It's a Preservative

All ancient Near Easterners had the greatest respect for their gods and goddesses. The continuance of their existence, their community, government and city, utterly depended on the supernatural realm’s good graces. The deities were all-powerful, all-wise beings who were indifferent one moment and sympathetic the next. The vicissitudes of the world in which they lived bore this out. Given the capriciousness of their deities, even the most powerful āšipu/ašiptu, prophet or prophetess, kaššāpu/ kaššaptu would never dare command the great and mighty deities to do anything they were not disposed to accomplish. For to do so would presume equality with them, an attitude that certainly would not foster a co-operative relationship.

When viewed in this way, it becomes clear that the act of “cutting off evil” is a defense strategy that endeavors to preserve the “life”/“goodness” of the whole and bolster the ongoing favor of the patron deities. It attempts to preserve the “purity” and “blessedness” of what is left behind by extracting any “impurity” and “cursedness” that would imperil the remnant’s existence.— Cursed Are You!, page 470

<idle musing>
In other words, they had greater respect for their deities than some Christians have for the triune God! As Jesus might say, "They are more righteous than you." Ouch.

I've been editing a discourse handbook on the Greek text of the Epistle of James. Good stuff to make you examine your theology. Funny how when you read the Bible as it is written instead of as you want it to be written your theology gets challenged. Over and over again I've been seeing how our Western christianity—at least as it is practiced in the U.S.—is far more cultural than Christian.

By the way, that's the final post from Kitz's book. I hope you enjoyed the excerpts enough to read/buy the book. I would rate it as the best book I've read in the last year or two—and I read between 25 and 100 books a year...but you read it and decide. And let me know what you think of it via a post to the comment section of the blog.
</idle musing>

Get rid of the dreams

The victim confirms a relationship between himself and the clod of earth. Once he tells the contents of his dream to it, he then utters three maledictions. The first is a simile curse. It affirms and establishes the function of the clod’s disintegration. This is followed by two unconditional maledictions. One focuses on dissolution (naḫarmuṭu). The second centers on removing the evil to a distant place. Then, the victim tosses the clod into the water. The full and complete execution of these imprecations is clearly dependent on the discharge of the curse-act itself. Certainly, the victim cannot hope for release from his nightmares until he throws the clod into the water. One also suspects that the victim gains additional comfort from actually watching the clod break apart as the current sweeps away the dissipated earth.

Some of these dream rituals require the use of a specific type of clay. LAG IZ.ZI ša2 AŠ/ina dUTU.ŠU2.A ‘A clod which is from a western (that is, facing the setting sun Šamaš/dUTU]) wall’. LAG ša KA2 pi-ḫe-e TI-qi2 ‘You take a clod from a blocked door’. The officiant of these rituals chooses each of these clays for their unique properties. The first kind of clay is connected with nonexistence and the daily disappearance of Šamaš. Once the clod is thrown into the water, its dissipating particles are to take the nightmares into the underworld with the setting sun. The clay from a blocked door has already demonstrated its propensity to impede and thereby keep things at bay. This characteristic is to merge with the evil dreams so as to prevent them from returning to the victim.— Cursed Are You!, page 442

Grab the talisman!

Curse-acts supporting unconditional curses are perhaps the most horrifying and are generally used reactively. Because no stipulations are attached to the malediction, the harm the curse-acts depict are to guide the deities in their present judgment of the situation that precipitated the need to perform the curse-act. This means that the target of the unconditional imprecation has very little control over the predicament and must rely solely on the just ruling of the deities for deferral of the execution of the malediction’s injury. Because this is the case, if the target ever becomes aware of the unconditional curse and is innocent, then the only means of defense against the malediction is the direct petition of the heavenly realm to relent. Sacrifices, prayers, and purification rituals would be the only methods available to the victim against the effects of any and all unconditional curse-acts.—Cursed Are You!, page 435

A loose cannon?

It is far from certain that the professional curser required a view of the target on every occasion. Indeed, this may not have been always feasible. Even so, some kind of connection between the specialist and the intended victim appears to be essential. While viewing the target would be the easiest way to establish a link, the practitioner could also manipulate something the target owned or touched, a piece of cloth, some hair, or dust from a path he or she takes daily. The tactic is precautionary. It gives the curse direction and safely limits its operation. Without this careful restriction, a malediction could spread uncontrollably, allowing it to find and settle on alternate, unintended targets.— Cursed Are You!, page 398

<idle musing>
Unintended targets—like yourself! Dangerous stuff, which is why cursing was illegal—even though most everybody did it...
</idle musing>

It ain't an ordeal, it's a curse ritual

Num 5:11–31, the incident of the jealous husband, provides the clearest evidence that Yahweh’s priests administered curses. Although much has been written on this pericope, few have recognized that there is but one procedure recorded here: the issuance of a conditional self curse, an oath. The accompanying ritual is directly related to the oath, which involves nothing other than a liquefaction of the oath’s curses for human consumption. Contrary to popular opinion, it does not describe an ordeal.— Cursed Are You!, pages 395–96

No other options

The effectiveness of an imprecation pronounced by the amateur is also heavily dependent on the circumstances that led to the malediction’s initial declaration. This should be no surprise because a curse is fundamentally a solicitation to a deity for a judgment regarding a dilemma. Typically, these predicaments develop from perceived injustices whose rectification are understood to be beyond human capacity to correct. A successful lay curse, when employed properly, ultimately seeks justice from the divine realm for the correct reasons.— Cursed Are You!, page 362

It's a scary world out there

The verbal character of lay curses in illiterate societies contributed not only to their dangerousness but also to their ubiquitousness. They are dangerous because once declared, curses enjoyed an independent existence that could not be readily supervised. They take on a life of their own. They spread through gossip. They are ubiquitous because curses were a powerful tool available to anyone who could speak. No special knowledge was needed beyond the cultural conventions that determined the verbal elements that made a curse a curse. For the amateur, no special ritual was necessary aside from a quick gesticulation, if that was used at all. On the one hand, the words established the nature of the harm to be done. On the other hand, a gesture would merely strengthen the requested injury through a form of dramatization. If anything, the gesture merely sought to elucidate and reinforce the manner in which the orally declared harm was to be administered by the importuned supernatural power.— Cursed Are You!, page 358

Call in the professionals

While we may assume that all people engaged in cursing, we cannot assume that the ancient Near Easterners perceived every curse they uttered to be equally efficacious. Certainly, some maledictions were believed to be more potent than others. What contributed to the intensity of an imprecation probably rested in the distinction between the lay and the professional curser. Thus, even though all people could and did curse, we can imagine that there were occasions when the malediction of an amateur was just not enough to solve the problem. Presumably, something more was needed, something stronger and perhaps more lasting.— Cursed Are You!, page 349

Leprosy

In Num 12:9, Yahweh’s temper is provoked when Miriam and Aaron question Moses’s authority: וַיִּחַר אַף יְהוָה בָּם וַיֵּלַךְ, 'and the anger of Yahweh was kindled against them and he departed’. Consequently, divine ire was incited to the point that a divine malediction was produced, ṣāraʿat ["leprosy"]. Immediately thereafter, Miriam is beset with ṣāraʿat (v. 10) and, in spite of Aaron’s plea for clemency, she is temporarily removed from the camp. All of this recommends that those who are thus anathematized must be removed from Yahweh’s presence in order to assuage divine anger and prevent that wrath from expanding to others for lack of compliance. If anything, it is the concern over the spread of divine anger that makes ṣāraʿat contagious rather than any fear of a communicable disease.— Cursed Are You!, pages 342–43

<idle musing>
By the way, the other ancient Near Eastern cultures felt the same way about leprosy. That helps you understand some of the rules for leprosy doesn't it? And also why leprosy was always considered dangerous in the ancient world—it was a curse from the gods. The fact that it is contagious just made it even more dangerous. And why uncleanness was thought to spread via touch...
</idle musing>

Leave them hanging

It is clear from the tone of these lines that the ritual is not an end in and of itself. The final appeasement of the angered deities is still pending. The use of the precative (line 112, liškunū; 121, liššakin) and the prohibitive (line 113, ayy iršû) underscores the petitionary character of these lines and looks for future action by the heavenly realm. They are blessings. They seek divine beneficence at the expense of the dissolution of the malediction. Therefore, these blessings are indirect curses directed against curses. They await divine intervention. In fact, if Reiner’s restoration of line 113 reflects the original, then only the command of the highest ranking deities, Ea/ Enki and Marduk, can assuage the wrath of the heavenly realm. Subsequently the incantation leaves the offender still waiting for forgiveness.— Cursed Are You!, page 340

<idle musing>
And the incantation ends with them hanging in suspense. Will they manage to get the deities to endorse their plea? Or will they suffer under the hands of the curse deities?

I could mouth some simple platitudes here about the superiority of the Judaeo-Christian view, but I've been reading Job lately, so they would sound empty. Funny how scripture does that, isn't it? You want a nice, tightly reasoned, airtight, take-it-to-the-bank answer, and God puts Job in there. Drat!

They should rename the Bible. It should be The Book with No Easy Answers. But, maybe that's the purpose. Maybe, just maybe, the Bible wasn't meant to be an instruction book. Maybe, just maybe, it was meant to point beyond itself. Maybe, just maybe, it was designed to show us that we need to listen to the Holy Spirit. Maybe...

But that isn't easy! I want easy answers! I want surety! I want to know that I'm right! Did you catch the pronouns there? I, I, I, I... Hmmm...what did that blasted Bible say? Death to self? Ouch!

Just an
</idle musing>

A unique use for flour

As is characteristic of simile maledictions, the curse opens with kima (line 130) ‘like’, ‘just as’. The simile builds on the flour’s particular properties. As flour, the grain will never enjoy propagation. It is useless to the farmer. Never will it develop in a cultivated field or along a canal in the wild. Nor will it have roots or shoots. It is sterile. The object compared is the curse within the victim’s body. Like the flour, the curse is not to engender itself and spread throughout the sufferer’s interior. Like the flour, the malediction is to be impotent. Once extracted, no seed of the curse is to be left behind that might enable the malediction to grow and spread. The removal is to be complete and thorough. Throwing the curse-bearing flour into the fire destroys the grain and the curse it has absorbed. Both are effectively eliminated from the land of the living. Both are killed. Both are rendered extinct.— Cursed Are You!, page 337

<idle musing>
A bit of background might help here. Flour was commonly used in canceling curses. They would make a line on the floor, usually surrounding the person or thing that had been cursed. It acted as a boundary-marker, containing the curse.
</idle musing>

Whence the view that words have innate power?

"According to a number of biblical scholars the spoken word in ancient Israel 'is never an empty sound but an operative reality whose action cannot be hindered once it has been pronounced'" (Thiselton on Hermeneutics, p. 53; the quoted material is from Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 1958). He provides a list of authors, including Jacob, von Rad, Zimmerli, Eichrodt, Ringgren, Knight, even Bultmann!

I don't know about you, but that list includes most of the people on my Old Testament Theology bibliography from when I took it in 1983. No wonder I adopted the idea that words have innate power! It was in the air I breathed. But that doesn't make it right...

"What are we to say about such an attitude towards language and words? Von Rad implies that this primitive outlook offers a positively richer view of language than that found in modern Western culture. He comments, 'One could ask whether language has not become impoverished because it has lost functions which at an earlier cultural level had once belonged to it.' (von Rod Old Testament Theology 2:81)...But the verdict forced upon us by modern general linguistics since the work of Saussure is that far from being 'richer', such a view of words is simply wrong." (Thiselton, 56–57)

Thiselton proceeds to lay out four criticisms (58–66), but I'm only going to mention two of them: the second and third. You'll have to read the article/chapter for yourself to get the other two : )

The nature of the second problem has not, it seems, been clearly recognized. Arguments are put forward about the nature of words in general on the basis of passages which speak not about words as such but about words which have been uttered usually by a god or sometimes by a king or a prophet. But such arguments break down if words that have been spoken by Yahweh, or by Marduk, or by Atum or Khnum, are in practice regarded as 'power-laden' not because of the supposed nature of words in general, but precisely because these words proceed from the mouth of a god. We suggest that a generalizing argument has misleadingly been put forward on the basis of selected paradigms of a very special nature. (p. 60, emphasis original)

Did you catch that? Most of the examples usually cited for the innate/magical power of words in the ancient world and the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament were spoken either by gods or by people in authority who could give substance to the words. Yep, that's right. They had the power to make them stick. The words had a derived authority, not an innate one.

The third criticism has to do with what is called speech act theory (you'll have to look that one up on your own; it's way too involved to explain right now!). Here's what he says about blessings and curses specifically, since that is what triggered this whole excursion in the first place:

First, most writers stress that the effectiveness of blessing and cursing depends in a large measure both on the strength and status of the speaker who pronounces the blessing, and also on the receptivity of the person who is being blessed. In other words, the 'power' of the pronouncement is by no means automatic. Indeed, Murtonen believes that the reason why Isaac did not try to recall his blessing from Jacob was not because of word-magic, but because, on the one hand, he believed that Jacob rather than Esau had 'ability to hold what was promised to him', and on the other hand, already 'God himself was called upon as the final authority.' Thus Murtonen convincingly argues that a supposition about word-magic 'does not seem necessary' (Murtonen, VT 9 [1959], 158–77). (Thiselton, p. 63)

I'm not sure I buy Murtonen's explanation, but that isn't the point, as Thiselton says. What matters is that falling back to the magical power of words isn't necessary. Here's another extended quotation:

Seen from one viewpoint, a blessing is supposedly power-laden if and when it is the blessing of God. But even if we leave theological beliefs in Israel out of account, we are still left with the concept of blessings and cursings as performative utterance which do things on the basis of conventional procedures in which the appropriate persons take part. Pronouncements by prophets or kings may now be seen in this double light. They are effective because they are spoken by someone in authority, and may often take the form of performative utterance. (p. 64)

And a final parting shot, "The words themselves effect an award, a sentence, or a commitment. But they no more depend on primitive notions of word-magic than a modern judge and jury do when their words actually consign a man to prison or to freedom." (p. 64, emphasis original)

I think that last line sums it all up. Words do have power, no doubt about it. But they do not have innate or magical power. Their power is because of who spoke them and context in which they were spoken.

Such a choice

In order to counteract problems of this type [a curse being directed against you], a person had two management options. First, he or she could consign the rābiṣu to an associate demon that is equally “evil.” Because two negative beings, both hostile to life, naturally nullify each other, then the result enhances existence. It cuts off the evil and creates a blessing. A “medical text” from the same period affirms the notion…

The second strategy petitioned a deity who had power over these beings. The suppliant in the above “medical text” prays to Dumuzi: ‘Separate me from the Sentry, an evil demon who has attached itself to me to cut off my life’. A petitioner in another Neo-Assyrian text pleads with Marduk to eliminate a stalking ghost in the following manner: ‘Drive it away from my body, cut it off from my body, remove it from my body!’ Here a positive force, Marduk, is to attack a negative force, the ghost, by severing it from the victim’s person.— Cursed Are You!, pages 334–35

<idle musing>
Not exactly my idea of great options. No wonder Christianity had such an appeal...
</idle musing>

Take no chances

Esarhaddon is inclusive in his anxiety and describes two ways a malediction is rendered impotent. First, a curse could be ‘turned back’ (târu, lines 377, 379). Undoubtedly, this refers to the procedure of returning a curse to its source. Second, a curse could be ‘undone/released’ (parāšu, lines 378, 379). Both of these strategies are mentioned in the next phrase, turtu turri māmīt pašāri taḫassasani teppašani ‘you shall not (even) think of or perform (a ritual) either to reverse or undo the curse’. The statement could not be more explicit. Certain rites could nullify maledictions. In all likelihood, these are the rituals vassals performed to extricate themselves from the treaty’s chafing constraints.— Cursed Are You!, pages 322–23

It's the fine print that will get you

Apparently, the ever-cautious Esarhaddon assessed a conditional self-curse on the citizens of Sippar. Yet the character of this particular malediction is very ominous. It is an arrat la napšur ‘a curse that cannot be released” (N of parāšu). Because Esarhaddon felt it necessary to include this statement, then we may read between the lines and conclude that, unless otherwise qualified, most imprecations were able to be undone in one way or another.— Cursed Are You!, page 321

<idle musing>
We're always looking for the escape clause, aren't we? Esarhaddon closed that one, but I'll bet somebody found another one. Remember that the Assyrians would sometimes adjust the calendar to avoid an ominous day...of course we would never do that! That's why there's so few 13th floors in public buildings...
</idle musing>

The web of words

From the ancient Near Easterners’ point of view, a spell’s sturdiness and effectiveness would find additional reinforcement through similes that compared its “string” of words to the strings of a net or twine. As the twined threads of a net are twisted and knotted together, so are the words of an incantation. As a net can be “cast,” so can an incantation. As a net can be laid out as a trap, so can an incantation. As a net can ensnare someone, so can an incantation. As a net can be a divine weapon, so can an incantation. As a net can entangle birds or fish in its fine mesh, so can an incantation snare demons and other malevolent forces.

When such an incantation needed to be reversed, then the ritual practitioner would merely unravel it like twine and dispose of its individual parts. Specialists could also annul the “spell” by untying the “knots” of the incantation’s net. Should speed be a factor, then the expert could rip apart the twine or tuft of wool. Throwing it into fire would assure its complete destruction.— Cursed Are You!, page 291

Separation as curse. No. Wait. This is wrong

What is most curious about the Exodus account is the disjunction between the traditional interpretation of separation due to heavenly malediction and affiliation due to benediction. Typically, what is cursed is banished from the deity, and what is blessed is kept near the deity. It is peculiar that the “blessed” Israelites are expelled into the wilderness in a manner synonymous with those who are “cursed.” As we have seen, the feature of separation associated with expulsion into the wilderness is synonymous with two fundamental precepts related to curses: (1) divine absence and (2) advancement toward death. In this case, the opposite occurs. The Israelites not only find life in the wilderness but they also encounter Yahweh himself in the very place where deities are thought to be absent.

The Exodus account has turned a conventional maxim on its head. The Israelites, whom the Egyptians believed were cursed and whom they treated as such, turn out in fact to be blessed. This flies in the face of ancient customary wisdom, which held that the target of divine curses, the Egyptians, should have been expelled and not the Israelites, who were the object of heavenly blessings. One might classify this narrative as an exceptional example of positive separation, because it ultimately benefited those who were dismissed.— Cursed Are You!, page 244

Quick! Duck!

The ancient Near Easterners also assumed that once an angered deity departed, he or she would do so using a flurry of curses. Since this is a typical reaction among outraged human beings, there is no reason to believe that the deities behaved any differently. Accordingly, like their human counterparts, if a deity did utter imprecations, it was more than likely that he or she delivered them in a gust of multiple expletives. True anger never allows for only one malediction. A deep seated fury is hot and vociferous. It naturally produces many curses.— Cursed Are You!, page 227

<idle musing>
And, as always, we reason from the given—what we see around us—to the divine. The given is what we know, so we figure that the divine must be like what we already know. Makes sense, right?

Well, it does unless there is divine self-revelation, that is. No wonder we see curses thrown at us in Genesis 3. No wonder we end up with a mad god who needs to be placated. No wonder we can't fathom a doctrine like theosis. No wonder we can't fathom the incarnation as emptying. No wonder we can't imagine any method other than coercive violence and war to be effective. No wonder...and the list goes on and on.

We end up huddling in our little walled city, scared to death of everything. We use any means we can to protect ourselves. Any means that is except embracing a loving God who willingly died so that we might really live. That is unfathomable, too good to be true. But it is true...

Well, that rabbit trail went a long way from the angered deity throwing curses, but I think it illustrates the radical difference between a monotheistic viewpoint with an all-loving deity and a polytheistic outlook that by necessity is always looking over its shoulder, waiting for the other shoe to fall...
</idle musing>

Capricious, that's what they were

In general, the ancient Near Easterners believed that deities withdrew because they were angry. The cause of this divine ire could be due to a wide variety of human offenses: sin, insult, error, crime, curse, and so on. Although intentionality is occasionally mentioned, it played a rather small role in the overall scheme of things because the divine response was always the same: anger followed by abandonment. So in the end, it really didn’t matter whether one intentionally or unintentionally exasperated the gods and goddesses.— Cursed Are You!, page 226

Quick, get a guardian angel!

When the deities depart, bad things happen. Every ancient Near Easterner knew this regardless of the time period or culture. An Old Assyrian Lamaštu text from Kaneš (ca. 1920–1840) describes why the demoness is able to target someone: 18a-na be-el la2 i-li-im 19i-ša-ru-um 20ate2-še2-er ‘She heads directly toward the person without a deity’ A Sumerian inim inim ma dingir udug-ḫul-kam ‘incantation against an evil demon’ states that the demon šul dingir nu-tuku gaba rig8-ga ‘confronts the youth who has not acquired a deity’. Without the protection of the divine realm, all sorts of hostile beings could attack an unsuspecting individual.— Cursed Are You!, page 225

<idle musing>
Yep. And we still think that, why else would be be so huge on guardian angels and "spirit guides" (or whatever you want to call them)?

The first step in a curse was to either get the person's personal deity (^dLamma) to abandon them or to get a more powerful deity to endorse your curse. Once the person's personal deity was neutralized, you could do whatever you wanted to them; they were helpless.

But you don't see that stuff in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, do you? What happened? Why not? Think about it and take a shot at it in the comments.
</idle musing>