Of Jesus, Darius, Marduk ...: Aramaic Magic Bowls in the Moussaieff Collection‪.‬

Only a few textual witnesses exist for the Aramaic incantation type before the appearance of Mandaic and other Aramaic incantations on earthenware bowls, metal, and leather from Mesopotamia. Due to the non-survival of writing material like leather, vellum, and papyrus, early Aramaic incantation texts have not come down to us. The most important and only exception so far has been an incantation in cuneiform script from Uruk. It shows specific elements (structure, language features) that already point to the later Aramaic incantation type known from the fifth through the eighth centuries A.D., originating from central and southern Babylonia as well as Khuzistan, in addition to a few minor finds from northern Mesopotamia. In textual set-up the Aramaic incantations distinguish themselves from the richly documented Akkadian ones. Therefore we cannot expect to find exact parallels and phrases in the form of direct Akkadian transmission or translations. Most of the Aramaic incantations testify to a parallel development of the Akkadian and Aramaic magical texts over several centuries in the same geographical environment. The Aramaic incantations may reveal Akkadian influences in contents and terms, often evident in demonology, phraseology, and lexicography, but to a very limited extent. The Aramaic incantation represents an independent and completely different type of textual structure. The most notable difference is the use of the first person singular in reference to the active client instead of a higher demonic figure, whereas the Akkadian incantation employs the second person. This is prominent in the beginning of Aramaic demon stories where with the help of higher beings the active demon fights antagonists of all kinds, such as demons, slander, evil eye, diseases, and so on--see below M145; AMB amulet 15, bowl 12a, b; Muller-Kessler 1996; 1999a; 2002a; 2002b. In contrast stands the curse type that prefers to employ the impersonal address (see below M102, CBS 2971 = AIT 28; BM 91771, YBC 2393, VA 2492 in Muller-Kessler forthcoming). Such Aramaic historiolas are still in the minority in comparison to the stereotyped incantation where simple accounts of evil entities to be warded off with the help of higher beings, gods, and their gnostic representatives are listed. The Mandaic incantations show many different types of such stories, and some were translated into neighboring Aramaic dialects, among them Babylonian Jewish Aramaic and what is now termed koine Babylonian Aramaic. Even when translated there remained isoglosses and phrases which are so specifically Mandaic that they are recognizable in whatever script and dialect they appear. Often such orthographic hints are misunderstood and then emended by modern editors who have not been trained in the eastern dialectology of Babylonia (see below M145, M102, Muller-Kessler 1999a; 2001b; 2002a; Ford 2002b).