THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF
THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN & COPTIC LANGUAGES
-The Authors and Their Work-
in the Coptic Language
The Coptic Language:
In addition to that mentioned earlier, it would be useful to cite here
those who started to use the Coptic language in their literature between
the second and fourth centuries, including the following saints: Antony,
Hieracas (the scribe of Leontopolis), Pachomius, Theodorus of Tabennese,
and Horsiesos.49
Even the texts of the Nag Hammadi Library do not have any dates, but a good number
of scholars believe that these texts, which were translated from Greek into Coptic,
were from the main period “ranging at least from the beginning to the end of
the fourth century C.E.”50
St. Shenoute, one of the greatest writers in Coptic literature in the fifth century,
“knew theology and was interested in many subtle questions of ethics and physics,
which he treated in a manner characteristic of his times. His influence on Coptic
literature is due not only to his vast production but also to the work of translation
that he fostered and supervised, as it seems, in his monastery.”51
Most of those who worked in Coptic literature during the fourth and fifth centures
were translators. They translated from Greek into Coptic many “hagiographical
works.” Some of the names of these translators included “Athanasius I, Basil
the Great, Cyril I of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanies
of Salamis, Jerome the Presbyter, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory
of Nyssa, Palladius, Proclus of Constantinople, Severian of Gabala, Severus of
Antioch, Theodosius I, Theophilus of Alexandria. In addition to the topics noted
earlier, “There are also the Apocrypha . . . the Agophthegmata Patrum, and the
Canonical literature, which are treated in their particular articles.”
Because of the severe conflict between the Coptic Church and that of Byzantium
as well as others, “This is probably the moment when Greek began to be perceived
as the language of the oppressors and the patristic Greek (“’international’)
culture was looked upon with suspicion as the vehicle of false dogmas and misleading
historical information.”52
In the sixth century, we read of the following books written in Coptic, one by
Eusebius about the history of the church (in two parts) and others by Macarius
of Tkow about his Panegyric.
The same mixture of history and legend is to be found in many other texts Recounting
the lives of such figures as Severus of Antioch, the famous monk John of Lycopolis,
and Dioscorus . . . Of a more polemic character were the “Plerophories,” a series
of little stories by John of Mayuma to prove the thesis of anti-Chalcedonians.53
In this century, we also read about the Council of Nicea, the Didascalia and
the Acts of Ephesus, which concentrated on Victor of Tabennese, the monk.
In the sixth century as well, the Coptic literature included the Nicean Council
and other texts, including the lives of great monks, their history, legends,
and miracles. Among these monks were Abraham of Farshut, Matthew the Poor, and
Moses of Balyana.
In the late sixth and early seventh centuries, we have different documents written
in Coptic by St. Damian, the patriarch of Alexandria, St. Pistentius, bishop
of Coptos (Qift), St. Athanasius, the martyr, Claudius, and the martyr George.
John of Shmun wrote a panegyries about St. Mark the Evangelist and another about
St. Anthony. Bishop John of Parallos in the northern Delta wrote “against the
apocryphal and heretical books”; Rufus of Shotep “wrote the last preserved example
of exegetical activity before the Arab invasion of 642.” The Patriarch Benjamin
I left a “homily on the miracle of Cana” and a “short passage of the panegyrie
of Shenoute.” Patriarch Agathon wrote a homily and “composed a panegyric of Benjamin.”
Of the patriarch John III, St. Menas of Pshati, bishop of Nikiou, Zacharias Bishop
of Sakha, and the patriarch Mark III, some wrote a panegyric of saints and others
composed theological treatises or described some of the lives of the patriarchs
or wrote Coptic homilies. Because of their usage of the Coptic language, they
demonstrated that one should “appreciate . . . the ability of all these men to
write and speak a Coptic language that is perfectly capable of expressing any
concept desired.”54
In the seventh and eighth centuries, the Coptic writings were concentrating on
propagandist, to strengthen the faith of the people in their church and for those
outside the church “to affirm the existence, antiquity, and orthodoxy of the
doctrine of the Coptic church.”55
The ninth to the eleventh centuries was a period of decline for the Coptic language
and literature because of the spread of the Arabic language.
Therefore, the historian should first recognize in this final stage of Coptic
literature the last activity of Coptic writers — an activity of redaction, choice,
and systematization, not creation. Then, by means of these late texts, the historian
may trace stratifications to recover the older stages of literature. For, if
it is true that the Coptic writing is consistent in quality and subject matter,
being almost exclusively religious, its products are in fact diverse in character,
content, and style.56