Loading...Now here is a topic I bet you’ve never heard of before. The value of what? Amulets? For what? Really?
Yup, really. Sometimes the most interesting issues are ones you haven’t heard of before. And hey, now you’ll be able to talk about it.
This is a guest post from Brice Jones, a textual specialist on this topic, who has written the definitive book about it. I’ve asked him to tell us about it in layperson’s terms. This will take him a couple of posts.
Here is a brief bio on him so you have a sense of who he is, followed by post number one, in which, among other things, he tells you what this is all about.
–
Brice Jones is the author of New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity and Matthean and Lukan Special Material.
************************************
Brice C. Jones is an ancient historian specializing in the study of Early Christianity and papyrology. He received his Ph.D. in Religion from Concordia University (Montreal) and his M.A. in New Testament from Yale University. His research on ancient Greek and Coptic manuscripts has been published in major scholarly journals, such as Journal of Biblical Literature, Novum Testamentum, New Testament Studies, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, and Journal of Coptic Studies. He has been featured in various media outlets, including the The New York Times, The Telegraph, CNN, Live Science, and The Daily Beast.
His website: https://www.bricecjones.com
And here is the first post. Feel free to make comments and ask questions; Brice will be happy to answer them.
–
Brice C. Jones is the author of New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity, and Matthean and Lukan Special Material: A Brief Introduction with Texts in Greek and English.
**************************
In a session at the 2009 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, a scholar announced that he had identified an ancient Greek manuscript containing the text of the Gospel of Mark. He showed a picture of the papyrus that carried the text: it was beautifully written on an oblong piece of papyrus, tentatively dated to the 3rd/4th century C.E., and, assuming the dating was correct, would be one of the oldest manuscripts containing that portion of Marks’ Gospel. A colleague sitting in front of me raised his hand and asked, “What will be the significance of this manuscript since it is an amulet?” He was right. The manuscript would not be useful to textual criticism (I will come back to this in another post). And it was that question from my colleague that drove the research for my latest book, New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity (London: Bloomsbury, 2016).
So, what are amulets and why did Christians write scripture upon them? In antiquity, they were commonly associated with magic. Since the term “magic” has negative connotations, let me explain it.
Today, if someone is bitten by a scorpion or snake, they go to the doctor for treatment. If someone is having crazy nightmares or irrational fears, they go to a psychiatrist. In the ancient world, many people would use amulets: objects considered to be imbued with power that, when applied properly and worn on the body, would invoke the divine for some favor.
In antiquity, there were people (usually clergy of some kind) responsible for producing amulets. It should be noted that amulets were by no means unique to Christians. They came in a variety of forms and were used cross-culturally. Clients would participate in some sort of ritual, usually under the supervision of a priest, monk or other functionary, with the expectation that the necessary ritual performance would move the gods (or God) to fix the client’s physical problem. The examples listed above (scorpion and snake bits, irrational fears and nightmares) were common problems in the ancient world but there are many, many other examples: fever, shivering fits, headaches, eyesight, and so on. In the Greek Magical Papyri, a corpus of texts from Egypt comprised of charms and spells, there are even texts that were meant to help with more intimate things, like sex. One text reads, “To get an erection whenever you want: mix pepper with honey and rub it on your thing.” This was the ancient version of Viagra! There has been a lot of ink spilt on these magical texts and their function within ancient societies. And indeed, they are fascinating in their own right.
The fourth century Canon 36 of the Synod of Laodicea states that Christian clergy should “not be wizards or enchanters…or make so-called amulets, which are prisons of their souls.” Around the same time, Gregory of Nyssa said that Christians would become apostates and be banned from communion if they sought out diviners or sorcerers. (Ep. can.) However, it is very clear that amulets were popular among late antique Christians despite the religious authorities’ opposition to them. As C.H. Roberts states, “Christians in Egypt in the third and early fourth centuries were not above using amulets much as their pagan contemporaries did.” It is impossible to identify a specific moment in time when Christians began to use amulets. The practice can be seen as an extension of Greco-Roman “magic,” but the Christian practice recalls the “signs,” “miracles,” and “exorcisms” that we encounter in the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Early Christian scholars have long noticed parallels between miracles in the New Testament and Greco-Roman magical practices. Even Celsus, a well-known second century opponent of Christianity, accused Jesus of preforming miracles through sorcery, clearly indicating that the ancients were aware of some similarities (Cels. 1.6).
Among the surviving protective and curative Christian amulets from Egypt, the two most common images of Jesus that emerge are healer and protector. A popular New Testament text used in several curative amulets is Matthew 4:23–24/9:35, a narrative summary that depicts Jesus as a healer of “every illness and infirmity.” The words “healing every illness and infirmity” were appealed to as a kind of blanket formula that was applicable to a variety of physical conditions. The Gospel of Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer is the most common New Testament passage cited in Christian amulets. We see the prayer on amulets all by itself but sometimes it is mixed in with other incantations, prayers, symbols, and so on.
Requests for protection from demons are frequently encountered in amulets. The expulsion of evil spirits from human subjects is of course a common tradition in the Gospels. According to Mark’s Gospel, one of the reasons the disciples were called was to “have authority to cast out demons” (Mark 3:15). Healing by exorcism continued to be performed by Christians, as evidenced by a plethora of early Christian literature. Lactantius, for example, says that demons fear righteous people and that when adjured by them they are put to flight “at the name of the true God” (Inst. 22).
To give just one example of the kinds of texts I am describing, here is the opening of a sixth-century Christian amulet (BGU 3.954):
Master, O God Almighty, The Fath[er] of our Lord and Savior [Jesus Christ], and St. Serenus: I, Silvanus, son of Serapion, give thanks and bow [my] head before you, asking and beseeching that you might chase away from me, your servant, the demon of the evil eye, the (demon) of the e[vil] deed an[d] the (demon) of unpleasantness and take away from me every illness and every infirmity so that I might be health and [able] to say the Gospel-prayer: [citation of the Lord’s Prayer].
In addition to citing the Lord’s Prayer, the opening verses of Matthew and John are cited, and the text ends thus: “O light from light, true God, grant me, your servant, the light. St. Serenus, supplicate on my behalf so that I may be perfectly healthy.”
Many Christian amulets like this one reflect textual traditions that stem from the Gospels, liturgies, creedal formulae, doxologies, as well as Christian iconography. More times than not, many of these traditions are woven together to form a patchwork of texts (and symbols) for the purpose of ritual application. These artifacts provide us with some significant information about the social and religious environments in which they were produced and used. The inherited Jesus traditions in amulets became meaningful in their own way, depending on the circumstances (e.g., a need for healing, protection). To put it another way: amulets were the carriers of tradition that encapsulated Christological expression, whose meanings were ultimately defined by the ones who wore/manufactured them.
In my next post, I will say more about how these Greek New Testament citations have been neglected in the history of New Testament textual criticism, why that neglect matters, and what we should do about it moving forward. Stay tuned!
Very interesting. Is the Catholic scapular a type of amulet? Wearing one was a common practice when I was growing up in the 1950s and 60s and my childhood understanding was that it had protective powers. I don’t know if they are still used these days.
I don’t know enough about this tradition in Catholicism to answer with any certainty, but I *can* tell you that my Catholic colleagues have brought this up to me whenever I have discussed my book. At the very least, some modern Catholics think of scapulars in the same way.
Thanks for participating on the blog, Brice! I am looking forward to learning more from you.
I hope you also going into magic in Judaism, and the role of women in these practices. I’ve always been curious about this by your colleague Bohak:
“But other Jews, and many non-Jews, looked down upon such practices, condemning them as magic and superstition. The Jewish philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), distinguished the highbrow magic of Zoroastrian priests from the lowbrow quackery practiced by women and slaves (Philo, On the Special Laws 3.100-103)”
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/magic-in-the-first-century-world
PS I wear a St. Benedict’s cross that supposedly can ward off demons. I’m not sure I believe in physical demons, but it can’t hurt. So some of these practices are still used today although the Christian theology around them might be different.
I do refer to Jewish practices in my book. Psalm 90 was frequently used as protection from evil in Jewish circles. This text is also found in the Qumran scroll known as 11Q11, where the passage functions precisely in this way (=apotropaically). In the Talmudic tradition, Psalm 90 was considered the most potent remedy against demons (b. She 15b; y. Erub. 10.11, y. Shabb. 6.8b). As far as women and amulets: I suggest that there may be a possible correlation between the use of amulets and gender, since nearly 20% of the amulets I analyzed were owned/worn by women. See my discussion on pp. 183-84.
Brice, I’d love to check that out but sadly don’t have access to a library that has it :(. I’m surprised it would only be 20%??? So 80% men?
Only nearly 20% of the amulets I analyzed (24 total). There are a lot of early Christian amulets in all kinds of languages. I just looked at ones in Greek, on papyrus, with citations of the NT.
Thank you Dr. Jones for your post. Fascinating. These Christian amulets apparently really packed a punch (and a lot of script). What are the average dimensions of these artifacts and how were they worn or carried?
Dimensions really vary. Most were folded so that they could be suspended around the neck and worn. One of the papyri in my book containing some verses from Matthew is tiny: unfolded, it is about half the size of a credit card! You can see a picture of that on p. 118 of the book.
That’s fine if that is what you want to believe.
However, if you claim to be a monotheist, believing in Amulets is inconsistent with believing that God, The Creator and All Powerful and The Protector…. is One. You do what you can then put your trust in God for protection. Ascribing protection from something you construct with you own hands leads to Idol worship. And Idol worship is definitely not monotheism. All the prophets warned against Idol worship.
Believing in the concept of Amulets exists and is practiced by those who claim to be monotheists. That does not make it a part of the articles of faith for the Oneness of God.
Zak.. I think it’s what you believe about the amulets rather than the existence of them. If they are reminders of religious texts, then they are not “something constructed with your hands” nor “idol worship.” But what exactly did people believe when they wore them? Can we know that from writings, or possibly from writings that denounced them (of course, denouncers are not necessarily in any way accurate)? That seems like a good question for Brice.
I have made no claims or statements about my personal beliefs here. I am a historian and have looked at these documents from a socio-historical perspective, just like an expert in ancient coins (=numismatist) would analyze impressions of kings and emperors and the text inscribed on them. For example, What did amulets mean for early Christians? Why were they using them? How carefully were they writing scripture on amulets? What is unique about them? And so on.
Fascinating Brice;
would I be correct that the Mark amulet in question is the one since puplihed as P.Oxy.LXXVI 5073 and classfied T21; with the text of Mark 1: 2 of ἐν τῷ Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ, for a much debated variant?
That’s the one! I actually gave the manuscript the “T21” classification in the appendix of my book.
I am a bit confused. When I think of an amulet, I think of a small charm worn around the neck. Is that what is being discussed here? Are the pieces of papyrus with the writing inserted into the amulet to be worn continuously? In that case it seems that the amulet would have to be quite large. Or, are the words actually inscribed on the amulet itself in some fashion, like etching in wet clay? Can you possibly share a picture to help my understanding? Thanks!
Mike
Christians did suspend amulets from their necks, including papyrus documents inscribed with text. Many of the inscribed papyrus amulets have holes for threading a string and some actually still contain the strings! In my book, I have pictures of amulets with strings still attached (p.128 and p. 153). Most amulets were folded several times (or rolled and placed in cylinders) to make wearing them much easier.
Great post! Did early Christians view the cross as an amulet with special powers like some people view it today? Or were their amulets mostly just scripture writing?
Some did, yes. In amulets, cross symbols are frequently part of the “magical” ingredients in assisting with some request for protection, etc.
I wonder how many of your readers ran to get some pepper and honey after reading this post. 🙂
One fascinating book of antiquity to me has been the testament of Solomon. I personally think it’s one of the most outlandish books in the Judeo/Christian tradition. The ring given to Solomon by Michael is straight outta lord of the rings. Any idea on a date of it?
Also, shoot, folks STILL use amulets. St Christopher necklaces etc. even the cross necklaces. bikers put little gremlin bell somewhere low to the ground on their bikes. I have personally always thought of them as modern day idolatry. Your thoughts?
Is it common for a given amulet to petition both Christian figures (God, Jesus, saints) and pagan gods? If so, what does this say about the religious affiliation/s of the makers and users of these amulets?
This gets complicated, but the short answer is yes. For example, P.Oxy. 1162 is an amulet with Jewish, Christian, and pagan elements (mainly divine names within all these religious traditions). My colleague Joseph Sanzo has addressed your question. Basically, he thinks it’s best to avoid the term “Christian” when talking about amulets and those who produced and used them. I think he is right to question these categories (Christian, non-Christian) but I am personally comfortable assigning a label when the content is Christian in nature (scripture, prayers that mention Jesus, Mary, Saints, etc.).
Interesting. This reminds me of when I lived and worked in Niger, Africa. You could go to the local market and buy charms, amulets, and fetishes from the local shamen that would ward off a multitude of things, from illnesses to knives and gunshots. You could also go to the local mosque and ask the imam for an amulet with a verse from the Quran in it for protection against many different things. A friend of mine had a sick child so I had an amulet made for the baby. The family was very appreciative of receiving the amulet.
Thanks for this anecdote! Your description is very, very similar to what we find in antiquity, across continents, cultures, and even religious traditions.
I can’t see any a priori reason to claim that Jesus was NOT practicing a kind of sorcery, or magic. How would one argue that the healings and miracles Jesus is said to have performed where not “magic” or “sorcery”, especially when both pagans and Jews had such traditions? Is the distinction made on the basis of the power invoked– a god (among many) or one (monotheistic)? How about an angel? Seems to be a blurred boundary. In the Catholic school I attended much was make of relics worn as amulets and these were used, according to the nuns who wore them, as healing agents. And various objects, when blessed with holy water, were thought to be imbued with supernatural power. The rosary was always treated with reverence, and so on. All so pagan!
Some scholars have argued that Jesus was a magician. Morton Smith, for example, wrote a book called Jesus the Magician in the 1970s, which had some salient points and observations.
The Theology of Magic this is a fascinating topic.. perhaps worthy of a course in itself!
This may be a helpful discussion of how Catholics use “sacramentals” , from EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/sacramentals-what-are-they-1171
“Sacramentals are not superstitions, holdovers from pre-Christian days, or Catholic substitutes for the longing of pagans to dance around trees and mutter spells. There is a part of us that longs for something tangible we can hold on to, something to look at, something to touch, something to sing, chant or recite, something that interacts with the senses. The sacraments, those sacred mixtures of matter and the Holy Spirit, fulfill that need. And so, in a lesser way, do sacramentals.
What is the difference between correct use of the sacramental and superstition? It has to do with an inner attitude, for superstition is second cousin to magic. The superstitious person says, “If I sprinkle holy water here, say these prayers and cross myself, I will make God or His saints do this for me.” But the person using a sacramental properly says. “I want to be closer to God—to be constantly and effectively reminded of the power of His love and glory, of His protection, forgiveness and mercy. “
The early church fathers frequently referred to the use of amulets as “superstitious.” Jerome, for example, condemns “superstitious little women” who wear amulets “with little Gospels and with the wood of the cross and with things of this sort.” The picture that emerges, however, is that many, many Christians turned to amulets as a useful religious objects. So, it suggests that many early Christians did not listen to the church authority when it came to wearing amulets.
And church authorities only wrote about practices they didn’t like that were common (women speaking in churches, not knowing their place, and so on). It also seems possible that what we think of as “church authorities” (writers whom officials agreed with) did not even reach Christian communities where not many people were literate. Perhaps it was a long “chain of command” with the community leader at the bottom end of the chain having to pick their battles. Even if the information was successfully transmitted. Plus some ideas just never really would find a place in popular thought- but most would not argue with authorities; they would just ignore them.
Good points here!
What is the difference between an amulet and a talisman?
The terms are often used synonomously but the main distinction seems to be that the amulet had to touch the body and work continuously whereas a talisman could be placed in the ground, in a house, etc. I discuss the terminology on pp. 27-28 in my book but I note there that I adopt the term amulet for the book.
Thanks for contributing the introductory essay! A have a number of questions.
1) You mentioned “an ancient Greek manuscript containing the text of the Gospel of Mark”. Is this the entire Gospel of Mark? Or just a few verses, used for magical reasons?
2) You said that the manuscript “would not be useful to textual criticism” since it was an amulet. I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be useful, and I look forward to you explaining that. But you also said these amulet citations “have been neglected in the history of New Testament textual criticism”. So are they useful for textual criticism after all? I’m confused.
3) What are “ep. can.”, “BGU 3.954”, and other citations here, if I want to read more context? Google isn’t much help here.
Thanks again!
1) The manuscript is tiny amulet containing the first couple verses from Mark 1. It is no. 16 in my book.
2) This will be the subject of the next post. In anticipation of that post, I will just say here that the field at one time catalogued amulets and at least looked at their text. Then, an editor of that catalogue removed them and so they fell off the radar, so to speak. A rule was created that amulets and other extracts couldn’t be used (I will explain more). But, the biblical citations of Church Fathers ARE used in textual criticism…so why aren’t amulets?
3) The “ep. can.” is just an abbreviation for the epistle of Gregory that I quoted there; the “BGU 3.954” is a reference to the publication of the amulet cited.
This is so fascinating. Cant wait for the followup. Might even get your book!!!
To unveil the cloak of magic I have always seen amulets as a similarity to modern post it notes we place to remind ourselves to stay on the path we have chosen. That in turn makes us in some sense addicted to the material world which many teachings warns about.
It appears that the promised sequel to this post was never published. Pity!