JournalofCopticStudies 16 (2014) 139–153 doi: 10.2143/JCS.16.0.3066725 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS OVER TWO MILLENNIA BY SAAD MICHAEL SAAD, NARDINE SAAD RIEGELS AND DONALD A. WESTBROOK Abstract From the earliest days of the Coptic Orthodox Church to the 2012 election of Pope Tawadros II, the methods of selecting 118 Coptic patriarchs have been mul- tifarious and in some aspects unique in the history of Christendom. Existing schol- arship on the traditions of Coptic patriarchal selection often includes generaliza- tions in place of rigorous statistical analysis. This study remedies the deficiency through historical and quantifiable analysis of the methods of patriarchal selection over the nearly two thousand-year history of the Coptic Orthodox Church. The following eight methods of selection were identified in order of frequency: con- sensus among clergy and laity, election by the presbyters of Alexandria, appoint- ment by predecessor, election by laity acting alone, casting of lots among final nominees, governmental interference, divine appointment or vision, and election by bishops acting alone. Despite the variety of methods — and despite the social and political trials of the Copts — a democratic thrust has continued to exert itself, with the most recent patriarchal election being no exception. The study also includes critical examination of the current patriarchal election law, decreed in Egypt in 1957, which formalized casting of lots among the top three elected candidates. Introduction Throughout the history of the Orthodox and Catholic churches, the ordi- nation of a new patriarch or pope has represented an inflection point in ecclesiastical life. The candidate chosen for the highest hierarchical office in a church can hold that position for decades and be instrumental in the theological and sociopolitical direction of the Christian community he oversees. The selection process, therefore, has been invariably subject to internal and external political and social forces, has varied widely among different churches, and has developed significantly over time. The two-millennia history of Alexandrian patriarchs is an important case in point that merits scholarly and ecumenical attention. It is important to understand the historical and theological dimensions of the office of Coptic patriarch that have influenced the process of his 997680.indb7680.indb 113939 113/02/153/02/15 009:339:33 140 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK selection. Copts trace the succession of their patriarchs back to Mark the Evangelist (Meinardus 1999: 28-9). Furthermore the Alexandrian patriarch, particularly in the first five centuries, played a major role in shaping Christianity through theological exposition and leadership in ecumenical councils. In addition the Coptic patriarch has served as the spiritual leader of the largest Christian community in the Middle East, one which has perennially been subject to religious and ethnic persecu- tion. During the past fifty years this role has expanded as the Coptic Church has increasingly become a global entity through immigrant com- munities worldwide (Saad 2010, Saad 2014). This study1 examines the selection methods of the 118 Coptic patri- archs and attempts to discover themes such as consensus and democracy as well as submission to the perceived will of God. For example, History ofthePatriarchs, one of the earliest pieces of Coptic historical litera- ture available, makes repeated reference to consensus by ‘the people’ as a means by which patriarchs were chosen. The study also explores the current patriarchal election law, decreed in 1957, and critically discusses its contents in light of biblical, apostolic, patristic, and historical tradi- tions that may support its philosophy and articles. Existing scholarship often includes generalizations about the tradi- tions of Coptic patriarchal selection. This shortcoming is compounded by the fact that no work has so far addressed a topic of such enormous scope systematically, critically, and quantifiably. Therefore, this study puts forward an analysis supported by statistical and social scientific examination of the patriarchal selection methods. Were they simple or sophisticated, democratic or dictatorial, secret or transparent, clerical or congregational? How immune were the methods from political maneu- vering and external forces? Methodology of Research and Categorization To achieve this task, we researched the selection methods of all 118 patri- archs and identified corresponding principles and traditions. We created eight separate categories for these methods, as displayed in Table 1 where the patriarchs are represented by their numeric succession. Not surpris- ingly, there were several patriarchal elections in which more than one 1 Preliminary findings of this study were published earlier (Saad and Saad 2001). Since then, further research and newer publications have broadened and improved the historical- statistical analysis, and expanded and refined the conclusions. 997680.indb7680.indb 114040 113/02/153/02/15 009:339:33 TRADITIONS OF SELECTING COPTIC PATRIARCHS 141 method was at play. Those cases are listed under the method decisively employed. In each of these cases, selection of the patriarch is to be dis- tinguished from the rite of ordination or consecration, which occurred by the laying on of hands after the selection process. The chief sources consulted were The CopticEncyclopedia(CE), now available as part of the web-based Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia at www.cgu.edu/cce; the Coptic liturgical book the Synaxarion (R. Coquin and A. Atiya, CE: 2171-90); HistoryofthePatriarchs, one of the most cited references of Coptic historical literature available (J.D. Heijer, CE: 1239-42); and the 3-volume series, ThePopesofEgypt, by Davis (2004), Swanson (2010), and Guirguis and van Doorn-Harder (2011). Due to limitations of available source materials, we could not deter- mine the selection methods of 25 of 118 patriarchs nor could we discover any new selection method beyond our eight categories in Table 1. Often, biographies of the patriarchs do not mention how each was selected, and if mentioned the story is commonly simplified. This research is thus open to completion by others. Below are the highlights of our research findings for the 93 known elections. Methods of Coptic Patriarchal Selection Method 1: Election by Consensus Among Clergy and Laity Of the 93 patriarchs with known methods of selection, 45 were ordained after a general consensus was achieved among the clergy and laity. In the sources, we find those elections described using the following generic statement: ‘the bishops, presbyters, and lay leaders unanimously chose [name].’ The details of the process were not usually recorded, and as expected they varied from one patriarch to another. The first three patriarchs elected by this method were Celadion, the ninth patriarch (157-167), Julian, the 11th patriarch (180-189), and Atha- nasius I, the 20th patriarch (328-373). Clearly then, it took many genera- tions to establish the tradition of general consensus and to make it as broad-based as the socio-political dynamic and transportation of the time allowed. One interesting dynamic in this evolution came as a result of the transi- tion of the patriarchal seat from Alexandria to Cairo. During the Fatimid period, especially during the second half of the eleventh century, presby- ters and archons (lay leaders) in Alexandria and Cairo respectively “took 997680.indb7680.indb 114141 113/02/153/02/15 009:339:33 142 S.M. SAAD – N.S. RIEGELS – D.A. WESTBROOK turns” in the selection of Christodoulus (1047-1077) and Cyril II (1078- 1092) (Den Heijer 2009: 24-42). During the first half of the 20th century, consensus was regulated through the creation of an electoral college composed of prescribed categories of voters, including bishops, priests and lay leaders. The chosen popes — John XIX, the 113th patriarch (1928-1942), Macarius III, the 114th patri- arch (1944-1945), and Yusab II, the 115th patriarch (1946-56) — each won by a large margin. Method 2: Election by the Presbyters of Alexandria Until Demetrius I, the twelfth patriarch (189-231), the bishop of Alexan- dria was the only bishop in the whole of Egypt. He presided over a council of twelve presbyters, and when he died the twelve often elected a succes- sor amongst themselves, after which the other eleven laid hands on him (M. Shoucri, “Patriarchal Election,” CE: 1911-2). This is consistent with early church literature that describes the presbyters of Alexandria playing a significant or even decisive role in the elections of most Alexandrian bishops, until the lay election of Alexander I, the 19th patriarch (312-326) (HPCCA 1:401-2).2 For centuries after that time, even in the presence of Egyptian bishops who ‘laid hands’ and ordained the Pope of Alexandria, literature suggests the presbyters of Alexandria still played a major role in electing him. That role gradually lessened after the patriarchal residence was transferred to Cairo during the eleventh century. However, there are only twelve une- quivocal cases of election by presbyters mentioned in the Historyofthe Patriarchs or The CopticEncyclopedia. The actual number may very well be greater than these confirmed cases, especially since this study was unable to discover the selection methods of 25 patriarchs, some of whom may have been primarily elected by the presbyters. 2 As Stephen Davis 2004: 135 writes, “In one of his letters, the church father Jerome (ca. 347-419/20) notes that, in the Alexandrian church, a group of presbyters used to elect the new bishop from their own ranks, and that this practice continued up until the time of Heracles and Dionysius … Some other sources suggest that presbyterial election of the Alexandrian patriarch may have continued into the early fourth century; however, it is certain that the practice must have been discontinued by the time Athanasius I was elected in 328.” Also see Davis 2004: 238, footnote 4. Haas 1997: 217-222 describes these pro- cesses along with the social and political background of patriarchal elections in the first five centuries.