ARAM, 11-12 (1999-2000), 253-268E.M. YAMAUCHI 253

MANDAIC INCANTATIONS: LEAD ROLLS AND MAGIC BOWLS

EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI

ORIGIN OF THE MANDAIC

The earliest documents of the Mandaeans are incantations, written on lead rolls and on terracotta bowls. These texts have been found in southern Iraq and south-western Iran. The bowls are generally dated between A.D. 600 and 800;1 some of the lead rolls are dated earlier. The scripts on both types of magical texts are quite similar. There have been four studies on the possible origins and affinities of the distinctive to somewhat similar Nabataean, Elymaean, and Characenian scripts. The Nabataean script was used by the famous Arab traders of Petra in the west. The Elymaean script was used in the area around , earlier called Elam, in the 2nd century A.D.2 The Characenian script was used by the people of the important port of Charax Spasinu at the head of the Persian Gulf. The coins from Characene date from the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.3

P. W. COXON P. W. Coxon believes that the Mandaic script in its earliest stage had adopted features of writing, while the Elymaean script is an archaic lapidary script. He concludes that “the corpus of the comparative evidence points to the primacy of the Elymaean over against the Mandaean forms of the letters and that the latter seem to be stylized reductions of the older Elymaean orthogra- phy.”4

1 Some scholars would favour an earlier date between 350 and 500 A.D., according to Kaufman, S., “A Unique Bowl from Nippur,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 32, (1973), 173, n. 19. 2 Henning, W. B., “The Monuments and Inscriptions of Tang-i Sarvak”, Asia Major, new series, 2, (1952), 151-78; Bivar, A. D. and Shaked, S.,”The Inscriptions at Shimbar”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, (1964), 265-90. 3 Lidzbarski, M., “Die Münzen der Characene mit mandäischen Legenden,” Zeitschrift für Numismatik, 33, (1922), 83-96. 4 Coxon, P. W., “Script Analysis and Mandaean Origins”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15, in the צ Coxon’s incredible gaffe on p. 28,”I was unable to detect examples of .29 ,(1970) amulet, and apparently the magic bowls are devoid of the letter,” which was apparently based only on Montgomery’s three Mandaic bowls, does not inspire much confidence in his scholar- ship. 254 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS

R. MACUCH R. Macuch, who on other grounds believes in the early western origin of the Mandaeans,5 asserts that the Mandaic script closely resembles that of the Nabataeans. He also holds that the Mandaic script is earlier than both the Elymaean and the Characenian scripts. Macuch maintains that the Mandaic script was already being used in southern in the second century A.D.6 He wants to take seriously the claim in a colophon that the first redaction of the Mandaean liturgical texts dates to A.D. 272.7

J. NAVEH J. Naveh, on the other hand, does not believe that the Mandaeans derived their ligatures from the Nabataeans. He asserts categorically: “1) There is no connection at all between the Nabataean and the Mandaic scripts. 2) The script is less developed than Mandaic.”8 His conclusions are diametri- cally opposed to those of Macuch’s: “At any rate palaeographic criteria sup- port neither the theory of a western origin of the Mandaeans nor the existence of the sect in Khuzistan in the second century A.D.”9

A. KLUGKIST In the most recent study, A. Klugkist agrees that the old Mandaic, Elymaic, and Characenian scripts must be closely related. But he disagrees with the con- clusions of Macuch, on the one hand, and of Naveh, on the other hand, with respect to the origins of the Mandaic relative particle d- which is also found in the Elymaic inscriptions. This particle is formed by the of z + y. Macuch concluded that the presence of this ligature in Mandaic and in Elymaic proves that the “Elymaean inscriptions are nothing else but Mandaic in both script and language.”10 Naveh believes that the Mandaic particle was borrowed from an Elymaic prototype and not the other way around. Klugkist holds that it is impossible to prove derivation in either direction.11

5 For my critique of Macuch’s arguments, see Yamauchi, E. M., Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 68-71; for Macuch’s re- sponse, see his review essay in Christentum am Roten Meer, (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1973), II, 54-73. 6 Macuch, R., “The Origins of the Mandaeans and Their Script”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 16, (1971), 174-92. 7 On Mandaic colophons see: Buckley, J. J., “The Colophons in The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 51, (1992), 33-50; idem, “The Colophons in H. Petermann’s Sidra Rabba”, JRAS, third series, 5.1, (1994), 21-38. 8 Naveh, J., “The Origins of the Mandaic Script”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Orien- tal Research, 198, (1970), 33. 9 Naveh, “The Origins”, 37. 10 Macuch, “The Origin of the Mandaeans”, 187. 11 Klugkist, A., “The Origin of the Mandaic Script,” in H. L. J. Vanstiphout et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis, (Groningen: Egbert, 1986), 115. E.M. YAMAUCHI 255

Klugkist agrees with Coxon in denying Macuch’s conclusion that one can claim the presence of the Mandaeans in southern Mesopotamian in the second century A.D. on the basis of script analysis, a scepticism also shared by Kurt Rudolph.12 But he disagrees with Coxon’s view that the Mandaic script is de- rived from the Elymaic. Klugkist also disagrees with Macuch’s derivation of the Mandaic script from the Nabataean, but he does not go as far as Naveh, who asserts that “there is no connection at all between the Nabataean and the Mandaic scripts.”13 Klugkist’s final conclusion is: “On the basis of script analysis one can only state that the old Mandaic, Elymaic and Characenian scripts are the representatives of one group, one script-tradition, which existed in the second/third century A.D. in southern Mesopotamia and Khuzistan.”14

LEAD ROLLS In the ancient world, it was a widespread practice to write amulets or curses on thin sheets of metal, often silver, copper, or lead. In the Greek world the most common curses against individual enemies were those placed on thin lead sheets (commonly known as tabellae defixiones), which were then rolled up and pierced with a nail. These were then deposited in wells or graves for easier access to the infernal spirits. Such tablets were widely used for over a thousand years from the 5th century B.C. to the 6th century A.D.15 J. Naveh and S. Shaked have included a number of amulets inscribed on sheets of gold, silver, bronze and copper in their two volumes of Amulets and Magic Bowls.16

M. LIDZBARSKI One of the earliest of Mandaic texts is a long lead amulet of 278 lines pub- lished by Mark Lidzbarski in 1909.17 I included it in my comprehensive study of Mandaic incantation texts.18 Lidzbarski dated it to A.D. 400 on orthographic grounds. Lady E. S. Drower thought that such lead strips would be immersed in water, which would then be drunk.19

12 Rudolph, K., Die Mandäer I: Das Mandäerproblem, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 30. 13 Naveh, “The Origins of the Mandaic Script”, 33. 14 Klugkist, “The Origin of the Mandaic Script”, 116. 15 See Yamauchi, E. M., “Magic in the Biblical World”, Tyndale Bulletin, 34, (1983), 184- 85. 16 Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. Amulets and Magic Bowls (rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987); idem, Magic Spells and Formulae (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993). 17 Lizbarski, M., “Ein mandäisches Amulett”, Florilegium ou recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à M. Melchior de Vogüé, (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1909), 349-73. 18 Yamauchi, E. M., Mandaic Incantation Texts, [hereafter MIT] (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1967), 234-55. 19 Drower, E. S., “A Mandaean Bibliography”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , (1953), 38. Holes in other lead amulets indicate that they were to be worn, though made of lead; they must have been quite heavy. 256 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS

The dialogue formula in this lead amulet is without doubt based on the Marduk-Ea formula of Sumerian magic.20 The lists of cursers, which included father and mother, prostitutes and singing girls, etc., are based on Akkadian prototypes, particularly the Surpu texts as pointed out by Jonas Greenfield.21 The comprehensive list of maleficent spirits is also structured after similar lists in Akkadian incantations, with many of the evil spirits descended directly from Babylonian prototypes.22 First and foremost are the “liliths,” who are the lin- eal descendants of the lilitu, succubi or female spirits who mated with men at night and tormented women and killed infants.23 Sometimes in the centre of the bowl these are depicted as bound. E. C. D. Hunter has analyzed the iconog- raphy of these images.24

R. MACUCH Macuch would date Lidzbarski’s amulet to the 3rd or even the 2nd cent. A.D.25 In 1967 and 1968 R. Macuch published four lead amulets.26 The first lead roll that Macuch published he would date to the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. The occurrence of an angel named Estaqlos both in the section of the Canonical Prayerbook assigned to this early date and in this lead roll is the basis of his dating. He dated the second and third rolls to the end of the pre- Islamic period, and the fourth roll to the Islamic period. Elsewhere he empha- sizes the difficulty in ascertaining an exact date for such rolls.27

20 Baumgartner, W., “Zur Mandaerfrage,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 23 (1950-51), 64, noted:”Auf den Diwanen, Zaubertexten in Streifenform, kommt es öfter vor, dass Hibil Ziwa seinen Vater um Rat fragt, was er tun solle, und dieser ihm dann Anweisung gibt, oder dass ein anderer Lichtgeist einen höheren um Auskunft bittet… das erinnert stark an das ähnlich verlaufenden Zweigespräch zwischen Marduk und Ea in babylonischen Beschwörungstexten”. 21 Greenfield, J. C., “The Babylonian Forerunner of a Mandaic Formula,” in A. F. Rainey, ed., kinattutu sa darâti (Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume), (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeol- ogy, 1993), 11-14. I have pointed out other parallels between Mandaean rituals and the Surpu texts; see Yamauchi, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, 83-85. 22 Kaufman, S. A., The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 163-64, concludes: “Not surprisingly, the Akkadian loanwords unique to Mandaic are composed of names of objects of the material culture and religious and astrological terminol- ogy…. Mandaic borrowed freely and apparently without prejudice from the astrological and magical terminology and traditions of the Babylonians.” 23 Fauth, W., “Lilits und Astarten in aramäischen, mandäischen und syrischen Zaubertexten”, Die Welt des Orient, 17, (1986), 66-94. 24 Hunter, E. C. D., “Who Are the Demons? The Iconography of Incantation Bowls,” SEL, 15, (1998), 95-115. 25 Macuch, R., “Anfänge der Mandäer,” in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, eds., Die Araber in der Alten Welt, (Berlin: . Harrassowitz, 1965), II, 138-39. 26 Macuch, R., “Altmandäische Bleirollen I,” in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, eds., Die Araber in der alten Welt , (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1967), IV, 91-203, 626-31; idem,”Altmandäische Bleirollen II,”in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, eds., Die Araber in der alten Welt , (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1968), V, 34-72, 454-68. 27 Macuch, R., Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1965), LVI. E.M. YAMAUCHI 257

A. CAQUOT In 1972 A. Caquot published a lead amulet broken in two parts: A had 36 lines on one side and 30 on the other; the smaller fragment B had 13 lines on one side and 11 on the other. Caquot made the happy discovery that there were illuminating parallels in an unpublished Mandaic scroll in the Bodleian Li- brary in Oxford (Ms. Drower 43), which greatly aided his translation. Ruha, who is often regarded as a hostile being, is called upon to protect the client, a pregnant woman.28 One who dares to intrude is threatened with the seizure of his testicles! Lines A, 29’-35, list a number of Babylonian gods, demoted to demons: “Bound is Nabu, bound is Nirig, bound is Nanai,… bound is Istra, bound is Amamit, bound is Tarbushnaita, bound is Mulita, bound is Abugdana the rebel….”29 Among other maleficent beings bound in B, reverse, line 5 is u‘su = !

J. NAVEH AND J. GREENFIELD In 1975 J. Naveh published a lead roll, inscribed on one side with 42 lines.30 There are some unique features which recall the Jewish legends concerning the giants in I Enoch, such as references to mighty beings who not only behave lustfully (?) with human beings, but make them fornicate and teach them pas- sion and lust. The spell binds the power of the seven Planets, literally “the seven brothers,” and the twelve, the signs of the Zodiac. Naveh and J. Greenfield published another lead roll in 1985 in Hebrew.31 This long text had four different incantations (41 lines, 29 legible lines, 26 lines, and 30 lines) for the protection of Aban son of Sisinanahid and his fam- ily. The fourth incantation read in part (lines 3-8): “Rebuked are the heavens, and covered the earth, rebuked and covered is the glory of the sun, rebuked and covered is the brightness of Dlibat (Venus), rebuked and covered is the book of Nebo (Mercury).”32 Though Planets and the Zodiac were ordinarily considered sources of bale- ful influence, by magic one could enlist their aid to strengthen the incantation in the case of Lidzbarski’s lead roll (lines 247-56): “Samis (the Sun) in his brilliance has strengthened it. Bel (Jupiter), Nergal (Mars), and Kewan (Sat-

28 Drower, E. S., “Mandaean Polemics,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies, 25, (1962), 438-48. For a more positive appreciation of Ruha, see Buckley, J. J., “A Rehabilita- tion of Spirit Ruha in Mandaean Religion”, History of Religions, 22, (1982), 60-84. 29 On “Abugdana,” see S. Shaked, “Bagdana, King of the Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic,” in A. D. H. Bivar and J. Hinnells, eds., Papers in Honour of Mary Boyce (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 511-25. 30 Naveh, J., “Another Mandaic Lead Roll,” Israel Oriental Studies, 5, (1975), 47-53. Mandaic Lead Amulet“) ”קמיע מנדעי בעל ארבע השׁבעות“ ,.Greenfield, J. C. and Naveh, J 31 with Four Incantations”), Eretz Israel , 18, (1985), 97-107. 32 Greenfield and Naveh, 100. 258 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS urn) have strengthened it. The Moon in its brightness has strengthened it. Dlibat (Venus), and Danis have strengthened it. Nebo (Mercury), his priest and worshipper, have strengthened it. The seven Planets have strengthened it. Their twelve angels have strengthened it.”33

MAGIC BOWLS

Occasional inscriptions which may be identified as magical have been found on bowls from Minoan Crete and Egypt, but the major corpus of magic bowls had come from southern Iraq and southwestern Iran. Though many have no known provenance, a number of bowls were found at the first American exca- vation in Mesopotamia, those of the University of Pennsylvania’s expedition at Nippur.34 The later excavations of the University of Chicago at Nippur re- covered about 50 more bowls, half of which are in the Oriental Institute and half of which are in the Baghdad museum.35 There are three categories of bowls, all dated between the 6th and 8th cent. A.D. The prevailing view has been that these bowls were written in three different scripts (Aramaic, Syriac, Mandaic) for different religious communities–for Jews, Christians, and Mandaeans. T. Harviainen, however, has argued that there is nothing distinctly Christian in the Syriac bowls, so that these may have been written for pagan clients.36 A study by L. Van Rompay of the interrelations between the Syriac and the Aramaic and Mandaic bowls concludes: “There can however be little doubt that the writers of the Syriac bowls are to be considered the predecessors of those Syrian Christians who used the texts published by Gignoux37…”, but concedes, “It is difficult to say exactly at which point paganism ends and Christianity begins.”38

33 Yamauchi, MIT, 253. Drower, E. S., The Book of the Zodiac (Sfar Malwasia), (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1949), is a translation of much astrological lore which has little dis- tinctively Mandaic elements in it. See also: Furlani, G. “I pianeti e lo zodiaco nella religione dei Mandei,” Memorie dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ser. VIII, vol. ii, 2 (1948), 119-87. I am indebted to Byard Bennett for this latter article. 34 Yamauchi, E., “Nippur,” in E. M. Blaiklock and R. K. Harrison, eds., The New Interna- tional Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 339-41; cf. Kuklick, B., Puritans in Babylon, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996). 35 See Hunter, E. C. D., “Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls from Nippur,” in M. Gib- son, ed., The Sasanian-Islamic Transition at Nippur, Excavations at Area WG (Chicago: Oriental Institute Publications, forthcoming). 36 Harviainen, T., “Syncretistic and Confessional Features in Mesopotamian Incantation Bowls,” Studia Orientalia , 70, (1933), 29-37; idem, “Pagan Incantations in Aramaic Magic Bowls, in M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman, eds., Studia Aramaica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 53-60. 37 Gignoux, P., Incantations magiques syriaques (Louvain: Peeters, 1987). 38 Van Rompay, L., “Some Remarks on the Language of Syriac Incantation Texts,” Orien- talia Christiana Analecta, 236, (1990), 369-81. E.M. YAMAUCHI 259

ARAMAIC BOWLS

The first publication of six Aramaic bowls and one Syriac bowl was made in 1853 by Austen Layard, one of the earliest excavators in Mesopotamia.39 The definitive publication of the many Aramaic bowls from Nippur was a work by James A. Montgomery issued in 1913.40 Montgomery’s student, Cyrus H. Gordon, not only published a variety of bowl texts himself, but in- spired many of his students to pursue studies in this field.41 In 1965 I published a large Aramaic bowl sent to the Harvard Semitic Museum, and summarized the publications of Aramaic bowls to that date.42 Another of Professor Gor- don’s students, Charles D. Isbell, published a comprehensive study of all 72 of the previously published Aramaic bowls in 1975.43 Some of the earliest citations of the Hebrew Scriptures before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls were to be found in these texts. A unique bowl pub- lished by Stephen Kaufman consists wholly of Scripture passages and of targums.44 These Aramaic texts also include many features which are known from rabbinic texts, such as the divorce formula.45 Hunter believes that the re- lation between various duplicates can best be explained by the process of oral transmission rather than “the rigid adherence to a prototype incantation.”46

SYRIAC BOWLS

Christianity was introduced into Edessa probably in the 2nd century A.D. By the seventh century the Christian community was divided between the Monophysite Jacobite community and the majority Nestorian community. One

39 Layard, A. H., Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, (New York: G. P. Put- nam, 1853), 509-26. 40 Montgomery, J. A., Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1913). 41 Yamauchi, E. M., “Magic Bowls: Cyrus H. Gordon and the Ubiquity of Magic in the Pre- Modern World”, Biblical Archaeologist, 59, (1996), 51-55. 42 Yamauchi, E. M., “Aramaic Magic Bowls”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85, (1965), 511-23. 43 Isbell, C. D., Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1976); see also his “Story of the Aramaic Magical Incantation Bowls”, Biblical Archaeologist, 41, (1978), 5-16. 44 Kaufman, “A Unique Bowl”. 45 Levine, B. A., “The Language of the Magical Bowls”, Appendix in J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 343-75; Neusner, J. and Smith, J. Z., “Archaeol- ogy and Babylonian Jewry,” in J. A. Sanders, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1970), 331-47. 46 Hunter, E. C. D., “Combat and Conflict in Incantation Bowls: Studies on Two Aramaic Specimens from Nippur,” in M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman, eds., Studia Aramaica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 61-75. 260 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS of the texts published by Layard in 1853 was a Syriac text. In 1912 Montgomery published a magic bowl text in a Syriac script which he com- pared with the Turkish .47 In his Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur Montgomery included seven Syriac bowl texts. The script of these texts is similar to that found in early Edessene inscriptions, and also to the cursive Palmyrene script. Javier Teixidor published one text in the Palmyrene Syriac script, and five texts of a later period written in a text closer to the Edessene Estrangelo.48 V. P. Hamilton, another of Professor Gordon’s students, wrote his dissertation on the Syriac bowls.49 He included 17 previ- ously published texts and four hitherto unpublished texts.

PUBLICATIONS OF MANDAIC BOWLS

H. POGNON The first Mandaic bowl inscription was published by H. Pognon, the French consul at Baghdad, in 1892.50 The bowl came from Bismaya (Adab) south of Nippur. Then in 1898, when Pognon was the consul at Aleppo, he published a rich collection of 31 more texts.51 These came from Khuabir on the right bank of the Euphrates about 30 miles northwest of Musayyib and west of Baghdad. It was reported to Pognon that these bowls were found upside down, and in some cases one on top of the other. In 1909 Lidzbarski translated five Mandaic bowl texts.52 In 1913 Mont- gomery included three Mandaic bowl texts in his Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur. G. R. Driver published a Mandaic bowl text in 1930.53 47 Montgomery, J. A., “A Magic Bowl and the Original Script of the Manichaeans”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 32, (1912), 438-39. The Manichaeans succeeded in spreading their Gnostic Gospel not only to the West, where Augustine was an auditor for nine years, but also along the to China. See Lieu, S. N. C., in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, (2nd ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992); idem, Manichaean Studies I: Mesopotamia and the Roman Empire, (Leiden: Brill, 1993); Klimkeit, H.-J., Gnosis on the Silk Road, (San Francisco: Harper, 1994); Yamauchi, E. M., “Adaptation and Assimilation in Asia”, Stulos Theological Journal, 4, (1996), 103-26. The earlier view of G. Widengren and other scholars that came out of a Mandaean community has been refuted by the publication in 1970 of the Cologne Mani Codex. See Yamauchi, E. M., Pre-Christian , (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 79-81, 207-10, and my review of G. Widengren’s Der Man- däismus, (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982), in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 105, (1985), 345-46. 48 Teixidor, J., “The Syriac Incantation Bowls in the Iraq Museum”, Sumer, 18, (1962), 51- 62. 49 Hamilton, V. P., Syriac Incantation Bowls, (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1971). 50 Pognon, H., “Une incantation contre les génies malfaisants en mandäite”, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique, 8, (1894), 193-234. 51 Pognon, H., Inscriptions mandäites des coupes de Khouabir, (Paris: H. Welter, 1898). 52 Lidzbarski, M., Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik, (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1902), I, 89- 106. 53 Driver, G. R., “A Magic Bowl”, Revue d’assyriologie 27, (1930), 61-64. E.M. YAMAUCHI 261

C. H. GORDON The most active scholar in the publication of bowl texts from the 1930’s to the present has been Cyrus H. Gordon. In 1937 Gordon published three Mandaic texts,54 and in 1941 seven partial Mandaic texts from various muse- ums in the United States and Europe.55 Then in 1951 he published a Mandaic text from a private museum in Iran.56 One of Gordon’s students, Wilber B. Wallis, wrote a dissertation in 1956 on “Aramaic and Mandean Magic and Their Demonology.” My own dissertation in 1964 was based on all the previously published Mandaic bowl texts; It was later published in 1967 in the American Oriental Society monograph series.57 In this latter form I included a new text of a very large Mandaic bowl from the Yale Babylonian Collection.58

W. S. MCCULLOUGH Also in 1967 W. S. McCullough published three Mandaic bowls from the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.59 There are exceptions to the general rule that the Aramaic texts were intended for the Jewish community, the Syriac texts for the Christian community, and the Mandaic texts for the Mandaean community. Jonas Greenfield called attention to a Mandaic bowl published by McCullough (Bowl D) which has Jewish overtones: in boxes we find the name ’yl, and seven times YH followed by q’dws.60 This bowl also features in line 6 the first attestation of Metatron, and in line 10 the first mention of the angel Michael. Line twelve has the interesting claim, “I myself am Moses.”

C. MÜLLER-KESSLER AND ERICA C. D. HUNTER In 1996 Christa Müller-Kessler republished the Mandaic bowl from the Yale Babylonian Collection with revised readings and a fuller translation, based in part on a striking parallel text she discovered among the lead rolls she had been cataloguing for the British Museum.61 According to her new interpre- 54 Gordon, C. H., “Aramaic and Mandaic Magical Bowls,” Archiv Orientální, 6, (1937), 84-95. 55 Gordon, C. H., “Aramaic Incantation Bowls”, Orientalia, 10, (1941), 276-78, 344-45, 347, 353-58. 56 Gordon, C. H., “Two Magic Bowls in Teheran”, Orientalia, 20, (1951), 306-15. 57 Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts. In my 1964 dissertation I examined 51 Mandaic bowl texts and one lead amulet. The former included 32 published by Pognon, six by Lidzbarski, three by Montgomery, one by Driver, and ten by Gordon. For the AOS monograph I reduced these numbers to a total of 33, including a hitherto unpublished text. 58 See Yamauchi, E., “A Mandaic Magic Bowl from the Yale Babylonian Collection,” Berytus, 17, (1967), 49-63. 59 McCullough, W. S., Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls in the Royal Ontario Mu- seum, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967). See my review of this work in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29, (1970), 141-44. 60 Greenfield, J. C., “Notes on Some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls.” Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 5, (1973), 154. 61 Müller-Kessler, C., “The Story of Bguzan-Lilit, Daughter of Zanay-Lilit”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116, (1996), 185-95. 262 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS tation, the text tells a story which involves four figures: 1) Babgun Abugdana, a demon leader, who is the story-teller; 2) the lilith Buznay, who had tor- mented the house of the client, sleeping with both the man and the wife (!), and killing their children; 3) Buznay, the king of the demons, to whom the widow appeals; and 4) a demon, Gubaq-Dew, who is sent to attack Buznay. In her words, “The magic story of Buznay(/Bguzan)-Lilit is unique in the corpus of magic texts of late antiquity.”62 In 1994 Erica C. D. Hunter published two Mandaic bowls, which were dis- covered in the 1989 Oriental Institute excavation at Nippur in Level III, which is assigned to the 7th cent. A.D., i.e. to the early Islamic period.63 She has col- laborated with J. B. Segal to publish all the Mandaic and Aramaic bowls in the British Museum, an achievement which will double the number of bowl texts available!64

A BOWL IN THE MIAMI UNIVERSITY MUSEUM

In 1992 John Gager reported, “Of the many bowls like this one (more than seventy-two in Jewish Aramaic, thirty-three in Mandaic, and twenty-one in Syriac), all seem to have been produced in Mesopotamia and Iran.”65 These numbers are based on the collections respectively by Isbell, myself, and Ham- ilton. But additional Aramaic bowls have been published by S. Kaufman (1), C. Isbell (2), C. H. Gordon (2),66 M. Geller (11),67 T. Harviainen (1),68 J. Na- veh and S. Shaked (22), F. Franco (5),69 M. Gawlikowski,70 and C. Müller- Kessler,71 and E. C. D. Hunter72 so that the total of Aramaic bowls published is

62 Ibid., 194. 63 Hunter, E. C. D., “Two Mandaic Incantation Bowls from Nippur,” Baghdader Mitteilun- gen, 25, (1994), 605-18, Taf. 25-26. I am greatly indebted to Professor Hunter for so generously sharing with me offprints of her important articles. 64 Segal, J. B. and Hunter, E. C. D., Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (forthcoming). 65 Gager, J. G., Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 226. 66 Gordon, C. H., “Two Aramaic Incantations”, in G. A. Tuttle, ed., Biblical and Near East- ern Studies, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 231-44. 67 Geller, M. J., “Four Incantation Bowls”, in G. Rendsburg et al., ed., The Bible World, (New York: KTAV, 1980) 47-60; idem,”Eight Incantation Bowls,” Orientalia Lovaniensis Periodica, 17, (1986), 101-17. Of these seven were Aramaic and one Syriac. 68 Harviainen, T., “An Aramaic Incantation Bowl from Borsippa,” Studia Orientalia, 51, (1981), 3-28. 69 Franco, F., “Five Aramaic Incantation Bowls from Tell Baruda (Choche),” Mesopotamia, 13-14, (1978/79), 233-49. 70 Gawlikowski, M., “Une coupe magique araméene”, Semitica, 37, (1990), 137-43. 71 Müller-Kessler, C., “Eine aramaïsche Zauberschale im Museum für Vor- und Frühge- schichte zu Berlin”, Orientalia, n.s. 63, (1994), 5-9. 72 Hunter, E. C. D., “Incantation Bowls: A Mesopotamian Phenomenon?” Orientalia, 65, (1996), 220-33, Tables III-IV. E.M. YAMAUCHI 263

119. Additional Syriac bowls have also been published by Geller (1), Harviainen (1),73 and Naveh and Shaked (5), so that the total of Syriac bowls published is 28. Though in my AOS monograph published in 1967 I included only 33 Mandaic bowl texts, in my 1964 dissertation I had included 51 previ- ously published texts by Pognon, Lidzbarski, Montgomery, Driver, and Gor- don. To this sum one may add the three bowl texts published by McCullough, the two bowls published by Hunter, the Yale bowl which I published and a new bowl text which I am including in this essay for a total of 58 Mandaic bowl texts. Miami University purchased in 1974 a Mandaic magic bowl from a dealer in New York.74 Like many other bowls, its provenance is unknown. It is a rela- tively small bowl, 13.5 cm. in diameter and 4.2 cm. in height. Like most bowl texts it is inscribed spirally from the center out in a clockwise direction, with a short text on the exterior. Some of the words are either illegible or unintelligi- ble.

Transliteration (1) bswm’ d-hyy’ (2) 'swt’ t’hly lsw[r]b’th (3) dwrh whyklh wlbbnyana d… n’wr br (4) Z’dnws wlz’wh wlbnh wlbn’th ‘swr ‘lm’ bl’qy (5) mynh hly’s wrb’t’ d n’ly’ hr…ty d pyswn 'twt’ (6) gwpn’ nz’q’ mrby’n tlt ‘syrtl’ d ‘l m’rz’n byrq’ wtyb’ (7) ‘syry’ kwlhn dyly’ d mn tlt’m’ 'rqy’ s’zly’ ws’ry’ ‘ny’n’ (8) sww’s’ prz’ ‘l ‘nsy’ s’pyr’t’ wmwt’br’ n’ly’ wl’ly’ w’swt’ (9) wz’rzt’ h’t’m’t’ wn’†rt’ t’hlyl’ lb’yth dwrh hyklh bny’ n’

Exterior (10) ss t’snwr br Zadnws wlz’wh wlbnh wlbn’th wlhmh wl.tyh wlt’lnt’ t’hwnyw’n.

Translation (1) In the name of Life (2) may there be health to the families, (3) the dwelling, and the mansion and to the property of… naur son of

73 Harviainen, T., “A Syriac Incantation Bowl in the Finnish National Museum”, Studia Orientalia, 51, (1978), 3-29. 74 I should like to express my gratitude to John E. Dolibois for assistance in obtaining the funds to purchase the bowl, which is now in the Miami University Art Museum. At the time of the purchase Mr. Dolibois was the Vice-President of the university; he later served as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. 264 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS

(4) Zadnosh and to his wife and his sons and his daughters. Bound for ever, blinded (5) from him are the weakness and the greatness of vampires, the sorceries of Pisun the witch; (6) the vine damage which multiplies threefold. Bound from him that which is upon Marzan (?), lightning and storm. (7) Bound are all those things which are from 300 earths, shazlia (?) exor- cisms, (and) responses (8) (are) overthrown, shattered over men and women, (including) fair women. And destroyed are vampires and liliths. And health (9) and arming and sealing and protection for the house, mansion, build- ing(?),

Exterior (10) of Sheshtasnur son of Zadnosh and to his wife and his sons and his daughters and to his father-in-law and to his? may there be for them.

Comments Most of the text is similar to other published Mandaic bowl texts but there are a few unique features to this bowl. Let me comment on the text, highlight- ing these features. 1. “In the name of Life” is the usual opening line in the Mandaic bowl texts. 2. “may there be health to the families.” The text would normally require a form of the verb”to be.” But instead of the expected form thylh the letters appear to be m {h d, which I cannot understand. 4. The female name “Zadnosh” appears with a slightly different spelling in MIT ##8 and 12 as z’d’nus. In magical texts a matronymic rather than a patronymic is often used. 5. This is the first time to my knowledge that the word n’ly’ (singular n’l’ = nala ) “vampire” appears. According to the Mandaic dictionary,75 it ap- pears in a number of the later texts including the Canonical Prayerbook. The demons in Naveh’s lead roll are described in lines 18-22 as follows: “They eat the flesh of the human beings to satiety, and drink their blood to saturation.”76 8. The Mandaic dictionary lists a phrase harsia d- sapirata “spells of fair women” in an unpublished roll (Drower Collection 12:36). There are ref- erences in other texts to prostitutes and singing girls.77

75 Drower, E. S., and Macuch, R., A Mandaic Dictionary, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 283. 76 Naveh, “Another Mandaic Lead Roll”, 48. 77 Yamauchi, MIT, 327. E.M. YAMAUCHI 265

10. In a text first published by Pognon (MIT 15:19) there is a reference to curses directed against the client’s daughters and father-in-law. This Mandaic bowl text asks for the protection of the daughters and the father- in-law. Usually the in-laws are suspected of causing trouble, for example in an Aramaic text (Bowl 2) included in the first volume of Naveh and Shaked, “overturned is the curse of the mother and of the daughter, of the daughter-in-law and of the mother-in-law.”78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Caquot, A. 1972, “Un phylactère mandéen en plomb.” Semitica 22:67-87. Coxon, P. W. 1970, “Script Analysis and Mandaean Origins.” Journal of Semitic Studies 15:16-30. Driver, G. R. 1930, “A Magic Bowl.” Revue d’assyriologie 27:61-64. Fauth, W. 1986, “Lilits und Astarten in aramäischen, mandäischen und syrischen Zaubertexten.” Die Welt des Orient 17:66-94. Franco, F. 1978-79, “Five Aramaic Incantation Bowls from Tell Baruda (Choche),” Mesopotamia, 13-14: 233-49. Gawlikowski, M. 1990, “Une coupe magique araméene,” Semitica, 37: 137-43. Gager, J. G. 1992, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press. Gignoux, P. 1987, Incantations magiques syriaques. Louvain: Peeters. Gordon, C. H. 1937, “Aramaic and Mandaic Magical Bowls.” Archiv Orientální 9:84- 95. Gordon, C. H. 1941, “Aramaic Incantation Bowls,” Orientalia 9:276-78, 344-45, 347, 353-58. Gordon, C. H. 1951, “Two Magic Bowls in Teheran,” Orientalia 20:309-10. Greenfield, J. C. 1973, “Notes on Some Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls.” Journal of the Ancient Near East Society 5:149-56. Greenfield, J. C. 1993, “The Babylonian Forerunner of a Mandaic Formula,” in A. F. Rainey, ed., kinattutu sa darâti (Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume ). Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. Pp. 11-14. A Mandaic”) ”קמיע מנדעי בעל ארבע השׁבעות“ ,Greenfield, J. C. and Naveh, J. 1985 Lead Amulet with Four Incantations”). Eretz Israel 18:97-107. Hamilton, V. P. 1971, Syriac Incantation Bowls. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Harviainen, T. 1978, “A Syriac Incantation Bowl in the Finnish National Museum,” Studia Orientalia 51:3-29. Harviainen, T. 1981, “An Aramaic Incantation Bowl from Borsippa,” Studia Orientalia 51:3-28. Harviainen, T. 1993, “Syncretistic and Confessional Features in Mesopotamian Incan- tation Bowls,” Studia Orientalia 70:29-37. Harviainen, T. 1995, “Pagan Incantations in Aramaic Magic Bowls,” in M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman,eds., Studia Aramaica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 53-60. Hunter, E. C. D. 1994, “Two Mandaic Incantation Bowls from Nippur,” Baghdader Mitteilungen, 25 (1994), 605-18, Tafel 25-26.

78 Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, (1985), 135. I am indebted to Professor J. B. Segal for his suggestions on the reading and translation of this text. 266 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS

Hunter, E. C. D. 1995, “Combat and Conflict in Incantation Bowls: Studies on Two Aramaic Specimens from Nippur,” in M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman, eds., Studia Aramaica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). Pp. 61-75. Hunter, E. C. D. 1996, “Incantation Bowls: A Mesopotamian Phenomenon?” Orien- talia, 65 (1996), 220-33, Tables III-IV. Hunter, E. C. D. 1998, “Who Are the Demons? The Iconography of Incantation Bowls,” SEL, 15 (1998), 95-115. Isbell, C. D. 1975, Corpus of the Aramaic Incantation Bowls. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Isbell, C. D. 1978, “Story of the Aramaic Magical Incantation Bowls.” Biblical Ar- chaeologist 41:5-16. Kaufman, S. A. 1973, “A Unique Magic Bowl from Nippur.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32:170-74. Klugkist, A. 1986, “The Origin of the Mandaic Script,” in H. L. J. Vanstiphout et al., eds., Scripta Signa Vocis. Groningen: Egbert. Pp. 111-20. Lidzbarski, M. 1902, Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik. Giessen: Töpelmann, I:89- 106. Lidzbarski, M. 1909, “Ein mandäisches Amulett.” Florilegium ou recueil de travaux d’érudition dédiés à M. Melchior de Vogüé. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Pp. 349- 73. Macuch, R. 1967, “Altmandäische Bleirolle,” in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, eds. Die Araber in der alten Welt . Berlin: W. de Gruyter. IV:91-203. Macuch, R. 1968, Idem, V:34-72. Macuch, R. 1971, “The Origins of the Mandaeans and Their Script.” Journal of Se- mitic Studies 16:174-92. McCullough, W. S. 1967, Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls in the Royal On- tario Museum. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Montgomery, J. A. 1913, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur. Philadelphia: Uni- versity Museum. Müller-Kessler, C. 1994, “Eine aramaïsche Zauberschale im Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte zu Berlin,” Orientalia, n.s. 63 (1994), 5-9. Müller-Kessler, C. 1996, “The Story of Bguzan-Lilit, Daughter of Zanay-Lilit”. Jour- nal of the American Oriental Society. 116:185-95. Naveh, J. 1970, “The Origins of the Mandaic Script.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 198:32-37. Naveh, J. 1975, “Another Mandaic Lead Roll.” Israel Oriental Studies 5:47-53. Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. 1987, Amulets and Magic Bowls. Rev. ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Naveh, J. and Shaked, S. 1993, Magic Spells and Formulae. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Pognon, H. 1894, “Une incantation contre les génies malfaisants en mandäite.” Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 8:193-234. Pognon, H. 1898, Inscriptions mandaïtes des coupes de Khouabir. Paris: Welter. Shaked, S. 1985, “Bagdana, King of the Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylo- nian Aramaic Magic, in A. D. H. Bivar and J. Hinnells, eds., Papers in Honour of Mary Boyce. Leiden: Brill. Pp. 511-25. Van Rompay, L. 1990, “Some Remarks on the Language of Syriac Incantation Texts,” Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236 (1990), 369-81. Yamauchi, E. M. 1965, “Aramaic Magic Bowls.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 85:511-23. Yamauchi, E. M. 1966, “The Present Status of Mandaean Studies.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 25:77-96. E.M. YAMAUCHI 267

Yamauchi, E. M. 1967, Mandaic Incantation Texts. New Haven: American Oriental Society. Yamauchi, E. M. 1967, “A Mandaic Magic Bowl from the Yale Babylonian Collec- tion.” Berytus 17:49-63. Yamauchi, E. M. 1970, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Yamauchi, E. M. 1996, “Magic Bowls: Cyrus H. Gordon and the Ubiquity of Magic in the Pre-Modern World.” Biblical Archaeologist 59: 51-55. 268 MANDAIC INCANTATIONS