Ginza Rba (The Great Treasure) by Majid Fandi Al-Mubaraki; Haithim Mahdi Saaed; Brian

Mubaraki; Qulasta: The Mandaean Liturgical Prayer Book, Book 1: Sidra ḏ Nišmata (Book of
Souls) by Majid Fandi Al-Mubaraki; Haithim Mahdi Saaed; Brian Mubaraki
Review by: Matthew Morgenstern
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 121, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 2001), pp. 692-693
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/606534 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 21:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
692 Journal of the American Oriental Society 121.4 (2001)
introduction (pp. ix-xlii) guides the reader to the most typical
or the most revealing examples of the translator'smerits and
demerits. Where the validity of the Greek renderingis at issue,
Wevers exercises his own judgment but furnishes us with what
we need to come to a different conclusion independently. On
32:4 I agree substantially with him:
According to MT [the Mas(s)oretic Hebrew text], Yahweh
smote (,D17)the land representedby the towns of v. 3, be-
fore the assembly of Israel. Num did not translate;r77, prob-
ably because this was an overly graphic way of describing
Yahweh's direction of Israel's affairs, and substituted ccape-
6OK?V [he delivered, handed over], probably relying on
21:34, where the Lord nap&6coKEv the Amorites to Israel.
(p. 528, cf. p. xxxiii)
I would rank nap&ScoKEv as an intentional paraphrase.
Very seldom do I find Wevers mistaken about something
pertinent:
At 19:12 the Hithp[ael] Kutnnroccurs twice. Num, however,
with fine insight renders the first one by the middle ayvt-
CGorETat, but the second one by a passive dcpayvtoO.f
According to Num he must cleanse himself ... and he will
be clean. But if he is not cleansed... he will not be clean.
This shows astute understanding. [p. xxvii, Wevers' dots;
cf. also pp. 316-17]
But both Greek verb-forms are passive, as the crucial syllable
0rq indicates: dyvtoiocs'Tat 'he will be cleansed' (future pas-
sive), d(payvlo0i(l) 'he was cleansed off' (aorist passive sub-
junctive, with the Greek prefix added although it does not
represent any morpheme in Hebrew). The future middle would
be &yviElTat, not found anywhere in the Greek Bible. The trans-
lator's phrasing is good enough; but the subtlety that Wevers
reads into it is misperceived. Such confusion can overtake even
a great scholar; not all the first-year lessons in ancient Greek
grammarhad been implanted unerringly in his mind.2
The movement among the Hellenistic Jews to translate the
Hebrew Scriptures had more influence upon the Occidental
world than any other translation before or after; for the Sep-
tuagint was pivotal as a foundation of the Christian religion.
Granted, then, its historical import, the Septuagint also de-
serves to be appreciated as a permanent supplement-and the
most necessary supplement-to the many gaps and uncertain-
2 See his
article, "Apologia pro Vita Mea: Reflections on a
Career in Septuagint Studies," Bulletin of the International
Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 32 (1999):
65-66.
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ties in our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew. Towardthat laudable
end, John William Wevers has made an enormous and unique
contribution.3
SAULLEVIN
STATEUNIVERSITYOF NEW YORK AT BINGHAMTON
3 The
appendix (pp. 608-9) offers thirty-some changes from
the text of his critical edition of 1982. Most of them are very
small, adding or dropping a comma, shifting from a comma to a
colon, and the like.
Ginza Rba (The Great Treasure). Edited by MAJIDFANDIAL-
MUBARAKI, HAITHIM MAHDISAAED,and BRIANMUBAR-
AKI.Sidney: MAJIDFANDIAL-MUBARAKI, n.d. $265.
Qulasta: The Mandaean Liturgical Prayer Book, Book 1:
Sidra d Nismata (Book of Souls). Edited by MAJIDFANDI
AL-MUBARAKI, HAITHIM MAHDISAAED,and BRIANMUBA-
RAKI.Sidney: MAJIDFANDIAL-MUBARAKI, n.d.
The volumes under review are somewhat unusual subjects
for an academic journal, in that they are neither the result of
modem critical scholarship,nor published by an academic press.
However, owing to their historical importance, it is worth tak-
ing note of their appearance, and passing some comment on
their contributionto the fields of Semitic and religious studies.
The two volumes in question are the first printed publica-
tions of the Mandaic community, the only surviving Gnostic
sect, whose written works provide the richest source of Gnostic
literature in a Semitic language. Although academic study of
the Mandaeans and their literatureis not new, it has tended to
be sporadic and concentrated in the hands of a few specialist
scholars. The philological groundwork for the modern aca-
demic study of Mandaic literature was laid by two great Se-
mitists, Noeldeke and Lidzbarski, and in more recent years
Mandaic studies have been particularly associated with the
names of Rudoph Macuch and Kurt Rudolph. Unique among
observers of the Mandaeans was Lady E. Drower, whose per-
sonal relationship with Mandaeancommunities in Iran and Iraq
led to her classic study of their rituals, and allowed her access
to many writings previously unavailable to Western scholars.
Drower's collection is now held at the Bodleian Library in
Oxford. Drower also collaborated with Macuch in producing a
Mandaic dictionary.
The vast majority of recent publications of Mandaic texts
have been the work of Drower. These publications usually con-
 Reviews of Books
tain a brief introduction,an English translationof the text with
occasional philological footnotes, and a photographicreproduc-
tion of the manuscript. These facsimiles are often difficult to
read, either because the original writing was small and clumsy,
failing to distinguish between similar letters, or because the re-
production is of poor quality and much of the writing is blur-
red. In those editions in which the facsimile is accompanied by
a transcription, the transcription is always in Roman letters.
Moreover, Drower never published an edition of the Ginza, for
which the only critical text available remains the Petermann
edition, which has long been unavailable.
The two volumes dealt with here therefore represent an im-
portant breakthrough.For the first time, lengthy Mandaic texts
have been published using a printed typeface (computer font)
that clearly distinguishes the differentletter forms. The typeface
itself, while clearly Mandaic in character, diverges somewhat
from the written letter forms and is closer to that of the Mandaic
type used in some early German publications. The clear font
has renderedthese Mandaic works easy to read, and overall the
volumes provide a basic text that may serve as a welcome intro-
duction to these classic Mandaic works.
The volumes have occasional printing errors. The following
examples are gleaned from some of the opening sections of the
Ginza Yamina:
p. 2, 1. 19: for waudin read wmaudin.
p. 5, 1. 7: for mhaynata read mhaymnata.
p. 14, 1. 17: for dahda read dahba.
p. 14, 1. 21: for ulpatikuria read ulpatikria.
p. 17, 1. 14: for milka read malka.
p. 18, 1. 6: for dkhuln read dkulhun.
p. 20, 1. 24: for latikuln read latiklun.
p. 21, 1. 29: for ubatlh read ubalta.
p. 41, 1. 24: for nafqitqun read nafqitun.
The decision to launch the series with such a lengthy work
as the Ginza is admirable, and the fact that this work was car-
ried out by members of the Mandaeancommunity itself, and is
intended for their own use, is also of importance. It is to be
hoped that these publications may signal the start of Man-
daean involvement in the study and publication of their rich lit-
erary heritage, and also aid in the preservation of this ancient
religion. It is perhaps ironic (and of significance) that this re-
vival is taking place in Australia, far from the Mandaeans'
provenance.
Given that the primaryintention of these editions is that they
should serve the needs of the Mandaean community, it may
perhaps be churlish to bemoan the fact that they do not fulfill
the needs of modern academic scholarship. The need for a full
critical edition of the Ginza, taking account of the develop-
ments in Aramaic and Gnostic studies, was already highlighted
This content downloaded from 91.229.229.44 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:29:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
693
by Rudolph in 1976.1 Rudolph expressed regret at the lack of
critical editions of Mandaic works, and noted some of the prob-
lems-technical and logistical-involved in producing such
editions. For the Ginza, Rudolph noted several manuscripts
found in Europeanlibraries, and also additional manuscriptsin
the hands of Mandaeansin the East. The editions under review
here present eclectic texts; in the case of the Ginza, the text is
based mainly on three manuscripts, while the prayerbook is
essentially a transcription of the text found in the Drower
collection. While the prayerbook is preserved in the Drower
manuscripts in a more complete form, there are still many
places where the manuscripts used by Lidzbarski preserve su-
perior readings, particularly on a grammatical level. Only full
critical editions will fulfill the needs of modern academic study
of the Mandaean language and literature.
The achievements of the current editions may be of great
benefit for the preparationof a critical edition. The ability to
print Mandaic on a computer is of tremendous importance for
facilitating the production of such an edition. The materials
may be more easily gathered, printed, and corrected, and the
clarity of the font used here aids in the prevention of confusion
between letters. The computerized text of the Ginza formed in
the production of the current edition may serve as a basis
for the search for parallels and rare words, even if the text on
which it is based is not always perfect. Finally, it is to be
hoped that the involvement of members of the Mandaeancom-
munity in the production of a critical edition indicates a will-
ingness to provide access to manuscripts currently unavailable
to Western scholars. The results of such cooperation would be
of great interest both to scholars and to members of the com-
munity themselves.
The Mubarakifamily is to be thanked for providing us with
the most readable editions of Mandaic texts available in the
Mandaic script today. They have turnedthe reading of the great
Ginza from a chore into a pleasure, and for this I, as a lover and
teacher of Aramaic literature, am personally most grateful.
nuhuia hailh Clayhun!
MATTHEW MORGENSTERN
TEL Aviv UNIVERSITY
1 K.
Rudolph, "Die mandaische Literature-Bemerkungen
zum Stand ihrer Textausgaben und zur Vorbereitung einer
Ginza-Edition,"in Zur Sprache und Literaturder Mandaer, ed.
R. Macuch (Berlin, 1976), 147-70, esp. 166-70.