# Council of Chalcedon

Source: https://coptic-lore-forge.lovable.app/wiki/council-of-chalcedon — Coptic Orthodox Wiki (updated 2026-10-02)

The Council of Chalcedon was an imperial church council held in 451 that defined Christ as one person in two natures and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria. Rejected by the Coptic Church as ecumenical, it became a central turning point in the separation of Coptic Christians from Rome and Constantinople.

## Overview

The Council of Chalcedon met in sixteen sessions from 8 October to 1 November 451 at Chalcedon, across the Bosporus from Constantinople. Convoked by Emperor Marcian, it addressed the controversy following the acquittal of Eutyches and the Second Council of Ephesus in 449. Its doctrinal definition and condemnation of Dioscorus of Alexandria and Eutyches alienated the great majority of Coptic Christians.[^1]

Chalcedon was the fourth ecumenical council, although the Copts rejected its ecumenical standing.[^1][^2]

## Background and proceedings

Before the division, Alexandria had been a leading center of Christian learning through its Catechetical School of Alexandria, whose most famous church father was Origen.[^35] Chalcedon took place against the background of Egyptian episcopal leadership against Arianism and Nestorianism, especially Cyril’s prominence at Ephesus in 431, which led Western and Byzantine churchmen to describe the Alexandrian patriarchs as “Pharaohs of the Church.”[^36] Rivalry over ecclesiastical rank also predated Chalcedon: Constantinople’s promotion by canon 3 of the council of 381 had encountered opposition from both Alexandria and Rome because it lacked an apostolic justification.[^37]

Emperor Theodosius II supported the decisions of Ephesus II and refused to summon another council despite opposition from Pope Leo I. After Theodosius died in 450, Pulcheria and Marcian sought to restore relations between Constantinople and Rome, creating the conditions for a new council.[^3][^4]

The first session took place in the Church of Saint Euphemia. In the emperor’s absence, nineteen imperial commissioners, headed by the patrician Anatolius, directed the proceedings.[^5]

Among the Egyptian participants was Athanasius, bishop of Abusir Bana, who had also attended the Council of Ephesus in 449.[^16]

Unlike several earlier councils, Chalcedon has no known attendance by chorepiscopi, the episcopal assistants associated with pastoral care in rural districts.[^38] Testimony at the council also preserves evidence about Egyptian institutions: a priest who alleged persecution by Dioscorus reported finding refuge within the asylum precinct associated with the Monastery of the Metanoia at Canopus and the archiepiscopal church.[^39]

## Christological definition

Disagreement centered partly on whether Christ should be described as “out of two natures” or “in two natures.” A draft produced under Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople on 22 October emphasized the unity of Christ’s person and used “out of two natures.” Although acceptable to most bishops, it met opposition from the Roman legates and imperial commissioners; a revised definition was promulgated by Marcian on 25 October.[^6]

The accepted definition described Christ as “in two Natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably,” preserving the properties of each nature within one person and hypostasis. Leo’s Tome was accepted as orthodox, with the bishops affirming that Cyril and Leo taught alike.[^7][^8]

Cyril’s affirmation that the union of natures was according to hypostasis was not condemned at Chalcedon and was reaffirmed in Anathema 5 of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.[^17]

## Dioscorus and ecclesiastical decisions

Dioscorus was excommunicated and deposed. One supplied account explicitly identifies ecclesiastical indiscipline, rather than doctrinal heresy, as the formal ground; another emphasizes his defense of Alexandrian teaching against recognition of two natures after the Incarnation. He maintained that his position followed Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril.[^7][^9]

Dioscorus was subsequently exiled to Gangra. His deposition and exile became enduring grievances among the Copts, who honored him as a saint.[^2]

Canon 28 accorded Constantinople, as “New Rome,” equal status with Rome apart from Rome’s primacy of honor. The Roman legates opposed the canon, and Leo subsequently refused to accept it. The council also recognized Jerusalem’s patriarchal dignity over three Palestinian provinces, returning Phoenicia I, Phoenicia II, and Arabia to Antioch.[^10]

The Jerusalem settlement was negotiated by Juvenal of Jerusalem and Maximus of Antioch, reversing territorial concessions Dioscorus had made at Ephesus II and ending Jerusalem’s long struggle for recognition as a patriarchal see.[^40] Canon 28 confirmed the earlier Constantinopolitan canon of 381 and received the signatures of 183 bishops at the council’s final session.[^41] The council’s account connects it with canon 9, which gave Constantinople appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical lawsuits involving churches in Asia Minor, including Pontus and Thrace.[^42] The bishops of patriarchal sees, including Rome and Constantinople, were designated archbishops at Chalcedon.[^43]

The council admitted devout women aged forty to the diaconate.[^18] Its rules also required clerical ordination to be attached to a definite church office or title and to coincide with installation.[^19] Canon 9 recognized provincial synods as bodies of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, while canon 17 stipulated that ecclesiastical organization should adapt to public administrative organization.[^20]

The provision for women contrasted with the law attributed by Sozomen to Theodosius I, which had required women entering the diaconate to be over sixty.[^44] A later Egyptian example of ordination to a particular office appears in the correspondence of Abraham of Hermonthis around 600: Coptic ostracon 36 petitions for Isaac’s ordination to the Church of Saint Mary in Piohe because the church needed him, with local clergy guaranteeing his proper fulfillment of the office.[^45]

On 7 February 452 Marcian issued an edict to the people of Constantinople requiring adherence to Chalcedon’s decision and prohibiting further discussion of religious matters.[^46] The council strengthened both Constantinople’s position against Alexandria and, to a lesser extent, Rome, and the guiding role of the emperor and his lay representatives in church affairs.[^47]

## Reception and Coptic significance

Acceptance was not uniform even among the Egyptian delegation: four of the seventeen bishops accompanying Dioscorus supported the council’s definition and participated in the consecration of Proterius as his successor. Opposition elsewhere included serious riots in Alexandria and Jerusalem, while Proterius failed to gain support in Egypt.[^11]

The election of Timothy II Aelurus as a rival to Proterius divided the Alexandrian see into Coptic and Greek patriarchal successions, the latter becoming known as Melchite, or royalist.[^21] At the Enaton, monks led by Longinus supported Dioscorus, received a statement of his faith, and organized resistance to Marcian and his representative; Longinus also played a decisive role in Timothy II’s election.[^22]

The Enaton subsequently sheltered persecuted anti-Chalcedonians from Syria and Palestine, including Thomas of Harkel, and received visitors such as Zacharias Scholasticus and John of Ephesus; Severus of Antioch stayed there after his deposition in 518, and his relics were later returned for burial in a mausoleum.[^48]

The resulting separation can be understood either as a rupture in 451 or as a gradual Coptic alienation from Rome and Constantinople following Dioscorus’s deposition and acceptance of Leo’s Tome.[^12][^13]

The intensity of conflict also varied over time: the account of Athanasius II, patriarch from 488 to 494, cites the History of the Patriarchs as describing a reign without disorder or persecution and suggests that the immediate confusion caused by Chalcedon had subsided.[^49]

Later imperial attempts at reconciliation did not overcome the division. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 failed to bridge the gulf, and Cyrus’s mission to Egypt in 631 included an effort to impose Chalcedonian obedience on the Coptic community.[^14][^15]

## Later disputes and reconciliation efforts

Zeno’s Henoticon of 482 sought to bridge the doctrinal division, but its acceptance by Peter III Mongus displeased some anti-Chalcedonian monks and clergy.[^23] Divergent attitudes toward Chalcedon and relations with Alexandria also lay behind the Acacian Schism, which interrupted communion between Rome and Constantinople from 484 to 519.[^24]

Before his rapprochement with Peter Mongus, Acacius of Constantinople had maintained communion with Peter’s Chalcedonian rival, Timothy Salofaciolus, and had denounced Peter’s consecration as having taken place at night before his predecessor’s burial.[^50] During negotiations in 515, Pope Hormisdas demanded unequivocal acceptance of Chalcedon and denunciation of Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, and Acacius, whereas Emperor Anastasius offered to accept Chalcedon as a disciplinary synod consistent with Nicaea but refused to sacrifice Acacius’s memory.[^51] Anastasius also offered to recall recently exiled bishops and reprimand Egyptian denunciations of Leo and Chalcedon, while maintaining the anathemas against Nestorius and Eutyches.[^52]

In Palestine, monks led by Saint Saba resisted the deposition of Patriarch Elias in 516 and prevented his successor John from denouncing Chalcedon, proclaiming “Four Councils even as Four Gospels.”[^53] In late 517, 207 leading monks of Syria Secunda, headed by Alexander of the monastery of Maro, appealed to Hormisdas against Severus of Antioch and his opposition to Leo and Chalcedon.[^54] Justin I’s accession in July 518 brought a reversal of imperial policy, accompanied by popular demands during the Eucharist for Chalcedon’s proclamation, Severus’s deposition, and reconciliation with Rome.[^55]

Under Justinian, Abraham of Farshut was summoned to Constantinople between 535 and 548 and refused the emperor’s demand that he accept Chalcedon or lose his position as archimandrite of Pbow.[^25] The doctrine later brought to Egypt by Cyrus emphasized Christ’s one energy and one will; the Life of Samu’il of Qalamun anachronistically calls this teaching the Tome of Leo.[^26]

Abraham traveled with four brethren under an imperial order for his compulsory removal, and Theodora’s intervention on his behalf failed to change Justinian’s determination.[^56] Stephen of Hnes’s Panegyric on Apollo describes Pbow becoming Chalcedonian and Abraham’s expulsion, after which Apollo also left the monastery.[^57]

The council of 553 pursued reconciliation by condemning the “Three Chapters,” works associated with Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, as tainted with Nestorianism, thereby seeking to modify Chalcedon’s effect without openly undermining its authority.[^58] The search for such an interpretation of Chalcedon and Leo’s Tome had intensified after Severus’s death in 538, but the resulting council also humiliated Pope Vigilius and further strained relations between Eastern and Western churches.[^59]

Cyrus’s appointment combined the offices of Byzantine patriarch of Alexandria, civil viceroy, and military commander, enabling him to enforce religious policy through both ecclesiastical and secular authority during his tenure of 631–642.[^60] Samu’il of Qalamun was expelled from Scetis by Cyrus’s agent, while Heraclius’s desire for unity was connected with the recent recovery of Egypt from Persian occupation.[^61]

Historians have proposed that the migration of the Nine Saints to Ethiopia was connected with the disturbances surrounding Chalcedon, although the exact date and reason for their arrival remain unknown.[^27]

The proposed connection includes the hypothesis that non-Chalcedonian monks sought to protect the Ethiopian church against Chalcedonian teaching, considered alongside rivalry in Nubia between an emperor supporting Chalcedonians and Empress Theodora supporting their opponents.[^62] Some traditions describe a collective journey through the monastery of Apa Pachomius in Egypt, although separate arrivals at different times are plausible; one of the saints, Pantalewon, was asked to pray for King Kaleb’s Arabian campaign in 527.[^63]

Opposition to Chalcedon remained explicit in later Coptic patriarchal teaching: Mark II, patriarch from 799 to 819, expressed it in his inaugural homily and sent a synodical letter to Cyriacus of Antioch defining his faith and emphasizing the unity of their churches.[^64]

Coptic opposition to Nestorianism did not entail acceptance of Eutychianism, whose basic elements the Copts also rejected.[^28] A joint Roman Catholic–Coptic Christological statement signed at the Anba Bishoi Monastery on 12 February 1988 affirmed that Christ is perfect in divinity and humanity and that his humanity is one with his divinity.[^29]

## Diversity among opponents and wider church traditions

Opposition to Chalcedon did not produce complete theological agreement among its opponents, as illustrated by the controversy between Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus of Antioch.[^65] After deposition from his see for opposing Chalcedon, Julian fled to Alexandria and taught that Christ’s body was incorruptible from the moment of union rather than only from the Resurrection, understanding Christ as consubstantial with Adam before the Fall rather than humanity in its fallen condition.[^66] His followers were called Julianists or Aphthartodocetae, referring to incorruptibility, and were also labeled Phantasiastae by opponents who thought the teaching endangered the reality of Christ’s body.[^67] Severus refuted Julian, who wrote four works against him, fragments of which survive in Syriac and Greek alongside recovered letters.[^68]

Non-Chalcedonian Christianity consolidated in the sixth century into the Coptic and Ethiopian churches, the Syrian Jacobites, and the Armenians, sharing adherence to the pre-Chalcedonian Fathers while rejecting the council’s definition.[^69] Earlier Armenian participation in Egyptian desert monasticism was distinct from institutional church relations that developed after Ephesus and especially Chalcedon, and early Armenian knowledge of Alexandrian tradition came through Cappadocia and Constantinople.[^70] Chalcedon also serves as a boundary in Ethiopian sainthood: the Ethiopian church recognizes most saints of the universal church before 451 and the Coptic saints known through the Synaxarion, their acts, or other sources.[^71]

## Relations with Rome and the medieval West

The post-Chalcedonian breach contrasted with an earlier history of Roman recognition of Alexandrian synods, including Cyril’s synod against Nestorius in 430, and frequent cooperation between Alexandria and Rome against Constantinople.[^72] Reciprocal accusations of heresy after Chalcedon resulted in estrangement that obstructed cooperation between Copts and Western crusaders, while crusaders treated Copts as a heretical enemy to be excluded from the holy places.[^73]

Unsuccessful reunion negotiations occurred under Cyril III, whose patriarchate lasted from 1235–1243, and the union associated with the Council of Florence in 1442, although accepted by John XI, gained no support among the Coptic people.[^74] Later Roman approaches often understood reunion as unconditional submission to papal authority, exemplified by Sixtus V’s letter of 20 April 1590 urging Gabriel VIII to bring his flock into obedience to the Roman pontiff.[^75]

## Literary and cultural legacy

The Panegyric on Macarius of Tkow, attributed to Pseudo-Dioscorus and composed no earlier than the second quarter of the sixth century, portrays Macarius as dying for refusing to subscribe to Chalcedon’s decrees and Leo’s Tome.[^30] This work is a hagiographical romance shaped by anti-Chalcedonian polemics, and Macarius’s opposition and possible violent death cannot be corroborated outside Egyptian orthodox tradition.[^31]

The Panegyric appears to draw on episodes from Pseudo-Theopistus’s Life of Dioscorus and, according to its internal evidence, was composed in Greek in or near Alexandria; it survives in Sahidic and Bohairic translations and in Arabic manuscripts.[^76] Its narrative setting presents Dioscorus addressing monks visiting him in exile at Gangra, and its recollections portray Macarius as a poor, Coptic-speaking bishop who requires an interpreter when speaking with the patriarch.[^77] When Theopistus disparages Macarius’s inability to speak Greek, Dioscorus rebukes him and demands an apology, making linguistic difference part of the work’s account of solidarity.[^78]

Macarius’s links with Shenute and the Pachomian abbot Paphnutius connect him to major Coptic-speaking monastic traditions, while his association with Dioscorus connects these traditions to the Greek-speaking Alexandrian patriarchate.[^79] The work therefore creates a united Coptic- and Greek-speaking Egyptian front against Chalcedon, although it remains uncertain whether the author intended to create such unity or merely reflected and strengthened an existing sixth-century alignment.[^80] The relics of a bishop Macarius venerated at Dayr Anba Maqar may be those of Macarius of Tkow, though the identification is uncertain; the presence there of the relics of the three Macarii is first attested in Mawhub ibn Mansur’s late-eleventh-century list.[^81]

Coptic hagiography about John of Lycopolis likewise linked him to Chalcedon, anachronistically depicting Marcian consulting a holy man who had already been dead for more than half a century.[^32]

The surviving evidence comprises roughly thirty damaged leaves from at least four Sahidic codices of the White Monastery, preserving both lives and an encomium that extend John’s story to Chalcedon.[^82] Supporters of Shenute and Dioscorus may have exploited John’s prophetic reputation, and there is a probable connection between the encomium and Synaxarion notices for 21 Hatur and the corresponding Ethiopian date, 21 Hedar.[^83]

Other traditions also gave the council a symbolic role: the legend of Hilaria, daughter of Zeno, represents religious division through the contrasting fortunes of the emperor’s daughters and connects Hilaria’s death on 21 Tubah with the Dormition feast and resistance to Chalcedon at Jerusalem.[^84] A parallel legend of Sophia of Jerusalem survives in Arabic, while the Hilaria story is preserved completely in a Coptic manuscript dated 848 and in other fragments, with no probable Greek original.[^85] The Life of John Colobos uses fiercely anti-Chalcedonian language in its account of Clysma, whereas the expansion of the cult of Athanasius the martyr there was connected with Justinian’s Chalcedonian policy and Ethiopian diplomacy.[^86]

The cultural effects of the crisis were especially evident in the sixth century, when suspicion of Greek as a vehicle of imperial religious teaching encouraged the development of a distinct Egyptian historical and spiritual culture.[^33] The precise effects on Coptic chant remain uncertain, but there are indications of distance from Byzantine influence alongside continued contact with Syrian church music and study by Coptic monks at the music school of Saint Sabas near the Dead Sea.[^34]

More specifically, the literary account connects the cultural change with events following Theodosius I’s exile from Alexandria, while warning that the transformation of attitudes toward Greek was gradual rather than an immediate linguistic rupture in 451.[^87] The musical account cites the History of the Patriarchs on popular rejoicing when Isaac, patriarch from 686 to 689, restored Coptic liturgies previously prohibited under Melchite domination, and on monks of Dayr Anba Maqar greeting an exiled patriarch with traditional sacred songs.[^88]

## Art and political institutions after Chalcedon

The period from the mid-fifth to the late seventh century was associated with a vigorous assertion of Egyptian artistic identity and increasing distance from Byzantine power, while religious isolation and political subordination constrained artistic resources and protection.[^89] Cultural self-assertion and material vulnerability offer contrasting emphases rather than a single account of the council’s artistic consequences.[^90]

Not every Christian image can be explained as a product of the Chalcedonian controversy: debates over the Galaktotrophousa, the image of the nursing Virgin, are qualified by a marble vessel dated 364–378 bearing the motif, which establishes that it predates the council and need not have originated in Egypt.[^91]

The Melchite church increasingly assumed functions of effective government in Alexandria after Chalcedon, illustrated by the civil and legal powers exercised by John the Almoner and Cyrus with Heraclius’s approval.[^92] In the wider administration, continuing religious tensions formed part of the setting for Justinian’s Edict XIII, usually dated 538–539, which sought to restore administrative order, secure tax revenue, and ensure grain shipments to Constantinople by strengthening officials who combined civil and military authority.[^93]

## Frequently asked questions

**When and where did the Council of Chalcedon meet?**
It met in sixteen sessions from 8 October to 1 November 451 at Chalcedon, across the Bosporus from Constantinople, after being summoned by Emperor Marcian.

**Why did Coptic Christians reject Chalcedon?**
Coptic opposition centered on the council’s Christological formulation, its acceptance of Leo’s Tome, and the deposition of Dioscorus, whom Copts regarded as a defender of Cyril’s teaching.

**Did rejection of Chalcedon mean acceptance of Eutyches’s teaching?**
No. The Coptic Encyclopedia explicitly states that Copts rejected the basic elements of Eutychianism as well as Nestorianism.

**What did canon 28 establish?**
It accorded Constantinople, as New Rome, equal status with Rome apart from Rome’s primacy of honor. The Roman legates opposed it, and Leo refused to accept it.

**Were there later attempts to overcome the division?**
Yes. These included Zeno’s Henoticon, the council of 553, medieval reunion negotiations, and modern dialogue, including a joint Roman Catholic–Coptic Christological statement signed in 1988.

## Sources
[^1]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 476)
[^2]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 2)
[^3]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 476)
[^4]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 225)
[^5]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 477)
[^6]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 480)
[^7]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 798)
[^8]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 226)
[^9]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 606)
[^10]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 482)
[^11]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 799)
[^12]: The Coptic Encyclopedia — Introduction, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 67)
[^13]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 483)
[^14]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 683)
[^15]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 50)
[^16]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 96)
[^17]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 656)
[^18]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 535)
[^19]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 354)
[^20]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 723)
[^21]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 578)
[^22]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 717)
[^23]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 620)
[^24]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 108)
[^25]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 35)
[^26]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 149)
[^27]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 96)
[^28]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 207)
[^29]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 207)
[^30]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 346)
[^31]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 348)
[^32]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 30)
[^33]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 261)
[^34]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 98)
[^35]: The Coptic Encyclopedia — Introduction, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 67)
[^36]: The Coptic Encyclopedia — Introduction, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 61)
[^37]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 681)
[^38]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 498)
[^39]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 627)
[^40]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 482)
[^41]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 482)
[^42]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 482)
[^43]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 491)
[^44]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 535)
[^45]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 354)
[^46]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 482)
[^47]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 482)
[^48]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 717)
[^49]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 734)
[^50]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 108)
[^51]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 114)
[^52]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 114)
[^53]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 115)
[^54]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 116)
[^55]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 116)
[^56]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 35)
[^57]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 315)
[^58]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 683)
[^59]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 683)
[^60]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 50)
[^61]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 149)
[^62]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 96)
[^63]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 96)
[^64]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 450)
[^65]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 72)
[^66]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 72)
[^67]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 72)
[^68]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 72)
[^69]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 559)
[^70]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 591)
[^71]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 93)
[^72]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 720)
[^73]: The Coptic Encyclopedia — Introduction, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 67)
[^73]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 2)
[^74]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 720)
[^75]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 720)
[^76]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 346)
[^77]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 346)
[^78]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 346)
[^79]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 349)
[^80]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 349)
[^81]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 348)
[^82]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 30)
[^83]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 30)
[^84]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 576)
[^85]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 576)
[^86]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 743)
[^87]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 261)
[^88]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 98)
[^89]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 78)
[^89]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 666)
[^90]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 3, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 78)
[^90]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 666)
[^91]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 526)
[^92]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 231)
[^93]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 809)