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
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)-(?)
pyšṭ, 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 lṭby 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 Ṭayyāye. 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