The Relationship of St. Shenoute of Atripe with His Contemporary Patriarchs of Alexandria
WHEN WE SPEAK about the relationship of St. Shenoute with the Alexandrian patriarchs, we speak indeed about a traditional relationship between Coptic monasticism and the official church of Egypt. The basis of this relationship was already established at the dawn of Coptic monasticism by the patriarch Athanasius (328-373), who recognized the important role that the monks could play on behalf of the Church.
To understand the relationship between Shenoute and his patriarchs or between the monastic organization and the official church in the time of Shenoute, it is necessary to present briefly the main features of this relationship as it developed from the time when the monastic system first appeared up until the time of Shenoute.
The Church and Monasticism
Although monasticism came into existence independently of the official church, we cannot consider it as an opposition movement against the church, as some scholars have seen it. In contrast to this opinion, we can consider the Vita Antonii of Athanasius as recognition by the church of the ‘legality’ of the monastic movement. When Athanasius chose his bishops from among the monks, he did not try to weaken monasticism and put it under his authority. He trusted the monks and could not ignore their popularity among the simple people.
His letter to the monk Dracontius, who refused to carry out his duties as a bishop, shows no opposition, but only that Athanasius saw monasticism from a different perspective than that from which the monks saw it. It was Athanasius who gave monasticism a new perspective: that it is more than hunger and thirst, as many monks had thought.
Athanasius cultivated good contacts with the different monastic systems and regions. He welcomed Antonius in Alexandria, visited the Pachomian monks and received them in Alexandria, and was the adviser of some virgins.
Most of the monks were not theologians and did not try to be. They could not and did not try to access the theological sources, for the majority of them could not understand the Greek language. They found it enough to follow the opinions of their patriarchs and to read their works, especially the festal letters. One should not be surprised to find agreements between the monks’ fathers and the patriarchs, especially with regard to church dogma and heretical opinions. A comparison between the nineteenth chapter of the Vita Antonii and the fortieth festal letter of Athanasius concerning the martyr cult, or between Shenoute’s work And It Happened One Day and a letter of Cyril, confirms the influence of the patriarchs ‘ thought on the monks.
The pontificate of Patriarch Theophilus (385-412) was a turning point in the relationship between the church and the monastic organization. The festal letter of Theophilus from the year 399 rejected and condemned those monks who believed in the anthropomorphology of God. The monks of Scetis crowded around the house of the patriarch and asked him to condemn Origen, who rejected the literal interpretation of the Scriptures and the anthropomorphology of God.
At the same time Theophilus quarrelled with the Tall Brothers, who admired Origen. To take revenge on the Tall Brothers, and at the same time to satisfy the monks of Scetis, the patriarch pursued and drove away all the followers of Origen and burned their cells and books.
For the first time in the history of monasticism, the monks believed in and struggled for a dogma that the Church had condemned, and the patriarch meddled in monastic affairs to achieve personal aims. Through this situation, both the patriarchs and the monks realized the kind of role the monks could play in the politics of the church and also in the theological struggles in which the church was engaged.
Shenoute and Athanasius
When we investigate the relationship between Shenoute and his contemporary patriarchs, we do not find any change in the nature of this relationship.
It remained as it had been in the past. Shenoute (347-465) was contemporary with seven patriarchs, from Athanasius to Timothy Aelurus, and as a head of his monastery (ca. 385-465) he was in contact with the last four. Some of his correspondence with these patriarchs has been preserved and offers us some good material for investigating this relationship. Although this began with the career of Shenoute as abbot of the White Monastery, it was in its beginning a common and normal relationship between an abbot and his patriarch.
Shenoute had no personal contact with Athanasius, but it is clear from his writings that he was reading not only this patriarch’s festal letters, which existed in Coptic, but also his other Greek writings, especially his four books against the Arians, and attacked, like Athanasius, the Arians, the Meletians, and the apocryphal books. The sources of Shenoute’s teachings were the same as Athanasius’s, namely the Holy Bible and the fathers of the church. Therefore, his rejection of the apocryphal books is to be expected, based on the thirty-ninth festal letter of Athanasius. He quoted Athanasius explicitly in his writings, such as in I Am Amazed and Acephalous Work A17.
The divinity of Jesus, the Son of God, was also the main theme in the writings of Shenoute against the Arians, as it is also in the writings of Athanasius, even if Shenoute began to inveigh against other heresies as well. He connected all the heresies with the divinity of Jesus. In his work I Am Amazed, he attacked one of the apocryphal books just because it had the title “The gospel of Jesus, the Son of God, and the begotten of the angels.” Also in his work And It Happened One Day, which was addressed against the teaching of Nestorius instead of speaking about the nature of Christ, he spoke only about the eternity of the Son.
Compare the following excerpts from Shenoute’s I Am Amazed with various works of Athanasius:
Shenoute of Atripe
Athanasius of Alexandria
As the great wise man Apa Athanasius, the archbishop, revealed the evil of those who say these impieties and their other wicked words, which are these: The Father has not always been a Father, and the Son has not always existed, but rather the Son of God too came into existence from what was not, and like everything that was created he too is a creature and a creation; and there was a time, when the Word of God did not exist; and before he was begotten he did not exist; and also that he is not by nature the Son of God; and also that he is one of those begotten and created; and that he is a creature and a thing made and a thing; and that God was existing alone and no one was being with him. And when he wanted to make us, then he created this one and called him logos and Son; and like everything that did not exist before and (then) existed by the will of God, he also did not exist before, but he existed by the will of God; and that he also existed by a grace. (Shenoute, I Am Amazed §§ 325-28, ed. Orlandi 1985: 24, 26.)
And the mockeries which he [Arius] utters in it [Thalia], repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these:—”God was not always a Father”; but “once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterward He became a Father.” “The Son was not always”; for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘For God,’ he says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’. . . and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. Athanasius, Contra Arianos 1.2:5 (Schaff and Wace 1994, II, vol. 4: 308-309).
Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: ‘God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son’; ‘The Word of God is one of the creatures’; and ‘Once He was not’; and ‘He is alterable; capable, when it is His Will, of altering.’ Athanasius, De Synodis 15 (Schaff and Wace 1994, II, vol. 4: 457.)
Because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God. Athanasius, ep. fest. 39,1 (Schaff and Wace 1994, II, vol. 4: 551.)
The Scriptures of the living water are enough that the thirsty people drink. (Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0426, ed. Orlandi 1985: 46.)
These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. Athanasius, ep. fest. 39,6, trans. (Schaff and Wace 1994, II, vol. 4: 552.)
Although he was influenced by Athanasius, who read Origen and praised him, Shenoute rejected all Origen’s writings, as we see in I Am Amazed and And It Happened One Day. He also had a different point of view from Athanasius about the martyr cult. While Athanasius was very strongly opposed to this, Shenoute allowed it with certain conditions, such as that one must behave at a martyr’s shrine as if one is in a church, with respect and worship.
Now, how can we interpret these disagreements between the abbot and his patriarch, whom Shenoute honored and admired? Here we have to note that the thought of Shenoute was always in agreement with the current thought of the church and not absolutely with the thought of the church in general. In the fifth century the Alexandrian Church under Patriarch Theophilus rejected Origen, all his teachings, and the teachings of his disciples, much like a holy war against so-called ‘Origenism.’ This fact explains why Shenoute fought against Origenism only in those sermons delivered after the episcopate of Theophilus, and why he quoted Theophilus at such length in his work I Am Amazed. We can also say the same about the attitude of Shenoute center the martyr cult. It was Cyril who was the first patriarch to allow the erection of martyr chapels to supersede the Egyptian pilgrimage.
Shenoute and Theophilus
Concerning theology, Theophilus did not offer any significant writings. We cannot consider his fighting against the Origenists as a theological matter, because he himself had no problem with Origen’s writings until 399. He even wanted to ordain Evagrius Ponticus, the most popular Origenist in the fourth century, as a bishop. However, Theophilus was the one who stimulated the struggle between Christians and pagans by destroying the Serapeum in Alexandria in 392. The situation became dangerous at the time of Cyril, when the Christians in Alexandria murdered Hypatia, a famous pagan philosopher. That act was considered by Shenoute and his fellow monks in Upper Egypt as permission to do the same in their regions. These Christians relied also on the edicts of Emperor Theodosius I from 391 and 392, which outlawed paganism and gave the Christian officials many privileges in comparison with the non-Christians. Another edict, from 399, allowed the destruction of pagan temples.
This fight against paganism was more violent in Upper Egypt than in Lower Egypt, and especially so in the region of Akhmim. The Vita and the writings of Shenoute testify to his struggle against paganism. Shenoute was not satisfied with destroying the temples just in his immediate neighborhood, but he also helped others to do it elsewhere. He did not tolerate paganism, either in public, or in secret. This attitude motivated him to search the house of his enemy Gesius twice, with and without his permission, to ascertain whether he possessed idols or not. Like other Christians, Shenoute also justified his violence against non-Christians on the basis of the edicts of the emperors. It was not by accident that Shenoute began his own struggle against paganism after that struggle had already begun in Alexandria, with the blessing of his patriarchs and above all the Patriarch Theophilus.
Shenoute and Cyril
With the pontificate of Cyril (412-444) the relationship between the church and the monastic organization developed another feature. It became more close and personal. The wish of Cyril to crown Shenoute as a bishop (which is something that Athanasius did not try with Antonius) and his rather private invitation to the abbot to attend the Council of Ephesus in 431, reveal a new dimension in this relationship and in the relationship between the Church and the monastic organization in general.
Although the monks were not theologians, and the Church did not want them to become such, they played a role that the Church intended for them, namely to support their patriarchs. In his letter to the monks of Egypt, Cyril advised them not to be involved in theological matters: “It would be better for you to pay no attention at all to such inquiries and not at all to dig up difficult questions . . . . For the finer distinctions of speculations transcend the comprehension of the less instructed. However, you have not remained completely ignorant of such discussions. . . . I thought it necessary to say some few words to you concerning these matters. I do not do this that you may have a greater battle of words; rather, I intend that you may escape the danger of going astray.”
The narrative in the Bohairic Life of Shenoute about how he struck Nestorius, and how Cyril rewarded him and appointed him as an archimandrite, is untrustworthy, but nevertheless shows how the relationship between the church and the monks had come to appear. Cyril could not ignore the monastic organization that possessed hundreds of monasteries and thousands of monks, and he could not ignore the most famous abbot in Egypt. His invitation to attend this council was the beginning of the participation of monasticism in shaping the politics of the church, and later when the majority of Alexandrian patriarchs and bishops were chosen from among the monks, the monastic organization effectively became the leadership of the church and could finally incorporate the Church into its own organization, thus making the Coptic Church into a monastic church. As we have seen in his relationship with Athanasius, Shenoute’s fight against heresies was influenced by his patriarchs.
Their writings were considered by him as laws in and of themselves. He rejected the apocryphal books because Athanasius had rejected them, he rejected the teachings of Origen because Theophilus had rejected them, and he allowed the martyr cult because Cyril allowed it. His struggle against Nestorius was also influenced by the writings of Cyril. Shenoute understood Nestorius’s heresy as Cyril had understood and interpreted it. That is confirmed by the fact that not all the quotes of Nestorius in the writings of Shenoute are to be found in the writings of Nestorius himself. In his defense of Nestorius, Shenoute depended on the writings of Cyril.
In his It Happened One Day, he wrote: “But Nestorius who was given the title ‘bishop’. . . said: “She gave birth to a human Christ who was like Moses, David, and others.” We find similar words in a letter of Cyril to Nestorius: “If you believe that he was a prophet like Moses, then neither Moses nor any of the prophets was able to bear the sins of the world.”
In his sermons And It Happened One Day and I Am Amazed, Shenoute spoke about the Eucharist and how the bread and the wine are transformed into the body and the blood of Christ, seeing a certain relationship between the divinity of Christ and the transformation of the bread and the wine in the Eucharist. It is difficult to understand this relationship until one reads the third letter of Cyril to Nestorius (ep. 17,12), in which he says:
Proclaiming the death according to the flesh of the only begotten Son of God, that is, of Jesus Christ, and confessing his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, we celebrate the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and we thus approach the spiritual blessings and are made holy, becoming partakers of the holy flesh and of the precious blood of Christ, the Saviour of us all. And we do this, not as men receiving common flesh, far from it, nor truly the flesh of a man sanctified and conjoined to the Word according to a unity of dignity, or as one having had a divine indwelling, but as the truly life-giving and very own flesh of the Word himself.
Here Cyril can explain that if Christ is not the eternal Son of God, the Eucharist loses its mysterious efficacy. We do not find such an explanation in Shenoute’s writings, and that is one of the great differences between a theologian like Cyril and a monk-like Shenoute.
In his letters, Cyril used the example of the union between the body and the soul to explain the union between the two natures of Christ. Shenoute used the same example regarding the two natures: “The Godhead did not leave the humanity when He was on the cross. When someone is murdered, does one say that a body was murdered? Is it not said that we murdered the whole man, although the soul does not die, but only the body? It is also the same with the Lord. He died in his humanity, but in his soul he did not die.”
In his letter to the monks of Egypt we can observe how Cyril used a style of language that the monks could understand, and it is very similar to the language of Shenoute when he puts rhetorical questions or imagines, as in a diatribe, that his opponents ask him questions, and so on. And because he knew the value that Athanasius had for the monks, Cyril mentioned him twice in his letter to them, and he quoted from his work Contra Arianos.
Shenoute of Atripe
Cyril of Alexandria
Why did all our holy fathers, especially our father Apa Athanasius, the archbishop, the man of the true knowledge, not accept them [the apocryphal books], but rejected them strongly? (Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0308, ed. Orlandi 1985: 22.)
Who are those who destroy the snares of those people and uproot them? They are the teachers of the Scripture from the prophets, the apostles, and the orthodox fathers in every time. (Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0323, ed. Orlandi 1985: 24.)
There is no deed or word that man can hear, or understand, or give fruits within, that the prophets or apostles or faithful fathers and true teachers of the church did not reveal fully. (Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0360, ed. Orlandi 1985: 32.)
He [Nestorius] did not persuade these, saying of Christ: “He is a man in whom God dwells and after he was born from Mary the logos went into him.” (Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0464, ed. Orlandi 1985: 50.)
Then the one whom the Virgin has born is a god. Therefore it is necessary to confess that Mary is the bearer of God, as our fathers said. (Shenoute, I Am Amazed §§ 0482, ed. Orlandi 1985: 54.)
If we abide by the teachings of the holy Fathers and are earnest in considering them of great value, and test ourselves, “whether we are in the faith” according to the Scripture, it will truly come about that we most fitly will mold our thoughts to their upright and blameless judgments. (Cyril, ep. 4,2, trans. McEnerney 1987: 39.)
For an ordinary man was not born of the Holy Virgin and then the Word descended into him. (Cyril, ep. 4,4, trans. McEnerney 1987: 40.)
Nor do we say that they are conjoined to one another by dignity and authority… Neither do we say that the Word of God dwelled, as in an ordinary man, in the one born of the Holy Virgin, in order that Christ might not be thought to be a man bearing God. (Cyril, ep. 17,9, trans. McEnerney 1987: 83.)
We shall find that the holy Fathers have thought in this way. In this way, they have not hesitated to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God. (Cyril, ep. 4,7, trans. McEnerney 1987: 41.)
Shenoute and Dioscorus
It seems that the attempts of the church to prevent the writings of Origen from being read were unsuccessful. Up to the pontificate of Dioscorus, the writings and the opinions of Origen were disseminated not only among the laymen or the monks of Nitria, but also in the monasteries of Upper Egypt. A monk called Helias was condemned and dismissed by Dioscorus because he was an Origenist. To ensure that these measures would be carried out, Dioscorus sent a letter to Shenoute to announce his decisions to the clerics and laymen and to drive away this monk from all monasteries and churches. Dioscorus, who invited Shenoute with Macarius of Tkow to attend the Council of Chalcedon, trusted no one but Shenoute to execute his orders and to announce them even to the bishops of these regions.
 Heussi 1936: 184; Brakke 1998: 83. Against this, cf. Ranke-Heinemann 1964: 104; Heussi 1936: 182.
 Athanasius, ep. Drac. (Schaff 1994: II,4: 557-60).[see general note at beginning of your chapter]
 The History of the Patriarchs (ed. Seybold 1912: 57).
 Athanasius, Vita Antonii 70 (Schaff 1994: II,4).
 Vita Pachomii Prima (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: §§ 30, 143-44); Vita Pachomii Bohairic (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: §§ 28, 200-201); Vita Pachomi Arabic (Amelineau 1889: 384-85, 693-96); Ammon, Ep. Thphl. § 34 (Goehring 1986).
 Vita Pachomii Prima (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: §§ 113, 120); Vita Pachomii Bohairic (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: §§ 96, 134); Vita Pachomii Arabic (Amelineau 1889: 642-43, 659).
 See note 3.
 Apophthegmata Patrum, Sisoes 25 (Miller 1998); Vita Pachomii Prima (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: § 94b); Vita Pachomii Bohairic (Veilleux 1980-1982, vol. 1: § 189); Shenoute, I Am Amazed §§ 0308, 0319, 0329-0330 (Orlandi 1985); Barnard 1997: 7, 9.
 See notes 45 and 46 below.
 This letter is lost, but Gennadius mentioned it. Cf. Gennadius, Vir. ill. chap. 34 (Schaff 1994: II,3).
 Socrates, h. e. 6,7 ; Sozomenus., h. e. 8,11-12 (Schaff 1994: II,2); Palladius, v. Chrys. Chap. 6-8 (Schlapfer 1966); Vita Aphu §§ 5-11 (Bumazhnov 2006); Evelyn–White 1973, vol. 2: 125-44; Clark 1992: 105-21; Dechow 1988: 402-14. Until the end of the fourth century, there was no antiorigenist movement in Egypt. The works of Origen were read by many people and even by the Alexandrian patriarchs and church fathers like Athanasius (Ath., ep. Serap. IV. 9-10; Ath., decr. 27; Soc., h. e. 6,13) and Didymus the Blind (Soc., h. e. 4,25). The writings and the opinions of Origen were spread among the monks of Nitria by some foreigners like Evagrius Ponticus, Palladius, and John Cassian, who all visited and settled in Wadi al-Natrun. The struggle concerning Origenism began outside of Egypt between Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, and John of Palestine.
 Emmel 2004b, vol. 1: 8; Emmel 2005: 8318b; Behlmer 1996: LV-LX.
 A letter to Timothy [I?] (Zoega, 1810: 428; Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 13-14, no. 2); to Theophilus (?) (Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 14-15, no. 4); from Cyril (Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 225-26, Add. I.A,B,C); to Cyril (?) (ed. Young 1993: 175); from Dioscorus (Thompson 1922: 367-76); to Dioscorus (Leipoldt 19061913, vol. 3: 13, no. 1); to Timothy [II?] (Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 14, no. 3). See Emmel 2004b, vol. 1: 8 n. 9, 273, 280.
 Moussa 1998-1999: 20-25.
 Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0309 (Orlandi 1985).
 Shenoute, And It Happened One Day 87v-82r = AV 228-229 (Lefort, ed., 1955: 41-42).
 Athanasius, ep. Serap. IV. 9-10; Athanasius, decr. 27 (Schaff, trans., 1994: II,4); Socrates, h. e. 6,13 (Schaff, trans., 1994: II,2).
 Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0359 (Orlandi 1985), MONB.DQ 113-114 (Wessely 1909-1917, vol. 1: 131-32), MONB.DS 190-92 (unpublished), MONB.DQ 123 (Wessely 1909-1917, vol. 1: 133), MONB.DS 197:i.26-199:ii.1 (unpublished), MONB.DS 221 (Emmel 1995: 95); Shenoute, And It Happened One Day 84r = AV 233 (Lefort 1955: 43).
 Athanasius, ep. fest. 41 (Schaff 1994: II,4).
 Shenoute, Those Who Work Evil (Amelineau 1907-1914, vol. 1: 211-20); Horn 1986: 5; Baumeister 1972: 69-70.
 Jerome, ep. 92, 96 (Schaff 1994: II,6).
 It is clear that And It Happened One Day was written after 450, because Shenoute mentioned the death of Nestorius, and I Am Amazed ca. 445. See Emmel 2004b, vol. 2: 648, 665-66.
 Emmel 1995: 95-96.
 Montserrat 1998: 261-263; Baumeister 1972: 69-70.
 Socrates, h. e. 4,23 (Schaff 1994: II,2).
 Theodoret, h. e. 5,22 (Schaff 1994: II,3); Bauer and Strzygowski 1905: 152, plate 6 verso; Hahn 2004: 78-94.
 Socrates, h. e. 7,15 (Schaff 1994: II,2); John of Nikiu, The Chronicle 84, 87-103 (Charles 1981).
 Pharr 1952: 16.10.16.
 Vita Sinuthii Bohairic §§ 83-84, 125-27 (Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 1; Bell 1983); Vita Sinuthii Arabic (Amelineau 1888-1895: 385-86, 425-26, 439-46); Panegyric on Macarius §§ VIII-IX (Johnson 1980); Shenoute, Let Our Eyes (unpublished, see Emmel 2004b, vol. 2: 680, 865; Emmel (forthcoming; Shenoute, Not because a Fox Barks (Chassinat 1911: 38-50, 211; Leipoldt 1908: 77-84; Barns, trans., 1964); Emmel 2002: 102-13; Leipoldt 1903: 175-82; Hahn 2004: 254-60.
 Panegyric on Macarius §§ VIII-IX (Johnson 1980); Vita Sinuthii Arabic (Amelineau 1888-1895: 429).
 Shenoute, Not because a Fox Barks (XH 209:ii.2-210:i.8, Chassinat 1911: 43-44; DU 172, Leipoldt, 1906-1913, vol. 3: 81-82; Barns, trans., 1964: 157); Shenoute, Let Our Eyes (unpublished; see note 31 above); Vita Sinuthii Arabic (Amelineau 1888— 1895: 425-26).
 Shenoute, Let Our Eyes (WW 27:ii.3-25, unpublished; see note 31 above).
 Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 34-35; Emmel 2004b: 8; Grillmeier 1979-2002: 213.
 Zoega 1810: 28-29; Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 3: 35, 219; 225 B; Vita Sinuthii Bohairic § 17 (Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 1; Bell 1983); Vita Sinuthii Arabic (Amelineau 1888-1895: 426); Panegyric on Macarius § IV,1 (Johnson 1980); Emmel 2004b: 8 nn. 9 and 10; Weiss 1969-1970: 183 n. 2; Grillmeier 1979-2002, vol. 2, part 4: 213.
 Cyril, ep. 1,4 (McEnerney 1987).
 Vita Sinuthii Bohairic §§ 128-130 (Leipoldt 1906-1913, vol. 1; Bell 1983); Vita Sinuthii Arabic (Amelineau 1888-1895: 427-28).
 Leipoldt 1903: 1 n. 2, 41; Bell 1983: 108 n. 85; The History of the Patriarchs (Seybold 1912: 73); Grillmeier 1979-2002, vol. 2, part 4: 218-19; Hahn 2004: 223.
 Brakke 1998: 99; Krause 1981: 58.
 Shenoute, I Am Amazed §§ 0323, 0360, 0482 (Orlandi 1985).
 Shenoute, I Am Amazed § 0308 (Orlandi 1985).
 Weiss 1969-1970: 186-92; Grillmeier 1979-2002, vol. 2, part 4: 214-17.
 Grillmeier 1979-200, vol. 2, part 4: 215.
 Shenoute, And It Happened One Day 84r = AV 233 (Lefort 1955: 43).
 The History of the Patriarchs (Seybold 1912: 71).
 Cyril, ep. 1,36, 50,6 (McEnerney 1987).
 Shenoute, I Am Amazed §§ 0473-0474 (Orlandi 1985).
 Cyril, ep. 1, 19, 24, 26, 32 (McEnerney 1987).
 Cyril, ep. 1, 6-9 (McEnerney 1987).
 Dioscor. Al., Ep. ad Sinuth. (Thompson 1922); Dechow 1988: 237-40.
 Panegyric on Macarius § X II,7 (Johnson 1980); Vita Sinuthii Arabic (Amelineau 18881895: 429-31, 467-68).