Beyond the Gnostic Gospels

Studies Building on the Work

of Elaine Pagels

Edited by

Eduard Iricinschi, Lance Jenott,

Nicola Denzey Lewis and Philippa Townsend

Mohr Siebeck

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

Elaine Pagels, born 1943; 1964 BA, 1965 MA from Stanford University; 1970 PhD; since 1982
professor of early Christian history at Princeton University; in 2012 Princeton University’s
Howard T. Behrman Award for Distinguished Achievement in the Humanities.

Eduard Iricinschi, born 1968; MA in Religious Studies from New York University; PhD in
the Religions of Late Antiquity from Princeton University; currently postdoctoral Polonsky
fellow at the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.

Lance Jenott, born 1980; studied History, Classics, and Religion at the University of Washing-
ton (Seattle) and Princeton University; PhD in the Religions of Late Antiquity from Prince-
ton University; currently postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo.

Nicola Denzey Lewis, born 1966; BA in Religious Studies from the University of Toronto;
MA and PhD from Princeton University in Religion and the Program in the Ancient World;
currently Visiting Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University.

Philippa Townsend, born 1975; degrees in Classics from Cambridge University and Univer-
sity College London, in Religion from Harvard University and Princeton University; PhD
from Princeton in the Religions of Late Antiquity; currently Assistant Professor of Philoso-
phy and Religion at Ursinus College, Pennsylvania.

ISBN 978-3-16-152834-7
ISSN 1436-3003 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum)
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliogra-
phie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc-
tions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buch-
binderei Nädele in Nehren.
Printed in Germany.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Table of Contents

Table of Contents ..................................................................................... V

Abbreviations .......................................................................................... IX

PHILIPPA TOWNSEND
Explorations at the Edges of Orthodoxy: Elaine Pagels’ Study of
the Early Christian World ......................................................................... 1

Part I: The Social World of Early Christians

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS
A Life Full of Meaning and Purpose: Demiurgical Myths
and Social Implications ........................................................................... 19

KAREN L. KING
Rethinking the Diversity of Ancient Christianity: Responding to
Suffering and Persecution ....................................................................... 60

EINAR THOMASSEN
The Valentinian Materials in James (NHC V,3 and CT,2) ...................... 79

Part II: Creating Orthodoxy and Heresy

GEOFFREY S. SMITH
Irenaeus, the Will of God, and Anti-Valentinian Polemics:
A Closer Look at Against the Heresies 1.12.1 ........................................ 93

DAVID W. JORGENSEN
Nor is One Ambiguity Resolved by Another Ambiguity:
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Rhetoric of Interpretation ............................ 124

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

VI Table of Contents

APRIL D. DECONICK
Gnostic Spirituality at the Crossroads of Christianity:
Transgressing Boundaries and Creating Orthodoxy ............................... 148

Part III: Ritual and Myth

NICOLA DENZEY LEWIS

The Problem of Bad Baptisms: Unclean Spirits, Exorcism,
and the Unseen in Second-Century Christian Practice .......................... 187

JOHN D. TURNER
Baptismal Vision, Angelification, and Mystical Union
in Sethian Literature ............................................................................. 204

MARVIN MEYER†
Thought, Forethought, and Afterthought in the Secret Book of John .... 217

Part IV: Christianity in Egypt

HUGO LUNDHAUG
Begotten, Not Made, to Arise in This Flesh: The Post-Nicene
Soteriology of the Gospel of Philip ....................................................... 235

ANNEMARIE LUIJENDIJK
Buried and Raised: Gospel of Thomas Logion 5 and Resurrection ....... 272

EDUARD IRICINSCHI
The Teaching Hidden in Silence (NHC II 1,4): Questions, Answers,
and Secrets in a Fourth-Century Egyptian Book ................................... 297

LANCE JENOTT
Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict: The Synod of Latopolis
and the Problem with Pachomius’ Visions ............................................ 320

DEIRDRE GOOD
Jesus, Mary and Joseph in Egypt .......................................................... 335

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Table of Contents VII

Part V: New Testament Studies

ISMO DUNDERBERG
How Far Can You Go? Jesus, John, the Synoptics and Other Texts ..... 347

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE
Plato, Plutarch, and John: Three Symposia about Love ........................ 367

HOLGER M. ZELLENTIN
Jesus and the Tradition of the Elders: Originalism and Traditionalism
in Early Judean Legal Theory ................................................................ 379

JOHN G. GAGER
Paul the Zealot, A Man of Constant Sorrow .......................................... 404

JOHN W. MARSHALL
6 Ezra and Apocalyptic Judaism in Asia Minor .................................... 427

Bibliography ......................................................................................... 447

Contributors .......................................................................................... 487

Index of References .............................................................................. 489
Index of Subjects .................................................................................. 511

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict: The Synod of
Latopolis and the Problem with Pachomius’ Visions
LANCE JENOTT1

In 345, a year before Pachomius died, certain bishops and monks sum-
moned him to an ecclesiastical court in the city of Latopolis, an urban cen-
ter in Upper Egypt, to make him explain his alleged powers of clairvoy-
ance. Among the Coptic, Greek and Arabic lives of Pachomius, only the
Greek and Arabic texts preserve the episode, though, as we shall see, in
quite different ways. While the Greek Life (Vita Prima) paints a rather
harmonious picture of Pachomius’ relationship with the clergy at the Syn-
od, the Arabic account (reflecting an older Coptic tradition) alleges that the
bishops contrived the Synod as an occasion to murder the famous monk.2
In this essay, I offer an explanation for why the clergy at the Synod
were so troubled by Pachomius’ visions: it was not because they were sus-
picious of his spiritual gifts per se, but because his visions were directly
related to the expansion of the Pachomian monastic federation into their
dioceses. I also argue that the redactor of the Greek Life knew the more
antagonistic version of the Synod episode, but deliberately simplified and
rewrote the story in his account in order to downplay any hostilities be-
tween Pachomius and the clergy.
The Greek Life is suspiciously ambiguous about the reasons for the
Synod. It merely explains that as Pachomius’ fame began to spread, some
people would exaggerate what they said about him, and that their exagger-
ations led to a dispute over his visionary gifts. It does not tell us who was

1
This essay has been written under the aegis of project NEWCONT at the University
of Oslo, which is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European
Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) / ERC Grant agreement
no 283741.
2
This stark contrast between the Greek and Arabic lives is not taken into account by
Philip Rousseau in his treatment of the Synod. According to Rousseau, “We know almost
nothing about the Synod save what is told us in the Vita Prima. The Arabic account
simply confirms an underlying Coptic tradition.” Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of a
Community in Fourth-Century Egypt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999),
171.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 321

involved in the dispute or what, specifically, was so controversial about his

clairvoyance. Nevertheless, the rumors about Pachomius compelled some
local bishops to investigate by convening a synod in the church of Latopo-
lis. When Pachomius arrives at the church, he is questioned about only one
issue: his gift of discernment – the dioratikon – that enabled him to see in-
to people’s hearts and discern between good and evil spirits. The bishops
insist that Pachomius explain himself, “since,” they say, “clairvoyance is a
big deal” (τὸ διορατικὸν ἐπειδὴ μέγα ἐστίν). Yet the Greek Life does not
explain why the bishops saw his dioratikon as such a great concern, espe-
cially one serious enough to require an investigative synod.3
Of course the claim to have direct access to the will of God through per-
sonal revelation could pose a strong challenge to clergy who sought a mo-
nopoly on revelation through the doctrine of apostolic succession and, later,
a closed canon of Scripture. The threat posed by the “New Prophecy” of
Montanus and his followers is a classic example of this challenge in Chris-
tianity’s early history.4 Clerics too could claim personal revelation to au-
thenticate their office, 5 but by the fourth century archbishop Athanasius
chose to defend his privileged status not by appealing directly to divine
guidance, but by limiting revelation to a canonical corpus of “God-
breathed” (θεόπνευσθα) writings. According to Athanasius, authentic reve-
lation had been given by God to humanity through Jesus and the apostles,
who recorded it in the Scriptures for the benefit of later generations. The
Scriptures, then, and not any self-proclaimed teacher, were the body to
whom Christians should turn to learn God’s will, since they alone “are suf-
ficient to instruct us perfectly.”6 When Athanasius does allow for personal
visions, in, for example, the Life of Antony – his prescriptive model of the

3
First Greek Life 112, ed. François Halkin, Sancti Pachomii Vitae Graecae (Hagi-
ographi Bollandiana 19; Brussels, 1932), 72–73. In following citations, I refer to the
First Greek Like as G1, and to the Coptic Life as SBo, in accordance with Armand Veil-
leux, Pachomian Koinonia, vol. 1: The Life of Saint Pachomius (Cistercian Studies 45;
Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1980).
4
See W. H. C. Frend, Saints and Sinners in the Early Church (London: Darton,
Longman and Todd, 1985), 69, noting that in response to Montanus’ prophecy, “The
clergy felt themselves threatened and took fright.”
5
Ignatius, Phld. 7: “I cried out when I was among you, speaking in a great voice, the
voice of God: ‘Heed the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ . . . It was the Spirit
who proclaimed it, saying: ‘Do nothing apart from the bishop.’”
6
Athanasius, Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, trans. David Brakke, Athanasius and the Pol-
itics of Asceticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 326–32. For dis-
cussion, see Brakke, “Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt:
Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter,” HTR 87.4 (1994): 395–419, esp.
397, 405–6.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

322 Lance Jenott

perfect monk – he teaches that they should be kept quiet, and certainly
never used to challenge the will of the bishop.7
But in Pachomius’ case, what had he done to provoke members of the
local clergy to the point of conducting a special investigation? Why was
his dioratikon such a “big deal,” as the bishops said? Because of the Greek
Life’s ambiguity concerning the reasons for the Synod, scholars have
pointed to a number of political issues which could help explain why cler-
gy would have opposed Pachomius. Not only did Pachomius build monas-
teries in the dioceses of some of these bishops, but at least in one place,
Tabennesi, he also built a new church for the townspeople, and assumed
management of its finances in order to see to the welfare of the congre-
gants. 8 As David Brakke points out, local clergy would almost certainly
have regarded Pachomius’ activities as an encroachment upon their admin-
istrative responsibilities and privileges.9 And, in fact, it appears that one
local bishop, Serapion of Nitentori, a town near the monastery of Tabenne-
si, did perceive Pachomius’ independence as a challenge to his administra-
tion. For Serapion attempted to have Archbishop Athanasius ordain Pa-
chomius so that he could bring him into the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the
Church and set him over all the monks in his diocese. In this way, Serapion
probably aimed to make Pachomius answerable directly to himself.10 But
when Athanasius visited the region, Pachomius subverted Serapion’s plan
by going into hiding, thereby avoiding the ordination which he correctly
regarded as a subordination, not only of himself, but also of his spiritual
brothers and sisters and the independence of their entire monastic institu-
tion. In this situation, Pachomius’ countermove must have only exacerbat-
ed what was already an uneasy tension between him and Bishop Ser-
apion.11

7
Athanasius, Life of Antony, 66–67: “These things [a vision] he did not report volun-
tarily, for he had spent much time in prayer and marveled at them privately, but when
those with him inquired and pressed him, he was compelled to speak, being incapable, as
a father of concealing things from the children. . . . He honored the rule of the Church
with extreme care, and he wanted every cleric to be held in higher regard than himself.
He felt no shame at bowing the head to the bishops and priests” (trans. Robert C. Gregg,
Athanasius: The Life of Antony and The Letter to Marcellinus [Classics of Western Spir-
ituality; London: SPCK, 1980], 80–81).
8
SBo 25; G1 29, which adds that he built the church “not on his own accord, but on
the advice of Serapion the bishop.”
9
Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, 116–17.
10
Serapion’s solution to the challenge posed by Pachomius can be seen as part of a
rising trend at that time of clergy seeking the ordination of monks. See Claudia Rapp,
Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transi-
tion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 147–48.
11
SBo 28; G1 30; cf. Brakke, Athanasius and Asceticism, 118.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 323

Another obvious motive for the bishops who convened the Synod is that
by the early 340s Pachomius had expanded his monastic federation, and so
his local influence, into various new districts of Upper Egypt, sometimes
without the permission of the local clergy. Although on one occasion a cer-
tain bishop, Arius of Panopolis, recognized the potential benefits of having
a Pachomian monastery nearby, and so invited them to build a monastery
in his episcopal see,12 other bishops had a much more antagonistic attitude
toward them, and took great pains to keep them out. This is exactly what
happened when, late in Pachomius’ career, and just months before the
Synod, Pachomius expanded southward by building a new monastery at
Phnoum, just outside the city of Latopolis. According to the Coptic Life,
when the bishop of Latopolis learned of the project, he roused a mob, con-
fronted the Pachomian brothers at the construction site, and tried to drive
them off what he regarded as his territory. The story says that Pachomius
and the brothers stood their ground against the bishop’s mob until “the
Lord scattered them and they fled before his face.” After that, he built the
monastery – “a very large one” adds the Coptic Life – “and finished it
well.”13 Given such a provocative entrance into the neighborhood, it is no
wonder that just months later Pachomius would be summoned to the
church of Latopolis to explain himself.14
Yet as we have seen, according to the Greek Life, the bishops who con-
vened the Synod interrogated Pachomius only about his clairvoyance. They
say nothing about his meddling with church administration, resisting ordi-
nation, challenging clerical authority, or building new monasteries in their
dioceses without permission – all issues that one would expect to be the
focus of the interrogation. Because of the Greek Life’s exclusive focus on
Pachomius’ clairvoyance, the great scholar of Pachomian monasticism,
Armand Veilleux, downplays such political issues as motivations for the
Synod. While acknowledging that Pachomius did, at times, find himself at
odds with local clerics, he stresses that it was not Pachomius’ new con-
struction projects that led to the bishops’ investigation; rather, it was simp-
ly a matter of authenticating Pachomius’ spiritual gifts:

12
SBo 54; G1 81. The benefits Pachomians could bring to a region included economic
stimulation by an increased labor force, manufacturing, irrigation, and agricultural pro-
duction; see James Goehring, “Withdrawing from the Desert: Pachomius and the Devel-
opment of Village Monasticism in Upper Egypt,” in Ascetics, Society and the Desert:
Studies in Early Egyptian Monasticism (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International,
1999), 89–109, esp. 95–96. A bishop like Arius might also have seen the Pachomians as
an ally against rival Christian organizations (other monks, Melitians, Arians, etc.).
13
SBo 58.
14
Cf. Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert A City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian
and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966; repr.
Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 24.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

324 Lance Jenott

En tout cas, s’il y a animosité contre Pachôme, ce n’est pas, à ce concile du moins, à
cause de la construction de ses monastères, ou pour avoir institué de petites Eglises en
marge ou au sein de l’Eglise «épiscopale». C’est tout simplement pour juger de
l’orthodoxie et de l’authenticité de ses visions, et de sa prétention au don de la diacri-
sis.15

However, I would argue that these two issues – Pachomius’ visions, and
the expansion of his federation through the construction of new monaster-
ies – were probably inseparable problems for the bishops at the Synod.
This explanation for their focus on clairvoyance becomes clear when one
takes into account a consistent pattern of visions preserved only in the
Coptic and Arabic lives, yet absent from the Greek: Pachomius establishes
each new monastery in response to a heavenly voice, revelation or inspira-
tion from the Holy Spirit that directs him where next to go and build.16
Thus his clairvoyant powers were at the very heart of the conflict since
they authorized Pachomius to expand his federation whenever and wherev-
er he willed – or in his eyes, whenever God willed. Bishops who felt
threatened by the encroachment of Pachomius’ federation into their dio-
ceses could hardly have let such a justification go unchallenged.17
Table 1 below illustrates this distinct pattern of visions and monastery
settlements across the Coptic, Arabic, and Greek lives. Here, I list each
settlement chronologically in order of its foundation, placing a plus sign (+)
next to those monasteries which Pachomius built in accordance with a rev-
elation, a minus sign (–) next to monasteries whose establishment involves
no revelation, and brackets around those monasteries that Pachomius did
not build himself, but which chose to join his federation.18

15
Armand Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme Pachômien au quatrième siècle
(Studia Anselmiana 57; Rome: Pontificium Institutum S. Anselmi, 1968), 194, cf. 359.
Veilleux (ibid., 194 n. 134) notes Bousset’s suggestion that the bishops might have per-
ceived the claim to discern spirits as a usurpation of their authority to judge sinners.
16
By a heavenly voice (SBo 17); revelation (horoma: SBo 49, 52, 58); inspiration
from the Holy Spirit (SBo 57).
17
I thank Elaine Pagels for first showing me this pattern in the Coptic and Greek lives.
Elaine and I initially discussed the topic while working together on an article about the
letters of Antony and Nag Hammadi Codex I, and she encouraged to me to develop it
further. The present essay therefore showcases two of Elaine’s most wonderful qualities
as a researcher and teacher: her ability to see in the historical sources small points of
great significance, and the enormous generosity she shows to her students.
18
Chapter numbers for the Coptic (SBo) and Greek (G1) lives follows Armand Veil-
leux, Koinonia, vol. 1; enumeration of the Arabic Life (Am) refers to the page number in
the edition and French translation by Emile Amélineau, Monuments pour servir à
l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne au IVe siècle: Histoire de Saint Pakhôme et de ses com-
munautés; documents coptes et arabe (Annales du Musée Guimet 17; Paris: Ernest
Leroux, 1889).

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 325

Table 1: Pachomius’ Foundation Visions

Monastery Coptic Life Arabic Life Greek Life

(SBo) (Am) (G1)

1. Tabennesi 17+ 358+ 12+

2. Phbow 49+ 567+ 54–

3. Sheneset (Chenoboskion) [50–] [567–] [54–]

4. Thmoushons [51–] [568–] [54–]

5. Tse (Tkahshmin) 52+ 568+ 83–

6. Shmin (Panopolis) 54– 569– 81, 83–

7. Thbew [56–] [573–] [80, 83–]

8. Tsmine 57+ 574+ 83–

9. Phnoum (Latopolis) 58+ 574+ 83–

+ Monastery established according to revelation, voice, or divine inspiration

– Monastery not established according to revelation
[ ] Monastery that joined the federation

As one can see, all three lives agree that none of the monasteries which
joined the federation – those in brackets – did so according to a revelation.
Presumably no special justification for their admission was necessary since
their abbots had simply asked Pachomius to join.
Furthermore, all three lives agree that Pachomius received divine guid-
ance as to where he should build his first settlement, the one at Tabennesi.
The Greek Life, like the Coptic and Arabic, relates that one day as he was
praying in the deserted village of Tabennesi, he heard a heavenly voice say
to him “Stay here, and build a monastery.”19 However, the Greek Life curi-
ously limits the role that visions play in the federation’s expansion to this
one, inaugural episode. It mentions no revelations in any of the subsequent
foundation narratives. Instead, Pachomius simply builds new monasteries
on his own volition without divine guidance.
In contrast, the Coptic and Arabic lives consistently agree that Pacho-
mius built each new monastery in accordance with divine guidance through
a revelation, heavenly voice, or inspiration from the Spirit. For example, in
the episode about the foundation of his second monastery, Phbow, the
Coptic and Arabic lives once again say that Pachomius was told in a reve-
lation where to build, while the Greek Life includes no such explanation:

19
G1 12.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

326 Lance Jenott

Coptic (SBo 49) Arabic (Am 567) Greek (G1 54)

As the number of the bro-
thers increased at the mon-
astery of Tabennesi, he saw
that they were cramped for
lack of room, and he began
to ask the Lord about it.
When the number of bro- As the number of brothers
thers increased and they increased, Pachomius saw
found themselves cramp- that the monastery was
ed, he asked God about it overcrowded.
and

He was told in a vision was told in a dream to go

(ϩⲟⲣⲁⲙⲁ), ‘Go north to that
deserted village lying
downriver from you which
is called Phbow, and build
there a monastery for your-
self. It will become a base
and a source of renown for
you forever.’
down to the village that
was nearby to the north
named Phbow and to
build there a monastery
which would become the
foundation.

At once, he took some bro-
thers with him, went north
to that village and spent
some days with the bro-
thers until he had built a
wall for the monastery.
He took some brothers He transferred some of them
with him and stayed there to another deserted village
for a few days with them called Phbow. And with
until they had built the them he built a large monas-
wall surrounding the mon- tery, seeing that many were
astery. called by the Lord.

We can see that the Coptic and Arabic lives relate basically the same story,
while the Greek Life includes no mention of Pachomius’ guiding vision.
One then finds this same pattern repeated throughout the rest of the foun-
dation episodes across all three lives (see Table 1).
The only exception to the pattern is Pachomius’ sixth settlement, at
Shmin (Greek Panopolis), where Pachomius builds a new monastery but
makes no claim that he was led to do so by a vision. This exception is un-
doubtedly because, as I mentioned above, that monastery was established
on the express invitation of the local bishop, Arius, and therefore required
no divine sanction. Yet even in this episode, Pachomius’ gift for interact-
ing with the spiritual world plays a pivotal role in the foundation of the
monastery. For it could only be completed with the help of an angel of the
Lord who appears to protect the construction site from an angry grassroots
campaign which, despite the bishop’s endorsement of the Pachomians, op-
posed their arrival in town and attacked the monastery. The brothers can
only finish building the wall when the angel miraculously draws a barrier
of protective fire around the precinct with his finger. And in this episode
too, the Greek Life characteristically downplays Pachomius’ personal vi-

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 327

sionary powers. While in the Coptic Life, the guardian angel appears to Pa-
chomius alone, the Greek Life claims he appeared to all the brothers.20
We can therefore understand why the bishops at the Synod would have
felt so threatened by Pachomius’ clairvoyance: because every time he built
a new monastery, he claimed to be doing nothing more than carrying out
God’s will, revealed to him by visions and voices, regardless of the will of
the bishops. If Pachomius could act against the wishes of the clergy on the
basis of such personal authority, what other course of action could they
take but to test the authenticity of the visions and insinuate that they were
inspired by demons? The conflict at the Synod, then, was clearly about Pa-
chomius’ clairvoyance, as the Greek Life says, but not the trifle of a fact
that he could discern people’s hearts. What the Greek Life obscures is that
the visions were Pachomius’ way of authorizing the geographic expansion
of his monastic federation independent of the clergy.
Indeed, the version of the Synod recounted in the Arabic Life is explicit
that the conflict was largely a matter of Pachomius’ encroachment into ter-
ritories where he was not necessarily welcome by church authorities. Un-
like the Greek Life’s account, which as we have seen attributes the Synod
ambiguously to “some people” who exaggerated Pachomius’ spiritual gifts,
the Arabic Life begins by relating that when “some bishops and monks”
became jealous of Pachomius, “they met in the church in Esna [Latopolis]
to drive out the brothers of the monasteries in their dioceses, saying, ‘We
do not want you to stay in a place that belongs to us. For we have heard it
said that your father says things the likes of which have never been spoken
by a monk.’”21
The Arabic story then goes on to relate how these jealous bishops
hatched a “malicious plan” to lure Pachomius into the church, where they
intended to have him assassinated by soldiers and a mob of laymen lying
in wait with clubs. At the trial, the bishops even make a trembling monk
come forward to give false testimony against Pachomius, charging him not
only with the power to discern hearts, but also with the much more bom-
bastic claim that he had ascended into heaven. Pachomius defends himself,
admitting that although he sees spirits often, his gift comes from God, and
that it only works when God wills. “And as for your claim that I ascended
to heaven,” he says, “I never said anything like that. But I did say I was
carried off to Paradise by the command of the Lord.” The indignant bish-
ops are hardly amused by Pachomius’ seemingly cocky distinction be-
tween “heaven” and “Paradise,” and the situation devolves into chaos:

20
G1 81; SBo 54, which Veilleux translates from the Arabic (Am 569) since the Cop-
tic text at this point is missing in a lacuna.
21
Am 591. See the appendix below for a translation of the entire episode.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

328 Lance Jenott

When the priests and monks heard this speech from our father Pachomius, they exclaim-
ed to the crowd, “Have you ever heard such a thing from anyone at all!?” And the crowd
responded in a single voice, “We have never heard such a thing from our fathers nor our
fathers’ fathers!” Then immediately the church broke out in a turbulent uproar, and some
people cried out, “Don’t lay a hand on anyone other than Pachomius!” The brothers
snatched him out of the crowd, and one of them, endowed with great strength, carried
him out on his shoulders through another door without anyone noticing. Two other broth-
ers got out as well, as the people had closed the door of the church and were blasting the
rest of the brothers with clubs. . . . Then from above the terraces, they started stoning our
father Pachomius, trying to kill him.

Pachomius manages to flee the church grounds, and arrives safely at the
monastery on the outskirts of town. The episode then ends bittersweet with
the rest of the brothers eventually returning from the church, brutally beat-
en and their cloaks stained with blood; yet with great joy they sing praises
to God for delivering their father Pachomius “from the hands of those who
sought to kill him.” And so the story reminds the reader one last time of
the conflict’s severity.
In stark contrast to the Arabic Life’s rather violent account of the Synod,
the Greek Life’s version drastically downplays any conflict between Pa-
chomius and the bishops and paints a much more congenial picture of the
setting. In the first place, the Greek Life does not include the story about
the bishop of Latopolis opposing the construction of the nearby monastery
just months before the Synod. Nor does it blame the Synod on jealous
bishops and other monks who wanted to drive the Pachomians from their
dioceses. There is no account of their cunning plot to assassinate Pachomi-
us, no cowering witness whom they cajoled to offer false testimony against
him, no soldiers or mob lying in wait with clubs.
However, the most significant difference between the Arabic and Greek
accounts is the response of the bishops to Pachomius’ defense. Whereas in
the Arabic Life the bishops are completely scandalized by Pachomius’ an-
swer, the Greek Life reports a quite different reaction:
When they heard these things, they marveled at the confidence and humility of the man
(ἐθαύμασαν τὴν τε παρρησίαν καὶ τὴν ταπεινοφροσύνην τοῦ ἀνδρόϛ). When he stopped
speaking, someone (τιϛ) possessed by the enemy came with a sword to slay him. But the
Lord saved him through the brothers who were with him, while a tumult arose in the
church. (G1 112)

According to the Greek Life, the bishops are pleased with Pachomius’ de-
fense, and even recognize his humility. Violence ends the Synod in both
versions. Yet the Greek Life resolves the Synod not with a ferocious mob
acting in collusion with the bishops, but with the abrupt advance of a sin-
gle, anonymous madman who was “possessed by the enemy” to kill Pa-
chomius. When the church then erupts into a tumult, it is in reaction to this
man, and not to Pachomius himself as in the Arabic account. Thus, in

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 329

complete contrast to the Arabic Life, the Greek Life develops a rather har-
monious relationship between Pachomius and the bishops; it attributes the
origins of the Synod to some anonymous exaggerators; and it blames its
violent ending on a single lunatic.
With such different portrayals of Pachomius, his foundation visions, and
the events that transpired at the Synod, the question naturally arises as to
which life preserves the older tradition, and whether we can say anything
about the ideological tendencies of their redactors. There has, of course,
been a long debate among scholars over whether the earliest biographical
accounts of Pachomius were written in Greek or Coptic, a debate which
reached a virtual impasse in the arguments between L. T. Lefort and
Derwas Chitty. Lefort argued that the earliest traditions were in fact com-
posed in Coptic, and that many of them are preserved in our extant Bohair-
ic Life and Sahidic fragments, while the Greek Vita Prima represents a lat-
er redaction dependent on the Coptic tradition. Chitty, on the other hand,
maintained that the Vita Prima was the older and more reliable witness to
the life of Pachomius, probably composed around the 390s, and that the
Coptic material was later inspired by it.22

22
For an excellent review of the debate, see James Goehring, The Letter of Ammon
and Pachomian Monasticism (PTS 27; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986), 3–23, esp. 10–
18. It should be observed that we know virtually nothing about when the earliest bio-
graphical traditions about Pachomius were first composed. Veilleux hypothesizes that
some traditions were first recorded in Coptic “shortly after the death of Pachomius” in
346, and that these underlie the larger compositions that we now possess. He further hy-
pothesizes that the Vita Prima was not composed until sometime after the death of Hor-
siesius circa 387, though how long after cannot be known (Koinonia 1:1, 5; cf. La litur-
gie 20–21; and Rousseau, Pachomius, 47–48). Despite such conjectures, there is no evi-
dence for any Life of Pachomius at the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century.
Jerome translated Pachomius’ letters and a version of the Rule into Latin around 404, but
nothing suggests that he knew a biography as well; see Amand Boon, Pachomiana Latina
(Brussels: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1932), xlviii. The Vita Prima’s clear disdain for Origen
(G1 31) may point to a fifth-century compositional setting sometime after the eruption of
the Origenist controversy in 400 (but how long after?); cf. Goehring, “Monastic Diversity
and Ideological Boundaries,” Ascetics, Society, and the Desert, 196–218, esp. 208–11.
However, the likelihood of ongoing redaction during successive stages of transmis-
sion problematizes the entire notion of a single compositional setting for the Lives. All
extant manuscripts of the Coptic and Greek lives were copied in the middle ages, and we
know very little about the forms in which they circulated in prior centuries. The Bohairic
Life is known from only a single codex (Cod. Vat. Copt. LXIX), probably copied in the
thirteenth century, and acquired from the monastery of St. Macarius at Scetis in 1715; see
Lefort, S. Pachomii Vita, Bohairice Scripta (CSCO, Scriptores Coptici 7; Louvain: L.
Durbecq, 1953), i–ii. In addition to the Bohairic Life, there is a plethora of fragmentary
Sahidic biographical traditions, the so-called “Sahidic Lives,” designated sequentially
S1–S18 by Lefort. He conjectures that the earliest manuscripts among the Sahidic frag-
ments, copied on papyrus (S10, 12, 13), date no earlier than the seventh to eight century,

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

330 Lance Jenott

Debate over the priority of the Coptic or Greek lives stalled until Veil-
leux opened up new avenues for understanding their redactional histories
through an examination of the material preserved in the Arabic Life. By
carefully comparing the structure and sequence of episodes in all three tra-
ditions, Veilleux concluded that the Bohairic Life and the Vita Prima were
composed independently of each other, but drew from a common source
written in Coptic. According to Veilleux, the Arabic Life reflects, in trans-
lation, what seems to have been an earlier version of the common source
written in Coptic. If so, then the Arabic Life would give us access to some
of the oldest traditions about Pachomius that were known to the redactors
of our Bohairic and Greek lives.23
If we consider the Synod episode in light of Veilleux’s hypothesis, then
it could be argued that the redactor of the Greek Life knew, and deliberate-
ly suppressed, both the stories about Pachomius’ foundation visions and
the much more antagonistic account of the Synod. The redactor of the
Greek Life sought to tone down Pachomius’ clairvoyant powers as a source
of conflict between him and the local clergy, by omitting both the founda-
tion visions from his narrative, as well as the story about the bishop of
Latopolis’ violent resistance to the new monastery just months before the
Synod. The hostile account of the Synod was an embarrassment for any
portrayal of Pachomius’ harmonious relationship with the bishops. The re-
dactor of our Bohairic Life chose to include the stories about Pachomius’
foundation visions, so as to enhance the charisma of its hero, but dealt with
the painful story of the Synod by simply omitting it altogether. The Greek
redactor, on the other hand, included the story, but rewrote and simplified
it in a way that represented the clergy and Pachomius as being in agree-
ment, while blaming any memory of conflict between them on the exag-
gerations of anonymous persons as well as “the enemy” (the devil) work-
ing through a possessed madman.
The Greek Life’s redactional decisions and omissions in the Synod epi-
sode accord with a marked tendency elsewhere in its narrative to moderate
Pachomius’ personal clairvoyance, decrease the frequency of his visions,24

while the others, on parchment, date from the ninth to twelfth century (though these con-
jectures too are suspect); Lefort, S. Pachomii Vita, Sahidice Scriptae (CSCO 99 and 100,
Scriptores Coptici 9 and 10; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1952), i–xi. For the Greek Vita Prima,
the earliest extant manuscript was copied in 1021 (MS XI,9 in the Bibliothèque Lauren-
tienne, Florence); see Halkin, Vitae Graece, 10.
23
Veilleux, La liturgie, 83–107, esp. 92; Veilleux, Koinonia, 1:6–8, 17–18. Cf.
Goehring, Letter of Ammon, 18–23.
24
For example, the voice of God’s Spirit that, in the Coptic and Arabic lives, com-
mands Pachomius to “settle here” before he is baptized. The Greek Life reports no such
audition. See SBo 8; Am 344; G1 5. Similarly, the Coptic and Arabic lives relate that Pa-
chomius witnessed a vision of dew turning to honey twice (SBo 8 and 12; Am 344 and

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 331

and curtail the more grandiose details of visions that one finds in all three
lives. 25 Indeed, it is in the Greek Life alone that Pachomius teaches the
brother not to seek revelations at all. When an eager brother asks him to
recount one of the great things he has witnessed, Pachomius responds that
“A sinner like me does not ask God to see visions. It is against God’s will,
and a mistake.”26 Stories about Pachomius praying to God about the rapid
growth of the federation, and then receiving visions that tell him where to
build new monasteries, even against the will of the clergy, were, undoubt-
edly, among those exaggerations that the Greek Life regarded as trouble-
some.
The episode of the Synod of Latopolis, when we take into account both
the Greek and Arabic versions, reveals an early period of Christian monas-
ticism when at least some abbots, like Pachomius, operated beyond clerical
oversight, and justified their independence by claiming a direct channel to
the will of God through revelations, visions, even heavenly ascents (one of
the charges leveled at Pachomius in the Arabic Life). This is not to say that
Pachomius was a “heretic” or opposed the clergy as an institution. The
Lives also reflect a positive attitude toward priests as people with an im-
portant role to play in the corporate body of Christ.27 Nevertheless, he did
oppose specific members of the local clergy when they threatened the
growth of his movement, which, as many upstart religious leaders do, he
regarded as a special, divinely inspired institution for the salvation of hu-
manity.28

352), whereas the Greek Life reports only the first instance (G1 5). See also the first vi-
sion of Theodore (SBo 34, Am 404 ff.) for which the Greek Life has no parallel.
25
Compare, for example, the vision described in SBo 73 with G1 81. See also G1 43,
88, 93. In contrast to the Coptic and Arabic lives, the Greek Life portrays Pachomius as
taking great care not to speak about visions too openly (cf. Athanasius, Life of Antony,
66). Sometimes he would speak privately about them among the more mature brothers
who understood that visions should only be discussed if they edify others, and even then
he would speak about them only “in part” (G1 88, 93; contrast SBo 82–83, 93). The
theme is then elaborated upon in the Greek Life’s subsequent narrative about Pachomius’
successor Theodore, who instructs the brothers that holding to an orthodox faith, keeping
the commandments of God, and striving for humility is better than seeking visions –
“lest,” he warns, “anyone thinking he is important when he is nothing, deceived by the
enemy into a desire to see (τοῦ ἰδεῖν), should be thrown down into folly” (G1 135). Theo-
dore decides to keep his visions secret, and teaches the brothers that to be worthy one
should hold to “an orthodox faith,” keep the commandments of God, exercise humility,
and show deference to the bishops; for “we know,” says Theodore, “that after the apos-
tles it is the bishops who are the fathers” (G1 135–36).
26
G1 48.
27
E.g., SBo 9, 25, 28; G1 27, 30–31. The positive attitude may of course be exagger-
ated by the redactors, but it is probably not a complete fiction.
28
SBo 22; G1 23; cf. S2 3.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

332 Lance Jenott

Appendix: The Synod of Latopolis

in the Arabic Life of Pachomius29

Some bishops and monks became envious of our father Pachomius. They
met in the church in Esna (Latopolis) to drive out the brothers of the mon-
asteries in their dioceses, saying, “We do not want you to stay in a place
that belongs to us. For we have heard it said that your father says things
the likes of which have never been spoken by a monk.”
When the brothers resisted, they sent to our father Pachomius and in-
formed him about what they had said, and that they were forcing them to
leave their dioceses. When our father Pachomius learned of it, he sent to
all the monasteries. They all assembled, and the inhabitants of the sur-
rounding villages came to him as well. Then he got up and walked with
them to the brothers (in Esna) who were being opposed by those people.
When they got to the monastery (in Esna), they (the opponents) learned
that Pachomius had arrived, and a great multitude with him. They were
afraid, and they sent to speak with him with cunning: “Come to our church
so that we may meet with you and tell you what’s in our hearts. You shall
depart from us in peace.”
Yet Pachomius became ill, so the brothers told them that he couldn’t go.
They (the opponents) said, “Bring him to us on a pack-animal so we can
meet with him, and when he’s at the church, he’ll be healed.” When Pa-
chomius heard this, he went with the brothers, not knowing their cunning;
for the Lord had hidden it from him. When they entered the church, they
looked around and saw that it was full of monks, worldly people, and sol-
diers. The Lord then revealed to him their cunning and the malicious plan
to kill him that they agreed upon. He prayed to the Lord in his heart and
said, “Lord Jesus the Messiah, only Son of God the Father, save me from
this calamity and jealousy or else the community which you have gathered
by your Holy Spirit shall be dispersed!”
Pachomius was lying on a cot with the brothers surrounding him. When
the bishops sat down to question him about the statement attributed to him,
the brothers raised him up so he could sit and respond. The bishops said to
him, “We’ve heard that you claim you were taken up to heaven and (you
say) ‘I know what’s in the hearts of men.’” Then they had a brother monk
come forward as a witness. And though he hesitated out of shame, he said,
“Indeed, I have heard you say, ‘The Lord reveals to me what is in the

29
I translate from the French version of Emile Amélineau, Monuments pour servir à
l’histoire de l’Égypte chrétienne au IVe siècle: Histoire de Saint Pakhôme et de ses com-
munautés (Annales Musée Guimet 17; Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1889), 591–95. Many thanks
to my colleague Michael Dann of Princeton University for checking my translation
against the Arabic text printed by Amelineau and for making improvements.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

 Clergy, Clairvoyance, and Conflict 333

hearts of men, whether they are righteous or wicked.’” Our father Pacho-
mius responded to him, “Why are you afraid of speaking openly? It is so. I
speak the truth.”
Then Pachomius turned to some bishops who had known him for a long
time and had been monks at Tabennesi before they became bishops. He
spoke to each of them by name: “Don’t you know what my conduct was in
the days when you were with me as monks?” The bishops, four in number,
responded, saying, “We know you are a pious and honest man, and that
you see spirits often. We have never heard you say ‘I ascended to heaven
and I know what’s in the hearts of men.’” Pachomius said, “That’s the
truth precisely. I did not say that I know what’s in the hearts of men; but
rather, I said that when the brothers had become numerous in the commu-
nity, the Lord gave me this gift to distinguish the bad from the good when-
ever they come to me to become monks. And as for your claim that I as-
cended to heaven – I never said anything like that. But I did say I was car-
ried off to Paradise by the command of the Lord. I have spoken the truth
and I would not deny it even if I were brought before kings.”
When the priests and monks heard this speech from our father Pachomi-
us, they exclaimed to the crowd, “Have you ever heard such a thing from
anyone at all!?” And the crowd responded in a single voice, “We have
never heard such a thing from our fathers nor our fathers’ fathers!” Then
immediately the church broke out in a turbulent uproar, and some people
cried out, “Don’t lay a hand on anyone other than Pachomius!” The broth-
ers snatched out him out of the crowd, and one of them, endowed with
great strength, carried him out on his shoulders through another door with-
out anyone noticing. Two other brothers got out as well, as the people had
closed the door of the church and were blasting the rest of the brothers
with clubs.
As for the brothers who managed to get our father Pachomius out, there
was a prominent man of the world named Saouina who led the way. This
man was the steward of the property for magnates of the city. He used to
go to the monastery often to visit with our father Pachomius, and he told
him about the deliberation of those who wanted to drive him out of their
dioceses. And once when our father saw the uprightness of his heart, he
said to him, “Since you fight for the way of God and love his servants,
God shall help you. Just as God gave you your fill of earthly goods, so too
the Lord will grant you imperishable goods for eternity.” Sometime after-
wards, this man went out to the brothers to worship according to his
strength and went to sleep in peace. This is the one who walked before our
father Pachomius when the brothers carried him out of the church. Then
from above the terraces, they (the crowd) started stoning our father Pa-
chomius, trying to kill him. And Saouina, the chief, cried out to them, “I

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission

334 Lance Jenott

know who you are! If you do not fear God, will you not fear the authority
of kings and their orders? Do you want to cause sedition in our city?” And
immediately the crowd dispersed.
They put our father Pachomius back on his pack-animal and took him to
the monastery. Afterward the other brothers arrived singing and glorifying
God for delivering his servant. The majority of them were wounded and
their cloaks were stained with blood. And when they arrived at the monas-
tery, they all kissed our father Pachomius, and were filled with joy about
the way the Lord saved him from the hands of those who sought to kill him.

E-Offprint of the Author with Publisher’s Permission