ARAM, 22 (2010) 495-507. doi: 10.2143/ARAM.22.0.2131051

MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

Prof. JORUNN J. BUCKLEY (Bowdoin College)

INTRODUCTION

This presentation marks a continuation of issues raised in my article “Polemics and Exorcism in Mandaean .”1 In pursuing the topic of possible connec- tions between the Mandaean Sitil and Sethianism I focus on baptism, not on the kinds of materials usefully gathered and explored in Mark Lofts’ presentation “Mandaeism-the sole Extant Tradition of Sethian Gnosticism” at the Sydney ARAM conference, July 2007, First, then, I ask where Sitil occurs in Mandaean baptism contexts, both in the Lightworld baptism settings, and in earthly, material ones. Second, I explore how these baptism contexts may be compared to evidence in Sethian Nag Hammadi texts such as The Gospel of the Egyp- tians, Tripartite Protennoia, and The Apocalypse of Adam. Scholars treated here include John Turner, Birger Pearson, and Hans-Martin Schenke. Third, I cri- tique the theories of J.-M. Sevrin, in his 1986 book on Sethian baptism materials.

BAPTISM AND SITIL

As we know, running water, yardna (“Jordan”) in Mandaeism is the form that the Lightworld takes on earth. Therefore, repeated immersions mark prepa- rations and rehearsals for entry into that world, an entry that properly happens only at the death of the body. As the baptism, the maÒbuta, is not an initiation, a valid interpretation of it cannot insist on a rebirth typology. Kurt Rudolph rightly states that, “because the baptism furnishes the only possibility for taking part in the Light-world, its regular repetition is necessary.”2 Some of the char- acteristic aspects of the baptism liturgy are: healing, the bestowal of protective Light-world names, exorcisms, and being signed with the sign of Life. While Mandaean baptism cleanses from sin, it conveys no conversion; the baptism confirms an already existing identity.3

1 History of Religions 47, 2/3, 2007/2008 (156-170). 2 Kurt Rudolph, Die Mandäer II: Der Kult, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960-61, p. 93. 3 See my study, “Why Once is Not Enough: Mandaean baptism (MaÒbuta) as an Example of a Repeated Ritual,” History of Religions 29, 1, 1989 (23-34).

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 449595 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 496 MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

Throughout the various segments of the baptism ritual – which can take many hours, depending on the number of participants – the priest utters seventy-two . Some of them are very long (the entire collection of Mandaean prayers number ca. 400). All the prayers must be spoken at the correct spot in the ritual, with specified gestures and body positions. Both the textual contents and the dynamics in the first prayers of the baptism liturgy have a particular intent: to remember the cosmology and to (re)-establish the Mandaean identity of lay- people and priests. At the end of the ritual, everything seems to be well and re-established, but it has taken hours to achieve a temporarily tolerable Gnostic balance of the universe. The ritual is considered to be very old, and no anti-Islamic polemics appears in the baptism liturgy. We have no evidence of comparably massive Christian baptism liturgies in the early centuries. Therefore, the suspicion arises: the Gnostics may have outdone the “orthodox” in this respect. If there is a historical connection between John and the Mandaeans, could John’s ritual have been the foundation for the Mandaean one?4 Such questions have so far escaped articulation, perhaps due to the embarrassingly limited evidence for actual Christian baptism rituals, and also due to scholars’ reluctance to pri- oritize liturgies. In the latter respect, the Mandaean liturgy presents a special challenge, because of its sheer bulk. Considering the scarcity of related late antiquity , is it fruitful to compare the Mandaean liturgy with other ancient Near Eastern/Roman Empire baptismal rituals? Eric Segelberg and Kurt Rudolph thought so, but their attempts fell short, for reasons I have examined elsewhere. If Mandaean bap- tism bears no resemblance to Jewish proselyte baptism, then what about the New Testament, or related materials? Does the New Testament misrepresent John the Baptist’s baptism? Which liturgy did he use, or did he invent one? The Mandaean maÒbuta does not look like a “” baptism; it is not a “baptism on behalf of the dead” (1 Cor 15:29) – except in the cases of Mandaean proxy baptism for a person who has suffered an unclean death. The Mandaean baptism has no emphasis on apocalyptic ideas, and while there is a focus on of sins, it is by no means the only one. Additionally, the idea of being baptized in the name of one’s earthly baptizer is strongly rejected by Paul in 1 Cor. In short, the New Testament baptism evidence is too scattered to have had much influence on the study of Mandaean baptism, at least so far.

4 Regarding John the Baptist, the traditions in the Mandaean Book of John (Mark Lidzbarski, Das Johannesbuch der Mandäer, Giessen: Töpelmann, 1915, reprinted 1966) do contain valuable clues about John. These John traditions are much larger than what we have in early . See my, “Turning the Tables on Jesus: The Mandaean View,” in A People’s History of Chris- tianity: Christian Origins, ed. Richard A. Horsley, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005, 94-109.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 449696 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 J.J. BUCKLEY 497

In an extended view, one is compelled to note that both Jesus and Mani seem to be followers of groups led by a baptist: John and Elchasai.5 So, water is a positively evaluated element. The only New Testament exorcism context where Jesus is linked directly and positively to water is in Gos John 9:1: the pool of Siloam, a body of water bearing a name that probably contains a pun on the word “sent.” So, Jesus, as a wrong-headed “sliha kus†ana” – Mandaically speaking – is therefore identified with the saving water. Even though stagnant pool water is unsuitable for baptism, according to Mandaean ideology, Gos John states that the water is salvific when an angel stirs it. This story may reflect a debate on baptism in stagnant vs. in moving water. In an article on the Sethians, Hans-Martin Schenke makes reference to Man- daeism.6 But those primarily interested in Nag Hammadi texts do not supply evidence from Mandaeism, as these scholars may not be particularly familiar with the tradition. And the Mandaean Seth’s (i.e. Sitil’s) connection with water remains unexplained. Usually, the Mandaean Lightworld messenger Sitil appears with his two companions Hibil and Anus.7 The three form a frequently encountered trium- virate, and the formula “In the names of Hibil, Sitil and Anus-‘utra” is found in many Mandaean texts. All three names are malwasia names. When the three mythological messenger/savior figures appear together, we may perhaps discern a specific literary tradition, separate from the strain that treats Sitil as a son of Adam, and from settings in which Sitil is alone, neither with his brothers/ comrades, nor placed in relation to his father. It is not known whether these are indeed three separate literary traditions, and we do find combinations of them. Texts such as GR 11 and GR 12, 1,8 offer the genealogy “Anus, son of the Great Sitil, son of the Great Adam.” GR 11 is indeed titled “The Mystery and the Great Book of Anus, son of the Great Sitil, son of the Great Adam, son of the Mighty ‘utras of Glory.” And in GR 12, the speaker is Anus, son of the great Sitil.” In GR 3 the characterization “Sitil, the good child/plant” (sitla †aba)9 gains force by the pun on the verb rt. STL.

5 But regarding Elchasai, note that Dan Shapira has another view in his, “Mandaean and quasi-Mandaean Prototypes of some Expressions in the Greek Mani Codex: Stray Aramaicist’s Notes: Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Societas Iranologica (Ravenna 6-11 ottobre, 2003), ed. A. Clemente, D. Panaino, A. Piras, Milano: Mimesis Edizioni, 2006 (691-700). 6 Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism,” The Redis- covery of Gnosticism, Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978, vol. II, Sethian Gnosticism, ed. Bentley Layton, Leiden: Brill, 1981, 588-616, p. 606. Note the study by A. F. J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic Literature, Leiden: Brill, 1977, which takes no interest in Mandaeism. 7 See, for instance, chapter 3 in my The Mandaeans. Ancient Texts and Modern People, Oxford/New York, 2002. 8 Mark Lidzbarski, Ginza. Der Schatz oder das grosse Buch der Mandäer, Göttingen: Van- den hoeck and Ruprecht, 1925 (reprint 1978) (separated into Right Ginza and Left Ginza (= GR and GL), p. 251 and p. 269. 9 Ibid., 108, 18, p. 118.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 449797 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 498 MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

CP 105 (entitled “Asiet Malkia” (“Salutation of Kings”) lists Sitil, among many other Mandaean luminaries, together with Hibil and Anus,10 but in the same , king Sitil is also called “the son of Adam.”11 Also, in CP 170, entitled “Good is the Good for the Good,” he is “Sitil, son of Adam.”12 The most famous story of Sitil as son of Adam occurs in GL 1,1.13 Looking for the figure of Sitil in the Mandaean baptism-contexts, one finds, in CP prayer #21, “our father Sitil” appearing alone.14 The speaker, in the 1st p. sing., is anonymous, but he states that he meets a group of souls sur- rounding “our father Sitil,” and these souls ask him (Sitil) to go with them to the river (yardna). Were he to do so, Sitil asks, “who will be your witness?”15 The souls answer, in successive stanzas, that sun, moon, and fire will be the witnesses, and in each case Sitil objects, saying that these answers are incorrect. The polemical content of this prayer is striking,16 for Sitil criticizes sun, moon, and fire as unsuitable witnesses to the Mandaean baptism. Finally the souls reply that the yardna and its two banks will be their witness, as will the pihta, kus†a, mambuha, Habsaba, Kana ∂-Zidqa, the mandi, alms, and “our father”17 (i.e. Sitil himself). Tied to the Jordan as a teacher and seemingly as a ritual official, Sitil in CP 21 occupies a singular position, different from his appearance in another, ritually prior baptism prayer, CP 13. Here, he is mentioned together with his brothers Hibil and Anus, and also with the two yardna witnesses Silmai and Nidbai.18 In this prayer, a single soul speaks, stating that these five “went with me to the yardna – they who baptize with the great baptism of Life.”19 In ATS, Book I, ii, 20 the exegetical reference to Sitil in CP 21 posits Sitil as the “father” of Ruha, for her cry of distress is directed at Sitil, who here impersonates the yardna. Identified as the earth, Ruha implores the yardna/Sitil not to impregnate her when the mysteries are falling into her.21 Here Sitil is identified as the fertilizing water, which concurs with ATS’s immediately pre- ceding interpretation of CP 21, specifically of the prayer’s phrase, “By thy Life,

10 E. S. Drower, The Canonical Prayerbook of the Mandaeans (= CP), Leiden: Brill, 1959, p. 104. 11 Ibid. p. 106. 12 Ibid. p. 151. 13 GL p. 423-429. See the treatment of details in this story in chapter 3 of my The Mandaeans. 14 CP, p. 16-17. 15 Ibid. p. 16 16 I have treated the topic of polemics in the baptism liturgy in my 2007 article, as noted. 17 CP, p. 17-18. 18 Ibid. p. 9. 19 Ibid. 20 Ethel S. Drower, Alf Trisar Suialia (The Thousand and Twelve Questions) (= ATS), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1960, p. 173, section 243. 21 For this tradition, see chapter 4 in my The Mandaeans, p. 43. I did not explicitly identify the yardna as Sitil there.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 449898 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 J.J. BUCKLEY 499

Sitil, our father, go with us to the Jordan.”22 ATS’s offers an exegesis: “because trees and living creatures that have no access to water are destroyed and become as though they had never existed. They [i.e. the souls] exalted Sitil, their father, because he is father of mysteries and of all kings, and father of souls, (and) of constructed things.”23 So far, we note Sitil as ritual official and teacher at the yardna (CP), and as the water itself (ATS).

SETHIANISM

Kurt Rudolph is the only one who has called for a comparison of the Mandaean materials with the Nag Hammadi Library texts.24 So far, nobody has followed up on his suggestion, probably because few feel sufficiently confident in studying both fields: Nag Hammadi texts and Mandaeism. The Sethian Nag Hammadi material would indeed be a place to start. In a 1990 article, Howard M. Jackson links the prophetic messianic movements of the 1st and 2nd centuries to an interest in baptism, an interest that includes a focus on ascent.25 Taken together, baptism and ascension in fact provide a clue, because in Mandaeism, the masiqta (the death ritual) and the maÒbuta, the baptism, are linked by the usage of the same verb: SLQ I (“to ascend,” “to rise up”). As I have argued elsewhere,26 the baptism forms a kind of prelude or rehearsal to the masiqta, the ascent at the end of life. Because water is the manner in which the Light- world reflects itself on earth (as noted), being plunged into running water para- doxically marks an ascent. Keeping in mind Jackson’s comment, above, I note that John Turner (who has researched Sethianism for decades) identifies four Sethian Nag Hammadi texts featuring visionary ascent.27 If we think of GL 1,1, this theme is central, for in GL 1, 1 Sitil ascends as the first human to die instead of his father Adam, who has implored the angel of death to take his virginal son instead.

22 CP, p. 16. 23 ATS, p. 173 (sect. 243). 24 Kurt Rudolph, “Coptica-Mandaica, Zu einigen Übereinstimmungen zwischen Koptisch- Gnostischen und Mandäischen Texten,” in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Pahor Labib, ed. M. Krause, Leiden: Brill, 1975 191-216. (re-published in Gnosis und Spätantike Reli- gionsgeschichte: Gesämmelte Aufsätze, Leiden; Brill, 1996. [433-457]). 25 Howard M. Jackson, “The Seer Nikotheos and His Lost Apocalypse in the Light of Sethian Apocalypses from Nag Hammadi and the Apocalypse of Elchasai,” Novum Testamentum 32, facs. 3, 1990 (250-277), p. 276. 26 See my The Mandaeans, chapter 7, p. 84. 27 John Turner, “Time and History in Sethian Gnosticism,” in, For the Children, Perfect Instruction. Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-Gnostische Schriften’s Thirtieth Year, ed. Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Stephen Emmel, Karen L. King, and Imke Schletterer, Leiden: Brill, 2002 (203-214), p. 203.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 449999 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 500 MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

Consequently, Sitil experiences visions and enlightenment in the upper worlds, revelations unavailable to Adam. Had Turner consulted GL 1,1 (and other Mandaean Sitil traditions), he would undoubtedly have found much food for thought. In contrast to the ascent model, the descent pattern in Sethian Nag Hammadi texts associate the opposite direction with enlightenment and with baptism, Turner notes. In GL 1,1 we find another three-part configuration: enlightenment, vision, and death. This differs from the scenario in GR 6’s tale of Dinanukt,28 for in GL 1,1 Sitil remains in the Light- world and does not return to earth. Neither text has any emphasis on baptism. Turner places the earliest evidence for Sethianism in the first quarter of the 2nd century, before the era of Irenaeus (ca. 175), a time of debates on Gos John, debates found in the Sethian texts The Apocryphon of John (= Ap John) and in Trimorphic Protennoia (Tri Prot).29 My own research into the proba- bility of an early 1st century Mandaean emigration eastward is relevant here,30 for we may see the Mandaeans (in present-day southwestern Iran) involved in such discussions, too, especially with respect to Jesus’ baptism and exorcism claims. Like Sethianism, Mandaeism may have had a brief stage of experimenta- tion, so to speak, with a Christian identity.31 Mandaeism’s relationship to earliest Christianity needs a renewed examination, as I have argued elsewhere.32 Platonism is the focus of Turner’s interest in detecting the stages of Sethian- ism, but if he had looked more intently eastward he might have found another arena of possible interactions between Sethian traditions and another form of Gnosticism: Mandaeism. A third literary strain is clearly relevant here: the Enoch traditions, neglected in terms of their Mandaean versions.33 A second Nag Hammadi scholar, Birger Pearson, tries to develop a typology of the Gnostic figure of Seth,34 though he states that he will omit any extended treatment of both the Mandaean and the Manichaean materials.35 Pearson notes

28 See my essay (delivered at the ARAM Society for Syro-Mesopotamean Studies Conference in Sydney, Australia, July 2007): “ New Perspectives on the Mandaean Sage Dinanukt in Right Ginza 6.” (An abbreviated version was presented in Tours, France, at the colloquium “Les forces du bien et du mal dans les premiers siècles d’Église” [September 2008]). 29 Ibid. p. 205-206. 30 See chapter 15 of my, The Great Stem of Souls: Reconstructing Mandaean History, Piscata- way, N. J.: Gorgias Press, 2005, 3rd reprint 2010. 31 Ibid. See also my “Turning the Tables on Jesus,” and consult Turner on the question of the development of Sethianism. 32 See Chapter 15 in The Great Stem of Souls, and “Turning the Tables.” 33 I deal with this in my “New Perspectives on the Mandaean Sage Dinanukt in Right Ginza 6.” 34 Birger Pearson, “The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature,” in Bentley Layton, ed. The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, March 28-31, 1978, vol. II, Sethian Gnosticism Leiden: Brill, 1981 (472-504, with continuing discussion), p. 478. 35 Ibid. p. 473. See ibid. p. 487, note 53, however, which does give a brief reference to the Mandaean Sitil.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550000 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 J.J. BUCKLEY 501

that the Church Father Hippolytos (in Adv. Haer. 1:30) identifies the three principles light, spirit, and darkness in Sethianism.36 This is highly suggestive for comparisons with the Mandaean tripartite anthropology. (I will return to this, below, when dealing with Tri Prot). Several other topics of comparison are relevant, such as the notion found in The Gospel of the Egyptians (Gos Eg): both Adam and Seth have heavenly as well as earthly selves. As Pearson argues, the much debated “seed of Seth” designation may not work in Coptic as a pun.37 But Sitil “the good plant/child” in GR III (noted earlier), probably reflects Gen. 4:25, for the pun is present in Hebrew, in Eve’s statement that, that has “put in me/planted in me/estab- lished in me/established for me” the child Seth (rt. STL, S¨T). It is possible that the Mandaean sobriquet of Sitil as the “good plant”/”good child” – i.e. that he is of divine provenance – reflects the variety of associations found in Hebrew. They certainly work in Mandaic. Gos Eg attributes itself to Seth, who placed the writing on a high mountain for the elect.38 I have suggested that this mountain, Charaxio, refers to a site in Characene (main city: Charax Spasinou), in southernmost Mesopotamia, an area within prime Mandaean territory in the very early Christian centuries.39 Another interesting association to Mandaeism in Gos Eg is Harmozel, one of the four great lights.40 This may point to a Persian heritage, and the name Hurmuz/ Hormoz is used early on as a name in Mandaean priest traditions.41 Such a “Persian” hint not only takes us eastward, but demonstrates the “interna- tionalism” – and not just sheer imaginative love of invention – in angelic/ divine names in the Gnostic texts. With respect to Gos Eg, one might re- appreciate Alexander Böhlig’s admirable effort, in his Exkurs i-iv, at sorting out the creations, developments, and relationships among the heavenly forces in this document.42 Like The Apocalypse of the Great Seth and Ap Adam, Gos Eg considers Jesus as an incarnation of Seth. Scholars agree that Jesus is a secondary figure in Sethianism, making this Gnostic movement non-(and even pre-) Christian.43 Jesus avatar-role might be another link to Mandaeism, for Jesus’ counterfeit baptism is well attested in JB,44 and Jesus has usurped Anus’ position, especially.

36 Ibid. p. 474. 37 Pearson, p. 488. 38 Ibid. p. 477. 39 Ibid. p. 494, and see again, chapter 15 in The Great Stem of Souls. 40 Mentioned by Pearson, p. 483. 41 See the Index of Priests in my The Great Stem of Souls, p. 351, col. 1, with references. 42 Alexander Böhlig, “Das Ägypterevangelium,” in Gnosis und Synkretismus. Gesammelte Aufsätze zum spätantike Religionsgeschichte, vol. 1, WUNT 47, Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1989, p. 363-70. 43 Pearson, p. 500. 44 See my, “Turning the Tables.”

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550101 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 502 MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

Gos Eg refers to baptism specifically as “spring baptism,” which indicates living, moving water. The gospel characterizes the baptism as a renunciation “of the Five Seals.”45 Whether this mean the five senses, we do not quite know (but I will return to the topic below). In Ap Adam, Adam confesses to his son Seth how he, Adam, and his wife Eve, lost their divine prerogatives, and Seth then becomes the bearer of Gnosis. This tradition, according to Pearson, marks the earliest stratum in the Gnostic treatments of Seth.46 Pearson sees Ap Adam as critiquing the Jewish apocalyptic Adam traditions. Considering GL 1,1, which also features Seth/ Sitil upstaging his father Adam, we may see this Mandaean text, too, as a polemic against those (mainly Jewish) traditions.47 Seth becomes the hero, not Adam. GL 1,1 fits here, for it presents Sitil as a better Gnostic than his father. The Sethian interpretations in Ap Adam, then, refuse to see Adam in a positive light, and he becomes a semi-tragic figure. In his essay at the 1978 Yale conference Hans-Martin Schenke lists the Sethian Nag Hammadi texts.48 He notes that Ap Adam features three guardians of the holy baptismal water, but the triadic pattern is also central to Gos Eg.49 Schenke calls Gos Eg “ a mythological of a well-defined ritual of baptism.”50 In this text, Seth is a male virgin (as he is in GL 1,1, one should recall), passing through many dangers and powers in order to save the race that has gone astray. By mysterious means, “the Great Seth” has prepared a baptism for himself, according to Ap Adam. The text features a numbers of named powers. Several of them are triads. The powers connected to baptism fall into four categories: 1. those who “preside over the spring of truth”; 2. “he who presides over the baptism of the living”; 3. ” “the purifiers;” 4. those “who preside over the gates of the waters.”51 It is possible that these reflect ritual offices, ritual realities. In Mandaeism, Sitil has one baptism associated with his name, “the Baptism of Sitil,” performed for a priest who has officiated at a marriage ceremony when the bride was not a virgin.52 This is highly suggestive, of course, for according to GL 1,1, Sitil – the male virgin par excellence – died at the young age of 80, too young to have had a wife or children, as the text states.

45 Böhlig, p. 217. 46 Pearson, p. 494. 47 Ibid. 48 Hans-Martin Schenke, “The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism.” p. 588. 49 Consult Böhlig here, as noted. 50 Schenke, p. 600. 51 James M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi Library in English (= NHL), San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988 (2nd ed.), p. 216-217 (sect. 63-64). 52 See E. S. Drower, The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran, Leiden: Brill, 1937 (2nd ed. 1962); reprinted by Gorgias Press, Piscataway, New Jersey, 2002 (p. 174-176). The masiqta of Sitil, a quite different matter, is treated in ATS, Book ii, iv, p. 230 f.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550202 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 J.J. BUCKLEY 503

The Mandaean text The Baptism of Hibil Ziwa (= MHZ)53 tells of the pri- mordial descent of Hibil (Sitil’s companion/brother) from the Lightworld to the underworld and back up to his origin, after completed tasks. Seldom subjected to scholarly study, this scroll – which presupposes the Mandaean baptism liturgy (and other prayers) – cements the Mandaean baptism ritual as originating in the Lightworld. That is: we see an emphasis on descent, on the Lightworld origin of the ritual, and Hibil is baptized before he descends. Later, in order to avert pollutions incurred from Hibil’s sojourn in the under- world and on the earth, his parents must perform a masiqta for him. In this way, Hibil becomes the first one to be baptized and to have a death-mass read for him (recall the verb rt. SLQ, used in both contexts). Neither of the two rituals is associated with Sitil’s ascent in GL 1,1. Again, note that Turner connected baptism with descent in Sethianism, which shows a parallel to the Mandaean baptism: Light-world provenance. Sitil, however, does not appear in MHZ, and one begins to suspect competing traditions in Mandaeism regarding Sitil’s/Seth’s role. Sitil, in GL 1, 1, is the first human to die, an earthly figure, son of Adam. Sitil’s descent is not found here. That role belongs to Hibil, in MHZ. As Sitil is whisked off to the upper worlds in GL 1,1 without a masiqta, one sees that GL’s literary strain belongs to a specific sphere of interest: the visionary ascent literature. Recalling Gos Eg, we see a double focus, an interest both in rituals and in visions.54 Turner’s arguments may need a revision, in this respect, regarding the idea of a secondary Platonizing influence on Sethianism.55 Rather, Mandaeism may be a factor in the development of Sethianism. I consider the Sethian Nag Hammadi text Tri Prot to provide the closest set of associations to Mandaean baptism. In one segment, the central speaker “Triply-formed Forethought” (a Wisdom figure) says that she descended and addressed her own people, because of, “ my portion which is left behind, that is the spirit which lives in the soul, but which originated from the water of life.”56 Were this Mandaeism, one would immediately recognize a Ruha/Kus†a revealer figure. The idea of the spirit dwelling in the soul,57 the water of life, and the emphasis on the mysteries all fit a Mandaean context very well. Recall here the point made by Pearson, about Hippolytos’ report of a Gnostic Sethian

53 E. S. Drower, Haran Gawaita and The Baptism of Hibil Ziwa (the latter is abbreviated MHZ), Studi e Testi 176, Cittaœ del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953. 54 For explorations of these seemingly opposed tacks, see my “New Perspectives on the Sage Dinanukt.” 55 See Turner, p. 205-206, and p. 212-213. 56 I have made a slight revision of John Turner’s translation of the text in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (1977 ed.), 465. 57 Turner’s parenthesis seems to muddle his translation, and it appears to be the case even more so in Bentley Layton’s translation of the text; see his The Gnostic Scriptures, Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1987, 94, note D.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550303 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 504 MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

three-part system of light, spirit, and darkness.58 The Mandaean one, too, con- tains a three-part anthropological model: soul, spirit, and body. Appended to the Nag Hammadi text the Valentinian Exposition is the broken fragment On Baptism B. Here we find that the relationship between soul and spirit follows the usual Valentinian pattern: “from now on the souls [will become] perfect spirits.”59 Tri Prot, on the other hand, adheres to a more “Mandaean” model, in which the soul ranks above the spirit. A Protennoia- type of figure seems to be speaking here. In Tri Prot segment 45, the revealer figure invites her hearers into the exalted Light. “When you enter it, you will be glorified by those who give glory, and those who enthrone you will enthrone you. You will receive robes from those who give robes and the baptizers will baptize you and you will become gloriously glorious, the way you were when you were ‘Light’.”60 Note the sequence of the verbs: the persons will be glorified, enthroned, given robes, baptized, and then becoming glorious, as they were in the beginning, in the light. A ”return-to-pure-origins” is clearly present. The passive tenses indicate the presence of officials, religious personnel, and therefore a certain level of hierarchical arrangements. Those who give robes seem to be separate from those who baptize. Mandaean associations to this part of Tri Prot seem natural. One may also note the four categories of powers related to baptism in Ap Adam.

J.-M. SEVRIN

A natural place to look for Sethian baptismal information may at first glance seem to be in Jean-Marie Sevrin’s book on such materials.61 Paying no atten- tion to the Mandaean Sitil, Sevrin mainly analyzes chosen Nag Hammadi doc- uments. As I have noted in another context,62 Sevrin’ views are – theoreti- cally speaking – deeply unsatisfying, as he shies away from anything material regarding rites. He is ruled by a dualistic sacramental theology (i. e. “real” vs. “spiritual”). Most emphatically, Sevrin sees baptism solely as an initiation ritual. Wishing to keep his categories clean, Sevrin distrusts any contextual references to mystery religions, or to so-called “magic.”63 He emphasizes the baptism in Ap Adam as secondary, and as having nothing to do with empirical or doctrinal

58 See Pearson, note 34, above. 59 Robinson, NHL, 42, 35, p. 488 (1988 ed.). 60 Ibid. p. 467. 61 Jean-Marie Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien. Études sur la sacramentaire gnostique. Bibliothe “que Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section Études” 2, Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1986. 62 See my The Mandaeans, p. 86. 63 See Sevrin, p. 2.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550404 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 J.J. BUCKLEY 505

knowledge, which would mark the ritual as “sacred,” as Sevrin puts it. His stress lies rather on “a hidden and secret eternal knowledge.”64 This character- izes the dualistic framework so prominent throughout Sevrin’s book. If the Sethian baptism material has been Christianized in a secondary stage, as Sevrin assumes,65 the question still remains: what kind of Christian baptism? This would need some spelling out. Sevrin has trouble with the sequence of events in what he discerns as a baptism ritual. This is an old problem, as I have noted in other contexts.66 What throws Sevrin off in his interpretation of Gos Eg. – and he is not alone in this respect – is that the investiture occurs before baptism.67 In Mandaeism, of course, this is the norm. If the Light in Tri Prot symbolizes water, we are also, perhaps, in a baptismal Gnostic milieu resembling the Mandaean one. Expressing a too-dualistic attitude, Sevrin states that where there is baptism, there are necessarily two aspects, spiritual and ritual.68 For him, the very materiality of rites cannot be connected to salvation.69 Discussions of baptism in Gnostic texts are well known. One might have expected Sevrin to make a reference to The Gospel of Philip when he deals with Zostrianos,70 but he does not take up the gospel’s astonishing idea that resurrection must happen on earth, not in the beyond.71 Keeping in mind the Mandaic verb SLQ, as noted earlier, an association between resurrection and baptism is unavoidable in Gnostic studies. In another addition to the already mentioned Valentinian Exposition, On Baptism A, there is a surprising evi- dence of the same thought: “the interpretation of that which [is] the Jord[an] is the descent which is [the upward progression], that [is our exodus] from the world [into] the Aeon.”72 I doubt whether The Book Baruch’s two kinds of baptism, which Sevrin notes,73 are of relevance in this context.74 Indeed, the distinction between a heavenly baptism and an earthly one is precisely the kind of dualism that Mandaeism seeks to avoid. With respect to Gos Eg, Sevrin maintains that “the

64 Ibid. p. 164. 65 Ibid. p. 289. 66 See my, “Why Once is Not Enough,” with discussions of the theories of Eric Segelberg, in particular. 67 Ibid. 68 Sevrin, p. 250. 69 Ibid. p. 2. 70 Ibid. p. 255. 71 Regarding The Gospel of Philip and its polemics, consult my, “Conceptual Models and Polemical Issues in The Gospel of Philip,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (= ANRW), vol. II 25, 5, 1988, eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase, Berlin: de Gruyter (4167-94), and, co-authored with Deirdre J. Good, “Sacramental Language and Verbs of Generating, Creating, and Begetting in the Gospel of Philip,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, 1, 1997, (1-19). 72 Robinson, NHL, 41, 34-35, p. 488 (1988 ed.). 73 Sevrin, p. 28. 74 Still, see chapter 1 in my Female Fault and Fulfilment in Gnosticism, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550505 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 506 MANDAEAN-SETHIAN CONNECTIONS

super-celestial baptism is the spiritualization of the earthly one.”75 But the opposite is the case: only because the ritual originated in the realm of light may an earthly one exist. Sevrin even speaks of the “repugnance of the rite,” as something abhorrent – as if its value only comes from its doctrinal power.76 It is disconcerting to find such a negative interpretation of ritual. The focal point in Mandaeism is precisely that the rituals originate in the Lightworld, and that humans are obligated to perform them and thereby to send them back up above. As for the Sethian baptismal forms, there may still be insufficient information on what their earthly baptism looked like, but Sevrin’s strict dualism is much too radical. In Tri Prot, we find no instructions pointing to a sharp separation between earthly and heavenly baptism. The collapse of the two realms is indeed the case in Mandaeism, which considers baptismal water as nothing less than the Light-world in its manifesta- tion on earth, and the priests are impersonators of Light-world figures ({utras). “Spiritualization” arguments remain irrelevant, and instead, pragmatism reigns. A ritual “works” because all the actors and elements are suited to the task: the Light-world is, indeed, recreated and reconfirmed on earth in watery form. The ritual work collapses the two realms. I now return to the issue of “the five seals” in Tri Prot. Sevrin sees them as a possible baptism reference, and he thinks that this might be the oldest attesta- tion of such a rite in the Sethian baptism-dossier.77 Helpfully, Gos Eg gives evidence of the renunciation of the five seals in the spring baptism.78 If this thought relates to Tri Prot, we also find a third association to the five senses (hamÒia) in Mandaeism.79 CP 18, the prayer marking the core of the Mandaean baptism liturgy, has, among the many protective names conferred upon the baptized person, that of Yukabar. To CP 18’s phrase, “the name of the great Yukabar be pronounced on thee,”80 the esoteric priestly text The Scroll of the Exalted Kingship (= DM’L) elucidates, “And when (he [i.e. the baptizer] says), ‘The name of the great Yukabar is pronounced on you,’ on the soul, then he goes into the five senses, sending it speech and conveys it out from under the seat of the soul, so that it utters muttering speech.”81 As DM’L makes clear, the Light-world figure Yukabar is here associated with speech development when he, Yukabar, enters the five senses. Renuncia- tion is not emphasized in the Mandaean text; it is rather the opposite: a positive

75 Sevrin, p. 141. 76 Ibid. p. 142. 77 Ibid. p. 33. 78 Robinson, NHL, p. 204 (66). 79 MD 124a. 80 CP, p. 14. 81 See my, The Scroll of Exalted Kingship. Diwan malkuta ‘laita, American Oriental Society, Translation Series 3, New Haven: The American Oriental Society, 1993, p. 328, with Commen- tary p. 84 (the translation is slightly modified).

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550606 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32 J.J. BUCKLEY 507

reconfiguring of the senses, and of the beginning of speech development. Still, the baptism context is striking, and the entire struggle for the soul’s supremacy characterizes in the Mandaean baptism liturgy. Oddly enough, even as the bap- tism is not an initiation, a re-birth language does occur, as if every repeated Mandaean baptism indeed marks a revivification, and a new birth of the soul’s complicated relationship to other elements in the human body. In this context, there may be an association to Tri Prot’s five senses. It is a matter of the soul’s rule in the Gnostic body, in which the senses need to be subdued.

SUMMARY

In my view, the Mandaean Sitil ought to be placed in the context of Sethian Gnostic literature, which is related, perhaps as a younger sibling, to Mandaean baptism ideology. Sethian ideas seem to be echoed in Mandaeism. We need a full comparison of Mandaean Seth-related mythology and the baptism ritual with Tri Prot, especially, in order to be able to establish such connections, a project that exceeds the framework of this study. The canonical Gospel of John also needs to be reconnected to Mandaeism. As I have begun to show in my reconstructive work on Mandaean history, the Mandaeans were not as iso- lated as we often tend to think. Again, we need to heed Kurt Rudolph’s 1975 call for comparison.

993793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd3793_Aram_22_23_Buckley.indd 550707 118/10/118/10/11 15:3215:32