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 baptism.”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 118/10/118/10/11 115:325:32 496 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 prayers. 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 baptisms, 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 “Holy Spirit” 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 forgiveness 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 Christianity. 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 118/10/118/10/11 115:325:32 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 118/10/118/10/11 115:325:32 498 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 prayer, 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).