A Letter by Bishop Abraham of Hermonthis to the Priest

A LETTER BY BISHOP ABRAHAM OF HERMONTHIS TO THE PRIEST JOHN, ABBOT OF THE MONASTERY OF APA EZEKIEL, IN THE PAPYRUS COLLECTION OF THE EGYPTIAN MUSEUM IN BERLIN (P 12497)

by Frederic Krueger

1. Introduction: The Monastery of Apa Ezekiel and the priest John

In a recent article in this journal, I presented the essential outlines, along with the edition of some key texts, of a significant new Coptic ostraca dossier that emerged as the result of my dissertation project in which I edited the almost 600 Coptic ostraca in the Leipzig University Library.1 To this article I refer the reader with regard to the various points raised in the following brief summary. Many of the texts, mainly letters and occa- sional legal documents, lists and accounts, writing exercises and prayers, can be demonstrated to constitute a coherent dossier from a single source that is scattered today across numerous collections in Leipzig, Vienna, Berlin, and elsewhere (I have currently evaluated, via my own edition, re-edition, or simply identification in earlier editions, ca. 160 pieces, with many more waiting): The Monastery of Apa Ezekiel in the mountain of Hermonthis, the pagarchy capital ca. 20 km south of Thebes. This monastery, named after the local anchorite saint of the 4th or 5th century Ezekiel of Hermonthis (whose short Arabic commemoration on Khoiak 14 in the Synaxarium is most probably based on a more elaborate Coptic Life of Apa Ezekiel), seems to have flourished most significantly during the second half of the 6th century, specifically during the 570s and 80s (some

Preliminary remark: I am very grateful to the curator of the papyrus collection of the Ägyptisches Museum, Verena Lepper, and the current deputy curator Jan Moje for the friendly permission to publish this text, the depot administrator Anne Schorneck for her kind supervision during my work on the ostracon, and the photographer Sandra Steiß for the beautiful new pictures. 1 Krueger, “The Papyrological Rediscovery”; my dissertation Andreas von Hermonthis und das Kloster des Apa Hesekiel will appear in the Beihefte series of Archiv für Papyrus- forschung in 2020.

Journal of Coptic Studies 22 (2020) 143–150 doi: 10.2143/JCS.22.0.3287551 © 2020 by Peeters. All rights reserved. 144 FREDERIC KRUEGER texts are probably yet earlier, some are definitely later), when it was led by the abbot-priests Apa Aron and Apa Andrew, the principal protago- nists of the dossier. Andrew in particular is of especial historical significance, not only because he was bishop of Hermonthis like his well-known successor Abraham, but especially as his orders for delivery addressed to, and concerned with the economic supply of various monasteries reflect another role of his which he himself defines as “father of all the monks of the οἰκουμένη” in O.Lips.Copt. II 10. This, I have argued and will substantiate further on another occasion, would seem to indicate an office, instituted in the new Monophysite church that the patriarch Damian was building in Egypt at this time, of an administrator general of the monasteries in all of (Upper?) Egypt, which would represent a monastic-economic pendant to the ecclestastical office of the patriarchal vicar (“the διάδο- χος of all the land of Egypt”) that was also introduced at this time. Since Andrew is only called bishop and engaged in ecclesiastical (rather than the ubiquitous monastic-economic) affairs in very few ostraca, it seems likely that after a long time as priest, abbot, and “father of all the monks,” he was not bishop of Hermonthis for very long. At some point in the 590s, he was succeeded by Abraham, so perhaps he had himself only been ordained in the late 580s or even the early 590s. As Aron’s and Andrew’s successor as abbot, second only to these two in prominence among the ostraca, we meet another priest named Apa John, also the author of some orders for delivery (typically written to a certain deacon Moses) as well as the creditor in some declarations of indebted- ness (typically written by a certain Moses, though probably not identical with the former). Before the ostraca dossier was established, both John and the Monastery of Apa Ezekiel used to be known only from the letter which will be published here for the first time: The Berlin ostracon P 12497, one of several letters from the archive of bishop Abraham that were acquired by Georg Möller in 1911–13 (see below), was edited and dis- cussed with the then known rest of the Abraham archive by Martin Krause in his important but unfortunately never published dissertation in 1956.2 In this letter, Abraham imposes an interdict on the Monastery of Apa

2 Krause, Apa Abraham no. 77 in vol. 2, 276–279. For recent summaries and bibliography on the archive and Krause’s work see Wipszycka, The Alexandrian Church 34–36, as well as Dekker, Episcopal Network, in particular 86–92 (Abraham in general), 150–154 (Krause’s work; criteria of dating and assigning texts to the dossier), and 314–315 (a list of known texts). Since this ostracon was featured in Krause’s dissertation, the prospect of whose eventual publication remains unclear, I would like to point out that before submitting this edition for publication, I first assured myself of Martin Krause’s approval via the kind inter- cession of Claus Dapper, the legal representative of the Brigitte und Martin Krause-Stiftung. A LETTER BY BISHOP ABRAHAM OF HERMONTHIS TO THE PRIEST JOHN 145

Ezekiel, so that no eucharist may be celebrated there until John extradites a wrongdoer named Joseph who is guilty of certain unspecified misdeeds. Like Crum before him with regard to clues in O.Brit.Mus.Copt. I 63/3 and O.Crum Ad. 16 = O.Lips.Copt. I 10, Krause suspected correctly that the Monastery of Apa Ezekiel mentioned here (and back then: only here explicitly and unambiguously) must be identical with the Deir Anba Hizqiyal mentioned in the Arabic Synaxarium many centuries after our ostraca.3 Now that a vast dossier from just this monastery has emerged, Berlin P 12497 has assumed a crucial significance as one of very few key texts that help us establish the chronological placing and sequence of the abbots of the monastery (and by extension, of the bishops of Hermonthis). This ostracon proves that John, the abbot of the Monastery of Apa Ezekiel, was a contemporary of Abraham, Andrew’s successor as bishop, which means in turn that as abbot, John was himself the successor of Aron and Andrew (which is confirmed further by O.Lips.Copt. II 375, a list of abbots edited in my preliminary report). If Abraham took over the episco- pate from Andrew in, say, 595, John may have already taken over as abbot before that (if Andrew did not, or not for long, combine both compe- tences as Abraham did), and he cannot have done so much later, for some letters from the dossier suggest that John was already abbot of the Mon- astery of Apa Ezekiel before Abraham became bishop and abandoned the First Monastery of Apa Phoibammon in order to re-found it at Deir el- Bahari around 600.4 That John was still in office at the end of Abraham’s life is suggested by the letter O.Lips.Copt. II 91, in which Apa John writes to his “father” (Abraham?), bemoaning the adverse impact of “the wide- spread war” on the monastery’s economy. This most likely refers to the Persian invasion of 621, two years before Abraham’s death, and it may also represent an essential clue to the abandonment of the Monastery of Apa Ezekiel not much later — John may well have been its last abbot, for we never hear about it again until the Arabic summary of lost Coptic hagiographies reminds us of its existence (then: as a place of memory and pilgrimage) ca. in the 13th century. Having thus provided the essential historical context, I shall now present my edition and interpretation of the Berlin ostracon P 12497. Aside from this crucial text relating to the monastery, but stemming from quite another archive, there are also many Coptic ostraca from the actual dossier of the Monastery of Apa Ezekiel in the

3 Winlock/Crum, The Monastery of Epiphanius 115; Krause, Apa Abraham 278. 4 An extensive article discussing this and other aspects of the relationship between the Monasteries of Apa Ezekiel and Apa Phoibammon and their leading personell will appear in APF 66.1 (2020). 146 FREDERIC KRUEGER

Berlin papyrus collection, mostly unedited save for some BKU texts, which were acquired by Adolf Erman in the 1880s and which I also hope to present in a separate catalogue.

2. Edition of bishop Abraham’s letter to the priest John

Inv. no.: P 12497 Measurements: 6.5 × 9.9 × 2.1 cm Material: Limestone Writing: “Hand A” of the Abraham correspondence, see O.Crum, xiii–iv and Pl. I, 71; see also O.Lips.Copt. I 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 35 with plates. The writing is well legible for the most part (there is minor smearing in a few places which is hardly noticeable except where it is con- centrated slightly to the right of the recto’s center) and covers the full limestone flake on both sides; on the recto, the surface has broken off at the top right, top left, and bottom left corners. Date: ca. 595–621 Provenance: For the acquisition history of this and sixteen other Berlin ostraca (not all by Abraham) during Georg Möller’s digs near the German House in Thebes in 1911–13 see Müller, “Preliminary Report,” 281–312, 311 n.106. Müller is currently preparing a full edition of these ostraca and kindly left P 12497 to me due to its special relevance for the Apa Ezekiel dossier. Editio princeps: Krause, Apa Abraham, vol. 2, no. 77, pp. 276–279. Bibliography: Schmelz, Kirchliche Amtsträger 133; mentioned again on pp. 137, 143 n.88, 147 n.110, 150, 152 n.135.

Recto Verso

1 [⳨ ϯϣⲓⲛⲉ ⲉ]ⲧⲉⲕⲙ⳰Ⲛⲧϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲡ- 10 ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ ⲉⲓⲥ ⲡϣⲁ· ⲥⲁϣⲧ [ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲉ]ϥⲉⲥⲙⲟⲩ ⲉⲣⲟⲕ ⲁⲩⲧⲁⲙ- ⲉⲡⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ϣⲁ·ⲛⲧϥⲃⲱⲕ ⲛⲁ[ⲓ] [ⲟⲓ ϫⲉ] ⲁⲓⲱⲥⲏⲫ ⲣ ϩⲉⲛϩⲃⲏⲩⲉ [ϩⲙ] [ⲛ]ϩⲏⲧϥ [[ca. 15]] ⲡⲉⲕⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ Ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲟⲙⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲙ[ⲟ-] [ⲁ]ⲩⲱ ⲉⲕϣⲁⲛⲣ ϣⲁ· ⲉϥϩⲙ ⲡⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ 5 ⲛⲟⲭⲟⲥ Ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲟⲙⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲉⲕⲟⲥⲙ⸍ⲓ⸌ ⲕϩⲓⲃⲟⲗ Ⲙⲡϣⲁ· ⲧⲁⲁⲥ Ⲙⲡⲁ- ⲕⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ Ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ 15 ϣⲏⲣⲉ Ⲙⲙⲁⲓⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲛ ⲡⲉ ⲁⲁⲩ ⲉⲓⲣ ϣⲡⲏⲣⲉ ⲙ- ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲣ(ⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ) Ⲛⲁⲡⲁ [ⲙⲟⲕ ϫ]ⲉ ⲁⲕⲁⲛⲉⲭⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲓⲉⲍⲉⲕ(ⲓⲏⲗ) ϩⲓⲧⲚ ⲁⲃⲣⲁϩⲁⲙ ⲡⲉⲓ- ⲛ[ϥϣⲧ]ⲟⲣⲧⲣ ⲙⲡⲧⲟⲡⲟⲥ ⲉⲗⲁⲭ(ⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ) Ⲛⲉⲡⲓⲥⲕⲟⲡⲟⲥ

1–2 ⲡ[ϫ|ⲟⲉⲓⲥ ed. princ. 2–3 ⲧⲁⲙ|[ⲟ ed. princ. 4 τόπος; ⲁⲛⲉⲙ[ⲟ] ed. princ. 4–5 μοναχός 5 ⲁⲛⲉⲕⲟⲥⲙⲓ ed. princ. 5–6 κοσμικός 6 ἐντολή: ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ: l. ⲉⲣⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ; ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ed. princ. 8 ἀνέχω 9 [ ] . ⲟⲧⲣ ed. princ.; A LETTER BY BISHOP ABRAHAM OF HERMONTHIS TO THE PRIEST JOHN 147

τόπος 10 ⲥⲁϣⲧ: l. ⲥⲟϣⲧ; [ϯⲛ]ⲟⲩ, ⲥⲟϣⲧ ed. princ. 11 ϣⲁⲛⲧϥⲃⲱⲕ ed. princ. 13 ϣⲁ ⲉϥϩⲙ ed. princ. 14 ϣⲁ ⲧⲁⲁⲥ ed. princ. 16 ⲡⲣⳇ ostr. (πρεσβύτερος) 16–17 ⲓⲉⲍ|ⲉⲕⳇ ostr.; ϩⲓⲧⲛ ed. princ. 18 ⲉⲗⲁⲭⳇ ostr. (ἐλάχιστος)

[+ I greet] your sonship, may the [Lord] bless you. [I] have been informed [that] Joseph has done certain things [in] your monastery which do not behoove monks (5) and which do not behoove worldly folk (either), as it is not the commandment of God to do them (at all). I am disappointed in [you] that you have suffered him to disturb the monastery. (10) Now, behold, the celebration (of the eucharist) is suspended for the monastery until he comes to [me] from it (the monastery), and if you do celebrate (the eucharist) while he is (still) in the monastery, you are excluded from the celebration! To my God-loving son John, the priest of (the Monas- tery of) Apa Ezekiel, from Abraham, this humblest bishop.

2. Krause reads janja already at the end of l. 1, but it does not look like that to me. 6. ⲉⲧⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ: ⲉ for ⲉⲣⲉ occurs often in Theban documentary texts, see Kahle, Bala’izah vol. 1, 170. 8. Nu seems to be a correction over omicron. 9. Krause asserts mistakenly that “(d)ie Lesung [ϣⲧⲟ]ⲣⲧⲣ = Verwirrung ist nicht möglich”; it is exactly right. His assessment probably results from the fact that only the loop remains of rho, which by itself looks very much like omicron. Traces of the actual omicron can be seen to its left. 10. For ⲥⲱϣⲧ “stop, impede” as a technical term for the bishop’s placing an interdict on a specific church or monastery compare, e.g., BKU I 73, 8–9 ⲧⲛⲥⲱϣⲧ ⲡϣⲁ ⲙ⳰ⲛ | ⲧⲕⲁⲗⲏⲗⲁ ⲛⲁⲡⲁ ⲁⲛⲁⲛⲓⲁⲥ “we forbid the celebration and (sound- ing) the wooden board (which is struck to summon the congregation at prayer time) for (the church of) Apa Ananias.” 11. ϣⲁ·: Is the dot a mistake in this instance? Throughout the rest of the letter (10, 13, 14) it always follows the word ϣⲁ “celebration.” 12. As noted by Krause, the scribe erased the rest of the line after [ⲛ]ϩⲏⲧϥ.

Krause, and Schmelz repeats the same in paraphrase, understands the beginning of the text, in which we read of Joseph’s misdeeds, in such a way that Joseph had done “(Un)taten” (Schmelz: “etwas Schreckliches”), “und sowohl die Mönche als auch die weltlichen Personen im Kloster des Apa Ezechiel hatten mitgemacht,” summarizes Schmelz. This is based on a wrong translation by Krause, who 1) confused ⲧⲟⲙⲉ with ⲧⲁⲙⲟ, 2) misunderstood both instances of Ⲛⲥⲉ (negated third person plural first present) as third person plural conjunctive forms, 3) mistook the negation ⲁⲛ followed by the preposition ⲉ- “not (fitting) for …” for the first perfect conjugation base followed by the definite plural article ⲁ-ⲛⲉ- “(that) the (…) did …,” and 4) misjudged the circumstantial converter 148 FREDERIC KRUEGER

ⲉ- followed by the feminine subject ⲧ-ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ as being the relative converter ⲉⲧⲉ followed by an unusually spelled and non-determined ⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ. After all corrections, this passage reads correctly: “that Joseph has done things in your monastery which5 do not behoove monks and which do not behoove worldly folk (either),” because it is contrary to God’s commandment (ἐντολή may refer to Biblical precepts, but very often, including countless attestations in the Abraham correspondence, the rules for monks or clerics are meant)6 ⲉⲁⲁⲩ “to do them,” not “dass sie (mit) getan haben” as if this part still depended on the initial “I have been informed.” Ergo, Abraham does not at all raise the accusation that monks and layfolk alike had joined Joseph in his mischief, instead Abraham accuses Joseph alone of doing these “things” that are not appropriate (ⲧⲟⲙⲉ is the stative of ⲧⲱⲱⲙⲉ) for either monks or layfolk. I wonder if Abraham’s explicit distinction “not allowed to monks, but not allowed to worldly folk either” could suggest that Joseph was not a monk but a layman who was staying in the monastery as an apprentice or a hired worker. Perhaps we can compare P.KRU 65, the will of Jacob, the abbot of the Monastery of Apa Phoibammon: In ll. 45ff. he describes how he first met his designated successor, brother Victor, when the latter was still a πιστός (novice?)7 in the monastery. The young Victor ⲉϥⲟⲩⲱϣ⳿ ⲉⲢ ⲙⲟⲛⲟⲭⲟⲥ ⲉⲁϥϩⲩⲡⲟⲩⲣⲅⲉⲓ ⲛⲉⲙⲁⲛ ϩⲚ ϩⲱⲃ ⲛⲓⲙ⳿ ⲉϥⲡⲣⲉⲡⲉⲓ {Ⲛ} [[ⲧ ⳰. ⳰. ]] ⲚⲧⲙⲚⲧⲡⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲉⲁϥⲙⲁⲑⲏⲧⲉⲩⲉ | ⲇⲉ ⲞⲚ⳿ Ⲛⲕⲟⲥⲙⲓⲕⲟⲛ ϩⲁⲣⲁⲧⲚ “wished to become a monk after he had (already) been helping us out with all the tasks that behoove (πρέπω, equivalent to our ⲧⲱⲱⲙⲉ) the status of πιστός and after he had also been a worldly apprentice with us.” We could imagine a similar scenario as a reason for a layman Joseph staying at the monastery, either hiring out or learning his craft (though other scenarios are possible as well). Whatever it is he did, he may have thought that it was unproblematic for him, since as a layman he is not subject to the monastery rule (the ἐντολή of God). If so, it seems that he was sorely mistaken!

5 We are not really dealing with relative forms either but repeated main clauses which would read rather clunky in English: “I have been informed that Joseph has done certain things in your monastery. They do not behoove monks, they do not behoove worldly folk …” 6 For this meaning of ἐντολή in Coptic see Young, “Precept” 507–508. 7 A majority of attestations for πιστός suggest or fit with this meaning, though it has also been suggested based on certain instances that the term may refer to laypeople staying at the monastery, in which case our Joseph may actually belong to this category. For a comprehensive discussion see Garel, “Vouloir ou ne pas vouloir” 250–253, who suggests the possibility of a “statut intermédiaire entre laïc et moine.” A LETTER BY BISHOP ABRAHAM OF HERMONTHIS TO THE PRIEST JOHN 149

Bibliography

Dekker, Renate. Episcopal Networks and Authority in Late Antique Egypt: Bish- ops of the Theban Region at Work. OLA 264. Leuven 2018. Garel, Esther. “Vouloir ou ne pas vouloir. Devenir moine à Thèbes aux VIIe– VIIIe siècles d’après les textes documentaires.” In: A. Boud’hors & C. Louis (eds.), Études coptes XV. Dix-septième journée d’études (Lisbonne, 18–20 juin 2015), 245–254. CBC 22. Paris 2018. Kahle, Paul. Bala’izah. Coptic Texts from Deir el-Bala’izah in Upper Egypt, 2 vols. Berlin 1954. Krause, Martin. Apa Abraham von Hermonthis. Ein oberägyptischer Bischof um 600, 2 vols. Dissertation Berlin 1956. Krueger, Frederic. Andreas von Hermonthis und das Kloster des Apa Hesekiel. Mikrohistorische Untersuchungen zu Kirchengeschichte und Klosterwesen im Gebiet von Armant (Oberägypten) in byzantinischer Zeit anhand der koptischen Ostraka der Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig (O.Lips.Copt. II), mit einem Appendix von Texten des Hauptdossiers in anderen Sammlungen, 2 vols. Dissertation Berlin 2018. —. “The Papyrological Rediscovery of the Monastery of Apa Ezekiel and Bishop Andrew of Hermonthis (6th Century).” JCoptS 21 (2019), 73–114. Müller, Matthias. “Preliminary Report on the Ostraca.” In: E. Pischikova (ed.), Tombs of the South Asasif Necropolis. New Discoveries and Research 2012–2014, 281–312. Cairo 2017. Schmelz, Georg. Kirchliche Amtsträger im spätantiken Ägypten nach den Aussagen der griechischen und koptischen Papyri und Ostraka. APF – Beiheft 13. München/Leipzig 2002. Winlock, Herbert E., and Crum, Walter E. The Monastery of Epiphanius at Thebes, vol. I: The Archaeological Material. New York 1926. Wipszycka, Ewa. The Alexandrian Church. People and Institutions. JJP Supple- ment 33. Warsaw 2018. Young, Dwight W. “‘Precept’. A Study in Coptic Terminology.” Orientalia, Nova Series 38.4 (1969), 505–519.

Frederic Krueger Freie Universität Berlin [email protected] 150 FREDERIC KRUEGER

[[[AFBEELDING]]]