reconsidering 'christian'

281 Pages·2017·4.75 MB·English

by  Nils Hallvard Korsvoll

RECONSIDERING ‘CHRISTIAN’
Context and Categorisation
in the Study of Syriac Amulets and Incantation Bowls

Nils Hallvard Korsvoll

Dissertation presented for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor

Supervisor: Liv Ingeborg Lied

MF Norwegian School of Theology

2017
ABSTRACT

Reconsidering ‘Christian:’ Context and Categorisation in the Study of Syriac Amulets and
Incantation Bowls

Nils H. Korsvoll
MF Norwegian School of Theology 2017

For over a hundred years scholars have debated, inconclusively, whether the Syriac amulets
and incantation bowls from Sasanian Mesopotamia belong to a Christian, or any other cultural
or religious, tradition. This dissertation addresses the four elements in these Syriac apotropaic
devices that modern scholarship has suggested are traces of Christianity, but, instead of
emphasising or trying to trace their origin or religious identity, I analyse the possibly
Christian elements according to their use and function. My approach introduces recent
insights and perspectives from research on late antique Jewish and Greco-Egyptian amulets
into the study of the Syriac apotropaic devices. Moreover, this thesis is the first investigation
of the biblical references, the invocations of Jesus, the liturgical formulae and the different
cross-motifs that includes all instances of the elements from all published Syriac amulets and
incantation bowls.
My analysis consists of a structural comparison of the use and function of the possibly
Christian elements, first with other, comparable elements in the Syriac apotropaic devices
themselves, then in the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA) incantation bowls and Greco-
Egyptian amulets, and finally in other sources and genres across Late Antiquity. The aim of
this analysis is twofold: First, I wish to refine and possibly reorient the understanding and
discussion of the context(s) of the Syriac bowls and amulets, and second I assess whether
‘Christian’ is a relevant analytical and/or descriptive category in the study of these Syriac
apotropaic devices.
Concerning the context of the Syriac apotropaic devices, I find that the four possibly
Christian elements seem to engage with a wider, shared universe of salient figures and topic-
clusters, which encompasses, but is not restricted to, Christian tradition and teaching.
Consequently, I conclude that ‘Christian’ is not a useful analytical category when studying
this material, but it may be a relevant descriptive category in certain respects for some of the
artefacts. This revision of the study of Syriac amulets and incantation bowls presents a more
nuanced picture of the apotropaic devices and their interaction with contemporary culture and
phenomena, which in turn contributes to the expanding knowledge of late Sasanian
Mesopotamia and early Syriac traditions.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ i
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
1 Reviewing Analytical Categories and Contextualisation ........................................................ 1
1.1 The Corpus: Incantation Bowls and Amulets .................................................................. 5
1.1.1 ‘Apotropaic Devices’ ................................................................................................ 8
1.1.2 Provenance and Forgeries ......................................................................................... 9
1.1.3 Medieval and Early Modern Amulets ..................................................................... 11
1.2 Theoretical Perspectives: Comparison and Categorisation ............................................ 11
1.3 Method: Structural Analysis ........................................................................................... 15
1.3.1 Outline and Approach ............................................................................................. 18
1.3.2 Editions, Translation and Transliteration ................................................................ 21
1.4 Summary of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 23
2 Survey of Scholarship ........................................................................................................... 29
2.1 Dating and Physical Features ......................................................................................... 30
2.1.1 Typology and Ware ................................................................................................. 32
2.1.2 Archaeological Context ........................................................................................... 34
2.2 Use and Production ........................................................................................................ 35
2.2.1 Content .................................................................................................................... 37
2.2.2 Performance ............................................................................................................ 39
2.2.3 Production ............................................................................................................... 40
2.2.4 Practitioners ............................................................................................................. 40
2.2.5 Clients ...................................................................................................................... 43
2.3 Language ........................................................................................................................ 45
2.3.1 Script ....................................................................................................................... 46
2.3.2 Layout ...................................................................................................................... 48
2.4 Summary and Outlook ................................................................................................... 49
3 Biblical References ............................................................................................................... 51
3.1 The Use of Biblical Text and References ....................................................................... 53
3.1.1 Biblical Material in Late Antique Apotropaic Practice ........................................... 55
3.1.2 Biblical References in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ........................................... 57
3.1.3 Other Narrative Material in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ................................... 68
3.1.4 Main Observations .................................................................................................. 75
3.2 The Function of Biblical Text and References ............................................................... 75
i
3.2.1 Reconsidering Biblical ............................................................................................ 77
3.2.2 Reconsidering Bible ................................................................................................ 79
3.2.3 Bible Reconsidered: Authoritative Discourse of Precedent .................................... 82
3.2.4 Summary and Outlook ............................................................................................ 85
4 Invoking Jesus ....................................................................................................................... 87
4.1 The Role of Invocations ................................................................................................. 90
4.1.1 Invoking Jesus in JBA Bowls and Greco-Egyptian Amulets .................................. 93
4.1.2 Invocations of Jesus in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices .......................................... 98
4.1.3 Other Invocations in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ............................................ 105
4.1.4 Main Observations ................................................................................................ 125
4.2 The Function of Invocations ........................................................................................ 126
4.2.1 Jesus as Healer and Exorcist ................................................................................. 127
4.2.2 Three Approaches to Invocations .......................................................................... 130
4.2.3 Invoking Jesus in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ................................................. 132
4.2.4 Summary and Outlook .......................................................................................... 134
5 Liturgical Formulae ............................................................................................................. 137
5.1 The Role of Formulae .................................................................................................. 140
5.1.1 Liturgy in the JBA Bowls and the Greco-Egyptian Amulets ................................ 141
5.1.2 Proposed Liturgical Formulae in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ......................... 144
5.1.3 Other Formulae in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ............................................... 157
5.1.4 Main Observations ................................................................................................ 161
5.2 The Function of Formulae ............................................................................................ 162
5.2.1 Variation and Flexibility ....................................................................................... 163
5.2.2 Reconsidering Liturgical ....................................................................................... 166
5.2.3 Formulaicity .......................................................................................................... 168
5.2.4 Summary and Outlook .......................................................................................... 171
6 The Cross and Iconography ................................................................................................. 175
6.1 The Role of Drawings and Symbols ............................................................................ 179
6.1.1 Drawings and Iconography in Late Antique Apotropaic Devices ........................ 180
6.1.2 Crosses in the Syriac Apotropaic Devices ............................................................ 184
6.1.3 Other Symbols and Motifs .................................................................................... 199
6.1.4 Main Observations ................................................................................................ 204
6.2 The Function of Drawings and Symbols ...................................................................... 206
6.2.1 Iconographic Tiers ................................................................................................. 207
6.2.2 Textual Versus Visual Expression ........................................................................ 209
6.2.3 Scribal Practice ...................................................................................................... 211
6.2.4 Summary and Outlook .......................................................................................... 214
ii
7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 217
7.1 Contextualising by New Criteria .................................................................................. 219
7.2 ‘Christian’ Reconsidered .............................................................................................. 223
7.2.1 Christian as Analytical Category ........................................................................... 224
7.2.2 Christian as Descriptive Category ......................................................................... 226
7.3 Suggestions for Further Research ................................................................................ 228
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 231
Appendix I .............................................................................................................................. 262
Appendix II ............................................................................................................................ 264

iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: VK 5738:3. Photographer: Markku Haverinen. 6
Courtesy of the National Museum of Finland
Figure 2: BnF Syr 400/1. Courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France 7
Figure 3: Map of Mesopotamia. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31
Web. 31 May. 2017. <https://www.britannica.com/place/Mesopotamia-
historical-region-Asia?oasmId=2341>
Figure 4: Lamellae from Luristan. 33
Courtesy of the Belgian Archaeological Mission to Iran
Figure 5: Incantation bowls at Nippur. 35
From Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, 448
Figure 6: BM 91736. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum 182
Figure 7: CBS 9012. Courtesy of the Penn Museum, image no. 228557 185
Figure 8: AO 207964-O. Photographer: Donald E. Hurlbert. 187
Courtesy of the Department of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution
Figure 9: BM 117882. Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum 188
Figure 10: VK 5738:3. Photographer: Markku Haverinen. 190
Courtesy of the National Museum of Finland
Figure 11: CBS 8826. Courtesy of the Penn Museum, image no. 228560 193
Figure 12: BnF Syr 400/2. Courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France 195
Figure 13: BLMJ 0070. Photographers: A. Amar and M. Greyevsky. 196
Courtesy of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem

iv
List of Abbreviations
AfR Archiv für Religionsgeschichte
ASE Annali di storia dell’esegesi
BASP The Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists
BN Biblische Notizen
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
Byzantion Byzantion: revue internationale des études byzantines
CSCO Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium
Hugoye Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IJS IJS Studies in Judaica
JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSAI Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism
JSRC Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly
JTS Journal of Theological Studies N.S.
LNTS Library of New Testament Studies
Mesopotamia Mesopotamia: rivista di archaeologia, epigrafia e storia
MRLA Magical and Religious Literature of Late Antiquity
Muséon Le Muséon: revue d’études orientales
NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires
OCP Orientalia christiana periodica
OrChrAn Orientalia christiana analecta
Philippika Philippika: Altertumswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen
REJ Revue des études juives
RGRW Religions in the Graeco-Roman World
STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum
StudOr Studia orientalia
TENTS Texts and Editions for New Testament Study
TSAJ Texte und Studien zum Antike Judentum
TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

v
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I want to thank Liv Ingeborg Lied for supervision and support above and
beyond the call of duty. Thank you for your guidance, your encouragement and for always
treating me as a colleague and equal.
I am grateful to Joseph E. Sanzo and Nicholas A. Marshall for reading a full draft of
this dissertation and providing valuable feedback to help me focus my argument and sharpen
the precision of my discussion. My thanks and gratitude are also due to David Frankfurter and
Marco Moriggi for their consideration of my project at an early stage and valuable advice on
how to pursue my questions, and to Moriggi for further help and suggestions along the way. I
must also thank Line Bonde for her aid in my foray into art historical theory and review of
chapter 6, and Anna-Liisa Tolonen for her comments on my introduction and our continuous
exchange of ideas and literature on method and theory. I have also greatly appreciated the
suggestions and encouragement offered by Erica C. D. Hunter and Hugo Lundhaug during
this period. Needless to say, any mistakes are my own.
My academic outlook and sensibilities have been shaped by my fellows and teachers
in the Religious Roots of Europe MA-programme, and I am thankful that we continue our
Nordic community of students of Late Antiquity. I have also benefitted greatly from my
colleagues at the Oslo Society for the Study of Early Christianity. I am humbled by the warm
welcome I have received among Syriac scholars, whether studying under George Kiraz at the
Polis Institute at Jerusalem or at the World Syriac Conference at SEERI. Thanks also to the
Oslo Syriac Society for our weekly meetings to read Syriac texts and manuscripts.
My sincere gratitude goes to the MF Norwegian School of Theology for this
opportunity to research late antique Syriac amulets and incantation bowls. Thank you to all
my colleagues and PhD-fellows for discussion, and diversion, and also to the library staff who
have been ordering me books from all over Europe without complaint.
A special note of thanks goes to Hilde Brekke Møller for her advice and guidance in
this process, and to Anna-Liisa Tolonen for helping me maintain my interest and motivation
by generously sharing her knowledge, ideas, enthusiasm and curiosity.
Finally, I am thankful to my friends and family for their tolerance and support
throughout this project, and I am encouraged by the fact that several by now actually know
what my thesis is about.
Nils H. Korsvoll
Oslo, May 2017

vi
1 Reviewing Analytical Categories and Contextualisation
Syriac amulets and incantation bowls from Late Antiquity have puzzled scholars for over a
century. While Syriac grew to regional prominence through the prestige of its native city
Edessa as a Christian centre,1 the Syriac bowls and amulets contain very little Christian
material.2 Instead, in the first comprehensive study of this material, James A. Montgomery
described the incantation bowls, in a tone perhaps deemed more appropriate in 1913, as the
“degenerate survival of the religious and magical developments of ancient Egypt and
Babylonia, of the Hellenistic world, of Judaism.”3 Indeed, both Syriac and other apotropaic
bowls and amulets from Sasanian Mesopotamia include Jewish angelology and divine names,
Babylonian deities and astrology,4 Hellenistic apotropaic traditions5 and Zoroastrian demons,6
as well as traces of Arabic onomastics and linguistics.7 Attempts at establishing their

1 There are some profane Syriac inscriptions, but the vast majority of Syriac sources from the period are closely
tied with Christianity and the Church (Joseph Naveh, “A Syriac Amulet on Leather,” JSS 17 [1997]: 33).
2 See for instance Jacob N. Epstein, “Gloses babylo-araméennes,” REJ 74 (1922): 41; Hannu Juusola, “Who
Wrote the Syriac Incantation Bowls?” StudOr 85 (Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society, 1999), 76; Christa Müller-
Kessler, “Of Jesus, Darius, Marduk …: Aramaic Magic Bowls in the Moussaieff Collection,” JAOS 125 (2005):
220.
3 James A. Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur, vol. 3 in Publications of the Babylonian
Section (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1913), 68. See also Shaul Shaked, “Jews, Christians and Pagans
in the Aramaic Incantation Bowls of the Sasanian Period,” in Religions and Cultures: First International
Conference of Mediterraneum, ed. Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce, Academic Studies in Religion and the
Social Order (Binghampton, NY: Global Publications, 2002), 61-89; Erica C. D. Hunter, “Combat and Conflict
in Incantation Bowls: Studies on Two Aramaic Specimens from Nippur,” in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and
New Approaches: Papers Delivered at the London Conference of the Institute of Jewish Studies, University
College London, 26th-28th June 1991, ed. M. J. Geller, J. C. Greenfield and M. P. Weitzman, vol. 4 in the
Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 61-75; Joseph Naveh and Shaul
Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press,
1985), 13.
4 See for instance Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 230; Gaby Abousamra, “Coupe de prière syriaque
chrétienne,” Parole de l'orient 35 (2010): 28; Christa Müller-Kessler, “Aramäische Koine - Ein
Beschwörungsformular aus Mesopotamien,” Baghdader Mitteilungen 29 (1998): 331-333; idem, Die
Zauberschalentexte in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, Jena, und weitere Nippur-Texte anderer Sammlungen, vol. 7 in
Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005), 105.
5 Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 8; Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, 18. There are even
a few bilingual amulets from Late Antiquity with Greek and Aramaic or Hebrew, see for instance Roy Kotansky,
Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, “A Greek-Aramaic Silver Amulet From Egypt in the Ashmolean Museum,”
Muséon 105 (1992): 5-24; Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, 101-104; Marco Moriggi, “Una lamina
bilingue dal Medagliere Capitolino: considerazioni sul testo ebraico,” Bullettino della Commissione
Archeologica Comunale di Roma 107 (2006): 163-170; Roy Kotansky, “An Inscribed Copper Amulet from
ʿEvron,” ʿAtiqot 20 (1991): 81-87.
6 Shaul Shaked, “Popular Religion in Sasanian Babylonia,” JSAI 21 (1997): 103; idem, “Bagdāna, King of the
Demons, and Other Iranian Terms in Babylonian Aramaic Magic,” in Hommages et opera minora 11: Papers in
Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, vol. 25 in Acta Iranica (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985), 511-525. In addition, many
of the client names are Iranian (see section 2.2.5), and, moreover, the exterior caption on two Syriac bowls is
written in Pahlavi (idem, “Manichean Incantation Bowls in Syriac,” JSAI 24 [2000]: 64-65).
7 J. B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London: British
Museum Press, 2000), 22; Shaul Shaked, “Form and Purpose in Aramaic Spells: Some Jewish Themes (The
1
background and context are also frustrated by the absence of references to these bowls and
amulets in historical sources,8 as well as a lack of archaeological information as most have
been acquired through the antiquities market.9 Nonetheless, scholars still find enough
invocations, references and liturgical phrases typical for the respective traditions to agree that
the so-called Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (JBA)10 incantation bowls belong to a Jewish
context and those written in Mandaic11 are of Mandaic origin.12 In contrast, the Syriac amulets

Poetics of Magic Texts),” Officina Magica: Essays on the Practice of Magic in Antiquity, ed. Shaul Shaked, vol.
4 in IJS (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 4 n. 15. In fact, John Punnett Peters writes in the excavation report from Nippur
that they also found bowls with Arabic script, but that no such Arabic bowls were among those sent back to the
University of Pennsylvania (Nippur: Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates: The Narrative of the
University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888-1890 II [London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons,
1897], 184). Consequently, scholarship on these amulets and incantation bowls has for a long time noted the lack
of Arabic influence as one of the significant traits of the Mesopotamian apotropaic devices from Late Antiquity,
see for instance Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts, 105; Victor P. Hamilton, “Syriac Incantation Bowls”
(Ph.D. Dissertation, Brandeis University, Ann Arbor, 1971), 20.
8 Contemporary documents and texts only include very general descriptions of apotropaic practices, and there is
very little of this that compares with what one sees in the artefacts themselves. See for instance Gideon Bohak,
Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 420-421; Michael G.
Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, in the Princeton Studies on the Near East (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1984), 416-418; Maria Gorea, “Coupes magiques syriaques et manichéennes en provenance de
Mésopotamie,” in Les inscriptions syriaques, ed. Francoise Briquel Chatonnet, Muriel Debié and Alain
Desreumaux, vol. 1 in Études Syriaques (Paris: Geuthner, 2004), 111; Richard Gordon, “Memory and Authority
in the Magical Papyri,” in Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World, ed. Beate Dignas and R.R.R.
Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 146-147.
9 See for instance Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 115; Hamilton, “Syriac Incantation Bowls” 11; Roberta Venco
Ricciardi, “Trial Trench at Tell Baruda (Choche),” Mesopotamia 8/9 (1973/1974): 19-20. The archaeological
sites where incantation bowls have been found are Babylon, Borsippa, Kish, Nippur, Uruk and Susa (Christa
Müller-Kessler, “The Use of Biblical Quotations in Jewish Aramaic Incantation Bowls,” in Studies on Magic
and Divination in the Biblical World, ed. Helen R. Jacobus, Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme and Philippe
Guillaume, vol. 11 in Biblical Intersections [Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013], 227).
10 JBA uses the square script and is found only in the Mesopotamian incantation bowls. It has no direct literary
parallels, but many scholars point to the Babylonian Talmud as its closest literary parallel. See for instance
Hannu Juusola, Linguistic Peculiarities in the Aramaic Magic Bowl Texts, vol. 86 in StudOr (Helsinki: Finnish
Oriental Society, 1999), 250; Christa Müller-Kessler, “Die Stellung des Koine-Babylonisch-Aramäischen auf
Zauberschalen innerhalb des Ostaramäischen,” Neue Beiträge zur Semistik. Erstes Arbeitstreffen der
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft vom 11. bis 13. September 2000
an der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, ed. Norbert Nebes, vol. 5 in Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002), 97. Still, Matthew Morgenstern warns against making too much of this
comparison since “the Talmud survives only in later manuscripts, of which only a small number may be
regarded as linguistically reliable” (in Shaul Shaked, James Nathan Ford and Siam Bhayro, Aramaic Bowl
Spells: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls 1, vol. 1 in MRLA [Leiden: Brill, 2013], 39). Shaul Shaked,
commenting on the linguistic differences between the contemporaneous Talmud and JBA bowls, suggests that
“the Talmudic literature represents an informal colloquial language of discourse, while the magic formulae are
more archaic and more formulaic,” although “neither language is entirely colloquial or, for that matter, purely
literary” (“Rabbis in Incantation Bowls,” in The Archaeology and Material Culture of the Babylonian Talmud,
ed. Markham J. Geller, vol. 16 in IJS [Leiden: Brill, 2015], 98).
11 The Mandeans are a religious group originating from central Mesopotamia, and Mandaic is an Eastern
Aramaic dialect similar to both Syriac and JBA but written in its own script. The Mandean religion is described
as “syncretistic, gnostic, and baptistic,” and there are still small Mandaic communities today. Their earliest
manuscripts date back to the Middle Ages, so the Mandaic amulets and incantation bowls are the oldest
examples of the Mandaic script and linguistics (Edwin M. Yamauchi, Mandaic Incantation Texts, vol. 49 in
American Oriental Series [New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1967], 1-2; Shaked, Ford and Bhayro,
Aramaic Bowl Spells, 6, n. 23). For more on the Mandean religion traditionally and in the modern era, see for
instance Jorunn J. Buckley, The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People (Oxford: Oxford University
2