4G. Colombás, El monacato primitivo, BAC 351,376 (Madrid: La Editorial Católica 1974–75) 1.40, notes that this picture comes from “the remote origins of Christian monasticism,” but states that it must be evaluated in the light of the very complex evidence now available.
5 Colombás “El concepto” acknowledges that the term monachos came into common usage in large part through the Vita Antonii (p. 259) and claims that in this work it is always used in the original strict technical sense, i.e., as “solitary” (p. 261). Lorié, Spiritual Terminology, p. 27, admits that there are numerous passages in the work that foreshadow the “new way of life in monachism,” i.e., cenobitism. Neither author bothers to question the reliability of this work or to ask what contribution the work itself made in producing the definition of “monk” as “hermit.”
6 K. Heussi, Der Ursprung des Mönchtums (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1936) pp. 39, 53–54, 58, distinguishes the question of the historical development of monasticism from the question of the meaning of the word monachos. He also admits that the word could mean ‘unmarried’ as well as ‘living alone.’ Nevertheless, the influence of the traditional historical schema of development proves too strong, and he ends up by positing a historical development of the word monachos in which it acquires the meaning of ‘anchorite’ in the course of the third century and comes to refer to cenobites as well in the fourth century. Heussi was not aware of much of the evidence assembled by Morard. This greater array of evidence cannot be made to fit very easily into a simple historical schema of development from the meaning ‘anchorite’ to that of ‘cenobite.’ What follows here is in large part a brief summary of the evidence presented by Morard.
7 Colombás “El concepto” pp. 259–260 does not advert sufficiently to this in noting the etymology of monachos. One can be “alone” in various circumstances, so that the actual meaning of “alone” is different in different situations. One can be alone in a desert, at a bus-stop, and in the sense of being unmarried.
8 Morard, p. 338.
9 Ibid., p. 340.
10 Ibid., p. 346.
11 Ibid., pp. 347–352. In a tradition stemming from Eusebius, Symmachus has been traditionally identified as an Ebionite or Jewish Christian. However, recent research has identified him as a Samaritan convert to orthodox Judaism. See D. Barthélemy “Qui est Symmaque?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974) 451–465.
12 See Adam “Grundbegriffe” p. 215; Morard, pp. 352–353; 379–380.
13 Ibid., pp. 381–383.
14 Ibid., pp. 388–389. For the Melitian documents, see H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press 1924) pp. 48, 57. Additional early papyrus evidence has been assembled by E. A. Judge “The Earliest Use of Monachos for ‘Monk’ (P. Coll. Youtie 77) and the Origins of Monasticism” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 20 (1977) 72–89. Judge dates the earliest occurrence of the term in a non-Christian papyrus referring to a Christian monachos to A.D. 324. The evidence assembled by Judge supports the contention of Morard that the term cannot originally have meant ‘hermit’ or ‘anchorite,’ but Judge does not accept Morard’s thesis that the word in Christian use originally meant ‘celibate.’ However, he does not offer sufficient grounds for rejecting this thesis, nor does he evaluate the mass of evidence assembled by Morard.
15 Morard, pp. 362–377. Morard shows that in the Gospel of Thomas, monachos is distinguished from oua ouōt, meaning ‘a single one’ or ‘one alone.’
16 Ibid., p. 375. See also Beck “Ein Beitrag” pp. 258–260. However, A. Adam “Der Monachos-Gedanke innerhalb der Spiritualität der alten Kirche” Glaube, Geist, Geschichte: Festschrift E. Benz (Leiden: Brill 1967), p. 262, denies that īḥīdāyā and monachos refer to the celibate state and insists that the meaning is derived from the notion of “unique” (monogenēs) as applied to Christ. The words would then have come to be applied to Christians because of the degree of their union with Christ. Although this interpretation receives some support from the passage from Eusebius quoted above, it seems to be more theological than philological, as is, indeed, the explanation by Eusebius. It is true that Aristotle used the word monachos in the sense of “unique,” but this does not insure that the word used several centuries later will have the same connotations. Adam did not take into account the mass of evidence later assembled by Morard. On this kind of interpretation, which seems to belong, not to the earliest period of Christian usage of these terms, but to a slightly later one, see below, p. 311.
17 Although the Bohairic Life in its present form is from a considerably later period, it probably reflects a Sahidic substratum of the fourth century.
18 For the text cited, see L. Th. Lefort, Oeuvres de S. Pachôme et de ses disciples, CSCO 159 (Louvain: L. Durbecq 1956) p. 20. This text may in fact originally be from a catechesis of Athanasius, but this would not alter its value as a witness to the meaning of monachos. In fact, it would enhance it, since Athanasius is usually cited as the primary witness to the meaning of monachos as ‘hermit.’ See A. Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme pachômien, StA 57 (Rome: Herder 1968) p. 217.
19 See the Introduction, pp. 62–63.
20 Morard, pp. 370–371.
21 Ibid., pp. 372–373.
22 See the Introduction, pp. 43–44.
23 See G. Garitte “Le texte grec et les versions anciennes de la vie de saint Antoine” Antonius Magnus Eremita, pp. 5–6, and G.J.M. Bartelinck “Einige Bemerkungen über Evagrius’ von Antiochien Übersetzung der Vita Antonii” RBén 82 (1972) 98–105.
24 See P. de Labriolle “Rutilius Claudius Namatianus et les moines” Revue des études latines 6 (1928) 30–41.
25 Lorié, Spiritual Terminology, p. 28.
26 Given his presuppositions (see note 3), Lorié naturally assumes that this is evidence of expansion of the word monachos and a departure from its original meaning (see pp. 28–29). Against this, however, it should be noted that Evagrius of Antioch was bilingual, a native Greek speaker, and had every reason to know what monachos meant to Greek speakers of his day and what monachus would mean to Latin readers.
27 See the Introduction, pp. 43–44, 48–50.
28 “. . . interpretare vocabulum monachi, hoc est nomen tuum: quid facis in turba qui solus es?”
29 See G. Morin, I. Firmici Materni Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii, Florilegium Patristicum 39 (Bonn: P. Hanstein 1935) and G. M. Colombás “Sobre el autor de las Consultationes Zacchaei et Apollonii” SM 14 (1972) 7–15. An English translation of III,1-6 may be found in MS 12 (1976) 271–287.
30 See Morin, pp. 100–102, for the text. Colombás, El monacato primitivo, 1.41, says this work gives evidence of an extension of the term in a deprecatory sense to those earlier called “continent” or “ascetics.” However, one must distinguish the value judgments of the author of the Consultationes (he prefers anchorites) from the question of what the term actually meant.
31 The word sauhes comes from the Coptic soouhes, meaning a ‘congregation,’ or ‘monastic community.’ See W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1939) p. 373b. It can also mean the monastery itself (Vita sa5 20). The same holds true of the Greek koinobion. The phrase prōme entsoouhes (Pachom. reg. 118,119) could mean either the superior of the monastery or of the community. However, the term does not seem to be attested in Coptic with the meaning ‘cenobite.’ The normal term in the Pachomian literature for referring to the whole institution of cenobitic life is koinōnia. See the Introduction, pp. 24–25.
32 The word anachōrein means ‘to withdraw.’ See the Introduction, pp. 17–18.
33 For the etymology of this word see note 39 below.
34 See Colombás, El monacato primitivo 1.42 and de Vogüé, La communauté, pp. 52–54.
35 See the Introduction, p. 7.
36 See A. de Vogüé “Monasticism and the Church in the Writings of Cassian” MS 3 (1965) 19–51.
37 Far more than his predecessors, Cassian seeks to establish the practices of Egyptian monas
ticism as a normative tradition. On this point see especially A. de Vogüé “Sub regula vel abbate: A Study of the Theological Significance of the Ancient Monastic Rules” Rule and Life: An Interdisciplinary Symposium, ed. M. B. Pennington (Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications 1971) pp. 28–29. Perhaps this is why in many places, especially in the Institutes, he does not differentiate between the practices of northern and southern Egyptian monasticism nor between those of cenobites and anchorites.
38 Whether or not Cassian invented this idea or found it in Egypt is uncertain. He is certainly the one chiefly responsible for introducing it into the Western monastic tradition. A somewhat similar but less developed notion may be found in Sulpic. Sever, dial. 1, 10, where the traveler Postumian relates that in the monasteries of the Thebaid the monks are not permitted to take up the solitary life without the permission of the abbot.
39 The names remnuoth (var. remoboth, remeboth, etc.) and sarabait have given rise to numerous etymological speculations. See W. Spiegelberg “Koptische Miscellen” Recueil de travaux 28 (1906) 211–212; A. Jacoby “Der Name der Sarabaiten” Recueil de travaux 34 (1912) 15–16; Adam “Grundbegriffe” pp. 233–234; Morard, p. 379. Krüger (as reported by Adam), Jacoby and Morard appear to be correct in seeing the Coptic word auēt (dialect variants: abēt, aouēt, aoubēt) in sar-abait. See Crum, A Coptic Dictionary, p. 21b. The word means a ‘collection’ or ‘company’ and is also a technical word for monastic community or monastery. As Morard has noted, however, the attempt to derive sar- from the verb sōr, meaning ‘to disperse,’ will not work, nor is it necessary to read it as šēre (so Krüger), meaning ‘sons of.’ Morard is probably correct in seeing in sar-abait the prefix sa(r)-, meaning simply ‘man of.’ See Crum, p. 316a.
Spiegelberg was probably originally correct (according to Jacoby, he later changed his mind) in identifying the same Coptic word (auēt) in remn-uoth. Some of the Latin variants may in fact reflect variant Coptic pronunciations. The prefix rem(n)- also means ‘man of’ or ‘from.’ See Crum, p. 295a.
What we may have, then, in these two words, which no one seems to have noticed heretofore, is simply two parallel formations built on the same Coptic word, auēt, but with different prefixes meaning the same thing. This is in fact what one would expect, given the fact that the remnuoth and the sarabaites are described in the same way by Jerome and Cassian. How these words acquired their pejorative connotations it is not possible to determine. These forms are not attested as such in Coptic literature.
40 A. de Vogüé, “Scholies sur la règle du maître” RAM 44 (1968) 265, sees the ancestors of the gyrovagues in the writings of Augustine, Cassian, Evagrius and Paulinus of Nola. For the satire on the gyrovagues, as well as the relationship of RB 1 and RM 1 generally, see also A. de Vogüé “Saint Benoît et son temps: règles italiennes et règles provençales au VIe siècle” RBS 1 (1972) 176–180 and “Le De generibus monachorum du Maître et de Benoît. Sa source — son auteur” RBS 2 (1973) 1–26.
41 It will readily be perceived, then, why chapter 1 had to precede chapter 2 on the abbot. On this role of spiritual paternity in early monasticism, see Appendix 2.
42 This little chapter provides, then, a good example of the growth of the monastic wisdom tradition as discussed in the Introduction, and of how the Rule of St. Benedict can serve as an entrance to the rediscovery of that tradition.
43 See G. W. Lampe, A Greek Patristic Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press 1961) s.v.
44 Monazontes appears as an equivalent or alternative to monachoi in Cassian. conl. 18,5 (monachi sive monazontes) and in the travel narrative of Egeria (Eger. peregr. 24,1; 25,2; 25,7; 25,12), as well as in numerous Greek authors of the same period. In her account of Jerusalem, Egeria speaks of the monazontes et parthenae, which suggests that the feminine form was less common than the masculine. See the following note. For further discussion of the term, see Morard, pp. 404–406.
45 This is undoubtedly due to the greater emphasis placed on the specific quality of virginity in women in the Patristic period, which is related in turn to the example of the Virgin Mary.
46 For specific references, see the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, s.v. The TLL gives monastria as the Greek equivalent of monacha, but Gregory the Great (Greg. epist. 23) defines monastria as ‘handmaids of God’ (ancillis Dei, quas vos [Constantinopolitani] Graeca lingua monastrias dicitis).
47 See H. Leclercq “Sanctimonialis” DACL 15.747.
48 See note 2 above.
49 See J. Hannsens “Nónnos, nónna et Nonnus, nonna” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 26 (1960) 26–41; H. Leclercq “Nonne” DACL 12.1557, and Adam “Grundbegriffe” pp. 232–233. The evidence assembled by Hannsens shows that Adam is unjustified in denying the Egyptian origin of the word.
50 The translation “are called chaste nuns” (ACW 33.148), for castae vocantur et nonnae is incorrect. The word does not have the specific English meaning of ‘nun’ at this point, nor does it have any connection with chastity, as its later history demonstrates.
Appendix 2
The Abbot
Two entire chapters of the Rule, 2 and 64, are devoted to the abbot, and he occupies an important place in all its legislation. It is impossible to understand either the spiritual theory of the Rule or its practical regulations without a clear vision of his all-pervasive role. Since this role has been diversely conceived in the course of Benedictine history, it is essential to study St. Benedict’s teaching about the abbot, in the light of the tradition upon which he drew.1
The title abbas
Although Benedict sometimes uses other terms, such as prior and maior to refer to the superior of the monastery, he usually, in accord with a number of other Latin monastic sources, gives him the title abbas.2 Like so many other usages in the Rule, this term is derived from Egyptian monasticism, where we find it used already in fourth-century documents. It is almost certainly derived originally from the Aramaic term abba, which means ‘father.’3 In Coptic it appears as apa, and in Greek and Latin it was simply transliterated and made into a declinable noun, abbas. In a similar way the term has been absorbed into modern languages: hence the English word “abbot.”
The earliest certain usage of the term in a monastic sense is in Greek papyri found in Egypt, which date from about 330 to 340. Its regular appearance in the Apophthegmata (which were collected later but reflect an ancient oral tradition) may indicate a still earlier usage, going back to the origins of Egyptian monasticism. Later in the fourth century, it is used by Palladius and the author of the Historia monachorum, as well as by other Greek writers.4 But it does not appear in the Life of Antony, nor in the letters attributed to him, which are very probably authentic. Athanasius, however, uses it elsewhere as a title for a monk (Ath. narr.Ammon.). It was not used in Cappadocia; St. Basil, who also does not use the term “monk,” called the head of his fraternity ho proestōs, ‘the one in charge,’ which Rufinus translates as is qui praeest.
In Egyptian usage the term does not designate the superior of a community, as we understand it today, but an “elder” or “senior,” advanced in the wisdom of the desert and gifted with the charism of enlightening others by conferring upon them a logion, or ‘word.’ In the Pachomian sources, both Coptic and Greek, it likewise refers to various elders, but is sometimes used without a proper name (“the Abbot”) to designate Pachomius himself. Hence the process of reserving it to the superior of a coenobium may have begun in Egyptian cenobitism, though the original use of the term to mean ‘elder’ takes us back to the semi-eremitical phase of Egyptian monasticism. The older usage still prevails in the Byzantine world, whereas in the West the term “abbot” is applied only to cenobitic superiors.
The term was quickly adopted by Latin writers. Jerome uses it only rarely (never in his translation of the Pachomian materials) and seems originally to have objected to it on the grounds that Matt 23:9 forbids designating human beings as father.5 While Augustine never uses it (the superior of his monastery is called praepositus, ‘the o
ne placed over’), it appears frequently in Sulpicius Severus and especially in Cassian. While the former uses it only to designate a cenobitic superior, in Cassian it can still refer to a charismatic elder in the desert, but also serves as the tide of the superior of a coenobium (Sulpic.Sever. dial. 1,10,11,17,18,19,22). By the sixth century, in the Lives of the Jura Fathers, the Regula Magistri and St. Benedict, it is used exclusively in the latter sense.
The origins of the monastic use of the term are difficult to explain. An Aramaic word, it would be at home in Syria: did it originally come to Egypt from Syria at some remote period earlier than our documentation? This would support the hypothesis of those who believe that monasticism originated in Syria rather than in Egypt.6 Although abba in the sense of ‘lord’ or ‘sir’ was used as a title of respect in Syria, however, its technical monastic use there and in Palestine is so late that it seems more likely that it results from Egyptian influence rather than vice versa.7
On the other hand, its usage may have originated independently in Egypt out of reflection upon the biblical use of abba. In the New Testament, Jesus uses this term of endearment when calling upon God, thereby revealing the intimate relationship he enjoyed with him; and the early Christians used it in imitation of him, aware that they had been adopted as sons of God (Mark 14:36; Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). But it is applied only to God. Its application to the spiritual father who mediates God’s word supposes a theology of spiritual fatherhood that would assimilate the role of the abba to that of God himself. In the earliest Egyptian texts there is no evidence of such a development, though it does appear in the Pachomian literature. The sources do not tell us clearly where and why the title was first applied to monks. However, the doctrine of spiritual fatherhood that grew up in the monastic tradition developed out of a rich background in the Scriptures and early Christian tradition, to which we must now turn.
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 47