The Mandaeans are strictly reticent about their theological dogmas in the presence of strangers; and the knowledge they actually possess of these is extremely small. The foundation of the system is obviously to be sought in Gnosticism, and more particularly in the older type of that doctrine (known from the serpent symbol as Ophite or Naassene) which obtained in Mesopotamia and Further Asia generally. But it is equally plain that the Ophite nucleus has from time to time received very numerous and often curiously perverted accretions from Babylonian Judaism, Oriental Christianity and Parsism, exhibiting a striking example of religious syncretism. In the Gnostic basis itself it is not difficult to recognize the general features of the religion of ancient Babylonia, and thus we are brought nearer a solution of the problem as to the origin of Gnosticism in general. It is certain that Babylonia, the seat of the present Mandaeans, must be regarded also as the cradle in which their system was reared; it is impossible to think of them as coming from Palestine, or to attribute to their doctrines a Jewish or Christian origin. They do not spring historically from the disciples of John the Baptist (Acts xviii. 25; xix. 3 seq.; Recog. Clem. i. 54); the tradition in which he and the Jordan figure so largely is not original, and is therefore worthless; at the same time it is true that their baptismal praxis and its interpretation place them in the same religious group with the Hemerobaptists of Eusebius (H. E. iv. 22) and Epiphanius (Haer., xvii.), or with the sect of disciples of John who remained apart from Christianity. Their reverence for John is of a piece with their whole syncretizing attitude towards the New Testament. Indeed, as has been seen, they appropriate the entire personale of the Bible from Adam, Seth, Abel, Enos and Pharaoh to Jesus and John, a phenomenon which bears witness to the close relations of the Mandaean doctrine both with Judaism and Christianity—not the less close because they were relations of hostility. The history of religion presents other examples of the degradation of holy to demonic figures on occasion of religious schism. The use of the word “Jordan,” even in the plural, for “sacred water,” is precisely similar to that by the Naassenes described in the Philosophumena (v. 7); there ὁ μέγας Ἰορδάνης denotes the spiritualizing sanctifying fluid which pervades the world of light. The notions of the Egyptians and the Red Sea, according to the same work (v. 16), are used by the Peratae much as by the Mandaeans. And the position assigned by the Sethians (Σηθιανοί) to Seth is precisely similar to that given by the Mandaeans to Abel. Both alike are merely old Babylonian divinities in a new Biblical garb. The genesis of Mandaeism and the older gnosis from the old and elaborate Babylonio-Chaldaean religion is clearly seen also in the fact that the names of the old pantheon (as for example those of the planetary divinities) are retained, but their holders degraded to the position of demons—a conclusion confirmed by the fact that the Mandaeans, like the allied Ophites, Peratae and Manichaeans, certainly have their original seat in Mesopotamia and Babylonia. It seems clear that the trinity of Anu, Bel, and Ea in the old Babylonian religion has its counterpart in the Mandaean Pīrā, Ayar, and Mānā rabbā. The D’mūthā of Mānā is the Damkina, the wife of Ea, mentioned by Damascius as Δαύκη, wife of Ἁός. Mandā d’hayyē and his image Hibil Zīvā with his incarnations clearly correspond to the old Babylonian Marduk, Merodach, the “first-born” son of Ea, with his incarnations, the chief divinity of the city of Babylon, the mediator and redeemer in the old religion. Hibil’s contest with darkness has its prototype in Marduk’s battle with chaos, the dragon Tiamat, which (another striking parallel) partially swallows Marduk, just as is related of Hibil and the Manichaean primal man. Other features are borrowed by the Mandaean mythology under this head from the well-known epos of Istar’s descensus ad inferos. The sanctity with which water is invested by the Mandaeans is to be explained by the fact that Ea has his seat “in the depths of the world sea.”
Cf. K. Kessler’s article, “Mandäer,” in Herzog-Hauck’s Realencyklopädie, and the same author’s paper, “Ueber Gnosis u. altbabylonische Religion,” in the Abhandh. d. fūnften internationalen Orientalisten-congresses zu Berlin (Berlin, 1882); also W. Brandt’s Mandäische Religion (Leipzig, 1889), and M. N. Siouffi’s Études sur la religion des Soubbas (Paris, 1880).
(K. K.; G. W. T.)
[1] The first of these names (not Mendaeans or Mandaites) is that given by themselves, and means γνωστικοί, followers of Gnosis (מאנדאייא, from מאנדא, Hebr. מדע). The Gnosis of which they profess themselves adherents is a personification, the æon and mediator “knowledge of life” (see below). The title Nasoraeans (Nāṣōrāyē), according to Petermann, they give only to those among themselves who are most distinguished for knowledge and character. Like the Arabic Naṣāra, it is originally identical with the name of the half heathen half Jewish-Christian Ναζωραῖοι, and indicates an early connexion with that sect. The inappropriate designation of St John’s Christians arises from the early and imperfect acquaintance of Christian missionaries, who had regard merely to the reverence in which the name of the Baptist is held among them, and their frequent baptisms. In their dealings with members of other communions the designation they take is Sabians, in Arabic Ṣābi’ūna, from צבא = צבע, to baptize, thus claiming the toleration extended by the Koran (Sur, 5,.73; 22, 17; 2, 59) to those of that name.
[2] In 1882 they were said to have shrunk to 200 families, and to be seeking a new settlement on the Tigris, to escape the persecutions to which they are exposed.
[3] See T. Nöldeke’s admirable Mandäische Grammatik (Halle, 1875).
[4] Narratio originis, rituum, et errorum Christianorum S. Joannis (Rome, 1652).
[5] Reisebeschreibung, part iv. (Geneva, 1674).
[6] Voyage au Levant (Paris, 1664).