Copts

COPTS. - The name C. derives from the Greek Αἰγύπτιοι, from which the Arabs made Qibt.

I. RELIGIOUS HISTORY

One can properly speak of a Coptic Church only after the Council of Chalcedon (451). In Monophysitism there also manifested itself the struggle of the Egyptian people against the Greek foreigner. But this national opposition of the Egyptians against the Greeks made itself felt even earlier; thus, for example, St. Athanasius in his struggle against Arianism, then propagated in large part by Greeks, found support among the monks of Upper Egypt, who were the spiritual guides of the Egyptian people. Even the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus, engaged in polemics against the rival see of Constantinople, was helped by the Egyptian monks. This antithesis manifested itself more strongly than ever in the controversy over Monophysitism (v.), which gave occasion for the birth of the Egyptian national Church, that is, the Coptic Church that separated itself from the universal Church in order to embrace Monophysitism.

Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, had been condemned and deposed by the Council of Chalcedon for his Monophysite errors. The government of Byzantium imposed, against the will of the people and by force, the election of an orthodox bishop, Proterius, who was killed in 457 in a popular tumult. As his successor the Monophysite Timothy Aelurus was elected, who three years later was exiled to make room for an orthodox bishop, Timothy Salophaciolus. Monophysitism always maintained its preponderance in Egypt, notwithstanding that the Byzantine government installed orthodox bishops. The Monophysites called their adversaries, because they were followers of the emperor, βασιλικοί (from βασιλεύς), which name survived in the form of Arabic origin Melkites (Ar. malakijjah). The strength of the opposition induced the emperor Zeno to make an attempt at reconciliation, practically sacrificing the Council of Chalcedon. Acacius, the Byzantine patriarch, composed a formula of faith as a compromise called the Henotikon, drawn up in the form of a letter to the Egyptian clergy. On the basis of that formula an agreement was made and the Monophysite patriarch Peter Mongus was recognized as the sole legitimate head of the Church of Egypt. Even when at Constantinople, after the death of the emperor Anastasius and the accession to power of Justin (518), the climate became unfavorable to Monophysitism, the heresy preserved all its power in Egypt. The imperial government did not dare to impose itself. The head of Monophysitism in Syria, Severus, bishop of Antioch, took refuge in Egypt. However, from 538 Justinian began to take energetic measures also against the Egyptian Monophysites. The Alexandrian patriarch Theodosius was taken prisoner at Constantinople. In 550 there was in Alexandria a massacre of Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. All the churches were handed over to the orthodox. Officially only the Melkite hierarchy existed. In fact, however, the people in large part recognized the Monophysite episcopate. In the 6th century internal divisions weakened the strength of the Egyptian Monophysites. The radicals (Julianists) fought against the moderates (Severians).

Until the invasion of the Persians in Egypt (617) orthodoxy officially predominated. The occupiers, however, during the 12 years of their rule, recognized only the Monophysite hierarchy. Then the attempts of the emperor Heraclius to reconcile the Monophysites by means of Monotheletism (v.) failed to win over the most radical. The Monophysite patriarch Benjamin withdrew before the Monothelete Cyrus; but when the Arabs penetrated into Egypt he returned from his hiding place with great rejoicing of the population.

The Arabs gave almost all the churches to the monophysite Copts. Orthodoxy, which relied on the Byzantine officials, collapsed almost entirely. At first the Arabs favored the Copts, who had freedom of worship and formed within the Muslim state, imbued with Quranic ideas, almost a state within a state, with their patriarch as religious and civil head, with their own legislation and their own courts. The Copts retained influence in the civil administration, which the Arabs at first left unchanged. Soon, however, harassment by the Muslims began. The social inequality between subject Christians and ruling Muslims and the high taxes that weighed on Christians caused many apostasies over time. Toward the end of the 7th century the "conversions" of Copts to Islam became too frequent for the Muslims themselves, because in this way the taxes came to be lacking. In the 9th century Christians were no longer the majority in Egypt, whereas at the time of the invasion the Copts numbered 6 million against rather small Arab troops. By the 14th century today's proportion had already been reached, that is, the Copts were no more than a tenth of the total population. The taxes weighed so heavily on the Copts that they rebelled against the occupiers more than once; thus especially in the 8th century. The uprisings were cruelly suppressed. Bloody persecutions also occurred at times, especially under the Fatimid caliph al-Ḥākim (996-1020) and under the Mamluks in the 14th century. The occasion for these persecutions was usually the resentment of Muslims against Coptic state officials and against their influence, which was claimed to be excessive. Not a few Copts apostatized during these persecutions, but many had the courage to suffer death.

One of the gravest evils of the Coptic Church was the simony of the clergy, explicable by the very high taxes that weighed upon it. Nor were efforts to remedy it lacking, as appears from the decrees of the heads of the Church, e.g. of the patriarchs Christodoulus (1047-77), Cyril II (1078-92) and Gabriel II (1131-45). In the 12th century a priest named Mark ibn Qanbar (ca. 1135-1208) made an attempt at reform, seeking among other things to introduce auricular confession and to abolish circumcision. When his attempts failed, however, he went over to the Melkites. The era of Mamluk domination (from the mid-13th century to the beginning of the 16th century) was very harsh for the Coptic Church; so too was later that of the Ottoman Turks, especially because of the greed of the pashas. This explains why the Coptic community shrank ever more, until at the beginning of the 19th century it reached its lowest point: ca. 100,000 faithful. Finally the government of Muhammad 'Alī (1805-49) brought the Copts better times and religious freedom. In the 19th century the number of Copts increased considerably, also because of population growth. Today they are ca. 900,000 faithful. For the present situation what is characteristic above all is the strong discrepancy between progressive laity and a high clergy conservative to the last. The divergence began toward the end of the last century, when in 1874 the laity founded an association for the reform of the Church, asking to participate in the direction of schools, in the administration of property and in the election of ecclesiastical dignitaries. A "Lay Council" was formed to support this program. The patriarch Cyril V (1874-1927) opposed it resolutely. The "Lay Council," supported by the government, declared the patriarch suspended in 1892; he withdrew to a monastery and launched an interdict against the city of Cairo. Finally the patriarch, victorious with the support of the people, returned to the city (1893). The "Lay Council" was suppressed, and it rose again to new life only in 1922. On the occasion of the election of a new patriarch in 1928 the government interfered, simply appointing more than half of the electors. The difficulties continue to this day.

The internal organization of the Coptic Church is quite different from that of the "Orthodox" Churches. The patriarch governs the Church according to a properly monarchical regime, assisted by a council of 4 bishops elected by him. There are currently 18 dioceses in the Coptic Church. Ca. 1000 priests exercise their functions in 600 churches. The clergy for the most part lacks scientific formation, although a seminary exists in Cairo, unfortunately strongly influenced by Protestants. Generally speaking too, such an influence is noticeably felt throughout the entire Coptic Church. Monasticism, once so flourishing, is today, after 13 centuries of Muslim oppression, much decayed. Few monasteries remain, with a total number of 100-150 monks. Even today the Muslim government favors the Copts very little, and they, as Christians, find themselves in a state of inferiority. This explains the painful fact that each year ca. 500 Copts pass over to Islam.

Catholic Copts. — The Franciscan missionaries, who have worked steadily in Egypt since the 16th century, succeeded in converting a part of the monophysite Copts to the Catholic faith. In 1739 for the first time a bishop — the one of Jerusalem, named Athanasius, residing in Cairo — converted to Catholicism and was appointed in 1741 by Benedict XIV apostolic vicar of the Catholic Copts, then ca. 2000 in all. But since he could not bring himself to break with the dissidents, the Holy See appointed in his place as vicar general Giusto Maraghi, a former pupil of the College of Propaganda (1747). Only in the 19th century could the Catholic Copts spread with a certain freedom. Leo XIII gave them their own hierarchy in 1895. Four years later a patriarch of their own was also appointed, Cyril Macarius, who apostatized in 1908, causing very serious disturbances in the Catholic community. In the last decades, after the First World War, the Catholic Copts have flourished notably. For example: from 1927 to 1937 the number of the faithful rose from 29,000 to 47,000. Today they number 63,000, with 85 priests and 70 churches. On 9 Aug. 1947 the administrator of the patriarch was appointed patriarch of Alexandria and a new diocese was also created, that of Assiut, in addition to that of Minia, already founded in 1938.

II. THE LITERATURE OF THE COPTIC CHURCH

1. In the Coptic language

Coptic literature is much less rich than, for example, Syriac literature. It greatly lacks productive force and for the most part is reduced to translations from Greek. But mainly in poetry there are also original works.

In the Coptic language three dialects of Upper and Middle Egypt must be distinguished: Sahidic, that is, the most important one, which ended up supplanting the others, Apnimic and Fayyumic, and then the more recent dialect of the Nile Delta, Bohairic, which became a literary language toward the end of the 6th century or the beginning of the 7th and is today the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. After the 13th century almost nothing original was written even in the Bohairic dialect, and from the 16th century Coptic became a dead language.

Coptic literature was the work of the monks of Upper Egypt. The first Coptic writer was Pachomius (first half of the 4th century). Great merits for Coptic letters were owed to "the White Monastery," whose second abbot, Shenoute of Atripe (d. 451), was the most important Coptic writer. The first monument of the Coptic language known today is a translation of the Bible made in Sahidic around the middle of the 4th century. Not a few apocryphal books, especially concerning the life of Christ and the Apostles, were translated into Coptic. The same fate befell a large part of the canonistic literature of the first centuries. No other Christian literature has such a large percentage of translations as the properly theological Coptic one. Before the Council of Chalcedon the great Greek Fathers were translated. Then the leaders of Monophysitism: Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch. The little that remains of original material in Coptic literature was born from the necessities of monastic life and from apostolic activity. Here mention should be made of the monastic rules of St. Pachomius and his letters; furthermore the rules, discourses and letters of Shenoute in his struggle with the remnants of paganism and Arianism. As for narrative prose, worthy of mention are the lives of the saints and the acts of the martyrs, such as the life of Shenoute written by his disciple Besa.

In poetry the original Coptic works are more numerous. Fragments of a poetic description of the Passion of Our Lord written in Fayyumic are preserved, a work probably intended for liturgical use during Holy Week. Toward the end of the 16th century poetry also arose in Sahidic, creating among other things a considerable number of Easter hymns and songs in honor of the saints. All the wisdom books and many other biblical subjects were also treated in poetic form.

2. In the Arabic language

The Arabic literature of the Copts is more extensive and more varied than that of other Eastern Christians. Original literature in Arabic begins among the Copts in the 10th century and reaches its apogee in the 13th. Already in the 8th century Holy Scripture had been translated at least partially from Coptic into Arabic. Properly theological literature begins with translations. For example, the writings of Shenoute had a partial version in Arabic. The first original writer in Arabic of any importance is Severus Abu l-Bar ibn al-Muqaffa', bishop of Ashmunein (10th century), who wrote among other things a Book of the Councils comprising in 4 chapters a synthesis of the history of Christianity. In the last part the history of the first four councils and their doctrine is described. In his Book of the Exposition, Severus gives the people religious instruction on the fundamental dogmas of the faith and on the practice of Christian life. Probably toward the end of the 12th century and at the beginning of the 13th lived Peter Severus al-Gamil, bishop of Malig, author of the Book of the Rising (of the sun), against the heresies, and of the Book of the Demonstration, that is, an apology of Christianity in its Monophysite form. On the other dogmatic authors see below.

Canonistic literature (see also CANONICAL COLLECTIONS) is of special importance for the Copts, who had, under Muslim domination, their own tribunals. A systematic collection of the canons, a Nomocanon, was compiled by Michael, bishop of Damietta (d. after 1208). As for historiography, important first of all is the already mentioned Severus of Ashmunein, author of a history of the patriarchs of Alexandria that goes up to the patriarch Philotheus (976-1000) and was later continued first to the 12th century and subsequently to 1740.

Guglielmo de Vries

III. THE COPTIC VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

Among the versions of the Bible in the Eastern languages, the Coptic versions are of great importance for textual criticism.

The surviving documents show us that in each of the Coptic dialects so far known (Sahidic, Bohairic, Akhmimic, Fayyumic, Memphitic and Sub-Akhmimic) there existed versions of the Bible. These versions have unfortunately come down to us in a fragmentary state. The greatest number of fragments belongs to the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects, but what remains of the Akhmimic and Sub-Akhmimic dialects is also of great importance.

There are no positive documents for assigning a terminus a quo to the Coptic versions of the Bible. It emerges, however, from the testimonies of ecclesiastical history that during the 3rd century the Holy Scriptures were very widespread among the Christians of the entire Nile valley, who were for the most part of low social condition and ignorant of the Greek language. The Hellenization of Egypt itself had made less progress in the middle and upper Nile valley, where on the contrary Christianity had prospered greatly, as the documents concerning the persecution of Decius attest. One can therefore affirm with moral certainty that in the 3rd century the Christians of Egypt used versions of the Bible in the local dialects. Indeed Eusebius, in Hist. Eccl., VI, 1, leads one to believe that such versions must already have existed toward the end of the 2nd century. Regarding the persecution (202-11) of Severus, he states that Alexandria was the great arena where the athletes of Christ were brought from all Egypt and from the Thebaid: therefore the Christians of the Thebaid, for the most part ignorant of Greek, must have used the books of the Bible, at least the principal ones, translated into their dialect. It seems to us therefore legitimate to hold that the version of the Bible in the Coptic dialects, although certainly not completed all at once and at the same time, but arising gradually as the need for it manifested itself for the use of the faithful, had its beginnings in the second half of the 2nd century and was then brought to completion during the 3rd century.

From the above it is easy to deduce the priority of the Sahidic version over the Coptic one. The Delta was the first region of Egypt to be evangelized, but the population of the Delta, being strongly Hellenized, could not feel so pressing a need for a version of the Bible in the local dialect, and even if the lowest strata of the population, who moreover must have been illiterate, were entirely ignorant of Greek, it was easy for them to have the few biblical passages indispensable for their catechetical instruction explained orally in their own language.

In upper Egypt, on the other hand, where Hellenism had penetrated little and Greek was probably known only to officials and merchants, it was very difficult for that population to have an easy explanation in their own language of the text of the Holy Scriptures, whence the necessity of proceeding to versions of the Greek text in the local dialect (Sahidic, and other dialects of middle Egypt soon absorbed by it).

H. Hyvernat, on the other hand (Etude sur les versions coptes de la Bible, in Revue bibl., 6 [1897], pp. 63-75) maintains the priority of the Bohairic version, considering that the Delta was the first region to receive the Gospel and basing himself on the observation of Lightfoot confirmed by Sanday (Appendices ad Novum Testamentum, app. III, p. 182 ff.) that the version of the New Testament in the Bohairic dialect presents in its primitive state a purer text without the Western additions that instead figure in the Sahidic version. This observation does not seem to deserve excessive weight, especially because of the deficiency of complete critical studies on the Coptic versions of the Bible (Revue bibl., 48 [1939], p. 318, beginning of the note signed B. C.). It is further noted that the Coptic versions, made as they were for the practical utility of the faithful and not for liturgical or scientific use, were produced, besides independently of one another for the various dialects, on Greek manuscripts of different recension according to the various books, and that often the version of one and the same book offers readings concordant now with the Greek manuscripts of one given recension, now with those of another, now with the Hebrew text; sometimes particular readings suggest, more than successive revisions made on Greek manuscripts of different recension, a provenance from Greek exemplars that have not come down to us.

In the face of such a state of affairs and with critical studies so far only partial, it seems too hasty to conclude for a priority of the Bohairic version over the Sahidic one, rejecting outright the historical consideration set out above, as also to conclude for any general affirmation.

Indeed the fact that in the Sahidic versions Greek terms abound where the Bohairic has the corresponding Coptic term denotes in favor of the Sahidic a characteristic of antiquity. For the more one goes back toward the era of Roman dominion in Egypt, the more Greek is widespread in the Nile valley and from it the local language draws a good part of its vocabulary. When instead in the following centuries the friction between Egyptians and Byzantines increases, and mutual relations become ever rarer, the indigenous language feels ever more strongly the need to substitute

Coptic equivalents for foreign terms. If therefore the Sahidic translator, unlike the Bohairic translator, did not understand the need to render with the Coptic term those Greek terms that his readers could easily have understood (cf. F. M. Abel, in Revue bibl., 32 [1923], p. 304), this stands in favor of its greater antiquity.

The Coptic version of the New Testament in the Bohairic and Sahidic dialects was edited by G. Horner, The coptic version of the N. T. in the northern dialect, 4 vols., Oxford 1898-1905; id., The coptic in the southern dialect, 7 vols., ibid. 1911-24. The Bohairic text alone of this version was reprinted in Cairo in 1934 by the Copts.

The Old Testament has been edited only in a fragmentary state in various works. Cf. A. Vaschalde, Ce qui a été publié des versions coptes de la Bible, in Revue bibl., 28 (1919), pp. 220-43, 513-31; 29 (1920), pp. 91-100, 241-58; 30 (1921), pp. 237-46; 31 (1922), pp. 81-88, 234-58; id., in Le Muséon, 43 (1930), pp. 409-31; 45 (1932), pp. 117-56; 46 (1933), pp. 299-313; W. Grossouw, in Studia catholica, 1932-33, pp. 325-53.

Principal editions of fragments: Sahidic: P. De Lagarde, Aegyptiaca, Göttingen 1883; A. Ciasca-J. Balestri, S. Bibliorum fragmenta coptio-sahidica Musei Borgiani, Rome 1885-1904; G. Maspero, Fragments de la version thébaine de l'A. T., in Mémoires de la Mission archéol. franç. au Caire, 1892, pp. 1-296; W. Budge, The earliest known Coptic psalter, London 1898; H. Thompson, A Coptic palimpsest, Oxford 1911; W. Budge, Coptic Biblical Texts, London 1912; W. H. Worrel, The Proverbs of Salomon in Sah. Copt., Chicago 1931.

Bohairic: H. Tattam, Duodecim Proph. Min. in lingua aegyptiaca, Oxford 1836; id., Prophetae Maiores in dialecta linguae aegyptiacae memphitica, ibid. 1852; I. Bardelli, Daniel coptio-memphitica, Pisa 1849; M. G. Schwartze, Quatuor Evangelia, 2 vols., Leipzig 1846-48; id., Psalterium in dialectum copticae linguae memphiticum translatum, ibid. 1853; P. De Lagarde, Der Pentateuch koptisch, ibid. 1867; A. Baciai, Liber Barne prophetae, Rome 1870; E. Forcher, Le livre de Job, in PO 18 (1924); O. H. Burmester and E. Dévaud, Psalterii versio memphitica e rec. Pauli De Lagarde (1875), Louvain 1925; id., Les Proverbes de Salomon. Texte bohairique, Vienna 1930.

Fayyumic: E. Chassinat, Fragments de manuscrits coptes en dialecte fayoumique, in Bulletin de l'Inst. franç. d'arch. or., 1902, pp. 171-206; W. Till, Koptische Chrestomathie für den Fayumischen Dialekt, Vienna 1930; id., Wiener Fajjimica, in Le Muséon, 49 (1936), pp. 169-217.

Akhmimic: P. Lacau, Textes coptes en dialectes achmimique et sahidique réédités (in Bull. de l'Inst. fr. d'arch. or., 8 [1911], pp. 43-109); C. Wessely, Duodecim Prophetarum Minorum versionis achmimicae codex Rainerians, Leipzig 1915 (with the Bohairic and Sahidic parallels, and the Latin version); W. Till, Die achmimische Version der zwölf kleinen Propheten (Coptica, 4), Copenhagen 1927.

Subakhmimic: H. Thompson, The Gospel of St. John according to the earliest Coptic manuscript, London 1924.

Mention has already been made of the lack of complete critical studies on the Coptic versions of the Bible (cf. Revue bibl., 48 [1939], p. 318). In general it may be stated that in the Sahidic version the Old Testament shows the influence of the Hexapla (Isaiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel), Daniel follows Theodotion, and the version of Job has preserved for us the pure text of the LXX before Origen. The New Testament in the Pauline Epistles follows by preference the manuscripts of the Alexandrian recension, while in the Gospels it agrees preferably with the manuscripts of the Western recension, although at times it has readings perfectly in agreement with the Bohairic version (based on manuscripts of the Alexandrian recension) and at times also has readings of its own. In the Bohairic version the New Testament agrees on the whole with the oldest Greek manuscripts, notwithstanding the additions which criticism holds did not appear in the primitive state. From what remains of the versions of the Bible in the other dialects it is not easy to conclude with certainty whether they are entirely independent of one another or derive from the Sahidic version. It is to be hoped that a critical edition, as complete as possible, may see the light, one that will give greater certainty and solidity to the relevant critical studies.

IV. THEOLOGY

1. General survey

The first ecclesiastical writers of the Coptic Church devoted themselves to translating into the national languages — that is, first into the Sa'idic language and, from the 6th century onward, into the Bohairic language — the books of Holy Scripture, numerous apocrypha of the Old and New Testaments, and works of the holy Fathers, namely St. Athanasius, Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala, to whom were added the fathers of Monophysitism, Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch.

To reach theological treatises properly so called, one must go down to the 10th century, if we set aside the little that has been preserved of the writings of the Monophysite patriarch Timothy Aelurus (d. c. 477): a few passages preserved for us by his adversaries and his opuscules found by Lebon in Syriac version. The first Coptic author is the bishop of Ašmūnayn Severus Abū 'l-Baār Ibn al-Muqafā' (10th century): according to Abū 'l-Barakāt, he composed 26 works against the Muslims, the Jews, the Melkites and the Nestorians; but of these only two have survived: the refutation of Sa'id Ibn Baṭrīq (the Melkite patriarch of Alexandria, Eutychius) and the Explanation of the Foundations of Religion. Severus opened the way for later theologians: John Ibn Severus, Ibn Kolaji, Michael Metropolitan of Damietta, Peter of Malig in the 12th century, in the following century the three brothers Abū 'l-Faraḳ, Abū 'l-Fadā'il and Abū Iḥāq Ibn al-'Assāl, and in the 14th Abū 'l-Ḥajr Ibn at-Tajjib, Abū 'l-Barakāt Ibn Kubr and Jāhā Ibn Abī Zakarūjā', commonly called Ibn Sabbā', whose works are discussed under these entries.

Then follows a long period of silence. But unlike other Monophysite Churches, the Coptic Church experienced a revival of ecclesiastical literature at the end of the 19th century. Not to speak of the printing of ancient treatises, in this era we find Ibrāhīm Rafā'ī at-Tūḥī, author of a book on Monophysitism; the monks of the monastery of Barāmūs, who published in 1894 a volume against the united Copts; the Qomos (superior) Philotheos Ibrāhīm, author of a catechetical exposition of the faith and of a refutation of Catholic doctrine; and the Qomos John Salāmī. They were followed by Macarius, who, being a Coptic Catholic patriarch, wrote in favor of the Roman faith; after his defection (1908) he composed in 1912 the book La Constitution divine de l'Eglise, published after his death at Bern in 1922.

Apart from this work, the entire Coptic theological literature was written in Arabic and favors polemics; polemics that are, to be sure, calmer when it comes to rebutting the Muslims in power, and more heated when directed against the other Christian groups represented in Egypt. Ancient Coptic theology certainly underwent the influence of philosophy, but it remained independent as regards dogma. Only in the modern era, perhaps because of its strongly oppositional stance toward Rome, does it tend more and more to become confused with dissident Byzantine theology.

The Coptic Catholic priest Michael Khouzam gave in 1941 a summary of the theological opinions of the Copts on the basis of the Illumination of the Intellects of Ibn at-Tajjib and the Lamp of Darkness of Abū 'l-Barakāt. The thought of modern Copts has been set forth by R. Strothmann and by G. Kopp. We must content ourselves with touching on a few of the more relevant questions.

2. Monophysite doctrine

a) Jesus Christ. Maillet in 1735 said of the Copts that they are « les plus obstinés dans les erreurs ». Certainly they remain most attached to the memory of the patriarch Dioscorus, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon together with Eutyches. Nevertheless we can assert that the Monophysitism of the Copts was never the rigid Monophysitism of Eutyches, but the mitigated or nominal Monophysitism commonly called Severianism. We are speaking, it is clear, of official Monophysitism, without denying that one or another, chiefly among the monks, adhered to real Monophysitism, such as the anchorite Samuel in the 9th century.

But already the patriarch Timothy Aelurus in the second half of the 5th century takes a decided position against Eutyches and teaches that in Christ, even after the union, the whole essence or substance of humanity remains, by virtue of which the Emmanuel is according to the flesh consubstantial with the Virgin Mother of God, although it is not lawful to speak of two natures because this necessarily entails the two persons of Nestorius, given the identity between the concepts of person and of singular nature. This doctrine is repeated in many other places: for example, in the paschal epistle of the patriarch Sanutius (9th century) and in another of the patriarch Menas (10th century), which excludes any destruction, mixture or corruption of the natures united in Christ. The same judgment, as also the same prejudice against the Chalcedonian formula suspected of Nestorianism, we find at the beginning of our century in the works of the Qomos Philotheos.

b) The Most Holy Trinity. - The ancient authors content themselves with proving by scriptural arguments — to which they add others of a philosophical nature — the unity of the divine nature and the Trinity of persons. The question so much debated between Byzantines and Latins remains foreign to the Copts, who continue to use the Nicene Creed, where it says only: « (We believe) in the Holy Spirit », without the addition of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan: « who proceeds from the Father ». Moderns, however, admit the Photian position and make their own the arguments of the Byzantines against the Filioque, reported accurately by Philotheos Ibrāhīm and John Salēmi.

c) The Sacraments. - In this field the controversy over auricular confession, raised in the 12th century, is to be noted as specifically Coptic. The harassments that then afflicted the Church of Egypt made it so difficult to find priests or hieromonks that the abuse was introduced of the so-called confession over the censer, without manifesting one's sins. The priest Mark Ibn Qanbar rose up against this custom, which found a very effective defender in the metropolitan of Damietta Michael and in the patriarchs John V (1146-67) and Mark III (1167-1180). But already in the 13th and 14th centuries the authors are not in agreement; while Abū 'l-Barakāt is still favorable to the Coptic usage, Abū Iṣbāq Ibn al-Assāl and Ibn Ṣabbā' defend the necessity of auricular confession, which ended up prevailing, so much so that moderns do not even preserve a distant echo of the ancient disputes within their Church.

d) Roman primacy. - The ancient Copts found no difficulty in admitting the primacy of St. Peter. Ibn Ṣabbā', to cite only one, writes: « Our fathers the Apostles were built upon the rock, which is Peter, universal head »; words so clear that the recent editor Marcos Guirguis felt obliged to change them to these others: « Christ built the Church upon the rock of the Confession of the holy Apostles ». But if it is a question of the primacy of the Nicene-Arabic canons, one of which, the 44th, explicitly teaches the Roman primacy.

This is the ancient judgment. Modern writers reject any primacy, both that of the Roman pontiffs and that of St. Peter, along the lines of the Byzantine writers, whose influence is evident in the treatise of Philotheos Ibrāhīm against the Catholics.

Maurizio Gordillo

V. LITURGY AND RITE

The Coptic rite, also called Alexandrian or Egyptian, is the rite in the Greek language born in Egypt and more especially in Alexandria, which, translated into Coptic, became in the 5th century, after the Council of Chalcedon, the liturgy proper to the Monophysite Church of Alexandria; the rite of the faithful who remained orthodox became Byzantinized. It is followed today by the Monophysites of Egypt and by the faithful who have united with the Catholic Church; it had a decisive influence on the Ethiopian rite. From the Greek were translated into Coptic the anaphora of St. Mark, of Alexandrian origin, which took the name of St. Cyril; that of St. Basil, which became the normal anaphora, and that of St. Gregory Nazianzen, which directs all its prayers to Jesus Christ; these last two, having come from Asia Minor, differ from the first in the place of the intercessory prayers. Of the divine office too and of several tropes we have the Greek original, and in many ceremonies a notable series of formulas are preserved in the Greek language, like the Kyrie eleison in the Latin rite.

To the early times of the Monophysite Church there generally belong the works, or, more often, fragments of liturgical works written in the Sa'idic dialect. Let us note the fragments of anaphoras translated by H. Hyvernat (Fragmente der alt-coptischen Liturgie, in Röm. Quartalschrift, 1 [1887], pp. 330-45; 2 [1888], pp. 20-26) and partly passed into the Syriac anaphoras of Timothy and of Severus of Antioch; then the anaphora of St. Matthew edited by A. M. Kropp and others noted by A. Baumstark and by L. Th. Lefort; a Mass of the 6th century preserved with the baptismal rite in the Arabic Testamentum Domini; finally, various blessings, such as those of the water on the day of Epiphany. A unification in the Coptic rite occurred around the 9th century because the liturgical manuscripts came almost exclusively from the monastery of St. Macarius of Wadi el-Natrun, and because the patriarch of Alexandria was regularly elected from among the monks of this monastery; thus it is explained that the Bohairic dialect, proper to this region, became the sole liturgical language. Around the middle of the 12th century a priest, Mark ibn Qanbar, strove to reform the Church by recalling the faithful to the use of auricular confession, frequent communion and other religious practices; the hierarchy opposed the movement, and he himself passed over to the Melkite Church. To the same century belongs the patriarch Gabriel II, reformer and moderator of certain ceremonies. Another patriarch Gabriel of the 14th century gave the definitive redaction of the Ritual. Of the state of the liturgy of that century we are excellently informed by the Lamp of Darkness of Abu'l-Barakat ibn Kubr, of which L. Villecourt translated long extracts (Les observances liturgiques et la discipline du jeûne dans l'Eglise copte, in Le Muséon 36 [1923], pp. 249-92; 37 [1924], pp. 201-80; 38 [1925], pp. 261-30). For the 17th century one will profitably consult Abudaenus, a Copt who describes the faith and the rites of his people (Historia jacobitarum seu Coptorum, 1675) and I. M. Vansleb, a curious observer, sympathetic, but not always well prepared (Histoire de l'Eglise d'Alessandrie, Paris 1677). In the following century there appear at Rome the collection of Coptic liturgical books edited by R. Tuki: Missal (1736); Breviary (1750); Pontifical and Euchologion (1761-62); Ritual (1763); Theosakis (1764). From the end of the 19th century onward the dissidents and the Catholics have made the edition, sometimes luxurious, of their liturgical books.

1. Language

The Alexandrian liturgy used at first the Greek language; soon for the lessons, and in the 5th century for the rest, it was performed in Coptic, predominantly in the Sa'idic dialect which, in the 9th century, almost entirely gave way to the Bohairic dialect. But already after the Arab invasion (7th century) the people increasingly forgot their native language; in the 13th century almost nothing new was written in Bohairic and in the 16th the Coptic language disappears from ordinary life. In the liturgy too Arabic prevailed and today the liturgical books present a bilingual Coptic and Arabic text, interspersed here and there with a Greek formula, a vestige of the original language.

2. Mass

The part preceding the lessons is very developed: it comprises, besides the preparation of the oblations, also the Offertory which will no longer be repeated after the Gospel. At the altar the priest, among the loaves that are presented to him, chooses one, takes it in his hand, wraps it in a veil and makes his commemorations; then, holding it above his head and preceded by the deacon who holds the cruet of wine, he makes with the clerics a solemn procession around the altar; having placed the bread on the paten and put the wine and water in the chalice, he says among some prayers also that of the Offertory and covers the oblations. There follows a ceremony particular to the Egyptian rite, an absolution recited by the assisting priest: "... may your servants of this sacrifice, the priest, the deacon, the clergy, all the people and my unworthiness be absolved from their sins through the work (literally: through the mouth) of the Most Holy Trinity, of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church, of the twelve Apostles... (other saints are named), of the Pope, of our bishop and through the work of my unworthiness...". The incensing of the altar, of the sanctuary and of the church concludes this first part of the Mass. The second comprises, besides the chants, four lessons all taken from the New Testament: St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles, the Acts and the Gospel; they are read first in Coptic and then in Arabic.

In the prayer after the Gospel there is an allusion to the catechumens, proof that in ancient times the Mass of the catechumens ended here. The Mass of the faithful, as in ancient times, begins with the great litany which contains here the petition so opportune for the rising of the waters of the Nile. Then the priest recites the prayer of the veil, thus showing that in ancient times at that moment he approached the altar to make the Offertory; the same is revealed by the three solemn prayers, particular to the Egyptian rite; they are petitions for the peace of the Church, for the hierarchy and for the community of the faithful; from the ancient Offertory there remains at that moment the incensing, and, after the recitation of the Creed, the lavabo. When the deacon invites the faithful to give each other the peace, they shake hands with one another, and then each kisses his own hand. After an admonition by the deacon, the priest begins the great eucharistic prayer. It is interrupted, in the anaphora of St. Cyril, by the intercessory prayer which in the other two is said, as in the Byzantine, Armenian and Syriac rites, after the epiclesis. At the moment of the Consecration the words of the priest are underscored by exclamations of faith from the people: "priest: He took the bread in his immaculate hands - people: Amen; - priest: and blessed it - people: Amen; - priest: and sanctified it - people: Amen, Amen, Amen. We believe, and we confess, we glorify; - priest: this is my Body... - people: We believe that it is truly so. The same dialogue is repeated at the consecration of the wine. And the prayers of the anaphora follow one another: the anamnesis, the epiclesis, the intercession of the saints (except in the anaphora of St. Cyril) for the living and for the dead, the concluding doxology. The fraction of the consecrated bread, as the dissidents perform it, is a most complicated ceremony. The people say the Pater noster, receive yet another absolution and after the Elevation with the Sancto sanctis, the intinction and the immission, profess magnificently their faith in the Eucharist. Communion is given, by the dissidents, first with the bread and then with the chalice, by the Catholics with the bread alone. With the thanksgiving, the blessing and the Pater noster which all the people recite with hands raised toward heaven, the rites of the holy sacrifice come to an end.

3. Baptism

The anointing of the body of the baptized is separated from Baptism itself by the very long blessing of the water. This blessing, which requires the infusion of plain oil, of the oil of the catechumens and of the sacred chrism, is a ceremony built on the model of the Mass; it comprises four readings, litanies, the three solemn prayers, the Creed, the kiss of peace, the Preface, the Sanctus, and the various parts of the anaphora. During the triple immersion the priest pronounces in the first person the formula: Ego te baptizo...

4. Penance

No liturgical book of the dissenters contains the rite of Penance. In practice, however, it exists. Among the preparatory prayers of this Sacrament are recited the Miserere and the Creed; the deprecatory formula is that of the Mass; the ritual of the Catholics, however, has made it more precise: instead of the simple: "Grant us the remission of our sins," it puts the singular: "Grant him the remission of his sins"; and it adds: "May he be absolved by the Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and by my unworthiness."

5. Priestly ordination

It has preserved very ancient prayers. The Catholics believed it necessary to add the traditio instrumentorum and the anointing with sacred chrism.

6. Ecclesiastical year

The Copts count seven great feasts of the Lord: the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Baptism, the Mount of Olives, the Resurrection, the Ascension and Pentecost; and seven lesser feasts: the Circumcision, the First Miracle, the Entry into the temple, the Supper, the Sunday of St. Thomas (the first after Easter), the Entry into Egypt, the Transfiguration. They celebrate many particular saints and have each month a commemoration of St. Michael on the 12th, of the Most Holy Mary on the 21st and of the Nativity of Our Lord on the 29th.

7. Divine Office

It comprises the following hours: morning, third, sixth, ninth, vespers, compline, the prayer of the veil, which is a private office, and the nocturn, which comprises three parts. Each hour begins, according to the Pachomian tradition, with the recitation of twelve psalms, followed by a reading and various hymns. These hymns are called psalli, and, if they are addressed to the Madonna, they bear the name theotokia, if to the saints, that of doxologia. Theotokia is also the name of that particular office which is sung in the month preceding the Nativity of the Lord in honor of his Mother. The Breviary of the Catholics repeats the same office every day, except in paschal time, for lack of a book containing the variable parts of the temporal and the sanctoral.

Alfonso Rzes

VI. ART

Although, as clarified above, the Egyptians who remained Christian after the Arab conquest of Egypt are called Copts, and one can speak of a Coptic Church only after the middle of the 5th century, the chronological limits of Christian art, generally called Coptic, are placed in the 2nd century. This art is linked to those forms typical of the Egyptian environment, which only in part, and specifically in Alexandria, fall within the Hellenistic cycle of the great Eastern metropolises. These must be clearly distinguished from the artistic manifestations observed in the Nile Valley, where the tendencies and visions proper to the indigenous population prevail. V. on this subject the entry: EGITTO, Archeologia cristiana. - See plate XIX.