Philologastry

The doings of American philologasters are, in truth, a curious study.

Fallujah, under the Seal of Solomon

Tractate 20 of the Book of John, about John’s conversation with the Sun, is one of the shortest compositions in the entire text, but what it lacks in length, it makes up in the richness of its detail concerning the lives of ancient Mandaeans.

Since much of this text concerns the Sun, the reader is confronted immediately with references to the Mesopotamian cosmology:

Šamiš etib bṣurta /  usira etib btalia

arba ziqia ḏbaita / lagṭia ganpaihun / ahdadia ulanašmia

The sun sat in seclusion / and the moon sat in an eclipse.

The four winds of the House / grasped their wings / one to another and breathed not.

The word I have translated here, ṣurta, literally means a drawing, but in Mandaic it has come to mean the ritual barrier that is created to separate the pure from the impure, and by extension those who are enclosed within it (such as menstruating women) and the period during which they are so isolated. All three are known as a sorthe even today.

Similarly, the word I translate here as “eclipse,” is actually a proper noun, ˀāṯallyā, which derives from Akkadian attalû, the dragon that swallows the sun and the moon to create an eclipse. Thus, the very first line is extremely rich in metaphors to which my English translation does no justice.

The description of the Four Winds grasping their wings one to another brings to mind Pazuzu, lord of the Four Winds, whom the ancient Mesopotamians depicted as a winged demon (as you can see in the image in that blog post). It’s probably not unreasonable to suggest that the passage hearkens back to these depictions. Then the sun speaks directly to John in Jerusalem:

etlak atlata tikia / taga ḏšauilẖ lkulẖ alma

etlak mn mašklil / spinta ḏradia haka biardna

etlak plugta rabtia / ḏhaka radia binia mia lmia

kḏ tizal lbit rbia / qudam rbia adkar elan.

You have three halos, / a crown worth the whole world.
You have from mašklil / a boat that travels here in the Jordan.
You have a great canal / that goes here from water to water.
When you go to the House of the Great / remember us before the Great.

The word mašklil is a hapax legomenon; could be related to Syriac mǝšaḵlal “perfect,”or perhaps it is related to meškā “skin.” Lidzbarski suggests some kind of wood. For my money, though, this is not the biggest mystery in these lines. What is this great canal (or division) that runs from water to water? It is called plugta in Mandaic, which just happens to be the etymon of the present name for Pumbeditha, namely Fallujah, so-called because of its strategic location at the nexus of the canal network. That is to say, Pumbeditha was informally known as plugta, “the canal,” and that is the name that stuck.

For most of the first millennium, Pumbeditha was one of the most important centers of Jewish learning in the world. This may be significant, because Mandaeans identify the Jewish god, Adonai, with the sun—particularly in the texts about John, of which this is one. Thus a reference to a major center of Jewish learning in a text that is ostensibly about the sun would not necessarily be unexpected. Is there any other evidence of Jewish themes in this text?

John attributes his three wonders to Life, like a good Mandaean. When he gets to the third, plugta, the text takes a turn for the strange:

hatma ḏmalka matna elẖ / ḏgaira bšumak / uazla lbit qiqlia

qarba mn zaua ḏnapšẖ / baiia bnia lamaška

kḏ šalmu nidrẖ unapqa / lašiha lbit hiia / ulamqaima ldaura taqna

The king’s seal was placed upon her / so that she cavorts in your name / and goes to the house of dunghills.
She fights with her own spouse / she seeks her sons but does not find them,
When her vows were completed and she left / she was not worthy of Life’s House / and was not raised to the everlasting abode.

Apparently John has anthropomorphized the plugta, which is feminine in Aramaic, and likens it to a wife who has strayed from her family. The symbol of this transformation is the hatma ḏmalka, “the king’s seal,” which is almost certainly a reference to the famous ring of Solomon, described in the Bavli (Tractate Gittin 68a) and in both Aramaic and Mandaic incantation bowl texts as proof against demons. In the latter, it is explicitly described as a seal, using this word. In later centuries, perhaps as late as Islamic times, this term became associated with the Magen David, as a symbol of Judaism. Scholem (1949, p. 246) suggests that its identification with the seal of Solomon first arose in medieval times, but its potential appearance in the incantation bowls and now here, within a Jewish context in the Book of John, suggests that it may be much earlier—potentially even pre-Islamic.

The language of this line differs greatly from the others. The participle gaira could potentially come from two roots: g-w-r, which means “to commit adultery, and g-y-r, a denominative root from the Hebrew word giyur, “conversion (to Judaism).” It is entirely possible that both meanings were intended, in precisely the sort of double entendre for which Mandaean texts are famous (I’ve tried to capture some of this double entendre in my translation). As for the “house of dunghills,” bit qiqlia, while this at first sight appears to refer to some region, and Lidzbarski interprets it to be a bordello, this word can also mean ruins, and indeed one the Jewish temple is explicitly identified as a קיקלתא in one of the Jewish Palestinian piyyutim published by Sokoloff and Yahalom (1999, 21:12). The Temple looms large in this portion of the text, where it is elsewhere described as baita nsisa “the disturbed house.”

To recap, the debate between John and the sun in Jerusalem immediately puts us into a Jewish context. The reference to “the King’s Seal” only confirms this impression, and encourage us to read further meaning into what appears, at first glance, to be a nonsensical text about a canal cheating on her husband. What emerges is a thinly veiled polemic against Pumbeditha (or, to use its modern name, Fallujah) as a major center of Jewish learning.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

3 thoughts on “Fallujah, under the Seal of Solomon

  1. Geoffrey Herman on said:

    על קיקלי דמתא מחסיה תיבו ולא על אפדני דפומבדיתא

    Thank you for your (always) interesting texts and commentaries, from which I learn much. I wish to comment on just one matter in your post.
    The association of Pumbedita with Palugta and then Fallujah is really a hypothesis – and not a very well supported one. There is little justification for linking the Jewish village Palugta in the Huzestan Chronicle with Pumbedita.

    • Many, many thanks for your comment and feedback! I particularly appreciate having your input on this matter.

      One of the chief problems with this text is its metaphorical language. We have talking suns and adulterous canals, so the text practically invites us to read meaning into it. Scholars and community members alike find themselves confronted with a (somewhat self-imposed) constraint: how to read the *right* meaning into it? We do not allow ourselves to read any old meaning into someone else’s scriptures, with good reason.

      Therefore, I always have to be concerned about what I’m personally bringing to the text. In this case, it may indeed be the city of Fallujah, which (as you know) hosted a not insubstantial Mandaean community—thirty or so families—until 2003, when they were ethnically cleansed relatively early in the course of the Iraq War, in a taste of what then awaited the remainder of the Mandaeans and other minorities in its aftermath.

      So, I am perfectly happy to note that there exists no consensus on the identification of Palugta. The line that you cite from BT Keritot is certainly evocative, leading me to wonder whether I should be looking somewhere else, maybe even Matha Mehasia, for our “house of dunghills” instead.

  2. Joe in Australia on said:

    If you’re looking for wordplay in a Jewish context, have you considered that “rbia” is cognate with Rabbi, and “bit rbia” could then be a yeshiva? What made me think of it is, in Jewish Aramaic a “plugta” can mean an intellectual argument, or a faction.

    Perhaps there’s also some significance in the fact that (according to Jastrow) “Plugta” was also the name of a village near Tiberias, which means that it was near the Sea of Galilee, which flows into the Jordan River. Tiberias itself was the home of the Sanhedrin post-Destruction, so it was the perfect place to find a yeshiva.

    Finally, you can find an mention of “three crowns” in the Mishna, in Pirkei Avot 4:17: a crown of Torah, a crown of priesthood, and a crown of kingship, “but the crown of a good name surpasses them”. If there is an encoded reference to Tiberias and its rabbis, then it wouldn’t be odd to find some rabbinic imagery there too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: