Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts [1 ed.] 9781575068749, 9781575062716

Citation preview

insults or offensive language but curses as petitions to the divine world to render judgment and execute harm on identified, hostile forces. In the ancient world, curses functioned in a way markedly different from our own, and it is into the world of the ancient Near East that we must go in order to appreciate the scope of their influence. For the ancient Near Easterners, curses had authentic meaning. Curses were part of their life and religion. They were not inherently magic or features of superstitions, nor were they mere curiosities or trifling antidotes. They were real and effective. They were employed proactively and reactively to manage life’s many vicissitudes and maintain social harmony. They were principally protective, but they were also the cause of misfortune, illness, depression, and anything else that undermined a comfortable, well-balanced life. Every member of society used them, from slave to king, from young to old, from men and women to the deities themselves. They crossed cultural lines and required little or no explanation, for curses were the source of great evil. In other words, curses were universal.

Because curses were woven into the very fabric of every known ancient Near Eastern society, they emerge frequently and in a wide variety of venues. They appear on public and private display objects, on tomb stelae, tomb lintels, and sarcophagi, on ancient kudurrus and narûs. They are used in political, administrative, social, religious, and familial contexts. They are the subject of incantations. They are tools that exorcise demons and dispel disease; they ban, protect, and heal. This is the phenomenology of cursing in the ancient Near East, and this is what the present work explores.

Kitz Eisenbrauns

POB 275 Winona Lake, IN 46590 www.eisenbrauns.com

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

This is a book about curses. It is not about curses as

CURSED ARE YOU!

CURSED ARE YOU!

CURSED ARE YOU! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts

Anne Marie Kitz

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press,

EISENBRAUNS

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Cursed Are You!

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Anne Marie Kitz

Winona Lake, Indiana E isenbrauns 2014

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Kitz, Anne Marie. Cursed are you! : the phenomenology of cursing in cuneiform and Hebrew texts / by Anne Marie Kitz.   pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-271-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1.  Blessing and cursing—Middle East—History.  2.  Cuneiform inscriptions, Akkadian.  3.  Akkadian language—Semantics.  4.  Hebrew language—Sematics, Historical.  5.  Bible. Old Testament— Criticism, interpretation, etc.  6.  Phenomenology.  I.  Title. PJ3193.K57 2013 133.4′4—dc23 2013035854

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48-1984.© ♾

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   vi Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   vii Chronology of Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii Introduction: Curse in the Ancient Near East . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3

Part 1 The Operation of Curses 1.  Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9 2.  Vows, Oaths, and Curses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   32 3.  The Types of Curses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   64 4.  Conditional Cursing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   96 5.  The Effectiveness of Maledictions by the Deities . . . . . . . . . 134 6.  The Productivity of Curses by Human Beings . . . . . . . . . . . 153 7. Executioner Deities, Hypostatization, and the Agents of Curses . . 170

Part 2 Cursing and Society 8.  The Purpose of Curses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 9.  The Process behind Curses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

10.  Barriers, Boundaries, and Written Display Curses . . . . . . . . . 246 11.  Of Nets and Arms and Webs of Words: Drawing Circles and Twisting Cords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 12.  Of Nets and Arms and Webs of Words: Weapons and Other Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 13.  Curse Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 14.  Curse Practitioners: The Lay Curser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 15.  Curse Practitioners: The Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 16.  Curse Practitioners: Antagonistic Semi-professionals . . . . . . . 400 17.  Curse-Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Cuneiform Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

472 510 517 520

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Preface This work began as a book on oaths in the ancient Near East, a topic that had yet to be fully explored. The original intent was hardly ambitious. The volume would carefully examine the various ways oaths were sworn in the Hebrew Bible and cuneiform sources. It was all worked out. There would be a discussion on promissory oaths and evidentiary oaths, court oaths and contract oaths, treaty oaths and covenant oaths. This would then be followed by a review of the language, context and rituals associated with each type of oath. It was all rather straightforward. It was all rather ordinary. Nevertheless, after a year and a half of work, it became painfully apparent that one could not discuss oaths without first evaluating the maledictions on which they depended for effect and obedience. For oaths are nothing other than conditional self-curses. Thus, the scholarly journey began anew. As the inquiry into curses pushed forward, it became more than obvious that anathemas were both fixed in their expression and ubiquitous in their use. No ancient Near Eastern culture lacked them. Every ancient Near Eastern culture used them copiously. The bounty of the relevant materials was almost overwhelming, for curses permeated every aspect of life in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Israel, from birth to adolescence, from adulthood to old age. Consequently, in order to do academic justice to the depth and scope of the subject, the present work evolved into an extended piece. The book focuses first on the variety of curses and their perceived effectiveness in these ancient civilizations. Then, it turns to society and curses, evaluating the manner and use of maledictions. Curse acts and their rituals, curse management and their rites are all carefully reviewed and assessed in association with those who practiced them. In the end, I have come to appreciate the nature and constitution of curses in an entirely new way. And it is my hope that many a reader of this work will develop a similar awareness of and respect for any malediction, whether ancient or modern.

vi

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Abbreviations General DN divine name ET English translation obv. obverse PN personal name rev. reverse RN royal name * unattested form [ ] encloses lost cuneiform signs ⸢ ⸣ cuneiform sign partially visible ⟨ ⟩ omitted by scribal error ⟨⟨ ⟩⟩ to be omitted

Reference Works

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

AB ABAW ABD ABL

Anchor Bible Abhandlungen Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschafte Anchor Bible Dictionary Harper, R. F., editor. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914 AbrN Abr-Nahrain AcOr Acta Orientalia ASum Acta Sumerologica ADT Das Alte Testament Deutsch AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AfOB Archiv für Orientforschung (Beiheft) AHw von Soden, W. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81 AION Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli.Sezione linguistica AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature AMD Ancient Magic and Divination AnBib Analecta biblica AnOr Analecta Orientalia AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament AOS American Oriental Series AR Archiv für Religionswissenschaft ARAM Journal of Aramaic Studies ARM Archives royales de Mari ArOr Archiv Orientální AS Assyriological Studies AsB Assyriologische Bibliothek ASKT Haupt, P., Akkadische und sumerische keilschrifttexte nach den originalen im Britischen museum copirt und mit einleitenden zusammenstellungen sowie erklärenden anmerkungen. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1881–82

vii

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

viii

Abbreviations

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

AthR AuOr AuOrSup BA BAC

Anglican Theological Review Aula Orientalis Aula Orientalis Supplements Biblical Archaeologist Sollberger, E., The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1966 BaF Baghdader Forschungen BAM F. von Köcher et al., Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963– BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Orential Research BasS Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBR H. Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901 BBT Bausteine Biblischer Theologie BBSt L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum. London: Britism Museum, 1912 BE Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Bib Biblica BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BIN Babylonian inscriptions in the collection of J. B. Nies BKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament BO Bibliotheca orientalis BRM Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan BSLP Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris BSLP Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris BTH Kutscher, R., The Brockmon Tablets as the University of Haifa: Royal Inscriptions. Haifa : Haifa University Press, 1989 BWL Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford, 1960. Reprinted Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996 BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAD Oppenheim, A. L., et al., editors. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. (A–Z). Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2011 CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CH E. Bergmann, Codex Hammurabi Textus Primigenius.Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1953 CHD Güterbock, H., et al., The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980– CIWA 1 Norris, E., and Rawlinson, H. C., A Selection from the Historical Inscriptions of Chaldaea, Assyria and Babylonia. London: Bowler, 1861 CIWA 4 Smith, G., A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscritptions of Assyria. London: Bowler, 1891 CleR The Clergy Review CT Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum DA Boissier, A., Documents assyriens relatifs aux présages. Paris: Bouillon, 1894 EI Eretz Israel ExOL Ex Oriente Lux FAOS Freiburger altorientalische Studien

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Abbreviations GAAL GKC HALOT HKAT HOS HSMS HUCA IBS ICC IDB IEJ ITT JAOS JAOSSup JBLMS JCS JEOL JESHo JNES JQR JRAS JSOT JSOTSup JTVI KAI

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

KAT KAR KB KBo KS KUB LKA LSS Maqlû MARI MDP MIO MSL MUSJ MVAG MVN NEA NESE NRVN NSGU

ix

Göttinger Arbeitshefte zur Altorientalischen Literatur Kautzsch, E., editor. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handbook of Oriental Studies Harvard Semitic Museum Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft International Critical Commentary Buttrick, G. A., ed., Interprter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 Israel Exploration Journal Inventaire des tablettes de Tello Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Supplements Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute Donner, H., and Röllig, W. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1962–64 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Ebeling, E., Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts Koehler, L., and Baumgartner, W. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros. Leiden: Brill, 1958 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Keilschriftliche Studien Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Ebeling, E. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur. Berlin: Akademie, 1953 Leipzger semitische Studien Tallqvist, K. L., Die assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû. n.p., 1894 Mari: Annales de récherches interdisciplinaires Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Mélanges (de la Faculté Orientale) de l’Université Saint-Joseph Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-ägyptischen Gesellschaft Materiali per il vocabolario Neosumerico Near Eeastern Archaeology Neue Ephemris für semitische Epigraphik A. Falkenstein, A., Die neusumerische und Gerichtsurkunden. Erster Teil: Einleitung und systematische Darstellung. Münich: Beck, 1980 Falkenstein, A., Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden. Münich: Beck, 1956–57

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

x

Abbreviations

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

OECT OLP OLZ OPBIAA

Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Orientalia lovaniensia periodica Orientalistische Literaturzeitung Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Or Orientalia OrAnt Oriens Antiquus PBS Publications of the Babylonian Section PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology PSD Sjöberg, Å., et al., The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1984–94 RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie oriental RB Revue biblique RAI Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RIAA Speleers, L., Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie Antérieure des Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles. Textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens. Bruxelles: Vanderpoorten, 1925. PKOM Publicationen der Kaiserlich Osmanischen Museen RlA Ebeling, E., et al., editors. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– RST Gray, C. D., The Šamaš Religious Texts Classified in the British Museum Catalogue as Hymns, Prayers, and Incantations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1901 RTC Thureau-Dangin, F., Recueil de tablettes Chaldéennes. Paris: Leroux, 1903 SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts SAALT State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts SANE Sources from the Ancient Near East SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity SM Kramer, S. N., Sumerian Mythology. New York: Harper, 1961 SRT Chiera, E. Sumerian Religious Texts. Upland, PA: 1924 StBoT Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten STVC Chiera, E., Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934 TDOT Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 TDPI Labat, R., Traité Akkadian de diagnostic et pronostics médicaux. Volume 1. Leiden: Brill, 1951 TDPII Labat, R., Traité Akkadian de diagnostic et pronostics médicaux. Volume 2. Leiden: Brill, 1951 TCL Textes cunéiformes du Louvre. Paris: Geuthner, 1910– TCS Texts from Cuneiform Sources Tell Sifr Jean, C.-F., Tell Sifr: Textes cunéiforms conservés au British Museum. Paris: Geuthner, 1931

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Abbreviations

Theologisches Handörterbuch zum Alten Testament Theologische Zeitschrift Trends in Linguistics Documentation Jenni, E., editor, and Biddle, M. E., translator. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997 TOAG Theologische & Orientalistische Arbeiten TrThZ Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift TYBC Sigrist, M. Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2000 TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UAVA Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie UET Ur Excavation Texts UF Ugarit-Forschungen VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek VAS Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin VT Vetus Testamentum VTE Wiseman, D. J., The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958 VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WO Die Welt des Orients WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum alten und neuen Testament WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft YOS Yale Oriental Series ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZB Zürcher Bibel ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

THAT ThZ TLD TLOT

xi

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Chronology of Languages Sumerian Spoken Sumerian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 3000–1650 Written Sumerian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 3000–600

Akkadian Old Akkadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Old Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Old Assyrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Standard Babylonian    (a written literary language) . . . . . . . . . . Middle Assyrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neo-Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neo-Assyrian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Late Babylonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ca. 2600–2000 ca. 2000–1600 ca. 2000–1700 ca. 1600–1000 ca. 1200–1000 ca. 1500–1000 ca. 1000–600 ca. 1000–600 ca. 600–a.d. 100

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Hebrew Old Biblical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 1200–1000 Biblical and epigraphic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 1000–600 Late Biblical and epigraphic . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 600–200

Hittite Old Hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 1570–1450 Middle-Hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 1450–1380 Neo-Hittite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ca. 1380–2020

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The structuring of life according to who or what is cursed by the deities is one of the most fundamental organizational principles of ancient Near Eastern societies.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction: Curse in the Ancient Near East This is a book about curses. It is not about curses as insults or offensive language but curses as petitions to the divine world to render judgment and execute harm on identified, hostile forces. In the ancient world, curses functioned in a way markedly different from our own. And it is into the world of the ancient Near East that we must go in order to appreciate the scope of their impact. For the ancient Near Easterners, curses had authentic meaning. Curses were part of their life and religion. In and of themselves, they were not magic or features of superstitions, nor were they mere curiosities or trifling antidotes. They were real and effective. They were employed to manage life’s many vicissitudes and maintain social harmony. Curses were used proactively and reactively. They were principally protective. They dispelled malevolent forces and kept enemies at bay. But they were also the cause of misfortune, illness, depression and just about anything else that undermined a comfortable, well-balanced life. Every member of society used them, from slave to king, from young to old, from men and women to the deities themselves. They crossed cultural lines and required little or no explanation, for curses were the source of great evil. In other words, curses were universal. Aside from the amateur curser, ancient Near Eastern societies also supported professional cursers. These were ritual specialists who worked within the state cult. They were the priests who uttered curses for the king and his armies, invoking the national deity, whom they served. They would curse foreign nations and their rulers. They supervised oath rituals in the temple. Even the temple singers played a role, for they would laud the the effectiveness of divine maledictions in hymns and psalms. There were other specialists too. Among Akkadian speakers there was the āšipu. He sought to benefit those suffering from the effects of curses, from disease, illness and any other consequence attributable to misfortune and maledictions. His rituals were exorcistic. He loosened, removed, dismissed and unbound imprecations. He cursed curses with curses. He also dealt with the surroundings of the victim. He traveled to private residences and directed the performance of rites for and by the sufferer. He set up offering tables and offered sacrifices and prayers. He used flour paste to draw protective boundaries around the victim’s bed, which the demons could not cross. And he may have been responsible for providing protective plaques that were hung in doorways and gateways.

3

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

4

Introduction:

The āšipu could work in conjunction with the asû, who also made housecalls. He provided the means to protect and heal the exterior and interior of the victim’s body. He also made examinations. But he would operate based on the āšipu’s evaluation of the victim’s condition. Was the ailment caused by the “power of a curse” or not? Would he live or would he die? If the victim could recuperate, then the asû compounded special substances that were placed around the sufferer’s neck in little bags as apotropaic amulets. He made poultices and ointments. He rubbed salves into the skin. He designed potions to drive off the effects of curses and keep them at bay. On the opposite end of the spectrum was the kaššāpu/kaššaptu. This was also a professional curser, but he or she cursed for nefarious reasons. They had close ties with powerful deities but functioned outside any official or national cult. They existed, but often their particular identity was unknown. They were elusive and vague. They used rituals laden with maledictions and cursed in secret, at night or in out-of-the-way places. They clandestinely stalked their targets. They gathered bits of personal items and they used them to decorate and dress figurines which they burned or destroyed. They were powerful. They were feared. They had to be eradicated. Elaborate and long-winded rituals were devised to deal with these sinister individuals. For in order to manage their activities, one first had to eliminate the source: the kaššāpu/kaššaptu themselves. In the ancient Near East, curses could also be blessings. One might reflect the other. For to solicit a curse against an adversary is to presuppose a blessing for oneself. Thus, the harm suffered by another may readily benefit someone else either now or in the future. Accordingly, maledictions could be beneficial or detrimental. The task was to determine which. And this is the operative principle behind most omen literature. In the izbu omen series, deformed creatures are cursed by the deities. They suffered the malediction’s immediate effects. But what of the secondary effects? Did the consequences anticipate fortune or misfortune? Is the malevolence unlimited and spreading? Or is the malevolence limited and self-contained? Curses are conditional and unconditional. Conditional curses are threats that serve as a defense against untoward events, antagonistic people and deities. As threats, they are ever present. They are latent violence. Violating a conditional curse is a sin. Unconditional curses are condemnations, and function to expel. They are active violence. There are simile curses, metaphor curses, and allegorical curses. There are curses that are exclusively oral and there are curses that are principally acts. As both word and act, the curse is strengthened, concretized and actualized. And through this means, a malediction is born into the physical world. Curses petition the deities for rulings in a heavenly court. And frequently they are wrapped in legal terminology. In the ancient Near East, curses are a manifestation of divine, judicial power. When the deities dis-

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Introduction:

5

charge curses, they demonstrate their ascendancy over life and death. For the harm in all curses ultimately aspires to one end: death. They seek death in order to preserve life. This death is indiscriminate. No one is immune. It can be instant or slow and torturous. So close is the connection between curses and their heavenly derivation that curses can become deities themselves. They separate the dead from the living. They are disease, calamity, ailment, and misadventure. They are the agents of death. They are the personification of divine weapons, the instruments used in the execution of the evil embedded in every malediction. They are executioner deities, dispatched by their divine lord and master to work his will. They are ever active. They move in collectives. They pursue and chase offenders. They attach themselves to the body of their victims. They grab the hems of garments and lurk in doorways and corners. They hide in jars and pots. They live in areas sparse in life, in cemeteries, in the wilderness, in the desert. They are demons. They bring death; therefore, they are the denizens of the netherworld. Because curses were woven into the very fabric of every known ancient Near Eastern society, they emerge frequently and in a wide variety of venues. They appear on public and not-so-public display objects. They are inscribed on tomb stele, tomb lintels, and sarcophagi, on ancient kudurrus and narûs. They are used in politics in long and intricate treaties that established complicated, international relations. They are used to administer the more mundane features of everyday life. They manage social relationships from business arrangements in sale contracts to family matters in inheritance texts and cases of suspected adultery. They are the backbone of many religious rites. They inhabit the core of powerful, ritual prayers. In hymns extolling the deities, divine maledictions are the object of both fear and praise. They are the subject of incantations. They are tools that exorcise demons and dispel disease; they ban, protect, and heal. This is the phenomenology of cursing in the ancient Near East. And this is what the present work explores.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Part 1 The Operation of Curses

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Dedicated to my parents, Jeanne Kitz and Richard Kitz, M.D.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved. Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Chapter 1

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Curse and the Oath The subject of curses in the ancient Near East has not escaped the scrutiny of the scholarly community. 1 Even so, most early works addressed the topic only secondarily, for their true subject rested primarily in the oath. Consequently, the first in-depth, academic examination of curses actually focused on oaths, their procedures, and their language. For instance, S. A. Mercer strictly limited the scope of his review to oaths in his work The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature. 2 Aside from his discussion on the Akkadian term māmītu, curses receive very little treatment here. 3 With regard to the first indirect study of curses, pride of place goes to J. Pedersen and his seminal work, Der Eid bei den Semiten. Published in 1914, this study presented Pedersen’s notion of a curse in broad terms. 4 He states that “The curse covers everything that is evil and harmful, everything that is not in accord with normal conditions. (It is) the negation of the living.” 5 He also identifies three elements fundamental to every curse: (1) excommunication, (2) loss of honor, and (3) ban. 6 At the same time, however, he was perplexed by textual evidence that indicated that the curse and its effects could be made dependent on certain conditions to the point that it could operate as an oath. 7 For him, this represented a contradiction. 8 How could the same term refer to either an oath or a curse when they represented two discrete strategies? In the end, he attributed this incongruity to “the Semites” and considered it a cultural peculiarity. 9 1.  Throughout this work, the terms curse, anathema, imprecation, and malediction are used as synonyms. Anathema is the term for “curse” in Greek. Malediction literally means “evil saying” in Latin, and imprecation refers to “the act of invoking evil on” someone or something: “curse.” 2.  S. A. Mercer, The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature (Paris: Geuthner, 1912). 3. For his contribution to the development of the definition of māmītu, see p. 14 below. 4. J. Pedersen, Der Eid bei den Semiten (Strassburg: J. Trübner, 1914) 64–102. 5.  Ibid., 64. 6.  Ibid., 78. 7.  Ibid., 103. 8.  Ibid., 103. 9.  “Nonetheless, for us it suffices that the Semities do not see a contradiction in these two notions” (ibid., 103).

9

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

10

Chapter 1

According to Pedersen, when curses were made conditional, they appeared to function in a way synonymous with oaths. This he called “hypothetical cursing.” In the previous chapter, we came very close to the use of the curse as oath. In order for the hypothetical curse to become an oath, it is sufficient that the one speaking uses it against himself. The major difference between this and the common curse is not given here. Nevertheless, the same idea is at its core, whether the curse is directed against another or against the speaker himself. The Semites do not see any difference. We have seen that mamītu in Assyrian and ‫ אלה‬in Hebrew are used as descriptions of the curse and the oath without seeing any modulation. 10

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Pedersen was the first to concede that “the Semites” apparently believed that oaths and their curses could be leveled against oneself or against another. 11 A year later, S. A. Mercer offered another work with a promising title: “The Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions.” 12 There, he made three important observations about curses: (1) they may have been accompanied by acts, (2) they could be “a ban that is similar to, and interchangeable with, a malediction,” and, finally (3) curses could be “loosened” or rendered ineffective with elaborate rituals. 13 One such ritual, he proposes, was the Akkadian series Šurpu, whose officiant, he suggested, was the āšipu. 14 In the field of biblical studies, J. Hempel led the way. In 1925, he published “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen,” in which he strongly argues for a correlation between curse and magic. 15 He recognizes that maledictions were often ac10.  Ibid., 108. 11. E. Westermarck describes an identical conviction held by Moroccans in the 1920s. “Besides the conditional self-imprecation, or oath, there are other conditional curses, which are directed, not against the curser himself, but against somebody else. This is the case with the ‘ār, and, in many cases, the ‘ahd” (Ritual and Belief in Morocco [2 vols.; London: MacMillian, 1926] 1:518). 12. S. A. Mercer, “The Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions,” JAOS 34 (1915) 282–309. 13.  Ibid., 303–4. 14.  Ibid., 306–7. 15. J. Hempel, “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen,” ZDMG 79 (1925) 20–110; republished in Apoxysmata (BZAW 81; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1961) 30–113, here esp. pp. 22–47. His identification of curses and blessings as magic must be tempered by a few points. Hempel’s classification is based on a definition, current at that time, that viewed magical practices as standing outside and in opposition to the official cult. It also assumes that the ancients believed they could control all their deities, that curses had an immediate effect, and that the power was immanent in the spoken word. Most of these conclusions seem to have been influenced by notions concerning the operation of witchcraft. Indeed, many of the terms and concepts associated with witchcraft are hopelessly connected with medieval images of wizards, devil worship, charms, spells, incantations, and opposition to Christianity. In contrast to this, we might keep in mind that there is every reason to believe that the ancient Near Easterners, including the Israelites, saw blessings and curses as one facet of their many-faceted religious practices. This means that blessings and curses are their

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

11

companied by gestures and that the power of the curse was active and predatory. 16 It clings to persons, places and things and can be transferred from one object to another. It is contagious. 17 He also identifies the fundamental features of benedictions and maledictions. Simply put, blessings seek to expand and enhance life, curses aspire to bring about death and make life difficult. 18 Thus, he argues, the frequent, complex expressions of blessings and curses are no more than elaborations on these two elemental themes. S. H. Blank was among the first to discuss the grammar of biblical curses. According to Blank, there are three forms of biblical maledictions: the simple curse, the composite curse, and curses freely composed. 19 While he does recognize that the simple curse can have a conditional element attached to it, he does not see this as one of its defining features. 20 Instead, Blank reaffirms Hempel’s preliminary observations concerning the relation between curse and magic and locates the effectiveness of maledictions solely on the fact that they are spoken. 21 This conclusion is substantiated by the “simple curse,” which solicits no deity and is expressed with the passive participle, ‫‘ אָּורר‬cursed be’, which conceals the agent. Since there is no agent, he concludes that the power of the malediction rests exclusively in the spoken word. 22

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The spoken curse was itself and alone conceived to be the effective agent. This is the significance of the habitual preference for the passive construction in the curse formula and the consequent absence of any reference to an external agent, demonic or divine. The curse was automatic or selffulfilling, having the nature of a “spell,” the very words of which were thought to possess reality and the power to effect the desired results. 23

Blank also introduces an additional subcategory. Curses could be classified as either profane wishes or imprecatory prayers. 24 Profane wishes are “nonreligious” because no deity is mentioned or implied, and imprecatory prayers are petitions in which God is addressed directly or indirectly. 25 religion, not something ancillary or artificially attached to it. It is only how they are used that can make them dangerous or helpful. 16.  Ibid., 26–28. 17.  Ibid., 30–33. 18.  Ibid., 47. 19.  S. H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell and the Oath,” HUCA 23 (1950–51) 73–95, here esp. p. 73. 20.  Ibid., 74, 81. 21.  Blank appears to have taken some direction from Westermarck, who made the following observation concerning the power behind curses. “The realisation of the evil wish is brought about either directly through the mysterious power of the curse itself, or by the aid of a supernatural being invoked in it. In the former case the curse is purely magical, in the latter case it is a kind of prayer” (Ritual and Belief in Morocco, 479). 22.  Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy,” 77. 23.  Ibid., 78–79. 24.  Ibid., 73–74. 25. A. Jeffers also concludes that some curses “convey the idea of the symbolic power of the word” (Magic and Divination in Ancient Palestine and Syria [ed. B. Halpern and

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

12

Chapter 1

Like Mercer, Blank acknowledges that curses could be neutralized. This was achieved in one of three ways: (1) by exterminating the person who articulated it, (2) obfuscation, or (3) countering it with a blessing. 26 Interestingly enough, the first method, destruction of the curser, appears to reflect the rationale behind the Akkadian “incantation” series, Maqlû. In 1958, J. Scharbert developed a more focused approach to the analysis of curses in the Hebrew Bible. 27 Rather than probing the expression of curses, he focused on the descriptive terms for “curse” in Hebrew. This he achieved by scrutinizing the Semitic roots behind the Hebrew terms that are customarily translated with our ubiquitous term curse. These roots are ‫אלה‬, ‫ארר‬, ‫קלל‬, ‫קבב‬, and ‫זעם‬. One of the most important discoveries he made was that ‫ ָאלָה‬not only means ‘curse’ but that it also refers to the “conditional self-curse during an oath.” 28 He also distinguishes between the ‫ָאלָה‬ curse and a curse that uses ‫ארר‬. Accordingly, ‫ ארר‬includes those kinds of curses that are designed to “ban” or “expel” and may have been a feature of magic words. 29 In 1959 and later in 1962, S. Gevirtz proposed a distinction between “East” and “West” Semitic curses. 30 He based his conclusions on the difference between the formulation of curses in Akkadian and Hebrew. Akkadian curses appealed directly to the deities for the execution of the harm. Because Hebrew curses are frequently formulated with the Qal passive participle, ‫‘ אָּורר‬cursed be’, he concludes that the power of the curse rests in the word. Yahweh is not solicited and there is no other “indication of curse agency.” 31 Therefore, all that remains to execute the injury is the power of the word intrinsic in the malediction itself. Drawing on the above distinction, W. Schottroff, proposed that ‫אָרּור‬formula curses were unique to Israel and reflected a nomadic origin. 32 Originally used by clan leaders, they not only bring about social expulsion but they are also self-acting. Curses of this type are neither sacral nor legal. They are merely a social tool used to exact revenge and exculpation. Also of particular interest is Gevirtz’s 1961 article in which he points out a connection between the grammatical construction of West Semitic inscriptional curses and casuistic and apodictic law. 33 Although his primary interest lay in demonstrating that apodictic law was not unique to Israel as M. H. E. Weippert; Leiden: Brill, 1996] 244–50, here esp. p. 250). 26.  Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy,” 93–94. 27. J. Scharbert, “‘Fluchen’ und ‘Segnen’ im Alten Testament,” Biblica 39 (1958) 1–29. 28.  Ibid., 3, 4. 29.  Ibid., 5–6. 30. S. Gevirtz, “Curse Motifs in the Old Testament and in the Ancient near East” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1959); idem, “Curse,” IDB 1:749–50. 31.  Ibid., 750. 32. W. Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch (WMANT 30; Neukrichen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 25–68. 33. S. Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law,” VT 59 (1961) 137–58.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

13

A. Alt had contended, Gevirtz, apparently without realizing it, succeeded in circuitously identifying curses as either conditional or unconditional. 34 Thus, he noted that the expression of some curses reflected the laconic style of apodictic or unconditional law, while other maledictions mirrored the more detailed phraseology of case, or conditional law. 35 Several years later, H. C. Brichto picked up where Scharbert left off and developed a carefully nuanced examination of the same Hebrew terms. 36 In the first paragraph of his summary on ‫ ָאלָה‬he concludes that the term has “the basic force of curse,” and then observes: “it is present explicitly or implicitly in every šəbuʿah ‘oath’ which by definition is a conditional self-curse.” 37 Later he identifies “an institution kindred to the šəbuʿah but independent of it.” In this case, “the ʾālā is an adjuration or conditional curse addressed to another in the second or third person.” 38 Brichto is equally disciplined in his review of ‫ארר‬. Like Scharbert, he sees an affinity between this Semitic root and magic. “The stem ʾrr in both its verbal and nominal occurrences has the force of ‘curse’ only in the operative sense of the word. As such, its basic sense is best rendered by ‘spell’.” 39 When he briefly surveys the Akkadian cognates, he, as did Mercer before him, recognized that the incantation series, Šurpu, may have had something to do with loosening a spell. 40 He also states “Whereas māmītu parallels ʾāla as being ‘curse’ from the point of view of ‘utterance’, Akkadian arāru(m) parallels Hebrew ʾārar in reflecting ‘curse’ in its operative sense.” 41 It can refer to “the imposition of something evil, be it a ban or more generally the prevention of an action,” or just referring to someone in a lessthan-­complementary way. 42 As for ‫אָרּור‬, it can be used declaratively when it indicates a “threat or prohibition.” 43 According to J. Aitken, in his recent study on cursing and blessing in Biblical Hebrew, verbal forms of ‫ ארר‬have a range of meanings. 44 In a similar vein, he concluded that ‫ ָאלָה‬denotes a ‘covenant’ or ‘agreement’ as well as ‘curses’ whose meaning may be expanded to include “a person who is subject to punishment brought about as a result of breaking an agreement (an anathema).” 45 34. A. Alt, “Die Ursprünge des israelitischen Rechts,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1953) 1:278–332. 35.  Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses,” 153–55. 36.  H. C. Brichto, The Problem of Curse in the Hebrew Bible ( Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 13; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1963). 37.  Ibid., 70. 38. Ibid. 39.  Brichto, The Problem of Curse,” 114. 40.  Ibid., 116. 41.  Ibid., 116. 42.  Aitken, The Semantics, 84. 43.  Ibid., 81, 84. 44.  J. K. Aitken, The Semantics of Blessing and Cursing in Ancient Hebrew (Ancient Near Eastern Studies 23; Leuven, Peeters: 2007). 45.  Ibid., 63.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

14

Chapter 1

With the exception of Mercer and Hempel, Assyriologists have not shown too much interest in maledictions. This is not to say that the topic of “curse” has never presented itself. It has, but only as a secondary issue, if it is recognized at all. Much of the debate has centered on the term māmītu, which is chiefly believed to have two separate meanings: ‘oath’ or ‘(oath-)curse’. Mercer was among the first scholars to propose that māmītu had a multifarious meaning that ranged from ‘ban’ to ‘curse’ to ‘oath’ to ‘treaty’. 46 He also notes that Māmītu was a goddess who was married to Nergal the plague deity and that the idea “underlying” the term was occasionally personified. 47 I. M. Price noted other curious features associated with māmītu. 48 Not only could it mean ‘oath’ but it also referred to ‘a conditional curse’. 49 Erica Reiner’s work on Šurpu represents an important contribution to the discussion of māmītu in Akkadian literature. 50 When she published her transliteration and translation of the Šurpu tablets, she acknowledged that the Akkadian term, māmītu, and occasionally the Sumerian term, name rim 2, appear as the dominant concern of the entire ritual sequence. 51 Then she made the following observation concerning the nature and character of māmītu:

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

māmītu has been translated throughout this tablet and wherever else it occurs in Šurpu as “oath”. This is the first meaning in the first thirteen lines of this tablet. 52 In its other occurrences in Šurpu, as in religious texts in general, māmītu means something evil. This meaning can be defined more closely precisely from this tablet which lists various actions and objects known to be connected with taking an oath. We suppose then, that those māmītu’s too whose significance escapes us refer to symbols and symbolic actions from this tablet, that the numen inherent in these, once invoked, would stay unbound and afflict the person who had sworn the oath. 53

Reiner’s suspicions concerning māmītu are well placed. Of particular significance is her appreciation that a māmītu could involve acts and an associative divine power. Yet, it is also clear that the meaning of the term is more than just ‘oath’, comparable to its use in legal language today. She argues that there are times in Šurpu when māmītu is presented as an en46.  Mercer, The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature, 26. 47.  Ibid., 27. 48.  I. M. Price, “The Oath in Court Procedure in Early Babylonia and the Old Testament,” JAOS 49 (1929) 22–29. 49.  Ibid., 23. 50. E. Reiner, Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (AfO Beiheft 11; Graz, 1958; repr., Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag, 1970) 51.  Even though these tablets date to the Neo-Assyrian period, they have textual antecedents linking them to the Middle Babylonian era or more specifically the Kassite period (Reiner, Šurpu, 4). 52.  That is, tablet 3. 53.  Reiner, Šurpu, 55.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

15

ergized being. It is an aggressive, divine power imbued with malevolent energy. It causes any and all kinds of difficulties from bad luck to illness to depression to fatigue. 54 H. C. Brichto also offered his own well-nuanced definition of māmītu in his exhaustive work The Problem of Curse in the Hebrew Bible. He submitted, māmītu has ‘curse’ as its basic meaning, and particularly with the force of ‘imprecation, malediction’; that it came to have the force of ‘oath’ by synecodche of the part for the whole; and by metonymy of cause for effect, received the meaning of ‘curse’ in its material, operative sense. 55

Brichto also pointed out that māmītu is a cognate with the Aramaic term mōmāṯā, both of which are derived from the verb amû/awû. 56 This etymological connection led him to conclude that the original meaning of māmītu was akin to a ‘solemn pronouncement’. 57 If so, this would confirm its oral character. More recently, T. Abusch developed a rather elaborate definition of māmītu. He suggests that māmītu, particularly as used in the Maqlû incantation series, refers to a “social compact or contract directed against hostile and destructive behavior.” 58

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

This māmītu designates an agreement or compact that governs relationships, a series of stipulations to which all members of society, including the witches, have been bound by oath under the threat of punishment. This agreement is authorized and guaranteed by the power of the heavens and the netherworld. And by bringing down curses on those who break the oath, the māmītu is meant to deter its subjects from breaking the terms of the agreement—the rules of society—that allow the living to form a community and the the living and dead to be part of one cosmos. 59

To the best of my knowledge, K. Watanabe is one of the few Assyrologists who has taken the time to examine the expression of a particular well-known Akkadian curse. 60 Here, even she acknowledges that “Thus far, Akkadian curses have always been treated in connection with the usual biblical texts and have received very little attention in Assyriology.” 61 Her 54. Note Pedersen’s observation on curse: “It is as a poisonous, consuming substance that destroys and undermines, so that the soul falls to pieces and its strength is exhausted” ( J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture [4 vols; London: Oxford University Press, 1926; repr., 1964] 1.2:437). 55.  Brichto, The Problem of Curse, 72. 56. Earlier, Mercer had proposed *yama as the common Semitic root (Oath, 260). 57.  Brichto, The Problem of Curse, 16–17, 72 n. 87. 58. T. Abusch, “The Socio-Religious Framework of Maqlû,” in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (ed. T. Abusch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 1–34, here, p. 25. 59.  Ibid., 24. 60. K. Watanabe, “Die literarische Überlieferung eines babylonisch-assyrischen Fluchthemas mit Anrufung des Mondgottes Sîn,” Acta Sumerologica 6 (1984) 99–119. 61.  Watanabe, “Die literarische Überlieferung,” 99. But see H. U. Steymans for a balanced analysis of both Akkadian and biblical curses in ancient Near Eastern treaties

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

16

Chapter 1

analysis focuses exclusively on the literary expression and subsequent development of one type of curse, the “Sîn-Fluch.” Watanabe shows that even though curse themes were formalized through subsequent time periods, the fundamental motif of the malediction remained intact. 62 When the basic “Sîn-Fluch” moved from its Old Babylonian context into an Assyrian setting, only relatively minor alterations occurred. 63 Up to this point, we have seen that scholars have been able to identify some fundamental features associated with ancient Near Eastern curses. Curses excommunicate, ban, and may have been accompanied by gestures and/or acts. Even though curses are contagious, they also can be loosened and negated. While many scholars have acknowledged the existence of conditional curses, the unconditional curse has barely been recognized, let alone discussed. The closest identification of this type of curse is Blank’s “simple curse.” But most importantly for the present discussion, Pedersen, and later Brichto, conceded that ancient Near Easterners could use the same term, whether māmītu or ‫ ָאלָה‬, to describe a conditional self-curse or a conditional curse directed at a second person. While the former roughly corresponds to our modern concept of oath, it is clear that the latter does not. This strongly suggests that the translation of māmītu or ‫ ָאלָה‬as ‘oath’ should be set aside in favor of the more general term ‘conditional curse’ or, when appropriate, just ‘curse’. As we will see, once this strategy is adopted, many of our problems connected with the ancient use of māmītu, ‫ ָאלָה‬and other related ‘oath’ terms melt away.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Treaty and Covenant, Curses and Oaths In the early 1930s, the context for the evaluation of maledictions shifted to include another literary genre: treaties. The primary impetus for this shift in focus was the publication of V. Korošec’s seminal work, Hethitische Staatsverträge. 64 There, he identifies two types of riksu treaty texts: the suzerainty treaty, drawn up between a major king and a minor, vassal king, and (Deuteronomium 28 und die adê zur Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons: Segen und Fluch im Alten Orient und in Israel [OBO 145; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1995] 34–150). 62.  Watanabe, “Die literarische Überlieferung,” 115. 63. Ibid. 64. Viktor Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung (Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche Studien 60; Leipzig: Weicher, 1931). Other treatments of Hittite vassal treaties include E. von Schuler, “Staatsverträge und Dokumente hethitischen Rechts,” Neuere Hethiterforschung 7 (1964) 34–54; idem, “Sonderformen Hethitischer Staatsverträge,” Anadolu arastirmalari: Helmuth Theodor Bossert’ in hatirasina armagan ( Jahr­ buch für Kleinasiatische Forschung 2/1–2; Istanbul: Edebíyat Fahiltesi Basimeví, 1955) 445–641; G. Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale (1600–1200 av. J.C.) (Publication de l’Institute Orientaliste de Louvain 9; Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique, 1974); Theo P. J. van den Hout, Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag: Eine prosopographische Untersuchung (Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 38; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

17

the parity treaty, established between two rulers of equal social standing. 65 According to Korošec, an essential distinction between the two kinds of arrangements is the oath. In suzerainty treaties only the lower ranking party swears an oath. The parity treaty, on the other hand, requires that both contracting parties take an oath. 66 Korošec also classified the now-famous six principle parts that constitute the basic structure of the vassal treaty: (1) the preamble, (2) the historical prologue, (3) the stipulations, (4) provisions for the conservation and public recitation of the treaty, (5) a list of divine witnesses, and (6) a concluding register of curses and blessings. 67 From this point forward, scholarly interest in curses was overwhelmingly defined by their form and function as found in these ancient Near Eastern treaties. Korošec contends that there were two forms of treaty sanctions: iuris humani and iuris divini. The authority of iuris humani rests in the human sphere of influence and permits the offended ruler to punish the treaty violator. Iuris divini relies on the deities to protect the treaty. 68 The oath in vassal treaties could draw on both, thereby allowing the ruler to execute punishment with divine backing. 69 Korošec also connects the deities solicited in these texts with the “Lords of the Oath” who function as guarantors and avengers of broken treaties. He also notes that Hittite treaties personify the oath as oath deities who then pursue recalcitrant vassals to their destruction. 70 Curiously, even though he acknowledges the importance of the oath in these treaty relationships, at no time does he explicitly associate it with the curses in the sixth principle part of the treaty pattern. One reason for this is rather straightforward. While the Hittite treaties do mention an oath, it is never recorded in the text itself. No conventional oath formula is ever directly quoted. Because there is no oath formula, one tends to deal with what is textually present, the curses. Adding to this is Korošec’s assumption that maledictions are magic and oaths are legal. Therefore, he views treaty curses separately from oaths and subsequently treats them as a quaint remnant of magic. In this, Korošec’s analysis deeply affected succeeding discussions on treaty imprecations. In the field of biblical studies, George Mendenhall brought the issue to bear in his cogent 1954 article on biblical covenant forms. 71 Mendenhall’s achievement was to identify several of Korošec’s six principal treaty parts 65.  Riksu and rikiltu /rikistu are two Akkadian terms used in these Hittite texts to describe their content. According to CAD, the former means ‘band’, ‘bond’, ‘ritual arrangement’, ‘contract’, ‘treaty’, while the latter means ‘decree’, ‘contract’, ‘regulations’ (CAD R 347–54; 345–46). They are believed to reflect the Hittite term išḫiul, meaning ‘bond’, ‘tie’ (Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge, 22–23). 66.  Ibid., 24. 67.  Ibid., 12–14. 68.  Ibid., 93. 69.  Ibid., 97. 70.  Ibid., 97. 71. G. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” BA 17 (1954) 50–76.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

18

Chapter 1

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

in the received text of the Hebrew Bible and convincingly demonstrate that Israel knew and expressed her relationship with Yahweh in a form reminiscent of a vassal treaty. 72 Because Korošec developed his six parts based only on the written texts of Hittite treaties, Mendenhall proposes that other components not mentioned in the text needed to be acknowledged. Consequently, he added three more parts: (7) a “formal oath,” (8) “a solemn ceremony which accompanied the oath or was symbolic of the oath,” and (9) a description of procedures to be taken against the treaty violator. 73 For Mendenhall, however, the oath as “conditional self-cursing, an appeal to the gods to punish the promiser if he defaults,” reflects a primitive, religious perspective. 74 Therefore, the oath stood at the “beginnings of law” and it represented humanity’s first means of binding promises. This means that the blessings and curses in ancient Near Eastern treaties stood “wholly within the realm of sacred law” and demonstrate the religious character of the treaty. 75 Even so, the Hebrew Bible’s Decalogue, which generally follows the form of these treaties, lacks the blessing and curse formulas in spite of the fact that they are “inseparably connected with covenants.” 76 Therefore, he suggests that in Israel the blessings and curses were not part of the written text of the covenant. Rather they were represented “as an action which accompanied the ratification of the covenant.” 77 With the publication of D. J. Wiseman’s The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon in 1958, knowledge pertaining to the form of Neo-Assyrian treaties was greatly increased. 78 Wiseman classified two types of treaty curses: (1) curses by the gods and (2) simile curses. 79 He observes that simile maledictions are “little known in Akkadian literature” and acknowledges an affiliation between them and the curses in the Hittite “Soldiers’ Oath.” 80 Even so, he explains their relation to the treaty’s oath in the following way: A number, if not all, of these similes were accompanied by practical demonstrations before the persons who had recently taken the oath. In this way also the terrible results of the curses were vividly emphasized. 81 72. Ibid., 60–61. The simplest example of a treaty form in the Hebrew Bible is the Decalogue, which only has three of the six principle parts. A more complex form, that is, a passage that included all six elements, cannot be found in one place. Nevertheless, most of the principal parts can be pinpointed as elements scattered throughout the Pentateuch. The book of Deuteronomy, in particular, appears to have almost every principal part even though they are not presented in the same sequence as the Hittite sources. 73.  Ibid., 60–61. 74.  Ibid., 52. 75.  Ibid., 60. 76.  Ibid., 66. 77.  Ibid. 78.  D. J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon,” Iraq 20 (1958) 25. 79.  Ibid., 26. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

19

Clearly, Wiseman considers the oath distinct from the simile curses because they were pronounced after the the oath was sworn. Apparently, these maledictions are not to be considered an essential component of the oath itself. 82 Wiseman did not state whether he believed the oath was limited to an oral expression. In a series of articles beginning in 1961, F. C. Fensham investigated the influence of curses in Mesopotamia and Israel. 83 Fensham maintains that the commonality among maledictions in Old Babylonian kudurru inscriptions, Neo-Assyrian suzerainty treaties and the Bible is due to the almost universal sway of the vassal-treaty style. Consequently, this literary form influenced both the law and the prophets in the Hebrew Bible. In the end, he maintains that the curses in Mesopotamian kudurru inscriptions and treaties reflect a “ritual approach” with a ritual punishment. 84 These curses “will come mechanically into effect.” 85 Therefore, Fensham agrees with J. Hempel and his assumption that Mesopotamian curses are magical. 86 The Hebrew Bible, however, “comes with a more human approach” in the form of the so-called covenant lawsuit. 87 Thus, the covenant curses are not magical; they are penalties of law. 88 In the prophetic books, curses come into effect only after a lawsuit is introduced, the court convened, the arguments presented, and a divine judgment given. 89 Fensham’s conclusions reflect a now familiar dichotomy: Mesopotamians practice magic while the Israelites practice a religious form of law. His most significant contribution however, is his recognition that curses involved standard themes or motifs. Regardless of the variety of context and regardless of differences in language, these curse themes endure with uncanny continuity from culture to culture. Thus, we find the curse motif that involves the deprivation of progeny amply attested in Hittite, Akkadian, and Hebrew sources. 90 Fensham classifies his ten themes under three headings: curses against the person of the transgressor, curses against the property of the transgressor, and miscellaneous curses. 91 Under the first heading he lists four dominant themes: the transgressor will be killed and have no progeny, illness and leprosy will overtake the transgressor, the 82.  If an oath is defined as “conditional (self-)cursing,” then it is difficult to determine the concept of oath Wiseman employed as his standard. 83.  F. Charles Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 (1963) 155–75; idem, “Clauses of Protection in Hittite Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” VT 13 (1963) 133–45. 84.  Idem, “Common Trends in Curses,” 174. 85.  Ibid., 175. 86. J. Hempel, “Die israelitischen Anschauungen,” 108. 87.  Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses,” 174. 88.  Ibid., 175. 89.  Ibid., 174. 90.  Ibid., 158–60. 91.  Ibid., 158, 164, 170.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

20

Chapter 1

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

corpse of the transgressor will be exposed, and the transgressor will wander like a wild ass. 92 The second heading also has four themes: the overturning and destruction of the transgressor’s dwelling place, the ruins of the transgressor’s city will be inhabited by wild animals, natural calamities will overtake the transgressor, and the transgressor’s wife will be given to the enemy. 93 Only two themes illustrate miscellaneous curses: the turning of light into darkness and taking away of joy. 94 Shortly thereafter, D. R. Hillers presented a penetrating study on maledictions in Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, published in 1964. 95 Like Fensham, he also focused on curse themes but expanded the number of motifs from 10 to 20. 96 Even though the purpose of his work was to demonstrate prophetic awareness of the covenant through their use of these curse motifs, one of his most notable discussions is his grammatical analysis of maledictions. His analysis establishes an essential tool that helps standardize the identification of phrases and statements as curses. With this as his springboard, Hillers catalogs four main categories of imprecations: (1) the curse by the gods or by a single god, (2) the “simile curse,” (3) the simple malediction, and (4) the “futility” curse. 97 Under the “simile curse” heading, he provides three important subcategories: ritual or ceremonial curses, simile curses that may have been accompanied by a ritual, and curses that were apparently not accompanied by ritual. 98 He distinguishes the simile curse through its use of a comparison expressed as: “just as,” “thus/so.” 99 For instance, line 36 from Sefir I reads: “Just as (this) bow and these arrows are broken, so shall Inurta and Hadad break [the bow of Matiʾel].” This is a ritual simile curse. It typically includes a demonstrative pronoun that is used in conjunction with the compared object. For Hillers, the presence of the pronoun strongly suggested that the item was physically present and “was handled in some sort of ritual.” 100 92.  Ibid., 158–64. 93.  Ibid., 164–70. 94.  Ibid., 170–72. 95.  D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets (Biblica et Orientalia 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964). 96.  Hillers admits that curses use more than the 20 themes he identifies. Consequently, he generates his theme list based on parallels between curses in ancient Near Eastern treaties and prophetic oracles of doom. His malediction motifs are (1) the dwelling place of animals, (2) devouring animals, (3) removal of joyful sounds, (4) removal of the sound of the millstones, (5) becoming a prostitute, (6) being stripped like a prostitute, (7) breaking weapons, (8) breaking the scepter, (9) dry breasts, (10) eating the flesh of sons and daughters, (11) ravishing of wives, (12) contaminated water, (13) the incurable wound, (14) warriors becoming women, (15) no burial, (16) like a bird in a trap, (17) flood, (18) lack of men, (19) Sodom and Gomorrah, and (20) passers-by will shudder (ibid., 43–79).  97. Ibid., 12, 18, 26, 28.   98.  Ibid., 19, 21, and 24.  99. Ibid., 18. 100.  Ibid., 19.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

21

Even those curses without the pronoun were probably associated with a gesture of some sort. Hillers observes: A second group of simile curses lacks the demonstrative pronoun with the object compared, e.g. BoST 8, p.  52, line 31: ‘Like a reed may they break you’. Yet these curses seem to have been accompanied by a ceremony, at least originally, since in parallels occurring in other texts a ritual is clearly implied. 101

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Hillers was the first to demonstrate that curses not only could include gestures but that these acts could be reflected in the grammatical structure of the curse itself. Thus, maledictions were word and act combined. Not surprisingly, this has implications for Mendenhall’s “solemn ceremony which accompanied the oath.” Since an oath is a conditional self-curse, then his ‘solemn ceremony’ may have been nothing other than the oath’s anathemas expressed as act (which, we recall, were written out in Korošec’s sixth principle part of the vassal treaty). More recently, S. Parpola and K. Watanabe published updated transcriptions and translations of the best known of extant Neo-Assyrian treaties. 102 They too briefly discuss curses and oaths and acknowledge that “all NeoAssyrian treaties were sworn treaties, and those which were not kept turned into a curse against the treacherous party—a curse, or rather curses, literally written in the treaty itself.” 103 Accordingly, they suggest that there were oath-taking ceremonies that were witnessed by the treaty deities in the form of their statues. 104 Like Wiseman, they identify two types of treaty curses but they classify them according to the divine agents who execute the harm in the maledictions. (The maledictions) . . . fall into two classes, (1) curses involving individual witness gods as agents of punishment and destruction, and (2) curses effected collectively by all the treaty gods. The former are referred to in this book as “traditional curses”, because they largely consist of curses taken over from the Mesopotamian literary tradition. . . . The latter are referred to as “ceremonial curses”, because they involve parables or references to symbolic acts actually carried out during the conclusion of the treaties. 105

Only two of all the treaties addressed by Parpola and Watanabe contain ceremonial curses. These are the treaty of Aššur-nerari V (754–745) with the king of Arpad, Matiʾ-ilu, and the well-known vassal treaty of Esarhaddon (680–669) 106 Parpola and Watanabe point out the “calculated effect” 101.  Ibid., 21. 102. S. Parpola and K. Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths (State Archives of Assyria 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988). 103.  Ibid., xxii. 104.  Ibid., xxxvii. 105.  Ibid., xlii. 106.  Ibid., xlii.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

22

Chapter 1

of these maledictions. Their use is to instill graphically and indelibly in the vassal the repercussions a breach of the treaty would involve. 107 Studies of Anatolian and Mesopotamian treaty curses have helped to distinguish different types of maledictions grammatically. Of these, the simile curse is by far the most revealing. As we have seen thus far, those whose expressions retain the demonstrative pronoun hint at the execution of special acts that are related in some way to the curse. The exact disposition of this relationship now calls for further investigation.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Rituals and Curses The preceding review highlights an underlying issue regarding curses in the ancient Near East that has yet to be resolved: were curses exclusively oral statements? Certainly, some simile curses imply that this was not so and that gestures and/or acts could be a feature. If such curses did include acts, what then were the function of these acts? The question seems to be complicated further by treaty texts in which an oath plays a significant role. Are the curses listed in these treaties connected in any way to the oath? When some of the curses imply gestures, what is their purpose in relation to the oath? Do they merely “accompany” the curse and oath? Do they “symbolize” the curse and oath? Or are they the curse imbedded in every oath? In Assyriology, the issue is addressed in a few cogent reviews that offer insightful evaluations of the relation among curse, oath, and acts. The suggestion that these three components are intrinsically interwoven does not seem to alarm the Assyriological scholarly community in the same way it apparently affects some in the world of biblical studies. For biblical scholars, such matters are intimately bound to the Covenant, covenant procedures and, by extension, to Mesopotamian and Anatolian vassal treaties. To illustrate the range of the difficulty among biblical scholars, we will briefly focus on Gen 15:7–21, the Yahwist’s account of Yahweh’s covenant with Abram. The meaning of animal slaughter followed by walking between the severed pieces as depicted in this passage has drawn regular scholarly notice. Here, much has depended on the interpretation of the key phrase ‫‘ ּכָרַ ת ְּבִרית‬cut a covenant’, which, at face value, would seem to imply a covenant ritual. It appears in v. 18, after Abram has severed a variety of animals into two pieces and Yahweh appears at sundown as a smoking pot and flaming torch. When Yahweh passes between the animals, he is said to have ‫ ּכָרַ ת ְּבִרית‬with Abram. Many great biblical scholars have offered interpretations of this animal rite, and most were on the right track. Thus, H. Gunkel and G. von Rad described it as a “self-wish.” 108 S. E. Loewenstamm, C. Westermann, W. Zim107.  Ibid., xlii. 108. H. Gunkel, Genesis (HKAT; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1901) 165; G. von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose (ATD; 4th. ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1956) 157.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

23

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

merli, G. Fohrer, and N. Lohfink refer to it as a “self-curse.” 109 And L. Perlitt and E. Kutsch identify it as a “self-obligation.” 110 Other views include those of G. F. Hasel, who argues that Gen 15:7–21 is a “covenant ratification rite.” 111 G. J. Wenham understands the rite to be a “solemn and visual re­ affirmation of the covenant that is essentially a promise.” 112 J. Day suggests that the phrase as used in Genesis 15 and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible “arose from the custom of making a covenant by sacrifice.” 113 R.  S.  Hess contends that the rite is largely symbolic, illustrating Yahweh’s “personal commitment” to give the land. 114 Of those who have reviewed Gen 15:7–21, none has influenced its interpretation more than M. Weinfeld, who analyzed this and other biblical covenant rituals based on two types of ancient Near Eastern texts: treaties and royal grants. 115 Thus, Genesis 15 is “a covenant of grant which binds the suzerain” and reflects a strategy connected with the bestowal of royal grants. 116 This he distinguishes from the procedures in Jeremiah 34, a passage with which Genesis 15 is most often linked due to similarities suggested by the slaughter of a calf and walking between the pieces by those involved. 117 Supposedly, the Jeremiah passage reflects methods associated with vassal treaties. 118 The core of his discussion rests on who swears the oath. In grants, the superior swears the oath, while in vassal treaties the inferior party swears the oath. 119 Aside from the many examples that Weinfeld

109. S. E. Loewenstamm, “Zur Traditionsgeschichte des Bundes zwischen den Stücken,” VT 18 (1968) 500–506, here, p. 500 n. 2; C. Westermann, Genesis (BKAT I/14; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970) 271; W. Zimmerli, 1. Mose 12–25: Abraham (Zürcher Bibelkommentare 1/2; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976) 55; G. Fohrer, “Altes Testament: ‘Amphiktyonie’ und ‘Bund’?” ThZ 91 (1966) 801–16, 893–904; N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 28; Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1967) 24–30. 110. L. Perlitt, Die Bundestheologie im Alten Testament (WMANT 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 73; E. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (BZAW 131; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973) 44. 111. G. F. Hasel, “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15,” JSOT 19 (1981) 61–78, here, p. 70. 112.  G. J. Wenham, “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. G. Hasel, JSOT 19 (1981) 61–78,” JSOT 22 (1982) 134–37, here, p. 136. 113. J. Day, “Why Does God ‘Establish’ Rather Than ‘Cut’ Covenants in the Priestly Source?” in Covenant as Context : Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson (ed. A. D. H. Mayes and R. B. Salters; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 91–109, here esp. p. 98. 114.  R. S. Hess, “The Slaughter of the Animals in Genesis 15: Genesis 15:8–21 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50 (ed. R. S. Hess, G. J. Wenham, P. E. Satterthwaite; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) 55–65, here, p. 63. 115. M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970) 184–203. 116.  Ibid., 199. 117. Ibid. 118. Ibid. 119.  Ibid., 185.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

24

Chapter 1

considers “land grants,” one in particular stands out. This is an Alalakh text, AT 456, first published by D. Wiseman in 1958. 120 The relevant lines are: ab-ba-an 40a-na ia-ri-im-li-im ni-iš DINGIR.MEŠ 41za-ki-ir u3 ki-ša-ad 1 UDU iṭ-bu-uḫ 42šum-ma ša ad-di-nu-ku-um-mi 121

39b

Abba-An swore by the life of the deities to Yarim-Lim, he cut the neck of one lamb: “(May this happen to me), if I take what I have given to you.”

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Weinfeld himself identifies this procedure as an oath, “a conditional selfcurse” which “the donor takes upon himself.” 122 Here it confirms the irrevocable nature of the gift. This text suggests that Weinfeld’s so-called “land grants” could also be bound by an oath involving animal slaughter and that the oath is a feature common to both grants and treaties. Additionally, this recommends that the animal rites in Genesis 15 and Jeremish 34 are both oath rituals performed with the same set of implications. The similarity between the two merely illustrates that the same oath ritual could be applied to any situation necessitating an oath regardless of the nature of the arrangement and who is swearing it. The act of killing animals in this context is the oath’s curse. 123 In 1978, D. McCarthy’s fundamental book Treaty and Covenant updated the scholarly community on the breadth and depth of these institutions throughout the ancient Near East. 124 He defines a curse as an oral expression. It is “A prayer or invocation for harm or injury to come upon one.” 125 At the same time, he also acknowledges that they could be acted out and that phrases such as “cut a covenant,” “cut an oath,” and “cut a curse” may preserve faint memories of these procedures. 126 Therefore, oaths and their curses are both word and act. However, the treaty was not merely the word decreed by the sovereign and sworn by the underling. It was tied intimately to ritual: taking the oath was a ritual act, curses were represented ritually and not merely spoken, the treaty text was deposited in a shrine and treated as a sacred object. 127

McCarthy maintains that rituals of dividing or slaughtering animals constitute “acted-out” curses. 128 They are dramatic acts, rites reflecting “a kind of 120.  D. J. Wiseman, “Abban and Alalaḫ,” JCS 12 (1958) 124–29. 121.  Ibid., tablet 456, p. 127, rev., lines 39b–42. 122.  Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 185 n. 10. 123. In another article, Weinfeld makes the following concession concerning covenant as “obligation bound by oath.” “The blood in the covenantal ceremony does not serve as a symbol of holy communion, but . . . constitutes the dramatization of the punishment which will befall the one who violates the oath: his blood will be shed.” “Berît–Covenant vs. Obligation,” Biblica 56 (1975) 120–28, here, p. 124. 124. D. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Analecta Biblica 21a; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981) 11. 125. Ibid. 126.  Ibid., 93, also 94, 102, 111, 123, 151, 255. 127.  Ibid., 157. 128.  Ibid., 94.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

25

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

oath taken by action.” This sort of ritual was “surely oath at its most vivid, something seen and done, not a matter of words alone.” 129 The final scholarly approach to curses draws on speech-act theory, a term coined by J. R. Searle to describe the postulate first developed by his famed instructor J. L. Austin, who in 1962 developed the concept of performative language. 130 Austin suggested that particular phrases could have an authentic effect whether legal, religious, or otherwise. 131 Interestingly enough, Austin actually broached the topic of cursing and blessing and identified maledictions and benedictions as “behabitives.” 132 These unique utterances are, in his view, reactive responses to a second party’s conduct as either positive or negative. A. C. Thiselton was the first noted scholar to apply Austin and Searle’s theories to biblical curses and blessings and subsequently adapted Austin’s philosophical position to accommodate the world of ancient Israel. 133 Thus, certain oral statements, such as blessings and curses, when spoken in the appropriate context by a duly authorized person, could constitute both word and act. On such occasions, these words enjoyed a certain level of power. 134 For Thiselton, only priests and other authorized individuals had the right to bless or curse in God’s name because the power to effect this sort of outcome only comes from God. 135 Thiselton’s position influenced subsequent writers among whom are C. W. Mitchell and T. G. Crawford. 136 Taking an additional cue from the work of W. Schottroff, they placed much weight on whether or not a deity is specifically petitioned in these utterances. When viewed in the context of speech-act theory, Yahweh is understood to be the one who actually executes the malediction, identifying the orally declared curse as a solicitation of the deity. When a deity is not petitioned, the curse can become somewhat self-fulfilling.

Some Resolution: Curse as Act and/or Word All the above information now prompts a brief reassessment of the issue in light of additional texts that were not considered in earlier discussions. Particular consideration must be given to the recent work of D. Charpin, 129.  Ibid., 96. 130.  J. R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969). 131.  J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962). 132.  Ibid., 159–60. 133.  A. C. Thiselton, “The Supposed Power of Words in the Bblical Writings,” JTS 25 (1974) 283–99. 134.  Ibid., 294–95. 135.  Ibid., 295. 136.  C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “to Bless” in the Old Testament (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 95; Atlanta: Scholars Press); T. G. Crawford, Blessing and Curse in Syro-Palestinian Inscriptions of the Iron Age (American University Studies, Theology and Religion Series 7/120; New York: Peter Lang, 1992).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

26

Chapter 1

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

who has made significant headway in advancing a more sophisticated understanding of the relation among curse, word, and act in the ancient Near East. But before we appraise the importance of his contribution, let us place the matter at hand in an updated context. In doing so, we will give special attention to a certain well-known phrase and its affinity to other expressions in related languages associated with oaths and curses. We will begin by returning to that ever-challenging, Hebrew phrase ‫ּכָרַ ת‬ ‫‘ ְּבִרית‬cut a covenant’. It occurs in Greek as ὅρκον τέμνειν, 137 Phoenician as ‫כרת‬ ‫אלת‬, 138 and in the Sumerian expression n a m- erim 2 . . . k ud, all of which literally mean ‘cut a curse’. 139 While this correlation is indeed interesting, it does not necessarily help us determine whether or not the phrase ‫ּכָרַ ת ְּבִרית‬ is related to this same mix of ideas regarding curses and the ritual seemingly implied in the literal meaning of these expressions. In order to estimate the nature of this association—if indeed there is an association—we need to examine another well-attested phrase that appears in the Akkadian language in second millennium Hittite treaties: riksu u māmītu, 140 literally, ‘agreement and conditional curse’, that is, ‘a sworn 137.  Homer, Il. 2.124; idem, Od., 24.483. 138.  The phrase appears in an inscription on a small limestone amulet from Arslan Tash, Syria; rev., lines 9–10. The tablet has been the topic of many excellent books and articles the most significant of which are: Comte du Mesnil du Buisson, “Une Tablette magique del a région du Moyen Euphrate,” Mélanges syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 30/1; Paris: Geuthner, 1939) 421–34; W. F. Albright, “An Aramean Magical Text in Hebrew from the Seventh Century b.c.,” BASOR 76 (1939) 5–11; A. Dupont-Sommer, “L’Inscription de l’amulette d’Arslan Tash,” RHR 120 (1939) 133–59; T. H. Gaster, “A Canaanite Magical Text,” Or 11 (1942) 41–79; H. Torczyner, “A Hebrew Incantation against Night-Demons from Biblical Times,” JNES 6 (1947) 18–29; A. van den Branden, “La tavolette magica di Arslan Tash,” Bibbia e Oriente 3 (1961) 41–47; H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–69) text 27; F. M. Cross and R. J. Saley, “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century b.c. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria,” BASOR 197 (1970) 42–49; A. Caquot, “Observations sur la première tablette magique d’Arslan Tash,” JANES 5 (1973) 45–51; W. Röllig, “Die Amulette von Arsaln Taş,” NESE 2 (1974) 17–28; Z. Zevit, “A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology,” IEJ 27 (1977) 110–18; J. C. L. Gibson, Phoenician Inscriptions, vol. 3: Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982) 78–88; J. C. de Moor, “Demons in Canaan,” JEOL 27 (1981–82) 106–19. Not too long ago, there was some lively discussion on the authenticity of the tablets. The topic was first broached by J. Teixidor, “Les tablettes d’Arslan Tash au Musée d’Alep,” AuOr 1 (1983) 105–8; and P. Amiet, “Observations sur les ‘Tablettes magiques’ d’Arslan Tash,” AuOr 1 (1983) 109. A plausible solution to the problem was offered by J. van Dijk. He proposed that the amulets currently in the museum were merely copies of the original tablets that were misplaced long ago (“The Authenticity of the Arslan Tash Amulets,” Iraq 54 [1992] 65–68). Even so, Dennis Pardee has confirmed their authenticity in a meticulous review of all the evidence in “Les documents d’Arslan Tash: authentique ou faux?” Syria 75 (1998) 15–54. For more discussion on this tablet, see below, pp. 312–318. 139.  See pp. 40–62 for a full discussion on the meaning of nam-erim 2 . . . kud. 140.  For example, the following forms appear in two Hittite treaties: ri-ik-ša u ma-mi-ta and ri-ik-si-šu u ša ma-mi-ti-šu are used in a treaty drawn up between Šattiwaza of Mittanni and Šuppiluliuma I (ca. 1350). ri-ik-si u ma-mi-ti appears in a treaty between Tette of

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

27

agreement or contract’. 141 Unfortunately, the Hittite equivalent does not occur in any text with this exact structure, but it may be reconstructed as išḫiula lingaiš through other references. By Neo-Assyrian times, the phrase seems to have undergone a slight alteration in vocabulary, becoming adê māmītu. 142 Even though none of the known Hittite and Akkadian uses of this expression and/or its related variants appear with any verb that conveys the sense ‘cut’, it does in Deut 29:11, where it uses three familiar terms: ‫‘ כרת‬cut’, ‫‘ ברית‬covenant’, ‘agreement’, and ‫‘ אלה‬curse’. ‫ֲשר יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ ּכֹרֵת ִע ְּמךָ הַּיֹום‬ ֶׁ ‫ּוב ָאלָתֹו א‬ ְ ָ‫ָב ְרךָ ִּב ְבִרית יהוה אֱלֹהֶיך‬ ְ ‫ְלע‬ (You stand here assembled) . . . to enter into the agreement of Yahweh your God with his conditional curse which Yahweh your God is making (lit., ‘cutting’) with you this day.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Deut 29:11 unites the two components ‘agreement’ (‫ברית‬, riksu, išḫiul, adê) and ‘conditional curse’ (‫אלה‬, māmītu, lingai-) with the notion of ‘cutting’. This lends credence to the likelihood that such agreements could be described as ‘cut’ because the conditional curses that bound them were, at one time, ritualized. Such phraseology probably preserves the memory of one of the more graphic curse rites available: the slaughter of animals. Thus, the description in Gen 15:7–21 is an example of this sort of malediction expressed wholly as act without mention of the accompanying words, if any were spoken. If we take a cue from the Alalakh text, AT 456, quoted above, it is clear that the act of slicing the lamb’s throat functions as the apodosis of a conditional sentence whose protasis is the only element that is actually spoken. This shows that the procedure is the curse because it inflicts death, the fundamental harm in all maledictions, on another living being. The act brings both curse and its punishment, death, into existence. The meaning of such a deed is so obvious that no additional words are necessary. Nuḫašši and Šuppiluliuma I. H. H. Figulla and E. F. Weidner, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1 (WVDOG 30/I; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) tablet 3, rev., line 18; rev., line 46; tablet 4, col. 4, line 40, respectively. 141.  Some have identified the structure of the phrase as hendiadys, a figure of speech that uses two terms to express a single idea (M. Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 [1973] 190–99, here, p. 191; H. Tadmor, “Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historian’s Approach,” in Humanizing America’s Iconic Book [ed. G. M. Tucker and D. A. Knight; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982] 127–52, here, p. 132). When the terms riksu or išḫiul stand by themselves in treaties, then they function as pars pro toto for the entire phrase (Korošec, Hethitische Staatsverträge, 29). Also see observations by Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê, 22–23, 82–88. 142. While some Neo-Assyrian treaties might use the terms adê and/or māmītu, the particular phrase adê u māmītu never appears. The closest we come to the phrase itself is a reference in a letter dating from time of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. 15bze-er ḫal-qati-i-šu-nu 16[m]a-mi-ti ša2 DINGIR u3 a-de-e ul i-du-u2, “They are nomads, they recognize neither the conditional curse of the god or the adê” (Harper, ABL 12:1376, letter 1237, lines 15b–16). For zūr ḫalqātî as nomads, see J. Black, A. George, and N. Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Addadian (SANTAG 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000) 103.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

28

Chapter 1

However, another question now presents itself. What may have been done with the animal after it was killed? Is there evidence for additional acts in this rite? Another text from Alalakh, AT 54, which records the sale of property sealed by an oath, may provide a significant clue. 143 GU2 SILA4 a-sa-ki IGI ni-iq-mi-e-pu-uḫ UGULA.AGA.UŠ 18 ṭa-bi-uḫ 16 17

16 The neck of the asakku lamb 18was cut 17before Niqmepuḫ, Overseer of Soldier(s).

The key word here is asakku, a frustrating term that Assyriologists have struggled to define because the range of meanings associated with it are at once diverse and disjointed. Asakku is a loanword from the Sumerian term a 2- s ag 3. In the Sumerian epic L u g a l - e , it is a pine tree and/or a duststorm. 144 Outside this context, asakku specifies a disease personified as a malevolent demon. 145 Elsewhere, it is also used to indicate consecrated things, suggesting the notion of ‘taboo’. 146 It is at this juncture that D. Charpin’s pivotal article, “Manger un serment,” now comes into play. 147 While working on the Mari texts, he was able to make a join to ARM 8 85 and thus restore one of the contract’s concluding phrases. It now reads nīšum akālum ‘eat an oath’, literally, ‘eat life’. 148 ba-qi2-ir A.ŠA3 LUGAL 61i-na a-lim sa-pi2-ra-timki 62u3 a-aḫ-ḫe la-aḫ-mu-mi i-ba-qa-ru 10 ma-na KU3.BABBAR a-na E2.GAL 64i3-la2-e 65TL iu3 gišKAK i-na ri-iš A.ŠA3 ša-a-tu 66 i-na pi2-šu im-ma-aḫ-ḫa-aṣ 67ni-iš da-gan [d]i-tur2-me-er 68ii d ḫa-na-at u3 zi-im-ri-li-im 69i-ku-ul 149

60

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

63

143.  Unless otherwise noted, all references to cuneiform materials are based on the autographed copies of the original tablets. These have been checked against most modern editions. Current modern editions will be referenced for the convenience of the reader. The Sumerian sign values are taken from the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary Project available on-line: psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine. 144. T. Jacobsen, “The Asakku in Lugal-e,” in A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs (ed. E. Leichty et al.; Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988) 225–32, here, p. 225. 145.  Ibid., 231. 146. B. Landsberger was the first scholar to address the difficulties associated with the term asakku and offered two distinct meanings: ‘demon/disease’ on the one hand and ‘taboo’ on the other (“Lexikalisches Archiv,” ZA 41 [1933] 216–36, here, pp. 218–19). 147. D. Charpin, “Manger un serment,” in Jurer et maudire: Pratiques politiques et usages juridiques du serment dans le Proche-Orient ancien (ed. Joannès and Sophie Lafont; Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996) 85–96. 148.  In this case, the nuance of nīšum ‘life’ derives from the formula spoken by the oath taker when taking an oath: ‘By the life of’ + the name of a deity. 149. G. Boyer, Archives Royales de Mari, vol 8: Textes juridiques et administratifs (TCL 29; Paris: Geuthner, 1957) plate 42, tablet 85, tr. lat, lines 1–5; D. Charpin, “Sapīratum, ville du

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

29

The one who would contest (this arrangement) 63aby raising a claim for the field of the king 61in the city of Sapiratum 62and (belonging) to the brothers of Lahmumum, 64will pay 63b10 minas of silver to the palace 65and the stake (found) at the head of the field 66will be thrust into his mouth. 69He has eaten 67an oath by Dagan, 68iiItur-Mer, Hanat and Zimri-Lim.

60a

60b

The full impact of nīšum akālum is highlighted even further when we consider an entry from an Akkadian synonym list: ni-šu = ma-mit, “(the word) nīšu/life (is a synonym for the word) māmītu/conditional curse.” 150 The phrase nīšum akālum is not unique to Mari. It also shows up in contemporaneous contracts found at Tell Harmal and Terqa. 151 ARM 8 85 also immediately recalls an earlier form of the phrase, coupled with a similar punishment, as found in a Sumerian sale document from Fara, ancient Šuruppak. It dates to the Early Dynastic period, ca. 3000–2350. ud a n-du 3 8i n i m an -gal 2 1ud -da ka-ka-n a ni g 2- ne - r u ba- ga 2- ga 2 g a g k a -ka-n a š e 3-gaz. 152

7

2giš

If he (the seller) detains (the sold woman) or raises claims (to her), then he puts evil/curse in his mouth, (and) a wooden stake should be driven through his mouth.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The notion behind n i g 2-n e - r u for ‘curse’ found here also surfaces in a “model court case” text from Nippur where it appears as nam-ne-ru. 153 This correlation promotes an alliance in meaning between ne-ru and the more frequently attested term e r i m 2 in n a m-e r im 2 ‘curse’. 154 But of even more significance for the matter at hand is the fact that the phrase nīšum akālum can sometimes appear as asakkum akālum, ‘eat Suhûm,” MARI 8 (1997) 341–66, here, pp. 343–47. See also the reconstruction by Charpin in “Manger un serment,” 87. 150. M. Civil, ed., Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon (vol. 14; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979) Aa Tablets 16–21, tablet 3/1, p. 329, line 8′. 151.  Charpin, “Manger un serment,” 86–87. 152. F. Thureau-Dangin, Recueil de tablettes Chaldéennes (Paris: Leroux, 1903) plate 9, deuxième série, rev., col. 5, cases 7–8; col. 6, lines 1–2; D. O. Edzard, Sumerische Rechtsurkunden des III. Jahrtausends aus der Zeit vor der III. Dynastie von Ur (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 67; Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1968) 89–90; J. Krecher, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden des 3. Jahrtausends,” ZA 63 (1973) 145–217, here, pp. 188–92; B. Kienast, “Verzichtklausel und Eviktionsgarantie in den ältesten sumerischen Kaufurkunden,” ZA 72 (1982) 28–41, here, pp.  30, 38; P. Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 17; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989) 58–60. 153.  W. W. Hallo, “A Model Court Case Concerning Inheritance,” in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (ed. T. Abusch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002) 141–54, here, p. 153, line 19. For a discussion on the full text, see below, pp. 96–100. It should be noted that ne-ru can also be read erim 2. 154.  For a discussion on the meaning of e rim 2, see below, pp. 40–62.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

30

Chapter 1

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

asakkum’ 155 and SAR.MEŠ akālum ‘eat herbs’. 156 Each of these variations refer to features of swearing oaths. In light AT 54 above, where asakki qualifies the lamb, g u 2 si l a 2, slaughtered for the oath, we can assume with some confidence that the animal may have been eaten. Indeed, if Charpin is correct in his belief that asakkum functions collectively in this phrase and refers to any one of a number of acts such as consuming bread, beer, or wine, as well as anointing with oil, then we come close to indirect references to meals. 157 Yet, it may also be that asakkum, sar-meš, and even nīšum when joined to akālum function metonymically for an entire ritual whose individual formal name, if it existed, we have yet to recognize. 158 If these phrases refer to the act of eating within the context of an oath ritual, then the significance of this act must lie with the oath’s curse. The distinction between the “meals” these expressions adumbrate and the ordinary act of eating for sustenance is that these repasts interiorize a conditional curse. Such meals are loaded with perilous implications. They operate under the assumption that ordinary, basic foodstuffs that normally sustain life will become “curse,” that is, “poison/death,” to anyone who violates the provisions of the agreement, whether a contract or covenant. When witnesses are participants in the meal, then they too would become subject to the effects of the “curse” when they become aware of a breach but do not report it to the affected parties. 159 155. P. Hoskisson argues that asakkum akâlum means ‘infringment of a taboo’ and that it “was either a type of, or a part of an oath ceremony” (“The Nīšum ‘Oath’ in Mari,” in Mari in Retrospect [ed. G. D. Young; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992] 203–10, here, p.  205). One of the first to discuss this phrase in conjunction with biblical practices is A. Malamat in “The Ban in Mari and the Bible,” in Biblical Essays, Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of “Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika” (Potchefstroom: Beperk, 1966) 40–49. 156.  Charpin, “Manger un serment,” 86–92. 157.  Charpin, “Manger un serment,” 94–95. 158.  For example ‘eat asakkum’ refers to that segment of the rite in which the oath taker consumes an eatable item that has already suffered the effects of the curse, ‘death’. ‘Eat SAR.MEŠ’ could relate to the consumption of something bitter-tasting, illustrating the bitterness that comes with a cursed life. Finally, ‘eat nīšum’ alludes to the words of the oath formula spoken by the oath taker when he consumes the slaughtered meat. He literally eats ‘the life’ of the animal. 159.  It is more than likely that this sort of situation is envisioned by the directive in Lev 5:1: “When any of you sin in that you have heard a public, conditional curse (‫ )אלה‬and one (lit., ‘he’) is a witness (‫)עד‬, (and then) either sees or hears (of a matter related to it) but does not tell, you are subject to its (the conditional curse’s) punishment.” For a full discussion on this matter, see Bruce Wells, The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes (BZAR 4: Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004) 55–72. Further comments on this passage may be found in J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 292–318; G. Brin, “The Formula ‘If He Shall Not (Do)’ and the Problem of Sanctions in Biblical Law,” in Promegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 341–62, esp. pp. 350–51.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Recent Scholarly Approaches to Curses

31

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The above review, albeit brief, attempts to illustrate the ideological interconnectedness of some well-known, common phrases associated with the swearing of oaths in the ancient Near East. The predominant image that emerges from these phrases is a ritual meal in which the oath’s conditional malediction plays the leading role. 160 Thus, the act of “cutting a curse” can be associated with animal slaughter. Here, the harm in the curse, death, is brought into being through the execution of another living creature. Once done, the animal, may be accurately identified as ‘curse’, assakum, whose ‘life’, nīšum, may be ingested. Similarly, “eat a curse” refers to the ritual meal, simple or elaborate, in which a portion of the “curse” is actually consumed by the oath taker and, apparently, on some occasions, the witnesses. 161 The difficulty many of these texts have offered modern scholars lies in a failure to acknowledge that curses, particularly those embedded in every oath, could be fully and completely expressed as acts. To paraphrase a statement made by D. R. Hillers, these acts “did not symbolize” the harm in the malediction; it was the malediction. “It was not magic, it was business, and it was legal.” 162 The endurance of odd, fixed phrases such as “cut a curse” or “eat a curse” need not be understood to refer to oath meals in every reference. Rather, it is possible that, by the end of the first millennium, these phrases became standard expressions for swearing oaths and did no more than preserve memories of the actual ancient procedures they imply. The situation these later texts reflect may be what Hillers noted as “a general movement away from acted-out ceremony to written-out verbal formulas.” 160.  The variety of curse-acts described in ancient Near Eastern texts attest to the fact that animal slaughter and ritual meal was not the only way the curses in oaths could be expressed. See pp. 427–469 for a review of these other acts. 161.  Sumerian sale documents occasionally mention the individuals involved in these ritual meals. For instance a tablet dating to the Pre-Sargonic period reads: 12′šu-nigin 2 20 ab + aš 2 13′in e 2! 14′p[n] 15′dumu p[n x] 16′pa- te-[si] 17′ninda ku 2(ka + ⸢gar⸣) 18′kaš i .na[g](k[a + a]), “12′A total of 20 witnesses 17′ate bread/food 18′(and) drank beer 3 13′in the house of 14′PN (the purchaser), 15′son of PN, 16′the governor” (I. J. Gelb, P. Steinkeller, and R. M. Whiting Jr., Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus [Oriental Institute Publications 104; 2 vols.; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1989] 2: plate 61, tablet 35, rev., col. 2, cases 12′–18′). For a discussion on this tablet, see 1:106–7. Other texts describe very large feasts conducted over a period of two days with as many as 652 individuals involved. See the Maništušu obelisk, Earliest Land Tenure, 2: plate 71, text 40, side C3, col. 19, cases 13–28, and transliteration with translation, 1:138. 162.  D. R. Hillers, “Rite: Ceremonies of Law and Treaty in the Ancient Near East,” in Religion and Law: Biblical and Islamic Perspectives (ed. E. B. Frimage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 351–64, here, p. 360.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Chapter 2

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

One of the greatest difficulties one encounters regarding the study of curses is the lack of modern terms that properly reflect the intended meaning behind many ancient expressions. 1 In the end, nothing has become more convoluted and confusing than the application of the contemporary word ‘oath’ to define the Akkadian term māmītu. Unfortunately for us, the modern idea of ‘oath’ has a very narrow, legal meaning. It is nothing more than a conditional self-curse. Nevertheless, even the most fleeting of perusals of the māmītu entry in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary demonstrates that this definition, for all intents and purposes, often fails to capture the breadth and depth of the Akkadian term. 2 Consequently, the meaning associated with the very narrowly defined modern term oath has been superimposed on an ancient term whose use indicates that it may mean nothing more specific than ‘conditional curse’, either imposed or self-imposed. 3 Adding to this confusion is the modern propensity to deemphasize the role of the divine realm in oaths and, subsequently, eliminate all indications that a divinely enforced curse is involved. 4 This means that, in our 1.  A point duly pointed out by P. Keim in “The Politics of Malice: Ancient Near Eastern Maledictions as Metaphor,” in Exploring New Paradigms in Biblical and Cognate Studies (ed. Hugh R. Page Jr.; Mellen Biblical Press Series 48; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1996) 16–45, here p. 19. 2.  CAD M/1, 189–95. The entry offers the following definition for māmīıtu: “1. oath (sworn by the king and the gods), sworn agreement, 2. curse (consequences of a broken oath attacking a person who took it, also as demonic power).” E. Reiner also acknowledges this problem in her classic statemen, quoted on p. 14 (Šurpu, 55). More recently, T. Abusch makes a similar case in “The Socio-Religious Framework of Maqlû,” 23–24. He also notes that the use of māmītu in the Maqlû Akkadian witchcraft texts clearly means more than just ‘oath’ (p. 24). 3.  Conditional curse: S. A. Mercer was one of the first to distinguish an oath as a conditional curse and hints that this may have a bearing on māmītu (“The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions: The Oath in Babylonian Inscriptions of the Time of Hammurabi Dynasty,” 37 n. 5, 38). I. M. Price, however appears to be the earliest scholar to identify māmītu as nothing more than a “conditional curse” (“The Oath in Court Procedures in Early Babylonia,” 23). Imposed or self-imposed: H. Tadmor acknowledged that, beginning in the 14th century, the Assyrian monarchs would customarily “impose” a māmītu on their vassals (“Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” 133). 4. See, for instance, the definition of “oath” in The Oxford English Dictionary (vol. 10; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998) 631, which does not even mention the curse as a feature. Accordingly, an oath is “a solemn or formal appeal to God” whose only function is to “witness the truth of a statement.” Sometimes this is born out in biblical studies; see C. W.

32

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

33

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

modern world, an oath as defined in ch. 1 does not exist anymore. Rather, the formulation of oaths today corresponds best to a solemn promise. No deity is solicited. No curse is expressed or even implied. Any retribution is purely legal and limited to one type of offense: for example, perjury or lying under oath. It is more than likely that this modern reality has subconsciously influenced certain scholars in their use of ‘oath’ and ‘vow’ interchangeably. 5 As we will see, one is not a synonym for the other. 6 In the world of the ancient Near East, however, swearing an oath was a religious affair. Whether directly or indirectly, the oath always involved the divine world. Consequently, the violation of an oath was principally a religious offense and could be properly characterized as a “sin.” 7 This is hardly so today. The fundamental difference between an oath and a vow is the curse. An oath has a curse; a vow does not. 8 An oath automatically solicits the divine world. A vow, on the other hand, involves the deities but the principle on which the solicitation is based rests on the axiom of reciprocity. 9 A vow negotiates with the divine realm. An oath does not; it only petitions harm should the oath not be honored. More importantly, a māmītu as a conditional curse can presume a contractual alliance. This means that both parties are aware of the terms and have either willingly or unwillingly agreed to them. 10 Under these circumstances māmītu acquires the sense of ‘treaty’ or ‘agreement’ and primarily Mitchell’s description of an oath, which also does not mention the curse. In his view, the oath only has a “provision of punishments” (“Oath,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 978–79). 5.  The most obvious examples of modern confusion between oath and vow are exemplified by O. Kaiser, who, when defining the Hebrew term ‫ָדר‬ ָ ‫‘ נ‬vow’, offered the following definition: “Religious Usage in the OT. An oath is a solemn promise to a deity to perform a certain act if the deity acts in a certain way” (TDOT 9:242–55, esp. p. 244). While this explanation would be more than suitable for a vow, it hardly describes an oath. Other examples may be found in R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981) 67, 98–99; R. G. Boling, Judges (AB 6A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976) 208; J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiogrtaphy in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical Narrative (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983) 347; J. P. Fokkelmann, King David (Assen: van Gorcum, 1981) 171. 6. As noted by T. W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East ( JSOTSup 147; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 14. 7.  See pp. 45–46, 82, and 129, below. 8.  This point is sometimes missed by scholars. Tadmor observed that the Assyrians and their immediate neighbors preferred treaty-oaths with imprecations while the Babylonians did not. He maintained that, in Babylonia, “an oath sworn by the life of the gods, although followed by certain symbolic actions, was sufficient to guarantee the implementation of a treaty” (“Treaty and Oath,” 134). 9.  Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible, 16; J.  Berlinerblau, The Vow and the “Popular Religious Groups” of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry ( JSOTSup 202; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996) 41. 10.  The key notion here is mutual acknowledgement. This must be distinguished from instances when a māmītu is uttered against someone but the target does not become aware

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

34

Chapter 2

reflects a known arrangement between two parties that has predetermined penalties which are articulated in curses at the moment of its conclusion. A vow, although a type of agreement, does not. The punishment in a vow is undefined and vague and its neglect can be attributed to such innocent failings as forgetfulness and preoccupation with other serious matters. Because a vow bargains with the deities, one suspects that a person could promptly circumvent any pending punishment through profuse acts of repentance that would include torn clothing, seclusion, wearing ashes, copious offerings and prayers. The pentaly of a māmītu, however, is fixed. It is inevitable. No haggling is possible. Any would-be violator knows precisely what to expect should he choose to disobey this class of māmītu. It is willful, deliberate and calculated. Consequently, the transgressor is most deserving of a quick, harsh, unavoidable curse punishment. The disinclination to keep these distinctions in mind has contributed directly to much of the confusion among modern writers concerning the sense of the Akkadian term māmītu and the function of the “oath formula” in texts. At the same time, due to this lack of clarity, scholars may have been unduly challenged in their assessment of vows, oaths, and even curses. The present inquiry will proceed on the assumption that vows and oaths represent two distinct institutions. Curses are a feature of oaths and in this context they are always conditional. 11 There are, however, other occasions when maledictions could be expressed unconditionally; that is, in a way completely unrelated to oaths. With these points in mind, we will open with a brief review of the main differences between a vow and an oath. Then we will turn our attention to the oath and curse in Sumerian phraseology. It will be shown that Sumerian expressions distinguished between self-imposed conditional maledictions that can be demanded by contracting parties and judicially assessed, conditional imprecations. While the former somewhat corresponds to our modern notion of an oath, it is the latter that offers the greater challenge. Strictly speaking, an imposed conditional curse does not exist today as a distinct convention. While Akkadian speakers, the immediate heirs of this Sumerian background, appear to have understood the differences between the two procedures, the language did not maintain such a strict distinction. Māmītu became a catch-all word that subsumed two distinct Sumerian terms n am - e r i m 2 and sa g -b a . 12 The oath formula nīš DN tamû ‘swear by the life of a deity (divine name)’ could refer to either an involuntary, imof its existence until he breaches the māmītu and begins to experience the effects of the curse. The Šurpu incantation series appears to address this situation. 11. J. Pedersen described the curse in an oath as “hypothetical,” which becomes an oath when “the one speaking uses it against himself” (Der Eid, 108). S. H. Blank characterized the biblical oath as a “conditional curse” (“Curse, Blasphemy, Spell and Oath,” 87). 12.  For a nicely nuanced discussion on this issue, see W. Schramm, Bann! Bann!: Eine Sumerisch-Akkadische Beschwörungsserie (Göttinger Arbeitschefte zur Altorientalischen Literatur 2; Göttingen: University of Göttingen, 2001) 4–7, here, esp. p.  5. Also see the interesting entry from Aa A = nâqu 40 line 24: ŠU.2 dUTU : sag-ba-nu : ma-mit : SAG :

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

35

posed conditional curse or a voluntary, self-imposed conditional malediction. Therefore, it is the context that mainly helps to distinguish the two conventions in Akkadian literature. This suggests that the people of the ancient Near East accommodated two different ways in which conditional maledictions could be conferred. Whether or not we may say that this also reflects two different ways in which oaths could be administered may have to be evaluated more carefully.

The Vow A vow and an oath are two autonomous social conventions in the ancient Near East. 13 Num 30:3[2] confirms the difference. Note how the conjunction ‫ אֹו‬functions as a particle of choice to distinguish between the two customs. ‫דבָרֹו ְּככָל־הַיּ ֹצֵא ִמ ִּפיו‬ ּ ְ ‫ֶאסֹר ִאּסָר עַל־נ ְַפ ׁש ֹו לֹא יַחֵל‬ ְ ‫ּׁשבַע ְׁש ֻבעָה ל‬ ָ ‫ו־ה‬ ִ ֹ ‫ֶדר לַיהוָה א‬ ֶ ‫ִאיׁש ִּכי־יִדֹּר נ‬ ‫ֲשׂה‬ ֶ ‫יַע‬

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

When a man makes a vow to Yahweh, or swears a solemn oath upon his life to a binding obligation, he shall not allow his word to be profaned; he shall do all that comes out of his mouth. 14

There are two features that vows and oaths share: the deity, Yahweh, and their oral declaration. According to this verse, both a vow and an oath bind an individual to a specific action and, no human being is allowed to renege on the terms of either type of arrangement with Yahweh. In its most fundamental sense, a vow is a conditional promise. 15 In the ancient Near East, vows were most frequently used as a means of bargaining with the divine. While one could loosely identify the expression of vows as “prayers,” they were, nevertheless, primarily negotiating tools. 16 Human beings used them to enlist heavenly assistance and gain advantage in situations that were perceived to be beyond mortal influence. 17 This means that vows functioned as an open-ended contract based on conditional ma-mit. M. Civil, ed., Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14, Aa Tablets 39–42, p. 505, tablet AO 3555, rev., line 24. 13.  With several commendable works addressing the topic of vows in Israel, only the briefest of overviews will be given here. Even so, it must be acknowledged that very little has been done regarding vows in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hittite literature. Perhaps the most influential work on vows in Israel remains Adolf Wendel’s Das israelitisch-jüdische Gelübde (Berlin: Philo-Verlag, 1931). More recent studies include: T.  W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East; and J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the “Popular Religious Groups” of Ancient Israel. 14.  This probably refers to Yahweh’s life, and the oath invocation formula “By the life of Yahweh.” 15.  Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible, 25. 16.  Ibid., 26–27. 17. J. Pedersen offered this somewhat altruistic description of a vow: “The idea is that if a man wants to bind God to do great things, he must give him something in return” (Israel: Its Life and Culture [3 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926] 3:326).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

36

Chapter 2

reciprocity. The notion that sustains this arrangement may be identified as the das ut dem principle: “(First) you give, so that I will give.” 18 Interestingly, the burden for initiating the completion of a vow rests primarily with the deity. For until there is divine fulfillment of the request, the human associate is free of any obligation. When understood in this way, we can see that a vow to a deity is nothing other than a form of arbitration. It is a device that lowly mortals used in an attempt to secure a desired result that only the immortal world could influence. A Hittite divination report drawn from an SU oracle, probably an extispicy session, illustrates the das ut dem vow protocol. It shows that individuals seeking recovery from illness could use vows to encourage the divine realm to act. Here the ailing king has asked his diviner to inquire of a deity regarding the best way in which he may inaugurate his convalescence. The following is the diviner’s answer. 31 a-na DINGIR-lim ma-al-du-wa-ar ša dUTU-ši SI x SA2-at nu 1 GUD.ŠE 6 UDU-ia SI x SA2-at 32nu-za-kan2 ka-ru-u2 ma-al-ta-aš ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma d UTU-ši SIG5-ri 33na-at pi2-i-ia-an-zi 19

It was established by oracle that My Majesty should make a vow to the deity. It was established (that it should be) one fattened ox and six sheep. 32He (the king) has already made the vow. When he recovers, 33 they will give them.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

31

The verb, mald-, malda- used here means ‘to vow’, and, as is characteristic of a vow, the deity is to act first. In the Hittite king’s case, the heavenly realm must heal the monarch before the king is obliged to sacrifice the ox and six sheep. Line 33 is key. Note the temporal nature of the initial clause introduced by maḫḫan ‘when’. Although there is no future tense in Hittite, the presence of maḫḫan allows the otherwise present-tense verb piyanzi to be treated as a future. Thus, any indebtedness to the deity would arise only after the king has recuperated, SIG5-ri. This kind of vow relationship with a deity also appears in the Hebrew Bible in Gen 28:10–22, which relates Jacob’s dream at Bethel. 20 Here, the provisional nature of the vow arrangement is grammatically expressed in a conditional sentence. The crux of this audacious agreement occurs in vv. 20–22. 18.  Literally, this means “you give, therefore, I give.” Although not articulated in Latin, Adolf Wendel proposed a similar notion in Das israelitisch-jüdische Gelübde, 12. For another comparable view, see G. van der Leeuw, “Die do-ut-des Formel in der Opfertheorie,” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 20 (1920–21) 241–53. Cartledge suggests si dederis dabo, “I will give, if you will give” instead (Vows in the Hebrew Bible, 38, 66). 19. A. Walther, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 5 (Berlin: Staatlichen Museen, 1922) tablet 6, plate 23, col. 1, lines 31–33. E.  Laroche, Catalogue des textes Hittites (Études et commentaires 75; Paris: Klincksieck, 1971) 98, no. 570, listed under the heading “Oracles hépatoscopiques (KUŠ).” 20. For a more detailed discussion on the nature of the vow in this passage see Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible, 166–75.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

37

ְ ‫דר‬ ‫ן־לי ֶלחֶם‬ ִ ַ‫ֲשר אָנ ִֹכי הֹול ְֵך ְונָת‬ ֶׁ ‫ֶך ַהּזֶה א‬ ּ ֶ ‫ּושמָרַ נִי ַּב‬ ְׁ ‫ָדי‬ ִ ‫ִהיֶה אֱל ִֹהים ִעּמ‬ ְ ‫ֶדר לֵאמֹר ִאם־י‬ ֶ ‫ּיִדַ ּר יַעֲק ֹב נ‬ ‫ֲשר־‬ ֶׁ ‫ָבי ְו ָהיָה יהוה ִלי לֵאל ִֹהים׃ ְו ָה ֶאבֶן הַּזֹאת א‬ ִ ‫שלֹום אֶל־ּבֵית א‬ ָׁ ‫ש ְב ִּתי ְב‬ ַ ׁ ‫ֶלאֱכֹל ּו ֶבגֶד ִל ְלבֹּׁש׃ ְו‬ ְ ‫ַשּׂרֶּנּו ל‬ ַׂ ‫ָך׃‬ ְ ‫אע‬ ֲ ‫ן־לי עַשֵ ּׂר‬ ִ ‫ֲשר ִּת ֶּת‬ ֶׁ ‫ִהיֶה ּבֵית אֱל ִֹהים ְוכֹל א‬ ְ ‫צבָה י‬ ּ ֵ ‫ש ְמ ִּתי ַמ‬

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Then Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and will watch over me on this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you give me I will indeed give one tenth to you.”

The text explicitly indicates that ‫ֶדר‬ ֶ ‫ ַוּיִדַ ּר יַעֲק ֹב נ‬, “Jacob vowed a vow.” This is followed by a conditional sentence marked by the conditional particle ‫אם‬. ִ It establishes the terms of the arrangement. The protasis, the ‘if . . .’ clause, is followed by a verb in the imperfect, ‫ִהיֶה‬ ְ ‫י‬. A series of converted Perfect verbs ַ ׁ ‫ ְ;ו‬these extend the conditional elements of the ensues, ‫ּושמָרַ נִי‬, ְׁ ‫נָתַ ן‬, and ‫ש ְב ִּתי‬ protasis so as to include three more provisions that Yahweh is to fulfill. Such a construction “is used to express a condition and consequence which are regarded as being capable of fulfillment in present or future time.” 21 The grammatical structure underscores Jacob’s presumption that Yahweh could easily accomplish his terms with very little effort. Certainly, this is not surprising, because all things are possible with the deities. The only unanswered question that remains is Yahweh’s willingness to complete the deal. Inevitably, trouble begins when the divine partner upholds his or her end of the bargain and the human partner either intentionally or unintentionally disregards his promised duty. Since the divine realm is involved, indifference regarding a vow is a very serious offense. 22 Even so, the punishment for the neglect of a vow remains within the heavenly sphere and does not call on the mortal domain for additional enforcement. Oaths on the other hand, more frequently than not, envision the divine and earthy realms working in conjunction to execute the curse of a breached oath. In addition, oath violation carries not only religious repercussions but also legal ramifications. Although a deity, insulted by the offense of vow neglect, could indeed castigate the offender with a variety of misfortunes, the punishment is never seen to derive from a prearranged, conditional malediction. This illustrates a fundamental distinction between the vow and the oath. The curse in an oath establishes the nature of the punishment in advance while the vow leaves the penalty to the whim of the deities.

The Oath In the ancient Near East, an oath is a solemn and explicit petition to a deity or deities potentially to inflict harm on the oath-taker. It is used to 21.  GKC §159; 2b. 22.  Very little has been written on this subject, and texts tend to be reticent concerning this point.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

38

Chapter 2

endorse the binding nature of a statement or the terms of an arrangement between two parties. 23 Intrinsic to the very nature of an ancient oath, and perhaps its most distinguishing feature, is the curse. This means that all

ancient oaths contain curses, whether implicit or explicit, backed, in principal, by the heavenly realm. 24 While it is possible for a curse to exist outside the framework of an oath, it is impossible for an oath to exist without a curse. 25 Thus, an oath is really nothing other than a form of conditional cursing. Should an oath taker fail to maintain the oath, then the deities are expected to execute and/or approve the punishment according to the conditions of the curse or curses. 26 Additionally, all oaths are attached to a promise. These promises can be presented individually or in a series. Since the inherent character of an oath is fixed, 27 it is only the details of the promise and the oath’s curse that differ from one to another.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

For the sake of clarity, we begin with the simple observation that when defined according to function, there are only two types of oaths: promissory and evidentiary. 28 An evidentiary oath is taken to verify that what one 23. Even though there are many works that address oaths, remarkably few actually provide a definition of the term. S.  Mercer is among those who have contributed one of the best explanations. “The Babylonian and Assyrian oath was a solemn promise or declaration made under divine sanction or penalty and was ratified by a spoken word, action, or word and action” (The Oath in Babylonian and Assyrian Literature [Paris: Geuthner, 1912] 31). Likewise, G.  P. Hugenberger offers the following. An oath is “any solemn declaration or enactment which invokes the dieity to act against the one who would be false to an attendant commitment or affirmation” (Marriage as a Covenant [VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 193). 24.  Pedersen, Der Eid, 70, 82, 108–14. Mercer believed that a curse was sequential to the oath (“The Malediction in Cuneiform,” 283), while H. C. Brichto indicated that “every oath involves a curse” (The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, 24, 27). 25.  Occasionally, some writers give the impression that a curse was not necessary for an oath to be an oath. J. Sharbert observed that “‫ ָאלָה‬can also be a conditional self curse made during an oath” (“‘Fluchen’ und ‘Segnen’ im alten Testament,” 3). F. C. Fensham observes that an oath “is usually associated with maledictions when it is broken” (“Oath,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986] 572). 26. There is every reason to assume that the offended party in an oath-bound relationship believed that he was free to participate with the divine realm in executing the oath-curses on an errant partner or underling. It is this potential coordination of divine and human efforts that may have made the oath a particularly powerful administrative tool. V.  Korošec pointed out that the execution of the curses in a violated treaty was a presumed prerogative of the Hittite king. Disregard for an oath-bound arrangement would justify the offended king’s aggressive action against the violator (Hethitische Staatsverträge, 97–98). 27.  An oath is a conditional self-curse. Yet this does not mean to say that the manner in which an oath was sworn was fixed. Indeed, there is every indication that an oath could be sworn in a wide variety of ways as is illustrated best in the “First Soldiers’ Oath” and “Second Soldiers’ Oath” texts (N. Oettinger, Die Militärischen Eide der Hethiter [Studien zu den Bog˘azköy-Texten 22; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1976]). The custom of walking between the pieces of severed animals as depicted in the Bible (Gen 15:17; Jer 34:18–19) represents only one of the many methods available. 28.  Although he did not use the same vocabulary, A. B. Mercer made this distinction as early as 1912. He preferred “promissory” and “assertive” (The Oath in Babylonian and

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

39

says is accurate and factual. The promise in an evidentiary oath is to tell the truth. A promissory oath attests to the authenticity of the individual’s intent to complete a proposed endeavor or adhere to specific terms. The promise in a promissory oath is loyalty and fidelity to whatever has been declared.

Oaths and Curses: The Sumerian Background

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Since Akkadian speakers were the heirs to many Sumerian ideas and expressions, let us turn our attention to Sumerian oaths. 29 First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that the distinction between evidentiary and promissory oaths is a really nothing more than a convenient, modern construct. 30 Not too long ago, A. Falkenstein and D. O. Edzard attempted to demonstrate the discrete existence of these two kinds of oaths in the Sumerian language. 31 Both turned to two common Sumerian phrases that described the taking of an oath: m u / z i l u gal . . . pad 3 and nam-e r im 2 . . . k u d . Rarely do either of these phrases accompany an explicit articulation of the malediction. As we will see, it may be best to understand the former phrases as expressions derived from an oath formula and the latter Assyrian Lierature, 14, 31; “The Malediction in Cuneiform Inscriptions,” 282). See also D. O. Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on His Seventieth Birthday, June 7, 1974 (Assyriological Studies 20; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975) 63–98; note in particular his slightly more detailed discussions on the two types in Sumerian literature on pp. 82–88, 88–92, esp. pp. 90–91. The identification of oaths as “fealty” or “loyalty” actually reflects a subcategory of promissory oaths. This description was first introduced by M.  Weinfeld (“The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” UF 8 [1976] 379–414] and subsequently adopted by notable scholars such as H. Tadmor (“Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East,” 140), S. Parpola and K. Watanabe (Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths [State Archives of Assyria 2; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988]), and G.  Mendenhall (“Covenant” in ABD 1:1179–1202). More recently B. Lafont has suggested that the two types of oaths should be called “political” and “juridical” (“Serments politiques et serments judiciaires à l’epoque sumérienne: Quelques donnés nouvelles,” in Jurer et maudire: Pratiques politiques et usages juridiques du serment dans le Proche-Orient ancien [Paris: L’Harmattan, 1996] 31–47). He draws on the work of A. Testart, who defines oaths according to modern standards, which have, for all intents and purposes, abolished the role of the divine. With the elimination of the phrase “so help me God,” modern oaths have become nothing more than legally enforceable promises. There is no self-cursing. Therefore, Testart identifies one’s “word,” “honor,” or “conscience” as the primary device, outside the law, that ensures faithfulness to oaths (“Le lien et le liant: Les Fondements symboliques du serment” in Le Serment, vol. 2:Théories et devenir [ed. R. Verdier; Paris: CNRS, 1991] 245–55, here, p. 245). 29.  The first to review Sumerian oaths systematically was A. B. Mercer, “The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions,” 33–50. 30. First distinguished by I.  M. Price as “the affirmative and the pledged-promise” (“The Oath in Court Procedure in Early Babylonia,” 23–24). 31. A.  Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, vol. 1: Einleitung und syste­ matische Darstellung; vol. 2: Umschrift, Übersetzung und Kommentar; vol. 3: Nachträge und Bericht­igungen, Indizes und Kopien (ABAW 39, 40, 41; Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Aka­ demie der Wissenschaften, 1956–57) 1:63–66; Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” 77.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

40

Chapter 2

phrase as referring to a conditional curse imposed on an unwilling individual by an authoritative body.

Scholarly Arguments

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

According to Falkenstein the phrase m u lugal . . . pad 3 ‘to swear by the name of the king’, indicates a promissory ‘oath’, while nam-erim 2 . . . kud, ‘to cut a curse (lit., ‘evil’)’, 32 refers to an evidentiary ‘oath’. 33 He also notes that the mu l u g a l . . . p a d 3 oath never really appears with any associative rituals. It was largely an oral affair. N am-erim 2 . . . k ud, on the other hand, was loaded with sacred and religious features. These oaths were sworn in special places such as temples and gates. They also directly invoked the deity. Occasionally n a m - e r i m 2 . . . kud oaths were performed before the g e š - tu k u l , or divine weapon. 34 At that time, it was also believed that Akkadian speakers were not as concerned about the niceties of such distinctions between oaths. They only used a rough equivalent of m u l u g a l . . . pa d 3 and condensed the notion contained in n a m - e r i m 2 . . . k u d with the use of māmītu. 35 Only two phrases predominate in Akkadian: nīš šarrim/RN/DN tamû or nīš šarrim/ RN zakāru, both of which mean ‘swear by the life of the king/Royal Name/­ Divine Name’. Not only were they used regardless of the oath’s promissory or evidentiary character, 36 but the former would, of course, reflect a different Sumerian phrase, z i l u g a l /DN (- a k ) . . . pad 3 , which is also well attested in Sumerian texts. 37 More recently, P. Steinkeller has brought much clarity to the discussion of Sumerian oaths. He has provided ample textual evidence demonstrating that it is no longer possible to sustain a strict distinction between two different types of oaths based on these expressions. He cites several examples 32.  Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 1:64; Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” 82–88. 33.  Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 1:63–64; Edzard, “Zum Su­ merischen Eid,” 88–92. 34.  Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 1:64–65. 35.  See also, P. Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 77. 36. G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, vol. 1: Legal Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) 466–67. 37.  This is exemplified in an ancient kudurru that reads: zi-lugal i 3 -p[ad 3 ]: “he disclosed (as true/verifiable) by the life of the king.” F. Thureau-Dangin et al., Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservée au Musée Impérial Ottoman (vol. 2; Paris: Leroux, 1912) tablet no. 35121. See also J. Gelb, P. Steinkeller, and R. M. Whiting Jr., Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus, vol. 2, plate 163, text 342. ְ ‫( חֵי אֲדֹנִי ַה ֶּמל‬2 Sam 15:21) To swear ‘by the life of the king’ is also attested in Hebrew: ‫ֶך‬ ‘by the life of my lord the king’. Here, the phrase is prefaced by ‫‘ חַי־יהוה‬as Yahweh lives’. There is no example in Biblical Hebrew of the phrase ‫ הי המלך‬ever appearing in isolation. Gen 42:16, which has ‫חֵי פ ְַרעֹה‬, comes the closest to the independent use of the formula. In Sumerian and Akkadian literature, this formula can stand alone or in conjunction with ‘by the life of DN’.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

41

that use m u l u g a l . . . pa d 3 to refer to evidentiary oaths and nam-erim 2 . . . k u d to denote promissory oaths. 38 In the end, one must agree with Steinkeller’s observation “that Sumerian, like Akkadian, did not distinguish between declaratory and promissory oaths.” 39 Consequently, it may be best to classify evidentiary and promissory oaths in both Sumerian and Akkadian according to context and not necessarily phraseology. Attempts to identify the character of the distinction between the two Sumerian oath phrases along alternate lines are many and varied. Edzard recommended that the m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 qua promissory oath, looked toward the future. It attempted to regulate impending acts, whether to prevent them or encourage them. 40 Subsequently, the nam-erim 2 . . . kud ‘oath’ qua evidentiary oath, qualified past actions. 41 Steinkeller suggested that n am - e ri m 2 . . . k u d referred to an oath which was fortified by a self imposed curse, while m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 was a “regular oath” which lacked a malediction. 42 I. Yoda proposed that the distinction rests on jurisdiction. Because the m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 predominantly evokes the king, it enlists royal authorization, while the n a m -e rim 2 . . . kud was backed by divine approval and support. 43 B. Lafont proposed that the two phrases were really two different ways that one could refer to different features of an oath ritual. N a m - e r i m 2 . . . k u d refers to the solemn rite and mu lugal . . . p a d 3 points to one of the principal moments that make up “swearing by the name of the king or deity.” 44 Others have augmented the discussion by taking a more historical approach. In order to account for shifts in the pairing of phrases, P. Koschaker developed an evolutionary model with regard to mu lugal . . . pad 3 and its occasional combination with m u DN. He suggested that the tradition of swearing in the king’s name is directly related to the deification of the monarchs of the Sargonic and Ur III periods. 45 This exhibited a Sumerian tradition. The Old Babylonian custom of swearing in the name of an 38.  Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 75–77. An observation likewise confirmed by M.  Si­ grist, Drehem (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1992) 194–95. 39.  Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 76. 40.  Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” 82. 41.  Ibid., 88. 42.  Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 77, 76. 43. I. Yoda, Oaths in Sumerian Archival Texts: A Case Study in Ur III Nippur (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1993) 35–36. 44.  Lafont, “Serments politiques et serments judiciaires,” 33. 45.  See also the observations on the divinity of these kings by P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” Acta Sumerologica 3 (1981) 77–92, esp. p. 81 n. 48; W. W. Hallo, “Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study,” in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (W. W. Hallo et al., eds.; Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 1–17; A.  Westenholz, “The Old Akkadian Period History and Culture,” in Mesopotamien Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1999) 17–117, esp. p. 40 n. 123; J. Klein, “Sumerian Kingship and the Gods,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

42

Chapter 2

identified deity, m u DN, and an unidentified king, mu lugal, however, represented a combination of the Sumerian tradition with a Semitic tradition, which swore only in a deity’s name. 46 Steinkeller dramatically improves this approach by linking the shifting preferences in terminology to the political situation of the respective periods. He observes that the earliest form of an oath elicited the city deity. 47 This would reflect the autonomy of the Pre-Sargonic city-states, each of which was the earthly realm of a particular deity managed by that deity’s earthly agent or e n s i 2. When the Sargonic kings began to unite these smaller city-states, the character of the oath shifted. Now both the city god and the king, or the monarch and a regional administrator, the sanga or e n s i 2, were invoked. This represented the precarious balance of power between the Sargonic kings and the semi-independent status of the citystates. 48 Eventually, when the centrality of power was firmly established in the hands the Sargonic king, only the m u lugal . . . pad 3 ‘oath’ or the ‘king’s oath’ was used. 49 Consequently, any reference to the local city deities was eliminated. Steinkeller suggests that the persistent use of the ‘king’s oath’ in the Ur III period reflected “a continuation of the Sargonic imperial tradition.” 50 When the control of the Ur III kings began to wane, there occurred a commensurate shift in oath language, in which both the local deity and the king were evoked side by side.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Nuances of Sumerian Oaths Certainly all of the above proposals have their merits and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Even so, another layer of meaning might be proposed. No one disagrees that m u l u g a l /DN . . . p a d 3 , zi DN/lugal .  .  . pad 3 and n am - e rim 2 . . . k u d refer, in a general sense, to oaths. Difficulties arise when one tries to distinguish the linguistic nuances each phrase illustrates. Is it merely a case of promissory versus evidentiary oaths or can these phrases express something more? If they do, what then do they feature? For ease of discussion, we will limit our focus to five phrases. These are: m u lu g al/(RN) .  .  . p a d 3 , ‘swear by the name of the king/(royal name [RN])’; 51 m u DN . . . p a d 3 , ‘swear by the deity/(divine name [DN])’; zi lu g al .  .  . p ad 3 , (swear by) the life of the king’; zi DN . . . pad 3 , ‘(swear by) the life of the deity (DN)’; and n a m - e r i m 2 . . . k ud, literally, ‘cut an evil (G.  M. Beckman and T.  J. Lewis, eds.; Brown Jusaic Studies 346; Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2006) 115–31. 46. P. Koschaker, “Göttliches und weltliches Recht nach den Urkunden aus Susa: Zugleich ein Beitrag zu ihrer Chronologie,” Or n.s. 4 (1935) 38–80, here, pp. 59–60. 47.  Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 79. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50.  Ibid., 80. 51.  Steinkeller maintains that the Akkadian phrase nīš šarri tamû/zakāru corresponds to this Sumerian expression (ibid., 71).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

43

thing’. First, however, we will try to develop a general understanding of the principal verb used in these formulas, p a d 3 .

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Pad 3 With the exception of one phrase, all of these formulas use pad 3 . It has long been held that the fundamental meaning of pad 3 is ‘reveal’, ‘name’, ‘select’, ‘find’, ‘elect’, ‘choose’. 52 In the framework of mu lugal statements, it is taken to mean ‘invoke’, which would correlate nicely with the notion ‘swear’ but may not follow from the basic sense ‘select’, ‘find’, and ‘choose’. 53 As pointed out by Steinkeller, this recommends that pad 3 alludes to more than just the invocation formula and could well denote “the accompanying ritual action.” 54 In the next two sections, for the sake illustration, pad 3 will occasionally be translated as ‘disclose’. Not only is this a synonym for ‘reveal’, but it also incorporates, in a supplementary fashion, the senses ‘call’, ‘name’, ‘proclaim’, ‘invoke’. ‘Disclose’ is particularly well suited for the discussion at hand because it also denotes an act that ‘makes something known’ and/ or ‘makes public something closed or secret’. While I maintain that pad 3 expresses ‘swear’, it may also include the notion ‘disclose’ (for verification). Therefore, it simultaneously “swears” the oath and renders it available for future verification by the authority of the m u (name) of the deity or the king should either party violated its terms. Additional information about the nature of this ‘disclosure’ may be drawn from a key line from the “Inanna and Enki” myth: lul-da mu-a 2n a m u - abzu - na [i ]n -p a d 3  55 ‘He (Enki) deceitfully swore/disclosed by the name of his power and by the name of his abzu’. The use of the term lu l in this context is particularly informative. Here, it modifies pad 3 indicating that the meaning of the verb is to be tempered by this word. As we all know, l u l means ‘false’ or ‘criminal’ and its Akkadian counterpart sarru means ‘mock’, ‘criminal’, ‘fraudulent’. 56 52. E. Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 1; Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1966) 160. He lists three principle meanings for pa(d): “1 ‘to seek, find, fetch’. 2 ‘to call, elect, chose [sic]’. 3 (In verbal phrses mu pà and zi pà) ‘to swear, to take an oath’”; G. B. Gragg, Sumerian Dimensional Infixes (AOATS 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973) 95; Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” 68, 81; Steinkeller Sale Documents, 74–75. J.-P. Grégoire proposed the following semantic development for the meaning of pad 3 “‘appeler’, ‘invoquer’, donc ‘invoquer le nom d’une divinité’ ⟩ ‘jurer’, ‘prêter serment’” (“Le Serment en mésopotamie au IIIe mullenaire avant notre ére,” in Le Serment, vol. 1: Signes et fonctions [Paris: CNRS, 1991] 344–65, here, p. 353. 53.  Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 74–75. See also S. A. Mercer, “The Oath in Cuneiform Inscriptions,” 92; and I. M. Price, “The Oath,” 23. 54.  Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 75. 55. A. Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts (Publications of the Babylonian Section 5; Philadelphia: University Museum, 1914) tablet 25, obv., col. 1, line 25. 56.  Jacobsen expanded the meaning to include ‘fleeting’, ‘momentary’, and ‘insubstantial’ (“The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion [ed. P. D. Miller Jr., P. D. Hanson,

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

44

Chapter 2

However, to appreciate the implication of lul, let us consider its antonym: g e n 6/kânu. This term sometimes appears in conjunction with mu DN statements as attested in a praise poem of Šulgi: mu de n-lil 2-la 2 lul b a- ra- n a ⸢ḫ e 2-g en 6⸣ ‘By the name of Enlil, it is not false. It is indeed true’. 57 Ge n 6 itself means ‘confirm’, ‘corroborate’, ‘establish’, ‘verify’, and ‘be true’. 58 It is possible that g e n 6 is an unarticulated characteristic that informs the meaning of p a d 3 when it is applied to mu DN/RN/lugal and z i DN/l u g a l phrases. In these contexts p a d 3 would mean ‘to disclose (as true/verifiable)’, while l u l . . . p a d 3 means ‘to disclose as false/refutable’. This suggests that the absolute use of p a d 3 in these contexts refers to a statement as having a ‘true/authentic’ character, while the lul modification indicates that the assertion has a ‘false/refutable’ quality. We can appreciate Enki’s duplicity. He utilizes the disclosure (pad 3 ) of his words falsely in order to gain advantage. Therefore his words are lul. Therefore, he is lul, that is, ‘criminal’ and ‘fraudulent’. This implies that the misuse of a pad 3 statement can generate a state of criminality worthy of punishment. At the same time one cannot deny that the mu DN phrase in the Šulgi praise poem quoted above reflects anything other than an oath formula. As such, one becomes increasingly suspicious that the pad 3 designation used in contracts may also function as a substitute or a type of abbreviation for the fuller, orally declared statement “It is not false. It is indeed true!” Pad 3 would then certify that the statement was articulated with this presumption without the bother of having to write it out in its entirety.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Formulas A few key texts demonstrate that m u l u g al/(RN), ‘by the name of the king’, in the phrase m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 is an oral formula. 59 Consequently, m u l u g a l is the spoken component of the formula and pad 3 somehow qualifies this element. Let us consider the following three examples. and S. D. McBride; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987] 15–32, here, p. 19). 57.  “A Praise Poem of Šulgi,” Segment A, line 12. J. Klein, “A Self-Laudatory Šulgi Hymn Fragment from Nippur,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (ed. Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg; Bethesda: CDL, 1993) 124–30, here, p. 131, tablet N 3130 + N 3131, obv.?, col. 1, line 12. See also line 319 in Šulgi B: an den-li l 2 dutu dinanna lul ba-ra-na ḫe 2-g e-en 6, “By heaven, Enlil, Utu and Inanna, it is not false. It is true!” G. Castellino, Two Shulgi Hymns (B C) (Studi semitici 42; Rome: Istituto di Studi del vicino Oriente, Università di Roma, 1972) 62, line 319. 58. See additional discussions on the term by A.  Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden 3:114–15; Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 84–85; I. Gelb, P. Steinkeller, and R. Whiting Jr., Earliest Land Tenure Systems, 247–48. The Akkadian term kânu means ‘be firm in place’, ‘to last’, ‘to remain in effect’ as well as ‘to remain quantitatively constant’. CAD 8, 159–71; T. Jacobsen, “The Graven Image,” 19–20. 59.  Steinkeller pointed out that in sale documents the mu lugal . . . p ad 3 formula is frequently followed by a “no-contest clause,” nu g i 4-gi 4 (Sale Documents, 44–48). Even when it is not recorded, the phrase should be understood whenever the mu lugal . . . pad 3 formula is used.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

45

m u lug a l 5tukum-bi 6u 6 2 -kam-ka l u 2 i n im - m a PN4 dum u PN3 a m a -g i 4-igi -gu 10 i n -gar-ra 8amu-tu 3 . . . 10b i 2- i n- du g 4- ga  60

4 7

(fPN1) stated (dug 4-ga): “By the name of the king, this is the situation: In two days I will produce witnesses that PN4, son of PN3 has freed me.” 3

[m ]u lug a l ba-ra-ab-gi 4-gi 4-d e 3 4PN-ra 5PN2-ke4 6i n- na- an- du g 4 61

PN2 stated for PN: “By the name of the king, I will not contest (this issue).” dub PN 7u 2⟨-gu⟩ ba-an -de 2 bi 2-d ug 4 8mu l u gal - bi i n- p ad 3  62

6

He stated (dug 4): “I have lost the tablet of PN” and he disclosed ([it] for verification) by the name of the king.

The first two texts demonstrate that d u g 4 -ga/d ug 4 , ‘say’, ‘speak’, ‘tell’, introduces a direct quotation. In two examples, only the mu lugal is recorded as the oral element. No p a d 3 quotation is registered. The third example introduces a quotation with d u g 4 but then follows the quotation with the full phrase m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 . Here, pad 3 functions as a descriptive observation. On some occasions, the concluding sections of contracts recorded on ancient kudurrus show that the m u l u g a l . . . pad 3 phrase could be combined with and preceded by m u DN. In these instances, the deity is specifically identified, while the name of the king remains unspecified. lu 2 lu 2-u 3 l a- ba-an -gi 4-gi 4-d a-a mu dn i n -u r t a m u l u gal - bi a l-p a d 3  63

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

(The arrangement) was disclosed (for verification) by the name of (the deity) Ninurta (and) by the name of the king that they will not contest one another.

Because m u DN can be united with m u l ugal in this way, there is no need to assume that m u DN functioned any differently from mu lugal. Therefore, we may deduce with confidence that, as in the case of mu lugal above, m u DN was also an element of the spoken formula. 60. E. Sollberger, “Some Legal Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur,” in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (ed. B. L. Eichler; AOAT 25; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker and Kevelaer, 1976) 435–50, esp. p. 441, tablet BM 19356, lines 4–8; 10. 61.  H. de Genouillac, Époque présargonique, époque d’Agadé, époque d’Ur (Inventaire des tablettes de Tello 5; Paris: 1921) 15, tablet 10, lines 3–6; Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden 2:261, tablet 164, col. 1, lines 3′–6′. See also Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 74. 62. C. E. Keiser, Selected Temple Documents of the Ur Dynasty (YOS 4; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1919) plate 7, tablet 29, obv., line 6, rev., lines 7–8. See additional comments on this text by Steinkeller, Sale Documents, 75. 63. I. Gelb, P. Steinkeller, R. Whiting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems, 245, kudurru no. 248; pp. 191, 210, 215, 272; plate 155.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

46

Chapter 2

Mu lugal/mu DN and Jurisdiction Related to mu l u g a l statements is jurisdiction. Not unexpectedly we find that the king’s m u can confirm arrangements without pad 3 being a factor. The concluding lines of a contract tablet from Nippur illustrates this usage. 8 sa r k islaḫ 2e 2-e 2-gal -x-x 3PN1 4ki š i b 3 PN2 5u 3 PN3 6i ni m - i r i - t a inim -b a lu 2 n u-⸢ub⸣-8gi 4-gi 4-d a rev.  8mu l ugal i 3- gal 2. 64

1 7

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

PN1 received 8 sar of uncultivated land in exchange for a house of the palace. The seals of PN2 and PN3. (By) order of the city that no one may return to (that is, ‘contest’) this matter, he placed (it under) the king’s name.

In this instance, the city, Uru, has issued an order, inim (lit., ‘word’), that the arrangement recorded on the tablet cannot be contested. Here, the city functions as an independent body dispensing a directive. The king, however, also has a role. The last line, m u - l u g a l i 3-gal 2, can actually be read in two different ways because gal2 can reflect either bašû ‘to be’ or šakānu ‘to put’, ‘place’ in Akkadian. Thus, the line may read: “It is (under) the king’s m u /name” or “He placed (it under) the king’s mu/name.” One does not sense that an oath is sworn here. Rather the line appears to report the declaration of a performative statement that associates the king’s mu with a power that supports the inim ‘order’ of the city. The king’s mu seals the deal and has final authority over the matter. Occasionally texts link the king’s m u to a divinely bestowed power, indicating that his authority has the backing of the gods. A line from a fragment of a statue dating to the reign of En-anna-tum I of Lagaš (c. 2425) reads 2u d dn i n -g i r 2-su 2- k e 4 3mu e-n e 2-p ad 3 -d a 4a 2 e -na-sum-ma-a, “When Ningirsu disclosed his (En-anna-tum’s) name, giving him (En-annatum) power.” 65 Yet again, there is no sense that an oath is referenced here even though m u is modified by p a d 3 . If the second half of the line is resultative, then in this example the divine action of pad 3 actually bestows a ‘power’ a 2 connected with the king’s m u /name. Thus, pad 3 could also involve the idea of “authenticating something.” Here, En-anna-tum’s name has been granted the power of divine verification. Other texts provide clues concerning the king’s jurisdiction over mu lu g a l agreements. An Ur III tablet from Nippur describes the conditions associated with the loan of grain from a temple. 64. M. Çiğ and H. Kizilyay, Yeni Sumer Çağina ait Nippur Hukukî vi Idarî Belgeleri -I/Neusumerische Rechts–Verwaltungsurkunden aus Nippur (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 6/7; Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimivi, 1965) plate 2, tablet 3, obv., lines 1–7; rev. line 8. 65. E. Sollberger, “Sumerica,” ZA 53 (1959) 1–8, here, p. 5, tablet En. I 25, col. 2, cases 2′–4′; H. Steible, Die Altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften, vol. 1: Inschriften aus ‘Lagaš’ (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 5; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1982) 195–96, En. I. 25, col. 2, lines 2′–4′.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

47

[x x] še gur 2še den -l i l 2-l a 2 3⸢ki ⸣-ba s e-g e - de 3 4k i PN1- t a 5PN2 6š u ba -t i 7it i di ri še-ki n -kud 8 mu en -maḫ - ga l - an- na 9e n dnanna ba -ḫun 10še-bi buru 14 d agal -⸢bi ⸣ 11gi 4-gi 4 12e 2 de n- l i l 2- l a 2 ⸢k u 3⸣ 13 i 3-ni-k u 4-ku 4-a 14a-ša 3-mu u 4-de 3 ba-ab- ⸢de 3⸣ 15a- e ba- ab- de 3 16 lug a l-r a u 3 san ga  66 n u-un -n a-be 2-[a] 17m u- l u gal - bi i n- p ad 3 . 67 1

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

x gur of grain, the grain of Enlil, PN2 received from PN1 to be loaded in its place. He (PN2) disclosed (pad 3 ) by the king’s name that, in the twelfth month of Amar-Sin’s fourth year, when this grain is released at harvest, (and this) the grain of the temple of Enlil is turned into silver, he would not say to the king and temple official: “The storm destroyed my field. The water destroyed it.”

Two important bits of information may be garnered. First, it provides insight into the legal process behind an investigation into the possible breach of a m u l u g a l statement. The offending party will appear before the king, the same individual whose name he originally invoked. This strongly implies royal jurisdiction over the loan. The presence of the sanga ‘temple official’ is related to the divine ownership of the grain. Therefore, he represents Enlil’s interests and need not be seen as a fixed member of any procedure associated with m u l u g a l violations. What is curious is that even though the transaction involved temple grain, PN2 only invoked the king’s name and not Enlil’s. Because this is the situation, we may presume that only the king had a principal say in this case. A second text from Nippur is even more enlightening. It reads [PN] PN2 2 m u lu g al in -n a -p a d 3 3tu k u m-b i n u -a g 2 4še r 7-d a lugal-a-mu 5inna- d u g 4 ‘[PN] disclosed (p a d 3) by the name of the king for PN2; 68 he (PN) stated for him: “If I do not weigh out (the grain), may it be my sin (PN2′s) of (against) the king”’. 69 Even though one cannot be certain whether or not the use of m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 has a bearing on the description of the offense as š e r 7 - da l u g a l - a - m u , the terminology is intriguing. The potential transgression is described as “my sin against the king” and not “my sin 66. H.  Sauren proposed the reading lugal-ra ⟨še⟩-libir-ra for these signs, yielding ‘the old/former (grain due) to the king’ (“Untersuchungen zur Schrift-und Lautlehre der neusumerischen Urkunden aus Nippur,” ZA 59 [1969] 11–64, here, p. 17). 67. A.  Pohl, Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III.  Dynastie von Ur (Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities n.s. 1/2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1927) plate 17, tablet 69, lines 1–17. This text was collated by H. Waetzoldt in “Miscellanea Neo-sumerica, V: Kollationen zu A., Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III. Dynastie von Ur = TMH NF 1/2,” OrAn 15 (1976) 307–14, here, p. 319; C. Wilcke, “Flurschäden, verursacht durch Hochwasser, Unwetter, Militär, Tiere und schuldhaftes Verhalten zur Zeit der 3. Dynastie von Ur,” in Landwirtschafte im Alten Orient (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 18; Berlin: Reimer, 1999) 301–39, here, p. 302. The text reconstructed here is based on Pohl’s cuneiform and Waetzoldt and Wilcke’s collations. 68.  Here the dative might indicate “for the benefit of” PN rather than “as a substitute for” PN, which the English translation may inaccurately convey. 69. D.  I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts Primarily from Nippur (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) plate 90, tablet 366, obv., lines 1–5.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

48

Chapter 2

against PN3,” that is, the person the oath is meant to assure. 70 Thus, the failure to make the payment is a transgression against the king and not necessarily the person to whom the grain is due. 71 On this level at least, there appears to be a connection between a statement in “the name of the king” and its violation. In this case, one can comfortably assume that the offended king would have the right to administer the punishment. After all, if the p a d 3 statement turns out to have been spoken lul/sarru ‘false/ refutable’, then the violator becomes l u l u l (lu 2-lul), ‘a liar’ and a lu 2-IM ‘criminal’. The two above texts illustrate that m u l ug al . . . pad 3 statements identify the authority who will have jurisdiction over future litigation. They seek royal and/or divine mediation should the arrangement be found ‘false’ or ‘refutable’, that is, l u l . In the latter example, the statement turns an otherwise personal, private, pledge between two private citizens into a public matter. If the agreement is violated, it automatically becomes an offense against the monarch. He will have authority over the matter. 72 Mu lugal . . . p a d 3 statements elevate the degree of retribution because “offenses against a hierarchical superior, whether god or king, are a separate category of crime that carry heavy punishment.” 73 It would appear that in the ancient Near East mu DN/RN/l u g a l . . . p a d 3 invocations gave the parties a greater level of guarantee, one that was safeguarded by the central authority of the city and/or its heavenly counterpart.

zi DN and zi lugal

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Two other phrases still await review. These are zi DN . . . pad 3 ‘disclose (as true/verifiable) by the life of DN’ and z i lugal . . . pad 3 ‘disclose by the life of the king’. While there may be an affinity between this expres70.  See p. 52 for the terminology that describes the offense behind the violation of a conditional curse. 71.  It is also possible that PN2 was a representative of the king whose only function was to collect the payment. In addition it is difficult to determine if this passage illustrates an exception to a standard practice or is, in fact, a full expression of an otherwise customary procedure. A text from Nippur actually identifies the witnesses to a mu lu gal oath as “messengers of the king,” 10mu-lugal -b i in-pad 3 11igi lu 2 4 lu 2-kinge 4-a lugal-še 3, ‘He disclosed (for verification) by the king’s name before four men, the messengers of the king’. The list of four individuals that follows could well be the names of these royal messengers functioning as witnesses. D. I. Owen, “Death for Default,” Memoirs of the Connecticut Accademy of Arts and Sciences: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein 19 (1977) 159–61, here, p. 161, tablet CBS 13715, obv., lines 10–11. 72.  The notion that pad 3 means disclose (for verification) is likewise appropriate for legal contexts as it incorporates the sense of “making a private matter public.” 73.  R. Westbrook, private communication. See also B. Lafont and R. Westbrook, “NeoSumerian Period (Ur III),” in History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (Handbook of Oriental Studies Section 1: The Near and Middle East 72; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 1:183–226, esp. pp. 186–87; R. Westbrook, “Old Babylonian Period,” in History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 361–430, esp. 366–67.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

49

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

sion and the m u expression, it remains difficult to establish the nature of that connection. A.  L. Oppenheim submitted that mu in mu lugal-bi in - p a(d ) 3 is to be translated ‘by the life of the (ruling) king he has sworn’, indicating that z i is no more than a replacement for mu. 74 Nevertheless, he also notes that the Akkadian term nīš ‘life’ behind zi is to be understood as an interpretation of m u and not its “exact reading.” 75 Falkenstein proposed that z i l u g a l is merely a translation of the Akkadian phrase nīš šarri tamû. 76 Much of their concern has to do with the fact that zi normally reflects the Akkadian word napištu ‘life’, ‘good health’, ‘breath’ and not necessarily nīš. 77 This suggests the fundamental distinction between mu and z i in Sumerian was ultimately coalesced in the single Akkadian term nīš. Thus far, Sumerian data suggest that m u refers to ‘name’, possibly generated through the power to maintain and regulate life, while zi refers to ‘life’ as the present state of living. Even so, other information may be gleaned from the different way texts use z i . . . p a d 3 formulas. Three lines from Enki and Ninhursag illustrate one of the most prominent. 29d en -k i -k e 4 g u 3 b i 2 - in-d e 2 30 zi an-na i 3 -pad 3 31 n u 2 - a a m b a r - r a ‘Enki cried out: “I swear (pad 3 ) by the life of heaven, lie down for me in the marsh!”’ 78 The verb g u 3 . . . d e 2 , lit., ‘to pour out the voice’ clearly introduces a direct quotation. This implies that, unlike the p ad 3 in m u . . . pa d 3 formulas, the p a d 3 in zi . . . pad 3 pronouncements could actually constitute part of the spoken element. But there is even more to the z i . . . p a d 3 formula. In all likelihood, the phrase was either borrowed from or influenced by the āšipītu or the ‘craft of exorcists’. 79 This is substantiated by the fact that zi . . . pad 3 declarations 74.  This position may be substantiated by a segment of the inscription recorded on the Vulture Stele. “(Eannatum) . . . made him swear (p a d 3 ) by the name of Ninki” (6mu dnin-ki-[ka] 7mu-ni-pad -de ). “The leader of Umma swore (pad ) to Eannatum: ‘By 3 3 3 the life of Ninki!’” (11zi d⸢nin⸣-ki-ka). E. Sollberger, Corpus des inscriptions “royales” Pré­ sargoniques de Lagaš (Geneva: Librairie E. Droz, 1956) Ean. 1, p. 15, rev., col. 3, lines 6–7, 11, respectively. 75. A. L. Oppenheim, Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilberforce Eams Babylonian Collection in the New York Library: Tablets of the Time of the Third Dynasty of Ur (AOS 32; New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1948) 140. At the same time, lexical lists also confirm that mu can mean nīšu. For instance, mu-u MU ni-šu (Civil, ed., Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 16, Aa tablets 16–21, p. 339, tablet 3/4 = 19, line 9. 76.  Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden 1:63 n. 6. This notion is somewhat difficult to uphold in light of the use of zi DN oath on the Vulture Stele. 77.  There are exceptions to this, which we will explore below. 78. S. Langdon, Sumerian Epic of Paradise, the Flood and the Fall of Man (Publications of the Babylonian Section 10/1; Philadelphia: University Museum Press, 1915) plate 1, tablet 1, obv., col. 2, lines 29–31. These lines equal lines 69–71 in the work as a whole. For additional information on this poem, see P. Attinger, “Enki et Ninhursaga,” ZA 74 (1984) 1–52; and W. H. Römer, D. O. Edzard, and O. Kaiser, Mythen und Epen 1 (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 3/3; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1993) 363–86. 79.  Mostly, the professional specialists who presided over these rites are mašmaš in Sumerian and āšipu in Akkadian. For more on these professions, see pp. 370–399.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

50

Chapter 2

abound in āšipītu literature. The influence from such an unusual source casts z i . . . p a d 3 statements in a light decidedly different from mu declarations. For z i . . . p a d 3 pronouncements are the stuff of incantations and spells. The formula itself is well attested in some of the most famous of Sumerian and Akkadian exorcistic rites. These include the Sumerian Udug-ḫul incantation series, Utukkī Lemnītu in Akkdian, whose incipit line means ‘evil demon’. The phrase also appears ad nauseam in Maqlû and Šurpu. It is even inscribed on the edges of several exorcistic Lamaštu plaques. There is little doubt then that z i . . . p a d 3 formulas are rooted in the language of charms. They are used to banish all types of hostile forces from ghosts to nameless fiends to the heinous demon Lamaštu herself. One of the best preserved versions of U dug-ḫul/Utukkī Lemnītu hails from the great library at Nineveh. Even though it dates to the Neo-Assyrian period, the incantation series itself is very old. Some of the extant Sumerian versions probably originate from Nippur and Sippar, lending the series a most distinguished reputation. 80 A few lines from a bilingual section of the Nineveh tablets reveal several interesting features associated with z i . . . p ad 3 statements. [a 2 -sa g 3 ] m u-un -n a-te-ga 2 l u 2 tu-raḫ 2 - š e 3 m u- u n- na- t e - ga a-šak-ku ša2 te-eṭ-ḫu-u2 AŠ mar-ṣi e ta-aṭ-ḫi  9 a 2-sa g 3 zi an -n a ḫ e 2-pad 3 zi ki -a ḫ e 2-p ad 3 10 a-šak-ku niš(20) AN-e lu-u ta-ma-a-ta niš(20) KI-tim 81  7  8

Asakku (demon), who approached, who approached the stricken man! (Sumerian)  8 Asakku (demon) who has approached the sick man, may you not approach! (Akkadian)  9 Asakku, may (this) be sworn (pad 3 ) by the life of heaven! May (this) be sworn (pad 3 ) by the life of earth! (Sumerian) 10 May Asakku be undeniably cursed by the life of heaven and earth! (Akkadian)

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

 7

Here, we find the formula deployed to banish the evil Asakku demon. Line  8 identifies the hostile force and states what Asakku has done and then concludes with a command. Oddly enough, Sumerian verb teg 3 records a positive statement. This contrasts with the Akkadian vetitive verb ē taṭḫi that expresses a negative wish, ‘you should not approach’ or ‘may you not approach’. 80. M. J. Geller, Forerunners to Udug-Hul: Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations (Freiburger Alt­ orientalische Studien 12; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1985) 3–5. 81. R. Campbell Thompson, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum (vol. 16; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1903) tablet 5, plate 12, col. 2, line 7; plate 13, col. 2, lines 8–10.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

51

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

The z i . . . ḫ e-p a d 3 formula in line 9 is precative. 82 Its Akkadian equivalent niš . . . lū tamāta expresses a positive injunction that is relatively parallel. Both statements are asseverative; they confirm the quality of the command issued in line 8. The speaker apparently hopes the directive to endure forever. Neither here nor in the line from Enki and Ninhursag is an ‘sky’ deified. When a n is combined with k i ‘earth’, they are incorporated into the statement as environmental elements. They are the enduring features of an area that contains ‘life’, z i . When coupled with pad 3 and attached to an injunction, this yields an implied comparison; an embedded metaphor so to speak: just as the life accommodated in the earth and sky is fixed and steady, so is the command to depart to have an equal persistence in that living environment. 83 Thus, the Asakku demon is to be banished from zi/ niš ‘life’. It is to depart to die. This means that for all intents and purposes Asakku has been cursed. We might note that the Sumerian communicates this anathema in a rather indirect manner. The harm, death to the demon, is articulated circumlocutiously. Certainly, it is a most cautious and careful malediction. The Akkadian line, on the other hand, could not be more explicit or direct. On other occasions, the deities are invoked collectively. In the following example from the same series, the command succeeds the asseverative p ad 3 statement. zi-ding ir-gal -gal -l a-e-n e-ke 4 i -ri -pad 3 ḫa -b a -r a -du-un 22 niš(20) DINGIR-MEŠ GAL-MEŠ u2-tam-mi-ka 23 lu ta-at-tal-lak 84 20

21

By the life of the great gods, I swear (pa d 3 ): (Sumerian). 22 By the life of the great gods, I am cursing you: 23 “You are truly gone.” (Akkadian).

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

20

“May you be gone!”

21

Again, the p a d 3 statement qualifies the subsequent directives, that is, curses. The supreme deities who control the environment that supports 82.  Since pad 3 is intransitive, we may consider the zi . . . ḫe-pad 3 construction as indicating the precative. See D. O. Edzard, “Uamtu, marli und Freie Reduplikation beim sumerischen Verbum,” ZA 61 (1971) 208–32, here, esp. pp. 213–16 and 223. 83.  This holds true for other named environments such as mountains and water. 23zi ⟨ ⟨u 4⟩⟩-sag a-ab -ba nu (erased NU before nu) -gi 4-gi 4-da-ke 4 ḫe 2 24niš(20) KUR-u2 tam-ti3 la ta-a-ri, “By the life of the mountain and the sea (from which there is) no return.” H. F. Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts (Publications of the Babylonian Section 1/2; Philadelphia: University Museum Press, 1919) plate 121, tablet 115, obv., column 1, lines 23–24. For some additional comments on this line, see E.  Ebeling, “Sammlungen von Beschwörungsformeln, teils in sumerisch-akkadischer, teils in sumerischer order akkadischer Sprache,” ArOr 21 (1953) 357–423, here esp. p. 380. 84. R. Campbell Thompson, Cuneiform Texts 16; tablet 4, plate 10, col. 4, lines 20–23. Note in particular the separative sense of the Gt in lū tattallak.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

52

Chapter 2

existence are to exclude the hostile force from this surrounding. This too is a curse. When the z i . . . p a d 3 statement is coupled with announcements to depart, the subject is then banished from life, from existence to death, to nonexistence. The use of the precative in the Sumerian command underscores the potential and incomplete act assumed in the qualifying zi . . . pad 3 statement. Ḫ a - b a -r a - d u - u n still depends on the deities to accomplish the request to expel the demon. The Akkadian translation is different. Utammika is a D durative that highlights the act of cursing in the present moment of the utterance. The use of lū particle in lū tatallak clearly indicates that, like the niš clause, it too is merely asseverative. Therefore, the true force of the Akkadian statements resides in utammika and not in lū tatallak, which only confirms the former pronouncement. Now we will turn to the use of the phrase in a legal context. It is most fortunate for us that one text, albeit brief, has managed to survive the millennia for our consideration here. It dates to the Ur III period. 1 e r 3 -r a 2 u 3 -n a-a-d ug 4 3 ab-ba-kal -l a 4 ur-m es - r a 5 z i l ugal 6 ga 2 - e m e 7 ḫa -na-š um 2  85

Tell 1Erra, 5“By the life of the king, 6it is indeed 7I who gave 3Abba-kala to Ur-mes.”

2

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

4

This succinct entry records the spoken z i l u gal formula after the introductory d u g 4. We may note that it does not include pad 3 . 86 Clearly then, pad 3 statements also have a home in exorcistic traditions. Further consideration reveals that p a d 3 in conjunction with z i DN/lugal and mu DN/RN/lugal functions as a way the speaker makes the arrangement available for future judgment should it become necessary. In these examples, the deity and/ or the king are granted the right to adjudicate the circumstances of the agreement. One may also speculate that these same individuals or their representatives would function as judges should the person who spoke the asseverative statements certified by p a d 3 prove to be lul ‘false’, lulul ‘a liar’, and therefore a l u 2-IM ‘criminal’. It is possible then that the violation of p a d 3 certification could produce a state of criminality worthy of punishment. What that may be has yet to be established. 85. L. Speleers, Recueil des inscriptions de l’Asie Antérieure des Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire à Bruxelles: Textes sumériens, babyloniens et assyriens (Bruxelles: Vanderpoorten, 1925) plate 20, tablet 198, lines 1–7. Modern editions may be found in E. Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur (Texts from Cuneiform Sources 1; Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1966) 28, tablet 81, lines 1–7; as well as P. Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) text 141, pp. 83–84. 86.  Even though it lacks pad 3 , the use of zi lugal still functions asseveratively. This is further reinforced by yet another distinction: unlike the verbs with ḫa- prefixes as used in the exorcistic formulas, the ḫa- prefix in legal contexts is not Precative but affirmative as exemplified by ḫa-na-šum 2 here.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

53

Even so, the penalty associated with false mu DN statements certified by p a d 3 can be severe. The following excerpt from OECT 5 8, already mentioned above, gives us some background on the nature of what this punishment may entail. The praise is addressed to the goddess Ninlil wife of Enlil. lug a l m u-zu l ul -e-eš pad 3 -d e 3 -d e 3 s a g i m - m a- ab- š um 2 - m u- a k i še r 7 -da d i d 2 -l u 2 -ru-gu 2 kal am-ma 77 g a r a š 2 k i uš 2 bal -bal -e-ba n i 2 l a-ba-d a- ab- t e g 3 - ge 2 6 - e - /a\ 78 na m -t a g dugud s u X [X] ed 3 -de 3 e-n e - r a i l 2  87 75 76

The king who dares to swear (pad 3 ) by your name falsely (l u l ), (is one) who does not fear 76the place of crime, the river of ordeal, (or) 77athe place of annihilation where bloodshed flows. 78Make him bear the heavy guilt (in his) flesh that brings down . . . 75

77b

From this text, we may reconstruct the following sequence of events when a certified m u DN . . . pa d 3 statement is found to be false. First, the ‘criminal’ is brought to a specific site, the k i š e r d a, ‘place of crime’. Presumably this is where an authoritative body has gathered to adjudicate the authenticity of the ‘crime’ and execute the penalty, that is, the curse. As we discover, this punishment can include either a river ordeal or possibly death.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Vulture Stele, Divine Weapons, zi DN and nam . . . kud Oaths It is true that the Sumerians certainly expressed oaths. So, let us now turn to other texts in order to gain a better understanding of a Sumerian oath. Happily for us, the z i DN formula appears in an inscription recorded on the Pre-Sargonic, Vulture Stele (ca. 2470 b.c.e.) and remains one of the oldest records of a z i oath in Mesopotamia. The text recounts the victory of Eannatum, king of Lagaš, over the city of Umma, which had tried to annex some of Lagaš’s territory. With the battle won, Eannatum confirms the boundaries of Lagaš by compelling the otherwise unnamed leader of Umma to take a series of oaths. Here, the inscription follows a standard structure that is repeated five times. On each occasion, a different deity is evoked. Although the stele, together with sections of its inscription, is badly damaged, the repetitive character of the text permits a solid reconstruction. The Vulture Stele inscription is especially informative because it not only recounts z i DN as the spoken element of a formula but also because nam . . . k u d , the original form of n a m - e r i m 2 . . . kud appears instead of p ad 3 . 88 The particular application of nam . . . kud in this context should help us gain a better cognizance of the meaning behind nam-erim 2. . . ku d . 87. O. R. Gurney and S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts (Oxford Editions of Cunei­ form Texts 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 56, tablet 8, rev., lines 75–78. 88.  Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” 75–77.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

54

Chapter 2 lu 2 -um m[a k ] i -ra to the leader of Umma e 2 -a n-na -t um 2 -me Eannatum sa -šu 4 -gal. the great battle net 15d e n-lil 2 -la 2 of Enlil e -na -šum 2 gave. nam e-na-ta-kud He made him swear to him by it. lu 2 -um m a k i -ke 4 The leader of Umma e 2 -a n-na -t um 2 -ra to Eannatum 20 n a m m u - n a - k u d - r a 2 swore, zi- d e n-lil 2 ‘By the life of Enlil lugal-an-ki -ka king of heaven and earth, a -ša 3 - d nin-g ir 2 -s u 2 -ka the field of Ningirsu g ur 8 i 3 -g u 7  89 I may exploit as an interest bearing loan, [25 e b a d-še 3 na-e] I shall not . . . the irrigation channel! [da -r i 2 -da -gal -l a-še 3 ] Now and forevermore, [ki-sur-ra] the region [d nin-g ir 2 -su 2 -ka-ke 4 ] of Ningirsu [ba-ra-mu-b al-e] I shall not transgress. [e p a 5 - b e 2 ] Its courses and canals [šu-ba l ba -ra-ak-ke 4 ] I shall not shift.  90 [na -r u 2 -a -bi ] Its stele 33 [b a -r a -p a d-re 6 ] I shall not break! [u 4 -da mu-bal-e] When I transgress (the agreement), 35 [sa-šuš-gal ] may the great battle net [d e n-lil 2 ] of Enlil, [lugal an ki -ka] king of heaven and earth [na m e -t a -kud-ra 2 ] by which I have sworn [um m a ki -a] on Umma 40  91 [a n-t a he 2 -šu 4 ] descend!’

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

12

After Eannatum dispatches two doves to Enlil, he adds the following clause. lu 2 -um m a ki inim -da g ur-ra-d a-am 6 u 4 a n-du 3 13 inim a n-gal 2 u 4 -da inim-ba šu i 3 -bal-e 10

if any leader of Umma backs out of the agreement, when he challenges or opposes the agreement whenever the agreement he transgresses,

89.  Sollberger, Corpus des inscriptions, Ean. 1, p. 12, obv., col. 16, cases 12–24. 90. This section is reconstructed from ibid., 14, obv., col.  20, cases 15–20 to obv., col. 21, cases 1–2, which is believed to duplicate this segment. 91.  This section is reconstructed from ibid., 14, rev., col. 1, cases 23–30.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

55

s a - šu 4 - g a l may the great battle net e n-lil 2 -la 2 of Enlil na m e -t a -kud -ra 2 by which he has sworn 19 um m a ki upon Umma a n-t a he 2 -š u 4 descend! 16

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

d

The text confirms that z i DN, like m u l u gal and mu DN, is a formulaic oral expression. The phrase is presumed to appear five other times in which Ninḫursag, Enki, Sin, Utu 92 and Ninki 93 are solicited respectively. On each occasion the text follows an established arrangement. After Eannatum gives the leader of Umma the ‘battle net’, he then states what he is permitted to do: he may use the field of Ningirsu as an interest-bearing loan (i3-gu7). Next follows a list of what he may not do: he may not xxx the irrigation trench and, most significantly, d a - r i 2 -d a-gal-la š e 3 ‘now and forevermore’, he may not transgress the domain of Ningirsu. It is more than probable that d a - r i 2 -d a -g a l -l a še 3 functions distributively and would apply equally to the remaining statements. Its application here suggests that a z i DN invocation formula coupled with n am . . . kud could eternally sustain particular arrangements. The notion is supported further by the addendum Eannatum adds after each oath. He extends the conditional curse to all future generations of Umma leaders, regardless of dynasty. In a sense, Eannatum has attached the z i DN . . . n a m . . . kud oath to the ensi-ship of Umma. It binds every future ruler and is principally connected to the office and only secondarily to the one who occupies it. Although we do not have any textual evidence indicating that future Umma leaders were compelled to swear a z i DN . . . n a m . . . kud oath to Lagaš when they assumed office, if they did it would have been seen as a continuation and affirmation of this original oath rather than an expression of an entirely new relationship. Interestingly enough, the Vulture Stele describes the act of the zi DN formula as n a m . . . k u d . As noted above, Edzard advanced the notion that n a m . . . k u d represented an early form of nam-erim 2 . . . k ud, where e rim 2 is added to the phrase and attached to nam. 94 Working with this early form, he concluded that e r i m 2, meaning ‘bad/evil’, functioned as an 92.  Ibid. 14, rev., col. 1, case 11. 93.  Ibid. 15, rev, col. 3, case 11. The use of the phrase with Ninḫursag, Enki, Sin have not survived in the text and are restored. 94. This holds true for other named environments such as mountains and water. 23 zi⟨⟨u 4⟩⟩-sag a-ab-ba nu (erased NU before nu) -g i 4-gi 4-da-ke 4 ḫe 2 24niš(20) KURu2 tam-ti3 la ta-a-ri ‘By the life of the mountain and the sea (from which there is) no return’. H. F. Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts (Publications of the Babylonian Section 1/2; Philadelphia: University Museum Press, 1919) plate 121, tablet 115, obv., col. 1, lines 23–24. For additional comments on this line, see E. Ebeling, “Sammlungen von Beschwörungsformeln, teils in sumerisch-akkadischer, teils in cumerischer order akkadischer Sprache,” ArOr 21 (1953) 357–423, here esp. p. 380.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

56

Chapter 2

adjective to n a m , meaning ‘thing’, and served to identify a particular type of evil. Therefore, he submitted that n a m - e r im 2 . . . kud literally meant ‘cut off from someone a bad thing/n a m ’. 95 Edzard was clearly intrigued by the lack of erim 2 in the Vulture Stele phrasing. 96 While it is true that the term is indeed absent, we may not need to assume that the idea expressed by e r im 2 is necessarily lacking in the inscription. In other words, it could well be that the notion of erim 2 is present, not in a term, but in descriptive form. Because erim 2 has a fundamental meaning of ‘bad/evil’, then the only ‘evil thing’ (nam-erim 2) concretely described here is the curse in cases 35–40: “May the great battle net of Enlil by which he has sworn descend upon Umma!” 97 Thus, Edzard was indeed correct when he noted that e r i m 2 defines a type of evil. In this example, e r i m 2 is equivalent to the descent of the sa-šu 4 -gal, the battle net, upon Umma. Accordingly, e r i m 2 refers to the evil event (nam?) the deity would execute as described in the malediction should the oath be violated. In other words, e r i m 2 is the curse. When viewed in this way, many of the multiple threads of ideas related to oaths are brought together. For it must be acknowledged that the s a - š u 4 - g al is nothing other than Enlil’s g i š - t u k u l and that the Vulture Stele records what was done when someone swore on a divine weapon. 98 The oath-taker held the giš-tukul and recited the malediction, describing how the item he clutched in his hand, the s a- š u 4 - g a l , would be used against him and the city by the deity if the oath was transgressed.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Swearing by Divine Weapons and Its Relationship to Punishment As is commonly known, every deity owned a giš-tukul, or divine weapon and no self-respecting deity would ever be caught without it. The g i š - t u k u l were usually freestanding, ceremonial weapons or symbols that may have taken the form of a mace, sword, spear, or battle net as found 95.  Edzard, “Zum Sumerischen Eid,” 77. See also Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Ge­ richtsurkunden, 64. Steinkeller proposes the literal meaning of “to cut off evil” (Sale Documents, 76), while Lafont has “trancher [= suspendre?] la malédiction” (“Serments politiques et serments judiciaires à l’époque sumérienne,” 32). 96. Since Edzard made his observations, other texts have been found that use namkud as either a noun, ‘oath’, or as a verb, ‘to swear an oath’. For a nice list of examples, see Gelb, Steinkeller, and Whiting, Earliest Land Tenure Systems, 109, “Notes” to line 4. 97.  This expresses only the initial event. A curse from Enmetena Cone A informs us of what a deity does after he flings his battle net. 21dnin-gir 2-šu 2-ke 4 22sa-šuš-gal-ni 23u -ni-šuš 24š u - m a ḫ - g i r -maḫ-ne 25a n - t a ḫ e - g a - g a ‘May Ningirsu, after 3 3 2 2 2 2 casting his great battle net, stomp him with his huge hands and feet!’ (E. Sollberger, Corpus des inscriptions “royales” Présargoniques de Lagaš, Ent. 28–29, p. 39, Cone A, col. 6, cases 21–25. 98. Swearing on an item presumes touching or holding it. Swearing by an item would only require seeing the object or, perhaps, envisioning it.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

57

on the Vulture stele. A text from Tell Sifr locates a virtual forrest of such symbols at the gate of Sin. a-na DI.KUD.MEŠ il-li-ku-ma 19DI.KUD.MEŠ a-na ⟨⟨a-na⟩⟩ a-lim 20u3 šibu-tim iṭ-ru-du-šu-nu-ti-ma 21rev.i*-na 99 KAN4 dnanna dŠU.NIR ša dnanna 22d MUŠEN ša dNIN. MAR.KI 23dMAR ša dAMAR.UTU 24GIŠ.TUKUL ša abnu-um iz-zi-zu-ma 100 18

They went to the judges 19and the judges sent them to the city 20and the elders, 21a(where) at the Gate of Sin 24bstood 21bthe divine emblem of Sin, 22 the divine bird of Nin-mar, 23the divine spade of Marduk, 24a(and) the divine weapon of Abnum. 18

A letter from Kaniš written in Old Assyrian (ca. 2000–1700) confirms the practice of swearing before the weapon of a deity in Anatolia. um-ma wa-ak-lum2-ma 2a-na ka2-ri-im ka2-ni-iški 3qi2-bi-ma a-lu-um di2-nam IGI GIŠ.GAG.EN.GAL 5i-na ḫa-am-ri-im 6i-di2-in-ma i-ta-ma 7 a-šur3.DUG3 i-na GIRI2 ša a-šur3 836 TUG2-ba-tu2-šu 9lu ḫa-al-qu2-ni 10 ⸢i⸣-ta-ma-ma 101

1

4

Thus (says) the Overseer, 3asay 2to the Karum of Kaniš 3b“The city 6ahas judged 4the case before the šugariāu symbol 5in the holy place 6band it will swear (that) 7aAššur-ṭāb 10will swear 7bby the sword/dagger of Aššur (that) 8 his 36 pieces of cloth 9are truly lost.” 1

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Other Old Assyrian materials show that oaths sworn in conjunction with treaties could also involve the dagger of Aššur. 102 Contemporaneous Old Babylonian texts also verify the practice of swearing oaths before these articles 103 and, under certain circumstances, even lending them out so that 99.  The cuneiform text has a-na. It is presumed that the scribe probably intended to write i-na. 100. Ch.-F. Jean, Tell Sifr: Textes cunéiforms conservés au British Museum (Paris: Geuthner, 1931) plate 121, tablet 58, obv., lines 18–20, rev., lines 21–24. See also, D. Charpin, Archives familiales et properiété privée en Babylonie ancienne: étude des documents de ‹‹Tell Sifr›› (Hautes Études Orientales 12; Paris: Librairie Champion, 1980) 142–46 and book 2, pp. 242–43. 101. S.  Çeçen, “Kültepe Metinlerinde Bulunan Yeni ‘Waklum’ Mektuplari,” Dil ve Tarih-Cog˘rafya Fakültesi Dergisi 34 (1990) 35–51, esp. p. 47, tablet kt c/k 1010, lines 1–10. For a fine discussion on this procedure at Kaniš, see V. Donbaz, “Maḫar Patrim ša Aššur—A New Interpretation,” in Veenhof Anniversary Volume: Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. W. H. Van Soldt; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2001) 83–101. 102. [i-n]u-me DUMU a-šur3 a-na ma-mi3-tim ta-du-nu-ni GIRI2 u2 šu-ga-ri-⸢a⸣-[im ša a-šur3] ‘When you give the sons of Aššur over to the conditional curse (oath) on the dagger and šugariāu emblem of Aššur’. V. Donbaz, “An Old Assyrian Treaty from Kültepe,” JCS 57 (2005) 63–68, here, p. 68, tablet kt 00/kg, rev., lower edge, line 86. 103.  For example, a line from a lawsuit over grain, oil, and tablets dating to the reign of Samsu-Iluna (ca. 1749–1712) reads: i-na ḫu-ḫa-ru dUTU a-za-ak-ka-ra-ak-kum ‘I will swear for you by the bird-trap emblem of Šamaš’ (S. I. Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-Iluna [Yale Oriental Series 12; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970] plate 58, tablet 325, obv., line 11). Also, see the additional observations made by

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

58

Chapter 2

oaths could be sworn in other venues. 104 Evidence for this convention appears in another text from Tel Sfir, which describes how the ownership of a contested field was established with a borrowed divine weapon. ra-bi-a-nu-um ša URU.KI ku-ta-la u3 ši-bu-ut (‘elders’ in m. s. plu. bound form) a-lim 15iz-zi-zu-ma (variation iš-pu-ru-nim-ma) 16PN pa-aš-ta ša (variation adds ŠEN.TAB.BA ZABAR) dLUGAL.KI.DU9.NA 17in-na-ši-im-ma 18GIŠ KIRI6 is-ḫu-ur-ma 19u2-bi-ir-ma il-qi2 105 14

The mayor of Kutalla and the city elders 15assembled and 16aPN 18acircumambulated the orchard 16bwhile the copper double-ax of DN was carried, 18band he established (his ownership) and took (possession of the orchard). 14

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

A text from Larsa shows that these weapons could be removed from their installations at gates so that a litigant could take his oath before them. 9 i-na KAN4 dUTU NA4 DUR10. TAB.BA u3 ḪAR.MUŠEN.NA 10ša dUTU u2-ṣu2nim-ma 11PN ki-a-am iz-kur ‘9bThe stone (mace), the ax, and the bird-snare (ḫuḫāru) of Šamaš (located) in the Gate of Šamaš 10came out and 11PN swore thusly’. 106 Through the effective use of their g i š - t u k ul the deities would conquer their enemies and establish their fame and reputation. There are even hints that g i š - t u k ul could be displayed near the deity’s image. 107 A bilingual lexical text, albeit later than the Sargonic period, is suggestive: igi- d ninurt a- ka- t a g i š-tu k u l d n i n -u r ta -k e 4 i 3 -g ub- ba-am 3 : i-na ma-ḫar dNINURTA kak-ku ša dNIN-URTA iš-ša-ak-in-ma 108 ‘The weapon of Ninurta was placed before (the statue) of Ninurta’. 109 B. Landsberger, “Bemerkungen zur altbabylonischen Briefliteratur,” ZDMG 69 (1915) 491– 528, here, p. 498. 104. R. Harris, “The Journey of the Divine Weapon,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (Assyriological Studies 16; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966) 217–24. 105.  Authograph copy: Jean, Tell Sifr, plate 153, tablet 71, lines 14–15, edge lines 16– 17, rev., line 19; variations, plate 154, tablet 71a, obv., line 15, and plate 155, tablet 71a, line 17. See also the discussion by Charpin, Archives familiales et properiété privée en Baby­ lonie ancienne, 187–88 and book 2, pp. 252–55. 106.  Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna, plate 13, tablet 73, lines 9–11. 107.  Without a doubt, the statues of deities and their giš-tukul were a city’s most precious and revered items. Enemies prized them not only for the value of their fine embellishments but also for the symbolism associated with their removal. Certainly the loss of a city’s statutes and cultic objects was loaded with religio-political meaning. It publicly expressed the winner’s dominance and the deities’ formal abandonment of the conquered land. 108. B. Landsberger, “Die serie ana ittišu,” in Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon, part 1: Emesal-vocabulary (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1937) tablet 6, col. 3, line 43. 109. In the case of divine statues, it may be best to distinguish this public display statue from the cult statue, which may not have been as readily available for such needs. For further insight into the display statue of the king that could have been used for these purposes, see G. Buccellati, “Through a Tablet Darkly: A Reconstruction of Old Ak-

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

59

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The notion that the deity executed the punishment in curses by wielding his or her g i š - t u k u l endured through the Pre-Sargonic and Old Babylonian periods well into Neo-Assyrian times. The inscription on a Pre-Sargonic kudurru offers some intriguing clues about how the giš-tukul could have been used should the curse need to be executed. Nam-kud i 3 ir lu 2 - n a- m e i-na-kir ap-lu g i r 2 d l u g a l -g i š-asal x ḫi-uš 3  110 ‘The oath by oil: no one should change (the sale, or else) the heir(s?) will die by the dagger of Lugalasal’. 111 If this is a correct translation of the text, then it would appear that the g i š - t u k u l , in this case a sword or dagger (gir 2 ), could be used against the seller’s heir(s) (aplu) should they attempt to deny the original sale of the property. On his famous stele, Ḫammurapi solicits Nergal in a most telling simile malediction. 24dNE3.IRI11.GAL 25dan-nu-um i-na i3-li2 . . . 35in GIŠ.TUKUL-šu dan-nim 36li-ša-ṭi-šu-ma 37bi-ni-a-ti-šu 38ki-ma ṣa-lam ṭi-ṭi-im 39li-iḫ-bu-uš ‘May Nergal, the mighty one among the deities . . . have him beaten with his mighty weapon and shatter his limbs like a clay figurine’. 112 Although there is no doubt as to the function of the g i š - t u kul here—it is to be the instrument of the violator’s death—the curse lends additional information about the relationship between the deity and his weapon. Not only could he brandish it himself, but he could have another use it on his behalf (lišaṭṭīšu = Š). The causative form of the verb implies one of two scenarios. It could point to the existence of executioner deities who performed the curse on Nergal’s command or the active state of the divine weapon itself, which can cause afflictions, diseases, and other misfortunes. 113 kadian Monuments Described in Old Babylonian Copies,” in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993) 58–71, esp. p. 61. If the material with which Buccellati worked actually describes a statue before which a mu lugal statement could be made, then the curse on the ‘footstool’ would help to reinforce the notion that the kings mu ‘name’ was divinely protected. The text suggests that the removal of the original owner’s mu and its replacement by the mu of the new owner was all that was necessary to change the statue’s identity. Consequently, it would seem that a statue inscribed with the mu does more than express ownership. See comments by H. Hirsch, “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade,” AfO 20 (1963) 1–82, esp. pp. 11, 55. Because these displays celebrated the king’s victories in battle, then the presence of a ceremonial weapon near the statue would be entirely appropriate. 110.  Autograph copy: L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets (vol. 5; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1898) plate 3, limestone slab #22506, col. 2, cases 4–10. 111. This translation is based on suggestions made by R.  Westbrook (private com­­munication). 112.  Autograph copy: E. Bergmann, S.J., Codex Hammurabi Textus Primigenius (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1953) plate 37, R 28, 24–25, 35–39. For a review of other curses involving Nergal, see J.  Briggs Curtis, “An Investigation of the Mount of Olives in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition,” HUCA 28 (1957) 137–80, here, pp. 159–64. For a normalized text and translation of the entire code, see M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) 71–142. 113.  See pp. 170–196 for a discussion on this issue.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

60

Chapter 2

Two curses from an incantation directed against a disease illustrates in no uncertain terms what the deities are to do. They are to drive away the ailment and strike it down with their divine weapons. da-mu AŠ pa-aš2-tu4 li-im-ḫa-as-[su] gu-nu-ra TARGUL.GAL.BI ḪU.MU.UN.DAR.R[AḪ2] 114

33d 34d

May Damu strike him with an ax. May Gunura beat him with a large weaving tool.

Even more revealing are two curses that conclude a “deed” when King Abban gives Alalakh to Iarimlim. ša a-wa-at ab-ba-an i-pu-šu 14u2-na-ak-ka-ru a-na ia-ri-im-li-im 15u3 pi2-irḫi-šu u2-la-am-ma-nu 16dIM i-na GIŠ.TUKUL ša qa-ti-šu li-iḫ-bu-us-su 17dḫe2pat2 dIŠTAR GIŠ.IGI.KAK-šu li-iš-bi-ru 115 13

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

14 He who would change 13that which Abban has done 15and does evil against Iarimlim and his descendants, 16may dAdad (IM) crush him with the weapon in his hand. 17May dIštar shatter his spear.

The specific reference to the weapon in the deity’s hand in line 16 certainly brings to mind a divine statue. At the same time, this reference may be balanced against lines 2b–3 which states: 2mab-ba-an . . . [i]-⸢na tu-ku⸣-u[l-t]i dIM 3d ḫe2-pat2 u3 GIŠ.IGI.KAK-šu [. . .] a-na URU ir-ri-di-ki il-lik-ma ‘2Abban, with trust in IM, 3Hepat and the spear, he went against the city of Irridi’. 116 In this case, the GIŠ.IGI.KAK is the third divine element in a heavenly triad, where the divine weapon is all but personified. 117 Finally, the seal of the Neo-Assyrian king, Sennacherib, envisions a similar image in his imprecation. 7bša2 in-nu-u 8an-šar 20 DINGIR.MEŠ dnin-lil 9 a-de DUMU.MEŠ-šu2-nu AŠ GIŠ.TUKUL.MEŠ-šu2-nu 10dan-nu-t[u] li-ni-ru-šu2 ‘He who alters (the agreement), may Aššur, king of the deities, (and) Ninlil together with their children, kill (nêru) him with their mighty weapons’. 118 In this malediction, the execution of the violator has become a heavenly, family affair. The divine couple, together with their offspring, are to slay 114. R. Campbell Thompson, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets, vol. 17: Bilingual Incantations (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1903) plate 33, tablet U, rev., lines 33–34. 115. D. J. Wiseman, The Alalakh Tablets, plate 1, tablet 1, rev., lines 13–17. 116.  Ibid., plate 1, tablet 1, obv., lines 2–3. Compare ma-mit GIRI2 UD.KA.BAR u GIŠ šu-kur-ri ‘conditional curse by sword or spear’ (H. Zimmern, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Babylonischen Religion [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1901] plate 4, obv., line 27 = Reiner, Šurpu, 19, tablet  3, line 28) and KI ma-mit GIŠ.PANA GIŠ.GIGIR GIRI2.AN.BAR u GIŠ.ŠUKUR ta-mu-u ‘together with the conditional curse of cursing by bow, chariot, iron dagger or spear’ (S. A. Smith, Miscellaneous Assyrian Texts of the British Museum [Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1887] plate 19, tablet K 2866, line 77 = Reiner, Šurpu, 43, tablet 8, line 77). 117.  See pp. 297–320 for a review of this point. 118.  Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon, plate 49; seal impression A; 5b–10.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

61

the offender with their many GIŠ.TUKUL.MEŠ. One can only say that this would be a very gruesome punishment! 119 All of the above allows us to draw some preliminary distinctions among m u lu g al/DN .  .  . p a d 3 , z i l u g a l /DN . . . pad 3 and nam-(e r im 2) . . . ku d . P ad 3 ‘to disclose (as true/verifiable)’ can function as a certification of asseverative statements. These statements can be either conditional or unconditional, precative or imperative. Because pad 3 is not part of the spoken m u or z i DN/l u g a l formulas in legal contexts, then it becomes clear that the authority to endorse a statement with pad 3 does not originate from the speaker of the formula as it does in exorcistic rituals. Instead, p ad 3 accreditation emanates from a source external to the speaker. When the asseverative statements are bound by mu/zi DN/lugal invocations and then certified as p a d 3 , then the external authority behind the pad 3 can be no one other than the deity and/or the king who is importuned in the spoken formula.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Summary There is a fundamental distinction between a vow and an oath. A vow is a conditional promise that seeks to bargain with a deity to support a desired outcome. Most notable vows articulate the arrangement in positive terms; expressing how each party will mutually benefit when the agreement is fulfilled. Vows generally lack any references to penalties for a failure to meet the vow’s demands. This may be attributed to the fact that a human being cannot punish a deity for not honoring the arrangement. The freedom of divine will must be respected. However should a mere mortal fail to thank the deity for his or her generosity by fulfilling the vow, we can presume that there would be repercussions. Yet again, this leaves the deity free to determine exactly what that punishment will be. An oath, on the other hand, is a conditional curse. It solicits a deity or deities to punish someone for failure to respect and maintain the terms of an arrangement. One of the more interesting characters of ancient oaths is that they could be exacted in two different ways. One method allowed one to bind oneself to the agreement. This is an oath as a conditional self-curse. Thus, the one who swears the oath generally determines the nature of the punishment as expressed in the curse. The other method allows a superior 119.  We might note W. G. Lambert’s observations on the šaššarum ša Šamaš or ‘saw of Šamaš’. “The purpose of this weapon seems not to have been explained so far. We suggest it was the tool of the god of justice, to behead criminals; note a line in a hymn to Nabû, known from late copies: ki = min (= telēʾe) sa-sar2 dšamaš eli qur-da-me ša2-ka-nu (O. R. Gurney, J. J. Finkelstein, and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets [vol. 1; Ankara: British Institute of Archaeology, 1957] tablet 71, line 24,) ‘You are able to impose the saw of Šamaš on crooks’. It may be observed that qardamu can also mean ‘enemy’, ‘adversary’” (“Sumerian Gods: Combining the Evidence of Texts and Art,” in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations [ed. I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller; Groningen: Styx, 1997] 1–17, here esp. p. 5).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

62

Chapter 2

party to impose an oath on another person. Here, the superior party unilaterally establishes all features of the oath from every detail of the terms, to expansive lists of curses. The Sumerian oath formula m u - l u g a l /DN . . . p ad 3, zi lugal/DN . . . p ad 3 and n a m- e r i m . . . ku d illustrate the nuances associated with swearing oaths. P a d 3 ‘to swear’ can certify that the king and/or a deity so referenced has authority over the arrangement. When pad 3 appears with mu or z i DN/l u g a l in these situations, it is, to a degree, permissive. It specifically acknowledges that the king and/or the deity have the final word on the matter. They are the judges who will, if necessary, determine whether the oath was sworn honestly or dishonestly. The inscription on the Vulture stele shows that another phrase, n am -(e rim 2) . . . k u d , can modify a z i DN formula. This usage likewise constitutes an oath. The general emphasis of nam-(erim 2) . . . kud is punishment. It denotes the generation of a latent curse. On these occasions the z i /m u DN/l u g a l invocation formula principally serves to identify the individuals who would have the right to execute the malediction should the offending party renege on his sworn agreement. One may assume that the execution would be administered promptly. The Vulture Stele inscription also describes an oath ritual. Eannatum has determined that the Umma ruler is guilty of infringing the borders of Lagaš and then assesses a n a m -(e r i m 2) . . . kud from him. Eannatum, the superior party, presents the leader of Umma with Enlil’s giš-tukul, the great battle net, and forced him to curse himself by it. 120 Therefore the n am -(e rim 2) . . . k u d refers to an imposed oath that operates according to the principle of ‘conditional self-cursing’. In the next chapter, we will see that in these situations the oath-taker is coerced into articulating a malediction that actually brings into being the ‘evil’ associated with it. Many texts demonstrate that a n a m -(e r i m 2) . . . k ud is imposed as a result of a judicial decision. 121 The distinction between p a d 3 and n a m-(er im 2) . . . kud may help explain a curious statement made in another Nippur text.

120. For other examples of nam-erim 2 . . . ku d functioning in this way, see E. Chiera, Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents (Oriental Institute Publications 16; Cuneiform Series 4; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934) plate 90, tablet 86, col. 2, lines 3–6: di-kud-e-n[e] k an 4 dnin-urta-še 3 nam-erim 2-kud-ru-d[e 3] ba-an-si 3-mu-u[š] ‘the judges made him cut a curse in the gate of Ninurta’. W. W. Hallo, “A Model Court Case concerning Inheritance,” 141–54, YBC 9839, 17–19. In both of these examples, judges impose the oath. The wording nam-erim 2 kud-ru-de 3 probably reflects this coercion. See also Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden, 2:262, text 165, col. 1, 4′–6′: 4′ensi -k[e ] 5′PN 6′[na]m-erim -[še b]i -in-si g 2 4 2 x 2 10 ‘The local ruler, PN, made him place a curse’. 121.  Falkenstein also noticed that this type of oath was performed after the court process (Die neusumerischen Gerichtsurkunden 1:67).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Vows, Oaths, and Curses

63

17 g in 2 k ug-babbar 2PN-e 3PN2-ra 4 kas k al - t a a- am - m a- dadu-a 5 la l-de 3 re v 6 mu l ugal -bi i 3 -pad 3 7 d i n u- di - de 3 nam - e r i m 2 nu-g a l 2  122

1

PN disclosed (as true/verifiable) by the name of the king to weigh out for PN2 17 shekels of silver after he returns from the expedition; (there was) no lawsuit (and) there was no (juridically imposed) conditional curse.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

If we accept that p a d 3 refers to the certification of a statement introduced by m u l u g a l , then there is no curse. This means that the declaration that PN will pay 17 shekels to PN2 upon his return does not constitute an agreement bound by a conditional self-curse. What mu lugal . . . pad 3 does do is endorse PN’s statement as authentic and verifiable (gin 6 /kânu) by the authority of the king’s mu. If we accept that p a d 3 also recognizes the authority of the king and/or the deity should an adjudication become necessary, then the precise character of the punishment (curse) has yet to be determined. This means that the oath that PN swears to pay 17 shekels to PN2 upon his return was not bound by a predetermined punishment (curse). The next two lines probably form a sequential unit. This should help illuminate the circumstances that necessitates a nam-erim 2. 123 First, there is no “lawsuit” or d i d (Sum.). We may assume that a lawsuit would have occurred if a previous oath-bound arrangement had been violated. Because the arrangement was not enforceable in those terms, the request for a lawsuit was unsustainable and the imposition of a nam-erim 2 could not be required. Therefore, PN was only required to place his payment schedule of 17 shekels under a m u l u g a l - b i i-p a d 3 oath. 122.  Owen, Neo-Sumerian Archival Texts, plate 82, tablet 322, obv., lines 1–5, rev., lines 6–7. 123.  See pp. 96–103. for a more detailed study of the nam-erim 2 . . . kud oath.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Chapter 3

The Types of Curses The Grammar of Curses

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Before we launch into a review of curse types, it may be beneficial to identify some of the characteristics that are fundamental to all maledictions regardless of language or culture. Curses express the desire of the speaker. Therefore, they are principally wishes. 1 Because they are wishes, the harmful acts curses request are future oriented. Maledictions also depend on the heavenly realm for their final execution. This means that curses are, at best, predictive. Grammatically then, the tense of verbs used in curses is modal future and the mood, ‘optative’. 2 The voice may be either active or passive. By far, the precative with its modal prefix ḫa-/ḫe 2 - dominates Sumerian curses: d u g - gi n 7 ḫ e 2 - g a z - g a z ‘May you (the Udug demon) be smashed like a pot’ or n a m ḫ e 2 - m a - k u d - e ‘May she curse him’. 3 Another clue for 1.  Pedersen, Der Eid, 86; Blank, “Curse, Blasphemy,” 76–77. When this fundamental point is taken into account, a curse cannot be construed as “performative.” Given this, however, one can readily concede that “swearing” and “cursing” is performative on an initial level. This recognizes that the moment an oath is sworn or a curse pronounced it is indeed performative because it binds a person or object to a specific malediction or series of maledictions. The intrinsic, optative mood of curses, whether implicit or explicit, always remains in tact because it invariably acknowledges the role of the deities. Only they can enact the harm in an anathema. 2.  Tense: This may be characterized as “speaker-oriented modality” as described in The Evolution of Grammar–Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. This includes “all such directives as well as utterances meant to grant permission. Speakeroriented modalities do not report the existence of conditions on the agent but rather allow the speaker to impose such conditions on the addressee” ( J. Bybee et al., The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994] 179). Mood: Strictly speaking, the optative mood as a verbal inflection does not exist in Akkadian or Hebrew. Nevertheless, Gelb considers the Akkadian precative form a mood (Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar [2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961] 169–74), while Edzard lists it among his eight principle modi (“Die Modi beim älteren akkadischen Verbum,” in A Volume of Studies Offered to Ignace Jay Gelb [ed. G. Buccellati; Orientalia 42; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973] 121–41). 3.  ‘May you be smashed like a pot’: M. Geller, Forerunners to Udug-Ḫul: Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 12; Stuttgart: Steiner, 1985) plate 11, tablet CBS 1532 (PBS 1/2 128), obv., col. 2, line 12. ‘May she curse him’: E. de Sarzec and L. Heuzey, Découvertes en Chaldée (publié par les soins de Léon Heuzey, avec le concours de Arthur Amiaud et François Thureau-Dangin, pour la partie épigraphique; Paris: Leroux,

64

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

65

the sense of ‘wish’ associated with cursing in Sumerian can be detected in the word a š 2. Although the primary meaning of aš 2 is ‘curse’, a 2-aš 2 can also mean ‘curse’ but with the supporting sense of ‘desire’ or ‘wish’. 4 A line from a bilingual text of proverbs illustrates this latter meaning. Lu 2 -t i-la aš 2 - a- n a- n e -e š a š-a g -a b (Sum.) = ša aš2-bi e-pu-uš ṣi-bu-ti (Akk.) ‘perform the curse of the one who is present’ (Sum.) / ‘perform the wish of the one who is present’ (Akk.). 5 The future sense and the optative mood of maledictions is expressed in different ways in the other three major languages considered here. The imperfect verb that characterizes curses in Hebrew is in reality an indirect imperative or the jussive in the third person. For the most part it is in the active voice, although the passive voice is sometimes found. The passive participle may also be used with the same implications. Most of these features are nicely illustrated in Neh 5:13, when Nehemiah imposes a conditional curse on the Jerusalem elite. ‫ַדבָר ַהּזֶה ִמּבֵיתֹו‬ ּ ָ ‫ָקים אֶת־ה‬ ִ ‫ֲשר לֹא־י‬ ֶׁ ‫ָאיׁש א‬ ִ ‫ָצנִי נָע ְַר ִּתי וָא ֹ ְמ ָרה ָּככָה ְינַעֵר ָהאֱל ִֹהים אֶת־ּכָל־ה‬ ְ ‫ַּגּם־ח‬ ‫ּדבָר ַהּזֶה‬ ּ ָ ‫אמרּו כָל־ה ַָּקהָל ָאמֵן ַו ְיה ְַללּו אֶת־יהּוה ַוּיַעַׂש ָהעָם ַכ‬ ְ ֹ ‫ִהיֶה נָעּור וָרֵ ק וַּי‬ ְ ‫יגיעֹו ְו ָככָה י‬ ִ ‫ּומ‬ ִ

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

I also shook out the fold of my garment and said, “So may God shake out everyone from house and property who does not perform this word. Thus may they be shaken out and emptied.” And all the assembly said, “Amen,” and praised Yahweh. And the people did as they had promised.

Interestingly enough, the same curse is expressed twice. The verb in the first malediction ‫‘ ְינַעֵר‬may he shake’ is a jussive Piel imperfect indirect imperative that expresses the wish of the speaker. The voice is active and God is specifically identified as the one who would perform the punishing act. The second malediction expresses the same curse but in the passive voice. The verb here is ‫‘ נָעּור‬be shaken’ a Qal passive participle. When balanced with the preceding statement, this usage envisions a future completion of the hoped-for punishment should it become necessary. Even though ‫ נָעּור‬principally affirms the cursed state of the individual should he violate the promise, the act it describes is still envisioned as a potential condition. Therefore, the Qal passive participle, when used in this way, cannot reflect the indicative mood in the strictest sense. Given the juxtaposition of ‫ְינַעֵר‬ with ‫ נָעּור‬there is little doubt that Yahweh is still the operative agent and that the execution of the punishment hinges on his divine will. 1884–1912) plate 13; épigraphique 16, cols. 4, 12. See also F. Thureau-Dangin, Die su­ merischen und akkadischen Königschriften (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907) 76, Gudea, Statue C, cols. 4, 12. 4.  For instance, a-aš 2 = AŠ2 (M. Civil, Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14, Secondary Proto-Ea and Proto- Aa, p. 113, line 13; UET 7, tablet 163, p. 113, col. 1, line 13) and aš 2 = AŠ2 = de-eš-šu2 ar-ra-tum (Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 14, Ea tablet 1, p. 193, line 327). 5.  W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960) plate 69, col. 3, rev., lines 8–9. See also p. 268, lines 8–9.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

66

Chapter 3

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Nevertheless, the use of ‫ נָעּור‬in this passage has great significance for an improved understanding of the placement and purpose of the Qal passive participle ‫‘ אָרּור‬be cursed’. 6 In earlier times much has been made of the passive voice of this term. Because ‫ אָרּור‬effectively conceals the agent of the verb, it has been taken to illustrate the Israelites’ belief in magic and the ‘power of word’. 7 In addition, the so-called ‫אָרּור‬-formula has been interpreted as uniquely Israelite. Because it does not solicit a deity, it is therefore, a secular utterance. 8 Even so, as appealing as these arguments may be, the function of ‫ נָעּור‬in Neh 5:13 should dismiss any lingering doubts concerning the analogous use of ‫ אָרּור‬elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Just as Yahweh is clearly seen to be the agent behind ‫ נָעּור‬in Nehemiah’s malediction, so is he to be seen as the agent behind usage of ‫אָרּור‬. 9 Further, Neh 5:13 also illustrates the custom of pronouncing a curse twice. The first articulation is expressed with an active verb that is clearly informed by and coordinated with Nehemiah’s performance of shaking out his cloak. After the predictive act and word is completed, the curse is pronounced again but this time with a passive participle. This reflects a careful balance between the active and passive voice and likewise suggests a mutually dependent paring of ideas in maledictions expressed in this way. Even though the the passive participle relies on the preceding curse for some meaning, it is still possible for the passive curse to stand on its own. This proposes that ‫אָרּור‬-formula imprecations developed from the second element of binary curses in which the first element expressed the malediction actively with a curse act. 10 Neh 5:13 also broaches the possibility that the active element of these curses could be expressed just as effectively as an act alone without the accompanying words. Therefore, ‫אָרּור‬-formula male6.  Various scholars have offered various meanings for the root ‫ארר‬. Speiser offers a basic meaning of “supernatural spell” (“An Angelic ‘Curse’ Exodus 14:20,” JAOS 80 (1960) 198–200, here, p. 198). Brichto states that it means “‘curse’ only in the operative sense of the word” (The Problem of “Curse,” 114), while Schottroff concludes that it means to pronounce the ‫אָרּור‬-formula (Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch, 31–35). 7.  Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy,” 77; Gevirtz, “Curse,” IDB, 750. 8.  Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch, 68–69. 9.  Ibid., 50–52. 10. Most scholars agree that ‫ אָרּור‬is a “curse formula.” It is a nominal sentence inferred as a future that expresses a wish. Therefore, it is optative (S. R. Driver, Hebrew Tenses [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1892] 169; GKC 360 n. 1 and §151a). Others note an alternate mode. Pedersen questioned ‫’אָרּור‬s strict optative mood as early as 1914 (Der Eid, 86), and Schottroff proposes an original indicative mode. Veenhof accepts this position but with qualifications stressing that the Hebrew Bible “offers also examples of a precative meaning.” Drawing on the work of F. I. Andersen, Veenhof suggests that the passive participle in this formula may be adjectival. This means that ‫ אָרּור‬could reflect a predicatesubject (S-P) pattern. When the predicate is indefinite, as in the case of the ‫אָרּור‬-formula, it functions as “a clause of classification, by means of which S is not identified with, but ranged under the category of P” (K. R. Veenhof, review of Willy Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch, VT 22 (1972) 375–83, here, p. 382; F. I. Andersen, The Hebrew Verbless Clause in the Pentateuch [JBL Monograph Series 14; Nashville: Abgindon, 1970] 48). We will discuss this below.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

67

dictions could represent the surviving oral element of the second half of a binary curse whose first component was articulated actively in word and/ or act. 11 This does not mean to suggest that every such curse was binary, for it is equally possible that, according to cultural conventions, the passive voice spontaneously presumes the existence of an otherwise unarticulated active statement or deed. The markers for Akkadian curses are a bit easier to identify as they typically exploit the precative form of the verb to express the wish of the speaker. 12 A curse from Esarhaddon’s treaty which uses liqmu (qamû ‘burn’) illustrates this application. dGIŠ.BAR na-din ma-ka-le-e a-na TUR.MEŠ GAL. MEŠ MU-ku-nu NUMUN-ku-nu liq-mu ‘May Girra, who gives food to small and great, burn up your name and your seed’. 13 For the most part, the precative characterizes conditional maledictions. The positive injunctions that typify maledictions may also be expressed in Akkadian in verbless clauses characterized by lū + verbal adjective. 14 As a clausal construction, this feature appears most frequently in the apodosis of conditional imprecations. The Assyrian king, Aššur-nerari V (ca. 754– 745) uses this sort of imprecation in his treaty with Matiʾ-ilu, king of Arpad. š[um2-m]u mKI.MIN AŠ a-de-e an-nu-ti [i-ḫa-ṭu-ni] 25′ ki-i ša2 SAG.DU ša2 UDU.NIM an-ni-u qa-[ti-pu-u-ni] 26′ [ku]r-sin-nu-šu AŠ KA-šu2 šak-na-tu-n[i xxx] 27′ S[AG.D]U ša2 mKI.MIN lu qa-ti-ip DUMU.[MEŠ-šu2 GAL.MEŠ-šu2] 15 24′

If the aforementioned (Matiʾ-ilu) does wrong against this adê-agreement 25 just as the head of this spring lamb is cut off 26 (and) its ankle is placed in its mouth, [xxx] 27 (so) may the head of the aforementioned be cut off, (and) his sons, his nobles

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

24

This text illuminates the nuance of verbless clauses in conditional curses. First, the conditionality of the sentence is clearly marked by šumma ‘if’. It 11.  The Alalakh text, AT 456, reflects a similar structure in which the curse act is followed by oral articulation. See p. 23. 12.  The system followed here is that of J. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 45; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 144–46, §16.2. 13.  Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, tablet 27, plate 8, lines 524–25 = Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, 67–68, lines 524–525 = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 51, lines 524–25. 14. Von Soden distinguishes two forms of the affirmative wish. The verbal form emphasizing action, liprus, and the stative form, lū paris, used to describe states of being (Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik [Analecta Orientalia 33; 3rd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995] §81, pp. 131–33, here, p. 132); Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 223, §22.2. 15. Autograph copy: E.  Weidner, “Der Staatsvertrag Aššnirâris VI. von Assyrien mit Matiʾ-ilu von Bît-Agusi,” AfO 8 (1932) 17–34, here, p. 24, col. 1, lines 24′–27′ = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 9, lines 24′–27′.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

68

Chapter 3

identifies the act that will lead to punishment: ‘doing wrong’ (ḫaṭû) against the treaty. The apodosis that follows is composed of three verbless clauses, two in lines 25–26 and one in line 27. The two verbal adjectives in lines 25–26, qatipuni and šaknatuni, serve as the predicate of a two part clause. A similar case is found in line 27. Here, however, we discover a curse whose positive injunction is expressed with lū qatip ‘may (his head) be cut off’. The force of each of these verbal adjectives is particularly well-suited to the maledictory context in which they appear, as they predicate the condition that is the result of the action of the verbs. Thus, both qatipuni and qatip emphasize the state of the item that is ‘cut off’. Although verbal adjectives have no tense, the complementary pairing qatipuni with lū qatip implies a sequence of actions and gives some clue as to the implied tense. Without a doubt, as an injunction lū qatip is oriented toward the future and describes nothing more than one possible outcome. It merely threatens the condition of ‘being cut off’. This notion is stressed further by the fact that lū qatip appears in the apodosis of a conditional sentence. Thus, the active state of ‘being cut off’ can become a reality only if the agreement is violated as described in the protasis. Additionally, lū qatip does not stand alone. It is also informed by qatipuni in the preceding clause through the comparison drawn between the two acts which is established by the simile marked by ki ša ‘just as’ in line 25. This means that for lū qatip to offer an appropriate level of intimidation meritorious of a malediction, the act compared and described by qatipuni must either be present active, progressive, ‘is being cut off’ or simple past, complete, ‘is cut off’. In Hittite, the imperative form of the verb appears to be used to express the optative mood inherent in all imprecations. As of this writing, this practice is attested in all Hittite maledictions and benedictions without any exceptions known thus far. To illustrate this point, let us consider two lines from Šuppiluliuma I’s treaty with Huqqana of Hayasa, which balances a curse against a blessing. 8bNu-uš-ma-aš tak2-ša-an 9ḫar-nu-in-kan2-du dUTUši-ma-aš-ša-an ZI ar-nu-an-du ‘May they (the oath deities) destroy both of you, but may they support My Majesty’s life’. 16 Even though both verbs, ḫarnuinkandu and arnuandu, are clearly written as third plural imperatives, there is little doubt concerning their future, optative mood.

Divine Judgment Another intrinsic feature of curses is divine judgment. As solicitations they inherently entreat the heavenly realm with the hope that the deities will review what is perceived by the speaker to be an unjust situation and act accordingly. Frequently, these maledictions address circumstances that are beyond human control leaving the court of the divine realm the only 16. F.  Hrozný, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 5 (WVDOG 36; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923) tablet 3, plate 23, col. 2, lines 8b–9. Specific reference to the oath deities, NI-IŠ DINGIR. MEŠ, appears in line 7.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

69

recourse open to the speaker. 17 In these cases, unconditional curses seek a divine evaluation of a current event without qualification. Conditional curses identify particular acts that, if perpetrated, will lead to wrongdoing necessitating divine mediation. In the end, both types of imprecations look for divine rectification of unmerited offenses against the speaker. Hebrew The process of this heavenly review is not often articulated. Nevertheless, the Hebrew Bible provides several instructive passages. One of the most enlightening is Gen 16:5, when Sarai confronts Abram about Hagar’s behavior toward her. ָׂ ‫וַּתאמֶר‬ ‫ָתה ָואֵקַ ל ְּבעֵינֶי ָה‬ ָ ‫ָתי ְּבחֵיקֶךָ וַּתֵ רֶא ִּכי ָהר‬ ִ ‫ָסי ָעלֶיךָ אָנ ִֹכי נָתַ ִּתי ִׁש ְפח‬ ִ ‫חמ‬ ֲ ‫שרַ י אֶל־א ְַב ָרם‬ ָ‫ִשּפֹט יהוה ּבֵינִי ּובֵינֶיך‬ ְׁ ‫י‬

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Then Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my slave-girl to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she regarded me with contempt. May Yahweh judge between you and me!”

Admittedly, Sarai’s opening curse, ָ‫ָסי ָעלֶיך‬ ִ ‫חמ‬ ֲ , (lit., ‘my violence upon you’) is verbless, which for all intents and purposes virtually eliminates the optative mood of her statement. Even so, the future oriented, supplicatory character of her initial curse is corroborated by her concluding imprecation. Here the wish is expressed with the expected, imperfect verb, ‫ִשּפֹט‬ ְׁ ‫‘ י‬may he judge’, functioning as an indirect imperative. Strictly speaking, the second curse is oblique and is, to some degree, qualified by the context. The grounds for the opening curse are provided by her ensuing statement. It is due to Hagar’s disdainful behavior that Sarai seeks divine judgment. As such, Sarai invites a heavenly verdict that is undoubtedly envisioned as one that will benefit her to the detriment of Abram. She also views Yahweh’s pending judgment as a means to rectify an injury done to her. The same curse is used by David against Saul in 1 Sam 24:13[12] with an important expansion. When David displays the swatch of cloth he cut from Saul’s cloak, he declares: “May Yahweh judge between me and you! May Yahweh avenge me (‫ )הַּקַ ְדמֹנִי‬on you; but my hand shall not be against you.” In this case, and in Sarai’s above, the hoped-for divine judgment is expected to realize the petitioner’s desire for retaliation and vengeance due to wrongdoing. Two lines later in v. 15, David augments the curse even 17.  This is the case in the story of Jotham in Judges 9. Unable to procure justice for Abimelech’s slaughter of his family, Jotham turns the situation over to Yahweh by means of a conditional curse. When Abimelech suffers an ignoble death, God is said to have “returned (‫ָׁשב‬ ֶ ‫ ) ַוּי‬the evil which Abimelech committed against his father in killing his seventy brothers; God also made all the evil of the people of Shechem fall back on their heads, and on them came the curse ‫ ִקלֲלַת‬of Jotham son of Jerubbaal” (9:56–57). See pp. 157–59, 168 for further discussion on this text.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

70

Chapter 3

further with a full description of the legal process he imagines Yahweh will undertake on his behalf. ָ‫טנִי ִמּיָדֶך‬ ֵ ‫ִש ְּפ‬ ְׁ ‫יבי ְוי‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ר‬ ִ ‫שפַט ּבֵינִי ּובֵינֶךָ ְויֵרֶא ְויָרֵב א‬ ָׁ ‫ְו ָהיָה יהוה ְלדַ ּיָן ְו‬ Therefore, may Yahweh be judge, and rule between me and you. May he see it through, and plead my lawsuit, and make a judgment for me against your authority.

Four important juridical terms appear here: the noun ‫‘ דַ ּיָן‬judge’, the verb ‫ׁשפַט‬ ָ ‘to judge’, ‘rule’, and the root ‫ריב‬, which is used as a verb, ‫‘ יָ ֵרב‬plead a suit’, and a noun, ‫‘ ִריב‬lawsuit’. This nomenclature derives from a court system in which cases are argued before a judge and rulings are handed down. It is significant that David specifically identifies the nature of his legal redress as ‫‘ ִריב‬a lawsuit’ to be presented by Yahweh who is also to function as ‫‘ דַ ּיָן‬judge’. This tells us that a ‫ ִריב‬together with its judiciary procedures form the background of the decision making process behind the divine execution of the harm in a curse. This also means that related curses such ְ ‫י‬, ‘seek’)!” (2 Chr 24:22); “May Yahweh as “May Yahweh see and avenge (‫ִדרֹׁש‬ himself take vengeance (‫ ( ”) ְי ַבּקֵׁש‬Josh 22:23) and “May Yahweh be a true and faithful witness (‫ )עֵד‬against us if we do not act according to everything that Yahweh your God sends us through you” ( Jer 42:5), envision this same judiciary process before divine action is taken. Even David’s famous curse on Joab’s house in 2 Sam 3:29 operates within this legal framework.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Akkadian Occasionally, Sumerian and Akkadian maledictions describe a similar legal agenda. Hints of this may occur in connection with a particular divine function: d u t u d i -k u d a n -k i -a n [a m] gi g-ga ḫe 2 -ni-tar ‘May Utu, judge of heaven and earth, decide (lit., ‘cut’) a troublesome [fate] for her’. 18 A text that can be described as a “letter” addressed to a deity dating to the Old Babylonian period, illustrates the delicate balance between divine initiative and the human desire for justice presumed to be supported through the execution of curses bound by oaths. The physical character of the tablet is particularly interesting because a small hole perforates it from end to end. This curious feature led Gadd to propose that the tablet was either propped up with a rod before a statue of Nanna or supported by a votive figurine of the petitioner himself. 19 There, poised before the deity, the tablet “incessantly obtruded upon the divine attention until satisfaction was guaranteed.” 20 18. M. J. Geller, “A New Piece of Witchcraft,” in DUMU-E2DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Āke W. Sjöberg (ed. H. Behrens et al.; Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia: University Museum Press, 1989) 193–205, here, p. 196, line 37. 19. C. J. Gadd, “Two Sketches from the Life at Ur,” Iraq 25 (1963) 177–88, here esp. p. 177 n. 3. 20.  Ibid., 177.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

71

The author of the “letter,” a certain Kuzzulum, is perturbed—but of course most respectfully perturbed—with Nanna (Sin) and UTU’s (Šamaš) lack of action regarding what he believes to be the violation of an oath swore by a gentleman named Elali. 21 Apparently, Kuzzulum lent Elali some money so that he could pay the bride-price his father-in-law required (lines 6–8). Elali then marries and has two children, a son and a daughter (line 9). The tenor of the text suggests that Kuzzulum was not satisfied with the final resolution of the loan. Consequently, he demanded that Elani settle the matter properly. Elali’s response, however, was to swear oath after oath, three in all, asserting that he had not wronged Kuzulum. Fortunately for us, the text actually quotes the first oath Elali swore “in the gardens, before e 2 - kiš - n u - g a l , before Nanna and Utu” (lines 30–32). Here, Elali speaks of himself in the third person: e-la-li2 ku-zu-la-am la a-ḫa-ba-lu-ma IGI d NANNA IGI dUTU a-pi2-il e-la-li2 a-a ib-ši ki-a-am it-ma ‘Elali has done Kuzulum no wrong. Before Nanna and Šamaš, he (Elali) conditionally cursed himself thusly: “May (he have) no heir”’. 22 Elali obviously knew that the deities had yet to activate the original curse because he already had a son and, presumably, an heir. One can now fathom why Elali was so willing to declare his innocence of wrongdoing again and again. The fact that he was able to beget a son without fully repaying the loan demonstrated to Elali in no uncertain terms that the deities were satisfied with what he had paid. He owes nothing more. Therefore, he has done nothing wrong. Pushed to the point of desperation, Kuzulum’s only recourse is literally to place the matter before the deities. His closing words are almost plaintive. ta-mi dNANNA u3 dUTU 37e-ep-qa2-am i-ma-al-la 38i-la-pi-in u3 IBILA u2-la e-ra-aš-ši 39dNANNA u3 dUTU e-la-li2 it-ma-ma 40iḫ-ta-ab-la-an-ni 41dNIN. ŠUBUR LUGAL NIG2.GA li-zi-iz-ma 42dNANNA u3 dUTU di-ni li-di-nu 43rabu-ut dNANNA u3 dUTU lu-mu-ur-ma 23

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

36

36 The conditional curse of Nanna (Sin) and Utu (Šamaš) 37should fill (him/ Elali) with epqu-disease. 24 38He should be destitute. He should have no son. 39Elali has conditionally cursed (himself) by Nanna and Utu and 40he has wronged me. 41Let Nin-šubur the king of property stand forth. 42May

21. C.  J. Gadd and S.  N. Kramer, Ur Excavations, Texts 6, Literary and Religious Texts Second Part (London: Trustees of the British Museum / Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966) tablet 402, plates 288 and 289. For additional comments on this text, see, Gadd, “Two Sketches from the Life at Ur,” 177–81; D. Charpin, Le clergé au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXeXVIIe siècles av. J.-C.) (École Pratique des hautes études IVe Section, Sciences historiques et philologiques 2; Hautes études orientales 22; Paris: Libaririe Droz, 1986) 326–29. 22.  Gadd and Kramer, Ur Excavations, Texts 6/2, tablet 402, plate 289, rev., lines 32b–35. 23.  Ibid., tablet 402, plate 289, rev., lines 36–43. 24. For more on the relation between epqu and curses, see A.  M. Kitz, “The Curse behind the Plague of Boils,” MAARAV 11 (2004) 219–232, here esp. p. 221 n. 9; 224–27.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

72

Chapter 3 Nanna and Utu Utu!

judge my case. May I see the greatness of Nanna and

43

Lines 36–38 are most telling. They contain three verbs in the G Durative: imalla (malû, ‘fill’), ilappin (lapānu, ‘destitute’, ‘poor’) and erašši (rašû, ‘obtain’, ‘acquire’). Given their context, the force of the durative may be understood to describe actions that have not yet taken place. No divine punishment has been exacted against Elali and Kuzulum is both frustrated and disappointed with the deities for their lack of response. The nuance of the modal imparts Kuzulum’s reverent expectations regarding divine intervention while gently reminding Nanna and Utu of their role as heavenly judges. As far as Kuzulum is concerned, his case has yet to be settled. This “letter” illustrates one of the realities of life facing any ancient Near Easterner: occasionally, there are times when the deities, for one reason or another, refuse to act. And in this refusal may be found a negative response. For the ancient Near Easterners knew full well that divine justice may not necessarily mirror those human expectations regarding it. A concluding curse from a narû dating to the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 875) actually provides a brief glimpse into the judicial procedure presumed behind the execution of maledictions. LU2 šu-u-tu4 46AŠ a-mat dUTU da-a 47u dbu-ne-ne 48EN.MEŠ EŠ.BAR 9DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ 50MU-šu2 liḫ-liq 25

45 4

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

That man (who would disregard or destroy the narû)- May his name disappear by the decision of Šamaš, Ayya and Bunēne, the lords of judgment, the great gods!

This malediction conveys the sense that the deities would not act without a certain amount of deliberation. They hand down a “decision” (amat) precisely because they are the overseers of the judgment (EŠ.BAR; purussû). This means that they are neither capricious nor arbitrary. In a way, Nabûapla-iddina’s inscription reflects a scenario similar to the biblical curses above. He too hopes that the deities will observe the disrespectful acts of the future ruler, judge him, and then hand down their guilty verdict by executing it according the harm described in his malediction. Four lines from a prayer to Marduk are even more informative concerning the process behind curse and judgment. The text itself may date to the epoch after the Old Babylonian period although the majority of the tablets that record the prayer come from the library of Ashurbanipal. 26 25. L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum (2 vols.; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1912) kudurru 36, plate 99, rev., col. 6, lines 45–50. For an updated transcription and translation, see K. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (Kudurrus: A Study in Their Form and Function) (ASOR Books 9; Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2003) 198–208. 26. W.  G. Lambert, “Three Literary Prayers of the Babylonians,” AfO 19 (1959–60) 47–66, here, pp. 49 and 55.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

73

[ni-zir-ta] na-ši šer3-ta e-pi-ir SAG-šu2 [x] il-qu-šu2 e-kil pa-ni ur-ru-šu2 aš2-riš di-i-[ni] 24 AŠ ba-ab šer3-ti-ka ka-sa-a i-da-[a-šu2] 25 i-pa-aš2-šar-kum2-ma i-di la i-‹di› 27 22 23

He bears a curse, a punishment covers his head. They took him with a gloomy face, they return him to the place of judgment. 24 His arms were bound at your gate of punishment, 25 while he explains to you (what) he knew (and what) he did not know. 22 23

Here the cursed penitent is specifically brought to an ašriš dūni ‘a place of judgment’, which is described as Marduk’s “gate of punishment.” Undoubtedly, this refers to the practice of exacting castigations at gates and may in fact describe part of the procedure that may lie behind a name rim 2 . . . k u d . 28 With arms bound, the penitent presents his position to the deity, who will judge his predicament. Can Marduk’s anger be turned aside with a skillful confession so that the violator may be exonerated and healed? Or will Marduk’s anger intensify? The final verdict remains exclusively in divine hands.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Hittite The Hittites also saw a correlation between divine judgment and cursing. An interesting text probably dating to the reign of Arnuwanda I (ca. 1400), reveals such a connection. 29 The text records a ritual that is performed at the boundary of the enemy’s country before battle. 30 Most of the individuals involved in the ceremony are unidentified, forever couched behind the generic, third-person common plural verbs used in the opening and closing paragraphs. One interesting epithet does appear, “the Master of the gods” BE-EL DINGIR.LIM, which in all likelihood refers to the ritual specialist. 31 This person receives the ritual utensils, and the skins of the sacrificial sheep as payment. The last line suggests the involvement of the 27. G. Smith, A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscritptions of Assyria (Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 4; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1875) plate 61, tablet 1, obv., lines 22–25 = Lambert, “Three Literary Prayers,” 58, lines 141–44. The final cuneiform sign in line 25 in Smith’s copy is a šu2. 28.  For more on gates and nam-erim 2 . . . kud, see pp. 58, 100 n. 13, 102–5, 109 n. 39, 320. 29.  For the date, see E. von Schuler, Die Kaškäer: Ein Beitrag zur Ethnographie des Alten Kleinasien (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965) 31–32. 30. E. Weidner, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 4 (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1922) tablet 1, plates 1–3 = duplicate J. Sturm, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 31 (Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1939) tablet 156 = E.  Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites, no. 422. 31.  Autograph copy: Weidner, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 4, tablet 1, plate 3, rev., col. 3, line 12.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

74

Chapter 3

military leaders when it concludes: 13na-at EGIR-pa tu-uz-zi-ya u2-wa-an-zi 14 nu za-aḫ-ḫi-in QA-TAM-MA pi2-an-zi ‘They shall return to the army and go into battle thusly’. 32 The ritual actually preserves an historical context. Apparently, the Hittites lost key territory to the ever persistent and annoying Kaška. In order to rectify this humiliating situation, the Hittites link their military endeavor to the noble cause of Zithriya, the deity of the hunt, who, according to the text was offended most by this incursion. His sanctuary was lost and as a result his offerings diminished severely. 33 The altruistic Hittites appeal to the other deities on Zithriya’s behalf. nu-uš-ma-ša-an ka-a-ša dzi-it-ḫa-ri-ya-aš 31 A-NA DINGIR.MEŠ ḫu-[u]-ma-an-da-aš a-pe2-el DI-NAM 32 ar-nu-uš-ki-iz-zi šu-me-en-za-an-na-aš-ma-[ša⸣ ⸢DI-NAM⸣ ŠA3-ta ⸢tar⸣-[. . .] 33 [nu]-za šu-me-en-za-an-na DI-NAM ḫa-an-na-at-te-en 34 [nu A-N]A dzi-it-ḫa-ri-ya DI-NAM ḫa-an-na-at-te-en 35 [nu] DINGIR.MEŠ KUR URU ga-aš-ga ḫar-ni-ik-te-en nu-za ku-iš-ša 36 [DINGI]R.LUM a-pe2-el uk-tu-u-ri-iš-ši EGIR-an kap-pu-u-id-du 37 [na-]at-za EGIR-pa da-a-u2 34 30

This Zithariya 32abrings 31his suit before all you gods; 32b[May] you [take] your own suit to heart. 33May you judge your own case, 34and (in doing so) may you judge the case of Zithariya! 35May you deities destroy the land of Kaška. 36May each god care for his sanctuary! 37May each take it (his sanctuary) back for himself!

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

30

The text reveals much about the assumed roles played by the various parties in relation to divine judgment, curses and the execution of curse punishments. Without a doubt the Hittite generals seek divine support for their campaign against the Kaška by ennobling their cause. They aspire to strengthen their position by aligning it with heavenly revenge for the capture and desecration of the sanctuaries of the Hittite gods. Thus, the deities are to dzi-it-ḫa-ti-ya DI-NAM ḫanna- ‘judge Zithariya’s case’ (lines 33–34). Once they review the details of the suit, the immortal domain is to rise in anger. The maledictions in lines 36 and 37 state the fundamentals of the suit: revenge for desecration. In this context, the curses are meant to incite 32.  Ibid., tablet 1, plate 3, rev., col. 3, lines 13–14. 33. G. McMahon, The Hittite State Cult of the Tutelary Deities (Assyriological Studies 25; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1991) 19–23. See also comments by Schuler, Die Kaškäer, 31, 110. 34. Autograph copy: Weidner, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 4, tablet 1, plate 1, obv., col. 1, lines 30–37. Further discussions on this text are reviewed in M. Witzel, Hethitische Keilschrift-Urkunden in Transcription und Uebersetzung mit Kommentar (Keilschriftliche Studien 4; Berlin: Selbstverlag, 1924) 60–65; E. von Schuler, Die Kaškäer, 174; M. Popko, Kultobjekte in der hethitischen Religion (Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Universytetu Warszawskiego, 1978) 110–12; McMahon, The Hittite State Cult, 21.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

75

the divine realm. They look to spur the gods into action. Here the maledictions have almost become a battle cry: 19nu ŠA KUR URU ḫa-at-ti DINGIR. MEŠ an-tu-uḫ-šu-uš-š[a] 20e-eš-ḫar i-ya-u-wa-an-na ḫal-zi-iš-ša-an-z[i] ‘The gods of the land of Hatti and the people call for the sheading of blood!’ 35 When viewed in this light, one can see how the Hittite army hopes to act as the executioner of the curses. They are to fight not only with the charter of a divine judgment but also on behalf of the deities themselves.

Curse Types Turning now to curse types, we find that there are really only two kinds of basic curses: unconditional and conditional. 36 The unconditional curse solicits the divine realm to harm a particular target without provision. The conditional curse entreats the deities to injure a target only if certain provisions are not honored. Both of these maledictions can be expanded with flourishes. Thus, the so-called simile curse, which describes the punishment connected with the malediction using like or as may be seen as such an embellishment. 37 An extreme form of the simile curse is the rare allegorical curse. It is long, elaborate, and given to great detail. Here, the harm is described in a way that draws on the destructive acts connected with making beer. The best example of this subtype of malediction occurs in a Hittite text.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Unconditional Curse An unconditional curse is perhaps the simplest type of curse. They tend to be short and to the point which gives them a laconic feel. In some the target is identified, z e 3 . . . d u g -g i n g a z -ba ‘You Gall, . . . like a pot, be broken!’ 38 In others, the god is petitioned directly, [lik]-kiš-ki-ma dasal-lu2-ḫi li-še-bir-ki i-di-ig-lat ID3 ‘May Asalluḫi drive you out and send you across the Tigris river!” 39 Unconditional curses may beseech a deity to act in a specific way: dNIN-LIL2 a-ši-bat URU.NINA.KI [G]IRI2.AN.BAR [ḫa-am]-ṭu it-ti-ku-nu li-ir-ku-su ‘May Mullissu (Ninlil), who dwells in Niveveh, tie a

35. Autograph copy: Weidner, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 4, tablet 1, plate 2, obv., col. 2, lines 19–20. 36.  Those who identified curses as either conditional or unconditional are E. Westermarck, “L‘Âr, or the Transference of Conditional Curses in Morocco,” in Anthropological Essays Presented to E. C. Tylor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907) 371–89; I. M. Price, “The Oath in Court Procedure,” 23; J. Scharbert, “‹‹Fluchen›› und ‹‹Segnen››,” 4; S. Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses,” 153–55; H.  C. Brichto, acknowledged the existence of a conditional curse in The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, 70–71. 37.  Simile curses were first discussed by D. R. Hillers, Treaty Curses, 8–24. 38. B. Alster, “A Sumerian Incantation against Gall,” Or 41 (1972) 349–58, esp. p. 357, fig. 1, obv., lines 4, 5a; P. Michalowski, “Carminative Magic: Towards an Understanding of Sumerian Poetics,” ZA 71 (1981) 2–18, here, p. 4, lines 1a, 7a. 39. W. G. Lambert, “Fire Incantations,” AfO 23 (1970) 39–45, here esp. p. 40, line 9.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

76

Chapter 3

flaming sword at your side’. 40 They also might entreat a deity to abstain from acting: dI[Š-TAR a-š]i-bat URU.L[IMMU2. DINGIR] re-e-mu gim-lu [lu x i-ša-]kan UGU-ku-nu ‘May Istar who dwells in Erbil not grant you mercy and kindness’. 41 All of these maledictions are distinguished by one common characteristic: they importune a deity to do injury without any proviso attached to the activation of that harm. Such a leanness of articulation tends to sharpen the verbs and give them an intensified imperative feel, heightening the sense of immediacy. This is especially the case when no deity is explicitly named in the malediction: i z i - g i n te-ni-ib ‘Be extinguished like fire!’ 42 or UR.GIR15 u3 NIG li-ba-aṣ-ṣi-ru UZU.MEŠ-ki ‘May dog and bitch rip apart your flesh!’ 43 With the indirect command freed from any explicit divine source, the emphasis naturally falls on the curse’s injury. The sharpness of unconditional curses is largely informed by the Sitz im Leben of their use. Customarily, ancient Near Easterners used these maledictions reactively, and for this reason they form the mainstay of many incantations. So that we may discern better the character of this use, let us consider 2 Sam 3:28–29, David’s curse against Joab. This pericope recounts David’s reaction to the news that his commander Joab has killed Abner, an affiliate of Ishbaal and David’s arch rival for the Israelite throne. Because the murder of Abner was so advantageous to David, David had to quickly disassociate himself from the deed.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

‫דמֵי א ְַבנֵר ּבֶן־נֵר׃ יָחֻלּו‬ ּ ְ ‫ָקי אָנ ִֹכי ּומ ְַמל ְַכ ִּתי מ ִֵעם יהוה עַד־עֹולָם ִמ‬ ִ ‫ִשמַע ָדִּוד ֵמ ַאחֲרֵ י כֵן וַּיֹאמֶר נ‬ ְׁ ‫ַוּי‬ ְ ‫חזִיק ּב ְַּפל‬ ‫ֶך ְונֹפֵל ַּב ֶחרֶב‬ ֲ ‫ּומצֹרָע ּו ַמ‬ ְ ‫ָביו ְואַל־ִי ָּכרֵת ִמּבֵית יֹואָב זָב‬ ִ ‫עַל־רֹאׁש יֹואָב ְואֶל ּכָל־ּבֵית א‬ ‫חסַר־ ָלחֶם‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ When David heard of it he said, “I and my kingdom are forever innocent before Yahweh for the blood of Abner son of Ner. May it (the blood-guilt) fall on the head of Joab and on all his father’s house; and may the house of Joab never be cut off from one who has a discharge, who is leprous, who holds a spindle, who falls by the sword, or who lacks food.” 44

40. Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, tablet 27, plate 7, lines 457–58; plate 40, tablet 48U = Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, 63–64, lines 457–58 = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 48, lines 457–58. This and the following curse are unconditional. The context of their placement in the treaty, however, makes them conditional. 41. Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, tablet 27, plate 7, lines 459–60 = Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, 63–64, lines 459–60 = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 48, lines 459–60. 42.  Alster, “A Sumerian Incantation against Gall,” 357, fig. 1, obv., line 9, 7a; Michalowski, “Carminative Magic,” 4, line 9. 43. G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû (AfO 2; Berlin, 1937; repr., Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967) 56, tablet 8, line 88. 44.  The notion that a curse could fall on a person’s head is a feature also enjoyed by benedictions. Compare with Prov 10:6a: ‫‘ ְּברָכֹות ְלרֹאׁש צ ִַדּיק‬Blessings are on the head of the righteous’. In 2 Sam 3:29, it is probably an expression denoting responsibility.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

77

The unjust murder of Abner has unleased a hostile force, the blood-guilt which grants Abner’s relatives the right to seek revenge on those who perpetrated the act. As Joab’s commander, David is particularly vulnerable because it could well have been that Joab was working under his orders. To disassociate himself from this implication, David vigorously declares his innocence in v. 28. Then he deflects the blood-(guilt) by using two unconditional curses marked by two imperfect verbs, ‫ יָחֻלּו‬. . . and ‫ִי ָּכ ֵרת‬, functioning as indirect imperatives. The first malediction identifies the target: Joab and his household. The second lists five different states of cursedness that are to be forever found among the members and descendants of Joab’s house. From this passage, we learn that unconditional curses are used to manipulate situations in which an activated hostile force has been detected and identified. This is implied by David’s first imprecation. Apparently, the evil force has settled on his person. Consequently, for him to avoid its potentially devastating effects, David must promptly “transfer” the blood(guilt) to Joab. This indicates that, when used appropriately, curses could not only remove hostile powers but also transfer them onto another person or object. The ability of unconditional maledictions to remove and relocate malevolence is directly related to their capacity to ban and expel. For to transfer something is also to expel it, and it is within this matrix that the exorcistic features of these curses are to be understood. 45

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Loosening to Destroy Several well-known Akkadian incantation series exploit unconditional curses for their banning effect. Maqlû and Šurpu are two such ritual sequences. Both deal with hostile forces: Maqlû addresses the pernicious activities of a ritual specialist, while Šurpu manages the active effects of māmītu ‘conditional curse’. Frequently, the verbs in unconditional maledictions exploit and expand the imprecation’s intrinsic banishing effect. A simple curse from a Maqlûtype incantation directed against the activities of a hostile ritual specialist who has produced a knot/spell provides a nice illustration. It is written in both Sumerian and Akkadian. ⸢ g iš-b il⸣-[ga-meš (?) . . . zu 2 -keš 2 ]-bi ḫ u - m u - du ḫ⸣ ki-iṣ-ri-šu li-pa-aṭ-ṭe4-er 46

1 d 2

May Gilgameš? . . . loosen her knot. (Sumerian) May its knot be loosened. (Akkadian)

1 2

The Sumerian curse is explicit. The deified Gilgameš is solicited to destroy the knot so as to produce a blessing for the sufferer. The hoped-for effect of 45.  See pp. 207–17, 343–58 for a full discussion on this issue. 46.  Autograph copy: H. F. Lutz, Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts, PBS 1/2, plate 129, tablet 122, rev., lines 1–2; Geller, “A New Piece of Witchcraft,” 197, line 41′.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

78

Chapter 3

the malediction is directed primarily against the machinations of a malicious ritual specialist whom the speaker ultimately seeks to render impotent. The Sumerian precative verb, ḫ u - m u - d uḫ (duḫ ‘loosen’) is reflected by lipaṭṭer (paṭāru), an Akkadian D precative verb. The immediate object of these verbs is a z u 2 -k eš 2 /kiṣru, a knot, which one would conjecture the speaker presumes to have been produced by the specialist as part of her hostile ritual act. The actual unloosening of this “knot” is to be affected by the unconditional curse’s capacity to separate and banish, rendering it ineffective. 47 This concept is developed further in a related section from Šurpu. The key information to be gained from this passage is the appearance of two terms māmītu ‘conditional curse’ and m u di ngir, which probably refers to a p a d 3 ‘oath’ introduced with the formula “by the name of the deity.” 48 Together with the “knot” and “binding,” they are the target of curses that solicit the deities to destroy their effectiveness by means of separation and eradication. ki-ṣir lum-ni li-par-ri-ru ka-si-ta li-ra-mu-u2 ma-mit lip-ṭu-ru 71 MU DINGIR lip-su-su 49 69 70

May the evil knot unravel, May the binding be released, may the conditional curse be loosened, May (the) ‘mu dingir’ (oath) be erased.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The text consists of two complementary parallel couplets: kiṣir/kasītu (‘knot/binding’), māmītu/MU DINGIR (m u d ingir ‘oath’). This construc47.  This kind of “knot” vocabulary is more than likely related to the “web” and “net” language frequently found such incantations. One may reasonably assume that in order to make a net/web secure, it needs to be firmly knotted. Conversely, for someone to undo a net or web, one would naturally “untie” or “loosen” it. The effect that a net could have on a person is described in two bilingual lines from a nam-erim 2 -bur 2 -ru-da incantation. lu 2 -lu 7 l u -bi sa-šu-uš-kal gim mu .  .  . a-me-lu šu-a-tu2 ki-ma šu-uš-kal-li ik-t[u-mu-šu2]

3 4

⸢u 2 ⸣ nu-un- da -ab-gu 7 -e a nu-un-da-ab-nag -⸢ e⸣ a-[ka-la u]l ik-kal me-e ul i-šat-ti

5 6

They (the demons) have covered this man like a net so that he can neither eat nor drink.

3–4 5–6

The autograph copy may be found in D. J. Wiseman and J. A. Black, Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1996) plate 69, tablet 108, rev., lines 4–5; plate 68, tablet 107, rev., line 25 = line 6. See pp. 275–96, “Of Nets and Arms and Webs of Words,” for a further discussion on this terminology in Mesopotamian texts. 48.  As discussed earlier, mu dingir is probably a phrase that derives from the spoken formula. While it is true that māmītu can also mean ‘oath’, this context emphasizes the activated effects of a conditional curse. 49.  Reiner, Šurpu, 27, tablet 4, lines 69–71.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

79

tion provides the license for a metaphorical interpretation: just as knots and bindings restrict and control so do conditional curses and mu dingir statements. 50 The four verbs parāru, ramû, paṭāru, and pasāsu function as verbs of specification. They filter and define the otherwise general banning effect of the unconditional curse in which they are embedded. It is worthy of note that the verb lipṭuru, which was applied to kiṣir (‘knot’) in the Maqlû curse above, is now used for māmītu. Not only can conditional curses be loosened like ritual knots but they can also be loosened by unconditional maledictions.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Conditional Curse Turning to provisional curses, it must be kept in mind that on occasion we will also be dealing with oaths qua conditional self-curse. In the ancient Near East conditional curses could be employed in two ways. They could be self imposed by the speaker or imposed by another on a second party. No matter the case, both had true legal effect. Conditional curses are used differently from unconditional curses. They are proactive and protective. They are a tool in the arsenal of weapons that are designed to take preventative measures against future unwanted acts. It is for this reason that they appear most frequently in treaties, dedicatory stela inscriptions such as the epilogue of the Code of Ḫammurabi and tomb inscriptions such as the sarcophagus of Aḫiram of Byblos. On the surface, one might think that conditional maledictions present few problems. Not only do they seem to be expressed in conventional ways, but they are well attested throughout the ancient Near East in all periods. Even so, there are times when conditional curses are not marked grammatically. On these occasions, the malediction’s provisional character chiefly depends on context. A grammatically marked provisional malediction exploits the structure of a conditional sentence that represents the acts or facts as only potential. It consists of two clauses. The first, the protasis, typically introduced by a particle meaning ‘if’, states the circumstances that must be respected. The second clause, the apodosis, marked in English by the adverb then, expresses the necessary consequence. The apodosis contains the curse. Thus, a conditional malediction solicits a heavenly power to do harm only if specific acts are disregarded or violated. A section from the epilogue of the code of Ḫammurabi illustrates this structure nicely. 50. The association between cursing and binding endured through the centuries, passing from culture to culture. This is evidenced by the fact that the same vocabulary continued to be used. The Greeks, for instance, used curse tablets called κατάδεσμα/μοι ‘binding’. The term itself is related to κατάδεις, that means ‘binding by magic knots’ (H. G. Liddel and R.  Scott, Greek English Lexicon, p.  889). Both of these terms derive from the verb καταδέω ‘bind up’, ‘put in bonds’, ‘bind by spells’. When Latin became the dominate language, these same curse tablets were referred to as defixiones, which likewise means ‘bind’, ‘fix’, ‘make motionless’.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

80

Chapter 3 šum-ma a-wi-lum šu-u2 19a-⸢na⸣ a-wa-ti-ya 20ša i-na NA.RU-ya 21aš-ṭu2-ru la i-qul2-ma 23er-re-te-ya 24i-me-eš-ma 25er-re-et i3-li2 26la i-dur-ma 27di-in a-di-nu 28up-ta-as-si2-is 29a-wa-ti-ya 30uš-te-pe-el . . . 45d[AN] ra-bu-um 46a-bu i3-li2 47na-bu-u2 BALA-ia 48ME.LIM4 šar-ru-tim 49li-ṭe-er-šu 50GIŠ.GIDRU-šu 51 li-iš-bi-ir 52ši-ma-ti-šu li-ru-ur. 51 18 22

If that man 22should not heed 19my words, 21which I have inscribed 20on my stele and 24should he scorn 23my curses, and 26not fear 25the curses of the gods, and 28overturn 27the judgements that I rendered, 30alter 29my words . . . 45(then) may Anu, the great god, 46father of the gods, 47who has announced my reign, 49deprive him 48of resplendent royalty, 51break 50his scepter and 52curse his situation in life.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

18

These lines, although somewhat long and elaborate, reflect a conditional sentence. The protasis, introduced by šumma ‘if’, identifies the circumstances under which the curse in the apodosis would be activated. 52 Even though all the verbs, iqūl, imēš, ūdur, uptassis, uštepūl are in the preterite, šumma clearly contributes to their subjunctive mood. This means that the verbs in the protasis represent their acts not as fact but as possible or provisional. Every one of the verbs in the maledictions are precatives: lūṭeršu, lišbir, and lūrur. As wishes, they look toward the future. This grammatical construction, the subjunctive in the protasis coupled with a verb form referring to future time in the apodosis, characterizes a future-more-vivid conditional sentence. With it, the speaker articulates a distinct thought the conclusion of which he considers to be more likely achieved. This construction is known for its gritty, graphic quality. And for this reason, it is particularly well suited for conditional curses. They envision a future result with the definiteness of the present. The deities are known to utter what might appear to be conditional curses. When they do, the grammar may shift to accommodate the fact that a deity is speaking. This introduces a different set of nuances. In Gen 20:7, Yahweh conditionally curses Abimelek concerning Abraham’s wife, Sarah. ִׁ ‫ֶחי ֵה ְו ִאם־אֵינְךָ מ‬ ‫ֵשיב דַ ּע ִּכי־מֹות ָּתמּות‬ ְ ‫ִת ַּפּלֵל ַּבע ְַדךָ ו‬ ְ ‫ָביא הּוא ְוי‬ ִ ‫ָאיׁש ִּכי־נ‬ ִ ‫ֵשת־ה‬ ֶׁ ‫ָשב א‬ ֵ ׁ ‫ע ַָּתה ה‬ ְ ‫ֲשר־ל‬ ‫ָך‬ ֶׁ ‫ַּתה ְוכָל־א‬ ָ‫א‬ Now then, return the man’s wife; for he is a prophet, and he will pray on your behalf and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all that are yours.

The verse may be divided into two parallel segments, v. 7a, a conditional blessing and v. 7b, a conditional curse. Their respective outcomes are de51. Autograph copy: Bergmann, Codex Hammurabi, 35, R 26, lines 18–30; 45–52 = Roth, Law Collections, 136, xlix 18–42. 52.  See additional comments on šumma by Steymans, Deuteronomium 28 und die adê, 34–37.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

81

scribed according to their most basic standards: a blessing affirms life, a curse negates it. The protasis of the conditional curse is marked by the conjunction ‫‘ ִאם‬if’, followed by a participial predicate, ‫ֵׁשיב‬ ִ ‫אֵינְךָ מ‬. Here, ‫ִאם‬ underscores the fulfillable quality of the hypothetical condition expressed in the clause, confirming that it is well within Abimelek’s ability to return Sarah. The verbs in the apodosis of the malediction are an interesting mix. The leading verb ‫ ּדַ ע‬is a true imperative. It commands. This is a usage only the deities can exploit because they do not solicit. Thus, Yahweh ordains human awareness of the inevitability of his activities should he be disobeyed. The second verb bears out the unavoidable end of the divine malediction even further. The infinitive absolute followed by the imperfect ‫ מֹות ָּתמּות‬intensifies the verbal idea of “death” to is greatest degree. When placed on the lips of a deity, as it is here, this structure establishes an predetermined statement of fact. This illustrates that conditional curses uttered by deities are really no more than threats or warnings. The contingent character of a second type of conditional malediction is derived from context. Even though they are grammatically unmarked, these curses are descriptive and are little more than statements of fact. In the Hebrew Bible, they are characterized by the use of the passive participle in conjunction with an active participle that may or may not appear in a noun clause. 53 Deut 27:15–26 records the most familiar series of these maledictions. 54 For our purposes, let us consider vv. 16–17 followed by a traditional translation.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

‫ָביו ְו ִאּמֹו ְו ָאמַר ּכָל־ ָהעָם ָאמֵן׃‬ ִ ‫אָרּור מ ְַקלֶה א‬ ‫אָרּור מ ִַסּיג ּגְבּול רֵ עֵהּו ְו ָאמַר ּכָל־ ָהעָם ָאמֵן׃‬ “Cursed be anyone who dishonors father or mother.” All the people shall say, “Amen!” “Cursed be anyone who moves a neighbor’s boundary marker.” All the people shall say, “Amen!”

We may appreciate the nuance of these curses’ conditionality through a brief analysis of the participles. The juxtaposition of a Qal passive participle ‫ אָרּור‬with a subsequent active participle should not be taken lightly. According to Gesenius, participles do not depict a fixed or unalterable condition. Rather, they represent a state connected with an action. Thus, the passive participle ‫“ אָרּור‬indicates a person or thing in a state which has been ְ ‫ּומ ָברֲכֶיךָ ּב‬ 53.  See Gen 27:29d: ‫ָרּוך‬ ְ ‫‘ א ְֹררֶיךָ אָרּור‬those who curse you are cursed; those who bless you are blessed’. Note here that the passive participle follows an active participle, which is in the construct state. 54.  Many scholars hold that this list of maledictions is early: G. von Rad, Deuteronomy (OTL 2; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) 167; P. Buis, Le Deutéronome (VS; Ancien Testament 4; Paris: Beauchesne, 1969) 371; H. J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1966) 141–44.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

82

Chapter 3

brought about by external actions.” 55 In this context, it functions predicatively and has a resultative quality lending it the same sense conveyed by the apodoses clauses in conditional sentences. Two active participles follow ‫אָרּור‬: ‫ מ ְַקלֶה‬and ‫מ ִַּסיג‬. As active participles they indicate “a person or thing conceived as being in the continual uninterrupted exercise of an activity.” 56 In this case, however, they are in the Hiphil, or causative form of the verb, showing that the subject of the participle is himself the perpetrator of the action they describe. When placed in a malediction, these participles describe the specific “external action” that the instigator must do in order to achieve the “cursed” state represented by the passive participle ‫אָרּור‬. Therefore, they are used attributively. Because active participles convey the sense of acts in process rather than acts completed, they can acquire, as they do in this particular setting, a potential meaning. Such nuances allows the clauses in which these active participles stand to function in a fashion somewhat analogous to the protasis of conditional sentences. Consequently, a literal translation of v. 16 would be ‘He is cursed, (the) one who dishonors father and mother’. A polished rendering would be, ‘Cursed is he who dishonors father and mother’. The conditionality of these maledictions is reinforced further by the response of the people. Each time the Levites proclaim a curse, the assembly affirms its agreement by saying: ‫‘ ָאמֵן‬surely’. In doing so, they publicly acknowledge that if they were to engage in the activity specifically identified by the active participle, they too would acquire a cursed state.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Simile Curse Another type of malediction worthy of discussion is the simile curse. This kind of anathema depends on a comparison to clarify and give specific meaning to the curse’s injury. They are grammatically distinguished through the use of the form ‘just as’, ‘so ’ to establish an affinity between two otherwise unrelated objects. Sumerian typically marks comparisons with g i n 7 . Hittite is also known to employ g in 7 , but the Hittite preposition maḫḫan is used with equal frequency. Three terms are attested in Akkadian: kū ša, kūma, and kū (kī ša, kīma, and kī), while Aramaic has ‫ איך זי‬and Hebrew ‫ּכ‬. ְ Perhaps one of the most tantalizing features of simile curses is the occasional hint that they may have been expressed with a coordinating act. Simile curses are both common and very ancient. One of the earliest examples of an independent simile curse originates from the depths of Nippur. Even though it has been classified a “proverb,” it is unequivocally a malediction. It reads: l a g a - a g u r u d - d a - g in 7 bi-iz-za-a-na ḫe 2 -gul ‘Like a clod thrown into water, (so) may he perish as he slowly dissolves’. 57 55.  GKC §116a. 56. Ibid. 57.  The text constitutes “collection one” of which this “proverb” is part. It dates to ca. 1800. E. I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

83

Unfortunately, the tenor of the text does not allow us to establish whether or not the implied act—throwing a clod of dirt into water—was actually performed. Certainly, the ease with which one could readily accomplish such a deed suggests that this malediction may have been enhanced by this sort of act. But beyond this inference, we can go no further. Nevertheless, the likelihood that an act was performed increases when a demonstrative pronoun appears with the object compared in the simile curse itself. This is the case in a malediction from the first Sefire inscription: ‫ (‘ ]י[יגזר עגלא זנה כן יגזר מתעאל‬Just as) this calf is cut in two, so may Matiʾel be cut in two!’ 58 Curiously, imprecations of this type are far less common than one would prefer, and one cannot even hazard a guess as to why this is so. Not surprisingly, simile curses can be either conditional or unconditional. The criteria for distinguishing them as such is rather straightforward and requires little discussion beyond that already given above. Maqlû 5, lines 43–44, is a nice example of an unconditional simile malediction in Akkadian. 43 MUNUS.UŠ12.ZU GIN7 UR.GIR15 AŠ GIŠ.PA GIN7 an-du-ḫal-lat AŠ kirban-ni 44ki-ma kib-si UDU.NITA2 li-sa-am-me-ku-ši-ma li-ti-qu-ši 59

May they (the deities) harass and drive (away) 43the female specialist as a dog with a stick, as an anduhallatu-lizard with a lump of dirt, 44aas a ram on a path.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

44b

The grammatical structure of the simile curse is readily identifiable: a precative verb, lisammê/lītiqū, + the preposition of comparison, gin7/kūma, + the object of comparison. It cannot be denied that the liveliness of this curse is much enhanced with the addition of these three comparisons. They even have a sardonic edge as all three correlations assign a value to the ritual specialist that is no greater than a sheep, dog or a lizard. A conditional simile curse that draws on imagery similar to the one above appears in Esarhaddon’s Neo-Assyrian treaty. Here, the outcome is more ominous and is built on a familiar hunting metaphor. It is part of a series of 18 apodoses that are qualified by a single protasis, which occurs at the opening of the section in lines 555a–555b. (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1959) 79–80, line 76; 507; plate 28, line 79; T. Jacobsen, “Notes on Selected Sayings,” in Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, 447–87, here esp. p. 461; B. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1997) 19, line 76. 58. J. A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire I and II,” JAOS 81 (1961) 178– 222, here esp. p. 181, line 40; idem, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (BibOr 19A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1995) 46, line 40. 59. Autograph copy: K.  L. Tallqvist, Assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû (ASSF 20/6; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1895) 31, tablet 5, col. 1, lines 43–44; p. 76, tablet 5, col. 1, lines 43–44 = Meier, Maqlû, 35, lines 43–44.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

84

Chapter 3 ŠUM.MA at-tu2-nu AŠ (ina) ŠA3 a-de-⸢e⸣ an-nu-te ša2 maš-šur-PAP.AŠ MAN KUR-⸢aš-šur⸣ . . . 60 576 (KI-MIN) ki-i ša2 a-a-lu ka-šu-du-u-ni de-ku-u-ni 577 a-na ka-šu2-nu ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ku-nu DUMU.MEŠ-ku-nu EN-[MUD2] MEŠ-ku-nu 578 lu-ka-ši-du li-du-ku-ku-nu 61 513a

If you should sin against this adê agreement of Esarhaddon . . . (Ditto) As a stag is chased (lit., reached) and killed, so may your enemy chase and kill you, your brothers and your sons. 555a

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

576

It is highly doubtful that this curse was performed in any way and there is no grammatical indication to suggest otherwise. Thus, much of its vividness is derived from its familiarity. Even so, the structure of the curse has changed slightly with the addition of a protasis. Note how the object of comparison, introduced with the preposition kū ‘as’, appears first. This illustrates the curse’s harm in terms of a known royal activity: the hunt. Once the chase of the stag is described, then the same potential injury is transferred to the target of the curse. The second clause is expressed as a wish, and not unexpectedly, precative verb forms dominate: lukaššidū and lidūkū. One of the most intriguing types of conditional simile curses are those that suggest that a ritual was performed. These maledictions can be identified through their use of a demonstrative adjective such as anni- ‘this’ plus the object of comparison. It is the presence of the demonstrative adjective that recommends that the object was indeed present and was manipulated in some way, whether by touch or through an elaborate act the moment the curse was spoken. This sort of coordination between word and act appears to be the case in Neh 5:13, discussed earlier, even though it lacks any demonstrative adjective. A fine example of this type of malediction has already been quoted above, lines 24–27 from Aššur-nerari V’s treaty with Matiʾ-ilu. 62 The use of the demonstrative adjective anniu in line 25 of this simile curse is particularly revealing. It is a “near” demonstrative adjective, a quality that contributes to the likelihood that the lamb was indeed present. The actual curse that appears in line 27 establishes a coordination between the lamb and Matiʾ-ilu, which is then strengthened through the use of the same verbal adjective qatip (qatipuni) in reference to both individuals. Thus, the real fate of the lamb remains the potential fate of Matiʾ-ilu as long as the conditions protected by the curse are respected and honored. 60.  Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, tablet 37, plate 39, col. 6, line 15 = plate 41, tablet 46C, line 513 = Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, 67–68, line 513 = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 50, line 513. 61.  Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, plate 43, tablet 36C, col. 7, lines 576–78 = plate 44, tablet 47D, 576–78 = tablet 54A, 576–78 = Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, 71–74, lines 576–78 = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 53, lines 576–78. 62.  See p. 67.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

85

The Location of Ritual in Unconditional and Conditional Simile Curses Up to this point, we have mainly surveyed malediction types according to their grammar with particular attention to the subtlety of their expression. Now we will focus briefly on the difference in purpose between conditional and unconditional curses. While exploring this point, additional attention will be given to the place of ritual in maledictions. If acts were a feature of cursing, what were their function? Does their use affect the conditionality of a malediction? If so, in what way? To unlock these and other related subtleties, we will limit our review to two themes that frequently appear in simile curses: the so-called pot curse and fire curse. These themes are particularly well suited for the issue at hand because they are used in both unconditional and conditional simile maledictions. We begin by returning to two unconditional Sumerian maledictions that appear in an incantation against Gall, of which there are six known copies. The fact that three date to the Old Babylonian period, two to the reign of Assurbanipal and one to Neo-Babylonian times, illustrates the ongoing relevance of this incantation through an entire millennium. 63 ze2 ni2-za 12mu-e-ši-du3-a dug-gin7 gaz-ba 14 izi-gin7 te-ni-ib 64 11 13

Oh Gall, who has raised itself up, like a pot, be broken! 13 like fire, be extinguished! 11

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

12

The two unconditional simile curses are straightforward. Gall, ze 2 , an intestinal disorder, is to be destroyed in a way analogous to breaking a pot and extinguishing fire. 65 Sumerian syntax emphasizes the comparative element by beginning each curse with d u g - g i n 7 ‘like a pot’ and izi-gin 7 ‘like fire’ followed by the verb of specification, g az ‘break’ and te-en ‘cool off’, ‘extinguish’. The same ‘pot malediction’ appears in a Southern Babylonian bilingual incantation text dating to 1000 b.c.e. or later. 66 It is related to Maqlû in that the incantation is designed to undo the machinations of two malevolent ritual specialists known as kaššaptu/kaššāpu. Although the “pot curse” is followed by an “oven curse,” the latter malediction may represent a variation of the fire curse found in the Sumerian incantation above. 63.  Michalowski, “Carminative Magic,” 3. 64.  Alster, “A Sumerian Incantation against Gall,” 357, obv., lines 11–14. See also Michalowski, “Carminative Magic,” 4, line 7. 65.  Michalowski, “Carminative Magic,” 3. 66.  Lambert, “An Incantation of the Maqlû Type,” AfO 18 (1957/58) 288–99, here, p. 288.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

86

Chapter 3 GIN7 DUG.UTUL2 ḫu-bu-su-nu-ti 67 GIN7 ⸢IM⸣.ŠU4.RIN2.⸢NA⸣ [qu-tur-šu2-nu li-ri-mu [AN]] 68

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Like a pot/bowl, smash them into pieces! Like a oven, let their smoke cover the sky!

Both the Sumerian and Akkadian curses are unconditional and, as is typical of their usage, they appear in contexts that react to a preexisting hostile circumstance. Their successful operation depends on the destructive banning effect of the maledictions. Not unexpectedly, the imperative predominates: g az- b a, t e - n i -i b and ḫubussunūti (ḫabāšu). Even the single Akkadian precative lūrimū (arāmu) is not out of place. The predilection for the imperative is born out of the situation’s urgency. It underscores the speaker’s hope that the solicited deity, Enki in the Sumerian incantation and Šamaš in the Akkadian text, will allow a prompt effect. The deities must act now because the situation is dire. The additional fact that these are simile curses that hinge on a comparison cannot be lightly dismissed, for this implies an accompanying rite. It is difficult to determine whether or not the act of breaking a pot or extinguishing fire is meant to be illustrative, that is, showing the deities what they should do on behalf of the speaker, or effective, that is, accomplishing the destruction of the target with divine assistance. One suspects that, in this case, the act, if it was performed, is effective. 69 When the “pot curse” and the “fire curse” appear in conditional maledictions, the difference between the two types of imprecations are easier to appreciate. The most informative examples come from two Hittite documents that are commonly referred to as the “First Soldiers’ Oath” and the “Second Soldiers’ Oath,” the texts of which probably date to the late 15th century, the Middle Hittite period. 70 Both rites are believed to have been officiated by a ritual specialist whose exact title and/or position remains forever out of reach because it was probably recorded in a damaged section of the “First Soldiers’ Oath.” 71 Neither of these conditional maledictions reflect the same laconic expressions found in their analogous unconditional 67. Autograph copy: Lambert, “An Incantation of the Maqlû Type,” plate 12, tablet K. 2585, obv., line 75. 68. Autograph copy: Lambert, “An Incantation of the Maqlû Type,” plate 14, tablet K. 336 = 8019 = 14202 = Sm. 1143, rev., line 75. 69. D.  R. Hillers, “The Effective Simile in Biblical Literature,” in Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East by Members of the American Oriental Society Dedicated to Samuel Noah Kramer (New Haven, CT: The American Oriental Society, 1984) 181–85. 70.  The first and only scholarly discussion of them is N. Oettinger, Die Militärischen Eide der Hethiter. See in particular pp. 93–94. 71.  The title of the official may have been recorded in line 11 of KBo 6, tablet 34. Autograph copy: F. Hrozný, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 6 (WVDOG 36/2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1921) tablet 34, plate 75, obv., col. 1, line 11.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

87

counterparts above. Rather, they are embedded in ritual acts which are not only physically predictive but also illustrative. Unfortunately for us, the “pot curse” section in the “Second Soldiers’ Oath” is badly damaged, and several key terms are missing. Even so, most scholars are content to see the use of some form of crockery in this curse. 72 [a]r-ḫa du-wa-ar-na-an-[zi a]n-da-ma-kan2 ki-iš-ša-an [me-ma-i ki-i-wa] 3 U2-UL š]u-me-en-an-za-wa SAG.DU.MEŠ-KU-NU nu- w[a-ra-at] 4 [ma-a-an U2-UL-ma] pa-aḫ-ḫa-aš-te-ni nu-wa-aš-ma-aš DINGIR.MEŠ QA[TAM-MA SAG.DU.MEŠ-KU-NU] 5 [ar-ḫa du]-wa-ar-na-an-du nu-wa-aš-ma-aš-ša-[an] QA-[TAM-MA] 73 1 2

[He (the officiant) places pots in their hands] and they smash them,2 . . . (saying) as follows: 3‘[These are not pots], they are your heads. 4[If] you do not keep them (the words), may the deities 5smash your [heads in the same way’.] 74 1

The “fire curse” appears as a conditional malediction in the better preserved “First Soldiers’ Oath.” nu-uš-ša-an pa-aḫ-ḫu-e-ni wa-a-tar pa-ap-par2-aš-zi nu-uš-ma-aš kiš-an te-iz-zi ki-i-ya-aš-ta 6 wa-ra-a-an pa-aḫ-ḫur GIN7-an ki-iš-ta-ti 7 na-aš-ta ku-iš ku-u-uš NI-IŠ DINGIR.MEŠ šar-ri-iz-zi 8 na-an ki-e NI-IŠ DINGIR.MEŠ ap-pa-an-du 75 4 5

He sprinkles water on the fire 5and says to them as follows: 6“( Just) as the burning fire expires, 7whoever breaks these conditional curses, 8(thus) may these curse deities seize him.” 76

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

4

72.  Autograph copy: Oettinger, Die Militärischen Eide, 53. Compare Šurpu, tablet 8, line 60: KI ma-mit GIŠ.BANŠUR šu-bi-ru DUG.GU2.ZI ḫe-pu-u MU DINGIR za-ka-ru ‘Together with the conditional curse of smashing a table, breaking a goblet (while) swearing by the name of a deity’ (S.  A. Smith, Miscellaneous Assyrian Texts of the British Musem [Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1887] tablet K 2866, plate 17, rev., line 7 = Reiner, Šurpu, tablet 8, p. 42, line 60). 73.  Autograph copy: K. K. Riemschneider, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 43 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1972) tablet 38, plate 19, rev., lines 1–5. 74.  This referent is based on obv., line 22 where the two cuneiform signs ut-ta- survive and from which the term uttar, ‘word’ may be reconstructed. 75.  Autograph copy: F. Hrozný, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 6, tablet 34, plate 80, rev., col. 4, lines 4–8. 76.  We might note here that the Akkadian and Sumerian phrase NĪŠ DINGIR.MEŠ, literally ‘life of the deities’, is used for here for lingai- ‘oath/conditional curse’ in Hittite. Because the Akkadian/Sumerian expression arises from the words of a spoken oath formula, which is subsequently used as a type of noun phrase, it is apparent that a conditional curse is involved. This phenomenon may be compared to the practice of using the initial word Credo not only to reference the content of an entire oral statement but also to refer to a specific type of spoken statement.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

88

Chapter 3

Provisional maledictions are proactive and preventative. And it is in this sense that they are binding. Most often, conditional curses identify and/or describe an undesirable behavior and strive to further deter that conduct by reinforcing it with a curse. These imprecations are meant to be discouraging. They balance a fully articulated negative against a merely implied positive. At the same time, however, they are at pains to emphasize a potential end not an immediate end. It is for this reason that the imperative verbs duwarnandu ‘may they smash’ and appandu ‘may they seize’ do not take on the same sense of urgency as they do in unconditional curses. They describe latent acts that may or may not be fully realized. In the two foregoing Hittite maledictions, ritual takes center stage. Word is combined with act in a series of ritual procedures that are specifically coordinated with the two curse themes found in the unconditional simile curses above. Interestingly enough, the officiant begins the “pot curse” by establishing a metaphor: “These are not pots, they are your heads.” 77 Once this is said, the soldiers probably shattered the pots as the officiant declared the conditional malediction. If this is so, then the completed act of shattering the crockery is made a potential act through the pronouncement of the provisional curse. The simile in the apodosis therefore serves to link the two acts formally. The acts in these conditional curses are effective only insofar as they bring the harm of the curse into being. By smashing (duwarni-) the pots or dousing (kišt-) the flames, the malediction’s harm has already been “suffered” by the crockery and the fire. Thus, the injury and its evil is real and exists. But as a potential injury, it will remain quiescent, waiting for the moment when it can become a full-blown reality. Unlike unconditional curses, these acts are not immediately effective for the targets of the curse. The independent existence of the injury of the curse is illustrated by the curious reference to the NI-IŠ DINGIR.MEŠ, the ‘oath/curse deities’, in line 8 of the “fire curse.” They are the activated harm of the imprecation who, with permission of the deities by whom the soldiers have sworn, will app- ‘seize’ any and all violators. When this comes to pass, the soldiers’ know all too well what will happen. The curse deities will kišt- ‘extinguish’ the offenders’ lives according to the enacted simile curse they embody. The Hittite texts demonstrate that the “curse themes” of smashing crockery and extinguishing fire may have developed from ritual acts. The words articulating the simile curses eventually became standard “stock phrases” which could then be exploited in conditional or unconditional imprecations depending on the need. If the Hittite conditional curses provide any insight, they propose that “performed” maledictions could readily 77.  The reconstruction of this line is based on line 14 of the same text, which reads: [ki-i-wa] U2.UL GEŠ[TIN] šu-me-en-za-an-wa e-eš-ḫar ‘This is not wine, this is your blood’. Autograph copy: Riemschneider, Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi 43, tablet 38, plate 19, rev., line 14.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

89

become part of an enduring, standard inventory of curse expressions. It is this origin that probably contributed to their use in both conditional and unconditional contexts long after ritual acts may have no longer been a factor.

The Simile Curse as Allegory An unusual subtype of simile maledictions is the allegorical curse. One might be tempted view such a curse as just a long string of similes heaped together to achieve one magnificent, sweeping effect. However, beneath this kind of imprecation, one espies a distinct objective in the selection and sequence of the similes found therein. Indeed, it is through the progression of these similes that an image is carefully constructed. Consequently, all the comparisons of the malediction add up to express an intricate punishment based on a well-known process associated with beer production. Only one example of this division of simile curse survives. It appears in Hittite in the “First Soldiers’ Oath,” KBo 6.34. 78 This malediction is the fourth in a series of 12 imprecations which focuses on two items; BAPPIR, Sumerian for ‘beer bread’ and DIM4, Sumerian for ‘malt’. The roots of this elaborate imprecation may be found in two related simile curses. The first appears in an Akkadian treaty drawn up between the Hittite king Šuppiluliuma I and Šattiwaza of Mittanni (ca. 1350). Its stark almost barren simplicity is heightened by its direct tone. Ki-ma bu-⸢uq-l⸣i iš-tu el-te-šu i-šaad-da-ad-du-ku-nu-ši ‘Like malt from its husk, may they (the deities) draw you out!” 79 A related second imprecation expands the edgy imagery above. It is recorded in Esarhaddon’s adê-agreement. ki-i ša2 qar-nu ša2 M[UNU4 ki-i ti]-ta-bi AŠ ŠA3-bi šak-nu-ni KI [xxxxx] la i-par-ru-ʾu-u-ni 542 [xx] šu2 ra x [xxx]-ni-ša2 la ta-sa-ḫar-[u-ni] 543 [NUMU]N-ku-nu NUMUN.MEŠ ša2 D[UMU-MEŠ-ku-n]u 544 [TA?] UGU pa-ni ša qaq-qa-ri li-iḫ-liq 80 540

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

541

Just as a shoot of mal[t,] 541placed in the midst beer ma[sh . . .] does not sprout 542(and does) not return [to the soil], 543so may your [see]d and the seed of [your sons] 544disappear from the face of the earth. 540

This curse builds on Šuppiluliuma’s by providing a few more details. Although the malt seed has germinated (qarnu, lit., ‘horn’) and is marinated 78.  Autograph copy: F. Hrozný, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 6, tablet 34, plates 75–80. 79. Autograph copy: H.  H. Figulla and E.  F. Weidner, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 1 (WVDOG 30/I; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916) tablet 1, plate 8, rev., line 61. 80.  Autograph copy: Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, tablet 27, plate 8, col. 7 + plate 15, tablet 31 + plate 42, tablet 51E + tablet 46II + X19, 540–44 = Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties, 69–70, lines 540–44 = Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties, 51, lines 540–44.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

90

Chapter 3

in beer mash, there is no hope for propagation. Rather than reproduce, its destiny is to become beer. When this imagery is applied to the would-be violator, it becomes a curse of extinction. With the above two curses in mind, we are now in a better position to evaluate an extensive Hittite simile curse found in the “First Soldiers’ Oath.” nu-uš-ma-aš DIM4 81 BAPPIR I-NA QA-TI-ŠU2-NU da-a-ai na-at li-ip-pa-an-zi nu-uš-ma-aš kiš-an te-iz-zi 21 ki-i-wa BAPPIR GIN7-an IŠ-TU NA4.ARA5 ma-al-la-an-zi 22 na-at u2-e-te-ni-it i-mi-ya-an-zi na-at za-nu-an-zi 23 na-at ḫar-ra-nu-uš-kan2-zi ku-i-ša-kan2 ki-e NI-IŠ DINGIR.MEŠ 82 24 šar-ra-ad-da nu-uš-ša-an A-NA LUGAL MUNUS. LUGAL 25 A-NA DUMU.MEŠ.LUGAL A-NA KUR.URU.ḪAT-TI ḪUL-lu tak2-ki-iz-zi 26 na-an ki-e NI-IŠ DINGIR-LIM ap-pa-an-du nu ḫa-aš-ta-i-ši-[ti]-it 83 27 QA-TAM-MA ma-al-al-an-du na-an QA-TAM-MA i-nu-uš-ki-du 84 28 na-an QA-TAM-MA ḫar-ra-uš-ki-it-ta 85 nu ḪUL-lu TIL-kan2 19

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

20

81. The other value for this sign, MUNU8, also means ‘malt’. C.  Rüster and E.  Neu, Hethitisches Zeichenlexikon (Studien zu den Bog˘azköy-Texten 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989) 221, sign 257. 82.  Strictly speaking, NĪŠ DINGIR.MEŠ refers to the ‘oath deities’, the linkiyanteš. Its appearance here is out of place and seems to have been inadvertently transposed with NĪŠ DINGIR-LIM, lingauš, ‘oaths’ in line 26. This may be substantiated by the use of e/app-, ‘seize’, also in line 26. One of the initial duties of the linkiyanteš is to seize oath violators and inflict the punishments as described in the oath’s curses. 83. Written as ḫaštaišitit but ḫaštaišit is probably intended. Even so, one would expect -šin/ -šan the third singular, accusive possessive suffix rather the neuter as recorded here. It may be that the scribe copied the text from a faulty source and merely replicated them here, or he was careless. Because other sections of the same tablet do not reflect additional textual problems, the former situation is, therefore, more likely than the latter. See J. Friedrich, “Der hethitische Soldateneid,” ZA 35 (1924) 161–91, here, p. 179; E. Neu, Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen (StBoT 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968) 48, A. 3; Oettinger, Die Militärischen Eide der Hethiter, 33–34. 84.  The word inuškidu as recorded here appears to be an incomplete verb. This too may also be due to the scribe’s error filled text. Drawing on the sequence of verbs in lines 21–23, we would expect either imiyanuškandu ‘may they thoroughly mix’ or zanuškandu, ‘may they thoroughly cook’. It is possible that the eye of the scribe of the original text skipped from the i-sign in imiyanuškandu to the nu-sign in zanuškandu, mistakenly bypassing the initial za-. This would suggest a haplography. Friedrich prefers zanu- but reconstructed it as *zanuškidu, a third singular imperative, (“Der hethitische Soldateneid,” 180). Nevertheless, given the previous two third-plural imperatives (appandu; mallandu) with the ‘oath deities’ as the subject, there does not seem to be any reason to shift to a singular verb. As is evident from other, less-corrupt parts of the text, a series of imperatives is to be expected in this section of the ritual anyway. 85.  The cuneiform reads ḫarrauškita, a third-singular preterite indicative with the -nuinfix missing, ‘he thoroughly burned’. One must agree with Friedrich, that an imperative would better maintain the integrity of the sequence. Contra Friedrich, a plural form is to be preferred; thus, *ḫarranuškandu (“Der hethitische Soldateneid,” 180).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

91

pi2-e-da-u2 86 a-pi2-e-ma da-ra-an-zi a-pa-a-at 30 e-eš-du 31 ki-e-da-ni-ma A-NA DIM4 GIN7-an ḫa-aš-ša-tar-še-it NU.GAL2 32 U2-UL-an A.ŠA3-ni pi2-e-da-an-zi na-an NUMUN-an 33 i-en-zi U2-UL-ma-an NINDA-an i-en-zi 34 na-an I-NA E2 NA4.KIŠIB ti-an-zi ku-iš-kan2 35 ki-e-ya NI-IŠ DINGIR-LIM šar-ri-iz-zi nu-uš-ša-an A-NA LUGAL 36 . . . ḪUL-lu tak2-ki-iš-zi 37 nu a-pi2-e-da-ni-ya NI-IŠ DINGIR.MEŠ EGIR UD.MI-ŠU2 38 QA-TAM-MA ḫar-ni-in-kan2-du 87 29

Now he (the officiant) puts malt (and) beer bread in their (the soldiers’) hands 20and they lick it and he speaks to them thus: 21“Just as they grind (the ingredients for) this beer bread with the grindstone, 22and they mix it with water, and they cook it 23and they repeatedly punch it (down), 24a he (who) transgresses these oaths 25band conspires to do evil 24bagainst the king, the queen, 25athe sons of the king and the land of Hatti, 26let these curse deities seize him, 27let them grind (his) bones in a like manner, (let them) heat him up in an equivalent manner 28aand (let them) punch him in an equivalent manner. 29aAnd let him proceed to 28ban evil end.” 29bHowever, those (the soldiers) respond, “Let that 30be so.” 31“Just as this malt has no propagation 32a(and) they do not bring it to the field and 33amake it 32binto seed, 33band they do not make it into bread 34and store it in the store house, 35afor the one who transgresses these conditional curses 36and takes part in evil 35bagainst the king . . . 37aMay the curse deities 38bdestroy his future 38bin the same way.”

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

19

This elaborate, almost ostentatious curse greatly expands the basic notion expressed so succinctly in the two other maledictions. The Hittite version extends its impact through the use of a series of similes that describe the preparation of products used for beer production. Although there are two known processes for beer manufacture in the ancient Near East, scholars generally identify them according to geography: the Mesopotamian method and the Egyptian technique. 88 Whereas it is far from definite, 86.  This verb is probably from pai- ‘go’, although one would conjecture that paiddu was intended instead of piedau as written here. The subject appears to have shifted to the oath-violator. 87.  Autograph copy: F. Hrozný, Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi 6, tablet 34, plate 77, obv., col. 2, lines 19–35. 88.  Mesopotamian method: The initial step in the manufacturing of beer in Mesopotamia begins with the steeping of the grains of barley or wheat in water for a period of two or three days. After this, the water is drained off. The grains that remain constitute the malt, which is then left to dry out for a period of about 24 to 36 hours. During this time, the soggy malt begins to germinate. As is characteristic of this process, enzymes begin to transform the pith into starch. Some of the starch in turn breaks down into sugar. After some monitoring, presumably through tasting, the germination process was stopped when it

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

92

Chapter 3

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

certain details suggest that the Hittite curse may reflect the so-called Egyptian process. 89 was determined that the correct sugar level had been achieved. The malt grains were then dried in the sun or lightly roasted. Next the malt was ground and a variety of spices was added to affect the final taste of the beer. Following this, the mixture of malt and spices was then molded into loaves. They were baked at a temperature of about 160 degrees and, if necessary, they were punched down. Once cooled, the loaves were broken apart and steeped in water in a large perforated vat. The actual fermentation began at this juncture and the process could be accelerated through heating. Eventually the liquid would start to trickle through the vat’s perforations and drain into another container. This second vessel would be set aside for several more days in order to let the fermentation process continue. At this stage the alcoholic content would begin to rise but it never achieved a level of more than 6% to 8%. The actual consistency of the final mixture was a concentrated syrup that could be flavored with dates and even vegetables to enhance the taste to make the drink more palatable. Any chaff and straw that remained floating on the beer was removed with strainers and finally, the liquid was poured into storage jars. For additional information on beer production in the ancient Near East, see, H. F. Lutz, Viticulture and Brewing in the Ancient Orient (New York: Stechert, 1922); L. F. Hartman and A. L. Oppenheim, On Beer and Brewing Techniques in Ancient Mesopotamia according to the XXIIIrd Tablet of the series ḪAR.ra = ḫubullu ( JAOSSup 10; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950); M. Civil, “A Hymn to the Beer Goddess and a Drinking Song,” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, June 7, 1964 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1964) 67–89; W. Röllig, Das Bier im Alten Mesopotamien (Berlin: Gesellschaft für die Geschichte und Bibliographie des Brauwesens E.V., 1970); S. H. Katz and F. Maytag, “Bread and Beer,” Expedition 28 (1986) 23–34; D. Deheselle, “La bière en Babylonie selon les tablettes économiques kassites de Nippur,” Akkadica 86 (1994) 24–38; M. M. Homan, “Beer Production by Throwing Bread into Water: A New Interpretation of Qoh. XI 1–2,” VT 52 (2002) 275–78; idem, “Beer, Barley, and šēkār in the Hebrew Bible,” in Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 25–38; idem, “Beer and Its Drinkers: An Ancient Near Eastern Love Story,” NEA 67 (2004) 84–95. Egyptian technique: The “Egyptian process” is slightly more labor intensive and differs from the Mesopotamian process in the initial stages of preparation. First, the wheat or barley grains were removed from their husks and ground. About three-quarters of the crushed grain was mixed with water to which leaven and spices were added. The resulting dough was kneaded, molded into loaves and baked. The rest of the grain was moistened with water to begin the germination process. Again, once the correct sugar levels were reached, the crushed grain was then ground while still damp. Meanwhile, the baked loaves were torn apart and crumpled. The malt was then combined with the crumpled bread and the whole concoction was soaked in water to ferment. At this point, the same steps as those observed in Mesopotamia were followed. J. Geller, “From Prehistory to History: Beer in Egypt,” in The Followers of Horus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 19–26; S. Delwen, “Ancient Egyptian Baking and Brewing,” in Sesto Congresso Internazionale di Egittologia (2 vols.; Turin: Societa italiana per il Gas, 1992) 1:129–39; D. Samuel, “Bread Making and Social Interactions at the Amarna Workmen’s Village, Egypt,” World Archaeology 31 (1999) 121–44. 89.  The reference to malt and beer bread in line 19 as two separate components certainly suggests that the Egyptian process, which worked with these two ingredients, might have been followed here. It is also probable that DIM4 BAPPIR actually refers to that mixture of moist malt and crumpled beer bread before it is thrown into the vat of water and cooked. The only difficulty lies in the reference to grinding (malla-) with a grindstone (NA4.ARA5) in line 21, a procedure that is not associated with either the malt or the beer bread at this stage of the process. If however, it refers to the ingredients for the beer bread,

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

93

Whatever the final estimation may be, this malediction undoubtedly refers to a multistepped process of destruction whose undertone is derived from beer brewing. 90 The very fact that two ingredients for beer manufacturing are the focus and object of comparison in the curse and not the final product, the beer, places all the emphasis on the procedure rather than the result. Here, the injury stresses a prolonged period of abuse, torture and persecution. The horror of the malediction is fashioned with many variances of annihilation from ‘grinding’ (mallanzi, malla-), ‘mixing’ (imiyanzi, immyi-), ‘cooking’ (zanuanzi, zanu-), to ‘punching’ (ḫarranuškanzi, ḫarra- ) and, lest we forget, even consumption as indicated in the opening line (lippanzi, lip(p)- ‘lick’). This description is meant to be overwhelming. It underscores the transforming effect of this curse. It will turn the offender into a liquid that, when poured out or consumed, is irrevocably lost forever. Once the execution of this malediction begins, there is no turning back. There is no hope for any type of reconstitution. It is dispersal. It is death. As pointed out above, this type of simile imprecation is conditional. It is also applied preemptively, a feature characteristic of this category of curse. In this case, it is used to prevent desertion and/or betrayal among the commanders of the Hittite army. There is no doubt that the ritual was performed with the men present because the DIM4 ‘malt’ and the BAPPIR ‘beer bread’ were actually placed in the soldiers’ hands. Their oral affirmation in lines 29–30 is even recorded as a direct quotation introduced with daranzi (tar- ‘they say’) followed by their response, ešdu ‘let that be so’. The second section of the malediction in lines 31–38 essentially demonstrates that it is simultaneously a fertility curse.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Conclusion Sumerian, Akkadian, Hebrew, and Hittite texts confirm two prevalent types of curses, conditional and unconditional. In most instances, unconditional maledictions appear in incantation texts as part of rituals and prayers fashioned to expel, ward off or negate an identified evil and/or such as the wheat or barley grains which are crushed before water, leaven and spices are added, then we may be on firmer ground. Another clue may lie in the use of the verb ḫarranuškanzi, from the root ḫarra- ‘hit’, ‘punch’. Interestingly enough, the verb has two important additional elements: -nu- a causative infix, and -šk-, an iterative infix, yielding ḫarranušk-. Thus, the action expressed in this verb ‘hit’, ‘punch’ is repeated. The need to punch the mixture could indicate the use of leaven which was used in the Egyptian process and is missing from the Mesopotamian procedure. On the other hand, the repeated punching may refer to pressing the mash of malt and beer bread, or just the soaking and heating beer bread alone in order to extract the beer while it was cooking, if indeed this was done. 90.  G. F. del Monte, “Bier und Wein bei den Hethitern,” in Studio Historiae Ardens: Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Philo H. J. Houwink ten Cate on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Amsterdam: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1995) 211–24.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

94

Chapter 3

its instigator. The direct, seemingly unqualified expression of this type of malediction is stressed in its use of imperative verbs that accentuate both urgency and command. This feature can give the impression that the individual who utters such curses under these circumstances assumes that he or she is effecting an immediate outcome. Nevertheless, we have found indications that the curse’s final execution remains dependent on higher divine powers who, if amenable, would ultimately mobilize the curse to drive away the evil or at least render it ineffective. These maledictions are banning and exorcistic. Conditional maledictions are generally, although not exclusively, characterized by the use of conditional sentences in which the protasis describes a negative behavior that is “protected” by the punishment recounted in the apodosis. For its part, the apodosis is principally an unconditional curse that is made conditional when it is attached to a protasis. These maledictions depend on latent violence for their potency. Therefore, they are threats. It is entirely possible that these attributes in particular contributed to the use of the precative verb forms in Akkadian and the indirect imperative in Hebrew. Even so, conditional curses are also protective. They are used proactively and are specifically contrived to prevent unwanted acts from happening. They bind and restrain. Consequently, they are often employed to maintain mutually recognized circumstances and are a staple feature of many contracts and treaties. Aside from conditionality, the expression of curses could be enhanced, and in a sense clarified, through the use of a simile. Not surprisingly, we have found that this figure of speech expands and elaborates the curse’s punishment. But it is in the expression of simile curses that we uncover the strongest evidence that a ritual act was involved. This is especially clear in the occasional use of a demonstrative pronoun coupled with an object of comparison. Thus, the phrase “just as this wax melts, so may you melt, if . . .” not only illuminates the nature of the curse’s divine punishment but it also demonstrates it for sake of accuracy. There is a sense that the objects used in these rituals are specifically selected because they illustrate best the composition of the punishment. Wax melts quickly, pottery shatters easily, and water extinguishes fire swiftly. All of this argues against the assumption that these objects are to be seen as substitutes for the one entering into the conditional curse or that the act performed on the items merely involves “symbolism.” 91 In the next chapter, we will discover that for the most part these rituals bring into being the horrors of a divinely executed malediction. They perform evil. They generate malevolence.

91.  Price, “The Oath in Court Procedure in Early Babylonia,” 28; Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms,” 61; J. M. Munn-Rankin, “Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium b.c.,” Iraq 18 (1956) 68–110, here, pp. 89–91; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 148–49; Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant,” 199.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

The Types of Curses

95

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Finally, there is a subtype of simile malediction that operates along allegorical lines. It is the most elaborately expressed curse known. Because only one example of this kind of curse survives, only a few preliminary conclusions may be drawn. The many-layered allegorical curse from the “First Soldiers’ Oath” provokes its impact from a detailed description of the procedure behind the manufacture of beer. As a result, an overriding metaphor is produced through the piling up of a specific chain of similes that focus on the destructive procedures used in beer production. This is the locus of the curse’s multileveled, extended punishment. And there is little doubt that this was used so as to accentuate a potential injury that was neither swift nor painless but prolonged and excruciating.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Chapter 4

Conditional Cursing Self-Imposed and Imposed As we have seen, curses could be expressed conditionally or unconditionally. Here we will focus on the character and subtlety of conditional cursing. An important but often-overlooked feature of conditional curses is the fact that they were administered in two different ways in the ancient Near East. One procedure reflects our modern definition of an oath as a conditional self-curse. Therefore, the speaker personally binds himself or herself to a provisional malediction. The second method allows an individual or authorized body to enjoin a conditional imprecation on someone else. In some cases, the individual need not even be present or immediately aware that such a curse has been imposed.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Sumerian: na m-eri m 2 . . . ku 5 and mu l ug al .  .  . p ad 3

Textual evidence for a distinction in the way a conditional curse, name rim 2 . . . ku 5 , and a mu l u g a l .  .  . p a d 3 statement could be used appears in a Sumerian text recently published by W. W. Hallo. 1 Even though it records an inheritance dispute, the text itself does not actually constitute an official court record of the event. Rather, it is an example of a literary genre that registers certain judiciary cases as models for use in scribal schools. 2 This text is from Nippur 3 and probably dates to the Ur III (ca. 2100–2000) and early Isin I (ca. 2010–1925) periods. 4 The case involves a dispute over the final distribution of the estate of Enlil-mašsu, who had two sons, UrSuena, the eldest, and Anne-babdu (lines 1–3; 11). Particular attention should be given to the n a m - n e - r u . . . k u d clause in line 19 and the mu lu g al .  .  . p ad 3 phrase in line 41. 5 1 I ur - d EN-Z U-n a d umu d en -l i l 2 -maš-s u 2 u 3 a n-ne 2 -b a-ab-d u 7 šeš -a-n i 3/4 še -g a - ne-n e-ta gi š -š ub-ba-ta/i n -ba - e - e š 5 e g ir ur - d E N-ZU-n a ba-uš 2 -a-ta 1.  W. W. Hallo, “A Model Court Case concerning Inheritance,” 141–54. 2.  Ibid., 141–43. 3.  Ibid., 143. 4.  Ibid., 144. 5. The numbering of the lines follows the line numbering of the cuneiform text. Ibid., 153–54.

96

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Conditional Cursing   6 m u-10 (+ 2 ? ) am 3 -gub-be 2  7 I a n-ne 2 -ba-ab-d u 7 .xx  8 pu- u ḫ 2 -r u-um E N -L IL 2 -KI-ka   9 g a ba i-i n -ri 10 ig i-ni in -gar-ma 11 1/3 m a-n a kug-babbar šam 2 2 -geme 2 - k a 12 I ur - d EN -ZU-n a šeš -gal -mu 13 nig 2 -na-me n a-ma-an -si 3 bi 2 -i n -dug 4 14 I a -a b -ba-kal -l a dumu I ur- d E N -ZU-na i gi - ni i n- gar - ma 15 k u 3 -bi ud-bi -ta šag 4 -ga-n i al -d u 1 0 16 b i 2 -in-du g 4 17 di-k ud-e- n e a-ab-ba-kal -l a 18 k a n 4 d n in -urta-ka 19 na m -N E.R U kud -ru-de 3 ba-an -s i 3 -mu - uš . 20 k a n 4 d n in -urta-ka 21 lu 2 -lu 2 -u 3 ba-e-en -n e-gi n 22 še -g a -ne- n e-ta 23 4(?) g in 2 kug-babbar reverse 24 I a -a b -ba-kal -l a [.   .   .] 25 I a n-ne 2 ba-ab-du 7 [.   .   .] 26 in-na -a n [.   .  .] 27 8 sa r g iš -gi ri 1 1 šag 4 a-šag 4 [.  .  .] 28 m u ḫa -la-ba ḫ a-l a-ba di n u-ub-d ug 4 - ga- aš 29 ša g 4 m ul -l i l 2 -maš-s u-da-ka 30 I a -a b -ba-kal -l a u 3 2 š eš -a-n e-n e/i bi l a ur - d E N- ZU- na- k e 4 - ne 31 I a n-ne 2 -b a-ab-d u 7 -ra 32 in-na -an -s i 3 -mu-uš 33 ud-k ur 2 -še 3 n am-gud a 2 - d n i n -l i l 2 -l a 2 a - š a 3 š uk ur 2 - bi 34 na m -b u r(! ) -⟨šu⟩ -ma n am-ka 2 -du 8 ? x x 35 e 2 a -ša 3 gi š -gi ri 1 1 geme 2 arad 2 36 nig 2 -g ur 1 1 e 2 -ad( ! ) -da a-n a-me-a-bi 37 k a dub-l ibi r-ra ša 3 ( ? ) ḫ a-l a-ba a-ab- ba- k al - l a 38 I a n-ne 2 -ba-ab-du 7 -ra 39 ib ila ur - d E N -ZU-n a-ke 4 -n e-ra 40 inim nu-un -ga 2 -ga 2 -a 41 m u-lug al -bi i n -pad 3 Ur-Suena, son of Enlil-mašsu, 2and Anne-babdu, his brother 3ain mutual agreement 4divided (the inheritance) 3bby lot. 5After Ur-Suena died (and) 6 10 (or 12?) years passed, 7Anne-babdu 9approached 8the assembly of Nippur 10appeared (before the assembly) and 13bstated: 11“One-third mana of silver, the price of 2 female slaves, 12Ur-Suena, my older brother, 13atruly did not give to me!” 14Aabba-kalla, son of Ur-Suena appeared (before the assembly and) 16stated: 15“On that day his heart was satisfied with the money.” 17The judges (sent) Aabba-kalla 18to the gate of Ninurta 19 for an oath (lit., cutting a conditional curse). 20At the gate of Ninurta 21each man went toward the other. 22By mutual agreement 24Aabba-kalla 26gave . . . 234(?) shekels of silver 25 to Anne-babdu. 278 sar of orchard in the field 1

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

97

98

Chapter 4

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

of . . . 28in lieu of the respective inheritance shares not settled, 29according to the desire of Mulli-mašsu 30Aabba-kalla and his two brothers, the heirs of Ur-Suena, 32gave 31to Anne-babdu. 38Anne-babdu 41swore by the name of the king 33athat from this time forward 40he would not raise a claim 39against the heirs of Ur-Suena 33bfor the position as buršuma official of Ninlil and its prebend field, 34house, field, orchard, female slave, male slave, 36or any (other) property of the inheritance what so ever 37(according to) the wording of an old tablet concerning the inheritance of Aabba-kalla.

Ur-Suena and Anne-babdu were brothers, the sons of Enlil-mašsu, whose estate Ur-Suena managed after their father’s death (lines 1–2). Yet, in what might seem to be a curious turn of events, 10 (or 12) years after the death of Ur-Suena, Anne-babdu suddenly approaches the assembly of Nippur with the claim that he never received his just inheritance. He argues that onethird mana of silver—the equivalent of two female slaves—is still due to him from his father’s, Enlil-mašsu’s, estate (lines 5–12). The nature of his claim suggests that the legacy, although separated into lots, was never distributed (line 3). This would indicate that we are dealing with an undivided inheritance and that Anne-babdu was, for some reason, not able to take full possession of his share at the time of his elder brother’s death. 6 Certainly, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Anne-babdu was a minor and too young to take full ownership even when his elder brother died. This would account for the lapse of so many years before Anne-babdu stepped forward. It is also possible that Anne-babdu only received a partial payment of his inheritance and that an outstanding amount was never settled over the period of 10 to 12 years. Line 28 suggests as much when it refers to the inheritance shares as those “not [yet] settled/negotiated,” (nu-ubd u g 4 - g a - a š ). Whatever the final estimation may be, because Ur-Suena is now dead, the settlement of the matter is left to his eldest son, Aabba-kalla, Anne-babdu’s nephew. Interestingly enough, when Aabba-kalla appears before the Nippur court, his defense is to declare (b i - i n - d u g ) that at the time the original 4 inheritance was divided, his uncle, Anne-babdu, was satisfied (lines 13–15). 6.  G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles appear to be the first to recognize this feature of Mesopotamian family property law (The Babylonian Laws [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1952] 1.328). See also F. R. Kraus, “Von altmesopotamischem Erbrecht,” in Essays on Oriental Laws of Succession (Studia et Documenta und Iura Orientes Antiquii Pertinentia 9; ed. M. David, F. R. Kraus, P. W. Pestman; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 1–17, here esp. pp. 7–8; A. Skaist, “Inheritance Laws and Their Social Background,” JAOS 95 (1975) 242–47, here esp. p. 244; R. Harris, Ancient Sippar A Demographic Study of an Old-Babylonian City (1894–1595 b.c.) (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 36; Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1975) 364; D. Charpin, Archives Familiales et propriété privée en Babylonie ancienne: Etude des documents de ‹‹Tell Sifr›› (2 vols.; Hautes études orientales 12; Genève: Librairie Droz, 1980) 1:174–76; R. Westbrook, Property and the Family ( JSOTSup 113; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 118–41; D. Daube, “Consortium in Roman and Hebrew Law,” The Juridical Review 62 (1950) 71–91.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Conditional Cursing

99

With the testimony given, the judges (d i-kud) make their ruling. Aabba-kalla must perform a n a m - e r i m . . . kud. 7 He alone is dispatched 2 by the court to the gate of Ninurta, a place known for other legal activities during the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods. 8 It is more than likely that n am - e rim s were discharged in such open venues because it also served as 2 a public announcement. Here, it is principally a formal performance of an oath with very ominous consequences. The act brings a potential evil into existence that will linger over Aabba-kalla for as long as he lives. If he is ever proven to be false in his testimony, then the provisional malediction will be executed. By performing this oath, he publicly demonstrates his confidence in the veracity of his knowledge on the division of the inheritance. Because Uncle Anne-babdu does finally receive a settlement, the general fault in the dispute appears to rest with Aabba-kalla. If we are correct in reading the sign indicating the amount of the settlement as 4 shekels, plus a portion of an orchard, then the most Aabba-kalla was able to negotiate was a reduction in the amount of the owed inheritance share. 9 His liability compelled the issuance of a n a m - e r i m . . . k ud. This represents the 2 court’s sentence. And this probably marks the limit of the court’s ruling in the case. Once the n a m - e r i m 2 is executed, negotiations begin in lines 20–21. The property has been paid and a new, binding resolution is now feasible. The text hints at a certain level of urgency. Anne-babdu appears to have been present when the n a m - e r i m 2 was cut because both parties immediately move to resolve the issue while still at the gate. They start by ‘moving toward’ (b a - e- en - n e - g i n ) each other. This act is both practical and symbolic. It figuratively closes the legal divide that once separated them. Face to face, they mediate a settlement that is agreeable to both (še-ga-ne-ne-ta). Once the particulars of the distribution are worked out and conceded, then Anne-babdu openly binds himself not to make any future claims against the estate. He makes an asseverative statement and invokes the name of the king (m u l u g a l ), which is then certified as pad 3 (lines 38 and 41). The tenor of these lines suggest that Anne-babdu made the assertion without any type of judicial coercion. 10 7.  Line 17 reads nam-ne-ru kud-ru-de 3. According to Edzard, ‘NE.RU = erim 2’. He argues that the basic form of the fully written nam-eri m 2 . . . kud was just nam . . . kud (“Zum sumerischen Eid,” 75–77, esp. p. 76.) 8. See Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur-III-Period, 73–74 n. 209 for additional textual references. The austerity of the nam-erim 2 . . . ku d curse was recognized long ago by Falkenstien, who pointed out that it was performed either in a temple or at a divine gate. It petitioned a god or goddess and occasionally might require the presence of some divinely owned item, a spade, a dagger, or weapon. A. Falkenstein, Umschrift, Übersetzung und Kommentar, 64–65. 9. The sign is very poorly written and may only be interpreted as ‘4’ given the context. 10.  On this point, see pp. 103–6 below.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

100

Chapter 4

In the end, this representative court case unequivocally attests to the fact that n a m -er i m 2 .  .  . k u d and mu l u g al . . . pad 3 reflect two discrete procedures with two discrete implications. As we will see further below, the former is sacral. It produces a very dangerous, divinely supported, latent evil; a conditional malediction. The latter does not.

Additional Distinctions The Use and Character of n a m-er i m 2 . . . k u d Oaths

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Because most of the textual references to nam-erim 2 . . . kud are so truncated, the nature of the procedure the phrase couches is difficult to uncover. Aside from the reference on the Vulture Stele, other texts support the sacral character of a n a m - e r i m 2 . . . ku d . The common denominator in these examples is the gate of Ninurta; for instance: 20IPN 21 kan 4 d ninurt a- ka 22 [ n ]a m -er i m 2 k u d -r u -d e 3 b a -an-sum-mu-uš  11 ‘They sent PN to cut a curse in the gate of Ninurta’ and di-kud-e-xx kan 4 d ninurt a- š e 3 n am- er i m 2 k u d -r u -d [e] 3 b a -a n-sum-mu-u[š]  12 ‘The judges sent him to the gate of Ninurta to cut a curse’. 13 Some texts, however, do not mention a gate at all. Rather, they refer to the ‘place’(k i ) of the n a m - e r i m 2 . . . k u d . According to these references, there were two sites: one for the juridical session and judgment and one for the n am - e rim 2 . . . k u d : 16 k i d i d a b 5 -b a u 3 nam-e r im 2 kud -a-ba 17 i 3 ib 2 - š u 4 - g e - e š - a m 3 ‘They were present in the place where one spoke the legal decision and in the place where one cuts the nam-erim 2’; 14 24 lu 2 in im - m a- bi- [me] 1 [k i n a m-N]E-RU-k a 2 nu-ub-šu 4 -ge -ša-am 3 ‘They did not appear in the place of the n a m - NE.RU . . . kud’. 15 Another section 11. D. O. Edzard, “‘Du hast mir gegeben’, ‘ich habe dir gegeben’ Über das sumerische Verbum sum,” Die Welt des Orients 8 (1976) 159–77, esp. p. 159, HMS tablet 1384, lines 20–22. 12. E. Chiera, Sumerian Texts of Varied Contents, plate 90, tablet 86, col. 2, obv.?, lines 3′–6′. 13. These are probably temple gates. Some texts show that such gates could be the site where the entire juridical proceeding took place. An Old Babylonian text from Kisurra makes this clear: 13i-na KAN4 dNIN-URTA 14uš-bu-u2-ma 15di-nam ip-ru-su-šu-nu-ši-im 14‘They sat 13in the gate of Ninurta and 15they judged his case’ (autograph copy: B. Kie­ nast, Die Altbabylonischen Briefe und Urkunden aus Kisurra [Freiburger Altorientalschie Studien 2; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978] plate 43, tablet 93, rev., lines 13–15). The importance of the juridical proceedings conducted within a gate is emphasized further by the occasional reference to di-in KAN4 d[UTU] ‘The judgment of the gate of DN’. Autograph copy: H. Fi­ gulla, Old-Babylonian nadītu Records: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 47 (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1967) tablet 24, rev., line 32. The restoration of UTU/Šamaš is based on line 19 as the gate where the judges and the Karum of Sippar met to hear the case. 14.  Autograph copy: F. Thureau-Dangin, Recueil des tablettes chaldéennes (Paris: Leroux, 1903) tablet 295, lines 16–17. 15.  Autograph copy: A. Pohl, S. J., Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden der III. Dynastie von Ur (Texts und Materialien der Frau Prof. Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities n.s. 1; Leipzig: Hinriches, 1937) plate 66, tablet 271, rev., col. 3, line 24; col. 4, lines 1–2.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Conditional Cursing

101

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

of the foregoing text mentions a lapse of time between the handing down of the judgment and the actual performance of the nam-erim 2: 8namNE.RU- b i 9 ku d-r u -d a m 10 k i n a m-NE.RU-še 3 11 ud -3-am 3 12 nu-ume - r e - e š ‘For that they must cut a n a m - NE.RU. Not (all) of these (people) went to the place of the n a m - NE.RU . . . k u d in three days’. 16 All of these examples illustrate a strong connection between judicial sessions and the subsequent execution of a n a m - e r i m 2. At Lagaš and Umma a n a m - e r i m 2 . . . k ud could be performed in a temple: b a - u š 2 -a -n a m-er i m 2-b i e 2 - d n i n -m ar ki -ka PN1 d umu-PN2 ink u d ‘PN1, son of PN2, cut a curse in (k a , locative) the temple of Ninmar’; 17 e 2 d š ara 2 - ka n a m-er i m 2 k u d -d e 3 b a - s u m ‘He gave (him) over to cut a curse in the temple of Šara’. 18 One text, possibly a š i r - n a m - e r i m 2 dating to the reign of Iddin-Dagan (ca. 1794–1954), reveals another detail about a procedure connected with these places. K i n a m - e r i m 2-ma šu z i d i l 2 - la im-si-si ‘the place of cutting curses, where the true/loyal hand is raised’. 19 Of course, one cannot be sure who among the parties present for the ritual performed this gesture. However, if we take a cue from the series of prayers commonly referred to as Šuila ‘Raising the Hand’, the supplicatory character of the gesture is confirmed for these texts typically appeal the divine realm for some form of intervention. We may, therefore, tentatively conjecture that the ‘hand’ that ‘is raised’ is that of the one on whom the curse has been imposed. Other pieces of information about the character of a nam-erim 2 . . . k u d are found in other Sumerian transaction documents. Two texts dating to the eighth regnal year of Amar-Sin show a nam-erim 2 . . . kud imposed on “out-of-towners.” The first text has: kaš 4 ur i 5 ki nam-NE.RU ku 2 r a 2 ‘the messenger from the land of Ur cut a curse’. 20 The second tablet, 16. Ibid., plate 66, tablet 271, rev., col. 3, lines 8–12. It must be noted that the cuneiform signs in lines 8 and 10 actually read nam-ru-ne-be and ki nam-ru-ne-še 3, respectively. 17.  Autograph copy: G. Pettinato and S. A. Picchioni, Testi economici Lagas del Museo di Istambul. Parte II (Materiali per il vocabolario Neosumerico 7; Unione Accademica Nazionale; Rome: Multigrafica, 1978) tablet 203, lines 1–5. 18.  Autograph copy: H. de Genouillac, Textes économiques d’Oumma de l’époque d’Our (Textes cunéiforme du Louvre 5; Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner: Paris, 1922) tablet 5068, obv., 10, rev., line 1. See also Falkenstein, Die neusumerischen Gerischtsurkunden, 233, text 138, tablet UIOM 938, line 26 for another possible reference to cutting a curse in the temple of a deity. 19. Autograph copy: O.  R. Gurney, S.  N. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) plate 55, tablet 8, rev., line 51. 20.  Transcribed by F. Yıldız and O. Tohru, Die Umma Texte aus den archäologischen Museen zu Istanbul (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993) 108, text Um. 3370, rev., line 4. The background of this text might related to the following situation described by Sigrist: “It is possible that, depending on the circumstances, solemn promises of loyalty were exchanged in the course of formalities in the temple of Ninurta at Nippur with the messengers of bordering countries that were friendly with the kingdom of Ur” (Drehem, 195).

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

102

Chapter 4

YBC 217, originating from Drehem is a bit more revealing. 21 1 udu ni ga n a-ap-l a-n um 2 mar-tu g ir 3 d šul-gi -uru-mu sukkal r ev. 1 udu niga šu-a-gi-na 3 udu nig a n i 3 -diri it -ḫi-p a 2 -t al l u 2 ḫ i -bi 2 -l a-a-at k i 15 u d n a m - e r i m 2 in-kud-da g ir 3 ba-za-za sukkal 10

ir 11 -m u m aški m iti ud 7 ba-zal k i [in-t a -e 3 -a]-ta ba-zi 20 ša 3 ur i 5 ki -ma it i e ze m - d š ul-gi  22

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

m u e n e r idu k i ba-ḫ un  23

One fattened sheep for PN2, the Amorite. The responsible party is the civil servant PN3. One fattened offering sheep; three fattened surplus sheep for PN4 a man from Hibilat for the day of cutting a curse. The responsible parties are the civil servant PN5 and PN6 the requisitioner. On the seventh day, (the items) from PN7 (Intaea) were expended in Ur (in the) month of the festival of the divine Šulgi. Year: Amar-Sin 8.

In this case, a n a m - e r i m 2 . . . k u d is required of an Amorite (mar-tu) and a man from Hibilat. That they are both under the authority of two different messengers not only signifies two distinct missions but also their “second-class” status. Apparently, neither could operate independently. This is reinforced further by Intaea’s actions. The fact that he provides the sheep without recompense demonstrates that he is in all likelihood their “local” backer. He is therefore the one who is ultimately responsible for their legal deeds. This text provides us with the best evidence that animal slaughter may have been a feature of a n a m - e r i m 2 . . . k ud curse. Should this be the case, then a life is expended for the sake of bringing a latent malediction into existence. 24 Of particular interest is the reference to the grade of the sheep as š u - a - g i - n a ‘an offering’, suggesting that the animal was of a very high quality. When this is coupled with the fact that a nam-erim 2 was performed in temples or temple gates, then the picture sharpens to reveal the deep, sacral quality of a n a m - e r i m 2 that the mu/zi lugal/RN/DN undoubtedly lacked. The Drehem text also reveals that the n a m-erim 2 . . . kud constituted a significant expense for the responsible individual. This implies further 21.  Autograph copy: M. Sigrist, Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections (part 1; Sumerian Archival Texts II; Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2000) 304, tablet 1075, YBC 217. 22.  It is believed that this month name was instituted in Umma to celebrate the 13th anniversary of the kinship of Šulgi on the throne of Ur. It may even reflect a jubilee. M. E. Cohen, The Cutic Calenders of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993) 182–83. 23. Transcription by Sigrist, Texts from the Yale Babylonian Collections, 1:304, tablet 1075, obv., lines 10–11, rev., lines 12–22. 24.  See pp. 20–25, 114–115.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Conditional Cursing

103

that the procedure formed a payment for a judicially imposed sentence. Other references reveal a goat, m a š ,  25 and even a preserved, that is, tanned, animal carcass, a d d a 2 (a d 3) k u š  26 were used for a nam-erim 2 . . . kud. In these latter two cases, however, it is difficult to determine whether or not the goat and hide were used to establish the innocence of a liable party regarding the loss of animals. Under these circumstances, the culpable individual would be required to provide the carcass of the dead animal as evidence regarding the nature of its loss and then swear an an nam-erim 2 . . . k u d . 27 Whatever the case may be, the provision of such high-grade animals as revealed in YBC 217 could well indicate a significant element associated with n am - e ri m . . . k u d animal slaughter. If so, then a nam-erim . . . 2 2 k u d would also constitute a luxury available only to those who had access to such disposable animal products.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

The Use and Character of z i /mu l u g a l .  . . p ad 3 Oaths declared by either z i or m u l u g a l/RN/DN and certified as pad 3 are used differently. On many occasions they are demanded at the request of one of the parties. Other times they are given mutually by both parties. Unlike n am - er i m . . . k u d oaths, they are rarely assessed as a result of a 2 court ruling. As may be recalled, a m u l u g a l . . . pad 3 statement turns the violation of a personal agreement into an offense against the king. It makes a private contract legally enforceable. No court need be convened to exact a p ad statement from a partner. It is principally a request. But a judiciary 3 session would certainly need to be convened to determine the violation of a p ad pronouncement because the king and/or a deity’s mu is involved. 3 This distinction recommends that a court imposed nam-erim . . . kud 2 could also represent some sort of legal sentence or requirement handed down when an infraction against a p a d statement has been confirmed. 3 If there is a connection between the convened court and the king who is initially invoked in the m u l u g a l formula, then we may conclude with some confidence that such sessions were supervised by the king and/or his representatives. One very complicated text not only mentions ‘a royal judge’, d i- ku d -l u g a l , 28 but also refers to a ‘place of the king’s judges’, ki d i- ku d - lu g al . 29 The text’s lawsuit eventually ends with an ensi ‘giving’ (b i 2 - in - s i 3 ; ba -a n -si 3 ) both parties over to a nam-erim 2. 30 Whether or 25.  Ibid., 1:270, tablet 920, line 1. 26.  Transcribed by idem, Messenger Texts from the British Museum (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1990), tablet 274, line 4. 27.  Sigrist, Drehem, 107, 194. 28.  Transcription by Falkenstein, Umschrift, Übersetzung und Kommentar, 186–87, text 113, line 37. 29.  Transcription by Falkenstein, ibid., 186, text 113, line 25. 30.  Ibid., 187, text 113, lines 44, 46.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

104

Chapter 4

not this illustrates a conflict between local and royal authority is not especially clear. The next two tablets record personal letters dating to the Ur III period. Even though we do not know the identity of the individual who wrote these missives, they do lend context to those moments when a zi lugal oath came into play. 1 lu 2 -na m -ta r-ra 2 u 3 -n a-d a-d ug 4 3 a-kal -l a u 3 l u 2 - u r u- s ag- r a 4 e nna ig i-m u- še 3 5 di i n -d a-an -d ug 4 -ga-aš 6 na- ba- du 3 7 ḫa- am 3 - D U 8 inim e nsi 3 -kam 9 u 3 a-š a 3 uru-ul -ka 1 0 a 2 - bi i n- da- ag 2 - e 1 1 z i l u g a l ḫe 2 -a n-pad 3 12 ud n u-mu-zal -e  31

Say to 1Lu-nam-tara: 6“He must not detain 3A-kala and Lu-uru-sag 4auntil 5they have put their complaint 4bbefore me. 7Let them go. 8It is the ensi’s command! 11And let him swear by the life of the king 10that he will pay the rental (lit., measure out the yield) 9for the field of Uru-ula. 12 The day should not pass!”

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

2

This letter clearly demonstrates that the speaker has authority over the addressee, Lu-nam-tara. He gives him two orders. First, by the command of the e n s i , Lu-nam-tara must release two people he has detained for some undisclosed reason. Apparently, the men have a complaint which the speaker feels he should review personally. Second, Lu-nam-tara must swear concerning his payment for the leased Uru-ula field. We have every right to suspect that the speaker is the field’s owner and that the current situation has put a payment in jeopardy. In order to forestall any default on the part of Lu-nam-tara, the speaker requires a zi lugal . . . pad oath. 3 This use of z i l u g a l merely reflects one party’s efforts to advance protection for his interests. There is no indication that his request results from a court ruling. Additionally, the context for the requested zi lugal oath also demonstrates that this use of z i l u g a l is not an abbreviated form of a no-contest clause. The second letter from Umma reflects a similar understanding behind a m u l u g a l statement. 1 a -k a l-la 2 u 3 - n a-a-dug 4 3 su-u 2 -n a-a l u 2 -m u- r a 4 i ni m - m a- ni di ḫe 2 -be 2 5 t uku m-bi 6 l u 2 -di -d a-ka-n i 7 gi š l a - ba- r a- an- ur 4 8 k an 4 e 2 -g a l-še 3 9 m u l u g a l p a d 3 -mu-n i -i b. 32

Say 1to Aya-kala: 4“Let him open the lawsuit of 3Suna, my man. 5If 6his litigant does not collect, 8have him (the litigant) disclose (as true/verifiable) in the name of the king (not to contest) 9at the gate of the palace.”

2

31.  Autograph copy: E. Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur, 34; tablet 113, lines 9–11; Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia, 116, text 235. 32. Autograph copy: Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur, 20, tablet 39, cases 5–9; Michalowski, Letters from Early Mesopotamia, 81, text 135.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Conditional Cursing

105

The author of the letter acknowledges a potential lawsuit against one of his underlings, Suna. Even though formal judgment is pending, the speaker makes his wishes known. If the litigant looses the suit, then he needs to declare a m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 no contest statement. Again, this requirement is at the behest of one of the contracting parties and does not reflect a judiciary sentence. 33 The distinction between mu lugal and nam-erim 2 is highlighted further by the contrast in the place where each is avouched. A nam - e rim 2 . . . k u d is performed in temples and/or temple gates. As indicated here, a m u l u g a l . . . p a d 3 need only be articulated in a royal gate. 34 When m u l u g a l /RN/DN and z i l u g a l /RN/DN phrases are contrasted with n am - e ri m 2 . . . k u d , there is every indication that a nam-erim 2 is more explicit. What can be said about each of the three phrases is that they all refer to a means by which circumstances are legally augmented. Mu lugal/RN/DN and z i l u g a l /RN/DN reinforce oral statements. They are to be affirmed as p a d 3 by a third party who represents the individual invoked, the king and/or a deity. They are also noun phrases that developed 33.  This does not mean to say that mu lugal statements could not be declared before judges as some texts show. 1 0 la-ba-gi 4 -gi 4 -da 1 1 igi di-kud-ne-š e 3 12 Ur- d suen-ke 4 13 mu lugal-bi in-pad 12‘Ur-Suen 13disclosed (as true/verifiable) by the name of the 3 king 11before the judges 10that he would not contest’. A. Falkenstein, Umschrift, Übersetzung und Kommentar, 168, text 103, lines 10–13. 34. Of equal interest is a text dating to the reign of the Old Babylonian king Sinmuballiṭ (ca. 1812–1793). Written in Akkadian, it involves a lawsuit brought by Iarbi-Ilu against a nadītu of Šamaš, Ḫaliʾiatum. DINGIR 6a-na ḫa-li-ia-tum LUKUR dUTU 7ir-gu-um-ma 8Ia-wi-il U3 ra-bi⟨a⟩-nu 9U3 DI.KUD.MEŠ ZIMBIRki 10i-na E2 dUTU di-nam 11u2-ša-ḫi-zu-šu-nu-ti-ma 12Iḫa-li-ia-tum 13a-na ni-iš da-a be-el-ti-ša 14i-di-nu-ma 15i-na ba-ab ni-iš DINGIR 16im-ta-ag-ru-nim-ma Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

5Iia-ar-bi

5Iarbi-Ilu 7started a lawsuit 6against Haliʾiatum, Nadīdu of Šamaš. 8The citizens and the mayor 9and the judges of Sippar 11tried the case 10in the temple of Šamaš, 14and gave 12Haliʾiatum 13the oath of the Goddess Ayya, her lady (to take). 15In the gate of the oath, 16they came to an agreement.

Convening a court in a temple is not particularly unusual, as this is attested in other tablets. Using the temple of Šamaš as the site of the proceedings is certainly not out of place either because the case involved a nadītu, a woman dedicated to the service of Šamaš (R.  Harris, “The nadūtu woman,” in Studies Presented to A.  Leo Oppenheim, June 7, 1964 [Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1964] 106–35; P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives,” 77–92). The oath Haliʾiatum swears in the temple is probably equivilant to the Sumerian nam-er im 2 . . . kud. It is the result of a juridical decision. If a second ‘oath’ was sworn in the gate, then it would be a mu lugal oath. It would confirm an arrangement worked out after the nam-erim 2 was performed. Should this be a correct interpretation, then the text mirrors the same sequence of events encountered in the ‘model court case’ discussed above. The reference to a gate as the bāb nīš ilu ‘the gate of the (oath by) the life of the deity’ may show that a special gate was set aside expressly for the purpose of swearing oaths. Autograph copy: H.  H. Figulla, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets: Old-Babylonian nadītu Records (vol. 47; London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1967) plate 8, tablet 12, obv., lines 5–16.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

106

Chapter 4

from introductory oral formulas. The n a m - e r im 2 . . . kud appears to be a ruling imposed by a court, royal or otherwise. It frequently involves the slaughter of a high-grade animal. It was never spoken. It was an act. It was always k u d ‘cut’.

Hebrew Interestingly enough, a slightly different, but related, picture emerges from Hebrew sources. In some ways, they provide the strongest evidence for two different ways a conditional curse could be administered. May God Do Thus Scholars readily acknowledge that the phrase ‫ֱלֹוהים ְוכֹה י ִֹסיף‬ ִ ‫ה־ּלי א‬ ִ ‫ֲש‬ ֶ ‫ּכֹה יַע‬ ‘May God do thus to me and more also’ refers to an oath. 35 The twice-used adverb ‫‘ ּכֹה‬thus’, is understood to refer to the oath’s curse, which may have been articulated as a gesture or in an act. Consequently, the speaker is both executing the curse and directing its harm to his own person. He is conditionally cursing himself. This sort of usage is somewhat equivalent to the modern definition of an oath. In 1 Kgs 2, Solomon’s response to Adonijah’s request for one of David’s wives, Abishag, illustrates this type of conditional cursing. Note how the “oath” is not coerced but freely and openly given. Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, “So may God do to me, and more also, for Adonijah has devised this scheme at the risk of his life! 24 Now therefore as Yahweh lives, who has established me and placed me on the throne of my father David, and who has made me a house as he promised, today Adonijah shall be put to death.”

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

23

The motivation for the use of this procedure generally arose from a personal desire to strengthen the veracity of a statement or intention for the benefit of an audience. This sort of usage was not limited to any particular setting as for instance a convened court. Certainly, the biblical passage implies that Solomon made his declaration in the throne room before his courtiers. Thus, this oath could be employed at any time and anywhere. Its primary importance principally rested in its public character, which sought to assure listeners. This would apply equally to a court setting, for much can be determined by a person’s willingness to take an oath. 36 35.  Pedersen, Der Eid, 117–18; Blank, “Curse, Blasphemy, Spell and Oath,” 89–91; A. D. Crown, “Aposiopesis in the O.T. and the Hebrew Conditional Curse,” Abr-Nahrain 4–5 (1963–64) 96–111, esp. pp. 106–8; M. F. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1968) 74–92, here, pp. 80–82; H. S. Gehman, “The Oath in the Old Testament: Its Vocabulary, Idiom, and Syntax; Its Semantics and Theology in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint,” in Grace upon Grace: Essays in Honor of Lester J. Kuyper (ed. J. I. Cook; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 51–63, here, pp.  54–57; F.  C. Fensham, “Oath,” in ISBE (4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1986) 3: 572–74, here, p. 572. 36.  It is possible that mu lugal/RN/DN and zi lug al/RN/DN, which serve to certify the authorities who supervise the arrangement, may reflect the East Semitic equivalent of this procedure.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Conditional Cursing

107

Nevertheless, the phrase “May God do thus” could be modified slightly to express a different idea with alternate repercussions. A fine example occurs in 1 Sam 3:17. In this episode, Eli interrogates the youthful Samuel about the content of his conversation with Yahweh during his nocturnal experience in the temple. ‫ם־ּת ַכחֵד‬ ְ ‫וסיף ִא‬ ִ ֹ ‫ה־ּלךָ אֱל ִֹהים ְוכֹה י‬ ְ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ ‫דּבֶר ֵאלֶיךָ אַל־נָא ְת ַכחֵד ִמ ֶּמּנִי ּכֹה יַע‬ ּ ִ ‫ֲשר‬ ֶׁ ‫ַדבָר א‬ ּ ָ ‫וַּיֹאמֶר מָה ה‬ ‫ר־דּבֶר ֵאלֶיךָ׃‬ ּ ִ ‫ֲש‬ ֶׁ ‫ַדבָר א‬ ּ ָ ‫דבָר ִמּכָל־ה‬ ּ ָ ‫ִמ ֶּמּנִי‬

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

He (Eli) said, “What is it that he (Yahweh) told you? Do not hide it from me. May God do thus to you and may he add to it, if you hide anything from me of all the things about which he spoke to you.”

This verse is pivotal for three reasons. First, the malediction ‫ֳׁשה‬ ֶ ‫‘ ּכֹה־יַע‬thus may he (God/Yahweh) do’ is expressed as a direct quotation. It is, therefore, a spoken formula. Second, it is part of a conditional sentence. Note how the phrase actually constitutes the apodosis, the “then” clause, of a conditional sentence, which in this example has been transposed. The protasis, the “if” clause, follows where the proviso is expressed: Samuel is not to hold back the smallest detail concerning his vision in the temple. Given this, we may conclude that ‫ֳׁשה‬ ֶ ‫ ּכֹה־יַע‬refers to a conditional curse. Nevertheless, and most importantly, an alteration has been made to this otherwise standard phrase. The ‫ֳׁשה‬ ֶ ‫ ּכֹה־יַע‬is modified by a different prepositional phrase from that of the self-imposed conditional imprecation above. The single difference between the two clauses lies in the phrase introduced by ‫ל‬. 1 Sam 3:17 has ָ‫‘ ְּלך‬to you’ while the former example reads ‫‘ ִּלי‬to me’; this yields “may he (God) do thus to you” rather than “may he (God) do thus to me.” Therefore, Eli is directing Yahweh’s potential hostile activity against Samuel and not himself. As such, this is an illustration of a conditional curse imposed by a person of higher social rank on someone of lesser status. The nature of this relationship compels Samuel, a mere youth, to obey Eli, Yahweh’s priest, so as to avoid being divinely cursed. Even though we might imagine that Samuel could have demonstrated his recognition of the imposed curse through a gesture such as bowing the head, lowering the eyes, it may not have been necessary due to Eli’s authority over the youth. Samuel’s response was enough to demonstrate his acceptance of the terms. In addition, 1 Sam 3:17 demonstrates that Eli performs the curse himself and then directs its harm onto a second person. Eli’s command over the matter probably derives from his priestly office. This gives the statement a deeply threatening characteristic. At the same time, save for his articulation of the malediction, Eli himself is not bound to the curse in any way. He is free of any repercussions. Whatever the final impact may be, it is clear that imposed provisional curses are coercive. They are a way in which conditional maledictions could be levied against a disinclined individual. Consequently, once Samuel acknowledges Eli’s provisional malediction, one can say he has obliquely, conditionally cursed himself. Thus, in this

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

108

Chapter 4

case imposed conditional curses can, under certain circumstances, become indirect oaths. The Act of Imposing a Conditional Curse The Hebrew Bible also illustrates that the curse connected with an imposed conditional imprecation could be acted out. In 1 Sam 11:6–7, when king Saul learns that the Ammonite leader, Nahash, would persist in his attack on Jabesh-gilead, he musters the tribes of Israel using a blatantly coercive tactic. ‫ָקר‬ ָ ‫ָרים ָה ֵא ֶלּה ַו ִּיחַר אַּפֹו ְמאֹד׃ ַוּיִּקַ ח ֶצמֶד ּב‬ ִ‫ַדב‬ ּ ְ ‫ש ְמעֹו אֶת־ה‬ ָׁ ‫ַל־שאּול ְּב‬ ָׁ ‫ו ִַּת ְצלַח רּוחַ־אֱל ִֹהים ע‬ ׂ ְ ‫ְש ַלּח ְּבכָל־ּגְבּול י‬ ‫שאּול ְו ַאחַר‬ ָׁ ‫חרֵי‬ ֲ ‫ֲשר אֵינֶּנּו יֹצֵא ַא‬ ֶׁ ‫ָכים לֵאמֹר א‬ ִ ‫ִש ָראֵל ְּבי ַד ַהּמ ְַלא‬ ַ ׁ ‫ַו ְינ ְַּתחֵהּו ַוי‬ ‫ָשׂה ִל ְב ָקרֹו ַוּיִּפֹל ַּפחַד־יהוה עַל־ ָהעָם ַוּי ְֵצאּו ְכ ִּאיׁש ֶאחָד׃‬ ֶ ‫שמּואֵל ּכֹה יֵע‬ ְׁ

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

And the spirit of God rushed upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly incited. He took a yoke of oxen, and cut (them) in pieces and sent (them) throughout all the territory of Israel in the hands of the messengers, saying, “Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!” Then the dread of Yahweh fell upon the people, and they came out as one.

Inflamed by the spirit of God, ‫ רּוחַ־אֱל ִֹהים‬Saul produces the curse with an overtly graphic act. 37 He slices up a yoke of cattle and then sends a piece of the meat to each of the Israelite territories. A major feature of this strategy is the production of a token that is to be conveyed to the otherwise absentee party. The meat is not only the malediction itself, but it also demonstrates to the recipient that a conditional imprecation has been imposed on him. This is what makes the procedure so dangerous: it generates a hazardous cursed object. 38 Thus, for all intents and purposes, each slab of meat is in fact a curse because it has already suffered the conditional malediction’s predicted consequences. As striking as this act is, clearly it is not enough to constitute a complete conditional imprecation. Certain words must attend the act not only to make it relevant but to also bind the curse to an identified target: here, the oxen of the Israelite territories. The function of these words distinguish the act from other similar endeavors that involve the slaughter of animals, such as food preparation, sacrifice, divination, and so on. 39 In this case, the 37.  This act may illuminate what a n am.erim 2 . . . kud may have been. Here Saul literally ‫‘ נתח‬cuts’ a curse with a grisly deed. 38.  It is probable that the Akkadian term assakku in the phrase asakkum akâlum ‘eat asakkum (taboo)’ was something similar. It refers to a cursed, eatable product that was consumed by an individual on whom a conditional curse had been levied. As in the biblical text, the malediction may have been enacted without his presence. We will explore this below. 39. See for instance, the statement concerning the lamb to be slaughtered for the conditional curse in the treaty drawn up between Aššur-nerari V and Matiʾilu of Arpad: 10UDU.NIM an-ni-u TA ŠAG pit-qi -šu la a-na UDU.SIŠKUR še-lu-[a] 11la a-na qa-ri-ti še2 4 2 2

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Conditional Cursing

109

spoken element specifies the conditions of the imprecation and its punishment. The connection between word and act is based on an implied simile: “Just as these oxen are cut up, so shall your oxen be cut up, if. . . .” Consequently, we are led to believe that the act in this context makes up the ‘just as’ element of a provisional simile curse. 40 Not unexpectedly, the oral feature of the imprecation is expressed in the form of a conditional sentence. The protasis begins with a relative clause introduced with ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫‘ א‬who’, ‘whoever’, and establishes the provision of the malediction. The apodosis begins with the now familiar words ‫ָׁשה‬ ֶ ‫ּכֹה יֵע‬. But unlike the verb in 1 Sam 3:17, which is in the active voice, the verb here is in the Niphal form, the passive voice. This conveniently couches the identity of the active agent behind the verb. Nevertheless, the next sentence exposes this unmentioned individual. Note how it is ‫ ַּפחַד־יהוה‬, the “dread/fear of Yahweh” that falls on the community, not the fear of Saul or Samuel. The people’s reaction indicates that Yahweh is perceived to be the true authority behind the possible execution of the malediction on their cattle should they fail to comply. Seemingly without hesitation, the tribes lend their support. 1 Sam 11:6–7 establishes several important points about the way a conditional imprecation could be imposed. First, those who are conditionally cursed do not have to be present when the imprecation is performed for the malediction to be valid and effective. They need only to be informed. Notification of the existence of the conditional anathema is made through the dispatch of messengers bearing a token of the curse. Second, the people to whom the portions of meat are sent do not appear to have any right of appeal. They must obey or possibly suffer the consequences of the curse should they choose not to honor the conditions. Third, the right to impose conditional curses was not limited to the priesthood. It was a right also enjoyed by the king. Even though Samuel is mentioned in v. 7, it is Saul who butchers the oxen, cuts them up and disseminates the pieces among the tribes of Israel. There is no doubt that he is imposing the malediction. And fourth, we may assume with some confidence, that the spoken element of lu-a la a-na qi2-ni-ti še-[lu-a] 12la a-na mar-ṣi še-lu-a la a-na ṭa-ba-ḫi a-n[a x x x še-lu-a] 13a-na a-de-e ša2 Iaš-šur-ERIM.GABA MAN(20) KUR-[aš-šur] 14[T]A Ima-ti-iʾ–DINGIR ša2-ka-ni še[lu-a] 10‘This spring lamb has not been brought out of its flock for sacrifice, 11or for a feast, or for a purchase, 12or for a sick man, or to be slaughtered for . . . 14bIt has been brought to conclude 13the adê-agreement of Aššur-nerari, king of Assyria 14awith Mati-ilu’. One suspects that the reason why nam-erim 2 . . . k uds were performed in or at gates was to specifically distinguish the slaughter of the animal, if such was performed, as a curse. Additionally, it may have been considered inappropriate to generate curse tokens in a sacred precinct. The above text is drawn from the cuneiform tablets published by E. F. Weidner, “Der Staatsvertrag Aššurnirâris VI. von Assyrien mit Matiʾ-ilu von Bît-Agusi,” 24, col. 1, lines 10–14. For a translation of the full text, see Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyality Oaths, 8–13, here esp. p. 9. 40. D. R. Hillers was the first to make this connection in Treaty Curses, 19–20.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

110

Chapter 4

the malediction initially declared by Saul was then repeated by the messengers on delivery of the cursed meat. 41 Responsibility and Imposed Conditional Curses A second passage, 1 Sam 14:24, 26–28, provides additional material on another means by which conditional curses could be delivered. What is particularly intriguing about this excerpt is the variety in Hebrew terms. ׂ ְ ‫ְו ִאיׁש־י‬ ‫ֲשר־יֹאכַל ֶלחֶם עַד־‬ ֶׁ ‫ָאיׁש א‬ ִ ‫שאּול אֶת־ ָהעָם לֵאמֹר אָרּור ה‬ ָׁ ‫ִש ָראֵל ִנּגַׂש ּבַּיֹום הַהּוא וַּיֹאֶל‬ ְ ‫ ַוּיָבֹא ָהעָם אֶל־ ַהּיַעַר ְו ִהּנֵה ֵהל‬. . . ‫ָה ֶערֶב ְונִּקַ ְמ ִּתי ֵמא ְֹיבַי ְולֹא ָטעַם ּכָל־ ָהעָם ָלחֶם ׃‬ ‫דבָׁש ְואֵין־‬ ּ ְ ‫ֶך‬ ‫ִשלַח‬ ְׁ ‫ָביו אֶת־ ָהעָם ַוּי‬ ִ ‫יע א‬ ַ ‫ַש ִּב‬ ְׁ ‫א־שמַע ְּבה‬ ָׁ ֹ ‫ָתן ל‬ ָ ‫ַּׁש ֻבעָה׃ ְויֹונ‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּפיו ִּכי־יָרֵ א ָהעָם אֶת־ה‬ ִ ‫ַּׂשיג יָדֹו א‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ֶל־ּפיו ו ַָּתרֹאנָה עֵינָיו׃ ַוּיַעַן‬ ִ ‫ָשב יָדֹו א‬ ֶׁ ‫ַדבָׁש ַוּי‬ ּ ְ ‫ותּה ְּבי ְַערַ ת ה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ִטבֹּל א‬ ְ ‫ֲשר ְּביָדֹו ַוּי‬ ֶׁ ‫ַּטה א‬ ֶ ‫ֶת־קצֵה ַהּמ‬ ְ ‫א‬ ‫ֲשר־יֹאכַל ֶלחֶם הַּיֹום ַוּיָעַף‬ ֶׁ ‫ָאיׁש א‬ ִ ‫ָביךָ אֶת־ ָהעָם לֵאמֹר אָרּור ה‬ ִ ‫יע א‬ ַ ‫ש ִּב‬ ְׁ ‫ַשּב ֵַע ִה‬ ְׁ ‫ִאיׁש ֵמ ָהעָם וַּיֹאמֶר ה‬ ‫ָהעָם׃‬

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

Now the men of Israel were oppressed on that day. Saul imposed a (conditional) curse on the troops, saying, “Cursed be anyone who eats food before it is evening and I have been avenged on my enemies.” So none of the troops tasted food . . . When the troops came upon the honeycomb, the honey was dripping out; but they did not put their hands to their mouths, for the troops feared the curse. But Jonathan had not heard that his father imposed a (conditional) curse on the troops; so he extended the tip of the staff that was in his hand, and dipped it in the honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his eyes brightened. Then one of the men said, “Your father truly imposed a (conditional) curse on the troops, saying, ‘Cursed be anyone who eats food this day’. And so the troops are faint.”

The Hebrew terms that require our attention are ‫( וַּיֹאֶל‬v. 24), ‫( אָרּור‬vv. 24, 28),ַ‫ַש ִּביע‬ ְׁ ‫(ּבה‬v. 27), ְ and ‫ַשּב ֵַע ִה ְׁש ִּבי ַע‬ ְׁ ‫( ה‬v. 28). The verb ‫ ּיֹאֶל‬is an apocopated third masculine singular converted imperfect derived from the root ‫אלה‬, the basic meaning of which is ‘curse’. 42 The word ‫ ּיֹאֶל‬is in the Hiphil, or causative form, and therefore its literal meaning is ‘he caused a curse’. 43 Because the noun ‫‘ ָאלָה‬curse’ is derived 41.  One immediately wonders whether an additional ceremony was performed after the meat was delivered. This might involve sprinkling the recipients with the blood of the cattle; an act that correlates with Moses’ deed in Exod 24:5–8. Of course, it is equally possible that they ate some of it. See pp. 123–132 below. 42. J. Sharbert was indeed correct when he stated the following about the root ‫אלה‬: “In translating the different forms, one should always begin with the meaning, ‘to pronounce a conditional curse’” (“‫אלה‬, ʾālāh,” TDOT 1:261–66, here, p. 261). 43.  In regard to the meaning of ‫ ּיֹאֶל‬in this verse, J. K. Aitken acknowledges that the Hiphil form could suggest the meaning of ‘to lay under a curse.’ He nevertheless dismisses this notion because “it seems unlikely that he (Saul) would lay his own troops under a curse. Rather his words (‫ָאיׁש‬ ִ ‫ )אָרּור ה‬are formulaic for the making of an agreement, and therefore the gloss ‘adjure, put under an oath’ is appropriate” (The Semantics, 53). Apparently, Aitken does not recognize that an oath is nothing but a conditional curse whether self imposed or as in this instance imposed by a person in authority. Therefore, Saul is indeed provisionally cursing his own men.

Cursed Are You! : The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014.

Conditional Cursing

111

Copyright © 2014. Pennsylvania State University Press. All rights reserved.

from this same root, 44 we may assume that Saul has imposed an ‫ ָאלָה‬-curse on his soldiers. 45 The full curse is quoted and begins with the oft-discussed Qal passive participle, ‫‘ אָרּור‬cursed be’ which is based on another root ‫ ארר‬and whose fundamental meaning is also ‘curse’. 46 It is clear that in this case ‫ אָרּור‬refers 44.  The noun ‫ ָאלָה‬ʾālâ, as well as the verbs formed from the root ‫אלה‬, may be etymologically related to the Arabic ʾlw which in the first form of the verb means ‘to fall short’, while in the fourth form it means ‘to swear’ (E. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon [London: Williams and Norgate, 1863; repr., 2 vols.; Cambridge: Islamic Text Society, 1984] 1:83–84). Old South Arabic has ʾlh, meaning ‘curse or swear’ ( J. C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic [Harvard Semitic Museum Studies 25; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982] 17–18). The root is attested in Phoenician on an amulet from Arslan Tash where it appears as ʾlt (line 9) and bʾlt (lines 13–14). Of particular interest is the phrase krt ln ʾlt ‘cut a curse with us’ in lines 8–9 which is often compared with the Hebrew ‫ּכָרַ ת ְּבִרית‬, customarily translated as ‘cut a covenant’. When the Phoenician usage is coupled with the ְ be functionSumerian phrase nam-erim 2 . . . k ud ‘cut a curse’, one suspects that‫ּבִרית‬may ing either as a euphemism for ‘curse’ or as a substitute for ‫ ָאלָה‬itself. P. J. Naylor likewise noticed the curious correlation between ‫ ָאלָה‬and ‫ּבִרית‬, ְ as though one could substitute for the other (“The Language of Covenant: A Structural Analysis of the Semantic Field of ‫ְּבִרית‬ Biblical Hebrew with Particular Reference to the Book of Genesis” [D.Phil. diss., Oxford University, 1980] 380–95). G. P. Hugenberger lends further support to the affinity between the two terms but prefered to render ‫ ָאלָה‬as ‘oath’ rather than ‘curse’ (Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malach [VTSup 52; Leiden: Brill, 1994] 183–84 n. 74). If ʾālâ is the result of