Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World 9781611438697, 1611438691

Citation preview

Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World

Biblical Intersections

11

This series explores biblical literature as a product and a reflection of the world in which it was produced. In addition to studies that take an historical approach, monographs and edited collections also examine the biblical text from alternative perspectives, including social-scientific, theological, literary, and cultural studies approaches.

Studies on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World

Edited by

Helen R. Jacobus Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme Philippe Guillaume

9

34 2013

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2013 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2013

‫ܗ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-61143-869-7

ISSN 1943-9377

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments .................................................................................. vii Introduction ............................................................................................. ix Helen R. Jacobus Asakkû: Demons and Illness in Ancient Mesopotamia ..................... 1 András Bácskay Notes on the Presence of Magic within the Hebrew Bible in Light of Akkadian Literature ..................................................... 9 Ronnie Goldstein Apotropaic Intercession in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East........................................................... 19 Marian Broida Magical Healing at Qumran (11Q11) and the Question of the Calendar............................................... 39 Ida Fröhlich Calendars in the Book of Esther: Purim, Festivals, Cosmology ..... 51 Helen R. Jacobus Drawing a Line between Prophecy, Magic and Divination ............. 77 Heiko Wenzel Dreams in the Hebrew Bible and Wisdom Literature ...................... 89 Eleni Soumani Aaron and the Amazing Mantic Coat ...............................................101 Philippe Guillaume From Mantle to Scroll: the Wane of the Flesh and Blood Prophet in the Elisha Cycle .......................................................119 Hadi Ghantous Drinking Golden Bull: the Erased Ordeal in Exodus 32 ...............135 Philippe Guillaume A Kind of Magic? The Law of Jealousy in Numbers 5:11–31 as Magical Ritual and as Ritual Text .........................................149 Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme v

vi

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Peter and Simon in the Acts of Peter: between Magic and Miracles ......................................................169 Kasper Dalgaard Paul and Magic: Complementary or Incongruent Entities? Scholarly use of the Concept of Magic, its Definition, and Prevalence of Magic in Paul’s World ................................181 Anders Klostergaard Petersen How Biblical Verses Became an Enchantment against the Evil Eye (Genesis 48:16; 49:22 in Berakhot 20a; 55 b)..................211 Chaim Nathan Marx The Use of Biblical Quotations in Jewish Aramaic Incantation Bowls ......................................227 Christa Müller-Kessler Bibliography ..........................................................................................247 Index .......................................................................................................303 Index of Ancient Sources ....................................................................305

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The editors would like to thank the European Association of Biblical Studies (EABS) for enabling the sessions on Magic and Divination in the Biblical World take place, and to all participants who took part. We are grateful to Katie Stott and Melonie Schmierer-Lee at Gorgias Press for their patience and advice during the genesis of this project. We would also like to thank the London Jewish Museum for permission to use the image of the silver scroll of Esther on the cover and the Israel Antiquities Authority for permission to use the plate of 11QApocryphal Psalms.

vii

INTRODUCTION Historically, the practice, or allegations of the performing of magic and divination has resulted in torture, trials and corporal punishment. Were one to take a social psychological approach to the study of mantic practices—loosely defined as the invocation of the supernatural—we might conclude that the scholars in this volume are excavating a trauma linked to a form of persecution stretching back more than 2,000 years. The ambivalence towards this subject in society and in the academy remains. Even today, there many academic researchers who bristle at what they perceive as troubling and unscientific content matter being studied seriously. However, a growing number of scholars are challenging this mindset (Klutz 2003, 2). The contributors to this volume are very much in this vein. It will quickly become apparent to anyone who reads this collection that the definition of magic and divination by twentyfirst century biblical scholars is variously interpreted. These essays are mainly based on presentations given to the research group on “Magic and Divination in the Biblical World” at the European Association of Biblical Studies (EABS) in Tartu, 2010, and Thessaloniki, 2011. The thematic parameters of the papers were very wide as the editors defined “biblical world” to apply to any text or artefact from any historical period that illuminated or encompassed the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. Some contributors chose to analyse or interpret certain biblical narratives where it pertained to magic and divination. Others focused entirely, or partly, on building theoretical models which could be used to understand the different nuanced categories of biblical tolerance and intolerance towards the manipulation of reality. In order to find a method of introduction, a performative model might offer a means of drawing the parts together, rather than simply writing a summary of each chapter within their own ix

x

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

parameters, according to their sequence in the Table of Contents. As the texts under study themselves often involve rituals of one kind or another, one may turn to the rules of drama writing offered by the playwright Bernard Kops whose classes I attended in London. He advised his students that the basis of literary theatrical praxis could be summed up by the principles: “Conflict is drama,” (thereby inverting the aphorism, “All drama is conflict”) and “Character is action” (inverting the phrase, “Action is character”). Furthermore, audiences must understand dramatic actions from the point of view, that is, the intellectual perspective, of the characters. From the point of view of this book, the heart of the “conflict” is contained within the laws against magic and divination canonised in Deut 18:9–22 and elsewhere. In any theatrical drama the protagonist must transform from the physical or psychological state in which she, or he, began in the first scene to another form of existence or consciousness in the final scene. The conflict, to make the play dramatic, consists of obstacles which the protagonist must overcome. The magic ritual is dramatic because magic is apparently prohibited in biblical law; hence, there is “conflict” with the status quo. From another point of view, magic is dramatic because the ritual is intended to lead to some kind of change in the person who is the object of the ritual. Turning to this book’s authors, our geographical backgrounds, mainly from different parts of Europe and the Middle East, means that the combined experiences, family histories, and intellectual cultures bring to the table a particular kind of diversity, its own mix, and flavour. The papers are now summarised thematically in relation to each other and they are occasionally described within the context of other scholarly research, which is also part of this theatre. Applying ritual theory and particular anthropological concepts to Paul, Anders Petersen argues that if the features of a magic ritual are preserved and are adopted by a dominant religion, the concept of “magicality,” that is, the notion of irrationality and transformation, is accepted and replaced by a belief in a higher, supernatural (authorised) agency. Correspondingly, the apparent biblical prohibition is excised or neutralised; the magic ritual becomes religious rite. Petersen proposes a new definition of magic in order to understand it contextually and to comprehend the thinking of Paul in an insightful way.

INTRODUCTION

xi

He contends that in order to change magic ritual into religious rite, theologians “have had to adjust their definition of magic in order to see magic as ‘Other’ and religion as ‘Us.’” Similarly, Shawna Dolansky (2008, 86) gives the example of the scapegoat ritual of Lev 16 (that is, authorized), arguing that the lack of causal connection between the confession and the banishment of the scapegoat means there is a belief in the power of the ritual, thus a belief in magic. The result is that the sins are banished and moral purity is restored in the “Us” universe. Petersen’s applied theoretical model echoes the conceptual construct put forward by Heiko Wenzel on the internal biblical distinction between true and false prophets. Wenzel analyses the criteria in Deut 13:2–6 and Deut 18:9–15 to identify legitimate and illegitimate prophecy. He argues that there is a fine line between prophecy and divination and that it is unclear from the biblical texts how one is to distinguish between the two. Wenzel’s analysis is in many ways at the theoretical heart of this book’s collective argument that magic and divination in the biblical world are defined politically, and are not interpreted intrinsically by the actions themselves. His discussion recalls that of Thomas C. Römer (2003, 22) who examined the paradox of approved and unapproved magic through the lens of the contest between Moses and Aaron and the Egyptian magicians before Pharoah (Exod 7:8–13). Here, Kops’s rule, “Character is action” comes into play, since a character’s status rather than her or his role, here, a magician, is significant in Jewish literature on magic. Römer concluded that the difference between magic and miracles was that the latter, by definition, were related to a belief in YHWH; not so with magic. One might add that the object of the ritual was Pharoah whom Moses and Aaron wished to change, but who the Egyptian magicians did not. He also noted that magical knowledge was not denigrated in late antique Jewish tradition. In his article that won the Graduate Student essay prize from the European Association of Biblical Studies in 2010, Chaim Natan Marx explores the use of two biblical verses (Gen 48:16; 49:22) which appear in different forms in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot 20a, 55b). The verses can used to protect the descendants of Joseph against the “evil eye,” thus unquestionably, an unproblematic acceptance of magic. The essay supports the

xii

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

statement by Swartz (2003, 161), “there is ample evidence that the rabbis were no strangers to divination practices and their status as magical practitioners is well known.” What makes Marx’s contribution appealing is its momentum and writing style, the description of the characters in the stories, and what they do to make themselves targets of the evil eye. The dramatic conflict is reversed: the senders of the evil eye are also the receivers of protection and blessing. The essay reminds us that content, conflict and character are not the only factors in our exploration of biblical magic and divination; context in time and space, the setting, is another kind of character. It is enjoyable if the reader can be taken into a different, intriguing and unfamiliar place. Marx’s paper is complemented by the selection of a particular kind of Aramaic apotropaic incantation bowls of the late Sassanidperiod compiled by Christa Müller-Kessler. The Jewish bowls witness the use of Deut 6:4 and Psalm 91, amongst other texts. Some verses are written in reverse order, possibly to give them amuletic power and some bowls carry crude drawings of demons. This “magic bowl” catalogue echoes another recurring theme in this book, that of Jewish and Mesopotamian preventative magic. Müller-Kessler’s contribution is a valuable resource of these primary sources on Jewish magic and a fascinating introduction to this specialist field. The artefacts reflect an earlier use of a similar practice in early Judaism: writing in reverse order can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the astrological physiognomic text, 4Q186. Furthermore, Deut 6:4 and Psalm 91 are known in apotropaic contexts from Qumran (see Fröhlich’s discussion this psalm, and also Goldstein’s exploration of it). The question of drama, conflict and character is explored by Kaspar Dalgaard in his essay on the portrayal of Simon Magus in the third century C.E apocryphal book, Acts of Peter. Simon Magus appears elsewhere in early Christian writings, representing the magician, “the Other” (Tuzlak 2002, 425), or to use Wenzel’s terminology, the “illegitimate” face of the manipulation of the supernatural. Dalgaard presents probably one of the most detailed studies of Simon Magus in this complex, early Christian book. Here is another magic contest: between a character who is represented as a sorcerer, Simon Magus, and Peter, a true magician or miracle worker. Simon’s magic is represented as the work of the devil. Dalgaard states that the conflict is between “God and Satan” and

INTRODUCTION

xiii

between “light and darkness.” In a memorable scene Simon endeavors to make a dead man rise, a common biblical theme. He fails where Peter succeeds. There is a sense that Deuteronomy 18:9–22, the underlying anti-magic and divination rule-book, is consistently being dramatised using the techniques of theatre writing, and that magic contests are a recurring biblical motif. According to Erkki Koskenniemi (2005, 2), a miracle “is a fortuitous breaking of what we (although not the writers) call the laws of nature and which God or his agent allegedly causes.” The miracle here is the legitimate, divine supernatural power, God, channeled by a character with official status, Peter. Of course, biblical legal texts are not necessarily performative, but they can describe rituals. Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme handles ritual theory in relation to the ordeal of the Law of Jealousy in Numbers 5:11–30, one of the most challenging ritualistic biblical laws. This is an example of where the definition of magic as a biblically prohibited performance is overturned. Gudme supports the view that the drinking of the bitter waters, the ordeal to which the accused wife is subjected, was physically harmless to her and that it functioned as a psychological release valve for the jealous husband. Gudme suggests that the passage is itself a literary technique and that the ordeal is a metaphor for the breakdown in the relationship between YHWH and his people, Israel. Thus, the text operates on several levels. The legalistic ritual owes much to the ordeal in the ancient Near East, “a kind of magic,” as Gudme explains, and the recurring theme in biblical literature of faithfulness to one God. Gudme, thus takes an original multifaceted theoretical approach to her subject. Philippe Guillaume also discusses a drinking ordeal, but within the context of biblical literary narrative and character, outside of the legal material. He examines the contradiction between the stories of the sin of the Golden Calf in Exod 32 and Deut 9:8–21, in particular the differing accounts of Aaron’s role as an actor in the events and the extent of his culpability. Aaron the person, character and brother of Moses is separate from his role as the High Priest. Guillaume concurs with the argument that there is a relationship between the narratives of the Golden Calf and the Law of Jealousy; however, Gudme does not share the view that the trial of the Israelites for making the Golden Calf was an ordeal.

xiv

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

The disagreement illustrates the problem of how exactly “magic” can be defined (Brooke 2003, 66), and indeed, divination. Guillaume examines the redactive processes in the biblical accounts and traces the different versions of the Golden Calf narratives in the work of later commentators. The result is an absorbing textual paper-trail of tradition and transmission. A different perspective on the sin of the Golden Calf is taken by Marion Broida who examines the technical construction of direct speech in the case of an appeal to God in a form that she terms “apotropaic intercession.” She is interested in Moses’s representations to YHWH in the context of ancient Near East verbal ritual texts, arguing that biblical writers used ordinary speech for human intercessors, and causative, or magical, speech for YHWH (with the exception of Josh 10:12–13). By taking a comparative philological approach to theological performative techniques, Broida casts fresh light on the nuances of biblical ritual dialogues between God and his human prophets. She shows that with one exception, mentioned above, the biblical intercessors were careful not to use miracle-working language in their speech. This is in contrast to the invocations by priests in a number of oral ancient Near East intercessionary rites addressed to the gods that Broida explores in detail. Her linguistic study of these fascinating mantic texts complements Francesca Rochberg’s analysis (Rochberg 2003) of various procedures used by Mesopotamian diviners to persuade the deities to prevent the occurrence of predicted evil events that have been foretold from celestial omens. Scholarship in magic and divination in the combined areas of ancient Near East and biblical studies benefits from Ronnie Goldstein’s expertise in identifying Hebrew-Akkadian wordplays and the use of Akkadian loan-words in poetic biblical texts. Goldstein’s study of Isa 14:29, Isa 2:18–21 and Ps 91:7, 8, 11 illuminates multiple layers of meanings, metaphors and imagery, effecting what he describes as smoother interpretations of these verses. He references ancient Near Eastern magical ritual texts, arguing that these would explicate the etymology of unclear, curious, or ambiguous Hebrew words or phrases. In some cases Goldstein produces a complete re-reading of the poetry in the light of Akkadian literature or magical rituals. In terms of progressing current literary theory, Goldstein’s study is a contribution to the discourse of what the writer writes and how the reader, or

INTRODUCTION

xv

audience, reads or hears poetry over time, geographical space and changing linguistic knowledge. While uncovering the bilingual wordplays and references to ANE literary and ritual texts, he does not underestimate the ancient-to-contemporary audience’s experience of the literature, which has its own value. However, the point is made that the philological insights presented here would, in antiquity, have enhanced the understanding of the verses and the audience’s appreciation of the literary skills and cultural knowledge of the composer, and that this intellectual depth needs to be recovered today. András Bácskay’s study of demonology in Mesopotamia offers some background to understanding the way that demons are reflected in biblical literature. In terms of the conflict paradigm, it is shown that demons are implicitly associated with disease, echoing a struggle between heaven and earth, a recurrent topos in ancient Near Eastern ritual texts and mythology. Bácskay argues that more attention should be paid to the context of demonology within the Bible, in particular, to the different demons that were well-known in Mesopotamia, in order to perceive allusions to them in biblical texts. He argues that this view should be integrated within the current scholarly movement to re-evaluate the literary use of Near Eastern demonology in biblical literature (see also Blair 2009, 216). Ida Fröhlich continues the interest in the theme of demonology and sickness by offering a new study of four psalms from Qumran 11QApocryphal Psalms (11Q11), three of which were not known before the scroll was discovered. They are generally accepted to be the four “songs for the stricken,” which are understood to mean possession by demons that are referred to in the Qumran hymn known as David’s Compositions, (11Q5 col. 27), also a previously unknown work. The four songs of 11QApocryphal Psalms are taken to mean that each may be used specifically at a different time of the year. However, due to their fragmentary state, scholars have not been able to assess when these songs may have been ritually performed by a priest. Using references from Mesopotamia, Fröhlich assigns the four psalms to particular seasons, suggesting that they may have been recited by a healer, possibly according to the 364-day calendar known from the book of Jubilees (Jub. 6:23–38) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Talmon et al, 2001).

xvi

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Exploring the calendar theme in the Book of Esther, Helen R. Jacobus claims that the ancient Jewish calendars had significance in ways other than simply to mark time and the festivals. The magic contest between Esther and Haman takes the form of Esther changing the calendar so that the number 13 prevailed. This is a lucky number in the hands of a righteous Jew. The essay argues that apotropaic number manipulation was mediated by an intercessor (echoing Broida’s model—with modifications, as God is not mentioned in this Book), that is, by Esther, in order to save the Jews from destruction. The contribution also argues that one of the farce, or carnivalesque, elements in the book (see Jackson 2012, 198–220) is that the Jews of Sushan were fighting while the Jews in the provinces were celebrating Passover. The study includes an examination of the Persian king lists, Babylonian astronomy, and a new theory about the calendars used in the Book of Esther and the Jubilees-Qumran 364-day calendar that is described in Fröhlich’s essay. Eleni Soumani’s study on biblical dream divination and interpretation argues that it is unclear whether oneiromancy is forbidden under the list in Deuteronomy 19 of prohibited mantic practices. It is scorned in some parts of the Hebrew Bible, which is not the same thing as being a capital crime, or one deserving of exile. Elsewhere in the Bible it is part of the narrative if the dreamer or dream interpreter is divinely authorised. Soumani explains that ancient audiences may have been familiar with the practice of sleeping at a sacred site in order to receive a divine revelation in a dream. Using comparative literary narratives in ancient Near Eastern texts, the essay distinguishes between different types of dream messages and oracles in the Bible, and dream interpreters, including narratives relevant to Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Pharoah, Daniel and Ben Sirach. Hadi Ghantous offers his own theory on the practice of bibliomancy—selecting an oracle from the lists of oracles recorded in the prophetic books—postulating that this form of divination replaced prophecy after Elijah. He argues that the prophetic acts of Elisha were a diminution of that of his predecessor, Elijah, and supports his ideas with exegetical accounts of narratives within the Elijah and Elisha cycles. His essay is imaginative and challenging, using philology and his own interpretation of the symbolic action of Elijah in passing his mantle to Elisha. On the way, he discusses

INTRODUCTION

xvii

other less well known divinatory practices, such as the reading of urine on the wall. In his second contribution here, Philippe Guillaume puts forward an intriguing new hypothesis of how the High Priest’s ephod and mounted onyx stones and decorations described in Exod 28 and Exod 39 functioned mantically. He approaches his subject in meticulous detail using comparative texts to analyse the vocabulary and to argue for a new interpretation of the artefacts and the High Priest’s actions. Both individually and collectively the essays in this volume illuminate the ways in which drama theory can be used in biblical studies to reveal the significance of conflict, character, status and context connected with magic and divination. These often bold, original or radical readings of the texts reflect the heterogeneity of the authors contributing to this volume and our differing perspectives, departures and convergences. The field is clearly dynamic and, we hope, will provide a springboard, perhaps even some inspiration, for further exploration, discussion and interpretations. Helen R. Jacobus London March 2013

ASAKKÛ: DEMONS AND ILLNESS IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA ANDRÁS BÁCSKAY PÁZMÁNY PÉTER CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT This paper describes the elements of demonology in Mesopotamian texts as background for research on demons in the Hebrew Bible. The demon in Mesopotamian mythological culture was identified with one of the winds bringing illnesses; specifically with the hot wind, which was often connected to the appearance of the spread of infectious diseases. The essay aims to describe some parallel and different phenomena within the concepts of illness-demonimpurity contained in the ancient Near East and biblical text-traditions.

1. THE PROBLEM The study of demons in the Hebrew Bible has long relied on data provided by Mesopotamian religion and magic (Van der Toorn 2003, 61). The comparison with the Mesopotamian sources, however, is significantly limited, first by the lack of comprehensive studies on the demon-related Mesopotamian text-tradition and, second, by the fact that the majority of the apotropaic incantation and ritual descriptions are only published in cuneiform copies. The most elaborated texts relate to the evil demon Lamaštu (Farber 1989; Wiggermann 2000, 217–49), the other evil demon Utukku (Geller 2011) and to Pazuzu, a benevolent demon (Heeßel 2002). Two trends can be observed in biblical demonology (Blair 2009, 1–13). A comparatist trend claims that the ancient Israelite religion was similar to Mesopotamian and Ugaritic religions and 1

2

ANDRÁS BÁCSKAY

that the manner in which demons were understood in Mesopotamia and at Ugarit is valid for the Hebrew Scriptures. Another trend views the similarities with Mesopotamian and Ugaritic religions found in the Hebrew Scriptures as mere vestiges of polytheism, the result of an uncompleted process of demonisation of foreign gods. Everyone agrees that demons cause physical, mental and moral harm and that they are responsible for illness and misfortune. But compared with latter healing therapies in the Babylonian Talmud, there is no dialogue in Akkadian texts between the magician and the demon, or accounts in which the demon is addressed by name and instructed to get out. Second, the entire phenomenon of demonic possession is not well attested in Akkadian incantations. (Geller 2004, 43)

Research into biblical and Jewish demonology naturally draws on demonic activity described in Mesopotamian magical texts. The lack of a comprehensive publication of these texts, however, renders the comparison difficult. I have therefore chosen to focus more on the mythological and ritual context of magical texts.

2. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MESOPOTAMIAN DEMONS The Mesopotamian worldview included both harmful and benevolent demons and spirits who actively interfered with the everyday life of Mesopotamian people (Wiggermann 1992, xi–xiii, 143–88; 1994; Heeßel 2002, 2–6). The Mesopotamians blamed demons as one of the main causes of all misfortunes and sufferings. Modern scholarly literature describes demons as mixed creatures (Mischwesen) and intermediary creatures (Zwischenwesen). The first term refers to the iconography which represents demons as a combination of different animal parts, like the claws of an eagle and the head of a beast (Green 1994; 1984; Gräff and Ritter 2011). The second term refers to the transitional state of demons that are found in the intermediate sphere between divine and human existence. The Mesopotamian literary texts underline the connection of demons with the netherworld. They are allowed to move between the two cosmic spheres (Heavens and Netherworld) and they are active on Earth in between these two spheres. The

ASAKKÛ: DEMONS AND ILLNESS IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA 3 canonical incantation series against evil demons (utukkû lemnūtu) from the first millennium BCE emphasises that Asakku lives, like other evil demons and death spirits, beyond the boundaries of the civilised world. Hence, we find the designations asakku ša2 ṣeri—the Asakku-demon of the steppe (Geller 2007, VI:114) and asakku marṣu ša ina ṣēri ittenē’ilû—the dangerous Asakku-demon who always roams the steppe (Geller 2007, VII:100). As they belong to the part of the universe which is not governed by the gods, Mesopotamian demons are not honoured by a particular cult (Capomacchia and Verderame 2011, 295–6). In ritual text-tradition demons usually appear as representatives of the divine anger and carriers of illnesses. Certain demons (utukkû and asakkû demons) are not subject to the reign of any god, while other demons (like namtarrû, gallû and rābisu demons) act as messengers of the god Enlil. The sources refer to evil udug/utukkû demon, evil ala/alû demon, evil gidim/eṭemmu ghost, evil galla/gallû demon, evil dìm.me/Lamaštu demon, evil dìm/Labāṣu demon, evil dìm.me.lagab/ahhāzu demon, evil maškim/rābisu demon, evil nam.tar/namtarrû demon, evil azag/asakkû demon and evil Ardatlilû. In the healing-apotropaic text-tradition, a particular demon is held responsible for one or more definable diseases. For instance the alû-demon is associated with strokes (Geller 1985, 80–2, Stol 1993, 41–2). Yet, Tablet 27 of the diagnostic omen series SA.GIG attributes strokes any concern related to this illness to the rābiṣu or Šulak demon (lurking-demon of the bathroom, 9–13), evil-demons (14–15), alû-demon (20–23), river-demon (24–25), ghost/spirit of death (qāt eṭemmi, ṣibit eṭemmi, 26–36), spirit of one who (died) in water (35–36), roaming spirit in the plains (35–36) (Stol 1993, 74– 82; Heeßel 2002, 297–306). In the apotropaic-ritual texts, the ghost (eṭemmu) was associated with complaints of the head and the neck, tinnitus, stomach problems, complaints of the chest, breathing problems, fever and neurological and mental disorders (Scurlock 2006, 10–8). Moreover, the identification of diseases with particular demons changed over time. Hence, the Lamaštu demon was linked with puerperal fever (Myhrman 1902; Edzard 1965, 48; Farber 1983, 444b) but later with diseases of liver and gallbladder (Köcher 1978, 35–6). This demon was mainly associated with the death of newborn children, what would be termed today Sudden Infant

4

ANDRÁS BÁCSKAY

Death Syndrome (Farber 2007, 141). In an attempt to clarify the relationship between demons, illness and impurity in Mesopotamia I turn to the figure of the Asakku demon.

3. THE FIGURE OF ASAKKU The Asakku-demon is mentioned rather infrequently in biblical demonological research. In the entry ’ēsh (fire) in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Asakku as a name of both a demon and an illness is connected to fire (Krecher 2000, 423). Asakku is mentioned a second time in this dictionary in an Akkadian phrase for the Mesopotamian concept of taboo (Ringgren 2003, 134). The entry ‘Leviathan’ in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons refers to Asakku as a representative of chaos similar to Anzu and Tiamat (Uehlinger 1999, 512). Asakku is found a second time in the entry ‘Nimrod’ in reference to the battles of Ninurta against the Slain Heroes in the myth of Lugal-e. The Asakku monster is vanished by a deluge and killed in the mountain along with other adversaries such as the seven headed serpent, six-headed ram, the lion, the bison, the buffalo (Uehlinger 1999, 628). In Assyriological research, the entry ‘asakku’ of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD A2 326) traces the etymology of this term through the Sumerian a2-sag3 = ‘who smites’ on the basis of a popular etymology reading the logogram a2 and sag where sag = maḥāṣu = ‘to smite’ and a2 = idu = ‘the side’. Lexical and ritual texts mention Asakku most often next to the evil Namtar and the Samana demon (Cunningham 1997, No. 71; 85:224; Finkel 1998), but no comprehensive analysis of the sources is presently available. In the iconography of the first millennium, Asakku has the mouth of a dog, the legs of a lion, the claws of an eagle and birds’ wings. Asakku in mythological texts The most important source for the Asakku is the Lugal-e myth, in which Asakku opposes the word order created by Enlil and launches an attack against the gods with the help of the self-created stone army (Van Dijk 1983). Asakku is an inanimate being of the mountains, engendered on Earth by Sky, grown to maturity without parental care. The myths describe Asakku’s copulation with a mountain which results in numerous plant-stones. Asakku starts a sudden attack against Ninurta. The sun and the moon

ASAKKÛ: DEMONS AND ILLNESS IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA 5 vanished and the day was made (black) like pitch (Van Dijk 1983, 166–81). Then, Asakku with terrible sounds gashed the earth’s body and bathed the sky in blood. According to Van Dijk (1983, 20–7), Asakku is, like Tiamat, a personification of the chaos which caused the end of the first world Enlil created. Jacobsen (1964, 147), however, sees the Lugale as a ‘nature-myth’ in which Asakku personifies the winter and is fighting against the Ninurta who embodies the spring. For Foster (2000, 23–39), Asakku is a personified volcano and its after-effects. Asakku as demon Apart from the lexical sources, Asakku was first mentioned in Old Babylonian healing-apotropaic incantations (Wasserman 2007, 41, 43). In this period, the Sumerian incantations relate to Asakku primarily as a demon while the Akkadian incantations refer mostly to Asakku as a disease (Cunningham 1997, No.103, 115, 119, 120, 209). The most complete collection of apotropaic incantations and rituals is the Sumerian-Akkadian first millennium BCE series ‘utukku-demons’, consisting of sixteen tablets (Geller 2007). Asakku is a demon of taboo and he has separate incantation series in the first millennium which contains bilingual exorcism and cleansing rituals (Wiggermann 2011, 310). The attack of the demon is described with the metaphors of the flood (mīlu, abūbu) and the tornado (meḫû) (Geller 2007, II, 27– 8; III:2; Thompson 1903, No. 3:21). The patient is grabbed (ṣabātu, kamāsu), hit (maḫāsu), bound (kamû) touched (lapātu) or defeated (sahāpu). There are frequent references to the location of the demon in the patient’s body (ina zumrišu bašû). The incantations to repulse the demon use elements from the myths. For example, adjectives in connection with the demon in the apotropaic Šurpu incantation series use the term ‘the defeated Asakku’ (Reiner 1958, IV:3). In the collection of apotropaic incantations against the attack of evil demons, Asukku is described as ‘him who rolls/whirls sin on the earth like a storm’ (Geller 2007, III:2). As a substitute figure used to chase away harmful forces, Asakku is rarely mentioned. One ritual against the death spirit includes the preparation of four wax figures, one of them carrying on its shoulder the inscription of Namtaru anything evil and Asakku roaming dead (Scurlock 2006, 510 No. 219:12).

6

ANDRÁS BÁCSKAY

Asakku as disease Is the demon an independent mythological figure or the personification of a particular disease? Mesopotamian medicine divided illnesses (GIG = murṣu) between those coming from heaven (KI = šamû) and the illnesses caused by demons (Maul 1994, 40; Stol 1991/1992; Heeßel 2002, 3–4; Scurlock and Andersen 2005, 10–2; Bácskay 2006; Geller 2010, 11–4). The Asakku demon is deemed to be the cause of epilepsy, skin-disease, fever, šanādum-disease, shivers, pestilence (Cunningham 1997, No. 339), shivers, exhaustion (Meier 1939, iv:5), di’u-disease (King 1902, No. 49 iii:11 and 16; Ebeling 1915, No. 44:8), headache (Geller 2007, XV:204), jaundice, chills (Meier 1937, VII:39). The two most frequent diseases mentioned in connection with Asakku are di’u and šuruppû. The di’u illness is related to high body temperature, possibly malaria (Stol 2007, 15–8; Jensen 1901, 542–3). The logogram of the di’u term (sag-gig = ‘head illness’) points to the patient’s head and suggest intense headache followed by lack of appetite, dry lips and reduced amount of urine. By contrast, the šuruppû disease is characterised by extremely low body temperature (Scurlock and Andersen 2005, 686). Asakku is the embodiment of the hot side and he is associated with the hot wind that brings illnesses in the Gilgamesh Epic (V.ii:63–64). The translations often connect Asakku to the spread of infectious diseases. Asakku is also mentioned in relation with the evil Fate, the dangerous asakku illness and the ‘not good disease’ (namtarri lemnu asakku marṣa marṣu la ṭābi) (Geller 2007, II:61; XV:224; XVI:171). In Mesopotamian ritual contexts, the categories of good (ṭābu) and not good (la ṭābu) were used in the hemerological text tradition to denote auspicious and inauspicious periods. In hemerological terms, the phase relating to the illness suggests that the ‘not good disease’ caused impurity in its final state.

4. CONCLUSION Asakku cannot be associated with any specific disease but the figure of this Mesopotamian demon is embedded in the mythological and ritual context of Mesopotamian textual tradition. As is the case with other demons, Mesopotamian and probably ancient Near Eastern cultures in general did not establish a sharp

ASAKKÛ: DEMONS AND ILLNESS IN ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIA 7 distinction between demons and illnesses. Asakku appears as a mythological figure and as a personification of various infectious diseases. Hence, the investigation of parallelisms between the demons of the Bible and the Mesopotamian demons ought to be based on contextual rather than on etymological or functional analyses. A more realistic picture about the relevant Mesopotamian demon would probably supply a better understanding of the sources of Jewish magic and Old Testament demonology.

NOTES ON THE PRESENCE OF MAGIC WITHIN THE HEBREW BIBLE IN LIGHT OF AKKADIAN LITERATURE RONNIE GOLDSTEIN HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM ABSTRACT This article provides some new examples in which Akkadian texts related to magic may be used to enhance our understanding of some biblical passages. The curious mixture of metaphors in Isaiah 14:29 are explained here in the light of a Neo-Assyrian prophecy related to magic. Similarly, the difficult passage in Isaiah 2:18–19 is explained in terms of Akkadian literature, and it is rendered as: “the gods will slip away and hide themselves in the corners, as though they were Lil”. It is suggested that a magical formula which functioned for the exorcism of demons was transformed and used to mock the running away gods. Finally, the essay demonstrates that Psalm 91 reproduces a well known magical formula common in Akkadian sources. The presence of magic in biblical literature is evidently marginal, especially considering the central place which they held in the Ancient Near East in Biblical times. Magical compositions were fundamental in the scribal curriculum of Mesopotamia and they occupied a significant place in Akkadian literature, whereas they hardly feature in the Hebrew Bible. This phenomenon was stressed long ago by scholars who claimed that it represented one of the main differences between the religion of the Israelites and that of their neighbors (Kaufmann 1960, 78–87; Von Rad 1966, 34–5). Although this attitude is generally acceptable, it needs modification 9

10

RONNIE GOLDSTEIN

on many points since the presence of magic in Israel in biblical times cannot be denied, and traces of it can be found in several texts in the Bible (Jeffers 1996, 1–24). Before deciding how marginal was magic in ancient Israel and whether there were different attitudes to it in different times and circles in biblical ages, special efforts must be dedicated to the study of magic in extrabiblical sources and its implications on individual passages in the Hebrew Bible. Magic Mesopotamian texts were compared since the beginnings of their publication to the residues of magic in the Hebrew Bible (Thompson 1908). Many had contributed in the last decades on the understanding of the relevance of the Mesopotamian sources for the study of magic in the Hebrew Bible, for example Fishbane (1971), Abusch (1987) and Jeffers (1996). Yet, more can be done with the vast amount of Mesopotamian written material. I quote here three biblical passages in light of Akkadian texts relating to magic in the hope of contributing to a more nuanced view of the place of magic in biblical literature.

ISAIAH 14:29 The short prophecy regarding the Philistines in Isa. 14:28–32 opens with the words of the prophet against their attitude to the fall of their enemy (verse 29):

‫אל תׂשמחי פלׁשת כלך כי נׁשבר ׁשבט מכך כי מׁשרׁש‬ ‫נחׁש יצא צפע ופריו ׂשרף מעופף‬ Rejoice not, all Philistia, because the staff of him that beat you is broken, for from the stock of a snake there sprouts an asp, a flying serpent branches out from it.

The message is clear: the danger from which the Philistines thought they were relieved will finally overwhelm them. However, the curious mixture of metaphors in this verse and the abrupt change from ‘rod’ to ‘serpent’ need to be explained: “Was there some association now lost to us between rods and snakes for the ancient mind?” (Fullerton 1926, 87). An answer is suggested by a short Neo-Assyrian prophecy regarding Elam, probably from the times of Ashurbanipal: Word [concerning the Elam]ites: Thus says… Then he said: ‘I have come from the [m]ace. I have pulled out the snake which was inside it, I have cut it in pieces. And (as) I have crushed

MAGIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

11

the mace, (so) I will crush Elam, (…) This is how I will finish off Elam’. (Parpola 1997, 40; Nissinen 2003, 129)1

The relation between the mace and the snake is relatively clear: they are understood as symbolizing the enemy, and both mace and snake within it are to be crushed. Moreover, it is fairly clear from the Akkadian text, especially from the final line “kî annî Elamtu agammar (This is how I will finish off Elam)” that the prophecy, which was intended to reinforce the Assyrian king in the war against the Elamite enemy, included a magical ritual involving breaking a rod and crushing a serpent. This Akkadian text supplies the association between rods and snakes that is only implicit in Isa. 14:29. The knowledge of a similar magical ritual against enemies is presupposed but its efficacy is contested. The prophet Isaiah argues that even if the rod and the snake are crushed, i.e. the enemy is destroyed; a more dangerous snake in the form of a new enemy will appear. Like other better known examples, Isa. 14:29 indicates some knowledge of magical practices in prophetic circles (Fohrer 1966), possibly gained as part of the education of diviners. Another passage reinforces this notion.

ISAIAH 2:18–21 I have dealt elsewhere with the history of this passage and have shown that verses 20–21 are secondary and they paraphrase verses 18–19 to fit the monotheistic framework (Goldstein 2005, 129–33; compare Sweeney 1988, 174–5; Williamson 2004). Here I focus on the consequences of this passage to the understanding of the place of magic in Hebrew prophetical texts. Isaiah 2:18–21 are traditionally translated as: The translation here differs slightly from the common translations of the words: u mā na’rantu ahtepi u mā Elamtu ahappi in lines 7–9, which are usually translated as separate sentences: “And: ‘I have crushed the mace’. And ‘I will crush Elam!’”. I read the verbs in the perfect and the future respectively as related to each other, as part of the symbolic act: “As I have crushed the mace, so I will crush Elam”. See CAD ṣ, s.v. ṣēru B, p. 148. 1

12

RONNIE GOLDSTEIN As for idols, they shall vanish completely (‫)והאלילים כליל יחלף‬. And men shall enter (‫ )ובאו‬the caverns in the rocks, and hollows in the ground, before the terror of the Lord and His dread majesty, when He comes forth to overawe the earth. On that day men shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats, and they shall enter the clefts in the rocks, and the crevices in the cliffs before the terror of the Lord and His dread majesty, when he comes forth to overawe the earth. (NJPS)

Reading the passage in light of Akkadian literature suggests a different translation. When, as is commonly the case, the message of verse 18 is viewed as the claim that other gods will vanish, verse 19 is difficult to interpret since the subject of verse 18 continues to act through the opening verb in verse 19 “they shall enter”. If verse 18 recounts the disappearance of the gods, why do they reappear in verse 19? Hence, scholars have questioned whether this is the original place of the verse (Fullerton 1919, 71; Wildberger 1991, 103). Rendering the verb ‫ חלף‬in verse 18 as “to slip in or through”, the basic meaning of the Akkadian verb halāpu solves the difficulty.2 This verb describes the activity of demonic beings such as Lamaštu in incantations against her in Old Babylonian: “She came right in the front door, slithering over (ihallup) the (door)post casing. She has caught sight of the baby!” (Von Soden 1954, 338; Foster 1996, 132). Similarly in an incantation in Standard Babylonian: “Do not slip in (lā tahallupī) through the door socket like a mongoose!” (4R 58 I 19 cited in: CAD Š/II, p. 434a, s.v. šikkû). Hence, in Isa. 2:18 the idols are not vanishing. Rather, they are slipping away from the terror of YHWH. Accordingly, verses 18– 19 should be read in sequence: “All the gods shall flee before the terror of YHWH and His dread majesty, to take refuge in caves and tunnels”. As a consequence, the verse presents gods running away from YHWH’s theophany.

2

CAD H, s.v. halāpu A, pp. 35–36.

MAGIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

13

The motif, in verses 18–21, of running away to take refuge in caves and tunnels, is widespread in Mesopotamian literature (Weinfeld 1984, 30–1; Goldstein 2005, 134; Aster 2007). Hiding places are the haunts of evil spirits, which are compared in certain incantations to bats that dwell in caves. This theme pervaded the hymnal literature amidst descriptions of the reactions of gods and men to the appearance of a god, and thence migrated to the Assyrian royal inscriptions amidst depictions of enemies’ fear from the Assyrian King, as in a passage in the Annals of Tiglat-Pileser I: Storm trooper, (…) the princes of the (four) quarters dreaded his fierce battle and took to hiding places like bats and scurried off to inaccessible regions like jerboa. (Grayson 1991, 52)

A similar picture is found in the epic of Ninurta: Who can confront my awesome radiance (…) I am the lord, while the lofty mountains everywhere quaked [before me] (…) the Anunnakī hide like mice in crevices. (Cooper 1978, 76)

A very close passage appears in a hymn to Nergal from the library of Ashurbanipal: Lion clad in splendor, at the flaring-up of whose fierce brilliance, the gods of the inhabited world took to secret places, evil-doer and wicked have found their way into crevices. (Foster 2005, 706)

Just as the minor gods fly like bats into hiding before the glory of Inanna and like mice before the splendor of Ninurta, in Isaiah 2 the gods take to hiding before the glory of YHWH. It is likely therefore that the bats and moles originally functioned as a simile to the fleeing gods of verses 18–19, echoing closely the Mesopotamian paradigm, and their new role in verses 20–21 is a result of the secondary nature of those verses (Goldstein 2005, 129–33). Back in 1878, de Lagarde proposed to emend the vocalization of the word ‫ כליל‬to read kelāyl “like the night” instead of kālyl “utterly”, the initial kaf becoming a comparative particle (de Lagarde 1878, 6). Following de Lagarde, Hans Schmidt (1915, 34– 6) understood verses 18–19 as a sequence referring to the flight of the gods before YHWH, and the words ‫ כליל יחלף‬as a descriptive simile of their retreat. Although it was adopted by a mere handful

14

RONNIE GOLDSTEIN

of scholars, de Lagarde’s suggestion to view the kaf in ‫ כליל‬as a particle deserves more attention. The prepositional kaf is sometimes found to indicate time, as in ‫( כחצות הלילה‬Exod. 11:4). The plausibility of this suggestion is reinforced by certain Mesopotamian sources, such as Sargon II inscription at Khorsabad (Dur-Šarrukin), where Merodach-Baladan II is said to have fled like a bat under cover of darkness (Fuchs 1994, 226). Another possibility is to take the initial kaf as a comparative particle: this accords well with the understanding of the verb ‫ חלף‬referring to the gods who flee before YHWH as the night is about to pass. The concept of the dawn chasing away the night is not foreign to the Bible: “When the day blows gently and the shadows flee” (Song 2:17; 4:6). Since bats and rodents retreating to their hidden lairs was an analogy commonly applied in Mesopotamian incantations to evil spirits, another interpretation can be offered. The word ‫ ליל‬after the proposition kaf may be a reference to one of the demons said to haunt hidden places, namely Lil, Lilith’s spouse (Hutter 1999). They are usually portrayed as a demon haunting the corners and crevices inside and outside the house: The phantom, the male ghost (Lil), and the female ghost (Lilith) which lean in hidden corners, by means of your divine light, drive out the malignant demon, expel the phantom, overcome the wicked one. (Foster 1996, 623)

Since the Akkadian verb halāpu is particularly common in incantations that describe demonic infiltrations into the house, and is especially indicative of Lamaštu who is closely related to Lilith and Lil, Isa. 2:18–19 can be read as: “the gods will slip away and hide themselves in the corners, as though they were Lil.” That the demon Lil is mentioned in Isa. 2:18 was already noted by Joseph Halevy (1910, 630).3 Alongside the meaning of the verb ‫חלף‬ proposed here, Halevy’s suggestion suits the text very well.

“Le masculin Lil semble se trouver en Isaie II, 18, qu’il faut traduire ‘Quant aux faux dieux, ils passeront comme un lil’”. 3

MAGIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

15

Accordingly, the withdrawal of the gods was probably illustrated in the verse through two similes and it is possible to reconstruct the original core of the passage as follows: And the gods shall sneak away as the night/Lil, and they shall go into the caverns and into the hollows in the ground as moles and as bats, before the terror of YHWH and His dread majesty, when He comes forth to overawe the earth.

Besides the verb ‫ חלף‬as a possible Akkadian loan word, the conglomeration of several literary parallels between the biblical passage and Akkadian hymns and incantations suggest that the biblical passage was influenced by Akkadian literature. This example is a further hint that biblical writers were exposed to magical literature and in this case applied it for their own purposes. In Isaiah 2, a magical formula to exorcise daemons was used to mock the running away gods. It is impossible to pinpoint how and when Mesopotamian hymns and incantations reached Israelite or Jewish ears, but in the light of the semi-polytheistic concept in the original core of verses 18–21, we can deduce that the original layer of this segment, namely verses 18–19, preceded the full-fledged maturity of biblical monotheism.

PSALM 91 The last example deals with Psalm 91, which magical nature was long recognized (Oesterley 1939, 407–11; Gaster 1969, 770 and 813). As I dealt with this Psalm elsewhere (Goldstein 2010), I focus here on the formulation ‫ אליך לא יגׁש‬and ‫לא תאנה אליך רעה ונגע‬ ‫ לא יקרב באהלך‬in verses 7b and 11 which promise divine protection. These phrases are close to the words in Ezek. 9:6 by which YHWH forbids the destructors of Jerusalem to touch ( ‫אל‬ ‫ )תגׁשו‬any person who bears the mark. Similar formulations are common in the realm of Akkadian incantations such as the Namburbi series: The evil portended by an induhallatu (“lizard”) that fell on me, may the lizard I saw not come near me, not approach me, not draw close to me. (Maul 1994, 305)

Similarly in a Babylonian magical prayer: “May it not come near me, not approach me, not draw close to me, not reach me” (Von Soden 1969, 88). The similarity between the Akkadian formula “it

16

RONNIE GOLDSTEIN

shall not draw near me, nor approach me, nor reach me” (lā iṭehhâ lā iqerriba lā isanniqa), and the formulas in Ps. 91:7, 11 is clear. Yet, the psalm as such is an apotropaic prayer rather than a magical incantation per se.4 Contrary to the Akkadian incantations, in the psalm evil is not expelled by a spell and there are no magical rituals or instructions. Expelling evil is the task of God and the reward of the righteous man for his behavior. In spite of this difference, the terminology in the psalm shows that the author was aware of magic literature and incantations.5 At which stage of the Israelite religion could this kind of psalm function? Contrary to scholars who ascribed a late date to the composition of this psalm because of its awareness to magic (Oesterley 1939, 408), the attitude to magic is not a sign of lateness. The presence of some Akkadian loanwords in this Psalm might have consequences on its date and its relation to magic. The hapax legomenon ‫ סחרה‬in Ps. 91:4 can be interpreted in light of the Akkadian sāhiru, in the sense of ‘protection against sorcery’ (Macintosh 1973).6 To this suggestion, I add that the hapax legomenon ‫ ׁשלמת‬in verse 8, a word generally understood as the feminine form of ‫ׁש ֻלם‬, ִׁ better fits the context of the psalm when it is understood as a loan word from Akkadian šalamtu “corpse”.7 This Akkadian word appears for example, in the Epilogue of the Hammurabi’s Code, in relation to the expected deeds of Ištar: “May she … makes a heap of the corpses (šalmāt) of his soldiers upon the plain” (Roth 1995, 139). The word occurs also in a royal inscription where Tiglat Pileser I claimed: “I heaped up the corpses of their warriors in the valleys of the mountain region, I piled the 4

On the apotropaic genre see Flusser 1966; 1988, 214–25; Kister 1999, 170–1. 5 See also Ida Fröhlich’s contribution in this volume. 6 On the possible occurrence of a word from the same root in Isa. 47:15 see Driver (1939, 400). 7 CAD, Š/II, s.v. šalamtu, pp. 203–6. The word occurs also in magical texts: “May the net cover the body of that witch!” (PBS 1/2 122, r. 5, quoted in CAD, Š/II, s.v. šalamtu, p. 204, lex. sec.). The later Aramaic forms ‫ שלדא‬and ‫ שלנדא‬are loans from the Akkadian. See Kaufman 1974, 98.

MAGIC IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

17

bodies of his warriors in (burial) mounds” (Grayson 1991, 18). Similarly, in an inscription of Ashurbanipal describing the consequences of the activity of lions around Nineveh, this event is described as a plague, which is commonly ascribed to the god Erra: “such as the slaughter of Erra, corpses (šalamtu) of men, cattle and sheep were gathered” (Borger 1996, 330). In light of those examples, the Hebrew word ‫ ׁשלמת‬is probably an Akkadian loan, and the last part of verse 8 is to be rendered “… and you will watch the corpse(s) of the wicked”, the natural continuation of verse 7 “There fall a thousand at your side… and you will watch the corpse(s) of the wicked”. The psalm can be as early as the late Neo-Assyrian Period since the Akkadian word entered Hebrew as an Assyrian loanword rather than under the influence of Neo-Babylonian or Aramaic, which use the forms šalandu and ‫שלדא‬. Hence, Psalm 91 is another clue for the introduction of magic into the Israelite cult in relatively early times. As they ascribed the main role to the Israelite deity, there was no hindrance to the reception of apotropaic Psalms which did not portray demons as independent. Not surprisingly, this kind of genre prevailed also in post-biblical times in ancient Judaism.

CONCLUSION To sum up, to the growing corpus of biblical texts relevant to the understanding of magic in biblical literature several small suggestions were added: a biblical prophet knowing a magical symbol which included snakes and rods to symbolize the broken enemy, the use of well known phraseology to expel demons, awareness of incantations in which the demon Lil was mentioned, and the use of the Hebrew word ‫ חלף‬in the sense attested in Akkadian incantations. The gathering of more evidence will strengthen the case for the understanding of the place of magic in biblical literature.

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST MARIAN BROIDA EMORY UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT A number of ancient Near Eastern texts depict “apotropaic intercession,” that is, human attempts to avert divinely-threatened doom from others. These texts include biblical narratives such as Moses’ appeal to YHWH following the sin of the Golden Calf, Neo-Assyrian ritual texts known as namburbû, and several ritual texts from Anatolia, including the Ritual of Ḫuwarlu (CTH 398) and the Ritual of Papanikri (CTH 476). Two types of speech can be distinguished: “causative” or magical speech, understood to directly affect physical reality, and ordinary speech, which works through the mediation of its listeners’ comprehension and will. While most of the rituals use both causative and ordinary speech, intercessors in the biblical passages use only ordinary speech. I argue that this distinction primarily reflects the biblical writers’ theological aversion to human use of causative speech, which they consider the province of YHWH alone. In the ancient Near East (ANE), including Israel as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, angry gods periodically issued threats of doom in the form of omens, prophecies, or (in some biblical narratives)

19

20

MARIAN BROIDA

direct speech.1 In Exod. 32:7–10, YHWH warns Moses of his plan to wipe out the Israelites for the sin of the Golden Calf. In Mesopotamia and Anatolia, unfavorable omens revealed the gods’ wrath and promised punishment. Rather than passively accepting divinely-decreed doom, human mediators often talked back to the gods in attempts to counter the divine will. Several ritual texts from Anatolia ward off evil omens, while an entire genre of NeoAssyrian rituals—the namburbû—is devoted to this purpose. In biblical narratives, Moses and other intercessors intercede with YHWH on behalf of the targeted people. In Exod. 32:11b–13, Moses responds to YHWH’s threat by appealing to YHWH’s desire for honor, his compassion, and his oath to the ancestors: 11b: Why, O YHWH, does your anger burn against your people whom you brought out from the land of Egypt with great strength and with mighty power? 12 Why should Egypt say, it was with evil in mind that you brought them out, in order to kill them in the mountains, and to annihilate them from the face of the earth? Turn away from your burning anger and relent from the evil meant for your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you made an oath, saying to them, I will multiply your progeny like the stars of heaven, and all this land of which I spoke, I will give to your progeny and they will inherit it forever.

In this essay, I study human interventions on behalf of others in the face of divinely-threatened doom, a process I call “apotropaic intercession.” I look at humans’ direct discourse in apotropaic intercessory ritual and narrative texts to determine the verbal means used to ward off divine decrees of disaster. In a sample of texts from Anatolia, Neo-Assyria, and the Hebrew Bible, I distinguish two main kinds of human speech, “ordinary” and “causative,” as well as a combined form I call “hybrid.” As explained below, ordinary speech has no direct effect on the world except by means of its effects on its listeners’ thoughts, emotions, I wish to thank Brent Strawn and Matthew Lynch of Emory University for reviewing an earlier version of this paper. Significant help was also given by Billie Jean Collins. 1

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION

21

and will. Causative speech, in contrast, is understood to work directly on the world or its entities through mysterious or magical means. Both types of speech appear in narratives and ritual texts but biblical depictions of apotropaic intercession contain only ordinary speech. In contrast, most—but not all—of the apotropaic intercessory rituals from the ANE contain either causative or hybrid speech. I will argue that this distinction is less a matter of the generic difference between narrative and ritual texts than it is an expression of the different cultures’ underlying theology. Biblical writers generally treat causative speech as YHWH’s prerogative alone, and depict Israelites as using only ordinary speech. Before proceeding to the textual analysis, I describe the “drama” of apotropaic intercession and then discuss the different kinds of speech with a view to shedding light on their use in apotropaic intercessory texts, using concepts from speech act theory and cognitive science.

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION: THE DRAMA Apotropaic intercession addresses a divine decree of doom, understood as punishment for human offenses. Each apotropaic intercessory text portrays a drama involving three roles: intercessor, beneficiary, and divine authority. As intercessors, ritual practitioners or characters like Moses approach the divine authority (a god or gods) on behalf of a beneficiary (an individual or household in the ritual texts, or an entire people or city in the Bible). Often the recipient of the divine warning is the one who intercedes. The intercessor either speaks or acts on behalf of the beneficiary (for example, by offering sacrifices) or provides access to the deity so that the beneficiary can speak or act on his or her own.2 In ritual texts, apotropaic intercession often includes speech 2

These two types of intercession are reflected in Mesopotamian cylinder seals from 2500–1500 BCE, which show personal deities accompanying their beneficiaries into the presence of a seated high god, in one of two forms: either leading the beneficiary by the hand or standing behind the beneficiary who faces the high god directly (Groneberg 1986; Postgate 1992, 132). Some of these seals portray the beneficiary holding his hand over his mouth while the personal deity lifts his hand in greeting,

22

MARIAN BROIDA

directed at third parties (for example, ritual helpers or Kultmittel) or manual rites of sacrifice or purification. In biblical narrative, apotropaic intercession generally consists of speech alone, sometimes accompanied by prostration. More than a narrative depiction of ritual, it closely resembles what Moshe Greenberg (1983, 7) describes as “prose prayer” defined as a prayer “embedded in the narratives of Scripture,” which include prophetic texts as well as stories.

SPEECH ACT THEORY, COGNITIVE SCIENCE, AND MAGIC In the second half of the 20th century, John Austin and his student John Searle expanded the notion of speech as a form of action. Austin (1975) introduced the widely-used term “performative utterance” to describe speech that “does” as well as “means.” According to Austin and Searle, utterances are in fact “speech acts” which carry particular kinds of “illocutionary force”—that is, they do certain things in certain contexts. One particular kind of speech act, which Searle (1989) calls a “declaration,” creates new social realities by declaring them to be created. A declaration “changes the world in such a way as to bring about the truth of its propositional content” (Searle 1989, 553). For example, the words “I declare you husband and wife,” uttered by an authorized officiant to two eligible adults, actually creates a husband and a wife from two unmarried individuals. One feature of most declaratives is that they require “institutional authorization” of the speaker. Another perspective on speech is offered by cognitive science. Based on research from the past decades, cognitive scientists have argued that young children develop “intuitive” understandings of several different domains, including physics, biology, and psychology (Tremlin 2006, 66–7; Sørensen 2007, 33). Infants learn to predict that a ball rolled over the edge of a table will fall, for example. Studies show infants registering surprise at events that do not meet their expectations. Although all learning is mediated by experience (and therefore culture), this early learning is constrained which indicates that the personal deity is speaking for the beneficiary (Maul 1994, 68).

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION

23

by properties of the natural world, including the human brain. Much of what is learned is therefore universal. One posited intuitive domain (sometimes called a “module”) is language (Tremlin 2006, 69). Language learning touches on the domains of intuitive physics, biology, and psychology as children learn things that speech can and cannot do. For instance, very young children learn that calling out summons a parent (or possibly a pet) but not a rock or a tree, and that requests for cookies require another’s assent. In time they learn that “there is a rather limited number of things one can do with language. One can, for example, declare war, apologize for one’s bad behavior, or assert that the roof is leaking; but one cannot fry an egg, patch a roof leak, or split an atom with words alone” (Searle and Vanderveken 1985, 51–2). Yet Searle acknowledges another kind of speech act present in “fairy stories” and some religious contexts, whose effects are not limited to the social world. He calls it the “supernatural declaration.” One example he gives is the divine utterance “Let there be light” (Searle 1979, 18; Searle 1989, 549). Such utterances (as presented in religious texts or stories) share the declaration’s effect of creating a new reality, but differ in that the reality they create is not an institutional or social one but involves “brute facts.” Such speech acts have the illocutionary force of a declaration—a special kind of declaration, which (when uttered by God, at least), requires no institutional authorization. Rather than adopting the term “supernatural declaration,” I class all such utterances as causative speech. Walter Houston (1995) points out that “Let there be light” appears to be a command or “directive”—another type of speech act identified by Searle. This confusion is appropriately handled by Wade Wheelock (1982) who points out that many ritual speech acts have a declarative element to them, in that they create a new reality. Although Wheelock purposely avoids distinguishing between petitions and incantations (what I call ordinary and causative speech), the “declarative” aspect of causative speech is particularly prominent. Causative speech breaks the intuitive rules for language learned by young children based on their own experiences. Cognitive scientists have studied the way children of different ages react to events that run counter to their intuitive grasp of science. For example, children around age four begin to categorize events

24

MARIAN BROIDA

inconsistent with their intuitive science as “magic,” whereas five to six-year olds seek ordinary causal explanations (Rosengren and Hickling 2000).3 Understanding the workings of causative speech relies instead on cultural knowledge. Just as some people learn to accept the existence of agents with counterintuitive properties, including deities or demons, so they may view causative speech as effective in certain contexts, such as religious ritual. Around age seven, children become capable of understanding some entities and occurrences as both “counterintuitive”—that is, violating the principles of intuitive science—and real. This understanding allows children to accept certain religious concepts. “What seems to happen developmentally is that [older] children acquire a more elaborated supernatural framework that is more intimately tied to supernatural beliefs found in their respective cultures” (Boyer and Walker 2000, 148; cf. Woolley 2000). In these contexts, causative speech has a culturally-determined illocutionary force. Even when causative speech is understood to be effective only in fiction, the audience nonetheless grants it illocutionary force within the world of the story. Cognitive theorist Jesper Sørensen addresses what I call causative speech under the category of “magic.” He describes magic as concerned with “changing the state or essence of persons, objects, acts and events through certain special and non-trivial kinds of actions with opaque causal mediation” (Sørensen 2007, 32). In other words, the process by which magic works its effects is mysterious. Believers in magical efficacy accept the existence of some kind of causality—it is simply a causality that they do not understand in the implicit way that they grasp intuitive science (Sørensen 2007, 91). As McCauley and Lawson (2002, 20) put it, “In religious ritual representations... causal chains terminate; reasons find a final ground. In short, the buck stops with the gods.” Magic is thought to work because it has links to the “sacred domain,” a mental space containing culturally-transmitted concepts

The authors note that cultural influences as well as individual characteristics strongly affect their findings, which are therefore not universal. 3

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION

25

and knowledge in which certain ordinary constraints are lifted (Sørensen 2007, 63–5). Causative speech, like magic in general, relies on mysterious means for its effects, means which are thought to be possible because of connections between sacred domain and either the words or the speaker or both. Sørensen (2007, 65–74) refers to the connection with the sacred domain, somewhat confusingly, as “magical agency” which can be based in agents (gods, magicians), actions such as incantations, or objects such as magical mirrors and so on. In my texts, the predominant connections with the sacred domain empowering causative language appear to be through the agent (speaker) or action (words). In some cultures, gods are understood to have the ability to use causative language. This property may be seen as transferable to others, either by the gods directly or by means of previously-empowered humans, actions, or objects.4 For example, in 2 Kgs 2:13, Elijah transfers his God-given ability to work miracles to Elisha by passing on his mantle. Elisha is then able to work his own miracles at will: he has his own connection to the divine, inherent in his person.5 In other cases, the connection with the sacred domain is understood to inhere in the words themselves—for example, in a spell or incantation. Speakers must be understood as qualified, even if they lack their own link to the sacred domain—just as with ordinary speech acts, particularly declarations. In Mesopotamian myth, the gods Ea/Enki and Marduk/Asalluḫi were understood to have passed on magical rituals to humankind. Certain oral rites in namburbû end with the phrase, “[This is] the word of Enki and Asalluḫi.”6 Any qualified Lawson and McCauley (1990, 84–136) address the transfer of such empowerment from the sacred domain in different terms, in their presentation of “embedded ritual actions”—that is, prior ritual acts which allow a subsequent one to take place, the way that purification of holy water must precede its use. 5 On this, see also Hadi Ghantous’ contribution in this volume. 6 See, for example, K 2999 + Sm 810 lines 39 and 80–7–19 lines 20′– 21′. Other similar or somewhat longer formulas in use from 2500–1500 BCE legitimated the incantations by associating them with the divine. For example, see Cunningham (1997, 31–2, 57, 83, 118–9, 169). 4

26

MARIAN BROIDA

āšipu (ritual practitioner) could then enact the ritual, including the causative words. Unlike Elisha, however, the āšipu could not spontaneously utter causative speech outside of prescribed rituals. In this case, the link with the divine which “empowers” causative speech occurs more through the speech itself than through the speaker. I categorize speech as causative when it appears intended to affect the physical environment directly, for example by transforming objects into sentient entities capable of understanding and acting, or compelling entities directly. Petitions or hymns to a supernatural entity fall into the category of ordinary speech because they operate according to the rules of speech as understood in naïve biology/psychology/physics, even if their audience is understood to be supernatural. Commands to a low-level supernatural entity, however, I consider causative, since ordinarily people cannot command the divine. I also have a “hybrid” category in which a speech act exhibits both causative and ordinary illocutionary force. Below I classify the speech acts in the selected texts (one Neo-Assyrian namburbi, two ritual texts from Anatolia, and two biblical passages) as ordinary, causative, or hybrid.

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION: A NEO-ASSYRIAN NAMBURBI Like others of its genre, the namburbi I examine (LKA 112) is intended to ward off the evil portended by an omen—in this case, the omen of a wildcat that has been continually yowling within a person’s house. I chose this namburbi because it is both typical and concise. Within its single prescribed oral rite appear many expressions found in other namburbû where they are divided among two or more oral rites. Typically, LKA 112 opens with an introduction stating the ritual’s purpose. The intercessor is then instructed to prepare ritual ingredients (including a model wildcat) and arrange offerings on portable altars for Ea and Marduk. The beneficiary raises the image of the wildcat while the oral rite is spoken aloud by either the

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION

27

intercessor or the beneficiary.7 Afterward the image is laid on the ground while the intercessor purifies the beneficiary with a censor, torch, and holy water. Kneeling, the beneficiary is to “speak what is on his mind”—a second oral rite but one without prescribed wording. The intercessor then throws the wildcat model into the river. The beneficiary is to go directly home, avoiding the path used in arriving. The instructions end with the statement “then the misfortune will not approach him so long as he lives.” The following transcription of the oral rite is adapted from the collated versions in Maul (1994, 333–4): 15 [d]É-a u dAMAR.UTU DINGIR.MEŠ re-em-n[u??t]i 16 [pa]-ṭi-ru ka-s[e]-e [za-qí-p]u en-ši 17 [r]a-i-m[u] ˹a-me-lu-ti 18 [din]gir É-a u drAMAR.UTU ina u4-me an-né-e 19 [in]a! di-ni-ia i-ziz-za-nim-ma 20 [d]i-ni di-na EŠ.BAR-a-a pu-ur-sa 21 [Ḫ]UL mu-ra-še-e an-né-e 22 [ša i]na É.MU i-bak-ku˼-u i-dam-mu-mu˼ 23 [ur-r]a u mu-šá MUD-ni u lu-ú ḫi-ṭi-t[ú] 24 [šá DINGIR].[MU˼ ˻u˼ ˻lu˼-˻ú˼ ḫi-ṭi˺-tú šá dXV.MU 25 [dÉ-a u d]˻AMAR˼.˹UTU˺ DINGIR.MEŠ šu-pu-ti 26 [lumun idāti G]ISKIM.MEŠ ḪUL.MEŠ 27 [šá ina bītīya GÁL(.MEŠ)]-˻a šu-ti-qa-an-ni-ma 28 [a-a T]E-a a-a KU.NU r. 1 [ai isniqa ai] KUR-an-ni r. 2 [lībir nāra li-ba]l-kit KUR-a r. 3 [lissi šār (1.)DANNA] ina SU.MU r. 4 [kima qutri li-te]l!-li AN-e r. 5 [kima bīni ZI-ḫ]i ana KI-šú a-a GUR

In the translation, I identify “ordinary” and “hybrid” individual speech acts:

Because the instruction appears in logographs the speaker is unclear. Most such oral rites were probably spoken first by the intercessor, then repeated by the beneficiary (Mayer 1976, 63–5; Maul 1994, 67–8, 86). 7

28

MARIAN BROIDA

Text 15 Ea and Marduk, compassionate gods 16 who free the bound, who stand the weak upright, 17 who love humanity— 18 Ea and Marduk, on this day 19 Stand beside me in my trial! 20 Judge my case, decide my verdict! 21 The evil of this wildcat 22 which wails (and) whines in my house 23a day and night, frightens me. 23b Whether (due to) an offense 24 against my god or an offense against my goddess, 25 Ea and Marduk, resplendent gods, 26 the evil of signs (and) evil portents 27 which exist in my house, make (it) pass me by! 28 May (the evil) not approach, may it not come near r.1 May it not press upon (me), may it not reach me! r.2a May it cross the river! r.2b May it go over the mountain! r.3 May it be 3600 miles away from my person! r.4 Like smoke may it climb to heaven! r.5 Like an uprooted tamarisk may it not return to its place!

Speech Ordinary

Ordinary Ordinary Ordinary

Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid

Lines 15–27 contain ordinary speech acts which present the beneficiary’s case in juridical terms analogous to those which might be used for supplicating human authorities. Epithets of praise were conventional in heralding Neo-Assyrian kings (Hoskisson and Boswell 2004, 70). Nearly all the longer namburbû begin with similar openings using ordinary language. According to Stefan Maul, the purpose of these openings is to persuade the gods to reverse their decree, a necessary prelude to the “older level of practice” of magical purification in the remainder of the ritual (Maul 1994, 60 and 72). Baruch Levine (2000, 162) offers a general description of ancient Near Eastern magic in which the magician must first attract

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION

29

the gods’ attention through sacrifice, and then present the petition, before the gods would authorize magical acts. In the second part, lines 28-r.5, all speech acts are “hybrid” (having both causative and ordinary illocutionary force). From the perspective of ordinary speech, lines 28-r.5 consists of a string of petitions. Although the use of repetition and vibrant imagery makes these petitions more colorful than those in lines 19–20, they nonetheless convey meaning as supplications to the invoked gods. From another perspective, however, these lines carry causative illocutionary force. Lines r.4-r.5 correspond to what has been described as “persuasive analogies” (Tambiah 1973), “effective similes” (Hillers 1984), similia similibus with an appended “wish formula” expressed in the third person optative (Faraone 1991), or simply “analogies” (Wright 1993). These speech acts comprise a comparison between two elements and an expressed desire that an attribute be transferred from one element to the other. Persuasive analogies are intended to create the desired transformation through magic. For example, the persuasive analogy in r.4 is meant to transfer an attribute (the act of moving away) from one element (smoke) to another (the evil). The speech acts in lines 28-r. 3 are not part of persuasive analogies in this text, but they form the final lines of persuasive analogies in other namburbû.8 We can reasonably assume that here the words bear the same illocutionary force despite the absence of the analogies themselves, especially since they directly precede the persuasive analogies in r.4-r.5. As hybrids, the speech acts in lines 28-r.5 have two kinds of illocutionary force: ordinary and causative. In effect, the speech acts are meant to directly and magically remove the evil or impurity even as they plead the gods to remove it. The speaker’s use of causative speech is disguised since the words double as appeals to the gods. Such ambiguous agency is appropriate for magic, whose essential attribute is mysterious causality.

For example, KAR 64 lines 47–49 read, “Just as this image cannot return to its place, may its evil not approach! May it not come near! May it not press upon me! May it not reach me!” 8

30

MARIAN BROIDA

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION IN BRONZE AGE ANATOLIA: TWO RITUAL TEXTS

Apotropaic intercessory texts from Anatolia are rare compared with the plethora of Neo-Assyrian texts. Because the best-known of these, the substitute king rituals, show significant Mesopotamian influence, I chose two others coming from two different regions in Anatolia. CTH 398 (KBo 4.2), from the western region of Azarwa, wards off the ill effects on the king and queen foretold by an indigenous Anatolian divinatory practice, bird observation (Beal 2002). CTH 476 (KBo 5.1), from Kizzuwatna in the south, averts the evil portended to a pregnant woman—also probably royal—by a broken birth stool (Mouton 2008, 22–3 and 38–9). The two differ dramatically in their use of speech: the first uses primarily hybrid or causative language, while the second uses only ordinary speech acts. CTH 398, the Ritual of Ḫuwarlu The text of this ritual follows a model used since the early Hittite Empire (Taracha 2009, 152). After the statement of purpose (it is to be performed when there are “terrifying birds,” that is, a disastrous augury result) comes a list of preparatory ritual acts, including the manufacture of figurines. No invocation appears in 9 the expected opening position. Instead, a list of ritual supplies ends with directions to roast a variety of seeds, followed by the first oral rite, directing low-level divine entities (“staff-bearers from heaven”) to push out the “evil sign” or “terrifying birds,” which is in turn followed by a persuasive analogy. Fourteen more oral rites follow, interspersed with manual rites. The well-preserved portions of the text address the prevention, removal, and disposal of impurity from the beneficiaries’ bodies and palace. Included are instructions for two more acts of augury to determine the best location for disposal and the best timing for a sacrifice. The broken 9

Invocation rites sometimes appeared on separate tablets but none has been linked to this text. Bawanypeck (2005, 152) mentions calling, attracting, and sacrificing to the gods as the step following the list of ritual supplies among the augur ritual texts in general. She does not address the lack of an opening invocation in this particular text.

APOTROPAIC INTERCESSION

31

ending includes sacrifices and petitions for the royal family’s wellbeing addressed to various gods and further purification of the beneficiaries and intercessors. Because of the ritual’s length I present the first oral rite only, although I consider all but the final fragmentary oral rites in my analysis. First Oral Rite in the Ritual of Ḫuwarlu (Bawanypeck 2005, 22 and 24): 13 nu LÚMUŠEN.DÙ MUNUSŠU.GI-ya ki-iš-ša-an me-mi-ya-an-zi 14 ka-a-ša-wa-an-na-aš ˹pé˺-i-e-er DINGIRMEŠ ne-pí-ša-az LÚMEŠ GIŠGIDRU 15 it-tén-wa-kán IŠ-TU É.GALLIM kal-la-ar INIM-tar pa-ra-a šu-uwa-at-tén 16 nu-wa i-it-tén ˹ḫa-tu˺-ga·uš MUŠENḪI.A ki·iš·ta!-nu-ut-te-en 17 nu-kán ke-e NUMEN[ḪI.]˹A˺ ma-aḫ-ḫa-an ki-iš-ta-ri kal-la-a-raya>ra-ya accessed September 12, 2011. Rawlinson, H. C. and T. G. Pinches 1909 A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia (London: Harrison). Regev, E. 2006 “The Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the sacred,” Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9: 1–10. Reider, J. 1949 “A Ishtar epithet in the Bible,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8: 104–7. Reiner, E. 1958 Šurpu: a collection of Sumerian and Akkadian incantations. Archiv für Orientforschung, vol. 11 (Graz). Richter, W. 1962 “Traum und Traumdeutung im Alten Testament,” Biblische Zeitschrift 7: 202–20. Ridley, R. T. 1982 Zosimus, New History (Sydney: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies). Ringgren, H. 2003 “Pāša” in J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry (eds), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 133–35. Ritschl, A. B. 1857 Die Entstehung A. Marcus). Ritti, T. 1989

der

altkatholischen

Kirche

(Bonn:

“Oracoli alfabetici a Hierapolis di Frigia,” Miscellanea Greca et Romana 14: 245–86.

Robbins, F. E. (translator) 1998 Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos University Press).

(Cambridge,

MA:

Harvard

288

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Rochberg, F. 2003 “Heaven and earth: divine-human relations in Mesopotamian celestial divination,” in S. Noegel, J. Walker and B. Wheeler (eds), Prayer, Magic and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (Pennsylvannia: Pennsylvannia State University) 169–87. Rochberg-Halton, F. 1992 “Calendars,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday) 1: 810–4. Römer, T. C. 2003 “Competing magicians in Exodus 7–9,” in T. E. Klutz (ed.) Magic in the Biblical World: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon (London: T&T Clark) 12–22. Rooke, D. W. 2000 Zadok’s Heirs (Oxford: Oxford University). Rose, M. 1994 5. Mose 12-25 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag). Rosen-Zvi, I. 2007 “The school of R. Ishmael and the origins of the concept of Yeser Hara (Evil Inclination),” Tarbiz 76: 41–79. 2008 “Rereading the Yeser in Amoraic literature,” Tarbiz 77: 71–107. Rosengren, K. S. and A. K. Hickling 2000 “Imagining the impossible,” in K. S. Rosengren, C. N. Johnson, and P. L. Harrs (eds), Imagining the Impossible: Magical, Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children (Cambridge: Cambridge University) 75–98. Roth, M. 1995 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars). Rothstein, M. 1997 “Magi: ritualtype eller social relation?,” Skandinavisk Tidsskrift for Religionshistoriske Studier 27:41–56.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Rubenstein, J. 1999 Talmudic Stories: Narrative Art, Composition, and Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University). Rüterswörden, U. 1996 “Das Böse in der deuteronomischen Schultheologie,” in T. Veijola (eds), Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen (Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft) 223–41. 2006 Das Buch Deuteronomium (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk). Sachau, C. E. 1879 Chronology of Ancient Nations (London: W. H. Allen). Sachs, A. J. and H. Hunger 1988 Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia I (Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften). Sanders, J. A. 1965 “The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa),” in Discoveries in the Judean Desert of Jordan (Oxford: Clarendon) 4:91–3. Sasson, A. 2007 “Corpus of 694 astragali from stratum II at Tel Beersheba,” Tel Aviv 34: 171–81. Satlow, M. 2006 “Defining Judaism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74: 837–60. Savage–Smith, E. 1997 “Divination,” in F. R. Maddison and E. Savage–Smith, Science, Tools and Magic I (London: Nour Foundation). Saxey, Roderick 1984 “A physician’s reflection on Old Testament medicine,” Dialogue 17: 122–28. Scherman, N. 1998 The Complete Artscroll Machzor: Yom Kippur (New York: Mesorah).

290

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Schmidt, C. 1930 “Zur Datierung der alten Petrusakten,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29: 150–5. Schmidt, H. 1915 Die grossen Propheten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Schmidt, W. H. 1997 “Das Prophetengesetz Dtn 18,9-22 im Kontext erzählender Literatur,” in M. Vervenne (ed.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature (Leuven: Leuven University) 55–69. Schmidtke, F. 1967 “Träume, Orakel und Totengeister als Künder der Zukunft in Israel und Babylonien,” Biblische Zeitschrift 11: 240–46. Schmitt, R. 2004 Magie im Alten Testament (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag). 2008 “The problem of magic and monotheism in the Book of Leviticus,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8:11, 2–12. Accessed February 8, 2012. Doi:10.5508/jhs. 2008.v8.a11. 2011 “Artaxerxes II,” Encyclopedia Iranica. Online Edition. Revised 2011 Accessed September 15, 2011. Schneemelcher, W. 1992 “Acts of Peter,” in W. Schneemelcher (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (transl. R. McL. Wilson; Westminster: John Knox) II: 271–321. Schniedewind, W. M. 2004 How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Schorr Y. S. and C. Malinowitz et al. 1998 The Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud Bavli. Volume 2 (New York: Mesorah) (73 volumes).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Schwab, M. 1890–1 “Coupes à inscriptions magiques,” Proceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology 13: 583–95. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 2005 “Inkubation im Alten Testament?,” in Studien zum Alten Testament und seiner Hermeneutik (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk) 113–9. Scurlock, J. A. 1992 “Magic (ANE),” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday) 4: 464–68. 1995 “Magical uses of ancient Mesopotamian festivals of the dead,” in M. W. Meyer and P. A. Mirecki (eds), Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Leiden: Brill) 93–107. 2006 Magico–Medical Means of Treating Ghost–Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia (Leiden: Brill–Styx). 2010 “Prophecy as a form of divination; divination as a form of prophecy,” in A. Annus (ed.), Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World (Chicago: Oriental Institute) 277–316. Scurlock, J. A. and B. R. Andersen 2005 Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine (Chicago: University of Illinois) Searle, J. R. 1979 Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 1989 “How performatives work,” Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 535–58. Searle, J. R. and D. Vanderveken 1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Segal, A. F. 1981 “Hellenistic magic: some questions of definition,” in R. van den Broek and J. Vermaseren (eds), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (Leiden: Brill) 349–75. 1987 The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars).

292

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Segal, J. B. 2000 Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London: British Museum). de Sélincourt, A. and J. Marincola (translators) 2003 Herodotus: The Histories (London: Penguin Classics). Sénéchal, V. 2009 Rétribution et intercession dans le Deutéronome (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Shalom, A. 1575 Neveh Shalom (Venice). Shaked, S. 1995 “‘Peace be upon you, exalted angels: on Hekhalot liturgy and incantation bowls,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 2/3: 197–219. 2005 “Form and purpose in Aramaic spells: some Jewish themes,” in S. Shaked (ed.), Officina Magica: Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity (Leiden: Brill) 1–30. 2006 “Dramatis personae in the Jewish magic texts: some differences between Incantation Bowls and Geniza Magic,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 13: 363–87. Shanks, A. E. 2002 “Art, argument and ambiguity in the Talmud: Conflicting conceptions of the evil impulse in b. Sukkah 51b-52a,” Hebrew Union College Annual 73: 97–132. Shemesh, Y. 2008 “The Elisha stories as saints’ legends,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8, article 5, http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/ JHS/Articles/article_82.pdf. Sherman, M. 2007 “‘Do not interpretations belong to God?’: A narrative assessment of Genesis 40 as it elucidates the persona of Joseph,” in S. Malena and D. Miano (eds), Milk and Honey (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns) 37–49. Shupak, N. 2006 “A fresh look at the dreams of the officials and of Pharaoh in the story of Joseph (Genesis 40–41) in the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

light of Egyptian dreams,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 30: 103–38. Singer, I. 2002 Hittite Prayers (Leiden: Brill). Sinn, G. 1991

Christologie und Existenz. Rudolf Bultmanns Interpretation des paulinischen Christuszeugnisses (Tübingen: Francke).

Skeat, T. C. 1954 “An early medieval “Book of Fate,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3: 41–54. Skinner, J. 1980 A Critical and Exegetical (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Commentary

on

Genesis

Slingerland, E. 2008 What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Smith, D. E. 2010 “‘Pisser against a wall’: an echo of divination in biblical Hebrew,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72: 699–717. Smith, J. Z. 1990 Drudgery Divine (Chicago: Chicago University). 1995 “Trading places,” in M. Meyer and P. Mirecki (eds), Ancient Magic & Ritual Power (Leiden: Brill) 13–27. Smith, M. B. 1979 “The nature of Islamic geomancy,” Studia Islamica 49: 5– 38. Snaith, J. G. 1974 Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach (Cambridge: Cambridge University). Snoek, J. A. M. 2006 “Defining rituals,” in J. Kreinath, J. Snoek and M. Stausberg (eds), Theorizing Rituals: Issues, Topics, Approaches, Concepts (Leiden: Brill) 3–14.

294

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Sommerstein, A. H. (translator) 1986 Aristophanes: The Archarnians, (London: Penguin Classics).

Clouds,

Lysistrata

Sorensen, E. 2002 Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). Sørensen, J. 1997 “Magi mellem individ og samfund,” Skandinavisk Tidsskrift for Religionshistoriske Studier 27: 21–40. 2000 “Den magiske illusion? En kognitiv tilgang til magiske ritualer,” Tidsskriftet Antropologi 41: 65–77. 2007 A Cognitive Theory of Magic (Lanham: Alta Mira). 2008 “Magic among the Trobrianders: conceptual mapping in magical rituals,” Cognitive Semiotics 3:36–64. Speir, A. 1986

Comprehensive Hebrew Calendar (Jerusalem: Feldheim).

Speiser, E. A. 1969 “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement (Princeton: Princeton University) 72–99. Spooner, B. 1970 “The evil eye in the Middle East,” in M. Douglas (ed.), Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations (London: Tavistock) 311–9. Starr, I. 1990 Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria (Helsinki: Helsinki University). Online: knp.prs.heacademy.ac.uk/downloads/starr_saa04_intro 1.pdf. Accessed Aug 17, 2011. Stern, S. 2001 Calendar and Community: A History of the Jewish Calendar 2nd Century BCE–10th century CE (Oxford: Oxford University). Stol, M. 1991/92 1993

“Diagnosis and therapy in Babylonian medicine,” Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 32: 42–65. Epilepsy in Babylonia (Groningen: Styx).

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2007

295

“Fevers in Babylonia,” in I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller (eds), Disease in Babylonia (Leiden: Brill) 1–39.

Strauss, R. 2006 Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna (Berlin: W. de Gruyter). Suiter, D. E. 1992 “Artaxerxes,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday) 1: 463–4. Swartz, M. D. 2001 “Sacrificial themes in Jewish magic,” in P. Mirecki (ed.), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill) 303– 15. 2003 “Divination and its discontents,” in S. Noegel, J. Walker and B. Wheeler (eds), Prayer, Magic and the Stars in the Ancient and Late Antique World (Pennsylvannia: Pennsylvannia State University) 155–69. Sweeney, M. A. 1988 Isaiah 1–4 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Swerdlow, N. M. 1998 The Babylonian Theory of the Planets (Princeton: Princeton University). Talmon, S. 1995 “Was the Book of Esther known at Qumran?,” Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 2: 249–67. 2000 “Calendars and Mishmarot,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Oxford University Press) 108–17. Talmon, S. with J. Ben-Dov 2001 “4Q330-330, 337, 394 1–2: Introduction,” in S. Talmon, J. Ben-Dov, U. Glessmer (eds), Discoveries in the Judaean Desert XXI: Qumran Cave IV (XVI): Calendrical Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 1–28. Talshir, D. and Z. Talshir 2004 “Double month naming in late biblical books: a new clue for dating Esther?,” Vetus Testamentum 54: 549–54.

296

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Tambiah, S. J. 1973 “Form and meaning of magical acts: a point of view,” in R. Horton and R. Finnegan (eds), Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies (London: Faber & Faber) 64–77. 1985 Culture, Thought, and Social Action (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University). 1990 Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality (Cambridge: Cambridge University). Taracha, P. 2009 Religions of Second Millennium Anatolia (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz). Thomas, K. 1971 Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson). Thomassen, E. 1999 “Is magic a subclass of ritual?,” in D. R. Jordan, E. Thomassen and H. Montgomery (eds), The World of Ancient Magic (Bergen: Norwegian Institute at Athens) 55–66. Thomson, C. J. 2012 “The ‘seven eyes’ of Zech 3:9 and the meaning of the dual form,” Vetus Testamentum 62: 115–28. Thompson, R. C. 1903 Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (London: British Museum). 1908 Semitic Magic: its Origin and Development (London: Luzac & Co). Thompson, S. 1958 Motif-index of Folk-Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University). Thorndike, L. 1927 “Alfodhol and Almadel,” Speculum 2: 326–31. Tigay, J. H. 1996 Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publishing Society).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Tremlin, T. 2006 Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Trolle Larsen, M. 2007 “Going to the river,” in P. von Bechtolsheim (ed.), Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs (Chicago: Oriental Institute), http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/as27.pdf, accessed June 29, 2012. Tsukimoto, A. 1985 Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien (Kevelaer Neukirchen–Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchener Verlag). Turner, C. H. 1931 “The Latin Acts of Peter,” Journal of Theological Studies 32: 119–33. Tuzlak, A. 2002 “The magician and the heretic,” in P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds), Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden: Brill) 416–26. Tylor, E. B. 1958 Primitive Culture (New York: Harper Torchbook). Uehlinger, C. 1999 “Leviathan,” in K. van der Toorn, B. Becking and P. W. van Horst (eds), Dictionary of Deities and Demons (Leiden: Brill) 511–15. Ulmer R. 1994 The Evil Eye in the Bible and in Rabbinic Literature (Hoboken: Ktav). Van Dam, C. 1997 The Urim and Thummim (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns). VanderKam, J.C. 1979 “The origin, character, and early history of the 364-day calendar: a reassessment of Jaubert’s hypothesis,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41: 390–411. 1995 Qumran Cave 4.14. Parabiblical Texts 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

298 1998 1999 2004

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge). “Studies on David’s compositions,” Eretz-Israel 26: 212– 20. From Joshua to Caiaphas (Minneapolia: Fortress).

Van der Horst, P. W. 1998 “Sortes: sacred books as instant oracles in Late Antiquity,” in L. V. Rutgers, P. W. van der Horst, H. W. Havelaar and L. Teugels (eds), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (Leuven: Peeters) 143–74. Van der Ploeg, J. P. M. 1965 “Le Psaume XCI dans une recension de Qumrân,” Revue Biblique 72: 210–17, pls. 8–9. Van der Toorn, K. 1988 “Ordeal procedures in the Psalms and the Passover Meal,” Vetus Testamentum 38: 427–45. 2003 “The theology of demons in Mesopotamia and Israel,” in A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger and K. F. Diethard Römheld (eds), Die Dämonen (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck) 61–83. van der Waerden, B. L. 1949 “Babylonian astronomy II. The thirty-six stars,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8: 6–36. Van Dijk, J. 1983 The Ninurta Myth Lugal–e (Leiden: Brill). Van Gennep, A. 1967 The Semi-Scholar (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). Veijola, T. 2004 Deuteronomium 1–16,17 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Venema, R. G. J. 1999 “Why did Moses destroy the Golden Calf,” in J. W. Dyk et al. (eds), The Rediscovery of the Hebrew Bible (Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker) 39–49.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Versnel, H. 1991 “Some reflections on the relationship magic-religion,” Numen 38: 177–97. Veyne, P. 1983 Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leur mythes (Paris: Seuil). Von Rad, G. 1964 Deuteronomium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). 1966 Old Testament Theology (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd). Von Soden, W. 1969 “Zur Wiederherstellung der Marduk-Gebete BMS 11 und 12,” Iraq 31: 82–9. Von Weiher, E. 1971 Der babylonische Gott Nergal (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker, Neukirchener Verlag). Wacholder, B.-Z. and D. B. Weisberg 1971 “Visibility of the new moon in cuneiform and rabbinic sources,” Hebrew Union College Annual 42: 227–42. Waldman, N. M. 1998 “Interpretive cover–ups,” in R. Mintz Geffen and M. Bryan Edelman (eds), Freedom and Responsibility (Hoboken: Ktav) 51–64. Walfish, B. D. 1993 Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (New York: State University of New York). Wasserman, N. 2007 “Between magic and medicine. Apropos of an oldbabylonian therapeutic text against kurārum disease,” in M. Geller and I. Finkel (eds), Disease in Babylonia (Leiden: Brill) 40–61. Wax, M. and R. 1963 “The Notion of Magic,” Current Anthropology 4: 495–503. Weinfeld, M. 1984 “Kabod,” Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer) IV, 23–40.

300

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Weiss, Z. 2005 The Sepphoris Synagogue (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society) 104–41. Wells, B. 2008 “The cultic versus the forensic: Judahite and Mesopotamian judicial procedures in the First Millenium BCE,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 128: 205–32. Wenham, G. J. 1994 Genesis 16–50 (Dallas: Word Books). Wheelock, W. 1982 “The problem of ritual language,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50: 49–71. White-Crawford, S. 1996 “Has Esther been found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther corpus,” Revue de Qumran 17: 307–25. 2002 “4Q Tales of the Persian Court (4Q550 a-e) and its relation to biblical royal courtier tales, especially Esther, Daniel and Joseph,” in E. D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds), The Bible as Book (London: British Library) 121–38. Whitehouse, H. 2000 Modes of Religiosity. A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission (Walnut Creek: AltaMira). Wiggermann, F. A. M. 1992 Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. (Cuneiform Monographs. Volume 1. Groningen: Styx). 1994 “Mischwesen,” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8: 222–46. 2000 “Lamaštu, daughter of Anu,” in M. Stol (ed.), Birth in Babylonia and the Bible (Groningen: Styx) 217–49. 2007 “The four winds and the origins of Pazuzu,” in C. Wilcke (ed.), Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz) 125–65. 2011 “The Mesopotamian Pandemonium. A provisional census,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 77/2: 298– 322.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Williams, C. 2002 Signs from the sky. Signs from the Earth,” in J. M. Stelle and A. Imhausen (eds), Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Münster: UgaritVerlag) 473–85. Wilson, J. A. 1969 “The Divine Nomination of Thutmose III,” in J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University) 446. Wikenhauser, A. 1948 “Doppelträume,” Biblica 29: 100–11. Wildberger, H. 1991 Isaiah 1–12 (Minneapolis: Fortress). Williamson, H. G. M. 2004 “The formation of Isaiah 2.6-22,” in C. McCarthy and J. F. Healey (eds), Biblical and Near Eastern Essays (London: T&T Clark) 57–68. Winitzer, A. 2011 “Writing and Mesopotamian divination,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63: 77–94. Wittgenstein, L. 1967 “Bemerkungen über Frazers Golden Bough,” Synthese 17: 233–53. 1979 Bemerkungen über Frazers Golden Bough, edited by R. Rhees with English translation by A. C. Miles (Denton: Brynmill). Witton, D. T. 1897 Magic, Divination, and Demonology (London: James Clarke). Wolters, A. 1993 “An allusion to Libra in Daniel 5,” in H. D. Galter (ed.), Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens (Graz: rm-Verlag) 291–306. Woolley, J. D. 2000 “Development of beliefs about direct mental-physical causality,” in K. S. Rosengren, C. N. Johnson, and P. L. Harris (eds), Imagining the Impossible: Magical,

302

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION Scientific, and Religious Thinking in Children (Cambridge: Cambridge University) 99–129.

Worley, M. 2010 “Daniel the dreamer, Daniel the dream-reader,” in N. van Deusen (ed.), Dreams and Visions (Leiden: Brill) 9–16. Wright, D. P. 1993 “Analogy in Biblical and Hittite Ritual,” in B. Janowski, K. Koch, and G. Wilhelm (eds), Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag) 473–506. Yardley, J. (translator) 2001 Quintius Curtius Rufus: The History of Alexander (London: Penguin Classics). Yonge, C. D. (translator) 1993 Philo of Alexandria: The Works of Philo (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Zakovitch, Y. 1992 “Miracle, Old Testament,” in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday) 4: 845– 56. Zeitlin, S. 1973 “The temple and worship,” in Solomon Zeitlin’s Studies in the Early History of Judaism (New York: Ktav) 143–241. 1975 “Dreams and their interpretation from the biblical period to the Tannaitic time,” Jewish Quarterly Review 66: 1–18. Zucconi, L. M. 2010 Can No Physician Be Found? (Piscataway: Gorgias). Zwickel, W. 2002 “Der Hohenpriester in der nachexilischen Zeit, seine Stellung und seine Kleidung,” in W. Zwickel (ed.), Edelsteine in der Bibel (Mainz: von Zabern) 50–70.

INDEX Actus Vercellenses 170, 178 anemoscopy 145 astragali 102–3, 116–7, 121 Ashurbanipal 10, 13, 17 Assyrian Dream Book 131 Astronomical Diaries 64 agency 25, 29, 33, 80, 123, 153, 162, 197–202, 209– 10 Asakku 3–7 Balaam 35, 93, 99 bibliomancy 120–1, 132–3 bone 102, 116–7, 132–3 calendar 40–1, 46–9, 52–75 child/ren 22–4, 59–60, 113n, 129, 172, 192, 214, 219–24 cleromancy 113–4 demon 1–17, 24, 29, 40–6, 81, 176–8, 228–10 Diviner’s Manual 63 Durkheim, E. 184, 193 dream see oneiromancy drink 32, 61, 135–44, 154, 160–67, 207 Frazer, J.G. 155–6, 183, 191–93, 197 gibberish 161, 197 Gilgamesh 6, 91, 97 Golden Calf 135–45, 165 grave 95–6, 121, 132–3, 228 Greek Magical Papyri 196

Hamurabi (code) 163 heal/ing/er 2–5, 32, 42, 46, 48n, 125–33, 172 History of Religion School (Göttingen) 182–91, 210 Ḫuwarlu (ritual) 30–32 hydromancy 145 idol 12, 79, 136, 138, 140, 142–7, 165–6 incantation 1–5, 12–17, 23– 26, 32, 41–2, 46, 112, 177, 217–18, 224, 227–45 incubation 89, 92–6, 98–9 Kant, I. 184–6, 192 knucklebones see astragali Lamaštu 1, 3, 12, 14 libanomancy 144–5 Lil/Lilith 14–17 magician 2, 25, 28, 78, 98, 151, 171, 177–9, 193 Moses 21, 34–37, 103–5, 110, 116, 122–6, 132–47, 151, 157, 160, 165 Marduk 25–27, 73 mezuzot 228–9 moon 4, 36, 40, 46–8, 55–7, 63, 66, 105 Namburbi/û 15, 20–26, 37 nephomancy 145 netherworld 2, 42, 44, 48n– 49 303

304

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

oneiromancy 33, 43, 78– 86, 89–100, 102, 106n, 173 oracle 78, 90, 93–6, 99– 100, 102, 105–6, 110–7, 120–4, 127, 131–3 ordeal 136–49, 157–60, 163–7 Papanikri (ritual) 32–4 priest 32, 64, 101–6, 110–7, 130, 158–61, 166, 192, 228 priestly course 56, 70, 72 prophet 10–12, 17, 77–87, 94–95, 98, 100, 102–6, 112, 120–33, 142, 164, 205, 233 random 110–1, 115–6, 120–1, 124

rational/ity 104, 114, 138, 156, 192–7, 209 sabbath 40, 46, 48, 71–72 speech act 20–38, 45, 161, 174–9 Spirit 98, 100, 114, 121, 127, 149, 171, 187, 204, 209 spirits 2–5, 13–15, 42–44, 48, 79 Targum Onqelos 232–4 teraphim 95, 102 tomb see grave Ugarit 2, 91, 137 Ur–Nammu (code) 163 Urim 102–6, 110, 114–17, 121, 137 urine 131 Zozimus 130

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES Bible Genesis 1:1:24 8:1 15:1 15:12–20 18:23–32 20 22:1 23:1 26:24 28:10–22 29–30 30:37–39 31:4–13 37 40:5–19 41:8 46:1–4 48:16 49 Exodus 3:14 4:16 7:8–12 8:15 11:4 12 12:42 14:16–21 15:14–17 15:25

16:4 19:12 20:20 22:18 22:23 23:15 25:1–2 28 32:3 32:7–13 32:20

80n 107 80n, 81 151 234 158 157 102, 104–11, 114–6 140 20, 34, 35n, 139 135–7, 142, 144–6, 165 32:21–22 138–9, 147 32:25–29 147 32:28 136, 139 32:31–32 35n 32:35 138, 147 34:20 158 34:29 147 39:2–7 110, 115

232 158 90 99 35n 91, 99 80n, 81 69n 99 92, 98 113n 214 91, 99 91, 97 97, 97 52 92 216, 219–21 112, 212–4, 216, 219–20

Leviticus 5:5 8:4–8 16:21 19:26 23:15–25 23:34 26:29

243 126 52, 129 151 14 55, 62 43 126 230–34 80n

36 104, 116, 161 36 144 69–71 71 235

Numbers 5 111, 136–7, 141, 305

306

6:24–26 9:10–12 9:23 10:35 11:2 12:6–8 12:13 14:9 16 20:9–11 22 23:7–10 24 27 28:26 29 32:22

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION 145n, 148–9, 157– 60, 163–6 235 62 235 235–6 236 100 236 236 35n, 145–6 36 93 35 90 102, 104 70 69–70 236

Deuteronomy 6 229, 236–7 8:7 221 9:20–1 137–9, 147 9:26–29 35n 10:17 244 11:14 229 11:21 237 13 77–83, 100, 123 16:16 158 18 77–83, 103, 105, 121–5, 132–3, 144, 151 28 237 29 238, 244 32:3 139, 238 33:5–10 103, 113, 137, 34:10–12 125, 132

Joshua 7 115 10:12–14 36–37 17:14–18 211–12 Judges 2:22 3:1 4:2 5 6 7:13–15 9:37 17:5 18:14–20

80n, 81 80n, 81 80n, 81 112 144 90, 93 144 102 102

1 Samuel 3 10 14:23–46 16:16 17:45 23:9–12 28:6 30:7–9

94 81 103n 47 244 102 102, 104 102

1 Kingdoms (LXX) 14:18 102 21:10 126 2 Samuel 1:9 107 24:17 35n 1 Kings 3 12:28–29 13 17:6–24 19:16

91, 94, 98 142–3n 81 127–9, 158 130

INDEX 19:18 21:21

142 131

3 Kingdoms (LXX) 19:13 126 2 Kings 1:8 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10:28–29 13:19 13:21 21:6 23

128 125–9 127–9 125, 129–30 125 125 125 131 143n 128 131 144 82, 137

Isaiah 2:6 2:18–21 6:3 9:15–16 11:5 14:29 17:13 19:11–12 27:1 29:5–8 37:16 40:12 40:31 41:15 43:26 44:25 47:10 47:15

144 11–15 244 121 126 10–11 144 52 41 90, 100, 144 244 238, 244–5 238 144 111 52, 103n, 239, 245 52 16n

307 51:11 51:15 55:13 57:3 60:6–8 60:11 65:3–4

239 239 73 144 239 239, 245 95

Jeremiah 2:1–3 3:14 7:18 8:14 9:14 23 25:15 27:9–10 29:8 29:23 29:28 31:35 44:17 50:35 51:57

233–4 102n 73 137 137 100; 137 165 100, 103, 144 103n 79 95 239 73 52 52

Ezekiel 1:5 1:27 9:6–8 11:13 13:7 21:21–22 21:33 23:30–31 32:27

245 245 15, 35n 35n 90 233 234 166 239, 245

Hosea 3:4–5 6:4 10:5

102 144 142

308

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

13:2–3

142–5

Joel 3:1

90, 100

Amos 7

35

Jonah 1:7

115

Micah 3:5–11 103n, 121 5:11 144 7:16–17 241 Nahum 1 2:8

120n, 121 73

Habakkuk 3:14 144 Zephaniah 2:2 144 Zechariah 3:2 3:9 6:14 10:2 13:2–4

230, 232, 235, 239 106, 110n 104 95, 103n 121

Psalms 1:4 3 10:15–16 24:8 26:2 35:5

144 96 234 245 80–1 144

45:14 107 69:24 241 72:18–19 242 73:20 90, 100 74:13–14 41 89:53 242 91:1–11 234, 236, 242 91:15–17 44–6, 49 104:20 242, 245 104:26 41 104:31 242 104:34 131 106:19–21 142 106:47–8 242–3 109:14 158 115:1 245 116:6–7 243 125:2 243 137:7 158 139:16 126 Job 3:8 4:12–16 7:13–14 20:8 21:18 33:14–16

41 96 96 90, 96 144 90, 96

Proverbs 1:17 30:17

144 230

Song 2:17 3:7 4:6

14 243 14

Esther 1:1

58, 69

INDEX 1:4 1:13 2:7 2:12–14 2:16 3:7–13 4:16–17 5:1–8 6:13 7:2–4 8:3–17 9:1 9:10–19 9:21–22 9:30 9:31

58 52, 61, 74 73 60, 67–8 55, 69 53–5, 58–63, 71 54–5 53–4 52n, 63 53 53–5, 58, 61–2, 69 61–2 53–5, 60–2, 64, 70 52, 62 58, 69 62

Greek Additions to Esther 13:1 69 16:1 69 Daniel 2 4 7:1–28

98 44, 98 100

Ezra 2:63 8:36

104 61

Nehemiah 5:19 158 6:14 158 Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1Enoch 10:4 44 20:3 44 72 47 78–79 57

309 7:65 9:18–19 9:32 13:29

104 142 245 158

1 Chronicles 16:35 242 21:17 35n 2 Chronicles 1:3–5 95 32:31 80n, 81 33:6 144 Apocrypha Tobit 8:3 44–5 Ben Sira 32:4 34:5–8 40:5–7 40:10 45:10 48:13

131 96 96 133 105 133

1 Maccabees 3:48 121 2 Maccabees 8:23 121

Jubilees 4:15 44 5:1–19 44 10:1–14 44

310

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Letter of Aristeas 96 105 New Testament Matthew 4:6 45 Mark 13:5–6

172

Luke 4:10–11 45 Acts 5:12 8 13

172 171 171–2

Romans 3:5–8

208

New Testament Apocrypha Acts of Peter 4 172 6 177 7 173 8–10 177 9–15 173 10 172 11 176 Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 1.10 106 6.16–22 106n 1QapGen 19 106n 1QpHab 106n

6:2–5 8:4–5

208 209

1 Corinthians 1:10 204, 206 5:3–5 204 5:6–8:13 204 6:11 201 11–14 206–7 1 Thessalonians 1:2–5 205 2:13–16 205–6

14 17 22 23–28 32 35 40

176 177 172 174 177, 179 172 173

1Q29

106

4QMMT 47 4Q209 57 4Q375

106n

INDEX 4Q376

105–6

4Q400–407 48 8QMez 229

311 11Q5

47

11Q17

48

Targum Targum Canticles 1:14 141

Second Targum of Esther 10 73–4

Talmud Abodah Zarah 44 141

Megillah 13a 73–4

Baba Batra 118 212 Baba Metzia 22 217n 84 212–4, 218 Berakhot 20 44 55 Erubim 39

212, 218–9, 222–4 217n 216, 218 213

Kethoubboth 63 217n 81 213 Other Rabbinic Works Genesis Rabbah 79.6 222n Exodus Rabbah 38:9 113

Pesachim 111 214 103 115n Sanhedrin 46 219 Sotah 8 36b

219 211–17

Yebamot 44 213 Zebachim 118 220n–2n

Numbers Rabbah 2:7 113 14:6 222 Midrash Yelamdenu Genesis 187 222n

312

STUDIES IN MAGIC AND DIVINATION

Pirqei Rabbi Eliezer 45 141

Yoma Rabbah 73b 113–4 7:4.3 113

Tanhuma Nissa 34 222n Classical Writings Aristophanes Clouds 618–32 66 Diodorus Siculus Library 67 Herodotus Histories 1.92 68 1.189–202 68 3.15 136 3.90–95 68 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 3.192 105 11 67, 69

1:84–97 105 4.69 105 De vita Mosis 2.128 105 2.133 105 Plutarch Artaxerxes

67

Pseudo–Philo Biblical Antiquities 12 141, 146 Quintus Curtius Virgil Life 67

Philo of Alexandria De specialibus legibus Eclogues 7 74 Ancient Christian Writings Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 1.23.2 177n

Justin Martyr First Apology 30.1 179 Dialogue with Trypho 69.7 179