Mittwoch, 10. April 2019

The Mesopotamian Planetary Gods #4a: Late-Antique Pagan and “Mandaean” Magic (first part)

Note: Because I cite from various translations, and also because ancient Aramaic did not have a unified standard of orthography, this post is a nightmare of alternate spellings.

Incantation bowls

In the centuries before and around the time of the Islamic conquests, there was a certain magical practice widely current in Mesopotamia (the east of the Aramaic-speaking world, the west of the Sasanian Empire) which involved the use of so-called “incantation bowls” (a modern term), clay bowls inscribed with spirals of text in Aramaic – rarely Persian; very rarely Arabic; sometimes pseudo-writing – and sometimes featuring an image in the centre.

For a very brief description of the iconography, see Hunter, Aramaic-speaking Communities of Sasanid Mesopotamia, in: ARAM Periodical, 7 (2), esp. pp. 326–327; in much greater detail: Vilozny, Between Demons and Kings. The Art of Babylonian Incantation Bowls, in: Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World: Patterns of Interaction across the Centuries, 2015

In many cases, the bowls (and their writers, if not necessarily their users) can be associated with one of two specific religions – Judaism and Mandaeism –, but there are also a smaller number of Christian texts, various texts that are shared across religions (‘supra-cultural’ features, in Hunter’s terms), and bowls whose features are either not specific (‘intra-cultural’) to any one of them, or combines features typical of more than one. There is a strong correspondence between script type and religious content:

Aramaic square script (ca. 60%) – (mostly) Jewish
Mandaic script (ca. 25%) – Mandaean
Syriac scripts (ca. 15%) – Christian and other

(Levene, D. "Incantation Bowls, Babylonian." In: The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2013)

There are two aspects connected to Mesopotamian paganism that interest us about these bowls: a) the pagan figures called upon in some of those “other” texts, and b) the demonic beings against which bowls of all types are directed.

First of all, I should say something about the composition of the “other” texts. A very small minority seems to have been Manichaean (Morony, Religion and the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Religion Compass 1, 2007, p. 416f), some represent some kind of Judaism or Christianity or might be considered to have Jewish-based ‘neutral’ register, which might not be offensive to Zoroastrians or (some) pagans. They are definitely not Mandaean. Finally, a few of them are pagan – which does not preclude elements from other religions – or at least include distinctly pagan material.

Morony (p. 419f) gives a list of the pagan deities who “survived, mainly because of their identification with the planets in astrology”: “Sin (the Moon), Šamiš (the Sun), Nabu (Mercury), Bel (Jupiter), Nerig/Nergal (Mars), Kewan (Saturn), and Ištar as Dilbat/Libat (Venus) as well as Bablita (Bēltīa, the consort of Bel), Mulit (Ninlil), Nanaia, and Mamītu (the consort of Nergal) appear in these texts together with the Hellenic Zeus, Hermes, Okeanos, and Protogenos and the Iranian Bagdāna and Šadya. Sometimes these are beneficient powers called upon to bind and seal the demons, most often in the Syriac texts. Sometimes they are demons themselves, most often in the Mandaic texts”. This list is not entirely exhaustive, as we will see; but neither is this post, which does not exploit nearly the entirety of the incantation bowl texts that have been published, which in turn are only a fraction of the bowls that have been uncovered.

Beyond (but also including) the pagan texts, in a wider sense, the entire genre “hark[s] back to the protective rituals of the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian periods, from which incantation bowls ultimately descend” (Hunter p. 326f), and this means that the hostile entities against which God, Yah, Jesus, the Life (in Mandaean texts), or our pagan gods are invoked are to a large extent drawn from Mesopotamian lore. Some of them were always thought of as evil, others were demonized or goblinized only around the turn of the millennium; which entities in particular are demonized varies between the religious groups, but one might say that there was a shared “grammar” of demonization, which made it comprehensible across religious boundaries. In other words, just as a god or angel from one religious tradition might be called upon by someone belonging to a different one, so we should not be surprised when a pagan texts seeks to mobilize a Babylonian god against a being that had once been another god, and had originally been demonized by Christians out of anti-pagan motives.

Mandaeism took Jewish and Christian rhetorics of demonization and anti-idolatry further than anyone, using it to condemn all worship of gods – including the planets and even YHWH –, cast angels as malevolent creatures, and diabolize Zoroastrian deities, positing instead an entirely different superhuman hierarchy.

Examples of evil entities against which incantation bowls are used

Non-Mesopotamian evil entities common in the incantation bowls include: dēws (dywˀ, the Zoroastrian evil gods, from Avestan daēuua), Lord Bagdana (mryˀ bgdˀnˀ , Iranian), satans (sṭnˀ, Jewish), spirits (rwḥˀ, Aramaic)

see further: Shaked, Bagdāna, King of the Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic, in: Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, 1985, pp. 511–525

Mesopotamian entities that had traditionally been evil: liliths (llytˀ < Akkadian lilītu, ‘female evil deity, demoness), male liliths (lyly < Akkadian lilû, ‘male evil deity, male demon’)

Mesopotamian entities that had traditionally been good, but are now demonized: demons (šeds/šids, spelled šydˀ / šˀdˀ < Akkadian šēdu, ‘protective deity, one’s personal god, luck’), goddesses (ˀstrtˀ < Akkadian ištartu, ‘goddess’, related to ištaru, ‘Ishtar, goddess’)

Other “magical”/pagan entities: amulet-spirits (ḥmwrˀ, literally just ‘amulets’), temple-spirits (), idol-spirits (ptkrˀ, literally just ‘idols’, originally meaning ‘sculpted images’ in a neutral sense), curses (lwṭtˀ), very evil dreams (ḥlymˀ byšˀ byšˀ), no-good-ones (lṭbˀ)

Various such entities are often named together, either in a list, or through a comprehensive-sounding collocation like “male idol-spirits and female goddesses” (M. Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls, 2014, no. 7). As can be seen from the examples, the border between spells and implements (like ‘curses’ and ‘amulets’) and agential “demons” (like ‘amulet-spirits’) is often blurry. Furthermore, pagan practices are assimilated into the magical sphere: “the harms of idol-spirits and the vows of gods” (Moriggi nos. 16 and 32) are included in a list of sorcerous evil spells and practices. Some texts also mention “cursing women who have cursed and made incantations at the gate of the temple” (Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts, 1967, no. 5; this text, and no. 15, give some idea of how Mandaeans imagined pagan witches to operate).

For an example of such “mythology”, see Müller-Kessler, The Story of Bguzan-Liit, Daughter of Zanay-Lilit, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 116, pp. 185–195

In addition to the generic categories, there are many named, apparently individual evil beings, often with hinted-at mythologies (of which there may or may not have been some more elaborate form current among practitioners), as e.g. Moriggi no. 8, cited in the ‘Pagan content’ section. Some of them recur in various texts, others appear only once in the extant corpus.

A note on spirits

While translators use ‘spirit’ for various entities (like the idol[-spirit]s), rūhā (rwḥˀ) is really just one specific kind of being, rather than an umbrella. In Mandaeism, Ruha is even just a single individual, a (mostly) evil goddess. There are, however, passages like the following (Moriggi no. 18), where a more generic meaning is reflected: “impure spirits, the spirits of corpses, the spirit of ruin-mounds, the spirit of graves, the evil spirit”. To the best of my knowledge, this umbrella is Jewish in origin – at any rate, there is no Akkadian equivalent to rūhā –, and from there became (in the Latin translation spiritus) the generic word for God, angels, souls, demons and devils in Catholic Christianity. It is perhaps natural, then, that when one comes from a Western European language, “spirit” sounds like an overarching category under which many other things can be subsumed. The language of the incantation bowls does not warrant this.

Pagan content in incantation bowl texts

Because the pagan texts are relatively few, it is hard to make well-founded generalizations about them. Instead, I will give excerpts from them here. The selection is from those texts I have at hand – as I am able to access other publications, I will make additional posts to round out the picture.

Syriac script

Moriggi no. 8: “[…] depart spirit daughter of a spirit, be overturned […], daughter of death (mwt)” … “the Lord Šamiš (mryˀ šmyš) sent me against you, Sīn (synˀ) sent me, Bēl (by) commanded me, Nannay (nnˀy) told me and Nabu (nbw), I do his will, and Nergal (nyryg) gave me the strength that I can go against her, against the evil spirit, and against dwryb, whom they call ‘the Strangler’ who kills the children in the bosom of their mothers and is called ‘the Slayer’ and their fathers ‘the Destroyers’. Go out from before these angels, so that may live the sons for their mothers”, etc. “Amen, amen, selah.”

Moriggi no. 9: “[…] by the power of the word of God (ˀlhˀ)” … “against amulet-spirits and against goddesses and against all mighty demons”, etc., yet the bowl ends with: “Accept peace from your father who is in heaven and seven peaces from male gods (ˀlhˀ) and from female goddesses (ˀystrtˀ = ˀstrtˀ). The one who makes peace wins in judgement and the one who causes destruction is burnt in fire. Amen.”

Moriggi no. 23 has a fuller version of this formula: “He who listens to the spell sits in the house, eats and feeds, drinks and pours drink, rejoices and causes joy, brother for the brothers he is and friend for the dwellers of the house, comrade for the children he is and educator is called, companion for the cattle he is and a genius of good fortune is called. Accept peace from your father who is in heaven seven peaces”, and so on as before. Yet the surrounding text includes overtly anti-idolatrous language, and again lists goddesses among the evil entities as well. Potentially, the “seven peaces” imply that the gods and goddesses in question are the seven planets, in contradistinction to other, evil “idols” and goddesses.

Aramaic script

Shaked, Ford & Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, vol. 1, 2013, (JBA) no. 15: “By the name of Fortune (gd), [by] the name of grwˁg, by the name of burning fire, by the name of sq mswq, by the name of the cloud[s of] fire, by the [na]me of the angels of [r]uin, and by the name of Yah mysq wqyd, in order that you shall send to me the demon”, etc. Gad, an Aramaean (rather than Mesopotamian) god who was connected to the Greek goddess Tyche (also ‘fortune’) in the Hellenistic and Roman period, only makes a short appearance here in a text of otherwise overtly Jewish character.

Montgomery, Aramaic incantation texts from Nippur, 1913, no. 2: “Again I come, [name of the client], in my own might, on my person polished armor of iron, my head of iron, my figure of pure fire. I am clad with the garment of Armasa (Hermes), Dabya and the Word, and my strength is in him who created heaven and earth. I have come and I have smitten the evil Fiends and the malignant Adversaries.” … “I will lay a spell upon you, the spell of the Sea and the spell of the monster Leviathan.” Here a spell of mostly Jewish imagery includes the name of the Greek deity, Hermes (=the planet Mercury). According to Montgomery, somewhat speculatively (p. 124): “a passage in the Mandaic Ginza throws light upon the expression, ‘clad with the clothing of Armasa’; in the Ginza we have a tradition that the angels invested Nebo with a dress of fire.”

Montgomery no. 7: “In thy name, O Lord of salvations, the great Saviour of love. I bind to thee and seal and counterseal to thee, the life, house and property of this [client’s name]” … “in the name of Gabriel and Michael and Raphael, and in the name of the Angel ˁAsiel and Ermes (Hermes) the great Lord. [In the name of Yahu-in-Yahu] and the great Abbahu and the great Abrakas (Abraxas), the guardian of good spirits and destroyer of evil spirits”, etc. This spell also features interesting lists of evils, firstly: “all evil Arts and all (magic) Circles and all Necklace-spirits and all Invocations and all Curses and all Losses and all … and all sore Maladies and all evil Satans and all Idol-spirits and all impious Amulet-spirits and all mighty Tormentors”. As secondly: “Lo, this mystery is frustrating you, Mysteries, Arts, and enchanted Waters and Hair-spirits, Bowls and Knots and Vows and Necklace-spirits and Invocations and Curses and evil Spirits and impious Amulet-spirits. And now, Demons (šydy) and Demonesses (šydnyˀth) and [male] Lilis (lyly) and [female] Liliths (lylyˀth) and Plagues and evil Satans and all evil Tormentors, which appear—and all evil Injurers—in the likeness of vermin and reptile and in the likeness of beast and bird and in the likeness of man and woman, and in every likeness and in all fashions”.

Montgomery no. 19: “In thy name, O Lord of Salvations, the great Saviour of love” … “In thy name, lord Ibbôl, the great king of the Bagdâni; and in thy name, our lady Ibbôleth, the great queen of the goddesses (she-demons?), and in the name of Ṭalasbôgî the great lord of the Bagdâni; and in th ename of Sahnudmuk; and in the name of Ibbôl son of Palag; and in the name of Angarôs; and in the name of the Lord, the Word and Leader and Armasa (Hermes); and in the name of Azpâ and ˁAlîm; and in the name of Na[q]derôs the lord of …; and in the name of Seraphiel, lord of judgment and of (divine) beck; and in the name of the 60 male gods and the 80 female goddesses; and in the name of Ardîsaba (or Ardî) the most ancient of his colleagues; and in the name of Anad the great lord ….. cast above (him) iron and bronze, and fasted to him fetters (?) of lead and the 70 exalted priests of Bagdânâ; and in the name of Bagdânâ son of Habâl (destruction). …; and in the name of Palnînî and Mandinsan and Menirnaš …; and in the name of Iras son of Hanas; and in the name of Abrakis (Abraxas); and in the name of Agzariel, who is without compassion; and in the name of Arzan and …, rôs berôs delterôs; and in the name … to Ariel he sent a message: “Lift up” (?), … to the great Ruler before him; and in the name of …; and in the name of lord Ibbôl the great angel of the Blast-demons, and in the name of the great God and the great Lord of the Bagdâni; in the name of Ariôn son of Zand: Ye are charmed and armed and equipped.” … “Again, charmed by the great gods and sealed by Ariôn son of Zand” … “… of Zeüza (Zeus).” … “In the name of Paṭragenôs (Protogenos?), Okînoš (Okeanos)”, etc. Many of the figures, including the central Ibbôl and Ibbôleth, are (to my knowledge) obscure, even though several isolated figures – including the surprising Greek figures – are known from other contexts.

Levene & Bohak, A Babylonian Jewish Aramaic Incantation Bowl with a List of Deities and Toponyms, in: Jewish Studies Quarterly 19, No. 1 (2012): This text invokes “God YH” and angels against pagan deities, but the list of them it includes is so elaborate and free of anti-idolatrous language that it seems necessary to posit a pagan source behind it. The first part of the list is typical of the bowl texts: “Bound are all the male and female idol spirits, bound are the evil sorceries and female Ishtars (~goddesses) and mighty powerful acts by the word of the living and established God. Bound are the male idol spirits, and the female Ishtars”; at this point the more idiosyncratic content begins: “and the Ishtar of ˀydyt. and the Ishtar of ˀrt, and the upper Ishtar, and the rupture Ishtar, and the Ishtar of dyrwny, and the Ishtar of qtrynyˀ, and the Ishtar of the mountain of qwp, and the Ishtar of by-ntˀ, and the great mother of Karbala, and the mother and daughter and the great mother of ḥwbnyˀ, and the great mother of the palm branches of palm branches, and the Ishtar of lyb, and the king (of) by-mlyh, and the mother and daughter of b(y)-(?) pyš, and the great mother of lyb. Lilith and Ḥwr the son of Danahish the son of the Ishtar and nys Ḥwr3y, and the Ishtar of lybn, and the Hatra Ishtar and … by nyg … of Hatra and …and prṭyn Hatra and Shabur of Nabu and Nig and Nerig, and the Ishtar of ˁqrˀ ˀzydy and the mother of qwṭynˀ, and the Ishtar of by-nty … and the sorceries that are mentioned and all šst and the Ishtars and (i.e., of?) canal and mud and marsh and their tribes from Chwaraq son of Afrididay [=the beneficiary of the spell] … and from all … Hatra, and the kings of ˁbyryˀ and ḥydqy … and flee from Chwaraq son of Afrididay and split lby hearts, sons and lofty ones and šyd … and … HH and may they approach them.” … “Bound are all the great and small idols of the west and of the east, of the north and of the south, those that are written and those that are not written, and all that are called (female) Ishtars and (male) Ishtars that you are an idols.”

An imprecatory incantation (Obermann, Two Magic Bowls. New Incantation Texts from Mesopotamia, in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 57, No. 1 [Jan., 1940]): “And let them not restore sleep to her eyes; and let them not restore slumber in her body; in her dreams and her visions, let their images awaken her; and let life be made unfit for her—by Shamesh, and Sin, and Nabu, and [Dlibat], and Bel, and Nereg, and Kewan! Oh Great [Warrior King], and oh Mistress of Destruction, ye, strengthen ye the magic over this imprecation which Mahanosh, son of Amulazad, has evoked against Ona, daughter of Gayat, and may there be to Ona, daughter of Gayat, no remedy forever, and no mitigation forever! In the Name (of?)! Abrogate thou thy curses by my desire, and (by?) the Living (God), the Ruler, and Creator, the Great Judge of the souls of the dead; and thou shalt do my will and my command unto the great day of Judgment, Judgment wgbnˀ zknˀ.” (this text is copied from a Mandaic original, according to Müller-Kessler, Puzzling Words and Spellings in Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowls, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Vol. 62, No. 1 [1999].)

Mandaic-script incantation bowls

Yamauchi no. 22 shows the planetary pantheon quite intact as powerful gods, but interpreted as evil: “To Misfortune [the Planets] said ‘Strike!’ and to Destruction they said ‘Seize!’ and to the Angel of Fury they said ‘Continually oppress!’” The speaker uses Mandaean rites to overpower the planets in a court-like procedure: “I have come and have stood on the scepter, the crown, the pomp, and the majesty of Šamiš. And I said to him, ‘Why is there the shaking of Tibil and the quaking of the house of war?’ Šamiš swore and said, ‘I do not know.’ And I said to him, ‘Oh liar! In your sorcery you said, ‘I do not know.’’ And he said, ‘I do not know. But go and ask Sin, the son of Bel, the king of the gods.’ Then I said to him, ‘Blind One who is over the spheres, and Lame One who is over the chariots, why did you let loose death and misfortune in the midst of the House (i.e. the world), and say to me ‘I do not know’?’” … “I stood and cried to the angel Qarqiel, and said to him, ‘Who has given you this command?’ And he said, ‘Šamiš and his brilliance commanded me and said to me, ‘Go, death and misfortune loose in the midst of the House on the sons of the great tribe of Life [=on Mandaeans].’’ Then I seized the mace of brilliance and the blade of brilliance and of light. And I seized the garland of roses and took and pulled off his garment and grasped him with his mystery and I said to him, ‘A woman you are!’ And he said to me, ‘Of what you said I do not know.’” Of course the case is ultimately won, and all evils are removed from the speaker’s house. Not only that, but “Šamiš in his brilliance has strengthened it. Bel, Nergal, and Kewan have strengthened it. The Moon in its brightness has strengthened it. Dlibat, and Daniš have strengthened it. Nebo, his priest and worshipper, have strengthened it. The seven Planets have strengthened it. Their twelve angels [=the zodiac?] have strengthened it. Their five leaders have strengthened it. West and East have strengthened it. The four corners of the House have strengthened it”, etc. It seems that under compulsion, the planetary gods can become auspicious forces again.

Yamauchi no. 20, 23, 27, all use the same formula, part of which also appears in Montgomery 19 (above): “In your name! Suppress and trample in the name of the angel Gabriel and the male Ramptit and the female Ramptan. In the name of the sixty male temple-spirits (ˁykwrˀ, literally just ‘pagan temples’) and the eighty female Ištars. Bound and sealed and cut and muzzled and encompassed and whipped and blinded and stopped and deafened are the curse and incantation and evil eye and the envious and dim-seeing eye of poverty”, etc.

In Yamauchi 28, pagan deities are definitely hostile: “Bound and shut is Ištar” – some text is lost – “she and the three hundred and sixty tribes and amulet-spirits, which are left to her in every place. They are bound and fettered and placer under the left heel of” the client. … “Negal of the wasp is bound and the god of the house of generation(s). They and all their incantations and their tribes and their sorcery-spirits”, etc.

Other “Mandaean” texts

While the texts in Mandaic script cited above can be categorized as Mandaean – albeit with some material from other sources –, the same may not be true of the Aramaic-script “imprecatory incantation” cited above which was copied from a Mandaic original. Although the “warrior king” mentioned there is a figure otherwise known only from Mandaean sources, the rest seems atypical, and the positive spin on the planetary gods so integral to the text, that it could be seen either as eclectic – not much of an explanation – or as belonging to a group related to Mandaeism, like the Kentaeans. Unlike late antique Mandaeism – but like modern-day Mandaeans! – the Kentaeans considered at least two of the planets to be positive forces. As the Eastern Syriac Christian Theodore bar Konay has it:

In the days of King Peroz, when the decree against the idols and their priests went out, so that only the religion of the magi should remain, when Baṭṭay saw that his religion [namely the worship of Nergal] was defunct, he sought favor with the magi and worshipped the luminaries [sun and moon]. Also they [the Kentaeans] received the fire and established it in their temples.
(…) [H]e says: Before everything, there was one godhead. This divided into two, and from it were Good and Evil. The Good took the lights and the Evil took the darkness. Then the Evil perceived [the Good] and ascended to make battle with the Father of Greatness. The Father of Greatness recognized that it was a calamity and he called a Word from himself. From this Word, Lord God was created by him. Lord God called seven Words, and seven powers were from him. Then seven dēws ascended and bound Lord God and the seven powers that were from him. […] Seven and twelve demons [=šˀdˀ] and dēws stood up. (van Bladel, From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes, 2017, pp. 124f, slightly adapted)

From this, it seems that the twelve signs of the zodiac and the seven planets were all regarded as being under evil rule, but the planets either were themselves good or related to good powers. There was a similar doubling of evil planets and corresponding good celestial bodies ‘bound’ by the evil ones in late antique Zoroastrianism. But even if the Kentaeans themselves did not worship the other five planets, but only sun and moon (like the Manichaeans), there may have been other related groups in the area that did do so, or individual practitioners who were not simply “eclectic”, but were familiar with, and had their own original ideas about, both pagan rituals and para-Mandaean ones (my clumsy term for groups related to Mandaeism).

Because they lived in the same area of southern Mesopotamia as the Mandaeans, para-Mandaean groups like the Kentaeans spoke the same dialect and used the same script as them, which we now call Mandaic because Mandaeism is the only religion of this group to survive to this day. Indeed, the Mandaic script would have also been used by local pagans and Aramaic-speaking Zoroastrians (van Bladel p. 80), just as the Syriac script was in other regions. Rather than postulating the different religions and scripts as separate points of origin which radiate out and overlap in the form of fuzzy “syncretism” in the middle, much of the apparent chaos of the magic bowl texts can be explained in the following way:

(a)    The incantation bowls are based on originally pagan Mesopotamian ritual texts.
(b)   Because of the continuous presence of Jews in Mesopotamia, Jews adopted (and adapted) these ritual texts, and some originally Jewish practices were also picked up by pagan practitioners.
(c)    Due to various factors, the pagan temple infrastructure of Mesopotamia was wiped out over the course of late antiquity, leaving the production of incantation bowls (as well as the performance of other rituals) in the hands of those who could support themselves without the financial stability once guaranteed by wealthy temples.
(d)   Jewish ritual experts – who were never dependent on the temples – were of course unaffected (or benefited) by this change, and hitherto pagan populations might turn to them for help without necessarily converting.
(e)    In the absence of pagan centres of learning, non-Jewish practitioners (pagan, Christian or otherwise) were increasingly dependent on Jewish models.
(f)    New ritual experts (Mandaean, Kentaean and others) emerged, hostile to, yet dependent upon both pagan and Jewish models.

This rough scenario (which is based on van Bladel’s theory about the Mandaeans’ origin) accounts, I think, for the ways in which material travelled – e.g. from paganism into Jewish and Mandaean texts, but not from Mandaeism into Judaism (cf. Hunter). It also explains the combinations of anti-pagan sentiment and pagan material that one can encounter; and all this confirms, I would say, van Bladel’s idea that the fifth century saw a transformation of previously small and exclusive “proto-Mandaean” groups into the priestly elites of communities that had been formerly pagan.

In other words, the literature of the Mandaeans did not originate all at once from a pristine Mandaean source: some of it is Jewish, or Jewish Christian, or pagan, often very creatively edited and rewritten. Yet later, texts and (unwritten) ideas from related groups like the Kentaeans were assimilated, explaining both the differences between “classical” Mandaeism and modern Mandaean ideas (regarding the planets, for example), as well as the internal diversity of the Mandaean corpus and ancient texts – like the Mandaic incantation bowls – which look Mandaean, but might not be exactly that. Accordingly, one of the major Mandaean sources for late antique paganism – magic – includes much that is “Mandaean” only in the sense that it has been used in Mandaeans, or resembles something used by Mandaeans. In effect, each piece of evidence has to be contextualized and understood individually, without treating Paganism and Mandaeism as two monolithic entities with a clearly definable relationship.

A Mandaean spell against ‘sorceresses’

Exorcisms(-ish)

Theodore bar Konay (van Bladel, p. 126f): “They [the Dostaeans=Mandaeans] say in their hymn which they call the ˀdrktˀ against the sorceresses: Thus the evil spirit called Hamgay and Hamgagay from the leprous chain, and Mardiq and Labrānitā and Tatay of Ḫuzestān (Huzāyā), and ˁAnay and Nanai, and Bel and Belti from the land of the Romans, and Diq and Mardiq and Guztanay from India, and Arnaṭ and Aphrodite (Prwdyṭ) from the west, the Remover of His Rest from the East, Mother and Mammanay from Ḥirtā of the ayyāye. And at their head sits Emm-Bayo the old woman. All these are sorceresses.”

What is especially interesting about this passage is that even the planetary gods are associated with regions on earth. The choice of regions (like “Bel and Belti from the land of the Romans”) is obviously not inherited but newly invented, but apparently on the basis of

Some of these “sorceresses” are Mandaean: Hamgay, Hamgagay, Mammanay, and possibly the Mother (ˀmˀ)

Others are easily identifiable as Mesopotamian deities: Mardiq, apparently no longer known to be the same as Bel, Bel’s wife Belti (Akkadian Beltia), Nanai.

Others seem to be doublets of the latter: Diq of Mardiq (quite clearly), ˁAnay of Nanay (speculatively)

Others are obscure to me: Labrānitā, Tatay, Guztanay, Arnaṭ, Emm-Bayo.

Side note on Aphrodite

Finally, Aphrodite is of course the Greek goddess; she also appears in (Aramaic-script) incantation bowls. Shaked, Ford & Bhayro p. 17f: “You are Aphrodite (ʾyprʾdyṭy), to whom all women are slaves, to whom all women are shown, to whom all of them are shown by authority at night, Hallelujah. It is sealed against you by the name of Ṣidqi, Ṣedeq, Ṣidqiel. By a straight sword and a curved projectile, by a curved sword and a straight projectile, that you should not come, nor be visible in the form of daughters of Eve during my sleep at any place, whether by day or by night—to this Bahroi daughter of Šišai, nor to this Mahkird, her husband, son of Dēnak, and that you should not come near them, nor touch them, nor cause injury to their sons and daughters …”

Shaked, Ford & Bhayro (JBA) no. 25: “You are Aphrodite, (to) whom all women and to whom all are dis[played ---] to [--- are] enslaved, and [to] whom all are legitimate[ly enslaved] (as) maid[ser]vants. I [be]swea[r you], lilith”, etc. Here, Aphrodite seems to be the name of a lilith?

“Evil magic” from Drower, A Mandaean Book of Black Magic, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1943, 168/9

“The magic of this book I have termed ‘black’, for the Mandaeans themselves regard the book as haršia bišia, ‘evil magic.’” (p. 149) Nevertheless, the spells of this “magic book” published by E. S. Drower are often protective against evil entities – many of them the same as those known from the incantation bowls –, rather than invocations of them. They also share other features of those ancient texts, like the closing formula “Amen, amen selah.” Although the manuscripts available to Drower had been copied very recently, they show strong continuity with the conventions of late antique ritual texts – mostly Mandaean ones, but not exclusively so.

No. 3 features a list of evils (dēws, šids, piṭiaras, gods, high places, liliths); it binds them without invocation of a named good being, so it has no overtly Mandaean features.

No. 5 calls upon a dēw named Dirdbun, evil liliths, and Libat (=Venus, here Dirdbun’s daughter); the combination appears to depend on Mandaean ideas about Libat, and not directly from any pagan models. It really may be called Mandaean ‘evil magic’, as it calls upon beings of Darkness.

No. 16, although very clearly Mandaean, also has the passage: “she shall flee away and be rendered harmless by the vaunted name of Jesu Christ, son of the Remover.” In Mandaeism, Jesus was traditionally regarded as an evil deceiver.

No. 23 preserves the idea that “the creatures of Libat” are “the doves”, which were sacred to Ishtar (as well as to Astarte in Syria and Aphrodite among the Greeks).

No. 27 is a jealousy charm, which features a historiola (a brief narrative parallel to the desired effect of the ritual) which must be late antique. I’m not sure that it must be pagan, but it must be from a time when pagan worship was still well known: “In the name of the angels! Turned away is his countenance, there will be alienation for N. (woman) from N. (man).” Then comes the historiola, which separates the gods from their chief seats of worship: “Bel is turned from Babylon, Nebo turned from Borṣippa, Nišra turned from Kaškar, and”, the text continues, “alienated is the heart and thought of N. from the thought and heart of N. His face is the face of a lion, his body that of a wild cat, his snout that of a pig, his feet those of a buffalo, and his hair that of a night-demon. He stinketh, (and) she will spurn him like a potsherd for scraping. With him she will not eat, with him she will not drink, with him she will not sit, neither shall he approach her. In the name of the [goddess], Libat, amen, amen selah.” Based on the invocation of Libat, the text could be substantially pagan, or more likely Mandaean ‘evil magic’ incorporating an old historiola. (But perhaps there was more continuity between the two.)

The directions for the spell’s use are to “Write this spell on a day’s-old hen’s egg and bury (it) at the gate of him (or her) whom thou wishest to drive out of his (or her) house, for all that thou wilt. And it is strong and proven.

No. 28 is similar: “Bel is turned is turned from Babylon and Nirigh (Mars) from his countenance (read Borṣippa) and Kiwan (Saturn) from his light, and Nebo (Mercury) from his father, the Arab: and Shamish (sun) from the dwelling of the Persians and Libat (Venus) from the Indians, and all evil folk.” However, here a writer has completed the row to include all planetary gods, and updated the references to something they could understand. The sun may be associated with the Persians because it plays an important role in Zoroastrianism; Nebo and Nirigh seem to have been confused, since it was Nebo’s temple that stood in Borṣippa in antiquity and, more importantly, Nirigh who was associated with the Arab (Muhammad) in post-conquest Mandaeism. The spell continues: “They have bound the loins of N. with pitch: when he beholds N. (the woman) he says: ‘Send her away, she shall not remain in my presence.’ Amen, amen selah. Read this spell seven times over pitch and (then) smear it on the door of the man, and the man and woman shall become estranged by the strength of our lord, and there will be relief and healing.”

According to Müller-Kessler & Kessler, Spätbabylonische Gottheiten in spätantiken mandäischen Texten, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 89 (1999), p. 68, there are parallels to the historiola in an Aramaic-script incantation bowl and in the Talmud.

A very long love charm from Drower’s article

No. 21 seems to be essentially pagan, but also features Jewish elements (and the demonization of pagan šids and “idol-spirits” that became universal in late antiquity). I only see one specicially Mandaean element (“in the name of the Life”), although it is unlikely that the text is simply an unmodified copy of an ancient pagan original:

“In the name of Libat (Venus), mistress of gods and men! He shall be brought into subjection, this man, N., neath the feet of N., woman, by the four limbs of his body, by the eight corners of his stature; his male member and his sinews are subjected, subjected are his incoming and outgoing, subjected his slaves and his hand-maidens, subdued are his šids (household spirits [in 20th-century Mandaic usage]) and his demons, subdued his amulets and idols, subdued his knowledge and understanding, subdued are the evil thoughts that are in his heart and his body, that of N. by the name of Mimhisiq Qusum, the lady that illumines them, that casts water on dry land, and on the hands of (Libat) mistress of gods and men. He shall be bound and will come: he is brought into subjection, N., by the strong bond (spell) wherewith heavens and earth were brought into subjection. From underneath the feet of N. (woman) he will go abroad, and his liver shall be seized, and he will not go to any place other (than hers), by the name of their mistress, she whose purity is sweet, who arose from the east, who removes them, the queen whom they remove and call her and she comes, and they seek her and find her and consider (?) her, and sleeps in the firmament of Qidsar, the love-longing and marriage-maker. In the name of Libat (Venus), mistress of gods and men he is brought into subjection, and became impassioned. And the heart and mind of N. are brought into subjection beneath the feet of N. the woman. He is bound and made subject, (yea) and heavens and earth are subdued at her name. Verily, and amen selah. S––a.

This talisman and bond and mystery summon. And there shall be love and fame and honour and fairness of face for N. (woman) before N. (man). He shall be driven after N. (woman).

Woe to the mouth that speaketh falsehood and to the lips that lie, for they are brought low even as the earth below the heavens above. And N. (the man), (is brought into subjection) below N. (woman) by the names of Kabshiel, Darkiel, Balmiel, Sanunel, and Ariel (and) by the name of Libat, mistress of gods and men. Bind him, seal him, bring him and subjugate him beneath the feat of N. by the seal and name of this lord of a seal and by the name of (the mistress of) gods and men. S––a.

All the children of men, small and great, are bound, sealed, and subdued, (yea) all that sit in the market and mosques and stand in the streets. By the names of the gods he, N., shall be brought low beneath the feet of N., woman, in the name of the Life, until he sits upon her couch, in the name of Adunai, who trod down the earth and condensed the heavens, by the name of YA YA YA YA YA YA YA, by the name Markiel, by the name of those angels of love that is fervent and glowing, (bind on him) bonds and upon all the children of men. These are the angels that subjugate N. to N.! (He is subdued) by the name of (Libat mistress of) gods and men, and by the name Adunai Ṣbaboth. YA YAHU, amen, amen selah. S––a.

By your names have I called upon you, Rahmiel and Mrahmiel, that cause men to fall in love with women and women with men, in love and lust, and such ardour as thou bestowest on fire when it flames and glows, such glow and love and apssion as thou bestowest on the ready (impetuous) north wind. And upon thee, N. (man) and N. (woman) there shall be bestowed that love which was infused into Adam and Eve, and love and passion were kindled in them, their hearts embraced, they were clothed in love and covered with love, putting on passion and desire. They joined together, Adam and Eve, and fell in love: they were wrapped up in each other and were not parted from one another. Thou didst make him enamoured of her loveliness and her society. And the love which rested upon Adam and Eve arose, (and) shall rest upon thee, N., that same love and passion for her loveliness and society. Ye shall possess each other, ye shall be wrapped up in each other as in a single garment, and shall not be parted one from the other.

And they shall not see, they shall die (of their love) and will neither eat nor drink until they possess each other. These. Yea, and amen selah. S––a.

He is humbled and laid low by the name of the angel Mumhaq. When (they?) send him (the angel), he goes and subdues the heart and mind of N. beneath the feet of N. (woman). Yea, and amen selah. S––a.

He (N.) is curbed in like a horse with four halters; he is held like a camel by its head-rope, tied back like a mule by its halter, held back like a dog by its collar, by the name Dashtiel which bringeth assault into cities, by the name Rufiel who is a ministering angel upon earth, who answereth and removeth the troubles of mankind, by the name of the angel Nṭita, who tieth up men with women.
And N. said: “I behold N. (woman) befroe me, my own: we will not part from each other.”

Beseech the angels that they may go and make (love) overpowering, and kindle love for N. (woman) in the heart of N. (man). (By) all the names that there are, N. shall go after N. with ardent love and passion, like unto a breeding dog after a bitch on heat, even thus shall he, N., be drawn and dragged after her, N., by the names of those angels of heaven and earth, by the names of the angels of love. Images. Yea, and amen selah. S––a

In the names of the Queen of Love, Libat the beautiful, and a gleaming-white queen are you! And you will beautify N. (woman) before N. (man). (She shall shine) in his heart like the glow of the sun or the glow of the moon, or the radiance of Venus, or like the glow of the sun amongst the encircling stars. N. shall be magnified with N. like unto a mountain peak.

By thy name have I summoned you, Kiwan (Saturn), so that N. shall be inflamed. When his vessel emits (semen) he rejoices, ejecting it as his seed upon his thighs. He blossomed, the head of N. was turned towards N. (woman): like trees they were intertwined. Amen, amen, selah. S––a

The man N. is held to the woman N. his wife like these: like a horse with four halters, like camels by a camel-halter, like a bull by his yoke, reined-in like a mule by its head-rope, pent back like fishes by a stone. And N. the man said, gazing upon her, upon N. the woman, “I am drawn to her body: I have called to her in love, mine own, N. We will not part company.”

Splendour, nobility, and honour shall be N.’s in the eyes of N. woman, by Bel by the name of Libat, mistress of gods and men. S––a.

This is the spell of the Seven Gates of Love, for a man after a woman, or a woman after a man. S––a.”

Further Mandaic sources in #3b.

A Messy Bibliography, But One That Could Be Finished In A Timely Fashion
  • Drower, A Mandaean Book of Black Magic, in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1943, 168/9
  • Hunter, Aramaic-speaking Communities of Sasanid Mesopotamia, in: ARAM Periodical, 7 (2)
  • Levene, "Incantation Bowls, Babylonian." In: The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 2013
  • Levene & Bohak, A Babylonian Jewish Aramaic Incantation Bowl with a List of Deities and Toponyms, in: Jewish Studies Quarterly 19, No. 1 (2012)
  • Montgomery, Aramaic incantation texts from Nippur, 1913
  • M. Moriggi, A Corpus of Syriac Incantation Bowls
  • Morony, Religion and the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Religion Compass 1, 2007
  • Müller-Kessler, Puzzling Words and Spellings in Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowls, in: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London Vol. 62, No. 1 (1999)
  • Müller-Kessler, The Story of Bguzan-Liit, Daughter of Zanay-Lilit, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 116, pp. 185–195
  • Müller-Kessler & Kessler, Spätbabylonische Gottheiten in spätantiken mandäischen Texten, in: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 89 (1999)
  • Obermann, Two Magic Bowls. New Incantation Texts from Mesopotamia, in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1940)
  • van Bladel, From Sasanian Mandaeans to Ṣābians of the Marshes, 2017
  • Vilozny, Between Demons and Kings. The Art of Babylonian Incantation Bowls, in: Orality and Textuality in the Iranian World: Patterns of Interaction across the Centuries, 2015
  • Shaked, Ford & Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl Spells. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, vol. 1, 2013
  • Shaked, Bagdāna, King of the Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic, in: Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, 1985

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen