The Lords Prayer in Christian Amulets

4 Editorial
Robert Matthew Calhoun

The Lord’s Prayer in Christian Amulets
Volume 11
2020 Marion Christina Hauck
„… hinaufgezogen in die Höhe durch die μηχανή
Jesu Christi“: Zur soteriologischen Deutung des Todes
Jesu im Brief des Ignatius an die Epheser (9,1) vor dem
Hintergrund griechisch-römischer Bautechnik
Katja Kujanpää
Salvaging the Scriptures for Us: The Authoritative
Scriptures and Social Identity in the Epistle of Barnabas
Jacob A. Rodriguez
Justin and the Apostolic Memoirs: Public Reading as
Covenant Praxis
New Books
Stefanie Holder, Bildung im kaiserzeitlichen Alexandria
(Beatrice Wyss)
Mohr Siebeck
Table of Contents
Editorial 413–414

The Lord’s Prayer in Christian Amulets 415–451
Marion Christina Hauck

„… hinaufgezogen in die Höhe durch die μηχανή Jesu Christi“: Zur
soteriologischen Deutung des Todes Jesu im Brief des Ignatius an die
Epheser (9,1) vor dem Hintergrund griechisch-römischer Bautechnik
452–474
Katja Kujanpää
Salvaging the Scriptures for Us: The Authoritative Scriptures and Social
Identity in the Epistle of Barnabas 475–495
Jacob A. Rodriguez
Justin and the Apostolic Memoirs: Public Reading as Covenant Praxis
496–515
New Books
Stefanie Holder, Bildung im kaiserzeitlichen Alexandria (Beatrice Wyss)
519–521
Early Christianity 11 (2020) DOI 10.1628/ec-2020-0029

ISSN 1868-7032 © 2020 Mohr Siebeck
The Lord’s Prayer in Christian Amulets
Der Gebrauch des Vaterunsers auf frühchristlichen Amuletten mag auf den ersten
Blick wie eine selbstverständliche Weiterentwicklung seiner üblichen Verwen-
dungsweisen in Gottesdienst und täglichem Gebet erscheinen und als Intensivierung
seiner apotropäischen Schlussbitten („und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern
rette uns vor dem Bösen“). Die nähere Untersuchung der Objekte, die das Vaterunser
aufweisen, und der Zusammenhänge seiner Rezeption und Überlieferung in der
Antike lässt allerdings ein Interesse an einem dezidiert frommen Umgang mit
Amuletten erkennen, der durch christliche Rituale und theologische Überlegungen
bestimmt ist. Im Anschluss an einen Überblick über die erhaltenen Objekte aus der
Spätantike fragt die vorliegende Studie danach, warum Christen das Vaterunser so
früh und mit solch breitem und dauerhaftem Einfluss in ihren Umgang mit Amuletten
einbezogen haben und was diese Wahl über die Prioritäten derer aussagt, die diesen
Gebrauch begründeten und ihn fortsetzten.
Keywords: amulet, prayer, incantation, piety, magic, catechism, religious competition
1 Introduction1
Notwithstanding the old adage’s counsel that “absence of evidence is not

evidence of absence,” it seems safe to surmise that, during the first two
1 Abbreviations of papyrus volumes conform to the “Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin,

Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca, and Tablets,” http://papyri.info/docs/checklist;
those of epigraphic sources follow G.H.R. Horsley and J.A.L. Lee, “A Preliminary
Checklist of Abbreviations of Greek Epigraphic Volumes,” Epigraphica 56 (1994), 129–
169. Additional abbreviations: ACM – M.W. Meyer and R. Smith, eds., Ancient Christian
Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999); AKZ –
A.M. Kropp, ed. and trans., Ausgewählte koptische Zaubertexte, 3 vols. (Brussels: Édition
de la Fondation Égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1930–1931); GMA – R.D. Kotansky, Greek
Magical Amulets: The Inscribed Gold, Silver, Copper, and Bronze Lamellae, pt. 1: Published
Texts of Known Provenance, Papyrologica Coloniensia 22 (Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag, 1993); GMPT – H.D. Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including
the Demotic Spells, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); LAECG – J. Spier,
Late Antique and Early Christian Gems, 2nd ed., Spätantike – Frühes Christentum –
Byzanz B 20 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2013); LDAB – Leuven Database of Ancient Books
(https://www.trismegistos.org/ldab/search.php); LIM – A. Mastrocinque, ed., Les intailles
Early Christianity 11 (2020), 415–450 DOI 10.1628/ec-2020-0031

ISSN 1868-7032 © 2020 Mohr Siebeck
Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

416 Robert Matthew Calhoun
centuries of the Christian cult’s existence (ca. 40–250), its adherents did not
have a widespread custom of using amulets. The first unambiguous literary
attestations come from the fourth century, in John Chrysostom’s passing
references to “little Gospels” worn by women and children, and to the
protective virtue of Gospels kept inside the home.2 Jeffrey Spier’s recent
edition of Christian gems,3 and Theodore S. de Bruyn and Jitse H.F.
Dijkstra’s catalogue of textual amulets and formularies with Christian
content4 locate the earliest items within the third and fourth centuries,5
magiques du département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques (Paris: Bibliotèque natio-

nale de France, 2014); SM – R.W. Daniel and F. Maltomini, eds. and trans., Supplementum
Magicum, Papyrologica Coloniensia 16 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1990–1992);
TM – Trismegistos (https://www.trismegistos.org/tm/index.php). References are to
(volume and) item number in these collections of sources, unless noted by “p(p).”
2 John Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 72.2; Stat. 19.4 (14); Hom. 1 Cor. 43.4 (7). On these passages
and on “small Gospels” used as φυλακτήρια more generally, see R.M. Calhoun, “The
Gospel(-Amulet) as God’s Power for Salvation,” EC 10 (2019), 21–55. Earlier patristic
authors warned their audiences against the deadly allure of traditional (“pagan”) amulets,
sometimes characterizing them as “magical”; see M.W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the
Greco-Roman World (London: Routledge, 2001), 251–321; T.S. de Bruyn, Making Amulets
Christian: Artefacts, Scribes, and Contexts, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2017), 17–42.
3 Establishing the provenance and date of many engraved gems is difficult, because of their
continuous use and collection through the Middle Ages to the present; see Spier’s remarks
in LAECG, pp. 1–9, 12–13; id., “Early Christian Gems and Their Rediscovery,” in En-
graved Gems: Survivals and Revivals, ed. C.M. Brown, Studies in the History of Art 54/
Symposium Papers 32 (Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1997), 33–43; R.D.
Kotansky, “The Chnoubis Gem from Tel Dor,” IEJ 47 (1997), 257–260 (with references to
gems discovered in excavations); R. Gordon, “Archaeologies of Magical Gems,” in “Gems
of Heaven”: Recent Research on Engraved Gemstones in Late Antiquity, c. A.D. 200–600,
ed. C. Entwistle and N. Adams (London: British Museum, 2011), 39–49.
4 T.S. de Bruyn and J.H.F. Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets and Formularies Containing Christian
Elements: A Checklist of Papyri, Parchments, Ostraka, and Tablets,” BASP 48 (2011),
163–216, e. g., from Table 1 (“Certain Amulets and Formularies”), nos. 12 (PGM XII.190–
192; 2nd/3rd or 4th cent.; formulary for a dream-oracle), 60 (SM 1.1; 3rd cent.; therapeutic
amulet with wing-formation and crosses), 81 (SM 2.84; 3rd or 3rd–4th cent.; fragment of a
protective charm); and, from Table 2 (“Probable Amulets”), nos. 104 (P.Bon. 1.9; 3rd–4th
or 4th–5th cent.; conclusion of prayer), 111 (PGM P14; 3rd–4th cent.; list of voces magicae
with their “meanings”), 121 (P.Oxy. 34.2684; 3rd–4th cent.; Jude 4–5, 7–8). Cf. also LIM
689, a reinscribed silver coin, “no […] later than 300,” per C. Bonner, “A Reminiscence of
Paul on a Coin Amulet,” HTR 43 (1950), 165–168.
5 Spier says (LAECG, p. 82): “Early Christian gems of the third and fourth centuries rarely
show the influence of magical gems. One exception, however, is a small group which
combines both Christian and magical motifs,” discussed ibid., pp. 81–86. In ch. 3 (pp. 29–
39), Spier catalogues multiple examples of engraved gemstones (3rd–4th cent.) bearing
Ἰησοῦ and Χριστοῦ (individually or together), the chi-rho monogram, and ΙΧΘΥΣ. The
genitives Ἰησοῦ and Χριστοῦ in LAECG 86–111 might signify that the bearer belongs to
him, and is thus under his protection (although Ἰησοῦ could also be vocative). Alterna-
tively, the genitives might depend on the ellipsed phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, referring possibly

The Lord’s Prayer in Christian Amulets 417
although Roy D. Kotansky has identified a couple that may date to the
second century.6 Given that amulets were a ubiquitous feature of popular
religion throughout the Mediterranean region,7 the dearth of earlier evi-
dence may conceal an earlier amulet-praxis that has left behind few ma-
terial and no literary traces. One can, however, readily produce hypotheses
for why Christians might have opted out of the custom: (1) The association
of amulets with “pagan” deities arguably led to their rejection as idolatrous.
Even the invocations of angels on Jewish amulets (or, amulets presenting
themselves as Jewish) 8 may have seemed transgressive or right on the
(1) to exorcism formulae (e. g., Mark 9:38: εἴδομέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα
δαιμόνια; cf. Justin, 2 Apol. 6.6; Dial. 66.3; Origen, Cels. 1.6; etc.); (2) to δυνάμεις per-
formed ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (e. g., Acts 3:6; 4:10); or (3) to Jesus’s promise in John 14:13–14: ὅ τι
ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω (cf. Matt 7:7–11; Luke 11:5–13). The items
which have crosses or staurograms superimposed upon chi-rho monograms (LAECG
134–136, 139–148) have a stronger likelihood of protective function through appeals to
the cross as a source of σωτηρία (1 Cor 1:18); see F. Harley, “Invocation and Immolation:
The Supplicatory Use of Christ’s Name on Crucifixion Amulets of the Early Christian
Period,” in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, ed. P. Allen, W. Mayer, and
L. Cross, vol. 2 (Everton Park, Queensland: Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian
Catholic University, 1999), 245–257, esp. 247. Cf. also LAECG, pp. 73–75; H.F. Stander,
“Amulets and the Church Fathers,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 75.2 (1993), 55–66, at 65–66
(with references to patristic sources); F. Harley-McGowan, “Jesus the Magician? A Cru-
cifixion Amulet and Its Date,” in Magical Gems in Their Contexts: Proceedings of the
International Workshop Held at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, 16–18 February 2012,
ed. K. Endreffy, Á.M. Nagy, and J. Spier, Studia Archaeologica 229 (Rome: “L’Erma” di
Bretschneider, 2019), 103–116; L.W. Hurtado, “The Staurogram in Early Christian
Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?,” in New Testament
Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World, ed. T.J. Kraus and T. Nicklas, TENTS 2 (Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 207–226.
6 I.e., (1) a second-century gold lamella for averting headache (R.D. Kotansky, “An Early
Christian Gold Lamella for Headache,” in Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World, ed.
P. Mirecki and M. Meyer, RGRW 141 [Leiden: Brill, 2002], 37–46, at 39); and (2) a second-
to third-century jasper gem with an image of the crucifixion of Jesus (id., “The Magic
‘Crucifixion Gem’ in the British Museum,” GRBS 57 [2017], 631–659, at 636).
7 See C.A. Faraone, The Transformation of Greek Amulets in Roman Imperial Times,
Empire and After (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), 27–53; R.D.
Kotansky, “Amulets,” in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, ed. W.F. Hanegraaf
et al., 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1.60–71; id., “Textual Amulets and Writing Traditions in
the Ancient World,” in Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic, ed. D. Frankfurter, RGRW 189
(Leiden: Brill, 2019), 507–554.
8 On the reputation of Jewish ritual specialists and “magic,” see R.L. Wilken, John Chry-
sostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century, Transformation of the
Classical Heritage 4 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 83–94; W.M. Bra-
shear, “The Greek Magical Papyri: An Introduction and Survey; Annotated Bibliography,”
ANRW 2.18.5 (1995), 3380–3684, at 3426 n. 222; Dickie, Magic and Magicians (see n. 2),
287–293; N. Janowitz, Magic in the Roman World: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, Religion
in the First Christian Centuries (London: Routledge, 2001), 9–46; L. LiDonnici, “‘Ac-
cording to the Jews’: Identified (and Identifying) ‘Jewish’ Elements in the Greek Magical

borderline. (2) Christians had alternate methods of healing or defense from

demonic attack, including exorcism,9 anointing with oil,10 and prayer. And
(3) objects bearing recognizably Christian inscriptions or symbols could
lead to harassment by local or imperial officials.
If these inferences are generally correct, one may posit the invention of a
new Christian amulet-praxis during the mid-to-late third century, which
then spread widely and became more visible in the wake of Constantine’s
legalization and promotion of the cult. This new praxis involved more than
the adaptation of traditional strategies (whether “pagan” or Jewish) of
soliciting or imparting divine power through such devices, however. Dis-
tinctly and self-consciously Christian amulets – retaining the familiarity of
traditional amulets yet making a clean break from their objectionable
features – required the creation of new rationales and methods. One such
method involved the inscription of the opening lines of the Gospels.11
Papyri,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism,

ed. L. LiDonnici and A. Lieber, JSJSup 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 88–108; M. Frensch-
kowski, Magie im antiken Christentum: Eine Studie zur Alten Kirche und ihrem Umfeld,
Standorte in Antike und Christentum 7 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2016), 171–174. On
amulets in particular, see H.D. Betz, “Jewish Magic in the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM
VII.260–71),” in Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 4: Antike und Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1998), 187–205; G. Lacerenza, “Jewish Magicians and Christian Clients in Late
Antiquity: The Testimony of Amulets and Inscriptions,” in What Athens Has to Do with
Jerusalem: Essays on Classical, Jewish, and Early Christian Art and Archaeology in Honor
of Gideon Foerster, Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 1 (Leuven:
Peeters, 2002), 393–419; J.E. Sanzo, “Magic and Communal Boundaries: The Problem
with Amulets in Chrysostom, Adv. Iud. 8 and Augustine, In Io. tra. 7,” Hen 39 (2017),
227–246; R. Boustan and J.E. Sanzo, “Christian Amulets, Jewish Magical Idioms, and the
Shared Magical Culture of Late Antiquity,” HTR 110 (2017), 217–240; G. Bohak, Ancient
Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 114–123, 149–
153, 158–165, etc.; id., “Jewish Amulets, Magic Bowls, and Manuals in Aramaic and
Hebrew,” in Frankfurter, Guide (see n. 7), 388–415.
9 See T.S. de Bruyn, “What Did Ancient Christians Say When They Cast out Demons?
Inferences from Spells and Amulets,” in Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman
Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen, ed. G.D. Dunn and W. Mayer,
VCSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 64–82; id., Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 19–20,
204–212; T. Korteweg, “Justin Martyr and His Demon-Ridden Universe,” in Demons and
the Devil in Ancient and Medieval Christianity, ed. N. Vos and W. Otten, VCSup 108
(Leiden: Brill, 2011), 145–158.
10 The Gospel of Mark traces exorcistic/therapeutic anointing back to the sending out of the
Twelve in Mark 6:6b–13, esp. v. 13: καὶ δαιμόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλλον, καὶ ἤλειφον ἐλαίῳ
πολλοὺς ἀρρώστους καὶ ἐθεράπευσον. See also Mark 9:28–29; Jas 5:14; T.S. de Bruyn,
“P. Ryl. III.471: A Baptismal Anointing Formula Used as an Amulet,” JTS n.s. 57 (2006),
94–109.
11 P. Mirecki, “Evangelion-Incipits Amulets in Greek and Coptic: Towards a Typology,”
Proceedings of the Central States SBL and ASOR 4 (2001), 143–153; J.E. Sanzo, Scriptural
Incipits on Amulets from Late Antique Egypt, STAC 84 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014);

Another utilized quotations or evocations of the Lord’s Prayer (LP) in its

Matthean version (6:9b–13).12 These will be the focus of the present in-
vestigation.
The determination of the LP’s suitability for amulets may at first glance
seem like a self-evident transformation of its usage in both liturgy and daily
prayer, and intensification of its apotropaic petitions in v. 13 (καὶ μὴ εἰσ-
ενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ). The
present study will show that closer scrutiny of the artifacts and charms
featuring the LP on the one hand, and its contexts of reception and
transmission on the other, reveals a concern to engage in pious amulet-
praxis informed by Christian rituals and theological perspectives.13 The
first stage (§ 2) examines the artifacts and other sources attesting to the LP’s
deployment, focusing initially upon items in various media (papyrus,
parchment, wood, pottery, metal, stone) inscribed with (parts of ) the LP up
to the eighth century CE, then upon the continuation of the tradition in
medieval charms and amulets. The second stage (§ 3) poses two main
questions: Why did Christians choose the LP so early in their amulet-
praxis, with such widespread and durable influence? And, what does its
selection reveal about the priorities of those who first established its use as
well as those who continued to use it? Answers to these questions emerge
through analyses of the prayer itself (§ 3.1), its context in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt 5–7, § 3.2), and its transmission in later catechesis as the
special prayer of Christian initiates, as a potent abbreviation of the Gospel,
and as an alternative to “pagan” practices of healing and protection (§ 3.3).
de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 141–146; Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)”

(see n. 2), 46–48.
12 T.J. Kraus, “Manuscripts of the Lord’s Prayer – They Are More Than Simply Witnesses to
the Text Itself,” in Kraus and Nicklas, New Testament Manuscripts (see n. 5), 47–51; de
Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 157–165; D.C. Skemer, Binding Words:
Textual Amulets in the Middle Ages, Magic in History (University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2006), 89–96; A. Maravela, “Christians Praying in a Graeco-
Roman Egyptian Context: Intimations of Christian Identity in Greek Papyrus Prayers,”
in Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation, ed. R. Hvalvik and K.O. Sandnes,
WUNT 336 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 291–319, at 304–307.
13 Regarding medieval efforts to distinguish pious and impious/superstitious amulet-
praxis, see, e. g., P.M. Jones, “Amulets: Prescriptions and Surviving Objects from Late
Medieval England,” in Beyond Pilgrim Souvenirs and Secular Badges: Essays in Honour of
Brian Spencer, ed. S. Blick (Oxford: Oxbow, 2007), 92–107, at 93 and n. 5; C. Rider,
“Medical Magic and the Church in Thirteenth-Century England,” Social History of
Medicine 24.1 (2011), 92–107.

2 Protective and Therapeutic Applications of the Lord’s Prayer
Building upon the indispensable labors of others,14 I have sorted the ar-
tifacts bearing the LP into two main lists. The first contains items in which
the LP is the sole or central element. The second has items in which the
prayer is one of multiple components. The artifacts in both lists are ar-
ranged in (roughly) ascending chronological order, up to the eighth cen-
tury.15 The third gives information about two inscriptions. The language
used on the items is Greek unless otherwise indicated.16
14 I.e., de Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4); Spier, LAECG; J. van Haelst,
Catalogue des papyrus littéraires juifs et chrétiens (Paris: Sorbonne, 1976); R. Cribiore,
Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, ASP 36 (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1996); Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12) (I omit his nos. 2, 17, 18, and 19 from my
lists, but see below on nos. 17, 18); Sanzo, Scriptural Incipits (see n. 11); N. Carlig and
M. de Haro Sanchez, “Amulettes ou exercices scolaires: Sur les difficultés de la catégo-
risation des papyrus chrétiens,” in Écrire la magie dans l’antiquité: Actes du colloque
international (Liège, 13–15 octobre 2011), ed. M. de Haro Sanchez, Collection Papyro-
logica Leodiensia 5 (Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège, 2015), 69–83; B.C. Jones, New
Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity, LNTS 554 (London: Bloomsbury
T&T Clark, 2016); R. Bélanger Sarrazin, “Catalogue des textes magiques Coptes,” APF
63.2 (2017), 267–408; P. Arzt-Grabner and K. De Troyer, “Ancient Jewish and Greek
Amulets and How Magical They Are,” BN 176 (2018), 5–46. Two other artifacts require
mention in addition to the items listed below. (1) A seventh-century Latin amulet (made
of lead foil and discovered in a grave near Mörstadt, Germany) includes a fragment of the
embolism used since Leo the Great (d. 461), in aduentum saluatoris domini Iesu Christi,
according to its editor, J. Blänsdorf, “Fränkisches Bleiamulett aus Mörstadt,” ZPE 210
(2019), 277–286, at 280–281. The amulet’s creator may understand the embolism to be
part of the LP, and may thus quote it pars pro toto to evoke its power or the power of the
eucharistic rite in which it is embedded. (2) A pottery sherd, sixth to seventh century,
from a plate or shallow bowl with part of the LP in Greek has been excavated in Amorium
(Turkey), as reported by N. Tsivikis, “Epigraphical Finds from Amorion: A View from
the Excavations,” in Materials for the Study of Late Antique and Medieval Greek and
Latin Inscriptions in Istanbul, ed. I. Toth and A. Rhody, rev. ed. (Vienna: Austrian
Academy of Sciences, 2020), 113–120, no. 3. The nature of this item is yet to be de-
termined.
15 Multiple dates indicate disagreements among papyrologists, as reported mainly by de
Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4).
16 I omit from consideration here items bearing the Latin palindromic square sator | arepo |
tenet | opera | rotas (also in reverse), since its reference to the LP (i. e., as an anagram for
pater noster spelled twice, and arranged as a cross intersecting at N with two As and two
Os left over; see H. Hofmann, “Satorquadrat,” PWSup 15 [1978], 479–565, at 512–517)
seems at least as doubtful as any of the other proposed solutions, if not more so. The
square became popular among medieval Christians as an oral incantation in charms
(pronouncing the five words sequentially) and a written protective inscription on am-
ulets, tools, and walls. In addition to the sources and studies cited by Hofmann, see
Skemer, Binding Words (see n. 12), 76 n. 1; G. Storms, Anglo-Saxon Magic (The Hague:
Nijhoff, 1948), no. 43; C. Gastgeber and H. Harrauer, “Ein christliches Bleiamulett aus
Schleswig,” in Das archäologische Fundmaterial, ed. V. Vogel, vol. 2, Ausgrabungen in

List I: Items with the Lord’s Prayer as the central element

(1) P.Ant. 2.54 (TM 64206; LDAB 5425) | 3rd or 3rd–4th cent. | papyrus (codex sheet,
two leaves); 5.2 × 4 cm | Matt 6:10–12.17
(2) PGM O4 (TM 64372; LDAB 5594) | 4th cent. | ostracon (fragment of a tablet,
discovered at Megara); 12 × 13.5 cm | Matt 6:9–13 (parts of vv. 11–13 extant);
[κ]ύ ̣ριε; staurogram.18
(3) P.Col. 11.293 (TM 65860; LDAB 2593) | 5th cent. | parchment (fragment of a
codex sheet); 7.1 × 6.2 cm | Matt 6:4–6, 8–12.19
(4) P.Köln 4.171 (TM 64737; LDAB 5971) | 5th or 6th cent. | papyrus (fragment of a
sheet); 8.5 × 5.5 cm | Matt 6:12–13 (with addition); ἀμήν (3×); ἅγιος (3×).20
(5) P.Rain.Unterricht 184 (TM 65156; LDAB 6398) | 5th–6th, 6th, or 6th/7th cent. |
papyrus (fragment of a sheet); 17.5 × 7.5 cm | Latin with Greek transcriptions;
Matt 6:11–12.21
Schleswig: Berichte und Studien 15 (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2001), 207–226; K. Düwel,

“Mittelalterliche Amulette aus Holz und Blei mit lateinischen und runischen Inschrif-
ten,” ibid., 227–302, at 228–237; R. Simek, “Elves and Exorcism: Runic and Other Lead
Amulets in Medieval Popular Religion,” in Myths, Legends, and Heroes: Essays on Old
Norse and Old English Literature in Honour of John McKinnell, ed. D. Anlezark (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2011), 26–52, esp. 26–28; AKZ 2.48, lines 114–115; 2.65, line
1; A. Alcock, “A Coptic Magical Text,” BASP 19.3–4 (1982), 97–103; W.F. Ryan, “Sol-
omon, SATOR, Acrostics, and Leo the Wise in Russia,” Oxford Slavonic Papers n.s. 19
(1986), 46–61; id., The Bathhouse at Midnight: Magic in Russia, Magic in History
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), 302–304. The square may
have no “solution” other than that it is a pre-Christian compilation of words forming a
palindrome, whose meaning teases yet eludes understanding, arranged in a square.
Christians likely found it attractive not because it conceals a doubled pater noster, but
because it encloses a cross within it (with tenet as the intersection of the axes). Pro-
nouncing the words converts the picture into sounds; one thereby speaks the cross (as it
were) into one’s charms, or writes it verbally on one’s amulets.
17 De Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4), no. 156 (possible amulet); Jones, New
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 12; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 1; van Haelst,
Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 347; Cribiore, Writing (see n. 14), no. 387; E. Bammel, “Ein
neuer Vater-Unser-Text,” ZNW 52 (1961), 280–281; id., “A New Text of the Lord’s
Prayer,” ExpTim 73 (1961), 54; Carlig and de Haro Sanchez, “Amulettes” (see n. 14), 80–
81.
18 Van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 348; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 4;
R. Knopf, “Eine Thonscherbe mit dem Texte des Vaterunsers,” MDAI (Athens) 25 (1900),
313–324; id., “Eine Thonscherbe mit dem Texte des Vaterunsers,” ZNW 2 (1901), 228–
233; ICG (Inscriptiones Christianae Graecae, http://repository.edition-topoi.org/col-
lection/ICG) 4063.
19 De Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4), no. 105 (probable amulet); Jones, New
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 8; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 7; de Bruyn,
Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 158–159.
20 De Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4), no. 44 (certain amulet); Jones, New
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 14; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 8.
21 De Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4), no. 148 (possible amulet); Kraus,
“Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 14; van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 1206 (“proba-
blement un exercice scolaire”); A. Martin, “P. Vindob. L. 91, un fragment du Pater latin,”

(6) P.Köln 8.336 (TM 65041; LDAB 6282) | 6th cent. | papyrus (fragment of a sheet);
22
12 × 4 cm | Matt 6:11–13; ενχ (?).
̣
(7) P.CtYBR inv. 4600 (TM 131626; LDAB 131626) | 6th–7th or 6th–8th cent. |
papyrus (sheet); 9.1 × 15.5 cm | Matt 6:9–13; το κυριω υμων (?).23
(8) Louvre MND 552b (TM 65348; LDAB 6594) | 7th cent. | wood (fragment of
tablet); 15.5 × 1.8 cm | staurogram (?); Matt 6:9; verso ελχα . . τωκ ̣η ̣ βοηθ̣ .̣ 24
(9) P.Bad. 4.60 (TM 65415; LDAB 6662) | 7th–8th or 8th cent. | wood (tablet); 16 ×
42 cm | Greek words in Coptic characters; Matt 6:9–13 (with doxology); κ(ύρι)ε.25
List II: Items with multiple elements, including the Lord’s Prayer
(1) P.Oxy. 60.4010 (TM 64491; LDAB 5717) | 4th cent. | papyrus (sheet); 11.5 × 15 cm
| prayer; Matt 6:9–13; 2 Cor 1:3 (?).26
(2) P.Schøyen 1.16 + P.Oslo inv. 1644 (TM 61840; LDAB 2994) | 4th–5th cent. |
papyrus (fragments of a sheet); A 3.9 × 11.7 cm; B 7.7 × 13 cm; C 9 × 9.7 cm |
staurogram; Matt 6:9–13 (with partial doxology); 2 Cor 13:13 (?); Ps 90:1–13.27
Latomus 42.2 (1983), 412–418; Carlig and de Haro Sanchez, “Amulettes” (see n. 14), 79
(writing exercise).
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 13; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 11; cf. P.Köln
14.556 (TM 643932, ed. M. Gronewald [unseen]).
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 9; B. Nongbri, “The Lord’s Prayer and ΧΜΓ: Two
Christian Papyrus Amulets,” HTR 104 (2011), 59–64; N. Gonis, “An ‘Our Father’ with
Problems,” ZPE 181 (2012), 46–47; de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 160.
“Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 15; Sanzo, Scriptural Incipits (see n. 11), no. 56; van Haelst,
Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 349; Cribiore, Writing (see n. 14), no. 322; A. Passoni Dell’
Acqua, “Frammenti inediti del Vangelo secondo Matteo,” Aeg 60.1–2 (1980), 96–119, at
107–109; Carlig and de Haro Sanchez, “Amulettes” (see n. 14), 82 (writing exercise).
“Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 16; van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 346.
26 Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 5; L.H. Blumell and T.A. Wayment, Christian
Oxyrhynchus: Texts, Documents, and Sources (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2015),
no. 99; S.R. Pickering, “A New Papyrus Text of the Lord’s Prayer,” New Testament Textual
Research Update 2 (1994), 111–118; A.H. Cadwallader, “An Embolism in the Lord’s
Prayer,” New Testament Textual Research Update 4 (1996), 81–86; E.J. Epp, “The Oxy-
rhynchus New Testament Papyri: ‘Not without Honor Except in Their Hometown’?,” in
Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004, NovTSup
116 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 743–801, at 779–782.
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 11; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 3; van Haelst,
Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 345 (amulet); L. Amundsen, “Christian Papyri from the Oslo
Collection,” SO 24 (1945), 121–147, at 141–147; Carlig and de Haro Sanchez, “Amu-
lettes” (see n. 14), 76–77 (writing exercise); de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see
n. 2), 162.

(3) SM 1.29 (TM 64605; LDAB 5835) | 4th–5th or 5th–6th cent. | papyrus (sheet,
lacunose beginning); 13 × 15.5 cm | staurogram, voces magicae (?); adjuration of
Michael against fever; Ps 90:1–2; Matt 6:9, 11; ἅγιος (3×); voces magicae.28
(4) Inv. no. unknown | 5th or 6th–7th cent. | bronze pendant (from Syria-Palestine);
h. 3.9 cm | side 1: holy rider (St. Sisinnios?);29 invocations; side 2: Matt 6:9–10.30
(5) P.Giss.Lit. 5.4; PGM P17 (TM 64868; LDAB 6107) | 5th/6th or 6th/7th cent. |
papyrus (sheet); 30 × 15.5 cm | cross; protective incantation; “exorcism of
Solomon”; Ps 90:13; Matt 6:9–13 (with doxology); Luke 11:1–2.31
(6) BGU 3.954 (= PGM P9; TM 64990; LDAB 6231) | 6th cent. | papyrus (fragments of
a sheet); size unknown | cross; invocation; prayer for deliverance; Matt 6:9–13
(with doxology); John 1:1; Matt 1:1; final prayer.32
(7) PSI 6.719 (= PGM P19; TM 61617; LDAB 2767) | 6th cent. | papyrus (sheet cut
from a roll); 25 × 5.5 cm | cross; invocation; John 1:1; Matt 1:1; John 1:23; Mark
1:1; Luke 1:1; Ps 90:1; Matt 6:9; doxology; cross (3×).33
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 5; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 6; Sanzo,
Scriptural Incipits (see n. 11), nos. 31, 57; van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 967;
GMPT LXXXIII; Arzt-Grabner and De Troyer, “Ancient Jewish and Greek Amulets” (see
n. 14), no. 14 (certain amulet); de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 112–114.
29 On the holy rider, see G. Vikan, “Art, Medicine, and Magic in Early Byzantium,” DOP 38
(1984), 65–86, at 77–81; C. Walter, “The Intaglio of Solomon in the Benaki Museum and
the Origins of the Iconography of Warrior Saints,” in Pictures as Language: How the
Byzantines Exploited Them (London: Pindar, 2000), 397–414; Faraone, Transformation
(see n. 7), 113–114. Cf. LIM 691, 692.
30 R.D. Kotansky, “A Bronze ‘Rider Saint’ Pendant with the Lord’s Prayer,” EC 11 (2020),
229–243; J. Spier, “Medieval Byzantine Magical Amulets and Their Tradition,” Journal of
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 56 (1993), 25–62, at 60; id., “An Antique Magical
Book Used for Making Sixth-Century Byzantine Amulets?,” in Les savoirs magiques et
leur transmission de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, ed. V. Dasen and J.-M. Spieser, Mic-
rologus’ Library 60 (Florence: SISMEL, 2014), 43–66, at 49. (I thank Spier and Kotansky
for information about this artifact, and Kotansky for sharing his article on this item ahead
of publication.)
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 6; Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 9; ACM 21; Arzt-
Grabner and De Troyer, “Ancient Jewish and Christian Amulets” (see n. 14), no. 4
(certain amulet); de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 164–165.
Scriptural Incipits (see n. 11), no. 15; van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 720; ACM 18;
Arzt-Grabner and De Troyer, “Ancient Jewish and Christian Amulets” (see n. 14), no. 1
(certain amulet).
Scriptural Incipits (see n. 11), nos. 10, 32, 58; van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 423; de
Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 143–144.

(8) SB 28.16910 (TM 61838; LDAB 2992) | 6th/7th or 6th–7th cent. | papyrus
(fragment of a sheet); 26.8 × 11.5 cm | staurogram (3×); Ps 90; Ps 91 (heading);
Matt 6:9–13 (with addition and doxology); ϙ[θ]; ̣ cross (3×).34
(9) LAECG 891 | 6th–7th cent.? | ellipsoid agate; 2.11 × 1.74 cm | Sasanian Pahlavi
(Iran); Matt 6:9, 13; Ps 146/ 147:1 (?); small cross.35
List III: Inscriptions with the Lord’s Prayer

(1) IGLSyria 5.2546 | 6th–7th cent. | stone lintel; Al-Moufaggar (Syria) | Matt 6:9–13;
two petitions for help.36
(2) IGAnt 5.357 | no date | one of several inscriptions in a funerary chapel; el-Bagawat
(Egypt) | acclamation with extract from Matt 6:13.37
The items in List II disclose (more or less clearly) their protective and/or
therapeutic purpose through combinations of the LP with features that
commonly appear on amulets:38 other scriptural prayers, doxologies,
Gospel-incipits, voces magicae, symbols, etc.39 All of these features together
Testament Texts (see n. 14), no. 7; C.A. La’da and A. Papathomas, “A Greek Papyrus
Amulet from the Duke Collection with Biblical Excerpts,” BASP 41 (2004), 93–113; Arzt-
Grabner and De Troyer, “Ancient Jewish and Christian Amulets” (see n. 14), no. 20
(probable amulet); de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 159.
35 “Pahlavi inscription in five lines, followed by a small cross, […] ‘Lord, who (are) / in the
heavens, / save [me/us?] from sin. / Worship-duty / is (= belongs) to you’” (LAECG, p.
152). See also P. Gignoux, “Sceaux chrétiens d’époque sasanide,” IrAnt 15 (1980), 299–
314, no. 7; S. Shaked, “Jewish Sasanian Sigillography,” in Au carrefour des religions:
Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux, ed. R. Gyselen, ResOr 7 (Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe
pour l’étude de la civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1995), 239–255, at 248. Regarding the
dating of Christian gems in the Sasanian empire, Spier observes (LAECG, p. 143): “The
conservative style of Sasanian seal engraving makes establishing the chronology difficult.
Most of the gems with Christian devices appear to be relatively late and need not be dated
earlier than the fifth century. The shapes of the crosses engraved on a number of gems are
of Byzantine type and belong to the sixth and seventh centuries.”
36 Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 252–253: “possibly from a tombstone.”
37 M.G. Lefebvre, “Égypte chrétienne, I. Quelques inscription grecques,” ASAE 9 (1908),
172–183, at 182–183 (no. 357, with image); G.H.R. Horsley, NewDocs 3 (1983), 103–105;
Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 252; E. Peterson, Ausgewählte Schriften, vol. 8: Heis
Theos: Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur
antiken “Ein-Gott”-Akklamation, rev. C. Markschies (Würzburg: Echter, 2012), 52–55.
38 See Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)” (see n. 2), 42, distinguishing on the one hand amulets
with a simple operative concept (using a single method) or with a unifying operative
concept (wherein “a primary method overshadows or unites any other supporting
methods that are also part of the device”), from those on the other hand with a mixed
operative concept (“combin[ing] several methods at once, without any one dominating
the others”).
39 Regarding the difficulties in formulating criteria for the identification of amulets, see de
Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets” (see n. 4), 167–173; Jones, New Testament Texts
(see n. 14), 25–41; Arzt-Grabner and De Troyer, “Ancient Jewish and Christian Amulets”
(see n. 14), 5–23; Carlig and de Haro Sanchez, “Amulettes” (see n. 14), 70–75; Á.T.

support the petitions which the items sometimes declare. For example, item
II.3 adjures Michael for protection from fever, then quotes Ps 90:1–2 LXX,40
and concludes with a series of voces magicae (ανιααδαιι|α ̣ ̣ Μιγαὴλ τῶν
κ(υρίω)ν Ἀβράμ, Ἰσάκ, | Ἰακώβ, Ἐλωεί, Ἐλέ, Σαβα|ώθ ωηλ).41 Item II.5 uses
an exorcism-formula to repel “every disease and evil visitation from the
bearer.”42 Item II.6 ends with a short appeal: “Light from light, true God,
bestow the light upon me, your slave; holy Serenus fall prostrate (before
God) on my behalf, so I can be completely healthy.”43 This amulet also
interestingly refers to Matt 6:9–13 as “the Gospel-prayer” ([ἰσ]|χ[ύσω]
εἰπεῖν τὴν ˋεὐˊαγγελικὴν | εὐχήν).44 And, from List III, IGLSyria 5.2546 has
two petitions: “Christ help Silvanus” and “Christ help Helenis your slave,
because he hopes in you.”45
The items in List I present greater uncertainties, since the LP by itself
cannot establish an artifact’s amuletic purpose.46 Item I.1, for example, has
Mihálykó, The Christian Liturgical Papyri: An Introduction, STAC 114 (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2019), 191–199. The items in List I have been debated more than those in List II
(see discussion below), but several scholars argue vigorously that item II.1 is not an
amulet but a “liturgical text,” i. e., Cadwallader, “Embolism” (see n. 26); Epp, “Oxy-
rhynchus New Testament Papyri” (see n. 26), 781; Jones, New Testament Texts (see n. 14),
179 n. 363; cf. Mihálykó, Christian Liturgical Papyri, 243. See also n. 47 on item II.2
below.
40 On this psalm on amulets, see T.J. Kraus, “Septuaginta-Psalm 90 in apotropäischer
Verwendung: Vorüberlegungen für eine kritische Edition und (bisheriges) Datenmate-
rial,” BN 125 (2005), 39–73; id., “‘He That Dwelleth in the Help of the Highest’: Sep-
tuagint Psalm 90 and the Iconographic Program on Byzantine Amulets,” in Jewish and
Christian Scripture as Artifact and Canon, ed. C.A. Evans and H.D. Zacharias, SSEJC 13/
LSTS 70 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 137–147; id., “Greek Psalm 90 (Hebrew Psalm 91):
The Most Widely Attested Text of the Bible,” BN 176 (2018), 47–63; de Bruyn, Making
Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 166–172.
41 SM 1.29, lines 17–20 ( Jones, New Testament Texts [see n. 14], 80–81; cf. E.H. Kase Jr.,
P.Princ. 2, p. 103).
42 P.Giss.Lit. 5.4 ( Jones, New Testament Texts [see n. 14], 90): … πᾶν νόσημα κ〈α〉ὶ πονηρὸν
συ⟦υ⟧νάντημα ἀπὸ τοῦ φοροῦντος.
43 BGU 3.954, lines 28–30: ὦ φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸς ἀληθινός, χάρισον | ἐμέ, τὸν δοῦλόν σου,
τὸ φῶς. ἅγιε Σερῆνε, | πρόσπεσε ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα τελείως ὑγιάνω.
44 BGU 3.954, lines 13–14 ( Jones, New Testament Texts [see n. 14], 107).
45 Χρι(στὲ) βοήθι Σιλουανοῦ κ[όμιτος] and Χ(ριστ)ὲ βοήθι Ἡλένιν | τ(ὸν) δοῦλ(όν) σου{ς},
ὅτι σ(ὲ) | ἐλπίζον [οὐκ ἀπολεῖται] (?).
46 Furthermore, the fragmentary condition of some of the items promotes caution re-
garding what else they might have once included. After the final words of the LP in item
I.6, for example, the scribe placed a high dot (cf. the punctuation marks in lines 1, 3), then
three letters ενχ.̣ Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 245, and Jones, New Testament Texts
(see n. 14), 123, refer to the restoration of the original editor (M. Gronewald): ἐν
Χ[ριστῷ], “but deliver us from evil in Christ.” The restoration could be correct, but it
might function instead as a kind of ἐπίλογος. Or, it might be an otherwise unknown
abbreviation, or part of one, that the amulet’s creator intended to enhance the item’s

the format of a tiny codex consisting of one folded sheet. Although Raffaela
Cribiore regards this manuscript as a writing exercise,47 Brice C. Jones
argues that it “was designed as such [i. e., as an amulet] from the begin-
ning.”48 It seems incomplete, since the inscription begins in Matt 6:10c and
ends in v. 12a. However, the cessation of the text in the middle of the third
page (even in mid-word, ὀφειλήμ〈ατα〉) and the blank final page promote
the supposition that we have the whole artifact as originally executed.49 The
amulet (if so it is) could be quoting the LP pars pro toto, using lines from the
middle of the text rather than from the beginning. Its creator may further
enhance its operation through simulation of pages from a Gospel codex,
thereby affirming, both materially and visually, the prayer’s relation to its
textual source, the Gospel of Matthew.50 Item I.3, meanwhile, appears to be
part of a parchment page taken from a codex, with Matt 6:4b–6a on one
side, and vv. 8b–12a on the other. Because it bears the LP, scholars propose
that someone may have detached the page from its siblings in order to keep
it as an amulet.51 This hypothesis of secondary use is plausible, yet one
protective virtue. Item I.7 presents another puzzle: after Matt 6:13, the scribe wrote το
κυριω υμων (τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν?), and (according to Nongbri, “Lord’s Prayer” [see n. 23],
64) possibly a staurogram (cf. the last line of item I.2, which has [κ]ύ ̣ριε and the
staurogram). What are these letters supposed to mean, or do?
47 See n. 17 above, and cf. the assessments of Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 235; and
de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 163–164. De Bruyn (ibid., 162) says that
the presence of an ornamental line between the LP and Ps 90 in item II.2 “may tip the
balance in favour” of the view of Carlig and de Haro Sanchez, “Amulettes” (see n. 14), 76–
77, that this item is a writing exercise.
48 Jones, New Testament Texts (see n. 14), 119 (emphasis original); he also identifies other
amulets with citations that break off mid-word.
49 Contra van Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), 129: “Le reste du texte se trouvait probablement
sur un autre feuillet double.”
50 Cf. Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)” (see n. 2), 38–48. Item II.4 may employ a similar
strategy: the inscription on the reverse has what could be a page number (πι = 90) at the
top, just below the broken clasp, then the opening lines of the LP (6:9–10) with cor-
rections from the margins of the textual exemplar intruded into the text. Kotansky,
“Bronze ‘Rider Saint’ Pendant” (see n. 30), 239–243 (cf. D. Jordan, “Notes on Two
Michigan Magical Papyri,” ZPE 136 [2001], 183–193, at 184–185; C.A. Faraone, “Scribal
Mistakes, Handbook Abbreviations and Other Peculiarities of Some Ancient Greek
Amulets,” MHNH 12 [2012], 63–74) argues persuasively that the exemplar is a leaf from a
miniature Gospel codex, which the amulet’s creator imitates even in its orthography and
other scribal conventions, that is, diaeresis and καί-compendium. Visually evoking a
Gospel codex through the reproduction of scribal features may be a component of the
amulet’s operative concept.
51 T.M. Teeter, P.Col. 11, p. 3; Jones, New Testament Texts (see n. 14), 102; de Bruyn, Making
Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 159. Cf. Kotansky, “Bronze ‘Rider Saint’ Pendant” (see
n. 30), 241–243. Comparison with P.Oxy. 9.1169 (Gregory-Aland 0170/TM 61804/
LDAB 2958; Kraus, “Manuscripts” [see n. 12], no. 18) may be helpful. This fragment of a

cannot rule out simulation completely. Either way, we again have the text’s
source potentially playing a part in its functionality. The identification of
item I.4 (P.Köln 4.171) as an amulet stands on firmer ground; it has the last
two verses of the LP, then concludes with διὰ τοῦ μο ̣|νογενοῦς 〈σ〉ου Ἰη-
(σο)ῦ Χρ(ιστο)ῦ ἀ ̣μήν,52 then ἀμήν ≡ ἀμήν ≡ ἀμήν ≡ | ἅγιος ≡ ἅγιος ≡ ἅγι-
ος.53 These additions are evidently meant to enhance the power of the
prayer as written artifact.
All but two of these items have inscriptions in Greek. (1) Item I.5,
written in Latin with interlinear transcriptions in Greek characters, may be
a school exercise, though de Bruyn and Dijkstra place it among their
“possible amulets.”54 (2) Item II.9, an ellipsoidal engraved agate gem from
the Sasanian empire, has parts of the LP in Middle Persian.55 Also curious is
item I.9, a wooden tablet (42 × 16 cm) inscribed with the LP in Greek using
Coptic characters. Thomas J. Kraus lists the following characteristics:
2 round holes for strings; whitened with molding; recto: twelve lines of writing in the left
half of the tablet separated from the right by a line drawn vertically; palimpsest as
remnants of letters wiped out are still visible; upright and single letters of an irregular
hand.56
codex page (5th–6th cent.; 8 × 14.1 cm) has two columns containing Matt 6:5–6, 8–10 on
the recto and Matt 6:13–15, 17 on the verso. A.S. Hunt (the original editor) notes that “the
upper portion seems to have been cut off, while the lower is worm-eaten and decayed”
(p. 5). The possibility that this passage might have been taken from a codex in order to be
used secondarily as an amulet is worth considering, because of the cut in the midst of
Matt 6:13: -κη[ς ἡμᾶς εἰς πει]|ρασμ〈ό〉ν, ἀλλ[ὰ ῥῦ]|σαι ἡμᾶς ἀπ[ὸ τοῦ] | πονηροῦ.
52 Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 241, and de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2),
161, identify the Euchologion of Serapion as the doxology’s source. For further dis-
cussion of the concluding elements of the item, see these references and Jones, New
Testament Texts (see n. 14), 126. Cf. also item II.8, lines 21–25: διὰ | τὸ μονογενῆ υ ̣ἱό̣ ̣ν ̣, ὅτι
σοῦ ἐστιν | ἡ δόξα καὶ τω κ ̣ρ[ά]τ ̣ ̣ω̣ς ̣καὶ τοῦ παν|αγίου συ πνεύμα ̣τ ̣[ο]ς ̣ν ̣ῖν καὶ ἀγῖν | [κ]α ̣ὶ
εἰς ̣τ ̣ο ̣ὺ ̣ς ̣ἐ ̣ῶ̣[νας τῶ]ν ἐώνων. ϙ[θ]
̣ (La’da and Papathomas, “Greek Papyrus Amulet” [see
n. 34], 98). The editors refer to the Liturgy of St. Mark for comparison with this doxology
(ibid., 104).
53 Regarding the trisagion on amulets, see de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2),
191–195.
54 See n. 21 above.
55 Researchers on a fifth-century fragmentary lead amulet retrieved from a grave in Ro-
mania inscribed with the Gothic version of John 17:11–19 on the obverse dispute
whether the reverse contained the Gothic text of the LP (in both the Matthean and Lukan
versions?); see Á. Bollók, “A Fifth-Century Scriptural Amulet from Hács-Béndekpuszta
in Its Mediterranean Context,” in Zwischen Byzanz und der Steppe: Archäologische und
historische Studien; Festschrift für Csanád Bálint zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Á. Bollók,
G. Csiky, and T. Vida (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2016), 31–61, at 35–
37.
56 Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 250; cf. the writing tablets – two from Antrim, Ireland
(7th cent.; 21.1 × 7.45 and 21.2 × 7.55 cm; with passages from Pss 30–32), and the other

These features lead him to conclude that it is “probably a school text written
from dictation and as required corrected or wiped out […] and not an
amulet.”57 One can, however, imagine how a suitable inscription could
convert a wax writing tablet into a house-amulet, with the drilled holes
furnishing a convenient way to affix it to a wall.58 Furthermore, the Coptic
lettering suggests that the recitation of the inscription in Greek may have
mattered for the prayer’s perceived efficacy.
According to Roxanne Bélanger Sarrazin, no Coptic amulets with the LP
have yet come to light, and only one extant Coptic formulary quotes from
it:59 BKU 1.8 (8th cent.; papyrus, 48 × 22 cm), which gives instructions for a
spell pronounced over a chalice.60 The final petitions of the LP are tucked
inside an adjuration “by your names and your powers and your amulets”
for a successful singing career as well as protection:
When I drink from it, let my tongue be exalted like a sweet trumpet in my mouth, like raw
honey. Let me obtain wheat and wine and oil and clothing. Let every magical spell and
every potion (ⲙⲁⲅⲓⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ ϩⲓⲫⲁⲣⲙ[ⲁ]ⲅⲓⲁ ⲛⲓⲙ) be destroyed in me for ever. And lead us not
into temptation, but deliver us from evil (ⲡⲡⲱⲛⲉⲣⲟⲥ). Let the holy spirit remain and stay
among us for ever and ever, Amen. […] in glory and grace. Let them all happen this day of
my life, let them happen, quickly, quickly! 61
Lacunose directions for the mixture of the potion in the chalice and for the
performance of the rite follow. The formulary thus provides evidence not of
the LP inscribed on an amulet, rather its oral recitation within a longer rite,
with Matt 6:13 supporting the request for defense against aggressive magic
(used by competitors?). What, then, is the reasoning behind the inclusion
of the LP? Is it operating here, as well as in the (potential) amulets discussed
from Blythburgh, Suffolk (8th cent.; 9.4 × 6.3 cm) – in L. Webster and J. Backhouse, eds.,
The Making of England: Anglo-Saxon Art and Culture, AD 600–900 (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1991), nos. 64–65.
57 Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 250.
58 The reported discovery of item I.9 in a tomb (de Bruyn and Dijkstra, “Greek Amulets”
[see n. 4], 157 n. 223) reinforces the inference of the item’s (secondary) amuletic function.
Cf. item I.8; and Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), 238, on item I.2: “probably specifically
produced to carry the Lord’s Prayer for being used as a house benediction in order to
protect a house, its inhabitants and visitors.”
59 Bélanger Sarrazin, “Catalogue” (see n. 14), 377: “Il existe toutefois deux différences
notables dans les passages utilisés entre les textes grecs et coptes: la prière du Seigneur (Mt
6:9–13), que l’on trouve dans 14 textes grecs, mais dans seulement un texte copte, ainsi
que la correspondance entre Jésus et Abgar, qui elle n’est présente que dans 3 textes grecs,
mais se retrouve dans 13 textes coptes.”
60 TM 63027/LDAB 4219; AKZ 2.33; W. Beltz, “Die koptischen Zauberpapyri der Papyrus-
Sammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin,” APF 29 (1983), 59–86, at 68–70; van
Haelst, Catalogue (see n. 14), no. 734; Bélanger Sarrazin, “Catalogue” (see n. 14), no. 63.
61 Text Beltz, “Die koptischen Zauberpapyri” (see n. 60), 69–70; trans. R. Smith, ACM 121.

above, as a prayer (εὐχή, which petitions the deity directly), or as an in-

cantation (ἐπῳδή, a more-or-less-fixed formula thought to have inherent
power) – or both? 62
This question persists in connection with the prominent role of the LP in
medieval European Latin and vernacular charms (carmina), which first
come to light in tenth- and eleventh-century Anglo-Saxon medical col-
lections, the Leechbook and the Lacnunga,63 as well as in the margins of
manuscripts.64 The formularies for these charms often direct the recitation
of the LP – typically by name (pater noster), not by quotation – alongside
62 R.D. Kotansky, “Incantations and Prayers for Salvation on Inscribed Greek Amulets,” in
Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, ed. C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 107–137; F. Graf, “Prayer in Magic and Religious
Ritual,” ibid., 188–213; A.D. Vakaloudi, “The Kinds of Special Function of the Ἐπῳδαί
(Epodes) in Apotropaic Amulets of the First Byzantine Period,” Byzantinoslavica 59.2
(1998), 222–238 (using a broad concept of epode); Faraone, Transformation (see n. 7),
177–197 (on prayers), 198–220 (on incantations); cf. D. Frankfurter, “Spell and Speech
Act: The Magic of the Spoken Word,” and “The Magic of Writing in Mediterranean
Antiquity,” in id., Guide (see n. 7), 608–625 and 626–658. On the difficulties of dis-
tinguishing prayer and incantation/charm, see D.E. Gay, “On the Christianity of In-
cantations,” in Charms and Charming in Europe, ed. J. Roper (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004), 32–46.
63 Leechbook: B.L. Regius 12D. vii (10th cent.), facsimile ed. C.E. Wright, Bald’s Leechbook
(British Museum Manuscript 12D. xvii) (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger; Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955). Lacnunga: B.L. Harley 585 (11th cent.), ed.
and trans. J.H.G. Grattan and C. Singer, Anglo-Saxon Magic and Medicine, Illustrated
Specially from the Semi-Pagan Text Lacnunga, Publications of the Wellcome Historical
Medical Museum n.s. 3 (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), 95–205, with de-
scription of the manuscript and scripts at pp. 206–209. For charms with the LP, see, e. g.,
pp. 106–107 (§ 25c, fol. 136a–b, against “black bains”), 108–111 (§ 29c, fols. 137a–138a,
“against elfin enchantment and for all temptations of the Fiend”), 156–157 (§ 82b, fols.
163b–164a, against hemorrhoids), 184–185 (§ 161c, fol. 182a, for sprained horse), 186–
187 (§ 166c, fols. 183a–184a, for toothache), 190–191 (§ 172b, fols. 185b–186a, for barren
wife), 196–197 (§ 183b, fol. 189a, for heart-ache).
64 E.g., Cambridge, Corpus Christi College (CCCC) 41 (11th cent.), principally an Old
English translation of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. See S.L. Keefer, “Margin as Archive:
The Liturgical Marginalia of a Manuscript of the Old English Bede,” Traditio 51 (1996),
147–177; T.A. Bredehoft, “Filling the Margins of CCCC 41: Textual Space and a De-
veloping Archive,” Review of English Studies n.s. 57/232 (2006), 721–732; K.L. Jolly, “On
the Margins of Orthodoxy: Devotional Formulas and Protective Prayers in Cambridge,
Corpus Christi College MS 41,” in Signs on the Edge: Space, Text and Margin in Medieval
Manuscripts, ed. S.L. Keefer and R.H. Bremmer Jr., Mediaevalia Groningana n.s. 10
(Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 135–183; L. Olsan, “The Marginality of Charms in Medieval
England,” in The Power of Words: Charms and Charming in Europe, ed. J. Kapaló, É. Pócs,
and W. Ryan (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2013), 135–164.

other liturgical elements (credo/symbolum,65 ave Maria).66 Later manu-

scripts attest to the continuation of the tradition in continental Europe,67
with the LP ordinarily included again by name.68 The pater noster in these
65 On confessional/creedal elements in amulets, see de Bruyn, “What Did Ancient Chris-

tians Say” (see n. 9), 68–69; id., “Ancient Applied Christology: Appeals to Christ in Greek
Amulets in Late Antiquity,” in From Logos to Christos: Essays on Christology in Honour of
Joanne McWilliam, ed. E.M. Leonard and K. Merriman, Editions SR 34 (Waterloo, Ont.:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2010), 3–18; id., Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2),
207–208.
66 For collections with translations, see F. Grendon, “The Anglo-Saxon Charms,” Journal of
American Folk-Lore 22/84 (1909), 105–237; Storms, Anglo-Saxon Magic (see n. 16); T.R.
Forbes, “Verbal Charms in British Folk Medicine,” Proceedings of the American Philo-
sophical Society 115.4 (1971), 293–316. For overviews, see R.J. Menner, ed., The Poetical
Dialogues of Solomon and Saturn (New York: Modern Language Association; London:
Oxford University Press, 1941), 37–45; R. Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages, Cam-
bridge Medieval Textbooks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 69–75; C.D.
Wright, The Irish Tradition in Old English Literature, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon
England 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 233–243; K.L. Jolly, Popular
Religion in Late Saxon England: Elf Charms in Context (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of
North Carolina Press, 1996), 115–123; Skemer, Binding Words (see n. 12), 76–84; A.L.
Meaney, “Extra-Medical Elements in Anglo-Saxon Medicine,” Social History of Medi-
cine 24.1 (2011), 41–56; K.S. Hindley, “‘On Parchment or on Bread’: Textual Magic in
Medieval England” (PhD diss., Yale University, 2017), 22–58.
67 See, e. g., R. Heim, “Incantamenta magica graece latina,” in Jahrbücher für classische
Philologie Suppl. 19 (1892), 463–576, no. 177, and pp. 561–563; A.E. Schönbach, “Eine
Auslese altdeutscher Segensformeln,” in Analecta Graeciensia: Festschrift zur 42. Ver-
sammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Wien 1893 (Graz: Styria, 1893), 25–
50, nos. 3, 13, 23, 28, 31, 32 (all 14th–16th-cent. manuscripts); O. von Zingerle, “Segen
und Heilmittel aus einer Wolfsthurner Handschrift des XV. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift des
Vereins für Volkskunde 1 (1891), 172–177, 315–324, esp. 174–176, and on this manu-
script see further Kieckhefer, Magic (see n. 66), 1–6; A.A. Barb, “St. Zacharias the Prophet
and Martyr: A Study in Charms and Incantations,” Journal of the Warburg and Cour-
tauld Institutes 11 (1948), 36–67, at 44–45, 53, 55; L.T. Olsan, “Charms and Prayers in
Medieval Theory and Practice,” Social History of Medicine 16.3 (2003), 343–366, esp. the
appendix; S.E. Sheldon, “Middle English and Latin Charms, Amulets and Talismans
from Vernacular Manuscripts” (PhD diss., Tulane University, 1978), nos. 8, 10, 15, 16, 28,
29, etc.; C. Benati, “Painted Eyes, Magical Sieves and Carved Runes: Charms for Catching
and Punishing Thieves in the Medieval and Early Modern Germanic Tradition,” in
Magic and Magicians in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Time: The Occult in Pre-
Modern Sciences, Medicine, Literature, Religion, and Astrology, ed. A. Classen, Funda-
mentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 20 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017), 149–218,
at 151–153, 163, 168–169, 181–182; M. MacLeod and B. Mees, Runic Amulets and Magic
Objects (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2006), 116–162, at 117 n. 1 (with further
references).
68 Note, however, the excerpt of the eleventh-century Codex Bonnensis 218 (66a), fol. 71v,
quoted by Heim, “Incantamenta” (see n. 67), 552: “Exorcism (coniuratio) for stekethon:
‘Uxa, axa, pompa, terra, non hac nigra, non puputare.’ Say ‘Our Father’ three times (pater
noster ter dices). For the pustule which is called stechethon: ‘I adjure you, pustule, through
heaven and earth and bread and salt, and through water from the sea and through
sacrifice from the altar, in order that you may not have power (ut non habeas potestatem)

charms seems to operate primarily as an incantation: one adds its divine

power to a rite by pronouncing it alongside other formulae.69 Nonetheless,
it retains its character as an εὐχή, since it never ceases to be a real prayer
offered in corporate worship and personal devotion.
Whether as prayer or incantation, the charms – and the LP within
them – often have an oral character similar to the Coptic formulary dis-
cussed above. Their operations require recitation, although manipulation
of materials and writing can be involved as well. However, the rarity of
surviving late antique and early medieval amulets with the LP in Latin may
not constitute “evidence of absence.” Amulets (lead tablets, lead crosses,
and rune-sticks) from medieval Scandinavia bearing the title or quotations
of the Latin LP written in runic characters have come to light.70 Formularies
dating to the fourteenth century from other parts of Europe call for its
written use in charms.71 And, a majestic fourteenth-century amuletic scroll
to stand over this servant of God, NN, without the will of God. Our Father who are in the
heavens, free him from this pustule (pater noster qui es in caelis libera eum a pustella hac).’
And let him chant ‘Our Father’ in full and perform the exorcism thus three times, or else
let him write it on an amulet and bear it on him (et tunc cantet ‘pater noster’ per totum et
tribus vicibus sic coniuret aut in breve scribat et super se portet).”
69 E.g., Grendon, “Anglo-Saxon Charms” (see n. 66), no. A 17 (Grattan and Singer, Anglo-
Saxon Magic [see n. 63], 106–107): “For black ulcers. Sing the following prayer nine times
on black ulcers; first [saying] a Paternoster: – [10 lines omitted, “jingle charm”] ‘Querite
et inuenietis [Matt 7:7]. Adiuro te per patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum. Non amplius
crescas sed arescas super aspidem et basilliscum ambulabis et conculcabis leonem et
draconem [Ps 90/91:13]. Crux Matheus, crux Marcus, crux Lucas, crux Johannes.’”
(“The formula in lines 3–13 is a jingle charm […], in which many words recall the
gibberish spells in B 7 and BB 4,” Grendon, op. cit., 223). Ibid., no. A 23 (Bodley Junius 85,
fol. 17): “For a strange swelling. Sing the Paternoster three times on your little finger, and
draw a line around the sore, and say, – ‘Fuge, diabolus, Christus te sequitur. Quando
natus est Christus, fugit dolor.’ And once more [say] the Paternoster three times and the
Fuge diabolus three times.”
70 A.C. Bang, Norske Hexeformularer og Magiske Opskrifter, Videnskabsselskabets Skrifter,
2. Historisk-filos. Klasse 1901/1 (Oslo: Dybwad, 1901–1902), no. 1070 (13th-cent. lead
tablet; Latin written in runes; with cross, Matt 6:9–13, amen, cross, names of the four
evangelists); on this item, see also M. Olsen et al., eds., Norges innskrifter med de yngre
runer, 6 vols. (Oslo: Dybwad, 1941–), 1.101–106 (no. 53); J. McKinnell and R. Simek,
Runes, Magic and Religion: A Sourcebook, Studia Medievalia Septentrionalia 10 (Vienna:
Fassbender, 2004), no. Z 14. For additional items, see Olsen et al., Norges innskrifter, 6/1.
28–31 (no. 616, rune-stick with pater noster), 41–43; McKinnell and Simek, Runes, nos.
W 4 (lead strip with voces magicae and pna [pater noster amen]), Z 18 (lead tablet with
adjurations and formulas, ending with pater noster), Z 22 (lead cross with Matt 6:9–10).
For discussion, see MacLeod and Mees, Runic Amulets (see n. 67), 138, 196–197. (I thank
A.K. Knafl of the Regenstein Library, University of Chicago, for assistance in locating the
sources cited in this note.)
71 E.g., Cod. lat. Monacensis 7021 (14th cent.), per Schönbach, “Auslese” (see n. 67), no. 2,
and Storms, Anglo-Saxon Magic (see n. 16), 139: in order to keep a swarm of bees in the

(5.1 m × 9.2 cm) in vertical format from Asia Minor (Trebizond?) quotes
the LP after Gospel-incipits (Mark 1:1–8; Luke 1:1–7; John 1:1–17),72
followed by the Nicene Creed, several Psalms (68, 91 and 35), the Abgar
legend, and invocations of various saints – all interspersed with miniature
illustrations.73 This artifact is certainly more elaborate and costly than the
simpler amulets from earlier centuries, such as those in List II above. Yet
one can recognize their kinship with each another, suggesting a continuous
tradition of amulet-praxis involving the LP from late antiquity to the
fourteenth century.
hive, one writes adjurations on a lead sheet, concluding with Pater noster et credo in deum
(texts, or only titles?); B.L. Royal 12.B xxv (14th cent.), fol. 61r includes pater noster in a
charm for toothache, and instructs et ligatur istud carmen super capud pacientis (“And let
this charm be tied upon the head of the patient”), as quoted by L. Olsan, “Latin Charms of
Medieval England: Verbal Healing in a Christian Oral Tradition,” Oral Tradition 7.1
(1992), 116–142, at 119. Olsan cites another charm written in the margin of a fourteenth-
century medical codex that instructs: “Take these two verses and tie them on the right arm
with the Lord’s Prayer” (“Marginality of Charms” [see n. 64], 135). Also, R.I. Best, “Some
Irish Charms,” Ériu 16 (1952), 27–32, no. 1 (Trinity College MS H. 3. 17 [1336], col. 652
marg. inf., 15th–16th cent.).
72 Cf. the “birth-girdles,” that is, amulets for childbirth inscribed with charms and liturgical
prayers on scrolls: Skemer, Binding Words (see n. 12), 235–278; C.F. Bühler, “Prayers and
Charms in Certain Middle English Scrolls,” Speculum 39.2 (1964), 270–278, at 276–277;
M. Morse, “‘Thys Moche More Ys Oure Lady Mary Longe’: Takamiya MS 56 and the
English Birth Girdle Tradition,” in Middle English Texts in Transition: A Festschrift
Dedicated to Toshiyuki Takamiya on His 70th Birthday, ed. S. Horobin and L.R. Mooney
(Woodbridge, UK: York Medieval Press, 2014), 199–219. Regarding amulet rolls more
generally, see K.S. Hindley, “The Power of Not Reading: Amulet Rolls in Medieval
England,” in The Roll in England and France in the Late Middle Ages: Form and Content,
ed. S.G. Holz, J. Peltzner, and M. Shirota, Materiale Textkulturen 28 (Berlin: de Gruyter,
2019), 289–306.
73 Chicago MS 125 (upper portion, https://goodspeed.lib.uchicago.edu/ms/?doc=0125&
obj=001); Morgan Library M 499 (lower portion, https://themorgan.org/manuscript
/85705). On the reverse are petitions for protection in Arabic, presumably added for a
subsequent owner. See Kraus, “Manuscripts” (see n. 12), no. 17; van Haelst, Catalogue
(see n. 14), no. 386; Mirecki, “Evangelion-Incipits” (see n. 11), no. 16; G. Peers and
B. Roggema, Orthodox Magic in Trebizond and Beyond: A Fourteenth-Century Greco-
Arabic Amulet Roll (Seyssel: Le Pomme d’Or, 2018); G. Peers, “Art and Identity in an
Amulet Roll from Fourteenth-Century Trebizond,” Church History and Religious Cul-
ture 89 (2009), 153–178; K. Weitzmann, Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript
Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971), 233–236;
H.L. Kessler, “56. Amulet Roll,” in Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American
Collections: An Exhibition in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. G. Vikan (Princeton:
Princeton Art Museum, 1973), 194–195; I. Karaulashvili, “The Abgar Legend Illustrated:
The Interrelationship of the Narrative Cycles and Iconography in the Byzantine,
Georgian, and Latin Traditions,” in Interactions: Artistic Interchange between the Eastern
and Western Worlds in the Medieval Period, ed. C. Hourihane (Princeton: Index of
Christian Art, Princeton University, 2007), 220–243, at 236–238.

In conclusion, the LP appears on a variety of artifacts dating from the

third to the eighth centuries, mainly from Egypt but also from Greece (I.2),
Syria (II.4; III.1) and Iran (II.9). The items in List II, which include the LP
alongside other elements, have a stronger probability of amuletic design.
The items in List I, wherein the LP is the sole or central element, may have
likewise been amulets, whether by original design or secondary use. The
available artifacts suffice to confirm the LP’s perceived utility for the ac-
quisition or provision of divine power. If the creator/bearer regarded the
inscription of the LP as acquiring (via persuasion or petition) protection or
healing, it retains its character as a prayer (εὐχή). If, however, it was believed
to provide benefits for the creator/bearer, it comes closer to an incantation
(ἐπῳδή). One should not distinguish these two ways of thinking about the
LP’s relation to divine power too sharply, however, nor regard them as
mutually exclusive.74 Finally, our brief look forward to the inclusion of the
LP in medieval charms and amulets has underscored its durability, whether
pronounced or written, as a means of obtaining/imparting rescue from a
variety of afflictions.
3 The Lord’s Prayer and Its Contexts
How, then, did the LP become an amuletic text? What are the features and
contextual factors that both initially prompted and continuously renewed
its utility for φυλακτήρια and related charms? I begin this phase of the study
by examining the suitability of the LP for amuletic applications, beyond its
liturgical/devotional usages and apotropaic petitions (Matt 6:13). Next, I
argue that the sections of the cultic didache in which the LP is embedded
(6:1–18) dealing with prayer were reinterpreted as a kind of formulary
dictating the principles of pious amulet-praxis. Finally, I probe how the
remarks of later patristic authors disclose aspects of the LP’s transmission
and reception that reinforced its appeal for amulets.
3.1 The Text of the Lord’s Prayer

The wording of the LP in the artifacts discussed above (§ 2) generally
adheres to that in Matt 6:9–13, with various additions (ἀμήν, doxologies,
etc.) and minor variations perhaps reflecting how their creators learned
74 See esp. M. Klinghardt, “Prayer Formularies for Public Recitation: Their Use and
Function in Ancient Religion,” Numen 46 (1999), 1–52.

and ordinarily recited it.75 The early adoption of the Matthean LP for
instruction, as implied already by Did. 8:2 (τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσ-
εύχεσθε),76 probably accounts for why the shorter version of the LP in Luke
11:2–4 does not occur on any extant samples.77 Notwithstanding its
75 On the value of amulets for New Testament textual criticism, see esp. Kraus, “Manu-
scripts” (see n. 12), 227–232; Jones, New Testament Texts (see n. 14). Commentators and
essayists on the LP only occasionally mention the LP’s appearance in amulets and
charms, or consider how these sources attest to its importance in popular (non-elite)
piety, e. g., W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997),
1.588; U. Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, ed. H. Koester, trans. J.E. Crouch, Her-
meneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 313 and n. 47. Klinghardt’s study of “Prayer
Formularies” (see n. 74) mentions the LP many times, but surprisingly does not discuss
its appearance in amulets (cf. pp. 49–51 on prayer and magic); cf. H.D. Betz, The Sermon
on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Including the Sermon on the
Plain (Matthew 5:3–7:27 and Luke 6:20–49), ed. A. Yarbro Collins, Hermeneia (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1995), 355.
76 Cf. R.E. Brown, “The Pater Noster as an Eschatological Prayer,” in New Testament Essays
(Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1965), 217–253, at 221; J. Jeremias, The Prayers of
Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 84–85.
77 For studies of the LP’s early tradition-history (presumed Aramaic Vorlage, Q, Matthew,
Luke, Didache), see, e. g., E. von Dobschütz, “The Lord’s Prayer,” HTR 7 (1916), 293–
321; M.D. Goulder, “The Composition of the Lord’s Prayer,” JTS n.s. 14 (1963), 32–45;
E. Lohmeyer, “Our Father”: An Introduction to the Lord’s Prayer, trans. J. Bowden (New
York: Harper & Row, 1965), 15–31; S. Van Tilborg, “A Form-Criticism of the Lord’s
Prayer,” NovT 14 (1972), 94–105; Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus (see n. 76), 85–94; Davies and
Allison, Matthew (see n. 75), 1.590–599; J.S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Tra-
jectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, SAC (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 203–206;
J.C. O’Neill, “The Lord’s Prayer,” JSNT 51 (1993), 3–25; K. Syreeni, “Separation and
Identity: Aspects of the Symbolic World of Matt 6.1–18,” NTS 40 (1994), 522–541; Betz,
Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 370–372; S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Documenta Q: Q
11:2b–4 (Leuven: Peeters, 1996); C.C. Black, The Lord’s Prayer, Interpretation (Louis-
ville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2018), 43–48, 275–281; J.N. Neumann, “Thy Will Be
Done: Jesus’s Passion in the Lord’s Prayer,” JBL 138 (2019), 161–182; U. Schattner-
Rieser, “The Lord’s Prayer in the Context of Jewish-Aramaic Prayer Traditions in the
Time of Jesus,” in Prayer in the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. D.A. Smith and C. Heil, WUNT 425
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 23–55; G.B. Bazzana, “Praying to God and the King-
dom: Q’s Lord’s Prayer in Its Rhetorical and Literary Context,” ibid., 185–200. Regarding
Marcion’s LP, see D.T. Roth, “The Text of the Lord’s Prayer in Marcion’s Gospel,” ZNW
103 (2012), 47–63. For text-critical analysis of the forms of the LP, see esp. D.C. Parker,
The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 49–74;
also F.H. Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church, TS 1/3 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1891); A.J.B. Higgins, “‘Lead Us Not into Temptation’: Some Latin
Variants,” JTS 46/183–184 (1945), 179–183; K. Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Com-
mentary, ed. H.W. Attridge, trans. C.M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1998), 136–138. On the doxologies in the manuscripts, see Betz, Sermon on the Mount,
414–415; cf. W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1964), 451–453; M. Black, “The Doxology of the Pater Noster,
with a Note on Matthew 6.13B,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and

transmission apart from the Gospel of Matthew, its association with that
text and its attribution to Jesus himself offer cogent preliminary expla-
nations of its attractiveness for amulets.78 Recalling again the words of item
II.6, it is the Gospel-prayer, ἡ εὐαγγελικὴ εὐχή. Furthermore, its recitation
reinforces any additional petitions for health or protection with an act of
obedience to a divine command (Matt 6:9a: οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς).
The prayer invokes God relationally as πάτερ ἡμῶν,79 and adds an ep-
ithet, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Next, it asks that the sanctification of the deity’s
holy name, the arrival of his domain of authority, and the realization of his
will may all occur ἐπὶ γῆς as they already are ἐν οὐρανῷ.80 Although vv. 9c–
10 have the form of petitions,81 the clauses together have the force of an
argumentum: the speaker declares full solidarity with and submission to
divine governance, in order to establish the basis upon which human re-
quest and divine response can take place.82 The prayer then turns to food
Christian Literature and History, ed. P.R. Davies and R.T. White, JSOTSup 100 (Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic, 1990), 327–338.
78 Cf. M.J. Brown, The Lord’s Prayer through North African Eyes: A Window into Early
Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 2: “Early Christians used the LP in their cultic
practices because they believed that the Lord had composed and authorized it.” Cf. the
claims of “Gregory” for his own prayer (Leiden MS AMS 9, fol. 1r, lines 1–6: “A prayer
and exorcism that I wrote, I, Gregory, the servant of the living god, to become an amulet
for everyone who will receive and read it,” trans. R. Smith, ACM 134) with the discussion
by J.E. Sanzo, “At the Crossroads of Ritual Practice and Anti-Magical Discourse in Late
Antiquity: Taxonomies of Licit and Illicit Rituals in Leiden, Ms. AMS 9 and Related
Sources,” Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft 14.2 (2019), 230–254, at 238–239.
79 For analysis of the compositional structure of Matt 6:9–13, see esp. Betz, Sermon on the
Mount (see n. 75), 375–377; cf. von Dobschütz, “Lord’s Prayer” (see n. 77), 306.
80 On the application of v. 10c to vv. 9c–10b as a “rhetorical zeugma,” see Betz, Sermon on
the Mount (see n. 75), 395; J.C. Thom, “Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus and Early Christian
Literature,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Religion Presented to Hans Dieter Betz
on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Yarbro Collins and M.M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2001), 477–499, at 493–494. Origen calls this interpretation of the syntax “possible”:
δύναται μέντοι γε κατὰ μόνον τὸν Ματθαῖον ἀπὸ κοινοῦ τὸ “ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς”
λαμβάνεσθαι (Or. 26.2; M.-B. von Stritzky, Origenes Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung,
vol. 21: Über das Gebet [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014], 206).
81 Regarding the petitionary meaning of the 3rd-person imperative verbs, see Betz, Sermon
on the Mount (see n. 75), 389–390; Black, Lord’s Prayer (see n. 77), 83–84, 96–98.
82 Scholars of Greek religion label the second of the three parts of a Greek hymn (between
invocation and petition) differently; here I adopt the terminology of argumentum, “the
part in which the person who is praying points out to this specific god that she/he is the
one who should help” ( J.M. Bremer, “Greek Hymns,” in Faith, Hope and Worship:
Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, ed. H.S. Versnel, Studies in Greek and
Roman Religion 2 [Leiden: Brill, 1981], 193–215, at 196; cf. W.D. Furley and J.M. Bremer,
Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period, 2 vols., STAC
9–10 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 1.50–63, esp. 56–60). Graf, “Prayer in Magic” (see
n. 62), 189, emphasizes that the argumentum explains not only why the god is the right

and forgiveness of “debts” or “obligations” (ὀφειλήματα).83 Verse 13 either

relays the last petition in two parts (yielding six total), or it has two petitions
(yielding seven). The first urges the deity “not to bear us into testing” or
“into temptation” (καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν).84 The second
adds: “but rescue us from evil” or “the evil one” (ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ
πονηροῦ).85 The verb ῥύεσθαι – though perhaps not as common as σῴ-
ζειν,86 βοηθεῖν,87 θεραπεύειν,88 (δια)φυλάσσειν,89 ἀποστρέφειν,90 and ἀπαλ-
one to be asked, but also why the petitioner is the right one to do the asking: “The
narrative in the second part gives the credentials of the persons who pray, establishes
their right to ask something from the divinity.” See further W.H. Race, “Aspects of
Rhetoric and Form in Greek Hymns,” GRBS 23 (1982), 5–14 (esp. on the establishment of
χάρις between deity and hymnist); M. Depew, “Reading Greek Prayers,” ClAnt 16 (1997),
228–258; cf. Betz, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 375: “The first set of petitions has an
aretological character, and one can categorize it as hypomnesis (‘reminder’): the three
petitions remind God of his obligations.”
83 Cf. G.B. Bazzana, “Basileia and Debt Relief: The Forgiveness of Debts in the Lord’s Prayer
in the Light of Documentary Papyri,” CBQ 73 (2011), 511–525; J.S. Kloppenborg, “The
Lord’s Prayer and Debt Recovery: Insights from Graeco-Egyptian Papyri,” in Smith and
Heil, Prayer (see n. 77), 201–218.
84 On the interpretive problems with the verse, particularly as handled by patristic authors,
see J.A. Fitzmyer, “And Lead Us Not into Temptation,” Bib 84 (2003), 259–273; cf. Chase,
Lord’s Prayer (see n. 77), 60–70.
85 Cf. 2 Tim 4:18; Did. 10:5.
86 E.g., GMA 39 (κύριοι ἄνγελοι σώσετε τὸν … Εὐφήλητον), 56 (αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς … δωρήσε
ὑγίαν, σωτηρίαν παντὸς τοῦ σώματος Κασίου); SM 1.35 (Χ(ριστὸ)ς σῴζει Οὐ ̣ίβιον ̣ … ἀπὸ
παντὸς πυρετοῦ ̣ etc.); LAECG 170 ( Ὀνήσιμο|ς, ἡ ψυχὴ σ|ῳζέσθω), 342 (χρι|στὲ | σῷζε
Καρπί|ανον ἀεί πο|τε), 477 (R.D. Kotansky, “Remnants of a Liturgical Exorcism on a
Gem,” Mus 108 [1995], 143–156: Ἰάω | σῶσον τὸν | φοροῦντα). See further Faraone,
Transformation (see n. 7), 188–189.
87 E.g., item III.1 above; LAECG 173 ( Ἰησο|ῦ βοή|θι), 174 ( Ἰησο|ῦ Χριστὲ | βοήθι | τῷ φο-
ρ|οῦντι), 569 (cross with κύριε βοήθι around it; see index ibid., p. 219, s.v., for many other
examples from gems); SM 1.13 (lines 5–7: βοήθησον τῆς μεικρᾶς | Σοφία ἡ καὶ Πρεισ-
κείλ|λης [?]); Faraone, Transformation (see n. 7), 188.
88 E.g., GMA 66 (θεράπευσον Ἀβ|βαγάζαν); SM 1.3 (κύριοι θεοί, θεραπεύσατε Ἑλήνην … |
ἀπὸ πάσης νόσου καὶ ἀπὸ παντὸς ῥίγου ̣ς),̣ 19 (ἐξορκίζω 〈ὑ〉μᾶ ̣ς |̣ … ἵνα
̣ ̣ θεραπεύ|σ ̣ητ̣ ̣ε τ̣ ὴν
Ἀμᾶτις),
̣ 20 (θεράπευσο[ν] Θαησᾶ[ν], ἤδη ἤδη, ταχὺ ταχύ); Faraone, Transformation
(see n. 7), 187.
89 E.g., GMA 2 (δια|φύλαττέ | με, Ἀλφια|νόν), 32 (lines 15–16: Κόσμε Κόσμου, διαφύ|λαξον
τόνδε), 33 (lines 20–23: [φύ]|λαξον θυβες τὸν φοροῦ[ντα] | Ἰούδα τὸ〈ν〉 ἅγιον νόμο ̣[ν] |
σου), 38 (διαφύ ̣λαξον ἀπὸ | παντὸς δαιμονείου ̣ ἀρσενικοῦ καὶ θηκλ[υ]κο[ῦ τὸν] | Φα-
εινόν); SM 1.2 (φύλαξον τὸν | φοροῦ〈ν〉τά σε ἀπὸ το〈ῦ〉 πυρε|τοῦ καὶ πα|ντὸς πραγ|μά-
του), 10 (φυλάξαται Τουθοῦν … ἀπὸ | παντὸς ῥίγους καὶ πυρετός), 15 (φύλαξον τὸν | φο-
ρ〈ο〉ῦ〈ν〉τα); Faraone, Transformation (see n. 7), 185–187.
90 E.g., GMA 11 (ἀπόστρεψον ἐκ | τούτου τοῦ χωρίου | πᾶσαν χάλαζαν καὶ πᾶσαν νιφάδα{ν}
κ|αὶ ὅσα βλάπτει χώρα〈ν〉), 53 (ἀπόστρεψον τὴ|ν ἐπιφερομένην τὴν ὀ|φθαλμία ̣ν); Fa-
raone, Transformation (see n. 7), 192–196.

λάσσειν91 – is nonetheless amply attested on amulets.92 The gender of the

substantive adjective in the phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ is helpfully ambig-
uous, since ambiguity increases inclusivity:93 the neuter (τὸ πονηρόν)
encompasses evil circumstances as well as moral evil and its effects,94 while
the masculine (ὁ πονηρός) commonly refers to Satan as the entity re-
sponsible for evil in the cosmos.95
91 E.g., LAECG 479 ([Κ]ύριε Χ(ριστ)έ θ(εο)ῦ | Καρπιὴλ ἀπάλ|λαξον τῆς φθί|σεως καὶ τῆς
νό|σου Πανκράτητα); SM 1.7 (κύριος Σάραπις, | ἀπάλλαξον | τὴν Ἀρτεμιδώραν), 12
(ἀπάλ〈λ〉αξον Ἄμμων τοῦ ἔ|χον〈τος〉 αὐτὸν πυρετὸν καὶ ῥίγους). GMA 52, lines 110–121,
combines several of the key terms: διαφυλά|ξατε Ἀλεξάνδραν ἀπὸ | [π]αντὸς δεμονίου
ἀ ̣ρενικοῦ καὶ θηλικ[οῦ], | … ἀπαλά|[ξ]ατε Ἀλεξάνδραν ἣν ἔτε|[κε]ν Ζοή, ἤδη, ἤδη, ταχύ, |
ταχύ. Εἷς θεὸς καὶ ὁ Χριστὲ |̣ αὐτοῦ, βοήθι Ἀλεξάνδρα|ν; cf. Faraone, Transformation (see
n. 7), 187.
92 Faraone, Transformation (see n. 7), 187, 375 nn. 72–73, mentions a few instances: a third-
century gold lamella (R.D. Kotansky, “Two Amulets in the Getty Museum,” J. Paul Getty
Museum Journal 8 [1980], 181–188, at 181, lines 3–7: ὁ θε|ὸς ἡμῶν· ̣ ῥῦσαι τὴν | Α̣ὐ ̣ρηλίαν
̣
ἐκ παν|τὸς πνεύματος πονηροῦ | καὶ ἐκ πάσης ἐπιλημψί|ας καὶ πτωματισμοῦ, and note
διαφύλασσε at lines 17–18, 22 and along the left side); a large limestone inscription for
protection of a vineyard from hail (G. Bevilacqua and S. Giannobile, “‘Magia’ rurale
siciliana: Inscrizioni di Noto e Modica,” ZPE 133 [2000], 135–146, no. 1B, adding the
editors’ corrections: … Νεφ[α]ὴλ ἄτας κα|τὰ τοῦ θ(εο)ῦ Μιχαλαζόκου | Πισιτες τὸν
ἀμπελῶνα το|ῦ Κυριακοῦ Ζοσίμου ῥύσσασ ̣|θε); and an undated chalcedony amulet (LIM
690, lines 6–7, 10–11: ῥύσε με τὸν φοροῦν|τα). Faraone (op. cit., 188) furthermore refers
to the prayer of Ajax to Zeus, “Deliver (ῥῦσαι) the sons of the Achaeans from darkness
and make clear the sky!” (Homer, Il. 17.645–647). See further Sophocles, Oed. tyr. 312–
313; Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns (see n. 82), no. 4.3, line 7; no. 4.4, lines 12, 20;
Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 33 ( J.C. Thom, Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus: Text, Translation,
and Commentary, STAC 33 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005], 39 [cf. 148–150]: ἀνθρώ-
πους ῥύου 〈σύ γ᾽〉 ἀπευροσύνης ἀπὸ λυγρῆς); PGM I.195–197 (the title of a rite: ἔστιν |
οὖν τοῦ [π]ρωτοφυοῦς θεοῦ καὶ πρωτογε[ν]οῦς | ῥυστική); IV.1167–1168 (also a title:
[Σ]τήλη πρὸς πάντα εὔχρηστος, ῥύεται καὶ | ἐκ θανάτου); and IV.3033–3036 (ὁρκίζω σε
τὸν … ῥυσάμενον αὐτοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἐκ τοῦ | Φαραώ). The instances of ῥύεσθαι in Paul’s
letters often refer to eschatological deliverance (like σῴζειν and σωτηρία), i. e., 1 Thess
1:10; 2 Cor 1:10; Rom 11:26; cf. Rom 7:24; 15:31. W. Kasch, “ῥύομαι,” TDNT 6 (1968),
998–1003, at 998–999, cites classical instances with the meanings “to guard,” “to keep”
and “to protect”: “In acc. with the basic sense it denotes the keeping intact of men or
possessions through the exercise of divine, human, technical or magical force” (999). See
also LSJ, s.v. ἐρύω (B), and cf. 2 Tim 4:18.
93 So also Betz, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 413; Brown, Lord’s Prayer (see n. 78), 25; cf.
M. Konradt, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, NTD 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru-
precht, 2015), 108–109.
94 Betz, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 380, observes that v. 13 “identifies ‘evil’ as the
totality of all unfulfilled and failed obligations contained in the previous petitions. In the
first place, therefore, ‘evil’ is to be taken as a reference not to the devil but to the subject
matter of evil.” See also ibid., 411–413.
95 BDAG, s.v. 1.b.β; PGL, s.v. 4; Chase, Lord’s Prayer (see n. 77), 85–101; G. Harder, “πο-
νηρός, πονηρία,” TDNT 6 (1968), 546–566, esp. 558–559. Cf. Brown, “Pater Noster” (see
n. 76), 248–253, esp. 251–252; Davies and Allison, Matthew (see n. 75), 1.614–615; R.A.
Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, Tex.: Word,

In addition to the apotropaic final petitions in v. 13,96 several other key

ideas resonate with prayers and amulets from the wider Greco-Roman
religious environment. The notion of God as “Father” has a rich history in
the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Jewish literature.97 For gentile
converts it would also summon to mind Zeus as πατήρ,98 a title that fur-
1982), 297. John Chrysostom writes in Hom. Matt. 19.6 (F. Field, Sancti patris nostri
Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Homiliae in Mattheum, vol. 1:
Homiliae I–XLIV [Cambridge, 1839], 283): “For this reason he did not say, ‘rescue us
from evil people’ (ἀπὸ τῶν πονηρῶν), rather ‘from the evil one,’ thereby instructing us in
no way to feel rancorous toward our neighbors (παιδεύων ἡμᾶς μηδαμοῦ πρὸς τοὺς
πλησίον ἀηδῶς ἔχειν), in whatever ways we suffer badly from them, but instead to
transfer enmity from them to that one, since he is the cause of all bad things (ὡς πάντων
αὐτὸν αἴτιον τῶν κακῶν ὄντα).”
96 That v. 13 might by itself account for the prayer’s perceived utility for amulets finds
further support from the even more-popular Ps 90 LXX (see n. 40 above). Aside from its
broad topical suitability, the psalm has multiple points of contact with the vocabulary and
ideas of traditional amulets: βοήθεια in v. 1; ῥύεσθαι in vv. 3 and 4; the promise of angelic
protection in v. 11 (ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε ἐν
πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς σου); and τὸ σωτήριον in v. 16.
97 Scholars have characterized the frequency of references to the God of Israel as “Father” in
Second Temple Jewish literature differently, and extensively debated the relevance of
instances of αββα (Mark 14:36; Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15) and πατήρ elsewhere in the New
Testament for the interpretation of Matt 6:9b. See, e. g., Lohmeyer, Our Father (see n. 77),
32–62, esp. 38; Jeremias, Prayers of Jesus (see n. 76), 11–65; G. Bornkamm, “Das Va-
terunser (6,7–15),” in Studien zum Matthäus-Evangelium, ed. W. Zager, WMANT 125
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), 215–241, at 219–221; Betz, Sermon on
the Mount (see n. 75), 387–389; Black, Lord’s Prayer (see n. 77), 55–81. On the meaning of
αββα, see J. Barr, “’Abbā Isn’t ‘Daddy,’” JTS n.s. 39 (1988), 28–47.
98 E.g., Homer, Il. 1.503–505 (Thetis: “Father Zeus [Ζεῦ πάτερ], if ever among the im-
mortals I aided you by word or deed, fulfill for me this wish: do honor by my son [τίμησόν
μοι υἱόν]”); 3.365 (Menelaus: “Father Zeus [Ζεῦ πάτερ], than you is no other god more
baneful”); 4.288–289 (Agamemnon: “Father Zeus and Athene and Apollo, I wish that
such hearts as yours might be found in the breasts of all”); 17.645 (see n. 92 above); n.b.
πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε at Il. 1.544 (text and trans. A.T. Murray and W.F. Wyatt, LCL
170). See also Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 34 (cf. Thom, Cleanthes [see n. 92], 151); A.N.
Athanassakis, ed., The Orphic Hymns: Text, Translation and Notes, SBLTT 12/Graeco-
Roman Religion Series 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977), nos. 8 (to Helios, line 13: χρόνου
πάτερ, ἀθάνατε Ζεῦ), 13 (to Kronos, line 1: Ἀιθαλής, μακάρων τε θεῶν πάτερ ἠδὲ καὶ
ἀνδρῶν), 19 (to Zeus, line 1: Ζεῦ πάτερ). Cf. PGM I.305 (πᾶσα φύσις τρομ[έ]ει σε, πάτερ
κό[σ]μοιο, Πακερβηθ); IV.1167–1226, esp. 1169–1171 (σέ, τὸν ἕνα καὶ μάκαρα τῶν
Αἰώνων | πατέρα τε κόσμου, κοσμικαῖς κλῄζω λι|ταῖς), and 1180–1183 (ἀνοίγηθι,
οὐρανέ, | δέξαι μου τὰ φθέγματα, ἄκουε, Ἥλιε, | πάτερ κόσμου· ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε τῷ ὀνό-|
ματι σου αω ευ ηοϊ etc.); IV.1988–1989 (ἵλαθί μοι, προπάτωρ, | κόσμου πάτερ αὐτογέ-
νεθλε); R.D. Kotansky, J. Naveh, and S. Shaked, “A Greek-Aramaic Silver Amulet from
Egypt in the Ashmolean Museum,” Mus 105 (1992), 5–26, at 8 (line 6: αββα αβ[βα] | αββα
α ̣ββ[α]);
̣ J. Naveh and S. Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late
Antiquity, 3rd ed. ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1998), bowl 1 (lines 9–10: “Accept peace from
your Father who is in heaven and sevenfold peace from the male gods and female |

thermore encompasses his role of creating, governing, and sustaining the

κόσμος.99 The petitions in v. 10 acquire in this light a universal scope: the
speakers call upon and align themselves with the God who holds power
over all creation (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου), and to whose will all must submit
(γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου). The invocations and argumenta of prayers for
protection and healing on amulets and in formularies sometimes deploy
the deity’s creation and royal governance of the cosmos as the basis for the
appeal.100 However, v. 9c, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, seems to stress not
universalism but particularity: the petitioners (alone?) know the Father’s
name, but will not (cannot?) declare it. Instead of following the custom of
praising the deity with her or his names, epithets, and attributes,101 the
petition employs the figures of παράλειψις and ἀποσιώπησις – it simul-
taneously raises the subject of the name and refuses to say it.102
goddesses”). For further references and discussion, see G. Schrenk and G. Quell, “πατήρ,
κτλ,” TDNT 5 (1967), 945–1022, at 951–959.
99 E.g., Plato, Tim. 28c; Plutarch, Quaest. plat. 2 (1000E–1001C); Dio Chrysostom, Or.
36.60. The Sermon on the Mount signals an awareness of the concept of a cosmic father-
deity in Matt 5:44–45: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that
you may be sons of your Father who is in the heavens, because he raises his sun on the
evil and the good, and rains on the just and the unjust”; see also Matt 6:25–34.
100 E.g., GMA 56 (lines 6–8: ἅγιος κύριος· αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν τῷ α ̣[ὐ]|τοῦ λόγῳ κτίσας τὰ
πάντα, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λό|γῳ δωρήσε ὑγίαν, σωτηρίαν παντὸς τοῦ | σώματος Κασίου οὗ
ἔτεκεν Μητραδώτιον ̣); P.Mich. 3.155 (TM 63847/LDAB 5061; Jordan, “Notes” [see
n. 50], 183–186, at 186: φυλακτήριων. | ὡ μέγας οὐράνιος, εἰλῶν τὸν κόσμον, | ὡ ὢν θεὸς
ὁ Ιαω, κύριος παντοκράτωρ, | Αβλαναθαλααβλα, δῦς δῦς τὴν χάριταν | … | … καὶ
φύλακξόν μοι 〈τὸν δῖνα, ὃν ἔτεκεν ἡ δῖνα〉 | ἀπὸ παντὸς κακοῦ πράγματος); PGM V.459–
489, esp. 459–464 (ἐπικαλοῦμαί σε τὸν κτίσαντα | γῆν καὶ ὀστᾶ καὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα καὶ |
πᾶν πνεῦμα καὶ τὸν στήσαντα | τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ 〈πασ〉σαλεύ[σαντα] | τὸν οὐρανόν, ὁ
χωρίσας τὸ φῶ[ς ἀ]|πὸ τοῦ σκότους, ὁ μέγας Νοῦς), and 469–472 (ἐπικαλοῦ|μαί σε, τὸν
δυνάστην τῶν θεῶν, | ὑψιβρεμέτα Ζεῦ, Ζεῦ τύραννε, Ἀ|δωναί, κύριε Ἰάω ουηε). See
E. Pachoumi, The Concepts of the Divine in the Greek Magical Papyri, STAC 102
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), esp. 63–86 (on Helios), 95–100 (on the creator-god).
101 Cf. Bremer, “Greek Hymns” (see n. 82), 194–195; Furley and Bremer, Greek Hymns (see
n. 82), 1.52–56; S. Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion, OCM (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997),
96–115.
102 On ἀποσιώπησις, see H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. G.M. Messing (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956), § 3015; H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literari-
schen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2nd ed. (Munich: Hueber,
1973), §§ 887–889; Quintilian, Inst. 9.2.54–57; and esp. Phoibammon, De figuris 2.1
(L. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 3 [Leipzig: Teubner, 1856], 50): “Ἀποσιώπησις is the
complete omission of something which needs to be introduced from the context (ἔκ-
λειψις παντελὴς τοῦ ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ὀφείλοντος ἐπενεχθῆναι), such as when
someone says, ‘If I will go on a journey …’ Although one needs to say, ‘I will risk sailing
the sea,’ one does not say this on account of blasphemy (διὰ τὸ βλάσφημον). Instead, one
says, ‘If I will go on a journey – I will fall silent about the rest.’” Regarding παράλειψις,
see Smyth, Greek Grammar, § 3036; Lausberg, Handbuch, §§ 882–886; Alexander, De

3.2 The Cultic Didache on Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount

Hans Dieter Betz has argued that Matt 6:1–18 is a “cultic didache”: in-
structions for the correct performance of ritual.103 In his interpretation, the
passage fits within a larger literature relaying both cultic regulations
(“calendars, feasts, rituals of all kinds, lists of officials, and so on”) 104 and
reports about religious practices, involving critical reflection, sometimes
with a view toward religious reform. Matthew 6:1–18 utilizes both types,
giving positive direction alongside negative models in the form of satirical
caricatures. “Presenting cultic instruction was no ordinary matter in an-
tiquity,” Betz writes. “Anyone who formulated such instruction must have
been engaged in critical thinking of a theological nature.”105 He later ob-
serves that “the traditions of the forefathers” tended to interfere with
sudden or radical innovation. The obligation to follow these traditions “is
not interested so much in tradition for its own sake, but whether what is
being performed fulfills the demand of ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) ritu-
ally, legally, ethically, and cosmologically.”106
The selection of the LP by Christians for their φυλακτήρια discloses a
keen interest in these very matters. Indeed, they are interpreting the LP’s
Matthean instructional setting pragmatically, as a kind of formulary for
pious amulet-praxis. The Sermon on the Mount presents Jesus as saying in
Matt 6:5: “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, because
they love standing in the synagogues and street-corners to pray, so they can
be seen by people (ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνωρώποις).” One must instead pray
ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, “and your Father who sees ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ will repay you.”107
figuris 19 (Spengel, Rhetores Graeci, vol. 3, 23): “Παράλειψις is when, although seeming
to pass over a matter [in silence], we say nothing less than that very thing (ὅταν
δοκοῦντές τι παραλιπεῖν μηδὲν ἧττον λέγωμεν αὐτό).” The Rhetorica ad Alexandrum
(21, 1434a) and Quintilian (Inst. 9.2.47–48) treat this figure under the heading of irony.
103 H.D. Betz, “Eine judenchristliche Kult-Didache in Matthäus 6,1–18,” in Jesus Christus
in Historie und Theologie: Neutestamentliche Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann zum 60.
Geburtstag, ed. G. Strecker (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 43–56 (ET, “A Jewish-
Christian Cultic Didache in Matt. 6:1–18: Reflections and Questions on the Problem of
the Historical Jesus,” in Essays on the Sermon on the Mount, trans. L.L. Welborn
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 55–69); id., Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 329–422.
See also Klinghardt, “Prayer Formularies” (see n. 74); Davies and Allison, Matthew (see
n. 75), 1.573–575.
104 Betz, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 331.
107 Betz, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 343: “This doctrine [of God’s hiddenness]
implies a radical position in regard to all cultic performances. Not only must one avoid

The instruction next targets the βατταλογεῖν of “those who act like gen-
tiles” (οἱ ἐθνικοί), “for they suppose in their prolixity that they will be
heeded” (6:7–8).108 Interpreters occasionally mention the voces magicae as
illustrations of βατταλογεῖν;109 ancient readers may have noticed this
similarity as well. As for the “hypocrites,” Betz rightly points out that the
instruction in Matt 6:1–18 is presented from a Jewish perspective; οἱ
ὑποκριταί “represent a general religious character-type, not a specific re-
ligious group” – in contrast to the more combative perspective of the
evangelist Matthew.110
The topic of pious ostentation returns later in the Gospel, in a scene
where Jesus warns the crowds and his disciples to “do and keep” (ποιήσατε
καὶ τηρεῖτε) what the scribes and Pharisees say, κατὰ δὲ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ
ποιεῖτε […] πάντα δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀν-
θρώποις. πλατύνουσιν γὰρ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν καὶ μεγαλύνουσιν τὰ κράσ-
πεδα (23:1–5). A late antique reader might understand this passage not to
condemn φυλακτήρια per se, rather Jewish amulet-praxis (by generalizing
“scribes and Pharisees” to “Jews”) as allegedly characterized by ostentation.
The thematic link between πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Matt 23:5
and ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις in Matt 6:5 in relation to cultic matters
prompts the rereading of the passages together,111 with the principles of
pious prayer in Matt 6:5–15 brought to bear upon the formulation of a
all ostentatiousness, but performances of religious duties must remain completely

invisible, thus imitating the invisibility of God’s work.”
108 For a positive statement about πολυλογία in the context of prayer, see Luke 18:1–8.
109 E.g., Bornkamm, “Vaterunser” (see n. 97), 215; Luz, Matthew 1–7 (see n. 75), 305; Betz,
Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 364–365.
110 Betz, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 75), 347 and n. 130; Davies and Allison, Matthew (see
n. 75), 1.575. Cf. Konradt, Matthäus (see n. 93), 102; J. Barr, “The Hebrew/Aramaic
Background of ‘Hypocrisy’ in the Gospels,” in Davies and White, Tribute to Geza
Vermes (see n. 77), 307–326; R. Hammerling, “The Lord’s Prayer in Early Christian
Polemics to the Eighth Century,” in A History of Prayer: The First to the Fifteenth
Century, ed. R. Hammerling, Brill Companions to the Christian Tradition 13 (Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 223–241.
111 Cf. Luz, Matthew 1–7 (see n. 75), 299: Matt 6:1 (προσέχετε δὲ τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑμῶν μὴ
ποιεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς) “looks ahead to 23:5 and
thus secures the parenetic secondary dimension of the opening section of the great woes
discourse against Pharisees and scribes.” Others likewise close the gap between the
hypocrites of Matt 6:5–6 and the scribes and Pharisees of Matt 23, e. g., G.O. Holmås,
“Prayer, ‘Othering’ and the Construction of Early Christian Identity,” in Hvalvik and
Sandnes, Early Christian Prayer (see n. 12), 91–113, at 95; Syreeni, “Separation” (see
n. 77), 526–527; Guelich, Sermon on the Mount (see n. 95), 279.

pious amulet-praxis.112 The contrasts of the behaviors of οἱ ὑποκριταί qua

Ἰουδαῖοι with those of οἱ ἐθνικοί provide negative models designed to fa-
cilitate religious competition, identity-formation, and the maintenance of
ritually-constituted boundaries between the groups.113 The element that
makes φυλακτήρια both pious and distinct from those used by others is the
inscription of the very prayer Jesus commands his disciples to use, kept in
secret and refreshed with frequent recitation, such that the devices become
fully embedded in the devotional practices of their bearers.
3.3 Transmission and Reception

The teaching on prayer in the Sermon on the Mount launched a tradition of
homilies on the LP delivered in connection with initiation into the
Christian cult. A full account of these sermons stands far beyond the
purview of the present inquiry.114 No late antique homilist or commentator
deals specifically with the LP’s utility or propriety for amulets.115 However,
the sermons delivered to catechumens or the newly baptized have a dis-
cernibly pragmatic outlook (in contrast to the more scholarly/philo-
112 Although the tefillin are not φυλακτήρια in the same sense as common protective or
therapeutic amulets (but cf. the differing judgments of Y.B. Cohn, Tangled Up in Text:
Tefillin and the Ancient World, BJS 351 [Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008],
and Bohak, “Jewish Amulets” [see n. 8], 389), patristic commentators on Matt 23:5 tend
to regard them as similar to the “little Gospels” worn by women and children. See
Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)” (see n. 2), 21–31.
113 On the LP as a ritual instrument of community self-definition, cf., in addition to
Holmås’s article (see n. 111), J.A. Draper, “Christian Self-Definition against the ‘Hyp-
ocrites’ in Didache VIII,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. J.A. Draper, AGJU 37
(Leiden: Brill, 1996), 223–243; P.J. Thomson, “The Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8) at the
Faultline of Judaism and Christianity,” in The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in
Early Christianity, ed. J.A. Draper and C.N. Jefford, ECL 14 (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 165–
187; Klinghardt, “Prayer Formularies” (see n. 74), 27; cf. Sanzo, “At the Crossroads” (see
n. 78), passim.
114 For studies, see, e. g., Chase, Lord’s Prayer (see n. 77); F.E. Vokes, “The Lord’s Prayer in
the First Three Centuries,” StPatr 10.1 (1970), 253–260; G. Lampe, “‘Our Father’ in the
Fathers,” in Christian Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Gordon Rupp, ed. P. Brooks
(London: SCM, 1995), 9–31; W. Rordorf, “The Lord’s Prayer in the Light of Its Liturgical
Use in the Early Church,” Studia Liturgica 14 (1980–1981), 1–19; K. Froehlich, “The
Lord’s Prayer in Patristic Literature,” PSB Suppl. 2 (1992), 71–87; Brown, Lord’s Prayer
(see n. 78); K.W. Stevenson, The Lord’s Prayer: A Text in Tradition (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2004); R. Hammerling, The Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church: The Pearl of
Great Price (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
115 However, some widen the scope of the usual condemnations of amulets to include
ostensibly Christian ones. See Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)” (see n. 2), 29–30; J.E. Sanzo,
“Early Christianity,” in Frankfurter, Guide (see n. 7), 198–239, at 221–223; and the
discussion of the homilies of Caesarius of Arles below.

sophical reflections of Origen, for example). Particular commonplaces

recur across authors and centuries, and may thus provide insight into the
kinds of instruction imparted by otherwise unknown catechists and
preachers. These texts offer further enlightenment regarding the LP’s
appeal as an amuletic text.
The command in Matt 6:6 to pray ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ seems to have imparted
an aura of secrecy to the LP itself, even before it became part of the dis-
ciplina arcani (teachings and rites known only to full initiates) in the fourth
and fifth centuries.116 Justin Martyr presumably knows the prayer; yet in his
outline of the Christian rite of baptism he vaguely says that initiands “are
taught to pray and to ask, while fasting, for the forgiveness of prior sins
from God (εὔχεσθαί τε καὶ αἰτεῖν νηστεύοντες παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν προη-
μαρτημένων ἄφεσιν διδάσκονται), while we pray and fast along with
them.”117 Clement of Alexandria’s substantial discussion of prayer in
Strom. 7.7 likewise omits clear reference to or quotation of the LP.118 By the
third century it became regarded, in some communities at least, as the
exclusive possession of Christian initiates, who alone have the “right” to call
God “Father” after their ritual rebirth in baptism.119 Cyprian declares that
baptism entails the renunciation of one’s natural father in order to claim the
heavenly Father as one’s own,120 and that “none of us would have dared to
116 O. Perler, “Arkandisziplin,” RAC 1 (1950), 667–676; F. Graf and W. Wischmeyer,

“Discipline of the Secret,” RPP 4 (2008), 86–87; C. Ricci, “Disciplina Arcani (Discipline
of the Secret),” Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 1 (2014), 725–726; Klinghardt,
“Prayer Formularies” (see n. 74), 41–45; and esp. G.G. Stroumsa, Hidden Wisdom:
Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, SHR 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1996),
27–43.
117 Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 61.2 (C. Munier, SC 507.288). Cf. 1 Apol. 65–67.
118 He offers short quotations in other contexts, e. g., Strom. 4.8.66 (v. 10b–c); 4.26.172
(v. 10b–c); 7.13.81 (v. 12); Paed. 1.8.73 (v. 9b).
119 See Rordorf, “Lord’s Prayer” (see n. 114), 3; Froehlich, “Lord’s Prayer” (see n. 114), 74–
76; R. Hammerling, “The Lord’s Prayer: A Cornerstone of Early Baptismal Education,”
in id., History of Prayer (see n. 110), 167–172. Cf. P.F. Bradshaw, “The Gospel and the
Catechumenate in the Third Century,” JTS n.s. 50 (1999), 143–152. Vokes, “Lord’s
Prayer” (see n. 114), 255, notes that John Chrysostom, Hom. Gen. 27.8 (PG 53.251)
refers to the LP “when he says ἴσασιν οἱ μεμυημένοι τὸ λεγόμενον.” See also Didymus,
Trin. 3.39 (PG 39.930C): “For this reason it is not appropriate to say ‘Our Father who are
in the heavens’ before being reborn from him through enlightenment [i. e., baptism].”
According to Klinghardt, “Prayer Formularies” (see n. 74), 10–11 (cf. 37–41), hymns
belonging to voluntary associations were “regarded like valuable property.”
120 Cyprian, Dom. or. 9 (M. Réveillaud, Saint Cyprien: L’Oraison dominicale, Études
d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 58 [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1964],
88): “Anybody who is renewed, reborn, and restored to his God by grace first of all says,
‘Father,’ because he has now become a son. […] Whoever therefore believes in his name
is made a child of God, and hence should begin to give thanks and show himself a child

use this name in prayer except that he has authorized us to pray after this
manner.”121 He then urges his hearers to conduct themselves in accordance
with their adoption, a point that Origen stresses as well.122 In the light of
such comments, the inscription of the LP on an amulet announces to the
divine addressee that the bearer is an initiate, and thus already has a filial
relationship with him.123 Presumably this reminder will result in God’s
favorable disposition toward additional petitions, or will recall his promises
to grant requests submitted by his adopted children. As Tertullian says,
of God as he names his Father as God in heaven. He bears witness also, among the first of
his words at his rebirth, that he renounces his earthly and fleshly father and ac-
knowledges that he has begun to have the Father in heaven as his only father (contestetur
quoque inter prima statim natiuitatis suae uerba renuntiasse se terreno et carnali patri et
patrem solum nosse se et habere coepisse qui sit in caelis)” (trans. A. Stewart-Sykes,
Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen: On the Lord’s Prayer, Popular Patristics Series [Crestwood,
N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004], 70–71). Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Ecl. 19.1–
2; Chromatius, Tractatus in Matthaeum 28.1.2–3, 6–7 (change of fathers from the devil
to God). Some ancient interpreters leap from the invocation πάτερ (ἡμῶν) to invective
against Jews (picking up and exaggerating the criticism of ὑποκριταί, interpreted as
Ἰουδαῖοι, in Matt 6:1–18). See esp. Tertullian, Or. 2 (cf. Lampe, “Our Father” [see n. 114],
13); Cyprian, Dom. or. 10; Augustine, Serm. Dom. 2.4.15. This move may have relevance
for amulets as well; cf. Boustan and Sanzo’s observation (“Christian Amulets” [see n. 8],
237–238) that the “appropriation of such anti-Jewish invective” in amulets “may reflect
the perceived importance of the client’s proper standing with God for achieving ritual
efficacy.”
121 Cyprian, Dom. or. 11 (Réveillaud, Saint Cyprien [see n. 120], 92): quod nomen nemo
nostrum in oratione auderet adtingere, nisi ipse nobis sic permisisset orare (trans. Ste-
wart-Sykes, Tertullian [see n. 120], 72). Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Homiliae in orationem
dominicam 2 (PG 44.1144A: “Surely, then, it is dangerous to act boldly toward this
prayer and to name God as one’s Father before being purified in one’s life”); Ambrose,
Sacr. 5.4.19.
122 Origen, Or. 22.3 (von Stritzky, Über das Gebet [see n. 80], 182): “Furthermore, if we
should ponder what it means that ‘whenever you pray, say Father,’ as it is written in
Luke, we should hesitate to present this statement to him while not being genuine sons,
in order that we may not become liable to an indictment for impiety in addition to our
other sins” (μή ποτε πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἡμῶν ἁμαρτήμασι καὶ ἀσεβείας ἐγκλήματι ἔνοχοι
γενώμεθα).” Cf. also John Chrysostom, Hom. Phlm. 3.2 (PG 62.716): “On the one hand
prayer is a great benefit and is salvific, even an amulet for our own souls (μέγα μὲν
ἀγαθὸν καὶ σωτήριον, καὶ τῶν ψυχῶν τῶν ἡμετέρων φυλακτήριον); and on the other
hand it is great whenever we do things worthy of it, and do not render ourselves un-
worthy.”
123 Cf. H.D. Betz, “Fragments of a Catabasis Ritual,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1: Hel-
lenismus und Urchristentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 147–155; id., “Secrecy in
the Greek Magical Papyri,” in id., Antike und Christentum (see n. 8), 152–174, esp. 169–
171; C.A. Faraone, “Mystery Cults and Incantations: Evidence for Orphic Charms in
Euripides’ Cyclops 646–48?,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie n.s. 151 (2008), 127–
142; cf. Frenschkowski, Magie im antiken Christentum (see n. 8), 126–135.

Yet since the Lord, the foreseer of human necessities, says […] Ask and ye shall receive,
and as there are things to be asked for according to each person’s circumstances, we have
the right, after rehearsing the prescribed and regular prayer as a foundation, to make from
other sources a superstructure of petitions for additional desires (praemissa legitima et
ordinaria oratione quasi fundamento, accedentium ius est desideriorum superstruendi
extrensecus petitiones): yet with mindfulness of the precepts, lest we be as far from the ears
of God as we are from the precepts.124
Using the LP as a “foundation” supporting additional requests effectively

causes it, in toto, to function as an argumentum:125 it establishes the cre-
dentials (per Tertullian, the ius) of the petitioner as an initiate, in a manner
similar to the deployment of voces magicae or χαρακτῆρες in amulets.126 A
literary illustration of this foundational use of the LP appears in one Greek
manuscript and in the Syriac manuscripts of the Acts of Thomas. In Acts
Thom. 144, the hero calls upon God first with the LP (omitting Matt 6:11),
then adds: “My Lord and God, hope and confidence and teacher, you
taught me to pray thus. Look, I pray this prayer and fulfill your command
124 Tertullian, Or. 10 (E. Evans, Tertullian’s Tract on the Prayer [London: SPCK, 1953], 14–
17). A tenth-century charm for “what they call spuriha[l]z” provides a simple example
of petitions built upon the LP: “First a paternoster. A fish swam along the water, its gills
burst: then Our Lord healed it. That same Lord, who healed that fish, may he heal this
horse of the spurihalz. Amen” (trans. C. Edwards, “German Vernacular Literature: A
Survey,” in Carolingian Culture: Emulation and Innovation, ed. R. McKitterick
[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994], 141–170, at 168; cited by Gay, “On the
Christianity of Incantations” [see n. 62], 37).
125 See p. 435 and n. 82 above.
126 Graf, “Prayer in Magic” [see n. 62], 192: “They [sc. voces magicae] are not used, as some
have claimed, to force the divinity; they take the place of, and serve as, the credentials, an
ample display of knowledge. In several instances, the papyri state that these names were
secret, that the god enjoys being called by them and helps out of joy: it was the gods
themselves who had revealed them. The magician behaves not very different from an
initiate in a mystery cult: both claim a special relationship with their gods, based on
revealed knowledge.” See further Betz, “Secrecy” [see n. 123], 159–168; Brashear, “Greek
Magical Papyri” (see n. 8), 3429–3438; Faraone, Transformation (see n. 7), 179–182. Cf.
Heim, “Incantamenta” (see n. 67), no. 117, a remedy for sore throat to be written on
papyrus (charta) and worn around the neck: “I saw (εἶδον) the golden sandal of the
triple-shaped goddess | and the brazen sandal of the queen of Tartarus. | Save me (σῶσόν
με), reverend goddess, greatest of those below!” (trans. Faraone, Transformation, 189).
On χαρακτῆρες, see D. Frankfurter, “The Magic of Writing and the Writing of Magic:
The Power of the Word in Egyptian and Greek Traditions,” Helios 21.2 (1994), 189–222,
esp. 205–211; R. Gordon, “Signa nova et inaudita: The Theory and Practice of Invented
Signs (charaktêres) in Graeco-Egyptian Magical Texts,” MHNH 11 (2011), 15–44 (“This
type of invented script is thus best understood as the scriptural correlate of onomata or
voces, with similar rhetorical gains, of esoteric knowledge, rarity and special non-
semantic weight,” 20); id., “Charaktêres between Antiquity and Renaissance: Trans-
mission and Re-Invention,” in Dasen and Spieser, Les savoirs magiques (see n. 30), 253–
300.

(ἰδοὺ τὴν εὐχὴν εὔχομαι ταύτην καὶ τὸ πρόσταγμά σου πληρῶ). Be with me
until the end.”127 As Thomas’s prayer continues through Acts Thom. 148,
his praises of God and of himself support the petitions in a manner parallel
to the initial deployment of the LP.
Tertullian makes another observation, on the brevitas of the prayer, that
sheds additional light on the reasoning behind amulets featuring the LP:
Yet that brevity […] rests upon the foundation of a great and fruitful interpretation, and in
proportion as it is restrained in wording, so it is copious in meaning. For it embraces not
merely the particular functions of prayer, be it the worship of God or the petition of a
human, but as it were the whole of the Lord’s discourse, the whole record of his in-
struction (sed omnem paene sermonem domini, omnem commemorationem disciplinae):
so that without exaggeration there is comprised in the prayer an epitome of the entire
Gospel (ut re vera in oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur).128
Although Origen does not call the LP something similar to a breviarum

totius evangelii, he labels it an “outline” or “sketch” (ὑπογραφή, ὑποτύ-
πωσις),129 terms used in ancient theoretical discussions of methods of
definition (ὅρος), a characteristically σύντομος species of utterance.130
127 Text of MS U (Romanum Vallicellanum B 35; 11th cent.; M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum
Apocrypha, vol. 2/2: Acta Philippi et Acta Thomae, repr. [Hildesheim: Olms, 1990], 251);
for translation of and commentary on the Syriac, see A.F.J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas:
Introduction, Text, and Commentary, 2nd ed., NovTSup 108 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 227–
234. According to J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apoc-
ryphal Christian Literature in English (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 502 n. 70, and H.J.W.
Drijvers, NTApoc 2.175, MS P (Parisiacum gr. 1510; 11th–12th cent.) places after Acts
Thom. 167 (i. e., immediately before the hero’s martyrdom) the prayer appended to the
LP in Acts Thom 144–148. H.-J. Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: An In-
troduction, trans. B. McNeil (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008), 142, reports
that the martyrdom and the prayer “were transmitted separately in some witnesses.”
128 Tertullian, Or. 1 (Evans, Tertullian’s Tract [see n. 124], 4–5).
129 Origen, Or. 18.1–2 (von Stritzky, Über das Gebet [see n. 80], 170): “Now we come to the
next challenge, since we wish to study the prayer as it was sketched out by the Lord –
with how much power it has been filled (τὴν ὑπογραφεῖσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου προσευχήν,
ὅσης δυνάμεως πεπλήρωται). […] And before all else it is to be noted that Matthew and
Luke would seem to have sketched the same prayer, in outline, in order to make it
necessary to pray in this manner (τὴν αὐτὴν ἀναγεγραφέναι ὑποτετυπωμένην πρὸς τὸ
δεῖν οὕτως προσεύχεσθαι προσεύχην).” Cf. G.J. Bahr, “The Use of the Lord’s Prayer in
the Primitive Church,” JBL 84 (1965), 153–159, at 153–154. Cyprian (Dom. or. 27–28)
likewise does not repeat Tertullian’s wording, but he asserts that the final clause of the
LP, sed libera nos a malo, “gathers the sum of our prayers and requests into a short
summary” (uniuersas petitiones et preces nostras collecta breuitate concludens), and
adds, “why wonder that the prayer which the Lord taught should be of such a nature,
that through his instruction in a saving phrase he sum up our entire prayer?” (quod
mirum […] si oratio talis est quam Deus docuit, qui magisterio suo omnem precem
nostram salutari sermone breuiauit?).
130 R.M. Calhoun, Paul’s Definitions of the Gospel in Romans 1, WUNT 2/316 (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 9–38, esp. 19–20 on ὑπογραφή and ὑποτύπωσις.

Chromatius of Aquileia (d. ca. 407) also declares: “Everything therefore

that is necessary to our faith is contained in this brief prayer of the Lord.”131
I have argued elsewhere that an early strategy of soliciting divine protection
seeks to affiliate φυλακτήρια with εὐαγγέλια through materials, format/
layout, and textual inscriptions. Textual affiliation can occur through
rhetorical figures and tropes of βραχυλογία designed to compress content
into smaller verbal packages (so to speak). In the case of abbreviation in
Gospel-amulets, the goal is to evoke τὸ εὐαγγέλιον as δύναμις θεοῦ εἰς
σωτηρίαν, as Paul says in Rom 1:17.132 Tertullian’s words, ut re vera in
oratione breviarium totius evangelii comprehendatur, prompt the suppo-
sition that quoting the LP might be one such method of abbreviation – in
other words, that some amulets with the LP may have been conceived of as
Gospel-amulets.133
Finally, early medieval missionaries and preachers promote the oral
recitation of the LP as an alternative to traditional methods of obtaining
protection and healing, including amulets.134 Caesarius of Arles (d. 542)
does not refer to the LP in Serm. 50, wherein he inveighs against amulets
(including those received from Christian priests, bearing res sanctas et
lectiones divinas),135 but he stresses that for health in both body and soul one
131 Chromatius, Tractatus in Matthaeum 28.7.6 (R. Étaix and J. Lemarié, CCSL 9A.335):
uniuersa igitur quae fidei ac saluti nostrae sunt necessaria, in hac breuitate orationis
dominicae continetur (trans. T.P. Scheck, ACW 75.216); cf. Ambrose, Sacr. 5.4.18
(B. Botte, SC 25.128): “You see how brief the prayer is, and full of all virtues/powers
(brevis oratio et omnium plena virtutum).”
132 Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)” (see n. 2).
133 This observation may help to explain the pairing of the LP with the Creed, which gathers
up the full sweep of the Gospel story in tightly compressed propositions, in medieval
charms.
134 Regarding the traditional Germanic religions, or their vestiges, engaged by preachers
and missionaries, see W.E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian
Community in Late Antique Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994),
esp. 201–243; Y. Hen, Culture and Religion in Merovingian Gaul, A.D. 481–751, Cul-
tures, Beliefs and Traditions 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 154–206 (expressing skepticism that
“pagan” practices were as prevalent as the sources claim); R. Simek, “Germanic Religion
and the Conversion to Christianity,” in Early Germanic Literature and Culture, ed.
B. Murdoch and M. Read, Camden House History of German Literature 1 (Rochester,
N.Y.: Camden House, 2004), 73–101. On the passages discussed below, cf. Hammerling,
“Lord’s Prayer in Early Christian Polemics” (see n. 110), 235–240.
135 Caesarius, Serm. 50.1 (D.G. Morin, CCSL 103.225): “What is deplorable is that there are
some who seek soothsayers (sortilegos quaerunt) in every kind of infirmity. They
consult seers and divines, summon enchanters, and hang diabolical phylacteries and
magic letters on themselves (aruspices et divinos interrogant, praecantatores adhibent,
fylateria sibi diabolica et caracteres adpendunt). Often enough they receive amulets even
from priests and religious (et aliquotiens ligaturas ipsas a clericis ac religiosis accipiunt),
who, however, are not really religious or priests but the Devil’s helpers. […] Even if you

must go to the church and receive the sacraments,136 adding later: “It would
be better to keep the words of God in one’s heart than to wear them in
writing on one’s neck.”137 In Serm. 6, he harangues his audience for
claiming not to have time to read or listen to the scriptures:
How many men and women in the country remember and repeatedly sing diabolical,
shameful love songs (cantica diabolica amatoria et turpia memoriter retinent et ore de-
cantant)! These things which the Devil teaches they can remember and say; and they are
unable to keep in mind what Christ shows them? How much more quickly and to better
advantage, how much more profitably could these men and women from the farm learn
the Creed (symbolum discere), the Lord’s Prayer (et orationem dominicam), a few anti-
phons of the fiftieth and ninetieth Psalms? By getting and remembering these and saying
them rather frequently (et parare et tenere et frequentius dicere) they might have a means
of uniting their soul to God and freeing it from the Devil (et a diabolo liberare).138
Psalm 90 appears often on amulets, including five items in List II. The
Creed also frequently shows up alongside the LP in the Anglo-Saxon
charms. The obtaining, holding in mind, and frequent recitation of these
texts release one’s anima from the devil. In Serm. 54, Caesarius proposes
replacements for omens or divination from birdsong or sneezes: “As often
as there is need for you to hurry, sign yourself in the name of Christ,
devoutly recite the Creed or the Lord’s Prayer, and go on your way secure in
God’s help (et symbolum vel orationem dominicum fidelitur dicentes, securi
de dei adiutorio iter agite).”139 Others take up and enhance Caesarius’s
positioning of the LP relative to traditional amulets and remedies. The
sermon by Martin of Braga, De correctione rusticorum (ca. 572), accuses his
audience of lapsing back to paganism: “Similarly you have given up the
sacred incantation, I mean the creed you accepted at baptism, […] and the
are told that the phylacteries contain holy facts and divine lessons (etiam si vobis dicatur,
quod res sanctas et lectiones divinas filacteria ipsa contineant), let no one believe it or
expect health to come from them” (trans. M.M. Mueller, FC 31.254, modified). Cf.
Klingshirn, Caesarius (see n. 134), 221–224; Hen, Culture and Religion (see n. 134),
162–167.
136 Caesarius, Serm. 50.1 (CCSL 103.225): “However, brethren, ask health from Christ who
is the true Light. Hurry to church, be anointed with holy oil, and receive the Eucharistic
Christ (ad ecclesiam recurrite, oleo vos benedicto perungite, eucharistiam Christi acci-
pite). If you do this, you will receive health of soul as well as body” (trans. FC 31.254).
137 Caesarius, Serm. 50.2 (CCSL 103.226): Melius est in corde verba dei retinere, quam
scripta in collo suspendere (trans. FC 31.255). Although scripta (“writings”) could refer
simply to textual amulets, I believe Mueller is correct to read them as equating with
verba dei, that is, “scriptures.”
138 Caesarius, Serm. 6.3 (CCSL 103.32; trans. FC 31.40). Cf. Bede, Epistola ad Ecgbertum 5
( J.E. King, LCL 248.454–457).
139 Caesarius, Serm. 54.1 (CCSL 103.236; trans. FC 31.266).

Lord’s Prayer, […] and you retain the devil’s incantations and charms.”140
A homily attributed to Eligius of Noyon (d. 660) urges the recitation of the
Creed and the LP to alleviate anxiety about leaving on a journey instead of
divination from auguries, sneezes or birdsong.141 A text (incorrectly) at-
tributed to Augustine in an eighth-century manuscript similarly declares:
“Whoever speaks charms and incantations of pagans beyond the Creed and
the Lord’s Prayer […] that one is not a Christian, but a pagan.”142
140 Martin, De correctione rusticorum 16 (C.W. Barlow, Martini episcopi Bracarensis opera
omnia, Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 12 [New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1950], 199): Similiter dimisistis incantationem sanctam, id est
symbolum quod in baptismum accepistis, quod est “Credo in deum patrem omnipo-
tentem,” et orationem dominicam, id est “Pater noster qui es in caelis,” et tenetis dia-
bolicas incantationes et carmina (trans. id., FC 62.82). See further Y. Hen, “Martin of
Braga’s De correctione rusticorum and Its Uses in Frankish Gaul,” in Medieval
Transformations: Texts, Power, and Gifts in Context, ed. E. Cohen and M.B. De Jong,
Cultures, Beliefs and Traditions 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 35–49; I. Velázquez Soriano,
“Between Orthodox Belief and ‘Superstition’ in Visigothic Hispania,” in Magical
Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference Held at the Uni-
versity of Zaragoza, 30 Sept.–1 Oct. 2005, ed. R.L. Gordon and F.M. Simón, RGRW 168
(Leiden: Brill, 2010), 601–627.
141 Vita S. Eligius 2.16 (B. Krusch in Monumenta Germaniae historica, scriptorum rerum
Merovingicarum, vol. 4 [Hanover: Hahn, 1902], 705): “Similarly, pay no attention to
auguries and sneezes, nor attend to chanting little birds when you are planning a
journey. But whether you are undertaking a journey or some other deed, make the sign
[of the cross] in Christ’s name, and say the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer with faithful
devotion (signate vos in nomine Christi et symbolum vel orationem dominicam cum fide
et devotione dicite), and the enemy (inimicus) will be able to cause no injury to you” (cf.
ibid., 706, for a passage strikingly similar to Caesarius, Serm. 50.1). The phrasing here
recurs elsewhere too, e. g., Aelfric of Eynsham, Serm. 17 in Laetania maiore (De au-
guriis) 95–99 (W.W. Skeat, Aelfric’s Lives of Saints, Early English Text Society [London:
Trübner, 1881], 370–371). On the collection attributed to Eligius, see J. McCune,
“Rethinking the Pseudo-Eligius Sermon Collection,” Early Medieval Europe 16 (2004),
445–476; cf. Hen, “Martin of Braga’s De correctione” (see n. 140), 38–40.
142 [Augustine] De sacrilegiis 14 (C.P. Caspari, Eine Augustin fälschlich beigelegte Homilia
de sacrilegiis [Christiania: Brögger, 1886], 9): quicumque super sanctam simbulum et
orationem dominicam carmina aut incantationes paganorum dicit […] iste non chris-
tianus, sed paganus est. In addition to the references in the text and notes above, I must
mention the poetic reflection (9th–10th cent.) on the runic spelling of pater noster, cast
as a dialogue between Solomon and an apparently euhemerized Saturn; see Menner,
Poetical Dialogues (see n. 66); D. Anlezark, ed. and trans., The Old English Dialogues of
Solomon and Saturn, Anglo-Saxon Texts 7 (Cambridge: Brewer, 2009). On the po-
tentially apotropaic function of the text, see E.J. Sharpe, “The Old English Runic Pa-
ternoster,” in Symbols of Power, ed. H.R. Ellis Davidson (Totowa, N.J.: Rowan & Lit-
tlefield; Cambridge: Brewer, 1973), 41–60; T.D. Hill, “Tormenting the Devil with
Boiling Drops: An Apotropaic Motif in the Old English Solomon and Saturn I and Old
Norse-Icelandic Literature,” Journal of English and Germanic Philology 92.2 (1993),
157–166. Wright, Irish Tradition (see n. 66), 238–240, points out the connections of the
Dialogues with an episode in the Middle Irish Birth and Life of St. Moling in which the

4 Conclusions
Although the appropriation of the LP by early Christians for their φυ-

λακτήρια may at first seem self-evident, a closer examination has revealed a
more complex picture. The review of the artifacts bearing inscriptions from
the LP (§ 2) has identified several which feature it alongside other elements
plainly meant to attract or impart divine power for their bearers’ benefit.
The items with the LP as the central or sole element surely include some
amulets, although categorizations of individual items must remain ten-
tative. Altogether, these artifacts confirm the LP’s usage as an amuletic text.
Medieval sources furnish additional testimony regarding its prominence in
later charms and amulets. The apotropaic and therapeutic applications of
the LP stand among the oldest and most durable traditions in the history of
Christianity.
In the next section (§ 3), I isolated seven aspects of the LP and its re-
ception which help to explain its appeal. The first three arise from the
prayer itself: (1) the final petitions for forgiveness and rescue from evil or
the evil one; (2) significant points of contact between its vocabulary and
those of other φυλακτήρια; and (3) the origin of the prayer in Jesus’s own
command, οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς, in the Gospel of Matthew. The
next three relate to the pragmatically-oriented receptions of the LP that
reinforced its materialization and intensification in φυλακτήρια: (4) the
rereading of the instruction for prayer (Matt 6:5–15) as a formulary pro-
viding direction for pious amulet-praxis, including the LP as optimal in-
scription; (5) the transmission of the LP as the special prayer of Christian
hero deploys a poetic riff on the Latin LP in order to deter a crowd intent on his murder
(ed. and trans. in W. Stokes, The Birth and Life of St. Moling, Specimens of Middle-Irish
Literature 1 [London: Harrison & Sons, 1907], 52–53). Note also the retelling of the
delivery of the LP in the ninth-century Old Saxon epic Heliand 19: Jesus’s disciples ask:
“Do this for Your own followers – teach us the secret runes.” The poem continues: “The
powerful One, the Son of the Chieftain, had a good word ready right after that in reply.
‘When you men want to speak to the ruling God,’ He said, ‘to address the most powerful
of all kings, then say what I now teach you […]’” (trans. G.R. Murphy, The Heliand: The
Saxon Gospel, a Translation and Commentary [New York: Oxford University Press,
1992], 54–55; cf. M. Scott, The Heliand, Translated from the Old Saxon [Chapel Hill,
N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1966], 53–54). Murphy remarks: “The Lord’s
Prayer thus becomes most specifically the replacement for Woden’s runic charms that
were relied on in the north to give access to the divine. Jesus is depicted as Woden,
knowing secret sayings that grant divine contact and placing power into the hands of
selected followers who know the secret formulas” (The Saxon Savior: The Germanic
Transformation of the Gospel in the Ninth-Century Heliand [New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1989], 90).

initiates as a relational basis (i. e., adoption) for more focused petitions; and
(6) the notion that the LP abbreviates τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, that is, that it
functions both as a prayer and a compression of the Gospel qua δύναμις
θεοῦ εἰς σωτηρίαν. The final feature, attested in sources from the sixth
century forward, fully discloses the religious-competitive dimension which
is surely present much earlier: (7) the exhortation to rely on the LP
(alongside the Creed) instead of traditional (“pagan”) amulets, charms and
divination. These seven aspects identified above provide insight not only
into the LP’s initial adoption, but also its reappropriation in later centuries
as well. At all points, creators and bearers were concerned to ensure that
their φυλακτήρια embody the principles of εὐσέβεια, as befits their un-
derstanding of the God whom they petition.143

Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Tex. (USA)
orcid.org/0000-0001-5056-2050
143 Parts of this essay were presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest SBL (South
Bend, Ind.) on February 9, 2019, and in the “Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti”
program unit of the annual meeting of the SBL (San Diego) on November 24, 2019; I
thank fellow-panelists and audiences alike for stimulating discussion. Also, in addition
to the individuals already named in nn. 30 and 70 above, I gratefully acknowledge Hans
Dieter Betz, Jürgen Blänsdorf, Werner H. Kelber, and Clare K. Rothschild for their
critiques of earlier drafts.

The Lords Prayer in Christian Amulets

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Lords Prayer in Christian Amulets

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

4 Editorial

Robert Matthew Calhoun

Robert Matthew Calhoun

Marion Christina Hauck

Early Christianity 11 (2020) DOI 10.1628/ec-2020-0029

The Lord’s Prayer in Christian Amulets

Notwithstanding the old adage’s counsel that “absence of evidence is not

1 Abbreviations of papyrus volumes conform to the “Checklist of Editions of Greek, Latin,

Early Christianity 11 (2020), 415–450 DOI 10.1628/ec-2020-0031

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

magiques du département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques (Paris: Bibliotèque natio-

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

borderline. (2) Christians had alternate methods of healing or defense from

Papyri,” in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity, and Tradition in Ancient Judaism,

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Another utilized quotations or evocations of the Lord’s Prayer (LP) in its

de Bruyn, Making Amulets Christian (see n. 2), 141–146; Calhoun, “Gospel(-Amulet)”

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

2 Protective and Therapeutic Applications of the Lord’s Prayer

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

List I: Items with the Lord’s Prayer as the central element

Schleswig: Berichte und Studien 15 (Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2001), 207–226; K. Düwel,

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

List III: Inscriptions with the Lord’s Prayer

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

above, as a prayer (εὐχή, which petitions the deity directly), or as an in-

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

other liturgical elements (credo/symbolum,65 ave Maria).66 Later manu-

65 On confessional/creedal elements in amulets, see de Bruyn, “What Did Ancient Chris-

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

charms seems to operate primarily as an incantation: one adds its divine

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

In conclusion, the LP appears on a variety of artifacts dating from the

3 The Lord’s Prayer and Its Contexts

3.1 The Text of the Lord’s Prayer

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

and forgiveness of “debts” or “obligations” (ὀφειλήματα).83 Verse 13 either

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

λάσσειν91 – is nonetheless amply attested on amulets.92 The gender of the

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

In addition to the apotropaic final petitions in v. 13,96 several other key

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

thermore encompasses his role of creating, governing, and sustaining the

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

3.2 The Cultic Didache on Prayer in the Sermon on the Mount

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

all ostentatiousness, but performances of religious duties must remain completely

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

pious amulet-praxis.112 The contrasts of the behaviors of οἱ ὑποκριταί qua

3.3 Transmission and Reception

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.

sophical reflections of Origen, for example). Particular commonplaces

116 O. Perler, “Arkandisziplin,” RAC 1 (1950), 667–676; F. Graf and W. Wischmeyer,

Author’s e-offprint with publisher’s permission.