(Early Draft)

This English version of the paper (downloadable  docx copy) dates back to late February 2001. Subsequently later few links were added, while the Arabic version (downloadable Arabic docx copy) was prepared years later with the aid of Google Translation  in order to quickly be done with, to get over the tight time and poor health !

During a turbulent and critical time for the official COC discourse, that so touched a nerve that it jolted me, someone told me in a phone call (while I was on a visit to LA for a labor of chivalry) about a "story" they had received in Sunday school about two wives married to two pagan men, to whom (the two wives) the Lord guided Abba Macarius in response to his question about who was more righteous than him. Based on that confused marred formulation of the well-known story, the person on the phone concluded that what they call mixed marriage (and I do it ‘mixed marring’) is permissible!! (That person swing between rejecting the shameful idea and excusing it, and kept  going back and forth in a desperate manner. That almost hopeless case has reflected to me how poor the church teaching system is. L)

Well, the idea that the two husbands in the famous story were pagans is not only baseless, but also so easily shacked off by all well documented material, leaving it entirely helpless!

Moreover, the wicked conclusion from it that ‘mixed marring’ may go blessed, is so foolish that it equates considering the acquittal of a manslaughter defendant as a precedence set for acquitting a perpetrator of premeditated murder of first degree with heavy enhancements!!

I answered on the phone, briefly yet abundantly and fairly enough to debunk this satanic absurdity. Yet… the story is not over yet.

With all its nonsense, I have taken it to a ‘research (this paper),
not to prove that it is so, but to demonstrate how so it is!!

So in this quick paper, I will first gather all the related sources, in which I will then underline the proofs that the two husbands were Christians, to end up by rounding off the paper with refuting the wicked clumsy conclusion.

1.  Sources

2. Evidence Abounds

3.  A foolish Conclusion from a Foolish Claim

1- These are the original related sources of the story

1-1- Whoever claims that the two husbands were pagans, whether he imagined that, or was blindly taught it way or another, and then passes this claim on to a Sunday school class, especially when this one is Copt and speaking Arabic, then this one; sadly speaking, is not only miserable ignorant but also outrageous reckless.

The authoritative copy of The Paradise of Monks, in Arabic, is at hands, approved by the COC, published by it, and available at its libraries.

Here you are the story is mentioned therein, not only DEVOID of that shameful idea, but also taming with counter references,

(The text is quickly translated. Whatever comes between brackets is an added remark by me)

{ Our father, the saint, besieged the Lord to know who could equal him in his conduct. A voice from heaven answer him: “You match two women in so-and-so city. (1)  [i]

When he heard this, he took his stick and went off to the city. He asked about them until he reached their very house, he knocked on the door. One of the women came out and opened for him. When she saw the elder, she bowed down to the ground, prostrating herself before him, not recognizing his identity — for both women would see their husbands loving strangers. When the other woman recognized him, she placed her son on the ground and came and prostrated herself before him. She offered him water to wash his feet, and then set a table for him to eat. The saint answered them, saying, "I will not allow you to wash my feet, nor eat any bread from yours, until you uncover to me the plan of both of you with God, for I am sent by God to you." They asked him, "Who are you, our father?" He replied, "I am Makara [A variation of Macarius], the dweller in the Scetis wilderness." When they heard this, they trembled and fell on their faces before him, weeping. He raised them up, and they said to him, "What work do you ask of us sinners, O saint?!" He said to them, "For God's sake, I have paid effort and come to you. Do not hide from me the benefit of my soul." They answered, saying, “We are strangers to one another in race, but we are married to two brothers according to the flesh, and we have asked them to let us go and live in a nuns’ convent and serve God with prayer and fasting, but they would not allow us to do so. Thus we imposed on ourselves to conduct with each other in the perfection of divine love. And we guard our souls with permanent fasting until evening [Here is a typo in the original Arabic. It reads ‘samaa’ instead of ‘messaa!’] and unceasing prayer. And each one of us has given birth to a child, and whenever one of us sees her sister’s son crying, she takes care of him and nurses him as her own son. This is how both of us behave. And our husbands, shepherds of goats and sheep, come to us from evening to evening daily, and we welcome them like James and John, the sons of Zebedee, holy brothers. We are but poor and humble, and our men are devoted to providing charity and showing compassion on strangers. We have not allowed any worldly word to come out of our mouths, nay, our speech and acts are similar to the inhabitants of the desert. Having heard this from them, he left them, beating his chest and slapping his face, saying, "Woe to me, woe to me! I have not got love for my neighbor equal to these two worldly (non-monastic) women!" And he had great benefit from them. }  [ii]

1-2-  The version Syriac orchard Palladius is the most famous translation, and from its English translation it became known to the West. I think it contributed to the Arabic version, although there are no definitive statements about the source of the Arabic translation, whether it was Coptic, Syriac, or Greek, which no longer exists. In any case, the Syriac version was translated and verified by Budge and published in English in 1907. The following is the text of the story of the two pious wives with Abba Macarius,

{4 When Abba Macarius was praying in his cell on one occasion

he heard a voice which said, 4 4 Macarius, thou hast not

yet arrived [at the state of excellence] of two women who are

in such and such a city"; and the old man rose up in the

morning, and took in his hand a palm stick, and he began to

set out on the road to that city. Now therefore, when he had

arrived at the city, and learned the place [of the abode of the

women], he knocked at the door, and there went forth one of

the women and brought him into the house. And when he had

been sitting down for a little, the other woman came in, and

he called them to him, and they came nigh and sat down before

him. Then the old man said unto them, On your account

I have made this long journey, and have performed all this

labour, and with great difficulty have come from the desert;

tell me, then, what works do ye do." And they said unto

him, "Believe us, O father; neither of us hath ever been

absent from, or kept herself back from, her husband's

couch up to this day; what work, then, wouldst thou see in

us?" Then the old man made apologies to them, and entreated

them to reveal to him and to show him their labour,

and thereupon they said unto him, 4 4 According to worldly

considerations we are strangers one to the other, for we are

not kinsfolk, but it fell out that the two of us married two

men who were brethren in the flesh. And behold, up to this

" present we have lived in this house for twelve years, and we

"have never wanted to quarrel with each other, and neither

of us hath spoken one abominable word of abuse to her companion.

Now we made up our minds together to leave our

"husbands and to join the army of virgins, but, although we

"entreated our husbands earnestly to allow us to do so, they

"would not undertake to send us away. And as we were un-

" able to do that which we wished, we made a promise between

" ourselves and God that, until death, no worldly word should

"go forth from our mouths." Now when Macarius heard

]this] he said, "Verily, virginity by itself is nothing, nor

marriage, nor monastic life, nor that in the world; for God "seeketh the desire [of a man],

and giveth the Spirit unto "every man." } [iii]

1-3-

Moreover, the story of the visit is not mentioned at all in the other most famous books that collected the stories of the Desert Fathers (most notably Abba Macarius), namely, the Lausiac History [iv] (also written by Palladius), the Monachorum [v] (which is contemporary with the life of Abba Macarius) and the Apophthegmata [vi] (which collects the most prominent sayings of the Desert Fathers)!

The fact that the story is not mentioned in these three sources leaves a chance, however little, for doubting its actual occurrence, and reduces it to a mere sermonic tale that was circulated round until it found its way from Scetis (where Abba was) to Nitria (where Palladius was).

Yet, I do not base anything on doubting it, even I do not reject the story on its absence from the largest sources for recording the stories of the desert fathers, as I strongly lean towards the truth of its occurrence! The story took place, o do believe, and there is no need to hedge against it, in the first place.

1-4- The Ecclesiastical and Patristic background!! [vii]

Having a look at the background of the Church through the first centuries up to the time of Abba Macarius, patristic sayings can be seen from various languages ​​and regions that strongly condemning and abhorring the idea of ​​marriage to non-believers, in spite of everything!  (note that the ease of such marriage was present since non-Jewish Christians originated from pagan backgrounds at that time, and supported by the Roman law, those weak in faith among them could have easily been led astray).

The last footnote “vi” links to a paper (named “honor List”) that I wrote (synchronously with the content of this paper), in which I have documented a faggot of brilliant sayings.

& Starting off so early from the apostolic Ignatius (of Antioch where the Church had its origins, and who lived late at the first century),

& through Tertullian (The giant Christian writer of Latin North Africa) in his two books written as a letter to his wife,

& followed by Cyprian (the prominent bishop in North Africa),

& and Ambrose (in Italy, Milan—a neighbor of Rome, the main European ecclesiastical center),

& not missing Chrysostom (Patriarch of Constantinople and the official second man in the ecumenical protocols of the Church),

& And the famous Jerome who in his turn wrote against it a strong exegetical paragraph.
(However he had an issue, see the paper)

Thus far, showing all the head sources of the story has been completed, including:

^ those which explicitly reported the story,

^^ those that failed to do, although they were very related to doing,

^^^ and the contemporaneous patristic sayings connected to the subject...

@ In all of them, not only is that foolish claim not there,

but also tons of the original story elements CONTRADICTING IT are remarkably present,

on which, it is time now to elaborate:

2- Evidence Abounds

against the Silly Idea of ‘non-Christian Husbands!’

2-1- Church education is severely deteriorating, much less than mediocre in every respect: in conscience, logic and commitment. Take this stupid story as a case study:
Had that Sunday school ‘teacher’ had a normal spiritual awareness, she then would have abhorred the idea of blessing that ‘mixed marring.’ Had she even had vigilant senses, she would have staltred by blatant contradiction of her twisted version of the story with the Bible.

And to tp it all, she suffers from a lack of care. It only costs a lookup of the story in a famous book available around. Pay attention that the element of ‘lack in care’ is NOT an individual problem. It is the inevitable result of a hearsay system of poor catechism.

Now if anyone gets surprised by any of the following points, it is because of their lacking in the basic qualities aforementioned:

2-2- The two husbands are fond of hosting strangers and are similar to James and John!!

It is then very strange that they are "pagans" in any reader's mind.

2-3- What is even more bizarre is that the story's intent is to demonstrate that holiness is not limited to monks. How could the story's author fail to emphasize that "holiness" has even reached pagans, to better prove his point?

2-4- It is SUFFICIENT that the text is entirely DEVOID of referring to both hubbies as pagans, to begin with, putting aside any clear-cut proof that both hubbies are Christians.
So assuming otherwise is essentially a mental case of FATAL confusion and delusion.

2-5- Now moving beyond the text of the story to the backgrounds of its time, where consistent references to condemning such an obnoxious relationship could easily be found everywhere and time. That raises a simple logical question: how can the highly venerated image of Abba Macarius in the mind of the church meet with the idea of his blessing, somewhat, a shameful detested relationship according to the thought and conscience of the same church? I will not argue that that passed on without at least any exclaiming questions from one brother to one father or so, because absolute negation could not be proved J

The logical answer to this logical question is as simple as that the assumption that the two blessed husbands were pagans is a FALSE SICK one.  

2-6- And what else?! THE BIBLE stands above all. Nothing is more sorrowful in this whole stupid obscene slip than its stark disregarding the bible.
Here you are selected head connected scriptures, as clear as deep:

1 Corinthians 7:39, 2 Corinthians 6:14, Ephesians 5:22-31, 1 Corinthians 6:15-16. [viii]

3- A Foolish Conclusion based upon A Foolish Imagination

A lenient sentence was issued for a man convicted of manslaughter.

A fool lawyer considered that sentence a judicial precedent, on which he may base appealing to lenient sentence for a criminal convicted of first-degree murder with enhancements and many aggravating factors.

Now, some unfortunate people imagined, in their sick imaginations, that there had been "tolerance" for marriage to pagans in some story.

Further, more unfortunate ones concluded that it was a precedent permitting all mixed marriages even to darkened ones belonging to the other side against the Lord, who take advantage of this wicked relationship to gloat over the Lord’s people. Moreover, this relationship make false witness regarding the most holy Christian marriage law.

All of that some people swallow and justify by the assumption that there is some story that told about two blessed women married to two pagans in the fourth century.

Let alone that there was no acceptance of such a marriage to begin with.

Nothing could be unfortunate? Nope. There is. The story did not end at

I put it into deeper scrutiny to find out deeper stupidity. Imagine this gull Sunday school teacher was the

Least guilty party…….

Oh! that is another detailed story. Let a link in a footnote carry its burden………….. [ix]

Finally, to round off this meticulous (however quick) look, it can be confidently stated that the inserting of the assumption that the two holy women were married to pagans is lacking any historical reference, any valid logic, any good sense of any kind and any honor.