The writing about the saints of the Coptic church. Many religions venerate saints and so have produced a vast literature around them. Best known in the West is the monumental Acta Sanctorum (Lives of the Saints), compiled by the Society of Bollandists, a group of Jesuit scholars, beginning in the seventeenth century and not yet completed. It is concerned with the saints included in the official Roman calendar. Coptic literature about saints includes not only those in the Copto-Arabic SYNAXARION (those that appear in Coptic texts) but also other saints revered by Copts who have had a day dedicated to them. This article will survey the scholarship on the subject and the literature itself. The texts that mention specific saints will be found in separate articles under each saint’s name.
The study of Coptic hagiography (Baumeister, 1972, pp. 27-30), or hagiology, began with E. C. Amélineau’s Actes des martyrs de l’église copte (1890), which was based on the Copto-Arabic Synaxarion. He was determined above all to identify the localities in which the martyrdom of the individual saints occurred. However, as an expert on hagiography in the Coptic language, he recognized the standardized production of a good number of Passions, going back to the work of a literary school of the seventh and eighth centuries that devised a number of legendary CYCLES.
Galtier (1905) and E. O. Winstedt (1910) probed more deeply the texts in the Cycle of Basilides the General (see below), highlighting some of the major characteristics but without understanding the historical and literary context.
Delehaye. The fundamental work of Coptic hagiology (even if limited only to the martyrs), was H. Delehaye’s “Les Martyrs d’Egypte,” published in 1922. It first traces a history of the persecution in Egypt and of the development of the cult of the martyrs; then it analyzes the Martirologium Hieronimianum, the Greek Synaxarion, and the Copto-Arabic Synaxarion. The texts of the Passions in Greek, in Latin, and in Coptic are analyzed in the main chapter. Delehaye’s main objective was historical, that of establishing within the limits of possibility the historicity of the saints in question and the originality of their Passions.
Given this goal, one can comprehend the resigned or indignant tone with which Delehaye treats many of these texts, especially the Coptic ones. To this judgment T. Baumeister attributes, for good reason, the small interest drawn by an edition of the Coptic Passions published by I. Balestri and H. Hyvernat in 1908 (Acta Martyrum, 1955). Nevertheless, Delehaye must be given credit for having established some firm points for literary history. He recognized that the Coptic hagiographic texts were strictly dependent on the Greek ones, not only as a result of translation but also in their inspiring principles.
According to the canons of a literary genre popular in the fourth century, Delehaye in Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires (Brussels, 1966) had distinguished in Greek hagiography the Passions based on original accounts, often modified but not distorted, from those simply constructed from a name or at most recollections of hardly reliable sources. Alexandria seems to have been the main center of this literature and Alexandrian influence remains vivid in its development.
Therefore the Passions of the epic genre, or the epic Passions, as Delehaye called them, were widespread in Egypt (coming directly from Alexandria) before the consolidation and diffusion of the nonbiblical literature in the Coptic language in the fifth century. The epic Passions are distinguished by their stereotyped construction built around characters or events in a certain predetermined way, which repeats itself almost identically in all the texts, except for changes in names or circumstances. Such features, in brief, include the character of the emperor and his edict of persecution; the judge, generally a perfect whose behavior is always the same, going from threats to flattery to cruelty; the long altercations between the judge and the martyr; the atrocious torture; the visions that comfort the martyr; and the miracles, which nevertheless do not alter the persecutor’s verdict.
This Egyptian school of Greek language dedicated itself to the composition not only of the Passions of the Egyptian martyrs but also of foreign martyrs who enjoyed some popularity in Egypt (Delehaye, 1922, pp. 152-53). In Les martyrs d’Egypte, Delehaye does not specify the period in which this work was accomplished, at least in its major portion, though he proposes the fourth century. He also sees the work of the Coptic schools as a natural continuation of the Greek school.
O’Leary and Baumeister. In 1937 a very useful listing was published by De Lacy O’Leary, The Saints of Egypt, in which he summarized the texts included in the Copto-Arabic Synaxarion for each saint. He also made references in his work to the related texts known in Coptic. He arranged the saints in alphabetical order and preceded the work by a brief introduction concerning the martyrs and the lives of monks. O’Leary relied heavily on Delehaye’s publications in outlining the development of the cult of the martyrs and the activity of the hagiographic schools in forming the Passion cycles.
However, he took the opportunity to underline the ritual, and especially the geographic, continuity of the cult of the saints with pre-Christian customs (which were later continued in customs of the Arab period). Moreover, he expressed more clearly that most Passions of the Diocletianic martyrs were written in the same period by the same authors. Though this authorship appears to reduce the historical veracity of these accounts, it remains a good starting point for further investigation of the latest revisions of the texts.
To thoroughly examine, verify, and correct the analysis of Delehaye, two issues must be reconsidered: the specific literary question (especially of literature in the Coptic language) and the tradition of the Egyptian mentality. This is what T. Baumeister proposed in a book destined to become fundamental to the comprehension of Delehaye’s work.
In his Martyr invictus (1972), Baumeister took up some of the ideas previously expounded by S. Morenz (1953, pp. 250-55). Baumeister described what he called “koptischer Konsens,” namely, the repetition through uniform events of the theme of the “indestructible life,” which is unfolded in a great number of Coptic Passions. Apart from references to or derivations from previous Greek texts, these can be considered typically Egyptian. Baumeister avoided chronological questions, but it is possible to add that those Passions belong to a period later than the Greek passions, though they represent their continuation in a Coptic environment.
In order to trace the development of Coptic hagiography within the limits of current knowledge (there is still a great deal to accomplish in this area), two questions are especially important. First, it must be discovered if, even accepting the main results of Delehaye and Baumeister, it is possible to draw from the texts any further elements that illuminate the historical development of Coptic hagiographic schools. Second, scholars must take into account, together with the texts of the Passions considered by Delehaye and Baumeister, texts of the lives of other saints (especially monks) that also belong to Coptic hagiography.
According to Delehaye, whose position is to be accepted, Coptic hagiography was born as a tributary of Greek hagiography, especially the Alexandrian texts and later the Egyptian ones. This places the production of the Passions, including the epic and nonepic ones, and also some lives of monks and other material, around the fourth century. Their translation into Coptic followed soon after. From this, one may deduce that a work begun in the Coptic language would comprise rewritings or insertions in the older texts.
But the position of Baumeister also is to be accepted. According to him, some Passions, though inspired by the Greek epic genre, were also influenced by typically Egyptian conceptions. This situation is also true of other original texts produced in the Coptic language in a later period.
Neither author, however, considered how these texts retained the aspect of the Cycles. The authors of the texts did not confine themselves to narrating specific events or the activities of specific saints; they also drew on the traditions of their literary genre as well as the mentality that produced it. Even if imaginary, these productions had to maintain a certain coherence to be so widely accepted, even apart from the events of ecclesiastical politics within Egypt and elsewhere.
Encomium of Claudius
It is these two last elements—literary genre and Egyptian mentality—that should provide some further historical data and some point of reference that will allow us to define the phases of Coptic hagiography. Fortunately, we possess an Encomium of Claudius certainly written by CONSTANTINE, bishop of Asyut, who is known to have lived in the second half of the sixth century. Claudius is known from other sources as one of the principal Diocletianic martyrs in the epic Passions and is also connected in some way to the Cycle of Basilides. In fact Constantine, too, places him in this context. He narrates the beginning of the persecution and also traces it back to its antecedent events.
After mentioning persecution by the emperor DECIUS, he cites a period of religious peace under Carus, and then under Carinus and Numerianus. After Numerianus, father of Claudius was murdered, Diocletian ascended the throne on his return from Egypt. According to Constantine, Claudius saved Diocletian on the occasion of various wars against Persians and Armenians. Finally, Diocletian being troubled by the devil, Claudius was exiled to Egypt and there killed.
In this text there are several distinctive elements characteristic of the Basilides Cycle: the city of Antioch as a main theater of action; Egypt as the final place of martyrdom; the emperors in between Decius and Diocletian; the characters of Romanus and his son, Victor, Soterichus, and others mentioned; the character of PSOTE OF PSOI, who later on became very important; even the apparition of a “proto-martyr” without any influence in the rest of the action (Horn, 1982).
But there is an absence of other important elements in the Cycle: the legend of Diocletian and Agrippida; the character of Basilides, otherwise essential; and the characters (less relevant but often present) of Theodore the Anatolian and Theodore the General.
It would seem that this legend contains the elements of its later development. Given what is known of Constantine, one can draw from his narrative some conclusions both literary and ecclesiastical. In this effort an Encomium of Leontius of Tripoli written by SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH is helpful. In it the character of the Greek epic Passion, originally placed in the time of Vespasian in the first century, was transported into the period of Diocletian, the late third century, and completely reinvented.
This change helps clarify the meaning given to the character of Diocletian as a prototype of the wicked emperor who deviates from orthodoxy and to the character of “his” martyrs, who become at once the representatives of the fight against religious enemies and also against the imperial power.
The hagiographic work of the Coptic school followed this trend, adding elements specific to Egyptian literary taste and meanings more or less hidden in relation to political events. In fact, after the second half of the seventh century, the war against the Chalcedonians was succeeded by the harsh fight against the Islamic conquerors. Once again religious and political motives were mixed, and the stories of the martyrs could rekindle feelings about historic events of a later period.
It is unnecessary here to enter into details of this trend, since it will be discussed below when the path of Coptic hagiography is reconstructed. It is convenient here to mention, as a point of reference, another text to be placed in the period between Severus and Constantine, which, because of its theological-literary character, became part of the homily (In Petrum et Demetrium) attributed to the nonexistent Saint FLAVIAN. It narrates the history of a woman named Martyria, who is persecuted by Diocletian and who, with two children, escapes by sea to Alexandria, where she is protected by a certain Peter.
She will not appear again in the Passions of the Basilides Cycle, in which her husband, Socrator, appears as a brother of Basilides. All this confirms that the “standard” texts of the Basilides Cycle are a reorganization and rearrangement of a more disorderly set of materials probably going back to the fifth century.
Writing about Coptic saints extends from the fourth century to the ninth.
Fourth and Fifth Centuries
Because Coptic hagiography started with translations from Greek, a study must first take into account the material from which the Copts had to choose, that is, the production of the Egyptian hagiographic schools. These schools had disseminated some texts that are considered the direct result of official actions, for example, the Passion of Phileas of Thmui (for which, however, no Coptic version is known), the Passion of Colluthus, and others that do not belong to the epic genre, for example, the Passion of Peter of Alexandria and the Passion of Psote of Ptolemais (Psoi).
The Greek schools later invented and increasingly (it can be reasonably assumed) perfected and standardized the epic genre, within which, however, there was already a tendency toward the creation of Cycles. Four very early Cycles were constructed around the Roman prefect Saint ARIANUS. Even though this character (certainly historic) is the persecutor in many Passions, there are others that are connected and that make up a rather continuous history. In these Passions, Arianus is converted and also becomes a martyr. They are the Passions of APOLLONIUS AND PHILEMON, ASCLA, and Arianus. Another Cycle, which does not belong to the persecution of Diocletian but to a later date, is that of the martyrs under Julian, evidently conceived after the coming of JULIAN the Apostate in 362, and connected also to the rise of the legend of the birth of the emperor Constantine and of the discovery of the cross.
Mention may be made of the Passions of JUDAS CYRIACUS and of EUSIGNIUS, besides the miracle described in the Passion of MERCURIUS OF CAESAREA. There were also those that may be described as classical epic Passions, which were built around saints of various provenance, each with his own peculiarities: EPIMACHUS OF PELUSIUM, MENAS THE MIRACLE MAKER, JAMES INTERCISUS the Persian, LEONTIUS OF TRIPOLI, Mercurius, PANTALEON, EUSTATHIUS OF ANTIOCH, Cyrus and John, PHILOTHEUS OF ANTIOCH, and the forty martyrs of Sebaste. Some of these are witnessed only in the Coptic texts and they probably had typical Egyptian connotations of a strictly internal nature, for example, those of JOORE of Jinjeb, of HERAI of Tammah, and of DIOS.
The Passions of the martyr- monks deserve special consideration. They also derive from the epic genre; the monastic environment had a determining influence on them, so that they can be considered evidence of an epic hagiographic school in that monastic environment. They are the Passions of Paphnutius (maybe the first and the most important and widely witnessed personality), of PAMIN, of Pamun and Sarmata, and of PANINE AND PANEU.
In this same period, between the fourth and sixth centuries, other hagiographic texts were produced that the Copts would later accept and that became an integral part of more general patristic literature: the Life of Antony by Saint ATHANASIUS I, patriarch of Alexandria, the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus by Saint GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS, the Lives of Paul and of Hilarion by Saint JEROME, the Life of Epiphanius of Salamis by Polybius, and the Life of Simeon Stylite by Saint ANTONY OF EGYPT. To these texts can be added the APOPHTHEGMATA PATRUM and, of exclusively Egyptian interest, the Life of Phib (Apollo) by Papohe and the Life of Aphu, bishop of Oxyrhynchus (Pemge).
The work of the Coptic hagiographic school dates to this period, as far as can be judged. As indicated above, those chosen texts and their translations from Greek originals in the Coptic manuscripts may have undergone a certain amount of reediting in the course of their transmission into Coptic.
Fifth and Sixth Centuries
In the meantime, literary activity in the Coptic language was growing and spreading, mainly due to Saint SHENUTE. At the climax of this progress came the Chalcedonian crisis (451), which severed the Coptic literary tradition from the international Greek literary tradition, an event that had consequences for hagiography as well.
The Lives of monks were modeled on the earlier examples of Lives (that is, the Life of Antony or of Saint PACHOMIUS), as well as on the Apophthegmata and the famous Life of Shenute (written by BESA probably around 460, in territory where the anti- Chalcedonian controversy had not yet arisen), and most of all on the Lives of the monks written in an anti-Chalcedonian vein: MANASSEH, LONGINUS OF ENATON, MATTHEW THE POOR, ABRAHAM, and Apollo. Later there was the Life of Samu’il of Qalamun by Isaac Presbyter, in the eighth century. It is difficult to establish whether these texts had originally been written in Greek or Coptic, with the exception of the Life of Shenute, which was certainly written in Coptic.
However, none of the other texts has come down in Greek. Nevertheless, the possibility of a lost Greek original cannot be excluded, for during this period Greek was still the predominant literary language of Egypt. Stylistic discrimination does not help in clarifying either Greek or Coptic origin, because the authors, it may be assumed, were bilingual.
It is probable that the period after Chalcedon saw the flowering of the redaction of the Coptic Passions following the forms that Baumeister calls koptischer Konsens. This supposition derives from the fact that in such Passions the Egyptian tradition predominated over the international Greek (including Alexandrian) that had given rise to the epic Passions. Moreover, the martyrs in question were all Egyptian. But it is essential to note that the composition of such Passions probably lasted until the later periods (probably the eighth century) when they became intertwined with the true cyclic Passions (Cycle of Basilides, Cycle of Julius of Aqfahs), which should be considered by themselves. To this period can also be attributed the transposition into the Egyptian style of some Passions of famous foreign saints—for example, George, Victor, and Theodorus Stratelates—with the complete recasting of the text.
All this work possessed not only literary motivation (which has been emphasized) but also local ecclesiastic and political elements. It is reasonable to suppose that various Egyptian centers wanted to adorn themselves with famous martyrs to whom they could dedicate sanctuaries and pilgrimages and that they must have tried to furnish these martyrs with adequate literary witnesses. From the political point of view, the continuous argument in these texts against the imperial power was also due to the conflict between the anti- Chalcedonian Egyptian church and the Byzantine Empire.
Sixth to Eighth Centuries
It was in these circumstances that, toward the end of the sixth century, legends were born that were destined to enjoy great popularity in successive decades. They also served to unite the numerous Passions into a closely-knit collection that focused on recurring personalities. The Encomium of Claudius by Constantine of Asyut bears witness to the development of that stage. On the basis of this document as well as the internal evidence of each Passion, one can attempt to place these texts in the long historical framework in which the legends evolved from the end of the seventh century to the eighth. The main indication for fixing the chronology of these texts is not so much the legends and their characters as the way in which all this material is treated in each text.
If, for example, one considers the Passion of Victor (Budge, 1914), one can see that the Antiochene legend that developed around Basilides is briefly mentioned. Here Basilides is divided, on the one hand, as a martyr along with his family and, on the other, as an unconverted prince. The text itself consists of four martyrdoms, well numbered and distinct in the same codex. It is probable that this is an example of the koptischer Konsens prior to the development of the true legends and relative to a character through whom the authors intended to establish a privileged relationship between Antioch and Egypt. Victor the Antiochene, martyred in Egypt, as well as Claudius and others, was later slightly readapted after the formation of the legend of Basilides.
A contrary example is provided by the Encomium of Theodore the Anatolian, attributed to Theodore, bishop of Antioch. Here the martyrdom is hardly mentioned at the end, while the text consists almost exclusively of an ample report of one of the Antiochene legends. It is strictly related to the one in the homily by Constantine of Asyut, even if it encompasses a wider development. Basilides is not in it, and Romanus is introduced but not his son, Victor. The legend of Diocletian and Agrippida is given remarkable prominence in this story. Evidently the Encomium was written to bring up to date the Passion, which was supposed to be read immediately after it.
One should take into consideration that the existing copy (cf. Hyvernat, 1886, Vol. 1, pp. 34ff.) is the union of two parts, the first added later and the second (recognizable because it starts with a new prologue) briefly mentioning the Antiochene legend in an embryonic form and then consisting of the true Passion, of the pure koptischer Konsens type.
The Passion of Eusebius is a beautiful example of composite redaction, including a long report on the legend of Basilides together with the martyrdom, in the style and mentality of the koptischer Konsens. Yet it is to be noted that the legend of Diocletian and Agrippida is implied and that it has a small part in this scene. Romanus and Victor are given a very important part, while Claudius becomes a nephew of Basilides with very little importance; none of the Theodores is mentioned.
These elements, and more subjective ones, which would be too long to discuss at this point, illustrate the subdivision of the legends in different and substantially separate groups. These were variously treated and mixed in the existing texts. In fact, one can distinguish the legend of Claudius and Victor, connected mainly with the pretended Egyptian origin of Diocletian (Diocletian and Agrippida), that is, with the imperial succession of Decius-Carus-Carinus- Numerianus-Diocletian, and with the Persian wars. A legend of Basilides, which at the beginning appears extremely familiar, is soon joined to the legends of Diocletian and Agrippida and of the wars with the Persians (or other “barbarians”). A legend of Theodore is born from the importance of a purely epic text concerning Theodore, the general, and later variously intertwined with the Antiochene legend, especially with that of Claudius and Victor.
To these legends must be added that of Julius of Aqfahs, a character probably emerging in a more ancient period; this legend has now unfolded into a true cycle, that of TOGO MINA.
It seems that within this framework of different elements of religious mentality—both political-ecclesiastical and literary—each legend found adequate expression in the complexity of its varied connections and their development in time. In the post-Chalcedonian period, the type of epic passion of the Greek international literary school was exploited for the creation of characters—that is, of martyrs—that could be spread in an antiChalcedonian environment, with an implied argument against the official Byzantine regime, and in certain cases giving prominence to a privileged agreement between Alexandria and Antioch. From a literary point of view, the epic genre was elaborated and modified by the more intimately Egyptian theme of the koptischer Konsens.
Eighth and Ninth Centuries
New elements were accentuated in the eighth and ninth centuries. One was ecclesiastical politics through the development of the Antiochene legend, always more complex and at the same time more standardized than earlier versions. Another element was the formation of literary Cycles around characters who tended to be more strictly connected to one another through family relations or increasingly fantastic and romantic events. The motif of religious controversy was accentuated as a means of protest against the dominant Arab political power, which overwhelmed Christian orthodoxy.
All this was achieved (especially at the beginning) either through the complete rewriting of the texts or through combining previously independent texts or (especially toward the end) through the interpolation of passages in texts already sufficiently oriented in the desired direction. Documentation consists mainly of manuscripts of the ninth to the eleventh century. However, they contain texts that were edited throughout the whole period under consideration. For this reason, it is not possible (save in exceptional cases) to attribute a specific Passion to a certain stage of this development.
In conclusion, a more precise picture of the period can be given by listing the Passions considered to be linked more closely in different legendary Cycles, although one should be aware of the risks associated with such lists.
First are the Passions of the ancient Antiochene Cycle, which served as a prelude to the formation of other Cycles (those of the Theodores and of Basilides), though it never coincided with them. To this Cycle belong the Passions of Claudius and of Victor; the most recent editing of the Passions of Psote; and the Passions of COSMAS AND DAMIAN, EPIMA (not to be confused with Epimachus of Pelusium), and possibly that of Isidore.
Next are the Passions of the Cycle of the Theodores: the Passions of Theodore the Anatolian as well as those of ANATOLIUS, his father or uncle; those of Theodore the General (who was probably attached to the Cycle purely because of his name); and those of Elia (who appears in a much later period).
The Passions of the Cycle of Basilides include the Passions of EUSEBIUS, of TER AND ERAI, of Basilides himself, of MACARIUS (in second redaction), of JUSTUS, and of APOLI. BESAMON, mentioned only in fragments, formed part of a Passion of this Cycle that treats of a different martyr, unknown today.
The Passions linked to the Cycle of Julius of Aqfahs are those of Anub, Ari, Didius, Heraclides, John and Simon, Kiamul, Macarius (in first redactions), Macrobius, Nahrow, Nilus and Sarapion, Paese and Tecla, Panesneu, and Shenufe.
In addition, there are several late and genuinely Egyptian Passions, written according to the koptischer Konsens, which are not included in the Cycles. They are the Passions of Philotheus, Isaac of Tiphre, Iule and Ptolemy, Lacaron, Pekosh, Pirow and Athon, Pisura, Sarapamon of Scetis, Sarapion, Til, and Timotheus.
The latest Coptic hagiographic production under Arabic domination is the Passion of John of Phanijoit, martyred by the Arabs.
Encomia and Miracles
The whole development of hagiographic production, from the fifth to the eighth century, was accompanied by the production of Encomia, or Homilies, dedicated to individual saints. This production also, in Coptic literature, began with the translation of the texts of the great fathers of the fourth century, which later gave way to the production of original texts in the Coptic language.
Indeed, the genre of the Encomium appeared among the most neglected by the translators. However, there are some examples, such as the Encomia of the Patriarch Joseph and Susanna by Saint JOHN CHRYSOSTOM and those of Athanasius and Basilius by Gregory of Nazianzus. They illustrate that this genre was also part of Coptic hagiography and provided models for later productions.
The most important period for the growth of Encomia among the Copts appears to be the post-Chalcedonian one, especially with Severus of Antioch; three of his Encomia were translated (probably very early): those for Romanus, for Leontius, and for Claudius. Following these examples, as well as the Lives of anti-Chalcedonian monks, were later Encomia, especially those of Matthew the Poor, attributed to his disciple Serapione, an anonymous one of Moses of Keft, two anonymous ones of Abraham of Pbow, one of Longinus of Enaton, by Basilios of Oxyrhynchus, and one of Apollo by Stephen of Hnes.
The encomia were usually divided into a prologue (which discussed the sanctuary dedicated to the saint or in more general terms his holy day), followed by the narration of his Passion or Life, an exhortatory section on moral subjects, and finally an epilogue. It was possible, however, that the Life and Passion were only alluded to on the understanding that they were read before and after the ceremony.
It is possible to distinguish the Encomia written at the end of the sixth century and the first half of the seventh century, a period in which the authors were relatively free to express themselves personally, from those written subsequently, which had to be attributed for political reasons to personalities who were completely invented but were presumed to have lived in the patristic period in the fourth and fifth centuries.
To the earlier period should be assigned the Encomia by Saint Pisentius, bishop of Coptos, on ONOPHRIUS, by Constantine of Asyut on Claudius and George, by JOHN OF SHMUN on Antony and Saint Mark I the Evangelist, by John of Alexandria on Menas, by Menas of Pshati on Macrobius, by Phoibammon of Shmin on Colluthus, by Isaac of Antinoopolis on Colluthus, and by Moses of Tkow on Olympius.
To the later, clandestine period should be assigned the works of authors whose names are preceded by “pseudo”: Demetrius on Philotheus, Basilius on Mercurius, Theodore on the Theodores, Anastasius on Theodore the General, John Chrysostom on Victor, Theodosius of Jerusalem on George, Theodotus on George, and an anonymous author on Psote.
To this same period is to be assigned the redaction of the various Miracles attributed to the saints or martyrs, which became important hagiographical texts in themselves. The usual dossier of a saint in this period thus consisted of his Life or Passion, his Encomium, and his Miracles. The texts of the Miracles of some saints are preserved: Phoibammon (Pierpont Morgan Library, Coptic codices XLVI), Menas (attributed to Theopheus), Leontius (Paris, National Library, Copte 129.16. 28-35), Mercurius (attributed to Acacius), Victor (attributed to Theodosius of Jerusalem), and Victor (attributed to Celestinus of Rome).
- Acta Martyrum, vols. 1 and 2, ed. I. Balestri and H. Hyvernat. CSCO 43, 44. Louvain, 1955.
- Amélineau, E. C. Les Actes des martyrs de l’église copte. Paris, 1890.
- Baumeister, T. Martyr Invictus. Der Märtyrer als Sinnbild der Erlösung in der Legende und im Kult der frühen koptischen Kirche. Zur Kontinuität des ägyptischen Denkens. Forschungen zur Volkskunde 46. Munster, 1972.
- Budge, E. A. W. Coptic Martyrdoms, etc., in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. London, 1914.
- Delehaye, H. “Les Martyrs d’Egypte.” Analecta Bollandiana 40 (1922):5-154, 299-364.
- . Les Passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires. Brussels, 1966.
- Galtier, E. “Contribution a l’étude de la littérature arabo-copte.” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale 4 (1905):105-221.
- Horn, J. “Der erste Märtyrer. Zu einem Topos der koptischen Märtyrerliteratur (mit zwei Anhängen).” In Studien zur spatäntiken und frühchristlichen Kunst und Kultur des Orients, ed. G. Koch. Wiesbaden, 1982.
- Hyvernat, H. Les Actes des martyrs de l’Egypte tirés des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliothèque vaticane et du Musée Borgia. Paris, 1886-1887.
- Morenz, S. Die Geschichte von Joseph dem Zimmermann. Berlin, 1951.
- . “Altägyptischer und hellenistisch-paulinischer Jenseitsglaube bei Schenute.” Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientforschung 1 (1953):250-55.
- O’Leary, De L. E. The Saints of Egypt. London and New York, 1937.
- Peeters, P. Orient et Byzance. Le Tréfonds oriental de l’hagiographie byzantine. Subsidia Hagiographica 26. Brussels, 1950.
- Winstedt, E. O. Coptic Texts on Saint Theodore the General, Saint Theodore the Eastern, Chamoul and Justus. London and Oxford, 1910.
- Zandee, J. “Het patroon der martyria.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 14 (1959):1-28.