Nasaraeans, Mandaeans, Enochic Judaism, & Christianity.
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:43 am
I have been trying to better understand recently the sect which Epiphanius designates as Nasaraeans, an endeavor which has led me down quite a few paths, some of them unexpected:
The Nasaraeans, according to Williams, share traits with the Mandaeans. Most immediately it is the very name of the sect, Nasaraeans, which arrests the attention, since possibly the earliest term which the Mandaeans ever used of themselves is Nasoraeans:
The rejection of Jewish scripture, while still holding certain Patriarchs in high regard, is apparently both Mandaean and Nasaraean. The Haran Gawaitha, for example, mentions Adam, and Abel, Seth, and Enosh all find a cosmic place in the religion:
The Nasaraean eschewing of (certain kinds of) astrology looks to me like it may also be a Mandaean thing, at least so far as the Mandaean relationship to Judaism is concerned, since, according to the legend of origins, the Mandaeans themselves are former Jews who once adored Adonai (= Yahweh) but no longer do, having abandoned the "sign of the seven" and the "house of the seven" at the birth of a false messiah figure (= Jesus):
I have seen it supposed that "the seven" in this context are the seven planets (or wandering stars) known to antiquity (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), particularly since the Ginza Rba sets itself against the seven planets, regarding them as demonic. But how would the Jews be associated with the seven planets? I believe the following may be the answer to that question:
There seems to have been a strain of Judaism, practiced in the Temple, which revered the seven planets, the heavens, and other astronomical entities. Memory of this strain has been repressed in the Jewish scriptures, relegated to descriptions of heretical moments in Israelite history. Yet it must have been mainstream enough both to register with an outside observer like Theophrastus and to call forth prophetic condemnations by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And I bet, regardless of how the veil described by Josephus may have been interpreted in later times, that worshipers of the heavenly host would have had their own view of it.
Another similarity is that, while Epiphanius locates his Nasaraeans in the area just east of the Jordan, the Mandaeans themselves bear some kind of connection to the Jordan River:
Yet another is that the Mandaeans trace their history back to well before the destruction of the Temple, while Epiphanius states that his Nasaraeans predated Christianity.
Now, there are also differences between the Mandaeans and the group which Epiphanius calls Nasaraeans. If I understand correctly, for example, Mandaeans do not circumcise their male children. If their religion is partly a reaction against Judaism, however, then perhaps many Jewish customs were changed deliberately in the process of moving eastward, both geographically and ideologically.
There is a particular brand of Judaism for which Mandaeism seems to bear some ancient affinities, and that brand is Enochic. For example, the archangel Uriel rails against the seven stars in a way very reminiscent of what we find in the Mandaic scriptures:
Furthermore, the relationship between the Enochic literature and the Mosaic Law is uneasy at best:
And, obviously, Enoch himself is precisely one of those Patriarchs whom Epiphanius lists as respected by his Nasaraean sect.
The Qumranites apparently shared a respect for the Enochic literature, much of it having been found amongst the scrolls, which brings up the following possible connection:
And there are other possible parallels between Mandaeism and Enochic Judaism:
It is striking that a phrase which so often pops up in 1 Enoch, "righteous elect," also pops up in the Mandaic texts.
There are, of course, quite a few Mandaic parallels with Christianity, as well, including an intense focus on baptism, and even upon running water, as in a river, as the proper venue for baptism:
There also seems to be a mild similarity between Mandaean and early Christian rites on behalf of the dead:
But such rites for the dead may have been widespread. The Mandaean view that the soul is divorced from the body only on the third day after death, incidentally, certainly sounds familiar:
There may be a similarity between the way the Mandaeans appropriated early Jewish Christian motifs (Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus) and the way Greek Christians appropriated early Jewish motifs (Nicodemus, perhaps, for example). Both religious groups, the Mandaeans in Iran and the Christians around the Mediterranean, traced their origins to Palestine, and thus were interested in filling in that back story using Palestinian traditions.
What I find to be especially intriguing is that, not only are there Mandaean parallels with Enochic Judaism, but there are elements of Christianity itself, especially in its Petrine and Gnostic forms, which are Enochic. I have already drawn attention to several connections between Petrine Christianity and Enochic Judaism elsewhere on this forum. As for Gnostic Christianity, just as both the Mandaeans and the Nasaraeans respected certain Patriarchs while not caring a fig about the Mosaic Law, so too the Nag Hammadi texts seem to like some of the figures from the primeval history — Adam, Seth, and Shem — while either ignoring or eschewing the Law. The Gnostic Christians essentially continued the trend of adding new revelation to the implicit canon. Entire hierarchies of archontic beings are spun out of revelatory discourses in the Nag Hammadi texts in ways similar to how various angelic beings are named and ranked in the Enochic texts. Gnostic Christianity added more modern figures to the ancient lists of figures to draw upon: Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Judas, and others now fill roles similar to those played by Adam, Seth, and so on. Most vividly, Gnostic Christianity tended either to demote or even to reject outright the Jewish deity, Yahweh; and so do the Mandaeans:
Adonai = Yahweh, who stands rejected as a false god. The impression I get is that the Mandaeans are sort of an eastern version of the western Gnostics. The former drew upon the Zoroastrian, Babylonian, and other cultural influences they encountered as they moved eastward, while the latter drew upon the Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Roman influences they encountered as they moved westward, as it were. And both groups rejected the god of the people to whom they trace their religious heritage.
This post is kind of a mishmash; there is a very real danger of forcing everything together in an unnatural way in order to make sense of a rather complicated picture. Relevant comments and corrections welcome. I am not in any way a scholar of Mandaeism.
Ben.
Epiphanius, Panarion 18.1.1-5:
Against Nasaraeans [Νασαραίων], sect five from Judaism but eighteen of the series.
1.1 Next I shall undertake the describe the sect after the Hemerobaptists [Ἡμεροβαπτιστάς], called the sect of the Nasaraeans [Νασαραίων]. They are Jews by nationality, from Gileaditis, Bashanitis, and the Transjordan [ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλααδίτιδος καὶ Βασανίτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὁρμώμενοι], as I have been told, but descendants of Israel himself. This sect practices Judaism in all respects and has scarcely any beliefs beyond the ones that I have mentioned. 2 It too had been given circumcision, and it kept the same Sabbath and observed the same festivals, and certainly did not inculcate fate or astrology [οὐ μὴν εἱμαρμένην παρεισῆγεν οὔτε ἀστρονομίαν]. 3 It also recognized as fathers the persons in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses who were illustrious for the excellence of their piety — I mean Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi and Aaron, Moses, and Joshua the son of Nun. However, it would not accept the Pentateuch itself. It acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation — not this legislation though, they said, but some other. 4 And so, though they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are forgeries and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. 5 This was the difference between the Nasaraeans [Νασαραίων] and the others; and their refutation is to be seen not in one place but in many.
Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius, volume 1, page 46, footnote 27: 27 This group has some traits in common with the Mandaeans, whose usual name for themselves is “Nazoraeans,” and who reject the Pentateuch.
Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius, volume 1, page 47, footnote 30: 30 Lidzbarski translates the term with which Mandaeans reject the Torah as a Buch des Frevels (= Book of Iniquities).
Against Nasaraeans [Νασαραίων], sect five from Judaism but eighteen of the series.
1.1 Next I shall undertake the describe the sect after the Hemerobaptists [Ἡμεροβαπτιστάς], called the sect of the Nasaraeans [Νασαραίων]. They are Jews by nationality, from Gileaditis, Bashanitis, and the Transjordan [ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλααδίτιδος καὶ Βασανίτιδος καὶ τῶν ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Ἰορδάνου ὁρμώμενοι], as I have been told, but descendants of Israel himself. This sect practices Judaism in all respects and has scarcely any beliefs beyond the ones that I have mentioned. 2 It too had been given circumcision, and it kept the same Sabbath and observed the same festivals, and certainly did not inculcate fate or astrology [οὐ μὴν εἱμαρμένην παρεισῆγεν οὔτε ἀστρονομίαν]. 3 It also recognized as fathers the persons in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses who were illustrious for the excellence of their piety — I mean Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi and Aaron, Moses, and Joshua the son of Nun. However, it would not accept the Pentateuch itself. It acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation — not this legislation though, they said, but some other. 4 And so, though they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are forgeries and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. 5 This was the difference between the Nasaraeans [Νασαραίων] and the others; and their refutation is to be seen not in one place but in many.
Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius, volume 1, page 46, footnote 27: 27 This group has some traits in common with the Mandaeans, whose usual name for themselves is “Nazoraeans,” and who reject the Pentateuch.
Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius, volume 1, page 47, footnote 30: 30 Lidzbarski translates the term with which Mandaeans reject the Torah as a Buch des Frevels (= Book of Iniquities).
The Nasaraeans, according to Williams, share traits with the Mandaeans. Most immediately it is the very name of the sect, Nasaraeans, which arrests the attention, since possibly the earliest term which the Mandaeans ever used of themselves is Nasoraeans:
Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, page 343: 343 The earliest self-designations to be found in Mandean literature are “elect of righteousness” (bhirī zidqa) and “Nasoreans” (naṣuraiyī), i.e. “guardians” or “possessors” of secret rites and knowledge. “Mandeans” (mandayī) is of more recent date but refers back to the ancient Mandean word for “perception, knowledge, Gnosis” (manda); it therefore means “the knowing ones, the gnostics.” Nowadays the term denotes more generally the laity in contradistinction to the priests (tarmidī) or initiates (naṣoraiyī).
The rejection of Jewish scripture, while still holding certain Patriarchs in high regard, is apparently both Mandaean and Nasaraean. The Haran Gawaitha, for example, mentions Adam, and Abel, Seth, and Enosh all find a cosmic place in the religion:
Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, pages 358-359: 358-359 The climax of creation is the making of the first man, Adam, whose body is formed by Ptahil and his dark helpers, but whose animating substance, the soul or the “inner (hidden) Adam”, has its origin in the world of light. Around this event a great number of narratives has grown which are not always in harmony one with another, but which clearly show the influence of the gnostic anthropos-myth. In the earthly Adam one sees a counterpart of the heavenly or “great Adam,” also called Adakas (i.e. “hidden Adam”). Just as this one had a wife (Eve) and sons, so had the other: the “cloud of light” (heavenly Eve) and the heavenly Adamites Hibil (Abel), Shitil (Seth) and Anosh (Enosh). The Mandeans derive their origin from Adam and Eve as the “race of Life,” for their souls come from the world of light and have since had to take up their abode in the “darkness” or the “corporeal (earthly) world.” The salvation of these “souls” (nishimta) or spirits (mana) is now a main concern of the Mandean religion. It is believed that the world of light sends forth its “messengers,” “helpers,” “envoys,” in order to teach the faithful by their “call” and to save their souls. As first and most important of these messengers of light there appears the “Gnosis of Life” (manda dehaiyī) who is also called “Son of Life” or “Counterpart of Life” and who is a personification of the redeeming knowledge. At his side stand the three heavenly Adamites, Hibil, Shitil and Anosh of whom the first is later often interchangeable with the “Gnosis of Life”. The redemption of Adam serves as a prototype. He is enlightened by the “Gnosis of Life” about the “mysteries” of the cosmos and thus is redeemed, i.e. his soul or the “inner Adam” (= man) can return to the world of light. The Mandean soteriology originally knows no “historical” redeemers but only “mythological” ones, who appear throughout the various ages of the Mandean world history and who only offer a repetition of the “primeval revelation” to Adam. For the faithful they are always present and can be invoked, above all at the cultic ceremonies. Only as an afterthought the Mandeans created, in opposition to Christianity which they reject, a legend according to which one of their messengers of light (Anosh and Manda deHaiyi are mentioned) appeared in Jerusalem as an opponent of Jesus Christ in order to unmask him as a lying prophet. It follows from this that the Mandeans are descended from a Gnosis that is independent of Christianity and that they have preserved its features until the present day.
The Nasaraean eschewing of (certain kinds of) astrology looks to me like it may also be a Mandaean thing, at least so far as the Mandaean relationship to Judaism is concerned, since, according to the legend of origins, the Mandaeans themselves are former Jews who once adored Adonai (= Yahweh) but no longer do, having abandoned the "sign of the seven" and the "house of the seven" at the birth of a false messiah figure (= Jesus):
Haran Gawaita, Drower translation, pages 3, 8: 3 And sixty thousand Naṣoraeans abandoned the Sign of the Seven and entered the Median hills, a place where we were free from domination by all other races. And they built cult-huts (bimandia) and abode in the Call of the Life and in the strength of the high King of Light until they came to their end. And they loved the Lord, that is, Adonai, until in the House of Israel there was created something which was not placed in the womb of Mary, a daughter of Moses. It was hidden in her womb for nine months and bewitched her until the nine months were fulfilled and she was in labor and brought forth a Messiah.
....
8 Then Ruha scattered the Jews... who is called ‘of the House of the Seven’, and then Adonai sent a staff....
....
8 Then Ruha scattered the Jews... who is called ‘of the House of the Seven’, and then Adonai sent a staff....
I have seen it supposed that "the seven" in this context are the seven planets (or wandering stars) known to antiquity (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), particularly since the Ginza Rba sets itself against the seven planets, regarding them as demonic. But how would the Jews be associated with the seven planets? I believe the following may be the answer to that question:
Porphyry, On Abstinence 2.26: 26 But of the Syrians, the Jews indeed, through the sacrifice which they first made, even now, says Theophrastus, sacrifice animals, and if we were persuaded by them to sacrifice in the same way that they do, we should abstain from the deed. For they do not feast on the flesh of the sacrificed animals, but having thrown the whole of the victims into the fire, and poured much honey and wine on them during the night, they swiftly consume the sacrifice, in order that the All-Seeing <Sun> may not become a spectator of it. And they do this, fasting during all the intermediate days, and through the whole of this time, as belonging to the class of philosophers, and also discourse with each other about the divinity. But in the night they apply themselves to the theory of the stars, surveying them, and through prayers invoking God [τῆς δὲ νυκτὸς τῶν ἄστρων ποιοῦνται τὴν θεωρίαν, βλέποντες εἰς αὐτὰ καὶ διὰ τῶν εὐχῶν θεοκλυτοῦντες]. For these make offerings both of other animals and of themselves, doing this from necessity, and not from their own will. The truth of this, however, may be learnt by any one who directs his attention to the Egyptians, the most learned of all men, who are so far from slaying other animals that they make the images of these to be imitations of the Gods, so adapted and allied do they conceive these to be both to Gods and men.
Jeremiah 8.1-3: “At that time,” declares Yahweh, “they will bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. 2 They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the ground. 3 And death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the places to which I have driven them,” declares Yahweh of hosts.
Jeremiah 19.10-13: 10 “Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you 11 and say to them, ‘Thus says Yahweh of hosts, “Just so will I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place for burial. 12 This is how I will treat this place and its inhabitants,” declares the Lord, “so as to make this city like Topheth. 13 The houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah will be defiled like the place Topheth, because of all the houses on whose rooftops they burned sacrifices to all the heavenly host and poured out drink offerings to other gods.”’”
Ezekiel 8.16-18: 16 Then He brought me into the inner court of Yahweh’s house. And behold, at the entrance to the temple of Yahweh, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of Yahweh and their faces toward the east; and they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun. 17 He said to me, “Do you see this, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and provoked Me repeatedly? For behold, they are putting the twig to their nose. 18 Therefore, I indeed will deal in wrath. My eye will have no pity nor will I spare; and though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, yet I will not listen to them.”
Josephus, Wars 5.5.4 §212-214: 212 But before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; 213 for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. 214 This curtain had also embroidered upon it the entire heavenly spectacle [ἅπασαν τὴν οὐράνιον θεωρίαν, all that was mystical in the heavens (Whiston), a panorama of the heavens (Loeb)], excepting that of the signs, representing living creatures.
Jeremiah 8.1-3: “At that time,” declares Yahweh, “they will bring out the bones of the kings of Judah and the bones of its princes, and the bones of the priests and the bones of the prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem from their graves. 2 They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped. They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the ground. 3 And death will be chosen rather than life by all the remnant that remains of this evil family, that remains in all the places to which I have driven them,” declares Yahweh of hosts.
Jeremiah 19.10-13: 10 “Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you 11 and say to them, ‘Thus says Yahweh of hosts, “Just so will I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter’s vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place for burial. 12 This is how I will treat this place and its inhabitants,” declares the Lord, “so as to make this city like Topheth. 13 The houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah will be defiled like the place Topheth, because of all the houses on whose rooftops they burned sacrifices to all the heavenly host and poured out drink offerings to other gods.”’”
Ezekiel 8.16-18: 16 Then He brought me into the inner court of Yahweh’s house. And behold, at the entrance to the temple of Yahweh, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the temple of Yahweh and their faces toward the east; and they were prostrating themselves eastward toward the sun. 17 He said to me, “Do you see this, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and provoked Me repeatedly? For behold, they are putting the twig to their nose. 18 Therefore, I indeed will deal in wrath. My eye will have no pity nor will I spare; and though they cry in My ears with a loud voice, yet I will not listen to them.”
Josephus, Wars 5.5.4 §212-214: 212 But before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain, embroidered with blue, and fine linen, and scarlet, and purple, and of a contexture that was truly wonderful. Nor was this mixture of colors without its mystical interpretation, but was a kind of image of the universe; 213 for by the scarlet there seemed to be enigmatically signified fire, by the fine flax the earth, by the blue the air, and by the purple the sea; two of them having their colors the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for that foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. 214 This curtain had also embroidered upon it the entire heavenly spectacle [ἅπασαν τὴν οὐράνιον θεωρίαν, all that was mystical in the heavens (Whiston), a panorama of the heavens (Loeb)], excepting that of the signs, representing living creatures.
There seems to have been a strain of Judaism, practiced in the Temple, which revered the seven planets, the heavens, and other astronomical entities. Memory of this strain has been repressed in the Jewish scriptures, relegated to descriptions of heretical moments in Israelite history. Yet it must have been mainstream enough both to register with an outside observer like Theophrastus and to call forth prophetic condemnations by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. And I bet, regardless of how the veil described by Josephus may have been interpreted in later times, that worshipers of the heavenly host would have had their own view of it.
Another similarity is that, while Epiphanius locates his Nasaraeans in the area just east of the Jordan, the Mandaeans themselves bear some kind of connection to the Jordan River:
Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, page 362: 362 Without baptism no “soul” is able to reach the next world. Baptisms take place at all cultic feasts, including weddings. Great sins even require several baptisms. Recent researches have shown that the fundamental features of the Mandean baptismal rite are derived from early Jewish baptismal practices in the Jordan region.
Erik Langkjer, “From 1 Enoch to Mandaean Religion,” page 11: By scrutinizing the Mandaean rituals Eric Segelberg has been able to draw the same conclusion as R. Macuch and K. Rudolph: that they migrated from the Jordan valley.
Erik Langkjer, “From 1 Enoch to Mandaean Religion,” page 11: By scrutinizing the Mandaean rituals Eric Segelberg has been able to draw the same conclusion as R. Macuch and K. Rudolph: that they migrated from the Jordan valley.
Yet another is that the Mandaeans trace their history back to well before the destruction of the Temple, while Epiphanius states that his Nasaraeans predated Christianity.
Now, there are also differences between the Mandaeans and the group which Epiphanius calls Nasaraeans. If I understand correctly, for example, Mandaeans do not circumcise their male children. If their religion is partly a reaction against Judaism, however, then perhaps many Jewish customs were changed deliberately in the process of moving eastward, both geographically and ideologically.
There is a particular brand of Judaism for which Mandaeism seems to bear some ancient affinities, and that brand is Enochic. For example, the archangel Uriel rails against the seven stars in a way very reminiscent of what we find in the Mandaic scriptures:
1 Enoch 21.1-6: 1 I traveled to where it was chaotic. 2 And there I saw a terrible thing; I saw neither heaven above nor firmly founded earth, but a chaotic and terrible place. 3 And there I saw seven of the stars of heaven, bound and thrown in it together, like great mountains, and burning in fire. 4 Then I said, “For what reason have they been bound, and for what reason have they been thrown here?” 5 Then Uriel said to me, one of the holy angels who was with me, and he was their leader, he said to me, “Enoch, why do you inquire, and why are you eager for the truth? 6 These are the stars of heaven that transgressed the command of the Lord; they have been bound here until ten thousand years are fulfilled — the time of their sins.”
Furthermore, the relationship between the Enochic literature and the Mosaic Law is uneasy at best:
Andreas Bedenbender, “The Place of the Torah in the Early Enoch Literature,” in Gabriele Boccaccini & John J. Collins, The Early Enoch Literature, page 79: 79 Enochic Judaism diversies, and so does its attitude towards the Torah. That even in later texts explicit quotations of the Torah are missing is easily to be explained: Enoch could know the content of the “tablets of heaven” but the revelation of Sinai was long past his time. What is much more remarkable, Enoch continues to ignore questions about the Mosaic Law. In part, this may be due to the fact that Enochic Judaism found its legal questions answered in other books — especially in Jubilees. In spite of this, the halakhic silence of Enoch should be taken as a warning, not to minimize the differences between later Enochism (or Essenism) and other forms of Judaism. An acceptance of the Torah of Moses doesn’t exclude the possibility that Enoch’s wisdom received an ongoing reverence as revelation of a higher kind. So probably Nickelsburg is right: “Although there is no evidence that the Enochic authors disregarded the content of the Pentateuchal laws, they have leapfrogged Moses and identified Enoch as the primordial recipient of all heavenly Wisdom” (= George W. E. Nickelsburg, Enochic Wisdom and Its Relationship To The Mosaic Torah, page 127).
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom and Its Relationship to the Mosaic Torah,” in Gabriele Boccaccini & John J. Collins, The Early Enoch Literature, pages 81-83:
81-83 I shall summarize, principally, the theses of my three previous discussions of the topic. ....
1. The various authors of 1 Enoch are acquainted with the Pentateuch (as well as much of the rest of the Hebrew Bible). ....
2. This use of material from the Pentateuch (and the Hebrew Bible more generally) notwithstanding, to judge from what the Enochic authors have written, and not written, the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic Torah were not of central importance to them. The only explicit reference to this covenant or Torah is in the Apocalypse of Weeks, which states that God made there “a covenant (or law) for all generations and a tabernacle” (93:6). The final redactor of the Book of the Watchers also seems to allude to this covenant and Torah in 1:4, which stipulates Sinai as the location of God’s descent for the final judgment. However, God’s judgment of “all flesh” ( Jews and Gentiles) suggests that the Mosaic Torah is not the only benchmark for this judgment. The reference to “the eternal covenant” in 99:2 may be one other rare reference to the Mosaic Torah. This striking lack of attention to the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic Torah is further emphasized in the Animal Apocalypse, which recounts the events at Sinai, including the theophany and Israel’s idolatry, but makes no reference to the establishment of the covenant or the giving of the Torah (89:29–35). God had opened the eyes of the sheep (i.e., given them revelation) already at Marah (89:28), where according to Exod 15:25–26 God had made a statute and ordinance with Israel and promised not to punish them if they “listened to his commandments and observed his statutes.” It is noteworthy that this author should take notice of these two obscure biblical verses but ignore the extensive legal and covenantal material in Exodus 20–24. In short, if usage is an indicator, the category of covenant and the word itself were not important for these authors.
George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Enochic Wisdom and Its Relationship to the Mosaic Torah,” in Gabriele Boccaccini & John J. Collins, The Early Enoch Literature, pages 81-83:
81-83 I shall summarize, principally, the theses of my three previous discussions of the topic. ....
1. The various authors of 1 Enoch are acquainted with the Pentateuch (as well as much of the rest of the Hebrew Bible). ....
2. This use of material from the Pentateuch (and the Hebrew Bible more generally) notwithstanding, to judge from what the Enochic authors have written, and not written, the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic Torah were not of central importance to them. The only explicit reference to this covenant or Torah is in the Apocalypse of Weeks, which states that God made there “a covenant (or law) for all generations and a tabernacle” (93:6). The final redactor of the Book of the Watchers also seems to allude to this covenant and Torah in 1:4, which stipulates Sinai as the location of God’s descent for the final judgment. However, God’s judgment of “all flesh” ( Jews and Gentiles) suggests that the Mosaic Torah is not the only benchmark for this judgment. The reference to “the eternal covenant” in 99:2 may be one other rare reference to the Mosaic Torah. This striking lack of attention to the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic Torah is further emphasized in the Animal Apocalypse, which recounts the events at Sinai, including the theophany and Israel’s idolatry, but makes no reference to the establishment of the covenant or the giving of the Torah (89:29–35). God had opened the eyes of the sheep (i.e., given them revelation) already at Marah (89:28), where according to Exod 15:25–26 God had made a statute and ordinance with Israel and promised not to punish them if they “listened to his commandments and observed his statutes.” It is noteworthy that this author should take notice of these two obscure biblical verses but ignore the extensive legal and covenantal material in Exodus 20–24. In short, if usage is an indicator, the category of covenant and the word itself were not important for these authors.
And, obviously, Enoch himself is precisely one of those Patriarchs whom Epiphanius lists as respected by his Nasaraean sect.
The Qumranites apparently shared a respect for the Enochic literature, much of it having been found amongst the scrolls, which brings up the following possible connection:
Gilles Quispel, “Gnosticism and the New Testament,” in Vigiliae Christianae, volume 19, number 2 (June 1965), page 79: 79 The curious expression “Lord of Greatness” in Mandaean writings has been found in the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon.
1QapGen (1QGenesis Apocryphon), column 2, lines 3-7: 3 Then I, Lamech, was frightened and turned to Bitenosh, my wife, [and said,] 4 [“Behold,] I adjure you by the Most High, by the Lord of Greatness [במרה רבותא], by the King of all A[ges, ...] 5 [...] the sons of heaven, that you tell me in truth everything, whether [...] 6 [....] Tell me without lies whether this ... [...] 7 by the King of all Ages that you are speaking to me frankly and without lies [....”]
1QapGen (1QGenesis Apocryphon), column 2, lines 3-7: 3 Then I, Lamech, was frightened and turned to Bitenosh, my wife, [and said,] 4 [“Behold,] I adjure you by the Most High, by the Lord of Greatness [במרה רבותא], by the King of all A[ges, ...] 5 [...] the sons of heaven, that you tell me in truth everything, whether [...] 6 [....] Tell me without lies whether this ... [...] 7 by the King of all Ages that you are speaking to me frankly and without lies [....”]
And there are other possible parallels between Mandaeism and Enochic Judaism:
Samuel Zinner, Vines of Joy: Comparative Studies in Mandaean History and Theology, page 73: 73 Qulasta 9 includes the following in its description of Abathur Atiqa (Abathur the Ancient): “There he sits, the scales [of judgment] in front of him, weighing deeds and rewards.” In Jewish traditions Enoch or Metatron holds the scales of justice; we therefore see that in Mandaean texts the equivalent figures of the Ancient of Days and the Enochic-Metatronic Son of Man are apparently merged into a unity.
Samuel Zinner, Vines of Joy: Comparative Studies in Mandaean History and Theology, page 74: 74 Incidentally, another commonality shared between the Ethiopic Book of Enoch and Mandaeaism is the common Mandaic term “elect righteous,” bhir zidqa (plural bhiria zidqa), paralleled in the Ethiopic term ḥeruy sadeq. While occurring predominantly throughout the Parables of Enoch, the configuration is found already in the very first verse of 1 Enoch.
Samuel Zinner, Vines of Joy: Comparative Studies in Mandaean History and Theology, page 76: 76 Lastly, the divine title “Lord of spirits,” ʾegzi’a manafest, found throughout the Parables of Enoch, may be paralleled in the Mandaean phrase maraihun d kulhun nishmata, “Lord of all souls,” found in Ginza Rba 2,2,20.
Samuel Zinner, Vines of Joy: Comparative Studies in Mandaean History and Theology, page 74: 74 Incidentally, another commonality shared between the Ethiopic Book of Enoch and Mandaeaism is the common Mandaic term “elect righteous,” bhir zidqa (plural bhiria zidqa), paralleled in the Ethiopic term ḥeruy sadeq. While occurring predominantly throughout the Parables of Enoch, the configuration is found already in the very first verse of 1 Enoch.
Samuel Zinner, Vines of Joy: Comparative Studies in Mandaean History and Theology, page 76: 76 Lastly, the divine title “Lord of spirits,” ʾegzi’a manafest, found throughout the Parables of Enoch, may be paralleled in the Mandaean phrase maraihun d kulhun nishmata, “Lord of all souls,” found in Ginza Rba 2,2,20.
It is striking that a phrase which so often pops up in 1 Enoch, "righteous elect," also pops up in the Mandaic texts.
There are, of course, quite a few Mandaic parallels with Christianity, as well, including an intense focus on baptism, and even upon running water, as in a river, as the proper venue for baptism:
Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, page 360: 360 The great importance which the Mandeans attribute to their cult practices shows their special character even more clearly. It is not “knowledge” alone that redeems but the cultic rites, primarily baptism and the “mass for the dead,” are necessary for salvation. From this it may be deduced that here the gnostic ideology was amalgamated with that of an older cultic community, a heretical Jewish baptismal sect as is suggested by the water rites, and that thus an original Mandean-Nasorean system came into existence, probably already in pre-Christian times. The central cultic rite is baptism or “immersion” (masbuta, pronounced maswetta) in flowing (“living”) water which is called “Jordan.” It can be administered in any river, but in practice it is confined to certain sites which are in the vicinity of the dwelling places of the Mandeans.
Didache 7.1-4: 1 But with respect to baptism, baptize as follows. Having said all these things in advance, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (= Matthew 28.19), in living water [ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι]. 2 But, if you do not have running water, baptize in some other water. And if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. 3 But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4 But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can. But command the one being baptized to fast one or two days in advance.
Didache 7.1-4: 1 But with respect to baptism, baptize as follows. Having said all these things in advance, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (= Matthew 28.19), in living water [ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι]. 2 But, if you do not have running water, baptize in some other water. And if you cannot baptize in cold water, use warm. 3 But if you have neither, pour water on the head three times in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4 But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can. But command the one being baptized to fast one or two days in advance.
There also seems to be a mild similarity between Mandaean and early Christian rites on behalf of the dead:
Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, page 362: 362 The second chief ceremony of the Mandeans is the mass for the dead, which is called “ascent” (masiqta, pronounced massechtha). It is celebrated at the death of a believer and serves the “ascent” of his soul into the realm of light. It, too, includes lustrations with “Jordan”, viz. river water, anointing with oil and crowning with the myrtle wreath. But the main ingredient is the recitations from the Left Ginza which begin on the third day after death when the soul is divorced from the body and are continued at fixed intervals until the end of the forty-five days’ journey of the soul.
1 Corinthians 15.29: 29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
1 Corinthians 15.29: 29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
But such rites for the dead may have been widespread. The Mandaean view that the soul is divorced from the body only on the third day after death, incidentally, certainly sounds familiar:
Descent of Inana: They shouted at her — it was the shout of heavy guilt. The afflicted woman was turned into a corpse. And the corpse was hung on a hook. After three days and three nights had passed, her minister Ninsubura carried out the instructions of her mistress.
Hosea 6.2: 2 “He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him.”
Midrash, Genesis Rabbah 100.7: Bar Kappara taught, “Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it. Thus it says, ‘But his flesh grieves for him, and his soul mourns over him’ (= Job 14.22).”
Midrash, Leviticus Rabbah 18.1: For three days [after death] the soul hovers over the body, intending to reenter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs, as it is written, “When his flesh that is on him is distorted, his soul will mourn over him” (= Job 14.22).
Hosea 6.2: 2 “He will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him.”
Midrash, Genesis Rabbah 100.7: Bar Kappara taught, “Until three days [after death] the soul keeps on returning to the grave, thinking that it will go back; but when it sees that the facial features have become disfigured, it departs and abandons it. Thus it says, ‘But his flesh grieves for him, and his soul mourns over him’ (= Job 14.22).”
Midrash, Leviticus Rabbah 18.1: For three days [after death] the soul hovers over the body, intending to reenter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs, as it is written, “When his flesh that is on him is distorted, his soul will mourn over him” (= Job 14.22).
There may be a similarity between the way the Mandaeans appropriated early Jewish Christian motifs (Elizabeth, John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus) and the way Greek Christians appropriated early Jewish motifs (Nicodemus, perhaps, for example). Both religious groups, the Mandaeans in Iran and the Christians around the Mediterranean, traced their origins to Palestine, and thus were interested in filling in that back story using Palestinian traditions.
What I find to be especially intriguing is that, not only are there Mandaean parallels with Enochic Judaism, but there are elements of Christianity itself, especially in its Petrine and Gnostic forms, which are Enochic. I have already drawn attention to several connections between Petrine Christianity and Enochic Judaism elsewhere on this forum. As for Gnostic Christianity, just as both the Mandaeans and the Nasaraeans respected certain Patriarchs while not caring a fig about the Mosaic Law, so too the Nag Hammadi texts seem to like some of the figures from the primeval history — Adam, Seth, and Shem — while either ignoring or eschewing the Law. The Gnostic Christians essentially continued the trend of adding new revelation to the implicit canon. Entire hierarchies of archontic beings are spun out of revelatory discourses in the Nag Hammadi texts in ways similar to how various angelic beings are named and ranked in the Enochic texts. Gnostic Christianity added more modern figures to the ancient lists of figures to draw upon: Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Judas, and others now fill roles similar to those played by Adam, Seth, and so on. Most vividly, Gnostic Christianity tended either to demote or even to reject outright the Jewish deity, Yahweh; and so do the Mandaeans:
Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, pages 363-364: 363-364 Up to the present day only one Mandean text has emerged which refers, but in a very confused manner, to the history of the sect. It is the “Diwan of the great Revelation, called ‘Inner Haran’” (“Haran Gawaita”). In the other writings there are occasionally allusions to the persecution of the community in Jerusalem by the Jews in the course of which the city was destroyed as a punishment; the reference is probably to A.D. 70. In the Haran Gawaita scroll the legend of John the Baptist as a Mandean prophet and “envoy of the king of light” is interpolated into these events. He appears here, and in other texts, as adversary of Christ. However, he is never described as founder of the community but only as a particularly great “disciple” or “priest” of the Mandean religion. The attempt has been made to deduce from this that we have here historical traditions of the disciples of the Baptist, but this cannot be proved up to now. It is more likely that the Mandeans took over legends of this kind from heretical Christian, possibly gnostic, circles and shaped them according to their ideas. In any case, the figure of John is not fundamental for them. The relations, which have already been mentioned, between the Mandean baptismal ceremony and the world of baptist sects in the east Jordan region at this time (1st century A.D.) are an entirely different matter. Numerous elements in vocabulary and tradition, moreover, demonstrate very clearly that, in spite of the fierce anti-Jewish polemic — the Jewish God Adonai (“my Lord”) is seen as a false god and Moses accordingly as prophet of Rūhā, the evil spirit — the Jewish origin of the community cannot be denied. We are, therefore, ultimately dealing with a heretical Jewish sect which, like other comparable groups of late Jewish religious history, stood in opposition to the official Judaism and was wide open to non-Jewish influences, above all Iranian and gnostic. Unfortunately, nothing can be ascertained about the probable social background. In the context of the Jewish wars of independence and the growing consolidation of Judaism after the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), its position in opposition evidently led to persecutions of the community and ultimately to its emigration from the Jordan territory — Jordan is today still the name of the baptismal waters — to the east. The Haran Gawaita scroll reports the flight of a large group of “Nasoreans” during the rule of a (Parthian) king Ardbān (Artabanus) from the Jewish rulers to the “inner Haran” territory or the “Median hill-country” (Tura deMadai). The reference is clearly to the penetration by the community, or part of it, of the north-west Iranian territory between Harran and Nisibis or Media during the period of the later Arsacids (1st or 2nd century A.D.). The same document attests immediately afterwards the foundation of a community in Baghdad, i.e. in Mesopotamia, and the appointment of Mandean governors in this region. The Sassanids brought this expansion to an end.
Adonai = Yahweh, who stands rejected as a false god. The impression I get is that the Mandaeans are sort of an eastern version of the western Gnostics. The former drew upon the Zoroastrian, Babylonian, and other cultural influences they encountered as they moved eastward, while the latter drew upon the Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Roman influences they encountered as they moved westward, as it were. And both groups rejected the god of the people to whom they trace their religious heritage.
This post is kind of a mishmash; there is a very real danger of forcing everything together in an unnatural way in order to make sense of a rather complicated picture. Relevant comments and corrections welcome. I am not in any way a scholar of Mandaeism.
Ben.