You do not give bread to the hungry, from fear of imprisoning in flesh the limb of your God
Augustine, Faust 15.7
âµ
A continuous stream of donations, gifts, and semicommercial interactions provide the backdrop to most of the personal letters and business accounts from Kellis. Requests for material support, grumpy complaints about lost commodities, and detailed instructions for financial transactions permeate the letters, making them a rich source of information on the social relations and transactions of an Egyptian village economy. We find short snippets on the textile industry and indications of patronage relationships, but most often, the letters inform us about the inner workings of household economies. Geographically dispersed families, like those of Makarios and Pamour, had to depend on long-distance messages to request particular goods to be sent, sold, or given away. They called on next of kin, neighbors, patrons, and wider communities in times of need, thereby identifying informal networks of care.1
Manichaean almsgiving took place within this diverse economy. Despite the strong Manichaean ideology of gift-giving, believed to liberate the Living Soul from its prison in the material world, the local situation asked for a less articulate engagement with the elect. While the elect initiated written contact and employed Manichaean language and metaphors in their fundraising letters, the response from catechumens was almost invisible. Take for example Tehatâs letter to her son, urging him to âhave pity for them and you set up (?) some pots for them; for they have father nor mother.â2 Is she addressing almsgiving or charitable giving? Are the âpotsâ (or âthings,â
There are two reasons to inspect the practice of gift giving. The first is based on social-scientific research that connects group-formation and gift-exchange. Various social psychological and anthropological studies suggest that gifts reveals â as well as impose â identities on the giver and recipient. It is a âway of free associating about the recipient in his presence,â as it reveals âthe idea which the recipient evokes in the imagination of the giver.â3 To give alms was to perform Manichaeanness, especially if this took place in semipublic settings that allowed members of the community to recognize almsgivers as one of their own. Since late antique religious associations were often maintained through communal fundraising between people of various social-economic status â frequently framed in terms of almsgiving and charity â we should examine gift-giving patterns to detect similar strategies among Manichaeans.4 The second reason to focus on these interactions is Augustineâs claim that Manichaeans only gave goods to fellow-Manichaeans, since they equated charity to beggars with the murder of the Living Soul. If this is true, it signifies an important boundary between insiders and outsiders, Manichaeans and Christians. The Kellis material offers an opportunity to re-examine such heresiological and doctrinal positions from the perspective of lived religious practice and ask if giving indeed demarcated belonging.
The Manichaean Ideology of Giving
Manichaean theological and liturgical texts describe the interaction between elect and catechumens as centered around gift-exchange. The ascetic lifestyle of Manichaean elect was sustained by the gifts of catechumens, who received spiritual benefits in return. In the Kephalaia, giving is the first task of the catechumenate, alongside prayer and fasting (1 Keph. 80). Gifts to the elect have to be given âin righteousnessâ (
let us love poverty and be poor in the body but rich in the spirit. And let us be like the poor, making many rich, as having nothing, yet possessing power over the universe. What shall we do with gold and silver? Let us love God: his light is the power, his sage wisdom.6
In one of Maniâs Epistles found in Kellis (P.Kellis VI Copt. 53), the Manichaean community is redefined in terms of voluntary poverty, which distinguishes them from all the other religious communities of the world. The author (Mani?) writes: â[Y]ou have become people made better by blessed poverty,â7 and
you are obliged the more now to perfect the blessing of poverty, by which you will gain the victory over the sects and the world. It is profitable for you to perfect it and be vigilant in it, because (poverty) is your glory, the crown of your victory.8
This emphasis on poverty as a sign of belonging is translated into the pressing commandment for the elect to strip themselves of the world (P.Kellis VI Copt. 53, 82.12).9 The opposition between earthly wealth and the love of God is further explored in another psalm, a version of which was found in Kellis. The psalmist appropriates a biblical parable when he exhorts the catechumens not to âacquire treasure for yourselves upon the earth, the place of moths and thieves.â10 Evoking the same biblical parable, one of the elect praises the catechumen Eirene because she acquired âfor herself her riches and stored them in the treasuries that are in the heights, where moths shall not find a way, nor shall thieves dig through to them to steal; which (storehouses) are the sun and the moon.â11 In contrast to the elect, for whom acquiring riches would be a major transgression, Eirene is praised for her wealth, showing that rhetoric usually associated with voluntary poverty was appropriated and applied to the framework of gift-giving.
In return for their gifts, catechumens were promised release from the cycle of transmigration (1 Keph. 91 and 127).12 In fact, the Kephalaia states that alms gift âbecomes an intercessor (
In Manichaeism, more than in Christianity, the obligation to give was motivated by a complex belief system about the cosmos, gnosis, and the role of the purified human body. The Kephalaia explicitly states that almsgiving leads to the rescue of the Living Soul that âis entangled and bound in the entire universe,â which it says âshall be freed and cleansed and purified and redeemedâ on account of almsgivers.16 The fasting of the elect leads to the purification of their bodies, which could then filter the Living Soul from food. The soul âcomes into him [the elect] daily in the metabolism of his food, becomes pristine, and is purified, separated, and cleansed from the mixture with the Darkness that is mixed with it.â17 This liberation was achieved through a daily ritual meal, which Peter Brown describes as âan exceptionally high-pitched version of the spiritual exchange between its leaders and the rank and file.â18 Manichaean texts understood this spiritual exchange as a daily obligation: â[H]is alms that he gives on every day of the year.â19 Freed from their material prison, the transempirical sparks of Light ascended into the world of Light on a daily basis.20
Manichaean liturgical and theological texts sketch two scenarioâs for where and how food alms were to be given. In one scenario, the elect were expected to beg for alms, following Maniâs example, who was portrayed in the CMC as abstaining from the vegetables of his Baptist community until they were given to him as a donation (CMC 9.1, 142.3â13, this model is implied in the descriptions in 1 Keph 150). Some sections of the Kephalaia, additionally, are very negative about elect who depart from the company of their brothers and eat and drink alone.21 Instead, Manichaean elect should celebrate a ritual meal together after catechumens carry the alms gifts to the âtableâ (e.g. Hom. 28.10â12).22 One of the psalms explains that Manichaeans, just like Christians, carried their gifts into communal gatherings: âwhen thou comest in with thy gift to set it on the altar, be reconciled with thy adversary that thy gift may be received from thee.â23 Likewise, 1 Keph 81 places the fasting of the elect in a communal setting in which fifty elect gathered together. Liturgical gatherings involving almsgiving, communal singing, and ritual meals for the elect are frequently described in polemical accounts and Middle Persian, Parthian, and Chinese Manichaean sources, which include a liturgical stage directory for ceremonial processions in which alms were brought in (see chapter 5 on Manichaean liturgical gatherings in Egypt).24
Manichaean catechumens were encouraged not only to give food alms, but also to invest all they had in the church. This included the donation of a child or enslaved person to the service of the church and the construction of a house (
Five Types of Giving in the Kellis Letters
Gifts, commercial exchange, and the transportation of commodities from the Nile valley to the oasis are practices that appear frequently in the papyri. They can be divided into five overlapping categories: (1) gifts to the elect, (2) economic interaction, (3) household support structures, (4) charity, and (5) patronage.
Gifts to the Elect
Manichaean almsgiving in practice was defined by long desert journeys and prolonged periods of absence. The elect lived itinerant lives, traveling in the Nile valley and occasionally visiting the oasis. Through their letters, they appealed to the goodwill of their support network in the oasis. How the inhabitants of Kellis responded to such requests is not always clear, as none of the other letters explicitly refers to almsgiving. Despite such absence of evidence, scholars have tied various passages to the electsâ requests, identifying how business owners, such as Tehat, invested part of the money they earned with textile manufacturing and trade in their religious duties toward the elect.29
Manichaeans in Kellis were familiar with the expectations regarding almsgiving. The authors of P.Kellis V Copt. 31 and 32 used explicit and elaborate Manichaean phrases to introduce and frame their requests for material support from anonymous daughters, thereby showcasing how deeply some Manichaeans integrated their ideology into daily life. Stressing their dependence, they write, â[Y]ou being for us helpers, and worthy patrons and firm unbending pillars, while we ourselves rely upon you,â saying, âtherefore I beg you, my blessed daughters, that you will send me two choes of oil. For you know yourself that we are in need here since we are afflicted.â30 The designator used indicates that wealthy female catechumens in the oasis were the primary audience of the letter. Although two choes of oil was not much (about 6.5 liters), it may have been requested on behalf of a larger retinue, and similar requests were probably made often.31 Since the anonymous address of P.Kellis V Copt. 31 suggests that it was used as a circular letter, the authors may have amassed the requested commodities into a stockpile of wheat and oil.
While some of the elect solicited alms from a distance, there were direct and personal connections with Kellis. Eirene, the recipient of P.Kellis V Copt. 32, was ordered by a âfatherâ to âdo the work and mix the warp until I come,â32 suggesting that she â just like Tehat â produced garments of various sorts. The letter urges her to continue her work for financial reasons, or to produce clothing for the elect until he would come to visit her.33 Manichaean phrasing and allusions to biblical texts support the latter interpretation â that the letter writer was soliciting alms. The instruction to âdo the workâ (
Whether or not the elect specifically solicited alms in these two letters, there are various indications of a more economic nature of the interactions between elect and catechumens. The author of the letter to Eirene writes that they will meet again. On this occasion, he will âsettle our accountâ (
A fourth letter may have been drafted in connection with gift-giving, as it contains strong similarities with P.Kellis V Copt. 31 and 32. While, in contrast to these two letters, P.Kellis I Gr. 63 addresses two men in Greek, it shows all the characteristics of a fundraising letter.42 The (anonymous) author praises the addressees, Pausanias and Pisistratos, for their good reputations and pious characters, wishing to âreveal this as much as possible and to extend it through this letter.â43 Instead of directly asking for oil and wheat, the author states: â[M]ay you remain so helpful for us as we prayâ and â(later) again we benefit also from the fruits of the soul of the pious.â44 These âfruitsâ indicate Manichaean almsgiving, since Manichaean literature frequently used the metaphor of fruit(s) (
Economic Interaction
Monetary gifts are notoriously difficult to distinguish from other types of gift exchange, as the financial endowment is not often made explicit in writing. Since few letters are devoid of economic transactions, there is ample opportunity to examine these situations with a religious background in mind. Orionâs interactions regarding textile production provide an example of letters open to multiple interpretations. In two Coptic letters, Orion discusses cowls produced for, or in association with, the elect. As in the interaction between the anonymous father and Eirene, the status of the work remains ambiguous: where the cowl a gift or part of a commercial interaction?
In Orionâs letter to a weaving workshop, he complains about having to pay for a cowl that he has given to the âbrothers.â He says to the weavers:
You wrote: âif you like it, keep it, or else 1,300 talents.â So, I wrote to you that day that I had given it to the brothers (
â²Ìâ²â²¥Ì£â²Ì£â²â²© ). Do you have no news? I will give you its price. Lauti told me: âthe one that you (sing.) want I will bring it to you for 1,200 (talents).â (But) I did not take word from him [i.e. âmake an agreement with,â according to the editors of the papyri]. I said that there is no need. Now, then, will you (pl.) satisfy me in every way?48
What happened between Orion and the workshop? According to the editors, Orion âhas given a cowl as a free gift to some âbrothersâ; which probably should be understood as alms given to the local Manichaean elect.â49 The weaving workshop that sent the cowl wrote to him requesting payment. Orion expresses his discontent because he thought he clearly indicated that it was a gift. If he wanted to buy it, he could have had a lower price with Lauti!50 However, since the letter continues with discussion of further business transactions, the actual conflict may not have been a major problem. Was there really a gift to begin with or are we led astray by too strong a religious interpretation of âthe brothersâ? Apart from Manichaean elect, this term could very well designate close colleagues, relatives, or biological brothers. In the absence of more specific designators, the simplest interpretation is probably the best. The fact that Orion has âgivenâ (
A second letter by Orion addresses Tehat and Hatre regarding similar business interactions (P.Kellis V Copt. 18). He reminds them that several types of garments should be made and dyed, and wool must be bought for at least 2,500 talents. He orders them (?) to âmake them weave a cowl for the double-fringed gown (?) of our brother Sa[..]ren the presbyter.â51 Was this cowl an alms gift produced for one of the Manichaean elect? The name Saren reappears in the letter cited above (P.Kellis VII Copt. 58), where it says:
These fabrics and these cowls belong to our brother Saren. Now, as he will come, would you be so very kind ⦠bid (?) Eraklei to write to get them to come to the Oasis; and I shall also go there and see you. He wants the fabrics to make them into jerkins.52
In this case, brother Saren provided the cowlsâ fabrics, and he would pick the product up after his journey in the Nile valley. Orion himself operated in this way when he sent fabric to Lautine for a kolobion and a cowl (P.Kellis V Copt. 18). Instead of receiving an alms gift, it appears that Saren was conducting long-distance business with Orion and various intermediaries. Still, one could argue that âbrother Sarenâ was the Manichaean (?) presbyter in Orionâs letter P.Kellis V Copt. 18. This would require an alternative reconstruction to remove the lacuna in the papyrus (âour brother Sa[..]ren the presbyter,â
Household-Support Structures
Most letters with requests for commodities were part of a household-support structure. The household was âthe most important institution for the health and welfare of its members, and the basis for redistributing resources between generationsâ; it played âa critical role in caring for the vulnerable members of society: children, the ill, the disabled, and the old.â55 The social expectations concerning obligation, mutual support, and reciprocity were primarily informal, and traditional patterns of family support intersected only occasionally with formalized legal obligations of care (like those related to property and inheritance). Most settings were governed by traditional common sense. The household, defined as those people who share one roof, which included kin, non-kin, and enslaved persons, supported each other in times of difficulty, whether this included losing a partner, child, or parent, suffering from childlessness, or struggling with old age. Failure to support each other had strong social implications. To neglect the obligation to care for oneâs parents, for example, could affect claims on the inheritance (see the tensions in P.Kellis VII Copt. 64, discussed in chapter 1).56
In the papyri, the household was the main location for gift-giving and economic transactions. The family was the âprimary site of production, reproduction, consumption and the intergenerational transmission of property and knowledge undergirding production in the Roman world.â57 As in elsewhere in the later Roman Empire, the women at Kellis worked at home. They had a central role as key figures in family networks, especially when their husbands and sons traveled into the Nile valley to conduct trade and sell agricultural goods from the oasis.58 As a result, a large number of Kellis letters (the editors suggest more than forty percent) were either written by women, or addressed to them.59 The correspondences of Makarios, Matthaios, and Piene reveal that âmother Mariaâ in Kellis was kept in the loop for all daily accounts and expenses. Some of Makariosâs requests to Maria dealt with the everyday concerns of their household. For example, he asks Maria to send support for their children, âsend a pair of sandals to Matthaios, for he has none at all.â60 Other sections of the letters reveal that Maria had to sell goods to raise money for Makariosâs journey with the children (P.Kellis V Copt. 19.32). The financial situation of their household must have been precarious, since in the same letter Makarios suggests a number of fundraising strategies to Maria. He is not able to afford the entire tariff and asks her to write âthe woman withinâ (
Since Makariosâs children traveled with the elect, their requests obscure the distinction between household support and almsgiving. In P.Kellis V Copt. 20, Makarios again complains about Mariaâs neglect, accusing her of no longer remembering them at all. She had promised to send letters and goods with Philammon and Pamour of Tjkoou, but never delivered:
The other things that you spoke about, saying: âI will send them by way of Pamourâ; and even the garment for Mathaios, you did not send it! Now indeed, if you have fixed it, then send it to him; for he needs it. Also the cushion; and the book about which I sent to you saying: âsend it to meâ; you have neither send it nor said why you have not sent it!63
While details about the book and the cushion remain unexplained, it may be that a Manichaean book was sent along with Matthaiosâs repaired garment (maybe for him to copy, see chapter 7).64
Mutual support extended beyond the immediate family, and included Manichaean ânext of kin.â The distinction between the two is not always easy, as the heavy usage of fictive kinship terminology makes it almost impossible to reconstruct who belonged to the household and who belonged to a wider Manichaean network. Still, various exchanges took place between Manichaean catechumens. In the postscript of P.Kellis VII Copt. 66, for example, Maria mentions two portions of pickled fish to be given to Chares, who is known from letters with explicit Manichaean repertoire.65 It they are indeed both catechumens, the fish stands out. The ideology behind ritualized almsgiving suggests that food and inedible almsgifts, given to anyone other than the Manichaean elect, cannot support the liberation of the Living Soul (note also the earlier mentioned rejection of fish as an improper alms gift).
Despite this line of thought, there is one section in the Kephalaia where gifts to catechumens are discussed (1 Keph. 77). In this chapter, Mani proclaims that those who give are greater than the four greatest kingdoms on earth: âwhoever will give bread and a cup of water to one of my disciples on account of the name of God, on account of this truth that I have revealed; that one is great before God.â The recipients of these gifts of water and bread (traditional ascetic Eucharistic food) now include catechumens, as the Kephalaia states that, âwhoever will give bread and a cup of water to a catechumen of the truth, on account of the name of God and on account of the truth that has become evident to those who came near to the truth, his end will turn to rest forever.â Just as catechumens are praised for their almsgiving, donors who give to catechumens receive praise: âwhoever will have fellowship with catechumens who are within the knowledge, and helps them, he surpasses these kingdoms that I have counted for you.â66 Technical terminology like âalmsâ and âfellowship,â commonly used for catechumensâ gifts to the elect, is applied to the gifts to catechumens, â[H]e will give them alms and have fellowship with them.â67 In fact, it may have had similar benefits as normative alms gifts to the elect, as the text promises that the giverâs âend will turn to eternal rest.â68 In this way, gifts to fellow catechumens carried cosmic significance. The inclusion of catechumens as recipients of gift exchange may have originated in situations similar to the one in Kellis, where the circumstances led to a system of long-distance support of both elect and catechumens, equally dependent on the help of family, friends, and fellow Manichaeans.
Charity to Non-elect
Augustineâs remarks about Manichaean food exclusivity are cited at the outset of this chapter. In polemical language, he accuses Manichaeans of selfishness and gluttony, stating that they never gave bread to beggars because it would hurt the Living Soul. In fact, he notes that to Manichaeans, giving bread to beggars equaled murder, as the Living Soul could not be released when food was given to someone other than the elect.69 A thought-provoking reference to this type of giving is found in a fragmentary passage regarding a business transaction in Kellis. The author, a woman who may be identified as Tehat, urges her son to
have pity for them and you set up (?) some pots for them; for they have father nor mother. And until you know (?), the baked loaves ⦠every widow eats (?) ⦠find it ⦠charity (
â²â²â² ); and he ⦠and he has mercy (â²Ï¥â²â²â²Ì£ ) on them in theirâ¦.70
This passage seems to imply that Tehat wants her son to provide charity to widows and orphans, although the fragmentary nature hampers fuller understanding. Could this mean that the Manichaeans in Kellis gave food for charitable purposes?
The current interpretations of this passage favor Augustineâs polemical accounts over a minimalist reading. Rather than considering the possibility of mundane charitable gifts, Majella Franzmann, Johannes van Oort, and HÃ¥kon F. Teigen suggest that the account actually refers to Manichaean alms gifts to the elect.71 This option is legitimate, as Manichaean liturgical texts sometimes portray the elect as strangers who left the houses of their parents; they could be understood as spiritual orphans in need of support.72 Tehat mentions not only orphans (
On the other hand, a minimalist approach must ask whether Manichaeans really stopped supporting family members and needy neighbors. It is hard to imagine a village life in which the boundaries of solidarity-based giving were strictly limited to peopleâs own religious elites, even though there are modern religious groups that take a strong exclusive stance. Franzmann also questions her own harmonization of the sources. âPerhaps,â she rightly suggests, âAugustine was not completely right in every case.â73 As forcefully argued by Baker-Brian, Augustine employs all of his considerable rhetorical talents to ridicule and denigrate his former coreligionists.74 Augustineâs remarks about food exclusion have to be read in the larger context of his charge of gluttony against Manichaeans: the elect lacked self-control and had to stuff themselves with food, since no leftovers were allowed. Augustine even accused Manichaeans of force-feeding children to death to preclude leftover food (Mor. Manich. 2.16.52).75 He repeatedly emphasized the vices of Manichaeans, who he said were not even capable of holding the rules of the Decalogue without distorting them (Faust. 15.7). These passages do not directly help us to interpret Tehatâs âcharity,â but they illustrate Augustineâs polemical agenda.
Patronage
Inhabitants of Kellis depended on the goodwill of their local patrons. The social structure in which wealthy patrons gave commodities and services to their clients in return for honor, votes, or other services was one of the fundamentals of Roman society.76 In Late Antiquity, some of these patronage structures changed as a result of the increasing complexity and fragmentation of society. Urban and rural councilors, emerging bishops, ascetics, military leaders, former magistrates, and the provincial governor and his staff were all potential patrons who competed for the favor of the general population. Villagers could, therefore, shift allegiances, play their patrons, and seek the services that benefited them best.77 This led the fourth-century Antiochian rhetor Libanius to complain about the decay of well-structured society. In his opinion, peasants used the multiplicity of available patrons to their advantage, though ideally it was the rural landlord who assumed âthe role of the protector, monopolizing the dual functions of a patron, as a provider of protection and resources and as a broker controlling access to the outside world.â78
The Kellis papyri show patronage at work in the Greek legal appeals to Roman military and administrative elites (e.g. P.Kellis I Gr. 20) and the material support of Pausanias, the strategos of the oasis (P.Kellis I Gr. 38ab). The latter example most clearly illustrates how the relationship was built on pseudo-economic transactions (in this case involving an âirrevocable gift,â see chapter 2). One of the most important patronage relationships was between a client and his landlord. While we cannot identify direct relationships between a landlord and the families living in the Houses 1â3, the papyri show exactly how various obligations to landlords were paid. Sometimes the rent was paid in silver drachmas (P.Kellis I Gr. 62), but commodities such as wheat, barley, and dates were frequently used to replace money (KAB 330ff, 1146, 1167 etc.). Likewise, wages could be paid in barley (P.Kellis V Copt. 48), wheat (P.Kellis V Copt. 46), or oil (P.Kellis V Copt. 47 for the production of a piece of garment).79 This indicates that food gifts were commonly given within existing commercial or patronage relationships.80
Summary: Gift Giving at a Distance
When all the evidence for the plurality of socioeconomic engagement in the Kellis letters is taken into account, the centrality of Manichaean almsgiving fades into the background. Although itinerant elect certainly asked for the support of Manichaean catechumens, most of the letters attest to economic interactions and local gift exchanges that occurred for more mundane reasons. Manichaean almsgiving was affected by the geographical circumstances of the oasis, particularly the long distance traveling to the Nile valley. In contrast to the situations sketched in Manichaean doctrinal texts, the elect and catechumens in Kellis did not gather on a daily basis for almsgiving and a ritualized meal. In fact, most references to the elect place them firmly outside the oasis. Both of the electâs fundraising letters explicitly locate the father(s) âin Egypt,â which designated the Nile valley.81 Makariosâs, Pieneâs and Matthaiosâs letters also report about the elect residing in Alexandria or traveling the cities of the valley. Apa Lysimachos was said to reside in Antinoou (P.Kellis V Copt. 21), where he could forward letters to the oasis and back. The Teacher also traveled toward Alexandria with his entire retinue and Piene (P.Kellis V Copt. 29). This does not mean that the elect never visited the oasis. On the contrary, some may have visited the village and organized a type of gift exchange that corresponded to the local circumstances, so that the elect, despite geographical distance, could survive.
The Manichaean families in the oasis were several days of travel removed from the Nile valley. Other Manichaean communities must have existed throughout Egypt, forming a regional network that supported itinerant elect. Despite the general dearth of evidence for these other communities, we do have Greek Manichaean letters of recommendation attesting to a group style centered around itinerancy. Two Greek letters of recommendation from Oxyrhynchus could be identified as Manichaean after the discovery and translation of the Kellis letters (P.Oxy. XXXI 2603 and P.Oxy. LXXIII 4965).82 Not only do they reveal a widespread Manichaean network in Egypt, but they also illustrate the way in which travelers were vouched for. In one of these letters, a man named Paul writes brother Serapion about his friends: â[R]eceive them therefore in love, as friends, for they are not catechumens but belong to the company of Ision and Nikolaos.â83 Another letter writer, Ammonius, writes in recommendation of unnamed travelers, asking that they might be received by âyou and the brethren at your place in faith of the Paracletic Mind; for nothing more holy (?) has he commanded us.â84 Both letter writers, thus, testify about the Manichaean affiliation of travelers, recommending them to local families or communities for hospitality. The travelers in Paulâs letter are identified as elect, since they were ânot catechumens,â but belonged to the retinue of two individuals who were supposedly known to Serapion. These men, Ision and Nikolaos, could have been Manichaean officials whose names carried some authority.85 With such authorization and recommendation, the traveling elect could be welcomed and received in a proper way. The second passage does not identify the travelers as elect or catechumens, but explicitly reminds its recipients of their shared faith and frames the request by mentioning the âParacletic mind,â which is never used in other papyrus letters outside the Kellis corpus. The Greek Manichaean letters of recommendation, thus, illustrate how a network based on long-distance connections could function without everyday interactions.
The Agape, a Manichaean Ritual Meal?
When it comes to the evidence for alms gifts, the identification of the agape (
The Greek term agape, literally meaning love, was used for a variety of ritual practices in Late Antiquity. Andrew McGowan examined the widespread use of the word and concludes that âwe should probably stop speaking of âthe agapeâ as through there was an ancient consensus about it that we could use in clear absence of any modern one.â87 Instead, he argues, a âdiversity of practices and terminologies, all of which share some relation to one another,â is shown in ancient Christian literature and inscriptions.88 During the first centuries of Christian literature, the agape designated a charitable meal used to support the poor.89 In the third century, communal gatherings began to take place in the morning, and included a ritualized meal that was symbolic in character. These symbolic meals were led by the clergy, and the previously celebrated household banquets gradually became associated with heretics.90 In the fourth and fifth century, the Eucharist became the central ritual of Christian communal gatherings. By that time, charity and communion with the poor were no longer expressed through a weekly agape meal (in the evening). Instead, the term that now connoted (brotherly) love, charity, and meals came to be used for a wide variety of charitable and alimentary practices. In the Apophthegmata Patrum, for example, âin charityâ (
the gifts [that] have been distributed and been [â] among the friends of the agape (
â²ÌÏ£â²â²Ì£[â²£â²] â²ÌⲧⲠⲧâ²â² â²â²¡â² )! Behold, the sects have been smitten and destroyed. Behold, the alms (ⲧâ²â²Ìⲧâ²â²â² ) are appointed with those who give them.94
Whether the âfriends of the agapeâ were the elect (those who received the gifts) or the catechumens (âthose who give them [i.e. the alms gifts],â
Agape is mentioned six times in the Coptic letters and business accounts from Kellis (see Table 12), and fifteen times in the agricultural account book (KAB). In all instances, the term relates to food gifts, in particular oil, wheat, olives, grapes, lentils, and lupin seeds, but none of the authors makes a Manichaean context explicit. The interpretation that recognizes these donations as Manichaean alms gifts, therefore, mostly rests on the Manichaean repertoire used in Orionâs letters, and a prioritization of systematic reconstructions of Manichaean doctrine and behavioral norms.96
Zooming in on the specifics, what did Orion do with the agape? In P.Kellis V Copt. 17, Orion writes to Hor that he has received oil from Sabes and stored it somewhere, saying, âwe take in much oil for the agape, in that we are many, and they consume much oil.â97 After discussing some of the other business arrangements, Orion returns to the topic and promises to âmake the agape for theâ¦.â98 In another letter to Hor, Orion refers to a similar situation in which he received oil from Raz, and left it (somewhere, with someone?) âfor the agape, like you said.â In both cases, he takes full personal responsibility: âDo not bother (?) yourself with the agape. I will do it rejoicing,â and he promises to send âhis shareâ (
References to agape in the Coptic personal letters
A comparison with the agape gifts in the KAB can contribute to our understanding of agapeâs meaning in the village of Kellis. The monthly expenditures listed in the accounts of a large estate include frequent agape gifts, recorded, although inconsistently, in the first four months of the year (see Table 13). These expenses are strictly related to agricultural products like wheat, wine, or cheese, just like the agape gifts in the Coptic letters, in which oil seems to take a central position. The editor of the account book suggests that âthe usage in the KAB is certainly compatible with the view that these offerings were intended for use in a communal meal.â104 This communal meal might have been organized with regularity in the first couple of months of the year, or as an annual event that took place after the first four months. As in the Coptic accounts, the agape was the result of individual private donations. The KAB lists agape in association with specific women: âfor alms of Thatâ (
Agape gifts in the KAB per month as related to modern calendara
The regular occurrence of the agape gifts and their association with individual donors in the KAB and the Coptic papyri may support an alternative interpretation that does not require one to categorize Orionâs agape gifts (generally considered part of a Manichaean meal or redistribution system) differently from those in the KAB (generally considered non-Manichaean gifts because they included cheese and wine, 116, 448, 940). All instances could have been part of a process of charitable redistribution, in which individuals donated part of the harvest, collected it, and gave it in preparation for Easter. The KAB explicitly allocates one of the agape gifts in the same month as the Easter arrangements (called the âfestival of Parmouthi,â
Conclusions
Manichaeans in Kellis were familiar with almsgiving. They received fundraising letters from the elect, and some families and individuals actively supported these itinerant fathers from a distance. The papyri, however, also show the ambiguity of gift-giving within a village setting. Rather than strictly following a Manichaean ideology of almsgiving, it seems like some of the interactions between catechumens and elect may have had commercial aspects to it. The way one observes these practices in the papyri is less one-dimensional than the practices espoused in Manichaean ideology; they are not explicitly focused on almsgiving. Frequently, economic interactions were not spelled out, and gifts were often recorded without any additional information. The group-specific Manichaean rationales for giving to the elect are never manifest in papyrus letters, apart from the religious framing of the electâs requests.109 Rather than identifying ambiguous gift-giving situations with Manichaean gift exchange, one ought to understand these interactions primarily in the context of everyday domestic support, economic interaction, and charitable distribution, all key ingredients of informal networks of care, which, according to Peregrine Horden, were typically âoperating between, at least as much as within, dwellings.â110 Indeed, the papyri show that the inhabitants of Kellis, like most ancient individuals, employed a broad spectrum of resources that could be called upon in need. If giving demarcated belonging, the boundaries were not strictly drawn along religious differentiations.
The geographical setting of Kellis fundamentally affected gift-exchange, allowing for a more pronounced lay participation when the elect were absent from the village. Without their ascetic religious specialists, the families in Kellis were left with the electâs letters and the assurance of their prayers. Alms were requested and given through a long-distance system of letters and gifts, which religious function is almost impossible to reconstruct with certainty. As a consequence, elect became incorporated into a domestic network of support and participated in long-distance economic interactions with family members, neighbors, and Manichaean catechumens. Rather than holding a daily centralized role in the religious lives of the families in Kellis, the itinerant Manichaean elect, known as vehicles of salvation, played a limited role. As BeDuhn rightly points out, âthose left behind shifted to alternative modes of activity by which they maintained their Manichaean identity and practice. Certain practices were suspended without an elect present,â whereby the âlocal cell became the sustainers of their own identification with the elusive world Manichaean organization.â111 This reconstruction of Manichaean life in Kellis is removed from Manichaean ideology found in the Kephalaia and critiqued by heresiologists like Augustine. Without daily ritual meals, the nature of almsgiving changed, maybe even to the extent that the exchange of gifts between catechumens were viewed with cosmic significance.
P. Horden, âHousehold Care and Informal Networks. Comparisons and Continuities from Antiquity to the Present,â in The Locus of Care: Families, Communities, Institutions, and the Provision of Welfare since Antiquity, ed. P. Horden and R. Smith (London: Taylor and Francis, 1997), 39. Sections of this chapter have been published as M. Brand, ââYou Being for Us Helpers, and Worthy Patrons â¦â (P.Kell.Copt 31): Manichaean Gift-Exchange in the Village of Kellis,â in Women in Western and Eastern Manichaeism, ed. M. Scopello (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 101â116.
P.Kellis V Copt. 43.16â19 (the Coptic text is cited and discussed below).
B. Schwartz, âThe Social Psychology of the Gift,â American Journal of Sociology 73, no. 1 (1967): 2; M. Hénaff, âCeremonial Gift-Giving: The Lessons of Anthropology from Mauss and Beyond,â in The Gift in Antiquity, ed. M.L. Satlow (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013), 16; I.F. Silber, âBeyond Purity and Danger: Gift-Giving in the Monotheistic Religions,â in Gifts and Interests, ed. A. Vandevelde (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 115â32; I.F. Silber, âEchoes of Sacrifice? Repertoires of Giving in the Great Religions,â in Sacrifice in Religious Experience, ed. A.I. Baumgarten (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 291â312. Further studies on the ancient world are included in M.L. Satlow, ed., The Gift in Antiquity (Chichester: John Wiley & Son, 2013).
R. Last and P.A. Harland, Group Survival in the Ancient Mediterranean (London: T&T Clark, 2020).
The Manichaean Psalmbook from Medinet Madi contains many songs praising poverty and including it as one of the honors of the Paraclete (2 PsB. 33.22). In the Psalms of Herakleides, poverty is one of the virtues summed up by the soul, as embraced and received in the process of rejecting sin (2 PsB. 97.31). In Kellis, we find this theme in T.Kellis II Copt. 2, 98.29. This approach to asceticism is found more widely in Late Antiquity, see D. Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks: Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 75â8 and 120â1.
BeDuhn, Manichaean Body, 198â9.
Most probably to be interpreted as the Manichaean elect,
I. Gardner, âManichaean Ritual Practice at Ancient Kellis: A New Understanding of the Meaning and Function of the So-Called Prayer of the Emanations,â in âIn Search of Truthâ: Augustine, Manichaeism and Other Gnosticism; Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty, ed. J.A. van den Berg, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 253n16 referring to 1 Keph. 115.
Brown, Treasure in Heaven, 38. Cf. J.J. Buckley, âTools and Tasks: Elchasaite and Manichaean Purification Rituals,â The Journal of Religion 66, no. 4 (1986): 399â411.
The daily ascent of Light is related to the waxing moon, which was believed to contain all the liberated Light. See 1 Keph. 65, 69, and 122. G. Kosa, âThe Manichaean Attitude to Natural Phenomena as Reflected in the Berlin Kephalaia,â Open Theology 1 (2015): 258â9. It is important to note the parallels not only with the Christian tradition(s) but with Zoroastrianism, in which the yasna is still the most important ritual meal. BeDuhn, âEucharist or Yasna?,â 14â36; A. HultgÃ¥rd, âRitual Community Meals in Ancient Iranian Religion,â in Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, ed. M. Stausberg (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 367â88.
1 Keph. 38 98.20 about âa solitary man,â using the designator
BeDuhn, The Manichaean Body, 126â143. In 1 Keph 85, 213.5â14, the elect are urged to eat mindfully in the presence of (?) the catechumens, who âgather[ed] it in, bringing it to the churchâ (212.11â12).
W. Sundermann, âA Manichaean Liturgical Instruction on the Act of Almsgiving,â in The Light and the Darkness: Studies in Manichaeism and Its World, ed. P.A. Mirecki and J.D. BeDuhn (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 204. In the eight-century Chinese Compendium, the elect are urged to wait in the monastery until the alms were brought in. S.N.C. Lieu, âPrecept and Practice in Manichaean Monasticism,â Journal of Theological Studies 32, no. 1 (1981): 162.
Schwartz, âThe Social Psychology of the Gift,â 10. The Kephalaia, for example, dismissed the Christian Eucharist (
1 Keph. 87 discusses alms gifts also in contrast with the gifts given in other religious communities, 1 Keph. 166 deals with a presbyter who kept alms for himself, 1 Keph. 144, 346.28â29 on fish and drunkenness, 1 Keph. 144, 347.21â24 lists further unclean ingredients as eggs, cheese, and poultry. Judgment is ready, moreover, for âthe one who takes as much punya-food as a grain of mustard and is not able to redeem it.â M6020, cited in J.D. BeDuhn, âDigesting the Sacrifices: Ritual Internalization in Jewish, Hindu, and Manichaean Traditions,â in Religion and Identity in South Asia and Beyond: Essays in Honor of Patrick Olivelle, ed. S. Lindquist (London: Anthem, 2011), 314.
M. Franzmann, âTehat the Weaver: Womenâs Experience in Manichaeism in Fourth-Century Roman Kellis,â Australian Religion Studies Review 20, no. 1 (2007): 23. Other fragmentary passages have also been surmised as related to Manichaean alms gifts. Among other studies, I note here the interpretation P.Kellis V Copt. 20 as revealing the complex and haphazard nature of almsgiving. Baker-Brian, âMass and Elite,â 177.
Bagnall, KAB, 49.
Franzmann, âTehat the Weaver,â 24. The active role of women in the oasis and the religious community is discussed more broadly in M. Franzmann, âThe Manichaean Women in the Greek and Coptic Letters from Kellis,â in Women in Western and Eastern Manichaeism, ed. M. Scopello (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 83â100.
First in line 29â30: âfight in every wayâ (
Franzmann, âAn âHereticalâ Use of the New Testament,â 155; Franzmann, âThe Treasure of the Manichaean Spiritual Life,â 235â42.
Crum, CD. 527b.
Struggles with financial interactions are also attested in a letter to Pshai (P.Kellis VII Copt. 70). Financial details are discussed with the head of the household (P.Kellis VII Copt. 82). Other instances mention payment include: for a cloak, paid in terms (âlittle by little,â P.Kellis VII Copt. 94), or for the repairs of a collarium (P.Kellis VII Copt. 103), and see also the financial details in P.Kellis VII Copt. 81, 94 and 95.
The reading of the Greek address is uncertain, either
In contrast to Klaas Worp, I see none of the formal characteristics of letters of recommendation. There is, for example, no specific request for hospitality, nor is a third party addressed who should offer it. C.H. Kim, Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature for the Seminar on Paul, 1972); Stowers, Letter Writing, 153â4; K. Treu, âChristliche Empfehlungs-Schemabriefe auf Papyrus,â in Zetesis: Album amicorum door vrienden en collegaâs aangeboden aan prof. dr. EÌ. de Strycker, ed. E. de Strycker (Antwerpen: Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1973), 634.
[
For example in P.Kellis VI Copt. 53, 42.24. Dubois, âGreek and Coptic Documents from Kellis,â 25.
Dubois, âGreek and Coptic Documents from Kellis,â 25.
[â¦.]â¦
Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT2, 23.
Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT2, 23. This interpretation is followed by Baker-Brian, âMass and Elite,â 177.
Teigen, The Manichaean Church in Kellis, 229, 238. It should be pointed out that presbyters in the Kellis papyri are not exclusively Manichaean. Non-Manichaean presbyters are mentioned in P.Kellis VII Copt. 124, without any specification in P.Kellis VII Copt. 92. Those addressed in the letter of the Teacher (P.Kellis VII Copt. 61) must have been Manichaean elect with an ecclesiastical function.
I see no reason to follow Duboisâs interpretation of the financial arrangements as belonging to a communal fund from which salary was paid to itinerant elect. J.D. Dubois, âUne lettre manichéenne de Kellis (P.Kell. Copt 18),â in Early Christian Voices, ed. D.H. Warren, A.G. Brock, and D.W. Pao (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 437; On economic interactions with other fourth-century ascetics, see Wipszycka, Ãtudes sur le christianisme dans lâÃgypte de lâantiquité tardive, 324; E. Wipszycka, Moines et communautés monastiques en Ãgypte (IVeâVIIIe siècles) (Warsaw: Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 2009), 519â26; J.E. Goehring, âThe World Engaged: The Social and Economic World of Early Egyptian Monasticism,â in Ascetics, Society, and the Desert (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 39â52. Examples of ascetics working in the textile industry include ascetics like Apa Paieous (P.Lond. 1920, 1922). Discussion about the way Christian ascetics were involved in the local economy has been fueled by the economic transactions in the letters from the cartonnage of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Ewa Wipszycka and John Shelton have argued against the monastic nature of some of these letters, as initially proposed by John Barns and defended in H. Lundhaug and L. Jenott, The Monastic Origins of the Nag Hammadi Codices (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 104â39. Examples of ascetics working in the textile industry include ascetics like Apa Paieous (P.Lond. 1920, 1922).
Huebner, Family in Roman Egypt, 3.
Discussed with the example of P.Oxy. VII 1067 (third century CE), in Bagnall and Cribiore, Womenâs Letters, 273.
Saller, âThe Roman Family as Productive Unit,â 116.
Some references to exceptional situations with women working outside the house are found in R.P. Saller, âWomen, Slaves, and the Economy of the Roman Household,â in Early Christian Families in Context, ed. D.L. Balch and C. Osiek (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 185â204.
Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT2, 13â14.
âThe woman withinâ is a designator used for someone who is greeted twice by Makarios (P.Kellis V Copt. 19.54, 65 and 22.78). The male version was sometimes used for a minor ecclesiastical office, cited in Crum, CD, 687a. Franzmann has rejected the option of a secluded electa, as this does not appear to have been a Manichaean tenet. Franzmann, âThe Manichaean Women in the Greek and Coptic Letters from Kellis.â
The initial request (or a repetition) is found in another letter asking for âthe dyed cushion for the bookâ as well as threads (
As stressed earlier, pure almsgiving is of pivotal importance to Manichaeans. Compare with the Parthian homily M6020, where the elect are warned only to accept food when they are able to redeem it. To do otherwise would be committing the gravest sin against the Living Soul, one that also rubs off on the catechumen who donated the food. The homily is published and discussed in W. Henning, âA Grain of Mustard,â AION-L (1965), 29â47.
M. Franzmann, âAugustine and Manichaean Almsgiving: Understanding a Universal Religion with Exclusivist Practices,â in Augustine and Manichaean Christianity, ed. J. van Oort (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 42â3; Cf. Teigen, The Manichaean Church at Kellis, 230. Recent scholars who consider Augustineâs testimony regarding Manichaeism as mainly reliable and that it may be critically used as historical evidence include J. van Oort, âThe Young Augustineâs Knowledge of Manichaeism: An Analysis of the Confessiones and Some Other Relevant Texts,â Vigiliae Christianae 62, no. 5 (2008): 441â66; Coyle, âWhat Did Augustine Know,â 251â63; J. van Oort, âAugustine and the Books of the Manichaeans,â in A Companion to Augustine, ed. M. Vessey (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 188â99. There is, moreover, an irony in Augustineâs emphasis on Manichaean gift exclusivity, since he himself urged his readers to give to a common fund under the distribution of the bishop, instead of giving directly to others. Augustine, Enarrat. Ps. 63.11, referred to in Finn, Almsgiving, 46.
Widows and orphans are frequently mentioned together in Early Christian writings (for example in the New Testament, James 1.27) and appear together in Manichaean writing as well (2 PsB. 53.24â25, 62.16â17, 175.20â24 etc.). The designation of elect as orphans, widows and strangers is found in the Manichaean psalms, âthou bearest witness of my course, o blessed Light, that I have ministered to the widows, the orphans, the Righteous.â
Franzmann, âAugustine and Manichaean Almsgiving,â 48. Likewise, Peter Arzt-Grabner has highlighted, on the basis of papyrological sources, how Christians continued to attend private festivals with traditional sacrifices and meals in temple halls. Exclusivity was difficult to maintain when weddings and other private festivities were celebrated with non-Christian relatives and friends. P. Arzt-Grabner, âWhy Did Early Christ Groups Still Attend Idol Meals? Answers from Papyrus Invitations,â Early Christianity 7 (2016): 508â29.
Baker-Brian, âBetween Testimony and Rumour,â 31â53.
Baker-Brian, âBetween Testimony and Rumour,â 46. With regard to ex-member testimonial, the sociologist Bryan Wilson writes: âThe sociologist of contemporary sectarianism need to rely neither on fragments nor on biased witnesses. Indeed, with good reason, sociologists generally treat the evidence of a sectâs theological opponents, of the aggrieved relatives of sectarians, and of the disaffected and apostate with some circumspection.â Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism, 6.
Patronage is the âenduring bond between two persons of unequal social and economic status, which implies and is maintained by periodic exchanges of goods and services, and also has social and affective dimensions.â P. Garnsey and G. Woolf, âPatronage of the Rural Poor in the Roman World,â in Patronage in Ancient Society, ed. A. Wallace-Hadrill (London: Routledge, 1989), 154.
A.G. López, Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), 4â5.
Garnsey and Woolf, âPatronage of the Rural Poor in the Roman World,â 162; Libanius, Oration 47.19, 22.
On the numerous small parcels and array of commodities which were used to pay rent, see D.P. Kehoe, âTenancy and Oasis Agriculture on an Egyptian Estate of the 4th C. A.D.,â Journal of Roman Archaeology 12, no. 2 (1999): 746. He notes that wine was also used to pay for âserviceâ (presumably wages for workers other than tenants. If Topos Mani would have constituted a Manichaean monastery, which I will argue it did not, it would have paid a rent in olives.
A direct connection to the Manichaean families cannot be established, with the exception of a fragmentary passage in P.Kellis V Copt. 20 by Makarios, in which the âmasterâ has to be sent a maje of something as rent.
Makarios writes about âwhen I came to Egyptâ and âwe delayed coming to Egyptâ (P.Kellis V Copt. 22). Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT1, 207, also 12. This designation is also found in early monastic literature. See the Vit. Ant. 57, cited in Bagnall, Egypt in Late Antiquity, 144.
J.H. Harrop, âA Christian Letter of Commendation,â The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48 (1962): 140 ânumerous theological and mystical overtones.â I. Gardner, âPersonal Letters from the Manichaean Community at Kellis,â in Manicheismo e Oriente cristiano antico, ed. L. Cirillo and A. van Tongerloo (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), 87 they âdeserve reconsiderationâ; C. Römer, âManichaean Letter,â in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri ed. P. Parson, et al. (London: The Egypt Exploration Society, 2009), 194â96; Gardner, Nobbs, and Choat, âP. Harr. 107,â 118; See the critique in Martinez, âThe Papyri and Early Christianity,â 602.
These two individuals are not mentioned in the Kellis letters, unless we identify Ision with the Ision found in P.Kellis I Gr 67 and P.Kellis VII Copt. 80, which is not entirely unlikely since he is a lector in the Manichaean church. Gardner, âOnce More,â 305n58; I. Gardner, âP. Kellis I 67 Revisited,â Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159 (2007): 223â28.
Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT1, 77n95; See also A. Alcock, âThe Agape,â Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 2 (2000): 208â09; J.D. Dubois, âLes repas manichéens,â in Entre lignes de partage et territoires de passage: Les identités religieuses dans les mondes grec et romain, ed. N. Belayche and S.C. Mimouni (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009), 110 and 115. Pedersen interprets the agape in Hom. 29.1â2 and all the Kellis passages as the Manichaean ritual meal. Pedersen, âHoly Meals,â 1283.
A. McGowan, âNaming the Feast: The Agape and the Diversity of Early Christian Meals,â Studia Patristica 30 (1997): 317â18.
McGowan, âNaming the Feast,â 318; Finn, Almsgiving, 103â5.
Tertullian used the phrase to describe the evening meal (otherwise in Latin dilectio) in which believers from all classes came together to eat. By contrasting these occasions with the banquets of Roman collegia, he stressed the charitable nature of the agape and its egalitarian meaning. Tertullian, Bapt. 9.2. J.P. Burns, R.M. Jensen, and G.W. Clarke, Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 234â5, 240â1, 251â2 and 287â90. A more fundamental discussion of the relation between the Eucharist and the agape is found in A. McGowan, âRethinking Agape and Eucharist in Early North African Christianity,â Studia Liturgica 34 (2004): 165â76; A. McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists. Food and Drink in Early Christian Ritual Meals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). Earlier studies include B. Reicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier (Uppsala: Verlag, 1951); C. Donahue, âThe Agape of the Hermits of Scete,â Studia Monastica I (1959): 97â114; H. Lietzmann, Mass and the Lordâs Supper (Leiden: Brill, 1979); A.G. Hamman, âDe lâagape à la diaconie, en Afrique chrétienne,â Theologische Zeitschrift 42 (1986): 241â21. Most of these studies have been summarized in R. Halterman Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
Cyprian, Ep. 63.16.2â17.1, discussed in Burns, Jensen, and Clarke, Christianity in Roman Africa, 252. On the connection between the discourse of heresy and the household, see H.O. Maier, âHeresy, Households, and the Disciplining of Diversity,â in A Peopleâs History to Christianity. Late Ancient Christianity, ed. V. Burrus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 213â33.
Apophthegmata patrum 13.16. Blumell and Wayment, Christian Oxyrhynchus, 666â67, no. 171.
Besa, Vit. Shenoute, 33â35 cited in Blumell and Wayment, Christian Oxyrhynchus, 672â5, no. 173; López, Shenoute of Atripe and the Uses of Poverty, 65 noting that similar stories circulated about John the Almsgiver (Life of John the Almsgiver, 9).
According to Arietta Papaconstantinou, the bags mentioned in letter P.Oxy. LXVI, 3864 were to be delivered in exchange for goods or services for the benefit of the festival at Oxyrhynchus. A. Papaconstantinou, âLâagapè des martyrs: P.Oxy. LVI 3864,â Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92 (1992): 241â42. See the text of SB X 10269 and the discussion by H.C. Youtie, âP.Yale Inv. 177,â Zeitschrift fuÌr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 16 (1975): 259â64; T. Vivian, âMonks, Middle Egypt, and Metanoia: The Life of Phib by Papohe the Steward (Translation and Introduction),â Journal of Early Christian History 7, no. 4 (1999): 554. Papyri from the monastery of Apa Apollo also attest to the celebration of this festival, as they order wine for the agape of Apa Phib (
Discussion at, Pedersen, Studies, 304â5, following Merkelbachâs interpretation of love (
Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT1, 70â71, 77. Pedersen, âHoly Meals,â 1283 states âThe reason is that the Manichaeansâ agape cannot have concerned distribution of food to the poor in general; Manichaeans were only allowed to give alms to the voluntary poor, i.e. the elect, but not the economic poor.â
âSince we take in much oil for the agape, in that we are many, and they consume much oil.â
Pedersen, âHoly Meals,â 1283; Teigen, The Manichaean Church in Kellis, 240â43.
Bagnall, KAB, 84.
The identification of the former with Tehat in the Coptic accounts is considered âstretching the evidenceâ by the editors of the Coptic papyri. Gardner, Alcock, and Funk, CDT1, 46.
This is a more common phrase for Easter in Coptic, see J. Drescher, âThe Coptic Dictionary: Additions and Corrections,â Bulletin de la société dâarchéologie copte 16 (1961â62): 288. Bagnall suggests that the Easter celebration of either Pharmouthi 9 in the year 364 CE or those of Pharmouthi 26 in the year 379 CE was meant. Bagnall, KAB, 84.
Finn, Almsgiving, 79.
J. Magnusson, âMat och Manikeism,â in Religion och Bibel ed. L. Roos (Uppsala: Nathan Söderblomsällskapet, 2018), 71â95. On the archaeology of tables for Christian ritual meals, see K. Innemée, âThe Lordâs Table, Refrigerium, Eucharist, Agapè, and Tables for Ritual Meals in Al-Bagawat and in Monasteries,â in Christianity and Monasticism in Alexandria and the Egyptian Deserts, ed. G. Gabra and H.N. Takla. (New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2020), 281â97.
Rebillard, Christians and their Many Identities, 91.
Horden, âHousehold Care and Informal Networks,â 39.
BeDuhn, âThe Domestic Setting,â 266.