18 – The Birth of John the Baptist
The section which begins with this chapter focuses on John the Baptist, and it is this material which gives the book its name. Through the book as a whole, John is referred to using both the Arabic and Aramaic forms of his name, here rendered as John (iahia) and Yohanan (iuhana). This indicates that, on the one hand, the current form of this material antedates the rise of Islam and the spread of Arabic to Mesopotamia, while on the other hand, some traditions about John, or at the very least interest in him, was clearly part of Mandaism in an earlier period.[1] The use of both Yohanan, John, and the combined double name John-Yohanan, can also be found in other Mandaean literature, such as the Great Treasure. In this chapter, however, John is consistently referred to as Yohanan.
Chapter 18 and chapter 32 of the Book of John both focus on the parents of John the Baptist, Zechariah and Elizabeth (or, to offer a more precise transliteration of the Mandaic form of their names, Zakria and Enishbai). Indeed, the two chapters, when taken together, offer a single continuous narrative,with only the slightest hint of interruption. Whether this indicates accidental displacement of pages at some point in the transmission of the book, an intentional attempt at an inclusio, insertion of the intervening and subsequent chapters after the infancy story was composed, or something else, requires further study. As it stands, the order remains puzzling.
Chapter 18 has an unclear relationship to infancy stories in the Christian tradition, including the depiction of John the Baptist’s parents in the Gospel of Luke, but also other works such as the Infancy Gospel of James. The main characters are recognizable as Zechariah and Elizabeth, who are to become the parents of John the Baptist, as also in the Gospel of Luke. The details about them, and the portents foretelling the birth of their son, are frequently different from what is found in the Gospel of Luke, in ways that are not readily explicable in terms of deliberate changes. Since the Mandaean version is known to us in this much later work, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the Gospel of Luke borrows from a Mandaean source. Moreover, the differences between the two are no more readily explicable in terms of the Mandaeans borrowing directly from Luke. A more fruitful alternative is that both the Gospel of Luke and the story here in the Book of John may derive independently from stories or sources that circulated among the followers of John the Baptist. In the Gospel of Luke, the birth of John the Baptist will return the hearts of the people to the Torah. So likewise in the Qur’an, 19:12 has John uphold Scripture. In contrast, the Mandaeans view John as one whose teaching challenges the Jewish Torah.
The arc of John’s infancy follows a trajectory familiar to us not only from the Gospel According to Luke, but also from the infancy narratives of the biblical Patriarchs: the child’s birth fulfills a prophecy (A); but his conception is unusual (B); specifically because his parents are well beyond their normal childbearing years (C); as a consequence, one or both are skeptical (D); yet the child is the guarantor of a divine covenant (E); and so the father, often after initial reluctance, gives the child his birthright (F).[2]
The table below compares the infancy narratives of the Patriarchs with those of John and Jesus from the New Testament.
A / B / C / D / E / FIsaac / Gen 18:10 / Gen 21:2 / Gen 18:11; 21:7 / Gen 18:11 / Gen 22:15–19 / Gen 21:12
Jacob / Gen 25:22–23 / Gen 25:21 / – / Gen 25:22 / Gen 25:24 / Gen 25:29
Joseph / Gen 28:12–15 / Gen 29:31; 31:30 / Gen 37:3 / Gen 30:1–3; 37:10 / Gen 37:6–10; 46:3–4 / Gen 48:21–22; 49:26
John / Luke 1:13–17 / Luke 1:7 / Luke 1:7 / Luke 1:18 / Luke 1:14–17 / Luke 1:67–79
Jesus / Luke 1:18 / Luke 1:34 / InJas 9:2 / Luke 1:34 / Luke 1:35 / Luke 2:8–20; 2:25–35
The Mandaean account of John’s conception and birth then demonstrates, if not direct dependence upon, a deep familiarity with these biblical narratives and/or the genre to which they belong.
- John’s birth fulfills a prophecy
A child was transplanted from heaven / a secret was revealed in Jerusalem […]
An utter silence fell upon the Eulaeus / an utter silence fell upon Jerusalem.
Merisms, figures of speech in which totality is expressed by contrasting parts, are as conspicuous a feature of Mandaean scripture as they are of biblical literature (cf. Gen 1:1 “the heavens and the Earth”). The contrast provided by the two parallel lines which open this chapter indicate the universal nature of the revelation, both on a vertical (heaven vs. Jerusalem) and a horizontal (Jerusalem vs. the river Eulaeus) plane. The Eulaeus, which also appears in the Book of Daniel (8:2, 16), rises in the Zagros and serves as a shorthand for the boundary between Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau. For Daniel, captive in Babylon, it represents the furthest extent of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and therefore an appropriate counterpoint to distant Jerusalem; in the Mandaean Book of John, this same river acquires an eschatological significance, paralleled with the river Keshash through which all souls must pass in their progress to the lightworld.[3] It therefore provides a perfect poetic contrast to the worldly Jerusalem and heaven above.
Lidzbarski and Lupieri discuss the slight variations in manuscripts at this point, presumably indicative of the puzzlement of later scribes about the meaning of this word. Lidzbarski and Mead render this “children”. The term עולאcan mean “wickedness” or “iniquity” on the one hand, and “embryo” or “fetus” on the other. It is the latter range of meaning that is in view when the word is rendered by translators as “children.” This, however, represents a significant stretch of the semantic domain. The rendering “wickedness” or “its wickedness” is admittedly awkward, but it is not impossible that the author of the Book of John could have treated this term as a “nickname” for Jerusalem, i.e. the (place of) wickedness. In fact, there is reference to the “dome of iniquity” (קומבא דּעולא) as a way of referring to the Dome of the Rock/Jerusalem Temple in 72:27 and 140:14.[4]No rendering is without difficulty, and the variant readings present problems of their own, with the result that there is no way to argue for the originality of one of them in terms of the harder reading.
The priests had dreams […] Early in the morning, he went to the Temple.
Sandwiched between the two parallel lines above, the text mentions offhand that “the priests have dreams.” In the Gospel of Luke, Zechariah encounters the angel Gabriel (1:11), and in the Gospel of Matthew (1:20–21), Joseph receives a message in a dream, but neither provides an obvious source for the statement here about priests dreaming.
But who is “he”? The sudden introduction of an unnamed person at this point is awkward, even given the tendency in the Mandaic Book of John for characters to begin speaking without introduction, and with their identity clarified only subsequently. Even as the chapter progresses, it never becomes clear who had the initial dream in question. The passage beginning in 18:70 repeats the account here, stating that unnamed priests had the dreams that are so described. If the identity of the individual who appears on the scene suddenly in 18:9 is perplexing, so too is the negative characterization of what he has to say in 18:11-12. The dream vision that will be described more than once in this chapter plays a central role in the story, and is interpreted as a portent of the birth of John the Baptist. Is the author, or a later redactor or copyist, here intentionally casting doubt on the validity of the dream and what it signifies? If so, who might have done so, and why? Haran Gawaita records how one Qiqil was led astray by Ruha to write things not in accordance with correct Mandaean teachings, and despite a later attempt to eliminate the texts in question, some remained.[5] Perhaps a later scribe thought that the attribution of a true vision to a Jewish priest was at odds with the Mandaean view of the Jews as subject to deceitful spiritual powers. Be that as it may, although the awkwardness might indicate later redactional or scribal intervention at this point, the repeated and sometimes seemingly contradictory assertions of the speaker—for instance, the formulaic insertion insisting that he was not sleeping or resting when he saw the vision—perhaps suggests that the negative characterization of the speaker that we are offered here is indeed integral to the work. Perhaps the author is simultaneously mocking Jewish claims to have received revelation, without denying that John is in fact sent from on high with a message which, from a Mandaean perspective, itself undermines Judaism. What precisely is dishonest about the speaker’s testimony is unclear. It could be the entire thing, or it could be his claim not to have fallen asleep. The star appearing over Elizabeth is reminiscent of the star in the Gospel of Matthew (2:2,9-10), which indicates the birth of Jesus, and then eventually moves and then stops over the place where the child has been born.
18:21 Drower and Macuch offer “dreams” and “illusions” as other possible meanings of the word šragia, rendered here as “lamps.” The context, referring to the sun setting before they appear, suggests that lights are meant, but given that this is a report of a dream/vision, a pun may be intended.
18:23 The phrase rendered “synagogue” here is literally “house of the people.” This is a way of referring to the synagogue that is mentioned (and condemned) in the Talmud. Franz Landsberger has argued that the phrase, which also appears in Jeremiah 39:8, originally denoted the temple in Jerusalem, in which case the usage here would be an instance of synonymous parallelism, rather than an anachronistic confusion of synagogue and temple.[6] The building is said to be “set alight.”[7]
18:25 The word merkabta (“chariot”) is related to the term merkabah which refers to the divine throne-chariot, and which gives its name to a strand of Jewish mysticism. It is not entirely clear whether the groaning (the phrase is literally “groaning groaned” or “thunder groaned/convulsed”) is understood to be a sound made by the chariot or by the one seated in it. Whether the idea is of Adonai groaning, or his chariot-throne teetering and making worrying noises as it threatens to break down, it reflects the anti-Jewish stance of Mandaeism, and the belief that the child who will be born will stand boldly against Judaism and its teachings.
18:27 Since the star is said to “burst” or “fly,” the reference is presumably to a meteor. One can capture both the literal meaning and the referent by rendering it as “shooting star.”[8]
18:34 Benjamin is literally Bniaamin, “sons of Amen.” Mandaean literature loves puns and word play. The singular verb indicates that this is an individual’s name rather than a group.
18:35 Shilai and Shalbai are added in as a correction in the margin in the Colonie MSS.
18:51 This verse reflects Ptolemaic cosmology, in which the earth is situated in the midst of heavenly spheres. A failure to recognize this background has led some previous translators to render this inaccurately.
18:71-93 This section repeats the vision recounted earlier.
18:106 The alliteration in the Mandaic cannot be reproduced in English, except by way of comparison with the phrase “bears a bairn” in Scottish English.
18:109 “Primary teachers” is rendered “teachers of little children” byLidzbarski and D-M (p.251).
18:111 Lidzbarski understands the meaning here to be “Great ones/Masters of the Torah.” The parallelism with “rabbis” as well as the fact that all four parallel phrases address people, suggests that this may be the intended sense, even if it is not the most natural way to render what the text actually says. D-M (p.418) understand the phrase not as “Great ones of/in Torah” but “the Great Torah.”
- John’s conception is unusual
- Zechariah and Elizabeth are well beyond their childbearing years
- As a consequence, Zechariah is skeptical
It has been fully twenty-two years, since I last saw my wife,
and in any case, neither I nor any of you, have made Elizabeth pregnant!”
18:149 The term translated synagogue is literally “house of the congregation/assembly” and so a different term from that used earlier.[9]
18:163 See Qur’an Sura 19:8. In both the Qur’an and the Book of John, Zechariah reacts with disbelief because of his old age and wife’s sterility. But in the Qur’an, Zechariah has secretly been praying and hoping. D-M translates, “What man, when a corpse, can be revived?” A connection between having a child when old or barren, and resurrection, is also made in Romans 4:16-25.
- yet the child is the guarantor of a divine covenant
- John’s Mission as Future Covenant
Yohanan will take the waters of the Jordan, and be called a prophet in Jerusalem,
We shall be baptized according to his baptismal rite, and we shall be marked with his pure sign.
Here it is difficult to know whether “Jordan” refers to the river by that name, or is used in its broader sense of “baptismal water.”
- John’s Genealogy as Past Covenant
Elder father, let’s talk to you about your home and your ancestors, from whom you came.
18:167 Thisis yet another example of confusion (whether deliberate or not) of the Dome of the Rock with the Jewish temple, a frequent feature in art of the Islamic era. The mention of it here indicates a terminus post quem for the redaction of this particular portion of the text, although the consistent use of the earlier name Yohanan indicates that it likely incorporates earlier content.
18:168 Presumably the reference is to religious visions and sacrificial offerings in the temple.
the man who wrote the Torah / whose name is the Great Thoth
The name Tus here has been rendered as Thoth by past translators. There is no obvious reason for Thoth to be credited as the author of the Torah, but neither do any obvious alternatives present themselves.
- Despite his earlier reluctance, Zechariah gives John his birthright.
[The Life] brought the child from the Jordan’s source, and placed him in Elizabeth’s womb.”
When “they” occurs with no immediately obvious agent, the referent is likely to hiiarbia The Great Life. This works in almost all such instances. This phenomenon is comparable to what is referred to as the “divine passive” in Biblical literature, where a passive verb is used to refer to God’s action indirectly. Similarly, in Arabic, when one refers to “Him” in blessings and curses, the unnamed referent is always God.
18:195 The quotation marks might also be ended at 18:193.
[1] On this point see also Josef Ernst, Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation, Geschichte, Wirkungsgeschichte(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989) p.382, who in turn cites V. Schou-Pedersen, “Überlieferungen über Johannes den Täufer,” reprinted in Geo Widengren, Der Mandäismus (Darmstadt : Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982) pp.206-226.
[2] On these types see further Alan Dundes, The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus (Berkeley, CA: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1976); Susan Niditch, A Prelude to Biblical Folklore: Underdogs and Tricksters (University of Illinois Press, 1987), pp. 71–75.
[3]Lidzbarski, Johannesbuch II, 152, fn. 3.
[4]D-M p.343.
[5] See Drower, Haran Gawaita pp.12-14.
[6]Franz Landsberger, "The House of the People," HUCA 22 (1947) 149-55.See also I. Scheftelowitz, “Die mandäische Religion und das Judentum,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 73 (1929) 211-232; Jorunn Buckley, “Turning the Tables on Jesus,´in Richard Horsley (ed.), Christian Origins, pp. 101-102.
73: 211-232
[7] On this word see D-M p.487.
[8]See further D-M p.396.Lidzbarski(p.76) mentions the use of this verb for meteors in GR 392,11,23; Asf. Malwase p.259f; Cod.Par.26, f.247b, as well as in an Assyrian example.
[9] See D-M p.219.