The Egyptian nation grieved with the Copts earlier this year as they paid farewell to one of the most revered and beloved of spiritual leaders, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III.
Since his repose on 17 March 2012, Egypt and the world wait in anticipation for the election of the 118th patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
The Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark is the successor of one of the Four Evangelists, and the patriarch of one of the apostolic seats that played a major role in shaping world Christianity. He is the spiritual leader of the largest Christian community in the Middle East. And he is the overseer of a Church that is becoming universal by its spread worldwide.
Many assumptions exist regarding the traditions of the Coptic patriarchal elections, but they are not statistically supported. Therefore, we wished to scientifically examine the methods that led to the nomination and election of each patriarch. Did the elections adhere to one particular method, or were the traditions diverse and evolutionary? Was the process simple or sophisticated, democratic or dictatorial? How immune was it from political manoeuvring and external forces?
In order to answer these questions, we researched the election methods of all 117 patriarchs and identified corresponding principles and traditions. We created nine separate categories for these methods, as shown in the table. Elections that involved more than one method are listed under the most decisive method.
The chief sources we consulted were the Synaxarion, History of the Patriarchs by Sawirus ibn al-Muqaffaa, and the Coptic Encyclopedia (now available as part of the web-based Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia: http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/col/cce).
Due to limitations of time and source materials, we could not determine the election methods of 27 of 117 patriarchs. The research is thus open to completion by others. Below are the highlights of our research findings for the 90 known elections.
1- Election by general consensus
At least 35 patriarchs were ordained after a general consensus was achieved among the bishops, presbyters and lay leaders. The first in this category was St Athanasius the Apostolic (328-373) which means that it took approximately 250 years to establish the tradition of general consensus. In case of the contemporary patriarchs Anba Yu’annis XIX (1928-1942), Anba Macarius III (1944-1945), and Anba Yusab II (1946-1956), consensus was formalised by an electoral college composed of prescribed categories of voters, including bishops, priests and lay leaders.
2- Election by the presbyters of Alexandria
The presbyters of Alexandria played the decisive role in the elections of at least 16 patriarchs, most of which occurred in the first century and a half of the Church’s history. Until Anba Demetrius I (189-231), the bishop of Alexandria was the only bishop in the entire land of Egypt. He presided over a council of 12 presbyters, and when he died, the 12 elected a successor from among themselves. For centuries following, even in the presence of Egyptian bishops, the priests of Alexandria still played a major role in electing the patriarch. This role gradually diminished after the patriarchal residence was transferred to Cairo in the 11th century.
3- Casting lots among final nominees
On at least ten occasions, patriarchs have been selected by casting lots. The earliest example was the third patriarch, Anba Abilius (85-98), who was ordained approximately 50 years after the early church cast her lot for the Apostle Matthias (Acts 1:26). We will expand upon this method, including its use in the 1957 election bylaws, in a future article.
4- Appointment by predecessor
There are seven clear cases of appointment by a predecessor such as Anba Petros II, the 21st patriarch (373-380) who was designated by St Athanasius. There are seven other cases in which the predecessor’s recommendation had some degree of influence on the election, as with Anba Petros I (300-311). In other cases candidates were the disciples of previous patriarchs, and thus gained visibility, experience, and authority in papal affairs. Such circumstances naturally gave them an advantage over other candidates in the appointment process. For example, Anba Benyamin I, the 38th patriarch (622-661), served Anba Andronicus (616-622) and that capacity paved the way for his succession upon the patriarch’s death.
5- Strong intervention by government
There were six instances in which the government had a strong influence on the outcome of the election, if not outright imposition. Anba Dioscorus II (515-517), for example, was first installed as patriarch by the Roman authorities before his ecclesiastical enthronement. Arguably the worst scenario was that of Anba Kyrillos III (1235-1243), known as ibn Laqlaq. Because his candidacy was rejected by most bishops, clergy, and archons, he resorted to political maneouvring, gift-giving in the sultan##s court, and to his connections with ibn al-Miqat, the Coptic chief scribe of the sultan. After 19 agonising years, he eventually prevailed when only two bishops were still alive to finalise the ordination.
6- Election by laity acting alone
In five cases, the archons of the church elected the patriarch. Not surprisingly, they often chose a layman or deacon rather than a monk or priest.
7- Election by bishops acting alone
There are only four documented cases in which the bishops elected the patriarch with no indication of participation by clergy or laity. Quite possibly, though, the participation was not made explicit by the available source materials.
8- Divine appointment or vision
At his deathbed, Anba Julian (180-189) had a dream of an angel who told him that his successor would be the man who would bring him a bunch of grapes the following morning. Demetrius I (189-231), a farmer, found grapes out of season, took them to Julian, and soon after was consecrated. In the case of Anba Benyamin II (1327-1339), a prophecy by St Barsum al-Eryan (died 1317) secured his election.
9- Coincidence!
Finally, some elections appear to have been determined by chance. In the cases of the 42nd and 63rd patriarchs, after the electing council interviewed a candidate and found him unsuitable, they chose his disciple instead. In the election of the 64th patriarch, news reached the still undecided electing council in Alexandria that a rich merchant donated money to the ruler, al-Hakem bi-Amr Allah, to secure a decree appointing him as patriarch. A poor priest, acting as a servant to the electing council, walked into their meeting room carrying an urn, then stumbled down the stairs. When the urn did not break, the bishops saw this as a miracle and signed for them to elect him. The bishops hastened to consecrate this priest before the merchant arrived from Cairo with the caliphal decree, and the cleric became the famous Pope St Zacharias (1004-1032).
Conclusion
We found that several methods have been employed to elect the patriarch, differing according to historical, political, social, and theological circumstances. Remarkably, the method of consensus in some form or another is a common thread among the majority of the 90 known elections. This important principle is derived from biblical, apostolic and Coptic democratic traditions.
The election methods employed ten times or more are: (1) election by general consensus, (2) election by the presbyters of Alexandria, and (3) casting of lots among final nominees. Six other methods were sporadically employed between three and seven times each. Evidently, these six methods do not represent consistent or dominant traditions but at best pragmatic responses to circumstances and at worst unorthodox practices that did not survive the tests of orthodoxy, democracy, and church history.
Table – Tally of Coptic Patriarchal Elections
Category of Election Method Number Patriarchal Order
1 General Consensus 35 20,22,24,28,36,37,43,45,47,51,53,54,55, 61,62,67,68,6972,73,76,80,81,83,87,95, 100,106,107,109,110,111,113,114,115
2 Presbyters of Alexandria 16 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,25,34
3 Casting of Lots 10 3,48,71,102,103,104,105,108,116,117
4 Appointment by Predecessor 7 2,21,38,39,49,50,88
5 Strong Intervention by Government 6 27,31,33,41,75,78
6 Laity Acting Alone 5 44,70,74,77,101
7 Bishops Acting Alone 4 19,35,52,112
8 Divine Appointment or Vision 4 1,12, 46, 82
9 Coincidence 3 42, 63, 64
Unknown to Authors 27
Total 117
Saad Michael Saad and Nardine Saad Riegels are with the Council for Coptic Studies, Claremont Graduate University, California: http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5446.asp. An Arabic version of this article was published in Watani on 10 June 2012: http://www.wataninet.com/watani_Article_Details.aspx?A=27946.
WATANI International
23 September 2012