Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia 25 July 2025
mīkhā’īl, bishop of tinnīs
Naglaa Hamdi Boutros Keywords: History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr ibn Mufarrij al-iskandarānī, Abū Ḥabīb Mīkhā’īl ibn Badīr al-Damanhūrī, Tinnīs, Ḥākim Bi-Amr-Illāh Abū ʿAlī Manṣūr, al-, Fatimid dynasty, Fatimids and the Copts, Deacons, Bishops, Pope Christodoulus, Pope Shenute II, Pope Zacharias Mīkhā’īl (also named as Khā’īl in some manuscripts), Bishop of Tinnīs or Anbā Mīkhā’īl al-Damrāwī, was an eleventh-century Coptic bishop and historian. He authored the biographies of the Coptic patriarchs from Pope khā’īl iii (56th Patriarch, AD 880–907) to Pope shenute ii (65th Patriarch, 1032–1046), as attested by mawhūb ibn manṣūr ibn mufarrij al-iskandarānī, an Alexandrian deacon (den Heijer 1989; Boutros 2020).
tinnīs, now known as Kom Tinnīs,1 is a city located on an island in southeastern Lake Manzala in the Daqahliyya province.
The history of the patriarchs of alexandria (or the Lives of the Patriarchs) stands as one of the most significant historiographical works produced by the Copts. More than just a compilation of patriarchal biographies, it serves as a chronological framework through which the authors depict a comprehensive panorama of Egyptian political, economic, social, and religious life across different eras. Often, it records events unattested in other historical sources, making it an invaluable repository of knowledge. This monumental text offers rich insights not only into the relations between the Copts and other Christian communities such as the Melkites, Syriacs, and so on, but it also provides a vivid portrayal of Christian–Muslim coexistence in Egypt.
Recognized for its ecclesiastical authority, scholars regard the History of the Patriarchs (hereafter cited as hpc) as the “official” history of the Coptic Church. The biographies included in the History were composed by various writers over different periods until the late eleventh century, when Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr undertook the task of compiling and organizing existing accounts (up to Pope Shenute II) and translating them into Arabic. Mawhūb himself directly authored the subsequent two biographies in Arabic, setting a precedent for later contributors, who continued the chronicle exclusively in Arabic (see den Heijer 1989; Boutros 2020).
1. Who is Mīkhā’īl Bishop of Tinnīs?
Although the exact birth date of Mīkhā’īl remains unknown, the biography of Pope zacharias (64th Patriarch, 1004–1032) mentions that he was a child (Ms. Paris arabe 303, f° 245v; hpc ii/2: 202) during the persecutions under the reign of the Fatimid caliph al-ḥākim bi-amr-illāh (996–1021). Based on this, Johannes den Heijer estimates Mīkhā’īl’s birth around 1000 in damrū (hpc ii/2, trad. 240; den Heijer 1992: 181), a city in the Nile Delta.
Pope Zacharias ordained him as a deacon, and Pope Shenute II later elevated him to the priesthood. In 1047, Pope christodoulus (66th Patriarch, 1047–1077) consecrated him as bishop of Tinnīs (Ms. Paris arabe 303, f° 279v; hpc ii/2: 240–241). The precise date of Mīkhā’īl’s death is unrecorded, but evidence suggests he died before 1084. Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr, in the life of Pope Christodoulus’ patriarchate, notes that Ṣamū’īl succeeded him as bishop of Tinnīs. Additionally, Fr. Manasa Youhanna recounts that Mīkhā’īl © Claremont Graduate University 1 Naglaa Hamdi Boutros: Mīkhā’īl, Bishop of Tinnis 25 July 2025 perished during a devastating famine under Pope Christodoulus, which claimed numerous lives (Youhanna 1983: 391).
Throughout his biographies, Mīkhā’īl intersperses personal anecdotes, offering readers glimpses into his own life and perspective. Mīkhā’īl’s father was a mason and carpenter, from whom he learned the craft (Ms. Paris arabe 303, f° 245v; hpc ii/2: 202). His uncle, Mīnā, served as a “chief engineer of those who worked at sawing,” and it was through his uncle that Mīkhā’īl befriended deacon Baqīrah al-Rashīdī (Ms. Paris arabe 303, f° 240r; hpc ii/2 tr. 195). 2. Did Mīkhā’īl Write in Coptic or Arabic?
Scholars remain divided on whether Mīkhā’īl composed his works in Coptic or Arabic. Some, like Gutschmid, argue that he wrote the Lives of the Patriarchs in Arabic (Gutschmid 1890: 403). As for Johnson, he was more cautious when he wrote that “presumably” Mīkhā’īl had written his text in Arabic. However, there is a clear indication in the History of the Patriarchs that the text written by Mikha’il was originally written in Coptic and later translated into Arabic: “The twenty-third biography of the holy fathers, composed by Anbā Mīkhā’īl, Bishop of Tinnīs, as transcribed from his autograph at the dayr anba maqar on 1 Baramūda AM 784 [AD 1088]. It was translated from Coptic into Arabic by the deacon Abū Ḥabīb Mīkhā’īl ibn Badīr al-Damanhūrī, working from a copy in Anbā Mīkhā’īl’s own hand” (Ms. Paris arabe 303, f° 160r, English translation by this author).
A canon attributed to Pope athanasius ii (al-Makary 2011: 298) includes a revealing passage by Mīkhā’īl of Tinnīs: “This holy canon of Saint Athanasius, the great teacher of the Egyptians, was in three titles (ṯalāṯat ru’ūs). I, the poor Mīkhā’īl, unworthy to be bishop of Tinnīs, saw when I transmitted it that I had to astayḫinu and divide it into one hundred and seven chapters...” (Ms. Paris arabe 251, f° 338v; see al-Makary 2003; den Heijer 1989: 153). The crux of this debate lies in a misreading of the Greek-derived Arabic term stīḫyūn (from Greek τὸ στοιχεῖον), meaning “element,” “item,” or “basic unit” (Pernot 1985: 412). Fr. Athanasius al-Makary clarifies that it denotes “one of a series” or “the foundational component of speech” (al-Makary 2011, I: 108). Some scholars have erroneously read astayḫinu as astansiḫu “rewrite/copy it,” leading them to conclude that Mīkhā’īl rewrote the text into Arabic, and that he was therefore fluent in Arabic. However, this reading is untenable. The passage explicitly states that Mīkhā’īl’s role was to divide the canon into 107 chapters (or elements), not to translate it. The current Arabic version of these canons reflects this structural division, not a linguistic translation by Mīkhā’īl, and it invalidates claims that Mīkhā’īl authored or translated these texts into Arabic.
Rather, he likely organized the material into sections, preserved them in their original Coptic or Greek, and left their actual Arabic translation to others (Boutros 2023), as happened in the History of the Patriarchs, where Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr later handled the Arabic translation with others (den Heijer 1989: 153). Thus, attempts to portray Mīkhā’īl as an Arabic scribe lack textual and scholarly support. His contribution was editorial, not translational (Boutros 2023).
3. The Role of Bishop Mīkhā’īl in the History of the Coptic Church 3.1. Mīkhā’īl the Historian Anbā Mīkhā’īl al-Damrāwī authored the biographies of the Coptic patriarchs from Pope Khā’īl iii to Pope Shenute II, as attested by Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr in the Life of Pope Christodoulos. These lives written by Mīkhā’īl cover the period from approximately 880 to 1046. Mīkhā’īl’s contributions to this collective historiographical project are distinguished by their humanism: portraying the patriarchs not as idealized figures, but as complex individuals embodying both Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia 2 Naglaa Hamdi Boutros: Mīkhā’īl, Bishop of Tinnis 25 July 2025 virtues and flaws. Mīkhā’īl’s narratives break from hagiographic conventions and present a humanizing approach. He avoids attributing infallibility or a “halo of sanctity” to clergy, instead depicting them as fallible humans capable of sin (Swanson 2010: 44). His accounts read almost like historical novels, with dynamic interactions between characters, incorporating vivid dialogues (Boutros 2023).
Mīkhā’īl’s lifetime coincided with the reign of the Fatimid caliph al-Ḥākim and his biographical accounts integrate both eyewitness testimonies from his childhood and oral traditions transmitted through familial networks. His narratives derive their authority from his firsthand experience of historical events, supplemented by accounts relayed to him by close informants, including his father and maternal uncle. For instance, Mīkhā’īl prefaces one miraculous account with a methodological note on its provenance: “I relate to you a wonder recounted by my father (…) for I, unworthy as I am, was but a child during this time of tribulation” (Ms. Paris arabe 303, fol. 245v). Similarly, he cites his maternal uncle Mīnā (Ms. Paris arabe 303, fol. 240r; hpc ii/2: 195), as a source for additional episodes, demonstrating a reliance on kinship-based oral sources to construct his historiography (Boutros 2017). Notably, Mīkhā’īl often employs the phrase “it is said” to distinguish eyewitness testimony from secondhand reports, reflecting a proto-critical approach to historiography (Boutros 2023). There is an additional important point that is sometimes left unnoticed by some researchers: The original Coptic text of the biographies authored by Anbā Mīkhā’īl has been lost. What survives is an Arabic version processed by Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr and his team, including deacon Abū Ḥabīb Mīkhā’īl ibn Badīr al-Damanhūrī.
Mawhūb incorporated supplementary sources to the text and cross-referenced Mīkhā’īl’s accounts, even those involving firsthand testimonies (den Heijer 1989: 154; Boutros 2020: 195–212).
3.2. Mīkhā’īl the Bishop As previously noted, Pope Christodoulus ordained Mīkhā’īl Bishop of Tinnīs. However, Christodoulus’ patriarchate was marred by a significant conflict with Yūḥannā, Bishop of sakhā: Yūḥannā, a state scribe dubbed “Ibn al-Ẓālim,” aggressively pursued the episcopacy until Christodoulus reluctantly appointed him bishop of Sakhā. Yūḥannā’s ambitions did not stop there and were the cause of a dispute between him and the patriarch. Initially aligning himself with Bishop Yūḥanna and other dissident Alexandrian clergy, Mīkhā’īl contested Christodoulus’ legitimacy, arguing that the canonical rites for his patriarchal ordination had been omitted. This rebellion was only quelled after mediation by the chief of the Dīwān of the state (hpc ii/3: 260–261).
The History of the Patriarchs further records Mīkhā’īl’s involvement in a separate liturgical dispute at the Monastery of Saint Macarius: Monks and Alexandrian priests preserved the Eucharist from Palm Sunday to Bright Wednesday, a practice Christodoulus deemed irregular. The monks defiantly claimed, “Thou art not better than the fathers who preceded thee” (hpc ii/3: 262). In response, the patriarch produced a homily from the monastery’s library on this subject. Anbā Mīkhā’īl, his secretary, read it to the assembly. With this evidence and divine aid, the patriarch was able to permanently suppress this practice.
3.3. Mīkhā’īl’s Role in Authoring and Transmitting Synodical Letters Pope Christodoulus commissioned Bishop Mīkhā’īl, to write and deliver the synodical letter to the Patriarch of Antioch, alongside Bishop Gabriel of Ṣā al-Ḥajar. Mīkhā’īl explicitly identifies himself as the letter’s scribe in the Life of Pope philotheus (63rd Patriarch, 979–1003); and in the Life of Pope Christodoulus, Mawhūb affirms Mīkhā’īl’s authorship of several letters in the Synodica2 (see synods, letters of). Mīkhā’īl describes the letter’s warm reception Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia 3 Naglaa Hamdi Boutros: Mīkhā’īl, Bishop of Tinnis 25 July 2025 by Patriarch John of Antioch, who publicly read it in all of his churches and proclaimed the Coptic patriarch’s name “in the sanctuaries of the churches of the See of Antioch” (hpc ii/3: 264), an ecumenical gesture underscoring inter-Church solidarity between the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox Churches.
4. Mīkhā’īl al-Damrāwī and Mīkhā’īl ibn Badīr al-Damanhūrī Several scholars have erroneously conflated two distinct figures named Mīkhā’īl who appear in the History of the Patriarchs: Anbā Mīkhā’īl al-Damrāwī, Bishop of Tinnīs (the primary subject of this entry); and a deacon, Abū Ḥabīb Mīkhā’īl ibn Badīr al-Damanhūrī, who was a member of Mawhūb ibn Manṣūr’s scribal team (den Heijer 1989: 106; Boutros 2023).
Kāmil Ṣāliḥ Nakhla exemplifies this error in his 1943 book by titling a section “Deacon Mīkhā’īl ibn Badīr al-Damanhūrī or Anbā Mīkhā’īl, Bishop of Tinnīs” (Nakhla 1943: 25), implying they were the same person. This error was later corrected by Fr. Wadi Awad (2006: 99), who emphasized the separate roles of the two men named Mīkhā’īl, which is essential for tracing the authentic voice of Bishop Mīkhā’īl’s eyewitness accounts as well as appreciating Mawhūb’s editorial process, assisted by the separate Deacon Mīkhā’īl, in shaping the History of the Patriarchs.
Bishop Mīkhā’īl of Tinnīs’s work remains indispensable not only as a historical chronicle but as a testament to the resilience and identity of the Coptic Church during centuries of transformation.