John Chrysostom

Overview

John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), patriarch of Constantinople and doctor of the church, occupies an important place in Coptic Christian literature and worship despite his historical conflict with Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. The Coptic tradition received him enthusiastically both as a saint and as an author of homilies. His epithet, Chrysostom, means “golden-mouthed.”¹

His standing extended beyond a single regional tradition: Coptic Church Review includes him among four “ecumenical” doctors, alongside Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius of Alexandria. In Coptic sources, however, his significance is particularly visible in translated preaching, sacramental instruction, canonical extracts, liturgical prayers, and narratives that made him a central figure in Egyptian religious memory.²³⁴

These materials require distinctions between historical biography, teaching quoted under his name, and later literary attribution. Some Coptic works preserve his preaching; others recast his life or assign him compositions that the encyclopedia explicitly identifies as pseudepigraphic. The breadth of this reception demonstrates his authority, but does not establish his authorship of every text bearing his name.¹⁵⁶

History and origins

Antioch and Constantinople

John was born in Antioch, where he studied law and theology. He devoted several years to monastic life, including a period as a hermit. He served as a deacon under Bishop Flavian, who ordained him priest in 386 and appointed him to preach. In 398 he became patriarch of Constantinople against his will.¹

The encyclopedia connects his subsequent difficulties with his rigorous moral stance and attempts to reform the court and city. These brought him into conflict with Empress Eudoxia and Theophilus of Alexandria. His reception of the Tall Brothers, Origenist monks from Egypt, supplied the occasion for Theophilus to secure his condemnation for Origenist views at the Synod of the Oak, held at Chalcedon in 403. Through the empress’s intervention he was deposed and exiled; the biographical account places his exile in the Caucasus and his death in 407.¹

Severian of Gabala, another prominent preacher associated with the Constantinopolitan court, was among his opponents during the proceedings and exile. The later transmission of their writings presents an irony: many sermons by this opponent eventually circulated under Chrysostom’s name.⁷

John also appears in the history of church offices. He ordained Serapion first deacon and then Archdeacon of Constantinople. The encyclopedia cites this appointment as an exception to the apparent practice of promotion through seniority in the diaconate.⁸

Alexandrian reconciliation and the translation of relics

Cyril of Alexandria initially inherited his uncle Theophilus’s hostility toward Chrysostom, but was eventually persuaded to accept his name in the Alexandrian diptych. This change belongs to the history of his ecclesiastical reception, rather than to the later literary tendency simply to omit the Alexandrian patriarch’s role in his troubles.⁹¹

Proclus of Constantinople also promoted his memory. On 27 January 438, Proclus obtained imperial authorization for the solemn transfer of Chrysostom’s relics from Comana to Constantinople. This historical act should be distinguished from the much later narratives in which Proclus becomes a witness to legendary events surrounding Chrysostom’s exile.¹⁰¹¹

Theology and meaning

Christ’s entry into Egypt and the desert fathers

Chrysostom’s eighth homily on Matthew connects the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt with the earlier history of Israel. As presented in Coptic Church Review, Israel’s departure from Egypt was a type whose true fulfillment lay in Christ, with reference to Hosea 11:1 and Matthew 2:15. Both journeys involved escape from death: the earlier travelers fled famine, whereas Christ escaped a conspiracy.¹²

The comparison culminates in a difference. The earlier travelers received temporary deliverance from hunger, but Christ, by entering Egypt, “sanctified the whole land, by setting His foot thereon.” The review explains that Chrysostom understood the flourishing of Egyptian desert monasticism as the accomplishment of this sanctification, foretold in Isaiah 19:25.¹³

This interpretation links biblical typology with the desert fathers: Egypt is not merely the setting of a childhood episode, but a land whose later ascetic life expresses Christ’s blessing. The review describes the homily as portraying a desert revival Chrysostom had actually seen and known, and identifies its published translation as drawn from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.¹³

Eucharistic faith, remembrance, and participation

The encyclopedia cites Chrysostom among the fathers supporting a realistic understanding of the Eucharist as Christ’s Body and Blood. His instruction begins from Christ’s declaration: “When the words say, ‘This is my Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind.” The point is the believer’s faithful reception of Christ’s words rather than reliance on ordinary sensory judgment.¹⁴

He also explains the offering through anamnesis, or remembrance: “We offer even now what was done then, for we perform the anamnesis of His death.” Another supplied excerpt begins his discussion of daily offering, but breaks off before its qualification is complete; the complete statement on remembrance therefore provides the firmer basis for describing his meaning here.¹⁵¹⁶

In Understanding the Liturgy, Chrysostom explains thanksgiving as the common action of priest and people: “The offering of the thanksgiving (Eucharistia) is in common, for the priest does not give thanks alone, but all the people as well.” The surrounding explanation connects this participation with the congregation’s assent, “It is meet and right.” His testimony thus supports an understanding of eucharistic prayer as shared thanksgiving, not merely something the people overhear.¹⁷

Purity, baptism, and healing

Chrysostom’s teaching on washing before Communion moves from outward cleanliness to inward preparation. In his third homily on Ephesians, he asks whether someone unwilling to approach the sacrifice with unwashed hands should nevertheless approach with a “filthy soul.” The encyclopedia places this beside Cyril of Jerusalem’s interpretation of handwashing as a symbol of guiltlessness and a comparable exhortation by Caesarius of Arles.¹⁸

The comparison does not make physical washing a substitute for repentance. Its force is the opposite: concern for bodily cleanliness exposes the greater need for moral and spiritual preparation. In the Coptic account, this teaching explains the admonitory significance of liturgical ablution.¹⁸

The encyclopedia also names Chrysostom among the fathers who expounded Baptism as purification, remission of sins, and spiritual regeneration, essential to salvation. A separate discussion includes him among patristic supporters of infant baptism, although it supplies no individual quotation from him on that subject.¹⁹²⁰

Similarly, he is listed with Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Victor of Antioch among early witnesses emphasizing the significance of anointing the sick. The passage grounds the practice in James 5:14–15 and Mark 6:13, but does not reproduce Chrysostom’s own treatment.²¹

Deaconesses in scriptural interpretation

In his eleventh homily on Timothy, Chrysostom interprets the women mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11 as holders of the rank of deaconess, rather than women generally, arguing that this reading preserves the continuity of the passage’s discussion of ministry.⁵⁴

Repentance and the final reckoning

On the Last Judgment, Chrysostom combines confidence in divine love with urgency about repentance: “Let us therefore take courage at His love of mankind and let us be diligent in showing repentance before that day arrives which will preclude our benefiting from repentance.” The distinction is temporal and moral: people can repent now, whereas the final sentence belongs to the Judge.²²

A brief extract from his comment on the title of Psalm 6 identifies “the eighth” with “the great and manifest Day of the Lord.” The continuation is missing, so this fragment supports the identification itself, but not a reconstruction of his full explanation.²³

Liturgical and practical use

Prayer, Communion, and the cross

Chrysostom’s name occurs explicitly in the Coptic absolution of the ministers. At the conclusion of the offertory-consecratory prayer, the ministers leave the sanctuary facing east, and the officiant asks that clergy, congregation, and his own weakness be absolved and blessed. The prayer invokes the authority of the Holy Trinity, the Church, the apostles, and a succession of saints that includes John Chrysostom.⁴

He is also an early witness to the Lord’s Prayer as preparation for Communion. The encyclopedia states that Eastern liturgical commentators, beginning with him, attest its use after the eucharistic prayer. In this context, petitions for forgiveness and heavenly bread explain its suitability for Communion.²⁴

His practical encouragement extended to the cross: he urged every believer to carry a cross and take pride in it as though wearing a crown. He is also cited as a witness concerning the manifestation of the Holy Cross; the supplied quotation explains that its wood had originally remained buried amid fear and the believers’ urgent concerns, but ends before completing the account of its later discovery.²⁵²⁶

The liturgy bearing his name and Alexandrian tradition

Coptic Church Review distinguishes the Eastern Orthodox liturgy bearing Chrysostom’s name from Coptic practice while comparing their processions. It describes the Coptic Procession of the Lamb, before the bread and wine are placed on the altar, with priest and deacons processing around it as the congregation sings Psalm 118:24–26. The review identifies a correspondence with the Great Entrance in the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.²⁷

A different connection concerns the Liturgy of Saint Mark. Understanding the Liturgy, citing H. Amin’s Saint Mark in Africa, attributes to Chrysostom the assertion that Mark was the first apostle to put the liturgy into a regularly followed written service. Because the supplied passage gives this through an intermediary, it establishes a reported attribution rather than the original wording or location in Chrysostom’s works.²⁸

The later history of these rites involves institutional divergence. Around 1203, the Byzantine canonist Theodorus Balsamon told Mark, the Melchite patriarch of Alexandria, that churches in communion with Constantinople should use only the liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil, rather than those of Mark and James. This was a prescription for that ecclesiastical communion, not a statement that the Coptic Church adopted Chrysostom’s liturgy.²⁹

Arabic manuscript transmission also preserves the rite bearing his name. Mikha’il ibn Ya‘qub ‘Ubayd al-Misri, a Melchite from Cairo, completed Sinai Arabic 223 on 21 November 1774. Its 142 pages include Communion prayers, evening and morning prayers, and eucharistic liturgies attributed to Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory the Theologian.³⁰

Commemoration and pastoral readings

The supplied sources report several commemorative dates. The biographical entry gives 13 November in the East and 13 September in the West. A saints list specifies 12 Bashans, whereas the lectionary article describes Chrysostom’s feast on 17 Hatur. The excerpts do not explain whether the two Coptic dates represent distinct commemorations.¹³¹³²

For 17 Hatur, the lectionary presents a coherent pastoral theme. John 10:1–16 concerns the Good Shepherd and his flock; Psalm 73:17, 23, 24 expresses divine guidance; 2 Timothy 3:10 and 4:1–22 addresses pastoral responsibilities; and 1 Peter 5:1–14 includes “Tend the flock of God that is your charge.” The Acts reading likewise concerns the shepherds’ responsibility for the flock. Chrysostom’s commemoration is thus interpreted through pastoral care and accountability.³²

Writings, texts, and terminology

Translation and changing attribution

Coptic translators gave Chrysostom a substantial place because of his literary fame, notwithstanding his poor relations with Theophilus. The encyclopedia describes a wider preference for individual homilies rather than systematic translations of major corpora, with choices influenced by monastic spiritual needs and a readership broader than official ecclesiastical circles.³³³⁴

Attribution could change in transmission. Chrysostom’s homily on the Canaanite woman circulated in Coptic under Eusebius of Caesarea, “the historiographer,” apparently because its opening referred to the Church and its history. In the opposite direction, approximately thirty of thirty-five Greek texts counted under Severian in the cited scholarly inventory had circulated under Chrysostom’s name. Comparisons with securely attributed works, quotations in biblical commentary chains, and Armenian versions helped scholars recover Severian’s authorship.³³⁷

A homily on penitence and abstinence associated with John the Faster presents another difficulty. It consists largely of Chrysostomic excerpts, especially in its central section, and survives completely in a seventh-century Coptic papyrus codex, British Museum Or. 6001, with additional eleventh-century Vienna fragments, K 7602–7613. Both Coptic witnesses name simply “John, archbishop of Constantinople,” probably understood by Coptic readers as Chrysostom; the encyclopedia nevertheless argues that the translator knew a later John was intended.³⁵

One part of the London witness differs from both the Greek text in the Patrologia Graeca and the Vienna witness, possibly because pages were displaced in an earlier manuscript; otherwise, the Coptic closely matches the Greek.⁵⁵ A Syriac translation also survives, which the encyclopedia recommends taking into account in a modern critical edition.⁵⁶

Chrysostom also belongs to the tradition of using letters for public teaching and extended reflection. The encyclopedia places him alongside Paul, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Shenute as Christian continuators of literary epistolography.³⁶

Monastery libraries and Arabic adaptations

Sermons attributed to Chrysostom were represented in the library of the Monastery of the Archangel Michael at Sopehes in the Fayyum. Its fifty-six recovered codices, written between 820 and 920, passed almost entirely to the Pierpont Morgan Library and were published in facsimile by Hyvernat in 1922. Their contents combined Scripture, lectionaries, homilies, an antiphonary, and saints’ narratives.³⁷

Arabic transmission supplied further adaptation. In 1232, al-Safi ibn al-‘Assal summarized and revised eighty-eight homilies on John using the eleventh-century translation of the Melchite ‘Abdallah ibn al-Fadl al-Antaki. By 1237–1238 he had similarly revised ninety homilies on Matthew; his half-brother then took a copy to Damascus for liturgical revision.³⁸

Abu al-Khayr arranged another collection of eighty-seven sermons based on Chrysostom’s Gospel homilies for particular days of the Coptic Calendar. The encyclopedia cautiously suggests possible relationships between this collection and sermons associated with Ibn al-Tayyib, without establishing their identity. It also notes Chrysostomic quotations transmitted through the anthology Confessions of the Fathers.³⁹

The continuing circulation of a Coptic recension is documented by Vatican Arabic 66, copied in Rome by Clement Caraccioli in 1712 and containing eighty-seven Chrysostomic homilies. Caraccioli was a convert from Cairo who copied Arabic manuscripts for the Vatican collection.⁴⁰

The Canons of Saint John Chrysostom

The Canons of Saint John Chrysostom are twelve ordered extracts from the second and especially the third books of his six-book treatise On the Priesthood. This particular collection is peculiar to the Copts; its title therefore refers to an arrangement of excerpts, not to a separate set of twelve canons composed independently by Chrysostom.³

The date of its incorporation into Coptic canonical collections is unknown. Its oldest identified Coptic use is in an incomplete manuscript of the twelfth-century Nomocanon of Gabriel II ibn Turayk, Coptic Patriarchate, Canon 13, formerly cited simply as “Kairo 442.” Later witnesses include the systematic collections of Michael of Damietta and al-Safi ibn al-‘Assal, chronological collections associated with Berlin and the monk Macarius of Wadi al-Natrun, and an anonymous “Jacobite” collection. Ibn Kabar also cited it in Misbah al-Zulmah.³

Riedel published a German translation in 1900, pages 285–287. The encyclopedia recommends comparison with the full treatise, including the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge edition of 1964 and the Sources chrétiennes edition of 1980.³

Coptic hagiography and works attributed to Chrysostom

The cycle of his life

A Coptic literary cycle, dated approximately to the seventh century, divides Chrysostom’s story between his activity in Antioch and Constantinople and his later conflict with Eudoxia and exile. Theophilus is absent. In its earlier portion, the fictitious Demetrius of Antioch replaces Flavian as the bishop who ordained him priest; the encyclopedia states that the reason for this substitution remains unknown.⁵

The homily In Victorem, preserved in a manuscript from Dayr Anba Shinudah and edited by Bouriant in 1893, places an account of ordination and transfer to Constantinople in Chrysostom’s own voice. Another fragment from the same monastery narrates sufferings in Thrace followed by the conversion of the local population. Anthimos appears in this narrative network as a bishop whose successor is Eustathius.⁵

The early Coptic church history calls Chrysostom a “wise man of God, full of faith, wisdom and charity,” while assigning his troubles solely to Eudoxia. The so-called Memoirs of Dioskoros takes a similar approach. Not all Coptic witnesses suppress the Alexandrian conflict, however: the Coptic Life of Epiphanius of Salamis brings out his relations with Theophilus.¹

Archangels and heavenly patrons

A Sahidic encomium attributed to Chrysostom portrays John the Baptist carrying souls devoted to him in a golden ship to the third heaven and rescuing them from rivers of fire. The encyclopedia presents these as apocalyptic features of the attributed work, not as established elements of Chrysostom’s own teaching.⁴¹

An encomium on Raphael, explicitly classified as pseudepigraphic, survives in the British Museum. It recounts Raphael binding Asmodeus, carrying Sarah’s prayer to the seventh heaven, bringing joy and health, serving without payment, and acting as a patron of marriage. Within its narrative Raphael appears to Chrysostom during the liturgy, identifies himself as his unceasing guardian, and sends him to Emperor Arcadius, who builds a shrine in the archangel’s honor.⁶

Other attributed works include a Bohairic homily on Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary in Vatican Coptic 57 and In Heliam Prophetam, a Bohairic compilation of biblical passages about Elijah preserved in the British Library and edited by Budge in 1893. Translated encomia on the patriarch Joseph and Susanna also supplied models for later Coptic hagiographic writing.⁴²⁵⁴³

Michael and the legendary exile

Vatican Coptic 58 contains a homiletic text attributed to Chrysostom that organizes Michael’s appearances into a sequence of commemorative dates. These are the narrative’s assignments, not independently established dates of the biblical events:⁴⁴⁴⁵

• 12 Ba’unah: Michael visits Abraham with Christ and Gabriel; 26 Ba’unah: he appears to Lot and Joshua.⁴⁴
• 12 Baramhat: he speaks to Jacob at Bethel; 24 Bashans: he announces Samson’s birth to Manoah.⁴⁴
• 24 Baramudah: he urges Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem and later speaks to Daniel; 12 Bashans: he carries Habakkuk to feed Daniel.⁴⁴
• 29 Baramhat: identified with Easter, he sits on the Savior’s tombstone; 23 Amshir: he blesses the earth’s fruits.⁴⁴
• 12 Baramudah: he frees Peter; 12 Babah: he appears to Cornelius; 10 Baramhat: he grants Constantine victory over the Persians.⁴⁴⁴⁵
• 12 Hatur: he destroys the idol Boz under Patriarch Eumenius.⁴⁵

Other Michael homilies locate a sanctuary founded by Chrysostom in his legendary Thracian exile. The encyclopedia explicitly contrasts this location with exile in Armenia. Works attributed to Eustathius of Antioch and Severus of Antioch tell of the sanctuary; a homily attributed to Macarius of Tkow recalls Eudoxia’s persecution of Chrysostom. These works belong to an anti-Chalcedonian literary setting, while other Michael homilies cannot necessarily be assigned to either side of that controversy.⁴⁵⁴⁶

The homily attributed to Eustathius survives in Bohairic, published and translated by E. A. W. Budge in 1894, and in Sahidic, published and translated by A. Campagnano in 1977.⁵⁷

Further material survives under either Severian’s or Chrysostom’s name in Morgan M 592, folios 1–7. The concentration of Michael texts is partly explained by their preservation in the archangel’s monastery at Hamuli.⁴⁶

Proclus, the elders, and Sophia

A homily attributed to Proclus on the twenty-four elders survives complete in Morgan codex 591, dated 861. Its editors assign it to Pseudo-Proclus and suggest a fusion of material on the elders with a life of Chrysostom. The narrative presents Proclus traveling toward Tripoli for healing by Saint Leontius and meeting Festus at Ariforo in Thrace; Festus recounts Chrysostom’s preaching and a revelation of heavenly mysteries by Peter and John.⁴⁷¹¹

The encyclopedia treats its geography and chronology as literary transpositions. It compares related narratives in which Thrace becomes an island and Anthimus belongs to the same symbolic history as Chrysostom despite their chronological separation. These observations explain why the cycle cannot be read as straightforward biography.¹¹

Chrysostom also appears in the Jacobite-Arabic story of Sophia of Jerusalem, preserved in Paris Arabe 4869, a seventeenth-century copy restored in the nineteenth century. At Arcadius’s recommendation, he anoints the childless Theognostus and Theodora with sanctuary oil; Sophia is born nine months later. After her marriage to Castor, the birth of Stephen, Mark, and Paul, and the deaths of her husband and parents, she consults Chrysostom about her future.⁴⁸

The Virgin subsequently transports Sophia miraculously to Jerusalem, and her abandoned children seek Chrysostom’s sympathy. The encyclopedia interprets the legend as a symbolic portrayal of an earlier age of orthodoxy, before controversy over Mary’s title Theotokos. This interpretation concerns the tale’s theological construction, not independently verified episodes in Chrysostom’s life.⁴⁸⁴⁹

Variations and questions of evidence

Chrysostom’s statements do not always agree with other ancient testimony. In his first homily on Matthew, he reportedly located the composition of Mark’s Gospel in Egypt. The encyclopedia contrasts this with the other ancient sources naming a place of composition, which identify Rome, and reports the scholarly suggestion that his assertion arose from a misunderstanding of Eusebius. The disagreement should remain visible rather than be resolved by silently preferring one tradition.⁵⁰

The supplied Rudder index associates him with resting from fasting on Saturdays and Sundays, testimony to the Septuagint, and discussion of oaths. Because these are topical pointers rather than complete arguments, they establish subjects associated with him in that collection but do not support a detailed account of his positions or their application to Coptic practice.⁵¹⁵²⁵³

Significance in Coptic Orthodox life

The sources show several distinct forms of enduring reception: his name in an absolution prayer, pastoral readings for his commemoration, instruction about eucharistic faith and moral preparation, canonical excerpts on priesthood, and continued publication of his interpretation of Egypt’s sanctification. These uses make him both a liturgical presence and a resource for teaching.^43218313

His Coptic legacy also illustrates how religious memory can preserve a revered teacher while reshaping difficult episodes of his biography. The omission of Theophilus in some narratives, the multiplication of homilies under Chrysostom’s name, and the elaboration of his exile into missionary and visionary stories are different aspects of that reception. A careful account can respect their significance while distinguishing historical evidence, transmitted teaching, and later hagiography.¹⁵¹¹