Mandaeism in Antiquity and The Antiquity of Mandaeism

Religion Compass 6/5 (2012): 262–276, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00349.
Mandaeism in Antiquity and the Antiquity of Mandaeism

Charles G. Häberl*
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Abstract
The evidence for a history of Mandaeism during the period of Late Antiquity (3rd–8th c. CE)
and its evolution as a religious tradition prior to and immediately following the advent of Islam is
surveyed. This evidence includes the Mandaean manuscript tradition, the testimony of outside
witnesses, and the corpus of incantation texts from Late Antique Mesopotamia. It is noted that the
study of this evidence has typically been subsumed under the study of related traditions, and that
it could benefit from a reassessment. The issues addressed include Mandaeism’s relationship to
other religions, such as Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Manichaeism, the antiquity and
authenticity of its traditions, and the extent of Islamic influence upon them.
Introduction
As the only Gnostic religion to survive from the period Late Antiquity to the present
date, Mandaeism is unique among the religions of the world, and the sole surviving
inheritor to one of the world’s most widespread and influential religious traditions. The
sacred texts and liturgy through which it is expounded are recorded in a dialect of Ara-
maic, and compose one of that language’s largest corpora. Its adherents have preserved
both spoken and written forms of their language, as well as a complex body of rituals and
a developed commentarial tradition. Despite the survival of their tradition and the fact
that Western scholars have been in contact with them for over four and a half centuries,
the history of scholarship on the Mandaeans is one of fits and starts, separated by long
periods of virtual inactivity, and many important questions about their faith remain unan-
swered (Yamauchi 1966).
How did this state of affairs arise? To borrow a metaphor from the life sciences, the
study of Mandaeism, much like the study of Gnosticism in general, has been phylogenetic
rather than purely taxonomic, which is to say that it has primarily been concerned with
the question of the origins of Mandaeism, and most particularly its relationship to other
faith traditions, such as Christianity, Judaism, and the ensemble of traditions deemed
Gnostic, rather than identifying what Mandaeism per se entails and isolating which param-
eters might be useful in determining the limits of this category.
That is not to say that a description of Mandaeism cannot benefit from scholarship of
this sort, just as the taxonomy of living creatures is richly informed by phylogenetics, but
it is precisely here that the biological metaphor fails, as cultures, unlike organisms, do not
descend in neat pedigrees from a single ancestor, and therefore cannot be organized into
clades, despite the best efforts of scholars to do so. Even so, it might still be hoped that
sufficient ‘‘family resemblances’’ will emerge to allow us to identify what constitutes the
category of Mandaeism and trace its antecedents into the period of antiquity. While the
study of Mandaeism can never be completely autonomous from other disciplines, it can
at least be approached in a holistic manner that acknowledges it as a subject worthy of
study in its own right.
ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Mandaeism in Antiquity and the Antiquity of Mandaeism 263
Furthermore, the study of Mandaeism still has much to offer these other disciplines, as
much for the potential that their living hermeneutical tradition offers for the study of
Gnostic texts (Buckley 2002), as for the crucial differences between their religion and
other currently extinct Gnostic sects, particularly in the realm of ethics (Yamauchi 1970).
While the relationship of Mandaeism to these other Gnostic sects has long been a matter
of debate, and the validity of traditional scholarly conceptions about what constitutes
Gnosticism has lately come into question (King 2003), Mandaeism shares numerous
important features with the other sects that have been called Gnostic. Few scholars of
Gnosticism or the history of religions would argue that the discovery of a library of
manuscripts at the Egyptian site of Nag Hammadi in 1945 was one of the most significant
of the 20th century, on a par with the discovery of the ‘‘Dead Sea Scrolls’’ at Khirbet
Qumran.1 Within 14 years, translations of multiple texts from this corpus had emerged,
and an English translation of the entire corpus was first published in 1978 (Robinson
1978), building upon E.J. Brill’s series of translations and facsimiles of the manuscripts, of
which the last appeared in 1996. Comparisons between the post-1945 reception of these
two corpora cannot be escaped; only a few of the principal Mandaean texts have ever
been published in facsimile format, let alone in a critical edition, and while most have
been translated into English, English translations of such critical texts as the Great Treasure
(Mandaic Ginza Rba) or the Doctrine of John (Draša d-Iahia) have yet to appear.2
That the Mandaean corpus should have received comparatively less scholarly attention
over the past six decades is remarkable. Think of how much easier (and considerably less
speculative) the process of collecting, editing, and translating the Nag Hammadi texts
would have been, had the community or communities that produced these texts not only
been actively preserving them throughout the ages, but also producing translations of
them into languages of scholarship like Arabic and English. It can hardly be denied that
our understanding of these texts has been immeasurably enriched through our acquain-
tance with the living community, but surprisingly the Nag Hammadi texts have received
considerably more scholarly attention.
Who are the Mandaeans?

The somewhat bewildering (and occasionally misleading) array of names that have been
used by this group and that have been applied to it by outsiders presents the first signifi-
cant obstacle to its understanding. The name ‘‘Mandaeans,’’ used herein to refer to all
members of this group unless otherwise noted, is typically applied in its texts to lay
adherents of the faith, in contrast to members of the priesthood (cf. Lidzbarski 1915, 237,
1925, 5; To the latter was sometimes applied the term ‘‘Nazarenes’’ or ‘‘Nasoreans’’
(Nasuraiia; cf. Lidzbarski 1925, 296–97), which refers to those thoroughly schooled _ in
_
the priestly craft (nasiruta; cf. Drower 1953, 7).
After the advent _of Islam, the name ‘‘Sabians’’ (Arabic Sabı’ah or Subbah) came to be
applied to them as well as other unrelated groups, and the_ Mandaeans _ are still known as
such throughout much of the Middle East. As a consequence, the diasporan communities
throughout the world often employ the double-barred moniker ‘‘Sabian Mandaean,’’
combining exonym with autonym. The Mandaeans were also known (albeit inappropri-
ately) to Europeans as ‘‘St. John Christians’’ after their initial encounter with Catholic
missionaries in the mid-16th century (Lupieri 2002, 69); while use of this particular
exonym is today deprecated, it nonetheless continues to appear in some surprising places
(Drower 1937, 2).
ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Religion Compass 6/5 (2012): 262–276, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00349.x
264 Mandaeism in Antiquity and the Antiquity of Mandaeism
The complex theology of the Mandaeans defies any attempt at generalization, but there
are nonetheless some features of their faith that serve to compare and contrast them with
other faiths from the same region and which might therefore be deemed diagnostic.
According to Stefana Drower (1960, xvi), these features include a supreme being which
delegates the creation of the material and spiritual worlds to beings of its own creation;
dualism, which manifests itself in binary oppositions such as good and evil, light and
darkness, the material and the spiritual, and so on; the concept of the soul as an exile and
a prisoner in the material world; a belief in the influence of the planets and stars, which
are places of detention after death; a savior spirit which assists the soul in its journey to
the afterlife; ‘mysteries’ or sacraments to aid and purify the soul, based upon preexisting
seasonal or traditional rites; an esoteric cult language of metaphors and personified ideas;
and the secrecy which is enjoined upon its initiates.
The origins of the Mandaeans as a distinct religious community and their early history
remain shrouded in myths and legends, which unfold in territory familiar to Jews, Chris-
tians, and Muslims. According to their traditions, theirs was the faith first disclosed to
Adam, the first man, and preserved by a portion of his descendants to the present date
through a series of periodic destructions, of which the deluge was the third and most
recent (Drower 1937; 258–61; Lidzbarski 1925, 407–10). As in the Bible and the Qur’an,
Noah (Nu) and his immediate family were the sole human survivors of the deluge, and it
is through his son Shem (Šum) that the contemporary community descends, all other
races deriving from his other children (Drower 1937; 261). Intriguingly, the Mandaeans
also number the Egyptians among their ancestors, and by means of an extraordinary her-
meneutical inversion it is the Israelites, not the Egyptians, who are the villains in their
account of the Israelites’ flight from Egypt (Lidzbarski 1925, 410).
One of the few primary sources for the history of the Mandaeans in antiquity is the
Scroll of Inner Harran (Drower 1953), an account ostensibly detailing their own flight from
the region of the Levant (either Egypt or Jerusalem) to ‘‘the hill country of the Madai
called Inner Harran,’’ and their subsequent resettlement in southern Mesopotamia, in
keeping with their oral traditions (vii–viii).3 The initial exodus, provoked by friction with
their Jewish neighbors, was made possible through the agency of the Arsacid emperor
Ardawan.4 Although the text is legendary, it refers to historical events such as the
destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (in 70 CE) and the defeat of the Arsacids
at the hands of the Sasanids (in 224 CE). The final composition of the text can be
securely dated after the advent of Islam, since it addresses the aftermath of the Islamic
conquest of Mesopotamia in 633 CE (14–16). It is perhaps significant that the Scroll of
Inner Harran nowhere refers to the Mandaeans as such, instead employing the term
‘‘Nasorean’’ exclusively.
_
Numerous locales have been proposed for ‘‘Inner Harran,’’ including the city of
Harran on the Turkish border with Syria southeast of Şanlıurfa (Segal 1956; 375) and the
_region around Jabal Hauran near the Syrian border with Jordan and Israel, which was
known to the Romans _ as Auranitis (Lidzbarski 1925; vi). Jorunn Buckley (2010, 293) has
recently identified it with yet another candidate, Wadı Hauran, which is the principle
affluent of the Euphrates in the Syrian desert.5 Anne Blunt _ (1881, 235–40) and Gertrude
Bell (1911, 131–32) both relate local traditions according to which Wadı Hauran is one
of three valleys that communicate between the Jabal Hauran and the Euphrates, _ despite
_
the fact that its source is actually Jabal ‘Anazah (or ‘Unayzah), located where the borders
of Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia converge.
The geographer Claudius Ptolemy, writing during the first half of the second-century
CE, identifies the region of Babylonia watered by Wadı Hauran as the Auranitis in Book
_
5, Chapter 17 of his Geography. Although the Wadı Hauran doesn’t actually begin in the
Jabal Hauran, the aforementioned traditions place its _source there, effectively making the
_
two Auranitides contiguous in the mental geography of the region, even if they are not
contiguous in its physical geography. Although this Auranitis can hardly be identified
with the ‘‘hill country of the Medians,’’ as most scholars have translated, T ura d-Madai,
it is nonetheless located in close proximity to both the Arsacid capital and the present-
day distribution of the Mandaeans, making it a considerably more plausible candidate than
any of the others thus far advanced.
Mandaean Literature
Even if the Mandaean literature does not offer much in the way of direct evidence for
their history in antiquity, it may nonetheless offer critical indirect evidence.
Much has been made of the fact that no known copies of the Mandaean scriptures ante-
date the 16th century (the oldest being the Bodleian Library’s MS Marshall 691, copied in
1529, according to Buckley 2010, 268), and that occasional references to Islam and the
prophet Muhammad within them provide a terminus post quem for their final redaction of
sometime during the 7th century. For example, Svend Pallis (1926, 118) argues that any
points of similarity between the Jewish and the Mandaean scriptures were acquired
through contact with Islam. In a similar vein, Hans Lietzmann (1930, 139–40) argues that
Mandaeism is largely a product of the post-Islamic era and that its present form owes most
to Christianity, the Mandaean baptism being derived from the East Syrian Christian lit-
urgy. More recently, the theory of Islamic influence upon Mandaean traditions has been
revived in a modified form by Edmondo Lupieri, who argues that while that the tradition
of John the Baptist as a predecessor to Jesus was present in Mandaeism ‘‘right from the
beginning,’’ his consolidation as a prophet is a post-Islamic development (Lupieri 2002,
162–65). Likewise, Jennifer Hart (2010) contends that the Mandaean depiction of figures
like Miriai and Iuhana owes less to the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist of Christianity,
and more to their Qur’anic counterparts, Maryam bint ‘Imran and Yah: ya ibn Zakarıya.
Nevertheless, a decisive consensus has ultimately emerged in favor of the antiquity of Man-
daean traditions (e.g. Buckley 2002, 2010; Macuch 1965; Rudolph 1960–61, 1996;
Schou-Pedersen 1940). While the manuscripts themselves are late, the antiquity of the
texts contained therein is demonstrated by considerable data, which cannot be discounted.
The Mandaic script, for example, is unique to their community, and is clearly not a
product of the seventh century. Lidzbarski (1909) and Macuch (1971) identify it as a cur-
sive, ligatured form of the Palmyrene or Nabataean script, and other epigraphers have
identified it with the second-century Elymaic (Naveh 1970) and Characenean (Coxon
1970) scripts. I have recently (2006) argued that it is more conservative than either of
these two scripts, and that all three possibly derive from the script of the Parthian chan-
cery. If this is correct, then the Mandaeans must have adopted their script at some point
during the latter half of the period of Arsacid rule, and more specifically between the sec-
ond half of the first century and the end of the second century, providing a terminus post
quem for the emergence of a Mandaean literary tradition.6 The palaeographic evidence is
corroborated by the colophons associated with the texts.
Starting in the first millennium BCE, the convention of appending colophons to the
end of compositions became widespread within the Near East. These short texts, separate
from the main works, contain information useful for their identification, such as the titles
under which they were known, the name or names of their copyists, and the circum-
stances under which they were copied (Charpin 2010, 183). This same practice continues
to be followed by the Mandaeans to the present date, and the colophons of the major
Mandaean texts have been extensively researched by Buckley (2010). Intriguingly, some
of these texts contain not one colophon but several ones, indicating that several works
have been combined into a single manuscript; the Great Treasure contains seven different
colophons, and the Canonical Prayerbook contains no fewer than eight. These colophons
relate the complete chain of copyists for each section, demonstrating the antiquity of
these sections relative to one another and to the times and circumstances in which they
were copied.
Buckley (2010, 172–73) notes that the earliest datable Mandaean scribe, a contempo-
rary of the prophet Mani (d. 276 CE) by the name of Zazai of Gawazta, must have flour-
ished around 270 CE. Four of the eight colophons in the Canonical Prayerbook list either
Zazai or his brother as their first copyist. The final colophon of the Great Treasure, which
divides the ‘‘left’’ volume of the text from its ‘‘right’’ volume, extends even further, enu-
merating fully three generations of copyists before him, of which two are represented by
women. Obviously, the existence of copyists in the third century presumes the existence
of not only the texts themselves, but also a community to sustain them. Buckley also
argues forcefully in favor of the antiquity of the esoteric commentarial tradition, as repre-
sented by manuscripts such as the Thousand and Twelve Questions and the Scroll of Exalted
Kingship (288). Both of these texts contain colophons that begin with the ubiquitous
Zazai of Gawazta. Her research suggests that the process of collecting and collating these
manuscripts must have been accomplished within a relatively narrow time frame, after
the advent of Islam but prior to the beginning of the 8th century (177–78).
In addition to the script, which indicates that the Mandaean literary tradition began no
later than the end of the second century, and the colophons, which indicate that the old-
est portions of the Mandaean scriptures were being copied already at the beginning of
the third, parallel traditions or Nebenüberlieferungen indicate that these same texts were
sometimes adopted and circulated by the adherents of neighboring religious traditions
prior to the advent of Islam. Torgny Säve-Söderberg (1949, 156–58) summarizes the
Nebenüberlieferungen that were known to him at the time, including a formula from
the death mass of the Valentinians, reported by the Christian heresiographer Irenaeus in
the second century, and the Manichaean legend of Adam, related by the eighth century
scholar Theodore bar Konay and the tenth century scholar Muhammad ibn Ish: aq
al-Nadım, which parallels that of Adam in the ‘‘left’’ volume of the _Great Treasure. The
former also quotes another portion of the same work, which he attributes to a fourth
group, the K nataye (Pognon 1898, 233–44; Kruisheer 1993–94, 154–55). In addition to
e
Säve-Söderberg contributes his own significant discovery of substantial
this other material,
portions of the Great Treasure and the Doctrine of John reproduced word-for-word within
the fourth-century Coptic Psalms of Thomas.
The early hypothesis that all Jewish and Christian figures found in the Mandaean scrip-
tures are later ‘‘accretions’’ resulting from contact with Islam is simply not supported by
any of the evidence. ‘‘Biblical’’ figures like Adam and Seth are central to the scriptures,
including those identified by their colophons as the earliest portions. While Lupieri and
Hart argue that the Mandaean portrayal of figures like Miriai and Iuhana has evolved
through contact with Islam, neither suggests that these figures were introduced in the
Islamic period. Though John is indeed given a double-barred name, Mandaic Iuhana
and Arabic Yah: ya, he appears exclusively under his Mandaean name in precisely those
portions of the scriptures that are the most ancient, as indicated by their colophons
(Buckley 2010, 277). If John is indeed a later ‘‘accretion’’ to Mandaic tradition, as
Rudolph (1960–61, 66–80) and others have suggested, introduced solely to reassure
Muslims of Mandaeism’s legitimacy, why would he not be identified throughout by his

Arabic name? Likewise, the Mandaean scriptures reserve the few occurrences of the
Arabic name Maryam for the mother of Jesus, who is nowhere identified with the
Mandaean Miriai. As the latter name would undoubtedly be unfamiliar to a Muslim
audience, why is she not explicitly identified with her Qur’anic equivalent, as John is?
External Witnesses
In the absence of further historical information from the Mandaean sources, we must turn
to the testimony of three external witnesses for information about the Mandaeans in antiq-
uity. Unfortunately, some ambiguity attends these testimonies. The first such witness, the
third-century CE Sasanian priest Kirdır, boasts in his inscription at Naqš-i Rustam that
In kingdom after kingdom and place after place throughout the whole empire, the services of
Ahura Mazda and the yazds became preeminent, and great dignity came to the Mazda-worship-
ing religion and the Magi in the empire, and the yazds and water and fire and small cattle in
the empire attained great satisfaction, while Ahriman and the demons were punished and
rebuked, and the teachings of Ahriman and the demons departed from the empire and were
abandoned. And the Jews (yhwdy), Buddhists (šmny), Brahmins (blmny), ‘‘Nazarenes’’ (n’čl’y),
Christians (klstyd’n), ‘‘Baptists’’ (mktky), and Manichaeans (zndyky) in the empire were smitten,
and destruction of idols and scattering of the stores of the demons and god-seats and nests was
abandoned (Inscription of Kirdir KKZ 9–10, MacKenzie 1989).
Several Iranists, including Werner Sundermann (1977), H.W. Bailey (1980), and Philippe
Gignoux (1991), see a general reference to the baptizing communities of southern Iraq in
the hapax mktky.7 It is also possible that Kirdır refers to the Mandaeans specifically under
the term n’čl’y ‘‘Nazarenes,’’ cognate with the aforementioned ‘‘Nasoreans,’’ even if some
maintain that he intends the Christians, whom he also mentions_ separately (Jullien &
Jullien 2002).
The earliest unambiguous account of the Mandaeans appears in the final chapter of the
Book of the Scholion by the aforementioned eighth-century Syriac heresiographer Theodore
bar Konay. Explicitly naming them Mandaeans (Syriac Mandaye), he claims that their faith
was established by a family of work-shy mendicants who settled in the southern part of Mes-
opotamia, sustaining themselves by demanding hand-outs from passers-by. He identifies
their homeland as Bet Aramaye (i.e. upper Mesopotamia, a territory that encompasses the
Auranitis of ClaudiusPtolemy), and mentions that they were still known in that region as
‘‘Nazarenes’’ (Syriac Nasraye), employing the same term as Kirdır.8 As unusual (and uncom-
_ of their origins is, bar Konay demonstrates a surprising familiarity
plimentary) as his account
with their doctrine, even including a brief extract from the Great Treasure (Pognon 1898,
245–55; Kruisheer 1993–94). Although he writes shortly after the advent of Islam, he assigns
their arrival in southern Mesopotamia unambiguously to the pre-Islamic period.
While the Mandaeans seemingly disappear from the historical record until their initial
encounters with European missionaries in the mid-16th century (for which, see Lupieri
2002, 61–113), it is nonetheless likely that they are one of several groups identified as
‘‘Sabians’’ by Muslim historians. The eleventh-century scholar Abu Rayh: an al-Bırunı
mentions two such groups in his Book of the Remaining Signs of Past Centuries:
Again, others maintain that the Harrânians are not the real Sabians, but those who are called in
_ For the Sabians are the _ remnant of the Jewish tribes who
the books Heathens and Idolaters.
remained in Babylonia, when the other tribes_ left it for Jerusalem in the days of Cyrus and Art-
axerxes. Those remaining tribes felt themselves attracted to the rites of the Magians, and so they
inclined (were inclined, i.e. Sâbı̂) towards the religion of Nebukadnezzar, and adopted a system
mixed up of Magianism and _ Judaism like that of the Samaritans in Syria.
The greatest number of them are settled at Wâsit, in Sawâd-al‘irâk, in the districts of Jafar, Aljâ-
mida, and the two Nahr-alsila. They pretend to_ be the descendants of Enos the son of Seth.
_
They differ from the Harrânians, blaming their doctrines and not agreeing with them except in
_
few matters. In praying, even, they turn towards the north pole, whilst the Harrânians turn
towards the south pole (translated by Sachau 1879, 188). _
As succinct as this description is, there is much within it to recommend an identification

of al-Bırunı’s Sabians with the Mandaeans, beyond the facts of their geographic location
and the direction in which they pray.9 In particular, considerable evidence attests to a
connection between Mandaeism and Judaism. The principal Mandaean sacrament, bap-
tism in flowing water, finds an obvious analogue in the Christian ritual, but it was equally
characteristic of certain other heterodox Jewish sects that are known to have occupied
first-century Roman Judaea (Segelberg 1958, pp. 155 ff.; Rudolph 1965, pp. 367 ff.,
1996; pp. 569 ff.; Rudolph 1999). Places and figures also known from the Hebrew Bible
are constantly referenced by their sacred scriptures (Lidzbarski 1915, xvi), and as Green-
field (1981) has shown, one section of the Great Treasure contains direct references to
Psalm 114 and Isaiah 5. Furthermore, the Mandaeans do indeed recognize Seth (Šitil),
and Enos (Anuš) among their ancestors, although it must be noted that they do not con-
sider Enos to be the son of Seth but rather his brother.
The profound Iranian influence upon the Mandaeans, suggested by the ‘‘rites of the
Magians’’ to which al-Bırunı refers, is reflected by their language, their literature, their
calendar, and even their religious rituals (Reitzenstein 1929; Rudolph 2008a,b; Widen-
gren 1960), to the extent that two leading authorities on these traditions, Drower and
Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, consider them to be ‘‘semi-Zoroastrian’’ or even an ‘‘offshoot of
Zoroastrianism’’ (Rudolph 2008b). Many of the spiritual beings that populate the Man-
daean world, malevolent and benevolent alike, have Iranian names, as does much of their
cultic and ritual terminology.
The ‘‘religion of Nebukadnezzar,’’ on the other hand, may refer to the role of the
planets and the signs of the Zodiac, known collectively as the ‘‘Seven’’ (šuba) and the
‘‘Twelve’’ (trisar), even if their influence is considered to be malign rather than benefi-
cent. Their names are all unsurprisingly derived from the Mesopotamian tradition, as they
are in other neighboring traditions. Their presence in the worldview of the Mandaeans is
one of the chief reasons for which they have been condemned as idolaters and star-wor-
shippers, although the belief in the influence of demons and the heavenly bodies upon
the fates of man is not by any means limited to them. Additionally, Müller-Kessler and
Kwasman (2000, 164 fn. 15) see a survival of an ‘‘Akkadian magical ritual concept’’ in
the sequence of eating bread, drinking water, and anointing with oil found in an incanta-
tion text, which in turn parallels the Mandaean ‘‘sacraments’’ of the ritual oil (miša),
bread (pihta), and water (mambuha) in the baptism ritual (Drower 1937, 114).
In short, the testimony of external witnesses, ambiguous as it is, tends to support the
Mandaeans’ own traditions, including that of a migration to southern Mesopotamia in
pre-Islamic times.
Archaeological Evidence
In contrast with the testimony of the Mandaean manuscripts and external witnesses about
Mandaeism in antiquity, the archaeological record seems quite sparse. The Mandaeans
Fig. 1. Map of Late Antique Mesopotamia indicating all provenanced and reputed findspots of Mandaic incantation
texts, correlated with some cities, regions, and other locations that appear in Mandaic literature.
have not left behind distinctive architectural remains, ceramic assemblages, specie, or any
other examples of the plastic arts. The sole archaeological witnesses to the presence of
Mandaeans in the region are the incantation texts composed in the Mandaic script and
either inscribed upon pottery bowls or incised into sheets of metal. The former date
between the fifth and the eighth century CE (Hunter 1996, 220), and the latter likely
belong to a slightly earlier date, between the fourth and the seventh century (Müller-
Kessler 1999, 197). The distribution of these texts, illustrated in Figure 1, corresponds
closely to the evidence provided by the Mandaean literature and the external witnesses
during the Sasanian and early Islamic eras.
These texts represent the Mandaean contribution to a broader corpus of incantations
that transcend confessional boundaries, and appear in different scripts reflecting different
religious traditions, imparting much valuable information about the religions of those
who composed them (Morony 2007). Some of the earliest Mandaic incantations, such as
the lead amulet published by Lidzbarski (1909), attest to a developed Mandaean theology.
While none of the incantation bowls thus far discovered reproduce any substantial
portion of the canonical Mandaean scriptures, they do frequently incorporate individual
formulae also found within Mandaean scripture, raising intriguing questions about the
relationship of these two corpora that have thus far not been addressed. For example, the
‘‘right’’ volume of the Great Treasure lists the various forms that the children of the King
of Darkness assume:
The darkness grew and multiplied into demons (sahria), devils (dauia), shades (šidia), liliths
(liliata), the spirits (ruhia) of amulets (humria), temples (ekuria), and shrines (prikia), idols
(patikria), archons (arkunia), and fallen angels (mlakia)… (Lidzbarski 1925, 277).
Abbreviated versions of this same list appear and reappear, with minor variations in
sequence and number, as a basic formula throughout the corpus. Examples include Text
26 from Pognon 1898; the Fitzwilliam, Malmö, and Princeton texts from Gordon (1941,
344–45 and 354–57), and at least 13 texts in the British Museum collection (076M, 079–
081M, 088–089M, 098M, 100–101M, 104–107M). While this formula is therefore extre-
mely common among the Mandaic texts, it has not thus far been attested among the texts
composed in other scripts.
One of most common Mandaean incantations, which Segal (2000, 159) names
‘‘Refrain D,’’ is represented by no fewer than eleven exemplars. It begins with the phrase
qal qala šimit ‘‘I heard the sound of a voice.’’
I heard the sound of a voice, the voice of the weak who are broken, and the voice of heroes
who struggle in battle, and the voice of impious women who curse and knock and cause pain
to spirits (ruhia) and souls (nišmata).
This formula cannot help but bring to mind the haunting beginning of one of the final
chapters of the ‘‘left’’ volume of the Great Treasure:
A sound, I heard the sound of the noise of two voices: the sound of two voices that sit together
and weep, the voice of the spirit (ruha) and the voice of the soul (nišimta), that sit and teach
one another (Lidzbarski 1925, 566).
An argument against the possibility of coincidence rests in that the incantatory formulae
not only correspond in phrasing to the Mandaean scriptures but also in the contexts in
which they are deployed. Prayer Five of the Canonical Prayerbook (Drower 1959; 4),
which is recited during the course of the baptism ritual, establishes a cosmic ritual space
through explicit reference to the Mandaean cosmology and calls it into action, according
to the analysis of Buckley (2007, 162):
Silence, bliss, and glory dwell in the four corners of the House and the seven sides of the
firmament.
This very same cosmic ritual space is unmistakably established and deployed in a number
of the Mandaean bowls, albeit with occasional variation in the numbers:
The magic of the four corners of the House and the eight sides of the firmament is annulled
(Pognon 1898, 27).
The four corners of the House confirm it, and the eight sides of the firmament confirm it
(Lidzbarski 1909, 371, lns. 258–262).
All four corners of Tibil10 and the entire firmament […] (Gordon 1941, 355).
They will turn back from the seven sides of the firmament (Segal 2000, 076M).
An even more precise correspondence is provided by a formula that introduces Texts 13
and 14 in Pognon (1898, 36–43), and is found in others including Text 081M in Segal
(2000, 107–08):
The sound of the earth that quaked (qal arqa nadat) and the heavens that were shaken (qal
š[umia] dezdbrat), the sound of trembling and shaking, and the war that is between the angels
of the firmament.
In its phrasing, its content, and its context, the formula invokes an episode within the
‘‘right’’ volume of the Great Treasure, in which the Seven, together with a host of
demons and evil spirits, make an incredible racket that rouses and terrifies Adam. He calls
upon his protectors, the uthras, asking,
What has happened within the House, that the sound of the racket rises up to the heavens?
The entire Earth quaked (kula arqa nadat) and the entire firmament was hurled down (kulh
rqiha etmasar; Lidzbarski 1925, 126).
The clients of the enchanter find themselves in much the same situation as Adam, men-
aced by the same evil beings, and appeal to their protectors using language that recalls his
original appeal. It could even be argued that the inclusion of this formula in the incanta-
tion presupposes familiarity with the text related in the Great Treasure, albeit perhaps not
in its written form. In this formula, we find the word qal ⁄ q l ⁄ ‘‘sound’’ in the place
c
occupied by kul ⁄ kol ⁄ ‘‘entire’’ in the Great Treasure—a near-homophone that suggests
the possibility that this formula was transmitted by mouth rather than in writing.
Undoubtedly more such formulae remain to be discovered within the corpus of pub-
lished and unpublished texts. A partial list of formulae found exclusively within the Man-
daic incantation texts, but not within any other incantation texts, is given in Segal (2000,
151–52). The fact that many of these Mandaean formulae also appear in their scriptures is
undoubtedly significant.
The incantations also contain important demographic data, in the form of the names of
their clients. While any attempt to determine the ethnicity or religion of a given client
from his or her name is probably an exercise in futility, the lack of characteristically Man-
daean names is noteworthy. Traditionally, Mandaeans are given two names upon birth,
a name by which they are known to their family and to the world, usually indistinguish-
able from the names of their non-Mandaean neighbors, and an astronomically determined
‘‘Zodiacal’’ (maluašia) or ‘‘baptismal’’ (masbuta) name used exclusively for religious
and magical rituals, such as exorcisms (Drower _ 1949; 68–69). A list of 105 of these names
is recorded in the Book of the Zodiac (Sfar Maluašia), although Drower (1949, 68) sug-
gests that the list may be incomplete. While most of these names are recognizably Ara-
maic, more than a few are clearly of Iranian and Arabic origin, such as Hurmizdukt,
which means ‘‘daughter of Hurmiz’’ in Middle Persian but is a masculine baptismal name,
or Bulfaraz, from Arabic Abu ’l-Faraj ‘‘father of relief.’’
Of these 105 baptismal names, only eight correspond to the client names attested within
the published corpus of Mandaic incantation texts with any degree of certainty (see the
shaded names in Table 1), and another 15 may be related, even if they do not provide an
exact match. Baptismal names are unsurprisingly even scarcer outside of the Mandaic cor-
pus, and those names that do appear are just as likely to refer to non-Mandaeans as to Man-
daeans. Adam, one of the most common baptismal names, is frequently attested both in the
Mandaean and non-Mandaean incantation texts, but only in the phrase ‘‘sons of Adam,’’ i.e.
human beings. Likewise, Eve is frequently attested in the form Hwh, but again there is no
reason to assume that any of the women who bore this name were _ Mandaean. Furthermore,
many names that are reserved for men in the Book of the Zodiac are associated with women
in the bowls, and vice versa. The example of Hurmizdukt nonetheless demonstrates that
there is precedent for these names to cross genders.
Table 1. Comparison of names
Baptismal names Client Names
Anat Hiia $ Anut Hiia $

Anuš # Anuš #
# Anušag $
# Anušai $
# Anušta $
# Anuš(a)prit $
Bibia $ Bbai $
Bihram # Bhrm #
Bihran # Bhrnduk $
Br Hiia # Br Haui ⁄ Hwai #
Dinart(i)a $ Dinarta $
Dukta $ Dukta Nbh $
$ Dukta Nuba $
$ Dukt Anuš $
$ Dukt Azad $
$ Dukt Anuba $
Eqaimat $ Qiumta $
Gadana # Gdii #
Handa $ Hindu ⁄ Hndu $
Haua $ Hiaia $
Hibil # Hebil #
Hurmizdukt # Hurmiz #
# Hurmis #
# _
Apra Hurmiz $
Mahnuš $ Mahnuš $
$ Mhanuš $
Mamuia $ Mamai $
$ Mami $
Ramuia # Remai $
Šabur # Šabur #
# Mr Šabur #
Šitluia # Šiluia $
Zadia $ Zad Anuš $
$ Zaduia #
Zakia # Zakuia #
Ziua # Ziiui $
In the incantation texts, the name of each client is generally followed by that of his or
her mother, which continues to be the convention among baptismal names. In theory
(barring conversions or intermarriage, which the contemporary Mandaean community
does not recognize), the name should also be a baptismal name, but here the search
becomes even more hopeless, for few of the mothers bear recognizable baptismal names.
For example, a rather characteristic Mandaean name, Anut Hiia, appears in one bowl as
the daughter of one Sebria li-Ešu, whose name (‘‘Trust in Jesus!’’) hardly lends itself to
interpretation as a Mandaean name, let alone a baptismal name.
In the final analysis, the overwhelming majority of clients bear names that are not
identifiably Mandaean, or at least not identifiable as baptismal names. The data lend
themselves to two conclusions, which are not mutually exclusive:
• Most of the clients named in the Mandaic incantation texts were not Mandaeans;
• The system of baptismal names qua a discrete series of secret names, astrologically deter-
mined, and used exclusively for religious and magical purposes, did not exist at the time
that the bowls were recorded.
The fact that the canonical list of 105 baptismal names includes names of Arabic and
(Neo-)Persian origin further suggests rather strongly that the system has evolved since the
advent of Islam.
If I have seemingly dedicated undue attention to the incantation texts, it is only
because they emphatically attest to the existence of a developed Mandaeism prior to
advent of Islam, but have not been employed to reconstruct its history as fully as they
might have been. This is perhaps because they are less emphatic about the relationship of
Mandaeism to other religions, such as Christianity and Judaism. Be that as it may, Mor-
ony (2007, 416) has rightly cautioned scholars to avoid making arguments about the
incantation texts on the basis of silence, as the majority of the texts have yet to see the
light of publication, and even the published texts will benefit from a re-analysis, as I hope
to have shown with the examples above.
Conclusions
Solid evidence from the Mandaean manuscript tradition, the testimony of outsiders, and
the corpus of incantation texts attests to the existence of Mandaeism as a distinct religious
tradition during the period of Late Antiquity. Thanks to this evidence, we can sketch the
broad lines of a portrait of this tradition: its affinities to and shared history with neighbor-
ing traditions; the arrival of its adherents to the region of central Mesopotamia during the
Arsacid era, and their subsequent migration to Babylonia; their adoption of a script in the
second century and the commitment of their traditions to writing; the circulation of these
traditions and the evolution of a canon, starting in the third century.
Almost as certainly, this same evidence attests to the evolution of this tradition after
the advent of Islam, including the collation and final redaction of its scriptures, where-
upon they assumed their present form; its transformation under Islamic influence into a
protected religion; the consolidation of John the Baptist as its prophet; and the develop-
ment of characteristic institutions such as the baptismal names.
Unfortunately, the portrait remains incomplete, and much additional research is
required before we can fill in the blank spaces that remain. Critical editions of most of
the major texts have yet to be published. Despite Buckley’s prodigious efforts, it is likely
that the colophons have not yet yielded all their secrets, and could serve as the basis for a
prosopography of Mandaean priests. The incantation corpus likewise remains largely
unpublished, and will undoubtedly shed more light upon Mandaeism and the Mandaeans
during the period in which they were composed.
Short Biography
Charles Häberl’s research focuses upon the languages and literatures of the Middle East.
He has authored papers on Aramaic epigraphy, incantation texts, orality and literacy,
Middle Eastern folklore, contemporary dialects of Neo-Aramaic such as Mandaic, and
comparative Semitic linguistics, for ARAM Periodical, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Journal of Semitic Studies, Encyclo-
paedia Iranica, and Numen. His book The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr (2009) is the
first account of a previously undocumented dialect of Neo-Mandaic, and the most thor-
ough description of any Neo-Mandaic dialect. He has taught in the Department of Afri-
can, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Studies at Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, since 2009. From 2006 to 2009, he was affiliated with the Center for Middle East-
ern Studies at Rutgers, and he currently serves as the Director of the Center. He holds
an AB in Old World Archaeology and Art from Brown University, and an AM and PhD
in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University.
Notes
* Correspondence address: Charles Häberl, Department of African, Middle Eastern, and South Asian Languages
and Literatures, Lucy Stone Hall B309, 54 Joyce Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway, NJ 08854. E-mail: haberl@rci.
rutgers.edu
1
For a helpful account of the impact of the Nag Hammadi discoveries, see Pearson (2007, 19–24).
2
The Mandaean community, which increasingly resides in a diaspora within Anglophone countries such as Austra-
lia, the United States, and Canada, has taken the initiative in preparing English translations of the Great Treasure,
and the present author is collaborating on a scholarly edition and translation of the Doctrine of John with James
McGrath.
3
Lupieri (2002, 157–58) problematizes the relationship of the account in the Scroll of Inner Harran to those
reflected by the oral traditions, arguing that the former identifies the inhabitants of Inner Harran with the Man-
daean followers of Pharaoh and their descendents, and that it is these, and not the Mandaean inhabitants of Jerusa-
lem, who are resettled in southern Mesopotamia.
4
There were four Arsacid rulers of that name, the most likely candidate being Ardawan II, who ruled from ca.
10 ⁄ 11 CE to 38 CE. The first Ardawan reigned for only three years, from 127 BCE to ca. 124 ⁄ 3 BCE, during
which time he was almost entirely occupied with nomadic incursions from the north and northeast; the third was a
rival candidate for the throne from ca. 79 CE to 81 CE, but appears to have received no support outside of Baby-
lon, and completely disappears from the pages of history after 81 CE. The fourth and final Ardawan was also a rival
claimant to the Arsacid throne, who came to power by 216 CE and was deposed by 224 CE (Schippmann 1986).
5
It bears noting that Samuel Fales Dunlap (1861, 13) first tendered Wadı Hauran as the means by which the
_
Mandaeans (whom he identifies as the ‘‘Nazarenes’’) attained the Persian Gulf, unaware though he was of the Scroll
of Inner Harran.
6
Of course, it is entirely possible that their scriptures were transmitted orally or by means of other scripts prior to
being recorded in the Mandaic script.
7
See de Blois 2002, fn. 31 for the history of the discussion on this term.
8
For the relevant portions of the original text, see Pognon 1898, 154–55; and for the complete text, see Scher
1910 and Scher 1912.
9
It should be noted that there is no scholarly concensus on the identity of the group to which al-Bırunı refers, or
their relationship to the Mandaeans. For the history of the debate over this question and two contrasting views on
it, see Fahd 2006 and de Blois 2006, presented together in the Encyclopædia of Islam.
10
i.e. The name of the material world, which is also known as ‘‘the House’’ in Mandaean literature.
Works Cited
Bailey, H. W. (1980). Iranian MKTK-, Armenian MKRTEM-, Revue des Études Arméniennes, NS 14, pp. 8–10.
Bell, Gertrude L. (1911). Amurath to Amurath. London: E.P. Dutton.
Blois, François de. (2002). Nasranı (Mafxqaı̂o1) and hanıf (e’hmijó1): Studies on the Religious Vocabulary of
_
Christianity and of Islam, Bulletin _ and African Studies, 65(1), pp. 1–30.
of the School of Oriental
——. (2006). Sabı’. In The Encyclopædia of Islam [CD ROM Edition]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
_
Blunt, Anne. (1881). A Pilgrimage to Nejd. London: J. Murray.
Buckley, Jorunn J. (2002). The Mandaeans: Ancient Texts and Modern People. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press.
——. (2007). Polemics and Exorcism in Mandaean Baptism, History of Religions, 47(2), pp. 156–70.
——. (2010). The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstructing Mandaean History. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias.
Charpin, Dominique. (2010). Reading and Writing in Babylon. Translated from the French by Jane Marie Todd.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coxon, P. W. (1970). Script Analysis and Mandaean Origins, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15, pp. 16–30.
Drower, Ethel Stefana. (1937). The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran. Oxford: Clarendon.
——. (1949). Sfar Malwašia. The Book of the Zodiac (Oriental Translation Fund 35). London: Royal Asiatic Society.
——. (1953). The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil Ziwa (Studi e testi 176). Stato della città del Vaticano:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
——. (1959). The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
——. (1960). The Secret Adam: A Study of Nasorean Gnosis. Oxford: Clarendon.
Dunlap, Samuel Fales. (1861). Sod: The Son of the Man. London: Williams & Northgate.
Fahd, T. 2006. Sabı’a. In The Encyclopædia of Islam [CD ROM Edition]. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Gignoux, Philippe. _ (1991). Les quatre inscriptions du mage Kirdır. Textes et concordances (Studia Iranica 9). Paris: Peeters.
Gordon, Cyrus Herzl. (1941). Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Orientalia, 10, pp. 116–41, 272-84, 339–60.
Greenfield, Jonas C. (1981). A Mandaic ‘Targum’ of Psalm 114. In: Jakob Petuchowski and Ezra Fleischer (eds.),
Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, pp. 23–31. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Häberl, Charles G. (2006). Iranian Scripts for Aramaic Languages: The Origin of the Mandaic Script, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, 341, pp. 53–62.
Hart, Jennifer. (2010). The Mandaeans, a People of the Book? An Examination of the Influence of Islam on the Development
of Mandaean Literature. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Religious Studies: Indiana University.
Hunter, Erica C. D. (1996). Incantation Bowls: A Mesopotamian Phenomenon?, Orientalia, 65, pp. 220–33.
Jullien, Christelle & Jullien, Florence. (2002). Aux frontières de l’iranité: <<nasraye>> et <<krıstyone>> des
inscriptions du mobad Kirdır: Enquête littéraire et historique, Numen, 49(3), pp. _282–335.
King, Karen L. (2003). What is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Belknap.
Kruisheer, Dirk. (1993). Theodore bar Koni’s Ketaba d-’Eskolyon as a source for the study of early Mandæism,
Jaarbericht ‘‘Ex Oriente Lux’’, 33, pp. 151–69.
Lidzbarski, Mark. (1909). Ein mandäisches Amulett. In: G. C. C. Maspero (ed.), Florilegium ou recueil de travaux
d’érudition dédiés à M. le Marquis Melchior de Vogüé à l’occasion du quatrevingtième anniversaire de sa naissance, pp. 349–
373. Paris: Geuthner.
——. (1915). Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer, Teil 2: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Gießen: Töpelmann.
——. (1925). Ginza: der Schatz oder das Grosse Buch der Mandäer. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
Lietzmann, Hans. (1930). Ein Beitrag zur Mandäerfrage, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Jg. 1930/31, pp. 596–608.
Lupieri, Edmondo. (2002). The Mandaeans: The Last Gnostics. Translated by Charles Hindley. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans.
MacKenzie, D. N. (1989). Kerdir’s Inscription. In: G. Herrmann, D. N. Mackenzie and R. Howell Caldecott
(eds.), The Sasanian Rock Reliefs at Naqsh-i Rustam, pp. 35–72. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.
Macuch, Rudolf. (1965). Anf änge der Mandäer. In: Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl (eds.), Die Araber in der alten
Welt, vol. 2, pp. 76–190. Berlin: de Gruyter.
——. (1971). The Origins of the Mandaeans and Their Script, Journal of Semitic Studies, 16, pp. 174–92.
Morony, Michael G. (2007). Religion and the Aramaic Incantation Bowls, Religion Compass, 1(4), pp. 414–29.
Müller-Kessler, Christa. (1999). Interrelations between Mandaic Lead Rolls and Incantation Bowls. In: T. Abusch
and K. van der Toorn (eds.), Mesopotamian Magic: Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, pp. 197–209.
Leiden: Brill.
Müller-Kessler, Christa & Kwasman, Theodore. (2000). A Unique Talmudic Aramaic Incantation Bowl, Journal of
the American Oriental Society, 120(2), pp. 159–65.
Naveh, Joseph. (1970). The Origin of the Mandaic Script, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 198,
pp. 32–7.
Pallis, Svend Aage Frederik Dichmann. (1926). Mandaean Studies: A Comparative Enquiry into Mandaeism and
Mandaean Writings and Babylonian and Persian Religions, Judaism and Gnosticism with Linguistic and Bibliographical
Notes and References. Revised Edition. London: H. Milford.
Pearson, Birger A. (2007). Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Pognon, Henri. (1898). Inscriptions mandaı̈tes des coupes de Khouabir. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
Reitzenstein, Richard A. (1929). Der Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe. Teubner: Leipzig and Berlin.
Robinson, James M. (ed.) (1978). The Nag Hammadi Library. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Rudolph, Kurt. (1960). Die Mandäer, I. Prolegomena: Das Mandäerproblem. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
——. (1965). Die Mandäer, II. Der Kult. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
——. (1996). Gnosis und spätantike Religionsgeschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
——. (1999). The Baptist Sects. In: William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy (eds.), The Cambridge History
of Judaism III. The Early Roman Period, pp. 471–500, 1135–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
——. (2008a). Mandaeans, ii. The Mandaean Religion. In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica. [Online].
Retrieved on December 23, 2011 from http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/mandaeans-2-religion:
——. (2008b). Mandaeans, iii. Interaction with Iranian Religion. In: Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica.
[Online]. Retrieved on December 23, 2011 from:http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/mandaeans-2-religion.
Sachau, C. Edward. (1879). The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athâr-
ul-Bâkiya of Albı̂rûnı̂, or ‘‘Vestiges of the Past’’. London: W.H. Allen & Co.
Säve-Söderbergh, Torgny. (1949). Studies in the Coptic-Manichaean Psalm-Book. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Scher, Addai. (1910). Theodorus bar Koni. Liber Scholiorum, vol. 1, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Script-
ores Syri 19 = Syri II, 65. Amsterdam: Peeters.
Scher, Addaı̈. (1912). Theodorus bar Koni. Liber Scholiorum, vol. 2, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Script-
ores Syri 26 = Syri II, 66. Amsterdam: Peeters.
Schippmann, K. (1986). ARTABANUS (Parth. Ardawan), name borne by several Arsacid kings. In: Ehsan Yarsha-
ter (ed.), Encyclopædia Iranica. [Online]. Retrieved on 23 December 2011 from: http://www.iranica.com/articles/
artabanus-parth
Schou-Pedersen, Viggo. (1940). Bidrag til en Analyse af de mandaeiske Skrifter. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.
Segal, J. B. (1956). Review of Drower, The Haran Gawaita and the Baptism of Hibil-Ziwa: The Mandaic Text
Reproduced, Together with Translation, Notes, and Commentary, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African
Studies, University of London, 18(2), pp. 373–5.
——. (2000). Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum. London: British Museum
Press.
——. (1958). Masbuta. Studies in the Ritual of Mandaean Baptism. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Sundermann, W._ (1977). Parthisch ‘BSWDGN ‘Die Täufer’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 25, pp.
238–40.
Widengren, Geo. (1960). Iranisch-semitische Kulturbegegnung in parthischer Zeit (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des
Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Geisteswissenschaften, Ht. 70). Köln und Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. (1966). The Present Status of Mandaean Studies, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 25(2), pp.
88–96.
——. (1970). Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mandaeism in Antiquity and The Antiquity of Mandaeism - C.häberl

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mandaeism in Antiquity and The Antiquity of Mandaeism - C.häberl

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Religion Compass 6/5 (2012): 262–276, 10.1111/j.1749-8171.2012.00349.

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Who are the Mandaeans?

Muslims of Mandaeism’s legitimacy, why would he not be identified throughout by his

As succinct as this description is, there is much within it to recommend an identification

Table 1. Comparison of names

Baptismal names Client Names

Anat Hiia $ Anut Hiia $

You might also like