No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Coptic Magical Text for Virginity in Marriage: A Witness to “Celibate Marriage” from Christian Egypt
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2021
Abstract
The Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum in San Jose (CA) owns a small but important collection of unpublished Coptic papyri and parchments. One notable papyrus preserves a unique text in which the practitioner invokes an unnamed female figure to help a woman protect her “purity,” “virginity,” and “marriage.” Although the specific context behind the text is not altogether clear and the appeal for virginity in marriage is curious and without parallel in other magical texts, one possibility is to see the text in light of the Christian practice of celibate marriage whereby a male and female entered into a non-sexual marriage.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the President and Fellows of Harvard College
Footnotes
*
We would like to thank Lorraine Katich at the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum for permission to edit this papyrus and to publish an image of it. We would also like to thank Matthew McReynolds for bringing it to our attention and Frederic Krueger for helping us find Coptic attestations of παρθενία. Additionally, we would like to thank Jason Combs, Mark Ellison, John Gee, Zakarias Gram, and Ágnes Mihálykó, who all commented upon earlier drafts of this paper. Abbreviations used frequently throughout this article include: ACM = Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (ed. Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999); TM = Trismegistos Number (http://www.trismegistos.org).
References
1 On the museum and its collection, see its website: http://www.egyptianmuseum.org.
2 There are six other Coptic texts in the collection: three letters written in the Fayumic dialect; a large text composed of multiple fragments that appears to preserve a list of some sort; a small fragment containing three lines that are largely effaced but are written in Akhmimic; and a small note or label for a container (?) in Sahidic.
3 The symbol 
derives from Greek magical practice, where it was the abbreviation for δ(ε)ῖ(να) “so-and-so/NN,” doubled to indicate ὁ/ἡ δεῖνα τῆς δεῖνα (“NN child of NN”). The equivalent full writing in Coptic is ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡ/ⲧϣⲉ ⲛ̅ⲛⲓⲙ. See Jacco Dieleman, “What’s in a Sign? Translating Filiation in the Demotic Magical Papyri,” in The Multilingual Experience in Egypt, from the Ptolemies to the ‘Abbāsids (ed. Arietta Papaconstantinou; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010) 127–52, at 132–34.
4 See “Comparable Magical Material” below.
5 As one of our anonymous reviewers pointed out, the term “celibate marriage” poses an etymological contradiction, since it is derived ultimately from the Latin caelebs, referring to an unmarried man who may or may not be sexually active, the equivalent of the modern English “bachelor.” This meaning was still current until quite recently; the Oxford English Dictionary, a historical dictionary, gives the primary sense of “celibate” as “Unmarried, single; bound not to marry.” This entry has not been updated since 1899, however, and the latest example usage is from 1882. The modern sense of the word in English is better reflected by the Merriam-Webster, which notes the primary sense as “not engaging in or characterized by sexual intercourse.” It is this sense which has led to the scholarly use of the term “celibate marriage” to refer to a marital union not characterized by sexual activity. For example, see Anne P. Alwis, Celibate Marriages in Late Antique and Byzantine Hagiography: The Lives of Saints Julian and Basilissa, Andronikos and Athanasia, and Galaktion and Episteme (New York: Continuum, 2011) 10–12; cf. Dyan Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 3–4. This contradiction, present in the etymology of the word “celibate,” if not in its modern English meaning, is paralleled by the idea present in the Greek and Coptic sources we discuss below that see “virginity” and “marriage” as natural opposites, and virginity in marriage as a paradox (either divine or dangerous, depending on the author).
6 See n. 136.
7 The papyrus is inventoried as RC-2643. The Master Artifact Record database of the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum records that it was purchased as part of a lot of six Coptic manuscripts (nos. RC-2642-2647) for $150 on Oct. 13, 1952 from Ulrich Steindorff Carrington, the son of the Egyptologist Georg Steindorff, who had died in August of the previous year. The papyrus had been part of his father’s collection. A preliminary description of the papyrus, as well as of at least two other Coptic papyri from the sale (RC-2644 & 2645), was made by Elinor Mullett Husselman later in 1952. We are very grateful to Julie Scott, Executive Director of the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum, for providing us with access to their database records.
8 Three of the other Coptic pieces in the collection are written in Fayumic and one in Akhmimic (see n. 2), though it is unknown whether this text was donated as part of a group of texts or individually.
9 There is a small upper margin of 0.9 cm and generous left and right margins of 3.7 and 6.9 cm, respectively, while the uninscribed lower margin is 2.5 cm in height.
10 A similar phenomenon occurs in P.Oxy. 31.2601 (TM 32692; shortly after 23 February 303 CE). See also Brice C. Jones, “Scribes Avoiding Imperfections in their Writing Materials,” APF (2015) 371–83.
11 On the folding, tying, and wearing of earlier amulets, see Jacco Dieleman, “The Materiality of Textual Amulets in Ancient Egypt,” in The Materiality of Magic (ed. Dietrich Boschung and Jan N. Bremmer; Morphomata 20; Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2015) 23–58.
12 If we take the presence of the generic name marker (see n. 3) as a likely diagnostic sign of a formulary, then examples of folded Coptic formularies include HS Schmidt 1 (TM 98043; 4th–7th cents. CE), P.Berlin 8322 (TM 100006; 7th–9th cents. CE), and Vienna Nationalbibliothek K 192 (TM 91396; 7th–8th cents. CE).
13 See, for example, Suppl.Mag. I 29, whose nature as an amulet is clear from its use of personal names in place of the generic name marker (l. 9), but which seems to have preserved the title from the formulary from which it was copied; and P.Kellis G I 87, an amulet which seems to preserve ritual instructions (David R. Jordan, “Intrusions into the Text of the Amulet ‘P. Kellis G.’ I 87?,” ZPE 137 [2001] 34).
14 The first alpha in l. 3 takes a rather irregular form but this might be due to imperfections on the papyrus.
15 See Anne Boud’hors, “L’onciale penchée en copte et sa survie jusqu’au XVe siècle en Haute-Égypte,” in Scribes et Manuscrits du Moyen-Orient (ed. François Déroche and Francis Richard; Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale de France, 1997) 117–33; Ágnes T. Mihálykó, “Writing the Christian Liturgy in Egypt (3rd to 9th cent.)” (PhD diss., University of Oslo, 2017) 56–61.
16 Walter C. Till, “Koptische Kleinliteratur,” ZÄS 77 (1942) 101–11, at 101.
17 See P.Lond.Copt. 445 (TM 86134; ca. 620 CE) and P.Lond.Copt. 467 (TM 83563; 7th cent. CE).
18 While this manuscript is not fully published, a discussion of the date, as well as photographs, may be found in Perrine Pilette and Naïm Vanthieghem, “À propos de la datation du Manuscrit Pierpont Morgan Inv. M636. Édition d’un protocole arabe inédit,” JCoptS 17 (2015) 147–52.
19 While this text is in Greek, its late date and context mean that it closely resembles contemporary Coptic hands. For its date, see Mihálykó, “Writing the Christian Liturgy,” 60.
20 Maged S. A. Mikhail, The Legacy of Demetrius of Alexandria: 189–232 CE; The Form and Function of Hagiography in Late Antique and Islamic Egypt (Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World; London: Routledge, 2017) 42.
21 For a useful discussion of the concept of adjuration, see Scott Shauf, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005) 202–11.
22 For example, see PGM I.305–312; III.226; IV.978, 3205; VII.5.
23 See PGM I.225; III.10; IV.3235; VII.478.
24 The equivalent in Demotic texts may be twy ḥwy ḫyṱ r.r⸗k (“I cast divine fury against you”), found in PDM xiv.224, 277, 656, 1036, 1125.
25 For example, see London Ms.Or. 6795 ll. 29–30 (TM 100018; 6th–7th cents. CE); P.Baden V 123 ll. 7–8, 34–35 (TM 102087; 7th–8th cents. CE); P.Baden V 138 l. 11, 14 (TM 102077; 10th–11th cents. CE); P.Heid.Inv.Kopt. 685 5.12 (TM 102074; 10th cent. CE); Vienna, Nationalbibliothek K 8686 recto l. 7 (TM 91422; 10th cent. CE); Cologne, Papyrussammlung P.1470 l. 14 (TM 102255; 7th cent. CE).
26 See P.Lond.Copt. 524 ll. 65–66, 94 (TM 98056; 4th–9th cents. CE); Rossi’s Gnostic Tractate 7.18 (TM 98062; 6th–11th cents. CE); BKU I 8 l. 18 (TM 63027; 7th–9th cents. CE).
27 See, for example, O.Mon.Epiph. 163 (7th cent. CE), a letter where the address formula makes it clear that there is one recipient, Epiphanius, despite the fact that the plural second person pronoun is used to address him, one linguistic marker of respect among several others used in this text. Compare the examples from the Papas Archive (late 7th cent. CE) published in Anne Boud’hors et al., “Un nouveau depart pour les archives de Papas. Papyrus coptes et grecs de la jarre d’Edfou,” BIFAO 117 (2017) 87–121, in particular no. 4, which varies between the use of the plural and the singular to address the singular addressee, the pagarch Papas. For the Greek usage, see Henrik Zilliacus, Selbstgefühl und Servilität. Studien zum unregelmässigen Numerusgebrauch im Griechischen (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 18.3; Helsinki: 1953) 73–75. We are very grateful to Anne Boud’hors, Jean-Luc Fournet, Marja Vierros, and Sonja Dahlgren for providing us with help in finding these references.
28 See P.Kell.Copt. V 35 (5th cent. CE), which uses a second person plural pronoun in ll. 7–8 despite using a singular pronoun elsewhere. The same phenomenon can be found in ACM 104 l.8 (6th cent. CE); ACM 111 ll. 4–8 (8th cent. CE); ACM 121 ll. 17–19 (8th cent. CE).
29 For a list of these, see Lincoln H. Blumell and Korshi Dosoo, “Horus, Isis, and the Dark-Eyed Beauty: A Series of Magical Ostraca in the Brigham Young University Collection,” APF (2018) 199–259, at 257–59.
30 The most notable of these are attestations of the so-called “Prayer of Mary at Bartos.” For discussion and further bibliography, see Marvin Meyer, “The Prayer of Mary Who Dissolves Chains in Coptic Magic and Religion,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (ed. Paul Mirecki and Marvin Meyer; RGRW 141; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 407–15.
31 Roxanne Bélanger Sarrazin, “Catalogue des textes magiques coptes,” APF 68 (2017) 367–408.
32 P.Heid.Kopt. 685 9.13–20 (TM 102074; 10th cent. CE).
34 Theodore S. de Bruyn, “Greek Amulets from Egypt Invoking Mary as Expressions of ‘Lived Religion,’ ” JCSCS 3–4 (2012) 55–69. The most explicit invocation is found in P.Köln VIII 340 (TM 61663; 5th–6th cents. CE) ll. 1–3: “We invoke you (ἐ̣[πικαλοῦ]μέν σε), God, and Mary the Theotokos.”
33 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Suppl. Grec. 1340 (TM 145245; 5th cent. CE). An edition of this text is in preparation by Korshi Dosoo.
35 For example, see PGM VII.546; cf. PGM III.51; XII.65; LXI.22.
36 P.Heid.Inv.Kopt. 678 ll. 10, 14 (TM 102077; 10th–11th cents. CE); Cologne, Papyrussammlung P. 1470 l. 14 (TM 102255; 7th cent. CE); BKU I 1 l. 4 (TM 105606; 7th–9th cents. CE); BKU I 9 ll. 4, 14 (TM 98050; 7th–9th cents. CE).
37 In Coptic texts this is found in ACM 46, 48, 66, 76, 97, to give only a few examples.
38 Paul E. Kahle, Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1954) 52–54.
39 Walter E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939) 730a, s.v. ϩⲟⲟⲩ.
40 Wolfhart Westendorf, Koptisches Handwörterbuch (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 1965/1977) 403.
41 Rudolph Kasser, Compléments au Dictionnaire Copte de Crum (Bibliothèque d’études coptes 7; Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1964) 103 (731a).
42 For this equivalence, see Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 707b, s.v. ϩⲁⲣⲉϩ.
43 Gregory Thaumaturgus, In annuntiationem sanctae virginis Mariae 2 (S. P. N. Gregorii cognomento Thaumaturgi, opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia [ed. J.-P. Migne; PG 10; Paris: Imprimerie catholique, 1857] 1157.19–20).
44 Basil of Caesarea, Homiliae in hexaemeron 8.6.32–33 (Basile de Césarée. Homélies sur l’hexaéméron [ed. S. Giet; 2nd ed.; SC 26; Paris: Cerf, 1968] 462).
45 John of Damascus, In dormitionem sanctae Dei genitricis Mariae orationes 14.23–24 (Opera homiletica et hagiographica [ed. Bonifatius Kotter; vol. 5 of Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos; PTS 29; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988] 531).
46 Palladius, h. Laus. 8.2 (Palladio. La storia Lausiaca [ed. Gerhardus J. M. Bartelink; Verona: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, 1974] 42).
47 François Halkin, “La passion ancienne des saints Julien et Basilisse,” AnBoll 98 (1980) 241–96, at 250 ll. 11–12.
48 Margaret H. Davis, “The Life of Abba John Khamé: Coptic Text Edited and Translated from the Cod. Vat. Copt. LX,” PO 14 (1920) 317–72, at 327 [15.15]; cf. 330 [18.11], 331 [19.8].
49 Forbes Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels (Cambridge: University Press, 1896) 34, fr. IV.76 (Coptic), 35 (trans.); cf. The Discourse on Mary Theotokos by Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem, in Miscellaneous Coptic Texts in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (ed. and trans. Ernest A. Wallis Budge; London: British Museum, 1915) 68 ll. 1–5 (Coptic), 645 (trans.).
50 Miscellaneous Coptic Texts (ed. and trans. Budge), 534 l. 26 (Coptic), 1054 (trans.).
51 For the occurrences of παρθενία in Coptic magical texts, see “Comparable Magical Material” below.
52 This is despite texts that extend “virginity” of the body to speak of, for example, a comparable requirement of spiritual virginity, e.g., the Life of Julian and Basilissa, in which Basilissa reports that “the virginity of the flesh has no power wherever resentment of the heart resides” (1.13.29–30: οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἡ παρθενία τῆς σαρκὸς ὅπου οἰκεῖ ὀργὴ καρδίας). A rare exception to the literal meaning of “virginity” occurs in the Coptic translation of the Encomium on John the Baptist attributed to John Chrysostom, in which Jesus is said to have “made a prostitute into a virgin” (ⲟⲩⲡⲟⲣⲛⲏ ⲁⲕⲁⲁⲥ ⲙ̅ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ; Coptic Apocrypha in the Dialect of Upper Egypt [ed. and trans. Ernest A. Wallis Budge; London: British Museum, 1913]135 ll. 16–17 [Coptic], 342 [trans.]).
53 Henri Hyvernat, Les Actes des martyrs de l’Égypte (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1886) 98 l. 20.
54 Émile Amélineau, “Un évèque de Keft au VIIe siècle,” Mémoires de l’Institut Égyptien 2 (1889) 261–423, at 379 ll. 9–11.
55 Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 399a.
56 Kasser, Compléments, 62b: Svl = “Sahidique, langue vulgaire ou lapsus.”
57 Crum, Coptic Dictionary, 400a.
58 PGL s.v. ἁγνεία, sense B.
59 Eusebius, Dem. Ev. 3.6.21 (Die Demonstratio evangelica [ed. Ivar A. Heikel; vol. 6 of Eusebius Werke; GCS 23; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913] 135).
60 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos 15.23 (S. Patris Nostri Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia [ed. Willhelm Karl Reischl and Joseph Rupp; 2 vols.; Munich: Lentner, 1848–1860] 2:186).
61 Apos. Con. 8.12.44 (Les constitutions apostoliques [ed. and trans. Marcel Metzger; 3 vols. SC 320, 329, 336; Paris: Cerf, 1985–1986] 3:202).
62 Palladius, h. Laus. 8.2 (Palladio. La storia Lausiaca [ed. Bartelink], 42).
63 Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 534 l. 26 (Coptic), 1054 (trans.).
64 Davis, “Life of Abba John Khamé,” 327 [15 ll. 9–10], 367 [55 ll. 13–15].
65 Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 67 ll. 25–27 (Coptic), 645 (trans.).
66 Leo Depuydt, “A New Verb Form in Coptic,” in From Gnostics to Monastics: Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton (ed. David Brakke, Stephen J. Davis, and Stephen Emmel; OLA 263; Leuven: Peeters, 2017) 213–44.
67 The earliest-known published love spell from Egypt was found in Deir el-Medinah and dates to the Twentieth Dynasty (1186–1069 BCE); see Paul Smither, “A Ramesside Love Charm,” JEA 27 (1941) 131–32.
68 For an introduction to love spells in the Greek-speaking world, see Christopher A. Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001).
69 For this latter category, see PGM VII.191–192; PDM xiv.335–355, 355–365, 1190–1193, 1194–1195; cf. PGM VII.405–406, 661–663.
70 PGM XII.365–375, XIII.239–242, LXVI.1–11, CXXVIa.1–21, CXXVIb.1–17; PDM xii.50–61, 62–75. For Coptic examples, see Egyptian Museum JdE 42573 1.1–16, 2.20–23, 4.11–17 (TM 102268; 10th–11th cents. CE); P.Bosson (TM 316184; 6th–8th cents. CE); Leiden F 1964/4.14 v.16–7, 18–20 (11th cent. CE; edited in Michael Green, “A Late Coptic Magical Text from the Collection of the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden,” Oudheidkundige Mededelingen 67 [1987] 29–43); London Hay 10391 83–86, 89–90 (ACM 127; TM 100015; 6th–7th cents. CE); Louvre E.l4.250 (ACM 109; TM 99997; 10th cent. CE). For Greek examples, see the discussion in Christopher A. Faraone, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (ed. Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 3–32, at 13–14.
71 E.g., Egyptian Museum JdE 42573 2.1–5; Leiden F 1964/4.14 verso 11–12 (see n. 70).
72 PGM XIII.320–326.
73 Compare in particular PGM XXXVI.283–294; cf. PGM IV.352–353, VII.911–12.
74 ACM 135 l. 260 (recipe no. 10). Cf. Naqlun N. 41/97, an unpublished parchment text containing eight recipes, the first of which is intended to return an unfaithful or insubordinate wife to her husband; see Jacque van der Vliet, “Les Anges du Soleil,” Études Coptes 7 (2000) 319–27, at 320–21.
75 ACM 135 l. 269 (recipe no. 19).
76 Cairo 42573 recipe III (fol. 1 r 6–10; TM 102268; 10th–11th cents. CE); Émile Chassinat, Le manuscrit magique copte no. 42573 du Musée égyptien du Caire (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1955) 28–31; cf. P.Heid.Inv.Kopt. 678 verso (TM 102077; 11th cent. CE), which contains a curse whose final phrase ⲙ̇ⲡⲁⲧⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ ϣⲁⲧⲉϥⲥⲓⲙⲓ (l. 22: before he has gone to his wife) implies that it may be intended to prevent a husband from consummating his marriage. Greek parallels include PGM V.304–369 (TM 64368; 4th cent. CE), a binding spell whose purposes include ensuring that a particular man does not marry a particular woman (329–330: ὅπωϲ μὴ γαμήσῃ τὸν δεῖνα ἡ δεῖνα).
77 ACM 85 (TM 99574; 9th–11th cents. CE). In addition to the specific curse (Pharaouō must not have intercourse with Touaein), the victim is cursed to be unable to have sex with “any woman” (l. 9: ⲗⲁⲁⲩ ⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ). See also ACM 86 (TM 99576; 967 CE); ACM 87 (TM 99577; 7th–11th cents. CE) ll. 11–12.
78 ACM 87 ll. 11–12: “Neither shall he be able to undo the virginity of Seine the daughter of Moune” (ⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲉϥⲏϣ ⲃⲱⲗ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲓⲛⲉ ⲧϣⲉ ⲛⲙ̣ⲟⲩⲛ̣ⲉ). For the second example, see the following note.
79 ACM 86 ll. 25–28: “And you shall bind the virginity of NN (female); NN (male) shall not be able to undo (her) virginity until the virginity of the Holy Virgin is undone” (ⲕⲉⲙⲟⲩⲣ · ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ ⳽̅⳽̅ ⲛⲉ⳽̅ ⲛⲁⲉϣ ⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ̅ⲃ̅ⲁ̅ⲗ̅ ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ ϣⲁⲛⲧⲟⲩⲃⲱⲗ ⲉ̅ⲃ̅ⲁ̅ⲗ̅ · ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲓⲁ ⲡ̅ⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃ).
80 That this was a concern for some parents may be implied by a passage from the Apocalypse of Paul which describes “those who defiled their virginity (ⲛⲧⲁⲩϫⲱϩⲙ ⲛⲡⲉⲩⲙⲛⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ) before they were given to husbands and before they were of age to be married, neither did their parents know of their doings,” being given necklaces of fire to wear in hell (Coptic version in Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 542 ll. 24–31 [Coptic], 1063 [trans.]). For a discussion of this motif in apocalyptic literature more widely see Martha Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983) 103–4.
81 Lyn Green, “In Search of Ancient Egyptian Virgins: A Study in Comparative Values,” JSSEA 28 (2001) 90–98; Janet H. Johnson, “Sex and Marriage in Ancient Egypt,” in Hommages à Fayza Haikal (ed. Nicolas-Christophe Grimal et al.; Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2003) 149–59.
82 Joachim F. Quack, “Der pränatale Geschlechtsverkehr von Isis und Osiris sowie eine Notiz zum Alter des Osiris,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 32 (2004) 327–32.
83 ACM 86 ll. 25–28; see n. 79.
84 One variant of celibate marriage could be a “continent marriage” where a couple married, had children, but then decided to renounce sexual relations. For example, Paulinus of Nola and his wife Therasia renounced their conjugal rights in ca. 390 CE after having at least one child (Augustine, Ep. 31.6, 127.9). Jerome likewise praised Theodora and her husband Lucinius for eventually renouncing sexual relations in their marriage (Ep. 75.2). Gregory of Nazianzus hailed his sister Gorgonia in her funeral oration for combining celibacy and marriage; after bearing five children she and her husband renounced their conjugal rights. See In laudem sororis suae Gorgoniae, Orationes 8.
85 Cf. Kate Cooper, The Fall of the Roman Household (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) 175, who discusses challenges and problems associated with terminology used to describe asexual marriages in late antiquity.
86 Elliott, Spiritual Marriage, 3; cf. Derrick S. Bailey, Sexual Relation in Christian Thought (New York: Harper, 1959) 33.
87 PGL s.v. συνείσακτος.
88 Elliott, Spiritual Marriage, 32 n. 56. Other pejorative titles included agapetae (“beloved”), mulieres adoptivae (“adopted women”), or mulieres extraneae (“women from without”). See Rosemary Rader, Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Relationship in Early Christian Communities (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 62 n. 2; cf. Antoine Guillaumont, “Le nome des ‘Agapètes,’ ” VC 23 (1969) 30–37.
89 Hans Achelis, Virgines subintroductae. Ein Beitrag zum VII. Kapitel des I. Korintherbriefs (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). For a history of the interpretation of this passage, see Elliot, Spiritual Marriage, 23 n. 22; on the patristic interpretation of this passage, see Elizabeth A. Clark, “John Chrysostom and the Subintroductae,” CH 46 (1977) 171–85, at 174–75.
90 From the middle of the 2nd cent. there is a passing reference in the Shepherd of Hermas (Herm. Sim. 9.11.3 [88.3]), in which his female companions inform him that he can sleep with them, but “as a brother and not as a husband” (κοιμηθήσῃ ὡς ἀδελφὸς καὶ οὐχ ὡς ἀνὴρ ἡμέτερος). On this passage, see Pierre de Labriolle, “Le ‘mariage spirituel’ dans l’antiquité chrétienne,” Revue Historique 137 (1921) 204–25, at 210. See also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.6.3; Pseudo–Clement, Ep. 1.10; 2.1, 10; Tertullian, Exh. cast. 12; Mon. 16; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.18.6.
91 Cyprian, Ep. 4 (ca. 250–258 CE; Opera omnia: S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia [ed. Guilelmus de Hartel; CSEL 3.2; Vienna: Geroldi, 1871] 472–78). See also Ep. 13.5.1 and 14.3.2.
92 Ep. 4.1.
93 Cyprian, Ep. 4. A short time later Paul of Samosata was condemned at the Council of Antioch (ca. 268 CE) in part because, according to Eusebius, he had cohabited with “syneisaktoi (συνεισάκτους), as the residents of Antioch call them”; Hist. eccl. 7.30.12 (Eusèbe de Césarée. Histoire ecclésiastique [ed. Gustave Bardy; SC 41; Paris: Cerf, 1955] 217).
94 Council of Elvira Canon 27 (on this canon, see Samuel Laeuchli, Power and Sexuality: The Emergence of Canon Law at the Synod of Elvira [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1972] 129), and Council of Ancyra Canon 19.
95 Council of Nicaea Canon 3.
96 de Labriolle, “Le ‘mariage spirituel,’ ” 222 n. 1.
97 Justinian, Nov. 123c29.
98 Roger E. Reynolds, “Virgines Subintroductae in Celtic Christianity,” HTR 61 (1968) 547–66; Claudia Bornholdt, Saintly Spouses: Chaste Marriage in Sacred and Secular Narrative from Medieval Germany (12th and 13th Centuries) (Tempe, AZ: ACMRS, 2012).
99 Gregory of Nyssa, De virginitate 23.
100 Basil of Caesarea, Ep. 55.
101 Gregory of Nazianzus, Epig. 10–20 (Sancti Patris Nostri Gregorii Theologi, vulgo Nazianzeni, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, opera quae exstant omnia [ed. J.-P. Migne; PG 38; Paris: Imprimerie catholique, 1862] 85–93).
102 Gregory of Nazianzus, Epig. 15 (Sancti Patris Nostri Gregorii Theologi, vulgo Nazianzeni, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, opera quae exstant omnia, 89–90).
103 Jerome, Ep. 22.14 (Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis Presbyteri opera omnia [ed. J.-P. Migne; PL 22; Paris: Imprimerie catholique, 1845] 402–3).
104 Refutation Directed against those Men Cohabiting with Virgins and On the Necessity of Guarding Virginity. On the dating of these texts, see Clark, “John Chrysostom and the Subintroductae,” 175; see also Elizabeth A. Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends: Essays and Translations (New York: Mellen, 1979) 160.
105 John Chrysostom, Fem. reg. 2; cf. 5. In Ep. 22.13, Jerome also notes that the wombs of such “virgins” sometimes swelled.
106 Alwis has noted that in general there was not a technical term or phrase used to identify this kind of marriage by church fathers or in hagiographical writings (Celibate Marriages, 63). However, the Coptic Life of Abba John Khame refers to its protagonist’s celibate marriage as a “spiritual” (ⲡⲛ(ⲉⲩⲙ)ⲁⲧⲓⲕⲟⲛ [πνευματικόν]) or “immaterial union” (ⲟⲩϩⲱⲧⲡ ⲙ̅ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧϩⲩⲗⲏ [privative ⲁⲧ + ὕλη]); see Davis, “Life of Abba John Khamé,” 327 [15 ll. 9, 12].
107 Herm. Vis. 2.2.3 (6.3).
108 Methodius, Symposium (Convivium decem virginum) 9.4 (Méthode d’Olympe. Le Banquet [ed. Herbert Musurillo and Victor-Henri Debidour; SC 95; Paris: Cerf, 1963] 278–79), registers continent couples in the vision of the elect. Cf. Sententiae Sexti 230a and b; Clement, Strom. 6.45–49.
109 On the 3rd-cent. date of this text, see J. Keith Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 442.
110 De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima. This text was preserved among the writings of Cyprian. For a discussion, see Melissa Harl, “The Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics: Ps.-Cyprian, De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,” StPatr 36 (2001) 94–98.
111 David G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (OECS; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) 114–15.
112 Paulinus of Nola, Carm. 25.233 (Paulini Nolani Carmina [ed. Franz Dolveck; CCSL 21; Turnhout: Brepols, 2015] 660).
113 Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 18.5.
114 For a possible passing reference, see Athanasius, Ep. virg. (Syr.) 29.
115 Palladius, h. mon. 22; h. Laus. 8. For an analysis of the variations preserved in the two accounts, which both agree that Amoun lived in a celibate marriage, see Susanna Elm, ‘Virgins of God’: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (OCM; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) 325–27; Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 38–39. In the later ecclesiastical histories of Socrates (Hist. eccl. 4.23) and Sozomen (Hist. eccl. 1.14), this story is picked up and retold with a few additional details.
116 John Cassian, Conf. 14.7.4–5 (Iohannis Cassiani. Conlationes XXIIII [ed. Michael Petschenig; CSEL 13; Vienna: Geroldi, 1886] 403–4). Cf. Conf. 21.4.2–9.4.
117 The 8th-cent. CE Life of Macarius of Scetis claims that on his wedding night he attempted to convince his new bride to live in a celibate marriage; she was less than thrilled with the idea of living in an asexual union, and this tension was only resolved by her untimely death shortly after the marriage. On this text and passage, see Saint Macarius the Spiritbearer: Coptic Texts Relating to Saint Macarius the Great (ed. and trans. Tim Vivian; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), §§ 7–9 (pp. 157–60). For the Coptic text of this treatise, see “Vie de Macaire de Scété,” in Histoire des monastères de la Basse-Égypte (ed. and trans. Emil Amélineau; Annales du Musée Guimet 25; Paris: Leroux, 1894) 46–117.
118 This account of Julian’s celibate marriage and passio is contained in the Life of Julian and Basilissa; see Alwis, Celibate Marriages, 157–248, for the Greek text, translation, and notes. §§ 5–9 (pp. 188–91) detail the circumstances of the oath of celibacy in the marriage.
119 Jerome, Vigil. 2 (Adversus Vigilantium [ed. J.-L. Feiertag; CCSL 79C; Turnhout: Brepols, 2005] 8). See also h. mon. 14.12–13 for another Egyptian example of someone abandoning their conjugal rights.
120 Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 32–33.
121 For a discussion of the date of the text, see Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 32–45, who also discusses the earlier and later traditions.
122 Coptic Martyrdoms in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (ed. and trans. Ernest A. Wallis Budge; London: Longmans, 1914) 146 l. 17 (Coptic), 399 (trans.); see also the revised translation in Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 128. Cf. Rev 4:6–8.
123 René Basset (ed. and trans.), “Le Synaxaire arabe-jacobite (redaction copte),” PO 16 (1922) 185–424, at 219 ll. 5–6. Compare the similar story of John Khame, discussed below, whose telling in the Synaxarium includes the detail (absent in his Bohairic vita) that the “angel of the lord, like a bird” descended from heaven and spread its wings over John and his wife as they slept; see René Basset (ed. and trans.), “Le Synaxaire arabe-jacobite (redaction copte),” PO 3 (1909) 243–545, at 520 ll. 5–6. Interestingly, the son of the governor also sees men “like gold, in the likeness of eagles” (ὡσεὶ χρυσοῦς ὡς ὁμοίωμα ἀετῶν)—clearly angels—attending Julian in the Life of Julian and Basilissa 2.27.12.
124 Basil T. A. Evetts (ed. and trans.), “History of Patriarchs of the Coptic Church. III. Agathon to Michael I (766),” PO 5 (1910) 1–215, at 206: “Abba Cyrus … had been married in his youth, and lived long with his wife in great devotion … And those two were pure virgins, sleeping on one bed for a long time.”
125 Davis, “Life of Abba John Khamé,” 326–28 [14–16]. On the dating and composition of this text, see Maged S. A. Mikhail, “A Lost Chapter in the History of Wadi al-Natrun (Scetis): The Coptic Lives and Monastery of Abba John Khame,” Mus 127 (2014) 149–85.
126 History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church, Known as the History of the Holy Church by Sawīrus Ibn Al-Muḳaffa‘, Bishop of Al-Ašmūnīn: Vol. II. Part II, Khaël III – Šenouti II (A.D. 880–1066) (ed. and trans. Aziz S. Atiya et al.; Cairo: Société d’Archéologie Copte, 1948) 124–28.
127 Alwis, Celibate Marriages, 114–15; Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 36–42.
128 Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 38. See also John Cassian, Conf. 21.4.2–9.4 (see n. 116).
129 Davis, “Life of Abba John Khamé,” 331 [19.7].
130 The Encomium on Demetrius in Mikhail, Legacy of Demetrius, 128.
131 Life of Julian and Basilissa 1.6. 4–11; Davis, “Life of Abba John Khamé,” 326 [14.3–17].
132 Examples of magical “spells” being internally referred to as “prayers” (ϣⲗⲏⲗ, προσευχή) may be found in ACM 61 l. 1, ACM 68 sec. IV l. 1, and ACM 73 l. 249.
133 For references, see n. 123.
134 Life of Julian and Basilissa 1.7.
135 Acts Thom. 11–13.
136 In the earliest Christian sources Mary’s virginity is assumed ante partum (Ign. Eph. 19.1; Justin, Dial. 87.2, 100.4–6 [cf. Matt 1:23 and Luke 1:27]). The Protevangelium of James from the 2nd cent. is the first text to put forth that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life (Prot. Jas. 9.1, 10; 13.1; 14.2, 16; 19.3–20.2). See also Clement, Strom. 7.16; Origen, Comm. Matt. 10.17. Mary’s perpetua virginitas received a significant confirmation at the second Council of Constantinople in 553 CE in Canon XIV with the phrase “glorious and ever-virgin Mary mother of God” (ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐνδόξου θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Mαρίας; Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta Editio Critica I. The Oecumenical Councils: From Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787) [ed. Giuseppe Alberigo; Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2006] 177).
137 See, for example, the Discourse of St. Cyril on the Virgin Mary: “come, Oh all you women who desire virginity (ⲉⲧⲉⲡⲓⲑⲩⲙⲉⲓ̀ ⲉⲧⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲡⲁⲣⲑⲉⲛⲟⲥ), emulate the example of Mary, the mother of my Lord” (Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 143 [Coptic], 721 [trans.]).
138 See “Notes” above.
139 ACM 86 ll. 25–28 (text in n. 79).
140 Although we should note the existence of a “fidelity spell” for use against a male target (see n. 75), it is striking that the majority of such spells—both in formularies and applied texts—focus on female faithfulness. On the focus of hagiographies on female virginity, see Alwis, Celibate Marriages, 99–107.
141 As David Frankfurter has noted (Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018] 193–96), the producers and users of magical texts seem in many cases to have been monks, although we cannot exclude the participation of other categories of literate individuals. The predominance of monastic sites in the archeology of Christian Egypt may bias our evidence.
142 See ACM 57a l. 1 (“send me (ⲛⲁⲓ) today Gabriel”); ACM 76 ll. 9–10 (“you will give a desire to me (ⲉⲣⲟⲓ)”).
143 See Alwis, Celibate Marriages, 63–65, 88–90.
144 The definition of liturgical texts poses several problems, although there is some general agreement among scholars in most cases about which texts should be described as such. For attempts at definitions, see Francesco Pedretti, “Introduzione per uno studio dei papiri cristiani liturgici,” Aeg 35 (1955) 292–97; Mihálykó, “Writing the Christian Liturgy,” 12–27.
145 For some preliminary notes on the relationship between magical and liturgical texts, see Ausgewählte Koptische Zaubertexte (ed. and trans. Angelicus Kropp; 3 vols.; Brussels: Edition de la Fondation égyptologique reine Elisabeth, 1931) 3:229–44.
146 We are not aware of any detailed linguistic studies of the early Greek and Coptic liturgy, so here we merely offer some preliminary observations, focusing on the verbs of invocation common to Greek and Coptic magical papyri, παρακαλέω and ἐπικαλοῦμαι. Looking through the three principal Greek liturgies used in the Coptic Church (Basil, Gregory, and Mark/Cyril), we find that they are used, without exception, in first person plural forms. In extending the study to the 4th-cent. CE liturgical prayers of Serapion of Thmuis, we find that this pattern is generally maintained, although we do find a single first person singular verb form. On these verbs in Greek and Coptic magical material, see Korshi Dosoo, “Zōdion and Praxis: An Illustrated Coptic Magical Papyrus in the Macquarie University Collection,” JCoptS 20 (2018) 11–56, at 21–22; cf. Ágnes T. Mihálykó, “Christ and Charon: PGM P13 Reconsidered,” SO 89 (2015) 183–209, at 188.
147 We should note some important exceptions to this general rule, for which we are grateful for the comments of Ágnes Mihálykó. These include the Prayer of the Veil in the Liturgy of Gregory Nazianzus, in which the priest silently prays to God to be worthy of carrying out the divine liturgy. Such prayers are examples of the “I-Thou” style characteristic of this version of the liturgy; see Albert Gerhards, Die griechische Gregoriosanaphora. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des eucharistischen Hochgebets (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984) 156–65.
148 Adjurations in liturgical material seem very rare; there are none in the four liturgies examined in n. 146. A rare example is represented in the late fourth-century CE oil exorcism preserved in P.Monts.Roca. fol.156a ll. 7–156b l. 3, used to adjure (“exorcise”) the oil used to anoint the sick. We may note that the verb appears in the first person plural form ἐξορκίζομεν [sic] (156a l. 8; edition found in Ramón Roca-Puig, Anàfora de Barcelona I altres pregàries [Barcelona: Grafos, 1994] 87–115). Cf. PGM Christian 12 (TM 65256; 7th cent. CE), a prayer to heal a poisonous sting in which the speaker adjures (ἐξορκίζω, l. 9) the sting itself.
149 E.g., ACM 53 ll. 3–4, which adjures the Three Hebrew Youths; ACM 59v l. 2, which adjures the Lord; ACM 64 l. 1, etc., apparently an adjuration of God and/or his archangels; ACM 71 l. 2, etc., and ACM 73 ll. 148–149, etc., adjurations of Gabriel; ACM 77 l. 44, an adjuration of Michael; ACM 83 l. 19, an adjuration of Jesus.
150 For some examples of typical rituals used in Coptic magic, see the instructions which accompany the longer formularies, such as ACM 133 p. 5 l. 19–p. 11 l. 12; ACM 135 ll. 250–272.