Skip to content


January 25, 2018

The prominent Coptologist, Alin Suciu, from Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities, has recently told me that an Amharic version of the Chronicle of John of Nikiu has been found and is due to be published soon! This is undoubtedly great news! I have no clue who is the discoverer of the Amharic manuscript and who is publishing and translating it, but whoever he or she is, they are embarking on a great service to academia, history and the Copts.

The Chronicle of Nikiu has so far been known in only one version, a Qe’ez translation from the lost Arabic version, itself translated from A Coptic version, which has also been lost. The Chronicle, by John of Nikiu, from the seventh century, a bishop of the Coptic Church who had witnessed the Arab invasion of Egypt, is of paramount importance. It starts from Creation and ends when the Arabs had occupied all Egypt. The part that covers the Arab invasion is particularly important. Unfortunately, the Ge’ez manuscript has many lacunae and some chapters have been misplaced. This affects the narrative which John of Nikiu gives.

Now, with the discovery of the Amharic version, one hopes that the full story will be told.


News that should be celebrated by many, but above all, all Copts.





January 15, 2018

Coptic pope consecrating the myron

Pope Tawadros II cooking the Myron before consecrating it. The Myron is no longer consecrating at Alexandria and only on a certain date of the year.


From my previous articles on the subjects of the Lenten Fast and Baptism, we arrived at sufficient evidence to prove two assertions: that, one, the Lenten Fast in the Early Church lasted for six weeks only and that in the last week of Lent – that is the Pascha Week – according to the Egyptian tradition, baptism of children and new converts, the catechumens, occurred; and that, two, the ceremony of baptism in Early Coptic Church was carried out only once in a year, on a certain day and in a certain week, which was the Pascha week.

The exact day on which baptism occurred within the Pascha Week, the Day of Baptism, however, will need further clarification. In two previous articles, I tried to find the exact Day of Baptism:

First, in my article, The time for baptism in early Coptic Church according to Ibn Siba’a, we have seen that Yuhanna ibn abi Zakariyya ibn Siba’a, the 13thcentury Coptic theologian, wrote in his book, The Precious Jewel in Ecclesiastical Sciences (الجوهرة النفيسة فى علوم الكنيسة), wrote that baptism in the early Church was practised on a certain day, once every year. That day, he says, was “the sixth Friday of the Holy Fast”, by which he means Friday of the sixth week of the Lenten fast. As for the reason of choosing this day in particular, he writes:

[T]he reason for choosing that day specifically is that Christ’s crucifixion, his sufferings, his death and his entrance into the grave – I mean by his earthly element – was on Friday, the sixth day, in the six thousandth [year of Creation].  Therefore, the Fathers, Teachers of the Church, made it to simulate what the Lord Christ did in his entrance into the grave to release all who deserved salvation from the progeny of Adam. For that they arranged for baptism to be like the death of Christ on Friday, the sixth day in the sixth Friday of the Fast, in the six thousand Year of the World. They [the Fathers] made baptism release everyone who was immersed in it as the death of Christ for us has released us from the custody of Satan.[1]

Second, in my article, The Time for Baptism in Early Coptic Church at the Time of patriarch Peter I (300 – 311), I produced an earlier evidence than Ibn Siba’a’s that confirms the early Church of Alexandria did perform baptism on only one day each year, and sheds more light into this matter. I used the first part of History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Churchwhich was written sometime in the fifth century by a certain Menas the Scribe. In the Live of St. Peter I (300 – 311), we read the beautiful story of St. Marturia and her two children, Philopator and Eutropius, from Antioch of Pisidia,who lived at the time of Saint Peter I. This story confirms that baptism did occur in the Pascha Week but does not tell us which day. However, another source for the story of Madura and her two children, Brit. Mus. Ms. Oriental, No. 6783 manuscript,[2] titled by its translator, E. A. Wallis Budge, from Sahidic Coptic to English, The Encomium on Demetrius, Archbishop of Alexandria, by Flavianus, Bishop of Ephesus is very helpful. From this manuscript, we learn that Marturia and her children arrived in Alexandria on the fourth day of the Pascha Week, which is Wednesday and that baptism took place on the evening of Good Friday, by which is meant the evening preceding Good Friday day, according to the Jewish reckoning.

It seems then that all these sources agree that the Day of Baptism was Good Friday. But let’s now examine another source to check if it can confirm this. This time we rely on The Lamp in Darkness and the Explanation of Service (مِصْباح الظُلْمة وإيِضاح الخِدْمَة Mișbâḥ al-ẓulma wa-îḍâḥ al-khidma) by the 13/14th century Coptic scholar Ibn Kabar[3].[4] The evidence comes from Chapter 9 of his book – a chapter dedicated to the Myron (Chrism).[5] The Myron, which is special oil that is consecrated by bishops, is used in our Church, as in many other Christian denominations, in the administration of certain sacraments such as the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation. It is made of pure olive oil, balsam and several spices.  Ibn Kabar tells us that the origin of Myron goes back to the time when Christ was buried. After the Crucifixion, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea worked together to take the body of Christ from the cross, shroud him in linen cloth after anointing him with spices made of myrrh and aloes that weighed sixty pounds, and then intern him in a tomb.[6] This holy mix of spices, the Disciples took, and adding to it pure olive oil, prayed over it at the Cenacle[7], and made it to be the “stamp of baptism”. This Myron was distributed to all Christian groups that dispersed geographically in order to evangelise; and they used it to anoint those who believed and got baptised. And the Disciples commanded that the Holy Myron be replenished by adding to the remaining Myron more of the same ingredients, and also some of the bread that Christ had consecrated; and that that it should be repeatedly replenished, and be consecrated by the clergy, until the end of times.

But the relevant part in this chapter is when Ibn Kabar talks about the day when Myron was consecrated. We learn from him that, in Egypt, the ingredients of Myron were cooked and consecrated in Alexandria by the Coptic Patriarch, joined by the bishops from other parts of Egypt;[8] and that that its consecration occurred once every year on a certain date. That date, Ibn Kabar tells us, was the same Day of Baptism! This is the revealing paragraph:

And the Holy Myron continued to be exchanged in all places and replenished in this way, and cooked and consecrated on Friday, the sixth day of the sixth week of the Holy Fast, for it was the end of the Holy Forty Days; and it was the day on which the Lord Christ baptised his followers; and that day became the Day of Baptism and the Day of Joy. That day is the epitome of the sixth millennium in which God the Logos incarnated to save the race of men, and He freed Adam and his progeny from the slavery of Satan; and the sixth day on which He was crucified in, abolishing death by His Death, and giving us life by his Crucifixion.[9]


Here we have, yet another Coptic source that confirms to us that the Day of Baptism in the Coptic Early Church was indeed Good Friday. We learn, from Ibn Kabar, that on this same Good Friday, Myron was cooked and consecrated too.


[1] See: Jean Périer, Ibn Sabba, Yohanna ibn Abi Zakariya, La Perle Précieuse in Patrologia Orientalis. Tome 16, fasc. 4 (Paris, 1922); p. 671-2. Périer publishes only the first 56 chapters of the book of Ibn Siba’a (out of 115) in Arabic accompanied by French translation. The English translation here is mine.

[2] This manuscript was published and translated by E. A. Wallis Budge, in 1914, in his book Coptic Martyrdoms, etc., in the Dialect of Upper Egypt. The Coptic Sahidic manuscript was copied by one Victor Mercurius Eponuchos, a deacon from Esna, in Upper Egypt, in AD 1003.

[3] His full name is Shams al-Riʾāsa Abū al-Barakāt ibn Kabar.

[4] For more on Ibn Kabar, see Coptic Encyclopedia (1992), Ibn Kabar by Aziz S. Atiya.

[5] Ibn Kabar dedicates Chapter 15 to baptism but there is nothing there to help us in finding more about our subject. In Chapter 18 about Fasting, Ibn Kabar talks about the duration of Lent and talks about the week in which baptism took place; but since his talk about the duration of Lent is incorrect, we are not left any wiser by his talk on the week of baptism.

[6] On the Burial of Christ, and the roles of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, see: John 19:38-42; Matthew 27:57-60; Luke 23:50-56; Mark 15:43-46.

[7] Or the Upper Room, where Jesus had his Last Supper.

[8] From the consecrated Myron at Alexandria, Myron was distributed to other churches in Egypt.

[9] مِصْباح الظُلْمة وإيِضاح الخِدْمَة للقس شمس الرياسة أبوالبركات المعروف بابن كبر، الجزء الأول، مكتبة الكاروز، ١٩٧١؛ ص ٣٥٠-٣٥١.The English translation is mine.


January 12, 2018

Paris map.PNG

Section of Paris map showing areas in which Yuhanna Chiftich lived and officiated

Yuhanna Chiftichi is one of the most interesting and extraordinary persons in Coptic history. He was a Coptic priest, scholar, interpreter, director and fighter. He was born in Cairo sometime in the last quarter of the 18th century and died in France, most probably in Marseille, sometime after 1825. He first appeared in our history during the French Campaign in Egypt between 1798 and 1801 and fought with General Ya’aqub against the Turks and Mamelukes. After the French withdrawal, he left to France with them. There, he landed in Marseille and seems to have gone early to Paris where he lived until 1825. After that, he returned to Marseille where he most probably died there. In Paris, his knowledge erudition and knowledge of Coptic and Arabic made him indispensable to two main French projects that added to human civilisation: first, The Description of Egypt (Description de l’Ėgypte); and, second, the deciphering of Hieroglyphs by Jean-François Champollion in 1822. This is not the place to write a full biography of this special Copt; suffice it here to review the article on Yuhanna Chiftich by Anouar Louca in The Coptic Encyclopedia (1992), which the reader can access here.

Here, I would like to focus on the area in which Yuhanna lived in Paris. He lived in the 8th borough (arrandissement) of Paris known as Champs-Elysées and then the 1st borough (Louvre, Palais Royale); all north of the Seine River in the most historic and now elegant areas of Paris.

Chiftichi lodged first at the Rue de la Concorde, where the Needle of Rameses II now stands, and the Rue Royale. During that period he was working as priest officiating at the old Church of Saint Roch that is located at 284 Rue Saint-Honoré. Later, he moved to live in Rue Roche; and it seems that is where Champollion visited him to learn Coptic. Apparently, he continued to live there until he moved to Marseille in 1825.

These should be places that every Copt should go and tour upon visiting Paris.



January 12, 2018

An updated version of What Is A Nation?

ON COPTIC NATIONALISM في القومية القبطية

A buffalo herd: they instinctively herd together

Nations and national feelings are not new – they are at least as old as history. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Persians and Hebrews, to take but a few, knew they were nations[1] having come to a consciousness of their unique selves at different points of history – they were proud of themselves and their achievements and heritage; and, in the process of defending themselves, or fighting, against other peoples, whom they called foreigners, barbarians, or gentiles, and who threatened either their existence or way of life, they came to define themselves not only by the innate features of themselves, but also by how much they differed from others.

What is new, however, is the modern social theorists who have made it their habit studying peoples and what they call the objective criteria of nationhood, by which they mean certain characteristics the absence of…

View original post 2,063 more words


January 9, 2018

The “kyrie elesison”, the “irini pasi” and its response “kaito ephnigmati so”, and even the Doxology must be translated into Coptic

In a previous article, titled “How the Greek in Coptic liturgy contributed to the decline of Coptic, the Arabisation of the Church, and our language shift from Coptic to Arabic”, I explained how almost one-quarter of the Coptic Divine Liturgy is in Greek; and that 43.5% of all the people’s role in the Liturgy is sung in Greek! I also explained how this has contributed to the decline of Coptic and eventual Arabisation of the Liturgy.

As we speak of making a stop to the use of Arabic in the Church, particularly in the Devine Liturgy, replacing it with Coptic, we must first remove every Greek word in the Coptic Liturgy that has a Coptic equivalent from it, and aim at entirely Copticising it. This should help in reviving our language.

It is a call then to all Coptic nationalists and all who work to revive Coptic to start the work of Copticisating the Liturgy. This will mean replacing the “kyrie elesison”, the “irini pasi” and its response “kaito ephnigmati so”, and even the Doxology by translating them into Coptic.

MISINTERPRETING DAVID’S “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts.”

January 6, 2018


Coptic mural at the Monastery of Apollo in Bawit, north of Asyut (6/7th century), showing David clothed by King Saul in the king’s armour, including his coat of mail, a bronze helmet, and his sword. As the story goes, David found those cumbersome, and took them off, and abandoned the sword.


Coptic mural at the Monastery of Apollo in Bawit, north of Asyut (6/7th century), showing David facing up to Goliath: David wearing a simple tunic and a sandal; the tunic girdle is tied up in the shape of a cross, as one end goes up over the left shoulder; in his left hand he carries a staff, and on his right hands he holds his sling with one stone in it, while the shepherd back is hung from his left upper arm. Goliath is shown here in all his heavy bronze gear: a helmet, coat of mail, armour on legs, and a shield. Goliath carries a spear and a sword. The Copts have never liked bloody or cruel scenes or scenes of torture, and therefore the spectacle of Goliath’s death or his cut head is not painted.

As the attacks on the Copts by the Islamists, and the persecution by successive governments of Egypt, mount, the Copts, in their helplessness to defend themselves against these attacks or reverse the persecution they are exposed to, find themselves fond of quoting 1 Samuel 17:45: “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts.[1] The quotation is often given truncated, and the rest of the verse “…, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied”; is often omitted. The omission is understandable but the purpose for which the verse is often invoked is not.

You will realise that the verse, which represents a speech by David the Israelite to Goliath the Philistine, forms part of the story of the war between the Israelites and Philistines recorded in Chapter 17 of the Book of 1 Samuel in the Old Testament. The story runs as follows:

Now the Philistines gathered their armies together to battle, and were gathered at Sochoh[2], which belongs to Judah; they encamped between Sochoh and Azekah, in Ephes Dammim. And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and they encamped in the Valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array against the Philistines. The Philistines stood on a mountain on one side, and Israel stood on a mountain on the other side, with a valley between them.

And a champion went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.[3] He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels[4] of bronze. And he had bronze armor on his legs and a bronze javelin between his shoulders. Now the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his iron spearhead weighed six hundred shekels; and a shield-bearer went before him. Then he stood and cried out to the armies of Israel, and said to them, “Why have you come out to line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and you the servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.” And the Philistine said, “I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.” When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.[5]

David – the later King David – was youngest of eight sons of one Jesse from Bethlehem. Three older brothers of his were recruits in the army of Saul. David stayed behind with his father to shepherd his sheep. At some point, Jesse sent David with some food rations to take to his soldier brothers. When David arrived there, he found that the two warring sides had drawn up in battle array, army against army. Having heard Goliath’s defiance of the Israelites, David volunteered to challenge him. Goliath was a giant of a man – he was little under three meters tall[6] – who was battle hardened and well armed. David, however, was only a boy, a shepherd by profession, and inexperienced in wars. Even David’s own side had doubts on his fighting ability to stand up for Goliath:

Now when the words which David spoke were heard,[7] they reported them to Saul; and he sent for him. Then David said to Saul, “Let no man’s heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.”

And Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.”

But David said to Saul, “Your servant used to keep his father’s sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock, I went out after it and struck it, and delivered the lamb from its mouth; and when it arose against me, I caught it by its beard, and struck and killed it. Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God.” Moreover David said, “The Lord, who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.”

And Saul said to David, “Go, and the Lord be with you!”

So Saul clothed David with his armor, and he put a bronze helmet on his head; he also clothed him with a coat of mail. David fastened his sword to his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. And David said to Saul, “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested them.” So David took them off. Then he took his staff in his hand; and he chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in a shepherd’s bag, in a pouch which he had, and his sling was in his hand.[8]

The contrast in the physical strength, combat experience and might of armour and weaponry between the two could not be greater. David, however, had the courage, confidence in himself and faith in his God; and went ahead to challenge Goliath the Philistine:

And he [David] drew near to the Philistine. So the Philistine came, and began drawing near to David, and the man who bore the shield went before him. And when the Philistine looked about and saw David, he disdained him; for he was only a youth, ruddy and good-looking.So the Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field!”

Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you and take your head from you. And this day I will give the carcasses of the camp of the Philistines to the birds of the air and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and He will give you into our hands.”

So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it.[9]


David and Goliath by the French artist Gustave Doré (1832 – 18833), engraved by N. Monvoisin, 1866. Here, David raises the cut head of the dead Goliath; and while the Israelites shout in joy, the Philistines retreat in fear and desperation.

Seeing their gigantic hero defeated and his head cut off, the Philistines lost courage and fled; while the Israelites chased them up and defeated them. David’s daring duel with Goliath thus marked the beginning of the victory of Israelites over the Philistines.


This is undoubtedly a beautiful story of bravery, confidence and faith. However, it is not a story of pacifism, non-violence or passivity. Doing nothing and praying only in the hope that God will fight his war, was not what David did. David rose up to the challenge and did fight despite all the odds. He prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, as the Bible says; and the stone struck Goliath on the forehead, punctured it and resulted in his death. The stone and sling were indeed weapons –weaker weapon than Goliath’s sword, spear and javelin surely, but, still, potentially deadly. David was not passive; his action was not non-violent; and he was not a pacifist. Although the defeat of Goliath and the Philistines was attributed mainly to God’s intervention, the contribution of David and the Israelites in killing Goliath, chasing up the Philistines and vanquishing them, cannot be ignored. One wonders if the Israelites would have won the battle had David and Saul’s army done nothing and satisfied themselves with prayer alone, refusing to do their duty to fight back and defend themselves and the Israelites.


Now, the story of David’s fight with Goliath – a more powerful foe – equipped with simple weaponry but strong faith in God is presented in the Old Testament as an historical event; but the Church has almost always ignored its literal meaning and interpreted it allegorically. The Church looked at the whole story as a shadow of the spiritual fight between Christ and Satan. David was the type of Christ, while Goliath was a type of the devil. Practically everything in the story has a spiritual meaning, not just David and Goliath, but also the lion and bear, their killing by David, the two armies, the valley, the duration of the standoff,[10] the staff, the stone, the strike on the forehead, etc. Saint Augustine of Hippo, for instance, gives the following interpretation:

Having been anointed by the blessed Samuel,[11] before coming here, he [David] killed a lion and a bear with no weapon, as he himself told King Saul. The lion and bear both refer to the devil, who dared to attack some of David’s sheep; to get strangled by him. What we are reading, dear brethren, is allegoric: What is symbolised by David, has been realised in our Lord Jesus Christ, who has strangled the lion and the bear, when he descended into Hades to liberate all the saints from their claws. Listen to the supplication of the prophet to the Person of our Lord: ‘Deliver me from the sword, my precious life from the power of the dog. Save me from the lion’s mouth.’[12]

As the strength of the bear in its claws, and that of the lion in its teeth, so the devil is symbolized by these two beasts. That is why it is said of the Person of Christ, that He saves His Church from the hand; namely, from the strength and mouth of the devil.

David came to find the Jewish armies camping in the Terebinth valley[13] to fight against the Philistines; as Christ – the true David – had to come to lift mankind up from the valley of sin and tears. They stood in the valley confronting the Philistines. They were in a valley, because the weight of their sins brought them down. Anyway, they stood there, not daring to fight against the enemy. Why didn’t they dare to do that? Because David, the symbol of Christ, had not yet come. That is true, dear brethren. Who dares to fight against the enemy, before our Lord Jesus Christ sets mankind free from its authority? Now, the word ‘David’ means ‘strong hand’. Who is stronger, brethren, than Him, who has overcome the whole world, armoured with the cross, and not with a sword?!

The children of Israel stood for 40 days before the enemy. Those 40 days refer to the present life, during which Christians do not stop fighting against Goliath and his army; namely, against the devil and his angels…

David came to find the people preparing for battle against the Philistines; yet nobody dared to enter alone into the battle. The symbol of Christ (David) went to battle, carrying only a staff in his hand against Goliath. By that he positively refers to what was realized in our Lord Jesus Christ – the true David – who came and carried His cross to fight the spiritual Goliath; namely, the devil…

It is true that Goliath having been hit in his forehead, and not in any other place, symbolizes something that happens to us. As the one baptized is marked with the sign of the cross on his forehead, that would be a hit against the spiritual Goliath, a defeat to the devil.[14]


As we have seen, the story of David and Goliath, taken literally, cannot support passivity and pacifism; or that God will fight for one while he apathetically or cowardly decides not to defend his family against attacks by the Islamists. Divorced from its historical setting, and interpreted allegorically, the story can be used in a spiritual sense to describe the fight between Christ and the devil. Both methods of interpretation have their place: the allegorical interpretation can be used in spiritual matters; and the literal interpretation can be used in temporal matters. The two methods are different and complementary in the interpretation of this story; and it has never been claimed by the allegorists that David’s action in combatting Goliath, as history, was wrong. In fact, his fortitude – that is his calmness and courage with which he faced Goliath – and his presentation of himself to danger for the sake of his people were found praiseworthy. Saint Ambrose of Milan writes about David’s admired qualities:

David never waged war unless he was driven to it. Thus prudence was combined in him with fortitude in the battle. For even when about to fight single-handed against Goliath, the enormous giant, he rejected the armour with which he was laden. His strength depended more on his own arm than on the weapons of others. Then, at a distance, to get a stronger throw, with one cast of stone, he slew his enemy. After that he never entered on a war without seeking counsel of the Lord. Thus he was victorious in all wars, and even to his last years was ready to fight. And when war arose with the Philistines, he joined battle with their fierce troops, being desirous of winning renown, whilst careless of his own safety.[15]

It is clear that the two methods of interpretation, the allegorical and the literal, complement each other, particularly in this story of David and Goliath, and no one of them can be used to undermine the other. The fortitudinous act of David, his will to sacrifice himself for his people, defending them against the aggressive Philistines, and his faith in God, all instruct us to do the same when our people are exposed to a similar circumstance.  Using, “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts,” to justify passivity or pacifism, and claiming that we ought to do nothing when our families are attacked by the Islamists for God will fight for and instead of us, is a misinterpretation of the verse as much as a misunderstanding of the whole story of David and Goliath.

As Saint Ambrose says in his The Duties of the Clergy, fortitude cannot be a virtue unless combined with two other virtues, justice and prudence.[16] I am not calling you for fortitude to fight back when your families and people are attacked without any qualifications: you must exercise justice and prudence. In the case of an Islamist attacking your business or home and intending on slaughtering you or your family, I can see all justification for resistance. That would be fortitudinous, just and prudent thing to do.

We must stop using biblical texts to justify our passivity and cowardice; or interpreting them wrongly.


[1] NKJV.

[2] All geographical locations mentioned here now fall in Israel.

[3] See endnote 6.

[4] A biblical shekel weighs now 14.1g.

[5] 1 Samuel 17: 1-11. I have taken the verse numbers out.

[6] The Hebrew cubit is said to be about one and a half foot; so Goliath was about 9 ¾ foot tall = 292.5 cm.

[7] David was asking of the price for challenging Goliath.

[8] 1 Samuel 17: 31-40.

[9] 1 Samuel 17: 40-51.

[10] The two armies stood against each other for forty days, with Goliath taunting the Israelites for a duel, before David challenged him.

[11] See previous chapters of 1 Samuel.

[12] Psalm 22: 20, 21.

[13] The Valley of Elah.

[14] St. Augustine as quoted by Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty in First Samuel; translated by George Botros (Coptic Orthodox Christian Center, Orange, California, 2004); pp. 91-92.

[15] See: Chapter 35, On Fortitude in The Duties of the Clergy by Saint Ambrose of Milan; included in Volume 10: St. Ambrose, Selected Works and Letters in Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series; p. 108.

[16] Ibid.


January 1, 2018

There is a trend within the Copts to consider all who die at the hand of the Islamists as martyrs. I disagree with that for the following reasons:

First, the traditional view of a martyr in the Church is somebody who consciously dies for Christ rather than lives when given the choice by the persecutors to deny Christ and live or stick to Christ and die. Such were the martyrs of the classical period such as Saints Menas, Victor and George; and the later martyrs of our Church such as Saint Salib in AD 1512. Christian martyrdom was based on audacity, defiance, courage and faith. In political terms, the martyrs were performing an act of resistance – a peaceful resistance based on conscious self-sacrifice to bring about victory of the Kingdom of Heaven. That was a great and might fight in which the martyr enlisted in the forces of Christ against the forces of the Lords of Darkness of this World: a drama of the highest degree.

Second, not all who have been killed by the Islamists from within us recently are, however, martyrs in the traditional meaning of the word. Some are, such as the 21 Martyrs of Libya in 2015 and the 28 Martyrs of Minya in 2017 who refused to convert to Islam to avoid execution. But, there are many Copts who have been killed, like those attacked at their homes, slaughtered at their work-places or shot or blown up at churches. These were courageous heroes, and many of them were undoubtedly saints; however, it will be hard to call them martyrs as they were not exposed to the same test as that faced by, for example, Saint Salib. They were often attacked and killed unaware; and some might had been, like me, full of sins and often in doubt though always fighting it. Again, some of them might have not wanted to die at all, at least unnaturally and prematurely as they had families to look after and lives, nay, divine gifts, to enjoy and use to help others and make the world better. Some Copts may not be religious at all at the time of their massacre by the Islamists.

Third, and here I come to the main reason behind writing this article: there is a danger in considering all our dead at the hands of our enemy as martyrs since martyrdom is taken as victory in a conflict; something that is welcomed, praised and often invited in our history. It guarantees Paradise – the easiest way to be with Christ, the angels and saints afterlife. Martyrdom is an event to celebrate rather than to be sad about. The Copts, therefore, tend not to see the magnitude of loss once they put in their mind that the dead is a martyr. When it is real martyrdom, there is nothing wrong with that attitude; but, when it is not, there is every reason to regret it: it trivialises the loss; reduces anger; and paralyses one into doing nothing to prevent more of it. It is a recipe for impotence.

No, not all those who were massacred of us by the Islamists were martyrs – many were not aware that they were to die that death; many wanted to live out their natural lives like all normal human beings; and yet many did not want to die unprepared spiritually.  The Copts must not fool themselves into a belief that all is well; that all will enter Paradise; that there was nothing to be angry about or to fight and prevent. The Copts must see their dead as victims of crime – fallen, heroes and brave men and women; but not all martyrs. This will make them appreciate the magnitude of their loss; take it as abnormal, unnatural and unwanted; and fight to prevent its repetition.

You may also want to read my article titled The Coptic concept of martyrdom must not be contaminated by Islam here.

%d bloggers like this: