Early Mandaic and Neo-Mandaic: Some Points of Connection

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Aramaic Studies brill.com/arst

Ohad Abudraham* The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel [email protected]

Abstract

The present article presents four new linguistic features that link Early-Mandaic and Neo-Mandaic: 1. Diphthongisation and fortition of long vowels ū/ī ( ṭbukta instead of ṭabuta “grace”, arbiktinkia instead of ) אידוהי arbitinkia “four of you [f.pl.]”); 2. Apheresis of y in the gentilic noun hudaiia “Jews”); 3. Assimilation of z in the root ʾzl ( tʿlun “you [m.pl.] will go”); and 4. Internal analogy in the system of cardinal numbers ( tarta “two”). The presence of these forms in the two extreme phases of the language as opposed to their almost total absence in the canonical collections of Mandaic scriptures prove not only the ancient origin of some Neo-Mandaic peculiarities but also the wide range of varieties of Mandaic that flourished in Mesopotamia in Late Antiquity.

* I would like to thank Prof. Shaul Shaked, Dr. James Nathan Ford, and Prof. Matthew Mor- genstern for sharing with me their unpublished studies of Mandaic incantation bowls from the Schøyen Collection (Shaked, Ford, and Bhayro) and other private collections (Ford and Morgenstern = bowls labeled jnf, Davidovitz, Wolfe, PC), and for the permission to quote from them. I am also grateful to Dr. James Nathan Ford for reading and commenting on early drafts of this article. The following abbreviations have been used: cm = Classical Mandaic, dc = Drower Collection, em = Early Mandaic, e-nm = Early Neo-Mandaic, Gs = Ginza Smala, Gy = Ginza Yamina, jba = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, ms = Bowls in the Schøyen Collection, nm = Neo-Mandaic, rom = Bowls in the Royal Ontario Museum, Syr. = Syriac. Written Man- daean forms are presented in Mandaic script, followed by a letter-for-letter transliteration into Roman script in bold characters according to the system developed by R. Macuch and E.S. Drower.

Keywords

Mandaic – Early Mandaic – Classical Mandaic – Neo-Mandaic – Eastern Aramaic – incantation bowls – amulets

1 Introduction

Mandaic, the language of the Mandaean community in Iraq and Iran, has a long and complicated history. From the early centuries of the first millennium ce Mandaic was the spoken language of the gnostic sect of the Mandaeans in Lower Mesopotamia.1 It later flourished as a literary language, possessing monumental sacred books as well as numerous magical and esoteric scrolls. Today, more than 1500 years after its emergence, Mandaic still survives as a vernacular language spoken by a few hundred adherents of Mandaeism in southwestern Iran and in the Mandaean diaspora and, in its classical form, as a liturgical language for members of the sect. In accordance with the latest research, it appears that Mandaic can be classified along the following five-fold chronological division.2

1. Early Mandaic (em) or Pre-Classical Mandaic (Pre-cm)—the language of the incantations inscribed in ink on clay bowls and incised with a sharp instrument on metal sheets. The archaeological evidence demonstrates that the epigraphic material, whose total number stands at present at around 360 bowls and 70 lead lamellas,3 dates back to the fifth to seventh centuries ce.4

1 For more on the early history of Mandaeism see K.T. van Bladel, From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes. (Leiden Studies in Islamic and Society, 6, Leiden: Brill, 2017). 2 M. Morgenstern, ‘The Present State of Mandaic Lexicography i: The Mandaic Dictionary’, arst 7 (2009), pp. 113–130 (124). 3 For a detailed account see O. Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic according to the Language of the Incantation Bowls and Amulets, PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Beer-Sheva, 2017), pp. 347–360 (Appendix). 4 These numbers include all the epigraphic material held in museums and private collections that has been published thus far or is due to be published in the near future by S. Shaked, J.N. Ford and S. Bhayro (139 bowls from the Schøyen Collection) and by J.N. Ford and M. Mor- genstern (56 bowls from various other private collections and 24 amulets from the Schøyen Collection [M. Morgenstern]). The extent of the areas in which Mandaic incantations and inscriptions were used in the late Sasanian period is vast. Earthenware bowls and metal sheets composed in the Mandaic script were discovered in several official excavation sites in central

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 80 abudraham

2. Classical Mandaic (cm)—the language of the great literary compositions, such as the GreatTreasure (Ginza Rabba), the Prayer Book (Qolasta) and to some extent the Book of John (Draša ḏ-Yahya). Even though these compositions definitely contain ancient traditions from the oldest stage of the Mandaean community, most scholars have agreed that their final redac- tion was not carried out prior to the advent of Islam (mid-seventh century onwards). As Nöldeke stressed, cm is a uniform language that exhibits very little variation between or within sources.5 3. Post-Classical Mandaic (Post-cm)—the languages of the late literary compositions, which reveal the intrusion of Arabic elements and the gradual influence of the modern form of Mandaic, particularly regarding syntax. This phase is represented in the later parts of The Book of John (Draša ḏ-Yahya), The Book of the Zodiac (Aspar maluašia), The Marriage- Ceremony of the Great Šišlam (Šarh ḏ-qabin ḏ-Šišlam Rba), and other Diuan scrolls from the Drower Collection. 4. Early Neo-Mandaic (e-nm)—the language of the Leiden Glossarium: two hundred pages of a pentalingual glossary (Sabaico-Arabicum-Latinum- Turcum-Persicum) written by an Italian Carmelite missionary in the mid- seventeenth century.6 Additional information about the living speech of this period emerges sporadically from the colophons and the ritual instructions attached to the early-modern manuscripts.7

and southern Iraq: for example, the ancient cemetery of Khouabir, Ctesiphon, Kutha (Tell Ibrahim), Kish, Tell al-Ḏuwayḥī (Kīš-Babil province), Nippur, Bismaya (Adab), Al-Gharraf, Amarah, Tell Abu Shudhr, and Al-Teeb. See also the archaeological data in C. Häberl, ‘Man- daeism in Antiquity and the Antiquity of Mandaeism’, Religion Compass 6 (2012), pp. 262–276. 5 T. Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik (Halle:Verlag der Buchhandlung desWaisenhauses, 1875) pp. xxv–xxvi. Nöldeke marked the unusual demonstrative pronoun ʿlin ‘these’ as one of the rare dialectal forms in Mandaic literature text. It should be noted that this form also appears in the epigraphic corpus in a very similar phrase: gubria ʿlin tlata “these three men” (ms 1928/18:32; ms 2054/51:8; ms 2054/01:9 = Gy 252:23–24; Gy 253:1; Gy 255:13–14; Gy 260:13; Gy 261:23), dmuta ḏ-gubria ʿlian “the form of these men” (Davidovitz Amulet 1:36–37 = Gy 270:15 [but without middle-digraph]). In light of the new epigraphic attestations, it seems better to define the unique demonstrative pronoun ʿlin as an archaic form limited to a certain context. 6 For more information on the Glossarium see R. Borghero, ‘A 17th Century Glossary of Man- daic’, aram 11–12 (1999–2000), pp. 311–319; R. Borghero, ‘Some Phonetic Features of a Man- daean Manuscript from the 17th century’, aram 16 (2004), pp. 61–83. 7 On the nm character of the colophons and the ritual instructions see in particular M. Mor- genstern, ‘Neo-Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, in G. Khan and L. Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its Linguistic Context (Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies, 14, Piscataway,

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 81

5. Neo-Mandaic (nm)—the spoken language of the Mandaeans in Ahwaz and Khorramshahr as recorded by R. Macuch, C. Häberl, and H. Mutzafi in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.8 nm is heavily influenced by local languages such as Persian and Arabic, but in contrast to other colloquial forms of Neo-Aramaic (Jewish or Christian) nm is almost directly related to the classical phase of the language.

As can be seen, em and cm overlap to a certain extent with respect to their date of origin but differ significantly with respect to the date of their documenta- tion.While the textual witnesses of cm are no older than five hundred years,9 all the epigraphic sources hark back to Late Antiquity. On comparing the grammar of em with the grammar of cm, numerous discrepancies can be found between the two phases. These discrepancies are revealed in all levels of the language (i.e., the orthography, morphology, phonology, syntax, and vocabulary) and are undoubtedly due to the fact that em represents the earliest sources of the language, which are dated to a period preceding the final standardisation of the orthography and morphology of cm. Regarding this crucial point, it is particularly important to note some specific archaic features typical of em that set it apart from cm. This phenomenon is illustrated in the following examples.

– While cm displays a fixed system of plene orthography in all positions and environments, in em the appearance of matres lectionis depends largely on the quality or quantity of the vowels. In contrast to cm, in em the use of

nj: Gorgias Press, 2015), pp. 379–408; M. Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo- Mandaic (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 73 Leiden-Boston: Brill 2014), pp. 7–8. 8 R. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1965); R. Macuch, NeumandäischeChrestomathiemitgrammatischerSkizze,kommentierterÜber- setzungundGlossar (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989); R. Macuch, NeumandäischeTexteim Dialekt von Ahwāz (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993); C. Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009); H. Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Stud- ies in Neo-Mandaic. For linguistic remnants of the Iraqi branch of nm in the late nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries see H. Mutzafi and M. Morgenstern, ‘Sheikh Nejm’s Mandaic Glossary (dc 4)—An Unrecognised Source of Neo-Mandaic’, aram 24, 157– 174. 9 Despite the discovery of numerous new manuscripts in the Rbai Rafid Collection (see Morgenstern, ‘Neo-Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, p. 368), the earliest Man- daean literary source is still the Bodleian Library’s codex Marsh 691 (1529–1530ce).

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 82 abudraham

matres lectionis is not obligatory and, in certain circumstances, is not even the preferred option.10 – The religious term manda “knowledge” and the cardinal number šuba “seven”, which in most cases also bears the religious notion of “the seven planets”, have an archaic appearance unique to em. These two forms are almost consistently spelled in the epigraphic sources with an etymological ʿ: mndʿa (x40) and šubʿa (x18). The spelling with an etymological ʿ is completely absent from the manuscripts of cm.11 – The shift of an a vowel to i/e in a closed syllable is only partially accom- plished in em. In several grammatical categories the original a vowel is still sometimes preserved in the epigraphic corpus, while in cm it is consistently attenuated to i: for example, the 2.m./f.sg. participle ending, e.g., em htimat, rgilat vs. cm htimit “you are sealed”, rgilit “you are fettered”;12 and the 3.f. sg. perfect base, e.g., em damkat, naplat vs. cm dimkat “she slept”, niplat “she fell”, etc.13 – The cm 3.f.sg. suffix -a “of her” is frequently written in em sources with a historical h, e.g., brha “her son”, kulha “all of her”, minha “from her”,etc.14 In a few em documents remnants of the original consonant become apparent even after the long final vowel ū, e.g., hzuẖ “they saw her”, laṭuẖ “they cursed her” (vs. cm hzu and laṭu), etc.15 – The grammatical distinction between feminine and masculine forms in the verb and pronouns systems has gradually vanished in cm (in all cases the masculine forms prevailed over the feminine). In em, on the other hand, a clear differentiation between the genders is usually still present. This overall phenomenon is beyond the scope of the current article, but it suffices to mark the most noteworthy example, 2.f.pl. participle base and ending, e.g., em htimatin “you [fem.] are sealed” compared to cm htimitun “you [masc.+fem.] are sealed”, etc.16

10 See Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic, pp. 25–47. 11 See Abudraham, ‘On Some Pseudo-Corrections in Early Mandaic Epigraphic Texts’, Aula Orientalis 35 (2017), pp. 199–211 (203–204). 12 See M. Morgenstern, ‘A Mandaic Lamella for the Protection of a Pregnant Woman: ms 2087/9’, Aula Orientalis 33 (2015), pp. 271–286 (279). 13 See Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic, pp. 215–216. 14 Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic, pp. 185–186. 15 M. Morgenstern, ‘Rare Forms in Eastern Aramaic’, Language Studies (forthcoming; in Hebrew). 16 For additional information and a detailed discussion see Morgenstern, ‘Rare Forms in Eastern Aramaic’.

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 83

The above representative examples reflect a natural evolution from one phase of the language to the next; however, a thorough examination of the grammar of the epigraphic corpus reveals that not all the features in which em sources diverge from cm are archaic. In a few instances it turns out that linguistic traits previously characterized as, or at least suspected of being, a late Mandaic phenomenon can now be traced back to the earliest known phase of the language. In the following sections, I present four new cases of this type.17

2 Diphthongisation and Fortition

ṭbuta > ṭbukta “grace”; arbitinkin > arbiktinkia “the four of you (f.pl.)”

One of the most remarkable phonological innovations characteristic of nm is the sound change of -ūṯ and -īṯ to -oxt and -ext respectively. The modern realisation of the classical abstract ending -ūṯā (cm - -uta) as -oxtɔ and the feminine suffix -īṯā (cm - -ita) as -extɔ appears to reflect a complex development consisting of two stages: diphthongisation of long vowels ū/ī before a voiceless

17 Previous research has noted several nm characteristics that are already attested in the epigraphic corpus: for example, maina (cf. nm menɔ) instead of cm mia “water” (J.N. Ford, ‘Notes on the Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (review of J.B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum)’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 26 (2002), pp. 237–272 (259); Morgenstern, ‘Neo- Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, p. 374), ʿta (cf. nm eṯṯɔ) instead of cm ʿnta or ʿntta “woman” (R. Macuch, ‘Altmandäische Bleirollen (Erster Teil)’, in F. Altheim and R. Stiehl (eds.), Die Araber in der Alten Welt, iv: Neue Funde (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967) pp. 103, 136–137; J.N. Ford, ‘Notes on Some Recently Published Magic Bowls in the Schøyen Collection’, Aula Orientalis 32 (2014), 235–264 (245–246)), apa (cf. nm appɔ) instead of cm anpa “face” (Macuch, ‘Altmandäische Bleirollen’, p. 161), and apocopation of final n in possessive and object suffixes (Morgenstern, ‘Rare Forms in Eastern Aramaic’). For the connection between the unusual plural form baitia “houses” (instead of cm batia) and Neo-Aramaic cognate, such as bɛθɛ (Barwar) see I. Bunis, ‘Transition Toward Linearity: A General Trend in Late- and Neo-Aramaic Nomi- nal Morphology’, Lešonenu 79 (2017), pp. 299–321 (304–305); cf. Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic, p. 195 note 301. In the field of lexicon, the form aktata “hen” (Neo-Aramaic kṯayṯa) can also be mentioned (Morgenstern apud Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 38).

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 84 abudraham interdental fricative consonant ṯ (i.e. -ūṯ > -uyṯ)18 and a subsequent fortition of the semivowel y (i.e., -uyṯ > -uçṯ > -uxt).19 The following are some examples taken from recent studies on nm: baṭloxtɔ “misfortune” (cm * *baṭluta),20 genwoxtɔ “theft, thievery” (cf. Syr. ܓܢܒ熏ܬܐ ),21 guṭloxtɔ “mas- ”ešboroxtɔ “kindness, good 22,( אתולטק sacre” (cf. Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (cm šapiruta),23 moxtɔ “death” (cm muta);24 əlextɔ “sheep’s tail” (cm alita),25 ṣəwextɔ “finger, toe” (cm ṣbita),26 mextat “she died” (cm mitat),27 exti “he is” (cm aitẖ),28 lextax “you are not” (cm litak),29 and turextɔ “cow” (cm turita).30 In addition to the spoken language there are also written proofs for the striking shift; however, it is clear that their distribution is essentially limited to a closed group of late sources. The shift in question is particularly common in the Leiden Glossarium, the colophons, and the rubrics containing instructions attached to ritual texts (prayers, grimoires, and amulets): for example,

18 The shift can also be detected near the alveolar emphatic ṣ, see, for example, Post-cm hukṣa “palm-frond” instead of em huṣa (Morgenstern, ‘Neo-Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, p. 374 note 28; Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 14). 19 In the same manner: -īṯ > -iyṯ > -içṯ > -ixt > -ext (based on Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 93 note 13, p. 172, note 122). For a similar development in the Christian Neo-Aramaic dialect of Salmas see M. Mutzafi, ‘Christian Salmas and Jewish Salmas: Two Separate Types of Neo-Aramaic’, in G. Khan and L. Napiorkowska (eds.), Neo-Aramaic and Its Linguistic Context (Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies, 14, Piscataway, nj: Gorgias Press, 2015) pp. 289–304 (295). 20 Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, p. 127 (=baṭluḵtā). 21 Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, pp. 39, 522 (=genβoχta). See also Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomathie, p. 57. 22 Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, pp. 77, 127 (=guṭluḵtā). 23 Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomathie, pp. 57, 245 (=ešboroxta). Cf. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, pp. 39, 200 (=šboroχta “life”). 24 Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 172, note 122; Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, pp. 39, 200 (=moχta). 25 Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 93. 26 Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 93. 27 Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 93; Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, p. 77 (=meḵtat); Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, pp. 39 (=meχtat). 28 Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 93. Cf. Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, p. 77. 29 Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomathie, p. 243. 30 Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, pp. 77, 358.

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 85

ganzibrukta “governorship” (dc 43 i:186 [colophon of Qmaha ḏ-Šuba]; cf. Syr. ܓ熟ܒ犯ܘܬܐ ), hidukta “bride, wedding ceremony” ܵ ܿ ,( אתוודח jba , ܼܚ ܘ煟 ܼ ܬܐ .dc 36:311, etc. [Aspar alp trisar Šualia]; cf. Syr) 31,( אתומ jba , ܐܬ熏ܡ .mukta “death” (Leiden Glossarium 154:1; cf. Syr šihianukta ,( אתורש jba , ܐܬܘ犯ܫ .šarukta “food” (dc 23:594; cf. Syr “governorship” (Oxford iii [colophon]; cf. Post-cm šihiana “governor, ruler”), šamukṭia and šimuktia “candles” (ml 245:3 [see ܵ ”šuprukta “kindness, favour ,( عومش .熏 , Arܡܫ ܼ ܥvariants]; cf. Syr. 焏 (colophon of rrc 1c; cf. Syr. ܫܦܝ犯ܘܬܐ ),32 gurikta “bitch” (dc 12:150; ,mušpikta “needle 33,( אתירוג jba , ܐ狏ܝܪ熏ܓ .jb 130:5; etc.; cf. Syr pointed rod” (var. of dc 44:917 = dc 14; cf. Syr. ܡܫܦܝ狏ܐ ), and turikta 35.( אתרות jba , ܐܬܪܘܬ .cow” (dc 46;34 cf. Syr“ The high frequency of examples among Late Mandaic sources provides a strong indication of the lateness of this phenomenon.36 This explains why the exceptional form alikta “sheep’s tail” (Gy 234:4; see also dc 22:228), which appears in the most reliable manuscript of the Ginza Rba, Codex Sabéen 1,37 was regarded as a secondary interpolation introduced into a cm text by an early-modern scribe.38 Considering the fact that the original form alita is attested in a parallel version of the Ginza Rba, Codex Sabéen 2, it was only natural to explain the developed form alikta as an inferior variant reading. However, new findings emerging from the epigraphical corpus indicate that the “modern” sequences -oxt/-ext are far older than one might think. Surprisingly, the pronunciation of the abstract ending as (or similar to) -oxt can now be discerned in a Mandaic magic bowl dedicated to the client

31 Borghero (‘Some Phonetic Features of a Mandaean Manuscript from the 17th century’, p. 72) noted that this word is written with two diacritical dots (one above the letter k and the second above the letter t), thus indicating the pronunciation of unvoiced-velar fricative x and unvoiced-dental fricative ṯ as in the case of nm. 32 Morgenstern, ‘Neo-Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, p. 373. 33 Morgenstern, ‘Neo-Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, p. 373. 34 Cf. Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, pp. 77 note 130, 358. 35 And presumably bukta “prayer” (dc 43 j:137) instead of buta (cf. Syr. ܒܥ熏ܬܐ ). See Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, p. 200. 36 See also Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik, p. 78. 37 For more on the importance of Codex Sabéen 1, the oldest surviving copy of the Ginza Rba (1560ce), see O. Abudraham, ‘Codexes Sabéen 1 and Sabéen 2 of the Ginza Rabba Revisited’, Leshonenu 78 (2015) pp. 395–420. 38 Morgenstern, ‘Neo-Mandaic in Mandaean Manuscript Sources’, p. 373.

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 86 abudraham

Mihyazid son of Pat-Hiyye (lit. “daughter of Life”). In the opening section of the incantation the scribe provides us with a non-standard spelling ṭbukta “grace” instead of the cm form ṭabuta:

{ } []

bš39 ḏ-hiia asuta uṭbukta thilẖ lbita uʿskupta {lbita} ḏ-mihi[z]id br pthiia

In the na(me) of Life. May there be healing and grace for the house and threshold of Mihyazid son of Pat-Hiyye.40 wolfe 89:1–2; unpublished

This is in contrast to the historical spelling ṭabuta in the Mandaic amulet published by Caquot in 1972:41

[]

figure 1 uṭbukta “and grace”. The photograph was taken by Prof. Matthew Morgenstern and is published here with his kind permission. wolfe 89:1

39 This is an intentional abbreviation by the scribe for bšuma (see Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic, pp. 83–84). 40 The bowl will be published by Ford and Morgenstern, New Aramaic Incantation Bowls: Mandaic Bowls (forthcoming). 41 It is interesting to note that the classical form is still present in e-nm documents (cf. Leiden Glossarium 155:13 ṭabuta [See Borghero, ‘Some Phonetic Features of a Mandaean Manuscript from the 17th century’, p. 73]), and even in the language of nm informants (cf. ṭaḇuṯā [Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, pp. 127, 359], ṭāḇūṯā [Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomathie, pp. 57, 222]).

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 87

asuta uṭabuta uzakuta unaṭra nhuila lhaza nišimta ulhazin pagra ḏ- niunduk[t] pt guntai

May there be healing and grace and protection for this soul and this body of Newandokh[t] daughter of Guntai.42 caquot, fragment a, verso: 25–30

The authenticity of the peculiar development in the abstract morpheme, already in the early phase of Mandaic, is further supported by a singular example of the feminine ending - -ikt instead of the cm writing - -it:

[ ] [ ]

lilita ḏ-dibra šalaninita haṭaṭi[ta] tlitinkia uarbiktinkia uhmištinkia arṭil šlihatia ula lbiša[ti]a

the lilith of the steppe, the grabber, the snatcher: the three of you, and the four of you, and the five of you. You are stripped naked and are not clothed (ms 1928/20:4–6; unpublished).

figure 2 uarbiktinkia “and four of you”. The photograph was taken by Prof. Matthew Morgenstern and is published here with his kind permission. ms 1928/20:5

42 A. Caquot, ‘Un phylactère mandéen en plomb’, Semitica 22 (1972), pp. 67–87 (84).

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 88 abudraham

The context is part of the well-known jba formula of the magical overseas geṭ of Rabbi Joshua son of Peraḥia. A quick comparison with Jewish parallels proves the uniqueness of the Mandaic form arbiktinkia vs. jba 43: ןיכיתעברא

ןיכיתלתאתיפטחואתינלשוארבידתיליל ןיכיתעברא אלוןיתיחילשליטרעןיכיתשימח ןיתישיבל

lilith of the open field and the grabber and the snatcher: the three of you, the four of you, the five of you. You are stripped naked and are not clothed (ms 1927/43:3–4 = jba 15).44

2 Apheresis of y

iahuṭaiia (or * *iahudaiia) > hudaiia “Jews”

As a result of the combination of a pure phonetic shift (d/ḏ > ṭ) and a semi- intentional play on words, the standard Aramaic gentilic form referring to the .turned in cm into the form iahuṭaiia אֵיָדוּהְי / אָיָדוּהְי Jewish people The offensive meaning of this term is explicitly implied in the Ginza Rba by employing negatively nuanced homophonic roots in the immediate context: for example, uqarin lnapšai- hun iahuṭaiia ḏ-hṭun “and they call themselves Jews because they sinned” (Gy 224:13) and iahuṭaiia iahṭia unipṣia “Jews— abortions and excrements” (Gy 231:5).45 It is not clear which came first, the

43 For the use of the “object pronouns” ( - -inkin) with cardinal numbers in Mandaic instead of the possessive pronouns ( - -kin) see Nöldeke, MandäischeGrammatik, p. 191; Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, p. 232; Abudraham, A Grammar of Early Mandaic, p. 213. 44 S. Shaked, J.N. Ford and S. Bhayro. Aramaic Bowl Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls (Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity, 1, Leiden: Brill 2013), p. 110. 45 A similar process involving a phonetic change reinforced by folk etymology may also be attributed to the cm spellings of Arabic names: mahamaṭ arbaia “Muḥammad the Arab” (Gy 302:15) and ahmaṭ br bizbaṭ “Aḥmad (=Muḥammad) son of the wizard” (Gy 29:21). The transition from mahamad (cf. Gy 61:7) and ahmad to mahamaṭ and ahmaṭ may be

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 89 phonetic change from d to ṭ or the popular etymology from the roots ḥṭy (> hṭy) “to sin” and yḥṭ (> yhṭ) “to miscarry”, but for the current purpose it is more important to note that the spelling iahuṭaiia has no alternative in classical Mandaic texts. Although mentioned in Macuch’s and Häberl’s studies as a legitimate nm word,46 recent fieldwork concerned with the dialects of Ahvaz and Khorram- shahr has shown that the cm form iahuṭaiia “is not used in the modern speech”,47 and in its place a new colloquial form emerged through the apheresis process: yəhudāyā > həḏɔyɔ, həḏɔ́y “Jew” (sg.).48 As demonstrated by Mutzafi, the very same elision of yə occurs in the majority of Neo-Aramaic dialects: for example, Ṭuroyo həḏoyo, Maʿlūla ūḏay, Barwar huḏaya, J. Urmi hudaa, C. Urmi hudáya ~ huydáya, etc. In light of the widespread distribution of the shortened form (i.e., without the initial syllable) in modern Aramaic dialects that range from east to west, Mutzafi has suggested that it “most probably reflects an old vernacular form that has been used alongside a form related to the literary pl. form iahuṭaiia”. New discoveries in the realm of eastern Aramaic epigraphy (Mandaic and Jewish Babylonian) confirm this assumption. The Mandaic incantation bowl in the Royal Ontario Museum, rom 931.4.2,49 contains a long list of malevolent forces that should be annulled and abolished from the client’s house. Among these forces, the practitioner refers to a pair of dēvs (demons) associated with the non-Mandaean communities of his region, namely, the Aramaeans and the Jews. In view of the archaeological data about the early date of the epigraphic corpus, in this phrase we would have expected to find the literary form iahuṭaiia or, at least, the unattested archaic spelling * *iahudaiia. Contrary to expectations, however, the bowl appears to bear the first evidence of the Neo-Aramaic form hudaya in written Mandaic sources. The text reads as follows:

connected to the Aramaic root ḥmṭ “to become infected” (cf. lišania hmṭia “pustulant tongues”). 46 See Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomathie, p. 224 (=yahaṭāyī); Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, pp. 126, 364 (yəhuwəṭāyā). 47 Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, p. 19. 48 Cf. late Mandaic sources, such as the Leiden Glossarium and Aspar Malwašia: hudaii (Gl. 178: 1) hudaiia urumaiia “Jews and Greeks” (see Drawer and Macuch 1963: 135). 49 Published by W.S. McCullough, Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls in the Royal Ontario Museum (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967) pp. 28–31.

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 90 abudraham

figure 3 hudaiia “Jews” rom 931.4.2:8

{} )…( ⟨ ⟩

diuia bišia udiuia ṭabia šidia pigia ulaṭabia uliliata udiuia hudaiia50 udiuia {a}armaiia umlakia prsaiia umlakia huzaiia udiuia zikria udiuia nuqbata anatun šb⟨iti⟩tun umbṭlin … mn baita ḏ-buktuia

the evil dēvs and the good dēvs, the dumb and no-good devils, and the liliths, and the Jewish dēvs, and the Aramaean dēvs, and the Persian angels, and the angels of Khuzistan, and male dēvs, and female dēvs—be annulled and abolished … from the house of Bokhtoy (rom 931.4.2:7–9; collated reading).

A recently published jba incantation bowl gives further credence to the antiquity of the apheresis process in this word in a broader geographical area and among different religious groups:

ואחאדאתטוללאסכןדה {מ} אתטולןמואבבירדאתטולןמואבשדתטולןמואתחא דואמראדאתטולןמואבירקואקיחרד אדוה 51

This bowl is for the curse of the brother and of the sister, and from the curse of the neighbor, and from the curse of the community member,

50 I owe this reading to James Nathan Ford. The first editor, W.S. McCullough ( Jewish and Mandaean Incantation Bowls, p. 30), read huraiia “Hurrian”,which is paleograph- ically possible but contextually most unlikely. 51 For the shift āyā > āā > ā in the singular adjective ending (armāyā > armāʾā > armā = Jew”) see M. Morgenstern, ‘Linguistic“ אדוה = Aramaean”; huḏāyā > huḏāʾā > huḏā“ אמרא Features of the Texts in This Volume’, in S. Shaked, J.N. Ford and S. Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells (Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, vol. 1, Leiden: Brill, 2013) pp. 39–49 (40).

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 91

and from the curse of the stranger and the relative, from the curse of the Aramaean and of the Jew (ms 2053/237:6–7 = jba 45).52

Compare, for example, with ms 2053/253:

שיבםעדימלכןמירטנית … אתטולןמ יאדוהיד אתקיחראתטולןמיאמראדאתטולןמ אתבירקאתטולןמ

May you be protected from every evil thing … from the curse of the Jews, from the curse of the Aramaeans, from the distant curse, from the near curse (ms 2053/253:2–4 = jba 53;53 cf. Moussaeiff 103; Moussaeiff 119).54

3 Assimilation of z in the Root ʾzl

tʿzlun > tʿlun “you (m.pl.) will go”

The historical Aramaic root ʾzl “to go” underwent two changes in nm dialects of Khorramshahr and Ahwāz that distorted its original shape. Due to the elision of the third radical l in word-final position and the total assimilation of the second radical z to the following consonant, none of the basic forms of the verb include all three etymological components simultaneously: 1. qāzil > qɔzi “he goes”; 2. qāzəlā > qāzlā > qallɔ “she goes”, qāzəlet > qāzlet > qallet “you go”, etc. As a consequence of these modifications, both Macuch and Häberl mistakenly derived the above imperfective forms from two different verbs: the form qɔzi “he goes” from sgy (> ʾzgi) “to go, to walk, move on”, and the forms qallɔ “she goes” and qallet “you go” from historical ʿll (> ʾll) “to enter”.55 The correct derivation of the nm forms from the historical root ʾzl was first discerned by Morgenstern. He supported his analysis with numerous examples of the assimilation of the radical z in this root from linguistically accurate ילא manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud and jba incantation bowls, such as אד ז ידישןיל Men. 106b), and =) ילזא they go” (Ms Colombia x893 InZ6) instead of“

52 Shaked, Ford and Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells, pp. 204–207. 53 Shaked, Ford and Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells, pp. 235–237. 54 D. Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiq- uity, (London: Kegan Paul, 2003), pp. 51–62. 55 Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, pp. 77, 350–351; Macuch, Neu- mandäische Chrestomathie, p. 196; Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, pp. 196–197, 297.

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 92 abudraham

Based on such examples 57. ןילזא whither demons go” (jnf 53:6)56 instead of“ Morgenstern emphasized that “once again, nm shares with jba striking linguistic features which to date have not been identified in any cm source”,58 though he did not rule out the possibility that future investigations might reveal similar examples in Mandaic literature. And indeed, thanks to the discovery of dozens of new epigraphic sources since his publication, the connection between nm forms like qallɔ “she goes” and the historical root ʾzl can now be proved not only by indirect evidence from jba, but also by a direct Mandaic source which belongs to the early period of the language. The unpublished Mandaic incantation bowl Wolfe 89 presents a curious poetic phase directed against dews ( diuia), sahras ( shria), demons ( šidia), pebble-spirits ( humria), spirits ( ruhia), and liliths ( liliata) that “dwell in the residence and building of the chil- dren of Adam” (Wolfe 89:5–8). In the second part of the incantation these evil forces are commanded to distance themselves from the presence of the client’s family. In order to ensure the implementation of the command, the practitioner describes in a great detail a series of actions that the malicious forces should avoid:

“When they go, do not go, mn mʿzlaiun latʿlun

and when they come, do not come, { } umn mʿtiaiun {latʿln} latʿtun

and where they stand, do not stand, ubit mqmaiun ltqmun

and where they sit, do not sit, ubit mtbaiun ltʿtbun

56 The zain is added above the line. 57 M. Morgenstern, ‘Diachronic Studies in Mandaic’, Orientalia 79 (2010), pp. 505–525 (519– 523). Morgenstern’s thesis was followed by Mutzafi, Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo- Mandaic, p. 32. 58 Morgenstern, ‘Diachronic Studies in Mandaic’, p. 523.

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 93

figure 4 latʿlun “do not go”. The photograph was taken by Prof. Matthew Morgenstern and is published here with his kind permission. wolfe 89:30

and when they eat, do not eat, umn mʿklaiun latʿklun

and when they drink, do not drink, umn mʿštiaiun latʿštun

and when they talk, do not talk” ^ ^ umn šutaiun latʿšta^un^ wolfe 89:29–34; unpublished

The most prominent feature of this phase is the prohibition imposed on the demons by the reiteration of verbal nouns (usually Pəʿal infinitive) accompa- nied by a finite verb derived from the same root.59 See, for example, the last six parts: mʿtiaiun // latʿtun (= ʾty), mqmaiun // ltqmun (= qwm), mtbaiun // ltʿtbun (= ytb), mʿklaiun // latʿklun (= ʾkl), mʿštiaiun // latʿštun (= šty), and šutaiun // latʿštaun (= šʿy > šʾy). In view of the symmetrical poetic structure it can be safely assumed that the finite verb in the first part, latʿlun, which appears after the verbal noun, mʿzlaiun, reflects a phonetic spelling for the common cm form, latʿzlun. It should also be noted that in parallel incantation bowls written by different scribes for different clients the aforementioned imperfective form is replaced by a conservative spelling: mn mizliẖ ltizlun “When he goes, do not go” (jnf 39:13; unpublished) and [ ] mn mizlẖ ltizl[un] (pc 26:48; unpublished).

59 The finite verb always appears with the negative particle (in plene spelling la or defective spelling l “no”).

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 94 abudraham

4 Internal Analogy in the System of Cardinal Numbers

tartin > tarta “two” nm uses two systems of cardinal numbers, one inherited from previous layers of Aramaic and one borrowed from Persian. Both systems have invariable forms that are not inflected for gender. In general, the Aramaic system derives histor- ically from the forms used with masculine nouns, however, in the language of Nāṣer Ṣābūrī of Ahwāz, in at least one category, a peculiar pronunciation can be found which is more closely akin to the classical feminine form tartin “two”.60 According to Macuch, “the actual mod[ern] form tarta tartā,61 which, otherwise, does not occur in literature … drove out not only the cl. [fem.] tartin, but also the cl. masc. form trin. The latter is now used only in simple counting, while in talking only tartā is used: tartā īdā “two hands”, tartā krāyā “two legs”, tartā gaβrā “two men”, etc.”.62 In a later publication by Macuch (Neumandäis- che Chrestomathie) four different transcriptions stand for the modern cardinal number tartā:

1. tartā bar nāšī “two men” (l. 49–50, 133), tartā yūmī “two days” (l. 292– 293); 2. tārtā bar nāšī “two men” (l. 679, 803), tārtā merka “two coins” (l. 715); 3. tārta lamma “two breads” (l. 534), tārta šāyā “two hours” (l. 825); 4. tarta bar nāšī “two men” (l. 54).63

When Macuch published his Handbook and Chrestomathie, the enigmatic form tartā was unknown from other written sources of Mandaic, except for a single example in the seventeenth-century Sabicum Glossarium: Mand.: tarta, Lat.: duo (86:5).64 This changed, however, with the decipherment of a unique incantation bowl from a private collection (labelled pc 21) by James Nathan

60 See Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, pp. 232, 524; Macuch, Neu- mandäische Chrestomathie, pp. 62, 262. 61 For the sake of accuracy, the transcriptions below follow the idiosyncratic transcription system employed by Macuch in his textbooks. In the advanced phonetic method of transcription established by Mutzafi (Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic, pp. 13–15) only one realisation *tartɔ would be expected instead of the four transcriptions suggested by Macuch. 62 Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, p. 232. 63 For additional examples see Macuch, Neumandäische Chrestomathie, p. 262. 64 Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, p. 232 note 208.

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access early mandaic and neo-mandaic: some points of connection 95

figure 5 šubin utarta “seventy two”. The photograph was taken by Dr. James Nathan Ford and is published here with his kind permission. pc 21:5

Ford,65 which uncovered the first attestation of the spelling tarta in pre-classical sources: hatima šubin utarta ʿsatratiahun “sealed are their seventy-two goddesses” (pc 21:5; unpublished). Since the orthography with final a is restricted in Mandaic to an a vowel, it can therefore be assumed that the writing of tarta reflects a pronunciation very close to nm tartā. A possible explanation for the development of the colloquial form tartā (and, apparently, the epigraphic consonantal form tarta) is to view the transition from -en# to -ā# as a result of leveling. It probably came about due to an internal analogy with the previous and following members of the masculine number system:66

ehdā “one” tren / tarten → tartā “two”67 klɔṯā “three” arbā “four” hamšā “five” šettā “six” šuḇḇā “seven” təmānyā “eight” eččā “nine”

65 Ford and Morgenstern, New Aramaic Incantation Bowls: Mandaic Bowls (forthcoming). 66 The following paradigm is based on Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic, p. 231. 67 In the linguistic description of the dialect of Khorramshahr only one form is mentioned: tren “two” (Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr, p. 149). Macuch (Neu- mandäischeTexte im Dialekt von Ahwāz, pp. 63, 444) presented two options (e)trēn and tertḗn.

Aramaic Studies 16 (2018) 78–96 Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 10:00:37PM via free access 96 abudraham

Conclusion

The discovery of numerous unknown epigraphic sources (earthenware bowls and metal lamellas) in the past few decades and the renewed interest in the modern dialects of Ahwāz and Khorramshahr by Häberl and Mutzafi since the beginning of the twenty-first century have significantly increased our knowledge of Mandaic and its periodisation. The current article presented four new linguistic traits shared by the two extreme phases of the language (em and nm) but not attested in its intermediate phase (cm). The presence of “late” phenomena in the earliest attested written sources of Mandaic prove not only the ancient origin of some nm peculiarities but also the wide range of varieties of Mandaic that flourished in Mesopotamia in Late Antiquity. Unlike the canonical collections of Mandaic scriptures, which leave little room for diver- sity, the grammar of the earthenware bowls and metal lamellas is replete with deviations from the historical orthography of literary Mandaic. One of the com- pelling criteria for regarding these deviations as dialectal features that reflected the living speech of the scribes is their similarity to the modern form of the language.68

68 See M. Moriggi, ‘Between Late-Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic: Reflections on some Phenom- ena in Aramaic of Late Antiquity’, aram 24 (2012), pp. 87–102.

AramaicDownloaded Studies from 16Brill.com09/30/2021 (2018) 78–96 10:00:37PM via free access