Talk:Mandaeism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments
WikiProject Iraq Mandaeism is part of the WikiProject Iraq, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Iraq on the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Murder at hands of Coalition Troops

I followed the citations, not evidence of this. Have removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

  • As there are less than 2000 still living in Iraq , I propose a re write , as well as at least some mention of the horrific torture they are enduring as a result of the US lead attack on that nation.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.153.28.102 (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mandaeanism-Mandaeism Merger

I've already incorporated many of the features of the Mandaeanism article into this one. I wrote this article specifically to challenge some of the misinformation regarding the Mandaeans that is so prevalent on the internet and other media these days (in one New York Times article, I recall seeing a reference to the chief religious leader of the Mandaeans, who is known as the Ginza Rabbi [!]).

Whether Mandaeism or Mandaeanism is the more proper term for the religion is a valid question unto itself. On the internet, the latter term is much more prevalent, but this may be due to the popularity of the wikipedia article, which is the first item on the Google search list. I personally am partial to Mandaeism; it seems to me that this term is more common in the scholarly literature. The ambiguity is present from the very beginnings of English language literature on the Mandaeans; Drower herself occasionally writes "mandae(an)ism".

If Mandaeanism is folded into Mandaeism, will the article lose its google ranking? I'd prefer that the article be a source of reliable information on the Mandaeans, and this would be hampered if people can't find it in the standard search engines.

Leo Caesius 19:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- Mandaeanism is a more commonly encountered term, whatever the correctness. I suggest the material by merged, and the original article be left, with a pointer to the alternative subject - L Owens, Gnosis Archive, www.gnosis.org

The term "Mandaeanism" (14,900 hits on Google) is indisputably more common on the internet than the term "Mandaeism" (438 hits), but it is considerably less common in the scholarship. A search on JSTOR reveals 10 articles in 5 journals refering to "Mandaeanism" (mostly in reviews rather than original scholarship), whereas the term "Mandaeism" brings up 57 articles in well over a dozen journals, written by scholars such as Jorunn Jacobson Buckley, Kurt Rudolf, Cyrus H. Gordon, Jacob Neusner, Albert Henrichs, and Ed Yamauchi). These scholars, as well as most other anglophone Mandaeologists, employ the term "Mandaeism" in their scholarship. A second consideration is the fact that the term "Mandaeanism" is not found in the Oxford English dictionary or other standard references. In its place, the correct term "Mandaeism" (first attested in the 1883 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica) is cited.

Nearly all of the websites referenced in the first page of Google search results for the term "Mandaeanism" contain information duplicated from the original Wikipedia article. For this reason, it might be argued that the popularity of the term "Mandaeanism" against "Mandaeism" on the internet is largely a product of the original Wikipedia article itself. Whether that is the case or not, the question remains whether Wikipedia should adhere more closely to scholarly or popular conventions; given the rather arcane nature of the topic discussed here, I would suggest that it is far better to adhere to accepted scholarly conventions, and privilege the term "Mandaeism." Nonetheless, a redirect page should be maintained under the entry "Mandaeanism." Leo Caesius 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have conducted no official survey, but having studied the History of Religions for half a decade, I've also only ever come across "Mandaeism", which I feel to be the correct choice in this case. In trying to correct for "Google bias", I tried exclude from the search web pages on which the word "Wikipedia" appeared, which made a difference:
mandaeism/mandaeanism - 2000/13,500
mandaeism -wikipedia/mandaeanism -wikipedia - 1950/640
Consequently I do not think there is reason to doubt that "mandaeism" is the correct choice and that it only seems more popular on Google due to the large number of duplicates of the originally misnamed article. /Vice 10:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive Information

(To last poster: sign your comments, please.) This article seems very... repetitive. The same information, oftentimes the exact same text, is repeated in several cases. Would anyone mind if I fixed that problem?Moonsword 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am largely responsible for the repetitive information; when I started the page on Mandaeism, I built upon the preexisting page (Mandaenism), adding and removing information as I saw fit. Naturally the page I created duplicated much of the information found on the original page. When they were combined, much of the information that I had modified or left unchanged was duplicated.
I've tried to clean it up, following the same guidelines that I used when I first drafted the original page.
A large part of the information I deliberately excluded related to the Mandaeans themselves, i.e. the modern community in Iraq, Iran, and the diaspora. I feel that the modern community and the Mandaean tradition are sufficiently distinct topics to warrant separate articles. For example, Iraqi Mandaean poets such as Abd al-Razzaq Abd al-Wahid and Lamia Abbas Amara are celebrated throughout Iraq and the Arab world, but do not belong in an article on religion. Likewise, the ethnographic aspects of the Mandaean communities in Iran and Iraq should be relegated to a separate article.Leo Caesius 23:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandaean Prophets

This article says Mandaeists both follow Abraham and Noah, and that they believe Abraham and Noah were false prophets who they do not follow.

The Mandaeans consider Adam to be the first Mandaean, and Abraham is the father of the Jews. He is occasionally identified with Shamesh, one of the children of Ruha. I'll fix that right now.Leo Caesius 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Shamesh? Ruha? Shouldn't their be entries, or at least sections on these terms as well? g026r 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Further note: should the article really be listed with Category:Abrahamic religions if Abraham is considered a false prophet? g026r 18:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandean people

There should be an article for the Mandean people themselves. Any thoughts? SouthernComfort 20:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Not sure about that...' Since the Mandean people are defined as a cultural group by their religious affiliation, and there is virtually no literature on them, I don't know that there is enough material to justify another article. On the other hand, if you have that knowledge at your disposal, please share! -Justin (koavf), talk 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point there, but scattered amongst much of the existing literature about them are bits of ethnological data (for instance, in this text [1]), so I think if we consulted all the sources out there we should be able to compile enough, and this article could focus entirely on their religion and beliefs. But its true, they are a very obscure group - in Khuzestan there are only a few hundred or so of them left that still speak the language [2]. SouthernComfort 23:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is a ton of literature on the Mandaeans, but very little of it is online. Much of it happens to be in German, as well, which is of little help to readers of the English-language Wikipedia. Furthermore, the Mandaeans (as a community) are fairly topical. They are one of the aboriginal inhabitants of Iraq, and deeply involved in the cultural life of that country. Traditionally, they have lived alongside the Marsh Arabs, who certainly warrant a distinct entry, even though they have received much less public and scholarly attention than the Mandaeans.
I would argue that a separate page should be dedicated to the modern community in Iraq and Iran, as well as their recent history (such as the smallpox epidemics that decimated them during the 19th century, or the massacres they experienced during the reign of Nasredin Shah), as these things are important events in Middle East history but have nothing to do with the religion of the Mandaeans.Leo Caesius 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I should call attention to this excerpt: 'who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John. The word k(a)daba, however, derives from two roots in Mandaic: the first root, meaning "to lie," is the one traditionally ascribed to Jesus; the second, meaning "to write."' The root here does not mean to write. The writer is confusing /ktb/ with /kdb/. These are phonemically very different and cannot be used interchangeably. --IbnBatriq 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the confusion may be on your part. In Classical Mandaic (as well as Neo-Mandaic) these two roots have merged. See the reference to Macuch's Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic in the article itself. These roots are also listed in Drower and Macuch's A Mandaic Dictionary, s.v. KDB I and KDB II -- Leo Caesius 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] monotheistic or dualist?

The lead section says Mandaeism is a monotheistic religion yet within the article it says Mandaeism has a more strict dualistic nature, typical of other Iranian religions such as..... This contradiction seems quite fundamental and needs resolving. --Michael C. Price talk 10:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there's necessarily a contradiction here - dualism doesn't imply the worship of two gods, merely a belief in elemental contrasts such as light and darkness, good and evil, etc. Most faiths that have been called dualistic, such as Zoroastrianism / Mazdaism or Mandaism, are monotheistic, if not strictly so. --Leo Caesius 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I realise that Mandaeism only worships one god, but if they accept the existence of another doesn't that make them henotheist, not monotheist? --Michael C. Price talk 22:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the lead to read
Mandaeism is a henotheistic, dualistic religion practiced primarily in etc etc
--Michael C. Price talk 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We can debate whether the principle of Evil in Mandaeism should be considered a "god" in its own right in the oldest texts (see below) but this most certainly is not the case today. In any case, one would never describe Zoroastrianism or any of the monotheistic traditions that recognize a divine adversary or evil principle as "henotheistic," and to describe Mandaeism as such ignores the beliefs of the contemporary community and appeals to a particular (which is to say unobjective) interpretation of the textual evidence. --Leo Caesius 01:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
By the same NPOV argument we shouldn't describe them as monotheistic either. --Michael C. Price talk 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The religious texts (with the exception of some early portions) describe a monotheistic religion. The contemporary community identifies their religion as monotheistic. It has presented itself to the world as such for at least 13 centuries, and there is ample historical documentation for this. Contemporary scholars of the Mandaeans (as opposed to those writing in the 19th century or the earlier part of the last century) also reject the claim that the Mandaeans are polytheists of any sort. Why would we ignore all of these factors to adopt a particular interpretation of Mandaean scripture last espoused by a small group of non-Mandaean scholars nearly a century ago?
In any case, Henotheism is an academic construct of comparatively recent origin and happens to be inaccurately applied to Mandaeism. Henotheists, strictly speaking, recognize the existence of a pantheon of gods, of whom they worship one - the precise one being decided largely by by cultural, regional, or political factors. In the example of Canaanite henotheism, the Israelites worshipped Yahweh, the Moabites worshipped Chemosh, the Edomites worshipped Qaus, and so forth. Mandaeans have never recognized a "pantheon" of gods; at most, some of their texts suggest an early belief in two opposed divine principles, Good and Evil. At no point was the Mandaean "King of Darkness" worshipped by the Mandaeans or any of the people with whom they came in contact. I cannot put too fine a line on this distinction. I believe that the term you are looking for is Monolatry, but I don't think it would improve this article to describe the Mandaeans as monolatrists rather than monotheists, except possibly to state that the earliest portions of Mandaean scriptures seem to show evidence of monolatrism, much like Judaism and some other monotheistic traditions. --Leo Caesius 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I see the distinction between henotheism and monolatry you're making -- not a distinction I see in their respective articles (which are a bit confused -- you might like to update them). And yes the same point can be made about early Judaism and many aspects of modern Christianity. But that is no reason for glossing over the dualistic situation with the PC monotheistic label when it is not factually true. You seem to be arguing that a religion that accepts the existence of "good gods" that it doesn't worship is okay call either monolatrist or henotheist (depending on details), but that when the unworshiped gods are "baddies" that we should call it monotheist. Is that your argument? --Michael C. Price talk 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the crux of my argument: Mandaeans do not accept the existence of other gods, or even other "gods." They believe in one god who has happens to have many names - hiia rbia, mana rba, hiia marai u minda d-hiia, and so forth, much as Allah has ninety-nine names in Islam. As the anonymous contributor pointed out below, there are other supernatural beings - but they aren't "gods," any more than the angels, demons, and other supernatural beings populating the Jewish, Muslim, or Christian belief system are "gods."
I'm not glossing over Mandaean dualism or being PC here--I'm merely pointing out that a dualistic worldview is not necessarily incompatible with monotheism. If we define "monotheism" as the belief in one single god who is the sole and direct source of all that is good and evil, then Christianity as it is commonly understood and practiced is most definitely not monotheistic. If we further demand that any belief in the existence of other supernatural beings precludes a religion from being considered monotheistic, then no religion is monotheistic - not even Judaism and Islam. I hope you can see the folly of adopting a strict definition of the term "monotheist" that effectively excludes all existing monotheistic faiths. While Mandaeism is dualistic in the sense that it tends to view the cosmos in terms of two diametrically opposed principles, it is not ditheistic. This is an extremely important distinction and I can't emphasize it enough. --Leo Caesius 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The trouble with this use of the term is that even Hindus or ancient Greeks could be described as monotheists, which rather dilutes any meaning attached to the term. You describe Zoroastrianism as monotheistic, yet they are often describe the world as a battleground between good and evil -- this is more than a belief in the existence of a range of nondeistic supernatural beings (which, to answer another point, I wouldn't regard as a sign of monolatry or henotheism). Since you are making a distinction between dualism and ditheism, would you accept a description of Mandaeism as monotheistic and dualist? BTW I liked the example you gave of Canaanite henotheism.--Michael C. Price talk 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's accurate - although it needs to be qualified somehow, because most people would consider the two mutually exclusive. I think when most people hear the word "dualism" they compare it with "monotheism" (which connotes the worship of one god) and "polytheism" (which connotes the worship of many gods) and come away with the conclusion that dualism entails the worship of two gods. Perhaps "a monotheistic religion with a dualistic worldview" or "cosmology"? In the section on cosmology itself, it could be mentioned that the early Mandaean texts are monolatristic within the system of a dualist theology, but suggest that the evil principle became increasingly less active as the religion evolved. --Leo Caesius 13:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is dualistic.

Mandeans believe that cosmos is made out of light and darkness, evil and good, and that both are ruled by a god. There are also "lesser gods" on both sides. Although they ally themself with the light, which they believe is the origin of the soul, darkness is held to be the origin of the body. After death the soul will try to journey towards the light. Thus it is clearly a dualistic religion. (Monotheistic religions only recognises ONE god, period.) Also why does the article say they regard Muhammed a false prophet? They actually regard him as (which might be worse?) a Demon.

Do they regard Abraham, Moses and Jesus likewise? --Michael C. Price talk 09:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with this premise. First, we need to draw a distinction between ethical dualism (arguably typical of Mandaeism throughout history, and many other monotheistic religions) and cosmic dualism or ditheism (arguably typical of the most ancient Mandaean texts, but not of the contemporary religion).
With regard to the nature of divinity, the classical Mandaean texts offer no easy answers. There are no less than seven different accounts of the origins of the cosmos in the Ginza, and these are not consistent with one another. Some texts appear to be ditheistic (occasional vague references are made in some of the texts to a "King of Darkness") but in most others "Evil" is clearly not an active principle. In any case, whether or not there are "dualistic" strains in some of the older Mandaean texts, this has nothing to do with the religion as it is practiced today. Therefore, I'm changing the language of the description back to monotheistic.
Contemporary Mandaeans and Zoroastrians alike consider themselves to be monotheists, and would never dignify the beings that you are describing as "gods" with that name. They compare them with archangels and other semi-divine beings in the other monotheistic tradition. At most, these beings occupy the mythological sphere, and one must draw a strong distinction between Mandaean mythology and Mandaean theology, at least as the existing community understands them.
As for Muhammad, the Mandaeans recognize him as a historical entity, and describe him in all too human terms (as the son of a slave, as the son of the sorceror Bizbat, as the son of the Arab butcher, and so on). He is identified with Mars in Tractates 3 and 9 of the Right Ginza, just as Jesus is identified with Mercury and the Jewish God, Adunai, is identified with the Sun. These identifications should not be interpreted literally, even if they could be reconciled with other texts identifying him as a false prophet. Leo Caesius 01:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sabians/Sabeans/Mandeans

When the article cites the word Sabian as the Arabic term for these people does it mean they are the same people as are known as Sabeans? I ask because the Greco-Egyptian doctrines attributed to Hermes Trismegistus are very key to these people, in fact they are one of the chief sources of their cosmology. The story has it that when a Caliph encountered these people who at the time didn't give themselves a name he asked them what religion they practised. When he realised that they weren't Jews, Christians or Muslims he told them that, as infidels and not members of the three religions approved of in the Koran, they had two years to decide what to do or else he was entitled to put them to the sword. Some converted to Islam, but others went to a Muslim scholar who scoured the Koran and found it also approved of something it called 'Sabeans'. Although the Caliph died, when his successor's men arrived two years later these people told them they were Sabeans and so by Koranic Law they were allowed to continue unmolested. This story is related in the book THE HERMETICA: THE LOST WISDOM OF THE PHAROAHS by Freke.

I tell this story partly because its a good one but because the ideas of the Hermetica are reflected strongly in the tenets of the Mandeans described in this article. Hermeticism is, as people probably know, an essentially Gnostic vision of the universe. So can anyone confirm or deny that the Sabians are in fact the Sabeans? ThePeg 15:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influences on Mandaeism

After reading about the tenets of Mandaeism, I suspect the religion to be closely related to or inspired by Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism...otherwise, why talk about John the Baptist, dualism, Jerusalem, etc.? — Rickyrab | Talk 21:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

If Sabians is just another name for the same group, the articles should be merged. If they are different, they articles are doing a bad job at pointing at the differences. --Pjacobi 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mandaeans are not the only group suspected of being Sabians. It would be a POV merge to merge the two articles. Certainly, they should interlink.
KV(Talk) 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These two articles should not be merged. "Sabian" is a historical name used for various religious traditions not necessarily associated with Mandaenism, and this is already explained there (though not as clearly as one would like.)E.Cogoy 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then also or in Islamic terms Sabianism in the intro of Mandaeism here is misleading. --Pjacobi 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because, although the Qur’anic mention of “Sabians” is usually understood as a reference to Mandaeans, some other groups have subsequently been called “Sabians” even in the Islamic world – again, I think that this is already addressed. But there are indeed some inconsistencies between these two articles that should be clarified.E.Cogoy 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
In truth this sentence should be removed from the article, and the two should not be merged.194.83.157.10 12:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I came over here after some confusion reading Noah's ark, see Talk:Noah's Ark#Sabians?, but by now that was only a problem of reading that article in the midst of an edit war. --Pjacobi 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This article says the Mandaeans consider Jesus and Muhammed to be evil, whereas the article on Sabians make it pretty clear that they don't. I don't see why a merge is being suggested. JuJube 08:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of References

Could someone provide references to the various sections mentioned. There seems to be a severe lack of references in some areas (in particular to citation or qoutes).

-Bill

Sun June 3, 2007

[edit] "Barefoot Carmelite mission in Basra"

the usual phrase in English is Discalced Carmelites; does 'Barefoot' mean this or something else? if something else, a link would be great; otherwise 'Discalced' should be used.142.68.43.14 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Texts/Writings

There is no mention of Mandean texts or what is considered sacred scripture. Nor is there mention of prolific writers/theologists within the faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.239.117 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Sequiturs

Since I rewrote this page many moons ago, it has predictably managed to attract the usual mishmosh of non-sequiturs which people hang on Wikipedia articles like so many ornaments on a Christmas tree. Some of the more unusual include:

  • On the other hand, modern mystics such as Steve Wilson have suggested that these may be more akin to meditation manuals resembling the Merkabah and Heikhalot texts of first millennium Jewish mysticism, than explanatory texts for the entire faith.

These stick out from the text like a sore thumb and usually only cite the extremely personal interpretation of a single individual, often at odds with the consensus.

  • The similarity between the name Ptahil and the Egyptian Ptah, followed by the semitic -il added to "spiritualise" a word should also be noted - the Mandaeans believe that they were resident in Egypt for a while.
  • Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba or "false messiah" a literary invention of Paul who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John.

The comment about the "semitic -il added to 'spiritualise' a word" is as cryptic as it is inaccurate and unnecessary. Ditto for the strange interpolation "a literary invention of Paul." Is this really relevant to the article? This certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Mandaean view of Jesus.

  • The Mandaean canon is also utilized by a modern religious movement called the Order of Nazoraean Essenes; material from the former can be found on the latter's websites. This latter movement however is entirely independent of Mandaeism.

Does this really belong in the "Other associated terms [for Mandaeans]" section? No, it does not. If there were a separate section on the use of the Mandaean canon by other religious traditions, then it might be worth mentioning, but since the Order of Nazoraean Essenes is obviously not Mandaean I fail to see how it is relevant to a section on associated terms for the Mandaeans.

Finally, there is this mess:

Sociological

  • According to a 10 February 2007 Associated Press article by Chris Newmarker, many of the roughly 1,500 Mandaeans living in the United States are professionals including physicians, engineers and jewelers. One concern of Mandaeans is assimilation into American culture, especially intermarriage. For mixed marriages, the Mandaean religion has "no mechanism to bring their children into the fold. [...] [T]he religion's few dozen priests [are] reluctant to bring in the children of mixed marriages [...]"
  • A darfash, "a cross with cloth hanging off it" is used by Mandaeans as a symbol of their religion.[1] A darfash is made during every baptism, where a cross is made to hold a sheep-wool belt that the Mandaean priest wears so it does not get wet (as baptism is done in rivers). Some believe that since the Mandaeans followed John the Baptist, early Christians recognised them as also being Christian and adapted the Cross from the Darfash (up to that point they had used a fish to identify Christianity).[citation needed]
  • According to a National Public Radio story, Mandaeans are the chief gold traders in Iraq.[citation needed]

Some of this information might actually be quite helpful, if it were presented in an organized fashion, rather than being strewn across the page. A good start would entail removing the obvious hearsay in the middle of the second paragraph ("Some believe...").

For the time being I am removing this information off the main page and depositing it here.

Leo Caesius (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

National Public radio is quite right about the Mandaeans being the chief gold traders in Iraq - but so what? (I might also mention the sight of beggar-children panning for gold in puddles in the street in the gold-traders quarter - presumably enough to bring in a few cents - curious, but again, not worth a mention). PiCo (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Merge with Notzrim

These groups don't seem that closely related, and both have enough references and information to support separate articles.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)