24, 26, 27; 132.1-2, 11; 133.21;
131.17; 133.16; 134.9,26 (F); 135.17, 134.1, 19, 22, 28; 135.4.
17,23; 137.9-10, 10, 15; 145.8-9; IIEXOOO'lo~ (IIExoolo~ in t) 130.7, 12;
150.22,25; 151.24, 25 (F); 152.8; 134.28; 135.2; 139.24-140.1; 142.7.
153.8; 154.9,23; 158.1,2, 10. IIEpcri~ 155.10; 156.25.
KooVO''tuv'tlO~ (Emperor) 153.15. IIttpo~ (apostle) 136.16.
KooVO''tuv'tlO~ 6 vto~ (= rUA.A.O~) IIr,crupo~ (anchorite from Scetis) 157.14.
129.18. IIltplo~ (IIEp&ou in F, IIEpaiou in t)
125.2; 127.3.
Aa'trov 7t6Al~ 130.7. IIlcOp (Nitriote monk) 153.7,26; 157.9.
Ai~u~ 126.8. 7tVEul!a, 'to iiylOV 130.18; 132.10; 133.20,
Auxia 149.23. 25; 143.25; 145.5.
AUX07tOAi'tTJ~ 132.14. II'toAEl!ai~ t'I EV 'tij E>TJ~ai1)l 147.21;
Aootpa 136.11. 148.4.
Maxuplo~ (Theodore's brother) 139.13;
140.24, 24, 26. l:aI!Our,A (prophet) 135.12, 16.
Maxuplo~ 6 liylO~ (Nitriote monk) l:aouA (King) 135.12.
157.11. l:EI3<ro'tlav6~ (Egyptian duke) 153.19, 22.
Mapxioov (heretic) 132.14. l:lAouav6~ (Alexandrian stonemerchant)
MEAt'tlO~ (heretic) 132.14. 139.5.
MoUO'aio~ (MoUO'too~ in F, '1000'11<1> in t) l:lAouav6~ (Pachomian monk) 139.11,
146.9. 17,20; 140.3-4,4,9; 146.10.
Mupa 149.22. l:il!ooV 6 I!uyo~ 136.16.
l:xi3l~ 157.12.
Nllll!clV 6 l:upo~ 136.1, 4. l:oAOl!cOV (King) 136.6; 145.16.
Nl'tpia 153.3, 13,27; 154.2,8; 155.1; l:uplllv6~ (Egyptian duke) 153.20.
157.8, 11. l:upo~ v. Nall!Uv.
306 Indices
Ta~evvitcrtot 124.6 (F); 134.2; 137.24; 'I'apq)to~ ('I'aj.l<pto<;) 140.1; 148.13.

156.5 (F). 'I'evtaitcrtO<; 140.1; 142.7; 146.18.
Ta~evvl]cru'i'ltat 124.2 (t), 6 (t); 156.5 'I'ooto<; (anchorite from Scetis) 157.13.
(t).
Tevt\)pitl]~ voj.l6~ 134.2. Up 148.27.
'QptOlV 126.8, 13.
Xptcrt6~ 124.3; 125.21; 126.15; 127.4,5,
18,20,21; 128.7; 131.11; 133.7,8,27;
135.3; 138.7,26; 142.4; 143.18; 144.20,
22,25; 150.5, 6, 9, 20; 152.2 (F); 155.19;
156.18.
Scriptural citations and parallels
Exodus 24.30-31: 147.4-7.

32.12, 14: 131.7-9. 27.23: 136.6-8.
Numbers Ecclesiastes
11.15: 156.17-19. 2.2: 145.18.
Deuteronomy 7.3: 145.18-19.
28.29: 137.10-11. 7.6: 145.16-17.
1 Kings Canticle
9.19-20: 135.12-15. 4.12: 125.23-24.
16.6-12: 135.16-17. Job
27.4: 146.22.
3 Kings
31.5: 145.12.
18.41: 128.20.
Sapientia
4 Kings 1.7: 138.1 0-11.
4.27: 135.22-23.
5.25-27: 135.25-136.1. Hosea
2.16: 130.3.
Psalms (LXX)
Amos
7.10: 137.2.
3.7: 151.25-26.
18.13-14: 126.28-30.
29.11: 150.26-27. Joel
35.8: 130.22-23. 2.13,17: 130.22-23.
35.11: 131.22-23. Habakkuk
37.18: 145.25-26. 2.5: 127.22-23; 156.26-27.
39.2-4: 125.27-126.3. Haggai
73.23: 154.10-11. 2.3,9: 154.17-19.
79.13: 125.25.
93.12: 140.5. Jeremiah
106.8: 150.25-26. 15.17: 145.8-11.
142.2: 131.5. 28.44: 154.15-16.
143.1: 126.19-20. Lamentations
Proverbs 3.27-30: 125.18-20.
14.29: 126.6-7. Daniel
16.29: 147.8. 3.55: 131.17-18.
21.12: 136.8-9. 11.24: 127.19-20.
Indices 307
2 Maccabees 7.1: 126.25-26.

15.21: 140.2-3. 11.29: 143.12-13.
Matthew Galatians
6.5: 152.19-20. 2.20: 127.4-5; 144.20.
14.19: 138.25. 6.2: 126.14-15.
25.22, 20: 134.22-23. Ephesians
Luke 4.30: 145.4-5.
1.72: 148.3. 6.12: 126.21-24.
2.19: 129.12-13.
Philippians
6.25: 145.22.
1.17: 127.16-18.
John 1.29: 156.17-19.
4.42: 154.26-27.
Colossians
Acts 1.5: 124.16.
2.11: 138.30; 139.6.
7.55: 130.11; 133.20. 1 Timothy
8.23:136."17-18. 3.15: 144.25.
9.15: 130.10. 2 Timothy
9.34: 150.6. 2.16: 127.15-16.
12.7-8: 134.9. 4.7: 145.1-2.
14.8-10: 136.10-15. Titus
Romans 3.5: 124.18.
5.9: 131.10-11. Hebrews
7.4: 134.23-24. 10.36: 126.10-12.
11.9: 142.5. 11.5 : 130.2.
11.11: 145.1-2. 11.26: 125.21.
13.14: 128.6-7.
16.16: 151.15. James
3.6: 137.4.
1 Corinthians
4.9: 145.19-20.
3.1: 142.4; 155.19.
12.9: 153.7-8. 1 Peter
15.52-54: 149.9-10. 1.13: 134.23-24.
2 Corinthians 3 John
5.6: 127.5-6; 153.5. 2: 152.8.
5.8: 130.5. Revelation
5.15: 144.19. 2.23: 137.2.
Lexicon
Athanasianum
Digessit et illustravit
Guido Miiller S. J.
Quart. 1664 Spalten. 1952. Ganzleinen DM 380,-
ISBN 311 0031507
Repertorium der griechischen

christlichen Papyri
1m Namen der patristischen Arbeitsstelle Munster
Herausgegeben von Kurt Aland
Teil I: Biblische Papyri, Altes Testament,

Varia, Apokryphen
Grofi-Oktav. XIV, 473 Seiten. 1975. Ganzleinen DM 158,-
ISBN 3110046741 (Patristische Texte und Studien, Band 18)
DIETMAR WYRWA
Die christliche Platonaneignung

in den Stromateis
des Clemens von Alexandrien
Grofi-Oktav. x, 364 Seiten. 1983. Ganzleinen DM 84,-
ISBN 311 0089033 (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, Band 53)
Preisanderungen vorbehalten
Walter de Gruyter Berlin' New York

Goehring James E - The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian Monasticism, 1985 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Goehring James E - The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian Monasticism, 1985 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAMES E.

THE LETTER OF AMMON

K. ALAND UND W. SCHNEEMELCHER

WALTER DE GRUYTER· BERLIN· NEW YORK

WALTER DE GRUYTER . BERLIN· NEW YORK

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Goehring, James E., 1950-

CIP-Kurztitelau!nahme der Deutschen Bibliothek

Goebring, James E.:

© 1985 by Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin 30

The discovery by Egyptian peasants in 1945 of a jar containing

primary interest in and of itself. It became apparent that although the

Select Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 296

A Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana D 69 Sup; XIV c.

Egyptian Monastic Sources

Ag Arabic Life of Pachomius, G6ttingen Arabic Ms. 116.

The Epistula Ammonis has played an important role in the discussion

1 Archibald Robertson, Select Writings and Letters of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexan-

The publication by Papebroch in 1680 of a Greek Pachomian corpus

1 ActasanctorumMaiiIII(Antwerp: Cnobarum, 1680; New. ed., Paris: Paline, 1866)

Papebroch's editio princeps was dependent chiefly on a single

10 L. S. de Tillemont Ie Nain, Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecctesiastique des VI

lin, 1714) 1.39-48, 154-160.

15 Amelineau, Histoire XXV, XLVII.

22 Hans Achelis, «Revue: Griitzmacher, Pachomius und das iilteste Klosterleben,»

27 W. E. Crum, Theological Textsfrom Coptic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 171-

35Bousquet et Nau 416-418.

Bousset was aware of the vicissitudes present in any manuscript

46 Ibid. 103*; cf., Ladeuze, Etude 72.

the Greek dossier in a good critical edition, but is skeptical of Halkin's

59 Bousquet et Nau 410, 415-416; Lefort, Les vies coptes XXII.

Lefort, XXVII-XXXVIII, LXXXVII-LXXXVIII.

Ibid. XXXIX; cf., Halkin Sancti Pachomii 58*.

63 Lefort, «Revue: Bousset» 103; idem, Les vies coptes XXXIX.

ses rapports avec la tradition grecque,» AnBoll64 (1946) 276-277.

Finally, after dismissing G3 as another late compilation 68 and Ep Am

68 Lefort, Les vies coptes L-LI.

75 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 38.

Whether or not one accepts all of Lefort's conclusions, it is clear that

80 Chitty, «Reconsidered» 38-77.

In defense of this position, he picked up Lefort's reference to the De

Chitty offers but a brief account of the Coptic material (3 of his 39

is unreasonable to assume that an Egyptian movement in which the

99 He did refer to Lefort's response in a brief note. «I was disappointed to find a

offered by Festugiere in 1965 with the publication of his La premiere vie

Veilleux, who set forth his conclusions in a preliminary article in

109 Ibid. 34-35.

110 Ibid. 38-48.

Veilleux noted that Ag corresponds closely with the SBo recension

115 This citation uses Amelineau's pagination. Supra, n. 106.

extremement complexe, c'est evident. Mais est-il sage de vouloir tout

Furthermore, with the possible exception of some early Sahidic ma-

disagreeing with his source theories. Chitty, «Review: Veilleux» 195-199.

The history of research on Epistula Ammonis (Ep Am) coincides

1 Acta Sanctorum 346-356,54*-61*.

5 In the Greek, no addressee is named. Ibid. 346.

Alexandrini. Opera omnia (Paris: Anisson, 1698) 1.868-869.

As with the other Greek material in Papebroch's edition, the Ep Am

of questionable historical value. However, this factor was not involved

dependence from the vita genre, it continued to be held in high esteem

Lefort next paralleled the accounts of Pachomius' heresy vision

interpretation. Mingarelli CL.

49 Draguet, «Revue: Lefort» 213.

1 Acta Sanctorum 346-356,54-61.