Manichaean Cues: Religious Identity in Everyday Life

H. F. Teigen
{"title":"Manichaean Cues: Religious Identity in Everyday Life","authors":"H. F. Teigen","doi":"10.1163/9789004459779_006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The people we have met in the past few chapters juggled several roles. Pamour III was – as far as we can tell – a dutiful son, a responsible elder brother, a sometimes absent husband and father, an eager trader, a Kellite, a migrant, and probably a number of other things that we cannot discern. Other villagers were daughters, potters, mothers, weavers, carpenters, caravan drivers, estate managers, Roman officials, ‘Egyptians’, ‘Hibites’, and so on. For some, such as Pamour III himself, we may add ‘Manichaean’ to the list. However, the nature of this ‘Manichaeanness’ is difficult to ascertain. Shared religion is, by and large, not something that the Pamour family or their associates discuss at length: indeed, the main body of evidence for Manichaean affiliation is the literary texts, not the documentary letters. How are we to judge the importance of religious identity to Pamour III and the rest of his associates? And how can we be sure that this identity was ‘Manichaean’? These questions will, in various guises, follow us throughout the rest of this book. The present chapter sets the stage by clarifying some theoretical concepts broached in the introduction, and applying them to a selection of documentary letters. While religious affiliation is never discussed explicitly, authors of House 1–3 did employ religiously charged phrases, allusions, and terms: what we may call ‘religious cues’. These cues comprise the best-preserved evidence we have for the way the actors themselves articulated their religious identity. Below, we examine what they tell us about the role of religious identity in the everyday lives of the House 3 inhabitants, and the extent to which they can be taken as belonging to a specifically Manichaean tradition. But before we turn to the House 1–3 material, we need to take a step back and consider some theoretical perspectives on everyday religion and lay identity, in order to situate the present contribution. We therefore start by looking at recent trends in scholarship on late antique religious identity.","PeriodicalId":220486,"journal":{"name":"The Manichaean Church at Kellis","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Manichaean Church at Kellis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004459779_006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The people we have met in the past few chapters juggled several roles. Pamour III was – as far as we can tell – a dutiful son, a responsible elder brother, a sometimes absent husband and father, an eager trader, a Kellite, a migrant, and probably a number of other things that we cannot discern. Other villagers were daughters, potters, mothers, weavers, carpenters, caravan drivers, estate managers, Roman officials, ‘Egyptians’, ‘Hibites’, and so on. For some, such as Pamour III himself, we may add ‘Manichaean’ to the list. However, the nature of this ‘Manichaeanness’ is difficult to ascertain. Shared religion is, by and large, not something that the Pamour family or their associates discuss at length: indeed, the main body of evidence for Manichaean affiliation is the literary texts, not the documentary letters. How are we to judge the importance of religious identity to Pamour III and the rest of his associates? And how can we be sure that this identity was ‘Manichaean’? These questions will, in various guises, follow us throughout the rest of this book. The present chapter sets the stage by clarifying some theoretical concepts broached in the introduction, and applying them to a selection of documentary letters. While religious affiliation is never discussed explicitly, authors of House 1–3 did employ religiously charged phrases, allusions, and terms: what we may call ‘religious cues’. These cues comprise the best-preserved evidence we have for the way the actors themselves articulated their religious identity. Below, we examine what they tell us about the role of religious identity in the everyday lives of the House 3 inhabitants, and the extent to which they can be taken as belonging to a specifically Manichaean tradition. But before we turn to the House 1–3 material, we need to take a step back and consider some theoretical perspectives on everyday religion and lay identity, in order to situate the present contribution. We therefore start by looking at recent trends in scholarship on late antique religious identity.
摩尼教线索:日常生活中的宗教认同
在过去的几章中,我们遇到的人扮演着不同的角色。据我们所知,帕穆尔三世是一个尽职的儿子,一个负责任的哥哥,一个有时缺席的丈夫和父亲,一个热心的商人,一个凯利特人,一个移民,可能还有许多我们无法辨别的其他特征。其他村民有女儿、陶工、母亲、织工、木匠、商队司机、地产经理、罗马官员、“埃及人”、“希比特人”等等。对于一些人,比如帕穆尔三世本人,我们可能会在名单上加上“摩尼教”。然而,这种“摩尼教”的本质很难确定。总的来说,共同的宗教信仰并不是帕穆尔家族或他们的同伴详细讨论的事情:事实上,摩尼教从属关系的主要证据是文学文本,而不是书面信件。我们如何判断宗教身份对帕穆尔三世及其同伙的重要性?我们怎么能确定这个身份是“摩尼教徒”呢?这些问题将以不同的形式贯穿本书的其余部分。本章通过澄清引言中提出的一些理论概念,并将其应用于跟单信件的选择,从而奠定了基础。虽然没有明确讨论宗教信仰,但House 1-3的作者确实使用了充满宗教色彩的短语、典故和术语:我们可以称之为“宗教线索”。这些线索构成了我们所拥有的保存最完好的证据,证明了演员们自己表达宗教身份的方式。下面,我们来看看他们告诉我们的关于宗教身份在3号屋居民日常生活中的作用,以及他们在多大程度上可以被视为属于一个特定的摩尼教传统。但在我们转向House 1-3材料之前,我们需要退后一步,考虑一些关于日常宗教和俗人身份的理论观点,以便定位当前的贡献。因此,我们首先来看看古代晚期宗教认同的学术研究的最新趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信