On the Title 'Papa'

Almost everyone knows (I think) that the Pope gets his name from the Greek title 'Papa.' I think at least a few Catholics are aware that the Roman Church appropriated the title from the Alexandrian Patriarch. In other words, it is fairly well established that the see of Alexandria was the first to call its bishop 'Papa.' What this term actually means is the subject of some debate.

My teacher and mentor Rory Boid told me a long time ago that it must come from the Greek word for 'grandfather' and I disagreed with him (mostly because it didn't fit my understanding for what the Pope represented - viz. God the Father) so I found a number of sources who argued that Papa was a deliberate imitation of 'Baba' the way an Aramaic baby would call out 'Daddy' and I went with that. This theory still might be true but it just noticed that a number of scholars agreed with Rory's explanation and I think I figured out a way to reconcile both explanations.

Let's agree that the original term for Father in Christianity was the Aramaic 'Abba' (which is preserved after all in the New Testament). It just occurred to me that up until Demetrius there was only one bishop in the entire Egyptian Church. There can be no doubt that in this period since there was only one bishop he would have been called 'Father.' Let's suppose (for argument's sake) that the Alexandria Church if they did not employ the original Aramaic term 'Baba' were still cognizant of this connection.

It is well established that Demetrius was the first to break the Alexandrian bishop's absolute authority over the Church. It was during his rule that a total of three bishops were established in Egypt. His successor Heraclas is the first to be identified as Papa (it appears in a letter sent to him by Dionysius, his successor). Yet when you think about it, the idea title 'Papa' only makes sense for him given the fact that he expanded the number of bishops to number about twenty.

As such you can't have the Alexandrian bishop be another 'father' among twenty fathers. One can imagine that in order to distinguish him as a figure of higher authority he was called Papa in Greek or 'grandfather.'

Now the million dollar question (which no other scholar but me would have even formulated) is whether Heraclas HAS TO BE the first figure identified as Papa. Let me tell you what I mean.

If Demetrius introduced the idea of a total number of bishops as three and he was nevertheless never identified as 'Papa' isn't it at least possible that Origen, Heraclas teacher and mentor might have assumed this title BEFORE Heraclas - at least clandestinely - as a way of emphasizing that he as head of the Catechetical school (undoubtedly located at the cemetery/shrine of St. Mark where the throne of the Evangelist undoubtedly stood AND which Demetrius - owing to his temerity - never ventured to visit) was of higher authority than even Demetrius.

It is worth at least following up.

In other words, could Heraclas have transfered the title of 'Papa' from Origen given that Demetrius, his predecessor, never employed the title? Demetrius would just have been 'father Demetrius.'

I don't know I would prove this but perhaps a detailed examination of the use of the term 'grandfather' in association with Origen is in order. Perhaps I won't find anything, but you never know. My whole success (or failure) as an academic is rooted in asking questions no one else thought of asking.

The solution might lie in looking at Origen's interest in Abraham, the grandfather of Israel ...

UPDATE: I was looking at the Dialogue With Heraclides (a text discovered within the last 100 years) which is quite remarkable. In that text there is a gathering of bishops where Origen instructs the bishops in the manner of a grandfather among 'fathers.' Indeed Demetrius is explicitly referenced as 'father Demetrius' (Dial. Her. 24.30) among other fathers - i.e. bishops. Will look further at this text ...

UPDATE 2 Has anyone actually READ the Dialogue With Heraclides? If Origen ISN'T identified as the PAPA among 'fathers' I don't know how else it could be interpreted! I will cite from the text in a subsequent post but let me break it down for the reader. Origen is interrogating the bishop(s) to make sure they are orthodox. It is ridiculous to read the text any other way.

The question that pops into my head is where is Heraclas the FUTURE Papa in the age to come? Or better yet - is bishop Heraclides, Heraclas?

UPDATE 3 Just read chapter 4 of this text and see Origen argue on behalf of CHANGING the traditional Alexandrian method of prayer which seems to reinforce mobarchian (Sabellian) notions. His language betrays his authoritative status. He is being asked to acknowledge FOREIGN understandings of the relation of Father and Son. Why would Origen DECIDE Alexandrian orthodoxy if he was not viewed by some as in effect the true authority or - if you will - the Papa?

UPDATE 4 I noticed a long time ago that a Polish researcher found a reference to the seventeenth Patriarch Peter (311 CE) with the title Pipi (the Greek letters are a well attested substitute for the tetragrammaton - look at the Greek letters and see why). This might be another layer to the title ie that Papa was Yahweh

If you are interested in reading how this observation fits within my greater understanding of the workings of Secret Mark WITHIN the contemporary Alexandrian Church please go here

If you want to read more about how Alexandrian Christianity was rooted in the Jewish traditions of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria and more feel free to purchase my new book here