Christian Use of Magic in Late Antique Egypt

Walter M. Shandruk

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2012, pp. 31-57 (Article) Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10.1353/earl.2012.0003

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v020/20.1.shandruk.html

Access provided by username 'treederwright' (2 Nov 2013 01:54 GMT)

Christian Use of Magic in Late Antique Egypt

WALTER M. SHANDRUK
Determining the contours of late antique Christian use of magic involves two variables: (1) the religious afliation of the user and (2) the content of the magic. The presence or absence of Christian motifs does not provide a clear-cut solution to a users personal religious identity since Christian and non-Christian elements are often found side-by-side. This paper proposes that an onomastic analysis of user names from applied magical texts can provide a possible solution. An analysis of those results in comparison with the content of the texts reveals some signicant patterns in the type of magic used and its chronological distribution.

INTRODUCTION At Contra Celsum 1.6.1115, Origen makes the following statement in response to Celsuss accusations that Christians garner their efcacy from demons and incantations:
, . , . For they do not get the power which they seem to possess by any incantations but by the name of Jesus with the recital of the histories about him. For when these are pronounced they have often made daemons to be driven out of men, and especially when those who utter them speak with real sincerity and genuine belief.1

1. ed. M. Markovich, Origenes. Contra Celsum: libri VIII, VCSupp 54 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 10; trans. Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 910.
Journal of Early Christian Studies 20:1, 3157 2012 The Johns Hopkins University Press

32 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

And again he repeats shortly after (1.6.2831):

, , , , . But, on the contrary, even if it seems impossible to prove how Jesus did these things, it is clear that Christians make no use of spells, but only of the name of Jesus with other words that are believed to be effective, taken from the divine scripture.2

The statements are remarkable for several reasons. First, the claim that Christians did not use charms is hardly credible but not unique within the patristic tradition.3 It is clear from numerous papyrological evidence that Christians did indeed make use of magical incantations; furthermore, both condemnations among the fathers against such practices within their ocks and accusations (including convictions) against lower and upper clergy of the same make it clear that these practices were not limited to heterodox circles,4 which one might otherwise suspect from typical rhetoric (e.g., Tertullian, Praescr. 43; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.23.4) and the oft-repeated theme of face-off between Peter and Simon Magus in apocryphal texts (e.g., Acts of Peter, Acts of Paul).5 Second, Origen does, in fact, admit the use of certain acts of power by Christians in the form of Jesus name, historiolas (i.e. narratives of his life), and declarations of faith. Such sanctioned tapping into supernatural power nds precedent in the Gospels and Acts themselves, and examples may also be found among the papyri, those in which the power of the amulets

2. Marcovich, 10; trans. Chadwick, 10. 3. See Eusebius, Theoph. fr. 5.9; John Chrysostom, Jud. 8.6.4 (PG 48:936): , , , . For other condemnations of magic by John Chrysostom, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Magical Amulet for Curing Fevers, in Studies in the History and Text of the New Testament in Honor of Kenneth Willis Clark, PhD, ed. Boyd L. Daniels and M. Jack Suggs, Studies and Documents 29 (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1967), 93 n. 3. 4. Matthew W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 2001), 3047, 27981. A dramatic example of a seventh-century magician-priest, burned at the stake for his crimes, is given in one of the anecdotes attributed to Anastasius of Sinai; see Bernard H. Stolte, Magic and Byzantine Law in the Seventh Century, in The Metamorphosis of Magic from Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period, ed. Jan N. Bremmer and Jan R. Veenstra, GSCC 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 11112. 5. Jan N. Bremmer, Magic in the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, in Metamorphosis of Magic, ed. Bremmer and Veenstra, 6268.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic33

derives strictly from either the name of Jesus (P.Amst. 1.26), citation of Scripture (P.Berol.inv. 21911 = SM 26), or pious historiola (P.Turner 49). However, many other amulets with clear Christian elements also contain standard magical elements such as characateres, voces magicae, and esoteric gures, not to mention the use of Christian binding spells. The question then arises: to what extent did Christians make use of this ostensibly Christian magic? Since these texts were most likely composed by specialist practitioners, one cannot immediately assume that elements within them reveal the religious proclivities of the end-users, although, surely, they may have been customized at the clients request. But if the Jewish attempts at exorcism by Jesus name in Acts 19.1317 retain any historical reminiscence,6 one cannot merely assume that all amulets and binding spells invoking Christian motifs must be the result of request by Christian clients. Indeed, the multifarious divine invocations of the so-called Greek Magical Papyri should make it sufciently clear that efcacy was drawn from any source that the practitioner deemed as having legitimate power.7 AN ONOMASTIC APPROACH The one element within the papyri that retains the possibility of revealing something about the religious background of the clients is the name and, due to its relative richness in documentary evidence, the place that is ripe for such an examination is Egypt. The point of departure here is Roger Bagnalls famous onomastic study of the rate of Christianization in Egypt based on village registers from the Egyptian chora.8 While it has not been unopposed,9 the methodology is sound and applicable to the
6. Even if this specic episode has no historical reliability, Jewish use of the name of Jesus for incantatory purposes is well within the realm of possibility, given the (admittedly much later) evidence in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds where the efcacy of Jesus name is implicitly admitted but altogether condemned as impious error; see Peter Schfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 5262. 7. On the ip side, a magical text cannot be rejected as Christian simply on the grounds of content, as we see done in Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 26364. 8. Roger S. Bagnall, Religious Conversion and Onomastic Change in Early Byzantine Egypt, BASP 19 (1982): 10524. 9. Ewa Wipszycka, La valeur de lonomastique pour lhistoire de la christianisation de lgypt. propos dune tude de R. S. Bagnall, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62 (1986); for his response, see Roger S. Bagnall, Conversion and Onomastics: A Reply, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 69 (1987); Roger S. Bagnall, Reading Papyri, Writing Ancient History (London: Routledge, 1995), 8789.

34 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

study of g eneral trends (while being much less reliable when limited to the treatment of specic individuals).10 Bagnall uses ve criteria for identifying a Christian name, as follows: (1) Old and New Testament names; (2) theophoric names based on the Egyptian ntr (Coptic: pnoute), God, without a specic god being named; (3) names of Christian emperors following their lifetime; (4) names based on abstract nouns of theological import (e.g., Dora, Eulogios); and (5) names of saints and martyrs following their lifetime. The name under consideration is, of course, the name of the user. Other names, such as the targets of curses, are irrelevant and texts that do not contain the name of the person on whose behalf the spell is being used should be excluded.11 This signicantly reduces the data set and imposes a certain bias upon it. For instance, most binding spells, since they typically only contain the name of the victim, would be excluded. By the same token, since the data set is being specically selected for the presence of the name of the user and amatory binding spells by their very nature require the presence of this name, this type of spell, more than any other type, would be overrepresented. As a result, conclusions about differences and similarities in the types and mechanics of spells used between the two groups, Christian and non-Christian, will have to be carefully qualied. Certain matters, such as the prevalence of non-amatory curses versus healing spells in general will simply be irreparably obscured by this bias. Determining pagan names directly is signicantly more difcult than Christian names. Whereas the derivation (e.g., biblical) of Christian names is often transparent, the etymology of other names is much less clear. Bagnall employed three categories for identifying pagan names: (1) Egyptian theophoric formations, (2) Greek theophoric formations on Egyptian gods, and (3) purely Greek theophoric formations.12 The rst category (Egyptian formations) was lled with signicant uncertainties, which resulted in a large third group of not assigned names. The present approach will dispense with the attempt to construct a pagan group
10. Malcolm Choat, Belief and Cult in Fourth-Century Papyri, Studia Antiqua Australiensia 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 5256. 11. Two examples warrant exclusion. The rst is P.Cairo 10563 (= PGM LIX), where the person on whose behalf the amulet is made is already deceased and so it was probably deposited by an unnamed relative. The second is P.Lund inv. 32 (= PGM LXXXIX), a fever amulet on behalf of little Sophia-Priskilla, probably commissioned by the parents. Although the name is Christian and therefore likely indicates the parents are Christians as well, for the sake of consistency in methodology it is being excluded from the dataset. 12. Bagnall, Onomastic Change, 111.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic35

of names and will simply consider all names not classied as Christian to be pagan. In theory this eliminates the statistical control value of a pagan group, but in practice, since the above approach would result in a large not assigned group, the control value of a pagan group would be compromised anyway.13 In some cases where the name of the users mother is given and the user bears a non-Christian name while the mother a Christian name, it will be assumed that the offspring is most likely Christian as well, given the far greater probability of staying within the Christian tradition rather than turning away from it (see comments below). The fact that magical texts, insofar as they bother to cite the parent of a user, will cite the mother instead of the father is not problematic. Indeed, if Celsuss admittedly exaggerated rhetoric about the susceptibility of women and children to conversion contains any kernel of truth, one may feel somewhat more condent in identifying a mothers Christianity with her children.14 The crowds condemnation of Paul in The Acts of Paul and Thecla takes on a similar tack, accusing him of having corrupted all of their wives.15

Methodological Limitations Such an onomastic approach, of course, is lled with challenges, since names do not necessarily reveal anything about the religious background of the client himself, but that of his parents at the time of naming. This
13. A quick perusal of the data set nds over a dozen names that are not obviously Christian but elude clear pagan identication using Bagnalls criteria. 14. Notice, for instance, his explicit reference to women and children being susceptible to Christian rhetoric in Origen, Cels. 3.44.1315 (Marcovich 186): , or more to the point in where Celsus asserts that they privately target wives and children and tell them not to pay attention to the father and teachers in 3.55.2023 (Marcovich 196): , , . By the fourth century, Christianization seems to have signicantly penetrated among aristocratic women; see P.R.J. Brown, Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy, JRS 51 (1961): 67, but it should not be forgotten that the trope of female gullibility is not only to be found within Christian context, but also pagan, hence Juvenal, Sat. 6.512 41. For a sociological treatment of the question and argument supporting signicant female participation in early Christianity, see Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (New York: HarperCollins, 1997), 95128. 15. A. Paul. et Thec. 15.1213 (ed. Richard A. Lipsius and Max Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, vol. 1 [Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1972], 245): , .

36 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

is not to say that name change following conversion did not occur,16 but since name usage tends to be rather conservative,17 one should not assume it. Another complication, related to naming conservatism, is the extent to which formal names were ancestral, which may further remove the person at hand from the religious motivation that initially inspired the Christian name.18 However, given Christianitys dramatic growth in Egypt during the late third century, it is far more likely that persons born into Christianity remained within it than converted away, and the periodthe third and fourth centuries at leastis too short to have established an ancestral use of a Christian name. The fth and sixth centuries are more likely to have seen ancestral Christian names, but by this time most of the population had already converted. More problematic is the use of ostensibly pagan names by Christians. Bagnall examines P.Lond. IV and J. M. Dietharts Propopographia Arsinoitica I (Vienna: 1980), covering the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries c.e., to determine the ratio by which he may need to correct against the Christian use of pagan names.19 Both sources point to roughly the same ratio, that about two-thirds of Christians use Christian names, thus requiring multiplication by a coefcient of about 1.5 to arrive at the actual level of Christians.20

16. G. H. R. Horsley, Name Change as an Indication of Religious Conversion in Antiquity, Numen 34 (1987): 117. See my comments below in Table 2 n. 28. 17. I. F. Fikhman, On Onomastics of Greek and Roman Egypt, in Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, ed. R. Katzoff et al. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1996), 4089. 18. Study of the extent to which persons in Roman Egypt were named after the father, grandfather, or mother reveals a sizable gure, although, the variation among the two sample groups used is signicant; see Deborah Hobson, Naming Practices in Roman Egypt, BASP 26 (1989): 16572. 19. Bagnall, Onomastic Change, 11720. 20. In his initial study Bagnall arrived at the gure of 1.5 for this coefcient, which was later subjected to some criticism by Ewa Wipszycka, La valeur de lonomastique, 17381. In his response (Onomastics: A Reply, 24350), Bagnall provided a suitable rebuttal, but it brought up two additional points concerning CPR 5.26, a register from the Hermopolite village of Skar. On the one hand, his brief analysis suggested that, if anything, a higher coefcient was required for the Skar data (perhaps as high as 1.9); on the other hand, the date of the codex was advanced from 388 to 433 as its terminus post quem, with a date after 448 being probable. This would have the effect of lowering the implied rate of Christianization. On the rst point, that of the size of the conversion coefcient, since Bagnall seems to settle on 1.4 and 1.7 as the likely extreme bounds, his original gure of 1.5 is tentatively adopted in the present study. On the second point, that of the rate of Christianization, the revised levels provided by him will be used as the points of reference for the fourth and fth centuries.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic37

Another possibility is the use of Christian names by pagans due to the popularity of those names, although, this possibility is largely neutralized when considering two points: (1) naming conservatism would favor pagan names in the third and fourth centuries, and (2) the rapid Christianization of Egypt in the fourth and fth centuries lends to the probability that, by the time Christian names were sufciently popular to attract the naming practices of pagans, most pagans would have already been converted. Two other religious groups must be considered in such an onomastic approach: Jews and Manichaeans. While it is in principle possible that some persons using biblical names could be Jews, one of the advantages of using Egyptian data is that the suppression of the 116117 c.e. Jewish revolt, dramatically reducing the Jewish population in Egypt, renders this possibility rather unlikely.21 The case of Manichaeans is more problematic, since they could pass themselves off as Christians and move within the same social circles,22 not to mention make use of Christian names (e.g. Maria and Matheos, P.Kell.Cop. 19; Paulos, P.Kell.Cop. 42; Petros, P.Kell. Cop. 18). The Manichaean usage of Coptic at Kellis, especially in P.Kell. Cop. 35, which preserves a Coptic incantation imbedded within a letter,23 reveals that Coptic spells, typically assumed to be of and for Christian

21. John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE117 CE) (Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press, 1996), 7881; also noted by Bagnall, Onomastic Change, 110. 22. Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, The Manichaean Challenge to Egyptian Christianity, in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1986), 31215. So Serapion of Thmuis, Man. 3.914 (ed. R. P. Casey, Serapion of Thmuis, Against the Manichaeans, HTS 15 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931], 30): , , , , , . According to Augustine, they considered themselves veri cristiani (Ludwig Koenen, Augustine and Manichaeism in Light of the Cologne Mani Codex, ICS 3 [1978]: 163 n. 3133). Mani was, after all, an apostle of Christ (Koenen, Augustine and Manichaeism, 16776). The high frequency of their invocation of Jesus name, Christian Scripture, and other features otherwise Christian even holds true for Manichaean texts from much further east (I. M. F. Gardner and S. N. C. Lieu, From Narmouthis (Medinet Madi) to Kellis [Ismant El-Kharab]: Manichaean Documents from Roman Egypt, JRS 86 [1996]: 147). 23. Paul Mirecki et al., Magical Spell, Manichaean Letter, in Emerging from Darkness, Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources, ed. Paul Mirecki and Jason BeDuhn, NHS 43 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 132; Choat, Belief and Cult, 40.

38 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

circles, were in fact used by Manichaeans as well.24 It is difcult to determine how extensive was the Manichaean role in the use and distribution of magical texts in Egypt. Manis traditional prohibition against magic seems to have fallen by the wayside, at least by those persons associated with P.Kell.Cop. 35, although they did not themselves compose the incantation.25 There is no simple resolution to the Manichaean question. On the one hand, accusations of Manichaeism among the apologists of the early church often consisted of nothing more than banal name-calling, not unlike the pejorative moniker gnostic, and as such the common accusations of Manichaeism should not be taken as evidence of an extensive Manichaean population in Egypt. On the other hand, due to their appropriation of numerous Christian theological points and the use of Christian Scripture, Manichaeans, in a sense, stand within, or at least parallel to, the Christian tradition,26 and it is not clear that they should be eliminated from Christian evidence any more than Montanists or the various avors of Gnostics. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this study, all names classied as Christian will be assumed to be non-Manichaean on the basis of their Egyptian population likely being an insignicant fraction of the rest. THE DATA The majority of texts here utilized has been culled from three highly useful collections: F. Maltomini and R. W. Daniel, ed., Supplementum magicum, 2 vols. (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990, 1992), hereafter SM; Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith, ed., Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), hereafter ACM; and Karl Preisendanz, ed., Papyri graecae magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, Vol. 2. (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973), hereafter PGM. In addition to this, Joseph van Haelst, ed., Catalogue des papyrus littraires juifs et chrtiens (Paris: La Sorbonne, 1976), hereafter CPL, was consulted to ll in any gaps in SM and PGM, since both consciously exclude amulets that consist only of prayers, scriptural citations, or liturgy. A total of seventy texts that meet the required criteria have been identied (see Table 1).
24. David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 258. 25. Mirecki et al., Magical Spell, 910. 26. R. M. Grant, Manichees and Christians in the Third and Early Fourth Centuries, in Ex Orbe Religionum, Studia Geo Widengren, Studies in the History of Religions 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 43039.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic39

Table 1. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Text Muse des Louvre no. 3378 (= PGM XVI) T.Heid.Arch.Inst.inv. F 429 a and b (= SM 37) T.Genav.inv. 269 (= SM 38) P.Hawara 312 (= PGM XXXII) T.Cairo Mus. JdE 48217 (= SM 46) T.Louvre inv. E 27145 (= SM 47) P.Mich.inv. 6925 (= SM 48) T.Kln inv. 1 (= SM 49) T.Kln inv. 2 (= SM 50) O.Kln inv. 409 (= SM 51) Audollent, DT, 38 (= SM 54) Ashmol.Mus. (= PGM XXXIIa) P.Cair. 60636 (= PGM LXVIII) P.Mich.inv. 6666 (= SM 3) PUG 1.6 (= SM 4; PGM CIV) P.Oxy. 42.3068 (= SM 5) P.Kln inv. 1982 (= SM 7) T.Berol.inv. 13412 (= SM 39) P.Princ. 2.76 (= SM 40) P.Teb. 2.275 (= PGM XXXIII) P.Alex.inv. 491 (= PGM XV) Leipzig, U. B. P.gr. 9.418 (= PGM LI) T.Leid. Demare (=SM 41) PSI 1.28 (=SM 42) P.Haun. 3.50 (=SM 8) P.Michael. 27 (=SM 9; PGM XCI) P.Berol.inv. 21165 (=SM 10; PGM CVI) Lang. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Cent. 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th Name Dioskorous of Tikoi Paitoutos of Tmesios Ammonion of Hermitaris Herais of Thermoutharin Posidonios of Thsenoubasthis Sarapammon of Area Ailourion of Kopria Theodoros of Techosis Theodoros Theodoros Ionikos Serapiakos of Threpte Eriea of Ercheelio Helene Althea Sarmates Artemidora Ptolemaios of Thaseis Ptolemaios of Didyme Tais of Taraus Capitolina of Peperous Neilammon of Tereus Zoel of Droser Sophia of Isara Aurelius Isidoros of Tausiris Techosis Touthous of Sara Continued on p. 40

40 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Table 1 (continued). No. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Text P.Princ. 3.159 (=SM 11) P.Gal (=SM 12; PGM CXV) P.Kln inv. 5512 (=SM 44; PGM CVII) T.Moen. s.n. (= SM 66) Institut franais darchologie orientale, Cairo (=ACM 29) P.Oxy. 6.924 (=ACM 15; PGM 5a) P.Reinach 2.88 (=SM 57) P.Kln inv. 5514 (=SM 43) P.Lund 4.12 (=SM 13) P.Erl. 15 (=SM 14) Staatliche Sammlung gyptischer Kunst, Mnchen, inv. S 67916793 (=SB 14664) P.Duk.inv. 230 (=SB 16650) Bibliothque universitaire et rgionale, Strasbourg, P.gr. 1167 (=PGM XVIIa) P.Osl. 1.4 (=PGM XXXIX) Nationalbibliothek, Vienna P.gr. 1 (=PGM XL) P.Erl. 37 (=PGM LXXXVII) Rmondon, Un papyrus magique copte BIFAO 52 (1953): 15761 (=ACM 100) Barry, Deux documents concernant larchologie chrtienne, BIFAO 6 (1908): 6163 (=ACM 101) P.Kln inv. 2861 (=SM 20; PGM C; CPL 902) P.Kln 4.257 (=SM 21) P.Amst. 1.26 (=SM 22) P.Amst. 173 (=ACM 12; CPL 849) P.Berol.inv. 9909 (=PGM XIXa) Lang. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Cent. 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th Name Dias of Sophia Ammon Achillas of Helene Alexandros of Didyme Mesa Aria Origen of Ioulle/Theodora Dioskouros of Thecla Sophia/Priscilla John Priskos of Annous

39 40

Gk. Gk.

4th 4th

Didymon of Tepiam Hermeias of Hermione

41 42 43 44

Gk. Gk. Gk. Copt.

4th 4th 4th 4th5th

Allous of Alexandria Artemisie of Amasis John Maria

45

Copt.

4th5th

Jacob

46 47 48 49 50

Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk.

4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th

Thaes Tiron of Palladia Eremega of Anilla Megas of D. Apalos of Theonilla Continued on p. 41

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic41

Table 1 (continued). No. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Text P.Oxy. 12.1478 (=PGM XXVII) P.Mich.inv. 1523 (=ACM 108) P.Lugd.Bat. 25.9 (=SM 18) P.Haun. 3.51 (=SM 23) P.Prag. 1.6 (=SM 25) P.Berol.inv. 21911 (=SM 26) P.Heid.inv. G 1386 (=SM 28) P.Kln inv. 3323 (=SM 45; PGM CI) P.Oxy. 8.1151 (=ACM 16; PGM 5b) P.Rain. 9 (= PGM XLIII) PSI 1.29 (= PGM XXXV) P.Princ. 2.107 (= SM 29) P.Kln inv. 851 (= SM 34) P.Lugd.Bat. 19.20 (= SM 35) P.Ups. 8 (= SM 59) P.Hamb. 1.22a (= SM 60) BGU 3.954 (= PGM 9; ACM 18; CPL 720) Ashm. 1981.940 (= ACM 84) P.Mich.inv. 3565 (= ACM 104) P.IFAO 3.50 (= SM 19) Lang. Gk. Copt. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Gk. Copt. Copt. Gk. Cent. 4th5th 4th5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th Name Sarapammon of Apollonius Theodora Anatolios Kale Gennatia Phoibammon of Athanasios John of Zoe Theon of Proechia Ioannia Sophia of Theoneilla Paulus Julianus Taiolles of Isidoros Joseph Vibius of Gennaia Sabinus Sabinus Silvanus of Serapion Papapolo of Noe Apa Victor of Phibamon Amatis of Adone

The chronological cutoff point is the sixth century c.e. (inclusive) so as to limit the scope of investigation to Christian Egypt. Because of this dating requirement, some texts of likely Egyptian provenance but of insufciently certain or unknown date27 have been eliminated from the data set. For the rest, the dates provided in PGM, SM, ACM, or CPL are
27. One such example is BGU 3.956 (= PGM XVIIIb, third-fth cent.), whose original was lost in a re so further examination is impossible (see PGM 2:140). The number of other texts whose dating is surrounded by too much uncertainty is too great to mention here.

42 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

ollowed, with preference generally given to the most recent edition. In f sum, the data set consists of all applied magical texts from Egypt known to the author that both contain the name of the end-user and are datable to the rst six centuries c.e. A signicant challenge arises when one is tasked with distinguishing between magical and devotional texts. This speaks more generally to the problem of magic versus religion. There is no reason at this point to entertain any essentialist distinction between the two as post-Frazerian research has largely exploded that approach. However, there is a recognition that certain uses of texts lend themselves the classication of magic, which is to say, it is not the content but the function of the text that should be considered. The functions here considered as magical are amulets, love charms, and curses.28 Of these three, the identication of amulets can be somewhat elusive. Scriptural quotations or a doxological formula have more than one function, but when the material on which they are written indicates that it was carried about (such as a folded papyrus), and the text itself is discontinuous, indicating that the fragment is not part of a larger literary work, then the amuletic function becomes clear. Prayers, often considered squarely outside of magic, are no different.29 When a prayer is written down and carried about, it is likely being used as an amulet. As it stands, the data set is quite small when compared to the hundreds of name used by Bagnall for his study. This will signicantly reduce the reliability and force of any statistical conclusions here made, and as such, any numerical values derived should only be considered as rough indicators and not precise values.

Who are the Christians? When the ve Christian name categories are applied to the names in Table1, one arrives at the following list of likely Christian users and their texts (Table 2). Two points should be noted: (1) one triplet and one pair (nos. 810 and 6566) share the same end-user and so have each been combined into a single entry, and (2) nos. 51 and 55 are asterisked indicating that upon closer examination the end-user should be removed from consideration as a Christian.
28. When love charms take on the form of binding spells they are, essentially, curses as well. Horoscopes and oracles are excluded. 29. The term , prayer, is often used among the magical papyri, as in the , prayer to Selene, in PGM IV.2785, which takes on the traditional tripartite form of Greek religious prayers; see Fritz Graf, Prayer in Magic and Religious Ritual, in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, ed. Christopher A. Faraone (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 18990.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic43

Table 2. Applied Magical Texts from Egypt of Christian Authorship No. 810 23 Cent. Name Category

24 27 28 34

35

36

2nd3rd Theodoros of Techosis 2 3rd4th Zoel of Droser 2, , probably from or , living god, reecting phrases like Deut 5.26: (Hb. ) , Jos 3.10: (Hb. ) , Matt 16.16: , and 2 Cor 3.3: . 3rd4th Sophia of Isara 4 3rd4th Touthous of Sara 1 (mother) 3rd4th Dias of Sophia 4 (mother) 4th Horigenes of Ioulle/ On lines 4243 of the text, the mothers Theodora double name (Lat. Julia?) presents a problem. Only the second name, (category2) is Christian. Was this the given name or the adopted name? While one might presume the second name to be the adopted one, as in Acts 13.9 ( ), notice the switch in the order of and between P.Sakaon 11.34 and 12.7.30 While Origen () does not t into one of Bagnalls categories, he was one of the most famous Christian theologians from Egypt in the third century, which better ts the scenario of being the adopted name following conversion and naming her son after the famous theologian. 4th Dioskouros of Thecla 5 (mother), the earliest reference to Thecla being in the late second century, Tertullian, Bapt. 17. 4th Sophia/Priscilla 4/1, while the names are perfectly Christian names, Sophia is qualied by the term of endearment , strongly suggesting the amulet was not requested by Sophia but on her behalf. However, it is hardly likely that little Sophia should be Christian and her parents, the likely acquirers of the amulet, not. Continued on p. 44

30. For further discussion of Aurelius Philadelphos/Athanasius, see Horsley, Name Change, 45, and the import of by-names for conversion in general, 28. On the sociological import of by-names, see Hobson, Naming Practices, 16971.

44 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Table 2 (continued). Applied Magical Texts from Egypt of Christian Authorship No. 37 38 Cent. 4th 4th Name John Priskos of Annous Category 1 5, after one of several possible martyrs, or masc. version of biblical Prisca (Rom 16.3, 1 Cor 16.19, 2 Tim 4.19). 1 1, evidenced in Christian contexts from the late third century onward; see I. Gardner, A. Nobbs, and M. Choat, P.Harr. 107: Is this Another Greek Manichaean Letter?, ZPE 131 (2000): 120 n. 15 and 16. 1 5 (father), , possibly after St. Apollonius (martyred 185 c.e.); Sarapammon unlikely Christian name, but see Bishop Serapammon in Athanasius, Hist. Arian. 2.12 (written 357/8 c.e.).31 Altogether, identication as a Christian name too uncertain. 4 5, (var. of , see P.Strasb. 3.148.4) possibly after St. Gennadius I of the same century, a name admitted by Bagnall for category 5,32 unfortunately, the attestation of the name prior to the fth century (e.g. P.Oxy. 12.1431.2, 352 c.e.; P.Cair.Goodsp. 15.2, 362 c.e.) and uncertainty about whether P.Prag. 1.6 post-dates St. Gennadios I, renders identication of Gennatia as a Christian name too uncertain. 5/5, , after St. Phoibammon, a third century martyr, and St. Athanasius, fourth century. 1/1 ( = Eve, Gen 3.20). 1 4 Continued on p. 45

43 44

4th 4th5th

John Maria

45 51*

4th5th 4th5th

Jacob Sarapammon of Apollonius

52 55*

4th5th 5th

Theodora Gennatia

56

5th

Phoibammon of Athanasios John of Zoe Ioannia Sophia of Theoneilla

57 59 60

5th 5th 5th

31. trans. Henry Wace and Philip Schaff, NPNF2 4:26667. 32. Bagnall, Onomastic Change, 111.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic45

Table 2 (continued). Applied Magical Texts from Egypt of Christian Authorship No. Cent. Name Paulus Julianus Joseph Sabinus Silvanus of Serapion Category 1 1 5, , after St. Sabinus of the third century (d. 304 c.e.). 5/5, , after St. Silvanus, martyred 150 c.e.; St. Serapion martyred 3rd cent. 5/5, apa biktwr, after St. Victor (Pope), late second-century, or St. Victor Maurus, martyred 303 c.e.; cf. St. Victor invoked in no. 59. For the name fibamwn see no. 56.

61 5th 63 6th 6566 6th 67 6th

69

6th

Apa Victor of Phibamon

With such a small data set it would be reassuring to know whether its distribution is at all consistent with Bagnalls ndings on the rate of Christianization. A signicant divergence may signal some type of sampling bias that would undermine any possible chronological arguments based on it. Because the data sets resolution is fairly coarse (many texts are dated within a range of one to two centuries), the texts are grouped by two-century intervals that overlap by one century each. Texts that share the same end-user (nos. 68 and 6566) are counted as a single entry. When the results of Table 3 are compared to those arrived at by Bagnall,33 they are found to be generally consistent. The rst interval indicates a Christian population of 14%, which is consistent with an estimate of up to 13% suggested by Bagnalls data. The next three intervals suggest a rapid growth of up to four-fths of the population (cf. Bagnalls revised rates of 18% [313 c.e.], 50% [393 c.e.] and 78% [428 c.e.]).34 Finally, the fth interval suggests a very high level of conversion, which is roughly consistent with Bagnalls extrapolation of about 95% by 525 c.e. Altogether, it can be observed that the data set provides an adequate basis for some general chronological insights into Christian use of magical texts from the second to sixth centuries.

33. Bagnall, Onomastic Change, 12024, especially his table on 120. 34. See discussion in n. 22 above.

46 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Table 3. Chronological Distribution of Applied Magical Texts with Names 1st, 2nd, or 3rd or 2nd3rd 3rd4th Nos. (Christian 810 23, 24, 27, Name) 28 Century Nos. (nonChristian Name) Ratio Ratio x 1.5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 1/11 0.14 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31 4/16 0.38 4th or 4th5th 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 43, 44, 45, 52 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 9/21 0.64 5th or 5th6th 56, 57, 59, 60, 61 53, 54, 55, 58, 62 6th 63, 6566, 67, 69 64, 68, 70

5/9 0.83

4/7 0.86

Which are the Christian Texts? Determining whether a magical text is Christian or not can be an exercise in arbitrary judgment.35 What will be meant by Christian here is any mention of Jesus (Christ) or other prominent New Testament gures, quoting of or reference to the New Testament or Christian Apocrypha in general, doctrinal or liturgical statements such as Trinitarian doxologies and the trisagion, and the presence of manifestly Christian symbols such as crosses,36 christograms,37 and the like. Some of these texts are limited to such Christian references while others invoke alongside them a diverse array of other supernatural forces and formulas. What is intended by the above denotative denition of Christian is to identify any text that at least partially draws on Christian names, ideas, or symbols to establish or bolster the efcacy of the intended magic. This category of texts will hereafter be simply referred to as Christian magic with the understanding that it can indicate a wide range of possibilities for the nature of those traditions in contact with (or participating in) Christianity. Nomina sacra have not been included among the indicators despite their prima facie importance. As an orthographic convention they only necessarily reveal something about the pious inclinations of the scribe
35. P. Maltomini, Cristo allEufrate, P.Heid.G.1101: amuleto cristiano, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 48 (1982): 150 n. 3. 36. Typically crosses accompany other Christian indicators, although, one text, P.Laur. 3.58 (= SM 1), in which three crosses are the only indicator, and which the SM editors classied as pagan, has been treated here as Christian. 37. Two exceptions are nos. 52 and 69, where invocation of the holy martyrs and the use of Amen, respectively, dene the content as Christian.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic47

and not necessarily the content he is employing. To a certain extent, the distinction is problematic since the visual presentation of a magical text was often an integral element of its efcacy and, of course, if a nomen sacrum is presented in a visually exceptional manner that suggests a signicance beyond its orthographic import, it should certainly be classied as a Christian symbol. However, as is attested in many documentary texts, nomina sacra often had little if any signicance beyond mere orthographic convention. The problem is then in deciding whether the scribe intended the nomen sacrum to convey a certain efcacy to the text or was simply participating in an orthographic convention. The dilemma is not as serious as it may at rst appear since in many instances there is an obvious Christian referent (Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and so on); however, some nomina sacra, like (= ) and (= ), may be ambiguous in the absence of any other indicators. In some cases the nomen sacrum is downright incongruent. In PGM XIII, the so-called Eighth Book of Moses, lines 76b77 read: , , (= ), , (=),38 I call upon you, Lord, as the gods appearing below you, so that they may have power. The polytheistic context is particularly incongruent with a Christian nomen sacrum, especially in a text that altogether betrays no Christian inuence (there is one more nomen sacrum, also for , on line 742). However, the manuscript is riddled with various types of abbreviations (as the in the same line attests) such that one must seriously consider the probability that the use of the two nomina sacra simply may have been a consequence of the copyist employing whatever practical means available from the scribal toolkit of the fourth century to economize his task as he felt appropriate. The upshot of this is that the formal presence of nomina sacra does not necessarily indicate anything particularly Christian about the expected magical efcacy of the text. In order not to hamper the utility of Table 4 with information overload, comments about content will be limited to only a few words, with more detailed discussion following. It should be noted that the dubious category of gnostic is not considered useful for such an exercise and as such has been avoided, despite some temptations of prior editors.39 The Name column in Table 4 comprises of the conclusions from Table 3. The Content column categorizes dexiones into three types: 1) direct
38. Robert W. Daniel, The Two Greek Magical Papyri in the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden: A Photographic Edition of J 384 and J 395 (= PGM XII and XIII), PapColon 19 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1991), 34. 39. Notice the separate classication of gnostic in SM 1:78 and CPL 33134.

48 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Table 4. Content Summary of Applied Magical Texts with Names No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 810 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Cent. 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 2nd3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 3rd4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th Name Content (C = Christian, N = non-Christian) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love dexio (2); love dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); curse (love?); voces magicae dexio (2, 3); love; voces magicae dexio (2, 3); love amulet; fever; voces magicae amulet; fever; voces magicae note about amulet for tonsillitis amulet dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae amulet; fever; voces magicae dexio (1, 2); love, voces magicae dexio (2); curse dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae amulet amulet; fever; voces magicae amulet; fever; voces magicae amulet; fever; voces magicae; characteres amulet; fever; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae; characteres necromancy; voces magicae; characteres dexio (2); curse amulet; fever; vowels, Abrasax dexio (2); anger; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae; characteres amulet; voces magicae amulet; fever; voces magicae Continued on p. 49

Christian

Christian Christian

Christian Christian

Christian Christian Christian Christian

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic49

Table 4 (continued). Content Summary of Applied Magical Texts with Names No. 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 6566 67 68 69 70 Cent. 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 4th5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th Name Christian Content (C = Christian, N = non-Christian) N N N N N N C C C C C C N N C N C C C C N C N N C C C C C N C N dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae; characteres dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); curse amulet; voces magicae dexio (2); curse; Michael, Gabriel, Souleel dexio (2); curse; Michael, Gabriel, Souleel amulet; vowels; voces magicae; characteres amulet; fever; characteres amulet; fever amulet; fever dexio (2); love; voces magicae amulet; victory; voces magicae dexio (2); curse; prayer for justice amulet; fever; voces magicae amulet; fever; characteres amulet; fever; ee formula; Sabaoth amulet; eyes amulet; fever; voces magicae dexio (2); love; voces magicae amulet; fever; ee formula amulet; fever; voces magicae dexio (2); favor and victory; voces magicae; many Jewish elements amulet; fever; voces magicae amulet; fever; voces magicae; wolf ee formula amulet; fever dexio (2); curse amulet dexio (2); love; voces magicae dexio (2); love; vowels, Sabaoth amulet; fever; voces magicae

Christian Christian Christian

Christian

Christian Christian Christian Christian Christian

Christian Christian Christian Christian

50 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

binding formula without reference to divine assistance, 2) invocation of divine assistance to bind the person, and 3) persuasive analogies.40 At rst blush our assumed sample bias against curses would seem not to be reected in the data since a large number of dexiones appear, but it will be quickly noticed that virtually all of these are amatory in nature, whose form requires the mention of the end-user. This point will become especially relevant in the following discussion.

Who is Using What? Two general patterns can be immediately discerned in Table 4. First, up until just before the fourth century turned into the fth (before no. 44), all eleven Christian names are associated exclusively with non-Christian magic, after which there is a reversal and the remaining ten become associated exclusively with Christian magic. This reversal is associated with the upsurge in Christian magic in general, with only two exceptions existing prior to no. 44, namely, nos. 32 and 33. In addition, many non-Christian names begin to be associated with Christian magic as well, although, some of these may well be Christians. Second, in conjunction with the above trend reversal an upsurge in the use of amulets can be observed. The data is summarized in Table 5 (the two groups nos. 810 and 6566, where a single individual accounts for multiple spells, are treated as single entries for the Content and Name columns).

Table 5. Distribution of Applied Magical Texts against Content, Names, and Chronology Content 1 Christian Amulets Amatory dexiones NonAmatory dexiones 14 (70%) 1 (5%) 2 NonChristian 17 (35%) 23 (50%) 3 Christian Name 4 NonChristian Chronology 5 Nos. 143 14 (34%) 21 (51%) 6 Nos. 4470 17 (63%) 4 (15%)

11 (48%) 20 (45%) 6 (26%) 18 (42%)

5 (25%)

7 (15%)

6 (26%)

6 (13%)

6 (15%)

6 (22%)

40. John G. Gager, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 13.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic51

At this point the caveats raised earlier must be dealt with. Since our data set required the presence of the name of the user, non-amatory binding spells should be expected to be underrepresented, while amatory binding spells overrepresented. Likewise, since many amulets typically did not have any name, the rate of amulets may be underrepresented. As a result, the percentages in each column do not reect the true rates of use. This affects both inner-columnar (i.e. comparison of spell types down each column) and intra-columnar (i.e. comparison along the rows among the Content, Name, and Chronology columns) comparison of percentages. Fortunately, for the Name columns the observed distribution percentages are such that they somewhat mitigate the above difculty for intra-columnar comparison. For the amulets category the percentages are nearly the same (48% and 45%). In the case of amatory binding spells some difference is observed, however, it is not statistically signicant: the calculated c2 value does not exceed the expected value for p= 0.05.41 This is important since whatever the magnitude of the sampling bias discussed above, both columns will be affected in nearly the same way. As a result, one can come to the rst rm conclusion: Christian and non-Christian names are associated with a very similar rate of use for all three spell types, especially amulets. Stated a bit more strongly, Christians use amulets equally as much as non-Christians, and vary insignicantly in their use of binding spells. In the case of the Content and Chronology columns, an equally striking pattern exists. Columns 1 and 6 versus columns 2 and 5 bear signicant resemblance, which is to say, the earlier chronological group (nos. 143) resembles non-Christian content and the later chronological group (nos. 4470) resembles Christian content. However, it is not clear whether the differences within each category (Content and Chronology), that is, between columns 1 and 2 and then again between 5 and 6, are statistically signicant, since the sampling bias will differentially affect each column (e.g., if amatory binding spells are overrepresented and all of that overrepresentation falls into columns 2 and 5, then the amulet and non-amatory binding spell percentages for those columns will be signicantly affected while those of columns 1 and 6 will not). To help correct the percentages, PGM, SM, ACM, and CPL were consulted for applied
41. For amatory binding spells, assuming an expected average of 34% if there were no difference between Christian and non-Christian name groups, we calculate 2 = ((26 34)2/34) + ((42 34)2/34) = 3.76, which is less than the expected value of 3.842 for p = 0.05. For non-amatory binding spells, the corresponding calculation is 2 = ((26 19.5)2/19.5) + ((13 19.5)2/19.5) = 4.3, which just barely exceeds the value for p = 0.05.

52 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

Table 6. Distribution of Applied Magical Texts with and without Names against Content and Chronology Content Christian Amulets Amatory dexiones Non-amatory dexiones 69 (84%) 1 (1%) 12 (15%) Non-Christian 34 (48%) 25 (35%) 12 (17%) Chronology 1st4th Cent. 36 (52%) 23 (33%) 10 (15%) 4th/5th+ Cent. 68 (80%) 3 (3%) 14 (17%)

magical texts datable to the relevant time period (rst to sixth centuries) and that omit the name of the user, with the expectation that their addition to the above sums will help compensate for the sampling bias. A total of eighty-ve texts were identied.42 Table 6 above combines these texts with the values from Table 5. The striking correspondences between columns 1 and 6 and then again between columns 2 and 5 already observed in Table 5 have been retained as well as the notable differences within each category (Content and Chronology). For the Content category, the calculated 2 values for both the difference in amulet use and difference in amatory binding spell use exceed the expected values for not only p = 0.05 but even p = 0.01, which is to say that there is less than a 1% chance that the observed gap in percentages would obtain randomly.43 The differences observed among corresponding values for the Chronology category are likewise statis-

42. PGM: XVIIb, XIXa, XXI, XXVIIIac, XXXIII, LIX, LXIV, LXXXIX, XCIX, CV, CIX, CXII, CXIII; 1, 3, 6ac, 7, 8ab, 13, 15a, c, 1619, 24; SM: 1, 2, 24, 27, 3032, 36, 52, 53, 55, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 92; ACM: 13, 14, 20, 21, 2328, 90, 103; CPL: 84, 93, 160, 183, 198, 222, 341, 345, 347, 423, 482, 591, 727, 850, 881, 893, 899, 911, 952, 976, 984, 1019, 105859. Naturally, these four collections overlap to some extent; priority was given to the collections in the above order in terms of how a text present in multiple catalogues should be referenced. So, when ACM reprints a text already printed in PGM, the text is here listed as PGM. Likewise for texts described in CPL but also printed in PGM, SM, or ACM. 43. For amulets, assuming an expected average of 66% if there were no difference between Christian and non-Christian content groups, we calculate 2 = ((84 65.5)2/65.5) + ((47 65.5)2/65.5) = 10.45, which is greater than the expected value of 3.842 for p = 0.05 and 6.635 for p = 0.01. For amatory binding spells, the corresponding calculation is 2 = ((1 18.5)2/18.5) + ((36 18.5)2/18.5) = 33.11, which likewise exceeds values for both p = 0.05 and p = 0.01.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic53

tically signicant, with the difference in amulets exceeding p = 0.05 and the difference in amatory binding spells exceeding p = 0.01.44 Thus, the next three rm conclusions can be reached: (1) Christian content is more associated with amulet use and less associated with amatory binding spells than non-Christian content; (2) after the fourth-fth century cusp amulets became much more widely used and amatory binding spells much less; consequently, (3) an increase in the use of Christian content is correlated with an increase in amulet use and decrease in the use of amatory binding spells. TOWARDS A SOLUTION: THE CHRISTIANIZATION OF MAGIC A driving force behind the observed changes is, no doubt, the dramatic change in the supernatural landscape of Egypt. Certainly one of the characteristics of magic and magicians was that they should want to corrupt women, which is to say, make use of love magic (Eusebius, D. e. 3.6), but it would be hardly credible to suggest that people should stop wanting to seduce each other in the pursuit of sex, love, appropriation of property, or some combination of the above simply because certain church leaders saw it to be morally reprehensible; furthermore, the data of columns 3 and 4 in Table 5 does not support it. The transformation we nd reected in the textual data of the fourth and fth centuries, then, is not moral but technical: the tools began to be used differently. In terms of explanatory force, legal proscription may, at rst blush, seem like a compelling cause and the Theodosian Codes condemnation of harmful magic, under which love magic would have certainly fallen,45 ts the chronology nicely.46 Its exception for protective magic would allow for

44. For amulets, assuming an expected average of 65% if there were no difference between the period down to the cusp of the fourth-fth century and the remaining period down to the sixth century, we calculate 2 = ((52 65.5)2/65.5) + ((79 65.5)2/65.5) = 5.56, which is greater than the expected value of 3.842 for p = 0.05. For amatory binding spells, the corresponding calculation is 2 = ((33 19)2/19) + ((5 19)2/19)= 20.63, which exceeds values for both p = 0.05 and p = 0.01. 45. Construal of love magic as harmful is already seen in the second-century trial of Apuleius, who was accused of magically seducing a woman. 46. C. Th. 9.16.3.13 (ed. Theodor Mommsen et al., Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes [Berlin: Weidmann, 1905], 1:460): Eorum est scientia punienda et severissimis merito legibus vindicanda, qui magicis adcincti artibus aut contra hominum moliti salutem aut pudicos ad libidinem deexisse animos detegentur.

54 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

why amulets became much more popular.47 Unfortunately, the argument quickly stumbles when one considers that the Theodosian Code (=C.Th.) does not reect the rst attempt to control harmful magical practices. On the one hand, the Twelve Tables (8.1b) already outlawed both supernatural theft of crops and harmful incantations. On the other hand, C. Th. itself incorporates earlier legislation such as the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneciis (= Pauli Sententiae 5.23), passed in 81 b.c.e., which was the likely law under which Numantina (23/24 c.e.) and Apuleius (158/59 c.e.) were prosecuted,48 and which was later expanded into C. Th. 9.1417. So, simply the presence of such laws does not mean anything should have changed. Indeed, prosecution seems to have been rather lax, as the above two are the only known trials specically for magic in this period under the aforementioned lex.49 There are some indications that things changed in the fourth century. In the horoscopes recorded in the Mathesis of Firmicus Maternus, there are seven occasions on which he cites nativities that will give rise either to a condemnation for sorcery or a related offense or to the danger of being charged with such an offense.50 People would not be concerned about such things if there were no prosecution for them. On the other side of the Mediterranean, Ammianus Marcellinus (res Gest. 16.8.2) writes that under Constantius:
nam si super occentu soricis vel occursu mustelae, vel similis signi gratia consuluisset quisquam peritum, aut anile incantamentum ad leniendum adhibuisset dolorem, quod medicinae quoque admittit auctoritas, reus unde non poterat opinari, delatus, raptusque in iudicium, poenaliter interibat.51 For if anyone consulted a soothsayer about the squeaking of a shrewmouse, the meeting with a weasel on the way, or any like portent, or used
47. C. Th. 9.16.3.35 (Mommsen et al. 1:460): Nullis vero criminationibus implicanda sunt remedia humanis quaesita corporibus aut in agrestibus locis, ne maturis vindemiis metuerentur imbres aut ruentis grandinis lapidatione quaterentur. 48. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World, 14647; James B. Rives, Magic in Roman Law: The Reconstruction of a Crime, Classical Antiquity 22 (2003): 32228. 49. Which is not to say that other accusations of magic cannot be found in a secondary place among other charges, often concerning that of conspiracy against the emperor, murder, or adultery; for a list of such cases from Tacitus, see J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 13335. For brief discussion see Peter Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 10911. 50. Dickie, Magic and Magicians, 150. 51. ed. and trans. John C. Rolfe, Ammianus Marcellinus. History, Volume I Books 1419, LCL 300 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 232.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic55 some old wifes charm to relieve pain (a thing which even medical authority allows), he was indicted (from what source he could not guess), was haled into court, and suffered death as the penalty.52

Another incident under Constantius brings matters closer to Egypt, when informers brought to his attention oracles of Besa from the Thebaid, which prompted him to send Paulus and Modestus to the East, but the locus of the imperial response ended up being Scythopolis in Palestine (19.12.38). Under Valens, Ammianus reports that incantamenta and amatoria were used to frame victims and send them to death (29.2.3). As for Firmicus, he operated in Rome and insofar as his horoscopes offer some indirect evidence for fear of the law it should not be assumed to apply under the same conditions outside of Italy. Altogether, such incidents do not help account for the data. They not only were limited in scope in terms of time and place but also tended to apply to all types of magic. Aside from such imperial excesses, how such matters should be handled in the provinces was far from uniform and according to the whims of the governor. For Egypt there seems to have been little ofcial concern with magicthe documentary record is resoundingly quiet on the subject. P.Yale inv. 299 (198/99 c.e.) offers one instance of the prefect of Egypt being concerned with magicdivination in this casebut divination could have repercussions for the government if the divined future spoke ill of the fate of particular ofcials. All of the above, of course, took place before C. Th. was promulgated in the fth century, but seeing both how uncertain and uneven the effects of imperial law were prior to it, and to what extent consequences for the practice of magic seemed to be tied to the whim of particular imperial personalities, one should be quite cautious in attributing the transformation of the practice of magic to the C. Th., the earlier rulings it encompassed or any other legal proscription. Ironically, the church, at the forefront of demonizing magic, was more lenient to its practice, both formally and informally. By demonizing the spiritual forces behind magic it opened an avenue for new conversions by exculpating the sorcerer-victims of personal guilt, since they had been the victims of demonic forces, allowing the practitioners to be assimilated rather than destroyed.53 Indicative of this trend is Macedoniuss exorcism
52. LCL 300:233. 53. Valerie Flint, The Demonization of Sorcery and Magic in Late Antiquity: Christian Redenitions of Pagan Religions, in Witchcraft and Magic in Europe, Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 32224.

56 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

of a girl who had been bewitched by a love-spell. Although, he exorcizes the demon he does not allow the sorcerer to be legally implicated in the crime but rather opts to convert him.54 Christian attitude during the apostolic period was, of course, not so measured, but with time began to soften.55 Such leniency was perhaps in part conditioned by unofcial priestly involvement in magical practices, indicated by the condemnation of such involvement at the Council of Laodicea (canon 36). The condemnation, naturally, failed to extinguish such practices as is made clear from our own data (no. 69). Apa (apa),56 a title of reverence often used for saints, martyrs, and clergy, betrays Victor of Phibamon as likely associated with the church in some clerical capacity. Such involvement in magical practices may have been facilitated by the attitude reected in the quotation from Origen, provided earlier, that what Christians make use of is the name of Jesus with other words which are believed to be effective, taken from the divine Scripture.57 This certainly seems to be an appropriate characterization of so many Christian amulets and points to a solution for our problem. During the third and fourth centuries, as the temple institution in Egypt dramatically broke down, the role of the Egyptian priest transformed into that of a local charismatic leader, able to employ their ritual expertise to provide the local population with spiritual solutions to daily concerns by means of apotropaic, healing, and binding spells.58 But, starting in the fourth century Christian holy men began to encroach upon this social role.59 It is precisely within the clergy and religious orders that the moral strictures reected in Eusebius should be taken most seriously and so it is here where one can identify the seeds of change. The magic they would trafc in would be largely defensive and healing in nature. After all, the acts of Jesus, both canonical and apocryphal, are overwhelmingly concerned with healing and exorcism, and Christian theology takes the same tack, focusing on the healing and salvic nature of Jesus powers.60 Therefore,
54. Theodoret, H. rel. 8. 55. Flint, The Demonization of Sorcery, 303. 56. See entry for apa in W. E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005 [1939]), 13. 57. Chadwick, Origen, 10. 58. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 20914. 59. Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt, 21417. 60. The latter aspectsalvationmay also account for the slightly higher interest in non-amatory binding spells among Christians (nos. 34, 44, 45, 52, 61, 6465), since most of these (nos. 34, 52, 6465) are concerned with revenge for some wrongs inicted, that is to say, salvation from injustice; however, with the limited sample size, this can only remain as an interesting suggestion.

ShaNdruk/Christian Use of Magic57

the changes observed within the landscape of magical practice go handin-hand with the Christian priestly appropriation of these arts. Increasing use of the cross,61 pilgrims tokens and asks,62 and similar amulets should be seen as part of the same trend. Walter M. Shandruk is a Doctoral Student in Classics at the University of Chicago

61. See, for instance, Cyprians defense of the apotropaic use of the sign of the cross on the forehead in Test. 2.22. 62. William Anderson, An Archaeology of Late Antique Pilgrim Flasks, Anatolian Studies 54 (2004): 7993.