A Note on the Nature of the Sources

The Vita Pachomii survives in multiple redactions and languages: two dialects of Coptic (Bohairic and Sahidic), Greek, Latin, and Arabic. L. Th. Lefort reconstructed the Coptic texts.Footnote ⁹ He reconstructed one Bohairic codex, known by the siglum Bo. He also reconstructed twenty-plus fragmentary Sahidic codices. Each codex is known by the numerical designation Lefort assigned to it (e.g., S1, S2, S3). As for the Greek witnesses, F. Halkin discerned seven different recensions among the thirty-plus Greek manuscripts.Footnote ¹⁰ These are also known by their numerical designation (e.g., G1, G2, G3). However, it is important to note that the Greek numerals do not refer to individual manuscripts as is the case with the Sahidic ones. Instead, they refer to individual recensions that have one or more manuscript witnesses. For instance, the text of G2 is found in eight different manuscripts. There is only one Latin witness to the Vita Pachomii, a translation of a text similar to G2 made by Dionysius Exiguus in the sixth century (its siglum is D).Footnote ¹¹ As for the Arabic witnesses, twenty-plus manuscripts are known,Footnote ¹² but only three have been closely examined by scholars. Two of these are known by the libraries in which they reside: Av (a Vatican codex) and Ag (a Göttingen codex). The third is known as Am, a text preserved in a manuscript at the British Museum and published by E. Amélineau.Footnote ¹³

Whereas the Greek, Latin, and Arabic witnesses are complete, the Coptic texts are extremely fragmentary. In several cases, no more than one manuscript folio survives. Efforts to create stemmata marking the relationships between all the witnesses have come to no definitive conclusion with regard to genealogy.Footnote ¹⁴ They have also failed to identify any particular witness as preserving an “original” text. On the other hand, they have shown thereby that the extant witnesses are redactions or reworkings of (hypothetical) previous copies. S3, for example, is known as the “great compilation,”Footnote ¹⁵ because it is expansive in its incorporation of materials (juxtaposing variant narratives rather than being selective) and because its foliation indicates that it was 400 pages long.Footnote ¹⁶

Due to the nature of the evidence, each witness can justifiably be treated in one of two ways. Each can be treated as a textual unity, reflecting the vision of the final redactor(s). On the other hand, each can be treated as a set of discrete narratives or “microforms,”Footnote ¹⁷ which reflects the visions of multiple, unknown authors/redactors, who arranged, rearranged, and rewrote pieces and whose views may not have been compatible with one another. I adopt the latter method. In identifying two prototypes employed in the composition of Pachomian hagiographic narratives, I do not align them with particular witnesses. Instead, the texts discussed here contain both Pauline and Antonian elements. The Antonian elements have long been recognized; my goal is to isolate a stratum of Pauline elements and to reflect on its historical significance.

The Prologues

Only ten of the witnesses preserve a prologue, namely S3, S8, Bo, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, Ag, and Am.Footnote ¹⁸ From these ten attestations, two different prologue-texts can be distinguished. Eight (Bo, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, Ag, and Am) offer a brief history of Christianity beginning with God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17–18 and highlight Antony as a model ascetic before proceeding to a narration of Pachomius’s childhood. The prologues of S3 and S8 likewise begin with Abraham, but are otherwise completely different in character from the former eight. The prologues of S3 and S8 are not historiographic, but exegetical. They offer exegesis of gospel and Pauline texts related to the theme of fatherhood. Moreover, they do not even mention Antony, let alone highlight him as a model ascetic. Instead, the apostle Paul is chosen as the model father to whom Pachomius conforms. In the following analysis, I refer to the two types as “the Pauline prologue” and “the Antonian prologue.”Footnote ¹⁹

The Pauline Prologue

The Pauline prologue poses a number of questions: (1) Why ought children know their fathers? (2) Who is a father? (3) Why is Pachomius a father? Responses to these questions are offered in the form of exegesis of pericopes from the gospels and Pauline letters. This prologue depicts Paul as the exemplar of fatherhood that Pachomius follows.

The prologue begins with the proposition that Pachomius’s life is a grace and a gift that ought to be made known to everyone, especially his children who did not see their father in the flesh. The rest of the prologue defends this proposition through the exegesis of gospel and Pauline texts on fatherhood. The defense begins with the fundamental issue of why one ought to know one’s fathers. The reason is that Isa 51:2 enjoins this in saying, “Consider Abraham your father” (ϭⲱϣⲧ ⲉⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲡⲉⲧⲛ̄ⲉⲓⲱⲧ). A counterargument from the gospels is then cited: does not Jesus, in Matt 23:9, teach that only God is “our Father”? In response, a qualification is introduced. Jesus did indeed teach that only God is “our Father,” but he said this for the benefit of people who are earthly-minded. That is to say, Jesus was emphasizing that biological fathers are not fathers, as Heb 12:9 and Luke 14:26 likewise teach. With biological fathers excluded from the category of “father,” the prologue then proceeds to define “father.” Fathers are instead those who “beget another in the work of God” (ⲡⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲧϫⲡⲟ ⲛ̄ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ϩⲙ̄ⲡϩⲱⲃ ⲙ̄ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ). This begetting can take two forms, as again Paul’s example shows: begetting in the Gospel and begetting in good works. 1 Cor 4:15 demonstrates the former, and Phil 4:8–9 demonstrates the latter. The prologue then returns to Pachomius: Pachomius is such a father who begets children in the Gospel and in good works. Pachomius is also a father because the heavenly Father dwells in him, the Holy Spirit dwells in him, and he imitates Paul, who in turn imitates Christ.

According to this prologue, fathers ought to be known by their children. By “fathers,” however, here too biological ones are not meant. Instead, “father” denotes someone in whom the heavenly Father and Holy Spirit dwell, someone who imitates Christ as Paul does, someone who begets another in the Gospel, and someone who begets another in good works. The lives of such fathers are God-given grace and gifts to be shared. This prologue thus defines “fatherhood” in two ways: fatherhood is not only the begetting of others in the Gospel and good works, but it is also the indwelling of the heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a person. To be a father, one must both be the dwelling place of a spiritual Father and beget children spiritually.

The Pauline prologue defines fatherhood and insists that Pachomius fits the definition just as much as the apostle Paul does. Paul both defines what it is to be father and himself constitutes an exemplar.

The Antonian Prologue

The Antonian prologue does not offer such an exegetical justification for recording Pachomius’s life. In fact, it does not explicitly offer any justification for its project, but is historiographic in nature. It provides background on the rise of Christianity in order to introduce Pachomius as one among many pagan converts in Egypt.

The prologue summarizes the work of the Logos from Abraham to the great commission given to the twelve in Matt 28:19. Persecutions put the spread of the gospel after the great commission to the test, after which monasteries and ascetics began to appear in imitation of the martyrs. Here it is not Pachomius who is cited as a monastic exemplar, but Antony, Amoun, and Theodore. After noting that pagan conversion only increased in Egypt after the Diocletian and Maximian persecution, the prologue mentions Pachomius: he was one of those pagan converts. The only explicit justification offered for recording his life is that “he became a perfect monk.”

Various versions of this prologue are attested in Bo, Ag, Am, G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5.Footnote ²⁰ In Bo, only the second half of the prologue survives and corresponds closely to the texts of Ag and Am. G1 and G3 add mention of Athanasius’s Vita Antonii in recognizing the virtues of the great monks Antony, Amoun, and Theodore. The much-expanded prologue of G2 adds theological and soteriological reflection. G4 and G5 follow the same basic structure. However, instead of citing Antony, Amoun, and Theodore as monastic exemplars and introducing Pachomius simply as a pagan convert, they present Antony as the teacher and guide of solitary monasticism and Pachomius as the leader and law-giver of communal monasticism. Pachomius’s designation as law-giver introduces a comparison between Pachomius and Moses.

The Prologues Compared

The Pauline and Antonian prologues differ in two important ways. First, one is exegetical, the other historiographic. Second, each offers a different genealogical map for Pachomius’s spiritual lineage: one vertical, the other horizontal. One traces Pachomius’s fatherhood vertically to the heavenly Father via the apostle Paul, while the other embeds Pachomius within a horizontal landscape of Christian salvation history and ascetic lifestyle; Pachomius is only mentioned after other distinguished patriarchs, martyrs, and monks have been highlighted.

The Pauline prologue carves out its own terms for hagiographic composition independent of the Vita Antonii. It chooses Paul as an ascetic prototype, not Antony. It uses biblical exegesis, not Christian historiography, to introduce Pachomius. Most importantly, the Pauline prologue either does not assume that its task is justified (i.e., it does not assume that hagiographic composition is a normative practice) or it assumes that extensive scriptural exegesis (on the part of the narrator) is an acceptable mode of hagiographic composition. It is at pains to demonstrate that remembering one’s spiritual fathers is scripturally mandated. It does not assume that Pachomius is our father. That is, it does not assume that everyone recognizes Pachomius as father. Instead, it seeks to demonstrate that Pachomius deserves to be recognized as father for the same reasons that the apostle Paul is recognized as father.

The Antonian prologue, on the other hand, assumes a larger degree of shared knowledge between writer and reader. It offers a narrative of Pachomius’s life not by explicitly persuading its readers that his story belongs in the larger history of Christianity’s unfolding, but by placing it there. The Antonian prologue presents a brief, sweeping review of salvation history from Abraham to Antony by way of introducing Pachomius. It begins with scriptural historiography, shifts to martyrology, and finally turns to monastic hagiography.Footnote ²¹ The prologue assumes that mention of the ascetic heroes—Antony above all, but also Amoun and Theodore—will conjure up context in the mind of the reader. It makes no explicit attempt to heroize Pachomius. Instead, it introduces him as one among many pagan converts to Christianity whose progress rendered him a perfect monk. These observations raise two possibilities: either (1) the Antonian prologue is not persuasive in character, but rather assumes Pachomius’s place in salvation history is justified, or (2) the Antonian prologue is implicitly persuasive, but its method of persuasion is distinct from the Pauline prologue. It does not persuade by citing scriptural proof-texts, but by presenting a genealogy.

For the Antonian prologue, Pachomius is a “perfect monk,” while for the Pauline prologue, he is “father.” The Antonian prologue does not attempt to place its narrative’s hero in a special relationship with the text’s readers, while the Pauline prologue urges its readers to acknowledge its narrative’s hero as father.

These differences are significant, but the prologues are not without similarities. First, both prologues are composed in first person plural perspective. For the Pauline prologue, this draws the reader into the exegetical program. For the Antonian one, this implicates the reader in the common history of Christianity; the reader is assumed to belong to the Christian milieu and to participate in the unfolding of Christian history. Second, both prologues begin by citing God’s blessing of Abraham. For the Antonian prologue, this introduces Christian historiography, the work of the Logos among humankind. For the Pauline prologue, this introduces Abraham as a father whose remembrance scripture enjoins. These similarities may suggest that the prologues are textually related. We will return to this issue in considering their possible moments of composition.

Pachomius’s First Community

S1 and S3 contain a narrative of Pachomius’s first attempt to form a community, an attempt that resulted in failure. Because the narrative retains embarrassing details and does not conceal Pachomius’s failures, it is considered to have been composed earlier than other narratives of the Koinonia’s beginnings.Footnote ²² The narrative ends, in fact, with the community’s dissolution. Throughout, the account emphasizes that Pachomius follows Paul’s example in serving others. Paul’s model of servitude in 1 Cor and 2 Tim requires gentleness of heart and a willingness to attend to the needs of one’s brethren, to be weak like the weak.

The account quotes 1 Cor 9:22 and 3:2 to justify a regulation that Pachomius created for his first community. Regularly, the brothers were to offer a share of their provisions (food) to Pachomius. The collective provisions were to be used in common at meals and in the reception of guests. The narrative justifies Pachomius’s administrative role by citing Paul, by claiming that Pachomius was following the Apostle’s example:

Like the Pauline prologue, this passage links Pachomius to Paul using the transitional phrase ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ (“so also”). The phrase, a common transition employed in Coptic literature, is one way of creating a signpost to the reader that a comparison is being drawn or a parallel is being invoked.

The account proceeds to explain that Pachomius’s role was not only administrative. Pachomius not only collected the provisions, but also prepared the meals and served the food. The narrative justifies these additional roles in a similar way, citing Paul’s example and uses the phrase ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ (“so also”):

Pachomius’s leadership positions are cast in the language of Pauline servitude. Pachomius’s role is likened to that of the servant Paul.

Finally, the account adds the brothers’ reaction to Pachomius’s roles. They disobey him, contradict him, and insult him. Pachomius makes no active response, but simply endures. The narrative justifies this once again by citing Paul and reinforcing the Paul-Pachomius connection for the reader:

Though this section does not employ the transition ⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ ⲑⲉ (“so also”), it uses another linguistic signpost to make a similar connection. The preposition ⲕⲁⲧⲁ (“according to”) is used to claim that Pachomius acted in accordance with Paul’s example.

The narrative of Pachomius’s first community stresses three times that Pachomius’s regulations and modes of conduct follow a Pauline prototype. Just as Paul uses the rhetoric of weakness and servitude to describe positions of authority, so too does this narrative of Pachomian hagiography. Pachomius’s authority is communicated through language of weakness and servitude to line him up with Paul both implicitly and explicitly. The reader is invited to see the outlines of Pachomius’s portrait fall in place with those of Paul.

Pachomius’s Ascents

The narrative of the first community already establishes the concept of weakness as a focal point in the Pauline template for Pachomius. Weakness, however, becomes most significant in the ascent narratives. In 2 Cor 12, Paul offers an apology for his weakness. He claims that his weakness is an opportunity for God’s strength to come to the fore. As David Black writes, Paul’s “overall objective is to show that God’s power is more clearly seen in weakness than in Paul’s own strength, for ἀσθένεια is not a hindrance to God’s working, but the requirement for it.”Footnote ²⁶ It is in this context that Paul narrates his ascent experience, his visit to the third heaven. In the Vita Pachomii, Pachomius likewise ascends to heaven and his ascents are likewise put in the context of weakness. Pachomius’s ascents occur when he is very ill. Like the narrative of Pachomius’s first community, the ascent narratives make the Pauline prototype explicit. The narratives cite 2 Cor 12 and have Pachomius meet Paul himself in paradise, where Paul gives Pachomius words of comfort.

The ascent narratives survive in full only in the Arabic vitae. Fragments are also found in S2, S7, and Bo.Footnote ²⁷ In S2, Ag, and Am,Footnote ²⁸ the parallel between Pachomius and Paul is made explicit:

That the parallel is made explicit regarding the matter of how Pachomius visited paradise is significant. The point underscored here is that both Paul and Pachomius were “seized” or “taken up” into paradise. We will return to this point below in comparison with the Vita Antonii.

Not only does Pachomius ascend in the same exact manner that Paul does, not only is his ascent surrounded by language of weakness like Paul’s, but he also sees Paul and is addressed by him on one of his visits. Pachomius encounters Paul at the gate of paradise. Paul addresses him as “my son,” and in the Arabic versions he tells Pachomius to “fulfill the rest of my service” (Ag 201r10, Am 543). Here the figures of Paul and Pachomius are imaginatively brought together, and Paul himself is characterized as endorsing Pachomius. Paul acknowledges a father-son relationship and acknowledges that Pachomius perpetuates his service.

Paul’s weakness and ascent in 2 Cor 12 are rewritten in the Vita Pachomii as episodes in Pachomius’s life. Just as “Paul’s remarkable vision of Paradise is set in the midst of humiliations,”Footnote ³⁰ likewise Pachomius’s vision of paradise is set in the midst of illnesses. No effort is made in the narratives to mask the prototype. Instead, 2 Cor 12 is quoted and Paul is featured as a gatekeeper in one of Pachomius’s ascents.Footnote ³¹

Pachomius’s Apocalypse

The third narrative in which a Pauline prototype for Pachomius is invoked describes Pachomius’s survey of the places of torment. Of the narratives discussed, this one is the subtlest as regards the Pauline literature to which it is indebted, namely the Apocalypse of Paul. The Pauline model is only implicit; it is never made explicit.

The apocalypse survives completely in Bo, Ag, and Am and fragmentarily in S5. S4 preserves the last few lines of the narrative.Footnote ³² The narrative neither quotes the Apocalypse of Paul nor shows signs of direct literary dependence, but it shares a family resemblance.Footnote ³³ Like the Apocalypse of Paul, it features an accompanying angel who, in the manner of a tour guide, explains the sights. It also features pitiless angels of torment, rivers of fire, and pits, and it takes place north of paradise. Like Paul, Pachomius witnesses the fates of ascetics.

For readers already familiar with the Apocalypse of Paul,Footnote ³⁴ Pachomius’s apocalypse would provide the impulse for drawing further connections between figure and template, between Pachomius and Paul.

The Reception of Pachomian Monks in Heaven

The Paul-Pachomius correlation achieves its height in the conclusion of S3.Footnote ³⁵ Like the ascent narratives, Paul resurfaces in the epilogue as gatekeeper of paradise. He receives the souls of all the faithful who die while Pachomius is yet “embodied” (ⲉϥϩⲙ̄ⲡⲥⲱⲙⲁFootnote ³⁶). Upon Pachomius’s death, however, the faithful are handed over to him (Pachomius) and live with him in the holy cities.

In this short epilogue to S3, the Paul-Pachomius correlation comes full circle. The roles of Pachomius and Paul are conflated. Two readings are possible, and they are not mutually exclusive. In one reading, Pachomius follows Paul’s footsteps even in heaven. In another, Paul serves as a leader of the Koinonia in heaven until Pachomius dies and can resume his post. On the latter reading, Paul serves not only as Pachomius’s prototype, but also as his surrogate. The deceased Pachomian faithful are temporarily entrusted to Paul until Pachomius himself dies and can resume his place among his fold.

Pauline Pachomius

Set side by side with the Pauline prologue, these four narratives supply further evidence for a Pauline prototype. In the prologue and narratives highlighted here, Pachomius is constructed as a new Paul. Like Paul, he is a father, he serves, and he is weak, but his weakness proves occasion for God’s strength as evidenced by his experiences in paradise and the places of torment.

The five passages in question (the prologue and four narratives) derive from different witnesses of Pachomian hagiography. As mentioned earlier, the extant witnesses are thought to be compilations. No witness can be treated as transmitting an original, unitary moment of composition. Instead, signs of redaction suggest that the mode of composition practiced was one of combining smaller units into larger wholes. For Hekhalot literature, Peter Schäfer has coined the terms “microform” and “macroform” to describe a fluid relationship between small units and large compilations.Footnote ³⁷ In his study of Hekhalot texts, he encountered the same problem noted in studies of the recensions of the Vita Pachomii. Small narrative units are found in multiple texts, sometimes in corresponding narrative locations, sometimes in different locations altogether, sometimes practically verbatim, sometimes reworked. Such a state of preservation does not permit a modern editor to reconstruct all the witnesses as a single text. For this reason, Schäfer’s edition of Hekhalot texts presents them synoptically. Too many witnesses to the Vita Pachomii survive for a synoptic edition to be physically feasible. Therefore, Lefort (for the Coptic texts) and Halkin (for the Greek texts) present entire texts in sequence with (in Lefort’s case) cross-references. Armand Veilleux attempted to reconstruct a Coptic vita using select witnesses, but following his theory requires one to assume many conjectures and hypotheses.Footnote ³⁸

Given the above considerations of composition, it is not possible to search for patterns of attestation and draw conclusions from them. For instance, one may note the following pattern: (1) that the ascent narratives survive in manuscripts whose beginning is wanting (and, thus, we do not know what sort of prologue, if any, was used) or in manuscripts that employ an Antonian prologue, and (2) that S3 and S8 (the texts in which a Pauline prologue survives) do not, in their current fragmentary state, contain ascent narratives. No conclusions can be drawn from such observations for two reasons. First, the Coptic witnesses are fragmentary. Just because a narrative does not survive does not mean it was not transmitted in the codex’s original state. That is, it is possible that S3 and S8 did in fact contain ascent narratives. Secondly, the extant witnesses are compilations that redact and string together small units into larger wholes. This theory of composition explains the observation that the Pauline stratum is attested in witnesses that elsewhere invoke an Antonian prototype.

I argue that if we treat narratives in Pachomian hagiographies like Schäfer’s microforms, we can isolate a stratum of five units that invoke Paul the apostle, not Antony the monk, as an ascetic prototype on which to mold Pachomius’s legacy. They are (1) a Pauline prologue, (2) a narrative of Pachomius’s first community, (3) Pachomius’s ascents, (4) Pachomius’s apocalypse, and (5) a Pauline epilogue. As I argue in the next section, we see the Pauline prototype and the Antonian prototype in competition in G1.

Ascent in the Vita Antonii

Whereas Pachomius’s ascent to heaven is explicitly likened to that of Paul’s in S2, Ag, and Am, Antony’s ascent in the Vita Antonii is curiously made distinct from that of Paul’s. A distinction is drawn between two types of ascent: an ascent in which one gradually rises higher and higher into the heights and an ascent in which one is simply seized into heaven. Antony is said to undergo the former type of ascent, whereas Paul and Pachomius undergo the latter.

After explaining that Antony rose into the air and waged battles with the demons of the air, the narrator concludes the description of Antony’s ascent experience with the following observation: “Paul was ‘caught up (ἡρπάγη) to the third heaven,’ and hearing ‘things that cannot be told’ (2 Cor 12:4) he returned, whereas Antony saw himself entering the air (ἕως τμῦ ἀέρμς… φθάσαντα) and struggling until he became free” (65).Footnote ⁴¹ By contrast, the ascent narratives of S2, Ag, and Am insist that Pachomius ascended in the same manner that Paul did, as mentioned earlier. Still further, in another passage, Ag and Am distinguish Pachomius’s manner of ascent from the type attributed to Antony. Ag and Am narrate the events of a Synod of Latopolis,Footnote ⁴² in which Pachomius is called by the bishops of his hometown, Latopolis, to answer to two charges. The first charge is that he claims to have ascended into heaven. Pachomius responds to this charge by making the following distinction: “As for your claim that I ascended into heaven, I did not say any such thing, but rather I said that I was taken up into paradise at the Lord’s command.”Footnote ⁴³ Both the Vita Antonii and the Vita Pachomii identify the journey that their heroes undergo by contrasting it with the other type. Antony ascends into heaven as opposed to being caught up, while Paul and Pachomius are caught up into heaven as opposed to ascending.

What is at stake in marking this distinction between ascent proper and rapture? It is possible that the ascent proper emphasizes human agency in undertaking the journey, while rapture stresses divine agency.Footnote ⁴⁴ Antony is said to have been in a state of fasting and prayer when the ascent takes place, perhaps suggesting techniques Antony used to experience an ascent. Pachomius, on the other hand, is said to have been in a state of illness, perhaps stressing lack of his own agency. Whatever the case may be, it is noteworthy that the Antonian ascent is distinguished from the Pauline one and that Pachomius’s ascent falls under the latter type. Both the Vita Antonii and the Vita Pachomii are aware of both types of ascent.

Weakness (ἀσθένεια) in the Vita Antonii

Likewise, the understanding of weakness (ἀσθένεια) promoted in the Vita Antonii contrasts with that of the Pauline Pachomius. For the Pauline narratives of Pachomian hagiography discussed earlier, weakness does not carry negative connotations. Pachomius is said to make himself weak, like Paul, in order to win weak brethren. Pachomius’s ascents to heaven occur when he lies ill. For the Vita Antonii, however, weakness bears primarily negative connotations.

For the Vita Antonii, ἀσθένεια is primarily associated with the weakness of demons. Of the twenty-four instances of ἀσθένεια and its cognates in the Vita Antonii, more than half describe the weakness of demons. On two occasions, Antony is tempted to believe that asceticism leads to ἀσθένεια. The Vita Antonii insists, however, that asceticism actually leads to strength.Footnote ⁴⁵ Asceticism weakens the body, which in turn strengthens the soul, since soul and body stand in inverse relation to one another: “The mind of the soul is strong when the pleasures of the body are weak” (7).Footnote ⁴⁶ Paradoxically, the Vita Antonii also insists that the state of the body reflects the state of the soul. Because Antony attains and preserves psychological equilibrium, his body shows no signs of extremes: it is neither fat nor emaciated. His psychological equilibrium results in bodily equilibrium. Although the Vita Antonii admits of strength in weakness, quoting even 2 Cor 12:10 (paragraph 7), its overall conception of ἀσθένεια is negative in connotation. Weakness is a characteristic of demons, and Antony never gets sick.Footnote ⁴⁷ The strength of Antony’s soul results in strength of body.

By contrast, the Vita Pachomii narrates multiple episodes in which Pachomius falls ill. His strength in weakness manifests itself in his ascetic resolve, his refusal to be lax in his discipline or to accept unique/extraordinary treatment. Indeed, it is while sick that Pachomius is taken up to the other age to survey paradise and punishments and it is while sick that Pachomius endures a “martyrdom.”Footnote ⁴⁸ Furthermore, the Pachomian literature narrates stories of weakness absent in the Vita Antonii, stories of how to accommodate weaker brothers.

Weakness in G1

Due to the discrepancies between the Pauline-Pachomian understanding of weakness and that of the Vita Antonii, a narrative of Pachomius’s illness in G1 offers an apology for its hero’s state of health. The narrator insists that Pachomius was holy despite his illness, as if to apologize for the fact that Pachomius’s state does not accord with the principle of ascetic holiness in the Vita Antonii that when the soul is well, the body too is well. The passage reads: “At another time, holy though he was, his body got sick” (καί πμτε πάλιν, κἂν ἅγιμς ἦν, ἀλλ’ἀσθενὲς τὸ σῶμα).Footnote ⁴⁹ This passage marks an instance in which Pauline-Pachomian ascetic ideals conflict with Antonian ones. For Pauline-Pachomian asceticism, bodily health is no indicator of ascetic merit. In fact, God’s strength may be found in the weakest of bodies. For Antonian asceticism,Footnote ⁵⁰ on the other hand, ascetic merit ought to be manifest in every aspect of one’s life, including bodily health.Footnote ⁵¹

Antonian Coloring of Pachomian Hagiography

Redactors of the Vita Pachomii tip their hat to the Vita Antonii in still other ways. As emphasized previously in discussion of the prologues, a number of texts hail Antony as a model ascetic before even introducing Pachomius, and a number of texts cite the Vita Antonii by title and author. The perspectives of the Vita Antonii are also manifest in passages on demonic encounters in the Vita Pachomii. Pachomius’s battles with demons are highly reminiscent of Antony’s in the Vita Antonii. Indeed, G1 22 explicitly draws a similarity between Pachomius and Antony’s demonic encounters: “he [Pachomius] had spent a good deal of time wrestling with the demons as an athlete of truth, like the most holy Antony.”Footnote ⁵² Finally, the influence of the Vita Antonii has long been noted in passages regarding ecclesial authority and heresy.Footnote ⁵³

Narratives oriented toward Paul stress the resemblance between the apostle and Pachomius and even bring them into contact in paradise. On the other hand, narratives oriented toward Antony underscore Pachomius’s resemblance to the Athanasian hero. Though the stories do not go so far as to imagine a meeting between Pachomius and Antony, they do emphasize his successor Theodore’s encounters with Antony, including a face-to-face meeting and letter exchanges.

Oral Tradition or Literary Source?

There are a number of possibilities for imagining the place of the Pauline stratum in history. The first question one must ask is whether the Pauline stratum reflects an oral tradition that entered only piecemeal into literary texts or whether it reflects the perspective of a lost, literary source. Though the question cannot be answered with certainty, evidence from S3, the “great compilation,” suggests the latter option as more probable: the Pauline stratum reflects the perspective of a lost literary source. S3 preserves not only a Pauline prologue and epilogue, but it also contains the narrative of Pachomius’s first community. It is not known whether S3 also contained the ascent and apocalypse narratives, since only 8% of the codex survives. Because, as mentioned above, S3 appears to be expansive, as opposed to selective, in its incorporation of sources, the Pauline stratum may point to one of those (hypothetical) sources.

Pre-Antonian Legacy or Post-Antonian Redaction?

Regardless of whether a literary source can be posited on the basis of the Pauline stratum, one may further ask to what period of time the Pauline stratum belongs. Does the notion of Pachomius as a Pauline figure pre-date the Antonian redaction that is thought to have taken place in, above all, G1, but also in other recensions that invoke an Antonian model of asceticism? Or does the notion post-date such redaction? These questions, too, cannot be answered with certainty, but the following considerations favor pre-Antonian composition:

First, manuscript evidence shows that the Vita Antonii was probably not widely known in Egypt until the sixth century at the earliest,Footnote ⁵⁵ but two of our manuscripts containing elements of the Pauline stratum, S1 and S2, date to the sixth century and appear to be based on earlier sources. Therefore, it is likely that the reception of the Vita Antonii in Egypt led to the redaction of an existing, Pauline vita to include references to Antony and the Vita Antonii’s ascetic ideals. Second, there are signs of redaction to the Pauline stratum. G1 apologizes for Pachomius’s weakness, as it fails to accord with the principles of Antonian anthropology. This may indicate that G1 is a redaction of a vita that presupposed a Pauline understanding of weakness.Footnote ⁵⁶ The Pauline and Antonian prologues contain curious similarities in that they are both composed in the first person plural perspective and begin with God’s promise to Abraham. If they are textually related, the Antonian prologue may be a rewritten version of the Pauline one.

On the other hand, if the Pauline stratum post-dates Antonian redaction, then either Antonian material was removed and replaced with Pauline material in response to such redaction, or the Pauline stratum was composed without an awareness of versions with Antonian coloring. The latter remains an open possibility, while the former is unlikely.Footnote ⁵⁷

The most plausible historical scenario is one in which early Pachomian hagiography is confronted with the standards set and celebrated in Antonian hagiography. In response, Pachomian hagiography is redacted, producing a sort of mimetic rivalry. Pachomius is made to fit the Antonian model, so as to put him on an equal footing with Antony. The Pauline stratum (1) pre-dates such a phase of literary production, or (2) is unaware of it, or (3) responds to it by replacing an Antonian prototype with a Pauline one. I judge option (1) to be most plausible.

Local or Trans-Local Audience?

A third question regards the intended readership of the Pauline stratum. Were the Pauline elements addressed to Pachomian monks or to a non-Pachomian readership (whether ascetic or not)? The first sentence of the Pauline prologue offers an answer:

The prologue may identify its implied audience as both local and trans-local with the phrase “everyone” (ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ). However, it also highlights a particular body of implied readers: brothers (ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ) who never saw Pachomius. If “brothers” designates Pachomian monks, the prologue addresses itself “primarily” (ⲙⲁⲗⲓⲥⲧⲁ) to a local audience. If, however, the word is to be more broadly conceived, it too may suggest a trans-local audience. In my perspective, “brothers” (ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ) is used as a technical term in reference to Pachomian monks.