Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script:

A Forgotten Chapter in Near-Eastern Magic

Matthew Morgenstern and Tom Alfia, Haifa1

1. Introduction: The Late Mandaic Spell Formularies

In 1943, Lady Ethel Drower published extracts from several magic “recipe books”
that served the writers of amulets in Baghdad in the early 20th century, in particular
from two manuscripts in her possession, DC 45 and DC 46.2 While Drower,
following her native informants, entitled the work ‘A Mandæan Book of Black
Magic’, the manuscripts themselves contain a wide range of formulae for amulets
and talismans for various purposes, as Drower herself was well aware. Alongside
spells for healing, protection and success, we find others for enflaming love or
stirring up enmity.3 The manuscripts themselves appear to have been copied in the
late 19th or early 20th centuries; in particular, DC 46, a substantial codex of 264
sides, is written on an extremely modern “clean” paper. DC 45 is written on a
rougher paper and appears to be somewhat earlier. It is also more fragmentary, and
contains several leaves that were copied by a different hand and inserted into the
main part of the manuscript at a later date, though it is clear from their contents that
they were intended to replace pages that had been worn or damaged, as they begin
and end exactly as required by the preceding and following pages. As it survives
today, DC 45 is also considerably shorter than DC 46; however, it also contains
several spells that are not found in DC 46.

1 This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant No. 38/10 (Matthew
Morgenstern, PI) and a research grant provided by the Research Institute of the University of
Haifa (Tom Alfia, RA). The following conventions are employed: written Mandaean sources
are cited in Mandaic script, followed by a letter-for-letter transliteration into Roman script. We
have reluctantly followed Macuch’s system of transliteration and employed Roman a for the
Mandaic halqa sign # and ‚ for Mandaic ‫ע‬, while Arabic ! is presented with the ʕ sign. In
contrast to Macuch, we have not distinguished between u and w in our transcription of Mandaic
‫ו‬. Mandaic $ is represented by ñ. Since Mandaic ‫ פ‬always represents ‫ ف‬in the Arabic texts, we
have exceptionally transliterated it with f in most places in this article. The English renderings
of the Qurƒān are mostly taken from Pickthall’s classic translation of 1930.
2 Drower, ‘Black Magic’.
3 See her list of contents on p. 50. On the close connection between love magic and spells for
sowing enmity between people, see Saar, Jewish Love Magic, pp. 212-214.
156 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

Comparison of the two manuscripts reveals that while they share some parallel
“units” of spells that are apparently drawn from a common source, on the wider
scale they are not exactly parallel, but rather represent independent collections of
magic materials. Furthermore, both manuscripts contain examples of a single spell
that appears in more than one place in the manuscript, implying that the collections
were built up over a period of time. Accordingly, it is perhaps inaccurate to refer to a
“book” in the singular, but rather the manuscripts should be regarded as remnants of
several collections containing similar but not always identical materials. Non-
etheless, the presentation of the spells is similar in both manuscripts: after the magic
formula, the scribe marks the end of the unit with the Mandaic #_‫( ס‬s—a). Another
#_‫( ס‬s—a) sometimes follows, after which the purpose of the spell and the manner
of its use is presented (we shall refer to these here as “rubrics”).4 In some cases there
is a clear correlation between the rubric and the content of the spell itself; for
example, the rubric indicates that the spell is intended to stem of a flow of blood,
while the spell itself refers to a battle against blood.
This distinction between the spells and the “rubrics” is also significant for
understanding the date of these collections. While many of the Mandaic magical
formulae appear to be of ancient origin and represent recent copies of magic texts
that were apparently composed in Classical Mandaic, the language of the rubrics is
distinctly late. The vast majority of the post-Classical Mandaic words cited from
these manuscripts in Drower and Macuch’s Mandaic Dictionary (MD) are drawn
from the “rubrics”, e.g. #‫( בוט‬buŃa) “bottom” (MD 54, DC 46. 58:14) = NM būŃa.5
An exception is the collection marked #‫יו‬#‫ד‬$ #‫ב‬#‫( ב‬baba ñ-daiua), a series of
‫( קובליא‬qublia) i.e. counter-charms which Drower proposed were based upon an
Arabic model and frequently contain later language, e.g. #‫( כיריחו‬kirihua)
“immediately” (MD 215), also found in the “rubrics”. Other late Mandaic words
found in DC 46 are not recorded in MD, e.g. #‫שת‬#‫( טונ‬Ńunašta) “breakfast” (DC
46. 8:7)= NM Ńonaštā. ‫מכיא‬#‫( ח‬hamkia) “like” (MD 123) is recorded in MD only
on the basis of the Leiden Glossarium, a multi-lingual dictionary of Neo-Mandaic
composed in southern Iraq in the 17th Century.6 However, the word is also found in
DC 46 (62:1) in a baba ñ-daiua text.

4 The order of [incantation]-[title]-[directions for use] is unusual. In most Jewish magic recipe
books, the order is [title]-[directions for use]-[incantation], while demotic rꜢ (incantation)
formularies generally follow the order [title]-[incantation]-[directions for use]. On the latter see
Dieleman, ‘Scribal Practices’, 101. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr. Dieleman for
making his unpublished study available to us.
5 Macuch, Chrestomathie, p. 205, “Hintern, Anus”. See also Mutzafi and Morgenstern, ‘Nejm’s
Glossary’, end of §2, where further examples are adduced. As noted there, some of the entries
are explicitly marked in MD as Mod.[ern] Mand.[aic], e.g. ‫( בייא‬biia) “egg”, MD p. 60 (citing
DC 46. 30:1).
6 On the origins of this work see Borghero, ‘Glossary’ and Borghero, ‘Linguistic Features’.
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 157

The structure of the Mandaic spell formularies may easily explain the linguistic
difference between the rubrics and the spells themselves. While the often esoteric
spells could be copied by the scribes without any understanding of their content, the
more prosaic rubrics had to be comprehensible to the practitioner.7 Furthermore, the
spells often refer to the supernatural realms and employ cosmological and
demonological terminology found in the Babylonian Aramaic magic tradition of the
Sassanian period and in particular in the Mandaic texts, alongside the specifically
Mandaean religious terminology found the classic religious corpus. The vocabulary
of the spells thus tends to be fairly conservative, since it draws upon the formulae of
earlier generations. By contrast, the rubrics, which deal with aspects of daily life,
tend to employ vocabulary that is more innovative in its content.
As has been discussed elsewhere, the presently available evidence suggests that
Mandaic remained a spoken language in Iraq until the late 19th and perhaps early
20th centuries, though it had apparently died out in those areas by the time Lady
Drower reached Iraq in the 1920s, or was only spoken by very elderly individuals.8
Today it remains spoken on a community level only in Ahvāz in Khuzestān
(southern Iran), and is in imminent danger of extinction.9 In light of the correlation
between many of post-classical lexemes found in the language of the rubrics and the
Neo-Mandaic dialects that were spoken during the 20th century and are known to
use from scholarly studies, it is reasonable to assume that many of the late lexemes
in the rubrics are drawn from some type of spoken Mandaic (or perhaps from several
dialects). Moreover, some of the forms are not attested in the contemporary dialects,
but may be assumed to reflect genuine Neo-Mandaic structures drawn from a dialect
that is now extinct.10 For example, in DC 46. 36:11 we read #‫ן מן זיקנ‬#‫וזימת‬
#‫ זאמוט‬#‫בר‬#‫ג‬$ (uzimtan mn ziqna ñ-gabra zamuŃa) “and hairs of the beard of a
hairy (?) man”. The noun ‫ן‬#‫( זימת‬zimtan) “hairs” bears the Neo-Mandaic plural
morpheme -ān,11 but this specific plural form is not found with this noun in the
living dialects.12 The lexeme #‫( זאמוט‬zamuŃa) is not attested elsewhere, and it is not

7 We may compare the contrast between the Judeo-Arabic rubrics and the Aramaic-language
spells in Jewish magic spells from the Cairo Genizah, e.g. Cambridge T-S K 1.15, published in
Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells, pp. 147-52.
8 Mutzafi and Morgenstern, ‘Nejm’s Glossary’. Häberl, Khorramshahr, p. 36, has noted that the
Neo-Mandaic correspondence published by de Morgan in 1904 originated in Baghdad, though
as he as pointed out, many of the Mandaean families living in the Ottoman Empire originated
from Khuzestān.
9 Häberl, Khorramshahr, p. 8.
10 Compare also Mutzafi and Morgenstern, ‘Nejm’s Glossary’, end of §2 on the verbal root
Y-T-M “sit”.
11 On the origin of this morpheme, see Morgenstern, ‘Diachronic Studies’, §3.2.
12 The form is not recorded in MD p. 167 s.v. zimta, but is cited in MD 159 s.v. zamuŃa, where it
is correctly translated as plural.
158 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

known to living informants and its meaning is uncertain.13 The rubrics thus represent
some of the latest literary endeavours by native speakers of Mandaic, and may serve
as a rich source of Neo-Mandaic usage in the period just prior to the extinction of
many of the dialects.
The existence of Arabic spells in these collections was noted laconically in two
short lines in Drower’s article on the manuscripts: “Many of the talismans in the
collection are in Arabic phonetically transliterated into Mandaic script. These I have
not translated.”14 The extent to which Drower examined or attempted to interpret the
Arabic materials is unclear. Certainly, no parts of the Arabic material were ever
published, but there appears to be one reference to them in the MD: “anšil 2 (Ar.
‫ )ا‬Gospel. DC 46 in an Ar. talisman in Mand. letters.”15
As part of a more comprehensive survey of late collections of Mandaic spells in
the framework of the research project Materials for a New Dictionary of Mandaic,
the first-named author has been engaged in an intensive investigation of the
language of these manuscripts. However, it rapidly became apparent that the scope
of the Arabic materials demanded a separate study, which has been undertaken
jointly with second-named author. In what follows, we present a general overview of
the Arabic spells in DC 45 and DC 46, and illustrate the phenomena with
representative examples. A full publication of the materials is now in preparation.

2. Arabic in Mandaic Characters

Whatever the origin of the Mandaic script may be,16 already in its earliest attested
sources it no longer has letters to indicate the Semitic pharyngeals ỏ and ʕ.
Following the shift of the phoneme ỏ to h, the historical letter for ỏ, i.e. ‫ח‬
, was
employed to represent the phoneme h (<*h/*ỏ), while the historical letter for h ‫ה‬
survived only as the grapheme for the 3s. pronominal suffix -ih.17 While it is also
apparent that the historical phonemes ʕ and the glottal stop ʔ merged, it is unclear at
what stage in the language they were elided totally. In early texts, the historical ʕ
grapheme ‫ ע‬is used to indicate an i/e vowel or at the start of words to indicate a stop
before the vowels u/o/i,18 while the historical ʔ grapheme # is used to indicate an a/ā

13 Hezy Mutzafi, personal communication.

14 Drower, ‘Black Magic’, p. 149.
15 Drower-Macuch, MD, p 27.
16 For two opposing views, see Häberl, ‘Iranian Scripts’ and Burtea, ‘Entstehung’, both with
previous bibliography.
17 The shift of the pharyngeals to laryngeals was widespread in central and southern Babylonia,
and was not specific to Mandaic. See Morgenstern, ‘Points of Contact’.
18 Exceptional is the historical spelling #‫( מנדע‬mnd‚a), which appears quite frequently in the
early magic texts, wherein the ‫ )‚( ע‬grapheme reflects the historical ʕ of this word.
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 159

vowel.19 However, already in the early magic corpus, there is some interchange
between the ‫ )‚( ע‬and # (a) graphemes.20
The loss of the pharyngeals in the Mandaic language and the use of their
historical graphemes for other purposes had the result that when they did encounter
Semitic words that contained the pharyngeals, the Mandaeans initially had no way of
reflecting those phonemes in writing. Once again, the epigraphic magic texts provide
the earliest evidence for this phenomenon. Many of the Mandaic magic bowls from
Rassam’s excavations of Kutha (Tell Ibrahim) now held by the British Museum
were written for a client named ‫ן בר מישויא‬#‫( אבדרחמ‬abdrhman br mišoia).21
The same individual also seems to have a Persian name, Ābān Gušnasp, in BM
117872:3.22 Whether the bowls were written in the pre-Islamic period or early
Islamic period is uncertain,23 but the client’s Semitic name clearly reflects the Arabic

‫  ا‬ʕabdu-r-raỏmān. However, at this stage the Mandaic script had no
manner of indicating the pharyngeal consonants, and so the pharyngeal ʕ was not
written while the ỏ was written with the grapheme that now represented h.
It is unclear when a system of additional signs was introduced to the Mandaic
script to represent a wider range of phonemes found in the language with the
adoption of many new words, especially from Arabic. Nöldeke noted that in addition
to the borrowing of the Arabic letter ʕayn ‫ع‬, several diacritical points are employed
in manuscripts from the 16th-17th centuries. In particular, Mandaic ‫( ש‬šҾ) marked
with diacritical points may represent Arabic and Persian ğ or č, ‫( ח‬hҾ) was employed
for ỏ, and rarely ‫( כ‬kҾ) was used for ố, since the historically post-vocalic allophone of
Mandaic k was pronounced like Arabic ố. Similarly, Borghero has provided a
detailed account of the use of the diacritical marks in the Leiden Glossarium, which
employs superlinear dots with the Mandaic '‫( צ‬ṩ) for Arabic ỗ, '‫( ט‬t)̣̇ for Arabic δ̣. It
also employs diacritical points to mark the fricative pronunciation of the bgdkt
letters, whose historically post-vocalic allophones were pronounced like some of the
phonemes that had been preserved in Arabic: '‫( ג‬ā) for ā, '‫( ד‬dሶ) for dӈ, '‫( כ‬kሶ) for ố
and '‫( ת‬tሶ) for tӈ.24 In theory, this system would provide for a reasonably accurate
transcription of a formal pronunciation of Arabic. The practice, however, was
somewhat different for several reasons.

19 The description provided here is necessarily simplistic; a more detailed account of the use of
these graphemes may be found in Nöldeke, MG, §3-7; Macuch, HCMM, §8-10.
20 Such interchanges in both magic bowl texts and in classical Mandaic manuscripts. See
Nöldeke, MG, §16 (end). Macuch, HCMM, §68, notes that in modern times, both ‫ת‬#‫אמר‬
(amrat) and ‫ת‬#‫‚( עמר‬mrat) “she said” are pronounced emrat.
21 See Segal, Catalogue, p. 103. These texts have been subject to considerable correction in Ford,
‘Review’ and Müller-Kessler, ‘Die Zauberschalensammlung’.
22 Following the reading of Ford and Müller-Kessler.
23 The clay magic bowls appear to date from around the 5th to 7th centuries.
24 Borghero, ‘Linguistic Features’, pp. 68–73; on p. 73, Borghero notes that Mandaic ‫( פ‬p) is
never marked with a diacritic.
160 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

First, since Mandaic orthography is generally plene, it makes no distinction

between long and short vowels. Secondly, the diacritical points were widely omitted
in the process of writing or copying, and so many homographs were created. Indeed,
with the exception of the Glossarium, which was presumably composed to serve a
didactic purpose for people whose native language was not Mandaic, most of the
manuscripts scarcely employ the diacritics at all. Moreover, as we shall see below,
even more than the Glossarium, the transcription system employed by native
speakers was guided by phonetic similarity and did not adhere rigidly to the
classicizing distinctions mentioned above. The native scribes do not follow classical
Arabic in distinguishing between ỗ and δ̣, which in the dialects have merged into a
single phoneme, nor do they generally follow the Arabic orthography of recording
the single phoneme with either a ‫( צ‬ś) or a ‫( ט‬Ń) with a superlinear diacritical point.
Instead they tend to use the ‫( ד‬d) with a sublinear diacritic for loan-words in a
Mandaic context, e.g. the personal name fayyāδ̣ (‫ ض‬in its Eastern Arabic
pronunciation) is written (DC 12. 238) ‫יאד‬#‫( פ‬faiadҾ). 25
For these reasons, the Mandaic orthography does not distinguish for example
between ‫ר‬#‫( אכב‬akbar) Ar. َ ‫“ َا ْآ‬greater, greatest” and ‫ר‬#‫( אכב‬akbar) Ar. ‫ َر‬ ْ ‫َا‬
“news”, while the widespread omission of the diacritical points means that in effect,
the Mandaic ‫( ד‬d) sign may be used to represent at least four historical Arabic
phonemes: d, δ, d and δ̣. Furthermore, irrespective of the issue of the diacritics, the
transcription system is not always consistent. This lack of consistency, as well as the
many homographs (and numerous copying errors) render the interpretation of
loanwords in Mandaic literary documents challenging.
Nonetheless, evidence has recently come to light that Mandaeans would on
occasion employ the Mandaic alphabet to write Arabic for day-to-day purposes. Dr.
Charles Häberl has brought to our attention a series of letters sent to Lady Drower by
Mandaean contacts composed in vernacular Arabic and written in the Mandaic
script. These provide interesting evidence for the continued use of these transcription
systems into the 20th century.

3. The Arabic Magic Texts

We now return to the Arabic spells in DC 45 and DC 46. As we shall see below,
these texts appear to be Islamic magic formulae that were composed in literary
Arabic and incorporate materials from the Qurƒān and extracanonical ỏadith. Our
interpretation of the data leads us to the conclusion that during the involved process
of transferring these materials from their Arabic-script originals to Mandaic
transcription and their transmission by the Mandaean scribes, the texts were subject

25 As Borghero has shown (ibid., pp. 75–79), even the classicizing Glossarium contains anoma-
lous spellings that can be ascribed to phonetic causes. The loanwords in native texts are even
less classicizing in their forms and spellings.
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 161

to influences of the vernacular, secondary Mandaic editing and finally corruption at

the hands of scribes who did not understand their content. We shall illustrate these
phenomena with representative examples.

3.1 The Transcriptions26

3.1.1 Transcription Principles
With the exception of ʕ, which is almost always represented in our texts with the
Arabic ‫ ع‬and only rarely omitted, the Arabic phonemes that are not found in
Classical Mandaic are represented inconsistently. Only sporadic use is made of the
diacritical points mentioned above. The points are most commonly employed for
Arabic ỏ, e.g. ‫חול‬#‫ל‬ ֵ (lahҾul) ‫“ ل‬no power” (DC 46. 147:2)27 but even for ỏ they
are generally omitted, e.g. ‫חימ‬#‫ן לר‬#‫חמ‬#‫ח לר‬#‫( ביסימ אל‬bisim alah lrahman
lrahim)
‫( 
ا ا ا‬common). Moreover, word-final ‫( ח‬h) is sometimes
employed in the digraph ‫( אח‬ah) to indicate the tā marbūŃa e.g. ‫ח‬#‫מ‬#‫!אמ‬
(ʕamamah)  “a turban” (DC 46. 147:10).28 Diacritics are also employed very
rarely for the other phonemes, e.g. j: ‫( ל!אשוז‬lʕašҾuz) ‫“ از‬old woman” (DC 46.
150:3). However, in most cases the š and j are indistinguishable in the Mandaic
transcription, e.g. ‫ן‬#‫שד‬#‫שימ ולשישאר ס‬#‫נ‬#‫ן ול‬#‫בח‬#‫ר יאס‬#‫מ‬#‫לק‬#‫שאמיס ו‬
(šamis ualqamar iasabhan29 ulanašim ulšišar sašdan)
ُ ْ ! ‫ن وَا‬ ٍ َ$
ْ%ُ ِ ُ َ َ ْ ‫ وَا‬ُ ْ   ‫ا‬
‫ن‬
ِ ‫ ُ'َا‬
ْ (َ ُ َ  ‫“ وَا‬The sun and the moon are made punctual, the stars and the trees
adore” (DC 46. 156:1-3 = Q 55:5-6 [al-raỏmān]).
ā is simply represented by Mandaic ‫( ג‬g) without a diacritical point, e.g. ‫פור‬#‫ג‬
(gapur) ٌ‫ُر‬+, َ “forgiving” (DC 46. 43:15 = Q 3:31 [āl ‚imrān]),30 while ố is
represented by ‫( כ‬k) without a diacritic, and hence is not distinguishable from k, e.g
‫ן‬#‫ק על אנס‬#‫ל‬#‫פיף !אנכומ וכ‬#‫( אן ייכ‬an iikafif ʕankum ukalaq ‚l ansan)  َ  َ "ُ ‫أَن‬
‫ن‬
ُ َ+ِ,‫ ا‬# َ %ِ
ُ ‫“ َ) ُ('ْ َو‬that he make the burden light for you, for man was created” (DC
46. 29:2-3 = Q 4:28 [al-nisāƒ]).31 Arabic q is frequently represented by Mandaic ‫ק‬
[q], e.g. ‫מ‬#‫ל‬#‫( ולק‬ulqalam)
.‫وا‬, “and the pen” (DC 46. 27:5 and etc.), but under
the influence of the vernacular, it is also often transcribed phonetically as ‫( ג‬g), e.g.

26 A more detailed description of the orthography and dialectal influences lies beyond this over-
view and will be published elsewhere.
27 The parallel in DC 45 22b:8 reads ‫חול‬#‫( ול‬ulahul) without the diacritic.
28 On rare occasions, the digraph indicates word-final ā, e.g. ‫ח‬#‫ דחומ‬#‫פ‬#‫( ח‬hafa dhumah) َ/ُ 0 ُ +ْ 
ِ
“their preservation” (DC 46. 45:3 = Q 2:255 [al-baqara]).
29 Sic. The Qur’an text reads ‫ن‬
ٍ َ$
ْ%ُ ِ biỏusbānin.
30 Rare examples of ā represented by "‫( ג‬gሷ) with superlinear diacritical points are found in DC
26. 821: ‫ד‬#‫גד‬" #‫ב‬$ (ñbagሷdad) “of Baghdad” and ‫זיא‬#‫ג‬ " (gሷazia) “Āāzī (bin Fayśal, king of Iraq)”.
31 For ‫ק‬#‫ל‬#‫( וכ‬ukalaq), the parallel copy of this spell in DC 45. 10b:16 reads ‫ק‬#‫( ופיל‬ufilaq). For
the graphic interchange of ‫[ כ‬k] and ‫[ פ‬f] in Mandaic, see below, §3.2.
162 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

!‫( אנגיטי‬angiŃiʕ) ./0‫“ ا‬be cut off!” (DC 46. 27:6 etc.). Mandaic ‫( ג‬g) thus
represents both ‫ غ‬and ‫ ق‬of the Arabic source, but never etymologically related ‫ج‬.32
dӈ is usually transcribed with Mandaic ‫( ד‬d), #‫ד‬#‫( ח‬hada) ‫َا‬3‫“ َه‬this” (DC 46.
27:17 = Q 53:59 [al-najm], and common), and rarely by ‫( ז‬z) ‫זין‬#‫( אל‬alazin) (3‫ا‬
“who m.pl.” (DC 46. 159:3). There is a single example of ‫( ת‬t): #‫ת‬#‫( ו‬wata) ‫َوِإذَا‬
“when” (DC 46. 151:8 = Q 84:3 [al-inšiqāq]). tӈ is commonly represented with ‫( ת‬t),
with one exception, in which ‫( ד‬d) appears: ‫( יילביד‬iilbid) ‫ُا‬7$َ .ْ (َ “they had (but)
tarried” (DC 45. 10b:15 = Q 79:46 [al-nāzi‚āt]).33
ỗ and δ
, which have merged in the vernacular, are transcribed with ‫( ד‬d), ‫( ט‬Ń) or
‫( ז‬z), e.g. ‫רד‬#‫( פיאל‬fialard) ‫ض‬ِ ْ‫;ر‬
َ ‫“ =ِ< ا‬in the earth” (DC 46. 251:13 = Q 46:32 [al-
ƒaỏqaf] and many similar examples) but also ‫רט‬#‫( ל‬larŃ) ‫ض‬ ُ ْ‫;ر‬َ ‫“ ا‬the earth” (DC 46.
217:2 = Q 84:3 [al-inšiqāq], only example in this spelling). Diacritics are extremely
rare; #‫( ו!אליא למורתד‬uʕalia lmurtdҾa) >?@‫< ا‬.‫“ و‬and Ali ‘the Desired One’”
(DC 46. 44:5) is otherwise represented as ‫דיא‬#‫רת‬#‫( !אליא על מ‬ʕalia ‚l martadia)
“idem” (DC 46. 211:11),34 while ‫טמ‬#‫( לכ‬lkat ̤m)
AB‫“ ا‬The Repressor (of his
anger)” (DC 46. 154:14) parallels ‫דימ‬#‫( לכ‬lkadim) “idem” (DC 46. 260:1). ‫( ז‬z) is
used less frequently for both historical phonemes, e.g. ‫( יזור‬izur) ?( “shall cause
harm” (DC 46. 156:10) and ‫ר‬#‫( למוזאפ‬lmuzafar) +0‫“ ا‬the victorious” (DC 46.
43:10).
Arabic w is generally represented by Mandaic ‫( ו‬w). Exceptional are two
examples written with ‫( ב‬b): the expression ‫ת‬#‫קוב‬#‫( ול‬ulaqubat) ‫ة‬D ‫“ و‬and no
strength” (common) and one other clear instance: ‫ח חיי‬#‫ אל‬#‫לת !אל‬#‫כ‬#‫ב‬#‫ת‬
(tabakalt ʕala alah hii, DC 46. 212:19)35 a reworking or corruption of < E%َ ْ ‫َ> ا‬.
َ ْF‫َو َ@ َ آ‬
“And trust thou in the Living One” (Q 25:58 [al-furqān]).
Following Mandaic orthographic practice, long and short vowels are equally
represented by matres lectionis, and hence it is impossible to distinguish for example
between the noun patterns fāʕil and faʕīl, both of which are often used in epithets of
Allah. Also influenced by Mandaic orthography is the use of the Mandaic ‫( ה‬-hӈ) to
represent word-final ī:, e.g. ‫ן‬#‫רד‬#‫ר כונה ב‬#‫( יאנ‬ianar kunhӈ bardan) <ِHُ‫ر آ‬ ُ َH َ(

32 Drower and Macuch, MD, p. 222 s.v. kraba 2 (and MD, p. 167 s.v. ziqla) erroneously implied
that Mandaic ‫( כ‬k) was also used for Arabic ā. However, the Mandaic word #‫ב‬#‫( כר‬kraba) is
not to be derived from Arabic āurāb “crow” but in fact represents the native Aramaic word
krābā “stump of a palm branch”, as the context clearly demands: #‫ מן זיקל‬#‫ב‬#‫( ם כר‬kdӈ kraba
mn ziqla) “like the stump of a palm tree”. For this meaning of krābā see Sokoloff, DJBA, p.
598 s.v. ‫ כרבא‬with previous literature.
33 The parallel copy of this spell in DC 46. 29:1 has been further corrupted to ‫( יילביר‬iilbir).
34 The parallel copy of this spell in DC 45. 36a:16-17 has been further corrupted to ‫ביגידר !אליא‬
‫שאך‬#‫דיא פילנ‬#‫י אל‬#‫ד‬#‫מת‬#‫( על מ‬bigidr ʕalia ‚l mamtadai aladia filnašak), wherein ‫י‬#‫ד‬#‫מת‬#‫מ‬
(mamtadai) has no meaning. It is likely, however, that the word ‫דיא‬#‫( אל‬aladia) ‫ي‬5‫“ ا‬who”
represents an original reading that has been lost in DC 46.
35 DC 45.36b:13, a parallel copy of this spell, similarly reads ‫כילת‬#‫ב‬#‫( ת‬tabakilt).
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 163

‫“ َْدًا‬O fire, be coolness” (DC 46. 29:13-14 = DC 45. 11a:5 etc. = Q 21:69 [al-
ƒanbiyāƒ]).
On the other hand, Arabic orthography practice is evident in the widespread use
of ‫( ל‬l) for the Arabic article ‫ ال‬before the “sun letters”.36 The exceptions are few and
must be assumed from the internal parallelism, e.g. ‫מ‬#‫ח שאלין מן לד‬#‫ס‬#‫ ר‬#‫ו!אל‬
‫מ‬#‫ח רומחין מן ד‬#‫( בער‬uʕala rasah šalin mn ldam b‚dah rumhin mn dam)
which presumably reflects the Arabic ‫  ا'م‬P‫ ر‬O' ‫ل  ا'م‬ ٍ M KL‫> رأ‬.‫“ و‬upon
his head a scarf of blood, (and) in his hand a spear of blood” (DC 46. 146:10-11), in
which both cases of the word for “blood” are marked with the article of class. ‫( ל‬l) is
sometimes omitted before another ‫( ל‬l), e.g. ‫מ‬#‫ל‬#‫לוח ולק‬ ֵ ‫ק‬#‫( ביח‬bihaq luhҾ
ulqalam)
.‫ح وا‬.‫ ا‬R% “by the virtue of the tablet and the pen” (ibid. 15). A parallel
copy of the same spell in DC 45. 10a:13 reads ‫( ללוח‬lluh).

3.1.2 Vernacular Influences

The transcription of the texts shows strong influence of the Iraqi gelet-type
vernacular which was spoken by the Mandaeans living in the Baghdad area.37 The
appearance of such features in the Qurƒān citations found in our texts indicates that
they are not intrinsic to the texts in their original form but rather arise from a
vernacular reading of literary Arabic. In this respect, these transcriptions differ
strongly from the Drower letters, which as mentioned were composed from the
outset in vernacular Arabic. Above we have noticed the use of Mandaic ‫( ג‬g) for
literary Arabic q, a feature characteristic of the gelet dialects but also of many other
“Bedouinised” vernaculars.
Several other vernacular features have found their way into the texts. The
vernacular ‫( אך‬-ak) alone is used of as 2m.s. pronoun, e.g. ‫ך‬#‫ב‬#‫( ר‬rabak) S َ E‫“ َر‬thy
Lord” and ‫ך‬#‫( ל‬lak) S َ َ “thine” (both DC 46. 27:15 = Q 68:2-3 [al-qalam]). Very
striking is the use of ‫( אח‬-ah) as the affixed pronoun for 3m.s., a markedly
Mesopotamian-Arabic form.38 It is found several Qurƒānic citations: ‫ח‬#‫כוד‬#‫ת‬#‫ל‬
(latakudah) Oُ 3ُ T
ُ ْU@َ
َ “overtaketh him not” (DC 46. 44:13 = Q 2:255 [al-baqara]);
‫ח‬#‫( !ילמ‬ʕilmah) Kِ ِ .ْ  ِ “His knowledge” (DC 46. 45.1 = Q ibid.); ‫ח‬#‫( אנ‬anah) Kُ H‫ِإ‬
“behold, he (is)” (DC 46: 159:3 = Q 68:51 [al-qalam]). We find this pronoun used
also for 3f.s.: ‫ח‬#‫דרוב‬#‫( ת‬tadrubah)39 َ/ُ  ِ?
ْ Hَ “we strike them” (DC 46. 201:1 =Q
59:21 [al-ỏašar]).

36 For a similar use, see Blau and Hopkins, ‘Judeo-Arabic Letter’, p. 466.
37 Blanc, Communal Dialects, p. 183 n. 5 noted “The Mandaeans seem to speak the dialect of the
surrounding Muslim population”.
38 The feature is also found in Palestinian village dialects in the Ramallah area (see Seeger,
Ramallah, p. 1), but given the provenance of our texts, it is not reasonable to assume any con-
nection.
39 Sic. The verb was read as 2m.s. rather than 1c.s.
164 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

There are a number of examples of pharyngealisation, e.g. ‫ייצטרון‬#‫ומ‬

(umaiiśŃrun) ‫ن‬ َ ‫ُو‬V
ُْ (َ َ‫“ َو‬and that which they write” (DC 46. 27: 14 = Q 68:1 [al-
qalam]);40 ‫צין‬#‫ר‬#‫( פ‬faraśin) ‫س‬ ٍ = “a horse” (DC 46. 149:5).41 Very common is the
use of ‫( לקור!אן‬lqurʕan) ‫ن‬ ِ Xُْ ْ ‫“ ا‬The Qurƒān” (e.g. DC 46. 74:9 = Q 17:82 [al-
ƒisrā‚]), a pronunciation already recorded by Macuch.42 ‫שאך‬#‫( לו‬luašak, DC 46.
55:4) may reflect a colloquial pronunciation liwaččak rather than literary S/Y
liwajhika.
Another notable gelet feature is the “colouring” to i/u of the Old Arabic a vowel
in an open syllable before another a vowel in the next syllable, though the spellings
show some variation.43 In the verbal system, this is most apparent in our texts in
spellings such as ‫( ניזאל‬nizal) ‫ل‬ZH “(he) descended” (DC 46. 27:1 = DC 45. 10a:10),
‫ק‬#‫( פיל‬filaq) R.= “(he) split” (DC 46. 28:13 = DC 45. 10b:12); ‫!ית‬#‫( מינ‬minaʕit)
7)8 “you have restricted” (DC 46. 216:1 = DC 45. 38b:19) and others. The
phenomenon is also found in the nouns, e.g.: ‫ר‬#‫( ולניח‬ulnihar) ‫ر‬ ِ َ/!‫“ وَا‬the
daytime” (DC 46. 150:5 = Q 6:13 [al-ƒan‚ām])44; #‫ר‬#‫( כיס‬kisara) ‫َرًا‬T َ “ruin” (DC
46. 74:10 = Q 17:82 [al-ƒisrā‚]), but also frequently #‫ר‬#‫( כס‬ksara) and #‫ר‬#‫ס‬#‫כ‬
(kasara); ‫( ולשישאר‬ulšišar)  َُ  ‫“ وَا‬the trees” (DC 46. 156:2=Q 55:6 [al-raỏmān]);
so with an u vowel, e.g. ‫מי! לדי!א‬#‫( ס‬samiʕ ldiʕa) based on the Qurƒānic epithet
‫ِ ُ] ا \'َء‬L
َ “hearer of invocation” (DC 46. 44:1-2 from Q 3:38 [ƒāl ‚imrān]).
3.2 Copying Errors
The Arabic transcriptions are replete with errors of many sorts. Some arise from a
misreading of the Arabic original, others from inner-Mandaic corruptions. The
corruptions are particularly common in the poetic language of the Qurƒān, which was
clearly unfamiliar and often incomprehensible to the Mandaean copyists. The
Qurƒānic materials can sometimes only be identified by the few distinctive words
that survive, while many of the spells for which no external source survives are
corrupt beyond all recognition.
It is apparent from several of the errors that the Arabic-alphabet source from
which the spells were copied often lacked the diacritical points, leading to confusion
between letters that in Arabic would be identical without them, but in Mandaic are
distinct. The following examples illustrate this phenomenon: ‫ך‬#‫ו‬#‫( !אט‬ʕaŃauak, DC
46. 58:8), from ‫ك‬ َ ‫َ َء‬V,ِ “thy covering” (Q 50:22 [qāf]); ‫חתון‬#‫מ‬#‫( ב‬bamahtun, DC
46. 27:15) from ‫ن‬ ٍ ُ!ْ َ ِ “a madman” (Q 68:2 [al-qalam]); ‫( שאשא‬šaša, DC. 46.
201:1) from ًaMِ َT “humbled” (Q 59:21[al-ỏašar])45; ‫בוק‬#‫( ס‬sabuq) from ٌRbِ َL “a

40 The parallel copy of this spell in DC 45. 10a:20 reads ‫ייצטדון‬#‫( ומ‬umaiiśŃdun).
41 Compare Woodhead and Beene, Dictionary, p. 349, s.v. faraś “mare”.
42 Macuch, HCMM, §60.
43 Blanc, Communal Dialects, p. 40 §3.3 (iv).
44 But in the same citation in DC 46. 235:7 ‫ר‬#‫ח‬#‫( ולנ‬ulnahar).
45 We assume that the first ‫[ ש‬š] represents the Arabic letter ‫ خ‬which was read as ‫ج‬.
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 165

driver” (DC 46. 58:7 = Q 50:21 [qāf]). From what we have been able to ascertain,
none of the alternative readings reflects a genuine textual variant of the Qurƒān as
recorded by the mediaeval Islamic authorities, and since they do not produce
coherent readings in their contexts, it is unlikely that they should be regarded as
resulting from an unknown tradition of the Qurƒān.
However, most of the errors are best explained as inner-Mandaic, i.e. arising
from the graphic similarity between Mandaic characters. Again, the Qurƒānic
examples are often easy to identify, e.g. ‫חו‬#‫ריד אל‬$ (ñrid alahu) for ‫חו‬#‫יוריד אל‬
(iurid alahu) Kُ .‫“ ُ(ِ( ُ' ا‬Allah wishes” (DC 46. 29:1-2 = Q 4:28 [al-nisāƒ]).46 Others
may be identified by reference to the requirements of context or to other uses of the
same words or expressions. Sometimes, a parallel copy will preserve the correct
reading.
In the following sentence, ‫שאך‬#‫דיא פילנ‬#‫רת‬#‫( ביגידר !אליא על מ‬bigidr
ʕalia ‚l martadia filnašak), the context requires the Arabic )‫ ا‬: ;<= ‫ ا‬:% ‫ ر‬09
“by the power of ‚Ali ‘The Desired One’ in Najaf” (DC 46. 211:11-12). The final ‫ך‬
(k) of ‫שאך‬#‫ פילנ‬must a Mandaic copying error for ‫( ף‬f). The fact that a Mandaean
copyist living in Iraq was unable to identify the local and culturally important place-
name lying behind the Mandaic script implies that often these texts were copied
without much consideration being given to their content. Other errors may have been
harder to correct. In DC 46 we find the forms #‫( כרודנ‬krudna, 55:17) and ‫ש‬#‫!אר‬
(ʕaraš, 197:9). Comparison with other spells (e.g. DC 46. 225:6, 237:11) shows both
to be corruptions of ‫כרוש‬, phonetic spellings representing Arabic imperative form
ốuruj “leave!” In the first case, the ‫ ש‬was split into two letters; in the second,
Mandaic ‫( ך‬k) has been misread as Arabic ‫ع‬. Indeed, in the parallel copy of the
latter form in DC 45. 22a:4, we find the form ‫( כריש‬kriš).
The extent of these errors is often extensive, as the following citation from the
Qurƒān illustrates:
‫ן ש‬#‫מיכנ‬#‫חו פ‬#‫ס כחומ חייא אניא אנעיא אנעיא אלחומ אל‬#‫לינ‬
‫ת‬#‫ד‬#‫שאריכ בו!יב‬#‫לחיא ול‬#‫ל אצ‬#‫ל !אמ‬#‫ פיליא !מ‬#‫ב‬#‫י ר‬#‫לנ‬#‫ו‬
#‫ד‬#‫אח‬
linas khum hiia ania an‚ia an‚ia alhum alahu famiknan š ualnai raba filia ʕmal
ʕamal aśalhia ulašarik buʕibadat ahada (DC 46. 81:11-14).
As it stands, the Mandaic transcription is incomprehensible. However, enough words
have survived intact to enable us to identify with certainty the Qurƒānic source:
َ‫ً و‬%َِd eَ
َ ْFَ aْ َ .ْ =َ Kِ E‫ُ َِء َر‬Yْ(َ ‫ن‬
َ َ‫'ٌ َ=َ آ‬
ِ ‫ وَا‬Kٌ َ‫
ْ ِإ‬Bُ /ُ َ‫َ ِإ‬H‫< َأ‬
 َ‫
ْ (َُ> ِإ‬Bُ .ُ7ْ E ٌ َ َ َH‫َأ‬
‫'ًا‬َ ‫ َأ‬Kِ E‫َ َد ِة َر‬$aِ ِ ْ‫ ِك‬ْ (ُ

46 The parallel copy of this spell in DC 45. 10b:16 similarly reads ‫ח‬#‫ריד אל‬$ (ñrid alah).
166 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

I am only a mortal like you. My Lord inspireth in me that your Allah is only
One Allah. And whoever hopeth for the meeting with his Lord, let him do
righteous work, and make none sharer of the worship due unto his Lord. (Q
18:110 [al-kahf]).
In some cases, the correct readings have been preserved but the words incorrectly
divided, e.g. ‫מי! ל!אלימ‬#‫ חולס‬#‫ פיאל סמ‬#‫ רזול‬#‫( שיא פיאל‬šia fiala rzula fial sma
hulsamiʕ lʕalim), a miscopying of
.a‫<ء =< ا;رض و =< اء ه ا] ا‬M
“anything upon the earth nor in the heavens, He is Hearing, Knowing” (DC 46.
156:11).
As we mentioned, the more obscure the Arabic material (from the perspective of
the copyists), the less likely it was to survive the process of transcription and
copying. For example, in a baba ñ-daiua text, we find the following expression:
‫י‬#‫בות אלשאד‬#‫י צב‬#‫יאחייא איאחייא אשאר אשאר אחייא אדונ‬
iahiia aiahiia ašar ašar ahiia adunai śbabut alšadai (DC 46. 116:2-3)
There is no doubt that this is to be understood as reworking of Arabic ‫اه‬M ‫اه‬
‫'اي‬M ‫ل‬X ‫ؤت‬$d‫ي أ‬H‫أدو‬, a series of divine epithets drawn from Hebrew ‫אהיה אשר‬
‫ אהיה אדוני צבאות אל שדי‬which found currency in mediaeval Arabic magic.47
However, the Mandaean scribes were entirely unfamiliar with this expression,
and ‫ اه‬was quickly corrupted to Mandaic ‫( חייא‬hiia), while ‫'اي‬M ‫ل‬X became the
Arabic article with an assortment of forms, e.g. #‫( אלשאד‬alšada, DC 46. 76:11) and
‫( לשאריא‬lšaria, DC 46. 82:15). We even find the entire phrase corrupted to ‫יא‬#‫ח‬
‫דיא שודיא‬#‫בות אל‬#‫י צב‬#‫ חייא אדונ‬#‫יא שר‬#‫( ח‬haia haia šra hiia adunai śbabut
aladia šudia, DC 46. 200:15-16), in which the divine epithet ‫ل‬X has been taken as
Arabic il-, the colloquial form of the relative pronoun, and “hyper corrected” to
‫ي‬5‫ا‬.48
3.3 The Religious Background
We have already indicated that the Arabic texts in Mandaic transcription appear to
be copies of Islamic magic works. The evidence for this ranges from the Qurƒānic
citations and linguistic allusions, through the use of characteristic Islamic epithets
for God, and up to the specific references to Shiite historical figures such as the
Ja‚far al-Śādiq and Mūsa al-KāŜim. None of the Arabic formulae shows any sign of
being an original Mandaean composition. Although the texts also contain Jewish
elements (see previous paragraph) and references to Moses and Jesus, these cannot

47 See the seminal discussion by Winkler, Siegel und Charaktere, pp. 31-37. Winkler shows that
some mediaeval Islamic authorities were aware of the Hebrew origin of the expression, though
it has not been noted that the Arabic transcription follows the Babylonian pronunciation
tradition of Hebrew. The form ‫בות‬#‫( צב‬śbabut) is characteristically Mandaic.
48 On il-/l- as the relative pronoun, see Erwin, Grammar, §14.
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 167

be taken in evidence for a Jewish or Christian origin of the formulae, since both
Moses and Jesus are mentioned positively in the Qurƒān, and expressions similar to
those found in our corpus are also found in Muslim texts.49 Given the historical
Mandaean attitude towards Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious figures, the use
of blatantly Islamic formulae that themselves make reference to earlier religious
traditions is an interesting phenomenon.50
Above we noted the tendency of Mandaean scribes to interpret unfamiliar
material in light of similar Mandaic forms. Here we shall note two additional forms
of “Mandaizing” editing that have occurred in our corpus. The first is very simple:
the Arabic forms ‫ >ن‬and ?> for “so-and-so”, i.e. a blank name inserted into the
formulary to be replaced by a real client’s name as appropriate, are regularly
replaced by their Mandaic equivalents, ‫ן‬#‫( פל‬plan) and #‫נית‬#‫( פל‬planita).
The second form of editing of a more significant kind is found in DC 46. 11-12.
The spell begins in typical Mandaic form with the invocation ‫חייא‬$ ‫יחון‬#‫בשומ‬
‫כה‬#‫לין מל‬#‫ח‬$ ‫יחון‬#‫( רביא ובשומ‬bšumaihun ñhiia rbia ubšumaihun ñhalin
mlakhӈ) “In the name of the Great Life and in the name of these angels”. The spell
then turns to Arabic, but rapidly returns to a strange combination of Arabic and
Mandaic:51 ‫!אי פלאן‬#‫מיל[ ד‬#‫ ]ח‬#‫רס‬#‫( !יזאמתומ מן כ‬ʕizamtum mn karsa
[hamil]52 daʕai flan), in which the word #‫רס‬#‫( כ‬karsa) is in Mandaic but not
integrated grammatically into the sentence. The spell continues by mentioning a
series of powers including ‫ווד‬#‫ בר ד‬#‫לכ‬#‫ימון מ‬#‫ביא של‬#‫מ אלנ‬#‫ת‬#‫( בכ‬bkatam
alnabia šlaimun malka br dauud53). Again, we find the Arabic and Mandaic
elements interchanging. This becomes yet more pronounced as the spell continues:
#‫פ!אח‬#‫ ר‬#‫ן ורקיח‬#‫שאד‬#‫ן ולכוכביא ולשאשאר ס‬#‫ח‬#‫ב‬#‫ יאס‬#‫שאמיש ולסיר‬
‫ן‬#‫!אע פל‬#‫מיל ד‬#‫ ֵח‬#‫רס‬#‫ת בכ‬#‫די! למיזאן !אזימ‬#‫ו‬#‫( ו‬šamiš ulsira iasabahan
ulkukbia ulšašar sašҾadan urqiha rafʕaha uauadiʕ lmizan ʕazimat bkarsa hamil
daʕa‚ flan).
However, it is the last section that holds the key to the text, because it contains a
reworked citation of Q 55:5-7 [al-raỏmān]), in which selected words have been
substituted by their Mandaic equivalents. And indeed, a version of the spell in which
all of the Mandaic words appear in Arabic is attested in a parallel copy elsewhere
DC 46 (155-156). For brevity, we shall cite only the relevant parts of Arabic
reconstruction here, with the significant words marked in bold:

49 Compare e.g. Winkler, Siegel und Charaktere, pp. 10-14.

50 We shall discuss these allusions in greater detail in a future study. See meanwhile Shaked,
‘Jewish Magic Literature’, especially p. 21; Levene, ‘Jesus’; Shaked, ‘Jesus’.
51 The Mandaic words have been marked in bold.
52 This word was accidentally omitted in the original, but is required by the context and used in
the parallels.
53 ‫ווד‬#‫( ד‬dauud) could be Arabic or Mandaic.
168 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

‫ن‬e= ‫ دء‬F   
lZ ... ‫
ا!س‬b‫ا‬Z
B. jZ
‫
ا
ا  ا‬
ُ َ َ ْ ‫ وَا‬
ُ ْ 
 ‫ع }ا‬.o >. ‫<  ن  داوود‬$!‫@
ا‬m‫ ا و'رة و‬0a‫'رة ا و‬
‫ دء‬F   jZ {‫ن‬ َ ‫َا‬Zِْ ‫ َ] ا‬p
َ ‫َ َو َو‬/aَ =َ ‫َ َء َر‬
 ‫ن وَا‬  ‫ ُ
وَا‬
ِ ‫ َ ُ َ(ْ ُ'َا‬ ْ  ‫ن وَا‬
ٍ َ$
ْ%ُ ِ
‫ن‬e=
In the Name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful. I have commanded you
with the commands of people. You have been commanded (to depart) from
the stomach of so-and-so, the bearer of this invocation, by the power of
Allah, and by the greatness of Allah, and by the strength54 and by the seal of
the prophet Suleiman son of Daud, at the rise of “The stars and the moon
are made punctual, the stars and the trees adore; and the sky he hath uplifted,
and he hath set the measure” 55; you have been commanded regarding the
stomach of so-and-so, the bearer of this invocation.
As far as we can ascertain, the text of DC 46. 11-12 is the only instance in which
significant secondary editing has been carried out on these spells to “Mandaize”
them. Fortunately, in this case another copy of the spell exists which clearly
demonstrates that the Mandaean elements were introduced after the spell was
transcribed in its original Arabic form into the Mandaic alphabet.

4. Conclusion
DC 45 and DC 46 are both late copies of magic recipe books or spell formularies
that served Mandaean practitioners in Baghdad at the end of the 19th and beginning
of the 20th centuries. Both manuscripts preserve edited collections, showing on
occasion repetitions, but the differing order of spells indicates that they were not
copied directly from one another or from the same source. While some of the
individual spells may date back to the middle ages or late antiquity, the books in
their present state reflect the latter stages of Mandaic, as evident from the very late
language of the rubrics and the baba ñ-daiua texts.
The Arabic materials represent a discrete body of material both in terms of
language and of content. These materials were apparently transcribed from Islamic
magic formulae which may themselves have been partially corrupted from their own
Vorlagen. During the process of transcription, errors were introduced owing to the
misreading of the source, while influences of the vernacular had a considerable
impact on the register of the Arabic language, most strikingly on the citations of the
Qurƒān for which established reading traditions existed amongst Muslims. The
Mandaic transcriptions themselves were subject to widespread copying errors, while

54 Probably dittography.
55 Misread in the Mandaic text.
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 169

some secondary editing served to integrate them into their new Mandaic context. We
may summarise this process of transmission with the following chart:

In spite of the many errors, which have corrupted some of the formulae beyond all
recognition, many texts remain comprehensible, and provide us with fascinating
evidence for Arabic magic practises in the modern era. It is hoped that the full
publication of these texts will cast more light on this forgotten chapter in the history
of Near-Eastern magic.

Bibliography
Blanc, Communal Dialects – H. Blanc, Communal Dialects in Baghdad (Harvard Harvard
Middle Eastern
astern Monographs 10, Cambridge Mass, 1964).
Blau and Hopkins, ‘Judeo-Arabic
‘Judeo Letter’ – J. Blau and S. Hopkins, ‘A Vocalized
Arabic Letter from the Cairo Geniza’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and
Judeo-Arabic
Islam 6 (1985), pp. 417-476.
417
Borghero, ‘Glossary’ – R. Borghero, ‘A 17th Century Glossary of Mandaic’, Aram
11 (1999-2000),
2000), pp. 311-319.
311
Borghero, ‘Linguistic Features’ – R. Borghero, ‘Some Linguistic Features of a Man-
Man
script from the Seventeenth Century’, Aram 16 (2004), pp. 61--83.
daean Manuscript
Burtea, ‘Entstehung’ – B. Burtea, ‘Zur Entstehung der mandäischen Schrift: irani-
irani
scher oder aramäischer Ursprung’ in R. Voigt (ed.), Und das Leben ist siegreich,
And Life is Victorious
ous (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), pp. 47-62.
Dieleman, ‘Scribal Practices’ – J. Dieleman, ‘Scribal Practices in the Production of
Magic Handbooks in Egypt’, in G. Bohak, Y. Harari, S. Shaked (eds.), Continu-
Continu
ity and Change in the Magical Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, forth- forth
coming).
170 Matthew Morgenstern / Tom Alfia

Drower, ‘Black Magic’ – E.S. Drower, ‘A Mandæan Book of Black Magic’, JRAS
1943 pp. 149-181.
Drower-Macuch, MD – E.S. Drower, and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Ox-
ford: The Clarendon Press, 1963).
Erwin, Grammar – W.M. Erwin, A Short Reference Grammar of Iraqi Arabic (Wa-
shington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1963).
Häberl, ‘Iranian Scripts’ – C. G. Häberl, ‘Iranian Scripts for Aramaic Languages:
The Origin of the Mandaic Script’, BASOR 341 (Feb. 2006), pp. 53-62.
Häberl, Khorramshahr – C. G. Häberl, The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009).
Ford, ‘Review’ – J.N. Ford, Review of J.B. Segal, Catalogue of the Aramaic and
Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum (London: British Museum
2000), in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 26 (2002), pp. 237-272.
Levene, ‘Jesus’ – D. Levene, ‘ “... and by the name of Jesus...” An Unpublished
Magic Bowl in Jewish Aramaic’, Jewish Studies Quarterly 6 (1999), pp. 283-
308.
Macuch, Chrestomathie: R. Macuch (unter Mitwirkung von K. Boekels), Neu-
mandäische Chrestomathie mit grammatischer Skizze, kommentierter Überset-
zung und Glossar (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989).
Macuch, HCMM – R. Macuch, Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic (Berlin
1965).
Morgenstern, ‘Diachronic Studies’ – M. Morgenstern, ‘Diachronic Studies in Man-
daic’, Orientalia 79 (2010), pp. 505-525.
Morgenstern, ‘Points of Contact’ – M. Morgenstern, ‘Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
and Classical Mandaic: Some Points of Contact’, Leshonenu 72 (2010), pp. 451-
473 (Hebrew).
Müller-Kessler, ‘Die Zauberschalensammlung’ – Ch. Müller-Kessler, ‘Die Zauber-
schalensammlung des British Museum’, AfO 48/49 (2001/2002), pp. 115-145.
Mutzafi and Morgenstern, ‘Nejm’s Glossary’ – H. Mutzafi and M. Morgenstern,
‘Sheikh Nejm’s Mandaic Glossary (DC 4): An Unrecognised Source of Neo-
Mandaic’, Aram 23 (forthcoming).
Naveh and Shaked, Magic Spells – J. Naveh & S. Shaked, Magic Spells and For-
mulae (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993).
Nöldeke, MG – Th. Nöldeke, Mandäische Grammatik (Halle: Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses, 1875).
Saar, Jewish Love Magic – O.-P. Saar, Jewish Love Magic: from Late Antiquity to
the Middle Ages, PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University, 2008 (Hebrew).
Seeger, Ramallah – U. Seeger, Die arabische Dialekt der Dörfer um Ramallah,
Teil 1: Texte (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009).
Shaked, ‘Jewish Magic Literature’ – ‘On Jewish Literature of Magic in Muslim
Countries: Comments and Specimens’, Pe‚amim, 15 (1983), pp. 15-28 (Hebrew).
 Arabic Magic Texts in Mandaic Script 171

Shaked, ‘Jesus’ – S. Shaked, ‘Jesus in the magic bowls. Apropos Dan Levene’s
“... and by the name of Jesus ...” ’, Jewish Studies Quarterly 6 (1999), pp. 309-
319.
Sokoloff, DJBA – M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the
Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press and Balti-
more and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002).
Winkler, Siegel und Charaktere – H.A. Winkler, Siegel und Charaktere in der mu-
hammedanischen Zauberei (Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1930).
Woodhead and Beene, Dictionary – D.R. Woodhead and W. Beene, A Dictionary of
Iraqi Arabic: Arabic-English (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press,
1967).